top of page
Search

The Final Proof of State-Organised Persecution



Since the draft of the book that I had submitted to AuthorhouseUK, Olympia Publishers and my sister for publishing by Gyanajuga Publications of Bhubaneswar Inda, the State was aggravated and launched a complete cover up by Kent Police of the criminalities that I had suffered as a victim with the following letter on 10 November 2015, quoting CO/00212/15:


Dear Dr Panigrahi


This letter is about your appeal against the outcome and process of the Local Resolution of your complaint, which we received on 9 September 2015.


My decision on your appeal has been made based on the requirements set out in Section 13 of the Independent Police Complaints Commission Statutory Guidance. My role is not to investigate your complaint, but to review whether the outcome was a proper outcome and appropriate to the complaint and not simply on the process followed to reach that outcome. My decision will be made on the basis of the available evidence.


I have taken the following points into consideration:


Was the complaint suitable for local resolution?

A complaint must meet both of the following conditions to be suitable for local resolution:

- The appropriate authority is satisfied that the conduct that is being complained about (even if it were proved) would not justifify bringing criminal of disciplinary proceedings against the person whose conduct is complained about?

And

- The appropriate authority is satisfied that the conduct complained about (even if it were proved) would not involve the infringement of a person’s right under Article 2 or 3 of the European Convention of Human Rights?


I consider that the complaint was suitable for local resolution as it was assessed as meeting the above requirements.


There is no longer a requirement for the complainant’s consent to locally resolve a complaint; however the complainant must be given an opportunity to make comments about the complaint and any proposed actions.


Was the complainant given opportunity to make comment?

Yes the complainant was given the opportunity to make comment, which is evidenced within the complaint form. However, it is clear that the complainant ‘hung up’ on Inspector Shambler when he tried to make contact in this regard.


Was an action plan drawn up and agreed with the complainant setting out the steps to be taken?

No there was no such action plan drawn up and agreed with the complainant as the complainant ‘hung up’ when an attempt was made to discuss the action plan.


Was the outcome of the local resolution a clear consequence of the actions agreed?

No the outcome was not of a clear consequence of the agreed actions as as no such actions were agreed.


If relevant was any explanation given sufficient, clear and comprehensive to address the complainant’s concerns?


An additional attempt was made by Inspector Shambler to contact the complainant via email. Although a response was received the papers reveal that the complainant did not accept the explanation given.


Have any lessons learnt been identified from the complaint and whether this has been identified and communicated to the complainant?

No there have not been any lessons learnt identified.


I have now taken all the above into consideration alongside your letter of appeal, and made my decision in respect of your appeal:


It is clear to me that the original advice that you were given by the operator when you telephoned Kent Police on 2 April 2015 remains valid. There is no evidence of information to believe that a crime has taken place.


You ought to challenge the decision of the judicial process (EAT) via the recognised routes, i.e.your legal representative. The papers that I have read indicate that you are trying to usurp the proper means of appeal by making criminal allegations. This appears to be an abuse of the process. I respectfully suggest you contact your solicitor to discuss how best to challenge what you believe to be an unjust outcome.


I have considered the second element of your appeal insofar as you state that Inspector Shambler is harassing you. Quite the contrary, he was trying to engage with you to better understand your complaint and how to resolve it. The advice that you were given by Inspector Shambler, to contact the tribunal authorities, was correct in my assessment. I shall be recording no such complaint against him, less so investigating one.


I consider that local resolution was the appropriate method of resolving your complaint.


The fact that you did not consent to the local resolution does not mean it was not suitable and appropriate. The conduct complained of would not justify any disciplinary action being sought against any officer. Your rights under Article 2 or 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights were not infringed. I consider that local resolution was the most appropriate method of resolving your complaint. You were given a right of appeal against both the process and the outcome.


Your appeal is therefore not upheld and no further action will be taken.


My decision in respect of your appeal is final and there is no further right of appeal, should you still be dissatisfied you may seek to challenge the decision through judicial review. Should you wish to seek a judicial review, you will need to obtain independent legal advice or contact your local Citizens Advice Bureau for further information.


Yours sincerely


(Signed)

Mr Lee J. Catling

Head of Professional Standards Department.



I replied by email as follows:


Your letter dated 10 Nov 2015: CO\00212\15

Shan Panigrahi <shanpanigrahi@yahoo.co.uk>

To

PSD General Enquiries Kent

Nov 14 at 8:13 AM


To

Mr Lee J Catling

Head of Pofessional Standardsl Department

Kent Police

Dear Sir

1. Your letter that I received yesterday concerning the investigation and prosecution of criminals who have terrorised me in the four cases that I reported to Kent Police (Greenwich Legalities, Internet Complaint, UKIP Proceedings and Shell Tribunal) is a deliberate act of covering up the criminalities that I reported to the Police.

2 I am therefore planning to renew my referral of this criminal act by you to the Administrative Court of the High Court despite the fact that the Court criminally harassed me when I last approached it about your persecuting officers at various levels and positions.

3. You should accordingly subject yourself to the Crown Prosecution Service for the issue of this letter at this time so as to be prosecuted for your roles in the criminality.

4. Please note that failure of the Crown Prosecution Service to charge you may lead to my having no alternative to issuing private prosecution proceedings against you personally.

Yours sincerely

Dr Shantanu Panigrahi

3Hoath Lane

Wigmore

Gillingham

Kent ME8 0SL


After waiting several days for a reply and with none coming, I decided that I would have to go down the route of a private prosecution of the Police and to prepare for it sent the following email again to PSD Kent Police:


Freedom of Information Act Requirements (7)

People

Shan Panigrahi <shanpanigrahi@yahoo.co.uk>

To

PSD General Enquiries Kent

Nov 19 at 8:28 AM

To

Professional Standards Department

Kent Police


Dear Sir\Madam


1. I refer to my emailed letter to you 14 November 2015, 8.13 am, in which I requested Mt Lee J. Catlng, Head of Professional Standards Department of Kent Police to avail himself to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) for its consideration of its charges that I have sought for prosecution.


2. Your silence in this matter is unacceptable. I need to know whether Mr Catlin voluntarily or through the processes of policing has brought this Case to the CPS. If the referral was not made I need the full written reasons. If the referral was made I need to know if this was a voluntary decision by Mr Catlin or a decision of the Police Force responsible.


3. If the referral to the CPS was made I need the full arguments presented to the CPS, and the written decision of the CPS with reasons.


4.Please note that the information I am seeking will be rightly required by the Magistrate or Judge presiding over the private prosecution that I have to consider in due course so that it is in the interest of justice through due process that I am informed now of the decisions that have been taken.


