Email this site to a contact


15 years of mental torture, harassment, persecution, intimidation, bullying and blackmail tactics - in the Jefferson House 'concentration camp' - in 'The Kingdom of Make-Believe'

until I end-up destitute

My Diary - 2007

Year six of the horrendous, sheer utter hell nightmare.


(Subsequent note - On 6 June 2008 Mr Ladsky dropped "ALL" of the 27 February 2007 claim against me - see My Diary - 7 June 2008, preceded by 3 June 2008 which covers my (74 pg) Witness Statement) (4 pg Main Points))


I have not released an update of my website since May 2007. A lot has happened since then. For the time being I am only updating / reporting:

(1) Events in relation to the fraudulent claim, ref 7WL 00675, filed against me by Mr Jeremy Hershkorn, Portner and Jaskel, in West London County Court on 27 February 2007 - giving two names for the 'landlord': (1) "Roostock Overseas Corp" (should read "Rootstock"), said to be domiciled in Panama; (2) Steel Services (assumed to still be domiciled in the British Virgin Islands). There is a third name - in the directory file path at the bottom of the claim: Sloan Development (assumed to still be domiciled in the British Virgin Islands). (In October 2006, Mr Hershkorn stated that his client is Mr Andrew Ladsky)

So much has happened with Portner and Jaskel and the court, that I have set-up a new page for each and transferred some of the content from 'My Diary 2007' to these new sub-sections i.e. Portner and Jaskel & Law Society, and West London County Court - Post 2004

YES, as I have stated from the time I received the 7WL 00675 claim: IT IS FRAUDULENT. For a summary of the reasons in support of my position see the 12 September 2007 "Defence & Counterclaim" I filed in West London County Court. (It provides a comprehensive overview of the events and issues in my case)

It is now more than NINE MONTHS that this fraudulent claim has been 'hanging over my head'. Providing overwhelming support to my position that the claim is fraudulent is that, since the end of September, I have not received any communication whatsoever from Portner and Jaskel , AND, NOR have I received any from West London County Court - in spite of sending several chaser letters.


(Note at February 2008: contact finally made; it provides further evidence in support of my position that the claim filed against me is FRAUDULENT - see My Diary 9 February 2008 )

Events with West London County Court lead me to the perception that it is preventing my case from proceeding to a hearing, leading me to write in my 5 December 2007 letter to the Customer Service Department of Her Majesty Court Service (HMCS):

"I demand that my case is immediately transferred to a court and a judge committed to operating under CPR’s ‘Overriding Objective(*)

So that I can exercise my rights under the European Convention on Human Rights, comprised under the Human Rights Act 1998: Article 6 – “Right to fair hearing”, and Article 13 - "Right to effective remedy" (Subsequent note: This Article is OMITTED from the Act)

(*) Sourced from the website of the then Department for Constitutional Affairs, on 14 March 2007

As the 10 December 2007 reply totally ignores my demand, on 11 December 2007, I escalated it to the Justice Secretary asking for his assistance - see WLCC #23 for my reply to the initial acknowledgement

See also WLCC # 18.2 for the reply to my complaint against the court from the Customer Service department of Her Majesty Court Service (HMCS) - and my reply headed "CONFIRMATION OF COLLUSION"

NOTE: While I have not received communication from Portner and Jaskel, I have received 'some' from its client: no heating and no hot water in my flat for three days - starting on Christmas day. It reminds me of what took place during the Easter break in 2003

(2) [Removed - referred to list of documents; now replaced by complaint against Portner]

(3) The fourth malicious leak in two years: - 20 July 2007

(4) Having my third witness that I continue to be monitored: 25 October 2007

(5) Adding new (very welcome) messages of support from visitors to my website (in the 'Comments' section)

(6) Added a note at the end of the last entry when I updated my website in May

(7) Replaced the words 'pigs' and 'monkeys' - not because of the accusations by Kensington & Chelsea police - as they are FALSE (My Diary 20 March 2007) - but simply because I should have used stronger words, words to communicate my abhorrence and feeling of utter disgust and contempt

(NB: I continue to use the exchange rate £=US$1.76329)

Introduction - at January 2007

Somebody told me that year 2007 is the year of blessings. I certainly hope that some find their way to me. My dearest wish is to close down this website - of my own free will - as it will mean that I have achieved my personal objectives.

As to my other objective i.e. for my site to be a trigger for change / a 'wake-up call', I assume that it is already in the process of happening. I dearly hope that my action will spare other people from going through what I have gone through - and continue to go through every day: it's a prison sentence.

In relation to the site, I continue going through the sections, putting the anchors and the links, developing the 'Abbreviations-Definitions' section. It is such a slow, painstaking process... but it's worth it.

9 January 2007 - Block sale of flats

A 'for sale' sign has been placed on the railing at Jefferson House since about November. I decide to have a look at the estate agents' website - and capture my findings in the 'Block sale of flats' section.

The information suggests that the lease has already been sold on several flats. It might include to foreigners (in some instances the word 'apartment', instead of 'flat' has been used suggesting an intention to attract foreign buyers) (See Business model # 2 ).

If these poor people knew what they are letting themselves in for! Unfortunately, with a system that is opting to turn a blind eye and a deaf ear to everything, I can't do anything - other than send the address of my website to several major estate agents in my area (Note: I did at the beginning of February, but it can be safely assumed that no notice will be taken of my site - other than keeping it very quiet).

(NB: Within 48 hours of my capturing the information on the site, the 'for sale' sign was removed from the railing).

Saturday 12 January 2007 - I receive my first comment on the website

It cheers me up immensely as the person very kindly extends an offer of help.

The first comment received, and it's an offer of help! How wonderful. 'Maybe' 2007 will turn out to be the year of blessings? God, I hope so!

I'll wait until I have a few more comments before placing it on the site.

It spurs me on for the rest of the weekend.

(Subsequent note: follow on events have led me to view this contact as very suspicious - see Portner and Jaskel # 14 ; also covered under points 37 and 38 of my 3 June 2008 (74pg) Witness Statement)

w/c 15 January 2007 - My first ever press release

I am getting tired of putting the anchors in the sections, setting-up the links, etc. I want things to move on. I want to be out of the hellhole. I want my life back.

I am thinking of ways of attracting attention to my site and how I can communicate my current desperate situation after going through five years of absolute, sheer utter hell.

I start drafting a press release. Never done one in my life, but nor had I done many of the things this horrendous experience has forced me to do. It must fit on one page. Quite a challenge!

The additional 'black on white' evidence from the 'block sale of flats' prompts me to change the banner on my site into an 'eye catching' summary of the overall site. Yeah, that should catch the attention!

As to the 'black on white' evidence for each part of the statement: easy: I just provide the link to the section/s

w/c 22 January 2007

I rework the press release a little bit - managing to still make it fit on one page.

I am tired. In addition to the 'war-time like conditions' in which I have been reduced to live under (e.g. My Diary 2 August 2006), I cannot remember the last time I had a decent break: three or more (?) years ago. I book a week of thalassotherapie (a very 'French thing') and leave for France on 27th Jan.

Monday 5 February 2007 - My wonderful US website Host

First day back at work after a very relaxed week in France that has allowed me to 'recharge the batteries'.

Unknowingly, my wonderful US website Host played a key part in my being able to enjoy a decent break, as I discovered on my return that it had in fact been receiving communication from Portner and Jaskel since 19 January demanding the closure of my website - making the highly libellous, scurrilous claim that "all the allegations contained in [my] website are not true" - without of course providing evidence in support (Defamation Act 1996).

Yep, it's the same firm of solicitors to which my previous ISP gave in (3 October 2006 and 6 October 2006) - in spite of not being provided with evidence in support of the accusations.

My website Host is a firm believer in people having freedom of speech (of course, with the usual exceptions you would expect such as racist comments, comments that incite violence, drugs, etc.)

Not surprisingly, when repeatedly put on the spot by my ISP, Portner and Jaskel is unable to come-up with a reason that would lead my ISP to close down my website. How could it? I am not saying anything that is not backed-up by ‘black on white’ evidence – the majority of which is very damning (and, as I have said before, it does not require being a lawyer or a genius to understand – and accept it).

Isn't it fascinating to see what Portner and Jaskel and its client consider acceptable to do to me 'behind closed doors' v. their reaction once it is in the public domain?

When I told a friend what had been happening, he replied:

“It’s the first time I hear good news from you in the last five years”

He is right, and I had to go to the United States of America to find support!

And what a tremendous support!

Thank you, thank you... a million times!

NOTE At 21 April 2007 - The mob's revenge for being unable to get my website closed down, 'so far' includes:

•  Another malicious leak in my flat (6 February 2007)

•  Threatening me with bankruptcy in the name of a company I have never heard of if I did not pay the sum of £8,937.28 (US$15,800) ("The 16 February 2007 letter"; 3 March 2007)

•  Filing a fraudulent claim against me in West London County Court (9 March 2007, and 4 April 2007 for my reply )

•  Getting Kensington and Chelsea police to brand me as "a Nazi" "because of my franco-german (sic) origin", as well as conclude that I have "committed a crime" (20 March 2007)

What is going to be next? Among others, as I have 'apparently' "committed a crime" - maybe I am going to end-up in prison. Who knows? As can be seen from my website: the most outrageous acts are possible on this island - if the 'requester' is a 'certain type' of person.

Tuesday 6 February 2007 - c. 05h40 am - And another leak!

On 10 October 2006, I captured in My Diary: "What kind of punishment am I going to be made to endure for daring to make my story public? Will I find another leak in my flat?"

And there we are: another leak started in the early hours of the morning!

The third in the space of 18 months (the previous ones were on 8 August and 18 August 2005) (and prior to this on 11 March 2002)

(See the Photo gallery for larger photographs)

This one was intended to do quite a bit of damage. The noise woke me up around 05h40 a.m. Initially, I thought that it was raining quite heavily. I then realised that the water was in fact dropping on the carpet, just on the other side of the door to my flat. The only thing I could do is pray that it would not find its way into the ceilings in my flat.

The porter arrived around 07h45 and placed some buckets, as well as cardboard as the carpet was soaking wet.

I stayed in the flat for as long as I could before going to work. (I could not afford to take the time off as I had meetings). By the time I left, the water was still contained in the corridor. So, the sign was that God heard my prayer. (As I wrote on the home page to the site: "As a leaseholder you are totally and utterly alone. At that point, you realise that you had better believe in God, because that's the only help you're going to get")

Wondering what would happen once I was out of the flat and, in particular, being concerned that the firemen might be called upon to smash my door in under some excuse, I opted to go to the fire station located in my street. I also told the firemen about previous leaks and gave them a card with my website address. I then did the same thing with somebody else in my street.

When I came back after midnight, the ceiling looked as in the third photograph on the right. Mercifully, no water had penetrated my flat. The damage is limited to the door frame external to my door - due to the floor being soaking wet. The place stinks.

Do I believe that this leak is the result of a malicious act? Absolutely! In addition to the fact that this is now the fourth time that it happens, I view it as an act of retribution / vengeance following my ISP's refusal yesterday to close down my website.

I wonder what is going to be thrown my way next?...continuation of the daily anguish, especially when going back to the hellhole.

Saturday 11 February 2007 - No post from Portner and Jaskel, its client, or other related parties

Today I collected my mail from my (Royal Mail) PO Box which I had not done in quite a while. As I expected: NO communication from Portner and Jaskel; nor from its client; nor from any other parties related to its client.

Given Portner and Jaskel's threats to my ISP over the last three weeks: why isn't it writing to me? It's my website - and I wrote all of the content.

Reason: it and its client Mr Andrew Ladsky have not got 'a leg to stand on'!

As to my conclusion that the leak on Tuesday is the outcome of a malicious act: the evidence in support of this is that there is no communication from Martin Russell Jones.

Four working days have gone by since then. With that kind of damage, you would normally expect the managing agents to contact residents with an explanation as to what happened, ask if the leak has caused damage in their flat, and the actions that are going to be taken. And, if for some reason, it could not send a letter, the porter could have spoken to me, dropped a note under my door. I have not received any kind of communication!

w/c 12 February 2007 - Letter bombs v. my style

Judging from the British media, the level of discontent in this country appears to be reaching an all time high. Last week, one (or more?) person/s expressed it by sending letter bombs to companies, with the return address of a dead person - and hence, in the knowledge that they will injure innocent people at random.

By comparison, my approach is to set-up a website in which I am totally open, honest, direct and transparent, and with the courage to direct what I have to say at the people I hold directly responsible for my situation.

This must come across as very daring, and hence, scary. Oh well! That's the person I am, and I am proud of it.

Tuesday 13 February 2007

Not having a brilliant day but, my site is still online - and that's what matters the most. Every minute it's online, it increases my chances of getting help, of realising my objectives.

By late afternoon, I have had it. I need to be somewhere where I can unwind, feel comfortable and safe. The only option is to, yet again, book in a hotel. Not good for the finances, but...

I take the morning off as annual leave, to catch up on some sleep and build a little bit of reserve. I'll need it, as tonight it's back to the hellhole, back to sleeping fully dressed, with a kitchen knife by my side in the bed, my rucksack next to my pillow, shoes and coat by my bed - and back to the anxiety of wondering what I am going to find when I get there, and what might happen during the night. It's the same scenario EVERY DAY! (as captured e.g. in My Diary in the latter part of 2 August 2006 ).

Just as well I live in a "prestigious" part of town (comment 'from' Ms Hathaway, Martin Russell Jones, and Mr Brian Gale to the tribunal - last slide in this pack)

At least, one item appears to be out of the equation: it seems to me that I am no longer being followed.

That's one positive outcome from the website!

Friday 16 February 2007 - e-petition to the Prime Minister "to abolish leasehold"

This week there was an article in The Independent about an 'e-petitions' website set-up by 10 Downing Street. Yesterday, a contact informed me that somebody submitted a petition to "abolish leasehold". This was done on 12 February. What a coincidence! The petitioner is described as "of Retired Pensioner"

I have added my name tonight. I hope that many people will add theirs.

The website address is (You need to be a British national, or resident to be able to add your name to the petition)

C.A.R.L., Campaign for the Abolition of Residential Leasehold, as well as other leaseholder groups such as e.g. the London Leaseholders' Network will no doubt be referring to this website, including giving detail of alternative form of tenure to leasehold.

Will this be the beginning of the end of this feudal, exploitative system that causes so much misery to so many people?

Note at 21 February 2007 - Let's not raise our hopes: the press reported that 1.8 million people signed a petition on the website against the introduction of road charges. The reply from the Prime Minister, Mr Tony Blair amounts to: don't care; intend to go ahead.

