There were three cases lodged at Medway County Court. The first one was taken out by Moore and Blatch solicitors, citing me as the Plaintiff, against Ms Jenny Lynn originally at Southampton County Court but which was subsequently transferred to Medway County Court under Claim No S0806411. It involved the car incident of 12 November 1997. Initially I had made it clear to Direct Line that it was free to conduct whatever proceedings it wished so long as I was not going to be liable for any of the costs if the case failed but on seeing it was not investigating the cirucumstances properly I then warned Direct Line (indirectly calling it a Toad of the government which I felt that was involved in attempting to cover up the matter) and Moore Blatch not to attempt to represent my interests to the Court. I wrote to Direct Line on 30 October 1998 with Reference to 9745538500/CLT1/107 - Claire Titmus; Dear Sir ’RE: A TOAD - TRAFFIC ACCIDENT ON 12 November 1997’ Thank you for your letter dated 26 October 1998 (sent first class but bearing a postmark of 28 October 1998 and delivered by ‘Royal Mail Customer Services’ in the postman’s second/‘special’ round on 29 October 1998) - in reply to my letter of 15 October 1998, faxed to ‘Direct Line’ at 9.45 am. In view of the urgency indicated by the double use of the phrase ‘as soon as possible’ in a 52-word letter concerning telephone conversations, I am writing to you today. I stress that I am unable to attend Court on 6 November 1998 at 2.00 pm. As I indicated from my letter of 15 October 1998, I am currently receiving intensive medical treatment for ill health and am therefore unable to prepare myself for an Arbitration Hearing/Court Case – I presume you are by now aware of my ‘spoilt’ photos and the replacement ‘slide film’ (accidentally; incidentally?) given to me by Boots, The Chemists? And as you may also have realised I do not trust solicitors/barristers appointed by ‘Direct Line’ or Third Parties in any Court Hearings/Proceedings, having now amply studied the real-life functioning of the ‘British Criminal’s Jestice System’. I have therefore concluded that only I will represent myself in Court for the complete recovery of my Uninsured Losses (which must now be quantified again) arising from that Toad-Traffic Accident on 12 November 1997. Accordingly, I will contact Direct Line for a mutually-convenient Arbitration Hearing Date at Medway County Court as soon as my health condition permits. I trust this will meet with your approval for the present; however, please write to me, even on a Sunday, if there are still any outstanding problems for the doctor to spin out. Incidentally, is my Policy already backed by Norwich Union for Accidental Death Benefit Plan; it is just that the Company has sent a reminder today with a new ‘deadline’ of 5 November 1998 for acceptance of terms - so time is running out, is it not the case?
Despite this letter a Hearing took place on 8 February 1999 before District Judge Diamond and in my absence a Court order was passed against me that Plaintiff's claim be dismissed with Judgement for the Defendant on its counterclaim of £1549.51. I was not informed of the Order until 2002 and as soon as I received a copy of the Order, I appealed against it both at Medway Country Court on 21st March 2002 and to the High Court without success. Direct Line Insurance Company met the costs awarded against me in the case.
The second case which I initiated was against the Citizens Advice Bureau (CAB) for failing to take my case to the Industrial Tribunal as I had requested. Following a telephone conversation with Mr Kynvin of Maidstone County Court on 12 July 2000 I received two N1 Claim Forms the first of which I submitted with a 22 page attachment document on 9 August 2000 to Medway County Court because it was nearer to where I lived. The brief details of Claim for a value of £200 were: Denial of access to Justiciary with respect to the application to Industrial Tribunal (Case Reference No VDL/U58.1B; LR/G; 23, of Employment Tribunal Service, Ashford Regional Station, Tufton House, Tufton Street, Ashford, Kent TN231RJ). The particulars of Claim were: Whilst giving me the impression of helping me with my legal claims, the Citizens Advice Bureau is not providing me with the required advice, for some strange reason.
The Medway County Court (MCC) issued me, on 14 August 2000, a Notice of Issue document (Claim No ME002953) which contained a Request for Judgement slip. The CAB defended against my Claim, initially asking the Court to refer the papers to the District Judge so that the court might consider whether the statement of case should be struck out pursuant to Rule 3.4 (2) (a) on the grounds that it discloses no reasonable grounds for bringing the claim. This was rejected by the Judge but I was asked to fill in an N150 Allocation Questionnaire before 18 September 2000.
