Search results matching tags 'MAPPA', 'Cardiff County Court', and 'Dr Tegwyn Williams'

Magna Carta Day,15th June, Public Demonstation, Leeds County Court -- 'Right to Private Prosecutions' Meeting 12 Noon

Maurice — Sat, 11 Jun 2011 07:08:00 GMT

Adrian Oliver of Dolmans Solicitors has been the Solicitor of South Wales Police and is the MasterMind behind "defending" all bullying incidents, the cumulative harassment and the multi-organisational collusion under the label MAPPA.

See 'HM Conspiratorial Partnership' in Cardiff magistes courts as an example of blocking Private Prosecutions here:this document.

"Whoever may be guilty of abuse of power, be it Government, State, Employer, Trade Union or whoever, the law must provide a speedy remedy. Otherwise the victims will find their own remedy. There will be anarchy."

Lord Denning: 1982

WANTED

(Picture on gallery or Downloads)

Following posters, shortly,on gallery

Judge T M Hughes QC

Judge Morris

Judge Vosper

Judge Llewellyn Jones

Judge Elleri Rees

Judge Gareth Jones

Judge Neil Bidder QC

More Cardiff Judges to come

IN THE CARDIFF COURT

Maurice Kirk Appellant

Chief Constable of South Wales Police Respondent

Particulars of Claim

1. The Defendant is and was at all material times the chief officer of the South Wales Constabulary and the police officers hereinafter referred to were at all material times acting under the direction and control of the Defendant in the performance or purported performance of their functions. 2. 1977: Five decommissioned WW1 Lewis machine guns were designated for various replica period aircraft.

3. 1997: MJK purchased the DH2 aeroplane and ‘gun' from a private collection with its log books and other Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) paperwork identifying the ‘gun' as an integral part of the fuselage.

4. 1998: The 1968 Fire Arms Act was amended meaning that if the ‘gun' remained as it had first been decommissioned, it remained exempt from the new regulations. This became the critical argument in the trial.

5. 2000: The DH2 with the same Lewis antique was flown by the Claimant at the Farnborough Air Show by invitation of Captain Brian Trubshaw of 002 Concorde fame.

6. 2006: The DH2 was moved to RAF Lyneham, Wiltshire, for repair and display with the ‘gun' dismounted.

7. 2007: The DH2 and ‘gun' was handed out, by the RAF, to a civilian for further repair in Hampshire.

8. 2008 MJK sold the aircraft and gun to another display pilot who modified the gun for his own purposes.

9. On 25^th February 2009 the Defendant signed a sworn affidavit knowing it to be or ought to have known it to be, false in that paragraphs, between14 to 21, contained erroneous information, namely, incidents, involving both the Defendant and Claimant, had occurred

10. Following the 2008 Court Order by His Honour Judge Nicholas Chambers QC, for the Defendant to sign an affidavit that full disclosure of evidence, under her control, had been disclosed to the Claimant, the latter entered the Defendants solicitors offices, on or about the 25^th February 2009 complaining the court order had not been carried out.

11. The Claimant, upon receipt of a copy of the Defendant’s affidavit entered Barry Police Station and was both videoed and interviewed at length following his complaint that the Chief Constable had knowingly signed a false affidavit to avoid disclosure of evidence relevant to the nineteen year running civil action for damages, CF101741 + three others..

12. On 1^st June 2009 the Defendant caused the Claimant to be subjected to Multi Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA) enquiry following a meeting, at the South Wales Police Head Quarters, Bridgend, by the Independent Advisory Group.

13. On 8^th June 2009, at Barry police station MAPPA meeting, police informed the agencies that the Claimant was to be arrested and taken into custody for being in possession of a prohibited weapon.

14. The police also informed the agencies that should the Claimant approach the Chief Constable then he was likely to be shot.

15. On 15^th June 2009 the Claimant brought further civil proceedings, in the Administrative Court, London, against the Defendant when police were called to be in attendance.

16. On 18^th June 2009 the Claimant again laid the complaint, this time at the offices of the Defendant in her Bridgend head quarters .and again, refused mutual exchange of witness statements.

17. On 19^th June 2009 the Defendant again refused to exchange witness statements when her solicitors were contacted by the Claimant despite the court order having given until 4pm.

18. On 20^th June 2009 the Defendant’s solicitors laid complaint against the Claimant to be arrested for threat of criminal damage.

19. On 21^st June 2009 police Operations, ‘Orchid’ and ‘Chalice, caused’ a sizeable force of police officers to surround the Claimant’s home, in St Donats, Vale of Glamorgan, requiring an armed response unit, a police helicopter and both forensic psychiatrists and a lay advisor for the Claimant to be in attendance. The operation was aborted once the Claimant was seen drinking tea with his family in their front garden.

20. The English police refused to ‘touch it with a barge pole, once they became aware that the Welsh police had persuaded the Civil Aviation Authority to telephone the new owner, in England, to dismount the Lewis antique and alone drive it across Lincolnshire and beyond to find a licenced arms dealer where it would be collected by the Defendant.

21. The Welsh police then hawked the Lewis antique nearly two thousand miles around the UK, contrary to Home Office Regulations during which time had it modified, to be illegal, contrary to the 1968 Fire Arms Act at their special laboratory in South Wales.

22. On 22^nd June 2009 police returned to the Claimant’s home and arrested him in the road outside his property, cautioning him that he had been arrested for: a. Threat of committing criminal damageb. Being in possession of a prohibited weapon c. Being in possession of prohibited ammunition.

23. The Claimant was never charged with the first arrest allegation and despite court orders from His Honour Judge Seys Llewellyn QC to reveal the evidence and statements by Dolmans, solicitors, falsified to assist their client, the then Chief Constable of South Wales Police, Ms Barbara Wilding.

24. Between 22^nd and 23^rd June 2009 the police removed the Claimant’s lawfully held shot guns, ammunition and court files relating to the Claimant’s ongoing Claims of bullying, harassment and false imprisonment none of which have been returned to the Claimant.

25. On 24^th June 2009 a police officer or officers laid an information against the Claimant at Barry Magistrates court alleging that that the Claimant had been in possession of a prohibited weapon, one 1916 Lewis machine gun and had sold the gun, both contrary to the 1968 Fire Arms Act.

26. Upon reading the Claimant’s June 2009 64 page Defense statement the Barry Magistrates court, following legal advice, allowed the Claimant unconditional bail.

27. On 25^th June 2009 the police appealed the court order lying to HHJ Hughes causing the Claimant to be detained in custody in Cardiff prison.

28. Lies by the Defendant were used, eventually, before ten Cardiff Crown Court judges, no less, refusing the Claimant disclosure of evidence, under their control, that would have cleared the Claimant’s name.

29. In July 2009 the Defendant brought a third indictment namely, ‘income from crime’.

30. On 3^rd August 2009 Dr Tegwyn Williams, forensic psychiatrist and Director of Caswell Clinic, South Wales Police forensic Unit, at Bridgend signed a psychiatric report recommending the Claimant be sectioned and further remanded to his medium secure psychiatric unit, Caswell Clinic, under Section 35 of the 1983 Mental Health Act.

31. In September 2009 when it was clear the Claimant was not going to employ a lawyer sworn to the Welsh courts Dr Tegwyn Williams recommended that the Claimant be transferred to Ashworth High Security Psychiatric Prison, IPP, imprisonment for Public Protection.

32. On or about the 24^th October 2009 the Claimant was further remanded in custody in Cardiff Prison reliant on a further Dr Tegwyn Williams psychiatric report the Defendant knew or ought to have known was false.

33. On 9^th February 2010, at Cardiff Crown Court, the Defendant having earlier withdrawn the third indictment, was found not guilty on all remaining indictments and was released from custody.

34. No defence evidence or summing up was needed from the Claimant with further confirmation by nine members of the jury confirming to him that their decision of ‘Not Guilty’ was already concluded by eleven of the jury after the first day of evidence was given and cross examined.

35. The jury also made the Claimant aware, immediately after the hearing, that they questioned why both the original seller to the Claimant, of the Lewis antique and the current owner were not both also in the dock as defendants.

36. The Claimant’s complaints to the relevant police authorities, to investigate the conduct within South Wales Police before and after his arrest and nearly eight months in custody, have been swept aside in a perfunctory manner to which the Claimant is accustomed since first settling in south Wales in 1992.

37. The arrest and detention of the Claimant were unlawful.

38. There were no reasonable grounds to believe that the Claimant was probably guiltv of the offence for which he was arrested. 39. The decisions to arrest and detain the Claimant were such as no reasonable police officer would have reached.

40. The Claimant was detained for longer than was reasonably necessary and in breach of the provisions of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.

41. Further, the actions of police officers set out above constitute harassment within meaning of section 1 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 and misfeasance in public office.

42. Unless restrained by the Court police officers will continue to harass the Claimant.
43. By reason of the matters aforesaid, the Claimant has suffered loss, damage, distress, anxiety, damage to his reputation and was deprived of his liberty. He has been subjected to bullying, malicious prosecution and harassment, false imprisonment and contrary to the 1998 Human Rights Act.

44. The Plaintiff therefore claims of the Defendant:- Damages Exemplary damages Special Damages. Costs. In pursuant of Sections of the County Court Act 1984.

45. The Claimant retains his right for a lawyer to amend this Claim.

Dr Tegwyn Williams, Prof Roger Wood and South Wales NHS sued for a Million Pound + Fraud

Maurice — Fri, 03 Jun 2011 14:05:00 GMT

Dear Sir Norman Scarth, Rear Admiral Rtd.,

Further to your kind invitation to attend Leeds County Court on Magna Carta Day, 15th June, [NOT BEFORE NOON], with Battle Bus, megaphones, etc [details at bottom of this post] please consider 10,000 pamphlets, floating downwards, on the day, just for starters.

More than a year has gone by since I was incarcerated in prison due to a rogue psychiatrist falsifying medical records just to help a police woman in a spot of bother. "trouble at mill", as my Barry Veterinary hospital secretary used to say, back in the 90s.

Barbara Wilding, as Chief Constable and controller of millions of charity cash, enquiry will find, had a 'cosy relationship' with Tegwyn, a NHS Clinical Director needing handouts, fast and plentiful.

Whilst I was locked up in the shear hell of Casswell Clinic, I noticed other patients being quietly recommended release, by Williams, alone, to one of his own private psychiatric units, in Cardiff and elsewhere, cleverly in partnership with other key NHS people controlling the flow of UK tax payers' money to the private medical sector.I have deliberately kept quiet, until now, Norman, on this aspect of the 2008 conspiracy hatched, machine gun arrest / Barbara as Defendant / Williams to falsify records, just to see what wicked Tegwyn Williams / South Wales Police and HM Partnership and their cabal might do next, now that I am temporarily at large and still breathing.

An outside authority should easily follow the audit trail of purloined tax payers' cash, in South Wales, despite having their local courts sewn up 'as tight as a mackerels', as our old gardener, Ernie Gratton, would say.

Is there a link beween the multiple Bridgend suicides of late and Caswell Clinic policy, many are asking?