Tuesday 20 February 2007 - If I were a criminal I would get compensation from the government

That's one too many! I must capture it in My Diary as it only adds to my level of outrage on how I have been treated in the last five years by the authorities and institutions in this country.

Today the press is reporting another "compensation" payment to prisoners by the Home Office. This time, 9 foreigners are said to have claimed compensation for being held in jail for longer than their jail term due to mistakes made by the Home Office. The Home Office is reported to have paid them the total sum of £55,000 (US$98,000)

Towards the end of last year, the press reported:

A payment by the Home Office of £750,000 (US$1.3m) to 200 drug addicts, including drug dealers, who said to "have suffered withdrawal symptoms because their drug supply was cut off while serving a prison sentence" ("Inmates win ‘cold turkey’ payout", The Times 18 Apr 08)

Looking at various media, the basis of the claim included: "violation of their human rights under the European Convention on Human Rights", in particular: Article 3 - "Prohibition of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment" ; Article 8 - "Right to respect for private life" (in prison?) ; Article 14 - "Prohibition of discrimination".

The payment was reported (e.g. in the Yorkshire Post, 15 Nov 06) to have been made on the grounds that "they were treated unlawfully "as a direct result of which they endured pain and suffering that the Prison Service knew could have been avoided if a more reasonable treatment regime was provided"

A payment of £80,000 (US$141,000) was apparently handed out to 3 illegal immigrants because they had "not been deported quickly enough"

I contrast the above with the way I - the innocent, law abiding victim of crime - have been treated over the last five years by the authorities and the institutions for acting out of strongly held moral principles of right and wrong, for asking for my rights - as defined under legislation / their codes of conduct - for believing in what they claimed they would do for me the taxpayer / consumer if I called on them for assistance.

I think of the way I have been treated by the courts, the London Leasehold Valuation Tribunal, the Court Service, the police, the Legal Services Ombudsman, the council and the Local Government Ombudsman, etc. - and I want to scream and scream and scream:

How about my rights?

I have suffered numerous breaches of my rights (see e.g. Abbreviations-Definitions)

Wherever I have turned to for help I have been treated like dirt, like a non-entity with no rights. All my cries for fair and just treatment have been ignored (Doc library).

Do I need to commit an illicit act to get support in exerting my rights - in obtaining justice and redress?

This country has turned completely upside down.

NOTE at 20 Mar 07 : Not only do my rights continue to be ignored, Kensington and Chelsea police now holds the view that "I have committed a crime" (police # 3(4) ; My Diary 20 Mar 07)

Saturday 24 February 2007 - Portner and Jaskel's threat of "bankruptcy proceedings, forfeiture and costs" on behalf of "Rootstock Overseas Corp" - a company unknown to me

At the end of the entry for Tuesday 6 February 2007 I wrote: "I wonder what is going to be thrown my way next?" - and here is the answer to the question: a letter from Portner and Jaskel, dated 16 February 2007, of which I took delivery today. (Portner # 3)

It is headed : "Rootstock Overseas Corp - Outstanding arrears £8,937.28" (US$15,800)

I have NEVER heard of this company. That's right! NEVER! (Note at July 2007 - Proof that I was NOT lying can be seen in the 12 July 2007 letter from Mr Ahmet Jaffer, Portner and Jaskel: "We notified you by our letter of 27th February 2007 that the title to the premises was transferred from Steel Services Limited to our clients, Rootstock Overseas Corp on the 24th May 2006"

Please note that Mr Jeremy Hershkorn's reply to my 25 February 2007 letter asking for the identity of "Rootstock" was to file a - fraudulent (*) - £10,357 (US$18,262) court claim against me in West London County Court - see below Friday 9 March 2007.

(*) Subsequent note: PROVEN!

My reply to the claim, in which, among others, I contest the court's jurisdiction, is under 4 April 2007.

The letter states : "We have been instructed by Rootstock Overseas Corp in connection with outstanding arrears of service charge due and which relate to the above premises, details of which you are fully aware of "

Obviously, as I have never heard of this company, it follows that I have never had any dealings with it - and consequently cannot have "outstanding arrears" .

It then states that, as of now, correspondence to / from Martin Russell Jones is through Portner and Jaskel. (As the saying goes : "Birds of a feather flock together")

The second paragraph starts with "We enclose a copy of a statement dated 13th February 2007 which indicates how the sum of £8,937.28 (US$15,800) has been calculated". NOTHING was enclosed with the letter.

The letter goes on to threaten bankruptcy proceedings, etc.

See Portner and Jaskel and Law Society for detail.

In relation to my situation on the service charges with Steel Services i.e. my landlord, see Pridie Brewster # 2 , # 3 , # 8 , # 12 , # 17 , # 18 , # 19 , # 20 , # 22 ; Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor # 2 , # 6.2 , # 6.3 , # 6.4 , # 6.6 , # 6.7 and # 6.8

(The events and issues are also comprised in many other parts of the site e.g. in summary form on the home page, West London County Court , Lord Falconer of Thoroton , etc. ) (Note at mid-December 2007: and summarised in the 12 September 2007 "Defence & Counterclaim" I filed with West London County Court)

See also My Diary 3 March 2007 for my research findings on 'statutory demands' and bankruptcy proceedings.

Wednesday 27 February 2007 - My letter to Mrs Fiona Woolf, President of the Law Society of England and Wales

In relation to the 10 February 2006 "notice" - considering my very extensive first-hand experience with the Law Society (i.e. my complaint against Cawdery Kaye & Taylor and Piper Smith Basham, and follow-up involving the Legal Services Ombudsman) - I saw no point filing a complaint against Portner and Jaskel.

Well, this 16 February 2007 letter, combined with the fact that my very courageous US website Host is holding firm on keeping my site online - has led me to change my mind.

In addition, if I am not mistaken, Mrs Woolf took on the appointment - post my previous complaints. She 'might' have therefore instituted 'a new regime' for the Law Society.

Hence, tonight, I am writing her a letter capturing events with Portner and Jaskel, heading my letter with

"A firm, Portner and Jaskel, London W1U 2RA, stating that it is “regulated” by your Office, has been sending me fraudulent / deceitful and threatening correspondence, as well as harassing my US Website Host provider"

and provide 14 enclosures as supporting evidence. I conclude by asking Mrs Woolf "to take appropriate actions against your member in relation to the matters raised in this letter"

It is nearly midnight. Tomorrow I'll go to my PO Box. I wonder what I will find...and what will happen between now and then (as explained in My Diary under 2 August 2006).

Watch this space!

Saturday 3 March 2007 - No post from Portner and Jaskel

Well, I made it through the night. This is what I think every morning when I wake-up in the 'hellhole' i.e. the flat. One day at a time. That's the extent of my vision since 2003. True, you never know what awaits you 'round the corner' but, before this horrendous nightmare, I would make plans for the year, and the next one. Now, I don't dare, as I never know what is going to 'land on me' with 'the compliments' of Mr Andrew David Ladsky and his bunch of thugs.

As to the plastic sheet permanently covering my bed, it has proved unnecessary: no leak either during the night.

I went to my PO Box: NO communication from Portner and Jaskel.

As I have always had an impeccable credit record, I have never faced the threats comprised in Portner and Jaskel's letter of 16 February 2007 - and have never come across these terms before.

Although the threats are made in the name of a company I have never heard of, last weekend, I nonetheless undertook comprehensive desk research on the Insolvency Act, statutory demands and bankruptcy proceedings. (Yep, yet more hours of my life used up on 'project sunshine' - all due to the actions of criminals) (On the upside: I have gained yet more legal knowledge - and 'knowledge is power'.)

What I found out:

A 'statutory demand' is filed without any court involvement, by a person who is owed a debt. It just requires completing a form and sending it by recorded post.

One website describes it as "the first step to bankruptcy against an individual"

If the person against whom the statutory demand has been filed disputes the claim, he/she has a maximum of 18 days to apply for the statutory demand "to be set aside". One source states that "this process can result in an order for costs being made against the creditor" . I should hope so - if the claim made against the person is fraudulent.

If the demand has not been "set aside", following a period of 21 days from the statutory demand being served, the person who has issued it can begin the petition process for bankruptcy against the individual. Looks like you'd better be in town when a statutory demand arrives!

Contrast this with the evil hyenas' letter i.e. Portner and Jaskel's letter of 16 February 2007:

"If payment is not received by 23rd February 2007 proceedings will be issued against you

They will also include the issue of Statutory Demand, which is required under the Insolvency Act 1986 prior to the presentation of a Bankruptcy Petition. Such proceedings will be without prejudice to our client's other rights of recovery and enforcement so far as your property is concerned.

We are currently preparing proceedings in order to avoid any delay...we give you notice that you will nevertheless be liable to discharge the court fees and costs upon such proceedings. The proceedings will not be withdrawn until such court fees are paid in full"

In addition to the fact that I have never heard of 'Rootstock Overseas Corp' - and therefore, the claim made against me is FALSE - note how it 'piles up' the stages in succession, on top of one another, as a 'fait accompli' i.e. denying me having any rights -and how it emphasises the threat of finding myself destitute, by having my property taken from me, as well as having to pay costs.

In my - 'non-lawyer' opinion - this amounts to - allegedly - committing criminal offences under several Acts e.g. Fraud Act 2006, etc.

See Portner and Jaskel and Law Society for detail.

Considering what the pack of hyenas is capable of, today I checked a government site I found last weekend, 'London Gazette - Statutory demands' that advertises statutory demands. I could not find one listed against me. (But I saw one against somebody in my street. Is it the outcome of another leasehold scam? )


It could happen to you visitor to the site

And if you are an overseas visitor to the site, imagine the added difficulty of dealing with this remotely.

Several foreign nationals did own one or more leasehold flats in Jefferson House, (and might do now) e.g. under the tribunal' section # 8.1.2. , letters from Leaseholder M and Leaseholder C are from American Citizens ; one of them, in spite of stating payment of US$30,000, nonetheless ended-up being listed on the 29 November 2002 court claim

Subsequently, this Leaseholder sent me an email, dated 24 February 2003, stating that "a friend had found legal papers that both flats, including their contents, were about to be sold to the highest bidder on March 11"

I have not seen the documents. However, aside from not doubting this person, considering events at Jefferson House over the last six years, I am sure that, like me, you will have no problem believing that.

As to you British visitor to the site, you will know from the media that, what I view as my appalling experience with the various parties connected to my case, it is not confined to leasehold-related matters.

Indeed, you are likely to have heard about the follow-up events in relation to, for example, the case of Mr Stephen Lawrence, and of Mr Jean Charles de Menezes (in relation to: (1)- the former, see an extract from The Independent of 28 July 2006, in My Diary under 2 August 2006; (2)- the latter, see Media page)

Do you remember the 'Dunblane Massacre' in Scotland in March 1996?

I do! It haunted me for days, as I think it did the nation: 16 children gunned down in the Dunblane primary school. Here were 'ordinary' families who had taken their children to school in the morning - and had gone back to find them dead.

After extensive press coverage at the time, I never heard about it again... until this week when somebody contacted me as a result of seeing my website. The person has set-up a website 'Dunblane Unburied' ( (NB: At the time the person contacted me, the live site was 'Dunblane Abandoned').

Do you want to know what has happened since 1996? Have a look at the site - and prepare yourself for a shock (NB: Given what I saw at the time).

You can also access it from the website of another site I previously mentioned in My Diary ( 3 October 2006 and 5 October 2006 ), 'Scotland Against Crooked Lawyers' ( ) ; About SACL ( ; Latest News ( ; SACL links (, in the dropped down menu under 'Useful links'. It also lists other websites.

We must give our support to the decent judges and lawyers who are likely to be afraid to speak-up out of concern of retaliatory actions by their less honorable peers.

I refer you for example to the case of the Scottish lawyer who ended-up being ostracised by the Scottish Law Society for apparently taking on desperate cases of injustice. Clearly, if a solicitor helping people fight against injustice is perceived by his/her peers as 'deviant behaviour', it follows that the norm among solicitors is the opposite: to allow injustice to take place. That's the logical conclusion)

You never know: one day you might end-up in court, like me (*) - through no fault of your own, other than your strongly held moral principles of right and wrong, and because you believed what you had been told: that you have rights, enshrined in statute books, and that the courts were there to help you enforce your rights - there to ensure that justice prevails. (*) I refer you, among others, to my Witness Statement

Sunday 4 March 2007 - A 'tiny ray of hope'

Today I spotted an article in The Independent, headed "Wanted: The £200m crime lord". The part that cheered me is a quote from somebody at HM Revenue & Customs, c. two-thirds of the way down

"This was...organised fraud on a massive scale perpetrated by criminals, with the active co-operation of professionals in the legal and accountancy sectors..." (my emphasis)

This recognition is a very positive step forward. Let's hope that this person's view is shared by others - with the authority to take action - and that it will lead to the rogue elements being weeded out of these sectors. A major clean-up is certainly long overdue (as it is also long overdue in the surveyor sector ). (In addition to the parties involved in my case, see, for example, the newsletters on the C.A.R.L. website - ( for numerous other leaseholders' experiences with these sectors)

Friday 9 March 2007 - West London County claim for £10,007 (US$17,645) filed by Portner and Jaskel on behalf of "Roostock (v. 16 February 2007 letter : "Rootstock") Overseas Corp (covered above)

(Subsequent note - On 6 June 2008 Mr Ladsky dropped "ALL" of the 27 February 2007 claim against me - see My Diary - 7 June 2008, preceded by 3 June 2008 which covers my (74 pg) Witness Statement) (4 pg Main Points))


(NB: See 4 April 2007 for my next steps following the receipt of this claim: among others, I contested the court's jurisdiction).

For work reasons, I have been out of the flat since Monday 5 and returned last night, Thursday 8, wondering what I would find.

What was waiting for me is the 'next instalment' (which can also be described as 'Portner and Jaskel's reply' to my 25 February 2007 letter) : the attached 27 February 2007 West London County Court claim, 7WL 00675, for £10,357 (US$18,262) filed by Mr Jeremy Martin Hershkorn, Portner and Jaskel - under a Statement of Truth - on behalf of "Roostock Overseas Corp" (Name has changed from "Rootstock") . The claim describes it as "the lessor" of my flat. That's news to me!

And obviously, it is also news to Martin Russell Jones, the 'managing' agents for the block that provided the detail of the claim, as the Particulars of Claim are headed with "Landlord: Steel Services Ltd "!!!! (see for yourself).

Isn't fascinating? (I refer you to my comments under the entry for 'The 16 February 2007 letter', as well as under the entry for Saturday 3 March 2007 )

Subsequent note - In fact, it looks like the originator of the claim is none of the above. It is "Sloan Development" as the directory path at the bottom of the page on the claim reads:

G:\Bulstrode\data\docs\S\23208 - Sloan Development\002 Miscellaneous Matters\Oyez Forms\Claim Form - Ms N

Sloan Development is discussed under Headlessors # 6 and Owners identity # 3 . Among others, it was party - with 'Steel Services' - in the 5 August 2005 transaction on the lease for the penthouse flat.

