CLAIMANT’S SUBMISSION FOR DISTRICT JUDGE PRESIDING OVER THE IMPLICATIONS OF THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF HIS HONOUR JUDGE PARFITT ON CLAIM E35YM660 AT THE CENTRAL LONDON COUNTY COURT DATED 19 JANUARY 2021
To
District Judge
Medway County Court and Family Court
Anchorage House
47-67 High Street
Chatham
ME4 4DW
(Submitted: DISTRICT JUDGE'S DECISION ON CLAIM E35YM660/ME010463/ME002953/HQ17X01773
EMAIL SERVICE Mon 4/5/2021 10:54 PM): I understand that this matter is now with the District Judge at my home county court finally? - please confirm and assess the legalities on the Case Management Failure hitherto with respect to the attached Full Particulars of Claim: CLAIMANT'S SUBMISSION5April2021.docx; ToCentLonCRtQueensBenchEmTribEastKentMagCrt30Mar2021.docx.)
Your Honour
Background:
1. Appeal Arguments relating to the two Orders dated 14 January 2020 and 30 September 2020 were specifically submitted to the Defendant in my Updated Particulars of Claim on 24 March 19.31 hours by agreed email and updated since. This was made clear to the Court prior to 3 April 2020 Hearing presided over by Judge Backhous on which the 12 May 2020 Order was based.
2. The preliminary Hearing with His Honour HHJ Parfitt on the reconsideration of the permission to Appeal took place on 19 January 2021 (10.00 am – 10.15 am) and an adjournment was sought by the Claimant in order for him to have the time to see the Court File that would contain the Defendant’s updated Defence to these revised Particulars of Claim. The Claimant asked the Court and Government Lawyer for the Defendant Mr Ravi Patel on 21 March 2021 by email at 22.55 pm hours whether the Claimant’s understanding derived from the lack of any further communications from the Central London County Court, nor from the Defendant nor any other interested parties (coming under the umbrella of Victims of Panigrahi Association (VOPA) with an unknown postal or email address but which objectionably thrust itself into the E35YM660-proceedings without a stated cause) since this last Hearing took place meant that in law the adjournment sought by the Claimant had already been granted by the Court or was in the process of being considered, but no reply was received from the Duty Judge nor from any of the Defendants until 22 March 2021.
3. The Claimant was then served an Order, from HHJ Parfitt, as follows:
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1. The request to reconsider permission is refused.
2. The Appellant’s application was totally without merit: the DDJ’s order was wholly appropriate as a case management order and the stated grounds of appeal that the Appellant lacked access to legal advice was hopeless and the oral argument put forward that the DDJ was a liar acting as part of a conspiracy to silence the Appellant was absurd (both in its premise and in its substance – since the order under appeal gave the Appellant a final chance to make his particulars of claim good).
3. The Respondent’s application for costs of the action must be referred to a DJ pursuant to CPR 3.5(2)(a) and the Respondent’s letter dated 13 January 2021 and two costs schedules containthe Appeal bundle (in pdf format) shall be treated as an application in that respect.
4. The Respondent’s costs of the appeal are to be treated as Respondent’s costs in the action.
Dated 19 January 2021
4. The response of the Claimant to the receipt of this Order was as follows:
(a) Automatic reply: Your email that you are acting for the Present Prime Minister and not Mrs Theresa May
from: Shantanu Panigrahi <shanpanigrahi3000@gmail.com>
to: cccladjournments <cccladjournments@justice.gov.uk>, QBJudgesListingOffice@justice.gov.uk,
LondonSouthET@justice.gov.uk, eastkentmc@justice.gov.uk
date: 30 Mar 2021, 18:54
subject: Fwd: Automatic reply: Your email that you are acting for the Present Prime Minister and not Mrs Theresa May
mailed-by:gmail.com
Dear Sirs
SUBJECT:
E35YM660 PROCEEDINGS AT THE CENTRAL LONDON COUNTY COURT, CASE NUMBER 2302781/2020 AT THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL AT ASHFORD HEARING CENTRE; AND CLAIM HX17X01773 AT QUEENS BENCH DIVISION OF THE HIGH COURT
Please note the following absence from the office and advise me directly on the sequence of the proposed three Hearings scheduled to take place with the priorities judicially-justified by the three Heads of the respective judicial services of the State, as this is complex matter for a layman like me who does not know the Constitution of the United Kingdom still so that your heads have to be knocked together from the Claimant's perspective without delay.
I will deal with the arrest summons on Ms Max Hill, the Director of Public Prosecutions after learning from you three the respective outcomes of all these three proceedings before approaching East Kent Magistrates Court again in due course.
