Adrian Oliver, senior partner, continues to enjoy immunity to criminal prosecution, only because he is in Cardiff and because he is defending the South Wales Chief Constable in Barbara Wilding’s 2009 ‘machine-gun’ conspiracy when attempting to having me shot.
To have me shot for welsh police losing over 40 malicious criminal prosecutions.
Now, the machine -gun civil claim enters its 11th year not a patch on my civil claim BS614159 etc (40failed prosecutions) as that goes on now into its 3rd decade, not unlikeJarndyce and Jarndycein dickens’ Bleak House.
Why? well the corrupt welsh first stopped my entering the court building for nearly 10 years, to slow me down and because the HM Royal Courts of Justice are refusing, due the stench of it, to allow to hear my appeal with its transcripts and court log records confiscated — what really goes on in our welsh law courts.
The police bullying continues…….
IN THE CARDIFF COUNTY COURT
MAURICE JOHN KIRK
CHIEF CONSTABLE OF SOUTH WALES CONSTABULARY
This is an N244 Application (Cases 1CF03361 and D00CF279) to vary and remove all sanctions in the Order 31 May 2019 and for Directions as to how to proceed when not understanding past Court Directions and Orders. And is made in response to a Cardiff County Court email message 14 January 2019 to the unrepresented Claimant from HHJ Keyser QC, kindly explaining the meaning of the Order 31 May 2019 that the stay is lifted as from 9 January 2020 and the Claimant should now make this application promptly.
- The Defendant have for ten years stood by what Dr XX says in his reports as a part of the Lewis Gun prosecution 2009 as true reliable fair and accurate. Yet as a part of this Lewis Gun case Dr XX in his report to the Cardiff Crown Court 30 September 2009 point 11 says:-
“…My current preliminary position is that whilst Maurice Kirk is fit to plead, his difficulty in organising ……as a result of brain injury……..he would be unable to conduct his own defence”
- As Dr XX says the Claimant has significant “irreversible” brain damage it follows that by what Dr XX says in 2009 may apply in 2019 so that the Claimant would be unable to organise a complex case at a Court.
- If the Defendant does not stand by Dr XX as being true reliable fair and accurate then that opens up how the Defendant has maliciously and dishonestly imprisoned the Claimant from 2011 to 2019 based on prosecution papers that the Defendant knew was untrue and as a way to obstruct the Claimant’s ability to progress his civil proceedings. Which the Claimant believes is what has happened.
- Importantly to understand the deceit by the Defendant and prove they have done wrong by dishonesty at the Courts and to have interfered with the Claimant’s ability to progress civil proceedings, we do not need to go into whether the Claimant was guilty of harassment of the doctor who wrote false and malicious reports.
- We only need to look at how the Defendant when bring prosecution deceitfully portraying the doctor as all good having done no wrong and the Claimant as all bad. So that the sentencing and subsequent harsh treatment was grossly disproportionate for the Claimant ‘rationally’ saying the truth that under the Section 12 annual and periodic renewal process of Mental Health Act 1983, the public and UK wide profession needs to know.
- It is the proportionality of the sentence and harshness of the treatment there after, as a result of deceit, malice and dishonesty (by not admitting the serious, if not criminal wrong Dr XX does) is actually how the Defendant has interfered in the Claimant’s ability to progress his civil cases and the Lewis Gun case civil claim.
- In short the Defendant has directly and indirectly deliberately triggered so many problems for the Claimant that a normal person could not manage Court procedure and deadlines with the Defendant causing so many civil and criminal proceedings and disputes, all with intense detail and while the Claimant has a loss of liberty with legal papers confiscated and formal post to and from Courts and relevant parties blocked or withheld.
- While experiencing loss of liberty the Claimant had a number of potentially serious health issues where because the Defendant triggers the Claimant be dealt with harshly so that access to care became an embroiled dispute. And physical assaults occurred on top of potentially serious physical medical problems. Yet while all this occurred the Claimant was left without adequate medical care.
