New Judge for Machine-Gun Conspiracy to have Maurice Shot if not Sectioned for Life in Ashworth Psychiatric Hospital now destined for an English Jury

Lawyer’s Brief

9th Jan 2017 court order   17-01-09-mg-lift-doc174

Machine-gun civil claim 1CF03361 was caused by police trying to stop claims

  1. In my view and that of many at a farcical trial, this is a win/win case
  2. It is a case delayed by the judge for 6 years for rebuttal to his costs awarded to the police in the first three cases of some six yet to be heard
  3. My detailed records indicate a settlement out of court and nothing else
  4. My leaver arch files are currently in ‘safe keeping’ of a lawyer
  5. I sent some info to you off my lap top from Kenya but there is more, much more
  6. The complication, a matter for you, is that once  police had me goaled in June 2009 for the Jan 2010 m/g trial, they knew they would lose, they set about fabricating a false psychiatric agenda to have me incarcerated in Ashworth for life to avoid the already doomed trial needing both buyer and seller to be for prosecution witnesses!
  7. The police even painted the m/g a different colour for trail to fool them and failed
  8. Despite also fabricating my MAPPA3/3 registration as one of the top 5% most dangerous in the country- the jury saw through it all (names supplied)
  9. Police 2009 attempt to snatch our 10-year old daughter is also well documented and done to cause divorce and loss of mother co-operation as key witness to harassment
  10. You have the choice of only doing m/g malicious prosecution civil claim
  11. As my defence under the 1997 Harassment Act had given me immunity to prosecution I set about exposing the conspiracy publicly in that XX neither examined me for a s.35 nor qualified to tell the judge I had a possible brain tumour causing irreversible brain damage all off scans on wrong software
  12. The bad news is just too many in the Welsh judiciary are implicated in the conspiracy to have had me locked up for around three years on a breach of a restraining order never served on me in the first place! CCRC have proof but ‘wont give’
  13. HM Crown immunity wins again (my argument of NO to Brexit) but it did not stop the CPS prosecutor of the day, on examination in a Bristol Crown court, admitting it was only his draft restraining order brought to my 1st Dec 2011 magistrate’s cell as I was ‘gate arrested’ by the police arranged by District Judge  Charles ‘to plant’ a copy
  14. Withheld  court/police records is my main ground to Court of Appeal and Strasbourg

DH2 @farnborough

machine-gun-cps-brief-to-jury

Machine gun aspx

The police first collected the gun from the air museum and painted back to the colour it was when I sold the aircraft a year earlier and had to paint it back  (wrong colour air museum told me) to the colour the museum had painted it when purchased from me!

On complaint with witness statements I was arrested instead of external investigation

 

 

From Cardiff county court and claimant’s responses

11/01/17

 

Dear Sir,

Please see below our response to some recent questions that you have presented:-

  1. Has your court now sent a copy of the purported October 2015 judgment re BS614139 +2 to their Lordships in the Royal Courts of Justice for my appeal? This court has not sent a copy of the judgement to the Court of Appeal (Royal Courts of Justice). It is a matter for you, the appellant, if you wish to do so.

WHY AGAIN DO YOU REFUSE TO SUPPLY A JUDGMENT IN A FORM ACCEPTABLE TO COURT OF APPEAL AT THE ROYAL COURTS OF JUSTICE?

2.Has the court had a reply that this new version is now accepted by the appellate court as all previous versions were not accepted from me on no less than three occasions?  The court has had no contact with the Court of Appeal in London in relation to this matter and you should therefore direct your enquiry to the Court of Appeal.

 

THAT IS A BLATANT LIE — PLEASE SUPPLY BOTH RCJ & CARDIFF COMMUNICATIONS

 

3.If so, when did the three weeks for my paying the appeal court fee, yet again, start?  You should direct your enquiry to the Court of Appeal.

NO, YOU MUST GIVE THE CLAIMANT A VALID COPY FOR THE CLOCK TO START

4. Has the magistrates court received my application to have any such ‘restraining orders’ re XX quashed as they had been obtained in a significantly deceitful manner requiring numerous Cardiff judges, clerks of the court and others collusion?   Please direct your enquiry to the relevant Magistrates Court.

BUT YOUR COURT WAS SERIOUSLY EFFECTED BY THIS CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY

5. Has your county court now released copy of the before mentioned 24 year running court damages claim court log in order I may order specific transcripts to appeal? Can you please specify what it is you mean by court log? All hearings are recorded and recordings are retained for a period of 3 years, if you require a transcript of a hearing then you must file a form EX107 outlining the specific case and dates you require. Upon receipt of form EX107, the court will provide the transcribers with the relevant disks for the dates required. 

YOU KNOW PERFECTLY WELL A COURT MANAGEMENT LOG, AT MINIMUM, RECORDS DOCUMENTS AND EXHIBIBITS LODGED IN OR OUT OF THE COURT. I SPECIFICALLY ASKED ALL TAPE RECORDINGS WERE TO BE PRESERVED SO WHERE ARE THEY?

6. Has your court still have my confiscated custody interview tape of May 1993 when police next day told the Cardiff court I was ‘unidentifiable’ and must stay in prison while Guernsey were to expedite an extradition order?  The court has this disk and it can be collected by yourself on a date to be arranged.

WILL YOU RETURN MY COURT FEE FOR IT NOW I HAVE WON? WHEN TAMPERED WITH?

7. That tape records the nonsense re my being found on HRH Prince Charles’ farm with a ‘garrotte’ like instrument (veterinary dehorning wire) WHO has now tampered with it since I was not allowed my own property back?  I am not familiar with this issue and therefore I am not in a position to make any comment regarding this point. 

YOU HAVE CONVERTED IT TO DISK WITHOUT CONSENT OF THE PARTIES – WHY?

8. Where are those hundred or so files you sent of mine to Whitehall with so many lost between you and the HM Treasury Solicitor?   I am not familiar with this issue and therefore I am not in a position to make any comment regarding this point. 

ARE YOU PREPARED TO ‘BE FAMILIAR’ AND SEND COPY OF YOUR RED FILE FOR WHITEHALL MARKED ‘MAURICE JOHN KIRK– POTENTIAL VEXATIOUS LITIGANT’?

9. Where are my BS614159 etc court exhibits for Their Lordships I particularly served in open court currently denied me copy of for the appeal?  Can you please identify to me what exhibits you are referring to. I can confirm that there are 6 boxes of bundles available for you to collect on a date to be arranged

EXHIBITS INCUDED LEAKED WHITEHALL LETTERS, CDs, DOCUMENTS AND CASSETTES

10. Has the 6th Action, 1CF03361 ‘Machine Gun’ damages, claim been listed now blocked by HHJ Seys Llewellyn QC for well over six years? The stay in this matter has been lifted. Please refer to the attached order dated 29 December 2016.   

11 I paid a lawyer thousands for the transcript, many years ago, so do you have copy of it or is that too sensitive also to be read by the members of public funding your ‘gravy train’?  You should contact the lawyer for whom you instructed in this respect.

12.     Where is my transcript of my last attending 4th Action 7CF7345 most important one of all?  The court has not received a EX107 transcript request for this case.

AT END OF CASE I GAVE AN APPLICATION TO YOUR STAFF FOR URGENT PROCESS 

I filled in form there and then for the world to read but has the judge still prevented its publication needed to brief a lawyer to act on my behalf in my absence here in order to regain my near loss of sanity in the stench of South Wales?

THE SAID LAWYER WAS ALSO REFUSED 4th ACTION VERDICT OR TRANSCRIPT. WHy?

Tracey Davies
Delivery Manager

Cardiff Civil Justice Centre
Tel: 02920 376412

Assessment of 9th January 2017 Costs Order – Case no BS614159 +2

Maurice John Kirk v The Chief Constable of South Wales Police

  1. Para2. Trial judge refers specifically to April 2009 when the Defendant fabricated the machine -gun/MAPPA3/3/ XX psychiatric reports deliberately to disrupt, delay and damage the Claimant’s right to ‘a level playing field’ to conduct his prosecution for damages.
  2. Para 4. A Claimant’s submission is impossible by the above when also denied copies of the sealed court judgment for RCJ, court management log, court exhibits or even trial transcript.
  3. Para 8 are instructions from the trial judge for police to disclose the proved abuse of process in that the police witnesses, ordered to disclose Visor, court, custody and incident records were deliberately withholding from both the 20 year pre-trial period and substantive trial.

Examples from 100+ bullying incidents include:

  1. 1st Action 8.23 PC Killick named on court exhibit and even identified by trial judge as present when the Crown Prosecutor was arrested versus Sgt Andrew Rice who swore, on oath, he was not even in the Barry magistrates court when the true identity of the Claimant’s driver (Claimant charged re speeding) was proved. Driver’s photo had floated to the floor, face up from the CPS file, in the commotion but was hurriedly snatched up by Sgt Rice who fast exited with PC Killick and at least two other police officers. Leading defence counsel even indicated Mr Sofa, CPS, would successfully resist any witness summons on HM immunity!
  2. 1st Action 8.6 (garrotte like instrument incident) trial judge denied there was any identity evidence of librarian holding the Claimant’s interview cassette despite her name and address clearly recorded on a court exhibit but still confiscated the cassette evidence.
  3. 1st Action 7. Air traffic controller Johnathan Clayton’s witness summons was blocked from service by armed police at Cardiff airport he having admitted the police helicopter was flying dangerously too near the Claimant’s aircraft (see police video) and contrary to ANO law.
  4. In 1st Action several incidents Inspector Trigg’s witness summons was blocked from service at the Barry police station as ‘not known’.
  5. 2nd Action 2 Paragraph 2 (Flight to Ireland 9th February 1996) was yet another malicious prosecution collapsed in magistrate’s chaos following the duty police sergeant, Hall or Rice, again snatching the CPS prosecution file from visiting Mr Mundy, once it was proved the officer in the case, DC Murphy, had fabricated ‘contemporaneous notes’ over-night identifying Christopher Ebbs’ telephone call stating Claimant had been evading police clearance to Southern Ireland as he was ‘smuggling pigs’ in his 1950 Piper Colt aircraft!
  6. Action 2 Paragraph 11 ‘stop in Cardiff 5 April 2000 was caught on overhead CCTV of an angry PC physically assaulting the Claimant and then dragging him out of the car by first arresting him? This Claimant You-Tube exhibit was denied disclosure for over a year by the police in order to destroy his subsequent Crown court appeal of ‘failing to give a specimen of breath’ to use their complaint for the Claimant’s name be removed from the veterinary register.
  7. Action 2 14.3 Breath Test required at Cowbridge Road West Surgery 20 Dec 2000. Yet another incident of known police not called as witnesses re excuse for a breath test during veterinary consultations re an alleged RTA, somewhere not known, by unknown vehicle!

