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 |
The English injustice system...in the residential leasehold sector
|
west london county court - Post 2004
Sections(Most of the documents referred to in this section are also listed under the 'Document library': Year 2007+ )
On 27 February 2007, Portner and Jaskel filed a (FRAUDULENT) claim, Ref. 7WL00675, against me in WLCC. I took delivery of this claim on 9 March 2007. IMPORTANT THINGS TO NOTE • The claim form states “Claimant – Roostock (sic) Overseas Corp, c/o Portner and Jaskel LLP”... ... and, under the Particulars of Claim that “The Claimant is the Lessor of premises known as Flat 3 Jefferson House… The Defendant has failed to pay the sum of £8,937 in respect of service charges…” • It states that “the charges are detailed on the attached schedule” – which is a 13 February 2007 invoice from Martin Russell Jones (MRJ), headed “Landlord: Steel Services c/o C.K.F.T.” Hence: (1) There are TWO DIFFERENT company names (*) on the claim; (2) BOTH claiming to be “my landlord”; (3) EACH represented by A DIFFERENT firm of solicitors; (4) EACH demanding that I pay A DIFFERENT amount of money: “£10,356.59” (US$18,260) by "Roostock (sic) Overseas Corp" and “£8,933.28” (US$15,750) by "Steel Services" The £10,356.59 claimed by "Roostock (sic) Overseas Corp" is made-up of:
(*) In fact, there is a THIRD NAME on the claim: Sloan Development (Headlessors # 6). It is in the file name path, at the bottom of the claim: "G:\Bulstrode\data\docs\S\23208 - Sloan Development\002 Miscellaneous Matters\Oyez Forms\Claim Form - Ms N". Among other, on Land Registry records, Sloan Development was party with SS in the sale of the penthouse flat (that was “NOT going to be built”!) to a third party, in August 2005 - for £3.9 million. WHY did the WLCC judges and court manager conclude that they could proceed with the claim? And, in light of this - and of the outcome (point # 32) - note that the claim:
(See also my questions in relation to the breach of my Human Rights by this court) (1.1) ‘Very conveniently’ for “Roostock (sic) Overseas Corp” and "Steel Services" - in breach of CPR PD 16 – para 7.3, WLCC also accepted the claim WITHOUT having my lease, i.e. my ‘contractual obligation’, supplied with the claimThe section ‘Brief details of claim’ states: “Non payment of monies due under a lease dated 10th March 1986” while, under the ‘Particulars of Claim’, the third paragraph states: “Under the terms of the lease dated 10th March 1986, the Defendant covenanted to pay the Claimant all service and other charges as they fell due. The Claimant will refer to the said lease for its full terms and effect” Portner and Jaskel did NOT supply a copy of my lease i.e. 'contractual obligation' with the claim. WHY NOT? This in breach of Civil Procedure Rules - Part 16 - Statements of Case - Practice Direction
WHY did the WLCC judges and court manager conclude that they could overlook this breach of CPR? (NB: Maybe WLCC considered this 'an improvement' on pursuing the 29 November 2002 claim, ref WL203537, in the absolute knowledge that the lease supplied with the claim was not representative of my lease - see WLCC # 3 ; CKFT # 6.7 And there was another, major issue with the 29 November 2002 claim - as the Statement of Truth was signed by Joan Hathaway, MRICS, Martin Russell Jones (MRJ) - a "managing agents who manage the property cannot sign a statement of truth" - see WLCC Key Point # 3 (See also my questions in relation to the breach of my Human Rights by this court) (1.2) ‘Very conveniently’ for Andrew Ladsky and his mob’s planned, perverse and vicious ‘game’, WLCC also overlooked another breach of CPR - PD 16, Statement of case, para 2.2 - by allowing the claim to be filed without capturing the business address for “Roostock (sic) Overseas Corp”, nor indeed for the 2nd ‘claimant’, identified in the Particulars of claim: “Steel Services Ltd”PD 16 - Statement of case - para 2.2 states: "The claim form must include an address at which the claimant resides or carries on business. This paragraph applies even though the claimant’s address for service is the business address of his solicitor" WHY did the WLCC judges and court manager conclude that they could overlook this breach of CPR? (Had there been an address, there might not have been the opportunity for a 'good laugh' - by ALL ,including WLCC parties (Portner # 27) as revenge for my establishing that: (i) the 10 February 2006 "Notice of first refusal " is bogus (Portner # 1); (ii) Joan Hathaway, MRICS, Martin Russell Jones (MRJ) and Lanny Silverstone, Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor (CKFT) were: threatening me (and my fellow leaseholders) with proceedings (MRJ # 26 , # 32 ; # 14) and forfeiture (CKFT # 1 , # 6.2) in the name of a company - 'Steel Services' - which, the evidence suggests, did not exist at the time as I determined that it had been "Struck-off the [British Virgin Islands] register for non-payment of the licence fee" (Owners identity # 2 ; CKFT # 1) (2) On 22 March 2007 I sent an Acknowledgement of Service (1) highlighting the fact that the claim: (i) has 2 DIFFERENT names for the claimant: "Roostock Overseas Corp." and "Steel Services"; (ii) EACH claiming to be 'my landlord'; (iii) EACH represented by a DIFFERENT firm of solicitors; (iv) EACH expecting me to pay a DIFFERENT amount ; (2) stating "[I] intend to contest the jurisdiction of the court". WLCC IGNORED ALL - and in the case of the latter, FALSELY wrote in its 3 April 2007 Notice that I intended to "defend part of the claim"(1) As can be seen on my 22 March 2007 Acknowledgement of Service, I went to great lengths to highlight the fact that the claim contains two names: “Roostock (sic) Overseas Corp” and “Steel Services Ltd”. I did this by: (1) sticking a label in the box headed “Claimant (including reference)”, stating “Roostock (sic) Overseas Corp (?), or Steel Services Ltd (?)”; (2) attaching a copy of: (i) the first page of the claim form on which I circled, in red, “Roostock Overseas Corp” and, also in red pen, next to it, wrote, in large, easily readable lettering “v. Particulars of claim, next page”; (ii) the first page of the “13 Feb 2007 Statement” from Martin Russell Jones, ‘managing’ agents on which I boxed in, in red pen “Landlord: Steel Services Ltd”
Of note: During the Detailed Costs Assessment hearing, on 30 January 2009, at the Supreme Court Costs Office (My Diary 30 Jan 09), Deputy Master Hoffman asked me to show him my 22 March 2007 Acknowledgement of Service (NB: proving that it was something that had been planned and discussed ‘behind the scene’ with the WLCC judges). In an hostile, condescending tone he asked why I had also sent the other pages i.e. attached the first page of the 27 February 2007 claim, and the first page of Martin Russell Jones’ invoice of 13 February 2007 supplied with the Particulars of claim – on which I had made annotations. I replied that I had done this for the purpose of highlighting the fact that there are TWO NAMES for the 'claimant': "Roostock Overseas Corp." and "Steel Services". Reply (in an authoritarian tone, talking to me as though I were a child): "You should not have done this. You should have only returned the form the court sent you". I replied "I receive a claim that has TWO NAMES as the 'claimant', one of which I have never heard of, both claiming to be my 'landlord', and both demanding that I pay over £10,000 - and you expect me to not highlight this?"` I then said that I had raised the issue a total of 11 TIMES over a 16-month period. Reply (in a continuing, authoritarian, condescending, hostile tone) "You should not have done it!" My translation: "My good friends in West London County Court are extremely angry that you have this black on white evidence against them as they should not have proceeded with the claim”. To which can be added: 'And other 'black on white' evidence from events over the following 21 months, as well as in relation to the previous claim of 29 November 2002 e.g. proceeding with the claim in spite of the fact that (1) the statement of truth was signed by Joan Hathaway, 'managing agents' (WLCC intro); (2) WLCC had absolute knowledge that you and fellow leaseholders had been told by the LVT to NOT PAY' (my 8 documents to to the courts) (LVT # 1) Note also that the judges, as well as Deputy Master Hoffman, TOTALLY IGNORED Portner and its client's breach of CPR pre-action protocol: section III and Annex A. (2) I believe that, in my 22 March 2007 Acknowledgment of Service I could not have made it any clearer that I "intend to contest the court's jurisdiction" - by: (1) in the upper part of the page, boxing in, with a thick blue line, the 4th box and, with a red pen, underlined the last part of the paragraph “or wish to contest the court’s jurisdiction” with a wavy line; (2) in the bottom part of the page, by putting a large, thick blue cross in the box for “3. I intend to contest jurisdiction”. NOBODY CAN FAIL TO SEE THIS.Well, in spite of my doing this, six weeks later, through Portner and Jaskel (1May 07 to WLCC; 1 May 07 to me), I obtained a 3 April 2007 WLLC "Notice that Acknowledgement of Service has been filed" that states: "The Defendant responded to the claim indicating an intention to defend part of the claim. The defendant has 28 days from the date of service of the claim form with particulars of claim, or of the particulars of claim to file a defence" WHY did WLCC capture this instead of what I had written? (See below, point 17: I sent four letters asking for an amended version of the Notice. It was only sent on 7 January 2008 - hence, more than 6 months after my original request of 30 June 2007 - because I filed a complaint with HMCS ‘Customer Service’. See also point 23 how the 'Customer Service' department attempted to dismiss this action through deceit and by trivializing my complaint) (See also my questions in relation to the breach of my Human Rights by this court) (3) On 4 April 2007 I sent my Evidence in support of my Application contesting the court's jurisdiction - keeping my fingers crossed that I had done it correctly as the court's information does not provide guidanceWhile the guidance notes supplied by the court with the claim go into great length about the procedure for admitting the claim / part of the claim, or disputing it, only a passing reference is made to 'contesting the court's jurisdiction'. I conclude from this that, while people are allowed to be 'litigants in person' i.e. can represent themselves, the courts evidently do not view this as extending to contesting the jurisdiction of a court.. I therefore opted to look for guidance in the CPR, which I found under Part 11 - "Disputing the court's jurisdiction" for which Rule 11.2(b) states that the application must "be supported by evidence". While the CPR does not mention the need to complete a form for this purpose, I nonetheless went through all the 100+ forms contained in the CPR to make doubly sure. I could not find one. I summarised my 4 April 2007 Evidence in my application as:
(4) In the same, 4 April 2007 document, I also made a second application: "An Extended Civil Restraint Order against the ‘Landlord’"In the process of going through the majority of the CPR (a major undertaking!) I came across:
I wrote that I was making the application "On the basis that this is the second false Claim filed against the Defendant by her ‘Lessor’. Details contained in this document" (I repeated my application in subsequent documents to WLCC in: my 3 May 2007 Skeleton Argument; my 12 September 2007 "Defence & Counterclaim" At December 2007, this application has not been acknowledged by WLCC - perhaps because the Order can only be issued at the end of the hearing (?)... as and when it takes place! Subsequent note: Actually: because, as evidenced by the 'mountain' of 'black on white evidence' contained in this section, and in relation to the previous - equally FRAUDULENT - claim filed against me (and 10 of my fellow leaseholders) - WLCC judges, court manager and other staff clearly view Andrew Ladsky et.al. and their mob as their masters.
