Maurice Jailed Three Times in a Week
Just released after another night in police cells because of liar, MARK DAVENPORT, ringing police to stop me living in the flat.
After an hour in Cardiff Magistrates, until nearly 1.30pm, before proper Cardiff magistrates for a change not evil District Judges, John Charles or Bodfan Jenkins, fundamental issues were partly clarified.
But DAVENPORT had switched off the electric, changed the locks and had been employing staff whilst they were drawing the dole.
After a pack of lies from Her Majesty’s Representative prosecutor, some lawyer from Cardiff, spitting out lie after lie eventually lost his case.
Yes, Mr Kirk must be allowed to live at the flat. And the squatter in the shop?
As I was released from custody I felt it only my duty to bring to the listening Bench’s, attention that the Madam Clerk of the Court would make an excellent judge under France’s Code Napoleon and their must be a job for her any time, I was sure, in Brittany.
Her Majesty’s representative, as before, had lied through his back teeth as he did last time, if the same barrister, on a small matter, I think it was, over a rogue police psychiatrist stating the prisoner was medically unfit to plead due to significant brain damage because:
1. His victim had been an old drinking partner of actor, Oliver Reed Esq
2. Had ditched in the Caribbean
3. Had flown all the way to Australia without a map!
09 09 30 INTERIM PSYCHIATRIC REPORT Oct1 2009 REDACTED.pdf
Despite eight previous requests, whilst in custody each time I am even refused by the court to be immediately, now, allowed to have the prisoner’s copy of his interview under caution JUST as with the refused release of my own 5 page statement and complaint by the rogue Caswell Clinic psychiatrist having had me locked in prison for weeks last year with his latest lies including I had harassed DR JANIS HILLIER at her home.
I have no desire nor have I ever met her or know where on earth they live nor wish to know. such is the stench in in south Wales against a purported Englishman.
To release any of these needed exhibits, in the County Court, now would risk the whole exposure 20 years of conspiracy, using their evil deck of South Wales playing cards, falling to collapse to the ground before the court this Tuesday.
I was arrested by PC Charles……”Any relation?” I asked the court.
And by 7.30pm I am arrested again and with hand cuffs behind my back hauled into a police car with not even the right to have a road side breath test.
Arrested a few weeks ago on the pretext of Drink Drive to follow with delay of over 40 minutes while senior officers were being contacted to set up what they thought they could frame me for.
After driving around the Vale the police find a breath test machine in another police car but the result was negtative
THE LAW AND WHAT ALL THIS IS ALL ABOUT
Smart v The Forensic Science Service Ltd  EWCA Civ 783 (02 July 2013).mht
The Cardiff judges have decided to protect the corrupt NHS (Wales) administration who , in turn, on mass. are protecting two doctors pleading ‘off sick’ at YOUR expense for well over a year now so neither can be summonsed to the Kirk v south Wales Police final hearing on Tuesday to explain their employment by MAPPA and NHS (Wales) following The then Chief Constable, Barbara Wilding, having failed in having me shot MAPPA level 3v victim in June 2009 when a police helicopter and Operation Orchid failed to snatch our 10 year old daughter.. Her ordering that the machine gun be painted a different colour, to fool the jury was known by the trial judge…….a further indication aod just what rwally goes on in our UK courts and one near you.
I AM ENTITLED TO A REMEDY FOLLOWING THIS DOCTOR REPEATEDLY FALSIFYING EVIDENCE BEFORE CARDIFF CIVIL AND CRIMINAL COURTS AND ALWAYS PROTECTED BY SOUTH WALES POLICE WITH THEIR OWN EVIL AGENDA
DO COME ALONG TO THE TUESDAY COURT HEARING AND LEARN A LOT LOT MORE
My Telephone number:: 07907937953
My e-mail address: email@example.com
IN THE CARDIFF COUNTY COURT BS 614159-MC65 CF101741
MAURICE JOHN KIRK
THE CHIEF CONSTABLE OF SOUTH WALES POLICE
CLAIMANTS CLOSING SUBMISSIONS
After three months and ninety nine essential witnesses having given evidence, it is still abundantly clear that significant ‘triggers’ for the Defendant’s course of ‘extreme’ and ‘unusual’ conduct which the Claimant asserts amounts to episodic ‘bullying’ can, in law, amount to ‘misfeasance in a public office’ and that the Claimant had experienced just the same in Guernsey. The Claimant adopts the law as set out in paragraph 30 of The Defendant’s closing submissions with regard to acts of misfeasance.
