Search results matching tags 'MAPPA', 'Cardiff County Court', and 'Caswell Clinic'

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

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

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

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

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

Lord Denning: 1982

WANTED

(Picture on gallery or Downloads)

Following posters, shortly,on gallery

Judge T M Hughes QC

Judge Morris

Judge Vosper

Judge Llewellyn Jones

Judge Elleri Rees

Judge Gareth Jones

Judge Neil Bidder QC

More Cardiff Judges to come

IN THE CARDIFF COURT

Maurice Kirk Appellant

Chief Constable of South Wales Police Respondent

Particulars of Claim

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dr Tegwyn Williams, Prof Roger Wood and South Wales NHS sued for a Million Pound + Fraud

Maurice — Fri, 03 Jun 2011 14:05:00 GMT

Dear Sir Norman Scarth, Rear Admiral Rtd.,

Further to your kind invitation to attend Leeds County Court on Magna Carta Day, 15th June, [NOT BEFORE NOON], with Battle Bus, megaphones, etc [details at bottom of this post] please consider 10,000 pamphlets, floating downwards, on the day, just for starters.

More than a year has gone by since I was incarcerated in prison due to a rogue psychiatrist falsifying medical records just to help a police woman in a spot of bother. "trouble at mill", as my Barry Veterinary hospital secretary used to say, back in the 90s.

Barbara Wilding, as Chief Constable and controller of millions of charity cash, enquiry will find, had a 'cosy relationship' with Tegwyn, a NHS Clinical Director needing handouts, fast and plentiful.

Whilst I was locked up in the shear hell of Casswell Clinic, I noticed other patients being quietly recommended release, by Williams, alone, to one of his own private psychiatric units, in Cardiff and elsewhere, cleverly in partnership with other key NHS people controlling the flow of UK tax payers' money to the private medical sector.I have deliberately kept quiet, until now, Norman, on this aspect of the 2008 conspiracy hatched, machine gun arrest / Barbara as Defendant / Williams to falsify records, just to see what wicked Tegwyn Williams / South Wales Police and HM Partnership and their cabal might do next, now that I am temporarily at large and still breathing.

An outside authority should easily follow the audit trail of purloined tax payers' cash, in South Wales, despite having their local courts sewn up 'as tight as a mackerels', as our old gardener, Ernie Gratton, would say.

Is there a link beween the multiple Bridgend suicides of late and Caswell Clinic policy, many are asking?

Neither NHS nor Welsh Assembly have any intention in helping me get my medical records clarified or corrected. So, once again, I have to face the utter stench of a Welsh law court for a few more years. .A Cardiff Court action against Williams came to an interesting conclusion, today, when the Cardiff judge refused my application for clarification, correction or release of my medical records.....

Those proceedings now concluded, but with Williams still not yet behind bars, it has set the stage, beautifully for the start of both civil and criminal proceedings. Norman, guess where? In Cardiff!

IN THE CARDIFF COUNTY COURT Claim No

MAURICE JOHN KIRK Claimant

Dr Tegwyn Williams 1st Defendant

Professor Roger Wood 2^nd Defendant

Paul Williams Chief Executive NHS Wales 3^rd Defendant

The Secretary of State to the Ministry of Justice 4^th Defendant

PARTICULARS OF CLAIM

1. The 1^st Defendant was at all material times the Clinical Director of the South Wales Constabulary's Forensic Unit, Caswell Clinic, Bridgend and the staff of the medium secure psychiatric hospital, 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. The 2^nd Defendant was at all material times a psychology professor at Swansea University, South Wales.

3. The 3^rd Defendant was the regional director responsible for the conduct of the South Wales NHS staff and safety of the general public when in its care.

4. On or before 1^st June 2009,following meetings at South Wales Police HQ, by senior police officers, the 1st Defendant was made aware that ‘Operation Orchid' had been conceived following the attempts by the Claimant to sue the South Wales Police relating to over one hundred incidents and was claiming malicious intent, bullying and false imprisonment by them.

5. His newest complaint, that being the Chief Constable's February 2009 falsely signed sworn affidavit, relating to years of covert police surveillance of the Claimant, led to meetings of the Independent Advisory Group (IAG) and Multi Agency Public Protection arrangements (MAPPA) in order prevent disclosure of the truth.

6. Repeatedly, police refused to properly investigate crime committed against his property and person. Well over one hundred allegations of criminal conduct were laid, as a counter measure, only to be withdrawn by the HM Crown Prosecution Service or ignominiously dismissed in the criminal courts despite where HM Partnership had some special relationships with each other in the Principality.

7. The 1^stand 3^rd Defendant knew that police ‘Operation Orchid' was devised on spurious medical grounds with a real risk of damaging the Claimant by either being a party to causing his 10 year old daughter being taken into care, allegedly for her own safety, by South Wales Social Services.

8. The 1^st Defendant, on 8^th June 2009, caused members of his staff to attend Barry police station for a MAPPA meeting that led to his knowledge that the Claimant was to be arrested, remanded in custody and should the Claimant ‘approach the Chief Constable of South Wales', on the pretext of ‘mutual exchange of witness statements', in a civil action, ‘he was likely to be shot' by an armed police unit.

9. At no time, to this day, did any of the four Defendants inform the Claimant of the risk to his life, from the South Wales Police nor the existence and possible consequences of ‘Operation Orchid' causing damage to both the Claimant and his family.

10. In early and mid June 2009 the Claimant attended various South Wales police stations, in Cardiff, Cowbridge and Barry, lodging further complaints of being refused police investigations concerning crimes committed against him.

11. On 18^th June 2009, in frustration, the Claimant visited and complained at the Chief Constable's office in Bridgend HQ where he was soon surrounded by a heavily armed police sporting flak jackets and tin hats with an array of gas cylinders clipped on their belts.

12. The Chief constable refused ‘exchange of witness statements', despite a court dead line by the following day, and ordered the Claimant be escorted off the premises but not before a thorough search of his car, for any fire arms or explosives and bringing in a road patrol officer off the Motorway who failed to find any defect in the Claimant's old car.

13. The Claimant put the finishing touches to his 64 page witness statement, for court later, having just ‘gone public', on YouTube and on his own web site, http://www.kirkflyingvet.com/, of his knowing, all the time, of the 18 years of expensive covert police surveillance on both his veterinary hospital and home.

14. On 21^st June 2009 the 1^st Defendant was notified of ‘Operation Chalice', arranged by the Chief Constable, for a formidable armed police unit amassed to take the Claimant into custody.

15. The operation was, however, aborted despite the Claimant being in full view of the twenty odd surveillance team, crowded in the road and crouched behind the hedges with police helicopter hovering overhead.

16. On the 22^nd June 2009 the Claimant was arrested on fire arms charges, fabricated by the Chief Constable but examined by a police psychiatrist who found no relevant medical abnormality with her patient to require detention or treatment.

17. To the contrary, the 1^st Defendant wrote his 3^rd August 2009 psychiatric report , without even examining the Claimant, recommending the Claimant serve a further prison sentence, whilst unconvicted but in his experimental unit, Caswell Clinic, thereby further delaying the machine gun allegations coming to trial

18. The 1^st Defendant wrongly stated his patient suffered a ‘paranoid delusional disorder', requiring further detention in custody, due to ‘false fixed beliefs' in that the Claimant believed he was being persecuted by the South Wales Police

19. On 7^th August 2009, upon giving a Cardiff Crown Court judge false information, the 1^st Defendant recommended and obtained a Section 35 under the 1983 Mental Health Act.

20. The 1^st Defendant knew or should have known that an appropriately qualified police doctor, HM Prison Cardiff psychiatrists and his own doctors, at Caswell Clinic had already very recently physically examined the Claimant and had found no mental health abnormality requiring further incarceration or treatment

21. The 1^stDefendant, on or about 28^th August 2009, maliciously and/or negligently, caused the Claimant to undergo an unnecessary but intrusive procedure of a SPEC scan requiring the infusion of radioactive isotopes into the Claimant's brain.

22. The 1st Defendant informed the South Wales Police, HM Crown Prosecution Service, Uncle Tom Cobley and all that Princess of Wales Hospital brain scans revealed ‘significant brain damage' and likely to be irreversible..