On Saturday 28 April 2007, I took delivery of a 19 April 2007 Order issued by District Judge Nicholson, stating "Parties are to file and serve skeleton arguments and any authorities relied upon by 4pm on 03 May 2007" The Order was posted more than one week later, on 27 April. Hence, it gives only two working days to do this, as the document would need to be sent by Wednesday 2 April. Using up a considerable amount of my time on Monday 30 April trying to speak to the court, I eventually resorted to sending a fax, which I nonetheless had to follow-up with another call. In his 1 May 2007 Order District Judge Nicholson grant me 'one' extra day i.e. for the document to be with the court on Friday 4 May. Outcome: As I am in full time employment, for me to prepare documents means having to work through the night. I ended-up taking three days of my annual leave - which is lost income to me. So, more of my annual leave swallowed up by this horrendous nightmare. Just as well I bought an extra week of annual leave! I view what took place as being the outcome of collusion - in the context of the extremely vicious, perverse vendetta against me - as, among others: the hearing was cancelled on the basis of a fabricated story by Jeremy Hershkorn, Portner (see next point) - in the same way that District Judge Nicholson subsequently cancelled the 4 November 2008 hearing - just 4 hours before - on the basis of a fabricated story by Ahmet Jaffer, Portner (point # 33) WHAT led the WLCC court manager / judges to conclude that they could put me under extreme pressure to write my Skeleton Argument - by waiting until 27 April 2007 to send me the 19 April 2007 Order? (See also my questions in relation to the breach of my Human Rights by this court) (6) Filing of the Skeleton Argument was in preparation for a hearing set by WLCC for 8 May 2007. With one working day to the hearing, WLCC cancelled it following communication from Jeremy Hershkorn, Portner - and rescheduled it for 24 August 2007 i.e. three-and-half months laterThe 19 April / 26 April 2007 Order states:
As the Order also states: "in some instances a case may be released to another judge, possibly a different court", on Friday 4 May 2007, I phoned WLCC to confirm where the hearing would be taking place on 8 May - which was a Tuesday. Monday 7 May was a bank holiday. I was told that "the hearing has been cancelled". When I asked for the reason, I was told: "It's not on the file" (!!!) Then, at some point, that it was "because of communication from the claimant". The person added that "A letter has been sent to you yesterday" I asked for the communication to be faxed to me. This is what I received - which I found hilarious...
...as, seeing so much emphasis being placed on 'independence' conjured up to me: 'the court has been ordered to cancel the hearing'
This letter, which, I had been told, was the reason for the hearing being cancelled, was not faxed to me. I phoned the court but, because I had not asked for the name of the person I spoke to in the morning, I was asked to fax my request as my file "cannot be found", "assumed to still be with the person who has sent you the fax". I sent a fax at 15h00 requesting it. I did not receive anything.It's not a big court. This was intentional. WHAT led the WLCC court manager / other staff to conclude that I should be kept in the dark as to the reason for the cancellation of the 8 May 2007 hearing? Was I by then 'smelling a rat'? Oh yes I was! And more than one! Especially when considering the events so far with WLCC (added to what happened with this court between 2002 and 2004) As ever, my 'internal radar' WAS RIGHT! The following day I went to my PO Box: of course, there was no letter from WLCC. In actual fact, I only received it on Tuesday 8 May i.e. on the day the hearing had been scheduled to take place. Hence, had I not phoned WLCC on Friday morning 4 May - and insisted on being faxed the correspondence that had "been sent to me" - I would have had a wasted journey to the court (and so would my friend who had agreed to accompany me). Note at January 2008 - WLCC claims that it cancelled the hearing because I "had not filed an application for contesting the jurisdiction of the court" (which is FALSE - as evidenced under # 3 ) - see point 23 below Note at April 2008 - With the benefit of yet more knowledge since: it probably said this because I did not use a court's form to do this. Well, this time: I HAVE! (point # 28 below) (See also my questions in relation to the breach of my Human Rights by this court) (6.1) The reason given for the three-and-half months delay is that 'apparently' "There is only one judge in WLCC"During my conversation with WLCC, I was told that the hearing had been rescheduled to 24 August 2007. The reply to my questioning this long, three-and-half month delay was: "There is only one judge in WLCC" WHY is it that WLCC had no difficulty finding a slot - within one month of my submitting my Evidence for 'contesting the court's jurisdiction' - whereas now it could not find a slot until three-and-half months hence? The point to note about 24th August 2007: (1) August is the holiday period; (2) the 24th was a Friday - just before the bank holiday. Hence: a time when many people tend to be away... including judges - which meant that no judge was available as it resulted in a solicitor - and hence one of Portner's peers - presiding over the hearing: ‘Deputy’ District Judge McGovern. See below for the outcome of the 24 August 2007 hearing Of course the Court Service 'Customer Service' continued to stick to the same story: letters of 20 December 2007 and 10 January 2008 (7) WLCC supplied a 3 April 2007 Notice to Portner and Jaskel - FALSELY - stating that I "intend to defend part of the claim"While, on Saturday 5 April 2007 I had not received any communication from WLCC, I had two letters from Jeremy Hershkorn, Portner and Jaskel waiting for me at my PO Box. The first one, dated 1 May 2007, is to copy me on what he sent to West London County Court. It comprises of a letter dated 1 May 2007 stating that he "only just received today"` the 19 April 2007 WLCC order - which he attached, having written - himself - on it "Received 1/05/2007". Yeah, right!`I receive it on Saturday 28 April, but the solicitors that filed the claim against me, receive it two working days later!! ((As can be seen from Hershkorn's letter to WLCC, solicitors and the courts have a DX system to communicate between each other) Hershkorn continues: "We wish to bring to the Court's immediate attention that apart from receiving Notice that an Acknowledgement of Service has been filed by the Defendant dated 3'" April 2007..." ...(a copy of which we enclose)... (See point # 2, above for further detail) (7.1) The 'advantage' of this to Jeremy Hershkorn, Portner and Jaskel, was the ability to claim that he had "not received a defence" from me - thereby providing 'a reason' for asking that the 8 May 2007 hearing be cancelledIn his 1 May 2007 letter to WLCC, Jeremy Hershkorn, Portner and Jaskel states:
My reply to this is: not my problem. Firstly, because it was not I who did not capture what I had written on the Acknowledgment of Service. Secondly, the guidance notes supplied with the claim by WLCC only make a passing reference to contesting the court's jurisdiction. I had to look at the CPR to determine that "an application must be supported by evidence". As I wrote to Mr Ahmet Jaffer, Portner and Jaskel, in my 30 June 2007 letter when I supplied him with a copy of my 4 April 2007 Evidence in support of my application for contesting the court's jurisdiction: "This lack of information led me to consult the Civil Procedure Rules, Part 11 - "Disputing the court's jurisdiction". It does not stipulate a requirement to serve a copy of the evidence on the other party". If Mr Jeremy Hershkorn is to be believed: he had not heard anything from WLCC since the 3 April 2007 "Notice that acknowledgement of service has been filed". Some 'very interesting' points to note here:
Have I got 'S T U P I D' written on my forehead? (Having just looked in the mirror I can answer that: No!) OF COURSE PORTNER AND JASKEL HAD BEEN IN CONTACT WITH WLCC DURING THE MONTH OF APRIL: This is evidenced by the 19 April - 26 April 2007 Order - Point 2: "In view of the defendant's application the claimants request for judgment is refused" I guess that I should be 'grateful' that WLCC did not accede to Mr Jeremy Hershkorn's demand. (8) The other reason given by Jeremy Hershkorn, Portner and Jaskel, for asking that the 8 May 2007 hearing be cancelled, is that Portner had 'received' a cheque for £1,069 (US$1,885) FALSELY claiming that it had been sent "on my behalf"See Portner and Jaskel # 14 for detail Jeremy Hershkorn concluded his 1 May 2007 letter to West London County Court:
How about: "We are profusely grateful for your unfailing assistance to our client?" (considering also events in 2002 - 2004) (I summarised some of the events in my 5 December 2007 letter to HMCS Customer Service, and in my 26 January 2008 letter to "A judge committed to the concept of Justice, c/o of WLCC" = WRONG PLACE TO ASK! - see point # 24, below ) These letters are: • 30 June 2007 to Mr Jaffer, copied to WLCC: "You have had my skeleton argument since 4 May 2007. I require that you provide me with your skeleton argument within seven days of receipt of this letter, so that I can make my own preparations for the forthcoming court hearing" • 12 August 2007 to Mr Jaffer, copied to WLCC:" URGENT AND IMMEDIATE ATTENTION - You have failed to provide me with your Skeleton Argument. In my attached letter of 12 August, I have asked the court's assistance in ensuring you send me your Skeleton Argument by 16 August 2007. I remind you that you are in possession of my Skeleton Argument since 4 May i.e. for more than three months. Your failure to provide me with the requested information adds weight to my – amply supported position - that your client’s claim against me is dishonest and vexatious." • 12 August 2007 to WLCC, copied to Mr Jaffer: Headed: "Your assistance in getting the skeleton argument from Portner and Jaskel". I wrote: "I wish to bring to your attention the fact that Portner and Jaskel has so far failed to supply me with its skeleton argument, and by the same token, evidence in support of its client’s claim against me. By contrast, it received my skeleton argument on 4 May 2007 i.e. more than three months ago. The hearing is scheduled for 24 August 2007. Clearly, non-provision of the skeleton argument puts me in a highly unfair and very disadvantageous position in relation to the hearing. Hence, Portner and Jaskel is in breach of its legal obligations under Section 1.3 of the CPR, “Duty of the parties: The parties are required to help the court to further the overriding objective“" • 16 August 2007 fax to WLCC, copied to Mr Jaffer: "One week to the 24 August 2007 hearing and Portner and Jaskel has not supplied me with its skeleton argument. Yet, it has now been in possession of my skeleton argument for three and half months (since 4 May 2007) The unwillingness to date to provide the requested information - including failure to comply with your court’s order of 26 April 2007 - provide overwhelming support to my position that the claim against me is dishonest and vexatious. (Hence, a repeat of Steel Services Ltd claim filed against me in your court in November 2002). Concurrently, this conduct provides evidence that the claim is a waste of court time, as well as my time. Quite clearly, this breach of the rules of court is intended to gain an unfair advantage and calculated to inhibit your court from furthering the overriding objective" Eventually, sometime on Wednesday 22 August 2007, a two-page “Skeleton argument on behalf of the Claimant for hearing on 24 August 2007” produced by Mr Greg Williams of 2 Gray’s Inn Square Chambers, and attached covering letter from Ahmet Jaffer of Portner and Jaskel were delivered by courier to my PO Box address. Hence, less than 48 hours before the hearing (on 24 August 2007) - and three-and-half months after it had received mine WHAT led the WLCC court manager and judges to conclude that they could ignore, over a period of 7 weeks, my 4 requests for assistance in getting Portner to submit its skeleton argument, as per the 19 April 2007 Order – in spite of my emphasising that Portner had received mine since 4 May 2007? (See also my questions in relation to the breach of my Human Rights by this court)
