top of page
Search

Further developments on Book Publication and Legality of Medical Issues


On guidance from God I then walked to the Surgery and asked for an appointment saying that I belived it is urgent. The receptionist said that it was only routine and fixed an appointment for me to see Dr Sudhir Patel on 24 March 8.40 am.


The weekend passed by and Mr Thomas Jones inserted a comment inviting me to reply so as to disrupt the proceedings. I let his comment in but did not reply. On Monday I waited to see if any developments would take place and there was absolutely nothing from any of the State’s institutions. There were no messages from God either.

On Tuesday 15 March 2016 I decided that I could not allow everytghing to dissipate into nothing waiting for Dr Sudhir Patel to cast his verdict on the 24th so finally replied to Jade Allen of Authorhouse UK and then forwarded the mail to Medway County Court as follows:

PID 728480| Content Evaluation (7)

To

15 March 2016 at 8:25 AM

To

The Court Manager

Medway County Court


Dear Sir/Madam,


Further to this matter please let me know the decision of the Court on whether it will Order Authorhouse UK to refund my £586; and arrange a Hearing with Olympia Publishers to consider its decision on the publication of the book.


Yours sincerely


Dr Shantanu Panigrahi


On Tuesday, 15 March 2016, 8:20, Shan Panigrahi <shanpanigrahi@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:


To

Jade Allen


Dear Ms Allen

1. I would like the book to be printed in a 6x9 size.

2. When can I expect to see the book as presented in print?

Yours sincerely


Dr Shantanu Panigrahi

On Wednesday, 9 March 2016, 17:58, Jade Allen <Jade.Allen@authorsolutions.com> wrote:


Dear Dr Shantanu Panigrahi,

Thank you for this email. I am sending this email to confirm that I received the revised manuscript for your book and will endorse the revised for re evaluation.

Once I have the result, I will send you an email for the feedback.

Also, kindly provide me the book size that you want for the book:

· 5x8

· 6x9

· 8.25x11

I will wait for your response.

Have a great day!

Sincerely,

Jade Allen Check-in coordinator AuthorHouse

1663 Liberty Drive Bloomington, IN 47403

P: 888.728.8467 ext: 7821 F: 812.339.6554 P: 0800.197.4150 (UK) ext: 7821 F: 0800.197.4151 (UK)

jade.allen@authorsolutions.com

From: Shan Panigrahi [mailto:shanpanigrahi@yahoo.co.uk] Sent: Saturday, March 05, 2016 11:30 AM To: Jade Allen Subject: Re: PID 728480| Content Evaluation

Dear Jade

Here is the final version of the book (see attached) for a thorough review by AuthorhouseUK: I will modify by renaming some characters and deleting the images that are a problem without losing the story as you have said.

Yours sincerely

Dr Shantanu Panigrahi

On Friday, 4 March 2016, 15:46, Jade Allen <Jade.Allen@authorsolutions.com> wrote:

Dear Dr Shantanu Panigrahi,

Yes, kindly provide the revised manuscript so we can proceed with the re evaluation.

I will wait for your response.

Have a great weekend!

Sincerely,

Jade Allen Check-in coordinator AuthorHouse

1663 Liberty Drive Bloomington, IN 47403

P: 888.728.8467 ext: 7821 F: 812.339.6554 P: 0800.197.4150 (UK) ext: 7821 F: 0800.197.4151 (UK)

jade.allen@authorsolutions.com

From: Shan Panigrahi [mailto:shanpanigrahi@yahoo.co.uk] Sent: Friday, March 04, 2016 10:38 AM To: Jade Allen Subject: Re: PID 728480| Content Evaluation

Are you looking at the March 2016 version of the book 'The Allurement of Reality'?

Yours sincerely

Dr Shantanu Panigrahi

On Friday, 4 March 2016, 13:54, Jade Allen <Jade.Allen@authorsolutions.com> wrote:

Dear Dr. Panigrahi,

How are you? My name is Jade Allen, and I am now you assigned Check In Coordinator for this project.

There were details in the content of the book that needs to be addressed:

** The entire manuscript contains several potentially libelous statements that will harm the reputation of very specific characters. Removing the libelous content is not an option because doing that will remove the sense of the story. RESOLUTION: The author has to use an acceptable pen name and follow all the steps to hide identities. ** EXHIBIT C on Pages 380-392 contains posts from different users. Permissions from the users to publish their posts should be supplied.

** There are new images on Pages 378-389. Please provide necessary permission.

Let me know if you have further questions about the content evaluation result.

I will wait for your response.

Thank you!

Sincerely,

Jade Allen Check-in coordinator AuthorHouse

1663 Liberty Drive Bloomington, IN 47403

P: 888.728.8467 ext: 7821 F: 812.339.6554 P: 0800.197.4150 (UK) ext: 7821 F: 0800.197.4151 (UK)

jade.allen@authorsolutions.com


There were no immediate replies, I then decided to tweet Mr Nick Higham of the BBC’s Meet the Author to make him aware of my book, as follows:

Shantanu Panigrahi@ShanPanigrahi

@highamnews Mr Higham, would you kindly review my book, 'The Allurement of Reality' submitted to AuthorhouseUK for BBC's 'Meet the Author'?

The idea behind these actions were to expose the true situation of the complete State bodies and institutions being organised in my persecution so as to take full control of my Blog by reporting the matter as such. When there was no reply from Medway County Court by midday I replied to Thomas Jones in my blog by stating the following:

1. 1. Thomas, they are all in it together: the Queen and her entourage, the Parliamentary authorities like the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman, Mr Rehman Chishti (my local Member of Parliament), the Leader of the Opposition, the Prime Minister, NHS England, the Courts and tribunals from top to bottom, my local Surgery Wigmore Medical Centre, etc. That is why I describe it as State-organised persecution.

2. After I published this blogpost, the state authorities got the local Surgery to write a letter to me dated 9 March 2016 to try and get me back into the Surgery for another examination of my mental health no doubt with a view to imposing stringent action as punishment, but I had a plan to sort out this State-moron.

3. 3. Thomas, these Patels are not proper doctors but business people. Their surgery is a business for them and they will stoop to anything to protect their business under the State. I however do have a plan to sort out the Surgery.

A reply came on Twitter from Nick Higham ‏@highamnews

@ShanPanigrahi I no longer present Meet The Author I'm afraid. And it was never a review programme...

By mid-afternoon Authorhouse resumed prodding me with an email to generate evidence that discussions were still continuing so that the Court need not take any action. So on 16 March 2016 I had to conclude proceedings with the following reply:

PID 728480| Content Evaluation (9)

To

16 March 2016 at 8:05 AM

Dear Jade


I have asked Medway County Court to order AuthorhouseUK to refund my £586 as there is no prospect of reaching any agreement on the publication of this book, unless AuthorhouseUK adapts the contents itself as I am not prepared to do any further work on the attached manuscript.


Yours sincerely


Dr Shantanu Panigrahi




On Tuesday, 15 March 2016, 13:05, Jade Allen <Jade.Allen@authorsolutions.com> wrote:


Dear Dr Shantanu Panigrahi,

Thank you for this email. I already have the result of the re evaluation of the book, and with that please see the feedback below by our evaluator:

* manuscript has increased in size based on the previous manuscript evaluated, however none of the issues previously raised has been addressed. 1. libel content still present 2. multiple posts from various users present all over the manuscript. this would include email exchanges between author and other parties.

Let me know if you have further questions about the content guidelines.

Have a great day!

Sincerely,

Jade Allen Check-in coordinator AuthorHouse

1663 Liberty Drive Bloomington, IN 47403

P: 888.728.8467 ext: 7821 F: 812.339.6554 P: 0800.197.4150 (UK) ext: 7821 F: 0800.197.4151 (UK)

jade.allen@authorsolutions.com

(etc)


I thought as this was the end of the matter as far as publication of the book was concerned I should explore BBC further, so tweeted a reply back to Nick Higham as follows:


@highamnews No worries: what about the coverage of book contents as a good news item perhaps under a BBC-funded Religious Affairs programme?

There was no answer from Mr Higham but Authorhouse wrote another email inviting me to concentrate on the book production. I did not reply immediately as there was uncertainty on how the Surgery would respond to the blogged comment. On 18 March 2016 an attempt was made by the State getting Kay Walsh of Medway Council to telephone me at home which I did not answer and a message was left on the answering machine to contact her about a training for Poll Clerk position for the Count that would take place on 6 May 2016 on the election of the Kent Police and Crime Commissioner. When I probed the call with an email no reply came.


On Saturday 19 March 2016 I went to the local Pharmacy and asked whether it had managed to get my prescription from the Surgery and was not expecting at all that the answer would be yes, but it was. The Surgery had released the prescription renewed as before without any question. I came home relieved that after the battering delivered I had survived in no worse a state than when I set out to determine the legality of the treatment that was enforced on me by the State on 30 January 2016 when all signs were that I would be facing incarceration again for what I had been doing to the State’s insitutitions and persons through my probing for justice. I had blogged it all to my satisfaction and there was nothing else I could do to protect my reputation. I replied to Authorhouse offering a Disclaimer to be included in Page 1 and a pen name of Satya-advaitic Hindu to write the book under. This was the conclusion of my search for the truth and I stopped writing my personal Diary on this day saying to myself enough is enough. I found out the truth about God and attained the highest level of knowledge possible. This concluded my experience of the allurement of reality.


