“They [magistrates] are indeed, like every other subject of this kingdom, answerable to the law for the faithful and upright discharge of their trust and duties.

But, whenever they have challenged upon this head, either by way of indictment, or application to this Court for a criminal information, the question has always been, not whether the act done might, upon full and mature investigation, be found strictly right, but from what motive it had proceeded; whether from a dishonest, oppressive or corrupt motive, under which description, fear and favour may generally be included, or from mistake or error. In the former case, alone, they have become the objects of punishment.

To punish as a criminal any person who, in the gratuitous exercise of a public trust, may have fallen into error or mistake belongs only to the despotic ruler of an enslaved people, and is wholly abhorrent from the jurisprudence of this kingdom”

Nearly 200 years on, I wonder what judge Abbott would say about "this kingdom", in the 21st century, when looking at my case (not to mention that of other victims e.g. Victims Unite; petition to Stop the Oppression of the British People; Comments):

• About some judges, as well as tribunal chairs, who - demonstrating UNDENIABLE BIAS - cast aside the rule of law in favour of the rule of money, the rule of the 'Brotherhood', in the process subjecting the innocent victims to years of ongoing mental torture through their cruel, sadistic, vicious, perverse actions - and about those who are meant to hold them to account - who only remember their powers when it suits them and their 'friends': by sacking judges

• How, as the innocent victim of organised crime, I have and continue to be persecuted, victimised, marginalised, terrorised, bullied, coerced, tormented and defamed not only by the courts and a tribunal, but also by other public authorities such as the police and its 'regulator', the IPCC, as well as other institutions (e.g. summary outcome of my complaints) and their friends e.g. ongoing surveillance, malicious communications, physical threats, including death threat, etc. - for 'daring' to stand-up for the rights "this kingdom" , that repeatedly claims to be "a democracy", told me I had the right to demand; 'daring' to stand-up to them and their 'protégés', Andrew Ladsky and his aides, greed-ridden, vicious, cruel, sadistic, sociopathic monsters - because Ladsky decided that 'HE wanted a multi-million £ jackpot' at my expense (and that of my fellow leaseholders)

• What his assessment of those who have / continue to do this to me would be. I venture that it would include: "...dishonest, oppressive or corrupt motive, under which description, fear and favour may generally be included..."...

...and would ask why "they have [not] become the objects of punishment". The answer to that is: a gigantic network of symbiotic relationships who collude through implicit / explicit 'MEMORANDUMS OF UNDERSTANDING' e.g. Law Society and ACPO (police) (copy)

2. The State’s credentials in relation to the ‘little people’ in the residential leasehold sector 'concentration camps', and other 'little people'

What the State can say in relation to the residential leasehold sector: as you can see from our impeccable credentials on e.g. the home page of this website, owned by what we call the "Nazi" Bitch (the basis of the case is that our protégé Andrew Ladsky wanted a multi-million £ jackpot), as well as the site’s Comments page - in the private and public residential leasehold sector, in order to rip off the c.3m leaseholders, we - under the control of our 'ever so revered', 'sacrosanct' freeholder-landlord friends - have fine-tuned the art of oppression and abuse to a level which, I think you will agree, cannot be faulted.

We (legislators, housing minister (e.g. Keith Hill, John Prescott (and Local Government), Caroline Flint, Shahid Malik, John Denham, Grant Shapps), courts, tribunals, councils, police, ombudsmen (Local Government, Legal Services), etc) are doing this through our very active assistance in the setting-up, maintenance and protection of the 3 million-strong ‘concentration camps’ – by subjecting the leaseholders ("the Great Unwashed" / "the Oiks") to years of unrelenting mental torture if they ‘dare’ stand-up to us, our freeholder-landlord friends and their aides – until our combined 'mincing machine' gets them to shut-up and go and lick their wounds somewhere out of sight / destroys them / puts them 'out of action' (other examples # 13, # 17, # 16 , # 24, # 31).

The 'mincing machine' is set in motion by the landlords' aides sending the leaseholders what the leaseholders describe as 'exorbitant service charge demands' (e.g. to the Bitch: previously, and currently; media articles). (Our landlord friends and masters - as well as some councils that do the same thing - don't see it that way; only as money THEY decided they are entitled to receive).

In an attempt to scare the hell out of the leaseholders and 'induce them' to pay, the landlords' aides will often threaten forfeiture of their flat (as they have done, so far, twice with the "Nazi" Bitch) - even bankruptcy (also with her).

The leaseholders' repeated requests for supporting evidence are frequently ignored (e.g. # 1 ; # 2 / # 3 ; # 4 ; # 5). It can include denying them access to the (often bogus) accounts for their block, forcing them to go into a long, drawn out battle - and still not get the full accounts (e.g. council, ombudsman) - as, of course, we are not going to act against our 'sacrosanct' freeholder-landlord friends (and, any case, some of our councils do the same thing e.g. comments # 31 ; # 34).

On looking at s.152 of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002, 'Statements of account', those who don't know how to read legislation get the impression that landlords have an obligation to supply them with a statement of account. They don't! Why? Because nine years on: we have not brought this section into force. When we are challenged on this, we say (laughing our head off) “[the Government]…is keen to avoid imposing further burdens on landlords and managers such as provisions for regular statements of account which would, in turn, increase costs for service charge payers”

If that fails, then it's the 'gas chamber' (courts, Leasehold Valuation Tribunal, Lands Tribunal, Court of Appeal). We all act in concert by pushing the Great Unwashed into the 'gas chamber' e.g. the RICS telling the "Nazi" Bitch "to go to the LVT". (While there are, what the Bitch and other of the Great Unwashed would describe as "highly professional, impartial" individuals among the above parties, given the chance i.e. 'the right incentive', quite a few of them will collude with the landlords against the leaseholders. They know they can do this - without fear of sanction - as we, in collaboration with them, have ensured that no part of 'the ring' is actually regulated e.g. outcome of the Bitch's complaint to the Law Society against Portner and Jaskel; outcome of her numerous other complaints).

Depending on 'the goodwill' of the landlords, the leaseholders 'might' be provided with 100+ pages of the information they have been demanding for months, barely 36 hours before they are dragged into the 'gas chamber' (example ; other examples), or not at all (example).

Examples of other practices aimed at breaking the Oiks' physical and mental resistance with the aim of making them give up and give in, include:

• (1) One part of the judicial system telling them to NOT pay a 'service charge' demand until it has reached a decision, while another part concurrently ignores their protests that the claim is therefore an abuse of process (WLCC #2 ; # 4), and forges ahead with it - hence, yes: telling them that they must pay.

• (2) Proceeding with the claim against them in spite of their repeatedly highlighting that the claim states two company names, both claiming to be their landlord, each represented by a different firm of solicitors, and each claiming a different sum of money.

• (3) Proceeding with the claim in spite of the fact that a major breach of the rules means that its contents cannot be used against them.

• (4) Ignoring the evidence they supply against the claim / action (e.g. WLCC # 9 ; WLCC ; LVT # 8.1.2), including during the case management process (other examples: Comment ; other leaseholders) .

• (5) Ignoring numerous other rules, as well as failure by their opponents to comply with directions (LVT # 10.4 ; # 10.5)

• (6) Depriving them of material information.

• (7) Issuing a materially incomplete 'decision', and refusing to address its failings (LVT # 4 ; # 6 ; # 7)

• (8) Falsely blaming them for the action and (fictitious) additional costs.

• (9) Ensuring they cannot get support from some of their fellow leaseholders during the proceedings (LVT # 10.1 ; # 10.2)

• (10) FALSELY telling them - and persisting in doing so - that
• (i) they are the defendant in a trial (WLCC # 14 , LFT # 5.1);
• (ii) a judgment has been entered against them;
• (iii) a Charging Order hearing concerns them (WLCC # 5 , LFT # 1);

• (11) Making them miss a hearing (WLCC # 13 ; LFT # 3) at which, of course, an order is issued against them - and subsequently denying that the hearing took place.

• (12) Sending them a notice of a hearing without telling them what the hearing is about.

If they were under the hallucinogenic concept that they could represent themselves, the benefit of the above is that they usually give in and fulfill our objective of their employing advisers (WLCC # 11 ; LVT # 8.1.3). Then: it's party time!

In the legislation, we wrote that the leaseholders have "the right to ask a leasehold valuation tribunal to determine whether you are liable to pay service charges". However, to dissuade them from challenging our landlord friends, we have set the maximum amount of costs they can recoup to £500 (some call that 'an insulting amount'), and have done the same thing in relation to the next level up: the Lands Tribunal. We have done this knowing that, to have a fighting chance of facing the landlords' usual army of surveyors, barristers, and even QCs, the leaseholders will need to employ a similar set of expensive advisers. Of course, we don't tell them that, so that our landlord friends and their aides can crush them at the first hearing.

Indeed, in our promotional material we emphasise that they have "no need for professional representation", as "the tribunal is less formal than the courts". (In typical public sector style, we nonetheless recommend they get 'professional advice'). Those who have caught on to the con / realised it once they were caught in the process (e.g. the Bitch) end-up paying huge costs (relative to their wealth) e.g. the "Nazi" Bitch spent £30,000 in 2003 (for a £14,400 demand - that was fraudulent! How we all laughed at that!). ('Our Most Revered Lord and Master Andrew Ladsky', his aides, and our 'Himmlers', were seriously 'cheesed off' when she turned-up unexpectedly with an army of advisers).

We have told our landlord friends to include a 'notice' of the above 'friendly reminder' of the leaseholders' 'rights', and limitation on costs with any 'service charge demand' e.g. this 16 February 2011 'demand'. (This notice, we devised with our landlord firends, includes the trick of stating liability for "improvements" - even though, in their lease, many leaseholders are only liable for 'repairs and maintenance').

We also state in our promotional material that "each party pays their own costs". That's another claim that has us rolling on the floor with laughter - as the parties who pay for ALL the costs are the leaseholders as, one way or another, our landlord friends recoup ALL their tribunal-related costs through the 'service charges'. Hence: that's a double whammy for the leaseholders.

Yes, the leaseholders can attempt to prevent the landlords from charging their costs to them - if the outcome of the hearing/s was in their favour, and IF our ‘Himmlers’ in the tribunal decided to record it as such e.g. they did not for the Bitch (business model #20) In her case, they went as far as making up a cost increase they blamed on her - and placed this on a public database - so that she could be blamed by her fellow leaseholders. Anyway, by then, many of her fellow leaseholders had already been bullied by the court's 'Himmlers' into paying the full amount demanded. But, whatever we can do against the "Nazi" Bitch - we will do.

You could argue that, when the landlord has been found at fault, the tribunal should automatically make an order at the end of the hearings to prevent his costs being charged to the leaseholders - and have the power to enforce it. ("The Oiks" would say: in addition to ordering the landlord to pay ALL of their costs). But that would not be fun. The leaseholders must be made to pay for the 'privilege' of 'perhaps' stopping the landlord from charging his costs to them - by filing an application = more hearing/s = more costs (which, as you will recall, they cannot recoup). (e.g. the experience of the "Nazi" Bitch: LVT # 8.2 ; # 9)

Is that the end of it? Of course not! If, as the leaseholders would say: 'the tribunal had a decent, impartial, professional panel' - and the landlord decides to ignore the tribunal's decision - the leaseholders must issue court proceedings or, more often than not, the landlord will appeal to the next level up: the Lands Tribunal (where he might have 'friends'). ('Conveniently' the LVT has no enforcement power. Of course, we don't say that either in our promotional material, or if we do, it's hidden somewhere. The aim is to entice "the Oiks" into the 'gas chamber' and give them 'a dose' that will disable them and take away their hallucinogenic concept that they are not there to be used and abused).

= Yep! More costs to the leaseholders! = By then, they will probably have spent multiples of the original demand... v. the £500 they 'might' get IF our 'Himmlers' are 'favourably disposed'. Ha! Ha! Ha! (Other people's experience / assessment of the LVTs: (1) http://www.leasehold-valuation-tribunals.org.uk/ ; My Diary 22 Nov 08 ; Comment # 39).

(If an abuse of process is taking place by the landlord concurrently pursuing court proceedings (to which the court 'conveniently' turns a blind eye), and he opts to ignore the tribunal's findings, the 'inducement' tactics can include a salvo of threatening letters to the recalcitrant leaseholders).

If the leaseholders's first exposure to the 'gas chamber' has not achieved the desired breaking of their physical and mental resistance, they are dragged back in the 'gas chamber' time and time again by our landlord friends and their aides seeking appeals to higher courts / filing other fraudulent claims against them. Some have been dragged all the way up to the House of Lords – at a total cost of £400,000. The costs of the courts and tribunals which, in relation to some freeholders-landlords, are estimated to amount to several million £ for each? (C.A.R.L.'s Leaseholder, Spring 2011, Issue 32) Who cares! The taxpayer picks up the tab! (Like the taxpayer picks-up the tab for the massive costs of landlord-tenant legislation). Anything to keep our 'sacrosanct' freeholder-landlord friends and masters happy!