Neither NHS nor Welsh Assembly have any intention in helping me get my medical records clarified or corrected. So, once again, I have to face the utter stench of a Welsh law court for a few more years. .A Cardiff Court action against Williams came to an interesting conclusion, today, when the Cardiff judge refused my application for clarification, correction or release of my medical records.....

Those proceedings now concluded, but with Williams still not yet behind bars, it has set the stage, beautifully for the start of both civil and criminal proceedings. Norman, guess where? In Cardiff!

IN THE CARDIFF COUNTY COURT Claim No

MAURICE JOHN KIRK Claimant

Dr Tegwyn Williams 1st Defendant

Professor Roger Wood 2^nd Defendant

Paul Williams Chief Executive NHS Wales 3^rd Defendant

The Secretary of State to the Ministry of Justice 4^th Defendant

PARTICULARS OF CLAIM

1. The 1^st Defendant was at all material times the Clinical Director of the South Wales Constabulary's Forensic Unit, Caswell Clinic, Bridgend and the staff of the medium secure psychiatric hospital, hereinafter referred to, were at all material times acting under the direction and control of the Defendant in the performance or purported performance of their functions.

2. The 2^nd Defendant was at all material times a psychology professor at Swansea University, South Wales.

3. The 3^rd Defendant was the regional director responsible for the conduct of the South Wales NHS staff and safety of the general public when in its care.

4. On or before 1^st June 2009,following meetings at South Wales Police HQ, by senior police officers, the 1st Defendant was made aware that ‘Operation Orchid' had been conceived following the attempts by the Claimant to sue the South Wales Police relating to over one hundred incidents and was claiming malicious intent, bullying and false imprisonment by them.

5. His newest complaint, that being the Chief Constable's February 2009 falsely signed sworn affidavit, relating to years of covert police surveillance of the Claimant, led to meetings of the Independent Advisory Group (IAG) and Multi Agency Public Protection arrangements (MAPPA) in order prevent disclosure of the truth.

6. Repeatedly, police refused to properly investigate crime committed against his property and person. Well over one hundred allegations of criminal conduct were laid, as a counter measure, only to be withdrawn by the HM Crown Prosecution Service or ignominiously dismissed in the criminal courts despite where HM Partnership had some special relationships with each other in the Principality.

7. The 1^stand 3^rd Defendant knew that police ‘Operation Orchid' was devised on spurious medical grounds with a real risk of damaging the Claimant by either being a party to causing his 10 year old daughter being taken into care, allegedly for her own safety, by South Wales Social Services.

8. The 1^st Defendant, on 8^th June 2009, caused members of his staff to attend Barry police station for a MAPPA meeting that led to his knowledge that the Claimant was to be arrested, remanded in custody and should the Claimant ‘approach the Chief Constable of South Wales', on the pretext of ‘mutual exchange of witness statements', in a civil action, ‘he was likely to be shot' by an armed police unit.

9. At no time, to this day, did any of the four Defendants inform the Claimant of the risk to his life, from the South Wales Police nor the existence and possible consequences of ‘Operation Orchid' causing damage to both the Claimant and his family.

10. In early and mid June 2009 the Claimant attended various South Wales police stations, in Cardiff, Cowbridge and Barry, lodging further complaints of being refused police investigations concerning crimes committed against him.

11. On 18^th June 2009, in frustration, the Claimant visited and complained at the Chief Constable's office in Bridgend HQ where he was soon surrounded by a heavily armed police sporting flak jackets and tin hats with an array of gas cylinders clipped on their belts.

12. The Chief constable refused ‘exchange of witness statements', despite a court dead line by the following day, and ordered the Claimant be escorted off the premises but not before a thorough search of his car, for any fire arms or explosives and bringing in a road patrol officer off the Motorway who failed to find any defect in the Claimant's old car.

13. The Claimant put the finishing touches to his 64 page witness statement, for court later, having just ‘gone public', on YouTube and on his own web site, http://www.kirkflyingvet.com/, of his knowing, all the time, of the 18 years of expensive covert police surveillance on both his veterinary hospital and home.

14. On 21^st June 2009 the 1^st Defendant was notified of ‘Operation Chalice', arranged by the Chief Constable, for a formidable armed police unit amassed to take the Claimant into custody.

15. The operation was, however, aborted despite the Claimant being in full view of the twenty odd surveillance team, crowded in the road and crouched behind the hedges with police helicopter hovering overhead.

16. On the 22^nd June 2009 the Claimant was arrested on fire arms charges, fabricated by the Chief Constable but examined by a police psychiatrist who found no relevant medical abnormality with her patient to require detention or treatment.

17. To the contrary, the 1^st Defendant wrote his 3^rd August 2009 psychiatric report , without even examining the Claimant, recommending the Claimant serve a further prison sentence, whilst unconvicted but in his experimental unit, Caswell Clinic, thereby further delaying the machine gun allegations coming to trial

18. The 1^st Defendant wrongly stated his patient suffered a ‘paranoid delusional disorder', requiring further detention in custody, due to ‘false fixed beliefs' in that the Claimant believed he was being persecuted by the South Wales Police

19. On 7^th August 2009, upon giving a Cardiff Crown Court judge false information, the 1^st Defendant recommended and obtained a Section 35 under the 1983 Mental Health Act.

20. The 1^st Defendant knew or should have known that an appropriately qualified police doctor, HM Prison Cardiff psychiatrists and his own doctors, at Caswell Clinic had already very recently physically examined the Claimant and had found no mental health abnormality requiring further incarceration or treatment

21. The 1^stDefendant, on or about 28^th August 2009, maliciously and/or negligently, caused the Claimant to undergo an unnecessary but intrusive procedure of a SPEC scan requiring the infusion of radioactive isotopes into the Claimant's brain.

22. The 1st Defendant informed the South Wales Police, HM Crown Prosecution Service, Uncle Tom Cobley and all that Princess of Wales Hospital brain scans revealed ‘significant brain damage' and likely to be irreversible..

23. The 1^st Defendant had no appropriate medical qualifications to come to that conclusion especially with the prior knowledge that an expert in the field of brain scans had already written a report stating there was no sign of relevant abnormality or suggestion of any space invading lesion in the Claimant's brain.

24. Following significant but immediate alarming sides effects on the ‘patient' the 1^st Defendant repeatedly refused the right for the Claimant to be examined, either privately funded or funded by the 3^rd Defendant, by his own general practitioner of some seventeen years standing or independent source from outside South Wales.

25. The Claimant has suffered these apparent medical complications ever since.

26. The 1st Defendant caused the 2^ndDefendant to be also enticed into the conspiracy, to pervert the course of justice, hatched originally by senior police officers of South Wales in the hope of a few chances in having the chronic litigant ‘lawfully' shot.

27. Professor Wood, the 2^nd Defendant, interviewed the Claimant under the pretence he was a doctor of medicine and when he had no appropriate qualifications to write such content in his original report to Dr Ruth Bagshaw of Caswell Clinic.

28. The 2nd Defendant's report, read by the Claimant on or around 13^th October 2009, stated apart from other untruths, the following:

a. He was an expert in the field of interpreting brain scans and the very purpose of his being called in by the 1^st Defendant. He agreed with the doctor's findings, that of irreversible ‘significant brain damage'.

b. Damage was attributed to the effects of excessive alcohol consumption having been an old drinking partner of the late actor, Oliver Reed Esq.

c. Damage was attributed to the effects of ‘previous flying accidents' and the Claimant's recently ditching into the Caribbean in his WW2 light aircraft during an attempted circum navigation of the world.

d. Damage confirmed by the 2^nd Defendant's belief that the Claimant had flown his aircraft from West Wales to Australia ‘without a map'.

29. 1^st Defendant caused further psychiatric reports to be written containing the following:

Maurice Kirk presents with symptoms entirely consistent with a mental illness namely

paranoid delusional disorder (fixed false beliefs un ameanable to reason)

Maurice Kirk has evidence of significant brain damage to an area of his brain specifically

related to self-awareness, judgement, decision making, self regulation of behaviour and

control of emotions

30. More 1^st Defendant psychiatric reports caused the Claimant to be further detained in custody, in fear of his life throughout, for the maximum period allowed, under the 1983 law, that of twelve weeks.

31. The 1^st Defendant, despite repeated objections by the Claimant each time a new report was written, refused to correct his forensic history of his patient. It included, along with other false information to countless bail judges, that the Claimant, in 1982, had been convicted of ‘Actual Bodily Harm'

32. Following the Claimant's applications under the Freedom of Information and Data Protection Acts, the 3^rd Defendant, the NHS, refused to disclose the full relevant medical records caused by the Claimant's detention in Caswell Clinic and in particular including any records of 2^nd Defendant or from those of the doctor in his presence at time of his insulting interview.

33. The 1^st Defendant then recommended, under a Section 41 or similar, to numerous judges that the Claimant be retained in a psychiatric hospital. He particularly asked his patient be transferred to Ashworth high security psychiatric prison, following consultation with the South Wales Police and MAPPA recommending he be imprisoned IPP, imprisonment for public protection and without access to a jury, for an indeterminate period.

34. On the Claimant being returned to HM Prison Cardiff, in late October 2009, the 1^st Defendant was now in possession of other doctor's opinions, exceeding eighteen, that the Claimant revealed no relevant mental disorder to have caused his detention in his Caswell Clinic or for any treatment other than obtain independent legal representation, significantly unavailable in South Wales.

35. On 2nd December 2009, before the prospective trial judge in the rapidly approaching criminal proceedings, with the Claimant now indicted on ‘being in possession of a machine gun', ‘selling it' and ‘making financial gain', the 1st Defendant caused some of those present, without ever informing the Claimant, to this day, that the latter now had a brain tumour and was far too dangerous to be released on bail.

36. These further serious attempts to pervert the course of justice, by HM Crown Prosecution Service, the Chief Constable of South Wales Police and Dr Tegwyn Williams, were MAPPA's last ditch attempt to avoid a farcical and publicly watched criminal trial in the capital of Wales.

37. During the 2^nd December 2009 Crown Court hearing, in the absence of the unrepresented Claimant, locked up below, two English independent medical reports were considered by the court. The 1st, from HM Prison Ashworth, found no apparent mental disorder while the 2^nd, likewise, from a leading specialist in nuclear medicine, went so far as to castigating the 1^st Defendant for the unnecessary use of a SPEC scan when a non intrusive scan was all that was needed. The Claimant was again refused bail.

38. On or about 17^th December 2009 MAPPA, conducted in Caswell Clinic would you believe, removed the Claimant from their top level 5% category 3 list of most dangerous persons to the general public.

39. MAPPA or their agents, including 1^st, 3^rd and 4^th Defendant have failed to notify the Claimant, to this day, as to when and why was he on MAPPA register at all?

40. Why, now, he was no longer considered a public threat just days before a trail carrying possible convictions with a mandatory ten year prison sentence?

41. On 9^th February 2010 the Claimant was cleared of all charges, despite offering no defense BUT only due to the timely intervention of a jury made up of no lawyers and only one police ‘plant'.

42. Upon release from prison all four Defendants caused the Cowbridge Health Centre to refuse the Claimant as a continuing patient or disclose what confidential medical information of their patient it had revealed to FTAC, MAPPA or any of the Defendants before or during his custody period.