The Disclaimer that I submitted to AuthorhouseUK for inclusion as Page 1 of the Book was as follows: I am publishing this book because I genuinely believe that the contents should be made available to a world audience at a time in human history when there is considerable uncertainty on whether a God exists and if so His Nature. I hope that it will make interesting reading and be a source of reliable information that will help people make up their own minds on the issues that arise. Of necessity the book narrates my person struggle to determine the truth of my experiences and I beg indulgence to publish it in the print medium with the issue of the following disclaimer in order to prevent unproductive and unnecessary legal complications in light of the fact that much of what is written in the book has already been blogged over the internet without any issues of libel or defamation having arisen from any person or institution. This is done as an imposition by the Publishers (condition for publication even though I am publishing at my own cost) that I should use a pen name instead of my real name and the statement that any resemblance of the names of persons, institutions and locations cited in this book of my autobiographical account of adult life in the United Kingdom are to be regarded as purely coincidental and no responsiblity will be taken by the author or Publisher for any similarities that may be imagined by any person or their relatives whether living or dead. All email addresses cited are therefore to be treated as fictitious.


In the meantime, just like Egregious_C had been drafted in to prod and denigrate me at my Blog, Thomas Jones was now similarly manipulated to affect the course of legal proceedings to reduce my scope for action. This had to be countered for I needed to retain full control on my Blog as a venue from which to continue indefinitely with my comments on British State and the society if I languished in the doldrums without any sign of an end to my suffering. So when he wrote the following comment in the Question for Prime Ministers Question Time blogpost, I took the opportunity to clarify the complaint on a technical level, as follows:


1. Shan,

Do you acknowledge that some mentally ill people believe there are conspiracies against them, when in fact there are not? That people imagine this as a symptom of a mental illness?

You believe the entire UK Government, up to the prime-minister is involved in a conspiracy against you.

Look at this from the perspective of an outsider- MIGHT it seem like the delusions of someone with a mental illness?

Comment by Thomas Jones | March 26, 2016 | Reply

o Thomas, I believe I told you that I have a plan in place that is currently taking effect to expose the theory that I put forward first in 1998 to my Consultant Psychiatrist that ‘being psychic is not a disorder requiring medical treatment, unless of course Big Brother wants a nation of morons in a Police State’. If you wish to know the precise set up that I have instituted to prove this theory, I am willing to discuss this with you. Shall we continue?

Comment by shantanup | March 26, 2016 | Reply

2. No. You need medical help.

Comment by Thomas Jones | March 26, 2016 | Reply

o Well I will just have to wait for Egregiouis_C to surface again then to discuss it with him, won’t I?

Comment by shantanup | March 26, 2016 | Reply


The background to my submission is that I had detected way back in 1998 that my medical examiniation and treatment was being manipulated by the State, and to probe this had written the following letter to my Consultant Psychiatrist:


PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL

DATA PROTECTION ACT

To: From: Dr Rao Dr S. Panigrahi Consultant Psychiatrist 3 Hoath Lane BUPA Alexandria Hospital, Wigmore Impton Lane, Walderslade Nr Gillingham KENT ME5 9PG KENT ME8 OSL

By Fax and Recorded Delivery 01634 686162 15 December 1998

Dear Dr Rao


CANCELLATION OF APPOINTMENT ON 15 DECEMBER 1998


1. Thank you for contacting my wife on the telephone yesterday to inform me that you have cancelled my appointment with you on 15 December 1998 due to circumstances beyond your control. This is a pity as I wished to tell you about developments since our last meeting, with particular reference to the medicine I am now taking as a result.


2. Dr Rao, quite by ‘accident’ (due to the fact that I ran out of Risperdal tablets on 26 November 1998 and Dr Patel’s Surgery could not issue me with a prescription for these tablets until 9 December 1998) I found myself in a position where I had to take 3 Lustral tablets instead of 2 Lustral and 1 Risperdal. Dr Rao, this is proving to be a ‘miracle’ treatment for me! For the first time since I was referred to you several months ago I was actually feeling much better than I had ever done before. In fact, I felt so much improved in health that even after subsequently receiving the Risperdal tablets I was unable to take it for fear that I would start developing the dreaded ‘psychotic’ symptoms again! This is what I wished to discuss with you today. It seems clear now that all along I had simply been suffering from Severe Depression only, arising from 2 years of workplace harassment at Natural Resources Institute, the grievance that I have been discussing with you and Dr Patel. Of course, as you have also noted I am naturally gifted with being somewhat ‘psychic’ in that I always somehow seem to know when people are plotting against me (please especially note in view of your interest in lexigramming that ‘psychotic’ comes from the words ‘psychic to’) and I was reassured to learn from you that having Pyschic Features to one’s intellect is not a medical condition requiring treatment – unless of course ‘Big Brother’ wants ‘a nation of morons’ in a ‘police state’.


3. In view of the fact that you are not able to see me I am writing this letter to let you know that for my present treatment I am continuing with only Lustral tablets for Depression while remaining on full sickness absence from work, but on advice of the local Pharmacist, I have reduced the dosage to 2 tablets per day. I may reduce it further but will keep you informed in due course. In the meantime please do not hesitate to write to me at home if you have any other suggestions.


Yours sincerely



Shantanu Panigrahi


I never received another appointment at this Private Hospital with this or any other doctor and neither had there been any reply to the letter from Dr Rao to confirm my worst suspicions. Thomas Jones did not reply to the comment posted now. This is how the State organized its institutions and citizens to persecute me. Now I saw that no reply had come from Authorhouse in the following two weeks showing that it had been caught out as deliberately preventing the dissemination of the findings of my investigations in the struggle for truth and justice and within this proviso to survive in the United Kingom. There was no report to my complaint about the NHS treatment that I was subjected to (and which continued to this day) from the Surgery direct or from NHS England in response to the following letter that was prompted by God:


Your telephone Call to me on 21 March 2016 concerning Case C-053109 (Wigmore Medical Centre) (2)

To

22 March 2016 at 11:50 PM

To

Customer Complaints Section

NHS England


Dear Sir/Madam


1. Thank you for your telephone call to me (from Rosina) on 21 March 2016 at around 12.30 pm concerning feedback on my complaint C-053109.


2. As I indicated I was not very satisfied with the outcome of your considerations, but am reassured by Rosina that your 40 working days from 8 February 2016 when I registered my complaint has not yet expired.


3. I look forward to your further consideration of the complaint and the issue of a Complaint Report in due time.


Yours sincerely


Dr Shantanu Panigrahi


On 1 April 2016, on advice from God, I sent the following email to the Medway County Court:


QUEEN DETHRONEMENT PROCEEDINGS WITH COMPENSATION PAYMENT

People

To

1 April 2016 at 20:58

To

The Court Manager

Medway County Court



Dear Sir/Madam


QUEEN DETHRONEMENT PROCEEDINGS WITH COMPENSATION PAYMENT


1. Please update me on the progress of the following dethronement proceedings with compensation of £50,000 from the Queen that I have applied for.


2. I have confirmed from correspondence with Parliament that this application is the correct way of proceeding with my application. You already have my Fee Remission Form to progress the application immediately.


3. Please let me know if for any reason these proceedings cannot be effected at Medway County Court.


Yours sincerely


Dr Shantanu Panigrahi


3 Hoath Lane

Wigmore

Gillingham

Kent ME8 0SL


On Monday, 22 February 2016, 8:26, Shan Panigrahi <shanpanigrahi@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:


To

Medway County Court


DETHRONEMENT PROCEEDINGS


1. Thank you for your reply.


2. However, I can confirm that dethronement proceedings can proceed by way of the petition that I have submitted to the Court here.


Yours sincerely


Dr Shantanu Panigrahi


On Friday, 19 February 2016, 13:49, "Medway County, Enquiries" <enquiries@medway.countycourt.gsi.gov.uk> wrote:


Please visit the below web site with regards to your enquiry.

www.moneyclaim.gov.uk/web/mcol/

Regards

Medway County Court


From: Shan Panigrahi [mailto:shanpanigrahi@yahoo.co.uk] Sent: 19 February 2016 11:23 To: Medway County, Enquiries Cc: julie@beckettllp.com Subject: Fw: Missed Call on my Mobile Phone

To

The Court Manager

Medway County Court



Dear Sir/Madam


1. I forward to you my email to Becketts Solicitors this morning to which no reply has been received. This lack of reply follows a complaint that was lodged with the Solicitors yesterday morning for suppressing and corrupting legal information. The telephone call referred to was designed to persecute me.


2. I am therefore hereby issuing civil proceedings to sue this solicitor Firm for conspiring with my adversaries to deny me the access to the financial entitlements which are due to me. The full name and address of the Solicitors are: BeckettSolicitorsLLP, 27 High Street, Rainham MEB 7HX.


3. I am seeking a minimum of £50,000 in compensation. Please let me know the Court Fee that is needed and send me a Claim Form by email.


Yours sincerely


Dr Shantanu Panigrahi

3 Hoath Lane

Wigmore

Gillingham

Kent ME8 0SL



On Friday, 19 February 2016, 7:25, Shan Panigrahi <shanpanigrahi@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:


To

Julie Boswell


I have noticed a 'missed call' on my mobile phone (No 07967789619) from 01634 263774 at 12.26 pm yesterday: Was that from you?


Shantanu Panigrahi



I also blogged the email under the title: Restoration of Queen Dethronement Proceedings with Compensation Payment at Medway County Court (https://shantanup.wordpress.com/2016/04/01/6139/), and tweeted two British journalists (Toby Young and Andrew Neil) and Narendra Modi (Indian Prime Minister and a Twitter broadcaster named ‘Aspiring Yogi’) to draw their attention to the contents. No replies were returned. The email to Medway Council was needed to have something to fall back on as evidence that I had done all that I could to have my grievances aired through the legal channels and that there was nothing more that I could do.


