Introduction

(Quick links: (1) the 30 Jan 09 Supreme Court Costs Office hearing; (2) my 12 July 2009 complaint to the Parliamentary Ombudsman; (3) my 28 May 2009 Subject Access Request to the police)

Year eight of the horrendous, sheer utter hell nightmare (My Diary started in Year 2002) and the second anniversary of my website. OR:

'Continuation of the diary of A PERSECUTED VICTIM OF ORGANISED CRIME - who is NOT a criminal - in 21st century England - while the criminals, hiding within the network of symbiotic relationships, continue to laugh their head-off'

But the 2008 scandals, revealed in part by the whistleblowers - as well as, at the start of 2009, the overwhelming evidence of sleaze in the Palace of Westminster and Whitehall village (i.e. politicians and civil servants) e.g. My Diary Jan 09 and Feb 09, the damning reports on the police - including the arrest of a senior MP who publicised blunders by the Home Office, the ever growing surveillance society, and equally fast-growing number of objectors, from all quarters - prove La Fontaine to be correct that "Patience et longueur de temps Font plus que force ni que rage"...

...as events have added more weight to my position (finally, I no longer feel like a lonely voice) allowing me to now state and provide supporting evidence for the conclusion I arrived at a long time ago: that the extremely vicious, cruel, sadistic, barbaric vendetta I have, and continue to be subjected to, is being orchestrated in a two-prong approach by individuals able to recruit a very wide range of 'helpers' to carry out their bidding.

The first element of the two-prong highly vicious, sadistic vendetta against me, is evidently driven by Andrew Ladsky - the "petty tyrant" (expression used by one of my fellow leaseholders) who, on 3 January 2003, told me, with a lot of venom in his voice: "I am going to get you this year!" Why? Because I 'dared' to challenge his application to the London Leasehold Valuation Tribunal - and hence: his scam. Since then, he has relentlessly pursued this objective, regardless of consequences on others.

(Four years ago I wrote to the Local Government Ombudsman that "it ought to be obvious to those with the most at stake that some discretion should be used in granting the 'sacrosanct landlord' status to individuals". But, such is the arrogance... )

A key milestone was six years ago when I took the 'big step' of overlooking my rights, by accepting his 21 October 2003 "offer" and paid £6,350 (v. the £14,400 original demand) (29 November 2002 Particulars of claim) which, legally, I did not owe - but did this, as I explained in my 19 December 2003 letter to his solicitors, Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor (CKFT), "for the sake of bringing this dispute to an end". I wanted to move on with my life which, after my experience with the various parties, translated into wanting to leave the country.

Among sane people, the convention is that, when party A makes an offer to party B, which party B accepts by making payment to party A - and this acceptance is endorsed by a court - the transaction is taken as concluding the matter.

This universally accepted principle is not recognised by Andrew Ladsky: he decided that it was not going to be the end of it. Like the majority of my fellow leaseholders, I WOULD be made to pay him whatever amount he deemed fit, and 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: e.g. CKFT and Portner and Jaskel (*)) who had 'dared' stand-up to him - 'Mr I Am So Important, So Superior to Anybody Else', Entitled to Get My Every Wish and Take Whatever I Want from Others' - would be severely punished by him and his equally sociopathic 'supporters' for 'daring' to do it.

(*) In name, rather than in practice, as they evidently perceive themselves to be exempt from compliance with some of the 10 Commandments, or ‘fundamental laws of the Jews’, namely those which prohibit: theft, false testimony, and coveting others’ goods. But then, as they have / continue to demonstrate, laws don't mean anything to them.

So, he had his puppets, Martin Russell Jones (MRJ), send me invoices in October and November 2004 as though no agreement had been reached and endorsed by a court, and no payment made (My Diary 11 Mar 07)

Since then, he has continued because he can rely on an infrastructure, comprising of puppets only too happy to carry out his wishes, regardless of legislation, regulations and codes of conduct, and of a behind the scene back-up system that shares the same ethos: that leaseholders are there to be used and abused - in the knowledge that no sanctions will be taken against any of them - as those with the power to take action: the 'honourable' and 'right honourable' MPs and 'noble' peers, are, likewise, very busy committing their own abuses - demonstrating that they share the same ethos of entitlement e.g. # 1, # 2 , # 3 , and use some of the same tactics, such as false accounting, fraud, as well as intimidation and bullying to secure payment.

The behind the scene back-up system is the second element of the two-prong, highly vicious, bestial vendetta against me. It piggybacks on Andrew Ladsky's actions / diktats - determined to help him get whatever he wants from me, including revenge - as well as revenge for themselves for my 'daring' to challenge and stand-up to the back-up system - in the process conveniently ignoring the fact that: (1) Ladsky and his aides ARE THE ROOT CAUSE of ALL that has taken place. Reason: they have money and connections. I don't - giving them the right to use me and abuse me to their heart's content - and getting away with it; (2) they ALL had FIVE years to do something about it but, as in the case of the MPs' expenses, such is their unlimited collective arrogance and grossly inflated sense of self-importance and power that they opted to dismiss me - because the 'little people' like me don't do that and have to be made to know their place.

West London County Court

I concluded 2007 by claiming, in my 27 December 2007 letter to HMCS Customer Service, that events with West London County Court over the previous 10 months, from the time it received the 27 February 2007 claim, provided "Confirmation of collusion" (WLCC # 22). In making this claim, I also took into account events that had taken place with this court in 2002-04 - in relation to me and my fellow leaseholders.

I believe that any fair minded, reasonable person, with integrity, looking at what took place with this court in 2008 (snapshot in My Diary 11 Nov 08), added to the responses to my 13 November 2007 complaint from the Court Service (WLCC # 19 , # 22 , # 23 ; summarised in my 24 March 2009 letter to my MP, Sir Malcolm Rifkind; more detail in my 2 January 2010 Subject Access Request to the Ministry of 'Justice') (Legal-Home # C), will agree that events provide further compelling evidence in support of my conclusion. Furthermore, that WLCC's actions were also motivated by revenge for my exposing, on this website, what took place in that court in 2002-04. (WLCC Introduction)

Considering the conduct of Portner and Jaskel and its client - captured in my 19 January 2009 reply to their points of dispute - evidence of revenge by the Court Service is also apparent from the 30 January 2009 Supreme Court Costs Office Detailed Assessment, so-called 'hearing' (My Diary 30 Jan 09)

Mobile communication Introduction Considering: (1) events with Kensington, Chelsea and Notting Hill police; (2) the profile of ACPO and, until early 2011, its powers - my instincts lead me to the conclusion that ACPO is one of the parties behind/ the channel for the surveillance and interference with my phones. (The police, and other State parties have particularly strong links with the mobile phone companies e.g. media articles "Phone firms net £9m for giving data to the police"; "Minister in cahoots with mobile phone firms on price fixing"... and this is 'Orwellian Surveillance Britain'). Note that under the RIPA a warrant for interception must be issued by the Home Secretary. I therefore conclude that THE STATE IS BEHIND THE SURVEILLANCE OF MY MOBILE PHONES AND INTERCEPTION OF MY MOBILE PHONES' VOICEMAILS AND TEXT MESSAGES, AS WELL AS SENDING A BOGUS TEXT MESSAGE. I draw your attention to the grounds for justifying interception and the renewal of interception warrants. Conclusion: I, the innocent victim of organised crime, am categorised as a 'criminal' and/or a 'terrorist'. See my SUMMARY SLIDE below as to the obvious content of the interception warrants. Events 1. In October-November 2007, a lawyer I contacted (to discuss events with my employer, KPMG) had very clearly been approached: (1) I saw him several days after booking the appointment; (2) having first obtained case information from me - two weeks later - he claimed that he had a conflict of interest because he had been "advising somebody at KPMG". Having stated this, as he was repeating "I should not be talking to you" , he was nonetheless trying to extract more information from me I considered as evidence in support of my position. (If this contact was not identified as a result of listening to my telephone conversations, then I was followed to his office = either way: I am under surveillance. Actually, given events, there 'might' be option # 3: this solicitor contacted KPMG - because I am one of the 'little people' v. one of the 'big people' / people with money. (Other evidence in support: (1) re. KPMG, see also events with (i) my ex. doctor in April 2008 ; (ii) the 'specialist' I saw in May 2008; (2) re. Ladsky and the 'Brotherhood': (i) the deal evidently made between 'my' advisors and Ladsky in 2003 ; (ii) ) the 'specialist' I saw in May 2008) 2. In October 2007, it is abundantly clear that the conversations I had, and text messages I exchanged with my friend for the purpose of meeting him had been intercepted - My Diary 25 Oct 07 3. The 'games' played by Hutchison 3G, the 3 network mobile phone provider over a four-month period starting in October 2008 (My Diary 29 Dec 08) leading me to involve Ofcom - which finally led to Hutchison 3G supplying me with the PAC number in its 22 January 2009 letter. Why should Hutchison 3G play these games? What took place was certainly not about preventing a high-spending customer from leaving the 3G network, as I hardly ever use my phone – because I know that whatever I do with it is being listened to / intercepted / interfered with (My Diary 23 Jan 09) 4. Add to that, in the previous year, the Vodafone logo appearing on my Word documents from which I conclude - as a non-expert - that my computer was being hacked into - see below, computer. Another 'fascinating' event also took place with my mobile phone when it was on the Vodafone network [ADD].

5. On 2 January 2009, the message "Nothing to display" was sent on my other mobile phone (phone # 2), under the name of friends in France. They did NOT send this message (which, in any case they would have written in French). On receiving it, I concluded that it was intended to worry me about my website - and took no action. Earlier on that day, a 'message' was left on my mobile, clearly intended to scare me - see My Diary 2 Jan 09 = Other examples of the EXTREMELY SICK psyches I am facing in this country.

6. Note at February 2010 - Indication that Hutchison 3G's successor is 'on board': I am NOT getting messages on my voicemail for mobile phone # 1. It includes a message from one of my cousins that her Father had died, so that I could attend the funeral. (As detailed below, her email to me was intercepted, and so was her express letter to me). My Cousin also said that she tried to leave a message on my mobile phone # 2, but she was not sure whether she had succeeded as she could not understand the recording. I did NOT get a message. 7. Note at July 2010 - I was right about 3's successor. It's O2. In his 13 July 2010 letter, the PHSO caseworker said that he had been trying to phone me over the previous month and did not get a dial tone. I tried the phone on 22 July, and could not get a dial tone. However, I had received a text 10 days earlier, and the voicemail did not give any indication that my phone had been disconnected. I went to an O2 store on 22 July. Having borrowed one of their phones in which I placed my SIM card, on calling the number, it 'miraculously' rang. One minute later a text from O2 said that it was sending me the settings for my phone - hence as though it was the first time that I was using O2 = my phone had been disconnected. Likely trigger? R E T R I B U T I O N! My 2 February 2010 letter to various parties in which I report, among others, events with Hutchison 3G? The fact that I do not use my phone to make calls? (Because, as previously, I suspect that it is monitored - and this supports my view), etc., etc., etc. - and because I 'dare' to continue fighting for my rights for justice and redress - under a regime of fear, smear and persecution - failing to be intimidated by the fear tactics, and failing to return the call of those evidently tasked with making me give up (and with whom, as a result, I have cut-off contact, as I don't need 'friends' batting for 'the Ladsky camp'. (See also Introduction to 'Emails', below) Note at March 2010 - Other 'interesting' facts: Using a public telephone - I phoned my Cousin in Paris to report events with her voicemail message (and her letter (below)). A few days after this conversation, when I switched on mobile phone # 2 (for the first time since talking to my Cousin), within 2 minutes it alerted me of a voicemail by sending me a text message. It had stopped doing this a while back e.g. after leaving the phone switched on for c.20-30 minutes (which I was doing as a test), no alert would come through. Yet, on some occasions, when I phoned the voicemail service, I found a message. As to phone # 1, it has evidently been decided that 'some' messages should come through to me.

Post Introduction Considering: (1) events with Kensington, Chelsea and Notting Hill police; (2) the profile of ACPO and, until early 2011, its powers - my instincts lead me to the conclusion that ACPO is one of the parties behind/ the channel for the surveillance and interception of my post. (Note also that this is 'Orwellian Surveillance Britain'). Note that under the RIPA a warrant for interception must be issued by the Home Secretary. The interception of my post can only take place at two points: at the sorting office, or at my PO Box, located in the area of the Jefferson House 'concentration camp'. (NB: The reason I have a PO Box is because my post was intercepted at the 'concentration camp'. YES, it's a criminal offence. Where can I go and file a complaint? Only option: Kensington & Chelsea police !!! See, yet again, my experience in October 2010 when I tried to report being followed and harassed) On two occasions I have raised the issue of the interference with my post with the manager at my PO Box - citing specific examples - and stated my suspicions about one of the employees who, in 2010, when I briefly talked about my case to him (feeling very negative vibes from him), told me: "There is no point fighting them. You'll never win" . The manager assured me that NOBODY was interfering with my post. Is the PO Box manager telling the truth? Note that if he has been issued with a warrant to intercept my post (RIPA: section 3, section 5, section 7 and section 11) - he has concurrently been gagged from revealing it - pursuant to section 19 of the Act. HOWEVER, given the nature of the items that are intercepted, it would suggest that the manager is a psychopath / sociopath responding to the diktats of one or more psychopaths / sociopaths - (See my SUMMARY SLIDE below as to the obvious content of the interception warrants). I do not believe that the manager is either of these. This leaves the State-controlled sorting office - that might be particularly willing to comply with, I assume (in light of events), the diktats from the local 'SS' - because I had a 3-year running battle with the sorting office (My Diary 9 Oct 06; 2 Nov 06 ; 4-5 Nov 06 ; 14 Nov 06 ; 15 Nov 06 ; 9 Mar 07 ; 12 Apr 07 ; ) - and the 'little people' who 'dare' complain against any State employee will be 'taught a lesson' / persecuted. Conclusion - Whether or not the manager at my PO Box is involved, the conclusion is the same: THE STATE IS BEHIND THE INTERCEPTION OF MY POST. I draw your attention to the grounds for justifying interception and the renewal of interception warrants. Conclusion: I, the innocent victim of organised crime, am categorised as a 'criminal' and/or a 'terrorist'. Events 1. Having intercepted the email, as well as voicemail message/s from one of my cousins that her Father had died so that I could attend the funeral, her '3-day express' letter to me from France was also intercepted. Evidence: as can be seen from the envelop, the letter was posted on Tuesday 2 March 2010, and states "Guaranteed delivery within 3 days". Hence, I should have received it at the latest by Friday 5 March. I went to my PO BOx on Sunday 7 March: the letter was NOT there. I only found it in my PO Box on my next visit, by which time: YES, my Uncle's funeral had already taken place. The content of the letter could be easily guessed by the 'Gestapo' that is behind the interception of my means of communication from: (1) the interception of the voicemail/s and email, as well as the fact that my Cousin wrote her address on the envelop – and this address is stored on my mobile phones - hence, can be taken. Further, I have been followed when I stayed with my Cousins. WHY were these communications from my Cousin intercepted - leading me to miss my Uncle's funeral? R E T R I B U T I O N! REVENGE for my 'daring' to stand-up to 'the Brotherhood' in the process of 'daring' to continue fighting for my rights. (It's an example of their typical type of 'response' - see e.g. the case of Maurice Kirk) (See also Introduction to 'Emails', below) Another consequence to add to my very, very long list of consequences of 'daring' to stand-up against Ladsky et.al.'s fraud - in a highly corrupted, EXTREMELY SICK environment). 2. ‘Matthew Johnson’, the IPCC caseworker, sent me a 22 February 2010 letter, posted 1st class on 23 February, in which ‘he’ gave me one week to reply “providing good reasons for the delay in making your complaint” and that ‘he’ would then “consider the Directorate of Professional Standards’ application for dispensation” if I wrote "within seven days" of his letter. On 28th February, the letter was NOT in my PO Box. I only found it in my PO Box the following week – past the deadline for reply. Exactly one week after sending me the above, 'Matthew Johnson' sent me a 2 March 2010 letter dismissing my complaint. How 'fascinating' that a letter - with implication on Kensington, Chelsea and Notting Hill police - gets intercepted and withheld. 3. In November 2010, HM Revenue claimed to have sent me a cheque for tax refund. Got lost in the post? (My not receiving it meant that I had to engage into some considerable chasing). 4. Following my filing the claim - against the police - as I had anticipated, I did NOT get the Notices of Issue. I kept going to my PO Box - in vain. I opted to wait until the last day for one of the Defendants to have filed its acknowledgment of service before going to the court. The court had sent me the documents. It gave me a copy. = Another item - concerning Kensington, Chelsea, and Notting Hill police - that is interfered with. What an 'amasing' coincidence! ;-)

Emails Introduction My emails on my French email account have been monitored for a long time. Some have also been intercepted. The question is: On which side of the Channel is this taking place? While I know that French people have (among others) been monitoring me, both in France and in the UK (at the behest of British people. (people will indeed "sell their soul to the devil"!)) - considering: that the interception of, and interference with my other means of communication: mobile phones, post and computer are British-led... ...so is the constant surveillance and hounding under which I am placed - and my using internet cafés to access my emails (because of events with my 3G Vodafone card in 2007 + the fact that Andrew Ladsky cut-off my landline in the flat in 2005/06) - also helps to track me down... ...added to the actions, and hence profile of the large sample of individuals I have come across, since 2002, in the public and private sector in this country (e.g. Home page-Overview ; below ; the conduct of Kensington, Chelsea and Notting Hill police - et.al. in the police ; summary of the outcome of my complaints)... ... and to other people's experience in 'Orwellian Britain' (e.g. whistleblowers; locking-up 'inconvenient people'; Maurice Kirk; categorising peaceful protestors as "domestic extremists" and having them under surveillance; Victims Unite website; other examples)... - my conclusion is that the surveillance and interception of my emails is British-led - and it comes under the banner of R E T R I B U T I O N. Considering: (1) events with Kensington, Chelsea and Notting Hill police; (2) the profile of ACPO and, until early 2011, its powers - my instincts lead me to the conclusion that ACPO is one of the parties behind/ the channel for the surveillance and interference with my emails. Note that under the RIPA a warrant for interception must be issued by the Home Secretary. I therefore conclude that THE BRITISH STATE IS ALSO BEHIND THE INTERCEPTION OF MY EMAILS. I draw your attention to the grounds for justifying interception and the renewal of interception warrants. Conclusion: I, the innocent victim of organised crime, am categorised as a 'criminal' and/or a 'terrorist'. See my SUMMARY SLIDE below as to the obvious content of the interception warrants. Events 1. In February 2010, one of my cousins desperately tried to contact me to let me know that her Father had died, so that I could attend the funeral in France. She sent me an email. I did NOT receive it. (She has been sending me emails on this address for several years). She also left voicemail/s on my mobile phone. I did NOT get it/them. She sent me a '3-day express delivery' letter, I did NOT get it until after the funeral had taken place. 2. In November 2010 somebody sent me a one-line email asking me to contact him. I did NOT receive it. I had warned him that this might happen, and to do it as a test - and not rely on this as a means of contacting me. (The person had the correct email address, and the email was NOT bounced back). When I saw him, I told him that he should send me another email, and that, as the tactic had failed to prevent me from establishing contact with him, I thought that the second test email would probably reach me. It did! In other words: important emails are intercepted. If you are one of the 'little people' reading this, as well as the section on my mobiles, post and computer: try to imagine the impact this is having on me.

Section 8 of the RIPA relates to the 'Contents of warrants' which, under s.8(2) states that "it must comprise one or more schedules setting out the addresses, numbers, apparatus or other factors, or combination of factors, that are to be used for identifying the communications that may be or are to be intercepted" s.8(3) "Any factor or combination of factors...must be one that identifies communications which are likely to be or to include- (a) communications from, or intended for, the person named or described in the warrant...; or (b) communications originating on, or intended for transmission to, the premises..."

INTERCEPTION WARRANT MOBILES - POST - EMAILS OBJECTIVES Intercept ONLY items that: 1. Will cause distress, torment, anxiety, feeling of persecution, maximum inconvenience. 2. Could be used against Kensington / Chelsea / Notting Hill police and/or related parties. 3. Will help surveillance, including identification of contacts. In addition re. mobile phones – inflict further distress, anxiety, torment, feeling of persecution and humiliation – by: 4. Sending bogus text and leaving snapping sound message. 5. Blocking for as many months as possible a request for transfer to another network. 6. Cutting service for several weeks. Psychopath

A 7 April 2011 letter from the Home Office confirmed to me that what I report in relation to my POST, EMAILS and MOBILES, as well as other surveillance requires authorisation under the RIPA. It also refers to the requirements for granting authorisation (as I have captured in My Diary 2011-Intro-Surveillance) Considering the nature of the communication items that are intercepted from my POST, EMAILS and MOBILES, as well as other related actions in relation to my means of communication... ... IT FOLOWS that the INTERCEPTION WARRANTS (that keep on being renewed) - ALWAYS CONTAIN AT LEAST POINTS 1-3 in the above slide, and have PREVIOUSLY ALSO CONTAINED THE REST. Constrast that with the grounds for authorisation of interception warrants (which MOST DEFINITELY DO NOT APPLY TO ME). As to the comment on the 2nd page of the 7 April 2011 letter "...or to consider whether something else could be the cause of what you are experiencing" I reply that, considering the range of parties involved in the above events, and the blatantly obvious coordination of activities between the parties, it demonstrates - UNDENIABLE - INVOLVEMENT BY THE STATE . Further, this is part of 'the State package' - to be added to the other treatment I have and continue to be subjected to by State parties since 2002 - including other types of surveillance. I view the kind of people who sanction, as well as undertake the above actions as psychopaths / sociopaths. (I again repeat: I am the INNOCENT VICTIM of organised crime - NOT one of the criminals. And if I were, that kind of treatment would, among other, STILL amount to a breach of my Human Rights.)

Computer

In 2007, when I was using the Vodafone 3G card (my own, rather than work's), on my personal computer, as can be seen from this photograph, the Vodafone logo ended-up appearing instead of the Microsoft 'W' when viewing my Word documents in directory view. (The blue block is superimposed to block-out the name of my files). I immediately stopped using the card. (While I cannot explain this event - the technology exists to hack into computers e.g. see extracts from The Sunday Times article of 4 Jan 09 under My Diary 13 Apr 08) (The police, and other State parties have particularly strong links with the mobile phone companies e.g. media articles "Phone firms net £9m for giving data to the police"; "Minister in cahoots with mobile phone firms on price fixing"... and this is 'Orwellian Surveillance Britain').

