Email this site to a contact

 

Trapped in my 'concentration camp' leasehold apartment - in 'The Kingdom of Make-Believe' - with no avenue open to me for justice, redress and protection

Welcome to leasehold-outrage.com

 

Website of Noëlle Rawé (sometimes shown on documents as Ms Noëlle Klosterkotter-Dit-Rawé) - leaseholder (definition) of an apartment in Jefferson House, 11 Basil Street, London SW3 1AX, United Kingdom - I have come to call the 'CONCENTRATION CAMP'.

(NB: From your browser, you can increase the size of the text: 'View' > 'Text size')

SECTIONS LIST

'L A T E S T'

The 13-year persecution by the British State and Andrew David Ladsky CONTINUES.

(CASE SUMMARY)(pdf)

 

WHAT THIS WEBSITE IS ABOUT:

(It is a 'photographic', rather than abstract description of what has, and continues to take place).

 

 

To date, this website demonstrates that, as a law-abiding, tax-paying leaseholder - with my profile - if you have the immense misfortune of having your leasehold apartment come under the control of an organized crime gang that decides to make a multi-million £ jackpot through extortion - it starts, through threats and a court claim, by demanding payment of £14,400 (US$25,400) you do NOT legally owe: YOU SHUT-UP AND PAY.

 

 

 

 

If you do not and ‘dare’ to fight for your so-called ‘rights’, instead of helping you i.e. perform its official remit (which you pay it to do), the State will criminalize you, as well as join forces with the gang in persecuting you relentlessly with the objective of destroying you - using their key tool: mental torture.

The drivers of the persecution are the corrupt, amoral elements in the judiciary and police who helped the gang in their criminal activities – you ‘dared’ to stand-up to, and eventually exposed in the public domain following the repeated rejection of your complaints against them.

Your 'daring' to do this leads them to portray themselves as being ‘your victims’ – an ‘assessment’ that is automatically endorsed by their peers and higher up, who join their rank by (typically) piling up, with the aim of 'justifying' them and covering them up, more and more illegal actions and decisions on top of the initial ones.

Your ‘daring’ to also stand-up to them results in an exponentially growing army of ‘victims’ - (typically) hell-bent on ‘getting your scalp’ - at any cost.

Amounting to running what is best described as a protection racket and 'retribution' service (*)they are aided in doing this by a supporting cast of 1000s, only too happy to join in the criminal psychological harassment tactics.

= In England, you are persecuted for 'daring' to stand-up for your so-called 'rights', and then get persecuted for 'daring' to stand-up against the persecution.

(*) My writing this in a private e-mail, at a time when I had not yet stated it on my website - led to my being hounded and harassed by one of Her Majesty's British Transport police's helicopters: My Diary 14 Apr 12.

In Aug 12, I wrote that I still had a very tiny amount of hope that there 'might' be somebody in authority who subscribes to the concept of justice, and will take action in relation to my case. Also, that it was totally beyond my comprehension that, in the 21st century, a Monarch can wilfully inflict so much suffering and injustice on one of her Subjects who is a glaringly obvious victim of crime - who has done NOTHING wrong - while, concurrently, actively assisting and protecting the criminals.

Unsurprisingly, given the profile of the individuals concerned, and their prior actions / lack of action - the response has been a continuation of the persecution = blind determination to 'get me' - at any cost (which has been their mantra for many years).

(While my resolve remains as strong as ever, and attitude as that of e.g. the horse in the parable).

I am therefore adding a bit more information aimed at 'a certain type' of criminals, too busy to look at this site, and eager to get on with the next illegal deal.

What do you need to do to take advantage of this set-up?

Essentially, only 3 easy actions are required from you:

ACTION # 1 - Select the appropriate target. As you know: as per e.g. above.

ACTION # 2 - Concoct a story, as outrageous as you can, e.g. portraying yourself as playing absolutely no part whatsoever in the criminal activities - and your target as "a Nazi", "anti-Semite", "who suffers from mental issues", "defaults on her contractual obligations", "attacks you verbally, repeatedly, on seeing you" - "leading you to feel vulnerable and intimidated".

ACTION # 3 - Push the 1st domino of, as explained above, a literally endless line of dominoes,...

... and, helping them along, watch them ALL do your dirty work for you,...

... falling at your feet one by one.

In the process, they will peddle your story like an army on speed: capture it in "crime reports", "because it represents what the police were told"; endorse it in court orders; circulate it to a wide audience; repeat it endlessly to a vast army of henchmen and flunkeys, etc.

They know that they - and you - have nothing to fear, including from the European Court of Human Rights...

...leaving you to laugh your head off, as you carry your loot, all the way to the bank,...

...perhaps in your offshore retreat/s.

VOILA! "WELCOME TO BENT BRITAIN"...

...THE WILD WEST...WITHOUT A SHERIFF - AS THE STATE ACTS AS ONE WITH 'CERTAIN CRIMINALS'.

PS. To confirm: (based on my experience) DO NOT worry about the country’s legislation and regulations, court and tribunal rules, codes of conduct, etc. They are only a front to conthe Proles’ into believing they have rights, and the outside world into believing the same thing.

The widespread abuse of power, from the total lack of sanctions, and standard perception that 'the little people' are non-entities, there to be used and abused at will - means that, whoever you call on to help you: ministers and other Members of Parliament, police, judiciary, tribunal panel, and clerks, local council, lawyers, surveyors, accountants, 'regulators', etc. - they will ALL ignore them. Note that you can also lobby a ‘friendly’ Lord or MP to have the legislation changed – even in court.

 

I first launched the site on 19 Sep 06, out of utter despair - as a 'cry for help' - after 5 YEARS of facing a gigantic wall of blind eyes and deaf ears 'in response' to my numerous 'cries for help' / complaints.

It was closed down on 6 Oct 06, as my then (US) ISP caved-in the face of the threat of libel action from Jeremy Hershkorn, (then) at Portner and Jaskel, London W1U 2RA, "on behalf" of his "client", "Andrew David Ladsky" - based on TOTALLY UNSUPPORTED accusations against the content of my website - accusations that were malicious and libellous (PJ # 2). (See the legal requirements for 'defamation', as well as section on Fair comment and Qualified privilege - Public interest defence).

I took the opportunity to add more 'fortifications' to the site and, having found HostDime, my wonderful current US website Host in Oct 06, I relaunched the site on 25 Dec 06...

...because I WILL NOT SUFFER INJUSTICE IN SILENCE. I TOO HAVE THE RIGHT TO BE HEARD - by an audience that is independent of the parties from whom I have - and continue - to suffer outrageous injustice and extremely traumatic, life-destroying treatment since 2002.

 

My primary objective - as the glaringly obvious victim of organized crime - is to be reinstated to the position I was in July 2002 i.e. time when I received the 17 July 02 demand, and said: "Yes, works need to be done, but on what are you going to spend the £14,400 (US$25,400) you are demanding of me?" - and then leave this island Kingdom, as I have been wanting to do since 2003, as well as close down this website - I do not want - but must maintain - as my only form of protection. (So far, the British State has twice attempted to remove this protection). It means:

My secondary objective is detailed below.

 

(See below for 'LATEST' )

 

Sections

 

The 'lynching' has gathered massive momentum ever since, in the process drawing 1000s of parties into the Andrew Ladsky camp.

 

THE 'LYNCHING' started in early 2002, with ongoing harassment by Andrew David Ladsky (police # 1 background), as soon as I began to challenge his RICS "regulated", racketeer 'managing' agents, the then Martin Russell Jones (MRJ) on the true nature of the intended "major works" at Jefferson House.

Andrew David Ladsky is the Rachman landlord who controls Jefferson House who, with the aim of conferring 'respectability', describes himself as a "property developer" / "company director" (of paper / bogus companies).

While vehemently denied, it was clear that "the works" entailed the construction of a penthouse (planning applications), for which, I and fellow leaseholders are, of course, NOT liable.

(See below evidence of Ladsky et.al. putting the scam in motion shortly after acquiring the freehold in 1997)

NB: Exchange rate at time of launch of site: £1 = US$1.76329

 

1. Six months after the 21.12.01 assertion that "Sufficient funds are held to cover the cost of the works within the Reserve Fund", I received a 17.07.02 demand of £14,400 (US$25,400) for "the works" - based on an UNSUPPORTED 15.07.02 global demand of £736,200 (US$1.3m) - which was followed by the threat of taking my leasehold apartment from me, and contacting my mortgage lender, if I failed to pay immediately.

(see snapshot under Extortion)

OF KEY IMPORTANCE in relation to ALL the events that have taken place since 2002: in a 21.12.01 letter, addressed to "Dear Flat Owner", Joan Hathaway, then MRICS, of then MRJ, wrote:

"We have to state that the sum quoted may be exceeded due to disbursements but these will be of a minor nature. Sufficient funds are held to cover the cost of the works within the Reserve Fund"

 

In Feb 02, Andrew Ladsky's surveyor, Brian Gale, MRICS, issued a so-called 'condition survey' and photographs of Jefferson House. Considering what took place subsequently ("Major works"), his recommended "remedies" in relation to his identified "defects" make, to say the least, 'fascinating reading' (Gale # 7).

Joan Hathaway then sent, on behalf of the landlord, 'Steel Services' = Andrew Ladsky et.al., an unsupported (*) 15.07.02 global demand of £736,200 (US$1.3m) for "repairs and maintenance" - 'making' 'my (1.956%) share' - for my leasehold, basement, studio apartment in Jefferson House - £14,400 (US$25,400), in the 17.07.02 invoice.

(*) Proof that the demand was unsupported: (i) it was confirmed during the 5 Feb 03 then London LVT 'hearing' (LVT # 3); (ii) it is captured under para.14 of the 17.06.03 LVT report; (iii) it was 'admitted' by Ladsky's surveyor, Brian Gale under para.2.04 of his 24.02.03 "Expert Witness" report to the tribunal.

What happened in the 6 months following the assertion in the above 21.12.01 letter?

As detailed, among other, in this Overview: Andrew David Ladsky had decided otherwise:..

...he 'needed' to defraud the Jefferson House's leaseholders to the tune of £500,000+ (US$882,000) in order to make his multi-million £ jackpot.

It also amounted to a further breach of my Lease, as the demand was not referred to in the 2001 'accounts' e.g. my Comments attached to the 16.03.05 letter from Joan Hathaway, MRICS, who, having repeatedly ignored my demands for the 2002 'accounts', continued to lie.

After months of suffering ongoing harassment and persecution by Ladsky, as well as battling with Her Majesty's police in relation to my complaint (police # 1), and with Hathaway - the demand was the coup de grace that led to my being transferred to doing non-client work (My Diary 22 Jul 02 , summer 02).

As evidenced by, among others, para.6 of my 19.10.03 Witness Statement (which never made to the court - see reasons under My 19 Oct 03 Wit. Stat. # 1), and under para.3.1 of my 22.10.02 letter to the tribunal (below) - I consistently agreed that repair and maintenance works were required to the block - a fact recognised by Ladsky's solicitor, Lanny Silverstone, Cawdery Kaye Fireman Taylor (CKFT), London NW3 1QA, in his 25.06.03 letter. Consequently, that I would need to pay my share (as, indeed, I did in the past).

This is ALL I wanted to do: pay my just and fair share of the costs i.e. as per the terms of my Lease - which is a legally binding contract - on both parties - landlord and leaseholder, and as per my statutory rights (e.g. my 09.08.03 letter to District Judge Wright). I therefore persisted in wanting to get the answer to what I consider to be a perfectly legitimate question to ask: What are you going to spend my money on? - acting as the majority of people would, when asked to pay £14,400 out of the blue.

Ignoring my repeated demands for supporting evidence (11.08.02, 16.09.02), in 'her' malicious 20.09.02 letter (preceded by 'her' 30.08.02 letter, yet again denying the intention to build a penthouse, and her 20.08.02 letter to the leaseholders, falsely claiming that there were "no objectors") - Hathaway, MRICS, threatened me with legal proceedings if I failed to pay immediately the £14,400 demanded.

Acting in tandem with the then MRJ (e.g. MRJ # 26), the criminal psychological harassment tactic was picked-up by Silverstone who, in his 07.10.02 letter, threatened me with "forfeiture" (taking the apartment from me) and "contacting [my] mortgage lender" - if I failed to pay immediately the £14,400 (CKFT # 6.2). On reading this letter, my level of distress was such that I was trembling and was physically sick (My Diary 10 Oct 02).

Contrast Silverstone's treatment, 2 weeks later, in his 21.10.02 letter to the solicitors of one of my fellow leaseholders: "We note you have made no proposal on behalf of your client to pay all or part of the interim service charge. We would be grateful if you would clarify whether your client does in fact have any objection to the cost of the major works."

(NB: CKFT has been acting for Ladsky since at least 1996 e.g. TSB Bank Court of Appeal case in which the bank demanded repayment of £3m advances) (extracts) (CKFT- Intro)

OF NOTE: the racketeers were making the above demands and threats in the name of a company that did NOT exist - as 'Steel Services' had been "Struck-off the [British Virgin Island] register for non-payment of licence fee" (CKFT # 1 , # 6.9 ; Owners identity # 2 ; BVI # 1). Concurrently, they were also using a FALSE Jersey address on the demands.

Also of particular note: (typically), the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) DISMISSED ALL of my 02.02.05 complaint against the then MRJ (snapshot under Note 5, below). (Snapshots of some of MRJ's correspondence, and of concurrent correspondence / documents from others in its gang, including from its puppet master, Andrew Ladsky are captured under 'Major Works' - NOTE).

Back to sections

2. In 2002-03, Her Majesty's then London Leasehold Valuation Tribunal (LVT) undeniably colluded with Andrew Ladsky and his gang of racketeers to assist them in their fraudulent demand by, among other, in breach of its statutory duty, ensuring that its report did NOT specify the £500,000 (US$882,000) reduction - and refused to address this failing.

(Summaries: Events ; Breaches of the law ; snapshot also under Kangaroo court ; see also Extortion)

Unsurprisingly, the demand caused a mini-revolt among the leaseholders. It led Ladsky to, 3 weeks later, file a 07.08.02 Application in the then London LVTto determine the reasonableness of the global sum demanded”.

Given subsequent events, it is important to note that this is a statutory mandate (stated e.g. (1) under para.1 of the 17.06.03 tribunal's report, LVT/SC/007/120/02 - (ref: 992 on the LVT database) ; (2) in its 29.10.02 directions; (3) in this 09.04.03 letter from Lisa McLean, Piper Smith Basham, to my then solicitors, in which she reported a conversation with the LVT) (LVT # 4.2).

(NB: Landlords run to the tribunal in the hope that the deliberate policy that prevents leaseholders from getting back their costs of proceedings will deter leaseholders from challenging their application).

OF NOTE: as per above, this Application was filed in the name of a company that did NOT exist - as I reported in my 22.10.02 letter to Her Majesty's tribunal - which did NOT respond (LVT # 01). But then, Siobhan McGrath, then President of the then LVTs also turned a blind eye to my reporting an abuse of process, as SS=Ladsky had also filed a claim (LVT # 02) (below) - thereby breaching the tribunal's directions (LVT # 1.5).

Examples of actions, and lack of action by the tribunal to assist Andrew Ladsky and his gang of racketeers (more detail on the tribunal's page, as well as summaries: Events ; Breach of the law):

To ensure minimum opposition to 'Dear Mr Ladsky's Application:

  • (I was only supplied with - incomplete information - just 36 hours before the 5 Feb 03 'hearing' (as I reported e.g. under paras 12 and 30 of my 19.10.03 Wit.Stat (page: 19 Oct 03 Wit.Stat # 2). Hence, 7 months after the demand was sent. (It is a typical trick: e.g. Comment # 24 ; another leaseholder)).
  • (The tribunal was therefore placing me on "an unequal footing" (CPR Overriding Objective) (there must be an equivalent for the tribunal) by very seriously limiting my ability to challenge the Application). (NB: See, below / page for a repeat of this with the courts in: 2002-04 ; 2007-08 ; 2011).

My being treated like a piece of dirt, a non-entity who does not have the right to have rights - forced me to employ a team of advisors (in a hurry), at very great costs. (LVT # 2.3 ; My Diary 2003: 17 Jan , 23 Jan).

My doing this was very clearly not expected - by ALL. The 5 Feb 03 'hearing', started in a decidedly 'frosty' atmosphere. However, it led to the exposure of the lies by the Ladsky gang, as well as complicity by the Clerk, David Stewart - finally leading the Chair, Mrs J Goulden JP to postpone the substantive hearings "in the interests of justice" (!!!) (LVT # 3).

I was vindicated as the original sum demanded of £736,207 (US$1.3m) was reduced by £500,000 (US$882,000) (including the contingency fund, 'said' to include £144k) i.e. nearly 70% less (LVT # 4.1).

This is based on the assessment of my (RICS) surveyor as, while the 17.06.03 LVT report (ref LVT/SC/007/120/02) is a fair representation of what took place, because it was 'most inconvenient' for 'Dear Mr Ladsky' (not to mention the WLCC judges (below)...

... - in breach of its statutory duty - at the 11th hour, the tribunal Panel, the Chair, Mrs J.S.L. Goulden JP, Mr J Humphrys, FRICS, and Dr A Fox BSc PhD MCIArb, made a U-turn - by NOT including a summary of the impact of its findings on "the reasonableness of the global sum demanded of £736,200" (as discussed above).

Given subsequent events, I draw your attention to, among others, Andrew Ladsky's own admission - to the police:This charge was challenged at the leasehold valuation tribunal who reduced this amount quite significantly.

Siobhan McGrath, then President of the then LVTs, using the typical 'Frustrate and Discourage tactics' refused my repeated requests (06.09.03 , 06.10.03 and 09.11.03) for the inclusion of a summary i.e. for the tribunal to perform its legal remit ('of course', with the endorsement of her 'head office', then headed by John Prescott': 06.10.03 letter) (LVT # 7).

The 2nd refusal, dated 26.11.03, stated (LVT # 7): “It would not be appropriate for the Tribunal to produce a summary of their decision as this may well be regarded as providing additional reasons”. In the light of the tribunal's statutory remit (LVT # 4), this answer is UNBELIEVABLE. Yes! £500,000 worth of “additional reasons for my fellow leaseholders to refuse to pay the fraudulent ‘service charge’ demand / ask for a refund / go back to HM's judiciaries in WLCC and demand they undo the injustice, as well as take action against the Ladsky gang of racketeers.

Further, ‘very conveniently’ for 'Dear Mr Ladsky' who could show that to my fellow leaseholders, the tribunal made an assertion under para.2 its report about a fictitious [6%] cost increase” - at a date that was 3 months POST signing its report - and libelously blamed me for this so-called “increase (LVT # 7). (This was concocted with Ladsky - and was, among others, used by his gang of racketeers to send me malicious letters: breach Malicious Communications Act 1998: Barrie Martin, FRICS, MRJ ; CKFT).

(Of note, during the 5 Feb 03 tribunal 'hearing', Ladsky asked the Chair "Will Ms Rawé pay the £250,000 (US$441,000) of additional costs that will be incurred as a result of the delay in the start of the works due to the hearing?" .

The reply that I was perfectly within my rights to challenge his Application is captured under para.64 of the 17.06.03 report ('Summary' # 1.1): "Although she is in the minority, the Respondent's legal right to challenge the Applicant's proposal, as she has done, cannot be fettered") (NB: I was "in the minority", thanks to the collusion and conniving detailed above). (As detailed under para.50 of the 17.06.03 report: "another unhappy lessee was represented on the last day of the hearing").

In my 09.11.03 letter to McGrath, I asked that amendments be made to the 'summary of the case' on the tribunal's database " to reflect a factually accurate summary of the case" as "the current version is particularly misleading". Continuing to play the typical 'Frustrate and Discourage game', she claimed in her 26.11.03 letter that it was not her department's responsibility, but that of LEASE. I had copied Nicholas Kissen, LEASE on my letter. No action was taken (LVT # 7).

Hence, since 2003, the tribunal has, on its online, public database, a report, as well as a so-called 'summary of the case' that amount to deliberate defamation of my name, character and reputation (LVT # 7 ; LVT case summary).

The State claimed that the then LVTs were "a forum where leaseholders do not need representation". (NB: Of course, the re-sprayed July 13 version makes the same claim). I very naïvely believed what turned out to be a BLATANT LIE - as that hellhole tribunal made me go through absolute sheer utter hell - forced me to employ a team of advisors at a cost of £28,000 (US$49,400). Further, its deliberate failure to perform its legal remit forced me to spend an additional £1,800 (US$3,200) in surveyor fees to determine the impact of its findings on the global sum demanded (LVT # 4.3).

Hence, I spent £30,000 (US$53,000) of my very-hard-earned life's savings to challenge a FRAUDULENT demand of £14,400 (US$25,400) (above) - and I STILL ended-up with a deliberately near useless report - as evidenced by my subsequent battles.

No wonder Ladsky told me on 25 Jan 03 (= 10 days before the 1st 'hearing' of 5 Feb 03): "Better luck next time!" (police # 2 KP(3)).

In fact: the set-up of these tribunals, added to my experience and that of others (My Diary 22 Nov 08 ; Comments) - lead me to view them as A TRAP to beat leaseholders into submission. (The tribunals are the 'cosy' arena of the surveyors) (while the courts, that of the lawyers).

Back to sections

3. In 2002-04, glaringly obvious collusion and conniving also took place in Her Majesty's West London County Court (WLCC) resulting, among other, in serious injustice - leading me to capitulate by accepting Andrew Ladsky's 21.10.03 'PART 36 offer' of £6,350 (US$11,200) - even though, legally, I did NOT owe this amount either.

(Summaries: Events ; Breaches of the law ; Snapshot also under Kangaroo court ; see also Extortion)

At the then London LVT pre-trial hearing (above) - at which, as can be seen from the 29.10.02 tribunal's directions, Ladsky, Hathaway et.al. were also present - we, leaseholders, were specifically told by the Chair to NOT pay the 'service charge' UNTIL the tribunal had issued its report - and it had been implemented i.e. reflected in the demand (LVT # 1.5).

To this effect, we were given this booklet which, on pg 5 states:

"...a recent Court of Appeal case ruling (Daejan Properties Limited v London Leasehold Valuation Tribunal) determined that LVTs only have the jurisdiction to decide the reasonableness of disputed service charges that are still unpaid... " (NB: bold type face as per the booklet).

IN SPITE of this, and of Lanny Silverstone, CKFT, KNOWING, as demonstrated in his 21.10.02 reply to my 17.10.02 letter, that his client Ladsky had filed an Application in the tribunal (above), Silverstone nonetheless proceeded with filing, in HM's West London County Court, a 29.11.02 claim (ref. WL203537) against me and 10 of my fellow leaseholders - representing a total of 14 apartments - for the amount demanded in the above Jul 02 demand.

As in the case of the Application to the tribunal (above), the gang supplied a lease with the claim that had a 'particularly convenient' Clause:

"The amount of Service Charge payable by the Lessee for each financial year of the Lessor shall be a fair proportion (to be determined by and at the sole discretion of the Lessor)..."

- FALSELY claiming, in the Particulars of Claim, that it was "representative of all the leases" (WLCC # 3 ; LVT # 1.3 ; CKFT # 6.7).

Examples of actions, and lack of action by HM's judiciary to assist Ladsky and his gang of racketeers (more detail on the court's page, including Summary of events; Breaches of the law):

  • It proceeded with the claim - IN SPITE of having absolute knowledge that it was (among others) an abuse of process of court (WLCC # 2 ; CKFT # 6.1). (Further proof in support of my position: (1) 09.04.03 letter from Lisa McLean, Piper Smith Basham(Watton), to my then solicitors; (2) 12.12.02 letter to CKFT, from the solicitors of one my fellow leaseholders).
  • Its 'understanding' of its case management duty (CPR Rule 1.4) was to, in its 24.01.03 reply, throw the ball back in my court, by stating that I needed to "...inform the court whether the claimant agrees to the claim being stayed pending the LVT hearing". Consider my likelihood of 'success', in the light of events to date: Zero! (From Dec 02, I raised the issue in my communications to the court a total of 7 times over a 7-month period).
  • Being therefore aware of my (and fellow leaseholders) being placed on "an unequal footing" (CPR Overriding Objective) by NOT having the information to which we were legally entitled to defend ourselves against the claim, it nonetheless forged ahead with it - bullying, by means of Charging Orders and Judgments (WLCC # 5 ; CKFT # 6.3 ; # 6.5), at least 7 of my fellow leaseholders into paying the FULL AMOUNT demanded BEFORE HM's tribunal issued its report - thereby breaching their rights under the lease (WLCC # 6))

The pack of lies had to be glaringly obvious to HM's Judiciaries e.g. the so-called 'Revised Major Works Apportionments' produced by the then Martin Russell Jones, and supplied by Silverstone for the 24 Jun 03 'case management hearing' (WLCC # 8 , # 9 ; My Diary 2003: 16 Jun to 24 Jun) and Salim, for the 26 Aug 03 so-called 'hearing' of her application for Summary Judgment against me (and a fellow leaseholder) (CKFT # 6.6) - 'Apportionments' that FALSELY claimed an across the board reduction of 24.19% (WLCC # 10 , # 11). (See above, the note about the RICS dismissing my complaint against MRJ).

Come on! Her Majesty's Judiciaries had been issuing the Orders. Hence, THEY (and CKFT) KNEW how much the leaseholders had ACTUALLY been made to pay...but, 'of course', 'Dear Mr Ladsky' 'needed' the money to make his multi-million £ jackpot!

As material evidence against the demand only came to light during the three-day then London LVT hearings, and many of my fellow leaseholders had been prevented - deliberately - from attending (above), I did my best to communicate the TRUE outcome of the LVT findings (above) to as many of them as I could.

However, by then (June 03) many had ended paying the FULL amount demanded.

(In addition to Lanny Silverstone's 23.05.03 application to the court reporting that 7 out of the 11 leaseholders on the claim had, by then, been made to pay):

  • ... - in breach of their rights as, obviously, the global sum on which individual leaseholders' share is calculated MUST be the same for ALL...

...as confirmed by the tribunal in its 21.07.03 reply to Silverstone's 17.07.03 letter asking it to determine how much I should pay:

It is not the duty of the tribunal to assess the particular contribution payable by any specific tenant but only to determine the reasonableness, or otherwise, of the service charges as a whole to go on the service account from which no doubt you can assess the proportion for that particular tenant.”

The penthouse was then advertised In Oct 07 for £6.5m (US$11.5m).

(See below, for the fact that, in the end, the MAXIMUM that could be demanded for the WHOLE block was £8,750 (US$15,429))

So much for Andrew Ladsky's claims in his 25.01.01 letter to the leaseholders:

"...the costs of any additional floor on the property will NOT be borne by the residents"; "All tenants are of course protected by the Landlord and Tenant Acts to ensure those carrying out any works do so reasonably.";  

"...as I own flats 34+35 I pay 17% of the building charges and I should assure you it is in my interest to keep any costs as reasonable as possible".

'My daring' to continue fighting for my rights (and those of my fellow leaseholders) (e.g. WLCC # 8 , # 9) led to, among others, my receiving, over a 6-week period, 5 malicious letters from Lanny Silverstone and Ayesha Salim, CKFT, with the aim of bullying me into striking a deal with "their client" (CKFT # 3) (the standard objective of the mafia that operates in this sector: Note 4).

It also led Silverstone to portray me as a liar to District Judge Wright (WLCC # 9), and to Salim filing a fraudulent 06.08.03 Application for Summary Judgment against me (WLCC # 10 ; CKFT # 6.6).

This Application, (in addition to the below persecution), and my being treated by HM's judiciary as a piece of dirt and a non-entity who does not have the right to have rights, led me, in Aug 03, to employ advisors - which was clearly the expected outcome from the psychological harassment tactics - leading me to fall into another mega trap, that cost me an additional £10,000 (US$17,600) (WLCC # 11).