23. The 1^st Defendant had no appropriate medical qualifications to come to that conclusion especially with the prior knowledge that an expert in the field of brain scans had already written a report stating there was no sign of relevant abnormality or suggestion of any space invading lesion in the Claimant's brain.

24. Following significant but immediate alarming sides effects on the ‘patient' the 1^st Defendant repeatedly refused the right for the Claimant to be examined, either privately funded or funded by the 3^rd Defendant, by his own general practitioner of some seventeen years standing or independent source from outside South Wales.

25. The Claimant has suffered these apparent medical complications ever since.

26. The 1st Defendant caused the 2^ndDefendant to be also enticed into the conspiracy, to pervert the course of justice, hatched originally by senior police officers of South Wales in the hope of a few chances in having the chronic litigant ‘lawfully' shot.

27. Professor Wood, the 2^nd Defendant, interviewed the Claimant under the pretence he was a doctor of medicine and when he had no appropriate qualifications to write such content in his original report to Dr Ruth Bagshaw of Caswell Clinic.

28. The 2nd Defendant's report, read by the Claimant on or around 13^th October 2009, stated apart from other untruths, the following:

a. He was an expert in the field of interpreting brain scans and the very purpose of his being called in by the 1^st Defendant. He agreed with the doctor's findings, that of irreversible ‘significant brain damage'.

b. Damage was attributed to the effects of excessive alcohol consumption having been an old drinking partner of the late actor, Oliver Reed Esq.

c. Damage was attributed to the effects of ‘previous flying accidents' and the Claimant's recently ditching into the Caribbean in his WW2 light aircraft during an attempted circum navigation of the world.

d. Damage confirmed by the 2^nd Defendant's belief that the Claimant had flown his aircraft from West Wales to Australia ‘without a map'.

29. 1^st Defendant caused further psychiatric reports to be written containing the following:

Maurice Kirk presents with symptoms entirely consistent with a mental illness namely

paranoid delusional disorder (fixed false beliefs un ameanable to reason)

Maurice Kirk has evidence of significant brain damage to an area of his brain specifically

related to self-awareness, judgement, decision making, self regulation of behaviour and

control of emotions

30. More 1^st Defendant psychiatric reports caused the Claimant to be further detained in custody, in fear of his life throughout, for the maximum period allowed, under the 1983 law, that of twelve weeks.

31. The 1^st Defendant, despite repeated objections by the Claimant each time a new report was written, refused to correct his forensic history of his patient. It included, along with other false information to countless bail judges, that the Claimant, in 1982, had been convicted of ‘Actual Bodily Harm'

32. Following the Claimant's applications under the Freedom of Information and Data Protection Acts, the 3^rd Defendant, the NHS, refused to disclose the full relevant medical records caused by the Claimant's detention in Caswell Clinic and in particular including any records of 2^nd Defendant or from those of the doctor in his presence at time of his insulting interview.

33. The 1^st Defendant then recommended, under a Section 41 or similar, to numerous judges that the Claimant be retained in a psychiatric hospital. He particularly asked his patient be transferred to Ashworth high security psychiatric prison, following consultation with the South Wales Police and MAPPA recommending he be imprisoned IPP, imprisonment for public protection and without access to a jury, for an indeterminate period.

34. On the Claimant being returned to HM Prison Cardiff, in late October 2009, the 1^st Defendant was now in possession of other doctor's opinions, exceeding eighteen, that the Claimant revealed no relevant mental disorder to have caused his detention in his Caswell Clinic or for any treatment other than obtain independent legal representation, significantly unavailable in South Wales.

35. On 2nd December 2009, before the prospective trial judge in the rapidly approaching criminal proceedings, with the Claimant now indicted on ‘being in possession of a machine gun', ‘selling it' and ‘making financial gain', the 1st Defendant caused some of those present, without ever informing the Claimant, to this day, that the latter now had a brain tumour and was far too dangerous to be released on bail.

36. These further serious attempts to pervert the course of justice, by HM Crown Prosecution Service, the Chief Constable of South Wales Police and Dr Tegwyn Williams, were MAPPA's last ditch attempt to avoid a farcical and publicly watched criminal trial in the capital of Wales.

37. During the 2^nd December 2009 Crown Court hearing, in the absence of the unrepresented Claimant, locked up below, two English independent medical reports were considered by the court. The 1st, from HM Prison Ashworth, found no apparent mental disorder while the 2^nd, likewise, from a leading specialist in nuclear medicine, went so far as to castigating the 1^st Defendant for the unnecessary use of a SPEC scan when a non intrusive scan was all that was needed. The Claimant was again refused bail.

38. On or about 17^th December 2009 MAPPA, conducted in Caswell Clinic would you believe, removed the Claimant from their top level 5% category 3 list of most dangerous persons to the general public.

39. MAPPA or their agents, including 1^st, 3^rd and 4^th Defendant have failed to notify the Claimant, to this day, as to when and why was he on MAPPA register at all?

40. Why, now, he was no longer considered a public threat just days before a trail carrying possible convictions with a mandatory ten year prison sentence?

41. On 9^th February 2010 the Claimant was cleared of all charges, despite offering no defense BUT only due to the timely intervention of a jury made up of no lawyers and only one police ‘plant'.

42. Upon release from prison all four Defendants caused the Cowbridge Health Centre to refuse the Claimant as a continuing patient or disclose what confidential medical information of their patient it had revealed to FTAC, MAPPA or any of the Defendants before or during his custody period.

43. On 10^th February 2010, in Bridgend police station, a police psychiatrist and social workers examined the Claimant, yet again, in relation to ‘Operation

Orchid', still ongoing and again, found no relevant mental disorder to warrant the custody or medical treatment of the Claimant or being continued refusal to get access to his own daughter.

44 The 3^rd Defendant refused to disclose the full medical records, yet again, under a repeated Claimant Application, under the aforesaid Acts but included, by mistake a back dated falsified copy, again signed by the 2^nd Defendant, as if to be a copy of the original one seen by the Claimant handed to him, during his custody, by a Caswell Clinic doctor to read.

45. Only when the good doctor perceived the Claimant was likely to assault him, if need be, did he hand over the erroneous document to read

46. This report was clearly designed, as with the 1^st Defendant's psychiatric reports, to injure the Claimant's reputation and good name in the Vale of Glamorgan where he had, for many years, successfully practiced veterinary medicine.

47. Continued refusal by all four Defendants, to clarify and correct the Claimant's medical records, caused the Civil Aviation Authority to refuse his renewal for his pilot's licences until further examined by two of their most senior psychiatrists.

48. The Claimant had to travel to the CAA at Gatwick airport to find two doctors who stated, in so many words, that there was no indication of any medical condition that prevented the Claimant from holding a permit to be allowed to lawfully ‘break the bonds of earth' in UK airspace.

49. In June 2009 surgeons refused to operate on the Claimant, for an urgently needed total hip replacement, due to confusion caused by the all four Defendants, refusing to clarify whether or not the Claimant had cancer and ‘significant brain damage'.

50. The 3^rd Defendant refused to carry out another brain scan, via his new GP in Barry, causing serious delay with the Claimant having to travel to a foreign country for one. Only then did the Claimant obtain his much overdue operation, in Brittany once no abnormality was found in the Claimant's brain.

51. In or around July 2010 the 4^th Defendant refused to disclose Claimant's medical records relevant in these Particulars of Claim and denied knowledge, despite attending, of MAPPA monthly meetings during the 2009 Claimant's custody.

52. The 4^th Defendant would not even allow the Claimant to have his walking sticks returned suggesting malicious intent and part of the conspiracy.

53. All four Defendants caused unnecessary pain and suffering and mental anguish with the seriously debilitating effect of prolonged mind enhancing drugs such as morphine sulphate and Tremadol for nearly ten months.

54. The Claimant's medication and severe pain caused complete havoc and huge expense to the Claimant for numerous court proceedings, both civil and criminal, since June 2010 to around eight weeks after his 25^th March 2011 operation, a period for recuperation.

