Introduction
Year seven of the horrendous, sheer utter hell nightmare (My Diary started in Year 2002) and the first anniversary of my website.
At the beginning of 2007 I wrote "Somebody told me that year 2007 is the year of blessings. I certainly hope that some find their way to me. My dearest wish is to close down this website - of my own free will - as it will mean that I have achieved my personal objectives.
As to my other objective i.e. for my site to be a trigger for change / a 'wake-up call', I assume that it is already in the process of happening. I dearly hope that my action will spare other people from going through what I have gone through - and continue to go through every day: it's a prison sentence"
Was I 'blessed' in 2007? If you consider some of the major events:
• The threat of bankruptcy and of losing my flat, followed by the 27 February 2007 fraudulent claim filed against me by Portner and Jaskel - which can only be on behalf of Mr Andrew Ladsky (see My Diary 3 October 2006 , Directorships and Advisors to Jefferson House)...
• ...claim which, thanks to the 'double act' with West London County Court is - ten months on - still 'hanging over my head' (specifically, see WLCC # 22 and # 23)
• ...leading me to go through - so far - ten months of horrendous torment, distress and anguish
• False accusations by Kensington & Chelsea police which, in addition, branded me as a "Nazi" (My Diary 20 March 2007). Of course, the source is also Mr Andrew Ladsky
• Suffering the fourth malicious leak in two years, that caused extensive damage to my flat (My Diary 20 July 2007); the previous one, at the beginning of the year narrowly missed my flat (6 February 2007)
• Renting a room in East London for seven months, starting in April 2007, in order to give me 'some' feeling of security, and bring back 'some kind' of normality in my life (My Diary 2 August 2006) (Of course, during that time, I continued paying the mortgage on my flat, council tax, water rates, etc. - and the flat remained empty: no point renting it as the person would be harassed e.g. Other Residents; malicious leaks)
(I might ADD other events relating to my ex. employer)
Anybody with a modicum of emotional intelligence would no doubt say: No, 2007 was certainly not a year of 'blessings' for me. It's been hell, a continuation of the 'prison sentence' - in solitary confinement.
However, against all of that, I have had the priceless, unfailing and unbelievable support of my US website Host who stood firm in keeping my site online. It takes a tremendous amount of courage to do what my website Host has done - and continues to do for me. While my website may not bring me justice and redress, I now know that it is helping other leaseholders - hence, giving me the satisfaction of knowing that I am achieving my secondary objective.
Will 2008 be the year that brings me justice and redress? My last letter in 2007 was my 27 December 2007 response to the 20 December 2007 reply from the Customer Service department of Her Majesty Court Justice to my 13 November 2007 complaint against West London County Court (see WLCC # 22 and # 23) . I concluded this letter by saying:
"NO, I DO NOT WANT West London County Court to proceed with my case.
A fraudulent claim has been filed against me, defaming my name and my reputation. I have the right to defend myself against it. You cannot deny me that right. As a result of what can only be described as collusion, this claim has been ‘hanging over my head’ for ten months. These have been ten months of horrendous torment, anguish and distress - that started with the threat of bankruptcy and of having the flat taken away from me if I did not pay the sum claimed immediately. (NB: See Portner # 3 and # 23)
Considering WLCC’s conduct to date, as well as in 2002-2004 - also in relation to another fraudulent claim filed by at least one of the same parties i.e. Mr Andrew Ladsky (events summarised in my 5 December 2007 letter) - I have the absolute belief that this court would continue to deprive me of my right of access to a “fair hearing” and “effective remedy” – as comprised under the Human Rights Act 1998. (Subsequent note: The "right to an effective remedy" is OMITTED from the Act - and it's obvious!)
Consequently, I insist that my case is IMMEDIATELY transferred to a court and a judge committed to operating under CPR’s ‘Overriding Objective’. (*) Yes, I do still hold the belief that this requirement can be met – although I will admit that this belief is currently being stretched to the limit"
(*) Sourced from the website of the then Department for Constitutional Affairs, on 14 March 2007
Recently, a journalist (Financial Times Magazine, 22-23 Dec 07) (*) talking about the trial of the Nat West Three and Conrad Black in the United States of America, said to be in favour of outsourcing white-collar crime cases to the USA. In light of my experience so far in this country, and on the basis of the tremendous support from my website Host, I sure wish that my case could be transferred to a court in the USA.
(*) Article headed "Job done. Outsourcing admin to india makes sense, so why not white-collar justice to the US?"
Tuesday 9 January 2008
The continuation of what I see as a game being played by the Customer Service department of Her Majesty Court Service (see WLCC # 23 for the 2 January 2008 follow-up to my 27 December 2007 letter - WLCC # 22 ) has led me...
 |
And this is what I had strapped on my back...
...a reproduction of the home page to my website
I wear this practically every time I go out.
I also handout cards depicting this visual.
|
Before setting out on my protest, I checked the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 to ensure I was not breaching the exclusion zone for protests. (The first person to be fined - and jailed - was in 2007: "Parliament war protester jailed over £600 fine", The Daily Telegraph, 23 Aug 07). The Ministry of InJustice is outside of this zone (so far! :-) )
(Re. this Act: Yes, in spite of being constantly reminded by politicians that this country is a "democracy", protesting within a large area that includes Parliament and other government buildings is regarded as amounting to "Serious Organised Crime". In light of my very comprehensive first-hand experience, I view the title of this Act as being particularly appropriate for the residential leasehold system and its supporting infrastructure - a view shared by e.g. a visitor to my site).
Somebody nonetheless contacted the police as I was approached by a male and a female police officer. The man did the talking. He said that they were from Alpha station (?) He asked for my name in order to complete a form which, 'I think' he referred to as "form 1519". In reply to my question about the purpose of the form, he told me that it was to record the fact that the police had stopped me to ask me why I was carrying a placard. That it would not lead to my having a police record (!!!) (NB: Control of people through FEAR!: introduction to My Diary, and to the home page. Anyway, I already have a 'police record' - for 'daring' to report harassment - Kensington & Chelsea police # 2 and # 1)
I asked whether I was breaching any laws. "No" was the answer. I consequently challenged him on stopping me, saying that under the Human Rights Act 1998 I have the right to freedom of expression (Article 10). I therefore repeated my question as to his objective in completing the form - to which I was treated to a repeat of the original reply. The officer then told me that I was under no obligation to comply and that I could also raise a complaint if I so wished. As you can imagine, this led me to laugh (see Kensington & Chelsea police). I gave him a little card of my website suggesting he looks at the section on Kensington & Chelsea police. As to my details, he had a pick of c. 900 documents on my website. I then walked off, wishing them a "good day", and continued to pace up and down the front of the Ministry of Justice building.
A complaint frequently voiced by the police (in the media) is that it has "too much paperwork" to deal with, taking it away from its policing activities. On the basis of this incident (which, in addition to filing in a form, could have potentially led to dealing with a complaint), it leads me to wonder how much of this 'paperwork' is actually self-generated. What also comes to mind is that it is easier to target me, a non-threatening woman, for no apparent reason - other than, quite clearly, attempt to intimidate me - rather than deal with criminals, including those of the 'white-collar' kind.
On the upside, I received support from passers-by, spurring me on to continue with my fight for justice, to not give up. Three people had themselves / had relatives who had a leasehold flat and had recently received massive, unjustified service charge demands from their landlords, one of which was a council (see My Diary 22 November 2008). A man told me that he was reduced to living on £10 per week (US$17) following a battle with his landlord - but he was not going to give up the fight.
One person told me: "They are not going to do anything love; they are all criminals in there" as he pointed towards the Ministry. Some people lamented the current state of affairs with government overall. I certainly do. At times I could not fight back the tears from finding myself being reduced to having to do this. All I want are the rights I have been told I have the right to demand.
So, I will continue advertising my plight in public places by wearing my back strap, and by holding a placard stating: "Victim of leasehold fraud - Noëlle Rawé - www.leasehold-outrage.com" |
...as it prompted:
- two communications from WLCC: an Allocation questionnaire - for which my 26 January 2008 response was to demand that my case is transferred to another court "So that I can exercise my rights under the European Convention on Human Rights, comprised under the Human Rights Act 1998: Article 6 – “Right to fair hearing”, and Article 13 - "Right to effective remedy"`(see point # 24 ) (NB: Subsequent note: Article 13 is OMITTED from the UK Act)
- an amended version of its 3 April 2007 notice. It therefore took four requests from me over a period of six months to finally get it (see WLCC # 17 )
w/c 4 February 2008
As previously, I get quite a few people talking to me. It's a great way of finding out what 'the man and woman in the street' think. This week, an MP said on TV that the mood among his constituents is "on the point of insurrection". There is certainly disgust and contempt.
I have been told that this country is "turning into a banana republic". I replied "banana kingdom?". The man laughed and said "Yeah! that's right!". An Englishman asked me what my problem was. Having told him very briefly, he said "This town has turned very, very nasty, it's cut throat now; the law of the jungle" (This person came across as having 'class'; what I would describe as 'a real Englishman'. This encounter reinforced my perception that what has been happening to me since 2002 would not have happened some twenty five years ago. This was a very different country then).
Another person, of foreign origin, who said to be living in London for the last two years said "There is a lot of corruption here. They say there isn't, but that's not true. The minute you scratch the surface, it's crawling with maggots".
Top of mind seemed to be media reports about a Conservative MP claiming very substantial sums of money for one (or more?) family member/s by (allegedly?) falsely stating that the person/s was/were helping him in his work as an MP. One person said "They are all in there to line their pockets". Another person said "It's not the House of Commons, it's the House of Thieves" (Note at May 2009: This person was spot on!)
Four years ago, an Australian friend told me that, to him, the country looked like a giant bicycle running with nothing to control it: no frame, no handlebar, no chain. Just looking at my (so far) nearly 40 battles since 2002, I now share his view: there is no control. It's like a giant 'trompe l'oeil'. (see 20 Oct 08 for follow-up)
 |
I also had another encounter this week, and it was of a very unpleasant kind: Mr Andrew Ladsky, in one of the local streets.He told me that I am "mad" (*). This makes it the second time he says this to me. (The previous time was on 19 April 2005). I know that this is how Mr Ladsky has been portraying me for a long time - to whoever cares to listen to him, such as e.g. the man who followed me on 16 May 2006. In 2007, he also phoned, as well as wrote to my employer making similar claims (see 15 May 2008).
I shouted back to Mr Ladsky that he is "a criminal" and "a pile of s***" ( you can guess the word). (NB: I am surprised he did not contact his "crime investigators" 'friends' at Kensington & Chelsea police to complain - see K&C police # 2)
And a 'criminal' he certainly is e.g. see below 22 November 2008 'Court claims = FRAUD TOOLS
(*) I thought it was the residential leasehold sector 'mafia' and its supporters' standard way of discrediting women who 'dare' challenge them. I have since discovered that, for the same reason, they can also portray men as 'mad' - My Diary 22 November 2008 (See 15 May 2008, below, for another encounter with Ladsky) |
Branding people who expose conduct in breach of legislation / regulations / codes of conduct as suffering from mental disorder appears to be the defence of choice in this country - a practice that seems to me to be reminiscent of medieval times.
I wonder whether the journalist who, in the last few days, also reported being bugged as well as followed will, like me, be branded as "paranoid" ? (NB: on BBC1 early evening news / local news) (See below, 13 April 2008 for surveillance activities by government departments)
Subsequent note - The case of this journalist was reported in The Times of 28 Nov 08: "Judge throws out 'leak' case against journalist Sally Murrer and her police source". The article states that "The multi-million pound...18-month prosecution case and investigation (was) monitored at senior levels in Whitehall".
In its Review section of 30 Nov 08, the Mail on Sunday reported, in an article headed "As the Damian Green case (My Diary 7 Jun 08) raises the spectre of a police state (NB: It IS a police state: see below, 13 Apr 08 ; ), local newspaper reporter Sally Murrer tells how her 18-month battle to defend herself against the same charges ended in a judge throwing out the case with a ringing endorsement of free speech"
Like Mr Green, the journalist was charged under the ancient common-law offence of aiding and abetting misconduct in a public office. "I was being accused of encouraging a police officer to give me information - stories the police authorities do not want in the public domain. None of the stories could be described as being of national importance... they were searching my car, my house, even my garden shed, asking about documents, bank accounts, notebooks... a WPC...rifled through my purse... they bagged my mobile phone and address book... they fingerprinted me, photographed and stripped me of every belonging...The cell door closed... The following afternoon [I was told] 'you are under investigation for an extremely serious offence. You could go to prison. For life."
Weeks of telephone conversations the journalist had with her friend, a police officer, had been recorded. "I felt violated. How dare these people bug my conversations and even download texts from my daughters?" (*) The article reports the journalist's defence as: the State had breached her right to 'freedom of expression' under Article 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998; the police had no right to bug her conversations with her friend, a confidential source; her arrest was unlawful; the stories she had written were accurate, and the information was already in the public domain. The journalist is also reported as saying "Had it gone to trial, the case would have cost more than £4 million, but it still ended-up using more than £1 million of public money".
(*) See My Diary home, for extracts from a press article "Phone firms net £9m for giving data to the police", and another one headed "Minister in 'cahoots with mobile phone firms on price fixing'", and My Diary 2009 - Mobile communications for evidence that my mobile phones are also being interferred with.
And how about the whistleblower who, also in the last few days, reported that the police has 'apparently' been bugging conversations between lawyers and their clients (in a prison environment) - which is of course illegal. Will he be branded as suffering from 'mental disorder'? |
 |
9 February 2008
More proof that the claim filed against me is FRAUDULENT
Either West London County Court has opted to ignore my correspondence of 26 January 2008 and can 'suddenly' set a case management hearing in the space of four working days - and not inform me of it - or... |
... (after being silent since the end of September 2007), Mr Ahmet Jaffer, Portner, is continuing with his games: with a covering letter dated 7 February 2008, he sent me a 'List of Documents: Standard Disclosure', dated 4 February 2008 (Portner # 24)
Comparing the list of documents supplied by his client with the counterclaims / issues I have raised in my 12 September 2007 "Defence & Counterclaim", it is blatantly obvious that they do not address them.
This evidence is to be added to:
- Portner and Jaskel falsely claiming that it had not received my Skeleton Argument (Portner # 17 )
- A four months silence between its 26 September 2007 "Defence to counterclaim" (Portner # 22 ; # 23 ) and this latest document
(Subsequent note - On 6 June 2008 Mr Ladsky dropped "ALL" of the 27 February 2007 claim against me - see below 7 June 2008 entry - preceded by 3 June 2008 which covers my Witness Statement - and 14 August and 26 August 2008 for the preposterous excuse, as well as: 11November 2008 for a 'snapshot' of events during my 16-month battle with Portner and West London County Court; 22 November 2008 for confirmation that court claims = FRAUD TOOLS)
..."Has this country reached the stage where finding a court and a judge committed to operating under the 'Overriding Objective' (*) has become impossible?"...
(*) Sourced from the website of the then Department for Constitutional Affairs, on 14 March 2007
and stating:
"To be absolutely clear: I now have NO CONFIDENCE and NO TRUST in WLCC.... I am sure that any fair minded, reasonable person considering what has taken place with this court since 2007, added to what took place in 2002-2004, would have no difficulty understanding my position.
"To also be absolutely clear: if your Court Service wants to continue ‘rolling over’ for Mr
Andrew Ladsky et. al., I am prepared to continue fighting all of you for my right to justice and redress until the very end..."
Yes, I am sure that my 'un-English' way of being very direct and open is 'putting backs up'. At least, 'I' have the guts to say what I think - in a public environment - and to direct it at the people with the responsibility to do something about it - unlike e.g. the spineless, underhanded hypocrites in government who voice criticisms to journalists by only allowing them to attribute their comments to an "unnamed source" . (Since then, there has been one courageous, brave MP prepared to 'speak out' - see My Diary 13 April 2008)
(To quote Che Guevara: "It is a sad thing to not have friends, but it is even sadder to not have enemies" )
Secondly, as a tax-paying, (law abiding) British Citizen, I have the right to demand access to the justice system.
Thirdly, they have had FIVE YEARS to help me - i.e. perform their remit - before, out of absolute despair, I resorted to launching this website (home page point # 7 , # 10 , # 12 , # 14 , # 15 ) - and endless opportunities to do so. ( Document library point # 3 , battles )
It is now more than one year since the relaunch
(*) of my website which, at the time, I
hoped would put pressure on resolving my
situation - leading me to close it down shortly
after launching it. Instead, gigantic egos, (instead
of intelligence), have continued to 'attack'
me, redoubling in their efforts to 'finish
me off' by the most unbelievably underhanded
means (e.g. home Introduction).
(*) My Diary: initial launch on 19 September 2006 ; Mr Ladsky's threat of libel action on 3 October 2006 ; my ISP caves in by closing my website on 6 October 2006 ; 17 October 2006 I approach my current ISP, who, by end October 2006, agrees to host my website ; relaunch on Christmas day 2006
'Finishing me off' has been Mr Andrew Ladsky's objective for the last five years as, on 3 January 2003, he told me: "I am going to get you this year!" And he certainly was convinced of this, as he continued to secure assistance from: (1) West London County Court, when, on 27 August 2003, he called me "a loser"; (2) the triple act between Piper Smith Basham/Watton, Mr Stan Gallagher and Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor, when he greeted me with a very arrogant, smug tone, in November 2003. Well, five years on, in spite of being 'heavily bruised and battered', I, "the loser" , am still around - not giving up on my fight for justice and redress against the actions he has instigated against me through his supporting bunch of thugs. (See 15 May 2008 , below)
(Subsequent note - A victroy to report: on 6 June 2008 Mr Ladsky dropped "ALL" of the 27 February 2007 claim against me - see below 7 June 2008 entry - preceded by 3 June 2008 which covers my Witness Statement. See also My Diary 22 November 2008: court claims = FRAUD TOOLS)
Evidently, none of them believed me when I said that I would fight to the death. They are clearly incapable of 'stepping out of their mindset' and "walking a mile in my shoes". I have been 'turning the other cheek' too many times already - starting with Mr Andrew Ladsky by paying £6,350 (US$11,200) which, legally, I did not owe (see Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor point # 3 , # 6.8 , WLCC point # 12 ; Martin Russell Jones point # 18 ).
(There is space on my website to accommodate a lot more... and the option of sending a copy of it on a CD-ROM to an endless number of parties).
I am absolutely serious about being prepared to end-up 'on the pavement'. There have been a number of occasions during my (so far) six-year 'prison sentence' - during which I have been subjected to mental torture on a daily basis - when I have considered the option of 'ending it all' e.g.
- My Diary - events with Piper Smith Basham/Watton & Mr Stan Gallagher in the latter part of 2003 e.g. September (20C application) and 12 November , 13 November and November 2003 re. the reply to 'Steel Services' offer , and hence, concurrently the actions by Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor
- End of 2004 following the very large, unsupported service charge demands by Martin Russell Jones -point # 18 , My Diary End November 2004 - as the implication was that I was 'back to square one' after two years of sheer utter hell
- 16 June 2006 and 20 August 2006 some of my 'bigger downs' on the emotional roller coaster, and the need to combat the doubts from the total abandonment
- Lord Falconer of Thoroton point # 4 and # 5 re. the very traumatic treatment I suffered from West London County Court, as well as Wandsworth County Court (Subsequent note: and more was 'lined-up' for me in 2007-08 ; snapshot in My Diary 11 Nov 08)
- Portner # 3 when, in February 2007, "acting under the instructions of its client" it threatened me with bankruptcy, of taking the flat away from me, and costs in its 16 February 2007 letter (*)
but every time the thought has crossed my mind, I have kicked it away with great force, because resorting to doing this would be very convenient for my 'attackers' and their supporters who have made me go through absolute, sheer utter hell since 2002.
As I continue fighting, the very damning 'black on white' evidence keeps piling up, allowing me to make ever stronger statements / claims / accusations (*) - and add to the horror of my story of what can happen to a leaseholder who 'dares' to challenge a 'sacrosanct' landlord. What has, and continues to happen, in the 21st century, in a country that is a member of the European Community and has signed-up to the European Convention on Human Rights is absolutely unbelievable - as it is actively / implicitly endorsed by the government. (Meanwhile, it lectures other countries on Human Rights. What hypocrisy!)
(*) Subsequent note: Sure enough! See e.g. My Diary 11Nov 08 'More games and lies' ; 22 Nov 08 'threat of forfeiture, bankruptcy proceedings, as well as court claims = FRAUD TOOLS'
 |
In addition, having
put, not just my head, but 'my whole
body' above 'the parapet', I must 'maximise
my return' by seeing it through to
the very end.
There has to be a positive outcome.
If not for me, then, at least for others ( e.g. My Diary 11 November 2006 ) i.e. have my horrendous, very traumatic experience act as a trigger for change.
I hope that the media will help in achieving this outcome (as, unfortunately, nowadays, action only takes place as a result of 'naming and shaming' in the media). |
 |
Saturday 1 March 2008
Following on from the above point:
judging from the lead article in
the latest newsletter from C.A.R.L. (http://www.carl.org.uk),
Spring 2008,
the c. three million leaseholders certainly need the media's help
to get out of their shackles. |
The article, headed "Secret Commonhold consultations" (*) highlights that these consultations
"have been taking place for some time between the government and its friends in the property industry through the Commonhold Consultative Working Group. This group is dominated by developers and others with everything to gain from obstructing commonhold tenure and keeping millions of 'homeowners' trapped in the leasehold system".
...and that these consultations exclude organisations representing leaseholders.
(*) See Mr John Prescott point # 4 (then overall Head of Housing) for some prior events under 'New Labour' in relation to the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002
 |
Adding weight to C.A.R.L.'s position, is the refusal by the civil servant at the Ministry of Justice to provide C.A.R.L....
"...with details of the membership...nor any information about its deliberations - despite the Freedom of Information Act" |
'Plus ça change, plus c'est la même
chose' as this department is evidently
continuing in the footsteps of its predecessor,
the Department for Constitutional Affairs
(*), when its Head, Lord
Falconer of Thoroton was reported in 2006
to be "pressing ahead with plans to
limit the Freedom of Information Act" (Falconer # 6 )
(*) Comparing my experience with West London
County Court in
2002-2004 v. since the
beginning
of 2007: it's obvious!
 |
Com'on Mr Gordon Brown, Prime Minister, ACT as per your claims during the Party conference last year:
"I have strongly held moral principles of right and wrong. This is my moral compass. This is who I am"
Liberate the leaseholders from
their shackles. How many more websites
like mine relating horror stories
is it going to take to put an end
to the tyranny inflicted by the parasitic
residential leasehold 'mafia'?
As somebody once said "It's
always the right time to do the
right thing".
But it won't be Gordon Brown, as he has demonstrated that he is not the person he claimed to be: next entry; MPs expenses; inquiry on Iraq war |
A visitor to my website sent me a comment saying that she "was devastated that the petition about abolishing leasehold was rejected by government". And added "It is more convenient to them to turn a blind aye on this situation".
On 21 February 2007, I wrote in My Diary "Let's not raise our hopes...". It is blatantly obvious that nothing would be done: it is now 11 years since 'New Labour' launched 'An End to Feudalism' (Mr John Prescott # 4.1 ). What has happened since?
In 2002, a Consultation paper on residential leasehold reform was issued, which again demonstrated awareness of the highly abusive practices of some landlords: "despite all the safeguards, bad landlords have found ways to continue with their old abuses, and have invented some new ones". (In light of my very comprehensive first-hand experience since 2002, landlords' aides comprising of rogue lawyers, accountants and surveyors need to also be included).
The reply to the petition talks about the introduction of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002. See Mr John Prescott # 4.2 on how it has translated in practice.
See also the experience of a group of leaseholders trying to buy the freehold on their flats (My Diary 11 Nov 06). One year later, also at the C.A.R.L. AGM, the same leaseholder representative said that they were still battling out in court with the freeholder. The cost to the leaseholders by then? c. £250,000 (US$441,000). (And much higher since: see My Diary 22 Nov 08) I think you will agree that these leaseholders' experience, added to the comments in the House of Lords and the House of Commons, fly in the face of the claim made in the 5 March 2008 response that the 2002 Act "makes the purchase of the freehold...easier".
Consider also that, in spite of its very forceful criticisms of the residential leasehold system in its 1997 "An End to Feudalism", New Labour has retained the barbaric forfeiture legislation (John Prescott # 4.3 ). In its 5 March 2008 reply, the Office of the Prime Minister would have us believe that it is concerned about a potential breach of Human Rights if it were to impose a commonhold form of tenure. Why isn't it concerned about forfeiture which IS a blatant breach of Human Rights?
The reality is that landowners in this country are a very powerful group - as highlighted by Mr Barry Gardiner, MP, during his 8 January 2002 speech to the House of Commons (John Prescott # 7 ) (See also the 'Great Estates' ; 'Who owns Britain?' ; examples of new entrants). It can also be said that they have very far reaching tentacles. Judged on its performance to date, all that New Labour has done since coming to power is help them strengthen, rather than loosen their hold (for other examples see e.g. John Prescott # 5 and # 6 ).
As accurately stated by C.A.R.L. : "New Labour will be remembered as the party that promoted the expansion of a policy (residential leasehold) that is a millennium out of date"
 |
In the 5 March 2008 response from the Office of the Prime Minister, I also note the claim that the government is:
"making the resolution of disputes quicker, easier and cheaper by moving jurisdiction for the majority of disputes from the courts to the leasehold valuation tribunal" |
Why has Deputy Judge (*) McGovern, West London County Court, denied my application for transfer of my case to the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal on 24 August 2007?
Why am I being treated differently?,
Subsequent note - My answer: Because the LVT would have had to recognise the evidence in support of my position that the 27 February 2007 claim is fraudulent. (I certainly would have made sure that it did). So, it was 'best' to keep the case under the control of WLCC. But the plan failed as Mr Ladsky eventually 'threw in the towel' on 6 June 2008 (see below, 7 June 2008)
And because it was a set-up (WLCC # 6.1 , # 11 ; My Diary 11 Nov 08 'More lies and games' ; my 19 January 2009 reply to to the points of dispute ; 'court claims = FRAUD TOOLS' ; [ADD])
(*) Practising solicitors and barristers sit as Judges and Registrars in the courts. It is commonly recognised that it can result in unfair judgements. Consider that they can potentially preside over a case involving their own firm. How about that for conflict of interest!
 |
13 March 2008
West London County Court's reply to my 26 January 2008 letter was the threat to "strike out [my] defence" - which could have left the "the claimant" free "to apply for a judgment" against me |
On 13 March 2008, I took delivery of a 7 March 2008 Order from West London County Court, posted on 10 March 2008. It states:
"Before District Judge Ryan...It is ordered that unless the Defendant do file and serve a completed allocation questionnaire by no later the 4.00 pm on the 14 March 2008, that the Defence be struck out without further order from the court"
The covering letter states a consequence of this as "the Claimant may apply for judgment"
Had I gone to my PO Box one day later (!!!), you can bet your bottom dollar that this what would have happened... no doubt leading all to have a celebration.
In light of the threat from West London County Court (*), added to being reminded of other leaseholders' appalling experience with other courts, as well as tribunals, I opted to return the Allocation questionnaire - supported by notes - explaining why I could not answer the majority of the questions, in the process repeating for the nth time the major issues.
(*) Subsequent note: I have discovered that these terms are stated under Civil Procedure Rules Part 26, Rule 2.5
Given the deadline, I hand-delivered the documents to West London County Court on 14 March - as testified by the stamp from the court on the first page of the Allocation questionnaire.
Having given me a 24-hr turnaround, by 13 April, i.e. one month later, I have yet to hear from the court. I wonder why? Has my reply spoilt a plan? I am tempted to compare the pressure placed on me with that previously used in the 27 September 2007 Order. However, it would be unfair as, when it first sent me an allocation questionnaire in January, the court did give me considerable time to reply.
 |
23 March 2008
Today's Mail on Sunday reports the comments made by the Trade Minister to some foreign businessmen and diplomats. He is quoted as saying:
"We don't care what colour you are; we don't care if we can't pronounce your names and we don't care where your money comes from. We just want you to invest in our country". |
It caused a 'bit of a stir'. I don't see why. It's the truth. He could have added: and you will be able to find greed-ridden lawyers, surveyors, accountants, who will happily breach legislation, regulations, codes of conduct on your behalf - as they do not have to worry about sanctions from the 'regulators' (see 6 May 2008 below). Oh yeah! in our country, money can give you carte blanche to do whatever you want, and buy you 'friends' wherever you need them. (Subsequent note - And by that we mean: all the way up to the House of Lords where we can change legislation to suit your specific needs. 'Service' also available in the House of Commons) (As you can see, I was not exaggerating in the claims I made at the time I wrote this entry)
Having said that, while many are corruptible (e.g. My Diary 22 Nov 08 ; Jan 09 ; 11 Nov 08), some deplore the 'blindfold attitude' - and have the courage to say so publicly e.g. 'Letters to the Editor' in C.A.R.L.'s Spring 2008, Issue 23 newsletter, from a member of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales (ICAEW):
"As a chartered accountant I personally am horrified at the abject disregard by my Institute for its responsibilities in respect of leasehold trust accounts. I have submitted complaints about two accounting firms...and discovered that the procedures of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales (ICAEW) made it as difficult as possible to obtain any form of satisfaction...