Flat Introduction There are 2 Acts under which intrusive surveillance can 'officially' be carried out: The Police Act 1997 that has come to be referred to as the 'bug and burgle' powers of the police - and leaves the door wide open to abuse. The RIPA which permits many other public bodies - in addition to the police - to undertake intrusive surveillance (this is 'Orwellian Surveillance Britain'!) - and the very obvious lack of control. My instincts tell me that, since at least 2009-10 - in addition to and/or as a replacement to Andrew Ladsky's intrusive surveillance of my flat, the police has been involved in the intrusive surveillance of my flat. WHY? See e.g. the examples listed above under Introduction to Emails - added to the fact that the police et.al. very clearly perceive themselves to be at the service of Ladsky, to the complete exclusion of mine. As to Kensington police in particular, in addition to its treatment of me since 2002 v. of Ladsky, I cite that in an attempt to 'get the scalp' of one of its own, the police rented a flat next to his. In my case, Andrew Ladsky, the police's protégé, controls Jefferson House. This leads me to conclude that, in addition to the surveillance and interception of my mobile voicemails and text messages, my post, my email - THE STATE IS ALSO CONDUCTING INTRUSIVE SURVEILLANCE OF MY FLAT. I draw your attention to the grounds for justifying intrusive surveillance. Conclusion: I, the innocent victim of organised crime, am categorised as a 'criminal' and/or a 'terrorist'. Events I am convinced that my flat is bugged / wired like a Christmas tree - for the following reasons: These are photos I took, in May 2010, of 'objects' inside the ceilings of my flat. The one on the left, the 'object' had recently been placed there as it had no dust on it. The one on the right looks like an antenna. Corridor ceiling   Bedroom ceiling On one occasion, as I was sitting on my bed, when I provoked 'them' by saying that some of them will have a horrible death, a wire was immediately rattled in the ceiling. As can be seen from the above, there is a large gap in parts of the (flimsy) ceilings to my flat. (Jefferson House is a converted block). I have concluded that there is some sort of opening from one of the flats next to time (or at least, there was), at a height that is comprised within the ceiling to my flat - My Diary Jan / Feb 04 In 2009-10, on 2-3 occasions, I saw a man, short, in his 30s, perhaps of Jewish origin, coming into that flat late at night, carrying some kind of briefcase. He would stay for c. 10 minutes and then leave. Once, I challenged him; he said something along the line of 'not to worry, he was not doing anything wrong'. I heard him on several other occasions when he did the same thing i.e. stay for c.10 minutes, and saw him from my window. Since c. 2008, and especially since 2009-10, I have noted that sound reverberates in my flat : in the kitchen, bathroom and bedroom area. For example, I noted that 'the sensitivity of the recording' appeared to have been turned up on the day I took delivery of the £24,000 'service charge' My Diary 13 Jul 10 In her 31 July 2006 letter to me, Joan Hathaway, MRICS, MRJ, wanted to get access to my flat "In order to test the fire alarm system". There is NOTHING connected with a fire alarm system in my flat. My take on this was an excuse to get access to the inside of the ceilings to my flat. It seems that 'a solution' was found as, following the failed attempt to flood my flat on 6 February 2007, the ceiling in the corridor was dismantled in 2009-10 - giving ease of access to the inside of my ceilings. A very large gap remained opened for several weeks. As I am out of the hell hole all day, and do not return until late in the evening, because I absolutely hate it, I do not know what was done. There may/may not be a connection with this one: sometime in 2009-10, I saw one of the local police 'SS' come out of Jefferson House (his face is etched in my memory). As he was at the bottom of the steps to the entrance, he said, looking up towards the entrance door "Don't worry, I've made sure it can't be found". Other examples: In March 2011, c. 10 days after I sent the 17 March 2011 pre-action letter to the police, by 'amazing coincidence', Andrew Ladsky came out of Jefferson House at the same as me - on two occasions, a few days apart. (NB: I have come across another victim of injustice, also a woman, who believes that her flat is bugged - My Diary 21 Jul 10. No doubt, like me, she is portrayed as "mad"; "suffering from mental issues" )

Medical

(NB: None of the following three individuals are National Health Service) (My experience with e.g. St Thomas hospital, London, part of the NHS, was excellent - My Diary 19 Jun 05)

(1) My ('well connected') doctor, AG, (yes, my Jewish doctor of 37 years about whom I stated in My Diary 20 Mar 07, that I trusted him with my life) who, on 10 April 2008, denied (while looking very ill-at-ease, shifty, repeatedly turning the top 1-2 pages of my file) that I had seen him on 16 April 2007, and consequently claimed to have no record of the repeat prescription for tranquilisers and anti-depressants he had given me because of the state I was in as as a result of the treatment I was being subjected to at KPMG, my then employer. (Treatment which, ‘by coincidence’, started 10 days after TDC Simon J Dowling, K&C police, failed to intimidate and bully my website Host into closing down my website). (I am sure I saw my doctor made a note of my visit and of the prescription).

The purpose of my 10 Apr 08 visit was to ask him for a referral to a psychiatrist (for the purpose of evidence in relation to the employment tribunal re. ‘mitigating my loss’ following my resigning from KPMG in January 2008) (after 10 years) - and being unable to work since due to my experience. As soon as I stated this, he replied “You should not have filed a claim against KPMG”, which he again repeated. This took place within 2-3 minutes of the 'consultation' - and without asking me why I had done it.

Shortly afterwards, instead of asking me what he had prescribed me, whether it had been of help, he kept probing me to find out whether I had recorded my conversations at KPMG. (He did not get a reply).

When I reiterated my request for a referral, he replied that he could not do it, giving as reason “You should have come and see me before”. It was then clear that he wanted to get rid of me as soon as possible.

Having learnt a great deal since 2002, I had scanned the prescription and the packagings. After the visit, I sent him a copy of the prescription, with a covering letter, including a summary of events at KPMG that had led me to see him. (Needless to say that I never saw him again).

(2) The psychiatrist I saw on 7 May 2008, Dr-MP, for the purpose of filing a claim against KPMG, whose objective was quite clearly to 'put me out of action': he was very clearly not interested in what I had to say, getting impatient with me, hurrying me on, and, within less than half-an-hour of the 'consultation', 'recommended' that I "should immediately book [myself] in a clinic for two weeks" (YES: With the help of morally depraved individuals like him, the British State DOES lock-up 'inconvenient people') (See My Diary 25 Jan 11 for other evidence I give in relation to my case)

Of note: knowing that my mobile phones are monitored, I went to the 'specialist' office to make the appointment. Hence, it provides further proof that I am under surveillance - in part for the purpose of determining who I contact, in case it provides 'an opportunity'. (Subsequent note - see My Diary 2010 -Intro ; 23 May 10 for more recent evidence of my being under surveillance).

In this instance, the opportunity was quiet clearly seized upon: by 'amazing coincidence', I had to, among others, serve my Witness Statement by 4 June 2008 i.e. within less than a month. Outcome of my serving my (70 pg) Statement - as a Litigant in Person? It led the crooks, Andrew Ladsky et.al., to drop "ALL of the 27 February 2007 claim" against me on 6 June 2008. Who is "In very serious need of help"? And that's more than just him et.al.! See also My Diary 3 Jun 08 for events that took place during the month of May: the blatantly obvious plan to beat me into paying the claim. It sure would have been 'very convenient' for me to be out of action during that time!

Conclusion: 'Dare' to challenge a bunch of crooks and 'the system' that protects them, as well as 'dare' to contemplate filing an action for harassment, persecution and victimisation at work - and the message is 'Get thee to an asylum!'

(NB: This was a continuation of attempting to put me 'out of action' as, in his 16 Mar 07 entry on the police system, regurgitating what Andrew Ladsky told him, TDC Simon J Dowling of Kensington & Chelsea police's 'Community Safety Unit' wrote "I believe she may have some mental issues so will be speaking to social services to see if they are aware of her” (Kensington police # 3 Key point # 8) (See My Diary 25 Jan 11 for other evidence I give in relation to my case) (See my conclusion that Dowling impersonated a police officer in the process of trying to scare my website Host into closing my website).

Another one in the English medical profession not familiar with the concept of integrity and probity!

(Another example reported by e.g. The Sunday Telegraph, 6 Sep 09 "Lockerbie: medical experts were urged to predict bomber's early death" "Medical evidence that helped the Lockerbie bomber to be released was paid for by the Libyan government, which encouraged doctors to say he had only three months to live" On 4 Sep 09, The Daily Telegraph had an article "Jack Straw admits Lockerbie bomber's release was linked to oil". (Jack Straw is the 'Justice' Secretary). On 16 Mar 10, The Daily Mail had an article "Lockerbie bomber is better than ever brags Gaddafi's son... seven months after terrorist was given only three months to live" The article states that "Five months after the release, Libya announced plans to invest £5billion in the UK") (NB: See the case of Yvonne Fletcher when Jack Straw was Foreign Secretary)

(See also the experience of Maurice Kirk with, among others, the medical profession)

Needless to say that it was the first and last time I saw this corrupt 'specialist'. I sent him this 11 May 2008 letter in which I captured events. He did not reply.

Considering Andrew Ladsky's comment - one week later - on 15 May 2008, that "[I am] in very serious need of help" - 'might it be' that those who have me under surveillance - and had been 'counting their chickens before they hatched' - told him something along the line of "Don't worry about the French bitch Mr Ladsky / Andrew. It's in the bag!" ? 'If so': was this said while licking his shoes? Just asking out of curiosity.

(While it could be coincidence (another one! :-) ) that Ladsky said this to me on 15 May 2008, he was most definitely informed of the fact I approached 'my' MP, Sir Malcolm Rifkind, to ask for his assistance i.e. knew the content of my correspondence - which is meant to be confidential (just as well it does not matter) - see Sir Malcolm Rifkind)

Also of note: the 'specialist' also asked me whether I had family in France. Thank God I have, as well as very trusted friends, and that I have kept my French nationality. When two of my friends, a couple, were in London a few weeks later, I told them what the 'specialist' had 'recommended'. We had a good laugh. They said "Ah! that's how they deal with 'dissidents' here?" Actually, judging from media reports, the term appears to be "Domestic extremists" or, in my case (?): "Nazi Domestic Extremist".

It can be the other part of 'the plan' when people continue to fight back against the wrongdoings of 'certain well connected individuals' - refusing to accept injustice. They are subjected to ongoing, sadistic, barbaric treatment (my case e.g. abuse, bullying, harassment, victimization, threats, intimidation, persecution - actions that are very clearly regarded by certain individuals in the public sector as "acceptable...part of the standards and values of this country") until they are 'broken' - providing the excuse to have them sectioned. (I have heard of people to whom this happened). I conclude that it was the motive behind my being asked whether I have family in France. (Subsequent note: CONFIRMED!) (I know I have been followed in France).

Furthermore, the ground is prepared, and process speeded-up by portraying the courageous fighters, at every opportunity through, a coordinated campaign - as "mad" - (which can be aided by 'helpful' medical practitioners) thereby cutting them off from support in their battle. (The ease of manipulation against the brave fighters is unbelievable e.g., in addition to my case: the social worker ; the HBOS whistleblower [ADD] - which is why it's done!)

As the battle is drawn out because the sociopathic persecutors are pathologically incapable of backing-off - and know they have carte blanche to do exactly as they please - (e.g. mine started in 2002, and could have ended in 2003), (of course, it should never have started) - the fighters can also lose support from family and friends who get fed-up hearing about their battle, as well as have difficulty seeing 'the facts' i.e. the 'true face of the system' (e.g. My Diary 16 Jun 06 , 3 Oct 06). (Thanks to the (mercifully relatively free) media, this will have changed over the last few months as a result of: hearing about the treatment suffered by whistleblowers and others; millions of people being the victims of greedy bankers, uncontrolled under a "cosy", laissez-faire regime ; exposure of scandals and sleaze in the Palace of Westminster and Whitehall village, highlighting the sordid conduct of politicians e.g. My Diary Jan 09 and Feb 09, including the typical, immediate denials of wrongdoings, of responsibility, and circling of the wagons on being exposed).

Meanwhile, the courageous fighters are under close surveillance to gather any scrap of evidence that the treatment they are being subjected to is having the 'desired effect' - ready to pounce on them [ADD]

Their home can also be broken into in order to steal incriminating evidence from them e.g. that of Mr Neil Mitchell and a leaseholder I know.

When you consider the rest of the tactics used e.g. in my case, the tandem approach between the lawyers, courts, tribunals, surveyors, accountants; 'on tap' assistance from the police; the physical threats (as also happened to e.g. Mr Neil Mitchell) - I don't know about you, but I call that 'organised crime' - on a big scale. (A visitor to my site also arrived at this conclusion).

I am not the only one arriving at the above conclusions - see e.g. www.standyourground.co.uk. 'Standing your ground' is certainly a hell of a challenge in this country (under the current environment)! 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.

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

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'.

(3) The 'specialist' I saw on 7 August 2008 [ADDMsY] (who was standing in for one I (used) to see on a yearly basis for check-ups, based in another location) who, on the basis of 12 months old information, could not wait to get me on the operating table within the following week. (I subsequently saw a French doctor who simply could not understand this 'specialist's assessment).

Of note, on 7 August, I arrived early for the appointment. About ten minutes before my appointment, a man arrived, carrying a briefcase. He was English, in his 30s, 'office type'. He looked across at the receptionist without saying anything, while continuing to walk. Both nodded their heads implying a prior arrangement. He went into the office next to the specialist I saw. During the consultation I was asked for the name of my GP. I said that I was going to change to a new one. When asked which, I gave the name of one in South Kensington I had no intention of using. As I subsequently passed in front of that doctor's surgery, a scum who had previously been monitoring me was sitting in a car a few metres from the entrance to the surgery. (NB: Under RIPA, the State can bug doctor/patient communications)

(NB: Mob: my family and French friends have detail of events in relation to all three - and supporting evidence - which you may know...)

This, plus the experience with the psychiatrist, does stink of a coordinated effort to attempt to put me out of action. Was the 'message' on 2 January 2009 a reflection of frustration at having failed? I wonder what will be next? I was provided with the answer on 15 June 2009: DEATH THREAT

(NB: In my 2 February 2010 letter to Sir Paul Stephenson, Met Commissioner; Alan Johnson, Home Secretary; my MP Sir Malcolm Rifkind; Mrs Ann Abraham, PHSO, I remark on their lengthy silence / lack of action; state "you ALL appear to have retreated to your communal bunker", and ask whether " this is in expectation of my "not having long to live"?" )

(Events that are 'rattling the cages': (1) the follow-up to my 28 May 2009 Subject Access Request to Kensington police ; (2) the follow-up to my 12 July 2009 complaint to the PHSO ; (3) my preceding four-month battle with Sir Rifkind ; (4) my 2 January 2010 Subject Access to the Ministry of 'Justice'. (Legal-Home # C) If I am going to be 'put out of action' I want the horror of my case to be widely recorded. Hopefully, it will spare others from going through what I have gone through since 2002 - as THE INNOCENT VICTIM OF ORGANISED CRIME)

My so-called 'friends' and acquaintances

It is abundantly clear that, in 2008, some of my male contacts (in addition to my doctor) were tasked with obtaining information from me - with a particular emphasis on my plans in relation to my ex .employer, KPMG, from which I resigned in January 2008. While their underhanded, sly approach is sickening, their persistence has also been comical. Evidently, like the rest of the mob, my being a woman leads them to perceive me as being particularly stupid.

One of these, is somebody I have known for 33 years, and considered like a brother (e.g. My Diary 5 Feb 03). In addition to his obsessive interest in my intentions re. KPMG (on one call, in the space of c. five minutes, he repeated the same question three times because I was not answering him), another example is when he tried to fish information from me about a high profile individual I had never mentioned to him before. Four days before the conversation, I had met this individual in the street, close to my flat, and had exchanged a few words with him. I concluded that the mob had been watching me, and was worried that a wealthy individual (who is not a friend of the Establishment) might come to my rescue by helping me.

Another 'friend' is somebody I have known for 25 years. He appeared to have his strings pulled by the one above. (Although he never mentioned being in contact with him, it was obvious from the timing of the calls, as well as the questions from both of them). In July 2008, when the latter left a message on my voicemail saying that he wanted to talk me "about KPMG", when I returned his call and asked "do you have a message to communicate?", the reply was "no" - to which mine was "Then I don't want to talk about it".

Another, is a 'friend' I have known for about 6 years, about whom I wrote in My Diary 20 Mar 07 that I considered him as "one of my very good friends". I did. Likewise, he demonstrated an obsessive interest in my plans re. KPMG.

Another one (also English) who, I concluded, had his strings pulled by an ex. civil servant (who, in turn, is having his strings pulled by his previous masters): in December 2009, after a tirade of misogynistic, bigoted comments, told me to stop fighting and to "Get a life!" - and that, in relation to the 15 Jun 09 death threat "Enjoy your life. You don't have long to live": "That's what that man meant!" ("Get a life!" is probably what he would also say to the families of the up to 1,200 people who died through neglect at the Stafford Hospital - and are trying to get justice).

Barely a few minutes later, he said, with a lot of bile, about his neighbour who is planning to build an extension "She's going to have a surprise. I have written to the council". I asked whether the neighbour had failed to apply for planning permission. "No, but she has not placed a notice... her extension will affect me ...", etc. Conclusion: 'I' 'should' ignore ALL my rights, the loss of the major part of my 40 years of life savings, the horrendous and very traumatic treatment I have been subjected to since 2002, etc. - as the INNOCENT VICTIM OF CRIME - but God forbid that 'he' should have his rights denied. God forbid that 'he' should suffer any detriment. On another occasion he told a friend who believed that she had been short-changed of £10 by a restaurant "Phone them! Don't let them get away with it!"

(The attempts to make me give-up my fight by three other British individuals who, I conclude are (without realising it) being manipulated by, among others, ex. civil servants, have continued in early 2010 (other example above).

My guess on the trigger? My correspondence in 2009-10: (1) Sir Paul Stephenson, Metropolitan Police Commissioner and Alan Johnson, Home Secretary ; (2) Kensington police et.al ; (4) the Parliamentary Ombudsman ; (4) and my 2 January 2010 Subject Access Request to the Ministry of 'Justice')

What have they (aside from the three in early 2010) been told about me that has led them to betray me - in the name of crooks after a multi-million Pound jackpot? Who is their contact? What have they sold me for? I certainly would like to know the going rate for a 33 year and 25 year friendship. Did it include at least a "thank you" card from Ladsky?

And there have been others, only too keen to pass on information about me to the mob e.g. the person from whom I rented a room in 2007. I had known him for about 12 years.

(As background: I knew from the time I moved in that I had the scums in tow, tracking me as though I were a terrorist. In case I had failed to notice it, the first weekend (in April 2007), when I was coming back by train from the centre of town, one of them, in his 30s, with a very arrogant 'cop' look, dressed in casual clothes, dangled under my nose a plastic bag from Partridges (which appeared to be empty), while looking at me intently with a superior, self-important, very arrogant air. Partridges is an upmarket delicatessen with only two of its shops using this particular bag (I checked with the shop): both in my local / nearby area of Kensington & Chelsea. In addition to the obvious body language, the probability of somebody in Hackney shopping in Partridges is extremely small). (I concluded from the choice of carrier bag that this individual was obviously well acquainted with the area).

An example of what took place with this acquaintance was on Friday 31 August 2007. I had taken the day off in order to work on my Defence. I got up at my usual time and dressed-up smartly, ready to go out. Once he had left, I changed into casual clothes and stayed in the house all day. I concluded from the (hilarious) look on his face when he came back in the evening that he had passed on the information to the mob and had been told that I had not left the house. (Two men, wearing suits, rang the bell around midday. I saw them from the first floor. I ignored them).

[ADD - monitoring at KPMG; from April-May 2007]

Individuals used to attempt to trap me

(See My Diary 13 Apr 08 for a 24 April 2009 article in The Guardian about the police running a network of hundreds of informants inside protest organisations, and BBC2's 'Who is watching you?' about law firms fraudulently obtaining highly personal information on their client's opponent - not a surprise to me from that thoroughly corrupted, vermin-infested, criminal sector)

(1) It is obvious that, in 2007, the 'visitor' to my website who could be in no doubt whatsoever from my website - and my emails to him - that I absolutely denied the sum claimed in the 27 February 2007 claim ("All of the claim" against me was eventually dropped) who - of course without my knowledge - with a letter dated 6 April 2007 to Portner and Jaskel, 'opted' to send a cheque for £1,069.31. This amount 'happened to be' the precise, full amount of interest claimed in the 27 February 2007 claim - thereby implying an admission of liability of all of the claim (Portner # 14). This 'visitor' NEVER replied to my email of 9 April 2007.

More of these 'helpers / plants' were recruited in 2008:

(2) In November 2008, my 'sixth sense' told me that an individual was 'recruited' for the purpose of scaring me into employing a cost draftsman for the purpose of claiming back my costs (My Diary 14 Aug 08 , 26 Aug 08 , 11 Nov 08). In addition to running the risk that, as with some of my previous 'advisers', the cost draftsman would be 'batting for the other side', it would have cost me several thousand Pounds.

Considering the unbelievably damning evidence against Portner and Jaskel and its client - captured in my 19 January 2009 reply to their points of dispute - any fair minded, reasonable person with integrity would say that I was bound to get ALL my costs back - as well as compensation for the horrendous and very traumatic treatment I was subjected to over a period of 16 months - not to mention the court taking action against Portner, including for contempt of court . However, based on my experience with the Court Service in 2007-08, and previously in 2002-04, I knew that, short of a miracle, I would not be able to recoup all of my costs - and I was right (My Diary 30 Jan 09). I therefore saved myself (among others) several thousand Pounds - no doubt to the great annoyance of quite a few people.

Following my silence and, I conclude, the surveillance 'reports' that the ploy had failed as I had not contacted a cost draftsman, in case I had missed his ethnicity, end December 2008 / early January 2009 the individual sent me a link to a site relating to the Holocaust. (I view this as a - further indication - that the vendetta against me is also racially motivated because I am of part German descent)

(3) In 2008, on numerous occasions, within about 5 minutes of my arriving at an Internet cafe (at different times of the day), a man would turn up. Several times, I remarked to him on this 'amazing coincidence'. On, I think the second occasion, I briefly talked about my case. When he asked me about who the people were, in the context of my giving the names, I said that I had learnt from the police that the driver 'of activity' is Jewish, and, quite clearly, so are his aides. And that, among others, because I am of part German descent, it had led to my being branded a "Nazi" by Kensington & Chelsea police.

To this he replied, looking at me intently "Hitler should have killed them all, don't you think?". While very shocked by this statement, I limited my reply to saying that I had a Jewish doctor, as well as Jewish friends. This statement was clearly intended to provoke me. Actually, I think that this took place after my last visit to this doctor. (Yet another) coincidence? Andrew Ladsky and his "officer dealing with this crime" 'friend' (who, in the process (in my opinion), impersonated a police officer) desperately trying to make their scurrilous accusations against me stick - in view of the fact that somebody who has put her trust in a Jewish doctor - for 37 years - cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be labelled an anti-Semite?

I find it extraordinary that the Jewish community lets Andrew Ladsky and his mob use the Holocaust as a passport to criminality - and hence trade on the souls of those killed by monsters. One thing for sure: Ladsky and his Jewish aides are Jewish only in name, rather than in practice, as they evidently perceive themselves to be exempt from complying with some of the 10 Commandments, or ‘fundamental laws of the Jews’, namely those which prohibit: theft, false testimony, and coveting others’ goods.

(4) Another 'visitor' to my site, claiming to be a woman, sent me a message in December 2008 that I assessed as a jumble of baits demonstrating a desperate attempt to get me to establish contact. Among others - specifying that I "should not put [her message] on [my] website" - it claimed evidence against the mob I am fighting against; collusion between the mob and a high court judge; filing an action for £1 million, etc. It gave a contact number. I took no action.

I have since received similar emails, including from somebody claiming to be closely connected to Andrew Ladsky = all engineered by him. That man IS "very seriously sick".

(And, of course, the 'Nazis' keep trying to 'get me' e.g. My Diary 3 Apr 10 ; 17 Apr 10 ; 13 Jul 10 - AND THEY WILL KEEP ON DOING IT, because that's their VERY SICK PSYCHES)

The above events (added to others yet to be placed on the site) are the reasons for my writing in the introduction to the site "nor is there a limit as to what they are prepared to do to discredit / cover-up the evidence, and 'make me pay' for going public" - after FIVE YEARS of crying out for help. Such is their unlimited collective arrogance, sense of self-importance and power that comes from the gigantic network of symbiotic relationships - operating in a free for all environment.

