Email this site to a contact


Trapped in my 'concentration camp' leasehold apartment - in 'The kingdom of Make-Believe' - with no avenue open to me for justice, redress and protection

Welcome to


Website of Noëlle Rawé (sometimes shown on documents as Ms Noëlle Klosterkotter-Dit-Rawé) - leaseholder (definition) of an apartment in Jefferson House, 11 Basil Street, London SW3 1AX, United Kingdom - I have come to call 'the concentration camp'.

(NB: From your browser, you can increase the size of the text: 'View' > 'Text size')

(If the linked documents within the PDFs do not open, try with Internet Explorer:


If Internet Explorer does not go to a specific part of a page on my website i.e. does not link to an anchor:

In the Internet Explorer browser, select Tools, then 'Compatibility View settings'.

Under 'Add this website' enter: '' and click 'Add').





Updated on 29 Nov. 16


Mis à jour le 21 déc. 15

(Explanation of leasehold system / Explication du système leasehold)






To date, this website demonstrates that, as a law-abiding, tax-paying leaseholder - with my profile - if you have the immense misfortune of having your leasehold apartment come under the control of an organized crime gang that decides to make a multi-million £ jackpot through extortion - it starts, through threats and a court claim, by demanding payment of £14,400 (US$25,400) you do not legally owe: you shut-up and pay.





If you do not and ‘dare’ to fight for your so-called ‘rights’, instead of helping you i.e. perform its official remit (which you pay it to do), the state will criminalize you, as well as join forces with the gang in persecuting you relentlessly with the objective of destroying you - using their key tool: mental torture.

The drivers of the persecution are the corrupt, amoral elements in the judiciary and police who helped the gang in their criminal activities – you ‘dared’ to stand-up to, and eventually exposed in the public domain following the repeated rejection of your complaints against them.

Your 'daring' to do this leads them to portray themselves as being ‘your victims’ – an ‘assessment’ that is automatically endorsed by their peers and higher up, who join their rank by (typically) piling up, with the aim of 'justifying' them and covering them up, more and more illegal actions and decisions on top of the initial ones.

Your ‘daring’ to also stand-up to them results in an exponentially growing army of ‘victims’ - (typically) hell-bent on ‘getting your scalp’ - at any cost.

Amounting to running what is best described as a protection racket and 'retribution' service – they are aided in doing this by a supporting cast of 1000s, only too happy to join in the criminal psychological harassment tactics.

= In England, you are persecuted for 'daring' to stand-up for your so-called 'rights', and then get persecuted for 'daring' to stand-up against the persecution.

NO, my assessment is not due to my misunderstanding of my rights, nor to paranoia. What happened - and continues to happen - is due to this island-kingdom having sold out to crime, and being consequently controlled by crime, for the benefit of crime.

I add that only the corruptible can be corrupted

(Under the entry I have added some short, easy steps guidance aimed at 'a certain type' of criminals, too busy to look at this site, and eager to get on with the next illegal deal).

Unsurprisingly, given the profile of the individuals concerned, and their prior actions / lack of action - the response has been a continuation of the persecution.

= Blind determination to "kill [me], zip up the bag, bring [me] to the morgue" (which has been their mantra for many years).

(While my resolve remains as strong as ever, and attitude as that of e.g. the horse in the parable).


I first launched the site on 19 Sep 06, out of utter despair - as a 'cry for help' - after 5 years of facing a gigantic wall of blind eyes and deaf ears 'in response' to my numerous legitimate 'cries for help' and complaints.

It was closed down on 6 Oct 06, as my then (US) ISP caved-in the face of the threat of libel action from Jeremy Hershkorn, (then) at Portner and Jaskel, London W1U 2RA, "on behalf" of his "client", "Andrew David Ladsky" - based on totally unsupported accusations against the content of my website - accusations that were malicious and libellous (PJ # 2).

(See the legal requirements for 'defamation').

I took the opportunity to add more 'fortifications' to the site and, having found HostDime, my wonderful, priceless current US website Host in Oct 06, I relaunched the site on 25 Dec 06...

...because I will not suffer injustice in silence. I too have the right to be heard - by an audience that is independent of the parties from whom I have - and continue - to suffer outrageous injustice and extremely traumatic, life-destroying treatment since 2002.


My primary objective - as the glaringly obvious victim of organized crime - is to be reinstated to the position I was in July 2002 i.e. time when I received the 17 July 02 demand, and said: "Yes, works need to be done, but on what are you going to spend the £14,400 (US$25,400) you are demanding of me?" ...

...- and then leave this island-kingdom, as I have been wanting to do since 2003, as well as close down this website - I do not want - but must maintain - as my only form of protection. (So far, the British state has twice attempted to remove this protection). It means:

My secondary objective is detailed below.


(See below for 'LATEST' )



(NOTE, above, browser set-up)


The 'lynching' has gathered massive momentum ever since, in the process drawing 1000s of parties into the Andrew Ladsky camp.


THE 'LYNCHING' started in early 2002, with ongoing harassment by Andrew David Ladsky (police # 1 background), as soon as I began to challenge his RICS "regulated", racketeer 'managing' agents, the then Martin Russell Jones (MRJ) on the true nature of the intended "major works" at Jefferson House.

Andrew David Ladsky is the Rachman landlord who controls Jefferson House who, with the aim of conferring 'respectability', describes himself as a "property developer" / "company director" (of paper / bogus companies).

While vehemently denied, it was clear that "the works" entailed the construction of a penthouse (planning applications), for which, I and fellow leaseholders are, of course, not liable.

(See below evidence of Ladsky putting the scam in motion shortly after acquiring the freehold in 1997)

NB: Exchange rate at time of launch of site, in Sep 06: £1 = US$1.76329


(1)- Six months after the 21.12.01 assertion that "Sufficient funds are held in the Reserve Fund to cover the cost of redecoration and repairs", I received a 17.07.02 demand of £14,400 (US$25,400) for "the works" - based on an unsupported 15.07.02 global demand of £736,200 (US$1.3m).

It was followed by the threat of forfeiting (seizing) my leasehold apartment, and contacting my mortgage lender, if I failed to pay immediately.


in a 21.12.01 letter to the "Flat Owners", Joan Doreen Hathaway, then MRICS, of the then Martin Russell Jones (MRJ), announced that the landlord,

"Steel Services [= Andrew David Ladsky was] appointing Brian Gale Associates to prepare a Schedule of Works for the redecoration of the exterior ...and associated repairs"

Of key importance, in the light of what took place subsequently:

"We have to state that the sum quoted may be exceeded due to disbursements but these will be of a minor nature. Sufficient funds are held to cover the cost of the works within the Reserve Fund"

In Feb 02, Andrew David Ladsky's surveyor, Brian Gale, MRICS, issued a so-called 'condition survey' and photographs of Jefferson House. Considering what took place subsequently ("Major works"), his recommended "remedies" in relation to his identified "defects" make, to say the least, 'fascinating reading' (Gale # 7).

In breach of legislation, Joan Hathaway then sent an unsupported (*) 15.07.02 global demand of £736,200 (US$1.3m) "for the works". In my case, based on my (1.956%) share of the service charges (for my leasehold, basement, studio apartment) the amount in the 17.07.02 invoice was £14,400 (US$25,400).

(*) Proof that the demand was unsupported e.g. (i)- it was confirmed during the then London Leasehold Valuation Tribunal (LVT) 'hearing' of 5 Feb 03 (LVT # 3); (ii)- it is captured under para.14 of the 17.06.03 LVT report.

What happened in the 6 months following the assertion in the above 21.12.01 letter?

As detailed, among other, in this Overview: Andrew David Ladsky had decided otherwise:..

...he 'needed' to defraud the Jefferson House's leaseholders to the tune of £500,000+ (US$882,000) in order to make his multi-million £ jackpot.

The demand also amounted to a further breach of my Lease, as it was not referred to in the 2001 'accounts' e.g. my Comments attached to the 16.03.05 letter from Hathaway who, having repeatedly ignored my demands for the 2002 'accounts', continued to lie.

After months of suffering ongoing harassment and persecution by Ladsky, as well as battling with Her Majesty's police in relation to my complaint (# 17, below, and with Hathaway - the demand was the coup de grace that led to my being transferred to doing non-client work (My Diary summer 02).

As evidenced, among others, under e.g. para.6 of my 19.10.03 Witness Statement (which never made to the court - reasons under My 19 Oct 03 Wit. Stat. # 1), and para.3.1 of my 22.10.02 letter to the tribunal (below) - I consistently agreed that repair and maintenance works were required to the block.

This was recognised by Ladsky's solicitor, Lanny Silverstone, Cawdery Kaye Fireman Taylor (CKFT), London NW3 1QA, in his 25.06.03 letter. Consequently, that I would need to pay my share (as, indeed, I did in the past).

This is ALL I wanted to do: pay my just and fair share of the costs i.e. as per the terms of my Lease - which is a legally binding contract - on both parties - landlord and leaseholder, and as per my statutory rights (e.g. my 09.08.03 letter to District Judge Wright).

I therefore persisted in wanting to get the answer to what I consider to be a perfectly legitimate question to ask: What are you going to spend my money on? - acting as the majority of people would, when asked to pay £14,400 out of the blue.

Ignoring my repeated demands for supporting evidence (11.08.02, 16.09.02), in 'her' malicious 20.09.02 letter (preceded by 'her' 30.08.02 letter, yet again denying the intention to build a penthouse, and her 20.08.02 letter to the leaseholders, falsely claiming that there were "no objectors")...

...- Hathaway, MRICS, threatened me with legal proceedings if I failed to pay immediately the £14,400 demanded.

Acting in tandem with MRJ, the criminal psychological harassment tactic was picked-up by Silverstone who, in his 07.10.02 letter, threatened me with "forfeiture" (taking the apartment from me) (copy of definition) and "contacting [my] mortgage lender" - if I failed to pay immediately the £14,400 (CKFT # 6.2). On reading this letter, my level of distress was such that I was trembling and was physically sick (My Diary 10 Oct 02).

Contrast Silverstone's treatment, two weeks later, in his 21.10.02 letter to the solicitors of one of my fellow leaseholders: "We note you have made no proposal on behalf of your client to pay all or part of the interim service charge. We would be grateful if you would clarify whether your client does in fact have any objection to the cost of the major works."

(NB: CKFT has been acting for Ladsky since at least 1996 e.g. TSB Bank Court of Appeal case in which the bank demanded repayment of £3m advances) (extracts) (CKFT- Intro)

Of note: the racketeers were making the above demands and threats in the name of a company that did not exist - as 'Steel Services' had been "Struck-off the [British Virgin Island] register for non-payment of licence fee" (CKFT # 1 , # 6.9 ; Owners identity # 2 ; BVI # 1).

Concurrently, they were also using a false Jersey address on the demands. But, given the UK company laws, and this "fantastically corrupt", worse than Wild West environment, when I raised this in my documents to the courts, tribunal, police and 'regulators' - it was evidently perceived as 'immaterial'.

Also of particular note: (typically), the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) dismissed all of my 02.02.05 legitimate complaint against the then MRJ (summary # 6.2).

(Snapshots of some of MRJ's correspondence, and of concurrent correspondence / documents from others in its gang, including from its puppet master, Andrew Ladsky are captured under 'Major Works' - NOTE).

Back to sections

(2)- In 2002-03, Her Majesty's then London Leasehold Valuation Tribunal (LVT) undeniably colluded with Andrew Ladsky and his gang of racketeers to assist them in their fraudulent demand by, among other, in breach of its statutory duty, ensuring that its report did not specify the £500,000 (US$882,000) reduction - and refused to address this failing.

(Summaries: Events ; Breaches of the law ; snapshot also under Kangaroo courts ; see also Extortion)

Unsurprisingly, the demand caused a mini-revolt among the leaseholders. It led Ladsky to, three weeks later, file a 07.08.02 Application in the then London LVTto determine the reasonableness of the global sum demanded”.

Given subsequent events, it is important to note that this is a statutory mandate (stated e.g. (1)-under para.1 of the 17.06.03 tribunal's report, LVT/SC/007/120/02 (ref: 992 on the LVT database);

(2)- in its 29.10.02 directions; (3)- in this 09.04.03 letter from Lisa McLean, Piper Smith Basham, to my then solicitors, in which she reported a conversation with the LVT) (LVT # 4.2).

(NB: Landlords run to the tribunal in the hope that the deliberate policy that prevents leaseholders from getting back their costs of proceedings will deter leaseholders from challenging their application).

Of note: as per above, this Application was filed in the name of a company that did not exist - as I reported in my 22.10.02 letter to Her Majesty's tribunal - which did not respond (LVT # 01).

But then, Siobhan McGrath, then President of the then LVTs also turned a blind eye to my reporting an abuse of process, as SS=Ladsky had also filed a claim (LVT # 02) (below) - thereby breaching the tribunal's directions (LVT # 1.5).

Examples of actions, and lack of action by the tribunal to assist Andrew Ladsky and his gang of racketeers (more detail on the tribunal's page, as well as summaries: Events ; Breach of the law):

To ensure minimum opposition to 'Dear Mr Ladsky's Application:

  • It included, (as it turned out), a partially priced 'specification' (we had not been supplied with), as well as a lease with a highly material difference to mine - that had been confirmed as being "the same" (LVT # 1.3).
  • (I was only supplied with - incomplete information - just 36 hours before the 5 Feb 03 'hearing' (as I reported e.g. under paras 12 and 30 of my 19.10.03 Witness Statement (page: 19 Oct 03 Wit.Stat # 2). Hence, 7 months after the demand was sent. (It is a typical trick: e.g. Comment # 24 ; another leaseholder)).
  • (The tribunal was therefore placing me on "an unequal footing" (CPR Overriding Objective) (there must be an equivalent for the tribunal) by very seriously limiting my ability to challenge the Application). (NB: See, below / page for a repeat of this with the courts in: 2002-04 ; 2007-08 ; 2011).

My being treated like a piece of dirt, a non-entity who does not have the right to have rights - forced me to employ a team of advisors (in a hurry), at very great costs. (LVT # 2.3 ; My Diary 2003: 17 Jan , 23 Jan).

My doing this was very clearly not expected - by ALL. The 5 Feb 03 'hearing', started in a decidedly 'frosty' atmosphere. However, it led to the exposure of the lies by the Ladsky gang, as well as complicity by the Clerk, David Stewart - finally leading the Chair, Mrs J Goulden JP to postpone the substantive hearings "in the interests of justice" (!!!) (LVT # 3).

I was vindicated as the original sum demanded of £736,207 (US$1.3m) was reduced by £500,000 (US$882,000) (including the contingency fund, 'said' to include £144k) i.e. nearly 70% less (LVT # 4.1).

This is based on the assessment of my (RICS) surveyor as, while the 17.06.03 LVT report (ref LVT/SC/007/120/02) is a fair representation of what took place, because it was 'most inconvenient' for 'Dear Mr Ladsky' (not to mention the WLCC judges (below)...

... - in breach of its statutory duty - at the 11th hour, the tribunal Panel, the Chair, Mrs J.S.L. Goulden JP, Mr J Humphrys, FRICS, and Dr A Fox BSc PhD MCIArb, made a U-turn - by not including a summary of the impact of its findings on "the reasonableness of the global sum demanded of £736,200" (as discussed above).

Given subsequent events, I draw your attention to, among others, Andrew Ladsky's own admission - to the police:This charge was challenged at the leasehold valuation tribunal who reduced this amount quite significantly.

Siobhan McGrath, then President of the then LVTs, using the typical 'Frustrate and Discourage tactics' refused my repeated requests (06.09.03 , 06.10.03 and 09.11.03) for the inclusion of a summary i.e. for the tribunal to perform its legal remit (summary # 1.1)

('of course', with the endorsement of her 'head office', then headed by John Prescott': 06.10.03 letter) (summary # 1.2).

The 2nd refusal, dated 26.11.03, stated (LVT # 7): “It would not be appropriate for the Tribunal to produce a summary of their decision as this may well be regarded as providing additional reasons”. In the light of the tribunal's statutory remit (LVT # 4), this answer is unbelievable.

Yes! £500,000 worth of “additional reasons for my fellow leaseholders to refuse to pay the fraudulent ‘service charge’ demand / ask for a refund / go back to HM's judiciaries in WLCC and demand they undo the injustice, as well as take action against the Ladsky gang of racketeers.

Further, ‘very conveniently’ for 'Dear Mr Ladsky' who could show that to my fellow leaseholders, the tribunal made an assertion under para.2 its report about a fictitious [6%] cost increase” - at a date that was 3 months post signing its report - and libelously blamed me for this so-called “increase (summary # 1).

(This was concocted with Ladsky - and was, among others, used by his gang of racketeers to send me malicious letters: summary # 1.2).

(Of note, during the 5 Feb 03 tribunal 'hearing', Ladsky 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 the hearing?"

The reply that I was perfectly within my rights to challenge his Application is captured under para.64 of the 17.06.03 report ('Summary' # 1.1): "Although she is in the minority, the Respondent's legal right to challenge the Applicant's proposal, as she has done, cannot be fettered")

(NB: I was "in the minority", thanks to the collusion and conspiring detailed above). (As detailed under para.50 of the 17.06.03 report: "another unhappy lessee was represented on the last day of the hearing").

In my 09.11.03 letter to McGrath, I asked that amendments be made to the 'summary of the case' on the tribunal's database " to reflect a factually accurate summary of the case" as "the current version is particularly misleading".

Continuing to play the typical 'Frustrate and Discourage game', she claimed in her 26.11.03 letter that it was not her department's responsibility, but that of LEASE. I had copied Nicholas Kissen, LEASE on my letter. No action was taken (LVT # 7).

Hence, since 2003, the tribunal has, on its online, public database, a report, as well as a so-called 'summary of the case' that amount to deliberate defamation of my name, character and reputation (LVT # 7 ; LVT case summary).

The state claimed that the then LVTs were "a forum where leaseholders do not need representation". (NB: Of course, the re-sprayed July 13 version makes the same claim).

I very naïvely believed what turned out to be a blatant lie - as that hellhole tribunal made me go through absolute sheer utter hell - forced me to employ a team of advisors at a cost of £28,000 (US$49,400).

Further, its deliberate failure to perform its legal remit forced me to spend an additional £1,800 in surveyor fees to determine the impact of its findings on the global sum demanded (LVT # 4.3).

Hence, I spent £30,000 (US$53,000) of my very-hard-earned life's savings to challenge a fraudulent demand of £14,400 (US$25,400) (above) - and I still ended-up with a deliberately near useless report - as evidenced by my subsequent battles.

No wonder Ladsky told me on 25 Jan 03 (= 10 days before the 1st 'hearing' of 5 Feb 03): "Better luck next time!" (police # 2 KP(3)).

In fact: the set-up of these tribunals, added to my experience and that of others (My Diary 22 Nov 08 ; Comments) - lead me to view them as a trap to beat leaseholders into submission. (The tribunals are the 'cosy' arena of the surveyors) (while the courts, that of the lawyers).

Back to sections

(3)- In 2002-04, glaringly obvious collusion and conspiring also took place in Her Majesty's West London County Court (WLCC) resulting, among other, in serious injustice - leading me to capitulate by accepting Andrew Ladsky's 21.10.03 'Part 36 offer' of £6,350 (US$11,200) - even though, legally, I did not owe this amount either.

(Summaries: Events ; Breaches of the law ; Snapshot also under Kangaroo court ; see also Extortion)

At the then London LVT pre-trial hearing (above) - at which, as can be seen from the 29.10.02 tribunal's directions, Ladsky, Hathaway were also present - we, leaseholders, were specifically told by the Chair to NOT pay the 'service charge' until the tribunal had issued its report - and it had been implemented i.e. reflected in the demand (LVT # 1.5).

To this effect, we were given this booklet which, on pg 5 states:

"...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... "

(NB: bold type face as per the booklet).

In spite of this, and of Lanny Silverstone, CKFT, knowing, as demonstrated in his 21.10.02 reply to my 17.10.02 letter, that his client Ladsky had filed an Application in the tribunal (above),...

... Silverstone nonetheless proceeded with filing, in HM's West London County Court, a 29.11.02 claim (ref. WL203537) against me and 10 of my fellow leaseholders - representing a total of 14 apartments - for the amount demanded in the above Jul 02 demand.

As in the case of the Application to the tribunal (above), the gang supplied a lease with the claim that had a 'particularly convenient' Clause:

"The amount of Service Charge payable by the Lessee for each financial year of the Lessor shall be a fair proportion (to be determined by and at the sole discretion of the Lessor)..."

- falsely claiming, in the Particulars of Claim, that it was "representative of all the leases" (WLCC # 3 ; LVT # 1.3 ; CKFT # 6.7).

Examples of actions, and lack of action by HM's judiciary to assist Ladsky and his gang of racketeers (more detail on the court's page, including Summary of events; Breaches of the law):

  • It proceeded with the claim - in spite of having absolute knowledge that it was (among others) an abuse of process of court (WLCC # 2 ; CKFT # 6.1).
  • Its 'understanding' of its case management duty (CPR Rule 1.4) was to, in its 24.01.03 reply, throw the ball back in my court, by stating that I needed to "...inform the court whether the claimant agrees to the claim being stayed pending the LVT hearing".
  • Consider my likelihood of 'success', in the light of events to date: Zero! (From Dec 02, I raised the issue in my communications to the court a total of 7 times over a 7-month period).
  • Being therefore aware of my (and fellow leaseholders) being placed on "an unequal footing" (CPR Overriding Objective) by not having the information to which we were legally entitled to defend ourselves against the claim, it nonetheless forged ahead with it...
  • ... - bullying, by means of Charging Orders and Judgments (WLCC # 5 ; CKFT # 6.3 ; # 6.5), at least 7 of my fellow leaseholders into paying the full amount demanded before HM's tribunal issued its report - thereby breaching their rights under the lease (WLCC # 6))

The pack of lies had to be glaringly obvious to HM's judiciaries e.g. the so-called 'Revised Major Works Apportionments' produced by the then Martin Russell Jones, that was supplied by:

  • Salim, for the 26 Aug 03 so-called 'hearing' of her application for Summary Judgment against me (and a fellow leaseholder) (CKFT # 6.6)

- 'Apportionments' that falsely claimed an across the board reduction of 24.19% (WLCC # 10 , # 11). (See above, the note about the RICS dismissing my complaint against MRJ).

Come on! Her Majesty's judiciaries had been issuing the Orders. Hence, they (and CKFT) knew how much the leaseholders had actually been made to pay...but, 'of course', 'Dear Mr Ladsky' 'needed' the money to make his multi-million £ jackpot!

As material evidence against the demand only came to light during the three-day then London LVT hearings, and many of my fellow leaseholders had been prevented - deliberately - from attending (above), I did my best to communicate the true outcome of the LVT findings (above) to as many of them as I could: my 06.07.03 letter.

However, by then (June 03) many had ended paying the full amount demanded.

(In addition to Lanny Silverstone's 23.05.03 application to the court reporting that 7 out of the 11 leaseholders on the claim had, by then, been made to pay - including at least one subjected to a judgment...on 28 Jan 03.

Yes, 5 months before the tribunal issued its report):

  • plus, a further 16 apartments had also paid the full amount;

This was done in breach of their legal rights as, obviously, the global sum on which individual leaseholders' share is calculated must be the same for all... confirmed by the tribunal in its 21.07.03 reply to Silverstone's 17.07.03 letter asking it to determine how much I should pay:

It is not the duty of the tribunal to assess the particular contribution payable by any specific tenant but only to determine the reasonableness, or otherwise, of the service charges as a whole to go on the service account from which no doubt you can assess the proportion for that particular tenant.”

In my non-lawyer opinion - this resulted in a c. £500,000 (US$882,000) theft... that helped generate a multi-million £ jackpot - including £3.9 million (US$6.9m) for a penthouse (photo in banner, above ; planning application) that was:

The penthouse was then advertised In Oct 07 for £6.5m (US$11.5m).

(See below, for the fact that, in the end, the maximum that could be demanded for the whole block was £8,750 (US$15,429))

So much for Andrew David Ladsky's claims in his 25.01.01 letter to the leaseholders:

"...the costs of any additional floor on the property will NOT be borne by the residents";

"All tenants are of course protected by the Landlord and Tenant Acts to ensure those carrying out any works do so reasonably.";  

" I own flats 34+35 I pay 17% of the building charges and I should assure you it is in my interest to keep any costs as reasonable as possible".

Three other apartments were also added to Jefferson House. (Mysteriously, by early 2016, they had 'disappeared': Martyn Gerrard # 30).

How were all of these works described by Brian Gale-Mansell Construction Services?

"replacing asphalt roofs and redecoration" (!!!) (Gale # 8).

The boiler, for which over £90,000 was asked for in 2002 - was replaced in May-Jun 14 (Notices # 6) i.e. 12 years after the claim by Brian Gale, MRICS, that "[it had] reached the end of its useful life"...

...- thereby providing further proof of the fraud that took place. Of course, it has not stopped the mafia from asking for yet more money: Notices # 6.1.

'My daring' to continue fighting for my rights (and those of my fellow leaseholders) (e.g. WLCC # 8 , # 9) led to, among others, my receiving, over a 6-week period, 5 malicious letters from Lanny Silverstone and Ayesha Salim, CKFT, with the aim of bullying me into striking a deal with "their client" (CKFT # 3) (the standard objective of the mafia that operates in this sector: Note 4).

It also led Silverstone to portray me as a liar to District Judge Wright (WLCC # 9), and to Salim filing a fraudulent 06.08.03 Application for Summary Judgment against me (WLCC # 10 ; CKFT # 6.6).

This Application, (in addition to the below persecution), and my being treated by HM's judiciary as a piece of dirt and a non-entity who does not have the right to have rights, led me, in Aug 03, to employ advisors - which was clearly the expected outcome from the psychological harassment tactics - leading me to fall into another mega trap, that cost me an additional £10,000 (US$17,600) (WLCC # 11).

From there followed weeks of absolute sheer utter hell with 'my' so-called 'advisors', Piper Smith Basham(Watton), who ended-up batting for Ladsky - in the process, also demonstrating their expertise at criminal psychological harassment (summary intro ; summary # 2.1).

It started by their ensuring (in collusion with the tribunal, no doubt through Ladsky: LVT # 5.3), that I would not proceed with my a 20C Application to prevent Ladsky from putting his tribunal costs on the service charges for the block. They achieved their objective (LVT # 5.1, # 5.2 , # 5.3 ; My Diary Sep 03 - 20C application).

The court's 26.08.03 directions required the exchange of witness statements by 21 Oct. In spite of Lisa McLean, Piper Smith Basham, ignoring my 12.10.03 request for guidance on writing a witness statement (another typical tactic), I wrote one, dated 19.10.03, I hand-delivered to her, on that day, with a covering letter explaining my approach (19 Oct 03 Wit.Stat # 1).