The Claimant’s sixty four page June 2009 clearly unfinished or tidied up witness statement was signed just in time before the Defendant procured a police helicopter and similarly armed Trojan police team to surround and search the Claimant’s home. It is submitted that these lengths, by their very nature, are indicative of the sort of disproportionate response that results whenever the Defendant’s servants have dealings with The Claimant. Why does the evidence reveal so many disproportionate responses? Why so many ‘hammers’ to crack the ‘Kirk walnut’? What would a reasonably informed observer conclude from the fact that the Claimant is a seasoned veteran of in excess of thirty acquittals? Did these occur simply because ‘Kirk was mad and the police righteous’? Or is there more to this? It is submitted that the sheer number of failed prosecutions alone creates an irresistible inference that the Claimant was systematically targeted and had there been either an evidential sufficiency or public interest basis to these actions the courts would not have acquitted. Systematic arrest and prosecution without evidential sufficiency or public interest criteria prima facie amounts sequentially to false imprisonment, harassment, malicious prosecution and misfeasance in a public office by the servants or agents of The Defendant and, as a consequence, he is vicariously liable. It is over-simplistic of the Defendant to state in paragraph 42 of his Closing Submissions ‘This conspiracy, which he believes existed, was pure fantasy’. A conspiracy is something that can be inferred from facts which are known to be true. The facts that have been established cannot be fantasy. The fact that lightening strikes the same man over and over again cannot be ignored and gives life to the inference. Not one conspiracy but many strikingly similar instances of intolerance to The Claimant indicative of his being systematically regarded as ‘fair game’; ergo: more than one conspiracy.
On one occasion the Claimant was quickly taken away in hand cuffs and incarcerated for nearly eight months, despite the Barry Magistrates’ Court having granted unconditional bail for alleged ‘trading in WW1 machine guns’. This caused the Claimant the damage of his being registered as MAPPA level 3 without him knowing and quickly sectioned under the 1983 Mental Health Act in consequence thereof. But is the Claimant obsessed with his perceived persecution on account of delusion? Paragraphs 38 onward of Defence Submissions invite the court to ridicule the Claimant as a mad conspiracy theorist. Undoubtedly a bad reputation flows from so many court appearances as illustrated by the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeon’s decision to strike off the Claimant after his many distinguished years of practice as a veterinary surgeon for his perceived anti-authoritarian stance. What man’s reputation could withstand being arrested time after time and would not the reasonably informed observer really want to blame the man who is constantly and needlessly put before the courts for railing against Crown Prosecutors, Circuit Judges or Magistrates? What happens when ‘you give a dog a bad name?’ If a man rails off with good reason he is not ‘off the rails’. If one or more police officers decide together to arrest The Claimant based on his ill-gotten celebrity rather than on the merit of each individual action is that not an agreement, which, of necessity, involves misfeasance by those officers? As misfeasance is a crime and conspiracy is an agreement between two or more to commit a crime has not The Claimant, in those circumstances, discharged the civil burden of proof that false arrest, harassment, misfeasance and conspiracy have been demonstrated? Of course, as The Defendant rightly asserts, it would be incredible if all from whom the court received evidence were complicit in ‘One Big Conspiracy’. But cannot events be explained by many minor patterns of repetitive persecution following outward like ripples in a pond responding to a single stone falling into the water which did not go unnoticed?