43. On 10^th February 2010, in Bridgend police station, a police psychiatrist and social workers examined the Claimant, yet again, in relation to ‘Operation

Orchid', still ongoing and again, found no relevant mental disorder to warrant the custody or medical treatment of the Claimant or being continued refusal to get access to his own daughter.

44 The 3^rd Defendant refused to disclose the full medical records, yet again, under a repeated Claimant Application, under the aforesaid Acts but included, by mistake a back dated falsified copy, again signed by the 2^nd Defendant, as if to be a copy of the original one seen by the Claimant handed to him, during his custody, by a Caswell Clinic doctor to read.

45. Only when the good doctor perceived the Claimant was likely to assault him, if need be, did he hand over the erroneous document to read

46. This report was clearly designed, as with the 1^st Defendant's psychiatric reports, to injure the Claimant's reputation and good name in the Vale of Glamorgan where he had, for many years, successfully practiced veterinary medicine.

47. Continued refusal by all four Defendants, to clarify and correct the Claimant's medical records, caused the Civil Aviation Authority to refuse his renewal for his pilot's licences until further examined by two of their most senior psychiatrists.

48. The Claimant had to travel to the CAA at Gatwick airport to find two doctors who stated, in so many words, that there was no indication of any medical condition that prevented the Claimant from holding a permit to be allowed to lawfully ‘break the bonds of earth' in UK airspace.

49. In June 2009 surgeons refused to operate on the Claimant, for an urgently needed total hip replacement, due to confusion caused by the all four Defendants, refusing to clarify whether or not the Claimant had cancer and ‘significant brain damage'.

50. The 3^rd Defendant refused to carry out another brain scan, via his new GP in Barry, causing serious delay with the Claimant having to travel to a foreign country for one. Only then did the Claimant obtain his much overdue operation, in Brittany once no abnormality was found in the Claimant's brain.

51. In or around July 2010 the 4^th Defendant refused to disclose Claimant's medical records relevant in these Particulars of Claim and denied knowledge, despite attending, of MAPPA monthly meetings during the 2009 Claimant's custody.

52. The 4^th Defendant would not even allow the Claimant to have his walking sticks returned suggesting malicious intent and part of the conspiracy.

53. All four Defendants caused unnecessary pain and suffering and mental anguish with the seriously debilitating effect of prolonged mind enhancing drugs such as morphine sulphate and Tremadol for nearly ten months.

54. The Claimant's medication and severe pain caused complete havoc and huge expense to the Claimant for numerous court proceedings, both civil and criminal, since June 2010 to around eight weeks after his 25^th March 2011 operation, a period for recuperation.

55. Parties in both civil and criminal courts, between June 2010 to date, have taken unfair advantage of the Claimant either ignoring countless monthly medical updates from specialist doctors from both sides of the English Channel.

56. One Cardiff law firm, defending a client for monies owed, actually quoted from the 1^st Defendant's false information contained in his psychiatric reports pleading the Claimant was, in effect, insane.

57. The 4^th Defendant also caused about a week's false imprisonment, in or about January 2008, when refusing to take from his prisoner, from within prison, his cash, his cheque, supply a credit card machine, to draw the cash or take from his wife, dutifully waiting at the prison gate, the outstanding amount in ‘readies'.

58. The Barry magistrates had promised the Claimant he could pay the outstanding CPS costs and court costs at any time during prison custody. The remaining amount from the original £11,000 owed being around £3,500, in lieu of imprisonment.

59. In summary, the Claimant has suffered from all four Defendants' misfeasance in public office and failure of duty of care to their patient and/or prisoner needing the latter to obtain protection from this abuse by temporary asylum in France, now subject to appeal and shortly to be heard, in open court, in Paris.

60. And in particular, the failure by the 1^st Defendant to correct and clarify the Claimant's medical records is gross professional misconduct which has caused defamation of the Claimant's name and good character, falsification of medical documents, false imprisonment, serious prolonged unnecessary bullying, pain and mental suffering to cause damages, special damages and/or exemplary damages with punitive damages, his conduct needing a long overdue criminal investigation.

61. And in particular, the 2nd Defendant's negligence has caused defamation of the Claimant's name and good character by falsified medical records causing false imprisonment and unnecessary pain and mental suffering requiring damages, exemplary and/special damages with punitive damages, his conduct also needing a long overdue criminal investigation.

62. And in particular, the 3^rd Defendant has caused defamation of the Claimant's name and good character, continues to withhold proper NHS services from the Claimant and relevant medical records that has led to unnecessary pain and mental suffering for the Claimant requiring this claim for damages, exemplary and/or special damages

63. And in particular, the 4^th Defendant has caused negligence, unnecessary pain and mental suffering and false imprisonment requiring damages, exemplary and/special damages.

64. And the Claimant claims costs.

Unless restrained by a competent court this rogue psychologist and rogue psychiatrist are likely to repeat their action again, there currently being little or no proper outside independent supervision of what really goes on in the Principality.

The Claimant retains his right for trial by jury and for a lawyer to read and amend this Claim.

Maurice J Kirk BVSc

2^nd June 2011

Puits aux Papillons
St Doha
22230 Merdrignac
Brittany

maurice@kirkflyingvet.com

Copy to: Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, Royal Courts of Justice

Cardiff Court of Appeal

Cardiff County Court

The French Immigration Authorities

My Judicial Review Application (Case CO/601/2011, The Queen (on the application of Norman Scarth), versus Leeds Magistrates' Court & others.) is to be heard in Leeds Combined Court Centre on Wednesday 15th June 2011, listed as 'NOT BEFORE 12 NOON'.

Please forgive my 'delusions of grandeur', but I do believe it warrants an attendance comparable to Birkenhead on 7th March.
Directions. The Courthouse (LS1 3BG) is just off Westgate, which is a continuation of The Headrow. It is the plain red brick building close by the Town Hall (a large imposing building with a massive domed tower). A free bus runs from Leeds Railway station. Get off at the Town Hall.
You know my belief that one way we may break the stranglehold which the Legal Mafia has on 'The Law' (& return something pertaining to 'Justice' to Britain) is to use Private Prosecutions. That they use all their dirty tricks to block us shows that they realise this. This Application for Judicial Review is my attempt to overcome their blocking tactics & break that stranglehold. As indicated below, 30 minutes SHOULD be enough for the judge to grant 'Permission to make the Application' (which is the convoluted way they do things), but the presence of numbers such as at Birkenhead on 7th March could ensure s/he does so. I understand the judge is likely to be HH Judge Mark Gosnell who lives at Newchurch in the Rossendale Valley in Lancashire. Surprisingly (to me) he is a guitarist in a rock band & is 'a stalwart of evening gigs at the Jolly Sailor, Spring Terrace, White Lion & other ritzy Valley venues with his band WASTED'. You younger people must tell me if this means he is more likely to obey his Judicial Oath? See below for my comments about a Circuit Judge being put in a position to overrule a High Court Judge.
Please ring me on 01274 541 213 if you wish. (see lower down for my contention that this matter being in the High Court at all is extortion of money from the public to go into the pockets of the legal professionals.)
Norman Scarth.

To Sergeant Mrs. Kate Roberts.
Dear Mrs. Roberts,
Yes please, in spite of the fact I would do better to complain to Father Christmas, Elvis Presley or Lord Lucan, I DO ask that you treat this as an OFFICIAL COMPLAINT (much good it will do me!) See my comments, inserted below in red, for easy recognition.
N.Scarth.
- - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> Subject: Complaint Against Police PSD 11/ - [Restricted]
> To: enscarth@hotmail.com
> From: Kate.Roberts@merseyside.police.uk
> Date: Tue, 31 May 2011 15:55:33 +0100
>
> Dear Mr. Scarth,
> A complaint against police has been recorded as you wrote to the Wirral
> Magistrates and raised your concerns regarding the way in which you were
> treated by both court staff and members of Merseyside Police. Your e-mail
> was forwarded to Merseyside Police. As a result of the allegations made in
> your e-mail, a complaint against police has been recorded.
>
> If you wish to withdraw this complaint, please let me know.
>
> However if you would like me to look into how you were dealt with by
> Merseyside Police officers on the date you state you were refused entry to
> Wirral Magistrates, I will do so.
'Refused entry'? That is a eupheism if ever there was one! I was NOT 'refused entry', but had barely got through the door before I was dragged off by ignorant thugs in uniform who acted just like the Gestapo in Nazi Germany, then stuck in a 2'6" square cage in the back of a police van in a police station yard for nearly three hours! SEE ATTACHMENT.
>
> It would help if I could discuss your complaint, in order that I may be
> able to obtain further details from you and in order to explain the
> complaints process. I am available on the telephone number below. If you
> do not get an answer I would be grateful if you would leave a contact
> number so I can return your call.
I am well aware of the 'Complaints Procedures' & know only too well that ALL such 'Procedures' are designed & used to send the victim running round in circles until his brain becomes addled, he becomes exhausted, or gives up in disgust! Why on earth do you want to speak on the telephone? Is it because you are anxious that there should be no record? I prefer that all communication between us to be by email, & thus ON record. (More in red lower down)
>
> I look forward to hearing from you.
> Regards,
> Kate Roberts
> Wirral Complaints Liaison Officer. 0151 777 2086

South Wales Police sued for One Million Euros for Falsifying Machine Gun and Medical Evidence

Maurice — Thu, 26 May 2011 17:14:00 GMT

STOP PRESS

Welsh Court of Appeal Lost!

25% of original Damages Claim Struck Out....the highly sensitve political ones (see December 2010 site video)

'C'est un judgment bizarre', a Breton would say!

Immediate Thoughts on Receipt of 17^th May 2011 Court of Appeal Judgment, BELOW, Refusing Application to Appeal

A. Upon reading the judgment, who wrote it? Defendant's solictors?

B. Someone was back in London by the time the trial judge, HHJSeys LLewelyn QC, read the 'first' reasons realising the visiting judge had not addressed the main issues in dispute, namely, an exeptional case of bullying needing to be consolidated with stayed 4th ,5th , 6th Actions, including the new machine gun case, BELOW, referred to, extensively, in the Claimant's pleadings here LINK SKM

C. Who, then, wrote the 'second' reasons, as if an after thought explaining, maybe, why Cardiff court held back the decision, from the Claimant, for nine days?

D. Clearly, just using the 'struck out' list, below, as examples for the oral appeal shortly (London ), [ALL INVITED, DINNER, as usual, ON ME], is it blatently obvious either MR JUSTICE KITCHIN is also being bullied by 'HM Partnership' or was he never given the facts, on appeal, of the forty odd incidents listed in the first three Actions? With Cardiff manager's track record nothing would surprise me.
There can only be one truth - no matter whose hands it's in...
Maurice J Kirk

1. Stolen Cheques

The thief was identified by the Claimant in Barry Post Office during 2010 Claimant's Application to HHJ Seys Llewellyn QC, in the Lower court, for Permission to Appeal. Both the court and police were informed of his whereabouts, by the Claimant but the Defendant again refused to investigate when his address was traceable from the post office. And a High Court judge now says the South Wales Police have no 'duty'!......With over a hundred incidents of this type of wicked conduct, within the seven or so Actions! Just how many does it take for a policeman to be culpable?