55. Parties in both civil and criminal courts, between June 2010 to date, have taken unfair advantage of the Claimant either ignoring countless monthly medical updates from specialist doctors from both sides of the English Channel.

56. One Cardiff law firm, defending a client for monies owed, actually quoted from the 1^st Defendant's false information contained in his psychiatric reports pleading the Claimant was, in effect, insane.

57. The 4^th Defendant also caused about a week's false imprisonment, in or about January 2008, when refusing to take from his prisoner, from within prison, his cash, his cheque, supply a credit card machine, to draw the cash or take from his wife, dutifully waiting at the prison gate, the outstanding amount in ‘readies'.

58. The Barry magistrates had promised the Claimant he could pay the outstanding CPS costs and court costs at any time during prison custody. The remaining amount from the original £11,000 owed being around £3,500, in lieu of imprisonment.

59. In summary, the Claimant has suffered from all four Defendants' misfeasance in public office and failure of duty of care to their patient and/or prisoner needing the latter to obtain protection from this abuse by temporary asylum in France, now subject to appeal and shortly to be heard, in open court, in Paris.

60. And in particular, the failure by the 1^st Defendant to correct and clarify the Claimant's medical records is gross professional misconduct which has caused defamation of the Claimant's name and good character, falsification of medical documents, false imprisonment, serious prolonged unnecessary bullying, pain and mental suffering to cause damages, special damages and/or exemplary damages with punitive damages, his conduct needing a long overdue criminal investigation.

61. And in particular, the 2nd Defendant's negligence has caused defamation of the Claimant's name and good character by falsified medical records causing false imprisonment and unnecessary pain and mental suffering requiring damages, exemplary and/special damages with punitive damages, his conduct also needing a long overdue criminal investigation.

62. And in particular, the 3^rd Defendant has caused defamation of the Claimant's name and good character, continues to withhold proper NHS services from the Claimant and relevant medical records that has led to unnecessary pain and mental suffering for the Claimant requiring this claim for damages, exemplary and/or special damages

63. And in particular, the 4^th Defendant has caused negligence, unnecessary pain and mental suffering and false imprisonment requiring damages, exemplary and/special damages.

64. And the Claimant claims costs.

Unless restrained by a competent court this rogue psychologist and rogue psychiatrist are likely to repeat their action again, there currently being little or no proper outside independent supervision of what really goes on in the Principality.

The Claimant retains his right for trial by jury and for a lawyer to read and amend this Claim.

Maurice J Kirk BVSc

2^nd June 2011

Puits aux Papillons
St Doha
22230 Merdrignac
Brittany

maurice@kirkflyingvet.com

Copy to: Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, Royal Courts of Justice

Cardiff Court of Appeal

Cardiff County Court

The French Immigration Authorities

My Judicial Review Application (Case CO/601/2011, The Queen (on the application of Norman Scarth), versus Leeds Magistrates' Court & others.) is to be heard in Leeds Combined Court Centre on Wednesday 15th June 2011, listed as 'NOT BEFORE 12 NOON'.

Please forgive my 'delusions of grandeur', but I do believe it warrants an attendance comparable to Birkenhead on 7th March.
Directions. The Courthouse (LS1 3BG) is just off Westgate, which is a continuation of The Headrow. It is the plain red brick building close by the Town Hall (a large imposing building with a massive domed tower). A free bus runs from Leeds Railway station. Get off at the Town Hall.
You know my belief that one way we may break the stranglehold which the Legal Mafia has on 'The Law' (& return something pertaining to 'Justice' to Britain) is to use Private Prosecutions. That they use all their dirty tricks to block us shows that they realise this. This Application for Judicial Review is my attempt to overcome their blocking tactics & break that stranglehold. As indicated below, 30 minutes SHOULD be enough for the judge to grant 'Permission to make the Application' (which is the convoluted way they do things), but the presence of numbers such as at Birkenhead on 7th March could ensure s/he does so. I understand the judge is likely to be HH Judge Mark Gosnell who lives at Newchurch in the Rossendale Valley in Lancashire. Surprisingly (to me) he is a guitarist in a rock band & is 'a stalwart of evening gigs at the Jolly Sailor, Spring Terrace, White Lion & other ritzy Valley venues with his band WASTED'. You younger people must tell me if this means he is more likely to obey his Judicial Oath? See below for my comments about a Circuit Judge being put in a position to overrule a High Court Judge.
Please ring me on 01274 541 213 if you wish. (see lower down for my contention that this matter being in the High Court at all is extortion of money from the public to go into the pockets of the legal professionals.)
Norman Scarth.

To Sergeant Mrs. Kate Roberts.
Dear Mrs. Roberts,
Yes please, in spite of the fact I would do better to complain to Father Christmas, Elvis Presley or Lord Lucan, I DO ask that you treat this as an OFFICIAL COMPLAINT (much good it will do me!) See my comments, inserted below in red, for easy recognition.
N.Scarth.
- - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> Subject: Complaint Against Police PSD 11/ - [Restricted]
> To: enscarth@hotmail.com
> From: Kate.Roberts@merseyside.police.uk
> Date: Tue, 31 May 2011 15:55:33 +0100
>
> Dear Mr. Scarth,
> A complaint against police has been recorded as you wrote to the Wirral
> Magistrates and raised your concerns regarding the way in which you were
> treated by both court staff and members of Merseyside Police. Your e-mail
> was forwarded to Merseyside Police. As a result of the allegations made in
> your e-mail, a complaint against police has been recorded.
>
> If you wish to withdraw this complaint, please let me know.
>
> However if you would like me to look into how you were dealt with by
> Merseyside Police officers on the date you state you were refused entry to
> Wirral Magistrates, I will do so.
'Refused entry'? That is a eupheism if ever there was one! I was NOT 'refused entry', but had barely got through the door before I was dragged off by ignorant thugs in uniform who acted just like the Gestapo in Nazi Germany, then stuck in a 2'6" square cage in the back of a police van in a police station yard for nearly three hours! SEE ATTACHMENT.
>
> It would help if I could discuss your complaint, in order that I may be
> able to obtain further details from you and in order to explain the
> complaints process. I am available on the telephone number below. If you
> do not get an answer I would be grateful if you would leave a contact
> number so I can return your call.
I am well aware of the 'Complaints Procedures' & know only too well that ALL such 'Procedures' are designed & used to send the victim running round in circles until his brain becomes addled, he becomes exhausted, or gives up in disgust! Why on earth do you want to speak on the telephone? Is it because you are anxious that there should be no record? I prefer that all communication between us to be by email, & thus ON record. (More in red lower down)
>
> I look forward to hearing from you.
> Regards,
> Kate Roberts
> Wirral Complaints Liaison Officer. 0151 777 2086

South Wales Police sued for One Million Euros for Falsifying Machine Gun and Medical Evidence

Maurice — Thu, 26 May 2011 17:14:00 GMT

STOP PRESS

Welsh Court of Appeal Lost!

25% of original Damages Claim Struck Out....the highly sensitve political ones (see December 2010 site video)

'C'est un judgment bizarre', a Breton would say!

Immediate Thoughts on Receipt of 17^th May 2011 Court of Appeal Judgment, BELOW, Refusing Application to Appeal

A. Upon reading the judgment, who wrote it? Defendant's solictors?

B. Someone was back in London by the time the trial judge, HHJSeys LLewelyn QC, read the 'first' reasons realising the visiting judge had not addressed the main issues in dispute, namely, an exeptional case of bullying needing to be consolidated with stayed 4th ,5th , 6th Actions, including the new machine gun case, BELOW, referred to, extensively, in the Claimant's pleadings here LINK SKM

C. Who, then, wrote the 'second' reasons, as if an after thought explaining, maybe, why Cardiff court held back the decision, from the Claimant, for nine days?

