Search results matching tags 'South Wales Police', 'Cardiff Prison', and 'Caswell Clinic'

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

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

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

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

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

Lord Denning: 1982

WANTED

(Picture on gallery or Downloads)

Following posters, shortly,on gallery

Judge T M Hughes QC

Judge Morris

Judge Vosper

Judge Llewellyn Jones

Judge Elleri Rees

Judge Gareth Jones

Judge Neil Bidder QC

More Cardiff Judges to come

IN THE CARDIFF COURT

Maurice Kirk Appellant

Chief Constable of South Wales Police Respondent

Particulars of Claim

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hip Operation Cancelled Again as yet Another Cardiff Court Refuses HM Prison Medical Records Disclosure & Complaint to Police Authority

Maurice — Wed, 19 Jan 2011 21:42:00 GMT

MR MAURICE KIRK 1st Claimant

DR TEGWYN WILLIAMS 1st Defendant

Ref TWH.448470.48

Before District Judge T M Phillips sitting at Cardiff County Court, Cardiff Civil Justice Centre, 2 Park Street,Cardiff, CF10 1ET.

Upon hearing Mr M Bowen for the claimant and Counsel for the defendant

IT IS ORDERED THAT

1. The hearing of the defendants application dated 16 September 2010 to strike out the claim and to consider whether a civil restraint order is appropriate be further adjourned to 15 March 2011 at 11:00 (EHT 3 hours).

2. At the next hearing there will also be considered by the court the claimants applications dated 7th January 2011 and 18 January 2011 (yet to be listed).

3. The claimant may attend the hearing via video link (he being responsible for making the necessary arrangements well before the hearing).

4. a) in the event of the claimant being unable to attend the next hearing due to his medical condition, then he must send to the court and to the defendants solicitors at least 3 working days prior to the hearing a letter from a medical practitioner setting out the position and confirming in the Doctors opinion the inability of Mr Kirk to attend via video link.

b) In the event of the claimant's surgery being outstanding due to alleged non disclosure of medical records or documents, the Doctor do also specify in his letter:

(i) the medical records or documentation outstanding,

(ii) why any relevant tests or investigation cannot be undertaken by the French medical Profession so that the surgery can proceed.

5. Costs of today be costs in the application.

Disproportionate legal costs Lawyers, Morgan Cole, Cardiff, have threatened me with a £6000 bill if I do not withdraw, following my £40 Application, in a British court of law, just to make Dr Tegwyn Williams, of Caswell Clinic, Bridgend, or the NHS, to disclose his evidence he gave to His honour Judge Bidder QC, on the 2nd December 2009. He was there, tape recorder switched off, in a so called 'Court of Record', Cardiff Crown Court.falsifying medical record....what a joke!

What was he doing there, in the first place, is the first question? I was, as prisoner in Cardiff prison not even under his 'care'!

His trying to persuade the judge, on his own, to have me sectioned, for life, without trial, under the Section 41 of 1983 Mental Health Act, to a High Security Prison, was an uphill struggle. But his masonic masters, South Wales Police, had so ordered or he could no longer be allowed to worship the devil.

Tomorrow, in Cardiff County Court, be there, these lawyers, barristers, clerks etc, ALL AT TAX PAYER'S EXPENSE,just for a petty debt action for, lost bus fares, will be there....you will enjoy...Case is at 2pm BUT read the latest Downloads first

Dr Tegwyn Williams, of Caswell Clinic, Bridgend refuses to clarify his opinion and conduct , over such a serious matter as possible brain tumour .

How, on 2nd December 09, he tells the Cardiff Crown Court I have a possible brain tumour and too dangerous to be released when at the 17th December 2009 MAPPA meeting, he tells high ranking officers of the South Wales Police, the prosecutor, social services, probation and prison, all sitting around the same table, in his clinic, a completely opposing medical opinion?

This caused the meeting to rule I was "no longer considered dangerous to the public and my name was immediately removed from MAPPA level 3 category, [terrorist level].

BUT, to this day Dr Tegwyn Williams, South Wales NHS officials, HM Prison and MAPPA have refused to notify the patient of any of this and continue to refuse the information to the surgeons, waiting to operate, on either side of the English Channel.

