An Post applied different rules to comparable situations [and same rule to different situations] in breach of the principle of equal treatment

The Department of Social Protection (“DSP”) procured racist discriminatory treatment from An Post during the episode that An Post applied different rules to comparable situations [and same rule to different situations] in breach of the principle of equal treatment on the ground of racial or ethnic origin at the time of An Post’s delivery of the DSP’s Registered Post on 22-Aug-2022″

The following events document the crucial matters arising in the caption as above:

1.Prior to and on 22-Aug-2022, and during the pre-SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 pandemic era: The Due Process and Due Procedure for the delivery of Registered Post is that An Post shall at delivery time ensure that a person collects and signs for a Registered Post at any given Delivery Address. If no one answers the door, then An Post shall leave behind a missed Delivery Notice and return the Registered Post to the Delivery Service Unit (“DSU”) serving the Delivery Address. If within 3 working days, the Registered Post is not collected at the said DSU, then a General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”) compliant Due Procedure shall be invoked in relation to the safe return of the said Registered Post to its sender without any violation of the protected equal rights of both the sender and the recipient of the said Registered Post. Please note that Section 7(5) of the Courts Act 1964 sets requirements on the Service of Court correspondences and thus depends on the reliable, accurate and truthful delivery of a Registered Post for the purpose of tracking an aspect of fair procedures, effective access to justice and effective remedy while the An Post Due Process on the handling of a Registered Post and its condition “On the delivery of a Registered Postal Packet the addressee or his agent shall give a Written Receipt for the same in the form prescribed by An Post. Notwithstanding Condition 7(2)(1) a Registered Postal Packet may be held for no more than 3 Working Days.” in the published An Post Terms and Conditions Terms & Conditions (anpost.com) , has a direct impact on addressing or infecting the equal rights of all concerned protected by the Section 7(5) of the Courts Act 1964.

2.During the SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 pandemic era: An Post said Due Process and Due Procedure in relation to the handling of Registered Posts delivered to an Addressee was modified and the requirement on signing for a Registered Post was removed but the amendment in the aforesaid regard has been rescinded based on the State’s Executive Order[s] in relation the return to all pre-SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 pandemic conditions of normalcy as documented in the State’s Notices in https://youtu.be/HQaMhzZ1jno , https://www.gov.ie/en/press-release/0fc0d-government-announces-that-most-of-the-public-health-measures-currently-in-place-can-be-removed/ and the “Changes to restrictions from22 January 2022” section of https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/covid19/living_with_covid19_plan.html#l95896herein published for your convenient reference.

3. On 22-Aug-2022: An Post disproportionately –

• (a.) failed to apply its Due Process and Due Procedure – i.e. “On the delivery of a Registered Postal Packet the addressee or his agent shall give a Written Receipt for the same in the form prescribed by An Post…” – at the material time that an “An Post employee simply dropped the DSP’s Registered Post (with Tracking Number RL54*23IE) into a Customer’s residence via the letterplate at the front door of the Customer’s residence as per the attached video evidence”.

• (b.) applied different rules (i.e. the obsolete SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 pandemic era Process and Procedurethat suspended the requirement that an Addressee provide a Written Receipt on the delivery of a Registered Post at his/her Residence) to the comparable situations where An Post disproportionately failed to comply with the State’s Changes to restrictions from 22 January 2022 and abused my equal rights – i.e. “On the delivery of a Registered Postal Packet the addressee or hisagent shall give a Written Receipt for the same in the form prescribed by An Post.Notwithstanding Condition 7(2)(1) a Registered Postal Packet may be held for nomore than 3 Working Days.” – in relation to a tracked delivery in breach of the principle of equal treatment on the ground of racial or ethnic origin.

• (c.) applied the same rule (i.e. the obsolete SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 pandemic era Process and Procedurethat suspended the requirement that an Addressee provide a Written Receipt on the delivery of a Registered Post at his/her Residence) to the different situations where An Post disproportionately failed to comply with the State’s Changes to restrictions from 22 January 2022 and violated the equal right of a Registered Post Addressee on the said 22-Aug-2022 – i.e. “On the delivery of a Registered Postal Packet the addressee or hisagent shall give a Written Receipt for the same in the form prescribed by An Post.Notwithstanding Condition 7(2)(1) a Registered Postal Packet may be held for nomore than 3 Working Days.” – in relation to a tracked Delivery in breach of the principle of equal treatment on the ground of racial or origin.

