From: alan dransfield [mailto:alanmdransfield@gmail.com]
Sent: 29 July 2015 08:06
To: Christopher.Knight@11kbw.com
Cc: BRADSHAW Ben; <public.enquiries@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk>;
Enquiries; general.queries@justice.gsi.gov.uk;
GeneralEnquiries; Richard Bailey; christopher.graham@ico.org.uk;
graham.smith@ico.org.uk; Hamish
Marshall; Phil Goodwin; rsims@expressandecho.co.uk;
aacpresidentpa@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk;
Donovan, Paula; Adminappeals; GRC@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk;
John Olsson; Maurice Frankel; Ibrahim Hasan; govem@parliament.uk; Elliott Denton; FOIA
Ombudsman
Subject: CHRISTOPHER KNIGHT KBW
Christopher Knight
11KBW Solicitors
London
Dear Mr Knight
I have been meaning to write to you for sometime on the
attached article which you published some time ago and take issue with you on
several matters.
My name is Alan M Dransfield, the source of your article
dated April 2013. Your are correct to state my FOIA Case is one of the
leading cases in the history of the FOIA, a test case for both the Upper
Tribunal (UT) and the Court of Appeal. I believe my case to be more important
than Prince Charles “SPIDER LETTERS” and the Rob Evans case because
the FOIA 2000 is dependable upon my case.
By the way, I am sure you are aware, the Court of Appeal
upheld the UT Vexatious decision in May this year via their C3/2013/1855
Dransfield v ICO case decision.
The Court of Appeal (CoA) are part of a wider conspiracy to
pervert the Course of Justice, i.e. section 77 of the FOIA 2000 aided by
cross bench political parties to gag Joe Public.
Firstly, let me set the record straight 11,KBW, your
paymasters get 95% of all ICO Court Cases, which is rather suspicious don’t you
think? What happened to a fair tendering process?
The ICO and11KBW failed to recognise the major item
of jurisdictional error. The fundamental art of all court cases is
for the Counsel to identify the correct jurisdiction in which the case falls.
How is there jurisdictional error, I hear you cry? Devon
County Council were not the legal custodians of the Exeter Chiefs Rugby Bridge
(FOIA REQUEST SUBJECT) until Jan 2013; hence the DCC/ICO/FTT/UT were all
legally bound to ensure the correct jurisdictional path was followed back in
May 2009 at the time of my original FOIA request.
Only one action could have been taken by the DCC upon
receipt of my request i.e. REFUSAL ON THE GROUNDS OF WE DO NOT OWN THE SUBJECT
TITLE AND WE DO NOT HOLD THE SUBJECT INFORMATION.
Why was such a fundamental error made, if error at all? The
DCC/ICO/UT and CoA were hell bent on gagging Joe Public and they failed to
recognise they were commencing an unlawful legal journey.
11KBW, one of the biggest law firms in the UK, were
called in to assist the ICO as they always are on all ICO Cases; hence a cosy
relationship between KBW and the ICO is obvious.
It is inconceivable that KBW would not identify the correct
jurisdiction for a legal case before the UT and later before the Court of
Appeal.
Judge Wikeley vexatious decision was based on Context and
History, but he failed his own court order for the ICO/DCC to produce 13 Ghost
documents. Without such ghost documents, his context and history theory plane
crashed on take-off. Judge Wikeley also failed the Jurisdictional error of law.
In the CoA hearing 11KBW/ICO legal argument was based on the
ICO Guidelines dated Sept 2014 which was cock-up # 2 by KBW because the ICO Key
Evidence (Guidelines) were 5 years post dated my original request May
2009.
Recently, the DCC have released the sought after data of my
FOIA request to two separate individuals i.e. the As Built Health and Safety
Files (ABHSF) for the Exeter Rugby Bridge which proves the DCC/ICO/UT/CoA and
11KBW considered Dransfield the person as Vexatious NOT as required
required by law.
The final proof that KBW are, at best, legal buffoons … is the publication of the ABHSF because this 300 page Safety
Manual for the subject title Bridge does not contain one single reference
to lightning protection……
…..my
original FOIA request was related to H&S matters of the Rugby Bridge
and Lightning Protection in p, articular; hence if my allegations were
proven to be well founded as in the ABHSF Judge Wikeley or the Court of
appeal could NOT (repeat NOT) find my request vexatious.
As a direct consequences of shannagins by 11KBW and in
particular actions/inactions by your Tom Cross and Rachael Khamm have
placed HM The Queen in mortal danger and has compromised Justice Goddard’s
Child Sex Scandal Investigations.
I don’t recall you being involved directly in this
particular case, but I would envisage you must have done some research to write
such a lengthy article on this subject matter and you didn’t identify the
jurisdictional error either. How convenient is that Mr Knight? ….
Please bring this matter to the attention of the CEO
at 11KBW because I believe it could bring the good name of 11 KBW into
disrepute.
I would also like to give you an opportunity to withdraw
your article from the internet and other legal publications because it is libelous
and factually incorrect. I shall reserve the right in seeking further legal
damages for libel by 11KBW related to this case.
I would also like you to issue a full public apology to me
and the general public for such a misleading false article.
Notwithstanding the veracity of my allegations above, it
behoves the 11KBW Board of Directors to call for a full inquiry into the
conduct of several of their Solicitors/Barristers.
This letter is not intended to be scurrilous, it is factual
and a simple ocular inspection of the ABHSF for the Exeter Chiefs Rugby Bridge
will confirm my allegation are indeed well founded.
I look forward to your response
With thanks
Yours sincerely
Alan M Dransfield
