Search

Book Publication: The Allurement of Reality (2)

The attachment to the email I sent was this chapter ‘The Final Proof of State-Organised Persecution. Olympia Publishers replied instantly as follows:

Book Publication: The Allurement of Reality (2)

Submissions <submissions@olympiapublishers.com>

To

Shan Panigrahi

9 Dec 2015 at 1:34 PM

Please call me at my office


I did not do so for the submissions could not be allowed to be covered up.


At 3.40 pm an email came from a Mr Dodds of Maidstone Magistrates Court which sought to focus on Hodge Jones and Allen being the subject of the private prosecution for criminal conspiracy rather then the whole lot of the legal authorities. I had to reply or would have gone down as having wasted court time. Sent the following email back:


Private prosecution for criminal conspiracy (2)

Shan Panigrahi <shanpanigrahi@yahoo.co.uk>


To

Dodds, Malcolm

9 December 2015 at 4:13 PM


Dear MrDodds


1. Thank you for your email.


2. My complaint was against the Legal Ombudsman that it had failed to discipline Hodge, Jones and Allen, Fosters Law and ELS Legal in relation to the Firms not providing me with the basic minimum legal information that the law obliges solicitor Firms to do in relation to applications for legal assistance. Please note that referring an applicant to the Citizens Advice Bureau if a Firm is unable to assist an applicant does not constitute the fulfillment of these legal obligations. The Firms are obliged to look at the Law Society's database on types of litigations and then forward an application made to another Firm that it believes covers the litigation in question on principle. I have made it clear to the Legal Ombudsman that there is no lawful reason that it should delay the disciplining of the solicitors in question for failing in this requirement which constitutes ample grounds for suspecting that he has entered into criminal conspiracy to defraud me of my legal entitlements as extensiverly elaborated to the solicitors in question.


3. Hence my query to the Medway Magistrates was and remains as follows: is the Legal Ombudsman immuned to being privately prosecuted on these grounds?


Yours sincerely


Dr Shantanu Panigrahi



On Wednesday, 9 December 2015, 15:45, "Dodds, Malcolm" <malcolm.dodds@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk> wrote:


Dr Panigrahi: I have been made aware of your wish to pursue a private prosecution for criminal conspiracy against Hodge Jones and Allen, Solicitors. If you wish to apply for me to issue a summons please can you specify the date(s) and place(s) of the alleged offences, what precisely you allege the firm has done, in what way you consider this amounts to criminal conspiracy and what evidence you have to support the prosecution. I can issue a summons but need to be satisfied that the offence(s) you allege are known to law and that the ingredients of the offence are prima facie present.

Yours sincerely,

Malcolm Dodds

Clerk to the Justices for Kent

I am based at Maidstone Magistrates' Court, Palace Avenue, Maidstone, Kent, ME15 6LL. Tel: 01622 680065; DX 152303 Maidstone 19.

Reply Reply to All Forward More


He replied as follows:


Dodds, Malcolm <malcolm.dodds@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk>

To

'Shan Panigrahi'

9 December 2015 at 4:31 PM

Dr Panigrahi: my duty is to advise the Justices and I am not permitted to advise potential parties at the risk of losing my impartiality. However my advice to Justices would be that the Legal Ombudsman is not immune from a private prosecution if he or she is said to have committed a criminal offence.

Yours sincerely,

Malcolm Dodds

Clerk to the Justices for Kent

I am based at Maidstone Magistrates' Court, Palace Avenue, Maidstone, Kent, ME15 6LL. Tel: 01622 680065; DX 152303 Maidstone 19.


I replied instantly with the following:

Shan Panigrahi <shanpanigrahi@yahoo.co.uk>

To

Dodds, Malcolm

Today at 4:42 PM

Dear Mr Dodds


1. Thank you for this clarification.


2. The date on which the criminal offence was committed was 27 November 2015. Please therefore issue the summons accordingly now.


Yours sincerely


Dr Shantanu Panigrahi

Reply Reply to All Forward More



Nothing further came back from Mr Malcolm Dodds thus indicating that his original email was simply a ploy to set up a cover up of the issues. He is unwilling to discuss whether the specific charge that I have made in relation to the legal obligations of solicitors in British Justice System is the correct interpretation of the law so that the decision of the Legal Ombudsman not to reply to my 1 December 2015 letter was a clear-cut evidence of criminal conspiracy to protect the solicitors and through it the perpetrators of the injustices that I have been victimized with over 17 years. Olympia Publishers are already part of the litigation lodged against British Publishers who would not publish my book of what I have suffered so that in the evening I sent an updated copy of this book to my sister in India for publication by a local publisher near her home in Orissa instead.


On the morning of 10 November 2015 I was in limbo again as nothing came back not even from my sister who I suspected earlier was dragging her heels about helping me with the publication of my book saying it was too critical of the Establishment and that the earlier version that I had sent her had been somehow wiped off her computer inbox but not replying to my Facebook message of whether I should send it to her again. Has she been told to not communicate with me by the Indian Government: Is that paranoia? Why can not she do something so simple for her own brother?



