1. I treat my reports to and the responses from Ms Mahmood and Mr Chalk on the same page: they are sufficiently similar.
2. While they served as Secretaries of State for Justice, they were responsible for my detention: they alone could ease restrictions and they would decide when I should be discharged, and the conditions of such discharge, which they could order at any time.
3. I wrote to them, informing them I was detained unlawfully and providing clear proof of the fact:
(i). the diagnoses on which my detention is based are false and the opinions that I would, were my liberty restored, pose a danger to the public, are unreasonable.
(ii). I proved the psychiatrists who have offered those opinions are unable to defend them - I produced communications exchanged with the psychiatrists, in which the psychiatrists are unable to defend either opinion.
4. I reported, to Ms Mahmood and Mr Chalk, serious misconduct by the judiciary, including dozens of unlawful decisions in cases involving one person (me). In most instances, the courts knew the Decisions would be unlawful before they made them: they made them anyway.
5. I asked Ms Mahmood and Mr Chalk to produce a valid diagnosis of me and:
(i). to explain why my Model for determining risk is deficient or that I had misapplied it or misunderstood its results, when I applied it in my case and found it shows I would not pose an unacceptable danger of violence, were I to be discharged, regardless of the standard for unacceptable danger and
(ii). to describe the model that convinced them I could not be discharged safely, and to explain why it is preferable to mine.
(iii). I reported to them misconduct by lawyers and the refusal by legal regulators to regulate lawyers.
6. They returned no response to my reports and questions.