The £7 million (?) (US$12m) swindle, engineered

• The continuation of the battle with the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales (ICAEW) which eventually resulted in the expected 'no malpractice' verdict

• More 'get lost' from one of Lord Falconer's department; this time, the Land Registry

• But. against of all that - events have taken place which, I 'think' will sensitise people to my case. Namely, a government that has come under attack in the media on all fronts, which include identification / claims of corruption. I'll have to wait and see... and pray!

(SUBSEQUENT NOTE: In reading events, consider (1) My Diary 13 April 2008 for reports of Britain becoming "a police state" spying on its people through an army of 'covert human intelligence sources' ; by tracking people's emails, phone calls, hacking into their personal computers, etc. (2) My Diary 7 June 2008 for: whistleblower being followed and threatened ; (3) My Diary home for an updated overview of my being under surveillance, and My Diary 2 January 2009 for the continuation of the physical threats against me)

Wednesday 4 January 2006

I am convinced that I continue to be followed on a daily basis. So, at lunch time today, I decide to again put it to the test. I go to Blackfriars tube station (consequently unusual for me to do this at lunch time, suggesting I am going somewhere). I stay in the corner, in between the ticket office and the automatic ticket dispenser (as though I might be waiting for somebody), but out of the way so that I will not inconvenience anybody. There is nothing 'suspicious' for the first 4-5 minutes.

After that a man arrives, c. 1.90m, Caucasian, mid to late 30s, glasses, wearing a black leather jacket, black trousers and black sporty shoes. He spends over a minute reading a notice on one of the boards next to which I am standing. He then goes to the automatic ticket dispenser. He looks at it for nearly one minute, making a face like he cannot figure things out.

He then goes to have a look at the rail & underground map which is a few meters away. He comes back again to have a look at the ticket dispenser, still with an expression as though he cannot understand. (He could easily have gone to the ticket office if he required assistance. There is not a queue).

He then goes to the pamphlet holder which is about 1.5 meter to the right of the automatic ticket dispenser. He takes a leaflet and looks at it for 2-3 minutes. He repeats the same thing with another leaflet, and another one, and another. During this time he occasionally looks in my direction, but not at me. I believe he does this because his attention has been caught by people arriving in the station.

After c. 10 - 12 minutes of this, I go through the automatic barriers, down the stairs in order to get to the platform .

Another man, late 30s, blond, wearing a dark blue-greyish, padded blouson is a few steps behind me as I walk down the steps to the platform. As I am pacing on the platform, keeping him in my line of vision, he goes to the kiosk to buy a newspaper.

At this point, I leave the platform and go back up to go out of the station. The man who had been looking at the leaflets is still there. I come out of the station through a side exit. I then run across the street. When I am on the other side, I turn around.

The blond man with the dark blouson has also come out of the station and is walking on the pavement.

I am certainly left in no doubt that I am being followed.

While these two men were of 'type 2' i.e. appear to have more experience of doing this type of thing than 'type 1' (e.g. the two men on Christmas day), I still tricked them! (I need to get a few laughs where I can!)

Sunday 15 January 2006

I definitely continue to be followed on a daily basis. Today I am due to meet with my Cousin in Canterbury . I walk from the 'hell hole' i.e. the flat to Victoria National Express coach station, changing direction twice on my way there (to confuse the 'minders'). I queue for a ticket but I am told that I have missed the 10h30. I nonetheless buy a ticket thinking I might take the 11h30 bus instead. I go into a corner, which is in a recess, in the same area to call my Cousin. I am therefore out of view when people come into the ticket hall. Quite a few people arrive.

However, my 'internal radar' is activated by one man, short grey hair, mid-late forties, c. 1.88m, wearing a navy blue, thigh high, padded, all-weather jacket. My 'internal radar' goes on 'alert'.

Like a significant number of men who have been following me since Summer 2005, he looks as though he could be a cop. (Of course, he might not be. I am just reporting my impressions). There is something about him that makes it fairly obvious that he has not come in the ticket hall to buy a ticket.

He gives me a hard look as he goes by and continues walking for a few steps. He then turns round and again looks at me with the same stern, hard facial expression. I return the compliment. He yet again turns around and walks to the end of the ticket hall, thereby walking alongside the people who are queuing. At the end, he turns right and walks back, also alongside the people who are queuing, but on the other side i.e. he walks alongside the ticket counters that are manned. As he goes passed me, he again looks at me with the same nasty look. Yet again, I return the compliment.

After c. one minute, I leave the area. Four young men who had been standing nearby, also start walking as I do.

I had spotted another man, late thirties, hair greying on the side, black leather blouson, black jeans, sporty, thick sole brown shoes, small brown holder strapped around his waist. He had been walking around and, when I looked at him, started to look at a small leaflet that he had been holding with his hands clasped behind his back. As I come out of the hall, he is inside close to the entrance. (I took a photograph of him)

I go into the street, where I stop a few metres from the entrance to observe movements. The four young men also station themselves about 3 metres from me. They start smoking and occasionally look in my direction. I, likewise, look at them. After c. 2 minutes, they cross onto the other pavement that is on the side of Victoria station. They look in my direction 2-3 times. (I agree, there may not have been anything suspicious there. I should also say that, at times, I must be looking a bit 'odd' to other people).

I walk back into the hall to see if I can spot the man with the grey hair and padded jacket. I cannot see him. I walk out of the hall onto the pavement and turn right to go to the bus stop in order to get the number 11 bus as I have decided the next bus would get me to Canterbury too late for lunch. After about a minute, the man, wearing a black leather blouson who had been standing inside close to the entrance also walks out and walks away in the opposite direction. I think he crossed the road. I was not paying too much attention as I was looking out for the bus. It was not the right one but one arrived shortly afterwards.

Before it does, I notice another, late 30's, dark hair man , wearing a longish black leather jacket. He is resting alongside the wall of the building in a little recess, close to the bus stop. He starts using his mobile phone. I also take a photograph of him. I board the bus that has arrived and go on the top deck from where I continue to observe the man.

As he looks up at me, I smile, a kind of sneer, as one can to oneself.

He looks back down. He then also smiles to himself.

If he is one of the 'minders', I assume he is thinking that I tricked them.

That thought cheers me up.

How dare they follow me around? I am NOT the criminal. I AM THE VICTIM

I get off the bus at Westminster Bridge and go down the tube station but in order to come out from the exit closest to the bridge. I walk on Westminster Bridge then go down the steps walking alongside the river, past the London Eye. (I am just thinking: overseas visitor to the site, you are getting a guided tour of central London !).

I stop to buy a sandwich and a drink in Gabriel's Wharf and continue walking in the direction of Blackfriars Bridge . Hence, towards my ultimate direction: the office. Just before the Oxo tower, there is a little garden area. I sit on a bench that is at the back of the area, about 25-30 metres away from the river. I open the drink I have just bought and stay there for a little while.

I notice a man , walking alongside the river, in the direction of Blackfriars Bridge . He is relatively short, very short hair / nearly bold (I cannot quite determine from where I am), possibly late 30s. (He looks the same type as e.g. the second man on Christmas day; the man on 16 July 2005 i.e. ' type 1' ).

He looks in my direction at least 2-3 times as he walks along. (I should say that for somebody strolling alongside the river, the river side view vs. where I am is a lot more attractive and interesting). I lose sight of him as he walks away. After about 5 minutes he is back i.e. has turned around. He again looks in my direction as he is walking along. The second time he does this, I wave in his direction as I am now getting fairly convinced that he is interested in what I am doing. (I am the only person in the little garden area). He continues walking, while looking in my direction two more times.

I get up and exit the garden from the back, turning left i.e. end-up walking at the back of the Oxo Tower and other buildings that are alongside the river.

It is a small street and is practically deserted.

As I have walked for about 45 metres, I turn around and who do I see?

Yes, the relatively short man of a few minutes ago. At the time that I look at him, he was about to turn right and has turned around. I wave in his direction. (Might as well help him find me again!)

I continue walking in the direction of Blackfriars Bridge and hid in a recess in case he walks by. He does not. However, I note two cyclists going in the direction of Blackfriars Bridge .

Fair minded, reasonable visitor to the site: I think you will agree that, from what I am reporting in this Diary, I am being followed - and it appears to be by a small army.

Who is footing the bill?

I wonder for how long this is going to go on.

What the objective is and how and when will it end?

Given the 'type 2' profile that has emerged since August 2005, (and bearing in mind the bombing in the London underground in July 2005), I wonder if I was reported to the police for 'suspicious acting' : I have not opened the blinds in the flat since November 2004; I leave the flat by 8h30 at the latest and tend to return past midnight, spending the time in the office - and do this seven days a week (except weekends when I leave the flat a bit later). IF I am right, the 'acrobatics' in which I have engaged in the last few months on my way to and from work in order to annoy the 'minders' will have further added to the suspicions.

I have been discussing this with family and friends. Again, emphasising IF this is indeed what has happened, another trigger, potentially 'more likely', might be the fact that, in 1998, I spent the Christmas holiday in Yemen. It was an organised tour.

Visitor to the site, you may be aware that, in Yemen , the carrying of guns in full day light is as common as wearing shoes. (I have a photograph of a notice at the entrance of a hotel in which our group stayed that states: "Please leave your gun outside" ). The driver in the lead car always had a gun. One day, while we were in a remote area, I had a photograph taken with the gun resting on my shoulder.

During our trip, some English tourists were kidnapped. (It was a question of c.15 minutes as they had just overtaken us while we had stopped in a village i.e. potentially, it could have been our group). Tragically, some were killed. On our return to the UK , all the members of my group were contacted by Scotland Yard and asked to supply all the photographs we had taken, as well as the negatives. I did so, of course including the photograph on which I was holding the gun i.e. as shown here.

Might it be that this photograph was recently dug out of files as a result of the heightened security measures? On the other hand, it would surely be realised that if I had something to hide, I would certainly not have had this photograph taken in the first place.

Furthermore, had I done this, if I had something to hide, I certainly would not have given the photograph to Scotland Yard (and the negatives i.e. showing all the other photographs taken on the film).

Does any of the above explain why I am being followed? I have no idea . However, somehow, I do not think so. Somebody with two brain cells, while concluding that something is evidently taking up a lot of my time, could not arrive at the conclusion that I am masterminding a terrorist attack. (All I do on a seven -day basis is 'hell hole' to office, back to 'hell hole').

What I believe is that I am being followed because of the fight I am putting up since 2002 - and the very damning evidence I have accumulated against various parties in the process. IF, and it is a BIG IF, my feeling is correct that some of 'my minders' are connected with the police, then, the cost to date must be very substantial.

When discussing this with friends and family - saying that it would be madness taken to the extreme...

...I give them the example of Kensington police which, in 2003, was widely reported in the media as having spent Pounds 5-7 million (US$12.4-8.8 million) of taxpayers' money investigating one of its own.

The net result of this massive expenditure was an admission that

" [the Officer]...may even have been owed Pounds 400 (US$700)"

The following are extracts from two of the many press articles at the time.

The Times , 16 September 2003

"Police tried to destroy me, says cleared officer - A FOUR-YEAR corruption investigation into a top-ranking police officer collapsed yesterday, leaving taxpayers with a bill of up to Pounds 5 million (US$8.8 million) "

"Superintendent Ali Dizaei.was the focus of the biggest investigation of a policeman, involving 100 officers, MI5, the Inland Revenue and police in the United States and Canada . He was trailed, bugged and filmed "

"The officer had been accused of being a drugtaker, a threat to national security and a friend of drug traffickers and money launderers. But the marathon inquiry ended in ignominy for the Metropolitan Police when the only remaining actual charge , fiddling Pounds 270 (US$480) mileage expenses, was dropped "

"Dr Dizaei [said] .I find it astonishing and extraordinary that taxpayers' hard-earned funds could be abused in this way."

"His defence described the investigation as having "Orwellian proportions". One undercover officer joined his gym hoping to entrap him over drugs. Police spent Pounds 15,000 (US$26,500) renting a flat in Kensington as part of the officer's cover story"

"Surveillance teams followed Dr Dizaei for 91 days. Police recorded 3,500 telephone calls and monitored 250 hours of conversation . CCTV cameras watched him all over London . Police checked his claims to a married man's allowance and even went to his dry cleaner to see if he got a discount "

"The jury cleared him in two hours"

"Charges that Dr Dizaei had fiddled mileage expenses were dropped at the Old Bailey yesterday, two weeks before a second trial was due. The CPS had realised that it could probably claim that only Pounds 270 (US$480) might have been fiddled. It also admitted that Dr Dizaei... may even have been owed Pounds 400 (US$700) "

The Guardian , 20 March 2004

".By the time he was tried last year, all charges had been dropped, bar two: perverting the course of justice (over where his car had been parked) and misconduct in public office (relating to a pounds 270 (US$480) expenses claim)"

After an estimated pounds 7 million (US$12.4 million) of public money had been spent on the investigation, he was acquitted on both counts at two Old Bailey trials"

".the prosecution was forced to admit that, rather than overclaiming pounds 270 (US$480) from the Black Police Association (BPA), Dizaei was owed around pounds 400 (US$700) "

"Dizaei [said] "Put yourself in my shoes for a minute. Imagine there were 44 people you worked with who got up every morning for three years , with all the executive power at their disposal, all the money they wanted.." The 44 people he refers to are the officers who formed Operation Helios, the team created to investigate him in 1999"

"At his trial last year, documents disclosed to the defence revealed the lengths to which Helios officers were prepared to go to find something of which they could accuse Dizaei."

"Fly to south of France to obtain statements from a concert-goer re sale of concert tickets"

"Trace and take statement from every taxi driver who has given defendant a receipt since 1998."

This is how far Kensington police et. al. are prepared to go - at the taxpayers' expense.

Note at end July 2006 - Whatever the true reasons that motivated the above, as reported in the press, it simply does not make any sense for the police to have me under 24hr surveillance for, so far, a whole year.

IF I was maliciously reported to the police as engaging in some activity construed as a potential threat to national security, it surely would not take that long to conclude that this was not the case.

What would they have been reporting for a whole year? Well, all that they would have been able to report is: spends her life in the office, including holidays, and gives us the run around on her way to and back from there. Occasionally, sees the same handful of people (against which the police cannot have anything. Some of these people are members of C.A.R.L. ).

(Because I am in full time employment, I can only develop the site in the evenings, at weekends and during my annual leave. So obviously, I have no time for doing anything else. I am sure that anybody who sees the content of the site will have no difficulty believing that it has taken over 2,000 hours to develop. On top of which, I have also had to learn using some software packages in order to do it.

In addition, I have also had some 'battles' going on during that period that have taken up a lot of my time e.g. the ICAEW; the 10 February 2006 so-called 'notice of first refusal' (also covered below under 18 February); the Land Registry (see 28 March 2006, as well as towards the end of the section on Lord Falconer of Thoroton)).

SO: the most 'logical' explanation for my suspicions that some of the 'minders' are connected with the police is that they are ex. policemen employed by the private sector. The company is making a fortune! Maybe I should ask it for a commission? (Joke!)

Third week January 2006

I collected my post from the PO Box and found an invoice from Martin Russell Jones , dated 9 January 2006, this time stating a

"Brought forward balance" of £5,625 (US$9,900) .

Yet again, no explanation provided .

Hence, what is the amount currently hanging over my head? £15,500 (US$27,300) (?) £14,500 (US$25,600) (?) £5,625 (US$9,900) (?), or all three combined, making a total of £35,625 (US$63,000)?

Other components of the correspondence are BOGUS / FRAUDULENT. See below the 18 February 2006 entry for detail, as well as Pridie Brewster

Saturday 21 January and Sunday 22 January 2006

I spent the weekend on the south coast with two of my cousins. I believe we were followed. One man in particular who gave me a nasty look on the 2-3 occasions I looked at him. (It might have something to do with the fact that for the last two weeks or so when I spot a 'might be' I sing 'let the dogs loose' and / or let the [scums] [Note] loose' as I go past. Well, it will only offend those who feel it could apply to them).

It also seemed to me that there was at least a couple (the man was tall; the woman considerably shorter, short hair died in a strong red/aubergine colour). I also spotted another couple that seemed interested in our movements. They were looking at a house that had a 'for sale' sign, as well as looking in my direction 2-3 times. They went into what, on the face of it, was an involved discussion in relation to the house. However, it came across to me as a 'show'.

On my return on Sunday, I also spotted other things.

Monday 23 January 2006

On leaving the block, as I walk towards the end of Basil Street , my 'internal radar' switches on as I spot a man stationary on the pavement. He is of 'type 2' i.e. 'appears' to me as though he could be a cop . Of course, as I have stated in earlier instances, he might not be . I am just reporting my impressions. At least, unlike the others, he does not have that arrogant, defiant, superior, smug look.

There is a bucket and mop / something to clean windows next to him i.e. as though he is a window cleaner. However, his body language suggests otherwise to me. He is as connected to these items as I am i.e. not at all. I decide to walk up to him to ask him for the time. As he sees me walking in his direction he seems to me to be getting slightly ill-at-ease. When I ask him for the time, he tries to suppress a little smile.

When I get to the bus stop to catch the #9 bus, I spot another man, stationary on the other pavement, quite a distance up from the bus stop. Tall, thin, wearing a woolen hat, dressed in workout type clothes. He is looking in my direction every 10-15 seconds. When the bus arrives, I wave in his direction. Might as well say goodbye!

I get some good news when I get to the office as I find an email from a friend who attached a copy of an article published in the Property section of the Daily Telegraph of Saturday 21st . I missed it! It talks about my case and that of other leaseholders. (The journalist had phoned me a while back. I thought the newspaper had dropped the idea).

The good news is not my being mentioned (it is now the fourth time that my case is covered in the press, and the impact has been: ' ZERO') (hence providing further support to my claim that 'there is absolutely nothing on this island to help me'), but the fact that the whole of the first page shows the photograph of a man in chains with padlocks. The caption, in large bold letters reads:

"It's a feudal form of property ownership and new laws do little to protect us. Everywhere leasehold has us tied in chains" .

Well done Daily Telegraph! If only this could be picked-up as a media-wide campaign.

It is now 22h30. I wish I could stay in the office all night. I dread going back to the 'hell hole'. However, best pack-up and go as I got up very early this morning.

Rest of week beginning 23 January 2006

More of the same thing: I definitely continue to be observed / followed. On leaving the block to go to work in the morning, I again saw men, stationary on the pavement (one man immediately across the block on the other pavement; another one on the corner with Hans Crescent ) (who was there two days running) looking at me with insistence as if to say: "Look we are! We are watching you!" The one on the corner in particular, had this nasty, arrogant and superior hard look (same type as on e.g. 15 January 2006 - the man who went round the ticket hall)

I am really glad I am giving them a hard time, provoking them to the extent that it leads them to adopt this behaviour.

Their male ego cannot cope with a woman giving them the run around.

How unbelievably stupid! Well, I suppose that if they had the brain to do something intellectually challenging they would not be standing endlessly on pavements taking root like vegetables.

On the first day, I had stopped across the one on the corner, resting my left hand on my hip and looked from one to the other (they were both looking at me) while shaking my head suggesting "you pathetic, sad people! Contempt inducing scums! "

Maybe the best policy would be to pretend I don't see them. But it makes me very angry to have such an invasion of my privacy.

By doing this, under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, EVERY SINGLE TIME they commit a criminal offence against me. They are also breaching my Human Rights under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights - Respect to private life.

I am being watched, spied on and monitored as though I am a criminal. I HAVE DONE NOTHING WRONG. I AM NOT A CRIMINAL. I AM THE VICTIM.

Years ago, when I read George Orwell '1984', I thought: "This is just fiction" . Not any more.

Apparently, there are more CCTV cameras per head of population on this island than anywhere else in the world. Quite a few people I have discussed this with, hold the view that, contrary to the claim, these cameras are not for the benefit of the 'common man and woman' in the street. (As an example, see Knightsbridge tube station (in a wealthy part of town) for the ridiculous number of CCTV cameras. You would think that it houses the crown jewels. Definitely a case of 'Big brother' is watching you absolutely everywhere!)

During February 2006

I still continue to be followed / observed and having a bit of fun with it by challenging the 'minders'. I am not capturing events because it takes a long time to explain. However just the following two.

On Sunday 26 February 2006, or more precisely Monday at it was c. 00:10 a.m. I again saw the man I had seen on Saturday 10 September 2005 at 23h45.

This time he was sitting in a car across the same bus stop on Fleet Street. It was the same car as previously.

I crossed the road to note the make of the car, as well as look at the number plate which, I realised, I had not noted quite correctly on the previous occasion. It is an unusual number plate composed of five letters and no number. The first two letters, which start with 'SI' are together.

The make of the car is a Subaru estate, cream colour.

(NB: I saw him again on Saturday 18 March 2006 and on Monday 24 April 2006 at 00h15 a.m.).

Within 30 seconds of my being behind the car, a woman of Far East origin came running out the building along which the car was parked and hurriedly jumped in the car. She was not wearing a coat. It was quite cold that night. They departed immediately.

On Tuesday 28 / Wednesday 1 March , I opted to do one of my little detours on my way to work. It was about 08h40. I walked alongside the back of Harrods to go to Brompton Road . On the corner, with Hans Road, there is a Barclays bank. It has two automatic cash dispensers on the Brompton Road side. A man was standing idly in front of one of them. Early 40s, c. 1.77m hair, cut short ; he was wearing a blouson.

I saw that he was looking in my direction and continued to do so as I went past. There was something about him that made me stop a few metres afterwards to observe what he would do. He kept looking in my direction. I did to - while, in the process, relating to a friend on my mobile phone what was taking place and laughing. The man was definitely looking uncomfortable, not knowing what to do.

A woman arrived wanting to use the cash dispenser. He spoke to her. I assumed from his gesture, the movement of her head and the fact that she used the other cash dispenser that he had told her that the one in front of which he was standing was not working.

As I kept looking at him, he turned ending up facing the glass window of the bank.

He must have seen a bank employee inside, as he made a highly exaggerated gesture in pointing towards the cash dispenser. The way he pointed at the cash dispenser, you would think that a bomb was about to explode.

He then run like a demented individual to the door of the bank on the corner. As he looked in my direction, I continued laughing, as the 'show' was rather amusing. And a 'show' it was! I then left.

Saturday 18 February 2006 - Collecting my post

As I was about to enter the sorting office, my 'internal radar' kicked into action leading me to spot a man about 30 metres down on the opposite pavement. He was tall, slim, in his 50's, wearing a long, dark blue overcoat.

He was stationary and looking at me, exuding negativity. I felt that his interest was in me and opted to wave in his direction while aiming to communicate: 'Yes[ scum ] [Note], I am collecting my post'. Actually, what I really felt is that he was not one of 'the [ scum ] [Note]', but one of the Mr Ladsky et. al. parties. Judging by the follow-on events, looks as though my 'internal radar' was on target

Saturday 18 February 2006 - The "Notice by landlord"

From my PO Box, I took delivery of a "Notice by landlord" i.e. offer of 'first refusal' (see Extracts from legislation ), dated 10 February 2006 , sent by Portner and Jaskel , solicitors, 63/65 Marylebone Lane, London W1U 2RA.

The minute I saw the name 'Portner and Jaskel' I immediately suspected something 'fishy' or, to be more precise: fraudulent...

....as I already knew about its method of operating which, like that of Mr Ladsky's other 'advisers', Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor and Martin Russell Jones is based on bullying, intimidation and blackmail.

Hence, in complete disregard of the laws of the land.

I WAS RIGHT!

This prior knowledge relates to events with the then Elderly Resident (74 years old).

In November 2001, some residents had approached Nucleus, our local Citizen Advice Bureau, over the service charges for Jefferson House. Nucleus suggested we appoint an arbitrator (as per the clause in the lease - Clause 2(2)(g) ). (Full copy of my lease)

Because the Elderly Resident paid the initial £250 (US$450) application fee to appoint an arbitrator, his name featured on the application document. As we subsequently discovered that the arbitrator would be charging £130 (US$230)an hour for this service, we did not proceed with the application.