From there followed weeks of absolute sheer utter hell with 'my' so-called 'advisors', Piper Smith Basham(Watton), who ended-up batting for Ladsky - in the process, also demonstrating their expertise at criminal psychological harassment. It started by their ensuring (in collusion with the tribunal, no doubt through Ladsky: LVT # 5.3), that I would not proceed with my a 20C Application to prevent Ladsky from putting his tribunal costs on the service charges for the block. They achieved their objective (LVT # 5.1, # 5.2 , # 5.3 ; My Diary Sep 03 - 20C application).

The court's 26.08.03 directions required the exchange of witness statements by 21 Oct. In spite of Lisa McLean, Piper Smith Basham, ignoring my 12.10.03 request for guidance on writing a witness statement (another typical tactic), I wrote one, dated 19.10.03, I hand-delivered to her, on that day, with a covering letter explaining my approach (19 Oct 03 Wit.Stat # 1).

I did NOT get one from Ladsky. Piper Smith Basham had very clearly passed mine on to Ladsky (WLCC # 12). Through Salim, CKFT, Ladsky made me a 21.10.03 'PART 36 offer' for £6,350 (US$11,200) (v. the £14,400 originally demanded, including through the threat of "forfeiture" (above)), and claimed (above)) - and had the nerve to also demand payment of interest (WLCC # 12). Typical of the Ladsky gang, in the 'offer', it also continued with the lies: WLCC 12 ; CKFT # 4.

As explained in my Comments on the 13.11.03 Stan Gallagher's 'Draft Consent Order and Notice of Acceptance', and under Note 2, below, from then on, 'my advisors' went into over-drive attempting to coerce me and bully me into accepting 'the offer' i.e. attempting to make me fit into the standard-off-the-shelf formula (below, Note 4) - of course, on terms that left the door wide open to 'Dear Mr Ladsky' to come back and ask for more (see also snapshots: Bar Council code of conduct ; Malicious Communications Act 1988).

Gallagher was also agreeing to the payment of interest because, of course, doing that, implied I had owed the amount claimed (Gallagher # 8). (NB: In relation to the below 2007 claim, through his racketeer solicitor, Jeremy Hershkorn, Ladsky attempted to repeat that with one of his scum - see Portner and Jaskel # 14).

After weeks of being subjected to horrendous, very traumatic, extremely vicious, cruel, sadistic, perverse treatment by the cabal (My Diary 2003: 22 Oct to 28 Oct, and 6 Nov to Nov 03), in Dec 03, to the cabal's extreme frustration and fury, I took back control of my case (My Diary Dec 03) - which threw a spanner in the works of the cabal, making its psychological harassment strategy backfire (19 Oct 03 Wit.Stat # 1).

From being made to pay over £500,000 (US$882,000) in tax since arriving in this country (by then, 33 years previously), as a law-abiding, British National, I had the understandable expectation that (among others) the courts would be there for me if I ever needed to call on them to act as per their legal mandate. (Obviously, as a law-abiding individual, until then, I had NEVER had any dealings with Her Majesty's courts and police). (See also, below, # 15 - Surveillance).

Further, we, the public, are frequently reminded by judges that we "must defer to the courts" and "let justice take its course". I DID do this - and my experience with HM's tribunal and courts forced me to face reality: I had been well and truly conned by the State; 'the system' is not there to help me: it is there to help criminal landlords and their aides fight against me.

Having faced this reality, against my moral principles I had so far managed to upheld in spite of the highly vicious, horrendous treatment I was subjected to, and for the sake of my health (by then, I was - literally - near collapse (My Diary 2003: 11 Nov ; 12 Nov ; 13 Nov ; Nov 03 ; Christmas)), and, yet again, contemplating suicide - I accepted the 21.10.03 'PART 36 offer' of £6,350 (US$11,200) - even though, legally I did NOT owe this amount either.

I stated in my 19.12.03 Notice of acceptance to CKFT that I was doing this "for the sake of bringing this dispute to an end". I wanted to put an end to this horrendous nightmare. I was so repulsed by what had happened to me (including with the police - see below), that my plan was to leave the country - NEVER to return - as it is no longer the country I fell in love with, and decided to make my home, as well as committed to by taking on the British Nationality.

However, I should have known better that what I was hoping to achieve was like trying to take a bone away from a dog - and an extremely vicious one at that (see below).

My throwing the spanner in the works of the cabal, led to my being subjected to a further 6 months of 'punishment' = criminal psychological harassment by the cabal, including the court (WLCC # 13). It included:

  • making me miss - deliberately - a so-called 'hearing', at which a 28.05.04 Order was issued, stating that the action against me was "stayed" - IN SPITE of HM's District Judge Madge having absolute knowledge that agreement had been reached (WLCC # 13 ; Lord Falconer of Thoroton # 3 , # 4);

In addition to the above, the cruelty, perversion, persecution and sadism by HM's WLCC had also included, among many others:

  • FALSELY claiming that a Charging Order hearing concerned me, and maintaining this assertion over 10 days (WLCC # 5 , LFT # 1);
  • FALSELY claiming that a judgment had been entered against me (LFT # 2).

Once ALL had had their fun, with her 14.07.04 letter, Salim, CKFT, finally issued me with a 1 Jul 04 Consent Order endorsed by HM's Wandsworth County Court.

In addition to the 21.12.01 letter (above); the findings during the tribunal hearings (above) - this 'offer' proved - in my non-lawyer - opinion that the 15 July 02 demand, the 7 Oct 02 threat of forfeiture, the 29 Nov 02 claim amounted to, among other, breaches of:

How does Her Majesty's police perceive the above fraud, as well as breaches of numerous Acts that are punishable by imprisonment? "A civil matter" - which it is NOT - as it IS a matter for the police (e.g. a similar example, that entailed doing far less, and resulted in prison sentences of up to 32 months for those concerned: Advisors # 11).

Back to sections

4. OUTCOME: 20 months of absolute sheer utter hell; £40,000 (US$70,000) in professional fees, and numerous other costs, including lost income; over 450 hours of my life - for a FRAUDULENT demand of £14,400 (US$25,400)...

...- ALL because 'Dear Mr Ladsky' decided he was 'entitled' to make a multi-million £ jackpot at my (and fellow leaseholders') expense, to which ALL, in his army of henchmen, said: 'YES, of course, O' Great One!'

(NB: Snapshot also under Kangaroo court ; see also Extortion)

Concurrently - and in tandem with Rachman Ladsky's gang of racketeers, comprising of the then MRJ, CKFT and Brian Gale, MRICS - Her Majesty's: then London LVT (Summaries: Events ; Breaches of the law ; Overall outcome), West London County Court (Summaries: Events ; Breaches of the law ; Overall outcome), and Wandsworth County Court (Summaries: Events ; Breaches of the law ; Overall outcome) - made me go through 20 months of absolute, sheer utter hell, of unbelievable distress, torment and anguish.

And the 23.08.04 'response' to my 29.06.04 'cry for help' to the then Chancellor, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, (and copied to 2 ministers)? A TYPICAL 'GET LOST' from HM's Court Service 'Customer Service' which, in the process, treated me as a liar and an imbecile (Lord Falconer / HMCS 'Customer Service'). Hence, another typical treatment of 'a little person' who 'dares' to stand-up against injustice.

Back to sections

5. On 2 Aug 04, day on which the last valiant leaseholder capitulated in Her Majesty's Wandsworth County Court, the then Martin Russell Jones sent another demand that was just 9% less than the original sum demanded, and announced the appointment of Mansell, a new contractor...

... - with the outcome that THE MAXIMUM that could be demanded of the WHOLE block was £8,750 (US$15,429) - v. the £500,000 (US$882,000) that was PAID - and KEPT.

(NB: Snapshot also under Kangaroo court ; see also Extortion)

The last valiant leaseholder on the above claim capitulated in HM's Wandsworth County Court on 2 Aug 04 - on terms which suggest that he was, likewise, ripped-off (WCC # 2) - IN SPITE of the evidence against the claim, I had also supplied to this court (WCC # 2).

On that day, Barrie Martin, FRICS, sent a 02.08.04 letter to "All lessees", announcing the appointment of Mansell Construction Services, a new contractor (because the then London LVT's findings were not to Ladsky's 'liking', and were, consequently, never implemented). In the letter, 'he' demanded "At this stage" the sum of £669,937 (US$1.18m).

Relative to the original sum demanded of £736,206 (US$1.3m) (above), it made a difference of only £66,269 (US$113,730) - or 9% less (when, in fact, relative to the LVT findings, it should have been less 68%). (Deceptively, in his letter, Martin omitted to add the VAT and management fee) (MRJ # 17)).

Further, the appointment of Mansell, in breach of the consultation requirements, meant that the demand from EACH of the apartment in the block should have been capped at £250 (US$441). Hence, the MAXIMUM AMOUNT that could be demanded of the then 35 apartments, was £8,750 (US$15,429) - v. the £500,000 (US$882,000) that was PAID - and KEPT (Pridie Brewster: # 2 , # 3 , # 8 , # 10 , # 17 , # 18 , # 19).

(2 days later, in 'his' (=Ladsky's) 04.08.04 letter, Barrie Martin had (of course) the nerve to accuse me of being "responsible for the tribunal proceedings"; my 11.08.04 reply). (See above, the note about the RICS dismissing my complaint against MRJ).

Back to sections

6. In 2004, Andrew Ladsky's 'punishment' for 'my daring' to stand-up to him and interfere with his fraud, translated, among many others, in his repeating the above £14,400 (US$25,400) demand in a 24.05.04 invoice, followed by a 21.10.04 invoice, to which a further £1,000 was added, and a 16.11.04 invoice.

Anybody with 2 brain cells between their ears would, at this point, have said: 'Leave her alone! Let her move out. Plenty more fish in the sea!'. NOT Rachman Andrew Ladsky - who knew he had the weight of 'the Brotherhood' behind him (see Kangaroo court ; Extortion).

He was not going to let 'me', a woman, of limited financial means, with no influential connections, and of Franco-German origin (Ladsky claims to be "Jewish" (*), and at least some of his aides are e.g. CKFT, Portner and Jaskel, Martyn Gerrard (*)) get away with 'DARING' to stand-up to him 'Mr I Am So Important, So Superior to Anybody Else', Entitled to Get My Every Wish and Take Whatever I Want from Others' - and his equally sociopathic, extremely cruel, vicious and sadistic gang of racketeers, all of whom, with Ladsky - and their supporters in the wider arena - are evidently pathologically incapable of backing-off.

(With hindsight, he had made that clear early on e.g. on 3 Jan 03, (because I was challenging his application to the tribunal, above) - he told me, with a lot of venom in his voice: "I am going to get you this year!". Unfortunately, at the time, I was believing naïvely in the State's propaganda about having 'rights' and avenues open to me for justice and redress). (3 weeks later, Ladsky filed a so-called 'complaint' against me with his flunkeys at Chelsea police - see below).

(*) In name, rather than in practice, as they evidently perceive themselves to be exempt from compliance with some of the 10 Commandments, or ‘fundamental laws of the Jews’, namely those which prohibit: theft, false testimony, and coveting others’ goods.(If these are "God's chosen people" - who are the devil's?)

(In July 10, I had a long and very enjoyable conversation with somebody who trains rabbis. He agreed with my assessment). But then, as they have, and continue to demonstrate, to Ladsky and his gang of racketeers, laws don't mean anything to them - because the supporting 'Brotherhood' tells them they can be ignored.

To 'punish' me, 5 weeks before the 01.07.04 Consent Order was endorsed by WCC (WCC # 1), Ladsky pulled me back down into the residential leasehold hellhole by asking MRJ to send me: (1) 24.05.04 invoice, stating "Brought forward balance: £13,430" (US$23,680) - with NO supporting evidence (see my (identical) Comments attached to this (and other invoices)) ; (2) a 21.10.04 invoice i.e. 3 months after the court-endorsed Consent Order, stating: "Brought forward balance: £14,400 " = £1,000 was added - ditto: no supporting evidence. Hence, as though no 'offer' had been made (WLCC # 12), accepted and paid (WLCC # 12(2)), and sealed by a court-endorsed Consent Order (above).

My ignoring the demands because I knew it was THEFT, led to a repeat in a 16.11.04 invoice. Of course: STILL NO explanation whatsoever (WLCC # 13 ; MRJ # 18). Note that Joan Hathaway, then MRICS, of the then MRJ, sent me these invoices IN SPITE of my sending her a 31.12.03 letter stating that I had settled payment for "the works", with CKFT.

Not knowing whether that organized crime gang would, as on 29.11.02, follow this by filing another fraudulent claim against me, led me to cancel my Christmas holiday - no doubt, to their immense sadistic pleasure, and that of their supporters (My Diary End of 2004).

Note that, at the time of the above, fraudulent demands, I was also battling with Kensington & Chelsea housing which, quite clearly, colluded with MRJ = Ladsky, when I asked for its assistance (as per its legal mandate) in getting the 'accounts' for Jefferson House. Its failure to implement its threat in its 25.06.04 letter to MRJ and CKFT, in which it wrote: "Section 25 makes it a summary criminal offence to fail to comply with the requirements of Section 21 or Section 22 without reasonable excuse" (K&C # 1 , # 2), led me to escalate my complaint to the Local Government Ombudsman.

In typical public sector style - including the dominant psyche - the 'Investigator' sided with the housing department by 'punishing' me for 'daring' to challenge his mates - who then joined him in the punishment by withholding 'the accounts' from me for more than 3 months. Further, he also colluded with the Ladsky gang in providing me with 'accounts' from which, in breach of my Lease, key information, demonstrating that a major fraud had taken place, had been withheld.

14 months later, MRJ sent me a 09.01.06 invoice, stating: "Brought forward balance": £5,625 (US$9,900). What led to the £10,254 (US$18,080) reduction, relative to the previous invoice of 16.11.04 (in relation to which I, obviously, had NOT paid anything)? I have no idea, as NO explanation was provided.

This invoice was sent with a fraudulent "Steel Services - Estimated expenditure to year-end Dec 06" (see my Comments attached to the invoice) - from which it claimed, among other, a half-yearly service charge of £814.62.

As I reported under para.214 of my 03.06.08 Wit.Stat., I challenged the amount, stating that, "in the preceding 12 months before the start the works which resulted in: (1) the addition of four flats, including a massive penthouse flat; (2) the complete overhaul of Jefferson House... my 'alleged' "half-yearly service charges in advance" for 2004 were £679.36 [US$1,200]" (i.e. £135 LESS) (And the 2004 amount was a rip-off!).

(See above, the note about the RICS dismissing my complaint against the then MRJ - which included my referring to the above invoices).

Back to sections

7. In 2004-06, the collusion and conniving continued - this time between the so-called 'regulators' and those against whom I filed complaints - costing me, IN VAIN - over 1,400 hours of my life: nearly a WHOLE YEAR - and £100s in costs.

Enough was enough: I had given in once (above), I was not going to give in a 2nd time to a bunch of criminals. My experience with Her Majesty's tribunal and court (endorsed at the top level: LVT # 7 ; Lord Falconer) had been so horrendous and traumatic - rather than approach them, I proceeded with filing complaints against the various parties who had wronged me - hoping to get better treatment from the 'regulators' than I had received from HM's tribunal, court and her 'Customer Service' department (not to mention her police, in 2002 and in 2003 (both, below)).

I WAS DREAMING. Indeed, as the standard 'GET LOST!' to my 'cries for help' and VALID complaints - the majority to the State sector (snapshots of my 40+ main complaints / 'cries for help'; some, also included below: Notes # 3 re. Law Society and Bar Council ; # 5 re. the RICS ; # 6 re. the ICAEW ; # 7 other complaints) - demonstrate: ALL, in both, the State and 'self-regulated' private sector:

  • pull-up the drawbridges as soon as they receive a complaint;
  • retreat to the communal bunker with those complained of;

..., including, for the fun of it, as well discourage complaints, making extensive use of the 'Frustrate and Discourage Game' (header 2) by, among others, attempting to send the complainants: 'the Proles' / "the Oiks" / "the Great Unwashed" / "the Lobbyists" - from pillar to post

(e.g. my experience with: legal sector, including the then Legal Services Ombudsman, headed by Zahida Manzoor CBE, and with Ann Abraham, then Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman ; police and IPCC example; the very tragic case of Fiona Pilkington and her daughter)...

...thereby amounting to a standard policy of not dealing with the rats, opting instead to nail down the floorboards - allowing the rats to carry on freely with their destruction, as well as multiply in peace - as exemplified by my current situation (below).

Outcome by the time I launched my website in Sep 06: over 1,400 hours of my life: nearly a WHOLE YEAR - and £100s in costs - ALL DOWN THE DRAIN! - with a LOT more subsequently, in the context of my other battles, as well as my 2011 claim.

Exceptions - Individuals who demonstrated integrity and a sense of duty: (1) Mr Sandy McDougall, a previous Tenancy Relations Officer at Kensington & Chelsea housing (Owners Identity # 1 & # 2); (2) Ms Charlotte Cullen, Ofcom and (3) [???] Postwatch.

(*) Example set at the top by legislators e.g. House of Lords ; Members of Parliament

In the process, they resort to colluding, conniving, deceit, denials of facts, including under 'statements of truth' (e.g. the then Met Commissioner, Sir Paul Stephenson : Defence and Application; IPCC: Defence and Application), cover-ups, misrepresentations, fabrications, stonewalling, claiming that "it is not in the public interest to take action" (a favourite one) - and even delete the evidence (e.g. hospital; police), or classify it as "secret"...

...treating the complainant with utter contempt and disdain e.g. the caseworker at 'the Solicitors Regulation Authority' who endorsed Ladsky's Portner and Jaskel illegally threatening me with "bankruptcy and forfeiture" in the name of a company I had never of (below) - and concluded with: "I do not consider that the letter is either threatening or that it amounts to harassment"...

...and, considering my experience by then (# 18(1), below) this example, from para.35 of the 23.05.11 Defence by the then Met Commissioner, Sir Paul Stephenson, against my claim: "[I] must prove that [I] suffered the humiliation, degradation, injury to feelings, additional anxiety, distress...". (Like PC Toby Rowland who is seeking £200k?). These people are totally, utterly amoral - from an alien planet. (See Queen's Bench - Summary of Events - for some of his other 'gems').

This treatment of 'the Proles' / "the Oiks" / "the Great Unwashed" / "the Lobbyists" is typical of, to use the euphemism: 'the Establishment' (other examples: Hillsborough, Stafford hospital, Winterbourne View, Morecambe Bay NHS Trust, Michael Durant's assessment of his experience) - which also exports / shares its standard formula e.g. my experience with the European Court of Human Rights (2. ECtHR / # 18(3) to # 18(5), below).

Knowing they have kicked you repeatedly in the teeth, when a new issue arises, they nonetheless have the nerve to tell you that you 'should have complained to them' e.g. Paul Stephenson, telling me that 'I should have complained to the police or to the so-called 'Independent' Police Complaints Commission (police-Outcome) when Kensington & Chelsea police refused repeatedly to deal with my 2 (well-documented) complaints of harassment against 2 men (police # 6 / # 17, below). (See the Media page for his breathtaking comments about the treatment of victims, and a message from a lawyer, to Stephenson).

They even threaten defamation proceedings if the complainant 'dares' to expose the facts in the public domain e.g. as the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors did in my case. (As a visitor to my site wrote (# 17) "If you complain you are accused of threatening "Them" and if they threaten you, they are protected").

The glaring belief that they and those complained against are 'above the law of the land' (e.g. Note 4, below), also includes showing the same 'one finger sign' to Subject Access Requests - thereby breaching the requirements under the Data Protection Act 1998 ( e.g. my Request to the Ministry of (In)Justice (*); my Request to Kensington police / # 18(1), below).

Then, as briefly detailed in this Overview (and demonstrated by other examples), with the obvious endorsement and assistance of the highest level within the 'official', and especially 'non-official' executive, i.e. 'the Brotherhood', they ALL join forces - and embark on a widespread, ongoing 'retribution' regime against those who, like me, 'dare' to stand-up to them, and not give up - in the process, making maximum use of their KEY TOOL: MENTAL TORTURE.

Of note: in relation to the ongoing persecution by the State, I submit that, likewise, I have no protection whatsoever against its blatant abuse of power by the State - see, below.

(*) My 02.01.10 Subject Access Request to HM's Ministry of '(In)Justice' contains detail of events with the tribunal and courts - as does my 12.07.09 complaint (12.07.09 form) to HM's Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman, then, Ann Abraham - that led me to, concurrently, also waste my time with 'my' MP Sir Malcolm Rifkind - as both, very clearly colluded and connived to avoid addressing my complaint. ('Maybe' Rifkind was 'too busy' giving talks and / or "ensuring accountability and oversight of [the State's spies]").

Outcome? The breach of my rights by HM's Ministry of (In)Justice continued - including, of course, taking the opportunity to inflict more of the psychological harassment regime e.g. 11 Jan 10 letter - see Legal-Home # C). (The same thing happened with HM's police: police # 5.5 ; QB # 4 - with the glaringly obvious approval of HM's then Home Secretary: Alan Johnson, followed by Theresa May: police # 5.2 ; QB # 6 , QB # 5(7)).

Among others, I also wasted my time compiling a 21.07.10 Brief Overview of my case for the 21 Jul 10 House of Commons meeting, I handed out to the Chair.

Several years previously, I, likewise, also wasted my time writing to some Members of Parliament (Doc library # 2) - e.g.: (1) a 27.05.02 pack to 'my' then MP, Michael Portillo ; (2) a 01.07.02 pack to the then Deputy Prime Minister and Head of housing, John Prescott ; (3) a 06.04.05 summary of my experience with HM's then London LVT and WLCC, and a 06.04.05 summary of my experience with Kensington & Chelsea police - sending them, with a 06.04.05 covering letter, to the then Leader of the Conservative Party, Michael Howard... and many, many more, including wasting my time writing to the Prime Minister of the day, (re. Tony Blair, by copying my 17.08.03 letter to the Guardian)).

As can be seen from my documents (e.g. Document library), NONE of the parties can plead ignorance of the relevant facts, issues and evidence. Indeed, I went to great lengths to explain events and, to prove that I was 'not making it up', provided large bundles of supporting documents - including PRIOR to launching my website - see e.g. examples under Note 8, below. I became convinced from their outrageous conduct that seeing me battle was, to them, equivalent to watching sadistic porn movies.

My very extensive first-hand experience demonstrates - irrebutably - that, certainly in relation to the residential leasehold sector and its supporting infrastructure - ALL the claims of 'regulation' and concurrent mandate, of having to 'abide by codes of conduct', of Britain having "a long and exemplary record on human rights", etc, are just a massive 'trompe l'oeil'...

... - in 'The island Kingdom of Make-Believe'.

(Another blatant example of hoodwinking 'the Proles': my profile and my experience v. the claims of "having nothing to fear from the British spy services because they are tightly regulated and controlled" ).

The reality is that they ALL form a gigantic web of symbiotic relationships and networks - forged through blatantly obvious implicit / explicit 'memorandums of understanding' e.g. police and Law Society (copy),...

in which the power of money talks louder than deeds...

- and the business model is set in stone.

Back to sections

8. The launch of my website, late 2006 - intended to put pressure on resolving my situation, after 5 years of absolute, sheer utter hell - unleashed an unbelievably barbaric vendetta against me.

Out of utter despair, after 5 YEARS - of absolute, sheer utter hell, facing a gigantic wall of blind eyes and deaf ears, as well as blatantly obvious complicity, collusion and conniving between parties in the public and private sector, I 'DARED' to launch my website, naïvely hoping that doing this would put pressure on resolving my situation - leading me to close it within days, at most a few weeks after its launch - and leave this island - as I had been wanting to do since 2003.

In other words: I was hoping for intelligence and common sense. It proved to be A VAIN HOPE! In spite of my 5 years of first-hand experience of absolute sheer, utter hell, I had underestimated the arrogance, moral depravation and lack of common sense / intelligence among Ladsky and his gang, and their supporting infrastructure. (A visitor to my site described the parties as being "unbelievably stupid". I agree).

While in the 5 years prior to launching the site I (and my fellow leaseholders) had been subjected to an arsenal of harassment, victimization, bullying, blackmail, intimidation and defamation tactics - as well as, in my case, being physically threatened, assaulted, dogged, hounded, harassed and persecuted as though I were a terrorist...

... - my 'DARING' to continue to stand-up for the so-called 'rights' I have been told by the legislators I have the right to demand - in the process challenging Andrew Ladsky and his gang of racketeer lawyers, surveyors, accountants - and their 'regulators', judges and court staff, tribunal panel and staff, etc. (list of main parties) - unleashed - a typically - unbelievably vicious, cruel, perverse, sadistic, barbaric vendetta against me - best summarised as ongoing psychological warfare. ('Typically': see examples on the Media page: 8 Oct 10 and other references - that typify the dominant psyche).

Back to sections

9. It first translated by ongoing harassment of my website Host by Jeremy Hershkorn, Portner and Jaskel, and Andrew Ladsky, to force the closure of my website - in the process, making highly libellous accusations against me.

(As referred to above), 3 weeks after the launch of my website: a 03.10.06 letter, containing malicious, scurrilous and libellous accusations against me was sent to my then website host by Jeremy Hershkorn, (then) at Portner and Jaskel, solicitors, London W1U 2RA, "on behalf of Andrew Ladsky"

In his 03.10.06 letter, Hershkorn claimed, of course, without providing ANY evidence in support (my reply of 05.10.06) (*) that

"[my website] contains suggestions that our client [Ladsky] is guilty of criminal activities and fraud all of which are totally unsubstantiated, outrageous and false... Our client's reputation has been severely damaged." (I can't stop laughing at that considering the evidence contained on this page and under e.g. Extortion ; Advisors).

He threatened the ISP with "proceedings" if it did not close down my site immediately - leading the ISP to cave in (PJ # 2)

(*) See the requirements for 'defamation', as well as section on Fair comment, and Qualified privilege - Public interest defence.

Keen to repeat his success, from mid-Jan 07, over a period of several weeks, Jeremy Hershkorn harassed my current website Host, threatening my Host with legal "proceedings and costs and damages" unless my Host closed down my website – by yet again (i.e. as on 3 Oct 06) making highly libellous, scurrilous - totally unsupported - accusations against me, stating "all of the allegations on [my] website are clearly untrue and therefore defamatory" (PJ # 2 ; My Diary 5 Feb 07)

While the outcome of my 28.02.07 complaint to the Law Society against Portner led to the all too familiar 'GET LOST!' (PJ # 4 , # 5 ; Overview of complaints), Hershkorn nonetheless stopped harassing my website Host.

Unusually for Ladsky who, the coward that he is, usually hides behind his gang of racketeers and hides his identity behind offshore, paper companies and "sham directors" (see below), he took-up the harassment of my website Host himself by making several threatening, ranting phone calls to my Host (as can be imagined from e.g. the description of the calls Ladsky made to the then Head of the Residents Association) - repeating the same slanderous, scurrilous claims and accusations against me, and the same threats (thereby continuing with his 'standard formula' - see also Head Residents Association ; Elderly Resident ; Other Residents ; Nucleus Citizens Advice Bureau).

Back to sections

10. It was followed by, (among others), a 16.02.07 ILLEGAL threat of "bankruptcy" and "forfeiture" against me - in the name of a company I had NEVER heard of.

Frustration at being unable to bully my website Host into closing down my website, led Ladsky to ask Jeremy Hershkorn, Portner, to send me a malicious letter dated 16.02.07, threatening me with bankruptcy proceedings, forfeiture (taking the apartment from me) and “costs” if I failed to pay "immediately £8,937" (US$15,800) to "Rootstock Overseas Corp" - a company I had NEVER HEARD OF at the time - as I replied in my 25.02.07 letter (PJ # 3 ; Headlessors # 3 , # 5).

(In addition to the threat of "forfeiture" (other instance, above), the threat of "bankruptcy" is another typical extortion tactic by Rachman Ladsky e.g. Resident Association's letter to Ladsky).

