Alan Dransfield's Blog

Email sent –

UK Supreme Court

Mr Greenberg,Case Manager

Dear Sir

Further to my earlier email ref the UK Supreme Court document seals, I have re-examined the one page Judgement Seal dated 14th Dec 2015
signed by your Registrar (illegible name) and the light blue seal has NOT been
added onto the Judgement Paper i.e., it is an integral part of the original
paper.

I have also re-examined my application forms for my Notice
of Appeal and it can be clearly seen the Supreme Court seal has been added to the
document as per your rules of procedures.

Therefore it would seem that the one page Judgement Paper dated 14/12/15 is not in line with your own Rules of Procedure dated 2009
and, in particular, rule 16.5.

(5) An order of the Court
shall be prepared and sealed by the Registrar to record any decision made under this rule.

I also note the Judgement date is the same date which my application was considered i.e., 14th Dec 2015!??

I do not accept your registrar should be sending out spider squiggle without their full identity.

Please add this to my long list of complaints ref irregularities
and anomalies with the Dransfield case.

Please also consider this as a formal request to quash the
Expenses order in para 2 of your purported Court Order, owing to the anomalies
and irregularities.

In a nutshell, the one page piece of paper you sent to me
does not constitute a COURT ORDER or a COURT JUDGEMENT/DOCUMENT. It is part of
a wider conspiracy to gag Joe Public.

For you information, the registrar name appears to be Loiuse
di Maurinho.

For your information, action and files.

With thanks

Yours sincerely

Alan M Dransfield

Lord Clarke
Lord Wilson
Lord Carnwath

http://panopticonblog.com/2015/12/17/dransfield-supreme-court-game/

Upper Tribunal (Information Rights)

Urgent Attention Judge Wright

Dear Sir

At the recent Video Link Hearing, I made a request to you for
my my case to be upgraded to include the other 5 (FIVE) PFI schools.

I have made this request in writing to the Upper Tribunal before and
been instructed to make an oral request at the hearing. This letter confirms my
request to upgrade from one (1) PFI school to six (6) PFI schools.

My original request dated 28th Feb 2008 was for six PFI
schools but downgraded to the ISCA College only because the DCC informed the UT
and the Information Commissioner’s Office that they did not hold the sought after data in PDF Format.

We now know that was a deliberate lie to pervert the course of justice by the Devon County Council.

At last week’s video hearing Judge Wright denied me from
upgrading my original request because he said, “I don’t know anything
about six PFI schools.”

It is clearly held in written records that:-

1. The ICO ordered my downgrade FOIA request from 6 to 1 school.

2. The ICO and DCC are on record the sought after data is/was available in electronic format.

You also informed me you did not know which Vexatious
Guidelines the DCC and ICO were reliant upon in this case. I wish to confirm
that the DCC & ICO are reliant upon the September 2014 Vexatious guidelines which
contains 37 pages.

In essence, they are appling 2014 vexatious guidelines to my
Feb 2008 retrospectively, which you accepted.

I fervently object to Vexatious guidelines postdated my FOIA
request in Feb 2008 by SEVEN (7) years.

The only Vexatious Guidelines which can be used on the
subject title case are the original 5 (Five points) vexatious guidelines.

Please acknowledge this letter.

With thanks

Yours sincerely

Alan M Dransfield

Dear Mr Bailey

You have not informed me how I am supposed to request for a
decision review 6 months for the decision is released. I admit I am not the
sharpest knife in the draw but I fail to understand how I can appeal for a
review before the ICO decision is released. Please advise how this is possible.

Of course, you are involved in the case and you have a
handle on every Dransfield FOI case, ie – He Must be crushed??!!

Your etc

Dransfield

On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 10:41 AM, Richard Bailey
wrote:

Dear Mr Dransfield,

Thank you for your
email.

You refer to
misconduct in the handling of the attached case. However, I have had no
involvement in the attached case. I repeat, if you wish to challenge the
Commissioner’s decision notice in the above matter, you will need to lodge an
appeal with the First-tier Tribunal.

I have nothing further
to add.

Yours Sincerely,

Mr Richard Bailey

From: alan dransfield
Sent: 14 November 2015 08:20
To: Richard Bailey
Cc: UKSC Registry; graham.smith@ico.org.uk; christopher.graham@ico.org.uk;
GeneralEnquiries; general.queries@justice.gsi.gov.uk; govem@parliament.uk;
Maurice Frankel; Donovan, Paula
Subject: Re: FS50582996 -26th Oct 2015. Review Request

Dear
Mr Bailey

You
assume correctly Mr Bailey and yes indeed, para 6 of your attached Final
Decision Notice dated 26th Oct 2015 does indeed make ref to a review request
but that still does not answer my question, How I am expected to
make a review request PRIOR to the Final Notice,i e 26th October 2015?

