Complaint

Dear Investigatory Powers Tribunal,

This Is A Complaint

The Tribunal can investigate anything you believe has taken place
against you, your property or communications, as long as it relates
to a power held by the organisation you are complaining about,
under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act.

The Tribunal can investigate complaints about any alleged conduct
by or on behalf of the Intelligence Services - Security Service
(sometimes called MI5), the Secret Intelligence Service (sometimes
called MI6) and GCHQ (Government Communications Headquarters).
Because the Tribunal is the only appropriate place you can complain
about the Intelligence Services, the scope of conduct it can
investigate concerning them, is much broader than it is with regard
to the other organisations under its jurisdiction.

The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA) has
attracted a considerable amount of negative publicity over the past
couple of years. In no small part, this has been due to public
outcry in response media reports of local authorities using their
powers under RIPA to engage in activities such as monitoring the
use of domestic wheelie bins, recording dog-fouling incidents on
camera and carrying out surveillance on families suspected of
trying to cheat the school catchment system (see further the
discussion of the case of Paton v Poole Borough Council below).
Concerns have been expressed by members of the public as well as
privacy campaigners that such actions on the part of local
authorities constitute abuses of their powers both because the
surveillance powers of the state should not be used for trivial
purposes and because there has been a failure on the part of the
authority to achieve a proper balance between the rights of the
state to identify civil and criminal wrongdoing and the
individual’s right to have his or her privacy respected. Those
concerns resulted in the Home Office commencing a consultation in
April 2009 on proposals to introduce new RIPA techniques which
would purportedly help ensure that RIPA would only be used when it
was necessary and proportionate. Last week, the Home Office
published a summary of the responses to those proposals along with
an announcement. In the announcement, the view expressed by the
Minister for State Security, Counter-Terrorism and Policing, David
Hanson, was that the responses to the consultation had been broadly
positive. He said that, subject to certain minor amendments, he
would now take steps to introduce the proposals as secondary
legislation. The announcement suggests that the new legislation
will aim to:

clarify the test of necessity and proportionality so techniques
will not be used for trivial purposes such as investigating dog
fouling or people putting bins out a day early
raise the rank of the authorising officer for RIPA techniques in
local authorities to senior executive at a minimum of ‘Director’
level
give elected councillors a role in overseeing the way local
authorities use covert
investigatory techniques
require constituents’ communications with MPs on constituency
business to be
treated as confidential information, and therefore subject to
authorisation by a
higher rank of officer
treat covert surveillance of legal consultations as ‘intrusive’
rather than ‘directed’
surveillance, meaning that it can only be carried out by a very
limited number of
public authorities, primarily the police and intelligence agencies,
and only with
independent approval
clarify how provisions currently in the Policing and Crime Bill
will reduce
bureaucracy relating to RIPA in police collaborative units
comprising two or
more forces
It also appears that, following a proposal by the Local Government
Association, local authorities will need to appoint a single
official to be responsible for ensuring that all authorising
officers are of an appropriate standard. Notably, the Home Office
rejected suggestions that a more radical approach should be
adopted, namely removing local authorities from the scope of RIPA
altogether.

Coincidentally, the Investigatory Powers Tribunal, chaired by its
President, Mummery LJ, was itself hearing a complaint last week
brought under s. 65 RIPA that a particular local authority had
unlawfully exercised its surveillance powers under RIPA. In Paton v
Poole Borough Council, which was heard on 5 and 6 November, the IPT
was called upon to decide whether the Poole BC had acted unlawfully
under RIPA when it conducted directed surveillance of Ms Paton and
her family. The surveillance had been conducted in circumstances
where the council suspected that Ms Poole may have been dishonestly
trying to abuse the school catchment system by giving a false
address when applying for a place for her child at a local school.
It was accepted by the council before the IPT that, in fact, its
suspicions about Ms Paton had proved to be unfounded. However, the
council nonetheless sought to maintain the position before the IPT
that the surveillance constituted a necessary, proportionate and,
hence, lawful exercise of its powers under RIPA. In advancing this
case, it was argued on behalf of the council that there existed no
simple means of uncovering fraudulent abuses of the school
catchment system that did not involve any invasion of privacy
rights. The council was represented by 11KBW’s Ben Hooper

The Secretary of state must consider that conduct authorised by
warrant is proportionate to what it seeks to achieve (section 5(2)
(b). In considering necessity and proportionality the secretary of
State must take into account whether the information sought would
reasonably be obtained by other means (section 5(4)

An Interception warrant can only be issued if the Home Secretary
believes that it is necessary for a reason relating to national
security, serious crime or the economic well-being of the UK and it
is Proportionate in the Circumstances.