So I found myself all alone, seeing that nothing that I had written had made an impact on anyone in a way that I would be taken seriously and restored to a life where I would earn a decent living. I had no option but to leave the matter at the hands of the Medway County Court and the other parties who had an interest in the developments.


On 7 April 2016, since nothing was heard from anywhere I decided that I had to telephone the Surgery and ask them if there had been any change in my medication because there were legal matters about the issue. Dr Sudhir Patel telephoned me back and said that there was no change and that I am on 3 mgs of Resperidone per day. I did not discuss the issue further taking this as proof that there had been no relenting from my complaints as yet. An email came from a Company called Pye Tait Consulting apparently inviting me to help it do research for Bar Standards Board (BSB) on public access barristers since it said that I had received services from one. This was felt by me to be dangerous for it wanted to interview me on the telephone to tell them about my experience with Alexander Barristers which I felt would be misinterpreted and used to exonerate the Company of the complaint that I had lodged with the BSB. I decided to prove and attack the BSB as follows:


Research into public access barristers (15)

To

8 April 2016 om 17:08

Dear Ms Brennan


I am not concerned that you will not interview me on the telephone since all the information that I wish to divulge has already been submitted to you. I am concerned that Bar Standard Board has not adequately considered my complaint against these barristers and wish to ensure that this process has been completed by whatever means that the BSB wish to employ to assess it. Please therefore inform me as to what advice you have now receive from 'Ewen MacLeod (emacleod@BarStandardsBoard.org.uk)' and/or from Stephanie Borthwick' concerning the processing of this complaint?


Yours sincerely


Dr Shantanu Panigrahi


On Friday, 8 April 2016, 12:17, Jennifer Brennan <j.brennan@pyetait.com> wrote:


Dear Dr Panigrahi,

I believe I have made the situation clear. It is outside of the scope of this research to interview anyone who has not accessed a public service barrister and you confirmed that you have not done so in your email of 7/4/16 at 17:09. Consequently we will not be interviewing you.

Kind regards

Jennifer

From: Shan Panigrahi [mailto:shanpanigrahi@yahoo.co.uk] Sent: 08 April 2016 11:31 To: Jennifer Brennan <j.brennan@pyetait.com> Subject: Re: Research into public access barristers

Dear Ms Brennan

Alexander Barristers were given strict instructions by me by email that its time limit to act on my legal proceedings requirements expires at 5.00 pm, 8 April 2016. So I am perfectly entitled to be interviewed by you but not before 5.00 pm today. Any attempt to exclude me from this research will be seen as deliberate suppression of the due process of the enhancement of justice, and blogged in my website citing you by name as the offender.

Yours sincerely

Dr Shantanu Panigrahi

On Friday, 8 April 2016, 11:01, Jennifer Brennan <j.brennan@pyetait.com> wrote:

Dear Dr Panigrahi,

Our letter states:

“You have previously received legal services from a public access barrister, so we want to invite you to participate”

Therefore our understanding was that you had instructed a public access barrister – we now know from your clarification that this is not the case, so please accept my apologies for contacting you, but we cannot interview you if you have not instructed a public access barrister.

Kind regards

Jennifer

From: Shan Panigrahi [mailto:shanpanigrahi@yahoo.co.uk] Sent: 08 April 2016 07:03 To: Jennifer Brennan <j.brennan@pyetait.com> Subject: Re: Research into public access barristers

Dear Ms Brennan

Does this mean that I will not now be receiving my telephone interview and the £40 even though you wrote that 'You have previously received legal services from a public access barrister' and hence selected as suitable for this research?

Yours sincerely

Dr Shantanu Panigrahi

On Thursday, 7 April 2016, 17:22, Jennifer Brennan <j.brennan@pyetait.com> wrote:

Many thanks for letting us know,

Kind regards

Jennifer

From: Shan Panigrahi [mailto:shanpanigrahi@yahoo.co.uk] Sent: 07 April 2016 17:09 To: Jennifer Brennan <j.brennan@pyetait.com> Subject: Re: Research into public access barristers

Dear Ms Brennan

I have not instructed any public access barrister: I have had correspondence with Mr Oxton and Mr Lee Gledhill, so I am afraid I cannot assist you any further with this research.

Yours sincerely

Dr Shantanu Panigrahi

On Thursday, 7 April 2016, 17:06, Jennifer Brennan <j.brennan@pyetait.com> wrote:

Dear Dr Panigrahi

I will let you know once we have had chance to review the information – but our criteria is that individuals must have actually instructed a public access barrister to be interviewed. If you have not done so then we would not be able to interview you.

Kind regards

Jennifer

From: Shan Panigrahi [mailto:shanpanigrahi@yahoo.co.uk] Sent: 07 April 2016 16:54 To: Jennifer Brennan <j.brennan@pyetait.com> Subject: Re: Research into public access barristers

Dear Ms Brennan

Are you indicating that my case meets the criteria for your research: yes or no?

Dr Shantanu Panigrahi

On Thursday, 7 April 2016, 16:51, Jennifer Brennan <j.brennan@pyetait.com> wrote:

Dear Dr Panigrahi

Thank you for your email, we will review this and will be in touch with you next week.

With kind regards

Jennifer

From: Shan Panigrahi [mailto:shanpanigrahi@yahoo.co.uk] Sent: 07 April 2016 16:10 To: Jennifer Brennan <j.brennan@pyetait.com> Subject: Re: Research into public access barristers

To

Dear Ms Brennan

1. Please formulate your questions after studying the contents of the following blogpost Alexander Barristers Chambers is reported to the Legal Ombudsman for Racial Discrimination


This evening I had to send the following email to Lee Gledhill of Alexander Barristers Chambers ( copied to the Legal Ombudsman on my Case Reference N...

Preview by Yahoo

and associated blogposts. If a list of these questions are given to me in advance it will help me to provide you with a most comprehensive service, noting in particular that Medway County Court has not yet issued the queen dethronement proceedings with compensation that I require Alexander Barristers to pursue now in addition to the case against the University of Greenwich under ME010463.

2. My telephone number is 01634 379604 for the forthcoming interview. Please hold it urgently.

Yours sincerely

Dr Shantanu Panigrahi

On Thursday, 7 April 2016, 15:51, Jennifer Brennan <j.brennan@pyetait.com> wrote:

Dear Dr Panigrahi

Thank you for your email. The scope of the research is to interview people who have instructed a barrister through the public access scheme. If you did instruct a barrister and would be able to answer questions about your experience, then we would be happy to arrange a time to speak with you.

The scope of the research does not permit us to interview people that did not instruct a public access barrister, or to make payments to people that do not complete the full interview.

With kind regards

Jennifer

From: Shan Panigrahi [mailto:shanpanigrahi@yahoo.co.uk] Sent: 07 April 2016 15:09 To: Jennifer Brennan <j.brennan@pyetait.com> Subject: Re: Research into public access barristers

Dear MS Brennan

1. I wanted a public access barrister to help me counter racism by court officials in Medway County Court but they refused to get involved. Does this experience count as relevant for your research? If so what more do you need to know than you already have access to?

2. Please send me a cheque for £40 to the following address: 3 Hoath Lane, Wigmore, Gillingham, Kent ME8 0SL

Yours sincerely

Dr Shantanu Panigrahi

On Thursday, 7 April 2016, 14:30, Jennifer Brennan <j.brennan@pyetait.com> wrote:

Public Access Research

The Bar Standards Board (BSB) is the regulator of barristers in England and Wales. On behalf of the BSB, Pye Tait Consulting is doing some research to understand the experiences of clients of public access barristers (people who have gone straight to a barrister, without going to a solicitor first.) You have previously received legal services from a public access barrister, so we want to invite you to participate.

Everyone who participates will be given a thank-you payment of £40.

We want to hear about your experience of using a public access barrister. The BSB will use the information to review its rules for public access barristers and to improve the experience of clients.

If you are interested in taking part, we would like to arrange a telephone interview about your experience with a public access barrister. The interview will last about 30 to 45 minutes and will take place at a time convenient for you. We will be in contact to set up an appointment, and to check whether you have any specific requirements to enable you to participate in the research.

Your contact details and the information collected will be treated as confidential by Pye Tait and the BSB. They will not be used for any purpose other than this research and will not be shared with any other parties. No individual will be mentioned by name in the research report.

We hope that you will be able to assist with this research project. However, if you do not wish to be contacted about this project, please let us know by 12th April by emailing a.davies@pyetait.com

If you would like to confirm this is a genuine research project, please contact Stephanie Borthwick at the BSB on 020 7611 1450 who will be happy to address any concerns you may have.

Yours sincerely,

Jennifer

Jennifer Brennan Associate Director


Pye Tait Consulting Specialists in: Business Services, Learning & Skills and Marketing. Tel: 01423 509433 Fax: 01423 509502 Email: info@pyetait.com Website: www.pyetait.comPye Tait Consulting Royal House, 110 Station Parade Harrogate, North Yorkshire HG1 1EP


This message is intended only for j.brennan@pyetait.com and is copyright Pye Tait Limited © All Rights Reserved. If you are not j.brennan@pyetait.com you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this email. Please notify j.brennan@pyetait.com immediately if you have received this email by mistake and delete it from your system. Pye Tait Limited (www.pyetait.com), trading as Pye Tait Consulting, is registered in England, Company No: 4001365. Registered office: Royal House, 110 Station Parade, Harrogate, North Yorkshire, HG1 1EP.


