I sent the following email to the Office of Immigration Services Commissioner following its decision to revive my complaint against proceedings that culminated with Article1 law firm, but received not even an acknowledgment from Article1. I received an autoreply from Ms Mahfouz that she was out of the Office until 4 December 2017.
C9145 developments Shan Panigrahi To Sarah Mahfouz CC Article 1 29 Nov 2017 at 11:53 Dear Ms Mahfouz
1. While I await the reply of Article 1 to the letter that you sent Mr Taghavi with a deadline of 6 December 2017 for a reply, please note that the persecution on me has continued unabated in that I received the following comments posted in my website which sets me up as a person suffering from the dementia condition in legal proceedings. This is totally untrue. I do not suffer from any mental abnormality. Article 1 must therefore refer this matter to the Court of Appeal immediately.
2. Further, please note that I no longer require an apology from Article 1 but only an improvement in service.
Dr Shantanu Panigrahi 3 Hoath Lane Wigmore Gillingham Kent ME8 0SL
On Tuesday, 28 November 2017, 12:25, WordPress wrote:Fw: [Shantanu Panigrahi’s Blog] Please moderate: “The United Kingdom State needed fixing and I have fixed it”
New comment waiting approval on Shantanu Panigrahi’s Blog R. Egret commented on The United Kingdom State needed fixing and I have fixed it After entering half way into my sixtieth year, with the last forty-five years as a naturalised resident in the United Kingdom … I was little bit sceptical about these highly amazing web pages which I found from a listing of web kooks and cranks till I saw reference to the author Santanu Panigrahi a known sufferer from clinically-diagnosed dementia being almost forced to take the antipsychotic medication Risperidone! Kindly to refer http://www.drugs.com/risperidone.html in which you read that Risperidone increases “the risk of death in older adults with dementia-related conditions.” “Studies on adults over 50 with dementia (a brain disorder that affects the ability to remember, think clearly, communicate, and perform daily activities and that may cause changes in mood and personality) who take antipsychotics (medications for mental illness) such as Risperidone have a greatly enhanced risk of death during treatment. Those over 60 may also have a greater chance of having a stroke or ministroke during treatment.” Source – nami.org, medlineplus.gov/druginfo/meds/a694015.html Santanu, find a lawyer quickly before to late. I would help you but for geography. Approve Trash | Mark as Spam
More information about R. Egret URL: Email: firstname.lastname@example.org Whois: http://whois.arin.net/rest/ip/22.214.171.124 (IP: 126.96.36.199)
Thanks for flying with WordPress.com
Reply Reply to All Forward More
Comment: Lack of an acknowledgement form Article1 meant that I saw no point in continuing with the complaint and therefore had no alternative to terminating this complaint made to the Office of Immigration Services Commissioner.
5 December 2017 Update:
I received the following email from the Office of Immigration Services Commissioner today:
OISC Complaint – C9145
5 Dec 2017 at 12:37
Dear Dr Panigrahi,
Thank you for your emails. I note that the email you have enclosed on 7 November 2017 from Article 1 Limited does not confirm that you instructed them or that they were acting for you in relation to your immigration application. In your original complaint received 2 November 2017 you state that they failed to provide you with the correct advice and services. However, from correspondence with Article 1 Limited, I have not been able to find evidence such as a client care letter to establish that you were in fact a client that they were acting on behalf of. Therefore, in the absence of this information, the Commissioner will have to close this complaint.
Office of the Immigration Services Commissioner
9 December 2017 Update:
The following correspondence took place:
Fw: Complaint Assessment C9145 (2)
8 Dec 2017 at 15:00
Dear Dr Panigrahi,
Thank you for email. As previously explained the reason why this complaint has been closed is because you have not been able to provide evidence that you were a client of Article 1 Limited. You are now referring in your email below to a client care letter that you received from Article 1 Limited, however, you have not provided this for my attention. Please kindly do so and I will take steps to review this information and consider whether the complaint needs to be reopened.