As you can see, it's very simple: there is NO level playing field; NO equality of arms; the 'rights' are a one way traffic. Look at any lease e.g. the "Nazi" Bitch's lease. If she breaches a covenant, 'Our Most Revered Lord and Master Andrew Ladsky' can come down on her like a ton of bricks, including taking the flat away from her. If HE breaches ANY of the covenants - and regardless of his conduct - there are NO sanctions whatsoever included in the lease.

The Bitch would say that if you contrast her lease with The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1994, Schedule 3, Reg.4(4)- "Indicative and illustrative list of terms which may be regarded as unfair":

1. "Terms which have the object or effect of -

(b) inappropriately excluding or limiting the legal rights of the consumer vis-a.-vis the seller or supplier or another party in the event of total or partial non-performance or inadequate performance by the seller or supplier of any of the contractual obligations..."

(c) making an agreement binding on the consumer whereas provision of services by the seller or supplier is subject to a condition whose realisation depends on his own will alone;

(e) requiring any consumer who fails to fulfil his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation;

(f) authorising the seller or supplier to dissolve the contract on a discretionary basis where the same facility is not granted to the consumer, or permitting the seller or supplier to retain the sums paid for services not yet supplied by him where it is the seller or supplier himself who dissolves the contract;

(l) providing for the price of goods to be determined at the time of delivery or allowing a seller of goods or supplier of services to increase their price without in both cases giving the consumer the corresponding right to cancel the contract if the final price is too high in relation to the price agreed when the contract was concluded;

(n) limiting the seller’s or supplier’s obligation to respect commitments undertaken by his agents or making his commitments subject to compliance with a particular formality;

(o) obliging the consumer to fulfil all his obligations where the seller or supplier does not perform his;

(p) giving the seller or supplier the possibility of transferring his rights and obligations under the contract, where this may serve to reduce the guarantees for the consumer, without the latter’s agreement;

(q) excluding or hindering the consumer’s right to take legal action or exercise any other legal remedy, particularly by requiring the consumer to take disputes exclusively to arbitration not covered by legal provisions, unduly restricting the evidence available to him or imposing on him a burden of proof which, according to the applicable law, should lie with another party to the contract"...

...her lease is DEFINITELY AN UNFAIR CONTRACT - and forfeiture law is "a weapon of mass destruction". But, no worry: the Office of Fair Trading is not going to get involved in that (e.g. when, in 2008, it investigated allegations of collusion among construction companies, it limited its investigation to public sector contracts - even though there is extensive collusion and corruption in private sector contracts e.g. the contractors involved in the Bitch's block).

To emphasise the TOTAL lack of regulation of the sector:

Whereas, to offer financial advice, ‘a man and a dog’ outfit needs to be vetted by, and registered with the FSA, freeholders-landlords who control what is, for most people, their main financial asset and can, at times, handle millions of £ of leaseholder money (e.g. Tchenguiz's Peverel control of 200,000 properties) are NOT subjected to ANY kind of control - and can therefore have a criminal record ‘as long as your arm’. We don't care! It's not our assets. Indeed, in addition to the many current 'rogue players', or 'Rachman landlords' as some leaseholders call them, there is NOTHING to stop individuals such as e.g. Bernie Madoff, or Peter Sutcliffe reported to have killed 13 women from being freeholders-landlords.

As to regulating the supporting infrastructure,as we've said earlier: it is, likewise, totally unregulated e.g. summary outcome of the Bitch's complaints ; leaseholders at the C.A.R.L. 22 Nov 08 meeting. The previous government had plans to introduce regulation of managing agents but, as Julian Knight of The Independent reports in his 13 Feb 11 article, "Big society? Big rip-off", the current housing minister, "Grant Shapps, has killed off the intended legislation". (Grant Shapps has confirmed 'his' hands-off approach in his 4 February 2011 letter to the "Nazi" Bitch) (see below, 4 Feb 11) (NB: Meanwhile, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS), continues with its assessments of "insuffiient evidence")

Isn't that an overall, brilliantly devised rip-off system? Isn't that a system that screams out: 'Welcome crooks - and especially sociopathic / psychopathic crooks! The door is wide open for you to fill your pockets to your heart's content'?

Of course: there has been an avalanche of takers (and it keeps on growing, as many new developments are also under the leasehold regime). As to the outcome of our wide-open door, free-for-all policy, it can be seen from e.g. the "Nazi" Bitch's experience ; media articles ; C.A.R.L.'s newsletters ; the Comments on this site ; the reports on the LVT's and Lands Tribunal' s database.

Concurrent to the above treatment, many of the leaseholders are subjected to ongoing harassment and persecution - aimed at making them pay whatever is demanded of them / force them to sell - which is another opportunity to rip them off.

A great outcome is when they get affected to the extent of no longer being able to do their job. No job = no income = no ability to fight us and our mates and a good chance for our 'dear landlord friends' to forfeit the lease. (Men don't escape the mental breakdown).

For example, in 2002, the "Nazi" Bitch was a Commercial Due Diligence manager in KPMG’s Mergers and Acquisitions division. The ongoing harassment (she reported - of course, in vain - to the local ‘SS’, as she now calls Kensington & Chelsea police) unsettled her, and the (fraudulent) July 2002 demand of £14,400 ‘from’ MRJ = 'Our Most Revered Lord and Master Andrew Ladsky', was the coup de grace that led to her being moved to a non-client facing role 'until her situation was resolved'.

In 2003, she tried to resolve her situation by accepting and paying 'Our Most Revered Lord and Master's "offer" of £6,350 "as a means of putting an end to the dispute" - even though, legally, she did not owe this amount either. But, 'Our Lord and Master' decided that he was going to make her pay for daring to stand-up to him, and since then, he and his aides have relentlessly pursued her, as she would say, 'like a pack of demented, blood-thirsty hyenas' - which means that she never got back into her previous job.

Something for us to savour until she finally dies.

We and 'Our Most Revered Lord and Master Andrew Ladsky' were over the moon when she resigned from KPMG in January 2008. Thanks to our friends: a brilliant outcome! The "Nazi" Bitch says that she can "no longer work in this country" (and she has not since then) "because [she has] lost [her] trust in the business environment". It eventually forced her into early retirement as what she had left of her savings was rapidly dwindling. So, in addition to (i) the lost opportunity for a higher income had she continued to do client work; (ii) the c.£100,000 she spent on lawyers, surveyors, computer equipment, correspondence, renting a room in Hackney for seven months, staying in hotels, hiring a PO Box, etc., etc., etc., as well as loss of earnings - the Bitch has also ended-up with a lot less money than she would have had for her pension. That's in addition to knowing that we and 'Our Most Revered Lord and Master' have blighted her life since 2002, deprived her of holiday, got her to cut off ties with people, etc., etc, etc. = 'the 'concentration camp' regime par excellence'! What absolute, pure joy!

Yep! ALL BECAUSE 'Our Most Revered Lord and Master Andrew Ladsky' decided that he wanted the Jefferson House 'concentration camp' leaseholders to pay for the construction of a penthouse flat, and addition of 3 other flats, so that he could make a multi £ jackpot. Of course, bowing with extreme reverence and kissing his feet, we told him: "Your wishes are our command, O' Great One".

We also guaranteed him that, should any of his leaseholders dare stand-up to him and his aides, whether lawyers, surveyors or accountants, they would of course be protected by the 'Brotherhood', including what we call the 'regulators' of these professions and, as relevant by us (e.g. ombudsmen). For example, the police, through ACPO, has a Memorandum of Understanding with the Law Society.

And, of course, we would also protect any of the public sector parties, including judges, tribunal panel, etc - as evidenced by the outcome of the "Nazi" Bitch's complaints.

I think you will agree from the contents of this website that we stood, and keep standing by our promise every step of the way. We sure know how to look after our friends, don't we? And, as you can also see from this website, we give to our, and our 'dear friends' enemies in equal measure.

Isn't this website an absolutely brilliant endorsement of our 'all-inclusive one-stop-shop offering'?

In addition to being a brilliant marketing tool, it's also of great help to us by warning 'would-be challengers' of what awaits them if they dare stand-up to us and our friends. As the Bitch would say, "borrowing an expression used by the European Court of Human Rights in some cases that engage Article 10 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights: "Right to freedom of expression": my website must have a "chilling effect" on the 'little people' who look at it".

(Would we want what we and 'Our Most Revered Lord and Master' and his aides have done and continue doing to the "Nazi" Bitch done to the women in our family, such as our mother, wife, daughter, grand-mother, aunt, cousin, niece? Pass).

If the Great Unwashed report the harassment to our other ‘Himmlers’ in the police, they make sure that our landlord friends are protected by: failing to investigate; failing to record the evidence; covering it up with lies; fabricating evidence against the Great Unwashed; dismissing their complaints, etc. (as they did with the "Nazi" Bitch in 2002, 2003, 2007and October 2010). After their experience, the Great Unwashed should get the message that the police is not there for them, but for us and our mates.

Indeed, whenever our landlord friends decide they need our help to frighten the Great Unwashed to bend them to their will and shut them up, we jump to their diktats and record fictitious complaints against the Great Unwashed as “crime reports” – at times without ever contacting them; or if we do, we ignore their request for evidence.

Having beaten the Great Unwashed as much as we can, including making them lose most of their life savings on lawyers, surveyors, etc. - for those who still 'dare' stand up to us and our mates, we fabricate excuses to lock them up. Having them under our complete control gives us the chance to break them down. (Yes: we DO lock-up ‘inconvenient people’).

If we can’t drive them ‘round the bend’ because some of them are tougher than others e.g. the "Nazi" Bitch who says that "with God's help" she is going to fight us "until the last breath in [her] body" ? No problem! Through ‘The Brotherhood’, etc., we and our freeholder-landlord friends rally support by portraying them as “mad” to as many people as we can. This is particularly so in the case of women. (NB: Other example; MP's constituent locked-up).

(As reflected by the near-total dominance of men in positions of power, women are generally perceived as inferior. At times, we employ them to do things we haven't got the guts to do ourselves (e.g. dismissing "legitimate" complaints; inflicting harassment). They do it because it makes them feel important and valued. You could say that e.g. nearly 90 years after we headed one Part of the Law of Property Act 1925 as ' Married Women and Lunatics' - we have not changed).

You’d be amazed at the eagerness with which the Great Unwashed's medical specialists, long-standing doctor, ‘friends’ and acquaintances, work colleagues, etc. jump on the bandwagon by supporting our 'assessment' – and hence assist us and our 'landlord friends and masters'. Some, such as work colleagues, including managers, even join in the tormenting and persecution to help speed up the achievement of our objective. (That’s the Great Unwashed for you. We know from years of experience that many among them are as "sadistic" and "greed-ridden" as we are i.e.from the same stock. Yep! We know that "People would sell their soul to the devil").

As we are doing this, the ‘Himmlers’ in our services such as the police, also describe them on their systems as “suffering from mental issues” and, to add weight to 'their assessment', they "contact social services" to express their 'concerns' – and record doing this on the systems so that 'this card' can be pulled out at the 'appropriate time'.

If we fail to achieve our objective of getting them locked-up? No problem: this is "ORWELLIAN SURVEILLANCE BRITAIN", as the Bitch calls it. We keep them under constant surveillance, including in their flat , and monitor their phones, emails, post and computer (and interfere with them and/or intercept communications for the fun of it so that e.g. they miss a family funeral; or to delete 'inconvenient' evidence). (NB: On 17 Oct 10, Sergeant Avison said to not doubt my claim that I am being followed. In light of the evidence, how could the police deny it?) We even monitor them / have them monitored when they are overseas. In the case of the "Nazi" Bitch we do it in tandem with 'Our Most Revered Lord and Master Andrew Ladsky'. She says that he has had her followed / monitored since at least 2003 - and possibly before to determine whether she could be "a mark". (There are other examples on this site, including e.g. that of a journalist).

3. What mechanism is there to prevent abuse? The"Nazi" Bitch would say, as evidenced by her experience and that of others, "in practice: NONE" - because it relies on the authorising parties to report, to the Commissioners, the authorisations granted, renewed or cancelled e.g. s.96 of the 1997 Act; and s.35(1) and s.36(1) of the RIPA - and, 'of course', there is no independent supervision. (NB: Hence, the title of the Act "Regulation" is a joke).

Who is going to complain other than the person under surveillance who, by definition, should not be aware that s/he is under surveillance? If they do complain, like the "Nazi" Bitch (and other examples she is citing on her site), they have to prove it - and we deny it by portraying them as "mad", "suffering from mental issues".

If they want to make a formal complaint, we refer them to the Tribunal we have established under s.65 of the RIPA - typically - making sure they get little help as, under s.67(2) of the RIPA, the Tribunal's powers are limited to judicial review. (NB: In Hatton v United Kingdom (2003) 37 EHRR 28, the European Court of Human Rights determined that judicial review does not satisfy the requirement of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy).