(NB: This is another aspect of the residential leasehold system: control over your home changing hand at the drop of a hat - without your being informed. Yes, there is a statutory requirement (under the L&T Act 1985) that you are informed of the change of landlord but, as you can see, in practice: they could not give a damn, because they know they can flaunt all the so-called 'statutes' at will. (Unless you can afford to keep a retinue of 'heavy weight', 'well connected' lawyers... on a retainer basis - given that you never know what is going to be 'dropped on you' by the landlord / his aides from one day to the next).

Proof? Yet again, I can back-up my claim with 'black on white' evidence: see the summary of my one year battle in 2002, under point # 1 of my 30 August 2004 letter to my Ward Councillor, (Kensington & Chelsea Council ) at the end of which I conclude that after all of that, I still did not know who controlled my home (For detail, see Owners identity # 1 ; Jersey address - including the threats suffered by Nucleus, the Citizen Advice Bureau who tried to help us )

As evidenced by the above, I can now add: five years on - and I STILL do not know who controls my home.

Of course, needless to say that there is no vetting system on the suitability of an individual to be a landlord. In addition, as I explained under the Financial Services Authority section, landlords are not bound by any FSA regulation on the management of leaseholders' monies - which can be several million Pounds.

(Take the case of the 15 July 2002 demand for Jefferson House : £736,000 (US$1.3 million) - to be paid to Martin Russell Jones !!!! To get a feel as to why I have used the exclamation marks: have a look at the section headers. See also the short section, Planning applications, for the 'gems' in the swindle from this firm - as well as other parties)

Conclusion: you can potentially end-up with individuals who could have a criminal record 'as long as your arm' being in control of your home - and the monies you have paid.

No wonder the residential leasehold sector attracts so much vermin!)

In addition to West London County Court accepting a claim on which the name of the claimant is different from that listed on the Particulars of Claim, it appears to have also failed to ensure compliance with Civil Procedure Rules - Part 16 - Statements of Case - Practice Direction, Section 2.2 as the address of the 'claimant' is not included.

Why has West London County Court failed to ensure this? (I cannot find any reason in the Civil Procedure Rules why it should). And why has Portner and Jaskel not complied with this requirement? (It did when it filed the 26 February 2002 claim against the Elderly Resident). What happened? Its client decided it did not like this requirement?

Note how you are automatically assumed to be guilty.

A solicitor acting for the landlord / party claiming to be the landlord states - under a Statement of Truth - that you owe the monies - therefore: 'Of course it must be true!' because, after all, the solicitor is a member of the 'clan' / the fraternity - and consequently perceived as 'towering over those inferior, dishonest beings: the leaseholders' ( # 7 , # 8 )

Where is the evidence? What has Portner and Jaskel supplied to West London County Court as proof that I have a contractual relationship allowing it to make this claim against me - and leading West London County Court to accept it? NOTHING!

In the Statement of Case, Portner and Jaskel wrote: "Under the terms of the lease dated 10th March 1986, the Defendant covenanted to pay the claimant all service and other charges as they fell due. The claimant will refer to the said lease for its full terms and effect"

Why was my lease i.e. my 'contractual obligation' not supplied with the claim? Why did West London County Court not ask for it? This is in breach of CPR, Part 16, Section 7.3

What's the game plan? A repeat of what took place in 2002 and 2003 in West London County Court?

Considering Portner and Jaskel's statement "the Defendant covenanted to pay the claimant all service and other charges as they fell due", it suggests an intention to supply a lease that has the same terms as the lease (apparently) for flat 23 that was supplied with the 29 November 2002 claim - FALSELY - claiming (1.1MB) that it was representative of my lease.

Sure, it's a very 'convenient lease' as it states - Clause (2)(2)(c) (i):

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

v. my lease which, under the same Clause states :

"The amount of the Service Charge payable by the Lessee for each financial year. shall be calculated by dividing the aggregate amount of the costs expenses and the aggregate of the rateable value (in force at the end of such year) of all the flats in the Building"

And what added to the 'convenience factor' is that West London County Court took no notice of the fact I highlighted this in my defence. At the time, my naïve expectation of the role of a court meant that I did not specify in what way my lease was different from that supplied with the claim. (I thought I would be asked this question at a later stage) (See West London County Court # 3 ; Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor # 6.7 )

(By the way: the same thing was repeated by Ms Hathaway when she filed the application to the tribunal - see LVT # 8.1.4 )

As to Portner and Jaskel's statement : "The claimant will refer to the said lease for its full terms and effect" - how is this intended to take place? Will the approach be,

•  as that taken by Mr Lanny Silverstone, Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor, at the 24 June 2003 hearing when, in the waiting area of West London County Court, 10 minutes before seeing the judge, he presented me with the attached draft order and case summary - I had never seen before? (see West London County Court # 8 ; My Diary 24 June 2003 )

•  or will it be as that taken by Ms Ayesha Salim, at the 28 May 2004 hearing, when she used a skeleton argument of which she had not supplied me with a copy. Sure cuts out the possibility of my being able to object to it... added to the fact that West London County Court made me miss the hearing (See Lord Falconer # 3 )

In relation to the Particulars of Claim stating a "Balance to pay" of £8,937 (US$15,760) I draw your attention to an invoice (of which I took delivery on 13 March) from Martin Russell Jones, dated 1 March 2007 i.e. two days after Portner and Jaskel filed the 27 February 2007 claim. Points of note about this invoice:

  • As with the Particulars of Claim, it gives 'Steel Services' as the "landlord" and hence, the party claiming payment from me v. the claim which states "Roostock Overseas Corp" as the 'claimant'.
  • It states a "Brought forward balance" of £8,688 (US$15,300) v. the Particulars of Claim - also supplied by Martin Russell Jones - that state £8,937 (US$15,760). Hence, £249 (US$440) less than the claim.

Nothing else was supplied, other than this document in relation to the electricity charge of £23.80 (which is also 'interesting'.)

In relation to my situation on the service charges with my 'landlord '. Heuh? Who is my 'landlord'??? Okay, let's go for Steel Services which is what Martin Russell Jones wrote on the detail of the claim filed against me... by Roostock Overseas Corp - see Pridie Brewster # 2 , # 3 , # 8 , # 12 , # 17 , # 18 , # 19 , # 20 , # 22 ; Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor # 2 , # 6.2 , # 6.3 , # 6.4 , # 6.6 , # 6.7 and # 6.8

Among others, my position is that, while I have paid £6,350 (US$11,200) to 'Steel Services' (my 19 December 2003 letter to Cawdery Kaye & Fireman), under Section 20 of the Landlord & Tenant Act 1985 I have a £6,100 (US$10,760) credit, as Martin Russell Jones-'Steel Services' did NOT issue a Section 20 Notice in relation to the appointment of Mansell. I communicated this in my 30 March 2005 letter to Ms Hathaway (on page 3) (See Martin Russell Jones # 29 )

Fifteen months prior to this, in my 31 December 2003 letter to Ms Hathaway, I had communicated "I have submitted to CKFT full and final payment of my share of the costs for carrying out all the major works at Jefferson House (£6,350)".

Not only did Ms Hathaway not acknowledge my letters, Martin Russell Jones subsequently sent me the following invoices - without any justification :

•  24 May 2004 - stating a "Brought forward balance" of £13,430 (US$23,700) (The Consent Order for the sum of £6,350 was endorsed by West London County Court on 1 July 2004 ) (see CKFT # 4 )

•  21 October 2004 - stating a "Brought forward balance" of £14,452 (US$25,600)

•  16 November 2004 i.e. three weeks later - stating a "Brought forward balance" of £15,447 (US$27,300)

Hum! Definitely acts of vengeance - which I knew they were - (by what some people might describe as 'sociopaths') for my challenging Steel Services' application to the LVT - that not only fell flat on their face but actually led to a boomerang effect as they induced me to file a complaint against: Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor on 20 December 2004, and against Martin Russell Jones on 2 February 2005 (overview at the start of the section)

The next invoice after the 16 November 2004 invoice arrived fourteen months later. Dated 9 January 2006, it 'mysteriously' states a "Brought forward balance" of £5,625 (US$9,900)

('Assuming' (who knows?) that the 16 November 2004 invoice is connected with the previous invoices) what happened to the additional £10,000 (US$17,600) claimed in the 16 November 2004 invoice???? I did NOT pay anything. Should it be viewed as an 'alternative version' of "not a viable proposition"? (See Pridie Brewster # 12 and Martin Russell Jones # 18 for further detail )

Of the many other points I have : I also highlight the fact that a penthouse flat spanning the whole length and width of Jefferson House (as can be seen on the planning application), as well as three other flats have been added to the block (Planning applications section) .

God knows what the situation is on the ownership of the block now v. when I did a complete search on the Land Registry at the beginning of last year (My Diary 18 February 2006). When you have 'an army', spending the whole day scheming, it's difficult, very time consuming - as well as very costly - to keep track. (Hence my earlier comment about needing to employ a retinue of 'heavy weight, well connected lawyers on a permanent retainer basis).

Whatever the position, it MUST have reduced my 1.956% share of the service charge - pre the start of the works - very substantially . I have had NO communication to this effect.

As detailed under the section for Pridie Brewster e.g. # 12 , not only has it NOT reflected the addition of four flats in the 2006 "Steel Services estimated expenditure for the year ended 2006 ", it has not reflected the fact that Steel Services no longer controls/ed(?) the last floor of Jefferson House.

Etc., etc., etc.

Portner and Jaskel signed the 27 February 2007 claim under a Statement of Truth. (Statement of Truth is dealt under CPR Part 22 - Practice Direction).

CPR Rule 32.14 False statements (*): (1) Proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against a person if he makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth"

(*) Sourced from the website of the then Department for Constitutional Affairs, on 14 March 2007

Considering that Mr Jeremy Hershkorn had been harassing my website Host to close down my site since the middle of January - and had, in the process claimed to my Host that "all the allegations made in [my] website are untrue" - Mr Hershkorn cannot claim to not have had comprehensive knowledge of the detail of my case at the time he filed the claim against me.

Actually, on the subject of Statement of Truth: in various parts of the site I have highlighted that the 29 November 2002 claim was filed in West London County Court, under a Statement of Truth - signed by Ms Joan Hathaway, MRICS, Martin Russell Jones .

Civil Procedure Rules - Part 22 - Statements of Truth - Practice Direction (*) states :

"Para.3.11 - Managing agent - "An agent who manages property or investments for the party cannot sign a statement of truth. It must be signed by the party or by the legal representative of the party"


Para.4.1 - If a statement of case is not verified by a statement of truth, the statement of case will remain effective unless it is struck out, but a party may not rely on the contents of a statement of case as evidence until it has been verified by a statement of truth.

(*) Sourced from the website of the then Department for Constitutional Affairs, on 14 March 2007

(My research indicates that this particular Practice Direction was in application at the time)

Nice one West London County Court and Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor !

(As I explain in my below entry for 18 March 2007, at the time I had near non-existent knowledge of legislation... but I have since learnt! Imagine : if this latest claim had not been filed against me, I would not have found out ! :-) Proves my motto: there is always an upside to everything...but it might take time to show )

(NOTE at January 2008 : see WLCC point # 18.2 how Her Majesty Court Service 'washes its hands' of responsibility)

I give the above breaches of the Civil Procedure Rules as further evidence in support of my perception that West London County Court is just a 'paper pusher' ( as captured under Lord Falconer # 6 and # 12 ; West London County Court # 8 ; Document library # 6 ; My Diary 28 May 2004 ) (NOTE at December 2007: in light of events in 2007, I now view this perception as too simplistic - see West London County Court - Post 2004)

To your suffering the anguish of not knowing whether the landlord got up in the morning thinking that 'it would be fun' to file a false claim against you, you then have the added anguish of wondering whether you will be informed of the action.

The attached guidance notes sent with the court claim state : "If the claim form was received with the particulars of claim complete or attached, you must reply within 14 days of the date it was served on you" . They also state : "If the claim was sent by post, the date of service is taken as the second day after posting".

Rule 10.2 of the Civil Procedure Rules, "Consequences of not filing an acknowledgment of service" (i.e. acknowledging receipt of the claim) state:

If –
(a) a defendant fails to file an acknowledgment of service within the period specified in rule 10.3; and
(b) does not within that period file a defence in accordance with Part 15 or serve or file an admission in accordance with Part 14,

the claimant may obtain default judgment if Part 12 allows it.

The claim was not sent by recorded delivery - just normal post. What if it had been lost in the post? (Apparently, millions of items get lost in the post every year)

Also, what if I had gone away on holiday? By the time I came back, I would have missed the deadline.

Outcome: in all likelihood (given the profile of the parties who filed the claim) I would have ended-up with a judgement against me - on the basis of THAT claim!

(NB: Is this what happened to the Seventh Defendant in 2003? (latter part of WLCC # 5 )

What a great 'welcome home' on your return from your holiday - assuming of course you still have 'a home' (email from Leaseholder C, an American Citizen)

As very amply demonstrated by my first-hand experience with West London County Court in 2002 and 2003, as well as Wandsworth County Court, you can scream your innocence until you are blue in the face : it falls on deaf ears...

... including at the 'head office' when you go and cry for help.

Hence, amounting to communicating to you that you are a liar, a cheat, a person who breaches contractual obligations, etc - and consequently deserves to be punished. (In addition to the battering I have suffered at the hands of these courts, see also what happened in relation to the 5th Defendant # 14, towards the latter part)


Fair minded, reasonable visitor to the site, did you think I was exaggerating when I wrote under [NB: home page ref link now removed]: "And, very clearly , there is absolutely nothing to stop Mr Ladsky et. al. from filing a false claim against me in court every day of the week" ?

In my case, there is a third element of anguish that comes into the equation: the actions of the Royal Mail sorting office

If you have read other parts of My Diary, you will know that because some of my mail was not reaching me, four years ago I ended-up setting-up a PO Box with the Royal Mail (By the way, a question that had been asked of me by the leaseholder who phoned me at work in January / February 2004)

Knowing that I have the PO Box, you may be wondering why I found the court claim waiting for me in the flat. So do I !



That's not the only thing I found on my return.

Indeed, what I found was a repeat of 9 October 2006 : the 'Special instruction' card had also been delivered.