D. Clearly, just using the 'struck out' list, below, as examples for the oral appeal shortly (London ), [ALL INVITED, DINNER, as usual, ON ME], is it blatently obvious either MR JUSTICE KITCHIN is also being bullied by 'HM Partnership' or was he never given the facts, on appeal, of the forty odd incidents listed in the first three Actions? With Cardiff manager's track record nothing would surprise me.
There can only be one truth - no matter whose hands it's in...
Maurice J Kirk

1. Stolen Cheques

The thief was identified by the Claimant in Barry Post Office during 2010 Claimant's Application to HHJ Seys Llewellyn QC, in the Lower court, for Permission to Appeal. Both the court and police were informed of his whereabouts, by the Claimant but the Defendant again refused to investigate when his address was traceable from the post office. And a High Court judge now says the South Wales Police have no 'duty'!......With over a hundred incidents of this type of wicked conduct, within the seven or so Actions! Just how many does it take for a policeman to be culpable?

Mr Kitchin knows, to amalgamate cases further risks prison for high ranking South Wales Police.

That's HM Partnership's real 'Reasons' for yet another typical example in our British courts in 'meltdown', not to be published in newspapers.

'Struck Out' due to 'Collateral Attack' on a conviction obtained during an incident

2. Police Caught on Overhead Roadside Video [See it on video Gallery, 5th one back]

Despite police refusing to disclose videos of Claimant being 'beaten up' in Cardiff police cells, the original magistrates and Cardiff Crown Court were not even being allowed to see the overhead road side video because police withheld its disclosure until a year too late.

[The police cell videos were doctored, blanking out the top half of film to hide police identity]

Now the Appeal Court judge did not view the video either! Mr Kitchin undoubtedly argues 'police beating up their prisoners' is 'not relevant' because the terrified Claimant stupidly should not have pleaded guilty to trivial motoring offence thereby giving the bullying police immunity Immunity against any of their conduct throuout the incident...scarry or not scarry??

Roadside Video [5th back on this website video gallery] catches Cardiff police 'beating up' the Claimant after being dragged out of his car. This was before he was even arrested for ‘failure to give road side breath test' having just been followed directly from the Cardiff Crown Court where he and his secretary had been all morning complaining to the then, Recorder of Cardiff, Mr Justice Roderick Evans, about nine years of excessive South Wales Police bullying and proving police documents had been forged (see next incident).

3. Alleged Breach of the Peace at Vale Glamorgan Show

Another, 'Struck out' due to collateral attack on a conviction that, this time, never happened !!! The Claimant was never even charged (four versions of withheld BOP as Cla imant'sexhibits), jailed but never convicted. Bridgend Clerk of the Court, many months later, persuaded police, over lunch, to withdraw the alleged BOP offence, part way through a trial of other charges, quite unrelated, another time, another place, because the Claimant would obviously plead 'not guilty' and would have to go to prison due to common law!

Liar. Just as at the first hearing, in Barry, the Claimant was not told of what the female prosecutor or clerk had before them, witnessed by Claimant's secretary. It was BOP in three different forms!!!!!

The Claimant 'made it worth someone's while' to extract from Bridgend Magistrates records the original clerk's notes (exhibit) confirming scandalous conduct

4. 'Struck Out' due to 'collateral attack' in Claimant's absence from court due to in hospital after motor bike accident!

Veterinary nurse, planted in back of court, signed a sworn affidavit after hearing police stating:

"He drives around in his little white sports car quoting human rights...we are going to get the b'stard".

A trivial motoring conviction should not be the excuse for a High Court judge to protect the bullies breaking UK law.

5 The Defence's Hunter Case Law argument was quite inappropriate for such an unusual, extreme and excessive bullying case with more than one hundred incidents in the six or seven Particulars of Claim. Just how many incidents of police bullying does it take to remove their devine right not to investigate but allowed to cause physical injury, time and time again?

6. Defendant's ‘Mindset' not relevant?!!!!!! Has this High Court judge ever been confronted with such extreme acts of criminal conduct by police?. Of course not but the 'Maurices' of this world who dare question 'authority' are expendable SEE the injury list IN 'VICTIMS UNITE' blogs..

See 26^th May 2011 Machine Gun Particulars of Claim [ below] including False Psychiatric records all fabricated to obtain a false imprisonment designed to interfere with these very civil proceedings. Of course Mr Kitchin avoided the issue, that was his brief.

7. South Wales Police's, ‘Operation Orchid', at the same time, putting the fear of God into my wife when they threatened to have Social Services snatch our 10 year old daughter away has caused quite unforseen repercussions.

Etc, etc.

Mr Kitchin clearly does not realise anarchy is only just around the corner, in Wales and possibly, elsewhere, headed by those who know just where and when to strike, if the break down of law and order in our appalling law courts, driven by avarice, is not sorted out RIGHT NOW.

MACHINE GUN CASE

Once again it is the K Team that has to draft the court papers as no lawyer has been found after a 15 months trawl through solicitors's offices. It is of no surprise to me when you consider Dr Tegwyn Williams was given 'carte blanche' to falsify medical reports for 10, no less, Cardiff judges all knowing, full well, they were untrue but refusing bail due some higher sinister authority. Only one Welsh newspaper, The Glamorgan Gem, published a few of the appalling facts of dishonesty thoughout the Welsh judiciary in this case. If had not been for this web site, publishing day by day accounts of the trial, I would still be in jail due to that HM Partnership lot headed by Nicholarse Cooke QC, The Recorder of Cardiff.

There only remains outstanding which quick act of retribution is appropriate for the likes of Dr Tegwyn Williams as he, unlike Barbara Wilding, is not afforded the luxury of an armed guard. A Welsh court process? What a joke! That is pretty pointless considering our watching the Welsh NHS leave him loose to do it all over again on some unsuspecting individual with less luck.

Common Purpose and Law Society intend to wipe out jury trails and lay magistrates the very two facets of my machine gun case that shone through as the back bone of what we should be proud of. When the two systems are finally snuffed out by HMCS last one switch off the lights, please.

Court of Appeal Judgment by the Honourable Mr Justice Kitchin

Cardiff Civil Justice Centre

Reasons:

An appeal has no real prospect of
success.

ln a long and careful judgment of 30
November 2010 the judge addressed the application by the defendant to strike
out the claimant's claims in respect of a number of incidents

ln particular

ln action CF04141, the judge struck
out an allegation in respect of the theft of cheques in that, as a matter of
law, the defendant did not owe the claimant a privately actionable duty of
care.

In actions BS614159-MC65, CF101741 and
CF204141, the judge struck out a series of allegations as being an abuse of
process in that they amounted to collateral attacks on criminal convictions of
the defendant or on conclusive findings which have been made against him in
other proceedings.

The claimant now seeks permission to
appeal on a number of grounds. There is nothing in any of them.

First the claimant contends that
the proceedings took place without him being able to take part. This was
plainly not the case. The judge explained in detail in paragraphs 3 and 4 of
his judgment the careful steps he took to ensure that the claimant was not in
any way disadvantaged and referred in paragraphs 3 to 6 to the extensive
submissions from the claimant which he considered.

Second, the claimant says he was
subjected to unfair pressure from the court and was unfairly disadvantaged. To
the contrary, it is apparent from the paragraphs of the judgment to which I
have referred that the judge took all reasonable steps to ensure the claimant
was not subjected to unfair pressure, nor disadvantaged.

Third, the claimant submits the
court wrongly excluded evidence. I reject this contention. There was no
material dispute of fact in relation to any of the allegations the judge struck
out.

Fourth, it is said the judge
failed to address key submissions. I do not accept this is so. The judge set
out the claimant's case on each issue very clearly. Indeed the judge accepted a
number of the claimant's submissions in refusing to strike out aspects of his
case.

Fifth, the claimant contends the
judge erred in law. In my judgment the defendant has not identified any proper
ground in support of this allegation. The judge correctly identified the
principle established in Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police and
his application of that principle to the facts alleged by the claimant cannot
be faulted. The other claims were struck out upon the application of the well
established principle that it is not permissible for a claimant to bring a
claim which amounts to collateral attack on an earlier criminal conviction or a
conclusive finding made against him in earlier proceedings.

Finally, the claimant asserts that
the judge failed to protect the claimant against the defendant's mindset. This
provides no basis for an appeal against the specific findings of the judge.

For all these reasons the judge was
also right to refuse permission to appeal.

Reasons

This is a case management order. The
judge declined to order all the cases to be consolidated. This was a perfectly
reasonable decision, particularly since the cases are already being heard
together.