Back to sections

11. Ignoring my reply to the above threat, a 27.02.07 claim was filed against me which, in collusion with Ladsky and his racketeer Portner and Jaskel, was perversely and very viciously pursued by Her Majesty's Judiciaries in West London County Court, over a period of 16 months...

...- nonetheless ending in "ALL" of the claim being dropped in a 06.06.08 Notice as, this time, being a Litigant a Person, no 'deal' could be connived with 'my advisors'.

(Summaries: Events ; Breaches of the law ; Overall outcome ; snapshot also under Kangaroo court ; see also Extortion)

When the above threats of "bankruptcy and forfeiture" also failed to achieve his objective, ignoring my 25.02.07 letter (and therefore breaching the Pre-Action Protocol), Ladsky asked Hershkorn to file a - 27.02.07 claim (ref 7WL00675) against me in HM's West London County Court (WLCC # 1) - with the Particulars of Claim based on data supplied by the then Martin Russell Jones (that were such - a deliberate mess - that I produced my own version, I sent with my 22.05.08 letter to Ahmet Jaffer, Portner).

OF NOTE: As I highlighted on the pages of the claim I returned to the court with my 22.03.07 Acknowledgment of Service (WLCC # 2):

  • (2) BOTH claiming to be my 'landlord';
  • (4) EACH claiming a DIFFERENT amount from me: £10,357 (US$18,260) by "Roostock"; £8,933 (US$15,750) by "Steel Services" (WLCC # 1 , # 2)

 

From there, the psychological harassment continued in full swing, as it was followed by unbelievably vicious, cruel, perverse, sadistic, barbaric treatment by Hershkorn, followed by Ahmet Jaffer, at Portner and Jaskel, and by HM's judiciary, court manager and other staff in WLCC - for what I viewed as 'REVENGE' for my 'daring' to challenge them and their 'friends': the 'sacrosanct' landlord Andrew Ladsky and his gang of racketeers - in the process of fighting against the fraudulent demands. And, evidently, for 'my daring' to continue fighting by launching my website, in the process, exposing chapter and verse of my case (evidence: below ; QB # 4(6)5(2)).

Having accepted the claim with all its major issues, HM's District Judge Ryan and Nicholson WILFULLY and PERVERSELY continued to place me on an "unequal footing" - by ignoring ALL my very compelling evidence (WLCC # 26 , # 27) - and, in process, turned a blind eye to Portner and its client breaches of the law - while doing the same thing. (This was happening to me for the 4th time).

The conduct of the judiciary and staff was so appalling that, from early Dec 07, I asked for the case to be transferred to another court - doing this, in total, 5 times over the following 2.5 months. They included 2 'cries for help' to Jack Straw, then (In)Justice Secretary, 'guardian of the Court Service', as well as copying him on 3 other letters (WLCC # 24.2 summary). (Typically), and like his predecessor Lord Falconer of Thoroton (timeline of appointments): Straw took NO action.

Anger and frustration led me to take my protest to the street, holding a placard, as I paced up and down in front of the Ministry of (In)Justice - with the predictable outcome of prompting more of the same.

It was followed by District Judge Ryan threatening "to strike out my Defence leaving the claimant free to apply for a judgment against [me]" i.e. get me to pay the whole claim - if I did not file my Allocation Questionnaire (WLCC # 26) - which, in his 'directions', he then TOTALLY ignored (WLCC # 27.1).

The attempts to secure the fraudulent claim against me, while inflicting maximum psychological harassment - included, among others:

After an extremely traumatic 16-month battle - as I had predicted in my 03.06.08 Wit.Stat. (WLCC # 30) - 'the claimants' FAILED to supply me with their witness statement. This was a repeat of what took place with the (above) 29.11.02 claim. However, because, this time, I was a Litigant in Person throughout the process i.e. NOT represented - thereby removing the possibility of a 'behind the scene deal' - instead of the previous outcome (which was the 21 Oct 03 'offer' (above))...

... - the outcome, 2nd time round, was a 06.06.08 Notice of Discontinuance of "ALL" of the 27.02.07 claim against me (PJ # 31) - with NO REASON given. This outcome vindicated my position I had repeated endlessly in my documents to the court over the previous 16 months: this claim was FRAUDULENT - providing further irrebutable evidence that, in the case of Rachman Ladsky and his gang of racketeers: court claims = FRAUD TOOLS.

It therefore made it the 2nd fraudulent claim filed against me in WLCC by Ladsky - and the 2nd time that Her Majesty's judiciaries TOTALLY IGNORED THE EVIDENCE I supplied against the claim.

This outcome proved in - my non-lawyer - opinion that Portner breached the same Acts as those listed above in the case of CKFT and the then MRJ - with the Fraud Act 2006 replacing parts of the Theft Act. (For previous breaches see Summary Breaches of the law by Portner and its client).

It was glaringly obvious from the lack of reason for ending the claim, as well as from subsequent events, that the Ladsky - WLCC mafia perceived the Notice as marking the end of the matter - not expecting me to follow it by an action for my costs (# 12, below).

Time to call it a day. They ALL had had their fun. Not only had they:

  • (ii) cost me over 500 hours of my life = destroying my life;

In fact, I submit that the comment made at the time, was along the following: "Another step in the retribution accomplished boys! Well done! But, mustn't relax. As you would expect from a Nazi, this is a tough bitch. So, must not relent on the psychological harassment - until we finally get her".

In addition to the ongoing, extremely cruel, perverse and vicious persecution that has been taking place ever since (including by, among others, HM British Transport Police's helicopters), in support of my assessment, I also cite my experience with : (1) immediately afterwards, HM Supreme Court Costs Office (# 12, below) ; (2) HM's Queen's Bench Division in 2011 (# 18.2, below) ; and, (3) to which I add: with the ECtHR (below: # 18.3 to # 18.5).

No doubt, they were ALL looking forward to 'the mother of all sadistic kicks' - counting on seeing me ‘walk away’, like ‘a good little girl’, ‘ever-so-grateful’, with my tail between my legs - while they were ALL getting away scot-free from ALL they had made suffer and lose, since 2002. And, no doubt, I was also expected to let go of my apartment at a huge loss (e.g. Comment # 19).

As discussed above, in 2003, I had attempted to put an end to the matter. Ladsky decided to pull me back down into the horrific residential leasehold hellhole, where he and his Masonic henchmen clearly want to keep me until they destroy me. Those who have nothing to lose, have nothing to fear. I therefore stayed put.

Back to sections

12. In spite of the very damning evidence against the claim, in Jan 09, Her Majesty's Deputy Master Hoffman, in the Supreme Court Costs Office, allowed me to recover only 30% of my costs - and, of course, NO sanctions were taken against Portner and its client Andrew Ladsky.

(NB: Snapshots: summaries: Events ; Breaches of the law ; Overall outcome ; also under Kangaroo court ; see also Extortion)

As per my rights (under Civil Procedure Rules), I started the procedure to claim my costs back (PJ # 32).

It led Portner and its client to give, in their 11.08.08 'Points of Dispute' (in which, of course, they challenged everything in my claim) - the most outrageous, preposterous excuse for dropping the claim:

"...it was found that the demand for ground rent and service charges served by the managing agent had given the incorrect identity and address for the landlord..." (PJ # 33).

I raised the issue - with Portner and HM's WLCC - as to the identify of my 'landlord' - and consequently the issue as to the LEGALITY of the claim against me - a total of 11 TIMES over a 16-month period (PJ # 33).

The 'retribution' regime, through collusion and conniving, continued: having received, 2 months previously, my 26.08.08 Application for a Detailed Assessment hearing, 4 hours before the (non-existent) "04.11.08 hearing", HM's District Judge Nicholson issued a 04.11.08 Order for the case to be transferred to the Supreme Court Costs Office (SCCO) - giving some 'fascinating' 'reasons' for doing this (PJ # 34).

I took this opportunity to review my submissions - about which Portner had had the gall to complain that "[my] Bill of costs failed to comply with CPR requirements". Ahead of the 30 Jan 09 SCCO so-called 'hearing', I filed and served my 19.01.09 Amended Reply, preceding it with a 5-page summary, very clearly detailing why I believed to be entitled to – at a minimum - get ALL of my costs back.

I also supplied a 480-page bundle of 153 supporting documents which, of course, included, among others, ALL the documents I had filed with WLCC from the time the claim was filed against me, as well as ALL the correspondence – and to which I referred in my 19.01.09 reply.

On 17 Jan 09, I took delivery of a 14.01.09 £4,500 (US$7,900) "Without prejudice offer" from Portner, on behalf of "Rootstock Overseas Corp"

- stating that it was "an all in figure in full and final settlement of your costs in this matter" .

The costs Portner had were those in my 11.11.08 update: £7,277. By the time I received the "offer", they amounted to £8,397 (US$14,800).

In my 19.01.09 reply, I turned down the "offer" describing it as "derisory" as, from the time the fraudulent claim was filed against me at the end of Feb 07, HM's judiciary and court staff in WLCC, their ‘partners’, Portner and its client, added to HMCS 'Customer Service' - had cost me (in addition to horrendous torment, anguish, distress and trauma, over a period of 21 months): over 500 hours of my life ; 52 hours of lost income, and numerous other costs which, at 30 Jan 09, amounted to £8,675 (US$15,300) - including interest of £278.

Starting with immediate hostility, HM's Deputy Master Hoffman, at SCCO, did NOT allow me to refer to my 19.01.09 document during the so-called 'hearing'. Reason: Because it provided a summary of the events which, under CPR, Hoffman HAD to take into consideration (Breaches of law # 2) - but, had conspired to ignore, hell-bent on continuing in the footsteps of 'his brothers' in WLCC (above): totally ignoring the rule of law.

Ultimately, he ONLY allowed me £2,507 of my costs, plus interest since the 06.02.08 Notice of Discontinuance (Portner's payment of 04.02.09) - bringing the total to £2,641 (US$4,657) v. my costs of £8,675 (Ladsky was claiming costs of £1,535.25 (US$2,700) (!!!)).

Needless to say that, in line with the approach of HM's Judiciaries in WLCC (Breaches of the law), the word 'sanction' against 'the claimants' =Ladsky and Portner for filing what was very clearly a FRAUDULENT, vexatious, malicious claim against me - with no legally recognised ground - and making me go through 21 months of sheer utter hell - was NOT uttered.

In fact, in addition to implying, in the context of the costs I claimed for writing my 12.09.07 Defence, that I was a liar (Events # 11(2)) (NB: Probably because Hoffman's 'brothers' in the police were still fuming from the fact I had fooled them on 31 Aug 07 - and he wanted to score on their behalf)...

...- in a condescending, hitlerian, hostile tone, HM's Deputy Master Hoffman challenged me for returning the 22.03.07 Acknowledgment of Service with 2 pages from the claim, on which I wrote annotations highlighting the different names for 'my landlord' (WLCC # 2) - and told me "You should not have done this. You should have only returned the form the court sent you"`(Events # 10). (NB: Because my doing this is 'highly inconvenient' for his mates in WLCC) .

At the end of the so-called 'hearing', the matter of the 14.01.09 £4,500 “offer” from “Rootstock” was raised. When I showed Hoffman my reply of 19.01.09, he expressed scorn as soon as he read my header “Your derisory “offer” of 14 January 2009” - and hence disapproval at my rejecting it. Reason? My undertaking the procedure to claim for my costs was not expected - and - it was 'highly inconvenient’ for all. (Hoffman did not bother to read the rest of my letter. Obviously, because he (in breach of CPR), had seen it before the 'hearing').

When asked by Hoffman whether I intended to appeal, I replied that I would not, as it was blatantly obvious that my 'card was marked' with Her Majesty's Court Service - thereby depriving me, the victim of crime - in breach of my rights - of access to justice and redress. (I was again proven right - for the 6th time - in 2011) (below).

Back to sections

13. Intended primarily to achieve the closure of my website, in Mar 07, Andrew Ladsky filed a so-called 'complaint' against me with Her Majesty's police at Notting Hill station which, WITHOUT ever contacting me, processed a TOTALLY UNSUPPORTED "crime report" that is a web of false, malicious, defamatory and highly vicious accusations against me, as well as accused me, to my website Host, of having 'committed a crime' - in the process, branding me "a Nazi".

Having (1) failed to bully my website Host into closing down my website (above); (2) had the fraudulent 27.02.07 claim filed against me (above), (3) preceded by the threat of "bankruptcy and forfeiture " (above) - Andrew David Ladsky, asked his flunkeys or, more accurately, henchmen at Kensington, Chelsea & Notting Hill police to provide 'some assistance' in getting the closure of my website. (Proof they are his henchmen: police: Overview, Outcome ; Persecution # 2 , # 3).

Proving - irrebutably - the complicity, collusion and conniving between Her Majesty's police and Ladsky: without EVER contacting me at ANY point in time...

...- on 15.03.07, it processed - WITHOUT a shred of evidence in support - a so-called "crime report" against me of a “Confirmed”, “Substantiated Racial Incident”, “Anti-Semitic Racial Incident”, “Hate Crime – Race, Religion” (NB: Note the "confirmed" and "substantiated")...

...that is a web of totally unsupported, false, malicious, libellous and highly vicious accusations against me and opinions of me - while stating in the report - on the same date - that it had "NO SUSPICIONS OF FALSE REPORTING" (police # 3 ; Key pts ; background to Ladsky's 'complaint').

This claim only came to light as a result of my filing a 19 Apr 11 Claim against the police (pt # 18(2), below), during which it issued me with a July 11 version of the "crime report" (v. the July 09 version it had supplied me previously) (pt # 18 2(4), below).

Top of 'the league table' among the other text that had been redacted in the Jul 09 version, is the claim that 'I' make "my" 'poor' "Jewish" (police # 3 KP(3)(2)(5)) "NEIGHBOUR" (# 1 KP(1A)) (note the true role) Andrew David Ladsky, "THE VICTIM" feel "INTIMIDATED AND VULNERABLE" (# 3 KP(3)(1)(1)).

And 'I' am, 'of course', 'A RISK' (# 3 KP(3)(2)(10)) to him, because 'I', 'of course', "suffer from mental issues" (# 3 KP(3)(2)(8) and (9)) (*) Add to that, the fact that I 'dare' describe Ladsky as "that evil, greed-ridden monster" (HM's Master Eyre: QB #4(6)(5)(3)).

(*) Considering what they have ALL done to me since 2002, I think that 'I' should be the one who "speaks to social services" to report them as "suffering from [very serious] mental issues".

Aside from noting that the English police, as well as some judiciaries have, evidently, no sense of the ridicule, note that my objecting to the above (among many others), has been described by HM's judiciary as "[amounting to] a most obvious attempt to re-write history" (pt 18(2)(1), below). How sick and insane is that?

Of course, the police tried desperately to get the 22 July 11 version of the "crime reports" back from me e.g. 28.07.11 letter. (I have always said there is a God! :-) )

(NB: As can be seen from the extracts of articles captured on the Media page, the police has no qualms: smearing the reputation of people - alive or dead - by wilfully processing false data about them on its systems (it makes available to a wide range of parties); doctoring witness statements, lying under oath, "shredding a lorry-load of evidence", etc.).

Overall, this so-called "crime report" - with 'support' from, in particular, the 2003 "crime report" (below) - FALSELY and MALICIOUSLY portrays me as:

'The Brotherhood''s blind determination to make the above portrayal of me stick, was again demonstrated in the context of my 19 Apr 11 Claim when, at the so-called 'hearing' of 29 July 11 (QB #4(6)), HM's Master Eyre attempted to gain evidence in support of the accusation. Having failed to get it, he nonetheless endorsed it in 'his' Order (QB #4(6)(1)).

('Again demonstrated' because there have been other attempts, including in 2008, when one of the local police Masons' flunkeys told me: "Hitler should have killed them [Jews] all, don't you think?" (Only a Masons' flunkey would say that without fear of prosecution. It is another example of how extremely sick and twisted these people are)).

(NB: Likewise, Master Eyre endorsed the retention of the description of Ladsky as "my neighbour" (QB #4(4)). WHY? Because this description, combined with the above, are the KEY foundations on which the PACKS OF LIES so-called "crime reports" rely).

Considering: (i) what actually took place i.e. the fact that I was NEVER contacted; (ii) the dictionary definition of 'investigate' - note HM's then Met Commissioner, Sir Paul Stephenson's assertion under para.9 of his 23.05.11 Defence (QB # 4(2)) and para.13 of his 30.06.11 Application Witness Statement (QB # 4(3)) - that "the police investigated the complaint". (To my mind, this is another example of (among other) contempt of court).

Note also the Met Commissioner's claim, under para.8 of his 30.06.11 Application Wit.Stat. that "the police will always be aware of the subjectivity [of the complainant] and as such will keep an open mind" (QB # 4(6)(1)).

(NB: The same Commissioner complained of "members of the public making speculative legal action against the police": Media, Telegraph 9 Sep 12. See a lawyer's comments addressed to him: Media, Guardian, 11 Oct 10).

Having processed the "crime report", the following day, impersonating an investigating officer (my conclusion), Trainee Detective Constable Simon J Dowling of the 'Community Safety Unit' (I am sure, with the approval of his superiors, and beyond within 'the Brotherhood'), sent a malicious, scurrilous, libellous, racist, xenophobic...

...e-mail of 16.03.07 to my website Host - headed "Website with anti semitic (sic) views" - FALSELY accusing me - WITHOUT providing ANY evidence in support - of:

  • having "Anti-Semitic views" on my website;
  • being "a Nazi";
  • having 'committed a crime', by stating: "I am the police officer dealing with this crime"

and demanded the "immediate closure of [my] website" (police # 3 KP(4))

From being challenged by my (wonderful) website Host who asked "Are you aware that there are laws against making false accusations?",...

...Dowling backed-down in 'his' 20.03.07 e-mail to my website Host:

“Thanks for your reply, yes there are laws relating to false reporting. The producer of this website is franco-german (sic) in origin and so would be aware of the terms pigs and monkeys used during the Nazi regime to refer to Jewish people." (Note the racist accusation).

If you are unable to close the site down I will let the victim know as there is nothing we as a police force can do except class it as a racist incident…” - while STILL making an unsupported, libellous accusation: “racist incident(# 3 KP(4)(2))

Just as well that "the police...must act only on the basis of established facts" (Sir Toby Harris' 11.07.02 letter to me).

(See the outrageous arguments from the Met Commissioner in 'justification' for sending the above e-mails: police # 3 KP(4)(4) - arguments that were endorsed by HM's Queen's Bench judiciaries, as ALL my claims were dismissed as "misconceived and unfounded").

(Of course, the police nonetheless kept "trying to get [my] website closed down").

(NB: In early 2014, the British State again attempted to close my website - this time by hacking into my computer) (not for the first time).

Back to sections

14. Concurrently, Andrew Ladsky attacked me - successfully - through my then employer, KPMG, leading me to resign in Jan 08. Being psychologically unable to work again in this country, it forced me to take early retirement - leading me to lose a high amount of future income.

Ladsky's flunkeys, Hershkorn (above) and Dowling et.al. (above) having failed to intimidate and bully my website Host into closing down my site, Ladsky contacted my then employer, KPMG, including sending this 26.03.07 highly vicious, malicious letter. (Apparently, he started to contact KPMG in Oct 06; hence, shortly after I launched my website. At the time, I was NOT told about it. Notes of a Feb 07 call from him show that he made outrageous, slanderous accusations against me).

While KPMG massively redacted Ladsky's letter of 26.03.07, what is left of it, demonstrates that his tactics to secure KPMG's assistance / justify subsequent events, include: highlighting parties covered on my website with which KPMG had a working relationship; threatening defamation proceedings.

(NB: He also did this in 2002 (police #: 2 KP (8) , background to Ladsky's 'complaint') - out of revenge for my determining that (as referred to above) 'Steel Services' had been "Struck-off the [British Virgin Islands] register for non-payment of the licence fee" (Owners identity # 2), as well as 'my daring' to challenge his 07.08.02 application to the tribunal (above)).

The 'subsequent events': from Apr 07 (NB: 10 days after Dowling et.al's failed attempt, above) I was subjected to highly vicious, perverse, cruel, sadistic treatment at work (e.g. [TEMP] Notes to pg 18 of my 20.09.09 reply to the police; my 10.04.08 letter to my then doctor) - leading me to resign from KPMG in Jan 08 (after 10 years).

My world collapsed in Apr 07. Looking at events from my value system, I could not comprehend what was happening to me: the injustice was unbearable, as I am the GLARINGLY OBVIOUS VICTIM of crime, NOT the criminal (contrary to Her Majesty's police's description of Ladsky as being "my victim" in a so-called "crime report" it holds against me: police # 3 KP (3)1(1)).

Secondly, I was being punished for behaving in the manner KPMG had imposed on me through compulsory yearly training (e.g. 2004 training record). It was as though I was going through a double bereavement: let down by 'the system' in which I had had (naïvely) blind trust and faith, and now by KPMG I had held on a pedestal for being so good to me until then.

After this experience, I was psychologically unable to look for work; NOT in this country. (It took me more than 2 years before I managed to force myself to set foot again in the City (business district)) (and 5 years before I could go where I last worked). With what was left of my life-savings rapidly going down, I was forced to take early retirement - 7 years earlier than planned.

Hence, I have also lost a huge amount of potential income (including pension) - added to the income I had lost from taking time off work to deal with this truly horrendous, life-destroying nightmare - 'courtesy' of the criminal, Rachman vermin, Andrew David Ladsky, who is currently laughing his head off at me - also because of the "crime reports" (police-Outcome) - and savouring the fact that the criminal psychological harassment tactics yielded one of the desired outcomes.

Back to sections

15. Other components of the 'retribution' and tormenting regime include: (1) since Jul 10, ever growing massive FRAUDULENT 'service charge' demands; (2) UNLAWFUL ongoing 'surveillance' by the State that has been taking place since at least 2005 - and is best described as persecution;

(3) UNLAWFUL interference by the State with ALL my means of communication, which includes interception and retention, including stealing my post.

Other forms of psychological harassment by Ladsky in 2007, and subsequently e.g. flooding of my apartment in July 07 ; no heating and no hot water in my apartment during the 2007 Christmas holiday ; hot water and electricity yet again cut-off in my apartment in Mar 09; numerous other examples of harassment - "at the property" (quoting Ladsky's vermin solicitor, Lanny Silverstone, CKFT, in his 04.02.03 letter to me: police # 2 background).

This was followed by Ladsky asking his then 'managing' agents, MRJ, to send me a totally unsupported 09.07.10 FRAUDULENT demand of £24,002 (US$42,322). I knew from the period covered that it ought to include £2,100 of ground rent - that had NOT been asked.

Taking that into consideration, it amounted to an OUTRAGEOUS yearly 'service charge' of £6,257 (US$11,034) v. the (rip-off) share of £1,749 (US$3,086) in 2004, at the start of "the works" = more than 3.5 times 'my share' (MG # 2) (my Comments are also attached to the invoice). As detailed under Martyn Gerrard - Background, MRJ IGNORED my subsequent 3 letters asking for evidence in support, opting instead to keep on sending me the demand.

Note that, in breach of covenant in my Lease - which is a legal contract, I have NOT been provided with accounts for Jefferson House since 2004 (*) Given that what is produced are works of fiction (breach of Theft Act s.17 False accounting ; Pridie Brewster; my 04.10.11 analysis and covering letter of 04.10.11 in response to the GLA survey on service charges) (my identical Comments are attached to the 'accounts' e.g. 2002), it could be argued that it makes little difference.

(*) 'Of course', there is no automatic statutory obligation on landlord to issue accounts. To 'perhaps' get accounts, leaseholders are forced to issue a Notice e.g. 25.06.04 letter on my behalf from the Tenancy Relations Officer to MRJ. 'Perhaps' as the threat of prosecution is, 'of course', NOT enforced, and landlords and their aides know that the leaseholders will (typically) face soul-destroying battles with the authorities, who will side with them against the leaseholders e.g. my experience with Kensington & Chelsea housing, and then with the Local Government Ombudsman.

Another bunch of "RICS regulated" racketeers, Martyn Gerrard, "The award-winning agency...where integrity counts" (!!!) (changed in 2014 to "50 years of fulfilling dreams"), said to have taken over from the then MRJ in 2011. Since then, knowing that, like its predecessor, it has the protection of its 'regulator', the RICS - backed-up by the State - it has, of course, continued in the footsteps of its predecessor of implementing the diktats of its Rachman client, by sending me ever growing FRAUDULENT demands.

Because the mafia 'did not like' my challenging the sums demanded - and with the objective of planning the next attack, from July 12, it adopted a policy of NOT providing ANY supporting 'evidence': 'Service charge' summary ; 'Electricity' summary - showing an ever growing negative consumption (YES!) since Mar 13.

Of course, as part of the psychological harassment regime, it is concurrently ignoring my correspondence (MG # 5 , # 19) - I conclude, until its Rachman client Ladsky and his henchmen 'brothers' can 'get me'.

In fact, the evidence suggests that Ladsky is counting on his 'brothers' in the judiciary (snapshot under Kangaroo court) to, at some point, agree to the forfeiture of my apartment (e.g. Comment # 19) - because HIS CONDUCT is, 'of course', 'BEYOND REPROACH' (HM's Master Eyre - QB # 4(6)(5)(3)).

'Surveillance'

Andrew Ladsky has had me dogged, hounded, tracked, monitored, harassed and persecuted since at least 2002 - when he did it himself: 7 Mar 02 (as I reported e.g. in my 04.08.02 letter to Toby Harris, MPA).

In all probability, my being dogged, monitored and tracked will have started before that, for the purpose of profiling me in order to determine whether I could be a 'mark'. Evidently: I WAS! (my profile). (The use of snoops appears to be 'a Jewish thing' - making this island Kindgom the ideal environment in which to indulge - as demonstrated by its activities, as well as by my experience).

Since at least the summer of 2005, Her Majesty's police et.al. in the related services have had me - UNLAWFULLY - under 'surveillance' or, more accurately, been persecuting me.

WHY?

As I captured under para.157 of my 19.04.11 Particulars of Claim (Queen's Bench), as well as under para.4 of my 19.07.11 Wit.Stat to the Home Secretary, Theresa May (QB # 6(1)), I believe that involvement by the police-security services started in the summer of 2005 e.g. 5 Aug 05.

It coincided with the time I was still battling on several fronts in the context of my - legitimate - complaints against parties in the public and private sector - in the face of their typical rejections (# 7, above) = I, 'the Prole', was flagged-up as 'a threat' to 'the Establishment': MY CARD WAS MARKED - leading 'The Thought Police' and its 'Ministry of Love' (Orwell's 1984) to 'get on my case'. (The 'surveillance' 'might' have started in 2004, after 'I dared' to complain against HM's judiciaries in WLCC (above)).

I repeat: I am a law-abiding individual - who should NOT therefore have the British State interfere with my life, and persecute me. As I stressed under e.g. section 3 of my 19.04.11 Particulars of Claim, and under paras 132 -137 of my 19.07.11 Wit.Stat to Theresa May, Home Secretary (QB # 6(1)): "In the 43 years I have lived in this country I have never been engaged in any activity and/or conduct that justifies this extreme, ongoing surveillance, as well as monitoring and interception of my means of communication".

In tandem with Rachman Ladsky's resources, operating as a fully integrated team, and as his private army of henchmen, the police and related services have - and STILL continue (thanks to the PACKS OF LIES Orders from HM's judiciaries - subsequently endorsed by ONE Judge in the European Court of Human Rights) to - UNLAWFULLY - dog me, hound me, track me, monitor me, harass me and persecute me - on a daily basis.

This being Orwellian Britain with, as described by the House of Lords, "the most pervasive surveillance system in the world", they do this in part by tracking me through the 100,000+ CCTV cameras on buses, in the underground, and in the streets - that are controlled / accessed by HM's British Transport police et.al. (see Persecution # 2.5 for the "world's largest CCTV hub", and photographs of at least 11 CCTV cameras on just one bus!).

(Note that this State also finds it 'necessary' to record people's conversations in the streets and in taxis, and has recycle bins that track people's movements. In addition to hacking into "the word's phone calls, internet traffic and accessing the content of e-mails", it also hacks into its 'allies' communications by (among other), setting-up fake internet cafés).