While I should 'count my blessings' that the claim did reach me (given CPR rule 10) (and considering my experience with the sorting office in October 2006 and November 2006), I find it a most amazing coincidence that it should be delivered with the card - considering also the umpteen assurances by the sorting office manager and Royal Mail head office that particular attention would be taken in the handling of my mail (given the appalling service that has led me to write numerous letters of complaint over the last three years)

To use the quote captured by the person who sent me a comment on my website:

"Once is accident, twice is coincidence, three times and it is enemy action"

And it continues! See 12 April 2007

Take also the example of a Statutory demand, as detailed above under Saturday 3 March: you have 18 days to challenge it - after which the claimant can start filing a petition to declare you bankrupt.



Hence, not only does a landlord control your home...

... with the help of the courts (among others!)...

.... he also controls your life:

•  when and for how long you can go on holiday (e.g. as captured in My Diary, when I ended-up cancelling my Christmas holiday in 2004);

•  whether you will be able to spend the weekend with family and friends, or whether, like me, you will be spending it going through the garbage contained in the claim (As captured in My Diary, 6 December 2002, when I received the 29 November 2002 claim, it took me seven hours to go through the Particulars of Claim in order to write my defence because it was full of inaccuracies. And at the time, there was only one page of it - and, of course, without the subsequent events!

Because, as you can see, if the landlord and court decide that you must 'jump': YOU MUST JUMP!


I give this claim and the handling of it (so far !) by West London County Court as further evidence of my being treated with absolute, total, utter contempt by the courts - a non-entity with no rights, there to be used and abused by a sacrosanct landlord and his aides. ( More on this over the coming days ) (NOTE at December 2007 - my predictions proved to be right: see the summary of events in my 5 December 2007 letter to Her Majesty Court Service)

Fair minded, reasonable visitor to the site, did you think I was exaggerating in my conclusion on Lord Falconer's department : "Warning : The Department for Constitutional Affairs can cause serious lasting damage to your health"? I can assure you that it is doing that to mine - and has done so since 2002. See West London Court County and Lord Falconer of Thoroton for detail of my previous experience with West London County Court and Wandsworth County Court.

I also draw your attention to what I described under point # 12 as the "weighty voices" that add credence to my claims.

(Law schools and observers of the English legal and residential leasehold sector : the case study material keeps on growing by the day. The events could take a whole year or more of course work !)

If I were an English lawyer who abides by the rules, having read the above - including the claim - right now, I would be mortified. Certainly, for my part, if a British person was living in my home country, France (*) (there are many nowadays!), and was going through what I have been made to go through over the last five years and continue to go through now - every day - I would be absolutely mortified and so ashamed of my country. One thing for sure, I would definitely go out of my way to help this person in whatever way I could.

(*) I have dual, French and British nationality (As you can tell from my full surname, I am also of German descent)

Should I take the events to date with the claim as a hint that I should prepare myself for an eventful time at the hands of 'the system' over the coming months?

I sometimes wonder:

are they all standing by, cheering Mr Ladsky on,..

...or are they standing, frozen on the spot, 'passing the buck' back and forth as to whom should take the blame for reducing me to launch this website as a last resort cry for help?

Answer at e.g. November 2008: they are cheering him on, as he laughs his head off


(NB: See 4 April 2007 for my next steps following the receipt of this claim).

Sunday 11 March 2007 - Continuation of the battering, but not giving up

I have not talked about the impact on my emotional and physical health of being faced with the 16 February 2007 letter and the court claim (see Portner and Jaskel). As you can imagine: it has been very traumatic. This is the continuation of the ongoing battering I have been suffering since 2002 (as evidenced -in part -by the battles I have had to engage in)


Consider the evilness and viciousness of Andrew Ladsky et. al and their aides:

As captured, for example, under West London County Court # 11, when I finally admitted to myself that the system was against me - instead of being there to help me - I paid £6,350 (US$11,200) which, legally I did NOT owe.

I did this in the hope of putting an end to this horrendous nightmare which, by then, had brought me close to collapse (as explained, for example, in My Diary November 2003 and December 2003). (I refer you to my letter of 19 December 2003 to Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor - agreeing to the £6,350 'offer' (v. the £14,400 (US$25,400) original demand) - in which I explain what I overlooked "for the sake of bringing this dispute to an end")

But oh! no! getting £6,350 from me - which I did not owe - was not going to be the end of it. I would be 'punished' by Mr Ladsky et. al. and their aides in the wider arena for 'daring' to challenge them - (I did this on the basis of having the legal right to do so - as emphasised by the tribunal - and was proven amply justified!)


And this relentless vendetta is carried out in complete disregard of anything else: consider the knock-on effects on various parties since 2004 following sending me the unsupported, bogus invoices for £14,500 (US$25,600) on 21 October 2004, and three weeks later, on 16 November 2004, for £15,500 (US$27,300) (Martin Russell Jones # 18) - including reducing me to launch this website as a last resort, desperate cry for help.

(Martin Russell Jones is 'regulated ' by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors... which, in 2008, three years after rejecting my complaint, was of the view that "No doubt Martin Russell Jones will also be taking similar legal action against you" [issue proceedings for defamation]. (RICS # 12) Absolutely unbelievable!)

Making me endure unbelievable suffering is evidently not sufficient gratification.

Indeed, events suggest an objective of making me destitute, of 'destroying' me.

This 'warning' was apparently expressed by Mr Ladsky to the then Head of the Residents Association (see also Notices by landlord - 13 Dec 2000) - as captured in her 14 January 2001 letter to him: "...threats to sue the residents of Jefferson House...for punitive damages of £500,000 and / or bankruptcy..."

They should look at what I wrote, among others on the home page - Overview: "I will fight like a demon to the very end" and my comment after the quote from Che Guevara. "I WILL FIGHT TO THE DEATH" I knew from my childhood that I was tough, but I had not realised just how tough. As I wrote in My Diary, 20 August 2006: "nothing is over until it's over. It ain't over yet. I am not finished".

Greed-ridden, arrogant, self-serving mob out there: you can be sure of that!

I will hang on and fight for my right to get justice and redress for as long as God gives me the strength to do it - in the face of the spineless, corrupt system standing by, watching, and therefore helping Mr Ladsky et. al. achieve their objectives.

As it stands, I have at least the comfort of knowing that I have achieved my secondary objective: that my site has been a 'wake-up call'. (I know it has) And hopefully, from there, change will take place which I very dearly hope will mean that other people will be spared from going through the very traumatic, sheer utter hell I have been going through since 2002.

Tuesday 13 March 2007 - My complaint against Portner and Jaskel is with the Legal Complaints Service

This morning I went to the Royal Mail sorting office to make my 'nth' complaint (I stopped counting; I have made so many), as I returned the 'special instruction' card. I could not help telling the manager that, after so many instances over the last 3-4 years, I had to conclude that somebody was doing this purposely, was paid to do it.

The manager explained that it again coincided with a time when my regular postman was away and, that, as previously, it was the same person. He said that he would take disciplinary action.

I collected the attached 2 March 2007 reply to my 27 February 2007 letter to Mrs Woolf, President of the Law Society. It states that the handling of complaints against solicitors is now with the Legal Complaints Service, and that it operates "independently of the Law Society". ( * ) Mrs Woolf's Office has forwarded my letter to the CEO of the Legal Complaints Service.

I am impressed with this action, as well as the fact that the reply was sent on the day of the receipt of my letter. As to what will happen next (assuming I receive my post !) I shall have to 'wait and see'.

(*) I had my doubts about that. I was right - see 12 April 2007

(On that day, I also took delivery of an invoice from Martin Russell Jones - referred to, above, under the entry for 9 March)

Saturday 17 March 2007 - The Legal Complaints Service is determining whether it "can help" re. my complaint against Portner and Jaskel

Another (very inconvenient) trip to the sorting office from which I picked up this 12 March 2007 (1.1MB) letter from the Legal Complaints Service (LCS), as well as guidance leaflet (also attached), following the referral of my 28 February 2007 complaint against Portner and Jaskel. The letter states that it will determine whether it "can help with your concerns".

I note that the LCS is at the same address as the Law Society's previous "Consumer Complaints Service" to which I addressed, for example, my complaint of 20 December 2004 against Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor - as can be seen in my covering letter of the same date.

The "Consumer Complaints Service" was a renaming from "Office for the Supervision of Solicitors" (which was also at the same address) - as can be seen when I filed my 16 March 2004 complaint against Piper Smith Basham: # 4, # 5 and # 6 (i.e. nine months previously).

As can be seen from the LCS's letterhead and booklet, its proposition is defined as"Resolving complaints about solicitors". Makes a change from its predecessors I came to view - based on my very comprehensive first-hand experience - as "Obstructing complaints".

Note at 12 April 2007 - Actually it DID NOT look at my complaint - See entry for 12 April 2007

(By the way, I note from page 14 of the booklet that the person holding the post of Legal Services Ombudsman is the same as when I escalated my complaints in 2004 and 2005 )

Sunday 18 March 2007 - Revisiting the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR)

Since the early part of the week, I have been revisiting the Civil Procedure Rules and getting updates.

In October 2002 when I received the letter from Mr Lanny Silverstone, Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor, threatening to forfeit the lease on my flat (CKFT # 6.2 ) - it really shook me up to the extent that I was physically sick at work (My Diary 10 October 2002) (Just thinking about it now brings the tears to my eyes - as well as a lot of anger that scum like that are allowed to operate). (No 'allegedly' here). (My complaint against him and Ms Ayesha Salim was not upheld by the Law Society, nor by the Legal Services Ombudsman)

Another horrendous shock followed shortly afterwards when I received the 29 November 2002 claim from West London County Court - especially because I (and other leaseholders) had very specifically been told at the 29 October 2002 pre-trial LVT hearing to NOT pay (page 5) the service charge demand until the tribunal had issued its determination, and it had therefore been implemented (My Diary 6 December 2002 ); (It did this seven months after Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor filed the claim in court - see Leasehold Valuation Tribunal)

At the time I knew nothing about legislation (other than that regulating my work), nothing about the courts, etc. Why should I? I have always been law-abiding, pay my taxes, etc. This lack of knowledge , combined with my limited financial means, made me an 'easy prey'.

Being at the receiving end of the treatment by Mr Silverstone, as well as the equally horrendous treatment I suffered at the hands of West London County Court and the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal (e.g. My Diary c. 17 January 2003 ; End January 2003 ) - I vowed to cram in as much legal knowledge as I could.

Five years on : I have gained a 'huge' amount of knowledge. I can now throw back the punches (*)

(*) If you are wondering about the use of this visual / boxing visuals in various parts of the site : I am a red belt at kick-boxing. Had it not been for 'project sunshine', I might have now been a black belt. Who knows? (Mr Ladsky et. al have totally ruined my life since 2002)

Although I am still going through the CPR with a 'fine toothcomb', I can add a few 'interesting' (used by British people to cover a multitude of meanings) findings in relation to the 27 February 2007 claim... as well as the Statement of Truth for the 29 November 2002 claim (1.1MB). See 9 March 2007 entry.

I am getting the feeling that I am going to have quite a few hits on my site over the coming days.


Tuesday 20 March 2007 - Racist (*), xenophobic (*) and scurrilous (*) claims made against me by Notting Hill police station, a division of Kensington and Chelsea police - with the originator being Andrew Ladsky

(See also Police section 3)

Notting Hill police station is a division of Kensington and Chelsea police, Earls Court Road, London W8 6EQ - with which I have had the misfortune to have dealings in 2002 and 2003 - 'compliments of Andrew Ladsky' (In my previous 33 years in this country, I had NEVER had any dealings with the police prior to this. As I have stated on various parts of this website: I am a law-abiding person)

On 16 March 2007, Simon J. Dowling, TDC, of the 'Community Safety Unit' (see below for its 'remit'), sent an email to my website Host stating:

"Hi " (I view this as a disrespectful form of address)

"the above site contains some inappropriate use of the words "pigs and monkeys" which are racially abusive terms towards Jewish people from the Nazi's. This is directed at a particular person.

I am the police officer dealing with this crime. I would therefore be grateful if this site could be taken down"

While in his 20 March 2007 email, also to my website Host, he wrote:

"The producer of this website is franco-german in origin and so would be aware of the terms pigs and monkeys used during the Nazi regime to refer to Jewish people. Obviously the victim we have has picked up on this as he is Jewish" (NB: In name rather than in practice)

(NB: The source is Andrew Ladsky as he contacted my employer, KPMG, making the same libellous claim i.e. that my website "contains anti-Semitic comments" (as well as made a number of other FALSE accusations against me).

As in the case of the police, I view his false accusations, among other, as racist - and the vendetta he is orchestrating against me through various parties, including his aides as being, likewise, in part, racially motivated - as some of them, at least, are also 'Jewish').

The standard note at the bottom of the email states:

"MPS personnel ...must not use MPS systems to author, transmit or store documents such as electronic mail (e-mail) messages or attachments: containing racist, homophobic,sexist, defamatory, offensive, illegal or otherwise inappropriate material"

Taking his emails in parts (see also K&C police # 3):

(1) "the words 'pigs and monkeys' are racially abusive terms towards Jewish people..."

Definition of these words in the Concise Oxford English Dictionary (COED):

Pig - “informal: a greedy, dirty or unpleasant person” ; “informal, derogatory : a police officer”.

No mention in the dictionary that the term 'pig' is / has been used in relation to Jewish people.

I have certainly never heard this. However, out of curiosity, next time I see my doctor (of many, many years) who is Jewish, (and whom I trust with my life) (Subsequent note: another betrayal to add to the list!), as well as one of my very good friends (Subsequent note: ditto), who is also Jewish, I will put the question to them.

By the way, considering that it is the Chinese year of the 'pig'...

...will "that particular person" also ask Simon J. Dowling, TDC, to contact the c. 1.5 billion Chinese people in protest that it is abusive towards Jewish people...

...and ask them to remove the year from their calendar?

NB: At the time, i.e. early 2006, my decision to use the derogatory term 'pig' for the police stems from (1) my experience with Kensington & Chelsea police, Earls Court Road, London W8 6EQ (i) in 2002 and (ii) in 2003 - which led me to lose all respect for the police; (2) being under surveillance, as well as being threatened (see below) (Since then, my experience with the police in 2007 has only added to my disgust and contempt - and they keep on growing, as I learn more and more about the police)

(Subsequent note: And more so than ever following my receiving, in July 2009, the police report for 2002, 2003 and 2007 - and the follow-on replies, including from the 'Independent' Police Complaints Commission. See also My Diary 2010, including how I was treated by Kensington & Chelsea police in October 2010 when I reported being followed and harassed)

(COED) Monkey - "a mischievous person, especially a child"

(COED) Mischievous - "intended to cause harm or trouble"

Likewise, no mention that the word 'monkey' is / has been used in relation to 'Jewish' people.

Conclusion: I have used the words as per their stated definition in the dictionary. (See below) My mistake to not include these two words and their definition in my list under the 'Abbreviations-Definitions' section.