...the ICAEW appears to wholly disregard the outrageous misbehaviour of landlords and their managing agents, failing entirely to bring professional parties associated with or supportive of such miscreants to account.
In conclusion, I agree wholeheartedly with your statement: The time is long overdue when accountants can no longer regulate themselves"
e.g. A member of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, the Managing Director of a firm of managing agents was reported in the 10 June 2006 issue of the Estates Gazette as saying (in relation to gross over-charging on insurance premiums by managing agents)
"The alternative is that managing agents improve the professionalism of their service."
"It will take an almighty shake-up to clean up the sector and improve standards"
See Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors point # 6, for industry observers' comments.
And some of our regulators can 'show their teeth' e.g. Office of Fair Trading (OFT) re. allegations of collusion among construction companies - which include Mansell (# 12 on OFT list; company that carried out the works at Jefferson House). Although allegations refer to both, private and public sector contracts, the OFT is limiting its investigation to the latter. Of course! Why bother about the 'little people'!
13 April 2008 - A brave, courageous Member of Parliament
Under the entry for 18 February 2008, I had 'a go' at the "spineless, underhanded hypocrites in government" who voice criticisms to journalists by only allowing them to attribute their comments to an "unnamed source" . What was fresh in my mind at the time was BBC2's
Newsnight reporting on MPs' perceptions of the House of Commons Speaker. To demonstrate the response Newsnight had received from the MPs when it asked whether it could quote them, it showed telephone handsets being slammed down, as well as doors being slammed shut.
Well, there is at least one MP with courage: today's
Mail on Sunday (*) reports that Douglas Carswell, Conservative MP, has spoken out. He is quoted as saying:
"No other MPs have so far been willing to speak out. I am the first. Apparently, I am told, it's "just not cricket". It's not what "one does if one wants to get on". Besides, don't I know that if I upset him, Mr Speaker might not call me to speak in a debate again? Well, I'm trying to represent my constituents, not play cricket. I am not in politics to "get on",
but to speak up. And if Mr Speaker does take
umbrage and not call on me to speak, surely
that merely reinforces the point I am trying
to make?"
(*) At: http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=559309&in_page_id=1770
In the 'Comment' section, the Mail on Sunday wrote: "At last a lone, brave MP dares to say what others only mutter behind their hands... Douglas Carswell deserves enormous credit for breaking rank..." . Yep! agree. Big tick for Mr Carswell.
I know only too well what it takes 'to speak out' - (as do other whistleblowers). Hopefully, unlike me, Mr Carswell will not suffer detrimental consequences. At least, he has some buffer to protect him, not least the fact that he is a man and, I assume, unlike me, not of foreign origin.
(My 'double handicap' in standing-up and fighting for my rights in what is a male dominated environment. Add to that the fact that, as a non-lawyer, I am representing myself. In a status-conscious, lawyer-dominated environment, this must be perceived as 'unbelievable arrogance'. However, drawing on my very comprehensive first-hand experience with the legal sector, I am of the view that frustration is top of the list as, by representing myself, it precludes the possiblity of collusion. Oh well, that still leaves the court!). (Note at end April: Yep! as I expected - see 30 Apr 08 - and more evidence at 30 Jan 09 )
I hope that others in government will follow Mr Carswell's lead on 'speaking out', and give priority to their stated responsibility over their personal agenda... my situation is crying out for such a change in attitude. (Fat chance of them doing that. They are too busy lining thier pockets)
(Link to 7 June 2008)
More people willing to 'speak
out'. This time about being spied on by a local council
 |
A couple in Poole, Dorset, reported being spied on by their local council for more than two weeks because of suspicions that they had enlisted their child in a school outside of their catchment area (see story on the BBC's website at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/dorset/7343445.stm). They were so shocked that surveillance had been used in this kind of situation that (I assume) they contacted the media.
Human rights pressure group Liberty called the spying "ridiculously disproportionate" and "intrusive". It is also reported as saying:
"It's one thing to use covert surveillance in operations investigating terrorism and other serious crimes, but it has come to a pretty pass when this kind of intrusive activity is used to police school catchment areas. This is a ridiculously disproportionate use of RIPA (The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000) (NB: the link will take you to extracts in My Diary 2011; see also below) and will undermine public trust in necessary and lawful surveillance"
|
This is to be added to another example, that of the journalist who reported being followed (as captured above, under My Diary w/c 4 Feb 08 )
 |
Who else is being spied on in Orwellian Britain? EVERYBODY!
Daily Telegraph articles: 15 Nov 10, "Big Brother Britain has grown out of all proportion", covers numerous areas; CCTV, the Intercept Modernisation Programme, covert surveillance, fingerprinting of children, etc; 15 Dec 10 "Surveillance state 'more intrusive than ever'" "Britons are already the most-watched citizens in the democratic world because of an array of systems including CCTV, cameras that track vehicles, vast government databases and the sharing of personal data... use of unmanned helicopter drones... was “quite probable”..."
(Yes, Ms Alibhai-Brown, "...Britannia as she was burns, burns down..." - and far too few of those affected are trying to put out the fires) |
The tools of Orwellian Britain include:
and
- (9) Law firms employing individuals, on behalf of their clients, to fraudulently obtain highly confidential information on their client's opponent
Other examples of what is happening in practice |
(1) The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA)
(See My Diary 2011-Intro, for extracts)
In its 15 March 2008 issue (pg 8), the Daily Mail newspaper reported that "More than 850 of the so-called 'covert human intelligence sources' have been recruited over the last two years by local authorities and government departments to snoop on the public. Government papers say that they include agents, informants and officers working undercover. The newspaper reports the annual cost of employing these individuals at £150m (US$265m).
The 15 Mar 08 Daily Mail article also states that the recruitment of undercover agents and informants is permitted by the RIPA, and goes on to list the grounds under which "the right to snoop" can take place. (They are listed under section 28 of the Act. This link takes you to extracts in My Diary 2011)
There is certainly a lot of scope for interpretation... and hence flexibility in the situations where these powers can be claimed to apply - as demonstrated by the above example.
I wonder: under which of these headings would challenging the police, courts, tribunal, council, 'regulatory' bodies, etc. come under? "preventing disorder", or perhaps "protecting economic well being"? and for how long would the surveillance be 'deemed to be necessary'? (see e.g. My Diary 23 May 10) (Note that in the gigantic network of symbiotic relationships they have 'MEMORANDUMS OF UNDERSTANDING' e.g. the police and Law Society (copy)
In a follow-up article, in its 6 June 2008 edition, the Daily Mail reported that Kensington & Chelsea Council (covers my area) "used RIPA powers to spy on a resident who they suspected of misusing a disabled parking badge". The newspaper also reports that "Last year, councils and government departments made 12,494 applications to use 'direct surveillance', the equivalent of 34 requests every day". (See My Diary 2011-Intro for extracts of the RIPA section on 'directed surveillance')
In its 24 May 10 article, "'Absurd' snooping tactics of councils", The Daily Telegraph reports the findings of a survey, 'The Grim Ripa', by Big Brother Watch: "Ripa which allows councils to use methods such as bugging houses and cars, following residents and using informers, was used on average 11 times a day by local authorities over the past two years... The 372 authorities that responded... used RIPA in 8,575 instances since 1st April 2008".
Those that "responded". As evidenced by the above Daily Mail article, the number is much higher than this, and will be even higher because there is NO control - as evidenced by the abuses that are taking place.
And that's just the local authorities! Add to that all the other public bodies that are allowed to do this, police, Revenue, etc (as listed under Schedule 1 of the RIPA - see extracts in My Diary 2011): there are thousands, if not tens of thousands of snoops / goons spying on the population. Certainly, the centre of London is crawling with them. (How many people does it take to e.g. implement 12,500 surveillance authorisations?)
In its 30 Sep 07 article the Daily Mail reported that "councils have the power to access telephone or mobile records, although not the content of calls" and that "last year they made 1,700 requests to access the information". Councils are just one of "800 public bodies and quangos with this power" (See My Diary home, including extracts from a press article "Phone firms net £9m for giving data to the police")
As to tax inspectors, they "have been given wide-ranging new powers to bug people's homes and private phone calls. They also have the go-ahead to intercept emails and plant listening devices in suspects' cars and offices" "...the power to sanction the use of surveillance techniques [come] under the same rules that govern the work of MI5, GCHQ and the police" (Mail on Sunday, 24 Feb 08). (NB: Interception of people's post and electronic communications comes under section 1 of the RIPA and other sections. It requires a warrant issued by the Home Secretary - see My Diary 2011-Intro, for extracts).
The newspaper reports opposition to the new powers by professional bodies, including the Institute of Chartered Accountants. Given its member-centric focus (see Pridie Brewster for my experience with the ICAEW), it may be that it views this as 'bad news for business'?
In August 2009, the LibDems revealed that in 2008, public bodies made over half a million requests for communication data. Does this include interception? More than 1,500 requests are made every day. That's more than one request per every minute of the year. (NB: And how many more are NOT recorded?)
Even Members of Parliament appear to not be immune from having their telephone conversations being listened to by the State (My Diary 7 Jun 08) (as opposed to, apparently, by some media organisation/s) - and nor are journalists (My Diary w/c 4 Feb 08)
In 2009, the House of Lords concluded that the RIPA allows the State to bug communications between lawyer/client and doctor/patient - "Lawyer-client privilege can't stop surveillance, says House of Lords", OUT-LAW News, 23 Mar 09) (NB: The evidence suggests that my conversation with the 'specialist' on 7 Aug 08 was recorded)
The Police Act 1997
These powers have come to be known as the "bug and burgle" powers. See My Diary 2011-Intro, for extracts. |
(2) Police and MI5's power to hack into people's computer - without a warrant
The following are brief extracts from an article in The Sunday Times of 4 January 2009, headed "Police to step up hacking of home PCs" with sub-title "Under a new EU rule, officers can snoop on your e-mails":
"The Home Office has quietly adopted a new plan to allow police across Britain to hack into people's personal computers without a warrant. The move follows a decision by the European Union's council of ministers... [It led] civil liberty groups and opposition MPs [to] describe it as a sinister extension of the surveillance state that drives "a coach and horses" through privacy laws... It allows French, German and other EU countries to ask British officers to hack into someone's UK computer and pass on any any material found... An amendment to the Computer Misuse Act 1990 made hacking legal if it was authorised and carried out by the state".
The article states that "A remote search can be granted if a senior officer says he "believes" that it is "proportionate" and necessary to prevent or detect serious crime - defined as any offence attracting a jail sentence of more than three years" . If he "believes": My conclusion = offers a lot of scope for misuse of the power as with e.g. the Police Act 1997 that states the same thing. See My Diary 2011-Intro, for extracts.
The article reports the means for hacking as: (1) A 'keylogging' device in the computer that records and transmits suspect's keystrokes typed [ADD- KPMG]; (2) "Virus or 'malware' sent as an attachment to an e-mail to monitor all internet activity"; (3) "Surveillance van (*) from which officers can hack into a home or office computer via wireless network" (*) To this I will add: or from surrounding flat/s when you are the freeholder and have 'a special' relationship with the police et.al.
|
(4) Database to monitor people's movements in and out of the UK
In its 8 Feb 09 article headed "Spy centre will track you on holiday", The Sunday Times reports that "The government is building a secret database to track and hold the international travel records of all 60m Britons. (To which I add: And if you 'dare' to stand-up against organised crime, the State will also have you followed) "The intelligence centre will store names, addresses, telephone numbers, seat reservations, travel itineraries and credit card details...for up to 10 years...the spy centre will house more than 300 police and immigration officers. A similar number of technicians will help check travelers' details against police, MI5, benefit agency and other government "watch lists" ..."
"...opposition MPs, privacy campaigners and some government officials fear it is a significant step towards a total surveillance society... Some immigration officials with knowledge of the plans admit there is likely to be public concern. "A lot of this stuff will have legitimate use in the fight against crime and terrorism, but it's what else it could be used for that presents a problem"" |
(5) Reports by the House of Lords
The Sunday Times 8 Feb 09 article headed "Spy centre will track you on holiday" (see entry) reports that "In a report last week ('Surveillance: Citizens and the Sate'), the House of Lords constitution committee, whose members include Lord Woolf, the former lord chief justice, called for a significant cut back in the state's surveillance powers. It said Britain's traditions of privacy and democracy were under threat from pervasive and routine electronic spying and the mass collection of personal information".
The Guardian also reported on the House of Lords report ('Surveillance: Citizens and the Sate') in its 6 Feb 09 issue, in an article headed "Lords: rise of CCTV is threat to freedom - World's most pervasive surveillance undermines basic liberties, say peers". The article states "The peer say Britain has constructed one of the most extensive and technologically advanced surveillance systems in the world in the name of combating terrorism and crime and improving administrative efficiency..." (NB: "Administrative efficiency" = neutralise "domestic extremists" like me?)
"...Although many surveillance practices and data collection processes are unknown to most people, the expansion in their use represents "one of the most significant changes in the life of the nation since the end of the second world war", the report says. The committee warns that the national DNA database (on which "more than 7% of the population is already logged") could be used for "malign purposes", challenges whether CCTV cuts crime and questions whether local authorities should be allowed to use surveillance powers at all..."
"... Lord Goodlad... said there could be no justification for this gradual but incessant creep towards every detail about an individual being recorded and pored over by the state. "The huge rise in surveillance and data collection by the state and other organisations risks undermining the long-standing traditions of privacy and individual freedom which are vital to democracy."
The article states "But the report is silent on proposals from Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary, for a "superdatabase" tracking everybody's emails, calls, texts and internet use and from Jack Straw, the then justice secretary (or, I preferred to call him: the InJustice secretary) to lower barriers on the widespread sharing of personal data across the public sector"
The Daily Telegraph: 15 Nov 10 article, "Big Brother Britain has grown out of all proportion", reports, among others, an intention by the new administration to go ahead with this database. |
(6) Confidential Intelligence Unit and/or the National Public Order Intelligence Unit
In and 8 Feb 09 article headed, "Secret police to spy on British 'subversives" (*), the Mail on Sunday stated that "The Confidential Intelligence Unit (CIU) is a secret police intelligence unit set-up to spy on Left-wing and Right-wing political groups... and will mount surveillance and run informers on 'domestic extremists'. Its job is to build up a detailed picture of radical campaigners...the unit will work closely with Government departments, university authorities and private sector companies to 'remove the threat of criminality and public disorder that arises from domestic extremism..." (NB: Another one that appears to be open to interpretation) (Note in Feb 2011: No surprise to discover that I would be proven right: see Kensington & Chelsea police para.9.2 - Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) - which was stripped of its spy function in January 2011)
(See My Diary 2011-Intro - (1) RIPA, Covert Human Intelligence source; (2) Covert surveillance of campaigners)
"...The CIU will also use legal proceedings to prevent details of its operations being made public. Its chief will play an active part in obtaining Public Interest Immunity Certificates from Government Ministers" = censorship on reporting by the "domestic extremists" and the media? (See 'Fair comment' ; 'public interest')
In its 22 May 2010 edition, the Daily Mail had an article "Police keep secret files on 1,900 protesters". It states: "After taking over MI5’s covert role watching groups such as the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, trade union activists and Left-wing journalists six years ago, ACPO’s National Coordinator for Domestic Extremism (NCDE) has now given a detailed description of its work for the first time. It says it is targeting domestic extremism ‘most commonly associated with “single-issue” protests, such as animal rights, environmentalism, anti-globalisation or anti-GM crops’. It is also combating ‘crime and public disorder linked to extreme Left or Right-wing political campaigns". It also states that ’"the information [on people] comes from police forces". (ACPO lost control of this database in January 2011)
"Domestic extremist" - Considering how 'I' - a LAW-ABIDING, INNOCENT VICTIM OF ORGANISED CRIME - have, and continue to be treated by government-controlled departments, the 'professions', 'regulatory' bodies, etc (snapshot of the outcome of my complaints) - including being branded a "Nazi" by the police and treated as though I were a criminal - should I conclude that my 'daring' to fight for the rights I have been told by the legislators I have the right to demand categorises me as a "Domestic extremist" or, to be more precise, a "Nazi Domestic Extremist"?
Considering that a fellow pensioner, John Catt, aged 86, has been categorised as "a domestic extremist"` and closely monitored (see Guardian article, 3 May 11 "Protester to sue police over secret surveillance") - given events with Kensington police et.al. since 2002, I assume that this label has also been attached to me.
The same Guardian article reports that the National Public Order Intelligence Unit "has been compiling a huge nationwide database of thousands of protesters for more than a decade, drawing on intelligence from undercover officers (NB: See My Diary 2011-Intro RIPA section on 'Covert Human Intelligence source'), uniformed surveillance teams, informants in protest groups and covert intercepts" (NB: Under the RIPA, interception of communications requires a warrant from the Home Office Minister - see My Diary 2011- Intro 'Interception'. There is also the 'bug and burgle' powers under the Police Act 1997)
In its 24 April 2009 issue, The Guardian has an article headed "Police caught on tape trying to recruit Plane Stupid protester as spy". It states that "Undercover police are running a network of hundreds of informants inside protest organisations who secretly feed them intelligence in return for cash, according to evidence handed to the Guardian". (NB: Another example in support of my conclusion that there must be tens of thousands of snoops spying on the population).
In the third tape, the police officers state "We work for the community intelligence section"
The 'Plane Stupid' environmental protester said to have had meetings with the police after being released on bail following a Plane Stupid protest in Scotland. "During the taped discussions... (the men who claim to be a detective constable and his assistant) Indicate that she could receive tens of thousands of pounds to pay off her student loans in return for information about individuals within Plane Stupid...that it would be tax free...but warn her that her activity could mean she will struggle to find employment in the future and result in a criminal record...Explain that spying could assist her if she was arrested. "People would sell their soul to the devil" (NB: VERY TRUE!) (I wonder how much 'Priya, the student', was offered to assess my state of mind - My Diary 3 Apr 10) (I think that the other 'assessor', on 17 Apr 10, was from the police)
What can happen if you refuse to be an informant? The Independent's article of 22 May 2009, "Home Secretary was warned of MI5's 'blackmailing of Muslims'", suggests that it can lead to prolonged "blackmail and intimidation... and coercion" and that, in this particular instance, the young Muslim men "were targeted by the Security Service who threatened to set them up as terror suspects" (NB: Based on my experience with the State since 2002, including the police, that: I have no problem believing). |
The British State DOES lock-up 'inconvenient people'
(8.1) Scotland Yard's Fixated Threat Assessment Centre (FTAC) was reported on by the Evening Standard, on 27 May 2007, in an article headed "Revealed: Blair's secret stalker squad" (http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23398188-details/Revealed%3A+Blair%27s+secret+stalker+squad/article.do) (link to article found on http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread284391/pg1) (It had previously been covered by its then sister paper, the Mail on Sunday)
The article states "The Government has established a shadowy new national anti-terrorist unit to protect VIPs, with the power to detain suspects indefinitely using mental health laws... It was given sweeping powers to check more than 10,000 suspects' files... The team's psychiatrists and psychologists have the power to order treatment - including forcibly detaining suspects in secure psychiatric units.
Using these powers, the unit can legally detain people for an indefinite period without trial, criminal charges or even evidence of a crime being committed and with very limited rights of appeal.
Until now it has been the exclusive decision of doctors and mental health professionals to determine if someone should be forcibly detained. But the new unit uses the police to identify suspects... Scotland Yard, which runs the shadowy unit, refuses to discuss how many suspects have been forcibly hospitalised by the team because of "patient confidentiality"" (!!!) ..."So-called 'sectioning' allows a patient to be held for up to six months before a further psychological assessment. Patients are then reviewed every year to determine if they can be released".
Considering the nature of FTAC and the Government's response to dissenters / people who blow the whistle on its wrongdoings, it is easy to imagine that those who, like me, persist in their fight for justice and redress, run the risk of being sectioned. Indeed, in addition to what I view as an attempt to achieve this objective by TDC Simon J Dowling of Kensington police do this (K&C police # 3 - Key point # 8), as my experience with the medical 'specialist' demonstrates (see My Diary 25 Jan 11- for other events I give as evidence in support of my assessment), there are unscrupulous individuals only too happy to help getting people locked-up in mental health institutions for 'rehabilitation' - and/or???
(8.2) The Court of Protection - In addition to the above, FTAC, the case of Maurice Kirk, as well as hearing it from an MP on Radio 4's 'Today in Parliament' (towards the end of 2010), I had further confirmation that Britian DOES lock-up 'inconvenient people' by the MP John Hemming, during the 25th Jan 11 meeting at the House of Commons who said to have helped the release of one of his constituents from a mental institution. The ONLY reason she had been locked-up - and drugged - was to 'shut her up'.
The Daily Telegraph had a 5 Feb 11 article on this MP, "John Hemming MP: Court of Protection must be reformed" in which he quotes the case, as well as states: "The lack of transparency conceals the second problem with the Court of Protection, which in the same way as much of Family Law relies upon the opinions of individual experts. The opinion of a single social worker that someone does not have the capacity to decide where they live is sufficient for someone to lose their freedom, in secret and without the right to a second opinion". He also states that he has "been asking Parliament to establish an inquiry into the number of secret prisoners that there are in the UK" (Related articles by The Daily Telegraph: (1) 4 Feb 11: "Court bans man with low IQ from having sex" (by the High Court; (2) 5 Feb 11: "Behind the closed doors of England's most secretive court") (This court has been criticised before e.g. in 2009 - see WLCC Introduction)
(NB: As evidenced by Maurice Kirk's experience, and mine with the 'specialist' on 7 May 2008, added to the Community Support Officer, TDC Simon J Dowling of Kensington & Chelsea police contacting social services because he deemed that I "may have some mental issues" (regurgitating what Andrew Ladsky was telling him) - there is no shortage of morally depraved, extremely SICK individuals who will come to the help of your enemies to put you 'out of action' by getting you locked-up / attempt to get you locked-up (see My Diary 25 Jan 11 for other evidence I give in relation to me). |
(9) Law firms
To this army of snoops must also be added the law firms who, on behalf of their clients, employ private detectives to spy on people, including fraudulently obtaining all kinds of highly personal information e.g. bank account and credit card details by using 'blaggers'. They do this by contacting the banks, etc. pretending to be a variety of organisations. Apparently, within a few days, they can obtain a very comprehensive profile of an individual (BBC2, 1 June 2009, ‘Who’s watching you?’) (I know first-hand what this thoroughly corrupt, vermin-infested sector can do e.g. My Diary 2009, Introduction) (As a Reader of The Times wrote "My father used to say that the mafia never got a foothold in this country because our legal system was more corrupt than they were. Now I know what he meant!" (My Diary 12 Apr 07))
How many thousands of these snoops and criminals are operating across the country at any point in time - spying on people, gathering data on them? It certainly makes it easy to understand how somebody can be under constant surveillance for a very long time: when the snoops are not tailing one person, they can be tailing another one.
THE POLICE STATE PAR EXCELLENCE! The greater the level of systemic institutional corruption in a country, the greater the need for surveillance of the 'little people' to ensure they don't interfere / are hounded if they do. And there sure is corruption in this country! e.g. My Diary Jan 09 ; 6 May 08 ; police |
Other examples
Looks to me as though the powers that be are setting-up an environment of total, unaccountable freedom to quash any opposition / dissent / questioning, etc. (while behind the gigantic trompe l'oeil they are squeezing the 'cash machines' to the tune of millions of Pounds, down to the last penny - without fear of sanction... well, 'little sanction'). In addition to the surveillance measures (hacking into people's computer, monitoring their emails, phone calls, etc) (above):
- On 16 February 2009, legislation came into effect allowing the police to stop anybody from taking photographs of them - on the grounds of 'national security'
- In April 2009 - Enfield park: the park manager (?) was arrested, under section 44 of the Terrorism Act, by the two police officers he had photographed driving "erratically" in the park. Apparently, the police is not allowed to drive in the park. (That's how they use the anti-terrorist legislation: against the 'little people' of this country who 'dare' to stand up and expose wrongdoings by the State, the Establishment, the ruling elite).
- The day after, the Daily Mail reported that, on the grounds of 'national security', an Austrian tourist and his son were stopped by the police and asked to immediately delete photographs they had been taking of a London bus - and were asked for their names, with passport as evidence, name and address of the hotel where they were staying. The tourists could have save themselves the trouble of taking the photographs as London Buses - http://www.londonbusroutes.net/photos - has c. 300 photographs of buses. But maybe London Buses will be asked by the police to immediately close down the site - failing which, face prosecution under anti-terrorist legislation? (Not surprisingly, the Austrians tourists are quoted as saying that they "will never come back to this country").
- Also on the grounds of 'national security' - in early 2009, it was reported that inquests involving the police can be held in secret. By 'amazing coincidence', this announcement was made c. 3 weeks after the end of the inquest in relation to Mr Jean Charles de Menezes, during which witnesses' accounts contradicted the police's version of events. (Following on from this, c. 1 week before the jury was due to give its verdict, it was supplied with a questionnaire preventing it from returning a verdict of 'unlawful killing'. Mr de Menezes' family walked out of the court in protest. The 'best' option left to the jury was 'open verdict'. The outcome was that "no officer can be held accountable for his death" (= as predicted in 2006)
- Several months later, in May 2009, it was reported that Jack Straw, InJustice Secretary, had dropped the plan because the move "did not command the necessary cross-party support" . The Mail on Sunday article of 25 Oct 09, “As police begin armed patrols, a campaigner deplores the Government’s disturbing plan to make inquests secret” suggests that the plan is nonetheless going ahead.
- In its 31 May 09 article, "Police who killed siege lawyer are unlikely to be charged", The Mail on Sunday reported "Police marksmen involved in the fatal shooting of barrister Mark Saunders are unlikely to face prosecution. A report from the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) investigation is expected to result in no charges being brought against individual firearms officers.... informal conversations between the IPCC and the Crown Prosecution Service have convinced lawyers that the armed officers are exonerated".
- And when they find themselves pinned against the wall by the evidence, the 'mutual protection society' kicks in, and they cover-it up e.g. The Guardian article of 5 Nov 09, “Investigation of G20 death ‘cover-up’ would be inappropriate, Ian Tomlinson’s family told” - The family of Ian Tomlinson, the innocent man who died at the London G20 protest after being attacked by the police who, in reply to their protest that their loved one’s death was not mentioned in any of the inquiries – viewing it as a cover-up - were “told by Victoria Borwick, the Conservative (!!!) chair of the panel, that she believed it would be “inappropriate” for the Metropolitan Police Authority… to take up their concerns. “There is nothing any of us can say to reverse the situation of what happened last April,” she added. “We are extremely sorry” The article also states, among other “Within 24 hours of Tomlinson’s death, police became aware that their officers may have been involved in a physical altercation with him. However, in public, police refused to confirm there had been contact and resisted calls for an independent investigation until five days later, when the Guardian revealed video footage of the incident” (See a QC's assessment of the police in "Ingrained arrogance in the police leads to miscarriages of justice" in which he also refers to this case)
- In May 2011, following a coroner's inquest - thank God with a jury who, 'this time', was not told what to decide - the jury's verdict was that the police officer, Simon Harwood had "unlawfully killed Ian Tomlinson". (Guardian, 4 May 11, "Ian Tomlison officer's hearing to take place in public"). The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) had previously 'determined' to not bring proceedings against him. When I referred to Mr Tomlinson's case in 2009 (above) I wrote that 'the mutual protection society' had kicked in. Looks like they are trying to undo the damage by deciding to hold Harwood's disciplinary proceedings in public (Regulation 32(5)). 25 May 11: I heard on the radio that the CPS has now 'changed its mind': it has given the go-ahead for prosecution. The previous night, an interviewee on BBC2 Newsnight described the relationship between the CPS and the police as "incestuous". From personal experience, I believe that to this can be added the "incestuous" relationship between the police and the IPCC.
- (See also Kensington & Chelsea police # 9.1 and # 9.2)
|
Today's media e.g. BBC's "Father fined for overfilling bin" reports that a man who refused to pay a £110 on-the-spot fine for 'illegally' over filling his dustbin by four inches was taken to court where he was ordered to pay £235. Apparently, he was threatened with prison if he failed to pay, and has ended-up with a criminal record.
In its Comment section, the Daily Mail wrote "Meanwhile, violent offenders escape with a caution, and shoplifters with a simple £80 fixed-penalty notice. What price common sense?" To which I will add: "Meanwhile, rogue landlords and their equally rogue aides escape with no sanction of any kind"
And another group that appears to enjoy immunity from prosecution is the 'Westminster village' (politicians): example of the expense claims from Members of Parliament and Ministers who abuse the system... some, to the tune of several hundred thousand Pounds) (based on media reports).
Shortly afterwards, in its 9 May 2008 issue, the Guardian reported in an article headed "Apple core lands man in jail" that "a man spent a night in a police cell after being arrested for dropping an apple core. A police community support officer (*) attempted to issue [the man] with a £50 fixed penalty notice, but he refused to give his name and address. The officer called for help from a police officer who arrested [the man] and took him to Swinton police station, Greater Manchester police… where he was held in custody until he appeared the following day in court". At the second court hearing (!!!) “both charges were dismissed”.
