[Libre-soc-dev] Case Ref: PH17316

[lkcl]

On Tuesday, August 5, 2025, Paul Holmes MP <paul.holmes.mp at parliament.uk>
wrote:
> Dear Luke
>
> Thank you for your further e mails.
>
> I have received a further response from the CQC, they advise they will
not enter into any further correspondence with you.

that is blatant violation of the Autism Act 2009.

i haven't even finished providing information, and for
someone who has been tortured it is absolutely critical
that they be patient and not put me under pressure, it
can put me at risk of death and serious injury (ABH)


>  If you wish to now escalate this to the PHSO,

that forces me to make a list of all complaints.
it means i am forced against my will and with
no support whatsoever to go over everything again
and again.

(i know the PHSO procedure)

why is there no law that provides either Legal Aid
or proper (professional) Advocacy, here?

women who have been raped or women who have been in
a domestic violence relationship get support: why
does a *MAN* who has been tortured to the point
of death, with hypoxia at birth causing brain damage
and then who has been so badly assaulted it caused
arterial damage, strokes, and ischemic brain damage,
not get any support whatsoever?


>  I am happy to sign off the complaint once you have completed the
required forms.

why am i forced to pursue this? why am i not getting assistance?
how much longer must i be forced to go over and over the abuse
and torture, with nobody listening or taking it seriously?

we are not talking a "bit of pain", Paul, we are talking
DEATH BY ANAPHYLAXIS MULTIPLE TIMES, brain damage, torture
and gross negligence by *SIXTEEN* doctors.

i have EEG readings that show CARDIAC ARREST patterns for god's
sake.


> Southampton University Hospitals Trust have advised that if you wish them
to provide the requested SAR, you will need to prove your identity, this is
a reasonable request.  It is their policy that they require proof of ID
before complying with a SAR request, you are not being singled out, they
ask the same of anyone requesting a SAR.  If you do not wish to provide a
copy of your passport, unfortunately, they will not be able to assist with
your request.

it's the fact that they refuse to communicate with me that
is distressing.

the complete failure to take into account the circumstances,
is causing me significant distress.

it's yet another blatant violation of the Autism Act 2009
they are *lawfully obliged* to follow.


> I note your comments regarding {REDACTED}, but I will not be contacting
them

understood. not discussing this further.

> Last year I explained to you that I was unable to assist further with the
issues regarding your business, this is still the case.  I wrote to the
Minister on several occasions and spoke with his office,

he completely failed - 100% - to contact *me*.

> I contacted the police many times and also Companies House, I provided
copies of all the replies I received to you.

(i was still in serious medical danger at the time, from
a pneumonia infection causing encephalitis and near-lethal
brain damage. i have only the vaguest of recollection)

did you get reference numbers from the police?

what i don't understand is why the police have not
taken this seriously.

fraud is a criminal offense, assault is a criminal offense,
1861 malicious GBH Section 18 is a criminal offense, stalking
is a criminal offense, torture is a criminal offense,
causing a disabled person distress and much more is a
criminal offense. reckless filing is a criminal offense.

why have i not been contacted, interviewed, and a statement
taken?

there are now *four* different witnesses to stalking, assaults
and harrassment by CALDERWOOD and LEWIS - none of whom have
been contacted and interviewed!

the last time i spoke directly with a Company's House
employee they said "i will wait until the police contact me,
so i can report on the reckless filing directly to them".


> I am sorry to hear that your trademark is under threat,

not threat: stolen. it's property theft.

> however this is a legal issue

it's a criminal issue.

> and I am unable to comment or advise further on this.

trademark aliasing / theft is a criminal offense. CALDERWOOD
was the one who taught me how Trademarks may be stolen in
such a way that there is no recourse to the owner (no
"sign" of **CIVIL* breach). however in this case they neglected
to follow that procedure and the "confusion" criteria - a key
test of the criminality under Section 92 - is met.


>
> Kind Regards
>
>
> Paul
>
>
> Paul Holmes MP
> Member of Parliament for Hamble Valley
> House of Commons, London, SW1A 0AA
> Tel: 020 7219 5484 or 02382 542 205
> Email: paul.holmes.mp at parliament.uk
> Website: www.paulholmesmp.co.uk
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.libre-soc.org/pipermail/libre-soc-dev/attachments/20250806/87a84fd4/attachment.html>