top of page
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.


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



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


Dr Shantanu Panigrahi


He replied instantly with the following two emails in succession:

PRIVATE PROSECUTION: MISCONDUCT IN PUBLIC OFFICE BY THE LEGAL OMBUDSMAN (2)

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

To

'Shan Panigrahi'

11 December 2015 at 9:48 AM

Dr Panigrahi: you refer to a document submitted in 2017. I assume this is in error. Please can you clarify your request.

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.


And then on the Private Prosecution for Criminal Conspiracy thread, he replied:


On Friday, 11 December 2015, 9:49, "Dodds, Malcolm" <malcolm.dodds@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk> wrote:


Dr Panigrahi: I cannot advise you. I must remain impartial. You should seek independent legal advice to assist you wish such a query.

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. PRIVACY AND CONFIDENTIALITY

I replied only to the latter with the following email:

Private prosecution for criminal conspiracy (10)

Shan Panigrahi <shanpanigrahi@yahoo.co.uk>

To

Dodds, Malcolm

11 December 2015 at 10:17 AM

Dear Mr Dodds


1. I refer you to 'R (on the application of DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS) v SUNDERLAND MAGISTRATES' COURT (2014) [2014] EWHC 613 (Admin) QBD (Admin) (Rafferty L.J, Jay J) 31/01/2014 concerning the charge of MISCONDUCT IN PUBLIC OFFICE that is now to be prosecuted because the evidence that I have submitted for this lesser charge does merit the issuing of the summons that I have applied for because, as required, I have clearly established that the essential ingredients are prima facie present, the offence is not out of time, the court has jurisdiction, and you have not ruled thus far (despite my clear request for you to consider the point) that as the informant I do not have the necessary authority to prosecute. Further, you have made no observations that the allegation is vexatious.


2. I should therefore be grateful for your detailed reasons for not issuing the summons on this modification of the charge to be prosecuted in order that I may consider submitting your arguments and reasoning to the appropriate judicial review authority overseeing your role in private prosecutions. Please send me the email address of this authority with your final report.

Yours sincerely

Dr Shantanu Panigrahi


The R document that I referred to was the one Mr Dodds had sent me in response to my ‘Case for the Prosection’ email of 10 December 2015, 7.57 am. There was no reply. Soon however, the following email came from Tanya Cummins:


Your comment posted in my Blog (9)

On Friday, 11 December 2015, 11:47, tanya Cummins <tanyastalk@outlook.com> wrote:

Leave me alone or I will report you for harassment. You do not know how to speak to people. I was helping you, not the other way around. Now, whoever you are, I have your information, so as you are a very rude human being I am choosing to withdraw my offer to back it your allegations. You have no rights to my personal information and you seem very uneducated on the law. Like I said and I repeat, leave me alone.



Had to hit her with the following reply:

Your comment posted in my Blog (9)

Shan Panigrahi <shanpanigrahi@yahoo.co.uk>

To

tanya Cummins

11 December 2015 at 1:03 PM

Ms Cummins


Your conduct has already been referred by me to the legal authorities directly and through my solicitor Hodge Jones and Allen under the 'Internet Complaint' crimes that I suffered: why has Kent Police not been round to question you?


Yours sincerely


Dr Shantanu Panigrahi


She replied with:


On Friday, 11 December 2015, 13:56, tanya Cummins <tanyastalk@outlook.com> wrote:


I have now reported you to the police


I hit back with:


Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2015 14:25:21 +0000 From: shanpanigrahi@yahoo.co.uk To: tanyastalk@outlook.com Subject: Re: Your comment posted in my Blog

Ms Cummins


What defence did you provide to the Police?


Dr Shantanu Panigrahi


I decided to try and obtain a final answer from Olympia Publishers on the publication of this book as follows:

Book Publication: The Allurement of Reality

Shan Panigrahi <shanpanigrahi@yahoo.co.uk>

To

Submissions

11 December 2015 at 1:42 PM

To

OLYMPIA PUBLISHERS 60 Cannon Street London EC4N 6NP United Kingdom Tel: +44 (0)203 755 3166



Dear Olympia Publishers


1. When I submitted the samples of my book, you wrote:


Dear Shantanu Panigrahi, Thank you for submitting your work to us online. This will now be passed to our editorial team who will evaluate your work. In order to do this the material you have submitted will be reviewed by more than one member of the editorial section, and a subsequent joint evaluation carried out; this can take between 3-4 weeks. If we feel your work would be appropriate for our reading lists we will then ask to view your full manuscript. Thank you for your patience. Kind regards, Editorial


2. Did you feel my work is appropriate for your reading list so that I should now send you my full manuscript?


Yours sincerely


Dr Shantanu Panigrahi

3 Hoath Lane

Wigmore

Gillingham

Kent ME8 0SL



The reference to Hodge Jones and Allen in my email to Tanya Cummins was appropriate because the Case at Maidstone Magistrates was converted into Misconduct in Public Office’ by the Legal Ombudsman. The evidence was emerging that the actors were all stuck to each other with glue, protecting each other for the State whether or not a central State authoritywas coordinating the actions of all those who I classify as having persecuted me. It seemed higly unlikely that a central committee could have the resources and the intelligence to carry out such detailed and coordinated activities which is why I now felt confident to conclude that this State was formed on Earth as a unit and its activities are directed as a unit by the actions of a guna consciousness god, possibly Shiva in view of how evil and ignorant the people were.


During late afternoon four emails came. The first from Hodge Jones and Allen, on the thread relating to the Shell Tribunal matter of my email of 09 December 2015 07:42, as follows:

On Friday, 11 December 2015, 15:47, Nigel Richardson <NRichardson@hja.net> wrote:


Dear Dr Panigrahi

We are not acting for you in this matter.

Nigel Richardson | Partner | For Hodge Jones & Allen


This was followed by Mr Dodds of Maidstone Magistrates reply, as follows:

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

To

'Shan Panigrahi'

1 Dec 2015 at 4:15 PM

Dr Panigrahi: the only information you have provided me is that the Legal Ombudsman has not responded to correspondence from you and has not pursued a complaint against solicitors on your behalf. The element of the offence of misconduct in public office include the wilful misconduct which involves deliberately doing something which is wrong knowing it to be wrong or with reckless indifference as to whether it is wrong or not. There must be corruption or dishonesty or conduct of such degree that the misconduct is calculated to injure the public interest so as to call for condemnation and punishment, The threshold for the offence is a high one requiring conduct so far below acceptable standards as to amount to an abuse of the public's trust in the officer holder. A mistake, even a serious one, will not suffice. You have not sent me information to show the prima facie ingredients of such an offence.

If you wish to judicially review my decision you have to complete an application for judicial review. Details of how to do so this can be obtained by searching on the internet for 'application for judicial review'.

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.


