Search results matching tags 'South Wales Police' and 'Professor Roger Wood'

Trial Judge Orders Release of South Wales Police Confidential MAPPA Minutes! Trouble Brewing?

Maurice — Mon, 11 Jul 2011 18:46:00 GMT

[Today's cockeyed court verdict on site tonight]

A huge police team of lawyers, today, respond by telling court and my supporters they have not even read them!

Am I to believe I live on some other planet or just crawled out from under a stone?

So is the judge expecting me to believe he is reading, tomorrow, before the 11am hearing continues, the original records?

Record of seven clandestine police meetings, first to get me arrested for trading in WWI antique Lewis machine guns and, once having me locked up in Cardiff prison, using a crooked doctor, a Dr. Tegwyn Williams of notorious Caswell Clinic, Bridgend, to fabricate reports, an excuse to stop the trial and apply to have me diverted to Ashworth high security prison, for life?

I really thought I was now off morphine and other such mind hallucinating drugs!

Dr Tegwyn Williams told countless Cardiff judges in 2009, I had ‘significant brain damage' and a possible brain tumour and was too dangerous to be released..

Interesting, he with no qualifications to do so, but no Welsh judge or Dr has ever bothered to tell me any of this, during my seven months incarceration in their Welsh hell hole, built purely to feed the 'Taffia gravy train'.

Dream on, boys and girls. I watched most days Dr Tegwyn Williams, in partnership with an NHS (Wales) administrator, quietly syphoning off appropriate Caswell Clinic patients to one of their very lucrative private clinics....all funded and paid for by the readers of this blog.

South Wales Police have a new problem now.. The trial judge is, simply, buggered.

By reading the forgeries tomorrow, he has to identify the authors of those who sat around the table in Barry police station on the 8^th June 2009, planning to having me shot. See this leaked report! E P stands for seasoned, no nonsence, Caswell Clinic social worker, Elizabeth Paul....seven more names of that frightening three month experience of mine, in Caswell Clinic, will trickle out on these blogs up to trial date when reach will receive a summonses to give evidence of what evilness they witnessed under Dr Tegwyn Williams

He also has to identify those at the remaining six meetings in Caswell Clinic, each month, all trying to thrash out another way, my now being in prison, of keeping me locked up, unconvicted, to screw up my prosecution of 10 years of extreme bullying by a police force that had clearly lost its head.

On the 17th Dec 2009, the last purported MAPPA meeting, someone removed my name from the register altogether! Tomorrow we might find out just who?

No one told me why I was no longer on MAPPA, just days before the farcical machine gun trial was due to start.....but 'truth will out'.

Tomorrow, at 11am in the Cardiff Civil Justice Centre, the case continues and I suggest you should not miss it for ‘all the tea in China'.

The QC and solicitor, methinks, were lying today and should be arrested.

If the police do not now arrest Dr Tegwyn Williams the learned judge has new a very huge problem.

All welcome to witness!

Caswell Clinic staff, Barbara Wilding and Dr Tegwyn Williams etc will be among many new faces in the trial, all made to give evidence on oath. The trial is now listed in the New Year, which year is debatable, to last, they estimate, for only nine weeks.....just where do they dream up these porky pies?

Key prosecution witnesses, to confirm the extreme bullying by South Wales Polikce, have, after 19 years, just been located!

So boo to those who snear at the 'ram butting the dam'...today.there is a 'gurt' crack appearing.

Free candy floss and ice cream at the interval while the safety curtain comes down...

Just how Incestuous can this Cardiff Court get? QC, Solicitor or Judge to be Arrested on Monday? [Can o fwydod]

Maurice — Sat, 09 Jul 2011 08:46:00 GMT

On Monday, at 2pm, 11^th July, Cardiff Civil Justice Centre my machine gun/false psychiatric reports, damages claim starts, having been refused a jury or it being transferred to England. They are for South Wales Police's unlawful attempts to having me jailed my life, unconvicted and attempting to have my 10 year old daughter ‘taken into care' by the Welsh courts, NHS and Welsh Social Services.