If repeated misfeasances or agreements to arrest the Claimant happen more than once, without reasonableness, then the law pertaining to harassment is automatically engaged (Paragraphs 29 onwards of The Defendant’s Submissions). If the arrests which were sequential involved no reasonable suspicion of a crime by The Claimant then the law of false arrest is similarly engaged (See the law as correctly set out in The Defendant’s Reply from paragraphs 6 onwards). This action is brought as a response to attempts to have The Claimant further sectioned for good under the Mental Health Act. This led to his being, oh so nearly, incarcerated in Ashworth High Security Psychiatric Hospital for ‘public protection’ at a time when there was a strong likelihood of The Claimant being acquitted.
THE STONE IN THE POND
It was in the 1970s that a high-spirited incident involving a senior police officer’s notebook occurred. In Guernsey the Complainant recollects being repeatedly imprisoned without charge by the police there. As The Claimant’s antecedents would have been available to the Defendant’s servants or agents here in Wales it is right to infer South Wales Police would have had, as part of their duty, to appraise themselves of The Claimant’s notebook incident and ‘the notes taken at the time’. A pattern of events in which the Claimant had been acquitted in the Somerset area was capable of persuading the majority of informed police officers here in Wales that the Claimant was no ordinary man and possibly ‘anti-police’. It is conceivable Newton’s third law was engaged in this way: Every Action has an Equal and Opposite Reaction. The reaction of South Wales Police to Maurice Kirk living on their patch was adverse.
When the Claimant moved to the Barry area it was only a matter of good police practice that local officers would have had to research him. He was a larger than life veterinary surgeon, a flying vet. He had flown under a bridge in London etc. etc. More paradoxically, Maurice Kirk was the police veterinary surgeon. Too many Officers have said on oath in these proceedings that The Claimant was even a good veterinary surgeon. See paragraph 44 of the Defence Submissions:
‘they regarded the Claimant as an extremely competent and skilled veterinary surgeon, but equally that they regarded the claimant as an eccentric, awkward, belligerent, evasive and difficult man to deal with.’
The point is that it is inconceivable that any one officer would have been justified in arresting The Claimant under ‘The General Arrest’ provisions of The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 namely that The Claimant’s identity was unknown or that he had no identifiable address for service of summons. Yet we see those grounds being relied on by The Defendant in this case. The Claimant recollects being stopped thirty five times to produce his motor insurance alone. The Claimant accepts the paragraph 44 observations may well be fair. We all have our issues and the Guernsey issue may well have lit a fire within the Claimant. The question for the court is did The Defendant, through his servants and/or agents, deliberately throw gasoline on that fire in the knowledge The Claimant could always be relied upon to respond?
THE VARIOUS CLAIMS AND THE EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT
As pleaded in paragraph 4 of the amended Particulars of Claim the Claimant was known to the Defendant’s officers at Barry police station. They were aware The Claimant had a current and full driving licence. On the 2nd January 1993 PC Phillips (as he then was) was on duty when he observed a motor car with defective front and rear lights. He required the Claimant to produce his driving documents. The Claimant ended up being prosecuted for no insurance. Paragraph 52 is relevant as The Defendant concedes ‘the Police…became aware…that the Claimant possibly held valid insurance…’
The Claimant was subsequently disqualified for 6 months. The Claimant appealed (paragraph 53) but the fact that his disqualification had been suspended was not communicated by the collator to the relevant authorities (paragraph 54). The Claimant does not accept this was an error. In the event the Claimant’s conviction was overturned (paragraph 56). The question of reasonable and probable cause becomes a cumulative issue as this was to be the established pattern.
With the deepest of respect, the suggestion the Claimant brought these unhappy events upon himself is whimsical.
In March 1993 the Claimant was stopped outside his own hospital for being in charge of a vehicle with insufficient tread on a tyre. The Claimant avers no examination of his tyre ever took place by PC Lott. His conviction was set aside upon appeal to the Crown Court. However self-serving the wording of Paragraph 64 of the Defence Submissions it is impossible to steal the thunder of Particulars of Claim 8.5 (e): that the fact the self-carbonating HORT/1 top copy handed to The Claimant did not accord with the officer’s second copy proved the lie to the ‘notes taken at the time’ purpose of the HORT1 booklet and there had been a fabrication. The Defence submit (there) ‘is of itself (nothing) wrong with this course of conduct’. That is an astonishing statement as it sits very uncomfortably and consistently with what could be perceived as doing an act tending to and intending to pervert the course of public justice.