Then came a letter from the ProChancellor of the University of London on the Dissertation issue for my MSc which I had queried the University on through the past few months with the result that my request to have it examined was repeatedly rejected. And then there was an email from Tanya Cummins:

On Friday, 11 December 2015, 16:43, tanya Cummins <tanyastalk@outlook.com> wrote:


your continuous emails to me after being told to stop. the police can track your address from shell, so I suggest you deal with your problems on your own as you sound like a person who deserves all you get. you are not my problem, and I wish I had never heard from you. (and by the way, your solicitor is useless. I have used them myself).


I started negotiating with these emails first by replying to Hodge Jones and Allen, as follows:

Shan Panigrahi <shanpanigrahi@yahoo.co.uk>

To

Nigel Richardson

1 Dec 2015 at 4:34 PM

Dear Mr Richardson


Have you completed all your deliberations and decided whether Hodge Jones and Allen Is acting on any matter on my behalf?


Yours sincerely


When no reply came, I decided to turn the tables by switching all complaints back to the Police with the following reply to Tanya Cummins:

Shan Panigrahi <shanpanigrahi@yahoo.co.uk>

To

tanya Cummins

Today at 5:58 PM

Dear Ms Cummins


From what you tell me about solicitors Hodge Jones and Allen, it appears that you do have a point that the Police needs to consider in this matter. I will provide supporting evidence if I am required to do so. The Police need not go through Shell to find my address: I live in 3 Hoath Lane, Wigmore, Gillingham, Kent ME8 0SL, if you would forward this to the Police along with your version of events relating to the Tribunal proceedings.


Thank you


Dr Shantanu Panigrahi


Then hit back at London University with the following reply that led to a minor exchange, as shown in the thread:

Your email dated 5 November 2015 (4)

Shan Panigrahi <shanpanigrahi@yahoo.co.uk>

To

Mary Stiasny

11 Dec 2015 at 6:14 PM

Dear Ms Stiasny


Your refusal to forward my complaint to the OIA with your defence against the argument that I have just submitted will have to be addressed by a court of law because I am seeking financial compensation from the University for not fulfilling its legal responsibility to appoint a qualified Course Tutor to oversee my Dissertation.


Yours sincerely


Dr Shantanu Panigrahi



On Friday, 11 December 2015, 18:06, Mary Stiasny <Mary.Stiasny@london.ac.uk> wrote:


Dear Dr Panigrahi,

Thank you for your e mail. I must refer you to the final paragraph of my letter to you, sent earlier today, where I give you the OIA’s website. You must refer to that and complete the form for complaints which you will find there. The University cannot do this on your behalf.

Yours sincerely,

Mary Stiasny

Dr Mary Stiasny

Pro Vice-Chancellor (International) and Chief Executive

University of London International Programmes Stewart House | 32 Russell Square | London WC1B 5DN | United Kingdom Tel: +44 (0)20 7862 8294


From: Shan Panigrahi [mailto:shanpanigrahi@yahoo.co.uk] Sent: 11 December 2015 17:47 To: Catherine Skelton <Catherine.Skelton@london.ac.uk>; Mary Stiasny <Mary.Stiasny@london.ac.uk> Subject: Re: Your email dated 5 November 2015

To

Mary Stiasny

Pro Vice-Chancellor (International) and Chief Executive

University of London International Programmes


11 December 2015


Dear Ms Stiasny


1. Thank you for your letter dated 10 December 2015 that was forwarded to me by Mrs Catherine Skelton (Executive Officer) this afternoon by email at 2.55 pm.


2. You have failed to take into account that I had rejected the advice of my Course Tutor at Wye on his verbal comments on my Dissertation that I found illogical and ill-considered such as to be displaying a total lack of understanding and appreciation of scientifc and cultural arguments upon which the Livestock component of Agriculture in India is based so that his refusal to forward the 1996/1997 version of the Dissertation that I submitted to Wye College to you at the University of London within the time-limit applicable is the issue that is under appeal for the granting of the MSc. This is the reason that I asked the University to appoint a different Course Tutor to assess that Dissertation. As such I do wish to have this case to be considered now as an exceptional case by the Office of the Independant Adjudicator for Higher Education (OIA; http://www.olahe.org.uk/making-a-complaint-to-the-ola.aspx) without delay.

3. Would you kindly forward this email to OIA, or do I need to do this myself? If the latter please let me have OIA's email address to save on costs of printing and posting.

Yours sincerely

Dr Shantanu Panigrahi

3 Hoath Lane

Wigmore

Gillingham

Kent ME8 0SL

On Friday, 11 December 2015, 14:55, Catherine Skelton <Catherine.Skelton@london.ac.uk> wrote:

Dear Dr Panigrahi,

Please see attached letter from Dr Mary Stiasny in response to your email of 5 November 2015.

Catherine Skelton


I had decided not to take any action for the time being at least on the Dodds letter from the Magistrates Clerk because there was no reply from Hodge Jones and Allen which meant that that the Legal Ombudsman was being given more time to respond to my complaint. This means that I will have to wait the full eight weeks that the Ombudsman is allowed before taking action of any kind. If the Police contact me I will refer the Magistrates Clerk to the Police as a crime for no issuing the summons on the Legal Ombudsman. This was the path that I worked on to survive in dignity in this land of arseholes.


By 12 December 2015 morning with no contact from the Police overnight decided to lodge a complaint against Mr Dodds for I needed proceedings as follows:


Private prosecution for criminal conspiracy (12)

Shan Panigrahi <shanpanigrahi@yahoo.co.uk>

To

Dodds, Malcolm

12 Dec 2015 at 7:47 AM


Dear Mr Dodds


1. I strongly object to your statement that 'the only information I have provided you is that the Legal Ombudsman has not responded to correspondence from me and has not pursued a complaint against solicitors on my behalf'. By his actions and inaction the Legal Ombudsman is wilfully protecting the named solicitors and Kent Police from facing justice through due process for the subsequent consideration of the matter by courts in my claim for compensation. This is wilful misconduct by the Legal Ombudsman knowing what he is doing is wrong and done to pervert the due process of justice and therefore is deliberately injuring public interest. His dishonesty therefore requires condemnation whether or not punishment by sentencing or fine of any kind is appropriate which would be a matter for the Justices presiding over the Private Prosecution that I have outlined to you.


2. I therefore asked you to give me the name and email address of person within the judicial sphere of criminal law who oversees your work on private prosecutions so that this complaint against you can be duly addressed.


Yours sincerely


Dr Shantanu Panigrahi



On Friday, 11 December 2015, 16:15, "Dodds, Malcolm" <malcolm.dodds@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk> wrote:



The path of satya-advaita for me meant that I had to have the last word to chart my future when faced with State-organised oppression for the underlying evil wishes to prevent this truth from coming out into the open. The email was written in present tense so that this will be a continuing process until the matter is resolved and takes into account the developments with Tanya Cummins and London University yesterday late afternoon.


