Search results matching tags 'South Wales Police' and 'medical records'

South Wales Police Conspiracy, to having me Shot, is blocked by trial judge, HHJ SeysLlewellyn QC..... see DOWNLOAD

Maurice — Wed, 27 Jul 2011 05:50:26 GMT

HELP NORMAN CAMPAIGN

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

World War 2 veteran, of HMS Standfast sinking of the Scharnhorst and campaigner against the corruption in English and Welsh Judicial System, that is now rife and where the General Public do not realise just what is going on!

Nearly all the Judgments are written out before the hearing has even taken place, especially if politically sensitive. Pensioner Norman Scarth has been sentenced to 6 months in prison for recording in court without permission. All mail sent to prisoners is vetted and censored and every word must be checked. To show your support please send anything, telephone directories, books, magazines, old Shopping Catalogs, old newspapers, any old WW1 machine guns you may have lying about to:

Norman Scarth

c/o

Leeds Prison
2 Gloucester Terrace
Stanningley Road
Leeds
LS12 2TJ

To keep Norman's spirits up, include hidden messages by highlighting a few words, like 'Helicopter coming next Tuesday', if that fails, 'Captain Kirk in his Starship on Wednesday' or 'file in a Breton loaf', etc. Please pass this on to everyone you know and send this campaign viral!

(PS Norman, I have commissioned, without the requisite planning permission, for the first tunnel to be dug)

'Mindset' of South Wales Police

A topical sample of what Norman is fighting about

Paragraph 10 of 25^th July 2011 Welsh court "note of judgment" [if will not open see on downloads] could not be further from the truth and the trial judge very well knows it.

It was Mr Kirk, not legal services, police or the court who made the court application. In October 08 Mr Kirk had been refused the disclosure of the identity of police at incidents involving him and his veterinary practice, incident numbers, progress and findings of his numerous reported thefts, burglaries, criminal damage and arson etc on his practice cars and property.

Not one of some 40 odd incidents were properly addressed by the police and disclosed to the injured party.

The parting management judge, HHJ Nicholas Chambers QC, having granted Mr Kirk a jury trial, earlier, only for police to have it overturned, therefore ORDERED the Chief Constable, Barbara Wilding and no one else, was to swear and sign, within the first week of January 2009, an affidavit that Mr Kirk had had full disclosure!

Mr Kirk knew, that early October 08, when he posted the application his life would now be seriously threatened and so took the necessary precautions, particularly within his family to safeguard further loss likely to occur. The inevitable collateral damage was obvious once the proverbial '*** hit the fan'.

The police ignored the judge's court order to disclose information of incidents, of course, in a similar fashion as witnessed throughout the past 20 years of this litigation. Ms Wilding, however, promptly handed in her resignation.

It was not until Mr Kirk entered the police lawyer's offices, Dolmans, some six or seven weeks after the court order dead line, he stating the arrest of Ms Wilding if she did not immediately sign. She signed the false affidavit within the hour!

Contrary to 25^th July 2011 judgment no police took Mr Kirk to Bridgend police station on 18th June 2009..... He went of his own volition and made a detailed statement of complaint because the police at HQ refused. His complaint at their other police station was promptly shredded.

Dolmans were asked to quickly write a statement of complaint on the 20^th, in order to arrest Mr Kirk using an armed police helicopter raid on Mr Kirk's home. On the following day, with 20 odd men, some armed for back up, hoards of police surrounded the premises as Mr Kirk and his family was having tea in the garden.

Operation Chalice was, within minutes of helicopter overhead aborted only to repeat the whole exercise, the next day, 22ndJune2009!

Next day police included ‘Operation Orchid', in the dawn raid, using a 2nd squat team to snatch, Genevieve, Mr Kirk's then 10 year old daughter, on the pretext of the dreaded welsh social services opinion, reliant on falsified Dr Tegwyn Williams psychiatric reports, made her environment far too dangerous to remain with either her mother or father.

South Wales Police had been promised the support of a string of bent Welsh judges, in the cartel, to keep Mr Kirk locked. It was the machine gun trial judge, the thoroughly deceitful Paul Thomas QC who, apart from many other abuses of Article 6, refused Mr Kirk the right to ask just why the two raids on his house was needed and why one at all, when the police knew, all the time, there was no WW1 Lewis machine gun in his possession?