His Honour Judge Seys Llewellyn QC has already ‘struck out' an incident when police were caught on their own overhead road video [see website You Tube], beating me up in a Cardiff street and, later, in police cells and another incident he knows about, when the police withdrew reason for arrest aka ‘Breach of the Peace'. This judge ruled, "damages cannot be claimed against police if, after each incident complained of, you happen to pick up some criminal conviction, however trivial, whether related or not!"

This same judge, would you believe, has already refused to accept some 130 odd allegations, lost by the police, winning only around 12, is not an extreme example of police bullying !. He has ruled the first five Actions for damages will not be heard together, transfered to the High Court or will get a jury.

South Wales Police will be asking the same judge these latest damages claims, that caused me over seven months imprisonment, including three months of shear hell in Caswell Clinic psychiatric prison, must be adjourned for at least 5 years to allow the previous 5 Actions be heard, appealed and disposed of in their usual perfunctory way.

This Cardiff Cabal, of deceit and intrigue, have already managed to delay my 1st Action for damges for 19 years, my solicitor dying meantime, with key witnesses now either settled in old people's homes, senile or dead.

Come witness this judge block the recorded evidence of a criminal conspiracy by South Wales Police high ranking officers, in Barry police station and Caswell Clinic recorded in their own MAPPA minutes using the excuse it falls under PII, ie not in the public interest!

It stinks, doesnt it?

I am off the morphine so come witness real criminals being arrested, to eventually face private prosecutions by the people, their ‘Achilles Heel'.

Copy to HHJJ Seys Llewellyn 10^th July 2011

Dear Mr Oliver and His Honour Seys Llewellyn,

The Criminal Prosecution of Dr Tegwyn Williams and Merging all twenty years grievances into a case that Judges then approve to hear before a Jury in England

We refer to the letter 27 June 2011 regards case management hearing 11 & 12 July should not go ahead if the plan is to prevent fair trial, by not allowing access to justice of the opportunity to list all twenty years grievances into a case where selected issues of the twenty years can then go before a Court preferably before a jury.

We apologise to Mr Oliver for confusion in how the original transcript of letters (and specifically the letter 23 June 2001) on behalf of Mr Kirk are added to by many volunteers. I hope we can clarify as follows

Whereas Mr Kirk would know of grievance as to why private prosecutions could occur to many. To date, may be for reason of logistics, those of us who try to Mr Kirk write with more exactness, only have clear enough evidence ‘to immediately proceed' with a prosecution of a criminal case against Dr Tegwyn Williams, in England, if necessary.

It occurs to those of us who try to help Mr Kirk write in ways more suitable to helping the working of the Courts, that it is within Mr Oliver's responsibilities to his client SW Police that he would be eager to bring a criminal prosecution against Dr Tegwyn Williams, so as to distance SW Police from being tarnished by Dr Tegwyn Williams criminal conduct.

Given the basic evidence as below against Dr Tegwyn Williams is so very clear indeed, and obviously a very serious matter, if Police or their lawyers do not bring a prosecution against Dr Tegwyn Williams that leaves individuals in S.W. Police or individuals at their lawyers open to the charge of conspiracy with Dr Tegwyn Williams. It is a clear enough case to be easily merit and be investigated by an outside police force.

I am sure a man of standing such as Mr Oliver would not wish the good name of his client SW Police or their lawyers be drawn into allowing credible allegations of criminal conspiracy with Dr Tegwyn Williams. We therefore would like to hear from you as to how you propose to help facilitate a prosecution regards Dr Tegwyn Williams.

To clarify we remind that the clear criminal case against Dr Tegwyn Williams is that;-

Dr Tegwyn Williams wrote to and attended the Cardiff Crown Court, including on 2 December 2009, with information to substantially affect the outcome of the Crown Court and ways that could be expected to significantly contribute to losing Mr Kirk his liberty for life, by the single assertion that there was irreparable brain damage and possible brain tumour that affects behaviour.