After sending the 8 April 7.03 am email, I had emailed the Bar Standards Board by forwarding the correspondence hitherto in order to probe what this was about and to insert the full updated complaint into BSB (copied to Mr Thomas Oxton the barrister primarily engaged in the matter):


Research into public access barristers (11)

To

CC

8 April 2016 om 7:46

To

Professional Conduct Department Bar Standards Board (BSB) 289-293 High Holborn London WC1V 7HZ

DX: 240 LDE

Opening Hours: 9.00am - 5.00pm

Phone: 0207 611 1444 (General switchboard - please ask to be put through to the Assessment Team for complaint related information)

Dear Sir


ALEXANDER BARRISTERS: MESSRS THOMAS OXTON AND LEE GLEDHILL


1. I write with reference to my 7 March 2014, 1.30 pm email addressed to the BSB Director that I sent to your contactus@barstandardboard.org.uk asking the Director what action BSB had taken on my Case No 201331227 at the Legal Ombudsman upon its legal obligation to share the full Case information with you.


2. I did not seem to have received any reply from you to this email but was contacted yesterday by Pye Tait Consulting who, seemingly, you requested to follow up on the complaint (please clarify) although it is unclear whether the restricted method it is using to evaluate the complaint will lead to any solution since I have still not received an replies from Mr Oxton or Mr Gledhill on whether it will undertake the tasks that I have outlined and updated - please consider this thread of email exchange with Pye Tait.


3. Please therefore let me know what if any action is now being taken by the Bar Standards Board Director to resolve my complaint.


Yours sincerely


Dr Shantanu Panigrahi

3 Hoath Lane

Wigmore

Gillingham

Kent ME8 0SL


On Friday, 8 April 2016, 7:02, Shan Panigrahi <shanpanigrahi@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:


Dear Ms Brennan


Does this mean that I will not now be receiving my telephone interview and the £40 even though you wrote that 'You have previously received legal services from a public access barrister' and hence selected as suitable for this research?

(etc).


And I had followed this by forwarding the entire correspondence under a new Title of Court Proceedings: Defamation to the supervising barrister Mr Lee Gledhill as follows:

Court Proceedings: Defamation

To

CC

8 April 2016 om 8:23

To

Mr Lee Gledhill


Dear Mr Gledhill


1. Please consider the contents of the following email in your consideration of whether to issue defamation proceedings against me for I honestly feel that you have let me down very badly whether or not you feel that I have insinuated this to have been due to racism on your part or of other members of Alexander Barrister. Above all the queen dethronement proceedings must be processed by your firm today.


2. An immediate reply would be greatly appreciated.


Yours sincerely


Dr Shantanu Panigrahi

3 Hoath Lane

Wigmore

Gillingham

Kent ME8 0SL


On Friday, 8 April 2016, 7:46, Shan Panigrahi <shanpanigrahi@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: CC Thomas Oxton


To

Professional Conduct Department Bar Standards Board (BSB) 289-293 High Holborn London WC1V 7HZ

DX: 240 LDE

Opening Hours: 9.00am - 5.00pm

Phone: 0207 611 1444 (General switchboard - please ask to be put through to the Assessment Team for complaint related information)

Dear Sir


ALEXANDER BARRISTERS: MESSRS THOMAS OXTON AND LEE GLEDHILL

(etc).



On Saturday 9 April 2016 I selected numerous Twitterers to send tweets to in order to prod a reply so as to try and publicise my findings but no one would engage in a conversation. It remains to be seen how long the Bar Standards Board can maintain it’s silence after such a blogpost.



Permission to Appeal Out of Time and Permission to Appeal for a new Hearing on ME10463 (5)

To

Apr 13 at 9:00 AM

Good Morning

There does not appear to be an attachment and we no longer retain emails from February 2016 on the system. In order to expedite this matter please send further EX160 and Application Form for permission to appeal out of time and permission to appeal

Regards


From: Shan Panigrahi [mailto:shanpanigrahi@yahoo.co.uk] Sent: 13 April 2016 08:57 To: Medway County , Enquiries Subject: Re: Permission to Appeal Out of Time and Permission to Appeal for a new Hearing on ME10463

To

Medway County Court

1. My Fee Remission Form was sent as an attachment document with my emailed application of 20 February 2016, 7.53 am.

2. I repeat: please let me know the outcome of the Permission to Appeal out of time and Permission to Appeal ME010463.

Yours sincerely

Dr Shantanu Panigrahi

On Wednesday, 13 April 2016, 8:47, " Medway County , Enquiries" <enquiries@medway.countycourt.gsi.gov.uk> wrote:

Good Morning

Your email refers to your applicaton and EX160 to appeal out of time. However we have no attachments to the email sent February 2016 regarding your application. Please send your application form and fee remission form either by post or by an attachment to an email for the Court to process

Regards


From: Shan Panigrahi [mailto:shanpanigrahi@yahoo.co.uk] Sent: 13 April 2016 08:40 To: Medway County , Enquiries Cc: QB Issue & Enquiries Subject: Fw: Permission to Appeal Out of Time and Permission to Appeal for a new Hearing on ME10463

To

The Court Manager

Medway County Court

cc Queens Bench Division, Royal Courts of Justice, London .

Please advise me whether Permission to Appeal out of time and Permission to Appeal for a New Hearing on ME010463 has been granted by a Judge; and if not the full written reasons for non-granting of the permission so that I may take the matter to a higher court to whom I am copying this email because of your silence thus far.

Yours sincerely

Dr Shantanu Panigrahi

On Monday, 22 February 2016, 15:01, Shan Panigrahi <shanpanigrahi@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

Dear Sir

1. Thank you for your email. Please let me clarify. Claim ME010463 started in Medway County Court but was transferred to the Family Court in view of the identification of the NHS as being core perpetrator of persecution. These are not criminal proceedings but civil damages claim proceedings arising from criminal proceedings held at Maidstone Magistrates Court under a private prosecution.

2. Please therefore process the application immediately.

Yours sincerely

Dr Shantanu Panigrahi

On Monday, 22 February 2016, 12:25, " Medway County , Enquiries" <enquiries@medway.countycourt.gsi.gov.uk> wrote:

Dear sir,

the case number you have supplied is not a valid case number of ours, and we do not deal with criminal proceedings. Please check you have sent this to the right court.

Kind regards

Medway County Court Family Section


From: Shan Panigrahi [mailto:shanpanigrahi@yahoo.co.uk] Sent: 20 February 2016 07:54 To: Medway County , Enquiries Subject: Permission to Appeal Out of Time and Permission to Appeal for a new Hearing on ME10463

To

The Court Manager

Medway County Court

CLAIM ME010463: DAMAGES DUE TO ME BY THE CRIMINAL ACTIONS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF GREENWICH AND COCONSPIRATORS

Dear Sir/Madam

1. As suggested by the Court I am hereby submitting my application for permission to appeal out of time and permission to appeal for a new Hearing to be arranged on Claim ME010463.

2. The grounds for this application is that it has taken me all of these 17 years since my dismissal from the University of Greenwich to obtain the evidence against all the coconspirators of the University of Greenwich that I required I required as being fundamentally essential before a Hearing should have been held. In the absence of support from the Police and the lack of private investigators in the United Kingdom, I have had to do all this work myself through correspondence with court officials and other institutions of the State to finally nail the National Health Service which through the Wigmore Medical Centre of Dr Sudhir Patel brought about the systematic manipulation of my mental health status into the open. All the co-conspirators of the University of Greenwich therefore now been assembled by me for the Judge to take evidence from and make a fresh decision of this Claim. Specfically, my contention is that that all previous Hearings held under this Claim Number were premature arranged by the Court in my absence or on representation on legitmate grounds including manipulated solicitors, so that I was not ready to present the full evidence to a Judge.

3. I attach herewith my Fee Remisson Form accordingly for the consideration of the Court towards this application for permission to appeal out of time, permission to appeal, and if these are granted, the costs of the Hearing.

Yours sincerely

Dr Shantanu Panigrahi

3 Hoath Lane

Wigmore

Gillingham

Kent ME9 0SL

On Friday, 19 February 2016, 11:23, Shan Panigrahi <shanpanigrahi@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

To

The Court Manager

Medway County Court

Dear Sir/Madam

1. I forward to you my email to Becketts Solicitors this morning to which no reply has been received. This lack of reply follows a complaint that was lodged with the Solicitors yesterday morning for suppressing and corrupting legal information. The telephone call referred to was designed to persecute me.

2. I am therefore hereby issuing civil proceedings to sue this solicitor Firm for conspiring with my adversaries to deny me the access to the financial entitlements which are due to me. The full name and address of the Solicitors are: BeckettSolicitorsLLP, 27 High Street , Rainham MEB 7HX.

3. I am seeking a minimum of £50,000 in compensation. Please let me know the Court Fee that is needed and send me a Claim Form by email.

Yours sincerely

Dr Shantanu Panigrahi

3 Hoath Lane

Wigmore

Gillingham

Kent ME8 0SL

On Friday, 19 February 2016, 7:25, Shan Panigrahi <shanpanigrahi@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

To

Julie Boswell

I have noticed a 'missed call' on my mobile phone (No 07967789619) from 01634 263774 at 12.26 pm yesterday: Was that from you?

Shantanu Panigrahi


I then resend the original email and attachment


Permission to Appeal Out of Time and Permission to Appeal for a new Hearing on ME10463 (3)

To

Apr 13 at 10:09 AM

Rubbish


On Wednesday, 13 April 2016, 10:03, "Medway County, Enquiries" <enquiries@medway.countycourt.gsi.gov.uk> wrote:


Good Morning

Unfortunately the EX160 you have attached is no longer valid. You will need to go online (www.justice.gov.uk) and print off the up to date EX160 Application Form. In addition, your application for permission to appeal out of time and permission to appeal must be on the proper application form and not informally by way of a letter.