Yours sincerely


Dr Shantanu Panigrahi

3 Hoath Lane

Wigmore

Gillingham

Kent ME8 OSL



When no email acknowledgement came I decided to seek legal assistance to take this action and emailed a local Solicitor Fosters Law by forwarding my Freedom of Information Act email. It said that it did not undertake such actions but gave me the details of Hodge Jones and Allen Solicitors who specialised in taking actions against the Police. I asked Fosters Law to forward my email to this Firm but it would not respond to this request and I said to that that I considered this to be wrong and appropriate for investigation by the Legal Ombudsman. It did not reply. That evening I deposited a message in the contact point website of Hodge Jones and Allen giving details of Fosters Law and asking if it had referred the Case to this firm. It would not answer the question, but indicated that it was willing to examine whether it could help me with legal assistance. Email correspondence followed but it seemed to be getting nowehere so that on 23 November 2015 I lodged a formal complaint at Legal Ombudsman for the lack of progress. The Legal Ombudsman did not reply but Hodge Jones and Allen resumed correspondence with me by email. I provided details of what I required comprehensively as follows:


(a)The Shell Tribunal matter.

Shan Panigrahi <shanpanigrahi@yahoo.co.uk>

To

Natalie Crabbe

Nov 23 at 4:41 PM

Dear Ms Crabbe


1. With regard to the Shell Tribunal matter, on 20 November 2015 I received a letter (dated 19 November 2015) in the post delivered to my house from Employment Tribunals (Montague Court, 101 London Rd, West Croydon, Surrey, CR0 2RF) citing Case No 2302960/2014 C, as follows:

Dear Sir/Madam, Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013; Regional Employment Judge Hildebrand has instructed me to write to the claimant. This case is closed and no further correspondence can be entertained. Signed: Zionah Jaldo, For Secretary of Employment Tribunals.

2. I do not know what this letter was issued to me in response to.


Yours sincerely


Dr Shantanu Panigrahi




(b) The £5 million Claim that I lodged earlier in the summer at at Medway County Court against Kent Police that I wished the firm to activate on a No Win No Fee basis:


From: Shan Panigrahi [mailto:shanpanigrahi@yahoo.co.uk] Sent: 24 November 2015 15:09 To: Natalie Crabbe <NCrabbe@hja.net> Subject: Re: Enquiry at Hodge Jones & Allen solicitors

Dear Natalie

1 The pamphlet given to me by Fosters Law following my enquiry when I was referred to your Firm stated the following:

FREE ADVICE CLINIC

ACTIONS AGAINST POLICE

Hodge Jones & Allen Solicitors are running free advice clinics on the first Friday of the month covering:-

Assault and battery

False imprisonment

Malicious/wrongful prosecution

Misfeasance in public office

Abuse of Police Powers

Human Rights

Harassment or discrimination by Police

Immigration detention

Inquests following deaths in custody or following police contact

Medway Citizens Advice Bureau clinic 10.00am - 1200 pm; Maidstone Citizens Advice Bureau Clinic between 2.00 pm and 4.00 pm

A free 20 minute initial appointment is available....To book an appointment Telephone ....

The clinics will be run by a solicitor from Hodge Jones and Allen LPP, who are ranked in Legal Publications Chambers & Partners UK and Legal 500.

Hodge Jones & Allen solicitors www.hja.net.

2. Obviously, I would like the dispute to be resolved under Abuse of Police Powers, Human Rights and Harassment or discrimination by Police. Specifically, It was entirely improper conduct for Mr Nigel Shambler (PC) to telephone me one morning under false pretences and when I said that I did not wish to talk to the Police in view of their brutal treatment of my reports of crimes he sent me an email to manipulate the legal proceedings that I had undertaken. This was evident from the fact that when I followed up his email with pertinent and relevant questions on how Judge Kurrein got hold of a specific document of mine to the Employment Appeal Tribunal, he terminated the discussion which indicated that he was protecting the Tribunal officials from their criminal acts against me. This was covered up by Mr Catling in his letter to me of 10 November 2015, which I strongly protested about as Fosters law is aware.

3. The outcome I wish to achieve is for the Police to be prosecuted for these acts in their protection of the criminals in the Shell Tribunal, Greenwich Legalities, UKIP Proceedings and Internet Complaints issues and thereby leaving me vulnerable to legal problems arising from my protests.

4. I had therefore asked Medway County Court for £5 million in damages from Kent Police for what I suffered. This is the kind of financial outcome I would settle for on a No Win No Fee basis that your Firm could undertake on my behalf, as I made clear to Fosters Law in relation to my financial situation.

5. I am accordingly waiting for the telephone call that you indicate that I will now receive from your colleague Brenel.

Yours sincerely

Dr Shantanu Panigrahi


I further clarifying the Shell Tribunal matter with the following email:


Shan Panigrahi <shanpanigrahi@yahoo.co.uk>

To

Sebastian Del Monte

Nov 25 at 5:27 PM

Dear Mr Del Monte


I require a solicitor because Judge Hildebrand has seemingly issied a threat to me that I must not myself as claimant write to the Tribunal again to point out the unlawful nature of its interpretation and implementaion of TUPE regulations with the submitted evidence that I had stayed the Case against Shell in 2008 pending investigations of criminality in the workplace against me.


Yours sincerely


Dr Shantanu Panigrahi


Again Hodge Jones and Allen stalled me and with the Legal Ombudsman also taking no action I decided that the two of them were part of a concerted attempt by the judicial authorities of the State to deny me access to the justice that I was now in the process of seeking. Accordingly, I decided that this had to be a corporate private prosection for those so united to prevent me from pursuing my judicial attempts. I sent the following email to Hodge Jones and Allen and the Legal Ombudsman:



Legal Ombudsman's Final Opportunity to Discipline Hodge, Jones and Allen Solicitors: Corporate Private Prosecution to Follow (2)

Shan Panigrahi <shanpanigrahi@yahoo.co.uk>

To

Enquiries@legalombudsman.org.uk NCrabbe@hja.net

27 Nov 2015 at 8:18 AM

Dear Sir/Madam


Please note the correction of date on my earlier email sent to the Legal Ombudsman, and inform Chatham Magistrates Court of your decisions in your replies - unfortunately I do not have the email address of this court.


Yours sincerely


Dr Shantanu Panigrahi


On Friday, 27 November 2015, 7:25, Shan Panigrahi <shanpanigrahi@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:


To

Legal Ombudsman

PO Box 6806,

Wolverhampton

West Midlands

WV1 9WJ

Dear Sir


1. I write concerning my emailed letter of complaint sent to you at 10.34 am on 23 November 2015, to which I did not receive a reply following the autoresponse acknowledgement that was returned to me by email.


2. The Solicior Firm, Hodge Jones and Allen however sent me an email on 23 November 2015, 15.49 hours following which detailed submissions of my requirements were made by email.