Then the 'Stasi', who have evidently been supplied with photographs and / or film footage of me, take over, either from being positioned in a place where they expected me to go (as well as along the route), or by appearing within minutes of my going somewhere they were not expecting. (I conclude from media data and my experience that there must be well over 1 million 'Stasi' permanently spying on the population). Further, that a large number, that is taxpayer-funded resources, is evidently used for the purpose of protecting / assisting criminal activities).

To these are added, since 2007, and in particular from 2010, the equally UNLAWFUL use of helicopters by Her Majesty's British Transport police - to hound me, as well as harass me and persecute me.

Of note: 'the surveillance' also takes place when I am overseas. Hence, the international network of the Masonic-'Jewish' mafia acts like a kind of 'Interpol for organized crime' - hounding its victims.

I guess that, in this island Kingdom that "has a long and exemplary record on human rights", it is an improvement over China's house-arrests.

Given that:

... - WHY ARE THEY EVIDENTLY SO OBSESSED WITH ME AND SO SCARED OF ME - THE 'LITTLE PERSON' WITH NO POWER AND NO INFLUENCE?

Concurrently, the State has, and continues to, likewise - UNLAWFULLY - interfere with ALL my means of communication: phones, including interception and retention of important messages ; post, including stealing some of my financial statements and, at at times, over extended periods, stealing ALL my post ; prolonged retention of important post ; e-mails, including interception and retention of important e-mails, as well as, very clearly, giving, at least, some of them / their content, as well as the e-mail address of my correspondents, to Ladsky ; hacking into my computer ; bugging my apartment.

(Plagiarising an early 2012 Guardian newspaper headline) - How many oppressive regimes would be proud of this set up? It certainly shows how SICK and INSANE the British State has become).

In fact, to me: (1) the army of goons ; (2) the spy systems ; (3) the criminal psychological harassment ; (4) the 'little people's inability to stop the blatant abuse of power by the State (*) - suggest that this island Kingdom has adopted the Stasi model - for the benefit of organized crime.

(*) As I explain under QB # 6(1), (and in my Comments to the 09.08.11 Home Office Order) (assessment subsequently supported by media articles): I submit that I HAVE NO PROTECTION WHATSOEVER against the blatant abuse of power by the State.

Back to sections

16. The 2007 so-called 'complaint' (above) made it the 2nd time that Her Majesty's police DENIED me the right to defend myself against false, malicious, libellous and highly vicious accusations against me and opinions of me in so-called 'complaints' against me by its 'brother', Andrew David Ladsky - as it had already done this in 2003.

The previous occasion was in 2003. On 3 Jan 03, (because I was challenging his application to the tribunal, above) - Ladsky told me with a lot of venom in his voice: "I am going to get you this year!". It was clear that this was due to his (substantiated) belief that he had the then London LVT 'sewn-up' (above) - leading him to, 3 weeks later, provoke me on 25 Jan 03 - and to run immediately to his flunkeys at Chelsea police because he 'did not like' my reply (police # 2 , Key pts , background to Ladsky's 'complaint').

The primary objective of this so-called 'complaint' was to scare me from pursuing my challenge of his Application to the then LVT (above).

Of course, not asking him about the circumstances, as they would undermine his 'complaint', on the day,...

...HM's police processed a 25.01.03 so-called "crime report" against me of a "Confirmed" "Substantiated Offence of Harassment" - making it 'stick', by adding THE LIE that I had 'a history of doing this'. (Version of the "crime report": Jul 09 ; Jul 11).

Having processed the report on its system - as a "confirmed" and "substantiated" "criminal charge" - 2 days later,...

...HM's police sent me a bullying, threatening, malicious letter, dated 27.01.03, telling me, in effect, that I had better shut up and not challenge 'Dear Mr Ladsky' or "there may be further consequences".

To add to the intimidation and scare tactics, and ensure I 'obey orders', the flunkey signed the letter with "Crime Investigator" (police # 2 KP 10)

Ignoring my 11.02.03 letter asking for "precise detail - in writing - of the accusation against me", on the day it received it, the police closed the report FALSELY claiming that it had been "unable to contact [me]" (# 2 KP 12 & 13).

Just as well that "the police...must act only on the basis of established facts" (Sir Toby Harris' 11.07.02 letter to me).

Considering: (i) what actually took place; (ii) the dictionary definition of 'investigate' - note HM's then Met Commissioner, Sir Paul Stephenson 's assertion under para.11 of his 30.06.11 Application Wit.Stat. (QB # 4(3)) - that "the police investigated the complaint". (To my mind, this is another example of (among other) contempt of court).

Back to sections

17. By contrast, when 'I' am the complainant against 'Dear Mr Ladsky' - as happened in 2002 and 2010 - Her Majesty's police protects him through conniving, collusion, cover-up, fabrications, by refusing to investigate my complaints...

...- and extends this to lying under statements of truth - as demonstrated by e.g. my recording of a conversation with the police (placed on the site).

In 2002, following receiving numerous anonymous phone calls, I (persisted) in filing a complaint with HM's Chelsea police, identifying Ladsky as the perpetrator. Concurrently, I also reported suffering other forms of harassment from him (police # 1 - background). It led to the processing of a "crime report" (Jul 09 version ; Jul 11 version) (# 1: Key pts).

As can be seen from the content of the "crime report", discussed under the Key Points on the police page, the police went out of its way to protect Ladsky, including fabricating stories that would be challenged by a 6-year old.

It also described Ladsky as "MY NEIGHBOUR" (!!!) - a description it retained for the above 2003 "crime report", and above 2007 "crime report" - because it is one of 2 KEY foundations on which the WEB OF LIES in the "crime reports" relies. (Note that, very clearly, for the same reason, HM's Master Eyre endorsed the retention of this description: QB # 4(4)). (The 2nd KEY foundation is discussed under pt # 13, above).

Of note, while at least 4 of my fellow leaseholders ALSO complained to the police, in 2001-02, of suffering harassment from Ladsky, Kensington police claimed: "[Ladsky] has not been the subject in any crime report" (police # 4).

In Oct 10, I made a total of 7 vain attempts at getting HM's police at Chelsea & Kensington to investigate my 2 well-documented complaints of harassment against 2 men: (i) 08.10.10 complaint against the 20 & 27 Jul 10 man ; (ii) 08.10.10 complaint against the 30 Jun 10 and other occasions man.

My conclusion that the former was one of Ladsky's 'dogs', and the latter a police informant, was confirmed by the fact that, in addition to refusing to investigate my complaints, the police's focus was on the former. It continued to be case, after I filed a 19.04.11 Claim against the Met Commissioner (police # 6).

It led HM's then Met Commissioner, Sir Paul Stephenson to, in his 23.05.11 Defence (QB # 4(2)), deny FALSELY, the excuses I had been given at the time for not investigating my complaint. I was able to provide UNDENIABLE proof of the lies - as I had recorded the 16 Oct 10 conversation with PC Giles.

I did this with my 14.06.11 Reply to parts of the Defence, discussing it under paras 10-13, and by supplying, to each of the 3 Defendants, as well as the court, a CD-ROM with a recording of the conversation, as well as a transcript. I also supplied a copy of the notes I was given at the time (QB # 4 (2)3). (More detail under police # 6 ; snapshot under violations of Article 3 of the European Convention). (Ditto about this amounting to, to my mind, contempt of court).

Back to sections

18. Yet more UNDENIABLE confirmation that, when 'the little people' are the innocent victims of 'certain criminals' - the claim by British and European judges and politicians that 'the rule of law is of paramount importance' - is A SHAM - part of an elaborate front-end circus.

 

(NB: See snapshots under breach Data Protection Act 1998 ; violations of Article 6 and Article 8 of the European Convention ; Summaries: Events ; Breaches of the law ; see also Extortion).

18(1) - Following 6 months of soul-destroying battles with Her Majesty's Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) that kept ignoring my rights in relation to its PACKS OF LIES so-called "crime reports" - in March 2010, its 'poodle', the 'Independent' Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) - ILLEGALLY - granted it 'DISPENSATION' from compliance with the requirements of the Data Protection Act 1998.

I submitted a 28.05.09 Subject Access Request to HM's police, leading me to receive, in July 09, the 3 "crime reports", briefly discussed above: 2002, 2003, 2007.

For the obvious reasons, summarised under # 13, above - the PACKS OF LIES so-called "crime reports" are a source of extreme distress and anguish to me. Further:

  • 1. The police keeps reports until the individual reaches 100 years of age (more reasons under police # 5.5).

From my receiving a highly redacted version of the PACKS OF LIES "crime reports" in July 09, followed 6 months of unbelievably soul-destroying battles in vain attempts to get the police to implement my rights under the Data Protection Act 1998, in the processing of the "crime reports".

The 'reply' from the police's Public Access Office to my 13.08.09 response to the "crime reports", supported by a bundle of 49 documents in support of my demands (police # 5.1) - was a (typical) 25.08.09 'get lost'. I responded to this, equally comprehensively, by letter of 20.09.09. The ensuing battles (police # 5.2) entailed my contacting, among others, the then Met Commissioner, Sir Paul Stephenson, and Her Majesty's then Home Secretary, Alan Johnson, on 3 occasions (police # 5.2).

At my wits end, my 3rd communication to them was a 02.02.10 letter, headed "When am I due to be killed?" (police # 5.3). (NB: I was referring to the 15 Jun 09 death threat: "Enjoy your life. You don't have long to live" - I had mentioned on pgs 7 & 8 of my 28.11.09 letter to the Met Commissioner (police # 5.2) - about which, of course, the police took no action). (Another one has since been added: 14 Jun 14).

It was followed by a '21.01.10' letter (posted 2 weeks later, on 4 Feb, 'by amazing coincidence', day on which my above letter was delivered to the Met Commissioner) from DI Crispin Lee, Directorate of Professional Standards (police # 5.3). He informed me that he had applied to the (so-called) 'Independent' Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) (staffed by police officers on secondment) - to get a 'Dispensation' from dealing with my complaint (police # 5.3).

From desk research, I determined that the excuses used by Lee, including claiming that my complaint was "out-of-time", were from Reg.3(2)(a),(f) and (4)(b)(ii) of the Police (Complaints and Misconduct) Regulations 2004 (copy). (This Regulation is the 'trump card' frequently used by the police, and its 'poodle' the IPCC, to avoid dealing with complaints). (Re 'poodle' - I wrote it on pg2 of my 13.09.11 letter to the IPCC (QB # 5(7)); see also media reports (police # 5.4)).

This Regulation is totally irrelevant. It cannot be called upon to interfere with a data subject's right under s.10 of the Data Protection Act 1998 to - AT ANY TIME - ask a data processor to STOP processing data that is a source of great distress - because untrue and damaging - as in my case. This right is also enshrined under Directive 14 of the Data Protection Directive 95/46/EC.

Following the dictatorial 22.02.10 letter 'from' the IPCC (that was intercepted by the police to make me miss the deadline for reply: police # 5.4(2)), in 'its' 02.03.10 letter, 'the IPCC' granted the police 'Dispensation' from dealing with my complaint (police # 5.4(3) ; QB # 5(2)).

Hence, 'the IPCC' - ILLEGALLY - granted 'Dispensation' to the Metropolitan Police Service from compliance with the requirements of the Data Protection Act 1998.

 

Of note: 'the gem', in the police's Application (I obtained as a result of filing the 19.04.11 Claim against the IPCC - QB # 5):

If the crime reports were to be altered at the complainant’s request this would set a new precedent for crime reporting and recording across the UK. This complaint is therefore an abuse of process".

Having failed to get, from the IPCC, the remedy to which I was entitled, following months of additional work, I opted for another strategy, by sending a 02.06.10 DPA s.10 Notice and supporting 67pg document to HM's Chief Superintendent Mark Heath, Kensington police - as the Act requires a response "within 21 days". This strategy also failed - as he did NOT even acknowledge my documents (police # 5.5).

Back to sections

18(2) - The appalling conduct of the police and IPCC forced me to file, (as a Litigant in Person), a 19.04.11 CLAIM in the Queen's Bench Division - to which I added the Home Secretary, for having me - UNLAWFULLY - under 'surveillance'.

Following glaring CONNIVING and COLLUSION between the 3 Defendants and Her Majesty's Master Eyre - ALL of my claims were "struck out" - and entailed paying "costs" of £17,181 (US$30,295) - including £8,478 (US$14,949)... to the police (!!!), and £3,703 (US$6,529) to... the IPCC (!!!).

The above left me with only one option: filing a Claim - which I did (as I had warned I would do, on 3 separate occasions, starting in Sep 09) - in HM's London Queen's Bench Division (as a Litigant in Person) - after a further 8 months of very intensive desk research: 19.04.11 Claim against:

(Summaries: Events ; Breaches of the law; Overall outcome)

(My needing to resort to filing a Claim, leads me to most strongly add my voice to that of the lawyer, in her message to Sir Paul Stephenson: Media: 11 Oct 10).

Of course, at the Pre-action stage (QB # 2), NONE of them attempted to resolve the situation - demonstrating further their belief of being 'above the law', as well as advanced knowledge that their 'brothers' in the court would endorse their position. (Continuing to perceive me as an imbecile, 3 months after filing the Claim, the Met Commissioner tried to catch me out by making me a "Without Prejudice offer": QB # 4(6)4).

The UNBELIEVABLE conduct that took place in this court (note that I exclude the court's staff), led me to start using, on this site, the description 'kangaroo court' - as it was a continuation of my experience, since 2002, with HM's courts and tribunal (above # 2 , # 3 and # 11).

Glaringly obvious contempt of court took place, to which - of course - HM's judiciaries turned a blind eye. (Hence, a repeat of what took place in 2002-03, 2002-04, 2007-08, and Jan 09).

ALL of my claims against each of the 3 Defendants were - summarily dismissed (i.e. NOT at trial) - of course, "with costs" - 'by' HM's Master Eyre (my Comments are attached to each of the following 3 Orders). (With every payment of 'costs', I took the opportunity to highlight again to each of the 3 Defendants the LIES and CONNIVING that took place):

(1) The PACK OF LIES 09.08.11 Order - in favour of the Met Commissioner...

... - which, as a result of glaringly obvious conniving and colluding between HM's Master Eyre and the police (summaries: Events ; Breaches of the law) - dismissed ALL my claims - by regurgitating the position of HM's Met Commissioner, Sir Paul Stephenson (QB # 4(2)(1)) and # 4(3)) - that they were:

(I very strongly contend that the 09.08.11 Order was tested before issuing it - see QB # 4(5)).

In addition to his arrogant blanket denial of breaching / violating ANY of my rights, supported by ludicrous claims, in his 23.05.11 Defence (= under a Statement of Truth) (QB # 4(2)) - as discussed, above, under pt # 17 - Sir Paul Stephenson also LIED about what I had been told by Kensington & Chelsea police, in Oct 10, when I attempted to report suffering harassment from 2 men.

As detailed above, under pt # 13, because the evidence does NOT exist to support the accusations, Master Eyre even went as far as attempting to create it.

In the process, he also endorsed the Met Commissioner's absolutely outrageous claim that the police is processing these so-called "crime reports" against me "for the prevention or detection of crime"; "for the apprehension or prosecution of offenders" (police # 3(9)).

Contrast that with the evidence of criminality I supplied - not only in the context of my 19 Apr 11 Claim, but also previously, to the Met Commissioner: (1) between Nov 09 and Feb 10 (police # 5.2) ; (2) at the Pre-action stage (QB # 2) (snapshot under Extortion), and (3), the fact that others have ended-up with prison sentences of up to 32 months - for doing much less than that: Advisors # 11. In fact, 1 man ended-up in prison - where he died - "for stealing a gingerbread man".

(For more detail, see below, # 4 my Appeal against the Order)

OUTCOME: 'MY' 22.08.11 payment of £8,478 (US$14,949) costs to.... the police (!!!) (QB # 4(6))

 

(2) The 29.07.11 Order - in favour of the so-called 'Independent' Police Complaints Commission - 'because, instead, I should have filed for judicial review'. (My Comments are attached to the Order) (summaries: Events; Breaches of the law).

Proving that the State relies on the majority of people not having the means to do this, is 'the IPCC's comment under para.23 of its 07.06.11 Application (QB # 5(5)):

"A successful judicial review challenge would have resulted in the IPCC having to retake its decision on the dispensation and would have therefore provided [me] with a complete remedy to that aspect of [my] complaint" .

WHY didn't it provide me with "a complete remedy" - at the time i.e.in Feb 10?

I contend that HM's Master Eyre ignored, among others, the following:

OUTCOME: 'MY' 13.09.11 payment of £3,703 (US$6,529) to... the IPCC (!!!) (QB # 5(7)) - and my 13.09.11 letter to HM's Home Secretary, Theresa May, to copy her on my letter to the IPCC, stating that she very clearly endorsed the conduct of the police and of the IPCC - as, in the context of my 19.04.11 Claim, I had copied her on ALL the main documents (QB # 5(7)). (I did NOT get reply).

 

(3) The 09.08.11 Order - in favour of Her Majesty's Home Secretary - 'because - instead - I should have approached the Investigatory Powers Tribunal' (QB # 6(2)) (My Comments are attached to the Order). (summaries: Events; Breaches of the law)

I submit that BOTH, HM's 'Master Eyre and the Home Secretary, Theresa May, knew they were (typically) sending me on a wild goose chase as, considering the evidence in the case (QB # 6(1)) - this tribunal does NOT offer me an effective remedy (QB # 6 (1).

More to the point: (typically), the Investigatory Powers Tribunal is another rubber-stamping office for the British State's abuse of power (media articles that support my assessment). Come on! The British State giving 'an effective remedy' to its people against its abuse of power? That would be the day!

However, attempting to push me towards this rubber-stamping tribunal does NOT give the Home Office departments and its current, as well as previous Heads, the right to ignore the rule of law.

OUTCOMES:

 

(4) MY APPEAL APPLICATION AGAINST THE 9 AUG 11 METROPOLITAN POLICE ORDER (QB # 4(7)) (Summaries: Events ; Breaches of the law)

I filed a 30.08.11 Application against the (above) 09.08.11 PACK OF LIES MPS Order (QB # 4(7)).

In addition to the surrounding events, my absolute determination to clear my name of the highly defamatory, extremely vicious, malicious, perverse accusations against me and opinions of me in the so-called "crime reports" (police: Overview and Outcome) was reinforced further when the police supplied me, on 22.07.11 with a significantly less redacted (and incomplete) version of the 3 "crime reports": 2002, 2003 and 2007 v. the July 09 version: 2002, 2003 and 2007 (discussed under police sections # 1 , # 2 and # 3). Indeed, considering:

  • (1) the content of the redacted text (2 examples are included above, under pt # 13 (and expanded on under QB # 4(3)): (i) description of multi-criminal Andrew David Ladsky as "A VULNERABLE VICTIM 'I' INTIMIDATE"; (ii) having "NO SUSPICION OF FALSE REPORTING" - in spite of NEVER contacting me at ANY point in time; most of the redacted text is compiled and discussed in my 29.08.11 police Witness Statement);

...led me to, (as stated above) - the glaringly obvious conclusion that the police et.al. in 'the Brotherhood' are hell-bent on continuing to use the "crime reports" against me for ongoing 'retribution' - and to finally 'get me'.

Predictably, in the light of the conduct to date in that court: in a 06.10.11 Order, HM's Justice Lang dismissed my Application - in the process, fully endorsing ALL the reasons in Master Eyre's Order (QB # 4(7)2).

I then submitted a 17.10.11 Request for Oral Hearing of my Application. Equally predictably, this Request was also refused. This time, by HM's Justice MacKay who, in his 24.10.11 Order, failed to include his reasons (QB # 4(7)3). (My identical comments are attached to each of the 3 MPS Orders). It led me to file, (typically), in vain, a complaint with the Office for Judicial Complaints (QB # 4(7)4).

I had reached 'the end of the line' in the UK courts - as "there is no appeal from the decision of a single judge on an application for permission to appeal”” (CPR Rule 52.16(7)).

 

Hence: the costs 'I' was made to pay, by Her Majesty's judiciaries in the Queen's Bench Division - to the British State - that has, and continues - IN BREACH OF THE RULE OF LAW - to very blatantly breach / violate my rights - amount to £17,181 (US$30,295).

Of course, on top of this, I had many other costs, running in the £000s.

Overall conclusion: when facing a multi-criminal, 'Jewish', sacrosanct Mason landlord - NONE of 'my rights' are "freestanding".

 

Needless to say that, during the time of my Claim, 'the Brotherhood's flunkeys, comprising of the British State's 'Stasi', operating, as always, in tandem with the Ladsky resources, continued (pt # 15, above) with the implementation of the criminal psychological harassment regime - entailing my being dogged, hounded, harassed, persecuted, etc. e.g.

  • to prevent me from getting help with my Claim - e.g. 27 May 11 ; 28 Jul 11 - that also entailed the use of an helicopter, in case I gave the goons the run ; 11 Aug 11 - when I approached a law firm ; 15 Aug 11 - again, entailing the use of an helicopter, because the goons had lost track of me ; on 7 Jul 11, it entailed interfering with a public phone box;
  • to determine whether I was going to deliver my documents to the court - e.g. 17 Oct 11.

Back to sections

18(3) - The PACK OF LIES 09.08.11 MPS Order and repeated denials of my Appeal Application against it - led me to file a 26.01.12 Application with the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) (that was promptly communicated to Andrew Ladsky).

ONE judge, Judge Vincent A. De Gaetano (Malta), rejected my Application - WITHOUT giving a reason - thereby BREACHING Article 45 of the European Convention.

The trigger to my submitting a 26.01.12 Application to the ECtHR (ECt # 1) were the (above) 09.08.11 MPS Order and the (above) repeated denials of my Appeal Application against it.

A 06.06.12 letter (my Comments are attached) communicated the decision of ONE Judge, Judge Vincent A. De Gaetano (Malta), to reject my Application, claiming that it "[failed] to meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention".

However, in blatant breach of Article 45 of the European Convention, he FAILED to state in what way.

My detailed analysis of both Articles lead me to the conclusion that the assertion is FALSE (ECt # 2). Consequently: that Judge De Gaetano APPROVES of the violations of my Human Rights by HM's police, related services, and judiciaries. Further, that he considers himself exempt from compliance with the requirements of the European Convention.

(NB: The Rachman 'brother', Andrew Ladsky, was INFORMED of my Application BEFORE I received the acknowledgment letter from the court: My Diary 26 Feb 12).

Back to sections

18(4) - Deliberate misrepresentation of my 18.09.12 letter to Sir Nicolas Bratza, then President of the ECtHR, demonstrates that the ECtHR CANNOT justify the rejection of my Application.

Also of note: (i) I CANNOT find my Application on the ECtHR's database; (ii) some 'fascinating' 2012 statistics on UK applications.

Wanting to get confirmation of my (above) conclusions, I sent an 18.09.12 letter to Sir Nicolas Bratza - asking: "Please, let me know in what way, if any, my conclusions are incorrect – such that they justify Judge De Gaetano’s rejection of my Application."

(Typically), to avoid dealing with my question, the 11.10.12 'reply' misrepresented my letter - thereby amounting to another 'GET LOST!' (ECt # 2.1).

Conclusion: it PROVES that the (above) 06.06.12 wholesale claim of "non-compliance with Articles 34 and 35" - CANNOT be substantiated - thereby confirming my (above) analysis, and conclusions.

Of note: under the 2012 British Presidency (at the time of my 26.01.12 complaint), the percentage of UK applications "Declared inadmissible or struck out" more than doubled - from 28% in 2011, to 62% in 2012 (ECt # 3).

Also, while the court compiles statistics on applications 'declared inadmissible' - I cannot find my Application on the ECtHR's database.

Back to sections

18(5) - The obvious conclusions from the 'response' to my 15 Jan 13 'cry for help' to the Council of Europe's Nils Muižnieks, Commissioner for Human Rights, and Thorbjørn Jagland, Secretary General (also communicated immediately to Andrew Ladsky) are:

(1) it provides further CONFIRMATION that the ECtHR CANNOT justify the rejection of my Application - leading to the conclusion that 'the Defender of Human Rights' APPROVES of the violations of my Human Rights by Her Majesty's police, related services and Judiciaries;

(2) (among other) BOTH perceive the ECtHR as being EXEMPT FROM COMPLIANCE with the requirements of the European Convention.

Having failed to resolve the matter with the ECtHR (above), I opted to send:

- asking them to "ensure that the European Court of Human Rights deals with my 26.01.12 Application" as, "in breach of my rights and of its remit, the Court is in fact refusing to deal with my Application" (ECt # 4).

BOTH washed their hands of it e.g. 19.02.13 letter from Mr Jagland (to which my Comments are attached) - by claiming that "[they] cannot interfere with judicial decisions" (Muižnieks: ECt # 4(1)(3) ; Jagland: ECt # 4(2)(3)).

 

This is a blatant, and deliberate misrepresentation of my complaint...

  • ...as THE ISSUE is - very clearly - NOT "a judicial decision" (the only thing that is "judicial" about it, is a judge deciding that he could exempt himself from compliance with the Convention),

 

The obvious conclusions are:

(1) It provides further CONFIRMATION that 'the Defender of Human Rights', the ECtHR, CANNOT justify the rejection of my Application - leading to the conclusions that:

  • ...giving them FREE REIN to CONTINUE with the wholesale violations of my Human Rights (QB # 3).

(2) (Among other) BOTH - Nils Muižnieks, Commissioner for Human Rights, and Thorbjørn Jagland, Secretary General - perceive the ECtHR as being EXEMPT FROM COMPLIANCE with the European Convention.

Hence: message to countries: 'Do as we say, not as we do'

(NB: Note that this court approves of Freemasonry).

(NB: (As happened with my Application), the 'brother', Andrew Ladsky, was INFORMED immediately of my 15 Jan 13 letters: My Diary 19 Jan 13).

Back to sections

 

19. OVERALL OUTCOME TO DATE - in "Britain [, that] has a long and exemplary record on human rights":

 

Very blatantly discriminated against - because of my profile - making it abundantly clear to me, by treating me, the law-abiding, tax-paying individual, repeatedly like a piece of dirt who does not have the right to have rights;

that, unlike the criminals, of whom I am the glaringly obvious victim, I am outside the protection of the State and the law (in their case, (like that of those who help them), they are very clearly perceived to be 'above the law') - there to be used, abused and tormented at will - by ALL (list of KEY PARTIES):

WARNING: If you are an innocent victim of crime, the English 'justice' system can be extremely dangerous to your health

  4 whole years of horrendous torment and trauma at the hands of Her Majesty's courts and tribunal - which, by ignoring persistently the evidence, statutory and other legal requirements, have failed consistently to provide me with an effective remedy - thereby ensuring that the ongoing, horrendous torment continues:
 

Length

Summaries

Head

Concurrently

1

HM London Tribunal - Oct 02-Nov 03 (# 2, above)

13 months

Events

Breaches of the law

Overall outcome

John Prescott (Labour)

Brian Gale, the then Martin Russell Jones, CKFT and Andrew David Ladsky

2

HM West London County Court - Dec 02- Jul 04 (# 3, above)

20 months

Events

Breaches of the law

Overall outcome

Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Jun 03-Jun 07) (Labour)

CKFT and Andrew Ladsky

3

HM Wandsworth County Court - Jun-Jul 04 (# 3, above)

7 weeks

Events

Breaches of the law

Overall outcome

Lord Falconer of Thoroton

CKFT and Andrew Ladsky

4

HM West London County Court - Mar 07- Nov 08 (# 11, above)

21 months

Events

Breaches of the law

Overall outcome

Lord Falconer of Thoroton

Jack Straw (Jun 07-May 10) (Labour)

Portner (and Jaskel) and Andrew Ladsky

5

HM Supreme Court Costs Office - Dec 08-Jan 09 (# 12, above)

2 months

Events

 

Breaches of the law

Overall outcome

Jack Straw

Portner (and Jaskel) and Andrew Ladsky

6

HM Queen's Bench Division - Apr 11-Oct 11 (# 18(2), above)

6 months

Events

Breaches of the law

Overall outcome

Kenneth Clarke (May 10-Sep 12) (Conservative)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chris Grayling (Sep 12 - Incumbent) (Conservative)

 

Looking at the outcomes of my above 6 experiences, (over a 9-year period) (*), anybody wants to argue with me that I am 'not justified' in:

  • (2) describing ALL the individuals concerned - who are paid by taxpayers for ensuring the implementation of the rule of law - as acting as though they were / are at the exclusive service of Andrew David Ladsky and his gang of racketeers - there to assist them in their criminal activities, protect them from the legal consequences of their actions / lack of action, as well as inflict 'punishment' for 'my daring' to stand-up to ALL of them?

