This section comprises of:

1. Abbreviations used on the site

2. Definition of terms: freehold; leasehold; forfeiture

3. Definition of words from dictionaries and charity organisations, followed by examples. In the case of the word 'breach', the following legislation, codes of conduct, as well as my lease are covered:

• Administration of Justice Act 1970
• Bar Council Code of Conduct
• Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) Part 1 - "Overriding Objective"
• Court and Legal Services Act 1990
• Criminal Justice Act & Public Order Act 1994
• Data Protection Act 1998
• Defamation Act and 1996
• Fraud Act 2006
• Guide to the Professional Conduct of Solicitors (The)
• Human Rights Act 1998 - and Equality and Human Rights Commission
• Landlord and Tenant Act 1985
• Landlord and Tenant Act 1987
• Malicious Communications Act 1988
• My lease
• Money Laundering Regulations / Proceeds of Crime Act 2002
• Property Misdescriptions Act 1991
• Protection from Harassment Act 1997
• Theft Act 1968 / Theft (Amendment) Act 1996

and, each instance, include examples of breach - in my NON-LAWYER - opinion

4. Extracts from the above are compiled in this section

PLEASE VISIT http://www.legislation.gov.uk as Acts get amended

BC

Bar Council (Member: Stan Gallagher)

BGA

Brian Gale Associates, Andrew Ladsky's surveyor

BM

Barrie Robert Martin, FRICS (Fellow of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors), Martin Russell Jones

'Surfaces' when Joan Hathaway, MRICS, needs 'assistance'.

BVI

British Virgin Islands Financial Services

CKFT

Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor, solicitors acting for 'Steel Services' (Advisors to Jefferson House ; Headlessors ; Freehold ownership ; Owners identity ) - Contacts: Lanny Silverstone and Ayesha Salim

Has identified Andrew David Ladsky as its client

CPR

Civil Procedure Rules

DCA

Department for Constitutional Affairs (Subsequently disappeared following the creation of the Ministry of Justice)

Headed by Lord Falconer of Thoroton, the (then) Lord Chancellor, it (then) covered the courts, the Legal Services Ombudsman, the Land Registry, and other departments.

FSA

Financial Services Authority

ICAEW

Institute of Chartered Accountants in England & Wales; member: Pridie Brewster

JH

Joan Doreen Hathaway, MRICS (Member of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors), Martin Russell Jones, the main contact for Jefferson House

K&C

Kensington & Chelsea council

L&T [date]

Landlord & Tenant Acts

LGO

Local Government Ombudsman

Part of the (then) Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM), headed by John Prescott

At the time of my dealings with the LGO, it reported to the same minister (Nick Raynsford) who's other responsibilities included, among others, Local Government. (I perceive this situation as amounting to conflict of interest)

LM

Lisa Mclean, Legal Assistant, Piper Smith & Basham/Watton

LSO

Legal Services Ombudsman

Part of the (then) Department for Constitutional Affairs (DCA), (then) headed by Lord Falconer of Thoroton

LVT

London Leasehold Valuation Tribunal

Part of the (then) Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM)

MRJ

Martin Russell Jones, 'managing' agents for Jefferson House since 1989; apparently replaced in 2011 by Martyn Gerrard

ODPM

Office of the Deputy Prime Minister - then headed by John Prescott

PJ

Portner and Jaskel , solicitors acting for Rootstock Overseas Corp, Sloan Development and, previously Steel Services (Advisors to Jefferson House ; Headlessors ; Freehold ownership ; Owners identity ) Contacts: Jeremy Hershkorn, Ahmet Jaffer, Daniel Broughton

Has identified Andrew David Ladsky as its client

PSB

Piper Smith Basham/Watton - solicitors who were 'supposed' to be acting for me. Contacts: Richard Twyman, Lisa McLean

OSS

Office for the Supervision of Solicitors. (It has since been re-badged as Consumer Complaints Service...and more since: My Diary 12 Apr 07 ) (Members: Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor ; Piper Smith Basham/Watton , Portner and Jaskel )

(According to an article in the Law Gazette of 3 August 2006 , the Law Society's complaints service spent £29 million (US$51 million) to handle nearly 19,000 complaints over a period of one year)

Resident H

Person who was running the Residents Association at Jefferson House until May 2001

RICS

Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors; members Ms Joan Doreen Hathaway, MRICS, and Mr Barrie Martin, FRICS, Martin Russell Jones ; Brian Gale, MRICS

And TOTALLY unlike these corrupt, evil, morally depraved individuals: my surveyor, Mr Tim Brock, LSM Partners

S.[number]

A short-cut for 'section' when referring to a section in an Act

SCCO

Supreme Court Costs Office - My Diary 30 Jan 09

TRO

Tenancy Relations Officer - at Kensington & Chelsea Housing department

WCC

Wandsworth County Court

WLCC

West London County Court 2002-2004 ; West London County Court - Post 2004

Definition of terms: freehold, leasehold and forfeiture

Introduction

The following is a mix of 'my layperson ' definitions of some terms used in this website, as well as some extracts from legislation.

Please, refer to the appropriate sources for the 'official' / expert definition / the latest version / updates e.g. the website of Leasehold Advisory Service (LEASE), a London-based, government-funded department which also publishes free leaflets and guides.

My personal assessment of LEASE (from first-hand experience) is that, being a government department, you get the 'party line' (See John Prescott # 5 and # 6 ). However, it demonstrated good knowledge of legislation. To find out about the drawbacks / limitations / difficulties in implementing the legislation, talk to other leaseholders. (Note: At the 22 Nov 08 C.A.R.L. AGM, some leaseholders told me that they assessed LEASE as "useless" - My Diary 22 Nov 08)

As to various Acts, you can buy them at: TSO Customer Services, TSO, PO Box 29, Norwich NR3 IGN – tel: 0870 600 5522; email: customerservices@tso.co.uk ; www.tsoshop.co.uk. Also at Blackwell’s Bookshop email: holborn@blackwell.co.uk, tel: 020 7831 9501. 

The problem with these is that they are amended (at times, in a significant way) through Statutory Instruments - which are not the easiest things to find, and can also be superseded by newer Acts. My suggestion is to access the Acts through http://www.legislation.gov.uk which will eventually replace http://www.opsi.gov.uk - as they (usually) incorporate the changes. (Select the 'Amended' option on the left handside). Again, I would suggest to you that you talk to other leaseholders.

If you do a search on the Web, you will find numerous other sources of information on leasehold, including books. (It is a big industry as there are c.3 million leaseholders in the United Kingdom , and it is probably fair to say that the majority are being abused by landlords and their aides in one form or another. I give the list of cases on the websites of the Leasehold Valuation Tribunals and the Lands Tribunal in support of my claim)

1. What is freehold?

A freehold property means a property owned in perpetuity. It is yours to keep for as long as you live. You can pass it on to your children, who can then pass it on to their children, etc.

In other words, it is the system in existence practically throughout the world.

2. What is leasehold in the context of a residential property?

The outcome of my experience since 2002, added to that of other leaseholders (see e.g. My Diary 22 Nov 08; C.A.R.L.'s newsletters) - leads me to describe leasehold properties as 'concentration camps' - with many controlled, like mine, by greed-ridden, parasitic, extremely vicious, cruel, perverse, sadistic psychopathic / sociopathic 'Rachman' landlords and their aides.

Off-the-record, an MP (I 'think' this MP is one of the 'honourable' ones :-) ) described it to me as "A licence to print money"

It is the dominant form of tenure for flats (apartments) in the United Kingdom, principally England and Wales .

In tandem with the supporting infrastructure - the residential leasehold sector is TOTALLY UNREGULATED.

On paper you have 'rights' but, more often than not, in practice, the means claimed to be there to help you implement 'your rights' are in fact there for the benefit of the landlords (e.g. my case).

If you want to live for example in London, you have very little choice but to buy a leasehold flat - making you a 'leaseholder' - as relatively few are 'Commonhold'. (Your other option is a house (as I understand it, they are generally freehold properties). Nowadays, you are unlikely to find one for less than £1 million (US$1.8 million) - at least in the centre of London).

The leasehold system is an archaic, feudal, outrageously unfair form of tenure. You only need to look at the umbrella term for the legislation pertaining to it : 'landlord-tenant' to get the message. Unfortunately, it's only once you are in the trap that you notice these things.

Put simply, under a leasehold form of tenure, you buy the right - from the freehold owner of the block of flats, or the headlessor (one level below the freehold owner) (see e.g. the structure in my block - at February 2006) - to live in the flat for a given number of years which can be anything from a few years to 100 years+.  

What you pay for is usually equivalent to the full freehold value of the property - as you can readily see when you compare the price of flats in London with the price of flats, for example, in the major cities in mainland Europe .

This leads many people, especially foreigners unfamiliar with the leasehold system, but also many British people to believe that they actually 'own' the property. You often hear people say that they "bought a flat" (as I did). They have not. They have bought a lease i.e. paid rent for 'x' number of years in advance.

Those who have the foresight - and perseverance - to carefully wade their way through the legal jargon of the terms of the lease (or contract) (e.g. mine) (which is different for each block, and sometimes within a block) will usually conclude that some, if not many of the contract terms are highly unfair and unjust (see e.g. My Diary 2011 for the OFT's definition of 'unfair contract terms'). In fact, many read like a form of 'enslavement'. (Most leaseholders do not tend to read their lease (which can vary greatly), partly due to the frequently convoluted text and partly because they view it as 'something legal, best left in the hands of a solicitor'...more often than not to their demise).

While throughout the term of your lease you have paid for all the upkeep of the block, and might even have paid for improvements / enhancements to it, at the end of the term, you have nothing left. That's right: NOTHING! You end-up with your possessions on the pavement as the freehold owner / headlessor regains the property from you and sells the lease again on the open market - of course, at the current market price... in a perfect state of repair and maintenance - as YOU have paid for all the costs.

And the cycle repeats itself - thereby perpetuating ownership of property in the hands of relatively few freeholders. (Huge swathes of central London are owned by a handful of so-called 'Great Estates' e.g. Cadogan Estates, owned by the Earl of Cadogan, the Grosvenor Estates, owned by the Duke of Westminster, the Crown Estates and those of the Church with thousands of residential and commercial properties. See My Diary 1 Nov 03 for some brief extracts of 'Who owns Britain?', as well as well as October 2008 for examples of 'new entrants')

(And they are exporting their medieval method of operating e.g. Duke of Westminster's acquisition of two famous flea markets in Paris who, within one year, announced rent increases of between 35% and 70% ("Siege of the people's castle - This British aristocrat cannot be allowed to destroy Parisians' beloved flea markets", The Guardian, 17 Oct 07)

What if you / your children / grand-children want to stay in the property at the end of the lease? You have to buy another term on the lease i.e. you have 'to buy your flat' all over again - at the current market price.

Whereas in other countries property tends to be regarded as an investment that grows in value over time, if you have a leasehold flat in England and Wales, in effect, your investment actually depreciates year-on-year - until it gets to 'zero value'. However, depending on a number of factors, including the amount of time left on your lease, the increase in property prices can still lead to a significant return on investment i.e. the lease on the flat can be sold for more than the purchase price. (Remember that this is my 'layperson' explanation. Hence, consult expert, professional sources for an informed assessment).

Some new legislation (Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002) was introduced to, it was claimed by the government, allow leaseholders to convert ownership to commonhold i.e. buy their flat's allocated share of the freehold (same principle as ownership of flats in other countries). However, there are so many hurdles to overcome that very few blocks of flats have been able to take advantage of it (e.g. The Guardian, article of 6 August 2005 / press articles). These hurdles are hugely magnified when dealing with 'difficult' (an understatement) freehold owners (e.g. see My Diary 11 Nov 06 ; 22 Nov 08)

Clearly emphasising the intention to keep this highly lucrative form of tenure in place for the benefit of the freehold and headlease owners (Sure enough! see My Diary 11 Mar 08) is the fact that there is no compulsion on developers to build new flats on a commonhold basis (c.40% of new developments are leasehold). (For detail, see towards the end of section John Prescott ; for more recent information: see The Leaseholder, Summer 2008 - Issue 24 on the C.A.R.L. website)

3. What is forfeiture?

In its Summer 2004, issue 12, C.A.R.L. ( www.carl.org.uk ) describes forfeiture as...

"...the weapon of mass destruction that bullying landlords use to intimidate leaseholders into paying excessive and often fraudulent service charge demands"

The first example of this is the 7 October 2002 letter I received from Lanny Silverstone, Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor (CKFT) - on behalf of his client 'Steel Services' i.e. Andrew Ladsky (CKFT # 1 , # 6.2 ), in which he also threatened to contact my mortgage lender if I failed to immediately pay, what I knew, was a FRAUDULENT 17 July 02 demand of £14,400 'from' Joan Hathaway, MRICS, Martin Russell Jones (MRJ). The intent to bully, intimidate and coerce me into paying is particularly evident when compared to the letter he sent 10 days later to the solicitor of another leaseholder in my block (CKFT # 6.2 )

The second example is the 16 February 2007 letter from Jeremy Hershkorn, then at Portner and Jaskel - on behalf of 'Rootstock Overseas Corp' i.e. also Andrew Ladsky. Not only does Hershkorn threaten me with forfeiture, he also threatens me with "bankruptcy proceedings... and costs" (Portner # 3 )

What the corrupt, morally depraved Silverstone and Hershkorn were threatening to do was to take the flat away from me, unless I paid their client monies which were NOT due and payable. (To add insult to injury, as I found myself thrown out on the pavement, I would still have had to pay my mortgage lender any outstanding amount I had borrowed to buy the lease on my flat).

THE THREAT OF FORFEITURE (and bankruptcy proceedings) = FRAUD TOOL

As C.A.R.L. says (The Leaseholder, Summer 2004-Issue 12 and Spring 2004-Issue 11), forfeiture "is the weapon of mass destruction..." widely - but illegally - used by rogue solicitors e.g. Lisa McLean, Piper Smith Basham/Watton (who was meant to act 'for me'), in spite of having absolute knowledge that the service charge demand was fraudulent (PSB # 7.7 ) - endorsed Lanny Silverstone's letter of 7 October 2002 in her letter to me of 25 September 2003 stating "...it is perfectly legitimate for a landlord or those advising the landlord to threaten forfeiture proceedings for non-payment of service charges" (PSB # 7.19 , # 7.18.5 )

It makes me think of the comment by the Reader of The Times "My father used to say that the mafia never got a foothold in this country because our legal system was more corrupt than they were. Now I know what he meant!" (My Diary 12 Apr 07)

Rule 17.05 - Letters before action, in the Solicitors Code of Conduct states: “When writing a letter of claim a solicitor must not demand anything other than that recoverable under the due process of law” But the inappropriate use of the threat of forfeiture will continue because rogue solicitors have 'carte blanche' to do exactly y as they please by their 'professional' association, the Law Society, and by the Legal Services Ombudsman (CKFT # 6.2 , # 7 ; Legal Services Ombudsman # 2 ; Portner and Jaskel # 4 ; overview of the outcome of my complaints) - making all these so-called 'regulations', 'codes of conduct' and legislation just window dressing. HOORAY FOR 'SELF-REGULATION' !

By the way, local councils also use forfeiture e.g. against an 84 year old man

As I understand it, the threshold allowing the landlord to regain possession of the flat from a leaseholder is now £350 (US$620). Unbelievably, this is regarded as an 'improvement' (and has taken endless hours of debate in the House of Lords and various other quarters - by people who then went back to... needless to say, their 'secure' home). (I was outraged in 2010 to see John Prescott, who previously headed housing, proclaim that his "human rights" had been breached because his mobile phone might have been hacked in).

As can be seen in the Evening Standard article of 3 Dec 03, headed " Left homeless for £25 " (US$44), a leaseholder was left homeless because her landlord, used a landlord's right to forfeit a lease for non-payment of her £25 (US$44) annual ground rent for her £60,000 (US$106,000) flat. (Apparently, the leaseholder had sent at least two cheques to the landlord but he was not cashing them, opting instead to run along to the 'landlord-friendly' court to obtain a forfeiture order).

The journalist describes forfeiture as "a uniquely savage penalty inflicted only on leaseholders" .   Here is a law which, in the case of this leaseholder gave her landlord the right to get possession of an asset that was worth 2,400 times the amount of the alleged debt. (See My Diary 2011 for the OFT's definition of 'unfair contract terms')

A judge in Liverpool County Court was reported in the press in 2004 as having thrown out a lender's demand of £384,000 it claimed had accrued from an original loan of £5,750 - on the grounds that it "grossly contravenes principles of fair dealing" . 

Surely, current forfeiture law which allows recovery of several thousand times the alleged debt ought to more than qualify as "grossly contravening principles of fair dealing"

In fact, as reported by C.A.R.L. , by having forfeiture on the statute book, the government appears to be in breach of Article 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights, "Obligation to respect Human Rights" - but, (as with Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy) Article 1 has been OMITTED from the UK Human Rights Act 1998). This is illustrated by the decision in 'Commissioners of Customs and Excise v. Newbury' ( Times Law Report, 18 April 2003). In this case, judges ruled that the attempt by Customs and Excise to forfeit property in excess of the import duties owed to it actually breached Article 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

C.A.R.L. also views forfeiture as a breach of Article 3, "Prohibition of torture" since it constitutes inhuman and degrading treatment (The Leaseholder Spring 2004 Issue 11, on the C.A.R.L. website).

As captured on the home page and under John Prescott (# 4.3 ), in 2003, Keith Hill, then Housing Minister, stated, on a BBC Radio 4 programme, that the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act does not adequately address the serious problems posed to leaseholders by the continued presence of forfeiture on the statute books: "We didn't probably appreciate quite how significant this was for some of our citizens." Oh, really? (Might it be because there are no 'citizens' in this country - only 'subjects'?). WHY HAVE YOU FAILED TO DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT? Didn't want to upset the 'sacrosanct' greed-ridden, parasitic, extremely vicious, cruel, perverse, sadistic 'Rachman' landlords and their aides?

To ensure clarity of meaning, I have listed below a significant number of words used on the site, giving the dictionary description (COED = Concise Oxford English Dictionary definition) and followed them by examples that led me to use the words on the site.

A significant proportion of these words are drawn from my complaints : (1) to the Law Society against Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor (on 20 December 2004) and Piper Smith Basham (on 16 March 2004); (2) to the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors against Martin Russell Jones (1.1MB) (on 2 February 2005); (3) to the Bar Council against Mr Stan Gallagher (on 5 April 2004)

The word 'breach' is used on numerous occasions and relates to the section of an Act / code of conduct, or a Clause in my lease. In these instances the name of the Act / code of conduct / the word 'My lease' links to the last part of this section 'Extracts from legislation, codes of conduct and my lease' that comprises of more comprehensive extracts

PLEASE NOTE that:

•  Neither Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor nor Martin Russell Jones have come back to me since my complaint i.e. they have not refuted the content of my complaint. See Piper Smith Basham and Mr Gallagher for their replies.

•  In its 3 May 2006 reply to my letter of 30 April 2006 Portner and Jaskel did NOT address a single point in my letter. Please note that, in this letter, I stated for example that its client (which I knew to be Andrew Ladsky) had committed a criminal offence against me (under Section 10 (A) of the Landlord & Tenant Act 1987). Indeed, Portner and Jaskel wrote: “…your letter is irrelevant in places, misguided in others and incorrect in parts…”. In 'typical style', when I filed a complaint with the Law Society against Portner and Jaskel, it returned a verdict of "no malpractice" (Portner # 4 )

•  Throughout the site (probably in excess of 40 times) , I have emphasised that I am NOT a lawyer e.g. Home page # 4.18 , # 7 , # 17 ; Home page to 'Lawyers, courts & Legal Services Ombudsman' # 5 ; Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor # 6 , # 8 ; Martin Russell Jones # 13 , # 14 , # 24 ; Pridie Brewster # 21 , etc. In addition, when unclear, I write "it seems to me" e.g.re Laytons (under 'Notices by landlord' ) ; My Diary 18 February 2006, in relation to the so-called "notice of first refusal" sent to me by Portner and Jaskel

Against that, as stated on the home page to the site (# 15 ) : I TOO HAVE THE RIGHT TO BE HEARD

(*) Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights "Right to freedom of expression" - comprised under the Human Rights Act 1998; Defamation Act 1996 : Qualified privilege; Common law privilege )

Abuse

Examples

•  See my 2 January 2010 Subject Access Request to the Ministry of 'Justice' - Legal home # C ; Home page-Overview

•  Used by a leaseholder in the block to describe Mr Ladsky, in her letter to me of 1 November 2002

•  My perception that West London County Court and Wandsworth County Court have assisted 'Steel Services' in abusing Jefferson House's leaseholders by turning a 'blind eye and a deaf ear' to the evidence supplied against the claim WL203537, and associated Particulars of claim, as well as breaches of legislation (WLCC # 1 , # 2 , # 3 , # 4 )

•  My perception that the London Leasehold Valuation Tribunal has, likewise done the same thing by, among others: (1) wilfully failing to perform its legal remit ( # 6 , # 7 ); (2) in spite of its very damning report, LVT/SC/007/120/02, (3) agreeing to Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor's request for a hearing following my 20C application (# 5 , # 9 ) ; (4) failing to inform all the leaseholders of the application by 'Steel Services' ( # 10.2 ) ; (5) failing to copy "some" leaseholders on key elements of the application ( # 8.1.4 ; # 10.3 )

•  My perception that the Land Registry endorses abuse of leaseholders by landlords by registering title in complete disregard of the impact on the lease - and refuses to take action when brought to its attention (My Diary 28 March 2006 )

•  The 'carte blanche' handed to landlords and their aides by the government, partly through / non-implementation of legislation (see e.g. John Prescott # 4 and sub-points; # 5 , # 6 ), and partly by having absolutely nothing in place to help leaseholders who fall victim of abusive 'Rachman' landlords and their aides - in spite of the claims to the contrary (see John Prescott # 1 and sub-points ; # 2 and sub-points)

Anguish

Examples

•  Receiving the 29 November 2002 claim, ref WL203537 and Particulars of claim when I (and others leaseholders) had specifically been told - one month previously - by the tribunal to NOT pay the service charge demand (My Diary 6 Dec 02 , End January 2003 )

•  Missing the 28 May 2004 hearing due to West London County Court crass incompetence - at which the opportunity was taken to have the action against me open to further proceedings when the court KNEW that an agreement had been reached - as evidenced by the 23 August 2004 reply from the Court Service

•  Wondering what other 'punishment' I am going to be made to suffer for daring to challenge the service charge demand and continuing to fight against the ensuing, ongoing vicious vendetta against me (My Diary 2 Aug 06 , Home page # 4.15)

See also related: bullying ; coerce ; collude ; criminal ; defame ; humiliate ; intimidate ; persecute ; psychopath ; sociopath ; terrorise ; torment ; treatment-medical

Arrogant

Examples

•  See my 2 January 2010 Subject Access Request to the Ministry of 'Justice' - Legal home # C ; police 'replies' to my Subject Access Request - Kensington & Chelsea police # 5

• Portner and Jaskel’s 10 February 2006 so-called “S.5 L&T 1987 Notice of first refusal” is fraudulent as it FALSELY claimed that 'Steel Services' was still the Lessor for the whole of Jefferson House at the time - when, in fact, six week previously, 'Steel Services' had disposed of its headlease interest to Lavagna Enterprises, thereby losing control of the last floor of Jefferson House - and becoming a lessee of Lavagna Enterprises (Headlessors ; Owners identity). (The 10 February 2006 "notice" is a carbon copy of previous notices when 'Steel Services' was the headlessor for the whole block (e.g. 13 December 2000 "notice" ; # 2 - 13 December 2000"Notice by landlord"). Nonetheless, Daniel Broughton, Portner and Jaskel, repeated the lie twice during the notice period – as summarised in my 30 April 2006 letter to Broughton - see Portner # 1 ; # 3 - 10 February 2006 bogus "Notice by landlord" ; Property Misdescriptions Act 1991 

My guess that Andrew Ladsky was the instigator of this malicious, vicious act also proved to be right as Portner and Jaskel helpfully confirmed this in its (libellous, scurrilous) 3 October 2006 letter to my then ISP - PLUS the 'standard' Law Society's reply of 30 March 2007 to my 28 February 2007 complaint that Portner "Acted on the instructions of their client" - Portner # 5.1

What fuels this arrogance? Portner's knowledge that it has carte blanche from its 'professional' association, the Law Society, to do exactly as it pleases (Portner # 4 and # 5)

•  The court service charter allowing courts 10 days to reply to correspondence while "courts are only required to give five working days notice of a hearing date"

•  Every other government department I have approached for assistance during my horrendous nightmare experience since 2002 e.g. Kensington & Chelsea Council, the Local government Ombudsman, the Court Service

•  All the so-called 'regulatory bodies' I have approached with a complaint against one of their members: legal sector, the RICS, the ICAEW...

