Search results matching tag 'RCVS'

New Evidence South Wales Police Fabricated My Machine Gun Trial

Maurice — Sun, 21 Aug 2011 20:37:00 GMT

In the next hour I am publishing the situation in the UK, as I see it, I hasten to add, of just how people like Norman Scarth RN Rtd with an excessive prison sentence and totally frustrated as to how the criminals in our courts are so protected by Royal Charters, the Musa family with six children stolen by Haringey Council, Vicky Haigh denied her child and many others who are all at the mercy of 'HM Partnership', based on completely outdated Royal Charters, one of which, the 1966 Veterinary Surgeons Act, has blocked my right to practice veterinary surgery for the rest of my life.

The daily deceit and intrigue, ignoring all basic principles of law, going on in our courts, by those supposedly in charge cross the country, has become quite intolerable.

Just for starters:

This following statement to an apparently deaf and dumb appendage of our current government as to where the problem lies, is a stark reminder of things to come. It will be the indigenous part of our population, next time, that will rise to arms and cause blood on our streets.

Duty Inspector,
The Metropolitan Police,
New Scotland Yard,
London SW1H 0BG

21st August 2011

Dear Sir,

Complaint against South Wales Police

I wish to submit a complaint against the South Wales Police for perverting the course of justice and their attempt to having me shot, as attempted murder, by their own armed police unit, ‘defending' the then, Chief Constable, Ms Barbara Wilding, claiming I was eligible for MAPPA level 3, terrorist status..

Do I also make a further complaint to my French police as they are already aware of the serious situation documented in my asylum application papers, shortly to be heard in the Paris court?

Further to my detailed 63 page witness statement I enclose my latest one which contains new evidence. This indicates police officers tampered with my WWI decommissioned Lewis machine gun after it was sold in order that it could discharge a live round. Hence it would appear I was in breach of the 1968 Fire Arms Act.

Evidence from refused prosecution disclosure, prior and during the 2009 Cardiff trial and that obtained by cross examination, further indicates this week's new evidence:

A significant number of police officers of high rank are implicated. There are many eye witnesses to support my statement.

I request urgent action, as my life may still be in danger.

Yours faithfully,

Maurice J Kirk BVSc

Copy to Alun Cairns MP

Puits aux Papillions
St Doha, 22230 Merdrignac , France

www.kirkflyingvet.com
maurice@kirkflyingvet.com

Telephone: UK 07907937953 Brittany 0033296258451

http://mauricejohnkirk.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/11-08-21-mg-11-mjk-witness-statement-final.pdf

Send the Musa Family back Home to Nigeria - WITH their Children!
http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/send-the-musa-family-back-home-to-nigeria-with-their.html

HM Privy Council Rules Application re Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons is both Incompetant and an Abuse of Process

Maurice — Sun, 23 Jan 2011 15:46:49 GMT

Many of the members of the veterinary profession and lawyers, across the world, also knowing all the circumstances, were confident that this extreme and unusual conduct by the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons would, eventually, have been rectified by the ‘rule of law' before Her Majesty's Privy Council, where Royal Charters are born.

Alas, the state of our United Kingdom law courts is in a far worse a state then even I or some of my fellow victims had ever imagined.

What a complete waste in worry , expenditure and of life. For Detail click Downloads, over past 10 years

218 Signatures, Maurice, Please, Needs your Help

Maurice — Sat, 18 Dec 2010 20:48:00 GMT

Our online petition is still collecting signatures and comments.

This is the letter I posted today to Buckingham Palace:

To: The Private Secretary to Her Majesty the Queen
The Rt Hon Christopher Geidt CVO OBE
London SW1A 1AA

Dear Sir Christopher

Re: Civil Abuse of Royal Privileges

Further to our previous letters, this is to update you on our online petition Stop the Oppression of the British people, which was followed by WANTED: Fair Trials and Compensation – See http://bit.ly/bMJQiC and http://bit.ly/g4Cf4Z. They are both a sad expression of very serious abuses that we are observing:

Collectively, of the “HM brand”, by what we are calling “HM Partnership”, i.e. organisations such as HM Court Services, HM Prison and the Crown Prosecution Service CPS. See http://bit.ly/dIREzv
Institutionally, by the some 1000 organisations, including the Law Society, protected from prosecution by Royal Charter. See http://bit.ly/azN1nV
Legally, by a Memorandum of Understanding between the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Law Society, not to investigate crime. See http://bit.ly/gN1LYN
In the judiciary, the abuse of “HM seal” in HM Court Services to falsify bankruptcies, home repossessions and sanction other white collar crimes.

Furthermore, the UK Human Rights Act 1998 omits a key article present in the UN and EU Convention for Human Rights: Article 13 that guarantees an effective remedy before national authorities. We thus need to conclude that Her Majesty’s subjects experience financial exploitation and legal oppression that is organised and systematic, while it is impossible to get fair trials, let alone compensation.

Both petitions have received not only a significant number of signatures, but also page views and, above all, comments that I attach, as they speak for themselves.

I also attach the report Victims of Financial Exploitation and Legal Oppression, in which we propose that the Government accepts the role of Compensator of Last Resort. Given that organisations and individuals fail to accept responsibility for damages in a system of abuse, we believe that this avenue will help rebuilding the confidence and hopes that are lost to a most unfortunate degree.

Hoping for constructive action, in the spirit of Her Majesty’s oath and the tradition of Magna Carta, I remain Her Majesty’s humble servant.

Mrs Sabine K McNeill
Organiser, Forum for Stable Currencies

Dear Mr Hurd MP

I was delighted to read in The Guardian that you took constructive action regarding Patrick Cullinane's long standing case against HM Revenue.

Today I would like to draw your attention to our online petition WANTED: Fair Trials and Compensation, as it has just reached 200 signatures. As constituency MP, you might consider reading the most enlightening comments (attached) to get a feel for voters and taxpayers' opinions.

As Minister for Charities, Social Enterprise and Volunteering, however, I would very much welcome your advice on how to progress our voluntary work of protecting innocent members of the public from "institutional harassment" and "multi-agency harassment". This is what Maurice J Kirk BVSc experienced, for whom your constituent Mr Cullinane has acted as McKenzie Friend, just as myself. I attach Mr Kirk's recent Permission to Appeal, as it is a good summary of what happened to him, since he set up practice as a veterinary surgeon in South Wales in 1992: criminal harassment, as one petition signer put it.

We contacted already the Victims Commissioner Louise Casey to discuss helping her. Recently we approached the Rowntree Foundation to fund legal fees, e.g. for our preferred lawyer Tim Lawson-Cruttenden who is a harassment specialist.

You may recall that I sent you two emails regarding your constituent's case. Thanks to Phillip Inman, it is the best publicised of many, many others for whom I have become a "web voice". I sent you not only our proposal for Watching White Collar Crime but also the report on Victims of Financial Exploitation and Legal Oppression.

Could you ensure that Compensator of Last Resort will be the ‘bailout mechanism' for institutions that don't accept responsibility, let alone liability or compensation in these horrendous cases?

Might the Christmas spirit move you to a kind of Jubilee for victims?

With many thanks for your initiative so far,

Sabine K McNeill
______________

I, Maurice, reluctantly, post a somewhat garbled but unusual draft, yet unfinished, resistance account, I am under mind enhancing drugs just now, being put together for the Court of Appeal. All is provable about the South Wales Police tried to, first, have me shot and when that failed, tried to have me locked away in a lunatic asylum, for life. All because my civil action, for years of malicious prosecutions, had beaten eighteen years of police attempts to have it burried....can I make it more simple?.

My rebuttal has to be lodged in a welsh court very, very shortly

All because I appear to have been drawn into conduct by an apparent headless similarly insular 'authority' to Guernsey, South Wales Police, the very same that had me struck off the veterinary register, for life, on 29th May 2002, now, again, before both the HM Privy Council in the Supreme Court building, Parliament Square and the Cardiff Justice Centre, after eighteen years of tortuous litigation. Covert police serveillance, the minute I set foot in the Principality of Wales, back in 1992 drags on. So why the 'D' notice, on the press on the first Englishman first, possibly, since King Charles the 2nd, when also seeking refuge in Jersey, obtaining asylum in France?

PS. Please do not forget the online petition here. 200 signatures are needed for our Prime Minister in Downing Street.

________________________________________________________________________________

Alun Cairns MP
House of Commons
London

20th December 2010

LAWFUL REBELLION

Dear Alun,

There is a move afoot, by many , to take to the streets across the UK that may cause havoc. So be warned of what may happen in South Wales, quite soon.

Unlike most of my angry friends, around the UK, I still believe democratically elected representatives of the people should sort out the appalling state of our HM judicial system, driven by avarice and that has caused a paucity in independant legal representation.

Further, the continuing unlawful conduct of the South Wales Police, with the GMC sitting on its hands, where a number of errant doctors are concerned is also, ultimately, your responsibility.

Are you prepared, please, to instigate an investigation from outside the Principality?.