Para10, is just an example of police drafted documents riddled with deliberate lies, this time backed by another head of the current incestuous Welsh judiciary, this time in the civil sector. Are you surprised, after following the disgusting conduct of Nicholas Cooke QC, Recorder of Cardiff, caught on tape, attempting to lock Mr Kirk away without trial?

It was from that very day, 25th Feb 2009, MAPPA and Dr Tegwyn Williams were mobilized by the Crown Prosecution Service and the South Wales Police, with their introducing spurious excuses to set me up to be shot. By using this carefully picked local trial judge, it is assured that certain past incidents and court cases, identifying 20 years of covert police surveillance and court corruption, none of it will ever reach a witness box.

Dolmans, solicitors, even printed out, in the affidavit, the Chief Constable had ‘no knowledge of court cases' and even the incident when police used a crow bar and sledge hammer to break into Mr Kirk's veterinary surgery when they could have just asked for a key! A squad of police had put back an apparently evicted police inspector's daughter that had been squatting in the flat overhead with a man involved in drugs.

This trial judge has tried to fool the website readers, in his judgment, by stating that the police did not commence 24/7 armed protection of Wilding until after Mr Kirk's 18th June 2009 detailed complaint of perversion of justice, at Bridgend police station.

He has just refused to release MAPPA minutes identifying the very names ,dates and places of the conspiracy to kill...that is how evil these judges are in Wales really are and no one is doing anything about it

Norman is, mind you but the politicians, most culpable continue to turn a blind eye and sit on their hands waiting for their pension.

Immediately after Mr Kirk's entry to the inner sanctum of Wilding's office block, to exchange witness statements, right inside the Bridgend police HQ heavily guarded compound, he was, much later, surrounded by a heavily armed flack jacketed squat team, in tin hats, brandishing automatic weapons and stun and smoke grenades around their belts.

Now readers may understand why Elizabeth Paul, a seasoned social worker or another from Caswell Clinic, Bridgend Psychiatric prison leaked part of the MAPPA minutes of 8th June 2009 shedding more light on the conspiracy to having Mr Kirk shot. If that failed Dr Tegwyn Williams was at hand to having me, whilst unconvicted, locked away for life in Ashworth high security psychiatric prison

Norman Scarth knows this language only too well which is why he needs your help, NOW, before they try playing, on him, their ‘Gulag card' to be locked away for life.

It more than stinks, doesn't it?

It is time we took to the streets with ‘Lawful Rebellion'... and that means YOU!

maurice@kirkflyingvet.com Tel 07907937953

Alerting Welsh Ministers to the State of NHS Wales

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

Carwyn Jones AM
First Minister
National Assembly of Wales

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

23 March 2011

Dear Mr Carwyn Jones AM and Mrs Edwina Hart AM,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Questions I ask be answered:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yours

Copy to

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

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

218 Signatures, Maurice, Please, Needs your Help

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

Our online petition is still collecting signatures and comments.

This is the letter I posted today to Buckingham Palace:

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

Dear Sir Christopher

Re: Civil Abuse of Royal Privileges

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mrs Sabine K McNeill
Organiser, Forum for Stable Currencies

Dear Mr Hurd MP

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

With many thanks for your initiative so far,

Sabine K McNeill
______________

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

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

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

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

________________________________________________________________________________

Alun Cairns MP
House of Commons
London

20th December 2010

LAWFUL REBELLION

Dear Alun,

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

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

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

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

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

Maurice J Kirk BVSc
______________________________________________________________________________

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

Introduction

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

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

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

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

The Seven Aspects for Appeal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Four Reasons for Granting the Permission to Appeal

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

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

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

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

Para 8.12 of Action BS614159-MC65

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

Para 3 of Action CF101741

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

Para 9 of Action 101741

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

Para 11 in Action 101741

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

Para 2 in Action CF204141

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

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

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

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

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

· Arbitrary date setting for both start and finish

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Written by Sabine K McNeill

McKenzie Friend and Web Publisher

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

On behalf of

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

22230 Merdrignac

Brittany

France

maurice@kirkflyingvet.com - www.kirkflyingvet.com

Fair Trial, Effective Remedy (Human Rights Articles 6 and 13) versus just What?