True, at times, we do get caught e.g. the evidence captured by the Bitch in relation to e.g. her phones, emails, post, computer, her reports on, and photographs of the people who follow her, were planted / asked to obtain information about her e.g. 3 Apr 10 ; 17 Apr 10; the 86 year old protestor we have been monitoring for several years, and classified as "a domestic extremist".

Councils have also been caught abusing the RIPA e.g. to spy on people believed to have enlisted their child in a school outside a catchment area; another example is the Bitch's council, Kensington & Chelsea who spied on an individual it suspected of misusing a disabled parking badge.

More recently, what the "Nazi" Bitch would describe as "the blatant lack of control, or compliance with the legislation" was exposed by the Guardian reporting on the covert surveillance of campaigners. Nick Herbert, the minister of state for the police claimed to have “had no knowledge of the case until the Guardian disclosed it" and apparently did not know that the covert surveillance officer was living the high life on a £200,000+ allowance - courtesy of the taxpayer. On the face of it, the Met Commissioner, who should have known about it, also appeared to be in the dark as to what had been taking place.

As I said earlier on: we do NOT believe in control of ANY kind and, as exemplified by this website, we perceive ourselves, like our friends, to be above the law of the land - especially in relation to the 'little people'.

We also have what we call 'Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangement' e.g. Maurice Kirk.

The cost of covert surveillance and interception? We don't care! The taxpayer picks-up the tab. To give you an example (in addition to the one above): to try to get 'the scalp' of one of their own, Kensington police et.al spent £5-7 million up to 2003. Outcome? They ended-up owing him c.£400. (Yes: Kensington police is the Bitch's local station). 'The budget' allocated for the "Nazi" Bitch? As you can see from what she reports: UNLIMITED!

At least, in her case, unlike with Dizaei, we don't have to pay for renting a flat next to hers as 'Our Most Revered Lord and Master Andrew Ladsky' controls Jefferson House - and he gives us carte blanche to do as we please in terms of surveillance equipment.

If we are not getting the evidence we want from bugging the Great Unwashed' homes, constantly monitoring them and their means of communication, we resort to throwing them 'hooks', and 'interview' them (by using the covert human intelligence sources referred to above), to (among others) detect any sign of mental breakdown...

...while concurrently taking steps to maximise the chance of their eventually breaking down e.g. exorbitant 'service charge' demands that keep on increasing; making it clear to them that they do NOT have the right to have rights (police; courts: first and second document, others), that wherever they turn to for help nobody will lift a little finger to help them; hounding them - and making it clear to them that they are being hounded; intercepting and withholding their emails, post, voicemails and text messages - reinforcing the message that they are MOST DEFINITELY being targeted, etc., etc.) – at which point we pounce on them.

To justify our action, we retrieve our police, social services records, etc., as well as records ever so kindly compiled by our friends e.g. from the Great Unwashed’s medical specialists, their employers when they took part in the persecution, etc.

The Great Unwashed can fight as much as it wants to get this data off our systems (e.g. the "Nazi" Bitch has been fighting since August 2009): it WILL stay on our systems until we can use it against them i.e. to 'get rid of them' – and we will fight tooth and nail to keep it there.

Why are we doing that in relation to the "Nazi" Bitch? R E T R I B U T I ON: in addition to her profile that makes her a soft target for discrimination and persecution (we are spineless, misogynist, xenophobic cowards), because we, as the Bitch calls us: "the Brotherhood" - literally - treat the Great Unwashed daring to stand-up to us and our mates, daring to expose our true practices and method of operating - as an act of terrorism that must be absolutely punished. As evidenced by other examples on this site: NOBODY who dares do that to us / our mates will escape this treatment. (Others who dare to protest against anything we categorise as e.g. "domestic extremists").

The Bitch attributes our conduct to "a combination of being blinded by [our] extreme arrogance, belief of superiority, and a very serious lack of intelligence - leading [us] to not see further than the end of [our] nose, and digging an ever more gigantic hole for [ourselves]; in the process, dragging down the hole with [us] more and more of those [we] wanted to protect / revenge, as well as others". She says that "extreme arrogance and stupidity is a very deadly mix ". Well, right now we are having a lot fun and are thoroughly enjoying the very sweet taste of revenge and retribution - because our view is that ALL of what has and continues to take place is the "Nazi" Bitch's fault:

• 'Our Most Revered Lord and Master Andrew Ladsky' deciding, probably from the time he took over the headlease in 1996 / the freehold in 1997 that he wanted the Jefferson House leaseholders to pay - "unlawfully" - for the construction of a penthouse flat, and addition of 3 other flats, so that he could make a multi £ jackpot (NB: the first planning application to build a penthouse flat was filed on 18 September 1998)? That's HER fault!

• 'Our Most Revered Lord and Master Andrew Ladsky' deciding to continue "persecuting" her by asking Martin Russell Jones to send her, in October 2004, a demand for £14,400 i.e. the original demand (court claim) - in spite of the fact that he made her an "offer"; she accepted and paid it "for the sake of bringing the disputre to an end"; it had been endorsed by the court three months previously - and sending her a £15,500 demand three weeks later? That's HER fault!

• His aides deciding to implement "the fraud" on his behalf? That's HER fault!

• Two of her "advisors" in 2003-04 deciding to "bat for Ladsky by helping his aides", including at the time of the "offer"? That's HER fault!

• District judges, deputy district judge, court managers and court staff in West London County Court in 2002-04 and 2007-08, and in Wandsworth County Court in 2004 deciding "to help" 'Our Most Revered Lord and Master Andrew Ladsky' when she faced "fraudulent" claims against her? That's HER fault!

• Charles Falconer in 2004, Jack Straw in 2007-08 and individuals they controlled in the Court Service Complaints department, in 2004 and in 2007-08, refusing to act on her "cries for help" and ignoring and/or rejecting her, as she would say, "legitimate" complaints? That's HER fault!

• The Master in the Supreme Court Costs Office deciding "to help Ladsky and his aides and take revenge on behalf of the above district judges" - on 30 January 2009? That's HER fault!

• The London LVT panel and tribunal clerk deciding "to help Ladsky and his aides" in 2002-03? That's HER fault! And indeed, the LVT blamed her for the action.

• The President of the LVTs deciding to "help Ladsky and his aides" by refusing to address her "legitimate" complaint in 2003? That's HER fault!

• The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister deciding to "help Ladsky and his aides" by backing-up the President of the LVTs' refusal to deal with her "legitimate" complaint? That's HER fault!

• The Parliamentary Ombudsman deciding, in 2009-10, to "protect the district judges, deputy district judge, court managers and court staff, master in Costs Office, Court Service complaints department, LVT panel and tribunal clerk, LVT President , as well as Legal Services Ombudsman, Law Society and Bar Council - and by extension protect Ladsky and his aides" - in relation to her "legitimate" complaint against West London County Court in 2002-04 and 2007-08, Wandsworth County Court in 2004, the Supreme Court Costs Office in 2009, and the London LVT in 2002-03? That's HER fault!

• Kensington & Chelsea housing deciding to "help Ladsky and his aides" in 2004 when she asked for help in getting the accounts for Jefferson House? That's HER fault!

• The Local Government Ombudsman deciding to "protect Kensington & Chelsea housing - and by extension help Ladsky and his aides" in 2004-05 in relation to her "legitimate" complaint against Kensington & Chelsea housing in 2004? That's HER fault!

• ALL the 'regulators' of the professions to which she complained: Law Society in 2004 (twice) and in 2007; Bar Council in 2004; Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors in 2005; Institute of Chartered Accountants for England and Wales in 2005-06 - deciding to "protect Ladsky's aides - and by extension Ladsky" - by ignoring her "legitimate"`complaint/s? That's HER fault!

• The Legal Services Ombudsman deciding to "protect the 'regulators' - and by extension Ladsky's aides and Ladsky" in relation to, in 2004-05, her first and her second "legitimate" complaint against the Law Society and, in 2005, in relation to her "legitimate" complaint against the Bar Council? That's HER fault!

• Police officers deciding to "protect and assist Ladsky in his scam" and, in the process, treat her (like ALL other public and private sector bodies have done since 2002) like, as she would say, "a piece of dirt, a non-entity who does not have the right to have rights" - in 2002, 2003, 2007, 2009-10 and October 2010? That's HER fault!

• The Police Complaints Authority deciding, in 2002, to "protect Kensington & Chelsea police officers - and by extension Ladsky" - "by being hands-off" when she complained against Kensington & Chelsea police? That's HER fault!

• The Metropolitan Police Authority deciding, in 2002, to "protect Kensington & Chelsea police officers and Ladsky" by, "in effect, dismissing" her "legitimate" complaint against Kensington & Chelsea police? That's HER fault!

• The Met Commissioner deciding, in 2009-10, to "evidently endorse the conduct of Kensington & Chelsea police officers - and by extension protect Ladsky and assist in the retribution against her" - by ignoring her "'cries for help'"? That's HER fault!

• The Independent Police Complaints Commission deciding, in 2010, to "endorse the conduct of Kensington & Chelsea police officers and protect them - and by extension Ladsky" - by rejecting her "legitimate" complaint against Kensington & Chelsea police? That's HER fault!

• Her MP in 2002 and 2009 deciding to "protect the above as well as Ladsky" - by telling her to, in effect, 'Get lost!' when she asked for their help? That's HER fault!

Etc;. etc., etc.in relation to the rest. WHATEVER you care to cite: we say IT'S HER FAULT! SHE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR EVERYTHING! And THAT'S WHY SHE MUST BE PUNISHED AND DESTROYED .

Concurrently, her ‘Jewish’ landlord and his tightly-knit community of mates who - like us - fully support his actions, view the "Nazi" Bitch daring to stand-up to them and challenge them - 'an ever so superior breed who perceive themselves as having the God-given right to take whatever they want from others' - as warranting unleashing the ‘hunt and destroy the Nazi war criminal brigade’.

Why? Because they perceive attempts to prevent them from stealing money to gain a multi-million £ jackpot, having their scam and method of operating exposed - to be on a par with sending people to the gas chamber during World War II. (Even though 'Our Most Revered Lord and Master' IS THE ROOT CAUSE for the launch of her website at the end of 2006 that resulted in their exposure (as well as ours) as, as stated earlier, the Bitch did accept his "offer" in 2003 "as a means of putting an end to the dispute").

So, they will keep on persecuting her until they destroy her e.g. after the fraudulent claims against her, the two threats of forfeiture, the threat of bankruptcy, the death threat, other physical threats (with our assistance), other forms of harassment etc. etc., etc. - currently, they are demanding payment of an ever growing - "fraudulent" - 'service charge' demand that has now reached £28,000.

And yes: if ALL of us had behaved as she thinks we should have (in her Catholic way of thinking), none of what is reported on this website would have taken place.

. BUT: 'Our Most Revered Lord and Master Andrew Ladsky' would not currently be sitting on a multi £ jackpot, and we would not be enjoying the benefits that followed from assisting him and his aides.

Excuse the expression, but we practically wet ourselves from laughing when the Bitch sent her complaints / "'cries for help'" to e.g. her MP, Malcolm Rifkind, the previous Justice minister, Jack Straw; his predecessor, Charles Falconer; the Parliamentary Ombudsman, Ann Abraham. They are Jewish. As IF they are going to help HER!

Sometimes, we and 'our landlord friends and masters' strike it lucky by getting Mother Nature on our side: the years of ongoing mental torture break down the immune system of the Great Unwashed - and they get cancer, heart attacks, etc. That’s a time for an even bigger celebration! In June 2005, when the Bitch fainted on a bus and was taken to hospital, we thought that we were onto a winner.

Before that, as she puts it, "the hell she was going through with [her] 'advisors" had led her to get sleeping pills from her doctor in November 2003. She says that she lost 5kg in November 2003, nearly one stone. In December 2003 she went to a centre in France for stress-related treatment where she said that she was diagnosed with low blood pressure.

(YES: SINCE 2002 I HAVE BEEN LIVING IN A 'CONCENTRATION CAMP' - CONTROLLED BY ANDREW DAVID LADSKY, A 'RACHMAN' LANDLORD AND HIS EQUALLY 'RACHMAN' AIDES...

AND THE ONLY THING THE STATE HAS DONE FOR ME SINCE 2002 IS TREAT ME LIKE A NON-ENTITY, A PIECE OF DIRT WHO DOES NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO HAVE RIGHTS; INFLICT TORMENT, TERROR, PERSECUTION, HARASSMENT, BULLYING, RETRIBUTION, HUMILIATION, DEFAMATION OF MY NAME AND CHARACTER, MADE ME LOSE A VERY LARGE PART OF MY LIFE SAVINGS, REPEATEDLY TOLD ME TO 'GET LOST'...

