Noëlle Rawé, victim of leasehold fraud andcorruption at Jefferson House, Basil Street,London - to generate a £7m(?) (US$12m)jackpot for Andrew Ladsky et.al. - with thehelp of surveyors, lawyers, accountants,tribunal, courts and police |
"We are the law. If we are wrong, we are right. You cannot challenge us nor do anything against us. So, get lost!" (My interpretation)
|
Lord Falconer of ThorOton - HMCS 'Customer service'
When the events took place in West London County Court and Wandsworth County Court in 2002-2004, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, headed the then Department for Constitutional Affairs. Among others, this department included the courts, the Legal Services Ombudsman and the Land Registry. (NB: Lord Falconer / HMCS 'Customer Service' is covered in:
Given the continuation of my horrendous nightmare with West London County Court (WLCC) and Wandsworth County Court (WCC) (in addition to everything else! e.g. Document library), by the end of June 2004 I was feeling so distraught by events, and yet again at my wits end, that, on 29 June 2004, I wrote a 'cry for help' to Lord Falconer of Thoroton. (I also copied Christopher Leslie MP (then with responsibility for the courts) and David Lammy, MP (then with responsibility for Human Rights)). In this letter, I took the opportunity to relate previous events with WLCC since the FRAUDULENT 29 November 2002 claim, ref: WL 203 537 (WLCC # 2 , # 4 , # 6 , # 9 , # 12 , # 13 ; My Diary 6 May 08 , 22 Nov 08 ; Pridie Brewster # 2 , # 3 , # 18), drawn-up by Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor (CKFT) - on behalf of 'Steel Services' (SS) i.e. Andrew Ladsky et. al. (see Owners identity, Advisors to Jefferson House, Headlessors and Directorships) - against 11 leaseholders representing 14 flats at Jefferson House, Basil St, London. (NB: WLCC proceeded with the claim IN SPITE of the fact that the Particulars of Claim were endorsed by a Statement of Truth signed by Joan Doreen Hathaway, MRICS, Martin Russell Jones (MRJ) - see WLCC # 2 for the major breach of Civil Procedure Rules (CPR)) I concluded my 29 June 2004 letter to Lord Falconer by asking whether what I had been made to endure was a reflection of the British justice system. In a nutshell, the outcome of my 'cry for help' amounted to a 'GET LOST!'(Three years later - in the context of, yet again, another fraudulent claim filed against me in WLCC by Ladsky et.al.'s other puppets, Portner and Jaskel - the outcome of my complaint to the Court Service, which also led me to send a 'cry for help' to Jack Straw, successor to Lord Falconer, was also a 'GET LOST!' - see WLCC from # 18) It took the Court Service nearly TWO MONTHS to reply to my 29 June 2004 'cry for help', as the 'response' is dated 23 August 2004. During these two months I continued to go through absolute sheer, utter hell with WLCC (WLCC # 14) and Wandsworth County Court.
Sections(1) FALSELY telling me in a 21 March 2003 Notice that a Charging Order hearing on 4 April 2003 concerned me - and persisting in doing this in spite of the evidence - in the process, proving that WLCC had bullied one of my fellow leaseholders into paying monies NOT due and payableWLCC sent me a 21 March 2003 Notice of a Charging Order hearing due to take place on 4 April 2003 - that did NOT concern me. It led me to go into a 10-day battle of phone calls and correspondence to WLCC, which in its 27 March 2003 letter - STILL persisted in telling me that the hearing concerned me. It also entailed my writing a 30 March 2003 letter to the London LVT panel - as we, leaseholders, had very specifically been told by the tribunal to NOT PAY the 'service charge' (London LVT # 1) (See WLCC # 5 for detail - and My Diary 24 Mar 03 ; 25 Mar 03 ; 30 Mar 03 ; 1 Apr 03 for the unbelievable amount of torment, distress and anguish that this caused me. I also reported in my 29 June 2004 'cry for help' that, when I phoned the WLCC court staff, and the DCA - neither were able to explain what a charging order was. As I was minutes away from spending £2,000 (US$3,500) on solicitor fees to determine the answer, I obtained it through my network of contacts.