Mr Kitchin knows, to amalgamate cases further risks prison for high ranking South Wales Police.

That's HM Partnership's real 'Reasons' for yet another typical example in our British courts in 'meltdown', not to be published in newspapers.

'Struck Out' due to 'Collateral Attack' on a conviction obtained during an incident

2. Police Caught on Overhead Roadside Video [See it on video Gallery, 5th one back]

Despite police refusing to disclose videos of Claimant being 'beaten up' in Cardiff police cells, the original magistrates and Cardiff Crown Court were not even being allowed to see the overhead road side video because police withheld its disclosure until a year too late.

[The police cell videos were doctored, blanking out the top half of film to hide police identity]

Now the Appeal Court judge did not view the video either! Mr Kitchin undoubtedly argues 'police beating up their prisoners' is 'not relevant' because the terrified Claimant stupidly should not have pleaded guilty to trivial motoring offence thereby giving the bullying police immunity Immunity against any of their conduct throuout the incident...scarry or not scarry??

Roadside Video [5th back on this website video gallery] catches Cardiff police 'beating up' the Claimant after being dragged out of his car. This was before he was even arrested for ‘failure to give road side breath test' having just been followed directly from the Cardiff Crown Court where he and his secretary had been all morning complaining to the then, Recorder of Cardiff, Mr Justice Roderick Evans, about nine years of excessive South Wales Police bullying and proving police documents had been forged (see next incident).

3. Alleged Breach of the Peace at Vale Glamorgan Show

Another, 'Struck out' due to collateral attack on a conviction that, this time, never happened !!! The Claimant was never even charged (four versions of withheld BOP as Cla imant'sexhibits), jailed but never convicted. Bridgend Clerk of the Court, many months later, persuaded police, over lunch, to withdraw the alleged BOP offence, part way through a trial of other charges, quite unrelated, another time, another place, because the Claimant would obviously plead 'not guilty' and would have to go to prison due to common law!

Liar. Just as at the first hearing, in Barry, the Claimant was not told of what the female prosecutor or clerk had before them, witnessed by Claimant's secretary. It was BOP in three different forms!!!!!

The Claimant 'made it worth someone's while' to extract from Bridgend Magistrates records the original clerk's notes (exhibit) confirming scandalous conduct

4. 'Struck Out' due to 'collateral attack' in Claimant's absence from court due to in hospital after motor bike accident!

Veterinary nurse, planted in back of court, signed a sworn affidavit after hearing police stating:

"He drives around in his little white sports car quoting human rights...we are going to get the b'stard".

A trivial motoring conviction should not be the excuse for a High Court judge to protect the bullies breaking UK law.

5 The Defence's Hunter Case Law argument was quite inappropriate for such an unusual, extreme and excessive bullying case with more than one hundred incidents in the six or seven Particulars of Claim. Just how many incidents of police bullying does it take to remove their devine right not to investigate but allowed to cause physical injury, time and time again?

6. Defendant's ‘Mindset' not relevant?!!!!!! Has this High Court judge ever been confronted with such extreme acts of criminal conduct by police?. Of course not but the 'Maurices' of this world who dare question 'authority' are expendable SEE the injury list IN 'VICTIMS UNITE' blogs..

See 26^th May 2011 Machine Gun Particulars of Claim [ below] including False Psychiatric records all fabricated to obtain a false imprisonment designed to interfere with these very civil proceedings. Of course Mr Kitchin avoided the issue, that was his brief.

7. South Wales Police's, ‘Operation Orchid', at the same time, putting the fear of God into my wife when they threatened to have Social Services snatch our 10 year old daughter away has caused quite unforseen repercussions.

Etc, etc.

Mr Kitchin clearly does not realise anarchy is only just around the corner, in Wales and possibly, elsewhere, headed by those who know just where and when to strike, if the break down of law and order in our appalling law courts, driven by avarice, is not sorted out RIGHT NOW.

MACHINE GUN CASE

Once again it is the K Team that has to draft the court papers as no lawyer has been found after a 15 months trawl through solicitors's offices. It is of no surprise to me when you consider Dr Tegwyn Williams was given 'carte blanche' to falsify medical reports for 10, no less, Cardiff judges all knowing, full well, they were untrue but refusing bail due some higher sinister authority. Only one Welsh newspaper, The Glamorgan Gem, published a few of the appalling facts of dishonesty thoughout the Welsh judiciary in this case. If had not been for this web site, publishing day by day accounts of the trial, I would still be in jail due to that HM Partnership lot headed by Nicholarse Cooke QC, The Recorder of Cardiff.

There only remains outstanding which quick act of retribution is appropriate for the likes of Dr Tegwyn Williams as he, unlike Barbara Wilding, is not afforded the luxury of an armed guard. A Welsh court process? What a joke! That is pretty pointless considering our watching the Welsh NHS leave him loose to do it all over again on some unsuspecting individual with less luck.

Common Purpose and Law Society intend to wipe out jury trails and lay magistrates the very two facets of my machine gun case that shone through as the back bone of what we should be proud of. When the two systems are finally snuffed out by HMCS last one switch off the lights, please.

Court of Appeal Judgment by the Honourable Mr Justice Kitchin

Cardiff Civil Justice Centre

Reasons:

An appeal has no real prospect of
success.

ln a long and careful judgment of 30
November 2010 the judge addressed the application by the defendant to strike
out the claimant's claims in respect of a number of incidents

ln particular

ln action CF04141, the judge struck
out an allegation in respect of the theft of cheques in that, as a matter of
law, the defendant did not owe the claimant a privately actionable duty of
care.

In actions BS614159-MC65, CF101741 and
CF204141, the judge struck out a series of allegations as being an abuse of
process in that they amounted to collateral attacks on criminal convictions of
the defendant or on conclusive findings which have been made against him in
other proceedings.

The claimant now seeks permission to
appeal on a number of grounds. There is nothing in any of them.

First the claimant contends that
the proceedings took place without him being able to take part. This was
plainly not the case. The judge explained in detail in paragraphs 3 and 4 of
his judgment the careful steps he took to ensure that the claimant was not in
any way disadvantaged and referred in paragraphs 3 to 6 to the extensive
submissions from the claimant which he considered.

Second, the claimant says he was
subjected to unfair pressure from the court and was unfairly disadvantaged. To
the contrary, it is apparent from the paragraphs of the judgment to which I
have referred that the judge took all reasonable steps to ensure the claimant
was not subjected to unfair pressure, nor disadvantaged.

Third, the claimant submits the
court wrongly excluded evidence. I reject this contention. There was no
material dispute of fact in relation to any of the allegations the judge struck
out.

Fourth, it is said the judge
failed to address key submissions. I do not accept this is so. The judge set
out the claimant's case on each issue very clearly. Indeed the judge accepted a
number of the claimant's submissions in refusing to strike out aspects of his
case.

Fifth, the claimant contends the
judge erred in law. In my judgment the defendant has not identified any proper
ground in support of this allegation. The judge correctly identified the
principle established in Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police and
his application of that principle to the facts alleged by the claimant cannot
be faulted. The other claims were struck out upon the application of the well
established principle that it is not permissible for a claimant to bring a
claim which amounts to collateral attack on an earlier criminal conviction or a
conclusive finding made against him in earlier proceedings.

Finally, the claimant asserts that
the judge failed to protect the claimant against the defendant's mindset. This
provides no basis for an appeal against the specific findings of the judge.

For all these reasons the judge was
also right to refuse permission to appeal.

Reasons

This is a case management order. The
judge declined to order all the cases to be consolidated. This was a perfectly
reasonable decision, particularly since the cases are already being heard
together.

There is no need for the cases to be
transferred to the High Court. Nor has any justification been shown for having
them transferred out of Wa1es.

An appeal has no real prospect of success.

17^th May 2011

Reply to Refusal

Dear Ms Pahl,

Please Forward, in your usual reliable way

31st May 2011

Kirk v South Wales Police

Appeal at Court of Appeal No.s CF029/2011a & CF030/2011a
( May 2011 court letter contains variations in case numbers)

FAO Clerk of the Court,

Further to the predicted refusal notice, based on politics and not facts, received on Saturday, 28th May, I apply for an oral hearing and be permitted witnesses to the facts, before the court, to attend without fear of intimidation.

I also apply that it take place not before but on the 15th June or onwards, in London, but not 28th June as it clashes with another court and an equally scandalous bit of Welsh bloody nonsense.

I also have medical appointments in both France and Londoin to entwine with dates already fixed.

If the hearing is in South Wales I run a very real risk of being falsly arrested again and finish up in Ashworth High Security Psychiatric Prison, as was attempted last time, following deliberate falsification of both Welsh HM CPS information and Dr Tegwyn Williams psychiatric reports.

Last time, following the Welsh filth and their usual tactics, being completely ignored or actively supported by 10 Welsh judges, Welsh HM Court Service and Welsh National Health Service, my liberty, without an appeal, now comes secondary in priority, following revenge, the latter, set for the rest of my short life, to be sufficient to educate the whole world, by exposing your evil Welsh judiciary, driven by greed.

Oh, if only I had listend to both my mother and father about the truth of South Wales, following their shock, in 1992, that I had bought a veterinary practice near Cardiff.

Yours,

Maurice J Kirk BVSc

Puits aux Papillons

St Doha

22230 Merdrignac

France

0033624571548

maurice@kirkflyingvet.com

IN THE CARDIFF COURT

Maurice Kirk Claimant

Chief Constable of South Wales Police Defendant

Particulars of Claim

1. The Defendant was at all material times the chief officer of the South Wales Constabulary and the police officers hereinafter referred to were at all material times acting under the direction and control of the Defendant in the performance or purported performance of their functiion

2. 1977: Five decommissioned WW1 Lewis machine guns were designated for various replica period aircraft by the Claimant's old friend, Mr Viv Bellamy

3. 1997: MJK purchased the DH2 replica aeroplane and ‘gun' from a prosecution witness with its log books and other Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) paperwork identifying the ‘gun' s an integral part of the fuselage and therefore exempt under the 1968 Fire rms Act.

4. 1998: The 1968 Fire Arms Act was amended meaning that if the ‘gun' remained as it had first been decommissioned, it remained exempt from the new regulations. This became the critical argument in the trial but blocked throughout the twelve days of roceedings of utter nonsense.

5. 2000: The DH2 with the same Lewis antique was flown by the Claimant at the Farnborough Air Show by invitation of another old friend of the Claimant, Captain Brian Trubshaw of 002 Concorde fame.

6. 2006: The DH2 was moved to RAF Lyneham, Wiltshire, for repair and display with the ‘gun' mounted.

7. 2007: he DH2 and ‘gun' was handed out, by the Royal Air Force, to a civilian for further repair in Hampshire also aware it was decommissioned.

8. 2008 MJK sold the aircraft and ‘gun' to another display pilot, a prosecution witness, who ‘modified' the gun for his own purposes.

9. On or about 25^th February 2009 the Defendant signed a sworn affidavit knowing it to be or ought to have known it to be, false, in that paragraphs, between14 to 21, contained erroneous information, namely, incidents, involving both the Defendant and Claimant had ppeared to never have occurred. Police court cases had occurred and the Defendant's attendance, in force, with the use of a crow bar and sledge hammer, to enter the Claimant's Cardiff veterinary surgery, had also occurred. This amounts at least to misfeasance in public office.