I did NOT get one from Ladsky. Piper Smith Basham had very clearly passed mine on to Ladsky (WLCC # 12). Through Salim, CKFT, Ladsky made me a 21.10.03 'Part 36 offer' for £6,350 (US$11,200) (v. the £14,400 originally demanded, including through the threat of "forfeiture" (above)), and claimed (above)) - and had the nerve to also demand payment of interest (WLCC # 12).

Typical of the Ladsky gang, in the 'offer', it also continued with the lies: WLCC 12 ; CKFT # 4.

As explained in the Summary of events and in my Comments on Stan Gallagher's 13.11.03 'Draft Consent Order and Notice of Acceptance', and under Legal home # 3, from then on, 'my advisors' went into over-drive attempting to coerce me and bully me into accepting 'the offer' i.e. attempting to make me fit into the standard-off-the-shelf formula (below, Note 4) - of course, on terms that left the door wide open to 'Dear Mr Ladsky' to come back and ask for more.

Gallagher was also agreeing to the payment of interest because, of course, doing that, implied I had owed the amount claimed (Gallagher # 8). (NB: In relation to the below 2007 claim, through his racketeer solicitor, Jeremy Hershkorn, Ladsky attempted to repeat that with one of his scum - see Portner and Jaskel # 14).

After weeks of being subjected to horrendous, very traumatic, extremely vicious, cruel, sadistic, perverse treatment by the cabal (My Diary 2003: 22 Oct to 28 Oct, and 6 Nov to Nov 03), in Dec 03, to the cabal's extreme frustration and fury, I took back control of my case (My Diary Dec 03)...

- which threw a spanner in the works of the cabal, making its psychological harassment strategy backfire (19 Oct 03 Wit.Stat # 1).

From being made to pay over £500,000 (US$882,000) in tax since arriving in this country (by then, 33 years previously), as a law-abiding, British National, I had the understandable expectation that (among others) the courts would be there for me if I ever needed to call on them to act as per their legal mandate.

(Obviously, as a law-abiding individual, until then, I had never had any dealings with Her Majesty's courts and police). (See also, below, # 15 - Surveillance).

Further, we, the public, are frequently reminded by judges that we "must defer to the courts" and "let justice take its course". I did do this - and my experience with HM's tribunal and courts forced me to face reality:

I had been well and truly conned by the state; 'the system' is not there to help me: it is there to help criminal landlords and their aides fight against me.

Having faced this reality, against my moral principles I had so far managed to upheld in spite of the highly vicious, horrendous treatment I was subjected to, and for the sake of my health (by then, I was - literally - near collapse (My Diary 2003: 11 Nov ; 12 Nov ; 13 Nov ; Nov 03 ; Christmas)), and, yet again, contemplating suicide...

- I accepted the 21.10.03 'Part 36 offer' of £6,350 (US$11,200) - even though, legally I did not owe this amount either.

I stated in my 19.12.03 Notice of acceptance to CKFT that I was doing this "for the sake of bringing this dispute to an end".

I wanted to put an end to this horrendous nightmare. I was so repulsed by what had happened to me (including with the police - see below), that my plan was to leave this island-kingdom - never to return - as it is no longer the country I fell in love with, and decided to make my home, as well as committed to by taking on the British nationality.

However, I should have known better that what I was hoping to achieve was like trying to take a bone away from a dog - and an extremely vicious one at that (see below).

My throwing the spanner in the works of the cabal, led to my being subjected to a further 6 months of 'punishment' = criminal psychological harassment by the cabal, including the court (WLCC # 13). It included:

  • making me miss - deliberately - a so-called 'hearing', at which a 28.05.04 Order was issued, stating that the action against me was "stayed" - in spite of HM's District Judge Madge having absolute knowledge that agreement had been reached (WLCC # 13 ; Lord Falconer of Thoroton # 3 , # 4);

In addition to the above, the cruelty, perversion, persecution and sadism by HM's WLCC had also included, among many others:

  • Falsely claiming that a Charging Order hearing concerned me, and maintaining this assertion over 10 days (WLCC # 5 , LFT # 1);
  • Falsely claiming that a judgment had been entered against me (LFT # 2).

Once all had had their fun, with her 14.07.04 letter, Salim, CKFT, finally issued me with a 1 Jul 04 Consent Order endorsed by HM's Wandsworth County Court.

In addition to the 21.12.01 letter (above); the findings during the tribunal hearings (above) - this 'offer' proved - in my non-lawyer - opinion that the 15 July 02 demand, the 7 Oct 02 threat of forfeiture (copy of definition), the 29 Nov 02 claim amounted to, among other, breaches of:

  • (7) Defamation Act 1996, in filing a claim against me that falsely portrayed me as somebody who defaults on her contractual obligations.

How does Her Majesty's police perceive the above fraud, as well as breaches of numerous Acts that are punishable by imprisonment?

"A civil matter" - which it is not - as it is a matter for the police (e.g. a similar example, that entailed doing far less, and resulted in prison sentences of up to 32 months for those concerned: Advisors # 11).

Back to sections

(4)- OUTCOME: 20 months of absolute sheer utter hell; £40,000 (US$70,000) in professional fees, and numerous other costs, including lost income; over 450 hours of my life - for a fraudulent demand of £14,400 (US$25,400).

(NB: Snapshot also under Kangaroo courts ; see also Extortion)

Concurrently - and in tandem with Rachman Ladsky's gang of racketeers, comprising of the then MRJ, CKFT and Brian Gale, MRICS - Her Majesty's:

...- made me go through 20 months of absolute, sheer utter hell, of unbelievable distress, torment and anguish.

And the 23.08.04 'response' to my 29.06.04 'cry for help' to the then Chancellor, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, (and copied to 2 ministers)?

A typical 'Get Lost!' from HM's Court Service 'Customer Service' which, in the process, treated me as a liar and an imbecile (summaries # 1.3 to # 1.5). Hence, another typical treatment in this island-kingdom of 'a little person' who 'dares' to stand-up against injustice.

WHY? ALL because 'Dear Mr Ladsky' decided he was 'entitled' to make a multi-million £ jackpot at my (and fellow leaseholders') expense, to which all, in his army of henchmen and henchwomen and lapdogs, said: 'Yes, of course, O' Great One!'

Back to sections

(5)- On 2 Aug 04, day on which the last valiant leaseholder capitulated in Her Majesty's Wandsworth County Court, the then Martin Russell Jones sent another demand that was just 9% less than the original sum demanded.

The appointment of a new contractor, Mansell, meant that the maximum that could legally be demanded for the whole block was £8,750 (US$15,429) - v. the £500,000 (US$882,000) that was paid - and kept.

(NB: Snapshot also under Kangaroo courts ; see also Extortion)

The last valiant leaseholder on the above claim capitulated in HM's Wandsworth County Court on 2 Aug 04 - on terms which suggest that he was, likewise, ripped-off (WCC # 2) - in spite of the evidence against the claim, I had also supplied to this court (WCC # 2).

On that day, Barrie Martin, FRICS, sent a 02.08.04 letter to "All lessees", announcing the appointment of Mansell Construction Services, a new contractor (because the then London LVT's findings were not to Ladsky's 'liking', and were, consequently, never implemented). In the letter, 'he' demanded "At this stage" the sum of £669,937 (US$1.18m).

Relative to the original sum demanded of £736,206 (US$1.3m) (above), it made a difference of only £66,269 (US$113,730) - or 9% less (when, in fact, relative to the LVT findings, it should have been less 68%). (Deceptively, in his letter, Martin omitted to add the VAT and management fee) (MRJ # 17)).

Further, the appointment of Mansell - in breach of the consultation requirements - meant that the demand from each of the apartment in the block should have been capped at £250 (US$441).

Hence, the maximum amount that could be demanded of the then 35 apartments, was £8,750 (US$15,429) - v. the £500,000 (US$882,000) that was paid - and kept (Pridie Brewster: # 2 , # 3 , # 8 , # 10 , # 17 , # 18 , # 19).

(2 days later, in 'his' (=Ladsky's) 04.08.04 letter, Barrie Martin had (of course) the nerve to accuse me of being "responsible for the tribunal proceedings"; my 11.08.04 reply). (See above, the note about the RICS dismissing my complaint against MRJ).

Back to sections

(6)- In 2004, Andrew Ladsky's 'punishment' for 'my daring' to stand-up to him and interfere with his fraud, translated, among many others, in his repeating the above £14,400 (US$25,400) demand in a 24.05.04 invoice, followed by a 21.10.04 invoice, to which a further £1,000 was added, and a 16.11.04 invoice.

Anybody with two brain cells between their ears would, at this point, have said: 'Leave her alone! Let her move out. Plenty more fish in the sea!'. NOT Rachman Andrew David Ladsky - who knew he had the weight of the state behind him.

He was not going to let 'me', a woman, of limited financial means, with no influential connections, and of Franco-German origin (Ladsky claims to be "Jewish" (*), and at least some of his aides are e.g. CKFT, Portner and Jaskel, Martyn Gerrard (*))...

... get away with 'daring' to stand-up to him 'Mr I Am So Important, So Superior to Anybody Else', Entitled to Get My Every Wish and Take Whatever I Want from Others' - and his equally sociopathic, extremely cruel, vicious and sadistic gang of racketeers, all of whom, with Ladsky - and their supporters in the wider arena - are evidently pathologically incapable of backing-off.

(With hindsight, he had made that clear early on e.g. on 3 Jan 03, (because I was challenging his application to the tribunal, above) - he told me, with a lot of venom in his voice: "I am going to get you this year!".

Unfortunately, at the time, I was believing naïvely in the state's propaganda about having 'rights' and avenues open to me for justice and redress). (3 weeks later, Ladsky filed a so-called "complaint" against me with his flunkeys at Chelsea police - see below).

(*) In name, rather than in practice, as they evidently perceive themselves to be exempt from compliance with some of the 10 Commandments, or ‘fundamental laws of the Jews’, namely those which prohibit: theft, false testimony, and coveting others’ goods.(If these are "God's chosen people" - who are the devil's? But then: perhaps they perceive their criminal activities as "Doing God's work"?)

(In July 10, I had a long and very enjoyable conversation with somebody who trains rabbis. He agreed with my assessment). But then, as they have, and continue to demonstrate, to Ladsky and his gang of racketeers, laws don't mean anything to them - because the supporting 'Brotherhood' tells them they can be ignored.

To 'punish' me, 5 weeks before the 01.07.04 Consent Order was endorsed by WCC (WCC # 1), Ladsky pulled me back down into the residential leasehold hellhole by asking MRJ to send me:

  • a 24.05.04 invoice, stating "Brought forward balance: £13,430" (US$23,680) - with no supporting evidence (see my (identical) Comments attached to this (and other invoices));
  • a 21.10.04 invoice i.e. 3 months after the court-endorsed Consent Order, stating: "Brought forward balance: £14,400 " = £1,000 was added - ditto: no supporting evidence.

Hence, as though no 'offer' had been made (WLCC # 12), accepted and paid (WLCC # 12(2)), and sealed by a court-endorsed Consent Order (above).

My ignoring the demands because I knew it was theft, led to a repeat in a 16.11.04 invoice. Of course: still no explanation whatsoever (WLCC # 13 ; MRJ # 18).

Note that Joan Hathaway, then MRICS, of the then MRJ, sent me these invoices in spite of my sending her a 31.12.03 letter stating that I had settled payment for "the works", with CKFT.

Not knowing whether that organized crime gang would, as on 29.11.02, follow this by filing another fraudulent claim against me, led me to cancel my Christmas holiday - no doubt, to their immense sadistic pleasure, and that of their supporters (My Diary End of 2004).

Note that, at the time of the above, fraudulent demands, I was also battling with Kensington & Chelsea housing which, quite clearly, colluded with MRJ = Ladsky, when I asked for its assistance (as per its legal mandate) in getting the 'accounts' for Jefferson House.

Its failure to implement its threat in its 25.06.04 letter to MRJ and CKFT, in which it wrote:

"Section 25 makes it a summary criminal offence to fail to comply with the requirements of Section 21 or Section 22 without reasonable excuse" (K&C # 1 , # 2),

...led me to escalate my complaint to the Local Government Ombudsman.

In typical public sector style - including the dominant psyche - the 'Investigator' sided with the housing department by 'punishing' me for 'daring' to challenge his mates.

They then joined him in the punishment by withholding 'the accounts' from me for more than 3 months. Further, he also colluded with the Ladsky gang in providing me with 'accounts' from which, in breach of my Lease, key information, demonstrating that a major fraud had taken place, had been withheld.

14 months later, MRJ sent me a 09.01.06 invoice, stating: "Brought forward balance": £5,625 (US$9,900).

What led to the £10,254 (US$18,080) reduction, relative to the previous invoice of 16.11.04 (in relation to which I, obviously, had not paid anything)? I have no idea, as no explanation was provided.

This invoice was sent with a fraudulent "Steel Services - Estimated expenditure to year-end Dec 06" (see my Comments attached to the invoice) - from which it claimed, among other, a half-yearly service charge of £814.62.

As I reported under para.214 of my 03.06.08 Witness Statement, I challenged the amount, stating that, "in the preceding 12 months before the start the works which resulted in: (1) the addition of four flats, including a massive penthouse flat; (2) the complete overhaul of Jefferson House... my 'alleged' "half-yearly service charges in advance" for 2004 were £679.36 [US$1,200]" (i.e. £135 less) (And the 2004 amount was a rip-off!).

(See above, the note about the RICS dismissing my complaint against the then MRJ - which included my referring to the above invoices).

Back to sections

(7)- The collusion and conspiring continued - this time between the so-called 'regulators' and those against whom I filed complaints - costing me, in vain - c. 1 year and 4 months of my life, and c. £2,600 in costs, prior to the launch of my website.

Enough was enough: I had given in once (above), I was not going to give in a second time to a bunch of criminals.

My experience with Her Majesty's tribunal and court (endorsed at the top level: LVT-summary # 1.1 and summary # 1.2); Lord Falconer- summary # 1.5) had been so horrendous and traumatic - rather than approach them, I proceeded with filing complaints against the various parties who had wronged me...

- hoping to get better treatment from the 'regulators' than I had received from HM's tribunal, court and her 'Customer Service' department (not to mention her police, in 2002 and in 2003 (both, below)).

I was dreaming. Indeed, as can be seen from the summaries of my legitimate 50+ 'cries for help' and complaints - ALL but 3 resulted in 'Get lost!' - that continued to be repeated if 'I dared' to persist - which, of course, I did.

(= I received a lot of 'Get lost!' or, as succinctly summed up by Boris Johnson, then London Mayor: a lot of "Fuck off and die!"...

- added to being subjected to ongoing persecution for 'my daring' to stand up, and not give up: My Diary ; Persecution).

By the time I launched my website in Sep 06: I had wasted c. 1 year and 4 months of my life, and c. £2,600 in costs (US$4,600) in submitting 31 legitimate 'cries for help' and complaints...

- covering a large range of individuals in the state sector (legal, police, etc.), and among the private sector so-called 'regulators'.

As can seen, I went to great lengths to explain events and, to prove that I was 'not making it up', often provided large bundles of supporting documents.

Yet, such is the arrogance and belief of superiority, and of being 'entitled' to operate above the law of the land (having put a system in place to ensure their protection), that those exposed have been incandescent with rage at ‘my daring’ to launch this website.

Since launching the site, I have (so far) submitted a further 23 legitimate 'cries for help' and complaints, costing me an additional c. 1 year and 6 months of my life, and c.£2,000 in costs (US$3,500) - and had only two actioned, with one not to my expectations.

In the course of these battles which, since 2002, have involved over 150 individuals, I came across only 10 individuals / groups who demonstrated integrity and a sense of duty. All the more credit and praise to them!

I also wasted my time compiling a 21.07.10 Brief Overview of my case for the 21 Jul 10 House of Commons meeting, I handed out to the Chair. (I did not include it in my statistics).

While the time I have spent (so far) on my legitimate 'cries for help' and complaints amounts to nearly 3 whole years of my life, and c. £4,600 in costs (US$8,100),...

to these must be added a lot more in the context of my battles - in vain - against the so-called "crime reports" HM's police is illegally processing against me: # 18, below ; QB # 3(2).

My very extensive first-hand experience demonstrates - irrebutably - that, certainly in relation to the residential leasehold sector and its supporting infrastructure...

- ALL the claims of 'regulation' and concurrent mandate, of having to 'abide by codes of conduct', of Britain having "a long and exemplary record on human rights", etc, are just a massive 'trompe l'oeil'...

- in 'The island-kingdom of Make-Believe'....

...because, in reality, in this "fantastically corrupt" environment, the crooks control 'the system' - and those in my case being Jewish, even more so...

and ALL form a gigantic web of symbiotic relationships and networks - forged through blatantly obvious implicit / explicit 'memorandums of understanding' e.g. police and Law Society (copy),...

in which the power of money talks louder than deeds.

Using Roberto Saviano's comment in 'Gomorrah' - 'Italy's other mafia': 'I know it - and I can prove it'.

The first seed to my above slide was sown in Feb 02 when, in reply to my saying that Andrew David Ladsky had made the anonymous phone calls to me - DC DR Adams, CID, Kensington police, told me: "You won't be able to prove a link with Andrew Ladsky!" (summary # 4.1).

The first seed that the corruption was endorsed at Cabinet ministers level (= the executive) was planted in 2003, when John Prescott, then Deputy Prime Minister and Head of Housing, turned a blind eye to my legitimate complaint against the tribunal (# 2, above) (summary # 1.2).

My experience demonstrates that, in both, the state and 'self-regulated' private sector - they:

  • pull-up the drawbridges as soon as they receive a complaint;
  • retreat to the communal bunker with those complained of;
  • have an army of henchmen and henchwomen who go on auto-pilot, using a wide range of scripted tactics aimed at refuting any wrongdoing, responsibility and accountability by the 'tribe' members (see a journalist's comments) - ensuring that everybody gets away scot-free (*)

(*) Example set at the top by the legislators e.g. House of Lords ; Members of Parliament.

Having first attempted to get rid of you by telling you to "Get legal advice":

  • treat the complainants - 'the little people' like me - with utter contempt and disdain, like pieces of dirt, non-entities who do not have the right to have rights e.g.

"I do not consider that the letter is either threatening or that it amounts to harassment" (summary # 2.6)

"[I] must prove that [I] suffered the humiliation, degradation, injury to feelings, additional anxiety, distress..."

(Like PC Toby Rowland who sought £200k?).

  • (iii)- Patrick Moriarty, Local Government Ombudsman, who 'did not like' my challenging his mates in Kensington & Chelsea housing (summary # 5.3) - with all hell-bent on ensuring I would not have information in support of my position against the corrupt WLCC judiciaries (# 3, above) - by stating that...

"due to [my] response, we will treat this as a new complaint"

"I cannot confirm at this stage that your complaint will be pursued..." (summary # 5.4)

  • 'for good measure', they also dish out unbelievably outrageous, libellous accusations against you (below, # 13) which the judiciary rushes to endorse (below, # 18.2);
  • they also threaten you with "defamation proceedings" for 'daring' to expose the facts = the truth in the public domain e.g. as the RICS did to me in 2011 (RICS # 11 and # 12).
  • (As a visitor to my site wrote (# 17) "If you complain you are accused of threatening "Them" and if they threaten you, they are protected").

Knowing they have kicked you repeatedly in the teeth, when a new issue arises, they nonetheless have the nerve to tell you that you 'should have complained to them' e.g.

Paul Stephenson, telling me, under para.41 of his 31.05.11 Defence (QB # 4.2(3)):

"if [I was] dissatisfied with the MPS' handling of or investigation of [my] allegations against Mr Ladsky in October [below, # 17], the proper course of action [was for me] to complain to the MPS and/or the IPCC" [see summaries # 4, including # 4.11 for my experience with them].

(See the Media page for Stephenson's breathtaking comments about the treatment of victims, and a message to him from a lawyer - in reply to his complaining that "members of the public make speculative legal action against the police").

As demonstrated by the above examples, they make very extensive use of the 'Frustrate and Discourage tactics' (Header 2).

It includes attempting to send the complainants: 'the Proles' / "the Oiks" / "the Great Unwashed" / "the Lobbyists" - from pillar to post e.g. my experience with

= Overall, a standard policy of not dealing with the rats, opting instead to nail down the floorboards (while claiming e.g. to be "utterly fed up of the attacks on the [parties]")...

- allowing the rats to carry on freely with their destruction, as well as multiply in peace - as exemplified by my current situation (below).

This treatment of 'the little people' is typical of, to use the euphemism: 'the Establishment' (other examples: Rotherham, Hillsborough, Stafford hospital, Winterbourne View, Morecambe Bay NHS Trust).

A very determined individual, Mr Michael Durant, who succeeded in forcing the UK to address its numerous failings in the implementation of the European Commission's Data Protection Directive ("Europe claims UK botched one third of the Data Protection Directive", Out-Law, 17 Sep 07)

(NB: Making no difference - as evidenced in my case: # 18.2, below)...

was reported as saying ("Durant ends his data protection battle", Out-Law, 12 Oct 05), following his battle with Barclays Bank, the Financial Services Authority, the courts, etc.

"I have gone to every conceivable regulator, gone through every conceivable complaints procedure and tried every Court in the land except the House of Lords. None of these bodies has said to me 'let us try and resolve my complaint."

(I sure know what he means!...and, yet again, endorse the below comment from Mr Barry Gardiner).

The British Establishment also exports / shares its standard formula e.g. my experience with the European Court of Human Rights (2. ECtHR / # 18(3) to # 18(5), below).

In fact, the way I have - and continue to be treated - as the glaringly obvious victim of organized crime - reminds me of the movie, Hard Target (with Jean Claude Van Damme), in which anybody with enough money to spread around the authorities can, as a form of recreation, hunt any homeless person - to the kill.

In my case, the hunters - and more accurately, the assassins - are comprised of Andrew Ladsky and his gang of racketeers and of the Establishment and its henchmen and henchwomen:

a vast army of extremely cruel, vicious, perverse, sadistic, vindictive, despotic, power-corrupted, ego-crazed, amoral, self-regarding and extremely arrogant monsters who revel in joining the hunt.

While the bows and arrows (in the film) are replaced by ongoing criminal psychological harassment, the objective is the same: the kill - as they relentlessly rape me psychologically and financially.

YES! THEY are the ones who attacked me in the first place.

The more I fight back, the greater the resolve, because I 'dare' to not lick the jackboots of these supremacist tyrants 'in gratitude' for their unbelievably abusive, barbaric, life-destroying treatment.

Back to sections

(8)- The launch of my website, late 2006 - intended to put pressure on resolving my situation, after 5 years of absolute, sheer utter hell - unleashed an unbelievably barbaric vendetta against me.

Out of utter despair, after 5 years - of absolute, sheer utter hell, facing a gigantic wall of blind eyes and deaf ears, as well as blatantly obvious complicity, collusion, conniving and conspiring between parties in the public and private sector,... Sep 06, I 'dared' to launch my website, naïvely hoping that doing this would put pressure on resolving my situation - leading me to close it within days, at most a few weeks after its launch - and leave this island-kingdom - as I had been wanting to do since 2003.

In other words: I was hoping for intelligence and common sense. It proved to be a vain hope!

In spite of my 5 years of first-hand experience of absolute sheer, utter hell, I had underestimated the arrogance, moral depravation and lack of common sense / intelligence among Ladsky and his gang, and their supporting infrastructure. (A visitor to my site described the parties as being "unbelievably stupid". I agree).

In the 5 years prior to launching the site I (and my fellow leaseholders) had been subjected to an arsenal of harassment, victimization, bullying, blackmail, intimidation and defamation tactics - as well as, in my case, being physically threatened, assaulted, dogged, hounded, harassed and persecuted as though I were a terrorist.

My 'daring' to continue to stand-up for the so-called 'rights' I have been told by the legislators I have the right to demand - in the process challenging Andrew Ladsky and his gang of racketeer lawyers, surveyors, accountants - and their 'regulators', judges and court staff, tribunal panel and staff, etc. (list of main parties)...

...- unleashed - a typically - unbelievably vicious, cruel, perverse, sadistic, barbaric vendetta against me - best summarised as ongoing psychological warfare. ('Typically': see examples on the Media page: 8 Oct 10 and other references - that typify the dominant very dark psyche).

Back to sections

(9)- It first translated by ongoing harassment of my website Host by Jeremy Hershkorn, Portner and Jaskel, and Andrew Ladsky, to force the closure of my website - in the process, making highly libellous accusations against me.

(As referred to above), 3 weeks after the launch of my website: a 03.10.06 letter, containing malicious, scurrilous and libellous accusations against me was sent to my then website host by Jeremy Hershkorn, (then) at Portner and Jaskel, solicitors, London W1U 2RA, "on behalf of Andrew Ladsky"

In his 03.10.06 letter, Hershkorn claimed, of course, without providing ANY evidence in support (my reply of 05.10.06) (*) that

"[my website] contains suggestions that our client Mr Andrew 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 considering the evidence contained on this page and under e.g. Extortion ; Advisors].

He threatened the ISP with "proceedings" if it did not close down my site immediately - leading the ISP to cave in (PJ # 2)

(*) See the requirements for 'defamation'.

Keen to repeat his success, from mid-Jan 07, over a period of several weeks, Jeremy Hershkorn harassed my current website Host, threatening my Host with legal "proceedings and costs and damages" unless my Host closed down my website...

– by yet again (i.e. as on 3 Oct 06) making highly libellous, scurrilous - totally unsupported - accusations against me, stating "all of the allegations on [my] website are clearly untrue and therefore defamatory" (PJ # 2 ; My Diary 5 Feb 07)

While the outcome of my 28.02.07 complaint to the Law Society against Portner led to the all too familiar 'Get Lost!' (summary # 2.6), Hershkorn nonetheless stopped harassing my website Host.

Unusually for Ladsky who, the coward that he is, usually hides behind his gang of racketeers and hides his identity behind offshore, paper companies and "sham directors" (see below), he took-up the harassment of my website Host himself by making several threatening, ranting phone calls to my Host (as can be imagined from e.g. the description of the calls Ladsky made to the then Head of the Residents Association)...

...- repeating the same slanderous, scurrilous claims and accusations against me, and the same threats (thereby continuing with his 'standard formula' - see also Elderly Resident ; Other Residents ; Nucleus Citizens Advice Bureau).

Back to sections

(10)- It was followed by, (among others), a 16.02.07 illegal threat of "bankruptcy" and "forfeiture" against me - in the name of a company I had never heard of.