Dr Tegwyn Williams must have known that Mr Kirk did not have brain damage (to affect behaviour) to merit indefinite loss of liberty.

Mr Kirk does not have brain damage from assessment in Wales, England and France

Dr Tegwyn Williams did not use anyone who is medically qualified to determine scans to say that Mr Kirk has ‘brain damage' and was not entitled to progress the view he did.

We ask you to receive this information with care and to be very clear, precise what you do with it and exactly who you pass it to at South Wales Police and the Crown Prosecution Service (Wales).

As stated, we feel that in such a clear case of wrongdoing by Dr Tegwyn Williams, anyone not acting to bring a prosecution when able to do so, may be obstructing justice or merit charges of being in a criminal conspiracy with Dr Tegwyn Williams.

The outcome will also be added to the twenty years of events that we consider should go before a jury trial.

We look forward to hearing from your kind self with news of how Dr Tegwyn Williams criminal conduct is to be addressed.

Please would his Honour Judge Seys Llewellyn note that we feel the 'mindset' that may emerge from this letter can be so relevant to be ‘grounds to appeal' following the decision of HHJ Seys Llewellyn on 11 and 12 July 2011.

Because the ‘mindset' here can indicate whether there was substantial unfairness in previous cases, before His Honour Seys Llewellyn, to even justify changes to case law, we feel it should all be addressed.

We see grounds for using the EU Court of Human Rights limited on the kinds of such ‘very clear' issues as above.

Yours,

Mackenzie Friends from around the world

Another approach is this, below or anarchy, perhaps and we take to the streets not forgetting other methods, in reserve, to concentrate their evil little minds.

Cardiff Civil Justice Centre 11^th July 11 Hearing for MAPPA Disclosure and application to put off Machine Gun Damages Claim for Five Years

Kirk v South Wales Police    6 Actions for Damages

Kirk v NHS, Dr Tegwyn Williams, Professor Wood, HMP Prison Cardiff

Applications

1. A can of worms or a can of worms?

2. Last two years ‘mindset' of South Wales Police calls for the trial judge to re consider his 2010 judgments, currently subject to appeal.

3. Transfer all litigation to England

4. Transfer to High Court outside Wales

5. Consolidation of cases due to extreme and unusual case of blatant police bullying making previous case law, relied upon by Defence, as totally irrelevant.

6. Machine Gun case, falsified psychiatric reports and other failed 2010 police prosecutions, all for the Defendant to delay ongoing civil actions, should be given to an outside police force for a thorough independent criminal investigation.

•A.     HM Court Service (Wales)

1. HMCS refuse Claimant access to public counter

2. Communicate by e-mails

3. Make telephone calls for clarification

4. Allowed pay court fees by credit card over phone

5. Allowed to have affidavits sworn at court before a Court Order dead line

6. Conspired to prosecute common assault conviction (2^nd Nov 2010), ignoring medical evidence, HMCS not placing evidence before the District Judge

7. Court manager & HM Treasury Solicitor's ‘internal memos', circa 2003, re ‘Vexatious Litigant' registration, revealing miserable but expensive attempts over five years + and losing vital court files to block Claimant's right to the rule of law.

8. HMCS refuses to disclose information to the Claimant in the trial and conviction, in Claimant's absence, now before Welsh Administrative Court. Immediate withdrawal of bail restrictions and arrest order when part release took place in May 2011.....utter abuse of process and criminal conduct.

9. Deliberate withholding of ex MP's obtained independent medical report for 2^nd Dec 2009 hearing, castigating Dr Williams on intrusive dangerous POW unnecessary brain scan and giving false evidence for 10 Cardiff Crown Court judges.

•B.      Criminal Conduct of SWP solicitors, Dolmans of Cardiff.

