Search results matching tag 'failed disclosure'

UK Family Courts' Royal Charter Immunity to Prosecution used to Snatch Children for Cash

Maurice — Tue, 06 Sep 2011 08:05:00 GMT

"We were in court today from 9:30am and ****** *renewed the Interim Care Order on the phone with Judge Hess, while we were waiting for the hearing. By 4pm we were called before Judge Berry who told us the ICO has been renewed on the phone by judge Hess.

We are still in shock of what we have experienced today 5 Sept 2011, please see below the family proceedings guideline.

If a court will breach its Rule, we have completely lost faith in family court."

Rule 28 of the Family Proceedings Courts (Children Act 1988)

The above is part of an e-mail by a very frightened family from Nigeria who have not seen their six children for months and one for over a year.

It is rumoured they are under the so called ‘care’ of a London Borough Council.

I arrived at 10am and spent until 4pm trying to find someone in the family court building in Holborn, London to admit the case was listed!

Well, it was not listed despite the clear document created by a High Court judge when I last attended this despicable case at the Royal Courts of Justice.

I had to demand it was listed standing over the officials, all very perplexed I must say, until the court document was completed with participants signature, so recorded.

After 4pm I heard the case called and attended as McKenzie Friend. Mere nanoseconds had been set aside for the hearing with clear charged emotion shown in the face of the man in charge, as he scurried from the court.

I had listed six outstanding issues needing disclosure which were then re-written by the mother as an application. The judge would have none of it, saying it can be dealt with at the same Family Court, 42-49 Holborn this Thursday, 8^th September at 10am (and I may be there with friends, placards and megaphone, I muttered).

So off to the police station, where the parents were arrested and jailed, to demand their custody records and copy tapes of their separate interviews, under caution.

6pm at Hornsey police station, Wood Green, North London

Now, the parents of the six snatched children were purportedly arrested in St Thomas's Hospital in June and detained there for 27 hours, miles North of the river.

They were denied copy of custody records or copy tape of their interrogations, under caution......interesting, I wonder why?

So we collectively crammed ourselves into the police busy reception area, not much bigger than a couple of telephone boxes, along with many ‘signing in' on bail or desperate in trying to report crime!

Could I get their custody records? No chance! The parents had already written for them weeks ago and one police sergeant clearly took great delight in saying "Yes I need only press the computer button and it will all come spewing out but they are not getting it."

So we waited for the shift to change and a new officer ‘in charge' was again asked.....no chance. "Can I speak to the duty inspector or record, please, I need to make an appointment?" No chance.

I would be arrested, I was told, if I remained.

Outside the station I tackled some eight or more returning officers, clearly harassed and tired from a day's work. Those prepared to reply all indicated something was not quite right which visibly, at least, cheered up the frantic parents still deprived of their children.

Meantime the ‘gravy train of family lawyers' continues to milk the tax payer for millions by dragging out their respective cases......but not without letting it slip, I picked up, that some film actress or TV person the name of Collins, in East Enders, appeared to be ‘on the make'. She was making advances to acquire the children without the parent's consent, made known to her in no uncertain terms!

Now we have both Tuesday and Wednesday, to get up to some possible mischief, before the Thursday hearing.........

This blog will disclose court documents and pictures between now and the Thursday hearing together with some photos of a once happy family.

This child snatching case is being handled in exactly the same way as to what is going on with the South Wales Police bullying. Family courts are now being allowed to ignore the Rule of Law in the same way...

Extract from a conversation with another shocked observer:

When you read British Govt Detains Nigerian Couple’s Six Children, in a Nigerian National paper, published on 21 August 2011, you cannot but wonder why nobody seems to have been helping effectively. A website that attracted nearly 4,000 hits in just one month didn’t seem to help either. Only a gagging order from the Council concerned. According to experts, the worst of them all...

So why should I bother? Because I’ve now seen in Family Courts exactly what I’ve seen in South Wales: civil servants do ANYTHING to cover up any mistake, wrong-doing or crime by any of their buddies / colleagues / brethren.

After all, they are protected from immunity thanks to the Royal Charters that are being “royally” abused. What can we, the people, do but cuddle up and wait until we die? What’s the point exposing the documents they falsify, the orders that are supposed to have come from a court but never had a judge sitting? What’s the point making WANTED posters of judges, doctors and other “professionals” when nobody will ever prosecute them? Parliament is riddled with lawyers now. The MPs who are interested in white collar crimes are so few that they even face calls to resign by their colleagues. There is only one answer, it seems: we have to act according to our own nature and decide what’s worth doing...

Back to my own story related to all this and the 28th September High Court hearing in Cardiff Civil Justice Centre when 20 years of South Wales Police bullying will become evident to anyone attending ( I pay for lunch):

Here are the transcripts of what was supposedly said on 12 July 2011:

Machine Gun Case and MAPPA Disclosure 11th July 2pm at Cardiff County Court

Maurice — Wed, 06 Jul 2011 08:18:00 GMT

Roll up, roll up, see corruption in the raw!

While I was outside the Cardiff court yesterday, demonstrating with megaphone and posters, a relation of one of the machine gun jury, in January 2009, came up and said she was appalled at Judge Paul Thomas QC's conduct, he stating she believed it had been, "chaotic and bloody shambolic". I told him, knowing the taffia's real reason behind the trial, I could have been a mass murderer and I would still have got off!

Yesterday's e-mails from both Adrian Oliver, for machine gun case damages and Morgan Cole , for Dr Tegwyn Wiliams and Professor Wood false medical reports damages, both indicated frantic activity within the South Wales Police, to put both cases into the 'long grass'.

