top of page
Search

Prevarications and Machinations at the High Court


FW: High Court Claim Number HQ17X01773 – Mr Panigrahi v Kent Police (6) Shan Panigrahi To QB Issue & Enquiries CC QB Enforcement Section 15 June 2017 at 13:53

Dear Ms Pat Moore

1. Thank you for sending my Request for Judgment Slip to the Enforcement Section whom I contacted yesterday by email but there was no answer.

2. From that lack of reply from the Enforcement Section it seems that Master Eastman has to first declare a verdict on this Case on whether my Claim has been approved by him and if so who are the defendants against whom the damages and compensation should be awarded and how it should be apportioned. It is only after this stage that the Enforcement Section can take any action on the amount of compensation and damages that I would be entitled to and from which Party.

3. In this regard please let me know if there will be a Hearing to consider the Legal Ombudsman’s submissions and whether it will be required to give evidence as a willing witness for the purposes of the Court.

Yours sincerely

Dr Shantanu Panigrahi

On Wednesday, 14 June 2017, 13:29, QB Issue & Enquiries wrote:

To

CC

Mr Panigrahi We in issue & enquiries have nothing to do with request for judgments therefore I have forwarded your email to the correct section Which is Enforcements Regards

Pat Moore ssue & Enquiries Room E07 Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2A 2LL 0207 947 7772

• E-mails must only consist of one attachment, maximum 10 pages. In accordance with Practice Direction 5B – Electronic communication and filing we ask you to do the following when sending an e-mail message to the court: Clearly state the Court’s action number, parties’ names and any dates relating to an up-coming hearing in the subject header. Provide a clear description of the contents in the body of the e-mail message. Please refrain from messages such as “Please see attached”. Please state what the attachment is, i.e. “Please see the attached Notice of Change/Please find enclosed our Defence for filing/Please forward this message and its enclosures to Master for the hearing on & . Please copy your message to the relevant parties (if applicable). If you are submitting a document by email, sending duplicates by post/Gold fax is not permitted by Practice Direction 5b (8.1). In accordance with Practice Direction 3.3a, please do not submit documents which carry a payable fee; such e-mails will be deleted. If you’re unable to comply with these points or any other part of Practice Direction 5B – Electronic communication and filing, your message will not be dealt with.

________________________________________ From: Shan Panigrahi [mailto:shanpanigrahi@yahoo.co.uk] Sent: 14 June 2017 13:19 To: General Counsel Cc: QB Issue & Enquiries Subject: Re: High Court Claim Number HQ17X01773 – Mr Panigrahi v Kent Police

Dear Sirs

1. Thank you for your very informative email which is highly appreciated.

2. I wish to confirm what I have said to you in the past that you are not a Defendant but a willing respondent (the other four respondents were not so willing and their time to respond has elapsed).

3. You have provided all the information that I needed on defending the Legal Ombudsman’s position to further my Claim. In this regard, the ambiguity of your defence was pointed out to the Court. As such you are no longer required to be a witness to my Claim and you are accordingly discharged from this duty to the State.

4. It is for these reasons that I am re-submitting herewith my Request for Judgment Slip (see scanned copy attached) the contents of which should be self-explanatory, but if you require any further clarification please do not hesitate to contact me again.

Yours sincerely

Dr Shantanu Panigrahi

On Wednesday, 14 June 2017, 11:24, General Counsel wrote:

To

Dear Sir/Madam

We write on behalf of the Legal Ombudsman. We note that we are referred to in Mr Panigrahi’s particulars of claim but are not named as a Defendant. We have since confirmed with Naz and Michelle in Enquiries at the High Court that the Legal Ombudsman is not listed on the court system as a Defendant. The Claimant has also confirmed that the Legal Ombudsman is not a Defendant in his email below dated 31 May 2017.

The Legal Ombudsman has since received a further email from the Claimant (attached dated 12 June 2017) referring to the Legal Ombudsman as a Respondent and stating that the Court informing the Claimant that he is serving a response pack and providing a link to the N9 response pack.

However as the Court and Claimant have separately confirmed that the Legal Ombudsman is not a Defendant, the Legal Ombudsman will not be responding to the claim.

It is noted that the Claimant has also requested that the Legal Ombudsman participate as a witness in the claim. We can confirm that the Legal Ombudsman would not be a witness in proceedings as the purpose of the ombudsman scheme is to resolve complaints between consumers and service providers in respect of legal services provided to the consumer. If the Court did however require the ombudsman to be witness then of course we would be obliged to.

We would be grateful if this email and attached email and documents are placed on the court file.

Yours faithfully

Sanchia Wheeler Solicitor

Legal Ombudsman Telephone: 0121 245 3462

From: Shan Panigrahi [mailto:shanpanigrahi@yahoo.co.uk] Sent: 31 May 2017 20:09 To: General Counsel Cc: QB Issue & Enquiries Subject: Re: High Court Claim Number HQ17X01773

Dear Elizabeth Smith

1. Thank you for acknowledging receipt of my Claim Form and Elaborated Particulars of Claim.

2. The Court official you spoke with is absolutely right in that this Claim is against Kent Police with four other respondents required to give evidence in support of the Claim. They do not have to give evidence but it would be helpful to the course of the proceedings if they did if justice is to be served. As things stand, in the United Kingdom respondents cannot be ordered by the Court to give evidence in civil proceedings. For this reason Kent Police was negligent in not investigating my complaint of a crime being committed by the Legal Ombudsman in dealing with my complaints against several lawyers that were brought to its attention. I expect that the Court will make an award of £5 million as damages and compensation against Kent Police as my Claim Form requires.

2. As regards taking action against the Legal Ombudsman is concerned I tried to institute private prosecution against the Legal Ombudsman for its cirmes but this did not get anywhere. I take your point that the email that I sent does not constitute effective service on a defendant as set out in Part 7 of the Civil Procedure Rules as these documents must be accompanied by forms for defending and admitting the Claim and acknowledging service as specified therin.