10. Following the 2008 Court Order by His Honour Judge Nicholas Chambers QC, for the Defendant to sign an affidavit that full disclosure of evidence, under the Defendant's control, had been disclosed to the Claimant, the latter entered the Defendants solicitor's' offices, on or about the 25^th February 2009 complaining the Court Order had still not been carried out.

11. The Claimant, upon receipt of a copy of the Defendant's affidavit then entered Barry Police Station and was both videoed and interviewed at length following his complaint that the Chief Constable had knowingly signed a false affidavit to avoid disclosure of evidence relevant to the nineteen year running covert police surveillance and civil actions for damages, referred to in CF101741 + four others.

12. The sale and subsequent management change of the Claimant's South Wales veterinary practice, in May 2009, allowed the Claimant to reveal, at last, on U Tube and websites worldwide the conduct of the South Wales Police with their covert surveillance team that had operated for well over ten years. The Claimant's 64 page June 09 witness statement, summarising their unusual and extreme behavior, was now being prepared for court.

13. On 1^st June 2009 the Defendant caused the Claimant to be subjected to a Multi Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA) enquiry following a meeting, at the South Wales Police Head Quarters, Bridgend, by the Independent Advisory Group (IAG).

14. On 8^th June 2009, at Barry police station MAPPA meeting, police informed the agencies, present, including staff from Caswell Clinic psychiatric prison, that the Claimant was a category level 3, very dangerous and was to be arrested and ‘taken into custody' for being in possession of a prohibited weapon, a machine gun.

15. The police also informed the agencies that should the Claimant approach the Chief Constable then he was likely to be shot which has caused the Claimant to seek asylum in France for fear of his life

16. On 15^th June 2009 the Claimant brought further civil proceedings, in the Administrative Court, London, against the Defendant and Co-Defendant, the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons relating to covert police surveillance. Covert plain clothed police officers were already in attendance.

17. On 18^th June 2009 the Claimant again laid the complaint, this time inside the offices of the Defendant's Bridgend South Wales Police head quarters where again there was refusal, by the Defendant, to ‘mutually exchange
witness statements' ordered by HHJ Seys Llewellyn QC

18. On 19^th June 2009 the Defendant again refused to exchange witness statements when the Defendant's solicitors, Dolmans, were contacted by the Claimant despite the Court Order having given the Defendant until 4pm.that day

19. On 20^thJune 2009 the Defendant's solicitors laid complaint with their client, against the Claimant, to be arrested for a ‘threat of criminal damage' which amounts to more bullying and harassment.

20. On 21^st June 2009 police Operations, ‘Orchid' and ‘Chalice, caused' a sizeable force of police officers to surround the Claimant's home, in St Donats, Vale of Glamorgan, requiring an armed response unit, a police helicopter and both forensic psychiatrists and a lay advisor for the Claimant to be in attendance. The operation was aborted once the Claimant was seen drinking tea with his family in their front garden.

21. On 22^nd June 2009 24/7 police surveillance caused the Claimant to be arrested in the road outside his property and cautioning him from a written script, following legal advise, that he had been arrested for:

a. Threat of committing criminal damage

b. Being in possession of a prohibited weapon

c. Being in possession of prohibited ammunition

22. ‘Operation Orchid' caused a second team of South Wales Police to interview the Claimant's wife at the family home, with the hope they could obtain a statement from her that the Claimant had a history of mental illness. This was in the hope of avoiding the criminal proceedings being put to strict proof. The Claimant's wife was threatened that her and Claimant's ten years old daughter was at serious risk of being taken into care, by the South Wales social services, if she did not cooperate. Blatant intimidation and harassment of the Claimant and his family.

23. The Claimant was never charged with the first arrest allegation, (a), and despite repeated court orders to reveal the evidence and statements by Dolmans, solicitors, they assisted their client by being a party to the February 2009 Chief Constable's sworn affidavit.

24. Despite repeated applications in Cardiff Crown Court, by the Claimant, for specific disclosure relating to the alleged ‘threat of criminal damage' to countless judges, HM Crown Prosecution Service, South Wales Police and Dolmans, the Defendant's solicitors, being the complainant, all refused.

25. Final proof of conspiracy needed just one last refused application, this time before His Honour Judge Seys Llewellyn QC, the management judge in the ongoing civil proceedings between the Claimant and Defendant.

26. Dolmans had little choice but to again refuse to disclose the evidence of their client's criminal conduct and/or gross mismanagement during the days leading up to the Claimant's 22^nd June 2009 ridiculous arrest

27. Dolmans falsified evidence assisting in the arrest of the Claimant, their client, the then Chief Constable of South Wales Police, Ms Barbara Wilding, the latter assuring them, no doubt, of their immunity to prosecution. The overall plan was to prejudice the Claimant's position in the ongoing civil proceedings now that the ‘cover up' of an expensive ten year police covert surveillance team, on the Claimant, was starting to fall apart.

28. There was no intention of arresting the Claimant on fire arms charges. The Claimant, without full MAPPA approval or understanding, had been set up to be ‘lawfully killed' by an armed South Wales Police unit under direct orders from senior police officers.

29. Events following the early 2009 decision by these high ranking police officers, to have the Claimant eliminated, eventually became unmanageable due to the unpredictable conduct of their moving target and the effect of his postings on his website.

30. Between 22^nd and 23^rd June 2009 the police filmed and removed, from his home, the Claimant's lawfully held shot guns, ammunition and court files, the latter relating to the Claimant's ongoing complaint of police bullying, harassment, malicious prosecutions and false imprisonments conducted in most un usual and extreme
manner suggesting vengeance at the tax payer's expense

31. None of the above items, guns, ammunition or court files have ever been returned to the Claimant with the police continuing to block the Claimant's right to re new his gun licences.

32. On 24^th June 2009 a police officer or officers laid information against the Claimant at Barry Magistrates court alleging that that the Claimant had been ‘in possession of a prohibited weapon', one antique 1916 Lewis machine gun and had sold the ‘gun', a year earlier, both contrary to the 1968 Fire Arms Act

33. The English police refused to ‘touch the subject with a barge pole' once they became aware that the South Wales Police had persuaded the Civil Aviation Authority to telephone ahead to the new owner, in England, to dismount the Lewis antique and alone drive it across Lincolnshire and beyond to find any licenced arms dealer where it could be, later, collected by the Defendant.

34. The Welsh police then ‘hawked' the Lewis antique nearly two thousand miles around the UK, contrary to strict Home Office Regulations, during which time the Defendant had it ‘modified' at their special police laboratory in South Wales. This Claim is yet another one of misfeasance in public office.

35. Upon reading the Claimant's June 2009 64 page Defence statement, on the Defendant's real motives behind his arrest, the Barry Magistrates court, together with legal advice, allowed the Claimant immediate and unconditional bail.

36. On 25^th June 2009 the police appealed the Court Order deliberately lying on the relevant facts, under consideration, to HHJ Hughes causing the Claimant to be further detained in custody in Cardiff prison.

37. Repeat of these lies by the Defendant occurred before a further nine more Cardiff Crown Court judges when opposing bail. False antecedent history together with this malicious false imprisonment is one of the major Claims of the Claimant.

38. The Defendant, over nearly eight months, deliberately refused the Claimant standard or specific disclosure of evidence, under their control, that would have cleared the Claimant's name before the need of a trial. Defamation is another serious Claim by the Claimant.

39. In July 2009 the Defendant brought a third indictment namely, obtaining income from the ‘proceeds of crime'. A judge, much later, caused this third indictment to be withdrawn. This event contributes to the large number of proceedings that the Claimant has won against the Defendant.

40. On 3^rd August 2009 Dr Tegwyn Williams, forensic psychiatrist and Director of Caswell Clinic, South Wales Police forensic Unit, at Bridgend, signed a psychiatric report recommending the Claimant be sectioned and further remanded in custody to his medium secure psychiatric unit, Caswell Clinic, under Section 35 of the 1983 Mental Health Act having not even examined his patient

41. Dr Teqwyn Williams had in his possession, before 3^rd August 2009, psychiatric reports from both HM Prison Cardiff and his own Caswell Clinic doctors, that the Claimant did not need any medication or treatment relevant to the 1983 Mental Health Act.

42. On 28^thAugust 2009 a series of brain scans, arranged by Dr Tegwyn Williams, indicated no relevant abnormalities in the Claimant, confirmed at the time, in writing, by at least one expert at the Princess Elizabeth Hospital, Bridgend.

43. In September 2009, after it was clear the Claimant was not going to employ a lawyer, with sworn allegiance to the South Wales courts, Dr Tegwyn Williams recommended that the Claimant be now transferred to Ashworth High Security Psychiatric Prison (IPP), Imprisonment for Public Protection with a term of imprisonment, without trail, of an inordinate length stating, without appropriate qualifications, the Claimant had ‘significant brain damage' and ‘possible cancer', neither of which had much chance of recovery.

44. Whilst this Claim could be conceived against Dr Tegwyn Williams alone, it is concluded here as a major act of harassment by the Defendant who had commissioned Dr Williams via FTAC and MAPPA.

45. The Claimant, following much needed legal advice retains the right of including Dr Tegwyn Williams as a Co-Defendant in these civil proceedings for damages.

46. On or about the 24^th October 2009 the Claimant was further remanded in custody in Cardiff Prison reliant on a further Dr Tegwyn Williams psychiatric report the Defendant knew or ought to have known was false as the National Health Service doctor was not even qualified to sign such a court document as true, to the best of his belief.

47. On the 2nd December 2009 the prosecution had convened a hearing, not tape recorded and in the absence of the Claimant, left locked up under the court, to discuss, at length, with the proposed trial judge and Dr Tegwyn Williams, the possibilities of avoiding the trial by way of a Section 41 or similar, of the 1983 Mental Health Act, that could have the Claimant locked away, without trial, for life.

48. But the Defendant had failed to obtain the second signatory from any appropriately qualified forensic psychiatrist, required by law, in either England or Wales, but not for the want of trying.

49. On the 2^nd December 2009 The Defendant failed to inform the proposed trial judge, HHJ Bidder QC, that the Claimant had caused not less than twelve psychiatric reports from a same number of psychiatrists that the Claimant was not requiring the need for either psychiatric assessment or treatment.

50. HM Court Service (Wales), as is their habit, failed to disclose to HHJ Bidder QC or the Claimant of the Claimant's privately obtained expert medical report, from outside Wales, having been served on Cardiff Crown Court the day before by an English solicitor and past MP for the Vale of Glamorgan.

51. The report seriously contradicted both those of Dr Tegwyn Williams' and the findings of Professor Roger Wood, the latter also unqualified to state an opinion that might affect permanent custody of the Claimant

52. On 7^tt December 2009 the Claimant, using other lawyers, again from well outside South Wales, caused the MAPPA coordinator, based at the Defendant's HQ, to indicate, in writing, ‘ The right arm did not know what the left arm of the law was doing'

53. On 17^th December 2009 the Defendant headed a hurriedly convened MAPPA meeting in the Caswell Clinic, Bridgend, due to yet another Claimant bail Application before HHJ Bidder QC scheduled that day in Newport Crown Court.