One or two more Welsh judges will oblige them, no doubt, to keep the truth from the general public

WANTED

Judge Paul Thomas QC

As Cardiff trial judge he refused me - my medication, my documents in cell below, bail, relevant witnesses, the right to cross examine relevant issues, the right to interview my own witnesses, to stop a hopeless trial, disclosure of the police fabricated conspiracy with MAPPA/FTAC, seeking IPP, that I was dangerous and in ‘possession of a WW1 decommissioned Lewis machine gun with live ammunition.

Jury decided verdict after first day of evidence

He refused the huge costs incurred

Evilness Personified

Published by Maurice Kirk www.kirkflyingvet.com

(Content of many WANTED posters to be dropped over Cardiff from a great height)

It stinks, does'nt it?

Come Witness More Corruption on the 11th July 2pm at Cardiff County Court

The conspiracy to having me shot or locked away for life, IPP, by the Defendant in this Monday's case, all surfaces in their very own made cesspit of evilness, known as a Cardiff court, changed, at 2pm.

Maurice pays for lunch and and sticky buns, in the intervals when the fire curtain comes down. That's if you can bear the stench, in the auditorium, in this local theatre of entertainment known as the Cardiff Justice Centre. 2pm

See video (in blog post below) of UK Law Lords scurrying out of court, last week, knowing these issues, to be raised on Monday, were, at last, before them, the method, to get it out of Wales, having been somewhat un-orthodox.

A general statement on behalf of "We the people..." who believe our government and law courts have undermined basic human rights and pledge to fulfil the promise of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is here.

MONDAY AGENDA

On Monday at 2pm police apply to court to put off my current machine gun one million pound claim until outcome of my 19 year running damages claim of police bullying ie 2years.

Also, today, my seperate claim against NHS, Dr Williams and Prof Wood falsified medical reports to get me to Ashworth High Security Prison has recieved in court an application by Defendants to stay also!.

Bearing in mind my private prosecutions in Cardiff mag are now subject to 'state a case' back at DJ Martin Brown and Bristol magistrates advise are back before judge Nicholas Cooke QC ,who you may remember,on 1st Oct 2009 throuout norman and myself, refusing me bail lying to you that the psychiatric report was correct..

Also 6 hours with police this week, repeating all complaints I generated when that evil Caswell Clinic, in 2009, run by Williams to fill his private clinics.

On Monday the trial judge is forced to make decision on whether I get MAPPA minutes of June 09 to Dec 09, not subject to PII, which reveals more of the conspiracy to get me to prison for life,unconvicted.

You shoukd be able to precict his behavioour after his last one which included I could not sue police3 for beating me up caught on over head camera (see videos).

There is much more I am not prepared to reveal just now

Application to a magistrates' court to state a case 5th July 2011

64.1.-(1) An application under section 111(1) of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980(a) shall be made in writing and signed by or on behalf of the applicant and shall identify the question or questions of law or jurisdiction on which the opinion of the High Court is sought.

(2) Where one of the questions on which the opinion of the High Court is sought is whether there was evidence on which the magistrates' court could come to its decision, the particular finding of fact made by the magistrates' court which it is claimed cannot be supported by the evidence before the magistrates' court shall be specified in such application.

(3) Any such application shall be sent to a court officer for the magistrates' court whose decision is questioned.

Cardiff Magistrates
Cardiff
South Wales

5^th July 2011

Laying of Information against Adrian Oliver, Barbara Wilding and Dr Tegwyn Williams

An application under section 111(1) of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980(a) is made to state a case before the High Court on the premise that Adrian Oliver drafted an affidavit for the County Court, having stated to the Cardiff County Court had full disclosure knowing the affidavit to be false for Barbara Wilding to sign it.

Further, for Barbara Wilding to have ignored the November 2008 Court Order, immediately handing in her notice as Chief Constable and then signing the 25^th February 2009 affidavit, knowing it to be false, was also a criminal offence.

To then employ medical staff, on or before 8^th June 2009, from her South Wales Police forensic unit, Caswell Clinic, Bridgend, informing them Maurice Kirk was likely to be shot but deliberately delaying his arrest was a criminal offence.

Once detained in custody, on the 22^nd July 2009 for police using Adrian Oliver to lay complaint, knowing it to be false, was a criminal offence.

The magistrate knew or should have known all three of the accused were all implicated if not fully aware, in over 130 criminal allegations brought by the South Wales Police of which as few as 12 had been found proven in local Welsh courts, was part of promised immunity to prosecution in the Principality, purely for profit.

The HM Court Service (Wales) and Crown Prosecution Service (Wales) were equally well informed, in that 29^th June 2011 magistrates court hearing with prima facie evidence of an apparent conspiracy to pervert the course of justice by all three accused and should or did inform the district judge accordingly.

Dr Tegwyn Williams was employed by police to falsify his first psychiatric report to MAPPA and IAG, on the 1^st June 2009, following Maurice Kirk's applications to the Royal Courts of Justice and elsewhere, in England, for an independent police investigation.

The magistrate had access to all this above information and documents already before him, with both the CPS, and HMCS in attendance together with Adrian Oliver, also an officer of the court, all bound, by oath, not to knowingly allow an ‘abuse of process' to be obtained in any England and Wales court of law.

For the magistrate to deliberately state the findings of Dr Tegwyn Williams, ‘significant brain damage', ‘paranoid delusional disorder' [belief Maurice Kirk believed police were bullying him] and ‘having a possible brain tumour' was, in itself, an abuse and a criminal offence.

Dr Tegwyn Williams neither had the qualifications nor the knowledge and when in possession of contrary evidence by experts, to have knowingly falsified numerous, some yet undisclosed, despite court order, psychiatric reports, to have Maurice Kirk sectioned to Ashworth high security prison for life, was a criminal offence.