Frustration at being unable to bully my website Host into closing down my website, led Ladsky to ask Jeremy Hershkorn, Portner, to send me... illegal, malicious letter dated 16.02.07 - stating:

"We have been instructed by Rootstock Overseas Corp in connection with outstanding arrears of service charge due..of which you are fully aware of."

"We enclose a copy of a statement dated 13th February 2007 which indicates how the sum of £8,937.28 [US$15,800] has been calculated" [Nothing was enclosed]

"...if payment is not received by us on behalf of our client by close of business on Friday 23rd February 2007, proceedings will be issued against you for the full amount due together with interest, without further notice"

"Proceedings...will also include the issue of Statutory Demand, which is required under the Insolvency Act 1986 prior to the presentation of a Bankruptcy Petition."

"Such proceedings will be without prejudice to our client's other rights of recovery and enforcement so far as your property is concerned" [= forfeiture: taking the apartment away from me; copy of definition] and "costs"

As I replied in my 25.02.07 letter:

  • no "statement" was enclosed (PJ # 3); .

(In addition to the threat of "forfeiture" (other instance, above), the threat of "bankruptcy" is another typical extortion tactic used by Rachman Ladsky e.g. Resident Association's letter to Ladsky).

Back to sections

(11)- Ignoring my reply to the above threat, a 27.02.07 claim was filed against me which, in collusion with Ladsky and Portner and Jaskel, was perversely and very viciously pursued by Her Majesty's judiciaries in West London County Court, over a period of 16 months...

- nonetheless ending in "ALL" of the claim being dropped in a 06.06.08 Notice of Discontinuance.

(Summaries: Events ; Breaches of the law ; Overall outcome ; snapshot also under Kangaroo courts ; see also Extortion)

When the above illegal threats of "bankruptcy and forfeiture" also failed to achieve his objective, ignoring my 25.02.07 reply (and therefore breaching the Pre-Action Protocol),...

Ladsky asked Hershkorn to file a 27.02.07 claim (ref 7WL00675) against me in HM's West London County Court (WLCC # 1).

The Particulars of Claim were based on data supplied by the then Martin Russell Jones. (They were such - a deliberate mess - that I produced my own version, I sent with my 22.05.08 letter to Ahmet Jaffer, Portner).

OF NOTE: As I highlighted on the pages of the claim I returned to the court with my 22.03.07 Acknowledgment of Service (WLCC # 2):

  • (2)- Both claiming to be my 'landlord';
  • (4)- Each claiming a different amount from me: £10,357 (US$18,260) by "Roostock"; £8,933 (US$15,750) by "Steel Services" (WLCC # 1 , # 2)

From there, the criminal psychological harassment continued in full swing, as it was followed by unbelievably vicious, cruel, perverse, sadistic, barbaric treatment by Hershkorn, followed by Ahmet Jaffer, at Portner and Jaskel, and by HM's judiciary, court manager and other staff in WLCC.

Motive? 'Revenge' for my 'daring' to challenge them and their 'friends': the 'sacrosanct' landlord Andrew David Ladsky and his gang of racketeers (who, in addition are 'Jewish') - in the process of fighting against the fraudulent demands.

And, evidently, for 'my daring' to continue fighting by launching my website, in the process, exposing chapter and verse of my case (evidence: below ; QB # 4(6)5(2)).

Having accepted the claim with all its major issues, HM's District Judge Ryan and Nicholson wilfully and perversely continued to place me on an "unequal footing" - by ignoring all my very compelling evidence (WLCC # 26 , # 27).

In the process, they turned a blind eye to Portner and its client breaches of the law - while doing the same thing themselves. (By then, this was happening to me for the 4th time).

The conduct of the judiciary and staff was so appalling that, from early Dec 07, I asked for the case to be transferred to another court - doing this, in total, 5 times over the following 2.5 months.

They included 2 'cries for help' to Jack Straw, then (In)Justice Secretary, 'guardian of the Court Service', as well as copying him on 3 other letters (WLCC # 24.2 summary). (Typically), and like his predecessor Lord Falconer of Thoroton (timeline of appointments): Straw took no action.

Anger and frustration led me to take my protest to the street, holding a placard, as I paced up and down in front of the Ministry of (In)Justice - with the predictable outcome of prompting more of the same.

It was followed by District Judge Ryan threatening "to strike out my Defence leaving the claimant free to apply for a judgment against [me]" i.e. get me to pay the whole claim - if I did not file my Allocation Questionnaire (WLCC # 26) - which, in his 'directions', he then totally ignored (WLCC # 27.1).

The attempts to secure the fraudulent claim against me, while inflicting maximum psychological harassment - included, among others:

  • (3)- Denying me the right to have the case transferred to the tribunal. (But, given the above, it was the equivalent of my asking to jump from one part of hell, into another part).
  • It included my doing this in my 14.03.08 Allocation Questionnaire, I had supported with 3 additional sheets, in which I had very clearly reiterated the key issues.
  • Events following my 13 Nov 07 complaint to HMCS 'Customer Service' (WLCC # 18) provided undeniable proof of the malicious intent. Indeed - with the aim of validating the letter:
  • (i)- 'its' totally different and outrageous 'explanations' for WLCC demanding payment of £1,700;
  • This was done more than 3 months after the 27.09.07 letter that gave a "5 October 2007 deadline for payment, failing which [my] counterclaim will be struck out".

After an extremely traumatic 16-month battle - as I had predicted in my 03.06.08 Witness Statement (WLCC # 30) - 'the claimants' failed to supply me with their witness statement.

This was a repeat of what took place with the (above) 29.11.02 claim. However, because, this time, I was a Litigant in Person throughout the process i.e. not represented - thereby removing the possibility of a 'behind the scene deal' - instead of the previous outcome (which was the 21 Oct 03 'offer' (above))...

... - the outcome, 2nd time round, was a 06.06.08 Notice of Discontinuance of "ALL" of the 27.02.07 claim against me (PJ # 31) - with no reason given.

This outcome vindicated my position I had repeated endlessly in my documents to the court over the previous 16 months: this claim was fraudulent - providing further irrebutable evidence that, in the case of Rachman Ladsky and his gang of racketeers: court claims = FRAUD TOOLS.

It therefore made it the 2nd fraudulent claim filed against me in WLCC by Ladsky - and the 2nd time that Her Majesty's judiciaries totally ignored the evidence I supplied against the claim.

This outcome proved in - my non-lawyer - opinion that Portner breached the same Acts as those listed above in the case of CKFT and the then MRJ - with the Fraud Act 2006 replacing parts of the Theft Act. (For previous breaches see Summary Breaches of the law by Portner and its client).

It was glaringly obvious from the lack of reason for ending the claim, as well as from subsequent events, that the Ladsky - WLCC mafia perceived the Notice as marking the end of the matter - not expecting me to follow it by an action for my costs (# 12, below).

Time to call it a day. The supremacist tyrants and assassins had had their fun. Not only had they:

  • (2)- cost me over 500 hours of my life = destroying my life;

In fact, I submit that the comment made at the time, was along the following: "Another step in the retribution accomplished boys! Well done! But, mustn't relax. As you would expect from a Nazi, this is a tough bitch. So, must not relent on the psychological harassment - until we finally get her".

(In addition to the ongoing, extremely cruel, perverse and vicious persecution that has been taking place ever since (including by, among others, HM British Transport Police's helicopters), in support of my assessment, I also cite my experience with:

  • (1)- immediately afterwards, HM Supreme Court Costs Office (# 12, below);
  • (2)- weeks later, with the Stratford Employment Tribunal (KPMG # 16);
  • (4) to which I add: with the ECtHR in 2012 (below: # 18.3 to # 18.5)).

No doubt, they were ALL looking forward to 'the mother of all sadistic kicks' - counting on seeing me ‘walk away’, like ‘a good little girl’, ‘ever-so-grateful’, with my tail between my legs - while they were ALL getting away scot-free from ALL they had made suffer and lose, since 2002. And, no doubt, I was also expected to let go of my apartment at a huge loss (e.g. Comment # 19).

As discussed above, in 2003, I had attempted to put an end to the matter. Ladsky decided to pull me back down into the horrific residential leasehold hellhole, where he and his Masonic henchmen clearly want to keep me until they destroy me. Those who have nothing to lose, have nothing to fear. I therefore stayed put.

Back to sections

12. In spite of the very damning evidence against the claim, in Jan 09, Her Majesty's Deputy Master Hoffman, in the Supreme Court Costs Office, allowed me to recover only 30% of my costs - and, of course, no sanctions were taken against Portner and its client Andrew Ladsky.

(NB: Snapshots: summaries: Events ; Breaches of the law ; Overall outcome ; also under Kangaroo courts ; see also Extortion)

As per my rights (under Civil Procedure Rules), I started the procedure to claim my costs back (Portner # 32).

It led Portner and its client to give, under point 1.4, of their 11.08.08 'Points of Dispute' (in which, of course, they challenged everything in my claim) - the most outrageous, preposterous excuse for dropping the claim:

" 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..." (PJ # 33).

I raised the issue - with Portner and HM's WLCC - as to the identify of my 'landlord' - and consequently the issue as to the legality of the claim against me - a total of 11 times over a 16-month period (PJ # 33).

The 'retribution' regime, through collusion and conspiring, continued: having received, 2 months previously, my 26.08.08 Application for a Detailed Assessment hearing, 4 hours before the (non-existent) "04.11.08 hearing",...

...HM's District Judge Nicholson issued a 04.11.08 Order for the case to be transferred to the Supreme Court Costs Office (SCCO) - giving some 'fascinating' 'reasons' for doing this (PJ # 34).

I took this opportunity to review my submissions - about which Portner had had the gall to complain that "[my] Bill of costs failed to comply with CPR requirements".

Ahead of the 30 Jan 09 SCCO so-called 'hearing', I filed and served my 19.01.09 Amended Reply, preceding it with a 5-page summary, very clearly detailing why I believed to be entitled to – at a minimum - get all of my costs back.

I also supplied a 480-page bundle of 153 supporting documents which, of course, included, among others, all the documents I had filed with WLCC from the time the claim was filed against me, as well as all the correspondence – and to which I referred in my 19.01.09 reply.

On 17 Jan 09, I took delivery of a 14.01.09 £4,500 (US$7,900) "Without prejudice offer" from Portner, on behalf of "Rootstock Overseas Corp"

- stating that it was "an all in figure in full and final settlement of your costs in this matter" .

The costs Portner had were those in my 11.11.08 update: £7,277. By the time I received the "offer", they amounted to £8,397 (US$14,800).

In my 19.01.09 reply, I turned down the "offer" describing it as "derisory" as, from the time the fraudulent claim was filed against me at the end of Feb 07, HM's judiciary and court staff in WLCC, their ‘partners’, Portner and its client, added to HMCS 'Customer Service' (summary # 1.6)...

- had cost me (in addition to horrendous torment, anguish, distress and trauma, over a period of 21 months):

  • over 500 hours of my life;
  • 52 hours of lost income,
  • and numerous other costs which, at 30 Jan 09, amounted to £8,675 (US$15,300) - including interest of £278.

Starting with immediate hostility, HM's Deputy Master Hoffman, at SCCO, did not allow me to refer to my 19.01.09 document during the so-called 'hearing'.

Reason: Because it provided a summary of the events which, under CPR, Hoffman had to take into consideration (Breaches of law # 2) - but, had conspired to ignore, hell-bent on continuing in the footsteps of 'his brothers' in WLCC (above): totally ignoring the rule of law.

Ultimately, he only allowed me £2,507 of my costs, plus interest since the 06.02.08 Notice of Discontinuance (Portner's payment of 04.02.09) - bringing the total to £2,641 (US$4,657) v. my costs of £8,675 (Ladsky was claiming costs of £1,535.25 (US$2,700) (!!!)).

Needless to say that, in line with the approach of HM's judiciaries in WLCC (Breaches of the law), the word 'sanction' against 'the claimants' =Ladsky and Portner for filing what was very clearly a fraudulent, vexatious, malicious claim against me - with no legally recognised ground - and making me go through 21 months of sheer utter hell - was not uttered.

In fact, in addition to implying, in the context of the costs I claimed for writing my 12.09.07 Defence, that I was a liar (Events # 11(2)) (NB: Probably because Hoffman's 'brothers' in the police were still fuming from the fact I had fooled them on 31 Aug 07 - and he wanted to score on their behalf)...

...- in a condescending, hitlerian, hostile tone, HM's Deputy Master Hoffman challenged me for returning the 22.03.07 Acknowledgment of Service with 2 pages from the claim, on which I wrote annotations highlighting the different names for 'my landlord' (WLCC # 2)...

...- and told me "You should not have done this. You should have only returned the form the court sent you"`(Events # 10). (NB: Because my doing this is 'highly inconvenient' for his mates in WLCC) .

At the end of the so-called 'hearing', the matter of the 14.01.09 £4,500 “offer” from “Rootstock” was raised. When I showed Hoffman my reply of 19.01.09, he expressed scorn as soon as he read my header “Your derisory “offer” of 14 January 2009” - and hence disapproval at my rejecting it.

Reason? My undertaking the procedure to claim for my costs was not expected - and - it was 'highly inconvenient’ for all. (Hoffman did not bother to read the rest of my letter. Obviously, because he (in breach of CPR), had seen it before the 'hearing').

When asked by Hoffman whether I intended to appeal, I replied that I would not, as it was blatantly obvious that my 'card was marked' with Her Majesty's Court Service - thereby depriving me, the victim of crime - in breach of my rights - of access to justice and redress. (I was again proven right - for the 6th, 7th and 8th time - in 2011) (below).

Back to sections

(13)- Intended primarily to achieve the closure of my website, in Mar 07, Andrew Ladsky filed a so-called "complaint" against me with Her Majesty's police at Notting Hill station...

which, without ever contacting me, processed a totally unsupported "crime report" that is a web of false, malicious, defamatory and highly vicious accusations against me. It also accused me, falsely, to my website Host, of having 'committed a crime', and branded me "a Nazi".


  • (1)- failed to bully my website Host into closing down my website (above);

- Andrew David Ladsky, asked his lapdogs or, more accurately, assassin henchmen at Kensington, Chelsea & Notting Hill police to provide 'some assistance' in getting the closure of my website. (Proof they are his henchmen: police: Overview, Outcome ; Persecution # 2 , # 3).

Proving - irrebutably - the complicity, collusion, conniving and conspiring between Her Majesty's police and Ladsky: without ever contacting me at any point in time...

...- on 15.03.07, it processed - without a shred of evidence in support - a so-called "crime report" against me of a

“Confirmed”, “Substantiated Racial Incident”, “Anti-Semitic Racial Incident”, “Hate Crime – Race, Religion” [NB: Note the "confirmed" and "substantiated"]...

...that is a web of totally unsupported, false, malicious, libellous and highly vicious accusations against me and opinions of me = character assassination

- while stating in the report - on the same date - that it had "No suspicion of false reporting" (police # 3 ; Key pts ; background to Ladsky's 'complaint').

This claim only came to light as a result of my filing a 19 Apr 11 Claim against the police (pt # 18(2), below), during which it issued me with a July 11 version of the "crime report" (v. the July 09 version it had supplied me previously) (pt # 18 2(4), below).

Top of 'the league table' among the other text that had been redacted in the Jul 09 version, is the claim that 'I' make "my" 'poor' "Jewish" "neighbour" (note the true role) Andrew David Ladsky, "the victim" feel "intimidated and vulnerable".

And 'I' am, 'of course', 'a risk' to him, because 'I', 'of course', "suffer from mental issues" (*)

Add to that, the fact that I 'dare' describe Ladsky as "that evil, greed-ridden monster" (HM's Master Eyre: QB #4(6)(5)(3)).

(*) Considering what they have ALL done to me since 2002, I think that 'I' should be the one who "speaks to social services" to report them as "suffering from [very serious] mental issues".

Aside from noting that the English police, as well as some judiciaries have, evidently, no sense of the ridicule, note that my objecting to the above (among many others), was described by HM's judiciary as "[amounting to] a most obvious attempt to re-write history" (pt 18(2)(1), below). How sick and insane is that?

Of course, the police tried desperately to get the 22 July 11 version of the "crime reports" back from me e.g. 28.07.11 letter. (I have always said there is a God! :-) )

(NB: As can be seen from the extracts of articles captured on the Media page, Her Majesty's police has no qualms: smearing the reputation of people - alive or dead (including within its own tribe)...

-by wilfully processing false data about them on its systems (it makes available to a very large and wide range of parties); doctoring witness statements, lying under oath, "shredding a lorry-load of evidence", etc.).

Overall, this so-called "crime report" - with 'support' from, in particular, the 2003 "crime report" (below) - falsely and maliciously portrays me as:

'The Brotherhood''s blind determination to make the above portrayal of me stick, was again demonstrated in the context of my 19 Apr 11 Claim when, at the so-called 'hearing' of 29 July 11 (QB #4(6)), HM's Master Eyre attempted to gain evidence in support of the accusation. Having failed to get it, he nonetheless endorsed it in 'his' Order (QB #4(6)(1)).

('Again demonstrated' because there have been other attempts, including in 2008, when one of the local police Masons' stooges told me: "Hitler should have killed them [Jews] all, don't you think?" (Only a Masons' stooge would say that without fear of prosecution. It is another example of how extremely sick and twisted these people are)).

(Perhaps still influenced by the fact that, 700 years before Hitler did it, "England became the first European nation to require Jews to wear a marking badge, and expelled them from England..." (Wikipedia)?).

(NB: Likewise, Master Eyre endorsed the retention of the description of Ladsky as "my neighbour" (QB #4(4)). Why? Because this description, combined with the above, are the key foundations on which the pack of lies so-called "crime reports" rely).

Considering: (i)- what actually took place i.e. the fact that I was never contacted; (ii)- the dictionary definition of 'investigate' - note HM's then Met Commissioner, Sir Paul Stephenson's assertion under para.9 of his 23.05.11 Defence (QB # 4(2))...

and para.13 of his 30.06.11 Application Witness Statement (QB # 4(3)) - that "the police investigated the complaint". (To my mind, this is another example of (among other) contempt of court).

Note also the Met Commissioner's claim, under para.8 of his 30.06.11 Application Witness Statement that "the police will always be aware of the subjectivity [of the complainant] and as such will keep an open mind" (QB # 4(6)(1)).

Having processed the "crime report", the following day, impersonating an investigating officer (my conclusion), Trainee Detective Constable Simon J Dowling of the 'Community Safety Unit'...

(I am sure, with the approval of his superiors, and beyond within 'the Brotherhood'), sent a malicious, scurrilous, libellous, racist, xenophobic...

...e-mail of 16.03.07 to my website Host - headed "Website with anti semitic (sic) views" - falsely accusing me - without providing any evidence in support - of:

  • having "committed a crime", by stating: "I am the police officer dealing with this crime"

and demanded the "immediate closure of [my] website" (police # 3 KP(4))

From being challenged by my (priceless) website Host who asked "Are you aware that there are laws against making false accusations?",...

...Dowling backed-down in 'his' 20.03.07 e-mail to my website Host:

“Thanks for your reply, yes there are laws relating to false reporting.

The producer of this website is franco-german (sic) in origin and so would be aware of the terms pigs and monkeys used during the Nazi regime to refer to Jewish people." [Note the racist accusation].

If you are unable to close the site down I will let the victim know as there is nothing we as a police force can do except class it as a racist incident…”

- while still making an unsupported, libellous accusation: “racist incident(# 3 KP(4)(2))

Just as well that "the police...must act only on the basis of established facts" (Sir Toby Harris' 11.07.02 letter to me).

(See the outrageous arguments from the Met Commissioner in 'justification' for sending the above e-mails: police # 3 KP(4)(4) - arguments that were, 'of course', endorsed by HM's Queen's Bench judiciaries, as ALL my claims were dismissed as "misconceived and unfounded").

(Of course, the police nonetheless kept "trying to get [my] website closed down").

(NB: In early 2014, the British state again attempted to close my website - this time by hacking into my computer) (not for the first time). (Typical British state's response to 'inconvenient' websites e.g. Nigel Ward's).

Back to sections

(14)- In 2007, my then employer, KPMG, decided to join 'the brothers' lynch-mob trio of police, judiciary and Andrew David Ladsky, by subjecting me to ongoing horrendous victimisation, leading me to resign in Jan 08.

Being psychologically unable to work again, it forced me to take early retirement - resulting in my losing over £1 million in potential income and pension.

Extended summary on the KPMG page, which covers events essentially from Feb 07 to Sep 08 (summary outcome of my grievance # 7.1).

It took me 8 years before I could bring myself to write the page on KPMG, because the pain was too deep and too raw. In the midst of my ongoing, horrendous experience with this island-kingdom’s ‘system’, KPMG had been ‘my rock’, ‘my safe heaven’, the one entity left in which I believed and trusted blindly. I felt proud to work for KPMG. I also held it in high esteem for being very good to me.

Incandescent with rage at ‘my daring’ to launch this website, (after 5 years of being told repeatedly to 'Get Lost!' in response to my numerous cries for help) and expose their criminal actions (far less precisely at the time, than now), 'the brothers' lynch-mob trio of Andrew David Ladsky, judiciary and police renewed their pact (# 5) , formed in 2001 (police) and 2002 (judiciary) to, this time: destroy me.

Being part of the Establishment, and the most ideally placed of the foursome to do this, KPMG agreed with the objective (# 5.2).

Appointing itself as executioner, it joined the trio, in Feb 07, in dishing out a concerted regime of ongoing criminal psychological harassment against me (from # 3). (The plan is likely to have been put in place earlier on: # 3.2 Com 4).

To cover-up the impact its intended malefic actions would have on me, and put the blame on me, the foursome's unbelievably sick, sinister, Machiavellian strategy rested on KPMG using the horrendous actions the other three were taking me against me.

The plan was set in motion at a 13 Feb 07 meeting with Peter Bassett, partner and Jeanette Dunworth, HR (the former turned out to be the kingpin for the actions against me, and the latter, one of his main accomplices) (from # 3.1 to # 3.3).

Bassett raised my “using KPMG IT systems" "to send emails” to a few media organisations following the closure of my website (# 3.2 Com 2); "looking at my website". My doing this “provided a connection with KPMG”; “[should I] continue doing this, it would result in a formal warning".

KPMG IT policy allowed employees to send personal emails, as well as access sites for e.g. personal banking and shopping (# 3.2 Com 5). Doing this would also make a connection with KPMG. Why was ‘my’ doing this an issue? Because, I, a KPMG employee, was revealing, on my website, some very damning evidence against its ‘brothers.

(Subsequently, KPMG refused to provide me with an alleged “IT report on [my] usage of [its] IT systems”: # 15.1).

In addition to the objective of worrying me and making me feel insecure, the real objectives of the 13 Feb 07 meeting were to:

  • make me talk about my personal situation;
  • use this as the opportunity to put a pawn in place, by forcing me to establish contact with Julie Bennett, WellBeing, and therefore KPMG’s ‘health services’ (# 5);
  • attempt to influence my decision-making about “resolving [my] personal situation” (the 1st of 3 such occurrences: # 3.3 Com 5).

Following Bassett’s refusal to issue me with notes of the meeting, in ‘his’ 07.03.07 email, ‘he’ falsely claimed that my 14.02.07 Draft Notes were “not an accurate account of what we discussed” (# 3.2, # 3.3).

Failure to make me capitulate: by Bassett, at the above meeting; 5 days later, by Ladsky and Jeremy Hershkorn, Portner and Jaskel, through their 16.02.07 threat of “bankruptcy and forfeiture” (copy of definition), followed 10 days later by their 27.02 07 fraudulent claim (# 10 & # 11, above),…

…and (thanks to my priceless website Host, HostDime), the ‘brothers’ in the police having failed, in mid-Mar 07, to get the closure of my website (# 13, above) – Bassett in ‘the Brotherhood’ devised what was by then Plan C:

At a 30 Mar 07 meeting with Bassett, Jeannette Dunworth, HR, told me:

because of communication from Mr Ladsky claiming that “your website contains anti-Semitic comments” it has been decided that to protect you and KPMG it would be best you no longer have access to the internet” (# 3.4)

They did not show me the communication from Ladsky. After a battle, 7 months later, KPMG finally supplied me with this 26.03.07 letter which, in spite of being heavily redacted, contains numerous other equally false, highly vicious, malicious and defamatory accusations against me – which KPMG knew were false (# 3.5).

In relation to my personal situation, KPMG also knew about it from its previously associated firm of solicitors, McGrigors that looked at 84 pages of my website in Mar 07. (In Apr 07, it looked at a further 37 pages). (I only revealed this evidence at the time of launching the KPMG page, in 2015).

They took no notice of my denial of the accusation – including my providing the police’s emails to my website Host that demonstrated that the accusation was false (# 3.4).

Clearly anticipating that their action would have a devastating impact on me, they had their pawn, Julie Bennett, wait for me outside the meeting room.

Yet again, they did not issue me with notes of the meeting. Not wanting to be, yet again, portrayed falsely as a liar, instead, I captured what had happened in my 09.07.07 Subject Access Request, i.e. while I was at KPMG. It did not challenge what I reported (# 7).

Under paras 4(b), 6, 7 and 12b of its (undated) PACK OF LIES Defence (posted on 17 Jun 08) to my 03.04.08 Claim,...

...KPMG claimed that its action was "a legitimate and proportionate response to [my] abuse of [its] IT systems

“[that I had] breached its IT policy”.

With the aim of portraying itself as being ‘ever so caring’, it escalated its assessment to claiming that:

it could potentially have led to [my] dismissal” ( # 3.4).

IN FACT, as a cover-up ploy, KPMG mixed - deliberately - the 13 Feb with the 30 Mar 07 meeting – that had nothing to do with its “IT systems”.

Hence, KPMG’s claim amounts to cutting off my access 6 weeks after it raised the matter with me!

Cutting my access to the internet” actually translated into – deliberately – cutting me from the entire network for 24 days (# 4).

Unable to do my work, and made to feel as though I were a criminal (with the automated messages adding to this feeling: # 4) (whereas I was the glaringly obvious victim of organized crime by Ladsky and his gang of racketeers),...

...I spent a large part of Apr 07 sobbing uncontrollably at my desk – eventually seeing my doctor who prescribed me an anti-depressant and tranquilisers (# 4.1). (With the aim of helping KPMG in its defence against my Claim, one year later, he denied doing this: # 13.1).

The state I was reduced to, added to my numerous emails in which I kept highlighted my plight (# 4), provided ALL with endless sadistic kicks; their punishment was having an impact!

Of course, under para.12(e) of its pack of lies Defence, KPMG

denie[d] exposing [me] to nearly a month of extreme distress” (# 4.1).

In his ongoing drive to continue to humiliate me and demean me, to his 24.04.07 email, Peter Bassett attached a letter he asked me to sign, ‘agreeing’ to be barred from using the internet. (I returned it with my 25.04.07 email) (# 4.2). The letter proved that KPMG had cut me off the entire network – deliberately.