3. I also take note of your address for service and will send any future documents to this address.

4. In the meantime please advise me if your Client (The Legal Ombudsman) is going to complete the investigation of the following complaint: Legal Ombudsman- FIR- CMP-058960 ABC:00612001 5. Thank you for your patience as a respondent party to these proceedings.

Yours sincerely

Dr Shantanu Panigrahi

On Wednesday, 31 May 2017, 15:01, General Counsel wrote:

To

CC

Dear Sirs

Your email of 28 May 2017 regarding High Court Claim Number HQ17X01773

We write on behalf of the Legal Ombudsman in respect of the above matter.

We are in receipt of your email of 28 May 2017, which purports to serve the Legal Ombudsman with a Claim form and Particulars of a Claim in relation to which you say the Legal Ombudsman is a Defendant. Having spoken to the Court today, we have been advised that Claim number HQ17X01773 has been issued against Kent Police only, and that the Legal Ombudsman is not currently listed as a Defendant to the same. We are therefore under no obligation to respond to your claim unless and until we are added by the Court as a party to these proceedings.

We also note that service of the Claim form and Particulars of Claim alone does not constitute effective service as set out in Part 7 of the Civil Procedures Rules, as these must be accompanied by forms for defending and admitting the claim, and acknowledging service, as specified therein.

We take this opportunity to advise that the Legal Ombudsman does not accept service by email, and that our address for service is as follows:

General Counsel Team Legal Ombudsman First Floor Edward House Quay Place Birmingham B1 2RA

Yours faithfully

Elizabeth Smith Paralegal (for and on behalf of)

Sanchia Wheeler Solicitor

Legal Ombudsman

Telephone: 0121 245 3100

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

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

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

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

*********************** Hi,

Please see below email.

Thanks,

Kind regards,

Lauren Wright Team Co-ordinator (Assessment Centre)

Legal Ombudsman

Telephone: 0121 245 3491

From: Shan Panigrahi [mailto:shanpanigrahi@yahoo.co.uk] Sent: 09 June 2017 15:01 To: Mills Kelly (NHS MEDWAY CCG) ; !enquiries ; Enquiries ; Iain McNicol ; Legal Services HQ Kent Subject: Fw: Serving Claim documents to respondents: High Court Claim No HQ17X01773

Dear Sirs

In accordance with Court instructions, I am required to bring to your attention the Court’s requirement for a response to the Claim issued further to the following email that I sent you. Please follow the instructions on the attached Response pack and let me know your intentions before Monday 12 June 2017: https://formfinder.hmctsformfinder.justice.gov.uk/n009-eng.pdf Yours sincerely

Dr Shantanu Panigrahi

On Sunday, 28 May 2017, 9:41, Shan Panigrahi wrote:

To: Respondents in High Court Claim Number HQ17X01773 By email (as shown)

cc Queens Bench, High Court of Justice, Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, London. By email: qbenquiries@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk

28 May 2017

Dear Sirs

Serving Claim documents to respondents: High Court Claim No HQ17X01773

1. I am required for the purposes of completing and submitting my Certificate of Service to the High Court to serve the attached two documents of my Claim Form and elaborated particulars of Claim to you as the five respondents that I have listed for giving evidence to the Court, namely: (a) Kent Police, Grugeon House, Police Headquarters, Sutton Road, Maidstone, Kent, ME15 9BZ; Email: legal.services@kent.pnn.police.uk. (b) Wigmore Medical Centre, Practice Manager, 114 Woodside, Wigmore, Gillingham, Kent, ME8 0PW; Email: kelly.mills1@nhs.net. (c) Legal Ombudsman, PO.Box 6806, Wolverhampton, WV1 9WJ; Email: enquiries@legalombudsman.org.uk. (d) Independent Police Complaints Commission, PO Box 473,Sale M33 0BW; Email: enquiries@ipcc.gsi.gov.uk. (e) The Labour Party, Southside, 105 Victoria Street, London, SW1E 6QT; Email: iain_mcnicol@labour.org.uk.

2. According to the High Court you have 14 days in which to respond by replying to me or to the Court directly.

Yours sincerely

Dr Shantanu Panigrahi 3 Hoath Lane Wigmore Gillingham Kent ME8 0SL Email: shanpanigrahi@yahoo.co.uk

Attachments included: (a) n1-engClaimFormKentPolice.pdf (b) Particulars of Claim.docx

______________________________________________________________________ This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com ______________________________________________________________________ This e-mail (and any attachment) is intended only for the attention of the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying is not permitted. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy all copies and inform the sender by return e-mail. Internet e-mail is not a secure medium. Any reply to this message could be intercepted and read by someone else. Please bear that in mind when deciding whether to send material in response to this message by e-mail. This e-mail (whether you are the sender or the recipient) may be monitored, recorded and retained by the Ministry of Justice. E-mail monitoring / blocking software may be used, and e-mail content may be read at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure laws are not broken when composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents.

Reply Reply to All Forward More

Yesterday’s email to the Enforcement Section was as follows:

Amount to be paid in damages and compensation: HQ17X01773

To

14 June 2017 at 14:04

Dear Sir

1. The Court was supposed to have notified both me and the defendant of any steps that we should take to prepare for the hearing at which the court will decide what amount I am entitled to. Two days have gone by and I have not heard from you to the 12 June 2017 Request for Judgment that I submitted by email as attached.

2. Notwithstanding, please let me know now if a Hearing is still necessary given that there was no reply at all from the Defendant.

3. I have said in the past to the Court that I should be entitled to the full £5 million that I had originally demanded in my tentative Claim Form in view of the co-conspirators engaged as agents of the State-persecution that I have suffered. Further, £100,000 is no longer sufficient in view of the additional work and suffering I have had to do/undergo to bring this matter up for Enforcement.