Seen from my perspective, my beliefs and values, the level of cruelty, viciousness, evilness, sadism, perversion and betrayal I have been at the receiving end of in this country since 2002 - as an INNOCENT VICTIM OF ORGANISED CRIME - disgusts me, repulses me, angers me, as well as shocks me beyond belief. It is a society in a very sorry state that treats innocent people in this manner, while helping and protecting the miscreants. And the root cause? GREED - making Oliver Cromwell's remark to Parliament "Gold is your God" - just as relevant today.

(Leaving aside the psychological make-up that leads the above to act in this manner) What driving force can get:

• The courts: West London County Court: 2002-04 ; 2007-08 ; Wandsworth County Court ; Supreme Court Costs Office ; HMCS 'Customer Service' in 2004 ; in 2007-09 WLCC from # 18 ; My 2 January 2010 Subject Access Request to the Ministry of 'Justice' - Legal-Home # C

• Lawyers and their 'regulators': Piper Smith Basham/Watton ; Mr Stan Gallagher ; Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor (CKFT) ; Portner and Jaskel ; Legal Services Ombudsman

• A tribunal: London Leasehold Valuation Tribunal, including its President - with the support of the Office of Deputy Prime Minister

• Surveyors and their 'regulators': Martin Russell Jones (MRJ) ;Brian Gale ; RICS

• Accountants and their 'regulators': Pridie Brewster

• Council and their 'regulators': Kensington & Chelsea housing ; Local Government Ombudsman

• Police: Kensington & Chelsea police in: 2002, 2003, 2007, 2009-10, including in October 2010 ; Police Complaints Authority ; Metropolitan Police Authority ; the Met Commissioner and Home Office ; Professsional Standards: local, Directorate, as well as the IPCC, "the guardian of the police complaints system"

• Member of Parliament: Sir Malcolm Rifkind

• Parliamentary Ombudsman: Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

• Mobile phone companies: Hutchison 3G ; Vodafone ; O2

• My doctor: Dr-AG

• Medical specialists: Dr-MP ; Ms-JY

• My so-called 'friends', acquaintances

as well as [ADD]...

...to surge like a school of jellyfish (*) to act against me - and therefore side with Andrew Ladsky - in the process, adding, as expressed by a visitor to my site, "more and more coffins" to the list?

(*) = spineless ; attack where you can't see them, and from many points

For starter, they have blatantly obvious implicit / explicit 'MEMORANDUMS OF UNDERSTANDING' e.g. police and Law Society - see K&C poolice # 9.2 - Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO)

Secondly, this is a racially motivated vendetta by an evidently well connected 'pretend to be Jewish' network - because I am partly of German descent, leading, among others, to my being branded a "Nazi" by Kensington police (K&C police # 3) - and concurrently because of my other characteristics. (Factors for the discriminatory, abusive, oppressive, sadistic, vicious and cruel treatment by the police also apply to other parties).

There is a strong Jewish lobby in this country e.g. the 16 Nov 09 Channel 4 programme, Dispatches, "Inside Britain's Israel lobby", for which the summary in a TV programme stated, among other "Although their influence can be felt in some of the highest echelons of British public life, influencing politics and the media, those individuals and groups who make-up the pro-Israel lobby have managed to maintain a relatively low-key profile". The programme talked about The Conservative Friends of Israel. There is also, among others, The Labour Friends of Israel.

There are many Jewish individuals in position of authority / influence e.g. among those involved in my case: Lord Falconer of Thoroton ; Jack Straw ; Sir Malcolm Rifkind ; the Parliamentary Ombudsman (I assume from the name: Ann Abraham)

I view the other link as including the "charitable" Freemasons

Some savvy business people, including Freemasons, agree with my conclusion. (Other people pursuing their battles also refer to / conclude involvement by Freemasons e.g. www.standyourground.co.uk, blog by a visitor to my site, and www.dunblaneunburied.tk) (If this link does not work, see 'Useful Links' provided by 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))

(I suspect that Freemasonery is also the force behind some of the victims' cases reported on the Victims Unite website, as well as other cases flagged-up as a result of the 'Stop the Oppression of the British People' petition)

And, as I have already asked in various parts of the site, including in my 7 March and 24 March 2009 letters to my MP, Sir Malcolm Rifkind: "How come that Mr Andrew Ladsky and his aides can so freely command such outrageous acts against me (and my fellow leaseholder), get the authorities to deny me my rights - thereby helping them with their fraudulent activities? Why are they protected?"

This country is the birthplace of Freemasonry. It's the 'world leader'. Although Freemasonry in this country is highly secretive (unlike e.g. in France where there is 'some' openness e.g. article in Le Point, issue No 1897, 22 January 2009, "Francs-Maçons - Le Grand Retour"), the profile of members is common knowledge: aristocrats, judges, lawyers, public sector representatives, including the police, members of partnerships (accountancy firms, law firms, surveyors, etc.), captains of industry, etc. down to the vast army of 'foot soldiers' comprising of e.g. office security people, porters in blocks of flats, etc., pub landlords, whose job is to pass information 'up the chain'. (Motivation to act like a secret police? Being made to feel important?) ("People WOULD sell their soul to the devil")

A few years ago, Her Majesty The Queen was reported in the media to have said to Princess Diana's butler that "There are dark forces operating in this country...". My view: Yes, and the name of these "dark forces" is Freemasonry.

(NB: The 9 March 2008 issue of the Daily Mail had an article headed "Freemasons open a new branch...at Buckingham Palace", stating, among other that "...it is being formed by members of the Royal Household and police who protect the Royal Family.... The Palace has no power to halt the formation of the lodge... the Queen's cousin, the Duke of Kent, is head of the organisation as Grand Master of the United Grand Lodge of England... a spokesman for the Queen said "Buckingham Palace has not, and would not, endorse this sort of arrangement. No permission has been given by the Palace for a Buckingham Palace lodge or anything similar"

"The founding of the lodge has also alarmed Royal staff who do not want to be associated with the fraternity famed for bizarre initiation rites, mystical regalia and mysterious codes of conduct. It is also likely to cause consternation among career women in the Palace, as it is a men-only organisation. Masons are widely believed to further the business and professional interests of brother Masons, although they would deny this and claim it is a harmless social and charitable organisation" (NB: Why the need for secrecy then?). The article also states that the lodge was due to be "consecrated on 19 May 2008"

As I wrote in my 24 March 2009 letter to my MP, Sir Malcolm Rifkind: "My life has been ruined, leaving me with nothing to look forward to. If the expectation at this stage - is still – that I am just going to walk away and die quietly in some remote corner of this planet to suit morally depraved, corrupt individuals: I WILL NOT. I WILL FIGHT LIKE A DEMON - TO THE VERY END - for JUSTICE AND REDRESS – as I AM THE INNOCENT VICTIM OF CRIME – NOT THE CRIMINAL"

I have done NOTHING WRONG. My only 'crime' is that I naïvely believed what I was told by the State.

'Others' have committed criminal offences against me. 'Others' with the mandate to protect me and help me get justice and redress from my attackers have colluded with them, deciding to endorse and support their criminal conduct against me.

‘They’ are persecuting me for ‘their’ wrongdoings, because 'they' don't like having a mirror held to 'their' face (as also evidenced by the experience of others), as it reflects 'their' failure to do their job, frequently amounting to FAILURE TO PERFORM THEIR LEGAL REMIT / malpractice / collusion / corruption / fraud. And ALL are getting away with it, while 'I', the innocent, law-abiding victim, am treated as though I am a criminal.

Consider that this is taking place in a country that claims on its police website (Kensington & Chelsea police - at 23 March 2007) (My Diary 20 Mar 07):

"Every crime has a bad effect on the victim but hate crimes are probably the most damaging. They happen when a person hates someone else enough to abuse them, attack them or commit some other offence against them"

"The more we know about these crimes and who commits them, the better we can work to prevent, detect and investigate them in the future. It's our job to identify what's happened and make sure that appropriate action is taken"

(See also the Policing Business Plan for 2009-12)

As very amply demonstrated on my website: "make sure action is taken" = make sure the criminals are protected. Yet again proven in October 2010.

= Same attitude as other parts of the system - because it's the standard set at the top: 'We, peers, MPs and quangocrats use the public purse to pay for building our property portfolio and feather our nest. So, of course, you, Andrew Ladsky and your aides...as a result of???? - can do the same thing with the leaseholders, without fear of sanction - and you can count on widespread support' = PARADISE for vermin like him and his stable of puppets.

Well, the lynch mob can keep crying 'Off with her head!' - as I will NOT 'shut-up' - even in the face of death threats.

I WILL keep on fighting until the last breath in my body - consequently, prepared to die as a direct result of the horrendous, sadistic, barbaric treatment I have been subjected to in this country since 2002 as an innocent victim of organised crime - as I will NOT stand injustice, losing all of my working life's work for the sake of crooks getting away with a multi-million Pound jackpot, and to spare the sorry, corrupt skin of their supporters who decided that they are entitled to get away with it.

In my (I believe, representative) world, if you want something: you get it lawfully. What I 'HAD' until this horrendous, unbelievably traumatic nightmare which, in addition to my life since 2002, has so far cost me a very large part of what spent my working life saving to secure a very modest retirement: I worked for - very hard, made big sacrifices to build a nest egg. I did not ask for pity, using the excuse that I was brought-up in part in an orphanage, by foster parents, etc. I took the bull by the horns and worked damn hard to ensure modest financial security - putting myself through seven years of studying from age 24 - culminating in an MBA (More detail under My profile). I earned my money honestly. I did NOT steal it. I did NOT acquire it through extortion, by deceiving, misleading, blackmailing, defrauding, abusing, bullying, harassing, victimizing, terrorising, threatening, intimidating, persecuting, etc. others.

I calculate that since arriving in this country, I have paid in the region of £500,000 (US$880,000) in tax (maybe more), sourced from income tax on my earnings and interest on savings, 17.5% VAT on practically all the goods and services I buy; local council tax and other forms of tax. I have been a net contributor to this country. As I wrote in my 24 March 2009 letter to my MP, Sir Malcolm Rifkind:

This, as a British taxpayer, gives me the right to expect that when:

I GO INTO A COURT, IT WILL PERFORM AS PER ITS STATED MANDATE OF ENSURING JUSTICE AND REDRESS

I APPROACH THE POLICE, IT WILL PERFORM AS PER ITS STATED MANDATE BY TAKING ACTION AGAINST THE INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE COMMITTED CRIMINAL OFFENCES AGAINST ME.

In her column in The Independent, 2 February 2009, Yasmin Alibhai-Brown quoted the anti-slavery judge, Williams Mansfield, in 1768: "Let justice be done, though the skies may fall".

TIME FOR JUSTICE - AND THE END OF THE PERSECUTION.

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?

As I stated when I launched my website in September 2006: my ultimate objective is to be reinstated to the position I was in in July 2002 i.e. the time when I 'dared' to ask what I consider to be a perfectly legitimate question "Yes, works need to be done , but on what are you going to spend the £14,400 (US$25,400) you are demanding of me?" - and then leave the country (as I wanted to do in 2003) - as it no longer is the wonderful country I decided to make my home and committed to by taking the British nationality.

 

2 January 2009 - A hint of a potential physical threat? Today a 'message' was left on my voicemail (other mobile) around midday. The only thing that could be heard was a repeated snapping sound, like a small, dry twig being broken. I wonder whether I should take this as a hint of a potential physical threat... as the plan hatched-up in May 2008 (Dr-MP), followed by another one in August 2008 (Ms Y) (preceded by confirmation of support for 'the cause' in April 2008 (Dr-AG) - failed. Does the "Don't worry, they won't kill you" 'reassurance' communicated to me in a call, at work, in Jan/Feb 04 still apply? (A year earlier, on 3 Jan 03 Andrew Ladsky had told me "I am going to get you this year!") The 'Brotherhood' evidently wanting to ensure that it was causing me anxiety, later on that day a bogus, malicious text message was sent to my mobile phone - see photographs above. (Note at 15 June 2009: Apparently, I "don't have long to live")

It would not be the first time that I am physically threatened - see e.g. My Diary home page. If 'they' think 'they' are scaring me: they are NOT!

While one of the 'little people', I am not afraid of misogynist, racist, xenophobic, sociopathic, power-corrupted, greed-ridden, ego-crazed scums, with monumental arrogance, who have decided that I should be 'severely punished' for 'daring' to stand-up to them, not being intimidated by their fear tactics - leading them to delude themselves into acting as though they are the victims rather than the guilty parties - and rallying others to 'the cause'.

I wonder whether they would do this to the women in their family? I would not put it past them! This organised crime mob makes the commonly known mafia look like kindergarten. (While I know very little about the latter, somehow, I don't think that it would gang-up to persecute a woman who is the victim of crime while falling over backwards to help and protect her attackers).

Before this 'message', I last updated my website in the evening of 31 December 2008. The main updates were:

• Events with the 3 mobile phone network (My Diary 29 December 2008)

• In My Diary - home, I expanded on the sub-sections: (1) 'my mobile phone', adding in particular events with the Vodafone 3G card; (2) 'why are they cooperating?' by adding the last sentence to the third paragraph; (3) under 'Who is having me monitored?', concluding that I am under surveillance by the police and asking three questions (to which I have since added another one).

• Addition of extracts from press articles to previous entries / expanding on the entries:

(1) corrupt lawyers - and using the quote from the Chairman of the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal in the context of the outcome of my complaints to the Law Society against Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor, Piper Smith Basham/Watton and Portner and Jaskel LLP e.g. in My Diary 6 May 2008 ; 22 November 2008: under threat of forfeiture and bankruptcy proceedings, as well as court claims = FRAUD TOOLS, and adding the 'Fraud' visual

(2) the journalist who was arrested by the police and, among others, threatened to go to prison "For life"; was taken to court where the judge threw the case out

(3) in relation to the arrest of Damian Green, Shadow Immigration Minister, the addition of several paragraphs starting with quoting from The Independent's article of 30 November 2008, "The police are a law unto themselves" . (The paragraph starting with 'Jacqui Smith' was there before the update)

(4) Addition of two other cases to the entry for 22 April 2008: "Apple core lands man in jail", and "A criminal record for forgetting to pay 90p Oyster fare"

• Adding at the end of the list of 'GET LOST' "+ racist comments, malicious accusations and defamation of character by the police" , and doing the same thing under the 6 May 2008 entry

• Adding the notice of the Detailed Assessment hearing on 30 January 2009 (My Diary 19 December 2008)

• Placing under the 'Latest' sub-section at the top of the home page to my site my conclusion - in my non-lawyer opinion - that, in threatening me with defamation proceedings, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors had committed a criminal offence against me under the Malicious Communications Act 1988. (I have since removed it) (However, I had already written this in my 4 September 2008 letter to the RICS - and had previously placed it at the end point # 12 under the RICS section).

9 January 2009 - 'Watering of the plants' in front of my windows at 03:45 a.m. - in below freezing temperature Oh! dear! oh! dear! Looks like I continue to upset the mob by what I am putting on my website (*) as, yet again, I was treated to the hosing of my windows at 03h45 a.m. - under the guise of 'watering the plants' in front of my windows. (Previous occasions were: My Diary 6 Sep 05 , 4 Oct 05 , 7 Apr 06 , 4 Sep 06 ; also in February 2008).

The temperature was below freezing = 'ideal' conditions for 'watering plants'. Don't you think? :-)

Contrary to the obvious expectation, I was still up. I banged on one of the windows and told the scum to clear off - which he did.

((*) The last update included, among others, the addition of this page with the above entry and the beginning of the introduction; beefing-up of the section on lawyers under the 22 November 2008 entry, as well addition of the shark and evil face visuals)

Later on that morning, I asked the porter who had given the order. He said that he would report it to the managing agents. I replied that he could tell the 'managing' agents and its equally criminal client that they are not scaring me.

Obviously, given my experience with the police, including the surveillance, plus the experience of my fellow leaseholders (and that of another leaseholder): no point reporting the obvious harassment - even though it is a criminal offence - as, next time, the scum 'might' come with a police escort.

Against this and the prior event, above, added to my horrendous and very traumatic experience since 2002 - as a VICTIM OF ORGANISED CRIME - (I have done NOTHING wrong) - consider that I am living in a country that claims... "to speak out for the victims of aggression...",... led by Mr Gordon Brown, New Labour Prime Minister, who claims to have ... ... "strongly held moral principles of right and wrong [that] are [his] moral compass"

 

11 January 2009 - British bank, Lloyds TSB, pays $350m penalty to the US Authorities to end the US Justice Department's investigation of faked records of banking transfers

Over the weekend, the media reported that Lloyds TSB has paid the $350m to settle charges that during 1995-2007, in both Britain and Dubai, it faked documents so that clients in Iran, Libya and Sudan could skirt US sanctions on business transactions in the US.

In its article of 11 January 2009, headed "Lloyds pays for busting US sanctions", The Sunday Times reports that "The US Justice Department said Lloyds' offices removed information such as customer names, bank names and addresses so wire transfers would not be flagged and blocked as improper by American financial institutions".

It also quotes from "a statement issued by Lloyds on Friday" : "We are committed to running our business with the highest levels of integrity and regulatory compliance across all our operations and have undertaken a range of significant steps to further enhance our compliance programmes".

At the start of My Diary for 2008 I wrote "I sure wish that my case could be transferred to a court in the USA".

Yes, I realise that the US is, like, for example, my country of birth, France (*), far from perfect (with the exception of my website Host :-) ), but, like 'I think' in France, it does take sanctions against the 'big people' - unlike the UK - which appears to only take sanctions against the 'little people' (e.g. before the 'NatWest 3' were extradited to the US, where they were sentenced, I remember hearing on a radio station that "an unnamed source" (they always are!) "in the City" had said that their conduct "was foolish" (further proving that 'they' immediately close rank). By contrast, this country puts a man in jail "over an apple core"; hands out a criminal record for: "overfilling a dustbin"; "forgetting to swipe a travel card")

(*) As I tell English people who go on the defensive when I talk about my experience in this country since 2002: "It would not surprise me to hear that the word 'corruption' was invented in France". To which I add: "So what? Does it mean that we have to adopt a defeatist attitude by turning a 'blind eye and a deaf ear' to it? Since when do two wrongs make a right? Is this the kind of society we want to live in, and for the children of this country to inherit?" to which I will now add: "and, in the meantime have as role model?" - More evidence in support of my position - see below Jan 09 and Feb 09

23 January 2009 - Ofcom has come to the rescue by helping me get the PAC for my mobile phone from Hutchison 3G After my very extensive, horrendous nightmare experience with 'regulators' / 'watchdogs' (summary outcome of my 'cries for help' / complaints), this assistance deserves to be trumpeted about. THANK YOU Ofcom!

How wonderful to be able to give praise. (I sent a 'thank you note' on 25 January 2009). (The previous occasion was more than two years ago, with another 'watchdog' : Postwatch (My Diary 25 Nov 06). Unfortunately, I misled its letter. I am very annoyed about that).

I concluded My 2008 Diary with a 29 December entry relating my experience with Hutchison 3G, the 3 mobile phone service provider, and what were by then my third and fourth letters to get the Port Authorisation Code (PAC) in order to transfer my mobile number to another operator.

As Hutchison 3G continued to ignore my correspondence, I sent this 8 January 2009 letter to Ofcom asking for its assistance. It replied on 21 January 2009. As can be seen in the letter, although Ofcom "does not become involved in individual complaints" (I should have contacted Otelo), the person nonetheless "escalated a copy of [my] complaint to 3".

In the context of events with Hutchison 3G, please note the statement in Ofcom's letter "Ofcom regulations state that a PAC (or the reason why it can't be provided) must be sent to the customer within 2 working days from receipt of the customer's request".

The involvement by Ofcom had the desired effect as, the following day, in its 22 January 2009 letter, Hutchison 3G - FINALLY - sent me the PAC number i.e. nearly three months after my original request of 29 October 2008 - while claiming in its 9 February 2009 letter that its doing this was not because I had approached Ofcom. As I wrote in my 20 February 2009 reply "Your letter demonstrates that you (and unnamed parties) continue to perceive me as an imbecile"

Its explanations for events in its 22 January 2009 letter? They don't stack-up. How could they? In my 25 January 2009 letter I wrote:

"Your explanations confirm my conclusion in my 8 December 2008 letter: "Any fair minded, reasonable person would conclude, as I have, from the above events, that 'a game' is being played""

It's amazing how they ALL - in their men-only world - continue to treat me like an imbecile, and even more amazing to see those prepared to join in on the infantile, perverse 'games' - conveying desperation at trying to get back at me - in the meantime, digging an ever bigger hole for themselves. Like a visitor to my site said "They all come across as unbelievably stupid". Yep! as well as extremely twisted, vicious and perverse. Or, to put it simply: VERY SICK.

In my 25 January 2009 letter, I reiterated the three questions I asked in my 29 December 2008 letter, and asked to be reimbursed of my costs, which I calculated at £140.14 (charging less time than it has actually cost me) + my £41.25 credit, bringing the total to £181.39.

In its 9 February 2009 reply - in which, of course, it ignored my questions - Hutchison offered me £75.00 to cover my postage costs, the remaining credit on my account and a "goodwill gesture". I replied on 20 February 2009 that, as my postage costs and remaining credit amount to £61.14, it follows that the amount of the "goodwill gesture" is £13.86. I made a counter-offer of £120.00 and this was agreed - and payment received.

Having been deprived of my mobile number for more than three months, I am finally able to use it - with a new operator - which, unlike 3, does not have a requirement to buy one of 'its' phones.

It is abundantly clear that my switching to another operator was perceived as 'inconvenient': need to 'spin the story about me' to a new entity to secure its assistance in monitoring my calls.

(Note at Feb 2010: Indication that Hutchison 3G's successor is 'on board': I am not getting messages on my voicemail. Trigger? My 2 February 2010 letter to various parties in which I report events with Hutchison 3G? The fact that I do not use my phone to make calls? (Because, as previously, I suspect that it is monitored - and this supports my view) etc, etc, etc)

30 January 2009 - Having refused, in my 19 January 2009 reply, a 14 January 2009 £4,500 (US$7,900)"offer" from "Rootstock Overseas Corp" et. al. aka Andrew Ladsky et.al, in relation to my - then £8,397 (US$14,800) claim-related costs - at the 30 January 2009 Supreme Court Costs Office (SCCO) hearing Deputy Master Hoffman granted me ONLY £2,507 of my costs + interest, = £2,641 (US$4,600) - and "no order as to costs". By then, my costs were £8,675 (US$15,300). And of course: NO SANCTION WHATSOEVER AGAINST PORTNER AND ITS "CLIENT". I view this as a blatant example of bias.

(NB: Events are covered in my 2 January 2010 Subject Access Request to the Ministry of 'Justice' - pages 81 to 86. My questions are included in this entry) (See Legal-Home # C for the 24 March 2010 'reply' from the SCCO which TOTALLY IGNORES my questions)

Following the 6 June 2008 Notice of discontinuance of "ALL" of the 27 February 2007 claim, ref. 7WL00675, filed against me in West London County Court, by Jeremy Hershkorn, Portner and Jaskel, on behalf of "Roostock (sic) Overseas Corp, Steel Services" et.al =Andrew Ladsky et.al (see WLCC # 1 , # 32) - as per my rights under Civil Procedure Rules, I started an action to get my costs back - which, OF COURSE, was seized upon to continue messing me around (WLCC # 33 ; Portner # 34)

On 17 January 2009, I took delivery of a 14 January 2009 £4,500 (US$7,900) "offer" from Portner and Jaskel (posted on 15 Jan) on behalf of "Rootstock Overseas Corp" et.al. aka Andrew Ladsky - stating that it was "an all in figure in full and final settlement of your costs in this matter" - "Without prejudice".