It stinks, doesn't it?

Disproportionate Legal Costs: Breach of Human Rights

I am possibly about to go into hospital and so email without being too close on detail, save to say that at this time, that I draw the attention of the Court and Defendant's lawyers to the European Court of Human Rights having ruled that the Daily Mirror's freedom of expression was violated by the legal costs it had to pay when it lost a privacy case brought by Naomi Campbell.

Although arguments will need to be reversed and translated to other human rights, for a comparison with my claim as the Daily Mirror are journalists and was the Defendant. As we are aware, this thinking of the Court of Human Rights, to limit legal costs is in keeping with some comments in my submission in December 2010, when asking His Honour Seys Llewellyn QC for permission to appeal.

As also in my submission in December 2010, the arguments here are also more profound than how much legal costs can the Defendant or Defendant's lawyers claim in my Cardiff case.

Drawing from London barrister Mr Challenger's comments, it would seem that public policy on where the Police (or public bodies) can be sued is, in reality very much affected by the cost of employing lawyers. As lawyers may not now be able to charge as much in legal costs, that would seem another reason for public policy to be reviewed to find what incremental changes may occur from restricting lawyers costs.

page 2

2nd December 2009

ALL PROCEEDINGS

(11.39)

JUDGE BIDDER: ... appropriately qualified psychiatrist then the fitness to plead doesn't really arise. I have one report by you reaching a conclusion; I have another report by Dr Silva reaching a different conclusion. I can't act on the basis of that issue without there being two such reports and there aren't two such reports. In the circumstances I don't think there is a great deal of purpose in you remaining in court.

MR TWOMLOW: May I just say perhaps, having spoken to Dr Williams this morning, that I think having seen the contents of Dr Silva's report he is also of the view that Mr Kirk would be fit to plead subject to the ... it was only the case of whether he has cancer or not I think that Dr Williams was concerned about, but I didn't wish to ...

Continuing "HM Partnership" Cardiff Conspiracy

This following eight page submission, with French doctor's request for medical records, took weeks of work to obtain and were e-mailed to the Cardiff Civil Justice Centre at 9.30am on Tuesday, two and a half days before the 2pm hearing but was not given to the presiding judge.

Extract of secure e-mail, to Cardiff court, that DID NOT BOUNCE BACK carrying the 'submissions', as an example to the naifve, of the evilness, tax payer funded "HM Partnership" in Cardiff play, every day.

'please forward asap to the learned judge dealing with the above case

There must surely be another person on another e-maill to deal with this?

All current known Cardiff court e-mails bounce back'

To the Cardiff County Court

BS61459, CF101741, 0CF03922 & 8 Others

Maurice Kirk v Dr Tegwyn Williams

20th January 2011 Hearing

Application for Adjournment and Disclosure (Request Dr Williams/Defendant make a signed statement)

1) It may help the Court to know that, I am unwell and at my home in Brittany, awaiting a
hip operation on 20 January 2011 in France.

2) Therefore this reply is worded by lay persons (non lawyers). The opinions show the
independent view of a team trying to help because of their concerns.

3) In short, there is major concern of this moment is the way the Defendant Dr Tegwyn
Williams, shows bad faith and „deliberately fails to deal‟ by trying to "hide behind
lawyers" and he will not „personally‟ comment or clarify in issues as serious as brain
cancer, brain damage and severe disorders of the mind.

4) Furthermore the Defendant‟s refusal to clarify causes the confusion that in turn delays
urgent hip operation that with problems with mediation and morphine contributes to
keeping the Claimant too unwell to attend court and proceed with this case.

5) An update is that the Defendant‟s obstructive behaviour that therefore delays hip
operations, may have caused, and may continue to cause permanent medical damage
to nerve tissue around the Claimant hip, so to permanently damage the Claimant chance
of recovery.

Adjournment

6) The Court Order of 26 November 2010 point 2 says.

"2. Any applications to adjourn the hearing by reason of medical
matter must be supported by a medical practitioner's letter or
certificate which confirms an inability to attend a Court hearing
estimated to last not more than 1 hour."