Point 5 of Rootstock Skeleton argument states “The Claimant has not received a copy of the Defendant’s skeleton argument in support of her application. The Defendant asserts in correspondence that the Claimant has had her skeleton argument since 4 May” Damn right it had received it - as I proved in my 22 August 2007 fax to WLCC by attaching a copy of the printscreen of the Royal Mail website confirming that my document had been delivered. I tried to also send the fax to Portner and Jaskel but, as its fax machine 'appeared' to not work, I ended-up having it biked over. Consider: 'IF 'it were true that Portner and Jaskel had not received my Skeleton Argument: why did it wait until 48 hours before the hearing to say so? Since 30 June 2007, it had received four letters from me in which I asserted that it had been in possession of it since 4 May 2007(as detailed above under point # 9) And also evidenced by the above letters, WLCC also knew that Portner and Jaskel was lying. At the 24 August 2007 WLCC hearing, Mr Greg Williams, barrister, 2 Gray's Inn Square Chambers, asked me to show him the original post office receipts - which, of course, I had - knowing the evil, morally depraved mob I am dealing with. 'Deputy' District Judge McGovern presided over the 24 August 2007 hearing in WLCC. He announced that the purpose of the hearing was to consider my application for transfer of the case to the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal (my 4 April 2007 Application and 3 May 2007 Skeleton Argument). As detailed under header # 2 of my 12 September 2007 "Defence & Counterclaim", my Application was refused. In reply to my argument that, based my on first-hand experience, LVTs have specialists to deal with the issues in my case, Deputy District Judge McGovern replied that the court "also has specialists" (as I captured under point 1.4 of my 2 October 2007 letter to WLCC) This decision also breaches government policy, re-emphasised by the Office of the Prime Minister in a 5 March 2008 email to me (in response to the "petition to abolish leasehold" ) , which states "making the resolution of disputes quicker, easier and cheaper by moving jurisdiction for the majority of disputes from the courts to the leasehold valuation tribunal” - see My Diary 11 Mar 08 Considering the nature of the issues under consideration - and the legal remit of LVTs - WHAT led Deputy District Judge McGovern to conclude that he could ignore (1) my statutory rights under Schedule 12 s.3 of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 ; (2) government policy – by refusing my legitimate Application for transfer of the case to the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal? My answer: Because the LVT would have had to recognise the evidence in support of my position that the 27 February 2007 claim is FRAUDULENT. (I certainly would have made sure that it did). So, it was 'best' to keep the case under the control of the WLCC judges- who very clearly 'had plans for me'. But the plan failed as Ladsky eventually 'threw in the towel' on 6 June 2008 (My Diary 7 Jun 08 ; Portner and Jaskel # 29 ) And because it was a set-up (point # 6.1 above ; [ADD]) (NB: In my 12 September 2007 "Defence & Counterclaim", under header # 9, I emphasised my concern at this refusal, stating: "Considering the above issues, the Defendant highlights her concern that her application for transfer of the case to the LVT was refused") Having refused my request, Deputy District Judge McGovern ordered that I pay, "Roostock"'s barrister, Greg Williams, costs: £293.70 (US$518). Firstly, this order was made in the absolute knowledge that there is an issue as to the identity of the Claimant - among others, the fact that there are TWO NAMES for the 'Claimant' on the claim: "Roostock Overseas Corp." and "Steel Services"; EACH represented by a DIFFERENT firm of solicitors; EACH claiming a DIFFERENT amount from me- see point # 2, above. Evidently, for reasons better known to himself, 'Deputy' District Judge McGovern decided that "Rootstock" was the 'claimant'. WHAT led 'Deputy' District Judge McGovern to conclude that he could overlook the issues - and order that I pay “£293.70 costs to Rootstock Overseas Corp”? Secondly, NO statement of costs was sent by Portner ahead of the hearing. This amount was arrived by Deputy District Judge McGovern asking Mr Williams during the hearing how much his costs were, to which he replied "£293.70". This amounts to breach of CPR Part 44 Practice Direction, paragraph 13.5(2) “Each party who intends to claim costs must prepare a written statement of the costs he intends to claim... (4) The statement of costs must be filed at court and copies of it must be served on any party against whom an order for payment of those costs is intended to be sought. The statement of costs should be filed and the copies of it should be served as soon as possible and in any event not less than 24 hours before the date fixed for the hearing” And of course, CPR Part 44 PD para 13.6 which states: “The failure by a party, without reasonable excuse, to comply with the foregoing paragraphs will be taken into account by the court in deciding what order to make about the costs of the claim, hearing or application, and about the costs of any further hearing or detailed assessment hearing that may be necessary as a result of that failure” - was also overlooked. As Mr Williams did not know top of mind what Portner and Jaskel's costs were, 'lucky me' was 'saved' from paying its costs as well. I never received an invoice. By contrast, I DID comply with CPR by sending my 22 August 2007 letter to Ahmet Jaffer to supply him with my costs - 24 hours ahead of 24 August 2007 hearing - and cc'd WLCC. (NB:I sent the cheque for £293.70 to Portner and Jaskel on 10 September 2007, and copied WLCC on my letter. (I only received the 24 August Order from WLCC on 7 September. it was posted on 6 September 2007)) WHAT led Deputy District Judge McGovern to conclude that he could order me to pay “£293.70 to Rootstock Overseas Corp” - in spite of the fact that it breached CPR PD 44 – paras 13.5(2) and 13.6 as, (unlike me), Portner had not served me and the court with a statement of costs ahead of the hearing. Also: WHAT led Deputy District Judge McGovern to conclude that he could turn a blind eye – and a deaf ear - to ALL of Portner's Jeremy Hershkorn and Ahmet Jaffer, and their client, Andrew Ladsky et.al., highly despicable, deceitful, obstructive, fraudulent conduct that breached countless CPR rules, PDs and statutes (see my 19 January 2009 reply to the Points of Dispute) - I had repeatedly highlighted to WLCC over the previous 6 months, starting with my 22 March 2007 Acknowledgment of Service, including in relation to its 22 August 2007 so-called ‘skeleton argument’ in which it lied – which I proved - as well as sent me less than 48 hours before the 24 August 2007 hearing, in breach of the 19 April 2007 Order – thereby further adding to my being placed in a highly unfair and extremely disadvantageous position? (See also my questions in relation to the breach of my Human Rights by this court)
I considered that WLCC already knew that, from (1) my 3 May 2007 Skeleton Argument, which was used at the 24 August 2007 hearing (points 1 and 4.9, and numerous other points); (2) my 12 September 2007 "Defence & Counterclaim" (header 8.64 , 5.4 - 5.10 , 5.12 and numerous other points) I therefore opted to title my 12 September 2007 document by reproducing WLCC's wording: "Defence & Counterclaim" (and it made sense to me, as I am making ‘counterclaims’ in my document ‘in defence’ of the claims against me). IT WAS A TRAP! (see point # 14, below) As Ahmet Jaffer, Portner and Jaskel, and concurrently Greg Williams - had LIED by saying that they had not received my 3 May 2007 Skeleton Argument (point # 10, above), the following day I captured a printscreen of the Royal Mail website confirming that my "Defence & Counterclaim" had been delivered. On that day, 13 September 2007, I sent the printscreen to WLCC, copying Mr Ahmet Jaffer on my letter. (13) When, on Monday 1 October 2007, I phoned WLCC to ask why, after more than one month, my nominated company had still not received the tape of the hearing for transcription, instead of getting a reply to my question, I was immediately told that I had "to pay £1,700 (US$3,000) to file your counterclaim"I could not believe my ears, replying that I had not received any communication to this effect. I was told that something had been sent to me. I added that, in any case, it was an impossibility for me to file a counterclaim - as was obvious from the Skeleton Argument I had filed in court - which had been used at the 24 August 2007 hearing. WLCC had posted its 27 September 2007 communication to me on the day - but did this second class. Hence, when I went to check my post on Saturday 29 September 2007, I had not received it. As to the tape, the purpose was to get a transcript to help me write my Defence - which was due to be filed on 14 September 2007. I sent the application to WLCC on 28 August 2007. By 1 October 2007, the transcribing company still had not received the tape. As can be seen in my 7 October 2007 letter to the company, WLCC said to have forwarded my request for the tape to a judge on 14 September 2007 i.e. the day on which I had to serve my Defence. WHAT led the WLCC court manager / other staff to conclude that they should wait until 14 September 2007 – the day I was due to serve my Defence – “to forward my application for the tape to a judge"? Of note: The excuse subsequently given by the WLCC court manager following my 13 November 2007 complaint was “The tapes were with another transcriber who was preparing another transcript for another case". (see point # 22 , below) That's the risk in lying: you must remember your lies! Conclusion on events = more games being played. (See also my questions in relation to the breach of my Human Rights by this court)
(NB: As with other events, this is covered in my 2 January 2010 Subject Access Request to the Ministry of 'Justice') (Legal-Home # C) The 'letter' from “Mr Joseph, Courts Section” states:
This communication is a ‘letter’ deceitfully masquerading as an order. I conclude from CPR Rule 3.1(3) that the correct form of correspondence should have been an ‘order’ – NOT a letter - “When the court makes an order, it may” (a) “make it subject to conditions, including a condition to pay a sum of money into court“ (b) “specify the consequence of failure to comply with the order or a condition”. As can be seen, the 27 September 2007 correspondence has both ‘ingredients’: (1) demand for payment; (2) threat of striking out “the counterclaim” (and hence: my Defence!) if I failed to pay. Of note: The wording of the 19 December 2007 Order from District Judge Nicholson “striking-out” “[my non-existent] counterclaim” for “failing to comply with the Court’s request by letter dated 27 September 2007” - endorses my position that the 27 September 2007 communication is NOT an order).... ...and it also leads me to ask: WHAT led District Judge Nicholson and the WLCC court staff to conclude that they could wait more than three months to send me, on 7 January 2008, a 19 December 2007 Order by District Judge Nicholson to "strike-out" my non-existent "counterclaim"? (point # 15, below) (NB: When you also consider that granting me one extra day to file my skeleton argument warrants an Order from District Judge Nicholson (point # 5, above) - then, surely, demanding that I pay £1,700 (US$3,000) HAS to be captured in an order) While the 27 September 2007 communication is 'a letter', deceitfully,'Mr Joseph' implies that it is ‘an order’ as he states “without further order of the court”. He also added a stamp of the court. It 'seems' to me to add some 'officialdom' to it. Very tellingly, HMCS 'Customer Service' REPEATEDLY failed to address my question as to whether "this communication is compliant with court regulations" (see points # 22 ; # 23) In my 13 November 2007 complaint to HMCS 'Customer Service', I wrote that I viewed this letter as amounting to "bullying and intimidation", followed by:
I view the 27 September 2007 letter, preceded by the wording in the 24 August 2007 order by Deputy District Judge McGovern as part of a game plan to strike-out my Defence - and hence issue a judgment against me to make me pay to Ladsky monies NOT due and payable. This 27 September 2007 correspondence and subsequent events, in particular the 3.5 months ‘silent mode’ by WLCC and Portner following my 2 October 2007 letter, lead me to conclude that the 24 August 2007 Order asking that I “serve Defence & Counterclaim” was part of a game plan to take advantage of the fact that I am a Litigant in Person – with the ultimate objective of being able to strike out my Defence. Furthermore, that it also relied on my not getting this ‘letter’ on time as (1) I was still renting the room in East London at the time; (2) Joseph’s letter had not arrived when I went to my PO Box on Saturday 29 September 2007. Further evidence of the game plan to strike-out my Defence can be seen in the ‘concoction’ in the 10 January 2008 letter from "Paulette James OBE", ‘Customer Service Unit’, Petty France (point # 23, below): “…judicial case management is only invoked when the court is satisfied that it has before it a claim and a valid defence. lt is unclear because of the striking out of your counterclaim whether that is the situation with this case, for example, you have made no formal application to reinstate your counterclaim” = I foiled the mob’s plan with my 2 October 2007 reply, hence the reason why WLCC and Portner went into silent mode for the following 3.5 months. See below point 22 and point 23 for the highly contradictory replies from 'Customer Service', including manipulation by WLCC of what I wrote in my Defence in order to justify sending me the 27 September 2007 demand - and the fact that, more than three months later, on 7 January 2008, it sent me a 19 December 2007 'order' "striking out" - my non-existent counterclaim. = more evidence of 'games' being played.WHAT led “Mr Joseph, Courts Section” and the WLCC judges and court manager to conclude that, in breach of CPR Rule 3.1(3) he could send me his bullying 27 September 2007 letter, masquerading as an order? WHAT led “Mr Joseph, Courts Section” and the WLCC judges and court manager to conclude that he could send me his bullying, threatening, deceitful letter of 27 September 2007 in which he unjustifiably demanded that I immediately pay the sum of £1,700, failing which my ‘counterclaim’ – and hence, my Defence to the claim – would be immediately struck-out – given that the WLCC judges and court manager had absolute knowledge from the documents I had supplied to the court that it was an impossibility for me to file a counterclaim? (See also my questions in relation to the breach of my Human Rights by this court) (15) Portner and Jaskel had sent WLCC a 26 September 2007 "Defence to Counterclaim" produced by Mr Greg Williams, 2 Gray's Inn Square Chambers - arguing that my 12 September 2007 "Defence & Counterclaim" is not a "Counterclaim". I replied to WLCC on 2 October 2007As you can see from his 26 September 2007 "Defence to Counterclaim", Greg Williams argues that my 12 September 2007 "Defence & Counterclaim" is not a 'counterclaim'. In my 2 October 2007 letter to WLCC, cc'd Ahmet Jaffer - which is a reply to this 26 September document and to what I had been told when I phoned WLCC on 1 October - I explain how I had interpreted WLCC's wording in its 24 August 2007 Order i.e. "Defence & Counterclaim" - and emphasise that it was an impossibility for me to file a counterclaim stating, among other:
(16) By 14 October 2007, I had not received a reply from the WLCC court manager to my 2 October 2007 - leading me to send a chaser letter. I sent a 2nd chaser letter on 28 October 2007. The ongoing silence led me to file a 13 November 2007 complaint with HMCS 'Customer Service'In each instance, I copied Ahmet Jaffer, Portner and Jaskel, on my letters. WHAT led the WLCC court manager and judges to conclude that they could ignore my 2 October 2007 letter – and therefore my two chaser letters of 14 and 28 October 2007? The WLCC's court manager ongoing silence led me to file a 13 November 2007 complaint. See below points # 22 and # 23 for the outrageous and contradictory 'replies' 'from' 'Customer Service' (See also my questions in relation to the breach of my Human Rights by this court) (17) Likewise, the WLCC's court manager has been ignoring four requests from me, between 30 June 2007 and 28 October 2007 for an amended version of its 3 April 2007 Notice - eventually sending it to me more than six months laterThe letters are: This is a breach of my right under Principle 4 of the Data Protection Act 1998: “Personal data shall be accurate and, where necessary, kept up to date” WHY led the WLCC court manager to conclude that she could ignore my request - in the process, breaching legislation? As a result of my 13 November 2007 complaint to HMCS 'Customer Service', WLCC finally sent me an amended version dated 11 January 2008 - hence, more than six months after my original request - See below point 23 for the reply from the 'Customer Service Unit'. (See also my questions in relation to the breach of my Human Rights by this court) HMCS 'CUSTOMER SERVICE' - and related - Points 18 to 26
(18) The silent mode by West London County Court (and Portner) since my 2 October 2007 letter, added to other events, led me to file a complaint with the 'Customer Service' of Her Majesty Court Service on 13 November 2007As WLCC continues to maintain its silence (point # 16, above ; point # 21, below) (and Portner is doing the same thing), I filed this 13 November 2007 complaint with HMCS 'Customer Service' - in which I ask a number of questions in the context of relating events with West London County Court. The 15 November 2007 reply from Customer Service states: "...asked the Court Manager...for a full report and we will provide you with a full response to your letter within the next weeks" (19) WLCC not providing a reply as promised by the end of November, led me to ask, in my 5 December 2007 letter to HMCS for my case to be "immediately transferred to a court and a judge committed to operating under CPR's Overriding Objective"In its 29 November 2007 letter, HMCS wrote: "Unfortunately we are not in a position to respond to you in full regarding your complaint, as this matter is being investigated by the court. We aim to respond to you in full regarding this matter within the next two weeks" Seeing this as a continuation of a game being played by WLCC, I replied to HMCS on 5 December 2007, heading my letter:
(*) Sourced from the website of the then Department for Constitutional Affairs, on 14 March 2007 Stating among other:
Having highlighted the fact that I still had not received a reply to my 2 October 2007 letter to the WLCC court manager, I then asked why WLCC was not managing my case - as per CPR's Overriding Objective 1.4, and emphasised the Court and Legal Services Act 1990. To further back-up my demand for a transfer of my case to another court, I summarised some of the key events that had taken place with WLCC in 2002-2004, in relation to the 29 November 2002 claim from 'Steel Services' = Andrew Ladsky and his mob. (20) As the 10 December 2007 reply 'from' HMCS 'Customer Service' totally ignores my demand, while adding, yet again, a further two-week delay, I have escalated my demand to Jack Straw, 'Justice' Secretary, on 11 December 2007In its 10 December 2007 letter, HMCS totally ignores my demand for my case to be transferred to another court - stating "I will look into this and respond to you within the next two weeks". Hence, another two-week delay was - yet again - being added. On seeing this, I opted to send a 'cry for help' to Jack Straw, 'Justice' Secretary, on 11 December 2007, to ask him to intervene. See below point 23 for the reply 'from' 'Customer Service' (NB - For other letters to Jack Straw, see below: # 23 , # 25 , # 29) (21) West London County Court - AND - Portner and Jaskel HAVE GONE INTO 'SILENT MODE' since my 2 October 2007 letter. I WONDER WHY?Since my chaser letters of 14 October 2007 and 28 October 2007 to the WLCC court manager (on which I copied Ahmet Jaffer), I have written the above letters to HMCS, as well as to the 'Justice' Secretary. Still no communication from WLCC. Hence, at mid-December, I have not heard anything from WLCC since the 27 September 2007 bullying letter - masquerading as an 'order' - 'from' "Mr Joseph, Courts Section" (point # 14, above) And NOR have I heard anything from Portner since the 26 September 2007 "Defence to Counterclaim" I WONDER WHY? :-) It is abundantly clear that my 2 October 2007 letter foiled their plan. And the situation remains the same at the end of December. Note at January 2008: my updating my website on 17 December, plus my claim of 'collusion' kicked WLCC into action - see below point # 23 and point # 24 (NB: I purposely did not update my website for seven months, from May to December 2007 in order to give ALL the opportunity to show common sense and intelligence by resolving my situation. A VAIN HOPE!) (See also my questions in relation to the breach of my Human Rights by this court)
To my question "I want to know why it cost somebody £250 to file a fraudulent claim against me whereas I am expected to pay seven times as much i.e. £1,700 to defend myself against it", the reply is:
Please, compare the following:
I am sure that any fair minded, reasonable person would agree with me that this action is NOT the outcome of gross negligence / incompetence.I view this unbelievably underhanded action as a means of justifying sending the 27 September 2007 bullying letter deceitfully masquerading as an order - see point # 14, above, for my conclusions - which take into consideration the contradictory explanation in the 10 January 2008 'reply' from Paulette James OBE - point # 23, below. WHAT led the 'Customer Service' Officer to conclude that he could blindly accept from the WLCC court manager - as well endorse - the falsification of evidence contained in my 12 September 2007 Defence? The 'explanation' for the fact that WLCC had not responded to my 2 October 2007 letter in spite of my sending two chaser letters was that it “had been referred to a District Judge. The contents of your letter are noted. However it is not the functions of the court to enter into detailed correspondence with the parties to litigation about the merits of points taken in pleadings or other aspects of the case” . My reply to this was “This is not a reply. It is a pathetic attempt at avoiding providing a reply...” (See point # 23 below, for the the contradictory excuse in the 10 January 2008 reply from Paulette James OBE). WHAT led the 'Customer Service' Officer to conclude that he could overlook the WLCC judges and court manager’s failure to perform as per their remit under CPR Part 1 – Overriding Objective – by blindly accepting their preposterous excuse? • The 'Customer Service' Officer did NOT provide a reply to my question asking for confirmation that the 27 September 2007 correspondence complies with court regulations • The 'Customer Service' Officer made NO comment about its content - in spite of my having stated in my 13 November 2007 complaint “Giving me a three-day notice to pay £1,700 to file a counterclaim and threatening to have my counterclaim “struck-out” if I failed to do this…I view this as bullying and intimidation” • And NOR did he probe the reason for demanding payment of the sum of £1,700 (US$3,000). As I wrote in my 27 December 2007 reply: "you also failed to pursue the demand for payment of the sum of £1,700 for a “counterclaim of £20,713.18 (US$36,520) ” As it is twice the amount of the claim, how come that it costs seven times as much to file it?" I contrasted this by quoting the fee for filing a claim ranging in value from £15,000 (US$26,450) - £50,000 (US$88,165) - which is £360 (US$635). WHAT led the 'Customer Service' Officer to conclude that he should ignore the deceit in 'Mr Joseph'’s letter of 27 September 2007? WHAT led the 'Customer Service' Officer to conclude that he should help the WLCC judges, court manager and other staff cover-up the fact that their 27 September 2007 letter masquerading as ‘an order’ was a breach of CPR Rule 3.1(3) as this type of communication must be ‘an order’ – as well as deceit – by not replying to my question asking whether the communication was “as per court regulations”? Consideration of the above led me to write:
(*) See My Diary 3 Oct 06, Advisors to Jefferson House and Directorships Turning to my other questions: • "Why has WLCC failed to send me an amended version of its 3 April 2007 "Notice that acknowledgement of service has been filed" in spite of my sending four requests between 30 June 2007 and 28 October 2007?" This question was also totally ignored. (Please note that, among others, WLCC's action - or more appropriately: lack of action - amounts to a breach of my right under Principle 4 of the Data Protection Act 1998: information held to be "accurate") At this point, it led me to write:
WHAT led the 'Customer Service' Officer to conclude that he could overlook the fact that the WLCC court manager had failed to address 4 requests from me – over a 6 month period? • “I want an explanation for the three-and-half month delay in rescheduling the 8 May 2007 hearing”. Reply (which was to be expected) is that "24th August was the first available date". (NB: the initial reply from WLCC, in May 2007, was that "there is only judge" - see point 6.1 above ) As I wrote back: "(1) August is the holiday period; (2) the 24th was a Friday - just before the bank holiday. Hence: a time when many people tend to be away... including judges - right?" (NB: While I had my suspicions in May when I was given this date, considering what took place at the 24 August 2007 hearing (point # 11, above), as well as subsequent events, I view my take on it as being justified) WHAT led the 'Customer Service' Officer to conclude to – very clearly - blindly accept the WLCC’s court manager’s preposterous excuse that the reason for the 3.5 months delay in rescheduling the 8 May 2007 hearing? • "I want to know why it took WLCC one month to send the tape for transcription to my nominated company, and why there were further delays apparently caused by the court’s reviewing process – leading to the transcript being finally available to me ten weeks after the hearing" Extracts from the reply: "the tape included recording of another hearing and was sent to another transcriber". Once my nominated company had done the transcript "it was sent to the the Court for approval by the Judge on 14 November 2007 and was then sent back on the same day to the transcribers to be amended” I wrote back "While I do not have sufficient knowledge to challenge the reply, not surprisingly, in light of the rest of your letter: I do not believe this explanation". In fact, what I forgot to write in my letter – which supported my position – is the contradiction between this explanation and the one given to me when I phoned WLCC on 1 October 2007 which was “The application was sent to a judge on 14 September. A reply has not yet been received” (as I captured in my 7 October 2007 letter to Beverley F Nunnery). That's the problem with lying: you must remember your lies! WHAT led the 'Customer Service' Officer to conclude to – very clearly – blindly accept the WLCC’s court manager’s explanation for the delay in sending the tape to my nominated company? I concluded my letter with the following:
(*) Sourced from the website of the then Department for Constitutional Affairs, on 14 March 2007 If you have read the other section on WLCC, and related section on Lord Falconer of Thoroton, you will know that my experience with this hell hole, nightmare court between 2002 and 2004 was very traumatic. As you can see, its method of operating has not changed - causing me yet, more horrendous torment, anguish and distress throughout 2007... and more was yet to come in 2008! This country was the standard bearer on legal matters. What happened? Another part of the system destroyed by New Labour! (Other examples: MPs-Home) (See also my questions in relation to the breach of my Human Rights by HMCS 'Customer Service')
It looks like I have caused a bit of a stir in HMCS 'Customer Service' with my complaint : by the end of January, I have received follow-up letters from five different people, two in the Southwark Office, and three in the Petty France office...