I enclose part of the documents here used for my obtaining asylum in Rennes, Brittany, last week, after police in your constituency tried to have me shot and when that failed tried to have me locked away for life, without trial.
--

Maurice J Kirk BVSc
______________________________________________________________________________

IN THE CARDIFF COURT Case no. BS614159-MC85 CF101741 CF204141 7CF0734S BETWEENMAURICE JOHN KIRK
Claimantand THE CHIEF CONSTABLE OF THE SOUTH WALES CONSTABULARY
Defendant PERMISSION to APPEAL
the JUDGEMENT and DRAFT ORDER
of 30^th November, 2010, by HHJ Seys Llewellyn QC

Introduction

The Claimant seeks permission to appeal the judgment on the grounds of seven aspects:

Individual Bullying Incidents form, collectively, a Claim for “Organisational Harassment”
Organisational Harassment intensified as Civil Actions for Punitive Damages progressed
An Extreme Number of Bullying Incidents creates Unusual Classes of Cases
The Non-Investigation of Crimes is a Case of Bullying Tactics
Legal Outcomes of Individual Incidents are Irrelevant in this Collateral Attack
Complaining to and Colluding with the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons was part of Bullying
Delaying Tactics of Court Proceedings and Interfering with them was part of Multi-Agency Harassment

Furthermore, four reasons for granting the permission to appeal are given:

An Extreme Number of Incidents means Evidence of Ongoing Harassment
Including the 4^th Action means Unusual Types of Harassment
MAPPA meant Bullying Tactics for Indefinite Harassment and Political Asylum
Withholding Medical Records is the Result of Multi-Agency Collusion

The Seven Aspects for Appeal

A. Individual Bullying Incidents form, collectively, a Claim for “Organisational Harassment”

1. Just as the observation of financial market data consists of single ‘price incidents’, so they form trends, when seen together in context and over time. Similarly, the individual ‘incidents’ that the Claimant has experienced since 1992 due to the Defendant, must each be seen as ‘bullying cases’.

2. When seen together, individual bullying cases are the result of malicious intent and policy. This is not public policy, but the policy of South Wales Police as an organisation or agency. “Organisational policy” does not imply malicious intent of individual police officers who were only doing their job in the investigation and suppression of crime.

3. It appears, however, that, with respect to the Claimant, their job had become one of organisational harassment. This was spelled out in the leaked MAPPA report: see http://bit.ly/fjR8GL

“At the meeting it was reviewed that the police intend to take certain action which they anticipate will result in a remand into custody.”

B. Organisational Harassment intensified as Civil Actions for Punitive Damages progressed

4. When taking the long term view over all four legal actions that are addressed on this occasion, it becomes apparent that the Defendant has not only exercised harassment, but also intensified this treatment, as the civil actions for punitive damages were progressing.

5. Based on an initial number of nineteen bullying incidents, the 1^st action [BS6 14159] was filed by Bristol solicitors in 1996 for “damages, exemplary damages, special damages, costs and interest.”

6. On 1^st June 2002 Jonathan Watt-Pringle filed Particulars of Claims, covering some ten incidents of a 2^nd action [CF101741] for damages, aggravated and exemplary damages, interest as well as an

“Order that the Defendant shall not by himself or his servants or agents harass the Claimant, whether by stopping him without legal justification to provide breath samples or to produce documents or to attend at police stations and/or by arresting and detaining him without legal justification”.

7. On 24^th June 2002, the Claimant filed the 3^rd action [CF204141] himself, covering six incidents, claiming again damages, including exemplary and special damages, besides costs and interest.

8. On 24^th November 2007, the Claimant filed the 4^th action [7CF07345] regarding “duty of care, abuse of process, failed disclosure and human right infringements.”

9. The Particulars of Claim of the 4^th action mention

“failed disclosure by both the Defendant and the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, contrary to court orders, delay by HM Court Service to process current actions, interference by Crown Prosecution Service, HM Attorney General, Mr Justice Andrew Collins and other to hand down an Extended Civil Restraint Order or obtain a Vexatious Litigant Order.”

10. Furthermore requests for Trial by Jury, as violations of the European Convention of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and the UK 1998 Human Rights Act, are among the claims of some or all of the actions.

11. In para 59, the 4^th action refers to 41 crime reference numbers.

12. From the Claimant’s point of view, this amounts to

an abuse of process by a number of authorities
the omission of Article 13 of the EU Convention on Human Rights in the UK Human Rights Act 1998: the right to an effective remedy before national authorities.

13. Even more severely, in terms of abuse of process, the Claimant has been let down by the legal profession, HM Court Services and ten judges to progress this case for punitive damages.

14. So he has to use his website as the only way to expose wrongdoings by the Defendant, their lawyers, the Judiciary and those agencies that were included due to his MAPPA categorisation, while the administration of justice is afraid of coming into disrepute. See paras 40 and 42 in the judgment.

C. An Extreme Number of Bullying Incidents creates Unusual Types of Cases

The Claimant would not begin to claim harassment if there had only been the occasional odd incident. But it is the sheer number as well as the different kinds of classes and types of incidents that lead him to the current action.
The number of incidents has led not only to an unusual amount of legal actions but also to a high success rate of winning by the Claimant. However, in this action for punitive damages, they need to be considered, no matter what the legal outcome has been.
His Honour has identified three classes of incidents:

The first class: whether there is privately actionable duty of care.
The second class: Liability of the police as bailee of property and/or in negligence.
The third class. Claims alleged to be an abuse of process. Legal Principle itself.

The Claimant wants to add a fourth class: claims that are due for compensation and damages after convictions have been pronounced. With the exception of the stolen cheques, this covers the five incidents to be struck out.
In addition, the Claimant suggests to consider the following classes of incidents:

incidents belonging to more than one class
incidents creating reasons for prosecutions by the way the Defendant treated the Claimant
the non-recovery of stolen goods (e.g. the stolen cheques)
the non-investigation of crimes
the intensification of organisational harassment
the involvement of other agencies (MAPPA)
the delaying tactics of court processes and their interference
the malicious intention of psychiatric incarceration for life (IPP)
the ‘licence to kill’, as a leaked report about MAPPA involvement revealed:

“South Wales Police have a firearms response which could mean that the MAPPA subject would be shot.” See page 1 of http://bit.ly/fjR8GL

D. The Non-Investigation of Crimes is a Case of Bullying Tactics

The Claimant asks for permission to appeal the strike-out of those incidents that classify as the non-investigation of crime, as they add to the strain and pain experienced due to the Defendant’s behaviour.
In the overall context of the Claimant’s experience, this group is a totally different kind of harassment. The added frustration must be seen as compounding the mental, nervous, emotional and financial strain, pain and stress brought on by the Defendant since 1992.
In fact, a careful review of all incidents with appropriate classification is required to assess the damages in financial terms.

E. Legal Outcomes of Individual Incidents are Irrelevant in this Collateral Attack

The aspect of collateral attack needs to be clarified, as the individual incidents, when gathered together, do form new kinds of claim, independent of any prior legal outcomes and their court context.

“in a number of cases his claim amounts to a collateral attack on criminal convictions and court findings which the Defendant contends he is not entitled to re-open.” [Para 2]

The Claimant expresses the right to sue for damages for each and all of the incidents, in line with the Order of the 2^nd action:

F. Complaining to and Colluding with the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons was part of Bullying

The aspect of collusion with the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons needs to be clarified since the request for being struck off was originated by a complaint by South Wales Police. The complaint developed into fully fledged collusion between the two organisations.

G. Delaying Tactics of Court Proceedings and Interfering with them was part of Multi-Organisational Harassment

There is a body of evidence relating to court proceedings and their interference by the Defendant or their “partners in collusion” that is waiting to be taken into account for the purpose of quantifying damages.
This aspect, especially of the 4^th action, requires particularly careful examination, in principle by an independent body, to establish the different kinds of additional damages incurred.

Four Reasons for Granting the Permission to Appeal

A. An Extreme Number of Incidents means Evidence of Ongoing Harassment

The seven aspects above have different grounds for appeal. While His Honour has identified three classes of incidents, the Claimant contends that a “helicopter” and long term view entirely change the aspect of the case.
The helicopter view allows for grouping incidents into different classes. The long term view allows for questioning the human rights to life, quality of life and level of health that the Claimant has experienced as a consequence of the actions of the Defendant.
Just as a helicopter and long term view entirely change the aspect of the case, so do the frameworks of “organisational harassment” and “multi-agency harassment” provide new contexts that do not allow for any of the incidents to be struck out, but rely on them as substantive evidence.
As a matter of interpretation, individual incidents are either legal allegations, each in their own right or they are but samples of evidence in a chain of events that, together, form the basis for the current claim.

The Six Incidents Struck out in the Draft OrderPara 3 of Action CF204141

The failure to investigate the crime of stolen cheques, even with a recent sighting, by the Claimant, of the thief and his whereabouts, does not deserve to be struck out as the crime continues to be ignored and therefore unresolved [Paras 19-21] and the stolen goods have not been recovered. The incident adds to the financial strain imposed by the Defendant on the Claimant over the years, thus contributing to organisational harassment.

Para 8.12 of Action BS614159-MC65

Similarly, the Barry roundabout incident [paras 53 and 61] adds to the overall intent of malice. On a Court day, the Claimant’s receptionist overheard one of the Defendant’s employees saying “We will get that *** Kirk.”

Para 3 of Action CF101741

In the incident of crossing the single white line, due to a rally of cyclists [paras 67 and 71], the Claimant had wrongly pleaded guilty to a conviction, that carried no penalty and that could not be appealed against. Instead, it was used to have the Claimant struck off the Register of Veterinary Surgeons. Other, more serious allegations, were dismissed following cross examination.
Taking the long-term point of view, regarding the full suite of bullying incidents, this one must not be struck out in a civil claim for damages for unrelated charges, arising from the same incident, that lead to the expensive but successful defence on more serious malicious prosecutions.