...AND, IN MORE RECENT YEARS, HAS BEEN MONITORING AND INTERFERING WITH MY MEANS OF COMMUNICATION: MOBILE PHONES, POST, EMAIL, COMPUTER, AS WELL AS,...

...IN TANDEM WITH LADKSY, HOUNDING ME...

...- WITH THE OUTCOME OF TOTALLY DESTROYING MY LIFE).

As evidenced by e.g. the Victims Unite website (pdf comments), the 3 million-strong ‘concentration camps’ (we are absolutely determined to keep because of its unending massive source of greed-satisfaction for our parasitic freeholders-landlords, their aides, and the rest of the supporting infrastructure) are only part of our portfolio.

As you can see from e.g. the case of Maurice Kirk (numerous imprisonments; locking up in a psychiatric unit; categorising him as a ‘terrorist’ (Note!!!) to justify applying MAPPA (Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangement) level 3 surveillance; withholding medical records to prevent him from having an operation, leading him to survive on morphine, etc.), and other cases - like 'Our Most Revered Lord and Master Andrew Ladsky' - regardless of the situation - we use, and keep on using the same tactics for as many years as it takes (e.g. some of the Great Unwashed have been fighting for more than 20 years).

And we will continue to have fun as the ‘get "the Oiks" black list’ gets handed down to new recruits in the public sector et.al. – until we have destroyed them. We show them who calls the shots!

As the Bitch would say: "Yes, we make all the ‘right noises’ by saying that our, until recently, 'friend' Gaddafi must back off, let go – but we are doing EXACTLY as he is. The difference is that he is killing Libyan people with bullets, whereas we are killing British people through mental torture. That’s our typical, underhanded, behind-closed doors style". If anybody accuses us and / our friends of having led to the death, or mental breakdown of the Great Unwashed, we’ll have no problem finding as many medical 'specialists' as we want to absolve us of all responsibility.

We laugh our head off from conning the Great Unwashed by taking half of what they earn (i.e. all the fruit of six months of their yearly labour) by telling them that we need that to pay for courts, tribunals, police, etc, there to serve them as and when they need them - when in fact, at least in relation to leaseholders, they are there to predominantly serve us and our friends. Hence: the Mugs pay us to oppress them and abuse them to our hearts’ content. Isn’t that hilarious?

Having helped ourselves very generously, we tell our parasitic landlord friends and their aides, banks, accountancy firms, insolvency practitioners, etc., that they can take over, and suck as much more blood as they can from the Mugs – while relying on our unfailing support and assistance. (NB: see the experience of others on the Victims Unite website (pdf comments))

The Bitch says that "extreme cruelty, evilness, viciousness, perversion and sadism are [our] first, middle and last names".

Having read the above, what would judge Abbott CJ say about "this kingdom" in the 21st century? That it is controlled by "despotic rulers"? Irrelevant question!

Morals, humanity, human rights, rule of law: What’s that? Many of us only understand MONEY, that’s our ‘GOD’. Look at us: barely one week after protestors were killed in the Middle-East, our Prime Minister, David Cameron, was there visiting officials with eight arms manufacturers (Guardian, 21 Feb 11).

More often than not we hide our game e.g."Blair secretly courted Robert Mugabe to boost trade", (The Independent, 30 Aug 10). Behind the rhetoric and slagging match fed through the media - and despite "international condemnation of Mr Mugabe's regime - Labour was secretly negotiating to establish close trading and political relations with Harare. At this time, Mr Mugabe was under growing pressure to accept responsibility for "crimes against humanity"...". The article states that "...a Foreign Office briefing to Mr Blair argued the advantages of meeting the African President outweighed human rights concerns".

Ditto re. e.g. Gaddafi e.g. “Libya and Britain: the new special relationship”, (The Sunday Times, 6 Sep 09) ; “Lockerbie: medical experts were urged to predict bomber’s early death”, (The Sunday Telegraph, 6 Sep 09) ; “British police training Libyan force ‘insult to memory of PC Yvonne Fletcher’”, (The Daily Telegraph, 18 Sep 09) ; a ‘cards on the table’ article in the Comment section of The Telegraph of 26 Feb 11, by Guest Contributor, Michael Burleigh, “Exposed: Gaddafi Inc.” - which, among others, discusses the Gaddafis ties with Britain.

(Yes, many other states, including my country of birth, France, do similar things with other states – but that does NOT make it right, because two or more wrongs will NEVER make a right).

3. Driven only by their self-serving interests

A few years into my horrific experience, somebody told me that I had “more balls than a whole army”.
While I took this in the spirit in which it was said, I consider it a sign of an “enslaved people” to view somebody who simply insists on demanding to exert the rights the legislators have told him/her have the right to demand as “having balls”.

Why should we be scared of asking the individuals in the public sector – none of whom, all the way up to the Prime Minister, would exist without us, the taxpayers, their employers – to do their job? The Government should be scared of the people - not the reverse.

Imagine if we, as employees, were treating our corporate employers as the public sector and many politicians treat us. I think you will agree that we would not stay in the job for very long.

For a long time, I used to think that politicians and other public sector individuals had, to put it more politely, ‘no back bone’. I have now come to the conclusion that their lack of action / actions are dictated solely by their self-serving interests e.g.

(1) - Iraq war

Mandarins who kept quiet in spite of disapproving of Tony Blair’s approach around the time of the decision to invade Iraq, and were challenged by Claire Short for their lack of action (while Robin Cook resigned in protest at the decision to invade) - “Mandarins dispute Blair's assertion on Iraq intentions”, (The Independent, 26 Jun 11)

The weasel words of ‘my friend’ Jack Straw, former (In)Justice Secretary at the Chilcot inquiry – “Iraq war inquiry: Straw urged Blair to explore alternatives to conflict”, (The Guardian, 2 Feb 2011). (Another example: waiting until he is in opposition to comment about the ringleaders of a sex gang – “Straw under fire for linking race to sex attacks", (The Independent, 9 Jan 11)

Another of ‘my friend’, John Prescott, who did nothing, in spite of claiming during the Chilcot inquiry that he had “doubts about the intelligence used to justify the invasion of Iraq” and described “many of the reports about Saddam Hussein’s supposed weapons of mass destruction” as “appearing to be just “tittle tatlle”” – “Prescott reveals Iraq invasion 'doubts'”, (The Independent, 30 July 10)

Outcome: hundreds of British army men and women killed, as well as hundreds of thousands of Iraqis - and countless number of them maimed for life, with their life destroyed.

(2) - Phone hacking

It is ‘fascinating’ to see how the MPs ‘miraculously’ recover their voice, and get into action when they are directly concerned by events.

It relates to allegations of phone-hacking by the News of the World newspaper and, it would appear, et.al. – which, it is claimed, the police has failed to properly investigate.

One of the first few, if not the first to take charge was John Prescott, reported, in “John Prescott launches phone-hack judicial review claim”, (Press Gazette, 17 Sep 10) to have “launched a claim for a judicial review of the Metropolitan Police’s handling of the case”. He is quoted as saying “It is my belief they didn’t [release all the information they had] and I hope the judicial review will finally reveal why justice not only wasn’t done but wasn’t seen to be done” . Also, that “he will ask the courts to declare that his human rights were breached. An award of damages by way of just satisfaction for the violation of my convention rights”

And he has kept at it ever since, repeatedly raising the issue, while, like others, concurrently invoking the “importance of the public having confidence in the police” – which I view as an excuse to cover-up the reality: they are incensed that the police ‘dares’ to treat them as it treats us, the ‘little people’.

Yes, that’s the same John Prescott who, when he was Deputy Prime Minister and headed housing and local government – shelved New Labour’s ‘An end to Feudalism’ – and not only turned a blind eye and a deaf ear to the practices of the ‘Rachman’ landlords and their aides, he actually assisted them. Among others (e.g. LVTs, housing departments, Local Government Ombudsman), he did this by ensuring that the ‘appropriate’ legislation was in place, including retaining forfeiture which - he knew - was used as a tool for fraud.

Very clearly, he did not give a damn about the 3 million leaseholders’ “human rights”, about the test of objective impartiality that “justice must not only be done; it must be seen to be done". Seeing what he does – and says - because his phone might have been hacked in, what would he do if he had lost his home through unlawful forfeiture? What would he do if, like me, he was faced by a 'system' that - EVERY STEP OF THE WAY - denied him justice and redress - and resulted in destroying his life?

Prescott was followed by others

As reported in the Guardian of 26 Jan 11, “Labour MP calls for outside force to investigate Met over phone hacking”, Tony Watson, MP, wrote to the Director of Public Prosecution “to make the case that there had been a conspiracy to prevent the course of public justice…On the face of it, it appears that certain officers in the MPS [Metropolitan Police Service] have not only failed properly to follow evidence, but have taken active measures to conceal it… The possibility that these officers are guilty of perverting the course of justice and/or misfeasance in public office and/or conspiracy now requires urgent investigation by an independent police force"

Tessa Jowell, MP, who hired lawyers – “Phone-hacking row escalates as Tessa Jowell speaks out”, (Guardian, 27 Jan 11)

Harriet Harman, in “Harman: Police must investigate phone-hacking allegations”, (The Independent on Sunday, 23 Jan 11), saying that "Hacking into people's phones is illegal. Obviously the criminal law has got to be complied with and if it is broken then it should be investigated by the police and it should be enforced"

Police's media mates

In its wide-ranging article of 23 Jan 11, headed, “The Met: Undercover, over-familiar… and falling on The Job”, The Independent states that “MPs who investigated the saga were critical of the Yards’ handling of the case. The Yard [Scotland Yard] remains “obstructive” towards potential victim”.

While, in its 28 Jan 11 article, “A police force that has lost public trust”, it states: “Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of the still unfolding phone-hacking scandal is the behaviour of the Metropolitan Police…Two conclusions present themselves: either the police were incompetent or they were intent on turning a blind eye to illegality…But wilful blindness in this instance seems the more likely explanation”.

Like e.g. the Guardian, 27 Jan 11, “Police handling of the phone-hacking scandal has history”, The Independent reports the view from the political sphere that “There is a widespread suspicion that the police attempted to quash this investigation because of its cosy relationship with News International”. It goes on to state: “If the police have tried to thwart this investigation the implications will be toxic. The public expect and demand that the police investigate allegations of malfeasance without fear, favour or partiality. The suspicion that they soft-pedalled an investigation into a powerful newspaper group risks undermining faith in the rule of law”.

Indy journalist, I suspect that I speak for many of the ‘little people’ by saying that we have lost our confidence and trust in the police a long time ago – because of the way it has and continues to treat us (e.g. my experience; that of Maurice Kirk) – with the blatantly obvious implicit / explicit blessings of the politicians, including at times our own MP (e.g. Malcolm Rifkind) who are set on revenge for our ‘daring’ to stand-up to them, their mates and their cronies. So, quite frankly, we don’t give a damn if, with possibly a few exceptions, the police does not investigate the hacking of MPs’ phones. This, to us, is of no importance compared to the ongoing discrimination, harassment, persecution and mental torture the police is subjecting us to – by ignoring our rights, treating us like dirt, spying on us, hacking into / interfering with our phones, emails, computer, post, etc.

"Obviously the criminal law has got to be complied with and if it is broken then it should be investigated by the police and it should be enforced". Yes. So, WHY do MPs such as e.g. mine (Malcolm Rifkind and his predecessor, Michael Portillo) (both Conservative) (as well as the previous leader of the Conservatives, Michael Howard) IGNORED the failures by Kensington & Chelsea police in my case?

How about the MPs expanding 1% of the energy they are deploying in relation to phone-hacking, including demanding so loudly that the police performs "its duties" - to investigate WHY some police officers not only turn a blind eye and a deaf ear to criminal activities by landlords and their aides, they actually help them rip-off and persecute leaseholders - and, when you face them with the criminal evidence, they reply: "It's a civil matter"?

Silly me: It has no consequences on the MPs. So: why bother? In addition to which, Parliament’s strong lobby of freeholders and lawyers is not going to bite its own hand for the sake of the ‘little people’; 'these pieces of dirt are there to be used and abused at will' – through implicit / explicit ‘memorandums of understanding’ e.g. Law Society and ACPO (copy).

(It is high time for a repeat of Operation Countryman - and this time, ensuring that the officers don't get off scot free e.g. "Prince Charles asked for Met to be renamed the 'Royal Metropolitan Police'", The Daily Telegraph, 24 Jan 11)

(3) - Covert surveillance of campaigners (see above, RIPA legislation; also, My Dairy 2008: 'Confidential Intelligence Unit and/or National Public Order Intelligence Unit')

Motivated, yet again, by their self-serving interests, on occasions, the politicians also recover ‘miraculously’ from their collective amnesia when the actions, and indeed, lack of action by some of their own are widely exposed by the media.

A recent example relates to the Crown Prosecution Services being forced to review the case against some environmental campaigners after “claims that the police withheld significant secretly recorded tapes from the defence and the court”.