- Also from what the Defendant caused while at the Bail Hostel for a short period, the Claimant was singled out for a different set of conditions which were far stricter and harsher regime to his peers. Again this led to more dispute casework.
- The problems and number of disputes and issues are by far too many, too detailed and too hard going for the Client/lawyer relationship to cope. And the cost of trying to fight back in defence using lawyers is far too expense for any lay person.
The Defendant Interfered and obstructed the main substantive civil case hearing in Cardiff in 2013
- The Claimant takes this opportunity to point out that the Defendant improperly used one of the four criminal prosecutions over Dr XX (based on evidence they knew was untrue) to prevent the Claimant being able to organise and have essential police evidence and witnesses in the 2013 main BS614159 substantive hearing into the wrongdoing by South Wales Police.
The Claimant is not understanding what to do.
- The unrepresented lay Claimant genuinely cannot understand Court Orders and what is required of him and that includes how he was supposed to respond in case D00CF279. The Claimant does not understand how to go about listing his Document when the Defendant’s lawyers block the Claimant reading their Documents. And other example is, do Documents listed in the Further Particulars need to be again listed in a list of Documents?
The Defendant provoke problems from Multi Agencies as a way to obstruct the Claimant from taking part in civil proceedings
- Regards the material time to comply with Court Orders. It took all manner of failed attempt by lawyers to try to urgently protect the Claimant by addressing huge problems, to only then realise that the Claimant and Claimant’s lawyer’s time is wasted trying to get an organisation to treat the Claimant fairly if the Defendant as police (and senior police) use their authority to tell the organisation to do different and the Defendant as police impose organisations use false information and cause organisations to treat the Claimant harshly and unfairly .
- When the Lewis Gun case prosecution failed and the Defendant has use and continue obvious events within the Lewis Gun case to imprison the Claimant each year since the Lewis Gun case ended in 2010.
- A simple way to get through a decade of detail is to compare the 2008/9 Lewis Gun case with the last prosecution by the Defendants knew what they saying was not true fair reasonable or proportionate.
- The Defendant as senior police control Multi Agency working and the information on which multi agencies make decisions regards the Claimant.
- Intensely false criminal records – including child abuse and fire arms Narcotics, ABH and FTA false convictions. So many false entries the problem is hard to deal with.
- False and wildly exaggerated risk assessments are caused by endless untrue comments on top of a false criminal history. So many false comments they are hard to deal with.
- Being wrongly regarded as very high risk causes loss of liberty and rights to further obstruct the Claimant and triggers he be treated harshly and unfairly. Which again leads to so very many problems and disputes they are hard to deal with.
- The Defendant triggered obstructing if not blocking access to health care leading to considerable hardship and more disputes that arise where they resist the Claimant be allowed his basic rights. Which over the last two-year sentence led to so many problems and disputes they are hard to deal with.
- Parole decisions were based on false data maliciously supplied by police to cause extra prison terms in all convictions and in both prison recalls
- The G4S subculture take it upon themselves that given the Defendant senior police say such of the Claimant that G4S not only can obstruct the Claimant’s legal papers and proceedings but are free to subject the Claimant to beatings and bullying and also to get the fellow violent prisoners to do same to the Claimant. Again, there were so many incidents which are also part of a prison dispute system it is all too much and too difficult to cope with.
- Things became so wild that when the Claimant sent the usual harmless letters to his English and Welsh MPs streets were sealed off and the Claimant interviewed under caution in case the very small residue of the Claimant’s toothpaste on the back of his letters posed a most serious risk to the public and Members of Parliament. Again, the Defendant saw to it that this ongoing episode was not a small matter so that again made it hard for the Claimant to manage all of the above and the civil proceedings.
- The Claimant personal life has turmoil from similar outside of prison and his lawyer along with family has to try to address matters there.
- So many intense problems were occurring that the volume of quite unnecessary work caused by the Defendant becomes unmanageable for the Claimant and the huge volume and intensity would undermine any lawyer client relationship and be far too expensive for a normal lay Claimant.
