Search results matching tags 'MAPPA' and 'police harassment',police+harassment&orTags=0Search results matching tags 'MAPPA' and 'police harassment'en-USCommunityServer 2007 SP2 (Build: 20611.960)Trial Judge Orders Release of South Wales Police Confidential MAPPA Minutes! Trouble Brewing?, 11 Jul 2011 18:46:00 GMTc7306cf9-8c9b-4f2c-8f21-f8b2637dc339:2053Maurice<p><b>[Today's cockeyed court verdict on site tonight]</b></p> <p><b>A huge police team </b>of  lawyers, today, respond by telling court and my supporters they have not even read them!</p> <p>Am I to believe I live on some other planet or just crawled out from under a stone?</p> <p>So is the judge expecting me to believe he is reading, tomorrow, before the 11am hearing continues, the original records?</p> <p>Record of seven clandestine police meetings, first to get me arrested for trading in WWI antique Lewis machine guns and, once  having me locked up in Cardiff prison, using a crooked doctor, a Dr. Tegwyn Williams of notorious Caswell Clinic, Bridgend, to fabricate reports, an excuse to stop the trial and apply to have me diverted to Ashworth high security prison, for life?</p> <p>I really thought I was now off morphine and other such mind hallucinating drugs!</p> <p>Dr Tegwyn Williams told countless Cardiff judges in 2009, I had ‘significant brain damage' and a possible brain tumour and was too dangerous to be released..</p> <p>Interesting, he with no qualifications to do so, but no Welsh judge or Dr  has ever bothered to tell me any of this, during my seven months incarceration in their Welsh hell hole, built purely to feed the 'Taffia gravy train'.</p> <p>Dream on, boys and girls. I watched most days Dr Tegwyn Williams, in partnership with an NHS (Wales) administrator, quietly syphoning off  appropriate Caswell Clinic patients to one of their very lucrative private clinics....all funded and paid for by the readers of this blog.</p> <p>South Wales Police have a new problem now.. The trial judge is, simply, buggered.</p> <p>By reading the forgeries tomorrow, he has to identify the authors of those who sat around the table in Barry police station on the 8<sup>th</sup> June 2009, planning to having me shot. See this <a href="">leaked report</a>!  E P stands for seasoned, no nonsence, Caswell Clinic social worker, Elizabeth more names of that frightening three month  experience of mine, in Caswell Clinic, will trickle out on these blogs up to trial date when reach will receive a summonses to give evidence of what evilness they witnessed under Dr Tegwyn Williams </p> <p>He also has to identify those at the remaining six meetings in Caswell Clinic, each month, all trying to thrash out another way, my now being in prison, of keeping me locked up, unconvicted, to screw up my prosecution of 10 years of extreme bullying by a police force that had clearly lost its head.</p> <p>On the 17th Dec 2009, the last purported MAPPA meeting, someone removed my name from the register altogether! Tomorrow we might find out just who?</p> <p>No one told me why I was no longer on MAPPA, just days before the farcical machine gun trial was due to start.....but 'truth will out'.</p> <p>Tomorrow, at 11am in the Cardiff Civil Justice Centre, the case continues and  I suggest you should not miss it for ‘all the tea in China'.</p> <p>The QC and solicitor, methinks, were lying today and should be arrested.</p> <p>If the police do not now arrest Dr Tegwyn Williams the learned judge has new a very huge problem.</p> <p>All welcome to witness!</p> <p>Caswell Clinic staff, Barbara Wilding and Dr Tegwyn Williams etc will be among many new faces in the trial, all made to give evidence on oath. The trial is now listed in the New Year, which year is debatable, to last, they estimate, for only nine weeks.....just where do they dream up these porky pies?</p> <p>Key prosecution witnesses, to confirm the extreme bullying by South Wales Polikce, have, after 19 years, just  been located!</p> <p>So boo to those who snear at the 'ram butting the dam' is a 'gurt' crack appearing.</p> <p>Free candy floss and ice cream at the interval while the safety curtain comes down... <br /></p>South Wales Judge throws out Maurice's 18 year Argument of Police Harassment and Deliberate Inaction to Investigate Crime against him and his Family, 29 Nov 2010 23:43:00 GMTc7306cf9-8c9b-4f2c-8f21-f8b2637dc339:1758Maurice<p><b>His Honour Judge Seys Llewellyn QC</b>'s 30th November 2010 Preliminary Judgment <a href="">here</a>. </p><p>This cannot be understood without</p><ol><li>The <a href="">Claimant's Rebuttal</a> to Strike Out Incidents<br /></li><li>his <a href="">'schedule' of 41 motoring incidents.