...as well as their members e.g. Piper Smith Basham's response following what I view - considering events by then - as my very generous letter of 2 December 2003 letter to its Managing Partner and Complaint Officer ( PSB # 3 and its subsequent replies )

Assault

Examples

•  Being pushed in the corridor by Ladsky on 26 February 2002

Bias

Examples

• My view of Mr Gallagher's assessment of my position - as I captured under point 135 of my 29 August 2004 reply (see also 'Breach' Bar Council Code of Conduct)

• Government departments having ears only for a member of their own 'tribe' - at the expense of the leaseholders / consumers, in the process implying that we are all liars, and / or imbeciles when putting forward evidence of breach statutory rights / malpractice e.g.

• The LVT taking only notice of the correspondence from Ms Hathaway e.g. her 8 October 2002 fax, 'her' 20 January 2003 letter - while ignoring all of my correspondence and that of numerous other leaseholders ( # 8.1 , # 8.1.2 , # 8.1.3 ) , as well as what we had all reported at the 29 October 2002 pre-trial hearing ( # 1 , # 10.3 )

• My view of events in West London County Court and Wandsworth County Court that they, in effect, let Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor 'run the show' (My 29 June 2004 letter to Lord Falconer )

• The judge in West London County Court I view as 'falling over backwards' to be of assistance to Ms Ayesha Salim -while admitting that he had not read the skeleton argument. And, very clearly, nor had he read any of the file (Lord Falconer # 3 )

• Reported by other leaseholders, as well as by the press (Lord Falconer # 4 )

• My view of the Legal Services Ombudsman's handling of my complaints against the Law Society (# 2 , # 3 ), and the Bar Council ( # 4 ), as well as # 5 and # 6

• My view of the Local Government Ombudsman's handling of my complaint against Kensington & Chelsea housing, and of the central housing department as being heavily biased towards landlords

• The view I now also hold of the police following my first-hand experience (see also My Diary 22 July 2005)

Blackmail

Examples

My - non-lawyer - assessment of the conduct of all of the following who did this with the objective of making me pay monies not due and payable:

•  West London County Court that, in 2007, falsely claimed that I had filed a counterclaim; demanded I pay £1,700 and gave me three working days to do this - and subsequently, with the assistance of Her Majesty Court Service, attempted to cover it through deceit - point # 18 my complaint to the Court Service , point # 19 repeating the main points in my complaint, point # 23 and point # 22 highlighting the deceit and cover-up by WLCC and the Court Service

•  West London County Court's actions in 2002 - 2004 that pursued the claim against me (and 10 other leaseholders - representing in total 14 flats) in the full knowledge that: (1) an abuse of process of court was taking place ; (2) the Particulars of claim were false; (3) proceeded to issue judgement/s against some of my fellow leaseholders - before the LVT issued its determination ; (4) to the very end, ignored my repeated claim that 'Steel Services' had not implemented the 17 June 2003 LVT determination

Among others, Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor drew-up the - FALSE - claim against me and 10 other leaseholders - representing 14 flats at Jefferson House - when, one month previously, during the 29 October 2002 pre-trial London tribunal we, the leaseholders, had been told to NOT pay until the tribunal had issued its determination and it had been implemented. In support of this, we were given a leaflet which, on page 5 states that ""...a recent Court of Appeal case ruling (Daejan Properties Limited v London Leasehold Valuation Tribunal) determined that LVTs only have the jurisdiction to decide the reasonableness of disputed service charges that are still unpaid"

Among others, CKFT's client, Andrew Ladsky, and Joan Hathaway, MRICS, MRJ, were in attendance at this pre-trial hearing. One month later, CKFT filed the claim in West London County - under a Statement of Truth endorsed by Hathaway. (As she was the 'managing' agent for Jefferson House, it amounts to a very serious breach of Civil Procedure Rules by West London County Court - point # 23 )

• Jeremy Hershkorn, Portner and Jaskel who, in February 2007 - acting for Andrew Ladsky, threatened me with bankruptcy proceeding and taking the flat away from me, as well as Ahmet Jaffer who took over from Hershkorn - Portner point # 3 and point # 15 , point # 16 , point # 17 , point # 23

• Lanny Silverstone and Ayesha Salim, Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor e.g. (CKFT # 1) threatening to forfeit my lease and, on top of this, on behalf of a company that did not exist, point # 3 filing a FRAUDULENT claim against me (and 10 other leaseholders at Jefferson House) - and committing an abuse of process of court in the process , point # 5 a series of threatening letters, point # 6.2

•  Lisa McLean and Richard Twyman, Piper Smith Basham (now Piper Smith Watton) e.g.point # 7 evidently deciding with CKFT that they would force me to strike a deal (PSB # 7.2) falsely claiming I had seen the reply they sent to CKFT, (PSB # 7.3) contrary to what had been agreed, agreeing to the payment of interest , (PSB # 7.6) placing emphasis on threats instead of giving me a balanced opinion, (PSB # 7.7) changing position to assist the scam, (PSB # 7.9.2) my view that there was a shared understanding between Piper Smith Basham, Stan Gallagher, CKFT and Martin Russell Jones that another - equally fraudulent 'service charge' demand would be sent, (PSB 7.11) engineering the situation to limit my ability to input into the reply, (PSB 7.12) leading me to relinquish on my objective of getting my costs back from 'Steel Services' (My comments to Gallagher's drafts)

The Law Society for England and Wales rejected my complaint against the above three firms : Portner and Jaskel, Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor, Piper Smith Basham (now Piper Smith Watton)

And the Legal Services Ombudsman rejected my complaint against the Law Society for its handling of my complaint against Piper Smith Basham and Cawdery Kay Fireman & Taylor

•  Gallagher who, at the time of the 'offer', repeatedly brandished the threat of "costs" in my face as a means of bullying me into accepting the 'offer' (I will not add 'allegedly' as it is glaringly obvious that this was the intention) (Gallagher # 3.a.4 ; my comments to his drafts) , and continued to do so in his initial reply of 9 June 2004 (I counted 10 instances in his 29 page reply) leading me to ask (point 67, 29 August 2004 ) "Mr Gallagher wants me to believe that, with this body of evidence, the odds were against me? Was Mr Gallagher acting for me or the other side?" (Of course, he challenged my statement in his 11 October 2004 reply) (Gallagher # 5.1 ) (See also 'Breach' Bar Council Code of Conduct)

Of course, the Bar Council rejected my complaint against Gallagher, and the Legal Services Ombudsman rejected my complaint against the Bar Council

•  For instances of blackmail by Joan Hathaway, MRICS, and Mr Barrie Martin, FRICS, Martin Russell Jones: they are endless

See also below:

• 'Breach': Criminal Justice Act & Public Order Act 1994 - Section 4A

• 'Breach': Malicious Communications Act 1988

• 'Breach': Protection from Harassment Act 1997

• bullying ; coerce ; collude ; criminal ; defame ; humiliate ; intimidate ; persecute ; psychopath ; sociopath ; terrorise ; torment ; treatment-medical

Breach

Breach

Examples

In my 'NON-LAWYER opinion'

Having previously quoted breach of this Act in some of my documents, as well as listed examples in this section, going through the Act again has led me to change my mind as it refers to "debt due under a contract".

ALL my challenges of the service charge demands stem from non-compliance with my lease, statutory rights, non-provision of information, etc. - as listed e.g. in my 3 June 2008 Witness Statement. Hence, the alleged debts were NOT due

THE COURTS CLAIMS = FRAUD TOOLS

Breach

Examples

In my 'NON-LAWYER opinion'

THE COURTS CLAIMS = FRAUD TOOLS

See my comments to Gallagher's "draft consent order and notice" in 'reply' to 'Steel Services' =Andrew Ladsky's 'offer' of 21 October 2003

•  Stan Gallagher endorsed Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor's position, and consequently that of Andrew Ladsky, that the sum demanded for the "major works" was an "interim demand" - in spite of being provided with 'black on white' evidence to the contrary (Gallagher # 1.3 , # 1.4 ) Under point 67 of my 25 March 2005 reply to the Bar Council, I pointed that Mr Gallagher (and Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor were "alone in their interpretation of my lease" as I had obtained an opinion from "several other lawyers" (Mr Gallagher # 2.2 )

•  Under point 68 of my 25 March 2005 reply to the Bar Council's decision of 27 January 2005, I highlighted my disbelief at Gallagher's endorsement of breach of covenants in my lease, and of my statutory rights under the Landlord & Tenant Act 1985 Section 21, as well as Section 25 - as he was of the view that "Similarly, adding conditions for the disclosure of the accounts. can only complicate matters further and jeopardise the prospects of compromising the claim on realistic terms" (his email of 12 November 2003) (Gallagher # 2 , # 2.1 ) (Like me, Kensington & Chelsea Housing viewed non-performance as a breach of my statutory rights, including amounting to committing a criminal offence: K&C # 2 )

•  Gallagher ignored the fact that the 'service charge' demand of 15 July 2002 (invoice 17 July 2002 ) breached several covenants in my lease e.g. Clause 2(2)(f) ; Clause 2(2)(g)(i) ; Clause (2)(2)(j) . This is evidenced by the fact that in his "draft Notice of Acceptance", the sum total of his comments about my lease were: "The absence of due compliance with the service charge certification provisions prescribed by the lease" ( Gallagher # 1.6 , # 2 ; # 3.e.2 , # 7.1 )

To my subsequently challenging him on this point, he replied ( point 55, 9 June 2004 ) "the more vaguely this argument is presented, the better". To which my reply (point 123, 29 August 2004 ) was "For whom?" (Gallagher # 1.6 , # 2.1 ; # 2.2 )

•  Gallagher continued to endorse 'Steel Services' breaches of not only my lease and my statutory rights, but also of what I consider as outright abuse of my most basic rights by stating (point 3(3) of his 11 October 2004 reply): "landlord's apparent breaches of the service charge accounting are not matters that negate a contractual obligation to pay service charges" (Gallagher # 2.1 )

•  In addition to ignoring my lease, Gallagher also turned a 'blind eye and a deaf ear' to the 17 June 2003, LVT/SC/007/120/02 findings by the London tribunal (ref #992 on the LVT database), as the sum total of his comment in the Notice of Acceptance was: "...your client=s claim, as adjusted to take account of the LVT=s determination remains proceedings." Therefore, among others, Gallagher made no reference to the fact that the lack/insufficient specification had NOT been addressed. (Gallagher # 5.1 , # 7 )

•  Further evidence that Gallagher turned a 'blind eye and a deaf' to the LVT findings :

• (1) in his initial reply (point 21, 9 June 2004 ) to my complaint, Gallagher described the LVT report as a '"mix bag"
• (2) my reply (point 72, 29 August 2004 : "Given that the LVT determination is the crucial element in the resolution of the dispute, isn't it rather telling that, out of his 29 page reply, it is the only comment that Mr Gallagher has made about the LVT determination? " (Gallagher # 3 (a) ; # 3.a.1 )
• (3) This led Gallagher to change 'his tune' as, in his subsequent reply of 11 October 2004 , he wrote point 4(1)) : "At the time I did not consider that the course of the proceedings before the LVT was likely to carry much, if any, weight on the question of costs in the county court proceedings"
• Please note the "At the time". In other words, in Stan Gallagher's eyes a 70% reduction of £500,000 (US$882,000) (incl. the contingency fund) of the sum demanded "is not likely to carry much, if any weight on the court proceedings" (Gallagher # 3.a.2 , # 3.a.3 )
• He eventually admitted (point 4(1)of his 11 October 2004 reply:
• "I accept that the outcome was a significant reduction in the amount due from the tenants" (point 8)
• "I accept that it is possible that, given the level of the sums disallowed by the LVT and the criticisms that could be made about the landlord's conduct, a Court may have been persuaded to make no order for costs" (point 6) (Gallagher # 3.a.3 )
• (4) Yet , at the time of the 'offer', Gallagher had repeatedly been brandishing the threat of "costs" in my face as a means of bullying me into accepting the 'offer' (I will not add 'allegedly' as it is glaringly obvious) (Gallagher # 3.a.4 , # 4.1 ; my comments to his "draft" documents)...
• ...and had continued to do so in his initial reply of 9 June 2004 (I counted 10 instances in his 29 page reply) leading me to ask (point 67, 29 August 2004 ) "Mr Gallagher wants me to believe that, with this body of evidence, the odds were against me? Was Mr Gallagher acting for me or the other side?" (Of course, he challenged my statement in his 11 October 2004 reply) (Gallagher # 5.1 ) (I continued making this claim - because that is what I believe the evidence demonstrates - Gallagher # 15 , # 19; my comments to his "draft" documents)

•  Stan Gallagher also changed 'his tune' in relation to his assessment of the so-called "Notice" issued by Martin Russell Jones i.e. Ladsky et. al. as, under point 3(2) of his 11 October 2004 reply that, at the time of the offer he had "concluded that the landlord had substantially complied with the statutory consultation procedure" while, previously, under point 58 of his 9 June 2004 reply, he wrote:

"The acceptance letter did not include a reference to the inadequate specifications of the major works there was no need to get into a criticism of the inadequate way in which the works had been specified or tendered"

In addition to viewing Gallagher's 11 October 2004 reply as an attempt to 'recover' from his 9 June 2004 'mistake' (triggered by my subsequent reply of 29 August), I also view him as having a rather unique interpretation of S.20 requirements - and this Lands Tribunal case (website printscreen) - which is very similar to mine - adds support to my view

Please note that in her 3 October 2003 letter to me (i.e. before the 28 October meeting), Lisa McLean, Piper Smith Basham, wrote "We had also discussed CKFT to prepare proper specification so that the items that were insufficient could be properly detailed...I accept that you had asked repeatedly for the specification. Where does this point take us now?" (PSB # 7.7 )

•  Stan Gallagher held against me the fact that I had "refused opportunities" to strike a deal with 'Steel Services' =Ladsky. (See Business model # 23, for the salvo of threatening and bullying letters I was subjected to by Lanny Silverstone and Ayesha Salim, CKFT). Hence, Gallagher held against me

• (1) the fact that I had obeyed (for as long as I could) the direction given to me by the London LVT at the 29 October 2002 pre-trial hearing to NOT pay the service charge demand until the tribunal had issued its determination - and it had been implemented - in line with statutory requirements and the terms of my lease (Gallagher # 3.e.1 , # 3.f.1 ) (Stan Gallagher took pains to emphasise that he was writing a book on LVTs i.e. to communicate that he is an 'expert' on the subject: # 3.f.2 , # 12 )
• (2) the fact I have strong moral principles that prevented me from being treated differently from the other lessees i.e. striking a deal on terms other than those specified in my lease (Gallagher # 3.e.2 )

•  In his reply to the 'offer', Gallagher ignored the fact that the lease supplied with the 22 November 2002, WL 203537 claim against me in West London County Court - 'apparently' for flat 23 - is materially very different from my lease in relation to Clause (2)(2)(c)(i) as it states "the amount of service charge payable is to be determined by and at the sole discretion of the lessor". My lease most definitely does NOT contain this outrageous contract term under the same numbered Clause. Hence, it amounts to making materially untrue claims to the court as to my contractual obligations. (Gallagher # 1.1 , # 9 , # 7.1 )

As a result of my pointing this out in my 17 December 2002 defence to the claim - SIX WEEKS LATER (and therefore nearly two months after filing the claim) - in his 23 January 2003 letter, Lanny Silverstone, CKFT, asked me to supply a copy of my lease. (I did) (see CKFT # 6.7 ; MRJ # 22 ; WLCC # 3 )

•  As I captured under point 52 of my 25 March 2005 letter to the Bar Council, in relation to Gallagher boasting that the reply had been accepted: "He just said 'amen' to everything [in the offer]. Of course his reply was received was open arms" (Gallagher # 11 ) and it certainly was! (My Diary Latter part of November 2003)

The reply did not reflect what had been agreed at the 28 October 2003 meeting (Gallagher # 7 , # 8). In addition, my 'advisers' did not evidently consider breaches of covenants in my lease, of my rights under several Acts, etc. qualifying as sufficient reasons to challenge the 'offer' (Gallagher # 9 , # 15 )

At the end of the day: Stan Gallagher (# 13 ), the Bar Council (Gallagher # 16 ) and the Legal Services Ombudsman ( # 4 ) (Gallagher # 17 ) disagreed with me that I had a valid complaint against Gallagher - and, at the 'very end of the day', came up with the 'piece de resistance' that "Mr Gallagher's involvement concerned a time frame of only about three weeks" (Gallagher # 18 )

In my 25 March 2005 letter to the Bar Council, I drew its attention to this rule in its Code of Conduct, as well as the rules below

Breach

Examples

(See above )

Breach

Examples

(See above )

Breach

Examples

(See above )  

Breach

Examples

In my 'NON-LAWYER opinion'

•  I highlighted this rule to the Bar Council under point 26 of my 25 March 2005 reply (Mr Gallagher # 5. 1 )

Breach

Examples

In my 'NON-LAWYER opinion'

•  I highlighted this rule to the Bar Council under point 81 of my 25 March 2005 reply (Mr Gallagher # 16 )

Breach

Examples

In my 'NON-LAWYER opinion'

See: West London County Court (2002-2004) ; West London County Court - Post 2004

Portner / Portner and Jaskel LLP

Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor (CKFT)

Piper Smith Basham/Watton

Mr Stan Gallagher

Breach

Examples

In my 'NON-LAWYER opinion'

THE COURTS CLAIMS = FRAUD TOOLS

For a comprehensive overview of surrounding events - see my 3 June 2008 (74 pg) Witness Statement; (4pg Main Points)

•  The 16 February 2007 letter from Mr Jeremy Hershkorn, then at Portner and Jaskel, who - acting for Mr Andrew Ladsky - threatened me with "bankruptcy proceedings", forfeiture (taking the flat away from me), and "costs" in the name of "Rootstock Overseas Corp", a company I had never heard of (Portner # 15 ), if I failed to immediately pay £8,937 (US$15,800) (Portner # 3 )

•  One of Andrew Ladsky's responses to my 25 February 2007 reply asking for clarification was to ask Jeremy Hershkorn to file a - FRAUDULENT - claim against me in West London County Court, on 27 February 2007 (Portner # 6 )

•  Knowing full well that the claim against me was fraudulent, Portner and Ladsky kept the claim going for 16 months, when 'Roostock(sic)/Steel Services/Sloan Development' i.e. Ladsky finally 'threw in the towel' on 6 June 2008 by dropping "ALL of the claim" against me (Portner # 31 ) They therefore ignored my reasons for challenging the claim - with evidence in support - in several documents, starting within 2 months of having the claim filed against me: (1) my 4 April 2007 application contesting the court's jurisdiction (WLCC # 3 ) (sent to Portner on 30 June 2007 - (2) my 3 May 07 Skeleton Argument (WLCC # 5 ) - which obviously did not fit in with Ladsky's plan, as Portner and Ladsky's barrister, Greg Williams, lied that they had not received mine - Portner # 17

The preceding events to the claim being dropped on 6 June 2008 were:

(1) my 3 June 2008 (74 pg) Witness Statement; (4 pg - Main Points) (Portner # 29)

(2) my letter of 5 June 2008, in response to the 23 May 2008 letter from Ahmet Jaffer in which he suggested having the case transferred 'one level' up, from 'fast track' to 'multi-track'. In my letter, I highlight the main events of the previous 16 months proving that Ladsky and Portner KNEW that the claim was fraudulent - detailed in Portner # 30 )

And further proof that the claim was fraudulent is the outrageous, preposterous excuse given by Portner for dropping the claim in its 11 August 2008 reply to my 22 July 2008 notice "it was found that the demand for ground rent and service charges served by the managing agent had given the incorrect identity and address for the landlord". My response knocking out this preposterous excuse is on page 5, under point 2.2 of my 26 August 2008 reply (key points: Portner # 33)

•  The 7 October 2002 letter from Lanny Silverstone, Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor (CKFT) - acting for Andrew Ladsky - in which he threatened to forfeit my lease and contact my mortgage lender unless I immediately paid the sum of £14,400 (US$25,400) (CKFT # 1 , # 6.2 ). Compared to the letter he sent ten days later to the solicitors of another leaseholder, it clearly demonstrates the intention to "cause me alarm and distress" - with the objective of making me pay monies that were not due and payable (CKFT # 6.2 ) (It caused me so much so distress that I ended-up being physically sick (My Diary 10 Oct 02 ) )

•  In my 17 October 2002 reply, I wrote: "2.1 As stated in my (recorded delivery) letters of 11 August 2002 and 16 September 2002 letters to Martin Russell Jones, I require additional information before I can agree to the demand. I have not received a reply...".