Pursuing its very sinister motive of having me ‘officially’ declared as ‘suffering from mental issues’ - and sectioned (# 5.2), as it was dishing out its criminal psychological harassment regime against me, KPMG was ‘offering me the assistance of its health services’ (# 5) - while implying, as well as stating that ‘I needed medical help’; (my summary of events added to the 08.05.07 email from BUPA Wellness at KPMG - and my overall assessment of KPMG's 'offers').

KPMG's secondary objective in doing this, was also in case I took legal action - as evidenced by what it then claimed falsely in its Defence: # 3.3 Com 5.

While I had helped KPMG tick a box by seeing one of its so-called ‘specialists’ in Apr 07 (wasting my time), after 4 months, KPMG finally got the message that I was not going to bite on the hooks it kept throwing at me (# 5).

My ‘lack of cooperation’ resulted in my being subjected to additional forms of criminal psychological harassment (# 6). It included the other henchwoman, my line manager, Ceri Hughes, keeping me out of the loop on communications and meetings that impacted on my work – with the objective of then voicing ‘failings’ against me during my so-called ‘performance appraisal’.

My capturing on pages 22 and 23 of my performance appraisal form events that had impacted very seriously on my ability to perform my work (extracts, # 8), threw a spanner in the works of the cabal.

Ceri Hughes ( behind) made me endure a 10-week wait for ‘my appraisal’ (during that time, the policy emails communicated that I was missing deadlines), telling me every time I asked, that she was “waiting to hear from HR due to what you wrote on your form” (# 8).

IN FACT, during what turned out to be part 1 of ‘my appraisal’, Ceri Hughes refused point-blank to acknowledge what I wrote on the form, and threatened to end the meeting if I persisted in raising it (# 8.1).

As to part 2, with Peter Bassett, as well as Kathy Woodhouse, HR, positioned as “there to ensure a fair and independent assessment” - their only response, repeated 10 times, was: “It has not been a good year for you”; “you’ve had a really, really difficult year”, and variations on this theme (summarised e.g. towards the end of my Comments on Bassett’s 25.10.07 email; # 9.1).

The objective of adding to the criminal psychological harassment by Hughes ending ‘my appraisal’ half way through (# 8.4), and then failing to set-up ‘part 2’, backfired on KPMG that did not want to have written evidence of events - as it led me to send this 15.10.07 email to Jeanette Dunworth, HR, reporting what had happened (# 9).

Of course, during part 2, Bassett and Woodhouse continued with the pre-determined script already used by Hughes, of blaming me for events – while claiming “to have done all [they] could over the last 9 months to help [me]” (# 9.1)

Sinking to a new depth of moral depravation, they used a 05.08.07 so-called ‘feedback on my performance’ from’ ‘a colleague’, Finbarr Geaney – that had very clearly been fabricated by Bassett and Hughes to accuse me of “letting my personal problem affect me at work, and thus impact on the team” (# 9.4). Of course, KPMG repeated this in its pack of lies Defence: # 3.3 Com 5.

Using this - added to Hughes (no doubt on Bassett's order) having ensured that I would be isolated by the nature of the work she asked me to do, and by cutting me out deliberately from meetings and communications – they attached the following labels to me: "lacking initiative, proactivity, determination, tenacity, and in relationship building" (# 8.2, # 9.3, # 9.5).

Consider these accusations against: (1)- the content of this website; (2)- examples of feedback on my performance, I received in my previous 9 years at KPMG.

While throughout they kept repeating that there was "a difference of views", they, of course, ignored it.

To seal their ‘assessment’, and put the blame for events squarely on me, they gave me an overall rating of “needs development(# 9.7) (my appraisal form). 'Determining' that ‘my training needs’ were 'so dire', they concluded that ‘I needed’ no less than “a training coach” (# 9.6).

In its pack of lies Defence, to the parts of my Claim relating to my 'performance appraisal' KPMG 'decided' to respond to, typically, it denied them - and failed to address some highly material events: # 9.8.

If you have opened links # 8.1 and # 9.1, you will already know that I secretly recorded the meetings: transcripts: 09.10.07 and 24.10.07. (I only revealed this evidence at the time of launching the KPMG page, in 2015). (Evidently worried that I might have recorded my conversations, KPMG enlisted ‘my’ doctor to ask me) (in vain) (# 13.1).

The outcome of ‘my performance appraisal’ was the last straw for me. No way was I going to agree to this fabricated ‘assessment’.

I hold the view that Bassett in KPMG and their mates in the Jewish-Freemason ‘Brotherhood' were counting on the consideration of my age (8 years from retirement) to make me swallow their poisoned pill - that would have given them a freehand to continue abusing me at will i.e. continue feeding their insatiable craving for sadistic kicks.

Being totally marginalised by Ceri Hughes for not endorsing my 'appraisal' form, I saw no point going to the office (but had off-the-record meetings with partners outside of my group). It triggered a threatening 14.12.07 letter ‘from’ Hughes, who ensured that Ladsky could intercept it (# 10.1).

In early Jan 08, KPMG made me a verbal offer of a £62,000 (US$109,000). I did not take it, perceiving it as a measly amount, considering the 10 months of horrendous, absolute sheer utter hell KPMG had subjected me to.

Naïvely assuming that the partnership did not have knowledge of what had actually been taking place, to communicate events, I filed a 17.01.08 Grievance. As I was writing it, I concluded that I could no longer allow myself to be subjected to horrendous, abusive treatment – and resigned at the end of Jan 08 - under Constructive Dismissal (# 10.2).

I did this even though I knew that, because of that extremely traumatic, life-destroying experience, psychologically, I would not be able to work in the United Kingdom ever again - which is what happened - eventually forcing me to take early retirement.

(It took me more than 2 years before I managed to force myself to set foot again in the City (business district), and 5 years before I could go to Canary Wharf, where I last worked).

My Grievance was the cue for KPMG to continue to engage in its typically underhanded tactics – this time with the objective of making me miss the 3-month deadline for filing a Claim (# 11).

As KPMG then went into silent mode (a typical tactic used by the Establishment, within the 3-month deadline, I filed my 03.04.08 Claim against KPMG in Her Majesty’s Stratford Employment Tribunal – that accepted it (# 12).

Four months after receiving my 17.01.08 Grievance, and evidently betting on the assumption that I had not recorded conversations - in his one-page 22.05.08 letter, Peter Terry, partner, stated:

“…it has been decided that your grievance should not be upheld

Using lies, he dismissed his 'selected parts' of my Grievance (# 11(3)).

Escaping a Default Judgment (# 14.1 Com) from granting itself an additional 3-week extension, on top of the 21 days allowed by the tribunal, and continuing to bet on the assumption that I had not recorded conversations,…

… using a litany of lies, as well as failing to address some highly material events, in her (undated and unsigned) Defence, KPMG's lawyer Naomi Crossman...

...demanded that my Claim be “struck out” (# 14(2)).

My asking KPMG for information to assist ACAS' so-called 'negotiation process' - was the cue for KPMG to continue with its morally repugnant conduct (# 15).

My initial experience with Her Majesty’s Stratford Employment Tribunal, as well as with ACAS’ (# 16), led me to have a very strong feeling of déjà vu…many times: they were ignoring my communications; going into silent mode.

Told by ACAS at the end of Aug 08 (!!!) that “employment tribunals do not deal with claims under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997”, I withdrew my Claim in Sep 08, as the tribunal said that it could not transfer it to the High Court.

Considering my then ongoing experience with West London County Court (# 11, above), followed by my experience with the Supreme Court Costs Office (# 12, above) - I concluded that there was no point my filing the Claim in the High Court - as I would continue to be denied justice and redress. (I was proven right, as it happened for the 6th, 7th and 8th time, in 2011...which was in the High Court: # 18.2, below).

Throughout the process, KPMG made no attempt at conciliation, including following my suggesting an alternative.

Outcome: my losing 8 years of work has led me to lose over £1 million in potential income and pension (detail of my assessment of my situation – at the time – in my 05.08.08 letter to ACAS) - and I have no avenue open to me for justice and redress.

I hold the view, in my non-lawyer opinion, that KPMG committed criminal actions against me.

The root cause for all of the above? It is the same as for everything else (below)...leaving Andrew David Ladsky to laugh his head off at me as he continues to savour his achievement.

Back to sections

(15)- Other components of the 'retribution' and tormenting regime include: (1)- since Jul 10, ever growing massive fraudulent 'service charge' demands;

(2)- since at least 2005, unlawful ongoing 'surveillance' by the state - best described as persecution that also includes interference with all my means of communication.

Other forms of psychological harassment by Ladsky in 2007, and subsequently e.g.

  • hot water and electricity yet again cut-off in my apartment in Mar 09;

This was followed by Ladsky asking his then 'managing' agents, MRJ, to send me a totally unsupported 09.07.10 fraudulent demand of £24,002 (US$42,322).

Excluding £2,400 of ground rent not legally asked during the period, means that, relative to 'my' (rip-off) share of £1,749 in 2004, at the start of "the major works" the yearly claimed amount of £5,400 (US$9,520) is more than 3 times larger (MG # 2).

As detailed under Martyn Gerrard - Background, MRJ ignored my subsequent 3 letters asking for evidence in support, opting instead to keep on sending me the demand.

Note that, in breach of covenant in my Lease - which is a legal contract, I have not been provided with Lease-compliant (but unverified) accounts for Jefferson House since 1993 (more than 20 years!) (*)

Given that what is produced are works of fiction (breach of Theft Act s.17 False accounting ; my 04.10.11 analysis and covering letter of 04.10.11 in response to the GLA survey on service charges) - and has since continued: Martyn Gerrard # 15 - it could be argued that it makes little difference.

(*) 'Of course', there is no automatic statutory obligation on landlord to issue accounts. To 'perhaps' get accounts, leaseholders are forced to issue a Notice e.g. 25.06.04 letter on my behalf from the Tenancy Relations Officer to MRJ.

'Perhaps' as the threat of prosecution is, 'of course', not enforced, and landlords and their aides know that the leaseholders will (typically) face soul-destroying battles with the authorities, who will side with them against the leaseholders e.g. my experience with Kensington & Chelsea housing (summary # 5.3), and then with the Local Government Ombudsman (summary # 5.4).

Add to that the fact that the accountants are, likewise, not regulated (summary # 6.1).

Another bunch of "RICS, ARMA, ALEP regulated" racketeers, Martyn Gerrard, "The award-winning agency...where integrity counts" (!!!) took over from the then MRJ, in 2011.

In fact, it appointed itself as henchmen and henchwomen - operating with the full support and assistance of the British state (e.g. MG # 32) - by dishing out a sustained regime of horrendous criminal psychological harassment as 'retribution' for 'my daring' to stand up to it and its Jewish tribe members, as well as the other assassins who actively help them and protect them - because, 'of course', they ALL perceive themselves as being 'my victims'.

Hence the reason the Gerrard gang has no worry whatsoever about my reporting its criminal activities on my website since 2011.

(The 'regime' intensified from early 2014 (MG # 28) because my 10.02.14 document, in which I covered all the demands since 2011 (MG # 19) (it failed to even acknowledge) - upset the mafia's intended sinister Machiavellian plan (MG #17)).

The criminal psychological harassment games include:

  • in breach of my statutory rights, and ignoring my statutory notice - keeping me in the dark as to the identity of 'my landlord' - reaching version 5 by early 2016;

and concurrently expecting me to pay:

To add to fun, the mob found another shyster, Mark Henry Wagner, Wagner & Co, (Advisors # 5A) who sent me this 19.10.16 illegal letter "on behalf of Greyclyde Investments Ltd" (includes my Comments).

Having stated that he "looked at my website", in the letter he claims that 'I owe' "£43,785.82" (US$76,030) - because his "client says so". So, 'of course': it must be true!

Typically for somebody who works for the mob, he uses bullying and blackmail tactics - by using the usual FEAR weapons: threatens me with "proceedings"; dangles the threat of "costs".

Come on! What's to lose in this totally unregulated kingdom?! It's the Wild West.

Knowing from "looking at my website" that his "client" has failed to respond to all my correspondence over the last 5 years and 3 monthsincluding a statutory notice requiring a response “within 21 days of receipt”...

...Mark Henry Wagner has the gall to tell me in his 19.10.16 letter:

"...our clients would like to see exactly why you have not been paying your ground rent, service and administration charges so that we can have a dialogue to resolve matters

He also challenges me on 'my affront' for...

"...occupation of the flat governed by the lease, it is not right that you have not paid any service charges or ground rent for such a considerable period of time."

I provided a reply to Wagner in my 10.11.16 correspondence.

The 14.11.16 'response' (contains my Comments):

Mark Wagner's "client, Greyclyde Investments Ltd has instructed [him] to issue a claim against [me] for unpaid ground rent"

(See, below, LATEST, for subsequent events)


Andrew Ladsky has had me dogged, hounded, tracked, monitored, harassed and persecuted since at least 2002 - when he did it himself: 7 Mar 02 (as I reported e.g. in my 04.08.02 letter to Toby Harris, MPA).

In all probability, my being dogged, monitored and tracked will have started before that, for the purpose of profiling me in order to determine whether I could be a 'mark'. Evidently: I was! (my profile).

(The use of snoops appears to be 'a Jewish thing' - making this island-Kindgom the ideal environment in which to indulge - as demonstrated by its activities, as well as by my experience).

Since at least the summer of 2005, Her Majesty's police in the related services jumped on the bandwagon to do the same thing, and actually operate hand in glove with the Ladsky mafia. My Diary # 2 gives an overview of the - unlawful - 'surveillance' or, more accurately: persecution.

(Drawing on information contained in Private Eye # 1401)...

- I want to know WHO are the rotten to the core, multi-criminal vermin monsters in Kensington & Chelsea police and higher up in the Metropolitan Police Service who, since at least 2005,...

are orchestrating this persecution against me; have me under constant surveillance - including overseas, as well as set-up and manage the informants and the plants

= Assassins who have and continue to destroy my life since then. .

WHY are they doing this?

As I captured under para.157 of my 19.04.11 Particulars of Claim (Queen's Bench), as well as under para.4 of my 19.07.11 Witness Statement to the then Home Secretary, Theresa May (QB # 6(1)), I believe that involvement by the police-security services started in the summer of 2005 e.g. 5 Aug 05.

It coincided with the time I was still battling on several fronts in the context of my - legitimate - complaints against parties in the public and private sector - in the face of their typical rejections (# 7, above)

= I, 'the Prole', was flagged-up as 'a threat' to the Establishment: my card was marked - leading 'The Thought Police' and its 'Ministry of Love' (Orwell's 1984) to 'get on my case'.

(The 'surveillance' 'might' have started in 2004, after 'I dared' to complain against HM's judiciaries in WLCC (above) and Wandsworth county court (summary # 1.5). Both are in the borough covered by Kensington police; below # 17 and # 16).

(NOTE the media reports about many campaigners and families being under surveillance by the police and related for years on end).

I repeat: I am a law-abiding individual - who should not therefore have the British state interfere with my life, and persecute me...under Anti-terrorism legislation (yes!) - and very clearly going well beyond what is permitted by law.

As I stressed under e.g. section 3 of my 19.04.11 Particulars of Claim, and under paras 132 -137 of my 19.07.11 Wit.Stat to Theresa May, then Home Secretary (QB # 6(1)):

"In the 43 years I have lived in this country I have never been engaged in any activity and/or conduct that justifies this extreme, ongoing surveillance, as well as monitoring and interception of my means of communication".

In tandem with Rachman Ladsky's resources, operating as a fully integrated team, and as his private army of “arslikhanhenchmen, the police and related services have - and still continue (thanks to the packs of lies Orders from HM's judiciaries - subsequently endorsed by compliant Maltese judge in the European Court of Human Rights)...

to - unlawfully - stalk me, hound me, track me, monitor me, harass me and persecute me - on a daily basis. (Some photos in Scum Gallery)

This being Orwellian Britain with, as described by the House of Lords, "the most pervasive surveillance system in the world", they do this in part by tracking me through the 100,000+ CCTV cameras on buses, in the underground, and in the streets - that are controlled / accessed by HM's British Transport police

(See Persecution # 2.5 for the "world's largest CCTV hub", and photographs of at least 11 CCTV cameras on just one bus!).

(Note that this state also finds it 'necessary' to record people's conversations in the streets and in taxis, and has recycle bins that track people's movements. In addition to hacking into "the word's phone calls, internet traffic and accessing the content of e-mails", it also hacks into its 'allies' communications by (among other), setting-up fake internet cafés).

Then the 'Stasi' (there are tens of thousands swarming the streets, including in unmarked police cars, vans, scooters and motorbikes), who have evidently been supplied with photographs and / or film footage of me, take over, either from being positioned in a place where they expected me to go (as well as along the route), or by appearing within minutes of my going somewhere they were not expecting.

To these are added, since 2007, and in particular from 2010, the equally unlawful use of helicopters by Her Majesty's British Transport police - to hound me, as well as harass me and persecute me.

Of note: 'the surveillance' also takes place when I am overseas. Hence, the international network of the Masonic-Jewish mafia acts like a kind of 'Interpol for organized crime' - hounding its victims.

I guess that, in this island-kingdom that "has a long and exemplary record on human rights", it is an improvement over China's house-arrests.

Given their assessment of my claims (below, # 18), and of 'my state of mind' (above, # 13): Why are they evidently so obsessed with me and so scared of me - 'the little person' with no power and no influence?

Concurrently, the state has, and continues to, likewise - unlawfully - interfere with all my means of communication - leading to, among other, my missing a family funeral:

  • post - including stealing some of my financial statements and, at at times, over extended periods, stealing all my post; prolonged retention of important post, including to make me a family funeral;

Under police's directions, my "security-lock" supplier, Banham, has provided Andrew Ladsky with a key to my apartment - with the obvious consequences on me.

(Using an early 2012 Guardian newspaper headline) - How many oppressive regimes would be proud of this set up? It certainly shows how sick and insane the British state has become) (Nothing is off-limit with this state).

In fact, to me: (1)- the army of goons; (2)- the spy systems; (3)- the criminal psychological harassment; (4)- the 'little people's inability to stop the blatant abuse of power by the state...

- suggest that this island-kingdom has adopted the Stasi model - for the benefit of organized crime.

Back to sections

(16)- The 2007 so-called 'complaint' (above) made it the 2nd time that Her Majesty's police denied me the right to defend myself against false, malicious, libellous and highly vicious accusations against me and opinions of me in so-called 'complaints' against me by Andrew David Ladsky - as it had already done this in 2003.

The previous occasion was in 2003. On 3 Jan 03, (because I was challenging his application to the tribunal, above) - Ladsky told me with a lot of venom in his voice: "I am going to get you this year!".

It was clear that this was due to his (substantiated) belief that he had the then London LVT 'sewn-up' (above) - leading him to, 3 weeks later, provoke me on 25 Jan 03 - and to run immediately to his flunkeys at Chelsea police because he 'did not like' my reply (police # 2 , Key pts; background to Ladsky's 'complaint').

The primary objective of this so-called 'complaint' was to scare me from pursuing my challenge of his Application to the then LVT (above).

Of course, not asking him about the circumstances, as they would undermine his 'complaint', on the day,...

...HM's police processed a 25.01.03 so-called "crime report" against me of a

"Confirmed" "Substantiated Offence of Harassment"

- making it 'stick', by adding the lie that I had 'a history of doing this'. (Version of the "crime report": Jul 09 ; Jul 11).

Having processed the report on its system - as a "confirmed" and "substantiated" "criminal charge" - 2 days later,...

...HM's police sent me a bullying, threatening, malicious letter, dated 27.01.03, telling me, in effect, that I had better shut up and not challenge 'Dear Mr Ladsky' or "there may be further consequences".

To add to the intimidation and scare tactics, and ensure I 'obey orders', the flunkey signed the letter with "Crime Investigator" (police # 2 KP 10)

Ignoring my 11.02.03 letter asking for "precise detail - in writing - of the accusation against me", on the day it received it, the police closed the report falsely claiming that it had been "unable to contact [me]" (# 2 KP 12 & 13).

Just as well that "the police...must act only on the basis of established facts" (Sir Toby Harris' 11.07.02 letter to me).

Considering: (i)- what actually took place; (ii)- the dictionary definition of 'investigate' ...

- note HM's then Met Commissioner, Sir Paul Stephenson 's assertion under para.11 of his 30.06.11 Application Wit.Stat. (QB # 4(3)) - that "the police investigated the complaint". (To my mind, this is another example of (among other) contempt of court).

Back to sections

(17)- By contrast, when 'I' am the complainant against 'Dear Mr Ladsky' - as happened in 2002 and 2010 - Her Majesty's police protects him through conniving, collusion, cover-up, fabrications, by refusing to investigate my complaints - and extends this to lying under statements of truth - as demonstrated by e.g. my secret recording of a conversation with the police (placed on the site).

In 2002, following receiving numerous anonymous phone calls, I (persisted) in filing a complaint with HM's Chelsea police, identifying Ladsky as the perpetrator.

Concurrently, I also reported suffering other forms of harassment from him (police # 1 - background). It led to the processing of a "crime report" (Jul 09 version ; Jul 11 version) (# 1: Key pts).

As can be seen from the content of the "crime report", discussed under the Key Points on the police page, the police went out of its way to protect Ladsky, including fabricating stories that would be challenged by a 6-year old.

It also described Ladsky as "my neighbour" (!!!) - a description it retained for the above 2003 "crime report", and above 2007 "crime report" - because it is one of 2 key foundations on which the web of lies in the "crime reports" relies. (As can be seen under e.g. CKFT-Intro he is the KEY driver of activities).

(Note that, very clearly, for the same reason, HM's Master Eyre endorsed the retention of this description: QB # 4(4)). (The 2nd key foundation is discussed under pt # 13, above).

Of note, while at least 4 of my fellow leaseholders also complained to the police, in 2001-02, of suffering harassment from Ladsky, Kensington police claimed: "[Ladsky] has not been the subject in any crime report" (police # 4).

In Oct 10, I made a total of 7 vain attempts at getting HM's police at Chelsea & Kensington to investigate my 2 well-documented complaints of harassment against 2 men: (i)- 08.10.10 complaint against the 20 & 27 Jul 10 man ; (ii)- 08.10.10 complaint against the 30 Jun 10 and other occasions man (summary # 4.13).

My conclusion that the former was one of Ladsky's 'dogs', and the latter a police informant, was confirmed by the fact that, in addition to refusing to investigate my complaints, the police's focus was on the former. It continued to be case, after I filed a 19.04.11 Claim against the Met Commissioner (police # 6).

It led HM's then Met Commissioner, Sir Paul Stephenson to, in his 23.05.11 Defence (QB # 4(2)), deny falsely, the excuses I had been given at the time for not investigating my complaint. I was able to provide undeniable proof of the lies - as I had recorded the 16 Oct 10 conversation with PC Giles.

I did this with my 14.06.11 Reply to parts of the Defence, discussing it under paras 10-13, and by supplying, to each of the 3 Defendants, as well as the court, a CD-ROM with a recording of the conversation, as well as a transcript.

I also supplied a copy of the notes I was given at the time (QB # 4 (2)3). (More detail under police # 6 ; snapshot under violations of Article 3 of the European Convention). (Ditto about this amounting to, to my mind, contempt of court).

Back to sections

(18)- Yet more undeniable confirmation that, when 'the little people' are the innocent victims of 'certain criminals' - the claim by British and European judges and politicians that 'the rule of law is of paramount importance' - is a sham - part of an elaborate front-end circus.

(NB: See snapshots under breach Data Protection Act 1998 ; violations of Article 6 and Article 8 of the European Convention...although: note, below, the exceptions to the Human Rights Act;

Summaries: Events ; Breaches of the law ; see also Extortion).

18(1)- Following 6 months of soul-destroying battles with Her Majesty's Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) that kept ignoring my rights in relation to its packs of lies so-called "crime reports" - in March 2010, its 'poodle', the 'Independent' Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) - illegally - granted it 'dispensation' from compliance with the requirements of the Data Protection Act 1998.

I submitted a 28.05.09 Subject Access Request to HM's police, leading me to receive, in July 09, the 3 "crime reports", briefly discussed above: 2002, 2003, 2007.

For the obvious reasons, summarised under # 13, above - the packs of lies so-called "crime reports" are a source of extreme distress and anguish to me. Further:

  • 1. The police keeps reports until the individual reaches 100 years of age (more reasons under police # 5.5).

From my receiving a highly redacted version of the packs of lies "crime reports" in July 09, followed 6 months of unbelievably soul-destroying battles in vain attempts to get the police to implement my rights under the Data Protection Act 1998, in the processing of the "crime reports".

The 'reply' from the police's Public Access Office to my 13.08.09 response to the "crime reports", supported by a bundle of 49 documents in support of my demands - was a (typical) 25.08.09 'Get Lost'. I responded to this, equally comprehensively, by letter of 20.09.09 (summary # 4.7).

The ensuing battles entailed my contacting, among others, the then Met Commissioner, Sir Paul Stephenson, and Her Majesty's then Home Secretary, Alan Johnson, on 3 occasions (summary # 4.9).

At my wits end, my third communication to them was a 02.02.10 letter, headed "When am I due to be killed?" (police # 5.3). (NB: I was referring to the 15 Jun 09 death threat: "Enjoy your life. You don't have long to live" - I had mentioned on pgs 7 & 8 of my 28.11.09 letter to the Met Commissioner (police # 5.2) - about which, of course, the police took no action). (Another one has since been added: 14 Jun 14).

It was followed by a '21.01.10' letter (posted 2 weeks later, on 4 Feb, 'by amazing coincidence', day on which my above letter was delivered to the Met Commissioner) from DI Crispin Lee, Directorate of Professional Standards (police # 5.3).

He informed me that he had applied to the (so-called) 'Independent' Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) (staffed by police officers on secondment) - to get a 'Dispensation' from dealing with my complaint (summary # 4.10).

From desk research, I determined that the excuses used by Lee, including claiming that my complaint was "out-of-time", were from Reg.3(2)(a),(f) and (4)(b)(ii) of the Police (Complaints and Misconduct) Regulations 2004 (copy).

(This Regulation is the 'trump card' frequently used by the police, and its 'poodle' the IPCC, to avoid dealing with complaints). (Re 'poodle' - I wrote it on pg2 of my 13.09.11 letter to the IPCC (QB # 5(7)); see also media reports (police # 5.4)).

This Regulation is totally irrelevant. It cannot be called upon to interfere with a data subject's right under s.10 of the Data Protection Act 1998 to - at any time - ask a data processor to stop processing data that is a source of great distress - because untrue and damaging - as in my case. This right is also enshrined under Directive 14 of the Data Protection Directive 95/46/EC.