3. After seemingly agreeing to activate my £5 million Claim at Medway County Court against Kent Police on a 'No Win No Fee' basis, the firm has not written to this Court with the urgency that was implicit, to my knowledge.


4. For these reasons, if I do not receive your reply to this complaint to discipline Hodge Jones and Solicitors by 3.00 pm today, corporate private prosecution should commence for criminal conspiracy against this company at Chatham Magistrates Court, as previously stated to you. I am therefore copying this email to this Court for action from this time if I do not receive any information on the compensation payment that I have demanded.


Yours sincerely


Dr Shantanu Panigrahi

3 Hoath Lane

Wigmore

Gillingham

Kent ME8 0SL


cc Chatham Magistrates Court

Court House

The Brook

Chatham ME4 4TZ

Tel: 01634 830232

I also posted a copy of this letter to Chatham Magistrates Court, and in the afternoon sent the following email to Medway Magistrates on a forwarding of this email:


Legal Ombudsman's Final Opportunity to Discipline Hodge, Jones and Allen Solicitors: Corporate Private Prosecution to Follow (3)

Shan Panigrahi <shanpanigrahi@yahoo.co.uk>

To

nckentmc@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk

27 Nov 2015 at 1:54 PM

To

Medway Magistrates

Medway Magistrates' Court and Family Court Hearing Centre The Court House The Brook Chatham Kent ME4 4JZ

Email:

Phone: Enquiries: 01634 830 232

Fax: 0870 324 0037

Dear Sir

1. I forward to you my latest communication to the Legal Ombudsman to brief you on the obstacles placed before me in accessing civil justice.

2. Accordingly, I wish to undertake the private prosecution of this Legal Ombudsman for the reason that my complaints of criminal conspiracy that have resulted in loss of income and other judicially-accruing benefits have been ignored by him.

3. Please let me know if the Legal Ombudsman is immuned from such an action by virtue of the office he holds.

Yours sincerely

Dr Shantanu Panigrahi

3 Hoath Lane

Wigmore

Gillingham

Kent ME8 0SL

Friday, 27 November 2015, 8:18, Shan Panigrahi <shanpanigrahi@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: (forwarding the Disciplining email).



On a chance finding of a Legal Firm specialising in private prosecutions according to its website, I emailed the company and blogged the letter sent for I wanted all suffering to be in the public domain.


Shan Panigrahi <shanpanigrahi@yahoo.co.uk>

To

richard@els-law.com enquiry@els-law.co.uk

28 Nov 2015 at 8:28 AM

To

ELS Legal LLP

10-12 Ely Place,

Holborn

London EC1N 6RY

Tel: 020 7269 5120

28 November 2015

Dear Sir,


Booking a Private Prosecution Consultation with ELS Legal LLP I write with reference to your invitation in your website to ‘Book a Private Prosecution Consultation’ as follows: If you believe you have a case against an individual or company that is suitable for a Private Prosecution, or are the potential subject of a Private Prosecution then email richard@els-law.com or call 020 7269 5120.

Please consider the following submission noting the steps that I have already taken in this matter as I considered fit and proper and provide me with the possibilities that I may still have to pursue justice and the procedure or procedures that should be employed now.

Background Rationale:

The question is why is there a need for a facility that will enable a citizen to bring forth private prosecutions for criminal activity. The answer is one must never trust the State that one lives in that it will implement justice fairly. Private prosecutions are especially required to bring charges of criminal activity of those in authority. It is to prevent authoritarianism, and stop the State from becoming unanswerable to the citizen. Thus it is not public interest as you state that is the reason for the existence of a private prosecution facility but the interests of the individual citizens in terms of his human rights.

Private prosecution represents the means for the citizen to exert his judicial right to reply as a fundamental human right. It must exist to prevent corruption in the civil judicial processes in which Judges can either be bought or pronounce their rulings on prejudice rather than factual evidence. The aggrieved party must be able to prosecute the judge if he feels he has been victimised by a Judge. And the party so-victimised must be able to protest freely in the media on the competence or criminality of a Judge.

The reasons that I describe the United Kingdom as a nation of morons in a Police State that requires its citizens to live like morons is the experience I have had in bringing people to face the justice that is dispensed by the State. It would not let me have Mr Rehman Chishti (MP) be investigated by the Parliamentary Standards Commission, and nor would the Medway County Court entertain my suing him for damages for his failure in processing my complaints in Parliament. The State would also not let me pursue Kent Police at the Independent Police Complaints Commission, in the Administrative Court, or at County Court Money Claims Centre/Medway County Court for its deliberate negligence in the processing of my criminal allegations with regard to the four issues of Greenwich Legalities, Internet Complaint, UKIP Proceedings and Shell Tribunal. Further solicitors have shown that nothing can be done about Regional Employment Judge Hildebrand with regard to the issue of his letter to me dated 19 November 2015 by appeal or reversal of his decision. Further, the Administrative Court would not recognise the complaints I made of government actions on (a) inadequacies of the Judicial System relating to my civil proceedings; and (b) the unlawful nature of government decision on the international scene.

The rules surrounding who can be subjected to private prosecution for criminal activity in the United Kingdom is unclear. Further, the method to be employed in the process of bringing charges are nowhere to be found. All we know is that when the Crown Prosecution Service fails to bring charges against an individual or for corporate criminality, it is thought that the citizen can undertake the private prosecution himself or herself. It is not known precisely how the citizen needs to go through the process of bringing such a prosecution. Further, it is not known whether there are individuals or institutions and even Judges themselves who are above the law so that no such cases can be brought against them by a citizen. These matters need to be ascertained if we are not to live in a Police State that allows people in privileged positions to perpetrate criminal activity because they are certain that the Police are either not interested in the crimes that they commit or worse condone such activities.


When one lives to improving the society one lives in my view is that no one should be above the law so the facility to undertake private prosecution if the preliminaries show sufficient evidence should be used an option because the Crown Prosecution Service cannot be trusted with justice for the individual citizen as different from the consideration of the stability of the State that is prescribed by the Establishment. The aggrieved individual citizen must be permitted to submit his evidence to a Magistrate to assess his perceived criminality that he believes he has personally suffered with a view to the sentencing of the offenders responsible for crime. He or she should be entitled to State financial assistance in bringing a case to a criminal court as fulfilling a different need for society than is the case with civil proceedings where personal financial gain is the objective. Thus, for private prosecution of crimes the costs incurred by the Court must be borne by the Ministry of Justice through legal aid to enable a citizen bringing a case forward provided that a Magistrate is satisfied that there is sufficient evidence of criminality.