•  Lanny Silverstone's response of 21 October 2002 was "We are sure that Martin Russell Jones will provide you with copies of such information as you are entitled to receive pursuant to section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act"

•  The 20 September 2002 reply to my request for information from Joan Hathaway, MRICS, Martin Russell Jones was: “…we have to require payment by return..if payment is not made now our client, Steel Services will have no alternative other than to instruct solicitors to commence legal proceedings to obtain payment” ( MRJ # 25 , # 26 )

•  The 29 November 2002 FRAUDULENT claim ( WL 023 537) filed in West London County Court by Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor (CKFT) - FALSELY - stating in the Particulars of Claim that "[I] have failed to pay the service charges... that they are now due and owing from [me] to the Claimant." and include a 'Statement of Truth' signed by Joan Hathaway, MRICS, Martin Russell Jones which states: "The Claimant believes that the facts stated in this Claim Form are true" (CKFT # 2 , # 3 ) (NB: Endorsement of the witness statement by Hathaway, a 'managing agent' for Jefferson House - amounts to a very serious breach of CPR - WLCC; My Diary 9 Mar 07)

The Particulars of claim are FALSE given that:

• the London tribunal had, one month previously, specifically told me (and other leaseholders to NOT pay the service charge) (*);
• seven months LATER, the outcome of the 17 June 2003 LVT/SC/007/120/02 findings (ref #992 on the LVT database) was a reduction of nearly 70% (incl. the contingency fund) in the original sum demanded, from £736,206 (US$1.3 million) down to £235,947 (US$416,000) (see also LVT # 4 ; Pridie Brewster # 2 , # 3 , # 5 , # 8 , # 10 , # 12 , # 13 , # 17 , # 18 , # 19 , # 20 )
• the 'service charge' demand breached statutory requirements: L&T 1985 - section 20(3)(a); 20(3)(b); 20(4)(e) - as amply demonstrated by the tribunal's 17 June 2003 findings (Stan Gallagher # 1.7 )
• the demand was in breach of the terms of my lease - Clause 2(2)(c)(ii); 2(2)(e); 2(2)(g)(i); 2(2)(j) (Stan Gallagher # 1.6 )

(*) One month previously, during the 29 October 2002 pre-trial tribunal hearing we, the leaseholders, had specifically been told to NOT pay until the tribunal had issued its determination and it had been implemented. In support of this, we were given a leaflet which, on page 5 states that ""...a recent Court of Appeal case ruling (Daejan Properties Limited v London Leasehold Valuation Tribunal) determined that LVTs only have the jurisdiction to decide the reasonableness of disputed service charges that are still unpaid" (LVT # 1 )

Among others, CKFT's client, Mr Andrew Ladsky, and Ms Joan Hathaway, MRICS, Martin Russell Jones, were in attendance at this pre-trial hearing.

In my 17 October 2002 letter I asked "Are you aware that Steel Services has applied to the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal for determination of the reasonableness of the charge for the major works?" In his 21 October 2002 letter, Lanny Silverstone wrote: "We are aware that Steel Services has applied to the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal" (CKFT # 2 )

•  Furthermore, to further assist its client's fraudulent objectives, with the claim, CKFT also provided a copy of the lease 'apparently' for flat 23 claiming that it is representative of my lease. This is NOT true, as it is materially different from my lease in relation to Clause (2)(2)(c)(i). Hence, it amounts to making materially untrue claims to the court as to my contractual obligations. As a result of my pointing this out in my 17 December 2002 defence to the claim - SIX WEEKS LATER (and therefore nearly two months after filing the claim) - in his 23 January 2003 letter, Lanny Silverstone asked me to supply a copy of my lease. (I did) (CKFT # 6.7 ; WLCC # 3 ; MRJ # 22 )

(See also West London County Court # 1 , # 2 , # 4 , # 6 )

•  So, in addition to making inappropriate use of forfeiture legislation (CKFT # 6.2 ), ignoring breaches of covenants in my lease, and of my statutory rights (CKFT # 6.4 ; # 6.5 ) CKFT also committed an abuse of process of court (CKFT # 2 ; # 6.1 )

•  Lanny Silverstone and Ayesha Salim further lied during the proceedings (WLCC # 8 ; # 10 ) - including under a statement of truth (CKFT # 6.6 )

•  With the assistance of CKFT, Martin Russell Jones continued issuing - FALSE - documents to West London County Court - and to other leaseholders - namely for the 24 June 2003 (WLCC # 7 ; # 8 ) and 26 August 2003 (WLCC # 9 ; # 10 ) hearing, FALSELY claiming that I then owed £10,917 (US$19,250).

•  Lanny Silverstone and Ayesha Salim, CKFT, sent me a dozen highly threatening, fraudulent, bullying, libellous letters, always "with costs" (Of course! ) - principally intended to force me to strike a deal with their client, Andrew Ladsky i.e. make me pay monies that were not due and payable (CKFT # 5 ; WLCC # 10 ; Business model # 23 )

•  Letters from e.g. Leaseholder C and Leaseholder M, and other events demonstrate that the intimidation tactics used by Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor / Martin Russell Jones / Portner and Jaskel LLP worked in relation to some of the other leaseholders (MRJ # 25 , # 26 ; LVT # 8.1.2 ; Other Residents ; Elderly Resident)

•  Evidently - my 'advisers' - Richard Twyman and Lisa McLean, Piper Smith Basham/Watton, and Stan Gallagher, did not view these serious breaches against me under the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990, Ch.41, S.17, etc - as material - my comments to Gallagher's "draft consent order and notice" ; Gallagher # 1.1 , # 5.1 , # 9 ; PSB # 7.12.1 ...

...because they are from the same breed as Lanny Silverstone and Ayesha Salim, and Jeremy Hershkorn, Ahmet Jaffer and Daniel Broughton - Portner and Jaskel - 'Rachman landords aides'...

... - as further exemplified by the following: in spite of having absolute knowledge that the 17 July 2002 'service charge' demand was fraudulent (PSB # 7.7 ) Lisa McLean, Piper Smith Basham/Watton, wrote in her letter to me of 25 September 2003 in relation to the 7 October 2002 threat of forfeiture of my lease by Lanny Silverstone that "...it is perfectly legitimate for a landlord or those advising the landlord to threaten forfeiture proceedings for non-payment of service charges" (PSB # 7.19 , # 7.18.5 )

Of course, what I have come to nickname "the fertiliser for malpractice" - the Law Society - (My Diary 12 Apr 07) has dismissed ALL my complaints against its above members i.e. Portner and Jaskel, Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor and Piper Smith Basham/Watton. And of course, the same outcome of "no malpractice" from the Bar Council. And to round it off: the seal of approval from the Legal Services Ombudsman (Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor ; Stan Gallagher. And of course, likewise, the Court Service dismissed my complaint against West London County Court and Wandsworth County Court: Lord Falconer of Thoroton. Nice clubby set-up!

(See also related:

• Malicious Communications Act 1988
• Protection from Harassment Act 1997
• Theft Act 1968 / Theft (Amendment) Act 1996
• Defamation Act 1996
• Fraud Act 2006
• bullying ; coerce ; collude ; criminal ; defame ; humiliate ; intimidate ; persecute ; psychopath ; sociopath ; terrorise ; torment ; treatment-medical )

•  What I view as Ladsky and Portner and Jaskel's highly vicious 'attack' on the Elderly Resident; also in My Diary, 18 Feb 06

Breach

Examples

In my 'NON-LAWYER opinion'

THE COURTS CLAIMS = FRAUD TOOLS

For a comprehensive overview of surrounding events - see my 3 June 2008 (74 pg) Witness Statement; (4pg Main Points)

•  In the public environment of the tribunal hearing on 5 February 2003 - as members of the public came in and out of the hearing - portraying me as a liar and as an individual who defaults on her obligations, Andrew Ladsky blamed the tribunal proceedings on me, asking the Chair: "Will Ms Rawé pay the £250,000 (US$441,000) of additional costs that will be incurred as a result of the delay in the start of the works due to hearing?" (My Diary - 5 February 2003 )

•  During the tribunal hearings - as members of the public came in and out of the hearings - Mr Warwick, Steel Services counsel - FALSELY - portrayed me to the tribunal as a dishonest person, who breaches contractual obligations, by stating that "the reason [I have] been challenging the service charge demand is because I did not want to pay it" (LVT # 3 ; My Diary 13 Mar 03)

•  During the tribunal hearings - as members of the public came in and out of the hearings - Andrew Ladsky and Brian Gale, MRICS - FALSELY - portrayed me as a liar, a dishonest person who defaults on her obligations (Brian Gale # 4 ).

•  At the 24 June 2003 West London County Court hearing (My Diary - 24 Jun 03), in front of other leaseholders and their party - hence: members of the public - Lanny Silverstone, CKFT, FALSELY portraying me as a liar and as an individual who defaults on her obligations, demanded that I pay for his client's costs for the day.

Prior to the hearing, in the waiting area of the court, in front of several people - Lanny Silverstone handed me some documents stating that I owed his client money - which was not true (as, among others, the London LVT 17 June 2003 findings had NOT been implemented) (My Diary 24 Jun 03)

(See also related:

• Malicious Communications Act 1988
• Protection from Harassment Act 1997
• Theft Act 1968 / Theft (Amendment) Act 1996
• Defamation Act 1996
• Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 - Chapter 41- Section 17
• Fraud Act 2006
• bullying ; coerce ; collude ; criminal ; defame ; humiliate ; intimidate ; persecute ; psychopath ; sociopath ; terrorise ; torment ; treatment-medical )

Breach

Examples

In my 'NON-LAWYER opinion'

•  Breach of the Act by the police following my 28 May 2009 Subject Access Request - Kensington & Chelsea police # 5

•  Continuation of the breach of my legislative rights by the typically arrogant Chief Superintendent Mark Heath, Kensington police who is ignoring my - legitimate - 2 June 2010 Section 10 Notice under the Data Protection Act 1998, and supporting document (K&C police # 5.1)

•  Breach of the Act by the Ministry of 'Justice' following my 2 January 2010 Subject Access Request - Legal home # C

Breach

Examples

In my 'NON-LAWYER opinion' au

THE COURTS CLAIMS = FRAUD TOOLS

For a comprehensive overview of surrounding events - see my 3 June 2008 (74 pg) Witness Statement; (4pg Main Points)

Defamation of my name and of my character from highly libellous, scurrilous claims and accusations made against me by Andrew Ladsky, Jeremy Hershkorn, Portner and Jaskel and Kensington and Notting Hill police to my website hosts

•  Acting for Andrew Ladsky, over a period of several weeks, Jeremy Hershkorn, Portner and Jaskel, sent a massive amount of emails to my current website Host, threatening my Host with legal "proceedings and costs and damages" unless my Host closed down my website, by making highly libellous, scurrilous - unsupported - claims against me, stating "all of the allegations on [my] website are clearly untrue and therefore defamatory" (Portner # 2 ; My Diary 5 Feb 07 )

•  Desperate to stop me from exposing the detail of my case, the corrupt Jeremy Hershkorn had - also on behalf of Ladsky - faxed a 3 October 2006 letter to my first website host, threatening my host with "proceedings for defamation and for substantial damages and costs" if it did not close down my website, making highly libellous, scurrilous - unsupported - claims against me that "[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). Mr Hershkorn concluded the letter by stating "We will of course, take all appropriate steps to enforce any judgement obtained in the UK against you" (Portner # 2 ; My Diary 3 Oct 06 )

As I pointed out in my 5 October 2006 reply to Hershkorn's letter of 3 October 2006, his outpour of claims of defamation fails to meet the requirements of the Defamation Act 1996 as he has not identified a single item on my site he considered as defamatory

The threat of "proceedings and costs and damages" worked with my first website host as it closed down my website (My Diary - 3 Oct 06)

Considering that, since the 27 February 2007 claim was filed against me (Portner # 6 ) ALL my documents to WLCC and Portner and Jaskel are based ENTIRELY on the contents of my website: If the claims on my website are "false", "outrageous", "unsubstantiated" and "defamatory" of 'the good character' of Mr Ladsky (I can't stop laughing at that): WHY, on 6 June 2008, have 'Roostock(sic)/Steel Services/Sloan Development' i.e. Ladsky dropped "ALL" of his (second) fraudulent claim against me? (My Diary - 7 Jun 08 ; 3 Jun 08 (My (74 pg - 3 June 2008 Witness Statement) (4 pg - Main Points) ; Portner # 31 )

It follows that Portner and Jaskel has defamed my name and my character in the eyes of reasonable persons - as evidenced by the fact that my ISP closed down my website (which triggered a series of events)

•  When Hershkorn backed off as a result of my complaint to the Law Society against Portner and Jaskel (Portner # 4 ), Ladsky took over the harassment of my current website Host by making highly threatening phone calls himself on several occasions.

•  Unable to force my website Host to close down my website, in his rage at being exposed for what he is, Ladsky asked 'his friends' at Notting Hill police to provide 'some assistance' by falsely claiming to my website Host that my website contains "anti-Semitic comments". On the basis on this libellous, scurrilous accusation, Mr Ladsky's 'friend' implied - without providing any evidence in support - in his highly libellous, scurrilous, racist and xenophobic emails of 16 March 2007 and 20 March 2007 to my website Host that I had 'committed a crime' and, for 'good measure', branded me as "a Nazi" (My Diary - 20 March 2007)

Andrew Ladsky has also made highly libellous, scurrilous claims and accusations against me to my then employer in the course of numerous communications, including in his 26 March 2007 letter - stating, among others, that I was "clinically unwell" and "suffering from paranoia" (My Diary 7 Jun 08)

[ consequences - ADD]

Defamation of my name and of my character by Andrew Ladsky ; Brian Gale ; Joan Hathaway, MRICS, and Barrie Martin, Martin Russell Jones, Mr Warwick, 'Steel Services' counsel - by making highly libellous, scurrilous claims and accusations against me - in the context of the London Leasehold Valuation Tribunal proceedings, as well as in related documents that are in the public domain

•  During the tribunal hearings - as members of the public came in and out of the hearings - Mr Warwick, Steel Services counsel - FALSELY - portrayed me to the tribunal as a dishonest person, who breaches contractual obligations, by stating that "the reason [I have] been challenging the service charge demand is because I did not want to pay it" (LVT # 3 )

•  During the tribunal hearings - as members of the public came in and out of the hearings - Andrew Ladsky and Brian Gale, MRICS - FALSELY - portrayed me as a liar, a dishonest person who defaults on her obligations (Brian Gale # 4 ).

Some of their highly libellous, scurrilous comments are contained in the LVT report - accessible by the public on the LVT database. This includes Ladsky stating in his letter to the tribunal (point 50) that I was "the only tenant challenging the service charge demand" v. e.g. Mr Silverstone's 23 May 2003 application (i.e. after the tribunal hearings) to West London County Court identifying that the court action was still proceeding against at least four other leaseholders. Hence, as a result of Ladsky and Gale highly libellous, scurrilous claims against me being contained in the LVT report, their defamation of my name and of my character has been ongoing since 2003 (Brian Gale # 3 )

•  Andrew Ladsky and Brian Gale, MRICS, have also defamed my name and my character by - FALSELY - portraying me in other documents related to the LVT proceedings, as a liar, and a dishonest person who defaults on her obligation. This includes Brian Gale's 24 February 2003 'Expert Witness' report to the tribunal (Brian Gale # 4 ). It led me to write this reply, handed to the tribunal by my counsel on the last day of the tribunal hearings. However, if this reply is not attached to his report - which is accessible by the public - his highly libellous, scurrilous claims against me can lead me to suffer highly detrimental consequences.

•  Joan Hathaway, MRICS, Martin Russell Jones, has defamed my name and my character by - FALSELY - portraying me in documents to the tribunal - and therefore in the public domain - as a liar, and a dishonest individual who defaults on her obligations (LVT # 3 ). Among others, it includes 'her' 20 January 2003 letter to the tribunal - FALSELY - claiming that I had been supplied with the priced specification. While her lie was exposed during the 5 February 2003 hearing (captured under point 14 of the 17 June 2003 LVT/SC/007/120/02 report), leading to a postponement of the substantive hearing "in the interest of justice" (point 16) ( LVT # 2 , # 3 , # 8.1 , # 8.1.2 , # 8.1.3 ) - seen in isolation, her letter can lead me to suffer highly detrimental consequences.

•  While Joan Hathaway, MRICS, Martin Russell Jones was, like Ladsky and Gale claiming to the tribunal that I was "the only tenant challenging the service demand" and "everybody else has paid" (MRJ # 14 ) v. ONE YEAR AFTER, in her 26 March 2004 letter to "All Lessees", Ms Hathaway wrote "Due to extensive delays in collecting the contributions from all (NB!!!) lessees..." (MRJ # 14 )

Since 2003, the London Leasehold Valuation Tribunal has been defaming my name and my character

•  Since 2003, the London Leasehold Valuation Tribunal has been defaming my name and my character by having the summary of the case (ref # 992 on the LVT database) on its database - accessible by the public - FALSELY- accusing me of being the cause of the proceedings - while capturing under point point 64 of its report that I had the "...legal right to challenge the Applicant's proposal..." and knowing full well that its report was very damning of the specification and pricing drawn-up by Brian Gale (Prescott # 1.4 )

Lanny Silverstone and Ayesha Salim, Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor (CKFT), and Joan Hathaway, MRICS, Martin Russell Jones, have defamed my name and my character by issuing documents - that are in the public domain - containing highly libellous, scurrilous claims and accusations against me

•  CKFT and Hathaway filed a claim ( WL 023 537), dated 29 November 2002, in West London County Court FALSELY stating in the Particulars of Claim that "[I] have failed to pay the service charges... that they are now due and owing from [me] to the Claimant." and include a 'Statement of Truth' signed by Ms Hathaway which states: "The Claimant believes that the facts stated in this Claim Form are true" (CKFT # 2 , # 3 ) (NB: Endorsement of the witness statement by Hathaway, a 'managing agent' for Jefferson House - amounts to a very serious breach of CPR - WLCC ; My Diary 9 March 2007)

The Particulars of claim are FALSE given that:

• the London LVT had, one month previously, specifically told me (and other leaseholders to NOT pay the service charge);
• seven months LATER, the outcome of the 17 June 2003 LVT/SC/007/120/02 determination (ref #992 on the LVT database) was a reduction of nearly 70% (incl. the contingency fund) in the original sum demanded, from £736,206 (US$1.3 million) down to £235,947 (US$416,000) (see also LVT # 4 ; Pridie Brewster # 2 , # 3 , # 5 , # 8 , # 10 , # 12 , # 13 , # 17 , # 18 , # 19 , # 20 )
• the 'service charge' demand breached statutory requirements: L&T 1985 - section 20(3)(a); 20(3)(b); 20(4)(e) - as amply demonstrated by the tribunal's 17 June 2003 determination (Stan Gallagher # 1.7 )
• the demand was in breach of the terms of my lease - Clause 2(2)(c)(ii); 2(2)(e); 2(2)(g)(i); 2(2)(j) (Stan Gallagher # 1.6 )

The claim is also against 10 other residents - and hence: members of the public - obviously, with no restriction on the circulation of the claim. While, on the copy of the claim accessible on my website, I have blocked out the name of the other leaseholders - I am sure that they have not blocked out my name on their copy of the claim.

•  With the assistance of CKFT, Martin Russell Jones continued issuing - FALSE - documents to West London County Court - and to other leaseholders - namely for the 24 June 2003 (WLCC # 7 ; # 8 ) and 26 August 2003 (WLCC # 9 ; # 10 ) hearing, FALSELY claiming that I then owed £10,917 (US$19,250). Consequently, they FALSELY portrayed me to the court - and more importantly in documents that are in circulation in the public domain - as a dishonest individual who defaults on her obligations

As in the case of the documents in relation to the LVT proceedings which contain highly libellous, scurrilous claims against me, I could suffer great financial loss as a result of these documents being in the public domain as, seen in isolation, any reasonable and respectable person who comes across these documents will think less of me as a result. Among others, this could have a catastrophic effect on my future employment prospects, as my job applications may be rejected due to the scurrilous statements made against me in the various documents.