Following on from this, the Elderly Resident received a letter from 'Steel Services', dated 2 January 2002 , claiming compensation of £1,586 (US$2,800) for " legal and surveyor fees" and demanded...

..."payment within fourteen days, failing which we shall take such appropriate steps as may be available to us, including issuing proceedings against you without further notice"

I view this letter as having been written by Mr Andrew Ladsky. See his letter to me and other leaseholders of 25 January 2001 (other examples: 'Steel Services' letter to Nucleus of 14 November 2001 ; and letter 'from' Ms Hathaway of 16 December 2002 , those of 20 January 2003 and 4 March 2003 written / supplied to the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal

NOTE at October 2006 - YES! I WAS RIGHT! (And I knew I was: the 'trademark' is so obvious)...

...In its - libellous, scurrilous - 3 October 2006 letter to my website Host Portner and Jaskel identified its client as being Mr Andrew Ladsky. (See My Diary - 3 October 2006 - Post site launch)

Understandably, this poor Elderly Resident was in a terrible state.

As he was not paying the sum, in a letter dated 28 January 2002 , Portner and Jaskel, demanded payment of £1,337 (US$2,400), stating:

"...unless we are in receipt of the aforementioned sum [£1,337.50] by 4.00 p.m. on Thursday 31 January next (i.e. within three days of writing the letter) proceedings shall be issued against you to recover without further notice. Should our client company be obliged to commence proceedings in addition to the costs we will seek interest on the above sum at the rate of 8% per annum until payment"

Within less than a month, the Elderly Resident received a claim from Central London County Court for £1,532 (US$2,700) dated 26 February 2002 . This claim was filed by Portner and Jaskel.

This claim amounted to bullying and intimidation as it was totally unjustified. The Elderly Resident ended-up paying because his solicitor told him that his fees would be as much as the sum demanded. (NB!!!) Hence: the Business model had, yet again worked as landlord was - unjustifiably - £1,532 better off.

('Some good' did come out of this because, on the claim, Steel Services stated an address in the British Virgin Islands. It led me to follow this up a few months later and to discover that Steel Services had been "struck off the BVI registry for non-payment of the licence fee" .

The second 'bonus' was that it describes Steel Services as the 'freeholder'. See section Owners identity for detail)

The 10 February 2006 "notice" appeared to offer a golden opportunity for PAY-BACK to Portner and Jaskel - and its client - for what they had done to the Elderly Resident .

I WAS RIGHT! And I had great fun doing it.

(Funny how rogue solicitors appear to overlook the potential 'boomerang effect'. They are blinded by their unbelievable arrogance and grossly inflated sense of superiority)

Two other things added to my suspicions.

• The first one was the "offer" price of £120,000 (US$211,600). Indeed, it is fascinating to see how the price of a "headlease" for a block of flats in Knightsbridge has tumbled over the last six years - especially when compared with average UK property prices.

(PDF of: graph 1 ; graph 2 )

• Secondly, pages one and two of the Land Registry title for Steel Services were not included with the so-called "Notice"

I remembered what happened with the December 2000 "Notice" when I and other leaseholders were sent on a wild goose chase, wasting our time and money for nothing as the "notice" was pulled from 'under our nose' - while a change of ownership nonetheless took place . See Notices by landlord for detail.

It led me to obtain from the Land Registry all the titles for Jefferson House . This cost me c. £200 (US$350), as well as numerous hours mapping out the ownership. (Judging from the evidence left on the Land Registry online database in February 2006, Mr Ladsky had been spending quite a bit of time building his multi-level maze - as explained at the end of section Owners identity )

It required that I also use copy of titles I had obtained over the previous years. My resulting summary confirmed that my suspicions were totally justified (see also Freehold ownership , Headlessors and Owners identity )

Indeed, highlighting what some people might describe as "conjuring up sociopathic character traits, including the belief of being 'above the laws of the land', as well as malice / perversion", I discovered that JUST TEN DAYS before Mr Daniel Broughton, Portner and Jaskel, sent the "notice" on behalf of Steel Services' i.e. Mr Ladsky et. al., its client had disposed of the title to Lavagna Enterprises Ltd. (It might be more accurate to say "seven weeks previously", as the first page of the Land Registry document states "15 December 2005")

A 'Section 5 Notice' is an important legal document. Consequently, a solicitor is expected to ensure the accuracy of its contents. It was abundantly clear to me that what had happened was the result of collusion by Portner and Jaskel - rather than just gross incompetence:

• Page one of the title withheld by Portner and Jaskel state that the 'airspace of Jefferson House' was removed from the title. The 'airspace' has the penthouse flat as lessee . Hence, the headlessee i.e. Steel Services, no longer has control of the last floor of Jefferson House .

• Judging from the date of the mortgage obtained from HSBC, point six, on page three which states 31 January 2006, the copy of the title was obtained just prior to Mr Broughton sending the "Notice" .

Yet, the description of the "disposal" in the 10 February 2006 "notice" is a carbon copy of previous notices e.g. 13 December 2000 when Steel Services's headlease covered the whole block.

Considering: (1) the extortionate service charge demands (confirmed by the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal in its 17 June 2003 report, ref: LVT/SC/007/120/02 report (ref #992 on the LVT database) ; (2) the filing of a - false - claim against 11 leaseholders (representing 14 flats) in West London County Court on 29 November 2002 (ref. WL 203537); (3) the recent further 'carving out' of Jefferson House, etc., etc., I suspect that the current ownership profile of the flats is unlikely to meet the requirement of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 (Part 1, S.1 (2) ) for the issue of a S.5 Notice. Indeed, it 'seems' to me that Mr Ladsky has succeeded in making the majority of leaseholders leave the block. (See below for my explanation on the use of 'seems')

Consequently, I 'suspect' that this 'exercise' was undertaken solely for 'my benefit', for the fun of it and out of vengeance. I had every intention of catching them at their own game. How far would they go with it?

Well, including the "notice", Mr Broughton made the SAME CLAIM ON THREE occasions.

In my first reply to Mr Broughton of 3 March 2006 I wrote:

"My understanding of this is that the "Notice", refers to the building, as it stands now, in its entirety i.e. the whole of Jefferson House. Please, confirm"

As you can see, no potential for confusion in the way I expressed it. I knew the "notice" was bogus so, I set up my 'snare' very carefully.

Although his 6 March 2006 was affirmative, the address that he stated was different (he quoted one of the addresses for the freehold - further proving that he had all the relevant documents in his possession), in my follow-up letter 11 March 2006 I asked him to confirm the correct address. He replied on 14 March 2006 confirming that the address was that captured in the "notice" .

Hence: Mr Broughton, Portner and Jaskel, confirmed that the "Notice" relates "to the building, as it stands now, in its entirety i.e. the whole of Jefferson House" .

They wanted to have fun at my expense. BAD MOVE! I was going to turn the table on them making their game backfire and blow-up in their face in a big way. 'I' was going to have the fun.

In my 30 March 2006 letter to Mr Broughton, I wrote:

"It follows that the "disposal" being offered in the "Notice" for £120,000 (US$211,600) is the Title for Lavagna Enterprises Limited, as it owns - as of 31 January 2006 (i.e. barely 10 days before you sent the "Notice"):

one Title covering all the floors of Jefferson House, except the last floor and the roof

one Title covering the airspace of Jefferson Ho use which includes the Title for the penthouse flat, as well as associated parking space.

As you omitted to include pages one and two of the Title for Steel Services when you sent me the "Notice", I assume that you have, likewise, omitted to include the other above-mentioned Titles. Please, confirm"

I 'think' this letter probably caused the equivalent of a major earthquake on arrival.

In his reply of 3 April 2006 , Mr Broughton wrote:

"The disposal being offered, as per the content of the notice, is in respect of the interest held in the property by Steel Services Ltd and not any interest in the property that may be held by Lavagna Enterprises Ltd "

He also wrote:

"I would advise pages 1 and 2 of the title documents were deliberately omitted as our client is not required to provide this information. All other relevant information has been provided"

My reply of 30 April 2006 (1.1MB) addresses these comments, as well as other points, including - my non-lawyer - assessment of Mr Broughton and his client's breaches of statutes (see below 28 March 2006, as well Notices by landlord ) which led me to conclude with the following:

"In conclusion, in relation to your final comment in your 3 April 2006 letter:

"I can be of no further assistance to you and would recommend you seek independent legal advice."

I return the advice and suggest that you - and your client - seek legal advice"

To write this letter cost me many hours of desk research on various statutes, as well as the Solicitors code of conduct. I probably sift through over 400 pages, which I then reduced to 200 pages, etc., etc.

Given the profile of my 'target audience' I had to be 500% sure of what I was writing. The letter also cost me many hours. But, this very substantial investment was worth it.

My overall feeling was: another one bites the dust!

Mr Broughton's 3 May 2006 reply (at the back of my 30 April 2006 (1.1MB)) was

"Whilst your letter is irrelevant in places, misguided in others and incorrect parts you are of course free to pursue whatever course you so wish should you feel further action is required"

How gracious of him to give me the permission!

Note that Mr Broughton does not reply to any of the contents of my 30 April 2006 letter.

I WONDER WHY? ... considering (to use a leaseholder's expression about his own landlord) that his client

"...seem to have turned intimidatory litigation into an industry"

(Even girlfriends can end-up in "...a court battle over a floor-length sheepskin coat and two paintings" (Reference to Mr Andrew Ladsky in an article in the Sunday Times ) (back-up printscreen )

Considering my very extensive first-hand experience with the Law Society , in relation to Piper Smith Basham and Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor , there is no point filing a complaint against this firm as it would ignore the evidence and conclude that there is no malpractice.

For the same reason: no point contemplating the possibility of then escalating my complaint to the Legal Services Ombudsman .

The outcome of the disposal by Steel Services is that it has further imprisoned me in the flat - as major covenants in my lease CANNOT be performed by 'the landlord'.

(See below 28 March 2006, as well as Notices by landlord for detail)

These events further demonstrate the unbelievable viciousness, evilness, arrogance and utter contempt of the laws of the land by Mr Andrew Ladsky et. al. and their aides.

The worst part of it is that they do it because they know that - on this island - there is absolutely nothing to stop them. (If there was the risk of sanction, they would be far less likely to do it).

Not only does the system give them carte blanche to do exactly as they please - it actually actively helps them in their actions.

Another example of this can be seen in the below entry for 28 March 2006 in relation to the Land Registry when I approached it for assistance upon discovering that the recent further carving out of Jefferson House resulted in 'Steel Services' no longer being able to perform major covenants in my lease.

The other pay-off from the so-called "notice"

As I mentioned earlier on, this episode with the "notice" has cost me many hours of my life - as well as considerable other costs. However, it has proved to be very useful as it induced me to conduct a thorough search on the Land Registry - an action which, very clearly, Messrs Ladsky and Broughton were not expecting me to take. (Probably on grounds of cost). And, if they thought that I might do it, my guess is that they did not expect that I would be able to map out the ownership of the block due to the layers / interlinking between some of the titles.

I had not done a search on the Land Registry since April 2004 as, while it seems to me that many of the leaseholders have left the block, I know for a fact that Land Registry records do not necessarily reflect the true position.

(Some time ago, when I flagged this up while visiting the main Land Registry office in London, I received the reply that thousands of changes were taking place every day and that, consequently, the Land Registry could not police the registrations. When I asked whether there were sanctions for not communicating changes in ownership, I received a 'no' in reply and was told that the system relies essentially on solicitors communicating the information.

From my latest searches on all the titles for Jefferson House, I suspect that change of ownership has taken place but it has not been reflected in the titles . Hence the comment in my 30 April 2006 (1.1MB) reply to Portner and Jaskel that I "wonder whether I was the sole recipient of this latest "notice" )

Aside from leading me to discover that I am now in a 'bigger mess' than ever , the pay-off of this search on the Land Registry is that I can use it in other contexts.

One that springs to mind immediately is the 9 January 2006 invoice from Martin Russell Jones , stating "Brought forward balance" of £5,625 (US$9,900) - with no explanation whatsoever.

In particular, the fact that this invoice includes the sum of £815 (US$1,435) which is described as "25 Dec 2005 - 23 June 2006 - Half yearly service charge in advance".

With this invoice, was also enclosed (among others), a document headed " Steel Services estimated expenditure for the year ended 2006 " from which the sum of £815 has somehow been calculated. (I cannot figure out how the sum was arrived at).

The 'so-called' "Apportionments" notes at the bottom of the document state that "Schedule 1" refers to "All flats" , while "Schedule 2" states "Flats 1 to 35 only" .

This is FRAUDULENT given that Steel Services no longer has control of the whole building.

In addition, as a result of the 'major' works, three new flats were added: 18A, 33A and 35A. (The proprietor of the lease on these three new flats is Lavagna Enterprises Limited).

The outcome is summarised in this document . For detail see Headlessors and Owners identity

Oxford English dictionary definition of fraud: "Wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain"

(See also 'Breach' under Definition of words)

Consequently, these claims of "Steel Services estimated expenditure" - on which a demand for payment from me is based - are FRAUDULENT...

...as they do not reflect the fact that a significant part of the expenditure must be assigned to the penthouse flat - over which Steel Services has NO CONTROL as it is now in the hands of Lavagna Enterprises.

The document " Steel Services estimated expenditure for the year ended 2006 " does not provide any explanation as to the meaning of the "Apportionments" for "Schedule 1 and 2"

Nor does it contain any statement on the changes and additions to the block. Very clearly, these changes and additions have a major impact on the lessees' share of the costs.

I was going to use this in the context of my complaint to the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales against the accountant for Jefferson House, Pridie Brewster . (See entry, 'Beginning of May 2006 for detail)

**Adding to the lesson to Mr Ladsky et. al. and their equally corrupt (*) aides:**

Beware of what you do to others, as it can come back and KICK YOU 'REAL HARD'

Tuesday 7 March 2006

The 'minders' continue to be in tow . This morning I opted to walk alongside the back of Harrods, crossed the Brompton Road and, instead of turning right into Cheval Place which I have done a few times recently, for the purpose of confusing the 'minders', as well as establish whether I was being followed, I continued in the direction of South Kensington. Having come to the end of the frontage of the Nat West bank, before going down the few steps, I decided to 'plant' myself there - and observe.

There was a man a few metres behind me. He was in his late 20s, c.1.80m, shifty looking, wearing a training type top with a hood - which he was wearing.

He went to one of the cash dispensers, but did not use it. A bank employee arrived. The man went to talk to him. Judging from the bank employee's body language, he most probably asked him when the bank would open. (An usual question for a local to ask. It was c. 8h40). I continued to observe him.

As he was about to cross the road, he turned round in my direction. Having crossed the road, he went in a dry cleaner shop where there was at least one customer. However, the man only stayed in for about 30 seconds.

As he came out, he again looked in my direction . He then walked for a few metres. Yet again, he looked in my direction . (We were about 50 metres apart).

At that point, I waved in his direction. As I did this, he pulled his hood further forward on his face and crossed the road back again i.e. coming back on the side of the road from which he had previously crossed it.

Hence, he had crossed the road to do what? Nothing! In addition, why his very noticeable interest in me? He then continued straight ahead in an alley alongside the Oratory.

At that point, I started to walk in that direction. Within a few metres there is a street on the right, going alongside a little square. As I was about to cross the road, a man passed in front of me. I have seen him at least 2-3 times previously . Early 40s', c. 1.75m, grey hair, cut very short, wearing a three-quarter length black coat. He was smoking. As he went closely past me, I noted that the look on his face conveyed anger. He continued in the street alongside the square. I headed towards the next turning on the right.

I continued 'my circuit' walking to the Albert Hall from where I took a bus to go to work. Before taking the bus, I noticed 1-2 'possible' but, not sure.

Week commencing 13 March 2006

I continue to be followed on a daily basis. This includes whatever time I leave the office at night. Hence, I continue to take the 'minders' for a walk on my convoluted 'circuits'.

Friday 17 March at c. 0h15

In Jermyn St , I concluded that a man, in his 40s, grey hair, cut very short, wearing a black coat - I had seen before - was definitely interested in my movements. I was on the phone relating to a friend what was taking place. He was playing the same game I have been playing over recent months: crossing Jermyn St , back tracking, crossing the street again, making more U turns, crossing the street again.

When I ended up being on the same pavement as he was, as he was walking towards me he had a nasty, hard look on his face. When he came to my height I said "smells like a [reject from the sewer] [ Note] , looks like a [reject from the sewer] [ Note] , got to be a [reject from the sewer] [ Note]"

I have been saying this for a while when I conclude that somebody is interested in my movements.

To me, that's what they are: [reject from the sewer] [ Note]. (Although it is insulting to [cannot replace] [ Note]) . He continued walking.

Saturday 18 March 2006 - 23h30

I left the office around 23h30. As I arrived on Fleet St , I spotted the car I saw on Sunday 26 February 2006, as well as on Saturday 10 September 2005 i.e. the cream colour Subaru estate with a five-letter number plate starting with 'SI'

As I walked the few metres to the bus stop, I saw the man I had previously seen drive the car.

He was on the pavement along which the car was parked c. 15 metres further up (direction Aldwych). He was wearing a padded thigh length, cream colour jacket and woolen hat. As previously, he wore glasses .

It seems to me that he had been stationary and that he had started to walk from the time I arrived on Fleet St . (He could not have stopped to do anything as everything was closed).

He was looking at me as he was walking towards the car which, for the last few metres, he did by walking on the street. Hence, I was bound to see him. He entered the car and drove off.

Monday 20 March 2006 - 08h30

On leaving the block at c. 08h30, once I had walked a few metres in the direction of Hans Crescent , I noticed a woman standing in front of the first entrance door to Harrods. She was standing very close to one of the doors and therefore in the entrance recess. She looked in her 40s, blond, long hair, badly cut. About 1.68m in height, she wore a cream colour, waist length leather jacket and trousers. I would describe her overall look as 'ordinary' (rather than sophisticated). She had a handbag as well as a carrying case of the type used for computers.

I turned right into Hans Crescent in the direction of the tube station. I was walking slowly for the purpose of being able to observe her in the shop window of the patisserie shop that is on the corner with Basil St and Hans Crescent , as well as observe other movements.

As I was doing this, I saw her cross the street and walk in my direction. On seeing this I opted to stop and look at the menu displayed on the patisserie's shop window. She did the same, standing barely 40 cm to my right. It was quite obvious that, like me, she was not reading the menu. Although still possible to read it, we were standing about 60cm away from it.

I remained 'planted' there. I could feel that she was looking at me sideways. I did not move other than position my bag in a more comfortable position. I had made-up my mind that I would stay on the spot until she left. About two and a half minutes went by. (This is a long time). She then left, crossing the street back in the direction from which she had come but, instead of going back to stand in the Harrods door, she continued walking, going into the street that is at the back of Harrods i.e. the continuation of Basil Street.

I consider this as further evidence in support of my claim that I continue being observed and followed.

What was this woman doing standing in front the Harrods door 1.5 hours before it was due to open?

Why, from standing there, did she walk across to have a look at the menu - mimicking what I was doing?

Why did she stand there for that length of time - at a distance that is more than the average person would be standing at in order to look at a menu?

Why did she then crossed back the road and walked off?

My view is that because I live a few metres away, and was on my way to my work, she did not expect me to stop on the pavement to look at the menu. Like the other [despicable scums ] [Note] who have been following me, they are simply not prepared to react to the unexpected. Their abhorrent, criminal paymasters ought to be giving them a better brief.

Tuesday 21 March 2006 - 08h35

On leaving the block to go to work at c. 08h35, I turned right into Basil Street and walked all the way to the corner with Sloane Street . I then crossed the road. Once on the other pavement, I went back down Basil Street and turned right in the alley alongside the fire station.

Once on Brompton, having walked a few paces in the direction of Harrods, I noticed a man close to the pedestrian crossing. He was positioned facing in my direction i.e. not as the average person would position themselves while waiting to cross. Hence, he appeared to me to be loitering around. As there was no traffic on my side, and the traffic on the other side of the road was stationary, I run across the road. As I did this, I could see from the corner of my eye that the man also started to cross the road.

Once on Knightsbridge Green , I opted to walk to the mobile phone shop so that I would be able to watch him in the reflection of the glass. Within about 30 seconds he had also walked to the shop and stood c. 2 metres to my right.

He was about 1.88m, in his 30s. He looked as though he could be of North African origin. Pot marked face . He wore a pull over, thin fabric, dark blue anorak with a hood which he had pulled over his head and had fastened across his chin. (It was not raining on that day. The temperature was c. 4-5 degrees centigrade). He appeared to me more interested in me more than in the shop. Through my body language, I also communicated that, likewise, I was not interested in the shop. After about one minute, he turned around facing in the direction of Harrods, looking at me in the process, and walked behind me.

I followed him. He only took a few paces and then stopped, while facing in the Harrods direction.

Considering what had happened, at that point I said "smells like a [reject from the sewer] [Note], looks like a [reject from the sewer] [Note] , got to be a [reject from the sewer] [Note]" . He did not move.

I walked away in the direction of the alley and took the first street on the left where I stayed for c. one minute to see if he would come by. He did not. When I retraced my steps in order to see whether he was still there, I could not see him. He had left in the direction of Harrods.

I know that this man's interest was in me.

From being idle when I had arrived on the pavement: why did he start to cross once I had started to do it? Why did he come and plant himself next to me in front of the shop window while observing me? Why did he walk away for c. 4 metres and then stop? Why, having done what he had done, did he - only subsequently - walk off in the direction of Harrods?

Wednesday 22 March 2006 - 01h15

I left the office after midnight i.e. at the end of Tuesday 21 March. I took the bus and got off at the first stop in Regent Street . From there I turned into Vigo St and continued on Burlington leading to Old Bond St / New Bond St .

Something was bothering me that led me to stop on the other pavement on New Bond St. (As you can imagine, at that time of night the streets were deserted). It was a car, parked alongside with its lights on. I was on the phone. I stayed in front of a shop on New Bond St .

After 2-3 minutes I went back on Burlington . I remained on the phone while positioning myself alongside a shop. A man, who had come from the direction of Vigo St , went by on the opposite pavement, and turned right into New Bond St .

After about 2 minutes, another man, in his early 40s, moustache, wearing an all weather jacket, dark grey on the upper part, and lighter grey below, with red stripes on the inner part of the sleeves + along the side, was coming from the direction I had come i.e. from the Vigo St end. (And therefore from the same direction as the other man)

He was walking on the other pavement, slowly and was looking at me intermittently. I was still on the phone. Once he had reached the end of the street i.e. on the corner with Old Bond St , he turned round. He again walked slowly and, as he was doing this, was looking at me intermittently.

At the height with Cork St he remained stationary on the pavement, still looking at me. He stayed there for c. two minutes. He then crossed Burlington and went into Cork St . I opted to walk to the corner of Bravington and Cork St . He was stationary on the opposite pavement a few metres down Cork St . I continued talking on the phone and went back to where I had positioned myself on Burlington .

After about one minute, he reappeared out of Cork St , crossed Burlington and walked in the direction of Vigo St . This time, he did this at a normal pace. However, after about 15 metres, he again turned back and hence started to walk back in my direction. He again stopped on the pavement i.e. the opposite pavement from where I was. I remained where I was. After about two minutes, he again crossed Burlington and went into Cork St .

As he was doing this, the car I had seen parked on New Bond St with its lights on, passed in front of me and turned into Cork St . I thought that it might come and pick up the man. I walked to the corner of Cork St . The car had indeed stopped about 80m down Cork St to pick-up somebody who appeared to look like the man who had walked down Burlington and turned right into New Bond St . The other man i.e. with the grey jacket was on the other pavement and talking to a man. By then it was c. 01h45. I decided to leave.

Fair minded, reasonable visitor to the site, make what you will of this. This is what took place.

Could this be construed as a display of what I have been doing over the last few months i.e. my convoluted routes and frequent U turns? I think so ( as happened as well on Friday 17 March 2005).

I am very glad it is leading them to act in this way. I am obviously getting to them.

Their male ego cannot handle a woman giving them the run around - and their stupidity leads them to show it! How funny!