Williams was aware such an attempt would prejudice Maurice Kirk's 19 year running civil damages claim against the police and nearly 8 months imprisonment, that Maurice Kirk was in possession of a machine gun, had been fabricated by Barbara Wilding for her own private purposes.

6 hours, today, with Cardiff police and visiting Cardiff Crown court, upon the advice of and English court, in Bristol, was a joke. HHJ Cooke QC repeating his arrogant deceit by refusing disclosure of my own medical records, he personally had ordered to get him sectioned, will again go before the Criminal Court of Appeal, London and will again be videoed for internet coverage to expose South Wales deceit riddled judiciary driven by avarice.

For police, today, to suggest Maurice Kirk report his complaint of ‘attempted murder' to IPCC is an insult to his intelligence, since they know he had already been there, countless times, bought the T-shirt and seen the movie.

Police, today, refused to investigate my complaints or refer them to the CPS but, instead, referred the documents to the South Wales Police HQ, Bridgend.

Gloucestershire police have already refused to investigate sending all the evidence to the villains.

Maurice Kirk makes application to pay £20,000 or whatever sum of money it takes, to a police officer, for the release of records relating only to him, created by IAG, MAPPA, Caswell Clinic, HM prison, Cardiff, Cardiff courts and Dr Tegwyn Williams thereby unable to be withheld, any longer, on the legal argument of Public Interest Immunity to be attempted in another thoroughly corrupt welsh environment, Cardiff County Court, on 11^th and 12^th July, before HHJ Seys Llewellyn QC.

All invited, lunch on Maurice Kirk, as usual.

Maurice J Kirk BVSc

Enclosed criminal charges before 28^th June 2011 Cardiff Magistrates Court

Criminal Charges

Barbara Wilding, ex-Chief Constable of the South Wales Constabulary

On a day between the 4th Day of October 2008 and 26^th Day of Feb 2009, in the Vale of Glamorgan, South Wales, with Adrian Oliver and other persons unknown, you did conspire to pervert the course of justice by the production of a sworn affidavit, dated 25^th Feb 2009, for His Honour Judge Nicholas Chambers QC, knowing it to be false, contrary to section 1(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1977.

On a day between 1^st June 2009 and 25^th June 2009, in the Vale of Glamorgan, South Wales, with persons unknown and by laying false information before Multi Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA) meetings, you attempted to murder Maurice John Kirk knowing it to be unlawful and contrary to Criminal Attempts Act 1981.1.

On the 22nd June 2009, in the Vale of Glamorgan, South Wales, with persons unknown, under Operation Chalice, you did conspire to pervert the course of justice by having Maurice John Kirk arrested and gaoled for being in possession of a prohibited weapon, one WWI Lewis machine gun, knowing it to be false and contrary to section 1(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1977.

On the 22nd June 2009, in the Vale of Glamorgan, South Wales, with persons unknown, you did conspire to pervert the course of justice by having Maurice John Kirk arrested and gaoled for being in possession of ammunition, knowing it to be false and contrary to section 1(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1977.

On or about 22nd June 2009, in the Vale of Glamorgan, South Wales, with persons unknown, under Operation Orchid, you did harass Maurice John Kirk and/or Kirstie Louse Kirk and her daughter, indicating social services may remove Genevieve Kirk from the family unit when knowing the reasons to be false and contrary to section 2 of the Harassment Act 1997.

Adrian Oliver of Dolmans, solicitors, Windsor Place, Cardiff

1. On a day between the 4th Day of October 2008 and 26^th Day of Feb 2009, in the Vale of Glamorgan, South Wales, with Barbara Wilding and other persons unknown, did conspire to pervert the course of justice by the production of a sworn affidavit, dated 25^th Feb 2009,following the Order of His Honour Nicholas Chambers QC,knowing it to be false and contrary to section 1(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1977.

2. On a day between 19^th and 20^th June 2009 in the Vale of Glamorgan, South Wales, with other persons unknown, did conspire to pervert the course of justice by the laying of information, namely, threat to cause criminal damage,knowing it to be false and causing Maurice John Kirk to be arrested, contrary to section 1(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1977.

Dr Tegwyn Williams of Caswell Clinic, South Wales Police Forensic Psychiatric Unit, Bridgend, South Wales

1. On a day between 8^th June and 17^th December 2009, in the Vale of Glamorgan, South Wales, with persons unknown, did conspire to pervert the course of justice by the production of psychiatric reports of Maurice John Kirk knowing them to be false and written without the necessary qualifications, contrary to section 1(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1977.

2. On 2nd December 2009, at Cardiff Crown Court in the Vale of Glamorgan South Wales, with Richard Thomlow, Crown Prosecution barrister, did conspireto pervert the course of justice by the laying of information before His Honour Judge Neil Bidder QC, knowing it to be false, namely, that Maurice John Kirk had significant brain damage and a possible brain tumour and recommending he be sentto ahigh security psychiatric hospital for an indeterminate period.

Criminal Charges against Barbara Wilding, Dr Tegwyn Williams and Adrian Oliver: Royal Courts of Justice 28th June 10.30 court 9 & Cardiff Magistrates 29th June10 am

Maurice — Sat, 25 Jun 2011 11:28:00 GMT

Criminal Charges

Barbara Wilding, ex-Chief Constable of the South Wales Constabulary

On a day between the 4th Day of October 2008 and 26^th Day of Feb 2009, in the Vale of Glamorgan, South Wales, with Adrian Oliver and other persons unknown, you did conspire to pervert the course of justice by the production of a sworn affidavit, dated 25^th Feb 2009, for His Honour Judge Nicholas Chambers QC, knowing it to be false, contrary to section 1(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1977.