NB The judge refuses the existence of Claimant exhibits as his 50 odd arch lever files prove bullying.                                    To be continued

 

On 11 January 2017 at 09:15, Cardiff County, Hearings <hearings@cardiff.countycourt.gsi.gov.uk> wrote:

 

Dear Sir

Please see below our response to some recent questions that you have presented:-

1. Has your court now sent a copy of the purported October 2015 judgment re BS614139 +2 to their Lordships in the Royal Courts of Justice for my appeal? This court has not sent a copy of the judgement to the Court of Appeal (Royal Courts of Justice). It is a matter for you, the appellant, if you wish to do so.

2.Has the court had a reply that this new version is now accepted by the appellate court as all previous versions were not accepted from me on no less than three occasions?  The court has had no contact with the Court of Appeal in London in relation to this matter and you should therefore direct your enquiry to the Court of Appeal. 

 

3.If so, when did the three weeks for my paying the appeal court fee, yet again, start?  You should direct your enquiry to the Court of Appeal.

4. Has the magistrates court received my application to have any such ‘restraining orders’ re XX quashed as they had been obtained in a significantly deceitful manner requiring numerous Cardiff judges, clerks of the court and others collusion?  Please direct your enquiry to the relevant Magistrates Court. 

5. Has your county court now released copy of the before mentioned 24 year running court damages claim court log in order I may order specific transcripts to appeal? Can you please specify what it is you mean by court log? All hearings are recorded and recordings are retained for a period of 3 years, if you require a transcript of a hearing then you must file a form EX107 outlining the specific case and dates you require. Upon receipt of form EX107, the court will provide the transcribers with the relevant disks for the dates required. 

 

6. Has your court still have my confiscated custody interview tape of May 1993 when police next day told the Cardiff court I was ‘unidentifiable’ and must stay in prison while Guernsey were to expedite an extradition order?  The court has this disk and it can be collected by yourself on a date to be arranged.

 

7. That tape records the nonsense re my being found on HRH Prince Charles’ farm with a ‘garrotte’ like instrument (veterinary dehorning wire) WHO has now tampered with it since I was not allowed my own property back?  I am not familiar with this issue and therefore I am not in a position to make any comment regarding this point. 

 

8. Where are those hundred or so files you sent of mine to Whitehall with so many lost between you and the HM Treasury Solicitor?   I am not familiar with this issue and therefore I am not in a position to make any comment regarding this point. 

 

9. Where are my BS614159 etc court exhibits for Their Lordships I particularly served in open court currently denied me copy of for the appeal?  Can you please identify to me what exhibits you are referring to. I can confirm that there are 6 boxes of bundlesavailable for you to collect on a date to be arranged.

 

10. Has the 6th Action, 1CF03361 ‘Machine Gun’ damages, claim been listed now blocked by HHJ Seys Llewellyn QC for well over six years? The stay in this matter has been lifted. Please refer to the attached order dated 29 December 2016.   

 

11 I paid a lawyer thousands for the transcript, many years ago, so do you have copy of it or is that too sensitive also to be read by the members of public funding your ‘gravy train’?  You should contact the lawyer for whom you instructed in this respect.

12.     Where is my transcript of my last attending 4th Action 7CF7345 most important one of all?  The court has not received a EX107 transcript request for this case. 

I filled in form there and then for the world to read but has the judge still prevented its publication needed to brief a lawyer to act on my behalf in my absence here in order to regain my near loss of sanity in the stench  of South Wales?

Tracey Davies
Delivery Manager

Cardiff Civil Justice Centre
Tel: 02920 376412


From: Maurice Kirk [mailto:maurice@kirkflyingvet.com]
Sent: 03 December 2016 04:38
To: Cardiff County, Hearings; Civil Appeals – Registry
Subject: The current state of South Wales before Brexit Appeal re BS614159 etc

Welsh Area HMC&TS Manager,

Cardiff

South Wales                                                                                                                         3rd December 2016

 

Dear Mr Strinati,

Re South Wales Police Harassment

I last saw you frantically removing chairs from my Nov 2011 Cardiff magistrates court to prevent the likes of Patrick Cullinane Esq et al from being allowed to witness the daily inherent deceit I and my family had suffered in no less than 500 court appearances, to date. You, I am told, orchestrated my nearly being registered as a ‘vexatious litigant’ until Home Office in London blocked it as an abuse of process. 

I currently have a number of civil cases at your Cardiff court citing South Wales Police harassment but appear still to be deliberately delayed for many years for memories to fade, witnesses to disappear, emigrate or simply die off.

The South Wales Police, with the support of many in the Welsh judiciary, have also deliberately had me detained in unlawful custody for many years. Most recently, with the Welsh authority’s conspiracy of both my alleged ‘breach of the 1968 Fire Arms Act’ utter nonsense the jury considered and a ‘never served’ ‘restraining order’, not to expose my falsely procured medical reports concocted by both the Cardiff courts and South Wales Police to have me incarcerated, indefinitely, in Ashworth High Security Psychiatric hospital, are all blocked.

I am now having to go to Juba, South Sudan today in order to make telephone contact with the outside world and seek advice, on a Saturday, with the British Consulate re my UK registered aircraft as I am unable being denied access to inspect and yet left in the war veteran’s garden where she finally came to rest for all the kids to play on.

For several days I was first detained in Gambella, Ethyopia, with the other rally pilots as no permission had been granted, I now find out, to have entered the country in the first place.

Now it appears the rally had no permission either to over-fly South Sudan now putting me in some difficulties with the rally organiser refusing me sight of flight plans proposed.

I had only paid many thousands of pounds, many months ago, to avoid such ‘paper-work’ for getting my cub to Cape Town and refused any return of any part of it once I suspected, now proven, many of the promises that were first given to entice were the figment of someone’s imagination.

For at least ten days I have been unable to speak to the UK on a telephone compounded by the now theft of my mobile phone, cameras, distress beacon and the like.

The Claimant seeks clarification from the Cardiff courts in order to proceed litigation against the South Wales Police in such limited circumstances

  1. Has your court now sent a copy of the purported October 2015 judgment re BS614139 +2 to their Lordships in the Royal Courts of Justice for my appeal?

  2. Has the court had a reply that this new version is now accepted by the appellate court as all previous versions were not accepted from me on no less than three occasions?

  3. If so, when did the three weeks for my paying the appeal court fee, yet again, start?

  4. Has the magistrates court received my application to have any such ‘restraining orders’ re XX quashed as they had been obtained in a significantly deceitful manner requiring numerous Cardiff judges, clerks of the court and others collusion?

  5. Has your county court now released copy of the before mentioned 24 year running court damages claim court log in order I may order specific transcripts to appeal?

  6. Has your court still have my confiscated custody interview tape of May 1993 when police next day told the Cardiff court I was ‘unidentifiable’ and must stay in prison while Guernsey were to expedite an extradition order?

  7. That tape records the nonsense re my being found on HRH Prince Charles’ farm with a ‘garrotte’ like instrument (veterinary dehorning wire) WHO has now tampered with it since I was not allowed my own property back?

  8. Where are those hundred or so files you sent of mine to Whitehall with so many lost between you and the HM Treasury Solicitor?

  9. Where are my BS614159 etc court exhibits for Their Lordships I particularly served in open court currently denied me copy of for the appeal?

  10. Has the 6th Action, 1CF03361 ‘Machine Gun’ damages, claim been listed now blocked by HHJ Seys Llewellyn QC for well over six years?

  11. I paid a lawyer thousands for the transcript, many years ago, so do you have copy of it or is that too sensitive also to be read by the members of public funding your ‘gravy train’?

  12. Where is my transcript of my last attending 4th Action 7CF7345 most important one of all?

    I filled in form there and then for the world to read but has the judge still prevented its publication needed to brief a lawyer to act on my behalf in my absence here in order to regain my near loss of sanity in the stench of South Wales?

    The whole of those in cyberspace with an understanding, as to what really goes on in our wicked UK law courts. are getting a little impatient in the overdue exposure needed with the threat of BREXIT as to the extreme level welsh courts are prepared to go to cover up police malfeasance toalso persecute an Englishman simply wishing to practice veterinary science.

    Maurice J Kirk BVSc     c/o Kapoeta, South Sudan

 
 

IN THE CARDIFF COUNTY COURT                               CASE NO. BS614519-MC65

                                                                                                             CF101741

                                                                                                             CF204141

                                                                                                               7CF07345

                                                                                                              1CF03361 etc

10th January 2017

BETWEEN

MAURICE JOHN KIRK

Claimant

And

THE CHIEF CONSTABLE OF THE SOUTH WALES CONSTABULARY

Defendant

 

                                                  Claimant’s Position Statement

                              Abuse of Process is a Criminal Common Law Offence

                                All Driven by 25 Years of Unchecked Lawyer Greed

 

The Claimant has reason to believe that the continuing refusal of Cardiff County Court to:

  1. to produce a judgment, in a form acceptable for the Court of Appeal, is unlawful
  2. to produce a copy of the court management record is unlawful
  3. to produce a copy of the court exhibits (including lodged files) is also unlawful
  4. to process a copy of the 4th Action ordered transcript is unlawful
  5. order the police return Claimant’s £20,000 worth of personalty is unlawful
  6. return his 1993 ‘garrotte’ custody tape cassette (1st Action 8.6) is unlawful
  7. respond to numerous applications for failed disclosure of police and court records, coving well over one hundred incidents of police bullying since 1992, is unlawful

This list is far from exhaustive

CPR 40.2, just for starters, suggests the first three of a dozen actions against the South Wales Police are still very much ‘alive and kicking’ requiring the new judge appointed to implement previous judge’s orders for the police, courts, prison and magistrate custody services to disclose medical, police custody records, Visor, Home Office and other records, denied as existing in Barbara Wilding’s affidavit, to allow mediation and settlement out of court as it will be a gross miscarriage of justice, once disclosure is or is not obtained, to expect both one new judge and one new clerk of the court to be expected to comprehend, rectify or amend ‘due process’ in the time left available.