I was all alone and had to go on with my truth-seeking. For this I had to ascertain more details so sent the following email to Mr Dodds:


Private Prosecution of the Legal Ombudsman with respect to its proceedings under Case number CMP-024216

Shan Panigrahi <shanpanigrahi@yahoo.co.uk>

To

malcolm.dodds@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk

10 December 2015 at 7:57 AM


To

Malcolm Dodds

Clerk to the Justices for Kent

Maidstone Magistrates' Court,

Palace Avenue,

Maidstone,

Kent, ME15 6LL.

Tel: 01622 680065; DX 152303 Maidstone 19.

By Email: malcolm.dodds@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk


Dear Mr Dodds


1. As the Prosecutor (unless the rules governing private prosecutions prevent this: please advise) in this Private Prosecution of the 'Legal Ombudsman for Criminal Conspriacy', I believe that the procedures require the Defendants' legal team to be given the detail line of questioning underlying the prosecution in advance. These are as follows:


(a) Why did the Legal Ombudsman not reply to my email of 23rd November 2015, 10.34 am by email or in the post?


(b) Did the Legal Ombudsman inform any of the solicitors at any time of the lodgement of my Case at the Legal Ombudsman and if so on which dates and specific times?


(c) Why did neither the Legal Ombudsman nor Hodge, Jones and Allen acknowledge my email of 27 November 2015, 8.18 am, by email; and reply to its contents as I required them to do to me and Chatham Magistrates Court?


(d) When was the decision made by the Legal Ombudsman to draft it's letter that I received in the post on 1 December 2015 as my first piece of acknowledgement that proceedings were under way, and why were not the names of the solicitors being complained of specified in this letter that was apparently issued on 27 November 2015 if we go by the date on the letter?


(e) When did the Legal Ombudsman first know of the existence of my 28 November 2015 email, 8.28 am, to ELS Legal?


(f) Why did the Legal Ombudsman not reply to my email of 1 December 2015, 1.52 pm?


(g) Why did Hodge Jones and Allen send me an email on 1 December 2015, 10.09 am, in which it made no mention that it had received intimation of the proceedings from the Legal Ombudsman but instead stated that it could no longer assist me with my £5 million Claim against Kent Police because of the corporate private prosecution that I intended to embark on if it failed to act for me? Further why did it indicate that up until that moment all my applications to the Firm for legal assistance were under consideration, when it was all-too evident that its official Mr Sebastian Del Monte had refused to address my explanation of the central original question that I had started my submissions to the Firm with, namely whether anything could be done legally about Regional Employment Judge Hildebrand by way of a private prosecution or litigation on him?


(h) Why has ELS Legal not replied to my email to the Firm of 29 December 2015, 8.20 am?


2. Please let me have the replies of the Legal Ombudsman and other cited respondents to this 'Case for the Prosecution', and the Justices' observations on the application with further directions for the furtherance of the prosecution before any Hearing is arranged.


3. Please acknowledge receipt of this email immediately for legal purposes.


Yours sincerely


Dr Shantanu Panigrahi

3 Hoath Lane

Wigmore

Gillingham

Kent ME8 0SL


The reply from Mr Dodds attached a Case document on Misconduct in Public Office with the following covering note:

Private Prosecution of the Legal Ombudsman with respect to its proceedings under Case number CMP-024216 (2)

Dodds, Malcolm <malcolm.dodds@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk>

To

'Shan Panigrahi'

CC

Dodds, Malcolm

10 December 2015 at 8:11 AM

Dr Panigrahi: the law on mounting a private prosecution is summarised in the attached case. You must persuade me (since I have the power to issue a summons) that an offence known to law has been committed and that the ingredients of the alleged offence are prima facie present. There is no power for the court to question a prospective defendant.

Yours sincerely,

Malcolm Dodds

Clerk to the Justices for Kent

I am based at Maidstone Magistrates' Court, Palace Avenue, Maidstone, Kent, ME15 6LL. Tel: 01622 680065; DX 152303 Maidstone 19.

Attached to the email was a ‘R’ document of a Case precedent relating to Private Prosecutions.

However, within minutes Mr Dodds also returned to the ‘Private prosecution for criminal conspiracy’ thread and posted the following reply:

On Thursday, 10 December 2015, 8:16, "Dodds, Malcolm" <malcolm.dodds@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk> wrote:


Dr Panigrahi: you will need to specify:

1. Where the alleged offence(s) took place

2. What precisely what you allege the Legal Ombudsman has done that amounts to criminal conspiracy. This will include specifying what alleged offence(s) the Legal Ombudsman was conspiring to commit.

3. The evidence you have to establish the prima facie ingredients of the offence.

Yours sincerely,

Malcolm Dodds

Clerk to the Justices for Kent

I am based at Maidstone Magistrates' Court, Palace Avenue, Maidstone, Kent, ME15 6LL. Tel: 01622 680065; DX 152303 Maidstone 19.