On a day between 1^st June 2009 and 25^th June 2009, in the Vale of Glamorgan, South Wales, with persons unknown and by laying false information before Multi Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA) meetings, you attempted to murder Maurice John Kirk knowing it to be unlawful and contrary to Criminal Attempts Act 1981.1.

On the 22nd June 2009, in the Vale of Glamorgan, South Wales, with persons unknown, under Operation Chalice, you did conspire to pervert the course of justice by having Maurice John Kirk arrested and gaoled for being in possession of a prohibited weapon, one WWI Lewis machine gun, knowing it to be false and contrary to section 1(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1977.

On the 22nd June 2009, in the Vale of Glamorgan, South Wales, with persons unknown, you did conspire to pervert the course of justice by having Maurice John Kirk arrested and gaoled for being in possession of ammunition, knowing it to be false and contrary to section 1(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1977.

On or about 22nd June 2009, in the Vale of Glamorgan, South Wales, with persons unknown, under Operation Orchid, you did harass Maurice John Kirk and/or Kirstie Louse Kirk and her daughter, indicating social services may remove Genevieve Kirk from the family unit when knowing the reasons to be false and contrary to section 2 of the Harassment Act 1997.

Adrian Oliver of Dolmans, solicitors, Windsor Place, Cardiff

On a day between the 4th Day of October 2008 and 26^th Day of Feb 2009, in the Vale of Glamorgan, South Wales, with Barbara Wilding and other persons unknown, did conspire to pervert the course of justice by the production of a sworn affidavit, dated 25^th Feb 2009, following the Order of His Honour Nicholas Chambers QC, knowing it to be false and contrary to section 1(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1977.
On a day between 19^th and 20^th June 2009 in the Vale of Glamorgan, South Wales, with other persons unknown, did conspire to pervert the course of justice by the laying of information, namely, threat to cause criminal damage,knowing it to be false and causing Maurice John Kirk to be arrested, contrary to section 1(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1977.

Dr Tegwyn Williams of Caswell Clinic, South Wales Police Forensic Psychiatric Unit, Bridgend, South Wales

On a day between 8^th June and 17^th December 2009, in the Vale of Glamorgan, South Wales, with persons unknown, did conspire to pervert the course of justice by the production of psychiatric reports of Maurice John Kirk knowing them to be false and written without the necessary qualifications, contrary to section 1(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1977.
On 2nd December 2009, at Cardiff Crown Court in the Vale of Glamorgan South Wales, with Richard Thomlow, Crown Prosecution barrister, did conspire to pervert the course of justice by the laying of information before His Honour Judge Neil Bidder QC, knowing it to be false, namely, that Maurice John Kirk had significant brain damage and a possible brain tumour and recommending he be sent to a high security psychiatric hospital for an indeterminate period.

FAO Their Lordships
Royal Courts of Justice
London

Contempt of Court Appeal

Anarchy is just about to take over

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/2009/03/03/12-police-charged-over-lynette-white-murder-case-91466-23052198/

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.

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

Welsh Assembly Elections draw Near, Edwina Hart AM, Jane Hutt AM

Maurice — Sun, 26 Dec 2010 18:02:00 GMT

Subject: ATTENTION: DAVID SISSLING - WALES NHS

Dear Mr. Sissling

MAURICE KIRK

I am a Canadian writer who has been following the story of Mr. Maurice Kirk very closely, and I wondered if you would kindly confirm that:

(a)   Mr. Kirk, his Member of Parliament, and the Minister of Health wrote to you, asking for his medical files so that he could have much needed surgery, and

(b)   you have not yet provided them please?

I am working on a follow up story regarding one of the recent news reports about Maurice Kirk but, at the same time, I am writing another story on Britain today, which includes health care and policing, as well as other social issues.

Flying Vet Approaches UK Parliament in Fight against South Wales Police

Could you please tell me

(a) how long you can legally withhold Mr. Kirk's healthcare file in the UK, and what would be possible reasons for doing so?

(c)   what are the statutes of limitations in Britain and Europe, were he to sue you personally for Breach of Care Causing Harm, Failure to Act, and other gross negligence issues?

(d)   have you been mandated to withhold his file by police, or some other body and, if so, what are their reasons for that please? If not, is this an oversight, or have you been away on vacation with nobody to act in your place when you are absent? Is there a policy for staff to handle correspondence in your absence, or do they wait for your return?

(e)   Are you aware that it is also human rights issue to deny someone medical care, directly or indirectly, and that human rights activists around the world are monitoring Mr. Kirk's story?

(f)     Would you say that you will be in a position to respond to the letters sent to you by Mr. Kirk, his Member of Parliament, and the Minister of Health Edwina Hart by November 3, 2010? If not, could you explain please?

(g)   Are you aware that withholding medical treatment, either directly or indirectly, is not only Elder Abuse, but much worse?

(h)   Is this standard practice in the UK, or is it simply an oversight?

(i)     Is there a policy in the UK to prevent the elderly from expensive surgery or hospital stays, due to a drain on the healthcare system? Would this be a reason to deny Maurice Kirk's request?

(j)      Is there a shortage of doctors and healthcare providers, as there is in Canada, and would this be a reason to deny Mr. Kirk treatment?

(k)   Now that you are aware of the urgent need for Mr. Kirk's file, will you be able to deliver it please, or afford the MP, Minister of Health and Mr. Kirk the courtesy of a reply to their letters?

(l)      Would you be able to send it via express courier, or is there an NHS policy not to use couriers in your country?