The Claimant’s other reason for landing his WW2 Piper Cub (built to prevent compulsory German in our UK schools) in one of the world’s most hostile areas, South Sudan, was to further educate the ‘uninformed’ as to ‘what really goes on in our UK law courts’ to have allowed Claimant’s name to be removed from the veterinary register so no income could employ a lawyer if one was ever found.

This letter and the ‘provisional further grounds’ for RCJ, should the appeal ever get there in the Claimant’s life time, have been included to assist the new judge as to best way forward.

 

County Court Cardiff

30th Nov 2010   re CF101741 and 2 others

 

Maurice Kirk v South Wales Police

I am unfit to attend and am reliant on nine medical reports in HM possession, under MAPPA control, the subject of 30th November 10 Judgment now, with permission, is subject to appeal.

Current concern, recorded by my Breton doctor, this week, as to failure by the South Wales Police, HM Crown Prosecution Service and HM Court Service, to release my medical records, needed in rebuttal to the 30th November 2010 Judgment, is also being drafted as a Humble Petition by a Channel Island resident and British subject, to Her Majesty the Queen, the Duke of Normandy.

I will forward that document once I have signed it and lodged it with HM Judicial Committee of HM Privy Council, currently refusing to hear my appeal lodged against HM Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons because the facts for both cases appear to be one of the same.

Maurice J Kirk BVSc c/o Alderney, Channel Islands.

 

   Claim No. BS614159 etc

In the Cardiff County Court                                 Maurice John Kirk BVSc (The Claimant)

_______________________

Further Provisional Grounds of Appeal

_________________________________

  1. The circumstances are such that until the Cardiff court allows his access to the court building for transcript, to listen to the tape as lawyers are freely allowed to do, see all case files and exhibits not identified in judgment, including all police doctored and undoctored videos and release copy of related outstanding Particulars of Claims, stayed unfairly is his humble submission, the Claimant will remain in some difficulties.
  2. The transcript has been applied for twice in the preceeding year both from the court and official transcribers whilst the Claimant was falsely incarcerated for a ‘breach of a restraining order’ that was neither breached nor served on him in the first place.
  3. Attempts, since, to re-write, shred or ‘lose’ existing magistrates, Cardiff Crown Court, Geoamey and police records, surrounding still more fabricated police allegations, is so easy to prove by disclosure of those records as many of which are public property or not protected by HM Partnership’s multi facetted cozy arrangements.
  4. Countless applications to identify the outstanding court stayed cases, for preparation of these grounds, indicating the continuing police harassment, false imprisonments and malicious prosecutions, remain unanswered.
  5. Countless applications for release of MAPPA, Cardiff magistrates, Crown Courts, South Wales Police records and GeoAmey Custody Services records, since 1993, have been ridiculed if not completely ignored.
  6. Stayed Particulars of Outstanding Claims include the fact that from the moment the then Chief Constable of the South Wales Constabulary, Ms Barbara Wilding, signed her February 2009 ‘sworn affidavit’, ordered by this court, clandestine arrangements were       immediately made to have the Claimant suffer further 24/7 surveillance, for bias in this case and to be knowingly falsely sectioned under 1983 Mental Health Act and gaoled to further delay or stop both these civil proceedings and then alternative, iniquitous ‘machine gun’ indictments.
  7. Police conspiracy included the repainting of the ‘gun’ to fool the jury and the fact that ALL PARTIES KNEW the WW1 antique was clearly identified as an integral part of the British registered aircraft in her log books. Chief Constable Wilding was the very originator of the current contoversial ‘shoot to kill’ policy by the Metropolitan Police and knew, when the Claimant gained access to her own office, he had to personally ‘exchange witness statements’ on her, on or before 19th June 2009 following her lawyers having refused to do so as they were on their own lucrative agenda.
  8. The Claimant’s MAPPA level 3 category 3 registration, in order that he may be shot, see 8th June 2009 MAPPA minutes, failed thus needing this Claimant to be further harassed by concocted and again at mid trial by switching prosecution exhibits, a 1st Dec 2011 ‘harasment’ conviction.
  9. Three similarly concocted ‘breaches of the harassment act’, despite the inevitable sacking of the blackmailed police psychiatrist, as he had admitted information to the contrary, caused still further falsification of court, police, HMP Cardiff, Bristol, Park and Swansea and HM Probation records and not forgetting a plethora of erroneous NHS (Wales) medical records to prevent the Claimant to lawfully flying his aircraft in UK airspace.
  10. Para 9 of Their Lordships 2012 Judgment made it clear they were not ‘made aware’ of the 4th May 2011 jury note’s exististance (as with Claimant in the cells) explicitly indicating their need to:

1) View the magistrates court custody unit,

2) see Geoamey Custody records as to just who was a witness to what at the time and

3) for the jury to examine the clerk of the court’s ‘contemporaneous notes’, as expressly asked for by the gaol or to record service at the time.

A purported ‘restraining order’ was to be served by himself, instead, as the court clerk was hiding in a nearby cell. The Claimant was either on crutches in the corridor or in his cell sitting reading his newspaper.

This is all supported following cross examination evidence from numerous hearings including three, if not four, jury trial’s, at least one Crown Court appeal. This was concocted in an attempt to conseal the dealy of this civil case when HMP Cardiff were told by the South Wales police to confiscate the Claimant’s passport without lawful authority.

  1. Six more Particulars of Claims, covering more countless false arrests or acts of harassment against their victim, since his 2010 release from prison, are also not being allowed to be registered with the Cardiff County Court, for due process, suggesting, some may think, this apparent abuse of process guarentees immunity to prosecution not just in a civil court but also in our UK criminal courts.

Still further reasons why judgment corrections cannot be listed or completion of grounds for appeal can be done before there is is Courts, HMP prisons, HM Probation, Geoamey and police proper disclosure of evidence not subject to privilege.