54. The Claimant's name for some reason, currently subject to HHJ Seys Llewellyn QC's outstanding Order for disclosure, was removed from the MAPPA register without any explanation to the Claimant causing further hardship and distress to the Claimant, in prison, still trying to establish his exact MAPPA status and why, just a before trial carrying a possible mandatory ten year prison sentence.

55. The Claimant has to this day never established why and later, why not, he was on the MAPPA register with the Defendant repeatedly refusing to disclose, contrary to law.

56. Defense evidence or ‘summing up' was never needed due the prosecution's fairy tale, a view held by at least nine members of the jury, stating to the Claimant, immediately after the trial, that their decision was already concluded by eleven of the jury after the first day of evidence and cross examination

57. On 9^th February 2010, at Cardiff Crown Court, the Claimant was found ‘not guilty' on the two remaining indictments and was released from custody with no conditions.

58. The jury also made the Claimant aware, immediately after the hearing, that they questioned why both the original seller to the Claimant, of the Lewis antique and the current owner, buying from the Claimant, were not also in the dock or behind bars.

59. The Claimant's complaints to the relevant police authorities, to investigate the conduct within South Wales Police, before and after his arrest and nearly eight months in custody, have been swept under the proverbial carpet in a perfunctory manner to which the Claimant is accustomed since first settling in South Wales.

60. The arrest and detention and prosecution of the Claimant were unlawful as the most appalling act of malice.

61. There were no reasonable grounds to believe that the Claimant was probably guilty of the offence for which he was arrested.

62. The decisions to arrest and detain the Claimant were such as no reasonable police officer would have reached.

63. The Claimant was detained for longer than was reasonably necessary and in breach of the provisions of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984

64. Further, the actions of police officers set out above constitute harassment within meaning of section 1 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 and misfeasance in public office.

65. By reason of the matters aforesaid, the Claimant has suffered loss, damage, distress, anxiety, damage to his reputation and was deprived of his liberty. He has been subjected to bullying, malicious prosecution and harassment, false imprisonment and contrary to the 1998 Human Rights Act.

Withheld NHS Medical Records

66. On or about 10^th February 2010 the Defendant arrested and detained in custody the Claimant for entering Caswell Clinic, when invited by the staff to collect his full medical records, promised by Dr Tegwyn Williams following the Claimant's applications under the Freedom of Information and Data Protection Acts. Also promises to his GP's secretary, in the presence of the Claimant, by the manager, stated they could be collected from the Caswell Clinic porter's lodge. His multi agency collusion has caused serious aggravation to the Claimant's health

67. The full medical records were not disclosed and currently remain with the South Wales National Health Service, also now refusing to hand them over.

68. The Claimant was charged with numerous allegations and jailed. Severe bail conditions were set before all charges were later dropped with the Defendant refusing to properly investigate the Claimant's complaint into the apparent falsified medical records written by both Dr Tegwyn Williams of Caswell Clinic and Professor Roger Wood of Swansea University

69. The Defendant's actions were both malicious and bullying and/or yet a further example of misfeasance in public office the Claimant has suffered under, by the Defendant, since 1992

HM Court Service (Wales).

70. In July 2010 ex South Wales Police officer, a Derrick Hassan, violently assaulted the Claimant, dependant at the time on a pair of crutches and on daily morphine sulphate and other analgesic medication. Hassan pushed the Claimant part way down a flight of stairs in Cardiff Crown Court causing the Claimant to attend casualty and treatment for a damaged ankle and increased his hip pain in a much overdue total hip replacement required, caused by the failure ofthe Defendant to investigate the Claimant's complaint, relating to falsified medical evidence. The Vale Hospital, Vale of Glamorgan, had to take this into consideration, without clarification being available, to cancel elected surgery.

71. Despite being given the name and address of an independent witness, not part of HM Court Service (Wales), the Defendant refused to have him interviewed thereby acting irresponsibly and with without due care. The conduct was malicious.

Racially Aggravated Public Order allegations

72. 69 On or about the 2^nd August 2010 the Claimant was arrested and jailed by the Defendant purely for monetary gain by a third party. The Crown Prosecution Service offered ‘no evidence' and the Claimant was found ‘not guilty' in his absence of all parties

73. Again, the Defendant refused to investigate thousands of pounds of damage caused, caught in the act by the Claimant, by these same complainants of the dismissed Public Order offences.

74. This malicious prosecution is a further act of both misfeasance in public office and harassment

Stolen Cheques incident currently under appeal at The Court of Appeal

75. On or around November 2010 the Claimant identified the thief of his stolen surgery cheques, some nine years earlier, the subject currently on appeal from Action CF101+ three others, before the Court of Appeal (Wales). The thief was giving his identity details to a named clerk in Barry Post Office. The Defendant, due to ill health and on crutches was unable to apprehend the thief.

76. Previously, the Defendant in the defenses of the earlier Action admitted to the Claimant that the Defendant had not been able to trace the thief despite being, known to the Defendant, given film footage of his cashing falsified Claimant's cheques and given his home address in Barry.

77. The Claimant informed the Defendant of the above new information but the Defendant refused to properly investigate or even speak to the clerk at the Barry Post Office or the Claimant on the new evidence.

78. In summary, the Claimant has suffered from the malicious intent of the Defendant's misfeasance in public office as well as the unprofessional behaviour of the Defendant's solicitors and of the Defendant's forensic psychiatrist. The Defendant's bullying and harassment resulted in false imprisonment, severe damage to reputation, completely unnecessary legal proceedings and thus a claim to damages, exemplary damages, special a criminal investigation and costs.

79. Unless restrained by the Court, police officers will continue to harass the Claimant.

80. The Claimant retains his right for trial by jury and for a lawyer to read and amend this Claim

Maurice J Kirk BVSc
Puits aux Papillons
St Doha
22 230 Merdrignac
Bretagne
France

26^th May 2011

Copy to Cardiff Court of Appeal
             Cardiff County Court
             His Honour Judge Seys Llewellyn QC
             The French Immigration Authorities

First Petition to Parliament on Behalf of Victims of White Collar Crime

Maurice — Sat, 05 Feb 2011 11:22:00 GMT

The following Petition has been submitted to our new MP for the Vale of Glamorgan, Alun Cairns MP, following a very lively debate at our 25th January 2011 House of Commons meeting with both Members of the House of Lords and House of Commons in attendance, a committee room, I may say, STUFFED with Victims of the banks, HM and our law courts, solicitors and NHS (see photo gallery, other blogs and PDF downloads).

To the House of Commons

The petition of Maurice J Kirk BVSc, a citizen of the UK at 52, Tynewydd Road, Barry CF62 8AZ, declares that he has tried everything in his powers as a former veterinary surgeon to stand up to the harassment of South Wales Police who have delayed his civil action against them.

The citizen has suffered from harassment by South Wales Police that culminated in 7 months imprisonment, including 3 months in a psychiatric clinic, after getting him struck off the Register of Veterinary Surgeons.

One of the incidents in a series of interconnected legal actions was the machine gun case. The allegation was the possession and sale of a ‘gun' even though it was decommissioned and an ‘add on' to an historic aircraft. In the run up to the trial, however, South Wales Police mobilised Multi-Agency Protection Arrangements (MAPPA) hoping to shoot or section the citizen for life. MAPPA categorisation was used for imprisonment which included 3 months in a psychiatric clinic. A leaked MAPPA document, published on his website www.kirkflyingvet.com, shows that the Police had a firearms response.

The harassment included the falsification of medical records claiming that he has serious brain damage, possibly brain cancer, to get him sectioned. This prevented his surgical team from carrying out a hip replacement scheduled for June 2010.

While the citizen won the machine gun case in court, he did not get any costs or compensation for malicious prosecution, false imprisonments and generally the deprivation of his human and professional rights as a veterinary surgeon.

The petitioner therefore requests that the Government steps in as Compensator of Last Resort

Dear Mr Cairns,

The 25th January meeting at the House of Commons was a resounding success with many Members from both Houses, with 'like minds', all in one room! The ever widening divide between the basic rules of justice and the conduct of the South Wales Police, our law courts, Crown Prosecution Service and now, HM Court Service, is really most serious because it is clear there is no accountability for their joint actions.,.

South Wales National Health Service and our Health Minister refuse to hand over my medical records in their current control and with CPS, police, Caswell Clinic, HM Prison, Cardiff, Dr Tegwyn Williams and Professor Roger Wood are all refusing to clarify, with my surgeons, my medical history when I was in prison custody meaning still further delay in my much needed hip operation.

When can I next see you, please, either in London or Barry? I have currently obtained asylum in France following the repeated attempts by the South Walers Police to either have me shot or jailed for life so any meeting must be before my witnesses and suitably recorded.

Yours sincerely, .

Maurice J Kirk BVSc

South Wales Judge throws out Maurice's 18 year Argument of Police Harassment and Deliberate Inaction to Investigate Crime against him and his Family

Maurice — Mon, 29 Nov 2010 23:43:00 GMT

His Honour Judge Seys Llewellyn QC's 30th November 2010 Preliminary Judgment here.

This cannot be understood without

The Claimant's Rebuttal to Strike Out Incidents
his 'schedule' of 41 motoring incidents.

Whilst in Alderney, Channel Islands, Maurice sent this fascinating and highly original letter to Cardiff County Court in which he asks the Judge to reconsider the basis for striking out one of the actions.

Hobbling along memory lane, where Maurice is hugged by old ladies whose dogs and cats he operated on, he's also applied for asylum. According to UN regulation, a refugee is a person who has fled war or OTHER VIOLENCE in their home country.

Having read the 40-page judgment, which needs a response within 7 days (!), one must talk about the adversarial system of law being a kind of legalised violence in itself, especially as “the one great principle of English Law is, to make business for itself…”

As I helped with the first document, I feel like writing

"Your Honour, or Dear Judge, (I know it's not done to write to judges at all...)

As a former computer programmer, my brain is highly trained in logic. This is to suggest that the logic applied in your 152 paragraphs of judgment is biased. Biased towards the Defendant as a "public authority". "Public policy"is used as an excuse for assuming that the Police can't do wrong."

I consider it utterly disgusting that "the Law" is used to split hairs between oodles of incidents that one individual has endured instead of looking at the experiences of the individual as a whole. Typically male and analytical, instead of balanced and holistic, despite the "abundant caution" supposedly exercised.