(m)     Do you need to be supplied with extra copies of the letters that were sent to you? Have they been lost?

I very much look forward to hearing from you, as Canadians are puzzled as to why Mr. Kirk's files have not been sent. In Canada, his request would come under the Freedom of Information Act, and you would have only 30 days to respond to the request, so we are watching the outcome with great interest.

Thank you so much for your co-operation.

Yours sincerely,

Anonymous

Ms Kate Bloomfield,
Deputy Head of Redress and Investigations,
National Health Service
Port Talbot
South Wales

26th December 2010

NHS Withheld Falsified Medical Records of Maurice John Kirk

It is over a year now since a Dr Tegwyn Williams and a Professor Roger Wood agreed to submit apparently erroneous medical evidence to the 2nd December 09 Cardiff Crown Court hearing with HHJ Bidder QC. They recommended I be sectioned to HM Broadmoor, IPP, Imprisonment for Public Protection.

I understand the Crown Prosecutor heard Dr Williams tell the court I may have a brain tumour along with the joint diagnosed opinion, of the two named doctors, that I had 'significant brain damage'. See here for request of information by HH Judge Seys Llewellyn QC and transcript of hearing.

1. HM Court Service refuse to disclose the evidence given to the judge either by my access to tape, transcript or court log, all public documents from a court of so called record.

2. No NHS doctor or South Wales NHS department, with that information, will respond to my request for that urgent record to be disclosed.

3. The GMC also appear to ignore my complaints on the matter which is, of course, of no surprise.

4. Lawyers, Morgan Cole, employed by you, have also failed to inform me of any reasoning as to why either my GP or myself are not entitled to that information, especially in the light of both my orthopaedic surgeon and anaesthetist, for my now long overdue operation, having also asked for it.

5. Various dubiously safe but unnecessary brain scans, taken in September 09, to recommend my further incarceration in NHS Caswell Clinic Prison were referred to in the 2nd December 09 evidence as significant. These scans were recommended, by both doctors, to be repeated within six months. No mention of this has since been made to me and despite my requests, both in custody and since my acquittal in February 09 of all charges, I am being refused any follow up scan or appropriate clinical examination.

6. HM Crown Prosecution Service, Cardiff, have also received the record used in that 2nd December 09 hearing. CPS, Wales, also refuse to disclose any of the proceedings, held in my absence, it having been dependent on this collusion with your NHS in order to avoid the January 2010 scheduled trial of scandalous indictments levelled against me, each carrying a five year prison sentence.

7. Your department's conduct in this matter, for well over a one year period, clearly points to criminal conduct by just too many in positions of privilege, the very reason for this widespread cover up.

8. So I wish to know for just how much longer you and others in the South Wales NHS intend to continue covering up this incident? Will you eventually break ranks or pretend I and my many supporters have just crawled back under a large stone?

9. In other words:
a.what prevents you from disclosing and releasing the specific documents in question?
b. why have Morgan Cole not written to me as you had announced?
c. why didn't you follow up by email when you wrote you wanted to deliver documents by mail?
d. if you think those documents satisfy my doctors' requirements, include the 2nd December 09 material, you can still send them to me at my address in France where I am in political asylum due to South Wales Police persecution and threat on my life: Puits aux Papillons, St. Doha, 22230 Merdrignac, Brittany.

Looking forward to hearing from you in due course,

Copy to Alun Cairns MP, Edwina Hart AM

Asking for Permission to Appeal - in the Public Interest

SabineKMcNeill — Thu, 23 Dec 2010 15:55:00 GMT

HH Judge Seys Llewellyn QC sent this 40-page judgment on preliminary issues and this draft order with the invitation to respond with a "succinct statement of those aspects which he seeks to appeal and the reasons, if any, which he identifies for permission to appeal being granted."

So we submitted the following documents:

Permission to Appeal - 9 pages written by Sabine K McNeill as McKenzie Friend
Permission to Appeal (2)
Provisional Grounds for Appeal regarding MAPPA - paragraph 5 supported by MAPPA letters here to sink home to the reader just how close Maurice was to being locked away for life, without even a trial, by a Welsh Crown Court.

Admittedly, 31 pages can hardly be "succinct". But, first of all, the documents stem from different view points on what way our judicial system is becoming, i.e. they embrace very different view points and emotional backgrounds. Secondly, they argue very differently. Thirdly, the judgment seems more like a response to the Defendant's argument (the Police) rather than one that takes in the Claimant's (Maurice) arguments into account.

So Maurice has to respond as best as he can, but he can't any more. He needs help. Let's hope it works! The challenge is that a higher Court (the Court of Appeal in London) can make Law. And we do hope that this unusual, extreme and indefinite case will make history in Law - in the Public Interest!

Duty of Care, Abuse of Process, Failed Disclosure, Human Rights Act Infringements

SabineKMcNeill — Thu, 02 Dec 2010 09:33:00 GMT

The headline is a copy of the "details of claim" that Maurice submitted on 28^th November 2007, as what he calls "4^th action". The document spells out the reasons for "the Claimant's right to have a Trial by Jury for the three Actions 85614159 CF1A1741 & CF20414 (which cover numerous false imprisonments and malicious prosecutions).

At the time, the judge claimed that this action can only go forward once the other three are completed. Well, it seems that judges keep cutting the beast into slices, because they are afraid of a collateral attack, but the current action asks for the beast as a whole with these claims:

“For countless false imprisonments, malicious prosecutions and failure to properly investigate crimes committed against the Claimant and his family in his house, surgery, law courts and in particular in the court of The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons."