Claimant needs the Court to explain what is expected of him.
- The Claimant needed and still needs the Court to explain to him what was and what now is required of him given the increased complexity.
- Normally where a lay Claimant is unable to get legal advice, then the lawyers representing the public sector Defendant would act as Officers of the Court and explain the procedure and what to do next to the lay unrepresented Claimant. But in this case the Defendant’s lawyers act in bad faith.
- The Claimant received an email from Cardiff County Court 14 January 2020 at 15.08pm, saying the Claimant’s email regards not being able to understand the Order 31 May 2019, was put before HHJ Keyser QC who comments:-
”……the case was stayed until 9 January 2020. The stay
is now ended. Any application for relief from sanction
must be made promptly”
- The lay Claimant promptly makes this N244 application because the ex-parte hearing and Order of 31 May 2019 being controlled by the Defendant in the absence of the Claimant, is too far removed from the very obvious truth and facts of the Defendant’s agenda and actions in the 2009 Lewis Gun case at the Crown Court.
- One main reason to bring an action that is a good use of Court time, is to stop problems continuing.
- One problem is the aim of the Defendant in bringing the failed Lewis Gun prosecution of 2009 and the subsequent directly four prosecutions, was to prevent the Claimant address his Judicial Review and civil case where both were looming.
- And that the Defendant continually prosecutes and imprisons the Claimant to obstruct and prevent the Claimant addressing his civil proceedings where the Defendant knows the prosecution papers and police information systems are not true.
- The Order 31 May 2019 is too far removed from very obvious truth and facts of what the Defendant does to continue their 2008/9 agenda to obstruct the Claimants from taking and addressing civil proceedings by harming the Claimant each year since 2009.
- So that the Claimant was imprisoned for five years due to blatant deceit by the Defendant, and particularly between 2016/17 to late 2019. – based on papers and police information systems where it is obvious the Defendant did not and cannot possibly believe are true or fair.
- But there is (and will be) much new evidence as to the extent that the Defendant works to harm the Claimant is actually via multi agency collusion and as explained below the deceit and malice by the Defendant and how they aim to obstruct the lay Claimant, – is getting even worse. And without the intervention of the Courts will be indefinite.
The Claimant lives in England and is not safe entering South Wales.
- An obvious need is for the case to be transferred to England so that the Claimant can avoid entering South Wales. As the Claimant lives in England not transferring the case would put the Claimant at risk of serious harm.
Should the Claimant start a new civil action in England regards the Defendant prosecuting using information they know is not true and ask English Court for the Lewis Gun case be drawn into that new civil action?
- From yet again being recently put in prison it has become obvious to the Claimant that he needs to bring a civil action to stop the Defendant bringing or provoking prosecutions based on details that they know is not proportionate, and so far from what is proportionate, is therefore not true.
- The information the Defendant knows to be untrue but still continually uses that information to prosecute the Claimant, has arisen out of the 2009 Lewis Gun case. A new civil action would rely on the same papers plus more. The extra would be related the prosecution cases brought by the Defendant since 2009 to 2019 and ongoing.
- The Claimant needs to seek legal advice as to whether to state the new claim to include Maladministration, Malfeasance, Misfeasance and Malicious Prosecution (and even nonfeasance for colluding with a medical writer who acted seemingly criminally) as even if convicted a civil action can still be bought in rare situations, such as here where the Defendant cannot possibly believe their own prosecution papers as proportionate and therefore the Defendant knew the prosecution papers were not true.
Malfeasance – Request to assist, include and monitor the Claimant’s pre action request of the Chief Constable regards 2020. Or should this be a pre action protocol that is integrated into the Lewis Gun Case?
- The Claimant seeks time and opportunity to take legal advice on the technicalities of these issues.
- Possibly Malfeasance can occur if the Chief Constable does not in 2020 personally impose into police systems and procedures, new Decisions and measures by the Chief Constable that ensure the Defendant end their deceit in police information systems and particularly any response by the Defendants lawyers.