The costs Portner and Jaskel had were in my 11 November 2008 update: £7,277. By the time I received the "offer", they amounted to £8,397 (US$14,800).

In my 19 January 2009 reply, I turned down the "offer" describing it as "derisory" as, from the time the fraudulent claim was filed against me on 27 February 2007, WLCC and its ‘partner’, Portner, cost me (in addition to horrendous torment, anguish and distress over a period of 16 months): over 500 hours of my life; 52 hours of lost income, and numerous other costs - bringing the total at 30 January 2009 to £8,675 (US$15,300)– including interest.

Ahead of the hearing, I hand-delivered to the SCCO my 19 January 2009 amended reply to the 11 August 2008 Points of Dispute (which, of course, challenged everything in my claim), in which I amply explain my costs, the reasons I was forced to incur them, and detailing the conduct of ‘the claimants’ over the previous 16 months from the time the 27 February 2007 claim was filed, to the time the 6 June 2008 Notice of discontinuance was issued.

I preceded my document with a 5-page summary very clearly detailing why I believed to be entitled to – at a minimum - get all of my costs back (and referring to the appropriate CPR). In this, I also captured the numerous breaches of Civil Procedure Rules, as well as statutes, by Portner and its client: Courts and Legal Services Act 1990, Fraud Act 2006, Malicious Communications Act 1998, Theft Act 1968 s.21(1) Blackmail, Protection from Harassment Act 1997,etc.

Hence, by just reading the summary, Deputy Master Hoffman could be in no doubt that (1) the claim against me was TOTALLY without merit, vexatious, malicious and fraudulent, and (2) the conduct of Portner and its client was deceitful, criminal, obstructive and an abuse and contempt of court – which started with having TWO company names on the claim, BOTH claiming to be ‘my landlord’, EACH represented by a DIFFERENT firm of solicitors, and EACH expecting payment from me of a DIFFERENT amount (my 22 March 2007 Acknowledgment of Service).

I also hand-delivered a 480 page bundle of 153 supporting documents (including to Portner) which, of course, included, among others, ALL the documents I had served on WLCC from the time the claim was filed against me, as well as all the correspondence – to which I referred in my 19 January 2009 reply

At the 30 January 2009 so-called 'hearing', from the start, I could feel that Deputy Master Hoffman was decidedly frosty and hostile towards me. It continued throughout 'the hearing'. Considering my experience with the Court Service in 2007-08, and previously in 2002-04, I had no illusion. I viewed this hearing as a means of adding further evidence of how a leaseholder of limited financial means and no influential connections, and on top of that, 'a woman', who is the - very obvious - victim of fraud by a sacrosanct landlord and his equally well protected aides (outcome of my complaints), gets treated by the Court Service. Hence, in breach of, among others, Human Rights legislation.

When, at the start of hearing, I suggested 'setting the scene' before going into the detail of whether or not I should have spent £1 on an item (I intended to refer to the Key Points at the beginning of my 19 January 2009 amended reply to the 11 August 2008 Points of Dispute), it was forcefully rejected by Deputy Master Hoffman.

Hence, my 19 January 2009 reply was TOTALLY IGNORED - although it had clearly been looked at - and discussed - before 'the hearing'. I used it (from memory) to reply to some of the points raised. The only document that was used during the hearing was my 11 November 2008 Bill of Costs (for which my presentation was criticised) (See above, Introduction to My Diary 2009, why I opted to do it by meself).

WHAT led Deputy Master Hoffman to conclude that he could prevent me, during the hearing, from referring to my 19 January 2009 Amended Reply – forcing me to quote from it from memory?

When Deputy Master Hoffman asked me to show him my 22 March 2007 Acknowledgement of Service (proving that it was something that had been planned and discussed ‘behind the scene’ with the WLCC judges as: why pick on this document?), in an hostile, condescending tone, he asked why I had also sent the other pages (a copy of the first page of the 27 February 2007 claim, and of the first page of Martin Russell Jones’ invoice of 13 February 2007 supplied with the Particulars of claim - on which I had made annotations).

I replied that I had done this for the purpose of highlighting the fact that there are TWO NAMES for the 'claimant': "Roostock Overseas Corp." and "Steel Services". Reply (in a continuing, authoritarian, condescending, hostile tone): "You should not have done this. You should have only returned the form that the court sent you".

My reply: "I receive a claim that has TWO NAMES as the 'claimant', one of which I have never hear of, both claiming to be my 'landlord', and demanding that I pay over £10,000, and you expect me to not say anything?"` Reply (in a continuing, authoritarian, hostile tone) "You should not have done it!"

My translation: "My good friends in West London County Court are extremely angry that you have this black on white evidence against them as they should not have proceeded with the claim. They, plus their chums in the legal arena (including ex. boss Lord Falconer of Thoroton? who, 'poor thing', had friends organise a party to help him find a job), and wider arena you have exposed on your website, as well as the chums of these chums [e.g. ADD] thought that, as a Litigant in Person, one of the 'Great Unwashed', they would be able to quickly 'get you' / take their revenge. (Like they and their chums did eventually 'get you' in 2003-04). The fact that they very clearly under-estimated you led them to keep on trying to get you (hence why the process dragged on for 16 months) - only adds to their and chums' incandescent fury against you".

To which can be added "On top of the fact that, likewise, in relation to the previous fraudulent claim of 29 November 2002 against you (and 10 of your fellow leaseholders), they should not have proceeded with the claim - as the statement of truth on the Particulars of Claim was signed by the 'managing agents" (WLCC Intro 3) "Furthermore, in proceeding with the claim, they had knowledge that an abuse of process of court was being committed" (WLCC Intro 1 , # 2 , my Defence and 7 letters to the courts) "They sure are mad at you for putting this on your website - and their chums share their outrage", and ...

..."All are especially enraged by the fact that you have exposed their extortion tactics: threat of forfeiture, bankruptcy proceedings and court claims = FRAUD TOOLS"

WHAT led Deputy Master Hoffman to conclude – as the implication of refusing the majority of my costs – that he should endorse the appalling conduct of the WLCC judges and court staff from the time the 27 February 2007 claim, ref. 7WL00675, was filed against me - fact that was evident when he asked me to show him my 22 March 2007 Acknowledgment of Service and reprimanded me for returning it to WLCC with a copy of the first page of the 27 February 2007 claim, and of the first page of Martin Russell Jones’ invoice of 13 February 2007 supplied with the Particulars of claim - on which I had made annotations?

My costs connected with the 24 August 2007 hearing (WLCC # 11) i.e. preparation of my 4 April 2007 application to transfer the case to the London Leasehold Valuation Tribunal (WLCC # 3 , # 4), of my 3 May 2007 Skeleton Argument (WLCC # 5 , # 6), the endless correspondence - in vain: chasing Portner for the information to which I am legally entitled, chasing its client skeleton argument (WLCC # 9 , # 10), asking WLCC to assist, the costs associated with trying to get a transcript of the hearing - were all disallowed because "the application was refused " - by 'Deputy' District Judge McGovern = a solicitor (WLCC # 11) (events in my 19 January 2009 reply to the points of dispute)

And of course, as was my claim to be reimbursed of the £293.70 'Deputy' District Judge McGovern had ordered that I pay at the 24 August 2007 hearing - for reasons better known to himself to "Rootstock Overseas Corp" - and in spite of the fact that that the 'claimants' had NOT served me with a statement of costs (WLCC # 11)

My costs associated with my 30 April 2008 application to vary the 9 April 2008 so-called 'case management directions' by District Judge Ryan so that I would be supplied with the information to which I am legally entitled: disallowed because my application was refused (1 May 2008 Order by District Judge Nicholson, to whom I replied on 14 May 2008, cc'd Jack Straw) (WLCC # 28 , # 30 ; My Diary 30 Apr 08 ; 3 Jun 08)

My costs associated with printing and delivery of an integral copy of my 6 May 2008 Standard Disclosure documents: disallowed because "not requested by the 'claimant'" (As I explained e.g. in My Diary 7 Jun 08, I followed my 'sixth sense', suspecting that the intended plan was to claim that a request had been made, and documents not received - allowing to demand judgment against me. It was blatantly obvious that they were ALL dying for the opportunity to do this e.g. the 7 March 2008 threat - My Diary 13 Mar 08) (*) (Also playing on my 'sixth sense' was what took place with Dr-MP at the time i.e. in May 2008).

(*) There is no end to the bag of tricks by Andrew Ladsky and his morally depraved, corrupt aides e.g. Portner claiming that it had not received my Skeleton Argument (WLCC # 5 , # 6 , Portner # 16); using other individuals to 'get me' e.g. 'visitor' to my site (Portner # 14) - and of course, filing fraudulent claims against leaseholders.

My translation for disallowing the costs of compiling the bundle : “disallowed because by doing that you seriously reduced Portner’s ability to trick you in the contents of the bundle”

(The 9 April 2008 so-called 'case management directions' issued by District Judge Ryan state, under point 7 "Not more than seven or less than three clear working days before the trial, the claimant shall file at court an indexed and paginated bundle of documents... and shall serve a copy of it on the Defendant. The parties shall endeavour to agree the contents of the bundle before it is filed..." District Judge Ryan KNEW from the conduct of Portner that I did not have a hope in hell of cooperation - and I highlighted this under point 4 of my 30 April 2008 Application to vary the directions (Portner # 26 ; WLCC # 27 , # 29).

The £1,202 cost of producing my ('knock-out) 3 June 2008 Witness Statement was allowed in full on the grounds that "it would be difficult to find a solicitor who could produce a document like that for this cost".

(While the presentation of my Bill of Costs was criticised, the overall quality of my documents was praised).

But the cost of producing my 12 September 2007 Defence was arbitrarily reduced from £759 to £500 - by querying the fact that I was charging for loss of income i.e. taking time off work (e.g. My Diary 2009 - Introduction). (I supplied my timesheets as evidence). In other words...

...'I' was treated as a liar - NOT Andrew Ladsky et. al. and their equally corrupt, evil, greed-ridden, morally depraved puppets who - AS VERY AMPLY DEMONSTRATED BY THE TON OF BLACK ON WHITE EVIDENCE on this website - ARE THE LIARS, THE FRAUDSTERS, THE THIEVES, THE BULLIES, THE PARASITES who feed their greed by stealing from me and other leaseholders.

 

WHAT led Deputy Master Hoffman to conclude that he could brand me a liar, by refusing my claim for loss of income (in spite of my showing him my timesheets), as a result of needing to develop my 12 September 2007 Defence – leading me to lose a further £259?

Of my £360 printing costs and stationary costs, only £50 was allowed - "because these costs are normally a percentage included in the fees"

My costs associated with endlessly chasing a reply to my 2 October 2007 letter were disallowed (The letter in which I challenged WLCC’s unjustified demand of £1,700, demand it made in a letter masquerading as an 'order' – and which led to WLCC and Portner going into ‘silent mode’ for more than 3 months) (WLCC # 14 , # 15 , # 16 , # 17, # 21)

My costs associated with my 13 November 2007 complaint to HMCS 'Customer Service' that led me to write a significant number of letters due to the persistent blind eye and deaf ear attitude: disallowed because "up to you if you want to complain" (WLCC # 18 , # 19 , # 20 , # 22 , # 23 , # 24 , # 25)

My postage costs of over £200 which are predominantly for recorded / special delivery post were all disallowed because "in this country communication with the courts is through regular post". As far as I am concerned, the benefit of having proof of postage, and delivery - was worth every penny.

(NB: re. the "in this country": (aside from demonstrating that, in spite of being a British National, I am perceived by the Court Service as a foreigner), until 2002, when a bunch of criminals comprising of Andrew David Ladsky; Joan Doreen Hathaway, MRICS, Martin Russell Jones; Lanny Silverstone, Partner, Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor (CKFT) filed a fraudulent claim against me in West London County Court : I had NEVER had any dealings with the courts - either during my preceding 35 years in this country, or previously)

At the end of 'the hearing' the matter of the 14 January 2009 £4,500 “offer” from “Rootstock” was raised. When I showed Deputy Master Hoffman my reply of 19 January 2009, he expressed scorn as soon as he read my header “Your derisory “offer” of 14 January 2009” - (and did not bother to read the rest) - and hence disapproval at my rejecting it – because, ‘of course’, it would have been ‘extremely convenient’ to not have 'the hearing'.

WHAT led Deputy Master Hoffman to conclude - as the implication of refusing the majority of my costs, and not taking any sanction whatsoever against Portner and Jaskel and its client, Andrew Ladsky - that he should endorse their atrocious conduct – a perceived ‘obligation’ that was apparent when he expressed scorn as soon as he read my header “Your derisory “offer” of 14 January 2009” - and hence disapproval at my rejecting it?

There was "No order as to costs" - see my 19 January 2009 reply to Portner's 14 January 2009 "offer" in which I quote from CPR in relation to the timing of an 'offer'. (Ladsky was claiming costs of £1,535)

Considering the UNBELIEVABLY DAMNING EVIDENCE against Portner and Jaskel and its client - captured in my 19 January 2009 reply to their points of dispute (as well as in my numerous documents to WLCC, which I included in the bundle) - any fair minded, reasonable person with integrity would say that I was bound to get ALL my costs back - as well as compensation for the horrendous and very traumatic treatment I was subjected to over a period of 16 months - not to mention the court taking action against Portner, including for contempt of court.

However, based on my experience with the Court Service in 2007-08, and previously in 2002-04, including with Lord Falconer's 'Customer Service' department, I knew that, short of a miracle, I would not be able to recoup all of my costs - and I was right. I therefore saved myself (among others) several thousand Pounds by not employing a costs draftsman - no doubt to the great annoyance of quite a few people.

Needless to say that, in line with WLCC’s ‘approach’, the word ‘sanction’ against Portner and “Rootstock Overseas Corp, Steel Services” =Ladsky et.al, for filing what was a blatantly obvious, vexatious, malicious, fraudulent claim against me – with no legally recognised ground - and making me go through 16 months of absolute, sheer utter hell (for the second time) - was not uttered.

WHAT led Deputy Master Hoffman to conclude that he could turn a blind eye – and a deaf ear – to ALL of Portner and Jaskel and its client, Andrew Ladsky, highly despicable, deceitful, obstructive, fraudulent conduct that breached countless CPR rules, PDs and statutes as I had very clearly, and comprehensively explained – and summarised - in (among others) my 19 January 2009 Amended Reply, part of which I repeated during the hearing – abundantly demonstrating, among other, that they hold Her Majesty’s Court Service in absolute, utter, contempt, perceiving it as a forum to be used and abused for the purpose of extorting monies not due and payable from leaseholders (as I wrote in my 19 January 2009 reply to “Rootstock” “offer” of 14 January 2009)?

WHAT led Deputy Master Hoffman to conclude - in the face of my ‘mountain’ of unbelievably damning ‘black on white’ evidence against Portner and Jaskel and its client, Andrew Ladsky - that he could near totally ignore his duty under Rule 44.3(4) “the court must have regard to the conduct of the parties” ; Rule 44.3(5) “conduct before and during proceedings, including following pre-action protocol” ; Rule 44.5(3) “efforts made to resolve the dispute; the importance of the matter to the parties; complexity, difficulty of the matter; skill, effort, specialised knowledge and responsibility involved; time spent on the case; the circumstances in which the work had to be done” ; PD 44 – para 8.4 – “in deciding what order to make about costs, the court is required to have regard to all the circumstances”…

… - by granting me only £2,507.07 (+ interest since the 6 June 2008 Notice of discontinuance) v. the £8,675 I had been forced to spend by 30 January 2009 as a consequence of what I had been put through over the previous 23 months?

WHAT led Deputy Master Hoffman to conclude that he was exempt from compliance with my rights under the European Convention on Human Rights, comprised under the Human Rights Act 1998 “to be treated fairly and with dignity by the court and without prejudice” (Equality and Human Rights Commission (government website http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/fairer-britain )...

… in particular: Article 3 which “prohibits inhuman or degrading treatment” ; Article 6 “Right to a fair hearing – including the right to an independent and impartial court, and the presumption of innocence” ; Article 14 “Right to not be discriminated against” – for the reasons detailed above.

In light of what took place, when asked by Deputy Master Hoffman whether I would challenge the decision, I replied that I would not – as it is blatantly obvious that ‘my card is marked’ by the Court Service – and has been since 2002 (WLCC ; Lord Falconer of Thoroton) - confirming to me that, as it stands, my website is the closest I am going to get to justice. (Trigger to my 2 January 2010 Subject Access Request to the Ministry of 'Justice' - Legal-Home # C)

In January 2010, in the context of a case (that of Mr Munir Hussain), the public was again reminded by one of the judges that people must defer to the courts and “let justice take its course” otherwise “the rule of law and our system of criminal justice, which are the hallmarks of a civilised society would collapse”

As the blatantly obvious INNOCENT VICTIM OF CRIME - I HAVE deferred to the 'justice system' of this country - and THAT's the outcome! And it was the same, UNJUST outcome when I deferred to the London Leasehold Valuation Tribunal in 2002-03, and to WLCC in 2002-04.

'The system' is out of control e.g. My Diary Jan 09 ; Feb 09 It sides with the miscreants against the victims e.g. My Diary 6 May 08 ; 11 Nov 08 ; Kensington & Chelsea police - and acts like the miscreants e.g. local council ; police ; MPs ; "Like a cab for hire" ; peers - including persecuting those who 'dare' to blow the whistle e.g. Canadian Lady ; social worker ; other examples. It is said that 'power corrupts, and that absolute power corrupts absolutely'.

This recent massive amount of new evidence leads me to repeat what was on my site at the time of the launch in September 2006 (which is likely to have been given as an example for rallying to the cries of 'Off with her head!', backing the ongoing, highly vicious, sadistic, barbaric treatment against me): "I now hold the view that England can justifiably describe itself as a criminals paradise"

(An aside: the Cost Draftsman employed by the 'claimants' was particularly pleasant). (I was likewise to him, as he was just doing his job).

January 2009 - If £120k for amending legislation, what's the going rate for 'fixing' court claims for 'sacrosanct' landlords? In an article headed "Revealed: Labour lords change law for cash", in its 25 Jan 09 edition, The Sunday Times reports that, using undercover journalists posing as lobbyists on behalf of a fictitious overseas company looking to set-up in the UK, it found four New Labour peers prepared to do business with 'lobbyists'. (Of the 10 peers contacted, 1 New Labour, 3 Conservative, 1 LibDems and 1 Ulster Unionist peers refused). (NB: It successfully repeated this with MPs - see below, 'MPs for cash') All four New Labour peers offered to help secure legislative changes citing previous changes they had helped secure for their 'clients'.

The 'going rate' ranged from £24,000 to £120,000 - with one of the peers, Lord Taylor of Blackburn, saying that "Some companies pay me £100,000. That's cheap for what I do for them". The newspaper reports that he "boasted that he had used his position in the House of Lords to change the law on behalf of a credit check company".

(I bet you thought I was exaggerating in my entry under 23 Mar 08 when I wrote "Oh yeah! in our country, money can give you carte blanche to do whatever you want, and buy you 'friends' wherever you need them") (I suspect that it has been one of the items on my site given as example to gain support from 'the troops' and justify retaliatory actions against me)

Having been exposed, with extracts of voice and video recordings on The Sunday Times website - which were shown on television - the peers maintain that they have "not done anything wrong". (And sure enough... - see below Feb 09)

Back in 2003, I would have been horrified by this. Today I say: Ah! that's the going rate! I wondered how it worked. I now understand why some are prepared to pay - by means of 'loans' / 'donations' to the Labour Party - up to (?) £1.5 million for a peerage ('cash for peerage scandal' - came to light in 2006, under Tony Blair - and of course, the outcome was: no charges held against anybody).

The following week, in its 1 Feb 09 issue, The Sunday Times wrote (Comment section) that "the political classes have known about these abuses for years and done almost nothing about them". Of course not, because many of the peers and MPs are on the make: lining their pockets to their heart's content at the expense of the taxpayer - see next entry. So, like the MPs, and the residential leasehold sector: best 'not rock the boat old chap! Doing very nicely out of it. Thank you very much. The Sunday Times also reports a comment made by one peer to another peer "many years ago" that "he was making more money in the Lords than he ever did as an MP" (That means 'a lot' - see below 'Feb 09') (Re. the visual: Journalists for all types of newspapers, as well as readers, have repeatedly described this imagery when talking about the scandal - and have continued to do so as more and more evidence of gross abuse of expenses by MPs came to light over the following weeks)

That's why many of them go into politics: not to serve the country, but for self-serving motives. And these unelected, unaccountable 'noble men and women' know that they can even commit perjury (e.g. Lord Archer, Lord Black) and still hold on to their title and their seat - because they are 'above the law' (My Diary Feb 09).

Even after this latest scandal, you can still feel the 'I say old chap, let's not be too harsh. We don't need to look at rules. After all, WE ARE the Lords, the ruling class, the Establishment. They sure perceive themselves as a breed towering high above the 'Great Unwashed' like me - see deliberation re. the fate of those prepared to accept bribes

As a taxpayer who pays for peers, MPs, etc, I want to know why companies can use 'lobbyists' to get access to peers and ministers (see 'MPs for cash'), whereas when I approach my MP - whose role is to represent me in Parliament - I am told to 'GET LOST!'? (In 2002 and in 2009).

Considering the obvious 'fixing' that has been taking place against me (and my fellow leaseholders) in the London LVT and the courts: (1) 2002-03 - London LVT: Introduction , Key points , Breach of my Human Rights (2) 2002-04 - WLCC: Introduction , Key points , My questions , Breach of my Human Rights ; Wandsworth County Court: Breach of my Human Rights ; HMCS 'Customer Service' (3) 2007-09 - WLCC: Introduction , Key points , My questions , Breach of my Human Rights ; my 19 January 2009 reply to the points of dispute ; Supreme Court Costs Office on 30 Jan 09, and... (4) my 2 January 2010 Subject Access Request to the Ministry of 'Justice' - and the outcome: Legal-Home # C... ...I believe it is fair and appropriate for me to ask: (1) Why were both court claims against me evidently 'fixed'? (2) Who was involved in the 'fixing'? (3) Who got what? for what? from whom?

As an innocent victim of organised crime who has been persecuted by (among others) the courts and suffered injustice, and as a British taxpayer - who pays, among others, for the courts - I have the right to ask and to expect an answer to my questions - and I intend to pursue this. (I wrote to my MP, Sir Malcolm Rifkind, asking that my complaint is referred to the Parliamentary Ombudsman, as well as raised with other relevant parties) (Subsequent note: see both for outcome. See also Kensington & Chelsea police, including point # 5)

In its Comment section, The Sunday Times wrote "Time to clean up the House of Lords". Yes - as well as the House of Commons, and many other parts of the State machinery - including the courts and the police. It really is high time for a major clean up. But are the right people in place to do it??? Judging from this entry and the following: NO!

February 2009 and beyond - Politicians - "Off the hook!"; "Not broken any rules!" were the headlines in February... ...eventually followed in May by calls from the public for "prosecution"

I initially started this entry by referring to My Diary home in which I wrote that, aside from the 'little people', "nobody is held accountable for anything in this country" - and that events provided further evidence of this. In May 2009, it took several days of disclosure of unbelievable wholesale abuse of 'expenses' claims by politicians to finally trigger some token action.