Below I select relevant paragraphs from the text that Maurice produced. It's really sad for me to notice that its excellent quality shows how much his experiences in prison and Caswell Clinic have affected his mind...

Page 3: "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 others, either to hand down an Extended Civil Restraint Order or obtain a Vexatious Litigant Order, clearly to protect the Defendant, all done without the Claimant's prior knowledge has contravened hIs rights under the European Convention ot Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and the 1998 Human Rights Act.

The Defendants have a duty and power to stop and arrest any person ihat they may reasonably suspect as having committed a criminal offence. Further, the Defendanls as a police authority have a duty and obligation lo fully and diligently investigate any complaint from the general public in respect of any criminal offence."

Page 4: Further or in the alternative, lhe Defendants have a duty and obligation as bailees to use their best endeavours to prolect any prope.iy which comes into their control and in particular to protect any stolen properiy 10 ensure that it is not damaged or vulnerable to further theft.. Further or in the furlher alternative, the Defendants, once their investigations are concluded, have a duty io provide to the injured party relevant information concerning the results of such investigalions including, in particular, the identity of any person suspected of having caused wrong to the injured party.

The statutory and/or common duties and obligations herein mentioned are owed by the Defendants to the Claimant as the person directly affected and/or wronged and they are negligent breach of those duties and obligations or have assaulted him and/or have ommitted trespass to his person or property and the Clajmant has suffered loss and damage.

Particulars of Claims

The Defendants failed in their duty to properly, if at all, investigate and/or apprehend the perpetrators of crime.

The Defendants failed to prevent or limit loss for the Claimant.

Any one of the 100 or so incidents cited below, taken either in conjunction with the 40 or so incidents already in current Case numbers 85614159, Cf101741 & F20414 (eligible for jury trial) or not indicate malice and/or a failure of duty of are by the Defendant.

Here are my summarising observations:

This is the "mantra": The Claimant (Maurice) suffered loss due to defendant's (Police) conduct. It is being repeated across pages 5 to 10 as well as page 15 which lists 41 crime reference numbers, which is, however, not complete. The complete list would contain 130 malicious criminal charges.
Other claims are: The Defendant's conduct was unlawful.
Failed Disclosure with intent to deceive and delay.
Claimant applies that this action is heard by Trial by Jury.

Cessation of harassment and the righl to practice veterinary surgery was concurrent

Compared to the many other victims I've come across, the only thing missing is bankruptcy...

This document is, of course, highly relevant to the current action and its 40-page "judgment on preliminary issues".

Is it a matter of "packaging" the documents? I fear, it's long beyond a matter of logic as long it's up to the discretion of a single judge...

For the sake of completeness, here are the preceding three actions: first action; second action; third action.

'HM Partnership' in Challenge

Maurice — Sat, 05 Jun 2010 20:41:52 GMT

I have spent a life trying to sort out problems, for me and many others, but visiting the so called 'Supreme Court of England and Wales', this week, confirmed my worst fears and caused me to realise much precious time has been wasted.

Please do not repeat my foot steps,

Maurice 2

“Her Majesty the Queen and All That”

Maurice — Sat, 27 Dec 2008 04:11:56 GMT

"Her Majesty the Queen and All That" [HM Partnership]

Bob Lomas is absolutely right. The Queen has betrayed the nation, whether from cowardice or self-interest, I know not. Allowing the nation to be Shanghaied into Europe is not the only way in which she has violated her Coronation Oath. In that oath she swore "To Deliver Justice with Mercy", but in so many cases (acting through her judiciary) she has failed to deliver either. I expound on that statement later, but first mention the 'contrary argument', which is ALSO 'right':

Albert Burgess says, "... attacking the Queen is counter productive, ... the average man and woman in the street thinks she is wonderful and we need Mr and Mrs Average to help us win this fight but we will not get them if we attack the Queen".

Could someone brighter than me tell how these two valid arguments can be resolved?

Anne Palmer suggests that judges might be our saviours.

Some will say that I exaggerate in saying that the judiciary is totally corrupt, from top to bottom. Granted, there are many who try to do the right thing much of the time, but the REAL test comes when one of the rotten apples among them is under threat: - they close ranks to protect each other!

Nowhere is this more noticeable than in the European Court of Human Rights. Britain being the main European victor in WW II, British lawyers, led by Sir David Maxwell Fyffe QC (later Lord Chancellor Kilmuir) were given the job of drafting the Convention. They purported to follow the UN Universal Declaration on Human Rights, but the small print inserted made it very different! In particular, it was drafted to ensure that British judges were never called to account - nor have they been.

I end by repeating something that worries me greatly: all those who want us out of Europe talk as though all our problems stem from Europe, & will end if we leave. Taking that stance, they are turning a blind eye to the fact that Britain is ALREADY a ruthless, lawless, murderous & merciless '1984' Police State. Leaving Europe will not alter that.

Norman Scarth.

24^th Dec from Maurice Kirk

The Queen

Our current monarch, Queen Elizabeth II, has, I suspect, very little say in the way our HM courts are currently administered.

Ever since William and Mary, circa 1700 and the ending for good the ‘Absolute Monarch' system, if ever ‘devil worship' and ‘deceit' have been needed, as judicial cornerstones for our successive governments to do their bidding, then I am sure it was never knowingly ratified by Her Majesty.

I am no academic, of course and base my view on a limited education but see, unlike the vast majority of the electorate, time and time again, what actually goes on in our courts and especially behind closed doors. I for one will never ever trust a UK judge who swears his or her allegiance to the HM Partnership or any branch of the media that continues to wax eloquent, without facts, on the merits of such a clearly obscene system, driven by avarice.