On the Southwark Bridge office side, the game continues, reverting the situation 'back to square one' as the 2 January 2008 follow-up to my 27 December 2007 letter (from yet, another person in the 'Customer Service' department) reads: "I have asked the Court Manager... for a full report and we will provide you with a full response to your letter within the next two weeks" SEVEN WEEKS previously, the 15 November 2007 reply 'from' the 'Customer Service' Officer stated: "...asked the Court Manager...for a full report and we will provide you with a full response to your letter within the next weeks" Isn't that playing a game? A case of the rabbit caught in the headlights. From the Petty France office, I received this 21 December 2007 initial acknowledgement to my 11 December 2007 to Jack Straw, 'Justice' Secretary. I also replied on 27 December 2007, insisting that my case is immediately transferred to another court - repeating what I wrote (above) to the Southwark Bridge office. The 20 December 2007 reply 'from' the 'Customer Service' Officer led me to take my protest to the street. (See My Diary 9 Jan 08) . It had the effect of immediately prompting 'another reply' to my complaint: a 10 January 2008 letter 'from' Paulette James OBE, 'Customer Service' Unit, Petty France (the 3rd and final level in terms of complaints against the Court Service). Reasons for my bullet point "Continuation of (laughable) cover-up by the Court Service through use of deceit...as well as the (familiar) rejection of its responsibilities" (The following are extracts from the 10 January 2008 letter, and my reply of 28 January 2008) • Coming up with an entirely different explanation for - unlawfully - demanding payment of a £1,700 (US$3,000) fee "to file a counterclaim": 'Apparently', the fee is due to my "filing a counterclaim for an unspecified amount". The previous explanation, on 20 December 2007 - arrived at by misrepresenting what I wrote in my document was that I had 'apparently' "filed a counterclaim for £20,713.18” (US$36,520) - see point 22 above As I wrote in my letter "You cannot even agree among yourselves on ‘the story’ you are going to spin" and concluded on this point by saying "When will you all stop 'digging your hole' and 'come clean' ?" • Attempting to cover-up the silence from WLCC following my 2 October 2007 letter in part by blaming me for what amounts to WLCC failing to perform its responsibilities, by saying that: "I had not taken action" since WLCC's correspondence of 27 September 2007 How about my letter of 2 October 2007, isn't that an action? As I wrote: "As the implication is that the Court Service is 'self-service', how about I issue my own judgment as well? I sure like that idea" Secondly, because "... judicial case management is only invoked when the court is satisfied that it has before it a claim and a valid defence. lt is unclear because of the striking out of your counterclaim whether that is the situation with this case, for example, you have made no formal application to reinstate your counterclaim" I replied "What a concoction! Who has determined that my defence is 'not valid'?...There is no counterclaim "to strike out", for the simple reason that I did not file a counterclaim.... What [ WLCC's] claim amounts to saying is that: it expected me to file a counterclaim against an unknown entity; for an unspecified amount" (To which I could have added: even if a counterclaim had been struck out, it does not mean that the court should stop managing the process. And it certainly should not opt to go into 'silent mode' ignoring all correspondence. What kind of court is that?) I remarked that I had not been provided with an answer to my question: "is the 27 September 2007 communication from WLCC compliant with court regulations?", adding that, judging from CPR, it seems to me that the correspondence should have been an 'order' - instead of just a letter - (NB: see my conclusions under point # 14, above - also contained in my 2 January 2010 Subject Access Request to the Ministry of 'Justice') (Legal-Home # C) I repeated my position that the 27 September 2007 correspondence from WLCC amounts to "bullying and intimidation" of a Defendant, also stating that 'blackmail' 'might' be a more appropriate term in the circumstances - quoting from the Theft Act 1968 - S.24(1) - "A person is guilty of blackmail if, with a view to gain for himself or another…or with intent to cause loss to another, he makes any unwarranted demand with menaces..." I followed this by repeating my perception that the 27 September 2007 correspondence "is ‘part and parcel’ of a plan intended to prevent my case from proceeding to a hearing – in front of a ‘real judge’ i.e. a judge committed to the concept of justice" As further evidence in support of my position, I reported that, on 7 January 2008 (NB !!!) WLCC had sent me an Order stating “The Defendant having failed to comply with the Court’s request by letter dated 27 September 2007 to pay the Counterclaim fee, the Counterclaim stands struck out” The counterclaim is dated 19 December 2007 and gives the processing date (?) as 4 January 2008. I stated that I view this 'order' as "lunacy" as I did not file a counterclaim, and attributed the three-month delay in doing this to an attempt to "tie-up the loose ends" - following two events: (1) the fact that, after remaining silent for seven months (to see what would happen), I had updated my website on 17 December, relating, among other, the events that have taken place with WLCC; (2) the header to my 27 December 2007 letter to the Customer Service: "Confirmation of collusion" (For another 'knee-jerk' / panic reaction by WLCC to these two events and /or because of my 9 January protest (?), see next point ) WHAT led Paulette James OBE to conclude that she should continue to help the WLCC judges, court manager and other staff in covering-up their misconduct in sending me the 27 September 2007 letter masquerading as an order – by spinning, yet another, and contradictory excuse? WHAT led Paulette James OBE to conclude that she should continue to help the WLCC judges, court manager and other staff cover-up the fact that their 27 September 2007 letter was a breach of CPR Rule 3.1(3) – as well as deceit – by not replying to my question asking whether the 27 September 2007 communication was “as per court regulations”? WHAT led Paulette James OBE to conclude that she should continue to assist the WLCC judges and court manager in covering-up their failure to perform as per their remit under CPR Part 1 - Overriding Objective - by spinning, yet another, and contradictory excuse for their total silence (that lasted for more than 3 months) following my 2 October 2007 letter? WHAT led Paulette James OBE to conclude that she should continue to assist the WLCC judges and court manager in covering-up their misconduct - by concocting a fabrication that my Defence was “not valid.. because of the striking-out of (my) (non-existent) counterclaim” and I had “made no formal application to reinstate (my) (non-existent) counterclaim”? • Holding me responsible for the adjournment of the 8 May 2007 hearing on the ground that, "contrary to procedural rules...[I] did not file an application for contesting the court's jurisdicition". As evidenced under point 3, above, this is not true: I DID file an application, and did this within the 14-day deadline - and it was evidently recognised as it was the subject of the 24 August 2007 hearing (point # 11, above). WHAT led Paulette James OBE to conclude that, with the aim of justifying the cancellation of the 8 May 2007 heating, she could falsely claim that I had not filed an Application Contesting Jurisdiction? • Blotting out WLCC falsely capturing in its 3 April 2007 notice that I "intend to defend part of the claim" (see point # 7 above) by leaving out the 'inconvenient parts' from Portner and Jaskel's letter of 1 May 2007. Paulette James OBE claims that Portner's letter demonstrates that it "had been made aware of [my] correct intention" v. what the letter states "...apart from receiving Notice that an Acknowledgement of Service has been filed...dated 3rd April 2007... we have not received anything further from.... the court" At least, one positive outcome: after my sending four letters over a period of six months, WLCC finally 'decided' to send me an amended version of its 3 April 2007 notice, dated 11 January 2008 (point # 17) WHAT led Paulette James OBE to conclude that she could absolve the WLCC staff of responsibility and accountability by trivializing the fact that they captured SERIOUSLY FALSE data in the 3 April 2007 Notice? • My request to have the case transferred to another court “so that I can exercise my rights under the Human Rights Act 1998…” was circumvented by Paulette James stating “…I have found no evidence…which suggests you have been denied a fair hearing since the matter has not yet come to a final hearing. I cannot therefore confirm your complaint in this respect”. My reply was “you appear to not understand the meaning of “so that””, and that “any fair minded, reasonable person who looked at the events with this court would, I am sure, understand my position”. (NB: I forgot to quote the 24 August 2007 hearing (point # 11, above) as evidence… added to everything else that had been taking place in WLCC since the claim was filed… and before, in 2002-04) WHAT led Paulette James OBE to conclude, in relation to my wanting the case transferred to another court “so that I can exercise my rights under the Human Rights 1998 for a fair hearing”, that she could purposely misinterpret what I wrote in order to overlook the ‘inconvenient’ overwhelming evidence? My reply to the comment “So far as your allegations of collusion are concerned, I have found no evidence whatsoever to support your contention…” is
WHAT led Paulette James OBE to conclude that she could help the WLCC judges and staff - by claiming that that she had “found no evidence whatsoever to support your allegations of collusion”?