Private Prosecution Case submission

The term corporate private prosecution has been employed by me to denote the allegation that the entire Law Enforcement System mobilised to victimise me on the Greenwich Legalities, Shell Tribunal, Internet Complaint and UKIP Proceedings incidents that were submitted to Kent Police for considerations of criminality. If the Police did not have the resources to take the allegations seriously it should have just written to me that its resources did not allow the investigation of these matters. Instead, it sought to pretend that the matters had been thoroughly investigated and no criminality found. It refused to reply to my 14 November 2015 and 19 November 2015 which prepared the way to private prosecution of the Police for covering up the criminalities. When the case was submitted to Medway County Court for a damages Claim of £5 million against the Police under the brief statement ‘Wilful negligence by Kent Police’, the court officials refused to recognise the Claim. When Hodge Jones and Allen was asked to use its judicial position to compel the court into implementing consideration of this Case, the solicitors went silent. Finally, Regional Judge Hildebrand took it upon himself on 19 November 2015 to issue a decision that the Shell Tribunal Case was closed and that no further correspondence could be entertained. As a Regional Judge he had no business in interfering in the process of the Employment Tribunal unless he was still writing to me as Complaints Officer to consider my allegation of victimisation by Judge Kurrein to whom I had submitted fresh new evidence on 24 October 2015 concerning TUPE [The Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations] provisions. It is therefore clear that his decision to delay writing to me was related to Kent Police’s decision not to reply to my letters in response to its 10 November 2015 letter to me.


Thus, Judge Hildebrand, District Judge Wilkinson, Hodge Jones and Allen and the Legal Ombudsman must be subjected to a corporate private prosecution to be held accountable for the judicial victimisation of a citizen.

Legal Ombudsman

The remit of the Legal Ombudsman stretches to make him responsible for considering these ramifications when an application is made for him to consider whether solicitors and barristers have acted correctly to consider an application for legal assistance. Failure to do so amounts to lack of commitment to fulfil a judicial need for which his motives must be determined from pursuing the private prosecution against him.

I have had two sets of dealings with the Legal Ombudsman, the first in May 2014 (see here: https://shantanup.wordpress.com/2014/02/28/alexander-barristers-chambers-is-reported-to-the-legal-ombudsman-for-racial-discrimination/ ; ) and the other during the week 19-27 November 2015 with regard to two new firms of solicitors (Fosters Law and Hodge, Jones and Allen) whom I consulted to see if they would carry out some legal actions for me on on-going issues that I needed legal assistance with.

Enquiry lodged with Medway Magistrates on whether the Legal Ombudsman can be subjected to private prosecution proceedings

These two sets of proceedings with the Legal Ombudsman left a bitter taste in the mouth and on the afternoon of 27 November 2015 I had to ask Medway Magistrates by email whether the Legal Ombudsman can be privately prosecuted by me by forwarding the specific details of my concerns expressed to the Legal Ombudsman. My first email to the Magistrates at Medway Magistrates went to the following email address at 1.15 pm: KE-CK_NK_ADMIN@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk<KE-CK_NK_ADMIN@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk>; strangely however this email came back to me at 1.47 pm as undeliverable from an email address called Postmaster@justice.gsi.gov.uk, with the following accompanying message: ‘a problem occurred during the delivery of this message. Microsoft Exchange will not try to redeliver this message for you. Please try resending this message later, or provide the following diagnostic text to your system administrator. The following organization rejected your message: RECAPHUB1.civilappeals.local.’


I then tried sending the same email, at 1:54 pm, to nckentmc@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk which is the enquiries email address of North and Central Kent Magistrates Court addressing my email to Medway Magistrates, Medway Magistrates' Court and Family Court Hearing Centre, The Court House, The Brook, Chatham, Kent ME4 4JZ. This time I did receive an auto-acknowledgement of the email at 1.57 pm but there was no formal reply during the rest of the afternoon to the question that I had posed so that there is no certainty that my query is receiving consideration.

ELS Acting on my behalf to issue private prosecution proceedings

I would be grateful if you would digest the information that I have provided and issue the private prosecution that you say you have experience of. Please note however that I have no access to any finances so please clarify in your reply if I will be am entitled to any State financial provisions to proceed with this private prosecution. For any Fee Remission Form that you may need to complete on my behalf please note that for all intents and purposes I do not have a partner since the woman I am with wanted a divorce but has allowed me to live in her house as she says that while we have nothing in common she does not wish me to become a destitute/tramp roaming in the streets. I earn £84 per week basic and have no savings of my own.

Yours sincerely

Dr Shantanu Panigrahi

3 Hoath Lane

Wigmore

Gillingham

Kent ME8 0SL


There was no immediate reply; but this was a Saturday so offices are closed. I had no hesitation in blogging this letter for I had wanted to update my website for long and this situation seemed ideal for making an open display of my disgust with the British State, and simultaneously and effectively issuing a challenge to anyone to consider refuting the allegations that I have made and whether or not I was justified in my actions. Thomas Jones questioned in my website as to why I had spent my time doing this instead of earning money to support my family. My explanation for this move to was as follows: The problem was that I received a letter from Kent Police dated 10 November 2015 (as I was minding my own business without a care in the world) and it did not take long for me to realise that this had legal implications for my future which needed to be addressed if I was to attain my objective of self-preservation with dignity; nothing more. I had to deal with the dangers to me arising from this letter especially since Regional Employment Judge Hildebrand also sent me a letter, this time dated 19 November 2015 that I received on 20 November 2015. So I found myself in a position that I had still not got my Shell petrol station job back (which would have been quite a lot better than the job I am doing now waking up at 4.30 am in the morning to go to a Newsagents and mark papers and carry them about for £6 per hour cash in hand), let alone getting back my cherished scientific job at the University of Greenwich where I had become a somewhat world-renowned and established Tropical Poultry Nutritionist with specialism in non-ruminant nutritional toxicology as well as a specialist in Agricultural Development; and the status quo was being effectively justified by the authorities. This was not justice; and there was still the issue of my MSc dissertation that the University of London is not considering which means that my MSc that I worked so hard for is being witheld from me – which formed part of the proceedings in the Greenwich Legalities issue under Case No ME010463 of Medway County Court. So with the court not acting and Police not acting to resolve these personal legal issues relating to the court and tribunal processes I still had to, once again, do my level best to counter these letters in order to try and attain the restoration of my job prospects myself with my own efforts by whatever legal means that were available for me to deploy. In this regard I had heard about private prosecutions of those who I had considered had stood in my way to securing justice. I felt that this was the only means left for working towards the objective of securing my future for if it proved successful I could then lodge a claim for damages to get financial redress. As a last resort the idea was simple, no? But I did not have a clue on how to go about private prosecutions.

So when I googled private prosecution procedure I saw this: http://els-law.co.uk/our-sectors/private-prosecution/?utm_source=Google&utm_medium=PPC&utm_campaign=ELS&gclid=CK-sstbusskCFSrpwgodL-IH-A. I thought this was too good an opportunity to miss in order to get some specialist legal advice for which I had to provide the Firm with a full history of my legal proceedings. They will tell me if I have a justified case that they will take forward. If they do not do so, I have lost nothing more. Writing it did not take more than a couple of hours – as Egregious has commented before I am a good writer. Perhaps it is the only thing I like doing, which is why I have a Blog and am also working on book ideas.