As the Guardian reports in its 28 Jan 11 article, “CPS reviews environmental activists’ convictions”, "…This is now the fifth supposedly independent inquiry sparked by the Guardian's revelations about Mark Kennedy… allegedly at the centre of a £250,000-a-year undercover operation within the climate change movement"

In its 18 Jan 11 article, “Clean-up of covert policing ordered after Mark Kennedy revelations”, the Guardian reports that Nick Herbert, the minister of state for police and justice (NB: What a joke!) said to have “had no knowledge of the case until the Guardian disclosed that the prosecution of six activists…collapsed because of Kennedy’s role in it”. And that “The home affairs committee chairman, Keith Vaz, who said Kennedy was "no James Bond", also pressed the minister to investigate the alleged £200,000 expenses bill run up by Kennedy”

Who run the under-cover operations? The Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) which, unbelievably, is an ‘independent company’. The media has raised concerns about it since 2009. No action was taken. Why? Might it because, 'behind the scene', ACPO serves the purposes of many, including through its implicit / explicit ‘memorandums of understanding’ e.g. Law Society and ACPO?

As a result of the Guardian’s articles, ‘all over sudden’, the MPs wake-up from their collective amnesia by deciding that (in the above Guardian article of 18 Jan 11, Clean-up of covert policing ordered after Mark Kennedy revelations"), “ACPO should be stripped of its power to run undercover spies”, with Nick Herbert saying that “The Kennedy case demonstrated strongly that ACPO, a limited company, should no longer have the responsibility for sensitive national organisations such as the unit that runs covert operations gathering intelligence on protest groups in England and Wales. The Government is strongly of the view that there needs to be proper accountability for ACPO and its successor body”

The article also reports that Sir Hugh Orde, the ACPO’s Chairman, “said that chief police officers firmly supported the government's aims. What is vitally important is that national units have a transparent accountability framework that provides public confidence". While in another Guardian article, 19 Jan 11, “Spying on protest groups has gone badly wrong, police chiefs say”, “Jon Murphy, who speaks on the issue for the Association of Chief Police Officers… added that the public would be reassured if there was a degree of independent oversight…” (NB: Funny how 'their concern for the public' only surfaces when they are exposed).

I strongly suspect that both Orde and Murphy said this laughing to themselves as they were thinking about the implicit / explicit ‘memorandums of understanding’ ACPO has with various parties.

Being, ‘on the face of it’, in the dark as to what goes on in their departments, another one that was put on the spot is ‘my friend’, the Met Commissioner, Sir Paul Stephenson, who “failed to provide a committee of MPs with the “full facts” about undercover surveillance of protestors when he gave evidence to the committee after the G20 protests” (“Undercover police spy ring: minister to be questioned about Mark Kennedy”, Guardian, 17 Jan 11 ; “Met counter-terrorism chief to take over protest spy unit”, Guardian, 25 Jan 11). (NB: Given that, under RIPA, authorisation for covert surveillance must come from the Met Commissioner, it suggests that the process, and hence the legislation is ignored, or else, somebody else is issuing the authorisations without recording them).

The Met Commissioner could have reported the use of police officers as agitators during a peaceful anti-Iraq war demonstration in London, as well as the positioning of “snipers on rooftops” – leading the journalist to write “These days it appears permissible to wave a gun at Britons exercising their democratic rights” (Mail on Sunday, 22 Jun 08, “Was my ‘friend’ a stooge or a thug?”) (Next: they’ll fire the guns...maybe from their unmanned drones).

What the above phone-hacking and undercover surveillance events suggest to me is that the MPs (who include ministers) have no authority and no control over the police.

That’s what happens when you ignore your duties and responsibilities in exchange for favours, such as making a deal to persecute the ‘little people’ who ‘dare’ stand-up to you, your mates in the public sector and private institutions, and your cronies.

Another example: the bodyguard of one of ‘my other friends’, Alan Johnson, former Home Secretary, who had an affair with Johnson’s wife.

As the sayings go: ‘Chickens come home to roost’; ‘As you sow, so shall you reap’.

So, not only have you, Parliament, lost the (evidently misplaced) respect of many of the ‘little people’ (from e.g. the expenses scandal; selling amendments to legislation (Lords, MPs); ensuring that some of you escape prosecution; nonetheless walk away with a 'golden goodbye', etc.) - you have also lost the respect of those you are meant to control. As always, those who are left to suffer are the ‘little people’.

Up to 2002-03 I had absolute trust and faith in "this kingdom['s]"' system. If I did not, I would not have taken the route I took (challenging Ladsky's application in the London LVT because I knew that the 'service charge' demand was fraudulent; challenging the fraudulent claim in West London County Court; (tried) to report the harassment to Kensington police in 2002, etc., etc.). In fact, I would have either, never set foot in this country or, if I only saw its true face once I was in, I would have left before I found myself in this situation.

Nearly 10 years into my horrific, life-destroying experience as the innocent victim of organised crime, I have now come to the conclusion that the State is the worst enemy of the ‘little people’,...

... and that this country is controlled by greed-ridden, power-corrupted, ego-crazed, parasitic, sociopathic / psychopathic monsters,...

... for the benefit of greed-ridden, ego-crazed, parasitic, sociopathic / psychopathic monsters.

If the above are what HM The Queen referred to as the "dark forces operating in this country", with all due respect, I hold the view that it is just a fancy name for greed-ridden sociopaths / psychopaths without an iota of humanity.

YES: "Britannia as she was burns, burns down..."

25 January 2011 - Another Victims meeting at the Palace of Westminster

Relative to our previous meeting on 21 July 10, this time, several MPs attended at various points of the meeting.

Victims of lawyers and of the judiciary was the common denominator between all of us, the c.40-50 victims who attended. Within these, there were some victims of insolvency practitioners (another sector that is unregulated), of accountants, banks, and of other professions.

The combined suffering in that room was gigantic, and the courage and determination to seek justice and redress of equally gigantic proportion. While this is our first objective, it was clear that our secondary objective is altruistic: there must be an end to this wholesale injustice.

An elementary principle for addressing an audience is: know your audience.

One MP said that the only way to achieve resolution of our situation was to use the correct route / system / follow procedures: if a public authority has failed to perform its duty: file an application for judicial review; if a court is believed to have failed in its duty: appeal to a higher court; if the same thing happens again: go to the next higher court, and so on up to the Supreme Court. Then, having exhausted all the hierarchy of English courts, if you are still unhappy: take your case to the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR).

1. Following ‘procedures’, going through ‘the system’, is EXACTLY what we have been doing (e.g. my case; Maurice Kirk who has made c. 100 (yes!) applications / appeals) - and this happened when THESE MPs WERE in government. It amounts to throwing us back at the very people who have and continue to cause us to suffer injustice: some of the judiciary FAILING to implement the rule of law.

2. WHY SHOULD WE, THE VICTIMS, HAVE TO PUT OURSELVES THROUGH THIS TREADMILL- AND LOSE EVEN MORE OF OUR LIFE SAVINGS?

WHY AREN'T PROVIDED WITH - EFFECTIVE REMEDIES - FROM THE VERY BEGINNING?

EVERY STEP OF THE WAY WE GET REPEATEDLY KICKED IN THE TEETH - AND ARE SENT FROM PILLAR TO POST (e.g. outcomes of my "following the correct procedures": my numerous (legitimate) complaints that ended-up with a 'Get Lost!', and my recent experience with the 'Independent' Police Complaints Commission; comments from other victims).

This is institutionalised punishment of the innocent victims of crime from this and previous governments’ flagrant failure to ensure that the rule of law prevails; flagrant failure to ensure that public authorities perform as per their statutory duty; flagrant failure to ensure regulation and control of the professions (e.g. outcome of my complaints; media articles / reports re. the residential leasehold sector (I now call the 'concentration camps') and managing agents). As Barry Gardiner, MP, rightly said: "To have a right but no means of implementing that right is to have no right at all"

And they are incensed that we resort to exposing chapter and verse of our case on the Worldwide Web!?!? Give us the means of accessing justice and redress - and we won't do that. (We have better things to do with our life - and our money). Our doing this is of YOUR OWN DOING.

All that these MPs and Lords do is churn out legislation. Don’t give a damn how and whether it actually gets implemented - while the miscreants among their mates and cronies get their sadistic kicks from putting us through their 'mincing machine'.

3. How are we supposed to do all of that? Well, ‘of course’: ALL by ourselves - i.e. without lawyers!

4. Indeed, to my asking: “How are we meant to cover the costs of doing all of this?” the reply was "If you are on benefit, you get legal aid".

(NB: As reported in the media, e.g. The Independent, 15 Nov 10 “Legal aid to be fixed for some civil cases” under the 'new scheme' introduced by the current ‘Justice’ minister, Ken Clarke, “legal aid is only available where life or liberty is at stake”). (The article states the (very low) qualifying amount of “assets” to get legal aid, as well as the areas that have been axed = ‘little people’ you’d better learn the law - FAST!) (But ‘big people’ such as e.g. the freeholders who cost the taxpayer millions of £ in court costs: you have, of course, nothing to fear).

5. To my asking "And if you are not on benefit?" Answer: “The cost of applications to courts is just a few hundred pounds”. ("A few hundred pounds" is evidently neither here nor there for an MP on a £66,000 salary + expenses)

6. Me: “How about the legal knowledge required to do this, including knowing about the procedures?” No answer.

Looking at how: (1) the MPs and the Lords identified for prosecution in relation to the expenses scandal, and the selling of amendments to legislation (Lords, MPs); (2) those who are alleging that the police has failed to investigate the hacking of their phones - have immediately run to lawyers, I can guarantee that not one MP would do what they are telling us is open for us to do – even in a lower court.

Having spent the last two years learning about various areas of law, I can confirm that it requires ‘a hell of a lot’ of knowledge to do that. Furthermore, from my experience with the legal sector, that it also requires having “balls”. (That comes when you reach the stage of extreme frustration and anger and of having nothing left to lose).

What the MP has also failed to say is that:

• As can be seen from my experience (2002-04; 2007-08 and Jan 09), it can take up to well over a year for a case to go through a single court; if that is multiplied by 3 or 4 courts = c.6 years!

• It can take up to a year for a judicial review.

• If you ever make it to the ECtHR, it can take up to several years before you get a judgment.

In other words, if the corrupt elements in the English court 'system' are intent on putting you through their ‘mincing machine’ and have fun with you (because they don’t like you challenging them and their mates and /or you have not sufficiently lined the pockets of 'the tribe' to buy justice), it could be 10 years+ before you get to the end of the line.

And when you get to the end of the line i.e. to the ECtHR - if successful, more often than not, it is a moral victory rather than true compensation as, if you are lucky, the award will generally be a few thousand pounds, plus your ECtHR related costs. If you are partially lucky, you might just get a verdict that ‘the finding of a violation of your right/s constitutes just satisfaction’. (ECtHR judges are from the EU countries).

Examples of how the courts, tribunals, as well as police can mess you around if your card is marked by the corrupt elements in ‘the system’ who are siding with your opponent (in addition to my experience of blatant bias by the tribunal, the courts and the police):

• A victim who had been made (unlawfully) bankrupt said that forged documents had – knowingly – been used by the court/s in proceedings against him. Several other victims who have also been made (unlawfully) bankrupt said to have had the same experience.

• Several said that the outcome of their case had clearly been decided prior to the hearing as the judge - read – his previously prepared judgment at the end of the hearing.

• Other victims talked of the courts, as well as police ‘losing key evidence’ in support of the victims' case.

• One reported that a High Court judge had apparently told him: “The evidence is in your favour, but I find in favour of your opponent”. To the victim asking “Why?” he said that the reply was “It’s his turn to win”

• Other examples: see the cases of other victims on the website, Victims Unite ( http://victims-unite.net) (pdf of comments) and note, among others, Maurice Kirk’s experience with the courts, the police, etc.

Cost of being messed around by ‘the system’ that fails to perform its statutory duty – thereby failing “to ensure that justice is done and is seen to be done”?

As an example, in my case, after battling - in vain - for more than three months with the London LVT, its conduct forced me to employ advisors; costs: £30,000.

After battling - also in vain - for nine months with West London County Court (WLCC) in 2002-03, and for several weeks with Wandsworth County Court, their conduct also forced me to employ advisors; costs: £10,000. (Detail of costs in my 2 January 2010 Subject Access Request to the Ministry of (In)Justice).

At the time, I had many other costs that are the direct result of the fraudulent demand against me – a total of c.£50,000. Yes: for a £14,400 fraudulent ‘service charge’ demand 'from' Joan Hathaway, MRICS, Martin Russell Jones = Andrew Ladsky! And it continued, because I did not go and lie down quietly, beaten up, in some remote corner of this planet.