  1. The Claimant from the start, in 1992, insisted no litigation is to proceed against any UK authority without the guarantee of a civilian jury. This was repeatedly promised by his then Bristol solicitors on an annual basis until eventually sacked for numerous reasons.
  2. The age old cartel operated within the British judicial system prevented the Claimant from independent legal representation despite just over one hundred law firms being contacted.
  3. The Claimant’s solicitors had promised their client simple disclosure of police records (still in existence) was all that was needed for the mediation procedure and settlement out of court with no need for oral evidence in a protracted trial. Someone was clearly lying.
  4. The Claimant was then granted a jury by His Honour Judge Nicholas Chambers QC upon his admission to the extreme magnitude and scale of the failed police prosecutions but from selected incidents commencing 1992 to 2002, the period covered in these court proceedings.Despite well over one hundred original police allegations of the Claimant being in breach of the law prosecutions only resulted in an 11% rate in successful prosecutions.
  5. Ten years from the start of police harassment, in The Vale of Glamorgan, the court denied a civilian jury knowing, full well, that the purported costs had now exceeded £500,000 albeit inflated and mediation again would be refused by police private solicitors.
  6. There continued a war of attrition by the relevant authorities to slowly delay and deplete the Claimant’s original documentary evidence, list of witnesses and finally, memories, to almost all fade away due to the simple passage of time.
  7. Twenty three years on from the Claimant’s realisation that both Guernsey and Taunton police had been quick to be in regular communication with the South Wales Police, by using his motoring documentation, the Achilles heel for any UK motorist subject to daily police harassment, the Defendant set about ‘a course of conduct’ which continues today.
  8. More than forty times have the police stopped and demanded the production of the Claimant’s motoring documentation and on the past six, at least, occasions he has failed ‘to produce’, deliberately, with no indication, what so ever, of any subsequent prosecution.
  9. South Wales Police agenda is and always was to harass the Claimant to affect these civil proceedings, either at the roadside or at his insurance company and even in the air.
  10. Malicious prosecutions and delaying tactics, often requiring the cosy assistance by third parties, such as HMCS (1st Dec 2011 harassment altered court records) and NHS (Wales) (rogue chief police psychiatrist), are fabricated, to date, to delay and delay the Claimant.
  11. This has left the Claimant quite incapable of examining the draft judgment for factual errors as requested by the learned presiding judge. In retaliation, the Claimant wishes to bring to the presiding judge a few of many examples of police fabricated incidences which, of course, remain ‘stayed’ against the Claimant’s wishes.Outstanding Examples of Police Delay Tactics included: [See Annex A
  1. 1995 Imprisonment on the pretext the Claimant could not be identified following communication with Guernsey police. (Told their prisoner attends court in Nazi uniform).
  2. 1995 retired Llantwit Major’s Sgt Booker communication with both Guernsey and Taunton police relating to a myriad of other ‘failed ignominious prosecutions’.
  3. 2003 HM Court Service seizure of all Claimant court files, since 1992, without his knowledge and sending them to Whitehall and back, over a period of many months, causing the loss of many of them. (See leaked HM Treasury Solicitor’s memos].
  4. The 2009 armed police arrest for ‘trading in machine guns and live ammunition’ conspiracy’ [See Annex B] with painting the ‘gun ‘ a different colour to try and fool the jury in June 2009 when the Claimant’s witness statement was but half finished (only 64 pages) leading to nearly eight months in custody before the inevitable acquittal.
  5. 2009 fabricated 1983 Mental Health Act sectioning of the Claimant [See Annex C] and his terrifying experience incarcerated for three months in Caswell Clinic based on the information by the chief police psychiatrist, before numerous Crown Court judges, contrary to FTAC psychiatrist, his own GP, sixteen doctors in Caswell Clinic and at least five specialists on brain scans, some even before application by police was made to have this Claimant incarcerated in prison for life without trial. This was all orchestrated by the then Chief of Police, Barbara Wilding, to have her victim registered MAPPA level 3 category 3 (one of the top 5% most dangerous people in UK), for her to implement her Metropolitan Police pet policy, ‘shoot to kill’, (see MAPPA meeting leaked internal memos). This conduct was her attempt to avoid the repercussions from her false January 2009 sworn affidavit ordered, personally, to be written by the then presiding judge, in this civil case, His Honour Judge Nicholas Chambers QC.
  6. 28th November 2011 refusal by the police to allow the Claimant to attend London court.
  7. 1st December 2011 fabricated conviction for Section 2 harassment of the rogue police psychiatrist, now sacked for it, Doctor W, following the fabrication and introduction of a fictitious allegation, on day of the substantive hearing, by the police, requisite to allow a custodial sentence already served by the Claimant. This then caused the clerk of the court, Michael Williams, to have to both falsify the court log and his contemporaneous notes, both now also withheld by CPS, police and Criminal Cases Review Commission. The subsequent 1st Dec 2009 ‘gate arrest’ by the police of the Claimant, upon his release at the Cardiff magistrates, was orchestrated to obtain i) the 28th November 2009 conviction, for ‘failure to attend’ (HMP Cardiff refused my right to attend London Court) to successfully use, time and time again, in successfully opposing bail to prepare for this civil action and ii) to prove or not the Claimant never was served a ‘restraining order’ as no such record of it is in Geoamey Custody Services records nor in those of the police identifying the full content of his property upon release from the Cardiff cells that night.
  8. 1st December 2011 harassment hearing ended in chaos with the Claimant eventually refusing to attend the apparent pantomime as he was repeatedly refused his legal papers from his prison cell. In 2015 his rectum was scoped to find significant scaring throughout following the many reams of data having to be transported back and forth from countless courts and four prisons where he was deliberately , sometimes just for a week end, to thoroughly mix up and lose papers in this case now exceeding two hundred lever arch files. Their informant was given free access to the prison to deliver his confidential files within the prison. Court had ordered he be the Claimant’s Mackenzie Friend and ‘confidante’ by Cardiff magistrates [See Annex F].
  9. 4th May 2012 1st ‘Breach of Restraining Order’ jury conviction appeal led to the police denying Their Lordships the fact that the jury had actually asked, in writing, for and were refused sight of the 1st December 2011 ‘clerk of the court’s ‘contemporaneous notes’ (Claimant never was served a restraining order to breach). The jury note, asking, was even withheld from the Claimant by the police along with the court exhibits of 1st April 2012 appeal against the harassment conviction. Police confiscated those exhibits still as they were altered between 1st Dec 2011 magistrates hearing and 3rd May 2012 first jury trial.
  10. 3rd Oct 2012 2nd ‘Breach of Restraining Order’ jury trial collapsed after the incarceration of the Claimant for many months by the police knowing Dr W had lied when having the Claimant gaoled, to assist defending his own civil claim defending the Claimant’s long running and blocked civil damages claim for originally fabricating his medical records over a ‘blackmail’ over a member of female staff within Caswell Clinic. The rogue had stated the Claimant had been to his matrimonial home (Claimant had no idea where that was) when police were ‘called’ to have him ‘moved on’. Only CPS investigation, months down the line, established the whole story was a fabrication.
  11. October 2013 Claimant arrest and incarceration for five months or so, on fictitious allegations from a known Cardiff criminal of its underworld, including a convicted GBH/drug dealer, Mark Davenport, only to be dropped because the whole incident had been filmed on CCTV, with no assault what so ever and confirmed by Davenport’s staff present, is highlighted by the fact Davenport, with others ‘beat up’ to cause grievous bodily harm on the Bristol’s HM Bailiff’s staff (See his sworn affidavit) to have him evicted while a dozen or so South Wale Police stood by indicating the spectacle was ‘singularly amusing’.
  12. March 2014 3rd ‘breach of the restraining order’ jury trial again experienced the police having confiscated exhibits and court records of cases of the previous trials causing neither the jury nor the Claimant getting access to them in order to further reveal the conspiracy yet again to pervert the course of justice.
  13. 28th September 2015 the Claimant was detained by Jersey police but released following the circumstances of the arrest warrant issued by the South Wales Police in April 2015.
  14. 29th September 2015 the French authorities confiscated his aircraft and refused even for him to obtain his legal papers, for this court case, from the cub. The arrest warrant was for minor allegations and therefore not a European arrest warrant so the Claimant was allowed to return to the UK by boat to Portsmouth.
  15. 30th September 2015 Hampshire police, on behalf of South Wales Police, the Defendants in this case, arrested and detained the Claimant for fourteen hours, without either interview or charge, for no other reason other than to prevent the Claimant’s illustrated talk at Cardiff Aero Club that same night and now set for Thursday, 8th October 2015.
  16. The Claimant’s talks are designed to demonstrate, from first-hand experience, the things that are likely to come for those living in Wales should the forth coming judicial autonomy and ‘independent police force’ recommendations by the Welsh Assembly come to fruition.

The judgment appears deficient in relevant facts believed to have been proved by the Claimant and his witnesses, also now appearing to be called liars, which is the very reason why he, long before the end of this case indicated for his court files, handed in at the start, be listed and illustrated as exhibits along with all the acquired police videos, they being almost the only court records put before the court. The police have, again, successfully withheld damming public documents created during the course of each of the thirty odd arrests and incarcerations, illustrated in these first three of eight or so actions, leaving the next actions too dangerous to be tried.

Thus the Claimant has, without success, attempted to obtain the full transcripts of this trial and others in it in order to be able, owing to the passage of time, of which he is not to blame, a comprehensive account of police bullying of both an extreme and unusual nature triggered early on by previous police forces with their own particular agendas

 

 

Annex A                                                                                HM P Swansea

                             KIRKGATE (amended in 2017)                              

 

Jan 09 FTAC Home Office psychiatrist gives clean bill of health re Highgrove visit

Feb 09 Chief Constable fabricates sworn affidavit in civil damages claim/ hands in her resignation

April 09 Victim’s GP obtains fax for him to be examined by a psychiatrist

May 09 NHS psychiatrist exam. in Bridgend general hospital but victim refused its results

1st June 09 Independent Advisory Group (IAG) police HQ meeting-victim to MAPPA registration

8th June Barry police/MAPPA/Probation/NHS meeting-register victim level 3 category 3

18th June Victim at Chief Constable’ HQ (in Barbara Wilding’s office) – refused ‘exchange’ re civil damages statements but instead surrounded by riot police in tin hats with stun grenades & automatic weapons.

19th June 2nd attempt to ‘exchange’- refused at Constable’s Cardiff solicitors offices so

solicitors register complaint ‘threat to do criminal damage’ with its own client causing:

21st June 20 odd armed police and helicopter surround victim’s home but abort mission

22nd June Arrested by armed police re ‘threaten witness statements through solicitor’s office window attached to girt brick’ & ‘trading in machine guns and ammunition’

24th June Barry magistrates barely contain laughs and grant bail – police appeal verdict

25th June Cardiff Crown Court judge remands victim to prison for nearly 8 months

July 09 Recorder of Cardiff requests for ‘psychiatric report’ in victim’s absence

August 09 Chief police psychiatrist for Wales, XX and Professor Rodger Wood recommend victim be sectioned without their examination or be in court

Judge Llewellyn Jones QC sections victim to Caswell Clinic psychiatric hospital

Oct 09 Recorder rules their victim should be legally represented but police fail to get victim a higher sectioning under 1983 Mental Health Act – victim returned to Cardiff prison, instead, for Jan 2010 ‘machine gun’ trial the police had desperately tried to avoid.

Nov 09 Crown court police fail, again, to get victim re sectioned but again block bail

1st Dec 09 victim’s private medical report to court castigates police/Dr W/Prof’s conduct

2nd Dec 09 CPS attempt section to Ashworth high security mental hospital, indefinitely, while victim is denied court access from cells below-court tape redacted/corrupted & purloined but some obtained by victim identifying criminal conduct by all named above.

Jan 10 ‘Machine gun’ acquittal – 11/12 of jury confirmed decision after first day of two- week trial asking why both seller and buyer of the decommissioned 1916 Lewis machine gun, attached to replica DH2 (flown by victim at 2000 Farnborough Air Show with ‘gun’ fully documented in CAA log books), were not also in prison? 12th man was police plant.

Feb 10 Police video interview victim’s NHS Dr complaint -withheld (7 so far)-no action

Victim then arrested for attempted Caswell Clinic burglary- clinical staff proved liars

June 10 The Recorder of Cardiff assures victim he gets medical evidence but repeatedly gaoled following further police doctor’s reports while this evidence remains undisclosed.

Victim arrested re ‘Public Order‘- allegations dropped following proof witnesses lied

June10 CAA psychiatric examination clears victim of South Wales Police allegations

July10 Leg broken by ex-police officer pushing victim down court steps- refused exam of prosecution witnesses – convicted in absence- 2 year later appeal in Bristol un-opposed

Aug11 arrest ‘attempting to shoot Lord Mayor with machine gun’-£50 fine still on appeal

Arrest in Family High Court re Musa 7 Nigerian Haringey Council ‘snatched kids‘-no charges and released when found Haringay Council lawyers had lied in order to prevent the Musa parents receiving audience in court by their Mackenzie Friend.

Arrest re ‘criminal damage’ of police station door as imprisoned without arrest. SWP needed their victim locked-up while ‘harassment’ charges being ‘dreamed-up’-no action

Sept11 arrest: ‘attempted Nigerian children smuggling’ (by WW2 D-Day Piper Cub) sectioned again reliant only on SWP data-Laughed out of court by Haringey magistrates.

Arrest re ‘entering prison without permission’ changed to ‘common assault’ after prison officer arrest, re stolen passport, favours to assist police defending ongoing civil claim Prison officer arrest conviction- court refuses to exam prison CCTV or witness’s tape. Victim’s PNC reads ‘fails to attend courts‘ ‘extremely violent‘ ‘escaper’ ’sex offender’

Nov11 Haringey Council Musa Nigerian 7 kids case- Deliberately convicted in absence of victim to avoid proof of Legal Aid lawyers’ conspiracy to delay parent prison release- SWP achieved this by refusing victim production from Cardiff prison to defend charges.

Dec11 ‘Harassment’ conviction & applic. to ‘vary’ restraining order, not served, refused.

