Despite this my 1st March 2017 police interview, alleging my 4th breach of a restraining order never served on me in the first place, my request for police disclosure of vital relevant court records remains denied.
No police disclosure of the original 1st December 2011 court records, recording I was served a restraining order in cells, of course, as they had been quickly tampered with following my 1st jury having specifically asked for them in my 4th May 2012 first alleged breach of a restraining order unlawfully obtained.
The trial judge, for next week, has already refused me my relevant witnesses which may, to some, indicate the politics lying behind all this apparent triviality but the Cardiff cabal are seeking a maximum prison sentence.
The Royal Courts of Justice have already made comment over my twenty five year running battle for compensation following the first of my thirty three police failed malicious prosecutions during my time as a veterinary surgeon in the Vale of Glamorgan.
To be continued……(just going for a swim with Nick R in the River Derwent).
I am just in receipt of a document at last forced out of Cardiff’s so called Justice Centre now allowing me to publish…..
Cardiff Courts Manager
16 th March 2017
Case no. 1CF03361 (Dr Tegwyn Williams/machine-gun trial)
In the light of little if no disclosure of the evidence you control being given up to me, for trial, may I then be expected for a candid and detailed reply to the following for any further potential hearings?
1. After my acquittal requiring no defence evidence for the South Wales Police’s malicious prosecution, re ‘being in possession of a machine-gun’, I and members of my family received alarming feed-back from nine of the disgusted jury.
2. All of them were extremely suspicious of the only juror who had refused to discuss the case each day, over two weeks and had appeared to be the ‘police informer’. Coupled with the ‘Foxy’ faked police officer, trying to buy the ‘gun’, it is in keeping with other such conduct I seem to witness in your so-called ‘courts of law’.
3. I require the Ministry of Justice’s procedure laid down for selecting judges and jurors and a copy of the actual records of when you selected them for my January 2010 Crown court trial.
4. I also require copy of the transcript and court log for any future case relating to it.
5. Previously jurors have asked for sight of court records only to be refused. Why is that?
6. On no less than seven occasions your courts have denied my access to any of your buildings despite my being a party in the proceedings without legal representation. Why is that?
7. Following the concocted ‘machine-gun’ trial your court continues to protect the South Wales Police by not allowing me any effective civil redress or remedy. Why is that if not perverse?
8. Following the ‘machine-gun’ trial I was mysteriously no longer a dangerous MAPPA level 3 category 3 registered victim nor suffering from a psychological disorder to concern the Civil Aviation Authority. Why was that if not also concocted by the Crown Prosecution Service?
9. Following acquittal, I was diagnosed with ‘no cancer’ nor ‘significant brain damage’ and even found a surgeon now prepared to carry out my long overdue hip replacement. Why?
10. Are you prepared to give evidence, on oath, in these matters without subpoena?
Maurice J Kirk BVSc
FAO Cardiff Crown Court:
It is also riddled with lies supplied by Welsh prisons and the South Wales Police……..what a bloody joke!
As with the vindictive police’s 33 failed malicious prosecutions public scandal, constituting now of the BS614159 one million pound claim plus numerous other civil damages claims and all still deliberately delayed at every turn , here we now have a another bunch of concocted lies from the HM Justice Ministry in London.
Why the deceit? Because once again this important government department has been repeatedly lied to by the welsh police protected by Cardiff’s cabal of shysters
Extract of e-mail to Crown court for next week’s jury trial
Please find enclosed Claimant responses to 2nd & 3rd Defendant’s amended defences but while all three Defendants refuse to disclose relevant evidence then the Claimant will remain in difficulties.
It stinks, as Dad would say.
FAIR USE NOTICE: This item may contain copyrighted (© ) material. Such material is made available to advance understanding of ecological, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues. This constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed for analysis, commentary, educational and intellectual purposes. In some cases comedy and parody have been recognized as fair use.
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. For more information please visit:
NB: DISCLAIMER: Everything posted on this site conforms to the meaning of the word “alleged” as defined under UK and US Laws and Statutes.