- It can be said these 2020 issues have arisen out of the 2009 Lewis Gun case.
- The outcome of a new claim around malfeasance could be a way to address the deceitful and dishonest conduct of the Defendant’s internal and external lawyers.
Directions of the Court on potential applications by the Claimant regards solicitors Adrian Oliver’s and Richard Leighton Hill’s conduct during proceedings before the Courts and Warning to Adrian Oliver and Richard Leighton Hill regards perverting the Course of Justice
- We are all aware responsibility comes with control and that Adrian Oliver and Richard Leighton Hill have high level of control over the Defendant, because any Police Officer no matter how senior cannot go against what the Police ‘senior’ lawyers says.
- If Adrian Oliver and Richard Leighton Hill adequately communicate to the Defendant the truth of the horrific wrong that Dr XX has done and also communicate to the Defendant that the false information (see letter form Belinda Kirk 25 July 2019 regards the Defendant totally falsified that the Claimant is a risk to his family)
- It follows that the wrongdoing and potentially criminal acts of bring prosecutions based on what they know is not true has occurred quite directly as a result of Adrian Oliver’s and Richard Leighton Hill’s actions and inactions for which they can be personally liable before the criminal and civil courts.
- The Claimant request Directions form the Court for a date when Adrian Oliver and Richard Leighton Hill update on and if that response regards correcting false information (See attached letter 17 July 2019 from Belinda Kirk) and admitting the wrong Dr XX does, is not satisfactory to give directions such as:-.
- As to how the false information and highly improper and potentially criminal actions and inactions of Adrian Oliver and Richard Leighton Hill be a part of civil proceedings
- And/or the false information and highly improper and potentially criminal actions and inactions of Adrian Oliver and Richard Leighton Hill be part of a new claim in England
- And/or that to maintain confidence in the profession and the Courts that the Court give Directions for a hearing to sanction and potentially strike off the roll Adrian Oliver and Richard Leighton Hill and they can apply to the SRA if the wish to be reinstated.
Why the Defendant brought a malicious prosecution of the Lewis Gun case when they knew what they were saying was not true was to obstruct and prevent the Claimant in bring civil proceedings.
- The context of the Lewis Gun case was according to the MAPPA minutes to prevent the publicity that may occur with the Claimant taking civil proceedings where any normal person can be expected to veer towards thinking that so very many prosecutions there must be wrongdoing by police and those in authority who collude with those police. Please documents see as attached.
Request Order for Disclosure and an Order to read the Defendant’s lawyers documents.
- Please would the Court Order a date, time and duration and a neutral location such as a conference room in Bristol or Taunton (at a Court or a business room such as a hotel conference room or lawyers firm) where the Defendant’s lawyers must allow the Claimant to read documents.
- The Defendants lawyers are asked to be able to tell the Court how they will arrange the Document being made available at a neutral venue within easy travelling distance to the Claimant’s home in Taunton.
- Please could the Court Order disclosure for the Claimant for the Lewis Gun case and also request the Chief Constable to decide the Defendant to stop their deceit
- As we are all aware In the UK there has been a major scandal at how police have improperly withheld disclosure at Criminal trials and this scandal is wider spread in the national media and is clearly acknowledged by the Police College who have new procedures to try to ensure police start to disclose adequately.
- Please can the Court Order the Disclosure that the Claimant should have had in the 2009/2010 Lewis Gun case.
- Please could the Court Order the Disclosure that the Claimant should have had in the four criminal trials from 2011 to present that have arisen out the dispute of a collusion regards false police MAPPA NHS medical report(s). Where the medical writer colluded with the Defendant via MAPPA in the Lewis gun case and when the Claimant makes protests at their deceit they both (Defendant and medical writer) prosecute the Claimant using information they know is not true. And they also do this to obstruct the Claimant taking civil proceedings regards their deceit and malice in the Lewis Gun case.