The CAB's defence document stated that 'The Defendant will object that the Claim Form and Particulars of Claim in this action disclose no reasonable cause of action against it. On 12 August 1998, the Claimant sought advice from a Citizens Advice Bureau advisor at the Gillingham bureau (contact sheet at pages 1 and 2 of this bundle). He indicated that for the previous 18 months he had been harassed by his employers and had been dismissed after a preliminary hearing. He told the advisor that he had appealed and that he had already tried to get help from a solicitor and had been offered £20,000 by his employers. He declined to tell the advisor the name of the solicitors. The Claimant asked for advice about making an application to an Industrial Tribunal and how much he might receive in damages if he became unemployed. The Claimant was given the Industrial Tribunal booklet and advised to complete the application form if he wanted to go ahead. He was advised that the bureau might well be able to help him if he called on a Tuesday or a Thursday when the advisors who knew most about the Employment Tribunal would be in attendance; he was informed that the bureau could not promise to accompany the Claimant or speak for him in court. The Claimant also sought, and was given, advice about the Job Seeker's Allowance. Nothing more was heard from the Claimant until 21 June 2000 when at about midday the Claimant sent a two page fax to the Gillingham bureau being his letter of 21 June 2000. Shortly after 1.00 pm on the same day the Claimant attended at the Gillingham bureau and delivered a hard copy of the same letter, this time with the 10 enclosures. On 28 June 2000 Alan Lawson, service manager of the Gillingham bureau having considered the Claimant's letter and enclosures, wrote to the Claimant and asked him to telephone as soon as possible and he made a file note as follows:- "From letters received from client it is unclear at what stage his case has got to at the Employment Tribunal. Letter sent to client requesting that he telephone me to discuss issues in greater detail". The Claimant has attached to his Claim Form a copy of a faxed letter to the Gillingham bureau (page 8) dated 30 June 2000 in which the Claimant maintains that he left a telephone message on the Bureau's ansaphone that morning "concerning the advisory outcome of my previous consultations with your office". The Defendant has no record of a message being left on the ansaphone on the number stated by the Claimant (573525) which is the number of the bureau's Money Advice Line, nor of having received the faxed letter itself. In any event on 25 July 2000 (3½ weeks later) the Claimant did telephone the Gillingham bureau and he spoke to Alan Lawson again (contact sheet page 6(2nd entry)). He told Mr Lawson that he, the Claimant had been suspended from work in April 1998, that he had the disciplinary hearing in July 1998, that his salary stopped in autumn 1998 but he continued to work up until the summer of 1999. The Claimant told Mr Lawson that the Employment Tribunal had accepted his effective date of termination as 24 June 1999 but nothing further. Mr Lawson informs me, and noted on the contact sheet, that he was about to mention to the Claimant that he could consider action against his solicitor and Mr Lawson was intending to look up the relevant information in order to advise the Claimant but the Claimant stated that he no longer wished to talk to Mr Lawson and terminated the call. Since July 2000 the Claimant has not further contacted the Bureau for advice and no advice has been given or offered to him. The Defendant is a registered charity whose purposes are (inter alia) to give free advice to the public. The Claimant has no contract with the Defendant and the Defendant cannot be in breach of contract. The Defendant is not acting and has not acted for the Claimant in relation to an Employment Tribunal claim. The Claimant either is or has been represented by solicitors. The Defendant has not denied the Claimant access to any Courts or Tribunals and has given no advice to the Claimant which was negligent or which could in any way have had this effect. The Claimant has no reasonable cause of action against the Defendant. The Defendant will seek an order for costs pursuant to Part 27.14 (d) of the Civil Procedure Rules on the grounds that the Claimant is behaving unreasonably in bringing this claim against the Defendant.
I did not fill in the allocation questionnaire before the deadline set and on 27 September 2000 MCC passed a General form of judgement or order: Before District Judge Caddick sitting at Medway County Court, Anchorage House, 47-67 High St, Chatham, Kent ME4 4DW. It is ordered that unless you, the claimant, do by 4.00 pm on 02 October 2000 file your allocation questionnaire your claim will be struck out. Dated 22 September 2000. I requested another N150 allocation questionnaire but received on 9 November 2000 an N150A allocation questionnaire limited to allocation to track Master's/District judge's directions which I duly completed requesting the case to be moved on to fast-track. I then telephoned the local Lord Chancellor's office in Gravesend and asked if the Lord Chancellor could order the MCC to send me with an N150 allocation questionnaire now that I was in a position 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.' I then 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'. The Court Service from Southside, 105 Victoria Street wrote a letter dated 21 December 2000: Thank you for your letter of 9 November 2000 to the Queen. Your letter has been passed to the Court Service which is responsible for the administration of the Crown and county courts in England and Wales. The Court Service is an Executive Agency of the Lord Chancellor's Department. You say you are a claimant in a civil case and you require a N150 form. This form is available from all county courts. It is not clear at what stage your case has reached. I am unable to give you any legal advice, however, you may wish to consider consulting a solicitor at your own expense or a Citizens Advice Bureau where you can obtain free legal advice. I am sorry that I cannot be of any further help in this matter. The Court Service in Victoria wrote under TO1934. I wrote back that my petition concerns a ‘racism matter’ in the Administration of Justice and telephoned the Court Service in Southside Victoria Street London to discuss the complaint. Since Judgement Order had still not been passed in ME002953 they had failed to meet the requirements of the Citizens Charter and so I wished to take the matter up with the next higher authority the Lord Chancellor's Office.
On 13 November 2000 I telephoned MCC and stated, 'I am phoning concerning ME002953 to report that the Citizens Advice Bureau has still not provided me with the required advice with regard to my claim. I therefore wanted my Claim Amount to rise to the Unlimited Amount category. Mrs Wren replied 'our case was struck out.' I went into MCC on 14 November and left £473 in cash on the table for Mrs S. Miller to pick up the balance of the £500 needed for the Unlimited Amount category of claims. On 14 November 2000, MCC returned £473 by cheque to me with a copy of the 27 September 2000 order that allocation questionnaire was required by 2 October and enclosing an N244 Application Notice. The letter stated that 'you may apply to the court to restore your claim and I enclose the appropriate forms (N244) for your attention. Should you wish to make such application please note that a £50 fee is payable.