4.Previously, the said Registered Post Addressee issued a personal correspondence postmarked“10 June 2022 at 16:00” [whose details An Post and the DSP are precluded from processing pursuant to Article 21 of the GDPR] to the State with the following effects:

• (a.) He received a tracked correspondence via a Registered Post that An Post [i.e. The Post Office] simply dropped into his home via his front door’s letterplate on 04-May-2022 at a time that no one was present to receive and sign for a named person’s said Registered Post.

• (b.) The State is aware that there are certain persons [e.g. the DSP and others] who have been abusing his Privacy and his Posts via the service of correspondences exposing his Personal Public Service Number [i.e. Social Security Number] in unsealed envelopes that have compromised the Privacy, confidentiality and security of the aforementioned sensitive data which has become susceptible to fraudulent and criminal access. I submitted that, as it appears such Privacy abusers’ acts and omissions have attempted to set or stitch him up with fraud and that should a named person join the practice including the likelihood that its Registered Post may be misrouted or delivered elsewhere however recorded as delivered to him in his absence; he would not be held responsible for such fraudulent behaviour by either the said named person or its Agent it contracted to deliver or misroute its Registered Post.

5.

According to the said Addressee of the said DSP Registered Post, the State is aware of the numerous atrocities of Edel Poole of the “Legal Aid Board, Ireland” [i.e. at the material time “Department of Justice and Equality, Ireland”] in relation to her acts and omissions were she misrouted several Posts between Feb-2016 and Jun-2016 which she wrongfully used in bad faith to protract a private legal proceedings based on her abusive agenda and concerted efforts to subject the said Registered Post Addressee to pernicious racist harassments, discriminatory treatment,victimisation and Human Rights abuse in breach of equal treatment on the ground of racial or ethnic origin; and she incorrectly addressed two Registered Posts [one of which was erroneously received and signed for on the said Addressee’s behalf in his absence in Jun-2016 whereas he rejected the second Registered Post which An Post returned to its sender who he later found out on 15-Jul-2016 is Edel Poole and the “Legal Aid Board, Ireland” as per her devious and failed concerted racist acts and omissions aimed at ambushing him and compromising his liberty during the said private legal proceedings where he represented himself as an Applicant in Person between 15-Jul-2016 to 29-Jul-2016 with a view that the Judiciary would be on recess for at least three months [i.e. between 15-Jul-2016 and Oct-2016] before anyone wrongfully incarcerated may have an opportunity to recover from such reckless and sordid abuse of his equal right to liberty. Rather than become a threat, risk and danger to public safety and security, the said Registered Post Addressee issued legal responses where he lodged over nine Complaints against Edel Poole and the “Legal Aid Board, Ireland” and five Complaints against Circuit Court Judge Catherine Murphy in responses to each episode of pernicious racist racist harassment, discriminatory treatment and victimisations unlike the person who caused the security incident in Circuit Court 32 on 20-Dec-2018 as per the publication in Sittings resume at Smith field court following controlled explosion – The Irish Times pursuant to Section 42(1) and Section 42(2) of the Equal Status Acts 2000 to 2015.

6. The said persistent acts and omissions of An Post in relation to the application of different rules to comparable situations and its application of the same rule to different situations in breach of the principle of equal treatment with regards to its failure to allow an Addressee to receive and sign for a Registered Post addressed to him, may abuse the equal rights of any recipient protected by Section 7(5) of the Courts Act 1964 as per his prior experience with the rejection of Edel Poole’s and the “Legal Aid Board, Ireland’s” Registered Post which failed to manifest his correct Address twice in Jun-2016.

7. It is worthy of mention to take note that the Companies Registration Office (“CRO”) Registered Address for An Post [in www.cro.ie ] fails to match its corresponding Postal and Location Address in www.eircode.ie as per the attached print outs and vice versa. In the aforesaid regards, the referential integrity defects of this nature would appear as a matter of general public importance.