This is captured in my 1 April 2003 letter to the court. Ian Anderson's 'response' to this (which ignores my reference to the DCA) is challenging and condescending, implying that I am a liar, as it states (paragraph 11)
WHAT led Ian Anderson, Head of 'Customer Service' to conclude - clearly with the aim of protecting the the then DCA staff and WLCC court staff - that he could imply that I am liar by doubting the replies I had received from the DCA and WLCC staff when I phoned to determine the meaning of ‘a charging order’? He goes on to state that I am
Is that supposed to make me feel good? At least it proves that my non-lawyer contacts are more knowledgeable than some individuals in the Court Service. This is followed by:
That is NOT TRUE. In making this statement Ian Anderson implies that I am an illiterate idiot who had spent days frantically trying to determine why this Notice had been sent to me. WHAT led Ian Anderson, Head of 'Customer Service', to conclude – with the aim of absolving the WLCC staff of responsibility and accountability - that he could lie in his reply to my complaint by falsely claiming that I had been informed by WLCC that the 4 April 2003 Charging Order hearing concerned one of my fellow leaseholders – in the process implying that I am an imbecile? (See also my questions in relation to the breach of my Human Rights by this court) In the course of the conversation with WLCC on 1 April 2003, I was also told that "it may nonetheless be of benefit for you to attend". Not knowing what to expect, I asked my surveyor to accompany me. When we arrived at the court, we were informed that the hearing had been cancelled. Insisting on wanting to know why I had lost half a day of income, as well as wasted £600 (US$1,100) in surveyor fees, I was told that Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor (CKFT), had faxed this 2 April 2003 consent order relating to the 7th Defendant (My Diary 4 Apr 03) WHAT led Ian Anderson, Head of 'Customer Service', to conclude that he could absolve the WLCC staff of all responsibility and accountability for suggesting to me, three days prior to the 4 April 2003 hearing, that it would be of benefit for me to attend - and then cancelling the hearing without informing me? In relation to this consent order sent by CKFT to the court, please note the statement :
This is ABSOLUTELY APPALLING given that WLCC KNEW that the same action was being pursued in the London LVT (WLCC # 2 , # 4 , my SEVEN letters to WLCC) - and KNEW that it was breaching the leaseholder's statutory rights and rights under the lease (see WLCC # 5 , # 6 , # 8 , # 9 , # 12 , # 13 - See also court claims (and threat of forfeiture and bankruptcy proceedings) = FRAUD TOOLS Reply from Ian Anderson in his 23 August 2003 'response'
Please note that I had phoned the court, the last time on 1 April 2003 i.e. three days before the hearing - which was a Tuesday. Nonetheless: 'it's my fault!' Evidently, according to HMCS 'Customer Service': 'I', NOT the court staff, am the 'incompetent idiot'. (Being a woman: 'OF COURSE I must be stupid!') And that's the SUM TOTAL of what HMCS 'Customer Service' had to say about my being sent a notice of a charging order that did NOT concern me. (See also my questions in relation to the breach of my Human Rights by this court) (2) FASELY telling me that a judgment had been entered against me on 18 March 2004Given the attitude of the WLCC's court staff and the obvious shambolic state of the court, when, on 31 March 2004, I wanted to ascertain what movement, if any, had taken place on my file, I thought it best to take time off-work and go to the court in person. (See My Diary 31 Mar 04)
in his 23 August 2004 'response', Ian Anderson, Head of 'Customer Service', immediately comes to the defence of the WLLC's court staff by stating:
I read the implication in the statement that I should feel sorry for the 'poor' court staff who had to deal with 'so many' defendants.
Even when they write, they cannot even get it right (e.g. 50% of the Notices I received did NOT concern me: WLCC # 5 , # 14 , point # 1, above ; point # 5.1, below) (in addition to what took place in 2007-08 - which was intentional e.g. FALSELY capturing that I "intend to defend part of the claim" - WLCC # 2) Aside from Ian Anderson having difficulty reading (there were 11 leaseholders on the claim ), my reply to him in relation to the first excuse is: Why did WLCC allow such a claim to be filed in the first place?In my non-lawyer opinion: this is WRONG. (See WLCC # 1 for detail) In his 23 August 2004 'response', Ian Anderson states that the manager "apologised" . Yes, but he ignores what I related in relation to the way I was initially treated by the court staff - which was appalling. Their only concern was to get rid me at all cost. When I asked for evidence, i.e., copy of documents, I was handed, more accurately, thrown a blank piece of paper and asked to
When I replied
I was told:
I challenged the reply on the basis that a file, to which additions had been made in the last two weeks, could not be considered "an old file" and added that
This led to somebody else dealing with me who, I have confirmed, was the manager.