Para 9 of Action 101741

In the Llantwit Major by pass incident, today’s trial judge has already refused to recuse himself when he dismissed the Crown Court appeal (refused road side breath test) by not accepting the Claimant’s GP’s medical evidence, in his absence, indicating he was recovering from an operation. Consultant’s information was also not accepted by the Defendant as would be expected in a bullying case. The Defendant lied at the RCVS hearing, altering substantial matters of fact. The Defendant tendered a far lesser charge, part heard, that of ‘obstruction’ but discarded by the Claimant.

Para 11 in Action 101741

Regarding the Newport Road incident: a guilty plea due to the fear of the Claimant’s life could only be appealed against, once the overhead road and custody videos disclosure, the latter still undisclosed. This cannot be a reason for preventing civil redress, especially as the Defendant continues to fail to identify countless police officers in the hundred or so incidents. In this particular one, the Defendant produced only custody video with the tape obliterated from above waist level, preventing the Claimant obtaining collar numbers or face detection of those who assaulted him in both Rumney and Roath police stations, Cardiff.
The video issue, para 100 onwards: the Claimant did not get the overhead video in time to put as argument to change his guilty plea. Interestingly, differently composed magistrates and clerk of the court refused to change the plea, as unequivocal, despite no evidence tendered by the Crown! Custody record is still undisclosed and part mutilated BECAUSE the Claimant was severely manhandled in both police stations. This incident is thus an essential link in the chain of bullying incidents.
The Defendant never gave evidence due to the guilty plea, obtained under duress and at the RCVS, years later, lied as to the facts (see transcript). For the trial judge not to allow this matter to go, to the strict proof thereof, is unfair, as, again, four other, some more serious allegations, were later withdrawn in court despite all carrying guilty pleas!

Para 2 in Action CF204141

Regarding the Cowbridge Show: nefarious conduct displayed by Crown Prosecutors, on oath, their failure to disclose or properly inform the Claimant he need only be ‘bound over to keep the peace’, a ‘conviction’ expunged from his record after twelve months and so not affecting the RCVS, was the only reason for his arrest and detention overnight.
It cannot be discarded for substituted statutory charges of an earlier incident in the day, NOT PART OF THE REASON FOR HIS ARREST and that were only were drafted months later. The Crown Prosecutor, for the appeal admitted in writing, to the RCVS, the first blow was given by a retired police inspector who struck the Claimant severely across the face, only for the Claimant to be knocked to the ground, from behind, by a heavier than him security guard who, in turn, many months later, claimed financial compensation.
A different Crown Prosecutor of a different court, therefore, pressed for a conviction on the Claimant for common assault! Again, an important link in the chain of bullying incidents called organisational harassment. This includes the falsification of the original police documents, four versions, no less, of the common law offence of ‘breach of the peace’ went before both crown prosecutors and clerks but withheld from both the magistrates and the Claimant.
The original prosecutor, Jackie Seal, much later, when facing examination by the Claimant in his Cardiff Crown Court application for Abuse of Process, refused to answer questions as she said “it may incriminate myself”. The Defendant was well aware of the falsified and altered court records as the arresting officer wrote them long hand and the fifth copy was even altered after his conviction.
The Barry case was mysteriously adjourned in a matter of a few seconds from opening, for no given reason, only for it, months later in Bridgend, with new unrelated statutory offences only to be withdrawn, unbeknown to the Claimant, following the persuasion of the court clerk, over the lunch hour, that should the Claimant defend it, he faced a mandatory prison sentence.
The three new statutory offences were then handed to the Claimant by the court clerk, the Claimant being denied time to understand or call witnesses and heard immediately. This racially motivated example of malice, false imprisonment and organisational harassment, against a member of the public, just trying to defend himself, should be allowed Remedy in a British court of law.
As with the 4th, 5th and 6th Actions, all these above six incidents are 'fact sensitive' and should proceed to trial.
The transcripts, court and CPS contemporaneous files, covering all eight separate court hearings, proved before the then Recorder of Cardiff, HHJ Roderick Evans QC, that many were falsified documents and are exhibits in the case. Political expediency should not prejudice this application.

B. Including the 4th Action means Unusual Types of Harassment

The 4^th action is more than a sample of evidence as it tries to respond to the intensified development of organisational harassment into multi-agency harassment.
In particular, the 4^th action highlights how failed disclosure is part of the malicious intent, resulting in severe contraventions of the Claimant’s human rights.
But as a sample of evidence, it is essential for finding facts for the basis of harassment, organisational harassment and multi-agency harassment. According to the malicious intent of the Defendant, the actions should have ended with either a corpse or imprisonment for life.
In the same pace as the types of harassment by the Defendant intensified, the civil actions in Court by the Claimant to cover more and more complex and unusual issues, over a time that seems to be indefinite, unless it is ended by the Claimant's death.
Hence it is of paramount importance to adopt a holistic view and consider the cumulative effect of spiralling harassment, by taking into account the change of intensity and severity of claims that were formulated since the 1st action.

C. MAPPA meant Bullying Tactics for Indefinite Harassment and Political Asylum

It was the combination of the ‘licence to kill’ of the leaked MAPPA document and the Warrant for Arrest issued on 2^nd November 2010 that led the Claimant to go through the process of asylum applications in Alderney and France, instead of being near his families in the month before Christmas.
The MAPPA issue comprises the following aspects:

· Arbitrary date setting for both start and finish

· Arbitrary categorisation of the Claimant who never was an Offender in the first place

· Non-compliance with supplying the rightful information to the Claimant

· Hugely trumped up charges since the sale of the machine gun had been made public on the Claimant’s website

· Huge emotional over-reactions resulted in ‘over the top’ actions by the Defendant, such as an armed helicopter police raid

· The collusion between various agencies resulted in the delay of court proceedings as well as their interference

· The collusion also resulted in non-acceptance of individual responsibility, let alone liability for any compensation, a dangerous trend in legislation, of late, in recent governments.

D. Withholding Medical Records is the Result of Multi-Agency Collusion

The current action has already been severely affected by the worsening health condition of the Claimant.
However, instigated by the Defendant, MAPPA became the basis for a sequence of events that can only be described as one of malice and malicious intent by all players involved:

· Dr Tegwyn Williams, Director of Caswell Clinic claiming the Claimant had ‘significant brain damage’ but not releasing the evidence recommending to the court the Claimant be incarcerated in Broadmoor.

· HM Prison Cardiff, under whose care the Claimant was, failed to disclose, contrary to court order, the audit trail of HM Court Service and prisoner correspondence proving good service of a £50,000 claim for another false imprisonment.

· Dr. Sissling, the CEO of the NHS who does not respond to requests

· The Crown Prosecution who has records but does not release them

· The Defendant who has them, too, but does not release them.

The visible ageing and medical deterioration of the Claimant during this intensification of harassment strategies and tactics, that extended into his professional income as well as the progression of his civil actions, should encourage anybody reading this document also to adopt a helicopter and long-term view, in those legal terms that relate to life, quality of life, fundamental freedoms and human rights.

“It is dangerous to be right in matters where established men are wrong”. -- Voltaire (1694 –1778) Date: 20^th December, 2010

Written by Sabine K McNeill

McKenzie Friend and Web Publisher

www.victims-unite.net – www.mauricejohnkirk.wordpress.com

On behalf of

Maurice J Kirk BVSc [On morphine sulphate since 23rd August 2010]
Puits aux Papillons
St Doha

22230 Merdrignac

Brittany

France

maurice@kirkflyingvet.com - www.kirkflyingvet.com

Fear of being Shot

Maurice — Fri, 10 Dec 2010 14:19:00 GMT

Maurice thinks of his old mate, of RAFVR Bristol Air Squadron days who invited him to display his replica DH 2 WW1 fighter biplane, test pilot of 002 Concorde, Brian Trubshaw., at the 2000 Farnborough airshow sporting a WW1 Lewis machine gun! Maurice will sleep much better tonight now he has declared the compelling evidence to the French Authorities.

HM Privy Council to hear Application for Maurice to be Restored to the Veterinary Register

Maurice — Wed, 08 Dec 2010 19:50:00 GMT

A flurry of activity in the courts these past seven days.

First, the South Wales Police are ordered to release their version of MAPPA 'executive summary' of their attempts to have Maurice sectioned to HM Broadmoor psychiatric prison IPP (Imprisonment for Public Protection).

Today, Barry Magistrates dismissed in 90 seconds, timed by a well wisher, a charge carrying a 6 month prison sentence on 'racially aggravated public order'. The CPS are saying Maurice's outstanding Cardiff magistrates conviction and warrant for arrest may be reviewed and put back in court.

Meanwhile, the French Authorities in Paris have arranged asylum proceedings to progress further with interrogation, finger prints and medical etc, this week. .

But far more important than that lot put together, now an e-mail from the Supreme Court building, Parliament Square, London, stating Maurice's application, refused by the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons over six years, to allow him a 'right of audience' to apply to practice, is to be deliberated upon by Their Lordships very shortly.

One outstanding problem......Maurice is, again, being denied 'right of audience' at the Judicial Committee hearing, contrary to Article 6 of either 1998 Human Rights Act or the real MCoy, the 10th December 1948 European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

Just one more warning to the 'thinking section' of our sleepy community as to the 'end game' being played out by the lawyers in our government, of what ever colour or creed..