Here are my observations - for the Court of Public Opinion (website readers instead of a jury):

good resume of Maurice's issues in para 1
the Police's issues in para 2 read questionable to me: "public policy vs no cause of action to an individual", "no privately actionable duty of care", "not entitled to re-open". The rat I smell is about "the establishment never acting on individual cases" while, in my view, society consists of individuals, even if they are employed in organisations pertaining to HM Establishment
the next paras show his "abundant caution" to take into account that Maurice is a litigant in person
paras 4 to 13: the Yorkshire Ripper case and others are cited to defend the Police's absence of "negligence of care" or "privately actionable duty of care" as "public policy" or the "Hill principle"
paras 19 to 29 are grouped under "Duty of Care: the allegations subject to application to Strike Out"
in para 21 you believe that it is NOT the "duty of care" to investigate stolen cheques. I wonder why ex-policeman Albert Burgess writes that it is illegal not to investigate a crime... You feel that malicious intent should have been repeated. Oh dear, what a mistake made by the Claimant Maurice who puts together lots of incidents to prove malicious intent as the underlying attitude...
para 24: what twists between the 'general' and the 'specific': an individual police officer and the Police as a whole to conclude that the stealing of cheques must be struck out. I can only call this logic "interesting" and distinctly NOT taking the full picture into account.
para 26 and 27: "no privately actionable duty of care" to investigate crime. What a twist of argument, I'm sorry to say.
paras 30 to 37 cover Liability of the police as bailee of property and/or in negligence. They claim that the investigation and suppression of crime allows the Police to commit further 'damaging actions'. Nice to know. Is it "just, fair and reasonable" to expect Mr Kirk to write the best arguments in the best style whilst in pain and the side effects of morphine?
"public policy" reasons apply to ALL police forces, but could it not be "organisational policy" to harass a particular targeted individual?
paras 38 to 43 cover Claims alleged to be an abuse of process. Legal principle itself and refer to precedent cases. The most ironic quote is "the one the one great principle of English Law is, to make business for itself…..” LOTS of victims have experienced how true that is!!! Maurice calls it the public gravy train, when the public purse is concerned as when a Police Force is involved...
para 42 quotes: He claims however that bif the right arguments had been used or evidence called, it would have been decided differently.
paras 44 to 52 cover Claims alleged to be an abuse of process. Application of legal principle to the acts alleged by Mr Kirk.
para 53 to 66: Claim in Action 1 – Paragraph 8.12 4th October 1993
para 61: "It is also at the very foundation of this case that Mr Kirk has a burning
sense of injustice about past wrongs. Whether that burning sense of
injustice is based upon real or imaginary fact is of no consequence to
us. ….. Mr Kirk told us in evidence, and I suspect will always believe,
that there is always some form of conspiracy against his interests. It
was a constant theme in his questions to the police constables. He put
to them that each constable knew all about him and that they were
involved in some kind of vendetta or, perhaps cover up of police wrong
doing or, maybe inefficiency."
para 67 to 77: Claim in Action 2 paragraph 3.1- 12th May 1996 - crossing a white line - struck out.
para 78 to 82: Claim in Action 2 paragraph 9 – 1.12.1999 – driving at Llantwit Major - struck out.
para 83 to 86: Action 2 paragraph 11 – 5.4.2000 – driving in Albany Road - .
para 87 to 99; para 114: ... in respect of the other road traffic offences, Mr Kirk is entitled to invite the court to consider a claim for malicious prosecution. I am dealing with whether it would be an abuse of process to pursue them, not with whether they appear to me to be strong or merely “arguable” claims.
para 100 to 114: The video issue: Maurice is entitled to invite the court to consider a claim for malicious prosecution.
para 115 to 131: Action 3 paragraph 2 – 19.8.1998 – Vale of Glamorgan Show.
para 132 to 151: MAPPA documents
para 143 states The Defendant (Police) submits that the Executive Summary itself should not be disclosed to Mr Kirk, on the basis that (i) it is not material to his proceedings and (ii) that it should not be disclosed for reasons of public interest immunity.

'HM Partnership' overturn Maurice's £50,000 Judgment, against the HM Prison Governor, Awarded by Trial Judge

Maurice — Sat, 09 Oct 2010 07:38:00 GMT

1. In a well thought out judgment the HM District judge, Master Phillips, ruled Maurice had lost his compensation and was to pay, instead, HM £2,200 in costs but, at least, 'stayed' proceedings for three months due to the claimant's medical problems. Problems that may continue, sine die, until HM hands over his medical records for surgeon and anaesthetist.

2. The whole case had rested on HM Treasury Solicitor's barrister, today, stating no Particulars of Claim for damages, for his 2008 false imprisonment, were ever received by Cardiff prison from the HM Cardiff County Court manager, Neil Pring. Mr Pring is the very same one currently refusing Maurice the right to process his fourteen ongoing directly related court cases, at the public counter, whilst also deliberately bouncing any 'due process' via court e-mail addresses. Remember, Mr Pring, instigated by HM Attorney-General [see leaked HM internal memos], back in 2002/3, had gathered up, now under the HM Treasury Solicitor's specific orders, all of Maurice's past and present court files for Whitehall scrutiny, despite a success rate of 80% in the fifty odd cases. HM judges wanted to ban him from any civil court, either in England or Wales unless he was represented by a lawyer. A rare move purely to certify him as a Vexatious Litigant. Obtaining the services of a trustworthy lawyer had always been the heart of the problem.

3. Maurice insisted he had paid HM, on 20th April 2009, for service on both Defendants, Ms West, the then Governor of Cardiff prison, just days before their 8th June, MAPPA meeting where her probation/prison representative(s) were then sitting around the table, at their cosy Bridgend police HQ with other MAPPA key players, such as senior police and NHS doctor, Tegwyn Williams and Social Services, Elizabeth Paul, both of special South Wales Police forensic unit, Caswell Psychiatric Prison.

4. The 1st Defendant, in this, the 5th Action against police, was the Chief Constable. She had always admitted court service, on 20th April and had immediately proceeded with voluminous defence, by Dolman's solitors, both in court and directly to Maurice, now detained in HM Cardiff prison. He remained there until his 11th February 2010 acquittal for trading in 'prohibited weapons and ammunition' whilst attempting, Dolmans, solicitors, would say, by 'mutual exchange' of witness statements through their front window. Maurice was still a little upset, apparently, as to the way the Chief Constable had continued to deny, by sworn affidavit, any knowledge of some of his successful Barry magistrates cases and of her officers having broken into his surgery, all matters within some hundred or so incident numbered conflicts with the South Wales police.

5. In June 09 Maurice had applied for a Default Judgment, by letter and had the completed HM form returned from prison to the court. Maurice also raised the whole issue before His Honour Judge Seys Llewelyn QC, in July, following HM Prison having refused his presence at an earlier court and earlier, still, before HHJ N Cooke QC on a routine bail application. Both these judges would have known, of course, about Maurice's MAPPA terrorist level 3 status with HM prison monitoring all of Maurice's visitors, telephone calls and letters to and from the County Court and opening his solicitors.

6. At the 8th June MAPPA meeting HM considered it likely that Maurice would be shot when next attempting to 'exchange' witness statements. It was now his seventeenth year in this long running civil action, repeatedly being refused a Trial by Jury originally promised, originating from when Barry police, on 27th November 1992, had first refused to apprehend or even interview the named likely arsonists who had burnt out his garage at his home in Barry.

7. The garage had hangared his WW2 piper cub (not insured) and also full of his and his father's extensive collection of rare veterinary antique books and equipment (see exhibit, in 4th Action and ITV News video). Maurice was, instead, grilled at the police station by the officer in command, as if he had burnt out his cub to claim on insurance. Police harassment, originating from the 70s, in Somerset, was clearly, again, rearing its ugly head.

8. This time, Maurice was not going to just 'move out of the area', as he had always done before, this time he was going to take a stand and fight them, legally represented, through the civil courts.

9. In the 2009 MAPPA minutes, under the control of Nigel Rees, MAPPA Co-ordinator, reveal Maurice received a majority consent for 'special treatment' with Dr Tegwyn Williams allocated the task, by whatever means, to obtain Barbara Wilding's desire for a 'final solution', Maurice's Broadmoor imprisonment, of 'indeterminate length', IPP, having failed in her opportunity, when deliberately delaying Maurice's arrest for a few weeks, in having him shot.

10. Quotes from 8th Oct 2010 County Court Judgment

P 5 para 23 'The evidence of the 2nd Defendant is that they have no record of having received any correspondence from the court for the period April until October 09 in relation to the proceedings issued by Mr Kirk'.......

P5 para 26 'I accept the evidence of Mr Booty (current HM Governor) that the prison had no record of the prison having received any correspondence from the court for the relevant period. I cannot accept that if the proceedings had been served they would simply have been ignored'.

P 5 para 27 'I do not suggest it is necessary (as Mr Kirk suggests) for there to be an affidavit sworn by the previous governor. He or she will simply repeat the procedures in place in dealing and processing of incoming mail at the prison and that aspect is dealt with in detail in Mr Booty's statement'.

11. In around November 09, when Maurice received the £50,000 Judgment pushed under his prison cell door, immediately arranged, by application to HM Governor's representatives for the distribution of tobacco for all hundred odd inmates on his prison wing.

12. While Maurice cannot commence Court of Appeal proceedings, owing to the Order to 'stay' proceedings, he was just been contacted by the court, mid English Channel, too far out to jump off and swim back to Brittany, where he had gone in search of ten year old police custody videos and tapes. These included the one of police smashing their way into his daughter's car to arrest him, whilst stuck in stationary Cardiff traffic and, later, knocking him about in the cell of the police station.

13. Cardiff court told him that the anxiously awaited judgment, scheduled for Monday, 11th October, as to whether MAPPA meetings summaries will be disclosed or not, was now adjourned to possibly, Friday, 15th October.

Last minute invitation by Judge Seys Llewellyn QC results in 15 pages to Court this morning

Maurice — Mon, 04 Oct 2010 13:29:00 GMT

Friday night I received the email with the invitation to provide a "further submission" by Monday morning 10.30am. What a way to determine the agenda for a weekend in Brittany!

Well, the outcome was "angelic": the input from McKenzie Angels who contributed to these 15 pages. What difference will they make?

We can only hope that the 4 leaked pages will catapult the Defendant into constructive action rather than perpetuate "verbal diarrhea" as my son called it, when he observed what went on in the courts. He actually wrote down "Birmingham 6 case!!! Trying to use processes later found to be corrupt & improper as a basis to strike out this case, must rate as one of the most incompetent arguments I ever heard!..."

Mes voisins have invited me 'on quad and sticks a la foret, demain, to search for the elusive cepes et chanterelles fungi pour oeuf method chez Maurice... Who wants to go back to Wales when tomorrow, the Long Eared Owl, tooting from my barn or that wild boar, caught on my lawn, defecating again, will cause me to wake from my slumbers, only to wander down to the lake and catch a fat carp for lunch and supper?

Leaked Police Report on MAPPA Meetings to Kill Claimant - Contrary to Basic Human Rights!?

Maurice — Sat, 02 Oct 2010 14:34:00 GMT

Here is just the beginning and here is my shaky speech in the House of Lords meeting, just after my lucky escape, of just why I could not divulge, last year to my family and friends, my defences when charged with a mandatory ten year minimum prison sentence or an Imprisonment for Public Protection [IPP], for life, in a High Security Psychiatric Prison........ Your comments would be greatly appreciated!

In December 09, my London solicitors had written to the police HQ, to MAPPA Co-ordinator, Nigel Rees, who confirmed MAPPA categorisation. The delay in my arrest that followed, around two weeks, was deliberate with the hope I would again make a lawful approach to the Chief Constable, thus allowing police sniper fire to do the rest. There is much video of the incident that sparked all this off. All this police activity, caught on video, but the Crown Court trial judge, Paul somebody, because it was like something out of "The Keystone Cops" blocked it from the jury, following my application for disclosure. Scenes includeded, totally out ofcontrol, 'Trojan' squad of police, armed with their own machine guns, all wearing tin hats, as I attempted mutual exchange of witness statements, in the seventeen year running civil action. This was all being acted out in the inner sanctum of Police HQ, Bridgend. Quite innappropiate for a jury, the judge considered, having already refused any other police disclosure that might further reveal his small minded cabal's ultimate intention.