The Claimant’s 2019 lay version of Further Particulars that worries the Defendants as too close to the truth. But did the Defendant obstruct the Claimant complying with civil proceedings by imprisoning the Claimant by a prosecution using information the Defendant knew was untrue?
- The Claimant complied with the Court Order to supply Further Particulars by a stipulated date and did so using a lawyer.
- However, in February 2019 the Claimant could not approve what the lawyer sent to the Court as the Defendant’s arrested the Claimant that weekend in the middle of the period of Claimant meeting with his lawyer. The lawyer could not meet the claimant in custody during an arrest period and did not know where the Claimant was but rather did a best effort at what the Claimant wished so as not to miss the deadline.
- Furthermore, it is very obvious that regards at least proportionality or the excessive length of the prison sentence (that meant the Claimant could not meet with his lawyer) is due to the Defendant lawyers and the Defendant being deceitful before the Courts, as to the medical report being blatantly untrue. Or if the medical reports are true to first examine that a prosecution would not be appropriate but rather NHS assessment and care would be appropriate.
- The fact the Defendant did not start with a reassessment of the medical states of the Claimant shows they brought a prosecution not believing the medical reports that the Claimant protests (or allegedly harasses) about, were true.
- Possibly the Court may wish to ignore and put to one side the Defendant’s lawyers panic at a lay version of the truth, until the Chief Constable responds to potential pre action communications regards “a management Decision” of the Chief Constable that there will be no further deceit by the Defendants on specific issues that will be raised?
- However especially as the lay Claimant has not failed to comply with an Order to submit Further Particulars, as he did submit a lawyers document on time, but it can appear fair, reasonable and common sense that a lay Claimant if doing a complex case himself for the Claimant to be allowed use his way of explaining the case by his “additional” lay document.
An example where the Order 31 May 2019 is not acknowledging obvious material issues – Please compare the Doctor’s writing with the Caswell Team’s medical evidence quoted below from 2009.
- For example we also have to consider that either the Defendant’s August to October 2009 medical report(s) of the Lewis Gun case mean that the Claimant has significant irreversible brain damage (where the rate of deterioration was said to be not known and needs to be monitored/reassessment). And is also delusional in a number of ways. And so should not be expect to cope with complying with Court Directions and Orders. Or if not given the unusual facts (for example that two Radiologists give a normal all clear result 28 August 2009) it follows for all parties should admit the Defendant’s medical report(s) as intentionally false, biased and malicious and so leading to how the Defendant has unlawfully imprisoned the lay Claimant for five years from 2011 to 2019 by the Defendant and their lawyers being deceitful at Courts and it has been the Defendant who has prevented the Claimant from addressing civil proceedings.
- Please note some detail on the prosecution of cases since 2009 where the Claimant is accused of harassing the writer of the medical reports. If to keep things simple we imagine hypothetically that responses of the Claimant were excessive and so the conviction is not in doubt, we are then left with the prosecution papers are deceitful and dishonest because of if the writer of the medical reports was accurate and the prosecution was honest, then a man with significant irreversible brain damage and with PDD (Paranoid Delusional Disorder) would not have served 5 years in prison. In the well-known farmer Tony Martin who had PDD, when he was convicted of murder (shot at two youths escaping his property) he had a sentence of only 3 years due to PDD (Paranoid Delusional Disorder).
- If on the other hand, if the Defendants prosecution cases were to be honest and admitted the bias, deceit, malice and dishonesty of the writer of the medical reports, then either a prosecution would not have proceeded. Or the Claimant would not have served five years in prison because the Claimant would have been recognised as saying the truth that the public and profession need to know. Or the writer of the medical reports could be prosecuted for his exceptional dishonesty before the Courts and to police – on five occasions in five criminal cases between 2009 and 2019.
- It must be emphasised that the evidence that Dr XX (and so the Defendant and their lawyers) acted and still acts potentially criminally is very much more. What is said in this document is only a sample in order to be as brief as possible.