Following the dictatorial 22.02.10 letter 'from' the IPCC (that was intercepted by the police to make me miss the deadline for reply: police # 5.4(2)), in 'its' 02.03.10 letter, 'the IPCC' granted the police 'Dispensation' from dealing with my complaint (summary # 4.11; QB # 5(2)).

Hence, 'the IPCC' - illegally - granted 'Dispensation' to the Metropolitan Police Service from compliance with the requirements of the Data Protection Act 1998.


Of note: 'the gem', in the police's Application (I obtained as a result of filing the 19.04.11 Claim against the IPCC - QB # 5):

If the crime reports were to be altered at the complainant’s request this would set a new precedent for crime reporting and recording across the UK. This complaint is therefore an abuse of process" (QB # 5.1(2)).

Having failed to get, from the IPCC, the remedy to which I was entitled, following months of additional work, I opted for another strategy, by sending a 02.06.10 DPA s.10 Notice and supporting 67pg document to HM's Chief Superintendent Mark Heath, Kensington police - as the Act requires a response "within 21 days".

This strategy also failed - as he did not even acknowledge my documents (summary # 4.12).

Back to sections

18(2)- The appalling conduct of the police and IPCC forced me to file, (as a Litigant in Person), a 19.04.11 Claim in the Queen's Bench Division - to which I added the Home Secretary, for having me - unlawfully - under 'surveillance'.

Following glaring conniving and collusion between the 3 Defendants and Her Majesty's Master Eyre - all of my claims were "struck out" - and entailed paying "costs" of £17,181 (US$30,295).

The above left me with only one option: filing a Claim - which I did (as I had warned I would do, on 3 separate occasions, starting in Sep 09) - in HM's London Queen's Bench Division (as a Litigant in Person) - after a further 8 months of very intensive desk research: 19.04.11 Claim against:

(Summaries: Events ; Breaches of the law; Overall outcome)

(My needing to resort to filing a Claim, leads me to most strongly add my voice to that of the lawyer, in her message to Sir Paul Stephenson: Media: 11 Oct 10).

Of course, at the Pre-action stage (QB # 2), none of them attempted to resolve the situation - demonstrating further their belief of being 'above the law', as well as advanced knowledge that their 'brothers' in the court would endorse their position.

(Continuing to perceive me as an imbecile, 3 months after filing the Claim, the Met Commissioner tried to catch me out by making me a "Without Prejudice offer": QB # 4(6)4).

The unbelievable conduct that took place in this court (note that I exclude the court's staff), led me to start using, on this site, the description 'kangaroo court' - as it was a continuation of my experience, since 2002, with HM's courts and tribunal (above # 2 , # 3 and # 11).

Glaringly obvious contempt of court took place, to which - of course - HM's judiciaries turned a blind eye. (Hence, a repeat of what took place in 2002-03, 2002-04, 2007-08, and Jan 09).

ALL of my claims against each of the 3 Defendants were - summarily dismissed (i.e. not at trial) - of course, "with costs" - 'by' HM's Master Eyre (my Comments are attached to each of the following 3 Orders). (With every payment of 'costs', I took the opportunity to highlight again to each of the 3 Defendants the lies, conniving and conspiring that took place):

(1)- The pack of lies 09.08.11 Order - in favour of the Met Commissioner...

... - which, as a result of glaringly obvious conniving and conspiring between HM's Master Eyre and the police (summaries: Events ; Breaches of the law) - dismissed all my claims - by regurgitating the position of HM's Met Commissioner, Sir Paul Stephenson (QB # 4(2)(1)) and # 4(3)) - that they were:

  • "No more than a most obvious attempt to re-write history" (QB # 4(6)(1)).

(I very strongly contend that the 09.08.11 Order was tested before issuing it - see QB # 4(5)).

In addition to his arrogant blanket denial of breaching / violating any of my rights, supported by ludicrous claims, in his 23.05.11 Defence (= under a Statement of Truth) (QB # 4(2)) - as discussed, above, under pt # 17 - Sir Paul Stephenson also lied about what I had been told by Kensington & Chelsea police, in Oct 10, when I attempted to report suffering harassment from 2 men.

As detailed above, under pt # 13, because the evidence does not exist to support the accusations, Master Eyre even went as far as attempting to create it.

In the process, he also endorsed the Met Commissioner's absolutely outrageous claim that the police is processing these so-called "crime reports" against me "for the prevention or detection of crime"; "for the apprehension or prosecution of offenders" (police # 3(9)). (The former is one of the police's favourite excuses e.g. the case of Mr Ken Cook (Media page)).

Contrast that with the evidence of criminality I supplied - not only in the context of my 19 Apr 11 Claim, but also previously, to the Met Commissioner: (1)- between Nov 09 and Feb 10 (police # 5.2) ; (2)- at the Pre-action stage (QB # 2) (snapshot under Extortion), and

(3)-, the fact that others have ended-up with prison sentences of up to 32 months - for doing much less than that: Advisors # 11. In fact, one man ended-up in prison - where he died - "for stealing a gingerbread man".

(For more detail, see below, # 4 my Appeal against the Order)

Outcome: 'my' 22.08.11 payment of £8,478 (US$14,949) costs to.... the police (!!!) (QB # 4(6))


(2)- The 29.07.11 Order - in favour of the so-called 'Independent' Police Complaints Commission - 'because, instead, I should have filed for judicial review'. (My Comments are attached to the Order) (summaries: Events; Breaches of the law).

Proving that the state relies on the majority of people not having the means to do this, is 'the IPCC's comment under para.23 of its 07.06.11 Application (QB # 5(5)):

"A successful judicial review challenge would have resulted in the IPCC having to retake its decision on the dispensation and would have therefore provided [me] with a complete remedy to that aspect of [my] complaint" .

WHY didn't it provide me with "a complete remedy" - at the time Feb 10?

I contend that HM's Master Eyre ignored, among others, the following:

  • (1)- 'the IPCC' had - illegally - granted 'dispensation' to the police from compliance with the requirements of the Data Protection Act 1998 (QB # 5(2) ; police # 5.4);
  • (2)- the IPCC had very clearly connived and colluded with the police - in the process, ignoring legislation, including its statute-based duty, as well as police regulations and guidance (QB # 5(3)) - while claiming under 'statements of truth', that it had not done this (QB # 5.(5) ; # 5(6));
  • (3)- the fact I had taken, what I viewed as a legitimate alternative: submitting an s.10 Notice to the police (police # 5.5) (as it imposes a legal requirement to reply) (it, 'of course', ignored).
  • (But, 'of course', Master Eyre had not found 'anything wrong' in the police failing to comply with any legal requirements: Events # 10 ; Breaches of the law).

Outcome: 'my' 13.09.11 payment of £3,703 (US$6,529) to... the IPCC (!!!) (QB # 5(7))

- and my 13.09.11 letter to HM's then Home Secretary, Theresa May, to copy her on my letter to the IPCC, stating that she very clearly endorsed the conduct of the police and of the IPCC - as, in the context of my 19.04.11 Claim, I had copied her on all the main documents (QB # 5(7)). (I did not get reply).


(3)- The 09.08.11 Order - in favour of Her Majesty's Home Secretary - 'because - instead - I should have approached the Investigatory Powers Tribunal' (QB # 6(2)) (My Comments are attached to the Order). (summaries: Events; Breaches of the law)

I submit that both, HM's 'Master Eyre and the then Home Secretary, Theresa May, knew they were (typically) sending me on a wild goose chase as, considering the evidence in the case (QB # 6(1)) - this tribunal does not offer me an effective remedy (QB # 6 (1).

More to the point: (typically), the Investigatory Powers Tribunal is another rubber-stamping office for the British state's abuse of power (media articles that support my assessment - as well as the conclusion from human rights groups). Come on! The British state giving 'an effective remedy' to its people against its abuse of power? That would be the day!

However, attempting to push me towards this rubber-stamping tribunal does not give the Home Office departments and its current, as well as previous Heads, the right to ignore the rule of law.



(4)- My Appeal Application against the 9 AUG 11 Metropolitan Police Order (QB # 4(7)) (Summaries: Events ; Breaches of the law)

I filed a 30.08.11 Application against the (above) 09.08.11 pack of lies MPS Order (QB # 4(7)).

In addition to the surrounding events, my absolute determination to clear my name of the highly defamatory, extremely vicious, malicious, perverse accusations against me and opinions of me in the so-called "crime reports" (police: Overview and Outcome)...

...was reinforced further when the police supplied me, on 22.07.11 with a significantly less redacted (and incomplete) version of the 3 "crime reports": 2002, 2003 and 2007 v. the July 09 version: 2002, 2003 and 2007 (discussed under police sections # 1 , # 2 and # 3). Indeed, considering:

  • (1)- the content of the redacted text (2 examples are included above, under pt # 13 (and expanded on under QB # 4(3)):
  • (ii)- having "No suspicion of false reporting" - in spite of never contacting me at any point in time; most of the redacted text is compiled and discussed in my 29.08.11 police Witness Statement);
  • (2) the fact that, to prevent me from commenting on the previously redacted text, the police supplied me with these latest versions - post - filing and serving my 19.07.11 police Wit.Stat. (received by all on the 20th - as can be seen at the back of my Wit.Stat)...

...led me to, (as stated above) - the glaringly obvious conclusion that the police in 'the Brotherhood' are hell-bent on continuing to use the "crime reports" against me for ongoing 'retribution' - and to finally 'get me' i.e. "kill [me], zip up the bag, bring [me] to the morgue".

Predictably, in the light of the conduct to date in that court: in a 06.10.11 Order, HM's Justice Lang dismissed my Application - in the process, fully endorsing all the reasons in Master Eyre's Order (QB # 4(7)2).

I then submitted a 17.10.11 Request for Oral Hearing of my Application.

Equally predictably, this Request was also refused. This time, by HM's Justice MacKay who, in his 24.10.11 Order, failed to include his reasons (QB # 4(7)3). (My identical comments are attached to each of the 3 MPS Orders).

It led me to file, (typically), in vain, a complaint with the Office for Judicial Complaints (QB # 4(7)4).

I had reached 'the end of the line' in the UK courts - as "there is no appeal from the decision of a single judge on an application for permission to appeal”” (CPR Rule 52.16(7)).


Hence: the costs 'I' was made to pay, by Her Majesty's judiciaries in the Queen's Bench Division - to the British state - that has, and continues - in breach of the rule of law - to very blatantly breach / violate my rights - amount to £17,181 (US$30,295).

Of course, on top of this, I had many other costs, running in the £000s.

Overall conclusion: when facing a multi-criminal, 'Jewish', sacrosanct Mason landlord - NONE of 'my rights' are "freestanding".


Needless to say that, during the time of my Claim, 'the Brotherhood's flunkeys, comprising of the British state's 'Stasi', operating, as always, in tandem with the Ladsky resources, continued (pt # 15, above) with the implementation of the criminal psychological harassment regime - entailing my being dogged, hounded, harassed, persecuted, etc. e.g.

  • to prevent me from getting help with my Claim - e.g. 27 May 11 ; 28 Jul 11 - that also entailed the use of an helicopter, in case I gave the goons the run;
  • 11 Aug 11 - when I approached a law firm; 15 Aug 11 - again, entailing the use of an helicopter, because the goons had lost track of me;
  • on 7 Jul 11, it entailed interfering with a public phone box;
  • to determine whether I was going to deliver my documents to the court - e.g. 17 Oct 11.

Back to sections

18(3)- The pack of lies 09.08.11 MPS Order and repeated denials of my Appeal Application against it - led me to file a 26.01.12 Application with the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) (that was promptly communicated to Andrew Ladsky).

One judge, Vincent A. De Gaetano (Malta), rejected my Application - without giving a reason - thereby breaching Article 45 of the European Convention.

The trigger to my submitting a 26.01.12 Application to the ECtHR (ECt # 1) were the (above) 09.08.11 MPS Order and the (above) repeated denials of my Appeal Application against it.

In a 06.06.12 letter (my Comments are attached) one judge, Vincent A. De Gaetano (Malta), rejected my Application, claiming that it

"[failed] to meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention".

However, in blatant breach of Article 45 of the European Convention, he failed to state in what way.

My detailed analysis of both Articles lead me to the conclusion that the assertion is false (ECt # 2).

Consequently: that Judge De Gaetano approves of the violations of my Human Rights by HM's police, related services, and judiciaries. Further, that he considers himself exempt from compliance with the requirements of the European Convention (summary # 1.14).

(NB: The Rachman 'brother', Andrew Ladsky, was informed of my Application before I received the acknowledgment letter from the court: My Diary 26 Feb 12).

Back to sections

18(4) - Deliberate misrepresentation of my 18.09.12 letter to Sir Nicolas Bratza, then President of the ECtHR, demonstrates that the ECtHR cannot justify the rejection of my Application.

Also of note: (i)- I cannot find my Application on the ECtHR's database; (ii)- some 'fascinating' 2012 statistics on UK applications.

As 'my luck' would have it, at the time of my application, the ECtHR was under British mandate, headed by Sir Nicolas Bratza who, under court rules, had complete control over my Application (ECtHR # 2.1).

Wanting to get confirmation of my (above) conclusions, I sent him an 18.09.12 letter - asking: "Please, let me know in what way, if any, my conclusions are incorrect – such that they justify Judge De Gaetano’s rejection of my Application."

(Typically), to avoid dealing with my question, the 11.10.12 'reply' misrepresented my letter - thereby amounting to another 'Get Lost!' (ECt # 2.1 ; summary # 1.14).

Conclusion: it proves that the (above) 06.06.12 wholesale claim of "non-compliance with Articles 34 and 35" - cannot be substantiated - thereby confirming my (above) analysis, and conclusions - including the fact that Bratza found an extremely compliant judge from a little island. (I had been given a hint of this in Aug 11 (QB # 4.6(5)).

Of note: under the 2012 British Presidency (at the time of my 26.01.12 complaint), the percentage of UK applications "Declared inadmissible or struck out" more than doubled - from 28% in 2011, to 62% in 2012 (ECt # 3).

Also, while the court compiles statistics on applications 'declared inadmissible' - I cannot find my Application on the ECtHR's database.

Back to sections

18(5)- The obvious conclusions from the 'response' to my 15 Jan 13 'cry for help' to the Council of Europe's Nils Muižnieks, Commissioner for Human Rights, and Thorbjørn Jagland, Secretary General (also communicated immediately to Andrew Ladsky) are:

(1)- further confirmation that the ECtHR cannot justify the rejection of my Application; (2)- (among other) both perceive the ECtHR as being exempt from compliance with the requirements of the European Convention.

Having failed to resolve the matter with the ECtHR (above), I opted to send:

- asking them to "ensure that the European Court of Human Rights deals with my 26.01.12 Application" as, "in breach of my rights and of its remit, the Court is in fact refusing to deal with my Application" (ECt # 4).

BOTH washed their hands of it e.g. 19.02.13 letter from Mr Jagland (to which my Comments are attached) - by claiming that

"[they] cannot interfere with judicial decisions" (Muižnieks: ECt # 4(1)(3) ; Jagland: ECt # 4(2)(3)).


This is a blatant, and deliberate misrepresentation of my complaint...

  • the issue is - very clearly - not "a judicial decision" (the only thing that is "judicial" about it, is a judge deciding that he could exempt himself from compliance with the Convention),

The obvious conclusions are:

(1)- It provides further confirmation that 'the Defender of Human Rights', the ECtHR, cannot justify the rejection of my Application - leading to the conclusions that:

  • them free rein to continue with the wholesale violations of my Human Rights (QB # 3).

(2)- (Among other) both - Nils Muižnieks, Commissioner for Human Rights, and Thorbjørn Jagland, Secretary General - perceive the ECtHR as being exempt from compliance with the European Convention.

Hence: message to countries (backed up by United Nations Human Rights Chief, Zeid Ra’ad al-Hussein): 'Do as we say, not as we do'

(NB: Note that this court approves of Freemasonry).

(NB: (As happened with my Application), the 'brother', Andrew Ladsky, was informed immediately of my 15 Jan 13 letters: My Diary 19 Jan 13).

Back to sections

(19)- OVERALL OUTCOME TO DATE - in "Britain [, that] has a long and exemplary record on human rights":

Very blatantly discriminated against - because of my profile - making it abundantly clear to me, by treating me, the law-abiding, tax-paying individual, repeatedly like a piece of dirt who does not have the right to have rights;

that, unlike the criminals, of whom I am the glaringly obvious victim, I am outside the protection of the state and the law (in their case, (like that of those who help them), they are very clearly perceived to be 'above the law') - there to be used, abused and tormented at will - by ALL (list of KEY parties):

WARNING: If you are an innocent victim of crime, the English 'justice' system can be extremely dangerous to your health

  Nearly 7 whole years of horrendous torment and trauma at the hands of Her Majesty's courts and tribunal - which, by ignoring persistently the evidence, statutory and other legal requirements, have failed consistently to provide me with an effective remedy - thereby ensuring that the ongoing, horrendous torment continues:






HM London Tribunal - Oct 02-Nov 03 (# 2, above)

13 months


Breaches of the law

Overall outcome

John Prescott (Labour)

Brian Gale, the then Martin Russell Jones, CKFT and Andrew David Ladsky


HM West London County Court - Dec 02- Jul 04 (# 3, above)

20 months


Breaches of the law

Overall outcome

Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Jun 03-Jun 07) (Labour)

CKFT and Andrew Ladsky


HM Wandsworth County Court - Jun-Jul 04 (# 3, above)

7 weeks


Breaches of the law

Overall outcome

Lord Falconer of Thoroton

CKFT and Andrew Ladsky


HM West London County Court - Mar 07- Nov 08 (# 11, above)

21 months


Breaches of the law

Overall outcome

Lord Falconer of Thoroton

Jack Straw (Jun 07-May 10) (Labour)

Portner (and Jaskel) and Andrew Ladsky


HM Supreme Court Costs Office - Dec 08-Jan 09 (# 12, above)

2 months



Breaches of the law

Overall outcome

Jack Straw

Portner (and Jaskel) and Andrew Ladsky




HM Queen's Bench Division - Apr-Oct 11 (# 18(2), above)

6 months


Breaches of the law

Overall outcome

Kenneth Clarke (May 10-Sep 12) (Conservative)







Chris Grayling (Sep 12 - May 15) (Conservative)



European Court of Human Rights

1 year

Included because the injustice took place when the court was headed by a British judge - who very clearly had a hand in the unlawful rejection of my Application: above: # 18(3) and # 18(4). (In Aug 11, I had also been given that it would happen)

Kenneth Clarke


HM Stratford Employment Tribunal - Apr-Sep 08 (KPMG # 16)

5 months

My initial experience with this tribunal re. my 03.04.08 Claim against KPMG communicated that, had I pursued it, I was on course for a repeat of injustice.

Jack Straw


Looking at the outcomes of my above 9 experiences, (over a 9-year period) (*), anybody wants to argue with me that I am 'not justified' in:

  • (2)- describing ALL the individuals concerned - who are paid by taxpayers for ensuring the implementation of the rule of law - as acting as though they were / are at the exclusive service of Andrew David Ladsky and his gang of racketeers...
  • ...- there to assist them in their criminal activities, protect them from the legal consequences of their actions / lack of action, as well as inflict 'punishment' for 'my daring' to stand-up to ALL of them?

What kind of country would describe the conduct of the above as "an example to follow"?

(NB: For equally obvious reasons (*) - I hold the same views about the other part of the double act, the taxpayer-funded police and related - with the joint remit of ensuring the implementation of the rule of law (*) e.g. above: # 13 , # 15 , # 16 , # 17 and # 18.1.

(For snapshots of what they decided to actively assist and protect - see Extortion)

(Adding credence to my conclusions - see the Jan 14 Indy articles that report on police's findings of "corruption of the criminal justice system by Freemasons").

(*) A visitor to my site (Com # 4) wrote: "Once is accident, twice is coincidence, three times and it is enemy action". How do you describe 9 times?

(Like many others), I am providing the 'black-on-white' evidence. WHO, in authority, is going to have the spine to act on it to bring this country back to a time when it could be proud of its institutions?


•  As he had done since 2002, in continuing breach of numerous legislation, and of my Lease, Andrew David Ladsky feels free to continue tormenting me, by now having Martyn Gerrard send me fraudulent upon fraudulent demands - and Martyn Gerrard feels equally free to comply with his diktats.

Events lead me to conclude that they (with the back-up of supporters in the wider arena) have been planning the next attack (MG # 17) which, in the light of my experience with HM's courts since 2002, leads me to wonder when Ladsky's next - fraudulent - claim is going to be hanging over my head, and perversely and viciously pursued by some of HM's judiciaries,...

...and whether they might even grant him forfeiture (copy of definition) of my apartment (e.g. Comment # 19) - my main financial asset in my (forced) retirement, acquired through years of many, many sacrifices - because, his conduct is, 'of course', 'beyond reproach'.

•  Thanks to the despicable conduct of HM's judiciaries: Master Eyre, Justices Lang and Mackay, as well as that of Judge Vincent A. De Gaetano (Malta) and supporters in the ECtHR, and higher up:

•  Considering the nature of the additional data the police released to me in July 11 (summarised in my 29.08.11 police Witness Statement) (having previously claimed - falsely - under 2 statements of truth: 1st, 2nd - that it had "released data to me to the extent required and/or permitted under s.7(4) DPA") - it is a certainty that HM's police holds far more damaging - false - data against me. Indeed, the reaction of one of its officers, on 16 Oct 10, confirmed it.

•  Further, HM's police has provided data about me (no doubt, highly damaging) to 3rd parties, such as 'social services' to which I have been denied access, as it has UNLAWFULLY failed to provide me with their contact details. (As evidenced by somebody else's experience, once put on a 'blacklist' by the state for 'daring' to challenge anything, false, malicious data about an individual is circulated far and wide... even down to the refuse collectors!).

•  Nearly 3 whole years of my life, and tens of £000s in costs from my very hard-earned life-savings - fighting - in vain - against the pack of lies"crime reports".

•  In spite of my numerous attempts, HM's police refused to investigate my 2 well-documented complaints of harassment (about which, it lied, under a statement of truth). Ditto about this conduct being very clearly endorsed by HM's judiciaries, as well as by the ECtHR - thereby giving it carte blanche to repeat this treatment - should I attempt to report other harassment (obviously: no point)...

...including giving carte blanche to Andrew Ladsky who, in tandem with his henchmen in HM's police - can continue: (i) making me fear for my life, including dishing out death threats e.g. "Enjoy your life. You don't have long to live" - added to another one on 14 Jun 14 (see Comment # 13 for others' experience: "Violence and physical threats against other leaseholders were common") ; (ii) having me dogged, monitored, hounded, harassed and persecuted on a daily basis ; (iii) subjecting me to other forms of highly traumatic harassment and persecution...

...leaving me with absolutely nowhere to turn to for help.

•  HM's London tribunal continues to torment me by having, on its public database, a so-called 'summary of the case', as well as its 17.06.03 report - that falsely - and deliberately - accuse me of being responsible for "the delay" [IT caused] and a fictitious "[6%] cost increase" - thereby - deliberately - defaming my name, character and reputation.

•  The state continues to torment me by processing other defamatory documents against me, accessible by the public.

•  The state has carte blanche - endorsed by the European Court of Human Rights - and higher up - to unlawfully - continue to torment me by:

•  2 whole years of torment from endless, soul-destroying battles with the so-called 'regulators' who consistently rejected my legitimate complaints; torment heightened by making it abundantly clear to me that 'it's okay' for those I complained against to 'get away' with what they did to me v. what they would have done to me, if I had done the same to them. (Considering the examples of criminalization of 'the little people' by the Establishment: no prize for guessing where I would be: in jail).

Further, threatening me with defamation proceedings, including telling me that one of Ladsky's (glaringly obvious racketeers), would be 'entitled' to do the same thing against me.

  Causing me untold torment from making 'me' - the law-abiding, glaringly obvious victim of crime - spend - in vain - well over £180,000 in costs (US$312,000) to defend myself against fraudulent claims, as well as libellous and racist reports against me - hence: from my life-savings, accumulated through very hard work and many sacrifices.

• Causing me untold torment from knowing that I have lost over £1 million of potential income and pension.

• Forcing me, as a last resort 'cry for help' (so far, in vain), to set-up this website, and then maintain it - as my only form of 'protection'...

...- a protection the British state tried to remove in early 2014, by hacking into my computer in order to attempt to delete my website. (It had failed to gain the closure of my website in 2007: pt 13, above).


WHY? The extremely shocking, outrageous and unbelievable reason: ALL because 'Dear Mr Andrew David Ladsky' decided he was 'entitled' to make a multi-million £ jackpot - through extortion, persecution, etc. - at my (and fellow leaseholders') expense...

Back of Jefferson House in July 2002 and... September 2005

...- to which ALL, in his army of henchmen, said:

'YES, of course, O' Great One!'

(To do what he did - to gain £500k - isn't 'Mr Big' - is it? So: why the unfailing support?

Because he is Jewish, and / or because he is a Freemason who – as a result of his own actions – has exposed other Freemasons who, cowardly, take it out on me instead of him?)

Are there any institutions left that are not prostituting themselves to criminals?

Back to sections

(20)- YES: THE ROOT CAUSE for ALL that has happened to me stems from 'my daring', in 2002, to challenge - as per the rights the legislators have told me I have the right to demand - a fraudulent £14,400 (US$25,400) 'service charge' demand...

...and from my doing exactly what the British state told me I needed to: defer to its departments for 'justice, redress and protection' - which proved to be a GIGANTIC CON - and hence, a MONUMENTAL mistake on my part to believe the state's 'Ministry of Truth's propaganda.

'My daring' to refuse to accept it, has led to my being persecuted ever since.

As I wrote in my 07.11.09 letter to 'my' (then) MP, Sir Malcolm Rifkind:

"To be the victim of crime is one thing. (There are criminals everywhere). But to be victimized and persecuted by State departments with the mandate to ensure my rights for justice, redress and protection (which, as a taxpayer, I am entitled to expect), and see these departments side against me with the perpetrators - is absolutely outrageous”.

(NB: In relation to my complaint, Rifkind demonstrated outrageous conduct with the then Parliamentary Ombudsman).

In fact, I view it as conduct that is far worse than that of the 'traditional mafia' as, as I understand it, when you pay it 'for protection' - it does protect you.



(NB: Choice of visual: I am a red belt at kick-boxing)

I WILL NOT "SUFFER IN SILENCE". (Quote from a previous government website, targeted at children, that stated: "Don't suffer in silence. Bullying hurts and you don't have to endure it". At 2012, the replacement website stated: "Bullying can affect you in many ways. You may lose sleep or feel sick... You may even be thinking about suicide").

Spending part of my childhood in an orphanage, etc., has given me an iron will. I made myself what I am through enormous sacrifices and a lot of hard work.