(*) Another one of 'those'! see My Diary 20 Mar 07 / Kensington Police # 3)
Meanwhile, they don't put some paedophiles and other criminals in prison "because of a shortage of space"!
A few weeks later, in an article headed "A criminal record for forgetting to pay 90p (£0.90) Oyster fare", the London Evening Standard reported in its 11 August 2008 edition that a woman, a Danish national, received a criminal record for forgetting to swipe her bus fare card – on which she had credit.
The article states that the woman, who had her two-week old daughter with her, said that she forgot to swipe her card as she was concentrating on getting her daughter and the baby buggy safely aboard. When approached by an inspector – accompanied by a police officer - she explained that she had forgotten to swipe her card, but nonetheless offered to pay the £20 fine. But, the inspector made her leave the bus and demanded her details.
Having first received “a letter from London Bus Services ‘offering [her]’ the chance to plead guilty to avoid appearing”, which she did not take up as “my only ‘crime’ was forgetfulness”, she found herself in court. The magistrate found her “guilty” but reduced the penalty to £50. She was told that her “criminal record would be deleted after six months – but despite this it will always be flagged up when checks are made, especially when she begins applying for a job as a teacher”.
The woman is also reported as saying “It really made me quite angry to have a criminal record. My family in Denmark are stunned by the whole thing. They never heard of anything so ridiculous as getting a criminal record for a bus ticket”.
My reply to this woman is: imagine the reaction of my family and friends in France to what has been happening to me in this country since 2002! “Stunned” does not begin to express it.
"Archbishop's PA dragged through courts and branded fare dodger for 20p bus fare slip-up", (Daily Mail, 2 May 08) (NB: Looks like we should have London Transport controlling the residential leasehold sector and its supporting infrastructure of tribunals, courts, police, etc.)
In its 11 Nov 09 issue, the Daily Mail had an article, "Grandfather arrested at dawn and held in police cell for SIX hours for swearing once at council official".
In fact we can also be arrested by the police (and taken to court) for changing our mind about committing suicide “Police charge ‘suicide’ man who delayed the trains for four hours”, (The Mail on Sunday, 23 Aug 09). Having been persuaded to not jump from the bridge, the man was subsequently locked-up in a police cell and taken to court to face prosecution for causing financial loss (NB: = A major offence against the 'God of Money'!). How shocking and ugly is this? All those involved in the police, Jack Straw's Crown Prosecution Service and courts - should hang their head in shame. But then, this Government will lead to somebody committing suicide for the sake of £3,000 (My Diary Feb 09+)
By contrast, Andrew Ladsky who commits / orders offences against me that are punishable by imprisonment goes scot-free, while I, the victim, am persecuted for ‘daring’ to stand-up to his scams.
See also other examples above
These examples, added to my horrendous experience since 2002, further reinforce in my mind what I captured in My Diary - 20 Feb 07 "This country has turned completely upside down". How can anybody not lose confidence and respect in a system that acts in this manner? And 'I' am branded a "Nazi"... as well as "mad"?!?! |
23 April 2008 - Two 'ordinary' people, who,
like me, feel very let down by the courts
The Times, 23 April 2008, "Gang
victim Gary Newlove’s
widow hits out at courtroom ‘disgrace’" reports
the comments of two victims of violent
crime when they gave evidence at an inquiry.
One said
"the way that
victims were treated in the courtroom
was "utterly disgraceful". "It’s
utterly disgraceful because
you think that the courts are for you,
that they are your safety net.”
The other is quoted as saying: "that money
and power had influenced the decision
to grant bail when the man was accused
of murder".
Until 2002, like them, I also believed
that the courts were there for me, and
I believed that this was the case irrespective
of creed, gender and financial means. As
I wrote e.g. on the home page to the site
(point
# 7) one day, I finally admitted to myself
that "I
had been well and truly conned" - and
my world
collapsed.
I have since realised that it
was very naïve
of me to believe in what I had been
told. Why was I so gullible? I attribute
it to a combination of religious upbringing
and being told to respect the law,
institutions, etc. Unfortunately, I
am now 'stuck' with 'my programming'
for the rest of my life - leading me
to continue with my fight for justice
and redress; to demand what I have
been told I have the right to demand.
Recently, I told somebody that I was continuing with my fight in spite of the fact that I very clearly was not going to get justice and redress, and that my objective in doing this was to demonstrate what can happen to a leaseholder who 'dares' to stand-up and fight for her / his rights against a landlord.
The person disagreed with my view that I would not get justice and redress, citing the example of a Court of Appeal ruling this month that one of the world's most dangerous terror suspects cannot be deported to his home country out of concern that his treatment there might be in breach of his Human Rights, including right to a fair trial. Among others, this man has reportedly made a speech advocating the killing of people.
My reply was that seeing this 'makes me hurt' even more, as it leads me to ask:
- why is it that ‘I’, the law-abiding, victim of crime, get treated as though I were the criminal?
- Why is it that, since 2002, I have had ALL the doors repeatedly slammed in my face (outcome of my 'cries for help' / complaints) in spite of the overwhelming ‘black on white’ evidence I have against Mr Ladsky et. al. and supporting lawyers, surveyors and accountant? (list in Document library)
- Why is it that – unlike me – they are all, quite clearly, considered to be above the law in this country?
- Why is it that I am evidently viewed by all as having no rights, including Human Rights? (Right to privacy and safety ; Right to fair hearing: LVT ; WLCC 2002-04 , WLCC post 2004 )
Following the Court of Appeal ruling, one MP is quoted as saying "Yet again, terrorists are laughing at us and remaining in this country's at the taxpayer's expense". I am one of the taxpayers, one who, for six months plus of the year, got up everyday to go to work (*) to give all that I earned to the government in the form of taxes (40% income tax, 17.5% VAT on practically everything I buy, council tax, etc.) - paying in total an estimated £500,000. [(*) In the past because I resigned from my job in January 2008 due to [ADD]
What did I - and still currently - get in return since 2002? Repeated kicks in the teeth, 'GET LOST!' messages - as evidenced by the outcome of my battles (list in Document library). Very clearly, I have and continue to be perceived - at best, as 'not worth helping'; 'not worth ensuring that I can exert my rights'. While they all dismiss me, turning their nose up at me, they don't turn their nose up at my hard-earned money that helps pay for their salary, perks, pension, etc.
Don't take me wrong: of course it is possible
to get justice and redress in the courts
- and indeed, as exemplified by the above
example, protection of statutory rights.
Unfortunately, overall, (based on my experience
and that of other leaseholders I am in
contact with (e.g. see Lord
Falconer # 4) the concepts of justice,
protection of rights and redress tend
to be interpreted very differently in
residential leasehold disputes (Note: see next entry, 30 April 2008, for yet another example in support of my position). (Subsequent note: and My Diary 11 Nov 08 for a snapshot of events with WLCC)
As I wrote to the Parliamentary
Ombudsman on 22
November 2004 "There is a saying: ‘An
Englishman’s home is his castle’.
When I opted to become a British national
as a commitment to a country where
I have spent all of my adult life (*),
I had not appreciated that this saying
only applies to a minority of the population
resulting in the likes of me, or the ‘Great
Unwashed’ as
I understand we are called in some
circles, having some statutory rights
only on paper – not
in reality"
(*) Up to 2002 this country had been very good
to me. Of particularly great importance,
it provided me with the opportunity to
realise my dream of furthering my education
- culminating in an MBA. (In France,
I had to start working when I was 14 years
old. Hence, I arrived in the UK with no qualification
to speak of). (Subsequent note - see My Diary 2009 - Introduction). It also gave me the opportunity
to escape an environment associated with
very painful memories, etc.
The conclusion I
have come to since 2003 is that "It
does not pay to be an honest, decent, law-abiding
citizen with principles and integrity" (as
I wrote e.g. in my 6 April 2005 letter
to Mr Michael Howard).
Recently I have been thinking that, if I had
my life all over again, in the world as it
is now - and with the knowledge I now have
of it - I would be one of the biggest white-collar
criminals around. When I say that to people
who know me, they laugh out loud, saying that
I am "too
moral" to do that. They are right.
I could not do it. At the end of the day we all have
to live - and die - with our conscience.
 |
30 April 2008
14 months on, West London County Court continues to pursue its 'mission to make me pay'...
...leading me to file an application to the court |
(NB: WLCC point # 28 contains a more detailed version of this entry)
Today, I have hand-delivered this application to West London County Court.
(NB: As a result of more 'crash learning', I have discovered that 'making an application' requires using one of the numerous court forms. I now assume that this is what was meant when I was told by HMCS in its 10 January 2008 letter that I "had not made an application for contesting the court's jurisdiction". (WLCC # 23 ) Why didn't it say so - including in its 10 January 2008 letter? It knows that I am a litigant in person. Opted to keep me in the dark in the hope of catching me out again? Well, this time: I HAVE filed in a form! and I am quoting the CPR rules and practice direction in support - and I have paid £40 (US$71) (... the parable of the horse who fell down a well - My Diary 5 Apr 07 )
My application is in response to the 9 April 2008 so-called 'case management directions' Order, issued by District Judge Ryan.
This order was posted on 21 April 2008, with this 18 April 2008 'Notice of trial to the Defendant' - giving the date as 21 August 2008.
These actions are a follow-up to my filing the allocation questionnaire (as detailed above under 13 March 2008, and under WLCC # 26 ).
Reasons for my application? As explained in my application, I have made it "in the interests of justice and efficiency" as the so-called 'case management directions' do not allow time to ensure I am supplied with the information I require to defend myself against the claim - as
- (1) Point 2.a of the case management order states that the deadline for request for copy of documents is 21 May 2008;
- (2) it does not specify a time limit for reply. In any case this would be too short, as
- (3) the witness statements are to be exchanged two weeks later, on 4 June 2008.
IT'S INTENTIONAL AND PART OF THE GAME PLAN TO HELP LADSKY ET.AL. STEAL FROM ME - and District Judge Ryan underhandedly covered-up his back (WLCC # 27)
In support, in my Application I quote:
• Practice Direction (PD) 28 - 3.3: “The court’s first concern will be to ensure…that the necessary evidence is prepared and disclosed", and
• PD 28 - 3.9 "Where the court is to give directions on its own initiative and it is not aware of any steps taken by the parties other than the service of statements of case, its general approach will be:
(1) to give directions for the filing and service of any further information required to clarify either party’s case"
As I note under Part C of my application, the timetable must allow for the filing of court orders to obtain information, stating:
"As repeatedly highlighted to the Court and the Claimant – over the last 12 months - in numerous documents (skeleton argument, defence to the claim, notes to the allocation questionnaire, etc.): I need better particulars to be able to defend myself against the claim – including writing my witness statement. By right, I should have been provided with the main evidence I require a long time ago"
"Under Rules 26.5(3) and 31.12(1) the court had the option of giving directions / issuing an order for specific disclosure. It opted to not do this - in spite of my highlighting the need in the supporting document to my allocation questionnaire"
I follow this by highlighting that "given the claimant's conduct to date, the timetable must allow for the filing of court orders for disclosure of information (citing the rules)... (including) against other parties (e.g. accountants for Jefferson House; surveyors involved in determining the percentage shares of service charges), as well as " to obtain further information to clarify matters"
I emphasise that all the information supplied to me, as well as already in my possession, must be endorsed by statements of truth from the supplying parties. In this context I highlight the fact that WLCC denied me access to the LVT's expertise by refusing my application for transfer of the case (WLCC point # 11)
(NB: Fellow leaseholders: note the following CPR rules, in Part 32 - Evidence)
I emphasise that"In highlighting this requirement for statements of truth, I am also conscious of Rule 32.19 (1) Notice to admit or produce documents - “A party shall be deemed to admit the authenticity of a document disclosed to him under Part 31 (disclosure and inspection of documents) unless he serves notice that he wishes the document to be proved at trial”, and of Rules 32.19(2); 31.16 and 31.11 (see WLCC # 28 for detail), as my 'sixth sense' warned me of a potential plan to present me with "evidence" in situations where I would not be able to challenge it due to e.g. lack of information)
I follow this by asking for changes in the directions for the trial bundle, and by a suggested revised timetable.
Question for you fair minded, reasonable visitor to the site: Considering the above, do you view the 9 April 2008 so-called 'case management directions' as reflecting consideration for the Overriding Objective (*) comprised under Part 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules:
"...overriding objective of enabling the court to deal with cases justly.
(2) Dealing with a case justly includes...
(a) ensuring that the parties are on an equal footing..."
(d) ensuring that it is dealt with expeditiously and fairly
1.2 Application by the court of the overriding objective
The court must seek to give effect to the overriding objective when it – (a) exercises any power given to it by the Rules; or (b) interprets any rule subject to rule 76.2." ?
(*) Sourced from the website of the then Department for Constitutional Affairs, on 14 March 2007
In justifying my heading for this entry "West London County Court continues to pursue its 'mission to make me pay', I also take the following into consideration:
• The fact that it issued a 3 April 2007 'Notice that acknowledgement of service has been filed' falsely stating "The defendant responded to the claim indicating an intention to defend part of the claim" (WLCC # 7)
• Its total lack of support in ensuring that Portner supplied me with the information I required (WLCC # 9 )
• Its refusal to have my case transferred to the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal (WLCC # 11 )
• Its 27 September 2007 letter masquerading as an order, demanding that I pay a £1,700 (US$3,000) fee (WLCC # 14 ) - and the subsequent contradicting explanations (WLCC point # 22 and point # 23 ) - not to mention the three months plus silence that followed my 2 October 2007 letter to WLCC
• It has very clearly ignored my 26 January 2008 letter "To a Judge committed to the concept of Justice" (WLCC # 24)
• It had, yet again, 'another attempt' with its 7 March 2008 order that contained the threat to "strike out [my] defence" by giving me a very tight deadline to reply (WLCC # 26)
I interpret the above events as attempts to prevent the case from proceeding to a hearing, and conclude from the 9 April 2008 case management order that the objective is to now 'get me' at the trial.
Well, WLCC was instrumental in making some of the other leaseholders in 2002-04 pay a lot more than they were legally liable for (see WLCC, among others, points # 6 , # 5 , # 8 , # 9 ; Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor points # 6.3 and # 6.6 ; Pridie Brewster point # 18 ; My Diary 6 May 08 - Evidence of a c. £500,000 theft)...
...and WLCC did this on the basis of a claim that - in my non-lawyer opinion - was in very serious breach of Civil Procedure Rules as the statement of truth was signed by Joan Hathaway, MRICS, Martin Russell Jones - see WLCC Key point # 3 / My Diary 9 Mar 07 (In addition to being based on false information - which WLCC KNEW - WLCC points # 2 , # 3 , # 4 , # 8 , # 9)
 |
My! my! my! Who is Andrew Ladsky / are Ladsky et.al. that so many people (*) are prepared to put their reputation on the line for?
(*) Including from a quarter I did not expect. I may expand on this over the coming months
Obvious answer: protected by Freemasons |
Sure enough: my Application was refused - see 3 June 2008
|
6 May 2008
My 6
May 2008 (extensive) standard
disclosure list of documents "...to
demonstrate in my witness statement and at trial that
I continue to be the innocent victim
of fraud (1) - aided and abetted since
2002 by a supporting cast comprising
of lawyers, surveyors, accountants,
and their professional associations,
the Court Service, LVT, housing departments,
Ombudsmen, Land Registry and the
police (2) ... |
...That - in addition to suffering defamation of my name and character - in the process, I have suffered breach of covenants in my lease, of my statutory rights, as well as rights under court rules - and have been subjected to harassment and bullying"
(1) I have since been further vindicated in my claim - see My Diary 22 Nov 08 'Threat of forfeiture and bankruptcy proceedings, as well as court claims = FRAUD TOOLS'
The above is my introduction to the 'standard disclosure' list of documents I sent to Portner and Jaskel today - as per the directions contained in the 9 April 2008 case management directions (detailed under 30 April 2008, above).
(See below for the SUMMARY OUTCOME OF MY COMPLAINTS)
Introduction - EVIDENCE - in my non-lawyer opinion - of a c. £500,000 (US$880,000) THEFT (the Fraud Act 2006 came into force in January 2007) - used to generate a multi-million Pound jackpot
(1) Obtained through deceit - by denying that the money would be used to build a penthouse flat and add three other flats to Jefferson House - see e.g. Major works home page ; Photo gallery ; Planning applications
(2) By breaching leaseholders' statutory rights
'Unhappy' with the fact that, in spite of considerable help from the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal (LVT # 1, # 2 , # 6 , # 7 , # 8) the 7 August 2002 application to the tribunal had not gone Mr Ladsky's way (LVT # 4), having secured as much money as possible from the 29 November 2002 claim in the equally compliant West London County Court, on 2 August 2004, the day that closure was obtained against the last valiant leaseholder (WLCC # 14 , Wandsworth County Court # 2), (and two years after the original demand of July 2002) - Mr Barrie Martin, FRICS, announced the appointment of a new contractor, Mansell Construction Services - without going through the legally required consultation procedures.
The appointment of Mansell Construction Services - in breach of consultation procedures - means that - in my non-lawyer opinion - the contribution to the "major works" - from EACH of the leaseholders - HAD TO BE CAPPED to the statutory limit of £250.00 (US$440)
Example of precedents:
(1) Land Registry, ref. LR X/42/2006 - (1) Warrior Quay Management Company Ltd (2) Jomast Developments Ltd v. Others - 2007 "The LVT concluded correctly that the Appellants had not complied with the consultation provisions in section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 as amended. In the result, the LVT concluded that, if any service charges were payable for the year 2004/2005, the amount was limited to £250 for each of the leaseholders..." (2) LON/00AU/LSC/2006/0109- LON/00AU/LDC/2006/0039 “(1) the works are not covered by the 2002 “notice”, since it referred to different contractors who were instructed at a different time i.e. two years previously; (2) the consultation requirements set out in the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 and the Regulations made consequent upon that Act, were required to be complied with. These consultation procedures were not complied with”
Contrast that with the fact that, by year-end 2003, 25 flats had paid the full amount demanded: 9 out of the 14 flats listed on the claim (Particulars of claim and list), and a further 16 flats also paid the full amount (CKFT # 2 , # 6.6 , # 6.3 ; Pridie Brewster # 18). Of the outstanding 9 flats that had not made any contribution by then, practically all had either Mr Ladsky as the leasehold owner, or were connected with the ownership of the block. Hence, in total, by the end of 2003, leaseholders not connected with the ownership of the block had paid £502,000.
Since 2004, I have endlessly been raising this issue with parties that have a duty to ensure that they / individuals 'they regulate', implement this statutory requirement. Examples:
My 11 November 2004 reply to Kensington & Chelsea housing - point 125 "The evidence is clear...of the £6,350 it has had from me...Steel Services can only spend £250 on Mansells" (Councils' housing departments are positioned as the "prosecuting authority for contraventions of Landlord-Tenant legislation" but, as can be seen from e.g. Comment # 31, some use the same fraudulent practices as crooked private landlords/their aides)
My 29 August 2004 response to Mr Stan Gallagher's 9 June 2004 reply to my 5 April 2004 complaint to the Bar Council - under point 90 "The evidence is clear: Steel Services is so intent on making residents pay for works for which they are not liable that it has opted to ignore the LVT determination. (Which means that, under the L&T Act 1985, of the £6,350 it has had from me for nearly a year it can only spend £250 on Mansells)"
My 20 December 2004 complaint to the Law Society against Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor - in the summary under point 1.6, and in the main body of my complaint under point 210 - "Steel Services opted to appoint Mansells to undertake the works but did not issue a new Section 20 Notice...Because of this, under the Landlord & Tenant Act 1985...of the £6,350 Steel Services has had from me... it can only spend £250 on Mansells"
My 2 February 2005 complaint to the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors against Martin Russell Jones - in the summary under points 1.1.1.27, 1.1.1.49 , 1.8 - and in the main body of my complaint under point 252 "under the L&T 1985 Act...of the £6,350 Steel Services has had from me (for over a year), it can only spend £250 on Mansells. MRJ-its client must therefore refund me the sum of £6,100" .
In my 30 March 2005 letter to Martin Russell Jones, on which I copied, among others, the accountant, Pridie Brewster "...as you-your client opted to discard the 17 June 2003 LVT determination and have instead appointed a new contractor, Mansells - without issuing a Section 20 Notice - the ‘so-called’ Section 20 Notice of 2002 has been invalidated. Because of this, under the Landlord & Tenant Act 1985... of the £6,350 you-your client have had from me (for over a year), you can only spend £250 on Mansells. The same applies to the other lessees"
My 12 July 2006 letter to the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, which was by then my nth letter in the context of the battle I was having with this so-called 'regulator' since my 'cry for help', one year previously, on 19 July 2005, in relation to the accounts issued by its member, Pridie Brewster - under point 2 "The appointment of Mansells was not preceded by a notice - and should have been... Consequently, under statutory requirements, of the £6,350 that I paid, Martin Russell Jones and its client can only use £250 on the cost of the major works – leaving me with a £6,100 credit"
My 4 April 2007 application to West London County Court to contest the court's jurisdiction (i.e. within less one month from receiving the 27 February 2007 claim) - under point 59 "Under legislation, both in 2002 and 2004: Failure by a landlord to carry out the full consultation procedures in the correct manner, results in the landlord being unable to recover service charges for works to the building above the statutory minimum amount of £250 per leaseholder".
My 3 May 2007 Skeleton Argument to West London County Court - under point 55, I repeated the same point
My 12 September 2007 Defence to West London County Court - under heading 7.5, point 87 "Whichever point in time is taken into consideration: July 2002 when the original service charge demand for the major works was issued - when Section 20 of the L&T Act 1985 was in application, or August 2004 when Mansell was appointed, and Section 151 of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 was in application in relation to ‘Notification of works’ - The outcome is the same: Steel Services cannot appoint a new contractor without going through a consultation process". I followed this by stating "Hence: the Defendant’s position that, having paid the sum of £6,350 (since 19 December 2003) she has a £6,100 credit"
My 3 June 2008 Witness Statement to West London County Court - under header 12 "The appointment of Mansell Construction Services in August 2004 - in breach of consultation procedures - means that the costs of the works are capped – for all the leaseholders - to the statutory limit of £250"
If somebody wants to argue that - because I am not a lawyer - I am wrong in stating that the contribution from EACH leaseholder should have been capped at £250 - I highlight that:
- (1) NONE of the parties ever challenged me on my claim of this breach of statutory requirement. Proves my point, doesn't it?
- As can be seen below, while the official, standard reply - from ALL the parties - has been 'GET LOST', the unofficial, behind the scene response has been persecution, victimization, harassment, intimidation, defamation of my name and of my character, etc. - because the 'little people' don't challenge the 'big people' - as became, yet again, blatantly evident in February 2009, in the case of the HBOS whistleblower.
If somebody still claims that I am wrong: I highlight that the outcome of the 17 June 2003 determination was to knock-off £500,000.
Hence, whichever way you look at it: a £500,000 (US$880,000) theft took place. |
I DO NOT make wild claims:I AM THE INNOCENT VICTIM OF FRAUD - aided and supported by a wide cast
Note as well that the majority of what is reported under this entry took place BEFORE I launched this website at the end of 2006.
It is the repeated 'GET LOST!' wherever I turned to for help that led me, out of utter despair, to launch the site (home # 14 , # 12 , home introduction) - as, in spite of the endless rejections, I still had a tiny bit of hope of some decency, sense of responsibility somewhere in 'the system'.
Considering the persecution and vicious vendetta that has been unleashed against me since launching the site: it is clear that I was asking for was a miracle. |
(2) Information in support of my statement:
"...innocent victim of fraud..."
"...aided and abetted since 2002 by a supporting cast comprising of lawyers..."
"...surveyors..."
"...accountants..."
"...their professional associations..."
(NB: See also 15 May 2008 for expanded detail on some of the following parties) |
(See Home page for my overall assessment of how complaints are 'dealt with')
See above: my conclusions on EVIDENCE OF A £500,000 THEFT
(NB: Please note that ALL the 'Outcomes' related below were preceded by long, drawn battles (Document library # 3 , # 2 )
(See above for 'Evidence of a £500,000 theft')
The Law Society for England & Wales
• (1) My 28 February 2007 complaint against Portner and Jaskel which, by then, through: (1) Daniel Broughton, had sent me a BOGUS notice of first refusal (PJ # 1) ; (2) through Jeremy Hershkorn, in his 16 February 2007 letter in which he UNLAWFULLY and FRAUDULENTLY threatened me with "bankruptcy proceedings, forfeiture and costs" - in the name of a company I had NEVER heard of (PJ # 3) ; (3) as well as repeatedly threatened my website Host with defamation proceedings by making malicious and libellous accusations against me (PJ # 2). Outcome: "NO MISCONDUCT" (30 March 2007 letter from SRA) : (*) (Portner # 4 and # 5 )
• (2) My 20 December 2004 complaint against Lanny Silverstone and Ayesha Salim, Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor (CKFT), and summary of my complaint, stating in the conclusions "...CKFT and its client... instead of addressing statutory requirements, opt for an arsenal of blackmail, extortion, bullying and intimidation tactics in order to, one way or another, obtain payment..."). (See also home page # 4.3 , # 4.4 ; # 4.11 ; # 4.12 ; # 4.13 ; # 4.14 ; # 4.15 ; # 4.16 ; # 4.19 ).
Outcome in the 8 February 2005 reply: "NO MISCONDUCT" (repeated on 17 March 2005 following my reply of 19 February 2005 ) (*) (See also WLCC sections (D) How the 'clan' sends people like me from 'pillar to post' ; (E) Conclusions on perceptions of responsibility for addressing the misconduct of a solicitor in court: up to the victim as...)
(*) In the case of both, CKFT and Portner, the Law Society's 'standard response' was that their actions were 'perfectly acceptable' - because they had "acted on the instructions of their client" (PJ # 5.1 ; CKFT # 6.1 ; # 6.4)
When the Law Society (like the RICS) wrote that "[I] need to report [my] alleged criminal offences to the police", they must have been laughing their head off as they wrote this, as they have implicit/explicit 'MEMORANDUMS OF UNDERSTANDING' e.g Law Society and police (copy).
(See the end of this entry for a communication I received from a group of leaseholders about CKFT) (and Martin Russell Jones)
• (3) My 16 March 2004 complaint against Richard Twyman and Lisa McLean, Piper Smith Basham/Watton and summary of my complaint, stating in the conclusions "Considering all the evidence: Ms McLean and Mr Twyman have very clearly been driving my case led by their own agenda rather than being concerned with my best interests". (See also home page # 4.13 , # 4.14 # 4.16 ; # 4.17 ; # 4.19 ; PSB # 7.12.1 ; my comments to Stan Gallagher's "draft consent order and notice" following 'Steel Services' 21 Oct 03 "offer" ; background events in relation to my 2003 Witness Statement). Outcome: in stages, and amounting to ignoring ALL the major points in my complaint - as detailed in my 30 November 2004 reply.
NB: What took place with the 29 November 2002 WLCC claim, ref. WL203537, filed against me by CKFT, and the 6 June 2008 discontinuance of "ALL" of the 27 February 2007 claim, ref. 7WL00675, filed against me by Portner (PJ # 31 ; WLCC # 32) - clearly proves that, in both instances, the claim was used as a TOOL FOR FRAUD - confirming my assessment of the tactic following the first fraudulent claim of 29 November 2002 (home # 4.19).
Conclusion on the Law Society: It very clearly does NOT consider that CKFT, Portner and Jaskel, and Piper Smith Basham/Watton have VERY SERIOUSLY FAILED to discharge their professional duties
As the saying goes 'Who pays the piper, calls the tune'
My conclusion: Law Society (like the rest of the English so-called 'regulators') = FERTILISER FOR MALPRACTICE
The Bar Council
• My 5 April 2004 complaint against Stan Gallagher and summary of my complaint. As I asked in my 29 August 2004 reply to Mr Gallagher (point # 5.1) "Was Mr Gallagher acting for me or the other side?" (SG # 5 ) (For a summary of events, see Abbreviations - Bar Council code of conduct 303(a); SG # 15 ; home page # 4.13 ; # 4.17 ; # 4.19 ; ; my comments to Stan Gallagher's "draft consent order and notice" following 'Steel Services' 21 Oct 03 "offer")
Outcome in the 27 January 2005 reply: "NO MISCONDUCT" My reply of 25 March 2005 (See also SG # 17 and # 18 'the piece de resistance', in the 3 June 2005 letter from the Bar Council that "Mr Gallagher's involvement concerned a time frame of only about 3 weeks", and my reply of 22 June 2005
(NB: Consider that Stan Gallagher claimed to be an expert on leasehold disputes, having "written a book" (see SG # 3.f.2 , # 3.b.1 and # 12 re. a Lands Tribunal case where his position was dismissed) - thereby supporting my view that he has a 'rather unique' interpretation of leasehold legislation... in some situations).
