Following intense discussions with interested parties and legal proceedings relating to registration of the Conservative Libertarian Party of the United Kingdom (https://theconservativelibertarianpartyoftheunitedkingdom) and in light of the Constitution that is a Constitutional Monarchy and fundamental to the State and also unshakeable through political activism, as was seemingly proven to the Founder in his sincere efforts at instituting civil dethronement proceedings against the present Monarch Her Majesty the Queen for the manner in which the UK State dealt with the Founder's Claim that he had been victimised by the Security Services of the State under the guise of the organisation Victims of Panigrahi Association (VOPA); and following the unconstitutional nature of the disposal of impeachment proceedings through Private Members Bill at the Speaker's Office mediated by the Member of Parliament of the Founder's local constituency in Gillingham and Rainham (Kent); and the rejection of the registration of the Founder to stand as an independent candidate in May 6th elections by the Election Commission based on a Party Constitution for limited period in office for the Monarch to reign following which the continuation of reign would be decided upon a referendum of the electorate; it was decided by the General Secretary to abandon this element of the Party's Constitution temporarily.
We therefore accept for the present that the Constitution of the Conservative Libertarian Party of the United Kingdom has not been sustained hitherto by the legal authorities specialising in Constitutional Law, and as such are in the process of modifying the party's ethos and principles to take account of this judgment, implicit as that is, from the lack of any communication to the Founder on the final disposal of his Claim E35YM660 against the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom (now Mr Boris Johnson, and previously Mrs Theresa May) as the named Defendant in the Claim Form.
The Conservative Libertarian Party of the United Kingodm reiterates its commitment of being a very strong believer in Democracy and this principle has had to be sacrificed somewhat in order to enable the Party to contest elections in the nation, for there are much more important issues at stake than who is the Constitutional Head and who is the figure head of the United Kingdom under its Parliamentary Democracy headed by the divine-right of Monarchs.
The matter of the costs against the Claimant for bringing the Claim that is due from the District Judge to be appointed by the Central London County Court is awaited and will be disputed unless Full Written Reasons on the constitutionality of the following Court Order, as set out above, is issued by His Honour Judge Parfitt:
General Form of Judgement of Order
In the County Court at Central London
Claim Number E35YM660
Date: 19 January 2021
(Sealed The County Court)
Dr SHANTANU PANIGRAHI 1st Claimant Ref
MRS THERESA MAY – PRIME MINISTER OF THE UNITED KINGDOM 1st Defendant Ref Z1819776/TBL/A4
Before His Honour Judge Parfitt sitting at the County Court at Central London, Central London, R.C.J, Thomas More Building, Royal Courts Of Justice, Strand, London, WC2A 2LL.
On the Court hearing the Appellant but the Appellant withdrawing from the telephone hearing after making his submissions and on the Appellant’s request to reconsider the permission to appeal refused by Letham by order dated 30 September 2019
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1. The request to reconsider permission is refused.
2. The Appellant’s application was totally without merit: the DDJ’s order was wholly appropriate as a case management order and the stated grounds of appeal that the Appellant lacked access to legal advice was hopeless and the oral argument put forward that the DDJ was a liar acting as part of a conspiracy to silence the Appellant was absurd (both in its premise and in its substance – since the order under appeal gave the Appellant a final chance to make his particulars of claim good).
3. The Respondent’s application for costs of the action must be referred to a DJ pursuant to CPR 3.5(2)(a) and the Respondent’s letter dated 13 January 2021 and two costs schedules contained in the Appeal bundle (in pdf format) shall be treated as an application in that respect.
4. The Respondent’s costs of the appeal are to be treated as Respondent’s costs in the action.
Dated 19 January 2021
In compliance with GDPR requirements, the privacy notice sets out the standards that you can expect from the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) and Her Majesty’s Court and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) when we process personal data about you in the context of civil court proceedings; how you can get access to a copy of your personal data; and what you can do if you think the standards are bit being met. Please see link below foe further information: https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/hm-courts-and-tribunals-service/about/personal-information-charter#hmcts-privacy-policy
_________________________________________________________________________
The court office at the County Court at Central London,Central London, R.C. Thomas More Building, Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, London, WC2A 2LL. When corresponding with the court, please address forms or letters to the Court Manager and quote the claim number. Tel: 0380 123 5577 Fax: 0870 739 4144 (GOLD FAX). Check if you can issue your claim online. It will save you time and money. Go to www.moneyclaim.gov.uk to find out more. Produced by L. Alfonso CJR065C
N24 General Form of Judgment of Order