show/hide profile info
Register to take part
email

Maurice, Norman and Michael's cases coincide

  • 5 Replies
  • 1748 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

*

Offline the leveller

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • 3562
  • +75/-0
Maurice, Norman and Michael's cases coincide
« on: January 21, 2013, 10:15:16 PM »
Maurice, Norman and Michael's cases coincide so can anyone in any of these areas try to support please......
 How convenient, supporters cannot be everywhere across the country, sending this round now..k




 
From: Maurice Kirk;
My case is in Cardiff Magstrates Court 22nd Jan. 2013

http://kirkflyingvet.com/blogs/legal/archive/2013/01/18/caswell-clinic-s-enid-blyton-toy-town-psychiatry-and-suicides-come-to-22nd-jan-13-continuing-farce-at-cardiff-magistrates.aspx


  The BCG Annual Conference (24th Nov 2012) video?s have now been released for public viewing on the BCG you tube channel. I hope you have had time to view them and that you enjoyed and found them both informative and inspiring.
To avoid any confusion, here is clarification of  'THE CROWN', 'the truth about'.
 https://www.youtube.com/user/OpenEyeism
   If possible please share with your contacts so we can get the message out !
BCG you tube channel. https://www.youtube.com/user/BCGthe
     One of our guest speakers at the conference, Michael Doherty, has put the word out regards his continuing case and details of his upcoming court trial on the 22nd of this month of which he has invited anyone that can make it to attend, act as witnesses and to give support. Please see the details below. He also mentioned that people can double check the information on his Face Book page by friending him and accessing his page (all details below).
 
 Michaels FaceBook address -  https://www.facebook.com/michael.doherty.9083
 From Michael Doherty re - trial 22nd January Stevenage Magistrates court
 
 Many of you will be aware that I have been charged with the crime of assaulting a court security guard in Cambridge Magistrates court back in August 2012. I was there attempting to lay information for a private criminal prosecution.
 The trial for this starts at Stevenage Magistrates Court on 22nd, 23rd & 24th of January 2013.
 Danesgate,  Stevenage,
 Hertfordshire,
 England
 SG1 1JQ
 
 Please make every effort to attend as the more of us there to see the case, the more likely that truth will result in justice being done, rather than a court system being used to further the interests of those protected by it.....
 
 Let me say the CPS are bricking themselves and have instructed a barrister to prosecute the case, very unusual in a summary only magistrates matter. They are very aware, despite the minor nature of the allegation, that the stakes in this are very high.
 Please have a look at the promo video for the case calling for support;
 
 If you are not aware of the details of this case, please have a look at the following 'beach interview'




 





 
                                           
 
www.kirkflyingvet.com

mauricejohnkirk.wordpress.com
 
 www.wacl.org.uk


[email protected]
 


*

Offline the leveller

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • 3562
  • +75/-0
Re: Maurice, Norman and Michael's cases coincide
« Reply #1 on: January 23, 2013, 12:34:55 AM »
To Mr Sashy Nathan, solicitor & Mr Amos Waldman, barrister.
Gentlemen,
I have today, Monday, received by post the Attorney General's bundle of 141 pages, 15 dividers & one CD.
 He & his gang may have nothing better to do than produce all this garbage (& receive vast amounts of taxpayers' money for doing so) BUT, having seen some of it before, & noticed the many lies, I am CERTAINLY not going to waste my time reading it again!
To recap & sum up:
This is my Final 'FINAL STATEMENT'.
Accused of 'Contempt of Court', how on earth can I 'defend' myself, when I have made it abundantly clear that I have the utmost contempt for those who currently run our courts.   
What I seek to show is that my contempt (& that of a growing number of people) is justified. 
The Attorney General seems to think that my contempt will be lessened by his savagery in trying to put me (completely sane) in a Stalinist 'Mental Hospital' for what few years are left to me to live.  Could anything be more sadistic?  (I send again as an attachment the Andy McCardle document.) 
I am rather disappointed to learn that Mr Waldman 'handed up' my Statement at the previous hearing, when I had specifically asked that it be read out, & I again ask that he reads out my Statement of Facts, with addendums etc. 
This is important, bearing in mind that one of my arguments is that the Official Transcripts cannot be trusted.   I am being more than fair in giving an opportunity for the courts to show that, on this occasion at least, they CAN be accurate.
I ask you please to hammer away at the totally irrelevant lies in the Skeleton Argument & Affidavits (put in purely to blacken my character), & the malice of the Attorney General Dominic Grieve, he being the man who had me thrown out of an Election Selection Committee Meeting in 2008, before he come to power. 
As regards this hearing, I am in the fortunate position that I cannot lose.  If the case goes against me, it will be more proof of the truth of my words.  If (as I belief he will) the Lord Chief Justice rules against the Attorney General, then that will indeed lessen my contempt for his profession. 
In which case I ask you to remind him of my request that he should use 'The Inherent Jurisdiction of the Court' to order an investigation into the 17 years of persecution, this action by the AG being only the latest.  Also that he use that same 'Inherent Jurisdiction' to reduce the obstruction to my own attempts to use the law to seek a remedy for serious wrongs committed against me.   
An example(a comparatively minor one) has just arrived by post today, Monday.  On 17th September 2012 I made a 'Small Claim' against the Chief Constable of West Yorkshire.  Twice, the documents were returned to me for some fictitious fault.  Sent in again with the 'fault' rectified, I heard not a word until today, when the letter arrived.  With it was a Notice of Issue, saying that the Claim had been sent to the Defendant on 15th January 2013. 
SO, IT HAS TAKEN FOUR MONTHS TO HAVE A VERY SIMPLE 'SMALL CLAIM' ISSUED!. 
Was this just incompetence, inefficiency  or laziness?  Or deliberate delay against the hated Litigant In Person?   I am tempted to think the latter. 
I ask you to hammer away at all that which is above at the hearing.
You know you can do it!!
Norman Scarth     