I will NOT, as blatantly expected by everybody, walk away, like 'a good little girl', ignoring the unbelievable injustice and suffering I have and continue to be subjected to since 2002 - as the glaringly obvious innocent victim of organized crime,...

...being expected to do this for the sake of an evil, greed-ridden crook getting away with a multi-million £ jackpot, and to save the sorry, corrupt skin of those who decided that he, and his gang of racketeers, have 'the right' to defraud me and commit other criminal offences against me in the pursuit of their objective...

...because: I HAVE, and continue to be made to pay for the public institutions that promised me 'justice, redress and protection'; I will not live my retirement in destitution as a direct consequence of their actions that have robbed me, in addition of my life since 2002, of the major part of what I have worked for in my 40+ years in this country, including the nest egg I had accumulated through very hard work and big sacrifices, as well as future potential income.

I did not ask for pity, using the excuse of what happened to me in my childhood. I took the bull by the horns and worked damn hard to ensure modest financial security - putting myself through 7 years of studying from age 24 - culminating in an MBA.

I earned my money honestly. I did not steal it. I did not acquire it through extortion, by deceiving, defrauding, blackmailing, terrorising, tormenting, harassing, victimizing, abusing, bullying, threatening and persecuting others.

I am not going to let anybody take that away from me simply because 'they decided so'. Further: I have done nothing wrong.

Heavily bruised and battered as I am, I am a fighter and I will continue to "fight like a demon to the very end. If my flat is going to lead to my drawing the last breath out of my body. So be it. At least it will be a last breath that I will draw feeling extremely proud of myself and with my integrity intact"...

(as I wrote in my 06.04.05 letter to Michael Howard, then leader of the Conservative Party). (How many of those connected in one way or another with my case will be able to say that when they draw their last breath?)

To quote Che Guevara "I would rather die standing up, than live life on my knees". And I really mean that. I will fight to the death.

In any case, if, after doing all that I have done, I still do not get justice and redress: I do not want to live in a world like that: dedicated to crime, controlled by crime, for the benefit of crime. I don't fit in in a moral vacuum.

So, if that is going to be the case, in the light of, among other, the death threat hanging over my head since 15 Jun 09: "Enjoy your life. You don't have long to live" - added to another one on 14 Jun 14 - like the elderly Lady said: "You want to kill me. Go ahead".

However, be in no doubt that, until then, with God's help, I will continue fighting like a demon for justice and redress.

It is this determination, refusal to be intimidated by the fear tactics and other forms of criminal psychological harassment, as well as refusal to "suffer in silence" - that have led to my being persecuted ever since.

Pre the launch of my website, 'the persecution regime' stemmed from my ‘daring’ to stand-up to Ladsky, his gang of racketeers, and their mates in ‘the Brotherhood’.

To this, post launch, has been added the fact that, through my website, I am holding a mirror to their face, and they don't like the reflection - as it reflects their / their friends’ failure to do their job, frequently amounting to failure to perform their legal remit / malpractice / complicity / collusion / corruption / fraud - as well as their lies and underlying greed.

Evidently, in this island-kingdom, somebody 'like me', 'a Prole', doing this - amounts to committing 'a heinous crime'. (Events re. e.g. (1)- the whistleblower hunted by HM Revenue & Customs under anti-terrorism legislation for exposing a secret multi-million £s "sweetheart" tax deal it made with Goldman Sachs ; (2)- the 'secret prisoners' ; (3)- the woman blacklisted by her council;

(4)- the man arrested at dawn, and locked-up in a police cell ; (5)- re. Mr Jean Charles de Menezes: the Canadian Lady being hounded by the police, and locked-up in a police cell, etc....

- (6) other examples: Whistleblowers - including the very sickening treatment of the very brave National Health whistleblowers - ALL typify the dominant psyche.

This island-kingdom spends millions of £s persecuting those who 'dare' to stand-up for what is right).

In addition to what has been taking place since 2007 (detailed above), the fact that my website has been the primary reason for the ongoing persecution since, was confirmed undeniably in the course of the proceedings in relation to my 19 Apr 11 Claim: “Master Eyre is not pleased with your website”.

The fury of the corrupt elements in ‘the Brotherhood’ stems from the fact that what I report on this website is THE TRUTH – backed-up by more than 2,500 documents and hundreds of photographs, as well as videos.

As I wrote under para.58 of my 17.10.11 Request (QB # 4(7)3): “If my ‘criticisms and accusations’ ...were not justified and true, I would no doubt have had proceedings filed against me a long time ago...."

(I highlight that, in 2013, my reworking the main legal pages in order to add clarity to my case, led to a massive increase in the attacks by British Transport Police helicopters).

(NB: I draw your attention to the requirements for 'defamation' under the Defamation Act 2013. Also to my comments under Article 10 of the European Convention).

Contrast what I report on this website, with the following examples of media reports accessible on the website of the media organisations - re. the public sector - e.g.:

  • (1) The death, through neglect, of up to 1,200 people at the Stafford Hospital, and subsequent events (My Diary 15 Jun 09).

The experience of: (1)- The Guardian newspaper having the state demand it destroys harddrives and files; (2)- Channel 4 having "the police use strong tactics" in an attempt to get documents it received from a whistleblower...

...indicate that journalists can also be targeted by the state for exposing 'inconvenient' information.

WHY do they ALL 'very conveniently' overlook the fact that Andrew Ladsky is the ROOT CAUSE for ALL that has happened - including overlook the fact that I have already given in once - in 2003? Ladsky has caused their exposure - NOT me.

And THEY, in turn, have caused their ongoing exposure as a result of their unbelievable arrogance and stupidity.

If only the intelligence of the corrupt elements in 'the Brotherhood' could amount to 1% of their arrogance / 1% of their extreme cruelty, viciousness and sadism - I would have been out of the country in 2003, blocking it out of my memory for ever, and moving on with my life.

(NB: To give them ALL the opportunity to show common sense and intelligence by resolving my situation - leading me to close the website, and leave the country - I purposely did NOT update my website:

  • For 7 months, from May to Dec 07 (by May, my site had only been online for 4.5 months, hence, relatively few people outside of 'the Brotherhood' had seen it). They did NOT!
  • I did this again, this time for 8.5 months, from mid July 09 to end Mar 10.
  • In my 07.11.09 letter to 'my' (then) MP Sir Malcolm Rifkind, I wrote: "As my MP, will you be ‘The One’ who – finally - demonstrates intelligence and common sense and say ‘Enough is Enough!’ and help me achieve my objectives – thereby seizing on the opportunity you still have to take the credit for resolving my situation? (Significant correspondence from you, and from me to you since July, has yet to be placed on my website). (I would like to leave the country permanently – alive and well – having achieved my objectives - by the end of this year)" . The 10.11.09 'reply' : "I acknowledge receipt of your letter of 7th November addressed to Sir Malcolm. Yours sincerely"

Since 2002, the amount of (among other) taxpayers' money that has so far been spent dishing out the highly vicious, cruel, perverse, sadistic, barbaric vendetta against me must be in the tens of £ millions (taking the Julian Assange case as a benchmark) - and therefore many, many times the cost of resolving my situation.

(As demonstrated by: this example where several million £s have been spent pursuing a vendetta against a very brave NHS whistleblower ; the multi-million £s spent prosecuting a journalist.

This other example where several million £s were, likewise, spent - the lengths they will go to, and hence costs (at taxpayers' expense), 'to get somebody's scalp' - know absolutely no bound). (See also, above, links to whistleblower cases).

(See the example, above, of Michael Durant, who lamented: "None of these bodies has said to me 'let us try and resolve my complaint'").

And 'I' am branded "a Nazi" - "because of my franco-german (sic) origin" - by Andrew David Ladsky, his henchmen at Notting Hill and Kensington police - and in Her Majesty's Queen's Bench Division?!?!

(NB: Note that they do not have the evidence to support their absolutely outrageous, as well as racist accusation - because it does not exist. As explained under pt # 13, above, since 2007, they have attempted desperately to create it, including HM's Master Eyre who, having failed in his ploy, nonetheless endorsed it in 'his' 09.08.11 Order: (QB # 4(6))

Using their theme - in my world: these people are the 21st century 'Nazis' (dictionary definition); the corrupt, amoral 'Brotherhood' elements who created, maintain and control a tyrannical environment, in which hitlerian Ladsky is given carte blanche to run Jefferson House like a 'concentration camp'.

I think that 'I' should be the one who "speaks to social services" to report them as "suffering from [very serious] mental issues".

(Comparing people to Hitler appears to be a British thing: e.g. Prince Charles re. President Putin.)

It is extremely shocking and truly sickening to see how, in this country, that claims to have "a long and exemplary record on human rights", is part of Western Europe, in the 21st century

- as a law-abiding, taxpaying, glaringly obvious innocent victim of crime - having the guts to take the moral stance and stand by your principles, stand-up for your rights and speak out against injustice and wrongdoings - ...

  • results in all your means of communication being - unlawfully - monitored, as well as interfered with (above, # 15),...

...leaving you with absolutely nowhere to turn to for help (*)

As an innocent victim of crime, where do you turn to for help when the state IS THE MAFIA?

The 'traditional' mafia? - (other than the type associated with the state e.g. Ladsky's) (probably none left because it cannot compete with the state). Terrorist networks?

(*) As I explain under QB # 6(1), (and in my Comments to the 09.08.11 Home Office Order) (assessment subsequently supported by media articles): I submit that I have no protection whatsoever against the blatant abuse of power by the British state.

While, mercifully, I still come across some genuinely kind hearted English people, starting with my, very sadly, deceased, Honorary Mum, I absolutely adored and miss terribly - considering that:

...: what does that suggest about this society? Because, based on my value system, this conduct and concurrent conspiracy of silence, and hence, complicity, are totally, totally beyond my comprehension - it leads me to the conclusion that it has become a profoundly sick and very frightening society.

Consider what they are ALL doing it for.

What is their motive in doing this? For the sake of a pat on the back from their boss / approval by individuals with money / power? According to the following, there is a far more disturbing explanation:

The Stanley Milgram's 'obedience experiments' - and in particular, the conclusion, 50 years later, reported in the Guardian, 1 Sep 11, "Stanley Milgram taught us we have more to fear from zealots than zombies":

"people follow leaders because they see them as representative of an identity that they share;

they don't inflict harm because they are unaware of doing wrong but because they believe what they are doing is right."

(A cop said to a protester: "People would sell their soul to the devil". Well, I would NOT - for all the riches in the world). (Another saying: 'Once you've sold your soul to the devil, you have to dance to his tune).

Needless to say that I am far from being the only one at the receiving end of this extremely cruel, vicious, sadistic, barbaric treatment for 'daring' to challenge the Establishment.

See examples: Media page ; Comments sent on my website ; Stop the Oppression of the British People (comments received on site, at 2010) ; Victims Unite ; CASIA victims ; police ; Whistleblowers.

In his 10 July 09 article, headed "What kind of country sacks a dinner lady for telling the truth?" the Daily Mail columnist, Richard Littlejohn wrote: "This government has a long and ignoble record of persecuting whistleblowers and dissenters who reveal institutional wrongdoing and incompetence". At the time, Labour was in power. Clearly, nothing has changed under its successor.

Against my above experience, and that of others, consider the Civil Service claims in e.g. its recruitment ad of 4 Oct 09, in The Sunday Times for, among others, the Ministry of (In)Justice We value objectivity, honesty, integrity and impartiality. (They must have been rolling on the floor with laughter when they wrote that).

Events at the Stafford Hospital, as well as others, led the Guest Contributor, Harriet Sergeant, to write, in her 28 Feb 10 article, in The Sunday Times,"The state sector's big evil: it does not sack":

"However horrific is the offence, rarely is anyone brought to book, let alone sacked... those responsible for shocking treatment of the public remain untouched and even flourish...(*)

...Making politicians look good too often has come at the expense of the public in their care"

(*) Examples: Siobhan McGrath, Fiona Woolf, Zahida Manzoor, bankers.

As the long-standing campaigner, Barry Gardiner, Labour MP, (covered under Prescott # 4.2 & # 4.3) said during the 26 Jun 09 House of Commons debate on leasehold 'reform', in particular, service charge demands:

"To have a right but no means of enforcing that right is to have no right at all"

[There is nowhere to turn to for help]

During the debate, Jacqui Lait, Conservative MP, challenged the minister, Rosie Winterton by stating:

"The minister really needs to consider what is happening in the real world, as opposed to what is happening in the legislative world.

Many leaseholders experience a total disregard for any of the rights that she is reading out; she must bear in mind that what she is reading out is not what happens to leaseholders."

(Add to that the fact that the so-called 'rights' can then be assessed as "NOT freestanding" - added to others, deliberately intended to, likewise, exploit and abuse leaseholders).

The action from the May 2010 Coalition Government? A continuation of previous governments' lack of action. Indeed, its then Housing Minister, Grant Shapps, was quoted as saying:

"With the vast majority of England's three million leaseholders happy with the service they receive, I am satisfied that the current system strikes the right balance between the rights and responsibilities of tenants and landlords."

In the context of relating the experience of a friend, Julian Knight of the Independent wrote in his 11 Jul 10 article "Minister says all is well with leaseholders. He'd better think again..."

" I'm afraid, Mr Shapps, you are either deluded or simply don't give a damn". "Here at the Independent on Sunday we are getting complaints from across the country about management companies, their disproportionate service charges and overcharging for maintenance work".

Mr Knight also wrote, among other, in relation to his friend's case:

"In any other part of daily life, the freeholder and his brother would more than likely be had up for fraud - but not in the arcane world of freeholders, leaseholders, and management companies".

My case is a perfect example of this (but nothing 'mysterious' about it: it's called extortion, fraud, collusion and corruption - in a deliberately - totally unregulated environment).

And the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS), legal sector, police, - go out of their way to support the 21st century 'Rachmans' (see examples of media articles / reports). (See My Diary 4 Feb 11 for Shapps responding to me that he was "not convinced of the case for further regulation").

I, therefore, also add my voice to Mr Knight's article of 19 Aug 12: "Stop sheltering dodgy freeholders, Mr Shapps". (NB: In the game of musical chairs, Shapps was replaced).

A member wrote to C.A.R.L.:"There is nowhere for leaseholders to turn to! No prosecuting authority = no law enforcement = anarchy"...

...echoing Lord Denning, in his book, "What next in the law?",

“Whoever may be guilty of abuse of power, be it the Government, State, employer, trade-union, or whoever, the law must provide a speedy remedy, otherwise the victims will find their own remedy. There will be anarchy”

(Note that the UK Human Rights Act 1998 OMITS 2 critical Articles from the European Convention on Human Rights (document obtained from the Council of Europe's website):

  • Article 1 - Obligation to respect Human Rights
  • Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy

Add to that the fact that the UK does not have a constitution. With which country/ies do these facts put the UK on a par with?) (However, as demonstrated by my above experience (pts #18(3) to #18(5)) - their being omitted is irrelevant).

To those who say "people should raise their concerns", I say : GET REAL! Not only is there NOWHERE for the 'little people' to turn to, it seems to me that more is being put in place 'to shut them up' e.g. the Confidential Intelligence Unit.

In spite of my experience to date (Case summary ; Résumé de mon cas) - and all this evidence: I AM continuing with my fight for justice and redress - with God's help - to the last breath in my body - because these are my rights. I have done nothing wrong.

I am the glaringly obvious victim of organized crime - not the criminal (contrary to Her Majesty's Kensington & Notting Hill police description of Ladsky as being "my victim", in a "crime report" it holds against me (police # 3 KP (3)1(1)).

Nobody has the right to tell me that I 'should' continue to accept the ever growing injustice... unless they are prepared to compensate me for ALL that I have lost and suffered. (None have offered).

As a law-abiding, British National, and net contributor to this society, who has paid over £500,000 (US$882,000) in tax since arriving in this country - and has, as told by the state, deferred to its departments for 'justice, redress and protection': I have the right to demand that it fulfils its legal mandate. Ditto about the so-called 'regulators'. It is their stated remit to protect me from abuses, and to therefore take remedial action.

I repeat: I will not walk away for the sake of a crook getting away with a multi-million £ jackpot, and to save the sorry, corrupt skin of those who decided that he, and his gang of racketeers, have 'the right' to defraud me and commit other criminal offences against me in the pursuit of their objective.

I do not see why I should take on the role of the fugitive i.e. behave as though I am in the wrong, I am 'the criminal'. I also find it absolutely outrageous that, in the 21st century, in a country that calls itself 'civilised', I should justify my not wanting to be robbed of all of my hard-earned life savings, as well as potential income.

And if I fail to achieve my personal objectives?

I very dearly hope that my exposing chapter and verse of my very shocking case will act as a trigger for change and spare other leaseholders from going through the horrendous suffering I have and continue to endure since 2002. This will be my legacy, for a cause which, thanks to my extremely bad luck in buying a leasehold apartment in a block that ended-up under the control of the Andrew Ladsky gang of racketeers - chose me.

There HAS to be change. Slavery has NO PLACE in the 21st century. As very amply demonstrated by my experience (Case summary), it will require a lot of guts and fierce determination to prevent a repeat of what I have and continue to be subjected to - as it happens to be a cause that adversely concerns some very powerful people in this country.

In the meantime, as I continue to accumulate the horrendous evidence of what can happen to an honest, decent, law-abiding leaseholder who 'dares' to challenge a criminal landlord and the supporting infrastructure - I have the satisfaction of knowing, from the comments I receive on my website, that it is of help to others...

- which, on its own, must be a cause of extreme anger against me as, key to beating leaseholders into submission, is to have them isolated, ignorant of their rights (Business model). Knowledge is power, and, united, leaseholders have power e.g. the case of the 78 pensioners (with the support of their MP and the media) (There ARE some good MPs!).

While I really, really wish that in 2002 I knew what I know now - even though I am now heading towards the pavement and my death: I have no regrets. If the choice is being the person that I am v. being like those who have / continue to act against me - in one way or another / are failing to perform their duty - there is no contest... the ONLY thing that ALL these sheep-brained individuals can say is:

"I turned a blind eye and a deaf ear / did what I did / said what I said / wrote what I wrote because 'Dear Mr Andrew Ladsky' and his aides decided that Noëlle (and her fellow leaseholders) were going to pay for the construction of a penthouse and addition of three other apartments to Jefferson House - costs for which Noëlle (and her fellow leaseholders) are NOT liable - so that Ladsky could realise a multi-million £s jackpot.

So, what can be said about me? Not only do I approve of deceit and fraud (NB: among others, threats of "forfeiture, bankruptcy proceedings and costs", and court claims = FRAUD TOOLS), I also endorse the other illegal, and often criminal tactics used against Noëlle (and her fellow leaseholders) in the pursuit of this objective: psychological harassment, bullying, victimization, blackmail, extortion, intimidation, defamation of name and character, etc."...

However, as the standard reply "There are lessons to be learnt" won't wash in my case, the likelihood is that when I am dead, 'they' will say the same thing to my family, as in the case of e.g. Mr Ian Tomlinson, the G20 innocent bystander who died following being hit by the police:

"inappropriate to take-up their concerns...There is nothing any of us can say to reverse the situation", and what the then PHSO, Ann Abraham, said to Mr & Mrs Titcombe, following the death of their little boy, at Morecambe Bay hospital: "there would be "no worthwhile outcome" in pursuing an investigation"... while having a mega celebration 'backstage'.

I am extremely sorry I ever set foot in this country.

It gave me a life and then took it away...

...- on the diktats of Andrew David Ladsky, an evil, vampiric, greed-ridden monster...

...- and ALL for the sake of a penthouse and 3 other apartments!

I evidently missed out on an announcement that he and his gang of racketeers have overall control of this island-kingdom (and control, they certainly have).

O Great One, Andrew David Ladsky, our Most Revered Lord and Master - as you know: your wishes are our command - and continue to be our command. WE'LL GET THE BITCH!

  C O M M E N T S

Back to sections


To HostDime, my priceless American website Host who has so consistently supported me:

THANK YOU A MILLION TIMES for believing me... and many million times more.

You truly deserve first prize for your integrity and extraordinary courage in standing your ground against 'Notting Hill police' and Ladsky's Jeremy Hershkorn, Portner and Jaskel (and, no doubt, others in 'the Brotherhood').


(See top of page for setting up your browser)


Now in YEAR 15 - The assassins (*) in the British state and the Andrew David Ladsky gang of racketeers are continuing to persecute me relentlessly in what I can now only describe as a tyrannical hellhole (explanation).

It is as though there is a competition between them as to who can act in the most depraved, barbaric way.

(Re. the British state: the 'Overall outcome to date' (# 19, above) is to be added - as it also continues to fail to address the situation).

(Case Summary) ; (Résumé de mon cas) (pdf)

(*) Because of its accuracy, from now on, I am going to use this as the standard description.


(1 of Latest) - The Andrew David Ladsky gang of racketeers


Graphic representation of the situation:


See summary on MG's page; my more detailed pdf summary.

Yes! After 8 demands of my 'apparently' consuming a growing, then declining amount of 'negative electricity' - the 13th, 14th and 15th unsupported demands break the trend - the latter by an amount that is 3 times my estimate.

(My pattern of electricity consumption did not change during September and October 2016 - and nor did it relative to the previous demands).

Doesn't this graph - on its own - demonstrate blatant ongoing criminal psychological harassment?

See summary on MG's page; my more detailed pdf summary.

A combination of:

(1)- Since the beginning of 2016, they have sent me 7 demands and 2 'reminders' (bringing the total to 3).

Among the points of note (in chronological order):

  • (1)- In the 21.01.16 demand (from yet a new member of Satan's den: Stuart G Burchell AIRPM) - making it version 8...

(Might there be a connection with the major works from Oct 14 to Mar 15 - which Kensington & Chelsea planning claimed "did not breach planning requirements"? (Planning App # 4.3))

  • (3)- A 27.05.16 demand stating only "£90 penalty charges for non-payment" (making it the 3rd one) - timed to arrive on the day of my departure to France for a two-week holiday.

As I had arranged my trip detail with my family and friends by my email - it provides, yet again, confirmation that the the "fantastically corrupt" psycho GCHQ and police 'Stasi', are continuing to monitor my emails very closely, including reading them...

- and reporting their contents to their masters - so that ALL can add to their sadistic kicks.

  • 1.5 years later, the demand provides 'some information' "for year 2015" - for which Gerrard had not sent me any demand (MG # 28);
  • reveals the addition of a "£30 late payment charge" in 2015".

It also reveals that, to cover up their particularly outrageous demands "for 2011" and "for 2012" (this printscreen demonstrates this clearly) - the racketeers fraudulently added more than 3.5 years ground (£2,200) to the 4 years, pre Martyn Gerrard, I do not owe (MG # 33).

  • (5)- 19 months after issuing the 27.03.15 "notice", another new member of Satan's den, Jeremy Doran MIRPM, sent a 27.10.16 "notice" that is very similar to the previous: "notice of repairs and internal and external decorations" - with the addition of "replacement of the communal carpet".
  • It excludes what the previous "notice" stated: "to implement some of the suggestions highlighted in the fire risk assessment" (Notices # 7)...
  • which, 'the landlord' is translating as: removal of the door closer on the door in the communal corridor, one meter to the right of the door to my apartment.

(2)- While the above 08.08.16 'reminder' was the first 'response' to my letter to Mirvis, the second 'response' - also prompted by the fact that I waited until Nov 16 to report the 2016 events on my website, leading to the mob and its supporters evidently suffering from acute withdrawal symptoms...

was this 19.10.16 illegal and threatening letter (includes my Comments) from shyster Mark Henry Wagner, Wagner & Co - a jack of all trades and master of none (detail under Advisors # 5A).

Claiming to have "looked at my website", he has very clearly deliberately ignored all my supporting evidence against the demands - thereby amounting to endorsing the conduct of his "client", "Greyclyde Investments Ltd".

According to Mark Wagner, who "has calculated the sum of £43,785.82" (US$76,030) - 'I owe' this amount - because his "client says so". So, 'of course': it must be true!

This translates into Wagner finding it, 'perfectly acceptable' for Martyn Gerrard to demand I pay monies to 'a landlord' - in relation to which, in breach of legal requirement, I still do not know the details (example # 2, above).

Hence, 9 years on (header 5 of my 03.06.08 Witness Statement) - I still do not know who controls my home.

And "to pay":

  • "ground rent" - when it has not been asked as legally required; when I am told, it has been "paid", "credited", and then going back on it by asking for it;

Typically for somebody who works for the mob, he uses bullying and blackmail tactics - by using the usual FEAR weapons: threatens me with "proceedings"; dangles the threat of "costs".

Come on! What's to lose in this totally unregulated kingdom?! It's the Wild West.

  • allowing the judiciary to fall over backwards to help the crooked landlords and their aides...(when it concerns 'little people' like me - as the wealthy and powerful who challenge one of the sector's players end-up getting 'justice' e.g. Qatari government v. Candy brothers);

added to the fact that, in my case, the gang has control over the state, and Martyn Gerrard is operating with its support.

= Opportunities galore to indulge in criminal activities - without fear of sanctions.

Further, 'the benefit' of doing this is that it 'endorses' the mob's claims to its “arslikhancorrupt flunkeys and lapdogs - who, like Wagner, do not want to see the very damning evidence.

E.g. its scumbag-plant on 12 Oct 15 who regurgitated to me the malicious and slanderous story he had been fed: “Surely, [I] must understand that [I] have to pay service charges that cannot be specified in advance”.

(The same vicious, malicious, libellous lie about me (added to a lot more) has been disseminated by the Kensington police supremacists in its so-called "crime reports" - since 2003, to more than 50,000 people).

Oh! and it will also give a lot of sadistic kicks to the other assassins who also perceive themselves as being 'my victims'.

"Having looked at [my] website", monster Mark Henry Wagner has the gall to state in his 19.10.16 letter:

"...provide an explanation as to why you feel you are entitled to live in the property (which you have unfortunately described as a “concentration camp”) without paying ground rent and / or service charges.”

To my highlighting the saying: 'You can take a horse to water, but you can't force it to drink':

I am NOT "living"; this gang of thoroughly evil supremacist racketeers have robbed me of my life since 2002.

I am still in it - against my will - as a direct result of the action by Mark Wagner's psycho client in 2004 - when I wanted to leave this island-kingdom forever.

But vindictive Andrew David Ladsky would not let go, hell-bent on destroying me for 'daring' to stand up to him, and interfere in the realisation of his multi-million £s jackpot.

To Mark Wagner's demand for "a reply by 4 November", in my 03.11.16 letter, I replied:

"As your “client” has failed to respond to all my correspondence over the last 5 years and 3 months – including a statutory notice requiring a response “within 21 days of receipt” – it can wait another week."

