Attorney General’s Office
020 7271 2492
5-8 The Sanctuary
London
www.gov.uk/ago
SW1P 3JS
Ismail Abdulhai Bhamjee
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx
by email only
9 September 2019
Freedom of Information request: FOI/197/19
I am writing in response to a number of emails submitted to this office in which you make
requests for information, which are copied in bold below;
1st email of 28th August 2019
I. Ismail Abdulhai Bhamjee request your attention and Consideration that;-
1. Do You have the Decision of Wilkinson Versus Rossendale Borough Council which
was decided in the year 2002.
2. How Many Counsels are on the Attorney General Panels.
3. When The HM Attorney General or HM Solicitor General Authorises an Application
under Section 42 of The Senior Courts Act 1981, does the letter have a reference number
or not.
4. The Law Officers in the Attorney General Chambers, have they been authorised by the
Attorney General or HM Solicitor General, can you provide a copy of the letter. Since the
Parliament Act are now available that any person can see and view.
5. I am not Seeking any Legal Advice from the Attorney General General or the Law
OFFICERS but whether you conceal or Suppress Evidence the Allmighty Allah [god] is
Watching and knows every thing.
I have Paid the Court Fee for obtaining Office Copy of the Court Order. Once I get the
COPY OF THE Order, How should I serve the Attorney General as this has to be served
personally. I am not a terrorist, Just Because of my Belief in my religion, and you have
breached my Article 8, 9, 10 14 and 17 of the Convention Treaties
2nd email of 28th August 2019
I had Appeared before a High Court Judge who was Mr Justice Ew Bank when I was
Appealing against The Registrars Order made on the 24th April 1988.
The High Court Judge had told the Counsel-Barrister that it was only the Attorney
General who could authorise an Application to Stop Me, But the Transcript of the
Judgment or notes were not available at the time.
What is the Limitation period from the 26th August 1988 did the Attorney General require.
Email of 29th August 2019
I, Ismail Abdulhai Bhamjee request your attention that the Former Attorney General who
has died whilst your office didn't intervene in the proceedings which has caused
miscarriage of justice.
I now seek permission of the Court to Bring Contempt of Court proceedings against the
Prime Minister and his Advisors.
what is the time limit to challenge the Order Dated 12th July 1988
The LETTER DATED 30TH MARCH 2000 HAS BEEN DISCOVERED IN THE HARD DISK,
AND DO HAVE A COPY.
How do you want me to Serve you.
I WILL ASK THE WHAT DO THEY KNOW TO PUBLISH AND PROVIDE COPIES OF THE
LETTERS TO THE LAWYERS OF G. MILLAR AS SOON AS POSSIBLE WHAT I HAD
WRITTEN AND RECEIVED WRONG AND MISLEADING LETTERS,
Email of 3rd September 2019
I, Ismail Abdulhai Bhamjee do request that you do have the knowledge of All Parliaments
Acts and Statutory Instruments which are published on Her Majesty's Stationery Office.
1. Before the Statutory Instruments become operative they are normally laid before the
House of Lords.
Does the HM Attorney General or HM Solicitor General or their Representative is
presence in the House of Lords.
Please provide the Name of the person and Minutes in the House of Lords.
2. Please kindly provide the Handwritten Signature Copy of the Former Solicitor General
Harriet Harman QC. When she was the Solicitor General.
3. The Equality Act 2010 is a Separate Claim where previously The Race Relations Act
1976 Section 71 Applied.
By following the Above How does the Law Officers in the Attorney General Chambers
continues to mislead the Courts and Tribunals and Accuse me and others as Vexatious
Litigants by way of Entrapment.
4. The Section 42 Orders should be Discharged/varied/Amended because of Section 51,
69. 151 and Schedule 7 of the SCA 1981 and the Barristers who appeared should be
ordered to pay the Costs.
1st email of 7th September 2019
I, Ismail Abdulhai Bhamjee request that you should confirm that:-
1. You were Party to the Proceedings Between Kimathi & others versus The Foreign
Commonwealth Office. Claim number HQ13 X 02162.
In those proceedings there is the decision of Arnold versus Central Electricity
Generating Board [1988] ac288."
Paragraph 7 of the Judgment.
[B] The Claimants personal injury claims insofar as they are based on events on or after
June 1954 are time-barred by operation of Section 11 or 12 of The Limitation Act 1980, as
the Claimant's date of knowledge [as defined by Section 14] are more than 3 years prior
to the issue of the proceedings.
Section 151 and Schedule 7 Of the Senior Courts Act 1981 you had the knowledge but
you were causing Entrapment to the Citizens of this Country by Oppression and
collective harassment.
2nd email of 7th September 2019
I am not Seeking Legal Advice from the Servants, Agents of the Attorney General or HM
Solicitor General.
The Attorney General does have the Powers to Appoint The DPP.
The Simple question is that was the Attorney General not named as a Party to the
proceedings.
If you were a party to the Proceedings, than all Section 42 SCA 1981 orders between 1984
and the present time should be varied and amended.
Email dated 8th September 2019
I, Ismail Abdulhai Bhamjee request your attention and consideration that:
1. There is a judgment given in the High Court of Justice
httpl://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2018/1169.html
where the judgment was given on the 24-05-2018 where the Issue under Section 26 of the
limitation Act 1939 and Section 32 of the Limitation Act 1980.
The Attorney General was a party to the proceedings and the judgment is binding on the
law officers in the Chambers. I have previously stated that I AM NOT seeking legal
Advice from you.
The Freedom of Information Act (2000) gives individuals and organisations the right of access to
all types of recorded information held, at the time the request is received, by public authorities
such as the Attorney General's Office (AGO).
I have concluded that your requests demonstrate a random approach and lack any clear focus. I
have also taken into account that you have made many previous requests under the Freedom
of Information Act which have also demonstrated a random approach and lacked clear focus
and these, together with your latest requests, have placed a significant strain on the resources
of the Attorney General’s Office. As I have assessed your requests as vexatious, I have
concluded that, by virtue of section 14(1) of the Act, we are not under an obligation to respond.
If you are dissatisfied with the handling of your requests, you have the right to ask for an internal
review. Internal review requests should be submitted within two months of the date of receipt of
the response to your original requests and should be addressed to the above address.
Please remember to quote the reference number above in any future communications.
If you are not content with the outcome of the internal review, you have the right to apply directly
to the Information Commissioner for a decision. The Information Commissioner can be
contacted at: Information Commissioner’s Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow,
Cheshire, SK9 5AF.
Yours sincerely
FOI Officer
D +44 (0)20 7271 2492
E xxxxxxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx.xx