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
CC: [email protected]
Subject: A quick reply.
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2013 10:15:17 +0000

This is a very quick reply to your message.  You will by now have got what will probably be the final version of Addendum2. 
To answer your question,

"If you do still want us to attend, please confirm that your instructions include the fact that although you do not want us to posit a case on your behalf, you require us to defend your position when required to do so at court at the hearing."

 My answer to that, is yes, I DO want you to attend & to defend my position when required to do so.    I particularly ask you to ensure the 'witnesses' answer my written questions, in writing, but also that those I accuse of monstrous lies shall be called in person, & give their 'evidence' from the witness box.  I also ask you to denounce the lies in the affidavits, even the comparatively minor one about me being awarded ?25,000 damages by the ECt-HR - when that court specifically said I should receive NO  damages whatsoever. 

As said, with such a most blatant 'error of fact' how can anyone believe a word that is in the Skelton Argument or the affidavits? 

As you know well (!!!) I am very plain spoken:  With respect, I must say now I have been a little concerned at your emphasis on your 'Duty to the Court'.  I would hope your primary duty, apart from your duty to me, would be your duty to TRUE JUSTICE,  rather than to 'the court'.   

In spite of all, I send my best wishes, & hope we might all come out of this covered in glory!   Something which will enable Amos to put on his CV something a lot bigger than his reference to 'winning my appeal against sentence'!   

Norman Scarth.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
CC: [email protected]
Subject: RE: HM AG v Scarth, case CO/3898/2012. More pages for LCJ
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2013 09:15:20 +0000


Dear Norman, 
 
I'm grateful for your comments on the affidavit evidence. 
 
In advance of the Contempt of Court hearing on Wednesday 23 January 2013, Amos and I wanted to get some further instructions from you on how we can best represent you. 
 
We have seen the material you have served on the Court and the Attorney General's office and noted that your instructions for us are now to do, "NO MORE NOR LESS than to read out this Witness Statement."
 
  At the first hearing on 4 October 2012 , you may remember that we handed up your email response to the Court, as you instructed.  We can undertake to do that again with your statement on this occasion, but you should know that there are other aspects to your case that will require representations to be made on your behalf in the course of a hearing. 
 
Amos, as your barrister, can not be expected to only speak to the content of your statement.  He and I have an obligation to the court to answer questions about your case and respond to any points of law raised by the Attorney General.  We can, of course agree, not to make any further factual admissions about your conduct.  We can also undertake not to put forward any legal arguments on your behalf that you have not set out in your statement but we can not be prevented from responding to enquiries during the hearing. 
 
If you do still want us to attend, please confirm that your instructions include the fact that although you do not want us to posit a case on your behalf, you require us to defend your position when required to do so at court at the hearing.   
 
We await your reply.   
 
Yours,
 

Sashy Nathan
 
Solicitor, Criminal Law Team. 
 