There is no need for the cases to be
transferred to the High Court. Nor has any justification been shown for having
them transferred out of Wa1es.

An appeal has no real prospect of success.

17^th May 2011

Reply to Refusal

Dear Ms Pahl,

Please Forward, in your usual reliable way

31st May 2011

Kirk v South Wales Police

Appeal at Court of Appeal No.s CF029/2011a & CF030/2011a
( May 2011 court letter contains variations in case numbers)

FAO Clerk of the Court,

Further to the predicted refusal notice, based on politics and not facts, received on Saturday, 28th May, I apply for an oral hearing and be permitted witnesses to the facts, before the court, to attend without fear of intimidation.

I also apply that it take place not before but on the 15th June or onwards, in London, but not 28th June as it clashes with another court and an equally scandalous bit of Welsh bloody nonsense.

I also have medical appointments in both France and Londoin to entwine with dates already fixed.

If the hearing is in South Wales I run a very real risk of being falsly arrested again and finish up in Ashworth High Security Psychiatric Prison, as was attempted last time, following deliberate falsification of both Welsh HM CPS information and Dr Tegwyn Williams psychiatric reports.

Last time, following the Welsh filth and their usual tactics, being completely ignored or actively supported by 10 Welsh judges, Welsh HM Court Service and Welsh National Health Service, my liberty, without an appeal, now comes secondary in priority, following revenge, the latter, set for the rest of my short life, to be sufficient to educate the whole world, by exposing your evil Welsh judiciary, driven by greed.

Oh, if only I had listend to both my mother and father about the truth of South Wales, following their shock, in 1992, that I had bought a veterinary practice near Cardiff.

Yours,

Maurice J Kirk BVSc

Puits aux Papillons

St Doha

22230 Merdrignac

France

0033624571548

maurice@kirkflyingvet.com

IN THE CARDIFF COURT

Maurice Kirk Claimant

Chief Constable of South Wales Police Defendant

Particulars of Claim

1. The Defendant 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 functiion

2. 1977: Five decommissioned WW1 Lewis machine guns were designated for various replica period aircraft by the Claimant's old friend, Mr Viv Bellamy

3. 1997: MJK purchased the DH2 replica aeroplane and ‘gun' from a prosecution witness with its log books and other Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) paperwork identifying the ‘gun' s an integral part of the fuselage and therefore exempt under the 1968 Fire rms Act.

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 but blocked throughout the twelve days of roceedings of utter nonsense.

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

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

7. 2007: he DH2 and ‘gun' was handed out, by the Royal Air Force, to a civilian for further repair in Hampshire also aware it was decommissioned.

8. 2008 MJK sold the aircraft and ‘gun' to another display pilot, a prosecution witness, who ‘modified' the gun for his own purposes.

9. On or about 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 ppeared to never have occurred. Police court cases had occurred and the Defendant's attendance, in force, with the use of a crow bar and sledge hammer, to enter the Claimant's Cardiff veterinary surgery, had also occurred. This amounts at least to misfeasance in public office.

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 the Defendant's control, had been disclosed to the Claimant, the latter entered the Defendants solicitor's' offices, on or about the 25^th February 2009 complaining the Court Order had still not been carried out.

11. The Claimant, upon receipt of a copy of the Defendant's affidavit then 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 covert police surveillance and civil actions for damages, referred to in CF101741 + four others.

12. The sale and subsequent management change of the Claimant's South Wales veterinary practice, in May 2009, allowed the Claimant to reveal, at last, on U Tube and websites worldwide the conduct of the South Wales Police with their covert surveillance team that had operated for well over ten years. The Claimant's 64 page June 09 witness statement, summarising their unusual and extreme behavior, was now being prepared for court.

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

14. On 8^th June 2009, at Barry police station MAPPA meeting, police informed the agencies, present, including staff from Caswell Clinic psychiatric prison, that the Claimant was a category level 3, very dangerous and was to be arrested and ‘taken into custody' for being in possession of a prohibited weapon, a machine gun.

15. The police also informed the agencies that should the Claimant approach the Chief Constable then he was likely to be shot which has caused the Claimant to seek asylum in France for fear of his life

16. On 15^th June 2009 the Claimant brought further civil proceedings, in the Administrative Court, London, against the Defendant and Co-Defendant, the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons relating to covert police surveillance. Covert plain clothed police officers were already in attendance.

17. On 18^th June 2009 the Claimant again laid the complaint, this time inside the offices of the Defendant's Bridgend South Wales Police head quarters where again there was refusal, by the Defendant, to ‘mutually exchange
witness statements' ordered by HHJ Seys Llewellyn QC

18. On 19^th June 2009 the Defendant again refused to exchange witness statements when the Defendant's solicitors, Dolmans, were contacted by the Claimant despite the Court Order having given the Defendant until 4pm.that day

19. On 20^thJune 2009 the Defendant's solicitors laid complaint with their client, against the Claimant, to be arrested for a ‘threat of criminal damage' which amounts to more bullying and harassment.

20. 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.

21. On 22^nd June 2009 24/7 police surveillance caused the Claimant to be arrested in the road outside his property and cautioning him from a written script, following legal advise, that he had been arrested for:

a. Threat of committing criminal damage

b. Being in possession of a prohibited weapon

c. Being in possession of prohibited ammunition

22. ‘Operation Orchid' caused a second team of South Wales Police to interview the Claimant's wife at the family home, with the hope they could obtain a statement from her that the Claimant had a history of mental illness. This was in the hope of avoiding the criminal proceedings being put to strict proof. The Claimant's wife was threatened that her and Claimant's ten years old daughter was at serious risk of being taken into care, by the South Wales social services, if she did not cooperate. Blatant intimidation and harassment of the Claimant and his family.

23. The Claimant was never charged with the first arrest allegation, (a), and despite repeated court orders to reveal the evidence and statements by Dolmans, solicitors, they assisted their client by being a party to the February 2009 Chief Constable's sworn affidavit.

24. Despite repeated applications in Cardiff Crown Court, by the Claimant, for specific disclosure relating to the alleged ‘threat of criminal damage' to countless judges, HM Crown Prosecution Service, South Wales Police and Dolmans, the Defendant's solicitors, being the complainant, all refused.

25. Final proof of conspiracy needed just one last refused application, this time before His Honour Judge Seys Llewellyn QC, the management judge in the ongoing civil proceedings between the Claimant and Defendant.

26. Dolmans had little choice but to again refuse to disclose the evidence of their client's criminal conduct and/or gross mismanagement during the days leading up to the Claimant's 22^nd June 2009 ridiculous arrest

27. Dolmans falsified evidence assisting in the arrest of the Claimant, their client, the then Chief Constable of South Wales Police, Ms Barbara Wilding, the latter assuring them, no doubt, of their immunity to prosecution. The overall plan was to prejudice the Claimant's position in the ongoing civil proceedings now that the ‘cover up' of an expensive ten year police covert surveillance team, on the Claimant, was starting to fall apart.

28. There was no intention of arresting the Claimant on fire arms charges. The Claimant, without full MAPPA approval or understanding, had been set up to be ‘lawfully killed' by an armed South Wales Police unit under direct orders from senior police officers.

29. Events following the early 2009 decision by these high ranking police officers, to have the Claimant eliminated, eventually became unmanageable due to the unpredictable conduct of their moving target and the effect of his postings on his website.

30. Between 22^nd and 23^rd June 2009 the police filmed and removed, from his home, the Claimant's lawfully held shot guns, ammunition and court files, the latter relating to the Claimant's ongoing complaint of police bullying, harassment, malicious prosecutions and false imprisonments conducted in most un usual and extreme
manner suggesting vengeance at the tax payer's expense

31. None of the above items, guns, ammunition or court files have ever been returned to the Claimant with the police continuing to block the Claimant's right to re new his gun licences.

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

33. The English police refused to ‘touch the subject with a barge pole' once they became aware that the South Wales Police had persuaded the Civil Aviation Authority to telephone ahead to the new owner, in England, to dismount the Lewis antique and alone drive it across Lincolnshire and beyond to find any licenced arms dealer where it could be, later, collected by the Defendant.