What kind of country would describe the conduct of the above as "an example to follow"?

(NB: For equally obvious reasons (*) - I hold the SAME views about the other part of the double act, the taxpayer-funded police and related - with the joint remit of ensuring the implementation of the rule of law (*) e.g. above: # 13 , # 15 , # 16 , # 17 and # 18.1.

(For snapshots of what they decided to actively assist and protect - see Extortion)

(ADDING CREDENCE to my conclusions - see the Jan 14 Indy articles that report on police's findings of "corruption of the criminal justice system et.al. by Freemasons").

(*) A visitor to my site (Com # 4) wrote: "Once is accident, twice is coincidence, three times and it is enemy action". How do you describe 6 TIMES?

(Like many others), I am providing the 'black-on-white' evidence. WHO, in authority, is going to have the spine to act on it to bring this country back to a time when it could be proud of its institutions?

 

  As he had done since 2002, in continuing breach of numerous legislation, and of my Lease, Andrew David Ladsky feels free to continue tormenting me, by now having Martyn Gerrard send me fraudulent upon fraudulent demands - and Martyn Gerrard feels equally free to comply with his diktats.

Events lead me to conclude that they (with the back-up of supporters et.al. in the wider arena) have been planning the next attack (MG # 17) which, in the light of my experience with HM's courts since 2002, leads me to wonder when Ladsky's next - fraudulent - claim is going to be hanging over my head, and perversely and viciously pursued by some of HM's judiciaries,...

...and whether they might even grant him forfeiture of my apartment (e.g. Comment # 19) - my main financial asset in my (forced) retirement, acquired through years of many, many sacrifices - because, his conduct is, 'of course', 'beyond reproach'.

  Thanks to the despicable conduct of HM's judiciaries: Master Eyre, Justices Lang and Mackay, as well as that of Judge Vincent A. De Gaetano (Malta) and supporters in the ECtHR, and higher up:

  Considering the nature of the additional data the police released to me in July 11 (summarised in my 29.08.11 police Witness Statement) (having previously claimed - falsely - under 2 statements of truth: 1st, 2nd - that it had "released data to me to the extent required and/or permitted under s.7(4) DPA") - it is a certainty that HM's police holds far more damaging - FALSE - data against me. Indeed, the reaction of one of its officers, on 16 Oct 10, confirmed it.

  Further, HM's police has provided data about me (no doubt, highly damaging) to 3rd parties, such as 'social services' to which I have been DENIED access, as it has UNLAWFULLY failed to provide me with their contact details. (As evidenced by somebody else's experience, once put on a 'blacklist' by the State for 'daring' to challenge anything, false, malicious data about an individual is circulated far and wide... even down to the refuse collectors!).

  Nearly 3 whole years of my life, and tens of £000s in costs from my very hard-earned life-savings - fighting - IN VAIN - against the PACKS OF LIES "crime reports".

  In spite of my numerous attempts, HM's police refused to investigate my 2 well-documented complaints of harassment (about which, it lied, under a statement of truth). Ditto about this conduct being very clearly endorsed by HM's judiciaries, as well as by the ECtHR - thereby giving it carte blanche to repeat this treatment - should I attempt to report other harassment (obviously: NO POINT)...

...including giving carte blanche to Andrew Ladsky who, in tandem with his henchmen in HM's police - can continue: (i) making me fear for my life, including dishing out death threats e.g. "Enjoy your life. You don't have long to live" - added to another one on 14 Jun 14 (see Comment # 13 for others' experience: "Violence and physical threats against other leaseholders were common") ; (ii) having me dogged, monitored, hounded, harassed and persecuted on a daily basis ; (iii) subjecting me to other forms of highly traumatic harassment and persecution...

...leaving me with ABSOLUTELY NOWHERE to turn to for help.

  HM's London tribunal continues to torment me by having, on its public database, a so-called 'summary of the case', as well as its 17.06.03 report - that FALSELY - and deliberately - accuse me of being responsible for "the delay" [IT caused] and a fictitious "[6%] cost increase" - thereby - deliberately - defaming my name, character and reputation.

  The State continues to torment me by processing other defamatory documents against me, accessible by the public.

  The State has carte blanche - endorsed by the European Court of Human Rights - and higher up - to UNLAWFULLY - continue to torment me by:

  2 whole years of torment from endless, soul-destroying battles with the so-called 'regulators' who consistently rejected my legitimate complaints; torment heightened by making it abundantly clear to me that 'it's okay' for those I complained against to 'get away' with what they did to me v. what they would have done to me, if I had done the same to them. (Considering the examples of criminalization of 'the little people' by 'the Establishment': no prize for guessing where I would be: in jail).

Further, threatening me with defamation proceedings, including telling me that one of Ladsky's (glaringly obvious racketeers), would be 'entitled' to do the same thing against me.

  Causing me untold torment from making 'me' - the law-abiding, glaringly obvious victim of crime - spend - IN VAIN - over £130,000 in costs (US$230,000) to defend myself against fraudulent claims, as well as libellous and racist reports against me - hence: from my life-savings, accumulated through very hard work and many sacrifices.

Causing me untold torment from knowing that I have lost hundreds of £000s of income and pension.

Forcing me, as a last resort 'cry for help' (so far, IN VAIN), to set-up this website, and then maintain it - as my only form of 'protection'...

...- a protection the British State tried to remove in early 2014, by hacking into my computer in order to attempt to delete my website. (It had failed to gain the closure of my website in 2007: pt 13, above).

  TOTALLY DESTROYING MY LIFE SINCE 2002 - AND CONTINUING TO DO SO.

WHY? The extremely shoking, outrageous and unbelievable reason: ALL because 'Dear Mr Andrew David Ladsky' decided he was 'entitled' to make a multi-million £ jackpot - through extortion, persecution, etc. - at my (and fellow leaseholders') expense...

Jefferson House July 2002

 

Jefferson House September 2005

...- to which ALL, in his army of henchmen, said:

'YES, of course, O' Great One!'

 

(To do what he did - to gain £500k - isn't 'Mr Big' - is it? So: why the unfailing support?

Because he is 'Jewish', and / or because he is a Freemason who – as a result of his OWN actions – has exposed other Freemasons who, cowardly, take it out on me instead of him?)

 

ARE THERE ANY INSTITUTIONS LEFT THAT ARE NOT PROSTITUTING THEMSELVES TO CRIMINALS?

Back to sections

 

20. YES: THE ROOT CAUSE for ALL that has happened to me stems from 'MY DARING', in 2002, to challenge - as per the rights the legislators have told me I have THE RIGHT to demand - a FRAUDULENT £14,400 (US$25,400) 'service charge' demand...

...and from my doing EXACTLY what the British State told me I needed to: DEFER to its departments for 'justice, redress and protection' - which proved to be a GIGANTIC CON - and hence, a MONUMENTAL mistake on my part to believe the State's 'Ministry of Truth's propaganda.

'My daring' to refuse to accept it, has led to my being persecuted ever since.

As I wrote in my 07.11.09 letter to 'my' MP, Sir Malcolm Rifkind: "To be the victim of crime is one thing. (There are criminals everywhere). But to be victimized and persecuted by State departments with the mandate to ensure my rights for justice, redress and protection (which, as a taxpayer, I am entitled to expect), and see these departments side against me with the perpetrators - is absolutely outrageous”. (NB: In relation to my complaint, Rifkind demonstrated outrageous conduct with the then Parliamentary Ombudsman).

In fact, I view it as conduct that is far worse than that of the 'traditional mafia' as, as I understand it, when you pay it 'for protection' - it does protect you.

 

 

(NB: Choice of visual: I am a red belt at kick-boxing)

I WILL NOT "SUFFER IN SILENCE". (Quote from a previous government website, targeted at children, that stated: "Don't suffer in silence. Bullying hurts and you don't have to endure it". At 2012, the replacement website stated: "Bullying can affect you in many ways. You may lose sleep or feel sick... You may even be thinking about suicide").

Spending part of my childhood in an orphanage, etc., has given me an iron will. I made myself what I am through enormous sacrifices and a lot of hard work.

I will NOT, as blatantly expected by EVERYBODY, walk away, like 'a good little girl', ignoring the unbelievable injustice and suffering I have and continue to be subjected to since 2002 - as the GLARINGLY OBVIOUS INNOCENT VICTIM OF ORGANIZED CRIME,...

...being expected to do this for the sake of an evil, greed-ridden crook getting away with a multi-million £ jackpot, and to save the sorry, corrupt skin of those who decided that he, and his gang of racketeers, have 'the right' to defraud me and commit other criminal offences against me in the pursuit of their objective...

...because: I HAVE, and continue to be made to pay for the infrastructure that promised me 'justice, redress and protection'; I will NOT live my retirement in destitution as a direct consequence of their actions that have robbed me, in addition of my life since 2002, of the major part of what I have worked for in my 40+ years in this country, including the nest egg I had accumulated through very hard work and big sacrifices, as well as future potential income.

I did not ask for pity, using the excuse of what happened to me in my childhood. I took the bull by the horns and worked damn hard to ensure modest financial security - putting myself through 7 years of studying from age 24 - culminating in an MBA. I earned my money honestly. I did NOT steal it. I did NOT acquire it through extortion, by deceiving, defrauding, blackmailing, terrorising, tormenting, harassing, victimizing, abusing, bullying, threatening and persecuting others.

I am NOT going to let anybody take that away from me simply because 'they decided so'. Further: I HAVE DONE NOTHING WRONG.

Heavily bruised and battered as I am, I am a fighter and I will continue to "fight like a demon to the very end. If my flat is going to lead to my drawing the last breath out of my body. So be it. At least it will be a last breath that I will draw feeling extremely proud of myself and with my integrity intact"...

... (as I wrote in my 06.04.05 letter to Michael Howard, then leader of the Conservative Party). (How many of those connected in one way or another with my case will be able to say that when they draw their last breath?)

To quote Che Guevara "I would rather die standing up, than live life on my knees". And I really mean that. I WILL FIGHT TO THE DEATH.

In any case, if, after doing all that I have done, I still do not get justice and redress: I do not want to live in a world like that: dedicated to crime, controlled by crime, for the benefit of crime. I don't fit in in a moral vacuum.

So, if that is going to be the case, in the light of, among other, the death threat hanging over my head since 15 Jun 09: "Enjoy your life. You don't have long to live" - added to another one on 14 Jun 14 - like the elderly Lady said: "You want to kill me. Go ahead". However, be in no doubt that, until then, with God's help, I WILL CONTINUE FIGHTING LIKE A DEMON FOR JUSTICE AND REDRESS.

It is this determination, refusal to be intimidated by the FEAR tactics and other forms of criminal psychological harassment, as well as refusal to "suffer in silence" - that have led to my being persecuted ever since.

Pre the launch of my website, 'the persecution regime' stemmed from my ‘daring’ to stand-up to Ladsky, his gang of racketeers, and their mates in ‘the Brotherhood’. To this, post launch, has been added the fact that, through my website, I am holding a mirror to their face, and they don't like the reflection - as it reflects their / their friends’ failure to do their job, frequently amounting to failure to perform their legal remit / malpractice / complicity / collusion / corruption / fraud - as well as their LIES and underlying GREED.

Evidently, in this island Kingdom, somebody 'like me', 'a Prole', doing this - amounts to committing 'a heinous crime'. (Events re. e.g. (1) the whistleblower hunted by HM Revenue & Customs under anti-terrorism legislation for exposing a secret multi-million £s "sweetheart" tax deal it made with Goldman Sachs ; (2) the 'secret prisoners' ; (3) the woman being blacklisted by her council;

(4) the man arrested at dawn, and locked-up in a police cell ; (5) re. Mr Jean Charles de Menezes: the Canadian Lady being hounded by the police, and locked-up in a police cell, etc - (6) other examples: whistleblowers list ; summaries whistleblowers - including the appalling treatment of the very brave National Health whistleblowers - ALL typify the dominant psyche. This island Kingdom spends millions of £s persecuting those who 'dare' to stand-up).

In addition to what has been taking place since 2007 (detailed above), the fact that my website has been the primary reason for the ongoing persecution since, was confirmed undeniably in the course of the proceedings in relation to my 19 Apr 11 Claim: “Master Eyre is not pleased with your website”.

The fury of the corrupt elements in ‘the Brotherhood’ stems from the fact that what I report on this website is THE TRUTH – backed-up by more than 2,000 documents and hundreds of photographs. As I wrote under para.58 of my 17.10.11 Request (QB # 4(7)3): “If my ‘criticisms and accusations’ ...were not justified and true, I would no doubt have had proceedings filed against me a long time ago...."

(NB: I draw your attention to the requirements for 'defamation' under the Defamation Act 1996, as well as my rights from: Fair comment; Qualified privilege - Public interest defence. Also to my comments under Article 10 of the European Convention).

Contrast what I report on this website, with the following examples of media reports accessible on the website of the media organisations - re. the public sector - e.g:

  • (1) The death, through neglect, of up to 1,200 people at the Stafford Hospital, and subsequent events (My Diary 15 Jun 09).

Until recently I was asking whether the State would also persecute the journalists for 'daring' to report these events. What happened to:

(1) The Guardian, following its reporting on some of the information from the whistleblower Edward Snowden - that was "made by the government to destroy computer files" ("MPs set to investigate Guardian's involvement in Snowden leaks", The Guardian 16 Oct 13), causing condemnation by many worldwide media organisations, and eventually by some senior MPs.

(2) Channel 4 when "the police attempted to force it to hand over documents about a whistleblower who revealed how undercover officers infiltrated a campaign for justice group" ("Police chief issues partial apology over Lawrence whistleblower documents", The Guardian, 14 Jan 14) (NB: It then came to light that the police had shredded "a lorry-load of evidence"),...

...indicate that journalists can also be targeted by the State for exposing 'inconvenient' information.

WHY do they ALL 'very conveniently' overlook the fact that Andrew Ladsky is the ROOT CAUSE for ALL that has happened - including overlook the fact that I have already given in once - in 2003? LADSKY HAS CAUSED their exposure - NOT me. And THEY, in turn, have CAUSED their ongoing exposure as a result of their unbelievable arrogance and stupidity.

If only the intelligence of the corrupt elements in 'the Brotherhood' could amount to 1% of their arrogance / 1% of their extreme cruelty, viciousness and sadism - I would have been out of the country in 2003, blocking it out of my memory for ever, and moving on with my life.

(NB: To give them ALL the opportunity to show common sense and intelligence by resolving my situation - leading me to close the website, and leave the country - I purposely did NOT update my website:

  • For 7 months, from May to Dec 07 (by May, my site had only been online for 4.5 months, hence, relatively few people outside of 'the Brotherhood' had seen it). They did NOT!
  • I did this again for 8.5 months, from mid July 09 to end Mar 10. In my 07.11.09 letter to 'my' MP Sir Malcolm Rifkind, I wrote: "As my MP, will you be ‘The One’ who – finally - demonstrates intelligence and common sense and say ‘Enough is Enough!’ and help me achieve my objectives – thereby seizing on the opportunity you still have to take the credit for resolving my situation? (Significant correspondence from you, and from me to you et.al. since July, has yet to be placed on my website). (I would like to leave the country permanently – alive and well – having achieved my objectives - by the end of this year)" . The 10.11.09 'reply' : "I acknowledge receipt of your letter of 7th November addressed to Sir Malcolm. Yours sincerely"

Since 2002, the amount of (among other) taxpayers' money that has so far been spent dishing out the highly vicious, cruel, perverse, sadistic, barbaric vendetta against me must be in the £ millions (taking the Julian Assange case as a benchmark) - and therefore many, many times the cost of resolving my situation.

(As demonstrated by: this example where several million £s have already been spent pursuing a vendetta against a very brave NHS whistleblower ; the multi-million £s spent prosecuting a journalist ; this other example where several million £s were, likewise, spent - the lengths they will go to, and hence costs (at taxpayers' expense), 'to get somebody's scalp' - know absolutely no bound). (See also, above, links to whistleblower cases).

(See the example of Michael Durant, who lamented: "None of these bodies has said to me 'let us try and resolve my complaint'").

And 'I' am branded "a Nazi" - "because of my franco-german (sic) origin" - by Andrew David Ladsky, his henchmen at Notting Hill and Kensington police - and in Her Majesty's Queen's Bench Division?!?!

(NB: Note that they do NOT have the evidence to support their absolutely outrageous, as well as racist accusation - because it does NOT exist. As explained under pt # 13, above, since 2007, they have attempted desperately to create it, including HM's Master Eyre who, having failed in his ploy, nonetheless endorsed it in 'his' 09.08.11 Order: (QB # 4(6))

Using THEIR theme - in MY WORLD: THESE people ARE the 21st century 'Nazis' (dictionary definition); the corrupt, amoral 'Brotherhood' elements who created, maintain and control a tyrannical environment, in which hitlerian Ladsky is given carte blanche to run Jefferson House like a 'concentration camp'.

I think that 'I' should be the one who "speaks to social services" to report them as "suffering from [very serious] mental issues".

(Comparing people to Hilter appears to be a British thing: e.g. Prince Charles re. President Putin.)

It is extremely shocking and truly sickening to see how, in this country, that claims to have "a long and exemplary record on human rights", is part of Western Europe, in the 21st century - as a law-abiding, taxpaying, GLARINGLY OBVIOUS INNOCENT VICTIM OF CRIME - having the guts to take the moral stance and stand by your principles, stand-up for your rights and speak out against injustice and wrongdoings - ...

...leaving you with ABSOLUTELY NOWHERE TO TURN TO FOR HELP (*)

As an innocent victim of crime, where do you turn to for help when the State IS THE MAFIA? The 'traditional' mafia? - (other than the type associated with the State e.g. Ladsky's) (probably none left because it cannot compete with the State). Terrorist networks?

(*) By contrast, HM's judges who inflict terrible misery and trauma on their victims - at times, leading them to contemplate suicide e.g. my case (in the past), and, on occasions, resulting in suicide (e.g. campaigner) - "have access to a 24-hour counselling helpline to help them deal with the emotional problems and stresses of the job". HM's MPs caught misappropriating public funds were also provided with this facility.

While, mercifully, I still come across some genuinely kind hearted English people, starting with my, very sadly, deceased, Honorary Mum, I absolutely adored and miss terribly - considering that:

  • ...while others, with a conscience, are too craven to perform their legal remit and, sickeningly, just sit there, in a typical conspiracy of silence, and read my documents and / or website - as though they were watching a movie (while, no doubt, making 'the appropriate noises' of 'shock - horror' at some of my comments, to show their allegiance to 'the tribe') (but have no qualms taking my taxpayer money as salary, expenses, for their pension pot, etc.);...

...: what does that suggest about this society? Because, based on my value system, this conduct and concurrent conspiracy of silence, and hence, complicity, are TOTALLY, TOTALLY BEYOND MY COMPREHENSION - it leads me to the conclusion that it has become a profoundly sick and very frightening society. (A cop said to a protester: "People would sell their soul to the devil". Well, I would NOT - for all the riches in the world). (Another saying: 'Once you've sold your soul to the devil, you have to dance to his tune).

Needless to say that I am far from being the only one at the receiving end of this extremely cruel, vicious, sadistic, barbaric treatment for 'daring' to challenge a despotic, self-serving, self-regarding, ego-crazed, amoral, power-corrupted so-called 'elite' that perceives itself as 'untouchable', above the law of the land (article that supports my assessment): see examples: Media page ; Comments sent on my website ; Stop the Oppression of the British People (comments received on site, at 2010) ; Victims Unite ; CASIA victims ; police ; whistleblowers ; other whistleblowers.

In his 10 July 09 article, headed "What kind of country sacks a dinner lady for telling the truth?" the Daily Mail columnist, Richard Littlejohn wrote: "This government has a long and ignoble record of persecuting whistleblowers and dissenters who reveal institutional wrongdoing and incompetence". At the time, Labour was in power. Clearly, nothing has changed under its successor.

Against my above experience, and that of others, consider the Civil Service claims in e.g. its recruitment ad of 4 Oct 09, in The Sunday Times for, among others, the Ministry of (In)Justice We value objectivity, honesty, integrity and impartiality. (They must have been rolling on the floor with laughter when they wrote that).

Events at the Stafford Hospital, as well as others, led the Guest Contributor, Harriet Sergeant, to write, in her 28 Feb 10 article, in The Sunday Times,"The state sector's big evil: it does not sack":

"However horrific is the offence, rarely is anyone brought to book, let alone sacked... those responsible for shocking treatment of the public remain untouched and even flourish...(*)

...Making politicians look good too often has come at the expense of the public in their care"

(*) Examples: Siobhan McGrath, Fiona Wool, Zahida Manzoor, bankers.

As the long-standing campaigner, Barry Gardiner, Labour MP, (covered under Prescott # 4.2 & # 4.3) said during the 26 Jun 09 House of Commons debate on leasehold 'reform', in particular, service charge demands:

"To have a right but no means of enforcing that right is to have no right at all"

During the debate, Jacqui Lait, Conservative MP, challenged the minister, Rosie Winterton by stating: "The minister really needs to consider what is happening in the real world, as opposed to what is happening in the legislative world. Many leaseholders experience a total disregard for any of the rights that she is reading out; she must bear in mind that what she is reading out is not what happens to leaseholders." (Add to that the fact that the so-called 'rights' can then be assessed as "NOT freestanding" - added to others, deliberately intended to, likewise, exploit and abuse leaseholders).

The action from the May 2010 Coalition Government? A continuation of previous governments' lack of action. Indeed, its then Housing Minister, Grant Shapps, was quoted as saying:

"With the vast majority of England's three million leaseholders happy with the service they receive, I am satisfied that the current system strikes the right balance between the rights and responsibilities of tenants and landlords."

In the context of relating the experience of a friend, Julian Knight of the Independent wrote in his 11 Jul 10 article "Minister says all is well with leaseholders. He'd better think again..."

" I'm afraid, Mr Shapps, you are either deluded or simply don't give a damn". "Here at the Independent on Sunday we are getting complaints from across the country about management companies, their disproportionate service charges and overcharging for maintenance work".

Mr Knight also wrote, among other, in relation to his friend's case: "In any other part of daily life, the freeholder and his brother would more than likely be had up for fraud - but not in the arcane world of freeholders, leaseholders, and management companies".

My case is a perfect example of this (but nothing 'mysterious' about it: it's called extortion, fraud, collusion and corruption - in a deliberately - TOTALLY UNREGULATED environment). And the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS), legal sector, police, et.al. - go out of their way to support the 21st century 'Rachmans' (see examples of media articles / reports). (See My Diary 4 Feb 11 for Shapps responding to me that he was "not convinced of the case for further regulation").

I, therefore, also add my voice to Mr Knight's article of 19 Aug 12: "Stop sheltering dodgy freeholders, Mr Shapps". (NB: In the game of musical chairs, Shapps was replaced).

A member wrote to C.A.R.L.:"There is nowhere for leaseholders to turn to! No prosecuting authority = no law enforcement = anarchy"...

...echoing Lord Denning, in his book, "What next in the law?", “Whoever may be guilty of abuse of power, be it the Government, State, employer, trade-union, or whoever, the law must provide a speedy remedy, otherwise the victims will find their own remedy. There will be anarchy”

(Note that the UK Human Rights Act 1998 OMITS 2 critical Articles from the European Convention on Human Rights (document obtained from the Council of Europe's website):

  • Article 1 - Obligation to respect Human Rights
  • Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy

Add to that the fact that the UK does not have a constitution. With which country/ies do these facts put the UK on a par with?) (However, as demonstrated by my above experience (pts #18(3) to #18(5)) - their being omitted is irrelevant).

To those who say "people should raise their concerns", I say : GET REAL! Not only is there NOWHERE for the 'little people' to turn to, it seems to me that more is being put in place 'to shut them up' e.g. the Confidential Intelligence Unit.

In spite of my experience to date (Case summary) - and all this evidence: I AM continuing with my fight for justice and redress - with God's help - to the last breath in my body - because these are MY RIGHTS. I have done NOTHING WRONG. I AM THE GLARINGLY OBVIOUS VICTIM OF ORGANIZED CRIME - NOT the criminal (contrary to Her Majesty's Kensington & Notting Hill police description of Ladsky as being "my victim", in a "crime report" it holds against me (police # 3 KP (3)1(1)).

NOBODY has the right to tell me that I 'should' continue to accept the ever growing injustice... unless they are prepared to compensate me for ALL that I have lost and suffered. (None have offered). As a law-abiding, British National, and net contributor to this society, who has paid over £500,000 (US$882,000) in tax since arriving in this country - and has, AS TOLD by the State, DEFERRED to its departments for 'justice, redress and protection': I have THE RIGHT to demand that it fulfils its legal mandate. Ditto about the so-called 'regulators'. It is their stated remit to protect me from abuses, and to therefore take remedial action.

I repeat: I will NOT walk away for the sake of a crook getting away with a multi-million £ jackpot, and to save the sorry, corrupt skin of those who decided that he, and his gang of racketeers, have 'the right' to defraud me and commit other criminal offences against me in the pursuit of their objective.

I do NOT see why I should take on the role of the fugitive i.e. behave as though I am in the wrong, I am 'the criminal'. I also find it absolutely outrageous that, in the 21st century, in a country that calls itself 'civilised', I should justify my not wanting to be robbed of all of my hard-earned life savings.

And if I fail to achieve my personal objectives?

I very dearly hope that my exposing chapter and verse of my very shocking case will act as a trigger for change and spare other leaseholders from going through the horrendous suffering I have and continue to endure since 2002. This will be my legacy, for a cause which, thanks to my extremely bad luck in buying a leasehold apartment in a block that ended-up under the control of the Andrew Ladsky gang of racketeers - chose me.

There HAS to be change. Slavery has NO PLACE in the 21st century. As very amply demonstrated by my experience (Case summary), it will require a lot of guts and fierce determination to prevent a repeat of what I have and continue to be subjected to - as it happens to be a cause that adversely concerns some very powerful people in this country.

In the meantime, as I continue to accumulate the horrendous evidence of what can happen to an honest, decent, law-abiding leaseholder who 'dares' to challenge a criminal landlord and the supporting infrastructure - I have the satisfaction of knowing, from the comments I receive on my website, that it is of help to others - which, on its own, must be a cause of extreme anger against me as, key to beating leaseholders into submission, is to have them isolated, ignorant of their rights (Business model). Knowledge is power, and, united, leaseholders have power e.g. the case of the 78 pensioners (with the support of their MP and the media) (There ARE some good MPs!).

While I really, really wish that in 2002 I knew what I know now - even though I am now heading towards the pavement and my death: I have no regrets. If the choice is being the person that I am v. being like those who have / continue to act against me - in one way or another / are failing to perform their duty - there is no contest...

...as the ONLY thing that ALL these sheep-brained individuals can say is:

"I turned a blind eye and a deaf ear / did what I did / said what I said / wrote what I wrote because 'Dear Mr Andrew Ladsky' and his aides decided that Noëlle (and her fellow leaseholders) were going to pay for the construction of a penthouse and addition of three other apartments to Jefferson House - costs for which Noëlle (and her fellow leaseholders) are NOT liable - so that Ladsky could realise a multi-million £ jackpot.