I also wrote:
In relation to asking, in my 5 December 2007 letter (and subsequent letters), for my case to be transferred to another court, (point 19 above), the four letters that followed 'from' 'Customer Service' (10 December 2007, 20 December 2007, 21 December 2007 and 2 January 2008) totally ignored my demand. It is only in the fifth letter of 10 January 2008 that I am finally told that I need to "make a formal application to the court" (See next point ) I concluded my letter by saying "I no longer wish to correspond with your Office as it is proving to be a waste of my time". I copied Jack Straw, 'Justice' Secretary, on this letter. (NB - For other letters to Jack Straw, see # 20, above and # 25 and # 29, below ) There are more points covered in the 10 January 2008 letter, and in my reply of 28 January 2008. Of these, I draw your attention to my highlighting that a very serious breach of CPR took place with the 29 November 2002 claim (1.1MB) as it was signed by Joan Hathaway, MRICS, Martin Russell Jones, "a 'managing agent' who manages the property" (as explained e.g. in My Diary - 9 Mar 07). The reply 'from' Paulette James OBE:
To which I replied: "It is the duty of the courts to ensure they operate under the ‘Overriding Objective’. I have enough on my hands with fighting against repeated ‘attacks’ from a rogue landlord and his equally rogue aides, without taking on the responsibility of the courts. As a taxpayer, paying for the Court Service, I expect delivery on what I am paying for... See also my questions in relation to the breach of my Human Rights by HMCS 'Customer Service') (24) Instead of completing the 11 January 2008 Allocation questionnaire, I sent a 26 January 2008 application (cc'd Ahmet Jaffer, Portner and Jaskel) "To: A Judge committed to the concept of Justice" asking for transfer of the case to another court(Note at March 2008 - Under threat, I eventually returned an Allocation questionnaire - see below point # 26 ) I received an 11 January 2008 notice from WLCC to which was attached an Allocation Questionnaire, asking me to return it by 28 January 2008. Considering that my 12 September 2007 "Defence & Counterclaim" has been with WLCC since 13 September 2007, why has WLCC waited until now to send this? I view this as a U-turn, triggered by my actions in December, intended to keep my case under its control. Indeed, this action, added to the 10 January 2008 reply 'from' Customer Service (discussed under the previous point) further reinforces in my mind the views I expressed in December, under point 22:
One thing for sure: all that happened with WLCC this year, added to what took place in 2002-2004 has led me to totally lose my confidence in this court. So, instead of returning the allocation questionnaire, on 26 January 2008 I sent a letter "To: A Judge committed to the concept of Justice, c/o West London County court" asking for the case to be "transferred to a court and a judge committed to operating under the Overriding Objective" - and copied Ahmet Jaffer, Portner and Jaskel on this letter. Some of my main points: • "... my perception [that] WLCC...has - and continues – to allow itself i.e. judicial process and its representatives to be treated in absolute and utter contempt by the Claimant and its aides" • "The Claimant and its aides, comprising of lawyers and surveyors have a well-documented history of lying to WLCC (as well as to Wandsworth County Court) – in relation to court claims against me (and other leaseholders at Jefferson House). Examples:"(1) Claim supported by false information..." ( (NB e.g. WLCC point # 2 , # 3 , # 10 ; LVT point # 1, # 4 , # 8.1.2 ; all the section on Mr Brian Gale ; Martin Russell Jones point # 16 , # 17 , # 14 , # 20 , # 21 , # 22 ; Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor point # 6.7 , # 6.3 , # 6.4 , # 6.5 , # 6.6 ; Portner and Jaskel point # 6.2 , # 6.3 , # 7 , # 15 , # 17 , # 19 , # 23 ) "(2) Abuse of process of court: in 2002-2003, by pursuing the same action (against me and 10 other leaseholders) concurrently under two separate jurisdictions: WLCC and LVT" (NB: LVT introduction ; point # 1 , # 6 ; Mr Andrew Ladsky ; Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor point # 2 , point # 6.1 ; WLCC point # 2 , # 4 ; ) "(3) False reporting to a judge, in WLCC, of actions taken e.g. in 2003, in the context of a hearing that concerned me (and other leaseholders) falsely claiming that (i) the LVT determination had been implemented; (ii) it had been reflected in the leaseholders’ service charge demands. Both claims were made under a statement of truth in the application for hearing" (NB: Ms Ayesha Salim, Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor point # 6.6 , # 6.3 ; Martin Russell Jones point # 16 , # 17 ; Pridie Brewster point # 18 ; WLCC point # 9 , # 10 ) "(4) False claims of not receiving documents e.g. Portner and Jaskel claiming that it had not received my 3 May 2007 Skeleton Argument" (NB: Mr Ahmet Jaffer, Portner and Jaskel & Mr Greg Williams, 2 Gray's Inn Square Chambers - point # 17 ) In a note, I also highlighted "lying by the Claimant and its aides...in the LVT in 2002-2003 - hence, amounting to lying to other representatives of the judicial system....false statements by Mr Brian Gale, MRICS, Steel Services’ surveyor in his 13 December 2002 Expert Witness report to the tribunal:
"False statements in other evidence supplied to the tribunal: in statements made by Mr Brian Gale and Ms Joan Hathaway, MRICS, MRJ, in a report, as well as in correspondence from Ms Hathaway to the tribunal that included stating "...regarding the proposed penthouse...although the planning permission was granted it was subsequently found that the scheme was not a viable proposition...there are no plans to build the penthouse at the property ") • "...by turning down my application (at the 24 August 2007 hearing)...for transfer of my case to the LVT, WLCC has ‘lined me up’ for unjust treatment" (point # 11 , above)• "Anticipating that a proper evaluation of the claim will support my position that, at a minimum, the claim against me is largely false, and might even be entirely false, (NB: my 12 September 2007 "Defence & Counterclaim") actions will need to be taken against the parties that have filed the claim against me. Considering WLCC’s actions to date, it would not do this".I followed this by listing what I conclude - "in my non-lawyer opinion" - are breaches of statutes and regulations by Portner and Jaskel and the 'landlord', as well as breaches of covenants in my lease by the 'landlord'. Examples:
I concluded by stating "As a (law abiding) British National, I have the right to demand access to the ‘justice’ system. And, as through taxes, I am already paying for a Court Service that is positioned to ensure I get ‘justice’, I expect to get this service at no additional cost i.e. not needing to pay for the cost of transferring my case to a court and a judge committed to operating under the Overriding Objective" (*) (*) Sourced from the website of the then Department for Constitutional Affairs, on 14 March 2007 (See also my questions in relation to the breach of my Human Rights by this court) (25) Lack of response from WLCC has led me to send another letter to Jack Straw, 'Justice' Secretary on 18 February 2008......asking "Has this country reached the stage where finding a court and a judge committed to operating under the 'Overriding Objective' (*) has become impossible?" (*) Sourced from the website of the then Department for Constitutional Affairs, on 14 March 2007 I wrote: "To be absolutely clear: I now have NO CONFIDENCE and NO TRUST in WLCC.... I am sure that any fair minded, reasonable person considering what has taken place with this court since 2007, added to what took place in 2002-2004, would have no difficulty understanding my position. To also be absolutely clear: if your Court Service wants to continue ‘rolling over’ for Andrew Ladsky et. al., I am prepared to continue fighting all of you for my right to justice and redress until the very end...
(In relation to this letter, I wrote in My Diary 18 Feb 08 "Yes, I am sure that my 'un-English' way of being very direct and open is putting 'backs up'. At least, 'I' have the guts to say what I think - in a public forum - and to direct it at the people with the responsibility to do something about it..." - people who get paid 'by me', the taxpayer, to do their job. I am their employer, not their slave). In my letter to Jack Straw, I also refer to the 'List of Documents: Standard Disclosure', dated 4 February 2008, sent to me by Ahmet Jaffer, Portner and Jaskel, on 7 February 2008 - ( see Portner and Jaskel # 24 ). I did this in case WLCC opted to proceed - without informing me. (As it sent an allocation questionnaire (point # 24 above ), the preceding stages to supplying a 'List of documents' are a case management hearing, followed by directions from the court). However, this would imply that WLCC had - without informing me - set the case management hearing within the next four working days following the 28 January 2008 deadline for returning the allocation questionnaire (Portner dated its document 4 February), and issued directions, likewise, without informing me. As "there is only one judge in WLCC" (point # 6.1 above ) which meant a three and a half months wait to reschedule the 8 May 2007 hearing (point # 22 above) - it seems highly unlikely, unless... Of note: comparing the list of documents in the 4 February 2008 'List of Documents' with the counterclaims / issues I have raised in my 12 September 2007 "Defence & Counterclaim", it is blatantly obvious that they do not address them. (NB - For other letters to Jack Straw, see # 20 and # 23 above, and # 29, below) (See also my questions in relation to the breach of my Human Rights by Jack Straw's department)
On 13 March 2008, I took delivery of a 7 March 2008 Order from West London County Court, posted on 10 March 2008. It states:
The covering letter states a consequence of failing to comply with this order as "the Claimant may apply for judgment" Had I gone to my PO Box one day later (!!!), you can bet your bottom dollar that this what would have happened... no doubt leading ALL to have a celebration that they - 'finally - got me!' The letter refers to my 18 February 2008 letter to Jack Straw - ignoring my 26 January 2008 letter addressed to "A Judge committed to the concept of Justice", c/o West London County Court (point # 24 above). It informs me that my request for transfer of the case to another court cannot be dealt with by letter "as previously advised". The "previous advice" I was given is in the 10 January 2008 letter 'from' HMCS (point # 23 above) which states the need "to make a formal application", but does not refer me to any form. This information has only been provided to me for the first time in the 7 March 2008 correspondence from West London County Court. In light of the threat from WLCC (but in line with CPR Part 26, Rule 2.5), added to being reminded of other leaseholders' appalling experience with other courts, as well as tribunals, I opted to return the Allocation questionnaire - supported by 3 additional sheets in which I, yet again, raised the critical issues I had already raised in my 12 September 2007 Defence i.e. six months previously (and many, also in my 4 April 2007 Application to Contest Jurisdiction, and in my 3 May 2007 Skeleton Argument – hence 11 months previously)- explaining why I could not answer the majority of the questions. I concluded my list of 20 points with 20. “Directions need to be issued to ensure that the Claimant provides me with the necessary information to defend myself against the claim” Given the deadline, I hand-delivered the documents to West London County Court on 14 March - as testified by the stamp from the court on the first page of the Allocation questionnaire - of importance given subsequent events: I sent a copy to Ahmet Jaffer, Portner (even though, under CPR, I was NOT required to do this). By contrast, WLCC committed a breach of CPR Rule 26.9(2) as it did NOT supply me with a copy of 'Rootstock/Steel Services/Sloan Development' 'allocation questionnaire. (It ALSO failed to do this in relation to the 2002 claim). WHAT led the WLCC staff / judges to conclude that - in breach of CPR Rule 26.9(1)(a) - I should not be supplied with 'Rootstock/Steel Services/Sloan Development' 'allocation questionnaire? (‘If’ my not being supplied with it was due to Portner not sending it to WLCC, then a breach of CPR took place) Having given me a 24-hr turnaround, by 13 April i.e. one month later, I still have not heard from the court. I wonder why? Has my reply spoilt a plan? My 'internal radar' told me that something was being cooked-up - and, as ever, it turned out to be right. (See also my questions in relation to the breach of my Human Rights by this court)