When my file was finally found on a shelf (the manager and other staff had previously looked at several times), the manager told me that there had been no movement on my file since August 2003. When I replied that I had just been told by her colleague that a judgement had been entered against me on 18 March, her reply was:
The whole episode lasted c. 35 minutes. These were 35 minutes of terrible anguish. I could feel my heart beat going up by the minute. Had I not been an assertive person, I would have left the court, as initially expected to - with the wrong information - making myself sick for days-on-end in the belief that a judgment had been entered against me. WHAT led Ian Anderson, Head of ‘Customer Service’, to conclude that: (1) he could side with the WLCC staff against me, and help them in their cover-up story by absolving them of all responsibility and accountability for wrongly telling me, on 31 March 2004, that a judgment had been entered against me on 18 March 2004? (2) he could ignore the manner in which I had been treated by the staff on 31 March 2004 when I challenged their assertion that a judgment had been filed against me on 18 March 2004? (See also my questions in relation to the breach of my Human Rights by this court) (3) IGNORING INSTRUCTIONS from the Royal Courts of Justice' Citizens Advice Bureau - leading me to miss the 28 May 2004 hearing - to the great advantage of SS =Andrew Ladsky et.al.IGNORING the 2 April 2004 instructions from the Royal Courts of Justice 's Citizens Advice Bureau that WLCC contacts me directly, WLCC sent the 18 May 2004 Notice of the 28 May 2004 hearing to the RCJ's CAB, instead of sending it to me - leading me to miss the 28 May 2004 hearing (the first one week break I had 'dared' to take in months), and resulting in Ayesha Salim's client, Ladsky et.al. getting a 'freebie' from District Judge Madge (WLCC # 13)... ...which, of course, did NOT stop Ladsky et.al and their other puppets, Martin Russell Jones (MRJ), from continuing with their FRAUDULENT activities (WLCC # 13) - and again in 2007-08 when MRJ supplied the FRAUDULENT invoice for the Particulars of claim, for the 27 February 2007 claim, ref. 7WL00675, filed against me by Jeremy Hershkorn, Portner and Jaskel, yet again, in WLCC (Why go somewhere else when you get such 'good service'?) (See My Diary 22 Nov 08 for evidence that threat of forfeiture, of bankruptcy proceedings, and court claims = FRAUD TOOLS (definition of forfeiture)) As you can imagine, I was in a terrible state when I discovered that I had missed the hearing (My Diary 28 May 04 ) Ian Anderson's 'reply' to the fact that WLCC had made miss the hearing and that District Judge Madge had gone ahead with it IN SPITE of being informed by the RCJ's CAB that it was WLCC's fault - was, under paragraph 7 of his 23 August 2004 letter:
WLCC had no problem cancelling the 4 April 2003 hearing (point # 1, above ; WLCC # 5) Why not this one? Oh, but of course: Salim HAD to be given the opportunity to spin her story unchallenged, and walk away with the freebie from District Judge Madge of having the action against me "STAYED" (WLCC # 13 ; point # 4, below) (4) Capturing on the 28 May 2004 Order that the action against me be "STAYED" IN SPITE of the fact that District Judge Madge had been informed by Ayesha Salim, CKFT, at the 28 May 2004 hearing that she accepted my draft consent order = agreement had been reached - fact also CONFIRMED by HMCS 'Customer Service'Following my being made to miss the 28 May 2004 hearing by WLCC (point # 3, above), 10 days later, I took delivery of the the 28 May 2004 Order, which was posted more than one week later, on 6 June.
In my 20 June 2004 letter to WLCC I vehemently protested against the fact that the Order recorded that the action be "stayed" and asked that it be changed. I repeated this as well in my 22 July 2004 letter to District Judge Ashworth, Wandsworth County Court. The 23 August 2004 'reply' from Ian Anderson, Head of 'Customer Service', was, under paragraph 8:
How could I achieve this given events with Lanny Silverstone and Ayesha Salim, Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor (CKFT)? = more evidence of my being sent 'from pillar to post'. WHAT A 'MAFIA'!...as further confirmed by events in WLCC in 2007-08, and in the Supreme Court Costs Office on 30 January 2009...as well as in the London LVT in 2002-03. District Judge Madge KNEW that agreement had been reached (WLCC # 13) and Ian Anderson, Head of 'Customer Service' CONFIRMED this under paragraph 5 of his 23 August 2003 letter:
Ian Anderson continues:
Firstly, 'No', it was offered as a 'freebie' by District Judge Madge to Salim =Ladsky et.al. (WLCC # 13) Secondly: WHY WAS THIS DONE? Note also how Ian Anderson helps exonerate District Judge Madge of accountability (paragraph 13):
So, if just 'ONE' person i.e. a judge makes a decision that is unfair / unjust your only course for justice / redress is to go to a higher court.