Sunday 26 March 2006 - 11h00

I left the flat around 11h00 and walked alongside the back of Harrods. I then turned left into Hans Square , taking the exit that leads on Pont Street . I crossed the street and continued on Pavilion Road . (A route I used to take to go to Sloane Sq tube station). At that point, I made a U turn. Once on Pont Street , I walked in the direction of Sloane Street . I was on the phone. I stopped on the corner for the purpose of 'observation'. I noted a man who had come from Sloane Street, crossed Pont Street in a diagonal in the direction of Pavilion Road i.e. where I had been two minutes previously.

I turned right on Sloane Street and went to the nearby bus stop. I stayed there for about five minutes debating what I was going to do next. In case I was being followed, to annoy the [morally depraved, lowlife] [ Note ] ', I decided to cross Sloane Street and turned right into Pont Street . I took the second street on the right, Cadogan Lane , which is quiet. I was walking slowly as I was still on the phone.

I have also previously taken this route to go to Sloane Square tube station. However, when I reached Clive Place/Sloane Sq I opted to turn left in the direction of Victoria . After about 20 metres, I crossed Clive Place and went into Bourne Street . This is a very quiet, residential street.

Having walked for about 50 metres my 'internal radar' led me to turn round and to discover that the man I had seen c. 15 minutes previously was about 30 metres behind me. He was walking quite fast. I took a photograph.

He went past me and, because of the speed at which he was walking, within about one minute he was already well ahead of me.

If this man's intention had been to use this route, why did he take a route ( Pavilion Road ) which took him further away (although, it does run parallel to Sloane Street ). (By the time he was in Bourne St , he was still empty handed). Also, considering the pace at which he was walking - and mine - if the intention had been to go there, he would have gone down Bourne Street well ahead of me. It led me to conclude that there was a high probability that his interest was in me.

Good! Another one caught in the act! And another photograph to add to the growing collection. Despicable, criminal scums!

(As stated previously, EVERY ONE of these individuals is committing a criminal offence against me under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 - as well as breaching my Human Rights under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights - Respect to private life - contained in the Human Rights Act 1998

28 March 2006 - The 'get lost' from the Land Registry

As explained earlier on under the 18 February 2006 entry (as well as under Notices by landlord ), the outcome of 'Steel Services' i.e. Mr Ladsky et. al. selling, to Lavagna Enterprises , the 'airspace' of Jefferson House which has the penthouse flat as lessee means that 'Steel Services', no longer has control of the last floor of Jefferson House as it is now in the hands of Lavagna Enterprises .

Consequently, it means that Steel Services can no longer perform some of the major covenants in my lease which, under Clause 5 states:

"The lessor hereby covenants with the lessees"

"5 (1) to maintain repair..."

"5 (1) (a) the roofs...chimney stacks gutters..."

"5 (1) (b).water pipes electric cables and wires and supply lines.upon the building..."

"5 (1) (c) the boiler and heating and hot water apparatus..."

"5 (1)(d) the passenger lifts lift shafts and machinery..."

"5 (2)(4) "To insure and keep insured the building.and in case of destruction of or damage to the building or any part thereof so as to make the same unfit for habitation and use. to lay out all monies received in respect of such insurance... in rebuilding and reinstating the same.."

A friend had seen in the Estates Gazette the case of Kintyre Ltd v Romeomarch Property Management Ltd in which the Land Registry Adjudicator had dismissed the application to register the lease, because:

"The roof space was required for the proper management of the roof."

My friend and I concluded that the same situation had arisen at Jefferson House.

When he suggested that I write to the Land Registry my immediate reply was: it is going to be, yet again, a complete and utter waste of my time and that this time would be more usefully spent on continuing the development of the site.

He strongly disagreed, saying "Com'on! Not this time! The Kintyre case is exactly the same situation. They'll have to take action!"

To which I replied: "I bet you anything that the reply is going to be a 'get lost '" (I WAS RIGHT!)

I thought, "Oh well, it will be more evidence against 'the system' that I will be able to add to the site" .

After writing several drafts, I finalised my letter to the Land Registry on 28 March 2006 , in which I pointed out that the

"Acquisition of the headlease Title NGL 373 333 by Lavagna Enterprises, a superior headlessor first registered by the Land Registry on 31 January 2006, under Title BGL 56 642, has rendered the headlease materially defective"

I explained that the outcome of the above transactions between Steel Services, Lavagna Enterprises and Jefferson House Limited had led to Steel Services no longer having control of the roof - as it is now in the hands of a superior headlessor, Lavagna Enterprises. Consequently, Steel Services can no longer perform the above mentioned covenants in my lease.

I therefore requested that the lease granted to Lavagna Enterprises be revoked.

In support of my request, I highlighted the case of Kintyre Ltd v Romeomarch Property Management Ltd pointing out that the Land Registry Adjudicator had dismissed the application to register the lease, because: "The roof space was required for the proper management of the roof."

I consider the initial reply of 4 April 2006 from the Land Registry as a blatantly obvious

"Get lost, I am not going to do anything against a sacrosanct landlord' '

Among others, it states:

"Regrettably, I do not have details of the Adjudicator case referred to in your letter and am unable to comment further on that decision"

"I regret that the Registry is unable to simply revoke the lease and title of BGL 56642"

"The Registry is not able to provide legal advice and I would suggest that you seek independent legal advice in respect of your concerns"

The favourite reply from a government department: "Get legal advice!"

As the Land Registry is comprised under Lord Falconer of Thoroton's department, the Department for Constitutional Affairs, in light of my previous experience with some of his department's divisions ( West London County Court , the Legal Services Ombudsman - and the Court Service), this reply came as no surprise .

So, yet again, I found myself in the situation of needing to undertake a considerable amount of desk research in order to determine my statutory rights, as well as the remit of a government department in order to counteract the pushback.

In this instance, it meant going through, among others, the Land Registration Act 2002.

Armed with my newly found knowledge, I then - yet again with a government department - ended-up needing to put my punching gloves on.

Extracts from my 18 April 2006 reply to the Land Registry:

(In relation to "not having detail of the case" )

"I read this as an admission that your Office does not have the capability to implement the requirements comprised under the Land Registration Act 2002. In particular:

Section 73 - Objections:

(1) ".anyone may object to an application to the registrar"

(7) "If it is not possible to dispose by agreement of an objection.the registrar must refer the matter to the adjudicator"

I followed this by stating that, "given the situation" I was enclosing a copy of the Kintyre case, as well as copy of pages from the Adjudicator website detailing the Adjudicator's role and contact details.

As to the suggestion that I "seek legal advice" , I replied:

1. Your Office granted the title - I did not.

2. Consequently, your Office created the resultant situation of, among others, my headlessor, Steel Services, being unable to perform highly material covenants in my lease - not I.

3. Therefore, it is up to your Office - not I - to undo what has been done.

4. Consequently, I suggest you - rather than I - seek legal advice.

Evidently, my letter was escalated one 'level up the chain of command' as somebody else replied on 25 April 2006... and the outcome was the same 'GET LOST!' on the grounds that the situation was different from the Kintyre case.

I told my friend:

"Remember what I told you when you suggested I write to the Land Registry? This has, yet again, cost me many hours of my very precious little spare time - for what outcome? 'GET LOST! SORT OUT THE MESS YOURSELF!'"

Needless to say that I did not waste any more of my time replying to this letter.

However, on the upside, it has added to the body of evidence against 'the system' that there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING THERE TO HELP ME . So, not a complete waste of time after all as it further demonstrates...

...'bad luck' to the leaseholders with limited financial means and no influential connections who end-up in a property owned by these criminals as, the more they want to fight for their so-called 'rights', the greater the assistance provided by 'the system' to these evil individuals to keep the leaseholders under 'their thumbs', free to use and abuse them.

THIS is the United 'Kingdom' in the 21st century.

Islands only a few kilometres from the coast of mainland Europe yet, still in the dark ages... and actively endorsing slavery.

Can also be expressed as: a country where a significant part of the wealth was built on slavery - and continues to be built on slavery.

Friday 7 April 2006 - 01:00 a.m. Hosing windows

At one o'clock in the morning there was a repeat of what took place on Tuesday 6 September 2005 at 4:55 a.m. and on Tuesday 4 October 2005 at 5:30 a.m.: a man with a hosepipe spent several minutes 'watering the plants' in front of my windows - resulting in gallons of water falling in front of my windows. (Just as well that Thames Water has introduced a hosepipe ban!)

It was 'very selective' watering as I did not see him move to the plants in front of the next flat.

Considering the time at which this took place it can described as the continuation of the on-going harassment and intimidation. I assume the trigger to be the fact that I caught Mr Ladsky et. al. and their solicitors, Portner and Jaskel, at their own game (1.1MB) - detailed under 18 February 2006.

Wednesday 19 April 2006 - midnight

Aside from one occasion last week, over the last three weeks, I had the impression that I did not have the 'minders' (or [beneath contempt, morally depraved, lowlife ] [Note] as I have come to call them) in tow. While this might have been the case, they were back in force last night.

I left the office around 23h25 when I decided to take the tube (underground) to get back to the 'hell hole'. On my way to Blackfriars tube station, one man caught my attention because as I had turned in a street, he turned into a side street (which I tend to take to go to the station). I went into the same street. He was loitering around on the pavement and looking shifty. He was short, in his mid-30s, nondescript. I crossed the street in his direction. At that point, he walked back down the way he had come - consequently, having done nothing. I observed him until he reached the corner of the street and continued towards the station.

On my way there, I had noticed another man, mid-20s, c.1.83m , wearing white, trainer type, baggy trousers, worn out dirty white trainers, unbuttoned shirt and an unbuttoned, dark blue overcoat (equally as doubtful as the shirt as to its state of cleanliness).

As I was about to go down the steps to the station, he overtook me and walked down the steps. He had a newspaper tucked in one of the overcoat pockets. Clearly, his attire signaled that he was not an office worker. My 'internal radar' got on 'alert'.

I let him gain some distance on me. When I arrived on the platform he was there, sitting. As I went passed him, I got even stronger negative vibes. I went to the end of the platform leading me to board a different carriage.

By the time the train arrived at Sloane Sq, I had forgotten about him. As I turned right upon getting out of the station, I saw that he was ahead of me. As I was about to do, he crossed the road and ended up in Sed St . I was about 5 metres behind him. Half way up the relatively short street, he crossed onto the other pavement. My 'internal radar' switched on 'alert' as, while he had until then been walking at a normal pace, he was slowing down as if to let me gain some distance on him.

I could also feel that he was looking at me. I likewise slowed down being intent on always having him in the corner of my eye. He crossed Sloane Terrace and stopped on the other pavement. He observed me cross the street. When on the pavement, I also stopped and was about 8 metres away from him. I stopped because I did not want to walk off knowing that he was behind me.

He then started to walk in my direction, at which point I psyched myself up ready to fight. (For well over a year, I have been using my rucksack, carrying it in front of me rather than on my back so that both my hands are free. Also, to ensure that it cannot be taken away from me). As he came within less than a metre of me, he went behind me. I had moved slightly aside to let him go past.

He then stopped c. 1.5 metres from me, glaring at me. I asked him what his problem was.

He replied that he did not have a problem. I asked what he was doing, saying "are you following me?" "No" was the reply. I again asked "What's your problem?" Same reply.

As he walked back a few metres he asked why I had said that. I explained that in addition to his behaviour, he had got on and off the same tube stations. He replied that they were his stations as well.

He then glared at me. I held his gaze and said "you can look at me as much as you want, you are not frightening me" . "I am not trying to" was the reply. I told him "Well proceed then" . He remained there. Again I said "proceed" .

He moved off 2-3 metres further along the pavement and, from there, he asked me why I was staying there. I replied "none of your business" . He again asked, to which I repeated the same thing.

I then said "tell Mr Ladsky that what I do is none of his business". He came closer to me to ask me to repeat. At which point I said "tell your paymasters that I do what I want" . At this point he walked off in the direction of Sloane Street . I remained where I was to observe him. He turned round to look at me as he made a right turn into Sloane St.

I stayed where I was for about two minutes in case he came back. I did not see him.

Given what took place, including the same trip on the underground, I concluded that his interest was very obviously in me. True, he was ahead, rather than behind me on leaving the station. And I could have gone in another direction. However, from where he was, he could have observed my movements. Also, he could hear my footsteps. By then it was midnight, and the square was relatively quiet. The route through Sed St is one that I frequently take when arriving at Sloane Sq.

In addition, if he was not interested in me, why...

...did he slow down in Sed St and was looking at me?

Having crossed Sloane Terrace, why did he stop on the pavement to look at me as I was crossing the street? From the time of entering Sed St, a 'normal' passer-by would have just continued walking on.

How come that he walked away when I said "tell your paymasters that I do what I want" ? This was an admission that, indeed, he was being paid to follow me. (Anybody else would have challenged my comment).

In addition, a 'normal' male passer-by going about his business would likely have been conscious of the situation i.e. that I, a woman on my own, in an isolated street, at midnight, would have a heightened awareness of other passer-by. Indeed, on many occasions in this situation, men have tended to walk away from me clearly intending to reassure me.

By contrast, this man took advantage of the situation - thereby behaving like his abhorrent, evil, morally depraved paymasters: harassing me - a woman on my own, in an environment where there would not be witnesses (after midnight, in a deserted street).

Spineless, despicable, criminal filth! (Under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 this amounts to committing a criminal offence) These people are the scums of the earth, rejects from the sewer.

I then went back down Sed St , turned right and crossed to the other side of Sloane St.

As I was walking towards the bus stop I noticed a man at the bus stop who was looking in my direction. As I neared the bus stop, one arrived. The man was in his early 40s, short. He appeared to be of South Asian origin (he reminded me of somebody from Indonesia ). (Last week, one morning on my way to work, a woman in her 20's- early 30's, who I concluded was showing particular interest in my movements, seemed to me to also be of Indonesian origin).

The man boarded the bus. I walked in behind him. Like me, he got off at the next stop at the top of Sloane Street . Again my 'internal radar' switched on. I became particularly conscious of him as he looked very shifty and ill at ease. I consequently kept him in my line of vision.

Having walked a few metres from the bus stop, in the direction of the top of Sloane Street , he stopped on the pavement. He was practically on the kerb, his back turned to me. I opted to stop behind him, positioning myself close to the nearest building. (Something my experience of a few minutes ago had reminded me I should do to ensure I have control of 'my space'). (We were only a few metres from the bus stop. Hence, potentially I could have come off the bus in order to get another one).

After about 30 seconds he turned round ending-up looking at me. (I concluded that he had been expecting me to have walked past him by then). At that point I returned a sneer. It appeared to have unsettled him as he proceeded to walk up to the corner with Basil St - a distance of about 15 metres. When he reached the corner, he turned round to look at me. At that point I laughed loudly.

He turned away and started to run like a demented individual in the direction of the top of Sloane St .

He run all the way until he reached the top.

I did not bother to find out what he was going to do next. I turned into Basil St, heading to the 'hell hole'.

The only explanation I can come up with to explain his behaviour is that: his interest was in me; he could not understand how I had been able to determine this. If he thought of me as a witch: good!

(Unfortunately, my 'sort of' psychic powers do not extend to figuring out the winning lottery numbers. I wish they did! At least, this 'internal radar' alerts me to danger. Apparently this ability tends to be more developed in people who have had a difficult childhood. There is always an upside to everything... something I always aim to look for, especially since the start, in 2002, of my horrendous, very traumatic nightmare).

When I came in the block I made a rude sign towards the camera hidden behind the globe at the back of the entrance. I think I accompanied this by equally rude language - which I repeated once in the flat as I am convinced that my flat is bugged. (See My Diary - January / February 2004)

Monday 24 April 2006 - 00:15 a.m.

I left the office to go to the bus stop on Fleet St . As I arrived on the corner with Fleet St , I noted a white Mercedes parked on the other side. A man, alone, was sitting in the driver's seat. I noted the number plate which is composed of six letters, starting with 'AII' . He drove off after c. two minutes.

However, just before he did this, the man with the cream colour Subaru estate ( number plate starting with 'SI' ) arrived from the direction of Aldwych. (This makes it the fourth time that I see this car at this time of night: 10 September 2005, 27 February 2006 and 18 March 2006).

He turned right in the street from which I had come from i.e. the street where my office is located. I took the bus. As it went past the next street on the left, Whitefriars Court , I saw the Subaru. From the bus, I could see that he turned right on Fleet St . Hence, he had gone full circle.

Wednesday 26 April 2006

I attended a meeting, "The Social Sector Leaseholders' Local Elections 2006 Rally" , in Bethnal Green ( East London ). Over 200 people were in attendance. Among others, they included members of the London Leaseholders' Network , as well as some C.A.R.L. members as we had agreed to come to give them moral support but, also to gain insights as to the issues that they face.

Panel members included representatives from the main parties, as well as the Respect party. A police van was parked on the side of the building; a hint that the police was expecting trouble. I soon realised why.

The horror stories I heard during this rally reinforced my resolve to do all I can to play my part in achieving the abolition of the appalling, feudal leasehold system in this country that benefits the pockets of a minority at the expense of the majority.

What shocked me beyond belief was to hear that a local authority had used forfeiture legislation against an 84 year old man.

Apparently, the local council expected the man to pay well in excess of £10,000 (US$18,000) in service charges.

As he could not, it forfeited his lease i.e. took his home away. ('Legally', it can do that. See definition) No wonder New Labour has kept forfeiture.

Another leaseholder, who was a speaker, explained that the outcome of going through the council's accounts had highlighted an overcharge to local leaseholders of c. £1.3 million (US$2.3 million). It 'seemed' to refer to accounts over a 12-month period.

Other leaseholders talked of service charges of £30,000 (US$53,000) or more. (Subsequent note: see My Diary 22 Nov 08 for demands up to £50,000). Bear in mind that many of the social sector leaseholders are people who tend to be on relatively low income. In other words, many do not have a hope of being able to pay. Consequently, as the poor 84 year old man, they face the prospect of losing their home.

(Subsequent note: Meanwhile the 'noble' peers and 'honourable' MPs are feathering their nest at the taxpayer's expense - including demanding payment of a £2,600 home entertainment system, claiming it as "natural justice")

How they have ended-up as leaseholders is the outcome of the 'right-to-buy' policy introduced by the Conservative party (under Mrs Thatcher) .

As was explained during the meeting, when many of these people bought the lease, they were not informed about the intended massive expenditure required to bring properties up to a proper state of repair.

(Numerous leaseholders explained this as being the outcome of massive incompetence and mismanagement by local councils of their housing stocks). More recent government policy on 'decent homes' is adding to the massive service charges.

It is absolutely sickening to see what it is taking place when, by contrast, the government (current and past) has been squandering billions of pounds of taxpayers' money due to gross incompetence and mismanagement.

For example, it appears to have squandered well over £15 billion (US$26 billion) as a result of failures in IT implementation projects within various government departments;

several billion pounds wasted on military aircrafts (e.g. Chinook helicopters) that cannot fly in adverse weather conditions, tanks (Challenger) that cannot function in sandy environments, etc. etc. etc.

Further evidence of this was reported by The Independent, on 15 December 2006, "Anger as Whitehall spends £7bn on private consultants" (backup extracts )

"Government departments have spent £7.2bn on consultants in three years, but appear not to have a clear idea of what value they got for their money, according to the first authoritative survey by the official public spending watchdog"

What reply did I get when, at the end of the meeting, I expressed my shock at what I had heard to a Labour council's councillor? "Well, that's what being a leaseholder means!" In other words, a response of total dismissal - in line with my experience since 2002: 'the two finger' government.

Note at 8 May 2006 - I can now add another number found in the 7 May 2006 issue of The Mail on Sunday (page 49), headed, "Grounded RAF's new £50m warplane plagued by technical problems after less than a month in service - Catalogue of mishaps: One in four of the 1,500mph Eurofighters are out of action" . The article states:

"The Eurofighter project has been plagued by technical problems for years, resulting in extra costs to taxpayers of at least £20billion" (US$35bn)

£20billion of taxpayer money down the drain! Against that you see an 84 year old man thrown out of his home because he cannot pay a bill - much of which appears to be the result of his local council's crass inaptitude.

Consider this appalling waste as well against charities pleading for funds, such as those dedicated to the care of children with cancer, the blinds, the invalids, etc. etc. etc.

How can this be?

I should rejoice at the fact that 'New Labour' has been practically kicked-out of this council as a result of the local elections. However, my first-hand experience with my local council, Kensington & Chelsea , dominated by the other main party, the Conservatives, means that I am not holding my breath. Like so many people say nowadays: "they are all the same!" (Subsequent note: CONFIRMED - see My Diary Jan 09 ; Feb 09)

Thursday 27 / Friday 28 April 2006 - 00h10

On my return from the office after midnight I saw that the temporary cardboard protection had been removed from a large area of the entrance corridor. In My Diary, under the entry for 27 June 2005, I explained that as the new, cheap floorboards have been nailed directly on the joists with no insulation whatsoever (see photographs in this pack , as well as Photo gallery for additional evidence) the level of noise is going to be unbearable. I was right.

I tested the acoustics...

...as you can imagine, the noise carries extremely well, wide and far... and even more at night.

The floor in the entrance corridor can be described as excellent for tap dancing .

No point sleeping in my bed as it is just below the entrance corridor. I therefore reintegrated the sofa (as I had done in March 2005 due to the noise made intentionally, late at night, in the entrance, and again in July 2005).

On my way back to the flat, in Cadogan Square , I had noticed a man who, I felt, was interested in my movements. (My 'internal radar' switched on). He was resting against a car parked alongside the pavement, eating an apple. His attire looked very ordinary. I continued walking the remaining c. 100 metres to Pont Street . Once I had crossed the street, I stayed on the pavement to observe whether he would drive up. He did. I noted the number plate. As I was observing him, another man went quietly behind me.

I had a feeling that a 'surprise' might be waiting for me and that this/these man/men were the lookout to warn of my arrival. (Hence, a repeat of Monday 8 August 2005 when I found a leak on my return to the flat).

Anticipating that I might be subjected in the middle of the night to a lot of noise in the entrance corridor, I switched from my work clothes to jeans and sweater, and placed everything ready to storm out of the flat if required, including placing my rucksack next to the pillow. (Being ready entails having the digital camera and the rest of the paraphernalia I have been carrying around me on a daily basis for c. the last three years). Hence, I slept all dressed up. Nothing happened.

On leaving the block I again tested the acoustics by pacing around in the corridor: as good as they were a few hours previously. It also led me to notice that a free-standing African art artifact had been placed in the entrance. Maybe 'the mob' is preparing the block in order to sell it. This will prove 'interesting'

Friday 28 April 2006

The start of a bank holiday weekend. As I am yet again going to spend my holiday in the office I decide to treat myself to staying in the next door hotel. I am in bad need of a good night sleep in a safe and secure environment. If Mr Ladsky et. al. are planning on a session of 'tap dancing' in the entrance corridor in the middle of the night, they will have wasted their time.

After a 12 hour blissful sleep, I decide to stay another night in the hotel.

Saturday 29 April 2006 - Finishing the reply to Portner and Jaskel

I am in the office by 11h30 feeling a lot better. It has renewed my energy as I 'attack' the draft reply to Portner and Jaskel I had started to develop c. three weeks ago and in which I dipped in and out over that period.

If Mr Ladsky et. al. are having me followed for the purpose of determining whether I see a lawyer, thereby offering them with the potential to come to 'an arrangement', they are really unbelievably stupid.

I do a lot better by myself.

Although I am not a lawyer, I hit a lot harder as I have no concern that maybe one day I'll need to call for a favour.

Surely, they should have realised this from e.g. the complaint I filed against Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor and subsequent correspondence with the Law Society, such as my letter of 19 February 2005 .

It certainly cornered the Law Society (My Diary 2004 - Complaint against CKFT) (And I did the same thing with the Bar Council in relation to my complaint against Mr Gallagher - My Dairy 2004 - Complaint against Mr Stan Gallagher)

I spent the whole day working on the letter to Portner. I am pleased with the result (1.1MB).