7) It seems to say that a doctor's letter is needed for adjournment. That tells me to
expect adjournment if I comply with that Order by the attached letter from Dr Leclerc,
Merdrignac, France. The Breton doctor is concerned that the surgeons have not been
supplied with Dr Tegwyn Williams' information given to the December 09 Crown Court
and to MAPPA meetings. Dr Leclerc is the source of my monthly supply of morphine
sulphate.

Merit and some reasons why the Court may (if it so wishes) find in the Claimant's
favour on all (Claim and Costs).

8) This case is over the expenses the Claimant incurred in trying to find out what opinion Dr Tegwyn Williams has being expressing regards the Claimant. The Claimant believes the reason why the Claimant was not handed over the notes and records, when attending, is because either the records never existed or the Defendant wrote final reports not unlike writing fiction. The Claimant believes the defendant has been dishonest in his report by saying that which he knew not to be true. If what the Claimant believes is true, then the claimant believes Dr Williams should reimburse expenses.

9) As a part of professional standards and conduct for Psychiatrists, careful notes and
records must exist behind the process of any assessment and the final outcome and that notes and records are to be full and copious.

10) It may help the Court to know, that in what records or reports that exist the
Defendant appears to more determine facts, than explore clinical issues regards being
assertion that the Claimant is delusional about very specific facts such as whether or not
the Claimant was harassed by Police. (In contrast to what Dr Williams says His Honour
Seys Llewellyn QC, however, has decided in a preliminary Judgment, dated 30
November 2010, that the sheer volume of incidents of alleged harassment gives merit
for the court to investigate).

11) It is therefore difficult to see how Dr Williams can claim the Claimant is delusional
about quite specific facts.

12) One easy comparison is that the Civil Aviation Authority, in 2010 deemed the
Claimant fit to fly his aeroplanes.

13) To easily support the view of mischievous manipulations there is evidence that
Professor Roger Wood re-wrote his report as being seen by reference to the ex-chief
constable when the chief constable was in office when the report originally written. Most
doctors, possibly as many as nearly twenty, seem not to agree with Dr Tegwyn Williams.
There are many other facts to prove this conduct.

14) The Claimant believes the defendant, having acted improperly regards expressing
opinion he knew to be misleading or knew not to be true, now needed to destroy or hide the notes and records behind any reports.

15) Therefore the Claimant requested the Defendant‟s employers arrange disclosure of
medical records and notes and the Claimant was invited to Caswell Clinic, Bridgend to
collect notes and records. The Claimant had paid for their release and incurred further
expense several times travelling to the Clinic.

16) The Claimant, by acting lawfully and properly, tried to find out what are the notes and records that were used to help arrive at what hopefully would have been an honest and competent opinion. A Court Claim was filed by the Claimant when the Defendant seemed most unwilling to clarify or disclose essential information that the Claimant had paid for, and where the Claimant had incurred travelling expenses. The Defendant appeared so unhelpful and obstructive to the Claimant, to appear to be acting in bad faith.

17) It is entirely normal NHS procedure for a patient to attend to collect confidential
medical information, especially larger medical notes and record files as the post can be
too problematic and particularly insecure for such sensitive information as psychiatric
records.

18) The Claimant chose to exercise his right to attend, but also was told by NHS staff at
his GP surgery that the Defendant's employer and/or Defendant had said the records
are available for collection.

19) The Claimant believes he has obvious and compelling reason to be anxious to attend and find out information for which he is lawfully entitled to know, and paid for. The Court transcript 2 December 2009 shows that the Defendant Dr Tegwyn Williams has been saying that the Claimant has brain cancer, (and more).

20) The Defendant's professional body helps show reason for justification for the
concern that the Defendant shows bad faith and "deliberately failing to deal" by trying to
"hide behind lawyers" and will not "personally" comment or clarify in issues as serious as
brain cancer, brain damage and severe disorders of the mind.