It is therefore quite counterproductive implicating The Queen, just now, to try and sway in our direction the far too small a ‘thinking/interested section' of the general public even if Her Majesty is in league with HM Partnership. Her Majesty has far too many positive and admirable attributes, for which I am grateful, to bring her personally into what we are currently so successfully exposing. Later, perhaps, when I see hard evidence.

It is far too big a step to implicate the Royal Family when we have so much hard evidence already ‘Jo Public' can understand. It is so simple. There are far too many accountable to noone for their conduct in court, except to Their Maker, ‘failed disclosure' of evidence by the Executive and their agents is rife and my own miserable failure, for example, the inability to obtain either independent, competent or trustworthy legal representation to fight the evil little ‘bastards'.

We have been fortunate to have such a good queen for so long. Let us not spoil things now, while we are winning.

Cyberspace will prevail even if I don't.

Maurice 2

http://www.kirkflyingvet.com/

24^th Dec from Norman Scarth

Thank you Maurice for giving me the opportunity to bring MY 'light from under the bushel'. .

You mention, "what actually goes on in our courts and especially behind closed doors".
My single-handed success in the European Court of Human Rights brought a vital change in British law, incorporated into the 1998 Human Rights Act (confirmed by letter dated 1st Sept.1998 from Geoffrey Hoon MP, then Lord Chancellor Irvine's spokesman in the House of Commons).

ALL hearings, including those 'In Chambers' are "open to the public, other than in exceptional circumstances" (which must be stated).

Yes, they will still hold hearings behind closed doors when there are no 'exceptional circumstances'.

You must challenge them by reminding them of the ECtHR ruling in 'Scarth v UK, 33745/96'.
That ruling is much hated by lawyers & judges, & I am hated for it, as evidenced by the sadistic, seriously criminal & potentially lethal treatment meted out to me since.

Norman Scarth.

24^th Dec from Bob Lomas

Maurice Kirk it seems lives in the same world of fiction as Captain Kirk. Mr Kirk writes below:

"We have been fortunate to have such a good queen for so long. Let us not spoil things now, while we are winning."

Is Mr Kirk naive or a Europhile? In 1972 Elizabeth II broke her coronation oath to her people and agreed to surrender the sovereignty of the nation to the Roman Catholic based and Vatican driven Franco German Axis, is that being a good Queen? Since then the Queen has signed a succession of treaties surrendering this nation's independence, finalising the deal by signing up to the Lisbon Treaty. Is that what being a good Queen is all about? Does Mr Kirk not understand that our Monarch is supposed to be the Governor of the nation, our Sovereign Head of State, the defender of our laws, Constitution and Religion?

Perhaps like Elizabeth II Mr Kirk does not believe in our Constitution and Religion. On the other hand, if he does, he may find this report interesting.

As for winning, well, maybe he does live in his own world of make-believe.

Elizabeth II and the Roman Catholic Church.

1951 Princess Elizabeth visited the Pope.

1951 The Reich re-emerged as the Europäische Gemeinschaft für Kohle und Stahl

(European Coal and Steel Community.)

1953 June 2^nd The Queen's Coronation Oath : ""I Elizabeth do solemnly and sincerely in the presence of God profess, testify, and declare that I am a faithful Protestant."

The Archbishop of Canterbury asked Elizabeth II "Will you to the utmost of your power maintain the Laws of God the true Profession of the Gospel and the Protestant Reform Religion established by law?" The Queen answered: "The things which I have here before promised, I will perform and keep. So help me God."

1961 May 5th Queen Elizabeth visited the Pope. The Queen wore black and the veil in recognition of her heresy in the eyes of the Roman Church, thus acknowledging her acceptance of the primacy of the Roman Church. To accept such primacy, which implies jurisdiction, in Rome is to imply that that primacy also applies here in England. Such recognition breaks Article 37 of the 39 Articles of Religion of The Anglican Reformed Church of England which states that "The Bishop of Rome hath no jurisdiction in this realm of England". The Pope is the Bishop of Rome.

1961 August 9th Her Majesty's Prime Minister Harold Macmillian applied for negotiations for EEC entry.

The European Economic Community.

The Europäische Wirtschaftsgemeinshaft. (Originally drawn up in 1942)

1972 January 22nd The Queen commanded her plenipotentiaries Heath, Hurd and Rippon to sign up to the Treaty of Rome. The Queen undoubtedly fully understood that, as there was no provision under the terms of the Treaty for a Constitutional Monarchy within the EU, she would be surrendering the sovereign supremacy of her office to the sovereign supremacy of the European Community. That by so doing, she would be breaking her Coronation Oath to her people which is her contract with them for their governance. That she would be stripping herself of her Sovereignty in Parliament thus destroying the authority of Parliament itself as the national legislating body in Great Britain. That she would also be breaking article 37 of the 39 of the Articles of Religion of the Anglican Reformed Church of England, and dismissing herself as Governor of that Church. She would thus expose the Anglican Reformed Church to the covert insurgencies of dedicated British papists. The Queen must have been aware that the European Community was predominately of the Roman Catholic religion, that it was founded by Jesuits, and had adopted as its emblem the Halo of the Madonna, an idolatrous Roman Catholic symbol to those of the Protestant Church of England, thus breaking the Second of the Ten Commandments.

1972 October 17th The Queen gave her Royal Assent to the European Communities Act 1972.

1980 October 17th The Queen visited the Pope, she wore black and the veil, and kissed the Papal ring, a gesture of her subordination to the office of the Pope and his jurisdiction over her; and by so doing the Queen forfeited the allegiance of the British people. She could not have done this had she still been our Sovereign Monarch and Governor of the Protestant Reformed Church of England.