As regards earning some extra money for my family, I did four extra hours of work at the Till in this Newsagents that I work for from 12.00 to 4.00 pm today for which the owner of the shop paid me £20 in cash. What more can a man of 59 (nearly) do?

On Sunday, I found typographical errors that I just had to correct for the website and after doing so and noting that Egregious had once again appeared to denigrate me as a parasite, I went to my email account and constructed the following email to turn the letter into a formal application for legal assistance:

Application made to ELS Legal for legal assistance

Shan Panigrahi <shanpanigrahi@yahoo.co.uk>

To

enquiry@els-law.co.uk

29 Nov 2015 at 8:20 AM

To

ELS Legal LLP

10-12 Ely Place,

Holborn

London EC1N 6RY

Tel: 020 7269 5120

28 November 2015

Dear Sir,

1. Further to my email to you of 28 November 2015, 8.28 am, please note that in accordance with my principles of open justice, my letter to you (typographically-corrected) is blogged here:

2. In the wider Blog of this website you will also find considerable relevant information on the details of the legal procedures that I have been through pertaining to this case. If you require any further information I am available to communicate with you by email or telephone. My Landline: 01634 379604; and Mobile: 07967789619.

3. I should be grateful for an email-acknowledgement of my application to you for legal assistance on Monday 30 November 2015 (before 11.00 am) for legal purposes.


Yours sincerely

Dr Shantanu Panigrahi


Comment: I review that I live on a truth path that outlines the next action that is just right for me for it gives me mental peace. I do so because I am still seeking the truth of where all my God-search has taken me to. Surely it is not to do this menial job at the age of 59, I think. What was all that about? And as I ponder over my next actions I see that it could not have been any other way for on reflection everything that has happened was necessary for me to have determined the workings of the British State from direct experience which will form part of end of my book. One way or the other I have been generating of mechanisms of a highly secretive State which allows its policiticians to contemplate war in different parts of the world without any legal clearance – on the advice of an Attorney General, not a court of law because there is no written constitution to regulate society. Prime Ministers do as they want depending on how they deal with the arithmetic of Party and wider Parliamentary support and consequent electoral imperatives.

My clock checking for messages have not been intensive in recent weeks as they used to be, especially since I felt that God was saying to me that his mission was at an end in what He wished to accomplish. I see the evidence that I had survived so that I have been increasingly living to my own thoughts and charting my own path forward .

I cannot write this in the website in response to comments because the entire Blog is subject to legal proceedings. So I have turned my attention to writing everything down in this ‘Additional Chapter’ to my autobiographical book, ‘The Allurement of Reality’, that will in due course be submitted for publication.

Dated: 29 Nov 2015.

When you are a servant of the State you are moronically brainwashed into the line of thinking that those following a spiritual path need 'professional' help to bring them into line with what the State desires its citizens to be. The State should take note that it does not own me. I am a freebird who has to have a free mind to know what is right and what is wrong and do the right thing from that knowledge. I live to my own perceived reality as a satya-advaitist, or truth accommodationist. For this I must not make myself an asset to any other person, company or State who may wish to consider hiring me to use my talents. I must not have any attachments, not to money, not to food, not to lager, not to power, not to wisdom, not to knowledge, and especially not to a scientific career for what remains of my life. I must only find my own path into my future for which I must only be an asset to myself for which I ask what am I or who am I?


Through the passage of time in the practice of satya-advaita one determines the truth about oneself and perceives the reality that God brings to the mind and into one’s existence into which one accommodates oneself. Thus one changes because knowledge has that effect on the individual.


On 1 December 2015, a letter arrived from the Legal Ombudsman that was dated 27 November 2015, that is one day prior to the enquiry I made to ELS Legal for legal assistance and the blogging of that letter. Soon after I sent a reply to the last email from Olympia Publishers for the publication of my book requesting a reply before 4 December 2015 that it had committed itself to I received the following email from Hodge Jones and Allen.


YOur claim (2)

On Tuesday, 1 December 2015, 10:07, Nigel Richardson <NRichardson@hja.net> wrote:


Dear Dr Panigrahi

I am the partner at Hodge Jones and Allen who deals with client care and compliance.

I have been given an email trial between you and our call centre team relating to a claim which you appear to have wanted Hodge Jones and Allen to take on. They were trying to obtain details of your case in order for us to decide whether we were in a position to assist you.

On 27 November, we received a copy of an email you had sent to the Legal Ombudsman entitled: ‘ Legal Ombudsman’s final opportunity to discipline Hode, Jones and Allen Solicitors; corporate private prosecution to follow’. You seem to have made an initial complaint to them on 19 November, the first day that you contacted is by email. You state ‘After seemingly agreeing to activate my £5 million claim at Medway County Court against Kent police on a ‘no win no fee’ basis…’

May I make it entirely clear that we did not agree to take on any case or claim that you may have. We were in the process of considering this. In light of your suggestion that you are bringing proceedings against us, there is no question that we can take you on as a client.

Yours sincerely

Nigel Richardson | Partner | For Hodge Jones & Allen

Tel:

020 7874 8368


Fax:

020 7874 8306

Email:

Web:

My first task was to counter this email as it could pose a serious threat to me in view of what I had blogged so that I replied as follows:


Shan Panigrahi <shanpanigrahi@yahoo.co.uk>

To

Nigel Richardson

1 Dec 2015 at 10:33 AM

Dear Mr Richardson


1. I draw your attention to the following email that I sent to your Firm to which I did not get a reply, whether prompt or otherwise:


Shan Panigrahi <shanpanigrahi@yahoo.co.uk>

To

Sebastian Del Monte

Nov 25 at 5:27 PM

Dear Mr Del Monte

I require a solicitor because Judge Hildebrand has seemingly issued a threat to me that I must not myself as claimant write to the Tribunal again to point out the unlawful nature of its interpretation and implementaion of TUPE regulations with the submitted evidence that I had stayed the Case against Shell in 2008 pending investigations of criminality in the workplace against me.

Yours sincerely

Dr Shantanu Panigrahi


2. The evidence therefore shows that your Firm is part of the vendetta mounted by the UK State against me using Judge Hildebrand and the Legal Ombudsman, for which I have issued corporate private prosecution proceedings at Medway Magistrates/Chatham Magistrates Court. Your selective use here this morning of the email correspondence that took place with your Firm itself amounts to the continuation of that vendetta for my bringing criminals to justice that Kent Police condoned and Medway County Court, to protect District Judge Wilkinson, decided to prevent my litigations on.


