Unlawful delay in machine-gun/parole/4th action/appeal at RCJ civil cases re 12th Sept’s 4th jury trial denied disclosure
They therefore doubled my prison term, in 2014, simply for my purported publication of a photograph of passers by in Swansea, WITH THEIR PERMISSION!
Now His Honour Judge Keyser QC is minded, it would appear by the latest court document below, to have blocked my Article 10 infringement addition omitted in error in my September 2016 one million pound ‘particulars of claim’ against my own Ministry of Justice.
My own administration in London, to my incensed embarrassment, is once again at the English and Welsh tax payers’ expense left, yet again, with the cleaning up to do for the evil short arsed shits in Cardiff who seem to be allowed to do what they want , when they want and answerable neither to the laws of our land nor our UK Government.
My July 2016 ‘particulars of claim’, altered to my September 2016 claim was,, in itself, amended by my simple re insertion of the Article 10, the heart of the matter.
Now this is blocked by a Cardiff judge because, may be, it is the very same legal argument (common sense argument) now before my 4th jury, on the subject of abuse of process, on 12th September 2017 Cardiff Crown Court re police/prison failed disclosure of evidence contrary to Article 6.
All because of Cardiff Cabal’s continuing conspiracy to either alter or destroy incriminating public records, while preventing my attending no less than seven court cases, so far, as I will not be blackmailed in using a court controlled lawyer, the bastards.
Nine of my machine-gun MAPPA jury told us, after the acquittal, that there was obviously a police informant amongst them as he refused either to discuss the merits of the case, each day over two weeks or enter a ‘not guilty’ plea.
There will be a minimum of two informants to report back to the prosecution on my next jury for the Dr Tegwyn Williams ‘stitch up’ 4th jury trial.
ECHR Article 10 – Freedom of expression
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
16 09 07 Parole amended ParticularsofClaim
Parol Board amendedLeithleyParticularsofClaim
2nd July 2017 C90CF012
FAO Cardiff County Court BS614159 +2
Maurice Kirk v South Wales Police, HM Justice Ministry & HM Parole Board
- At the last hearing, I asked for judgements/orders etc to be sent by email address.
- At my April/May 2016 default judgement application (first form error for correct case number, corrected by 2nd hand written). Neither Parole Board nor Justice Ministry filed defences unless you now say otherwise? What was the result, please?
- I enclose my first 2016 claim enclosing article 10 inadvertently left out of my 7th Sept amended particulars and ask for proof it was filed with the court last year?
- 4. At the last hearing, by sheer chance that I even attended believing I was legally represented, I left more confused over a purported judgement of last summer, by a judge North? Please send me copy confirming it had been originally sent by email?
- 5. At the last hearing, if my poor memory is correct, defendant or defendants denied knowledge of my 7th September 2016 amended claim being received when it was served on the court and I was told any fee paid.
- 6, Now I have sent again to your court another copy, as per court direction, of my 7th September 2016 particulars and request proof of service as I have asked for proof of service, in the past, for my original application for full default judgment in 2016.
- I remember last time I was so stupid to sue HM Partnership, the reason for remaining in the EU for protection of HM widespread abuse by underlings, Cardiff County Court apologised to itself saying, “perhaps, the service of particulars of claim had not been served on the HM Governor of Cardiff Prison’. By mistake?
- ‘A likely story’ when the co-defendant, the police, acknowledged receipt of service!
- You still refuse disclosure of records amassed in my first HM Partnership skirmish (5th Action) and since then closed ranks with your police to prevent my expediting my cases to avoid this confusion when simply not letting me stand at the public counter, contrary to law.
- Your court refuses to let me have sight of the BS614159 +2 Maurice Kirk v police claim court records now filed in the RCJ for appeal requiring copy of the court log, exhibits, evidence and all court refusals, especially re witness subpoenas, for RCJ.
- Is it any wonder the RCJ appear to continue to ignore my requests to process my appeal, as a ‘can of judicial welshing worms’ while your court has confiscated my police interview tape, ‘indictable and not under caution’ from one of my 33 successful defences for 33 malicious prosecutions from 100 yet to come before your so called ‘system’.
Maurice J Kirk BVSc
CCRC, Cardiff Courts & NHS (Wales) all Refuse to Disclose My Medical Records for 12th September’s Jury
video: MK in France recently:
Does it stink or does it really stink?
Slipped copy of hurriedly rewritten page of Cardiff court log
It is now eight years since in 2009 Dr Tegwyn Williams said there was significant irreversible brain damage where Dr Williams said he could not predict how that condition would progress. Does it therefore follow for the Court to reassess Mr Kirk’s health to see how Mr Kirk’s significant irreversible brain damage has progressed.
Or do we follow up and find the result of the radiological investigations of 2009 where there are Judge Cooke’s comments of the 24 June 2010 saying:-
“..there were clearly radiological investigations undertaken…”
What is certain is Dr Williams is only a psychiatrist and he also knows that Professor Wood is only a psychologist and that neither Psychiatrist Dr Williams or Psychology Professor Wood are medically qualified to determine the presence or absence of brain damage from brain scans to report their own findings to a Crown Court.
Would it save the time of the Court to face the truth that Dr Williams has entirely made things up, and does so in other cases. Please would the Court read Chapter 10 of “Justice for William” by Helen P Simpson to see a trend regards Dr Williams.
Reasonable excuse – dissemination of truth to implement various Mental Health Acts.
Dr Williams is a Psychiatrist who can take away a person liberty. To keep those powers he must get the support of his colleagues, such as two other psychiatrists with such powers to sign his renewal or else he cannot continue.
Therefore it is a part the implementation of the Mental Health Act 1983, 2007 and all the various updating measures to disseminate information to prevent psychiatrists who do wrong and so who are unsuitable from continuing.
Entirely making up significant irreversible damage is obviously a material issue to being considered unsuitable to continue as a Psychiatrist.
All psychiatrists, employers, regulators and insurers who may be asked to counter sign or support that Dr Williams remain a psychiatrist need to know the truth, as a part of the implementation of the law (as in the various Mental Health Acts).
Reasonable excuse – Are Judges allowed to impose Restraining Orders that would collude in a potentially substantial insurance fraud?
A condition of being a UK Section 12 doctor is that they prove they have insurance to cover those duties. The insurers need to know if there is a history of making things up so that the doctor is obviously unsuitable as being too much of an insurance risk.
Preventing the dissemination of material information about Dr Williams trend of dishonesty to potential insurers is highly improper if not potentially fraud. A Restraining Order made by a Court that has obviously ignored the facts and seemingly colludes in fraud can be at least morally wrong if not an illegality, to give reasonable excuse to ignore aspects of it’s conditions.
GMC use the “local” Responsible Officer system and so could not previously investigate.
By the Medical Act 1983 the GMC “local” Responsible Officer who recommended to the GMC whether a case against Dr Williams should proceed was Dr Bruce Ferguson. But Dr Ferguson is his friend and is accused of collusion with Dr Williams.
But Dr Ferguson has now retired. The GMC use a five year time limit rule Therefore by Dr Williams still abusing his position as a doctor who works with police, to continue his vendetta by using obviously false reports and false comments, the GMC can start afresh and now seek to investigate.