1. False Feb 09 Chief Superintendant sworn affidavit despite Dolmans having been supplied with 50 odd Claimant lever arch files identifying the court cases and police break-in to his veterinary surgery with Barbara Wilding denying knowledge thereof .

2. 22^nd July 2009 Dolmans had Claimant jailed and ignored trial judge 2010 Court Order to disclose details of complaint that had to his arrest and jail, designed to delay civil trials.

3. Dolmans fully aware Dr Tegwyn Williams' false psychiatric reports concocted by police for Claimant's incarceration in Broadmoor for life.

[‘Significant brain damage', brain tumour and evidence on 2^nd December 2009]

4. Claimant receives Estimated Defendant's £800,000 legal costs

5. Refuse mediation for the cash or from tax payer quoting trial judge's view!

•C.      Trial Judge

1. Claimant refused to prosecute several incidents because convicted despite being unrelated to his proposed prosecution or after specific bullying.

Eg.   a. Overhead video catching Claimant being beaten up by police

         b. Breach of the Peace allegation withdrawn due to forged police papers, countless court irregularities and CPS perjury before Recorder of Cardiff.

         c. Roundabout incident and motoring conviction irrelevant to "We will get the ***" said by police and overhead heard by veterinary nurse planted in back of court due to Claimant's absence. All refused incidents now subject to appeal, in Wales, having been refused an English court.

2. Refuses to consolidate.....4^th, 5^th damages cases and 'machine gun' case whilst defence application is to put off the latter, effectively, for 5 years.

3. MAPPA minutes disclosure so far refused identifying more in the conspiracy, sat around eight tables, to have Claimant either shot or jailed, IPP, for life.

ie 8^th June 09 Barry police station MAPPA meeting, no one ever told the Claimant and 1st June 09 IAG meeting at police HQ, 3 weeks before arrest registered in level 3 MAPPA, top 5% most dangerous , with the hpe of getting him shot (see leaked MAPPA memos). 17^th Dec 09 Claimant's name removed from MAPPA surveillance, again, without explanation or knowledge of Claimant until too late to inform judge for bail.

•D.     Machine Gun Trial

South Wales Police arranged with CAA for four other identical ‘guns', on replica WW1 aircraft or museums to be taken by owners to gunsmiths! In Claimant's case the Welsh police travelled with it, often alone, 2000 miles, contrary to HO gun Regulations, touring the UK desperate to frame the Claimant for mandatory ten year prison sentance.

English police washed their hands if it refusing to arrest either new owner or previous owner of Lewis machine gun so Welsh police called them as prosecution witnesses after attempting to modifying the ‘gun' more, for trial, police knowing the new owner had , himself, modified it, contrary to the 1968 Fire Arms Act.

Machine gun trial heard no evidence of Claimant's ‘permanent brain damage/brain tumour' with the trial judge pretending he knew nothing of it.

Claimant refused repeated bent legal representation, sent into prison, gave no evidence, called no witnesses , refused judge's demand for defence statement, refused to sum up , jury making up its mind on the very first day of evidence stating, to the Claimant's friends and relations in a Cardiff restaurant immediately after the shambolic trial, "all the police were lying".

NHS, Williams, Prof Wood, HM prison (Nov 2010 £50,000 judgment awarded to Claimant, by trial judge against HM Prison Cardiff is still live. Retired HM Governor ignored thi judge's Order for ‘Governor at the time' statement for any disclosure of audit trail or did HMCS block serving of the summons for false imprisonment in the first place? It stinks, doesn't it?

•E.      Police/NHS/Dr Tegwyn Williams/ Professor Wood/ HM Prison Conduct

Claimant' forced prolonged illness was a deliberate tactic by most of above Defendants to prejudice his civil litigation.