At this point I decided to launch a case against the University of Greenwich itself. This third case at the Medway County Court stemmed from a discussion with Maidstone Court Centre on 20 November 2000 in which I explained that the Court Case in Medway County Court was caught up in procedural anomalies which despite efforts it was not possible to resolve to my satisfaction. This however still left me with my outstanding concern of how to seek legal damages from those organisations and individuals who have criminally conspired to maliciously destroy my scientific career the evidence for which is contained in the 22-page attachment-document that was lodged at Medway County Court with my N1 Claim Form. To enable me now to proceed with this Case I was requesting the legal clearance necessary that none of the specific issues of the harassment referred-to in the said 22-page attachment-document are any longer sub-judice to any proceedings outstanding at the Medway County Court, at the Ashford Employment Tribunal Service, at the Employment Appeals Tribunal, or at the Civil Appeals Office of the Royal Courts of Justice. In effect I sought the Judge's clearance to pursue damages against organisations and individuals who were reported to previous tribunals and courts as mitigating circumstances. The statement of case was: damages due to me arising from loss of my scientific career from the criminal actions against me of the University of Greenwich and co-conspirators as described in the 22 page attachment document lodged in Medway County Court. I was seeking £50,000 plus in compensation.
After initially issuing the number MS003408 Maidstone County Court returned my N1 Claim Form with a cheque for £500 having decided not to issue a Claim Number. It passed a General Form of Judgement or Order dated 5th/6th December 2000: Before District Judge Millward sitting at Maidstone Combined Court, Barker Road Maidstone, Kent ME16 8EQ. Upon the Claimant not appearing and the Defendant not appearing. The claim that you submitted to the court on the 4th December was referred to the District Judge who made the following order. What is the state of the proceedings in Medway County Court? Do they relate to the same cause of action? If so why is a new action being commenced here? If the proceedings in Medway have been concluded ie a judgment has been given and the claimant is dissatisfied with that judgment then the correct course is to appeal against that decision and not simply issue fresh proceedings in a different court. I issued the same Claim against the University of Greenwich and co-conspirators at Medway County Court on 8 February 2001 where it was accorded the Claim No ME010463.
On 19 February 2001 the Court sent me a Notice that Acknowledgment of Service has been filed document, stating that the Defendant filed an acknowledgment of Service on 19 February 2001. The defendant responded to the claim indicating an intention to defend all of the claim. The defendant has 28 days from the date of service of the claim form with particulars of claim, or of the particulars of claim, to file a defence. The University of Greenwich submitted that the matter of unfair dismissal and racial discrimination had already been considered by the Industrial Tribunal and was therefore an abuse of the process of the Medway County Court. A Court Order was passed by District Judge Caddick in my absence that the Claimant's statement of case be struck out as disclosing no reasonable grounds for claim and as being an abuse of the process of the Court. Claim be dismissed. Claimant shall pay Defendant's costs of claim and application summarily assessed at £755 (being legal fee of £600, VAT £105, and court fee paid £50) to be paid by Claimant to Defendant by 25 April 2001.
I was not permitted to Appeal against the Order, merely to request that the Order be set aside which I did on 27 April 2001. I obtained a transcript of the Hearing which made clear that the Judge was equivocal about whether or not the statement of case represented an abuse of the process of the court. The whole case transcript was not being issued to me and I complained to the Court Service Southside Victoria Street London. Miss T Holland wrote supporting the Transcribers signing the letter from the desk of 'Civil and Family Support' which I took as a threat that I was due to face prison term. The court would not let me bring in the officials of the British Poultry Science Journal as co-defendants and witnesses at any of the Hearings that were arranged because it stated that 'the claim was struck out on a question of law, not fact.' In the end I did not attend any of the hearings. On 24 July 2001 District Judge Caddick passed a judgement that upon reading Claimants file including correspondence between the Claimant and court, and upon neither party attending it is ordered that Claimants application dated 27 April 2001 be struck out.
On 16 August 2001 I took the ME010463 matter to the Masters Support Unit and the Court of Appeal and then to the Judge in Chambers Department of the Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, London, filling in an Application Notice in which I stated that I wished an order to be made that 'I am the victim in the matter perverting the course of justice by court- and tribunal-associated staff against Dr S. Panigrahi submitted to the High Court since 16 August 2001'. An Appellant's Notice on car incident case SO806411 was also submitted to the Judge in Chambers Department on 29 March 2002 for the attention of Mr P Montserrat. This was passed on to the Supreme Court Circuit High Court Appeals Office which advised that the Appeal should begin at Medway County Court under a Circuit Judge. There Judge Cryan was appointed but he ruled that 'This appeal is years out of time, it requires leave. No application for leave is before me. Until one is made the appeal cannot progress.' I appealed this decision at Lewes Appeal Centre (Case C14/02) after checking with the High Court Appeals Office. The matter was considered by a Deputy High Court Judge Kennedy QC, who ruled that I had not got a potential appeal at the Lewes Appeal Centre. The matter went to the Court of Appeal where a case No of CC/2002/PTA/0408 was given, and I sent in a copy of the 17 April 2001 dated order of Medway County Court under ME010463 to the court on 22 May 2002 for its consideration. Concerning ME010463, Medway County Court wrote on 22 May 2002: The District Judge states that you did not attend the hearing on 11 April 2001 (order dated 17 April 2001) you then applied to set aside the order, the application was listed for 25th May 2001 and adjourned to 23rd July 2001. You did not attend so the application was struck out.' I copied this letter to the Court of Appeal and asked, 'has permission to Appeal been granted yet?