It is almost laughable: in 1991, Maurice left Guernsey, a sinister tax haven flying an HM UK flag, in a boot of his car, to an awaiting rigid inflatable, with a two year tap on his telephone by insular minded police, with warrant for his arrest.

He returns this week, but no arrest for fear of publicity of MAPPA and South Wales Police harassment to have him shot, while NHS falsifying his medical records, with the hope Maurice is locked away for life, IPP [Imprisonment for Public Protection].

Complete D notice on all national and local newspapers in the UK is a clear warning to you all of what is to come.

Today's letter to NHS, lest they forget, by McKenzie Friend Sabine:

Dear Ms Bloomfield,

Many thanks indeed for your email and attempt to deliver documents to Mr Kirk. Let me assure you that there is no need to do so, for the following reasons:

1. The patient, and his surgical team, primarily need the information given in the 2nd Dec 09 Cardiff Crown Court hearing, before HHJ Bidder QC, by Dr Tegwyn Williams and Professor Roger Wood, as they are supposed to have referred to "serious brain damage" and "possibly brain cancer". Please note that the transcript of that hearing (also attached), during which HHJ Bidder allows Mr Kirk to see the reports, starts only at 11.39.

2. Written applications by the patient, his MP and his friends, to each doctor, the South Wales NHS and everyone imaginable, have proven fruitless, partly blocked by your solicitor, I now understand.

3. The Health Minister of the Welsh Assembly does not want to intervene despite new MAPPA evidence.

4. Previous medical records, released by NHS, Caswell Clinic and HM Prison Cardiff, have all omitted what was mentioned during the 2nd December 09 Court hearing in absence of the patient, as he was detained and unrepresented down below.

5. HM Court Service refuses to disclose both the relevant court transcript and the court log of the proceedings, despite the patient's application before The Recorder of Cardiff, HHJ Cooke QC.

6. HM Court Service has refused to put the matter to either the trial judge, HHJ Peter Thomas QC or HHJ Judge Bidder QC to sort this matter out.

7. The GP has been refused a NHS brain scan for the patient and now morphine sulphate is being prescribed for daily use, due to the most unusual and extreme circumstances of the court case.

8. If, as Dr Williams told the judge, the patient may have a brain tumour, why was nothing done about it during his forced incarceration in Cardiff prison until his release on the 9th February 2010?

9. If, as Professor Wood wrote, there was damage to make the patient unsafe to be released back into society, why was he set free without a penny compensation or indication of any medical care being required?

10. The recent release of a MAPPA Executive Summary confirms monthly meetings, throughout the patient's long imprisonment on remand, unconvicted. The meetings took place in the South Wales Police forensic psychiatric prison while the patient was incarcerated there under section 35 of the 1983 Mental Health Act, obtained by the Director of that establishment, a Dr Tegwyn Williams, without having even examined Maurice Kirk!

I therefore repeat the request for the information as formulated in point 1, which can easily be sent by email to either maurice@kirkflyingvet.com or g-kurk@hotmail.co.uk

Re-Kindling the Fire to get Restored as Practising Veterinary Surgeon

SabineKMcNeill — Mon, 08 Nov 2010 09:46:00 GMT

Thirty-five paragraphs on 21 pages in January 2004 were the pro's and con's of whether Maurice

is fit or unfit to practise as a veterinary surgeon
can be considered to practise as a member of the profession
"continued conflict with authority must inevitably affect not only yourself, but also your profession by bringing it into disrepute".

What Maurice is up against in his repeated attempts to get re-instated as a vet are various levels or 'firewalls' of institutional behaviour:

the Royal Charter that was granted in 1967 - the ticket to immunity from prosecution for any wrong-doing
the collusion between lawyers who make money between each other by operating an adversarial system rather than seeking justice on behalf of a client
rules and regulations that are being ignored rather than adhered to, e.g. note this annex to his appeal and the Privy Council decision 'not to have jurisdiction'
general attitudes and assumptions such as Suzon Forscey-Moore RIP has pointed out:

those in power can do no wrong
white collar crime, with very rare exceptions, goes untried and unpunished in English law
money decides legal matters.

Ironically, it was Mervyn King, the Governor of the Bank of England who attacked the commercial legal system: the adversarial system for settling civil legal disputes was in reality ‘a profitable monopoly of lawyers’ and called for the Government to take steps to reform the law.

This quote was among the documents from Suzon Forscey-Moore. Here's what Charles Wehner wrote about her:

Normal 0 false false false EN-GB X-NONE X-NONE MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0cm; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;}

All who love freedom must shed a precious tear.

We have lost Suzon Forscey-Moore, a glorious fighter for justice.

She had a masters degree in law, but was not a lawyer. She campaigned for HONEST LAW.

She is gone.

The world is darker now.

RIP

Charles Douglas Wehner

South Wales Police caught on Overhead Camera (Part 2) Failed South Wales Police Disclosure of Unadulterated Custody Videos

Maurice — Wed, 03 Nov 2010 09:46:16 GMT

This is the cross examination of PC Osborne at the RCVS enquiry in 2002, two years after the 'high speed' chase' through Cardiff.

This document accompanies the police video currently on the home page. Please note:

a) page D3/49: ….Mr Kirk drove off.

c)….stopped at lights …...

d) ……police baton …smashed …(Mr Kirk’s)……window…

e) page D3/48:…..I followed ……blue lights on the police vehicle

f) ….However Mr Kirk did not stop….

g) ….Mr Kirk…… stopped at the lights…….PC Price got out …… and walked to Mr Kirk’s…… door and knocked on the window.

... as the illustration of criminality and harassment of South Wales Police in action.

Please note the falsification and/or redaction of custody videos with disclosure still not achieved of custody video when Maurice was beaten up in Roath police station, Cardiff.

Please also note the conduct of the retired judge, Sir John Wood, believed to be 'not fit for purpose', due to evident ill health throughout the months of proceeding to get Maurice struck off the veterinary register.

This extract of further falsified police evidence, re-written in October, after April 2000 note book record, now used at RCVS January 2001 hearing, following Inspector Collins, of Barry police station, lodging complaint to have Maurice's name removed from the veterinary register for 'failing to give a roadside breath test' that led to a zero, zero definitive test at Rumney police station. Police then called a doctor for drug abuse examination, but refused, clearly satisfied the police had their own unlawful agenda.This month the trial judge, in civil action, asks to see video(s)....ruling as to whether this incident is relevant to 'police oppression' next week

18 Exhibits to Confirm Malfeasance concerning the 2 dogs on the beach incident

SabineKMcNeill — Sat, 25 Sep 2010 21:05:00 GMT

I will now introduce random samples of proof by a few Exhibits to confirm malfeasance or as Mr Justice Andrew Collins would say, in the HM Attorney General's 2003 ‘internal memo' [Exhibit 17] leaked to me, given to you when we met in the House... "(Tab 28) leads me to suspect that (Kirk) is vexatious in litigation in all possible arenas".

Would you like to see some of the other Tabs of Collins J, Mr Smith? Not all in the judiciary, you would see, approve of what is going on.

Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons

The charges against me in 2002 were A, relating to two dogs purported to have fallen over a cliff in Cod Knap, Barry and B, my criminal convictions, which ones and when decided, is still yet to be disclosed by the RCVS.

Charge A.

The police could not raise any other veterinary surgeon that 7th^th January 2001 Sunday morning, so they had to call me, whether they liked it or not, just home from an arduous task of putting a womb back in an old cow, trapped in a freezing wind swept dung pit on Llandough airfield. As I lay in a hot bath, having just washed out the dried blood and excrement from my matted hair and off my torso, I was handed a pheasant sandwich, I think it was, and the portable telephone by my wife, Kirstie, to answer a police call and to obtain directions for the emergency.

From the time I received the call at St Donats village to my getting to Barry beach, dressing and drying my hair on the way, with the time being logged by police HQ, it would have taken some pretty clever explaining in a magistrates court, later, to avoid a conviction had it not been apparently overlooked and by a police force so concerned, at the time, with my day by day welfare.

At the scene I found one dog collapsed and moribund, freezing cold and in my opinion, near to death due to hypothermia. From the dog's mouth oozed pus and blood from a neglected infected tumour, almost the size of a cricket ball, making the poor creature unable even to close her mouth.

A few questions to the small gathering of worried members of the general public, at the foot of the cliff, blood and saliva splattered about on the rocks, soon established the fact that this dog had been found well over two hours before. Clearly the reason for the delay in local emergencies was staring me in the face yet again.

Another example of criminal negligence by the local veterinary surgeon and/or his owner. The dog had not fallen over any cliff and what I saw, disgusted me sufficiently to comment. But my client, the South Wales Police, has preferred, ever since, to not even investigate the matter, despite their ardour in complaining to the RCVS about me, locate witnesses for them and attend the London courts by the ‘van load'.

Speed was of the essence, if this dog was to be saved. I had to carry the heavy dog on my own and struggle, with my arthritis caused from numerous hang glider accidents not helping, along that boulder strewn beach, you know, with no one even offering to carry my emergency equipment put down part way on the journey.

One quite useless police woman was whimpering in the cold wind crying into a handkerchief, while the other, I now realise, was more intent on writing down in his note book, contemporaneous notes, including my apparent passing comment of the local RSPCA branch, the iniquitous ‘Cardiff Animal Shelter', having put their ‘penny worth' in, as well, to cause such unnecessary suffering that day.