Regards


From: Shan Panigrahi [mailto:shanpanigrahi@yahoo.co.uk] Sent: 13 April 2016 09:05 To: Medway County , Enquiries Subject: Fw: Permission to Appeal Out of Time and Permission to Appeal for a new Hearing on ME10463

To

Medway County Court

1. As you require I am re-sending my application for Permission to Appeal out of Time and Permission to Appeal since you say that the Court does not any longer have the original documents.

2. Please let me know by return email by which date the outcome of this application will be made known to me.

Yours sincerely

Dr Shantanu Panigrahi

3 Hoath Lane

Wigmore

Gillingham

Kent ME8 0SL

On Saturday, 20 February 2016, 7:53, Shan Panigrahi <shanpanigrahi@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

To

The Court Manager

Medway County Court

CLAIM ME010463: DAMAGES DUE TO ME BY THE CRIMINAL ACTIONS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF GREENWICH AND COCONSPIRATORS

Dear Sir/Madam

1. As suggested by the Court I am hereby submitting my application for permission to appeal out of time and permission to appeal for a new Hearing to be arranged on Claim ME010463.

2. The grounds for this application is that it has taken me all of these 17 years since my dismissal from the University of Greenwich to obtain the evidence against all the coconspirators of the University of Greenwich that I required I required as being fundamentally essential before a Hearing should have been held. In the absence of support from the Police and the lack of private investigators in the United Kingdom, I have had to do all this work myself through correspondence with court officials and other institutions of the State to finally nail the National Health Service which through the Wigmore Medical Centre of Dr Sudhir Patel brought about the systematic manipulation of my mental health status into the open. All the co-conspirators of the University of Greenwich therefore now been assembled by me for the Judge to take evidence from and make a fresh decision of this Claim. Specfically, my contention is that that all previous Hearings held under this Claim Number were premature arranged by the Court in my absence or on representation on legitmate grounds including manipulated solicitors, so that I was not ready to present the full evidence to a Judge.

3. I attach herewith my Fee Remisson Form accordingly for the consideration of the Court towards this application for permission to appeal out of time, permission to appeal, and if these are granted, the costs of the Hearing.

Yours sincerely

Dr Shantanu Panigrahi

3 Hoath Lane

Wigmore

Gillingham

Kent ME9 0SL

On Friday, 19 February 2016, 11:23, Shan Panigrahi <shanpanigrahi@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

To

The Court Manager

Medway County Court

Dear Sir/Madam

1. I forward to you my email to Becketts Solicitors this morning to which no reply has been received. This lack of reply follows a complaint that was lodged with the Solicitors yesterday morning for suppressing and corrupting legal information. The telephone call referred to was designed to persecute me.

2. I am therefore hereby issuing civil proceedings to sue this solicitor Firm for conspiring with my adversaries to deny me the access to the financial entitlements which are due to me. The full name and address of the Solicitors are: BeckettSolicitorsLLP, 27 High Street , Rainham MEB 7HX.

3. I am seeking a minimum of £50,000 in compensation. Please let me know the Court Fee that is needed and send me a Claim Form by email.

Yours sincerely

Dr Shantanu Panigrahi

3 Hoath Lane

Wigmore

Gillingham

Kent ME8 0SL


On 14 April 2016 I was feeling vulnerable that I had deposited a ‘Rubbish’ remark to a Court so to activate it further by explaining it I submitted a complaint to Medway County Court. The following exchange took place:


Complaint against court official(s) (3)

Medway County, Enquiries Good Morning, Please accept this email as a response to your complaint. In regards to your email, the form originally sent to you is incorrect, that is admitted. I have now attached the correct form.

Apr 14 at 10:41 AM

To

Apr 15 at 12:58 PM

Dear Miss Nic Gibson


1. Thank you for the swift manner in which you have cleared up the misunderstanding.


2. In relation to your query I wish to confirm that I wish to re-instate my original case but with new respondents that have come on to participate in the legal proceedings to act in conspiracy with the University of London, notably the Bar Standards Board and the Legal Ombudsman. Wigmore Medical Centre (Dr Sudhir Patel) remains the third co-respondent. Please let me know if this will be accepted by the Judge.


3. Please also note that there will now be a delay in my submission of the papers through the post using a N244 Application Notice that you require. Please send me a copy of this form as an email attachment now.


Yours sincerely


Dr Shantanu Panigrahi


On Thursday, 14 April 2016, 10:41, "Medway County, Enquiries" <enquiries@medway.countycourt.gsi.gov.uk> wrote:


Good Morning,

Please accept this email as a response to your complaint.

In regards to your email, the form originally sent to you is incorrect, that is admitted. I have now attached the correct form.

You have been previously informed that the court will not deal with matters in an informal approach such as an email. Court staff must follow procedures and issue claims in the correct format. You have not provided any claim in the correct format.

Application forms must be filled in and due to age of the previous matter, we have previously requested that you provide copies of the documentation so that we may rebuild the court file.

It is not clear from reading your email whether you wish to issue a claim or re-instate your previous case but the court will require proper instructions in any case on the correct forms and in the correct format.

Regards

Miss Nic Gibson Civil & Enforcement Section Medway County Court Anchorage House 47-67 High Street Chatham Kent ME44DW T: 01634 887914 F: 01634 811332

Please note that I am not the direct administrator for your case and will not answer queries unless they are made through the enquires mailbox enquiries@medway.countycourt.gsi.gov.uk


From: Shan Panigrahi [mailto:shanpanigrahi@yahoo.co.uk] Sent: 14 April 2016 07:19 To: Medway County , Enquiries Subject: Complaint against court official(s)

To

The Court Manager

Medway County Court

Dear Sir/Madam

1. I wish to lodge a formal complaint against the court official(s) employed in the processing of the following application since its submission that I have had to describe as 'rubbish' on the grounds that the Fee Remission Form I used was actually sent to me by the Court. The Form would show that I have no money to send things in the post and there is no requirement for any Application Forms for this stage of the proceedings. Further, it has been deeply prejudicial that the matter has never been placed before a judge for formal directions on which respondents will be served notice of this application to have their objections filed before the Hearing is arranged, especially on whether the Queen will be served this notice at Buckingham Palace .


2. The seeming incompetence of the court official(s) has led to to a considerable wastage of time that I have continued to suffer the injustice of.


3. Please let me know the correct procedure for filing this complaint to the appropriate authorities in the Court Service.


Yours sincerely


Dr Shantanu Panigrahi

On Saturday, 20 February 2016, 7:53, Shan Panigrahi <shanpanigrahi@yahoo.co.uk> wrote on subject title: Fw: Permission to Appeal Out of Time and Permission to Appeal for a new Hearing on ME10463

To

The Court Manager

Medway County Court

CLAIM ME010463: DAMAGES DUE TO ME BY THE CRIMINAL ACTIONS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF GREENWICH AND COCONSPIRATORS

Dear Sir/Madam

1. As suggested by the Court I am hereby submitting my application for permission to appeal out of time and permission to appeal for a new Hearing to be arranged on Claim ME010463.

2. The grounds for this application is that it has taken me all of these 17 years since my dismissal from the University of Greenwich to obtain the evidence against all the coconspirators of the University of Greenwich that II required as being fundamentally essential before a Hearing should have been held. In the absence of support from the Police and the lack of private investigators in the United Kingdom, I have had to do all this work myself through correspondence with court officials and other institutions of the State to finally nail the National Health Service which through the Wigmore Medical Centre of Dr Sudhir Patel brought about the systematic manipulation of my mental health status into the open. All the co-conspirators of the University of Greenwich therefore now been assembled by me for the Judge to take evidence from and make a fresh decision of this Claim. Specfically, my contention is that that all previous Hearings held under this Claim Number were premature arranged by the Court in my absence or on representation on legitmate grounds including manipulated solicitors, so that I was not ready to present the full evidence to a Judge.

3. I attach herewith my Fee Remisson Form accordingly for the consideration of the Court towards this application for permission to appeal out of time, permission to appeal, and if these are granted, the costs of the Hearing.

Yours sincerely

Dr Shantanu Panigrahi

3 Hoath Lane

Wigmore

Gillingham

Kent ME9 0SL

On Friday, 19 February 2016, 11:23, Shan Panigrahi <shanpanigrahi@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

To

The Court Manager

Medway County Court

Dear Sir/Madam

1. I forward to you my email to Becketts Solicitors this morning to which no reply has been received. This lack of reply follows a complaint that was lodged with the Solicitors yesterday morning for suppressing and corrupting legal information. The telephone call referred to was designed to persecute me.

2. I am therefore hereby issuing civil proceedings to sue this solicitor Firm for conspiring with my adversaries to deny me the access to the financial entitlements which are due to me. The full name and address of the Solicitors are: BeckettSolicitorsLLP, 27 High Street , Rainham MEB 7HX.

3. I am seeking a minimum of £50,000 in compensation. Please let me know the Court Fee that is needed and send me a Claim Form by email.

Yours sincerely

Dr Shantanu Panigrahi

3 Hoath Lane

Wigmore

Gillingham

Kent ME8 0SL

On Friday, 19 February 2016, 7:25, Shan Panigrahi <shanpanigrahi@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

To

Julie Boswell

I have noticed a 'missed call' on my mobile phone (No 07967789619) from 01634 263774 at 12.26 pm yesterday: Was that from you?