On 23 April 2008 I took delivery of so-called 'case management directions' issued by District Judge Ryan on 9 April 2008 - and posted on 21 April - hence, nearly two weeks later. WHAT led District Judge Ryan / the WLCC staff to conclude that they could wait until 21 April 2008 to send me the 9 April 2008 so-called ‘case management directions – thereby making me lose two weeks of the timeline? Also sent with this order was this 18 April 2008 'Notice of trial to the Defendant' - giving the date as 21 August 2008. It is abundantly clear from these so-called ‘case management directions’ that District Judge Ryan took NO NOTICE whatsoever of what I wrote in my 14 March 2008 Allocation Questionnaire - and therefore FAILED to perform his duty and those of the court - defined under CPR Rules 26.5, 26.8 and under PD 26 (see pages 51-55 of my 2 January 2010 Subject Access Request to the Ministry of 'Justice' for detail) (Outcome of my SAR: Legal-Home # C) And, to cover this up, at the end of the Order, District Judge Ryan wrote “Because this Order has been made by the Court without considering representations from the parties…” What was the point of asking me to submit an Allocation Questionnaire in which I summarised the critical issues – that TOTALLY undermine the validity of the claim against me and very clearly demonstrate that I have NOT been supplied with key, legally required information in support of the claim - issues I have repeatedly been highlighting over the previous 12 months? District Judge Ryan's failure to do his job is NOT due to me as (among others - starting with the issue as to the legality of the claim against me), as per PD 26 para 2.2, I DID copy Ahmet Jaffer, Portner, on my 14 March 2008 Allocation Questionnaire, including my three additional sheets summarising the issues – and WLCC KNEW this from: (1) the Allocation Questionnaire form, on which I ticked the box “Have you sent a copy of this completed form to the other party(ies)?” ; (2) the fact that, at the end of the third additional sheet I wrote “cc. Mr Ahmet Jaffer, Portner and Jaskel”. WHAT led District Judge Ryan to conclude, in his 9 April 2008 so-called 'case management directions', that he could TOTALLY ignore the content of my 14 March 2008 Allocation Questionnaire (among many other documents by then) in which I reiterated the critical issues - and specifically asked for "Directions to ensure the claimant provides me with the necessary information ..." - and in the process breach WLCC's obligations under CPR - and by implication, his duty as a District Judge?... ...breach of Rules 26.5 and 26.8; breach of PD 26, starting with the introduction to this PD “Reminders of importance rule provisions” which states Rules “1.1 The Overriding Objective”; “1.4 The duty of the court to further the objective by actively managing cases”; Part 3 “The court’s case management powers (which may be exercised on application or on its own initiative) and the sanctions which it may impose…”; Parts 32-35 “Evidence, especially the court’s power to control evidence…”… …– as well as: para “2.2 Provision of extra information”, sub-paras (1), (2)(b) and (3)(d)(e)(f) ; para “4.1 The court’s general approach” – which emphasises the duty of the court “to deal with cases justly in accordance with the overriding objective”, and its “powers” to do this; para “4.2 Allocation of track”, sub-para (2) which refers to Rule 26.5(3) “requiring one or more parties to provide further information within 14 days”; para 5 “Summary judgment or other early termination”, sub-para “5.1 Parts of the court’s duty of active case management is the summary disposal issues which do not need full investigation and trial (rule 1.4(2)(c)”; para “5.2 The court’s powers to make orders to dispose of issues in that way include (a) under rule 3.4, striking out a statement of case…and (b) under Part 24, giving summary judgment where a claimant or a defendant has no reasonable prospect of success. The court may use these powers on an application or on its own initiative” (Note that in breach of Rule 26.9(2) WLCC did NOT supply me with a copy of 'Rootstock/Steel Services/Sloan Development' 'allocation questionnaire) WHAT led District Judge Ryan to conclude, in his 9 April 2008 so-called 'case management directions', that he could TOTALLY ignore, among many others, Portner - an officer of the court - and its client’s blatantly obvious breach of CPR Rule “1.3 The requirement that the parties help the court to further the overriding objective” (flagged-up as a “Reminder” under PD 26) – and therefore their absolute, utter contempt of Her Majesty’s Court Service? On 30 April 2008, I hand-delivered this Application to WLCC to vary the so-called 'case management directions'. (NB: As a result of more 'crash learning', I have discovered that 'making an application' requires using one of the numerous court forms. I now assume that this is what was meant when I was told by "Paulette James OBE", HMCS 'Customer Service' in her 10 January 2008 'response' that I "had not made an application for contesting the court's jurisdiction". (WLCC # 23 ) - although: how to explain the fact that the 24 August 2007 hearing WAS "to discuss my application"? Why didn't she say so? They know that I am a Litigant in Person. Opted to keep me in the dark in the hope of catching me out again? Well, this time: I HAVE filled in a form! and I am quoting the CPR rules and practice direction in support - and paid £40 (US$71)) (... the parable of the horse who fell down a well - My Diary 5 Apr 07) As explained in my application, I have made it "in the interests of justice and efficiency" as the 'case management directions' do not allow time to ensure I am supplied with the information I require to defend myself against the claim - as
In support, I quote: • PD 28 - para 3.3: “The court’s first concern will be to ensure…that the necessary evidence is prepared and disclosed", and • PD 28 - para 3.9 "Where the court is to give directions on its own initiative and it is not aware of any steps taken by the parties other than the service of statements of case, its general approach will be: As I note under Part C of my application, the timetable must allow for the filing of court orders to obtain information, stating: "As repeatedly highlighted to the Court and the Claimant – over the last 12 months - in numerous documents (skeleton argument, defence to the claim, notes to the allocation questionnaire, etc.): I need better particulars to be able to defend myself against the claim – including writing my witness statement. By right, I should have been provided with the main evidence I require a long time ago" "Under Rules 26.5(3) and 31.12(1) the court had the option of giving directions / issuing an order for specific disclosure. It opted to not do this - in spite of my highlighting the need in the supporting document to my allocation questionnaire" I follow this by highlighting that "given the claimant's conduct to date, the timetable must allow for the filing of court orders for disclosure of information, under Rule 31.12, as well as under Rule 31.17 for court orders for disclosure against other parties (e.g. accountants for Jefferson House; surveyors involved in determining the percentage shares of service charges) [that] may also be required" And, "There may also be a need to apply, under Rule 18.1, for one or more orders to obtain further information to clarify matters" I emphasise that all the information supplied to me, as well as already in my possession, must be endorsed by statements of truth from the supplying parties In this context, I highlight that "As, in August 2007, the court denied me access to extensive expertise by refusing my legitimate application for transfer of the case to the LVT (point # 11 above), I require that disclosure information supplied to me by the Claimant, its accountants, surveyors, lawyers, others, if any - is endorsed by statements of truth. This is to provide me with reassurance on the veracity, authenticity, as well as compliance with my lease and statutory rights in relation to the accounts for Jefferson House, service charge demands and other information to which I am entitled e.g. detail of the ownership profile of Jefferson House" (NB: Fellow leaseholders: note the following CPR rules, in Part 32 - Evidence)I emphasise that"In highlighting this requirement for statements of truth, I am also conscious of Rule 32.19 (1) Notice to admit or produce documents - “A party shall be deemed to admit the authenticity of a document disclosed to him under Part 31 (disclosure and inspection of documents) unless he serves notice that he wishes the document to be proved at trial”, and of "Rule 32.19 (2) A notice to prove a document must be served – (a) by the latest date for serving witness statements; or (b) within 7 days of disclosure of the document, whichever is later” (NB: In making my requests, I was also conscious of, among others,
as my 'sixth sense' warned me of a potential plan to present me with "evidence" in situations where I would not be able to challenge it due to e.g. lack of information) I follow this by asking for changes in the directions for the trial bundle, and by a suggested revised timetable. The outcome was a refusal by District Judge Nicholson - see point # 29, below Question for you fair minded, reasonable visitor to the site: Considering the above, do you view District Judge Ryan's so-called 'case management directions' of 9 April 2008 as reflecting consideration for the Overriding Objective (*) comprised under Part 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules:
(*) Sourced from the website of the then Department for Constitutional Affairs, on 14 March 2007 In justifying my heading for this entry "the WLCC judges are continuing on their mission to 'make me pay' for exposing what has - and continues to take place in WLCC', in addition to the so-called 'case management directions', I also take the following into consideration (among others): • Proceeding with an ILLEGAL claim against me: TWO COMPANY NAMES as claimants; BOTH claiming to be 'my landlord'; EACH represented by a DIFFERENT firm of solicitors; EACH expecting me to pay a DIFFERENT amount (point # 1, above) • The 3 April 2007 'Notice that acknowledgement of service has been filed' FALSELY stating "The defendant responded to the claim indicating an intention to defend part of the claim" (Point # 7 above) • The total lack of support in ensuring that Portner supplied me with its skeleton argument (Point # 9 above) • 'Deputy' District Judge McGovern's refusal to have my case transferred to the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal (point # 11 above) • The intentional delay in sending the tape to my nominated company - resulting in my not having it when I wrote my Defence (point # 13, above) • The 27 September 2007 bullying letter masquerading as an order, unlawfully demanding that I pay a £1,700 (US$3,000) fee (point # 14 above) - and the subsequent contradictory explanations (point # 22 and point # 23 above) - not to mention the three months plus silence from WLCC and Portner that followed my 2 October 2007 letter to the WLCC court manager, on which I copied Jaffer, Portner. • It had, yet again, 'another attempt' with its 7 March 2008 order that contained the threat to "strike out [my] defence" by giving me a very tight deadline to reply (point # 26 above ) I interpret the above events as a mix of attempts to find an opportunity to issue judgment against me in order to make me pay to Ladsky monies NOT due and payable - by capitalising on the fact that I am a Litigant in Person: attempts to strike out my Defence; preventing me from being supplied with the information to which I am legally entitled so that I cannot defend myself against the claim. Well, West London County Court - and Wandsworth County Court -were instrumental in making some of my fellow leaseholders in 2002-04 pay a lot more than they were legally liable for (see WLCC , among others, points # 6 and # 5 ; Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor (CKFT) points # 6.3 and # 6.6 ; Pridie Brewster point # 18 )... ...and WLCC did this on the basis of a claim that was in very serious breach of Civil Procedure Rules as the statement of truth was signed by Joan Hathaway, Martin Russell Jones - see e.g. My Diary 9 Mar 07 (In addition to being based on false information - which WLCC KNEW - WLCC points # 2 , # 3 and # 4 )
The above is my introduction to the 'Standard Disclosure' list of documents. As per the so-called 9 April 2008 'case management directions' issued by District Judge Ryan, I sent my Standard Disclosure to Ahmet Jaffer, Portner on 6 May 2008 (Portner # 26) (See My Diary - 6 May 08 and, further detail, 15 May 08 ; Home page-Overview)