</a></li></ol>Whilst in <a href="">Alderney</a>, Channel Islands, Maurice sent <a href="">this fascinating and highly original letter</a> to Cardiff County Court in which he asks the Judge to reconsider the basis for striking out one of the actions. <br /><br />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 <a href="">refugee</a> is a person who has fled war or OTHER VIOLENCE in their home country.  <br /><br />Having read the <a href="">40-page judgment</a>, 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 <b>“the one great principle of English Law is, to make business for itself…”<br /></b><p>As I helped with the first document, I feel like writing</p><p>"Your Honour, or Dear Judge, (I know it's not done to write to judges at all...)</p><p>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." <br /></p><p>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.    <br /></p><p>Here are my observations - for the Court of Public Opinion (website readers instead of a jury): </p><ol><li>good resume of Maurice's issues in para 1 </li><li>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</li><li>the next paras show his "abundant caution" to take into account that Maurice is a litigant in person</li><li>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"</li><li>paras 19 to 29 are grouped under <b>"Duty of Care: the allegations subject to application to Strike Out" </b><br /></li><li>in para 21 you believe that it is NOT the "duty of care" to investigate stolen cheques. I wonder why ex-policeman <a href="">Albert Burgess</a> writes that it is <u>illegal</u> 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...<br /></li><li>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. <br /></li><li>para 26 and 27: "no privately actionable duty of care" to investigate crime. What a twist of argument, I'm sorry to say.  </li><li>paras 30 to 37 cover <b>Liability of the police as bailee of property and/or in negligence</b>. 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? </li><li>"public policy" reasons apply to ALL police forces, but could it not be "organisational policy" to harass a particular targeted individual?</li><li>paras 38 to 43 cover <b>Claims alleged to be an abuse of process. Legal principle itself</b> and refer to precedent cases. The most ironic quote is <b>"the one the one great principle of English Law is, to make business for itself…..” </b>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...</li><li>para 42 quotes: <i>He claims however that bif the right arguments had been used or evidence called, it would have been decided differently.</i></li><li>paras 44 to 52 cover <b>Claims alleged to be an abuse of process. Application of legal principle to the acts alleged by Mr Kirk.</b> </li><li>para 53 to 66: <b>Claim in Action 1 – Paragraph 8.12 4th October 1993 <br /></b></li><li>para 61: <i>"It is also at the very foundation of this case that Mr Kirk has a burning<br />sense of injustice about past wrongs. <b>Whether that burning sense of<br />injustice is based upon real or imaginary fact is of no consequence to<br />us. ….. </b>Mr Kirk told us in evidence, and I suspect will always believe,<br />that there is always some form of conspiracy against his interests. It<br />was a constant theme in his questions to the police constables. He put<br />to them that each constable knew all about him and that they were<br />involved in some kind of vendetta or, perhaps cover up of police wrong<br />doing or, maybe inefficiency."</i> </li><li>para 67 to 77: <b>Claim in Action 2 paragraph 3.1- 12th May 1996 - crossing a white line - </b>struck out. <br /></li><li>para 78 to 82: <b>Claim in Action 2 paragraph 9 – 1.12.1999 – driving at Llantwit Major - </b>struck out.</li><li>para 83 to 86: <b>Action 2 paragraph 11 – 5.4.2000 – driving in Albany Road - .</b></li><li>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.</li><li>para 100 to 114: <b>The video issue</b>: Maurice is entitled to invite the court to consider a claim for malicious prosecution. <br /></li><li>para 115 to 131: <b>Action 3 paragraph 2 – 19.8.1998 – Vale of Glamorgan Show</b>.</li><li>para 132 to 151: <b>MAPPA documents</b></li><li>para 143 states <i>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. </i><br /></li></ol>