Shantanu Panigrahi



I was going to leave things alone as I had overcome all the dangers that I had faced and then the Bar Standards Board replied as follows:



Research into public access barristers (PCD reference: PR 2014/0168) (2)

People

Assessment Complaints Dear Dr Panigrahi, Thank you for your email. It appears that Pye Tait have contacted you for research purposes, and not with a view to looking into your complaint. Our position on your complaint was s

Apr 15 at 11:57 AM

To

Apr 15 at 12:20 PM

Dear Sir


Is the Bar Standards Board of the opinion that Mr Thomas Oxton did not receive legally-valid instructions from me to act on my behalf, and had nothing to do with the contact made with me to reassess the matter by Mr Vic Kanwar at my website on 1 March 2016?


Yours sincerely


Dr Shantanu Panigrahi


On Friday, 15 April 2016, 11:57, Assessment Complaints <AssessmentComplaints@BarStandardsBoard.org.uk> wrote:


Dear Dr Panigrahi,

Thank you for your email.

It appears that Pye Tait have contacted you for research purposes, and not with a view to looking into your complaint.

Our position on your complaint was set out in Mr Adrian Turner’s letter to you dated 7 April 2014, a copy of which I have attached.

Yours sincerely,

Assessment Team

Professional Conduct Department

Bar Standards Board

Switchboard: 020 7611 1444

Fax: 0207 831 9217

From: Shan Panigrahi [mailto:shanpanigrahi@yahoo.co.uk] Sent: 08 April 2016 07:47 To: Assessment Complaints <AssessmentComplaints@BarStandardsBoard.org.uk> Cc: Thomas Oxton <thomasoxton@alexanderchambers.co.uk> Subject: Fw: Research into public access barristers

(Etc)


The Turner letter dated 7 April 2014 was as follows: Dear Dr Panigrahi. Thank you for your email dated 26 March 2014. So far as your complaint about Mr Thomas Oxton is concerned, we have obtained from the Office of the Legal Ombudsman a copy of your exchange of communications with them and have seen the complaint which you have made to the Ombudsmans office, which is that Mr Oxton had failed to lodge your claim at the High Court or to act for you and that he had no legitimate grounds not to act on your behalf. We are satisfied that the Legal Ombudsman’s office was correct not to report any aspect of your complaint about Mr Oxton to the BSB pursuant to section 143 of the Legal Services Act 2014 as your complaint about Mr Oxton is about his service – or lack of service. Issues of service are for the Legal Ombudsman rather than this office. In the absence of a formal report to us by the Legal Ombudsman in accordance with the Legal Services Act we will not be giving further consideration to whatever complaints you have made to the Legal Ombudsman about Mr Oxton. If you wish to make a formal complaint about Mr Gledhill to this office then as he does not act for you then it is open to you to do so. You will need to complete and return one of our complaint forms. A set of guidance notes and a complaint form for your completion and return if you wish to make a complaint about Mr Gledhill is attached. I must make clear that in considering whatever complaint you decide to make to this office concerning Mr Gledhill, we will not be giving any consideration to your complaints about Mr Oxton or making any determination on those complaints as they are matters for the Legal Ombudsman to consider. Your sincerely Adrian Turner; Assessment Team Manager.



I waited for any further developments from the Court or any other party but nothing happened, so out of frustration decided that I had to lodge my Blog contents in the Royal household with the following email that I sent on 20 April 2016:


Error in the Website for Her Majesty the Queen

To

20 April 2016 at 9:29

To

Public Relations and Marketing The Royal Collection St. James's Palace London SW1A 1BS Tel (during 9am - 5pm (GMT) Monday to Friday): (+44) (0)20 7839 1377. Please note, calls to this number may be recorded. E-mail: press@royalcollection.org.uk

20 April 2016


Dear Sir/Madam

1. I write to you on a matter of Public Relations and Marketing for the Royal Family because there seems to be an error in your understanding of the role of the monarch in contemporary British State. I draw your attention to the following ambiguous statements that appear in the your website on how to write to the Queen: ‘as a constitutional Monarch, Her Majesty does not intervene in any political or personal disputes, and letters asking her to do so will receive a standard reply to this effect'; and ‘If you wish to write a formal letter, you can open with 'Madam' and close the letter with the form 'I have the honour to be, Madam, Your Majesty's humble and obedient servant. This traditional approach is by no means obligatory. You should feel free to write in whatever style you feel comfortable.’

2. I feel that I have good reason to believe that my letter to Her Majesty a decade and a half ago did not receive the due Last Resort response from her because I had not addressed my letter in the appropriate manner in that unlike what the above statements that lead the public to believe the Queen to be a constitutional monarch, the fact is that she is an absolute monarch.

3. I would therefore request you to investigate my evidence as given in my Blog (https://shantanup.wordpress.com/) and make the appropriate correction to these misleading statements relating to the Public Relations and the Marketing of the Royal Family.

Thank you for your kind consideration.

Dr Shantanu Panigrahi

3 Hoath Lane

Wigmore

Gillingham

Kent ME8 0SL



This prompted the following response from the Bar Standards Board to which I responded with a pertinent question:

PR 2014/0168 (2)

To

20 April 2016 at 12:13

Dear Bar Standards Board


Why did you start a research project by providing my details to Pye Tait involving this matter that you knew to be active in terms of the progression of legal proceedings at Medway County Court?


Yours sincerely


Dr Shantanu Panigrahi


On Wednesday, 20 April 2016, 12:00, Assessment Complaints <AssessmentComplaints@BarStandardsBoard.org.uk> wrote:


Dear Dr Panigrahi,

Further to your email of 15 April 2016 I refer you to our response where it was stated that our position on your complaint was set out in Mr Adrian Turner’s letter to you dated 7 April 2014. A copy of which was attached to the previous email.

Mr Turner’s letter informed you that we will not be giving any consideration to your complaints about Mr Oxton or making any determination on those complaints as they are matters for the Legal Ombudsman to consider.

We hope this assists with your query.

Yours sincerely,

Assessment Team

Professional Conduct Department

Bar Standards Board

Switchboard: 020 7611 1444

Fax: 0207 831 9217

From: Shan Panigrahi [mailto:shanpanigrahi@yahoo.co.uk] Sent: 15 April 2016 12:20 To: Assessment Complaints <AssessmentComplaints@BarStandardsBoard.org.uk> Subject: Re: Research into public access barristers (PCD reference: PR 2014/0168)

Dear Sir

Is the Bar Standards Board of the opinion that Mr Thomas Oxton did not receive legally-valid instructions from me to act on my behalf, and had nothing to do with the contact made with me to reassess the matter by Mr Vic Kanwar at my website on 1 March 2016?

Yours sincerely

Dr Shantanu Panigrahi

On Friday, 15 April 2016, 11:57, Assessment Complaints <AssessmentComplaints@BarStandardsBoard.org.uk> wrote:


(ETC)


I then telephoned the Public Relations and Marketing Department of the Monarchy and left the following message at the Voicemail to which I had been directed (earlier when I tried to discuss the email that I sent with a Lady there she cut off the telephone line):

This is Dr Shantanu Panigrahi from 3 Hoath Lane, Wigmore, Gillingham in Kent. I sent an email this morning at 9.29 am. I needed to know how to send a reminder to the Queen. If you reply to my email on how to send a reminder to the Queen and how to address this letter I would be very grateful. Thank you.


All through this past month Thomas Jones was used to as a vehicle by the State to prod and denigrate me and I countered him with comment replies, starting with the Dethronment proceedings blogpost, as follows:



6 Comments »

1. You made an error filing on April 1st- they will assume you were making an April Fools joke- they would not for one moment assume you were serious.

How did my prediction regarding you being mentioned in Question Time go? Maybe it’s me that is Physic!!

Comment by Thomas Jones | April 3, 2016 | Reply

o Thomas, are you trying to make fun of my serious attempts to obtain legal redress for my sufferring?

Please note that to make a joke like the one you are suggesting I have done to a Court would amount to a very serious charge being levelled against me of being in some way in ‘contempt of court’ of ‘wasting court time’. I have a valid application which should be considered in light of the fact that I have taken considerable precautions from my email discussions with state authorities much (not all) of which is blogged to put it to this Court that the Queen is not above the law in the consideration of her actions. Any nation’s Constitution must have provsion for the removal of any official (which is what the Queen is technically) from serving the State in any capacity if his or her conduct does not meet the State’s expectations. This is rightfully determined through a Court of law.

Whilst it is open to Medway County Court to decide that the severity of my allegation against the Queen and the evidence presented in this Blog that it has to take into account (with further evidence from me as required) may not warrant her dethronment I should be demanding the full written reasons of the Court for any such decision to see if it can be appealed at a higher court.

Further, the issue of my demand for compensation from the Queen that I have applied for as part of the petition cannot be sighed away by the legal authorities.

What is your response to these submissions as the arguments upon which the Case is based?

Comment by shantanup | April 3, 2016 | Reply

2. You are attempting to have the Queen de-throned. That is hilarious. Of course it will be taken as a joke- only because they don’t understand it is the action of a seriously mentally ill person.

Get help

Comment by Thomas Jones | April 4, 2016 | Reply

o You may be right Thomas: on the first full working day for the Medway County Court today since my submission on 1 April 2016, there was not even an email acknowledgement of my emailed application, let alone a formal reply. I only have the autoacknowledgement email that had come at the time that I sent the email as proof that my email had been lodged. There has not been any reply from Parliament either on my pleas. Similarly, NHS England has not contacted me about my Report for the complaint that I lodged with them on 8 February 2016 on my medical diagnosis and treatment.