Jan12 Youth Justice Criminal Evidence Act1999 concocted again to block Dr TW exam

May12 1stbreach of a restraining order’ TRIAL despite the fact no order was served!

March12 Harassment appeal CPS allow witnesses assaulted to prevent evidence given

Sept 12 Acquit 2nd breach’ TRIALVisit doctor’s house to burn it down was yet another XX lie which is why they quickly emigrated to New Zealand.

Jan 13 Sectioned and gaoled by French police on SWP data only to Pontivy hospital but victim recognised by staff all laughing who immediately countermand for release but South Wales Police refused requests as in President Bush’s ranch incident.

June 13 ‘HM Prosecutor arrest’ conviction and sentence- appealed but moved to Bristol

July 13 Arrested re ‘common assault x 2/ breach of bail/drink drive/breach of bail/ witness intimidation- Cardiff prison many months on remand before all charges dropped.

Oct13 Arrest re ‘2nd threat to burn doctor’s house down’ (3rd‘breach’) Dr TW complaint

Nov 13 HMP Cardiff psychiatrist refers victim to neurologist as no psychiatric disorder.

Prison officer arrest conviction- court refuses to exam prison CCTV or witness’s tape

March 14 Convicted 3rd breach &threatening telephone call-16 months sentence

April 14 CPS tell trial judge, in victim/jury absence, ‘restraining order’ is ‘meaningless

July14 Released /recalled week later for 8 months as no need evidence or a court hearing.

Police cancel hospital referral twice as ‘risk of escape’ (2nd was while victim on parole!).

Transfer to HMP Park for w/e to block access to private funds and disrupt his legal data.

Oct 14 Parole Board hearing cancelled as police refuse compliant psychiatrist approached

19th Nov14 Bristol CPS prosecutor discloses part of original withheld 1st Dec 2011 ‘harassment’ conviction court records following ‘arrest of original prosecutor’ appeal. It revealed CCRC had acquired Cardiff magistrates court file in Feb2010 just days before ‘harassment’ Cardiff appeal and three months before victim’s 9 month prison sentence for 1st ‘breach’ of restraining order’. Those records confirm no restraining order was served.

20th Nov14 CPS admit 1st Dec 2011 Cardiff clerk of the court will not release his contemporaneous records of evidence but fortunately all was tape recorded.

Now there remains the problem, for some, of various versions of a handwritten part typed CPS drafted ‘restraining order’/custody court cell records &1st Dec11 ‘gate arrest’

They keep, over the years, appearing and then ‘disappearing’ from Cardiff magistrates file. It may, of course, have something to do with status of their previous applicant, be it public counter, CPS Bristol or level of court judge, to view such clandestine treasures.

 

To be continued

Annex B

Machine Gun Case – Maurice J Kirk BVSc – http://www.kirkflyingvet.com

This is only a brief summary……

The proof is contained in South Wales Police download docs on both old websites, www.kirkflyingvet.com, www.mauricejohnkirk.wordpress.com and www.victims-unite.net following their concocted June 2009 arrest by heavily armed officers for an almost eight month incarceration before an obvious acquittal. Barbara Wilding, the then Chief Constable, on foreseeing a failure in prosecution, had her victim sectioned MAPPA Level 3/Category 3 NHS (Wales) under Sect 35 of 1983 Mental Act instead using a similarly corrupt Caswell Clinic level 12 forensic psychiatrist now having fled the country.

The whole purpose for this police conspiracy, originally hatched in Bridgend headquarters due to over one hundred acquittals, was to further frustrate and delay the harassed litigant in person (LiP) as he was unable to find legal representation. Despite his visiting and or writing to 104 law firms, throughout the UK, he has still had little if no success.

Twenty three years of police harassment has caused damage and loss, his right to practice veterinary surgery, have a normal family life and has left him permanently mentally damaged.

 

History

  1. 1977: Five decommissioned WW1 Lewis machine guns, in Cornwall, were designated for various replica period aircraft including the DH2. Several are to be found in museums around the UK.
  2. 1997: MJK purchased the DH2 and ‘gun’ from a private collection, in Dorset, with its log books and other CAA paperwork identifying the ‘gun’ as an integral part of the fuselage.
  3. 1998: The 1968 Fire Arms Act was amended meaning that if the ‘gun’ remained as it had first been decommissioned, it was exempt from the new regulations. These included far more mutilation to make the weapon ‘safe’. This became the critical argument in the later trial.
  4. 2000: The DH2 was flown at the Farnborough Air Show by personal invitation, but on the return flight to Wales suffered an emergency due to a possible ‘bird strike’ breaking the propeller.
  5. 2006: The DH2 was moved to RAF Lyneham, Wiltshire, for further repair and display.
  6. 2008: The DH2 was handed out, by the RAF, to a Hampshire civilian for further repair and sold, by MJK, to another display pilot who took the aircraft to Lincolnshire for air shows.
  7. 1st June 2009: South Wales Police convened a meeting to refer MJK to MAPPA 24/7 surveillance.
  8. 8th June: MAPPA meeting categorised MJK as Level 3 (top 5% most dangerous) as ‘being in possession of the machine gun and ammunition’ based, the court was told, on photographs and sale adverts, all dating back to the year before and some as far back as 2001!
  9. 18th June: MJK obtained entry to the offices of the Chief Constable, at Bridgend HQ, for the purposes of arresting her for falsifying her 25th Feb 09 sworn affidavit in the ongoing civil damages claim. Also the need for ‘mutual exchange’ of witness statements on a court deadline of 19th June at 4pm meant MJK took them directly to her office. Tin hatted armed police surrounded the building.
  10. 19th June: Dolmans, solicitors for the police, also refused to ‘exchange’ and in turn made statement of complaint of ‘threat to commit criminal damage’ when MJK suggested they be delivered through their front window as the court order had only one hour left to run.
  11. 21st June: A sizable armed police raid on MJK‘s home, with helicopter, was aborted only because, the court heard, MJK was at home and could only be arrested ‘when away from it’!
  12. 22nd June: MJK arrested in his village for ‘possession of m/g, ammo and threats of damage’. The new owner was asked by CAA to deposit ‘gun’ with gun dealer where Welsh police later seized it.
  13. 23rd June: Charged with ‘possession of machine gun’ and its resale (failed proceeds of crime).
  14. 24th June: Barry Magistrates gave unconditional bail which was immediately appealed against.
  15. 25th June: Remanded in custody by Cardiff Crown Court despite no evidence of ‘likely to abscond’, ‘reoffend’ or would ‘commit a crime’ (CPS quote “he has the ability to fly his aeroplane out of the country”). Up until the commencement of trial 10 Cardiff judges refused him bail with both CPS and judges altering their reasons, see transcripts, as each point was ‘shot down’.
  16. 25th January 2010: Before and during trial MJK was, as usual, refused the relevant police disclosure A PATTERN ADOPTED EVER SINCE AUTUMN 1992, NOW IN CURRENT CIVIL PROCEEDINGS, when he was then accused by Barry police of arson of his own, police later found out, uninsured Piper Cub!
  17. 9th Feb: Despite extremely restricted cross examination no defence evidence was ever needed.
  18. Jury informed MJK their verdict was concluded after the very first day of evidence in a farcical two week trial and asked him why was the purchaser of the ‘gun‘ and seller thereof, both prosecution witnesses, not also with him in the dock ? Both the buyer and police had ‘modified’ her and the jury quickly realised that the police had made attempts to withhold that simple fact from them.
  19. 2012 Lincolnshire aircraft engineers later stated the ‘gun’ had been painted back to black by the police to the colour on the 2007 You-Tube video (Maurice with gun) in order to fool the jury.
  20. When their victim gave these statements to the police, by way of complaint, he was, instead, promptly arrested for ‘breaching a restraining order’ and gaoled ‘big time’ for a document that had never been served on him, in 2011, in the first place! (See forged magistrate’s clerk’s notes and log).
  21. After the machine-gun acquittal MJK was released from prison with the trial judge refusing any costs except to an irrelevant 3rd party in order to deny their victim any civil damages claim.
  22. Failed disclosure by her Chief Constable’s 25th Feb 09 fanciful affidavit and unlawful use of FTAC and MAPPA legislation, all shortly to be before the Court of Appeal is why she and police concocted both this whole gun story and had falsified the psychiatric evidence purely to obtain their victim’s imprisonment, indefinitely, in Ashworth high security psychiatric hospital without any trial.
  23. DAMAGES are now sought for: malicious prosecution, false imprisonment, fraudulent sectioning and delaying the numerous other civil actions for damages, lodged before that date, citing police harassment, negligence, conspiracy, bullying but above all else, malicious prosecutions and years of false imprisonments by altering both police and court records.

The continuing nefarious conduct of South Wales Police, apparently aided by a judiciary also seeking autonomy, is to be further exposed in a series of talks by their victim across the UK and elsewhere.