From: Norman Scarth [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: 19 January 2013 00:36
 To: Sashy Nathan; [email protected]
 Subject: HM AG v Scarth, case CO/3898/2012. More pages for LCJ
 
 
 



To Messrs S. Nathan, solicitor & A.Waldman, barrister.
 I believe you already have my Statement of Truth', as sent to the Queen's Bench Office at the RCJ.  This message & attachments are more which have been sent to them.   Though I did not send the 'Portrait' to them (feeling that a few of the words on it were a bit strong!), I do attach it now.
 I send them all to you now you to ensure you are up to date.   
I hope you will do as requested in paragraph 9 of my 'Statement of Truth', to do"NO MORE NOR LESS than to read out this Witness Statement."   
 

However, in addition I would be happy for you to mention the blatant lie in some of the affidavits - which I believe makes it perjury?   It was repeated in the Skeleton Argument, paragraph 13: 
 13. "On 21 May 1998 the Commission declared the application partly admissible and, in a report of 21 October 1998, expressed the unanimous opinion that there had been a violation of Article 6(1) of the Convention. The United Kingdom Government did not seek to contest the opinion of the Commission , and the Defendant was awarded damages of ?21,590.17 [Tab E, KCPM1, p1].
 

The truth is that though the ECt-HR did order that I be paid a few hundred ?s to cover what I had actually paid out in lawyers fees etc, the Court SPECIFICALLY SAID words to the effect that, "We do not order the payment of damages, as the finding of a violation is sufficient satisfaction for the violation".  (Those may not be the exact words in the Decision, but they are accurate in essence, & can easily be checked from the ECt-HR website, something which I do not have time to do).   
 

If the affidavits & the skeleton argument can contain such a gross error (apart from other lies, less easy to prove), how can anyone believe a word in any of them?
 

One other point which can be checked: I believe it was the COURT, and NOT the COMMISSION (now extinct) which made that decision about the (non) payment of damages.   
 Norman Scarth.
 


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


From: [email protected]
 To: [email protected]v.uk
 CC: [email protected]
 Subject: HM AG v Scarth, case CO/3898/2012. More pages for LCJ
 Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2013 00:36:04 +0000


Dear Mr/Ms O'Neill,
 Attached are 3 more pages 'Index', 'Boateng letter' & 'Scharnhorst', to be added to those already sent.   I will also send three copies of 'Portrait of a Hero' by post, as it does not scan well.
 Norman Scarth.





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Subject: RE: HM AG v Scarth, case CO/3898/2012, Skeleton * NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED *
 Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2013 17:11:35 +0000
 From: [email protected]v.uk
 To: [email protected]


Dear Sir, 
 
I confirm that your documents have been added to your papers for hearing by the relevant Judges on 23/1/13. 
 

Yours sincerely, 
 
C O'Neill

ACO Case Progression Officer | Administrative Court Office | Telephone: 020 7947 6655 | Fax: 020 7947 7845
 
If replying by email, please use the following address: [email protected]k
 
 
 


From: Norman Scarth [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: 16 January 2013 16:25
 To: Administrative Court Office London, Skeleton Arguments; Administrative Court Office, List Office; [email protected]
 Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]
 Subject: HM AG v Scarth, case CO/3898/2012, Skeleton
 
 
 

To the Administrative Court Office List Office, Skeleton Argument Office & James Spybey of the Treasury Solicitor's Office.
 Unable to get even acknowledgement of receipt from my own lawyers, or the Clerk to the Rt Hon. Lord Judge, the Lord Chief Justice,   
 I ask the recipients of this message (as in the first line, above) to ensure that the message & attached documents are delivered to the Lord Chief Justice before the hearing on 23rd January (at which he is to preside), & to confirm to me (by email) that this has been done.
 Thanking you in anticipation,
 Norman Scarth.   


*

Offline the leveller

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • 3562
  • +75/-0
NORMAN SCARTH--LAST MINUTE--URGENT
« Reply #2 on: January 23, 2013, 10:40:14 AM »
Attorney General v Scarth, CO3898/2012

To the Skeleton Argument Office.

 

Last minute, Urgent!  Please ensure this reaches the Lord Chief Justice before the end of the hearing.  (aslo sent as an attachment, for easy printing).

 

For all that I have written these last months, the situation can be summed up in 63 words.

 

?The Law? in Britain (The Police & the Courts), deliberately deny me the protection of the law, & deliberately block me from seeking a remedy in the courts for crimes & other wrongs committed against me. 

 

That being so, & it IS fact, then that same ?Law? CANNOT be used to punish me.