SabineKMcNeill — Wed, 17 Nov 2010 22:04:00 GMT

Imagine this scenario: Maurice Kirk is charged with a ‘misdemeanor’, as the Yanks would call it, a simple Section 39 ‘common assault’ allegation against an ex-police officer, a Cardiff Crown Court official. He had repeatedly refused to accept the ‘grounds document’ to be lodged with Cardiff Court, on a deadline, before it is then sent up to London's Criminal Court of Appeal..

Maurice will say, if given the chance under Article 6, he therefore simply tucked the single sheet into the top pocket of the court officer allocated for the job of receiving these specific court papers. The HM official, instead, crumpled it up and pushed Maurice down the steps of the court, on his crutches, leading to the need of hospitalisation and x-rays. See this photo.Mr Hassan posted it the same day.

Despite substantial medical evidence to the contrary, the 2nd November Cardiff Magistrates Court hearing took place in his absence. He was, of course, found guilty and a warrant was, of course, issued for his arrest. A European warrant is now being seriously considered by the CPS, knowing full well its uncontrollable pitfalls. Yet another 1st November GP medical report had been served on the court that morning. The fifth September report had already been accepted by the Barry Magistrates and their case adjourned to early December, as well as the long awaited listed September ten week civil trial to allow time for Maurice's toatal hip replacement operation. This is the case for civil damages in Maurice’s eighteen year running damages claim against the South Wales Police for perjury, personal injury, false imprisonment and perverting the course of justice, many, many times. See videos and these key documents: incident schedule and HM leaked internal memos. All courts, so far, were assuming, by then, Maurice would have had his medical records released, currently stopping his operation from going ahead.

The ‘contempt of court’ appeal to London, by the way, is for a month’s imprisonment following Maurice’s pleading with the Recorder of Cardiff, HHJ Nicholas Cooke QC, in June, to 'inspect' the proof, personally, of an HM conspiracy and hand over the urgent medical evidence, especially that which HM used on the 2nd December 2009, when Maurice was considered to be ‘far too dangerous’ to receive bail for a trial the Chief Constable did not plan to happen. Maurice was in jail on remand, incidentally, for over seven months, being acquitted of all charges without any compensation or need to produce any defence. The jury had made their mind up after the first day of prosecution evidence, we all later found out, in the Cardiff pub, about ‘trading in an antique WWI Lewis machine gun’, that had been bolted on the front of his DH2 replica biplane for 33 years and even had been flown in the Farnborough Air Show by personal invitation from Captain Brian Trubshaw,CBE MVO, our 002 Concorde test pilot.

The police, CPS and ten Cardiff judges, no less, knew or should have known, the aircraft and her 'gun' had been sold well over a year before his arrest. The arrest that June had been a monumental '*** up' due to a critical breakdown within the communications of South Wales Police and Dolmans, their solicitors, drawing in the cash, 'defending' the Chief Constable, preparing for her December 09 retirement.

Maurice's original arrest had never been intended. Maurice was then already set up as a target to be 'lawfully' shot. But Dolmans, knee jerked, following an incident concerning their front window on the 19th, filed a statement of complaint, on the 20th June 09, to have him arrested the next day, not having been fully briefed of Barbara's 'end game'.Or, maybe, the end of the 'gravy train', if Maurice was shot? Naturally, the Trial Judge, HHJ Peter Thomas QC refused Maurice any disclosure of anything, virtually, hurriedly made at police HQ. Why? It would further confirm that the almost forty year running HM conspiracy started in Taunton, Somerset, in the 1970s.[see next blog: Maurice, the 'Drug Smuggler'?].

That Dolmans fabricated the complaint caused Maurice to be admitted to Caswell Clinic Gulag, Bridgend but for one purpose: to scupper the civil action that was now starting to go rather 'pear shaped', following Barbara Wilding's signing, drafted by Dolmans, her 25th Feb 09 sworn affidavit. Nine further HM Cardiff Crown Court judges [see downloads for transcripts] refused disclosure sensitive for 'HM Partnership'. Even the civil court judge, HHJ Seys Llewellyn QC, at least ordered its release. But Maurice is still waiting, a year later, along with forty odd police incident numbers needed for FOI and Data Proction disclosure, repeatedly being refused by our HM Information Commisioner, that sinister 'partnership' that now actually controls what really goes on in your UK courts today.