The RSPCA appeared to have been trying to contact their own, once employed, veterinary surgeon not but a ‘stone's throw from the incident, despite the RSPCA having previously experienced Andrew Thomas relied purely on an indecipherable taped message at weekends for his emergency answering service.

This example, on 24 Hour cover for clients, was just the basis of Felicity Norton's original decision {Exhibit 4] to make a television documentary, she having been unable to contact her own veterinary surgeon on Sunday, as her cat lay dying and having had to rely on a stranger, myself without access to medical records and in such emotional and stressful circumstances.

The Cardiff and District Veterinary Practioners' Association had been lobbying the RCVS and RSPCA Horsham head office for years on the behaviour of this veterinary surgeon and his apparent irregular relationship with the Cardiff Animal Shelter. Their policy for stray animals was supported by this veterinary surgeon to cause such unnecessary suffering until, thank God, the organisation was forced to close down.

Also in the politics, behind this complaint by the police to have me struck off, was that I had recently discovered £10,000 of rate payers money was being ‘donated' each year by Barry police station to the Cardiff Animal Shelter for no apparent reason. When tackled on it, I received a letter from Barry police station actually denying it, when it clearly featured in the audited accounts!

This concern of mine of the South Wales Police was aroused only because of their daily harassment when going about my veterinary business in The Vale. Information was given, unsolicited, by grateful clients employed within the local police force. Some admitted to be freemasons, but informed me of other substantial sums of money having been bequeathed to the Cardiff Animal Shelter, but appearing to go ‘sideways' the Chairman boasting to the Cardiff Veterinary Practioners' Association of having immunity to investigation by RSPCA head office [or South Wales Police?] as the Shelter only used the RSPCA name to acquire cash from the ‘uninformed' general public and were quite ‘independent' of Horsham. Déjà vu, Mr Smith?

At the RCVS trial, a year later, I was refused L A Collins, the Barry Police Inspector, who had compiled the complaint, in less than a week, for the college but on cross examination of two police on the beach, one, a PC Mark John, said, apart from the rest of his voluminous erroneous material, notes taken at the scene,

"We then witnessed KIRK virtually throw the dog in the boot of his car without any care of compassion, he then quickly walked up to Mrs WILLIAMS, took the other dog out of her hands and also put that dog in the boot, and slammed the boot".

The other police officer, WPC Ceri Western offered a similarly inaccurate but different tale making me wonder just how many have been hanged or just jailed in Wales on police evidence alone?

Her statement, eight months later, specifically written for the RCVS, was quite different to her contemporaneous record and cross examination evidence and included,

"However, Mr Kirk took no notice of me; he did not even look at me."

"I remember him saying forcefully that if he had been called earlier, he could have done a lot more and he also referred to taxpayers' money being wasted."

"I recall PC John telling them (at the scene) that Mr Kirk's manner was nothing personal towards them but probably caused by Mr Kirk's hatred of the police."

"As he went he stumbled on the pebbles. I was afraid he was going to drop the dog."

"It was, however, quite hard to keep up with him."

"I saw Mr Kirk, when he got to his car, opened the front passenger door and threw the injured dog onto the front passenger seat."

"After Mr Kirk had thrown the injured dog into the car he was approached by a woman who was holding another (smaller) dog. I saw him take the smaller dog from the woman and throw it also onto the front passenger seat, onto the injured dog."

"After Mr Kirk had succeeded in closing the boot of the car, he got into the driver's seat, started up the engine and reversed with sufficient speed that I and the other public had to jump out of the way."

A passing Cardiff Magistrate and her retired Head Teacher sister, also Ms Williams, gave a completely different account to that of either police officer. They, I now know, were deliberately dissuaded from the RCVS trial by the prosecution. The RCVS, instead, falsified the ladies' evidence using typed witness statements, purported to be theirs, prepared by Penningtons, Solicitors, deliberately withholding the forgeries until just before trial, far too late for me to trace and interview them. All relevant prosecution evidence gathered, false or otherwise, should have been surrendered 21 days before trial.

The Magistrate and sister on the Barry beach had written a ‘contemporaneous note', I found out, again far too late, long after I was struck off and only obtained from the RCVS by instigating the 1966 Data Protection Act Application in the Spring of 2003. The RCVS had already ignored, the January 2003 Privy Council's Order or ‘undertakings' to disclose witness evidence.

The contemporaneous note, similar to Exhibit 2 [4th January 2005 Williams letter to RCVS], was stating similar to her letter, "there was no doubt in my mind that Mr Kirk's concern for the well being of the dog was evident and paramount" but this, in italics, was deliberately omitted from their statements given to me by the RCVS during the 2002 trial.

[Alison Foster QC had considered with Penningtons and the in house college lawyers whether to remove this part of the ladies two statements and risk attempting to obtain the ladies' confidence by having them sign the typed up forgeries. Hudson was left to palm them off as copies of original statements approved by both ladies..

The Williams' confirmed I lay the dog carefully on the seat, neither dog put in the boot. They confirmed on how I was pretty ‘short' with them when they delayed me by asking if I could write down their names and addresses, they being involved with the 2^nd stray(not injured) dog. They confirmed I suggested they give details to the police as I had more urgent matters to attend to!

From the beach I left speedily with the dogs, one receiving immediate intravenous and heat therapy with further medication from the nurses later at my veterinary hospital, just one hospital of only four registered in the whole of Wales, opened by your good predecessor.

What I also did not know in 2002 was that there was little left of the prosecution material that was originally before the Preliminary Investigation Committee to have caused the ordering of this disciplinary hearing in the first place.

A Felicity Norton, freelance for ITV, had gathered a small ‘Armada' of complainants, [Exhibit 3] some relating to me, hoping to do a documentary on '24 hour emergency cover' with the outcome of my trial. The college continues to refuse to elucidate just what happened to these witnesses, the other veterinary surgeons complained of or documented evidence and film footage gathered by the RCVS case workers, including Nicola Tucker, Miss P Butler and many others, originally for the June 2001 Preliminary Investigation Committee. They knew just where safe evidence is usually found, hence the importance of production of contemporaneous notes taken, when first confronting a potential witness.

I should have ‘smelled a rat' or more, for that matter, before I was confronted by that room full of prosecution lawyers and a QC prancing around in Captain Drake's britches, all gathered just for a simple disciplinary proceedings estimated for two, maybe three days.

In the ‘good old days' a lovely, greatly respected solicitor for the college did the lot, well, almost all on his own, a Mr James Watt of Hempsons, Solicitors. But ‘money no object' is the RCVS motto, nowadays, now it is overrun by lawyers determined to rig a lucrative conviction.

Not unlike my experiences, Mr Smith, with the Cardiff HM Crown Prosecution Service, they losing some five Crown Court battles and countless Magistrate hearings, driven by avarice or as Mr Justice Andrew Collins would say in the 2003 HM Attorney General's internal memo, "totally without merit".

I am still attempting an Extended Civil Restraint Order High Court Application on the Cardiff CPS to be certified as a ‘vexatious litigant' but still cannot, for some reason, find a lawyer willing to assist. Eighty odd solicitors, ‘specialising' in police harassment cases have already refused to sue the South Wales Police, on my behalf, so finding one to take on ‘HM' is likely to be somewhat remote.

In 2001 the RCVS's main, remaining, prosecution witness, Ms Felicity Norton, other than the South Wales Police, was now refusing to stand cross examination on the allegation I had broken ‘client confidentiality', ‘legal professional privilege' in another name!

The RCVS therefore proceeded to ‘beef up' all they had left and so served on me, even after proceedings had started, the two forged statements, purportedly by the Ms Williams, deliberately omitting the evidence, "there was no doubt in my mind that Mr Kirk's concern for the well being of the dog was evident and paramount" or disclosing the ladies' hand written record or even the contemporaneous notes later, we were told, ‘all interviewed by a partner of Penningtons, Geoffrey Hudson'. Just more ‘porky pies' due to ‘HM' immunity, while neither that despicable Law Society and equally avaricious and devious organisation, The Bar Council, have refused to lift a finger to properly investigate such widespread criminal conduct reliant upon ‘HM Memorandum of Understanding' between themselves and the police.

At the Nov 2006 hearing, my 3^rd Reinstatement Application, the RCVS pleaded, for the first time, ‘legal professional privilege' to hide the favourable evidence. The new RCVS barrister, a Miss Fenella Morris, as did her predecessor, also of 39 Essex Street, also waxed eloquent to maintain that level of voracity we have come to expect, in her line of work, especially if she was to keep her RCVS and Penningtons' lucrative retainers.

During that hearing, my McKenzie Friend, Patrick Cullinane Esq. and I finally established how Penningtons had managed to block my ‘character witnesses', yet again, from attending court.

I had told the RCVS court, that November, an ‘in house' lawyer at the Royal Courts of Justice, Administrative Court, could arrange for Mr Justice Andrew Collins, the manager, to lift his Extended Civil Restraint Order, originally obtained by the college on 27th January 2006 to stop ‘disclosure' applications for evidence needed for any reinstatement application, like right now. The ECRO needed lifting so that Cardiff County Court could issue the necessary witness summonses in order for me to obtain ‘relevant character witnesses' with their attendance.