On 17 January 2002 I took out an Application Notice for my Claims in ME002953 (ME010463) to be restored by Medway County Court because the defendants did not file an adequate defence, implying that both were the same case and that CAB is to be considered a co-defendant of the University of Greenwich. No action was taken by the Court. On 13 March 2003 I applied again to Medway County Court to have ME002953 restored and insisting that ME002953 and ME010463 were part of the same case. The hearing was scheduled for 22 April 2003 which I did not attend. On 23 April 2003 Deputy District Judge Morling passed the judgement: upon hearing Counsel for the Defendant and the Claimant not attending, the claimant's application to adjourn be refused. The claimant's application to restore proceedings be dismissed. The claimant is to pay the defendant's costs at £150. I wrote back stating that I wished to appeal this order, and filled in an Appellant's Notice stating the grounds for appeal as being: I applied for the Hearing on 22 April 2003 to be postponed indefinitely not for it to be adjourned due to ill health. The reply to it was that the appeal had been filed out of time, therefore an application is required to appeal out of time. I challenged this judgement.
From 9 November 2001 I began a process of seeking a Judicial Review at the Administrative Court of the Royal Courts of Justice, of all Medway County Court Orders and decisions concerning proceedings under Claim Numbers SO806411, ME002953, and ME010463. I stated that I am a victim of a miscarriage of justice perpetrated by the British Criminal Justice System-associated individuals. The court titled the case, 'The Queen on the application of Panigrahi versus Medway County Court' and gave a Case No of CO/1680/2002. On 23 April 2002 Mr Justice Keith passed an order In the High Court of Justice, Queens Bench Division Administrative Court: The Claimant is under the impression that permission to proceed with his claim for judicial review has already been granted. That is incorrect. Permission has not been granted. In order for the court to decide whether permission should be granted the Claimant must (a) identify the decisions of Medway County Court which he wishes to challenge, (b) state the basis upon which he alleges that they are amenable to judicial review and (c) explain why permission to challenge them should be granted. I therefore direct the Claimant to lodge with the Administrative Court Office by 4.00 pm on Friday 3 May (a) copies of the orders of Medway County Court which he wishes to challenge, and (b) a statement setting out the basis upon which he alleges that they are amenable to judicial review and why permission to challenge them should be granted. If the claimant fails to comply with these directions, the claim will be struck out.' I wrote back on 30 April 2002: Dear Sir, Please send me a copy of the Defendant's response in order that I may reconsider the merits of my Application in the light of the Defendant's evidence.'
On 25 May 2002 I wrote to the French Consulate General for asylum to go and live in France, copying the letter to the Administrative Court and asking to be informed of the final outcome of Case no CO/1680/2002. Mr Justice Keith of the Administrative Court passed an Order dated 3 July 2002 that permission to apply for Judicial Review is hereby refused because 'despite being required to lodge with the Administrative Court a statement setting out the basis on which the Claimant alleges that these decisions are amenable to judicial review and why permission to challenge them should be granted, no such statement has been lodged. There is therefore no basis on which permission to proceed with the claim for judicial review can be granted. In addition, now that the decisions which the Claimant wishes to challenge are known, it is plain that this application for permission to proceed by way of judicial review is out of time.' I wrote back under Notice for renewal of claim for permission to apply for judicial review that, 'With due regard to the judgement made, not all the decisions which the Claimant wishes to challenge were available to me until now. The attached document is still under consideration at Lewes Appeal Centre. This application for Judicial Review to prevent the further perverting of the course of justice is therefore not out of time. On 5 August 2002 the Administrative Court wrote that the permission application has been listed for oral hearing on 20 August 2002. I wrote back asking who the other parties are for the Hearing and the Court Room and Time, but no reply was received. On 23 August 2002 Mr Justice Collins of the Administrative Court passed an Order under notification of the Court's decision following an oral hearing on the renewed application for permission to apply for Judicial Review that permission be refused: no attendance from either parties.
On 12 June 2002 Medway County Court wrote on Case SO806411: please note that your application for leave to appeal out of time has been re-listed before a Circuit Judge on 19 June 2002. The Judge has requested your attendance on this day. The document stated further as with earlier ME010463 proceedings that Please Note: This case may be released to another Judge, possibly at a different court, which I read again as a threat to have me referred to a Magistrates or a Crown Court. I therefore did not attend the Hearing and on 20 June 2002 Judge Cryan ordered that the Application for leave to appeal out of time is dismissed. I submitted the document to the Lewes Combined Court Centre for processing under the High Court Appeal. Mrs Phipps the Appeals Manager wrote that your Appeal has been forwarded to the Civil Appeals Office in London but on 23 August 2002 it wrote that the High Court does not have jurisdiction.
On 14 February 2002 I had applied to the Duty Judge at the Royal Courts of Justice Strand London for an injunction to freeze court proceedings under Claim Numbers ME002953, ME010463 and SO806411. It was considered by Judge Penry Davy but no action was taken. On 22 June 2002 I wrote to Mr Ian Hyams, the Director of the Royal Courts of Justice, London about the prevarication problems I had encountered with High Court Officials since 16 August 2001. On 18 January 2003 I wrote to the Master of the Rolls, Lord Phillips concerning the lack of progress in proceedings under CC/2002/PTA0408 and CO/1680/2002. The Assistant Secretary wrote back saying that the Master of the Rolls is unable to comment in any individual cases before the courts.
In the meantime I took up the matter of Moore Blatch misrepresenting me at the Medway County Court with the Law Society's Office for the Supervision of Solicitors and of Archon Solicitors representing the University of Greenwich with the legal services Ombudsman. Neither made any progress at investigating the complaints.