By Sunday evening with nothing coming from anywhere it was dawning that the State Establishment manipulated the Legal Ombudsman’s Office so how can this Clerk issue summons on the Legal Ombudsman. It required satya-advaitic truth-seeking probes that the struggle for justice necessiatated to have so-trapped the State Establishment to reveal this persecution on me.

On Monday morning the following email came back from Mr Dodds:


On Monday, 14 December 2015, 7:55, "Dodds, Malcolm" <malcolm.dodds@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk> wrote:


Dr Panigrahi: Since I am acting in my judicial capacity in refusing to issue the summons you seek you will need to persuade a higher judicial authority that I am acting unlawfully. The higher judicial authority is the High Court to whom you may appeal by way of judicial review proceedings.

Your 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 as follows:


Private prosecution for criminal conspiracy (15)

Shan Panigrahi <shanpanigrahi@yahoo.co.uk>

To

Dodds, Malcolm

14 December 2015 at 9:08 AM

Dear Mr Dodds


1. The evidence that I am providing for my complaint against you is your statement 'Dr Panigrahi: you refer to a document submitted in 2017. I assume this is in error. Please can you clarify your request.' when you knew perfectly well that the date was 2015 and that no further clarification of that request was needed in the 'Case for the Prosecution'.


2. I am not going to waste any money or time to have my complaint against you assessed by the High Court as the evidence of your deliberate wrongdoing is obvious for anyone to see.


Yours sincerely


Dr Shantanu Panigrahi


Mr Dodds deleted all correspondence and simply sent back a response as follows:


Private prosecution for criminal conspiracy (15)

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

To

Shan Panigrahi

14 December 2015 at 9:12 AM

I am on leave from 4pm on 14 December, 2015 to 18 December, 2015. I can be phoned in an emergency on 07896 235187. I am back at work on 21 December, 2015.


I did not reply because I was satisfied with the outcome.


Then suddenly Mr Dodds sent me the following email on the original thread:


On Monday, 14 December 2015, 12:08, "Dodds, Malcolm" <malcolm.dodds@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk> wrote:


Dr Panigrahi: one of your e-mails referred to a document filed in 2017 which I assume was an error on your part.

I do not propose to reply to any further correspondence from you unless it raises matters I have not already dealt with.

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.


This I had to reply to for it was evidence that Mr Dodds was part of the criminal conspiracy against me. I sent the following email to probe however:



Private prosecution for criminal conspiracy (17)

Shan Panigrahi <shanpanigrahi@yahoo.co.uk>

To

Dodds, Malcolm

14 Dec 2015 at 12:23 PM

Dear MrDodds


My understanding is that you rejected my submission that Misconduct in Public Office is a lesser charge for which the threshold of prima facie evidence needed to issue summons is less than that for Criminal Conspiracy. Please clarify you view on the difference or I may well have to submit this to the High Court for a judicial review.


Yours sincerly


Dr Shantanu Panigrahi


They continue to pretend that they are not directed to issue their emails by a central controlling State authority, for nothing else has come from anywhere. I do not intend to go to the High Court to enable the cover up unless some bastard is asked to issue legal proceedings against me which is evidently the reason that this shameless moron had to be asked to cover over my allegation that he had engaged in wrongdoing.


Mr Dodds replied as follows:


On Monday, 14 December 2015, 13:32, "Dodds, Malcolm" <malcolm.dodds@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk> wrote:


Dr Panigrahi: I declined to issue a summons for the alleged offence of misconduct in public office since you have failed to provide me with sufficient information for me to be satisfied that the ingredients of the offence are prima facie present.

I will not reply to further correspondence from you if it does not raise matters I consider have previously been dealt with.

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 the following email:

Private prosecution for criminal conspiracy (19)

Shan Panigrahi <shanpanigrahi@yahoo.co.uk>

To

Dodds, Malcolm

14 Dec 2015 at 1:41 PM

Dear Mr Dodds


Please reconsider your decision in light of the following email that I received from Hodge Jones and Allen:


Nigel Richardson <NRichardson@hja.net>

To

Shan Panigrahi

Dec 11 at 3:47 PM

Dear Dr Panigrahi

We are not acting for you in this matter.

Nigel Richardson | Partner | For Hodge Jones & Allen

Tel:

020 7874 8368


Fax:

020 7874 8306

Email:

Web:

_____________________________________________________

Hodge Jones & Allen LLP, 180 North Gower Street, London, NW1 2NB

DX 2101 Euston | Tel +44 (0) 20 7874 8300 | Fax +44 (0) 20 7388 2106


Yours sincerely


Dr Shantanu Panigrahi


No reply came back. The only development later was a letter emailed to me by Ms Stiasny of the University of London that it had nothing to offer me on the examination of my MSc Dissertation and the granting of the MSc Certificate and I could take my complaint to the OIA as an exceptional case. I followed this route, as follows:

On Monday, 14 December 2015, 15:42, Mary Stiasny <Mary.Stiasny@london.ac.uk> wrote:

Dear Dr Panigrahi,

I refer you to my letter dated 10 December 2015 which sets out the University’s final response concerning your recent complaint.

Should you wish to pursue the matter further, as per the above-mentioned letter, the University suggests that you follow the route of making an exceptional complaint to the OIA, a step which OIA procedures require you to carry out yourself (rather than through the University).

As there is no further scope to pursue this matter within the University, we do not plan to engage in further discussion with you on this issue, and consider the matter closed.

Yours sincerely,

Dr Mary Stiasny

Dr Mary Stiasny

Pro Vice-Chancellor (International) and Chief Executive

University of London International Programmes Stewart House | 32 Russell Square | London WC1B 5DN | United Kingdom Tel: +44 (0)20 7862 8294



From: Shan Panigrahi [mailto:shanpanigrahi@yahoo.co.uk] Sent: 14 December 2015 17:07 To: Mary Stiasny <Mary.Stiasny@london.ac.uk> Subject: Re: Your email dated 5 November 2015

Dear Ms Stiasy

1. I have lodged the following complaint at OIA through its website and have received an auto-acknowledgement:

'My MSc degree is being witheld from me unfairly by the University of London by not appointing a qualified Course Tutor to examine my Dissertation. The contact person at the University of London dealing with this matter is:

Mary Stiasny

Pro Vice-Chancellor (International) and Chief Executive

2. Do you know the time-scale within which OIA resolves such disputes?

Yours sincerely

Dr Shantanu Panigrahi

When a proper reply did not come and no email address was provided by OIA, I registered a complaint to get things activated, as follows:


E-FORM - Student [OIA/EF/881857434] (2)

Shan Panigrahi <shanpanigrahi@yahoo.co.uk>

To

servicecomplaints@oiahe.org.uk

14 Dec 2015 at 6:42 PM

To

Head of Leadership Office

Office of the Independent Adjudicator

For Students in Higher Education



Dear Sir

RE: Making a complaint about the service we have provided


I think the service you provided me with in response to my application today on your website E-Form that gave me 'Thank you, we have received your email/enquiry. Regards, OIA Enquiries Team' with a no-reply email address instead of the time-scale within which you will resolve my complaint was very wrong.