4. In your reply please also let me know the Appeal process if I am not satisfied with the outcome of Enforcement.

Yours sincerely

Dr Shantanu Panigrahi

3 Hoath Lane

Wigmore

Gillingham

Kent ME8 0SL

scan0002 .jpg

22 June 2017 Update:

(a) The following correspondence took place with the Independent Police Complaints Commission:

IPCC Reference – 2017/087535 (2)

To

21 June 2017 at 16:34

Dear IPCC

1. Thank you for a belated acknowledgement of service as a minor defendant in my High Court Claim of Claim No: HQ17X01773.

2. You now have another 28 days in which to submit your full defence to the Claim allegation that the IPCC covered up the criminalities of Kent Police against me with regard to items a-l listed in the Claim Form.

Yours sincerely

Dr Shantanu Panigrahi

On Wednesday, 21 June 2017, 14:25, !enquiries <enquiries@ipcc.gsi.gov.uk> wrote to me:

Dear Dr Panigrahi

Thank you for contacting the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC). We acknowledge receipt of your email dated 9 June 2017, the contents of which have been noted.

The IPCC is completely independent of the police service and is responsible for making sure that the police complaints system in England and Wales works effectively and fairly.

Consequently, unless you wish to make a complaint regarding the conduct of any serving member of the police force, I do not feel that the IPCC can assist you further in this matter. However, if you do wish to make a complaint against any serving member of the police force, then please visit our website www.ipcc.gov.uk for further information on how to make a complaint and complete an online complaint form.

If you have any further queries please contact Customer Services on 0300 020 0096.

Yours sincerely

Megan Morris

Customer Contact Advisor Independent Police Complaints Commission PO Box 473 Sale M33 0BW

Tel: 0300 020 0096

Twitter: @ipcc_enquiries

The IPCC is committed to treating everyone who contacts us politely, promptly and equally. To help us monitor and improve our service, if your recent enquiry with our Customer Contact Centre (CCC) is now complete, we would like to hear your views about your experience.

Please click here to open the survey and provide your feedback – it will only take five minutes. Thank you in advance for your time.

Any information you provide will be treated in accordance with the Data Protection Act, and will not have any impact on any IPCC case that you might be involved with.

Os bydd arnoch angen yr arolwg hwn yn Gymraeg, cysylltwch â ni ar userfeedback@ipcc.gsi.gov.uk os gwelwch yn dda.

(b) The following correspondence took place with the High Court:

Amount to paid in damages and compensation: HQ17X01773 (5)

To

22 June 2017 at 16:51

Dear Sir/Madam

1. I have still not received the 16 June 2017 Order from Master Eastman in the post which I need to Appeal at the Court of Appeal along with the subsequent Order dated 16 June 2017 from the High Court to strike out my Case for the reasons given below.

2. Please advise me on the current state of this Case.

Yours sincerely

Dr Shantanu Panigrahi

On Friday, 16 June 2017, 22:41, Shan Panigrahi <shanpanigrahi@yahoo.co.uk> wrote to QB Enforcement Section <qbenforcement@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk:

Dear Sir

1. You say that my Case was struck out after an Order was made by Master Eastman on 16 June 2017. I suggest most humbly that this is not an appropriate action by the Court.

2. Accordingly, the Court is requested to recognise that a Case where money is being demanded as part of the litigation cannot be struck out for any reason whatsoever once a Request for Judgment Slip has been filed following the expiry of the 14 days response period during which there had been no proper acknowledgement of service nor a full defence from any of the five respondents (namely Kent Police as the Main Defendant against whom the Damages and Compensation Order should have been made, plus its four named co-conspirators as minor defendants). The Case could not be struck out on 16 June 2017 because doing so on the court’s own initiative represents retrospective action after due process to serve Claim documents according to the courts explicit directions were implemented so that it could not have been due to an abuse of the process of court or for a defective Claim/statement of Case. The Request for Judgement Slip was filed on 12 June 2017 once it was clear that the respondents were uncooperative and were waiting for the Case to be stayed. If the Case was to be struck out on the court’s own initiative, it was necessary for the Court to do so prior to 12 June 2017 and after giving prior notification to the Applicant that this was being contemplated.

3. Please consider my Appeal without delay bearing in mind that I am still on 100 per cent Fee Remission for any Fee that may be necessary.

Yours sincerely

Dr Shantanu Panigrahi

On Friday, 16 June 2017, 17:09, QB Enforcement Section <qbenforcement@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk> wrote:

Dear Mr Panigrahi

Thank you for your email. Please note the response time from the court is 5-10 working days.

Upon review of your court file, your Request for Judgment cannot be processed as your case has been struck out pursuant to the Order made by Master Eastman on 16th June 2017.

Kind regards

Alejandra Bernal Case Progression Officer QB Case Progression Team l Queen’s Bench Division | HMCTS | Royal Courts Of Justice | Strand, London I WC2A 2LL T: 0207 947 7772 Web: www.gov.uk/hmcts

From: Shan Panigrahi [mailto:shanpanigrahi@yahoo.co.uk] Sent: 14 June 2017 14:05 To: QB Enforcement Section Subject: Amount to paid in damages and compensation: HQ17X01773

Dear Sir

1. The Court was supposed to have notified both me and the defendant of any steps that we should take to prepare for the hearing at which the court will decide what amount I am entitled to. Two days have gone by and I have not heard from you to the 12 June 2017 Request for Judgment that I submitted by email as attached.

2. Notwithstanding, please let me know now if a Hearing is still necessary given that there was no reply at all from the Defendant.

3. I have said in the past to the Court that I should be entitled to the full £5 million that I had originally demanded in my tentative Claim Form in view of the co-conspirators engaged as agents of the State-persecution that I have suffered. Further, £100,000 is no longer sufficient in view of the additional work and suffering I have had to do undergo to bring this matter up for Enforcement.

4. In your reply please also let me know the Appeal process if I am not satisfied with the outcome of Enforcement.

Yours sincerely

Dr Shantanu Panigrahi

3 Hoath Lane

Wigmore

Gillingham

Kent ME8 0SL ______________________________________________________________________ This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com ______________________________________________________________________

3 July 2017 Update:

The following correspondence took place today with the High Court:

Appeal of Master Eastman’s Order dated 16 June 2017 (5)

To

3 July 2017 at 16:16

Dear Dr Panigrahi,

Thank you for your email. You will be notified once a decision has been taken.