34. The Welsh police then ‘hawked' the Lewis antique nearly two thousand miles around the UK, contrary to strict Home Office Regulations, during which time the Defendant had it ‘modified' at their special police laboratory in South Wales. This Claim is yet another one of misfeasance in public office.

35. Upon reading the Claimant's June 2009 64 page Defence statement, on the Defendant's real motives behind his arrest, the Barry Magistrates court, together with legal advice, allowed the Claimant immediate and unconditional bail.

36. On 25^th June 2009 the police appealed the Court Order deliberately lying on the relevant facts, under consideration, to HHJ Hughes causing the Claimant to be further detained in custody in Cardiff prison.

37. Repeat of these lies by the Defendant occurred before a further nine more Cardiff Crown Court judges when opposing bail. False antecedent history together with this malicious false imprisonment is one of the major Claims of the Claimant.

38. The Defendant, over nearly eight months, deliberately refused the Claimant standard or specific disclosure of evidence, under their control, that would have cleared the Claimant's name before the need of a trial. Defamation is another serious Claim by the Claimant.

39. In July 2009 the Defendant brought a third indictment namely, obtaining income from the ‘proceeds of crime'. A judge, much later, caused this third indictment to be withdrawn. This event contributes to the large number of proceedings that the Claimant has won against the Defendant.

40. 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 in custody to his medium secure psychiatric unit, Caswell Clinic, under Section 35 of the 1983 Mental Health Act having not even examined his patient

41. Dr Teqwyn Williams had in his possession, before 3^rd August 2009, psychiatric reports from both HM Prison Cardiff and his own Caswell Clinic doctors, that the Claimant did not need any medication or treatment relevant to the 1983 Mental Health Act.

42. On 28^thAugust 2009 a series of brain scans, arranged by Dr Tegwyn Williams, indicated no relevant abnormalities in the Claimant, confirmed at the time, in writing, by at least one expert at the Princess Elizabeth Hospital, Bridgend.

43. In September 2009, after it was clear the Claimant was not going to employ a lawyer, with sworn allegiance to the South Wales courts, Dr Tegwyn Williams recommended that the Claimant be now transferred to Ashworth High Security Psychiatric Prison (IPP), Imprisonment for Public Protection with a term of imprisonment, without trail, of an inordinate length stating, without appropriate qualifications, the Claimant had ‘significant brain damage' and ‘possible cancer', neither of which had much chance of recovery.

44. Whilst this Claim could be conceived against Dr Tegwyn Williams alone, it is concluded here as a major act of harassment by the Defendant who had commissioned Dr Williams via FTAC and MAPPA.

45. The Claimant, following much needed legal advice retains the right of including Dr Tegwyn Williams as a Co-Defendant in these civil proceedings for damages.

46. 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 as the National Health Service doctor was not even qualified to sign such a court document as true, to the best of his belief.

47. On the 2nd December 2009 the prosecution had convened a hearing, not tape recorded and in the absence of the Claimant, left locked up under the court, to discuss, at length, with the proposed trial judge and Dr Tegwyn Williams, the possibilities of avoiding the trial by way of a Section 41 or similar, of the 1983 Mental Health Act, that could have the Claimant locked away, without trial, for life.

48. But the Defendant had failed to obtain the second signatory from any appropriately qualified forensic psychiatrist, required by law, in either England or Wales, but not for the want of trying.

49. On the 2^nd December 2009 The Defendant failed to inform the proposed trial judge, HHJ Bidder QC, that the Claimant had caused not less than twelve psychiatric reports from a same number of psychiatrists that the Claimant was not requiring the need for either psychiatric assessment or treatment.

50. HM Court Service (Wales), as is their habit, failed to disclose to HHJ Bidder QC or the Claimant of the Claimant's privately obtained expert medical report, from outside Wales, having been served on Cardiff Crown Court the day before by an English solicitor and past MP for the Vale of Glamorgan.

51. The report seriously contradicted both those of Dr Tegwyn Williams' and the findings of Professor Roger Wood, the latter also unqualified to state an opinion that might affect permanent custody of the Claimant

52. On 7^tt December 2009 the Claimant, using other lawyers, again from well outside South Wales, caused the MAPPA coordinator, based at the Defendant's HQ, to indicate, in writing, ‘ The right arm did not know what the left arm of the law was doing'

53. On 17^th December 2009 the Defendant headed a hurriedly convened MAPPA meeting in the Caswell Clinic, Bridgend, due to yet another Claimant bail Application before HHJ Bidder QC scheduled that day in Newport Crown Court.

54. The Claimant's name for some reason, currently subject to HHJ Seys Llewellyn QC's outstanding Order for disclosure, was removed from the MAPPA register without any explanation to the Claimant causing further hardship and distress to the Claimant, in prison, still trying to establish his exact MAPPA status and why, just a before trial carrying a possible mandatory ten year prison sentence.

55. The Claimant has to this day never established why and later, why not, he was on the MAPPA register with the Defendant repeatedly refusing to disclose, contrary to law.

56. Defense evidence or ‘summing up' was never needed due the prosecution's fairy tale, a view held by at least nine members of the jury, stating to the Claimant, immediately after the trial, that their decision was already concluded by eleven of the jury after the first day of evidence and cross examination

57. On 9^th February 2010, at Cardiff Crown Court, the Claimant was found ‘not guilty' on the two remaining indictments and was released from custody with no conditions.

58. 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, buying from the Claimant, were not also in the dock or behind bars.

59. 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 under the proverbial carpet in a perfunctory manner to which the Claimant is accustomed since first settling in South Wales.

60. The arrest and detention and prosecution of the Claimant were unlawful as the most appalling act of malice.

61. There were no reasonable grounds to believe that the Claimant was probably guilty of the offence for which he was arrested.

62. The decisions to arrest and detain the Claimant were such as no reasonable police officer would have reached.

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

64. 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.

65. 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.

Withheld NHS Medical Records

66. On or about 10^th February 2010 the Defendant arrested and detained in custody the Claimant for entering Caswell Clinic, when invited by the staff to collect his full medical records, promised by Dr Tegwyn Williams following the Claimant's applications under the Freedom of Information and Data Protection Acts. Also promises to his GP's secretary, in the presence of the Claimant, by the manager, stated they could be collected from the Caswell Clinic porter's lodge. His multi agency collusion has caused serious aggravation to the Claimant's health

67. The full medical records were not disclosed and currently remain with the South Wales National Health Service, also now refusing to hand them over.

68. The Claimant was charged with numerous allegations and jailed. Severe bail conditions were set before all charges were later dropped with the Defendant refusing to properly investigate the Claimant's complaint into the apparent falsified medical records written by both Dr Tegwyn Williams of Caswell Clinic and Professor Roger Wood of Swansea University

69. The Defendant's actions were both malicious and bullying and/or yet a further example of misfeasance in public office the Claimant has suffered under, by the Defendant, since 1992

HM Court Service (Wales).

70. In July 2010 ex South Wales Police officer, a Derrick Hassan, violently assaulted the Claimant, dependant at the time on a pair of crutches and on daily morphine sulphate and other analgesic medication. Hassan pushed the Claimant part way down a flight of stairs in Cardiff Crown Court causing the Claimant to attend casualty and treatment for a damaged ankle and increased his hip pain in a much overdue total hip replacement required, caused by the failure ofthe Defendant to investigate the Claimant's complaint, relating to falsified medical evidence. The Vale Hospital, Vale of Glamorgan, had to take this into consideration, without clarification being available, to cancel elected surgery.

71. Despite being given the name and address of an independent witness, not part of HM Court Service (Wales), the Defendant refused to have him interviewed thereby acting irresponsibly and with without due care. The conduct was malicious.

Racially Aggravated Public Order allegations

72. 69 On or about the 2^nd August 2010 the Claimant was arrested and jailed by the Defendant purely for monetary gain by a third party. The Crown Prosecution Service offered ‘no evidence' and the Claimant was found ‘not guilty' in his absence of all parties

73. Again, the Defendant refused to investigate thousands of pounds of damage caused, caught in the act by the Claimant, by these same complainants of the dismissed Public Order offences.