1982 The Queen invited the Pope to visit the United Kingdom, she also invited the Pope to celebrate mass in Canterbury Cathedral, the Mother Church of the Church of England, which the Duke of Norfolk, the leading RC peer, and the Earl of March were commanded to organise. Gold and platinum plaques were struck by the Royal Mint to celebrate the occasion, bearing the heads of the Queen and the Pope, thus ensuring that even if the Queen did not attend the mass in person, she would be present in image. Ultimately the event was abandoned when certain clerics of the Church of England protested that the it would break church law.

1980s/90s. Coin of the Realm. There are Gibraltan 20 pence coins in circulation which on one side depict the Queen's head, on the other an image of the Madonna and Child, both crowned and seated on a throne, bearing the inscription: "Our Lady of Europe". These coins must have been minted at the Royal Mint. The Queen must have given her approval both of their design and for their production, despite the image being in violation of the second Commandment, and idolatrous in the eyes of Protestants and the Anglican Reformed Church, of which the Queen is Governor.

1992 February 7th The Queen commanded her plenipotentiaries Douglas Hurd and Francis Maude to sign up to the Maastricht Treaty thus making her a citizen of the EU. No one can be both citizen and Sovereign at the same time. Her EU citizenship was confirmed by the then Prime Minister John Major. Had the Queen still been Sovereign Monarch, Major would have been committing perjury and treason. He has never been impeached for his statement. At about this time the Queen sent the Stone of Scone back to Scotland, on the advice of John Major, an action suggesting the Queen's recognition that there would be no further Coronations of our kings or queens in our country. She has broken the Succession to the Throne of the United Kingdom.

(Coronation Service June 2nd. 1953: )

"I Elizabeth do solemnly and sincerely in the presence of God profess, testify, and declare that I am a faithful Protestant."

November the 30th. 1995 marked the day Her Majesty the Queen attended a Service of Commemoration at Westminster Cathedral to mark the Centenary of the building of this spiritual centre of Roman Catholicism in Britain. In doing so Her Majesty belied the declaration above as well as her Coronation Oath. Her attendance was intended to underline ecumenical reconciliation and unity. In fact it symbolizes the continuing retreat of the Protestant identity of our nation and anticipates the removal of the Act of Settlement and the resulting constitutional redundancy of the Monarchy. Here is another event in the ecumenical process that, step by step, is pulling up the historic roots of the Protestant throne.

1999. 12th May. The Pope was recognised as the overall authority in the Christian world by an Anglican and Roman Catholic commission, made up of Anglican and Roman Catholic Bishops, including the Bishop of Canterbury. The Anglican Bishops involved acted in breach of their oaths of allegiance to the Crown, and Article 37 of the 39 Articles of Religion.

As Governor of the Anglican Reformed Church the Queen must have given her approval to the participation by the Anglican Bishops in this commission.

1999. May. The Queen made Cardinal Hume a member of the Order of Merit, an honour she has never bestowed on any Archbishop of Canterbury.

2000 October 17th The Queen visited the Pope in Rome. Again she wore black and the veil, and kissed the Papal Ring in an act of subjugation. In 2004 the Queen commanded her plenipotentiaries Blair and Straw to sign up on her behalf to the EU constitutional treaty.

Note:

The Protestant part of the Coronation Oath, detested by the Roman Catholic hierarchy, has also been changed over time. Prior to 1910, it read: ‘To maintain the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law'. George III was subjected to a strong attack on the ‘Protestant Oath'. He rebutted it with these famous words: "Where is the power on earth to absolve me from the observance of every sentence of that Oath, particularly the one requiring me to maintain the Protestant Reformed Religion? Was not my family seated on the Throne for that express purpose, and shall I be the first to suffer it to be undermined, perhaps overturned? No, No, I had rather beg my bread from door to door throughout Europe, than consent to any such measure. I can give up my crown and retire from power. I can quit my palace and live in a cottage. I can lay my head on a block and lose my life, but I cannot break my Oath. If I violate that Oath, I am no longer legal Sovereign in this country".

King Edward VII died on Friday, 6th May 1910. The following Monday, the Times published part of a letter from Irish Nationalist MP W.H.E. Redmond, to the Prime Minister, demanding that he take such steps as may be necessary to relieve the new King from the obligation.

Bob Lomas. The Magna Carta Society.

24^th Dec from Maurice Kellett (Maurice 1)

Queen Elizabeth II is a criminal without any shadow of doubt about this fact. The Judicial Oath that all UK judges and magistrates swear only to Queen Elizabeth II is a fraud of massive proportions. It has no meaning except to deceive the people. We in the UK have indeed a criminal as our Head of State. Commonwealth Countries should also be made aware of this fact. Her Mafia which include judges and police officers are real. It's time for we the people to have a say in the way that criminals rule us in the UK.

Queen Elizabeth II is also in breach of her Coronation Oath of 1953. Yes, we do indeed have a criminal as our Head of State. The Royal Prerogative says Queen Elizabeth II is immune from crime. Who has ruled that? A criminal is a criminal regardless of their position.

I know the horror of what the Crown employed Mafia have carried out against me and against many other of its victims. Enough is enough. Queen Elizabeth must be brought to trial for treason against the UK people. Nothing else will serve justice being done. Those who carry out such trial must of course be truly independent.

The word independent is a dirty word to the UK establishment. We the people must change this situation one way or another.

Maurice Kellett.

25^th Dec from Suzon

Dear Maurice, you got the date wrong. It all goes back (at least) to 1066. The Queen and her consort are both direct descendants of William the Conquerer.

Have a lovely Christmas and (I hope) a miraculous new year.

In common cause,

Suzon