In May 1993 the Claimant was arrested in Grand Avenue, Ely, Cardiff. The Claimant was riding a motorcycle he had purchased in Guernsey from a police officer. On examination of the panniers articles were found consistent with the tools of a veterinary surgeon. In paragraph 80 of the Defence Reply the phrase appears
‘there came a time when the officer believed that given his suspicions and in order to allow summonses to be issued, and to further his enquiries about the vehicle, he needed to arrest the Claimant, so as to allow his identity, including name and address, to be established.’
‘although he had a residual suspicion (residual means remaining after the greater part is gone so is that a euphemism for no suspicion?) that the motorcycle might be stolen that suspicion had been lessened as the incident developed….
That is an extraordinary statement. It invites the court to the conclusion that before Mr. Kirk had to be arrested there was no suspicion that the motorcycle was stolen.
At Paragraph 80 the officer relies on section 25 of The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.
Another extraordinary statement appears:
‘ I was considering the vehicle excise offence and it was pointed out to me in management action afterwards by my sergeant that it was not appropriate to deal with that under s 25, so I received some action after that.’
In other words the officer was admonished for being heavy-handed. The Claimant was remanded in custody for three days, his motorcycle damaged and charges, including his having an offensive weapon namely a garrotte were subsequently withdrawn.
The garrotte was with syringes. The educated accent of the Claimant and the surrounding circumstances were all clues that the suspect was a vet. The police admitted on oath that they had telephoned Guernsey and obtained details of The Claimant’s purchase of the motorcycle. So the Guernsey enquiry, the tools he had with him being tools of a vet all would have inevitably led the officers to the conclusion: Here was Maurice Kirk. Yet the Claimant was incarcerated. The three pleaded actions thus far being just months apart of each other. This is prima facie evidence of false arrest, harassment and malicious prosecution. The Claimant’s evidence was that the police officer brought over from Barry knew him by sight, in any event. That was a highly likely proposition given the Claimant’s larger than life persona.
Paragraph 85 confirms the proximity of the Claimant’s surgery and the fact that something compelled the officer to make enquiries within. As the police state this information could not have been information from the Claimant himself one is left with the inescapable conclusion that the cause of the enquiry was the protestations of the onlookers whom the Claimant recollects were shouting, ‘That’s our vet!’ or words similar.
The Claimant has been advised that there is an appearance of a serious criminal indictment due in this case accentuated by not just by the extreme lengths to which the Defendant has gone to withhold evidence but what has been heard in court alongside those statements previously prepared and distributed for each defence witness made to sign.
A following forty odd pages will shortly follow delayed only because of this weekend’s yet one more example of the ‘inequality in arms’ between the parties.
Maurice J Kirk BVSc 15th July 2013
See full submission:
MAURICE KIRK UPDATE 4 JULY – OUTRAGEOUS AND INFINITE LIES TOLD BY S WALES POLICE – THOROUGH ENQUIRY NEEDED FOR THE GOOD OF EVERY TAXPAYER!!