——————————

 

Annex C

Forum for Stable Currencies Advocating Economic Democracy through Freedom from National Debt Convenor: Lord Sudeley FSA; Host: Lord Ahmed; Chairman: Austin Mitchell MP Sponsors: James Gibb Stuart, Ossian Publishers; Barbara A. Panvel, New Era Coalition Organiser: Sabine K McNeill, Director, 3D Metrics; Facilitator: Brad Meyer, Collaboration Ltd 02 September 2010

Analysis: Maurice Kirk – Tel. 07907937953 / Kenya +254713600723

  1. Maurice is a 65-year-old veterinary surgeon with a passion for flying, a strong sense for what is right and wrong and the courage to defend himself. He was removed from the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons register in 2002. His website http://www.kirkflyingvet.com is popular worldwide due to the adventurous nature of the pilot and the extraordinary legal battles he has been fighting.
  2. Maurice has been seriously harassed by South Wales Police ever since 1972, when he was supposed to have stolen the notebook from the drawer of an Inspector’s police station in Taunton. He won this case, but was supposedly owning a machine gun later, and was again found not guilty. See http://bit.ly/cm5uOW and http://bit.ly/c4tlJe
  3. On one of his flights, Maurice landed near George Bush’s farm and was put into a psychiatric clinic in Austin, Texas.
  4. In the UK, the series of harassments included sending him to the mental ward of Caswell Clinic, Glanrhyd Hospital, Tondu Road, Bridgend CF31 4LN. In that process, the following reports were produced:
  5. 3rd August 2009: Dr. W wrote a 1 st Interim Psychiatric Report that formed the basis of the judge’s decision to section Maurice under the Mental Health Act on August 7th, 2009. The report, produced at the request of Cardiff Crown Court, was based entirely on documents and website, without interview. See http://bit.ly/cfp5QP
  6. Without date: A Mental Health Services‟ Consultant and Forensic Psychiatrist from the Caswell Clinic wrote a 2nd Psychiatric Report about the charge of the possession of a firearm sold or transferred a firearm. See http://bit.ly/cfp5QP
  7. 12th August 2009: The University NHS Trust requested copies of medical records from the Austin State Hospital, but refuses access to Maurice. See http://bit.ly/d5tiWM
  8. 30th September 2009: 3rd Psychiatric Report by Dr. W para 9: “paranoid delusional disorder”, para 10: “significant brain damage”
  9. 1st September 2009: Dr. James Godfrey, Clinical Psychological Report, Penarth Ward: “I do not feel that Maurice’s court cases and litigious processes were initially motivated by any form of delusional paranoia. However, it may well be the ongoing effects of these court cases have had a negative impact on his mental health. The long-term effects of stress; lack of sleep; removal of other forms of cognitive stimulation, such as his work; and association with a peer group who have extreme conspiratorial beliefs may, at certain points, cause Maurice’s to be vulnerable to delusional beliefs. In my opinion, Maurice is not currently suffering from a delusional disorder. However, it is felt that continued physical and psychological stress could have some adverse effects on him in the future. If the current stressors surrounding Maurice were removed, there is every chance that his mental state would stabilise and his levels of anxiety reduce.”
  10. 19th October2009: para 32 of the 4th Psychiatric Report by Dr. W[ http://bit.ly/bzJ0wK ] contains remarks of: “clear evidence of some degree of „neuro-cognitive damage (brain damage)”
  11. 1st December 2009: Dr Paul M Kemp, Consultant and Honorary Senior Lecturer in Nuclear Medicine writes upon request from Yorkshire Law Solicitors to comment on brain scan images: “I do not believe that there is any convincing evidence of abnormality…”
  12. 26th May 2010: NHS University Health Board states that reports by Dr Bagshaw and Dr Sylvester did not exist and that Texas Reports have been returned.

 

Annex D

Forensic Analysis Maurice Kirk: Royal Charter Blocks His Right to Practice as a Veterinary Surgeon

Who’s to Blame?1983: Maurice’s Guernsey veterinary practice is sold, contents, building, the lot, to a stranger by mortgage holder, the Nat West Bank, conspiring with HM law officers and private lawyers in the same practice, acting for both partners unbeknown to Maurice. Reliant on the psychiatric ill health of his partner, the mortgagee, misguidedly signs a misleading side document, to the sale, that should Maurice become ‘aware’ of the transaction of a mere £16,000, within one year, the deal must be reversed. Upon finding out Maurice immediately performs a ‘Clamour de Haro’, ancient Normandy Law for a ‘prohibitive injunction’. In other words, all business must stop and to be immediately investigated by the island’s Royal Court with compensation to the winning party.

The Highest Court 1985: To the horror of many on the island, this law is ignored by HM Insular Authorities of this ‘dependant territory of the United Kingdom’. Maurice takes it to the Judicial Committee of HM Privy Council, ultimately responsible but his ‘petition’ is dismissed. Tax Haven Intrigue? Later, the Royal Court has to dissolve the original partnership contract, retrospectively, in order to prevent Maurice obtaining any alternative redress through the HM courts his sick partner and mate, having been forced to leave the island, almost penniless.

South Wales 1992: Maurice re settles in Barry, South Wales and modernises another practice to be one of only four veterinary hospitals in the whole of the Principality of Wales. Covert police surveillance by the local South Wales Constabulary was soon detected but he could tell no one, not even his wife, for fear it would prejudice his flourishing business with surgeries, now, in both Cardiff and Llantwit Major, in the Vale of Glamorgan. Vendetta?

2001: The police, having lost, now, over one hundred and twenty criminal allegations including prison, with only a success rate of around 10%, report him to The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons disclosing dubious confidential police records to their solicitors during an extensive inquiry including the interrogation, unbeknown to him, of many of his own clients. Abuse of Process?

2002: The RCVS Disciplinary Committee convene a court where he was denied over well twenty relevant defence witnesses similar to prosecution ones, such as investigating police officers and eye witnesses. Throughout the trial, with not one of the four college lawyers, present, including the lead QC, correcting the obviously ill ‘Legal Assessor’s decisions, he being a long retired High Court judge, turning the hearing into a farce. 1 http://bit.ly/azN1nV Where is the Relevance? Petty criminal convictions, over ten years, previously considered irrelevant, meant Maurice was not struck off for ‘dishonesty’, ‘use and abuse of drugs’ or anything to do with his patients or staff but because of his apparent ‘disrespect for ‘authority’. Justice?

2004: His appeal to the HM Privy Council failed save the fact that Their Lordships ‘hoped’ his name would be restored within the year, so why not a suspension, Maurice asks? HM Partnership? The HM Information Commissioner refused to disclose the contemporaneous notes despite solicitors proved falsifying favourable statements before service on Defendant. For the last three annual re instatement applications the RCVS chairman, has refused even to convene a court, contrary to the rules: 20.3 ‘On receipt of an application to which this Rule applies, the application shall be listed for hearing within 3 months’. Rule of Law or judge’s discretion?

2005: Maurice has tramped the expensive route of ten or more High courts, to no avail, with different reasons given each time as to why he cannot be re-instated the college knowing, full well, that should he be successful and also be elected onto college Council, he would have unfettered access to withheld inquiry records of evidence. Our Highest Court?

This month’s HM Privy Council appeal, against their own Registrar refusing to do exactly what the RCVS chairman had refused, to put the application before a court of law. Rule 22.(1) Default powers of the Privy Council, allows it to intervene. (2) If the Council of the College fail to comply with a direction under the foregoing subsection with respect to any function of theirs, the Privy Council may themselves discharge that function. Avarice? Despite the petition being primarily drafted, carrying a £30,000 bill, the solicitor refused to put his name to it, the Judicial Committee informing Maurice:

“The application on appeal against the Registrar’s decision has been considered by the board and REFUSED because the application is incompetent and is an abuse of process”. Cosy Relationship? One of Their Lordships, sitting, had also refused his Judicial Reviews and handed down a RCVS requested two year Extended Civil Restraint Order. He instigated (see internal memos) for HM Treasury Solicitor to commence a seven year running Vexatious Litigant enquiry, to effectively to ban him from any court. This caused havoc for his nineteen year running damages claims against the South Wales Police with court files lost whilst back and forth between the Cardiff Civil Justice Centre and a team of Whitehall civil servants. European Conspiracy?

The European Commission on Human Rights has already informed Maurice that it will no longer entertain any further Applications from him concerning the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons. Maurice’s Advice: Let this be a warning to anyone, also seeking justice in our UK courts, for ‘HM Partnership’ and Royal Charters all contain invincible prejudice with built in immunity against prosecution or any form of compensation. 23rd January 2011……

Annex E

Forensic Analysis: Maurice Kirk – http://www.kirkflyingvet.comhttp://www.mauricejohnkirk.wordpress.com

  1. Maurice J Kirk BVSc was a veterinary surgeon and private pilot whose public and private life has been ruined by what appears to be a vendetta of various police organisations. Having found a number of dubious pretexts for categorising him level 3 (terrorist) of the Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangement (MAPPA), a leaked report revealed that he was even a target to be shot.
  2. Since Arrival in Wales in 1992, harassment by South Wales Police (SWP) has escalated. It is believed because he was a “Flying Vet” in England, who visited his veterinary clients by aeroplane and thus was outside police control. Harassment followed him to the Channel Islands and Wales and consisted of numerous imprisonments without trial, stopping him in the road countless times and ignoring the investigation of crimes committed against him, such as arson, burglaries, the stealing and falsification of cheques, numerous brutal physical attacks leading to fraudulent imprisonments and eventually committing him to Caswell Psychiatric Clinic, besides categorising him as „terrorist‟, i.e. applying MAPPA (Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangement) level 3 surveillance. Maurice won well over 100 legal allegations against SWP while he lost around 12. His civil action for damages is before Cardiff Count Court now. He is being helped by one of the 4 other victims of police harassment in South Wales.]
  3. Machine Gun Case SWP prosecuted Maurice for possession of a machine gun and opposed bail, as he was considered to be dangerous. He was kept on remand for over seven months. SWP knew Maurice owned a replica WW1 vintage De-Havilland DH2 which he flew at 2000 Farnborough Air Show. Attached to it was a decommissioned WW1 machine gun which he offered for sale via his website. He won without needing even to give evidence or call witnesses. The case of malice requires immediate legal representation for compensation against SWP if only Maurice could find a lawyer.
  4. Struck off Register of Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (RCVS) as farfetched as it may seem, SWP succeeded in getting Maurice struck off the Register to practise veterinary surgery by using minor old convictions including the car incidents. Triggered by a SWP police officer reporting two dogs believed to have fallen over a cliff to the RCVS, two charges were formulated: A) ‘his attitude towards authority was not conducive to that expected in society of a professional man’ B) ‘refused to disclose his records of treatment for both dogs on a beach’ after their own court legal assessor refused him to do just that! Six applications, to re-instate him, have been refused, three even to go before the court.
  5. Numerous Fraudulent Imprisonments The 40 odd car incidents were the occasion for keeping Maurice locked up 8 times, for varying length. One of the strategies was to harass his agent to ensure he would not get insurance for any of his vehicles in Wales. This was the tactic that did succeed in Guernsey.
  6. Three months in Caswell Psychiatric Prison He was jailed to Caswell Clinic by Crown Court, under Section 35 of the 1983 Mental Health Act, reliant only on Dr W, without even examination. He was transferred back to Cardiff Prison after the statutory limit of three months because no other doctor would support the Director of SWP Forensic Psychiatric Prison’s recommendation that he be sent to Ashworth High Security Prison, indefinitely.
  7. MAPPA level 3 Surveillance (Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangement) while Maurice suspected this formalised surveillance, he only got confirmation recently about having been the subject of discussion at seven meetings between June and December 2009. Whilst in prison HM authorities denied any knowledge of it. Only in December did the MAPPA co-ordinator confirm he was and would be informed about his status and reports of meetings. He is currently waiting for a judgment on disclosure of those monthly meetings in his ongoing eighteen year in an ‘unusual’, extreme‟ and indefinite set of circumstances.
  8. Judgement against HMP Cardiff who don’t pay up A £50,000 judgement awarded for false imprisonment, has been overturned in a bizarre manner reliant on failed disclosure by HM Court Service, HM prison and HM Treasury Solicitor
  9. Civil Action against SWP for Damages needing One Hundred Witnesses Trial date was September, 2008 then January 2009 then September 2010 now September 2011. It is being commented upon on http://www.kirkflyingvet.com as well as on http://www.mauricejohnkirk.wordpress.com
  10. Critical Medical Condition Maurice was scheduled for a hip replacement on June 22nd, 2010. But his medical records that could be released by five different institutions are being withheld. Hence this online petition.
  11. Asking for Asylum in France Despite his medical condition and despite requesting an adjournment, Cardiff Magistrates Court issued a Warrant for Arrest which is now the reason he has been granted asylum in France. Contact: Sabine K McNeill, McKenzie Friend & Web Publisher: sabine@3d-metrics.com