I am not going to waste any more of my time and effort on this in light of the silence. All we have is your repeated interjections in the proceedings this time at 4.32 pm this afternoon for some strange reason when you failed to contact me earlier and you had rejected my offer of explaining to you the set up that I had instituted to expose the doctors Surgery at Wigmore Medical Centre as a State moron.

It just goes to prove that the medical authorities were manipulated by Big Brother from 1998 itself when I wrote to the Consultant Psychiatrist about the problems I had been facing in that famous statement that Big Brother does want a nation of morons in a Police State where not only the institutions are manipulated to clamp down on dissenting voices struggling for truth, freedom and justice, individual citizens are drafted in to play a role in regulating the society to unwritten values.

I do not think I will be hearing from you anymore in this Blog.

Comment by shantanup | April 4, 2016 | Reply

3. It’s not big brother manipulating anything- it’s you being mentally ill.

Shan, make an appointment with a physiatrist and show them this blog.

If these are not the delusions of a mentally ill person, you will be vindicated.

Comment by Thomas Jones | April 4, 2016 | Reply

o I had voluntarily subjected myself to my doctor for referral to a private hospital Psychiatrist at the height of my workplace harassment suffered in the University of Greenwich during the summer of 1998. For years since then I was under the illusion that western medicine was correct and that these mental conditions (of various descriptions) do exist and some may even consider them heriditary. In recent years however, following my yoga practices, I have developed my own theory of the nature of reality in the way that the human mind is influenced. So I dismiss western psychiatry as codswallop.

I am now also very strongly a person of religion who knows that it is wrong for the State to impose medication and other therapies to ‘sort out’ human mental anxieties.

For both these reasons I would be a fool to subject my greater understanding of the matter to what are western book worms psychiatrists without any grasp of guna consciousness forces and God’s overriding presence that affects the human mind.

Please note in particular that in writing my Blog, I do not seek vindication from humans, for I have vindication from God for what I do and the beliefs I hold.

Comment by shantanup | April 5, 2016 | Reply



The exchange continued in the Bar Standards Board blogpost as follows:

8 Comments »

1. Do you get that you are achieving nothing other than being a bloody nuisance and wasting peoples time?

Comment by Thomas Jones | April 16, 2016 | Reply

o No, I most certainly do not get that.

Comment by shantanup | April 16, 2016 | Reply

2. So what else have you achieved?

Comment by Thomas Jones | April 17, 2016 | Reply

o I have obtained proof.

Comment by shantanup | April 17, 2016 | Reply

3. No, you haven’t. You have suffered an extreme case of confirmation bias only possible because of your mental illness.

Comment by Thomas Jones | April 18, 2016 | Reply

o You seem to be referring to my belief that a God exists and has helped me through my struggles. This is not what I meant when I said that I had obtained proof. The proof that I have obtained that I was referring to relates to my discovery that the United Kingdom is not governed as a constitutional monarchy but as an absolute monarchy in which the sovereign ruler is above the law. This has meant that the Queen cannot face any criminal or civil actions against her in the courts nor any other form of scrutiny of her personal conduct for disciplinary proceedings.

Comment by shantanup | April 18, 2016 | Reply

4. The Queen has absolutely nothing to do with your silly squabbles, and the fact that you think she does is proof of mental illness.

Comment by Thomas Jones | April 20, 2016 | Reply

o Thomas, you really ought to do your research more thoroughly before posting comments that mislead my readers. As you know Egregious_C was not banned by me inspite of his ridiculous assertions about narcissm and so on because I have always felt that I owed it to WordPress to leave this a totally open forum for the expression of all kinds of views, and in order that I continue to fulfill my mission of enlightening the world with conservation-oriented information. So I am continuing to persevere with you.

Now, do you need any help from me to provide you with additional background to this Case?

Comment by shantanup | April 20, 2016 | Reply


1. Nope- you are insane.

Comment by Thomas Jones | April 21, 2016 | Reply

o 1. In any case, I should tell you that I received the following email from Bar Standards Board: On Wednesday, 20 April 2016, 12:00, Assessment Complaints wrote:

Dear Dr Panigrahi,

Further to your email of 15 April 2016 I refer you to our response where it was stated that our position on your complaint was set out in Mr Adrian Turner’s letter to you dated 7 April 2014. A copy of which was attached to the previous email.

Mr Turner’s letter informed you that we will not be giving any consideration to your complaints about Mr Oxton or making any determination on those complaints as they are matters for the Legal Ombudsman to consider.

We hope this assists with your query.

Yours sincerely,

Assessment Team Professional Conduct Department Bar Standards Board Switchboard: 020 7611 1444 Fax: 0207 831 9217

2. My 15 April 2016 email was as follows: From: Shan Panigrahi [mailto:shanpanigrahi@yahoo.co.uk] Sent: 15 April 2016 12:20 To: Assessment Complaints Subject: Re: Research into public access barristers (PCD reference: PR 2014/0168)

Dear Sir

Is the Bar Standards Board of the opinion that Mr Thomas Oxton did not receive legally-valid instructions from me to act on my behalf, and had nothing to do with the contact made with me to reassess the matter by Mr Vic Kanwar at my website on 1 March 2016?

Yours sincerely

Dr Shantanu Panigrahi

3. The Turner letter from Bar Standards Board dated 7 April 2014 was as follows: Dear Dr Panigrahi. Thank you for your email dated 26 March 2014. So far as your complaint about Mr Thomas Oxton is concerned, we have obtained from the Office of the Legal Ombudsman a copy of your exchange of communications with them and have seen the complaint which you have made to the Ombudsmans office, which is that Mr Oxton had failed to lodge your claim at the High Court or to act for you and that he had no legitimate grounds not to act on your behalf. We are satisfied that the Legal Ombudsman’s office was correct not to report any aspect of your complaint about Mr Oxton to the BSB pursuant to section 143 of the Legal Services Act 2014 as your complaint about Mr Oxton is about his service – or lack of service. Issues of service are for the Legal Ombudsman rather than this office. In the absence of a formal report to us by the Legal Ombudsman in accordance with the Legal Services Act we will not be giving further consideration to whatever complaints you have made to the Legal Ombudsman about Mr Oxton. If you wish to make a formal complaint about Mr Gledhill to this office then as he does not act for you then it is open to you to do so. You will need to complete and return one of our complaint forms. A set of guidance notes and a complaint form for your completion and return if you wish to make a complaint about Mr Gledhill is attached. I must make clear that in considering whatever complaint you decide to make to this office concerning Mr Gledhill, we will not be giving any consideration to your complaints about Mr Oxton or making any determination on those complaints as they are matters for the Legal Ombudsman to consider. Your sincerely Adrian Turner; Assessment Team Manager.

4. In light of these clarifications I fail to see what authority or justification the Bar Standards Board had to submit my details including my email address to Pye Tait Consulting stating that I had received legal services from a public access barrister thereby enabling this company to contact me to conduct a research of my experience with Alexander Barrister; and why indeed Pye Tait aborted the research once the preliminary case submissions had been made by me.

5. Would you care to do any research to establish the answers, Thomas?

Comment by shantanup | April 21, 2016 | Reply

2. They are politely telling you that you are a whack job and to leave them alone.

Comment by Thomas Jones | April 21, 2016 | Reply

o You may be right because I did not receive a reply to the following email that I sent to the Royals and which I followed up with three telephone calls as a reminder of the petition that I had made to Her Majesty the Queen:

Error in the Website for Her Majesty the Queen Shan Panigrahi To press@royalcollection.org.uk 20 April 2016 at 9:29 To Public Relations and Marketing The Royal Collection St. James’s Palace London SW1A 1BS Tel (during 9am – 5pm (GMT) Monday to Friday): (+44) (0)20 7839 1377. Please note, calls to this number may be recorded. E-mail: press@royalcollection.org.uk

20 April 2016

Dear Sir/Madam

1. I write to you on a matter of Public Relations and Marketing for the Royal Family because there seems to be an error in your understanding of the role of the monarch in contemporary British State. I draw your attention to the following ambiguous statements that appear in the your website on how to write to the Queen: ‘as a constitutional Monarch, Her Majesty does not intervene in any political or personal disputes, and letters asking her to do so will receive a standard reply to this effect’; and ‘If you wish to write a formal letter, you can open with ‘Madam’ and close the letter with the form ‘I have the honour to be, Madam, Your Majesty’s humble and obedient servant. This traditional approach is by no means obligatory. You should feel free to write in whatever style you feel comfortable.’

2. I feel that I have good reason to believe that my letter to Her Majesty a decade and a half ago did not receive the due Last Resort response from her because I had not addressed my letter in the appropriate manner in that unlike what the above statements that lead the public to believe the Queen to be a constitutional monarch, the fact is that she is an absolute monarch.

3. I would therefore request you to investigate my evidence as given in my Blog (https://shantanup.wordpress.com/) and make the appropriate correction to these misleading statements relating to the Public Relations and the Marketing of the Royal Family.

Thank you for your kind consideration.

Dr Shantanu Panigrahi 3 Hoath Lane Wigmore Gillingham Kent ME8 0SL Reply Reply to All Forward More

Comment by shantanup | April 21, 2016 | Reply

3. Do you have any clue how many letters people write to the Queen? If she read let alone answered them all, it would take three times the hours of the day, every day!

It takes someone with no grasp of reality to think as you do.