More Blood on the Carpet

Maurice — Wed, 29 Sep 2010 15:57:00 GMT

Back in Brittany and recovering from a scrumptuous two hour meal in the local Routier restaurant, with many friends, I open my netbook computer, on the table, to pick up my e-mails.... Replies remind me of a few days before I was arrested, last year, for 'trading in machine guns and prohibited ammunition' when I first 'went public', world wide, by video, as to how I had known, for decades, of the expensive covert police servaillance mounted on my private life, following the mysterious disappearance, in 1997, of Taunton's Chief Superintendant, Curly Hawkins'note book from his office in the police station.

That covert surveillance was to follow me to HM Guernsey and now South Wales.

Now there is about to be more 'blood on the carpet' with still further disclosure of MAPPA police records. See this post on the PR blog.

Guy writes as to whether certain police using unlicensed Taisers, recently, will suffer the same fate as I had, incarcerated in a terrifying Welsh psychiatric prison, pending a life sentence without trial?

EXTRACT FROM A FELLOW MAPPA VICTIM's ACCOUNT ON HIS HARROWING EXPERIENCE

Dafydd Morgan from Aberystwyth writes, "Exactly the same scenario is now developing at Cardiff Crown Court, where Maurice Kirk is bringing up matters and instances that South Wales Police and their Dolmans Barristers are getting extremely angry and frustrated, as they have not the first clue as to what Maurice is talking about. This, in reflection to my own case, mirrors the same scenario where the Police and IPCC have gone out of their way to bury our complaints and we have reached the point where Maurice, myself and many others throughout the International community have the paperwork and the Oppressive Authority's haven't - WHY NOT?

Andy Edwards, former provisional Chief Constable of Dyfed Powys Police has deliberately gone out of his way to target Maurice Kirk, Patrick Cullinane, myself and many others under MAPPA surveillance, based on personal revenge and deeply flawed and false Police intelligence. They are acting like four year old children falling out over their toys. There are very few bright bulbs in the Llangunnor and Bridgend boxes. . . ."

MAURICE TOOK THE PROCAUTION, MANY YEARS AGO, OF SERVING, ON DOLMANS, HIS 50 ODD LEAVER ARCHED FILES OF CONTEMPORANEOUS RECORDS FOR EACH AND EVERY POLICE INCIDENT AND SUBSEQUENT CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS, SHOULD THE POLICE EXPERIENCE, AGAIN, A SUDDEN ATTACK OF 'SELECTVE AMNESIA'.

(which is exactly why, Dolmans solicitors, drafting the 25th Feb 2009 Barbara Wilding false 'Sworn Affidavit', deny knowledge of court cases and police veterinary surgery break-ins etc causing Maurice to immediately fear for his life).

Why Maurice is in Court since 7th Sept and Tomorrow's Firework Party

SabineKMcNeill — Tue, 21 Sep 2010 14:29:00 GMT

Summary of Trial: Kirk v South Wales Police

Maurice suffered countless time consuming and expensive incidents instigated by the police, in the early 90s, until, in 2002, when police complaint achieved his name being removed from the veterinary register. Very little harassment has taken place, since that date, until the current 10 week trial date was fixed in early 2009 when 'all hell let loose'.

Maurice lays claim that his high rate of success, approximately 90%, in the criminal courts and apparent unheeded complaints, for the police to investigate properly an excessive number of crimes committed against him, his family and his veterinary practice, during that same period, are all down to police 'special treatment' reliant on 'targeted malice' and numerous 'false imprisonments' all condoned by the most senior of police officers, in his locality, the Vale of Glamorgan.

Maurice has now started the trial with substantial unequivocal evidence, before the Cardiff County Court, for appropriate damages but with the outstanding problems from the scandalous 'machine gun trial', earlier this year and years of MAPPA covert police surveillance and falsified medical evidence before ten Crown Court judges, to oppose his bail. Police failure in stopping that criminal trial means, there is now a vast quantity of 'failed disclosure' of evidence remaining under the control of the current Chief Constable.

Maurice has been deemed 'medically unfit' by his local GP and several England based doctors, accepted by the court, to proceed with the trial, to no fault of his own because 'authority' continues to refuse to 'put its hand up' over falsified medical evidence, tendered by the police and Crown Prosecution Service, at the 2nd December 09 Crown Court hearing, in their last ditch attempt to send Maurice to a High Security Psychiatric Prison, IPP, 'Imprisonment for Public Protection'. Or should it have read 'Police Protection?

But Maurice was to continue attending the 9th Day of the trial, on Wednesday, 22nd September 2010, whilst on Morphine Sulphate and numerous other medication, due to the delayed 'total hip replacement' operation, urgently needed, as he has been warned the case will continue without him.

Rough Notes from 20th September 2010 Trial on 'Law'

(from Maurice's son during his absence)

Police QC, "misfeasance in a public office is a path Mr Kirk could/should have pursued"

Strasbourg case law - osman

"deliberate failure & wilful neglect"

Birmingham 6 - you must be joking. Using one of UK's most famous micscarriages of justice as an argument to wilfully repeat it, I'm sorry is that even an argument. It was even quite extraordinary to hear the Police QC actually call the men "murderers" in court in 2010 when they were cleared 19 years earlier. He continually referred to the now discredited proceedings of 1981, in front of Lord/Judge Diploc (he of such fame in Ulster), citing how these were paragons of good process to which this judge should emulate now. I thought it was bad enough when he kept citing Lord Bingham whilst in the same breath stating how his opinion was the minority one, the one to which he was overuled/out voted by his Law Lord peers but this is in a different league..

Police QC "Our argument is Mr Kirk has no case because when 6 men were tortured into confessing to a crime they didn't commit 30 yrs ago, it was all good practice for their trial judge to disregard these claims and declare the confessions sound evidence, in the spirit of administering a coherent system of justice and protecting it from potential disrepute being the dominant imperative" [ Josef Stalin could construct a better argument than that].

So after all the nonsense of many hours monotone diatribe spread over 2 weeks the judge only had one question.

Trial Judge, "But are there no indications as to what might constitute a truly exceptional case?"

to which the Police QC responds " No Your Honour"

which begs question (or what we hope the judge is thinking)..... then why did you impose this lengthy, irrelevant onslaught of verbal diarrhoea upon us all if none of it addresses the central tenet of contention as highlighted by a single utterence form the Judge. Who pays for all that wasted time?

Not sure what all the nonsense about the US Federal Tax Commisison case was about, kinda wrong jurisdiction. Jim listened to that, I was dozing.

Caspar

Day 9 22nd September 2010

On a taxing day when no one else could come and give moral support, the QC worked his way through the incidents, considered carrying 'no cause of action' and adjourning in the afternoon for 11am Friday 24th. Maurice had no files or paper to write and appeared only armed with a pair of NHS issued crutches, somewhat reminiscent of James Fox in 'The Day of the Jackal'.

From what Maurice heard from those who did attend, on his behalf, on Monday (Jim, Caspar, Meirion and Guy) all the law being argued reflected little on a case of years of malicious prosecution, failed criminal trials, obvious inactivity over 40 odd incidents of theft, arson, burglary and assaults suffered by Maurice or that his incapacity to attend and comprehend. At least it gave him some rest.

Maurice attended with the hope MAPPA executive summaries, hurriedly written, two weeks ago by Dolmans solicitors, would be released to Judge Phillips dealing with the £50,000 judgment against the HM Prison to show MAPPA surveillance was not only clandestine, but also contrary to Articles 1, 5, 6, 8 etc of the ECHR 1948 Convention. He failed.

Maurice was only there in order to try, again, to get custody videos showing assault by police, ordered on numerous Crown Court judges, over the years since 2000! He failed.
Maurice was only there in order to apply, yet again, that the police disclose Crime reference numbers for all his police incidents in his seven Actions lodged in court against the police. He was refused.

Maurice was only there to obtain the promised judgment of Monday against the Chief Constable, for delaying the renewal of Maurice's gun license and, later, fire arms certificate, both having been denied having ever existed, by South Wales Police, when on oath before the 'machine gun' jury, earlier this year.

Maurice was only there to obtain the Crime Reference number for this Friday's coming argument on the 19th September 2001 theft of cheques from his then Veterinary Hostal, Barry, by Adam Baker and Christian Harrison, still at large, living in Barry. Despite positive identification by Mr Shaft of Cash Generators, Holton Road, Barry, caught on CTV and with both culprits with 'form', having cashed, already £1500, neither have even been interviewed, let alone arrested.

Maurice has the £20,000 reward running for their whereabouts, with terms of the deal having been used by 10 Cardiff Crown Court judges, in 2009, to ensure Maurice remains locked up.

The history of Maurice trying to obtain crime reference numbers was to identify and call, as witnesses, in rebuttal to the clear lies in certain, not all, Dolmans prepared police statements. Barry Police Station received a list of crime ref numbers in his 4th October 08 letter requesting progress report, primarily for his 4th |action. Maurice received no information leading to Judge Nicholas Chambers QC ordering Barbara Wilding to write an unequivocal sworn affidavit that Maurice had received full disclosure on the matter. She refused.

So, on Tuesday evening, Maurice visited Barry police station to lodge a statement of complaint, as he had seen both thieves in the centre of Barry. Police sergeant John refused to release a MG11 form, police statement for court, but accepted Maurice's hurried alternative, written in the foyer whilst being kept waiting for over an hour in his futile belief the crime would now be investigated!

Ah, but Dolmans were five steps ahead, not like the twenty five, back in the 90s.
Sgt John then and three more police officers, during another hour wasted for Maurice, on three different computers and four methods of preservation of evidence, failed to find any record AT ALL, of the incident the QC will be attempting to have removed on Friday, in 3.2 of 3rd Action as having 'no duty of care, 'no cause of action' with 'malice' kicked well into touch!

Maurice's hour in the police foyer was not all wasted. He was able to read MAPPA regulations and how Barbara Wilding and now, Peter Vaughan, current Chief Constable had driven a 'coach and four' through, not just the Human Rights Act but section 6 etc of the MAPPA regulations, instigated only to interfere with these civil proceedings.

Maurice's previous attempts to obtain the full disclosure of each of the 100 odd police incidents , now cited in the Seven Actions for damages, by first obtaining identification to cross reference 3rd party interests, eg CPS, Borough Council, Probation and Caswell Psychiatric Prison etc, have always been blocked, because MAPPA had caused the 'most sensitive' incidents, in Particulars of Claims for court room deliberation, having been ring fenced for only the most senior of police officers and removed from all files in normal use for the routine detection and prevention of crime, to apprehend and prosecute the villains or to preserve evidence.

Friday morning could be interesting with Dr Tegwyn Williams facing Maurice's damages claim, for falsifying medical records on the 2nd floor, while his past mistress and now, current master carry on their defence for criminal conduct, on the 4th floor.