top of page
Search

SUBJECT ACCESS REQUEST advice from M. Mulhouse

SUBJECT ACCESS REQUEST advice from M. Mulhouse


from: Anonymous Remailer <mixmaster@remailer.privacy.at> via dizum.com

to: shanpanigrahi3000@gmail.com,

shantanupanigrahi@yahoo.com,

admin@conservativepolicyforum.com,

ravina@olivessolicitors.com,

rashmipanigrahi@yahoo.co.uk

date: 6 Aug 2023, 20:26

subject: SUBJECT ACCESS REQUEST advice from M. Mulhouse

mailed-by: dizum.com

security: dizum.com did not encrypt this message Learn more

: Important according to Google magic.


Dear Shan,


A short while back I took the rare opportunity to speak with Ed, by phone and updated him about your ongoing battle against state tyranny and oppression, though he does not view it as that and more a voluntary crusade by you for your own journalistic purposes. This is not important, though.


He raised two very important matters which you must now pursue, and not listen to the non-proactive, typically incompetent lawyers at Olives which is run by a ______.


Make a note of all the state, including government departments and institutions like the police, cps, courts, judiciary, NHS, ombudsmen, regulators, quangos etc, and private organisations, including lawyers even ones instructed by the other side, and certainly those who have run CFP, relevant to your struggle with whom you have had any dealings in the past five years, when the oppression against you became much worse. You must find their official postal addresses and post them, retaining proof of sending, each a SUBJECT ACCESS REQUEST, supplying your name, address etc so

they can readily identify you and find you in their manual or computerised data retention systems.


Email them as well, "as a matter of convenience to them", informing each that a copy follows by post, and mirror the emails online so your pro bono advisers may monitor progress.


Pro-forma SARs are available online. SARs may safely be ignored by individuals, but not by organisations, even if they hold nothing. Post all responses as text, not downloads of PDFs which we will not read.


Mulhouse estimates there will be at least fifty such entities for you to gainfully pursue with SARs. I think the number should be much higher.


They are allowed to specify a "reasonable" fee but few if any will do so. It is against government and CS policy to do so. There are other reasons for private organisations not to.


With one exception, they have no option but to comply, and disclose to you, in a reasonable time, everything they hold on, about or relating to you (even if it is a blank). Failure to do so, completely and thoroughly, is a criminal offence by them and will also permit you lucrative civil remedies

against them.


Mulhouse said he would be shocked if what they disclose to you, which should include incorrect data, biased opinions, mistakes, follies, even plotting, conspiracies which you have long suspected, even illegal collusion and covert sharing of your personal data in breach of GDPR, does not open up many avenues for you to successfully pursue - instead of merely ineffectively flailing around, harming only yourself, like an idiot as you are doing at present.


Some SAR-exposed information will throw up untruthful earlier responses by other SAR recipients, and suggest other, new recipients of SARs. It will be very embarrassing to some, and they will wriggle, capitulate, even make you unsolicited offers to drop the matter, in return for valuable

consideration.


At 75 pence cost to you each, you can widen this net. Considerably.


What is the one exception? Investigation and prosecution authorities in the course of their relevant investigation. Not earlier aborted or completed ones where there is no further prospect of prosecution.


But since you have been marked NFA and intended prosecutions explicitly or otherwise withdrawn, except in the motoring matter which is irrelevant, and the police bail is prima-facie invalid in toto, being for a period longer than the maximum permitted in statute, let them claim this immunity

from an SAR. Then slam them, cops and cps together, with an abuse of process claim, which will make them jump. The cps will, Mulhouse said, be eager to immunise themselves, disclosing material which will allow you to finally "nail the corrupt bastards" who have carried out a vendetta against for

ten years or longer.


I am withholding details of the second matter until you substantially complete the first mission, because, knowing your track-record of being too readily distracted, a failing exploited against you by your enemies, you will otherwise fail to accomplish either. Additionally, the second matter is best undertaken after we analyse a significant number of SAR responses.


You must stop from making what can be spun and is spun as physical threats against your oppressors, even if using your "anonymous" methods. We understand your frustration and rage but it is counter-productive. Our way will bring you what you crave, which is justice, even if grievously delayed.

Inventive use of the SAR revelations could even open up possibilities of establishing malfeasance, misfeasance and allow you to strip these ill-doers of Crown Immunity,

rendering them personally liable in tort or contract.


I copy in CFP as an advance warning of what should follow. I copy in one low-calibre, UFP Olives Monkey, to remind them what a lawyer should be, in contrast to what they are. Mulhouse charges a five figure sum in CHF per hour for his advice. Do not look this gift horse in the mouth.


Warm regards, to your copied-in faithful spouse also,


~~~Cherie

9 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All

EXONERATION COMPLETED

EXONERATION COMPLETED from:    Shantanu Panigrahi <shanpanigrahi3000@gmail.com> to:          Enquiries Kent <enquiries@kent.police.uk>, Force Control Kent <force.control@kent.police.uk>, PSD Complaint

RE: HMRC3

RE: HMRC3 Yahoo / Inbox Shantanu Panigrahi From: shantanupanigrahi@yahoo.com To: HMRC online support Mon, 19 Feb at 05:37 To HMRC Dear Sirs I have forgotten my password to go with the User ID that wou

bottom of page