So, what can be said about me? Not only do I approve of deceit and fraud (NB: among others, threats of "forfeiture, bankruptcy proceedings and costs", and court claims = FRAUD TOOLS), I also endorse the other illegal, and often criminal tactics used against Noëlle (and her fellow leaseholders) in the pursuit of this objective: psychological harassment, bullying, victimization, blackmail, extortion, intimidation, defamation of name and character, etc."...

However, as the standard reply "There are lessons to be learnt" won't wash in my case, the likelihood is that when I am dead, 'they' will say the same thing to my family, as in the case of e.g. Mr Ian Tomlinson, the G20 innocent bystander who died following being hit by the police "inappropriate to take-up their concerns...There is nothing any of us can say to reverse the situation", and what the then PHSO, Ann Abraham, said to Mr & Mrs Titcombe, following the death of their little boy, at Morecambe Bay hospital: "there would be "no worthwhile outcome" in pursuing an investigation"... while having a mega celebration 'backstage'.

I AM EXTREMELY SORRY I EVER SET FOOT IN THIS COUNTRY.

IT GAVE ME A LIFE AND THEN TOOK IT AWAY...

...- ON THE DIKTATS OF ANDREW DAVID LADSKY, AN EVIL, VAMPIRIC, GREED-RIDDEN MONSTER...

...- and ALL for the sake of a penthouse and 3 other apartments!

I evidently missed out on an announcement that he and his gang of racketeers have overall control of this island Kingdom.

O Great One, Andrew David Ladsky, our Most Revered Lord and Master - as you know: your wishes are our command - and continue to be our command. WE'LL GET THE BITCH!

  C O M M E N T S

Back to sections

 

To HostDime, my wonderful American website Host who has so consistently supported me:

THANK YOU A MILLION TIMES for believing me... and many million times more.

You truly deserve FIRST PRIZE for your integrity and extraordinary courage in standing your ground against 'Notting Hill police' and Ladsky's Jeremy Hershkorn, Portner and Jaskel (and, no doubt, others in 'the Brotherhood').

 

L A T E S T

The 13-year persecution by the British State and Andrew David Ladsky is CONTINUING:

(Re. the British State: the 'Overall outcome to date' (# 19, above) is to be added - as it also CONTINUES TO FAIL to address the situation).

(CASE SUMMARY)(pdf)

Overview of events in 2013 and by mid-2014 in what I can only describe as the tyrannical hellhole (explanation) this country became for me many years ago.

Her Majesty's THERESA MAY, Home Secretary, and Her Majesty's WILLIAM HAGUE, then Foreign Secretary, (yes, the one campaigning with Angelina Jolie) (replaced on 15 July 14 by Philip Hammond who evidently picked-up the baton) - CONTINUED to sign WARRANTS (surveillance ; communications) to have me UNLAWFULLY hounded and persecuted:

(1) - HER MAJESTY'S BRITISH TRANSPORT POLICE HELICOPTERS

(I submit that in the light of their actions, a more accurate title is 'Luftwaffe Stasi terrorists' (explanation))

 

 

45 attacks over an 11-month period in 2013. By contrast, over the previous 5 years, I recorded 19 attacks in My Diary.

For 2014, position at 25 July 14:

 
 

The longest lasting events, while I was in the street, include harassing me, persecuting me and terrorising me (Header 1.3 of extracts from a website on psychological harassment):

  • for 30 minutes, from Oxford St, and in the back streets: 10 Jul 14 (photos)
  • for 17 minutes, starting from Knightsbridge up to Piccadilly Circus: 22 Nov 13 (photos)
  • for more than 15 minutes when I was in Regents Park: 4 Sep 13 (photos)
  • for 12 minutes (in 2 'sessions') near Oxford Circus: 27 Nov 13 (photos)
  • for 11 minutes east of town, and entailing a 'multi-participants show' 22 Jun 14 (photos)

They also include:

  • diving straight at me e.g. 12 Mar 13 (photos) ; at low altitude, tilting towards me and diving e.g. 18 July 14 (photos).
  • remaining stationary, very low, over a bus shelter where I was, and then moving away slowly and sideways in order to be in full view: 28 Feb 14.

Harassing me when I was in the library of my ex. uni (there have been many occasions) ranging from 7 to 15 minutes e.g. 14 Sep 13 (photos); 25 Sep 13 ; 28 Sep 13 (photo).

Harassing me as soon as I left the library (several occasions of this as well) - ranging from 3 to 12 minutes e.g. 18 Nov 13 (photo) ; 29 Nov 13 ; 4 Apr 14 (photo) ; shortly after, when I came off a bus e.g. 22 Apr 14 (photos). Hounding me if 'I dare' deviate from 'my expected route' e.g. 16 May 14 (photos) ; 2 Jun 14 (photo).

The 2013 Summary of events shows a very strong correlation between the timing of the criminal psychological harassment by HM British Transport Police and my updates of the main legal pages; (the frequency of the attacks shot up following my loading my 1st reworked legal page: West London County Court 2002-04).

So far, in 2014, the attacks correlate - in part - with (hopefully) addressing, at the beginning of March, the British State, (among other?), hacking into my computer to attempt to delete my website, as well as cause access problems. (For the 1st time, I placed a Summary of my Case on my website, on 25 Jan 14).

Under the notes to the 2013 statistical analysis, I calculate the total time taken to dish out the 45 attacks at 7 hours 10 minutes. So far, for 2014, I estimate 5 hours 46 minutes. WHO authorized these attacks?

For what the attacks demonstrate (among others, including insanity - and being in a similar class to the actions by the police against a 24-yr old woman) - see my Comments under the 2013 summary.

(2) - OTHER FORMS OF UNLAWFUL PERSECUTION BY THE BRITISH STATE and THE ANDREW DAVID LADSKY GANG

The 2013 Summary of events suggests some division of the criminal psychological harassment activities between Her Majesy's British Transport Police, the ground level police and Ladsky e.g.

  • the latter's level of actions (from 18 Jan 13) following my filing a complaint against the ECtHR (# 18.5);
  • the start, in May (from 24 May 13), of my loading, on my site, reworked pages.

However, there is also some correlation between the timing of the attacks, and my updates of the main legal pages - starting on 20 Aug 13 - especially by Ladsky = coming to the support of his judiciary friends - to whom he is very highly indebted.

(1) - OTHER ATTACKS BY THE BRITISH STATE include:

(1) - With the CS ADRIAN ROBERTS-controlled Kensington police playing a key part (and Andrew Ladsky clearly in the loop) - THE BRITISH STATE UNLAWFULLY hacked into my computer (as reported above).

(2) - The most obvious conclusion: with the help of the CS Adrian Roberts- controlled Kensington police, my "security-lock" supplier, BANHAM, provided access to my apartment to Ladsky in order to cause yet more criminal damage - evidently providing him with A KEY: 17 Jan 14 (photos) ; 26 Apr 14 (photo).

(3) - CONTINUATION of the UNLAWFUL interception of my post e.g.:

  • Getting the assistance of Virgin Money in order to do this: 4 Feb 13; repeated in late 2013 and early 2014.
  • Intercepting my post and returning it to a financial institution - by claiming that I was 'unknown at the address': 9 May 14.

I believe that other financially-related post continues to also be intercepted - and kept.

(4) - CONTINUATION of the UNLAWFUL interception of, as well as interference with my e-mails - which the British State READS e.g.:

  • Demonstrating that my e-mail reply to a contact that 'I might attend Bonfire night' had been intercepted: one of the police came in the - private - library of my ex. uni to determine where I was: 5 Nov 13.
  • Inserting, in an e-mail, as I was typing: my visual about computer hacking, as well as what was by then, the previous overall header to my website: 31 Mar 14.

(5) - CONTINUATION of the UNLAWFUL monitoring of my mobile phones - with the British State CONTINUING TO LISTEN to my conversations e.g.

  • My conversation setting-up to meet a friend had, 'of course', been listened to, as one of 'the Luftwaffe' flew quite low over us as we arrived in the main street in Chinatown: 12 Mar 14.

(6) - CONTINUING to UNLAWFULLY stalk me, hound me, persecute me, harass me and monitor me - doing this, as per usual, in conjuction with Andrew Ladsky's resources e.g.:

  • After they had lost track of me: running ahead of me: 5 Apr 13; 'escorting' me: 1 Nov 13.

(7) - In places I visit regularly, having informants who report on my movements e.g.: 5 Apr 13 - and as demonstrated by, among others, the timing of the attacks by the police helicopters.

(8) - In a place I started to use regularly (run by non-English people), sending a 'dog' to spy on me: 4 Mar 14 (it might have been one of Ladsky's 'dogs' = same difference!).

(9) - CONTINUING to set up plants to among others, 'assess my state of mind'; catch me out: 13 Feb 13 ; add to the criminal psychological harassment: 3 Feb 14.

(10) - At the beginning of 2013, the Pension Service CONTINUED to persecute me: 7 Jan 13 .

As the Metropolitan police reported, in early 2013, to have spent nearly £3 million policing the Ecuadorian embassy re. Julian Assange: how many millions of £s of taxpayers money have the Home Secretaries, since 2005, spent having ME - the GLARINGLY OBVIOUS VICTIM OF CRIME - UNLAWFULLY - hounded and persecuted - on a DAILY BASIS? I ask the same question of the Foreign Secretaries.

To what level does it bring the total 'Persecute the Daring Proles Pot'?

(NB: I am only one of many on whom the British State spends millions of £s of taxpayers' money dishing out vendettas - for 'daring' to stand-up for justice / what is right).

 

(2) - CONTINUING in its 'great ambassadorial role' for the Jewish community that frequently complains of "anti-Semitism in society" - THE ATTACKS BY THE ANDREW DAVID LADSKY GANG include:

(1) - I conclude, PLANNING ON USING THE 3-YEAR REQUIREMENT TO FILE FOR FORFEITURE AGAINST ME - and drag me through, yet again, one of its evidence-and-rule-of-law-blind courts (table, above) - as well as punishment for 'my daring' to place a Summary of my case on this site...

- 48 hours later, Rachman Andrew Ladsky had his puppets, the "RICS and ARMA regulated" Martyn Gerrard, send me a 27.01.14 'reminder' for £39,900 (US$70,400) - to which the mafia added "£90 penalties for non-payment" of? YES! ALL its FRAUDULENT demands since Jan 11 (!!!) (Note the 3-year span)...

...from which it excluded ALL its FRAUDULENT demands "for electricity" (due to having other plans in store for me) (MG # 19)...

...as well as a 27.01.14 'electricity' demand - making it the 7th TOTALLY UNSUPPORTED demand - and the 3rd one that continues with the trend of 'MY APPARENTLY USING' AN EVEN GREATER NEGATIVE AMOUNT of "electricity" (!!!) (MG # 18).

Knowing that the gang is COOKING THE NEXT ATTACK (MG # 17) and having got the evidence to place the noose tightly around its neck - that would send others straight to jail - I REPLIED TO ALL ITS DEMANDS since Jan 11 in this 10.02.14 document - enclosing a cheque for £514.34 (US$907) - for my calculated amount of electricity - and NO OTHER SUM.

The following graphs, included in my 10.02.14 document, tell a large part of the story:

 

 

 

 

 

 

PROOF that ENDORSES - UNDENIABLY - my above assessment - at the time - as to the mafia's TYPICAL sinister, Machiavellian plans - as well as CONCLUSIONS in my 10.02.14 document:

  • More than 5 (yes: FIVE) MONTHS LATER - it had NOT acknowledged my document - NOR cashed my cheque. ('Of course', it REPEATED - yet again - the 27.01.14 demand, with its 16.06.14 demand for ground rent (MG # 22)).
  • In an attempt to counteract my exposing its sinister plan about the "electricity charges", in its 31.03.14 "electricity" demand, it deliberately mixed the "electricity for the block" with that claimed "for [my] flat".

In my 10.02.14 document - I also:

  • Of course, the opportunity was seized upon to cause me distress and harassment through, among other, a double-act with the contractor, LYNTON SERVICES MAYFAIR (1994) by, among others, giving me conflicting information: Notices 6.3.

Of course, IN BREACH of statutory requirements - IT DID NOT REPLY!

(2) - Another one only too happy to help feed the Ladsky gang's insatiable need for sadistic kicks - is ERRINGTON LANGER PINNER, ICAEW-endorsed accountants, who produced a document: "Jefferson House, Service charge statement, For the year ended 31 December 2012" - for an unnamed party - concurrently LYING by claiming that, in doing this, it "followed" an ICAEW technical release - document which Martyn Gerrard FALSELY described as the "2012 accounts" (MG # 15)

(3) - Also as part of cooking the next attack, Ladsky (scheming with his British State supporters) has CONTINUED to set-up plants:

(4) - Other forms of criminal psychological harassment by Ladsky and his mafia:

• "At the property"

  • Evidently using the same method as on 21 Oct 13 that led water to fall from around one of the spotlights in my bathroom - Ladsky has since ensured causing a lot more criminal damage to my bathroom - and beyond:
  • on 8 May 14, in the space of 2 minutes, c.10 litres of water gushed through from around the same spotlight as on 21 Oct 13 (photos, film);
  • (My continuing to ignore, for the 4th time, a "Census form" from Gerrard asking for "[my] contact details" - because I knew that the mafia was having a laugh - proved (of course) to be correct: 'a Marta' subsequently left 2 messages on...my mobile phone! (MG # 20(3)).
  • In the middle of the night, man banging on my windows for several minutes, while talking loudly and laughing with another man: 22 Feb 13.
  • To this I add the event on 14 Jun 14, reported above under the British State - as I have no doubt that it was a jointly planned action.

CONTINUING to have the 'dogs' hound me, harass me and persecute me - as per usual, acting in tandem with State resources. Hence, in addition to # 6, above e.g.:

  • One of them, having first attempted to provoke me, followed me and provoked me: 28 Jan 13.
  • Another one tracked me from east of town to Knightsbridge: 30 Sep 13. The follow-up to my reporting this was 2 'dogs', at midnight, in a car, waiting for me to come out of the (same) library, in order to harass me: 7 Jan 14.
  • While another, I had seen before (he looked as though he was going to run me over, on 18 Jun 12), monitored my departure from the uni: 14 Oct 13.
  • One 'dog' stalked me on the underground: 2 Mar 14.

ROOT CAUSE FOR ALL THE ABOVE? SAME AS FOR EVERYTHING ELSE (above)

  C O M M E N T S

 

NOTES

•  1. Ownership of Jefferson House

•  2. The complicity, conniving and collusion by 'my advisors', Piper Smith Basham(Watton) and Stan Gallagher, at the time of the 21.10.03 'PART 36 offer' (above).

•  3. Principally for defence purposes, in 2004, I filed a complaint against the lawyers: Piper Smith Basham, Stan Gallagher and Cawdery Kaye Fireman Taylor (CKFT) - which, in typical English 'self-regulatory' sector style, were rejected.

•  4. My conclusions on what happened with the lawyers in 2002-04, (preceded by the surveyors) and, concurrently, with the tribunal and the court - is that I was a square peg that would not fit into a round hole - in spite of the FEAR tactics - causing immense fury among the totally unregulated, ego-crazed, power-corrupted, amoral, extremely arrogant mafia - and their overall Master: Andrew Ladsky (and continuing to do so to this day).

•  5. My 02.02.05 complaint to the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) against the then Martin Russell Jones (MRJ) was also rejected.

•  6. My complaint to the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales (ICAEW) against Pridie Brewster was, likewise, rejected.

•  7. Prior to the launch of my website, my above - legitimate - 8 complaints (Notes # 3 , # 5 and # 6), as well as other complaints, had cost me over 1,400 hours of my life i.e. nearly A WHOLE YEAR OF MY LIFE, as well as £00s in costs - ALL DOWN THE DRAIN! Enough was enough. I decided to launch my website.

•  8. I made the MONUMENTAL MISTAKE of believing the State's 'Ministry of Truth's propaganda (linked to 'GIGANTIC CON', above).

•  9. For many years the media, as well as other parties, have consistently highlighted the feudal nature of the leasehold system, the appalling abuses, including daylight robbery, as well as the terrible misery it causes to leaseholders; but, successive governments of all colours have refused repeatedly to take action - because under the thumb of the large landowners...

•  10. Dedication

•  11. At the very least...

 

NOTE 1 - Ownership of Jefferson House

Andrew Ladsky et.al. took over the headlease in 1996, and the freehold in 1997. By the following year, the scam was put in motion - as evidenced by the fact that the 1st planning application to build a penthouse apartment was filed on 18.09.98 (planning applications).

There are several offshore (BVI # 2) companies (= paper companies, fronted by "sham directors") associated with the ownership of Jefferson House (Headlessor # 7). They 'appear' (there are frequent changes) to be domiciled in a variety of offshore jurisdictions: British Virgin Islands (reputed for its "secrecy"), Panama, Gibraltar, ('previously' Jersey), and, it would 'appear' (in 2010), the addition of the Bahamas (or is it just a location where Ladsky is enjoying the fruit of his fraud?).

Hence, (British-connected) jurisdictions that allow owners to hide their identity - making a mockery of leasehold legislation. However, it is clear that the key driver of activities is Andrew Ladsky (Advisors to Jefferson House ; Headlessors # 7) (described in e.g., the Sunday Times of 9 Oct 05 as "a millionaire property developer ") (website printscreen). The article refers to events in the 1990s - it 'seems' pre the TSB Bank Court of Appeal case (extracts) in which the bank demanded repayment of £3m advances) (CKFT- Intro)). Indications that there are others hiding behind him - see Directorships.

Being 'paper' companies, they are manipulated in monopoly board game style (Headlessors, incl. # 7 ; Freehold) and, combined with the TOTAL LACK of regulation of the residential leasehold sector - result in my not knowing, at any one point in time, who controls my home - as detailed under e.g. header 5 of my 03.06.08 Wit.Stat, paras 39-62 - and covered under Headlessors ; Freehold ownership ; Owners Identity ; Directorships.

(From my contacts with leaseholders in other blocks: a common situation under this archaic, feudal system) (New Labour, pre 1997 election 'An End to Feudalism'; press articles ; 'Who owns Britain?' ; the 'Great Estates' ; examples of new entrants).

 

NOTE 2 - The complicity, conniving and collusion by 'my advisors', Piper Smith Basham(Watton) and Stan Gallagher, at the time of the 21.10.03 'PART 36 offer' (above)

(NB: For additional events surrounding the 21.10.03 'offer' - which provide further evidence of complicity, collusion and conniving between 'my advisors' and the Ladsky racketeers, see my 13.11.03 Comments to Gallagher's 'draft Consent Order and Notice of Acceptance'. See also snapshots under: Bar Council Code of Conduct ; Malicious Communications Act 1988: Richard Twyman & Lisa McLean, Piper Smith Basham(Watton) and Stan Gallagher ; my 19 Oct 03 Witness Statement # 1).

As evidenced (for the main part) by Lisa McLean's attendance note of 28.10.03, it was agreed during the meeting with Stan Gallagher that the reply to the 21.10.03 'PART 36 offer' would state:

1. "that we were not happy that the specifications remain unchanged and the LVT had commented on the same fact, there had been no re -tendering of any sort, the matter had stayed with the same contractor etc etc..."

Following my 05.04.04 complaint against Gallagher to the Bar Council, his reply ((para.58, 09.06.04) was: "The acceptance letter did not include a reference to the inadequate specifications of the major works...there was no need to get into a criticism of the inadequate way in which the works had been specified or tendered"

2. "this payment was in full and final settlement of the current major works."

In reply to my complaint, Gallagher wrote (para.29(7)(ii), 09.06.04) that what had been agreed was "To tweak the offer by stipulating that it was in full and final settlement of NKDR's share of the totality of the costs of the major works"

As can be seen from what he wrote in the 13.11.03 'draft Consent Order': "the Defendant pay the Claimant the sum of £6,513.24, inclusive of interest, to be paid in 28 days in full and final settlement of the Defendant=s liabilities under this claim and in respect of the major works at Jefferson House to which this claim relates" - it most definitely did NOT meet what had been agreed.

In fact: (1) accepting to pay interest was an admission that I had owed the sum demanded - which was NOT true (*) ; (2) "under this claim" and "to which this claim relates" - left the door wide open to Ladsky to come back and ask me for more money.

(*) The Ladsky mafia tried to repeat this with the 2007 claim - this time using another sick flunkey (Portner # 14)

The fact it had been agreed that I would NOT pay the interest demanded (£143) (US$250) in the 21.10.03 'PART 36 offer' is captured in my 07.11.03 letter to Richard Twyman, and my 13.11.03 faxed Comments to Twyman and Gallagher. As I wrote in e.g. my 26.11.03 letter to McLean, an offline agreement had been reached - and I was not party to it.

In reply to my complaint, Gallagher (para.52, 09.06.04) and Piper Smith Basham (25.08.04) argued that, "In order to reach a settlement with the claimant it was better to agree to pay the interest . What a mafia! (As I pointed out in my replies, when I took back control of my case (My Diary Dec 03), I refused to pay the interest: my 19.12.03 Notice of Acceptance - and it was not challenged).

Under para.78 of his 09.06.04 reply, Stan Gallagher claimed: "the strategy that I advised on worked: the tweaked offer was accepted". Obviously Ladsky was very keen to have this Consent Order endorsed by the court - as evidenced by Ayesha Salim's 19.11.03 letter to Piper Smith Basham "...endorse the draft Consent Order. We shall then submit it to the Court."  

As I wrote under para.52 of my 25.03.05 reply: " There was no 'tweaking' - as he just said 'amen' to everything. Of course his reply was received with open arms "

 

At the time of the 'offer', I was placed under an unbelievable amount of pressure to go along with what 'my advisers' had decided. (See My Diary from 4 Nov 03 to the end of the year). (It was a continuation of what had been happening during the 28 Oct 03 meeting: PSB # 6.1 , # 7.6 , # 7.7 , # 7.8 , # 7.9 ; Gallagher).

(OF NOTE: from the time I appointed Piper Smith Basham, it had very clearly decided that it would coerce me into 'striking a deal' - see below).

Great emphasis was placed on the threat of "[my] being liable for costs if the matter proceeded to trial".

In my instructions of 07.11.03, I stated that 'Steel Services' should pay for my costs (a view endorsed by another solicitor I saw after the 28 Oct 03 meeting). Gallagher's opinions:

12.11.03-17h09 e-mail: "I can only repeat my advice and that of Ms McLean that that if this offer is not accepted and the matter proceeds to trial it is virtually certain that the claimant will beat it and Ms Rawé will be ordered to pay the Claimant's costs".

In his initial 09.06.04 reply to my 05.04.04 complaint, Gallagher most vehemently re-asserted this position e.g.

•  Para.66 - "it was unrealistic for NKDR to seek an order for costs in her favour: each party paying their own costs (to the date of the offer) was as good an order on costs as NKDR could possibly get"

•  Para.67 - "The balance of risks on costs was not finely balanced, it was all against NKDR and my advice reflected that"

•  Para.63(1) - "[I] was virtually certain to lose if the claim went to trial and costs would be awarded against her and certainly would not be awarded in her favour"

•  Para.49 - "[he] and Ms McLean saw the offer, with its terms that each party pays its own costs as offering something of a life-line that NKDR would be ill advised not to accept"

•  Para.49 - "Having reconsidered this conclusion for the purpose of preparing this response, I do not resile from in any way"

Should I stubbornly persist with my position, going against 'my advisors' recommendation, I would be made to repent / learn my lesson:

•  Para.66 - "in the likely event that the defence fails, render a final bill for the costs of the litigation and remind the client that the disastrous outcome was in accordance with the original advice given"

Reason? Para.29(5), 09.06.04 - "[Stan Gallagher] did not view that there was a technical defence of merit to the claim" - because:

"[I] had refused opportunities to strike a deal"

•  Para.66, 09.06.04 - "consider the fact that NKDR had not accepted previous invitations to attend discussions on settlement in the light of the LVT determination" ; and, para.15 - "[I] expressly rejected CKFT's offers of a round table." (NB: Appropriately described as a salvo of malicious communications)

"[I] had only made a part payment" / "not paid anything"

•  12.11.03-17h09 e-mail: "[I] had only paid £2,255 [US$4,000]: "it must be accepted that she is on risk for C's costs at least down to this figure at trial"

•  Para.8, 11.10.04: "However, significant service charges remained payable and no payment into court or other offers to settle had been made by Ms Rawé. Hence my analysis that Ms Rawé was vulnerable on costs"

"Summary judgment had been entered on part of the claim"

•  Para.66, 09.06.04 - "summary judgement had already been entered on part of the claim" . (Note that the 06.08.03 Application from Ayesha Salim, CKFT, was for £10,917+ (US$19,250+), and that she accepted £2,255 (US$4,000). For what actually happened, see: WLCC # 11 ; CKFT # 6.6).

In other words, from the above: Stan Gallagher held against me the fact that:

•  I had obeyed - for as long as I could - the instructions given to me by a tribunal to NOT pay - UNTIL it had issued its determination, and it had consequently been implemented i.e. reflected in the demand (# 3 above ; LVT # 1.4 , # 1.5).

•  I have moral principles and integrity that prevented me from striking a deal on terms other than those specified in my Lease - and as per my statutory rights. As I captured e.g. (i) under para.13 of my 31.10.04 reply:  

"As I had been told by the LVT, I waited for Steel Services to fully implement the LVT determination - and then send me a revised priced specification and an invoice.

This is all I wanted: to pay my 1.956% share of what residents are truly liable for - and in a manner compliant with the terms of my lease.

I did not want 'an offer'. This is not the basis on which the service charges operate, doing a deal with one resident, another deal with another, and so on"

(ii) in my 09.08.03 letter to District Judge Wright, WLCC, cc'd CKFT (WLCC # 10)

"There are no side deals to be made with the Claimant: the nature of the works and their associated costs must be totally clear and transparent - to ALL lessees. In their letter of 24 July 2003, CKFT again offer "a round-table meeting" to resolve matters.

There is nothing to discuss. There are no side deals to be made with the Claimant.

Works that are truly required - and can be charged to the lessees under the terms of the lease must be: totally clear and transparent to all , and the costs equally clear and transparent - also to all .

What each lessee is required to pay is clearly defined by means of a fixed percentage (see the attached list of percentage for each of the 35 flats supplied by SSL-MRJ in their 7 August 2002 application to the LVT."

Consider as well that under para.23 of his 09.06.04 reply, Stan Gallagher had taken pains to highlight that he was writing a book on litigation in the LVT. In other words, aiming to communicate that he was 'an authority' on this matter. (He was indeed writing a book, ' Leasehold Valuation Tribunals: A Practical Guide' which states that it " Sets out all the powers, responsibilities and jurisdiction of the LVT ". While I have not read it, it suggests that he ought to have known "the jurisdiction of the LVTs" ).

False claim about what my surveyor had said

•  In his 12.11.03-17h09 e-mail, Gallagher maintained that my surveyor had "demonstrated" - which, under para.66 of his 09.06.04 reply, he then changed to "had said that the offer could not be bettered". I was able to demonstrate (with evidence in support e.g. paras 50 and 51 of my 05.04.04 complaint) that it was impossible for him to have said this and ended-up contacting my surveyor who concurred with me.

Claim that "the LVT report was a mixed bag"

•  Claim made under para.21 of his 09.06.04 reply.

From my challenging his comment, under para.8 of his 11.10.04 reply, he wrote:"I accept that the outcome was a significant reduction in the amount due from the tenants" and, under para.4(1): "At the time I did not consider that the course of the proceedings before the LVT was likely to carry much, if any, weight on the question of costs in the county court proceedings."

In my 25.03.05 reply, para.38, I stated: "At the time". I read this as an admission that Mr Gallagher had not acknowledged the evidence supplied to him. (Which is obvious). I draw your attention to the Bar Council Code of Conduct "303 (a) and (b) and 5. Conduct of work - 5.2."

