Today I received a letter from Wigmore Medical Centre arranging a Health Check for me. I replied as follows:
Your letter dated 21 September 2017 as postmarked Shan Panigrahi To Mills Kelly (NHS MEDWAY CCG) 23 Sep 2017 at 13:49
To Ms Kelly Mills Practice Manager Drs S, N & R Patel Wigmore &Hempstead Medical Centres
Dear Ms Mills
1. Thank you for your letter to me entitled, ‘You are due to attend your NHS Health Check’ – that I received today in the post.
2. This matter is currently subjudice as described in the attached blogpost: https://shantanup.wordpress.com/2017/09/13/appealing-two-high-court-orders-on-case-against-kent-police-and-codefendants/.
3. As soon as I have heard from High Court Appeals concerning the competence of the Surgery to conduct this NHS Health Check on me I will contact you for an appointment.
4. If you have any queries please do not hesitate to write to me again by email to avoid delays.
Dr Shantanu Panigrahi 3 Hoath Lane Wigmore Gillingham Kent ME8 0SL
Reply Reply to All Forward More
A hard copy of the email signed by me was put through the letter box of Wigmore Medical Centre this afternoon.
There was no reply to the email on this Saturday.
Comment: This NHS Centre is part of the persecutory apparatus of the State that has been mobilised against me with the Courts in question. These concluding remarks are warranted in view of a lack of reply to the following ‘anomalies’ email:
YOUR REF: CORRESPONDENCE/DJ
16 Sep 2017 at 16:48
Mr D Jenkins
HM Courts and Tribunals Service
The Royal Courts of Justice Group
High Courts of Justice
Re: PANIGRAHI (APP) v KENT POLICE (RES)
Dear Mr Jenkins
1. Thank you for your two letters to me dated 13 September 2017, the first concerning the Appellants Notice that is required by the Court with the issue fee of £240, and the second relating to the issue of Fee Remission and whether or not a Hearing has already been granted for this Appeal without the payment of a Court Fee for the Hearing. There are a number of anomalies in these letters.
2. Firstly, please confirm that a Judge and not a Master will preside over this Appeal so that any future need for me to appeal the decision made in the Appeal can be directed to the Civil Appeals Office for consideration by the Court of Appeal.
3. Second, I should state that the information on Hearing(s) and costs for them if I am to bear them are vital for my Appeal and needs to be clarified now in relation to whether no Hearings, or a single Hearing or more than one Hearing will take place or whether the decision on Hearing(s) will be made by the judge in due course following his study of the Appellant’s Notice that I will submit. Please confirm which because as things stand with the holding back of vital evidence by the Legal Ombudsman I will not proceed with the Appeal if a Hearing comprising attendance by all five defendants is not granted by the Court. This could however change if the Legal Ombudsman provides me with his report on the complaint I have lodged against Slater and Gordon lawyers in the meantime to my satisfaction taking into account the additional evidence of the other lawyers that I consulted for this Appeal as indicating State-organised persecution.
4. Third, it would appear that you have made an error in thinking that there is only one Order that is being appealed under this Appeal. There are in fact two Orders being appealed, the 16 June 2017-dated Order from Master Eastman, and the 31 August 2017 dated Order from Master Eastman, the latter order being regarded as an extension of the first Order under the terms of the Appeal. The grounds for the Appeal is therefore that Master Eastman erred in law by describing the Claim as being incomprehensible and not disclosing any recognisable cause of action against the named defendant, which he records as being only Kent Police and does not include the evidence against the other four defendants; and further that Master Eastman erred in law in not consulting the Court File for his extension Order of 31 August 2017 without which the Application had no chance of not being declared as being ‘wholly without merit’ as he has done.
5. Since I have not received a reply from Ms Nadia Hussain to my 13 September 2017 12.40 pm email in which I provided all the required details of my income and financial status, I am now assuming that Fee Remission has not been granted for this Appeal or is still under consideration by her.
6. Please clarify these anomalies in order that I may consider sending you a cheque for £240 only with the Appellants Notice as set out in your two letters.
Dr Shantanu Panigrahi
3 Hoath Lane
Kent ME8 0SL
Further, there was not even an acknowledgment of the following application for permission to appeal:
Permission to Appeal: Claim No HQ17X01773
22 Sep 2017 at 8:22
High Court of Justice
Royal Courts of Justice
For the attention of Master Eastman
1. Please find attached my justification for Appealing the Orders of Master Eastman dated 16 June 2017 and 31 August 2017 in Claim No HQ17X01773, as my application for permission to appeal that I require to complete my Appellants Notice to be sent to High Courts Appeal with a cheque for £240.
2. I would be grateful if you would let me know the decision as soon as possible as to whether or not permission is required and if so the decision.
Dr Shantanu Panigrahi
3 Hoath Lane
Kent ME8 0SL