Yours sincerely


Dr Shantanu Panigrahi

3 Hoath Lane

Wigmore

Gillingham

Kent ME8 0SL


Why did I do this? It is to probe whether the University of London was also manipulated by the State to give the Medway County Court an excuse for not having to deal with Claim No ME010463 and keeping it on the hot burner as one of the matters that Hodge Jones and Allen would have to act on my behalf on in terms of compensation that I was seeking. My objective is to seek the truth of my experiences and to determine precisely how guna-consciousness works in manifesting the evil that I faced in the United Kingdom.


A reply came from OIA, as if the complaint had not been registered, as follows:

RE: E-FORM - Student

Enquiries <enquiries@oiahe.org.uk>

To

'shanpanigrahi@yahoo.co.uk'

15 Dec 2015 at 10:49 AM

Dear Dr Panigrahi

Thank you for your e-mail. The Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education (“OIA”) is an independent review body which can consider unresolved complaints from higher education students in England and Wales. Please find more information here.

Once a University has looked into your complaint through its formal internal procedures and made a final decision on the matter, you can make a complaint about it to us. Once the internal procedures are complete, the university issues a Completion of Procedures Letter, which will direct you to the OIA if you are not satisfied.

In order to make a complaint to the OIA, you will need to complete a Complaint Form, which can be found here.

It is not clear from your message whether or not you have engaged with the internal complaints procedures at your University. Please note that in normal circumstances, we would expect a student to go through the internal complaints procedures of the University before submitting a complaint to the OIA. If you choose to submit a complaint before the procedures are exhausted, you will need to explain why you have been unable to complete the University's procedures on your Complaint Form.

Please find attached a copy of our introductory leaflet which I hope will be of use to you.

Regards

Joanna Brown

Casework Administrator

Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education

Second Floor

Abbey Gate

57-75 Kings Road

Reading

RG1 3AB

Tel: 0118 959 9813


I replied:

E-FORM - Student (2)

Shan Panigrahi <shanpanigrahi@yahoo.co.uk>

To

Enquiries

15 Dec 2015 at 11:14 AM

To

OIA


Dear Sir


Before I complete the online complaint form please confirm whether the following email that I submitted to the University represents the final opportunity given to the University of London legally to address my complaint satisfactorily or whether I do need to give them a further opportunity to address my concerns:


To

Mary Stiasny

Pro Vice-Chancellor (International) and Chief Executive

University of London International Programmes

By email: mary.stiasny@london.ac.uk


11 December 2015


Dear Ms Stiasny


1. Thank you for your letter dated 10 December 2015 that was forwarded to me by Mrs Catherine Skelton (Executive Officer) this afternoon by email at 2.55 pm.


2. You have failed to take into account that I had rejected the advice of my Course Tutor at Wye on his verbal comments on my Dissertation that I found illogical and ill-considered such as to be displaying a total lack of understanding and appreciation of scientifc and cultural arguments upon which the Livestock component of Agriculture in India is based so that his refusal to forward the 1996/1997 version of the Dissertation that I submitted to Wye College to you at the University of London within the time-limit applicable is the issue that is under appeal for the granting of the MSc. This is the reason that I asked the University to appoint a different Course Tutor to assess that Dissertation. As such I do wish to have this case to be considered now as an exceptional case by the Office of the Independant Adjudicator for Higher Education (OIA; http://www.olahe.org.uk/making-a-complaint-to-the-ola.aspx) without delay.


3. Would you kindly forward this email to OIA, or do I need to do this myself? If the latter please let me have OIA's email address to save on costs of printing and posting.


Yours sincerely


Dr Shantanu Panigrahi

3 Hoath Lane

Wigmore

Gillingham

Kent ME8 0SL



Thank you


Dr Shantanu Panigrahi


The link given to obtain the complaint form did not take me to the form, and I decided I needed to keep my complaint against OIA active. This I did by sending the following email to its complaints Department:


E-FORM - Student [OIA/EF/881857434] (3)

Shan Panigrahi <shanpanigrahi@yahoo.co.uk>

To

servicecomplaints@oiahe.org.uk

15 December 2015 at 11:32 AM

Dear Sir


1. Further to this complaint, please consider that the link provided today by your enquiries team at 10.49 am for me to access the complaint form, when clicked comes up with 'Bad Request' on Mozilla Firefox, and on Internet Explorer, the following message was received:

The webpage cannot be found

HTTP 400

Most likely causes:

· There might be a typing error in the address.

· If you clicked on a link, it may be out of date.

What you can try:


Retype the address.


Go back to the previous page.


Go to and look for the information you want.


More information


You really need to make some improvements to your mode of operation.


Thank you


Yours sincerely


Dr Shantanu Panigrahi





On Monday, 14 December 2015, 18:42, Shan Panigrahi <shanpanigrahi@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:


To

Head of Leadership Office

Office of the Independent Adjudicator

For Students in Higher Education



Dear Sir

RE: Making a complaint about the service we have provided


I think the service you provided me with in response to my application today on your website E-Form that gave me 'Thank you, we have received your email/enquiry. Regards, OIA Enquiries Team' with a no-reply email address instead of the time-scale within which you will resolve my complaint was very wrong.


Yours sincerely


Dr Shantanu Panigrahi

3 Hoath Lane

Wigmore

Gillingham

Kent ME8 0SL



This time no auto-acknoweldgement of the complaint came back unlike on the first occasion.


On 16th December, the following email came from OIA Enquiries:

On Wednesday, 16 December 2015, 10:01, Enquiries <enquiries@oiahe.org.uk> wrote:


Dear Dr Panigrahi

Thank you for your e-mail. I note from your e-mail that you have contacted the Pro Vice-Chancellor of your University stating your dissatisfaction. It is not clear from this whether you have engaged with the University’s complaints procedures.

Higher Education Providers have official complaints and appeals procedures for students to follow if they are dissatisfied. For information on those procedures for your University, you may wish to search for them on the University’s website, or contact your Student Union for advice. As the OIA is an independent review body, we are unable to give advice about the specific internal complaints procedures of your University.

You may wish to use our Complaints Wizard, which may help you determine whether or not your complaint will be eligible for OIA review.