(2) "from the Nazis"

(3) The producer of this website is franco-german and so would be aware of the terms pigs and monkeys used during the Nazi regime to refer to Jewish people"

In his 16 March email Simon Dowling, TDC, implies that I am a "Nazi", and reinforces this in his second email of 20 March by stating that being "franco-german", I "would be aware" of the terms being used "during the Nazi regime to refer to Jewish people"

I view this as outrageously racist and xenophobic comments.

In addition to coming across as lacking in his mastery of the English language, Simon Dowling, TDC, also demonstrates a very serious flaw in his understanding of history: who fought against whom during the second World War. (If, like me (contrary to his implied statement), he is not of an age that allowed him to witness it, he ought to read about it).

(Subsequent note: I see in The Sunday Times, 22 February 2009, "Vichy: guilty". "The republic has officially accepted its role in the Holocaust for the first time, admitting that the Vichy regime freely collaborated with the Nazis in sending 76,000 Jews to their deaths during the second world war". So, it''s my history that was shaky) (But I know who the 21st century 'Nazis' are)

(4) "I am the police officer dealing with this crime"

Simon Dowling, TDC, has, on the basis of my using these two words concluded that I have committed a "crime"

Under which law?

This is totally unsubstantiated and therefore defamatory.

As a result of my website Host asking Simon Dowling whether he was "aware of legislation regarding false reporting", in his 20 March 2007 email, Dowling replied that he was aware of this and stated:

(5) "..there is nothing we as a police force can do except class it as a racist incident"

What a change of tune! Is "incident" an alternative term used by the Metropolitan Police to describe a "crime"? I don't think so, and consequently view this as Simon Dowling backing down.

Indeed, as Dowling concluded that I committed "a crime" - how come that the police 'cannot do anything'? Isn't it the case that when "a crime" has been committed - it IS within the remit of the police to take action?

Who knows, maybe they'll turn-up at 06h30 a.m. one day to break down my door and will lock me up in a cell - as they did with e.g. the Canadian Lady (Another person of foreign origin... and a woman!) (Her 'crime'? She had the courage "to do the right thing" in relation to the shooting of Mr Jean Charles de Menezes) (see the outcome)

Consider the conduct of Simon Dowling v. the 11 July 2002 reply from Sir Toby Harris, then Chair of the Metropolitan Police Authority, in the context of my complaint against Mr Ladsky in 2002:

" seem convinced that Mrs [x] acted under the direction of Mr Ladsky.

While this may or may not be the case, the police cannot act on the basis of your suspicions, however strongly held, and must act only on the basis of established facts"

Very clearly, this does not apply when the complainant is 'Dear Mr Andrew Ladsky'

(Covered under Kensington & Chelsea police point # 1 )

Clearly, Simon Dowling's intention was to cause my website Host to suffer fear, anxiety and distress, so that my Host would close down my website. It follows - in my non-lawyer opinion - that Simon Dowling has committed offences under several statutes (Kensington police Overview)

(6) "This is directed at a particular person"

This is incorrect, as I have used the terms in the context of a significant number of people - in situations where I concluded that they were observing me / following me / harassing me / attempting to scare me / intimidate me.

As I explain in the introduction to My Diary:

"Up to roughly the end of 2005, I used to refer to the people I believe to be observing / following me as 'my minders'. Since then, I have been describing them as the 'pigs' and 'monkeys' - although it is an insult to both species"

"I have noticed two distinct types of people who are engaging in these activities : amateurs, leading them to behave in a disorientated manner when taken at their own game". I follow this by a comprehensive list of examples of the type of event I am referring to.

As to the other type, which I call 'type 2', I state that "it is my impression that there is a connection with the police", and explain why, as well as emphasising that "I have no evidence to back-up my claim i.e. I may be wrong (and I certainly hope that I am because of what it would imply)...It may be that there are ex. policemen employed by the private sector" I give one example of this type of event: 15 January 2006. (Subsequent note at 2008: Although I still cannot specifically prove it, I believe that I now have sufficent evidence to state my belief that the police is involved - see My Diary home)

Other examples from My Diary: 4 Jan 06 ; 23 Jan 06 ; Rest of week beginning 23 Jan 06 ; 17 March at c. 0h15 am ; 17 July 08h10 ; 2 Aug 06 - from 22h00 ; 23 August - after midnight ; 25 Aug 06 ; 4 Sep 06 - 02h45 am (under this latter entry I state: 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)

At the beginning of 2006 when I felt that the word 'minder' was totally inappropriate to express my emotions from suffering the unbelievable amount of ongoing harassment and intimidation, I opted to switch to 'pig' and 'monkey'. As I now revisit My Diary for 2006, looking at the events that have taken place, I now view these words as being far too 'soft'.

How do you describe men who think nothing of:

•  having four men, after midnight, waiting in a parked car for a woman to arrive, on foot, on her own, in a deserted street and, as she is about to cross the - dead-end - street, start the car, driving it straight at her? e.g. 1 August 2006

•  ambushing a woman, on foot, on her own, in a deserted street, after midnight ? e.g. 19 April 2006

•  hiding in dark recesses, after midnight, coming straight at a woman, on her own, in a deserted street? e.g. 23 August 2006

•  'hunting' / encircling a woman, on her own, on foot, at night? e.g. 26 February 2006 ; 17 March 2006 ; 22 March 2006

•  hosing the windows of a woman's flat, who lives on her own, in a basement flat, at 01h00 am and 02h45 am? e.g. 7 April 2006 ; 4 September 2006

•  following / tracking a woman, on her own, during the day wherever she goes? e.g. 4 January 2006 ; 15 January 2006 ; 23 January 2006 ; 16 May 2006 ; 22 June 2006 ; 27 July 2006

And women as well have taken part in the harassment activities e.g. My Diary 20 Mar 06 ; 12 May 06 ; 30 July 06 ; 5 Aug 06

These are only examples from 2006. Many more are captured in My Diary in previous years - and include having witnesses : 26 October 2003 and 1 June 2005

As I wrote in My Diary, 23 August 2006 "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 'pigs and monkeys' is an insult to both species"

Do you describe these people as 'pigs and monkeys'? No! If you are a human being with any decency, the words that come to mind (well, certainly to my mind) are : criminal ; morally depraved ; evil ; scum ; despicable ; rejects from the sewer; beneath contempt; low life

I have already been using these words on my site (e.g. 19 April 2006 ; 16 May 2006 ; 1 August 2006 ), but not enough. I will amend this over the coming days substituting them for the words 'pigs and monkeys'. Thank you for making me realise this Simon J. Dowling, TDC.

(Note at mid-December 2007: I have replaced the words, not because of the accusations by Kensington & Chelsea police - as they are FALSE - but simply because I should have used stronger words, words to communicate my abhorrence and feeling of utter disgust and contempt. I refer back to this note where I have done it)

Why are they doing this to me? What have I done to them? NOTHING ! I don't even know them.

Somebody is paying them to do it - and has been doing this for a long time (e.g. 26 October 2003). Who would be doing that but somebody who has determined to set out on a vicious vendetta against me? (By the way, dictionary definition of 'vendetta' : "A prolonged bitter quarrel with or a campaign against someone")

The only possible person who can be instigated this is Ladsky - which is why I have linked him with these events in My Diary, variously stating : "Ladsky's pigs and monkeys" (4 September 2006); "Mr Ladsky's bunch of hired monkeys" (16 May 2006) ; "Ladsky's monkeys" (5 August 2006); "Ladsky's monkeys as I am now calling them" (27 May 2006) - and the events, for example on 19 April 2006 and 16 May 2006, further confirm the link. Who else could it be?

I conclude that the "particular person"; "the victim" who has reported this is him.

I note that he does not complain about:

•  (1) the veracity of the facts reported in My Diary - or any other parts of the site

•  (2) nor does he complain about terms that are far more damning e.g. fraud ; criminal, etc.

(NOTE at 2008: see the undeniable proof that the threat of forfeiture and bankruptcy proceedings, as well as court claims = fraud tools)

(7) "I would therefore be grateful if this site could be taken down"

Of course! On the basis of his emails! Who is "the Nazi"?

(Note added in 2015: a typical British state's response to 'inconvenient' websites e.g. that of Nigel Ward (whistleblower)).

Roughly up to the time when I filed a complaint with the Law Society against Portner and Jaskel (PJ # 4 and # 5) Mr Ladsky had, through this firm, namely Jeremy Hershkorn, attempted to put pressure on my website Host to close down my site. This was done by Hershkorn making highly scurrilous claims against me, and bombarding my Host with a massive amount of emails in which he repeatedly threatened my Host with "proceedings and costs and damages" (Portner # 2)

I have explained on the home page the factors that have reduced me to launching this site - and my objectives for doing it.

Thanks to the unbelievable courage, as well as integrity of my website Host, HostDime, in holding true to its principles:

I have the chance to be heard - a chance that had been denied me over FIVE years, reducing me to launch this website

I have the chance to present 'MY CASE' - using this website as 'MY COURT'

I have the chance to clear my name of the scurrilous statements made against me that are currently in the public domain

I have the chance to counteract any criminal record that 'may' be held against me by the police (statement in the 27 January 2003 letter from Kensington & Chelsea police) and, who knows, perhaps another one has now been added by Simon J. Dowling, TDC, as he has concluded in his 16 March 2007 email that I committed "a crime" (NB: I was right: see the "crime reports" for 2002, 2003 and 2007 - and my subsequent battle with the police)

I have the chance to 'put the record straight' with credit rating agencies that may have captured false information against me

Andrew Ladsky objects to my site?

He did not have any qualms when, in 2003, he sent a letter to the London Leasehold Valuation tribunal portraying me as a liar - under point 50 of the LVT/SC/007/120/02 report - when he (with the additional support of Martin Russell Jones and Brian Gale), falsely portrayed me to the tribunal as "one lone tenant...delaying the building works desired by the many" v. (among many others) the 26 March 2004 letter from Joan Hathaway, MRICS, i.e. one year later, stating "Due to extensive delays in collecting the contributions from all (NB!!!) lessees"

This lie was made to the tribunal to stop it from investigating the specification and costings - and you can see why when you look at the outcome of the hearings on the initial global sum demanded of £736,207 (US$1.3 million) - see LVT # 4 , and for extracts, see the section on Brian Gale

He does not have any qualms that, since 2003, this LVT report - as well as the summary of the case (ref #992 on the LVT database) FALSELY portraying me as the party at fault and as being the "cause of additional costs for the works" - has been on the LVT database accessible by the public. (Of course, his aides were only too happy to add to the accusations - see Case summary )

He did not have any qualms in getting his aides to file a fraudulent claim against me in West London County Court on 29 November 2002 (ref WL203537) - knowing full well (as can be seen from the tribunal's directions, he attended the 29 October 2002 pre-trial hearing) (see also My Diary 10 October 2002) that we had been told by the tribunal to NOT PAY (page 5) until it had issued its determination and it had therefore been implemented (CKFT # 2 ' # 6.1 ); ( WLCC # 2 ). And this was done by supplying a lease falsely claiming that it was representative of my contractual obligations. (CKFT # 6.7 , WLCC # 3 )

Hence, he had no qualms falsely portraying me to a court as a liar, a cheat, an individual who defaults on her contractual obligations (CKFT # 2 , # 6.1 , # 6.5 , # 6.7 ) (West London County Court # 2 , # 3 , # 2(1) ) (and let's not forget the CPR issue of the Statement of Truth signed by Hathaway!).

Not only have this false claim, as well as subsequent, equally defamatory documents been given to the other leaseholders listed on the claim - and hence the public at large - anybody can obtain a copy of this false claim against me (outside of the context of my website).

And yet again, now, he does not have any qualms about having one of his corrupt, morally depraved aides, Portner and Jaskel, file another FRAUDULENT claim against me in court on 27 February 2007 (Portner and Jaskel # 6) - yet again portraying me to a court as a dishonest individual who breaches her contractual obligations

(Subsequent note - On 6 June 2008 Ladsky dropped "ALL" of the 27 February 2007 claim against me - see My Diary - 7 June 2008, preceded by 3 June 2008 which covers my (74 pg) Witness Statement) (4 pg Main Points)...

...which provides undeniable proof that the threat of forfeiture and bankruptcy proceedings, as well as court claims = FRAUD TOOLS)


Etc., etc., etc. (see Defamation Act 1996 for additional examples)

Imagine if it was I who had done to Ladsky what he and his aides have done to me since 2002. Where would I be now?

Considering their 'Nazi' method of operating - and that of the supporting infrastructure of police and courts to which they evidently have 'privileged access': no prize for guessing that I would be in prison - and probably for doing much less than that

See the demands in the letter sent by Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor to the Elderly Resident in 2001

Subsequent note: or maybe, as a 'Nazi" 'domestic extremist', I would have been sectioned... - My Diary 2009 - Introduction

At least, what I have on my site is THE TRUTH.

Ladsky objects to my site being live? THE LAUNCH OF MY WEBSITE IS THE OUTCOME OF HIS OWN DOING.

Secondly, he should read the second line at the beginning of My Diary for 2007 : "My dearest wish is to close down this website - of my own free will - as it will mean that I have achieved my personal objectives"

I don't want this website. The only website I want is one for sharing photographs with family and friends, photographs of holidays, happy events - i.e. photographs of events I have not captured for the last five years because of the horrendous nightmare I have been made to endure.

Metaphorically, I died in 2002. I want my life back, I want to be resurrected from this hell I have been pushed into, and buried in deeper and deeper by various parties. This resurrection means : putting the clock back to 2002.

I don't care about the environment in which my objectives are met as long as this is done - justly and fairly - and as long as steps are taken to guarantee that it will not happen to other people.

Happening to one person is bad enough, but knowing that it is happening - in varying degrees - to thousands of people is totally unacceptable - 'outrageous'. (As a result of being mentioned on my site under 30 July 2006, the '70+ years young' Maria has sent me a letter detailing what she has and continues to go through at the hands of her tyrannical landlord. It's horrendous. Once I have her permission, I will include her anonymised letter on my site)

Consider that Simon J. Dowling, TDC, is from the "Community Safety Unit"...

(NOTE at 2008: see Media page for another case involving a 'Community Support Officer')

In its 'Crime and Disorder Annual report, June 2006', Kensington and Chelsea police defines the aims of its "Community Safety Strategy" (page 3) as including:

"Residents are and feel more secure in their homes and daily lives"

"More offenders are caught, convicted and stop offending and victims are better supported"

(Other 'interesting' comments in the extracts)

On its website (at 23 March 2007), it states, among others:

"Every crime has a bad effect on the victim but hate crimes are probably the most damaging. They happen when a person hates someone else enough to abuse them, attack them or commit some other offence against them"

"Sometimes the crime happens in what should be the peace and safety of your own home..."