I applied to the European Court of Human Rights on 21 October 2000 was given a case Number of PN22010. The case listed for a Hearing on 11 September 2001 under 64851/01 was rejected as inadmissable, and further explained on 21st May 2002: with reference to your numerous recent telephone calls and faxed letter of 11 May 2002 I must draw your attention to the following points: Your application 64851/01 was rejected by the Court on 11 September 2001; no appeal lies against this decision; if you have fresh complaints concerning alleged violations of your rights under the Convention you should submit them in writing. If they refer to matters already decided in your previous application, any new application would be rejected pursuant to Article 35 2(b) of the Convention. In the light of the above, I must inform you that the Registry of the Court can no longer accept any telephone calls from you.' I wrote back stating that these were indeed fresh complaints of violations of my rights under the European Convention of Human Rights and I should therefore be grateful for a consideration of the Case. The European Court of Human Rights wrote back on 8 July 2002 and again on 30 July 2002 giving two new File Numbers inviting a fresh application, to which I took no action. I referred the matter instead to the Council of Europe, the parent body of the European Court of Human Rights under an application for asylum.
I sought the help of Liberty to represent my case to the courts but it did not wish to get involved. On 13 March 2002, I complained to the Commission for Racial Equality reminding it again in a letter dated 17 June 2002 but nothing came of it. I wrote to the International Bar Association and in particular its Human Rights Institute and the Spanish lawyer Mr Ramon Mullerat, whom I contacted over the telephone numerous times but both the organisation and the lawyer declined to help me with my case. My father found a solicitor living in Birmingham who was visiting Kolkata (a Sri M.L Dutta of No 2 Wingfield Road, B42 2 QD) to contact and to help me with my Court cases. He declined to help. On 27 June 2003 I wrote to the Crown Prosecution Service in Maidstone seeking its help in bringing the court officials to court. I wrote to Amnesty International and telephoned them countless number of times but it too was unwilling to help me with the persecution that I was suffering. I took the matter to my Member of Parliament Mr Paul Clark, then to the Parliamentary Ombudsman, and the House of Commons up to the office of the Speaker concerning how to petition the House of Commons on the persecution I was being subjected to. They wrote that the matter had to be progressed by a MP which I felt was not possible in my case at that time. On 17 May 2002 I wrote to the European Ombudsman for citizens rights Mr Jacob Soderman but he decided not to investigate. On 6th June 2002 I took the matter to the AIRE Centre (Advice on Individual Rights in Europe) but it gave an unpalatable reply. On 30 June 2002 I wrote to the European Commission at 8 Storey's Gate London, referring case PN22010 of the European Court of Human Rights to the Court of First Instance in the European Court of Justice. On 12 July 2002 I wrote to Mr Romano Prodi, President of the European Commission in Brussells concerning this matter, in particular the misconduct of my File No PN22010 for which Mr Walter Schwimmer, the General Secretary of the Council of Europe, F-67075 Strasbourg, France, should be made to answer to the Court. Subsequently I took the matter to the European Parliament through the Members of the European Parliament, Mr Roy Perry and Mr Daniel Hannan and by writing to the President of the European Parliament but nothing came of it.
I had reminded the United Nations in New York regarding the post of Director of Sustainable Development post that I had applied for and stated that it was now 5 years since I had applied for a posting in the United Nations and I was writing to enquire if all its vacancies had now been filled. I asked Mr Kofi Annan to resign his position since his treatment of my case constituted a gross violation of my Human Rights. On 4 December 2002 I wrote to the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) London concerning my attempts to escape from state-persecution in Britain stating that the first choice of a country to go to was India. I copied that letter to Medway County Court writing: please advise concerning my application to put myself beyond the jurisdiction of British courts as a result of ME010463 proceedings. The UNHCR wrote back that it could not assist me in seeking asylum out of the United Kingdom. On 14 January 2003 I therefore began proceedings against the United Nations at the Central Criminal Court Old Bailey. On 27 March 2003 I took out a private prosecution at the Kent Magistrates Court Service (North Kent Magistrates Court) against the court officials, broadening the case on 5 May 2003 to include my allegations against Mr Kofi Annan and the recent attack on Iraq. The specific Indictment and the point-of-law arguments in support were:
Mr Kofi Annan as the Chief of a monolithic gangster organisation United Nations that has an illegal Charter for existence, is charged on two Counts:
(i) Mass murder in Iraq and the consequent subjecting of inhabitants world-wide to ill-health from damage to the air-atmosphere by proceeding its Resolution 1441 with the mercenaries Mr George Bush and Mr Anthony Blair;
(ii) Subjecting Dr S. Panigrahi to willful persecution from February 1998 in order to suppress the truth of Mr Anthony Blair’s crimes.
The illegal status of United Nations: The term ‘United Nations’ was first used in a Declaration of the United Nations in 1942 when representatives of 26 Allied nations pledged their governments to continue fighting together against the Axis powers which were Germany and Italy. That situation does not arise today. Thus, the Charter document signed by representatives of 50 Allied countries following the conferences at Dumbarton Oaks, Washington in 1944 and in San Francisco in 1945 which gave permanent membership of the Security Council and veto powers to five nations illegally is invalid in international law. And since Switzerland is not part of the United Nations, United Nations does not represent international law.
Genocide in Iraq: The killing, destruction of property and general terrorism perpetrated on the inhabitants of Iraq during six weeks of March-April 2003 was illegal in international law because the coalition of nations knew that Iraq was not militarily able to defend itself against them. I should be grateful for your consideration of these facts at a Hearing.