As promised, I sent Wagner my 10.11.16 reply - having, the previous day, placed it on my website, with all the documents referred to.

The 14.11.16 'response' (contains my Comments) to my 10.11.16 reply:

Mark Wagner's "client, Greyclyde Investments Ltd has instructed [him] to issue a claim against [me] for unpaid ground rent"

And he did: 21.12.16 claim.

(It makes it the third claim filed against me by the mob since 2002: (1)- 2002, also just before Christmas (# 3 above); (2)- in 2007 (# 11 above))

'Merry' Christmas and 'Happy' New Year 2017 to me!

(No doubt, many of the whistleblowers are not going to have a great time either).

And the rest, initially claimed in the 19.10.16 correspondence, the £41,180?

The mob must be discussing the approach with their supporters: judiciaries and politicians - and perhaps also with some of their other tribe members.

(3)- During 2016, my "security lock provider" Banham, has also continued to play its part in support of the Ladsky mafia and its police lapdogs - by continuing to park frequently in front of my windows.

(No, there has not (yet) been: (1)- another major flooding of my apartment; (2)- further banging on my windows in the middle of night, as on 22 Feb 13, or (3)- hosing of my windows, also in the middle of the night (on many occasions). No doubt, this is going to disappoint the mob's supporters).

(NB: More people have recently discovered 'the joys of the residential leasehold system') (other findings).


(2 of Latest) - The British state


(2.1 of Latest) - Her Majesty's British Transport Police helicopters

Well so far this year (Nov 16), I only have 3 to report - that includes an attack, in Hyde Park, lasting for 30 minutes,...

whilst there has been some occasional very low flying over 'the concentration camp' to communicate fury at something I have done, added to two such instances when I was in an internet café - to demonstrate that they knew where I was (summary 2016).

(Contrast that with the summaries for years 2013, 2014 and 2015).

It has to do with the fact that I have been working in 'the concentration camp' i.e. the apartment, instead of using libraries.

Thus, through the in-house sentinels, I am under the direct surveillance of their multi-criminal masters, or else, 'usually' within the vicinity of 'the concentration camp'.

(2.2 of Latest) - Other attacks by the British state include:

Since the beginning of 2016, the British state has, in addition to the above - of course - continued to unlawfully stalk me, hound me, persecute me, harass me, and monitor me.

(This island-kingdom continues to turn more and more into Orwell's 1984).

I categorically accuse the power-corrupted, ego-crazed evil monsters and supremacists in Kensington, Chelsea and Notting Hill police...

of being the KEY drivers and assassins behind my being hounded and persecuted on an ongoing basis by the police and security services - since at least 2005 - and thus KEY parties in the ongoing destruction of my life.

(They are just as vindictive with their own e.g. Chief Inspector John Buttress, Greater Manchester Police - not to mention their treatment of members of the public - for which they are not usually held to account - due to the typical institutional closing of rank).

(1)- As per usual, it has been doing this in conjunction with the Ladsky mafia resources - operating as a fully integrated team.

(1)- In the streets

I am only reporting those I could not fail to notice - as I am not wasting my time constantly scanning my environment.

  • On 1 Mar 16, a goon, in a police unmarked car (LL65 JHK) / one of the Ladsky's 'Mossad' 'dogs' (= same difference) had tracked me to a place in Harrington Gardens - and departed when he realised that I had spotted him.
  • On 15 Sep 16, ensuring he would get my attention, one of the local police goons came in the garden behind the Brompton Oratory - most likely as retaliation for my 'daring' to make a one-finger sign at his mates the previous day, on the underground.

(2)- In the underground

Wanting to test whether I continue to also be tracked by the psychos in the underground's CCTV control rooms, on 14 Sep 16, at Bank station, before getting on the escalator to go down to the Northern platforms, I made a one-finger sign at the camera.

The 'response' was swift: three-quarters of the way down the escalator, the message about "feeling unwell" e.g. 1 Oct 15 ; 11 Oct 15+ - was played.

While this time, it could be justified by the weather conditions - what demonstrated that I was the target is the fact that the message was played again 4 seconds later, when I had come off the escalator, and had just entered the platform that is c.2 metres from the escalator

(2)- My means of communication:

  • - as evidenced by the fact that the Martyn Gerrard mafia timed the arrival of its (first time ever 1st class post) 27.05.16 demand solely for the purpose of communicating "penalty charges for non-payment: £90", as well as "arrears of £45,506" - on the day of my departure to France, for a two-week holiday.
  • My post - I have evidence (at least in Aug-Sep 16) that (of course) the state continues to unlawfully intercept and retain my post.
  • CORRECTION: Untypically relative to the previous years, the insurance company sent me the documents towards the end of October. However, some of my other post might continue to be intercepted.

ALL of this = evidence that Her Majesty's evil tyrants Theresa May, then Home Secretary, and Philip Hammond continued to sign warrants upon warrants (surveillance ; communications) against me - yes! using anti-terrorism legislation,...

- and that May's replacement, Amber Rudd, is doing the same thing,...

- with the ultimate objective of "...killing [me], zipping up the bag, bringing [me] to the morgue...".

I am the glaringly obvious (long-standing) victim of organized crime who has done absolutely nothing wrong - and I am the one who is treated, not only as a criminal, but also as a terrorist...

leaving ALL the perpetrators of crime against me to laugh their head off at me.

Will they issue "extremism-disruption orders" against themselves for being KEY instigators of "hate" against me?

I look forward to their spending at least 5 years in prison.

I can see why the Jewish community is falling over itself gushing praise at its 'very dear' and "attentive" friend, Theresa May.

(Re. what Kensington police has been doing against me since 2002, note that the home secretaries HAVE the power to suspend forces e.g. "UK police forces ‘still abusing stop and search powers’", The Guardian, 11 Feb 16 - "Home secretary suspends 13 forces...")

(3)- 23 May 16 - With the aim of isolating me even more, the police assassins continue to turn people against me - by adding - one more Judas who "sold his soul to the devil"!

(As an aside, I must report that I have, for the first time ever, sent a complimentary letter to the police to: Chief Constable Susannah Fish, Nottinghamshire Police).

(As a second aside: Another one of my enemies, Keith Vaz, got his comeuppance...well, sort of, as he has already resurfaced).

As the Metropolitan police claimed to have spent £9m between Jun 12 and Oct 14 (i.e. an average of £10,400 per day) policing the Ecuadorian embassy re. Julian Assange, and Lord Carlisle stated on BBC Radio 4, in Aug 14 that "It requires 60 people per year to have somebody followed":

how many tens of millions of £s of taxpayers' money have the Home Secretaries, since 2005, abusively spent having ME - the glaringly obvious victim of crime - unlawfully - hounded and persecuted - on a daily basis? I ask the same question of the Foreign Secretaries.

Madame "Je suis Juif": as part of the millions of £s given to the Jewish militia aka the Community Security Trust...

- do the taxpayers also pay for the Jewish Ladsky mafia's 'dogs' - as they operate hand in glove with the police and related?

To what level does it bring the total 'Crush - at any cost - the Daring Proles Pot'?

(NB: I am only one of many on whom the British state spends millions of £s of taxpayers' money dishing out extremely cruel, vicious, sadistic, barbaric vendettas - for 'daring' to stand-up for justice / what is right).

I repeat my message, in My Diary 2015, to Kim Jong-un of North Korea.

(Her Majesty's police and related services, and those among "[her] ministers" and within "[her] government" who endorse their conduct - have certainly continued to demonstrate that they would have no difficulty whatsoever securing gainful employment by the world's worst tyrannical regimes).

THE TRIGGER to this ongoing persecution is summarised in the introduction to this page.

Its base are the 'law enforcers': Her Majesty's police and judiciary, supremacists who perceive themselves as being entitled to provide all manner of assistance to 'the brother' Andrew David Ladsky and his gang of racketeers in their criminal activities against me (and my fellow leaseholders).

Viewing me, a woman, (typically) as a piece of dirt, a non-entity who does not have the right to have rights, there to be used and abused at will by all - 'my daring' to stand-up to all of them, and eventually expose their criminal actions in the public domain - (of their own doing - started by Ladsky) - sent the trio into a demented rage.

It led the trio to renew its pact made in 2001 (police) and 2002 (judiciary) to, this time "...kill [me], zip up the bag, bring [me] to the morgue..."...

...- by dishing out a coordinated regime of criminal psychological harassment against me.

This page's headers, from # 9 onwards, provide an overview of the follow-on events (also contained in the Case summary).

The Persecution page details numerous other forms of persecution.

ALL demonstrate their ongoing blind determination to get me - at any cost...because, in this island-kingdom, one more or one less dead is neither here nor there (My Diary 25 Jan 12).

No doubt, all these criminals are counting on my website having a chilling effect on others, thereby stopping them from 'daring' to put up a fight. But, people can avoid being in this situation in the first place: by heeding this overall message.





For sure the Andrew David Ladsky gang and its devoted supporters will keep on digging their already GIGANTIC HOLE...driven by their blind determination to "...kill [me], zip up the bag, bring [me] to the morgue..." - and concurrently have the label of assassins attached to them...

...- and as long as the Jewish lobby keeps showering Her Majesty's government with large "contributions".

And because this island-kingdom has sold out to crime, and is consequently controlled by crime, for the benefit of crime.

I add that only the corruptible can be corrupted.


  C O M M E N T S


•  1. Ownership of Jefferson House

•  2. Evidence - in my non-lawyer opinion - of a c.£500,000 theft (# 3, above) - used to generate a multi-million Pound jackpot.

•  3. Lawyers and their 'regulators' - Content transferred to Complaints summaries (Doc library) # 2.

•  4. My conclusions on what happened with the lawyers in 2002-04, (preceded by the surveyors) and, concurrently, with the tribunal and the court - is that I was a square peg that would not fit into a round hole - in spite of the FEAR tactics...

- causing immense fury among the totally unregulated, ego-crazed, power-corrupted, amoral, extremely arrogant mafia - and their overall Master: Andrew Ladsky (and continuing to do so to this day).

•  5. RICS-MRJ - Content transferred to Complaints summaries (Doc library) # 6.2.

•  6. Pridie Brewster-ICAEW - Content transferred to Complaints summaries (Doc library) # 6.1.

•  7. Removed; content transferred to Complaints summaries (Doc library).

•  8. I made the MONUMENTAL MISTAKE of believing the state's 'Ministry of Truth's propaganda (linked to 'GIGANTIC CON', above).

•  9. For many years the media, as well as other parties, have consistently highlighted the feudal nature of the leasehold system, the appalling abuses, including daylight robbery, as well as the terrible misery it causes to leaseholders; but, successive governments of all colours have refused repeatedly to take action - because under the thumb of the large landowners...

•  10. Dedication

•  11. At the very least...


NOTE 1 - Ownership of Jefferson House

Andrew David Ladsky took over the headlease in 1996, and the freehold in 1997.

By the following year, the scam was put in motion - as evidenced by the fact that the first planning application to build a penthouse apartment was filed on 18.09.98 (planning applications).

There are several offshore (BVI # 2) companies (= shell, or paper companies, fronted by "sham directors") associated with the ownership of Jefferson House (Headlessor # 7).

They 'appear' (there are frequent changes) to be domiciled in a variety of offshore jurisdictions: British Virgin Islands (reputed for its "secrecy"), Panama, Gibraltar, ('previously' Jersey), and, it would 'appear' (in 2010), the addition of the Bahamas (or is it just a location where Ladsky is enjoying the fruit of his fraud?).

Hence, most, British dependencies that allow owners to hide their identity - making a mockery of leasehold legislation.

However, it is clear that the key driver of activities is Andrew David Ladsky (e.g. CKFT-Intro) - described in e.g., the Sunday Times of 9 Oct 05 as "a millionaire property developer " (website printscreen).

He also gave this description to the person who was running the Residents Association.

As to his lapdogs in the police, in their so-called "crime reports" against me (above, # 13 and # 16), they describe him as a "company director".

The Sunday Times article refers to events in the 1990s - it 'seems' pre the TSB Bank Court of Appeal case (extracts) in which the bank demanded repayment of £3m advances) (CKFT- Intro)). Indications that there are others hiding behind him - see Directorships.

Being paper companies, they are manipulated in monopoly board game style (Headlessors, incl. # 7 ; Freehold) (another example in the sector: the Tchenguiz brothers) and,...

combined with the TOTAL LACK of regulation of the residential leasehold sector - result in my not knowing, at any one point in time, who controls my home - as detailed under e.g. header 5 of my 03.06.08 Witness Statement, paras 39-62 - and covered under Headlessors ; Freehold ownership ; Owners Identity ; Directorships.

(From my contacts with leaseholders in other blocks: a common situation under this archaic, feudal system) (New Labour, pre 1997 election 'An End to Feudalism'; press articles ; 'Who owns Britain?' ; the 'Great Estates' ; examples of new entrants).

Back to Notes list / Sections list

NOTE 2 - Evidence - in my non-lawyer opinion - of a c. £500,000 THEFT (# 3, above) (*) - used to generate a multi-million Pound jackpot.

(*) The Fraud Act 2006 came into effect in Jan 07

The original content has been transferred to Stan Gallagher- Summary of Events.

In my 06.05.08 (extensive) standard disclosure list of documents I sent to Portner and Jaskel - as per the directions contained in the 09.04.08 case management directions (above, # 11) - I stated:

" demonstrate in my witness statement and at trial that I continue to be the innocent victim of fraud - aided and abetted since 2002 by a supporting cast comprising of lawyers, surveyors, accountants, and their professional associations, the Court Service, LVT, housing departments, Ombudsmen, Land Registry and the police...

...That - in addition to suffering defamation of my name and character - in the process, I have suffered breach of covenants in my lease, of my statutory rights, as well as rights under court rules - and have been subjected to harassment and bullying"

My evidence

(1)- Obtained through deceit - by denying that the money would be used to build a penthouse and add 3 other apartments to Jefferson House (above, # 3) - as well as noting the assurance given in Dec 01 (above, # 1). (Of note, amazingly, by 2016, all 3 had 'disappeared': Martyn Gerrard # 30)

(2)- By breaching leaseholders' statutory rights (above, # 2 , # 3 and # 5)

Examples of precedents

(1)- Land Registry, ref. LR X/42/2006 - (1) Warrior Quay Management Company Ltd (2) Jomast Developments Ltd v. Others - 2007

"The LVT concluded correctly that the Appellants had not complied with the consultation provisions in section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 as amended.

In the result, the LVT concluded that, if any service charges were payable for the year 2004/2005, the amount was limited to £250 for each of the leaseholders..."

(2)- LON/00AU/LSC/2006/0109- LON/00AU/LDC/2006/0039

“(1) the works are not covered by the 2002 “notice”, since it referred to different contractors who were instructed at a different time i.e. two years previously;

(2) the consultation requirements set out in the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 and the Regulations made consequent upon that Act, were required to be complied with. These consultation procedures were not complied with”

From 2004, I endlessly raised this issue with parties that have a duty to ensure that they / individuals 'they regulate', implement this statutory requirement. Examples:

My letter To Extracts


Kensington & Chelsea housing

Para.125- "The evidence is clear...of the £6,350 it has had from me...Steel Services can only spend £250 on Mansells"


Stan Gallagher ('my' barrister)

Para.90- Ditto.


Law Society, my complaint against CKFT

In the summary under para.1.6, and in the main body of my complaint under para.210 - I stated the same thing.


Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS), my complaint against the then MRJ

In the summary under para, , 1.8 - and in the main body of my complaint under para.252- I stated the same thing.


MRJ, on which I copied the accountants, Pridie Brewster

Ditto, including stating: "The same applies to the other lessees"


Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales (ICAEW) - which was by then my nth letter since my 'cry for help', one year previously, on 19.07.05

Para.2- Ditto.


West London County Court (above, # 11) to context its jurisdiction

Para.59- Ditto.


West London County Court (above, # 11) - in my Skeleton Argument

Para.55- DItto


West London County Court (above, # 11) - in my Defence

Header 7.5, para.87 "Whichever point in time is taken into consideration: July 2002 when the original service charge demand for the major works was issued - when Section 20 of the L&T Act 1985 was in application, or August 2004 when Mansell was appointed, and Section 151 of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 was in application in relation to ‘Notification of works’ - The outcome is the same: Steel Services cannot appoint a new contractor without going through a consultation process".


West London County Court (above, # 11) - in my Witness Statement

Header 12- Ditto

Further, on many occasions, I also brought this to the attention of the police, in the context of my battles against the so-called "crime reports" it is unlawfully processing against me. And, in this context, also to the attention of Queen's Bench judiciaries.

If somebody wants to argue that - because I am not a lawyer - I am wrong in stating that the contribution from each leaseholder should have been capped at £250 - (In addition to the above precedents) - I highlight that:

(1)- NONE of the parties ever challenged me on my claim of this breach of statutory requirement - including in the context of my numerous 'cries for help' and complaints.

While the official standard reply - from ALL the parties - has been 'Get lost!', the unofficial, behind the scene response has, since 2005, been ongoing persecution - for 'my daring' to challenge the Establishment.

(2)- "ALL" of the 27.02.07 claim against me was dropped in a 06.06.08 Notice of Discontinuance (above, # 11)

If somebody still claims that I am wrong: I highlight the £500,000 that were knocked-off as a result of the tribunal hearings (above, # 2).

Hence, whichever way you look at it: a £500,000 theft took place.

I DO NOT make wild claims: I AM the innocent victim of fraud - aided and supported by a very large cast.

Back to Notes list / Sections list

NOTE 3 - Lawyers and their 'regulators' - Content transferred to Complaints summaries # 2.

NOTE 4 - My conclusions on what happened with the lawyers in 2002-04, (preceded by the surveyors) and, concurrently, with the tribunal and the court -

is that I was a square peg that would not fit into a round hole - in spite of the FEAR tactics - causing immense fury among the totally unregulated, ego-crazed, power-corrupted, amoral, extremely arrogant mafia - and their overall Master: Andrew David Ladsky (and continuing to do so to this day).

My conclusions on what happened to me with the lawyers, (preceded by the surveyors) and, concurrently, with the tribunal and the court (e.g. above: # 1 to # 3 ; Summary of events) are two-folds:

(1)- I refused to be manipulated into the residential leasehold sector's standard off-the-shelf formula of - 'striking a deal' - that relies on beating leaseholders 'like me' into submission...

- by using the extremely vicious, sadistic ploy of placing them in a permanent state of FEAR (Business model # A) - from lack of knowledge of their rights.

FEAR of:

  • losing their home through forfeiture (copy of definition) / being unable to sell it;
  • being liable for large costs ;
  • 'the authorities', including ending-up in court;
  • affecting their credit rating, their employment prospects;
  • retaliation, etc.

My website abounds with examples of this - see e.g.:

See also: my fellow leaseholders: LVT # 1.4 ; Elderly Resident ; other fellow leaseholders ;

Comments # 13 , # 6 , # 15 , # 17 , # 19 ; press articles.

FEAR and other forms of criminal psychological harassment is what keeps the corruption-riddled residential leasehold system firmly in place - and growing (Business model # 29 , # 30)

(2)- Breathtaking arrogance and abuse of power from those who inflict the FEAR regime on leaseholders, who, because, like the residential leasehold sector, are totally and deliberately unregulated

- therefore conclude that they have the 'divine right' to do exactly as they please - without fear of sanction i.e. as being 'above the law of the land'.

As detailed above, under the Overview, the ultimate objective of 'striking a deal', starts-off by threatening legal proceedings, followed by the threat of "forfeiture" (# 1), and can also include, for 'good measure', the threat of "bankruptcy" (# 10).

Unsurprisingly, faced with these horrendous threats, some leaseholders 'cave in' by that stage e.g. 20.10.02 e-mail from one of my fellow leaseholders to the then London LVT (LVT # 1.4).

If this does not achieve the objective, the pressure is escalated by filing a claim in court - with, generally, no intention of seeing it through (# 3 , # 11) - as the aim is to bully and coerce leaseholders into paying the sum demanded. It works as more leaseholders 'cave in' (# 3).

The remaining, more 'stubborn' leaseholders are faced with a succession of hearings (granted with much haste by the courts). Of course, more hearings = more costs = more pressure to cave in and 'strike a deal'.

The 'oddball' like me who is not represented and refuses to strike a deal causes a problem. So, more of the 'artillery' is brought out 'to snare the prey': a salvo of threatening, malicious letters brandishing the favourite weapon, the threat of "costs" is fired in parallel with the court hearings.

The prospects take an unexpected turn for the better when, as in my case, the 'oddball' decides to appoint a solicitor - being forced to do this as a result of being treated, like a piece of dirt, a non-entity by the court (WLCC # 11) = a double act!.

As the threatening letters and the 'hearings' (e.g. WLCC # 7 , # 8 , # 9 , # 11) have not so far yielded the desired effect, the push into making 'a deal' is immediately set in motion - as can be seen in the following.

In my 09.08.03 letter to District Judge Wright, West London County Court, I wrote:

"The LVT has made a determination on the reasonableness of the service charge for the block - as a whole - not just for myself" [NB: But did not capture it: # 2, above]

There are no side deals to be made with the Claimant: the nature of the works and their associated costs must be totally clear and transparent - to ALL lessees.

Nowhere does the lease state that the share of the service charges payable by individual lessees is dependent on their amount of 'backbone' and courage to challenge a demand for money they do not owe.

Their resistance to prolonged harassment and intimidation.

What each lessee is required to pay is clearly defined by means of a fixed percentage (see the attached list of percentage for each of the 35 flats supplied by SSL-MRJ in their 7 August 2002 application to the LVT)."

At the time of appointing Piper Smith Basham/Watton, in my 21.08.03 letter to Lisa McLean, I reiterated what I had written to West London County Court on 09.08.03: I was NOT prepared to strike a deal - emphasising the importance of the tribunal findings being reflected in the specifications, and stating:

Last but not least, I am also hoping that by doing this they will give up on the block as I am taking away their opportunity to illegally charge works to the residents" (NB: How very naïve of me!)

Barely a week after the 26 Aug 03 'hearing', Lisa McLean wrote me, in her 04.09.03 letter:

"Incidentally [NB !!!], I took a call from CKFT today and, in view of the costs being incurred by both sides they asked whether we would be amenable to any deals (NB !!!)

I said that I had noted that you had previously refused to deal with them but in the event that they wished to make an offer [NB !!!]I was, as they well know, obliged to put it to you [NB !!!]They intimated that they will make a Part 36 offer (NB !!!)

The relevance of this is that if they make an offer which is rejected and, following trial the judge makes a determination that is no better than the offer that they had made then you will have to pay their costs from the time the part 36 offer had been made up until the trial" (NB: Note the threat)

I replied on 09.12.03:

"I maintain what I said: the situation is the result of Steel Services/Mr Ladsky and MRJ's doing - not mine (nor indeed that of the other residents) position has remained unchanged:   'No' as this does not achieve my objectives "

If the leaseholder does not yield to the admonition of 'making a commercial decision': "Com'on, look at what you have spent so far. It's nearly as much as they are asking you to pay. Best you settle Dear, make a commercial decision. Pay the landlord. Accept the 'offer'",...

the leaseholder is blamed for being 'unreasonable' and, by implication, for being 'the cause' of the mounting costs.

Examples (in addition to McLean's comment above): Stan Gallagher (para.5, 11.10.04) "...the costs of the county court proceedings were likely to be out of all proportion with the sum in issue." ; under para.4(8):

"On the landlord's motives in making an offer to settle it may have been that the landlord too recognised that a trial would be disproportionately expensive" (NB: !!!)  

(My reply to this (para.60, 29.08.04)

"Mr Ladsky et al. i.e. Steel Services should have thought of 'the costs' before they attempted to defraud me of £10,000 (US$17,600).

I note with interest Mr Gallagher turning the table on me and his tendency to side with Steel Services, MRJ, CKFT and Piper Smith & Basham" )

Lanny Silverstone 's 07.08.03 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"

Lanny Silverstone 's 24.07.03 letter to me:

"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"

Lanny Silverstone 's 25.06.03 letter to me

"...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."

(YES! As can be seen the summaries of my complaints # 2 against the above mafia, their so-called 'regulators' concluded their conduct was 'perfectly acceptable'...decisions endorsed by the then Legal Services Ombudsman- # 3).

From liaising with Piper Smith Basham/Watton, CKFT and its client Andrew David Ladsky realised that I was prepared to go to trial over this action: I had written a Witness Statement (in spite of not getting any help from 'my advisors') and was appointing a barrister. It is my belief that this triggered the 21.10.03 'Part 36 offer'.

My assessment of the key benefit to the legal 'advisor' of implementing this 'standard, off-the-shelf' approach: no need to spend time reading, understanding, assessing and consequently taking into consideration material evidence (Lease, report by tribunal, defence to the claim, exchange of communication between the parties, etc.)

(Numerous supporting examples in relation to Stan Gallagher, and Piper Smith Watton's Richard Twyman and Lisa McLean, are captured under Gallagher- Summary of Events).

The other key 'benefit' is that there is no need to criticise the 'dear' landlord and his aides ('especially of the type I am facing' who, 'of course', 'must not be upset') e.g.

Stan Gallagher, para.58, 09 06.04:

"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 ".

(NB: Other reason for the sector's lawyers 'not antagonizing' the 'sacrosanct' landlords: they are their bread and butter (e.g. £400,000 (US$705,000) lawyer fees in one case).

And, as evidenced by my experience (Case summary), and that reported by others in media reports, on other websites (below) - in this totally unregulated, bottomless cesspit of interconnecting caves of corruption: there are a LOT of disputes, representing a LOT of money). (I cite the list of cases on the databases of the First-tier and Upper Tribunal, as supporting evidence).

Consequently, no 'embarrassing' evidence is recorded, leaving rogue landlord and his equally rogue aides coming out 'smelling of roses' (and with their coffers being substantially fuller than they should be).

And, by not proceeding to trial, no embarrassing official evidence ends up in the public domain - as demonstrated by the outcome of, so far, 2 claims against me (# 3 and # 11, above)...

- and by the equally fraudulent 06.08.03 Application for Summary Judgment against me by Ayesha Salim, CKFT (CKFT # 6.6) - added to my experience with my 19 Apr 11 Claim (above).

A consideration that is even more important when the defendant has, like me, an overwhelming body of evidence against the landlord and his aides.

Instead, phone calls are exchanged with the other side and a few letters written to justify the several £000s fees.

It is likely that a very high proportion of these 'scams' (swindles) is resolved by 'striking a deal' in one form or another.

I view the Business model used by rogue landlords and their aides as relying very heavily on the fact that, for the majority of people, their home is the sum total of their financial wealth.

Hence, they prefer giving in and move on (including spare themselves more rides on the 'merry-go-round') rather than risk being unable to sell their property.