It has been a show of disgusting moral depravation by MPs, of lack of probity and honour, of closing rank while spurting out the evidently agreed replies, denying any wrongdoings, using feeble, lame excuses (= a typical reaction - which is very alien to me) and subsequently defending their sordid conduct by using excuses that seal the fate of crooks in the courts (except, of course, the crooks I am dealing with; the 30 Jan 09 hearing): being sent to jail.

Looking at the media reports, reminds me of the replies and treatment I received following my numerous 'cries for help' and complaints: extreme arrogance, gross self-importance, pompous, contemptuous, self-regarding, patronizing, condescending, dismissive attitude, refusal to admit any wrongdoings, responsibility and accountability, mutual exoneration - resorting to lying, denials, cover-up, misrepresentations, fabrications, outrageous, breathtaking justifications / excuses.

So strong is the belief of being 'untouchable' in their mutual protection fortress, that the 'noble' peers and 'honourable' and 'right honourable' MPs very clearly did not anticipate what followed: being shamed, humiliated and ridiculed - day after day after day by the media - as well as by the public who ended-up lynching the MPs verbally. (Same thing in my case: so strong is the various parties' unlimited collective arrogance, grossly inflated sense of self-importance and power from their massive network of chums that they did not expect that, after FIVE YEARS of telling me to, in effect, to 'get lost!', I, one of the 'Great Unwashed', would launch this website as a last resort 'cry for help' - in the process exposing chapter and verse of my case - and as a consequence of this, their failure to do their job, frequently amounting to FAILURE TO PERFORM THEIR LEGAL REMIT / malpractice / collusion / corruption).

It shows that those who have abused the system come from the same mould and live in the same parallel universe: CROOKS UNIVERSE.

= PARADISE for vermin like Andrew Ladsky and his stable of puppets

'Peers for cash'

(See below, the subsequent 'MPs for cash' - "Like a cab for hire")

Further to the 'peers for cash' scandal (My Diary Jan 09), on 12 February, the media reported that, "after consulting with the Crown Prosecution Service, the police decided against conducting an investigation of the 'cash-for-amendments affair'". That it had "carefully reviewed the allegations" and said that it was "far from clear how criminal law applies to peers". Also, that there are "very clear difficulties in gathering and adducing evidence". (= A case of ' You let me do what I want, I'll let you do what you want'?)

In its 12 Feb 09 issue, The Times headed an article "Off the hook. It increasingly looks as if politicians are above the law". They certainly behave as though they are - as are, based on my (very extensive) first-hand experience, the sacrosanct landlords, their aides and the supporting infrastructure to the residential leasehold sector (snapshot of outcomes of my 'cries for help' and complaints). All part of the same crowd!

(NB: And if you happen to be the Speaker: to save you embarrassment, you can block an inquiry. (Refers to Michael Martin) It's all very cosy at Westminster) (Note: Mr Carswell succeeded in his motion: the Speaker resigned in June. He was replaced by John Bercow, reported by The Daily Telegraph to have "flipped the designation of his main and second homes... designating each as his main home at the time he sold it. It meant he paid no capital gain tax on either sale. While he insisted that he had done nothing wrong , Mr Bercow said he had decided to "voluntarily" pay to the taxman £6,508 plus VAT - the tax he could have been required to pay...")

On 26 April 2009, The Sunday Times had an article "Guilty peers Lord Taylor of Blackburn and Lord Truscott face a year's suspension". It states "They could now be barred from parliament for up to a year and lose tax-free allowances of up to £335 a day".

In May, some newspapers reported that Lord Taylor of Blackburn (who asked for a £120k yearly retainer to organise changes to legislation) claimed that "he had been guilty of no more than "loose talk over lunch"; that he was "a loquacious old man with an advanced degree of self-satisfaction, but one who is easily confused and who rambles on". (And he is one of the people who lays down the laws of the land, telling the rest of us what to do!)

As to Lord Truscott's reaction, it is covered in e.g."'Peer for hire' likens his plight to that of Guantanamo inmate", (The Sunday Times, 17 May 2009) "In a letter of appeal obtained by this newspaper, Truscott criticised the [House of Lords] sub-committee which found against him stating...

..."I felt like a Guantanamo inmate. I was continually interrupted, with one member in particular being aggressive". "My wife, whose uncle spent time in the Gulag, can't escape a feeling of déjà vu: [it is] 1930s Russia. Stalin is in power. Political committees decide an individual's fate on the basis of ill-founded allegations"

Lord Truscott: You are NOT even beginning to experience the daily, horrendous suffering and mental torture I have been subjected to - in THIS country - since 2002 - as a result of actions by judges, court staff, a tribunal, the police, lawyers and their so-called 'regulators', surveyor # 1 and # 2, and their so-called 'regulator', accountants and their so-called 'regulator', local council, Ombudsman # 1 and # 2, [ADD], etc.

The treatment comprises of abuse, bullying, harassment, victimization, being terrorised, physical threats, including being told that I "don't have long to live", intimidation, persecution, defamation of my name and of my character, horrendous anguish at seeing tens of thousands of Pounds of my very hard-earned life savings disappear as I repeatedly failed to get justice and redress wherever I turned to, etc. With which country/ies would you associate this treatment?

What have 'I' done wrong to be subjected to this treatment? NOTHING! I 'dared' to stand-up against organised crime - set-up to make me (and my fellow leaseholders) pay monies I did NOT owe. The objective? So that Andrew Ladsky et. al. could realise a multi-million Pound jackpot. Evidently, it is a heinous crime in this country to stand-up against organised crime, to refuse to be used and abused by criminals. In fact, so heinous - that it carries the death penalty. Hence, you could say that, currently: I am on death row.

That's right: 'I' AM THE INNOCENT VICTIM OF ORGANISED CRIME. 'Others' have committed criminal offences against me. 'Others' with the mandate to protect me and help me get justice and redress from my attackers have colluded with them, deciding to endorse and support their criminal conduct against me.

‘They’ are persecuting me for ‘their’ wrongdoings, because 'they' don't like having a mirror held to 'their' face (as also evidenced by the experience of others), as it reflects 'their' failure to do their job, frequently amounting to FAILURE TO PERFORM THEIR LEGAL REMIT / malpractice / collusion / corruption / fraud. And ALL are getting away with it, while 'I', the innocent, law-abiding victim, who has ended-up in my situation because I naïvely believed what YOU, the House of Lords, issued / endorsed: so-called 'rights' YOU said I had the right to demand - am being persecuted with behind closed doors cries of 'Off with her head!'

Evidently, the treatment I have and continue to be subjected to since 2002 is regarded by the State as "acceptable... part of the standards and values of this country". And this country criticises other countries for their breach of Human Rights; claims "to speak out for the victims of aggression..." What hypocrisy!

It is a society in a very sorry state that treats innocent people in this manner, while helping and protecting the miscreants. And the root cause? GREED - making Oliver Cromwell's remark to Parliament "Gold is your God" - just as relevant today.

The Times, 21 May 2009, "Reputations on the line as Lords debate suspension of two peers", reports that the whole House of Lords spent "two hours debating" whether to "suspend" you and Lord Taylor "for six months". As, apparently, neither of you had the guts to attend, you might like to know that the decision was described as "very severe"; seen as a "monumental, life-changing, defining moment..." WHAT??? By contrast, innocent people like me suffer terrible injustice in this country (e.g. have a look at the Comments) - and nobody gives a damn at the Palace of Westminster. But of course, who are we relative to 'noble' peers?

On 3 May 2009, The Sunday Times revealed "Labour peer claims £100,000 expenses on empty flat she said was her home". It concerns Baroness Uddin.

The outcome reported in the article of 12 Mar 10 in The Times was to be expected "Baroness Uddin escapes prosecution over £100,000 claims". Also reported in e.g. The Daily Telegraph "Baroness Uddin cleared over expenses scandal"

(Subsequent notes: In its 16 Oct 10 article (hence, post Labour government), "Expenses scandal: three face suspension from House of Lords", the Daily Telegraph reported that "Baroness Uddin... is set to be suspended from the Lords for between a year and 18 months, and has agreed to pay back £125,000 in wrongly claimed expenses". "Suspended for 12/18 months"?

By 25 Oct 09, The Sunday Times reported that it had "identified more than 20 peers whose claims are questionable", including the £230,000 claimed by Baroness Goudie, the main subject of its article "No 10 ally's £230,000 expenses bill"

In its 27 Jan 11 article, "Peer let off despite 'doubts' about her expenses", The Daily Telegraph reported that "Baroness Goudie, a friend of Gordon Brown, who claimed £250,000 in parliamentary expenses on a flat she visited only occasionally was spared punishment after quietly repaying £5,000"

In its 17 Oct 10 article, "Benefit cheats are 'mugging taxpayers' says Osborne" the Independent, reported "Chancellor George Osborne today announced a crackdown on benefit cheats, comparing them to muggers robbing taxpayers of their hard-earned money... And repeat offenders could have their benefits suspended for as long as four years"

Doesn't what Baroness Uddin, Baroness Goudie et.al. have done amount to "robbing the taxpayers of their hard-earned money"? If one of 'little people' had been caught "robbing" the public purse to the tune of £125,000+, s/he would have ended-up with a long-term prison sentence. Indeed, one month later, in its 23 Nov 10 issue, Metro had an article headed "£113,000 fraud gipsy is jailed" - "A 'shameless' Romanian gipsy who stole more than £113,000 in benefits from the British taxpayers was yesterday jailed for three years..."

Another blatant evidence that the legislators are above the law of the land.... well, most of them (see in the article re. Lord Hanningfield; other articles in the Daily Telegraph: 29 Sep 10-"MPs' expenses: Lord Taylor of Warwick denies charges of false accounting"); 25 Jan 11- "Lord Taylor [of Warwick] found guilty of fiddling his parliamentary expenses"

Note also in the 16 Oct 10 Daily Telegraph article how the House of Lords has taken steps to avoid the peers being caught out in future "The new regime will allow all peers to claim a lump sum payment of £300 a day for "clocking in" at Parliament". For £300 a day, I'd turn up at the House of Lords and "clock in", and then 'go to my club for lunch'.) (And to think that there are 800+ of them in the House of Lords for this island! How ridiculous).

On 31 May 2009, The Sunday Times, in "Lord Clarke confesses that he has been milking his expenses" and "Remorseful peer says he fiddled expenses" reported that Lord Clarke "admitted that he had claimed up to £18,000 a year for overnight subsistence when he had often stayed with friends for free..." and that he "has apologised for his "terrible error", is the first member of the House of Lords to concede that peers knowingly abuse their allowances to boost their income".

The article also states that "He feared he will be turned on by other senior peers for exposing the laxity of the Lords expenses system". I conclude from this that this type of conduct is the norm. If it were not, it would be treated as deviant behaviour - and therefore condemned by members of the group.

Other media report some of the 'noble' peers turning up just to sign the register in order to collect their £335 daily allowance. One journalist said to have overheard a lord being turned away on a Friday at 12h00 because the session had finished and that, as he was walking away, on meeting others who were coming to do the same thing, he said "No point chaps! The buggers finished early today!". In the real world, this conduct, and that above, qualify for summary dismissal and prosecution by the employer - which will result in a jail sentence.

Yes: and these people lay the law of the land, telling the rest of us what to do.

In addition to Baroness Uddin, other peers were also cleared of any wrongdoing, following a ruling by a Committee chaired by Baroness Hayman (who was herself under formal investigation for allegedly abusing the system), on the basis that, as reported in e.g. The Sunday Times of 14 Feb 10, "Lords 'stitch-up clears peers on expenses", "...a lord "need only "visit" a property, with no obligation to stay overnight, on one day a month while the House of Lords is sitting" for it to qualify as their main home". As the journalist wrote "By that definition, a peer's main home could be a supermarket or a dentist's surgery...".

A Reader of The Sunday Times wrote on 25 Oct 09 in connection with the article re. Baroness Goudie "The Lords is my gravy train, I shall not want (for anything)...". Another wrote "If it were not for the fact that these freeloaders on society... have their own police and army protecting them... then I think a settlement of this problem would have been reached years ago" . Very true. I call it the network of symbiotic relationships.

'MPs for cash' - "Like a cab for hire"

To add to 'the set', after the Labour 'peers for cash' episode 14 months ago (Jan 09 and Feb 09, above) (added to Labour's 'cash for peerage' episode (My Diary 2 Aug 06)), 'the Lockerbie bomber', etc., etc., on 21 March 2010, we have the Labour 'MPs for cash". It was exposed in a joint investigation by The Sunday Times and the Channel 4's Dispatches programme (shown on 22 March 2010), who used an undercover reporter posing as a company executive looking to hire MPs for lobbying work: Sunday Times articles "Revealed: Labour's cash for influence scandal" ; "'I' am like a cab for hire - at up to £5,000 a day".

Recorded on video (like the others), the MP who made this statement, Stephen Byers, former Trade and Transport Secretary (and hence, ex. Cabinet minister), claimed to have secured a secret deal with the Transport Secretary, Lord Adonis, on behalf of a rail company which, the article reports, "left a burden on the taxpayer of hundreds of millions of pounds" . And, for a chain of supermarkets that he names, he claims to have secured amendments on food labeling through Lord Mandelson, the Business Secretary.

The same evening, after the programme was shown on Channel 4, Peter Mandelson was on BBC2's Newsnight and asked about Byers's claims. Suddenly putting on a face that would scare little children, he icily denied Byer's claims.

The article reports that, after the meeting, "Byers sent a quick note to the reporter saying it was "good to meet" . However, "the next day, he sent an email to the reporter effectively claiming that he had lied throughout the meeting". (if so, having seen his performance: he definitely deserves an Oscar). The article quotes a source, said to be close to senior management in the rail company, as saying that Byer's version of events is "a close footprint" that was "pretty accurate".

Another one, Patricia Hewitt, former Health Secretary, said "her daily cost for a range of advice and services that included helping to influence legislation was £3,000" She said "If you've got a client who needs a particular regulation removed, then we can often package that up [for a minister]"

A third one, Margaret Moran, who, apparently, was made to pay back £22,500 / c. £6,000 of the money she had claimed for dry rot treatment on her partner's home (she claimed during the interview that she had "not been disciplined" over her expenses), suggested she might start immediately - while she was still a Labour MP: Sunday Times, 21 Mar 10, "Expenses scandal MP boasts of her girl-gang contacts". She suggested that she was "well connected with a 'girls' gang' of mates", naming Jacqui Smith, Hazel Blears, Caroline Flint and Harriet Harman, the Deputy Leader of the Labour party. The article states that "after she had left the meeting, a second reporter phoned her constituency office, saying his mother wanted to see Moran about a housing problem. "She is not doing any appointment" was the reply. "She is not very well at the moment"".

The following day, The Times, 23 Mar 10, reported "Labour suspends cash-for-influence MPS" and that "neither Lord Mandelson, nor Lord Adonis acted improperly... Lord Adonis confirmed a conversation with Mr Byers over the franchises but Lord Mandelson denied any such exchange took place". Consequently, "The Prime Minister refused to agree to an official investigation by the Cabinet Office after receiving "reassurance" from the permanent secretaries of the relevant departments...". The Daily Telegraph, 22 Mar 10, "Stephen Byers, Patricia Hewitt and Geoff Hoon suspended over lobbying allegations" reported "The Prime Minister has seen the statements from the departments and is satisfied that there is no impropriety" (It reminds me of Tony Blair re. John Prescott - My Diary 2 Aug 06)

(On 20 Sep 10, the Daily Telegraph had an article, "Secret deals still being offered to MPs")

(In its 6 Apr 11 article, headed "Every single ex-MP claimed a 'golden goodbye' - at a cost of millions to taxpayer", the Telegraph reported that: "Stephen Byers and Geoff Hoon, who were caught up in a cash for access lobbying scandal, received maximum payments, along with ex-cabinet colleagues Patricia Hewitt, Des Browne and John Reid". So did "Douglas Hogg, the former Conservative minister who claimed for a moat on his expenses, and Derek Conway, who was expelled from the Tories after overpaying his son on his taxpayer-funded allowances to work as a parliamentary researcher"

(Similar subject: see “Minister in ‘cahoots with mobile phone firms on price fixing’”)

Cabinet ministers, MPs, MEPs and Quangocrats on the "gravy train"

(See also above, MPs for cash - "Like a cab for hire")

In its Comment section, The Sunday Times, 22 Feb 09, has an article headed "A country in crisis needs moral leaders". It states "..it is deeply disturbing to discover the extent that politicians share the same moral deficit [as bankers]... the reputation of our political class has been in free fall..".

"...Does a home secretary who abuses her parliamentary housing allowance (1), along with peers who take payment for amending legislation, have any better understanding of ethical behaviour than the European members of parliament who are revealed today to be able to tap £1m each from their own political gravy train?"

"All say that they have not broken any rules, a plea that merely adds weight to the evidence against them. They just don't get it. This country is in crisis. The last thing it needs is a discredited political class"

(1) Refers to Jacqui Smith, Home Secretary (on her way out... and gone by 5 Jun 09), who, apparently, over recent years, claimed a total of c. £116,000 on her main home, falsely claiming that it was her second home. Among her claims, those that have generated considerable media coverage (including overseas), as well as ridicule by the public are: claiming £10 for porn movies, and £.0.88 for a bath plug. Since then, many more MPs have been reported in the media, especially by The Daily Telegraph. Examples:

•  Cabinet Minister, Tony McNulty , Employment Minister, who claimed £60,000 in second-home allowances on his parents' house even though he does not stay there. (Has since left his post).

•  Hazel Blears, Cabinet Minister, Communities Secretary i.e. Local Government, who, it was initially revealed, nominated one residence as her second home for the purpose of claiming expenses, while, for tax purposes, she claimed that it was her main home. Vehemently denying any wrongdoing, a few days after the revelation, she was shown on television brandishing a cheque said to be for £13,332, in the name of the tax authorities, and to represent the capital gains tax she had managed to avoid paying. Although Gordon Brown, PM, described her conduct as "totally unacceptable", (typically) he did nothing about it. At the time she resigned , the 3 June 2009 Daily Telegraph had an article headed "Hazel Blears' resignation 'due to capital gains tax avoidance on another property'". The replacement for Hazel Blears? Shahid Malik.

Local Government covers housing. (It has been renamed (renamed 'Communities and Local Government' (CLG), "£25,000 bill as Government drops single word from department name", Mail on Sunday, 30 Aug 09). No wonder that this department turns a blind eye and a deaf ear to the fraudulent activities of landlords and their aides (e.g. Kensington & Chelsea housing ; Local Government Ombudsman) - and engages in the same activities e.g. Comment # 31 , My Diary 26 Apr 06. And no wonder, that New Labour continues to uphold, as well as add legislation that allows landlords to rip-off leaseholders (Prescott # 4 , # 5 , # 6). The conduct of Caroline Flint, a previous housing minister, also speaks volumes for this department.

•  Elliot Morley, Labour backbencher, a former minister, who apparently claimed a total of £16,000 for a mortgage he had already paid off 21 months previously. He "blamed his error on "sloppy accounting"". The insulting, utter contempt with which they treat the electorate is unbelievable. (Other MPs have since been alleged to have done the same thing)

•  Tory backbenchers, Andrew MacKay and his wife who, over the years, are reported to have each claimed a full yearly second home allowance. Mr MacKay claimed that there was "nothing unreasonable" in his expense claims. (Following disclosure by The Daily Telegraph, Mr MacKay was asked to step down by the Tory Leader; c. two weeks later, his wife announced that she would stop being an MP).

•  In light of my horrendous experience with the Court Service since 2002, and more recently under The Right Honourable Jack Straw, Lord Chancellor, I note with interest The Daily Telegraph article of 8 May 2009 "Jack Straw apologises for bungling claim: MPs expenses":

"On July 20, 2008, two months after learning that MPs' expenses would be made public...in a note, marked "in confidence" (NB!!!), Mr Straw admitted that since 2004... he had filed expenses claims for council tax... at the full rate...At the same time, he had been paying his local authority half that amount by registering the property as his second home...".

His excuse? "I am afraid that the reality of life over the last few years is that I've often had to complete the claims in marginal time and without recourse to all the records". But he had enough "records" to calculate claiming back the full amount since 2004. (He is reported to have paid back what he overclaimed).

As Simon Heffer of The Daily Telegraph wrote (9 May 09) "What a coincidence that the money was repaid before our disclosures. Any number of MPs ought to resign for their appalling behaviour, but there would seem to be a compelling case that the Lord Chancellor should be the first". On the basis of my first-hand experience with Jack Straw and his Ministry of 'Justice': I SECOND THAT MOTION as :

• Not only does Jack Straw turn a blind eye and a deaf ear to misconduct, including breach of statutes and / or Civil Procedure Rules by (1) the London Leasehold Valuation Tribunal (in his role as Chancellor, he appoints the tribunals' Chair persons (http://www.rpts.gov.uk.about_us/lvt.htm)) ; (2) the courts e.g. my two 'cries for help' to him: WLCC # 20 , # 25, and one of my letters to a WLCC judge, and one to HMCS 'Customer Service' on which I copied him: WLCC # 23 , # 29

• He also actively endorses it, in the process continuing to breach statutes, including the Human Rights Act = Acts as A FERTILISER FOR MALPRACTICE: My 2 January 2010 Subject Access Request to the Ministry of 'Justice' - Legal-Home # C

To this can be added his apparent propensity to let others carry the can e.g. "Jack Straw accused of buck passing over murder of French students", The Times, 10 Jun 09, and readiness to make U-turns when 'economic interests' are at stake e.g. "Lockerbie bomber 'set free for oil'", "Secret letters reveal Labour's Libyan deal", The Sunday Times, 30 Aug 09. See also Introduction-Medical # 2 re. 'the Lockerbie bomber' , as well as deal over Yvonne Fletcher's death. (Note that, in 2009, Jack Staw was appointed 'Anti-Corruption Champion')

•  The second example in the legal arena is that of Shahid Malik, then Justice Minister, covered in The Daily Telegraph articles of 15 May 2009: "The justice minister, his home and the convicted landlord" and "A cut-price rent at home while claiming £66,000 on expenses" . Of the various disclosures, Mr Malik tried to claim for a "£2,100 40in flat-screen". When his claim was refused, he is reported to have pursued the matter, stating, among other:

"From a natural justice perspective I feel a justifiable exception would be the fairest manner to deal with the current situation"

Contrast that with the fact that a very brave "Housing campaigner committed suicide after receiving a £3,000 legal bill from Hazel Blears" (Daily Mail, 24 Apr 09) (Hazel Blears, then Head of Local Government, and therefore housing). The campaigner is reported to have been "fighting on behalf of hundreds of people over a £5 increase in rent". "From a natural justice perspective" anybody who needs to do that certainly deserves to be treated with compassion. (Note the fact that the bill was delivered to the campaigner "Within half an hour of his court defeat").

But of course, £3,000 'nicely' covers the cost of a £2,100 flat-screen TV, plus a £500 home DVD system (*) and a "£730 massage chair". (Although the limit for a television is £750, the Fees Office is reported to have agreed to give Mr Malik "£1,050, together with £250 for the DVD system". It also reimbursed him the £730 for the massage chair). The Daily Telegraph reports that Mr Malik's salary was £95,617.

(*) The most outrageous claim for a home cinema system, reported by The Daily Telegraph, is from Sir Gerald Kaufman: £8,900. He is reported (The Daily Telegraph, The Complete Expenses Files), to have told a local newspaper "If I can say so in a very chaste way, I live very modestly. I don't have much in the way of luxuries". I wonder what his constituents who are "in one of the poorest areas of the country" think of that.

Two days before the initial disclosure by The Daily Telegraph, Shahid Malik was reported (by the same newspaper) to have said "It grieves me to see multi-millionaires claiming thousands for repairs to their country estates while many hard-working families face an uncertain future". These people have no morals.