(See also related:

• Malicious Communications Act 1988
• Protection from Harassment Act 1997
• Theft Act 1968 / Theft (Amendment) Act 1996
• Defamation Act 1996
• Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 - Chapter 41- Section 17
• bullying ; coerce ; collude ; criminal ; defame ; humiliate ; intimidate ; persecute ; psychopath ; sociopath ; terrorise ; torment ; treatment-medical )
  

Examples

•  I have used the expression "fair comment" on numerous occasions on the site, usually in the context of drawing-up one or more conclusions

•  As a 'pre-emptive measure' - Attention is drawn to "Qualified privilege" and the "Reynold's defence" as I consider events in my case, at the generic level, to be of public interest - with the hope that my case will be a trigger for change (Home page # 17 , Legal )

Breach

Examples

In my 'NON-LAWYER opinion'

•  The TOTALLY UNSUPPORTED 9 July 2010 FRAUDULENT invoice of £24,000 'from' Martin Russell Jones = from the equally mentally deranged Andrew Ladsky, followed by more unsupported demands (1 November 2010 ; 18 January 2011), including a follow-on one for £28,000 from a new firm, Martyn Gerrard - My Diary 13 Jul 10

THE THREAT OF BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS, OF FORFEITURE, AS WELL AS THE COURTS CLAIMS = FRAUD TOOLS

For a comprehensive overview of surrounding events - see my 3 June 2008 (74 pg) Witness Statement; (4pg Main Points)

•  Jeremy Hershkorn, then at Portner and Jaskel, who - acting for Andrew Ladsky et.al. . - in his 16 February 2007 letter, threatened me with "bankruptcy proceedings", forfeiture (taking the flat away from me), and "costs" if I did not immediately pay the FRAUDULENT sum of £8,937 (Portner # 3 ) (US$15,800) - to 'Rootstock Overseas Corp', a company I had never heard of (Portner # 15 )

•  Ignoring my 25 February 2007 reply in which I asked for clarification, Hershkorn proceeded to file a claim against me in West London County Court on 27 February 2007 (Portner point # 3 ; WLCC # 1) with an invoice 'from' Martin Russell Jones - under a Statement of Truth - knowing full well that the claim against me was FRAUDULENT (Portner # 6.3 )

•  Attempting to capitalize on WLCC's assistance (Portner # 12 ; WLCC # 2 , # 7 ), Hershkorn filed an application for judgment against me - as evidenced by the 19 April 2007 Order from WLCC refusing the application (Portner # 13 )

Proof that the claim against me was fraudulent: after a 16-month battle 'Roostock(sic)/Steel Services/Sloan Development' i.e. Ladsky et.al. 'threw in the towel' on 6 June 2008 by dropping "ALL of the claim" against me (Portner # 31 )

And further proof that the claim was fraudulent is the outrageous, preposterous excuse given by Portner for dropping the claim in its 11 August 2008 reply to my 22 July 2008 notice "it was found that the demand for ground rent and service charges served by the managing agent had given the incorrect identity and address for the landlord". My response knocking out this preposterous excuse is on page 5, under point 2.2 of my 26 August 2008 reply (key points: Portner # 33)

The preceding events were:

(1) my 3 June 2008 (74 pg) Witness Statement; (4 pg - Main Points) (Portner # 29)

(2) my letter of 5 June 2008, in response to the 23 May 2008 letter from Ahmet Jaffer in which he suggested having the case transferred 'one level' up, from 'fast track' to 'multi-track'. In my letter, I highlight the main events of the previous 16 months proving that - OF COURSE - Ladsky and Portner KNEW that the claim was fraudulent - detailed in Portner # 30 )

(See also related:

• Malicious Communications Act 1988
• Protection from Harassment Act 1997
• Theft Act 1968 / Theft (Amendment) Act 1996
• Defamation Act 1996
• Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 - Chapter 41- Section 17
• bullying ; coerce ; collude ; criminal ; defame ; humiliate ; Intimidate ; persecute ; psychopath ; sociopath ; terrorise ; torment ; treatment-medical )

Breach

Examples

In my 'NON-LAWYER opinion'

• 

Breach

Examples

In my 'NON-LAWYER opinion'

• 

Breach

Examples

In my 'NON-LAWYER opinion'

•  Breach of this rule by Mr Daniel Broughton, Portner and Jaskel - see section L&T Act 1987 - section 4(b) and section 5(2); Property Misdescriptions Act 1991

Breach

Examples

In my 'NON-LAWYER opinion'

•  Breach of this rule by Mr Daniel Broughton, Portner and Jaskel - see Property Misdescriptions Act 1991

Breach

Examples

In my 'NON-LAWYER opinion'

• 

Breach

Examples

In my 'NON-LAWYER opinion'

•  Breach of this rule by Mr Daniel Broughton, Portner and Jaskel - see section L&T Act 1987 - section 4(b) and section 5(2); Property Misdescriptions Act 1991

Breach

Examples

In my 'NON-LAWYER opinion'

• 

Breach

Examples

In my 'NON-LAWYER opinion'

•  Piper Smith Basham falsely claiming on three separate occasions that I had agreed to the reply sent by Mr Richard Twyman to CKFT on 13 November 2003 (Piper Smith Basham # 4 , # 7.13 , # 7.13.1 , # 7.13.2 ) (CKFT # 6.8 ) (My Diary December 2003 )

• 

Breach

Examples

In my 'NON-LAWYER opinion'

•  Piper Smith Basham falsely claiming on three separate occasions that I had agreed to the reply sent by Mr Richard Twyman to CKFT on 13 November 2003 (Piper Smith Basham # 4 , # 7.13 , # 7.13.1 , # 7.13.2 ) (CKFT # 6.8 ) (My Diary December 2003 )

•  Breach of this rule by Mr Daniel Broughton, Portner and Jaskel - see Property Misdescriptions Act 1991

Breach

Examples

In my 'NON-LAWYER opinion'

THE COURTS CLAIMS = FRAUD TOOLS

•  The 7 October 2002 letter from Mr Lanny Silverstone, Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor - acting for Mr Andrew Ladsky - in which he threatened to forfeit my lease and contact my mortgage lender unless I immediately paid the sum of £14,400 (US$25,400) (CKFT # 1 , # 6.2 ). Compared to the letter he sent ten days later to the solicitors of another leaseholder, it clearly demonstrates the intention to "cause me alarm and distress" - with the objective of making me pay monies that were not due and payable (CKFT # 6.2 ) (It caused me so much so distress that I ended-up being physically sick (My Diary 10 October 2002 ) )

• (1) Mr Lanny Silverstone persistently ignored the evidence against his client's claim (CKFT # 5 )
• (2) Two weeks later, in his 21 October 2002 letter he wrote: "We are aware that Steel Services has applied to the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal" (CKFT # 2 )
• (3) During the 29 October 2002 pre-trial tribunal hearing (attended by his client ), we, the leaseholders, were told to NOT pay (page 5) until the tribunal had issued its determination and it had been implemented.
• (4) In spite of this, precisely one month later, CKFT drew-up a claim against me and 10 other leaseholders - representing 14 flats - in West London County Court (ref: WL203537) for the full amount (1.1MB) demanded in the 15 July 2002 service charge demand
• (5) The tribunal issued its determination, LVT/SC/007/120/02 (re f#992 on the LVT database) on 17 June 2003 i.e. SEVEN months AFTER CKFT drew-up the claim. The outcome was a reduction of nearly 70% of the sum demanded (incl. contingency fund) (CKFT # 6.3 ) (LVT # 4 )
• (6) CKFT supplied a lease with the 29 November 2002 court claim - 'apparently' for flat 23 - claiming - under a Statement of Truth (1.1MB) - that it is representative of my lease. This is NOT true. This lease is materially different from my lease in relation to Clause (2)(2)(c)(i). Hence, it amounts to making materially untrue claims to the court as to my contractual obligations. TWO months after filing the claim, in his 23 January 2003 letter, Mr Lanny Silverstone asked me to supply a copy of my lease. (I did) (CKFT # 6.7 )
• (7) Among the breaches of several statutes, the demand, and by implication the claim, are also in breach of covenants in my lease - Clause 2(2)(c)(ii); 2(2)(e); 2(2)(g)(i); 2(2)(j) (CKFT # 6.4 )

•  Lisa McLean, Piper Smith Basham/Watton, who, in spite of having absolute knowledge that the 17 July 2002 service charge demand was fraudulent, wrote. in her letter to me of 25 September 2003 in relation to the 7 October 2002 threat of forfeiture of my lease by Lanny Silverstone, CKFT, that "...it is perfectly legitimate for a landlord or those advising the landlord to threaten forfeiture proceedings for non-payment of service charges" (see also PSB # 7.19)

Breach

Examples

In my 'NON-LAWYER opinion'

•  Mr Daniel Broughton, Portner and Jaskel, went back on his 10 February 2006 "offer" by stating in his 3 April 2006 letter "The disposal being offered... is not any interest in the property that may be held by Lavagna Enterprises Ltd" (see S.4 L&T Act 1987)

Breach

Examples

In my 'NON-LAWYER opinion'

THE COURTS CLAIMS = FRAUD TOOLS

•  Piper Smith Basham falsely claiming on three separate occasions that I had agreed to the reply sent by Mr Richard Twyman to CKFT on 13 November 2003 (Piper Smith Basham # 4 , # 7.13 , # 7.13.1 , # 7.13.2 ) (CKFT # 6.8 ) (My Diary December 2003 )

• 

Breach

Examples

In my 'NON-LAWYER opinion'

THE COURTS CLAIMS = FRAUD TOOLS

• 

Breach

Examples

In my 'NON-LAWYER opinion'

•  This rule has been breached by Mr Daniel Broughton, Portner and Jaskel. See Property Misdescriptions Act 1991

Breach

Examples

In my 'NON-LAWYER opinion'

• 

Breach

Examples

In my 'NON-LAWYER opinion'

THE COURTS CLAIMS = FRAUD TOOLS

• 

Breach

Examples

In my 'NON-LAWYER opinion'

•  I consider Piper Smith Basham's reply of 18 December 2003 to my letter of 2 December 2003 (which, given events, I view as exceptionally generous and conciliatory) as a 'get lost' letter (Piper Smith Basham # 3 )

I consequently hold the view that the Law Society has failed to take the action stated under this rule as it replied on 22 September 2004 "...I do not consider that there was a failure to adequately address your complaints." (Piper Smith Basham # 3 )

Breach

Examples

• London Leasehold Valuation Tribunal
• West London County Court 2002-04
• West London County Court - Post 2004
• Wandsworth County Court
• Supreme Court Costs Office
• HMCS 'Customer Service' in 2004 and in 2007-08
• Ministry of 'Justice' in relation to my 2 Jan 10 Subject Access Request
• Legal Services Ombudsman
• Kensington & Chelsea police, and other parts of the police in relation to my 28 May 2009 Subject Access Request, including the 'Independent' Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) - and hence, overall: Home Office
• Kensington & Chelsea Housing
• Local Government Ombudsman
• Sir Malcolm Rifkind
• Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

Breach

Examples

(As per under Equality and Human Rights Commission)

Breach

Examples

• London Leasehold Valuation Tribunal
• West London County Court 2002-04
• West London County Court - Post 2004
• Wandsworth County Court
• Supreme Court Costs Office

• My 2007-08 IGNORED 'cries for help' / requests for transfer of the case to another court to: (1) Jack Straw, 'Justice' Secretary (WLCC # 20 , # 25) ; (2) "A Judge committed to the concept of Justice, c/o WLCC" (WLCC # 24); (3) HMCS 'Customer Service' (WLCC # 19 , # 22 , # 23)

•  My 2004 IGNORED 'cry for help' to Lord Falconer of Thoroton

Breach

Examples

"Crime records" by Kensington & Chelsea police which FALSELY accuse me of having committed "criminal offences" - WITHOUT providing ANY evidence in support - and the concurrent treatment by the police

Breach

Examples

• My mobile phones: My Diary Introduction ; My Diary 2009 - Intro - Mobile communication ; Medical # 2
• My post : My Diary 2009 - Intro - Post
• My flat: My Diary 2009 - Intro - Flat
• Being followed, attempts to intimidate me: reported throughout My Diary, including in 2010 - with other examples listed under the Introduction to My Diary

Breach

Examples

•  My statement on the home page to the site and in My Diary in December 2005 that "I TOO I HAVE THE RIGHT TO BE HEARD"

•  Kensington & Chelsea police FALSE accusations against me to my website Host in an attempt to get my website closed down (K&C police # 3)

Breach

Examples

(As per under Equality and Human Rights Commission)

Breach

Examples

In my 'NON-LAWYER opinion'

By implication.

Examples as per under Equality and Human Rights Commission

Breach

Examples

•  My flat wired like a 'Christmas tree'

[ ]

Breach

Examples

THE THREAT OF FORFEITURE, BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS, AS WELL AS THE COURTS CLAIMS = FRAUD TOOLS

•  The £736,207 (US$1.3 million) 15 July 2002 service charge demand sent by Ms Hathaway, and associated 17 July 2002 invoice v. the 17 June 2003 determination that had the effect of reducing the service charge by nearly 70% (incl. the contingency fund)

•  [breach of 1st part: leaseholders made to pay full amount; breach of 2nd part [ ] ]

Breach

Examples

•  With the 7 August 2002 application she filed with the tribunal, Ms Hathaway falsely claimed that the lease she supplied was representative of my lease (see LVT #8.1.4)

Breach

Examples

•  Martin Russell Jones and its client's 15 July 2002 service charge demand for the costs of the "major works" (17 July 2002 invoice ) was in breach of this statutory requirement. (Mr Gallagher # 1.2 , # 3.b , 3 (d) ) Non-provision of this information is evidenced by, among others, communication from the leaseholders (LVT # 1 , # 3 , # 8.1.2 , # 8.1.3 ; Martin Russell Jones # 14 )

This message was FINALLY taken on board by the tribunal at the 5 February 2003 hearing, leading it to postpone the start of the substantive hearings to 13 March 2003 "in the interest of justice" (LVT # 3 , # 8.1.3 )

•  A Section 20 notice has NEVER been issued following the LVT/SC/007/120/02 determination (ref. #992 on the LVT database) (Piper Smith Basham # 7.4.1 ) ( Mr Gallagher # 3.a.3 , # 3.d.1 )

Breach

Examples

•  As very clearly demonstrated by [ ]

Breach

Examples

•  The Leasehold Valuation Tribunal breached this statutory requirement by opting to not inform some of the leaseholders of the 7 August 2002 application

Breach

Examples

•  Ms Hathaway breached this requirement at the time of the appointment of Mr Brian Gale, Mr Ladsky's surveyor, as she stated that my reply - she said to have looked at on 28 January 2002, the date set for the reply - had been received past the deadline

Breach

Examples

•  Non-compliance with my repeated requests to Ms Hathaway for a copy of the 2002 year-end accounts (see Martin Russell Jones # 37 ) led me to approach the Tenancy Relations Officer at the Kensington & Chelsea Town who sent a Section 21 request' to Ms Hathaway and CKFT, dated 25 June 2004

Breach

Examples

•  Mr Gallagher has endorsed the breach of my statutory right by describing, in his email of 13 November 2003 , my 7 November 2003 request for a copy of the year-end accounts as a request that "can only complicate matters further and jeopardise the prospects of compromising the claim on realistic terms." (Mr Gallagher # 2.1)

• 

Breach

Examples

• 

Breach

Examples

•  In its 25 June 2004 s.21 request to Ms Hathaway, MRICS, Martin Russell Jones, on which Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor was copied, Kensington & Chelsea Housing emphasised that non-performance amounted to a criminal offence, and that "The Council prosecutes such contraventions..." (Actually, these turned out to be hollow words: see Kensington & Chelsea Housing and Local Government Ombudsman)

Breach

Examples

In my 'NON-LAWYER opinion'

•  Pretence at complying with this statutory requirement by issuing bogus "notices" of disposal - relying on the usual 'bag of tricks' used by rogue landlords and their aides. In the case of the 13 December 2000 "notice", actions were taken to dissuade leaseholders from exercising their statutory rights:

• A claim of "burden of litigation" was made in the "notice"
• This claim was followed-up by an identical letter to all lessees, from Mr Andrew Ladsky, dated 25 January 2001, to further reinforce the threat when he realised that leaseholders were pursuing the offer - in spite of his harassment and intimidation of the Head of the Residents Association - see also Notice by landlord - 13 December 2000
• Issuing of the "notice" just before Christmas was clearly intended to reduce leaseholder's ability to organise themselves for a reply

See below, other breaches under this Act

Breach

Examples

In my 'NON-LAWYER opinion'

•  Mr Daniel Broughton, Portner and Jaskel, acting for his client Mr Andrew Ladsky, has breached this statutory as:

(1) the description of the property in the 10 February 2006 'so called' "notice" he sent is a carbon copy of previous notices e.g. 13 December 2000 when his client had the headlease interest on the last floor of Jefferson House;

(2) he went back on his 10 February 2006 "offer" by stating in his 3 April 2006 letter "The disposal being offered... is not any interest in the property that may be held by Lavagna Enterprises Ltd" (Note the "may be held" - see next entry)

•  It would 'seem' that Laytons solicitors has, likewise committed a breach under this section, as it subsequently withdrew the offer of 13 December 2000 using the excuse that it had not supplied the annex to the "notice" - hence, breaching section 5(2) of the L&T Act 1987

Breach

Examples

In my 'NON-LAWYER opinion'

•  Daniel Broughton, Portner and Jaskel, on behalf of his client Mr Andrew Ladsky-Steel Services has breached this section of the Act as:

(1) the 10 February 2006 so-called "notice" he sent does not "contain particulars of.the property to which it relates" - as his client had, 10 days previously sold its headlease interests to Lavagna Enterprises Limited. Yet the description of the property is a carbon copy of previous notices e.g. 13 December 2000 when his client had the headlease interest on the last floor of Jefferson House.

Broughton evidently set-out to deceive as he stated in his 3 April 2006 letter that he "deliberately omitted to include pages one and two of the Land Registry title for Steel Services" . Among others, it resulted in a list of flats, without showing the name of Steel Services, nor the address.

(2) The "notice" does not reflect the true "interest in that property" - as Broughton described Steel Services as the "headlessor" v. (a) the 26 February 2002 county court claim in which Portner and Jaskel described it as the "freeholder" ; (b) in his 5 October 2004 letter to "All lessees", Barrie Martin, FRICS, Martin Russell Jones also described Steel Services as the "freeholder".

This suggests that Broughton has also breached the Money Laundering Regulations 2003, "Know your client" - which his trade association, the Law Society, has made a point of communicating to its members

For further detail see: 10 February 2006 'notice by landlord'; My Diary 18 Feb 06 and 29 Apr 06

Consequently, Broughton has also breached S.1(3) and S.1(5)(a) of the Property Misdescriptions Act 1991, as well as Rule 26.01 of the Solicitors Code of Conduct

•  Contrary to what it stated in its 13 December 2000 "notice", Laytons, solicitors, failed to include the particulars of the "disposal". When this was pointed out, it used this as an excuse for withdrawing the offer.

Further proving that (like the 10 February 2006 "notice") the 13 December 2000 "notice" was bogus, is the fact that a change in the ownership structure nonetheless took place two weeks later, on 1 June 2001 - as can be seen on the Land Registry title for Steel Services, NGL 373 333.

It also worth noting that in her 26 April 2001 letter, the Head of the Residents Association reported to the leaseholders that with "a week left to the deadline, our solicitor had not received any communication from Laytons"

Breach

Examples

In my 'NON-LAWYER opinion'

•  Portner and Jaskel's client Andrew Ladsky-Steel Services has committed offences against me by not offering me "first refusal" in relation to five transactions (NB: Covered briefly in my 3 June 2008 Witness Statement under headings # 6 and # 5):

(1) When Steel Services, title NGL 373333, became a 'lessee' of Lavagna Enterprises Ltd (said to be registered in the British Virgin Islands), in late 2005/early 2006, in the process losing control of the last floor of Jefferson House - as can be seen on the title BGL 56642 for Lavagna Enterprises (Headlessors # 2)

(2) The 24 May 2006 transfer of title NGL37333 from Steel Services to Rootstock Overseas Corp, a company said to be registered in Panama (Headlessors # 3)

If it is suggested in relation to the 24 May 2006 transaction that Portner and Jaskel’s 10 February 2006 so-called “S.5 L&T 1987 Notice of first refusal” amounts to compliance with the L&T Act 1987 - it DOES NOT - as it FALSELY claimed that 'Steel Services' was still the Lessor for the whole of Jefferson House at the time - when, in fact, six week previously, 'Steel Services' had disposed of its headlease interest to Lavagna Enterprises, thereby losing control of the last floor of Jefferson House - and becoming a lessee of Lavagna Enterprises (Headlessors ; Owners identity). (The 10 February 2006 "notice" is a carbon copy of previous notices when 'Steel Services' was the headlessor for the whole block (e.g. 13 December 2000 "notice" ; # 2 - 13 December 2000"Notice by landlord"). Nonetheless, Mr Daniel Broughton, Portner and Jaskel, repeated the lie twice during the notice period – as summarised in my 30 April 2006 letter to Broughton - see Portner # 1 ; # 3 - 10 February 2006 bogus "Notice by landlord" ; Property Misdescriptions Act 1991 

My guess that Andrew Ladsky was the instigator of this malicious, vicious act also proved to be right as Portner and Jaskel helpfully confirmed this in its (libellous, scurrilous) 3 October 2006 letter to my then ISP - PLUS the 'standard' Law Society's reply of 30 March 2007 to my 28 February 2007 complaint that Portner "Acted on the instructions of their client" - Portner # 5.1

(3) The transfer of the 'Airspace of Jefferson House', title BGL 51266, from Steel Services to Lavagna Enterprises Limited in January 2006 (Headlessors # 4 )

(4) The 'airspace' was then transferred "by Steel Services", "from Steel Services" to "Rootstock Overseas Corp" for "£1" on 8 January 2007 (Headlessors # 5)

(5) As briefly detailed above under the sections of the L&T 1987 Act - and comprehensively under # 2 -13 December 2000 "Notice by landlord" - the opportunity to buy headlease was fraudulently taken away from leaseholders in the context of the so-called"notice" of 13 December 2000

Breach

Examples

In my 'NON-LAWYER opinion'

THE THREAT OF FORFEITURE AND BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS, AS WELL AS THE COURTS CLAIMS = FRAUD TOOLS

For a comprehensive overview of surrounding events - see my 3 June 2008 (74 pg) Witness Statement; (4pg Main Points)

•  The TOTALLY UNSUPPORTED 9 July 2010 FRAUDULENT invoice of £24,000 'from' Martin Russell Jones = from the equally mentally deranged Andrew Ladsky, followed by more unsupported demands (1 November 2010 ; 18 January 2011), including a follow-on one for £28,000 from a new firm, Martyn Gerrard - My Diary 13 Jul 10

•  The 21 August 2008 letter from the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) threatening me with starting defamation proceedings if I "did not remove all references to the RICS on [my] website within 14 days" . It failed to reply to my 4 September 2008 letter - demonstrating that this letter amounts to the use of FEAR tactics in an attempt to get its own way: cover-up its deceit. UNBELIEVABLY, considering Martin Russell Jones' conduct, as a means of 'piling on the fear', in its letter, the RICS also wrote “No doubt Martin Russell Jones will also be taking similar legal action against you” (RICS # 11 and # 12)

(The 21 August 2008 letter was preceded by a 14 August 2008 letter to which I replied on 18 August 2008)

•  Acting for Andrew Ladsky, over a period of several weeks,Jeremy Hershkorn, Portner and Jaskel, sent a massive amount of emails to my current website Host, threatening my Host with legal "proceedings and costs and damages" unless my Host closed down my website, by making highly libellous, scurrilous - unsupported - claims against me, stating "all of the allegations on [my] website are clearly untrue and therefore defamatory" (Portner # 2 ; My Diary 5 Feb 07 )

•  Desperate to stop me from exposing the detail of my case, the corrupt Jeremy Hershkorn had - also on behalf of Mr Ladsky - faxed a 3 October 2006 letter to my first website host, threatening my host with "proceedings for defamation and for substantial damages and costs" if it did not close down my website, making highly libellous, scurrilous - unsupported - claims against me that "[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). Mr Hershkorn concluded the letter by stating "We will of course, take all appropriate steps to enforce any judgement obtained in the UK against you" (Portner # 2 ; My Diary 3 Oct 06 )

As I pointed out in my 5 October 2006 reply to Hershkorn's letter of 3 October 2006, his outpour of claims of defamation fails to meet the requirements of the Defamation Act 1996 as he has not identified a single item on my site he considered as defamatory

The threat of "proceedings and costs and damages" had the desired effect with my first website host - as it closed down my website (My Diary - 3 Oct 06)

Considering that, since the 27 February 2007 claim was filed against me (Portner # 6 ) ALL my documents to WLCC and Portner and Jaskel are based ENTIRELY on the contents of my website: If the claims on my website are "false", "outrageous", "unsubstantiated" and "defamatory" of 'the good character' of 'Mr Ladsky' (I can't stop laughing at that): WHY, on 6 June 2008, have 'Roostock(sic)/Steel Services/Sloan Development' i.e. Ladsky dropped "ALL" of his (second) fraudulent claim against me? (My Diary - 7 Jun 08 ; 3 Jun 08 (My (74 pg - 3 June 2008 Witness Statement) (4 pg - Main Points) ; Portner # 31 )

And the reason eventually given by Portner and Jaskel LLP for dropping the claim? The preposterous excuse that "it was found that the demand for ground rent and service charges served by the managing agent had given the incorrect identity and address for the landlord" (Portner # 33 ; RICS # 12 ). My reply to this preposterous excuse is on page 5, under point 2.2 of my 26 August 2008 application for an assessment hearing

•  The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors' threat of proceedings for defamation without giving any evidence in support of its accusations - in spite of being asked - its letters: 14 August 2008 ; 21 August 2008 ; my replies: 18 August 2008 ; 4 September 2008 (RICS # 11 and # 12)

And, adding to this, a prediction by the RICS that “No doubt Martin Russell Jones will also be taking similar legal action against you” UNBELIEVABLE! (RICS # 12 )

•  The 16 February 2007 letter from Jeremy Hershkorn, then at Portner and Jaskel, who - acting for Andrew Ladsky - threatened me with "bankruptcy proceedings", forfeiture (taking the flat away from me), and "costs" in the name of "Rootstock Overseas Corp", a company I had never heard of (Portner # 15 ), if I failed to immediately pay £8,937 (US$15,800) (Portner # 3 )

The distress and anguish that this letter caused me was absolutely horrendous - principally because I had no knowledge of this part of the law - which is precisely what the evil, morally depraved, sociopaths/ psychopaths, Ladsky and Hershkorn were counting on. By coincidence, on the day I took delivery of the letter, I met a friend in a store. I broke down in tears. That evening, the utter despair led me to think about the option of 'ending it all' but, my 'guardian angel' quickly pushed that thought out of my mind. I HAD to fight back against the evil, greed ridden, morally depraved, 'Rachman mafia'; if not for me, then at least for other leaseholders who are going through a similar hell to mine. There HAD to be a positive outcome to the horrendous suffering I have been made to endure since 2002. I could not give up.

