[Libre-soc-dev] Subject Access Request Disclosure 5965

[lkcl]

ah. i just realised there may be a misundstanding.

i *believe* i may have mentioned SAQIB BHATTI MP to your
incompetent criminal employee, AKIM, at the meeting where
AKIM was acting based on false and fraudulently-provided
information.

it has been long enough that i cannot accurately recall,
but given the circumstances in describing the devastating
fraud by CALDERWOOD it is highly likely.

see the following:

https://lists.libre-soc.org/pipermail/libre-soc-dev/2024-May/006248.html

   David asked one of us to post the following:

   > From: djac at redsemiconductor.com <djac at redsemiconductor.com>
   > Sent: 19 May 2024 21:38
   > To: 'saqib.bhatti at parliament.uk' <saqib.bhatti at parliament.uk>

you *may* therefore be considering SAQIB BHATTI (MP) to
be "a third party that must be protected"

i remind you that if you have redacted his name *or any
of his administrative staff* deliberately then that would
consitute attempting to "Pervert the Course of Justice".

CALDERWOOD pleads with BHATTI as part of his fraudulent
efforts to present me as "dangerous to others":

    "although you are not my MP could I ask if you could
     help to get Luke some psychiatric help"


if BHATTI did in fact speak with CALDERWOOD, and listened,
and was involved in the fraudulent story, then it means
that BHATTI is a co-conspirator in both fraud and in an
1861 Offenses against the Person Section 18 Malicious GBH.

i do realise the gravity of this shocking possibility.

can you please therefore confirm explicitly in writing
yes or no whether you have redacted SAQIB BHATTI MP
*or his administrative staff who will be communicating
on his behalf* from documents provided.

(fyi: solicitors whom i have approached have been so shocked
and intimidated by BHATTI's involvement that they have not
returned my calls).

l.