21) To help determine reasonableness, Dr Tegwyn Williams professional body has
guidelines. The Royal College of Psychiatrists page 6 (copy attached) says

"Give patients the information they ask for or need about their condition, its treatment or prognosis
Give information to patients in a way they can understand
Be readily accessible to patients and colleagues when on duty

You must not delay treatment........."

The Royal College of Psychiatrists (copy attached) page 2 also says of duties of doctor registered with the GMC

Give patients information in a way they can understand
Be honest and trustworthy
Avoid abusing your position as a doctor

22) The Claimant has a hip operation booked for 20 January 2011 in France. Dr Williams bad faith is made worse, because the absence of Dr Tegywn Williams to personally clarify causes operations to be cancelled, when the claimant to be most unwell, insevere pain and suffering increasing irreparable nerve damage by operations not proceeding, because of the uncertainty and confusion caused by Dr Tegwyn Williams still refusing to clarify, even when is lawyers now are starting to acknowledge the issues.

23) Regardless of the needed operation, the Claimant quite obviously urgently needs Dr
Tegwyn Williams to personally clarify what is meant by and the prognosis of brain
cancer, permanent brain damage and severe disorders of the mind, so that the Claimant can plan how to live his life.

24) Other Doctors are at a loss to make the needed specific comment, as the Defendant still has failed to provide medical records and notes that would or should occur, if Dr Williams forms an honest and competent opinion as to why he thinks these conditions are relevant to the Claimant.

25) The Claimant asks and feels astonished, questions how the UK Courts can allow
either doctors and lawyers to act as callously in full gaze of the Courts and professional
bodies, and asks for initiatives to redress the balance of power.

26) Furthermore the Defendants lawyers threaten the unwell Claimant with cost to go
into many thousands of pounds over a claim most minor in monetary terms, as a way to
intimidate the Claimant into not learning of such important information when the
Claimant has every right to know.

27) The Claimants asks the Courts support where the Claimant believes Dr Tegwyn
Williams abused his position when the Claimant attended to collect his medical records
and now tries to further abuse his position by hiding behind lawyer and their willingness
to use cost to intimidate by disproportionate use of lawyers fees.

28) The Claimant believes Dr Tegwyn Williams is therefore causing these delays, by not
simply clarifying issues himself.

29) There is also the issue of the total contempt that Dr Tegwyn Williams showed for the
Claimant and the utter unreasonableness when as a patient the Claimant tries to collect
medical records for which he has paid.

30) Given access to the requested information is entirely reasonable and lawful, (both
what was originally requested and also not as yet clarified by Dr Williams) the Claimant
raise the question whether both the Defendant and his lawyers Discriminate against the
Claimant to impose less favourable treatment, (due to alleged disorders of the mind), in
the way the Claimant is denied access to what most people have a right to expect be
provided in a way to afford them dignity.

31) The Claimant believes the Defendant and his lawyers use the power and financial
resources of the state over the Claimant to deny human rights (ECHR Article 3 and
Article 8) and access to a fair trial (ECHR Article 6). The Claimant raises whether the
Court has a duty to protect the Claimant, so that the UK members state does not breach
the human rights of the Claimant.

Disproportionate Costs

32) Obviously the Claimant believes the Defendant and his lawyers are trying to
intimidated the Claimant out of his rights by what many would view as disproportionate
legal costs. Disproportionate, because of the small nature of the original claim and all
that as required was for Dr Tegwyn Williams to personally clarify, as his professional
body expects of him.

Can the Defendant (a clinician who writes how unwell the Claimant will be) Object
to or Claim Costs for an Adjournment on medical grounds?

33) The core papers mentioned by the Defendant's lawyers include in their core
correspondence reference to documents where the Defendant Dr Tegwyn Williams is
saying there is "clear evidence" of a deterioration from brain damage and/or mental
disorder, (even brain cancer) that will mean the Claimant condition will never improve
and will mean the Claimant cannot focus to deal with legal proceedings. Can either the
Defendant or his lawyer, be honest and competent, and be upholding the high standards of the profession, (or as an Officer of the Court) in asking the Court to press ahead in the absence of the Claimant on medical grounds, when they promote that the Claimant is seriously unwell?