Kind regards,

Lola Ogunsiji Issue & Enquiries Queens Bench Division | HMCTS | Royal Courts of Justice | Strand, London | WC2A 2LL 02079477772

· E-mails must only consist of one attachment, maximum 10 pages. In accordance with Practice Direction 5B – Electronic communication and filing we ask you to do the following when sending an e-mail message to the court:

o Clearly state the Court’s action number, parties’ names and any dates relating to an up-coming hearing in the subject header.

o Provide a clear description of the contents in the body of the e-mail message. Please refrain from messages such as “Please see attached”. Please state what the attachment is, i.e. “Please see the attached Notice of Change/Please find enclosed our Defence for filing/Please forward this message and its enclosures to Master <name> for the hearing on <date> & <time>.

o Please copy your message to the relevant parties (if applicable).

o If you are submitting a document by email, sending duplicates by post/Gold fax is not permitted by Practice Direction 5b (8.1).

o In accordance with Practice Direction 3.3a, please do not submit documents which carry a payable fee; such e-mails will be deleted.

If you’re unable to comply with these points or any other part of Practice Direction 5B – Electronic communication and filing, your message will not be dealt with.

From: Shan Panigrahi [mailto:shanpanigrahi@yahoo.co.uk] Sent: 03 July 2017 15:11 To: QB Issue & Enquiries Subject: Fw: Appeal of Master Eastman’s Order dated 16 June 2017

Dear Sir

Has a decision been taken on this Appeal?

Yours sincerely

Dr Shantanu Panigrahi

On Saturday, 1 July 2017, 12:05, QB Issue & Enquiries <QBEnquiries@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk> wrote:

Thank you for your email. Please note that messages received after 4:30pm may not be read until after 9.00am the following day. If your email is regarding an active case in the Queen’s Bench Action Department and does not comply with CPR Practice Direction 5B – Electronic communication and filing, contains multiple attachments, or a single attachment consisting of more than 10 pages your message will not be dealt with.

This e-mail (and any attachment) is intended only for the attention of the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying is not permitted. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy all copies and inform the sender by return e-mail.

Internet e-mail is not a secure medium. Any reply to this message could be intercepted and read by someone else. Please bear that in mind when deciding whether to send material in response to this message by e-mail.

This e-mail (whether you are the sender or the recipient) may be monitored, recorded and retained by the Ministry of Justice. E-mail monitoring / blocking software may be used, and e-mail content may be read at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure laws are not broken when composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents. ______________________________________________________________________ This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com ______________________________________________________________________

This e-mail (and any attachment) is intended only for the attention of the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying is not permitted. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy all copies and inform the sender by return e-mail.

Internet e-mail is not a secure medium. Any reply to this message could be intercepted and read by someone else. Please bear that in mind when deciding whether to send material in response to this message by e-mail.

This e-mail (whether you are the sender or the recipient) may be monitored, recorded and retained by the Ministry of Justice. E-mail monitoring / blocking software may be used, and e-mail content may be read at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure laws are not broken when composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents.

10 July 2017 Update:

I sent the following email to the High Court today:

Claim No: HQ17X01773: Appeal in progress (2)

To

10 July 2017 at 13:42

To

Queens Bench Issue and Enquiries

Dear Sir/Madam

1. At about 11.50 am this morning, Authorhouse UK telephoned me on our landline number about the publication of my book, ‘The Allurement of Reality’ which it wishes to discuss over the telephone only according to the voicemail message that was left on the answering device which did not say much else. There has been no email communication from AuthorhouseUK to follow up on what it wishes to now say. This matter relates to item (f) of the Claim Form: on Kent Police’s protection of criminals in the AuthorhouseUK book publication matter.

2. I thought it would be appropriate to bring the matter of this harassing telephone call from AuthorhouseUK to your kind attention in view of the Appeal that is in progress in the Court associated with Claim Number HQ17X01773.

Yours sincerely

Dr Shantanu Panigrahi

Claimant

3 Hoath Lane

Wigmore

Gillingham

Kent ME8 0SL

Comment: There has been no response to me from the High Court.

13 July 2017 Update:

I received a reply from the Queens Bench Division of the High Court to which I responded as follows:

Claim No: HQ17X01773: Appeal in progress (5)

To

CC

12 July 2017 at 13:10

Dear Ms Moore

1. I will follow through your direction as soon as I have received a Court Order from the Queens Bench Division of the High Court with reference to my 1st July 2107, 12.03 pm email to the Court wherein I stated at para 5: ‘Please ensure that this Appeal is dealt with by a higher judge than a Master so that if I need to appeal his/her decision again I will this time have recourse to the Civil Appeals Office for the Court of Appeal because it is this Office who had redirected this Appeal to you on 29 June 2017 and I am following these instructions (as advice) that I received from that Office’.

2. I am copying this email to the Court of Appeal to keep it informed of the impending proceedings to ensure that I understood its earlier directions correctly.

Yours sincerely

Dr Shantanu Panigrahi

On Wednesday, 12 July 2017, 12:07, QB Issue & Enquiries <QBEnquiries@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk> wrote:

Dear Sir,

You state in your email that this is now on appeal.

Please re send your email to the Correct court for the appeal .

Regards

Pat Moore ssue & Enquiries Room E07 Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2A 2LL 0207 947 7772

13 July 2017, 8.26 pm Update:

I received an email from the IPCC today to which I replied as follows:

Compensation claim – HQ17X1773 (3)

To

CC

13 July 2017 at 12:11

To

The IPCC

Dear Shaiqa Shaffi

1. Thank you for your email of 13 July 2017 with the attachment letter of the same date.

2. This matter has been referred to the Court of Appeal through the Civil Appeals Office of the Royal Courts of Justice for an adjudication on Appeal because the Queens Bench Division of the High Court has refused to implement my Appeal to the Order of Master Eastman dated 16 June 2017, despite the clear instruction from the Civil Appeals Office of the Court of Appeal that this Master’s Order must first be appealed at the Queens Bench Division of the High Court itself where a more senior judge than a Master must oversee the Appeal. The preliminary assessment on 29 June 2017 of the Civil Appeals Office had been that a Master’s Order cannot be appealed to the Civil Appeals Office. The lack of the implementation of the Appeal at the High Court constitutes a Constitutional Crisis in the British Justice System unless the Civil Appeals Office reverses its 29 June 2017 decision not to hear the Appeal.