Following the disclosure by The Daily Telegraph, Mr Malik was suspended while claiming "I have nothing to apologise for... I have not abused the rules. I have been absolutely at the core of the rules". By the first week of June he had been "cleared of wrongdoing" - and was appointed...yes, Communities Secretary, taking over from Hazel Blears. (Gordon Brown, PM, (typically) refused to release the details of the investigation. So much for his new claim of "transparency". He was forced to cave in: "Gordon Brown forced into revealing report on Shahid Malik finances", The Daily Telegraph, 10 June 2009)

A week later, in its 12 June 2009 article, The Daily Telegraph revealed "Shahid Malik failed to tell the whole truth on expenses" - thereby criticising the hasty appointment. It led to Malik being replaced by John Denham = three heads of Local Government and housing in c. 10 days. That must be a record for the game of musical chairs typical of departments' appointments.

Of note: At the time of the initial revelation, The Daily Telegraph reported that "Mr Malik's responsibilities include improving transparency at the ministry [of InJustice]". He obviously felt he could exclude himself, as does The Rt Hon Jack Straw who is reported to have sent his note to the Fees Office marked "in confidence" . (Under the banner of "transparency" - I sure would like to see the notes that have been exchanged in relation to my case: in 2002-04, and complaint ; in 2007-08 (snapshot), and for the 30 January 2009 hearing)

I note, Mail on Sunday, 7 June 2009, "Rebel Blears could lose Commons seat" that "Gordon Brown axed Housing Minister Margaret Beckett after she made it clear that she wanted to return to a Secretary of State post". They sure don't spend much time in their post the housing ministers. I wonder why. Margaret Beckett was subsequently covered in The Sunday Times, 23 Aug 09 "Margaret Beckett in 'take pity' plea on expenses"

•  The third example in the legal arena was reported in The Daily Telegraph, 9 May 09 "Vera Baird: Solicitor General tried to claim cost of Christmas tree and decorations". She "put through a £286 expenses claim for "miscellaneous items" but Commons officials spotted that the receipts were for festive decorations and refused to pay. Her £4,570 bill for furniture was also cut down because the items were deemed too "luxurious", and she was told she could not claim £349 for a metal, wall sculpture"

Ms Baird, who is reported to be on a £125,602 salary, is quoted as saying "I did not take issue with the fees office for rejecting claims. I was grateful for their guidance on how the rules should be interpreted". This person who is "One of the Government's chief lawyers...deputy to the Attorney General, the Government's chief legal adviser" needs to be told that she cannot make the taxpayers pay for her Christmas tree, and art for her walls?

Considering her role, as Ms Baird admits to being totally clueless about the real world, I vote her as another one who should be dismissed.

•  Harry Cohen, MP for a constituency in East London, was reported in the Mail on Sunday, 29 March 2009, to have "...claimed the maximum £104,701 in the past five years for his house in East London..". "He denies cheating taxpayers by claiming a second-home allowance while maintaining that his main home is a single bedroom schoolhouse and seaside caravan 70 miles from his constituency".

The MP is quoted as saying "When MPs were given the allowance they were told "Go and spend it, boys" and that's what I have done! It is my right!"

And spend it they have! According to the series of disclosures by The Daily Telegraph (other articles), (in addition to the phantom mortgages, the double counting of allowances between a married couple, etc) the taxpayer has been paying for the MPs to renovate and furnish their property/ies, on numerous occasions, just prior to selling them, pay for servants' quarters, repair / maintain their swimming pool, tennis court, garden, moat (1), tune a piano (1), install a duck island (2), hang their chandelier, add mock Tudor beams, horse manure (yep! and a lot of it) (2), etc, down to paying for their porn movies, bath plug, nappies, hair straighteners, tooth flosser, chocolate bar and dog food.

(1) £2,115 claim by Douglas Hogg, Tory, reported to have initially denied the claim for cleaning the moat at his manor house. He is a barrister (!!!)

(2) £1,645 claim by Sir Peter Viggers, Tory, who, one week before the revelation, is reported to have said to his local newspaper "Personally, I have, of course, always scrupulously observed the rules". He also claimed for 28 tons of manure.

And a significant number avoided paying capital gains tax on selling their property/ies by flipping their second home back and forth e.g. Hazel Blears; John Bercow; Sir John Butterfill, Tory, "who gave back more than £60,000". (He is the one who claimed £20,000 for his servants' quarters); Eleanor Laing, shadow justice minister (!!!) who was told by David Cameron, Tory Leader, to pay up to £180,000 in tax she avoided paying by flipping her properties) (Sourced from The Daily Telegraph, The Complete Expenses Files)

The day after Harry Cohen's comment, "we were told to 'go and spend it'", it started to be 'the preferred answer', with some MPs saying that the practice of using expenses to 'bump-up' their salary was encouraged with a wink and a nod as far back as the 70's, and that this was done because the electorate would not have approved a salary increase. How about that for deceit? Of course, it was said without any trace of shame, or guilt.

Imagine employees saying to their employer: 'for years we've helped ourselves from the cash till to the tune of one third plus of our salary because we knew you would have refused to give us a salary increase. What the MPs are asking their constituents to accept, through their lame, feeble excuses is the equivalent of the employer replying: That's alright. Don't worry. I understand. Of course you had to do it. Poor you!

Encouraged by whom? In exchange for what? Being placemen and placewomen controlled by unelected parties - who ask MPs to turn a blind eye and a deaf ear to anything embarrassing, inconvenient, etc.?

(In his Mail on Sunday column of 3 May 2009, Vince Cable, (highly respected) Liberal Democrat Treasury Spokesman, wrote: "The real scandal about Parliament is not that a few (it's not "a few", it's 'a lot' of) MPs abuse the system of claiming for London accommodation but that it has allowed itself to be treated as a doormat by over-poweful Governments... I am ashamed to be a parliamentary eunuch - and my 645 colleagues should be, too". But: the 645 MPs also include all the ministers)

Following the disclosures, the MPs continued to run for cover, shamelessly attempting to put the blame on 'the system'. They claimed that the expenses were "within the rules" i.e. the Green Book which states that expense claims must be "wholly, exclusively and necessarily incurred in the course of performing your Parliamentary duties" and "above reproach" ; that they had "done nothing wrong" because they filed their expenses claims "in good faith" - and they had been "approved by the Fees Office". As with the Lords and the MEPs, 'they' devised the rules - which, by any stretch of the imagination, cannot be interpreted as including many of the items that have been claimed for - and 'they' monitor them. If the many who abused the system did not know that what they were doing is wrong: they have no place in the House of Commons = as many of the electors have been saying: "the majority of them should be kicked out". Apparently, the Fees Office, the unit that 'deals' with MPs expenses, had been told by the Speaker, Michael Martin, to keep quiet when it raised concerns about excesses c. four years ago.

Looking at some of the MPs' pathetic pleas to the Fees Office to allow their expense claims (The Daily Telegraph, "Baby's cots and 'slum' kitchens, the desperate pleas from MPs", 9 May 2009), reminds me of the claims made by dodgy beggars e.g. "I don't want to leave my family destitute" ; "Old flat. Decrepit. Health reasons. Living in slum" ; Jack Straw who "asked for permission to install a £7,500 kitchen saying it was necessary because his daughter had complained that the old one was worse than her student digs" (The Daily Telegraph, The Complete Expenses Files) - while some amount to bullying e.g. "Reducing the payment by over £1,000 affects my cash flow. Please expedite the payment" .

The tsunami of public anger and outrage finally led many to say that the whole expenses system is "rotten" / "does not work" / "needs to be changed" ... while blaming 'the system' for their conduct e.g. the Rt Hon Jack Straw "I will not be the only person in Blackburn [his constituency] who's made an error in good faith (NB: the lawyer talking)...the system needs reform" - in the process displaying an attitude that epitomises the true face of the 'ruling elite' and their cronies beneath the thin layer of veneer: an extremely arrogant, grossly self-important, self-regarding, contemptuous, condescending, medieval 'lord of the manor' attitude, with a breathtaking sense of entitlement e.g.

Anthony Steen, "a Tory grandee" who is alleged to have "claimed tens of thousands of pounds on his country estate, including the cost of a forestry expert to inspect his trees. Like others, Steen merely blamed the system: “It is not a question of feeling we have done something wrong. It is just the system which is wrong”" ("House of Frauds", The Sunday Times, 17 May 2009) The Independent, 22 May 09, in its article "Anthony Steen: 'You are all jealous'" reports that Mr Steen has claimed £87,700 in expenses over four years, and quotes some of his comments during a BBC interview "I think I have behaved impeccably. I have done nothing criminal. And you know what it's about? Jealousy. I have a very, very large house. Some people say it looks like Balmoral" (NB: Is he competing with Her Majesty The Queen?) He attacked the Freedom of Information Act, blaming it for his exposure and said "What right does the public have to interfere in my private life?" One of the newspapers' Readers wrote "Smug, arrogant fool... It has everything to do with the public!... we paid for it old boy!", while another wrote "He says his home and lifestyle are private - yet he insisted on financing them with public funds...." In light of my extensive experience with the legal sector, I am not in the least surprised to hear that Mr Steen is a barrister.

Why is it that none of them complained about 'the system' before? Are the people meant to represent their constituents in Parliament too shy / scared to speak-out - and act? (Judging from Mr Carswell's comment on 13 April 2008, and Lord Clarke's: they are too scared to rock the boat - especially when it would be inconvenient for them). Why did it require the disclosures by The Daily Telegraph, preceded by those from the Daily Mail (starting three years ago e.g. "Prescott lets rip in loan scandal", 27 Mar 06), Mail on Sunday and The Sunday Times (also starting three years ago e.g. "'Black hole' in the ministers' house expenses", 26 Mar 06), to arrive at this conclusion? Simple: because they were found out.

Why is it that Westminster's immediate reaction following the disclosures by The Daily Telegraph was to call in the police - not to investigate the MPs - but to identify the source of the leak? (*) Because it's the standard reaction from spineless miscreants, with no honour, when exposed for wrongdoings: attempting to bury their actions by diverting attention to the 'little people' who 'dared' to expose the wrongdoings - while going all out for their scalp like a pack of hyenas. (Other examples: My Diary Feb 09). Such is the depth and width of the support network that they've never considered the saying 'If you can't do the time, don't commit the crime'.

(*) The police decided against doing this stating that "it would not be in the public interest". Wise move!

In fact, the MPs fought tooth and nail to keep that system, including prevent the detail of their expenses from being published. Some stated in their defence that they reformed the system in c. 2003. I dread to think what they were claiming before that. Having been, over several weeks, heavily shamed, ridiculed and criticised on a large scale for their lack of morality and probity, some finally began to 'see the light' by writing cheques to pay back some of their claims, as well as pay tax they had avoided (apparently, c. £500,000 was paid back by mid June) - clearly seeing it as bringing the matter to a close (e.g. Hazel Blears). A clear example of their perceptions of being above the law of the land.

 

The media reported that the man who supplied the data to The Daily Telegraph is a former SAS officer. In its 24 May 2009 issue, the Mail on Sunday had one front page article "Mole who blew the whistle on MP expenses is a 'swashbuckler' with a £7million trail of debt". Whatever the reason for doing this, the consistent message that came back from the c. 150 Readers was: we don't care; he's done all of us a great service e.g. "Irrelevant. Totally, totally irrelevant...The population of the UK are eternally grateful to him for exposing the greedy, corrupt and venal behaviour of our MPs..." ; "Let's stop shooting the messenger, shall we? Let's just be thankful that there are people like him who will whistleblow for all our sakes. Like it or not, this man now has a place in history..." ; "Without him, we would never know what total sleazebags run our country" ; "For his services to the country, all his debts should be cancelled"

This man - and The Daily Telegraph - have certainly done the country a very great service. After c.six weeks of daily revelations of outrageous abuse, on 18 June 2009, Parliament published heavily blacked-out receipts of MPs expenses. And 'they' keep telling us, the 'little people' - as they spy on us: 'if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear'.

It does prove that, without The Daily Telegraph, none of the freeloaders would have been exposed - and that they very clearly intend to continue in their way behind the front-end claims of reform and of "independent" (*) supervision. Proof of this: (1) The Times article of 20 June 2009 "MPs plot to abandon publication of receipts" which states "The changes would make less information available for public scrutiny, despite the anger caused this week by the way in which details were blacked out from the official files"; (2) The Independent, 29 July 2009, "The Big question: What progress has been made in reining in MPs' expenses?" (3) Daily Express, 26 Aug 10, "Swearing MPs brand expenses staff 'monkeys'"

(*) As a result of my extensive first-hand experience (e.g. Legal Services Ombudsman, Local Government Ombudsman, Parliamentary Ombudsman, the - police staffed - 'Independent' Police Complaints Commission) - and other evidence e.g. barrister who escalated his complaint to the Scottish Legal Services Ombudsman; the Legal Services Board - whenever the word "independent" is branded about, ensuring that it features in nearly every sentence, I now read: window dressing, collusion, puppet.

Note that on 31 May 2009, Mr Gordon Brown, Prime Minister, said on the BBC1 Andrew Marr Show that he finds "the revelations about the MPs conduct offensive to my Presbyterian upbringing". So "offensive" that (1) he apparently tried to prevent the publication of the expenses; (2) is said to have refused revealing the findings about Shahid Malik (3) endorses the publication of a highly redacted version of the expense receipts that covers-up the evidence; (4) sets-up a "Well-being" support line line for the 'poor', "distressed", miscreants; (5) proposes 'new regulation' that exempts them from standard criminal law. So much for his "strongly held moral principles of right and wrong" (Same in relation to his proposed inquiry on the Iraq war). Many commentators say that "he is desperate to hang on to his job". It shows!

(NB: On 20 Sep 10 i.e post Labour Government, the Daily Telegraph had an article, "Secret deals still being offered to MPs")

The Guardian, 22 May 2009, "Cameron rebukes Tory MP over 'McCarthyite witch hunt' comment", reports Nadine Dorries, MP, as saying

"The way they [The Daily Telegraph] are deploying their tactics and the way they are treating MPs has reached a point now, at almost two weeks, where I think people are seriously beginning to crack...

...this has got to the point now which is almost unbearable for any human being to deal with... Everyone fears a suicide. If someone isn't in, offices are called and checked"

(A week later, Margaret Moran, the Luton South MP who claimed £22,000 for rot treatment to her partner's house said that she would resign, giving among others, "impact on my health" of the media attention, as one of her reasons. (NB: Note how, 10 months later, her claim of "still being unwell" translated) . Others have since used the same excuse).

Ms / Mrs Dorries: In addition to being monitored as though I were a terrorist, and hence suffering ongoing invasion of my private life - the treatment I am being subjected to, comprising of abuse, bullying, harassment, victimization, being terrorised, physical threats, including being told that I "don't have long to live", intimidation, persecution, defamation of my name and of my character, horrendous anguish at seeing tens of thousands of Pounds of my very hard-earned life savings disappear as I repeatedly failed to get justice and redress wherever I turned to, etc... ...started 2,845 DAYS AGO...

...(at 15 June 2009), or more accurately, 7,195 DAYS AGO - as can be seen from the section on Martin Russell Jones, with Ms Joan Doreen Hathaway, MRICS, issuing threats of prosecution as a means of intimidation, within weeks of being appointed, in 1989, by the bully landlord. And yes, this conduct has the blessings of MRJ's 'professional' association, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors - which, likewise, attempted to bully and intimidate me.

It is a jail sentence which, at times, has led me to consider 'ending it all'. I suspect that, if prisoners of war were treated in this way, it would be regarded as a breach of the Geneva Conventions. I am living, taking precautions as though I were a criminal: constantly on my guard, while the criminals are laughing their head off. What have I done wrong to be subjected to this kind of treatment? NOTHING! I 'dared' to stand-up against organised crime - set-up to make me (and my fellow leaseholders) pay monies I did not owe. The objective? So that Andrew Ladsky et. al. could realise a multi-million Pound jackpot. Evidently, it is a heinous crime in this country to stand-up against organised crime, to refuse to be used and abused by criminals. In fact, so heinous - that it carries the death penalty. Hence, you could say that, currently: I am on death row. That's right: 'I' AM THE INNOCENT VICTIM OF ORGANISED CRIME ; 'Others' have committed criminal offences against me ; 'Others' with the mandate to protect me and help me get justice and redress from my attackers have colluded with them, deciding to endorse and support their criminal conduct against me. See e.g. my 3 June 2008 Witness Statement; my 19 January 2009 reply to the points of dispute; my 12 July 2009 complaint to the Parliamentary Ombudsman; my 2 January 2010 Subject Access Request to the Ministry of 'Justice' (Legal-Home # C); my experience with Kensington police in 2002, 2003, 2007, 2009-10+, including October 2010

‘They’ are persecuting me for ‘their’ wrongdoings, because 'they' don't like having a mirror held to 'their' face (as also evidenced by the experience of others), as it reflects 'their' failure to do their job, frequently amounting to FAILURE TO PERFORM THEIR LEGAL REMIT / malpractice / collusion / corruption / fraud. And ALL are getting away with it, while 'I', the innocent, law-abiding victim, who has ended-up in my situation because I naïvely believed what YOU, in the House of Commons, issued / endorsed: so-called 'rights' YOU said I had the right to demand - am being persecuted with behind closed doors cries of 'Off with her head!' I know: it's the standard reply from fortress Westminster and fortress Whitehall - and that I am in good company (My Diary Feb 09; 6 May 09)

And YES, it is happening in the context of a police that states on its website (Kensington & Chelsea police - at 23 March 2007) (My Diary 20 Mar 07):

"Every crime has a bad effect on the victim but hate crimes are probably the most damaging. They happen when a person hates someone else enough to abuse them, attack them or commit some other offence against them"

"Sometimes the crime happens in what should be the peace and safety of your own home..."

"The more we know about these crimes and who commits them, the better we can work to prevent, detect and investigate them in the future. It's our job to identify what's happened and make sure that appropriate action is taken"

As very amply demonstrated on my website: "make sure action is taken" = make sure the criminals are protected

= Same attitude as other parts of the system - because it's the standard set at the top: 'We, peers, MPs and quangocrats use the public purse to pay for building our property portfolio and feather our nest. So, of course, you, Andrew Ladsky and your aides...as a result of???? - can do the same thing with the leaseholders, without fear of sanction - and you can count on widespread support' = PARADISE for vermin like him and his stable of puppets.

I have been crying out for help since 2001. And, as everywhere else, when I contacted MPs for help, including my own MP - in 2002, and in 2009, I was told to in effect 'GET LOST!' (Second time round, I am not going to let my MP get away with it) And hundreds of thousands of leaseholders are suffering similar treatment e.g. Comments # 12 , # 14 , # 15 , # 19 , # 29 , # 30 - including over MANY, MANY YEARS e.g. My Diary 22 Nov 08.

Evidently, the treatment I have and continue to be subjected to since 2002 is regarded by the State as "acceptable... part of the standards and values of this country". And the current Government criticises other countries for their breach of Human Rights; claims "to speak out for the victims of aggression..." What hypocrisy!

Meanwhile, the MPs who have misappropriated public funds, flipped their homes to avoid paying tax, have Downing Street rushing to set-up a "well being support line" - "Downing Street sets-up support line for MPs distressed over expenses claims", (The Guardian, 18 June 2009).

It is a society in a very sorry state that treats innocent people like me in this manner, while helping and protecting the miscreants (see other examples). And the root cause? GREED - making Oliver Cromwell's remark to Parliament "Gold is your God" - just as relevant today.

If you and the MPs who complain of the treatment "over the last two weeks" have the guts: why don't you come to the C.A.R.L. AGM next November and find out about people's experience at the hands of the corrupt to the core residential leasehold system and its supporting infrastructure of lawyers, courts, tribunals, surveyors, accountants, councils, ombudsmen, etc... ... - acts to which you and your peers have consistently been turning a blind eye and a deaf ear to for years - ... ...and ask them how it is affecting their health, their wellbeing, their relationships, their life savings - their life (e.g. My Diary 22 Nov 08 ; Comments Alternatively, I am sure that many of us would be happy to come to the House of Commons to tell you about the absolute, sheer utter hell we are being subjected to day after day, week after week, month after month, year after year. C.A.R.L. would no doubt be happy to organise this meeting. I DARE YOU TO DO IT!

But I know that you won't, because (as evidenced by your comment), like, evidently many of the MPs, you could not give a damn about the horrendous suffering, the injustice taking place outside the walls of your Palace of Westminster fortress.

And you will do and say whatever it takes to retain your position and remain on the gravy train e.g. Caroline Flint, Europe Minister, who, it is reported in the media (at 7 June 2009), agreed to Downing Street's request that "she backs Gordon Brown publicly, being given an indication that, if she did this, he would fulfil her ambitions by making her a fully-fledged Cabinet Minister". Having praised Gordon Brown on television, the following day, when she had been passed over, she resigned, sending him a scathing letter of resignation. As she was previously Housing Minister: her turn to also be let down: New Labour's broken promises of putting "An end to feudalism" and of addressing forfeiture legislation - among many other broken promises made to leaseholders.

And, as we are seeing under this government of fear, smear and persecution - it happily sets about destroying anybody who 'dares' stand in its way.

Fortress Westminster

No wonder the 'noble' peers, 'honourable' and 'right honourable' MPs in fortress Westminster, (like their friends in fortress Whitehall) - turn a blind eye and a deaf ear to the appalling failings of self-regulation... ... including the outrageous, barbaric abuses in the residential leasehold sector... ... and don't give a damn how innocent victims of crime like me are treated by their sycophantic cronies and the system.

It really is a gigantic trompe l'oeil hiding a massive network of symbiotic relationships.

In his Mail on Sunday 3 May 09 column, Dr Vince Cable wrote that "the job [of an MP] is not clearly defined (*) We do a lot of work on behalf of individual constituents, but much of it could be done by local councillors or official complaints bodies and Ombudsmen, if they worked better" (*) MPs do not have a job description

Based on my very extensive first-hand experience: they don't work AT ALL (see more recent examples: (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") - and politicians know this, and have known this for a very long time - but have done nothing about it leaving the true professionals to battle it out as best they can. Why? Not because they very clearly don't have the moral authority to do something about it, but because, (like their expense system), it suits their personal agenda - not least the fact that many are members of some of these so-called 'professional' bodies, namely the Law Society and Bar Council.

And no wonder that some of them lower themselves to the level of the crooks to help them: Keith Vaz, MP, chairman of the House of Commons Home Affairs Select Committee who asked a High Court judge to halt proceedings against Dr Mireskandari, a ‘lawyer’ at Dean & Dean. (The judge is reported to have reacted “furiously” to this request). (Thank God, yes: there are decent judges). (I know some of the victims of Dr Mireskandari, and I was with them in court. That man is a scum).

The above examples are to be added to others revealed in 2008 e.g.

• Tory MP Sir Nicholas Winterton and wife Lady Ann who claimed £165,000 in second home allowance for their London flat even though they had already bought it outright. After the revelation from the Mail on Sunday, the MP's local newspaper in his Macclesfield constituency"reversed the result of a readers' online survey on Sir Nicholas conduct after it said it had found cheating on a massive scale " ("Who voted 50 times from a tiny village in Germany to back MP in expenses row ?", Mail on Sunday , 12 March 2008). Having said, in May 2008, that he was "appalled" by the Wintertons' conduct, David Cameron, Tory Leader, took no action, letting the Wintertons continue to accumulate the financial benefits from being MPs - including pension. It is only now, i.e. one year later, that the Wintertons have announced that they are stepping down.