As I hand it out at the post office counter tomorrow, my thought for Portner and Jaskel will be "With my compliments and those of the Elderly Resident you bullied and tried to intimidate - you scums! " See entry for Saturday 18 February 2006 for further detail.

I leave the office by 22h30 and head back to the hotel. Bliss!

Sunday 30 April 2006

I wish I could stay in the hotel tonight as well, but that would be a bit too extravagant. So, back to the 'hell hole' tonight.

Beginning of May 2006 - Dealings with the ICAEW

There is another battle I have not referred to in My Diary so far. YES, ANOTHER ONE! (As you can see from the summary under the Document Library section, I have had a total of 28 battles since 2002). Absolutely everywhere I have turned to has led me to go into battle.

This one is the battle I have been having with the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales (ICAEW) for nearly one year. I am capturing it now because I am in the process of drafting my fifth letter to the ICAEW - and view it as my last one.

It started by my copying Pridie Brewster, the accountants for Jefferson House, on my 30 March 2005 to Ms Hathaway, Martin Russell Jones , highlighting the fact that the accounts do not reflect the 17 June 2003 determination by the tribunal, and that they are in breach of the terms of my lease.

It led Pridie Brewster to reply in its 15 April 2005 letter

"...we were not made aware of the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal determination of 17 June 2003 at the time that we were preparing our certificate"

In my 17 April 2005 reply, I wrote "I assumed this was the most probable explanation - hence my approach" , and supplied a pack of 48 enclosures as supporting evidence. Compiling this pack turned out to be very costly both, in time and in postage cost.

As I had forgotten to mention to Pridie Brewster that I had a Consent Order from 'Steel Services' exempting me from Steel Services' Leasehold Valuation Tribunal costs, I sent another letter, dated 9 May 2005 .

Three months later, I had not even received an acknowledgement from Pridie Brewster. It led to write to the ICAEW on 19 July 2005 requesting its assistance.

Considering Martin Russell Jones and its client method of operating, I was concerned about Pridie Brewster's position with its professional body. Hence, on 2 August 2005 , I sent another letter to the ICAEW emphasising that I did believe the accountant's explanation.

As things turned out, my 'good Samaritan' action proved to have been a waste of time: like the rest of the other 'so called' English regulatory bodies..

... the ICAEW revealed itself to be a trade association that was not going to 'bite the hand that feeds it'

In typical, English 'self-regulatory body' style, in its 4 August 2005 reply, the ICAEW took on an adversarial tone, ignored the content of my correspondence, and threw everything back at me.

I replied on 1 September 2005

The dictatorial style continued in the 6 September 2005 reply...

...now confirming to me that I was dealing with a 'little dictator' with a grossly inflated sense of self-importance...

...as well as an inability to count.

In particular, it is worth noting in his letter that:

• The ICAEW will be the judge of whether or not consumers' reasons for not responding evidently - immediately - to its correspondence, are "reasonable"

• Hence, concurrently, the ICAEW expects consumers to ask for 'permission' to not respond within what it perceives as a "reasonable" time period.

• Furthermore, the ICAEW expects consumers to be psychic i.e. know that the ICAEW has written them a letter - while they are not around to take delivery.

Also, according to the ICAEW, the time period between 4 August and 23 August amounts to 26 days. Yes, this is the professional association for 'Chartered Accountants'!

It has to be said that the rest of the letter only serves to further undermine the confidence in accountants (e.g. Enron).

(Mercifully - in spite of their association - there are many highly competent accountants with the utmost level of professionalism and integrity)

In February 2006, as a result of sharing my experience with Mr Nigel Wilkins , Chair of C.A.R.L. (Campaign for the Abolition of Residential Leasehold) who has written numerous letters to the ICAEW "exposing the failure of ICAEW members" (see copies of the Leaseholder on the C.A.R.L. website) he identified a letter he had received from the ICAEW, dated 12 January 1999 , in which the caseworker wrote:

"...in the event that a Court (or a relevant tribunal) decided that expenditure was not sufficiently supported, and an Institute member firm had reported otherwise, that would give rise to disciplinary considerations "

I 'sat' on this letter for a while debating whether I should, yet again, write to the ICAEW and hence add to the 50+ hours of my life it, and its member, had already cost me.

I needed to 'pin down' the ICAEW. It meant that, as with all the other 'so called' English regulatory bodies, I had to very clearly, given the experience so far, 'suffocate' the ICAEW with evidence such that it would not be able to wriggle out of my complaint.

It led me to, among others, conduct extensive research on the definition of certified and audited accounts, code and guidance to accountants, etc. I needed 'to bury' the ICAEW with iron-tight proof in support of my complaint.

After working on a draft for several days which, again, required going back to previous documents, as well as going though my numerous files, I finalised my letter on 7 March 2006 , addressing it to the 'little dictator'. I restated what I had captured in my previous correspondence and his replies, as well as drew attention to additional evidence.

When I received the 13 April 2006 reply, I wanted to scream, and scream:

the ICAEW had - once again - blatantly ignored the content of my letter and its supporting evidence - including its letter of 12 January 1999 to Mr Wilkins.

This time, I opted to put on the 'punching gloves' in my reply of 17 May 2006.

To do this required that I go through all of the previous correspondence capturing, point by point, what I had written and the reply I had received - and yet again, re-emphasising the glaringly obvious.

This made it MY FIFTH LETTER to the ICAEW ( 19 July 2005 , 2 August 2005 , 1 September 2005 , 7 March 2005 ) - and I saw it as my last one, thinking that my time would be more usefully spent on continuing to develop my website to expose my experience.

Unbelievably, the 24 May 2006 reply suggests that the ICAEW 'might' be taking action. While it is certainly an improvement over the previous responses, I am opting to launch the website with this section on it - for the following reasons:

• The attitude of the ICAEW until this last letter. As the Chinese saying goes: 'A leopard does not change its spots'

• Hence, as with the other 'so called' regulatory bodies, 'the game' will be to engage me in many more hours of endless, pointless letter writing over a period which, according to the caseworker's letter of 24 May 2006 ".may take.in excess of a year where the case is complex and strongly contested" ( I view this as an attempt to dissuade me from pursuing my complaint)

The thinking behind this is that the greater the number of letters I am made to write, the greater the likelihood of my giving up on my complaint.

And, as already demonstrated, I will be bullied into responding by using the threat of "closing down the file" if I do not reply within a timescale determined as 'acceptable' by the ICAEW.

If I cannot reply immediately, this will require yet, more letter writing as, evidently, the ICAEW expects me to ask 'cap in hand' for its permission' to take longer to reply than it expects...and hope that the 'almighty' considers my reason for requesting a delay as 'reasonable'

These letters will be in addition to needing to write letters relating to other matters. For example, in my letters of 17 May 2006 and 6 June 2006 , I requested that correspondence be sent to my PO Box. The caseworker nonetheless addressed her two subsequent letters of 24 May 2006 and 8 June 2006 to my home address.

In addition, in her 8 June 2006 letter, she states that she enclosed "...a copy of a letter sent to the firm requesting further information." She did not enclose the letter. Outcome: I now need to write her a letter pointing this out.

During this one year+ I will be sent from 'pillar to post' as the 'end game' is to return a verdict of 'no malpractice' (as happened with the Law Society in relation to Piper Smith Basham and CKFT , and with the Bar Council in relation to Mr Gallagher ) - in the process, throwing everything back at me and ignoring critical evidence (as already demonstrated).

Hence, after 1 year+ the outcome will be: I will still be left with accounts for Jefferson House that are bogus and, consequently, on which the service charges demanded of me are fraudulent.

This, fair minded, reasonable visitor to the site, is the meaning of 'regulation' on this island.

Meanwhile, the ICAEW and its member have so far cost me in excess of 70 hours of my life.

(See 12 July 2006, as well as 30 August 2006 for the final reply)

Friday 12 May 2006 - 07h45

On leaving the block at 07h45, I turned left and, after a few metres, crossed over onto the other pavement ending up alongside the patisserie on the corner with Basil St and Hans Crescent . I noticed a woman who was stationary on the pavement close to the patisserie. (A repeat of Monday 20 March 2006). My 'internal radar' went on alert. There was something about her. She looked uneasy, shifty.

I went past her and stopped c. 4 metres up from her. I could feel that she was looking at me. She looked ill at ease, hesitant. Through my body language I communicated that I was going to stay put.

She pretended to look at the menu in the window, looking at it for c. 10 seconds. She then looked at me. I remained still. About two minutes went by during which she looked sideways in my direction 2-3 times.

At that point, she walked in the direction of the station. As my intention had been to take the tube, I followed her. She was walking very slowly such that I would be likely to overtake her. I played 'the game' for a few metres then overtook her going through the ticket barriers before she did.

Before going down the escalator, I turned round and saw that she was behind me. I went on the platform direction north. As explained previously, I sometime do this and, when the train arrives in the opposite direction, I go through the passageway at the last minute and jump on the train.

After about a minute, I could not see her on the platform. I therefore went through the passageway on the other platform and there she was: stationary, about three metres into the corridor that leads to the platform. I concluded from this that it was in order to give her the possibility to go on either of the platforms. When she saw me, she started walking further down into the corridor. At this point I took a photograph. By then she was fairly close to me and said "what do you want from me?" to which I replied "You sad person!"

I then walked back to other platform and jumped on the train that had just arrived.

Comparing this with other situations when people are going about their business, I can definitely say that this was not the case. Considering the time that had elapsed, why was she still at the beginning of the corridor? Why was she stationary? There is absolutely nothing to look at - except white tiles.

Tuesday 16 May 2006 - 08h43

On leaving the block at 08h35, I opted to do a little circuit to test whether I would be followed. Sure enough, I was.

I continued into Basil St alongside the back of Harrods. I then turned right into Hans Road , crossed Brompton Road and went into Montpellier St . I turned right at the top of Montpellier Sq - instead of turning left in Trevor place which I would do in order to get to the bus stop on Knightsbridge (A4), I turned right (hence going back in the direction of Brompton Road). Half way down the street, I crossed onto the other pavement and started to walk back up. I stopped about 10 metres down from the intersection i.e. Montpellier Sq and Trevor Place to observe whether anybody was coming

Within 30 seconds, a man arrived on the north side pavement of Montpellier Square - hence, from the direction from which I had arrived. He was short c. 1.70m, early 30s, overweight, wearing white trainer trousers, dark blue blouson with two white lines on the upper part of the sleeves, a large, white marking on the back of the blouson with a name I did not note; light blue plimsolls with a white border around at the base. He seemed to me to be of Middle Eastern origin, perhaps Greek / Jewish.

As he was about to continue left into Trevor place, he noticed me. He turned his head round away from me for 2-3 seconds and again back to look at me, quiet intently. My 'internal radar' had switched on the minute I saw him.

As he did this for the second time, I made a rude gesture in his direction . By then, I had started to walk in the same direction as he was. He turned his head away from me for 3-4 seconds during which time he had taken another 2-3 steps. Evidently, his ego could not take this from a woman. He crossed the street in my direction coming within 1.5m of me - which led to the following exchange :

Him: "Why did you do that to me?"

Me: "Why are you looking at me like that? Why don't you just walk along? "

Him:"I live here and I look at what I want"

Me: "Oh really? Walk along then"

Him: "You are one of these mad women who. "

I could not make out what he said as, by then, he was walking back onto the other pavement. (Please note that on 19 April 2005 , on my return from the office at 22h00, Mr Andrew Ladsky was in the main entrance, talking to a woman.

He told me "You are mad" and to "go and see a psychiatrist" .

Looks as though this is how Mr Andrew Ladsky portrays me to his bunch of [ morally depraved , despicable, beneath contempt, scums ] [Note] (Subsequent note: Yep! Definitely how he portrays me to other people, including my employer- see My Diary 15 May 2008)

16 May 2006, 08h46 - Man, Trevor Place

I continued walking in the same direction. As soon as the man had reached the other pavement (on which he had been) he started to talk on his mobile phone while he continued walking saying, in a very loud voice

"There is this woman, she is dressed all in black, she is mad, she has."

I did not hear what he said as, at the time I shouted across the street

"Yeah, come on! Report back to Ladsky! Report back to Ladsky!"

(1-2 passers-by witnessed this) Whereas, while he was talking loudly, his face remained straight ahead, as I was saying this he turned his face totally away from me. At the same time, he lowered his voice to such an extent that he looked as though he was whispering into the mobile phone.

He continued walking in the direction of Knightsbridge. I did to.

He was behaving like a trapped animal: pacing on the corner of Trevor Place and Knightsbridge, talking on his mobile phone. By then I was half way across the pedestrian crossing. I stood in the middle of it to observe him and switched my camera on. He was looking at me. I took a photograph.

By the time I did this, he had turned around by 45 degrees and was facing the way... he had come from! (Another photograph added to the growing collection). I finished crossing the street and headed towards the bus stop.

It is blatantly obvious that this man was following me.

Nobody going about their business would have behaved in this manner. Either they would have ignored me, or might have come and ask me what my problem was. They would then have continued on their way, perhaps thinking of me as a lunatic.

In addition, consider that IF a man has a burning need to immediately report to somebody that a woman has made a rude gesture at him, why start by giving the description of the woman? Surely, this is not the main event. It is clear that this man was reporting that he had identified me, and he did this using the description he had been given "she is dressed all in black."

His comment "she is mad" was likewise, a regurgitation of what he had been told - and very clearly, the source was Andrew Ladsky.

In addition:

- why did he immediately drop his voice after I shouted to him "Yeah, come on! Report back to Ladsky, report back to Ladsky!" ?

- Why did he then stay on the corner of Trevor Place and Knightsbridge pacing around like a trapped animal? Clearly, he was getting instructions as to what he should be doing next.

Oh well, good to start the day with a good laugh! Despicable, abhorrent, criminal scums! (Under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, it amounts to committing a criminal offence against me. And, under the Human Rights Act 1998, it amounts to a breach of my right under Article 8 - "Right to respect for private life" of the European Convention on Human Rights)

While I viewed the event on 19 April 2005 as Mr Ladsky implicating himself as being at least one of the parties behind my being followed and harassed, this event further confirms the link.

(This is in addition to another event: the malicious leak in my bathroom on 18 August 2005. Confirmation that it was caused maliciously is supported by the fact that Martin Russell Jones gave itself ONE WEEK "to investigate". (It was preceded, ten days previously by a leak in my bedroom - which I also view as a malicious act.

And, of course, to all of these, must be added my experience with:

CKFT, Portner and Jaskel and Mr Brian Gale - as they stated their client to be Mr Ladsky,
as well as with the fourth puppet: Martin Russell Jones

Here I am, living in the middle of London , United Kingdom with this happening to me practically every day - and there is absolutely nothing there to help me .

The authorities leave people like me totally alone to fend against the sharks.

The government is asking me to pay tax to spend on defence claiming that it will protect me in case of enemy attack.

How can I believe the government when it refuses to protect me from a bunch of crooks - in the country?

It is not surprising that criminals show complete and utter contempt for the authorities : they see that they provide no help whatsoever to the victims of crime. In other words: the authorities give the green light to the criminals to do exactly as they please.

For the same reason, the victims also end-up with the same complete and utter contempt for the system. I know I have.

As I wrote in my 6 April 2005 letter to Michael Howard, then leader of the Conservative party

"Your Party views that there is increasingly lack of respect to society. I agree with you. Where does the blame lay Mr Howard?

Four years ago, 'I had' respect for society, government and the institutions.

Where do you think I stand now considering the treatment I have received from the above mentioned government bodies?

Contempt breeds contempt and lack of respect breeds lack of respect"

One of my contacts said: "This society is heading towards meltdown" I agree with him.

Note at early August 2006 - The 'meltdown' is gaining speed. See the extracts from the press articles captured in the latter part of 1 August 2006 entry

Saturday 27 May 2006 - 01h15 a.m.

And the harassment and attempts at trying to intimidate me continue.

I left the office after 1 a.m. As I was by the bus stop, I noticed a dark blue, Fiat people carrier I had seen previously. (This type of car is used by some mini-cab drivers) ('mini-cab' as opposed to 'black cabs'). The driver was of African origin, in his 30s . The number plate starts with 'LM05'.

Going in the direction of Aldwych, he initially drove past me at a slow speed, like curb-crawling. About 80m up, he made a U-turn and looked as though he was about to park. He did not. He continued driving again at a very slow speed. Having gone past me, he made another U-turn and, driving in curb-crawling style, ended-up stopping in front of me.

He remained there for about 4-5 minutes, mobile phone in hand. As buses were coming, he curb-crawled further up for about 60 metres and stopped. It took another 10 minutes for the bus I wanted to arrive. He remained in the same place during that time. As I boarded the bus, he drove off . He turned into Chancery Lane .

My guess is that his interest was in me. Given the sequence of events, he could not have been a driver waiting for a passenger in Fleet Street. He certainly was not looking to find a street number / name of building. Furthermore, by turning into Chancery Lane - which is a one-way street - he will have ended up a long distance away from Fleet Street. Also, why, having spent a good 10 minutes parked further up from the bus stop, did he leave precisely at the time that I boarded the bus?

I started off this entry by stating that I had seen this car previously. Before going into the detail, there is something I have not already captured in My Diary. It is the fact that I have frequently noticed upon leaving the office (over many months) that a people carrier is parked in the street that is at the end of the street in which my office is located. Practically every time, the car has departed within one minute of my coming out of the office.

About 2-3 weeks ago , I returned to the flat using the underground to Sloane Square . It must have been around 23h45. Walking up Sloane Street , as I was about to cross Ellis St I saw a people carrier. It was stopped in the middle of the street, close to the junction with Sloane Street but not in a position as if the driver was looking for traffic before making a manoeuvre. The car was too far away for that. The driver was of African origin, late 20s-early 30s and looked at me quiet intently.

My 'internal radar' switched on. As he was showing so much interest in me, I decided to do the same to him. I went around the car, noted the number plate and the make. I then proceeded to walk on the other pavement. The driver was still looking at me.

I turned right into Sloane Street . As I arrived at the next street, Cadogan Place , I saw a car parked about 25 metres down, with its lights on. As with many other events captured in this diary, I cannot explain why but my 'internal radar' prompted me to walk in the direction of the car. I stopped about 7 metres before reaching the car and noted the make and the number plate. The driver was a man, of African origin, late-20s-early 30s.

I then continued walking on the pavement, past the car. After I had walked 3-4 metres past the car, the driver flashed his lights. I ignored him and continued walking alongside the width of the square and then alongside its length, on Cadogan Place , until I reached the Carlton Tower . While I had been walking, the man had driven past me. When I reached the top of the square, I turned left in the direction of Sloane Street . About two-thirds of the way down I saw the car parked alongside the pavement on which I was walking.

I then had no doubt that his interest was in me. As I went past the car, I made a rude gesture. I then crossed the street a few metres up from the car. As I was about half-way across the street, the driver flashed the lights several times. I turned around and made a rude gesture accompanied by 'un-lady like' language.

When I came in the block, I also made a rude gesture in the direction of the hidden camera.

What despicable scums ! Ladsky's [ morally depraved , despicable , beneath contempt, scums ] [Note] as I am now calling them. These are the 'type 1' scums ] [Note].

It is my impression that 'type 2' i.e. the type I believe to be connected with the police / ex. policemen , has disappeared from 'the scene' since the end of March 2006 . If so, they will have spent seven months following me around. Yet again, I emphasise that I have NO EVIDENCE of a connection with the police . I am just reporting my impressions. Hence, I may be wrong... and I very much hope that I am.

Under the Sunday 15 January 2006 entry, I wrote that I was wondering whether I might have been reported to the police for suspicious acting.

'IF' so,

maybe after seven months the 'penny has finally dropped' that those who reported me - rather than I - are the threats .

Note at 20 June 2006: NO, 'the penny has NOT dropped'.

Friday 16 June 2006

While I have the satisfaction of having 'hit back hard' at 'the enemy' in recent weeks, I nonetheless have days when I feel utter despair, days when I have to make a very big effort to fight back the tears that are so often close to overflowing.

I am spending in the region of 40 hours per week on project nightmare - on top of my working week. I've got to finish it. I must launch the site. Dealing with the 10 February 2006 "notice" from Portner and Jaskel, the Land Registry and the ICAEW has significantly eaten into my website development time. I anticipated that I would be finished by now. Getting there but, still some way to go.

IT IS SO DEMORALISING.

Thinking of my horrendous, nightmare struggle, soon going into year five, makes me think that what I am doing must be the equivalent of climbing Mount Everest .

However, in this case, I am doing it ALL BY MYSELF .

There is not anybody close to me to give me support, to spur me on, to come to my rescue as I am about to lose my grip, to guide me so that I can continue my ascent.

The majority of the feedback is: 'stop, get out of there, you won't make it. You are fighting the system and they are all corrupt'.

Consequently, I have essentially stopped talking about 'project nightmare' 'with meaning' - a long time ago to all but a very few people.

I am extremely sick and tired of being expected to justify why I will not allow a bunch of criminals to rob me of all that I possess - which I have earned, honestly, through hard work and enormous sacrifices.

Also, I do not see why I should take on the role of the fugitive i.e. act as though I am in the wrong, I am the criminal.

I HAVE DONE NOTHING WRONG. I AM NOT THE CRIMINAL. I AM THE VICTIM

It seems that the penny drops when I reply: "Do you want to buy my flat?" "Also, will you write me a cheque for all that I have lost?" But, what's the point? The net effect is that it wastes my precious energy, as well as demoralises me even more.

Not being able to share what I am REALLY going through, means that I must draw on my internal strength to, among others, help me keep up 'a front'. 'Off-site' I sometime allow the tears of despair to flow... which I then stop by summing up anger. (Actually, I don't even have somewhere I can really cry!)

The support I get is all at 'base camp' - from which they cannot see, nor feel what I am going through. I sometime try to explain the terrible loneliness on this horrendous journey, the 'desolation of the landscape' from the feeling of utter abandonment and isolation, the tremendous on-going internal strength that it requires to keep going in the face of the constant rejection and pushback wherever I have turned to for assistance - not to mention the ongoing harassment and fear for my safety - but it is impossible for anybody to comprehend. You have to go through it yourself to REALLY understand.

If I let go from where I am, I will go down the precipice.

As the website is my last hope - and I am close to finishing it, I am therefore getting close to the top of ' Mount Everest ' .

I don't know what I will find when I get there.

But I know how I will feel: UNBELIEVABLY PROUD OF MYSELF.

This, on its own, is worth the climb.

Better than still being in the valley with no self-esteem, full of self-loathing and preparing for the 'final step': suicide, because, at my age, I do not have the option of being able to build back significant savings and I am not prepared to live in abject poverty in my old age.

I have known days of not eating as a child because there was no money to buy food. I would rather die than experience this kind of poverty again.

Maybe once I reach the top, I will have to consider this 'final step' but at least I will be able to say: I have done ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING I COULD... as I have gone to the utter limits.

And if I am reduced to taking this 'final step': what's the big deal? I do not want to live in a world which, after doing all of what I have done, is still not prepared to take action to ensure I get justice and redress.

To quote Che Guevara "I would rather die standing up, than live life on my knees"

One of my cousins has also made me realise that my 'war' has gone beyond my case when she recently asked me: "If you won several million pounds on the lottery now, would you still continue your battle?"

Without any hesitation, I replied "YES"

At the risk of sounding 'self-important', (which is certainly not the intention), I feel that I have a moral duty to use my now very well documented experience to expose what is going on in the leasehold sector in its widest sense (i.e. including the surrounding infrastructure of courts and tribunals, lawyers, managing agents, etc.).

When I see:

- an 84 year-old man lose his flat as a result of the forfeiture law,

- an 83 year-old woman being dragged through the courts for non-payment of her service charges -

I KNOW I HAVE TO DO SOMETHING.

So, I am going to continue the climb... no matter what...

...ALL THE WAY TO THE TOP...

...and after that?

Quite literally: 'GOD ONLY KNOWS'

Saturday 17 June 2006 - 23h54

On leaving the office, I went through some back streets and alleys in order to reach Fleet St at a point closer to Aldwych to take a bus. (In case a[ scum ] [Note] was parked near my 'usual' bus stop).