3. I await the reply of Medway Magistrates to the proceedings that I have initiated at this Court accordingly.


Yours sincerely


Dr Shantanu Panigrahi

3 Hoath Lane

Wigmore

Gillingham

Kent ME8 0SL


When no reply came from the solicitors it was evidence that they knew a lot more than they were pretending to me and were not interested in discussing the issue. I was compelled to activate my private prosecution proceedings directly because I say that the Legal Ombudsman had not specified which solicitors were included in the complaint in the letter that I had received earlier so that there was direct evidence of complicity and coordination in these activities. I sent the following letter to the Medway Magistrates:


My Enquiry to the Magistrates of 27 November 2015

Shan Panigrahi <shanpanigrahi@yahoo.co.uk>

To

nckentmc@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk

1 Dec 2015 at 12:51 PM

To

Medway Magistrates Court

Medway Magistrates' Court and Family Court Hearing Centre The Court House The Brook Chatham Kent ME4 4JZ

Email:

Phone: Enquiries: 01634 830 232

Fax: 0870 324 0037

Dear Sir/Madam,

1. In relation to my copy-letter sent by First Class Recorded Delivery (BARCode: KP088493223GB) addressed to Chatham Magistrates Court, I sent an email enquiry to the Magistrate of Medway Magistrates at the following email address on 27 Nov 2015 at 1.15 pm: KE-CK_NK_ADMIN@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk<KE-CK_NK_ADMIN@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk>; and it was returned as undeliverable at 1.47 pm. I therefore sent it to your email address at 1.54 pm the same afternoon.

2. I have yet to receive a reply to my enquiry.

3. I should be grateful if you would kindly look into this matter and inform me today if there are any on-going legal proceedings relating to this matter.

Yours sincerely

Dr Shantanu Panigrahi

3 Hoath Lane,

Wigmore

Gillingham

Kent ME8 0SL


I then realise that there was no acknowledgement coming and in view of the lack of a reply from ELS, I had to seek cover in the Legal Ombudsman itself for this document had a Case Number which the Ombudsman would have to resolve sooner or later. I therefore replied by email as follows:


CASE NO CMP-024216

Shan Panigrahi <shanpanigrahi@yahoo.co.uk>

To

Enquiries

1 Dec 2015 at 1:52 PM

To

Legal Ombudsman

PO Box 6806

Wolverhampton

WV1 9WJ

By Email:


Dear Sir


LEGAL OMBUDSMAN CASE NO CMP-024216


1. Thank you for your letter dated 27 November 2015 that I received in this morning's post assigning Case No CMP-024216.


2. I have received the final reply of Hodge Jones and Allen Solicitors (from a Mr Nigel Richardson, as Partner) this morning, as follows: ''May I make it entirely clear that we did not agree to take on any case or claim that you may have. We were in the process of considering this. In light of your suggestion that you are bringing proceedings against us, there is no question that we can take you on as a client.'


3. I have checked with Medway Magistrates by email since receiving this letter and can confirm to you that there are no legal proceedings against Hodge Jones and Allen so that its decision not to take me on as a client is clearly wrong. In view of this apparent unjustified closure of door on me I feel it would be wrong of the Legal Ombudsman to wait the full 8 weeks before giving its judgement on my application against this particular Firm of solicitors.


4. As regards Fosters Law I do not know whether they were obliged to forward my email of 19 November 2015 to Hodge Jones and Allen, and if they were whether they did so, so that I do not know whether I have a legitimate complaint against Fosters Law. Please advise.


5. Finally, ELS Legal has reneged on its invitation to potential clients like me for a Free Consultation on private prosecutions that it offered.


Yours sincerely


Dr Shantanu Panigrahi

3 Hoath Lane

Wigmore

Gillingham

Kent ME8 0SL


There was no reply or even an acknowledgement all afternoon and nothing came by way of email from anywhere. Egregeious was instead prodding me to provide him with more evidence of my complaint in the website which I could not for it would be pounced on and land me in legal difficulties while the authorities still covered up the evidence of State co-ordinated legal activities by the manipulation of these agents of persecution. I needed to survive so would only provide limited information on the website that as far as I am concerned I was entitled to a free consultation from ELS on private prosecution and when Egregious persisted, I thumped him with ‘You clearly do the see that reason I was denied consultation is because I disputed the Firm’s ethos that to undertake a private prosecution the applicant has to prove that it is in the public interest as opposed to my view that it should be in the private human rights interests of the victim.


No further replies came from Egregious, who as a persecutor that I used to give me the opportunity to add comment of information that were in my interest in the Blog.


Olympia Publishers did not reply and I did not receive a reply from AuthorhouseUK to the enquiry that I sent about the money I have spent in self-publishing that the Courts would not implement in the UK.


For how long would I go on giving the benefit of the doubt that all these persecutory attacks on me were due to guna-consciousness controlling individuals and not a secret Establishment in the State of United Kingdom who directed the responses of its citizens towards me?


Egregious continues with prods and dengrating statements in my Blog and the following exchange took place:


 Egregious, you asked me to get a lawyer, which I did to help me get one or both of my jobs back. I submitted my evidence and am clearly entitled to my Consultation that I have booked with the Firm: Why is the ELS Firm not replying or telephoning me?

Posted at 11.20 am UK-Time.

Comment by shantanup | December 1, 2015 | Edit | Reply

 I don’t know why they haven’t responded. They could be very busy and haven’t gotten around to answering yet. If that’s the case you should relax and wait. Your expectation on response are generally misplaced, so giving the firm some time would be appropriate. It could also be that they are simply not interested in your case. Your grounds for prosecution are shakey at best and most likely undounded. A firm like this is likely to accept cases with a high probability for success and drop the rest. You also said up front that you have no money. Tomas pointed out that funding from the government won’t be available. Chances are that the firm will ultimately pass.

Rather than waste any more time, you should forget about this nonsense and act responsibly towards your family, or what’s left of it.

Comment by egregious_c | December 1, 2015 | Edit | Reply

· As far as I am concerned I was entitled to a Free Consultation legally.

Comment by shantanup | December 1, 2015 | Edit | Reply

 Consultation is one thing. Proceding to prosecution is entirely different..

It’s unclear, if not unlikely that the persons you want to prosecute have done anything actionable.

That firm will only take cases it can win.

It seems like all the people in your compaint have done is not see things your way.

Comment by egregious_c | December 1, 2015 | Edit | Reply


You clearly do not think that I was denied consultation because I disputed the Firm’s ethos that those bringing a Private Prosecution will need to prove that it is in the public interest to pursue the case, rather than private human rights interests.

Comment by shantanup | December 1, 2015 | Edit | Reply

o Well, I really don’t know about that, but if you won’t go along with their ethos, that’s a pretty good reason for not wanting to work with you. Maybe you’ll try to charge them with some ridiculous idea about malfeasance, too. Let’s face it – the whole world is out to fuck with you.