In relation to yet another fraudulent claim filed against me, by Jeremy Hershkorn, Portner and Jaskel, in WLCC in 2007-08, in spite of the unbelievably vicious, cruel, sadistic and perverse treatment I was again subjected to in WLCC, this time for a period of 16 months - much to the immense frustration and anger of the ‘Himmlers’ i.e. judges and court staff: I held firm, and was a Litigant in Person throughout. It nonetheless cost me £9,000 (I only recouped £2,500). In fact, it cost me more than that, as I did not record all of my time (which, as per court rule, I calculated at £9.25 per hour).

If you were to proceed all the way up to the Supreme Court and employ lawyers, how much might you be spending in total? Based on the experience of a group of leaseholders: c.£400,000. How many of the ‘little people’ can afford to do that?

When you are in litigation against the public sector it will keep on challenging you, drag you through higher courts by filing appeals. Unlike you, it does not care about the costs because it comes from the public purse i.e. your money as a taxpayer. Yep! You are the Mug paying them to fight you! (As detailed earlier on on this page, when you are a leaseholder fighting against a landlord, more often than not you end-up with a double whammy).

To survive in this unregulated country, riddled with collusion and corruption within a massive network of symbiotic relationships (outcome of my complaints; 'concentration camps'), you need an army of lawyers on a retainer basis - and a correspondingly very big pot of money - a fact on which your enemies rely (e.g. my case in March-April 2007 when Andrew Ladsky was orchestrating attacks on me on several fronts simultaneously).

As abundantly evident from my experience and that of others, politicians and public authorities et.al. in that sphere orbiting way, way above us, the ‘little people’ - generally don’t give a damn about injustice against us. To many of them we are pieces of dirt, "the Oiks" / "the Great Unwashed" - non-entities who do not have the right to have rights - there to be used and abused by them and their cronies.

Of course, when it concerns them, they make sure they are protected e.g. the vast array of provisions in the legislation and related Regulations to ensure 'fairness of treatment' of the police in misconduct and complaints proceedings; ensuring that they do not "become the objects of punishment" by closing rank and circling the wagons. Hence: a definite case of 'THEM AND US'... in this, as they keep pushing down our throats: "democratic society". What a myth!

7. Another 'suggestion' from the MPs was that “[our] tactic should be to generate publicity”. WHY? This amounts to, yet again, placing the onus on the victims to take action - all because the MPs are protecting their self-serving interest. They want to be able to say that they were ‘forced into action because of media coverage’ (e.g. ACPO, above).

Furthermore, look at my case and that of others for how we get immediately persecuted and ostracised by the State and its clique of cronies for ‘daring’ to expose our case in the public domain - as a last resort 'cry for help'.

Secret prisoners One MP, John Hemming, said to have helped the release of one of his constituents from a mental institution. The ONLY reason she had been locked-up - and drugged - was to 'shut her up'. (The same thing was done to Maurice Kirk).

The Daily Telegraph had a 5 Feb 11 article on this MP, "John Hemming MP: Court of Protection must be reformed" in which he quotes the case, as well as states: "The lack of transparency conceals the second problem with the Court of Protection, which in the same way as much of Family Law relies upon the opinions of individual experts. The opinion of a single social worker that someone does not have the capacity to decide where they live is sufficient for someone to lose their freedom, in secret and without the right to a second opinion". He also states that he has "been asking Parliament to establish an inquiry into the number of secret prisoners that there are in the UK"

(Related articles by The Daily Telegraph: (1) 4 Feb 11: "Court bans man with low IQ from having sex"; (2) 5 Feb 11: "Behind the closed doors of England's most secretive court") (This court has been criticised before e.g. in 2009, when Jack Straw was the (In)Justice Minister - see WLCC Introduction)

It is the second time I hear an MP admitting what many people already know. (If my memory serves me right, I think I heard the other MP on Radio 4's 'Today in Parliament' (towards the end of 2010).

YEP! In Britain, locking-up of 'inconvenient people' DOES take place.

In addition to the courts doing this, see the police's Fixated Threat Assessment Centre (FTAC).

Recently I saw an article in a law journal in which a lawyer was promoting "the benefit" to landlords of going to the Court of Protection. (Considering:

• (1) My profile;

• (2) the above conduct by the State, added to my experience with public authorities since 2002;

• (3) the fact that Ladsky, his mob, and the rest of the 'Brotherhood' will evidently not rest until they have destroyed me;

• (4) Chief Superintendent Mark Heath, Kensington police, repeatedly ignoring my legitimate, legally-endorsed demands in relation to the "crimes reports" (KCP # 5 and # 5.1), including the destruction of the 2007 report which, in addition to falsely accusing me of having committed one or more criminal offences, equally maliciously accuses me of "suffering from mental issues", as well as the destruction of the 2003 report which also acccuses me falsely of having committed a crime - and evidently getting high level approval in doing this;

• (5) Sergeant Avison's comment on 17 Oct 10 "We have to keep information in case you commit an offence and end-up in court". As I replied: "False information, that’s what you are planning on using against me in court?”

• (6) the powers - of the police - to get somebody locked-up in a mental institution "for an indefinite period without trial, criminal charges or even evidence of a crime being committed and with very limited rights of appeal";

• (7) the medical 'specialist' who, in 2008, could not wait to get me locked-up, added to the ready availability of others who will equally agree to anything (one has to assume, in exchange for the 'right incentive'): my doctor of 37 years who, in 2008, falsely claimed that I had not seen him the previous year because of events at KPMG; the 'specialist' who, in 2008, could not wait to get me on the operating table;

• (8) my being under surveillance, including, I believe, in the flat-

• lead me to the conclusion that this is what 'Hitler-Ladsky' and the 'Himmlers' who regard his wishes as their command - have in store for me)

And in case that plan cannot yet be implemented, there is the cranking-up of the persecution and harassment (e.g. the fraudulent £27,500 demand that includes £24,000 sent to me now for the fourth time, while ignoring my correspondence), continued victimisation and marginalisation (e.g. Kensington police; court service) – while watching my every move - in the hope that this will finally finish me off through affecting my physical health so seriously that it will eventually kill me - or like the poor woman who was tormented by thugs for 10 years and had her 33 pleas for help to the police ignored: commit suicide. As evidenced by the experience of many victims of State injustice: that’s the ultimate objective. A view shared by many of the victims present at the meeting.

How is this different from e.g. China that is so readily criticised on Human Rights, by this and previous governments, as well as British-based Human Rights organisations, for its treatment of ‘dissidents’, including sending them to ‘rehabilitation centres’? At least, unlike in this country, China does not really try to, among others, hide, cover-up the fact that it has ‘dissidents’ under surveillance (as can be seen on British TV reports).

Incensed by Grant Shapps' comment that "the vast majority of England's three million leaseholders are happy with the service they receive" and that he is "satisfied that the system strikes the right balance between the the rights and responsibilities of tenants and landlords", I sent him a letter, dated 16 December 2010, with which I enclosed the FRAUDULENT 'service charge' demand of £24,000 'from' MRJ (=Andrew Ladsky) and my letters asking for evidence - which have been ignored.

It led to a 5 January 2011 reply, I challenged in my 19 January 2011 response (with supporting enclosures), as well as thanked him for admitting the obvious: that managing agents are NOT regulated. (NB: Yet again confirmed in 2010-11)

The response was a 4 February 2011 letter, from Chris Humphreys, that concludes with: "...whilst the Government is not convinced of the case for further regulation including regulating managers in the residential leasehold sector the matter is being kept under consideration". (NB: As there is NO regulation of the residential leasehold sector and supporting infrastructure, use of "further" is misleading)

This was a repeat of what was said in the 5 January letter. My 19 January reply (*) was: "When will you actually do something? When there are leaseholders hanging from every protrusion on the Palace of Westminster... because that would ‘not look good’ to the outside world, would it? Who is pulling your strings Minister?"

(*) To Grant Shapps, as Chris Humphreys had not stated his role in his 5 January letter. This, added to the name, led me to think of Sir Humphreys, in the (brilliant) BBC series 'Yes Minister' - and to suspect that it was a code name for letters destined for the round filing cabinet on the floor i.e. the bin. (Suspicion triggered by, among other, the evident code name used by West London County Court: 'DEFY' - that came to light following my 2 January 2010 Subject Access Request to the Ministry of (In)Justice)

In his letter, C Humphreys overlooks what I wrote in relation to my experience with the RICS. (Yet again repeated in 2011. Why change when you have the full back-up of government to turn a blind eye to fraud and other criminal activities undertaken by your members?).

As evidenced by G Shapps' above comments: presented with a pure white piece of paper, if it suits them, public officials will swear until they are blue in the face that it is jet black. He also falls back on the public sector, including politicians' usual trick for protecting the miscreants in their midst: by claiming the so-called 'strict rule of protocol'. I have stopped counting the number of times I have been dished that one.

The previous government had plans to introduce regulation of managing agents but, as Julian Knight of The Independent on Sunday reports in his 13 Feb 11 article, "Big society? Big rip-off", "Grant Shapps has killed off the intended legislation". Mr Knight states:

"Do I need to remind Mr Shapps that he is the minister who decided to tear up a cross-party consensus on improving the rights of leasehold property owners...from being exploited by unscrupulous management companies appointed by the freeholder? The legislation - before it was killed off by Mr Shapps - would have finally brought transparency to the whole managing agent industry".

Giving an example of the racketeering that takes place in relation to the insurance of leasehold blocks of flats, Mr Knight concludes with: "Mr Big society Mr Shapps? Big rip-off more like"

Sunday 13 February 2011 - I tell Andrew Ladsky to "run along to go and cry on the shoulder of your friend, Chief Superintendent Mark Heath at Kensington police, because I just swore at you"

Morning

At c.11h30, on my way out of Jefferson House, as I arrive at ground level, I see Andrew Ladsky in the corridor, also on his way out. Feeling energised from having just done my exercises, seeing him is like placing a red rag in front of a bull (the red rag being the 9 years of sheer, utter hell he has - so freely - been allowed to subject me to in the 'concentration camp').

As he is in front of me in the main entrance door, I call him a "f*****g criminal vermin". He starts blurting out his standard reply "you are ma" but then stops. (Maybe he is losing support for that line of attack). He tells me to "be careful" as he points to the camera in the corridor (My Diary Apr-May 05). (Continuing to demonstrate a very serious lack of intelligence (like the rest of the 'mafia') to this day, he is STILL trying to use the same scare tactics - because that's all he knows (other example: the fraudulent demand) - and because that's where his support system rests. IMBECILE! I am way, way past that post). I reply that "I don't give a s**t" and at the same time, do a one finger gesture at him and in the direction of the camera.

He holds the door telling me to "get out". I reply "No". At which point he says "I can stop you from getting in" (i.e. the fob key system that he controls - My Diary 22 Jul 05). This, yet again, demonstrates the 'Hitler-like' dictator in action. (Typically - he cut off my phone line in c.2005-06; he has been cutting off the electricity and hot water to my flat on several occasions, etc., etc., etc.- see summary list). To this I also reply "I don't give a s**t". (I have a plan if this happens).

He gets out of Jefferson House, turns left towards Harrods; crosses the street (i.e. Basil Street), walking rapidly. I follow him and, shouting to the top of my voice say: "Come on Andrew Ladsky, criminal vermin: run along to go and cry on the shoulder of your friend, Chief Superintendent Mark Heath at Kensington police because I swore at you" (Based on what he and his friend, PC Neil Watson 206BS, "Crime Investigator", Chelsea police, did in 2003). (His 27 January 2003 letter describing himself as a "Crime Investigator")

Instead of following him and continue to do this, I turn to go in the opposite direction on Basil St, as I had intended. I had let off steam, and felt even better than I had felt from doing this.

There you are 'Hitler' Ladsky: the evidence for your local 'SS' and your lackeys so that they can file, yet another "crime report" against me (previous 2003 and 2007), and recycle even more of the lies, malicious, perverse accusations and poisonous fabrications against me - and, with your other lackeys, the 'Himmlers' - in this "Big, Fair, Morally-driven, Democratic Society" - crank-up the persecution against me even more.

It would appear that Ladsky followed my advice (doing like e.g. the goon he put on my tail on 16 May 06), as afterwards, I noted what appeared to be a higher than usual number of police cars in the streets in which I walked after 'our meeting'. That's important police business, isn't it - worth spending their claim of "insufficient funds" on? (LIke it was 'justified' for them to e.g. come and attempt to intimidate me on 10 May 10). How much is there left of 'the budget allocated to me' compared to e.g. the £5-7 million allocated in relation to Dizaei? I guess it's 'unlimited'.

Evening - Looks like Andrew Ladsky is back to using the Addison Lee taxi service to monitor me

At. c21h30, I was in the City - hence far from the base of Ladsky's 'dogs' and those of the local 'SS' i.e. Kensington police (e.g. My Diary 2010) - and in an area with limited facilities at that time of night, on a Sunday. It seemed to me that an Addison Lee people carrier service, that had just parked alongside (obviously closed) offices, appeared to be interested in my movements.

it is not the first time that I notice this since being in that area in similar circumstances over recent months.