I was thus on the left hand side pavement. About 30 metres from reaching the law courts, I noticed a man , on the other pavement, walking in the same direction as me, at a slow pace. He was about 1.85m , late 20s/early 30s , wearing a white T-shirt with 2 lines of text, in black, on the front of the T-shirt. The end of the first line terminated with 'RAM ME' and the second line with '13' followed by a space and a letter followed by the letter 'M'.

My 'internal radar' got on 'alert' leading me to observe him from the corner of my eye and to notice that he was looking in my direction on 2-3 occasions . There was something about him I did not like. I therefore decided to stop to see what he was going to do next.

By then he was close to the alley (Bell Yard) alongside the law courts. This is a particularly dark alley, with a telephone booth about 3 metres up from the start of the entrance. He walked down the alley, past the telephone booth, and for a further c. 2 metres. At that point, he stopped and turned round.

I was still planted there looking in his direction.

He was very clearly at a loss as to what he should be doing next .

No, he was not behaving as though he was looking for his way, as he was not looking at anything in particular.

He was just loitering around, looking shifty .

He walked back down to Fleet Street, and then crossed the street in my direction. I had switched on my camera (which I always carry on a chain around my neck) the minute I saw him leaving the other pavement. As he was about 2.5 metres from me, I took a photograph. This led him to turn back and to walk back towards the other pavement. He did not say anything to me.

Seeing him that close, led me to conclude that he was of Middle-Eastern origin, quite possibly Jewish. The stubbles on his face indicated that he had not shaved at least since early on that day.

Having captured 'the evidence', I went in the nearby 24 hr grocery store in which I spent about 3-4 minutes.

When I came out, I saw that the man was about 80m further up, or c. 25-30 metres past the law courts. He still looked as though he was loitering around.

Instead of going to my other 'usual' bus stop (half way up Aldwych) I opted to go to the nearest one, immediately after the turning. A bus arrived within 30 seconds. I jumped on it and sat in such a way that my head would barely be seen from outside the bus.

My conclusion: this man was not only interested in my movements, he was about to approach me as well and did not expect my taking a photograph which led him to turn away, back on the other pavement.

Apart from 2-3 occasions which I am not sure about, over the previous days I had the impression that the 'type 1'[ scums ] [Note] were off my back. Clearly not ('Type 2' 'appear' to me to still be off-the-scene)

Note at 20 June: No, 'type 2' are still on my back.

Tuesday 20 June 2006 - 08h08 and 09h17

I had a dentist appointment at 08h15. I left the flat in plenty of time in case I had 'a [scum ] [Note] in tow' so that I could give him/her a bit of a run around.

As I walked down Hans Crescent , I turned back on two occasions to see who was behind me. My 'internal radar' 'locked' on one man in particular. He was about 25m behind me. Short, light blue shirt, dark beige trousers, brown suede-like trainers, red and black rucksack. He wore a baseball like type cap. He appeared to be in his mid 30's.

The appearance and the body language reminded of many of the [scums ] [Note] who, I believe, have been following me around e.g. 15 January 2006 when I was by the river; the driver on 25 December 2005; 16 August 2005; 16 July 2005, etc. Yet, at the same time I could not decide whether he was a 'type 1' or 'type 2'.

To help me verify 'my information', instead of turning right on Sloane St (as I should have done), I turned left and walked up for about 25 metres. At that point, I crossed Sloane Street . 'That man' had reached Sloane Street and had turned right. He was about 8 metres from the corner with Hans Crescent . I walked in the same direction while looking in his direction.

After about one minute, he turned round, and then walked back into Hans Crescent .

At that point, I ran across the street into Hans Crescent and, after a few metres, took a photograph.

As I was coming out of the dentist after c. 09h10 , I saw a man positioned on the other pavement , facing in my direction and, at the same time, who started to cross the street, in the process taking a cigarette out of a pack. About 1.74m in height, he was in his late / early 30's, unpleasant, nasty looking 'I am a tough guy' type of body language, with a very arrogant, smug air about him.

He conjured up to me a 'type 2' i.e. somebody connected with the police / previously connected with the police. As I have stated in other such instances: "Of course, I may be wrong . I am just capturing my impressions" .

Blondish hair, cut very short. He wore a 'whitish' T-Shirt, with dark blue sleeves, elbow length. The number '28' was written in large, dark blue letters on the front of the T-shirt. His trousers were dark blue. He wore white trainers.

The instant I saw him, my 'internal radar' switched on. I therefore back-tracked in the entrance by about one metre, pretending to search for something in my bag, in order to test whether my 'internal information' was correct: if the man was going about his business, by the time I had finished rummaging in my bag, he would be some distance away.

As I came out after about one minute, he was still only a few metres away - being held up by a lorry that was reversing into a courtyard. I opted to stop on the pavement to observe what he would do once the pavement was free.

He remained exactly where he was.

A man, who was in the process of closing the gates after the lorry, looked at him with a puzzled look i.e. wondering what prevented him from continuing on his way.

My assumption is that he was waiting for me to go past him.

At that point, I switched on my camera and, after about 30 seconds, crossed the street onto the other pavement. By the time I came to his height, the man had positioned himself against the gates that had just been closed and was looking at me. At that point, I took a photograph.

Having got 'my evidence', I continued on my way, in the process doing a little circuit that led me, among others, to take a different bus to the office.

Like a number of my other photographs, by the evening, I had sent it to various people outside of the UK (in case something happens to me and because I do not trust the British police to take the 'appropriate' action) - and until I can give them the latest update of all my development documents with the c. 850 PDF documents, plus the c. 200 photographs. (Today's technology is wonderful: all of these on a tiny little memory card, or CD-ROM!)

22 June 2006

This morning I had a doctor's appointment. At 08h50, I took the underground from Knightsbridge and got off at Piccadilly Circus in order to take the Bakerloo line. However, rather follow the direction to the Bakerloo line, from the Piccadilly line platform, I opted to go through the 'Way out'. From the corridor, I then took a short cut to the Bakerloo line.

Instead of going on the platform, I remained in the passage way at the height of the junction with the platform. After about 1.5 minutes, a man, c. 1.60m, mid-30s, of Indian / possibly Sri Lankan origin, dressed in very ordinary clothes, came and positioned himself barely half a metre away from me i.e. on the platform, immediately round the corner from where I was.

My 'internal radar switched on'. Although I had not looked at the platform, it seemed to me to be quite deserted. This closeness to me was not what most people would do. He was looking at a newspaper.

A train arrived. I walked towards it and positioned myself in such a way as to indicate that I was intending on taking this train. The man also walked to the train, positioning himself about .5m from a door one down from where I was (same carriage). There were quite a lot of people coming out. After about 7 seconds, I walked away in the direction of the back of the platform meandering my way across people.

The man was still in the same position. More people were still coming out of the carriage. The platform was very busy, with people coming out of the train leading them to walk about 4-5 abreast. I walked alongside them, against the wall and, after about 5 seconds, darted across them to get on the train. The doors were about to close as I did this. The man made a move to get on the train but he did not have enough time to do this.

Given what took place, I know that this man was following me.

Had he been 'just a commuter', he would have gone into the carriage in fact, before I could have done as fewer people used the door by which he was standing.

I am certainly getting the full spectrum of [ morally depraved , despicable, beneath contempt, scums ] [Note] following me around...

...all colours, shapes and sizes...

...maybe their abhorrent paymasters expect that it will fool me. What idiots!

I am not sure whether this man was a 'type 1' or 'type 2'.

Saturday 1 July 2006 - My three-year ongoing battle with the Royal Mail

In May 2003, I reported in My Diary that I had set-up a PO Box to ensure I receive my mail. To this entry, I added a note covering 2005 and 2006, saying that the service proved to be particularly unreliable leading me to file several complaints, eventually to the CEO.

I was not going to include my battle with the Royal Mail, mainly because the replies acknowledge the content of my letters i.e. have been read, as well as communicate genuine empathy, understanding and determination to address the issue. A first for me - on all counts - not only from a public sector department, but also from anybody I have approached since the start of this nightmare.

However, the unreliability of the service is continuing and is causing me a lot of anxiety.

This week, I found three letters delivered to the block: two were left in the entrance; one was put through the letter box in my flat. It led me to write my third letter to the CEO. The reply was again very apologetic - and I can tell that it is sincere. Let's hope that with the measures I am told have been put in place all of my mail will be kept in the PO Box.

Note in August 2006: Well, whatever has been done is not enough as some of my post still keeps being delivered to the block.

Another subsequent note : it got a lot worse in October 2006 and in November 2006 (2 November ) - leading me to contact Postwatch

Saturday 8 July 2006 - midday - Electricity to my flat cut-off

As I spotted 'something' on my way back to the flat at c. 2h45 a.m., I opted to do one of my little 'circuits' leading me to arrive at the flat around 4 a.m. I like that time as daylight starts appearing, making me feel more secure. Sure enough, I slept more or less straight through to 11h30.

After I had put the kettle on, had a coffee and did some hand washing in the kitchen, as I went to the (windowless) bathroom, I discovered that the electricity had been cut off. The lights were still on in the corridor. Hence, it was not a general power cut - only in my flat . A long time ago, when there had been a problem with a fuse, it had led it to pop out. This has not happened today.

While I will try to determine whether it is caused by a malfunction, my suspicion is that the electricity supply to my flat has been intentionally cut-off.

Last year, I mentioned this possibility in My Diary. Conscious of this, I am well equipped: candles, head light and torch.

Funnily enough, what kept me working until nearly 3 a.m. this morning, was an analysis of the electricity consumption Martin Russell Jones claim I have been using during the period 17 January 2006 to 2 June 2006. As you can see from my analysis, I believe that it is a rip-off . Hence, continuation of the on-going rip off on electricity charges (see Martin Russell Jones '(47) An on-going 'rip-off' with electricity charges' - as well as my Witness Statement, towards the end)

I certainly have no intention of paying it.

As you can also see from my analysis, if need be, I can survive in the flat without electricity. In case my flat is bugged, I communicated this in no uncertain terms before I left the flat, as well as with a rude hand gesture towards the spy camera in the entrance, on my way out. No doubt, I am going to be further 'punished' for my defiance!

Sunday 9 July 2006 - 04h30 a.m.

This is the time at which I came back to the flat. I wish I did not have to go back to that hell hole. I feel so anxious given past events with the police .

I was expecting the electricity to still be cut off. To my surprise, the electricity was back on in my flat . Hence, without my needing to do anything .

What will it be next? Cutting off the water supply to my flat?

A few days later: my fridge has stopped working. I do not know whether the failure has been caused by the on-going switching on and off of the electricity supply to my flat. (On several days, when I came back, I saw from my electric alarm clock that the electricity had been cut-off prior to my return). It does not matter. I have stopped buying food to leave in the flat a long time ago. Hence, I do not need the fridge.

w/c 3 July 2006 - And another invoice, this time for £8,621 (US$15,200)

This electricity invoice was hand-delivered to my flat this week, with another invoice which states a "brought forward balance" of £8,621 (US$15,200) . As with the prior invoices received in January 2006, and in October 2004 and November 2004 (none of which I have paid): no explanation as to the composition of the sum.

It represents an additional £2,995 (US$5,281) relative to 9 January 2006 i.e. 5.5 months previously.

FOR WHAT??? Revenge for my 17 May 2006 letter to the Institute of Chartered Accountants, and its follow-up of 24 May 2006 to Pridie Brewster? (See section Pridie Brewster for detail)

If this is meant to be the half yearly service charge, it is nearly FOUR TIMES the amount contained in the fraudulent "estimate of expenditure" for the period 25 Dec 06 - 23 Jun 06 where it is stated as £814.62 (US$1,435)

(Among others, this "estimated expenditure" is FRAUDULENT as, since 31 January 2006, a superior headlessor, Lavagna Enterprises Limited has been added, and controls the last floor. (See Owners identity and Pridie Brewster for detail))

My half yearly service charge BEFORE the: (1) the addition of FOUR NEW FLATS, including a penthouse flat that spans the whole length and width of the top floor; (2) the complete overhaul of Jefferson House was £680 (US$1,200)

What is the amount 'deemed' by Mr Ladsky et. al. to be currently hanging over my head? £15,500 (US$27,300)(?), £14,500 (US$25,600)(?), £5,625 (US$9,900)(?), £8,621 (US$15,200)(?) or all four combined i.e. £44,246 (US$78,000)?

What else is going to be dropped on me 'with the compliments of Mr Ladsky et. al. and their aides'? What will they think of tomorrow? Sending me an invoice for £20,000 (US$35,000)? And what about the day after tomorrow? Will they wake up thinking that it would 'be fun' to send me an invoice for £30,000 (US$53,000)? £40,000 (US$70,500)? £50,000 (US$88,000)? More?

Wednesday 12 July 2006 - ICAEW

I was not going to waste anymore of my time with the ICAEW (see 'Beginning of May 2006 - Dealings with the ICAEW). However, not wanting to have any regrets later on, saying "maybe I should have" , I am opting to use up some of my time to provide the ICAEW with additional background information.

Since my 6 June 2006 letter, I have received an acknowledgement , followed by another letter to inform me that the caseworker was due to go to Pridie Brewster's office on 19 July. I took this opportunity to provide the caseworker with yet, more background information , including the above invoice of £8,621 (US$15,200). As previously, I provided copy of documents as supporting evidence.

To me, the evidence I have supplied to the ICAEW and its member would suggest that the Fraud Squad should be called in. However, that's MY logic!

I have received an acknowledgement dated 18 July 2006 . addressed to my PO Box = one objective finally achieved!

(See beginning of September for the final reply from the ICAEW)

During July 2006

I continue to be followed by the [morally depraved , despicable, beneath contempt, scums and lowlife] [Note] ...

...and it seems to be on a daily basis

The cost must now be running in the hundreds of thousands...

...considering also that, as I am out of the flat for 15+ hours per day, two shifts are required, and they need to be substantial as, most days, I continue to treat them to my 'little circuits': changing direction, means of transport, stopping dead in my tracks and turning round to observe what is behind me, etc.

I am not capturing events as I want to get on with the site, but I do take the occasional photograph

20 July 2006 - 23h56

Yes, I continue to be under 24 / 7 surveillance. Just before midnight, as I was getting close to the bus stop on Ludgate Hill, near the corner of New Bridge st, my 'internal radar' locked onto a man: in his 50s, overweight, maybe of Jewish / Greek origin , dressed in dark blue polo shirt, dark trousers, sport type shoes.

As I looked in his direction, he started to behave like a lost [scum ] [Note], not sure as to what he should be doing. He was looking in my direction, in a shifty way, every 5-10 seconds while pacing up and down within a c. three-metre area. Seeing his behaviour, led me to switch on my camera and to take a photograph.

Some cars, including a taxi, stopped due to the traffic light. He spoke to the taxi driver. However, once the taxi had departed, he remained where he was, looking clearly at a loss as to what his next move should be. He continued pacing while still looking at me - and away, and so forth. After about two minutes, he turned round and went back down to Ludgate Circus, turning left onto Bridge St . As he did this, he again looked in my direction.

Another one who has obviously missed out on some training! Criminal scum! (A 'criminal' - like the others - under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997)

Tuesday 25 July 2006 - after 1 a.m.

On my way back to the 'hell hole', I took the bus and instead of getting off at one of my 'frequent' stops on Piccadilly, I got off one stop earlier, at Trafalgar sq. This got the 'troops' off-guard - at least three men, close to the corner Regent st and Pall Mall.

I planted myself in their line of vision for several minutes in Walter Place as I was talking on my mobile. They were pacing on the pavement, looking in my direction. One of them was in his late 20s-early 30s. The other two were in their 40s, overweight.

The younger one in particular was pacing on the pavement coming to the corner with Pall Mall . On one occasion, as he went back-up Regent St , he went out of my view into a door recess (which entailed walking up about 4 steps). However, it was clear that the conversation was continuing with the other man who was closest to him on the pavement. The one on the pavement was looking in my direction.

Having seen 'the show', I continued walking on Pall Mall for a few meters in the direction of St James St and then crossed the street. At that point, I stopped, resting against one the buildings' railing. But the show continued: the younger man had again walked back on the corner of Regent St and Pall Mall and was looking in my direction. By then, we were about 50 metres apart. A man went past me, looking at me quite intently. I think that from the look on my face, he knew what I was thinking.

I then continued towards the direction of the hell hole, improvising on my route, as well as making quite a few stops, just to keep the [ rejects from the sewer; beneath contempt, lowlife] [Note] occupied. I assume that troops being on duty in the early hours of the morning (2 a.m.) must be more costly.

More drain on the piggy bank.

Wednesday 26 July 2006 - c. 21h15

I left the office 'early' for me. In the grocery store, by Sloane Square, man, English origin, blond, early 30s, c.1.83m came into the shop very shortly after me. He spent ALL of the c.12 minutes I was in the store to 'study' the text on 1-2 soup containers (he was also talking on his mobile phone at the same time) - eventually coming out of the store, 15 seconds after me... empty-handed.

I had positioned myself in a slight recess, at the end of the frontage of the shop. As he went by I engaged in my little song ('smells like a [reject from the sewer] [ Note] , looks like a [reject from the sewer] [ Note], got to be a [reject from the sewer] [ Note]') (He did not look at me as I said this)

(On leaving the block in the morning I had also done one of my 'little circuits')

Thursday 27 July 2006 - 08h10

Morning, 08h10, on leaving the block: as they don't know which way I am going to go, the [morally depraved , evil scums ] [Note] are positioned in the streets around the block. (My strategy is working!)

To ensure they had something interesting to report to their paymasters, I treated them to one of my circuits (going down one way, turning back half way, going back where I had been, etc.).

And there was a small army around! Some of which also got the benefit of my little song 'smells like a [a reject from the sewer ] [Note] , looks like a [a reject from the sewer ] [Note], got' to be a [a reject from the sewer ] [Note]. I also took a photograph: Caucasian male, early 30s, tattoos on his left forearm and, it seems, his right hand, yellow polo shirt, gym like trousers, trainers. He was resting against the rail on the pavement by Harrods, tube exit side.

Another man, Caucasian, overweight, in his 40s, who had come from the back of Harrods, walking behind me on Brompton Rd, had also made a U-turn when I did. He was looking at me. He looked to me like he could be a 'cop' (As I have said on numerous occasions previously: there are my impressions. Hence, I may be wrong)

I left the office around 23h00. After doing a little circuit to confuse 'the troops', I ended-up walking alongside the river up to Westminster, continued to Victoria station and decided to walk all the way back. The troops were out in force: all shapes and sizes.

Close to the flat, I was standing in a recess along the frontage of a bank. A woman who had been walking behind me for a while, at the same very leisurely pace went by. As one car with a male driver went passed her, he hooted. (He had not seen me) Without going into details: I assumed he was one of the troops signaling his presence.

As I reached Sloane Street, the woman had gone down Sloane St for about 60m - at the height of the bus stop and was about to get into a taxi. (It could not have been the case that she had given up waiting for the bus because she was in a hurry considering: (1) the pace at which she had been walking; (2) if she wanted a taxi, several went by from the time she went past me).

A man, possibly late 20s, early 30s, wearing a white shirt, was close to her i.e. at the bus stop. I stepped off the pavement to show that I was observing events. The man was looking in my direction. As I was doing this, a man, short, unpleasant looking (out of a Hitchcock's movie) , wearing a suit and carrying a battered briefcase had positioned himself on the corner of Cadogan Place and Sloane Street i.e. a few metres from me.

I crossed Sloane Street and observed him from the other pavement. He walked towards the direction of Sloane Square for a few metres. He then stopped, positioning himself alongside the railing of the garden while facing it. After about 30 seconds, he lit up a cigarette. He then continued walking in the direction of Sloane Square . The man in the white shirt continued looking in my direction.

I headed towards the hell hole.

w/c 24 July 2006

I cannot remember the day, I think it was Tuesday 25 July, or maybe Thursday 27 July, when I arrived in the flat I found a letter that has been pushed through my letter box. There was no stamp on the envelop i.e. it had been hand-delivered. It contained an invoice from Martin Russell Jones, dated 16 June 2006 i.e. five weeks previously .

Under w/c 3 July 2006, I recorded that I had received an invoice stating a " Brought forward balance" of £8,621 (US$15,200). To this was added an electricity charge of £44.34. By comparison this latest invoice does not include the electricity charge. Also some of the "brought forward balance" has been extracted.

Another piece of evidence against Martin Russell Jones!

Sunday 30 July 2006 - from 12h30

On leaving the flat around 12h30 pm, I did a little circuit in the local area to determine whether I was being followed. I identified a [scum ] [Note]: female, mid-late 20s, short, blond hair in a ponytail, sports trousers and trainers. By then I had come out of Hans Crescent and had turned right on Sloane St . She was behind me and looking so obvious to me that I could not fail to notice her.

Having walked for about 20 metres in a purposeful way i.e. as though I was really intending to go in the direction of Sloane Sq, I made a sharp 45 degree turn and crossed Sloane St onto the other pavement. Having walked for about 5 metres, I stopped and turned to see where she was. She was in the process of crossing the road. She saw that I was looking in her direction. She stopped alongside a shop window as though she was looking in but, her body language communicated that her attention was in my direction.

I remained where I was. As she went past me I said "Oh so confused!" (I missed the opportunity: I should have said 'Ladsky's [scum ] [Note]). She looked at me and asked whether I was talking to her. I replied no, that I was not. She continued in the direction of the top of Sloane Street . I followed her, walking about 10 metres behind. At some point, I could no longer see the woman. I assumed she had turned right into the street that leads to Lowndes Square . I could not see her.

I know, reading this as an outsider, I would say "that does not come across to me as somebody following you" . All I can say is that, I know from my 'internal radar' that this woman was following me. And I have come to trust my 'internal radar' even more since the start of project nightmare.

I then walked across Hyde Park in the direction of Marble Arch. Two-thirds of the way up I turned left and walked quite a distance in the direction of Lancaster Gate. I then went out of the park and back tracked my way towards Edgware Rd through the back streets. My destination was the Lebanese juice bar and shop on Edgware Rd to which I have been going over the last 3-4 weekends.

When I was having my drink in the juice bar, standing up, fairly close to the entrance I saw a man walk past. He immediately triggered my 'internal radar'.

He was about 1.80m, English origin, very short, blond hair. His face was fat and red, the colour that some people with very white skin get from going in the sun and being unable to tan properly. He had an extremely arrogant, smug air about him; the type of look that some people adopt to counteract a massive chip on their shoulder.

My 'internal radar' switched on and, as he looked at me, it brought a sneer on my face (at the time I was drinking my juice by means of a straw). He continued on his way but, his ego could not cope with what I had done, as he walked back past the juice bar a few seconds later desperately trying to get my attention . I purposely did not look at him. He was really behaving like a [fool] [Note]. After a few seconds of his idiotic behaviour, he went out of my view, having gone back in the direction of Marble Arch.

Once I finished my drink, I did the second part of my last three weekends' ritual: going to the Lebanese grocery store on the corner to buy some food to take with me to the office.

As I was being served at the counter two men arrived. One was tall c. 1.87m, the other very short by comparison. I know I have seen the tall one before . I think he was in the driver seat of the cream coloured BMW when I came out of the hotel on Sunday 28 August 2005 . I also 'think' (not sure) that it was the same man I saw on 5 August 2005 at the bus stop on Sloane Street . Consequently, my 'internal radar' switched on. Although, to be more precise, it had switched on a few seconds earlier, which led me to look at them.

What further activated 'my radar' is that the short one was looking at me from behind the tall one as if he was studying me. That was enough confirmation for me. When I left the shop I started my little song 'smells like a [a reject from the sewer] [Note] , looks like a [a reject from the sewer] [Note].'

I crossed the road, heading towards Marble Arch. After a few metres, I noticed that the man who had backtracked when I was in the juice bar was on the other side of a telephone box, as though he was trying to hide from me. He stayed like that until I reached the telephone box.

At that point he started to walk in a straight line towards to me. I was ready: I gave him the benefit of my little song 'smells like a [a reject from the sewer] [Note], looks like a [a reject from the sewer] [Note]' as I continued walking. I continued to the bus stop from which I took a bus to the office.