"The more we know about these crimes and who commits them, the better we can work to prevent, detect and investigate them in the future. It's our job to identify what's happened and make sure that appropriate action is taken"

...and contrast that with the content of My Diary - just for 2006... (let alone the rest of my site!)

Among others, I have highlighted on seven occasions (Rest of week beginning 23 Jan 06 ; 26 Mar 06 ; 19 Apr 06 ; 16 May 06 ; 20 Jul 06 ; 1 Aug 06 ; 23 Aug 06 ) that the actions of these people

"Amount to 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

Under 2 August 2006, I describe my 'daily ritual', after which I add "AND THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NOWHERE I CAN TURN TO FOR HELP - WHICH IS WHY IT IS HAPPENING"


4 September 2006 - When, among others, my windows were hosed at 02h45 a.m. "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?"

23 January 2006 - "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...I am being watched, spied on and monitored as though I am a criminal. I AM NOT A CRIMINAL. I HAVE DONE NOTHING WRONG."

4 January 2006 - "I am certainly left in no doubt that I am being followed"

15 January 2006 - "How dare they follow me around? I AM NOT THE CRIMINAL!"

19 April 2006 - "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)... Spineless, despicable, criminal filth! These people are the scum of the earth, rejects from the sewer"

16 May 2006 - "It is so blatantly obvious that this man was following me...why did he immediately drop his voice after I shouted to him "Yeah, come on! Report back to Ladsky, report back to Ladsky!"?

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

1 August 2006 - "Pathetic, spineless, criminal, corrupt, evil scum. And the same can be said about their paymasters"

By the way, I also state that I have noted the number plate of cars e.g. 26 February 2006 ; 6 August 2006 ; 8 September 2006.

For example, for 26 February, I wrote : " 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.)" While under 24 April 2006, I wrote : "This makes it the fourth time that I see this car at this time of night"

...and the emails of 16 March and 20 March 2007, detailed at the beginning of this entry, are what TDC Simon J. Dowling,...

...of the "Community Safety Unit",...

....considers fit to send - AND DO - having seen my website!

If it was not so sickening, it would be laughable.

Simon J. Dowling, TDC, certainly redefines the concept of 'perceptual bias' beyond recognition.

Should I also view this as impacting on my description of 'type 2'? (Subsequent note: MOST DEFINITELY: YES!)

This unbelievably appalling action further reinforces in my mind what I wrote in My Diary, 2 August 2006: "I now hold the view that England can justifiably describe itself as a criminals paradise" (Note at early 2009: I was right!)

Visitor to the site, if it shocked you at the time as an exaggeration: can you now see why I wrote it? I don't make this kind of statement lightly.

(Subsequent note: see the summary outcomes of my 50+ legitimate 'cries for help' and complaints - in vain).

In addition to my horrendous, sheer utter hell first-hand experience at the hands of various parties since 2002, I am also in contact with many other leaseholders in other blocks of flats ( e.g. My Diary 11 Nov 06 ; 22 Nov 08).

All have similar stories to tell - including some, in relation to the police e.g. the 3 December 2003 Evening Standard article in which my case was also mentioned; the leaseholder at the 11 November 2006 C.A.R.L. meeting. (See also the newsletters on the C.A.R.L. (

I am exposed to the media. At times, I also look at the press readers' comments.

I think I can safely say that similar views are held by a very large number of people nowadays - including some politicians (judging from media reports).

And here are other statements I have made on my site:


Under the 2 August 2006 entry in My Diary I wrote :

"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"

Thank you Simon J. Dowling, TDC, for confirming my claims - beyond the shadow of a doubt

I shall therefore continue with my daily ritual as detailed under 2 August 2006 (By the way: I now have the kitchen knife next to me in the bed)

(*) For the benefit of Simon J. Dowling, TDC: Definitions sourced from the Concise Oxford English Dictionary

Racism - (1) the belief that each race or ethnic group possesses specific characteristics, abilities or qualities that distinguish it as inferior or superior to another such group; (2) discrimination against or antagonism towards other races or ethnic groups based on such belief - Derivatives : racist"

Xenophobia - "Intense or irrational dislike or fear of people from other countries - Derivatives : xenophobe ; xenophobic"

Defamation - see definition, as well as supporting examples under the ' Abbreviations-Definitions' section


Who is going to be next indulging Andrew Ladsky's tantrums - instead of seeing the light?

I shall have to wait and see!


Tuesday 3 April 2007 - The 'criminals, low-lifes, scum', etc. are back in force!

Yep! I am again being 'hunted', spied on since at least yesterday. Looks like the mafia does not like what I am doing - IN RESPONSE TO THEIR ACTIONS (e.g. police 16 and 20 March 07; Ladsky and his mob e.g. above on this page). This takes place from the time I leave the flat, and includes during my lunch break e.g. [ ] ; 9 Aug 07 , from the time I leave the office. As before, this is done by more than one person at a time. And, as before, they behave in an awkward manner when they realise I spotted them.

Why are the 'low-lives' back in force? My guess (among others): an anticipation that I am going to meet with a solicitor. Why? See next entry.

4 April 2007 - My reply to the 27 February 2007 West London County Court claim

On 22 March 2007, I responded to the West London County Court claim (covered under 9 March 2007) stating that I intended to "contest the court's jurisdiction"

While the guidance notes supplied by the court with the claim go into great length about the procedure for admitting the claim / part of the claim, or disputing it, only a passing reference is made to 'contesting the court's jurisdiction'. I conclude from this that, while people are allowed to be 'litigants in person' i.e. can represent themselves, the courts evidently do not view this as extending to contesting the jurisdiction of a court... and obviously, nor do those who are having me followed.

Surprise: I am going to do it myself! Not only do I not need a lawyer, having been very badly 'burnt' by lawyers, the last thing I want to do is approach another one.

I therefore opted to look for guidance in the Civil Procedure Rules, which I found under Part 11 - "Disputing the court's jurisdiction" for which Rule 11.2(b) states that the application must "be supported by evidence".

While the CPR does not mention the need to complete a form for this purpose, I nonetheless went through all the 100+ forms contained in the CPR to make doubly sure. I could not find one.

I summarised my application as:

"Request that the jurisdiction be transferred to the LVT as:

"(1) the claim relates to service charges under residential leasehold

(2) the Defendant disputes the claimed charges

(3) the case is linked to the Tribunal’s determination of 17 June 2003, LVT/ SC/007/120/02 (ref #992 on the LVT database)"

In the course of 'my study' of the CPR, I also came across some 'useful' information that led me to make a second application to the court - which I captured as follows:

Second application: An Extended Civil Restraint Order against the ‘Landlord’ - Under CPR Rule 3.4(2)(b) “Vexatious Claimant”, and Part 3C – Statements of Case, Practice Direction: “Extended Civil Restraint Orders – 3.1 (3) “…where a party has persistently issued claims or made applications which are totally without merit”

On the basis that this is the second false Claim filed against the Defendant by her ‘Lessor’. Details contained in this document"

And there I was, thinking that there was nothing I could do to stop 'my Lessor', or 'landlord' from filing false claims against me! :-)

Since sending the 22 March 2007 Acknowledgment of Service I have been working flat out on my "evidence". Because the 14th day for the deadline (Friday 6 April) is a bank holiday, I must send it today.

As the timing became 'rather tight', I ended-up working on it all night until 6 a.m. to finalise it. I then went to the hellhole to shower and change and was back in the office by 09h30. Maybe due to practice at surviving on relatively little sleep since the beginning of this horrendous nightmare, I am actually feeling okay.

I took my document to a printing and binding shop next to the office, and then headed for the post office.

And this is the document I sent by 'special delivery' by tomorrow. (I have added a hyperlink to the documents I sent as appendices to the court - 64 in total! )

I forgot to include something in my document:

It looks like the originator of the claim is not "Roostock", or "Rootstock", or Steel Services - but "Sloan Development" as the directory path at the bottom of the page on the 27 February 2007 claim reads:

G:\Bulstrode\data\docs\S\23208 - Sloan Development\002 Miscellaneous Matters\Oyez Forms\Claim Form - Ms N

Sloan Development is discussed under Headlessors # 2 and Owners identity # 3 . Among others, it was party - with Steel Services - in the 5 August 2005 transaction on the lease for the penthouse flat. (I refer to this in my 4 April 2007 reply to the court, under point # 78 )


See the 'next episodes' with West London County Court : 4 May 2007 and 5 May 2007.

Thursday 5 April 2007 - A parable

I got confirmation from the Royal Mail tracking system that my (weighty) document was delivered today to the court (printscreen at the back of the above document).

Over the last few days, I have again been thinking about a parable a friend sent me some time ago saying that he immediately thought of me when he came across it. I like it!


A horse fell down a dried-up well. He cried out for help to be rescued.

The farmer arrived, shortly followed by other people alerted by the terrible cries of despair from the poor horse.

Discussions took place as to how the horse could be rescued. Eventually, it was decided that it would be best to bury him as it was too complicated to rescue him.

So, shovels of earth upon shovels of earth were thrown down the well onto the poor horse. Initially the horse kept crying out for help. Then: no more cries.

The horse was not dead. Every time some earth was thrown on him he would shake it off and stand on it. Slowly but surely, the horse came up closer and closer to the surface - until he was able to get out.

And when he did get out, he bit the farmer so hard and so deeply that he did not survive from the wound.

(Author unknown)











Easter weekend - 6 - 9 April 2007

By the time I finished hyperlinking the references in my document to the court to each of the 64 documents supplied as appendices, as well as found visuals to illustrate the above parable, it was about 03h30 am on Friday morning. I then went to the hellhole.

Around 11h30 am a "particular person" was next to my windows making animal like noises. It 'seemed' to me to be an imitation of a horse.

I spent the Easter break with friends, allowing me to have three very good nights of sleep (15 hours + 12 hours + 12 hours!) - away from the animal noises, etc. Monday 9 April it was back to the 'hellhole' which meant 5 hours of sleep.

(Subsequent note: Actually, I spent part of the weekend in a room I just started to rent in East London with the aim of getting some kind of normality back in my life. By the end of the first week, I had 'the minders' in tow)


Thursday 12 April 2007 - Continuation of 'enemy action' (?) at the Royal Mail sorting office in Kings Road, London

Yet again, today, I made another very inconvenient detour to the sorting office before going to work. I have been doing this for more than three years - all due to the fact that some of my post was not reaching me. Well, it's still 'pot luck' for any of the post sent to the flat's address - but for another reason: at best, mind-blowing carelessness and gross mismanagement by the sorting office.

As there were quite a few items in the bundle of mail I was given at the sorting office, I opted to check it before I left: six-seven items of mail were NOT for me! When I placed them on the counter asking why they had been given to me, the reply was: "I don't know!" I took up the offer of - yet again - talking to the manager.

It was not the same person I had seen before. He told me that he did not have a 'special instruction' card for me, leading me to ask whether this time, instead of delivering it to the block (see 9 October 2006 and 9 March 2007 ) , it had been dumped somewhere. Having gone back to check, he then returned with the card. Having just given me six-seven items of post for somebody else, he nonetheless assured me that they were not doing the same thing with my post. Yeah, right! And pigs might fly! Ooops! Careful! Could be perceived as a "Nazi" comment! Oh well, never mind, I have already been branded as "a Nazi" "because of my franco-german (sic) origin"

For how long have I been battling with the Royal Mail? More than THREE YEARS as I first started to complain about the service in 2004! I have captured some of the events in My Diary in May 2003 ; 1 July 2006 ; 9 October 2006 ; 2 November 2006 ; 9 March 2007

Much to my annoyance, I have misplaced the letter I received from Postwatch in November 2006. For the first time in the five years of my horrendous nightmare I had somebody, Ms Melissa Sharples, who agreed with my assessment. I was so thrilled with this letter that I showed it to several people - and now I can't find it. I am going to write and see if I can get a copy. Postwatch needs to be praised for its work - and needs more power than it has been given.

w/c 26 March 2007


The Law Society approves of solicitors threatening members of the public with bankruptcy for non-payment of monies to a company they have never heard of... well as issuing fraudulent documents


An item of post I collected today is 'what looks like' a follow-up reply to my 28 February 2007 letter to Mrs Woolf,. President of the Law Society.

'What looks like' because the letter I took delivery of is this 30 March 2007 letter from the Solicitors Regulation Authority. What is it?

Well, I asked myself that question as well considering that the follow-up reply to my letter to Mrs Woolf was the 12 March 2007 acknowledgement from the Legal Complaints Service - and the 30 March 2007 does not provide any explanation, other than state:

"Regulating the profession. Your report about Portner & Jaskel. I write further to previous correspondence in respect of this matter"

The pre-printed text at the bottom of the page reads "The independent (NB!!!) regulatory body of the Law Society of England & Wales"

This 'information sheet' was enclosed with the letter. It states: The Conduct Assessment and Investigation Unit is part of the Compliance Directorate of the Solicitors Regulation Authority"

What are all these names? What happened to the Legal Complaints Service? Vanished into thin air?

Other extracts from the 'information sheet' - on page 1:

"Our aim is to regulate the solicitors' profession effectively. So, we welcome concerns about solicitors' behaviour (conduct) as this helps us to regulate properly.

lf you are concerned about the way someone else's solicitor has behaved, we can investigate if there is clear evidence that the solicitor has broken the rules of professional misconduct. (These rules are to do with the standard of behaviour of solicitors.)

We assess the reports of misconduct and identify any possible instances when the rules which govern the professional conduct of solicitors are broken"

Doesn't that sound reassuring to the public? The marketing team earned its keep for the day!

The rest of it announces the content of the letter:

This assessment may also find that the conduct rules were not broken...The reasons for this may be:

  • it is clear that no rule has been broken
  • there is no clear evidence to support the allegations of misconduct"

"In your particular case, the caseworker decided that your report of misconduct fell into one of the categories listed above. We will not be investigating your report any further"

"I am unable to conclude that the firm has breached any of the rules of conduct and my file is now closed"

See Portner and Jaskel and Law Society, # 4 and # 5 for detail

I view the reply from the "independent from the Law Society" Solicitors Regulation Authority as amounting to approval of solicitors threatening members of the public with bankruptcy for non-payment of monies to a company they have never heard of

As evidenced in My Diary 22 Nov 08: = The Law Society and its "independent" arm, the Solicitors Regulation Authority approve of solicitors committing fraud...

...and therefore does NOT share my view that Messrs Jeremy Herhskorn and Daniel Broughton have very seriously failed to discharge their professional duties


In relation to the comment "... I do not consider that the letter is either threatening or that it amounts to harassment ":

I wish the caseworker at the Solicitors Regulation Authority to, one day, find himself at the receiving end of a letter unlawfully threatening him with bankruptcy. Let him see whether or not it feels "threatening".