= Ditto: 'Who pays the piper, calls the tune' - and Bar Council = FERTILISER FOR MALPRACTICE
• My 2 February 2005 complaint to the RICS against Barrie Martin, FRICS, and Joan Hathaway, MRICS, Martin Russell Jones (MRJ) and summary of my complaint in which I wrote in the conclusions"Like their client’s, Joan Hathaway and Barrie Martin’s greed and arrogance know no bounds. I view JH in particular, but also BM as evil, corrupt and morally depraved individuals who will stop at absolutely nothing to achieve their dishonest objectives" (See also home page # 4.22 and numerous other points) Outcome in the 4 November 2005 reply: "NO MISCONDUCT" because "insufficient evidence"
Further proof that the RICS endorses malpractice by its members: in its 21 August 2008 letter it - UNBELIEVABLY - encourages MRJ to issue defamation proceedings against me (RICS # 12) (and for being exposed for endorsing malpractice, the RICS also resorts to the threat of defamation proceedings against me: RICS # 11 and # 12)
(Re. Brian Gale, MRICS: I opted to not waste any more of my time complaining to the RICS)
(See the end of this entry for a communication I received from a group of leaseholders about MRJ (and CKFT) - and the Comments section / RICS # 12 for other leaseholders' assessment of MRJ)
= Ditto: 'Who pays the piper, calls the tune' - and RICS = FERTILISER FOR MALPRACTICE.
And of course, in 2010-11, the RICS continues on its merry-way - as it, yet again, 'concluded' that I had "not provided sufficient evidence in support of [my] claim against MRJ" - and it does with the blessings of its 'mate', Grant Shapps, the housing minister, who decided that managing agents do not need to be regulated "further". (Use of the word "further" is misleading as (like the rest) the sector is totally unregulated)
Oh! and in between, in 2008, the RICS attempted to bully me and intimidate me by threatening defamation proceedings if I did not remove the section on the RICS from my website.
• My 19 July 2005 'complaint' against Pridie Brewster. Outcome in the 29 August 2006 reply: "NO MISCONDUCT"...
...because "What is crucial in the decision is that the LVT stated that tenants could willingly contribute towards the extra costs should they wish to do so"
As I wrote under Pridie Brewster point # 18 "If the leaseholders were that "willing", how come they ended-up having the claim filed against them?" How do you answer that one Pridie Brewster and ICAEW?" (see also Pridie Brewster # 2 , # 3 )
= Ditto: 'Who pays the piper, calls the tune' - ICAEW = FERTILISER FOR MALPRACTICE.
(See main points on home page under # 4.23 )
(See Pridie Brewster Introduction for some C.A.R.L. members' experience with the ICAEW: (1) one of its members who is "horrified" by the ICAEW's conduct ; (2) an accountant who signed audit certificates for more than 10 years even though he was not an auditor - being let-off by the ICAEW - not to mention the conduct of Ernst & Young in relation to Lehman Brothers
"...the Court Service..."
• (1) My 29 June 2004 'cry for help' to Lord Falconer of Thoroton in relation to West London County Court - 2002-04 (WLCC Introduction , Points of note , My questions , Breach of my Human Rights) and Wandsworth County Court (Breach of my Human Rights) - and the 23 August 2004 reply from HMCS 'Customer Service' (under Lord Falconer of Thoroton) which clearly does not consider that WLCC has done anything wrong = "NO MALPRACTICE", and throws everything back at me (See also (C) 'The English injustice system' ; (D) How the 'clan' sends people like me from 'pillar to post' ; (E) Conclusions on perceptions of responsibility for addressing the misconduct of a solicitor in court: up to the victim as...)
• (2) And ditto i.e. "NO MALPRACTICE" with the 20 December 2007 and 10 January 2008 replies from HMCS 'Customer Service' to my 13 November 2007 complaint and subsequent letter of 5 December 2007 in relation to West London County Court - Post 2004. The replies demonstrate cover-up (see WLCC # 22 , # 23).
Note that I also sent two 'cries for help' to Jack Straw, then 'Justice' Secretary (WLCC # 20 , # 25), as well as copied him on one of my letters to a judge and to HMCS 'Customer Service' (WLCC # 23 , # 29 )
A lot more took place subsequently with West London County Court (WLCC Points of note , My questions , Breach of my Human Rights) but, in light of the outcome to my complaint, I saw no point filing another complaint with HMCS 'Customer Service' - as it would have been, yet, another waste of my time.
And the 'lynching' continued with the Supreme Court Costs Office (My Diary 30 Jan 09)
• (3) In my 2 January 2010 Subject Access Request to the Ministry of 'Justice', I relate events with the London LVT, the courts, and HMCS 'Customer Service' and, in each instance, ask very specific questions as to what led the parties to take the actions they took in my case. Demonstrating a continuation of the breach of my rights by the Ministry of 'Justice', and of the 'mutual protection society' in operation (as with the rest): the Ministry of 'Justice' - then under Jack Straw - TOTALLY FAILED to address any of my questions (Legal-Home # C))
Hence, like the rest: HMCS 'Customer Service' = FERTILISER FOR MALPRACTICE.
It is abundantly clear from the HMCS 'Customer Service' replies that they were issued by the courts - see Legal-Home # C for undeniable evidence that those complained of dictate the replies sent by HMCS 'Customer Service' to the complainants (NB: Ditto in the case of the police, with the IPCC staffed by police officers on secondment) = under the current 'brief': ALL of these people are a major waste of taxpayer money.
Where else can I go and complain about the conduct of the judges in my case? NOWHERE, in spite of claiming to deal with “allegations of misconduct or behaviour that may bring the judiciary into disrepute”, the Office for Judicial Complaints (OJC) states that it “cannot deal with any complaints about a judge's decision or about how he or she has handled a case”. So, if you are not happy, file an appeal to go to a higher court. Can't afford it? TOUGH! That's exactly what they are relying on. (Confirmed, yet again, on 25 January 2011)
In any case, the OJC states that the “Lord Chancellor has responsibility (with the Lord Chief Justice) for considering complaints about the personal conduct of all judicial office holders in England and Wales…” – and, as detailed above, both, Falconer and Straw turned a blind eye and a deaf ear to my ‘cries for help’.
Note however from e.g. The Times article of 17 Jun 07, "Da Vinci judge in the dock after reprimand" that "Under regulations laid down in 2006, the Lord Chief Justice and Jack Straw, the Lord Chancellor, can refer for investigation any matter where the conduct of a judicial office holder may warrant disciplinary proceedings.
They can do this irrespective of whether there has been any complaint from others". WHY have Falconer and Straw failed to take action? Because relative to the party in the article (a 600-strong law firm) they perceive me as a piece of dirt, a non-entity, there to be used and abused at will by their friends.
Furthermore, media reports confirm the all too familiar immediate closing of rank e.g.
- CONCLUSION from the above sample of media articles: A judge will ONLY get sacked for misconduct vis-a-vis a tribe member ... or for smuggling whisky - and this was nearly 20 years ago.
As the guest contributor, Harriet Sergeant, wrote 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"
(NB: The options in the case of misconduct are "retire" or "resign" e.g. police)
(I really wish I had seen the Daily Telegraph article - My Diary 20 Oct 08)
"...LVT..."
• Among numerous events (see LVT Introduction , Points of note , Breach of my Human Rights), in the context of the 7 August 2002 Application filed by Martin Russell Jones (MRJ), on behalf of ‘Steel Services’ (SS) = Andrew Ladsky et.al., “to determine the reasonableness of the global sum demanded of £736,207” the London Leasehold Valuation Tribunal FAILED to perform its legal remit, as defined under s.19 of the L&T Act 1985...
...by NOT including, in its 17 June 2003 report (ref LVT/SC/007/120/02 - #992 on the LVT database), a summary of the impact of its determination on the global sum demanded (LVT # 4 , # 6 , # 8.1.3)
The LVTs President, Siobhan McGrath, TWICE refused my request to have a summary included - and therefore address the tribunal's failing , claiming in the second letter, of 26 November 2003 that "(including a summary) may well be regarded as providing additional reasons" (LVT # 7 ) (NB: Yes! £500,000 (US$880,000) worth of "additional reasons" for my fellow leaseholders to refuse to pay the FRAUDULENT ‘service charge’ demand / ask for a refund / go back to West London County Court for its role in abusing its power, bullying them into paying monies NOT due and payable (WLCC # 2 , # 4 , # 5 , # 6 , # 8 , # 9 , # 10 , # 12 ; Pridie Brewster # 2 , # 3 , # 18)
In its 6 October 2003 letter, the then Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (headed by John Prescott) - of course, endorsed McGrath's decision.
• Also ‘very conveniently’ for SS - the tribunal made a categorical claim in its report about a “cost increase” - at a date that was three months POST signing its report - and libellously blamed me for this so-called “increase”. My two requests to McGrath for “a factually accurate summary” of the case on its online database accessible by the public have been ignored - resulting in the tribunal defaming my name and my character since 2003. (LVT # 7 , LVT Case summary)
Hence, like the rest: President LVTs = FERTILISER FOR MALPRACTICE
• (1) As detailed on page 17 of my 27 May 2002 pack to my then MP, Michael Portillo, when some of my fellow leaseholders approached Kensington & Chelsea Planning department to complain that the planning application for the penthouse flat broke the terms of our lease, they received the usual answer from a government department that amounts to: 'GET LOST!' (Planning applications # 3)
• (2) In 2004, my three-month+ battle with Kensington & Chelsea housing to get a copy of the 2002 and 2003 accounts for Jefferson House led me to escalate my complaint to the Local Government Ombudsman (below).
(NB: In 2002, the previous Tenancy Relations Officer had tried his best to obtain information on the ownership of Jefferson House (Owners identify # 1 , # 2) Events summarised at the beginning of my 30 August 2004 letter to Councillor Shireen Ritchie)
(NB: Councils' housing departments can act in the same criminal way as the criminal private sector landlords - from which they are supposed to protect leaseholders (!!!) - see Comment # 31)
"...Ombudsmen..."
Legal Services Ombudsman (LSO)
• (1) My 20 February 2005 complaint against the Law Society re. its response to my complaint against Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor (CKFT) (above). Outcome on 11 July 2005: "Endorsement of Law Society's decision" (LSO # 2)
• (2) My 25 March 2005 complaint against the Bar Council in relation to its handling of my complaint against Stan Gallagher (above). Outcome on 30 August 2005: "Endorsement of Bar Council's decision" (LSO # 4 )
• (3) My 5 December 2004 complaint against the Law Society re. its response to my complaint against Piper Smith Basham/Watton (above). Having stated, on 17 January 2005 "After reviewing your file, the Ombudsman has decided to investigate..." and, on 27 April 2005 "...I am in the process of examining the way the Law Society dealt with your complaint. I will not need to trouble you for further information" - the 7 June 2005 outcome was: "Rejected because [I] did not get a decision from the Law Society" (LSO # 3 )
As I wrote under LSO # 5 "The Legal Services Ombudsman = the 'rubber stamping' office of the Law Society and the Bar Council"
And under point # 7 (also before launching the site) about the courts, the lawyers, their associations and the Legal Services Ombudsman: "IT IS A CLAN. And I view it as an arrogant, all-powerful clan that 'gangs-up' to deprive consumers such as I from getting fair and just treatment - and abuses its power (as it controls all the available means of redress)"
And under point # 8 "The 'Clan' has deprived me of the ability to get justice and redress"
Needless to say that, since launching the site, my additional experience with the legal sector (West London County Court ; Supreme Court Costs Office ; Portner and Jaskel - and the Law Society) - has sealed my pre website-launch view in 'steel reinforced concrete'
Hence, like the rest: LSO = FERTILISER FOR MALPRACTICE
Local Government Ombudsman (LGO)
• (1) My complaint against Kensington & Chelsea planning department (above) that the planning application it granted for the penthouse flat beaches my lease led to the reply that I should take the matter to court = another 'GET LOST' (Planning applications # 3)
• (2) My 17 September 2004 complaint to the LGO against Kensington & Chelsea housing: it also led me to go into battle with the LGO (LGO section) - finally getting a partial resolution on 9 February 2005 (incomplete year-end accounts for Jefferson House for year 2002 and year 2003) (*) - due to, I assume, intervention 'behind the scene' by the Parliamentary Ombudsman to ensure my complaint was dealt with) (*) Which I know, from the ICAEW, are BOGUS
(NB: Not surprisingly, I am not alone in my dissatisfaction with the LGO - see 'Campaign against bias and maladministration in the Local Government Ombudsman Service' http://www.ombudsmanwatch.org )
Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO)
• After a four-month battle with my MP, Sir Malcolm Rifkind, I managed to file a 12 July 2009 complaint (detail of complaint and supporting bundle) with the PHSO against the London LVT, West London County Court in 2002-04 and 2007-08, Wandsworth County Court in 2004, HMCS 'Customer Service' in 2004, and 2007-08.
• Exactly ONE YEAR AFTER the initial 'get lost!', the final 29 July 2010 decision was a predictable 'GET LOST!'
There is absolutely no point filing a complaint against the judges with the Office of Judicial Complaints (see above).
"...Land Registry..."
• My 28 March 2006 letter to the Land Registry (Lord Falconer of Thoroton point # 7) (home page # 4.21 ) that the granting of a superior headlease to Lavagna Enterprises Ltd (Headlessors point # 2 ) breaches the terms of my lease (I supplied the Land Registry Kintyre v. Romeomarch case, 2005 in support of my position). Its 4 April 2006 'get lost' reply; mine of 18 April 2006, and the second 'get lost' of 25 April 2006.
• (1) My 13 March 2002 letter to the Police Complaints Authority to complain about the handling by Kensington & Chelsea police of my reporting that I was suffering harassment in my flat (K&C police # 1) and my 2 April 2002 letter to Detective Inspector Paul Webster in which I report my experience with the police, leading to the 23 April 2002 reply from DI Webster that "no crime has been reported to this police borough regarding Mr Ladsky" - and no action about my complaint (K&C police # 1, including what it captured - and failed to capture - on the police system).
• (2) My 5 May 2002 complaint to Sir Toby Harris, (then) Chair of the Metropolitan Police Authority, and his 11 July 2002 reply "the police cannot act on the basis of your suspicions, and must act only on the basis of established facts" (K&C police # 1) (Contrast that with what took place in 2003, and in 2007)
In light of this experience, I saw no point filing a complaint in relation to my subsequent experience with Kensington & Chelsea police in 2003 and 2007. And ditto following my experience in October 2010 when it refused to record and investigate my complaints of harassment - in light of my experience with the IPCC in 2010.
• (1) In 2003, Neil Watson PC 206BS, Crime Investigator, sent me this 27 January 2003 letter threatening me with "charges of harassment" following a so-called 'complaint' by Andrew Ladsky, and stating that "the complaint has been fully recorded by the police" - BEFORE even contacting me - and FAILED to reply to my 11 February 2003 response asking for precise detail "in writing" Hence Chelsea police denied me the right to defend myself against the accusations (K&C police # 2, including what it captured - and failed to capture - on the police system).
• (2) In 2007, 'following', yet another so-called 'complaint' by Ladsky, TDC Simon J Dowling of Kensington's 'Community Safety Unit' - impersonating a police officer (my conclusion) - sent a malicious, libellous email about me to my website Host, on 16 March 2007, implying that I had 'committed a crime' - without providing ANY evidence in support - and branding me as a "Nazi". Following being challenged by my website Host who asked "Are you aware that there are laws against making false accusations?", Dowling backed down in his 20 March 2007 email - while STILL FALSELY accusing me of having committed a "racist" act (My Diary 20 Mar 07 ; K&C police # 3, including what it captured - and failed to capture on its police system).
K&C police NEVER CONTACTED ME AT ANY POINT IN TIME in relation to this so-called 'complaint' - that had led Dowling to imply that I had 'committed a crime' and therefore TOTALLY DENIED ME THE RIGHT TO DEFEND MYSELF AGAINST THE FALSE ACCUSATIONS. Instead, three days after I gave prominence to the events on my website, the message that "The police is not going to pursue it. Isn't that good news?" was communicated to me through my (then) employer, KPMG [ADD]. By then, FIVE weeks had elapsed since the 20 March 2007 email.
However, TDC Simon J Dowling did find the time to contact “social services to see if they are aware of her” because he deemed from my website that I was “obviously extremely paranoid” and suffering “some mental issues” (K&C police # 3, Points of note # 8) I view this as another attempt at getting me 'out of action' [ADD], attempted again on 7 August 2008. (See My Diary 25 Jan 11 for other evidence I give in relation to my case) YES: the British State DOES lock-up 'inconvenient people'
It is abundantly clear that the intention was to scare my website Host into closing down my website (See Home introduction for other desperate actions by Ladsky to get my website closed down).
And my experience in 2009-10 with Kensington police's 'Professional Standards', the Directorate of Professional Standards and the so-called 'Independent' Police Complaints Commission (which is staffed by police officers on secondment!!!!!) - following my 28 May 2009 Subject Access Request - overwhelmingly confirms that the same 'mutual protection society' is as strong as ever (K&C police # 5) (Also confirmed by the experience of others (e.g. My Diary 13 Apr 08, above) (See also various media reports under K&C police # 9.2, including the article "Police misconduct costs forces £44m") (= same as e.g. the courts)
Providing undeniable support for my conclusion of a 'mutual protection society': they have implicit / explicit 'MEMORANDUMS OF UNDERSTANDING' e.g. police and Law Society (copy)
As ALL these departments come under the Home Office (see http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/contact-us.html), it also means that this Ministry (like the Ministry of 'Justice') continues to breach my legislative rights.
= Like the rest: FERTILISER FOR MALPRACTICE ; My overall assessment of the individuals concerned at Kensington & Chelsea police
(NB: I am surprised that, following my calling him"a pile of s***" during w/c 4 Feb 08, and a few explitives on 13 Feb 11, Ladsky did not run to his "crime investigators" 'friends' at Kensington & Chelsea police to complain - see #K&C police # 2)
OVERALL SUMMARY OF OUTCOMES: GET LOST! GET LOST! GET LOST! GET LOST! GET LOST! GET LOST! GET LOST! GET LOST! GET LOST! GET LOST! GET LOST! GET LOST! GET LOST! GET LOST! GET LOST! GET LOST! ...+ racist comments, malicious accusations and defamation of character by the police
No wonder that I, like tens of thousands of others, have this experience. To plagiarise from Norman Baker, Liberal Democrat MP in in his Mail on Sunday article of 24 Jan 10 “If you put down the tracks, that’s the way the train goes”
For the sake of completeness of the 'GET LOST!' I have received (in addition to those from Members of Parliament), another one was from the...
...Financial Services Authority (FSA)
• As Martin Russell Jones (MRJ) was registered with the FSA, in 2005 I contacted the Authority to determine the selection criteria, as well as obtain confirmation that MRJ was authorised by the FSA to hold statutory trust funds. Among others, with my request, I supplied a copy of my 2 February 2005 complaint to the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. The outcome was 'Big Brother knows best' and GET LOST! (See Trust Fund - Financial Services Authority). As we have seen with Northern Rock, HBOS et. al. - the FSA sure 'knows best', doesn't it?
HAVING TOLD ME THAT THEY WERE THERE TO ENSURE MY RIGHTS AS PER LEGISLATION, REGULATIONS, THEIR CODES OF CONDUCT, THEIR REMIT, MANDATE...
...ALL OF THE ABOVE HAVE LED ME TO GO INTO LONG, DRAWN OUT BATTLES - WITH THE OUTCOME THAT ALL OF MY COMPLAINTS HAVE BEEN REJECTED, AND MY REQUESTS IGNORED (home page # 4.24 - cost to me of complaints - by mid 2006)
The message is very loud and clear: SHUT-UP! YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS...
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?
This comment ("Durant ends his data protection battle", In Out-Law, 12 Oct 05) is from Michael Durant following his battle with Barclays Bank, the Financial Services Authority, the courts, etc. "I have gone to every conceivable regulator, gone through every conceivable complaints procedure and tried every Court in the land except the House of Lords. None of these bodies has said to me 'let us try and resolve my complaint."
(Yep! Ditto in my case (except that I did not "try every court" - I was dragged, kicking and screaming through the courts by the criminals) - which is clearly a rally to the cry of 'WE'LL GET THE BITCH!') That's the game they play - in an attempt to crush the 'little people': put them through the 'mincing machine' time and time again in an attempt to reduce them to pulp. Other example: Maurice Kirk)
(Thanks to Mr Durant's incredible determination, he has led to the UK being made to address its numerous failings in the implementation of the European Commission's Data Protection Directive ("Europe claims UK botched one third of the Data Protection Directive", Out-Law, 17 Sep 07) And, 'of course', as he said "that is a case which has constitutional implications for every UK citizen, (yet?) legal aid cannot be obtained."
In a speech at the NATO conference, Strasbourg, 4 April 2009, Mr Gordon Brown, Prime Minister said that "There is no intention to infringe the rights of women in Afghanistan". How about applying the same policy at home? How silly of me! Politicians are too busy feathering their nest and building their property portfolio at the taxpayer's expense to worry about this kind of thing.
[To the above must be added the actions by .....] (I might ADD 2007 events with my ex. employer )
What can be said about ALL of them? “They turned a blind eye and a deaf ear / did what they did / said what they said / wrote what they wrote ALL for the sake of a penthouse flat and three other flats - so that a bunch of crooks could generate a multi-million Pound jackpot” - see the summary 'threat of forfeiture and bankruptcy proceedings, as well as court claims = FRAUD TOOLS
Fair minded, reasonable visitor to the site: Do you see why I wrote "I am the victim of fraud aided and abetted by a supporting cast comprising of..."? (15 May 2008 below contains additional detail)
In My Diary, 9 Mar 07, I wrote "I sometimes wonder: are they all standing by, cheering Mr Ladsky on, or are they standing, frozen on the spot, 'passing the buck' back and forth as to whom should take the blame for reducing me to launch this website as a last resort cry for help?".
The answer is loud and clear: 'they' have not stopped laughing, clapping and cheering Ladsky on - whilst providing him with all manner of support - and it REALLY is ALL MANNER of support.
I repeat the question I captured under 30 April 2008 (above) |
|
My! my! my! Who is Andrew Ladsky / are Ladsky et. al. that so many people (*) are prepared to put their reputation on the line for?
(*) Including from a quarter I did not expect. I may expand on this over the coming months [ADD] |
It beggars belief that Ladsky (and his associates?) can so freely command such outrageous acts against me (and my fellow leaseholders) (*) - in the 21st century, in a country that calls itself ‘civilised’ and has signed-up to the European Convention on Human Rights. The POWER OF MONEY!... regardless of how it has been obtained - and the power of connections.
(*) See also 15 May 2008, below
That, will never cease to shock me, and anger me. WHY is it allowed to happen?
As I know from my contact with numerous other leaseholders, this is happening across the board (at very great cost to them) . How can it be allowed to happen? Why is it that a man who overfills his dustbin by 4 inches ends-up with a criminal record (22 April 2008, above) while crooked landlords and their equally crooked aides are given 'carte blanche' by 'the system' to do exactly as they please? How can such injustice be allowed to take place? WHY is it allowed to take place?
Mr Gordon Brown, Prime Minister, with "strongly held moral principles of right and wrong [that are your] moral compass" - what is your answer to the questions?
As I wrote in my 24 March 2009 letter to my MP, Sir Malcolm Rifkind "The Government has set up a helpline to help people report loan sharks who swindle them out of several hundred Pounds (e.g. Guardian article of 3 March 2009 "Loan shark helpline targets illegal lenders") – and the police and the courts take action against the perpetrators. By contrast, it turns a blind eye and a deaf ear to a landlord and his aides who swindle people to the tune of c. £500,000 – thereby helping them do it. (And I know of many other leaseholders in other blocks who have a similar story to tell). Why the two-tier system?"
As I also know from other leaseholders, the more we fight for our rights, generally, the greater the opposition, push back - and the greater the penalty for 'daring' to challenge the system - because the 'little people' don't do that!. I know of leaseholders who, in spite of having a sound position, have ended-up being c. £100,000 (e.g. Lord Falconer # 4 ); c.£50,000; £45,000 worse off. As I wrote in My Diary - 11 Nov 06 "The whole system is geared to test the determination - and financial staying power of the leaseholders" . Subsequent note: see My Diary 22 Nov 08 for further evidence of this.
And, when somebody like me continues fighting for justice and redress... well, my website tells the story: you get persecuted.
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 April 2009 "Flat owners left flat broke as service charges shoot through the roof"
And another example to add: the following is from a communication I received recently from a group of leaseholders in a block of flats in London:
"We have just seen your interesting entry on the web about Martin Russell Jones. As
we have a similar problem with them (enormous demands etc.) and are going to [
] We suspected that they are dishonest in the large demands being sent us as well as other signs and would greatly appreciate any advice or information you could give us. They were 'appointed' over our heads by [] which has connections with CKFT - very fishy!"
(Subsequent communication): "Thank you so much for [] and all the helpful information. I was really grateful for your website and have drawn other residents' attention to the parallels with what is going on here []"
(Further subsequent communication): "Your website has certainly been a blessing here and I really trust you will be able to be free of all the difficulties which have beset you and which you have so bravely fought. Thank you for sharing your experiences to help others like ourselves"
I am not in the least surprised by this communication. Of course Martin Russell Jones is continuing in its ways. It has the blessings of its 'professional' association, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. Subsequent note - and for further proof of this in August 2008, see RICS # 12
(NB: For other examples of MRJ overcharging leaseholders in other blocks, see Martin Russell Jones point # 42)
(Subsequent note: other blocks to be added: see below, 19 May 08 ; 24 Sep 08)
The connection with Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor also looks like 'bad news' for the leaseholders.
|
What makes me feel good about this communication (and that from other leaseholders) is that my website is of help to others. That, on its own, makes what I am going through - worthwhile.
As I wrote in My Dairy - 16 June 2006 "At the risk of sounding 'self-important', (which is certainly not the intention), I feel that I have a moral duty to use my now very well documented experience to expose what is going on in the leasehold sector in its widest sense (i.e. including the surrounding infrastructure of courts and tribunals, lawyers, managing agents, etc.) |
So, message to the organised crime mob - at large - that prefers spending
a fortune which, so far, must be many,
many times the objectives I
want to achieve (and then close down the
website and leave the country): go ahead,
keep the fight going, keep taking your
revenge for my exposing the details of
my case on this website - after
FIVE YEARS of having all the doors repeatedly
slammed in my face -
keep adding more and more damning evidence
to the absolute horror of my case.
Having failed to achieve justice and redress, if I can spare some people from going through the horrendous suffering I have been made to endure, and continue to endure since 2002 - this will at least be one positive outcome. (Every day I ask the question: Dear God, why did you let me buy the lease on this flat?)
I really wish I had come across a website like mine in 2002, as I would have paid the £14,400 (US$25,400) - I did not owe - and got out of the block. I know, I would have been another party that helps keep the system in place, but... (I guess you could also argue that, if people react as I think I would have done on seeing a website like mine, my website is actually helping perpetuate the system).
Note at October 2008: and I really, really wish I had seen this press article in 2001.
15 May 2008
Andrew Ladsky IS in "very serious need" of a 'reality check'
Today I came out of the block at the same time as Andrew Ladsky. He told me: "You are in very serious need of help". (Previous instances: My Diary w/c 4 Feb 08 and 19 Apr 05 he told me that I was "mad" - as well as his letter of 26 March 2007 to KPMG, my then employer, in which he wrote that I "display clinical paranoia" (*)
Is it - yet another - 'coincidence' that Ladsky said this to me? See My Diary 2009 - Introduction-Dr-MP - one week previously).
(*) I thought it was the residential leasehold sector 'mafia' and its supporters' standard way of discrediting women who 'dare' challenge them. I have since discovered that, for the same reason, they can also portray men as 'mad' - My Diary 22 Nov 08 (Not leasehold related: see the comments in a KPMG report about the HBOS whistleblower)
Considering the following events...