 

Annex F

Jeff Matthews Court Appointed Mackenzie Friend to the Claimant

  1. The stranger tape recording in Claimant’s 1st Dec2011 ‘Harassment’ conviction hearing
  2. Allowed access to Claimant, as a prisoner, while family members, repeatedly, were not
  3. He’s stolen around £20,000 from Claimant, needed to fight this and police do nothing

 

Annex G

Outstanding Court Stayed Civil Actions against South Wales Police

This very important list of Particulars of Claims is not currently available to support this document to show the more extreme number of malicious arrests and incarcerations since 2002 to harass him.

The South Wales Police has now incorporated both court and prison staff to stop this Claimant from exposing what is , apparently, day to day quite unchecked conduct by a few within the South Wales Police with the influence to get away with it.

To indicate, to the reader, the significance and gravity of these outstanding claims, the court, the police and even a private lawyer have failed to supply. The Claimant is not allowed in the court building and his letters of requests and phone calls have been proved futile.

The Court stayed these outstanding five actions, contrary to the Claimant’s wishes. There are even six more yet to come after that as their seriousness, implicating NHS (Wales) fabricating medical records, Crown Prosecution Service (Wales) withholding exhibits and destroying evidence and HM Prisons Cardiff, Park and Swansea misfeasance is all unduly controlled by this same regional police force.

HM Court Service (Wales)’s continuing conduct, alone, altering the court log and contemporaneous notes (1st Dec 11 harassment conviction), withholding court exhibits from both three juries and Claimant, in an attempt to cover up this fact no restraining order, to breach, ever was served on their victim, that day in the cells, causes the Claimant to say, yet again, these twenty three years of hell should have been tried in the High Court once the magnitude of widespread nefarious conduct became only too apparent to those so called responsible in the relevant regulating authorities within both The Principality and United Kingdom.

 

Maurice J Kirk BVSc

 

ACTION 1 CLAIM 8.3 – 2nd January 1993

(Grounds raise issues of fact and/or points of law)

 

  1. The learned Judge erred in fact and/or law in
  2. In the premises, the findings and judgment of the learned Judge is “Wednesbury” unreasonable and/or unlawful and/or irrational and/or perverse and against the weight of evidence adduced at the trial and are such that no reasonable Judge propertly directing himself on both the facts and law applicable could reasonably arrive at such findings and judgment.

ACTION 1 CLAIM 8.5 – 24th March 1993 – stopped by PC Jane Lott

(Grounds raise issues of fact and/or points of law)

  1. The learned Judge erred in fact and/or law in
  2. In the premises, the findings and judgment of the learned Judge is “Wednesbury” unreasonable and/or unlawful and/or irrational and/or perverse and against the weight of evidence adduced at the trial and are such that no reasonable Judge propertly directing himself on both the facts and law applicable could reasonably arrive at such findings and judgment.

ACTION 1 CLAIM 8.6 – 20th May 1993 at Grand Avenue Cardiff

(Grounds raise issues of fact and/or points of law)

  1. The learned Judge erred in fact and/or law in
  2. In the premises, the findings and judgment of the learned Judge is “Wednesbury” unreasonable and/or unlawful and/or irrational and/or perverse and against the weight of evidence adduced at the trial and are such that no reasonable Judge propertly directing himself on both the facts and law applicable could reasonably arrive at such findings and judgment.

 

ACTION 1 CLAIM 8.7 – 23rd June 1993 stop of Ford Escort J78 TDW

(Grounds raise issues of fact and/or points of law)

  1. The learned Judge erred in fact and/or law in
  2. In the premises, the findings and judgment of the learned Judge is “Wednesbury” unreasonable and/or unlawful and/or irrational and/or perverse and against the weight of evidence adduced at the trial and are such that no reasonable Judge propertly directing himself on both the facts and law applicable could reasonably arrive at such findings and judgment.

 

ACTION 1 CLAIM 8.9 – 22nd September 1993 stop of Triumph Spitfire CKV 629K

(Grounds raise issues of fact and/or points of law)

  1. The learned Judge erred in fact and/or law in
  2. In the premises, the findings and judgment of the learned Judge is “Wednesbury” unreasonable and/or unlawful and/or irrational and/or perverse and against the weight of evidence adduced at the trial and are such that no reasonable Judge propertly directing himself on both the facts and law applicable could reasonably arrive at such findings and judgment.

 

ACTION 1 CLAIM 8.11 – 3rd October 1993 at St Athans stop and arrest for driving whilst disqualified

(Grounds raise issues of fact and/or points of law)

  1. The learned Judge erred in fact and/or law in
  2. In the premises, the findings and judgment of the learned Judge is “Wednesbury” unreasonable and/or unlawful and/or irrational and/or perverse and against the weight of evidence adduced at the trial and are such that no reasonable Judge propertly directing himself on both the facts and law applicable could reasonably arrive at such findings and judgment.

 

ACTION 1 CLAIM 8.13 – stolen motorcycle not returned

(Grounds raise issues of fact and/or points of law)

  1. The learned Judge erred in fact and/or law in
  2. In the premises, the findings and judgment of the learned Judge is “Wednesbury” unreasonable and/or unlawful and/or irrational and/or perverse and against the weight of evidence adduced at the trial and are such that no reasonable Judge propertly directing himself on both the facts and law applicable could reasonably arrive at such findings and judgment.

ACTION 1 CLAIM 8.14 ­– 15th December 1993 stop “in Cardiff

 

(Grounds raise issues of fact and/or points of law)

  1. The learned Judge erred in fact and/or law in
  2. In the premises, the findings and judgment of the learned Judge is “Wednesbury” unreasonable and/or unlawful and/or irrational and/or perverse and against the weight of evidence adduced at the trial and are such that no reasonable Judge propertly directing himself on both the facts and law applicable could reasonably arrive at such findings and judgment.

 

ACTION 1 CLAIM 8.15 – 09th August 1994 stop by PC Kerslake while driving Triumph Spitfire

(Grounds raise issues of fact and/or points of law)

  1. The learned Judge erred in fact and/or law in
  2. In the premises, the findings and judgment of the learned Judge is “Wednesbury” unreasonable and/or unlawful and/or irrational and/or perverse and against the weight of evidence adduced at the trial and are such that no reasonable Judge propertly directing himself on both the facts and law applicable could reasonably arrive at such findings and judgment.

 

ACTION 1 CLAIM 8.16 – re-arrest 19th August 1994 for alleged damage to wing mirror

(Grounds raise issues of fact and/or points of law)

  1. The learned Judge erred in fact and/or law in
  2. In the premises, the findings and judgment of the learned Judge is “Wednesbury” unreasonable and/or unlawful and/or irrational and/or perverse and against the weight of evidence adduced at the trial and are such that no reasonable Judge propertly directing himself on both the facts and law applicable could reasonably arrive at such findings and judgment.

ACTION 1 CLAIM 8.17 – 10th August 1994 Triumph Spitfire arrest for driving whilst disqualified

(Grounds raise issues of fact and/or points of law)

  1. The learned Judge erred in fact and/or law in
  2. In the premises, the findings and judgment of the learned Judge is “Wednesbury” unreasonable and/or unlawful and/or irrational and/or perverse and against the weight of evidence adduced at the trial and are such that no reasonable Judge propertly directing himself on both the facts and law applicable could reasonably arrive at such findings and judgment.

 

ACTION 1 CLAIM 8.23 – May 1995 The vet ambulance

(Grounds raise issues of fact and/or points of law)

  1. The learned Judge erred in fact and/or law in
  2. In the premises, the findings and judgment of the learned Judge is “Wednesbury” unreasonable and/or unlawful and/or irrational and/or perverse and against the weight of evidence adduced at the trial and are such that no reasonable Judge propertly directing himself on both the facts and law applicable could reasonably arrive at such findings and judgment.

ACTION 1 paragraphs 8.18, 8.19, 8.20 and 8.21

(Grounds raise issues of fact and/or points of law)

 

  1. The learned Judge erred in fact and/or law in
  2. In the premises, the findings and judgment of the learned Judge is “Wednesbury” unreasonable and/or unlawful and/or irrational and/or perverse and against the weight of evidence adduced at the trial and are such that no reasonable Judge propertly directing himself on both the facts and law applicable could reasonably arrive at such findings and judgment.

ACTION 1 – paragraphs 8.18: 21st July 1995

(Grounds raise issues of fact and/or points of law)

  1. The learned Judge erred in fact and/or law in
  2. In the premises, the findings and judgment of the learned Judge is “Wednesbury” unreasonable and/or unlawful and/or irrational and/or perverse and against the weight of evidence adduced at the trial and are such that no reasonable Judge propertly directing himself on both the facts and law applicable could reasonably arrive at such findings and judgment.