"[The landlord] had produced inadequate specifications of the work" - but had 'nonetheless' "substantially complied with the consultation procedure"

•  Para.58, 09.06.04 - "[Gallagher's 13.11.03 draft] acceptance letter did not include a reference to the inadequate specifications of the major works." (See e.g. Brian Gale # 5 and # 6 for the extent of the "inadequacy')

•  Para.3(2), 11.10.04 - "[Having] briefly considered whether there may have been an arguable breach of the statutory consultation procedure for "service chargeable" works under section 20 of the Landlord & Tenant Act 1985", Gallagher "concluded that the landlord had substantially complied with the statutory consultation procedure"

This reply was an attempt to 'recover' from his 9 Jun 04 'mistake' (triggered by my subsequent reply of 29.08.04). Of course the consultation procedure had been breached, as the purpose of section 20 is to allow leaseholders to seek alternative quotes. How could this be done with Brian Gale's specifications?

(Stan Gallagher's rather unique interpretation of s.20 requirements can also be seen in this 2005 Lands Tribunal case - which is very similar to mine - and adds support to my view) (website printscreen)

The above finally led to an admission from Stan Gallagher that I could be not have been made liable for costs - while maintaining that I would not have been able to claim mine back

Para.6, 11.10.04 - "I accept that it is possible that given the level of the sums disallowed by the LVT and the criticisms that could be made about the landlord's conduct, a court may have been persuaded to make no order for costs." [NB: Compare this with his above scare tactics at the time of the reply]

"However, my assessment was that there was no realistic chance that the landlord would be ordered to pay any of Ms Rawé 's costs: particularly as Ms Rawé had rejected the previous offer of a round table discussion". [NB: discussed above]

"In these circumstances I remain of the opinion that the landlord's offer of a compromise on terms that there be no order for costs was a life-line for Ms Rawé" [UNBELIEVABLE!]

Stan Gallagher also endorsed another breach of my rights under my Lease, as well as statute

In my 09.10.03 letter to Joan Hathaway, then MRICS, of the then MRJ, I asked for "a long overdue copy of the 2002 accounts". As, 1 month later, I had NOT been supplied with the 'accounts', in my 07.11.03 instructions to Richard Twyman, Piper Smith Basham(Watton), I reported doing this, confirming my demand - "as per the terms of my Lease".

Gallagher's reply, in his 12.11.03-17h09 e-mail, was: "Similarly, adding conditions for the disclosure of the accounts... can only complicate matters further and jeopardise the prospects of compromising the claim on realistic terms" UNBELIEVABLE!

The only reference made to the terms of my Lease, by Gallagher, in his '13.11.03 draft Notice of Acceptance', was: "The absence of due compliance with the service charge certification provisions prescribed by the lease".

Under para.55 of his 09.06.04 reply, Gallagher wrote: "the more vaguely this argument is presented, the better" My reply, para.123, 29.08.04, was: "For whom?"

(NOTE that Joan Hathaway, MRICS, and CKFT = Ladsky kept ignoring my repeated demands: 19.12.03 , 19.05.04 , 18.07.04 (my identical Comments are attached to these documents) - leading me to seek the assistance of Kensington & Chelsea housing. It sent Hathaway a 25.06.04 s.21 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 Notice, stating: "Section 25 makes it a summary criminal offence to fail to comply with the requirements of Section 21 or Section 22 without reasonable excuse". (K&C # 1 , # 2) (Contrast that with Gallagher's above claims)

Failure to follow-up on its threat, led me into a long drawn out battle with this department, followed by another battle with its 'regulator', the Local Government Ombudsman - from which I finally obtained a - partial - copy of the 2002 'accounts', as well as 2003 'accounts' - in Feb 05: 09.02.05 letter (i.e. 3 years later). (See my identical Comments attached to the 'accounts' e.g. 2002).

The missing parts came 18 months later, from the ICAEW with its 29.08.06 letter 'in response' to my 19.07.05 complaint against the accountants, Pridie Brewster. The reason for ignoring repeatedly my demands, and then supplying me with only parts of the 'accounts'- became obvious: many of my fellow leaseholders had been made to pay monies that were NOT due and payable: above ; Theft Act: s.16 Obtaining pecuniary advantage by deception ; s.17 False accounting.

Under para.136 of my 29.08.04 reply, I asked: "Was Mr Gallagher acting for me or the other side?" to which he, 'of course', took objection: para.9, 11.10.04 "If para 75 of the response implies anything improper on my part, I strongly deny the implication"

(I did NOT pay Stan Gallagher's fees. Having raised this in his initial reply to my complaint, he did not follow it up).

Back to Notes list / Sections list

 

NOTE 3 - Principally for defence purposes, in 2004, I filed a complaint against the lawyers: Piper Smith Basham, Stan Gallagher and Cawdery Kaye Fireman Taylor (CKFT) - which, in typical English 'self-regulatory' sector style, were rejected.

In 2004, I filed the complaints, because:

While I had several documents to produce in evidence, least of all the fact that in her 24.11.03 letter Lisa McLean had asked me to confirm that "the consent order may be signed" (My 19 Oct 03 Wit.Stat. # 1), I thought that filing a complaint would be another key element in my line of defence.

In EACH INSTANCE, I ended-up battling with their so-called 'regulator': Law Society or Bar Council, and then with the 'regulator' of the 'regulators': Legal Services Ombudsman ; see e.g. Note 8, below, for my complaints.

In typical English 'self-regulatory' sector style, ALL my - legitimate - complaints were rejected:

Piper Smith Basham - see snapshots under: Lawyers home ; Overview of my complaints: Law Society ; Legal Services Ombudsman. Costs to me: c. 200 hours of my life down the drain, as well as many costs.

Stan Gallagher - see snapshots under: Lawyers home ; Overview of my complaints: Bar Council ; Legal Services Ombudsman. Costs to me: over 250 hours of my life down the drain, as well as many costs.

Cawdery Kaye Fireman Taylor (CKFT) (Summaries: Events ; Breaches of the law) - see snapshots under: Lawyers home ; Overview of my complaints: Law Society ; Legal Services Ombudsman. Cost to me: c. 200 hours of my life down the drain, as well as many costs.

Hence: over 650 hours of my life + several £00s in costs and: NO REDRESS.

(NB: In 2007, I had a repeat of the experience with the Law Society, re. my complaint against Portner and Jaskel - see snapshots under: Lawyers home ; Overview of my complaints)

HOORAY FOR 'SELF-REGULATION' - in the worse than Wild West environment of sick "BENT BRITAIN", in which 'the Establishment' ACTS ONE with 'certain criminals'.

Back to Notes list / Sections list

 

NOTE 4 - My conclusions on what happened with the lawyers in 2002-04, (preceded by the surveyors) and, concurrently, with the tribunal and the court - is that I was a square peg that would not fit into a round hole - in spite of the FEAR tactics - causing immense fury among the totally unregulated, ego-crazed, power-corrupted, amoral, extremely arrogant mafia - and their overall Master: Andrew Ladsky (and continuing to do so to this day).

My conclusions on what happened to me with the lawyers, (preceded by the surveyors) and, concurrently, with the tribunal and the court (e.g. above: # 1 to # 3 ; Note # 2) are two-folds:

(1) I refused to be manipulated into the residential leasehold sector's standard off-the-shelf formula of - 'striking a deal' - that relies on beating leaseholders 'like me' into submission - by using the extremely vicious, sadistic ploy of placing them in a permanent state of FEAR - from lack of knowledge of their rights (Business model # 1).

FEAR of: losing their home through forfeiture / being unable to sell it ; being liable for large costs ; 'the authorities', including ending-up in court ; affecting their credit rating, their employment prospects ; retaliation, etc.

My website abounds with examples of this - see e.g. breach:

See also: My fellow leaseholders: LVT # 1.4 ; Elderly Resident ; Other fellow leaseholders ; Comments # 13 , # 6 , # 15 , # 17 , # 19 ; Press articles.

FEAR and other forms of criminal psychological harassment is what keeps the residential leasehold system firmly in place - and growing (Business model # 29 , # 30)

(2) Breathtaking arrogance and abuse of power from those who inflict the FEAR regime on leaseholders, who, because, like the residential leasehold sector, are TOTALLY, and DELIBERATELY unregulated - therefore conclude that they have the 'divine right' to do exactly as they please - without fear of sanction i.e. as being 'above the law of the land'.

As detailed above, under the Overview, the ultimate objective of 'striking a deal', starts-off by threatening legal proceedings, followed by the threat of "forfeiture" (# 1), and can also include, for 'good measure', the threat of "bankruptcy" (# 10). Unsurprisingly, faced with these horrendous threats, some leaseholders 'cave in' by that stage e.g. 20.10.02 e-mail from one of my fellow leaseholders to the then London LVT (LVT # 1.4).

If this does not achieve the objective, the pressure is escalated by filing a claim in court - with, generally, no intention of seeing it through (# 3 , # 11) - as the aim is to bully and coerce leaseholders into paying the sum demanded. It works as more leaseholders 'cave in' (# 11). The remaining, more 'stubborn' leaseholders are faced with a succession of hearings (granted with much haste by the courts). Of course, more hearings = more costs = more pressure to cave in and 'strike a deal'.

The 'oddball' like me who is not represented and refuses to strike a deal causes a problem. So, more of the 'artillery' is brought out 'to snare the prey': a salvo of threatening, malicious letters brandishing the favourite weapon, the threat of "costs" is fired in parallel with the court hearings.

The prospects take an unexpected turn for the better when, as in my case, the 'oddball' decides to appoint a solicitor - being forced to do this as a result of being treated, like a piece of dirt, a non-entity by the court (WLCC # 11) = a double act!. As the threatening letters and the 'hearings' (e.g. WLCC # 7 , # 8 , # 9 , # 11) have not so far yielded the desired effect, the push into making 'a deal' is immediately set in motion - as can be seen in the following.

In my 09.08.03 letter to District Judge Wright, West London County Court, I wrote:

"The LVT has made a determination on the reasonableness of the service charge for the block - as a whole - not just for myself" [NB: But did not capture it: # 2, above]

There are no side deals to be made with the Claimant: the nature of the works and their associated costs must be totally clear and transparent - to ALL lessees.

Nowhere does the lease state that the share of the service charges payable by individual lessees is dependent on their amount of 'backbone' and courage to challenge a demand for money they do not owe.

Their resistance to prolonged harassment and intimidation.

What each lessee is required to pay is clearly defined by means of a fixed percentage (see the attached list of percentage for each of the 35 flats supplied by SSL-MRJ in their 7 August 2002 application to the LVT)."

At the time of appointing Piper Smith Basham(Watton), in my 21.08.03 letter to Lisa McLean, I reiterated what I had written to West London County Court on 09.08.03: I was NOT prepared to strike a deal. Among other, I wrote:

This would be a very unwise move as it would allow them to get away with the need to redraw the specification, thereby leaving me exposed to further demands at a later stage which, I can guarantee, would be made (letters from MRJ of 26 March 2002 and 15 July 2002 ).

By forcing them to do this, it will put a line under the costs i.e. they will not have any comeback and, if they do come back, I will be in a much better position to challenge them.

Last but not least, I am also hoping that by doing this they will give up on the block as I am taking away their opportunity to illegally charge works to the residents" (NB: How very naïve of me!)

Barely a week after the 26 Aug 03 'hearing', Lisa McLean wrote me, in her 04.09.03 letter:

"Incidentally [NB !!!], I took a call from CKFT today and, in view of the costs being incurred by both sides they asked whether we would be amenable to any deals (NB !!!)

I said that I had noted that you had previously refused to deal with them but in the event that they wished to make an offer [NB !!!]I was, as they well know, obliged to put it to you [NB !!!]They intimated that they will make a Part 36 offer (NB !!!)

The relevance of this is that if they make an offer which is rejected and, following trial the judge makes a determination that is no better than the offer that they had made then you will have to pay their costs from the time the part 36 offer had been made up until the trial" (NB: Note the threat)

I replied on 09.12.03: "I maintain what I said: the situation is the result of Steel Services/Mr Ladsky and MRJ's doing - not mine (nor indeed that of the other residents)...my position has remained unchanged:   'No' as this does not achieve my objectives "

If the leaseholder does not yield to the admonition of 'making a commercial decision': "Com'on, look at what you have spent so far. It's nearly as much as they are asking you to pay. Best you settle Dear, make a commercial decision. Pay the landlord. Accept the 'offer'", the leaseholder is blamed for being 'unreasonable' and, by implication, for being 'the cause' of the mounting costs.

Examples (in addition to McLean's comment above): Stan Gallagher (para.5, 11.10.04) "...the costs of the county court proceedings were likely to be out of all proportion with the sum in issue." ; under para.4(8):

"On the landlord's motives in making an offer to settle it may have been that the landlord too recognised that a trial would be disproportionately expensive" (NB: !!!)  

(My reply to this (para.60, 29.08.04) "Mr Ladsky et al. i.e. Steel Services should have thought of 'the costs' before they attempted to defraud me of £10,000 (US$17,600). I note with interest Mr Gallagher turning the table on me and his tendency to side with Steel Services, MRJ, CKFT and Piper Smith & Basham" )

From liaising with Piper Smith Basham, CKFT and its client realised that I was prepared to go to trial over this action: I had written a Witness Statement (in spite of not getting any help from 'my advisors') and was appointing a barrister. It is my belief that this triggered the 21.10.03 'PART 36 offer'.

My assessment of the key benefit to the legal 'advisor' of implementing this 'standard, off-the-shelf' approach: no need to spend time reading, understanding, assessing and consequently taking into consideration material evidence (Lease, report by tribunal, defence to the claim, exchange of communication between the parties, etc.)

(Numerous supporting examples are captured, above, Note 2, in relation to Stan Gallagher and Lisa McLean, including in my Comments to his 13.11.03 'draft notice of acceptance and consent order'). (More can be found under Piper Smith Basham and Stan Gallagher).

The other key 'benefit' is that there is no need to criticise the 'dear' landlord and his aides ('especially of the type I am facing' who, 'of course', 'must not be upset') e.g. Stan Gallagher, para.58, 09 06.04: "The acceptance letter did not include a reference to the inadequate specifications of the major works. there was no need to get into a criticism of the inadequate way in which the works had been specified or tendered ".

(NB: Other reason for the sector's lawyers 'not antagonizing' the 'sacrosanct' landlords: they are their bread and butter (e.g. £400,000 (US$705,000) lawyer fees in one case). And, as evidenced by my experience (Case summary), and that reported by others in media reports, on other websites (below) - in this totally unregulated, bottomless cesspit of interconnecting caves of corruption: there are a LOT of disputes, representing a LOT of money). (I cite the list of cases on the databases of the First-tier and Upper Tribunal, as supporting evidence).

Consequently, no 'embarrassing' evidence is recorded, leaving rogue landlord and his equally rogue aides coming out 'smelling of roses' (and with their coffers being substantially fuller than they should be).

And, by not proceeding to trial, no embarrassing official evidence ends up in the public domain - as demonstrated by the outcome of, so far, 2 claims against me (# 3 and # 11, above) - and by the 06.08.03 Application for Summary Judgment against me from Ayesha Salim, CKFT (CKFT # 6.6) - added to my experience with my 19 Apr 11 Claim (above).

A consideration that is even more important when the defendant has, like me, an overwhelming body of evidence against the landlord and his aides.

Instead, phone calls are exchanged with the other side and a few letters written to justify the several £000s fees.

It is likely that a very high proportion of these 'scams' (swindles) is resolved by 'striking a deal' in one form or another. I view the Business model used by rogue landlords and their aides as relying very heavily on the fact that, for the majority of people, their home is the sum total of their financial wealth.

Hence, they prefer giving in and move on (including spare themselves more rides on the 'merry-go-round') rather than risk being unable to sell their property.

EVERY SINGLE TIME this happens,

THE MONSTER GETS BIGGER AND BIGGER : 'it worked last time, so, 'of course' it will work next time!'

More often than not, the 'next time' will be the next unsuspecting leaseholder who purchased the lease on the apartment, as the previous owner paid the unwarranted demand for the sake of escaping with great haste. ('Handing on the baton' as some leaseholders told me 'I should be doing'. Then, I guess that to quash potential feelings of self-loathing, you then take the 'I made the commercial decision pill' so freely handed out by legal 'advisors' to make you feel better).

And the cycle repeats itself, every time yielding very considerable financial gains for all concerned - at the expense of the leaseholder.

(However, the impact of the recession is forcing leaseholders to 'come out', as they find it increasingly more difficult to "hand on the baton" e.g. The Observer article of 5 Apr 09 "Flat owners left flat broke as service charges shoot through the roof").

I was not prepared to 'shut-up' and pay monies I did NOT owe.

  • I wanted to comply with the instructions given to me by a tribunal to NOT PAY - until it had issued its report and the findings had been implemented i.e. reflected in the demand.
  • I wanted legal advisors to provide me with what I believed I had paid for: proper, unbiased, informed professional legal advice i.e. advice driven by the concept of 'fairness and justice'.

So, the machinery was cranked up to full gear by the totally unregulated, extremely arrogant, ego-crazed, power-corrupted, morally depraved hunters: I would be made to strike 'a deal' and I, 'the Prole', 'the nobody' of limited financial means with no influential connections, would be made to pay for 'daring' to challenge them, 'the system' / business model by refusing to be 'snared by them'.

(NB: I contend that what took place in relation to the 2007 (fraudulent) claim: above, # 11, adds additional support to my above conclusions).

Back to Notes list / Sections list

NOTE 5 - My 02.02.05 complaint to the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) against the then Martin Russell Jones (MRJ) was also rejected.

(NB: Note the 'Royal' endorsement)

As can be seen from the page on the then Martin Russell Jones (MRJ) (snapshots under: Advisors to Jefferson House ; Extortion), my experience (and that of my fellow leaseholders) with this RICS "regulated" firm of 'managing' agents, in particular with Joan Hathaway, MRICS, but also with Barrie Martin, FRICS, from the time they took over the 'management' of Jefferson House, in 1989 (MRJ Intro ; Directorships # 1.4), defies the imagination.

What triggered my 02.02.05 complaint (summary) (supported by 220 documents) (brief snapshot Overview of my complaint) against them were the fraudulent invoices of 24.05.04 , 21.10.04 and 16.11.04 (# 6, above) (my (identical) Comments are attached to these invoices) - combined with the fact that it actively supported its client, Andrew Ladsky, in his tactic of "turning intimidatory litigation into an industry". (above: # 1 ; MRJ # 21 to # 26)

Many people had warned me that, complaining against the then MRJ to the RICS, would be a complete waste of time and money. They proved to be right.

To avoid any potential confusion as to what I was referring to, I structured my 02.02.05 summary by referring to sections in the RICS' 'Service Charge Residential Management Code', and in its 'code of conduct' (I bought at its office) - as it turned out: IN VAIN!

The 01.03.05 initial reply:

  • "we are able to investigate allegations of professional misconduct to determine whether there is evidence of a breach of the Institution's Rules of conduct which chartered surveyors are required to follow".
  • "the appropriate forum" for parts of my complaint were "through civil or criminal proceedings" (*)
  • claimed to "[have] no power to award any compensation and cannot compel a chartered surveyor to do so or indeed to refund any fees paid" .

(*) It would have amounted to another massive waste of my time and money - see police # 7

In my 05.03.05 reply, I challenged the RICS' response, highlighting the 'Core Values and Principles' comprised in the RICS' 'code of conduct', I considered to have been breached by the then Martin Russell Jones. Hence, to quote the RICS: ". breach of the Institution's Rules of conduct which chartered surveyors are required to follow" .  

As more than 3 months had gone by since I filed my complaint, after 2 chaser letters (18.04.05 and 05.05.05), I sent a 17.05.05 letter in which I stated my conclusions that: (1) the RICS evidently approved of the conduct of Joan Hathaway and Barrie Martin; (2) all the other RICS members who had been involved in my case were evidently "all in the wrong".

Determined to have fun with me, in its 13.05.05 letter, the RICS asked me to supply "a summary", to which I replied in my 02.06.05 letter that I had already done this (02.02.05).

In its 10.06.05 reply, the RICS threw back at me various parts of my complaint, stating, among other:

  • "the ' Service Charge Residential Management Code' is not mandatory ...is classified as a Guidance Note...an RICS member is not per se in breach of RICS requirements if he does not comply with its recommendations"
  • "The Management Code was approved by the Secretaries of State. . I believe this could be an explanation as to why the Code does not have the status of being a practice statement as the Secretaries approved it. It is therefore outside the control of the RICS"

Hence, it is called 'a code' - but it is "not a code". For what purpose has it been "approved by the Secretaries of State" ? Decoration of the mantle piece?

Contrast this reply with the above initial reply of 01.03.05: "Members who depart from [the code] should be able to justify their reasons for doing so".

Continuing on its nonsensical journey, the RICS stated: " [the (then)] LVT can take the code into consideration when considering allegations that a member has not followed the recommendations of the code" , and that "the RICS will consider whether such criticism constitutes a breach of RICS regulations"

Hence, while the code is 'apparently' "not mandatory": (1) the LVT can base its determination on it and (2) the RICS will then "consider whether there is a breach ".  If the code is "not mandatory", how can there be a breach?

While this reply was a farce, more was yet to come. Indeed, to its 03.08.05 letter, the RICS attached a 27 July 05 reply it had received from the then Martin Russell Jones, following contacting it - and asked me to reply to it - without providing me with a copy of the letter the RICS had sent MRJ.

For a while, I debated whether I should waste, yet more of my time, replying to his 03.08.05 letter. Eventually, I opted to do this on 14.10.05.

My comments in my 14.10.05 letter

RICS' 04.11.05 'reply'

"You do not enclose a copy of your letter to MRJ. Yet, you expect me to "review the reply...and give [you] [my] comments. In your 1 March 2005 reply you wrote that you "will be approaching the members named for their comments on three specific matters and one general one". What points did you raise that led to the 25 July 2005 reply from MRJ?"

"I am dismayed to learn that it took you ten weeks to inform me that I had not included a copy of the MRJ's reply."

(Note what I wrote: "You did not enclose a copy of your letter to MRJ". That's a typical English 'regulator' tactic: when you are wrong / have not got a leg to stand on: attack to shift the focus away. In addition to blatantly ignoring the content of my letter: the caseworker knew damn well that he had not done it - because done deliberately).

Re. my re-emphasising some of the key points in my complaint (after which I had stated the documentary evidence I had already supplied to the RICS / the reference number in my complaint under which I had provided detail)

"I am quite dismayed by your letter as it appears that you have not taken on board any of the information I clarified to you in my letter of 10 June 2005.

I will not entertain any correspondence that brings new matters into the frame.

I am of the opinion that there is an insufficient weight of evidence to place this matter before an RICS disciplinary committee currently.

Should you be unable to provide corroborative evidence of a breach of the rules, I will have no option other than to close the matter"

ABSOLUTELY UNBELIEVABLE!

Contrast the RICS' 'reply' to my complaint, with a 17.05.05 disciplinary case, as well as another one featured on the RICS website in 2005, for which, for example, non-provision of an insurance certificate within 6 months of being requested was, 'apparently', on its own, ground for expulsion from the RICS membership. Believe that?

I concluded that this 04.11.05 letter did not warrant a reply = ANOTHER WIN FOR THE ROYAL INSTITUTION OF CHARTERED SURVEYORS - to be added to the other 'Proles' / "Oiks" / "Great Unwashed" like me who, likewise, give up fighting. (See Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors for further detail).

This battle added another lot of 200+ hours of my life 'down the drain' - as well as a significant amount of money.

As the then Martin Russell Jones had, very clearly, the full blessings of its trade association, the RICS, to behave as it did, it, of course, continued on its merry way (e.g. # 11, above). Hence, it is also no surprise to see that MRJ also repeated its 'winning formula' in other blocks: RICS # 8.

Of course, in 2010-11 (RICS 2010-11), the RICS repeated its 'performance' in relation to my sending it a 16.12.10 letter in which I suggested an 'RICS Surveyor of the Year Award' for Joan Hathaway, MRICS' - supporting it with the fact that it was continuing to send me fraudulent upon fraudulent demands, while ignoring ALL my correspondence (Martyn Gerrard -Background).

HOORAY FOR 'SELF-REGULATION' - in the worse than Wild West environment of sick "BENT BRITAIN", in which 'the Establishment' ACTS ONE with 'certain criminals'.

Snapshot of some of MRJ's correspondence, and of concurrent correspondence / documents from others in its gang, including from its puppet master, Andrew David Ladsky: TRANSFERED TO 'MAJOR WORKS - NOTE'.

While the RICS attempted to 'muzzle me' in 2008 (RICS 2008) from exposing its true method of operating, it cannot go against the tide e.g.

The failures of the RICS 'self-regulatory processes' were exposed in a 2005-07 report by Professor Sir Bryan Carsberg who found - to his "surprise" that:

"RICS does not, as a matter of course, take action against [its] members' serious professional incompetence"  

As further confirmed by CentreForum in its Aug 12 report (below):

"...leasehold managing agents operate without any form of regulation"

As to perceptions from within the sector, the MD of a firm of managing agents was reported in the 10 Jun 06 issue of the Estates Gazette (a major publication in the sector) as saying:

"It will take an almighty shake-up to clean up the sector and improve standards"

As the then Martin Russell Jones was also an estate agent (its website (in 2004) stated " Members of. the NAEA (National Association of Estate Agents)" , I also approached the Office of the Ombudsman for Estate Agents by copying it on the complaint I had sent to the RICS.

In its 19.05.05 reply it rejected my complaint because "...according to our records, Martin Russell Jones is not a member and your complaint is, therefore, outside the Ombudsman's terms of reference"   = another pointless scheme as those likely to be found at fault are obviously not going to join. As with everything else, you discover it the minute you start 'scratching the surface'.

Back to Notes list / Sections list

 

NOTE 6 - My complaint to the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales (ICAEW) against Pridie Brewster was, likewise, rejected.

Typically, I also had a drawn-out battle with the ICAEW in relation to the year-end 'accounts' produced by Pridie Brewster for Jefferson House. (Brief snapshot: Overview of my complaint)

Pridie Brewster had signed-off the 2002 and 2003 'accounts' for Jefferson House, stating "...the attached schedule of costs, expenses and outgoings is sufficiently supported by receipts and other documents". It was clearly not true - given the London tribunal findings (# 2, above), and the terms of the Lease. (See also my identical Comments attached to the 'accounts' e.g. 2002)

I copied Pridie Brewster on my 30.03.05 letter to Joan Hathaway, then MRICS, of the then MRJ, in which I raised the issue, as well as the fact that, due to non-compliance with consultation procedures, the maximum that would be demanded of EACH apartment was £250 (US$440) (in the process referring to my Lease, as well as legislation). It led Roger Clement, Pridie Brewster, to reply on 15.04.05 : "...we were not made aware of the LVT determination of 17 June 2003 at the time that we were preparing our certificate... I will be unable to consider all the matters raised by you in relation to the determination and to the provisions of your Lease in time to provide a full reply before the deadline..."

Aiming to help as best as I could, on 17.04.05, I replied to Pridie Brewster, supplying copy of 48 documents (PB # 3). The lack of response led me, after 3 months, to contact the ICAEW on 19.07.05, requesting its assistance. It was the start of - yet again - another battle with an English so-called 'self-regulatory' body - and a carbon copy repeat of my experience with ALL the others: 'fortress ICAEW' immediately embarked on an adversarial tone, ignoring all the evidence I supplied, and threw everything back at me (PB # 4 , # 5).

Having wasted a lot of my time (PB # 6 , # 7 , # 8 , # 9), a 99.01.12 letter from the ICAEW, to Mr Wilkins, Chair of C.A.R.L., led me to 'have another go ' on 07.03.06 (PB # 10 ), as the letter states :

"... in the event that a Court (or a relevant tribunal) decided that expenditure was not sufficiently supported, and an Institute member firm had reported otherwise, that would give rise to disciplinary considerations"

Outcome: this was totally ignored by the ICAEW (PB # 11, # 20)

As can be seen from the evidence contained under e.g. # 3, above - the majority of leaseholders at Jefferson House ended-up paying an amount that was NOT due and payable.