• Telling me "I am going to get you this year" (My Diary 3 Jan 03)
• Getting one of his female accomplices to phone me at work to tell me "Don't worry, they won't kill you" (My Diary - Jan/Feb 04 )
• Getting his network to attempt to trap me (My Diary 2009 introduction)
• Causing malicious leaks in my flat: My Diary 8 Aug 05 ; 18 Aug 05 ; 20 Jul 07 ; Photo gallery - Bedroom - and one that narrowly missed my flat on 6 Feb 07
• Having my windows hosed late at night / in the early hours of the morning (under the guise of watering the plants on the railing): (My Diary - 6 Sep 05 , 4 Oct 05 , 7 Apr 06 , 4 Sep 06 ; 9 Jan 09 - also in February 2008)
• Anonymous phone calls; pressing my door bell late at night; also late at night, throwing hard object at my windows (Kensington & Chelsea police # 1)
• Making a complaint to the police that I "swore at [him]" leading to my being threatened with "charges of harassment" and to having "the complaint fully recorded by the police" (Kensington & Chelsea police # 2 )
• Making an unsubstantiated complaint to Kensington & Chelsea police that my website contains anti-Semitic comments, and the police initially implying to my website Host that I had 'committed a crime' - and 'for good measure', branding me "a Nazi" (My Diary 20 Mar 07 ; K&C police # 3)
• Contacting the Tenancy Relations Officer at the housing department I had approached for assistance, asking him for all the information I had supplied to the TRO (request refused) (My Diary 5 Nov 02)
• Having me monitored and followed (My Diary 23 May 11 ; Examples: My Diary 26 Oct 03 ; 19 Apr 06 ; 16 May 06 ; year 2010)
(NB: I know that Ladsky et. al. - and supporters at large - are focusing on these claims in an attempt to deflect attention away from the very damning evidence I have on my website - because I 'can't prove it' . (However, see - My Diary home page and Dr-MP in the introduction to My Diary 2009). My guess is that my being a woman, is also given as added weight to their assessment. (Added to being of foreign origin / branded "a Nazi" ??). Maybe I should start putting on my website the photographs I have taken... and the full number plate of the cars. (NOTE at (1) October 2008: I am starting to do that ; (2) Having stopped, I started to do it again in 2010)
In the meantime, fair minded, reasonable visitor to the site: don't you find it rather 'interesting' that, having looked at what I report in My Diary (examples, My Diary - 20 Mar 07), (given its accusation, you would expect the police to have done this), the only thing that Notting Hill police et. al. at Kensington & Chelsea police considered fit to do was to send an email to my website Host implying that I had committed a crime, and brand me "a Nazi"? Furthermore, it DID NOT contact me at ANY POINT IN TIME. WHY NOT? considering that it implied I had committed "a crime" (K&C police # 3)
• Harassment of the person who was running the residents association (Head Residents Association) by means of "aggressive, threatening behaviour", "up to 30 nuisance calls a day", "demanding that I handover the Chairmanship and all the files of the Residents Association to him". Harassment witnessed by another resident "Her experience was horrendous. I was there on two occasions..." (18 April 2002 email)
• Harassment of Other Residents through "unprovoked direct verbal and other abuse by Mr Ladsky" "He acted like a petty tyrant, and I am not afraid to put on record that I believe that he is capable of any unscrupulous actions in order to achieve his aims" (1 November 2002 letter); "using a key to try and enter our flat; my wife was alone in the flat" , etc. Harassment of the Elderly Resident who took the initial step for investigating the service charge demands. And harassment of, 'perhaps', Resident K
• Harassment of Nucleus, the local Citizens Advice Bureau, through threatening correspondence and abusive phone calls intended to stop Nucleus helping us
• As Andrew Ladsky has been identified by Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor (CKFT) and Portner (Portner and Jaskel LLP) as "[their] client" (e.g. Advisors: CKFT ; Portner and Jaskel LLP) and, the Law Society's standard reply to points in my complaint against both firms is that they "acted on the instructions of their client" (e.g. Portner # 5.1 ; CKFT # 6.4 ):
• Getting Lanny Silverstone, CKFT, to threaten me with forfeiture (take the flat from me) and of contacting my mortgage lender unless I immediately paid the £14,400 (US$25,400) 'service charge' demand (My Diary 10 Oct 02 ; CKFT # 6.2 ). Consider that:
- (1) the 17 June 2003 London LVT findings had the effect of reducing the global sum demanded by 70% (including the reserve fund) - (LVT # 4)
- (2) Ladsky wrote me (and other leaseholders ) on 25 January 2001 "...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" (NB: He certainly made sure that he looked after "[his] interests")
- (3) CKFT made the threats against me in the name of a company which, the evidence suggests, did not exist at the time (CKFT # 1 ; # 6.9 ; Owners identity # 2 ; BVI registration)
• Getting CKFT to file a claim against me (and 10 of my fellow leaseholders) in WLCC - in the absolute knowledge that the tribunal had told us to NOT PAY the service charge demand until it had issued its determination and it had been implemented (CKFT # 2 ; # 6.1 ; WLCC # 2 ; # 4 ; # 6 )...
... and getting CKFT to very aggressively pursue the action against the leaseholders - before the tribunal had issued its determination - resulting in 9 out of the 14 flats listed on the claim (Particulars of claim and list) paying the FULL amount of the service charge + a further 16 flats also paid the full amount (CKFT # 6.6 , CKFT, # 6.3 ; Pridie Brewster # 2 , # 3 , # 18) v. the LVT's 70% reduction (inc. contingency fund) (LVT # 4)...
...and the fact that the sum payable by EACH leaseholder should have been CAPPED at £250.00 (NB: Further evidence that the leaseholders were made to pay monies not due and payable: do you think that Ladsky et. al would have made me an 'offer' for £6,350 (US$11,200) if they could prove that I owed the original demand of £14,400 (US$25,400)?) (See the summary 'threat of forfeiture and bankruptcy proceedings, as well as court claims = FRAUD TOOLS)
...how to explain that, having absolute knowledge of the LVT action (WLCC # 2 , # 5 , my Defence and seven letters to the courts), WLCC allowed CKFT to pursue the action? (WLCC Key points , My questions)
• CKFT opting to have Joan Hathaway, MRICS, Martin Russell Jones, sign the statement of truth on the 2002 WLCC claim - amounting to a very serious breach of Civil Procedure Rules (WLCC Key point # 3 ; My Diary 9 Mar 07) - and WLCC nonetheless proceeding with the claim, including issuing judgment/s and charging order/s against my fellow leaseholders, etc. (WLCC # 5 , # 6 , # 14 ; Lord Falconer of Thoroton # 1, # 2 , # 5 )
• Getting CKFT/MRJ to supply a 'very convenient' lease with the WLCC claim, falsely claiming that it was representative of all the leases in the block (CKFT # 6.7 ; WLCC # 3 )
• Getting Lanny Silverstone and Ayesha Salim, CKFT, to make FALSE statements against me in court (CKFT # 6.3 , # 6.6 ; WLCC # 9 )
• Getting CKFT to make very extensive use of threats of "proceedings" - of course, always "with costs" - in an attempt to get his own way, which included forcing me to 'strike a deal' - in breach of the terms of my lease and statutory requirements (CKFT # 3 ; # 5 ; # 6.4 ; # 6.5 ; # 6.8 ; WLCC # 8 ; # 10 ; # 12 ; Piper Smith Basham/Watton # 7 ; # 7.4.3 ; # 7.4.4 ; # 7.6 ; # 7.7 ; # 7.8 ; # 7.9 ; # 7.9.1 ; # 7.9.2 ; # 7.12.1 ; # 7.13.1 ; # 7.13.2 ; # 7.14 ; # 7.17.1 ; Stan Gallagher # 3 ; # 3.e ; # 4.1 ; # 5 ; # 9 )
• Having made me an offer for £6,350 (US$11,200)
(v. the original demand of £14,400 (US$25,400), Ladsky evidently dictated to Ayesha Salim, CKFT, that I should be made to continue going through hell, as it took another 6 months of battling with CKFT to finally get a Consent Order endorsed by the court (Piper Smith Basham/Watton # 7.13.3 ; WLCC # 13 ) - followed by more hell from the courts (WLCC # 14 ; WCC # 1)
• Getting Lanny Silverstone, CKFT, to join in 'on the act', by sending me the highly defamatory and threatening letter of 4 February 2003 after Ladsky reported me to the police for "swearing" at him (Kensington & Chelsea police # 2 ) (Lanny Silverstone has sent me many threatening letters: CKFT # 5 . The difference in style with e.g. a letter sent 12 days later to another leaseholder (CKFT # 6.2 ) clearly showing that his client earmarked me for maximum harassment, intimidation and blackmail
• Getting Ayesha Salim, CKFT, to threaten the Elderly Resident who reported Ladsky for harassment to the police by demanding "compensation for the slanderous allegation, damaging our client's reputation" (I can't stop laughing at these claims) (11 October 2001 letter)
• Getting Daniel Broughton, Portner and Jaskel, to send me a BOGUS 'notice of first refusal' (PJ # 1 )
• Getting Jeremy Hershkorn, then at Portner, to, over a period of several weeks, repeatedly threaten my website Host with proceedings unless my Host closed down my website, claiming that "all of the allegations on [my] website are clearly untrue and therefore defamatory" (My Diary - 5 Feb 07). He had succeeded with my previous website host, so he thought that he would try his luck again (My Diary 3 Oct 06 ; PJ # 2 )
• Getting Jeremy Hershkorn to threaten me with "bankruptcy proceedings, forfeiture" (*) (taking the flat away from me, and "costs" in the name of a company I had NEVER heard of (16 February 2007) (PJ # 15 ), if I failed to immediately pay £8,937 (US$15,800) (PJ# 3 ).
(*) = same approach as that used by CKFT # 6.2 ; My Diary 10 Oct 02 (An approach endorsed by 'my' then solicitor Lisa McLean - Piper Smith Basham # 7.19... in spite of having absolute knowledge that the service charge demand, and hence the claim filed against me were fraudulent: PSB # 1 , # 7.7 It makes me think of the comment by the Reader of The Times - My Diary 12 Apr 07
• Getting Jeremy Hershkorn to file a (FRAUDULENT) claim against me when the threat of "bankruptcy and forfeiture" failed to achieve his objective (Not only had I never heard of the company, I don't know how much I owe - if anything: my 12 September 2007 Defence) (PJ # 6) (Subsequent note: my 3 June 2008 Witness Statement). Hence, this was Ladsky's response to my 25 February 2007 reply asking for clarification, as well as copy of “a statement dated 13th February 2007 which indicates how the sum of £8,937.28 (US$15,800) has been calculated" that was not enclosed with the 16 February 2007 malicious letter.
• Getting Hershkorn to file an application for judgment against me - as evidenced by the 19 April 2007 Order from WLCC refusing the application (Portner # 13 )
• Getting Ahmet Jaffer, Portner - and his barrister, Mr Greg Williams - to lie to the court that they had not received my Skeleton Argument (PJ # 17 )
• Getting Portner and Jaskel to file a vexatious claim against the Elderly Resident
• Getting his surveyor, Brian Gale, MRICS, - in tandem with Joan Hathaway, MRICS, Martin Russell Jones - to lie to the leaseholders about the true nature of the 'major works' (MRJ # 13 )
• Getting Brian Gale, MRICS, to lie to the tribunal in his 13 December 2002 "Expert Witness" report stating "categorically that the specification makes NO provision for any construction of an additional floor nor any future requirement in the building to create a penthouse flat" (BG # 2 ) and doing this with the support of Hathaway (Major works - home page)
• Getting Brian Gale to lie about me in his second "Expert Witness" report to the tribunal, dated 24 February 2003, by falsely claiming that I had been supplied with the priced specifications, and, acting in tandem with him, falsely claiming - in correspondence to the tribunal - that I was "the only tenant objecting to the service charge demand" (BG # 3 , # 4 )
• Getting Brian Gale, MRICS, and Mansell Construction Services to lie to the leaseholders in their November 2004 "description of the works" claiming that the works being performed were "replacing asphalt roof" and doing "general repair and refurbishment " - when, in reality, they were, among others, building a penthouse flat (BG # 8.1 ; Mansell ; Major works )
• Getting his barrister, Mr Warwick, to make a slanderous, scurrilous claim about me during the tribunal hearing by stating that "the reason [I have] been challenging the service charge demand is because I did not want to pay it" (My Diary 13 Mar 03) (LVT hearings are public)
• Getting MRJ to not supply other essential information e.g. year-end accounts (Kensington & Chelsea housing # 1 ; # 2 ; MRJ # 37 ; Pridie Brewster # 2 ) (In breach of the terms of my lease, I have not been supplied with the year-end accounts since 2004 - yet, Ladsky et.al. have filed 'another' claim against me) (PJ # 6 )
• Getting Ms Joan Hathaway, MRICS, Martin Russell Jones, to issue service charge demands - and threats of proceedings, in the name of a company which, the evidence suggests, did not exist at the time (MRJ # 24 ; Owners identity # 2 )
• As in the case of Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor and Portner and Jaskel, getting Martin Russell Jones to threaten proceedings 'galore' to anybody who 'dares' protest against breaches of covenants in their lease and / or their statutory rights (MRJ # 26 ; # 28 ; # 40)... a 'tone' it set within weeks of being appointed as 'managing' agents for Jefferson House in 1989 (MRJ # 1 )
• As a means of securing payment of the service charges by the leaseholders, getting Hathaway to lie to individual leaseholders by claiming that payment had been received from the others (MRJ # 15 ) - and concurrently lie that no objections had been received from other leaseholders (MRJ # 32)
• Getting Joan Hathaway, MRICS, MRJ, to portray me as a liar to the tribunal by falsely claiming that I had been supplied with a priced version of the specification for the works. (She contradicted herself during the hearing, leading the tribunal to postpone the substantive hearing "in the interest of justice") (LVT # 3 ). This had been preceded by the same lie in correspondence (MRJ # 33 ) including to the tribunal ( MRJ # 14 ) - supported by the threat of proceedings, in her 20 September 2002 letter, if I did not immediately pay the 'service charge' demand (MRJ # 14 )
• Getting Hathaway to supply a very 'convenient' lease with the application to the LVT, falsely claiming that it was representative of all the leases in the block (LVT # 8.1.4 ; MRJ # 23 ) - an action repeated with the court claim (MRJ # 22 ; WLCC # 3)
• Getting MRJ (through CKFT) to lie to the court that the LVT findings had been implemented, and reflected in the service charge demands (CKFT # 6.6 ; MRJ # 16 ; # 17 ; Pridie Brewster # 18 )
• Getting Barrie Martin, FRICS, Martin Russell Jones, to make outrageous, libelous accusations against me in his 4 August 2004 letter stating
that " [I] refused to pay [my] contribution [for the works] and this resulted in the proceedings before the LVT which of course resulted in the considerable delay in the commencement of the work" (MRJ # 25 ) (And 'maybe' copied all the leaseholders on the letter (?))
Ladsky had previously asked his other 'puppets' at CKFT to make these scurrilous accusations against me:
(1) in his 25 June 2003 letter, Lanny Silverstone wrote, (as he was attempting to force me to strike a deal with his client) "...without going through the costly LVT process which has now resulted in a percentage uplift in the contract figure and a significant delay in the project" ; (2) in the 21 October 2003 'offer', Ayesha Salim wrote "...and to continue to defend these proceedings is her own. Her decision to do so has caused inconvenience and expense to all the lessees of the building."
(NB: (1) 'Steel Services' filed the application in the tribunal (LVT Introduction); (2) As captured in the 17 June 2003 LVT/SC/007/120/02 report (ref. #992 on the LVT database) under point 64 "Although she is in the minority, the Respondent's legal right to challenge the Applicant's proposal, as she has done, cannot be fettered" . This was in response to Ladsky asking the Chair during the hearing whether I would "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?" (My Diary 5 Feb 03)...
...and (3) NINE months AFTER the tribunal issued its report, in her 26 March 2004 letter to "All Lessees", Joan Hathaway, MRICS, MRJ, wrote: "Due to extensive delays in collecting the contributions from all (NB!!!) lessees...") (My question: Who is in need of "very serious help"?)
• Using MRJ to take revenge on me for challenging the 'service charge' demand by, three months AFTER the Consent Order sealing acceptance of the 21 October 2003 "offer" had been endorsed by the court on 1 July 2004, issuing me with:
(See my 3 June 2008 Witness Statement for detail) (PJ # 29 , # 30 no witness statement from Ladsky et.al. , # 31 Notice of discontinuance of "ALL" of the 27 February 2007 claim against me
- (3) Add to that yet ANOTHER, TOTALLY UNSUPPORTED, and DEFINITELY FRAUDULENT demand 'from' MRJ =Ladsky of 9 July 2010 for £24,000 (US$42,000) (My Diary 13 Jul 10)
I repeat my question: who is "in very serious need of help?"
• Serious neglect of the immediate areas external to my flat, I view as other vindictive acts:
- (1) Keeping the corridor immediately by the entrance to my flat unswept for months. The detritus included a used plaster, and what appeared to be the top part of a used condom (Photo gallery - Corridor by my flat - 18 September 2005; Pack Filth my flat )
- (2) taking one year to repair the broken step by my windows (Photo gallery - Area outside my windows ; Pack Broken step )
- (3) using the area outside of my windows as a rubbish dump, and for storage; not cleaning my windows since before the start of the works in 2004 i.e. for now 4 years (photo gallery - Area outside my windows ; Pack Broken step ; Pack Filth my flat ) (NB: maybe the hosing of my windows in the middle of the night (detailed at the top of this entry) is considered as 'cleaning my windows'? :-) )
- Lack of concern for health and safety (Photo gallery Stairs to / from my flat - Pack Safety stairs )
• Another thing to add: Following the change of the lock on the main entrance door, I sent this 26 July 2005 letter to Martin Russell Jones, asking for two extra keys. As can be seen from the letter, to this effect, I enclosed a cheque for £30.00, as well as a self-addressed, prepaid, special delivery envelop. To this day i.e. nearly three years on, I have not even received an acknowledgement. Outcome: I can't give a spare key to family / friend to come to my aid.
Actually, it would require that I can call somebody as, for the last two weeks, during day time, I can't get a signal on my mobile phones when I am in the flat. I can when I am out of the flat. The signal appears to come back on after c.17h30... when people come back to the block. (NB: I am dependent on mobile phones as my landline in the flat was cut-off c. 2-3 years ago - without my consent). (Not because I was not paying my bills). (Subsequent note at July 08: 24 hours after putting this entry on my website, I was able to get the signal on my mobile phones during the day.
(See also how the corrupt Hutchison 3G deprived me of my mobile phone number for more than three months: My Diary 29 Dec 08 , 23 Jan 09 ; My Diary home, for what happened with my Vodafone 3G card, as well as extracts from a press article "Minister in 'cahoots with mobile phone firms on price fixing'", and another one headed "Phone firms net £9m for giving data to the police")
= More evidence that actions are being orchestrated against me, added to the evidence contained in My Diary 2009 - Introduction... and I can add a lot more evidence to this) (ADD; ADD2)
• Allowing the accountants to produce accounts that are in serious breach of my lease - and of course, on which the service charge demands are based (Pridie Brewster # 5 ; # 18 ) (Subsequent note: also covered in my 3 June 2008 Witness Statement)
What had Andrew Ladsky said in his 25 January 2001 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."
...I believe that any fair minded, reasonable person with integrity would agree with me that the person who is "in VERY serious need of help" IS Andrew Ladsky. He certainly fits the profile of a sociopath. (I look forward to Ladsky taking me up on that).
(In his 26 March 2007 letter to my then employer, KPMG, he wrote that I was "suffering from clinical paranoia" and, in one of his phone calls, said that I was "clinically unwell". The objective of his letter was to secure the assistance of my employer in putting pressure on me to close down my website. As can be seen from his letter, his tactics include: of course, FALSE claims and accusations; highlighting parties covered on my website with which KPMG has a working relationship; threatening defamation proceedings.
Andrew Ladsky had done this previously (i.e. prior to 2006) by jumping on the fact that I had (stupidly) sent a personal fax to Kensington & Chelsea Housing on 24 October 2002, copied to the LVT, and one to the LVT, on the same date - on KPMG's headed paper.
In the fax to K&C, I highlight, among others, the BVI's policy of "protection of assets from expropriation or confiscation orders from foreign governments" and state "(Hence, they could siphon-off - at this stage - £750,000+ from Jefferson House residents and make it disappear)"
While in the fax to the LVT, I wrote, among others that "...some flats are owned by people connected with the headlease - namely, Mr Andrew David Ladsky..."
Although he clearly had 'no leg to stand on', Lanny Silverstone, Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor (CKFT), nonetheless tried to make something out of the above extracts in order to involve KPMG by sending this 28 November 2002 letter to KPMG, and one to me of the same date - in each instance demanding "compensation" failing which it would "start proceedings".
The real motive was vengeance for my communicating, in my fax to Kensington & Chelsea Housing, that Steel Services was a non-existent company as it had been "STRUCK-OFF the [British Virgin Islands] register for non-payment of the licence fee" (Owners identity # 2)... with very serious implications on CKFT and Ladsky's other puppets (Owners identity # 2)
My 'internal radar' was right: THEFT DID TAKE PLACE: of c. £500,000 (US$880,000) e.g. Theft Act s.17 - False accounting ; WLCC # 2 , # 5 , # 6 , # 8 , # 9 , # 12 , # 14 ; My Diary 22 Nov 08: 'threat of forfeiture, bankruptcy proceedings, as well as court claims = FRAUD TOOLS')
(As Ladsky had one of his thugs phone the Head of my department at KPMG, I had sent this 31 October 2002 letter to CKFT)
|
And those also in "VERY serious need of help" are his assortment of 'puppets' who are only too happy to cater to his every whim and diktats, and those in other parts of the food chain who endorse and support their actions.
(See also My Diary 6 May 08, above, as well as 20 Oct 08, and 11 Nov 08) |
It really beggars belief that Ladsky et. al. can so freely carry out and command such outrageous actions against me (and my fellow leaseholders). Meanwhile... 'I' am branded "a Nazi". (My Diary 20 Mar 07 ; Kensington police # 3). Who are the 'Hitlers'... in 21st century England?
What I have - and continue to be made to endure -amounts to, among others, a breach of my Human Rights, under Article 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998 "Prohibition of torture - No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment"
19 May 2008 - Another block to add to the list for Martin Russell Jones
I received the following comment on my website: "Martin Russell Jones 'run' [] (1) Court, Kilburn (2), in a similar fashion"
(1) Area in north London
This makes it the second block to be brought to my attention in the last two weeks (see 6 May 2008 above) - to be added to the other three previously identified: see Martin Russell Jones points # 18 and # 42
3 June 2008 - My 'knockout' (74-page) Witness Statement (4-page Main Points) - preceded by, among other, information that the airspace of Jefferson House was transferred from 'Steel Services' to 'Rootstock Overseas Corp' for "£1" on 8 January 2007
It took me c. three weeks of solid work to write my Witness Statement. In addition to writing the content, I also had to reference it to 240 supporting documents (list supplied in my 6 May 2008 Standard Disclosure).
Preceding events to my sending my Witness Statement to Portner on 3 June 2008:
- On 13 May 2008 I took delivery of a 1 May 2008 Order issued by District Judge Nicholson who refused my 30 April 2008 application (30 April 2008 - above) stating "If the Defendant wishes to obtain information from the Claimant the Defendant should make a request for the information, and if it is not given the Defendant should make an Application to the court”
- I replied on 14 May 2008 (copying the Rt. Hon Jack Straw, InJustice secretary) that "the court is perfectly aware that the Claimant has not supplied me with the information I should, by right (covenants in my lease, and my statutory rights) have been provided with – a long time ago”.
In support of my position of a “game plan to prevent me from getting the information in time to write my Witness Statement, I emphasised that, "given the Claimant’s conduct to date, I would need to make a request for information", and highlighted "PD 18 5.5(2) which requires allowing 14 days for reply before filing an application in court for an order". (In the last paragraph I wrote: "Whatever the outcome: my conscience is clear")
- I was proven right: on 19 May 2008, I sent a CPR Part 18 Request to Portner (Portner and Jaskel LLP), giving a 14-day deadline for reply by 2 June 2008. It did NOT reply.
(See Dr-MP for another 'interesting' preceding event in the month of May 2008)
|
Thanks to District Judge Ryan who issued case management directions that did not allow for the provision of the required information (30 Apr 08, above) and District Judge Nicholson refusing my application to amend the timeline of the case management directions - in breach of CPR (WLCC # 28) - I was left with having to write my Witness Statement without key information "required to clarify [Rootstock]'s case" and to which I am legally entitled - greatly prejudicing my position.
That's the game the judges wanted to play:..
...I had only one round...
...I would fight for a 'knockout'. |
One exception re the provision of information: following my 16 May 2008 letter to Portner and Jaskel LLP, asking for documents from its 4 February 2008 standard disclosure (Portner # 24), one turned out to be a 8 January 2007 transaction for Jefferson House's airspace. It states that the:
“Property: Airspace of Jefferson House, 7 to 13 Basil Street, London SW3 1AX” was transferred on “8 January 2007” from “Steel Services Limited” to “Rootstock Overseas Corp, Republic de Panama” for “the sum of £1.00”. The transaction was “Signed as a deed on behalf of Steel Services Ltd, a company incorporated in the British Virgin Islands by Enrique Sibauste… acting under the authority of the company”
As I wrote in my 3 June 2008 Witness Statement, point 51:
"My being supplied with this document only now (it was registered 7 weeks prior to filing the 27 February 2007 claim), provides yet another example of PJ and its client’s perverse, devious, warped mentality - considering that I first asked for clarification 15 months ago – and subsequently stated the issue in, among other, major documents served on them: my 3 May 2007 Skeleton Argument ; my 12 September 2007 Defence"
(It 'smells' of revenge for my figuring out, and exposing, the scam with the 10 February 2006 "Notice" (Portner # 1 ; more detail in My Diary - 18 February 2006 ). Clearly, the 'boys' don't like being outsmarted by a woman).
Rather 'interesting' to note that the "transferor" of the title for the airspace is "Steel Services" - considering that it was the "lessee" of Lavagna Enterprises (Headlessor # 2 ) (And ditto in relation to the 24 May 2006 transfer "by Steel Services" of its title "to Rootstock Overseas Corp" (Headlessors # 3 ) - given that Steel Services was a "lessee" of Lavagna Enterprises (Headlessors # 2 )
Prior transactions about the 'airspace' also indicate 'internal shuffling of papers' (Headlessors # 4).
As I wrote under points 52 to 56 of my 3 June 2008 Witness Statement, the 8 January 2007 transaction still leaves many questions unanswered...(Headlessor # 5 ) My explanation: all these 'paper companies' have the same person trying to hide behind them: Mr Andrew Ladsky (Headlessor # 5 ; # 7 ; Owners identity ; Directorships ; Freehold ownership ; BVI registration ) ('Maybe' the creation of Lavagna Enterprises as a superior headlessor was done for the purpose of borrowing money?)
Under point 57 of my Witness Statement, I wrote:
Under the L&T 1985 Act I have the right to know who controls my home. It is clear that, with no mechanism in place to control the residential leasehold sector, no matter how hard I try to get an answer to my question - at any one point in time - I will never know"
Another of my predictions materialised:
- The 9 April 2008 case management directions state “Both parties shall, by 4pm on Wednesday, 4th June 2008, serve on each other the witness statements of themselves and of all witnesses (other than expert witnesses) on whom they intend to rely”
- Under point 2 of my 3 June 2008 Witness Statement I wrote: "Considering the (well documented) conduct of the Claimant, i.e. Mr Andrew Ladsky (et.al.?), the requirement “serving on themselves” leads me to anticipate that I will not receive the Claimant’s Witness Statement as directed – allowing Mr Ladsky and supporters at large to see my Witness Statement first – in the knowledge that there will be no sanction for not complying with the WLLC Order (as happened with the 19 April 2007 WLCC Order in relation to the skeleton arguments) (Portner # 16 ; # 17 ). I hope to be proven wrong"
I knew I would not be proven wrong: I did NOT receive the witness statement from "Rootstock Overseas Corp / Steel Services Ltd / Sloan Development" (Portner # 6.1 ) i.e. Mr Andrew Ladsky.
This is a REPEAT of what took place with the previous fraudulent claim of 29 November 2002 - see My Diary 22 Nov 08 - Court claims = FRAUD TOOLS.
As I wrote in my 5 June 2008 letter to Mr Ahmet Jaffer, Portner (Portner and Jaskel LLP):
"If your Client is so sure that he can justify his claim against me:
1. Why have you failed to send me your Client’s Witness Statement by the 4 June 2008 deadline set in the WLCC’s Case Management directions Order of 9 April 2008?
2. Why has your Client repeatedly ignored – over the past 16 months - my numerous requests for evidence in support of the claim? I remind you that I first asked in my 25 February 2007 reply to Mr Jeremy Hershkorn’s letter of 16 February 2007 in which he threatened me with bankruptcy proceedings and forfeiture unless I immediately paid the sum of £8,937.28 – in the name of a company I had never heard of at the time (as subsequently proven). Your client’s reply was to ask your firm to file the 27 February 2007 claim against me.
3. Why have you failed to reply to my 19 May 2008 Part 18 Request for information?
4. Why did your Client falsely claim in his 22 August 2007 Skeleton Argument that you had not received mine of 3 May 2007? On the basis of this false claim, point 8 of the Skeleton Argument states “The Claimant has delayed service of its skeleton to the present date in the hope that it may have been able to respond constructively to Defendant’s arguments on the application”
As per the 9 April 2008 WLCC directions, I only sent my Witness Statement to Portner and Jaskel... but I am sure that it quickly found its way to individuals connected with the court - and beyond.
(Events are also captured in my 19 January 2009 reply to the points of dispute)
|
7 June 2008 - "Roostock (sic) Overseas Corp, Steel Services" and "Sloan Development" i.e. Andrew Ladsky et.al. have 'thrown in the towel' by DROPPING"ALL of the 27 February 2007 claim" against me
Yep! As can be seen in the 6 June 2008 'Notice of discontinuance', (sent on the day Portner received my 5 June 2008 letter, and the day after it received my 'knock-out' 3 June 2008 Witness Statement), Ladsky et.al. dropped "ALL of the claim" against me. That's right, the claim - endorsed by a Statement of Truth (Portner # 6.3) - for which Ladsky asked Jeremy Hershkorn, (now ex.) Portner and Jaskel LLP to...