My message to him: if finding yourself in this situation causes you so much stress that you end-up fainting, I can - from my personal experience on 19 June 2005 - recommend St Thomas hospital. (I am sure it will come to you as a surprise but: YES, going through the relentless, horrendous nightmare I have been going through since 2002 IS AFFECTING MY HEALTH)


'Funny' how the Law Society did not hold the same view about a "solicitor being under obligation to act as per client's instructions" when it considered my 16 March 2004 complaint against my then solicitors, Piper Smith & Basham.

Why the 'double standard'? Why is it that Mr Ladsky's advisors have 'carte blanche' to do exactly as they please in answering his dictates - while I have evidently no right to expect my legal 'advisors' to deal with me as per the Solicitors Code of Conduct? Is he a member of some 'secret society' that bestows the unlimited right to abuse non-members at will?

(And, considering the treatment I have received from others parties: (1) the courts; (2) the Court Service; (3) the Legal Services Ombudsman; (4) the Bar Council; (5) the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal; (6) Kensington & Chelsea Housing; (7) the Local Government Ombudsman; (8) the then Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and its successor; (9) the police; (10) the Home Office; (11) the Financial Services Authority; (12) the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales; (13) the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors - I ask the same question)

Given the reply, I opted to do some research on the Solicitors Regulation Authority, as well as on the Legal Complaints Service. Worth capturing some of my findings, including the 'marketing-speak' for a laugh.

Solicitors Regulation Authority, or SRA, and the Legal Complaints Service

The Solicitors Regulation Authority is a name change in January 2007 from the 'Law Society Regulation Authority'. The Lawyer, 29 January 2007, states that "it is the body which the Legal Complaints Service refers complaints if discipline needs to be enforced" and that it "has responsibility for prosecuting lawyers at the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal".

Quotes from its website (

"Our purpose is to protect the public by ensuring that solicitors meet high standards; by acting when risks are identified

Consumer protection, enforcement and discipline:

To tackle unacceptable professional or organisational performance, misconduct and dishonesty by firm, fair and timely regulatory and disciplinary action

We will secure prompt and proportionate action to minimise the public as a whole, from unacceptable professional or organisational performance, misconduct, dishonesty...

"We changed our name to emphasise our independence"

Like its 'sister arm', the Legal Complaints Service also claims to be "independent from the Law Society"

The Solicitors Regulation Authority and the Legal Complaints Service are as independent from the Law Society as my lungs are from my body

From M2 Presswire, 17 April 2007: "The Legal Services Complaints Commissioner, Zahida Manzoor CBE, asked the Law Society to include in its Plan the key deliverables from the Legal Complaints Service and Solicitors Regulation Authority Improvement Agendas".

From The Lawyer, 15 January 2007: "The Consumer Complaints Service is to be renamed the Legal Complaints Service this month. But for all the independence that the split might grant, the Law Society's representative side still approves the LCS's annual budget. LCS chief executive Deborah Evans says this makes "not a jot of difference" to the organisation's independence..." Yeah, right!

According to the letterhead and marketing bumf, both, the Solicitors Regulation Authority and the Legal Complaints Service are based at the same address they were at, prior to the name change: 8 Dormer Place, Leamington Spa - and no doubt with the same staff.

However, the SRA gives a different address on its website: Ipsley Court, Berrington Close, Redditch, B98 0TD. (As demonstrated by its assessment of Portner and Jaskel threatening me with bankruptcy in the name of a company I have never heard of (Subsequent note - detail in my: 3 June 2008 Witness Statement ; 19 January 2009 reply to the points of dispute), it is not bothered with this kind of 'small detail'). Maybe it's in the process of moving to show its "independence" - while making it convenient for the staff to still get there: Redditch is c. 30 kms from Leamington Spa.

And the Law Society has continued to control the SRA by, among others, appointing its board members: "Lord Hunt outlines vision for regulation", (Law Society Gazette, 7 May 09).

At least, good choice of logo for the Solicitors Regulation Authority, consistent with performance:

Too many blind spots to be able to see the true picture

Well done PR-marketing consultancy!


I have previously captured my perception of the Law Society as a fertiliser for malpractice' in the legal sector

This latest verdict of 'no malpractice' in relation to Portner and Jaskel further reinforces my perception.

How long is the Solicitors Regulation Authority likely to be in place? I have not got a crystal ball, but I note that:

(1) Previous posts held by its Head, Antony Townsend, include 'Director of standards and head of conduct' for the General Medical Council (GMC).

This year, it has been decided that the GMC will lose the right to adjudicate in fitness-to-practice cases when complaints are made against doctors. The proposed shake-up is in response to the Shipman Inquiry set up to investigate how the doctor murdered more than 200 people undetected. Dame Janet Smith, who headed the inquiry, has been reported as being "highly critical of the GMC"

(2) SRA was the acronym for the Strategic Rail Authority. It was disbanded in 2005.Maybe Mr Townsend can then move on to the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (?)

And finally (as a British newsreader used to say)...

Over the last few days the British press has been reporting about solicitors who have made massive financial gains at the expense of sick miners. The Times, 16 April 2007, headed its article "Lawyers who made a fortune from miners’ claims must repay millions". One of its Readers wrote:


"My father used to say that the mafia never got a foothold in this country because our legal system was more corrupt than they were. Now I know what he meant!" (NB: SO DO I ! And, to this, I add the police)

Subsequent note - The good news from The Times of 12 December 2008 is that, what appears to be the worst of the offending firms, Beresfords, has had two solicitors "Struck-off for exploiting miners".

It quotes the Chairman of the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal as saying "Cases such as this reflect upon the whole profession and the standing in the eyes of the public. Any solicitor who is shown to have discharged his professional duties with anything less than complete integrity and probity must expect severe sanctions".

How about:

My view: because, like the rest of the so-called 'regulators' I have come in contact with, the Law Society's sole concern is to protect its members, or, more accurately, its source of income. As the saying goes 'who pays the piper, calls the tune'. Hence, when the Law Society takes action against its members it is often due to being placed under extensive pressure by the media and members of Parliament e.g.:

  • (1) in the case of Beresfords, by The Times and John Mann, MP, who, The Times reports "campaigned to force Beresfords and other firms to pay back money to the miners"
  • (The 'response ' from the Law Society was to let the solicitors pay back the money on a 'voluntary basis', and at the time quoted an average of a few hundred Pounds per miner). That typical, hands-off attitude, eventually forced miners to take legal action and getting a lot more back e.g. "Miners win negligence payouts from solicitors over coal health claims", (Law Society Gazette, 6 Aug 09).
  • On 13 Sep 09 the BBC reported "Sick miners 'are owed millions'" "About 150,000 sick miners and their families are still owed £100m by solicitors who wrongly charged them for compensation claims, an MP says"
  • (3) in the case of the Bristol-based firm, Burges Salmon, as a result of action by a group of MPs and reporting by the Mail on Sunday's Financial Mail (in September 2008). One of the victims is reported to have said "I think it is no coincidence that things started moving after the report in the Financial Mail. My complaint has been with the SRA (Solicitors Regulation Authority) for over a year!"

Friday 4 May 2007 - Early morning

...Next Tuesday, 8 May 2007, from 14h00 at West London County Court (?) (1)

Last Saturday, 28 April, I picked-up from my PO Box the attached order from West London County Court - which is a follow-up to my reply to the claim - as detailed above under 4 April 2007.

It states: "Parties are to file and serve skeleton arguments and any authorities relied upon by 4pm on 03 May 2007"

Hence, giving only two working days to do this, as the document would need to be sent by Wednesday 2 April. (While the order is dated 19 April, it was posted more than one week later on 27 April!)

Using up a considerable amount of my time on Monday 30 April trying to speak to the court, eventually resorting to sending a fax which I nonetheless had to follow-up with another call, the court agreed to one extra day i.e. for the document to be with the court today, Friday 4 May. (How very generous!)

This is what I sent, supported by 67 documents. (Click on the reference number to access the supporting document. The contents page is also hyperlinked to the sections).

As I am in full time employment, for me to prepare documents means having to work through the night. I ended-up taking three days of my annual leave - which is lost income to me. So, more of my annual leave swallowed up by this horrendous nightmare. Just as well I bought an extra week of annual leave!

Please note point 2 of the order:

"In view of the defendants application the claimants request for judgment is refused"

Yep! in spite of knowing - from my 22 March 2007 Acknowledgement of service - that I was contesting the court's jurisdiction, the "Regulated by the Law Society" Portner and Jaskel filed an application for judgement against me !!! Very clearly, Portner and Jaskel and its client were not expecting me to contest the court's jurisdiction - leading them to use their usual method of operating!

(1) The question mark is due to the fact that the order states "In some instances a case may be released to another judge, possibly at a different court". They sure like to keep you guessing! It means I am going to have to waste more of my time today trying to get through to the court to determine where I should go next Tuesday.

Friday 4 May 2007 - Late morning

As planned, I phoned the court later on in the morning - and was told that the hearing had been postponed until 24 August i.e. more than three and a half months from now!

When I asked for the reason, I was told that it was not on the file. (!!!)

Apparently, a communication was posted to me by the court yesterday.

So, the day the court knows that I am due to send my skeleton argument, a decision is suddenly made to postpone the hearing.

Do you 'smell a rat'? I do! And more than one!

I asked for the communication to be faxed to me.






This is what I received. Why it's hilarious:

"Upon the Courts own motion. The Court has made this order of its own initiative without a hearing"

Seeing so much emphasis being placed on 'independence' conjures up to me: 'the court has been ordered to cancel the hearing'

"Upon reading a letter from the Claimant's solicitors dated 1 May 2007 a copy of which is annexed" This was not faxed to me.

I phoned the court but, because I had not asked for the name of the person I spoke to in the morning, I was asked to fax my request as my file "cannot be found", "assumed to still be with the person who has sent you the fax". I sent a fax in the afternoon requesting it. I did not receive anything. So, will have to wait until I go to my PO Box.

When, in the morning, I asked why the hearing was postponed more then three and a half months from now, the answer was: there is only one judge in West London County Court. Oh! dear! :-)

How fascinating to note that, by comparison, the court had no problem finding a slot within one month of my sending my evidence contesting the jurisdiction of the court.

Note also: "This case has been listed together with several others at either 10.00 am or 2.00 pm. This may mean that your case will not be heard at the designated time and that you should be prepared to wait for your case to be heard"

Of course, I have nothing better to do with my life, have I?... such as earning a living! All part of the psychological game, isn't it? No doubt, the 'claimant' will know exactly when the case is due to be heard... but I am jumping the gun. God only knows what will happen between now and then.

Saturday 5 May 2007

By the time I came back to the hellhole i.e. the flat it was about 4 a.m. I noticed that there was a lot water on the pavement, as well as immediately in front of my windows, and that some had gone on my window seal. It suggests that 'watering of the plants' on the railing i.e. hosing of my windows had taken place shortly before I arrived. Evidently, I was not expected to come back after 4 a.m. - having done a full day's work.

What happened to the filth, the low lives that are back spying on me? Too expensive to keep them working until 4 a.m. and rally to the scum asked to turned up at c. 03h30 a.m. to delay his 'watering'?

Yesterday I wrote "I smell more than one rat". I was right. Definitely vermin. (I repeat my Comments under Persecution (1)(4))

Awaiting me at my PO Box were two letters from Jeremy Hershkorn, Portner and Jaskel.

The first one, dated 1 May 2007, is to copy me on what he sent to West London County Court.

It comprises of a letter dated 1 May 2007 stating that he "only just received today"` the 19 April 2007 WLCC order - which he attached, having written - himself - on it "Received 1/05/2007". Yeah, right!`I receive it on Saturday 28 April, but the solicitors that filed the claim against me, receive it two working days later!! (As can be seen from Mr Jeremy Hershkorn's letter to WLCC, solicitors and the courts have a DX system to communicate between each other)

Hershkorn continues: "We wish to bring to the Court's immediate attention that apart from receiving Notice that an Acknowledgement of Service has been filed by the Defendant dated 3'" April 2007..."

GET READY FOR THIS ONE! "...(a copy of which we enclose)..." Look at what the West London County Court 3 April 2007 "Notice that acknowledgement of service has been filed" says:

"The defendant responded to the claim indicating an intention to defend part of the claim.

The defendant has 28 days from the date of service of the claim form with particulars of claim, or of the particulars of claim to file a defence"

How much bigger did I need to make the cross on the 22 March 2007 Acknowledgement of Service when I selected option #3 "I intend to contest jurisdiction"?

In the fourth box, at the top of the form, I underlined - in red : "wish to contest the court's jurisdiction"

NOBODY can fail to see this.

Following the March 2007 action by Kensington & Chelsea police, I wrote that it confirmed - without the shadow of a doubt - the second part of the main theme for my website that "I have no protection".

Likewise, I view this latest action by West London County Court - added to events from 2002 to 2004 - as confirming, beyond the shadow of a doubt, the first part of the main theme for my website:

"there is no avenue open to me for justice and redress on this island"

Mr Hershkorn continues with his letter to West London County Court:

"...we have not received anything further from the Defendant or the Court. Neither have we received a copy of the Defendant's application to contest the jurisdiction or any evidence in support, nor a copy of the Defendant's Defence"

(Apart from having (among others) the 'watch towers' constantly monitoring my website (whenever I record a major event on the site, the number of visitors shots up)) : not my problem. As I captured under 4 April 2007, the guidance notes supplied by the court only make a passing reference to contesting the court's jurisdiction. I had to look at the CPR to determine that "an application must be supported by evidence"

If Mr Jeremy Hershkorn is to be believed: he has not heard anything from West London County Court since the 3 April 2007 "Notice that acknowledgement of service has been filed". Some 'very interesting' points to note here:

•  Having received my Acknowledgment of Service on 23 March 2007, West London County Court 'apparently' waited until 3 April 2007 to inform Portner and Jaskel.

•  West London County Court has the time to supply Portner and Jaskel with a document falsely stating that I "intend to defend part of the claim" - but, since receiving my Application contesting the court's jurisdiction on 5 April 2007 - in the whole month that followed, it has not had the chance to inform Portner and Jaskel - the solicitors that FILED the claim AGAINST ME ???

And of course, Portner and Jaskel did no attempt to contact the court during one month! Yeah, right !

Have I got 'S T U P I D' written on my forehead? (Having just looked in the mirror I can answer that: No!)