The Lewis Gun case 2009 Caswell Clinic Team assessment of the Claimant
- An additional dimension is that as part of the Lewis Gun case there was a team assessment by Caswell Clinic the result of which differed to what the doctor who colluded with the Defendant and the 2009 team report page 42 says that the Claimant is not delusion but
“…suffering from a significant degree of anxiety..”
“…continued physical and psychological stress could
have an adverse effect on him in the future…”
- Suffering from high levels of anxiety often means a person is not normally well enough to conduct complex legal proceedings at the usual pace and speed and would need to be given extra time and leniency.
- We need to add the extra dimension and extra level of harm was caused by the Defendant’s quite sinister use of a collusion with multi agencies that the Defendant organised from 2009 to the present ‘and indefinitely’, is causing the obstruction that has prevented the Claimant from dealing with all of his civil claims.
- As explained below the Defendant has been extending their bullying of the Claimant by a deceitful use of multi agency working that would damage anyone’s mental state, so that the Claimant cannot participate in his civil legal proceedings against the Defendant.
- But then when the Claimant mental state is not the best, to exaggerate that as if the Claimant is a high or highest risk to the community.
- The Claimant seeks new Directions that recognise how the Defendant’s trend of deceit and malice within the Lewis Gun case has been continued each year. And the Claimant asks the Court that the truth and facts in the trend of what the Defendant actually does is allowed to become evidence before the Court.
Request Chief Constable personally confirm that specific deceit and dishonesty regards the writer of the Lewis Gun medical reports will not reoccur in prosecutions, any Court papers or in police information systems.
- It is therefore becoming obvious that the direction of the claims against the Defendant needs to be varied to address the main problem. Whether by changes to the present claim or by a new claim which can potentially be added to the present claim. With an emphasis on identifying the deceit and dishonesty and to prevent similar deceit in prosecutions and police information systems in future.
- As we are aware the Chief Constable as the Chief of all police officers staff and lawyers and is liable for what they do. The writer of the Lewis Gun medical reports requested the loss of liberty of the Claimant and the Defendant has continued to use these obviously false reports as if true and accurate. To know how to make requests of the Court or to particularise papers the Claimant requests the Chief Constable personally makes the decision that South Wales Police and it’s information systems, multi-agency communications and it’s lawyers will permanently acknowledge that the writer of the medical reports of 2009 “did some wrong” so contrary to what arrests and prosecutions since 2010 to present, that the Claimant acts with genuine grievance and to specify as explained below
Example of a just some of the criminal case against Dr TW and police who colluded with him that the Chief Constable and Defendant need to act on.
Does the Claimant have Significant Irreversible Brain Damage? Or is the Defendant dishonest to even a criminal level of deceit?
- 8Dr Aisling Butler and then a second opinion check by Dr Gareth Tudor , which the Claimant understands as a message to all other doctors of an
- 30 September 2009 that writes to request loss of liberty by Section for another month where Dr XX says to apply for a Mental Health Act Section that
The Assessment of Maurice Kirk has concentrated on several areas, mainly the presence or absence of any mental illness and the presence or absence of any traumatic brain injury”
- But if we examine Dr XX report of 29 September 2009 which is used as evidence at the Crown Court, Dr XX has totally left out and hidden from the Crown Court that the two Radiologist 28 August 2009 have given a normal all clear result and Dr XX deceitfully states:-
“Maurice Kirk has been referred for detailed brain scans”.
29 September 2009 in point 7
“….suffers with dysfunction of the ventral prefrontal cortex
of the brain….further neuropsychological testing is required
to confirm the severity of such damage.”
29 September 2009 in point 8
“Maurice Kirk has evidence of significant brain damage …..”
29 September 2009 in point 10
- When in truth the fact is Maurice kirk has already been given a normal all clear result but the deceit goes on to the final report by Dr XX of 19 October 2009 please see the extract attached.
- Dr XX was the Clinical director responsible for training and controlling that doctors at Caswell Clinic did not go beyond their expertise.