74. This malicious prosecution is a further act of both misfeasance in public office and harassment

Stolen Cheques incident currently under appeal at The Court of Appeal

75. On or around November 2010 the Claimant identified the thief of his stolen surgery cheques, some nine years earlier, the subject currently on appeal from Action CF101+ three others, before the Court of Appeal (Wales). The thief was giving his identity details to a named clerk in Barry Post Office. The Defendant, due to ill health and on crutches was unable to apprehend the thief.

76. Previously, the Defendant in the defenses of the earlier Action admitted to the Claimant that the Defendant had not been able to trace the thief despite being, known to the Defendant, given film footage of his cashing falsified Claimant's cheques and given his home address in Barry.

77. The Claimant informed the Defendant of the above new information but the Defendant refused to properly investigate or even speak to the clerk at the Barry Post Office or the Claimant on the new evidence.

78. In summary, the Claimant has suffered from the malicious intent of the Defendant's misfeasance in public office as well as the unprofessional behaviour of the Defendant's solicitors and of the Defendant's forensic psychiatrist. The Defendant's bullying and harassment resulted in false imprisonment, severe damage to reputation, completely unnecessary legal proceedings and thus a claim to damages, exemplary damages, special a criminal investigation and costs.

79. Unless restrained by the Court, police officers will continue to harass the Claimant.

80. The Claimant retains his right for trial by jury and for a lawyer to read and amend this Claim

Maurice J Kirk BVSc
Puits aux Papillons
St Doha
22 230 Merdrignac
Bretagne
France

26^th May 2011

Copy to Cardiff Court of Appeal
             Cardiff County Court
             His Honour Judge Seys Llewellyn QC
             The French Immigration Authorities

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

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

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

MR MAURICE KIRK 1st Claimant

DR TEGWYN WILLIAMS 1st Defendant

Ref TWH.448470.48

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

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

IT IS ORDERED THAT

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

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

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

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

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

(i) the medical records or documentation outstanding,

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

5. Costs of today be costs in the application.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It stinks, doesn't it?

Disproportionate Legal Costs: Breach of Human Rights

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

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

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

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

page 2

2nd December 2009

ALL PROCEEDINGS

(11.39)

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

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

Continuing "HM Partnership" Cardiff Conspiracy

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

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

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

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

All current known Cardiff court e-mails bounce back'

To the Cardiff County Court

BS61459, CF101741, 0CF03922 & 8 Others

Maurice Kirk v Dr Tegwyn Williams

20th January 2011 Hearing

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

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

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

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

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

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

Adjournment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Disproportionate Costs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Defendant's Lawyer's Conduct

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

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

The Court Transcript and Brain Cancer

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Give patients information in a way they can understand?

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

Difficult to find a doctor who agrees With Dr Tegwyn Williams

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

Additional Difficulties, Expenses and Costs

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

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

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

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

Enclosed Both UK and Breton GP letters requesting clarification

Maurice J Kirk BVSc

18th January 2011

South Wales Police Authority
Bridgend
South Wales

19th Jan 2011

Dear Sir,

Complaint against South Wales Police attempting to have me shot

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

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

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

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

This list is not exhaustive....

yours

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

10. Quotes from 8th Oct 2010 County Court Judgment

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

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

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

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

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

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

Leaked Police Report on MAPPA Meetings to Kill Claimant - Contrary to Basic Human Rights!?

Maurice — Sat, 02 Oct 2010 14:34:00 GMT

Here is just the beginning and here is my shaky speech in the House of Lords meeting, just after my lucky escape, of just why I could not divulge, last year to my family and friends, my defences when charged with a mandatory ten year minimum prison sentence or an Imprisonment for Public Protection [IPP], for life, in a High Security Psychiatric Prison........ Your comments would be greatly appreciated!

In December 09, my London solicitors had written to the police HQ, to MAPPA Co-ordinator, Nigel Rees, who confirmed MAPPA categorisation. The delay in my arrest that followed, around two weeks, was deliberate with the hope I would again make a lawful approach to the Chief Constable, thus allowing police sniper fire to do the rest. There is much video of the incident that sparked all this off. All this police activity, caught on video, but the Crown Court trial judge, Paul somebody, because it was like something out of "The Keystone Cops" blocked it from the jury, following my application for disclosure. Scenes includeded, totally out ofcontrol, 'Trojan' squad of police, armed with their own machine guns, all wearing tin hats, as I attempted mutual exchange of witness statements, in the seventeen year running civil action. This was all being acted out in the inner sanctum of Police HQ, Bridgend. Quite innappropiate for a jury, the judge considered, having already refused any other police disclosure that might further reveal his small minded cabal's ultimate intention.

Edwina Hart AM Welsh Assembly Health Minister Steps In

Maurice — Sun, 19 Sep 2010 08:04:00 GMT

Edwina Hart AM delegates NHS officials to also try and obtain withheld medical evidence used in Cardiff Crown Court for an IPP attempt.

Her letter to me is here.

[The following three letters are just SAMPLES from one hundred of Maurice's letters on the delicate subject]

on September 15 to David Sissling, the Chief Executive of the Local Health Board
on September 18 to David Sissling
on September 19 to HM Treasury Solicitor Stephen Jones

Mr David Sissling
Chief Executive of Abertawe Morgannwg University Local Health Board
South Wales

18th Sept 2010

This week the trial judge adjourned the evidence from being heard from near a hundred police officers for about six months, in order that I may have my hip replacement and suggested I had another brain scan, thus avoiding the criminal weighted proof of NHS and private doctors having to disclose their incriminating evidence.

The considerable expense, thus incurred, was due to the NHS not overriding the false medical evidence that blocked my planned July operation to have been carried out in order that I might be ready for ten weeks of very enjoyable cross examination of those that caused my name being removed from the veterinary register, effectively, for life.

The learned judge was informed that my new Barry GP, my Cowbridge lot, for eighteen years, refusing to lift a finger to help, could not obtain a brain scan appointment for his patient as the Hospital maintained there was 'no evidence' I needed one.

Both Dr Williams and Professor Wood, witnessed, in total, by around sixteen psychiatrists and psychologists, called in to examine me and /or my medical records, following the September 09 findings by SPECT scan, decided I had 'significant brain damage' and a paranoid delusional disorder, the latter based on my fixated belief I was suffering persecution by his joint employers, with the NHS, the South Wales Police.

South Wales Police Forensic Psychiatric Service, in early September 09, required I had a second scan after three months that they have now quietly 'buried'. Why, because my expensive but privately arranged 1st December 09 Dr Kemp report, via lawyer 'extraordinaire', Mr Walter Sweeney and Consultant radiologist wife, Nuala.

Dr Kemp's report castigated the quite unnecessary intrusive procedure, an infusion of radioactive nuclear isotopes into my brain, ordered by Williams insisting the prisoner, under his personally concocted three month incarceration in his 'Gulag style' laboratory, reliant on CPS inspired Section 35 of the 1983 Mental Health Act, writing his 3rd August psychiatric report without even a physical examination!

Today I have caused further disclosure of, as yet, withheld medical records, some of which I enclose, further giving support that a police investigation take place from outside South Wales.

If you do not expedite your duties to allow me my operation to go ahead, in safety, very soon, to relieve both pain and avoid the obvious side effects of morphine that could now affect my flying licences, I may be forced to take the law into my own hands, once again witnessing tyranny in our midst and to personally obtain those records from the named culprits, records under YOUR CONTROL, used on 2nd December 2009 in the CPS/police last ditch attempt to stop both the 'machine gun trial' and my seventeen year running damages trial against them from going ahead.

Yours faithfully

Mr David Sissling
Chief Executive of Abertawe Morgannwg University Local Health Board
South Wales

15th September 2010

Dear Sir,

Redacted Medical Records and Caswell Clinic Psychiatric Prison

Dr Ruth Bagshaw

This lady is yet to disclose any record, whatsoever, of her involvement with me in Caswell Clinic Psychiatric Prison last year. She has failed even to send to me a signed certified true copy of her letters to and from Professor Roger Wood, purportedly reporting on my 'significant brain damage' and 'possible brain tumour' later to be referred to by Dr Tegwyn Williams and the South Wales Police MAPPA and Crown Prosecution Service when successfully opposing my release from Cardiff Prison over seven months.