By the way, going to a higher court does not guarantee that you get the justice you deserve, as I discovered, among others, from the experience of some leaseholders at a C.A.R.L. (Campaign for the Abolition of Residential Leasehold) meeting in November 2005. Their case is covered in C.A.R.L.'s newsletter, The Leaseholder Spring 2006 - Issue 17 "Landlord wins legal costs" and Autumn 2005-Issue 15 "Important tribunal case". In 2005, a Leasehold Valuation Tribunal issued a determination in favour of the leaseholders. (They happened to be lucky) (e.g. My Diary 22 Nov 08). As is usually the case in these instances, the landlord challenged the determination by taking it to the Lands Tribunal (the next court up). (Landlords do that because it's 'no skin off their nose' as they put their legal costs on the service charges. Yes! Equal a 'double whammy' for the leaseholders) The leaseholders reported the judge as having said that he found a particular section of legislation "unfair on landlords" and that "surely the legislators could not have intended it to read as it does" 'Of course' Parliament would not do that to the 'sacrosanct' landlords: it is controlled by them. When asked for the name of the judge, as soon as the leaseholders said it, two people in the audience exclaimed in chorus "that's the landlords' friend!" They based this assessment on first-hand / friends' first-hand experience. There were about 50 people in the audience at the time. In other words, there are c. 50 witnesses to this event. I should add that another leaseholder in the audience who, likewise, had had the same judge presiding over her case, had found his ruling to be fair. (Maybe her landlord was of the wrong colour / had the wrong accent / wrong religion / was not part of the 'Brotherhood'. I know, cheap shot, but you do wonder... ...especially when you read comments in the press further confirming bias among some judges e.g. the 23 Jun 06 article in the Daily Mail relating the comment from a Member of Parliament that Lord Hutton "had a history of making pro-Government decisions as a judge " and that "he was personally selected for the job by Tony Blair's close friend Charles Falconer, the Lord Chancellor" ) (Some time later, on TV, Lord Hutton refuted the criticism. In the context of reporting on the 2010 Chilcot inquiry, several journalists and observers have described the Hutton 'inquiry' as "a whitewash" ) (And since then, my experience, yet again, with West London County Court in 2007-08, added to that of others e.g. Victims Unite, Maurice Kirk, Comments received on my site - leads to the UNDENIABLE CONCLUSION OF BIAS BY SOME JUDGES) Consequently: how far up does one need to go to get 'justice'?Considering some cases (not leasehold related) (the majority of leaseholders cannot afford to do this): up, up and away from the British Isles to the European court, or by pleading for intervention in other jurisdictions - resulting in pressure being placed on the British government to act. Of course, taking these steps is very expensive. (Leaving victims of injustice with the option I have taken - AFTER FIVE YEARS of facing a gigantic wall of blind eyes and deaf ears, and of 'Get lost!': developing a website in the hope of putting pressure on resolving my situation by exposing chapter and verse of my case in the public domain... which, in my case, has resulted in a 'lynch mob' absolutely determined to 'make me pay' for 'daring' to do this (Home page) Even if, by escalating your leasehold related case to higher courts you end up with a judgment in your favour, some of my contacts who did this described their achievement as mainly "a moral victory" as they considered themselves to be financially much worse off as a result of their action. (It led one of them to move to a lower cost country, leading the person to describe herself as a "leaseholder exile" ). Yet, the action they pursued was in response to an unjust act committed by a crooked landlord. We, the public, are frequently reminded by judges that we "must defer to the courts" and "let justice take its course". Why is it that the leaseholder ends-up, in effect, the financial loser? This is called 'justice'? There are clearly judges who should read Lord Denning's book, "What next in the law?" “Whoever may be guilty of abuse of power, be it the Government, State, employer, trade-union, or whoever, the law must provide a speedy remedy, otherwise the victims will find their own remedy. There will be anarchy”
I stopped counting the times I was reduced to tears, overcome by feelings of terrible hopelessness and abandonment. Fair minded, reasonable visitor to the site, I can assure you that these emotions are still very vivid in my mind as writing this section so far has brought the tears back on several times. And WLCC and Wandsworth County Court continued to cause me unbelievable suffering. What had and continued to be taking place with West London County Court, the nightmare, hell hole court since the 29 November 2002 claim, ref. WL203537, was filed against me, could not be attributed solely to crass incompetence. The occurrences are too numerous, and the situations show a coordinated approach – leading me to conclude that it is part of an ‘extra service’ to ‘certain landlords’: in this case, revenge on behalf of Ladsky et.al. and their puppets for my ‘daring’ to challenge the 'service charge' demand - as well as 'daring' to challenge the judges, court manager and other court staff.And it continued at a magnified level in 2007-08 (snapshot in My Diary 11 Nov 08) - leading me to the conclusion of 'collusion' e.g. WLCC # 22(NB: My 2 January 2010 Subject Access Request to the Ministry of 'Justice' captures events with the three courts, the London LVT, as well as HMCS 'Customer Service') (Legal-Home # C) (5.1) FALSELY telling me in a 9 June 2004 Notice that I was "the Defendant" in a trial set for 17 August 2004 in Wandsworth County CourtI received from West London County Court a 9 June 2004 Notice (WLCC # 14) which:
And states:
(See for yourself, this is an exact reproduction of the text).