But let’s get back to the apparent ‘cosy relationship’ here in Cardiff, Guernsey style, where they have a permanent jury, often a magistrate in the lower court, partly voted on by the HM Prosecution and where no UK lawyer has 'right of audience'. HM tax haven rules are to be obeyed or you do not get the oil money...

Whilst Maurice was in custody in some austere Cardiff police cell, it was recorded, Maurice was still unable to find a local solicitor, to act on his behalf. Hence he produced himself, with the aid of some McKenzie Angels, this document with a Broad Overview to 'Give Context' to 'Legal Issues' and 'Specific Incidents'. [All this week he has approached numerous local lawyers, with countless fruitless phone calls and no replies, to deal on his behalf, as to why the Clerk to Cardiff Magistrates was refusing to put before a court his application for 'set aside', on medical grounds...]

The Cardiff stipendiary magistrate, on 2nd November, has already had presented to him four medical reports, from his GP, a consultant radiologist, a psychiatrist and a London doctor, the latter having specialised in brain surgery and now has her disciplines chanelled to the workings of 'the mind'. All have indicated the current pain and suffering due to a much overdue total hip replacement operation requiring, now, morphine sulphate and other like analgesics to be so prescribed. May this be indicative enough, on its own, for the case to be adjourned!?...

It is now simply a war of attrition, nothing new for Maurice. HM Cardiff Crown Court, for fear of their pension, refuses to release, not just official transcripts of last year's courts of 'record' but also copy of their public court logs. Why? They would further reveal the HM conspiracy to have him first, shot or if that opportunity was no longer an option, then Broadmoor High Security prison, IPP (Imprisonment for Public Protection), for an indeterminate period.

HM Court Services refuse to reply to any of Maurice’s applications to have the hearing 'set aside' or reveal the evidence given or furnish him with the clerk of the court’s contemporaneous notes of the proceedings.(3rd Nov and 13th to HQ).

Meantime, the Crown Prosecution Service refuses to return any of his calls and hides their ‘ace’ card up their oh so many sleeves. CPS barrister, Richard Ace and HM prison had deliberately not told Maurice of MAPPA, on the 25th June 09, before HHJ Hughes, on his first of ten bail applications. He had been left 'at large' for many weeks before he was arrested for but one reason. MAPPA had hade him classified as level 3 (terrorist), the top 5% most dangerous people in the UK, allowing the Chief Constable Barbara Wilding, who had mobilised a 24/7 armed police unit to shoot him on sight if he were to make a 'further approach' to her, she being the very same Defendant in all his eight tortuously drawn out civil actions, orchestrated by HM, for his 'special treatment'.

Nine more Cardiff judges also failed to disclose he was under MAPPA surveillance and was being considered, at each monthly MAPPA meeting, for high security psychiatric prison, potentially for life, reliant on Caswell Clinic and Swansea University so called 'experts' diagnosing his intra-cranial irreversible inflictions as a serious threat to the community. Have they evaporated away by now, a year later or is Maurice's condition getting worse? Why is Maurice still being refused a brain scan?

But now, in turn, both the civil and criminal Cardiff courts are also refusing to disclose the detailed account from their own Director of the South Wales Police forensic psychiatric prison, Caswell Clinic. Dr Tegwyn Williams had supplied numerous Cardiff Crown Court judges with sufficient compelling evidence, between 7th August 09 to 17th December 09, in numerous expensive reports, stating that Maurice had ‘significant brain damage’ (see Opinion in Oc t 09 psychiatric report) and equally falsified but convincing, 2010 rewritten report of Professor Roger Wood’s (original September 09) as a brain damage expert. By what time this winter, a year later, will the brain tumour have done their dirty work? (see 2nd Dec 09 transcript). It was pointed out to HHJ Bidder QC by part time Cardiff judge and Crown prosecutor, Mr Richard Twomlow, in the machine gun case who also, incidentally, while Maurice was down below rattling his own cage, to be there. [see civil actions against Reliance Custodial Services, past and imminent]

So, today, Wales' HM Court Service HQ, Cardiff, have still not intervened, Maurice was told. No written replies from magistrates or disclosure by the CPS as to evidence heard in his absence, with the only hint being that Maurice’s only way forward is to the HM High Court for yet another insulting Judicial Review. Ah, but Maurice, that means it is for a judge in Cardiff, now Wales has achieved furhter devolution from London but it will be in the very same building where a clandestine attempt is still going on to register him as a ‘Vexatious Litigant’ (internal memos), reliant on a team of HM Treasury Solicitor bewigged lawyers in Whitehall, the very same HM official who informed the Cardiff Court, recently, that HM Court Service had taken £360 off Maurice to sue HM prison Cardiff for a previous false imprisonment.