3. You have requested a copy of the 16 June 2017 dated Order from Master Eastman. This is attached. However, I have checked my records and cannot find any email that I sent the IPCC on 23 June 2017 with this information.

4. You will note that the stated grounds for the Appeal in the official documentation submitted to the Courts is as follows: ‘The grounds for my appeal is that the Court File will now show that there were five defendants, not one which Master Eastman has failed to recognise. These defendants are Kent Police (Main Defendant) with the following four minor defendants as being the Independant Police Complaints Commission, The Legal Ombudsman, Wigmore Medical Centre, and The Labour Party. This glaring omission by Master Eastman may be why he found my elaborated particulars of Claim and the Claim Form incomprehensible and disclosing to him no recognisable cause of action against just Kent Police’.

5. You are therefore still required to produce a full defence to the allegations that has been amply clarified to you. Please let me know if I will receive this from you or not today.

Yours sincerely

Dr Shantanu Panigrahi

On Thursday, 13 July 2017, 11:13, Saiqa Shaffi <saiqa.shaffi@ipcc.gsi.gov.uk> wrote:

Dear Mr Panigrahi,

Please see attached.

Kind Regards,

Saiqa Shaffi

Lawyer

Legal Services Independent Police Complaints Commission

90 High Holborn

London WC1V 6BH

Tel : 0207 166 5159

IPCC Statutory Guidance on the handling of police complaints

Twitter: @ipccNews

Notice: The contents of this email and or attachment(s) are confidential and may be subject to legal professional privilege. The contents are only intended for the recipient to whom it is addressed. It must not be copied or forwarded to any person outside of the IPCC without the prior written approval of the sender.

scan0005 .jpg The 16 June 2017 sealed Order of Master Eastman from the Queens Bench Division of the High Court.

I also received an email from the Legal Ombudsman today concerning the complaint against Slater and Gordon lawyers, to which I replied as follows:

Initial Contact ABC:01500434 (2)

To

13 July 2017 at 18:01

Dear Mr Bath

Please clarify whether you will contact me within your next 10 working days of Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday (that is before Tuesday 8 August 2017) or the Mondays and Fridays included (that is before 27 July 2017). Many thanks.

Dr Shantanu Panigrahi

On Thursday, 13 July 2017, 12:30, Rajvir Bath <Rajvir.Bath@Legalombudsman.org.uk> wrote:

Our Ref: CMP-058960

Dear Dr Panigrahi

I am an investigator at the Legal Ombudsman and I have been allocated you complaint. I will review the information on file and contact you within the next ten working days.

Regards

Rajvir Bath

Investigator

Legal Ombudsman

0121 245 3420

*Please note my working day are Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday

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

This e-mail (and any attachment) is intended only for the attention of the

addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying is not

permitted. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy all copies and

inform the sender by return e-mail. Internet e-mail is not a secure medium. Any

reply to this message could be intercepted and read by someone else. Please bear

that in mind when deciding whether to send material in response to this message

by e-mail. This e-mail (whether you are the sender or the recipient) may be

monitored, recorded and retained by the Legal Ombudsman. E-mail monitoring /

blocking software may be used, and e-mail content may be read at any time. You

have a responsibility to ensure laws are not broken when composing or forwarding

e-mails and their contents.

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

19 July 2017 Update:

The following correspondence took place:

(a) with the IPCC

Your letter to me dated 14 July 2017: Your Reference: SGS/00006396 (4)

To

CC

17 July 2017 at 12:18

Dear Ms Shaffi

1. I did not realise that you were referring to an email that I had sent the Queens Bench Division of the High Court that I had copied to you on 23 June 2017. On the day concerned all I knew was that the Claim was struck out on 16 June 2017. I did not have a copy of the Order so was unaware of precisely what Master Eastman had determined. I received the Order on 29 June 2017 and so was able to send you a copy that you subsequently requested. I was informed by the Court in response to the said email of 23 June 2017 that the Order to strike out the Claim had in fact been made on 26 May 2017 which is why the Court ruled that you did not need to submit a defence. I have yet to receive a copy of this Order in response to my Office Copy Request Form of 4 July 2017. As I indicated the Petition that I submitted to the Court of Appeal will have to take this evidence into account.

2. Since the Court has a copy of the email, I do not now need to send it to the Civil Appeals Registry for my Petition proceedings that are in progress.

3. You say that my Appeal is pending. That seems accurate. As I indicated I am happy to leave the matter of where and how the Appeal will take place to the judicial authorities. As the Court intimated to me the decision will be conveyed to me when it has been taken.

Yours sincerely

Dr Shantanu Panigrahi

On Monday, 17 July 2017, 9:14, Saiqa Shaffi <saiqa.shaffi@ipcc.gsi.gov.uk> wrote:

Dear Mr Panigrahi,

Thank you for your email.

As requested, please see attached a copy of your email dated 23 June 2017 referred to in my letter. The email was sent to the court and copied to the IPCC.

Kind Regards,

Saiqa Shaffi

Lawyer

Legal Services Independent Police Complaints Commission

90 High Holborn

London WC1V 6BH

Tel : 0207 166 5159

IPCC Statutory Guidance on the handling of police complaints

Twitter: @ipccNews

Notice: The contents of this email and or attachment(s) are confidential and may be subject to legal professional privilege. The contents are only intended for the recipient to whom it is addressed. It must not be copied or forwarded to any person outside of the IPCC without the prior written approval of the sender.