The 23 August 2004 reply from Ian Anderson, Head of 'Customer Service'? In paragraph 6, it is a 10-line paragraph comprising of 160 words. (I could not resist working out the statistics!) Half of these words are used to explain the "difference between a district judge and a circuit judge" and that "West London County Court does not have a circuit judge". Of what relevance is this to my complaint? None! I view this as 'padding' to make the 'reply' appear to be more consistent. On the sixth line, Ian Anderson wrote:
In addition, that
WHAT led Ian Anderson, Head of 'Customer Service', to conclude that he could treat me in an arrogant, condescending, patronizing manner, and imply that I am an imbecile / illiterate idiot - all with the aim of absolving the courts' staff of responsibility and accountability - by telling me this when, in fact, the Notice is very clearly addressed to me - added to the fact that my file HAD been transferred to WCC? I stated earlier on that this letter is typical of the responses I have received from government departments I have turned to for help. However, in this instance, it contains a higher than usual dose of insult to my intelligence - worth highlighting for the entertainment value. As you can see from the 9 June 2004 "Notice of transfer of proceeding", it:
I think that the majority of people would conclude, as I did, that this notice was very clearly directed at me - and nobody else.
WHAT led Ian Anderson, Head of 'Customer Service', to conclude that he could treat me in an arrogant, condescending, patronizing manner, and imply that I am an imbecile / illiterate idiot - all with the aim of absolving the courts’ staff of responsibility and accountability by telling me the above - considering also the fact that my file HAD been transferred to WCC? Ian Anderson preceded this with:
(See WLCC # 1 for my questioning WLCC allowing one claim to be filed against 11 leaseholders) .
This is another deceitful cover-up as, apart from the fact that 50% of the Orders and Notices I received - FALSELY informed me that they concerned me (WLCC # 5 , # 14 ; points # 1 and # 5.1, above) - I was NEVER copied on any court documents in relation to my 10 fellow leaseholders. Conclusion: how does Ian Anderson, Head of 'Customer Service' deal with this part of my 29 June 2004 complaint?... ...He continues to treat me like an illiterate idiot - in order to exempt the WLCC staff of accountability and responsibility. WHAT led Ian Anderson, Head of ‘Customer Service’, to conclude that he could side with the courts’ staff against me, and help them in their cover-up story by absolving the WLCC and WCC staff of all responsibility and accountability for wrongly, and repeatedly telling me that I was the defendant in a trial scheduled on 17 August 2004 in WCC – and assisting them in their cover-up? (See also my questions in relation to the breach of my Human Rights by this court) (See point # 5, above, for my conclusions on why I was subjected to these additional seven weeks of mental torture by WLCC and Wandsworth County Court) (5.2) WRONGLY telling me that no hearing had taken place on 28 May 2004As detailed under point # 3, above, WLCC made me miss the 28 May 2004 hearing (WLCC # 13) Given the attitude of the WLCC court manager and court staff (e.g. point # 2, above... among many others) - I decided to take, yet again, more time off-work (leading to further loss of income) to go to WLCC in order to obtain a copy of the transcript of the hearing. The first response I get from the WLCC staff is:"no hearing took place on 28 May" Anticipating, based on previous events, that the staff would somehow try to get rid of me as quickly as possible, I had taken the precaution of bringing with me a copy of the Notice of the 28 May 2004 hearing, as well as the 28 May 2004 letter from Ayesha Salim, CKFT, stating: "You did not attend the hearing today" . Even when faced with this evidence, I still had to battle with the court's staff as he continued to maintain that no hearing had taken place.