Comment by Thomas Jones | April 22, 2016 | Reply

o I have just now (at 2.50 pm on this Friday afternoon) telephoned my Chemist (Phoenix Pharmacy of Wigmore) and asked it to check with Wigmore Medical Centre Surgery to see what if any prescription for medication would be given to me next by the National Health Service, as I have a Prescription Collection Service arrangement with the Pharmacy. So perhaps that will help me in ascertaining the reality underlying the Constitution of the United Kingdom because I cannot see why I have not heard from Medway County Court nor the Parliamentary authorities concerning my complaints. Do you perhaps think that these legal authorities regard me as a mental case certified by the doctors so not to be taken seriously?

Comment by shantanup | April 22, 2016 | Reply

4. I have to say something. Shan, this is crazy. First, you completely mistake a survey for someone wishing to help you on your lost cause. Then you violate their clearly stated copyright. Then you have the timerity to accuse them of terrorizing you. If that weren’t enough, you then send an email to the curators of the Royal art collection, complaining about some stupid notion that the Queen is an absolute monarch and falsly attribute some protocol you disagreen with as theirs when it’s actually found on a completely different web site. To say you’re delusional would be the coursest understatement. You need help. Lots of it. You should do this voluntarily before they come and take you away.

Comment by egregious_c | April 23, 2016 | Reply

o Egregious, I will make some points in the sequence that is appropriate since you have decided to resume your postings here.

(a) The first thing to say is that I welcome your comments but you should first note that I have not withdrawn my allegation that earlier on you had engaged in stalking harassment on me. I believe in forgiving and forgetting whether or not an apology has been received. It is one of the 10 Yamas and 10 Niyamas of Yoga. So I will not go over all that again especially since the Maidstone Magistrates did not let me pursue my private prosecution of those who had been engaged in criminally persecuting me. I should in due course write about my experiences in full.

(b) As to the contents of what you have just written there are factual errors in your snapshot analysis that we would have to go over and I am amenable to doing so if you wish to continue with this conversation. However, the central charge that I have made in this blogpost is that the Bar Standards Board has engaged in a process of terrorising me with legal complications in relation to my complaints. I stand by my allegation and should point out to you that this matter is currently the subject of civil proceedings designed to restore ME002953/ME001463 Claim at Medway County Court in which I have stated to the Court that there will be a delay in my submission of the Application Notice with documentary evidence. The court by its silence has accepted this delay, which has been necessitated by the continued intransigence of several co-respondents to the University of Greenwich in not providing me with their responses that would reveal the evidence that I need for these proceedings. You should note that you yourself would be required to give evidence to the court in due course for whether or not the private prosecution has taken place and whether or not Kent Police will provide me with its Report on Incident 08-0943, the Judge may well feel compelled to say that you have to provide compensation to me for the stalking harrassment. Centrally however, for the purposes of my Blog, you would need to determine why the Bar Standards Board has not replied to my email sent in response to its 20 April 2016 12.00 hours email that I reproduced above, as follows:

PR 2014/0168 (2) Shan Panigrahi To Assessment Complaints 20 April 2016 at 12:13 Dear Bar Standards Board

Why did you start a research project by providing my details to Pye Tait involving this matter that you knew to be active in terms of the progression of legal proceedings at Medway County Court?

Yours sincerely

Dr Shantanu Panigrahi

On Wednesday, 20 April 2016, 12:00, Assessment Complaints wrote: (etc)

(c) So you should accordingly realise that everything I have done and continue to do is geared to ensuring that the Court will have all the relevant information on which to base its consideration of any criticisms of my actions as a counterclaim of mine prepared to counter any attempt by the State or its cohorts from either subjecting me to court action of any kind or further subjecting me its National Health Service terrorism by having people in white coats take me away as you put it.

Comment by shantanup | April 23, 2016 | Reply

5. “Do you perhaps think that these legal authorities regard me as a mental case certified by the doctors so not to be taken seriously?”

That’s exactly the case.

Comment by Thomas Jones | April 23, 2016 | Reply

o They really are a part of a nation of morons in a Police State.

Comment by shantanup | April 23, 2016 | Reply

6. No, they have accurately assessed they are dealing with a mental case.

Comment by Thomas Jones | April 23, 2016 | Reply

o Let us look at the facts about the Queen’s responsibilities with regard to my petition: I petitioned Her Majesty the Queen, dated 9 November 2000, as follows: Your Majesty, I have tried all the legal avenues open to ordinary subjects to access British Justiciary, having just spoken finally to the local Lord Chancellor’s Department to compel Medway County Court to issue me with a N150 Allocation Questionnaire now that I am able to complete it to maximum impact as the Claimant of my Case Statement, ‘A Conspiracy of Racial Discrimination and Harassment Perpetrated against Me By Means of Concerted Criminal Behaviour’; this after, somehow, concluding the detective work necessary to ascertain the full facts of the matter that I have been complaining about. Your Majesty, I read in my copy of the Reader’s Digest ‘You and Your Rights – An A to Z Guide to the Law’ that any British subject is entitled as a last resort to petition the Queen if he is dissatisfied with the actions or decisions of the government which acts in her name. It is with this in mind that I am hereby requesting you to intervene in this matter, as is constitutionally appropriate. Yours truly.

On 22 November 2000 I received a letter from Buckingham Palace from a Chief Correspondence Officer, Mrs Deborah Bean, stating, ‘The Queen has asked me to thank you for your letter of 9th November expressing your wish to petition her on a ‘rascism’ matter. As a constitutional Sovereign, Her Majesty acts on the advice of her Ministers, and I have, therefore, been instructed to send your letter to the Lord Irvine of Lairg, the Lord Chancellor, so that he may know of your approach to Her Majesty on this matter, and may consider the points you raise’.

I am therefore entitled to receive a final report from the Queen.

Comment by shantanup | April 23, 2016 | Reply

I avoided answering any telephone calls until I knew what the Surgery would do about the next prescription by Thursday 28 April 2016. It turned out that a repeat prescription was given and the Surgery had nothing further to say on the matter even after the manner in which I had attacked Dr Sudhir Patel in my Blog. I purchased the medication and then sent the following email to the Surgery copied to Medway County Court:


My Mental Health Diagnosis and Treatment

To

Today at 14:55

To

Dr Sudhir Patel

Dr S Patel, Dr N Patel and Dr R Patel

Wigmore Medical Centre

114 Woodside

Gillingham

Kent

ME8 0PW

Tel: 01634 231752

Fax: 01634 260062


NHS No 628 477 1487


Practice Manager Mrs Kelly Mills

Email: Kelly.mills@nhs.net


Dear Dr Sudhir Patel


1. I refer to my complaint lodged with you on 30 January 2016 at 3.41 pm by email (a hard copy of which was posted in your Surgery letter box at 6.15 pm) concerning the Annual Mental Health Review that was enforced on me and which was followed by numerous other clarificatory letters that I have sent you to try and identify the authority and justification that you have been using to examine my mental health status and subject me to compulsory medication on behalf of the State.


2. To this day I have not received your reply to the complaint and further you have proceeded with conducting another Annual Mental Health Review on me on 3 March 2016.


3. I should accordingly draw your attention to the fact that I had voluntarily referred myself to you for examination by a psychiatrist in 1998, an assessment that remained inconclusive as the services of Dr Rao of BUPA was withdrawn from me the moment I complained that my treatment and condition was not taking into account that it was Severe Depression that I suffered from brought on by continuous long period of workplace harassment at the University of Greenwich by senior management and colleagues.


4. Subsequently, for reasons unknown to me you arranged for me to be sectioned in 2004 without giving me an opportunity to address any issues that was a legitimate cause for such a decision. This illegitimate act was followed by you in 2008 when I was incarcerated in a mental hospital for a second time despite my protests that I was perfectly normal and had not done any unjustifable acts apart from trying to secure justice for myself from the harassment that I had suffered in the country by the actions of the State.


5. I repeat again that all I suffered from was Severe Depression from the harassment and intransigence of legal authorities to my plight when trying to bring civil proceedings against the University of Greenwhich and other perpetraters of injustices against me. Most notable of the harassment was the terrorism mounted on me by the Bar Standards Board when I complained of racial discrimination by legal authorities including the Legal Ombudsman.


6. In light of this complaint against you and your continued silence on the matter I intend to restore my Claim against your Surgery as a co-respondent of the University of Greenwich in Claim ME002953/ME010463 of Medway County Court. You have conspired against me by deliberately providing me with a false diagnosis of my mental condition and enforced inhuman medication treatment that continues to this day.


7. You should take account of the fact that I have been in gainful employment for long periods of time during these years (whenever I coud find employment) with several years of complaint-free service for Sherlodge Garage, the Electoral Services of Medway Council, and for the past year at Wigmore and Hampstead Newsagency. I have not heard any presposterous statements from anyone that I have worked that I suffer a mental disorder and from you, my wife and State cohorts acting in my website, I have no reason to treat your suggestion of this disorder seriously. I repeat that I do not suffer from any kind of mental illness except depression caused by harassment. I consider myself to be the sanest person on Earth.


8. This leads me to the conclusion that your undefined mental illness/disorder charge on me is a ploy on your part to absolve yourself from the litigation that I have undertaken against you in Medway County Court, as referred to above.


9. I would accordingly require an immediate report from you concerning this allegation and your proposals to resolve this matter out of court.


10. I am copying this email to Medway County Court as required.


Yours sincerely


Dr Shantanu Panigrahi

3 Hoath Lane

Wigmore

Gillingham

Kent ME8 0SL

Tel 01634 379604



No replies came. I started proceedings again in the Royal Courts of Justice as follows:


2 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All

Final Internet Archive Uploads 26 May 2024

Final Internet Archive Uploads 26 May 2024 https://archive.org/details/@panigrahi491 _________________________________________________________________________________________ 1. https://archive.org/de

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:

Comments


Post: Blog2_Post
bottom of page