From: Shan Panigrahi [mailto:shanpanigrahi@yahoo.co.uk] Sent: 15 July 2017 10:19 To: Saiqa Shaffi <saiqa.shaffi@ipcc.gsi.gov.uk> Cc: Civil Appeals – Registry <civilappeals.registry@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk> Subject: Your letter to me dated 14 July 2017: Your Reference: SGS/00006396

To

Saiqa Shaffi

Legal Services

Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC)

Dear Ms Shaffi

1. Thank you for your letter to me dated 14 July 2017, the contents of which are noted in that you have refused to submit a defence to the allegations that you are party to the cover up of Kent Police’s persecution of me as sponsored by the State. This is also the case with Wigmore Medical Centre according to its lawyers. Of course, Kent Police and the Labour Party have not even acknowledged the service of the Claim Form and Elaborated particulars of Claim and the Legal Ombudsman is not replying to my emails, after acknowledging service, which speaks for itself.

2. As I wait for the resolution of the Appeal in progress at the Queens Bench Division of the High Court or at the Civil Appeals Office at the Royal Courts of Justice, depending on what the Court of Appeal rules on my Petition (for which reason I am copying this email to the Civil Appeals Registry), I need a copy of the email that you say I sent you on 23 June 2017 in which I supposedly referred to Master Eastman’s Order dated 16 June 2017 as it is material to the Petition proceedings. Please forward it to me immediately on receipt of this email.

Yours sincerely

Dr Shantanu Panigrahi

3 Hoath Lane

Wigmore

Gillingham

Kent ME8 0SL ______________________________________________________________________ This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com ______________________________________________________________________

To

Queens Bench Issue and Enquiries

cc Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) Dear Sir

1. Please note the following correspondence that has taken place with the IPCC in recent days.

2. In this regard there is uncertainty on how much more time the IPCC should be allowed in order to submit its full defence to the Court and me because the original notification of the Claim documents served on the IPCC was dated 28 May 2017 which it ignored, but it has now acknowledged the reminder notification of 9 June 2017 that I sent with the N9 response pack.

3. Following the email from Mr Keith Hinton of the Court to me this afternoon at 15.16 hours that there has been no further progress in this Case since the Order of Master Eastman dated 16 June 2017 I am anxious that the Court should now clarify whether the IPCC should be given any additional time at all for its full defence.

Yours sincerely

Dr Shantanu Panigrahi

Claimant

3 Hoath Lane

Wigmore

Gillingham

Kent ME8 0SL

On Wednesday, 21 June 2017, 16:34, Shan Panigrahi <shanpanigrahi@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: Fw: IPCC Reference – 2017/087535

Dear IPCC

1. Thank you for a belated acknowledgement of service as a minor defendant in my High Court Claim of Claim No: HQ17X01773.

2. You now have another 28 days in which to submit your full defence to the Claim allegation that the IPCC covered up the criminalities of Kent Police against me with regard to items a-l listed in the Claim Form.

Yours sincerely

Dr Shantanu Panigrahi

On Wednesday, 21 June 2017, 14:25, !enquiries <enquiries@ipcc.gsi.gov.uk> wrote:

Dear Dr Panigrahi

Thank you for contacting the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC). We acknowledge receipt of your email dated 9 June 2017, the contents of which have been noted.

The IPCC is completely independent of the police service and is responsible for making sure that the police complaints system in England and Wales works effectively and fairly.

Consequently, unless you wish to make a complaint regarding the conduct of any serving member of the police force, I do not feel that the IPCC can assist you further in this matter. However, if you do wish to make a complaint against any serving member of the police force, then please visit our website www.ipcc.gov.uk for further information on how to make a complaint and complete an online complaint form.

If you have any further queries please contact Customer Services on 0300 020 0096.

Yours sincerely

Megan Morris

Customer Contact Advisor Independent Police Complaints Commission PO Box 473 Sale M33 0BW

Tel: 0300 020 0096

Twitter: @ipcc_enquiries

(b) with lawyers of Wigmore Medical Centre:

Automatic reply: Your letter to me dated 13 July 2017; Ref: NMS/116752 (6)

To

CC

17 Jul at 2:37 PM

Dear Dr Panigrahi

Thank you for your email. Following receipt of instructions from our client we have responded promptly however, before doing so, we had to ascertain our client’s position, which has been set out in detail in the letter dated 13 July 2017.

I hope this addresses your query, however, if you have any further questions, Nikesh Sharma who wrote the aforementioned letter returns to the office on Wednesday and would be happy to assist then.

Best wishes

Ed

Ed Mellor Senior Solicitor | Clinical Law Capsticks Solicitors LLP T: 0208 780 6970 | M: 07595885479 ed.mellor@capsticks.com | www.capsticks.com |

From: Shan Panigrahi [mailto:shanpanigrahi@yahoo.co.uk] Sent: 14 July 2017 16:07 To: Ed Mellor Subject: Re: Automatic reply: Your letter to me dated 13 July 2017; Ref: NMS/116752

External email

Dear Mr Mellor

Why did it take from 28 May 2017 (and following a reminder on 9 June 2017) to 13 July 2017 for your client to respond to the allegations, if you are not part of the State-organised conspiracy to persecute me?

Yours sincerely

Dr Shantanu Panigrahi

On Friday, 14 July 2017, 15:45, Ed Mellor <ed.mellor@capsticks.com> wrote:

Dear Dr Panigrahi

I am writing in Nikesh Sharma’s absence. I am another lawyer at Capsticks. I have not had any previous involvement in the claim so set out below what I am able to ascertain from the file.

The letter from Nikesh on 13 July 2017 did not enclose an acknowledgment of service. I understand this to be because the claim is not being brought against our client and the Claim Form and Particulars of Claim have not been properly served on our client. The Claim Form names Kent Police as the defendant and, as set out by Nikesh in his letter, does not name our client and we are therefore not in a position to provide an acknowledgment of service. I refer you to the details of that letter.

I also note the content of the Order of Master Eastman, which strikes your case against the Kent Police out due to a lack of a recognisable cause of action.