But, surpsrisingly, neither the HM governor of HM prison nor HM court manager, Neil Pring, could trace receipt or proper record of 'serving the claim', [despite MAPPA covert surveillance!], nor could HM Prison be made to admit receipt of the £50,000 judgment in July 09, in Maurice's favour, a copy of which had been delivered to his prison cell! . It was later admitted by HM Treasury Solicitor that the served document was believed, at the time, to be part of the 'vexatious litgant investigation', now six years running. Just as 'HM Partnership', Prison, denied any knowledge their prisoner had been under MAPPA surveillance, in writing, since arrest in June to 17th December 2009. So, why was he taken off it just before the trial to make a bail application? To get just one last chance of a shot before the predicted trial embarrassment?

That local HM Magistrates court has to consider whether the 2nd November 09 hearing should be 'set aside', on medical grounds, whether the CPS be made to disclose the medical evidence of 2nd December 09 asDr Tegwyn Williams pleaded Maurice was still far too ill to 'plead' or defend himself and must be represented by HM counsel. Also, Maurice wants all his court cases heard outside Wales.Pigs might fly.

Simple, do what the RCVS did in 2006 and have done ever since, to prevent Maurice getting before a court to be allowed to practice veterinary surgery. Refuse to convene a court.

Simple, do what HM Privy Council did this June, for his lodged appeal against the RCVS at the Supreme Court building. Refuse to convene a court.

Simple, do what the RCVS Royal Charter promised them, ever since 1844 with its twelve variations now also protected by HM Memorandum of Understanding, promised between the South Wales Police.and Law Society, ie immunity to criminal prosecution.

"There is always an appeal, open to you, Maurice, to the Cardiff Crown Court, just around the corner", someone smiled.

"All you need to do is to attend to hear it, in hand cuffs, most likely. What you would have missed, of course, is the vital opportunity of cross-examining for the second time, when lies are that little more difficult to 'recall'. It is the way they threw the dice this time, Maurice, the cost is never their money".

During the 70s and 80s, during the reign of the likes of Arthur Scargill, a Cummings cartoon of this destructive trade union leader, killing off any last possible breath for the Welsh coal fields, may just sum up the current state of play here, in its capital, some thirty years later...

Summary: Besides the Channel, there is another serious gap between the UK and the European continent: the gap between the UK Human Rights Act 1998 and the European Convention of Human Rights. Article 6 guarantees a fair trial in both texts. But the UK has omitted Article 13, the right to an effective remedy before national authorities. Maurice has had the benefit of neither, ever since he’s been harassed by police in Somerset, Guernsey and South Wales.

Now he had to seek asylum in Brittany, while

•       the NHS, Caswell Clinic, Dr Tegwyn Williams, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) and HM Prison, who all have a copy of his medical records, should release them
•       the Police wants to arrest him, for a minor and alleged offence, convicted in his absence, whilst he has a case against South Wales Police running where he claims for civil damages over a ten year period
•       HM Court Services block, delay and lose his documents. He is denied access to the public counter, it used to bounce his e-mails and often ignores his serious requests for information.

World Wide Words: Balderdash and flummery
Nov 23, 1996... As a verb, to welsh on someone is to swindle him or her out of money, originally and strictly by a bookie at a racecourse decamping with the ...

Warrant for Arrest (for how long?) - while Seeking Asylum in France - for these Reasons

SabineKMcNeill — Thu, 04 Nov 2010 10:00:00 GMT

Maurice insists in being arrested only for the purpose of going to court and meeting the judge who convicted him in his absence, despite his request for adjournment. But the Court is far from co-operating. Here's his account with questions to the Court.

The NHS has asked their solicitors about the release of the medical records. The Judge and the Police's solicitors are meeting in Maurice's absence.