I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that I am being followed.

It is equally obvious to me that a lot of resources are being used to do this - which means that a lot of money is being spent, considering as well the length of time that this has been going on.

Who is paying for this?

Fair minded, reasonable visitor to the site, as an outsider - and depending on what you have already looked at on this site - you may be thinking that I have become paranoid.

In my defence, I draw your attention to other instances in My Diary of what I consider as evidence of my being followed e.g.; 16 July 2005 ; 5 August 2005 ; 26 August 2005 ; 25 December 2005 ; 4 January 2006; 15 January 2006; 19 April 2006; 16 May 2006 - and the two instances for which I have a witness: 26 October 2003 ; 1 June 2005

The events I have reported in My Diary are what I have observed i.e. what I saw with my eyes.

I swear to this over my Grand-Mother's grave - the person I have most loved in my life.

Admittedly, some people might give a different interpretation to some of the events.

However, when looked at in their totality, I believe that any fair minded, reasonable person would likewise agree that I am definitely being followed / observed.

I also draw your attention to the following black on white evidence example: TWO AND A HALF YEARS BEFORE the works started, on 2 February 2002 , I wrote to Ms Joan Hathaway, Martin Russell Jones, that I "believe that the proposed appointment of these companies is connected with the planning application.to build a penthouse flat"

When I persisted with this, it was followed by repeated denials: 26 March 2002 , 30 August 2002 , 13 December 2002 and 4 March 2003 . You only have to look at the banner for the site, of which the photographs are reproduced below, to see that I was right.

To remind you, fair minded, reasonable visitor to the site: what is the root cause of all of this?

Mr Ladsky et. al. and their aides deciding that I (and other leaseholders) would be made to pay for this: the CONSTRUCTION OF A PENTHOUSE FLAT, ADDITION OF THREE OTHER FLATS AND RELATED WORKS - FOR WHICH WE ARE NOT LIABLE.

This pack (2.3MB) and this pack (1.1MB) provide 'black on white' evidence that this was the plan. As to the pay-off, it is evidenced by the block sale of flats in the latter part of 2006, beginning of 2007 which, of course, are in addition to the sale of the penthouse flat BGL 54 458 for £3.9 million (US$6.9 million) in December 2005, etc.

Jefferson House July 2002

Jefferson House September 2005

...and the 'corrupt' (at best, in the sense of "morally depraved" ) system giving them its full support.

And now 'the system' is in panic mode (?) . It has hardly ever come across somebody like me and is very worried about the 'boomerang' effect of all the black on white evidence I have accumulated over the years against the various parties. This is the only explanation I can come up with.

NO, no other reason. I am NOT a criminal and do not engage in any criminal act - not even leaving litter in the street. I have done nothing wrong. I am an ordinary, law abiding individual who works for a living, declares all of her income and consequently pays all the taxes that she is due to pay - WHO IS THE VICTIM OF ORGANISED CRIME.

Although I have limited financial means (very seriously depleted as a result of this very traumatic, horrendous nightmare) and no influential connections, it does not follow that I will let myself be trampled on by corrupt people in an equally corrupt environment. When I wrote to the then leader of the Conservative party "I will fight like a demon to the very end. If my flat is going to lead me to draw the last breath out of my body. So be it" - I meant it.

It takes a super-human effort to keep myself afloat. I force myself to laugh and sing to counteract the tears that are constantly on the brink of overflowing and to stop myself from fast rolling down the abyss. I guess you could say that I am practising Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP): if you keep on feeding positive thoughts to your mind, you end-up feeling positive. This is what I aim for - in spite of the horrendous conditions under which I am living.

Today, in The Independent newspaper, I was reading the diary of a lady in Beirut . My heart went out to her as I fully understood what she was going through.

• She lives in fear of being killed: so do I. (Some people try to reassure me by saying that "if 'they' wanted to kill you, 'they' would have done it a long time ago" . Well, maybe, maybe not - as, if 'they' do, it seems to me they won't have much to worry about from the British police)

• Her life is in ruin: so is mine.

• She had plans to do things which she can no longer do: same thing for me. She says that nobody consulted her on interfering with her life, going about her business: ditto for me.

• She sees people around her dying: I too in a way see that, but it is not physical death. It is done through a torture process aimed at breaking the spirit.

In addition to myself, I think for example of Maria, the elderly lady who is trapped in her flat because of her tyrant landlord. He has been dragging her through the courts several times, and countless other events making her daily life a misery. Like me, Maria is a fighter and she keeps high spirited. But this is not the life that a charming, caring, intelligent, talented and kind person like her deserves in her retirement.

She has done nothing wrong. (She was a teacher all her life). She has the right to have peaceful enjoyment of her home, but she does not. Meanwhile, the spineless and / or corrupt system just sits back and watches, not lifting a little finger . aside from throwing her a few crumbs every so often e.g. the police calling on her to "check" that "she is ok" . Yep! This is the extent of the assistance. (Actually, as she lives on the border with two boroughs, to be more precise it is only one of the two police stations that does this. I understand that the other one could not give a damn).

At least, the lady in Beirut has fighters on her side. Here, in England, neither I, nor Maria, have anybody to protect us from the terrorist like tactics of corrupt landlords and their aides.

Tuesday 1 August 2006 - 00h30 am

On my return to the hell hole, as I started to walk along the side of Harrods, on Hans Crescent , I noticed that a cream colour car (which I subsequently determined was a Mercedes ) was parked on the corner of Hans Crescent and Basil Street i.e. on the right hand side when going down Hans Crescent, coming from Brompton Road . It caught my attention as its lights were on. I was on the phone and taking my time to walk down towards Basil St . When I was about 10 metres from the junction with Basil St , I started to cross in the direction of the other pavement.

At exactly the same time, the car started to move , slowly. It looked as though it was going to come to where I was (which is a dead end), as it was coming in my direction in a straight line. (As the streets were totally deserted, most drivers would have started to turn the car well before that, taking a wide turn).

Seeing this manoeuvre led me to think that I would run, back onto the pavement i.e. my brain interpreted the information received through my eyes that I was in danger . (Oddly enough, in my previous entry yesterday I mentioned the possibility of my being murdered. My 'little voice'..)

As it came very close to the start of the dead end, it turned right to go into Basil Street . There were four men in the car, bulky looking. The one who was in the front passenger seat turned round to look in my direction. He was laughing, in a mocking, smug, arrogant way . Because of where I was (about a third of the way across the street) and the fact that the car kept on moving, to do this he had to turn round a good 45 degrees. There was nobody else where I was. Hence, he was definitely looking at me.

He looked to me as though he was the man I saw on Edgware Road last Sunday (30 July 2006) .The one who went past the juice bar where I was having a drink, back-tracked and walked past again looking at me intently in order to catch my gaze and, ten minutes later, came from behind the telephone box as I was walking on the pavement in the direction of Marble Arch.

I guess he did not like my singing 'smells like a [a reject from the sewer] [Note], looks like a [a reject from the sewer] [Note], got to be a [a reject from the sewer] [Note]'. How funny that he needs to have THREE OTHER MEN with him - in a car - to take his revenge by trying to scare me - a woman, on her own, on foot, in a deserted street, in the early hours of the morning.

Pathetic, spineless, criminal, corrupt, evil scums. And the same can be said about their paymasters. (Under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, it is a crime to harass people, and it also breaches Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, comprised under the Human Rights Act 1998, "Right to respect for private life"

I wonder how they would feel if the same thing was done to their mother, wife or girlfriend, daughter, aunt, niece, grand mother. Actually, considering their behaviour, it would not surprise me to hear that they would take part in doing the same thing to them.

Wednesday 2 August 2006 - from 22h00

When I got off from the bus at Piccadilly I went in the music store . Within two minutes I had [morally depraved, despicable scums ] [Note] on my back. I spent about 20 minutes going round, browsing, and eventually buying a CD and a DVD.

I then took the number 14 bus. A man, in his 50s, who boarded the bus came to sit next to me on the other side of the aisle. He was short, skin colour suggesting from India / Pakistan . His clothes, and in particular jacket, suggested made in the Middle East . He was looking at me every so often.

As the bus reached my 'more usual' stop, the man put his left foot in the alleyway in order to come out of his seat. I did not move. He put his foot back where it was and looked at me. I was laughing inside.

As we neared the next stop, I got up to see what he would do. He did not move but was looking at me.

My 'internal radar' had also led me to spot another man, in his late 50s/early 60s, c.1.80m, huge pot belly stretching his shirt so much that it was a miracle that the buttons had not popped out, pot marked face, with a big, fat nose (reminded me of the nose I have seen on some alcoholics). He wore glasses.

He got off the bus before me. I decided to stay at the bus stop as though I was waiting for a bus. The man looked at a bit of a loss . I think he realised from the time that we came off the bus that I had spotted him.

He walked to the end of the pavement about 10 metres away and stayed there, his back turned to me. He then walked back in my direction a bit, then back to the edge of the pavement. By then I was standing in a doorway that is at the back of the bus shelter in order to have a good view of the 'show'. I also started to relate events to a friend on my mobile phone.

My guess is that, considering what took place subsequently, the man had sent a message, while he had his back turned to me. He walked back, passing in front of me and stopped at the beginning of the bus shelter, on the edge of the pavement. After more pacing up and down the length of the bus shelter, he positioned himself practically out of my view (I could see his feet) alongside the external face of the bus shelter, at the other end, and hence, on the edge of the pavement where he remained.

One man, Caucasian, in his 30s, had arrived, who positioned himself alongside the grocery store.

Then another two men, in their late 20s arrived. They were accompanied by a woman of Far East origin, also in her late 20s.

They stayed by the edge of the pavement in line with the man who was positioned alongside the grocery store. They all looked at me at different times and hence, turned round to do so.

After about 3-4 minutes, a taxi stopped close to where they were. Hence, about 8-9 metres from where I was. There were at least three people in the taxi. (1-2 of the passengers stayed in and the taxi departed).

One of those who came out of the taxi was a man, tall, about 1.90m, English origin, light colour hair. He was in his early 40s. He looked at me practically from the time he came out of the taxi. Some non-verbal exchange took place between him and the people standing on the pavement.

The man walked in my direction while looking at me and continued to do so as he went past me. His facial expression and body language communicated anger and frustration oozing out of him. He looked to me as though he could be a cop. I was laughing as I was relating this to my friend, partly to add to the annoyance of the 'troops'.

It was so funny to see that pile up and the foot soldiers at a loss as to what they should be doing next .

I guess they will nonetheless collect their pieces of silver from their abhorrent, corrupt paymasters.

After all, they had encircled the prey!

Having gone past me, the 'leader of the mob' i.e. the tall blond man continued walking in the direction of South Kensington . He then stopped about 30m down and was talking on a mobile phone.

The two men and the woman walked the two metres to the bus shelter. The woman sat and looked at me several times. A bus arrived which the man who was positioned alongside the grocery store took.

I had seen enough. I started to walk in the direction of Knightsbridge, not bothering to turn back to see what the troops were going to do next. I guess, lick their wounds and plan the approach for tomorrow. I turned into Beauchamp Place and opted to stop by my favourite Lebanese restaurant where I had a bite to eat - and at last saw some friendly faces welcoming me with genuine warmth.

I then headed to the 'hell hole' i.e. the flat wondering what 'punishment' I would suffer for making the mob look like the imbeciles, low lifes, criminal scums that they all are.

• Will, as happened last night, a car be driven at me pretending that it is going to run me over? Might it actually run me over tonight?

• Will the code be changed for my fob key, thereby preventing me from getting access to the block? (see 22 July 2005 )

• If I can get in, who will be looking at me through the spy camera placed by the door to the entrance, as well as at the end of the entrance corridor?

• Will somebody be waiting for me in the corridor between the front door and the door to my flat?

• Will I find the door to my flat smashed in and the flat ransacked?

• Will the electricity have been cut-off when I try to switch on the light as I come into the flat? (see 8 July 2006 and 9 July 2006) (Subsequent: 8 March 2009)

• Will I find one or more leaks in my flat, other disaster? (see 11 March 2002 , 8 August 2005 and 18 August 2005 ) (Others to add to the list: 6 February 2007 ; 20 July 2007)

• Might the door to my flat / windows be smashed in during the middle of the night for the purpose of killing me? Might I get murdered? I don't know, but this thought is on my mind every day .

Should I believe 'a leaseholder' who phoned me at work at the beginning of January / February 2004 telling me "Don't worry, they won't kill you" ? (see My Diary Jan-Feb 2004 for detail)

• Might I be woken-up by a water leak dripping on my bed / somewhere else in the flat? (see My Diary 8 August 2005; 18 August 2005 and 11 March 2002) (Two more to add to the list: 20 July 2007 and one that narrowly missed my flat on 6 February 2007 )

• Will I make it through the night? Will I wake-up later on to another day... of hell?

Every single time when I come back to the flat, the minute I get in, I do a thorough inspection, including looking at all the ceilings and the walls, in case a hole was made from the flats on either of mine / the corridor, while I was away. I check the windows to ensure that none have been broken.

Once I have determined that everything 'appears' to be alright, I then double-lock the door. Because I worry that something might be pushed through my letter box during the night (e.g. a petrol bomb) (I don't know!), every night I place the ironing board against the door hoping that, if it happens, the noise of the ironing board falling will wake me up. (Agreed: not much use if it is a petrol bomb!)

At that point, I switch off the light in the entrance and do everything else in the dark in case I am somehow being observed. I stress that I very much doubt this. However, it makes me feel more comfortable. As I leave the kitchen blind open, the light from the street is sufficient to see my way around at least in parts of the flat.

Only then do I undress in order to change into casual trousers and top - in which I sleep - in order to be ready to storm out of the flat if required during the night. (I started to do this in 2006). For this purpose, I also place my rucksack next to my pillow. Also next to my bed is a long kitchen knife in case I get attacked. (I know, it could be used to attack me but...) (Question: look at the section on Kensington & Chelsea police: do you think that the police would come to my aid?)

At least, I now have the comfort of knowing that I have at long last finished the development of all the sections for the site (I started in April 2005 and have worked on it for at least 35 hours per week since then). I have given my latest updates, including all the supporting documents in electronic format to various people.

So, if I do not wake-up to see the next day, I hope that those who have my story will, as agreed, give it to foreign Human Rights groups, press agencies and media, as well as the French authorities.

(I took on the British nationality as a sign of commitment to this country. After what has happened to me on this island since 2002, I view myself first and foremost as a French national - which, legally, I still am).

All of the above are questions and thoughts that pass through my mind EVERY SINGLE DAY on my return to the flat , with now, the addition of the first one - as well as the actions I take once in the flat.

YES, I AM LIVING IN THE MIDDLE OF LONDON , CAPITAL OF THE UNITED KINGDOM , IN THE YEAR 2006.

AND THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NOWHERE I CAN TURN TO FOR HELP - WHICH IS WHY IT IS HAPPENING.

I have ABSOLUTELY NOWHERE to turn to for protection, for enforcing my statutory rights, including Human Rights, to the peaceful enjoyment of my flat, as well as privacy. Events with various government departments, including Kensington & Chelsea police and the courts make this ABUNDANTLY CLEAR -see snapshot of the outcome of my 'cries for help' and complaints; see also the expereince of some whistleblowers: like me, they end-up being persecuted for 'daring' to speak out, including being labelled as mentally deranged.

THIS IS THE TRUE FACE of the leasehold system and supporting infrastructure in England - in the 21st century.

This week there was a press article about an elderly lady, said to be a very keen gardener and to have won prizes for her gardening. She has had her garden destroyed and ornaments stolen on an ongoing basis. The article quoted around 200 incidents. She said she had initially reported them to the police who did nothing other than issue her with a crime report number every time.

The article stated that she had taken steps to protect her property by installing a CCTV system and protection fencing.

The reason she was featured in the press is because she put a notice in her garden - with her photograph - saying "You want to kill me, go ahead" . She was reported as saying that she actually wanted to die. Gardening was her main pleasure in life.

This is what this country can reduce an elderly person to do. No doubt, like me, she has limited financial means and no influential connections. So, 'not worth helping' (although good enough to take money from in the form of taxes to fill up the public purse)

As a result of the 'naming and shaming' in the press, it seems that some action is going to be taken.

I now hold the view that...

...England can justifiably describe itself as a criminals paradise..

...under a government repeatedly associated in the press nowadays with the words 'corruption', 'sleaze', 'deceit', 'cover-up', 'whitewash', etc

The British press in recent weeks - "Corruption in Britain? Surely not." (The Independent, 28 July 2006)

Examples of articles in the British press over the last two weeks:

The Independent - 13 July 2006 - " Levy arrest lays trail that leads all the way to Blair - Lord Levy, the Labour Party's chief fundraiser, was arrested yesterday by police investigating the "cash for peerages" scandal - a humiliating blow for Tony Blair...Scotland Yard's Specialist Crime Directorate has not ruled out interviewing Mr Blair.

It has seized computer hard disks and documents from Whitehall and is pursuing investigations by recovering deleted e-mails between civil servants and party officials. The Labour life peer, later released on bail, was not charged and denies any wrongdoing. His arrest under anti-corruption laws followed reports that he advised millionaire donors to provide loans to the Labour Party, which could be kept secret" (Subsequent note: Of course, nothing came of it)

(NB: In its 22 Jun 08 edition, The Daily Mail reported "We disclosed last week how, just before the loans poured in, Tony Blair's Downing Street appointments secretary William Chapman secretly won a change in the rules for nominating peers that meant Blair didn't have to sign the forms. It meant he could not be held responsible for any dodgy loans. Last week's honours awards saw Mr Chapman made a Commander Of The Royal Victorian Order. He works for The Blair Foundation")

Daily Mail , 23 July 2006 - " Why I believe David Kelly's death may have been murder, by MP " Dr Baker who "spent six months investigating the death of Dr Kelly, the government weapons expert." is quoted as saying that there is "More than enough cause to reopen the inquest" "Mr Baker has consistently been a thorn in the government's side" .

Also, "The MP claims Hutton (who led the inquiry) was personally selected for the job by Tony Blair's close friend Charles Falconer, the Lord Chancellor" and that Lord Hutton " had a history of making pro-Government decisions as a judge "

The Guardian - 24 July 2006 - " The stain of sleaze - It's groundhog day - but this time the groundhogs are fighting back. Sir Alistair Graham thinks that Tony Blair has made "a major error of judgment" and seems fatally "lukewarm" about standards in public life .

Sir Philip Mawer thinks John Prescott was out of order as an MP on that wild west jaunt, and probably still more culpable as a minister of the crown. This is not just sleazy business as usual... Yet, when the first test of this new "system" arrives, Tony Blair calls for no one and listens to nobody. Big John is innocent , OK. That's the end of story, delivered with an insouciant shrug. Yo heave-ho!"

The Guardian - 27 July 2006 - " Lawrence case: Senior Met officer fears corruption in first murder squad may have shielded killers : BBC broadcast claims ex-detective was bribed : Met denies evidence withheld from inquiry"

The Independent - 28 July 2006 - " Corruption in Britain? Surely not... Some 700 immigration officials were accused of taking money from would-be British settlers last year', a detective is alleged to have sold information to a suspect's father keen to thwart the Stephen Lawrence investigation'.

The lazily and incessantly reiterated claim that Britain , alone among her peers, is miraculously immunised against the various sorts of corruption that plagues less noble lands is one of the wonders of the age"

Daily Mail , 31 July 2006 - "Prescott faces police corruption probe " "The new police investigation will consider whether Mr Prescott broke the terms of the Prevention of Corruption Acts of 1906 and 1916 by accepting an invitation to stay at [ ] ranch last year..

Mr Blair this weekend defended his decision to leave Mr Prescott in charge when he takes his holiday."In the end I found no evidence of impropriety in relation to the stay at the ranch." A spokeswoman for Mr Prescott said: 'Any suggestion there's anything devious about it is an outrage""

The Independent - 31 July 2006 - " Prison service 'institutionally corrupt ' More than 1,000 prison officers are believed to be involved in corruption , according to a leaked report into the Prison Service"

Several newspapers during July 2006 reported that the Metropolitan Police looks increasingly likely to be prosecuted only under heath and safety laws for the fatal shooting of Mr Jean Charles de Menezes - but "no officers are expected to face criminal charges" (Subsequent note: Sure enough! This was the verdict in February 2009)

Etc., etc., etc.

And what has the government done in mid July? It announced setting up "A £100 million (US$180 million) fund to fight corruption in the developing world " (The British are renowned for their sense of humour)

As a reader wrote to one of the newspapers this week, "this government is destroying the country". I agree with this person.

In fact, a few weeks ago I was thinking that 1997, the year 'New Labour' was elected, was ' the year when the outlaws rode into town and started to ransack the place '.

It is so, so sad to see what is happening. The people of this country deserve a lot better.

On the plus side, I hope that these media reports will somehow help my case.

I am grateful that we have a relatively free press. Without it, only people like me who find themselves at the receiving end of 'the system' would be able to see it for what it is - leading them to feel like a lonely voice - as I did for a long time. Now, public opinion is such that, whoever I talk to about any aspect of my case (tribunal, courts, police, etc.), in every instance I get the reply "They are all corrupt!"

(Subsequent note - :Add to that the revelations about the legislators, the peers and MPs in 2009-10 (My Diary Jan 09 ; Feb 09+) + the Lockerbie bomber deal (My Diary 2009 Intro-Medical # 2) + the fear, smear and persecution campaign against whitleblowers (My Diary Feb 09) - and other evidence against the Government and the State (MPs-home))

Some also say: "That's the same everywhere" i.e. in other countries. I always give the same reply: Yes, but two or more wrongs do not make a right - and will never make a right. Consequently, it does not justify accepting what is going on, and that if we all take this attitude it will only get worse.

What will this society be like in 10 years time? In 20 years time if nobody does anything? People who have children must surely be very concerned about this.

What is happening is not the result of an act of nature. It is done by people and people can be stopped. Who are ALL these people in government? They are our employees because we - taxpayers - pay their salary. As their employer we need to assert our authority.

It is not enough to cast a vote at the time of elections and then 'let them get on with it'. How many employers in the private sector would hand over a £500+ billion (US$900 billion) business (the size of the budget) to people who have never run a business in their life and just 'let them get on with it'? (Examples of the outcome: MPs-Home)

Yes, we have Members of Parliament in the House of Commons who are meant to be representing us, the 'common people'. However, when I hear on the radio / see on TV what goes in the House of Commons, it conjures up Punch and Judy ('marionettes' in French). It is like a children's playground: they come across as spending more time competing against each other as to who will come up with the wittiest retort. Those who do not indulge in this game, preferring to speak their mind, 'calling a spade a spade', get thrown out (e.g. Dennis Skinner, an MP from the north of England ).

No wonder the top of the ladder behaves as it does.

Saturday 5 August 2006

[Morally depraved, beneath contempt, scums] [Note] on my back from the time I left the flat at 14h00

(I came back this morning at 03h00 a.m. By then, I had been out of the flat since 08h00 the previous morning. How much does it cost to have [this] bunch of [people] [Note] on duty for 19 hours? I hope it costs a fortune!)

I was being followed when I went into Harrods to buy some food to take with me to the office.

When I came out, in Montpellier Sq, there was a confused [fool] [Note] , male, Caucasian, late 20s, relatively short, at a loss as to what he should be doing next when he realised that I had spotted him. I took a photograph of him. As I went past him, I said "Ladsky's [scum] "[Note]

I spotted another [scum] "[Note], female, blond, pony tail, dressed in a light blue track suit (same type as the other one last Sunday, but taller and fatter), when I came out of Blackfriars station. Like some of the others, displaying an arrogant look on her face. She too got the benefit of my saying to her "Ladsky's [scums] "[Note]" as she purposely walked back close to me having realised that I had spotted her.

Sunday 6 August 2006 - lunchtime

Repeat of yesterday: on leaving the flat around lunchtime I had a small army of [morally depraved, beneath contempt, low-lifes] [Note] on my back. (I left at midday, as I again got back to the hell hole this morning around 4 a.m., having walked all the way back. And yes, I had my usual 'escort' of minders. Yes, at that time of the morning!)