WHAT led Ian Anderson, Head of 'Customer Service', to conclude - clearly with the aim of protecting the WLCC court staff - that he could imply that I am liar by doubting that, following WLCC making me miss the 28 May 2004 hearing, when I went to the court, the staff denied that a hearing had taken place – and even continued to do so when I produced the 18 May 2004 Notice and the 28 May 2004 letter from Ayesha Salim, CKFT? (See also my questions in relation to the breach of my Human Rights by this court) (5.3) Sending the WRONG tape to the transcribing company, and waiting ONE MONTH to do thisAs WLCC made miss the 28 May 2004 hearing (point # 3, above ; WLCC # 13), on 4 June 2004 I submitted a form to WLCC for the tape of the hearing to be sent to my selected company for transcription. As the court staff handed the form back to me (after stamping it), I asked him whether he had made a copy - considering that the form could ONLY be sent by the court to the firm I had selected to do the transcript. He had not. He proceeded to do this as a result of my bringing this to his attention. One month later, the firm I had selected to do the transcript informed me that it had received a tape, but it was the wrong one. There was no recording of the hearing. I wrote a letter to the WLCC's court clerk on 8 July 2004, pointing this out. What is the reply to this from Ian Anderson, Head of 'Customer Service'? Under paragraph 4 of his 23 August 2004 letter: an apology immediately counteracted by an excuse to absolve the WLCC of accountability:
Firstly: not my problem. Secondly: my case should NOT have been transferred as, as recognised by Ian Anderson in his 23 August 2004 letter, under paragraph 5
WLCC transferred my file because of (at best) its negligence: wrongly identifying me as “the Defendant” in the trial set for 17 August 2004 in WCC (point # 5.1, above). The outcome of this episode with WLCC meant that I only obtained a copy of the transcript in the third week of August i.e. TWO MONTHS AFTER the 28 May 2004 hearing - during which time I went through mental torture (WLCC # 13 ; Wandsworth County Court) Of course, Ian Anderson TOTALLY ignores the fact that, in addition: the WLCC court staff sent the WRONG tape. Expressing any criticism of 'his mates' is, quite clearly: taboo. WHAT led Ian Anderson, Head of 'Customer Service' to conclude that he could absolve the WLCC staff of responsibility and accountability for sending the wrong tape to my transcribing company – and doing this more than one month after I had submitted the application form to WLCC – thereby continuing to keep me in terrible anguish as to what was behind the 9 June 2004 Notice? WHAT led Ian Anderson, Head of 'Customer Service', to conclude that he could ignore the fact that the WLCCC staff waited one month to send the (wrong) tape? (See also my questions in relation to the breach of my Human Rights by this court) (5.4) Insufficient notice of hearings; lack of information in notices; poor response timeIn relation to WLCC making me miss the 28 May 2004 hearing (point # 3, above ; WLCC # 13), I point out in my 29 June 2004 'cry for help' that I had sent a 19 May 2004 letter to the WLCC's court clerk asking for an update on events. The 23 August 2004 reply from Ian Anderson, Head of 'Customer Service' is:
Evidently, making sure that I would NOT receive the order by failing to follow the instructions from the RCJ's CAB (points # 3) was "considered a sufficient response". It certainly proved particularly "sufficient" for the criminal vermin who filed the claim against me: WLCC # 13 ; points # 4 Ian Anderson, Head of 'Customer Service', continues:
So, the courts can take up to 10 working days 'to reply to correspondence', in other words two weeks. By comparison, 'I' am expected to turn-up when the courts give me barely a week notice of a hearing. (See paragraph 7 of Anderson's 23 August 2004):
If this is not a demonstration of unbelievable arrogance and grossly inflated sense of power, what is?
(2) NOTICE OF THE 12 JUNE 2003 HEARING (WLCC # 7) The Notice states:
That's the sum total of it. NO EXPLANATION whatsoever as to what the hearing is about. (= Another example of the utter contempt and disdain by the WLCC judges and court staff) Reply from Ian Anderson, Head of 'Customer Service', under paragraph 12 of his 23 August 2004 letter:
(See also my questions in relation to the breach of my Human Rights by this court) (6) Ian Anderson, Head of 'Customer Service', said to be "sorry to hear that [I] feel that the [court] system has let [me] down". In fact: as a law-abiding, taxpaying, British National - VICTIM OF ORGANISED CRIME: I FEEL OUTRAGEDIan Anderson wrote this in the concluding comments of his 23 August 2004 letter. In my 29 June 2004 'cry for help' to Lord Falconer I wrote (point # 49)
I concluded my letter by stating:
As the blatantly obvious innocent VICTIM OF ORGANISED CRIME, I don't feel just 'let down'. I FEEL OUTRAGED BY THE BLATANT COLLUSION BETWEEN THE WLCC JUDGES, COURT MANAGER AND OTHER COURT STAFF - AND SS =ANDREW LADSKY ET.AL. AND THEIR PUPPETS, LANNY SILVERSTONE AND AYESHA SALIM, CAWDERY KAYE FIREMAN & TAYLOR (CKFT) TO RIP-OFF THE LEASEHOLDERS (WLCC # 2 , # 4 , # 5 , # 6 , # 8 , # 9 , # 10 , # 12 , # 13 ; Wandsworth County Court re. the 5th Defendant; My Diary 6 May 08 , 22 Nov 08 ; Pridie Brewster # 2 , # 3 , # 18) AND THE COLLUSION BETWEEN THE WLCC JUDGES, COURT MANAGER AND OTHER COURT STAFF - AND LADSKY ET.AL AND THEIR OTHER PUPPETS, PORTNER AND JASKEL, CONTINUED WITH 'RENEWED VIGOR' IN 2007-08 The outcome, in relation to both, the 2002 and 2007 claim provides UNDENIABLE EVIDENCE THAT: court claims, as well as threat of forfeiture and bankruptcy proceedings = FRAUD TOOLSThe individuals concerned in these courts are a disgrace to Her Majesty's Court Service. In spite of this, they continue to be protected (Outcome of my 2 January 2010 Subject Access Request - Legal Home # C) And this is repeated throughout the public sector (Home page Introduction) Covering-up wrongdoings has and continues to be the automatic response e.g. 4 Dec 06 article in The Guardian, headed "Afraid of the daylight" (back-up extracts):
15 Dec 06 article in The Independent, headed "Blair questioned by police on day of 'burying bad news"
To plagiarize from Norman Baker, Liberal Democrats MP in in his Mail on Sunday article of 24 January 2010 “If you put down the tracks, that’s the way the train goes” AND I ALSO FEEL OUTRAGED BY HMCS 'CUSTOMER SERVICE' which, Ian Anderson, Head of 'Customer Service' states in his 23 August 2004 'response':
Evidently, his interpretation of "deal with" is very different from mine .