...send me a letter, dated 16 February 2007, threatening me with "bankruptcy proceedings", "forfeiture" (taking the flat away from me), and "costs", in the name of "Rootstock Overseas Corp", a company I had NEVER heard of (PJ # 15 ), if I failed to "immediately pay £8,937" (US$15,800) (PJ # 3) ...
... file an application for judgment against me - as evidenced by the 19 April 2007 Order from WLCC refusing the application (PJ # 13 )
...and for which Ladsky got Martin Russell Jones to supply the Particulars of claim, as well as send me a 1 March 2007 invoice for £8,937 (US$15,760) (PJ # 7 ) |
Let's not forget also:
(1) The 3 October 2006 fax from the corrupt Hershkorn to my then ISP in which he threatened the ISP with "proceedings for defamation and for substantial damages and costs" if it did not "close down [my website] within 48 hours", as well as demanding "an apology...along with your suggestion for damages, which must be substantial...", because "[my website] contains suggestions that our client [Mr 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).
Hershkorn concluded the letter with "We will of course, take all appropriate steps to enforce any judgement obtained in the UK against you" (My 5 October 2006 reply highlighting that he did not provide one single item of evidence in support of his accusations - Defamation Act 1996 ) (My Diary 3 Oct 06 ; PJ # 2 )
(2) Jeremy Hershkorn's repeated threats of "proceedings and damages and costs" to my current website Host - over a period of several weeks - unless my Host closed down my website, by - yet again - making highly libellous, scurrilous claims against me, stating "all of the allegations on [my] website are clearly untrue and therefore defamatory" (My Diary 5 Feb 07 ; PJ # 2) Of course, yet again, Hershkorn did not provide any evidence in support of his accusations.
(3) When Hershkorn backed off, following my 28 February 2007 complaint against Portner and Jaskel to the Law Society (PJ # 4 , # 5), it led Andrew Ladsky to take-up the harassment of my website Host himself, by making several threatening phone calls to my Host - repeating the same libellous, scurrilous claims and accusations against me, and the same threats - thereby continuing with his 'standard approach' e.g. his 26 March 2007 letter to my employer; the 28 November 2002 letter from CKFT to my employer, and its letter to me of the same date; CKFT's letters to two residents
Considering that, since the 27 February 2007 claim was filed against me (PJ # 6 ) ALL my documents to WLCC and Portner and Jaskel are based ENTIRELY on the contents of my website: If the claims on my website are "false", "outrageous", "unsubstantiated" and "defamatory" of 'the good character' of Mr Ladsky (I can't stop laughing at that): why has 'Rootstock' i.e. Ladsky dropped "ALL" of his (second) fraudulent claim against me? (The first fraudulent claim was in November 2002 - Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor ; WLCC, Martin Russell Jones, LVT, etc.)
This (and the rest of my experience e.g. overview under 15 May 2008 and 6 May 2008, above) makes me think of the comment by the Reader of The Times "My father used to say that the mafia never got a foothold in this country because our legal system was more corrupt than they were. Now I know what he meant!" (My Diary 12 Apr 07)
As you can see in various parts in the section for Portner and Jaskel, West London County Court - Post 2004, My Diary - Year 2007, etc., I have always maintained that the claim was fraudulent (*) - and have said so in numerous documents to Portner and Jaskel and West London County Court over the last 16 months.
(*) In my - non-lawyer- opinion (with a victory to my credit :-) ) the conduct, including letters and emails, amount to breach/es by Portner and Jaskel - and its client (PJ # 5.1 ) - of (NB: comments in brackets after the Acts are extracted from the Acts) :
(See my 19 January 2009 reply to the 'claimants' points of dispute)
They also amount to numerous breaches of the Solicitors Code of Conduct but, given the attitude of the Law Society (PJ # 4 , # 5), and in relation to my complaint against Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor (CKFT) and Piper Smith Basham/Watton - outlined under 6 May 08, above) - I am not wasting my time listing them...
...as, very clearly, like Lanny Silverstone and Ayesha Salim, CKFT, and Richard Twyman and Lisa McLean, Piper Smith Basham/Watton, it is viewed by the Law Society as having "discharged its professional duties with [no]thing less than complete integrity and probity" and consequently has no need to worry about "severe sanctions". (And ditto from the Bar Council in the case of Mr Stan Gallagher : # 16 , # 17 and # 18)
Why drop the claim against me now, considering that - just one week previously - Ahmet Jaffer, Portner, had sent me a letter, dated 23 May 2008, (posted on 27 May), on which he copied WLCC suggesting that the claim should be moved from 'fast-track' to 'multi-track' "to allow time for the very voluminous bundle of documents you have submitted as well as hear oral evidence..."
I attribute it principally to the strength of my 3 June 2008 Witness Statement (4-page Main Points) (3 June 2008 - above) in which I left 'no stone unturned'...
...and to the fact that I was not represented - thereby precluding the possibility of arriving at 'an arrangement' with 'my' legal 'advisers' - as happened with the equally fraudulent 29 November 2002 WLCC claim, ref. WL203537, filed against me, also in WLCC (My 19 October 2003 Witness Statement ; home # 4.12 , # 4.13 ; CKFT # 6.8 ; Piper Smith Basham/Watton # 7.12.1) - and,...
...unlike in 2003-2004 (Home # 4.14 ; My Diary 11 Mar 07 ; CKFT ; WLCC ; Lord Falconer), the ploys and 'games' in 2007-08 failed to make me cave in - in spite of their 'renewed vigour', including failed to lead me to appoint legal 'advisers' (WLCC # 9 , # 11) (see my 19 January 2009 reply to the points of dispute) = second time round: the FEAR tactics had NO hold on me
Knowing that (as with the 29 November 2002 claim: My 19 October 2003 Witness Statement), I would not receive a witness statement from Ladsky et.al., I opted to wait until the day after the (4 June) deadline for the exchange of witness statements to send my 5 June 2008 reply to Portner in which I highlight, among other, the following from the 9 April 2008 so-called 'case management directions' “4) No party may rely on or adduce the evidence of any witness whose statement has not been served in accordance with this Order”.
NB: In relation to Mr Jaffer's comment in his 23 May 2008 letter “We received your letter of 21st May 2008 enclosing two lever arch files of copy documents you wish to rely upon at the hearing of this claim. The majority of the documents provided (without any request from us)…”: I followed my 'sixth sense' (*) opting to hand-deliver (covering letter of 21 May 2008) an integral copy of all the documents listed in my 6 May 2008 Standard Disclosure (My Diary 6 May 08, above) - as I explained in my 5 June 2008 letter. (*) There MUST be a bundle for a hearing, and I wanted to make sure that MY documents were in it. (Also playing on my 'sixth sense' was what took place with Dr-MP at the time i.e. in May 2008)
I also wrote to WLCC on the same day, i.e. 5 June 2008, reporting the fact that the 'claimant' had not submitted a witness statement and that it clearly had implications on the management of the case.
Somebody suggested an additional factor: "somebody got cold feet". If so, my view is that it is in the 'higher echelons' i.e. parties outside of Ladsky's immediate circle (as he clearly does not have any sense of personal boundaries e.g. other court cases, and 'his puppets' kowtow to his every wish).
(NB: Visitor to the site not connected in any way with my case: in reading the rest of this entry, please bear in mind that my website does not contain 'the whole story', namely, some major events since 2007. I 'might' add the 'missing parts' at a later stage).
|
Question to the evil, corrupt, morally depraved barbarians who, as a cover-up tactic and out of revenge for my exposing their actions / their 'friends' actions have scurrilously labeled me a 'mental case'...
...in the process, resorting to the most despicable means to try to make it stick:
how do you think reasonable, fair minded, honest people will assess e.g... |
 |
... (1) My (Litigant in Person) 3 June 2008 Witness Statement - that triggered the 6 June 2008 Notice of Discontinuance of "ALL" of the 27 February 2007 claim filed againt me in West London County Court?
(2) My conclusions: 'threat of forfeiture and bankruptcy proceedings, as well as court claims = FRAUD TOOLS' , and Theft of c. £500,000 to generate a multi-million Pound jackpot?
(3) My 19 January 2009 reply to Portner and Jaskel's Points of dispute?
(4) My 2 January 2010 Subject Access Request to the Ministry of 'Justice'? (Legal-Home # C)
(5) My 12 July 2009 complaint to the Parliamentary Ombudsman?
(6) My 13 August 2009 reply to the police following my 28 May 2009 Subject Access Request to Kensington & Chelsea police; my 20 September 2009 reply to the 25 August 2009 'get lost' from the police (Kensington police # 5); my 2 June 2010 s.10 Notice and supporting document? (Kensington police # 5.1)
(7) My 2 February 2010 letter to Sir Paul Stephenson, Met Commissioner; Alan Johnson, Home Secretary; Sir Malcolm Rifkind; Ann Abraham, PHSO?
(8) My 19 April 2011 claim against the police et.al.? (My Diary - 19 Apr 11)
The work of a "mad" (*), "clinically unwell", "emotionally unstable" [ADD - KPMG] "extremely paranoid"; suffering from mental issues", "suffering from clinical paranoia" (My Diary - home) woman who should be "locked-up in a psychiatric unit"? (See My Diary 25 Jan 11 for other evidence I cite in support of my assessment that the objective of 'the mafia' is to get me locked-up / 'out of action')
Oh dear!...Back to your cave and the drawing slab then! You abhorrent evil, morally depraved scums!
NB: Indicative of how they perceive women in this country: in the Law of Property Act 1925, Part VIII is headed 'Married Women and Lunatics'
(*) I thought it was the residential leasehold sector 'mafia' and its supporters' standard way of discrediting women who 'dare' challenge them. I have since discovered that, for the same reason, they can also portray men as 'mad' - My Diary 22 Nov 08 (Not leasehold related: see the comments in a KPMG report about the HBOS whistleblower (who is ex. KPMG). In fact, "vile, orchestrated smear campaigns and character assassinations" ARE THE STANDARD RESPONSE to anybody who 'dares' to challenge public sector individuals and their cronies (My Diary Feb 09)
|
Is this going to be the end of this claim? Civil Procedure Rule 38.7 states "
A claimant who discontinues a claim needs the permission of the court to make another claim against the same defendant if –
(a) he discontinued the claim after the defendant filed a defence (I did: 12 September 2007); and
(b) the other claim arises out of facts which are the same or substantially the same as those relating to the discontinued claim" Looking at what happened with WLCC since 2007, and in 2002-2004 with the previous fraudulent claim: only time will tell.
While it has not changed the overall picture in relation to the flat - at least it's a step in the right direction.
Under Civil Procedure Rules 38(6) "...a claimant who discontinues is liable for the costs which a defendant against whom he discontinues incurred on or before the date on which notice of discontinuance was served on him"
I sent this 26 June 2008 Statement of Costs to Portner, detailing my costs over the last 16 months - a total of £ £7,756 (US$13,676), giving 4 July as deadline for payment. I warned that if my costs were disputed, I would file an application for an order for costs.
As expected, more than two weeks past the deadline: no response. So, on 22 July 2008, I sent Portner a 'Notice of Commencement of Assessment of Bill of Costs' (outcome of more 'cramming in' of the CPR), and of researching other sources of information. The deadline for reply is 13 August. With the notice "for information purposes", I also sent my 22 July 2008 draft 'Statement of Case' in support of my position - should the matter proceed to an assessment hearing. (See below, 14 Aug 08 for the preposterous reply and 26 Aug 08 for evidence in support of my assessment, as well as 11Nov 08 for follow-on events - culminating in my 19 January 2009 amended reply to the points of dispute, and the 30 January 2009 so-called 'hearing' at SCCO)
In his 1 August 2008 reply "AJ" i.e. Ahmet Jaffer states that my bill of costs has been sent to "Costs Draftmen to settle points of dispute..." For follow-up see below: 14 Aug 08 ; 26 Aug 08 ; 11 Nov 08 - and the 'more of the same treatment' hearing in the Supreme Court Costs Office on 30 Jan 09.
|
|
|
|
|
Message to:
- Those who, for the sake of personal gains, have/continue to turn a 'blind eye and a deaf ear' to wrongdoings and malpractice - in breach of their responsibility
- Those who are only too happy to 'lap-up' whatever they are told, because it's 'safer' to join the crowd than highlight the facts / the truth / stand-up for what is right (Note at May 2009: Demonstrating the extent of corruption in the system is that there is fear of retaliation even at the highest level: the House of Lords)
- Those who have – and continue – to scheme against me using the most unbelievably wicked, underhanded, deceitful, gutter tactics, including...
...the snakes in the grass with their fake claims of concern and their palpably fake smiles;...
...the spineless, gutless, greedy lackeys who kowtow(ed) to ingratiate themselves with morally depraved individuals in authority in the hope of personal gains
|
|
if you ever get your forgotten conscience out of storage, reflect on the fact that the root cause for what you did / said / wrote is Andrew Ladsky et.al. deciding that I (and my fellow leaseholders) should pay for the costs of adding a penthouse flat and three other flats to the block - costs for which I (and my fellow leaseholders) are NOT liable.
The outcome of the c. £500,000 theft obtained through fear tactics? It resulted in generating a multi-million Pound jackpot.
And to those of you who are / have been 'lapping-up' whatever you are / were told, rallying to the cry of 'Off with her head!', swallowing 'the pill' to make you feel better, reflect on something else: if, when I was presented with the £14,400 (US$25,400) invoice in 2002, I did not believe in the system, would have I taken the route I took? (I really wish I had seen the Daily Telegraph article in 2001). As I wrote e.g. in my 3 June 2008 Witness Statement, under point 16 "Is it any wonder that, having started on the basis of absolute trust and confidence in the Court Service in general, I was left with neither at the end of my ordeal in August 2004?"
And, if one day you can understand these concepts: what drove me are my sense of justice, as well as moral principles. I did not want to be treated differently from my fellow leaseholders (e.g. CKFT # 3 , # 6.3 , # 6.8 ; Stan Gallagher # 3.e.1 , # 3.e.2 , # 4.1 ; Piper Smith Basham/Watton # 7.14 , # 7.14.1 ; WLCC # 10 ; Pridie Brewster # 3 , # 18). My moral principles are not available 'on tap': 'on' when it comes to e.g. declaring my income for tax purposes, 'off' when I am being ripped off / see others being ripped off - because it's 'dangerous' to stand up for what is right and just.
We ALL have to live - and die - with our conscience. |
|
I hope that my achievement leads you to choke on your pieces of silver.
It is a mark of your moral depravation and warped mentality that you act(ed) as though Andrew Ladsky is the victim and I am the criminal (Home page Introduction); that you are doing /did this by pretending to take his accusations, claims and rantings seriously for the purpose of using them as an excuse to take action against me for exposing your / 'your friends' 'true' practices - exposure ENTIRELY TRIGGERED BY Andrew Ladsky's actions (e.g. My Diary 2009 - Introduction ; Home page Introduction , # 4.14 , # 4.15 , # 4.16 ), and YOUR / 'YOUR FRIENDS' subsequent actions (e.g. Home page # 3 ; # 4.15 ; # 12 ; # 14 ; # 7 ; # 12 ) |
|
Of course, the wide range of people ready to suck-up and kowtow as a 'thank you' for past favours and / or in the hope of future personal gains (e.g. My Diary 2009 - Introduction), combined with my being a woman, of limited financial means and no influential connections, makes it particularly easy to secure agreement on taking vindictive actions against me for being a whistleblower (*) - in the context of 'daring' to stand-up for my rights. Doesn't it? Easy through 'the Brotherhood'. Isn't it?
I cannot begin to express the amount of repulsion you make me feel.
The whole lot of you are as morally depraved, twisted as Ladsky and his aides; from the same cesspit.
You are an absolute disgrace to the decent people of this country. |
(*) NB: The residential leasehold sector is a very powerful oligarchy of 'sacrosanct' freeholders e.g. 'Who owns Britain?' ; the 'Great Estates' , examples of new entrants - with far reaching tentacles e.g. New Labour's 1997 'An End to Feudalism' v. 'New Labour 2008 decision to retain residential leasehold ; a history of the landed class blocking legislation. (Land ownership has for centuries been a key determinant of power in this country).
(The Duke of Westminster exported his 'method of operating' to Paris, my home town, and faced the spirit of people in a republic that guillotined its aristocracy"Siege of the people's castle" (The Guardian, 17 Oct 07))
Around this oligarchy, there is a raft of small-timers (e.g. Andrew Ladsky et.al. and their mob) who feed on 'the crumbs' from the big 'boys and girls' who dominate this multi-billion £ rip-off 'industry' - by making maximum use of 'the privileges'.
Many of the c. 3 million residential leaseholders are, like me, at the mercy of 21st century ‘Rachman’ freeholders / landlords and their aides: extremely corrupt, greed-ridden, vicious, cruel, sadistic and perverse. It's like having 3 million-strong concentration camps in which many, e.g. the Earl of Cadogan, also fight tooth and nail to keep the leaseholders under their thumb - in order to retain their endless source of greed-satisfaction.
They behave in this way because they know they have carte blanche to do exactly as they please: the sector and supporting infrastructure are - intentionally - TOTALLY UNREGULATED (as evidenced by e.g. my experience). Whereas, to offer financial advice, ‘a man and a dog’ outfit needs to be vetted by, and registered with the FSA, landlords who control what is, for most people, their main financial asset and can, at times, handle millions of £ of leaseholder money (e.g. Tchenguiz' Peverel control of 200,000 properties) are NOT subjected to ANY kind of control - and can therefore have a criminal record ‘as long as your arm’. Indeed, in addition to the many current rogue players, there is nothing to stop individuals such as e.g. Bernie Madoff, or Peter Sutcliffe reported to have killed 13 women from being freeholders-landlords.
As evidenced by e.g. my experience, and that of many others (e.g. 22 Nov 08; Comments) if leaseholders 'dare' to stand-up and fight for their right for justice and redress, more often than not, 'the Brotherhood' closes rank against them to 'teach them a lesson' / attempt to / put them 'out of action'.
Extracts from the 29 June 2008 column of Peter Hitchens, Journalist for the Mail on Sunday: “In a country with proper justice, nobody would dare intimidate a witness. In such country, wrongdoers are afraid of the law. They’d know that such a crime would certainly be prosecuted and that they’d end-up doing at least 15 years breaking rocks. But in modern ‘enlightened’ Britain, bad people are not afraid of anything. It’s the good who are afraid. The police are afraid too, which explains why they pursue the obedient, gentle middle class rather than go after the real crooks and low-lifes. This is actually anarchy. The only thing that makes it bearable is that, so far, the bad people have yet to grasp just how totally free they are to attack, rob, intimidate and terrorise the rest of us. Even they can’t believe our criminal justice system is as feeble as it is…”
Whistleblowers
I should not feel singled out as, in spite of legislation aimed at protecting whistleblowers: Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998, provisions contained under Part IV of the Employment Rights Act 1996 - "Protected disclosures", the hounding of whistleblowers evidently occurs in other sectors (In its 15 Feb 09 issue in which it discusses the experience of whistleblowers, the Mail on Sunday describes the Act as "little better than a shield of tissue paper against mistreatment" ) e.g.
(1) The treatment of the Canadian Lady by the police for "doing the right thing" in relation to Mr Jean Charles de Menezes, because she wanted to "make a difference" (home page # 9) (See the outcome)
(2) In its 21 July 2008 issue, the Evening Standard has an article headed "Northern Rock drives 'whistle blower' to the brink of suicide with £130,000 legal action ". The article states that the man "has been unable to find a solicitor to take his case..."
(3) The treatment of the social worker who blew the whistle on Haringey Council's child protection organisation. (The case of 'Baby P' who had been seen by 60 social workers, and died from the most appalling injuries). The case has been widely reported in the media, including in an extended article in the Mail on Sunday, 16 November 2008, headed "Whistleblower: Council falsely accused me of abusing a child. I feared I'd lose my daughter".
The social worker is quoted as saying "after this whistleblowing, management became hostile towards me. I was destructively and comprehensively investigated and punished for doing nothing wrong, whereas the managers who investigated me left children with an abuser for months... I reacted... with anger and disbelief. What was so terribly wrong is that a system that had the power and the duty to protect children was now hounding me for trying to protect children. It was like I was in a fascist country. I felt totally alone" (Although the context of my experience is different, as I read the article, I kept thinking: tick! me too! ) [ADD]
In the Comment section, the Mail on Sunday states "Incompetence and unacceptable authority thrive in the dark, and wilt under the bright light of publicity and scrutiny". I wish! Out of utter despair, I put my case under the spotlight by setting-up my website (home # 12 , # 13), and the media has kindly reported on my case (home # 11) But, at November 2008, the revenge for my 'daring' to expose my case in the public domain continues unabated - leaving me to fight - totally on my own...while rapidly heading towards the pavement.
One thing to note about the above individuals: (like me - in part) all suffered victimization at the hands of the public sector: (1) the police; (2) a nationalised bank; (3) social services. Obviously, the government - which issued legislation to protect whistleblowers - considers itself to be exempt from it (see the hypocrisy, below).
As to what happens when people are scared to talk / scared to take action / allow themselves to be gagged: a few days after the above 'Baby P' case was reported in the media, the case of a man who fathered 19 children by two of / his two daughters was reported in the media. (Only seven of the children survived). Among others, this man had been reported to the authorities for incest. Another example is that of the French students, Laurent Bonomo and Gabriel Ferez who were stabbed to death - "Jack Straw accused of buck passing over murder of French students", The Times, 10 June 2009. The circumstances are all too familiar, a replay of other cases e.g. Victoria Climbie and Baby P's death.
At least, these cases are finally giving the courage to some people to speak out. Too late for the poor victims but, hopefully, it will spare others.
(4)Paul Moore, the head of regulatory risk at the bank, HBOS, between 2002 and 2005, who claims to have been dismissed "personally" by the then CEO, Sir James Crosby, after he warned about HBOS "potentially dangerous sales culture". Although he first spoke out before, it was raised again when senior bankers came before the Treasury Select Committee (TSC) on 11 February 2009. (HBOS has received a £17bn taxpayer bailout)
Mr Moore's allegations were denied by both, Sir James, and the current CEO, Andrew Hornby claiming that an "independent" investigation by KPMG found "no substance" in his claims. According to The Sunday Times, 15 Feb 09, "How HBOS blew-up", following receiving a file from Mr Moore in December 2004, "the FSA ordered HBOS to commission a report into the allegations from KPMG, the bank's auditors" - which The Times of 12 Feb 09 detailed as "investigating Mr Moore's allegations that his replacement was not fit to head risk..."
In its 12 Feb 09 article, "Sir James Crosby quits City watchdog role after whistleblower's claims", The Times reported "It emerged yesterday that the accountants KPMG - the "independent" experts who reportedly cleared HBOS and Sir James of serious failings in corporate governance - have received more than £100 million in fees from the troubled bank in the past eight years. The money was for auditing, tax advice, information technology work and compliance advice... The closeness of KPMG's relationship with HBOS and the size of the fees... is likely to raise questions about the accountancy firm's independence in conducting the highly sensitive investigation. It also had to balance another potential conflict of interest because Mr Moore was a former partner at KPMG"
The article states that "Lord Stevenson of Coddenham told MPs on the TSC on Tuesday that the Financial Services Authority was satisfied with the KPMG report and regarded the matter as closed. He described the investigation as "independent"". The article does not state in what capacity he was able to make these statements. According to the article, the Financial Services Authority subsequently backed-up his position that KPMG "was sufficiently independent to conduct the investigation" - while Mr Moore is reported to have said that "the KPMG report will not stand up to scrutiny"
The article also states "Details of what appeared to be a vicious turf war under Sir James in 2004 were emerging yesterday. Mr Moore was described as "prickly" and "ranting" by members of the HBOS audit committee in the KPMG report...". While The Sunday Times, 15 Feb 09, states "The KPMG report was full of colourful claims about the tension between Mr Moore and [person who replaced him] and states that Mr Moore was also described as "emotional". (I can't help feel a very specific sense of 'déjà vu' from the adjectives used to describe Mr Moore. Indeed, [ADD]).
In its 15 Feb 09 issue, The Sunday Times reports that "After his lawyer picked over the report, Moore was awarded a six-figure pay-off from the bank and left in the middle of 2005". On 17 Feb 09, an ex .colleague of Mr Moore was reported in the media as saying "After Paul had gone there was definitely a dumbing down of the risk function and certainly, challenging the business... was not welcome". Reply from HBOS "The new director of risk was a senior banker"
Sir James resigned from his post as deputy chairman of the FSA within less than 24 hours of the Treasury Select Committee hearing.
Why was nothing done? Something to do with the fact that Sir James was appointed (by Gordon Brown, then Chancellor) as deputy chief of the FSA? (Apparently, Sir James was knighted on Mr Brown's recommendation).
In its 12 Feb 09 Comment section, the Daily Mail wrote "The bitter truth is that New Labour has been far too cosy with City chancers from the start... Since 1997... the Government has showered honours and official jobs on bankers (NB: it lists the knighthoods, life peerages, CBEs, OBEs and MBEs)... to many of the very people responsible for the current catastrophe. No wonder regulation of the City has been so feeble (and tax breaks for billionaires so generous) when so many of those doing the regulating and law making are City insiders themselves".
The Chair of the Treasury Select Committee said that the banks had "too much clout with the regulators". Further evidence of conflict of interest came to light when it was revealed that the banks were regularly asked to input into the performance appraisal of the FSA individuals allocated to oversee their bank. Based on my comprehensive, first-hand experience (snapshot of the outcome of my 'cries for help' and my complaints), the same can be said about other 'regulatory' bodies I approached (leading me to write to practically all of them that "of course, they were not going to bite the hand that feeds them") - but nothing gets done about it - other than victimize and persecute the 'little people' who 'dare' to challenge them [ADD].
(5)Bob Winsor, the man "working as a call centre operator" who, having come to the conclusion that members of the public "were being fleeced on premium-rate phone lines" of TV shows, first "raised his concerns to management". As these were "dismissed", he contacted Ofcom, the regulator. He was eventually proven right. The Mail on Sunday, 15 Feb 09, reports in its article headed "Who will give a job to a whistleblower", that "four years later, he still has not worked and fears for his future".
The article states "Now fearful that he will never receive a proper hearing from the regulator, Windsor said "Whistleblowers need more protection. You are at the mercy of the regulator if they are protecting the industry they are meant to regulate". (SO, SO TRUE!)
(6)(Also sourced from the Mail on Sunday 15 Feb 09 article) "Tony Goode who worked at Marks & Spencer for 25 years" who is reported to have "contacted a newspaper because he felt staff were being steamrollered into accepting new redundancy terms. Three days later, he was dismissed from his job..." Mr Goode is quoted as saying "I may have been naïve in the way I did it, but I genuinely believe I did the right thing... Ex-colleagues have been told not to speak to me" [ADD] The article states that Mr Goode "accused managers of monitoring his phone calls, though this was dismissed as "utter nonsense"" [ADD]
(7)(Also sourced from the Mail on Sunday 15 Feb 09 article) Neil Mitchell, who approached "the Serious Fraud Office with allegations of a sophisticated scam". It states that the investigation is still going on. It also states that Mr Mitchell "claims to have been followed by 'military types' who chased him through an underpass in central London" . Based on my experience, including physical threats (e.g. My Diary 1 Aug 06 , 19 Apr 06 , 23 Aug 06 , 2 Jan 09), I have no problem accepting Mr Mitchell's claim that he has been followed - and physically threatened. I am very glad he had the courage (like the journalist) to say this to the media. The article also states "Friends say a home in Oxfordshire was mysteriously burgled and it is thought Mitchell may have resorted to living abroad". (I know a leaseholder who has raised a fraud issue in the residential leasehold sector who said to have had his flat broken into it. There are other examples).
The revelations about HBOS et. al. have, yet again, led a variety of people - including the 'regulators' - state in media interviews that it is important for people to raise the alarm. GET REAL!
Look at Mr Moore's experience, that of the other whistleblowers above, and mine for 'daring' to challenge the courts, the police, the professions, the 'regulators', etc (overview of the outcome of my 'cries for help' and complaints). Look at how 'they' all close rank in their network of symbiotic relationships, behind the gigantic 'trompe l'oeil' = Blow the whistle ONLY on matters that affects the pockets of the 'ruling elite'
As an INNOCENT VICTIM OF ORGANISED CRIME - considering my experience with the police and that of my fellow leaseholders, the outcome of my 'cries for help' and complaints to the 'regulators' - I 'love' the quote from "the regulators" in the Mail on Sunday 15 Feb 09 article "Criminals, they have decided, will not be caught unless someone informs on them". No doubt, this was said with a straight face.
The Mail on Sunday sub-titled its 15 Feb 09 article "They make a brave stand for justice... but the cost to their careers and health can be devastating". Tell me about it! And add to that considering the option of 'ending it all' - and facing the prospect of ending up, destitute, on the pavement.