Today, I again treated them to one of my 'little circuits', going down one street, back up, turning right, left, back up, down, etc.

Among others, I spotted three cars. One was a Mercedes, light, metallic colour . (Maybe the Mercedes I saw on Tuesday 1st August? I did not get a chance to note the number plate. Too much to look at the time, in a relatively short space of time, plus the fact that it was night time and the head lights were in my eyes).

The number plate was a name, starting with ' TIS' (and another two letters, which I also captured). I have seen this car before, including during weekdays when I leave the block. The driver was a man, in his 50s. He appeared to me to be of Greek / Cypriot origin.

When I was in Hans Place, I spotted him as he went round. If he was looking for a parking space, there were a few that were free (resident and paying). When he went round again for at least the second time, I waved energetically as he went by. He did not look at me. There was no traffic around at the time. I 'think' that, from my doing this and considering that I was in full view, another driver would have looked in my direction. He did come round again.

While in the square, my 'internal radar' also led me to spot a VW black / dark blue, male driver in his late 30s, dark hair . The number plate starts with LS55 (I noted the rest of the number). I 'think' he had already gone round the square once before. I am not sure.

I continued my circuit to annoy the [morally depraved, beneath contempt, low-lifes] [Note] when I spotted another car, parked alongside the pavement, at the junction with Pavilion Rd and Pont Street . It was either a Rover, or a Honda. I did not pay sufficient attention. It was light, metallic grey. It departed the minute I finished crossing Pont St in the direction of Pavilion Rd. I went down this street for a few metres, then back onto Pont St .

In Beauchamp Place I stopped to buy a juice, and continued to Brompton Rd from where I took a bus in the direction of South Kensington . I got off the bus one stop before the station i.e. across from the VA and walked to South Ken tube.

I stopped about 20 metres before the station to observe what was coming from the Knightsbridge side. Within less than five minutes, the black / dark blue VW with the number starting with 'LS55' went by - same driver. At least 25 minutes had passed since I had seen this car in Hans Place, about 1.3 km away.

I took the tube from South Ken and got off at the last minute at Embankment i.e. two stops before my 'normal' stop when going to the office. I made my way through the back streets to half way up the Strand and had a salad at a sandwich shop. I took my time assuming that the [morally depraved, beneath contempt, low-lifes] [Note] were running around like headless chickens trying to find me.

I then walked down to the river, walking on the left hand side pavement of Victoria Embankment, and headed towards Blackfriars. I spotted one man in particular, walking alongside the river i.e. on the other pavement. After I had turned left into Temple Avenue, he had crossed Victoria Embankment as, when I turned round, as I was about half way up Temple Avenue, I saw him at the start of the street. (These streets are deserted at the weekends as there are only offices. Hence, not what you would call a tourist spot).

It takes a long time to write this. It is now 16h00 and I'd better continue with the site. Last night I finished the Legal section. Now I need to go through all the 50 sections of the site and enter the values in US$. I have already done quite a bit.

I will then move on to the photo gallery. Last weekend I spent practically all of the time entering the file information for each photograph. I have over 180! Every time I typed in the description, date, etc. I then tested Photoshop's 'photo album for the web facility'. It worked, although I still have some tweaking to do. I am sure I'll figure it out.

The challenge will be to bring these photographs in the site. I am new to Dreamweaver so, as with everything else over the last four years, it is a steep learning curve. (A friend lent me a very good Dreamweaver course on DVD. I tried to cram everything in the space of 48 hours. I am getting better, but some way from feeling confident).

At least, project nightmare is forcing me to acquire new skills and web design is one I look forward to using for fun things, like holiday pictures. 'Fun things'? What's that? I have forgotten what this means. Maybe one day I will be able to pick my life again, do the things that 'normal people' do. Maybe...

w/c 7 August 2006

I continue to be followed on a 24 / 7 basis by a 'large army'. As previously, I also continue giving them the run around and showing them that I know that I am being observed / followed.

It has continued throughout the week, including at the weekend, and I have continued taking the 'army of [morally depraved, beneath contempt, low-lifes] [Note] on convoluted circuits - especially in the early hours of the morning. (On the upside, it helps me make-up in part for the fact that I cannot afford the time to go to the gym).

Tuesday 8 August 2006

Today I related my story to somebody. It took one and a half hour to give an overview of what has been happening since 2002. On 3-4 occasions it was a real battle to fight back the tears. Every time I said: "No, come on, anger, come back, come back anger" as I was clinching my fists with all my strength.

Sure enough, it helped me fight back the tears. However, it took so much energy out of me, making me feel so demoralised and drained that I could not face going back to the hell hole. So, I booked myself in a hotel.

I cannot tell you the relief I had getting into the room. I felt safe. I could switch the lights on without having the feeling that I might somehow be observed. You are going to laugh: it had been such a long time since I felt comfortable walking around without any clothes on.

I have tears rolling down my cheeks as I am writing this because I simply cannot believe that I am reduced to living under these conditions.

WHY AM I MADE TO SUFFER LIKE THAT? I HAVE DONE NOTHING WRONG. I am NOT the criminal. I AM THE VICTIM OF ORGANISED CRIME

The worst part of it is the feeling of total abandonment, of having absolutely NOWHERE to turn to.

I know, there are some people in this very ugly world who would no doubt like to swap place with mine. So, I will stop feeling sorry for myself. That's it; I am back in fighting mode!

PS. I had a blissful 10 hour sleep - which was very much needed.

Monday 14 August 2006

I went to collect my PO Box this morning. There was an invoice from Martin Russell Jones with a "Brought forward balance" of £8,665 (US$15,200). As can be seen, it has " Final application" stamped in red on it.

Does this mean that the next communication will be a court claim? It and its client Mr Ladsky et. al. must have been hitching to do this since they sent me the - unwarranted - 21 October 2004 invoice stating a "Brought forward balance" of £14,500 (US$25,600).

I certainly would not put it past them. I guess that the cost of employing an army of [ despicable, morally depraved , scums and low-lifes] [ Note] ' on a 17+ hour basis for this length of time must by now be massive.

I am in the very last stages of the development of the site but, encountering some challenges - which I hope to sort out over the next few days.

Wouldn't it be fun to write on the claim "struck out" and just state in the "reason" box "leasehold-outrage.com". THAT would be fun!

Friday 18 August 2006 - 18h50

I was due to go with a friend to see the Modigliani exhibition at the Royal Academy . Although he cancelled, I nonetheless opted to go by myself.

I walked from Trafalgar Sq. By 18h50, I was in St James sq. I stayed there for over 10 minutes, resting along the railing to see if anything was following me. At that time, on a Friday, the square was very empty in terms of parking spaces.

I noticed a red car, I think it was a Nissan with two young Indian / Pakistani men. The number plate starts with X62 (I noted the rest of the number plate). When they first went past me, the passenger looked at me. After about three minutes, they again went past me i.e. had gone round the square. Given the amount of time that had elapsed since they first went round, they had stopped somewhere / gone somewhere else since first passing in front of me.

On this second time, they both looked at me.

About two minutes later, and now for the third time, they yet again went past me and yet again looked at me. I noted that the man in the passenger seat was laughing as he was looking at me.

On each of these three occasions the car was going at a fairly high speed. Hence, they were not lost, nor were they looking for somewhere to park.

This suggested to me that their interest might have been in me.

Saturday 19 August 2006

I have been thinking that once the site is launched, I ought to be out of the flat, as I would fear for my life. Although, once the site is launched, it might actually give me more protection - as if something happens to me it will be as though a 'visiting card' was left on my body.

I don't know. I keep debating whether or not I should look for another flat temporarily. It really angers me to have a flat - for which I am paying a mortgage - and to have to spend a very large part of my salary paying rent for another flat.

Nonetheless, I went to see one at lunchtime. It meets the main requirement as it appears to be safe.

I told the owner a little bit about my situation - which probably was not a good move. We shall see.

Anyway, I am back to debating whether or not I should deplete my finances even more substantially by renting a flat. I already have a flat. Oh God, oh God! How can it be that I am reduced to contemplating this?

How can it be that this is happening in the middle of London, in the 21st century? I have absolutely NOWHERE to turn to for help.

I know, I keep repeating the same thing. It's because I have been asking myself this question - EVERY DAY - since 2002. Nearly five years on, and I still cannot comprehend what is happening, why it is happening, why it is allowed to happen. I think that maybe it's a nightmare from which I will wake-up with an enormous sigh of relief.

But no, everything says that it is real - and it is happening in a country located in Europe, in the 21st century. A country that considers itself 'civilised' - and has signed up to the European Convention on Human Rights. WHAT HYPOCRISY!

I was thinking that, in this country, it is much better to be a criminal. At least, you have organisations that worry about your Human Rights. As an innocent victim of crime: you have NOTHING!

Actually, better still, as a criminal you can also receive financial aid from the state: I heard on the radio this week that the social security department was found to have paid £13 million (US$23 million) to prisoners. The money was paid into their bank account. Explanation? It was an error and was attributed to lack of communication between departments. (Yep! More evidence of the shambolic state of this country)

However, when it comes to taking money from me in income tax, council tax, etc., the government doesn't show any incompetence. Funny that, isn't it?

Saturday 19 / 20 August 2006 - around midnight

And the [morally depraved , beneath contempt rejects from the sewer ] [Note] continue be in tow - in all kinds of modes of transport, as well as on foot.

I went to the office where I did some of my project nightmare filing. I then read a section in a book on Dreamweaver's CSS. Not easy for a novice. I am stuck with project nightmare and have booked an external trainer for Monday. (Yet more money that is going to be drained due to project nightmare)

On leaving the office, when I reached Aldwych, at the height of the law courts, instead of continuing on my 'usual' side of pavement, I opted to cross the street (as I did a few days ago). The reason is that, for a very long time now, I have had my suspicious that I am being observed from this side of the street (stationary car/s, people on foot and, it seems to me, at times, cyclists).

I decided to yet, again, let them know that I knew.

It was 23h42 when I came close to a parked people carrier car, black/ navy blue, with the number plate starting with LS0. It was parked alongside the pavement that is by the church. The driver, a man, was of Pakistani / Indian / Sri Lankan man, in his 30's.

There was a man , walking on the pavement on the side of the law courts. Short, early 30s, possibly of Jewish origin. He had the same physique of many of the other men that I believe have been observing / following me.

He was looking at me. The 2nd / 3rd time he did this, I looked at him intently with an annoyed expression on my face. He continued walking the 3-4 metres to the bus stop that is across from the church. He sat on the bench under the bus shelter and took his mobile out. He was looking at me. At that point, I had seen enough and said loudly: "Ladsky, Ladsky, she is here!"

I then continued to note down the number of the second car that was parked immediately behind the people carrier car. The driver for the second car was a male, young, of African origin. When I looked in the direction of the bus stop, the man had gone.

Seeing this made me decide that I was going to treat the [beneath contempt scums and lowlife] [Note] to one of my 'special circuits'. I went up towards Holborn, then left into Convent Garden . I then backtracked to Holborn, close to the station on the street that goes east towards the City, and west towards Oxford St. I stood in a shop recess at the back of the bus stop (about eight metres from it) to observe movements. I stayed there for a good 20 minutes.

Within 5-7 minutes I spotted a man, short, late 20s, early 30s. He wore a white blouson, jeans, white trainer-like shoes and a rucksack with the brand name 'Diodora'.

Having come from the direction of Holborn station, he went past me and walked into the alley that ends up on Kingsway. He came back 2-3 minutes later on and was loitering around on the pavement.

Within a minute of him coming out of the alley, another man emerged. He was in his early 40s, slim, c.183m, dark brown trousers. From the way he was walking, I initially wondered whether he might be handicapped. He was not, as he then walked 'normally'. He too was loitering around on the pavement but, within a minute of appearing he started talking on a mobile phone, while pacing around, his back turned to me. He departed in the direction of Holborn after about two minutes.

The younger one with the white blouson eventually went to the bus stop where he sat down. He took out a cigarette which he started to smoke. Several buses went by which, it seems to me, represented all the buses that would stop at this bus stop. I remained where I was.

After about 6 - 8 minutes, the man departed from the bus stop, walking in the direction of Holborn. Hence, he was going back there for now the third time. (Note that, by then, the tube had stopped running. Also, that there were plenty of taxis for hire passing in front of the bus stop).

I stayed where I was for about another eight minutes. He did not come back. I did not want to go to the bus stop because I had spotted other things to my right. A woman arrived and stopped a number 8 bus. I run from where I was to catch the bus. I got off at an 'unexpected' stop on Oxford St and ended up walking across Soho taking a series of turns eventually arriving on Shaftsbury Av. By then, I had given the [beneath contempt scums and lowlife] [Note] the run around for nearly two hours. It was time to get back to the hell hole.

Sunday 20 August 2006

There is not much I can get on with in terms of project nightmare.

I have not cleaned the flat in one year. I know, it sounds terrible but, the last time I did it was on 18 August 2005 when I cleaned the bathroom. During that night, there was a leak in the bathroom.

Anyway, as you will know from reading My Diary, I am in the hell hole for eight hours or less per day. I only go there to sleep (as best as I can) and wash. And, as I only have the lights on for as little as I can, I don't have to look at the flat.

Needless to say that I hate living in these conditions. I used to be so proud of that flat, cleaning it at least once a week.

So, here I was this morning, debating: should I or shouldn't clean this hell hole? Will my doing this mean that I will find one or more leaks on my return tonight? Some other disasters?

For a few days now, I have on my mind that a fire might occur. Why? Because about two weeks ago, on my return to the flat, I found a letter from Martin Russell Jones that had been pushed through my letter box.

I states that it requires access to "In order to test the fire alarm system and trace a fault that has appeared the engineers need to gain access to your flat on Tuesday 15 August 2006" .

There is no fire alarm in my flat. NOTHING has ever been installed in my flat that is remotely connected with a fire alarm. Hence, why should they require to get access to my flat?

Has the wiring for the bugging devices gone loose? (See My Diary January / February 2004)

Well, in the end, I did opt to clean the flat. At first it was very difficult. I hate this place so much that I could not bring myself to start. Then, I got into it, like in the 'old days'. However, what will I find on my return? I did say loudly, once I finished: "Ok Ladsky, now that I have cleaned it, what disaster are you going to cause?"

I took a few video clips with my mobile phone (while I had Radio 4 on quite loud, as a means of providing evidence for the date), as well as photographs - including of the ceilings. (Photo and video equipment manufacturers must be doing quite well out of leaseholders as I know several who invested in a video camera simply for the purpose of recording evidence in relation to their landlord / managing agents).

THIS is the life of a leaseholder in the United Kingdom ! What a hell hole. What an unbelievable breach of Human Rights.

And this country takes the high-stand relative to other countries accusing them of breaching Human Rights?!?! WHAT HYPOCRISY!

I feel so sickened by everything, so demoralised, so low, so close to ending it all.

Blast! Tears are again rolling down my face.

No damn it.

I am not going to commit suicide for a bunch of crooks supported by a corrupt system.

As the saying goes, 'nothing is over until it's over'.

It ain't over yet. I am not finished. I look at all the evidence that I have and I KNOW that I have a very strong case.

Comm'on somebody, somewhere, somehow is going to come and help me.

Please God, PLEASE HELP ME!

PLEASE HELP ME!

PLEASE GOD: HELP ME!

Got to stop. I am crying. I can't even see what I am typing.

It's getting late (23h45) and I want to back-up my files on the server of the Copyright company. I want this as evidence in case there is a major disaster in my flat. And I am meeting the trainer at 09h45 tomorrow.

Monday 21 August 2006

Mission accomplished: I sent all of the site content to the copyright company by about 1 a.m. I left the office feeling relieved that all my latest files were now resting on two+ servers outside of the UK .

I apprehended going back to the hell hole wondering what I would find. As it turned out, when I arrived at c. 2 a.m., nothing had happened. It was nice to see the flat clean. As is usually the case, I did not sleep particularly well and was out of the flat again by c. 08h00. I had an all day meeting with a Dreamweaver specialist to address a few problems.

While this was an expensive day for me (loss of earnings, cost of this specialist + hiring an office), it was money well spent as he was able to sort out all my problems.

I have still got quite a lot of work to do on the site. One task is to insert the hyperlinks from the text to other sections. I reckon there must be over 800. Another is to do the 8-9 photo albums for the photo gallery. Then there are some other relatively small bits and pieces. So, in total, probably another 12 days or so of work. I will then go to Paris to launch the site - and celebrate my achievement.

Actually, the current stats for the site are quite amasing - considering the root cause for its existence:

• 590 pages of Word documents (font size 9pt)

• 765 PDF documents

• 185 photographs

It will have taken over 2,500 hours of my life to create this site.

And you know what the worst part of it is?

I have absolutely no idea what this is going to lead to. As has happened EVERY DAY since 2002, I simply cannot see a light at the end of the tunnel.

Will I ever see a light at the end of the tunnel?

When will this horrendous and very traumatic nightmare come to an end?

Will I ever get my life back?

Monday 21 August 2006 - after midnight

On my return to the block there was an unpleasant looking, middle age man, of Mediterranean origin , with an enormous pot belly who was standing immediately on the corner next to the block. He looked at me intently from the time I took the turning from Hans Crescent into Basil St .

(In the same way that a man, in his mid 30s, c. 1.80m, also of Mediterranean origin, had looked at me after he had come out of the block back in May/June this year. He had walked away from the block in the direction of Sloane St for about 10 metres and had then turned around to stare at me. I gave him a sneer, while aiming to communicate: "Yes, that's me! I am the one who does not give in to terrorist-like tactics!" )

He was talking on a mobile phone. As I reached the door to the block, he walked in such a way as to practically cut my path as though he was daring me to walk in front of him - which is exactly what I did!

He remained on the pavement in front of my windows for c. another five minutes. At that point, I heard footsteps in the corridor and the door to the main entrance close. As I could no longer hear him on the pavement, I assumed that it was him.

Tuesday 22 August 2006 - after midnight

Having spotted a few things on my way (in particular on Old Bond St), when I arrived at the bus stop on Piccadilly, across from the Royal Academy, there was a woman, Caucasian, c. 1.60m, in her 30s, shoulder length, frizzy brown hair. She wore a calf-length coat and had two large, bulky bags on the floor. The whole attire led me to wonder whether she might be a tramp. I had seen her 2-3 days previously, at the same bus stop, around the same sort of time (i.e. after midnight) - with exactly the same attire, including the same large bags.

At the time, she had triggered my 'internal radar' as, even though she did not really look at me, it seemed to me that she was paying attention to what I was saying on my mobile phone. All my calls in the evening, when I am in the street, are in French - with some English thrown in for 'good measure' when I feel that somebody appears to be paying attention to what I am saying. Hopefully, it means that the abhorrent paymasters need to find bilingual people if they want to find out what I am saying - thereby adding, not only to the difficulty, but especially costs.

On this second occasion, my 'internal radar' was yet again activated as I felt she was paying particular attention to what I was saying. On this assumption, I ensured that she would have something of substance to report. In addition to referring to her by a slang word in French (if she was an 'innocent' person waiting for the bus and understood French, she would not have known that I was talking about her and hence would not have taken offence). Also in French, I talked, among others, of the criminal sociopaths who were having me followed, of the [beneath contempt, scum] [Note] who had been looking at me intently when I arrived back at the block last night, etc.

During that time a man arrived, in his late 20s, c.1.78m, English, dressed like an office worker - but not wearing a jacket. Refreshingly, no smug, arrogant, 'I am superior to you air' about him. One of the buses that I could take arrived. I was at the back of the bus stop, alongside a shop frontage. The man flagged down the bus. It eventually stopped about 3 metres from the 'normal stop'. By the time I was making my way towards the door at the front of the bus, it departed. Although the man had flagged down the bus, he made no attempt to board it.

It led me to feel that he too might be interested in me. I therefore continued with my conversation, throwing in quite a few things to 'spice up' the reporting. By then the woman had a mobile phone in her hand in which she was texting. (Throughout that time she had not bothered to look at any of the buses that had arrived i.e. she was not intending to take a bus).

At one point I said to my friend, imagine the reporting of my conversation: "She said what? Against one of our sacrosanct landlords?" "That the people following her are also criminal sociopaths on the payroll of the criminals? "That bloody French bitch!"

Another bus was on its way which I likewise could have taken. Suspecting that every word of my telephone conversation was being listened to, I said to my friend that I was going to take this bus, "It's a number 14" . I was still alongside the shop frontage. The man on the pavement flagged the bus to stop . As it did so, the man turned round to look at me. I remained where I was against the shop frontage. He hesitated about boarding the bus and eventually did so.

Is this 'normal' behaviour? This, plus he had done previously, confirmed to me that he was particularly interested in me.

I moved away from where I was. The woman also moved from the bus shelter and went in the shop recess at the back of the bus shelter - which was considerably darker than the area of the bus shelter. She was texting on her phone.

A # 38 bus arrived. Although it does not go to Knightsbridge, I opted to take it to annoy the [beneath contempt scums and lowlife] [Note] and got off one stop after Hyde Park Corner. I then meandered my way towards the flat.

Wednesday 23 August 2006 - after midnight

Oh dear, oh dear! I did rattle the cage of the [morally depraved, beneath contempt scums and low-lifes] [Note] last night as 'the army' was out in force.

I came off the bus on Knightsbridge and turned left into the alley that leads to Knightsbridge Green.

As I arrived on the corner with Ralph St , a man hidden in the dark recess of the little tobacconist shop on the corner, walked straight at me, coming from my right. I had not noticed him because I had my umbrella + was talking on my mobile. I laughed as I went by. Spineless, corrupt, scums!

When I arrived on Hans Crescent (by then 00h45), half way down on the Harrods side of the pavement, there were three men . Two were together, talking. The third one was about two metres from them. He was talking on a mobile phone. My 'internal radar' got activated the minute I spotted them. I did not take a good look at the other two.

The third one, in his 30s, c. 1.78m, had the look that I have now seen many times: ' a cop look-alike look '.

As I went past him I said on the phone, "Wow! Ladsky's army of [morally depraved, beneath contempt scums and low-life] [Note] is out in force tonight!" I then continued towards the block - not bothering to turn back.

I know, I should ignore them, but I really resent this invasion of my privacy.

Visitor to the site, how would you feel if you were being subjected to this kind of treatment every single day - any time of day?

And add to that, threatening behaviour. To refer to them as [morally depraved, beneath contempt scums and low life] [Note] is an insult to [cannot replace] [Note]

AS WITH ALL THE OTHERS, EVERY SINGLE ONE of these people is committing a criminal offence against me under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 - as well as breaching my Human Rights under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights - Respect to private life

THIS MAKES THEM ALL CRIMINALS - unlike me who has done NOTHING WRONG. I am NOT the criminal. I AM THE VICTIM OF CRIME.

Thursday 24 August 2006

I am exhausted and do not want to go back to the hell hole tonight. So, I have booked myself in a hotel next to the office. This makes it the second time in the space of c. two weeks. Not good for the finances but... needed for my health.

Friday 25 August 2006

I went out for dinner with a colleague to a restaurant next to the office. Three men came in after we did.

On leaving the restaurant , one of the men, who was sitting, facing my direction, looked at me intently with a particularly arrogant air, not taking his eyes off me until I had gone past the height of their table. I returned the 'compliment', holding his gaze while aiming to communicate: "Yeah, that's me. Take a good look!" . He was in his late 40's / early 50s, wearing glasses , English origin . I estimate his height around 1.80m

I did not have a good look at the other two . They were younger . All three conjured-up to me a 'cop look-alike' look . (As I spend my life in the office, I guess they must be gasping for opportunities to be able to claim the cost of a decent meal from their abhorrent paymasters. If they are also waiting to be able to charge an overseas trip... not long to go!)

I went back to the office to the office to work on project nightmare and left very late, going back to the hell hole with the number 9 bus, getting off on Knightsbridge. I went down the same alley as I did on Wednesday, wondering if one of the scums would again be hiding in the shadow and come straight at me as I went by. No, no ambush. Past the bedtime of the foot soldiers!