34) The Claimant puts to the Defendant and Defendant's lawyers whether such tactics,
is conduct becoming of a doctor who instructs lawyers, or a lawyer or law firm who
should be allowed to represent any in the caring professions or the NHS.

A Challenge to Dr Tegwyn Williams to volunteer by 20 January 2011 or else a
Request For Court Order for Dr Williams to make a personal signed statement to
the Court.

35) One example of the relevance of Dr Williams voluntarily or by Court Order making a
personal signed statement is that Dr Williams can show whether or not he is obstructive
or shows bad faith, or a poor attitude towards the Claimant while the matter is before the Court, where if such occurs, the Court opportunity to, if it so wishes, determined whether it is reasonable to believe Dr Tegwyn Williams has also acted in bad faith so to causes the Claimant expense, when the Claimant attended to collect records.

a) Brain Cancer: On the Issue of the Claimant, and brain cancer, taking into account the
court transcript 2 December 2009 and for Dr Williams to also explain the prognosis of his concerns.

b) Brain damage: What records, notes and evidence exists to support Dr Williams
claims. Explain point 32 of his final 2009 report of the "Clear evidence" in the clear
evidence of brain damage and the prognosis. What exactly does Dr Tegwyn Williams
know of the evidence of physical brain damage, and if any indication and what level of
certainty of physical brain damage existing, and how does Dr Tegwyn Williams see this
as clear evidence as opposed to a potential, regards any physical condition affecting specific behaviour. How does Dr Williams judge behaviour the Claimant's behaviour compared to a leading Welsh Court Judge as below?

c) Paranoid Delusional Disorder: This issue can be a determination of facts. Did Dr
Williams have information to determine facts to decide the Claimant was delusional
about facts. Dr Williams is asked to explain notes, records, evidence facts. How and
what evidence there is that the Claimant has any such severe disorder of the mind and
particularly the prognosis taking into account that that His Honour Judge Seys Llewellyn
QC says there is an unusual case with a sheer volume of incidents that require
investigation by the Court

Defendant's Lawyer's Conduct

36) The conduct of the Defendant‟s lawyer is of concern, by her repeatedly merely
asserting she gives answer, when in reality she des not. For example the Defendant's
lawyer frequently uses arguments like the Defendant is not responsible for the third
parties (organisations or people) who receive what Dr Tegwyn Williams says. When the
issue that needs to be addressed is for Dr Tegwyn Williams to clarify exactly what he
says, why and how his expressed opinion emerged or is sourced in medical records,
notes and medical evidence.

37) The Claimant's concern of whether there is bad faith by the Defendant, continues
because the Defendant's lawyers letter of 6th January 2011 not only fails to deal with
issues, but seems to the Claimant to deliberately avoid issues. Above all, whether or not
the Claimant has Brain Cancer, and if any records exist relevant to such as (but not only)
the comment in the 2 December 2009 court transcript as below, of Dr Williams saying of the Claimant's brain cancer.

The Court Transcript and Brain Cancer

38) According to Dr Tegwyn Williams' Professional body, Dr Williams should give
information to the Claimant and in a way that the Claimant can understand. That has not
been occurring ever since the Claimant was in his "care" between August and October
2009.

39) At Court on 2 December 2009, the Claimant was not present and what happens here is an odd intrusion by Dr Williams who needs to explain why he is speaking in that Court room about Mr Kirk, with Mr Kirk not there or having opportunity to rebut what he says?

40) The Claimant emphasises Dr Williams has been speaking at Court and Mr Twomlow
summarises what Dr Williams says in Dr Williams presence. Dr Williams hears the
extract below, and so stands there at Court to agree it to be true

41) The issues raised here are to ask Dr Williams to clarify what he meant by what he said to Mr Twomlow and the Court, where Dr Williams does not make small talk here but intend his professional comments about the Claimant to be taken very seriously.