 

Indeed, both Police & Courts have themselves committed serious crimes against me, & do so with impunity. 

 

Norman Scarth.


*

Offline the leveller

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • 3562
  • +75/-0
UPDATE ON NORMAN SCARTH
« Reply #3 on: January 23, 2013, 11:02:39 PM »
Lord Chief Justice Judge had the chance to prove me wrong, but stupidly, he muffed it! 
On the Hoffman/Pinochet precedent alone (a re-affirming of LCJ Hewart's ruling in R v Sussex Justices) he was BOUND to dismiss the Attorney General's Application.  It would have achieved the object of proving me wrong, but, they could still have continued in the same corrupt way!  Instead, he proved me ABSOLUTELY RIGHT - that there is only 'ONE-WAY LAW' in Britain!   
The very video they complain of shows me trying to hand up a Sworn Affidavit to District Judge Roy Anderson (masquerading as a magistrate) in Leeds Magistrates' Court to start a Private Prosecution for potentially lethal assaults upon me - & shows it being contemptuously ignored!    THAT shows, most definitely, that we have 'One-Way Law'!
The verdict?  I understand that I was found to be 'In Contempt', sentenced to 28 days in prison on each of two counts, to run concurrently, but that the sentence was suspended for 12 months.  Of course, if I 're-offend', then the sentence will be activated, & I WILL go to prison - if they can catch me!  So (like Mae West) I had better try to HIDE my contempt.  It is going to be difficult!
Would some of you like to make a Freedom of Information request as to how much this whole futile exercise has cost?  Police, (including the large number involved in 'The Foulest Honey-Trap Ever'), those who have been searching for me since, court staff, judges, CPS, 'Security', bailiffs et al.  My guess is somewhere near half a million quid - when the rest of the people are being told there is no money!  There is for lawyers!    AND, of course, there will be more spending yet: for the Appeal to the Appeal Court, then, if necessary, the Supreme Court &, if necessary, the European Court of Human Rights.  Oh, I almost forgot: In the Attorney General's bundle there is evidence that MI6 or someone has been snooping around after me in Athlone!
Norman Scarth.
PS:  I must praise the Skeleton Argument Office of the QB Administrative Court, for their efficiency in delivering my documents to their Lordships, rather than the obstruction I have met from other Court Service Staff elsewhere.  I send this message to them not for them to do anything, but simply to let them know what a dirty business they are part of - in case they did not know already.    NS


*

Offline the leveller

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • 3562
  • +75/-0
Further update on Norman
« Reply #4 on: January 26, 2013, 11:04:07 AM »
To Messrs S. Nathan, solicitor & A.Waldman, barrister.
I believe you already have my Statement of Truth', as sent to the Queen's Bench Office at the RCJ.  This message & attachments are more which have been sent to them, which complete the bundle.   Though I did not send the 'Portrait' to them (feeling that a few of the words on it were a bit strong!) I do attach it now.
I send them all to you now you to ensure you are up to date.   
I hope you will do as requested in paragraph 9 of my 'Statement of Truth', to do"NO MORE NOR LESS than to read out this Witness Statement."    (Statement of Truth).




However, in addition I would be happy for you to mention the blatant lie in some of the affidavits - which I believe makes it perjury?   It was repeated in the Skeleton Argument, paragraph 13:   

13. "On 21 May 1998 the Commission declared the application partly admissible and, in a report of 21 October 1998, expressed the unanimous opinion that there had been a violation of Article 6(1) of the Convention. The United Kingdom Government did not seek to contest the opinion of the Commission , and the Defendant was awarded damages of ?21,590.17 [Tab E, KCPM1, p1].

THE TRUTH: Though the ECt-HR did order that I be paid a few hundred ?s to cover what I had actually paid out (lawyers fees etc,) the Court SPECIFICALLY SAID words to the effect that, "We do not order the payment of damages, as the finding of a violation is sufficient satisfaction for the violation".  (Those may not be the exact words in the Decision, but they are accurate in essence, & can easily be checked from the ECt-HR website, something which I do not have time to do).   

If the affidavits & the skeleton argument can contain such a gross error (apart from other lies, less easy to prove), how can anyone believe a word in any of them? 