In light of the above, no defence is required from us or our client and I would invite you to discuss the matter further with Nikesh upon his return should that be required.

Kind regards

Ed Mellor Senior Solicitor | Clinical Law Capsticks Solicitors LLP T: 0208 780 6970 | M: 07595885479 ed.mellor@capsticks.com | www.capsticks.com |

From: Shan Panigrahi [mailto:shanpanigrahi@yahoo.co.uk] Sent: 14 July 2017 13:37 To: Holly Hepworth Cc: QB Issue & Enquiries; Civil Appeals – Registry Subject: Fw: Automatic reply: Your letter to me dated 13 July 2017; Ref: NMS/116752

External email

Dear Ms Hepworth

1. Mr Nikesh Sharma wrote to me an acknowledgment of service on 13 July 2017 sent in the post with regard to the position adopted by Wigmore Medical Centre in reference to the service of Claim Form and elaborated particulars of claim to the Defendant on 9 June 2017.

2. This matter cannot wait until 19 July 2017 for Mr Sharma’s return to office as the defence is required imminently at the High Court and the Civil Appeals Office with regard to an lodged Appeal of 16 June 2017 dated Order of Master Eastman (see attached Order scanned). As it was there was a considerable delay in the acknowledgement of service.

Yours sincerely

Dr Shantanu Panigrahi

On Friday, 14 July 2017, 10:57, Nikesh Sharma <Nikesh.Sharma@capsticks.com> wrote:

Thank you for your email. I am out of the office without access to my emails, returning on 19th July 2017. In my absence, please contact my PA, Holly Hepworth (E: holly.hepworth@capsticks.com/ T: 020 8780 6986) if your query is urgent.

Kind Regards

Nikesh

28 July 2017 Update

I sent the following email to the Queens Bench Division of the High Court today:

Application Notice on HQ17X01773

To

28 July 2017 at 11:35

Dear Sirs

1. I acknowledge receipt of your letter to me dated 26 July 2017 sent from the Enforcement Section Queen’s Bench Division (A. Mpofu) which asks me to complete the address for the other party, (namely Kent Police at the address given in the Claim Form) in the Application Notice Form. The letter also requires me to send you £100 together with the amended Application Notice, and states further that if the Master requires a hearing to be listed, a further £155 will be required by the Court. This gives me some confusion as I believed that a Judge in High Court Appeals is dealing with this matter.

2. Notwithstanding, the requirements mentioned are quite acceptable to me and I am writing to inform you that I do wish to proceed with the processing of the Application Notice. However, I need to know in light of the further prevarication from Wigmore Medical Centre (see below) whether the Master or the Judge requires a Hearing and if so who are the parties to be invited to give evidence so that I may notify them of this requirement of the Court. This will also enable me to send you the full £255 addressed to HMCTS or the £100 as you require for the case of no Hearing.

3. Please note that there will be a delay until after I start receiving my pension from 8 August 2017 before I can send you any money as Court Fee.

4. As I do not know whether the Master or the Judge is the appropriate person to deal with this matter in light of my correspondence with Mr David Jenkins of the Appeal Court, I am sending this email to both Departments of the Royal Courts of Justice.

5. I should be grateful for the clarifications requested. Yours sincerely

Dr Shantanu Panigrahi

On Friday, 28 July 2017, 10:59, Shan Panigrahi <shanpanigrahi@yahoo.co.uk> wrote on Fw: Your letter to me dated 13 July 2017; Ref: NMS/116752

Dear Mr Sharma

Have you now received fresh instructions from Wigmore Medical Centre and do you represent Dr Sudhir Patel?

Dr Shantanu Panigrahi

On Thursday, 27 July 2017, 11:07, Nikesh Sharma <Nikesh.Sharma@capsticks.com> wrote:

Dear Dr Panigrahi

I write to provide a brief update. I am awaiting further information from Wigmore Medical Centre and I will respond fully in due course.

Regards

Nikesh

Nikesh Sharma Solicitor | Clinical Law Capsticks Solicitors LLP T: 020 8780 4903 nikesh.sharma@capsticks.com | www.capsticks.com |

From: Shan Panigrahi [mailto:shanpanigrahi@yahoo.co.uk] Sent: 19 July 2017 21:53 To: Nikesh Sharma Subject: Your letter to me dated 13 July 2017; Ref: NMS/116752

External email

To

Mr Nikesh Sharma

Solicitor

Capsticks

1 St George’s Road

London SW19 4DR

Have you now determined from your client whether Dr Reema Patel has agreed to take full responsibility for the medical issues that has affected me since 1998 directly as a result of actions representing gross misconduct by the Wigmore Medical Centre Practice in accordance with my email to you of 10.36 am 14 July 2017?

Yours sincerely

Dr Shantanu Panigrahi

3 Hoath Lane

Wigmore

Gillingham

Kent ME8 0SL

Comments: The Application Notice Form submitted required the Court to set aside the Order dated 16 June 2017 from Master Eastman and to pass Judgement simultaneiously before 28 July 2017.

There was no reply to the email.

5 August 2017 Update:

Further correspondence followed culminating in the following exchange:

RE: Mr Shantanu Panigrahi -v- Kent Police Ref: HQ17X01773 (2)

To

5 Aug 2017 at 10:36

Dear Alejandra Bernal

I have done as you requested, and asked for directions of the Master by 12 August 2017. I will seek Judgment again if I do not receive an reply from the Master’s Office by this date as that will constitute complete default (see attached Request for Judgement Slip).

Yours sincerely

Dr Shantanu Panigrahi

On Friday, 4 August 2017, 13:06, QB Enforcement Section <qbenforcement@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk> wrote:

Dear Mr Panigrahi

Please note you should direct your query regarding applications (Form N244) to the QB Master’s Listing team.