Regards

Joanna Brown

Casework Administrator

Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education

Second Floor

Abbey Gate

57-75 Kings Road

Reading

RG1 3AB

Tel: 0118 959 9813


I hit hard with the following reply:


E-FORM - Student (4)

Shan Panigrahi <shanpanigrahi@yahoo.co.uk>

To

Enquiries

16 Dec 2015 at 10:28 AM

Dear Sir


1. For this kind of attitude I had already informed Ms Stiasny that she was sending me on wild goose chase to OIA as no such scheme exists to consider my complaint. You were clearly told the nature of the complaint and you pretended to give me a complaint form which was of no use to me when I clicked on the link. Now instead of sending me the complaint form as an attachment to your email, you ask me to reconsider whether the complaint is appropriate for OIA review in the first place. This is because you have no answer to the central issue that I have outlined in the charge on the University of lack of compassion and factual illiteracy.


2. For this reason the complaint that I lodged against you with the Head of Leadership Office stands and I expect your conduct to be resolved through that complaints process.


Yours sincerely


Dr Shantanu Panigrahi



There was no reply to the email and by the morning of 17 December 2015 I reviewed that Mr Dodds has kept his option open, the Legal Ombudsman has his option open, Hodge Jones and Allen has its option open and ELS Legal has its option still open so that I could yet get a response from any of these State institutions. This also applies to Olympia Publishers on whether it will publish this book and Office of Indpendent Adjudicators so that I have no option but to wait for the expiry of the full 8 weeks from 27 November 2015 before I take any action whatsoever, including blogging or tweeting which would expose me to interrogation to reveal matters that I cannot for legal reasons and doing so would definitely get me into trouble with the State authorities. My priority is to seek the truth of whether the persecution I suffered was State-organized in that a human controlling authority such as the COBRA Committee under the Prime Minister direction or a secret authority directed all these institutions into the actions and inaction that they have undertaken and continue to do, or whether the entire proceedings is a display of the guna-consciousness forces at work under which each human being is individually directed to fulfill its motivations because of their individual beliefs and raison detre. I am stil without conclusive proof one way or the other so that I must bide my time and follow the satya-advaitic principle of doing only what is necessary to survive with dignity and allow this question to be left for history to determine. I did a clock check for any messages for me from God this morning and there was none, so that I am left to determine my own future.


I received a letter by email from the Legal Ombudsman just after midday, as follows:


Legal Ombudsman ref. CMP-024216

Enquiries <Enquiries@Legalombudsman.org.uk>

To

shanpanigrahi@yahoo.co.uk

17 December 2015 at 12:04 PM

Case number: CMP-024216

17 December 2015

Dear Dr Panigrahi

Your complaint about your solicitors

Thank you for your email dated 1 December 2015.

In your contacts with us, you have mentioned a few law firms so we are unsure which firm you are looking to complain about and what your complaints are against each firm.

In order for us to make a full assessment of your complaint and to decide whether we can assist you, please call us on 0300 555 0333 so that we can capture the information that we need. Alternatively, please complete the attached complaint form in full and return this back to us. If you want to complain about more than one law firm, please complete separate forms for each firm as we will treat each case separately.

If you prefer to complete a complaint form rather than call us, please ensure the following:

1. Please ensure that you complete all sections of the form. If a particular area is not relevant or you don’t know the answer, then please mark that section (by writing “not applicable” or “don’t know”) to let us know.

2. Where we ask for names and addresses, please provide full names and addresses, including postcodes, where possible. This will help us make sure the information we hold is accurate.

3. Where we ask for a date, please provide the exact date. We will not be able to progress your complaint without this information.

4. Where we ask you what went wrong, it would assist us if you could provide us with a list of the problem or problems you are complaining about, along with the date they either occurred or you first found out about them. For example:

· The lawyer said my costs would be £500 plus VAT. I was billed £750 plus VAT. I received this bill on 12 January 2011.

Please also send us a copy of your complaint to your lawyer and their response.

We would also like to take this opportunity to tell you what the Legal Ombudsman does and to let you know about our complaints process and time limits.

Our role

The Legal Ombudsman is an independent organisation with official powers to resolve complaints about legal services. We can help where an issue has not been resolved between an individual and their lawyer.

We are completely impartial. We don’t take sides. When we receive a complaint, we look at all the facts so we can reach an outcome that is fair for everyone involved. If we decide the service you received was unsatisfactory, we can make sure your lawyer or law firm puts it right.

We can get involved in lots of different types of legal service complaints, such as the way a lawyer has dealt with a will or a family issue, for example. Or it could be to do with a personal injury claim, or buying or selling a house.

We are not able to help if you feel disappointed with the outcome of a court case. We are here to help with complaints about the service provided by lawyers.

Our complaint process and time limits

Before you can ask the Legal Ombudsman to investigate your complaint you should complain to the lawyer concerned first.

Your lawyer should respond within eight weeks of receiving the complaint. If they fail to respond, or you are unhappy with their response, then it is at this point that you can ask the Legal Ombudsman to consider your complaint.

We ask that you come to us as soon as you can, but within the following time limits:

§ The problem you are complaining about must have taken place after 5 October 2010 (or if it happened on or before then, you must not have been aware of it until after 5 October 2010) and you must complain to the Legal Ombudsman within six years of when the problem occurred (or within three years of when you became aware of it, if it happened more than six years ago);

And

§ You must contact us no later than six months from when you received the lawyer’s final response to your complaint.

If you cannot meet these time limits, we may not be able to accept your complaint for investigation.

If you have any questions, or you are not sure about what information to include in the complaint form, then please contact us and speak to a member of our team on 0300 555 0333. If you need information in another language or a different format (such as large print, Braille or on audio CD) then please let us know. For minicom call 0300 555 1777. If you are calling from overseas call +44 121 245 3050.

Thank you again for contacting the Legal Ombudsman.

Yours sincerely

Assessment Centre

Legal Ombudsman

Telephone: 0300 555 0333


***********************


This e-mail (and any attachment) is intended only for the attention of the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying is not permitted. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy all copies and inform the sender by return e-mail. Internet e-mail is not a secure medium. Any reply to this message could be intercepted and read by someone else. Please bear that in mind when deciding whether to send material in response to this message by e-mail. This e-mail (whether you are the sender or the recipient) may be monitored, recorded and retained by the Legal Ombudsman. E-mail monitoring / blocking software may be used, and e-mail content may be read at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure laws are not broken when composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents.



***********************

Complaint form .doc


My reply was as follows:

Legal Ombudsman ref. CMP-024216 (2)

Shan Panigrahi <shanpanigrahi@yahoo.co.uk>

To

Enquiries

17 December 2015 at 1:55 PM

Dear Sir


I need to know the answers to the following immediately:


(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?