As I arrived close to the corner Knightsbridge Green-Brompton Road , I spotted a Rover car, dark green, parked alongside the other pavement of Brompton Road . By then it was 3 a.m. After I had taken a few steps on Brompton Road , the car departed.

This is a repeat of what has happened on several occasions in recent months : same make, same colour and usually when I arrived in the early hours of the morning. The car is stationary and only departs once I am in view.

As on previous occasions, it went direction West. This is the direction for Chelsea, as well as Kensington & Chelsea police station . Why am I saying that? Because, for a long time now, my 'little voice' keeps telling me that some of the people following me around are cops - thereby contradicting my 'reasoned' assumption that they could potentially be ex. cops employed by the private sector.

I know, on the face of it, it does NOT make sense - and consequently comes across as a 'wild' assumption. Nonetheless, I am opting to 'bravely' capture it - while very sincerely hoping that I am wrong. It would be an unbelievably sad state of affairs if I turned out to be right. No, I can't be right. It simply does not make sense.

Sunday 27 August 2006 - 02h15 a.m.

When I came out of office, I noticed a car that was parked immediately at the T-junction, alongside the left handside pavement coming from New Bridge st.

As I started to walk the c. 20 metres to the T-junction, a man, Caucasian, mid-30s, came out of car and walked in the direction of New Bridge st. He entered into a building, located on the corner of the street, across from the hotel.

This left the one person in the car who was in the driving seat. Male, Caucasian, dark hair, late 30s / early 40s, probably around 1.80m, wearing a dark blue, suit jacket. I stayed on the corner with the T junction to note the number plate - which starts with E00, as well as the make, a Ford saloon .

The driver started the car, making a U-turn in front of me, and drove in the direction of New Bridge St .

Was there a connection with me? I don't know. All that I can say is that the car had been stationary (in a deserted, office area, after 2 a.m., on a Saturday - which happens to be a bank holiday weekend) and had departed within a few seconds of my coming out of the office.

I have to say that, when I first noticed the car, it looked to me to be identical to the car I described in my above entry as a 'Rover, dark green'. In actual fact, this one was a Ford, dark blue - same saloon shape.

Considering that I was a lot closer to this car than I had been the night before to the 'dark green, Rover', might it be that the 'Rover' was actually a Ford? Consequently, that it had also been the case on the previous occasions - as described above (when I was likewise, generally some 50m from the car)? I don't know. That's all I can report.

After an 8 hour sleep...

As explained a little while back in My Diary, I prefer going back to the hell hole nearer to the start of daylight, as I feel a lot safer. Sure enough, I slept quite well until c. 11 a.m.

I walked through Hyde Park to get a bit of fresh air and sunshine. Had a juice at the Lebanese bar, bought some food at the Lebanese grocery store and then took the bus from Marble Arch to the office.

From the time I left the hell hole, I made a point of not looking around to see if I could spot [morally depraved, despicable scums and low life] [Note]. There probably were some around as my 'internal radar' got a bit activated. There was no repeat of Sunday 30 July 2006. Maybe the fat, red-face-scum et. al. are having the weekend off.

Well, I am not having the weekend off as I continue importing the Word documents content into the site, after which I insert the links between the sections. Another slow and industrious process as there are 50 sections and sub-sections on the site into which I am importing 600 pages of Word text. So, going at a snail pace but, the main thing is that I am making progress.

It's 15h00. Best I get on with it. the end is in sight!

Tuesday 29 August 2006

Well, I saw a dark green Rover: at 02h20, at Hyde Park Corner, parked alongside the pavement, in front Lansborough hotel. I was on a bus. It departed after the bus had stopped at the bus stop. I noted the number plate. just in case this proves useful.

Wednesday 30 August 2006 - ICAEW reply

I went to collect my PO Box. It contained a letter from the Institute of Chartered Accountants, dated 29 August 2006, with the verdict I expected...

"the ICAEW does not believe that there is grounds for disciplinary action against Pridie Brewster"

ABSOLUTELY UNBELIEVABLE!

And the main reason given was:

"What is crucial in the decision is that the LVT stated that tenants could willingly contribute towards the extra costs should they wish to do so"

ABSOLUTELY UNBELIEVABLE!

(See Pridie Brewster for further detail)

The Chinese proverb that a 'leopard does not change its spots' has certainly proved to be true - once again!

Like the other 'so-called' English regulatory bodies, the ICAEW is a trade association concerned only with protecting the interests of its members.

No wonder leaseholders are getting ripped-off by crooked landlords and their equally crooked aides on a massive scale.

At least, there is one benefit from this letter: the attachments listing the contributions by flat for 2002 and 2003. Among others, they provide:

• Confirmation that Mr Andrew Ladsky IS Steel Services ( flat 34, flat 35 , flat 5 have not paid a contribution) (NB: However, according to the ICAEW, some undetailed contributions in the 2004 year-end accounts were paid for some of the flats owned by Mr Ladsky. No contribution has been received from flat 5, nor flat 21- See Pridie Brewster # 18 ) (Owners identity # 3. 1 )

• More evidence that Ms Ayesha Salim, CKFT, lied to West London County Court - under a Statement of Truth - as, in her 6 August 2003 application to West London County Court she wrote, on page 2

"Martin Russell Jones issued a revised Major Works Apportionment setting out the revised estimate for the works and calculation of the percentages due from each of the tenants at the property. A copy of the revised estimate and apportionment is attached to the application notice"

The "Major Works Apportionment" she attached shows a reduction of 24.19% for each flat

The 2002 and 2003 "summary of contributions to the major works fund" sent by the ICAEW with its 29 August 2006 letter shows that 9 out the 14 flats were charged the full amount originally demanded by Ms Hathaway, Martin Russell Jones in her 15 July 2002 letter.

These amounts are listed in the Particulars of the claim accompanying the 29 November 2002 West London County Court claim - DRAWN-UP by CKFT - for the which the Statement of Truth was signed by Ms Joan Hathaway, Martin Russell Jones (This, combined with the fact that West London County Court proceeded with the claim - amounts to a very serious breach of CPR).

Given that Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor was the acting solicitors on the claim filed in West London County Court, how does Ms Ayesha Salim reconcile her claim - under a Statement of Truth - in her 6 August 2003 application that the "revised Major Works Apportionment setting out the revised estimate for the works and calculation of the percentages due from each of the tenants at the property.." - with the "summary of contributions to the major works fund" produced by Pridie Brewster? (Pridie Brewster # 18)

Ms Salim KNEW what these leaseholders had been made to pay. SHE / her firm FORCED these leaseholders to pay these amounts at 'gun point' i.e. by issuing the FALSE claim against them.

Thursday 31 August 2006 - 09h47

A Vauxhall Vectra, parked in Hans crescent. Male, Caucasian, in his 50s, glasses . I stopped behind him to note the number plate . Within a few seconds, he departed

Saturday 2 September 2006 - 11h45

Throughout the week I have continued to be followed.

On Saturday, I went to a hairdressing salon located on New Cavendish Street fairly close to the T junction with Marylebone High St .

As I was about to enter the salon, my instinct told me to look towards Marylebone High St . There I noticed a man on the opposite pavement. He was stationary . Even though there were quite a lot of people on Marylebone High st, my 'internal radar' locked onto him partly because he was looking in my direction and partly because he had the overall look, or maybe, I should say 'aura' of some of the [morally depraved, despicable scum] [Note] who have been following me around - although better dressed than quite a few.

He proceeded to start walking in the direction of Oxford St . At that point, I run to Marylebone High st, turned left so that I would end-up being ahead of him. I had put my camera on. As I did this, I crossed the road so that I would end up in his path. He looked very ill at ease . I took a photograph. There were several people around him (and I) at the time. Hence, I don't think that it could be construed that I was taking a photograph of 'him' i.e. my interest could have been what was around him / behind him.

I went back onto the other pavement. He continued walking in the direction of Oxford st, turning his head away from me . I also continued in this direction at a fast pace so that I could take other photographs of him. After about 12 metres, he stopped in front of a coffee shop and, for 1-2 seconds looked at a poster in the window.

He then turned back, walking back in the direction he had come from while continuing to turn his head away from me. He looked to me like he did not know what to do. Although he was turning his head away from me, I nonetheless took another photograph to prove that he had turned back.

Description: Caucasian, c. 1.75m in height; overweight. In his 40s, chestnut hair, receding hair line, bolding on the side, with a large bold patch on the top of his head. He wore a light blue V neck sweater, white trousers, brown, sports-shoes with a thick black, rubber sole.

I then proceeded to the hairdresser due to my appointment. Hence, did not bother to observe what he did next.

Tuesday 4 September 2006 - 01h25 - 02h45

I got to the bus stop on Fleet st by c. 01h15.

I waited for a bus for a good 10 -15 minutes. Among the cars that went by, one was a taxi that slowed down considerably trying to tempt me. (Having for quite a long time now, got the impression that some taxis appear to be particularly interested in me , I have stopped taking taxis from that street and the surrounding streets.

From the bus stop, I could see a man standing on the corner of Whitefriars St and Fleet st . He was facing in my direction.

After c. 15 minutes, I decided to walk towards Aldwych, on the left handside pavement.

As I was getting near to the corner on which the man was standing c. 15 metres away, he was looking at me. He did this until I reached the street corner and I started to cross the street. My 'internal radar' had got on alert well before I reached the street corner.

He was Caucasian, in his 40s, big pot belly, c. 1.80m. He 'seemed' to have some Mediterranean ancestry , as he had, among others, an olive skin . He was wearing a horizontally stripped collar T-shirt of several muted colours, including dark orange. Immediately behind him, parked half way on the pavement on Whitefriars St was a black London cab. I assumed that it was his taxi.

Another taxi was parked alongside the other side of the pavement on Fleet st, by the bank. I assumed that the passenger had asked the taxi to stop to get cash from the cash point.

By the time I had walked another few metres, the 'passenger' (Caucasian, English origin, in his mid 30s) of the other taxi was crossing Fleet st, in the direction of the man I had just seen standing on the corner of the street. (I did not bother to turn round to see whether the man had remained on the street corner).

I continued on my way, while talking on my mobile phone. Fleet st was deserted. There was only the occasional car passing by. When I reached the height of the beginning of the law court, a dark red taxi stopped alongside the pavement, a few metres ahead of me. This triggered my 'internal radar'. As I was getting close to it, I could see that the driver was bending across in the direction of the part of the dash board, in front of the passenger seat.

By the time I came to its height, the man's hand was in the direction of the glove compartment. As I related what was taking place to the person I was talking to, I laughed as I went by. I knew that this 'taxi driver' was interested in me. I continued walking for c. five metres.

At that point, the taxi departed and made a U-turn on Fleet st .

As soon as he started to face the other direction, the driver turned on his seat by c. 45 degrees in order to look at me while at the same time making a face at me .

He had a big, repugnant face. Some people can be so evil!

I did not bother to look at him properly.

From the second or so that I did, he 'appeared' to me to look like the man I had seen on the Edgware Road on Sunday 30 July 2006, as well in the passenger seat of the car I thought was going to run me over, on Tuesday 1 August 2006

(Unfortunately, I did not think of noting the number plate of 'the taxi')

I continued walking to Aldwych, from where I took a bus. As it was going to Oxford St, to annoy and confuse the [morally depraved, despicable scums and low life] [Note] I opted to stay on it until it had gone past Bond st. I got off at that point because of another suspicion ( a man who had boarded the bus at Piccadilly ).

I then meandered my way, partly through the back streets, to Hyde Park Corner. After waiting for a few minutes for a bus, I opted to walk the rest of the way to Knightsbridge.

By the time I reached the flat it was 02h45.

Within 10 minutes of my being in the flat, I had the...

... 'great privilege' of somebody watering the plants in front of my windows (YES at 02h45 a.m. in the morning!)...

...while hosing my windows at the same time.

(So repeat of what took place on: (1) Tuesday 6 September 2005 at 4:55 a.m.; (2) Tuesday 4 October 2005 at 5:30 a.m.; (3) Friday 7 April 2006 at 1 a.m.)

Needless to say that only I was awarded this privilege!

Indeed, having done this for a good 3-4 minutes, the man left. After about two minutes, I heard a car depart.

When the man started, I debated whether I should go up and take a photograph. I opted not to.

I don't care. I have a 'MEGA' SURPRISE IN STORE FOR THE CORRUPT CRIMINALS:

I am going ' home' to Paris to launch my website next week. and I have set-up fallback measures in case my US ISP is made to close it - which, I anticipate, is very likely to happen.

(There are quite a few countries in the world keen to disseminate black on white evidence of breaches of Human Rights in the United Kingdom)

However, while I opted to not take a photograph, I did take the opportunity to communicate a few messages for the benefit of the bugging device/s which I suspect have been placed around my flat , including the ceiling (see My Diary January / February 2004)

These included saying:

"Corrupt, criminal sociopaths. And that goes for the cops as well" (My reference to 'cops' as I simply cannot get out of my mind (for many months now) that the police is somehow involved. However, as I have already stated on numerous occasions in My Diary: I have NO EVIDENCE of this) (Subsequent note: see My Diary home for my conclusion that it is the police)

I also said "I wish the same thing is done to your mother, your sister, your daughter, your wife, your aunt, your grandmother. See how you would feel about that"

While I said "I wish the same is done to." In truth, I most certainly do not wish for another woman to go through the unbelievable harassment and attempts to intimidate me I am being made to endure.

At one point, I also said: "And all of that for what? £3.9 million for a penthouse flat + three new flats at? Well, let's say £300k each. Hence, we are at about £5 million. Plus the other flats obtained cheaply.

I reckon a total of £6-7 million. Am I right?

Corrupt, criminal filth. You heard that scums? Rejects from the sewer! Is that said clearly enough for you?"

As well as: "Oh! I am so privileged: the plants in front of my windows are being watered specially for me at 3 o'clock in the morning! Lucky me!"

I assume that, by turning up at 3 a.m. the scum who hosed my windows would have been told that, being a weekday, I would be back and likely to be in bed. On the other hand, the intention might have been to make me go out and confront him. at which point, something could have been done to me. Who knows?

The reason for this particularly special treatment today might be connected to the following: I left the block after 11h a.m. as I decided to take the day off. Having got out of the block, I remained on the top step to survey the street. A man was immediately across, in front of the hotel, loitering around. I was not quite sure whether or not he was one of the 'hired help'. I nonetheless said "Ladsky's [morally depraved, despicable scums and low life] [Note] thinking that I would be heard (among others, through the entryphone system)

As the time at which I left it would have led the 'hired help' to think that I was going somewhere other than the office, I did one of my little circuits to reinforce this likely belief i.e. doing this for the purpose of communicating that I was going somewhere I did not want them to know about. Having had my fun, I then proceeded to the office.

On the other hand.. Maybe it stems from the frustration of my having the criminals nailed against the wall. In spite of their continuing threats such as e.g. the "Final application" stamped in red on the last invoice I received from Martin Russell Jones - and their propensity to issue the threat of proceedings at the drop of a hat - they don't dare to do it.

They know they haven't got 'a leg to stand on'.

Please note that I have NOT acknowledged any of the invoices sent by Martin Russell since October 2004.

Considering the events with CKFT and its client (as well as his other 'puppets' Martin Russell Jones and Mr Brian Gale) - and that they and their client have turned "intimidatory litigation into an industry"...

...how come that they have not taken action against me? (Well... at least, not yet!)

They know that I have a massive amount of evidence against all of them.

They know that I do not need a lawyer to represent me - at least in county court.

And they also know that, by not being a lawyer, I have no concern about 'burning my bridges' with other lawyers: I am not going to be calling on them for assistance / a favour in the future.

Hence, I can say things exactly as they are (e.g. as I have done in my complaint against CKFT , and in my reply to Portner and Jaskel ).

I HAVE CORNERED THEM.

So, being the criminal scums that they are, they do the only thing they know of: harass and attempt to intimidate and scare a woman on her own.

The unbelievable hell I am going through now: THAT IS REAL LIFE under Mr Tony Blair's "tough on crime" government!

(Subsequent note: the criminals did subsequently try their luck - see Portner and Jaskel and West London County Court - Post 2004 - and my summary: threat of forfeiture and bankruptcy proceedings, as well as court claims = FRAUD TOOLS)

Tuesday 5 September 2006 - c. 10h15

I left the block later than usual. Having done a little circuit that entailed going through Harrods on the side of Hans Crescent , I proceeded to go down the tube station . There were quite a few people. However, as I was walking in the corridor towards the escalator, my 'internal radar' locked onto a man on my right. He appeared to me to be of English origin; in his late 20s, slim, fairly long red hair. He wore jeans, a jeans blouson and light brown, rubber sole, walking shoes.

I slowed down so that he would end-up being in front of me on the escalator going down to the platforms. I was about four steps up, behind him. There was nobody else on the escalator. From the sound, it was clear that that a train had arrived on one of the platforms. In fact, it sounded as though a train had arrived on both platforms.

Normally, I would have walked down to catch the train. I did not, and nor did he. Once he was off the escalator, he stopped to look at the map depicting the stations serviced on both lines. I also stopped, doing the same thing, placing myself about two metres behind him. He stayed there for about 40 seconds.

He then started to walk towards the platform direction Cockfosters. I had moved sideways by about half a meter to keep him in my line of vision. After taking a few steps, he turned around. As I was looking at him, I smiled while attempting to convey "Caught you!"

Why did this man turn around? He had no reason to... unless he was interested in my movements. (If you observe 'normal' tube users: they don't do that. They look ahead as they continue walking on the platform). I then proceeded onto the other platform and continued with my journey to work.

Friday 8 September 2006 - From 01h00 a.m.

There is something to write every day as I continue to be followed by 'a small army' the minute I am anywhere in the street, at any time of day and night .

On leaving the office at 01h00 a.m., I went on Victoria Embankment. Something I have been doing quite a few times in recent weeks. From there, I then walk in the direction of Westminster . However, tonight I had other plans.

Having crossed the road at the crossing, I positioned myself against the wall alongside the river. (A good position for observation, as there cannot be anybody behind me given that it is the river). I was talking on my mobile phone.

Within two minutes of being there, I noted a young man, Caucasian, relatively short, walking at a fairly fast pace on the opposite pavement, who had come from the direction of Blackfriars station . He was looking intermittently in my direction (As you can imagine, at this time of night, in an office area, on a weekday, there is hardly anybody around)

He proceeded to cross the street at the crossing (i.e. as I had done). He stopped in the middle island. Although the traffic light was green, he could have potentially crossed as there was one car coming but it was some considerable distance away. It was clear that he was interested in me as he barely took his eyes off me until the light turned red. As he was standing on the island, I said on my mobile phone "One of Ladsky's [despicable scums] [Note]

He continued looking at me from the time he crossed the road until he turned right on the pavement i.e. in the direction of Westminster .

He continued walking at a relatively good pace. A few seconds later, when I looked in his direction, he had stopped and was loitering around, while looking in my direction . By then he was about 30 metres away from me.

I then had no doubt in mind: he was definitely interested in my movements. At that point I shouted a very 'un-lady like' comment in his direction. He became quite disconcerted. He looked at the traffic that had stopped at the traffic light. It included a cyclist who obviously heard what I said. Some of the car drivers might have also heard me. He then walked away.

The conclusion from what took place is that this man's interest was in me. Among others, consider that he had been walking at a relatively fast pace previously.

About two minutes later, a man arrived from the Westminster direction. Caucasian, late 30s, blond, overweight, wearing a dark blue suit. He was walking at a slightly leisurely pace. He likewise activated my 'internal radar'. As he went past me, he looked at his watch. At that point I said "Oh! can report that I saw her at 0h10 a.m. !" The man did not look at me as I said this.

From where I was, I had a good view of Temple Avenue. I saw two taxis, one of which was light grey and the other black. They had stopped abreast on the street i.e. no car would have had the space to overtake them.

I stayed where I was in their full view, while talking on my mobile phone. After 2-3 minutes, I saw two men coming out of one of the taxis and walking off - but one of them came back in my view.

About 30 seconds later, both taxis reversed back down the street for a few metres.

They then went forward again , eventually up to the traffic light. They had no option but to turn right. I went in the opposite direction i.e. towards Blackfriars bridge. As I was nearing the bridge, I saw a light grey taxi at the round about., It had stopped at the traffic light - on the branch of the street that allows getting access to Victoria Embankment i.e. where I was. As there were some workmen cabins (due to some roadworks) I hid behind them. Was it he same grey cab as I had seen c. two minutes ago on Temple Av ? I do not know.

I proceeded to walk across Blackfriars bridge and continued up to the traffic light. At this point I turned right, walked down a few metres and then crossed the road. Within a few seconds a taxi came on my side. I took it, direction the 'hell hole'

I arrived in Hans Crescent by 01h30. As I was standing on the corner with Basil st, near Harrods, a grey taxi arrived (i.e. had driven alongside the back of Harrods). He turned right into Hans Crescent . I noted the number plate although, I doubt very much that it was the same taxi as I saw in Temple Av.

A few seconds later, the taxi was followed by another car that arrived at high speed. It also turned right into Hans Crescent .

At 09h23, on leaving the block, a small white, delivery type car (not a van), was parked on the corner of Hans Crescent and Basil st, in front of the patisserie. Two men. The passenger was talking on a mobile. When I started to note the number plate, the car departed.

I also noted a courier bike rider who was parked alongside the pavement by the patisserie. The rider was standing next to his bike. He did not appear to me to be doing anything. Just for the record, I noted the number of the bike.

I noticed two other men. One, late 40s, overweight, unhealthy looking, dressed in a dark suit (that looked in dire need of dry cleaning / being pressed) who was standing on the corner of Basil St and Hans Crescent, across from the patisserie.

By then I had continued crossing the road and had placed myself against Harrods to observe movements. He had activated my 'internal radar' as he looked to me as though he was trying to give himself composure (for c. 30 seconds he looked intently at towards the top of the building that at the beginning of the street, across from Harrods). He then mimicked what I was doing: I had placed my right foot on the Harrods wall. He did the same thing against the wall of the house on the corner.

The second man was standing to my left, about 2.5 metres away from me , resting against one of the balusters and looking at me. He was Caucasian, in his 30s, nasty, mean look on his face . He was dressed very casually, with a canvass type bag across his shoulders.

As I was looking in his direction with a sneer on my face, he departed in the direction of the back of Harrods. As he went past me I said "Ladsky [morally depraved, despicable scums and low life] [Note] are again on the prowl"

The other man who had been on the corner had crossed the road in my direction. As he went c. three meters in front of me, I again said the same thing "Ladsky's [morally depraved, despicable scums and low life] [Note] are on the prowl"

I walked slowly towards the entrance of the tube station. I noticed one other man on the pavement, as well as a black VW parked very close to the entrance to the station. The driver was Caucasian, c. late 30s. For the record, I opted to note the number plate - and took a photograph of the man on the pavement + the back of the car.

As I was about to go down the steps to the station, I noticed that the first man i.e. the one in his late 40s who had been standing on the corner of Basil St and Hans Crescent was now resting against the railing that is alongside the street i.e. at the edge of the pavement, on the Brompton Rd. I took a photograph and went down to the station.

Considering the resources involved and the time scale over which it has been taking place: who is 'really' funding this army of [morally depraved, despicable, beneath contempt scums and low life] [Note] to follow me around on a 24 / 7 basis?

Will I ever get the answer to this question?

I am off to Paris on Sunday and still have quite a bit to do on the site. So, no more capturing of this type of events.

W/c 11 September 2006

I am back in my home town - and it feels good! However, I have still got quite a bit to do on the site.

End of the week: I have worked on the site every day since I arrived. Monday I am meeting with my friend again for the final touches.

End of Monday: still more to do. So, launch will be tomorrow.

Tuesday 19 September 2006

WE HAVE LIFT-OFF!.. .OF THE SITE...

...containing:

• The input from a 600 page Word document

• 800 supporting documents (the longest is 120 pages)

• Over 8,000 hyperlinks going from the 600 pages of site content to the 800 supporting documents