BUT Penningtons had telephoned His Honour Judge Higginbottom, without my knowing and persuaded the judge to block the essential witness summonses being issued knowing Mr Brian Jennings would do the very same thing, when I repeated the application before the Disciplinary Committee. It had been earlier established, but only by my taking the RCVS to the Court of Appeal, that Brian Jennings, no lawyer or veterinary surgeon, had the power to issue or cancel witness summonses, the guy who struck me off. Mr Justice Lloyd Jones, in June 2008, now on ‘Appeal' at the Court of Appeal, appeared to rule Jennings and any other Chairman can now list or de-list an applicant for a reinstatement hearing, Contrary to 2004 Statute 1680, for the 1966 Veterinary Surgeons Act.

The judge from Wales also appeared to support the contentious issue, if the Court of Appeal upholds the judgment, that any Chairman, in the future, of the RCVS Disciplinary Committee, sitting alone, without legal advice, can now remove the name of a member of the profession from the veterinary register without a public hearing or even before the full committee. There is no statute law to support this unless, which is possible, I am slowly losing my marbles.

[Guernsey did just this with me, back in the 80s, frantically bringing in ‘knee jerk' legislation to prevent my housing British workers, the backbone of the summer work force for their tourist industry. They even took me to court on the issue of my being dressed in my smart Nazi uniform. It will be a bitter ‘sweetie' for me, if the outcome is the very same as it has now done to that miserable HM dependant territory, the responsibility of your government.

Brian Jennings' was privy, of course, to the original, now defunct facts that were before the June 2001 Preliminary Investigation Committee and why retention of witnesses and evidence by him and the Registrar must be maintained, whatever the cost, even if it includes the good name of my wife's, late father and uncle's profession.

One has to admire these freemasons, sometimes with their unchecked influence in our society having oozed their way now into all facets of the British judicial system and without a single shot fired. Maybe, President Bush should have directed his energies in that direction as well for the equally dangerous and foreseeable danger, his forerunner, having been my school boy hero with Military Cross, the Honourable Member for Wolverhampton West.

What the RCVS will not ‘come clean' about is that their own case workers interviewed most witnesses and not one of them was a lawyer pleading but now openly ‘legal professional privilege' to flaunt statute law.

It did not end there, far from it. The Gregson couple, my own clients, see Exibit 10, had made statements also that I never saw, and to make sure I could not interview them, the RCVS forged false but fictitious addresses, so the Gregsons could not be identified as my own clients! The police, when contacted for help, refused to cooperate when they already had the correct address in the policeman's notebook on the beach. After I was struck off, I traced the Gregsons and the Williams sisters and with their alarm caused the RCVS to write still further distorted false information, in January 2005, Deputy Registrar, a Mr Brian Hockey, lawyer treating us as if we had all ‘just crawled out from under a stone'.

[I paid Mr Hockey an unofficial visit much earlier in any of these proceedings against me because I could not establish the reasons for all this onslaught. I had warned him of what was to come, if he did not ‘get off my back', we both knowing the police harassment and 21 false imprisonments in Guernsey originated in Taunton, Somerset, in the mid 70s following the ignominious Crown Court trial, where I offered no evidence, surrounding the apparent loss of the Chief Superintendant's notebook, he just happening to be Grand Master of some local devil worshipping cult].

If the freemasons ever allow proper disclosure from the RCVS, Mr Smith, you will find barrister, Miss Morris, had yet another one of her ‘brief' misunderstandings, she repeated at seven court appearances, arguing ‘legal professional privilege' when, as I have said, it was the lay staff of the college and Barry police that mainly took the statements around your constituency of the Vale of Glamorgan, while Geoffrey Hudson had his ‘cozy chat' and cup of tea with Barbara Wilding's predecessors in your police station.

[Barbara Wilding is aware of my CPR Part 31 disclosure Application on this matter of confidential police files being shown to a third party, without my or other witnesses' consent, so hence the reason for her current preparation of a sworn affidavit to be stating, "I have no knowledge of any of the incidents raised by Mr Kirk."]

At the 2002 hearing the Disciplinary Committee ruled I was to be suspended for 6 months for, especially, my ‘reluctance to disclose' the medical treatment for the dog(s) on the beach and later treatment in my Veterinary Hospital.

The court record confirms for you to read, if you can get me one, Sir John Wood QC, had already refused ‘disclosure' of my medical records despite threats at me, if I did not disclose, from Brian Jennings, the Chairman, still ringing in the public gallery's ears and noted, incidentally, by a journalist veterinary surgeon extrordinaire.

The lawyers watched the ‘Punch and Judy show' with amusement, as they thought the last nail in my coffin was finally being hammered down.

Wood, Jennings, the whole Disciplinary Committee and umpteen lawyers present knew or should have known, the original reason for having the hearing from the PI Committee being just this, my breach of, to borrow Fenella's excuse, ‘legal professional privilege'.

But ‘the medical records were the property of my client', the college's client, for withheld disclosure purposes, in this bizarre case, the original complainants, the South Wales Police.

Was I expected to spell it out to them and run the risk of alienation? Was it for me to raise the issue of ‘qualified' or ‘absolute' privilege preventing evidence to go before the court and if the police were, now confirmed by Barrister Ms Morris, clients of the college lawyers, where is the proof of contract set down by the Law Society and when did money change hands, who paid whom and exactly for what?

Delivering the RCVS's court verdict and ‘brief reasons' I reminded, for the tape, in the presence of Sir John Wood that he had ordered the court the medical records could not be disclosed. I never established exactly why, but as the Poet Laureate said in circa 1700

"There is a pleasure sure in being mad that none but mad men know."

Pure Enid Blyton stuff, if was not so very serious for one and five other equally culpable lawyers in court all laughing, all the way to the bank, the very same lawyers that are now refusing to say what all this has cost, to date, for the hard working veterinary surgeons out in the field.

So much, Mr Smith, for ‘HM' immunity, don't you think, with our ever expanding legal trade dependant on ‘HM Partnership' and the ‘Memorandum of Understanding between Chiefs of Police and the Law Society'?

At the 19^th January 2004 Privy Council Appeal, my wife in attendance (to kick me in the shins, if I started to repeat myself or be frank, in utter frustration) I asked again for the failed disclosure, there being no investigation notes at all having been released relating to the charges and as predicted, Alison Foster QC lied yet again and is indicated in the extract of their Lordships deliberations earlier, [Exhibit 15] careful not to embarrass a fellow ‘colleague' with the truth.

There is only one truth, a fact I, at least, find easy to understand.

Now that was not all, Mr Smith. Before the six or seven PC trials were over, statements by local veterinary surgeons, relating to my debacle with the college, were still hidden somewhere in the shelves of Gutter Street.

One veterinary surgeon, John James, who was late in being investigated [The prosecuting Borough Council, counsel, did not know Mr James also had a veterinary surgery in Llantwit Major until the trial had started!] as to the cause of ‘clinical waste left in a black bag in Llantwit Major', Charge B, Mr James apparently falsifying a ‘veterinary certificate' to the prosecution signing that neither he nor his staff had dropped the bag. He was let completely off the hook by the Vale of Glamorgan Borough Council and there is not breach of the Race Relations Act?

Even on the County Council prosecution ‘findings', that the batch numbers on two empty cat vaccine bottles matched his Centaur Services delivery note, then if that isn't racist then what is?

Once the RCVS realised all they had left to throw at me, once Ms Felicity Norton's film set entourage were found to be erroneous, unreliable and only in it for the cash, no action was taken even for the falsification of the veterinary certificate, many others have been struck off for.

At my Privy Council Appeal I reminded their Lordships nearly all professional people were struck off for one or more of three main reasons:

Dishonesty
Use or Misuse of drugs
Interfering with their clients/patients.

I had been in Wales now ten years and not one of these allegations had featured in the prosecution's case.

In reply to Lord Hoffman's question, "why the ‘trivial motoring convictions" had been included the QC could only say, "Due to Mr Kirk's disrespect for authority"

I had said, at an earlier hearing "The law is only as good as the integrity of those entrusted to administer it". This hearing produced a judgment stating unequivocal ‘hope' by their lordships that I be re instated within twelve months, the earliest the law would allow.

I did not know at the Downing Street Appeal that the RCVS had entered the local South Wales Police station and had examined confidential police files, contrary to Home Office Regulations, 45/1987, frantic to add to their dwindling list of charges against me. The RCVS had to trace anything that the two local veterinary surgeons had not already informed the about from news paper articles. This led to hasty errors, incorporating all the ‘trivial' motoring convictions and incorrect information from the over eager police later to be in error on the charge sheet before the Disciplinary Committee. I could only correct the court record by having defence witnesses.

One example of a conviction they were given had no facts at all, ‘circumstances surrounding a conviction' and over ten years old, a direct breach of duty and would have been quashed before any other Legal Advisor, I had experienced in the past but nobody appeared to ‘give a dam,' even to this day.

The original cause of the RCVS Preliminary Investigation Committee's decision to prosecute had been primarily about similar incidents of emergency as for ‘The dogs over a cliff' when no other veterinary surgeon was ‘available'. I was blamed, apparently of ‘revealing client confidentiality' of all things to Felicity Norton's program when clearly she had given consent as had Ms Wall, ‘her' dog actually having gone over a cliff. This I had told the RCVS, when seeking advice on the day before filming commenced. Felicity Norton was the ring leader but Sir John Wood QC and later Mr Justice Sullivan at the Court, blocked her evidence once one of them had been tipped off, should she take to the witness box as my witness. All this can be proved.