Comment by egregious_c | December 2, 2015 | Edit

 I do not see that Hodge Jones and Allen Solicitors has any valid legal argument not to take me on as a client.

Comment by shantanup | December 2, 2015 | Edit | Reply

· They are a business. I see no reason they should have to take on buiness they don’t want.

I’ll tell you what. Try to take them on another one of your stupid legal snipe hunts and see where that gets you.

Comment by egregious_c | December 2, 2015 | Edit | Reply

o Solicitor Firms here in the UK have legal obligations towards applicants for legal assistance that I will test.

Comment by shantanup | December 2, 2015 | Edit

 If that was true in this case, they would have responded immediately. They obviously have not. They probably will not. And once again we have to watch, painfully, as you waste your time, the courts’ and whoeverelse you can think of to drag into it. When are you going to figure out that you have no case to prosecute? The judges have done no wrong, your former employers have done no wrong. All you’re doing is wasting time trying to make yourself look like an injured party.

You’re pathetic.

Go find a fucking job and do something truly useful.

Comment by egregious_c | December 2, 2015 | Edit | Reply

The idea underlying my work for Blogging is to suggest ‘Panigrahi’s Law’ for the world. So kindly take note and address the following:

1. Judges have to provide full written reasons for their directions, rulings and judgements. This document should state the background to the Case in terms of the Claimant (Plaintiff) and Respondent’s (or Prosecutor and Defendant’s) expressed views and statements, the relevant pieces of statutory law that applies and how the Human Rights Convention that a country signs up to have been accommodated. The Judge needs to do this so that an aggrieved party can formulate the basis of his appeal or the complaint processes permitted in a State. Thus no secrecy is allowed for a Judge to hide under if we are not to live in a Police State where the Judges are either expressing their personal prejudices or are simply agents of the State upholding the dictats of a secret and unaccountable Establishment. For example, if a Judge says that an abuse of the process has taken place, these must be explained on the basis of factual evidence of what the law states and fresh directions given to the applicant of the correct course the person needs to follow to air his complaints and obtain judicial redress in order that when he or she follows that directed process, court officials elsewhere are bound by law to implement the directions that have been given by the Judge. These have never been done in the 17 years that I have struggled with the British Justice System. These recommendations apply to the Police as well other law enforcement agencies. No one should be entitled to fob off complainants by suggesting to them that they should see a solicitor or the Citizens Advice Bureau to find out how to access justice as this is a process implicitly enforced by the UK State to thwart a complaint from being addressed by the State. Finally, it is the job of solicitors and barristers to ensure that a Judge acting outside the Court process or within it or another Law Enforcement agency such as the Police adhere to these fundamental principles of law for the clients that they represent.

2. I am man of enormous knowledge (scientific and conventional) derived from formal educational studies and direct practical experience who lives by the principles of satya-advaita to chart his future. This course has led me to becoming an educationalist with a mission to eradicate the world of delusions. You see the vote in the UK Parliament yesterday that had a majority of 174 to conduct air-strikes against Islamic State in Syria? – I have something to say about it in terms of the relationship between democracy and the rule of law. I will consider a new Blog accordingly soon. Your idea that I should give up this kind of work to do a job for the State instead makes me question whether you have any comprehension of right or wrong on how decisions are made on behalf of the people? If you have let us see here and now if you have you anything to say about this matter and prove that you are not just content to live your life with your wife (whom you say you love) and spend your time reading other people’s blogged writings to pass apparently stupid purposeless remarks using the ‘fuck’ word liberally.

3. So I will have my say on all matters whether you or anyone else likes it or not. That is why I have described this website as a Blog-Journal for public information broadcasting that you should have taken note of. It is like a free newspaper that I issue through my blogposts and comments to those willing to question me on what I write. I take care of all my detractors whether in real life events or in what I write anywhere, such as Fora, Twitter, and in this Blog.

4. In the interests of my readers I am therefore entitled to ask you ‘which planet do you live on’? Why are you trying to subvert the importance of the work I do and suppress information from reaching the public to make up its own mind on the validity of my concepts and ideas by saying that I should take down by blogs? Who or what do you represent from your anonymity to pass derogatory comments in this website?

Comment: My relationship with Egregious has been very useful to me. I wrote to him ‘you are important to me’. This is because even a person who I describe as ‘shit’ can be put to use: just like shit is good manure for the generation of new plants to be fertilised by in terms of the plant-necessary nutrients that it posseses. Egregious gave me the opportunity to continue with the development of my thoughts so that whilst early on I had once or twice banned his posts, I realised that this was not conducive to what I believed would be the right path for me for truth could not be acquired by suppressing information. Information needs to be digested and distilled to obtain knowledge and understanding. In the process of satya-advaita one is not working towards a goal: the goal gets identified as one deals with matters with the philosophy that one must always have the last word and deal with issues that threaten your future, in this case the attempt continuously by Egregious to denigrate me with all kinds of names and finally explicitly saying that I should take down my Blog. The Blog is central to my future as it is the creation of several years of study-based knowledge. I wanted to leave my mark that I had existed on this planet as a human being. I do my job at 4.30 am wake up each morning to wait for ideas for more blogging. It represented the attainment of justice that I worked for as truth was established and I could triumphantly say that I had spent my life well to good purpose. Hence, satya-advaita has taken me to this point in establishing ‘Panigrahi’s law’. This has been arrived at by constantly dealing with those who get in my way by giving them the appropriate stuffing of truth, which in Hindi is expressed as ‘gand me danda dalna’, to push one’s stick up people’s arses - proverbially of course as being a ‘dick’ according to Egregious. The Blog does that as a hopefully permanent record, so as to constantly annoy people with vested interests of an evil nature. It therefore contributes to Knowledge for World Conservation by making people think about all kinds of issues, nothing more.

Egregious replied:

 We’ve been asking you the same question about planet for years. Your delusions are even more deeply seated than I originally thought. Your point 1 shows this very clearly. You refuse to acknowledge that the world works in certain ways, and when you do things in your own deluded fashion, thinking it is the things are or should be done, you get all freaked out.

You need two things: a decent job and professional help for your illness.

Comment by egregious_c | December 3, 2015 | Reply

· You wrote about Hodge, Jones and Allen: ”They are a business. I see no reason they should have to take on business they don’t want. I’ll tell you what. Try to take them on another one of your stupid legal snipe hunts and see where that gets you.” I did precisely that, and the Firm has not been able to do a thing: what does that prove?

Comment by shantanup | December 3, 2015 | Reply

o Could not or did not?

Comment by egregious_c | December 4, 2015

 The Firm did not feel sorry for me.