I replied on this thread only with the following email:

Shan Panigrahi <shanpanigrahi@yahoo.co.uk>

To

Dodds, Malcolm

10 December 2015 at 8:37 AM

Dear Mr Dodds


1. The alleged offence took place at the Legal Ombudsman's Office.


2. The Legal Ombudsman has shut up in response to my application of complaint against three solicitor Firms: that is the criminal offence displaying criminal conspiracy.


3. The evidence I have is that I did not receive any letters or emails from him apart from the one I have informed you about in my email of 7.57 am this morning.


4. What more evidence do you need before issuing the summons?


Yours sincerely


Dr Shantanu Panigrahi


Mr Dodds replied with:

On Thursday, 10 December 2015, 11:33, "Dodds, Malcolm" <malcolm.dodds@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk> wrote:


Dr Panigrahi: a failure to respond to correspondence cannot amount to a criminal conspiracy. There is no offence that I am aware of relating to the failure to respond to correspondence or to pursue a complaint.

Yours sincerely,

Malcolm Dodds

Clerk to the Justices for Kent

I am based at Maidstone Magistrates' Court, Palace Avenue, Maidstone, Kent, ME15 6LL. Tel: 01622 680065; DX 152303 Maidstone 19.


I responded with a delayed reply because there were other developments from Olympia Publishers who posted an email asking me again to call the office and Tanya Cummins replying with a nasty email both of which I had to first deal (with as they affected court proceedings) by telephoning the Publishers, only to find that it was a ploy on the Publishers part to get me to actually write a reply and not telephone because they cut me off very quickly with no discussions having taken place. Today’s exchange with Tanya was as follows:


Your comment posted in my Blog (5)

Shan Panigrahi <shanpanigrahi@yahoo.co.uk>

To

tanya Cummins

10 December 2015 at 2:39 PM

Ms Cummins


You clearly told me you would give me as much information as I liked. I need to know who took Mr Kashif Irfan to which court and won, and who is now running Clearly Business Solutions Limited. Please provide this information immediately so that I have factual evidence of his wrongdoings at Shell petrol stations in the Mid Kent Cluster.


Yours sincerly


Dr Shantanu Panigrahi


On Thursday, 10 December 2015, 11:21, tanya Cummins <tanyastalk@outlook.com> wrote:


Yes and I gave you my telephone number. Please ask somebody else as your attitude is rather rude.


Having negotiated these traps I sent the following email back to Mr Dodds of Maidstone Magistrates:

Shan Panigrahi <shanpanigrahi@yahoo.co.uk>

To

Dodds, Malcolm

10 December 2015 at 2:49 PM

Dear Mr Dodds


Do you agree or not that at the very least the Legal Ombudsman is guilty of gross misconduct in public office?


Yours sincerely


Dr Shantanu Panigrahi


There was no reply nor any emails from any other source for the rest of the day. In the evening I was of the opinion that I could not blog any of this because the situation was indeed revealing the operation of State-mounted oppression through the legal processes, as I suspected, so who do you attack by blogging or pursuing through the same State’s legal channels.

Overnight, a reply came back from Ms Tanya Cummins, as follows:


On Friday, 11 December 2015, 0:41, tanya Cummins <tanyastalk@outlook.com> wrote:

Do not send me anymore messages. you have no manners, and I do not wish to help you.


The ideal path determined by satya-advaita meant that this had to be probed before the new working day got going and the truth further established to save my legal involvements, my Blog and my book contents. So I sent back the following reply:


Your comment posted in my Blog (7)

Shan Panigrahi <shanpanigrahi@yahoo.co.uk>

To

tanya Cummins

11 Dec 2015 at 7:41 AM

Ms Cummins


You are under investigation for suspected entrapment to cause me to post libellous comments about Mr Kashif Irfan in my Blog, which I understand is a criminal offence. So please provide your full name and address, and the information that I have requested earlier in my emails.


Yours sincerely


Dr Shantanu Panigrahi



Nothing was happening for me and I did not feel like facing another weekend in the limbo doing my menial job at the Newsagency, so that the silence had to be probed. I sent the following email on the basis that lack of reply meant that it had been accepted:


From: Shan Panigrahi [mailto:shanpanigrahi@yahoo.co.uk] Sent: 11 December 2015 09:47 To: Dodds, Malcolm Subject: PRIVATE PROSECUTION: MISCONDUCT IN PUBLIC OFFICE BY THE LEGAL OMBUDSMAN

To

Malcolm Dodds

Clerk to the Justices for Kent

Maidstone Magistrates' Court,

Palace Avenue,

Maidstone,

Kent, ME15 6LL.

Tel: 01622 680065; DX 152303 Maidstone 19.

By Email: malcolm.dodds@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk


Dear Mr Dodds


Please send me the written observations made by the Justices on my 'Case for the Prosecution' as submitted to Maidstone Magistrates' Court at 7.57 am on 10 December 2017 to your email address, and the directions that the Justices have issued for the furtherance of this Private Prosecution.


Yours sincerely