Is it beginning to stink, Mr Smith? .

So, some time in late 2001, RCVS lawyers withdrew the charges that had originally caused the Preliminary Investigation Committee to order a trial but only obtained by a majority vote.

So who was about to stop this ‘gravy train' rolling? Just the lawyers? Apparently there is no set procedure to stop the Disciplinary hearing, once it is listed. Frightening, isn't it, when playing with somebody's livelihood? They were living off my then colleagues' hard earned income.

Believe me, Mr Smith, I know much more about all but am trying to keep this as brief a summary as possible and I need some in reserve when I sue Penningtons and others for criminal conduct in the criminal court.

Charge B

The RCVS relied on information from both the Welsh police and courts to obtain a conviction.

At least three ‘Certificates of Conviction' before the original RCVS jury were false and they damned well knew it, following Hudson's visit to your local police station to examine confidential police files. The Preliminary Investigation Committee did not have those certificates before them in June 2001, they relying on the contemporaneous notes of their own case workers, denied me, to direct my case go to trial before the Disciplinary Committee.

One certificate stated my licence was ‘endorsed' when it was not.

Another certificate stated I had confessed to the crime when there had been a Crown Court trial the verdict of which is still ardently contested. (very small bag of ‘clinical waste' found in a public place)

Another certificate, the Welsh Authorities now confirm was false, the details withheld by Barabara Wilding for the police, Penningtons for the RCVS and now HM Treasury Solicitor for the HM Attorney General, all having refused to ‘disclose', respective enquiry records as to just who is behind this fervent expensive intrigue?

Another conviction court record to prejudice the RCVS jury, before it was withdrawn under dubious and still unexplained circumstances, when they knew the police confirmed, in the London civil action for my damages, admitted the CPS did not even oppose my Appeal, the circumstances being pathetic and after a night in a Paddington Green Police Station cell the lady Stipendiary dismissed another related charge incorporating the very same police witnesses.

HM started their enquiry, interviewing defendants in my civil litigation (RCVS and South Wales Police), without me knowing, as far back at least as 2002, rounding up over 100 court files, with my name on, from Cardiff court alone! The team of HM lawyers, in Whitewall, have now lost many of them [Exhibit 18] with the HM Treasury solicitor, while recently in court fighting a false imprisonment judgment in my faviour, for the Home Secretary, admitting the investigation as my being certified as a vexatious litigant as being still ongoing! Another conviction court record to prejudice the RCVS jury, before it was withdrawn under dubious and still unexplained circumstances, when the police confirmed, in the civil action for my damages, admitted the CPS did not even oppose my Appeal!

We know when the RCVS started their enquiry.

The South Wales Police enquiry is voluminous and started the very minute I set foot in Barry, in 91, as correspondence with the Guernsey Authorities portray. You will recall I had to escape Guernsey 24/7 surveillance, 2 year continuous telephone tap in the boot of a car in the dead of night, for my rubber boat for England and freedom. My life had been threatened by one of their leading freemasons if I did not leave. I had, until recently, believed the devil worshipping cabal, found in each town, to be just another club for self gratification, no different to any golf club.

I believe the cost of all this sits squarely on the shoulders of my parliamentary representative.

Why is everyone with ‘HM' immune to prosecution and public reprimand, despite flaunting countless Judges Orders in both Crown and County Court, Privy Council ‘Undertakings' and ‘Assurances' in Downing Street, Learned Legal Assessor ‘advices', in too many RCVS courts to list and when statute law indicates these defendants, in my 52^nd? Judicial Review Application, ALL culpable of criminal conduct against my family and I, must disclose relevant evidence?

I was, as said, refused any ‘defence witnesses of fact', by the RCVS and definitely not any police present at these, just listed above or in court to witness the original 13 incidents cited.

The Registrar of the RCVS, Ms Jayne Herne and her ‘van load of hostile Barry Police', rustled up mid trial {Exhibit 7], on the excuse to give evidence for me, would you believe, had been carefully selected by Alison Foster QC, for the prosecution, despite to Court of Appeal Orders to the contrary. No defence witness must be available to have witnessed the ‘circumstances surrounding each police incident' [Contrary to1966 Veterinary Surgeons Act] thereby not allowing me to prove the conviction certificates were false.

This RCVS case started with 13 convictions with 2 ‘well aired' with police lies to prejudice the jury before withdrawing them near the end of the prosecution's case, my being refused a new jury, of course, as it was a permanent one and there was no other. Not that it would have helped me much when someone whispered the whole proceedings are flawed being contrary to the 1998 Human Rights Act, toothless without Article 1 of the European Convention, the very purpose by Jack Straw et al for getting it printed.

[Article 1 of the 1948 Convention makes HM Government responsible for the behavior we all experience in our courts which is why Jack Straw had the paragraph expunged for the 2^nd October1998 launch while I was unlawfully detained, for the night in London's notorious Brixton prison with 13 prisoners, no less, for a few hours in the Dickensian cell, circa 1840's, measuring 14 feet by 7 feet and consisting of 2,235 standard London Brick Company red bricks, plus or minus a few. And for what purpose? To undergo ‘psycho analysis', Stalin style. This procedure was later refused, fortunately, maybe, by the prison doctor.].

That day the RCVS had had a case worker' in disguise, in the back of Horseferry Road magistrates court for days and would not acknowledge me when I asked for help, the RCVS building being only adjacent. That may indicate the long term agenda of some in the RCVS, dating back to the early 80's, where, at least, proceedings were honourably conducted so much so as to humble even me!

Mr Smith, no veterinary surgeon has ever been taken to court on such charges dubious or not. The previous Legal Assessor, Phillip Cox QC, back in the 80s advised similar charges against me had nothing whatever to do with either my competence or my duties as a veterinary surgeon in society.

A worrying comment that their Lordships put into the 19^th January Judgment indicated a veterinary surgeon, meaning any professional person not actually working, had different responsibilities in society to anyone else and I had been in breach of them.

I believe this as a direct abuse of my basic human rights [see 1948 ECHR Convention] even though I am in some sympathy being of an age when I also remember society to which their Lordships referred.

But just who allowed our country to pander to visitors' foibles to drag our society down so quick?

It may not surprise you to know the current RCVS have hurriedly incorporated the PC comment, a gross infringement of a professional person's human rights, into current legislation and by doing so further alienated many, including my wife, in the veterinary profession.

Barry Magistrates, in January 2007, even expunged another conviction from that original list before the committee, as having ‘never occurred' but despite the Privy Council stating, in June 2004, I had been struck off for the cumulative effect of the charges (11 or 13?) it is interesting the RCVS repeatedly emphasise, at my annual receipt of Royal Courts of Justice abuse, I was struck off for each of the convictions, each ‘rendering me unfit to practice veterinary medicine'.

That is just not what is interpreted by so many who have managed to get access to the official transcript and read the final judgment. I am still at loss, today, to understand their original judgment or even their final draft. I defy you to understand the original transcript versions of the RCVS judgment.

One such conviction, rendering me unfit to practice, was ‘No Order', having won all other criminal allegations, for example, was for ‘crossing a single white line' at 4 mph at St Athan to avoid a wobbling aged cyclist in a disordered ‘fun run' of some eighty cyclists. A fitting dog across my lap and a cat with a broken leg in the back en route to the Veterinary Hospital and I was confronted by an officious police officer whose evidence was so discounted at yet another Crown Court hearing I ,as usual, was awarded not a penny costs. Racist, Mr Smith?

Another example was for ‘personally delivering my valid motor insurance to the wrong police station'. 35 times the South Wales Police had tried to make me repeat just that. The law does not even oblige you to attend a police station, one can send by post.

Interestingly, the RCVS lawyers quietly withheld details of a substantive conviction with not a mention of my prison sentence it carried in Cardiff Crown Court but instead relied on trivial motoring and dubious public order convictions to have me struck off.

Even in that jailed conviction the jury wrote notes to the judge complaining of the Barry police ‘perverting the course of justice', signaling the answers while a colleague was under cross examination and yes, that is just one of about a hundred outstanding police incidents they are currently refusing to disclose about for civil damages now entering its eighteenth year with Barbara Wilding pleading ignorance as she writes her sworn affidavit.

Remember, I tendered to Barbara Wilding but a sample of 40 odd ‘occurrence numbered police recorded incidents' about a year ago and have had no response what so ever to that letter from the South Wales Police for CPR part 31 disclosure.

Can you help me on that outstanding matter, it being a regular Vale constituent problem?.

Barbara Wilding, ordered to sign a now long overdue a sworn affidavit on disclosure, by the management judge, His Honour Judge Nicholas Chambers QC, following my application under Abuse of Process procedures, Lord Justice Thomas, yet another Welshman, handpicked just to hush all this up, having refused to entertain my application for a jury against The South Wales Police or an Abuse of Process enquiry at the Court of Appeal, refusing me legal representation in passing, clearly further supports the view of many that I am subjected to blatant racial discrimination.

This routine conduct, all financed by the uninformed general public, is due to ‘HM' immunity.

All these people are ultimately responsible to someone and when the time comes I will allow proper investigators to examine my library of tapes of court cases, as irregular as they may be, but alongside the 100 odd leaver arch files recording my cases in the stench of South Wales courts you will see the HM Crown Prosecution Service are just as culpable for all these court cases to have progressed so far..