WHAT led Ian Anderson, Head of 'Customer Service', to conclude that he could overlook the very traumatic, extremely vicious, cruel and perverse treatment I had – and continued to be subjected to by the judges and the staff in WLCC and WCC – as well as the massive amount of unnecessary costs I was made to incur as a result of their despicable conduct? (See also my questions in relation to the breach of my Human Rights by this court) Fair minded, reasonable visitor to the site: do you see why I stated in my introduction to the site that there is 'no avenue open to me for justice and redress on this island'? (7) In addition to the courts, I view two other departments (then) headed by Lord Falconer as having also seriously let me down: the Legal Services Ombudsman and the Land RegistryThe Legal Services OmbudsmanFor detail, see the section on the Legal Services Ombudsman on how she handled my complaints against the Law Society and the Bar Council. My summary for the section reads "The Legal Services Ombudsman 'talks the talk' but 'does not walk the talk' ". As I stated in the section, I view her Office as "...simply 'rubber-stamping' the decisions of the Law Society and Bar Council" The Land Registry which, in effect, told me to 'get lost'As I detailed in my 28 March 2006 letter to the Land Registry, its granting of a title to Lavagna Enterprises on 15 December 2006 has led (NB: at the time) to Steel Services being unable to perform highly material covenants in my lease. The 4 April 2006 reply from the Land Registry amounts to a 'get lost' , including the usual "get legal advice" . To be more precise, I view the reply as:
I replied on 18 April 2006 that it was up the Land Registry to sort out the mess it has caused - not up to me. This led to the second 'get lost' on 25 April 2006. (See Notices by landlord - 10 February 2006 for detail, as well as the entry in My Diary under 28 Mar 06, 18 Feb 06 and 29 Apr 06). (For subsequent 'monopoly type' transfer of titles by Ladsky et. al. see Headlessors; also covered, among others, in my 3 June 2008 Witness Statement) I opted to not waste any more of my precious spare time replying, feeling that it would be more usefully spent on developing the site to expose my horrendous, very traumatic experience - and desperate current position. (8) At the end of the day, what is the ROOT CAUSE OF ALL OF THE ABOVE?Ladsky et. al. and their aides deciding that I (and other leaseholders) would be made to pay for the CONSTRUCTION OF A PENTHOUSE FLAT, ADDITION OF THREE OTHER FLATS AND RELATED WORKS - FOR WHICH WE ARE NOT LIABLE . (This pack (2.3MB), as well as this pack (1.1MB) contain key evidential documents. As to the pay-off, it is evidenced by the block sale of flats in the latter part of 2006, beginning of 2007 which, of course, are in addition to the sale of the penthouse flat BGL 54 458 for £3.9 million (US$6.9 million) in December 2005, etc. In October 2007, the selling price was £6,500,000 (US$11.5 millions) )
To be more precise:
( PDF of above diagram - at February 2006) UNBELIEVABLE! ISN'T IT?