Thank you


Yours sincerely


Dr Shantanu Panigrahi


There was no reply from the Legal Ombudsman and neither were there any other emails. The purpose of the email sent from the Legal Ombudsman was to dislodge the private proceedings at the Maidstone Magistrates court under Mr Dodds and facilitate a process to cover up the persecution. I prevented this by making no reference to Mr Dodds and neither did I say in my email that I needed the answers to the questions that I had raised from the Legal Ombudsman if it did not feel like providing it. If it had replied today I would have then said that I was in the process of conducting a private prosecution as should be patently clear to the Ombudsman from my paragraph (c), and evidence would then have been generated that the Legal Ombudsman was just a shameless state moron who was picked as the sacrificial lamb to protect the State Establishment from being exposed for its organized persecution on me as I have been alleging. As things stand now I have to hold the line that I have not made any formal complaint against any solicitor as yet to the Legal Ombudsman or to Mr Dodds at Maidstone Magistrates to corner the bastards of Hodge Jones and Allen and ELS Legal so that they have no grounds for refusing me legal assistance. Mr Dodds is not going to be back in the office until 21 December 2015 and as a state moron that he is he may be forced to reply to my last email as he did when backtracking earlier after saying that he is going on leave. I have already prepared my answer for him for I will not allow any scope for a cover up by screwing things up if and when he surfaces. The animals of the State Establishment have proven that they do not care for the reputation of any of their morons who they use as troops to exact vendetta on me for bringing their criminals to justice, the people being duty-bound to do their jobs for the State (Queen and country, as the phrase goes), whether it is the Legal Ombudsman, Mr Rehman Chisthi, Judge Hildebrand or anyone else. They are all moronic ‘jobsworth’ agents of the State. To prove this theory I will not be contacting Mr Dodds and nor will I blog anything for my target is to generate evidence of the functioning of the British State as a historical record that I am writing in this book. I am writing this as I go along so that the State knows what my precise plans are as they monitor the files on the computer that I am typing this on.


A letter arrived in the mail delivered to the house dated 17 December 2015 not from any judge but from the Secretary setting out the reason for the judgment and there not appearing to be an extant appeal. This was legitimizing the Shell Tribunal matter on the grounds that I had withdrawn the case. I had to challenge the document by activating my Employment Appeal Tribunal Case, which I did by forwarding the last email that I had sent EAT in July (only part of which is reproduced here for reference). The full exchange was as follows:

UKEATPA/0461/15 (7)

Shan Panigrahi <shanpanigrahi@yahoo.co.uk>

To

Harrington, Mark (EAT) Nigel Richardson

18 Dec 2015 at 1:37 PM

Dear Mr Harrington


I am sure my prospective solicitors Hodge Jones and Allen represented by Mr Nigel Richardson (see email address) are well aware of the procedure that solicitors need to follow when I eventually find one to consider the details of this thread of emails exchanged with you for my challenge and resinstatement of the Appeal and any other related issues.


Yours sincerely


Dr Shantanu Panigrahi


cc Mr Nigel Richardson, by email: nrichardson@hja.net


On Friday, 18 December 2015, 13:25, "Harrington, Mark (EAT)" <mark.harrington@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk> wrote:


Dear Dr Panigrahi

I have attached the EAT’s strike-out order.

It may be challenged by: (1) either being granted remission or paying the lodgement fee; and (2) making an application for reinstatement. Please see Rule 17A(2) of the EAT Rules, which may be found here.

Mark Harrington Operational Support Manager Employment Appeal Tribunal


From: Shan Panigrahi [mailto:shanpanigrahi@yahoo.co.uk] Sent: 18 December 2015 13:00 To: Harrington, Mark (EAT) Subject: Re: Case No: UKEATPA/0461/15

Dear Mr Harrington

Please send me a copy of this Order so that I may consider an immediate appeal against it.

Yours sincerely

Dr Shantanu Panigrahi

On Friday, 18 December 2015, 12:58, "Harrington, Mark (EAT)" <mark.harrington@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk> wrote:

Dear Dr Panigrahi

An order striking out the appeal for non-payment of the lodgement fee was sent to you on 03 August 2015.

Mark Harrington Operational Support Manager Employment Appeal Tribunal


From: Shan Panigrahi [mailto:shanpanigrahi@yahoo.co.uk] Sent: 18 December 2015 12:50 To: Harrington, Mark (EAT) Subject: Re: Case No: UKEATPA/0461/15

Mr Harrington

My appeal was never put on hold by myself or by EAT so that it never stopped (got stayed) as I was waiting for your reply to the email that I have forwarded, so it is totally outrageous to suggest that I need to make an application for the Appeal to be reinstated.

Yours sincerely

Dr Shantanu Panigrahi

On Friday, 18 December 2015, 12:02, "Harrington, Mark (EAT)" <mark.harrington@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk> wrote:

Dear Dr Panigrahi

Please see this leaflet for information about how to apply for a remission of fee (now called “help with fees”). The form to be completed may be found here.

You will also need to make an application to the EAT for your appeal to be reinstated.

Mark Harrington Operational Support Manager Employment Appeal Tribunal


From: Shan Panigrahi [mailto:shanpanigrahi@yahoo.co.uk] Sent: 18 December 2015 11:37 To: Harrington, Mark (EAT) Subject: Fw: Case No: UKEATPA/0461/15

To

Employment Appeal Tribunal

Dear Mr Harrington

1. I wish to report with regard to this appeal that I have received a letter setting out the full written reasons that I had been waiting for from Employment Tribunals as follows:

Case Number 2302960/2014 D:

Dear Sir/Madam,

Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013

The judgment in this case is in reponse to withdrawal. The reason for the judgment is that the Claimant withdrew. It does not appear there is an extant appeal. The correspondence is therefore closed'

Yours faithfully

Sabrina Adeyemo

For the Secretary of Employment Tribunals

2. Now that I have all the details I need, I am ready to discuss the lodgment Fee Remission issue for which my personal circumstances are that I am without a normal partner and earn £84 basic per week, and have no savings of my own. Please process this application immediately.

Yours sincerely

Dr Shantanu Panigrahi

On Tuesday, 21 July 2015, 13:41, Shan Panigrahi <shanpanigrahi@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

Mr Harrington

1. That was not the issue that I had sought to place before a judge immediately so as to compel the Primary Respondent Judge Kurrein into issuing the full written reasons for the Case so that I can then consider how to bring the three Shell Franchises listed in my Notice of Appeal to answer to the charges of Breach of Contract that was levelled against them in separate hearings.

2. The lodgement fee is too high for the simple matter that the Judge should decide on immediately and I believe it must not exceed £80 (as for an Application Notice in a County Court) which is all that I am prepared to pay at this stage.

Yours sincerely

Dr Shantanu


There was no reply from EAT especially after Mr Richardson of Hodge Jones and Allen sent a reply copied to the EAT as follows:


UKEATPA/0461/15 (8)

Nigel Richardson <NRichardson@hja.net>

To

Shan Panigrahi Harrington, Mark (EAT)

18 Dec 2015 at 2:01 PM


Please note that Hodge Jones and Allen do not represent Dr Panigrahi.