From: Shan Panigrahi [mailto:email@example.com] Sent: 08 December 2017 10:52 To: Sarah Mahfouz Subject: Fw: Complaint Assessment C9145
Dear Ms Mahfouz
Thank you for your email of 5 December 2017.
It is not appropriate for OISC to close this complaint prematurely as the matter was referred to the OISC by the Bar Standards Board with reference to the following client care letter that I received from an associate of Article 1 by the name of Bury.
Dr Shantanu Panigrahi
On Friday, 20 October 2017, 9:38, Shan Panigrahi <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
Bar Standards Board
289-293 High Holborn
London WC1V 7HZ
Tel: 020 7831 9217
By email: email@example.com
I sent you the preliminary details of a complaint at your website contact point yesterday at 11.02 am as follows: ‘An issue of misconduct has arisen with regard to the soliciting of clients in which the offer of legal assistance was made to me in writing by a person apparently acting as an associate of the Law Firm Article 1. I have discussed the matter with Article 1 and am dissatisfied with the outcome. Can you investigate this matter’.
Mr Taghavi of Article 1 then telephoned me at my home landline number and an informal discussion took place of the issues surrounding this Case. This ended when Mr Taghavi cut off the conversation prematurely so that there was no resolution forthcoming.
I forward to you the offending soliciting email in question for your reference.
Please let me know if the Bar Standards Board is willingh to take any action on this matter.
Dr Shantanu Panigrahi
3 Hoath Lane
Kent ME8 0SL
Fw: [Shantanu Panigrahi’s Blog] Please moderate: “Slater and Gordon Lawyers are referred to the Legal Ombudsman for failure to provide legal services”
On Saturday, 14 October 2017, 11:57, WordPress <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
New comment waiting approval on Shantanu Panigrahi’s Blog
Since 16 January 2017 I had submitted a considerable number of emails and had telephone conversation with officials of Slater …
I am examining this extraordinary blog at the request of a Dr Paneshar who telephoned us.
A small correction – you were, not are, a citizen of the United Kingdom.
We are advised that you obtained that citizenship many years ago, by naturalisation.
Since by your own admission, after becoming naturalised, you formally applied for asylum in another country and thereby renounced your existing CUK status, you automatically forfeited that citizenship.
If at the time you claimed asylum you were a dual national, there would no issue. Your only nationality would then be the nationality of that other country. A preliminary and cursory examination suggests this does not apply in your case.
If the country to which you claimed asylum accepted your claim and conferred the right to citizenship to you, and you accepted, you would acquire that nationality. A preliminary and cursory examination suggests this does not apply in your case either.
As apparently neither applies, you fall between the cracks in international law, under whose provisions states cannot make a person stateless.
However, in the present case, you are the sole author of this. You have made yourself stateless. International treaties and agreements do not prevent this.
Should you wish to remedy this unfortunate situation, or obtain redress, you may consider calling 02037 431700.
More information about Bury
Appeal to the Court of Appeal on State-organised persecutionWith 2 comments
Communications with the Indian High Commission and the OISCWith 4 comments
2 Comments »
1. So, yet again you’ve wasted your own and others time to zero result.
Comment by Thomas Jones | December 4, 2017 | Reply
o This matter is not concluded yet, since the Court of Appeal has not replied to me as yet to the following matter: https://shantanup.wordpress.com/2017/11/15/appeal-to-the-court-of-appeal-on-state-organised-persecution/
Whilst I have terminated my inputs into the Office of Immigration Services Commissioner’s (OISC) investigation of my complaint as all the materials are now clearly available to the OISC, the report of the OISC is still awaited. Above all I need to know from the OISC whether Dr Sivaji Panesar was/is really a HIgh Commission of India employee with diplomatic immunity. Once this report is received by me it would be appropriate at that point and also if I do not receive any further communications from the Police or the Legal Ombudsman to write to the Court of Appeal again with fresh evidence for the Appeal.
Leave a Reply