On 13 May 2008, I took delivery of the 1 May 2008 Order issued by District Judge Nicholson - yet again, posted 8 days later - on 9 May 2008) = more games by the WLCC judges and court manager to ensure that I lost even more time relative to the timeline . In this Order, District Judge Nicholson refuses my 30 April 2008 Application for amendments to the 9 April 2008 so-called 'case management directions' issued by District Judge Ryan (point # 27, above) The Order states"If the Defendant wishes to obtain information from the Claimant the Defendant should make a request for the information, and if it is not given the Defendant should make an Application to the court” I replied on 14 May 2008 (copying Jack Straw, 'Justice' Secretary) that "the court is perfectly aware that the Claimant has not supplied me with the information I should, by right (covenants in my lease, and my statutory rights) have been provided with – a long time ago”. In support of my position of a “game plan to prevent me from getting the information in time to write my Witness Statement, I emphasised that, "given the Claimant’s conduct to date, I would need to make a request for information", and highlighted "PD 18 5.5(2) which requires allowing 14 days for reply before filing an application in court for an order". (In the last paragraph I wrote: "Whatever the outcome: my conscience is clear") I WAS PROVEN RIGHT: on 19 May 2008, I hand-delivered a Part 18 Request to Ahmet Jaffer, Portner and Jaskel, giving a 14-day deadline for reply by 2 June 2008. Not only did Jaffer NOT reply, he did not even acknowledge my Part 18 Request. So, thanks to District Judge Ryan and District Judge Nicholson - in breach of CPR (point # 27, above) - I was left with having to write my Witness Statement WITHOUT key legally required information. WHAT led District Judge Nicholson to conclude that he could reject my Application “in the interests of justice and efficiency” which I supported with explanations - and references to CPR - in stating that “the case management timetable makes no provision to ensure I am supplied with the information required” – thereby leaving me, as I predicted in my 14 May 2008 reply to District Judge Nicholson, in the extremely prejudiced position of having to write my 3 June 2008 Witness Statement without key information to which I am legally entitled? WHAT led District Judge Nicholson, District Judge Ryan, 'Deputy' District Judge McGovern and the WLCC court manager to conclude that they could overlook their duty imposed by CPR - by TOTALLY ignoring the content of ALL of my communications to the court over a period of 16 months, in which I repeatedly highlighted – with a massive amount of ‘black on white’ evidence in support – the fraudulent, malicious, vexatious conduct of Portner's Jeremy Hershkorn and Ahmet Jaffer and of their client, Andrew Ladsky et.al.– and resulted in my being placed on a most definitely very “unequal footing”? (see e.g. my 19 January 2009 reply to the Points of Dispute; my 3 June 2008 Witness Statement) WHAT led District Judge Nicholson, District Judge Ryan, 'Deputy' District Judge McGovern and the WLCC court manager to conclude that they could turn a blind eye to Portner's Jeremy Hershkorn and Ahmet Jaffer - officers of the court – and their client, Andrew Ladsky et.al., blatantly obvious breaches of CPR - and not take action against them? WHAT led District Judge Nicholson, District Judge Ryan and the WLCC court manager to conclude that they could also ignore Portner's blatantly obvious breaches of its legal obligations under (1) the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990, ss 27-28 as amended by the Access to Justice Act 1999, s.42; (2) the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 – Ch. 41 s.17? WHAT led District Judge Nicholson, District Judge Ryan and 'Deputy' District Judge McGovern to conclude that they could also ignore Portner and its client, Andrew Ladsky, blatantly obvious breaches of numerous Acts, including of my statutory rights – ALL of which I identified in the documents I served on WLCC: (1) Fraud Act 2006 ; (2) Money Laundering Regulations / Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 ; (3) Malicious Communications Act 1998 ; (4) Theft Act 1968 - s.17 False accounting ; s.21 Blackmail ; (5) Protection from Harassment Act 1997; (6) s.5 of the Landlord & Tenant Act 1987 ; (7) s.151 of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002? That's the game the WLCC judges wanted to play: I had only one round. I would fight for a 'knockout'.One exception re. the provision of information: in the context of the so-called 9 April 2008 'case management directions', on 16 May 2008, I asked Portner to supply me with documents from its 4 February 2008 standard disclosure (Portner # 24). One turned out to be a transaction for Jefferson House's airspace. Demonstrating the perversion, deviousness and warped mentality of Ladsky and his corrupt lackeys, Portner and Jaskel, is the fact that the airspace of Jefferson House was transferred from Steel Services to Rootstock (for "£1") (Headlessors # 5 ) SEVEN WEEKS BEFORE before filing the claim against me. (See Portner and Jaskel # 27 for more detail) (NB - For other letters to Jack Straw, see above # 20 , # 23 and # 25 ) (See also my questions in relation to the breach of my Human Rights by this court) (30) As per the 9 April 2008 so-called 'case management directions', I sent my 'knockout' 3 June 2008 (74 pg) Witness Statement (4 pg - Main Points) only to Portner and Jaskel... but I am sure that it quickly found its way to individuals connected with the court - and beyond. Another of my predictions materialised: I did NOT received a witness statement from "Rootstock Overseas Corp. , Steel Services Ltd" = Andrew Ladsky et.al.The 9 April 2008 so-called 'case management directions' state “Both parties shall, by 4pm on Wednesday, 4th June 2008, serve on each other the witness statements of themselves and of all witnesses (other than expert witnesses) on whom they intend to rely” Under point 2 of my 3 June 2008 Witness Statement I wrote: "Considering the (well documented) conduct of the Claimant, i.e. Mr Andrew Ladsky (et.al.?), the requirement “serving on themselves” leads me to anticipate that I will not receive the Claimant’s Witness Statement as directed – allowing Mr Ladsky and supporters at large to see my Witness Statement first – in the knowledge that there will be no sanction for not complying with the WLLC Order (as happened with the 19 April 2007 WLCC Order in relation to the skeleton arguments) (Portner # 16 ; # 17 ). I hope to be proven wrong" I knew I would not be proven wrong: I did NOT receive the witness statement from "Rootstock Overseas Corp / Steel Services Ltd / Sloan Development" (Portner and Jaskel # 6 ) i.e. Andrew Ladsky et.al . = a REPEAT of what took place with the previous - equally FRAUDULENT - claim of 29 November 2002, filed against me, also in WLCC (My 19 October 2003 Witness Statement) (31) On 5 June 2008, I replied to Ahmet Jaffer's letter of 23 May 2008 - on which he copied WLCC - and in which he suggested that the case be moved "from fast-track to multi-track" - including his querying my supplying, on 21 May 2008, an integral copy of my 6 May 2008 Standard Disclosure of 243 documentsKnowing that (as happened with the 29 November 2002 WLCC claim: My 19 October 2003 Witness Statement) I would NOT receive a witness statement from "Roostock (sic) Overseas Corp / Steel Services Ltd" nor, indeed, from "Sloan Development", I opted to wait until the day after the deadline for the exchange of witness statements to send my 5 June 2008 reply to Jaffer's letter of 23 May 2008. In his typically patronizing, condescending, under-handed and ironic letter, Jaffer suggests that the claim should be moved from 'fast-track' to 'multi-track' "to allow time for the very voluminous bundle of documents (Portner # 26) you have submitted as well as hear oral evidence and submissions on both sides within one day. We would suggest therefore (subject to the Court’s approval) that this case be transferred to a multi-track listing with a (sic) estimated length of hearing of 2 days otherwise we risk being adjourned to a date months ahead with the ensuing additional expense”. (10/10 for irony!) The ‘very convenient’ benefit to Ladsky and his mob of “suggesting” this 11th hour switch was that they avoided the CPR pre-hearing requirements that are more demanding than for ‘fast-track’ As I wrote in my 5 June 2008 letter to Ahmet Jaffer, Portner and Jaskel:
I also wrote to WLCC on the same day, i.e. 5 June 2008, reporting the fact that, in breach of the 9 April 2008 'case management directions', 'Rootstock' had not submitted a witness statement and that it clearly had implications on the management of the case. The case management directions state
NB: In relation to Jaffer's comment in his 23 May 2008 letter “We received your letter of 21st May 2008 enclosing two lever arch files of copy documents you wish to rely upon at the hearing of this claim. The majority of the documents provided (without any request from us)…” - I followed my 'sixth sense' as the 9 April 2008 so-called 'case management directions' led me to anticipate MORE DIRTY TRICKS. BECAUSE: the 9 April 2008 so-called ‘case management directions’ by District Judge Ryan : (1) place the responsibility on Portner to compile the bundle; (2) require that the bundle be served “Not more than seven or less than three clear working days before the trial.. and serve a copy of it on the Defendant” – thereby leaving me no time to ensure that it contains the right documents. Furthermore, while 'the directions' state “The parties shall endeavour to agree the contents of the bundle before it is filed” District Judge Ryan could be under no illusion whatsoever that what he wrote would NOT happen. Another event that reinforced my anticipation of more dirty tricks was my experience with a doctor on 7 May 2008 i.e. in the SAME month - See My Diary 2009 - Introduction-Medical # 2.
...threaten my then ISP with "proceedings for defamation and for substantial damages and costs" because "[my website] contains suggestions that our client [Mr Ladsky] is guilty of criminal activities and fraud all of which are totally unsubstantiated, outrageous and false... Our client's reputation has been severely damaged..." (I can't stop laughing at that) (Portner # 2 ) (My Diary - 3 Oct 06 ) ... repeatedly threaten my current website Host with proceedings unless my Host closed down my website, claiming that "all of the allegations on [my] website are clearly untrue and therefore defamatory" (point # 2 ; My Diary - 5 Feb 07) If the claims on my website are "false", "outrageous", "unsubstantiated" and "defamatory" of 'the good character' of Andrew David Ladsky (I can't stop laughing at that): why has he dropped "ALL" of his (second) FRAUDULENT claim against me? (The first fraudulent claim was in November 2002: summary, My Diary 22 Nov 08; CKFT ; WLCC, Martin Russell Jones, LVT, etc.)) Considering that - just one week previously - Jaffer was asking for the case to be "moved to a multi-track" (point # 31, above), why drop the claim now? Knocked out by my Witness Statement + somebody got 'cold feet'? Remember what I have said all along - including in numerous communications to Portner and Jaskel and WLCC over the past 15 months? This claim is FRAUDULENT. BUT, this time, I was NOT ‘represented’ in relation to the claim. Hence, the 'mafia' could not repeat the same trick: arriving at 'an arrangement' with 'my' legal advisers - as happened with the - equally FRAUDULENT - 29 November 2002 claim filed against me, also in WLCC (My 19 October 2003 Witness Statement ; home # 4.12 , # 4.13 ; Piper Smith Basham/Watton # 7.12.1) Furthermore, the ploys and ‘games’, and the cruel, highly vicious, perverse, sadistic, barbaric treatment – BY ALL - in 2007-08 FAILED to make me cave in - including FAILED to lead me to appoint legal 'advisers' = second time round: the FEAR tactics had NO hold on me - very clearly leading – ALL - to suffer immense frustration and anger. As a result of my starting the procedure for claiming my costs, Ladsky and his mob came-up with an outrageous, preposterous excuse for dropping the claim - see Portner # 32 (For further detail, see My Diary 7 May 08 / Portner # 31 ) Is this going to be the end of this claim? Civil Procedure Rule 38.7 states " A claimant who discontinues a claim needs the permission of the court to make another claim against the same defendant if – (a) he discontinued the claim after the defendant filed a defence (I did: 12 September 2007); and (b) the other claim arises out of facts which are the same or substantially the same as those relating to the discontinued claim" Looking at what happened with WLCC since 2007, and in 2002-2004 with the previous - equally FRAUDULENT - claim: only time will tell. (33) As per CPR 38.1, on 26 June 2008 I sent Portner and Jaskel my Statement of Costs - a total of £7,756 (US$13,676)... and the games continuedCivil Procedure Rule 38(6) states "...a claimant who discontinues is liable for the costs which a defendant against whom he discontinues incurred on or before the date on which notice of discontinuance was served on him" In my 26 June 2008 Statement of Costs, spanning the last 16 months, I gave Portner until 4 July to reply, stating that if my costs are disputed, I will file an application for an order for costs. For subsequent events, see Portner and Jaskel # 32 , # 33, and # 34 - with more detail in My Diary 11 Nov 08 which relate to District Judge Nicholson signing an Order - just 4 hours before the hearing (hence, more than TWO months AFTER I filed my Application for a detailed cost assessment hearing) - for the case to be transferred to another part of the Court Service: the Supreme Court Costs Office - see My Diary 30 Jan 09 for what happened during this hearing: CONTINUATION OF THE VENGEANCE! All the events with the Court Service, including the London Leased hold Valuation Tribunal are comprised in my 2 January 2010 Subject Access Request to the Ministry of 'Justice' (Legal-Home # C). |