Thank you
Dr Shantanu Panigrahi
3 Hoath Lane
Wigmore
Gillingham
Kent ME8 0SL
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Adele Miller <Adele.Miller@governmentlegal.gov.uk>
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2021 at 18:36
Subject: Automatic reply: Your email that you are acting for the Present Prime Minister and not Mrs Theresa May
To: Shantanu Panigrahi <shanpanigrahi3000@gmail.com>
Thank you for your email.
I am out of the office until 6 April. My emails will not be monitored in my absence. If your email is urgent, please contact Zara Broadley-Johns at Zara.Broadley-Johns@governmentlegal.gov.uk, otherwise I will respond to you upon my return.
Best,
Adele
(b) Contesting the Judgment of His Honour Judge Parfitt - 19 January 2021(Claim E35YM660)
from: Shantanu Panigrahi <shanpanigrahi3000@gmail.com>
to: Adele Miller <Adele.Miller@governmentlegal.gov.uk>, Zara.Broadley-Johns@governmentlegal.gov.uk,
ravi.patel@governmentlegal.gov.uk
cc: cccladjournments <cccladjournments@justice.gov.uk>
date: 3 Apr 2021, 09:05
subject: Contesting the Judgment of His Honour Judge Parfitt - 19 January 2021(Claim E35YM660)
mailed-by: gmail.com
To
Government Lawyers
[Acting for the Prime Minister (Mr Boris Johnson/Mrs Theresa May) and all interested respondents under the umbrella term Victims of Panigrahi Association (VOPA) used as a pseudonym for the Security Services of the United Kingdom]
1. Take note of the attached Claimant-decision: Reformulation of the Ethos and Principles of the Conservative Libertarian Party of United KIngdom.docx;
2. Please take note that I shall not be paying the Defendant any costs until the full and final settlement of this dispute is judged in the Central London County Court.
Yours sincerely
Dr Shantanu Panigrahi
3 Hoath Lane
Wigmore
Gillingham
Kent ME8 0SL
Tel: 07967789619
Attachments area
Reformulation of the Ethos and Principles of the Conservative Libertarian Party of United KIngdom.docx
Summary of Claimant’s petition submitted afresh
1. I wished to do something positive for national development of the United Kingdom so that it can contribute to World Conservation in order to improve global society and initiated the following petitions. Some were approved for hosting whereas others were inexplicably turned down and disabled by 38 Degrees and Liberty. I resorted to Action-network in view of this lack of cooperation. This is what my Appeal is all about. Please refer to the following links in administering your decision on whether I am justified in voicing these concerns or not. If I am not, you may turn down my reconsideration of permission to Appeal the 14 January 2019 dated Order of the Court on E35YM660 (Dr Shantanu Panigrahi vs Mrs Theresa May; nay the present Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Mr Boris Johnson as the Defendant singly).
2. The petitions in question were:
38 Degrees websites:
3. Further evidence for my petitions may be examined at the following websites which have stood the test of time in that they were beyond criticisms from the general public because they are factual representations of the investigations that I have conducted in arriving at the petitions:
Claimant’s Personal publications and websites:
(a) 35 scientific journal papers (1980-1998)
4. The evidence in these websites support the Particulars of Claim in the Claim Form and the Appellants Notice of a concerted national and international conspiracy against me to obstruct justice and pervert the course of justice by the States concerned. The government is therefore obliged to take these petitions seriously or give its reasons for not considering them through the normal processes of Parliamentary scrutiny. The functioning of the Parliament and the Monarchy must be subject to the due process of scrutiny through the Courts to outline individual responsibilities to society and hence this Claim that I am pursuing. Otherwise there is no hope for the nation that I love.
5. Your Honour, a Judge of Her Majesty’s Establishment is the law of the nation. Please therefore advise me if I am right or wrong in bringing this to your attention.
6. As you must be aware, I had only asked for a nominal £3000 in damages and compensation for what I have suffered over 22 years that led me to my published petitions because I am only progressing this Appeal proceedings in in sincere belief that it is in the public interest nationally and globally.
7. Please therefore advise me if a Judgement or Order can be considered now appropriately to bring a closure to this long-standing (23 year-old) saga.
Yours faithfully
Dr Shantanu Panigrahi (Claimant)
3 Hoath Lane
Wigmore
Gillingham
Kent ME8 0SL
Tel: 07967789619
____________________________________________________________________
Last Updated: 6 April 2021, 07.43 am hours (UK Time).
Comments