• Tory MP, Derek Conway, who was reported to have paid his son c. £50,000 (Evening Standard, 11 March 2008), falsely claiming that he had done research work for him.

• A Tory MEP reported, in 2008, to have diverted c. £400,000 of taxpayers money into his company

• Also exposed in 2008 is Caroline Spelman, (then) Tory Chairman, who charged the cost of her nanny to the taxpayers.

Derek Conway and Caroline Spelman apparently paid back some / all (?) of the money - and they are still MPs. My take on this: message to all the men and women currently in prison for stealing: 'Give it back, and walk out of prison today!' Actually, you don't even have to give it back to walk free.

The Sunday Times, 31 May 2009, reports "Travel, food, chauffeurs - quangocrats are at it too", quoting the director of the TaxPayers' Alliance "Quango expenses are potentially even worse than MPs".

Why is it that the National Audit Office is evidently closing its eyes to the misappropriation of public funds by the Lords, MPs and the quangocrats? In a 2 November 2007 article, the Daily Mail reported "PAC (Public Accounts Committee which polices the work of the NAO] pressed over buried BAE report", stating "John Bourn is stepping down as auditor general following a row over his extravagant expenses...".

Yep! They are ALL at it! 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 miscreants against the victims e.g. My Diary 6 May 08 ; Kensington & Chelsea police ; courts # 1 , # 2 - and acts like the miscreants e.g. local council ; police ; MPs ; peers - including persecuting those who 'dare' to blow the whistle e.g. Canadian Lady ; social worker ; other examples. It is said that 'power corrupts, and that absolute power corrupts absolutely'.

This recent massive amount of new evidence leads me to repeat what was on my site at the time of the launch in September 2006 (which is likely to have been given as an example for rallying to the cries of 'Off with her head!', backing the ongoing, highly vicious, bestial treatment against me): "I now hold the view that England can justifiably describe itself as a criminals paradise"

While this - evidently very long standing - feeding frenzy by politicians and, it appears, Whitehall, goes on at the taxpayers' expense... ...the Government is bombarding us, the 'plebs' / the 'Great Unwashed', with dictatorship-like advertising e.g. TV ad showing a car being crushed for failing to pay the road tax (NB: a few weeks after I wrote this, the ad was changed to a compacted block of metal transforming into a mobile phone, prompting to ensure payment of the road tax) ; telling us in radio ads "benefit fraud: you won't get away with it; we'll get you" (*) Yep! Definitely: one law for us and no law for 'them' behind the gigantic trompe l'oeil hiding a massive network of symbiotic relationships - headed by a Prime Minister with a "strong moral compass". So: just more of the same as under his predecessor, Tony Blair e.g. My Diary 2 Aug 06

(*) In her column, in The Times, 11 May 09, Libby Purves, reports that the "new online hobby among the dissatisfied taxpaying classes is to go to the http://www.dwp.gov.uk/benefitfraud, the government hotline for reporting cheats, and grass-up Cabinet ministers..."

Given that, for example, a man ends-up in jail for discarding an apple core in the street, can we expect to see jail sentences for MPs who have misappropriated public funds and avoided paying capital gains tax by flipping their homes?

At 5 June 2009, the Daily Mail reported"MPs to escape prosecution over expenses scandal as police say charges are highly unlikely". Ten days later, there were reports that the police was investigating 3-4 MPs.

(On 20 Sep 10, the Daily Telegraph had an article, "Secret deals still being offered to MPs")

Although some lawyers have been quoted in the media as saying that some of the MPs have committed offences under the Fraud Act 2006 and the Theft Act 1968 - it will turn out to be yet, another pantomime, as suggested by the comment from Gordon Brown who evidently perceives MPs as being above the laws of the land"The sanctions available against financial misconduct or corruption have not been updated to meet the needs of the times" . My translation: as the MPs have not included these in the rule book, they can't be charged. That he (and his Lord Chancellor, Jack Straw) perceive the MPs as being above the laws of the land was further evidenced three weeks later, when the draft bill to regulate their conduct stated a maximum of one year imprisonment for fraud (House of Commons debate, 1 July). The maximum sentence under the Fraud Act 2006 is 10 years.

Note: The 8 Mar 09 issue of The Sunday Times reports "Tycoon finances 'X Factor' party to clean up politics". "Sir Paul Judge...hopes the new party (Jury Team) (http://www.juryteam.org) will act as a lightening rod for voters alienated by Westminster's tribal divisions and endemic scandals". An academic is reported as saying "The idea that a non-party party could get very far is far-fetched". My view: given the current situation of widespread institutional corruption, I think he might be glad he did not add "if it does, I'll eat my hat". (Subsequent note: Unfortunately, it did not get enough votes to be represented in the European Parliament... but the BNP got nearly 1 million votes = 2 MEPs to represent the UK in Europe).

February 2009 - 'Now' there are calls for "people to speak out" The revelation this month that Mr Moore, the HBOS whistleblower, was sacked for 'daring' to challenge HBOS's strategy has caused a public outcry - leading many to emphasise the importance of people reporting concerns / wrongdoings.

To this I say GET REAL!

Look at my experience for 'daring' to challenge the so-called 'regulators', the courts, the police, etc., that of Mr Moore and others e.g. the call centre operator ; the M&S employee ; Mr Neil Mitchell ; that of some of the signatories to the petition 'Stop the oppression of the British people' ; a visitor to my site

'Dare' to challenge, expose, 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.

Subsequent evidence, highlighted by the Daily Mail columnist, Richard Littlejohn in his 10 July 2009 article "What kind of country sacks a dinner lady for telling the truth?" - in addition to the experience of this person (*), Mr Littlejohn refers to:

(*) On 3 Feb 11, the Evening Standard had an article "Dinner lady wins £49.99 compensation after being sacked for telling parents daughter was bullied" This sum is an insult. The article states that "the employment tribunal found that her dismissal had been "procedurally flawed" and decided that she would have been sacked any way for going public with the story even if the correct dismissal procedures had been followed as her behaviour amounted to "gross misconduct""). (It makes you want to have your children all wired-up when they are in school).

• (1) "The civil servant in Hazel Blears' department" who "was sacked for anonymously criticising Blears on the internet over her abuse of the expenses system and refusal to apologise...[her] comments sparked a full-scale inquiry... [and] were traced back to her work computer"

• (2) the Paddington train crash survivors "who asked awkward questions about rail safety and elderly patients who complained about the NHS have been subjected to vile, orchestrated smear campaigns and character assassinations"

• (3) The BBC reporter and the director general who lost their job "for exposing the dodgy dossier used to take us to war in Iraq" (At January 2010, the outcome of the Chilcot inquiry is vindicating their then position)

• (4) The "Respected UN inspector Dr David Kelly" who "was hounded to death for questioning the veracity of the (bogus) claims that Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction" (My Diary July 06) (NB: In July 2009, there were, yet again, calls for investigation - and it 'ought' to continue given the outcome of the Chilcot inquiry (at January 2010)

• (5) The Home Office whistleblower and Tory MP, Damian Green "for exposing Labour's systematic lies over illegal immigration" (My Diary 7 Jun 08 - Whistleblowers # 9)

To these can be added other examples of 'New' Labour / public sector's style of operating: use of FEAR, smear and persecution:

• (1) The journalist who was hounded by the police for revealing 'inconvenient' information which, apparently, was already in the public domain - ended-up being prosecuted and, mercifully, faced a decent judge (My Diary w/c 4 Feb 08)

• (2) Hunt of the individual who leaked details of MPs' expenses to The Telegraph - "I will end hunt for expenses mole, vows Speaker Bercow" (The Mail on Sunday, 27 Sep 09) The article reports that, since the leak, £5,000 a day has been spent on private investigators to identify the individual - and that "The final cost of the inquiry is expected to run to several hundred thousands of pounds".

• (3) The April 2009 smear campaign by 10 Downing Street's Damien McBride against some Tory MPs

• (4) The July-August 2009 smear campaign "by senior Labour figures" of the outgoing Head of the Armed Forces, Sir Richard Dannatt, who criticised the Government for shortage of equipment to the army. ("Secret report reveals Labour is failing troops", The Sunday Times, 23 Aug 09). They "ended-up shooting themselves in the foot..." "It was part of a suspected plot to blacken his name ahead of his retirement..." ("Anatomy of a smear: how General Dannatt claimed £19,291... and Bob Ainsworth claimed £394,306", The Mail on Sunday, 23 Aug 09)

• (5) The defence secretary, "Bob Ainsworth is accused of smearing an officer in order to hide failures over equipment supplies" ("Minister in 'cover-up over soldier's death", The Sunday Times, 30 Aug 09)

• (6) Jacqui Smith reported to have attempted to smear the neighbours who challenged her claim that her sister's London home was her main residence ("Quit now Jacqui, say two-thirds of her own voters... and neighbours she tried to smear tell of relief after their complaint upheld", The Mail on Sunday, 18 Oct 09)

• (7) The Canadian Lady who was hounded by the police and locked-up in a police cell for revealing detail of what took place in relation to the fatal shooting of Mr Jean Charles de Menezes

• (8) The Northern Rock employee who was hounded for revealing information about remuneration at the nationalised bank

• (9) The social worker who blew the whistle on Haringey Council

• (10) The police attempting to recruit informants on protesters, by offering them the prospect of significant financial gains, as well as threatening them with dire consequences if they continue with their membership of the protest organisation.

• (11) If you prove to be too 'inconvenient', you run the risk of being locked-up and drugged - e.g. My Diary 13 Apr 08 ; 25 Jan 11

• (12) The Labour Government even tries to muzzle senior judges (in relation to the treatment of Binyam Mohamed) - articles from The Independent of 13 Feb 10 "Ministers and agencies in defence of the indefensible" ; "When in doubt, shout conspiracy", as well as a coroner "Shocking censorship - Father of soldier whose death was blamed on lack of kit lambasts minister's bid to silence coroner" (The Daily Mail, 19 Mar 08)

Against the above, consider the Civil Service claims in e.g. its recruitment ad of 4 Oct 09, in The Sunday Times “We value objectivity, honesty, integrity and impartiality”

Mr Littlejohn concludes his 10 July 09 article with "Labour has created a self-serving tyranny of lying and concealment, where duplicity is rewarded...". Based on my first-hand experience since 2002: I agree wholeheartedly with him. 'New' Labour is a tyrannical Government that responds to having a mirror held to its face by using fear and smear tactics - and persecution - in the process displaying a level of ruthlessness, cruelty, viciousness, perversion and sadism that are beyond belief. The miscreants in its midst and among its cronies capitalise on this to the full - in the knowledge that they will automatically be protected and supported, while their victims will be persecuted for doing nothing other than 'daring' to stand-up to them. That's what 'I' call a throwback to Stalinism and the Gulag.

(See also My Diary 15 Jun 09 for other examples of how the Government treats the 'little people', and My Diary 6 May 08 for Michael Durant's assessment of his experience)

Against the above, note the reasons for Jacqui Smith's list of "undesirable" visitors to this country (My Diary 6 May 09) (see related: Home Office)

Having read this evidence (in addition to my experience), 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, the 'little people' end-up? Look around! There is your answer. (See MPs-Home)

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'.

Since the recent revelations about the whistleblowers, some people have been telling me "You were right!". Great! I'll remember that when I hit the pavement / subsequent note: as I am about to be killed.

(*) In his book, "Greed, Fraud & Corruption - A Guide to Organisational Ethics" (published by Management Books 2000 Ltd), Samuel A. Malone has a section on 'whistleblowing' (page 82), in which he gives examples of the experience of whistleblowers, as well as quotes the findings from a survey on whistleblowers, reported by the Irish Times of 27 Jul 04. He follows this with "Thus the consequences for the whistleblower are very serious..."

Sunday 8 March 2009 - The evil, greed-ridden, morally depraved barbarians are getting desperate to force me out of the flat: electricity (yet again) cut-off in my flat After the 'message' on 2 Jan 09, the hosing of my windows at 03h45 on 9 Jan 09, today, at 04h00 the electricity was cut-off in my flat. I had been asleep for about two hours, but woke-up suddenly. The electricity had just been cut-off. I heard a car depart c. 3-4 minutes later.

Having determined that the fuses were intact in my flat, I went to the electricity meters to see if I could figure out what had been done. The lights were on in the corridor. I bumped into some residents returning to their flat, who checked in their flat and said that the electricity was on.

By c. 10h30 I had an electrician investigate. He determined that only my flat and those on the same row: flats 4, 9, 10 and 11 had no power. What a coincidence, as I think that the leaseholder for all of these flats is the headlessor / freeholder e.g. flat 9 is Andrew Ladsky's 'office'.

The electrician suggested I phone the electricity company as further investigation would require cutting off the electricity for the whole block. Of course, as we, leaseholders are invoiced by Martin Russell Jones - instead of the electricity company - it requires going through MRJ. (As can be seen under point # 47 of the section on Martin Russell Jones, I have had a long run battle with MRJ - just trying to get a copy of invoices from the electricity company).

As would have probably happened when I reported the - evidently malicious - leak in my flat on 18 August 2005 - Martin Russell Jones would have considered it 'appropriate' to take one week, or maybe even longer, to have the 'fault' investigated.

I left the flat and returned by c. 13h30. The electricity was back on in my flat. The electrician came back around 16h00 to check something. Surprised to see that the electricity was back on, he asked whether I had contacted the electricity company. To my replying in the negative, we concluded that his visit in the morning might have had something to do with the 'fault' being addressed.

Maybe because the electrician witnessed the electricity being back on, and make appear what had happened in the morning as being due to a fault rather than a deliberate act - one hour later, from c. 17h00 the electricity started being switched on and off - and this time, affecting also the corridor by my flat - as well as, I think, the whole block. Eventually, from c. 18h00 it was switched off until c. 23h00.

The following morning, I had electricity - but no hot water. The heating had also been switched off. (The corridor by my flat felt warm by contrast). (The following day I had hot water, but still no heating).

Previous instances of similar events:

• No hot water and no heating for 5 days during the Easter break 2003
• Electricity cut-off - only in my flat - on 8 July 2006
• No water on 21 August 2005
• No hot water and no heating in my flat, for 3 days - starting on Christmas day 2007

(Subsequent note: no heating in - only my flat - since c. end January 2009)

Yes, I DO call that PERSECUTION. And yes, I am living in London, capital of the United Kingdom, part of Europe, where people are 'meant' to have 'rights', including Human Rights - led by a government that claims to "speak out for the victims of aggression". Clearly, this is limited to overseas.

As I wrote in the introduction to this year's Diary: I could have been out of the flat in 2003 but, Andrew Ladsky decided otherwise - because, as is very amply demonstrated on this site, he does not subscribe to conventional business principles - nor norms of conduct - and nor do those who support him with cries of 'Off with her head!'.

(Subsequent note - For more evidence of ongoing persecution: see follow-up events to my contacting (1) my MP, Sir Malcolm Rifkind, and rest of the section, and ; (2) the Parliamentary Ombudsman ; (3) the outcome of my Subject Access Request to: (i) the Ministry of 'Justice' ; (ii) the police ; (4) events with my mobile phone, post, etc )

6 May 2009 - "Inciting hate, people to commit criminal acts...", etc. are "unacceptable; against the standards and values of this country" (Jacqui Smith, (then) Home Secretary)...

...but, for the purpose of FEEDING THE GREED of 'certain' individuals'... ...'lynching' law-abiding, decent people of this country, using terrorist-like tactics against them, terrorising them, causing them years of ongoing mental torture, physically threatening them - including death threat, defaming their name and their character, totally destroying their life and their prospects, making them lose everything they've worked for... ... IS - as very amply evidenced on this website - very clearly regarded by certain individuals in the State as "acceptable" and "part of their standards and values"

The media reports that the Home Office has a black list of 16 'undesirable' foreigners barred from entering the UK (includes a US DJ), because of "their views" perceived as "inciting violence, hate, people to commit criminal acts...", etc. (* - end of entry)

Consider that in the context of the highly coordinated, extremely vicious, cruel, criminal tactics and sadistic treatment I have been subjected to - in THIS country by, among others, the State - as the INNOCENT VICTIM OF ORGANISED CRIME since 2002 = over the last 2,845 days (at 15 Jun 09): e.g. abuse, blackmail, extortion, bullying, harassment, victimization, physical threats, including being told that, apparently, I "don't have long to live", intimidation, persecution, defamation of my name and of my character.

Tens of thousands of British people have a property in my home country, France, and some have moved there permanently because they prefer it to the UK, "Like the way of life in France". If any of them were subjected to this treatment in France, there would be cries of outrage in the British media - and rightly so.

Why is it that no sanctions are taken against those who have - and continue - to inflict this sadistic, barbaric treatment on me? It certainly cannot be due to ignorance of the facts: my 'cries for help' and complaints - not to mention the fact that the Government (and its cronies) have been monitoring my site since its launch.

Ditto in relation to my fellow leaseholders, as well as other leaseholders e.g. My Diary 22 Nov 08 - # 1 , # 2 ; Comments # 12 , # 14 , # 15 , # 19 , # 29 , # 30.

Why is this kind of treatment inflicted / widely endorsed and supported by the State?

Consider this in the context of what it claims on one its websites "Don't suffer in silence. Bullying hurts and you don't have to endure it" ...

...on its police website (Kensington & Chelsea police - at 23 March 2007) (My Diary 20 Mar 07):

"Every crime has a bad effect on the victim but hate crimes are probably the most damaging. They happen when a person hates someone else enough to abuse them, attack them or commit some other offence against them"

"Sometimes the crime happens in what should be the peace and safety of your own home..."

"The more we know about these crimes and who commits them, the better we can work to prevent, detect and investigate them in the future. It's our job to identify what's happened and make sure that appropriate action is taken"

As very amply demonstrated on my website: "make sure action is taken" = make sure the criminals are protected

(Subsequent note: conclusion further endorsed by the reports I received from Kensington & Chelsea police (K&C # 1 , # 2 , # 3) and subsequent events to my Subject Access Request (K&C police # 5 ; Home Office)

= Same attitude as other parts of the system - because it's the standard set at the top: ''We, peers, MPs and quangocrats use the public purse to pay for building our property portfolio and feather our nest. So, of course, you, Andrew Ladsky and your aides...as a result of???? - can do the same thing with the leaseholders, without fear of sanction - and you can count on widespread support' = PARADISE for vermin like him and his stable of puppets.

(Subsequent note: (1) see the outcome of my Subject Access Request to: (i) the Ministry of 'Justice' (Legal-Home # C) ; (ii) the police (Kensington & Chelsea police # 5) ; (2) Note my experience with my MP, Sir Malcolm Rifkind ; and (3) with the Parliamentary Ombudsman ; (4) events with my mobile phone, post, etc)

In its 31 July 2009 article, "Brown tries to win back voters with 'fair play' pledges", the Daily Mail reports "Gordon Brown hopes to win back the vote of Middle Britain by appealing to their sense of fair play and core values... Business Secretary Lord Mandelson said last night: "The core values of Middle Britain are rooted in what this country is best known for around the world: our dogged sense of fair play".

Yes, many of the 'little people' in this country have a sense of 'fair play' (and many other qualities, not least kindness and compassion) - but, as evidenced by my experience and that of others (e.g. My Diary Feb 09 ; 6 May 08 ; 7 Jun 08 ; Comments), the country is controlled by a Government that does not even understand the meaning of these words. As Mr Littlejohn rightly concluded in his 10 July 2009 Daily Mail column "Labour has created a self-serving tyranny of lying and concealment, where duplicity is rewarded...".

As I am reminded by his article and other cases, I am one of many treated in a similar way. It is a society in a very sorry state that treats innocent, decent people in this manner - while helping and protecting the miscreants.

Another example of New Labour's "acceptable standard and values" - and its style: "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 somebody to commit suicide for the sake of £3,000 (My Diary Feb 09+)

See also other examples of the State and the Government's interpretation of "this country's standards and values" (My Diary 15 Jun 09 ; Labour Peers for sale ; Labour MPs for cash ; MPs-Home)

Back in 2006, the Home Office, which comprises the police, was described as "not fit for purpose". Three years on, and it's still the same thing (2009-10 Alan Johnson) .

And it will continue to be the same thing: on 6 June, Jacqui Smith was replaced by Alan Johnson who held the post of Health Minister. (See Home Office)

We have "ministers who have lost their grip" (MPs-Home) = placemen and placewomen for the Cabinet , as well as MPs. Question is: who are the overall - non-elected - puppet masters? e.g. Who made Labour go back on its promise in its 1997 manifesto 'An end to feudalism'?

In 2006, a journalist wrote at the time "I would suggest that this whole Government is "not fit for purpose"". This is still the case (see MPs-Home)

(*) Adding more evidence to Mr Littlejohn's conclusion that "Labour has created a self-serving tyranny of lying and concealment..." (My Diary Feb 09): in its 19 July 09 article, "Johnson ditches Jacqui Smith's least-wanted list as a 'blunder'", it states that: "The initiative was seen at the time as an attempt by Ms Smith to save her job after the expenses controversy... individuals had been placed on the list... simply on the off-chance they may decide to visit. Two on the list... were serving ten years in a Russian jail..."

27 May 2009 - Landmark victory for Private Eye which could benefit users of legal services - and further damning evidence against the English and Welsh Law Society and Legal Services Ombudsman

In its 29 May 2009 issue (#1237), Private Eye has an article headed "Private Eye wins court case!" - 'Michael Napier & Irwin Mitchell v Pressdram'. It relates to the law firm, Carter Ruck, attempting to prevent Private Eye from publishing details of a complaint made against its client, Irwin Mitchell, law firm, and its senior partner, the former Law Society president, Michael Napier.

(Also reported in e.g.The Times:"Failure to gag Private Eye clears the way to publication of rulings against lawyers", 21 May 09 ; "No confidentiality in Law Society complaint", 2 Jun 09 ; The Guardian, "Law Society 'lost control' of investigation into top solicitor", 24 May 09)

Private Eye states that, unhappy with the Law Society's response to his complaint, the Complainant, Mr Ford, a barrister, had escalated his complaint to the Legal Services Ombudsman for England & Wales, and that "because of Napier's "position of prominence in the Law Society" it in turn passed the file to the Scottish Legal Services Ombudsman to investigate". According to The Lawyer, 1 June 2009, in "Davenport comes good for Private Eye in Irwin Mitchell privacy battle", it is Mr Ford who asked the Scottish Ombudsman to review how the Law Society had handled the complaint.

Whether the reason is the former or the latter, it is fascinating when you consider that e.g. at 3 June 2009, the Ombudsman's website states "In creating the role of Ombudsman it was Parliament's intention to protect the interests of the consumers of legal services - clients and members of the public. She does this by ensuring that the professional bodies conduct fair, thorough and efficient investigations of complaints about members". In light of this, why should the fact that Napier is the Law Society's former president matter?

It adds weight to my conclusion at the time of my referring my two complaints against the Law Society, and one against the Bar Council to the Legal Services Ombudsman: "The Legal Services Ombudsman = the 'rubber-stamping' office of the Law Society and the Bar Council". That was "the intention" of Parliament - with a high representation of lawyers: to protect the interests of their peers.

Private Eye reports that the Scottish Ombudsman's assessment is "highly critical of various aspects of the way in which the Law Society had handled the complaint", while The Lawyer, under "Davenport comes good for Private Eye in Irwin Mitchell privacy battle", states "The Law Society had upheld an original complaint, but did not find the offence serious enough to refer it to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal".