42) The Court Transcript 2 December 2009 11.39am (page two) starts as if someone
inadvertently switches on the machine, saying:

i. JUDGE BIDDER:...........: ..appropriately qualified psychiatrist then the fitness to plead doesn't really arise. I have one report by you reaching a onclusion: I have another report by Dr Silva reaching a different onclusion. I can't act on the basis of that issue without there being two such reports and there aren't two such reports. In the circumstances I don't think there is a great deal of purpose in you remaining in Court.

ii. Mr TWOMLOW (CPS): May I perhaps, having spoken to Dr Williams this morning, that I think having seen the contents of Dr Silva's report he is also of the view that Mr Kirk would be fit to plead subject to the.....it was only the case of whether he has cancer or not I think that Dr Williams was concerned about, but I didn't wish to.....

43) As previously stated the Claimant believes that the Royal College of Psychiatrist
guidelines on how to deal with this kind of situation can show how reasonable or
unreasonable Dr Tegwyn Williams has acted, relevant to this claim, and so whether or
not the Court should find in favour of Claimant. Does Dr Williams now "give patients the
information they ask for or need about their condition, its treatment or prognosis" and
"give information to patients in a way they can understand"?

Give patients information in a way they can understand?

44) How is the Claimant to understand his prognosis about brain cancer or the other
condition of the brain or mind, when Dr Williams will not clarify, or disclose about
something as serious as his formally expressed comments about brain cancer?

Difficult to find a doctor who agrees With Dr Tegwyn Williams

45) As explained in more detail latter in this document, please note most doctors
(potentially nearly twenty doctors) do not seem to agree with Dr Williams on his
generally prejudicial if not defamatory tone and psychiatric diagnosis about the Claimant being mentally ill to the point of delusional about based on specific factual issue, so to question whether Dr Williams abuses his position, in giving opinion he knows (or should know) not to be true.

Additional Difficulties, Expenses and Costs

46) The Claimant wishes the Court to know that many other important Court cases have
been delayed by the defendants not clarifying the information required regards my
application for disclosure about brain cancer. The delay is also from the delay to
operations on my hip caused by non disclosure of the same information, that has I turn
caused me to remain most unwell, immobile, in fluctuating severe pain to affect
concentration, and use of morphine for an unwise duration.

47) The Claimant alleges malicious intent behind the complications from delays and
adjournments in this claim before the Court are caused from the harm and difficulties
caused by the Defendant. This includes him to block the Claimant's operation by, what
seems to the Claimant as Dr Williams unprofessional, if not dishonest opinions in Court
and in communication with his superiors, besides the non-communication with the
Claimant.

Claimant Being Absent 20 January 2011 Confirms Wish to Appeal if becomes
relevant.

48) In matters as serious as the Defendant and his lawyers acting in bad faith over brain cancer, brain damage and disorder of the mind, the Claimant who is unable to attend on 20 January 2011 is ready to go to appeal, if necessary and asks for permission, should it become relevant.

Enclosed Both UK and Breton GP letters requesting clarification

Maurice J Kirk BVSc

18th January 2011

South Wales Police Authority
Bridgend
South Wales

19th Jan 2011

Dear Sir,

Complaint against South Wales Police attempting to have me shot

1. Further to advice from the Home Office, see enclosed, I make complaint of the threat to my life caused following the erroneous information considered in the 8th June 2009 MAPPA meeting in Barry Police Station when members of South Wales Police forensic hospital. Caswell clinic attended. An internal memo, in your posession, indicationg I may be shot by police. But there was a deliberate delay of several weeks in order to obtain that opportunity before arresting a catagory MAPPA 3, terrorist level, believed to be in the possesion of one or machine guns and live ammunition..

2. I further complain of subsequent actions by Dr Tegyn Williams of Caswell Clinic and police, who, once I was arrested, had me sectioned under the 35 legislation of 1983 Mental Health Act, without even his examination, on the 22nd June2009. Their intention with the changed view of the ridiculous charges, of trading in machine guns, now unlikely to obtaining a conviction switched to some other way they interfere with the now, 19 year running damges claim for malicious prosecutions and false imprisonment.caused by the same force..

3. I further complain, following that failing, only by luck, the police attempt, on 2nd December 2009, to obtain for me a section 41 to Broadmoor , for life, without trial reliant on known fabricated evidence..