- But when the brain scan result is normal all clear by 28 August 2009 Dr XX knew he was being dishonest when he wrote formally to the Cardiff Crown Court as a part of proceedings to say there was brain damage while there was no evidence to say that, and if Dr XX was wishing to say there was brain damage Dr TXX knew he would have to use a doctor who medically qualified by trained and experienced in the interpretation of brain scans to provide written evidence.
Claims of Delusions and PDD Paranoid Delusional Disorder are obviously intentionally deceitful assertions that are not based on evidence.
- Firstly it is not for a doctor when either writing for NHS records or giving evidence to a Court to determine facts and the decisions Courts should make.
- If a person is often prosecuted or subject to disproportionate attention by police, that is seemingly unfair Parliament has decided that people should sue the Chief Constable as a means to explore issues and gain accountability. But for Dr XX to say the Claimant is delusional he is persecuted by police Dr XX would have to determine the facts of the Claimant case as being totally without merit and the Defendant has not managed to do that.
- Dr XX in 2009 implies the Claimant is mentally ill for being concerned as to whether the NHS would covertly put psychiatric medication in his food as if Dr XX says the NHS could never do that so the Claimant must be mentally ill. When DR TW would have known as Clinical Director that the Nursing and Midwifery Council in 2005 and Royal College of Psychiatry in 2008 gave guidelines on when to covertly put psychiatric medication in patients’ food.
- Dr XX tries to discredit the Claimant by saying the Claimant is paranoid or delusional regards occasionally using the word Freemasonry. But the Claimant does not focus on Freemasonry and the oblique references the Claimant may make to Freemasonry would be no different to the National Assembly of Wales and for example one of its past leaders Rhodri Morgan who sought a ban on appointing Freemasons in some key positions. So that as the Claimant does not focus on Freemasonry any more than others the Dr XX would know there is no evidence of delusional behaviour.
- Essentially every key assertion by Dr XX that the Claimant was delusional can be shown as that Dr XX knew he was being deceitful.
- There is even a letter by Dr Rose Marnell 3 March 2014 (copy attached) saying there is no evidence of the conditions that Dr XX asserts the Claimant has. And indeed, many other doctors also, confirms a picture that is consistent with Dr XX being malicious and deliberately dishonest and totally deceitful.
- For example, not all in the multi-agency staff colluded but rather could not prevent what the Defendant did. Those multi agency staff from 2009 to present need to become witnesses. As well as multi agency staff who are hostile to the Claimant.
- Also the Claimant out of prison is taking statements from numerous people.
- The Claimant has found a letter 1 June 2010 where the Defendant refuses to investigate wrongdoing by police in the Lewis gun case based on witness statements not disclosed to the Claimant.
Defendant’s influence means endless failed Disclosure. The Claimant now requests, yet again, Court Orders for Disclosure.
- Caswell Clinic
- HMP Parc
- Parole’s Oasysis Assessment
- Police eligible data where there have been applications since 2009 with MAPPA, MG6D and PII protected evidence having been applied for many times under Subject Access Requests.
Request for an Order regards withheld evidence regards Mr & Mrs Cooper who purchased the Lewis Gun were interviewed under caution but were not prosecuted
- The Claimant requests an Order for Disclosure regards the evidence the Defendant withheld during the Lewis Gun case in 2009/10 regards Mr & Mrs Cooper who purchased the Lewis Gun from the Claimant
- South Wales Police were in close contact liaising with Police in Nottingham. That caused Mr & Mrs Cooper who purchased the Lewis Gun from the Claimant to be interviewed under caution and there are tapes and records or why Mr & Ms Cooper were not prosecuted – when the claimant was which South Wales Police had access to and knowledge of but all of which was deliberately hidden from the prosecution process, the Claimant and the trial at Cardiff Crown Court.
- The Claimant seeks Order(s) for Disclosure from ‘all’ parties.