This is a CONTINUATION of what I reported in My Diary e.g. 27 May 2006 - 01h15 a.m. (NB: which, by the way, was before I launched my website).

That man should be locked-up under the Mental Health Act 1983. Being a 'Jew' who has branded me "a Nazi", looks like he and his mob are going to pursue me like a war criminal until my death - perceiving my 'daring' to stand-up to them for my rights in relation to their fraudulent activities as being equivalent to sending people to the gas chamber during World War II.

But, unlike for war criminals, no implementation of the rule of law for me when I am in court, or when dealing with the police.

16 February 2011 - Tom O'Kane, Martyn Gerrard, London N3 1LP, claims that he is acting for "Rootstock Overseas Corp, Panama", and that his firm has taken over from Martin Russell Jones. Evidently claiming that "Rootstock" is my landlord, in 'his' 16 February 2011 correspondence, he, among other, makes an UNSUPPORTED 'service charge' demand of me of nearly £27,535 - see Advisors to Jefferson House

c.week 2 of March 2011 - On a bus, I am called "a whore", "a bloody foreigner who comes to this country as a freedom fighter" - and an assortment of other names

One evening, I boarded a bus in north-east London, from a stop I have been using fairly frequently, at roughly the same time. I was wearing: a three-quarter-length coat buttoned-up to under my chin, jeans and trainers. I was NOT wearing my T-shirt (which I normally wear over my clothes). (Message to the 'Gestapo': That's right; look at the video recording taken while I was on the bus: I was NOT wearing my T-shirt).

On walking past a man to go and sit at the back of the bus, I could feel that he was looking at me intently. While I did not look at him, from what I saw from the corner of my eye: he was white, overweight, short-medium height (further confirmed), dressed casually, and appeared to be in his 60s.

After c. 2 stops, I saw from the corner of my eye that he turned round to look at me. I again ignored him by continuing to look at the street. He then went to the upper deck where he remained for the next 2-3 stops.

On coming back down, I could see from the reflection in the window that he was looking in my direction. He started to call me "a whore; a bloody foreigner who comes to this country as a freedom fighter", etc., etc., etc.

From where did he get the information that: (1) I am a "foreigner"? (I certainly did not have a French flag wrapped around me; I did not speak to anybody). (Actually, I also have British nationality - part of my (now very deeply regretted) decision to make this country my home); (2) I am a "freedom fighter"? (If that's how the 'Gestapo' portrays me: I like it :-) )

As I was ignoring him, and never once looked at him, he kept on repeating the abuse, and adding more to it.

The sequence of events suggests that I might have been observed through the cameras as this was taking place. (There are several cameras on every bus. This is 'Orwellian Surveillance Britain' AND I am being specifically monitored).

(The previous attack of abuse on a bus, which also included trying to hit me, was on 16 Nov 10)

Latter part of March 2011 - By 'amazing coincidence', on two occasions, a few days apart, Andrew Ladsky leaves Jefferson House at the same time as me - a 'coincidence' I conclude is connected with my Pre-action letter

During the following c. 10 days after I sent the 17 March 2011 Pre-action letter, by 'amazing coincidence', Ladsky came out of Jefferson House at the same time as me. (He hides in flat 9 (e.g. his 26 March 2007 letter to my then employer, KPMG), which is located on the ground floor, a few steps from the main entrance). (I do believe that my flat is bugged).

Maybe the objective was to tempt me to another opportunity to vent my frustration - while recording 'the evidence' (see 13 Feb, above) so that it would make it two occasions - a requirement for committing an offence under section 7 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 - allowing his local 'SS' lackeys to file another "crime report" against me, and thereby add to 'their evidence' in pursuance of their ultimate objective. (It may be that he and his lackeys are wary of repeating what PC Neil Watson 206BS, who described himself as a "Crime Investigator", did in 2003 - as they know that I am now aware of the legislation).

Or maybe they were attempts to intimidate me / remind me of ' his power' because, like his lackeys (who, no doubt, immediately informed him that I had sent a Pre-action letter) (like e.g. he was immediately informed of my having approached 'my' MP, Malcolm Rifkind), he can't believe that somebody with my profile would contemplate filing a claim against THEM - all by myself.

Surely, the "Nazi" Bitch can't have gained the necessary legal knowledge since the last fraudulent claim I filed against her in 2007. She would need advisors which, at that level, would cost her a fortune - she does not have. If she did nonetheless managed it, it would - again - offer us the opportunity to beat her into submission and, this time, we'll make sure she loses all that she has left, and we drive her to the point of finally achieving our objective: putting her 'out of action' - for good.

(NB: I believe that the above assumptions play a part in: (1) among other, Chief Superintendent Mark Heath, Kensington police, ignoring, since August 2009, my repeated demands in relation to the so-called "crime reports", and repeated warnings that I would take legal action if they were not met; (2) Ladsky and his mob perceiving themselves free to keep on sending me an ever growing - fraudulent - 'service charge' demand - while ignoring my correspondence.

That's what they rely on. These people are psychopaths / sociopaths who, after money / power, get their kicks out of terrorising, tormenting, persecuting, harassing, bullying, humiliating and debasing the 'little people', especially one of the 'little people' like me - because (1) they conclude that the 'little people' do not have the means to fight back; (2) they know that wherever the 'little people' turn to for help they will be told to 'get lost' ).

Stupid, arrogant, ego-crazed, vicious, cruel, sadistic, misogynistic, psychopathic / sociopathic parasites.

The encounters 'may' also be due to Ladsky 'perhaps' getting worried about the evidence I give in support of my demands for rectifications and/or deletions and/or additions and/or destruction of reports data - as detailed in my 2 June 2010 s.10 Notice and supporting document to Mark Heath (which I supplied with the claim) - and the bundle of 49 documents I had supplied to the police Public Access Office with my 13 August 2009 reply - to which I refer in my supporting document, and will - obviously - use in the context of the claim.

To this I will also add more recent, equally damning evidence as to the so-called "good character of Mr Ladsky" (e.g. Jeremy Hershkorn, Portner, in 2006-07 ; Lanny Silverstone, CKFT, in 2002 ; Ayesha Salim, CKFT, in 2001) - such as the (yet again), FRAUDULENT, 'service charge' demand he had his puppets sent me, so far, 4 TIMES since July 10 (3 times by Joan Hathaway, MRICS, Martin Russell Jones (MRJ); last time by Tom O'Kane, Martyn Gerrard), and currently stands at £27,535. This makes it the THIRD MAJOR FRAUDULENT DEMAND sent to me by Ladsky's puppets. On the other hand, in light of my experience since 2002... perhaps Ladsky is not worried.

9h47 - Herbert Crescent

9 Apr 11 - 9h46 - corner Hans Crescent, Herbert Crescent

9h47 - Herbert Crescent

9h47 - Herbert Crescent

As I arrived on Hans Crescent from Pavillion Road, I saw this man standing on the left-hand corner of Hans Crescent and Herbert Crescent - facing Pavillion Rd, the Harrods end of Hans Crescent. He immediately looked at me. A woman was unlocking the door to the children's clothes shop. Although he was quite a few meters away from her, and turned away from her, I initially assumed that he was with her .

Having walked past, my 'internal radar' was telling me otherwise. So, I decided to turn around, by which time he had turned around and was turning left into Herbert Crescent.

I took the photographs of him with his back to me because my 'internal radar' told me that he would backtrack. He did. I took the second 9h47 photograph. I then continued on my way.

Can't tell whether this was one of Ladsky's scums, or one of the local 'SS' / one of their local goons (unlike e.g. 25 Apr 11, below). To me this translates as continuation of the harassment and persecution.

(I again repeat that I am observed from the time I leave the Jefferson House 'concentration camp' - and that it entails usually more than one snoop in order to cover the routes I might take).

19 April 2011 - I filed a claim against the police et.al. as, after 20 months of battling (since August 2009) in relation to the three "crime reports" (2002, 2003, 2007) (KCP #5) that include: my sending numerous letters to the police, including an s.10 Notice (KCP # 5.1); my complaint being 'referred' to the IPCC; my 'cries for help' to other parties - ALL of my correspondence continued to be ignored. Hence, treatment that amounts to (continuing, since 2002) to tell me: 'you piece of dirt, you do not have the right to have rights'. (Yet again confirmed by the conduct of KCP in October 2010). I preceded the claim with a pre-action letter dated 17 March 2011.

[ ]

I WILL FIGHT TO THE VERY END, NO MATTER WHAT - BECAUSE I WILL NOT STAND THE POLICE HOLDING UNLAWFUL, MALICIOUS, SO-CALLED "CRIME REPORTS" AGAINST ME.

The State continues to intercept my post. As I had anticipated, given the previous 'selective interception' of my post, I did NOT receive the Notices of Issue from the court. 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.

A fellow pensioner who, like me, is fighting back against the police: I saw in the Guardian of 3 May 11, "Protester to sue police over secret surveillance". He is 86 years old and discovered that he was classified as "a domestic extremist" by the police because he (peacefully) attended protest events. Yep! Orwellian Britain! Like somebody said: "At least he is lucky he did not get killed".

Saturday 16 April 2011 - Encounter with one of the local, arrogant, 'I am on the side of the criminals' 'SS'

In the morning, before I turned into the street where my PO Box is located, I walked past one of the local 'I am on the side of the criminals' 'SS'. I was wearing my T-shirt. Although I did not look at him (I can no longer bear the sight of them), I noticed that he seemed to be looking at my T-shirt.

c. 10 minutes later, in a nearby street, I happened to walk past him again. As I did so, (yet again, without looking at him), he said, in an arrogant, challenging, contemptuous, mocking tone "Alright then?". I ignored him. (NB: Note this comment - from a police officer who, by then, had seeen me twice in the space of 10 minutes - and the fact that I was wearing my T-shirt that says: "Victim of fraud and corruption"; I am a woman (which the State has a particular duty to protect). It says it all, doesn't it?... to be added to the outcome of my 7 visits to KCP, in October 2010, and all the other events with KCP since 2002). (*)

I assume that he had been 'informed' as to who I was. I also assume (in light of the discriminatory treatment I have been subjected to by ALL the officers I have been in contact with at Kensington and Chelsea police since my first contact in 2002, and those at Notting Hill police who NEVER contacted me in 2007) that my sending a pre-action letter covering the events in 2002, 2003, 2007, 2009-10 and October 2010 is news that is going round the local police stations like wild fire: how could I, 'the piece of dirt', the non-entity who does not have the right to have rights, 'dare' do that? - because, 'of course', they ALL perceive themselves as 'the poor victims'.

I wonder how many other police stations in the Metropolis do, like Kensington, Chelsea and Notting Hill police: perceive themselves to be at the exclusive service of criminals? Maybe, considering also my experience with the local courts, in 2002-04, 2007-08, 2004 and the local housing department in 2004 - this borough should be renamed the 'Royal Borough of Crime and Corruption'.

(*) Following protestors occupying the roof of the Libyan embassy, for several weeks afterwards, there were some 20+ officers at the embassy. About a dozen standing next to each other on the pavement, and the rest sitting in vans parked on the pavement. On several occasions I walked right under their nose, wearing my T-shirt. While I made a point of not looking at them I could feel that some looked at me. Needless to say that none of them ever bothered to talk to me... like others who walk past me as though I am invisible - except the one above who took the opportunity to show contempt and mock me.

But then, the poor woman who made a total of 33 'cries for help' to the police, over a period of apparently 10 years, because she and her daughter were being harassed by thugs, was also ignored - eventually leading her and her daughter to commit suicide.

Friday 22 April 2011 - 'Of course', the local 'SS' continues to track my movements

Around lunchtime, I was in Hyde Park, heading towards Edgware Road. About 50 metres after the bridge, past the coffee shop, in the alley called Main Street, a police van was parked in the middle of the alley. Other than a couple a few metres behind me, there was nobody close to the van.

An officer was sitting in the passenger seat. The window was pulled all the way down. I walked along that side of the van. Having gone past and walked about two steps, I heard him say: "She's just gone past".

Before getting to the park, I suspected that I was being followed.

(See also the previous entry. My having filed the claim must be going round the Kensington, Chelsea and Notting Hill police stations like wild fire)

Easter Monday 25 April 2011 - 10h17 - Andrew Ladsky sends another one of his 'dogs' to follow me - and make it clear that this is what he is doing

On leaving Jefferson House 'concentration camp', I turned right in order to go to the bus stop on Sloane St. The stop is near the corner with Basil St.

Within c.1-2 minutes of my being there, this man (a similar, younger version of Andrew Ladsky) arrived from where I had come from. He positioned himself against the lamp post, as in the photograph - on the corner of Basil St and Sloane St..

(Bear in mind that it is c.10h12 a.m, on Easter Monday, and that the streets are practically deserted; none of the shops are opened).

He remained in this position. I decided to take a photograph.