•  Ignoring my 25 February 2007 reply in which I asked for clarification, Jeremy Hershkorn, Portner and Jaskel, proceeded to file a claim against me in West London County Court on 27 February 2007 - Portner point # 3 ; WLCC # 1 - under a Statement of Truth - knowing full well that the claim against me was FRAUDULENT (Portner # 6.3 ). The horrendous hell was continuing.

•  Unable to force my website Host to close down my website, in his rage at being exposed for what he is, Ladsky asked 'his friends' at Notting Hill police to provide 'some assistance' by FALSELY claiming to my website Host that my website contains "anti-Semitic comments". On the basis on this - TOTALLY UNSUPPORTED - libellous, scurrilous accusation, Ladsky's 'friend' implied - in his highly libellous, scurrilous, racist and xenophobic emails of 16 March 2007 and 20 March 2007 to my website Host - that I had 'committed a crime' and, for 'good measure', branded me as "a Nazi" (KCP # 3 ; My Diary - 20 March 2007)

•  Considering the conduct of Kensington and Chelsea police (KCP # 2) : the 27 January 2003 letter from PC Neil Watson 206BS, "Crime Investigator" (NB!!! ) in which he threatened me with "charges of harassment" following a so-called "complaint" by Andrew Ladsky, and stating that "the complaint has been fully recorded by the police" .

In my 11 February 2003 response I asked for "THE FACTS". I NEVER received a reply.

Of course, Ayesha Salim, Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor (CKFT), also joined in on 'the act': letter of 4 February 2003.

These events took place just before the London LVT hearing and were clearly intended to scare me, make me give-up (My Diary: 3 Jan 03 ; 20 Jan 03 ; 23 Jan 03 ; 5 Feb 03 )

•  The 27 September 2007 threatening letter from West London County Court demanding that I pay £1,700 (US$3,000) to "file a counterclaim" - knowing full well that it was an impossibility for me to do this (WLCC # 14 ). Evidence of an intention to cause me distress: following my challenging events: the subsequent contradicting explanations (WLCC # 22 , # 23 ) ; the three months plus silence that followed my 2 October 2007 letter to WLCC; silence broken by an Order dated 19 December 2007 - sent on 7 January 2008 (NB !!!) 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” (WLCC # 23 )

•  The 21 March 2003 Order from WLCC WRONGLY telling me that a Charging order hearing concerned me - and continuing to do so when challenged - causing me an unbelievable amount of distress and anguish (WLCC # 5 ; Lord Falconer # 1)

•  In spite of WLCC having absolute knowledge that agreement has been reached with 'Steel Services', in its 9 June 2004 Notice West London County Court WRONGLY informed me that I was the defendant in a trial - without giving any detail. In spite of being challenged, after 10 days of unbelievable anguish, torment and distress, Wandsworth County Court, to which my file had been transferred, still maintained that the trial concerned me. Eventually it sent me this 23 July 2004 letter stating that I am "not required to attend" - and in the process treats me like an illiterate idiot (WLCC # 14 ; Lord Falconer # 5. 1)

•  The 7 October 2002 letter from Lanny Silverstone, Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor (CKFT) - acting for Andrew Ladsky - in which he threatened to forfeit my lease and contact my mortgage lender unless I immediately paid the sum of £14,400 (US$25,400) (CKFT # 1 , # 6.2 ). Compared to the letter he sent ten days later to the solicitors of another leaseholder, it clearly demonstrates the intention to "cause me alarm and distress" - with the objective of making me pay monies that were not due and payable (CKFT # 6.2 ) (It caused me so much so distress that I ended-up being physically sick (My Diary 10 Oct 02 ) )

•  Lanny Silverstone and Ayesha Salim, CKFT, sent me a dozen highly threatening, fraudulent, libellous letters, always "with costs" (Of course! ) - principally intended to force me to strike a deal with their client, Mr Andrew Ladsky i.e. make me pay monies that were not due and payable (CKFT # 5 ; WLCC # 10; Business model # 23)

•  The bogus invoices from Martin Russell Jones: (1) 21 October 2004, stating a "Brought forward balance" of £14,452 (US$25,600) - with no explanation whatsoever. This was the same amount as the original, 17 July 2002 demand of £14,400 (US$25,400). Hence, it totally ignored the fact that I had accepted - and paid - the 21 October 2003 'offer' from 'Steel Services' - which had been sealed, 3 months previously, in the 1July 2004 consent order (CKFT # 4 ; WLCC # 12 ; # 13 ) ; (2) three weeks later, another invoice, dated 16 November 2004, this time with a "Brought forward balance" of £15,447 " (US$27,300) - likewise, with no explanation whatsoever (MRJ # 18 )

Although obvious to me that these invoices were malicious acts motivated by revenge for my challenging the service charge demand - and therefore I did not pay them - they caused me an enormous amount of distress and anguish - which, of course was the intention (Home page # 4.15 ) - leading me to cancel my Christmas holiday (My Diary - End 2004 ). The next invoice, 14 months later, was 'mysteriously' £10,250 less: 9 January 2006: £5,625 (US$9,900)

•  The 20 September 2002 reply to my request for information from Hathaway, MRICS, Martin Russell Jones was: “…we have to require payment by return..if payment is not made now our client, Steel Services will have no alternative other than to instruct solicitors to commence legal proceedings to obtain payment” ( MRJ # 25 , # 26 )

•  Letters from e.g. Leaseholder C and Leaseholder M, and other events demonstrate that the intimidation tactics used by Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor (CKFT) / Martin Russell Jones / Portner and Jaskel LLP worked in relation to some of the other leaseholders (MRJ # 25 , # 26 ; LVT # 8.1.2 ; Other Residents ; Elderly Resident)

•  The 4 August 2004 letter from Barrie Martin, FRICS, Martin Russell Jones, in which he wrote that “[I] refused to pay [my] contribution and this resulted in the proceedings before the LVT which of course resulted in the considerable delay in the commencement of the work” While this claim is quite clearly highly defamatory, scurrilous and libellous, I suspect that this ‘story’ was fed to other residents. I replied on 11 August 2004. (MRJ #25)

•  The 12 November 2003 17h09 email from Stan Gallagher in which, in breach of the terms of my lease, and my statutory rights, he dismissed my request to be provided with the 2002 accounts for Jefferson House. As can be seen from what he wrote in his email "Similarly, adding conditions for the disclosure of the accounts can only complicate matters further and jeopardise the prospects of compromising the claim on realistic terms" There are numerous other points in his email, such as - FALSELY - claiming that I was in a "very weak position"; that "if this offer is not accepted and the matter proceeds to trial it is virtually certain that the claimant will beat it and Ms Rawé will be ordered to pay the Claimant's costs" (My comments to Gallagher's "draft consent order and notice" ; Stan Gallagher # 2 , # 3.a.4 ; # 4.1)

Under these points i.e. # 2 , # 3.a.4 ; # 4.1, I present evidence in support of my position that the intention of Stan Gallagher - and Ridchard Twyman ( PSB # 7.9 ; # 7.9.1 ) - was to cause me distress and anxiety (which they succeeded in doing) by providing me with a highly biased - FALSE - assessment of my position, in order to coerce and bully me into doing what 'they' had decided they wanted me to do - because what I wanted - based on my rights - "would not be accepted by the Claimant" i.e. their 'Lord and Master' Andrew Ladsky (Stan Gallagher # 4.1 )

I was vindicated when, as a result of filing my 5 April 2004 complaint with the Bar Council against Gallagher, he changed his tune in the subsequent exchange of correspondence as I was able to prove him wrong (e.g. Stan Gallagher # 5 )

•  The 13 November 2003 - 15h53 email from Richard Twyman, Piper Smith Basham/Watton he sent me stating that he was going to send the draft to CKFT "in the next 10 minutes". (PSB # 6.1 ; # 7.2 ) This email caused me an enormous of distress as I was at work (My Diary 13 Nov 03 ). This, added to the events of the previous days (My Diary 28 Oct 03 , 6 Nov 03 , 7 Nov 03 , 11 Nov 03, 12 Nov 03 ) (and subsequent events) provide evidence that Twyman (and Gallagher) had made a deal with CKFT i.e. Andrew Ladsky that they would force me to accept the reply they had concocted

Twyman claimed to be doing this " as advised". He was referring to the 13 November 15h32 email from Stan Gallagher in which he FALSELY claimed that the drafts had to be sent by 16h00 (Stan Gallagher # 10 )

Twyman and Gallagher colluded on this dirty trick with the objective of sending a reply that would 'suit their 'Lord and Master' Andrew Ladsky. (This collusion between the cabal comprising of Richard Twyman and Lisa McLean, PSB, Stan Gallagher and Ayesha Salim, CKFT, had been set in motion from the start - CKFT # 3 , # 6.8 ).

(NB: Imagine if Richard Twyman, Lisa McLean and Stan Gallagher had been 'advising' me in relation to the 2nd fraudulent claim of 27 February 2007 from Ladsky! I certainly would not have ended-up with what I achieved - by myself: Ladsky 'throwing in the towel' (Portner and Jaskel # 31 )

•  The 14 November 2003 email from Richard Twyman, Piper Smith Basham/Watton in which he LIED about the time at which he received my reply - all because he wanted Ladsky to have the reply that he and the rest of the cabal had concocted (PSB # 7.13 ; My Diary 14 Nov 03 ; my comments to Gallagher's "draft" documents)

This was an unbelievably traumatic experience. I went through absolute, sheer utter hell during that time. The impact on me was horrendous: I lost 5kgs (nearly a stone) during the month of November 2003. Most nights, even though I went to bed at midnight, or later, I would wake up by 4 - 5 a.m. unable to get back to sleep (My Diary - November 2003) (Also: My Diary - 28 Oct 03 , 11 Nov , 12 Nov , 13 Nov , Christmas 2003 ). After a month of further battling with Piper Smith Basham, by mid-December 2003, I took back control of my case (My Diary - December 2003)

•  The 12 December 2003 letter (sent by email) from Lisa McLean, Piper Smith Basham, who LIED about the presentation of my 19 October 2003 Witness Statement - motivated by closing the 'behind the scene' deal she had agreed with CKFT i.e. Ladsky. For proof that she lied, see My Witness Statement at 19 October 2003. In support of my statement 'closing the deal', the section also summarises her desperate actions, and those of Richard Twyman and Ian Skuse to impose their decision on me

•  The 21 January 2004 letter from Lisa McLean, Piper Smith Basham/Watton, in which - with the aim of causing me anguish and distress - she FALSELY claimed "There is also of course the outstanding issue of the concluded agreement" - in a desperate attempt to close the 'behind the scene' deal with CKFT i.e. Ladsky (PSB # 4 , # 7.13.1 , # 7.13.2 , 7.13.3 , # 7.14 ; CKFT # 6.8 ; My Witness Statement at 19 October 2003)

•  The deceit, threats, bullying and coercion in the stream of emails in September 2003 from Lisa McLean, Piper Smith Basham - in collusion with Ayesha Salim, CKFT, and Barrie Martin, FRICS, and Joan Hathaway, MRICS, Martin Russell Jones - intended to stop me from proceeding with my 20C application - thereby allowing 'Steel Services' to charge its LVT related costs to Jefferson House's leaseholders. McLean went as far as saying "Were I the representative for the landlord armed with this knowledge, I would seek costs against you on an indemnity basis" (She WAS acting AS "the representative of the landlord" - while getting me to pay her fees to 'act FOR me') They succeeded in achieving their objective (PSB # 7.19, #7.18.2, #7.18.5 ; CKFT # 6.9 ; MRJ # 43)

This too was an unbelievably traumatic experience. I went through absolute, sheer utter hell during that time - My Diary Sep 2003 - 20C application

Of course, what I have come to nickname "the fertiliser for malpractice" - the Law Society has dismissed ALL my complaints against its above members i.e. Portner and Jaskel, Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor (CKFT) and Piper Smith Basham/Watton. And of course, the same outcome of "no malpractice" from the Bar Council. And 'to round it off': the seal of approval from the Legal Services Ombudsman (Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor ; Stan Gallagher). And, likewise, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors has dismissed my complaint against Martin Russell Jones.

(See also related:

• Protection from Harassment Act 1997
• Theft Act 1968 / Theft (Amendment) Act 1996
• Defamation Act 1996
• Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 - Chapter 41- Section 17
• Fraud Act 2006
• bullying ; coerce ; collude ; criminal ; defame ; humiliate ; Intimidate ; persecute ; psychopath ; sociopath ; terrorise ; torment ; treatment-medical )

Breach

Examples

•  Further evidence that the calculation of the service charges payable by individual leaseholders is based on a fixed global sum to which the relevant fixed percentage share is applied, is also found in:

•  Ms Hathaway's 30 August 2002 letter "The amount demanded is as the terms of the lease. There is no separate list. Details of the percentages are included in the schedules to previous accounts.   The sum demanded is based on the percentage of your lease, which is 1.956%..."

•  Steel Services-Martin Russell Jones supplied these percentages with the application to the LVT. They are also clearly evidenced, among others by the documents supplied to West London County Court by CKFT, for the 24 June 2003 and 26 August 2003 hearing.

(See MRJ #19;

Breach

Examples

•  The 17 June 2003 LVT/SC/007/120/02 determination (ref #992 on the LVT database) by the tribunal was a reduction of nearly 70% (incl. the contingency fund) in the original sum demanded, from £736,206 (US$1.3 million) down to £235,947 (US$416,000) (see also LVT # 4 ; Pridie Brewster # 2 , # 3 , # 5 , # 8 , # 10 , # 12 , # 13 , # 17 , # 18 , # 19 , # 20 )

•  I highlighted this clause to Ms McLean in my 21 August 2003 letter, stating "This is an important point..." - to no avail (Piper Smith Basham # 7.9 ). (I also highlighted under points 103 - 105 of my 20 December 2004 complaint against CKFT - which, of course, was likewise, ignored. (CKFT # 6.4 ) (This clause was highlighted to Ms Hathaway by one of the leaseholders' solicitors)

Breach

Examples

•  Breach of covenant by Mr Ladsky et. al. and their aides as the 17 July 2002 £14,400 (US$25,400) demand sent with the 15 July 2002 letter was NOT in any way shape or form reflected in the 2001 year-end accounts. This blatantly obvious fact was recognised by Ms McLean in her 3 October 2003 letter (PSB # 7.9 , Mr Gallagher # 1.6 )

Breach

Examples

•  Breach of covenant by Ms Hathaway (# 37 ) who repeatedly ignored my requests for a copy of the 2002 accounts - leading me, in June 2004, to seek assistance from Kensington & Chelsea Housing (# 1 )

•  Mr Gallagher has endorsed the breach of this covenant in my lease by describing, in his email of 13 November 2003 , my 7 November 2003 request for a copy of the year-end accounts as a request that "can only complicate matters further and jeopardise the prospects of compromising the claim on realistic terms." (Mr Gallagher # 2.1) - as did Piper Smith Basham by aligning itself with this position (Piper Smith Basham # 7.9 )

Breach

Examples

• The 15 July 2002 demand (and accompanying 17 July 2002 invoice) was NOT an interim demand - it was a demand for full payment (CKFT # 6.4 ; MRJ # 5 , Mr Gallagher # 1.2 , # 1.3 , # 1.4 , # 1.5 , # 1.6 ) (Piper Smith Basham # 7.9 ) ...

...and it was a HIGHLY EXTORTIONATE DEMAND as the the 17 June 2003 LVT/SC/007/120/02 determination (ref #992 on the LVT database) by the tribunal was a reduction of nearly 70% (incl. the contingency fund) in the original sum demanded, from £736,206 (US$1.3 million) down to £235,947 (US$416,000) (see also Mr Brian Gale , LVT # 4 ; Pridie Brewster # 2 , # 3 , # 5 , # 8 , # 10 , # 12 , # 13 , # 17 , # 18 , # 19 , # 20 )

• In addition, it also amounts to a breach of my statutory rights under Section 19(2) of the Landlord & Tenant Act 1985 (Mr Gallagher # 1.7 , Piper Smith Basham # 7.9.1 )

Breach

Examples

Linked to the above, in relation to Clause (2)(2)(h) of my lease:

•  In my complaints / my replies to the parties' response to my complaints (point 98 of my 20 December 2004 complaint against Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor ; point 49 of my 29 August 2004 reply to Mr Gallagher ; point 83 of my 30 November 2004 reply to the Law Society in relation to my complaint against Piper Smith Basham ; point 123 of my 2 February 2005 complaint (1MB) to the RICS against Martin Russell Jones) I drew attention to this clause in my lease, stating

"'Even if' lawyers want to argue that the sum demanded is an "interim payment" (although I simply cannot see how this could be demonstrated in view of the facts), I would like to draw the attention to: Clause (2(2)(j) of my lease... Consider this in the context of the fact that the original demand I received was £14,400.19 (US$25,400) while the impact of the LVT determination meant that it should be reduced by nearly 70% to £4,615" (US$8,135)

As the impact of the 17 June 2003 LVT/SC/007/120/02 determination (ref #992 on the LVT database) reduced the sum demanded of £14,400 (US$25,400) to £4,615 (US$8,135), it follows that, in filing the claim against me under a ' Statement of Truth ' (1.1MB) Ms Hathaway, Martin Russell Jones and Cawdery Kaye Fireman Taylor who produced the claim have breached this covenant in my lease

(CKFT # 6.4 , MRJ # 5 , Mr Gallagher # 1.6 , Piper Smith Basham # 7.9 )

Breach

Examples

•  Steel Services cannot keep within its covenants in my lease as it has sold its headlease interests to Lavagna Enterprises Limited.

As also evidenced in the case of Kintyre Ltd v Romeomarch Property Management Ltd in which the Land Registry Adjudicator dismissed the application to register the lease, because: "The roof space was required for the proper management of the roof." It thereby endorsed the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal determination: LON/ENF/1177/04

•  Joan Hathaway, MRICS, MRJ, breached this covenant as she stated in her 7 June 2001 letter that "works are now overdue", and in her letter of 4 March 2003, under point 38 that repair works had not been carried out for nine years. Yet, the works were only started in September 2004... focusing on the construction of the penthouse flat - see Photo gallery

Breach

Examples

•  As Steel Services no longer has control over the whole of Jefferson House, it cannot perform this covenant in my lease (MRJ#47;

•  Prior events demonstrate that the block has not been properly insured (MRJ# 47;

Breach

Examples

•  By means of threat of proceedings, in her 28 February 2005 letter, Hathaway is endorsing her client's breach of my lease

Breach

Examples

In my 'NON-LAWYER opinion'

THE THREAT OF FORFEITURE, BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS, AS WELL AS THE COURTS CLAIMS = FRAUD TOOLS

"Criminal property"

• 

"Criminal conduct"

• 

"Know your client"

•  Clear evidence of breach by Portner and Jaskel LLP (Mr Jeremy Hershkorn and Mr Ahmet Jaffer) as it waited 16 months to clarify an identity issue about its client (Portner # 33 )

•  And, considering the evidence, Portner and Jaskel (Mr Daniel Broughton) ALSO breached this requirement (communicated by the Law Society to its members) in relation to the 10 February 2006 (bogus) "Notice" of disposal - as its client 'Steel Services' was NOT the controlling party of the asset offered - see Portner # 1 ; # 3 - 10 February 2006 bogus "Notice by landlord" ; Property Misdescriptions Act 1991 ; Headlessors ; Owners identity

• (Assuming that this section of the MLR was in application in 2002) Over a period of at least three months, Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor, Martin Russell Jones and Pridie Brewster said to be acting on behalf of Steel Services when, in fact, the evidence suggests that the company did not exist. (Owners identity # 1 , # 2 ; CKFT # 1 )

“Knowing receipt”

•  Martin Russell Jones committed this offence on the basis that, as defined under Section 42 of the Landlord & Tenant Act 1985, a landlord is the trustee of the account(s) in which tenants’ service charge contributions are paid - and on the basis of the offences detailed in various parts of this page - and more comprehensively under Martin Russell Jones.

Breach

Examples

In my 'NON-LAWYER opinion'

THE COURTS CLAIMS = FRAUD TOOLS

• 

Breach

Examples

In my 'NON-LAWYER opinion'

THE THREAT OF FORFEITURE, BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS, AS WELL AS THE COURT CLAIMS = FRAUD TOOLS

•  MRJ sought improperly to recover monies by way of service charges which were not due and payable.

•  Martin Russell Jones continued issuing documents to West London County Court - and to other leaseholders - namely for the 24 June 2003 and 26 August 2003 hearing, falsely claiming that I then owed £10,917 (US$19,250). These documents deliberately set out to mislead as Martin Russell Jones had absolute knowledge that these documents contained FALSE claims.

•  Martin Russell Jones and CKFT aided and abetted their client in obtaining criminal proceeds as the Consent Order for £6,350 (US$11,200), endorsed by West London County Court on 1 July 2004 represents an amount I ended-up paying as a result of their extortion and fraudulent tactics i.e. acts defined under UK legislation as "criminal" - was not due and payable

Breach

Examples

In my 'NON-LAWYER opinion'

THE COURTS CLAIMS = FRAUD TOOLS

• 

Breach

Examples

In my 'NON-LAWYER opinion'

• Daniel Broughton, Portner and Jaskel, on behalf of his client Mr Andrew Ladsky-Steel Services has breached this Act as:

(1) the 10 February 2006 so-called"notice" he sent does NOT "contain particulars of the property to which it relates" - as his client had, 10 days previously sold its headlease interests to Lavagna Enterprises Limited. (Perhaps, more accurately, 'six weeks previously', as the Land Registry document gives 15 December 2005 as the date of the transaction). Yet the description of the property is a carbon copy of previous notices e.g. 13 December 2000 when his client had the headlease interest on the last floor of Jefferson House.