Comment by shantanup | December 4, 2015 | Reply

At 16.25 hours on this Friday with nothing coming from anywhere by email this Egregious moron was asked to prod me into further communications with him in open discussion of the legalities by inserting the following comment that I did not approve and trashed it because I wanted to terminate work on this website on my last note that what I meant was that the UK PLC Firm did not feel sorry for me:



In reply to shantanup.

Feel Sorry? Is that what this is all about, to get people to feel sorry for you?

Even allowing this post to remain as a question in this blogpost trail would mean legally that people would rightly assume that this was indeed the case and I did not want to elaborate on the legal situation that I had trapped the legal bastards into a corner with. I needed the legal bastards directed by the bastards of the Establishment of the pigshit people known as the British to write to me without any further information from me, especially since Olympia Publishers have had their 4 weeks and did not write to me about its publication of ‘The Allurement of Reality’. This decision was taken after I asked God whether there were any more truths left for Him to show me, and He said No, so that I terminated my Diary in the knowledge that all the legal agents and authorities were manipulated by a secret and unaccountable Establishment against me in a State-organised persecution.


Egregious soon posted another post as follows:



Did you just delete my last port?

I trashed this as well. This was a question of survival because I have legal cover in that ELS Legal have not replied to my 29 December 2015 letter from me where I cited legal purposes as being the reason that I required a reply so that if I am pursued or harassed by anyone connected with the legalities contained in anything I will be able to sue this Firm in the courts for not providing me with a reply thus showing that it was biased against me against anyone contemplating legal proceedings against me. And I have evidence of the fact that legal proceedings have commenced already against this Firm in my letter emailed to the Legal Ombudsman dated 1 Dec 2015.


He posted again, and I had to give him a reply:


And then you deleted another post. What is it, do you want me to go back to using “fuck” in my posts, or are you just being a dick, again?


Comment by egregious_c | December 4, 2015 | Edit | Reply

I replied this time:

In reply to egregious_c.

Egregious, this blogpost thread of comments is closed now for legal reasons. I cannot comment on any matter that impinges on the legalities that I am embroiled in. Sorry, I had to delete your last two comments for this reason.



That’s bullshit and you know it. You’re not embroiled in any legalities. If that were the case this entire blog should come down. You are just being a narcissitic, delusional, dick.

As usual.


I did not reply and deleted all three messages from the blogsite and trashed them at 18.06 hours.


I realised that I could not actually write to the Legal Ombudsman because it would say that the company ELS Legal is not part of the Case that was accepted by it against ‘solicitors’ under its Case No: CMP-024216. It had in its letter declined to include the name of any solicitor and had backdated its letter to 27 November 2015 in response to the blogpost of 28 November 2015 to pretend that it did not know of the existence of the private prosecution Case against the Legal Ombudsman. It had now to write to me within the 8 weeks in response to the names of solicitors that I provided clearly and their wrong doings that I cited and give its response on its position, or I can defend myself citing conspiracy as stated in my application to Medway Magistrates against the Legal Ombudsman with regard to corporate prosecution. So I must therefore wait the full 8 weeks from 27 November 2015. If nothing comes, I go back to Medway Magistrates for a reply or I might not even bother with that until I am threatened legally by someone. So all the way through I had legal cover which prevented any action being taken against me. And having thus survived after tearing apart the British Justice System with my applications that exposed the underlying reality of how it is manipulated from behind the scenes by a secret and unaccountable Establishment I will blog away merrily. I am not bothered about anything. I found God. Once we know that He will see me through one way or the other what do I care. I survive living in the United Kingdom with my Blog to show that I am innocent of any wrongdoing in the eyes of God that matters most to me.


The following comment was again posted by Egregious:

So, you’re delusional, narcissitic, paranoid, parasitic, and now, a liar and a hypocrite. You cannot handle the truth. You’re just making up shit as you go. You are truly pathetic.


For the record, I had been writing these down as things were happening in my Blog and the State being totally aware of the contents of this Additional Chapter may well have instigated these rampant provocations from Egregious. I have no way of telling but I am glad that I have got rid of this source of problem to my chances of surviving with dignity with my blogging activities intact. In the past week especially I noticed that Egregious’ comments nearly always came late in the day when the State institutions were cornered into displaying their impotence so that he was trying to get me to make a mistake in my writings in this blogpost so as to give the State an excuse to attack me. The comments I posted in this thread were designed to help me survive by not giving the State these excuses but also to get my arguments elaborated to really crucify the bastards on legal arguments. This evening having checked with God I do not need to take any risks decided to seal the legalities where they stood. This is why Egregious may have been asked to repeatedly instigate these provocations on me from 4.20 pm onwards - for I do not need to do anything anymore to survive here in the UK and can just write my book as I go along whether or not I publish any more blogposts, and I may not for I have all the evidence I need.



5 December 2015


The entire document above was sent as an attachment document to Egregious this morning, as follows:

Your unjustified insulting comments in my Blog

Shan Panigrahi <shanpanigrahi@yahoo.co.uk>

To

ec@derd.com

5 December 2015 at 7:56 AM

To

Egregious

By Email:


Dear Egregious, Sir


1. Yesterday evening from about 4.20 pm you started inserting comments in my Blog under the latest blogpost which I explained to you I could not permit or reply to on open media for legal reasons.


2. You did not accept this reason and responded with a series of denigrating statements all of which I removed from the website where they were placed as not conducive to civilised debate of the issues.


3. To facilitate this I am attaching you a document 'Additional Chapter to Allurement of Reality' with this email. I am sending this to you at the email address that Wordpress provides me for every person who passes comments on my blogs.


4. In the past you showed total reluctance to read my preliminary draft of this book and yet continued to pass ill-informed comments in my website.


5. In view of your latest attacks I would expect you to digest the information and justification I have provided in this document and send me a reply or an apology for your conduct by email today, or else this email will be blogged and you may be banned summarily from my website by not entertaining any of your future comments that are passed in it.


Yours sincerely


Dr Shantanu Panigrahi

3 Hoath Lane

Wigmore

Gillingham

Kent ME8 0SL

· Attachment Download

AdditionalChaptertoAllurementofReality .docx



Forty-five minutes after I sent this email it was returned to my inbox as undelivered as Daemon Failure for some reason given as follows: . Sorry, we were unable to deliver your message to the following address. <ec@derd.com>: Remote host said: 554 5.7.1 <ec@derd.com>: Relay access denied [RCPT_TO].


I decided that this email was not appropriate for blogging as it was a comment on the legal matters and would create problems for me in the absence of satisfactory delivery. Instead I started a new blog post to follow up my earlier comment regarding the UK State’s decision to launch air-strikes at Islamic State targets in Syria to issue a challenge to Egregious in particular to show himself now to discuss any matter that he wishes for it will reveal his particular role in the persecution that I was subjected to.


3 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:

Comentarios


Post: Blog2_Post
bottom of page