25 Apr 11 - 10h17 - Corner of Basil St and Sloane St

After a while the bus I wanted to take arrived. He was still in the same position. Once I boarded the bus, he left, turning back down Basil St - perhaps on the assumption that the CCTV cameras on the State-owned bus would now take over the tracking of my movements e.g. wk 2 of March 2011 ; 13 Dec 10 ; 12 Jul 10...

...And if I am not on the bus, that I will be tracked through the other State-controlled CCTV cameras in the streets e.g. the local 'SS' who had evidently lost track of me in March 2010...

...And, in addition, there is of course the vast army of snoops spread all over the place, who turn-up within minutes of my being somewhere - and, at times, make it clear that I am not escaping them e.g 13 Jul 10, and will even hound me in public toilets to make sure I have not given them the run - as happened on 13 Dec 10...

...And if that fails, there is the option of alerting the local cavalry that will immediately spring into action e.g. 15 Jan 06; or getting an helicopter.

(And if I am overseas? Other goons will be put on my tail).

It is abundantly clear from what took place that the intention was to, yet again, for the umpteen time, communicate that I am under close surveillance. Given events, this was clearly one of Ladsky's 'dogs'.

Ladsky has his 'dogs' tracking me - in tandem with State goons:

(1) From the time I leave the Jefferson House 'concentration camp': other examples: 20 July 10 ; 20 May 10 ; 22 May 10 ; 24 Mar 10; 17 July 09 ; 24 Apr 10 ; 30 Jun 10 - and many years before that: e.g. ; 26 Oct 03 ; 23 Jan 06 ; 7 Mar 06 ; 20 Mar 06 ; 28 Mar 06 ; 12 May 06 ; 16 May 06 ; 5 Aug 05 ; 26 Aug 05 ; Dec 05 ;

(2) Tracking me when away from the Jefferson House 'concentration camp' e.g. 21 and 22 May 11 ; 27 May 11 ; 24 Apr 10 ; 22 May 10 ; 6 May 10 ; 10 May 10 ; 23 May 10 ; 2 Jun 10 ; 19 Jul 10 ; 27 Jul 10 ; 29 July 10 - and likewise, for many years before that e.g. 9 Aug 07 ; 25 Oct 07 ; 15 Jan 06, when the local 'cavalry' was sent on the chase; 18 Feb 06 ; 22 Jun 06 ; 5 Aug 06 ; 19 Apr 05 ; 1 Jun 05 ; 8 Jul 05 ; 16 Jul 05 ; 31 Aug 05 ; etc., etc. - even by helicopter!

...and including at lunch time when I was working e.g. 31 Aug 05 ; 3 Apr 07 ; 9 Aug 07 ;

(3) On my way back to the Jefferson House 'concentration camp': e.g. 6 Jun 09 ; 23 Mar 10 ; 18 Apr 10 ; 13 May 10 ; 13 Jul 10 ; 27 Jul 10 - and ditto, for many years before that e.g. Feb 06 ; 17 Mar 06 ; 22 Mar 06 ; 19 Apr 06 ; 2 Aug 06 when, what I assumed to be, the local 'cavalry', also turned-up ; 17 Aug 05 ; 10 Sep 05 ; Christmas day 2005 ; 30 Mar 04

And these are just a few examples - as the persecution and harassment by Ladsky's scums and the State's goons who evidently perceive themselves to be at his service has been going on - incessently - for years.

In addition to, I believe, bugging of my flat, it also includes monitoring and interference with my means of communication: mobiles; post; emails. My summary slide as to the obvious content of the interception warrants.

(photo)

(photo)

Monday 9 May 2011 - 22h47 Edgware Road

Ethiopian (?), McDonald, then to and at bus stop

Friday 20 May 2011 - c.12 hours after I updated my website, the retaliation continues: 'watering the plants' in front of my windows - at 05:30 a.m.

Yesterday afternoon, I updated my website for the first time since 24 Dec 10.

12 hours later, the retaliation continued as, at 05:30 this morning, I was woken-up by a large amount of water falling in front of my windows - in the process of 'watering the plants' placed on the railing (photograph). In spite of the size of the containers, the hose pipe, which appeared to be on full blast, was left in place for several minutes.

For good measure, the 'watering' also included some hosing of my windows.

This is a repeat of took place on:

• (1) 6 Sep 05, at 04:55 a.m;
• (2) 4 Oct 05, at 05:30 a.m;
• (3) 7 Apr 06, at 01:00 a.m;
• (4) 4 Sep 06, at 02:45 a.m;
• (5) 5 May 07, at c. 03:45 a.m;
• (6) Feb 08, also in the early hours of the morning;
• (7) 9 Jan 09, at 03:45 a.m

Examples of other forms of harassment and persecution.

Among the causes for the retribution: the fact that I can very easily prove that the 'service charge' demand sent to me, so far, 4 times, is FRAUDULENT. Andrew Ladsky and his puppets were not expecting that as I had not raised it in any of my replies.

I wanted to see what the next move would be / how many times the demand would be sent to me. Maybe, as 'suggested' by the RICS, I was expected to go to the London LVT / 'an advisor' - and thereby waste - yet again - a lot more of my money, as well as my time... not to mention the distress, torment, persecution, humiliation, bullying, harassment, etc., etc., I would - yet again - be subjected to as part of 'the package'.

Saturday 21 and Sunday 22 May 2011 - (Among others) the same goon captured in My Diary 30 June 2010, continues to hound me in Knightsbridge - and beyond Sat 21 May - At c. 10h15 I took a bus from Knightsbridge to go to Gloucester Road. I suspected that I was being monitored (*) In the street on which the Gloucester Road tube station is located, I went into shops. As I came out, I saw that the goon was c. 20 metres ahead of me, and turning back to look in my direction. I pretended to not see him. I crossed the street. In shop windows I could see that he was looking in my direction. I went back down the street.

(*) As i have reported on numerous occasions, it takes place from the time I leave the Jefferson House 'concentration camp'. Meanwhile, Andrew Ladksy who keeps having fraudulent, upon fraudulent 'service charge' demands sent to me since 2002; has so far filed two fraudulent claims against me (2002 and 2007) (in the process showing absolute, utter contempt of the courts); committed numerous other criminal offences against me - of which the police, having "looked at [my] website", is fully aware of - is, not only, NOT under surveillance - but actively protected and supported e.g. the police has "No crime report against Mr Ladsky" - whereas it holds 2 FALSE so-called "crime reports" (2003; 2007) against me - HIS VICTIM).

Sun 22 May - By c. 13h I went to my PO Box. From there I backtracked to get back on the Brompton Road. I then walked on the elevated section of the pavement (30 Jun 10 events). As I did so, the goon was walking in my direction and purposely passed very close to me to ensure I would see him. I continued walking as though as I had not seen him.

I crossed the street to go into M&S. On leaving the shop, as I started to walk in the direction of Harrods, I saw from the corner of my eye that the goon was resting on the railing on the elevated section of the pavement, looking in my direction. Yet again, I pretended to not see him.

= Yet more harassment and persecution by the psychopaths... who will of course continue to do this, not least because they know that I notice the goons - from the time I leave the Jefferson House 'concentration camp'.

Where, as the innocent victim of organised crime, can I turn to for help in this "Fair, Morally-driven, Democratic Society" ? NOWHERE - as demonstrated by my experience with Kensington & Chelsea police in October 2010 when I tried to file a complaint of harassment against this man.

(The preceeding harassment was on Friday 20th, within 12 hours of my updating my website)

Friday 27 May 2011 - Tracked down by Andrew Ladsky's scum - working (yet again) in tandem with State goon/s

At c.12h30, on leaving the Royal Courts of Justice, instead of, as I have done previously, turning left, I turned right in the direction of Aldwych. I then turned right into Kingsway and, a few metres up, went into fairly large coffee shop.

I sat at the front end of the shop, a few tables from the door. Other tables were occupied. There were other tables further inside the shop, some of which were also occupied.

Having been there for c. 10-12 minutes, a man walked into the coffee shop, holding a mobile phone to his ear. He was in his c.30s, possibly of mediterranean origin. He looked like a rough type wearing his 'Sunday best': a cap in a brown and beige kind of tweed pattern, and similar jacket.

I immediately sensed that he was looking for me. My feeling was confirmed as his eyes went directly to me. He did not look at anybody else. (A repeat of what took place on e.g. 9 May 11 in MacDonald)

(As to how they track me: through the State-controlled CCTV cameras in the streets and on buses, and then through the State goons who are patrolling the area e.g. 13 Dec 10 ; w/k 2 Mar 11 when I concluded that I was being observed on the bus ; 21 May 11. If that fails, the local 'cavalry' is sent to track me down e.g. 15 Jan 06; or just one of the local 'SS' e.g. Mar 10. And of course, there is also the option of using a helicopter = I am being hounded by psychos)

To cover-up his true motive for coming into the coffee shop, he pretended to be looking for somebody as he walked 2-3 steps past my table, turned around immediately and then walked out of the shop. As he was nearing the door, he was talking on his mobile, and continued to do so once out. He turned left.

I assumed that he was one of Ladsky's scums as, as with many of the others, he was in his image: vertically challenged (e.g. 6 Jun 09 ; 5 Jun 11). He also emanated a very toxic aura. (As I wrote previously e.g. My Diary 13 July 10, it is difficult for me to explain as I do not have the terminology, but it's like an electric field/an invisible aura that radiates their thoughts / feelings. In the 13 July example, as well as the one on 15 Jun 09 my 'internal radar' proved to be right), (as it has on many other occasions)).

27 May 11 - 12h51 - Kingsway

On leaving the coffee shop, I also turned left as I had intended. I did not see him. However, my 'internal radar' led me to feel that I was being followed. I turned round and, among the numerous people on the pavement (lunch time hour), spotted the man in the photographs (as I had done e.g. on 25 Oct 07). He stopped walking abruptly and appeared to me to be figuring out his next move.

My take on his reaction is that my turning round suddenly and looking directly at him had unsettled him. Likewise, I felt a negative energy from this man. This, plus his reaction, added to the body language and facial expression (superior / arrogant); the attire, in an office area, from a man of an age who should be working (this attire is too casual, even for a dress-down Friday) - led me to conclude that he was a police covert surveillance goon (*)

His next move was to cross the street. At which point, I took the above photographs. As he walked towards Holborn, he did not look in my direction. He then turned right into Remnant St. It 'may be' that there was/were another/others who picked-up where he left off.

(*) To be added to those who monitored me from the time I left the Jefferson House 'concentration camp' earlier on that morning. Good use of taxpayer money, isn't it? Meanwhile, Ladsky is laughing his head off!

(NB: Although I am under constant surveillance, I suspect that the below events are connected with something that took place with the court at the beginning of the week - rather than with the fact that I again updated my website the previous day, which included (among other): (1) In the 'Latest' news section, expanding the entry on the FRAUDULENT demand - including adding that while the police has "No crime report" against Andrew Ladsky, even after "Looking at [my] website" in 2007, it holds 2 FALSE so-called "crime reports" against me (2003, 2007) - HIS VICTIM; (2) Supporting my 21 and 22 May entry with a large photograph of the goon that Kensington & Chelsea police has evidently decided to protect).

Sunday 5 June 2011 - 11h50 - Another of Ladsky's 'dog' tracking me from the time I leave the Jefferson House 'concentration camp' (previous recorded example: 25 Apr 11)

On leaving the 'concentration camp', I went alongside Harrods and crossed Brompton Road at the pedestrian crossing that is at the height of the main entrance to the store.

5 June 11 - 11h50 - in front of Harrods

As my 'internal radar' told me that I was being followed (as usual), I stopped in front of a shop window. In the reflection, I spotted immediately the man in the photograph. And likewise,immediately my 'internal radar' led me to conclude that he was another of Ladsky's 'dogs' (as dogs are used by e.g. the police to track people). Like many of those that Ladsky has put on my tail, I assessed him to be of Jewish origin.

He had arrived from the same direction as me, and was waiting to cross the road, as I had done. I saw in the reflection that he was looking in my direction. As he did do, he put his sunglasses on. (It was overcast, and started to rain a few minutes later). I prepared my camera and took the above the 2 photographs.

I went into the Sainsbury local store that is across from Harrods. I remained close to the entrance to see what the scum would do next. I knew he would come into the shop. I went into alley, then pass another one. He was still there, empty handed, at the head of an alley, close to the exit. Having picked-up the items I wanted, I proceed to the cash desks. He was no longer where I had seen him. As I was paying, I kept an eye on the exit, as well as on the other cash desks. I did not see him.

My 'internal radar' told me that he was still in the store. So, on leaving the store, I turned left and walked a few meters to the side of the store in order to be out of view from within the store. As soon as I had done that, the scum came out of the store, of course, empty handed. He looked in my direction and then turned right - the below photographs.

As evidenced by these examples, this hounding has been going on incessantly for many years.

11h56 - Outside Sainsbury