Broughton evidently set-out to deceive as he stated in his 3 April 2006 letter to me that he "deliberately omitted to include pages one and two of the Land Registry title for Steel Services" . While it resulted in supplying a list of flats, without showing the name of Steel Services, nor the address - thereby breaching the Act, the obvious reason for his withholding the page is the entry at the bottom of page 1": S.5 ...the air space...of the roof of Jefferson House has been removed from this title"

As I pointed out in my 30 April 2006 letter to Broughton, considering that "I, a member of the public – was able to uncover the above information about your client, and had written to you twice to confirm the content of the "notice", I suggest that you will not be able to use the “Due diligence defence”

My non-lawyer conclusion from S.1.3(b) this Act is that Broughton has committed a criminal offence.

It follows that Daniel Broughton has also breached: (1) S.5(2) of the L&T Act 1987; (2) several rules of the Solicitors Code of conduct: Rule 26.01; Rule 12.02 - To act lawfully; Principle (d) - Repute of solicitors; Principle (e) - Standard of work...but, that, 'of course' does NOT matter because the code of conduct is just window dressing.

Breach

Examples

In my 'NON-LAWYER opinion'

THE THREAT OF FORFEITURE, BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS, AS WELL AS THE COURTS CLAIMS = FRAUD TOOLS

For a comprehensive overview of surrounding events - see my 3 June 2008 (74 pg) Witness Statement; (4pg Main Points)

•  The TOTALLY UNSUPPORTED 9 July 2010 FRAUDULENT invoice of £24,000 'from' Martin Russell Jones = from the equally mentally deranged Andrew Ladsky, followed by more unsupported demands (1 November 2010 ; 18 January 2011), and a follow-on one for £28,000 from a new firm, Martyn Gerrard - My Diary 13 Jul 10

•  Acting for Andrew Ladsky, over a period of several weeks, Jeremy Hershkorn, Portner and Jaskel, sent a massive amount of emails to my current website Host, threatening my Host with legal "proceedings and costs and damages" unless my Host closed down my website, by making highly libellous, scurrilous - unsupported - claims against me, stating "all of the allegations on [my] website are clearly untrue and therefore defamatory" (Portner # 2 ; My Diary 5 Feb 07 )

•  Desperate to stop me from exposing the detail of my case, the corrupt Jeremy Hershkorn had - also on behalf of Ladsky - faxed a 3 October 2006 letter to my first website host, threatening my host with "proceedings for defamation and for substantial damages and costs" if it did not close down my website, making highly libellous - unsupported - claims against me that "[my website] contains suggestions that our client [ Ladsky] is guilty of criminal activities and fraud all of which are totally unsubstantiated, outrageous and false... Our client's reputation has been severely damaged..." (I can't stop laughing at that). Hershkorn concluded the letter by stating "We will of course, take all appropriate steps to enforce any judgement obtained in the UK against you" (Portner # 2 ; My Diary 3 Oct 06 )

Considering that, since the 27 February 2007 claim was filed against me (Portner # 6 ) ALL my documents to WLCC and Portner and Jaskel are based ENTIRELY on the contents of my website: If the claims on my website are "false", "outrageous", "unsubstantiated" and "defamatory" of 'the good character' of 'Mr Ladsky' (I can't stop laughing at that): WHY, on 6 June 2008, have 'Roostock(sic)/Steel Services/Sloan Development' i.e. Ladsky dropped "ALL" of his (second) fraudulent claim against me? (My Diary - 7 Jun 08 ; 3 Jun 08 (My (74 pg - 3 June 2008 Witness Statement) (4 pg - Main Points) ; Portner # 31 )

And further proof that the claim was fraudulent is the outrageous, preposterous excuse given by Portner for dropping the claim in its 11 August 2008 reply to my 22 July 2008 notice "it was found that the demand for ground rent and service charges served by the managing agent had given the incorrect identity and address for the landlord". My response knocking out this preposterous excuse is on page 5, under point 2.2 of my 26 August 2008 reply (key points: Portner # 33)

•  In October 2006 and subsequently, Ladsky contacted my (now ex.) employer on numerous occasions, making some of the same outrageously libellous, scurrilous claims against me... and a lot more.

•  Jeremy Hershkorn, then at Portner and Jaskel, who - acting for Andrew Ladsky - in his 16 February 2007 letter, threatened me with "bankruptcy proceedings", forfeiture (taking the flat away from me), and "costs" if I did not immediately pay the FRAUDULENT sum of £8,937 (Portner # 3 ) (US$15,800) - to 'Rootstock Overseas Corp', a company I had never heard of (Portner # 15 )

The distress and anguish that this letter caused me was absolutely horrendous - principally because I had no knowledge of this part of the law - which is precisely what the evil, morally depraved, sociopaths, Ladsky and Hershkorn were counting on. By coincidence, on the day I took delivery of the letter, I met a friend in a store. I broke down in tears. That evening, the utter despair led me to think about the option of 'ending it all' but, my 'guardian angel' quickly pushed that thought out of my mind. I HAD to fight back against the 'mafia'; if not for me, then at least for other leaseholders who are going through a similar hell to mine - by being a trigger for change. There HAD to be a positive outcome to the horrendous suffering I have been made to endure since 2002.

•  Ignoring my 25 February 2007 reply in which I asked for clarification, Jeremy Hershkorn, Portner and Jaskel, proceeded to file a claim against me in West London County Court on 27 February 2007 - Portner point # 3 ; WLCC # 1 - under a Statement of Truth - knowing full well that the claim against me was FRAUDULENT (Portner # 6.3 ). The horrendous hell was continuing.

The ongoing harassment of my website Host by Hershkorn and his malicious letter of 16 February 2007 led me to write a letter of complaint against Portner and Jaskel LLP to the Law Society on 28 February 2007 asking for "appropriate action against your member" (Portner # 4 and # 5) (Of course, none was taken= continuation of my previous experience - and, considering events in relation to the 2007 claim = further confirmation of my conclusion of a 'CLAN')

My complaint to the Law Society led Hershkorn to back-off, and Ladsky to take-up the harassment of my website Host himself, by making several threatening phone calls to my Host - repeating the same libellous, scurrilous accusations, and the same threats.

•  Still unable to force my website Host to close down my website, in his rage at being exposed for what he is, Mr Ladsky asked 'his friends' at Notting Hill police to provide 'some assistance' by falsely claiming to my website Host that my website contains "anti-Semitic comments". On the basis on this libellous, scurrilous accusation, Mr Ladsky's 'friend' implied - without providing any evidence in support - in his highly libellous, scurrilous, racist and xenophobic emails of 16 March 2007 and 20 March 2007 to my website Host that I had 'committed a crime' and, for 'good measure', branded me "a Nazi" (My Diary - 20 March 2007)

•  Considering the conduct of Kensington and Chelsea police - Its 27 January 2003 letter in which it threatened me with "charges of harassment" following a complaint by Andrew Ladsky, and stating that "the complaint has been fully recorded by the police" .

In my 11 February 2003 response I asked for "THE FACTS". I never received a reply.

Of course, Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor also joined in on 'the act': letter of 4 February 2003.

These events took place just before the LVT hearing and were clearly intended to scare me, make me give-up (My Diary: 3 Jan 03 ; 20 Jan 03 ; 23 Jan 03 ; 5 Feb 03 )

•  The 27 September 2007 threatening letter from West London County Court demanding that I pay £1,700 (US$3,000) to "file a counterclaim" - knowing full well that it was an impossibility for me to do this (WLCC # 14 ). Evidence of an intention to cause me distress: following my challenging events: the subsequent contradicting explanations (WLCC # 22 , # 23 ) ; the three months plus silence that followed my 2 October 2007 letter to WLCC; silence broken by an Order dated 19 December 2007 - sent on 7 January 2008 (NB !!!) 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” (WLCC # 23 )

•  The 9 April 2008 case management Order issued by District Judge Ryan, West London County Court, which makes no allowance for ensuring that I am provided with 'Rootstock' s evidence - in spite of having absolute knowledge that I have not been supplied with the information (WLCC # 28 ) And the subsequent 9 May 2008 rejection by District Judge Nicholson of my 30 April 2008 application for amendment to the timeline (WLCC # 30 ) This left me in the highly stressful and prejudiced position of having to write my 3 June 2008 (74pg) Witness Statement (4pg Main Points) without key information (My Diary 3 Jun 08)

•  The Leasehold Valuation Tribunal refusing my 12 January 2003 request for a postponment of the 5 February 2003 hearing as Martin Russell Jones had not provided me with the required information - in breach of the directions issued by the tribunal (London LVT # 2 , My Diary c. 17 Jan 03 )

•  Andrew Ladsky at the 5 February 2003 London LVT hearing who asked the Chair "Will Ms Rawé pay the £250,000 (US$441,000) of additional costs that will be incurred as a result of the delay in the start of the works due to hearing?" As stated under point 64 of the 17 July 2003 LVT report I was "within my rights to challenge the application" (Summary # 1.1)

•  The 7 October 2002 letter from Lanny Silverstone, Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor - acting for Andrew Ladsky - in which he threatened to forfeit my lease and contact my mortgage lender unless I immediately paid the sum of £14,400 (US$25,400) (CKFT # 1 , # 6.2 ). Compared to the letter he sent ten days later to the solicitors of another leaseholder, it clearly demonstrates the intention to "cause me alarm and distress" - with the objective of making me pay monies that were not due and payable (CKFT # 6.2 ) (It caused me so much so distress that I ended-up being physically sick (My Diary 10 Oct 02 ) )

•  Lanny Silverstone and Ayesha Salim, Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor, sent me a dozen highly threatening, fraudulent, bullying, libellous letters, always "with costs" (Of course! ) - principally intended to force me to strike a deal with their client, Andrew Ladsky i.e. make me pay monies that were not due and payable (CKFT # 5 ; WLCC # 10; Business model # 23)

•  The bogus invoices from Martin Russell Jones: (1) 21 October 2004, stating a "Brought forward balance" of £14,452 (US$25,600) - with no explanation whatsoever. This was the same amount as the original, 17 July 2002 demand of £14,400 (US$25,400). Hence, it totally ignored the fact that I had accepted - and paid - the 21 October 2003 'offer' from 'Steel Services' - which had been sealed, 3 months previously, in the 1July 2004 consent order (CKFT # 4 ; WLCC # 12 ; # 13 ) ; (2) three weeks later, another invoice, dated 16 November 2004, this time with a "Brought forward balance" of £15,447 " (US$27,300) - likewise, with no explanation whatsoever (MRJ # 18 )

In my 19 December 2003 correspondence to Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor I accepted 'Steel Services' ' offer ' of £6,350 (US$11,200) in settlement of my share of the costs for the 'major works' (i.e. the original demand of £14,400 (US$25,400) - except the demand for £143 (US$250) of interest - and included full payment with my reply . (For reasons, see West London County Court and My Diary from 16 Jun 03 to 26 Aug 03 ) (Re. the issue of interest, see also Stan Gallagher #8 ; Piper Smith Basham # 7.3 ; my comments to Gallagher's "draft consent order and notice")

Evidence of this is that Ayesha Salim, CKFT, had stated, in her 28 May 2004 letter to me, acceptance of the Consent Order I had drafted while, in her 15 June 2004 letter, she stated having sent it to the court for approval and sent me a copy with her correspondence of 14 July 2004 . Consequently, with the previous payment I had made following the 26 August 2003 hearing, I paid a total of £6,350 (US$11,200) (which I did NOT owe). Wandsworth County Court endorsed the document sealing the agreement on 1 July 2004

In my letter of 31 December 2003 , I wrote to Joan Hathaway, MRICS, Martin Russell Jones informing her of this payment.

Although obvious to me that the 21 October 2004 and 16 November 2004 invoices were malicious acts motivated by revenge for my challenging the service charge demand - and therefore I did not pay them - they caused me an enormous amount of distress and anguish - which, of course was the intention (Home page # 4.15 ) - leading me to cancel my Christmas holiday (My Diary - End 2004 ). The next invoice, 14 months later, was 'mysteriously' £10,250 less: 9 January 2006: £5,625 (US$9,900) (Martin Russell Jones # 18 )

•  The 20 September 2002 reply to my request for information from Hathaway, MRICS, Martin Russell Jones was: “…we have to require payment by return..if payment is not made now our client, Steel Services will have no alternative other than to instruct solicitors to commence legal proceedings to obtain payment” ( MRJ # 25 , # 26 )

•  Letters from e.g. Leaseholder C and Leaseholder M, and other events demonstrate that the intimidation tactics used by Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor / Martin Russell Jones / Portner and Jaskel LLP worked in relation to some of the other leaseholders (MRJ # 25 , # 26 ; London LVT # 8.1.2 ; Other Residents ; Elderly Resident)...

... as does the 23 May 2003 application to WLCC by Lanny Silverstone, CKFT , which provides undeniable evidence that leaseholders were made to pay monies NOT due and payable "The Claimant has obtained judgment or settled proceedings against all Defendants, except the following: 1st., 2nd., 5th. and 7th. Defendants" (CKFT # 6.3 ; Lord Falconer of Thorton # 1 ) ...

...as does the experience of the 5th Defendant in Wandsworth County Court (WCC # 2)

...as do the accounts: In breach of the terms of the lease, and of their statutory rights, 9 out of 14 flats on the 29 November 2002 West London County Court claim ended-up paying the full amount demanded in the claim + a further 16 flats also paid the full amount (Pridie Brewster # 18 ) - see Section 17 of the Theft Act 1968 - False accounting

•  The 4 August 2004 letter from Barrie Martin, FRICS, Martin Russell Jones, in which he wrote that “[I] refused to pay [my] contribution and this resulted in the proceedings before the LVT which of course resulted in the considerable delay in the commencement of the work” While this claim is quite clearly defamatory, libellous and scurrilous, I suspect that this ‘story’ was fed to other residents. I replied on 11 August 2004. (MRJ #25)

•  The 21 January 2004 letter from Lisa McLean, Piper Smith Basham/Watton, in which - with the aim of causing me anguish and distress - she falsely claimed "There is also of course the outstanding issue of the concluded agreement" - in a desperate attempt to close the 'behind the scene' deal with CKFT i.e. Ladsky (PSB # 4 , # 7.13.1 , # 7.13.2 , 7.13.3 , # 7.14 ; CKFT # 6.8 ; My Witness Statement at 19 October 2003; my comments to Gallagher's "draft consent order and notice")

•  The deceit, threats, bullying and coercion in the stream of emails in September 2003 from Lisa McLean, Piper Smith Basham - in collusion with Ayesha Salim, CKFT, and Barrie Martin, FRICS, and Joan Hathaway, MRICS, Martin Russell Jones - intended to stop me from proceeding with my 20C application - thereby allowing 'Steel Services' =Ladsky to charge its London LVT related costs to Jefferson House's leaseholders. McLean went as far as saying "Were I the representative for the landlord armed with this knowledge, I would seek costs against you on an indemnity basis" (She WAS acting AS "the representative of the landlord" - while getting me to pay her fees to 'act FOR me') They succeeded in achieving their objective (PSB # 7.19, #7.18.2, #7.18.5 ; CKFT # 6.9 ; MRJ# 43). VERMIN!

This was an unbelievably traumatic experience. I went through absolute, sheer utter hell during that time - My Diary Sep 2003 - 20C application

•  The 29 November 2002 claim ( WL 023 537) filed in West London County Court by Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor - FALSELY - stating in the Particulars of Claim that "[I] have failed to pay the service charges... that they are now due and owing from [me] to the Claimant." and include a 'Statement of Truth' signed by Joan Hathaway, MRICS, Martin Russell Jones, 'managing' agent for Jefferson House which states: "The Claimant believes that the facts stated in this Claim Form are true" (CKFT # 2 , # 3 ) (NB: Endorsement of the witness statement by Hathaway amounts to a very serious breach of CPR - WLCC; My Diary 9 Mar 07)

The Particulars of claim are FALSE given that:

• the London tribunal had, one month previously, specifically told me (and other leaseholders to NOT pay the service charge);
• seven months LATER, the outcome of the 17 June 2003 LVT/SC/007/120/02 findings (ref #992 on the LVT database) was a reduction of nearly 70% (incl. the contingency fund) in the original sum demanded, from £736,206 (US$1.3 million) down to £235,947 (US$416,000) (see also LVT # 4 ; Pridie Brewster # 2 , # 3 , # 5 , # 8 , # 10 , # 12 , # 13 , # 17 , # 18 , # 19 , # 20 )
• the 'service charge' demand breached statutory requirements: L&T 1985 - section 20(3)(a); 20(3)(b); 20(4)(e) - as amply demonstrated by the tribunal's 17 June 2003 report (Stan Gallagher # 1.7 )
• the demand was in breach of the terms of my lease - Clause 2(2)(c)(ii); 2(2)(e); 2(2)(g)(i); 2(2)(j) (Stan Gallagher # 1.6 )

THE COURTS CLAIMS = FRAUD TOOLS

PERSECUTION by West London County Court in 2003 - 2004 and by Wandsworth County Court in 2004 (in addition to the events with the claim)

• The 21 March 2003 Order from WLCC WRONGLY telling me that a Charging order hearing concerned me - and continuing to do so when challenged - causing me an unbelievable amount of distress and anguish (WLCC # 5 ; Lord Falconer # 1)

• WLCC WRONGLY telling me on 18 March 2004 that a judgment has been entered against me (Lord Falconer # 2 )

• WLCC ignoring instructions, leading me to miss the 28 May 2004 hearing - with catastrophic consequences as the ensuing order stated that the claim against me was "stayed" i.e. just suspended (WLCC # 13 ) I was so distraught that I could not stop myself from crying in the street (Lord Falconer # 4) AND when I went to WLCCC to get a copy of the transcript, it initially DENIED that a hearing had taken place (Lord Falconer # 5.2 )

• In spite of WLCC having absolute knowledge that agreement has been reached with 'Steel Services', in its 9 June 2004 Notice WLCC WRONGLY informed me that I was the defendant in a trial - without giving any detail. In spite of being challenged, after 10 days of unbelievable anguish, torment and distress, Wandsworth County Court, to which my file had been transferred, still maintained that the trial concerned me. Eventually it sent me this 23 July 2004 letter stating that I am "not required to attend" - and in the process treats me like an illiterate idiot (WLCC # 14 ; Lord Falconer # 5. 1)

•  With the assistance of Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor (CKFT), Martin Russell Jones continued issuing - FALSE - documents to West London County Court - and to other leaseholders - namely for the 24 June 2003 (WLCC # 7 ; # 8 ) and 26 August 2003 (WLCC # 9 ; # 10 ) hearing, FALSELY claiming that I then owed £10,917 (US$19,250). Consequently, they FALSELY portrayed me to the court - and more importantly in documents that are in circulation in the public domain - as a dishonest individual who defaults on her obligations.

Continuation of the GAMES and the LIES in 2007-2008 by Portner and West London County Court - snapshot in My Diary 11 Nov 08

THE COURTS CLAIMS = FRAUD TOOLS

•  The impact on me of the sheer, utter hell - instigated and driven by Andrew Ladsky - I have been made to endured by:

Lanny Silverstone and Ayesha Salim, Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor ; Lisa McLean and Richard Twyman, Piper Smith Basham/Watton ; Stan Gallagher ; Joan Hathaway, MRICS, and Barrie Martin, FRICS, Martin Russell Jones ; Brian Gale , MRICS ; Jeremy Hershkorn, Ahmet Jaffer and Daniel Broughton, Portner and Jaskel e.g. My Diary

• In relation to some of the court hearings: 16 Jun 03 ; 17 Jun 03 , 22 Jun 03 , 24 Jun 03 , 9 Aug 03 , 26 Aug 03 , 4 Sep 03 , 24 Aug 07 ; All the section on Lord Falconer of Thoroton)
• In relation to my 20C Application: September 2003
• In relation to the 'offer' from 'Steel Services': 28 Oct 03 , 11 Nov , 12 Nov , 13 Nov , November 2003 , Christmas 2003 (see also PSB # 7.13 and sub-points ; # 7.15 ; # 7.18.3 , # 7.19 , # 7.20 ; CKFT # 5 ; Gallagher # 12; my comments to Gallager's "draft consent order and notice")
• Following the very large, unsupported, bogus 'service charge' demands, as the implication was that I was 'back to square one' after two years of sheer utter hell: End of 2004
• Some of my 'bigger downs' on the emotional roller coaster 16 June 2006 and 20 August 2006
• Following the threat of bankruptcy and of forfeiture of my flat, and the FRAUDULENT claim filed against me: 11 March 2007
• A lot more took place in 2007, which I did not record in my online Diary [ADD-KPMG].

Added to the trauma of being a victim of fraud and organised crime - (THE THREAT OF FORFEITURE, BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS, AS WELL AS THE COURTS CLAIMS = FRAUD TOOLS) - being dragged through the courts (I am an honest, law abiding person who had never set foot in a court) - must added the very traumatic treatment I suffered from West London County Court, as well as Wandsworth County Court in 2002-2004 - My Diary 19 Jun 05 ; Lord Falconer of Thoroton point # 4 and # 5 - and similar treatment in 2007-2008: West London County Court - Post 2004...

...and the conduct of Kensington, Chelsea and Notting Hill police in 2002, 2003, and in 2007: My Diary 20 Mar 07...

...as well as my battle with Kensington & Chelsea Housing and the Local Government Ombudsman in 2004 and 2005..

...and my battle with the London Leasehold Valuation Tribunal in 2003

Not to mention my soul-destroying battles with the so-called 'regulators': the Law Society (CKFT, Piper Smith Basham, Portner and Jaskel), Bar Council (Stan Gallagher) and the Legal Services Ombudsman ; Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales (Pridie Brewster) ; Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (Martin Russell Jones), etc.

SUMMARY of my soul-destroying battles: My Diary 6 May 2008

...has been ABSOLUTELY HORRENDOUS. AN ONGOING MENTAL TORTURE SINCE 2002. This is a breach of my Human Rights, under Article 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998

"Prohibition of torture - No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment"

I AM THE VICTIM OF ORGANISED CRIME. Yet, I have, and continue to be treated as though I am the criminal... and the criminals have been - and continue to be treated as though they are the victims - because, like the rest, when their 'true' practices are exposed: they, 'of course', perceive themselves as the victims.