Kent Magistrates Court Service queried jurisdiction and did not take any action. On 13 June 2003 I took out a case at the International Criminal Court, Maanweg 174, 2516 AB The Hague, the Netherlands for a Crime against Humanity. The Kofi Annan Indictment document was submitted to the International Criminal Court, the United Nations offices in London, International Court of Justice and the Pakistan membership of the United Nations Security Council. On 23 June 2003 I wrote to His Excellency Sir Jeremy Greenstock at the Permanent Mission of the United Kingdom to the United Nations, 1 Dag Hammarskjold Plaza, 885 Second Avenue, New York, NY 10017. On 14 December 2003 I wrote to the International Criminal Court enquiring if there was any progression of my case and if the Court had decided yet whether to restore Mr Saddam Hussein as the legitimate ruler of Iraq, and seeking £15 billion in compensation. On 18 June 2004 the International Criminal Court finally replied that the matters I had submitted were outside the jurisdiction of the court, but that this may be reconsidered in the future. I wrote back requesting a reconsideration. On 15 November 2003 I wrote to the Security Council of the United Nations. On 4 January 2004, I submitted a two page document to the Pakistan Non-permanent membership of the Security Council of the United Nations, requesting appropriate redress from the highest judicial body of the world: I telephoned you at 4.38 pm on 30 December 2003 and asked to speak with the Ambassador. Instead, you put me through to the same gentleman with whom I had discussed my Case at ~3.45 pm (UK-Time) on 19 December 2003 after being referred to the Pakistan Membership of the Security Council by Mr Alexander Martinovic's Office. I therefore asked the gentleman whether my two-part Resolution had now been submitted to the Security Council for consideration as discussed with him on 19 December 2003, and he replied that he had not seen the two-part Resolution. So I read out the Resolution to him as being:
(a) To remove the veto power of the 5 permanent member States of the Security Council; and
(b) To approve the setting up of an International Task Force to invade the United States of America to capture Mr George Bush and drag him out for Trial and Sentencing along with Mr Anthony Blair by a Special Court of the United Nations.
I then reminded your official of the background justification of my 19 December 2003 submission to you when I had stated that I had been subjected to 6 years of persecution in the United Kingdom, during which my money had been withheld from me by the State authorities who also stopped workmen from coming to our house to repair our essential equipment: this resulted in us freezing last winter and they are doing so again this winter. They have also not renewed my British Passport to enable me to travel long term. I explained that the United Kingdom and France had manipulated the agencies of the United Nations with regard to the proceedings of my Case through the United Nations High Commission for Refugees, the United Nations High Commission for Human Rights, the International Criminal Court, the International Court of Justice, and the United Nations Offices in London to which I had taken my complaint to; and of particular concern is the fact that Mr Bertrand Ramcharan, the High Commissioner for Human Rights in Geneva, had not acted on my two Faxes to him. I also pointed out that Mr Kofi Annan was also involved in this Case. Your official had asked me on 19 December 2003 whether I had been through the judicial process, and I had replied, Yes, adding that that day alone I had telephoned the Court from which it was clear that the authorities were persecuting me with the complicity of their courts. I also mentioned to him my strong condemnation of the destruction of the Babri Masjid in Ayodhya and that archeological material could not be used to justify that sacriligeous act perpetrated in the name of Ram who is God only and so this brought Him into disrepute. Similarly, the atrocities and inhuman acts against Muslims in Gujarat could not be overlooked. I further reminded your official that he had said to me on 19 December 2003 that this matter was more appropriate for the United Nations General Assembly to deal with.
I further explained that the task of invading the United States of America to enforce the Resolution would require around 2 million troops, to which he said that you are not going to be a party to this. He also said that you only take on Resolutions put forward by Nation States, and asked me why I did not approach a country like Guinea. I replied that the Secretariat of the Security Council had given me your telephone number to approach you and this was the reason I was obliged to come to you. Consequently, in this situation there were only two options open to the Pakistan Membership of the Security Council: you either table the Resolution or resign your membership of the Security Council immediately. He said that he was telling me then on the phone that I should ask another of the 191 countries of the United Nations to take my Case forward, to which I responded that if this was the Pakistan Membership's decision you are obliged in international law to give this to me in writing so that the matter can proceed further accordingly.
In summary, I then asked: on what kind of consideration did these five permanent member countries have a right to veto Security Council matters; and whose decision is it that a country with a 1000 million population like India must have the same right of representation in the bodies of the United Nations like the Security Council as a country like Pakistan with only around 200 million or Equatorial Guinea with less than five hundred thousand people? The countries of United States of America and United Kingdom had manipulated by bribery other members of the Security Council to secure Resolution 1441. In the First Gulf War retreating Iraqi troops were massacred by America in gross violation of the Geneva Convention on the conduct of war. United Kingdom and America also manipulated Mr Kofi Annan's Offices at the United Nations with regard to the advertising and filling of the Position of Director of Sustainable Development from February 1998 in order to persecute me.
Thus, for manipulating the United Nations agencies and procedures as I have described these countries have forfeited their right to belong to the civilised world, and with the United States of America in particular being Satan-evil the Resolution was justified. The immediate priority however was for the five permanent States to be divested of their veto powers in order to facilitate the other measures of the Resolution. You asked me to send you the Resolution in writing and you would have a look at it, to which I pointed out that I had already sent you a Fax concerning this after we had spoken on 19 December 2003 to the Fax number you had given me then: the Fax went OK to 0012127447348 at 7.42 pm (UK-Time) on 19 December 2003.
No reply was received from the Pakistan Membership of the Security Council nor from any other body of the United Nations in New York or in London. On 27 January 2004 I took the matter to the International Law Commission in New York and on 16 March 2004 I wrote to their Geneva address asking whether the 34 members of the International Law Commission have now received my submissions for it's deliberations for codification on Citizenship Rights at it's 56th Session from 3 May to 4 June 2004 and from 5 July to 6 August 2004.
