Access to personal data
In Access to personal data we draw attention to 26th April 2013 when Head of the School received the victim’s request for access to personal information. He requested a copy of any information they keep about him, on computer, in manual form or in any other electronic form. On that occasion the victim also notified Gilian Wylie, Etain Tannam, Ina Merdjanova and Iain Atack that he officially requested the access. We draw particular attention to Ina Merdjanova. Here is why! Along with the copy of personal data request she received in correspondence RL 401 000 793 IE Ina Merdjanova received two more documents enclosed with the same letter – received and CONCEALED. She does not want anyone to have a look at what proves her filthy character of personality and the criminal offence she perpetrated. We repeat she does not want, but we do and Quest for Justice will publish a special analysis about this at the later stage because we want to give this criminal somewhat longer time in which she will brood over her perdition. Today is 20th January 2025. Head of the school – the criminal is still rejecting to comply with law and to provide the victim with necessary documentation irrespective of 4275 days that have passed after 26th April 2013. It is notable that section 10.- (1) (a) in Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act 2001 refers to concealing and before uploading documentation that the school insolently hid from the victim we will have a closer look at meaning of this verb.
We note the key concepts that this section refers to: “dishonestly” and “intention” and we also see how Dictionary.com defines dishonesty while in Cambridge dictionary intention refers to “something that you want and plan to do…” Collins dictionary explaining concealing, section 10.- (1) (a) refers to, says “…if you conceal something, you cover it or hide it carefully…” and “….if you conceal a piece of information………you do not let other people know about it…”
Apart from the request for access to personal data, on 10th June 2013 at 07:38 (see page 4) Head of the School – the criminal received another letter reminding them of the student’s request. This criminal, second time, ignored the request, concealed the requested data and failed to comply with what law points to.
After Head of the School – the monster TWO times ignored this request for access to personal data the victim then addressed the provost – Patrick Prendergast for his assistance. With this letter the victim enclosed all copies of requests that Head of the School and other lecturers received as pointed to in another letter and data request. That correspondence reached Patrick Prendergast – provost of Trinity College in Dublin, at that time, and even worse criminal than Head of the School, on 21st June 2013 at 07:37 (see page 3 of this letter). The victim has never received any response from this monster. Worth noting would be what Criminal Law Act, 1997 says in its Sections 7 and 8.
To be continued.