It led me to write what was, by then, my 5th letter to the ICAEW - intending it to be the last one. After repeating what I had said several times previously, I also highlighted that, given the covenants in the Lease, Pridie Brewster had 'evidently' issued "Steel Services estimated expenditure for the year ended 2006 " - which was fraudulent, as Steel Services no longer had control of the last floor of Jefferson House. Of course, the outcome is that invoices based on this were fraudulent (PB # 11 , # 12)

On the face of it, the reply of 24.05.06 looked 'promising' (PB # 13). However, by then, my comprehensive experience with the 'self-regulatory' bodies, had led me to conclude that should not 'hold my breath' (PB # 15 ). I was right!

I view the concocted 29.08.06 'reply' I received more than 3 months later, as absolutely appalling - as well as insulting to me (and fellow leaseholders) (see PB # 18 ) as it states:

"the LVT stated that tenants could willingly contribute towards the extra costs"

If the leaseholders were so "willing", how come they ended-up having a claim filed against them? How do you answer that one ICAEW and Pridie Brewster?

On the upside: thank you ICAEW for confirming that the Jefferson House's leaseholders WERE made to pay "extra costs" i.e. monies that were NOT due and payable. In fact, the leaseholders were DEFRAUDED to the tune of £500,000+ (US$882,000) - so that 'Dear Mr Ladsky' could make his multi-million £ jackpot (e.g. above: # 2 , # 3)

Among the several other points of note: the ICAEW placed the onus on 'ME' to perform the role of Pridie Brewster! (PB # 19)

In other words: a reply in the 'same vein' as those from the Law Society, and Her Majesty's Courts 'Customer Service' which, evidently, expected 'ME' to police the conduct of solicitors and, it seemed, run the courts (see WLCC (D) How the 'clan' sends people like me from 'pillar to post' ; (E) Conclusions)

In my 17.05.06 letter to the ICAEW, I asked:

Is it your Office's policy to encourage your members to disregard:

1.legislation?

2.the determination of an independent tribunal that is part of the English legal system?

3.legally binding contracts i.e. leases?

Very clearly, in light of the replies, the answer to each of the above is : Yes, Yes and Yes.

No wonder leaseholders are getting ripped-off by crooked landlords and their equally crooked aides on a massive scale (see Media reports, below).

Needless to say that the ICAEW returned a 'no malpractice' verdict - in its 29.08.06 'reply':

"The ICAEW does not believe that there is grounds for disciplinary action against Pridie Brewster"

Another one I most definitely disagree with. (See Pridie Brewster for detail). And of course, the ICAEW has continued to protect its members at the expense of the public e.g. C.A.R.L.'s article "Bogus auditor let off"

This battle cost me in excess of 70 hours of my life (= 2 weeks full-time). Hence, another 70+ hours of my life 'down the drain' - as well as a significant amount of money.

HOORAY FOR 'SELF-REGULATION' - in the worse than Wild West environment of sick "BENT BRITAIN", in which 'the Establishment' ACTS ONE with 'certain criminals'.

Back to Notes list / Sections list

 

NOTE 7 - Prior to the launch of my website, my above - legitimate - 8 complaints (Notes # 3 , # 5 and # 6), as well as other complaints, had cost me over 1,400 hours of my life i.e. nearly A WHOLE YEAR OF MY LIFE, as well as £00s in costs - ALL DOWN THE DRAIN! Enough was enough. I decided to launch my website.

To my above 8 - legitimate - complaints (Notes # 3 , # 5 and # 6) - that had cost me over 650 hours of my life + several £00s in costs - are to be added the following complaints:

Not to mention the letters I wrote - IN VAIN - to various MPs, including 'mine'.

OVERALL TOTAL: over 1,400 hours of my life. Based on a 35-hour working week, it amounts to 40 weeks = practically a WHOLE YEAR OF MY LIFE; and £00s in costs - ALL DOWN THE DRAIN!.

As demonstrated by this correspondence, as well as exemplified, below, NONE of the parties can plead ignorance of the facts and issues.

Enough was enough of my being treated by 'the Establishment' like a piece of a dirt, a non-entity who does not have the right to have rights. I decided to launch my website (# 8, above).

Back to Notes list / Sections list

 

NOTE 8 - I made the MONUMENTAL MISTAKE of believing the State's 'Ministry of Truth's propaganda (linked to 'GIGANTIC CON', above)

 

I made the MONUMENTAL MISTAKE of believing what we, 'the little people', are ALL led to believe by the State: that I had rights, I had the right to demand - and that there was a system in place, I was asked to pay for through taxes - there to protect me and help me in time of need.  

Initially, it appears to be the case. You are told about this option, and that option, and great emphasis is placed on your statutory rights. You believe it. Of course 'you have rights'. Why should you doubt it? In addition, you have your Lease, a 'binding' contract 'agreed' - in law - between you and the landlord. So, you start going down the avenue in your quest for justice and fair treatment.

What I found out initially reinforced my perception that indeed help was at hand. The "no, but, you need to do 'x' and 'y'" I heard along the way, disheartened me but also induced me to go down further and further in search of justice and protection of my so-called 'rights'. The information I obtained from government departments encouraged me to progress along the route.

What turned out to be one of the most misleading information I was provided with was in the 19.07.02 reply from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, as it sent me a leaflet on the then LVTs that led me to believe I could challenge 'Steel Services' Application to the then London LVT "without the need for professional representation".

At the time, Siobhan McGrath, then President of the then LVTs, was promoting this claim to the media, at every opportunity e.g. in The Times, 4 Oct 03: "Property - Landlord squabbles resolved", in which she was quoted as saying that LVTs are an "affordable, local solution" for landlords and leaseholders who are in dispute. We aim to provide an accessible and cost-effective forum for resolving residential leasehold problems" ).

As very glaringly demonstrated by my experience with the then London tribunal (overview, above; summaries: Events , Breaches of the law) - it turned out to be a blatant LIE - that caused me to spend £30,000 (US$53,000) of my very-hard-earned life-savings, to challenge a FRAUDULENT demand of £14,400 (US$25,400) (above) - and I STILL ended-up with a deliberately near useless report (above) (LVT # 4.3).

(As I discussed in My Diary 2011 - Introduction, I hold the view, based on my first-hand experience, as well as that of other leaseholders (e.g. My Diary 22 Nov 08), that the set-up of these tribunals is intended to bully leaseholders into submission). (Yes: I am aware that some leaseholders win their case - but at what cost?)

I HAVE BEEN CRYING OUT FOR HELP

SINCE 2001

EVERY TIME when I first approached a government department (tribunal, court, local council, police, the then Financial Services Authority, 'my' MP, Ombudsmen, etc), as well as organisations (namely Law Society, Bar Council, Institution of Chartered Surveyors, Institute of Chartered Accountants), I believed it would provide me with the help it claims to be there for i.e. that it would perform as per its remit.

As can be seen from this overview, I submitted more than 40 'cries for help' / complaints, and 'obediently' followed all the formal procedures and processes, and went through all the 'loops' I was asked to go through.

 

Every time I went to great lengths to explain my case, including providing, often weighty bundles, as proof that I was 'not making it up', and often, more documents in the context of the ensuing drawn-out battles e.g.

Throughout, I have been totally open and honest in communicating my views, especially when the (typical) pushback, misinformation, denials, dismissal, etc. started to kick-in, as I believe in complete transparency and honesty as being the only basis on which to address/remedy a situation.

Many led me into battles spanning many months, even years - resulting in the same outcome from ALL: in effect: 'GET LOST!'. As can be seen from the examples I cite under the various statutes, codes of conduct, and my Lease, as well as under Extortion and Kangaroo court - it does not require being a lawyer or a genius to see that my rights have been repeatedly denied / violated.

Further, no matter how hard I look: I cannot find a note ANYWHERE, on ANY of these Acts - stating that they exclude 'people like me'.

WHY did I persist? Because, based on my value system, naïvely, I kept hoping that the 'next one' would help, the 'next one' will surely see that I am the victim of a scam / malpractice, the next one 'will do his / her job'.

Either the door remained shut, or it was eventually slammed back in my face. The more I forced the door to open and to remain open, the greater the throwback, pushback, refusal, misinformation and denial I received.

 

Initially, I blocked out the contradictory signs because they created cognitive dissonance. I told myself that I was reading too much into things, and dismissed my uneasiness / concerns as nonsense. Then more signs cropped-up, which I also blocked out, because of my perceptual bias that I would get fair and just treatment, that my so-called 'rights' would be protected. I really, truly believed this to be the case. After all, this is what we are ALL led to believe.

 

Then one day I removed what I realised was a blindfold and I faced reality: as a leaseholder, there is absolutely nothing there to help me. There is no mechanism in place to ensure implementation of my so called 'rights'.

The only mechanism that is operational - for a leaseholder 'like me' of foreign origin, with limited financial means and no influential connections - is dismissal.

'Little me', 'the Prole', had been well and truly conned - by the 'Ministry of Truth' (George Orwell's 1984).

Other people who have 'seen the light' agree that for them as well it was a very rude awakening. What you thought was there turned out to be a mirage. There is NOTHING. You are TOTALLY and UTTERLY ALONE.

By the time I finally faced-up to reality, I was way past the point of return: I had spent c. 12 years of my life savings and had ended-up in the situation that what I was fighting was not just a criminal landlord and his equally criminal aides - I was fighting 'the system'.

And the most unbelievable part of it is that 'I' have - and continue to be treated as though I am 'the criminal' - instead of what I AM: THE GLARINGLY OBVIOUS VICTIM OF ORGANIZED CRIME.

I HAVE DONE NOTHING WRONG. ALL that I wanted to do was pay my just and fair share of the costs for "the works".

Back to Notes list / Sections list

 

NOTE 9 - For many years the media, as well as other parties, have consistently highlighted the feudal nature of the leasehold system, the appalling abuses, including daylight robbery, as well as the terrible misery it causes to leaseholders; but, successive governments of all colours have refused repeatedly to take action - because under the thumb of the large landowners...

...starting with Her Majesty The Queen and other royals e.g.

(1) "Secret papers show extent of senior royals' veto over bills", Guardian, 14 Jan 13;

(2) Landlord & Tenant Act 1985 which, under s.35 - Application to Isles of Scilly - states that "It applies to the Isles of Scilly subject to such exceptions, adaptations and modifications as the Secretary of State may by order direct" = as ordered by Prince Charles who controls the islands.

(3) Landlord & Tenant Act 1987 - s.55 - Application to Isles of Scilly: Ditto.

(4) Housing Act 1996 - s.225 - The Isles of Scilly: Ditto.

(5) Protection from Eviction Act 1977 - s.11 - Application to Isles of Scilly: Ditto + "(2) The power to make an order under this section shall be exercisable by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment, in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament. (3) An order under this section may be varied or revoked by a subsequent order."

(See also below)

MEDIA

The Sunday Times, 19 Nov 00

"The government admits abuse is widespread and unscrupulous landlords regularly hit leaseholders with exorbitant charges."

(NB: See New Labour pre-election "An End to Feudalism")

Evening Standard, 24 Jan 01

"Abusive landlords, legal tangles and a depreciating asset mean the leasehold system needs throwing out."

The Sunday Times, 4 Nov 01

"There are 3 million leaseholds in Britain... they might find themselves in the hand of a modern-day 'Rachman landlord who uses the lease to extract money... threatening tenants with repossession if they fail to pay... presenting them with absurd service and maintenance bills. They make leaseholders' lives a misery."

Independent on Sunday, 10 Mar 02

"Thousands of leaseholders are currently embroiled in legal action with their landlords over exorbitant charges for services and unnecessary maintenance work. While the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill should help prevent this problem arising it won't eradicate it, as it contains no proposals to abolish the antiquated and much-derided leasehold system"

The Sunday Telegraph, 19 Oct 03

"My Property Nightmare - Extortionate service charges" (copy) - that had my case as the main subject.

Evening Standard, 3 Dec 03

"Left homeless for £25" (US$44) - It described forfeiture as: "a uniquely savage penalty inflicted only on leaseholders...forfeiture leaves a leaseholder with nothing" (NB: This article also refers to my case)

Guardian, 6 Aug 05

"..commonhold...government trumpeted it as a replacement for Britain 's feudal leasehold system. But commonhold has flopped"

The Daily Telegraph, 21 Jan 06

"It's a feudal form of property ownership and new laws do little to protect us. Everywhere leasehold has us tied in chains" (NB: This article also refers to my case)

The Mail on Sunday, 30 May 06

"Landlords' £1bn insurance sting" . "The swindle is a result of managing agents and landlords secretly adding inflated 'administration' fees to premiums and then passing the combined bill to leaseholders under the guise of an insurance charge"

The Observer, 5 Apr 09

"Flat owners left flat broke as service charges shoot through the roof"

The Times, 29 Aug 09

"How leaseholders can fight back"

The Independent, 11 Jul 10

"Minister says all is well with leaseholders. He'd better think again...". The May 2010 Coalition Government's Housing Minister, Grant Shapps, was quoted as saying: "With the vast majority of England's three million leaseholders happy with the service they receive, I am satisfied that the current system strikes the right balance between the rights and responsibilities of tenants and landlords."

To this the Independent on Sunday's journalist replied "I am afraid, Mr Shapps, you are either deluded or simply don't give a damn". "Here at the Independent on Sunday we are getting complaints from across the country about management companies, their disproportionate service charges and overcharging for maintenance work". (NB: More detail, above, in the Overview).

The Independent, 11 Jul 10

"Don't be conned by excessive service charges"

The Daily Mail, 27 Oct 10

"Homeowners ripped off by managing agents charging sky-high fees". "A million homeowners in flats and retirement homes are being left at the mercy of managing agents who charge exorbitant service fees while providing poor maintenance. These property owners are being exposed to a multi-million-pound rip-off by an unregulated industry"

The Daily Mail, 27 Jan 11

"Homeowners concerned by managing agents charging sky-high fees" "Some of the worst examples are seen in sheltered accommodation, where vulnerable older people can pay huge charges for wardens and alarm systems... The biggest player... Peverel Group Ltd (*) ... manage[s] 200,000 leasehold properties across the country... Charities such as Age UK have lobbied the Government for years to enforce regulation of managing agents and are confounded by the lack of protection for residents in leasehold properties"

(*) The Guardian, 19 Mar 11: "Peverel collapse sparks fears for tenants and leaseholders"

Evening Standard, 22 Jun 12, "Money comes and goes, in the end it's just digits" , that reported that "the Serious Fraud Office had dropped its investigation"

"Peverel's 'goodwill' payments are compensation by any other name", The Guardian, 14 Dec 13 - "The leniency given [by the Office of Fair Trading] to Peverel / Cirrus has astonished many residents."

"Cirrus gets away with ripping off the elderly and vulnerable", The Guardian, 14 Dec 13 - "The OFT told Money it does not have any formal or informal powers to require companies to pay compensation to those affected by breaches of competition law." Quelle surprise!

(*) Other articles on the group: My Diary Oct 08.

The Independent, 13 Feb 11

"Big society? Big rip-off" "...about 1.6 million households in this country and counting - [are] being exploited by unscrupulous management companies. The legislation - before it was killed off by Mr Shapps - would have finally brought transparency to the whole managing agent industry...building insurance... This is a racket worth millions... Mr Big society Mr Shapps? Big rip-off more like"

The Independent, 19 Aug 12

"Stop sheltering dodgy freeholders, Mr Shapps". "The pressure for change is building".

(NB: Given the history to date: it will only happen with the help of the media).

Channel 4 - Dispatches, 20 Aug 12

"Property Nightmare: The Truth About Leaseholds". "With complaints and cases disputing costs on the increase, Dispatches investigates the government's reluctance to impose greater regulation on the leasehold sector, which is making two and a half billion pounds a year in service charges for maintenance and repairs". One of the interviewees said that his health had been seriously affected by the stress. (NB: = The mental torture regime achieved its objective).

Grant Shapps' response was: "I am watching it carefully" (!!!) (NB: In the game of musical chairs, the following month, Shapps was replaced by Mark Prisk e.g. The Guardian article of 5 Sep 12. Maybe Shapps had 'strained his eyes' from "watching it carefully"). A few months later, Prisk was also replaced - by Kris Hopkins.

(They are replaced when the seat gets 'too hot' e.g. in 2009, the department had 3 Heads over a 10-day period. In fact, Private Eye, # 1371, 25Jul-7Aug 14, pg 9 - reported that "Labour had 9 housing ministers in 13 years, and the coalition has now had 4 in just over 4 years". My assessment of the tactic: to keep things as they are; spread the blame far and wide and so thinly than it cannot stick to anybody e.g. CLRA 2002 ; forfeiture).

As detailed in C.A.R.L.'s Leaseholder Autumn 2012 Issue 36, the programme also reported that a large number of local authorities have struck "sweetheart deals" with contractors, allowing them to share in the profits from building works paid for by leaseholders. (See also Comment # 31 for somebody's experience with a council).

The Observer, 3 Feb 13

"Beware the 'cheaper' leasehold option that could cost more in the long run". "First-time buyers who purchase leasehold flats could be making a big mistake". "... those who have bought a leasehold will have merely purchased the right to live in a property for a set period – usually 99 or 125 years – rather than owning the land it stands on." "...disputes between leaseholders and freeholders, or their agents, are growing." "The sector is unregulated and anyone can be a freeholder or managing agent."

The Guardian

Leasehold

"Unregulated admin fees hit leaseholders as they try to sell", 6 Jul 12 (I have been reporting that for many years: Business model # 29)

"New ruling favours Goliath over David in leaseholder battle", 14 Mar 13 (*)

"Leaseholders 'at risk' from supreme court consultation judgment", 8 Mar 13 (*)

"When leasehold property takes a grip on your finances", 31 Aug 13

"Prince Charles faces fresh challenge to secret communications with ministers", 3 Dec 13 - "Leaseholder of Duchy of Cornwall house to ask judge to reveal whether prince lobbied for estate to be exempt from property law." (Previous: "Secret papers show extent of senior royals' veto over bills", 14 Jan 13). (re. Prince Charles, see also, above)

(*) For case, see My Diary 2011.

 

OTHER PARTIES

Leasehold Knowledge Partnership

"Video exposes the full horrors of leasehold", 29 Jun 13, and "LKP overturned forfeiture on £800,000 flat", 8 May 13 - Relating to the appalling case of Dennis Jackson, Plantation Wharf, the articles report that a judge in Wandsworth County Court (a court I know only too well), ceding to pressure from the landlord's lawyers (making false claims) - held the proceedings in close court. (NB: Amounts to a breach of Jackson's Human Rights under Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (hearing)).

Among many other events: one of the leaseholders died just before a hearing - which "Jackson believes the strain of the litigation was a contributing cause of her death" (NB: = The mental torture regime achieved its objective. The beneficiary/ies of the property will not go into battle, because too difficult to take on a fight they know little about.

OUTCOME: freeholder gets back the property - at a discount - and puts it back on the market... to catch his next victim. In other words: putting the 'troublesome' leaseholder 'out of action' through death, or 'the Court of Protection', is KEY to increasing the all important 'churn out rate' - that keeps the money flowing in the coffers of the landlords and of their accomplices).

"Lord Neuberger: what have you done, as Daejan is cited in Leasehold Valuation Tribunals", LKP, 18 Jun 13 (see My Diary 2011 for extracts)

(See also LKP' article on LEASE - under Abbreviations)

CARLEX

"Carlex exists to protect the elderly from being cheated by freehold-owning landlords and their agents"

C.A.R.L. Campaign for the Abolition of Residential Leasehold

Quarterly newsletters

CentreForum, Aug 12

"A new lease of life: making leasehold fit for the 21st century" - "In this report CentreForum argues that the current system of leasehold tenure in which leasehold managing agents can operate without any form of regulation is not fit for purpose. The report shows that problems with management are growing, with a significant rise in dispute over inflated service charges and the operations of connected companies..."

(NB: In my opinion, it wipes out practically all of its report with a 5-word "recommendation": "Light-touch regulation of managing agents" e.g. pg 7)

 

See also Comments I have received from other leaseholders

Back to Notes list / Sections list

Off-the-record, a member of Parliament told me "the leasehold system is a licence to print money" .

Personally, the outcome of my extremely traumatic, life-destroying experience since 2002 (added to that of others) - leads me to describe it and its supporting infrastructure as a DELIBERATE, State-devised, form of terrorism and mental torture, that very actively supports the exploitation and oppression of leaseholders by criminal landlords and their aides - while not giving a damn about the impact on their victims.

The residential leasehold system is a British State-actively assisted, bottomless cesspit of interconnecting caves of corruption.

Those pulling the strings are the 'Great Estates' ; My Diary 7 Jun 08 ; "Secret papers show extent of senior royals' veto over bills", Guardian, 14 Jan 13.

(See My Diary 1 Nov 03, for land ownership in the UK, and the massive public subsidies paid to the richest landowners in the country).

As pointed out by Barry Gardiner, MP, during his 8 Jan 02 speech to the House of Commons (my emphasis in the text):

"Since 1884 [NB:!!!], when the first Leaseholders Bill was introduced and defeated...In the 118 years that have elapsed since then, they have introduced 31 different Bills dealing with leasehold reform. All but two of those 31 Bills have been defeated.

...Such has been the power of property and the landed classes in this country, and such is the injustice that so many people outside Parliament have hoped for years that a Bill might overcome"

Pre the 1997 election, the Labour Party published a policy document entitled 'An End to Feudalism'

"Leasehold as a form of residential tenure is a throwback to feudalism. It gives exceptional privileges and powers to landowners..."

Over recent decades [NB:!!!] the weaknesses and injustices inherent in the British leasehold system have been increasingly highlighted, but reform has been a long time coming. To replace the archaic and discredited leasehold framework.."

Once in power, in its Oct 02 paper, "Consultation Paper, Residential Leasehold Reform in England and Wales" , the Office of then Deputy PM, John Prescott, wrote, among others:

"The Government considers that leasehold is a fundamentally unsatisfactory tenure...since the leases for flats tend to provide greater scope for abuse by the landlord...throughout the life of the lease, the landlord has far more power than the leaseholders.

Some landlords use that power responsibly and moderately, but others do not. The worst of them abuse their position to exploit their leaseholders in a wide variety of ways. [NB; As glaringly obvious in my case]. The reform legislation of the last thirty years has had only limited impact" (NB: And, whatever is 'given' to leaseholders, is taken away by judges, 'the legislators' - WHO ARE the powerful landlords).

It then discusses 'so called' measures and 'rights' "put in place" for leaseholders, after which it admits:

"despite all the safeguards, bad landlords have found ways to continue with their old abuses, and have invented some new ones. Leaseholders have found the remedies cumbersome, difficult and expensive to use." (NB: Done DELIBERATELY by the State)

One year later, in 2003, Keith Hill, then Housing Minister, stated, on a BBC Radio 4 programme, that the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act does not adequately address the serious problems posed to leaseholders by the continued presence of forfeiture on the statute books: "We didn't probably appreciate quite how significant this was for some of our citizens." Oh, really? (Might it be because there are no 'citizens' in this country - only 'subjects'?)

In spite of saying this, of its admissions in its pre-election policy document, and in its Oct 02 consultation paper, the then government nonetheless retained forfeiture in the new Act - because (as evidenced by e.g. my experience) it is an extremely useful FRAUD TOOL. (See John Prescott for further detail)

In Nov 05, when the same Labour government was challenged in the House of Lords on the fact that, after more than one year, there were only 6 commonhold registered on the Land Registry, it replied that it would "hold a formal review" . (NB: A typical government-delaying tactic). It was pointed out that it had ignored the feedback from the House of Lords and the House of Commons during the consultation stage. (See John Prescott # 4.2 for further detail)

As Nigel Wilkins, Chair of C.A.R.L. remarked in 2005 "It is now just over ten years since the Labour Party published "An End to Feudalism", which proposed "to replace the archaic and discredited leasehold framework" with a new form of tenure called "commonhold".   Since then, with 40 per cent of new developments consisting of leasehold flats, the leasehold system has grown more rapidly than at any time since the Doomsday Book. Why does the government wish to continue promoting an eleventh century system of home tenure, now a millennium out-of-date?"

Of course, it ensured the continuation of its retention, that included, in Mar 08, the then PM, Gordon Brown, turning down a petition for the demise of the system. Hence, the above promises were (typically) LIES.

Back to Notes list / Sections list

 

NOTE 10 - Dedication

This site is dedicated to:

•  The hundreds of thousands of people in the United Kingdom who are suffering in silence at the hands of abusive landlords and their equally abusive aides because they do not have the necessary resources to fight back - and, DELIBERATELY, there is absolutely nothing in place to help them.

•  The campaigners, including social sector leaseholders action groups (e.g. London Leaseholders' Network) who share the objective of putting an end to the appalling misery suffered by leaseholders.

•  The Offices of the Citizens Advice Bureau who, in spite of being generally ill-equipped to advise on leasehold matters (in my opinion, this is a deliberate policy) generally aim to do their best to assist.

Back to Notes list / Sections list

 

NOTE 11 - At the very least...

There is an estimated 3-5 million leaseholders in the United Kingdom. From regular contact with many other leaseholders since 2002, I have come to realise that, while my story is unique in its details, it is far from being untypical (e.g. media reports). If I cannot get assistance in achieving my objectives, then...

...I most fervently hope that, at the very least, this site will be a trigger for change, a wake-up call.  

NOBODY should have to go through the very traumatic, horrendous hell I have gone through EVERY SINGLE DAY since 2002 - and continue to go through now - EVERY DAY.

Not in the 21st century, and NOT in a country that considers itself 'civilised' and has signed-up to the European Convention on Human Rights.

In the meantime, I hope that this site will be of some help to those who, like me, are victims of abusive, rogue landlords and their equally abusive and unscrupulous aides: managing agents, solicitors, etc. - as well as to the very courageous leaseholders who have so readily been blamed by their fellow leaseholders for failing to achieve a just and fair outcome. To them I say: get your fellow leaseholders to look at my site - and demand an apology from them.

By 'help' I mean awareness of what can happen, as this site is only intended to be descriptive - not prescriptive - and relates exclusively to my case. (I am NOT a lawyer, just an 'ordinary' leaseholder and consumer - with a very strong aversion to injustice - and to being pushed around). Although in many parts of the site I have included interpretations / implications from my very extensive desk research, insights and conclusions, clearly, they stem from a focus on my case. In parts, they are reinforced by the experience of numerous other leaseholders I am in contact with.

While your experience may be similar to mine on a number of aspects, it will be unique in the details - leading you to draw other insights and conclusions - and, consequently, course of action.

I hope that, at a minimum, the site will convey to you that you are not alone in your fight (and there are many others besides me ;-) ). The greater the number of leaseholders/ lessees who fight back, refusing to be bullied by the terrorist-like tactics of abusive landlords and their equally abusive aides, the greater the pressure to put an end to this archaic, barbaric, feudal system that benefits the pockets of a minority at the expense of the majority.

Until this happens, my main message to you - and only recommendation in this entire site - is:

 

Unite with your fellow lessees...

...and really pull your weight. Don't let just a few individuals shoulder the responsibility. As a united, active group, you have some power, as it makes it more difficult for the 'landlord-friendly' government departments and individuals in the professions to take advantage of you - unlike me who has been fighting this on my own. Take heart from the example of the 78 pensioners.

 

Pick-up your starfish today

What do starfish have to do with this? It is a short story (1):

A storm resulted in hundreds of starfish being washed-up on a beach. A woman is walking along picking-up the starfish one by one and throwing them back to the sea.

A man, standing away, is observing her. After a while, he comes up to her, and says: "what are you doing? " "I am throwing them back to the sea otherwise they will die ".

"But there are hundreds of them on the beach! "   "Yes " says the woman, and, as she picks-up another starfish and throws it to the sea, says "and I have made a difference to that one! "

As she picks up another starfish and throws it to the sea, she says "and to that one as well! "

 

Imagine hundreds of people on the beach, each picking-up one starfish...

  (1) Author unknown

As somebody once said, "the forces of evil won because the good people did not do anything"

To all of you currently fighting unfair treatment from abusive landlords / their aides:

 

 

  C O M M E N T S

Back to top