•  Andrew Ladsky contacting the Tenancy Relations Officer, Kensington & Chelsea Housing, I had approached for assistance, demanding that he hands over to him "all the correspondence" I had sent (My Diary 5 Nov 02)

•  Harassment at work:

• Getting a female accomplice to phone me at work to tell me "Don't worry, they won't kill you" (My Diary - January / February 2004 )
• Several anonymous phone calls at work (My Diary - Late February - Early March 2002)

•  Ongoing harassment in the flat e.g.:

• Malicious leaks in my flat: my bathroom on 11 Mar 02 and 18 Aug 05 and, 10 days previously, in my bedroom on 8 Aug 05 - see Photo gallery bathroom, bedroom ; a leak that narrowly missed my flat on 6 Feb 07 : Photo gallery corridor by my flat - and one that definitely did not miss my flat (My Diary 20 July 07)
• Hosing of my windows, in the early hours of the morning - in the process of 'watering the plants': 6 Sep 05, at 04:55 a.m; 4 Oct 05, at 05:30 a.m; 7 Apr 06, at 01:00 a.m; 4 Sep 06, at 02:45 a.m; 5 May 07, at c. 03:45 a.m.; in February 2008, also in the early hours of the morning; 9 Jan 09, at 03:45 a.m; 20 May 11, at 05:30 a.m;
• Object thrown at my windows late at night: (My Diary - 15 Feb 02 and 3 Apr 02 )
• Pressing my door bell late at night (leading me to disconnect it - since 2002) (captured in 5 May 2002 letter to Sir Toby Harris, then head of the Metropolitan Police Authority)
• 20b anonymous phone calls to my home: (My Diary - 17 Feb 02; 19 Feb 02 ; Kensington & Chelsea police # 1 )
• Electricity cut off only in my flat (My Diary - 8 July 06), as well as water (My Diary - 21 Aug 05)
• Electricity cut-off only in my flat, as well as four other flats that are under the control of the headlessor - My Diary 8 Mar 09
• No hot water and no heating in my flat - for 3 days, starting on Christmas day 2007; for several days in March 2009
• No hot water and no heating for 5 days during the Easter break of 2003 (My Diary Easter break 2003)
• Mobile phone signal cut-off for two weeks (My Diary - 15 May 08)
• Neglect and misuse of the areas around my flat (My Diary - 15 May 08)
• Andrew Ladsky telling me "I am going to get you this year" (My Diary 3 Jan 03)
• Other instances of harassment and intimidation in 2002 - (Kensington & Chelsea police # 1 ) captured in my 5 May 2002 letter to Sir Toby Harris, then head of the Metropolitan Police Authority
• 5 Feb 03 London LVT hearing - Ladsky asks-

Other forms of persecution:

• the 3 mobile phone network preventing me from transferring my mobile number to another network (My Diary 29 Dec 08 ; 23 Jan 09)
• a bogus, malicious text message, intended to worry me - sent on 2 Jan 09
• this was preceeded by a voice 'message', on the same day, clearly intended to scare me (My Diary 2 Jan 09)
• sometime in 2005-06 the landline was cut off in my flat (not because I was not paying my bills) - leaving me to be reliant on mobile phones
• I never received the 2 extra fob keys for the main door, I asked for in my 26 July 2005 letter - Martin Russell Jones #45

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

Fear for my safety (as I very clearly cannot rely on the police for protection), and the anguish of being in the flat meant that I was staying in the office until very late at night, including at weekends. Eventually, in April 2007, I started to rent a room in East London, and did this until November 2007. Before reintegrating the flat, I spent a substantial sum of money on making it more secure. Of course, it does not provide me protection against the various forms of harassment. But, at least, I no longer feel the need to sleep all dressed up and with a knife by me in the bed (My Diary - 2 Aug 06)

•  My being followed / monitored since at least 2003 e.g. events for which I have a witness 26 Oct 03; 1st Jun 05; 25 Oct 07. Other examples: the same man on 10 Sep 05, 27 Feb 06, 18 Mar 06 and 24 Apr 06; and repeats of this e.g. 17 Jul 09 and Jan/Feb 10 ; 18 and 24 Apr 10 ; 14 Jul 09 and 20 May 10 ; 20 and 27 Jul 10 ; 23 May 10; etc.

By 'amateurs' / other amateurs e.g. 16 Jul 05; 26 Aug 05; 21 Dec 05; 25 Dec 05; 15 Jan 06; 19 Apr 06; 16 May 06 ; 23 Mar 10 ; 10 May 10 ; 22 May 10 ; 2 Jun 10 ; 19 Jul 10

By another type (usually displaying extreme arrogance and sense of superiority), which, while it has some experience of following people - it is not all that great as I have tricked them on numerous occasions e.g. 4 Jan 06 and 15 Jan 06; 2 Aug 06, 30 Jul 06 much to their annoyance e.g. Rest of week beginning 23 Jan 06, at times, to the extent of taking retaliatory action e.g. 1 Aug 06 ; 30 Jun 10 ; 30 Jul 10 - including: hounding me by helicopter (YES!), and even hounding me in public toilets

At times, the intention has been to scare me, intimidate me; taking revenge e.g.

•  Death threat "Enjoy your life. You don't have long to live" - My Diary 15 Jun 09 - - suggesting a change of plan since the "Don't worry, they won't kill you" of Jan/Feb 04

•  Four men, after midnight, waiting in a parked car, in a deserted street, wating for me to arrive, on my own. As I was about to cross the - dead-end - street, they started the car and drove it straight at me - My Diary 1 Aug 06

•  I was ambushed by a man when I was on my own, in a deserted street, after midnight -19 Apr 06

•  On another occasion, after midnight, in a deserted alley, a man, hiding in dark recesses, came straight at me - 23 Aug 06

•  I have found myself in situations of being 'hunted' / encircled - My Diary 26 Feb 06 ; 17 Mar 06 ; 22 Mar 06

•  Following me and then circling around me when I stopped walking - 20 July 10

•  On a bus, somebody verbally abused me and tried to hit me - 16 Nov 10

•  Hosing of my windows at 01h00 am and 02h45 am - 7 Apr 06 ; 4 Sep 06

•  Leaving a snapping sound 'message' on my mobile phone - 2 Jan 09

I hold the view that Andrew Ladsky incriminated himself on 19 April 2005 as being, at least, one of the people having me followed, by telling me "you are mad" and to "go and see a psychiatrist". On that day I had seen a therapist I had not seen in over two years. I give the events on 19 April 2006 and 16 May 2006 as providing additional supporting evidence of involvement by Ladsky... and many others since.

However, there are DEFINITELY other parties involved in the surveillance: public authorities. WHY? RETRIBUTION!

•  My post being intercepted at Jefferson House (which is a criminal offence under section 83 of the Postal Services Act 2000) forcing me to open a PO Box (My Diary May 03) - and the highly distressing events that folowed (My Diary 1 Jul 06 , 2 Nov 06 , 4 and 5 Nov 06 , 7 Nov 06 ). And now: my post is intercepted by the State.

(See also related:

• Malicious Communications Act 1988
• Theft Act 1968 / Theft (Amendment) Act 1996
• Defamation Act 1996
• Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 - Chapter 41- Section 17
• Fraud Act 2006
• bullying ; coerce ; collude ; criminal ; defame ; humiliate ; Intimidate ; persecute ; psychopath ; sociopath ; terrorise ; torment ; treatment-medical )

•  Harassment by Andrew Ladsky of the person who was running the Residents Association at Jefferson House (see also Notices by landlord - 13 December 2000)

•  Harassment by Ladsky of other residents through "unprovoked direct verbal and other abuse by Mr Ladsky" "He acted like a petty tyrant, and I am not afraid to put on record that I believe that he is capable of any unscrupulous actions in order to achieve his aims" (1 November 2002 letter), etc; of the Elderly Resident. And 'perhaps' of Resident K (There is something 'very fishy' about events with this resident).

•  Harassment of Nucleus Citizens Advice Bureau

Breach

Examples

In my 'NON-LAWYER opinion'

• Section 15 - Obtaining property by deception
• Section 15A - Obtaining a money transfer by deception
• Section 16 - Obtaining pecuniary advantage by deception
• Section 17 - False accounting
• Section 21 - Blackmail
• Section 24 A - Dishonestly retaining a wrongful credit

Section 15 - Obtaining property by deception (NB: From 15 January 2007, superseded by the Fraud Act 2006)

THE COURTS CLAIMS = FRAUD TOOLS

• ATTEMPTED DECEPTION: The bogus invoices from Martin Russell Jones: (1) 21 October 2004, stating a "Brought forward balance" of £14,452 (US$25,600) - with no explanation whatsoever. This was the same amount as the original, 17 July 2002 demand of £14,400 (US$25,400). Hence, it totally ignored the fact that I had accepted - and paid - the 21 October 2003 'offer' from 'Steel Services' - which had been sealed, 3 months previously, in the 1July 2004 consent order (CKFT # 4 ; WLCC # 12 ; # 13 ) ; (2) three weeks later, another invoice, dated 16 November 2004, this time with a "Brought forward balance" of £15,447 " (US$27,300) - likewise, with no explanation whatsoever (MRJ # 18 )

In my 19 December 2003 correspondence to Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor I accepted 'Steel Services' ' offer ' of £6,350 (US$11,200) in settlement of my share of the costs for the 'major works' (i.e. the original demand of £14,400 (US$25,400) - except the demand for £143 (US$250) of interest - and included full payment with my reply . (For reasons, see West London County Court and My Diary from 16 June 2003 to 26 August 2003 ) (Re. the issue of interest, see also Mr Gallagher #8 and Piper Smith Basham # 7.3 )

Evidence of this is that Ms Ayesha Salim, CKFT, had stated, in her 28 May 2004 letter to me, acceptance of the Consent Order I had drafted while, in her 15 June 2004 letter, she stated having sent it to the court for approval and sent me a copy with her correspondence of 14 July 2004 . Consequently, with the previous payment I had made following the 26 August 2003 hearing, I paid a total of £6,350 (US$11,200) (which I did NOT owe). Wandsworth County Court endorsed the document sealing the agreement on 1 July 2004

In my letter of 31 December 2003 , I wrote to Ms Hathaway, Martin Russell Jones informing her of this payment.

See also

• Section 15A - Obtaining a money transfer by deception
• Section 16 - Obtaining pecuniary advantage by deception
• Section 17 - False accounting
• Section 21 - Blackmail
• Section 24 A - Dishonestly retaining a wrongful credit

Back to Theft Act sections

Section 15A - Obtaining a money transfer by deception (NB: From 15 January 2007, superseded by the Fraud Act 2006)

Given the examples contained in

• Section 15 - Obtaining property by deception
• Section 16 - Obtaining pecuniary advantage by deception
• Section 17 - False accounting
• Section 21 - Blackmail

THE COURTS CLAIMS = FRAUD TOOLS

•  Letters from e.g. Leaseholder C and Leaseholder M, and other events demonstrate that the intimidation tactics used by Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor / Martin Russell Jones / Portner and Jaskel LLP worked in relation to some of the other leaseholders (MRJ # 25 , # 26 ; LVT # 8.1.2 ; Other Residents ; Elderly Resident)

Back to Theft Act section

Section 16 - Obtaining pecuniary advantage by deception (NB: From 15 January 2007, superseded by the Fraud Act 2006)

THE THREAT OF FORFEITURE, AS WELL AS THE COURTS CLAIMS = FRAUD TOOLS

For a comprehensive overview of surrounding events - see my 3 June 2008 (74 pg) Witness Statement; (4pg Main Points)

•  In 2002, Joan Hathaway, MRICS, Martin Russell Jones was demanding from leaseholders, the sum of £736,000 (US$1.3 million) - under the threat of prosecution (e.g. letter to me of 20 September 2002 and of 24 September 2002 to another leaseholder) - as well as receiving money on behalf of 'Steel Services' when, in fact, the evidence suggests that Steel Services did NOT exist (Owners identity; MRJ # 24 )

•  During the same period, in his 7 October 2002 letter, Lanny Silverstone, CKFT, was threatening me with forfeiture and prosecution unless I immediately paid the sum of £14,400 (US$25,400) - thereby attempting to enforce the £736,000 (US$1.3 million) 'service charge' demand sent by Hathaway (Owners identity; CKFT # 6.9 , # 1 , # 6.2 )

•  It also follows that the same applies to Pridie Brewster: for a period of time, it was claiming to be acting on behalf of 'Steel Services' when, in fact, the evidence suggests that it did NOT exist (Owners identity; Pridie Brewster # 14 )

•  The outcome of the London LVT 17 June 2003 LVT/SC/007/120/02 findings (ref #992 on the LVT database) was a reduction of nearly 70% (incl. the contingency fund) in the original sum demanded, from £736,206 (US$1.3 million) down to £235,947 (US$416,000) (LVT # 4 )

•  The 23 May 2003 application to WLCC by Lanny Silverstone, CKFT, provides undeniable evidence that leaseholders were made to pay monies NOT due and payable "The Claimant has obtained judgment or settled proceedings against all Defendants, except the following: 1st., 2nd., 5th. and 7th. Defendants" (CKFT # 6.3)... as do the accounts - see Section 17 - False accounting

•  In breach of leaseholders' statutory rights, the LVT findings were not implemented. In his 2 August 2004 letter, Barrie Martin, FRICS, Martin Russell Jones, informed "All Lessees" of the appointment of a new contractor, Mansell Construction Services. Deceptively, Martin did not included the 11% management fee and VAT. The total sum demanded is in fact £669,937 (US$1.181 million) making a difference of only £66,269 (US$113,732) relative to the original sum demanded of £736,206 (US$1.3 million) - or 9% less (when in fact it should be less 68%). (MRJ # 13 , # 17 )

•  Joan Hathaway, MRICS, and Barrie Martin, FRICS, Martin Russell Jones, and Brian Gale, MRICS, LIED to the leaseholders of Jefferson House, and to the tribunal, by claiming that the works were just repair and maintenance, when, in fact they entailed the addition of a penthouse flat and 3 others flats (Major works ; Photo gallery )

•  (a) Hathaway, wrote in her 30 August 2002 letter to me: "We are informed that there is no intention to build the penthouse at the current time"

•  (b) The letter 'from', Hathaway, MRICS, of 4 March 2003 - supplied as part of the evidential documents to the tribunal in which she stated "...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" (Planning applications ; MRJ # 9 , # 12 , # 13 )

•  (c) The 13 December 2002 "Expert witness" report from Brian Gale, MRICS, to the London LVT: "I am able to categorically state that the Specification makes NO provisions for any construction of an additional floor nor any future requirement in the building to create a penthouse flat" (Planning applications ; Brian Gale )

•  (d) Brian Gale's identified "defects" and "remedies" during his "condition survey" - and his interpretation in practice

•  (e) Mansell - Brian Gale who described the works as including "replacing asphalt roof" (Planning applications , Mansell )

•  (e) Barrie Martin, FRICS, Martin Russell Jones, in his 14 July 2004 letter to me: "External repair and redecoration work plus internal refurbishment of common parts"

V.

•  In breach of the terms of the lease, and of their statutory rights, 9 out of 14 flats on the 29 November 2002 West London County Court claim ended-up paying the full amount demanded in the claim + a further 16 flats also paid the full amount (Pridie Brewster # 18 ) (See also S.17 False Accounting)

This is the reason why Martin Russell Jones did not want to supply me with a copy of the accounts for 2002 and 2003 (Pridie Brewster # 1 ). When I finally obtained them, following a battle, firstly with Kensington & Chelsea housing, and secondly with the Local Government Ombudsman, the section on the contributions paid by the leaseholders was WITHHELD (LGO # 7 )

See also:

• Section 15 - Obtaining property by deception
• Section 17 - False accounting
• Section 21 - Blackmail

Back to Theft Act sections

Section 17 - False accounting

THE THREAT OF FORFEITURE, BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS, AS WELL AS THE COURTS CLAIMS = FRAUD TOOLS

For a comprehensive overview of surrounding events, as well as evidence - see my 3 June 2008 (74 pg) Witness Statement; (4pg Main Points)

•  The TOTALLY UNSUPPORTED 9 July 2010 FRAUDULENT invoice of £24,000 'from' Martin Russell Jones = from the equally mentally deranged Andrew Ladsky, followed by more unsupported demands (1 November 2010 ; 18 January 2011) (My Diary 13 Jul 10), and a follow-on one for £28,000 from a new firm, Martyn Gerrard with an estimate of 'service charges' to year-end 2011 that looks equally fraudulent

•  As a result of being copied on my 30 March 2005 letter to Joan Hathaway, MRICS, Martin Russell Jones, Roger Clement, accountant, Pridie Brewster, replied in his 15 April 2005 letter that he was not aware of the 17 June 2003 LVT report. In my 17 April 2005 correspondence I supplied him with 48 evidential documents. I followed this by another letter of 9 May 2005. (PB # 3 )

•  As, 3 months later, Clement had not acknowledged either of my letters, on 19 July 2005, I contacted the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales (ICAEW) asking for assistance (PB # 4 ).

•  From there ensued a one year battle with the ICAEW (PB # 5 - # 17 ) which argued against my position, while acknowledging that Pridie Brewster was breaching covenants in my lease (PB # 8) - (which is further evidenced by the "2006 Estimated expenditure for Steel Services" (PB # 20) ).

•  In its 29 August 2006 letter, the ICAEW also confirmed that the 17 June 2003 LVT findings had NOT been reflected in the accounts.

Outcome: In breach of the terms of the lease, and of their statutory rights, 9 out of 14 flats on the 29 November 2002 West London County Court claim ended-up paying the full amount demanded in the claim + a further 16 flats also paid the full amount (Pridie Brewster # 18 )

•  In addition to assessing the 2003 accounts as deficient, the ICAEW said to be of "the opinion" that the 2005 accounts would be "key" in addressing major questions about the costs of the major works - and the contributions by the leaseholders.

•  In its 29 August 2006 letter, the ICAEW returned a verdict of "no malpractice" by Pridie Brewster that flew in the face of the evidence. To top it all, the ICAEW placed the responsibility 'on me' for performing Pridie Brewster's obligations (PB # 19 )

•  In breach of the terms of my lease, and of my statutory rights, I have not been supplied with accounts for Jefferson House since 2004. However, it can be safe to assume that the accounts have not been restated.

•  This is to be added to the fact that they are not compliant with the terms of my lease.

Hence, the accounts for Jefferson House - on which 'service charge' demands are based - are FALSE - WORKS OF FICTION.

See also

• Section 15 - Obtaining property by deception
• Section 16 - Obtaining pecuniary advantage by deception
• Section 21 - Blackmail

Back to Theft Act sections

Section 21 - Blackmail

THE THREAT OF FORFEITURE, BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS, AS WELL AS THE COURTS CLAIMS = FRAUD TOOLS

For a comprehensive overview of surrounding events - see my 3 June 2008 (74 pg) Witness Statement; (4pg Main Points)

•  Jeremy Hershkorn, then at Portner and Jaskel, who - acting for Andrew Ladsky - in his 16 February 2007 letter, threatened me with "bankruptcy proceedings", forfeiture (taking the flat away from me), and "costs" if I did not immediately pay the FRAUDULENT sum of £8,937 (Portner # 3 ) (US$15,800) - to 'Rootstock Overseas Corp', a company I had never heard of (Portner # 15 )

•  Ignoring my 25 February 2007 reply in which I asked for clarification, Jeremy Hershkornproceeded to file a claim against me in West London County Court on 27 February 2007 - Portner point # 3 ; WLCC # 1 - under a Statement of Truth - knowing full well that the claim against me was FRAUDULENT (Portner # 6.3 )

•  Evidence that the 27 February 2007 claim filed against me was fraudulent is that, on 6 June 2008, 'Roostock(sic)/Steel Services/Sloan Development' i.e. Andrew Ladsky dropped "ALL" of his (second) fraudulent claim against me (Portner # 31 ; My Diary - 7 Jun 08 ; 3 Jun 08 (My (74 pg) - 3 June 2008 Witness Statement) (4 pg - Main Points) )

•  The 7 October 2002 letter from Lanny Silverstone, Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor (CKFT) - acting for Andrew Ladsky - in which he threatened to forfeit my lease and contact my mortgage lender unless I immediately paid the sum of £14,400 (US$25,400) (CKFT # 1 , # 6.2 ). Compared to the letter he sent ten days later to the solicitors of another leaseholder, it clearly demonstrates the intention to "cause me alarm and distress" - with the objective of making me pay monies that were not due and payable (CKFT # 6.2 ) (It caused me so much so distress that I ended-up being physically sick (My Diary 10 Oct 02 ) )

•  The 20 September 2002 reply to my request for information from Joan Hathaway, MRICS, Martin Russell Jones was: “…we have to require payment by return..if payment is not made now our client, Steel Services will have no alternative other than to instruct solicitors to commence legal proceedings to obtain payment” ( MRJ # 25 , # 26 )

•  The 29 November 2002 claim ( WL 023 537) filed in West London County Court by Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor - FALSELY - stating in the Particulars of Claim that "[I] have failed to pay the service charges... that they are now due and owing from [me] to the Claimant." and include a 'Statement of Truth' signed by Joan Hathaway, MRICS, Martin Russell Jones which states: "The Claimant believes that the facts stated in this Claim Form are true" (CKFT # 2 , # 3 ) (NB: Endorsement of the witness statement by Ms Hathaway, a 'managing agent' for Jefferson House - amounts to a very serious breach of CPR - WLCC ; My Diary 9 March 2007)

The Particulars of claim are FALSE given that:

• the London tribunal had, one month previously, specifically told me (and other leaseholders to NOT pay (pg 5) the service charge);
• seven months LATER, the outcome of the 17 June 2003 LVT/SC/007/120/02 findings (ref #992 on the LVT database) was a reduction of nearly 70% (incl. the contingency fund) in the original sum demanded, from £736,206 (US$1.3 million) down to £235,947 (US$416,000) (see also LVT # 4 ; Pridie Brewster # 2 , # 3 , # 5 , # 8 , # 10 , # 12 , # 13 , # 17 , # 18 , # 19 , # 20 )
• the 'service charge' demand breached statutory requirements: L&T 1985 - section 20(3)(a); 20(3)(b); 20(4)(e) - as amply demonstrated by the tribunal's 17 June 2003 report (Stan Gallagher # 1.7 )
• the demand was in breach of the terms of my lease - Clause 2(2)(c)(ii); 2(2)(e); 2(2)(g)(i); 2(2)(j) (Stan Gallagher # 1.6 )

•  With the assistance of Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor, Martin Russell Jones continued issuing - FALSE - documents to West London County Court, for the 24 June 2003 (WLCC # 7 ; # 8 ) and 26 August 2003 (WLCC # 9 ; # 10 ) hearing, FALSELY claiming that I then owed £10,917 (US$19,250).