Fair minded, reasonable visitor to the site: do you see why I stated in my introduction to the site that there is 'no avenue open to me for justice and redress on this island'? (9) Lord Falconer's five-year strategy planAt the launch of the website, in 2006, I wrote: in his five-year strategy plan for the (then) DCA, Lord Falconer identified, among others, the following objectives:
There is a saying that recognising that there is a problem is 50% of the way to finding a solution. The remaining 50% still represents a long, long way to go Lord Falconer. The rest of the world has moved on since the time of the dinosaurs. The evidence suggests that, unfortunately, his successor, Jack Straw, has made NO PROGRESS on these objectives. (10) My conclusions on Lord Falconer(NB: Written in 2006 but, as a result of my experience with WLCC in 2007-08, including my cries for help to Jack Straw (WLCC # 20 , # 23 , # 24 , # 25), successor to Lord Falconer, I also hold the view that, BY FAILING TO TAKE ACTION, Jack Straw is likewise a 'fertiliser for malpractice, and therefore 'unfit for purpose') After the unbelievable, horrendous, sheer, utter hell that his departments made me go through since 2002 - and continued to make me go through - EVERY DAY (action against me that has been "stayed"; impact on my lease from Steel Services' loss of control of the last floor of Jefferson House) - I view Lord Falconer as being 'unfit for purpose'. Furthermore, as the (then) head of these departments - as acting as a fertiliser for crass incompetence and malpractice in the legal sector - resulting in terrible misery and injustice for innocent victims such as I. I believe that any fair minded, reasonable person considering the evidence in this section, as well as the other sections comprised under 'Lawyers, Courts & Legal Services Ombudsman' will have no difficulty understanding why I hold this view. And I am far from being a lone voice critical of the current state of the legal sector. See below. The question I have is: why is it that the decent judges and lawyers appear to be standing back? Why don't they speak up? Aren't they concerned about handing this legacy to their children / having the same thing happen to them as has happened to me? They are not always going to be around to protect them. If no action is taken, the situation can only get worse. What kind of judicial system will their children and grand children be facing? Yes! it takes guts to speak up. So? I have dared to do it - and I have neither the expert knowledge, nor the connections they have to protect myself. Surely, if I can do it, so can they. Or are they all that spineless? (12) Adding credence to my claims, I draw your attention to the 'weighty' voices that are critical of the judiciary and the legal system:• The 24 June 2006 issue of the Daily Mail quotes Mr Tony Blair, (then) Prime Minister, as saying that
But then, as stated in the article
And, "unfortunately" , like previous governments, crooked landlords and their aides who commit criminal offences by stealing from leaseholders, using FEAR tactics, abuse, blackmail, extortion, bullying, harassment, victimization, physical threats - as well as death threats, intimidation, persecution, 'mysteriously' do not come under Mr Tony Blair's "though on crime" radar - and nor have they with his successor - continuing to demonstrate that this treatment and tactics are very clearly regarded by various parties in the public sector (among others) - as "acceptable" and "part of their standards and values" Maybe if rogue landlords and their aides were teenagers, "decent law-abiding folks" like me 'might' stand a chance of being treated justly and fairly (See Police section). On the other hand, in a society that evidently regards landlords as sacrosanct, with carte blanche to do exactly as they please...maybe not. • The Governor of the Bank of England , in a speech, on 21 June 2006 , at the Lord Mayor's Banquet for Bankers and Merchants of the City of London at the Mansion House (pages 6 and 7) (NB: The highlights are all mine)
Many of these conclusions, insights and questions apply in my case - as indeed they do in what is likely to be the majority of landlord-tenant cases. In fact, I reflected some of the above sentiments one and a half year prior to this speech in the process of referring my complaint against the Law Society to the Legal Services Ombudsman for its handling of my complaint against Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor, as I wrote:
Needless to say that the Legal Services Ombudsman, who (then) reported to Lord Falconer, made a point of noting these comments against one of her 'sister departments' in her reply (page 2) Talking to numerous leaseholders 'battling it out' in court with their landlord leads me to the conclusion that many of these cases should not even be entertained by the courts. Instead, as in my case, the courts just 'sit back' - ignoring all calls for assistance - and evidence supplied (Note at 2009: in 2007-09, West London County Court and the Supreme Court Costs Office colluded with Andrew Ladsky and his puppets Portner and Jaskel) - leaving 'the fraternity' i.e. lawyers coming out as the key beneficiaries - along with the landlords (even if they lose, they charge their costs to the leaseholders by putting them on the service charges) • Sir David Clementi 's conclusions following his review of the legal profession (as reported in the Financial Times of 16 December 2004)
In light of my experience, I suggest that a thorough review of the courts is ALSO undertaken AS A MATTER OF URGENCY. In April 2006, the Home Office started to come under fire from several corners leading to the head being replaced. The new head was reported as saying that he viewed the Home Office as "not fit for purpose'' This statement led a journalist at the Daily Express, to state (16 June 2006)
I WHOLEHEARTEDLY agree with this journalist and, in the case of the (then) DCA suggest it carries the following health warning:
(*) Subsequent note: In light of my experience in 2007-2008 with West London County Court and HMCS 'Customer Service': I hold the same view in relation to its successor: the Ministry of 'Justice' - headed by the Rt. Hon. Jack Straw LORD FALCONER OF THOROTON CAUSED ME TO DEVELOP THIS WEBSITE. THIS OUTCOME IS OF HIS OWN DOING . |