EVERY SINGLE TIME this happens,

The monster gets bigger and bigger: 'it worked last time, so, 'of course' it will work next time!'

More often than not, the 'next time' will be the next unsuspecting leaseholder who purchased the lease on the apartment, as the previous owner paid the unwarranted demand for the sake of escaping with great haste. ('Handing on the baton' as some leaseholders told me 'I should be doing'.

Then, I guess that, to quash potential feelings of self-loathing, you then take the 'I made the commercial decision pill' so freely handed out by legal 'advisors' to make you feel better).

And the cycle repeats itself, every time yielding very considerable financial gains for all concerned - at the expense of the leaseholder.

I was not prepared to 'shut-up' and pay monies I did NOT owe.

  • I wanted to comply with the instructions given to me by a tribunal to NOT PAY - until it had issued its report and the findings had been implemented i.e. reflected in the demand.
  • I wanted legal advisors to provide me with what I believed I had paid for: proper, unbiased, informed professional legal advice i.e. advice driven by the concept of 'fairness and justice'.

So, the machinery was cranked up to full gear by the totally unregulated, extremely arrogant, ego-crazed, power-corrupted, morally depraved hunters:

I would be made to strike 'a deal' and I, 'the Prole', 'the nobody' of limited financial means with no influential connections, would be made to pay for 'daring' to challenge them, 'the system' / business model by refusing to be 'snared by them'.

(NB: I contend that what took place in relation to the 2007 (fraudulent) claim: above, # 11, adds additional support to my above conclusions).

Back to Notes list / Sections list

NOTE 5 - RICS-MRJ - Content transferred to Complaints summaries (Doc library) # 6.2.

NOTE 6 - Pridie Brewster-ICAEW - Content transferred to Complaints summaries # 6.1.

NOTE 7 - Content transferred to Complaints summaries (Doc library)


NOTE 8 - I made the MONUMENTAL mistake of believing the state's 'Ministry of Truth's propaganda (linked to 'Gigantic con', above)


I made the MONUMENTAL mistake of believing what we, 'the little people', are ALL led to believe by the state: that I had rights, I had the right to demand - and that there was a system in place, I was asked to pay for through taxes - there to protect me and help me in time of need.  

Initially, it appears to be the case. You are told about this option, and that option, and great emphasis is placed on your statutory rights. You believe it. Of course 'you have rights'. Why should you doubt it? In addition, you have your Lease, a 'binding' contract 'agreed' - in law - between you and the landlord. So, you start going down the avenue in your quest for justice and fair treatment.

What I found out initially reinforced my perception that indeed help was at hand. The "no, but, you need to do 'x' and 'y'" I heard along the way, disheartened me but also induced me to go down further and further in search of justice and protection of my so-called 'rights'. The information I obtained from government departments encouraged me to progress along the route.

What turned out to be one of the most misleading information I was provided with was in the 19.07.02 reply from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, as it sent me a leaflet on the then LVTs that led me to believe I could challenge 'Steel Services' Application to the then London LVT "without the need for professional representation".

At the time, Siobhan McGrath, then President of the then LVTs, was promoting this claim to the media, at every opportunity e.g. in The Times, 4 Oct 03: "Property - Landlord squabbles resolved", in which she was quoted as saying that LVTs are an "affordable, local solution" for landlords and leaseholders who are in dispute. We aim to provide an accessible and cost-effective forum for resolving residential leasehold problems" .

As very glaringly demonstrated by my experience with the then London tribunal (overview, above; summaries: Events , Breaches of the law)...

- it turned out to be a blatant lie - that caused me to spend £30,000 (US$53,000) of my very-hard-earned life-savings, to challenge a fraudulent demand of £14,400 (US$25,400) (# 1) - and I still ended-up with a deliberately near useless report (above) (LVT # 4.3).

As I discussed in My Diary 2011 - Introduction, I hold the view, based on my first-hand experience, as well as that of other leaseholders (e.g. My Diary 22 Nov 08), that the set-up of these tribunals is intended to bully leaseholders into submission. (Yes: I am aware that some leaseholders win their case - but at what cost?)


SINCE 2001

EVERY TIME when I first approached a government department e.g.:

as well as private sector so-called 'regulators' - namely:

I believed it would provide me with the help it claims to be there for i.e. that it would perform as per its remit.

As can be seen the summaries of my 50+ 'cries for help' and complaints, I 'obediently' followed all the formal procedures and processes, and went through all the 'loops' I was asked to go through.


Every time I went to great lengths to explain my case, including providing, often weighty bundles, as proof that I was 'not making it up', and often, more documents in the context of the ensuing drawn-out battles.

Throughout, I have been totally open and honest in communicating my views, especially when the (typical) pushback, misinformation, denials, dismissal, etc. started to kick-in, as I believe in complete transparency and honesty as being the only basis on which to address/remedy a situation.

Many led me into battles spanning many months, some over one year - resulting in the same outcome from ALL but 3: in effect: 'Get lost!' or, as succinctly summed up by Boris Johnson, then Mayor of London: "Fuck off an die!"

As can be seen from the examples I cite under the various statutes, codes of conduct, and my Lease, as well as under extortion and kangaroo courts - it does not require being a lawyer or a genius to see that my rights have been repeatedly denied / violated.

Further, no matter how hard I look: I cannot find a note anywhere, on any of these Acts - stating that they exclude 'people like me'.

WHY did I persist? Because, based on my value system, naïvely, I kept hoping that the 'next one' would help, the 'next one' will surely see that I am the victim of a scam / malpractice, the next one 'will do his / her job'.

Either the door remained shut, or it was eventually slammed back in my face. The more I forced the door to open and to remain open, the greater the throwback, pushback, refusal, misinformation and denial I received.


Initially, I blocked out the contradictory signs because they created cognitive dissonance. I told myself that I was reading too much into things, and dismissed my uneasiness / concerns as nonsense.

Then more signs cropped-up, which I also blocked out, because of my perceptual bias that I would get fair and just treatment, that my so-called 'rights' would be protected. I really, truly believed this to be the case. After all, this is what we are ALL led to believe.


Then one day I removed what I realised was a blindfold and I faced reality: as a leaseholder, there is absolutely nothing there to help me.

There is no mechanism in place to ensure implementation of my so called 'rights'.

The only mechanism that is operational - for a leaseholder 'like me' of foreign origin, with limited financial means and no influential connections - is dismissal.

'Little me', 'the Prole', had been well and truly conned - by the 'Ministry of Truth' (George Orwell's 1984).

Other people who have 'seen the light' agree that for them as well it was a very rude awakening. What you thought was there turned out to be a mirage.

There is nothing. You are totally and utterly alone.

By the time I finally faced-up to reality, I was way past the point of return: I had spent c.12 years of my life savings and had ended-up in the situation that what I was fighting was not just a criminal landlord and his equally criminal aides - I was fighting 'the system'.

And the most unbelievable part of it is that 'I' have - and continue to be treated as though I am 'the criminal' - instead of what I AM: the glaringly obvious victim of organized crime.

I have done nothing wrong. ALL that I wanted to do was pay my just and fair share of the costs for "the works".

Back to Notes list / Sections list

NOTE 9 - For many years the media, as well as other parties, have consistently highlighted the feudal nature of the leasehold system, the appalling abuses, including daylight robbery, as well as the terrible misery it causes to leaseholders;

but, successive governments of all colours have refused repeatedly to take action - because under the thumb of the large landowners...

...starting with Her Majesty The Queen and other royals e.g.

  • asking for his "consent to proposed Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill because it will affect the interests of [his] Duchy of Cornwall" - and stating to also write to HM The Queen "to get her consent".
  • (The media portrayed this as "a revelation" - in spite of it being obvious. For a long time I have been saying that the Royals have far more control over the country than 'the little people' are led to believe - My Diary # 2.6)

Landlord & Tenant Act 1985 which, under s.35 - Application to Isles of Scilly - states that

"It applies to the Isles of Scilly subject to such exceptions, adaptations and modifications as the Secretary of State may by order direct" = as ordered by Prince Charles who controls the islands.

Landlord & Tenant Act 1987 - s.55 - Application to Isles of Scilly: Ditto.

Housing Act 1996 - s.225 - The Isles of Scilly: Ditto

Protection from Eviction Act 1977 - s.11 - Application to Isles of Scilly: Ditto +

"(2) The power to make an order under this section shall be exercisable by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment, in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament. (3) An order under this section may be varied or revoked by a subsequent order."


The Sunday Times, 19 Nov 2000

"The government admits abuse is widespread and unscrupulous landlords regularly hit leaseholders with exorbitant charges."

(NB: See New Labour pre-election "An End to Feudalism")

Evening Standard, 24 Jan 01

"Abusive landlords, legal tangles and a depreciating asset mean the leasehold system needs throwing out."

The Sunday Times, 4 Nov 01

"There are 3 million leaseholds in Britain... they might find themselves in the hand of a modern-day 'Rachman landlord who uses the lease to extract money... threatening tenants with repossession if they fail to pay... presenting them with absurd service and maintenance bills.

They make leaseholders' lives a misery."

Independent on Sunday, 10 Mar 02

"Thousands of leaseholders are currently embroiled in legal action with their landlords over exorbitant charges for services and unnecessary maintenance work.

While the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill should help prevent this problem arising it won't eradicate it, as it contains no proposals to abolish the antiquated and much-derided leasehold system"

The Sunday Telegraph, 19 Oct 03

"My Property Nightmare - Extortionate service charges" (copy) - that had my case as the main subject.

Evening Standard, 3 Dec 03

"Left homeless for £25" (US$44)

It described forfeiture (copy of definition) as: "a uniquely savage penalty inflicted only on leaseholders...forfeiture leaves a leaseholder with nothing" (NB: This article also refers to my case)

Guardian, 6 Aug 05

"..commonhold...government trumpeted it as a replacement for Britain 's feudal leasehold system. But commonhold has flopped"

The Daily Telegraph, 21 Jan 06

"It's a feudal form of property ownership and new laws do little to protect us. Everywhere leasehold has us tied in chains" (NB: This article also refers to my case)

The Mail on Sunday, 30 May 06

"Landlords' £1bn insurance sting" . "The swindle is a result of managing agents and landlords secretly adding inflated 'administration' fees to premiums and then passing the combined bill to leaseholders under the guise of an insurance charge"

The Observer, 5 Apr 09

"Flat owners left flat broke as service charges shoot through the roof"

The Times, 29 Aug 09

"How leaseholders can fight back"

The Independent, 11 Jul 10

"Minister says all is well with leaseholders. He'd better think again..."

The May 2010 Coalition Government's then Housing Minister, Grant Shapps (replaced by Mark Prisk, below), was quoted as saying:

"With the vast majority of England's three million leaseholders [*] happy with the service they receive, I am satisfied that the current system strikes the right balance between the rights and responsibilities of tenants and landlords."

To this the Independent on Sunday's journalist replied "I am afraid, Mr Shapps, you are either deluded or simply don't give a damn".

"Here at the Independent on Sunday we are getting complaints from across the country about management companies, their disproportionate service charges and overcharging for maintenance work". (NB: More detail, above, in the Overview).

(Shapps was a puppet who could not give a damn and would do and say anything to get his brownie points. When he required protection following lying about his business activity, he called in some of his chips: from David Cameron).

(*) In 2016, estimated at "some 7 million".

The Independent, 11 Jul 10

"Don't be conned by excessive service charges"

The Daily Mail, 27 Oct 10

"Homeowners ripped off by managing agents charging sky-high fees". "

A million homeowners in flats and retirement homes are being left at the mercy of managing agents who charge exorbitant service fees while providing poor maintenance.

These property owners are being exposed to a multi-million-pound rip-off by an unregulated industry"

The Daily Mail, 27 Jan 11

"Homeowners concerned by managing agents charging sky-high fees"

"Some of the worst examples are seen in sheltered accommodation, where vulnerable older people can pay huge charges for wardens and alarm systems...

The biggest player... Peverel Group Ltd (*) ... manage[s] 200,000 leasehold properties across the country... Charities such as Age UK have lobbied the Government for years to enforce regulation of managing agents and are confounded by the lack of protection for residents in leasehold properties"

(*) The Guardian, 19 Mar 11: "Peverel collapse sparks fears for tenants and leaseholders". Peverel was then owned by the Tchenguiz brothers

Evening Standard, 22 Jun 12, quoting Vincent Tchengiz: "Money comes and goes, in the end it's just digits" , that reported that "the Serious Fraud Office had dropped its investigation"

"Peverel's 'goodwill' payments are compensation by any other name", The Guardian, 14 Dec 13 - "The leniency given [by the Office of Fair Trading] to Peverel / Cirrus has astonished many residents."

"Cirrus gets away with ripping off the elderly and vulnerable", The Guardian, 14 Dec 13 - "The OFT told Money it does not have any formal or informal powers to require companies to pay compensation to those affected by breaches of competition law." Quelle surprise!

(Same claim made to me by the RICS (summary of my complaint # 6.2)...the, like the others: sham 'professional' association that claims to "regulate surveyors and 'managing' agents" - v. saying that "under its code, it cannot strike off "unfit persons"").

(*) Other articles on the group under Defintion of leasehold.

The Independent, 13 Feb 11

"Big society? Big rip-off"

"...about 1.6 million households in this country and counting - [are] being exploited by unscrupulous management companies.

The legislation - before it was killed off by Mr Shapps - would have finally brought transparency to the whole managing agent industry...building insurance...

This is a racket worth millions... Mr Big society Mr Shapps? Big rip-off more like"

The Independent, 19 Aug 12

"Stop sheltering dodgy freeholders, Mr Shapps". "The pressure for change is building".

(NB: Given the history to date: it will only happen with the help of the media).

Channel 4 - Dispatches, 20 Aug 12

"Property Nightmare: The Truth About Leaseholds".

"With complaints and cases disputing costs on the increase, Dispatches investigates the government's reluctance to impose greater regulation on the leasehold sector, which is making two and a half billion pounds a year in service charges for maintenance and repairs".

One of the interviewees said that his health had been seriously affected by the stress. (NB: = The mental torture regime achieved its objective).

Grant Shapps' response was: "I am watching it carefully" (!!!)

(NB: In the game of musical chairs, the following month, Shapps was replaced by Mark Prisk e.g. The Guardian article of 5 Sep 12. Maybe Shapps had 'strained his eyes' from "watching it carefully" (previous sentence)).

A few months later, Prisk was replaced by Kris Hopkins. He was then replaced by Brandon Lewis who, in July 16, was replaced by Garvin Barwell - making him the 9th housing minister in 10 years (Private Eye, 1424).

Re. an event, the Eye concluded: "Even at this early stage in his career, Barwell seems to have grasped that the key to being housing minister is an ability to spin the statistics."

(They are replaced when the seat gets 'too hot' e.g. in 2009, the department had 3 Heads over a 10-day period.

My assessment of the tactic: to keep things as they are; spread the blame far and wide and so thinly than it cannot stick to anybody e.g. CLRA 2002 ; forfeiture (copy of definition); then, using the revolving door, work for a landlord e.g. Mark Prisk).

As detailed in C.A.R.L.'s Leaseholder Autumn 2012 Issue 36, the programme also reported that a large number of local authorities have struck "sweetheart deals" with contractors, allowing them to share in the profits from building works paid for by leaseholders. (See also Comment # 31 for somebody's experience with a council).

The Observer, 3 Feb 13

"Beware the 'cheaper' leasehold option that could cost more in the long run"

"First-time buyers who purchase leasehold flats could be making a big mistake".

"... those who have bought a leasehold will have merely purchased the right to live in a property for a set period – usually 99 or 125 years – rather than owning the land it stands on."

"...disputes between leaseholders and freeholders, or their agents, are growing." "The sector is unregulated and anyone can be a freeholder or managing agent."

New Stateman, 22 Aug 13

When you buy a London flat, you're not really becoming an owner - The weird reality of leaseholds

"Freeholds are sometimes worth much less than the value of individual flats, with the result they can end up in the hands of small-time property barons with devious ways of squeezing money from their tenants."

(NB: It refers to my case, but has inaccuracies: re. the sum claimed of individual leaseholders; the end use of the fraudulent demand).

The FT, 2 Aug 16 and LKP, as well as Private Eye

Shining the light on the massive rip-off of leasholders when selling their leasehold property:

"Conveyancing Association demands leasehold sector overhaul", FT

"Leasehold sales are bedevilled with ‘extortionate’ charges and game-playing, says the Conveyancing Association", Leasehold Knowledge Partnership

Whilst Private Eye found evidence that (of course) the Law Society (also) fails to regulate this activity.

Detail under Legal home- Introduction.

The Guardian


"Unregulated admin fees hit leaseholders as they try to sell", 6 Jul 12 (I have been reporting that for many years: Business model # 29)

"New ruling favours Goliath over David in leaseholder battle", 14 Mar 13 (*)

"Leaseholders 'at risk' from supreme court consultation judgment", 8 Mar 13 (*)

"When leasehold property takes a grip on your finances", 31 Aug 13

"The new-builds catching house buyers in a leasehold property trap", Oct-Nov 16 - More detail under My Diary 2016- Intro.

(*) For case, see My Diary 2011.



Leasehold Knowledge Partnership

"Video exposes the full horrors of leasehold", 29 Jun 13, and "LKP overturned forfeiture on £800,000 flat", 8 May 13

Relating to the appalling case of leaseholder Dennis Jackson, Plantation Wharf, the articles report that a judge in Wandsworth County Court (a court I know only too well), ceding to pressure from the landlord's lawyers (making false claims) - held the proceedings in close court.

(NB: Amounts to a breach of Jackson's Human Rights under Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (hearing)...but note the Articles omitted in the Act (above, # 20) = the breach could be ignored!).

Among many other events: one of the leaseholders died just before a hearing - which "Jackson believes the strain of the litigation was a contributing cause of her death" (NB: = The mental torture regime achieved its objective. The beneficiary/ies of the property will not go into battle, because too difficult to take on a fight they know little about.

OUTCOME: freeholder gets back the property - at a discount - and puts it back on the market... to catch his next victim.

In other words: putting the 'troublesome' leaseholder 'out of action' through death, or 'the Court of Protection', is KEY to increasing the all important 'churn out rate' - that keeps the money flowing in the coffers of the landlords and of their accomplices).

"Lord Neuberger: what have you done, as Daejan is cited in Leasehold Valuation Tribunals", LKP, 18 Jun 13 (see My Diary 2011 for extracts)

(See also LKP' article on LEASE - under Definitions)


"Carlex exists to protect the elderly from being cheated by freehold-owning landlords and their agents"

C.A.R.L. Campaign for the Abolition of Residential Leasehold

Quarterly newsletters

CentreForum, Aug 12

"A new lease of life: making leasehold fit for the 21st century"

"In this report CentreForum argues that the current system of leasehold tenure in which leasehold managing agents can operate without any form of regulation is not fit for purpose.

The report shows that problems with management are growing, with a significant rise in dispute over inflated service charges and the operations of connected companies..."

(NB: In my opinion, CentreForum wipes out practically all of its report with a 5-word "recommendation": "Light-touch regulation of managing agents" e.g. pg 7). (It must be one of the right-wing think-tanks).

See also Comments I have received from other leaseholders

Back to Notes list / Sections list

Off-the-record, a member of Parliament told me "the leasehold system is a licence to print money" .

Personally, the outcome of my extremely traumatic, life-destroying experience since 2002 (added to that of others) - leads me to describe it and its supporting infrastructure as a deliberate, state-devised, form of terrorism and mental torture,...

that very actively supports the exploitation and oppression of leaseholders by criminal landlords and their aides - while not giving a damn about the impact on their victims.

The residential leasehold system is a British state-actively assisted bottomless cesspit of moral depravation and interconnecting caves of corruption.

Those pulling the strings are the 'Great Estates' ; "Secret papers show extent of senior royals' veto over bills", Guardian, 14 Jan 13 (see also Note # 9, above).

(See My Diary 1 Nov 03, for land ownership in the UK, and the massive public subsidies paid to the richest landowners in the country).

As pointed out by Barry Gardiner, MP, during his 8 Jan 02 speech to the House of Commons (my emphasis in the text):

"Since 1884 [NB:!!!], when the first Leaseholders Bill was introduced and defeated...In the 118 years that have elapsed since then, they have introduced 31 different Bills dealing with leasehold reform. All but two of those 31 Bills have been defeated.

...Such has been the power of property and the landed classes in this country, and such is the injustice that so many people outside Parliament have hoped for years that a Bill might overcome"


Pre the 1997 "election", the Labour Party published a policy document entitled 'An End to Feudalism'

"Leasehold as a form of residential tenure is a throwback to feudalism. It gives exceptional privileges and powers to landowners..."

Over recent decades [NB:!!!] the weaknesses and injustices inherent in the British leasehold system have been increasingly highlighted, but reform has been a long time coming. To replace the archaic and discredited leasehold framework.."

Once in power, in its Oct 02 paper, "Consultation Paper, Residential Leasehold Reform in England and Wales" , the Office of then Deputy PM, John Prescott, wrote, among others:

"The Government considers that leasehold is a fundamentally unsatisfactory tenure...since the leases for flats tend to provide greater scope for abuse by the landlord...throughout the life of the lease, the landlord has far more power than the leaseholders.

Some landlords use that power responsibly and moderately, but others do not. The worst of them abuse their position to exploit their leaseholders in a wide variety of ways. [NB; As glaringly obvious in my case].

The reform legislation of the last thirty years has had only limited impact" [NB: And, whatever is 'given' to leaseholders, is taken away by judges, 'the legislators' - who are the powerful landlords).

It then discusses 'so called' measures and 'rights' "put in place" for leaseholders, after which it admits:

"despite all the safeguards, bad landlords have found ways to continue with their old abuses, and have invented some new ones. Leaseholders have found the remedies cumbersome, difficult and expensive to use." [NB: Done deliberately by the state].

One year later, 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."

What did Keith Hill do 1 year after saying that? He endorsed legislation allowing forfeiture of a property for owing £350.01 for 3 years and 1 day! (copy)...

...- because (as evidenced by e.g. my experience) it is an extremely useful fraud tool his's landlord friends and their aides were very keen to have. (See John Prescott for further detail).

In Nov 05, when the same Labour government was challenged in the House of Lords on the fact that, after more than one year, there were only 6 commonhold registered on the Land Registry, it replied that it would "hold a formal review" . (NB: A typical government-delaying tactic). It was pointed out that it had ignored the feedback from the House of Lords and the House of Commons during the consultation stage. (See John Prescott # 4.2 for further detail)

As Nigel Wilkins, Chair of C.A.R.L. remarked in 2005 "It is now just over ten years since the Labour Party published "An End to Feudalism", which proposed "to replace the archaic and discredited leasehold framework" with a new form of tenure called "commonhold".  

Since then, with 40 per cent of new developments consisting of leasehold flats, the leasehold system has grown more rapidly than at any time since the Doomsday Book. Why does the government wish to continue promoting an eleventh century system of home tenure, now a millennium out-of-date?"

Of course, it ensured the continuation of its retention, that included, in Mar 08, the then PM, Gordon Brown, turning down a petition for the demise of the system. Hence, the above promises were (typically) LIES.

Back to Notes list / Sections list

NOTE 10 - Dedication

This site is dedicated to:

•  The millions of people in the United Kingdom who are suffering in silence at the hands of abusive landlords and their equally abusive aides, because they do not have the necessary resources to fight back - and, deliberately, there is absolutely nothing in place to help them.

•  The campaigners who share the objective of putting an end to the appalling misery suffered by leaseholders.

•  The Offices of the Citizens Advice Bureau who, in spite of being generally ill-equipped to advise on leasehold matters (in my opinion, this is a deliberate policy) generally aim to do their best to assist.

Back to Notes list / Sections list

NOTE 11 - At the very least...

There is an estimated 7 million leaseholders in the United Kingdom. From contact with many other leaseholders since 2002, I have come to realise that, while my story is unique in its details, it is far from being untypical (e.g. media reports, above). If I cannot get assistance in achieving my objectives, then...

...I most fervently hope that, at the very least, this site will be a trigger for change, a wake-up call.  

NOBODY should have to go through the extremely traumatic, horrendous hell I have gone through every single day since 2002 - and continue to go through now - every day.

Not in the 21st century, and NOT in a country that considers itself 'civilised'.

In the meantime, I hope that this site will be of some help to those who, like me, are victims of abusive, rogue landlords and their equally abusive and unscrupulous aides: managing agents, solicitors, etc. - as well as to the very courageous leaseholders who have so readily been blamed by their fellow leaseholders for failing to achieve a just and fair outcome. To them I say: get your fellow leaseholders to look at my site - and demand an apology from them.

By 'help' I mean awareness of what can happen, as this site is only intended to be descriptive - not prescriptive - and relates exclusively to my case. (I am NOT a lawyer, just an 'ordinary' leaseholder and consumer - with a very strong aversion to injustice - and to being pushed around).

Although in many parts of the site I have included interpretations / implications from my very extensive desk research, insights and conclusions, clearly, they stem from a focus on my case. In parts, they are reinforced by the experience of numerous other leaseholders I am in contact with.

While your experience may be similar to mine on a number of aspects, it will be unique in the details - leading you to draw other insights and conclusions - and, consequently, course of action.

I hope that, at a minimum, the site will convey to you that you are not alone in your fight (and there are many others besides me ;-) ). The greater the number of leaseholders/ lessees who fight back, refusing to be bullied by the terrorist-like tactics of abusive landlords and their equally abusive aides, the greater the pressure to put an end to this archaic, barbaric, feudal system that benefits the pockets of a minority at the expense of the majority.

Until this happens, my main message to you - and only recommendation in this entire site - is:

Unite with your fellow lessees...

...and really pull your weight. Don't let just a few individuals shoulder the responsibility. As a united, active group, you have some power, as it makes it more difficult for the 'landlord-friendly' government departments and individuals in the professions to take advantage of you - unlike me who has been fighting this on my own.

Take heart from the example of the 78 pensioners.


Pick-up your starfish today

What do starfish have to do with this? It is a short story (*):

A storm resulted in hundreds of starfish being washed-up on a beach. A woman is walking along picking-up the starfish one by one and throwing them back to the sea.

A man, standing away, is observing her. After a while, he comes up to her, and says: "what are you doing? " "I am throwing them back to the sea otherwise they will die ".

"But there are hundreds of them on the beach! "   "Yes " says the woman, and, as she picks-up another starfish and throws it to the sea, says "and I have made a difference to that one! "

As she picks up another starfish and throws it to the sea, she says "and to that one as well! "


Imagine hundreds of people on the beach, each picking-up one starfish...

  (*) Author unknown

As somebody once said, "the forces of evil won because the good people did not do anything"

To all of you currently fighting unfair treatment from abusive landlords / their aides:



  C O M M E N T S

Back to top