On 17 May 2003 I paid the first instalment of £50 to Archon Solicitors towards the cost of the Order of Medway County Court under ME010463. I made two further payments of £50 but since Archon solicotors refused to pass on some of this sum to Citizens Advice Bureau, I stopped making further payments. I wrote to Archon that no further payments will be made to you pending the outcome of my Appeal and copied this letter to Medway County Court. The Citizens Advice Bureau had changed its solicitors to Davies Arnold and Cooper as a diversionary tactic. I referred the matter to the Interim Applications Court of the Royal Courts of Justice, and to the Duty Judge, Mr Justice Gibbs. Nothing came of it. On 19 May 2003 I wrote to the Judge in Chambers Room E101 at the Royal Courts of Justice London that I required a Hearing with a High Court Judge to institute the Voluntary Bill of Indictment documentation against court officials who with judges had conspired to pervert the course of justice in civil proceedings against me: these persons are District Judge Caddick, Mrs T Fagg and Mr S.R. Savage.
On 29 July 2003 I wrote to the Citizens Advice Bureau further to its Defence Document to Medway County Court to give me details of its verbal or written exchanges with the Ashford Employment Tribunal Service during June-July 2000 because I believed that perjury may have been committed. On 17 September 2003 Judge Murdoch QC upon the Courts own motion made an order of its own initiative and without a hearing on ME002953 that: Claimants application for permission to appeal be refused on grounds that it does not appear to the Court that there is any realistic prospect that any appeal would succeed; there is no other reason why it appears that the proposed appeal should proceed to a hearing; and there is no explanation for the delay in seeking permission to appeal such as would justify the grant of an extension of time for appealing. I wrote back on 19 September titled ME002953/ME010463 I am writing to enquire what progress has been made to consider my Application to have the 17 September 2003-dated Order of Medway County Court made on its own hearing, heard at a Hearing on the explanations provided to the Court, namely that the Department of Social Security had deliberately withheld my Benefit Entitlements and lawyers appointed to represent my Case were in breach of trust and contract. A hearing was arranged for 16 October 2003. The court wrote back that: permission to appeal has not been granted. Defendants have not been notified of this hearing at the request of the Judge. The hearing is solely for you to put forward your points regarding progressing your permission to appeal. I wrote back: Please let me know the final decision of the Court on Point 1 a of the Order namely whether it does now appear to the court that there is a realistic prospect that my Appeal would succeed. I further wrote that I shall attend the Hearing but require the Hearing to be attended by the Citizen Advice Bureau, Mr Sorrell of Gillingham, Liberty, Mr M.L Dutta of Birmingham, Moore and Blatch solicitors, the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors, and the Legal Services Ombudsman for cross examination. The court wrote back saying it could not tell you if my appeal was going to succeed or not. Furthermore the judge only wants to hear from you at the hearing of your permission to appeal. No other person was needed. I wrote back stating that what I shall present to His Honour Judge Murdoch is that the Citizens Advice Bureau, Mr Sorrell of Gillingham, Liberty, Mr M.L. Dutta of Birmingham, Moore Blatch Solicitors, the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors and the Legal Services Ombudsman did not represent my Case to the Court in the manner in which they were supposed to since 9 August 2000 when I lodged my case at Medway County Court. On 16 October 2003 Judge Murdoch passed an Order that: upon hearing the solicitor for the Citizens Advice Bureau and the Claimant, Dr Panigrahi being neither present nor represented, it is ordered that the Claimant's application for permission to appeal against the order of Deputy District Judge Morling made on 22 April 2003 be refused. I appealed this Order on grounds that it was not consistent with the Order of Medway County Court dated 17 September 2003 and wrote to the Kent Magistrates Courts Committee that the two persons engaged in the offence of criminal intent in this Case were Mr Graham Cotton and Mrs Lash of Medway County Court: please therefore reactivate my private prosecution. Medway County Court wrote back on 21 October 2003 that there was no appeal against the order refusing you permission to appeal, and 'as this matter has now finally been concluded, I will not enter into any further correspondence with you regarding this case. Any further letter will just be placed on file without answer. Please also resist phoning this office regarding your case'. I wrote back on 17 November 2003 that I would like to proceed with my Claim against each of the individual criminals separately. Please send me the necessary Forms.
In November 2003 I submitted another N1 Claim Form for £50,000 compensation to Medway County Court against The General Secretary of the United Nations, Mr Kofi Annan with the claim that The General Secretary of the United Nations had misused his position and that of his organisation to prevent me obtaining legal redress with regard to the Medway County Court Claim Nos ME010463 and ME002953. The court replied that your request for issue of a claim is returned because you have not enclosed a fee of £600 or the Form EX160 and proof if applying to be exempt from paying the court fee. I wrote back: I am exempt from paying: please therefore serve my Claim Form on the Defendant. I took a case out at the Central London Civil Justice Centre at 13-14 Park Crescent London but nothing came of it. On 13 January 2004 I took out a case against the Phone Company O2 and its agents and Barclays Bank (for not investigating the issue of the £190 siphoned out by BSAS from our Bank Account) at the Hull County Court. Subsequently I submitted an N1 Claim Form to Northampton County Court against Mr Steven Ashworth of Hull County Court for not implementing the court proceedings that I sought against court officials who had been engaged in harassing me with regard to Claim Numbers SO806411, ME002953 and ME010463. Neither made any progress.