Regards

Alejandra Bernal Case Progression Officer QB Case Progression Team l Queen’s Bench Division | HMCTS | Royal Courts Of Justice | Strand, London I WC2A 2LL T: 0207 947 7772 Web: www.gov.uk/hmcts

From: Shan Panigrahi [mailto:shanpanigrahi@yahoo.co.uk] Sent: 03 August 2017 12:30 To: QB Enforcement Section Subject: Re: Dr Shantanu Panigrahi -v- Kent Police Ref: HQ17X01773

Dear Tenzila Araein

By which date will the Master make his decision on whether to strike out the Order of Master Eastman dated 16 June 2017?

Dr Shantanu Panigrahi

On Thursday, 3 August 2017, 8:15, QB Enforcement Section <qbenforcement@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk> wrote:

Dear Mr Panigrahi

Thank you for your email but to clarify a fresh request for Judgment in default of acknowledgment of service/defence can not be processed until your application has been considered by the Master and and the order striking out your case out has been set aside.

Kind Regards

Tenzila Araein Case Progression Officer QB Case Progression Team l Queen’s Bench Division | HMCTS | Royal Courts Of Justice | Strand, London I WC2A 2LL T: 0207 947 7772 Web: http://www.gov.uk/hmcts

From: Shan Panigrahi [mailto:shanpanigrahi@yahoo.co.uk] Sent: 01 August 2017 19:48 To: QB Enforcement Section Subject: Re: Dr Shantanu Panigrahi -v- Kent Police Ref: HQ17X01773

Dear Tenzila Araein

1. Thank you for your email clarifying that only £100 was needed for this matter to reach a conclusion in that the decision on the Application Notice to set aside the 16 June 2017 Order of Master Eastman and ensuing Judgment will now proceed without a Hearing.

2. Accordingly, a cheque for £100 has been stapled to my Application Notice Form with the appropriate amendments and posted to you by First Class Recorded Delivery today (Royal Mail Barcode No GK280933375GB).

Yours sincerely

Dr Shantanu Panigrahi

On Tuesday, 1 August 2017, 8:43, QB Enforcement Section <qbenforcement@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk> wrote:

Dear Mr Panigrahi

Thank you for your email below but your case has been struck out per Master Eastman’s order sealed 16th June 2017 and therefore Judgment can not be entered, your application notice received in Enforcement Team on 26th July 2017 was returned back to you as it attracts a fee of £100. I hope this response has clarified the matter for you.

Kind Regards

Tenzila Araein Case Progression Officer QB Case Progression Team l Queen’s Bench Division | HMCTS | Royal Courts Of Justice | Strand, London I WC2A 2LL T: 0207 947 7772 Web: http://www.gov.uk/hmcts

From: Shan Panigrahi [mailto:shanpanigrahi@yahoo.co.uk] Sent: 30 July 2017 18:29 To: QB Enforcement Section Subject: Dr Shantanu Panigrahi -v- Kent Police Ref: HQ17X01773

To

Enforcement Section

Queens Bench Division

Royal Courts of Justice Group

Room E15

Royal Courts of Justice

Strand

LondonWC 2A 2LL

By email: qbenforcement@hmcourts-service.gsi.gov.uk

For the attention of A Mpofu

Re: Dr Shantanu Panigrahi -v- Kent Police

Dear Sir

1. Following consideration on Friday 28 July 2017 of my email by the Queens Bench Court concerning my Application Notice Form dated 24 July 2017 to set aside Master Eastman’s Order dated 16 June 2017, I now need Judgement to be entered in this Case.

2. Please let me know if there is any reason why Judgment cannot be entered now in accordance with my Request for Judgement Slip that was sent to you.

Yours sincerely

Dr Shantanu Panigrahi

3 Hoath Lane

Wigmore

Gillinghan

Kent ME8 0SL

20 August 2017 Update:

I sent the following email to the High Court:

Lawyer to represent me at the High Court (2)

To

18 Aug 2017 at 8:02

To QB Master Listing

For the attention of Fareeha Ayyaz

Dear Sirs

Please forward the following evidence to Master Davison for his deliberations on my Application Notice on Claim No HQ17X01773.

Yours sincerely

Dr Shantanu Panigrahi

On Thursday, 17 August 2017, 22:55, Shan Panigrahi <shanpanigrahi@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: to Law Society copied to Slater and Gordon at clientcare@slatergordon.co.uk

To

Law Society

Telephone Number: 0207 320 5757

1. Further to my message deposited at around 2.30 pm today in your contact point at the Law Society website (see attached FrLawSociety17August2017) I have received an email from Slater and Gordon since that message was given to you that provides me with your email address.

2. I need a lawyer urgently in this matter as the Queens Bench Division of the High Court has seemingly ignored my submission to the Court (relating to my 1 August 2017 Application Notice to set aside the Order of Master Eastman dated 16 June 2017) that this matter needs to be considered by a Judge whose decision can be appealed to the Civil Appeals Office if I am not satisfied with the outcome. I have been told that Masters decisions and sealed orders cannot be appealed to this higher Court of Appeal and yet the matter has been sent to Master Davison. It is not clear whether this referral was made just for directions to be issued or for consideration of the Application Notice. So the Court is keeping me in the dark.

3. Please therefore provide me urgently with a list of lawyers who will argue my case in court on this Application Notice and subsequent proceedings.

Thank you

Dr Shantanu Panigrahi

3 Hoath Lane

Wigmore

Gillingham

Kent ME8 0SL

FrLawSociety17Aug2017 .docx

The FrLawSociety17Aug2017.docx was:

The Law Society

The Law Society’s Hall 113 Chancery Lane London WC2A 1PL

Tel: +44 (0) 20 7242 1222 Fax: +44 (0) 20 7831 0344 DX: DX 56 London/Chancery Lane

· Thank you for your enquiry which is receiving our attention.

Summary of your details

Title: Dr

First name(s): Shantanu

Last name: Panigrahi

Email address: shanpanigrahi@yahoo.co.uk

Your enquiry: Slater and Gordon Lawyers have asked me to contact you for a Lawyer who specialises in State-organised persecution of individuals. Can you help?

Country: United Kingdom – England

.

4 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:

Comentários


Post: Blog2_Post
bottom of page