As
you can clearly see from your attached Final Decision Notice the date is 26th Oct
2015, so how the hell can I make a review request in April 2015?

I
consider this to be part of your wider conspiracy to breach the FOIA 2000 via obfuscations and willfully ambiguous tactics by your good self. On page
2 of your decision notice it clearly shows the 7 FOIA requests between 20th Mar
15 and 17th April 2015; hence you are clearly in breach of the FOIA 2000 time
constraints.

Six
of 7 requests are brand new requests and are no way connected to my
original GIA/3037/2011 Dransfield v ICO, which is currently before the Supreme
Court. I agree that the sixth request ref IRQ0577046 is remotely
connected to my original case.

It
is clearly obvious to any fair-minded person that Dransfield the person is
being treated as vexatious not his requests, and the attached final decision
notice is further tangible evidence that the ICO is attempting to gag Joe
Public and are clearly acting as a government gatekeeper.

I
now wish to elevate my complaint against your direct misconduct in the handling
of of my attached case…..

With
thanks

Yours
sincerely

Alan
M Dransfield

————————-

On
Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 8:00 AM, Richard Bailey wrote:

Dear Mr Dransfield,

I assume that you are
referring to an internal review of an initial refusal (though this is not
actually a requirement of the legislation). From reading the decision notice,
it would appear that, in response to the initial refusal you had requested an
internal review on 22 April 2015 – see para 6.

Yours Sincerely,

Mr Richard Bailey

From: Alan Dransfield
Sent: 12 November 2015 17:36
To: Richard Bailey
Subject: Re: FS50582996 -26th Oct 2015. Review Request

Dear
Mr Bailey

You
surprise me at your ignorance of the FOIA 2000. I must request a review before
I can appeal to the FTT or have you moved the goal posts once again.

I
do wish to challenge your decision in FS 59582996 dated 26th Oct and in
the first instance please review your decision in line with the FOIA 2000.

For
your information action and files

Yours
etc

Alan
M Dransfield
—————————————

On 12 Nov 2015, at 08:38, Richard Bailey wrote:

Dear Mr Dransfield,

Thank you for your
email.

If you wish to
challenge the decision notice issued, you will need to submit an appeal to the
First-tier Information Rights Tribunal.

Yours Sincerely,

Mr Richard Bailey

From: alan dransfield
Sent: 12 November 2015 04:37
To: Richard Bailey
Cc: Christopher Graham; Graham Smith; BRADSHAW Ben
Subject: FS50582996 -26th Oct 2015. Review Request

Information
Commissioner

Dear
Sirs

Under
protection of the FOIA 2000, please review your attached decision
notice. I make this review request in the interest of
transparency, security and accountability of the FOIA 2000 and the ICO
Commissioner’s bad faith.

In
your decision notice, you claim my request was NOT new and you also claim
I am guilty of intransigence and unreasonable persistence, which I refute
in the strongest manner and counter claim the same irregularity by the ICO.

For
your information,action and files

With
thanks

Yours
sincerely

Alan
M Dransfield

____________________________________________________________________

The ICO’s mission is to uphold information rights in the public interest,
promoting openness by public bodies and data privacy for individuals.

If you are not the intended recipient of this email (and any attachment),
please inform the sender by return email and destroy all copies. Unauthorised
access, use, disclosure, storage or copying is not permitted.
Communication by internet email is not secure as messages can be intercepted
and read by someone else. Therefore we strongly advise you not to email any
information, which if disclosed to unrelated third parties would be likely to
cause you distress. If you have an enquiry of this nature please provide a
postal address to allow us to communicate with you in a more secure way. If you
want us to respond by email you must realise that there can be no guarantee of
privacy.
Any email including its content may be monitored and used by the Information
Commissioner’s Office for reasons of security and for monitoring internal
compliance with the office policy on staff use. Email monitoring or blocking
software may also be used. Please be aware that you have a responsibility to
ensure that any email you write or forward is within the bounds of the law.
The Information Commissioner’s Office cannot guarantee that this message or any
attachment is virus free or has not been intercepted and amended. You should
perform your own virus checks.
__________________________________________________________________

Information Commissioner’s Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow,
Cheshire, SK9 5AF
Tel: 0303 123 1113 Fax: 01625 524 510 Web: www.ico.org.uk

____________________________________________________________________

The ICO’s mission is to uphold information rights in the public interest,
promoting openness by public bodies and data privacy for individuals.