Judge Bidder QC states in his 13th inst. e-mail that Judge Cooke QC, on 1st October 09, ruled I was 'fit to plead' meaning the trial should have gone ahead in mid November, NOT LATE JANUARY 2010.

I request copy of all the medical evidence, as the patient, procured for MAPPA meetings and in particular just who employed Williams to attend 2nd December 2009 Cardiff Crown Court and divulge my personal details to CPS police barrister, Thomolow when I was no longer under his appalling so called 'care'?

Information requested in my December 09 solicitor's letter to the MAPPA police HQ Co-ordinator was blocked by Barbara Wilding and again by Peter Vaughan, the current Chief Constable of South Wales Police.

The South Wales Police even blocked the trial commencing and arranged for Dr Williams to address Judge Bidder, supported by Wood's report, as an 'expert' on interpreting brain scans and that he considered I had 'significant brain damage' and possible cancer and far too dangerous to start defending the 'machine gun trial'. Dr Tegwyn Williams' earlier psychiatric report recommended I be sectioned and sent to Ashworth High Security Prison, IPP, for a term of imprisonment, whilst unconvicted, of an 'indeterminate length'.

Dr Gaynor Jones

This lady attended MAPPA meetings prior to my arrest in June 09, as disclosed in the Executive Summary of seven monthly meetings, some of which having been disclosed, this late, by the Order of His Honour Judge Seys Llewelyn QC, yesterday. HM Prison Cardiff attended these meetings but as with other authorities running away as with Barbara Wilding, refusing to answer to my witness summons, in order to withhold incriminating evidence relating to this MAPPA scandal.

MAPPA was set up by the then Chief Constable purely to defend herself, at tax payer's expense, in an ongoing civil action for numerous malicious prosecutions and false imprisonments.

The HM prison, today, deny any aspect of their involvement of my MAPPA surveillance between June 09 to December 09 because they are currently using HM Treasury Solicitor, again at vast tax payers' expense, trying to overturn a £50,000 judgment, in my favour, on the pretext 'no one' in the prison ever received the Particulars of Claim, in April 09, put before MAPPA meetings or receive my 'Application for Judgment', around July 09 and dealt with by this current trial judge.

The fact I was in prison for all of July 09 and the trial judge ordered 'specific disclosure' of prison and Justice Ministry record of their respective 'audit trails', eventually to Whitehall, which has been refused, is but a small sample of the wide spread deceit I and my family have suffered under since my 1992 arrival to live in the Principality.

It all stinks, doesn't it, but who cares? Do you?

Dr Jones attended prison to examine me and received my copy letters to Drs Bagshaw, Joseph Sylvester and Tegwyn Williams to disclose that to which I am entitled, under the law, having paid my £30, last summer, with my FOI Act application, repeated an application around January2010 and redacted, again, this week, despite the 10th September 2010 letter of request by trial judge this week.

None of the above doctors, no hospital, no NHS department, no prison has released any matter identifying or supporting the alarming material 'walk on water Williams' laid before Judge Bidder QC so, please, where is it?

Try looking in the MAPPA filing cabinet first, I suggest, as it was discussed at length in October, November and December MAPPA monthly meetings chaired by senior police officers and, no doubt NHS MAPPA representative Dr Ruth Bagshaw and/or Dr Williams, both of Bridgend Gulag.

Trusting no one, any more, in Cardiff courts I took the precaution of obtaining three specific independent medical reports from outside Wales, but Dolmans have been 'lying through their back teeth', all week,, trying to fool the judge they are 'unable' to trace their 'true identity', meaning 'veracity' or 'whereabouts' of two of the three doctors, unless they wish to blame their client, the Chief Constable for failing to disclose?

All three doctors, a Consultant Radiologist, Psychiatrist and Occupational Health Physician featured heavily in MAPPA shared information during my unlawful incarceration, last year.

Many others, blogging on my web site from all around the world, were equally appalled at the 'ring fence' mentality, here in South Wales, not just within your highly lucrative 'judicial industry' but in their own chosen vocation, the medical profession.

Dolmans, police solicitors, today, are again dipping into their bottomless pockets of government resources frantic to 'sting it all out', this irritating issue of a prisoner's welfare. A swift conclusion, on these urgent medical issues, would mean the immediate cessation of easy cash, of course, for their entourage of bewigged attorneys knowing, as with their client, they are all immune to any form of criminal prosecution, whilst under the protection of 'Her Majesty's Prerogative' as 'HM officers of the court' outdated by the 1998 Human Rights Act and 1948 European Convention of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

My total hip replacement operation will not go ahead, until I have had more disclosure of relevant medical evidence, needed by my surgical team, under the responsibility of you, Alun Cairns MP, Edwina Hart AM, Jane Hutt AM and the South Wales Police, the latter having hatched the idea of my 'trading in machine guns', in the first place, for my eventual resting place in Broadmoor, to prevent incriminating evidence ever being disclosed.

NO MAN SHOULD PROFIT FROM HIS OWN WRONG.

Yours sincerely,

Maurice J Kirk BVSc

FAO Stephen Jones, HM Treasury Solicitor,
to forward to Cardiff Civil Justice Centre District Judges Mr Phillips and Mr North Cardiff County Court

Another letter to HM Treasury Solicitor

19th September 2010

Maurice Kirk v Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons 9CF04115

re DAMAGES CLAIM

Maurice Kirk v HM Governor, Cardiff Prison 9CF02983

re FALSE IMPRISONMENT

Dear Sirs,

On Friday before 4pm, I understand, your court received the 'Executive Summaries' of seven months of MAPPA meetings, held at police HQ, Bridgend, when, during most of that time I was under the custody of the Defendant, the HM Governor while the prison, police and Caswell forensic psychiatric prison were all around the same table considering, in depth, my current and future welfare.

The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons enjoyed complaint from the South Wales Police containing MAPPA/1968 Terrorism Act surveillance material, withheld from both the 2001 college hearing and subsequent 2004 HM Privy Council Appeal, yet to be disclosed.

The Criminal Justice and Court Services Act (2000) established the MAPPA and placed them on a statutory basis. The Criminal Justice Act (2003) re-enacted and strengthened those provisions. The legislation requires the Police, Prison and Probation Services (acting jointly as the 'Responsible Authority') in each of the 42 areas of England and Wales:

Cardiff Civil Justice Centre should also have received, on Friday before 4pm dead line, the 1st July 2010 HM Cardiff Prison form, signed on behalf of the current HM governor, denying any prior knowledge of MAPPA involvement with me and who's current affidavit, also before you, appears to portray gross variance as well as to the true situation to be proved by the previous governor, Ms West, on oath, my main witness, yet to give evidence in this case as prison staff appeared reluctant to disclose the appropriate address for witness summons service.

The HM Treasury Solicitor, in the circumstances, has agreed to 'stay' proceedings, for the recovery of my successful £50,000 Judgment for false imprisonment, following the ruling by His Honour Judge Seys LLewlyn QC that I am unfit to stand trial for a few months but fit to fight a second police 'strike out' application tomorrow that eighteen years of litigation discloses 'no cause of action'.

Interesting, isn't it, when just one click of the dreaded 'HM' fingers can order Cardiff Justice Centre, HM Prison and HM Crown Court to hand over the audit trail of my Particulars of Claim, in question, denied receiving by the prison and the medical records held by the Prison Health Centre, denied in the HM manager's recent letter and clearly referred to in the HM Court logs before most of the ten Cardiff Crown Court Judges that refused me bail knowing, full well or should have known, my full MAPPA level 3 surveillance records quoted 'chapter and verse' the HM conspiracy by the aforementioned trying to lock me away for life.

I have to forward this letter via Whitehall's HM Treasury Solicitor, to e-mail it to you all, as Mr Pring , your HM court manager, continues to ' spam block' my correspondence, on my lawful 'due process' of court papers, all part of the day to day party games, here in Cardiff courts. Mr Pring, incidentally, continues to refuse to tell me if he has now stopped sending all my court files, including other cases, to the Ministry of Justice.

Please confirm receipt needed for web site, the Court of Appeal and European Court of Human Rights.

Thank you,