Thursday, March 26, 2015

Interception of our communications: We never receive a fee remission letter from the Central London County Court issued on 2 March 2015

Part 1: Heavey v Single Homeless Project: Will the Central London County Court rule we consented to declarations for online referral that we are paying our own salaries and that we are both mentally ill, and despite our photographic evidence to the contrary?

Last week Declan made a call to Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) about the refund of a hearing fee owing to him since he submitted his remission application to the County Court at Central London two months ago to the day. (For information about this case see the link above.) HMCTS states that "For all remission applications, your application (EX160) will be processed within five working days of when it is received." We never received a remission letter HMCTS say they issued on 2 March, and we only received our refund cheque through the post an hour ago. Declan is currently working on his updated complaint to the United Nations under Article 19 (freedom of expression) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. This is his paragraph 40 relating to the interference with our communications (see new "threat to life" paragraph 36 here):

40. The Applicant further complains that the extent of the manipulation and control of his and his wife’s emails has resulted in the shelving for over three years of his petition to the United Nations in support of human embryonic stem cell research, and this despite the fact that the petition has been signed by 29 Nobel Prize winners as well as hundreds of other distinguished scholars from around the world. In April 2010, an associate of the Applicant’s in America wrote to Home Office Minister Lynne Featherstone, stating: “I am truly appalled by the unlawful violation of the Heavey’s basic right to send and receive email without interference. I would be most grateful for anything you may be able to do by way of taking measures to correct this gross abuse.” Despite Minister Featherstone’s letter of 16 June 2010 to the Home Secretary regarding the interception of the Applicant and his wife’s emails (see paragraph 6 above), the Home Office never explained why their email was being interfered with, a problem that persists to this day. The Applicant has also amassed irrefutable evidence relating to the sabotage of his and his wife’s mail, including the non-delivery of registered items. In the case of Heavey v Haringey Council (see paragraph 24(1) above), the Applicant was denied an oral hearing which he otherwise would have been entitled to had he received an order from the Court when it was sent to him. Subsequently, the Applicant’s application for an order extending time for renewing his application for permission to apply for judicial review to an oral hearing and for the file of his claim to be re-opened was refused by Mitting J (see Annex 12, Haringey Council: Order by High Court Judge Mitting, p. 35). On 10 July 2013, the Applicant complained to Secretary of State for Work and Pensions Iain Duncan Smith about the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) and its manipulation of data on his joint claim for Jobseeker’s Allowance, including, but not limited to, changing the Applicant’s wife’s name on the claim without her consent or authorisation (see Annex 9, Department for Work and Pensions: Complaint to Secretary of State re manipulation of data, p. 27). The Applicant was subsequently twice sanctioned on a new claim for jobseeker’s allowance that he never made (see paragraph 31 above). On 24 March 2015 the Information Commissioner’s Office emailed the Applicant about the DWP’s processing of his personal data under the Data Protection Act 1998, stating (see Annex 10, Department for Work and Pensions: Reply from the Information Commissioner’s Office, pp. 28-29):

From the information provided it appears that DWP might have breached the DPA as it failed to keep your personal information accurate and up to date in accordance with the fourth data protection principle. However, we do not consider that further action is required at the moment. This is because we do not consider that there is an opportunity to improve DWP’s information rights practices, DWP is not a data controller that is identified as a concern to us.

Click to enlarge

Church and State website

Church and State Press

'Let me recommend an important web site Operating out of London this well-designed and exciting web site covers church-state, population, climate change and other issues. Check it out.' Edd Doerr, President, Americans for Religious Liberty

If you would like to help us personally, please feel free to pick up one of our books (shameless plug, I know, but every sale helps us to work our way out of our precarious situation). There is currently five books available in Church and State Press here, and all proceeds from the first four of these books go to us with the authors' permission. Thank you all for all the support you have given us, and I hope we can keep our Church and State website going despite the constant threats.