This was now a categorical statement that the Firm does not act in any case matters for me. I had to keep my proceedings at EAT as well as the Legal Ombudsman active by forwarding the correspondene with EAT to Fosters Law who are one of the two original solicitors against whom I had lodged a complaint with the Legal Ombudsman.


UKEATPA/0461/15 (10)

Harrington, Mark (EAT) <mark.harrington@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk>

To

'Nigel Richardson' Shan Panigrahi

18 December 2015 at 3:33 PM

Dear Mr Richardson

Thank you for the clarification.

Mark Harrington Operational Support Manager Employment Appeal Tribunal


The dog was in effect asking me what I was going to do next to move the proceedings at EAT. Asking me to apply for the Case to be reinstated would have led to covering up the Employment Tribunal so that I had no choice but to refer the matter to a solicitor and I had to have one who would take on the case on a No Win No Fee basis as I had no money.


UKEATPA/0461/15 (9)

Shan Panigrahi <shanpanigrahi@yahoo.co.uk>

To

rainham@fosters-law.co.uk

18 December 2015 at 2:34 PM

To

Fosters Law

Local Legal Support

High Street

Rainham

Kent

By Email: rainham@fosters-law.co.uk

Dear Sir


Further to our correspondence of 19 November 2015 from 11.31 am, please consider if you are willing to act on my behalf to take this matter forward at Employment Appeal Tribunal.


Thank you


Dr Shantanu Panigrahi

3 Hoath Lane

Wigmore

Gillingham

Kent ME8 0SL


On Friday, 18 December 2015, 13:26, "Harrington, Mark (EAT)" <mark.harrington@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk> wrote:


Dear Dr Panigrahi

I have attached the EAT’s strike-out order.

It may be challenged by: (1) either being granted remission or paying the lodgement fee; and (2) making an application for reinstatement. Please see Rule 17A(2) of the EAT Rules, which may be found here.

Mark Harrington Operational Support Manager Employment Appeal Tribunal

(etc)



On Friday, 18 December 2015, 15:16, Kim Brooks <Kim.Brooks@fosters-law.co.uk> wrote:

I write with regard to your email to our Rainham Branch and would advise that we will be able to book an appointment for you to come and see Kerry Pritchard, a partner in our firm, but as a barrister will need to be booked for your case, a sum of £500 on account would need to be paid at the first meeting.

Please give me a call on the number below if you would like to make an appointment.

Kind regards,

Kim Brooks

Secretary

Fosters Law

Telephone: 01795 240704




From: Shan Panigrahi [mailto:shanpanigrahi@yahoo.co.uk] Sent: 18 December 2015 15:37 To: Kim Brooks; Harrington Mark (EAT) Subject: Re: Your matter

Dear Ms Brooks

1. I am only interested in using a solicitor firm and its barristers if the Case is taken on on a 'No Win No Fee' basis. I am expecting a minimum payment of £75,000 from Iain Flash Gordon Enterprises/Temple Farm Limited for unpaid TUPE earnings and in total compensation more reasonably in the region of £130,000 in the final settlement. I am entitled to 100 percent Fee Remission because of my family and financial circumstances.


2. Please let me know if this proposal is acceptable to Fosters Law or point me to a solicitor firm who will be interested in undertaking the Case on this basis.


3. I am copying this email to the Employment Appeal Tribunal to keep it informed.

Yours sincerely


Dr Shantanu Panigrahi



Your matter (5)

Kim Brooks <Kim.Brooks@fosters-law.co.uk>

To

Shan Panigrahi

CC

Kerry Pritchard

18 Dec 2015 at 3:38 PM

I am afraid we do not deal with no win no fee cases.

I suggest you look on the internet to find a firm of solicitors that are willing to do so.

Kind regards,

Kim Brooks

Secretary

Fosters Law

Telephone: 01795 240704


On Friday, 18 December 2015, 15:46, "Harrington, Mark (EAT)" <mark.harrington@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk> wrote:

Dear Dr Panigrahi

Please do not copy in the EAT – we should not see emails between client and solicitor.

Mark Harrington Operational Support Manager Employment Appeal Tribunal


Your matter (5)

Shan Panigrahi <shanpanigrahi@yahoo.co.uk>

To

Harrington, Mark (EAT)

18 December 2015 at 3:53 PM

Dear Mr Harrington


EAT needs to be informed for legal purposes that Hodge Jones and Allen and Fosters Law are the subject of updating complaints to the Legal Ombudsman for their failure to discharge their legal obligations as solicitors towards prospective clients who seek legal assistance. As such, until the matter has reached a conclusion through the passage of those proceedings there is no further action I can take at EAT.


Yours sincerely


Dr Shantanu Panigrahi


This was how another attack from the State this morning was negotiated. There had been no mention of any Judge having made the decision to send me the letter from the Employment Tribunal because I would have been able to argue back that Judge Hildebrand is the subject of a private prosecution at Maidstone Magistrates to force the issue of why Mr Dodds had not issued summons. Given the chance I would argue to the Legal Ombudsman that the solicitors were obliged to find me a solicitor who would see that the case was so clear cut that win was guaranteed so that it had no excuse not to take on the Case on a No Win No Fee basis, if it was within its scope of action which it clearly is in the Case of Fosters Law given that they were prepared to appoint a barrister to discuss it further. The Case against Hodge Jones and Allen is for its refusal to act on the Police Case and other proceedings at Medway County Court. I need to always have this argued at the Legal Ombudsman to save my reputation that I was denied justice systematically by the State through organized oppression as a vendetta against me from bringing criminals to justice.


Then I had the Office of Independent Adjudicators come on with the following email concerning the MSc matter asking for fresh submission with a complaint form that it attached. My situation was that I must have all matters tidied up on a daily basis in order to keep my central charge on the State of systematic denial of justice clearly on display so I replied accordingly:


On Friday, 18 December 2015, 15:59, servicecomplaints <servicecomplaints@oiahe.org.uk> wrote:


Dear Dr Panigrahi,

Thank you for your emails of 14, 15 and 16 December.

The automatic reply generated when an electronic enquiry form is submitted to us is intended only to confirm receipt of the form, so that the person submitting it knows immediately that it has submitted successfully. We then respond to the enquiry itself, and I note that Ms Brown wrote to you very promptly, the day after receipt of your enquiry form.

I am sorry that the link to the Complaint Form provided in Ms Brown’s email did not work. The correct link is: http://oiahe.org.uk/making-a-complaint-to-the-oia/oia-complaint-form.aspx and I attach a pdf copy of the form.