Not only do you face the extremely vicious wrath of those you 'dare' to challenge, you also find that your work colleagues, 'friends' and contacts surge like a school of fish to support them in their retaliatory actions against you.
Considering, for example, the catastrophic consequences of the near-financial-meltdown on employment and concurrently home repossessions, savings and pensions, the gigantic debt that will have to be repaid over many years to come through increased taxes and a reduction in public spending that is bound to affect hospitals, schools, care of the invalids, the elderly, the terminally sick, etc...
...I wonder how many of the people who have acted against the whistleblowers, as well as against me for 'daring' to expose - after FIVE YEARS of soul-destroying battles - my experience with the 'regulators' such as e.g. the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, the Financial Services Authority, etc. - still think they were justified in joining the 'lynch mob'? I suspect that the whistleblowers are asking themselves the same question.
'Dare' to challenge, and the 'knives are out'. Your card is marked - as there is absolutely NOWHERE FOR THE 'LITTLE PEOPLE' TO TURN TO FOR HELP AND PROTECTION... and it seems to me that more is being put in place 'to shut them up' e.g. the Confidential Intelligence Unit.
So, I repeat: GET REAL! Having read about my experience and that of the above whistleblowers, anybody still prepared to "speak out" (under the current environment) must have a desire for persecution, being ostracised as though they are suffering from rabies, and for totally destroying their life and losing everything they've worked for. How many does that leave?
'Standing your ground' (site: Stand Your Ground) is certainly a hell of a challenge in this country! But, if we all walk away with our tail between our legs, taking the repeated beatings silently, too scared to stand-up for our rights, for justice, turning a blind eye and a deaf ear to wrongdoings: where do we end-up? Look around! There is your answer.
So, if you have moral values - if you come across somebody with the guts to stand-up, somebody who is not intimidated by the FEAR tactics, not scared to put their head above the parapet: if you can't help them, at least don't act against them e.g. the social worker ; Mr Moore, HBOS, etc. It ought to be obvious that these people are a true asset to this country - which comprises of a majority of 'little people'.
(See also My Diary Feb 09)
(9) Another example (added to the first three above) that this 'New Labour' administration appears to know no bounds in its pursuit of individuals who expose it: a senior Member of Parliament, Shadow Immigration Minister Damian Green, was arrested by no less than the police's Special Branch unit (counter-terrorist), on 27 November 2008 on "suspicion of conspiring to commit misconduct in a public office", as a consequence of being "reported by a Home Office civil servant" for allegedly "leaking politically sensitive information". On 24 December 2008 the media reported that the MP had been secretly recorded during his arrest - described as an approach used when dealing with terrorists. What do you expect? He was arrested by counter-terrorist officers.
The MP was interrogated and, after being "detained in a police station for 9 hours, was released on bail without charge". TV reports showed the police taking away boxes of papers from his home. Media reports state that his office at the House of Commons was also raided, taking away papers, computers and mobile phone/s. (I can't imagine that his constituents who approached him in confidence, giving him some personal documents, are going to be too thrilled by the fact that unauthorised parties will potentially be looking at them).
In the previous months, this MP highlighted, in the public domain, some major blunders by the Home Office - said to have been supplied to him by a whistleblower at the Home Office. In the case of the licensing of thousands of illegal immigrants to work in the security industry, the MP claimed that "Jacqui Smith, (then) the Home Office Minister, knew about it".
On 28 November 2008, the MP said "I emphatically deny doing any wrongdoing and vow to continue bringing to light embarrassing information which ministers try to keep secret, and which the public has a right to know. Opposition politicians have a duty to hold the government to account. I will continue to do so"
Needless to say that there is "fury", "outrage" and "disbelief" at what took place. Nick Clegg, Leader of the LibDems said on TV "That's something you expect in a tinpot dictatorship, not in a democracy. We already have one of the most secretive, unaccountable system of government anywhere in the world" (Facts that are obvious to many people). (Subsequent note: and have become even more obvious with the outcome of the 'peers for sale' scandal and MPs gross abuse of expenses: "after consulting with the Crown Prosecution Service, the police decided against conducting an investigation").
(Note at April 2009: charges against Damian Green have been dropped. The media reported that "the Cabinet Office had wrongly told Scotland Yard that the leaks had damaged national security". It is increasingly apparent that the claim of 'damage to national security' is a euphemism for 'embarrassment to / dissent against the government'. (Another example: the man arrested under s. 44 of the Terrorism Act for recording a wrongdoing by the police). The media reports that c. £100,000 of taxpayers' money has been spent in total on the Damian Green affair - all for the sake of attempting to cover-up the blunders by the Home Office. (No wonder that, I, one of the 'little people', find myself at the receiving end of such horrendous and very traumatic treatment for 'daring' to challenge the system by 'daring' to stand-up for my rights).
In an article headed “The police are a law unto themselves”, The Independent, 30 November 2008, referring to the Conservative police spokesman plan to save “one million hours of police time”, the journalist wrote that he “missed out one important proposal: when considering investigations that involve Members of Parliament, the police should be required to make very sure that they know what they are doing. That would have saved…the many hours of the 20 police officers involved in arresting Damian Green… David Cameron [Leader of the Conservatives] used the word “extraordinary” to describe the police action. How right he is. The arrest of Green piles improbability upon arrogance upon constitutional outrage… The deployment of counter-terrorist officers…”Heavy-handed”, another of Cameron’s phrases, hardly covers it”
I'll add another proposal to the spokesman's plan: to perform as per its mandate by pursuing white-collar crime - including fraud - instead of pursuing the 'little people' for ridiculous reasons. In other words, put the wellbeing of the country before the personal agenda of its current 'ruling class'.
See also the report 'A New Force', published by Reform, in February 2009, and an article by a former Metropolitan Police Commander, headed "Criminals in the police? I've met plenty of them"
Jacqui Smith, with, standing alongside her (in a public area), Jack Straw, Minister heading the Ministry of 'Justice' - or, as I view as more appropriate: the Ministry of Injustice (WLCC Post 2004 ; 30 Jan 09 SCCO hearing - including my cries for help to this Minister: WLCC # 20 , # 22 , # 23 , # 25) (and in its previous incarnation as the DCA: WLCC 2002-2004 and my cry for help to Lord Falconer of Thoroton), said on TV that she "emphasise that no ministers are involved". (Subsequent note: given Ms Smith and Mr Straw 's forgetfulness, how much credence should be placed on this assertion?)
As to the Speaker for the House of Commons, Michael Martin, who said that he "did not know", the Sunday Telegraph of 21 December 2008 reports that he has "blocked an official Commons inquiry into his handling of the Damian Green affair... which means that it cannot go ahead" Feudalism is alive and kicking! But, then, peers and MPs are also immune. It's all very cosy at Westminster.
Another thing to note: Members of Parliament appear to also not be immune from being spied on: in the context of covering events with Damian Green, in its Special Report headed "MPs fear security services now have 'open door' to snoop", the Independent on Sunday, 30 November 2008, states, "But the revelation that the offices of senior frontbenchers are routinely swept for bugs will send shockwaves through Westminster. It has serious repercussions for the operation of the Wilson doctrine, the convention that protects MPs from phone-tapping".
(10) Other individuals
- in 2007 / 2008, a journalist was also arrested for allegedly "aiding and abetting misconduct in a public office" . The judge threw the case out - see My Diary w/c 4 Feb 08
|
After this long aside...
...There are hundreds of thousands of leaseholders in this country going through the kind of hell and mental torture I have, and continue to suffer - every day.
See e.g. comments # 13 , # 6 , # 19 , # 20 , # 22 , # 24 and # 31 for further - appalling - evidence in support. - all for the sake of feeding the greed of individuals with interests in the residential leasehold sector (e.g. Home page # 9 , # 8) - and there is absolutely NOWHERE to turn to for help (e.g. Home page Introduction, # 7)
Look at what has and continues to happen to the people who sent me a comment - and to some of those I know (My Diary 11 Nov 06 ; Lord Falconer # 4 ). Look at what has and continues to happen to me - in spite of the unbelievable amount of 'black on white' evidence against Mr Ladsky and his aides (Court claims = FRAUD TOOLS); the 'mutual help and fellowship' reflected in the concerted actions against me between various parties which, on the face of it, 'should not' be connected (e.g. examples under e.g. Protection from Harassment Act 1997 ; the Malicious Communications Act 1988 ; also My Diary 15 May 08 and 6 May 08 )
Of course, my fellow leaseholders at Jefferson House have also suffered greatly - as evidenced by e.g.
- letter from Leaseholder C to the LVT "I paid...not of my own free will, but because I felt intimidated and threatened....It may appear that the persons who paid all or a portion of the assessment are accepting of the assessment and proposal from Steel Services and MRJ as fair. Not so in my case, it is out of fear (the sine qua non of the business model). Steel Services and MRJ will take legal action if I do not comply"
...leading a significant number to give up and leave e.g. Block sale of flats...further reinforcing the business model (Unlike me, the flat was not their main home) - leaving me with trying to prevent others from falling into the trap: My Diary 9 Jan 07 ; 3 Mar 07
- Other of my fellow leaseholders since then - see comments # 20 , # 22
QUESTION # 1: Where does it say that landlords and their supporting infrastructure have the right to do the following to leaseholders:
- harass them
- torment them
- bully them
- terrorise them
- use extortion tactics
- blackmail them
- coerce them
- threaten them physically
- assault them
- abuse them
- intimidate them
- persecute them
- victimize them
- discriminate against them
- treat them like criminals
- treat them like an endless cash dispenser
|
- deny them access to their legal rights and justice
- make false, scurrilous claims and accusations against them to their friends, contacts and a wide range of other parties to obtain information on them, provide them with trick assessment and advice - all with the aim of 'making them pay' for 'daring' to fight back by demanding the rights they have been told they have the right to demand
- have 'inconvenient' evidence removed from records, and false evidence placed on records to cause them detriment
- falsely imply that they have committed a crime
- make racist, xenophobic comments against them
- have them under surveillance, including listening to / tapping their conversations (great use of taxpayer money!)
- make their daily life a living hell
- rob them of their life savings, of their property, of their livelihood, of their life?
(You don't have to be physically dead to lose your life e.g. metaphorically, I died in 2002)
|
If you know where this is captured, please use the comment section for your reply. There are c. 3 million leaseholders eagerly awaiting the answer. No doubt, it will also be of interest to many other parties e.g. the United Nations Committee on Human Rights. (In its 15 August 2008 issue, The Guardian newspaper has an article headed "Labour warned over limits to freedom of expression - UN report says terror and libel laws are interfering with human rights" What would the United Nations Committee make of the above?).
DOES THAT SUGGEST TO YOU A CIVILISED COUNTRY? This country that I so much liked that I made it my home, has changed beyond recognition.
QUESTION # 2: With (so far!) the exception of 'rob them of their property', under question # 1, I have been subjected to / suffered all of the above. Why? Can somebody please tell me.
I have done NOTHING WRONG
I AM NOT THE CRIMINAL
I AM THE VICTIM OF ORGANISED CRIME
Have a look: my 3 June 2008 Witness Statement; my 2 January 2010 Subject Access Request to the Ministry of 'Justice' (Legal-Home # C) ; See above: 15 May 08 and 6 May 08
See 22 Nov 08: threat of forfeiture and bankruptcy proceedings, as well as court claims = FRAUD TOOLS
My 'crime' is that:
In 2002, when I received what I knew to be a fraudulent 'service charge' demand (having had no prior dealings with the courts and the police) I had naïve blind trust and faith in what I had been told by the State in my previous 33 years in this country: that I had rights, I had the right to demand, and that there was a system in place – I am paying for through taxes (over £500,000) (US$880,000) – I could call on in time of need, ensuring that my rights would be upheld (Home # 7)
- (1) Among other, it led me to obey the directions given to me by a tribunal to "NOT PAY" (end of pg 5) the (fraudulent) 'service charge' (London Leasehold Valuation Tribunal (LVT) # 1) and ended-up battling with this government department (LVT Points of note, # 6 , # 7), the courts, following the filing by CKFT of the FRAUDULENT 29 November 2002 claim against me in WLCC, on behalf of Steel Services =Andrew Ladsky et.al., as well as with other parties, as I tried to get the directions implemented - and they repeatedly ignored them (West London County Court (WLCC) Points of note , # 2, # 5, # 6, # 8, # 9, section D incl. my Defence and seven letters to the courts; Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor (CKFT) # 6.1 ; Piper Smith Basham/Watton (PSB) # 7.7 , # 7.14 , # 7.4 , # 7.4.3, etc. ; Stan Gallagher summary, # 3.f ; Pridie Brewster # 3 , # 10, # 17, # 18 , # 19)...
...In the process they ALL, not only turned a blind eye and a deaf ear to the - often - criminal actions against me (and my fellow leaseholders), they actively assisted them, including subjecting me to horrendous, vicious, cruel, sadistic treatment (LVT Points of note ; WLCC Points of note, My questions ; legal sector complaints departments ; Kensington police My questions)
- (2) I have moral principles and a strong belief in justice. Among other, they led me to fight for fair and just treatment of my fellow leaseholders (CKFT # 3 , # 6.3 , # 6.8 ; WLCC # 8, # 9, # 10 ; Martin Russell Jones (MRJ) # 19 ; Pridie Brewster # 3 , # 18) - but this was held - and used against me (Stan Gallagher # 3.e.1 , # 3.e.2 ; # 4.1 , # 5 ; PSB # 7.14 , # 7.14.1 ; home # 4.12 , # 4.13)
- (3) Finally admitting to myself that I had been well and truly conned by the State, against my moral principles, I ended-up accepting the 21 October 2003 "offer" by SS =Ladsky et.al. for £6,350 (v. the £14,400 originally demanded) - even though, legally I did NOT owe this amount either (WLCC # 13) My plan was to then leave the country.
- (4) But, that was not going to be the end of it: I, a woman, of limited financial means, with no influential connections, and of Franco-German origin (Andrew Ladsky is Jewish, as well as, at least, some of his aides) - had 'DARED' to stand-up to 'Mr Ladsky', 'Mr I Am So Important...'. So, to punish me, three months after the 1 July 2004 Consent Order was endorsed by the court, he asked MRJ to send me an invoice with a "Brought forward balance" of £14,400 - as though no offer had been made, accepted and paid. Three weeks later, it was followed by another invoice, this time for £15,500 (WLCC # 13 ; RICS # 12 ; MRJ # 18)
- (5) Enough was enough: I had given in once, I was not going to give in a second time. My experience with the tribunal and WLCC (endorsed at higher level: LVT # 7 ; Lord Falconer) had been so horrendous and traumatic - rather than approach them, I proceeded with filing complaints against various parties hoping to get better treatment from the 'regulators'. IN MY DREAMS! (Overview of my complaints ; home # 4.17 ; Legal Services Ombudsman # 7 , # 8)
- (6) Out of utter despair, after FIVE YEARS - of absolute, sheer utter hell, facing a gigantic wall of blind eyes and deaf ears, as well as blatantly obvious collusion and conniving between parties in the public and private sector, I 'DARED' to launch my website, 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 the country. In other words: I was hoping for intelligence and common sense (Home # 12) It proved to be A VAIN HOPE!
(7) My 'DARING' to stand-up for my rights, in the process challenging Andrew Ladsky et.al., their mob of lawyers, surveyors, accountants - and their 'regulators', judges and court staff, tribunal panel and staff, etc. - unleashed an unbelievably vicious, perverse, cruel, sadistic, barbaric vendetta against me by, among others: Portner and Jaskel on behalf of "[its] client", Andrew Ladsky; the WLCC judges and court staff, following Portner filing, on behalf of Ladsky et.al., another FRAUDULENT claim against me on 27 February 2007; the Supreme Court Costs Office; Kensington & Chelsea police ; KPMG, my then employer. It has also led to a death threat; attempts to get me locked-up in a mental institution, by: a medical practitioner; Kensington police (Key points # 8 , # 9) And other relationships are, likewise, NOT 'off-limit'.
- (8) What is ALL of this in aid of? For the sake of a bunch of crooks getting away a multi-million Pound jackpot?
- (9) At the end of my working life, contrary to the obvious expectation: I will NOT be 'a good little girl' and just “walk away” and ignore the unbelievable injustice I have and continue to suffer that has robbed me of the major part of what I have worked for in my life - for the sake of a bunch of crooks getting away with a multi-million Pound jackpot and to save the sorry, corrupt skin of their supporters who decided that they are entitled to breach my statutory rights (e.g. my 2 February 2010 letter to various parties)
To those saying "why don't I just walk away?" (e.g. My Diary Oct 05 ; 16 Jun 06) I say: why don't you give me all that I have lost and compensate me for all that I have suffered - as a result of being conned by a corrupted system? By the way: do you want to buy my flat? Yet, you expect me to deceive potential buyers! "Hand on the baton" like some people have told me I "should" do.
NOBODY has the right to tell me that I 'should' accept injustice - for the second time - and live my retirement in destitution as a direct consequence of it. It's MY LIFE and ONLY 'I' live it.
I WILL fight to the death (My Diary Oct 05 ; home # 14) for justice and redress (my objectives). In spite of the FEAR tactics I will NOT suffer in silence (home # 15 , # 13)
This is the 21st century, not the 11th century.
And 'I' am branded a "Nazi"?!?!
Can somebody please explain to me?
Am I on the wrong planet, or they ALL living in a parallel world? (e.g. Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors)
As it stands: being an honest, decent, law-abiding individual who defers to authority is very clearly a MAJOR HANDICAP in this country. |
David Miliband (Foreign Secretary) is quoted in the Mail on Sunday, 31 August 2008, as saying (in the context of Georgia) "The British people want a government that stands up for what it believes in and speaks out for the victims of aggression or injustice...".
When will New Labour "stand up...and speak out for the victims of aggression or injustice" in the residential leasehold sector (press articles ; Comments) - and implement what it claimed to "believe in", in its 1997 pre-election policy document 'An End to Feudalism'?
How many more websites like mine is it going to take to put an end to this feudal system that is used to cause so much misery to so many people?
Mr Gordon Brown, Prime Minister, with "strongly held moral principles of right and wrong [that are your] moral compass" - what is your answer to the question...having sold-out again to the 'landlords'?
|
To my wonderful American website Host who - in spite of not knowing me - 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. |
(NB: Regarding the legal sector: it's not just leaseholders who are suffering at its hands e.g.
- Scotland Against Crooked Lawyers (SACL) (http://www.sacl.info) ; About SACL (http://www.sacl.org.uk) ; Latest News (http://www.sacl.info/about.htm) ; SACL links (http://www.sacl.info/links.htm) - which also provides links to other sites e.g. Dunblane Unburied (http://www.dunblaneunburied.tk) - referred to in My Diary 3 March 2007. At the time, the site that was accessible was 'Dunblane Abandoned'. As I understood it, these poor families appear to be denied justice due to, it seems, among other, the case being somehow connected to 'protected' paedophiles. Children alleged to have been abused were in an orphanage. Having spent part of my childhood in one (where the only bad treatment was being beaten-up), I also feel very deeply for them.
14 August 2008 - Ladsky et.al.'s preposterous, laughable excuse for dropping the claim
(NB: see also My Diary 26 Aug 08 for my reply and filing of an application for a detailed assessment hearing; 11Nov 08 and 19 Dec 08 for follow-on events)
Portner sent its 11 August 2008 reply to my 22 July 2008 notice, giving, under paragraph 1.4, an absolutely outrageous, preposterous explanation for dropping the claim: that "in June of 2008 advice was obtained from counsel wherein 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 and was therefore invalid pursuant to s.47 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987. It was as a direct result of this that Notice of Discontinuance was filed”
No reason was given on the 6 June 2008 Notice of Discontinuance, evidently thinking that it would be the end of it, leaving Ladsky and his aides free to promote this preposterous reason, in the knowledge (based on past experience) that they would be highly unlikely to be challenged. (See next entry, 26 August 2008, for my reply)
Fascinating to see how the situation is handled when - unlike with the 29 November 2002 claim, ref. WL203537 - there has not been the option of arriving at 'an arrangement' with members of the fraternity (My 19 October 2003 Witness Statement ; home # 4.12 , # 4.13 ; CKFT # 6.8 ; Piper Smith Basham/Watton # 7.13.2 , # 7.13.3 , # 7.14 , # 7.15 , # 7.17 , # 7.12.1 ; Stan Gallagher # 15) - and,...
... unlike in 2003-2004 (Home # 4.14 ; My Diary 11 Mar 07 ; CKFT ; WLCC ; Lord Falconer), the ploys and 'games' in 2007-08 failed to make me cave in - in spite of their 'renewed vigour', including failed to lead me to appoint legal 'advisers' (WLCC # 9 , # 11) = second time round: the FEAR tactics had NO hold on me.
This clearly proves that, in both instances, the claim was used as a TOOL FOR FRAUD - confirming my assessment of the tactic following the first fraudulent claim of 29 November 2002 (home # 4.19).
'Unfortunately', the majority of my fellow leaseholders 'caved in' in relation to the 29 November 2002 claim - as evidenced by the fact that 9 out of the 14 flats listed on the claim (Particulars of claim and list) ended-up paying the FULL amount of the service charge, and a further 16 flats also paid the full amount (CKFT # 6.6 , CKFT # 6.3 ; Pridie Brewster # 18).
THEY DID NOT OWE THE C. £500,000 THEY COLLECTIVELY PAID - AS A RESULT OF FEAR TACTICS - ALL FOR THE SAKE OF GENERATING A MULTI-MILLION POUND JACKPOT.
(NB: Considering what has happened to me for 'daring' to fight back against the scam: being persecuted (e.g. My Dairy 15 May 08 ; home introduction ; being under surveillance) I should say 'fortunately', instead of 'unfortunately'.
The worst part of it is that this kind of conduct is widely endorsed: My Diary 6 May 08 - resulting in my being treated as 'the criminal' instead of the victim - while the criminals are treated as though they are the victims (e.g. RICS # 12 ; Kensington & Chelsea police # 2 , # 3 ; home introduction) - and laughing their head off (outcome of my complaints).
Of course, I forgot, silly me: Portner and Jaskel, Lanny Silverstone and Ayesha Salim, Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor, and Richard Twyman and Lisa McLean, Piper Smith Basham/Watton evidently have the blessings of the Law Society. Well, unlike the Law Society, I view ALL as having VERY SERIOUSLY FAILED to discharge their professional duties (Portner# 4 and # 5 ; outcome of my complaints). (And ditto from the Bar Council in the case of Mr Stan Gallagher : # 16 , # 17 and # 18)
(Subsequent note: The Detailed Assessment hearing is 'due' to take place on 4 November 2008)
More on this later. (I have many enemies monitoring my website). In the meantime:
Exposed in the public domain for malpractice? Adopt the "Tradition with a modern edge" approach: modify the name of your firm; make sure your people cannot be identified = the approach adopted in June/July 2008 by Portner and Jaskel LLP which now trades under 'Portner' - see start of section on Portner for detail.
26 August 2008 - Reply and Application to WLCC for assessment hearing
This is my 26 August 2008 reply to the 11 August 2008 'points of dispute', as well as application to WLCC for an assessment hearing. My reply to the preposterous, laughable excuse for dropping the claim (14 August 2008, above) is on page 5, under point 2.2. In summary:
- (2) that over a period of 16 months, starting with my 25 February 2007 letter, I questioned the identity of my 'landlord' at least 8 times (*) in various documents,
- and conclude: "Having received all of the above – the Defendant waits 16 months - until “June 2008” to “obtain advice from counsel”?"
- "The reality is that the Defendant could not defend its 27 February 2007 because it is fraudulent. But, maximum fun was squeezed out of it by all over a period of 16 months... "
The Detailed Assessment hearing is 'due' to take place on 4 November 2008. Subsequent note: I wrote 'due' as I anticipated that more games would be played - see My Diary 11 November 2008 for what happened.
(*) Actually, over the 16-month period, I did this a total of 11 TIMES:
- (1) 22 March 2007 Acknowledgment of Service, highlighting that there are 2 names for the 'claimant'
- (2) 4 April 2007 Application to contest jurisdiction, cc'd Portner
- (3) 3 May 2007 Skeleton Argument, cc'd Portner
- (4) 30 June 2007 letter to Portner, cc’d WLCC
- (5) 12 August 2007 letter to Portner, cc’d WLCC
- (6) 12 September 2007 Defence, cc'd Portner
- (7) 2 October 2007 letter to WLCC, cc’d Portner
- (8) 26 January 2008 letter to “A Judge committed to the concept of Justice”, c/o WLCC, cc’d Portner
- (9) 14 March 2008 Allocation Questionnaire, cc’d Portner
- (10) 30 April 2008 Application to vary the 9 April 2008 Case Management directions, cc’d Portner
- (11) 6 May 2008 Standard Disclosure to Portner
Obviously, as in the case of my 8 communications to the courts, including my Defence and Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor in relation to the previous, 29 November 2002 equally fraudulent claim filed against me - the ink mysteriously disappears from my documents before they arrive, or shortly afterwards.
4 September 2008 - The RICS' threat of proceedings for defamation - and its - UNBELIEVABLE - prediction - implying encouragement - that "No doubt Martin Russell Jones will also be taking similar legal action against you" (!!!)
See from point # 11 of the section on the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors.
24 September 2008 - Another block of flats I have alerted to Martin Russell Jones' business practices - to be added to the others: comments # 11, # 12 and # 15 (Others since: # 20 , # 22 , # 30)
"I happened upon your website while trying to check-up on Joan Hathaway from Martin Russell Jones.
I am extremely concerned. This woman is doing exactly the same to leaseholders in a block where I own a flat. Although I am at the end of my tether with their demands for more and more money for service charges, and her complete indifference to whatever letters I have been sending her, I really thought it was sheer incompetence. I had no idea I was dealing with a confidence trickster [].
And the RICS is of the view that "No doubt Martin Russell Jones will also be taking similar legal action against you"?!?!?
October 2008 - The 'giant bicycle' has crashed
At the end of the entry under w/c 4 Feb 08 I wrote "Four years ago, an Australian friend told me that, to him, the country looked like a giant bicycle running with nothing to control it: no frame, no handlebar, no chain".
I added "Just looking at my (so far) 28 battles since 2002, I now share his view: there is no control. It's like a giant 'trompe l'oeil' ". (snapshot of the outcome of my 'cries for help' and my complaints). (Subsequent note: to this I add the non-response in 2010 to my Subject Access Request - and therefore continuation of the breach of my statutory rights, this time under the Data Protection Act 1998 - by: the Ministry of 'Justice' ; the Home Office - as well as examples reported in the media (MPs-Home)
Look at what has been happening in the UK in recent weeks: a taxpayer £500bn rescue of the financial sector, and part nationalisation of practically all the major banks.
It is only now that mayhem has happened (economic recession, rising unemployment, growing number of home repossessions, etc), that there is consensus on introducing proper regulation. (Subsequent note at Feb 09 - see the entry on the HBOS whistleblower: the CEO of HBOS was also on the board of the banking sector regulator, the Financial Services Authority)
What scale of disaster is it going to take to have 'proper' regulation of the professions?
How many more websites like mine, relating horror stories, are required to prove that SELF-REGULATION DOES NOT WORK - and that very urgent action is required? Even individuals within the professions are saying this. More recent examples of failure of self-regulation: (1) re. the England and Wales Law Society and Legal Services Ombudsman; (2) the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales: "Bogus auditor let off"
What is extremely depressing, is to hear a highly respected Member of Parliament - who is genuinely appalled, and concerned, by the state of the legal sector - say, in relation to wrongdoings by a solicitor, that it would take "courage" on the part of the Solicitors Regulation Authority (i.e. the Law Society) to take action against this solicitor "because he works for one of the major firms". Why? (By the way, the Law Society does not even take action against high street firms e.g. Portner and Jaskel, Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor and Piper Smith Basham/Watton - overview)
Without crooked lawyers, the courts would lose their 'bread and butter'! (see My Diary 20 October 2008)
As to the residential leasehold sector, although, like many people e.g. press articles; C.A.R.L. - and the Labour Party before it was elected (it clearly changed its position - and confirmed this in March 2008), I firmly believe that this feudal, barbaric system must be abolished - it MUST, at a minimum, be regulated.
What is going on in that sector is absolutely outrageous. A recent case was reported in the Mail on Sunday, 19 October 2008, "David vs Goliath: Vincent Tchenguiz feels force of pensioner power" of 78 pensioners being grossly overcharged for service charges who "have won tribunal hearings leading to cuts in fees worth hundreds of pounds a year, with some residents receiving a rebate of almost £1,000".
One pensioner is quoted as saying "All they can see in front of their eyes is pound signs - it's all about money", and another "It is such a mess. We are being ripped-off left, right and centre". The sector certainly is "a licence to print money".
The article identifies the companies involved as: (1) flats built by McCarthy & Stone, "which was bought off the stock market for £1.1 billion by a consortium including HBoS, private equity firm West Coast Capital, and another pair of billionaire brothers, Simon and David Reuben"; (2) "managed by Consensus, a property management group chaired by Mr Vincent Tchenguiz".