After Claimant's release from prison, on 9^th Feb 2010, NHS refused to carry out a brain scan or operation, Welsh GP practices refused Claimant as a patient and only by going to France did he obtain a brain scan and urgently overdue hip replacement, in March 2011, to get him off powerful analgesics and other mind hallucinating drugs for acute pain.

Human Rights abuse was rife, but who, in Wales, is counting?

Summary

Another typical example of antiquated adversarial UK legal system, contrary to European methods of obtaining the truth, propagated in Cardiff, this time, for their HM Partnership ‘gravy train' to prolong proceedings for as long as possible using, yet again, the tried and tested method of ‘Treacle Treatment', to Delay.

7. By this court, not consolidating cases, not transferring to the High Court, out of Wales and for independent police force not examining Claimant's private prosecution evidence served, again, this week at Cardiff Central police station and currently before an English criminal court, this trial judge is at serious risk of abuse of process, blocking mediation and settlement out of court, many knowing a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice within the Welsh judiciary is proved.

8. The Defendants are relying on the usual ‘treacle treatment', for a Claimant against the State, to either ‘run out of money', ‘run out of steam' or, simply, ‘die'.

Voltaire wrote, something like, ‘When the State get it wrong it is dangerous to be right'.

The Claimant believes, there is only one truth, no matter which litigant has control of it.

Maurice J Kirk BVSc

St Doha

Brittany.

.

Lord Justice Moses caught on VIDEO Refusing re Dr Tegwyn Williams' Falsifed Medical Records Conspiracy to obtain My IPP Imprisonment

Maurice — Tue, 28 Jun 2011 22:07:00 GMT

Royal Courts of Justice, today...What a load of nonsense. The Appeal before Lord Justice Moses et al, was today!

"No, Mr Kirk, you cannot have an oral hearing ....we have already decided to dismiss your Appeal" (arguing with Cardiff judge, Nicholas Cooke QC, who damned well knew Williams was lying nor had the qualifications to try and section me to Broadmoor, on his interpretation of an NHS brain scan!

Now RCJ judges are in on the act.

Imagine that approximate account of what was said in front of Rear Admiral rtd. Norman Scarth Esq. provoked?!

The pandemonium in number 9 court, with utterances of truth only from the well of the court, leading to eight security guards, ready to drag out two old men must be published see video here:

A Den of Evil - Maurice Kirk & Norman Scarth in court 28/6/2011

Anarchy is just around the corner and it starts at Cardiff Magistrates tomorrow at 10 am. and then across the country

See new photos on Gallery.

A Bradford judge sent Patrick Cullinane to prison for four months simply for using an audio recorder in court.
If Lord 'Justice'(??) Moses had any guts he would have stayed in court, called security to take us down to the cells & then sent us to prison, as Patrick was. Instead, while the next case was supposed to be proceeding, he, Mr Justice Maddison and Leeds Recorder all scuttled out like frightened rabbits, leaving the pathetic female usher to act as though she were God Almighty!
Norman Scarth

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.

Alerting Welsh Ministers to the State of NHS Wales

Maurice — Wed, 23 Mar 2011 08:40:00 GMT

Carwyn Jones AM
First Minister
National Assembly of Wales

Edwina Hart AM
Minister for Health and Social Services
National Assembly of Wales

23 March 2011

Dear Mr Carwyn Jones AM and Mrs Edwina Hart AM,

Re: My Welsh Operation will now be in France. Is this the best future for Wales?

Important New Evidence that tests the State and Future of Wales NHS.

Mr David Sissling leaves as the local Chief Executive at ABMU LHB to be Chief of the Welsh NHS in May 2011. Edwina Hart as Welsh Health Minister and Mr Win Griffiths as Chairman ABMU LHB were being very helpful by seeking Mr David Sissling to address my concerns.

However, is it your place to intervene on the bigger issues and policy effect on the culture of the Welsh NHS, by whether the future NHS Chief Mr David Sissling's approach is appropriate, for the people of Wales to have confidence in the oversight by Welsh Ministers?