It confirms another of my conclusions, in March 2007, in the context of my complaint against Portner and Jaskel: that its latest incarnation, the Solicitors Regulation Authority is, behind the name change, the same long-standing fertiliser of malpractice Law Society when its complaints department was successively called: 'Office for the Supervision of Solicitors' (e.g. my 16 March 2004 complaint against Piper Smith Basham/Watton); 'Consumer Complaint Service' (e.g. my 20 December 2004 complaint against Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor (CKFT)).

In light of my experience (snapshot) with the blind eye and deaf ear 'regulators' of the vermin-infested, criminal legal sector (e.g. extortion; fraudulently obtaining highly personal data on people; stealing from sick miners) (criminal conduct is quite clearly the norm) - it's a great victory for people in my situation.

The following are some of the comments made by the three lords justices, Toulson, Hughes and Sullivan in the Appeal Court judgment - reported by Private Eye: "It is singularly unattractive to argue that confidentiality should be recognised by the law in order to protect the interests of a solicitor against whom an adverse finding has been made" "A citizen should have the right to shout from the rooftop if he wanted, that a complaint about a solicitor had been rejected because the Law Society were a complete shower investigating one of their own" HOORAY for decent judges! (I sure wish I'd come across one of those as I was dragged through the courts by 'the mafia' in 2002-04 and in 2007-08 - and when I tried to get my costs back on 30 January 2009) (The only 'partial' exception is District Judge Wright - My Diary 17 Jun 03 , 22 Jun 03 , 24 Jun 03 ; WLCC # 7 , # 8)

As Private Eye wrote under"Get Carter Fucked": "Had Napier and Irwin Mitchell won their confidentiality case, not only would the Eye have been unable to report on a case which is clearly in the public interest, it would have jeopardised the reporting of other disciplinary and ombudsmen's rulings".

Private Eye reports that Michael Napier "spent £350,000 in court costs", and that he was ordered to pay Private Eye's costs. Nice one - as I think that rejection of my complaint against Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor (CKFT) and Piper Smith Basham took place under his watch.

On the date of the issue of Private Eye, 28 May 2009, Michael Napier stepped down from the Legal Services Board (e.g. The Lawyer, 28 May 2009). The role of the newly established Legal Services Board? "To supervise approved regulators of the legal sector"! Further proof that, for all the talk of 'independent this' and 'independent that', it's always the same crowd that stands behind the window dressing - pulling the strings of the front-office puppets. Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose!

28 May 2009 - I have sent a Subject Access Request to the Police

Considering events with Kensington & Chelsea police, including the fact that

• (1) it "fully recorded a complaint" against me in 2003;
• (2) that "consequences" had derived from this complaint;
• (3) in 2007, having first implied that I had 'committed a crime', it recorded a complaint against me as "a racist incident"

- and I have NEVER been provided with any evidence, I decided to file this 28 May 2009 request under the Data Protection Act 1998. The police has 40 days to reply. See Kensington police # 5 for the 'replies'

15 June 2009 - After more than a three-month battle with my MP, Sir Malcolm Rifkind, I, "the powerless", have "taken the power from the powerful" by referring my complaint against the Court Service and the London Leasehold Valuation Tribunal to the Parliamentary Ombudsman

See the sections: Sir Malcolm Rifkind ; Parliamentary and Health Services Ombudsman

NB:

In the postscript to my 24 March 2009 letter to Sir Rifkind, I report that on 12 March 2009 - which was 48 hours after my 7 March 2009 letter was delivered to his Constituency Office - to make sure I heard him, Andrew Ladsky stood outside my windows expressing disbelief to somebody at the fact that I had contacted Sir Rifkind. I wrote that I assumed the source to be one of the parties covered in my letter (communication between constituents and their MPs are confidential) - Sir Rifkind was likely to have approached, and that it certainly provides additional weight to my conclusion of collusion with Ladsky.

I assume that Ladsky's intention was to further reinforce the message that he is so well connected, and hence protected e.g. comment from DC Adams, Kensington & Chelsea police on 27 March 2002 "You won't be able to prove a link with Andrew Ladsky", that no matter who I approach - no action will ever be taken against him. I view this latest event as adding weight to my conclusion of assistance and protection of a 'sacrosanct landlord' by Freemasons. There certainly is no shortage of help! (Subsequent note: there DEFINITELY is NO SHORTAGE OF HELP: in addition to Sir Rifkind, the PHSO, see also Kensington police - including point # 5 + Home page-Overview + the 'replies' from the Ministry of 'Justice' - Legal Home # C)

In the postscript to my 24 March 2009 letter, I also report "For several days afterwards I was subjected to further persecution: no hot water, added to having no heating from the day after the electricity was cut-off in my flat on 8 March 2009. On 16 March 2009, I saw Mr Ladsky by the entrance to the block (talking to a woman with a pram) and called him “a criminal” and “a thief” who “stole c. £500,000 from the leaseholders to build a penthouse flat and add three other flats to the block”. His usual reply was “You are mad”. Mine, that he was the one who is “clinically unwell” (his comment about me in his 26 March 2007 letter to KPMG). He told me to “Go f*** yourself”. I returned the ‘compliment’"

The following day i.e. 13 March 2009, at 00h25 a.m. a man urinated in the area in front of my windows. I heard liquid falling in front of my windows. I thought it was a repeat of the hosing of my windows (latest occurrence on 9 Jan 09). As I looked out of the windows, nobody was standing in front of them. Within a few seconds, the liquid stopped falling. I then heard somebody coming down the steps that lead to the main entrance and then saw that it was a man: blond, wearing glasses, in his 30s. I conclude from this he had been urinating from the steps to the entrance.

What next? Defecation in front of my windows? Followed by? What was the potential physical threat communicated on 2 January 2009? Should I be reassured by the comment "Don't worry, they won't kill you"? As can be seen from the next entry : there has been a change of plan.

Saturday 6 June 2009 - Yet again, Andrew Ladsky has sent one of his scums to the French Institute to monitor me I was seating at the back of the upper floor of the library, near the WWII books which include books on the Holocaust. There was relatively little space between me and the shelves. Around 16h00 the man in the photograph came in and started to look at the books. My 'internal radar' led me to immediately feel that 'his visit' was connected with my being there. He stayed for about 20 minutes, at times immediately behind me, or standing very close to me. He left with 3-4 books.

I left the library at 17h49, hence 1.5 hrs later. On coming down into the foyer, I spotted him sitting on a chair in a corner (not obvious behind the pillar) 'looking' at one of the Institute's brochures (i.e. the photograph). I took a newspaper and positioned myself next to him. After c. 2 minutes I took the photograph. Within the following minute, he took out a mobile phone, and did something on it I could not see as he turned himself further away from me. He left in the following 1-2 minutes. Other, subsequent examples, in My Diary, of my being hounded by (among others) Ladsky's scums (all of these I also assessed as being of Jewish origin): (1) on my way to the French Institute e.g: 24 Mar 10 ; 27 Jul 10 (mediterranean type; not sure if Jewish); (2) also in the French Institute e.g. on 29 Jul 10; (3) on leaving the Institute: 23 Mar 10; 13 May 10 ; 20 Jul 10

15 June 2009 - Apparently, I "don't have long to live" (the previous threat was on 2 January 2009, followed by more harassment on 9 January 2009 - added to what took place in 2008 - and previously) This prediction was made to me today at c. 12h30 by a 60 something cyclist in Hyde Park.

As per usual, the minute I step out of Jefferson House, I have scums on my tail. (See My Diary - From Apr-May 05 for spy cameras at Jefferson House ; My Diary 22 July 05 for features of the entrance system). (For other examples, see My Diary 2010). They are circling around me like vultures, spying on me as though I were a terrorist. On whose payroll are they? I don't know (*) (although some are definitely from Ladsky's inner circle) What is a certainty is that there are thousands of snoops operating across the country at any point in time - employed by a mix of police, councils, other government departments, as well as by law firms, and organisations, including the media. Media reports in July 2009 indicate that the job of spying on people is helped by, among others, bribing police officers to look-up information (e.g. registered address of cars; CCTV footage).

(In the 13 Feb 10 article, in The Independent, "Root out corrupt officers, police told", Nick Hardwick, chairman of the 'Independent' Police Complaints Commission, said to be aware "of officers using the police computer system to pass information to criminal associates" and quotes an example). (But...see Kensington police # 5 for my experience with the (partly police-staffed) 'Independent' Police Complaints Commission)

(*) I highlight the fact that (1) I reported the death threat to, among others, Sir Paul Stephenson, Metropolitan Police Commissioner, and the Minister heading the police, Alan Johnson, Home Secretary, in my 28 November 2009 letter to them ; (2) I again noted it in my 2 February 2010 letter to both of them (and other parties) ; (3) my letters were copied to Kensington police, the police Directorate of Professional Standards, and in turn, to the 'Independent' Police Complaints Commission (Kensington police # 5) OUTCOME? NOBODY in the police has approached me about this.

With so much collusion going on in the gigantic network of symbiotic relationships, operating in a free for all environment, 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.

(Meanwhile, they let a known criminal on the loose - leading to the torture and stabbing to death of two of my compatriots: "Jack Straw accused of buck passing over murder of French students", The Times, 10 June 2009. It sure gives some perspective on their priority).

On leaving Jefferson House, I went to Hyde Park. When I was on the little bridge, next to the east-side coffee shop, a cyclist, who had come from behind me, stopped very close to me, on my right-handside. I immediately felt a very toxic aura emanating from him. I continued walking. Coming from behind me, on my left-handside, he stopped c. 5 metres ahead of me, pretending to be reading an inscription on a statue stand. He was in his 60s, of English descent. Being convinced that his interest was in me, I decided to put it to the test. I walked past him and turned right at the end of the bridge. He did the same thing, cycling on the road. I continued walking for a few metres. He turned round to look at me, and back ahead. At this point, I turned round and, doing a one finger sign in my back, I walked back to the height of the bridge and positioned myself against the tree across from the bridge.

The cyclist turned round, cycled back, and stopped in front of me. I asked him what his problem was. He saw that I was getting my camera out and positioned himself to my side. Having told me "You are French", and that he had been to France, he said "I have to stop cycling because it's not allowed and the police could stop me". I told him that it was a stupid reply pointing out other people who were cycling past us. (Cycling is definitely allowed in the park). And what did it have to do with him doing all these manoeuvres? At this point he said "Enjoy your life. You don't have long to live". I replied "Great! I look forward to that!" - to which he said "You don't behave as though you are". (Indicating that he knew something about me).

Oh dear, oh dear! looks like the organised crime mob is getting upset and impatient that I am not showing signs of breaking down / giving up - and continuing with my fight (two weeks previously I sent this Subject Access Request to the police. I am also battling with my MP, Sir Malcolm Rifkind, to send my complaint to the Parliamentary Ombudsman) - and this in spite of, among others, previous threats e.g. 2 January 2009 ; others - and therefore planning to bump me off. (Subsequent note - For further indication of this: see also my 2 February 2010 letter to Sir Paul Stephenson, Met Commissioner, et.al., headed "When am I due to be killed?")

Evidently, my 'daring' to continue to stand-up for my rights, refusing to accept injustice, has led to a change of plan since Jan/Feb 2004 when I was told "Don't worry, they won't kill you" . It confirms my view that "This organised crime mob makes the commonly known mafia look like kindergarten".

I can see that a waiting game is being played e.g.

• no communication about service charges for the flat since the 27 February 2007 - fraudulent claim - filed against me in West London County Court - ALL of which was dropped on 6 June 2008. In breach of the terms of my lease, I have not been supplied with year-end accounts since those for 2004.

• I have not worked since resigning from KPMG in January 2008. I am therefore living on the savings I accumulated during my 30+ years of work - savings that were intended for my retirement. I should say: what's left of my savings as, to the point when I stopped working, I had already spent a large part of them fighting the fraudulent service charge demand and fraudulent 22 November 2002 claim - also filed against me in West London County Court, as well as other costs e.g. renting a room in East London for seven months with the aim of getting back 'some kind' of normality in my life, including not needing to go through my daily ritual (but even there, I was not allowed to enjoy 'normality')

• I have not been looking for work since, mainly because my experience at KPMG has scarred me very deeply. In addition, it is obvious from the collusion to date between parties which, on the face of it should not be connected, that my looking for work would provide an opportunity to have fun - which would be done in part through messing with, among others, my mobile phones (e.g. Hutchison 3G) (Example of the call centre whistleblower who has been "unable to find work in four years")

(Subsequent note at Feb 10: see e.g. Home Page-Overview for evidence that I was, yet again, correct in my assessment)

On 6 October 2006 I asked "What will be the ultimate true price of these flats?" Metaphorically, I died in 2002. It now appears that I will soon be killed as part of the price - turning me into 'a cause célèbre' (Hence my reply to the scum: "Great!"). It certainly gives a whole new meaning to the expression 'A life changing experience': you end-up on death row!.

So, in preparation for my, apparently 'soon to be death', I thought I'd help the evil, sociopathic monster, Andrew Ladsky, draw-up his list of invitees to celebrate 'wiping the bloody "Nazi" French bitch off the face of the earth' and thank all of those who have helped him and his associates achieve this. More specifically, help them steal c.£500,000 from Jefferson House leaseholders to build a penthouse flat and add three other flats to Jefferson House - so that they could cash in on a multi-million Pound jackpot . Also, to thank them for helping - and joining - him and his puppets in taking revenge against me for my 'daring' to stand-up to their organised crime.

I have therefore set-up a new page 'The Executioners - My profile', in which I am going to draw-up the list of ALL the parties who, in one way or another have acted against me - the INNOCENT VICTIM OF ORGANISED CRIME - since 2002 - hence, parties in the Ladsky camp. I will also place my profile, for the record of the life they, puppet-string-pullers, and the voyeurs who could have done something - but opted to stand by, watching me being subjected to the most horrendous, vicious, cruel, sadistic, barbaric treatment since 2002 - have destroyed.

A police officer said to the Plane Stupid campaigner that "People would sell their soul to the devil". He is right. I am certainly very happy that I am going to die with my conscience rather than the conscience of those who have, in one way or another, acted against me since 2002.

In the meantime, I will NOT let the organised crime 'mafia' frighten me with its death threats. Ladsky et.al, their mob, and their supporters decided to continue the fight, NOT I. 'They' decided that anybody who 'dares' stand-up to them must be taught a lesson (as this Government is doing with others) - shown as an example to scare others from even thinking of dissenting against 'the system' - in the process, demonstrating that this treatment is quite clearly regarded by the State as "acceptable" and "part of [their] standards and values".

Okay! 'They' can kill me, but until then I WILL CONTINUE to fight with all the strength that God gives me. It includes continue to expose the evidence - in the hope of, at least, being a trigger for change. There HAS to be change. Slavery has NO PLACE in the 21st century. As the long-standing campaigner, Barry Gardiner, MP, (Labour), said during the 26 June 2009 House of Commons debate on service charges in the residential leasehold sector "To have a right but no means of enforcing that right is to have no right at all" (See home page for further extracts; C.A.R.L.'s Leaseholder, Summer 2009 - Issue 27, for further detail)

Like a leaseholder wrote to C.A.R.L. "Medieval cronyism - Leaseholders need to stand-up and be counted, and not be intimidated...".

It is also TOTALLY UNACCEPTALBE for the State (courts, tribunal, police, council, ombudsmen, etc.) to abuse its power and breach its mandate by treating an innocent victim as I have and continue to be treated - all in the name of feeding the greed of crooks. It is NOT what I, and other taxpayers pay for.

If you are an average person like me, decent, law-abiding, you might be thinking from looking at my website: it does not concern me, I’ll never be in that situation. My reply is: While, I really, really wish from the bottom of my heart that it never happens to you / members of your family / friends, I say: think again!

If, in 2001 you had told me that (i) I would end-up in court (London LVT ; WLCC 02-04 ; 07-08 ; SCCO 30 Jan 09); (ii) would be treated as a criminal, I would have replied: With all due respect, you are mad. This will NEVER happen to me. I am a law-abiding person. I have, and always have had an impeccable credit record, because what I - truly - owe: I pay - on time. I mind my own business, don't bother anybody. I pay my taxes. I give my whole to my employer, etc. How could I possibly end-up in court? For what reason? I would have given you the same answer if you had told me that the police would, likewise, treat me like a criminal. As evidence, I would have also told you that, in my previous 35 years in this country, I have NEVER had dealings with courts or police.

Look at what happened to me! Look at the absolute horror of the sheer, utter hell I have and continue to be put through for 'daring' to stand up for the rights I have been told by the legislators I have the right to demand - in the process ending-up challenging the courts, a tribunal, the police, the professions, the so-called 'regulators', etc.(My Diary 6 May 08 - Overview my cries for help/complaints) - for not performing as per their legal mandate, stated remit, and as per legislation, regulations and codes of conduct. Note also that, in 2003, I took the big step of overlooking my rights "for the sake of bringing this dispute to an end". IN VAIN!

Food for thought:

• Do you think that the family of the up to 1,200 patients reported to have died in the Stafford Hospital in 2005-08 as a result of neglect, ever imagined that they would be treated as they have - including seeing management, not only walk away scot-free, but also with a substantial pay-off? (The Daily Telegraph: (1) "Patients 'routinely neglected' at Stafford Hospital", 24 Feb 10 ; (2) "Bosses at scandal-hit Stafford Hospital escape scot-free" ; (3) "Failed hospital bosses given pay rises while crisis unfolded", 26 Feb 10)

• Do you think that the family of Ian Tomlinson, an innocent bystander trying to get back home after work, who was killed by the police during the G20 demonstration ever imagined that this would happen to him - and that in response to their asking for an inquiry, in addition to cover-up, they would be told “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” ?

• Do you think that the family of the police officer, Yvonne Fletcher, who was killed in the 80s by gun shots from the Libyan Embassy in London, ever imagined that this would happen - and that the Government would strike a deal? In its 13 Sep 09 article, "Secret deal over killer of WPC Yvonne Fletcher", The Sunday Times reports "The Libyan killer of a British policewoman 25 years ago will never be brought to justice in Britain after a secret deal approved by Jack Straw...when he was foreign secretary. At the time Britain was negotiating trade deals worth hundreds of millions of pounds with Libya...The Foreign Office said... the Fletcher family know all this and have not considered it a big issue". The article reports that the Fletcher family denied being told. There was a follow-up article in The Mail on Sunday of 8 Nov 09 "Gaddafi offered hand over WPC's killers 17 years ago"

• Do you think that the (brave and very determined) woman who reported to the police, her ex-husband, a judge, for allegedly abusing a child, expected having to battle with the so-called 'Independent ' Police Complaints Commission - to the extent of needing to go to the High Court to get an order to force the IPCC to investigate?

• Do you think that the man who changed his mind about committing suicide, ever imagined that he would be arrested by the police and end-up in court?

• Do you think the English families of the two victims of violent crime ever imagined that this would happen to their loved one, and that they would end-up in court, being treated as they were?

• Do you think that family members of Mr Jean Charles de Menezes, who live in Brazil, ever imagined that their loved one would be fatally shot by the British police; that they would end-up in a British court, challenging the court, as well as the police - and end-up, after a four-year battle for justice, "thoroughly disgusted and alarmed" (as reported in the media) and walking out of the court in protest?

• Do you think that the Canadian Lady ever imagined being treated as she was, including being locked-up in a British police cell - for "doing the right thing" in relation to Mr Jean Charles de Menezes?

• Do you think the family of the barrister, Mark Saunders, who was fatally shot by police marksmen ever imagined that this would happen, and that they would end-up in court challenging the 'Independent' Police Complaints Commission and the Crown Prosecution Service over their decision to not charge any of the armed officers? (Mail on Sunday, 31 May 2009, "Police who killed siege lawyer are unlikely to be charged")

• Do you think the families of the French students, Laurent Bonomo and Gabriel Ferez, who were tortured and stabbed to death ("Jack Straw accused of buck passing over murder of French students", The Times, 10 June 2009) (The article highlights failures by the probation service, the courts and the police) - ever imagined that this would happen? (Jack Straw apologised to the families e.g. "Reports into the management of Dano Sonnex within the criminal justice system, Ministry of ‘Justice’, 4 Jun 09")

Clearly, the answer to all of the above examples is: ‘No’.

What has happened to these people, to me, my fellow leaseholders, and the people who sent me a comment, clearly shows that you don’t know what awaits you ‘round the corner’, when you might find yourself - as an innocent victim - at the mercy of the State. (Aside from being at the mercy of the State in many other areas of life). If you ever have the misfortune to find yourself in this situation: is this how you want to be treated? You cannot therefore ignore what is going on. It's like e.g. the MPs, peers, MEPs and quangocrats expenses: if left unchallenged, the abuses will - of course - continue.

The State is NOT there to protect the miscreants in its midst and among its cronies It is there FOR ALL THE PEOPLE of this country - to act as per its stated mandates. The last two months have shown that change IS possible, that a fortress can be made to crumble if you find the cracks and enough people keep going at them (proving the leaseholder right). It CAN be done - and it WILL be done, because the good people of this country are showing - and will continue to show - that they've had enough of being ripped-off, of injustice, double-standards, deceit, collusion, cover-ups, whitewash and blackwash; they've had enough of being exploited by morally depraved, parasitic elements of the 'ruling elite' who consider themselves and their cronies to be above the law of the land; they've had enough of, like so many have said recently in the media: being treated "like serfs"

From Mid July 2009 - No updating of website

From mid July 2009 until end March 2010 i.e. for eight months - I purposely did NOT update my website to give ALL the opportunity to show common sense and intelligence by resolving my situation – leading me to close the website, and leave the country - never to return - as I have been wanting to do since 2003 (e.g. Home page-Overview).

I had already done this for seven months, from May to December 2007 (by May 07, my site had only been online for 4.5 months; hence, relatively few people not connected with my case had seen it) but, 'they' did not take the opportunity. (Instead 'they' redoubled in their sadistic, barbaric persecution e.g. West London County Court [ADD]).

This time, I extended an offer to my MP, Sir Malcolm Rifkind, in my 7 November 2009 letter, in which I wrote

"As my MP, will you be ‘The One’ who – finally - demonstrates intelligence and common sense and say ‘Enough is Enough!’ and help me achieve my objectives – thereby seizing on the opportunity you still have to take the credit for resolving my situation? (Significant correspondence from you, and from me to you et.al. since July, has yet to be placed on my website). (I would like to leave the country permanently – alive and well – having achieved my objectives - by the end of this year)"

The 10 November 2009 'reply' was

"I acknowledge receipt of your letter of 7th November addressed to Sir Malcolm.

Yours sincerely"

It is abundantly clear from this, and the below events, that 'THEY' WANT TO CONTINUE THE WAR. 'THEIR' DECISION. THAT'S WHAT 'THEY' WANT: I WILL CONTINUE TO FIGHT... ... until 'they' kill me. (Home page-Overview)... ... - in the process continuing to accumulate the EXTREMELY SHOCKING AND TRULY SICKENING evidence of what can happen, in this country, part of Western Europe, in the 21st century, to an honest, decent, law-abiding leaseholder who 'dares' to stand-up to a criminal landlord, his equally criminal aides, and the corrupted system that protects them.

For battles from mid-July 2009 (ALL of which are continuing at March 2010) - see:

• (1) Sir Malcolm Rifkind re. my filing a complaint with the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman against the London LVT, Court Service, and HMCS 'Customer Service'

• (2) Parliamentary & Health Service Ombudsman

• (3) Kensington & Chelsea police et.al. i.e. including K&C police # 5 and the Home Office - following my 28 May 2009 Subject Access Request to the police under the Data Protection Act 1998

• (4) The Ministry of 'Justice' - Legal home # C - following my 2 January 2010 Subject Access Request to the Ministry of 'Justice' under the Data Protection Act 1998

For other events - see Home page-Overview

Back to top