Duties on Communication Service Providers

RIPA imposes duties on communication service providers to provide
assistance to effect an interception authorised by an interception
warrant. A statutory duty of confidentiality is imposed on the
police, civil servants, postal and telecommunication workers to
keep secret the contents of any interception warrant, the details
of its issue and implementation, and everything in the intercepted
material. It is an offence to give disclosure of any of this secret
material, subject to specific defences including disclosure to
legal advisers.

Kindly Investigate the following complaint
We are aware that Investigatory powers Tribunal has NEVER upheld
any complaint.
Word is IPT is just another department of the RIPA Act!

1) Our house has been burgled under security service Act 1989,
kindly investigate that this is Proportional and Necessary?

2) A number of people who claim anonymity have declared that this
charade over 12 years is an attempt by the state to persecute and
cover-up

3) Kindly state if the deployment of a Microchip that has been used
legally by the FDA in the USA, is legally been used here by the
authorities under the RIPA Act, is this necessary or Proportional?

4)Is it right to kidnap children using the RIPA Act?, Is it
Justifiable to abuse the jurisdiction of the Courts to deploy
persecution?, is this proportional or necessary?

5)We were told by a "Stacey" that she was forced to call us to ask
some questions after which she was told to write down what the
authorities want, is this proportional or necessary?

6) We were told by our doctor in private that he has been told to
ignore is duties to patient and that he is being used as a "Covert
Human Intelligence", Is this proportional or necessary?

7) We were told by people who which to remain Anonymous That
Eastbourne Hospital has been told to treat us like an animal
because i am black, Is this proportional or necessary?

8) 1.2 of the code says "The Act provides that all codes of
practice relating to the Act are admissible as "Evidence In
Criminal Proceedings", Does this include the criminal assaults on
us and the "Covert Humans" that have revealed to us to SET us UP?

9)We are aware now that our new prime minister has said the
previous government that authorised this RIPA Act on us 12 years
are liars, we also note that David Blunkett (former Home
Secretary), Tony Blair (Former Prime Minister), (Gordon Brown
(former Prime Minister- UN-Elected) Mrs Jacqui Smith (former Home
Secretary) in one way or the other have MISLED THE PUBLIC. Gordon
Brown declared during Election period that "My Life Depends On
This", meaning the outcome of the Election, How can we now be sure
that Proportionality and Necessity exist in this persecution?

10) Is it justifiable, Proportionate or Necessary, OR DOES IT
Constitute a Legitimate Objective to use a Member Of Parliament as
a Covert Human Intelligence,i.e A BE-FRIENDER?

11) Is it Proportional or Necessary to use a foreign government
that is Widely known to commit Endemic TORTURE DURING
INVESTIGATIONS, EXTRA-JUDICIOUS MURDERS,AND RAPE DURING
INVESTIGATIONS to investigate my family in Nigeria after seeing the
exhaustive investigations into Human Rights Abuses over 5 years
most recent being Human Rights Watch publishes in 21 August 2010
Link: http://www.hrw.org/africa/nigeria

12) Is it Proportional, Necessary, or Legitimate to (Force use) my
White Wife against her will as a Covert Human Intelligence?

13)Is it Justifiable to use my wife to gather intelligence on me?
Is this why the RIPA Act is exempt from the Racial Discrimination
Act?

The above is a Complaint
We note that we have sent you a Complaint in the past which you
said "Was not received".
We have sent this by Email, by Post, Recorded and Special Delivery,
through a 3rd party "Society" (A Witness) and by fax.
Please dont be provoked if you receive multiple or duplicate
Complaint.
We are just making certain that the ones intercepting our mails
(which you are aware of) are not stopping us from sending a
LEGITIMATE, PROPORTIONAL AND NECESSARY DOCUMENT!

IN THE PAST OUR MAILS AND DOCUMENTS HAVE BEEN "EDITED" AND IN SOME
CASES WE HAVE BEEN BANNED FROM RECEIVING EMAILS, MAILS ETC!

Yours faithfully,

Solomon Adeleye