Is the only purpose for solicitors to run up bills, while Maurice not only suffers physically, but is also made to suffer the anguish of having to be arrested for an indefinite period?

The Police are only doing their job. And the lawyers who tell the Law Enforcers what their job is, don't care, do they...

The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (through their lawyers) are protected from any wrong doing by their 1967 Royal Charter. Here's what they should have done:

Extract of 2004 Statutory Instrument:

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

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

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

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

As Louise Casey, the Victims Commissioner, said to me: we've got a hearts and minds job at hand...

Current Court Action adjourned for Two Weeks => Lunch after demo at Welsh Assembly

SabineKMcNeill — Fri, 15 Oct 2010 16:29:00 GMT

You don't know whether you want to sigh with relief or have a fit of anger, when you're being told that the judge had "other unforeseen problems" and therefore had to adjourn...

But as far as hip pain, hip operation and the release of medical records are concerned, Maurice now addressed the following people:

the managers of the courts in Cardiff, Swansea and Newport are presented with these 15 questions
which also went to the Health Ombudsman for Wales
and Alun Cairns MP, Edwina Hart AM, the Health Minister, and a lawyer.

Furthermore, Maurice is demonstrating outside the Welsh Assembly today and on Monday at 11am, when he'll buy lunch for everybody who will show up in his support.

'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.

Before Trial Day 12 in 2 weeks: Position Statement

SabineKMcNeill — Tue, 28 Sep 2010 10:30:00 GMT

Position Statement
Kirk v South Wales Police
CF 101 741 etc

28th Sept 2010

Yesterday, His Honour expected me to talk for a week on law, as well, and on legal argument for not striking out the most relevant incidents of misfeasance, malice and deliberate inactivity. These included the Cowbridge Show case, jailed despite Breach of the Peace 'withdrawn', police leaving my vehicles abandoned on the road side, unlocked full of dangerous drugs, stolen cheques by known identified crooks not even interviewed, roundabout case, careless driving for rounding an empty five lane roundabout, two and one half times at 4mph with police caught in court saying,"we will get the *** driving around in his little white sports car", and the list went on and on.

Case adjourned for 2 weeks for judge written order re MAPPA release of Executive Summaries... Police fighting tooth and nail, if released here or by Court of Appeal, I cannot publish on website or to be heavily 'redacted', cross out names , organisations etc...I have no worry about the latter. Barbara Wilding organised the prosecution weeks before my arrest dependent upon Dr Tegwyn Williams' false evidence. They even sat around the table, on the 8th June with others, known to me and Dolmans, discussing my proposed permanent departure from society.

I had long gone from court, due to too much morphine, possibly, having tried to juggle the amount for pain versus a woolly head! The case continued in my absence for the rest of the day. I was later told by someone in the audience... Judge not happy about adding 4th Action while police QC used the word 'vilification' more than once, stating my 'game' was always to bring in fresh evidence at the last moment! Rich from him refusing to identify all the police names at each incident or Crime Reference numbers to enquire as to the progress of any of the hundred or so encounters in my eight miserable years...

I am not fit. So judge is pushing for the case to continue from home... my argument in writing... I cannot get my head round that idea when no court, not even this one, will order police to hand over medical evidence used on 2nd December 09, in Crown Court, in Defendant's 'last ditch' attempt to have me sectioned to Broadmoor, for life.

I was only in court a few minutes today, but did hear judge confirm with police QC, trailing barrister, partner of Dolmans and their hangers on, all acknowledging the police, the Defendant, present in court, did not have the MAPPA 'minutes' of the Barbara Wilding chaired meetings!

Why do I bother to attend at all?

His Honour, yesterday, suggested I obtain a signed witness statement from scrap dealer. So I enclose, obtained this morning, on Barry Island. The scrappy now told me I had originally complained to the police for not arresting him, in April 1996, for theft of car but police refused to investigate. Time passed until Jackie Seal, CPS prosecutor, was asked on how to get Kirk off the police back. She told the policeman go and arrest him, interview and then release, 'no charge' and in that way Kirk cannot get anywhere with it! This interview has now found six more witnesses implicated in the 3 Actions but CPS and Dolmans continue to refuse to disclose identity or crime reference numbers.

Maurice J Kirk BVSc