4. I further complain of ther continuing harassment and fabricated arrests ,since my release, unconvicted, since 9th February 2010 and refusal to properly investigate serious acts of criminal damage on my property and an assault on myserlf deliberately avoiding interviewing the only independant witness present

This list is not exhaustive....

yours

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

10. Quotes from 8th Oct 2010 County Court Judgment

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury"

Maurice — Wed, 24 Mar 2010 23:16:00 GMT

Extracts of the defendant's speech that was never needed, as the jury told us in the Cardiff restaurant afterwards, the end of the first day of evidence was enough for them!

"You have, may I suggest, just heard twelve days of yet another example of our current judiciary system exploiting a personal vendetta, at your expense, this time due to a pending civil action for 'malicious prosecutions and false imprisonments' requiring well over one hundred South Wales Police officers, many retired, being made soon to swear, on oath, as to their reasons behind why, for ten years, I was harrassed whilst working as a veterinary surgeon in the Vale of Glamorgan".

"Losing well over one hundred charges and winning about twelve is only just part of their agenda to have me deprived of income and and the right to practice veterinary surgery".

"Evidence has shown they knew, from the start, that the 'Lewis machine gun' had been decommisioned by Viv Bellamy well over thirty years ago and had been one of several he had placed on his beautiful WW1 replicas I had had the honour to see being built at Lands End aerodrome back in the early seventies".

"In June last year, the twenty odd, many armed, police surrounded our home, in St Donats, on the Sunday, whilst Kirstie and I were drinking tea in the garden. With the police helicopter overhead, they aborted the one million pound "Operation Challice" raid "as you had to be arrested 'away' from the premises" the police officer admitted during cross examination".

"Next day they tried again and succeeded, but refused to admit they found my sixty-four page defendant's statement waiting for them, weighted down by deliberately planted 'ammunition', the very allegation at my arrest, as my phones had been tapped for years as a 'MAPPA level 3 terrorist', level 3 for the top 5% of the most dangerous villians let loose in our society!".

"The chap who sold me the gun was NOT arrested. The purchasing display pilot, like myself, my having been personally invited to fly the DH2 at 2000 Farnbough Air Show by Captain Trubshaw of 002 fame, was also NOT arrested, even though he had 'modified' her and painted her multicoloured."

"So why was his 'black and siver' paint not on the gun in court, why was I and nearly all the others, giving evidence, not allowed to examine her, why did she dissappear to South Wales Police forensic labs in her two thousand miles of perambulations around the country with, purportedly, only one police officer in the car, if they had not considered, for one moment, she was really a prohibited weapon?"

"And that arrogant Dr Tegwyn Williams of Caswell Clinic, South Wales Police Forensic Gulag in Bridgend, telling the judge I had brain damage, by being a long time drinking companion of Oliver Reed and off to Broadmoor I must go! And wicked 'Tom Thumb' Thomalow, HM prosecutor, telling the judge I had a brain tumour as I smouldered in the cells beneath that cess pit, Cardiff Crown Court. What do you make of that if not a conspiracy driven by avarice?"

[And why did my very own Cowbridge Health Centre family doctors repeatedly refuse to have me examined or referred when asked both during and after my acquittal? Why did I have to go to doctors outside Wales?]

"Reliance Custodial Services refusing me my medicine throughout the trial and my fifty-two lever arch files for most of the first week of the trial. Vermin caught in the head lights?

"HM Prison once again deliberately refusing me access to interview witnesses/legal papers during seven months of my incarceration. Relevant to a jury, do you ask? No wonder they want to do away with magistrate and jury systems, our last remnant of the Magna Carta."

It stinks, doesn't it, but the ring leaders will get away with it again, that is our current British custom.

Come to the steps of The Royal Courts of 'Justice', London, to hear more facts and of other cases during Sir Norman's rendition of Gilbert and Sullivan's 'Trial by Jury', our version. Hear more, a lot more, of the wide spread corruption currently in our law courts with the break down of 'the rule of law'. Rumour has it Old Man Scarth has a fine baritone voice, well, in a few notes anyway.

Full transcript on 'downloads' shortly.