Re: Re: ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF RECEIPT OF YOUR EMAIL: Sat, 14 Jan at 12:03
Yahoo
/
Sent
Shantanu Panigrahi <shantanupanigrahi@yahoo.com>
To:
jo@samaritans.org
Fri, 20 Jan at 18:08
Hello Jo
I was not ignoring you but thought it best to wait until the official hours of the 20 January 2023 are behind me before replying.
This morning at around 9.33 am I received an email from the government lawyer that their counsel was informed that the Hearing had been adjourned at the Central London County Court under E35YM660. At 10.25 am I said to my wife Rashmi that the Hearing has been adjourned. She said 'That is postponed, is it not? I replied to her that you must have received the email too from Jessica Da Costa, not the Court. It is some kind of trap. Do not reply to it. It is aimed at destroying our lives. A Hearing cannot be adjourned before it got started. It is supposed to have started at 10.00 am. I added that the only thing that matters is if I receive a letter in the post from the Court of Central London with its Directions whether adjournment or postponement for the two are entirely different legally. The Court has not sent me an email with an attachment of the Directions/Order/Judgment. Until this arrives there is nothing to be done. The Court does not convey the Directions to one party (the Defendant) to pass it on to the other party (the Claimant) that the Hearing has been adjourned. I do not want any Hearing. I want a peaceful life, a happy family life. I am safe for now. Emails are very dangerous things and need to be used carefully.
Then I received an email from Jill Jesson that she was not going to keep the Session booked for 11.30 am because of some agreement that I had apparently reneged on in that the consultations that I have had with her are to be used in the Court proceedings. I did not reply to this email as she had copied it to Bark.com thereby terminating or complaining about me to Bark.com. At 11.25 pm, I received a notification on my Phone from Jill Jesson: 'Please see my email that I sent you this morning'. I ignored it as I was waiting from something still from the Court of Central London. We went out shopping at Tesco me holding my wife's hand as she walked such is her state of back problem, but there was a Fire Alarm going off at Tesco a quarter of the way through the shopping and we had to come home. I did the family ironing of clothes as my wife is so invalid that she can no longer do this. After that I went back to Tesco and did the shopping all by myself.
I decided that while I waited for confirmation of the adjournment of the Hearing from the Court, I could not do anything such as keeping up with correspondence (two criminal anonymous emails had come in very early in the morning that I ignored after filing them, one was to Sandra Taylor of Kent Police so I thought it best for the Police to contact me about it), I did not touch my websites, update my book and ignored an email from Barclays Bank. The reason was that if I did any of those things it would be interpreted as if I was activating the proceedings from my end which I did not wish to do. I considered that the criminal courts are blocked from pursuing me in view of the email that I sent the Courts, as follows:
Panigrahi v Theresa May (Cabinet Office) - E35YM660 - Hearing bundle for hearing 200123 and bundle of claimant's documents
from: Shantanu Panigrahi <shanpanigrahi3000@gmail.com>
to: Jessica Da Costa <Jessica.DaCosta@governmentlegal.gov.uk>
cc: "Central London County, Enquiries" <Enquiries.centrallondon.countycourt@justice.gov.uk>,
Civil Appeals - Registry <civilappeals.registry@justice.gov.uk>,
registry@supremecourt.uk,
registry@jcpc.uk,
northkent@justice.gov.uk,
eastkentmc <eastkentmc@justice.gov.uk>,
maidstonecrowncourt@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk,
OTP InformationDesk <otp.informationdesk@icc-cpi.int>,
"Dujarric@un.org" <Dujarric@un.org>,
enquiries.medway.countycourt@justice.gov.uk,
a.westby@greenwich.ac.uk
date: 19 Jan 2023, 19:02
subject: Re: Panigrahi v Theresa May (Cabinet Office) - E35YM660 - Hearing bundle for hearing 200123 and bundle of claimant's documents
mailed-by: gmail.com
Dear Ms Da Costa
You have just wasted not only your time, but also the Court's time because no Court on Earth has any jurisdiction left to Hear my Claim so that E35YM660 is now dysfunctional, that is unconstitutional at the global dimension following its bastardisation by Court officials at Medway County Court, East Kent Magistrates Court, North Kent Magistrates Court, Maidstone Crown Court, the Employment Tribunal at South London and Ashford Hearing Centre, the Employment Appeal tribunal, the High Court Queens Bench Division, the Court of Appeal, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, the Privy Council, the Monarch of the United Kingdom, the Supreme Court of India, International Criminal Court, International Court of Justice, European Court of Justice, and the Security Council of the United Nations, All these Courts had ample time to consider the merits of the case of workplace harassment by the University of Greenwich on me with the deprivation of my redundancy money of £55,000, so that I have no further part to play going over the same old ground that you have resuscitated now through the Court of Central London with criminal intentions.
Yours sincerely
Dr Shantanu Panigrahi
3 Hoath Lane
Wigmore
Gillingham
Kent ME8 0SL
On Thu, 19 Jan 2023 at 17:21, Jessica Da Costa <Jessica.DaCosta@governmentlegal.gov.uk> wrote: (Truncated)
So it seems that the State Establishment cannot pursue me on its alleged offence or offences.
At 5.10 pm, the day was over, a Friday. Adjournment means a draw in the proceedings of E35YM660. Let see if I receive the reasons for the adjournment decision from the Court in the post. Then further proceedings may follow if the Court seeks written clarification of any of the issues that the Circuit Judge has identified as being necessary for adjourning. I am not going to appeal the adjournment, nor am I going to seek clarification or else Kent Police will pounce on me with its own proceedings in a criminal court. As things stand I can defend myself against the crimnial offences using basic information.
At 17.27 pm out of common courtesy, I texted back Jill Jesson: ' I saw it before you texted me I was waiting for an email from the court of Central London to confirm the adjournment of the Hearing pointed out by the government lawyer before responding . But no email camd from the Court. I was not ignoring you. Your points are noted. No hard feelings in me'. She replied on WhatsApp at 17.33: 'OK Shantanu'
So Jo another interesting day today. What do you make of it?
Shantanu
Hide original message
On Thursday, 19 January 2023 at 20:59:00 GMT, <jo@samaritans.org> wrote:
Hello Shantanu, I am pleased to hear you say that you have no fears or concerns. Hopefully this will give you some peace of mind before tomorrow's hearing.
You have waited a long time to have your voice heard and I hope the outcome of the hearing will be to your satisfaction.
How do you think you will feel once the hearing is over? Is there anyone close to you that you might be able to share these feelings with?
You know we are here to listen Shantanu if you need to share your feelings.
Jo
--------------------------------------------------------
You can call Samaritans free on 116 123 day or night, 365 days a year, from any phone in the UK or Republic of Ireland. A trained volunteer will answer the phone as soon as they can.
When you email us, we aim to respond within 24 hours. This means it will usually be several hours before someone reads your email. If you need urgent support, we can respond more quickly if you call.
You can find more information about Samaritans, including other ways to contact, online self-help and more about the email service at https://www.samaritans.org/. Our privacy statement is here: https://www.samaritans.org/privacy-statement/.
Samaritans registered Charity Number 219432 (England & Wales) and SC040604 in Scotland.
========================================================