The article states that "It is not the first time that Vincent Tchenguiz's property operations have been challenged over excessive fees to older residents. In December 2005, his Estates and Management business was accused of exploiting vulnerable leaseholders by Labour MP Barry Sheerman..."
It also refers to another case where, in this instance, the out of court settlement resulted in residents "receiving rebates worth more than £900" from Consensus.
There is also The Times article of 26 Sep 09 "Residents urged to fight back against retirement home charges"
(See Home-page # 9 for more recent articles on this group)
Three cases with one common denominator. Why do elderly people continue to be "ripped-off" and put through the ordeal - and the cost, out of their pension - of needing to take legal action, approach their MP, etc.? It pains me to see that pensioners are being subjected to this kind of treatment. This is sick.
20 October 2008 - I really, really wish I had seen that in 2001
Today I joined a demonstration at the Royal Courts of Justice, organised by CASIA (Complaints Against Solicitors, Action for Independent Adjudication). One of the members gave me a copy of an article published in the Daily Telegraph of 5 April 2001, "Yesterday in Parliament". It reports:
"Austin Mitchell (Labour) said..."In law, the practice of the mafia regulating the mafia has failed, is failing and needs to be abolished.
He said the Lord Chancellor's department had taken on the role of protecting vested interests and was in collusion with the Law Society".
While It's good to know that a politician arrived at the same conclusion (The 'Clan') (Lawyers, Courts and LSO home page), I really, really wish I had seen this article at the time, as it would have saved me from having my life being totally destroyed (home # 3 , # 4.20 , # 7 , # 13 , # 14 ; Document library # 3 , # 4 ; My Diary home ; 7 Jun 08 [ADD]).
Better still: I wish somebody had explained to me that, unlike in my home country which is only c. 30km from this island, here, you don't 'buy a flat' - and what you let yourself in for is a contract of enslavement (e.g. press articles) with your 'masters' totally free to do as they please (e.g. overview of my complaints) .
I feel so betrayed - and conned.
Had I known then what I know now...I was so naïve, so trusting of everything I was told by the 'New Labour' administration. When I hit the pavement, I'll put on the other side of my board: "Conned by 'New Labour" - currently headed by Mr Gordon Brown who wants "people to trust him" (his comment to the media) (v. e.g. My Diary 1 Mar 08 , 11 Mar 08) and emphasises "creating a society that both addresses injustice and stresses personal responsibility" - Home # 9)
By the way, among the people who took part in the demo, some had / continue to have horrific experiences with courts and lawyers. And there are many, many more who have similarly horrific experiences e.g. see comment # 16 , # 19. But, because the victims are gagged through FEAR, we are all kept in the dark as to what is actually going on - leaving only those like me who have reached the stage of having nothing to lose (home # 13 , # 14 ), going public with their story... and ending-up facing the 'lynch mob' - on their own. (It is fascinating to observe how, having the guts to take the moral stance and stand-up by your principles, stand-up for your rights and speak out against injustice and malpractice - turns you into a pariah and lines you up for punishment... if you happen to be one of the 'little people'. I think you will agree that it speaks volumes for the current state of affairs in this country. It is extremely sad to see that it has come to this).
As I have asked before: why is it that the decent judges and lawyers appear to be standing back? Why don't they speak out (as some, bravely do, in the other professions)? Is the legal sector so diseased that there is no cure? Is their silence due to fear of retaliation (e.g. the case of the Scottish lawyer)? What's the reason?
For how long are we going to have to suffer from, as one visitor to my site wrote (# 16) "a Judicial system criminally placed before the people"?
I think for a long time to come - as I have come to the conclusion that crooked lawyers are the 'bread and butter' of the courts. Imagine how different the landscape would look if all lawyers acted as per their code of conduct, legislation and regulations: after all that I have heard, and seen, I hypothesise that it would lead to a massive drop in the number of cases going to court e.g. the claims filed against me and my fellow leaseholders would not have been filed (e.g. snapshot under My Diary 15 May 2008).
And, if in the other parts of the food chain, the other professions (surveyors, accountants, etc.) also did the same? Cases like mine would not exist. I would have been able to continue enjoying my life, keep on building my life savings to give me some security - and I would have had a future to look forward to. All of that has been stolen from me - ALL in the name of GREED! (See Comments e.g. # 13 , # 16 , # 19 , # 24 , # 31 for other examples of lives being destroyed)
|
11 November 2008 - The 4 November 2008 Detailed Assessment hearing - which had been twice confirmed to me - was cancelled - and an order was issued - earlier on on that day, for the case to be transferred to the Supreme Court Costs Office (*) - which provides me with an opportunity
(*) The hearing is 'due' to take place on 30 January 2008 - see 19 Dec 08 |
On Thursday 30 October 2008, I went to West London County Court to get confirmation that, as per the 12 September 2008 Notice of Detailed Assessment Hearing in relation to my 26 August 2008 Application, the 4 November hearing was still scheduled to take place, at 14h00, in West London County Court. I was told: Yes.
On Monday 3 November, at 14h30, I was again in WLCC to get confirmation that the hearing was still due to take place the following day. Yet again, I received confirmation that it was - by the same person. He appears to be in charge of my file as, while he is sitting away from the counter, behind a pillar, every time I go to the court (e.g. previous instances: (1) when I filed my 14 March 2008 Allocation Questionnaire (My Diary 13 Mar 08); (2) when I filed my 30 April 2008 Application to vary the 9 April 2008 Case Management Directions (My Diary 30 Apr 08 and 3 Jun 08) - the person closest to the counter looks at him (before I say anything) and he comes to the counter - in addition to going back to his desk in order to address my requests.
As I have a temporary mobile number, prior to going to the court, I wrote it on the 12 September 2008 order (and made a copy because I anticipated another trick) and gave it to the man, explaining that this was the number on which to phone me, if necessary. He did not appear too keen to take it.
I therefore turned up (with an acquaintance) on Tuesday 4 November at 13h45, for the hearing, due to start at 14h00. At at the allocated time, we were asked to go in the court. I determined that the judge was District Judge Nicholson (the Judge who refused my 30 April 2008 Application - see My Diary 30 Apr 08 and 3 Jun 08). He told me that, the previous day, the court had received a 3 November 2008 fax from Portner - which he read out to me. (I took delivery of the hyperlinked document on 4 November).
|
As can be seen, Mr Ahmet Jaffer claims that he was "unaware" of the 4 November hearing, and that the first he had heard of it was from my 31 October 2008 fax - which "only came to [his] attention today".
He goes on to state "In the circumstances we would ask that the hearing be adjourned..." = another lie and more game, as the court had reconfirmed to me during my visit on 30 October 2008 that it had sent Portner a notice of the hearing. |
(Examples of previous games, lies and downright collusion:
- West London County Court proceeding with the 27 February 2007 claim in the absolute knowledge that there are TWO NAMES for the ''claimant'. Indeed, as can be seen in my 22 March 2007 Acknowledgement of Service, I went to great lengths to bring this to the attention of the court (WLCC # 2) (Subsequent note: Judging by what took place at the 30 January 2009 Supreme Court Costs Office Detailed Assessment hearing (My Diary 30 Jan 09), my black on white evidence is evidently proving to be 'rather inconvenient' for WLCC - and so it should!)
- Letting me raise - 11 TIMES - over more than one year, in documents to Portner and WLCC (My Diary 26 Aug 08), the issue about the identity of my 'landlord' / ownership of the last floor of Jefferson House (Portner # 27) (I view this, in part, as revenge for my exposing the 10 February 2006 "Notice of first refusal" as bogus: Portner # 1)
- WLCC falsely capturing in the 3 April 2007 'Notice that Acknowledgment of Service has been filed' that, in my 22 March 2007 'Acknowledgment of Service' I had stated "an intention to defend part of the claim", which was used as one of the excuses by Mr Hershkorn in his 1 May 2008 letter to WLCC to ask for cancellation of the 8 May 2007 hearing, stating that he had "not received my defence" (Portner # 12 ; # 13)
- WLCC waiting more than one week, until 27 April 2007, to send the 19 April 2007 order that the skeleton argument needed to be filed by 3 May 2007. As this left me with just three days to do it, on 30 April 2007, I sent a fax to WLCC asking for an extension. In its 1 May 2007 order - posted on 3 May (!!!) - it gave me one extra day.
- 24 hours before the hearing I did not know why the hearing had been cancelled. When I spoke to the court staff he said that he would send me a copy of the letter the court had received from Portner. He did not - leading me to send this fax on 4 May 2007.
- The total lack of action by WLCC when I kept highlighting that I had not received the 'Claimant'' skeleton argument (WLCC # 9 )
- The 4 month silence from WLCC and Portner that followed WLCC's letter of 27 September 2007 in which it demanded payment of £1,700 "to file a counterclaim" and mine of 2 October 2007 (Portner # 23 ; WLCC # 16 , # 17 ) - which led me to file a complaint on 13 November 2007 with HMCS 'Customer Service' (WLCC # 18 , and subsequent points).
- Manipulation by WLCC of what I wrote in my 12 September 2007 Defence, in order to justify its 27 September 2007 demand for payment of £1,700 - following my 13 November 2007 complaint to HMCS 'Customer Service' (WLCC # 22)
- More than 3 months (!!!) after the 27 September 2007 demand, on 7 January 2008, WLCC sent me a 19 December 2007Order stating "The Defendant having failed to comply with the Court's request by letter of 27 September 2007 to pay the Counterclaim fee, the Counterclaim stands struck-out"
- The refusal of my 30 April 2008 application to vary the 9 April 2008 case management directions to ensure that I would be provided with the evidence in support of the 27 February 2007 claim - to which I am legally entitled (My Diary 30 Apr 08 , 3 Jun 08)
- The very obviously intentional long delay in supplying the tape of the 24 August 2007 hearing to my selected transcribing company (WLCC # 13)
- Mr Ahmet Jaffer falsely claiming that he had not received my Skeleton Argument (Portner # 17)
- Mr Jaffer falsely claiming that Mr Hershkorn had sent me the title for Rootstock on 27 February 2007 (Portner# 15)
- The lies made by Mr Jeremy Hershkorn to my previous and current website Host (Portner # 2 ; My Diary 3 Oct 06)
etc., etc., etc.
Not to mention the 'discretionary' application of CPR such as e.g.
- (1) Ordering that I pay £293.70 to "Rootstock" - even though (1) WLCC knew that there are TWO NAMES for the 'claimant', and that I had repeatedly been raising the issue of the identity of the 'claimant'; (2) WLCC was in no doubt from the documents I had supplied by then to the court that the claim was fraudulent; (3) the 'claimant' had not served its statement of costs (WLCC # 11)
= A continuation, by WLCC, of the 'discretionary' application of CPR when it comes to 'Steel Services' aka Andrew Ladsky: see WLCC Key point # 3 / the 29 November 2002 Particulars of claim (hyperlink from the 'Statement of truth'): "An agent who manages property or investments for the party cannot sign a statement of truth.... Consequences of failure to verify...a party may not rely on the contents of a statement of case as evidence until it has been verified by a statement of truth" What actually happened? WLCC issued judgments, charging order/s, etc. e.g. WLCC # 5 , # 6 , # 14 , including the appalling judgment against the 5th Defendant
(See also my 19 January 2009 reply to the points of dispute - and My Diary 30 Jan 09 for detail of the hearing)
As to whether the trigger for those 'games' and 'discretionary application of CPR' is the fact that I exposed, by launching my website at the end of 2006, what took place in WLCC in 2002-04 in relation to the previous fraudulent claim, ref. WL203537 (court claims = FRAUD TOOLS): while it no doubt plays a part (which, of course, it should not), as can be seen from my experience PRE launching the website (and that of my fellow leaseholders) at the time with the courts, and the follow-up to my 'cry for help' to Lord Falconer of Thoroton - I was subjected to unbelievably appalling, and very traumatic treatment.
My 'cries for help' resulted in being sent from 'pillar to post' by the Law Society and the Court Service 'Customer Service' in the context of my 20 December 2004 complaint to the Law Society against Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor (CKFT) and my 29 June 2004 'cry for help' to Lord Falconer of Thoroton in relation to events with West London County Court in 2002-2004).
Yep! 'games' is certainly the operative word! What a 'mafia'! (Subsequent note - 'Fixing' also takes place e.g. in the House of Lords where 'special requests' for changes in legislation can be purchased. The power of money! And if you are a crook facing proceedings, you can also try your luck with a senior MP
What else can you expect under a system that is corrupted to the core? e.g. My Diary Jan 09 ; Feb 09 ; It sides with the criminals against the victims e.g. My Diary 6 May 08 ; 30 Jan 09 ; Kensington & Chelsea police - and acts like the criminals e.g. local council ; police ; MPs ; peers)
(The lies and the games = the 'bread and butter' of the courts - and those who pay for it are the 'little people' like me and my fellow leaseholders (e.g. home # 4.4 , # 4.11 , # 4.20) - and, e.g. visitors to my site - with the blessings of the Court Service 'regulator' - including the Office of the Minister heading the Ministry of (In)Justice - see WLCC # 20 , # 23 , # 24 , # 25 , # 30 for my letters to / copied to Jack Straw, the Justice Secretary ; summary in my 24 March 2009 letter to my MP, Sir Malcolm Rifkind)
I asked at what time the court had received the fax on 3 November: "At 11h07". I pointed out to the Judge that I had come to the court 3.5 hours later (at 14h30) and that I had not been informed of this. Reply "It takes a while to be put on file".
District Judge Nicholson also told me that, in the morning, the staff had tried to phone me. I replied that this was not so. I gave him a copy of the notice I had left with the court staff the previous day, on which I had written my mobile number (in large writing) and said that no calls had been made. He took the copy and said that he would raise it.
Judge Nicholson said that, in any case, he had issued an order "at 10h00 this morning" for the case to be transferred to the Supreme Court Costs Office "because it's a detailed assessment". When I asked why this order was made on the day of the hearing, considering that my application was filed more than 2 months previously, on 26 August 2008, the reply was "The Judge made an error"
By 11 November, I have not received a copy of the order. (Subsequent note: I took delivery of it on 15 November. It was posted 2nd class post on 11 November 2008)
A previous visitor to my site sent me an email, as a result of seeing my temporary entry for the 4 November hearing:
"I hope that the Cost Assessment Hearing went ahead as planned on 4th November 2008 with a favorable outcome. That's my idealistic side
enquiring.
My realistic, and pessimistic side, is erring on the possibility that certain other events took place, I will list them:
( 1 ) Hearing delayed or postponed
( 2 ) Documents misplaced or missing
( 3 ) Non attendance of party..."
On the right track, but ordering a transfer of the case to another part of the Court Service 4 hours before the hearing is a new one for the visitor to add to his list.
As the case is being transferred, I am taking the opportunity to amend my documents starting with the Bill of Cost I sent Portner on 26 June 2008 as, in its 11 August 2008 Points of Dispute, under point # 1.11, it wrote "unfortunately the Defendant's Bill of Costs fails to comply with the requirements of CPR Part 43 and therefore this hampers the Claimant's ability to consider the reasonableness of each and every individual claim for costs made". (My reply of 26 August 2008)
As far as I can make out, it may be that I should have split the Correspondence section into sub-groups. I cannot change this because Portner used my numbering for its reply. I have nonetheless made some amendments - including amending the amount of 'loss of pay' for producing two of the documents. (I intended to communicate this during the 4 Nov hearing). I sent Portner my 11 November 2008 Amended Bill of Costs with a covering letter explaining the amendments - including the adjustments to 'loss of pay' - as well as a supporting schedule of my timesheets.
In my temporary entry I wrote: A warning sign? The 12 September 2008 notice describes me as the "Defendant" . (No, this is not due to an error on my part - as can be seen on my 26 August 2008 application, I have entered my name as the 'Claimant'... and my £300 cheque has been cashed!).
Having raised this with the court, I determined that, while I have filed the application for the detailed assessment hearing, I am still considered as the Defendant. So, I am going to change my 26 August 2008 reply accordingly. (Not easy when it's all new territory and you are doing it by yourself :-) - as one of my 'comrades in arms' testified)
According to this 18 December 2008 Notice from the Supreme Court Costs Office, the Detailed Assessment hearing is 'due' to take place on 30 January 2009. It did. And as can be seen, it was 'more of the same treatment'.
22 November 2008 - The C.A.R.L. Annual General Meeting. The 'blindfold' has come off many people's eyes - realising that they have been hoodwinked... (and, since February 2009, they should have 20/20 vision)
|
My 6th attendance at the AGM and still many of the familiar faces I saw last year, the year before that, and the year before that, etc.
Some told me: "I remember when you talked about your case in 2003 - and it's still going on!?" "Yes, like yours! Why are we still all here today?"
We all concluded that we are prisoners in our home. |
Teasingly, some told me that one of my compatriots, William the Conqueror, was responsible for the introduction of the leasehold system in this country. I replied that, while this idiot should have limited himself to bringing 'du pain, du vin et du fromage' (bread, wine and cheese) (plagiarizing from a previous(?) advertising campaign for Boursin cheese), countries such as Australia where the British exported the system, had got rid of it. Why not here? After all, this was 1,000 years ago. The world had moved on since. The consensus on the reply: because here it's still a feudal system dominated by individuals with a vested interest in keeping it going. But, like a member wrote to C.A.R.L., The Leaseholder, Autumn 2008-Issue 25, under "Medieval cronyism", "Leaseholders need to stand-up and be counted, and not be intimidated..." (Note at June 2009: The sleaze revealed by the media in the House of Commons and House of Lords has, in recent months, been a great spur to 'emancipation').
The 3 leaseholders who talked about their case, included the leaseholder who, in 2006, provided an update on the decision by the Lands Tribunal in relation to his case. The leaseholders have since gone to the Court of Appeal; next step is the House of Lords. Hence, these leaseholders have now been battling for 4 years: total cost to date? c. £300,00 (US$529,000) and by the time they have gone to the House of Lords? c. £400,000 (US$705,000). (NB: For the sake of consistency, I continue using the same rate of £1 = US$1.76) (See the Leaseholder, Spring 2009, Issue 16, for the ruling by the House of Lords: 'Earl Cadogan v Sportelli).
|
That's one thing the government sure does not tell you when it promotes its Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 e.g. in the 5 March 2008 reply from the Office of Mr Gordon Brown, Prime Minister, to the petition to abolish residential leasehold (My Diary 11 Mar 08) "The Government introduced the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 (the 2002 Act). The 2002 Act made significant changes to the rights of leaseholders, including making the purchase of the freehold...".
As highlighted in: the House of Commons and House Of Lords, the media, and by C.A.R.L. in its newsletters (*) as well as communications to politicians and civil servants: the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 is a "flop", it's unworkable - and the above, is one very damning example in support of this assessment. |
- (*) (1) Summer 2007-Issue 21 "New Leader...new housing policy?"
- (2) Autumn 2006- Issue 19 "Tribunal pushes up cost of freeholds", including Member's letter "New Labour or Feudal Labour?"
- (3) Summer 2006-Issue 18 "Carry on Consulting"
- (4) Spring 2006-Issue 17 "Government must end unfair valuations", and "The Commonhold flop"
- (5) Autumn 2005-Issue 15 "Commonhold tenure"
- (6) Autumn 2004-Issue 13 "Leasehold the most rapidly growing property tenure"
- (7) Summer 2004-Issue 12 "Don't hold your breath"
- (8) Spring 2003-Issue 9 "New legislation a flop - it's official" , and a reproduction of the Guardian article"In search of common sense"
- (9) Autumn 2002-Issue 8 "Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act"
- (10) Autumn 2001-Issue 7 "Government fails leaseholders"
In the same way that the government does not tell you that, contrary to the way they are positioned, the Leasehold Valuation Tribunals have, to quote a leaseholder who attended the C.A.R.L. meeting: "no teeth whatsoever" as they have no power to enforce their decisions. This comment led many others to agree. Hence, these leaseholders agree that, like me (LVT # 8.1.5 , # 8.1.6 , home # 7) they were tricked into believing that LVTs would provide them with an enforceable decision. At which point I said: "it's all part of the game of wearing down leaseholders, getting them to give-up, beating them into submission" - to which there was agreement.
These comments were made in the course of a presentation by a representative from LEASE, following my saying to the representative that, 5 years ago, when I was told about the LVTs (e.g. Home # 7), there was no mention of this fact anywhere. Evidently, this is still the case. One leaseholder said to the representative: "Don't send people to the LVTs, it's a complete waste of money and time". Others agreed.
(See also e.g. C.A.R.L.'s The Leaseholder - Autumn 2006-Issue 19 "Tribunal lottery" ) (As can be seen in some of the other issues of The Leaseholder, some leaseholders do get treated justly and fairly by the LVT = it is a "lottery")
One thing I noted among many people is that the 'blindfold' has fallen off their eyes e.g.:
Members' comments about the LVT:
"Within minutes, I felt that there was collusion between the panel and my landlord's party. Their surveyor, who had come across as friendly previously, went into a personal, humiliating attack against me during the hearing. I felt under attack, I was shaking. He revealed himself to be a liar and very dishonest"
(NB: Ditto in terms of my perception of collusion / siding with the landlord and his aides when I went to the LVT in 2003, following 'Steel Services' application of 7 August 2003 to the LVT (LVT # 8 to # 11 , # 5) which turned out to be correct: LVT # 6 , # 7 ; the outcome of the determination v. the Case summary on the LVT database)
"We were seriously sha***d by the LVT. The only people they could hear in the room were the landlord's barrister and surveyor. And it continued when we took our case to the Lands Tribunal. It's my country. I was born here. But that evidently doesn't give me the right to justice. Makes me sick. I've got to get out of here"
"The LVT leaflet, LEASE and the website tell you that you don't need representation in the LVT. Then you turn up on your own, and you find that the landlord has employed a QC to face you. Can you imagine? A QC for an LVT hearing!"
(NB: Inequality of arms in the LVTs was a point agreed on by many leaseholders - and tallies with my own experience - LVT # 2 , # 8.1.5, etc.) (See also C.A.R.L.'s The Leaseholder e.g. (1) Autumn 2006-Issue 19 "Tribunals raise the stakes" ; (2) Spring 2006 - Issue 17 "DGA over charges on insurance...again" ; (3) Autumn 2001-Issue 7 "Leasehold Valuation Tribunals" which reports on the findings from a survey conducted by Sheffield Hallam University)
"As I was sitting there, looking around I was thinking: my barrister and my solicitor: paid to be there by me ; the barrister, solicitor and surveyor for the landlord: paid to there by me and my fellow leaseholders - as their costs would, in all likelihood, end-up in one form or another in the service charges - even though the service charge demand of £70,000 they expected me to pay, and similar for the others, was fraudulent ; the members of the panel: paid to be there by me and other taxpayers in this country. So, none of them with any care as to how long it would take and what the outcome would be. Whereas I, I was trembling, thinking: every extra hour is going to immediately cost me several hundred pounds to my barrister and my solicitor - and more later on. I was their meal ticket. They were all feeding on me"
Some leaseholders told me that the LVT was "scared" of their landlord because this landlord is particularly litigious. You can guess the outcome on the leaseholders! (See also e.g. C.A.R.L.'s The Leaseholder - Autumn 2006-Issue 19 "LVT caves in to landlord bullies" )
Members' comments about the Lands Tribunal:
"You could see from the exchange between the judge and the landlord's counsel that they knew each other well. Of course they do! It's a club, and they know who is buttering their bread: landlords. Same thing in the LVT!"
(NB: See Lord Falconer # 4 for the experience of other leaseholders)
"A mess" ; "Utter shambles"
A man told me that the stress of the ordeal he was put through by the LVT / the Lands Tribunal led him to go and see his doctor, and that he broke down in tears when he met with him. (That's the ultimate objective: get people to break down, beat them into submission)
Member's comments about lawyers
"They are all crooks! In the last 18 months, my freeholder's solicitors have threatened me with forfeiture three times! Can you believe that !?"
(NB: Same tactic used in my case by:
Lanny Silverstone, Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor (CKFT) in his 7 October 2002 letter (My Diary 10 Oct 02 ; CKFT # 1 , # 6.2 ). The £14,400 (US$25,400) demand - issued by Martin Russell Jones (MRJ) - I was so categorically 'considered to owe' that it 'justified' threatening me with forfeiture and "contacting my mortgage lender", as well as filing a claim against me (ref. WL203537), turned into a £6,350 (US$11,200) 'offer' which, "for the sake of bringing the dispute to an end" I accepted, even though, legally, I did NOT owe this amount either... but that was not going to be the end of it: Andrew Ladsky had to take his revenge e.g. My Diary 11 Mar 07; My Diary 2009 - Introduction
|
|
For the purpose of showing the 'tandem approach' between lawyers and surveyors in their fraudulent activities: in her 20 September 2002 letter, Joan Hathaway, MRICS, Martin Russell Jones, (MRJ), threatened me with proceedings, stating "...if payment is not made now our client, Steel Services, will instruct solicitors to commence legal proceedings" (MRJ # 14 , # 26)
Of course, she did the same thing with some of my fellow leaseholders e.g. to Leaseholder D who wrote this in his letter to her of 24 September 2002 "...your letter of 20 September in which you threaten legal proceedings in the event of not receiving payment from us..." (MRJ # 14 , # 26)
(Hathaway had previously threatened proceedings - also as a means of breaching covenants in my lease - in her 28 February 2005 letter "Your landlord Steel Services have told us that they will strictly enforce with legal proceedings and associated costs..." (MRJ # 26)
In fact, she revealed her propensity to threaten proceedings within weeks of being appointed as 'managing' agents: her letter of 30 October 1989 "...we will have no alternative than to inform our client who will no doubt take legal action against you" (MRJ # 1)
And 'I' am branded a "Nazi"?!?!
Subsequent notes:
Of course, as MRJ has the blessings of, among others, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS), it continues with its fraudulent activites - see My Diary 13 Jul 10 for the THIRD MAJOR FRAUDULENT demand 'from' MRJ since 2002 - apparently replaced by Martyn Gerrard which, of course, continues to demand payment.
And what does the May 2010 appointed Housing Minister have to say about the residential leasehold sector? "All is well with leaseholders!"... as he cashes in on the benefit of saying this. |
|
Jeremy Hershkorn, (then at) Portner and Jaskel, in his 16 February 2007 letter who, in addition to threatening me with forfeiture, also threatened me with "bankruptcy proceedings" and "costs" (Portner # 3) in the name of a company I had NEVER heard of (PJ # 15 ), if I failed to immediately pay £8,937 (US$15,800) - based on information, also supplied by Martin Russell Jones (Portner # 3 ).
This sum which, likewise, I was so categorically 'considered to owe' that it 'justified': (i) threatening me with forfeiture, as well as bankruptcy proceedings (PJ # 3) ; (ii) filing a claim against me (ref. 7WL00675) in WLCC - with interest and other costs (PJ # 6) (iii) filing an application for judgment against me (as evidenced by the 19 April 2007 Order from WLCC refusing the application (Portner # 13 ) - turned into a £0.00 demand after a 16-month battle with Portner and Jaskel and West London County Court , as "ALL" of the 27 February 2007 claim filed against me (Portner # 6) was dropped by issuing the 6 June 2008 Notice of Discontinuance (Portner # 31).
(Such is the arrogance of Andrew Ladsky and his puppet, Ahmet Jaffer, Portner and Jaskel, the contempt with which they pereceive me - and their justified belief in 'the system' (e.g. outcome of the 30 Jan 09 Supreme Court Costs Office hearing), that one week before receiving my 3 June 2008 Witness Statement, in his 23 May 2008 letter, Jaffer suggested that the case be moved from "fast-track to multi-track" (Portner # 30)) |
|
The trigger to dropping "ALL of the claim" against me was my ('Litigant in Person') 3 June 2008 Witness Statement (4pg Main Points) - and was the response instead of sending me 'Rootstock Overseas Corp. / Steel Services / Sloan Development' witness statement (as per the 9 April 2008 so-called 'case management directions') (WLCC # 27) (My Diary 7 Jun 08 ; 3 Jun 08). The preposterous reason subsequently given for dropping the claim (Portner # 33) provides additional proof that the claim was FRAUDULENT (I challenged the identity of 'the Claimant' a total of 11 TIMES ! over a 14-month period)
It amounts to a 'part repeat' of what happened with the 29 November 2002 fraudulent claim, ref. WL203537 (Particulars of claim), filed against me (and 10 of my fellow leaseholders, representing a total of 14 flats at Jefferson House) - also in WLCC. Indeed, contrary to the WLCC order that witness statements had to be "served / exchanged by 4.00 pm on 21 October 2003", 'Steel Services', aka Andrew Ladsky, did NOT supply a witness statement - opting instead to send an "offer" for £6,350 (US$11,200) (v. the £14,400 (US$25,400) demand) - nearly two hours after its witness statement was due.
Fascinating to see the difference in outcome when - unlike with the 29 November 2002 claim, ref. WL203537 - there has not been the option of arriving at 'an arrangement' with members of the fraternity (My 19 October 2003 Witness Statement ; home # 4.12 , # 4.13 ; CKFT # 6.8 ; Piper Smith Basham/Watton # 7.13.2 , # 7.13.3 , # 7.14 , # 7.15 , # 7