One other point which can be checked: I believe it was the COURT, and NOT the COMMISSION (now abolished) which made that decision about the (non) payment of damages.   
Norman Scarth.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]v.uk
CC: [email protected]
Subject: HM AG v Scarth, case CO/3898/2012. More pages for LCJ
Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2013 00:36:04 +0000

Dear Mr/Ms O'Neill,
Attached are 3 more pages 'Index', 'Boateng letter' & 'Scharnhorst', to be added to those already sent.   I will also send three copies of 'Portrait of a Hero' by post, as it does not scan well.
Norman Scarth.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: RE: HM AG v Scarth, case CO/3898/2012, Skeleton * NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED *
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2013 17:11:35 +0000
From: [email protected]v.uk
To: [email protected]


Dear Sir, 

I confirm that your documents have been added to your papers for hearing by the relevant Judges on 23/1/13. 


Yours sincerely, 

C O'Neill

ACO Case Progression Officer | Administrative Court Office | Telephone: 020 7947 6655 | Fax: 020 7947 7845

If replying by email, please use the following address: [email protected]k

 



From: Norman Scarth [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: 16 January 2013 16:25
To: Administrative Court Office London, Skeleton Arguments; Administrative Court Office, List Office; [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: HM AG v Scarth, case CO/3898/2012, Skeleton

 


To the Administrative Court Office List Office, Skeleton Argument Office & James Spybey of the Treasury Solicitor's Office.
Unable to get even acknowledgement of receipt from my own lawyers, or the Clerk to the Rt Hon. Lord Judge, the Lord Chief Justice,   
I ask the recipients of this message (as in the first line, above) to ensure that the message & attached documents are delivered to the Lord Chief Justice before the hearing on 23rd January (at which he is to preside), & to confirm to me (by email) that this has been done.
Thanking you in anticipation,
Norman Scarth. 


*

Offline the leveller

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • 3562
  • +75/-0
FURTHER UPDATE ON NORMAN
« Reply #5 on: January 26, 2013, 11:11:06 AM »
Dear B,  (now amended, better structured than the original, with a few more facts, but still only a part of the full horror).
I am grateful that you wrote as you did, otherwise I may never have known how truly awful was the 'hearing' before the Lord Chief Justice on 23rd January 2013.
That he should allow such poisonous lies to be told - completely irrelevant to the charge against me - was diabolical.  Unfortunately, all too many swallow them, including some of my 'supporters' who are less than staunch, demanding that I answer the lies. 

I just do not have time left to live to do so, but to them I say, "You are asking the wrong questions of the wrong man: Why don't you ask the Government, the Judiciary & the Police about the events of 8th August 1999?"   (Eleven months BEFORE the 'crime' I am supposed to have committed!) 

On that day came the first potentially lethal terror attack on me by a mob-handed gang of West Yorkshire Police, being used as a PRIVATE ARMY, without even the PRETENCE of a lawful excuse!  There has been a NATIONWIDE cover-up of that police crime - Amnesty International, Liberty, Justice (all controlled by lawyers), ALL the 'News Media', MPs et al joining in the cover-up!   
See attached letter from Leeds Councillor Amanda Carter.  It was a wonderful letter, but she got a contemptuous brush-off from the police, as did others who wrote.  There is more to tell however: a couple of days later she contacted me, begging, "PLease keep me out of this!"  Why should she back-track so badly?  She was a new, idealistic councillor, newly married to Andrew Carter, a very EXPERIENCED councillor, Leader of the Conservative Group on Leeds City Council.  It is blindingly obvious she had written the letter without telling him, that when he learned of it he had blown her head off for getting involved!  There is more to tell about them, but no time now.
Norman Scarth.
PS:  Newspaper report, 'Siege Over Norman' also attached, which you may be able to read, but not fully understand without explanation.  Again, there is more to tell. 
PPS:  That terror arrack was intended to silence me, a heart attack or a stroke the hoped for outcome.  Few men of my age (74 then) would not have had one or the other.  It came JUST SEVENTEEN DAYS after my single-handed success in the European Court of Human Rights, and JUST SIX WEEKS  after I had told Lord Woolf in the Civil Appeal Court, "Her Majety the Queen, whose courts these are, is badly served by the shysters who now infest the judiciary!"    Was there a connection?  Was there also a connection with the fact that I had ANOTHER Application in to the ECt-HR - MUCH hotter than the previous, successful one?   With the trauma of the terror I was not able to progress it further, so they they WERE successful in stopping that!
Norman Scarth   
« Last Edit: January 26, 2013, 11:17:00 AM by the leveller »


email
 
Share this topic...
In a forum
(BBCode)
In a site/blog
(HTML)



COMODO SECURE

Powered by EzPortal
Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 
Comodo SSL