It has been suggested I use my trusty old 1917 Lewis machine gun on the vermin but I have had half my life ruined in the gutter with them already and a bit of spilt blood will achieve little unless I find the ring leaders at home.

The Exhibits

1. Last paragraph of 1967 RCVS Royal Charter

This indicates bias but was not accepted by Mr Justice Lloyd Jones and the RCVS at the Royal Courts of Justice in June 2008 during my failed 5^th failed attempt to be restored to the veterinary register now being stifled at the Court of Appeal

2. Magistrate Ms Williams 4^th January 2005 letter to RCVS

3. 20^th June 2001 RCVS Preliminary Investigation Minute.

The purpose of the committee is to investigate complaint against a veterinary surgeon. You will note six were Council members and the other four were all there to submit evidence of their own choosing. None of those ‘in attendance', in possession of the contemporaneous notes and signed witness statements replied to my letters for the details relating to purported complaints by Ms Wall, Ms Felicity Norton or Mr Collins or anybody else if there were any?

None of the above named complainants were called by the RCVS at 2002 trial nor was I aware of their relevance or allowed to have Ms Felicity Norton and Mrs Wall as defence witnesses.

Incidentally, the then President of the College, Mr Roger Eddy, also sat in my trial, for less than one hour and reported back to both the profession and media to say that I had had a "fair trial".

He and others present are identified in the 1^st June Statutory Instrument 2004 no. 1680, Schedule of the 1966 Veterinary Surgeons Act along with Mr Galloway, Chief Clerk to the Privy Council who has repeatedly refused my Humble Petitions to go before Queen in Council now this new evidence has been uncovered. The new Registrar of the Privy Council's Judicial Committee went even further by returning my recorded post Applications unopened and refusing to indicate instructed her to do same.

4. Exhibit 2001 RCVS Committee Minute.

5. Exhibit. Spring 2001 RCVS Committee Minute

This minute identifies Pennington, Solicitors, for the College personally travelling to South Wales ‘to take statements' to control evidence obtained to have bias and to allow contemporaneous record of evidence to be undisclosed as if under ‘legal professional privilege'. ‘Absolute' or ‘qualified' under CPR and criminal law, in respect of RCVS procedure under the 66 Act dictates, the material should have been declared, if not disclosed, in order that it could be challenged. There are Just too many bent judges in on the act for a judicial redress now so hence my intention ‘to put the hounds on you', in the nicest way possible, you being my family's last resort!

6. Exhibit. 6 Nov 2006 RCVS Extract.

First RCVS admission that there is withheld evidence based on ‘legal professional privilege' and that the two year enquiry created paperwork. These transcript extracts are self explanatory with the RCVS barrister using this excuse to not disclose contemporaneous evidence like interview note books.

Exhibit 6 is yet another RCVS created fairy tale designed to fool the Privy Council and High court unless it is a mistake, as with Foster before Lord Hutton [ Exhibit 15] and was another ‘brief misunderstanding' between client and paymaster? Just lacking the musical score for a successful Whitehall Farce?

7. Exhibit. Further Nov 2006 RCVS documents

8. Exhibit. A fascinating clip of the 2002 Transcript

An example throughout of with Alison Foster QC clearly talking with ‘forked tongue' while withholding vital eye witnesses that should have gone before the jury. Foster should have gone to jail.

She clearly lied about the circumstances as to why the Gregsons were withheld from the hearing following, I found out years later, their telephone to the RCVS refusing to attend once they understood the ‘out of context' evidence and the prosecution's real agenda.

9. Exhibit. Jan 2002 Trial Extract

10. Exhibit. 26^th Jan 2006 Statement of Mr Gregson

11. Exhibit. RCVS 2002 Trial Extract

RCVS Disciplinary Committee refuses record of the enquiry! This has caused 8 years of ruin.

12. Exhibit. RCVS Re instatement Application

A random sample of the gibberish and inaccuracy to which an HM organisation will stoop, attempting to obliterate cold facts.

It was not 12 charges,
"You cannot look behind the convictions". The 1966 Veterinary Surgeons Act clearly states the ‘circumstances surrounding the incident' should be before the court.
"Strasberg and there was no result".

Ms K Reid has ruled, sitting alone no doubt, we go back 27years, ruled, without committee or legal advice, before writing the European Court of Human Rights will not entertain any further applications relating to the RCVS. Oh, surprise, the Privy Council Chief Clerk, K Galloway, shortly after writes almost the same worded letter that Her Majesty's Privy Council will not entertain any further Humble Petitions relating to HM RCVS.

And you discount freemasons to be at the bottom of all this, Mr Smith?

13. Exhibit. 6^th Nov 2006 RCVS Re-instatement Application

This random sample is self explanatory to those on the same planet.

Remember, Mr Smith, lawyers were banned from Parliament by Henry Seventh in 1487 and it remained that way for nearly five hundred years until sufficient money changed hands.

You will read, in line C, The permanent Chairman, with a vote when I was the struck off and a vote for many of my subsequent failed applications, over the past five years, for re instatement, stated, " The Legal Assessor says you are not entitled to know that, Mr Kirk"

So when did that conversation go on, in the privacy of the gentleman's loo where so much time was taken up in legal discussion, in the adjournment, often when I was just getting to crucial part of cross examination to interest the Criminal Cases Review Board?

14. Exhibit. Humble Petition to Her Majesty, dated 20^th December 2002, for Disclosure

15. Exhibit. Privy Council, Lord Hutton, January 2003 Extract on ‘Humble Petition' for Disclosure

Quote from court record "As far as she is aware (the girl in britches), on her instructions, the college has made full disclosure of all relevant documents and she instances, for example the letters of complaint which were sent by various persons to the college about Mr Kirk".

Well, there you have it, Mr Smith, from gentleman in charge, later, of a government enquiry revealing similar dubious conduct by those in positions of privilege.

No such letters featured in the shambolic 2002 RCVS rigged trial, other than the one from Barry police station asking to have me struck off so which letters, pray, does his Lordship refer?

16. Exhibit. 23^rd June 2003 HM Treasury Solicitor Minute

Left with you at our House of Commons meeting with the two page ‘flow chart' of HM Departments, RCVS and South Wales Police, my 9 year old daughter prepared, to indicate ‘web they weave, when first they set out to deceive', misquote from north of the border.

17. Exhibit Cardiff Court email to HM Solicitors

18. Exhibit. One of many photographs

Taken as proof, from inside Cardiff court building, of the only remaining two boxes of my South Wales Police damages Claim stored in Cardiff Court, the other three boxes being God knows where, but we can guess, having my furnished a signed court letter to that effect. I have been denied any audit trial of the HM Treasury Solicitor's interference and serious disruption with the due process of law.

EXTRACT 1967 ROYAL CHARTER

SabineKMcNeill — Sat, 25 Sep 2010 20:19:00 GMT

EXTRACT 1967 ROYAL CHARTER

And We do hereby, for Us, Our Heirs and Successors further grant unto the College that these Our Letters, or the enrolment or exemplification thereof, shall be in all things valid and effectual in law according to the true intent and meaning thereof and shall be taken, construed and adjudged in the most favourable and beneficial sense for the best advantage of the College as well in Our Courts of Record as elsewhere by all Judges, Justices, Officers, Ministers and other subjects whatsoever of Us, Our Heirs and Successors, any non-recital or other omission or thing to the contrary notwithstanding.

IN WITNESS whereof We have cause these Our Letters to be made Patent.

WITNESS Ourself at Westminster the nineteenth day of October and in the sixteenth year of Our Reign.

BY WARRANT UNDER THE QUEEN'S SIGN MANUAL

That is why the RCVS can refuse my right, every ten months to a hearing with no HM judge lifting a finger knowing full well it is contrary to statute law.

The 2004 law states the RCVS cannot refuse me a hearing but 'HM Partnership' has other ideas!

Statutory Instrument: Restoration of Names to the Register after Removal

SabineKMcNeill — Sat, 25 Sep 2010 20:15:00 GMT

EXTRACT

Statutory Instrument 2004 No. 1680

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

Restoration of Names after Removal

     20. Procedure

     20.1 An application to the Committee under section 18 of the Act, for the restoration of a name to the register or the early removal of a suspension of registration, shall be made in writing to the Clerk and shall set out the grounds for the application.

     20.2 The applicant may submit with his application any documentary evidence which he wishes to have drawn to the attention of the Committee in support of his application, including references.

     20.3 On receipt of an application to which this Rule applies, the application shall be listed for hearing within 3 months.

     20.4 The Clerk shall provide a copy of the application and supporting documentary evidence to the Solicitor.

     20.5 The Chairman and the Solicitor may invite the applicant to provide any further evidence, including evidence concerning the applicant's identity, character and conduct since his name was removed from the register.

     20.6 At the hearing of an application to which this Rule applies -

(a) The applicant shall be entitled to address the Committee, and to adduce evidence and make submissions, in support of the application;

(b) The Solicitor shall be entitled to address the Committee, and to adduce evidence and make submissions, in opposition to the application.

20.7 Subject to the foregoing provisions of this Rule, and to Part VI of these Rules, the procedure of the Committee in connection with the application shall be such as they may determine.

My following letter of July 2007 in reply to RCVS has, effectively, banned me for life. No other applicant has been subjected to these conditions.