ACTION 1 – paragraphs 8.19: 23rd July 1995

(Grounds raise issues of fact and/or points of law)

  1. The learned Judge erred in fact and/or law in
  2. In the premises, the findings and judgment of the learned Judge is “Wednesbury” unreasonable and/or unlawful and/or irrational and/or perverse and against the weight of evidence adduced at the trial and are such that no reasonable Judge propertly directing himself on both the facts and law applicable could reasonably arrive at such findings and judgment.

ACTION 1 – paragraphs 8.20: 24th July 1995

(Grounds raise issues of fact and/or points of law)

  1. The learned Judge erred in fact and/or law in
  2. In the premises, the findings and judgment of the learned Judge is “Wednesbury” unreasonable and/or unlawful and/or irrational and/or perverse and against the weight of evidence adduced at the trial and are such that no reasonable Judge propertly directing himself on both the facts and law applicable could reasonably arrive at such findings and judgment.

ACTION 1 – paragraphs 8.21: 6th and 7th August 1995

(Grounds raise issues of fact and/or points of law)

  1. The learned Judge erred in fact and/or law in
  2. In the premises, the findings and judgment of the learned Judge is “Wednesbury” unreasonable and/or unlawful and/or irrational and/or perverse and against the weight of evidence adduced at the trial and are such that no reasonable Judge propertly directing himself on both the facts and law applicable could reasonably arrive at such findings and judgment.

ACTION 1 CLAIM 8.26 – 6th June 1995: the “Gafael” incident

(Grounds raise issues of fact and/or points of lawThe learned Judge erred in fact and/or law

  1. In the premises, the findings and judgment of the learned Judge is “Wednesbury” unreasonable and/or unlawful and/or irrational and/or perverse and against the weight of evidence adduced at the trial and are such that no reasonable Judge propertly directing himself on both the facts and law applicable could reasonably arrive at such findings and judgment.

ACTION 2 paragraph 2 – 9th February 1996 flight to Ireland

(Grounds raise issues of fact and/or points of law)

  1. The learned Judge erred in fact and/or law in
  2. In the premises, the findings and judgment of the learned Judge is “Wednesbury” unreasonable and/or unlawful and/or irrational and/or perverse and against the weight of evidence adduced at the trial and are such that no reasonable Judge propertly directing himself on both the facts and law applicable could reasonably arrive at such findings and judgment.

ACTION 2 paragraph 3 – 12th May 1996 overtaking cyclists

(Grounds raise issues of fact and/or points of law)

  1. The learned Judge erred in fact and/or law in
  2. In the premises, the findings and judgment of the learned Judge is “Wednesbury” unreasonable and/or unlawful and/or irrational and/or perverse and against the weight of evidence adduced at the trial and are such that no reasonable Judge propertly directing himself on both the facts and law applicable could reasonably arrive at such findings and judgment.

ACTION 2 paragraph 4 – 21st January 1997 stopped by PC Roch

(Grounds raise issues of fact and/or points of law)

  1. The learned Judge erred in fact and/or law in
  2. In the premises, the findings and judgment of the learned Judge is “Wednesbury” unreasonable and/or unlawful and/or irrational and/or perverse and against the weight of evidence adduced at the trial and are such that no reasonable Judge propertly directing himself on both the facts and law applicable could reasonably arrive at such findings and judgment.

ACTION 2 paragraph 5 – 2nd October 1997 speed camera St Nicholas

(Grounds raise issues of fact and/or points of law)

  1. The learned Judge erred in fact and/or law in
  2. In the premises, the findings and judgment of the learned Judge is “Wednesbury” unreasonable and/or unlawful and/or irrational and/or perverse and against the weight of evidence adduced at the trial and are such that no reasonable Judge propertly directing himself on both the facts and law applicable could reasonably arrive at such findings and judgment.

ACTION 2 paragraph 6 – 16th March 1998 Southey Street, Barry and PC Holms

(Grounds raise issues of fact and/or points of law)

  1. The learned Judge erred in fact and/or law in
  2. In the premises, the findings and judgment of the learned Judge is “Wednesbury” unreasonable and/or unlawful and/or irrational and/or perverse and against the weight of evidence adduced at the trial and are such that no reasonable Judge propertly directing himself on both the facts and law applicable could reasonably arrive at such findings and judgment.

ACTION 2 paragraph 7 – 4th July 1999 the police helicopter

(Grounds raise issues of fact and/or points of law)

  1. The learned Judge erred in fact and/or law in
  2. In the premises, the findings and judgment of the learned Judge is “Wednesbury” unreasonable and/or unlawful and/or irrational and/or perverse and against the weight of evidence adduced at the trial and are such that no reasonable Judge propertly directing himself on both the facts and law applicable could reasonably arrive at such findings and judgment.

ACTION 2 paragraph 8 – 8th August 1999 stop at Pontypridd Road Barry

(Grounds raise issues of fact and/or points of law)

  1. The learned Judge erred in fact and/or law in
  2. In the premises, the findings and judgment of the learned Judge is “Wednesbury” unreasonable and/or unlawful and/or irrational and/or perverse and against the weight of evidence adduced at the trial and are such that no reasonable Judge propertly directing himself on both the facts and law applicable could reasonably arrive at such findings and judgment.

ACTION 2 paragraph 9 – 1st December 1999 detention of Mr. Kirk’s vehicle

ACTION 2 paragraph 10 – 23rd January 2000 stop of BMW on Ely Road

ACTION 2 paragraph 11 – 5th April 2000 stop at junction of Newport Road and Albany Road Cardiff

(Grounds raise issues of fact and/or points of law)

  1. The learned Judge erred in fact and/or law in
  2. In the premises, the findings and judgment of the learned Judge is “Wednesbury” unreasonable and/or unlawful and/or irrational and/or perverse and against the weight of evidence adduced at the trial and are such that no reasonable Judge propertly directing himself on both the facts and law applicable could reasonably arrive at such findings and judgment.

ACTION 2 paragraph 12 – 16th August 2000 stop of Ford Excort on A473 near M4 Pencoed Junction

(Grounds raise issues of fact and/or points of law)

  1. The learned Judge erred in fact and/or law in
  2. In the premises, the findings and judgment of the learned Judge is “Wednesbury” unreasonable and/or unlawful and/or irrational and/or perverse and against the weight of evidence adduced at the trial and are such that no reasonable Judge propertly directing himself on both the facts and law applicable could reasonably arrive at such findings and judgment.

ACTION 2 paragraph 14 – 13th December 2000 campervan outside Cardiff County Court

(Grounds raise issues of fact and/or points of law)

  1. The learned Judge erred in fact and/or law in
  2. In the premises, the findings and judgment of the learned Judge is “Wednesbury” unreasonable and/or unlawful and/or irrational and/or perverse and against the weight of evidence adduced at the trial and are such that no reasonable Judge propertly directing himself on both the facts and law applicable could reasonably arrive at such findings and judgment.

ACTION 2 paragraph 13 – 8th September 2000 Church Street, Llantwit Major

(Grounds raise issues of fact and/or points of law)

  1. The learned Judge erred in fact and/or law in
  2. In the premises, the findings and judgment of the learned Judge is “Wednesbury” unreasonable and/or unlawful and/or irrational and/or perverse and against the weight of evidence adduced at the trial and are such that no reasonable Judge propertly directing himself on both the facts and law applicable could reasonably arrive at such findings and judgment.

ACTION 2 paragraph 14.3 – 20th December 2000 Breath Test required at Cowbridge Road West Surgery

(Grounds raise issues of fact and/or points of law)

  1. The learned Judge erred in fact and/or law in
  2. In the premises, the findings and judgment of the learned Judge is “Wednesbury” unreasonable and/or unlawful and/or irrational and/or perverse and against the weight of evidence adduced at the trial and are such that no reasonable Judge propertly directing himself on both the facts and law applicable could reasonably arrive at such findings and judgment.

HARASSMENT AND/OR MISFEASANCE

ACTION 3.41 – 13th December 2001 Audi Estate Car stopped Merthyr Mawr Road, Bridgend

(Grounds raise issues of fact and/or points of law)

  1. The learned Judge erred in fact and/or law in
  2. In the premises, the findings and judgment of the learned Judge is “Wednesbury” unreasonable and/or unlawful and/or irrational and/or perverse and against the weight of evidence adduced at the trial and are such that no reasonable Judge propertly directing himself on both the facts and law applicable could reasonably arrive at such findings and judgment.

ACTION 3.51-3 – 21st May 2001 the VW Campervan around the Hayes Roundabout

(Grounds raise issues of fact and/or points of law)

  1. The learned Judge erred in fact and/or law in
  2. In the premises, the findings and judgment of the learned Judge is “Wednesbury” unreasonable and/or unlawful and/or irrational and/or perverse and against the weight of evidence adduced at the trial and are such that no reasonable Judge propertly directing himself on both the facts and law applicable could reasonably arrive at such findings and judgment.

ACTION 3, paragraph 6.1 – 23rd May 2002 arrest at West Gate, Cowbridge

(Grounds raise issues of fact and/or points of law)

  1. The learned Judge erred in fact and/or law in
  2. In the premises, the findings and judgment of the learned Judge is “Wednesbury” unreasonable and/or unlawful and/or irrational and/or perverse and against the weight of evidence adduced at the trial and are such that no reasonable Judge propertly directing himself on both the facts and law applicable could reasonably arrive at such findings and judgment.

CONSPIRACY

(Grounds raise issues of fact and/or points of law)

  1. The learned Judge erred in fact and/or law in
  2. In the premises, the findings and judgment of the learned Judge is “Wednesbury” unreasonable and/or unlawful and/or irrational and/or perverse and against the weight of evidence adduced at the trial and are such that no reasonable Judge propertly directing himself on both the facts and law applicable could reasonably arrive at such findings and judgment.  
  3. REASONS WHY PERMISSION TO APPEAL SHOULD BE GRANTED UNDER CPR PART 52.3(6)(A)(B)
  1. In the premises the issues raise matters of constitutional and/or general public importance that satisfy both or one of the 2 tests for granting permission to appeal under CPR Part 52.3(6)(a)(b) relating to whether the proposed appeals “would have a real prospect of success” and/or “other compelling reason”, although either and/or the application of both tests are sufficient for the court to grant permission to appeal.

This document is far, far from exhaustive

17th November 2015  (amended 10th January 2017)

Maurice J Kirk BVSc

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s