"Clear Evidence" of Brain Damage/Cancer - Available Facts about Dr Tegwyn Williams:

1) It appears, especially given his constant refusal to comment, that Dr Tegwyn Williams decided this brain damage existed without using any appropriately medically qualified doctor to allow or support his conclusion.

2) Yet it seems, when not using anyone medically qualified to progress such a view, that in 2009 Dr Tegwyn Williams wrote to the Crown Court to say that there is "clear evidence" that I have brain damage. Furthermore that the brain damage (that Dr Tegwyn Williams says exists) is supposed to also, according to Dr Tegwyn Williams, give an incurable condition leading to an unhelpful behaviour change, so to support that I may need to loose my liberty indefinitely, when I have never been convicted of any relevant or serious offence.

3) Furthermore, Crown Court transcripts of 2 December 2009 record a Crown Prosecution Counsel, Mr Twomlow, saying that Dr Tegwyn Williams wishes his concern about my having brain cancer to affect the decisions by the Crown Court.

"No" Brain Damage, "No" Cancer: by Two Sets of Evidence from both France & Wales.

4) In August 2009 properly qualified medical doctors at the Princess of Wales Hospital, Bridgend and later, in Southampton University, give an ‘all clear' brain scan result.

5) Yet, Dr Tegwyn Williams asserting brain damage or cancer means that my urgently needed hip operation cannot occur until surgeons are certain of what conditions may exist. Limited disclosure of records only added to confusion and delay as Dr Tegwyn Williams refuses to clarify about brain damage and cancer.

6) In February 2011 properly qualified medical doctors in France did a new brain scan and concluded also an ‘all clear' brain scan result.

Questions I ask be answered:

1. Do six Medical Opinions that contradict what Dr Tegwyn Williams says and his refusal to comment, adequately present a reasonable suspicion for the employer, Mr David Sissling, to act?

2. Why is there inaction to protect minimum standards, when ‘to be seen to act', the employer only needs to ask the General Medical Council to investigate to form their view?

3. Will this inaction justify more people to be forced to refuse to use a belligerent Welsh NHS?

4. Why is the future leader of the Wales NHS allowing and so supporting Dr Tegwyn Williams to behave as he does?

5. I am an Englishman granted Asylum in France in order to avoid Dr Tegwyn Williams' jurisdiction to use his opinion again to cause more harm or affect my liberty.

6. If I have to go to the additional strain of proving in the Welsh civil and criminal courts, by way of a private prosecution, that Dr Tegwyn Williams has acted dishonestly and maliciously, will my needing to so act spearhead that the Wales NHS uphold the basic minimum standards or will I inadvertently, as good as prove that Mr Sissling and therefore Welsh Ministers have abandoned important responsibilities and duties for which they take office and are paid?

7. My wife and daughter continue to live in the Vale of Glamorgan. Can I have your assurance the serious erosion of minimum standards in the Welsh NHS will be immediately addressed and rectified?

As you are both experienced and able politicians, I am sure you will welcome that I look forward to placing your reply alongside various comments on my website.

Yours

Copy to

Mr Win Griffiths, Chairman ABMU LHB
Mr David Sissling, Chief Executive, ABMU LHB
Media Wales
BBC Wales

The K-Team Brings Home the Bacon (hopefully)! Questions Asked in House of Lords

Maurice — Fri, 04 Mar 2011 21:34:00 GMT

The picture was taken when the 4 bundles were ready to go to the Court of Appeal in London, a day after the rugby win of England over France - hence the St. George's flag but on 6th March Maurice receives a High Court letter saying the Appeal must be heard before a 'single judge', in Cardiff of all places! Just how much more incestuous can this case get?