By 30 March 2005 it was clear that the Medway County Court had not been able to move on any applications that should have been submitted by the University of Greenwich and Citizens Advice Bureau to enforce their costs order. It was time to submit a defence against all three Court orders. I wrote to Medway County Court: I need to inform the Court that I have still not received any part of the Statutory Sick Pay followed by Incapacity Benefit from the Department of Social Security despite the appropriate Med3 Certificate having been submitted. The University of Greenwich should have initiated these payments while I was still under its employment. Because of this despite being still treated for severe mental illness, to make ends meet I was forced to try and find a job; however, following considerable effort this has proved largely fruitless no doubt due to my illness. I have only been able to find a part-time cleaning job which pays £39 per week. Consequently I am still unable to pay the amounts of money arising out of the Medway County Court Orders issued against me. In this regard please note that the University of Greenwich had offered to pay me £20,000 without prejudice but I had opted to wait and collect the evidence required for my Court Case first. No payment has been made to me by the University so far. I am therefore hereby requesting a Court Order to be made against the Department of Social Security to compel it to pay me the total of Statutory Sick Pay and Incapacity Benefit dating back to September1998 when direct payments from the University of Greenwich to me ceased. This is the only way I shall be able to fulfil my obligations with respect to the Medway County Court Orders (kindly also note that Direct Line Insurance is legally required to meet any payments to be made on Orders against me under Case No SO806411).
(My information was wrong as I subsequently found out. The University had paid me Statutory Sick Pay for two months in 1998 and was not under any obligation to submit my case for this payment to the Department of Social Security.)
When after 7 days no reply was received, I telephoned the Medway County Court. The only response of the Court official was to send me two N245 Forms (Application for suspension of a warrant and/or variation of an order). I decided to take no action on these as it would legitimise the particular orders, and preferring instead to wait for an application to be made by the University of Greenwich and the Citizen's Advice Bureau to enforce their respective orders. This was going to be the only opportunity left for me to put forward my defence and clear my name, which was the ultimate objective. I also sent the following letter, dated 11 April 2005, to the Department of Social Security to cover over its documents to me, and as its silence proved, to expose its complicity: YZ330724D - A REMINDER ABOUT SICK NOTES Thank you for your letter dated 10 August 2004 and please accept my apologies for this delay in replying. This has been due to the fact that I had to wait for my next appointment with my psychiatrist in Kingsley House, Gillingham (this took place on 23 March 2005) and a subsequent appointment with my doctor, Dr S. Patel of Wigmore Medical Centre, which is now arranged for 14 April 2005. I have also recently informed the Medway County Court that I have still not received any part of the Statutory Sick Pay followed by Incapacity Benefit from the Department of Social Security despite the appropriate Med3 Certificate having been submitted to you. Because of this I was forced to try and find a job. You have instead asked me to send you another sick note saying that my earlier one runs out on 15 August 2004. I am hereby requesting you again that you pay me the total of my Statutory Sick Pay and Incapacity Benefit entitlements dating back to September1998 and until 15 August 2005. Please let me know what further needs to be done by me concerning this claim.
It was clear that neither the Medway County Court nor the Department of Social Security wished to engage in correspondence with me as this would have given me the opportunity to put forward my case. I had noted this silence with each and every agent of the state that I had contacts with since the very beginning of my struggle. Notwithstanding, the statement by Medway County Court that I had abused the process of court had to be tackled and accordingly, on 22 May 2005 I submitted an Application Notice to Medway County Court on ME010463 requesting an Order that my claim against the University of Greenwich and co-defendants dated 7 February 2001 be restored because of fresh evidence that the University of Greenwich did not act as it was required to do with regard to my Statutory Sick Pay application while I was still under its employment which has led to a considerable loss of income for me. In Part C I filled in the following: I wish to rely on the following evidence in support of this application. 1. The attached letter to the Department of Social Security (11 April 2005) to which there has been no reply. 2. To respond to the Defence, my claim is not brought for unfair dismissal or racial discrimination but for criminal harassment during the period of my employment at the University of Greenwich. Whilst it is true that the Ashford Employment Tribunal was unwilling to extend the time-limit for me to have brought my Claim for Unfair Dismissal and Racial Discrimination beyond the required three months (in exceptional circumstances as I pleaded), it is my contention that the University's criminal actions in suspending my scientific work illegally through blatant disregard of University's own procedures are still civil offences and therefore punishable in a County Court. Further substantive arguments: (a) It is my belief that a member of the University's staff passed on my Barclays VISA Card Number to the British Society of Animal Science for it to then siphon money out of my Account in order to harass me, and is hence an example of conspiracy. (b) It is my belief that Ms Jenny Lynn of the Director's Office at Natural Resources Institute deliberately turned her car into my car as I drove in order to intimidate me because of a disciplinary hearing against me arranged for later that day. (c) It is my belief that staff of the University of Greenwich and/or NR-International which is part of the University entered into a conspiracy with members of British Poultry Science Limited to ruin my Assistant Editorship for the Journal and have me removed from this prestigious post. (d) Further details of criminal harassment not yet addressed by the University of Greenwich are detailed in my 5 May 1998 dated letter for the Vice-Chancellor Professor Fussey contained in the 22 page attachment document. 3. For these reasons, I respectfully submit that the Case must go to Trial.
I paid a £50 Court Fee for the application notice to be considered but there was no response from Medway County Court. On 2 September 2005 I wrote another letter to Medway County Court requesting update on quashing of the Court Orders under ME002953/ME010463. The Court telephoned me and said that there has been no judgement passed on the matter.