•  Lanny Silverstone and Ayesha Salim, Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor, sent me a dozen highly threatening, fraudulent, libellous letters, always "with costs" (Of course! ) - principally intended to force me to strike a deal with their client, Andrew Ladsky i.e. make me pay monies that were not due and payable (CKFT # 5 ; WLCC # 10 ; Business model # 23)

•  Being placed under an unbelievable amount of stress, for the sake of my health (My Diary - 28 Oct 03 , 11 Nov , 12 Nov , 13 Nov , November 2003 , Christmas 2003), in my 19 December 2003 correspondence to Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor I accepted 'Steel Services' ' offer ' of £6,350 (US$11,200) in settlement of my share of the costs for the 'major works' (i.e. the original demand of £14,400 (US$25,400) - even though, legally, I did not owe this sum . Wandsworth County Court endorsed the document sealing the agreement on 1 July 2004

•  Letters from e.g. Leaseholder C and Leaseholder M, and other events demonstrate that the intimidation tactics used by Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor / Martin Russell Jones / Portner and Jaskel LLP worked in relation to some of the other leaseholders (MRJ # 25 , # 26 ; LVT # 8.1.2 ; Other Residents ; Elderly Resident)

•  The 9 January 2006 'service charge' demand from Jaon Hathaway, MRICS, MRJ, stating a "Half-yearly service charge in advance" of £815 (US$1,435), based on "Steel Services estimated expenditure for 2006" - which covers all the flats when, in fact:

• (1) three weeks previously, 'Steel Services' had sold its leasehold interest on the last floor of Jefferson House to Lavagna Enterprises. The penthouse flat was a lessee of Lavagna Enterprises (Headlessors)
• (2) three new flats were added ( #18A , # 33A and # 35A ) in the course of the "repair and maintenance works" ( Summary slide ; Headlessors ; Pridie Brewster # 12 )

•  The deceit, threats, bullying and coercion in the stream of emails in September 2003 from Lisa McLean, Piper Smith Basham - in collusion with Ayesha Salim, CKFT, and Barrie Martin, FRICS, and Joan Hathaway, Martin Russell Jones - intended to stop me from proceeding with my 20C application - thereby allowing 'Steel Services' to charge its LVT related costs to Jefferson House's leaseholders. McLean went as far as saying "Were I the representative for the landlord armed with this knowledge, I would seek costs against you on an indemnity basis" (She WAS acting AS "the representative of the landlord" - while getting me to pay her fees to 'act FOR me'). They succeeded in achieving their objective (PSB # 7.19, # 7.18.2, # 7.18.5 ; CKFT # 6.9 ; MRJ # 43)

See also

• Section 15 - Obtaining property by deception
• Section 16 - Obtaining pecuniary advantage by deception
• Section 17 - False accounting

Back to Theft Act sections

Section 24 A - Dishonestly retaining a wrongful credit

•  In light of the above: ditto in terms of the breach of this section of the Act

(See also related to the Theft Act sections:

• Malicious Communications Act 1988
• Protection from Harassment Act 1997
• Defamation Act 1996
• Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 - Chapter 41- Section 17
• Fraud Act 2006
• bullying ; coerce ; collude ; criminal ; defame ; humiliate ; Intimidate ; persecute ; psychopath ; sociopath ; terrorise ; torment ; treatment-medical )

Bullying

Examples

THE THREAT OF FORFEITURE, BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS, AS WELL AS THE COURTS CLAIMS = FRAUD TOOLS

•  West London County Court that, in 2007, falsely claimed that I had filed a counterclaim; demanded I pay £1,700 and gave me three working days to do this - and subsequently, with the assistance of the Court Service Complaints dept, attempted to cover it through deceit - point # 18 my complaint to the Court Service , point # 19 repeating the main points in my complaint, point # 23 and point # 22 highlighting the deceit and cover-up by WLCC and the Court Service

•  West London County Court's actions in 2002-04 that pursued the claim against me (and 10 other leaseholders - representing in total 14 flats) in the full knowledge that: (1) an abuse of process of court was taking place ; (2) the Particulars of claim were false; (3) proceeded to issue judgement/s against some of my fellow leaseholders - before the London LVT issued its (materially incomplete) report ; (4) to the very end, ignored my repeated claim that 'Steel Services' =Andrew Ladsky had NOT implemented the 17 June 2003 report findings

•  The 7 October 2002 letter from Lanny Silverstone, Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor (CKFT) - acting for Andrew Ladsky - in which he threatened to forfeit my lease and contact my mortgage lender unless I immediately paid the sum of £14,400 (US$25,400) (CKFT # 1 , # 6.2 ). Compared to the letter he sent ten days later to the solicitors of another leaseholder, it clearly demonstrates the intention to "cause me alarm and distress" - with the objective of making me pay monies that were not due and payable (CKFT # 6.2 ) (It caused me so much distress that I ended-up being physically sick (My Diary 10 Oct 02 ) )

•  CKCFT drawing-up the - FRAUDULENT - claim against me and 10 other leaseholders - representing 14 flats - when, one month previously, during the 29 October 2002 London LVT pre-trial tribunal we, the leaseholders, had been told to NOT pay until the tribunal had issued its determination and it had been implemented. In support of this, we were given a leaflet which, on page 5 states that ""...a recent Court of Appeal case ruling (Daejan Properties Limited v London Leasehold Valuation Tribunal) determined that LVTs only have the jurisdiction to decide the reasonableness of disputed service charges that are still unpaid"

Among others, CKFT's client, Andrew Ladsky, and Joan Hathaway, MRICS, MRJ, were in attendance at this pre-trial hearing. One month later, Hathaway signed the statement of truth on the claim filed in West London County Court (It amounts to a very serious breach of Civil Procedure Rules by West London County Court )

• Jeremy Hershkorn, Portner and Jaskel who, in February 2007 - acting for Andrew Ladsky - threatened me with bankruptcy proceeding and taking the flat away from me, as well as Ahmet Jaffer who took over from Hershkorn - point # 3 and point # 15 , point # 16 , point # 17 , point # 23

•  By Ladsky at the 5 February 2003 London LVT hearing who asked the Chair " Will Ms Rawé pay the £250,000 (US$441,000) of additional costs that will be incurred as a result of the delay in the start of the works due to hearing?"

(The reply is captured under point 64 of the 17 June 2003 LVT/SC/007/120/02 report (ref. #992 on the LVT database) : "Although she is in the minority, the Respondent's legal right to challenge the Applicant's proposal, as she has done, cannot be fettered"

•  The salvo of malicious, threatening, bullying letters from Lanny Silverstone and Ayesha Salim, CKFT, to force me to strike a deal with their client, Andrew Ladsky e.g from Silverstone:

25 June 2003 ".the costly LVT process has now resulted in a percentage uplift in the contract figure and a significant delay in the project. We should, therefore, strongly urge you to meet with our client."

24 July 2003 "Clearly substantial costs will be incurred if the court has to deal with the determination of this issue. this is a matter which could be dealt with between the parties. we reserve the right to refer to this and previous correspondence in relation to any subsequent issue as to costs"

7 August 2003 letter to my solicitors (of a few hours) "...we have made numerous offers to meet with your client in order to try and resolve this matter by negotiation. She has declined to accept those offers. We shall contend that this is a relevant matter in relation to the question of costs"

•  Piper Smith Basham (now Piper Smith Watton) falsely claiming on three separate occasions that I had agreed to the reply sent by Richard Twyman to CKFT on 13 November 2003 (Piper Smith Basham # 4 , # 7.13 , # 7.13.1 , # 7.13.2 ) (CKFT # 6.8 ) (My Diary December 2003 ) (My comments to Stan Gallagher's "draft consent order and notice" summarising events)

•  Events with Twyman: My Diary 11 Nov 03; 12 Nov 03; 14 Nov 03 - and Gallagher 13 Nov 03 - afternoon;

•  What I consider as the use of coercion, bullying and intimidation tactics by Twyman and McLean ('of course, the Law Society disagrees with me), among others, in relation to my 20C application. The Law Society can disagree with me as much as it wants, but its members made 'me' go through absolute, sheer utter hell during that time - see Piper Smith Basham # 7.19, #7.18.2, #7.18.5 . See also Martin Russell Jones # 43 which includes evidence against Ayesha Salim, CKFT # 6.9; My Diary Sep 03 - 20C application; London LVT # 5 , # 9 )

•  Gallagher who, at the time of the 'offer', repeatedly brandished the threat of "costs" in my face as a means of bullying me into accepting the 'offer' (I will not add 'allegedly' as it is glaringly obvious that this was the intention) (Gallagher # 3.a.4 ) , and continued to do so in his initial reply of 9 June 2004 (I counted 10 instances in his 29 page reply) leading me to ask (point 67, 29 August 2004 ) "Mr Gallagher wants me to believe that, with this body of evidence, the odds were against me? Was Mr Gallagher acting for me or the other side?" (Of course, he challenged my statement in his 11 October 2004 reply) (Gallagher # 5.1 ) (See also 'Breach' Bar Council Code of Conduct ; my comments to Gallagher's "draft consent order and notice")

•  The ICAEW's threat in its 23 August 2005 letter " if I do not receive a reply within the next 7 days I will be recommending the file for closure" , as the reply it was chasing was to its 4 August 2005 letter i.e. sent three weeks earlier, during the month of August which is a holiday period (Pridie Brewster # 6 ) Of course, the ICAEW continued using the same tactic in relation its 29 August 2006 reply (Pridie Brewster # 22 )

•  The state of the area around my flat: the step in front of my windows that remained broken for nearly one year; the filth around my flat. See also Photo gallery

See also related:

coerce ; collude ; criminal ; defame ; humiliate ; Intimidate ; persecute ; psychopath ; sociopath ; terrorise ; torment ; treatment-medical

- 'Breach': Malicious Communications Act 1988 ; Theft Act 1968 / Theft (Amendment) Act 1996 ; Fraud Act 2006 ; Defamation Act 1996 ; Criminal Justice Act & Public Order Act 1994 ; Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 - Chapter 41- Section 17

Clan

Examples

•  My view of the group comprising of: the courts, the Law Society, the Bar Council and the Legal Services Ombudsman

•  See my 2 January 2010 Subject Access Request to the Ministry of 'Justice' - Legal home # C ; Home page-Overview

Coerce

Examples

•  My view - initially captured under point 5 of my 5 April 2004 complaint against Stan Gallagher [and PSB ] - that Gallagher and Richard Twyman had engineered the situation to prevent me from inputting into the reply to the 21 October 2003 'offer'. Following the total rejection of my complaint by the Bar Council, I again repeated this under point 45 of my 25 March 2005 reply to the Bar Council (Gallagher # 10 )

•  How I view Gallagher, Twyman and McLean's conduct from the time the 'offer' was received - [ ] (My Diary 28 Oct 03 , 6 Nov , 7 Nov , 11 Nov , 12 Nov , 13 Nov ) and following Twyman sending the reply - without my consent [ ] (My Diary 14 Nov 03) (summary)

•  Piper Smith Basham (now Piper Smith Watton) FALSELY claiming on three separate occasions that I had agreed to the reply sent by Richard Twyman to CKFT on 13 November 2003 (Piper Smith Basham # 4 , # 7.13 , # 7.13.1 , # 7.13.2 ) (CKFT # 6.8 ) (My Diary 13 Dec 03, 14 Nov , December 2003 )

•  My view of Piper Smith Basham's reply of 18 December 2003 to my letter of 2 December 2003 (which, given events, I view as exceptionally generous and conciliatory) as, in reply to my wanting it to send another reply to CKFT which reflects what had been agreed, it states; "...would only lead to further litigation at your cost..." (Piper Smith Basham # 3 )

•  Joan Hathaway, MRICS, MRJ, letter to me of 20 September 2002: “…we have to require payment by return..if payment is not made now our client, Steel Services will have no alternative other than to instruct solicitors to commence legal proceedings to obtain payment”

•  Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor drawing-up the - FRAUDLENT - claim against me and 10 other leaseholders - representing 14 flats - when, one month previously, during the 29 October 2002 London LVT pre-trial tribunal we, the leaseholders, had been told to NOT pay until the tribunal had issued its determination and it had been implemented. In support of this, we were given a leaflet which, on page 5 states that ""...a recent Court of Appeal case ruling (Daejan Properties Limited v London Leasehold Valuation Tribunal) determined that LVTs only have the jurisdiction to decide the reasonableness of disputed service charges that are still unpaid"

Among others, CKFT's client, Andrew Ladsky, and Hathaway were in attendance at this pre-trial hearing. One month later, Hathaway signed the statement of truth on the claim filed in West London County Court (It amounts to a very serious breach of Civil Procedure Rules by West London County Court )

•  In reply to my insisting that the Bar Council deals with my complaint (rather than follow its suggestion that I chase Arden Chambers for a reply), the comment in its 6 May 2004 reply : "It might well have been that they could have given you satisfaction and, if not, you could then have come to me, giving you two rungs of the ladder, so to speak" (Mr Gallagher # A )

• Engineering a propitious environment for coercion tactics by eliminating the residents association as a result of harassment of the person heading it

See also related: bullying ; collude ; criminal ; defame ; humiliate ; Intimidate ; persecute ; psychopath ; sociopath ; terrorise ; torment ; treatment-medical

'Breach': Malicious Communications Act 1988 ; Theft Act 1968 / Theft (Amendment) Act 1996 ; Fraud Act 2006 ; Defamation Act 1996 ; Criminal Justice Act & Public Order Act 1994 ; Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 - Chapter 41- Section 17, etc.

Collude

Examples

I classify the following examples as ORGANISED CRIME

•  West London County Court's actions in 2002-04 that pursued the claim against me (and 10 other leaseholders - representing in total 14 flats) - in spite of the fact that: (1) the statement of truth was signed by Joan Hathaway; (2) it knew that the Particulars of claim were false; (3) it knew that an abuse of process was taking place; (4) it proceeded to issue judgement/s against some of my fellow leaseholders - before the London LVT had issued its (materially incomplete) report ; (5) to the very end, it ignored my repeated claim that 'Steel Services' had not implemented the 17 June 2003 LVT report. But, "anything for Dear Mr Ladsky''

• Yet again demonstrating collusion with 'Dear Mr Ladsky', in February 2007, it accepted a yet again FRAUDULENT claim against me - in spite of the fact that the claim had 2 company names, both claiming to be ny 'landord', each represented by a different firm of solicitors and each demanding payment of a different amount of money. It IGNORED 11 communications from me, over a period of 16 months in which I kept highlighting the issue

•  West London County Court also falsely claimed that I had filed a counterclaim; it demanded I pay £1,700 and gave me three working days to do this; subsequently, with the assistance of HM Court Service, it attempted to cover it through deceit - point # 18 my complaint to the Court Service , point # 19 repeating the main points in my complaint, point # 23 and point # 22 highlighting the deceit and cover-up by WLCC and the Court Service (see also my 2 January 2010 Subject Access Request to the Ministry of (In)Justice (Lawyers, courts # C); my 12 July 2009 complaint against the courts and tribunal to the Parliamentary Ombudsman)

• Siobhan McGrath, President of the LVTs, refusing to address the very major failing in the London LVT report - because 'inconvenient' to 'Dear Mr Ladsky''s fraud

• Also with the objective of assisting 'Dear Mr Ladsky''s fraud, as well as take revenge for my 'daring' to stand-up for my rights - placing on the LVT database a so-called "summary" that is a pack of lies against me

•  The LVT waiting more than two months to inform the leaseholders of the application to the London LVT by 'Steel Services' ='Dear Mr Ladsky'' and the pre-trial hearing. The application was filed on 7 August 2002. The first letter from the LVT informing the leaseholders of the application is dated 8 October 2002. It makes no reference to the pre-trial hearing scheduled for 29 October. In fact, it waited another two days, announcing it in its 10 October 2002 letter. Many leaseholders lived overseas. By the time they received the letter, the unbelievably short notice meant that - 'very conveniently' for 'Dear Mr Ladsky'' - they could not attend (LVT # 10.1 )

•  In sending the above correspondence to leaseholders, quite clearly, the LVT took its cue from 'Dear Mr Ladsky' as to which leaseholders should NOT be informed of the application - in the process committing a breach of their statutory rights under section 20(4) of the Landlord & Tenant Act 1985 (LVT # 10.2 )

•  The tribunal clerk opted to not copy me - as well as "some" other leaseholders - on the appendices to the 7 August 2002 application - which included the priced specification all of us had been clamouring for (LVT # 10.3 )

•  The LVT talking only notice of the correspondence from Joan Hathaway e.g. her 8 October 2002 fax, 'her' 20 January 2003 letter - while ignoring all of my correspondence and that of numerous other leaseholders, as well as what we had all reported at the 29 October 2002 pre-trial hearing

•  The blatantly obvious collustion between Kensington & Chelsea police and Andrew Ladsky from my very contact with this station in 2002

•  The equally blatantly obvious collusion between Kensington & Chelsea police, the Department of Professional Standards, the Met Commissioner and the 'Independent' Police Complaints Commission

•  My view - supported by ample 'black on white' evidence - that 'my advisers' colluded with the aim forcing me to accept the 'offer' from Andrew Ladsky - and that this expectation had been the game plan all along (Piper Smith Basham (now Piper Smith Watton) # 7 , # 7.14 , # 7.17 , # 7.17.1 , # 8 ) (Gallagher Introduction ; 3.e.2 , # 19 ) (CKFT # 3 , # 6. 8 ) (My Witness Statement ) (My Diary 28 Oct 03 , 6 Nov , 7 Nov , 11 Nov , 12 Nov , 13 Nov , afternoon of 13 Nov 03 )

•  My view - supported by 'black on white' evidence - that Lisa McLean, Piper Smith Basham/Watton, Ayesha Salim, Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor (CKFT), Barrie Martin, FRICS, and Joan Hathaway, MRICS, Martin Russell Jones colluded in relation to my 20C Application to the London LVT (PSB # 7.18 ; MRJ # 43 ) - and the LVT provided some 'very helpful assistance' (LVT # 5 )

•  As my 16 March 2004 complaint against Piper Smith Basham, and my 20 December 2004 complaint against Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor were, 'of course', rejected by the Law Society, and the Bar Council, likewise, and 'of course', also rejected my 4 April 2004 complaint against Gallagher I, likewise, hold the view that the Law Society and the Bar Council colluded with their member/s - and this is abundantly evident from their replies. (In its last communication the Bar Council's laughable excuse for Gallagherwas that "his involvement concerned a time frame of only about 3 weeks")

• Considering that Zaida Manzoor, the Legal Services Ombudsman - who had been supplied with all the relevant documents - endorsed the decision of the Law Society ( # 2 ) / ignored the Law Society's handling of the complaint against Piper Smith Basham ( # 3 ), and endorsed the decision of the Bar Council ( # 4 ) - I, likewise, hold the view that this Ombudsman colluded with the Law Society and the Bar Council.

Example of evidence in support of my position: this Ombudsman's comment on page 3 of her 30 August 2005 reply: "The outcome of the (LVT) determination was largely favourable for your landlord" ...

...against the fact that the outcome of the London LVT hearings captured in the (materially incomplete) 17 June 2003, LVT/SC/007/120/02 report (ref #992 on the LVT database) was to reduce the global sum demanded of £736,000 (US$1.3 million) by nearly 70%, down to £235,947 (US$416,000) (incl. contingency fund). In other words, £500,000 (US$882,000) of the sum demanded was NOT considered as "reasonable".

•  Portner and Jaskel’s 10 February 2006 so-called “S.5 L&T 1987 Notice of first refusal” is fraudulent as it FALSELY claimed that 'Steel Services' was still the Lessor for the whole of Jefferson House at the time - when, in fact, six week previously, 'Steel Services' had disposed of its headlease interest to Lavagna Enterprises, thereby losing control of the last floor of Jefferson House - and becoming a lessee of Lavagna Enterprises (Headlessors ; Owners identity). (The 10 February 2006 "notice" is a carbon copy of previous notices when 'Steel Services' was the headlessor for the whole block (e.g. 13 December 2000 "notice" ; # 2 - 13 December 2000"Notice by landlord"). Nonetheless, Daniel Broughton, Portner and Jaskel, repeated the lie twice during the notice period – as summarised in my 30 April 2006 letter to Broughton - see Portner # 1 ; # 3 - 10 February 2006 bogus "Notice by landlord" ; Property Misdescriptions Act 1991 

My guess that Andrew Ladsky was the instigator of this malicious, vicious act also proved to be right as Jeremy Hershkorn, Portner and Jaskel helpfully confirmed in his (libellous, scurrilous) 3 October 2006 letter to my then ISP that Ladsky was his client

•  The 'standard' Law Society's reply of 30 March 2007 to my 28 February 2007 complaint that Portner "Acted on the instructions of their client" - Portner # 5.1

•  Considering, the overwhelming amount of 'black on white' evidence I supplied to the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors in my 2 February 2005 complaint against Martin Russell Jones, I also hold the view that the RICS colluded with its member in dismissing my complaint by returning the verdict of having "insufficient weight of evidence to place this matter before an RICS disciplinary committee"

Further confirmation of collusion more than 3 years later from the 21 August 2008 letter from the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors in which - UNBELIEVABLY - it encourages Martin Russell Jones to issue proceedings against me for defamation - see RICS # 12 - and still continuing with the collusion in 2010-11

For other examples of collusion see: My Diary 6 May 08 - summary outcome of my complaints ; 2011-Intro - Retribution

See also related - bullying ; coerce ; criminal ; defame ; humiliate ; Intimidate ; persecute ; psychopath ; sociopath ; terrorise ; torment ; treatment-medical

'Breach': Malicious Communications Act 1988 ; Theft Act 1968 / Theft (Amendment) Act 1996 ; Fraud Act 2006 ; Defamation Act 1996 ; Criminal Justice Act & Public Order Act 1994 ; Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 - Chapter 41- Section 17

Complicity

Examples

•  See my 2 January 2010 Subject Access Request to the Ministry of 'Justice' - Legal home # C ; Home page-Overview

•  Kensington & Chelsea police has turned a 'blind eye and a deaf ear' to Mr Andrew Ladsky's criminal acts - under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997:

- At least five residents, including myself, reported acts of harassment by Mr Andrew Ladsky to Kensington & Chelsea police (Kensington & Chelsea police point # 1 and point # 3 ) This reporting was denied by Paul Webster, Detective Inspector who stated in his 23 April 2002 letter "No crime report has been reported to this police borough regarding Mr Ladsky..." (also covered under points # 1 and # 3)

In addition to turning a 'blind eye and a deaf ear', Kensington & Chelsea police has sided with Mr Andrew Ladsky as:

(1) In 2002, it concocted a story and made up excuses in order to, among others, not reveal the owner of the Reach telephone number from which one (or more?) of the anonymous phone calls I received were made - WHY? (Kensington & Chelsea police # 1 )

(2) When, in January 2003, Mr Ladsky claimed that I "swore at [him]", Kensington & Chelsea police turned against me stating, in its 27 January 2003 letter "Of perhaps greater importance is the fact that any further such outbursts may result in charges of harassment being made against you, as this initial complaint has been fully recorded by the police." (Kensington & Chelsea police point # 2 )

(3) It aimed to assist Mr Ladsky in his desperate attempts to get my website closed down by approaching my website Host on 16 March 2007, endorsing his unsupported accusation that my website "contains anti-Semitic comments". In the process, Kensington & Chelsea police implied that I had 'committed a crime', as well as branded me as "a Nazi".

When challenged by my website Host who replied "Are you aware that there are laws against making false accusations?", Kensington & Chelsea police backed down stating in its 20 March 2007 reply "There is nothing we as a police force can do other than classi