The bundles contain, above all,

Questions asked in House of Lords...see latest DOWNLOAD

the Draft Order
the 40-page Judgment on Preliminary Issues
Permission to Appeal from a common sense perspective
Permission to Appeal by a legally trained mind
the refusal to appeal by HHJ Seys Llewellyn QC
the Grounds for Appeal - besides oodles of documents illustrating:

the bullying and harassment madness of 39 motoring incidents, between 1993 and 2002, that were used to get Maurice struck off the Register of Veterinary Surgeons (2002)
evidence of delaying this civil court action (lodged in 1996) to progress, by stepping up the level of bullying and harassment through MAPPA (Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements), firearms response, 7 months imprisonment, including 3 months incarcerationin a psychiatric clinic, claiming serious brain damage, possibly brain tumour
evidence of the torturous mis-management of medical records by the NHS and its organisations, preventing Maurice from having his painful hip replaced (first scheduled for June 2010!).

After a month of 24/7 frantic court preparation, house bound in a forest in Brittany, in much pain and up to his knees in screwed up A4 paper, empty wine bottles and half eaten plates of food, battling against the ‘invincible prejudice' of our UK judiciary, Maurice finally crawls on to his settee and falls asleep.

With no phone line or internet for weeks and hobbling so badly now, just to get to his front door, today manages to get to the village's oh so erratic access to cyberspace and e-mail. The Skeleton Argument for the Royal Courts of Justice, on a deadline, goes at last, only for it to bounce straight back, meaning it has to go via Berlin!

HM Court Service gremlins, once again, are interfering in the ‘due process' of law, the guys now, with a little help from the South Wales Police, now seeming to have taken over the purpose of the ‘lay magistrate', lay jury and statute law, our last bastions of impartiality, setting aside the moment, the Freemasonry argument and even the occasional judge, now, is spotted quietly edging, by inconceivable steps, towards ‘political discretion', for judgment, rather than using the truth and the ‘Rule of Law'.

Today, the K-Team finished the Skeleton Argument, some 37 pages, for the Court of Appeal in London, a legal view of a potted history of an Englishman's experience of his 20 years of purgatory, trying to go about his business in South Wales, as a veterinary surgeon, where ‘Law and Order' is now clearly a joke and where ‘Big Brother' is being groomed as a testing ground. So what does he have in store for YOU?

Maurice knows full well, just how lucky he was, not getting locked away for life in a high security psychiatric prison. He often has sleepless nights reliving his sheer hell in Caswell Clinic. Falsified medical reports by Dr Tegwyn Williams & Professor Roger Wood nearly worked, as well as nearly being shot by South Wales Police, under the pretence of him being a MAPPA dangerous predator!

He will always remain indebted to friends and the ‘silent helpers' in cyberspace, that published world wide the evilness oozing out of Cardiff and Bridgend's Authorities that year.

Next time they will be a little less arrogant and plan a little better, control coming from Whitehall next time, which is why he is one step ahead, at the moment, on asylum in France.

The power of websites, to educate those few who wish to listen, must be made more effective now that websites and telephone interference is rampant, so, please, watch your back.

PS from the sister blog (over 1,700 hits since September 2010):

The K-Team is a miraculous network of support that has formed around Maurice and includes a superb legally trained mind.

One of the outcomes is this 37-page document with 268 paragraphs. It asks the Court of Appeal to consider a number of things:

1. to "consolidate" the four actions into one
2. to consider how the lower Court erred in law on a number of levels
3. to look at the whole case in terms of "bullying" which means including cumulative effects
4. to think about the implications for public services, Parliament and the electorate
5. to remember human rights
6. to consider a level playing field between Claimant and Defendent (a huge organisation)
7. to take into account that Maurice can't get a lawyer.

All in all, the best possible overview that takes all aspects of Maurice's life into account, except what preceded South Wales: Guernsey and Somerset.........

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

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

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

To the House of Commons

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dear Mr Cairns,

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

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

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

Yours sincerely, .

Maurice J Kirk BVSc

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

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

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

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

This cannot be understood without

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

10. Quotes from 8th Oct 2010 County Court Judgment

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

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

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

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

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

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