Posted on July 5, 2013 by butlincat
This man Maurice Kirk has been beaten whilst in custody, had his career as a vetinarary surgeon ended by the corrupt practices of a Welsh consultant psychiatrist who manufactured a false report on M Kirk, has been imprisoned continuously over the years to shut him up and also to silence him for speaking out about certain unacceptable practices of the Welsh + other authorities – and that’s just the tip of this rancid iceberg that’s been in place for 20 years or so that Maurice Kirk has had to contend with – so it comes as no surprise the end result of a hearing brought about by M Kirk involving these “authorities” who have persecuted him so chronically badly for so long, lasting months and costing a fortune is a contrived and convoluted whitewash of the truth – courtesy of the South Wales police and connected authorities. What a sham – and what an utter disgrace they all are!!! >>>>>
02 Legal Battles
Outside Investigation of South Wales Police Requested
Count the lies in Police Lawyers Closing Submissions BS614159
No wonder I was never allowed a jury
The lawyer defence team for the Defendants Skeleton Closing Submissions, to defend the 1992 -2002 bullying by the South Wales Police, have printed out such a thoroughly misleading account, in well over thirty or so, so far heard, of a hundred or more appalling incidents of criminal conduct, by three Chief Constables, no less, obviously requiring an outside intervention.
13 06 24 Kirk v SWP Defendant’s Closing Submissions.pdf
Talk about blatant Common Purpose, Masonic Plot and the New World Order agenda!
Is it not time for us to go away and read the small print of political parties such as UKIP?
At least no one in South Wales can say they have not been warned of things yet to come.
The countless written lies that are so fraudulent and so contrary to what is on court transcript, witness statements and 20 years of stored Claimant court exhibits, the matter should not be left to the HM discretion of a single judge but be reported to an outside police force immediately.
Truth Will Out
Counter submissions, the actual facts rather than a fairy tale, will be published later after my proposed visit to Avon and Somerset Police with the complaint.
[Much of evidence, contradicting these defence submission, is already on the last three months of blogs]
(My telephone number for more is 07907937953)
SAMPLE of Claimant’s closing submissions
DANGEROUS POLICE HELICOPTER CHASE AROUND ST HILARY TV MAST
2nd Action Paragraph 7
Yet another account riddled with pre confirmed lies due to the usual information, available to the lawyers, of any aircraft movement in a controlled air space
No, not true the helicopter flew double that distance
No, not ‘suspected’, police already knew the Claimant was pending the successful Taunton Crown court appeal requiring no evidence needed to be given. (difficult not to be prosecuted for ‘low flying’ when landing in a farmer’s field for lunch.
This outrageous account of launching a hugely expensive helicopter just to assess who the pilot was!!!
All it required was to look in log books of aircraft/pilots onboard/ ring ATC Gloucester for records/ get ATC Cardiff to ask or simply send the Llantwit Major’s police car two miles to landing strip and enquire after the aircraft had landed.
Police identifying the pilot as being in the front ‘pilot’s seat was a joke, in itself, assuming a WW2 J3 L4 is usually piloted so. Which seat did I fly from when I then flew her to Australia, solo and stuffed with fuel cans?
No, they kept no safe distance and in fact, it was all very dangerous, as close as the length of the court room, plus a foot or two.
Both pilots confirmed it was illegal, inside the 500ft Air Navigation Order rule. unless the police had a justifiable reason to put so many lives at stake?
Interesting how the ATC Cardiff asked G-KIRK to orbit until the police helicopter arrived. We could have diverted and landed, quite easily, at the Cardiff police heliport, in time we were made to wait, if the matter was so very urgent.
No. The radar facilities at Cardiff cannot measure distances between such aircraft to ensure safety
No, not true. To prove the point of just how dangerous it was the two helicopter crew both had to admit they each lost sight of the cub for sufficient time to get her an imaginary five second burst from a WW1 Lewis machine gun, ‘up their tail’.
The CAA should have investigated the police dangerous prank but I was not going to report another pilot simply being black mailed by a bunch of bullys sitting at HQ calling the shots.
All part of the police bullying, harassment and ‘money no object’ mentality, following the Claimant only because:
I) being blamed for their Chief Inspector’s daughter’ miscarriage,
ii) ‘sour grapes’ Guernsey asking to ‘put the knife in’ as it carried far too an embarrassing consequence if the outstanding ‘open arrest warrant’ for the Claimant’s was to be implemented
iii) and not let us not forget their anger of their recent string of lost prosecutions, against the Claimant, ‘stitched up’ yet again, by too many, proving malice.
…aa 2 01-12-11_1812