Request Disclosure of withheld statements from 2009
- On 1 June 2012 Detective Inspector Holden of South Wales Police refused to progress the complaint into the Lewis Gun case when obviously there are issues that honest police would need to look at in order to maintain professional standards. But D.I. Holder inadvertently says of statements and evidence obtained by the Defendant in 2009 that were not disclosed to the Claimant in 2009.
- For example as a part of the deceit the defendant uses statements from people who are not expert in the relevant issues of firearms law relevant to why the Lewis gun was legal.
- SWP deliberately and deceitful used quasi-experts to mislead where quasi experts are people or staff who are not experts but rather work a speciality and can useful expertise on what they do, But the quasi expert is not experienced enough to be an expert who can comment with expertise on the wider full picture such as being an expert on contradictions and complications of fire arms law such as is found in the 2015 Law Commission report and the 2009 Consultation.
- As the Home Office Consults Police forces in a consultation ending May 2009 Police knew the legal issues regards the Lewis Gun within the law earlier in 2009.
- Disclosure can help show how the Defendant deceitfully and maliciously manipulated the evidence by not asking for comment to explain how Lewis
- Disclosure can also show that the Defendant avoids issues like (which can easily be )by
New Evidence – Legal Advice needed on new evidence is emerging and the transcripts of the 2009 trial became available to people in 2019 who are starting to respond with information.
- If the Defendant had been honest in prosecution documents and if the Defendant had not colluded with the writer of the 2009 medical reports in 2009 would not have been in prison
- Now the Claimant is out of prison and not restricted in travel by licence conditions the Lewis Gun case transcripts from 2010 have become available to people the Claimant is learning more.
- The Claimant needs time to put all this new evidence together and request the Directions of the Court so that the truth can be evidence at trial.
Directions on additional Further and Better Particulars to include how the Defendant manipulated and used multi agencies to harm the Claimant
- In proving a case at Court and addressing accountability, establishing a trend is important to show it is not just a one-off problem.
- For truth to be come evidence and to avoid issuing new proceedings with a messy duplicate civil trial the Claimant needs Legal advice on how to add the actions how the Defendant has manipulated multi agencies in 2009 onwards to the present moment and 2020, which of means also including the writer of the medical reports, and the Defendant’s lawyers conduct
- It must be emphasised that the evidence that Dr XX (and so the Defendant and their lawyers) acted and still acts potentially criminally is very much more. What is said in this document is only a sample in order to be as brief as possible.
- As can be seen by all this events and the have been too much for a lay Claimant to cope with such complex civil proceedings and he request the Court set new Directions so that he can manage and include all the new issues and evidence.
STATEMENT OF TRUTH
I believe that the facts stated in this application are true.
Maurice John Kirk BVSc
Date 21 January 2020
IN THE CARDIFF COUNTY COURT
MAURICE JOHN KIRK
CHIEF CONSTABLE OF SOUTH WALES CONSTABULARY
List of Documents in Support of the N244 Application 21 January 2020
|28 Aug 2009||NHS Radiology Brain Scan results.||Two doctors at ABMU NHS confirm a normal all clear result.|
|30 Sept 2009||Dr XX reports to the Cardiff Crown Court||Dr XX hides the above from the Court and totally makes up that this is brain damage.|
|19 Oct 2009||Extract of Dr XX final Opinion to Cardiff Crown Court|
|16 June 2010||CAA Medical says Claimant is fit to fly||Obviously Claimant Maurice Kirk does not appear mentally ill or brain damaged as Dr XX says.|
|28 Nov 2013||University Hospital of Wales (UHW) Cardiff||Radiology at UHW gives a normal all clear brain scan|
|14 March 2014||Dr Rose Marnell Clinical Director at HMP Cardiff||Says no evidence of any brain damage or PDD/delusion.|
|25 July 2019||Belinda Kirk (Oxford educated TV/film maker daughter of Claimant)||Writes regards the Defendant falsely saying the Claimant is a risk to her and her family when Belinda Kirk says that is not true. .|