The OIA can only review complaints that fall within its remit and the Rules of the OIA Scheme. It is therefore appropriate that Ms Brown provided you with information to help you to determine whether your complaint is likely to be eligible for review by the OIA. We would normally expect a student to complete the internal complaints procedures of the University before submitting a complaint to the OIA.

Kind regards,

Sarah Liddell

Head of Leadership Office

Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education

Second Floor

Abbey Gate

57-75 Kings Road

Reading

RG1 3AB

Tel: 0118 959 9813

This message is confidential and may be legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you should not copy or disclose this message to anyone but should kindly notify the sender and delete the message. Neither the OIA nor the sender accepts any responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan this email and any attachments. Calls to this Office may be monitored or recorded for quality control and training purposes.

The OIA is a charity, registered in England & Wales under number 1141289, and a company limited by guarantee, registered in England & Wales under number 4823842. Registered Office: Second Floor, Abbey Gate, 57-75 Kings Road, Reading, RG1 3AB, United Kingdom



This too had to be stuffed back into a complaint, the object being to keep the courts from having to do their own dirty work themselves rather than by another of the State’s institutions covering up so it does not have to act on my allegation of State persecution through the HMCTS and associated Law Enforcement Agencies.

Service complaint (2)

Shan Panigrahi <shanpanigrahi@yahoo.co.uk>

To

servicecomplaints

18 Dec 2015 at 4:17 PM

Dear Ms Sarah Liddell


It is only the OIA that can determine whether a complainant has gone through all of the internal University's complaints processes applicable to ensure that a submission to OIA meets with the necessary criteria to enable judgement to be made on whether the complaint can be reviewed and if so whether it is technically justified, and finally, what kind of compensation needs to be provided to the complainant. I can only provide you with the details of the correspondence that I have entered into to try and have the matter resolved to my satisfaction. This is why I asked your official to look into these and make a decision on whether I need to go through an extra stage on top of the letter to Ms Stiasny that I sent you a copy of. Your official clearly did not reply to that query.


I therefore consider my complaint to be fully justified.


Yours sincerely


Dr Shantanu Panigrahi


By mid evening it dawned on me that the intervention by Hodge Jones and Allen had to be attacked so drafted the following email and sent it to the Firm and the Legal Ombudsman:

Legal Assistance

Shan Panigrahi <shanpanigrahi@yahoo.co.uk>

To

Nigel Richardson; Enquiries@Legalombudsman.org.uk

18 Dec 2015 at 8:56 PM

To

Hodge Jones and Allen

Partner


Dear Mr Richardson


1. I first contacted your Firm on 19 November 2015 through your website contact point and entered into extensive discussions with your officials by email with the details of my legal requirements. Your duplicitous conduct led me to register an enquiry with the Legal Ombudsman as to whether your conduct constituted an offence that was within its remit to consider with a view to disciplining your Firm. You considered my suggestion made when my complaint was not taken seriously that this offence could be made the subject of a private prosecution involving your Firm to be sufficient grounds for withdrawing your Firm's involvement in my legal affairs. When I pointed out to the Legal Ombudsman that there were no such private prosecution proceedings against your Firm so that your decision not to act for me was grossly unfair and untenable you seemed to accept this because I did not hear anything about this representation from you or the Legal Ombudsman.


2. Then on 11 December 2015 you wrote to me in relation to the Ms Tanya Cummins Internet entrapment matter that Hodge Jones and Allen was not acting for me in that matter. In response I asked you whether your Firm was acting for me on any of the legal matters that I require assistance with and which have been discussed previously with Medway County Court - please refer to my email of 11 December 4.34 pm. You declined to reply to that email. I therefore assumed that your Firm was acting for me in some capacity and so today I informed the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) in proceedings of Case UKEATPA/0461/15 to consider you as my 'prospective' solicitor. I had copied that email to you for immediate action if you were indeed acting for me in any capacity. Suddenly it seemed to me that after reading the contents of that email thread you wrote to me and EAT that 'Hodge Jones and Allen do not represent Dr Panigrahi'. This was disappointing because it showed that when the outrageous behaviour of Mr Mark Harrington was pointed out to you in that he struck out my case at EAT on the pretext that the lodgement fee was not been paid by me when he knew perfectly well that I was still waiting for the full written reasons from the Employment Tribunal before dealing with the Fee issue as well as waiting for his own reply to my earlier email, you decided to protect the officials' continuing criminality in the processing of the Appeal by withdrawing your Firms involvement in the processing of this open and shut case that if reinstated would lead to between £75,000 and £130,000 compensation payment to me making it ideal as something your Firm would do on a 'No Win No Fee' basis as discussed with your Firm in relation to the Police Case.


3. Please note that even if your Firm does not wish to undertake a 'No Win No Fee' contract with me I was and remain willing to pay all your Firms regular Fees with all my legal involvements.


4. The Legal Ombudsman has asked me now to convert my tentative complaint that your Firm has been stringing me along showing from time to time that my applications of legal assistance were under consideration by your Firm but then when I asked for specific action in view of the imminence with with this was needed, your Firm said No you did not wish to act. I consider this to be a very serious breach of trust. This kind of attitude has now left me without any legal cover on my cases against the Police, AuthorhouseUK, Olympia Pubishers, Mr Rehman Chishti (MP), News Corp., University of London on my MSc, Shell Franchises, and most importantly on Case ME010463 against the University of Greenwich all of which I require your Firm's legal assistance with.


5. I am therefore giving you a final opportunity to clarify your Firms position and provide me with an explanation as to why your Firm has behaved in this erratic manner with continual changes of mind on whether it will act on my behalf on any of the above cases before I complete my Complaint Form for the Legal Ombudsman to consider your conduct.


Yours sincerely


Dr Shantanu Panigrahi

3 Hoath Lane

Wigmore

Gillingham

Kent ME80SL


This was an engagement in warfare to knock the stuffing out of the bastards. There was no reply. The private prosecution application with Mr Dodds remains to control these inhuman shitbags.


On 19 December 2015 morning nothing had arrived from anywhere and with the week over for Olympia Publishers to send me its reply, I needed full control over my Blog so that I could make it the venue for narrating further details of my ideas and experiences. So prepared and posted the following blogpost:


1 view0 comments

Recent Posts

See All

Information Received - Review Letter - OTP-CR-76/22

Information Received - Review Letter - OTP-CR-76/22 Inbox from: OTP InformationDesk <OTP.InformationDesk@icc-cpi.int> to: "shanpanigrahi3000@gmail.com" <shanpanigrahi3000@gmail.com> date:

Your Reference: 22/444/CM/PCC

Your Reference: 22/444/CM/PCC Yahoo / Sent Shantanu Panigrahi <shantanupanigrahi@yahoo.com> To: civil.claims@kent.pnn.police.uk Tue, 10 May at 20:22 To Civil Claim Officers Thank you for this morning'

Post: Blog2_Post
bottom of page