OF COURSE PORTNER AND JASKEL HAD BEEN IN CONTACT WITH WLCC DURING THE MONTH OF APRIL: This is evidenced by the 19 April 2007 Order - Point 2: "In view of the defendant's application the claimants request for judgment is refused" (Portner # 13)

With his 1 May 2007 letter to the court, Mr Hershkorn also included a copy of a 17 April 2007 letter addressed to me, and a copy of this 6 April 2007 letter and cheque for £1,069.31 (US$1,885) made out to Martin Russell Jones, stating among others that it is sent "On [my] behalf" - which is absolutely NOT TRUE.

The person who did this is 'Martin', the' visitor' to my website who sent me the first comment (referred to under 12 January 2007). I do not know this person. Having thanked him for his initial email, we then exchanged a few emails - as he stated that he "once owned a leasehold flat in a block owned by a company registered abroad and had a few of the same problems you have had".

As can be seen from my email of 9 April 2007 to this person, I had NO KNOWLEDGE that he had done this:

"You sent a cheque to Portner and Jaskel? Seriously? I am sure you must be serious. Martin you are very kind but, I do NOT owe the money these corrupt solicitors and their client claim I owe.

While I can prove, among others, from the document I sent to the court that I most definitely do NOT admit to owing the amounts claimed - and therefore I had no knowledge of what you did, you must contact Portner and Jaskel and say that you are going to stop the cheque. I don't know what you wrote to Portner and Jaskel but, you must explain that you did this of your own bat"

As can also be seen from my previous email to him of 21 March 2007, I made it abundantly clear by, among others, providing various URLs to my website, that I had a £6,100 credit. I also wrote:

"As I explained e.g. under 9 March 2007, not only have they never acknowledged my correspondence, out of what can only be described as vengeance, they have bombarded me with fraudulent upon fraudulent invoices since the Consent Order"

Considering the above events, I have concluded that the whole episode with this 'visitor' was a set-up - see Portner # 14 - and many more have since been only too happy to cooperate - see e.g. My Diary 2009 - Introduction. The human race!

Mr Jeremy Hershkorn concluded his 1 May 2007 letter to West London County Court:

"In the circumstances, we would be grateful if you would please arrange for the hearing on the 8th May 2007 to be adjourned to a future date and for further directions to be given for the service of evidence..." blah, blah, blah

"We thank you for your assistance in this matter..."

How about: "We are profusely grateful for your unfailing assistance to our client?" (considering also events in 2002 - 2004) (I summarised the main points in my 5 December 2007 letter to HMCS Customer Service)

As to Mr Jeremy Hershkorn's second letter, it is dated 4 May 2007, and states among others:

"...we have been informed by telephone today (Oh really?) that the hearing on 8th May 2007 has been adjourned..."

Oh yeah! "Upon the Courts own motion. The Court has made this order of its own initiative without a hearing"


Under 4 March 2007, I wrote: "Should I take the events to date with the claim as a hint that I should prepare myself for an eventful time at the hands of 'the system' over the coming months?" (Subsequent note: Yep! My 'internal radar' was right. see e.g. header # 2 of my 3 June 2008 Witness Statement )

I knew. I sussed 'the system' back in 2003 (leading me to pay £6,350 which, legally, I did NOT owe - my 19 December 2003 letter to Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor).

The false information captured in the "Notice that acknowledgement of service has been filed" was part of a game plan to then be able to cancel the 8 May hearing - while, in the process, the psychological game was to put me under a lot of pressure by, among others, giving me a very tight deadline to prepare a skeleton argument.

Under 4 March 2007 I also wrote: "I sometimes wonder: (1) are they all standing by, cheering Mr Ladsky on,.....(2) or are they standing, frozen on the spot, 'passing the buck' back and forth..."

Well, not only are they cheering him on, 'certain persons' continue - five years on - to very actively help him. It begs the question: WHY?



Yes, I am a woman on my own, a 'nobody' with no influential connection. I came out of an orphanage with no qualification at age 14 and had to start working. I subsequently self-financed seven years of studying to help me be financially independent.

So, yes, I have very little - but what I have, more precisely 'HAD' until this horrendous nightmare - I worked for. I earned it honestly. I did NOT steal it. I did NOT acquire it by through extortion, by deceiving, misleading, defrauding, abusing, bullying, harassing, threatening, intimidating, etc. others.

While my profile makes me fair game for you repulsive, morally depraved boys and girls, you don't have the levers on me you normally have on people to make them 'throw in the towel'. Frustrating isn't. it? And nor have I been fed on a diet of "Don't act above your station", and "Stiff upper lip"

So, go ahead boys and girls! Keep going with your evil, vicious attacks, your games and your underhanded methods. Keep ganging up on me.

Turn me into a 'cause célèbre' - because I WILL FIGHT BACK TO THE DEATH

When I am dead, what will you tell my family and friends when they say to you:

.  You killed her because when, in 2002, she received a demand for £14,500, she 'dared' to ask the question "what are you going to spend it on?"

.  You killed her because she believed what YOU had told her: that she had rights - that led her to pursue an answer to her question

.  You killed her because she followed the direction given by YOUR tribunal to NOT pay the service charge demand

.  You killed her because she believed what YOU had told her, that YOUR courts were there to ensure that justice prevails

.  You killed her because she had strongly held moral principles of right and wrong: she wanted to pay her 'just and fair' share of the service charge - as per the legal terms of her lease and the statutory rights YOU told her she had

.  You killed her because she refused to pay costs for which she was not liable, refused to be used and abused, treated as a doormat

You killed her for the sake of a penthouse flat, three other flats and other works to a block of flats! You killed her for £5+ million, AND BECAUSE ????

That's all she did! She was a law-abiding, decent, honest human being.


We did it because no pleb is going to get away with challenging us, standing-up to us. Our egos could not cope with that because WE ARE THE RULERS!

And the more she showed us for what we are: (1) in response to our repeatedly pushing her away as she was asking us - for what we had said we would do if she came to us for help; (2) in response to our relentless attacks to break her, destroy her...

... the more our bruised egos, unlimited arrogance, sense of entitlement, gross self-importance and feeling of power from our massive network of chums - drove us to take revenge.

We did it because of our greed, our moral depravation - our god: MONEY...


...So that we can buy status symbols that make us feel important and powerful...

...So that we can cover ourselves with expensive clothes and jewelry to communicate to the world that WE are important, wealthy...



...So that we have people who make us feel important...



..So that we can feed our vices and perversions...





(Subsequent note at May 2009: I was right! see e.g. Peers for sale; Peers for cash; Cabinet ministers, MPs, MEPs and Quangocrats on the "gravy train"; abuse by police officers of their Amex card)

What will your children, your grand-children, your parents, your brothers and sisters, your grand parents, your aunts and uncles, your nieces and nephews, your friends think of you when they see that your actions have led to my death?

Are they going to be proud of you when they see your name on my website which will be online long after my death?

Will they be willing to benefit from your 'blood money'?

Note at mid-December 2007: Wow! In early May 2007, I certainly had a lot of anger and disgust to communicate to the 'system' for letting me down. Something else had also happened which, for me, amounted to a 'double whammy' [ADD]. It was as though I was going through a double bereavement.

But, I made my defence system build-up more immunity and put myself back on the track of pursuing my fight for justice and redress - no matter what. By that I mean that I am prepared to be reduced to living in a cardbox on the pavement if necessary. (Living in Knightsbridge, I would have a choice of 'upmarket' cardboard boxes. Even when destitute, one must maintain certain standards ;-) ) On the upside (always look for the upside :-) ): my being reduced to living in the street would, hopefully, generate media attention - and I would claim legal aid. About time I got something back from the system!

And if I can't achieve my objective of getting justice and redress? It does not matter. I now have proof that my website is of help to others, allowing them to get 'some' protection from the unlawful, abusive, terrorist-like tactics used by landlords / their aides. I know that my website is seriously shaking the branches. I hope 'the shaking' will eventually transfer to the trunk, and ultimately the roots so that there is an end to the terrible misery caused to hundreds of thousands of people by the barbaric, feudal residential leasehold system in this country.

20 July 2007 - The fourth malicious leak in two years (previous: 8 August 2005 ; 18 August 2005 ; 6 February 2007)

On one of my regular visits to the flat (*) (prompted by a feeling that I needed to do it), as I reach the corridor by my flat, I see that the carpet is soaking wet.

I immediately know that something has happened in my flat. And sure enough: the carpet is absolutely soaking wet everywhere. There is no sign that the water came from anything in my flat. Hence, the water came from the door to my flat. The amount of water is such that it looks as though a hose pipe was put through the letter box. I let the photographs speak for the state of my flat:

(*) I had moved out of it temporarily

Under the entry for Tuesday 6 February 2007, I wrote: "Mercifully, no water had penetrated my flat". Well, this certainly made-up for the failed attempt of 6 February!

I phoned a friend to report what had happened. He said "what are you going to do?". I replied: "Nothing. What do you want me to do? There is nothing I can do. As amply demonstrated by my experience over the last six years, there is absolutely nowhere I can turn to for help".

I added: "Ladsky wants to destroy my flat? Let him do it! Does not matter. I don't care. My objective is to build-up more and more evidence of what can happen to somebody who dares to challenge a 'sacrosanct' landlord".

Quite clearly, my friend did not like my reply. I attributed it to the fact that, being British, he felt ashamed that somebody should find themselves in this situation. I certainly would if this was happening in my home country, France... which is just a few kilometers from this island.

Actually, I did report it: to Portner and Jaskel, in my 12 August 2007 correspondence and supplied photographs with my letter as, in its malicious letter of 16 February 2007 (PJ # 3), it had positioned itself as a go between with Martin Russell Jones - admittedly, in relation to "arrears". Needless to say that there was no acknowledgement, and therefore, no follow-up of any kind.

When you consider the extent of damage - just in the corridor - which led to the carpet being (eventually) removed (photographs below) - you would expect Martin Russell Jones to send some communication. As with the leak in February, I never received anything. This, plus consideration of the fact that this is the 4th leak in two years = DEFINITELY ANOTHER MALICIOUS be added to the VERY LONG LIST.

The outcome of the flooding, aside from a 'stink' that persists to this day (December 2007) (*), is that: I am left with very large brown marks on the carpet; damage to the base of my furniture; damaged wood on door frames and plinths, and consequently cracked paint / paint peeling off; damage to numerous other items.

(*) Subsequent note: due to the water rotting the carpet and underlay: 15 May 15

No doubt, these photographs of my flat will please quite a few people

Somebody suggested I claim on my home insurance. When I replied that I would have to tell the insurance company that this was the outcome of a malicious act, it was suggested that I should not go into the detail. I don't see why my insurance company should be made to pay for the damage as I am absolutely convinced that it is not due to an accident. So, I have not claimed on my home insurance.

Anyway, why bother making any kind of repair? Using the past to predict the future: more malicious damage will be caused to my flat (*). The best policy is the one I have adopted: I DON'T CARE. I went past the point of caring a long time ago - such is my determination to pursue my fight. Quite clearly, the message has not yet sunk in - and this applies to a wide range of people connected directly / indirectly with my case.

(*) Subsequent note: No points for guessing that I proved to be right. This particular type of "cherished contributions" from the 'Jewish' Andrew David Ladsky mafia and its henchman porter (e.g. 21 July 14) - reached NUMBER 9, on 18 July 14.

Funny how people cannot get out of their mindset temporarily (*) and, as Elvis Presley said in one of his songs:

"Walk a mile in my shoes". (The preceding words are: "if you could see you, through my eyes, instead of your ego, I believe you would be surprised to see that you've been blind". This is followed by: "Walk a mile in my shoes, before you abuse, criticise and accuse, walk a mile in my shoes".)

(No prize for guessing that my other favourite song is Frank Sinatra's 'My Way' :-) )

(*) In spite of the moral dilemma that it caused me, I did 'step out' of mine in December 2003 - by accepting the £6,350 (US$11,200) offer, "for the sake of bringing the dispute to an end", which, legally, I did not owe - see e.g.

Home Overview # 3 ; WLCC 2002-2004 # 9 , # 10 , # 11 , # 12 ; # 13 ; My Diary: Nov 03 ; Dec 03

(And in spite of doing that - the horrendous nightmare continued, eventually leading me - out of utter despair - to launch my website three years later).

9 August 2007 - Typically, I have scum on my tail from the time I leave the KPMG office - including at lunch time.

I know that I am under constant surveillance - and that it has been going on for a very long time. (With KPMG, it started in 2007).

As I did e.g. 18 months ago, on 4 Jan 06, on leaving the office, at lunch time, I decide to put it to the test by going on the passageway of a deserted building near Blackfriars tube station. There is nobody around.

Within 2 minutes this man arrived - in the typical attire of the goons, that includes carrying a large bag that appears to be empty / near empty.

He remained there, stationary. There was absolutely nothing of interest in this area. I made it clear that I would not be intimidated by, likewise, remaining stationary and looking in his direction. He eventually left.


9 Aug 07 - Lunchtime - By Blackfriars Station

Other example of my being tracked as soon as I left the office: 31 Aug 05 ; 18 Mar 06 ; 19 Apr 06

From c. September 2007, when I was moved to a KPMG building in Canary Wharf, I concluded that I was also being followed at lunch time. I put it to the test on a few occasions. I believe that one of these entailed sending a grey car to track me.

Subsequent notes:

Re. Canary Wharf - I was also tracked when I managed to force myself to go back to it, 5 years after I had resigned from KPMG: 8 Feb 13.

Once, on leaving the office late at night, in 2006/07, I opted to go by St Pauls, then crossed the Millinneum bridge and walked south of the river up to Westminster, then on to the hellhole i.e. the flat.

The goons must have lost track of me as, the following evening, one of the KPMG security guards who had been on duty the previous night asked me how I went back. I replied "Why? Did the minders lose track of me?". On leaving the office, I sometimes said to the security guards: "Alert the minders. I am leaving the office".

(There frequently was an Addison Lee people carrier parked at the bottom of street. This was late at night. The car would depart as I came immediately out of the office. I assumed that it was sent by Andrew Ladsky).

(Note also that, following the malicious, libellous emails of 16 .03.07 and 20.03.07 to my website Host 'from' TDC Simon J Dowling' of the Community Support Unit, based at Notting Hill station (same group as Kensington & Chelsea police) KPMG's Head of Security, Jeremy Nelson, (I believe, an ex.cop) phoned me to say "The police is not going to pursue it. Isn't that good news?" (KPMG # 3.4).

This was c. 5 weeks after Dowling sent his 20 March email - AND the police never contacted me at any point in time in relation to this so-called "complaint" by Andrew Ladsky).


Thursday 25 October 2007 - My third witness (previously on: 26 October 2003; 1 June 2005)

A friend of mine is due to arrive from France today. Two-three days previously, he left a message on my mobile phone to ask whether it would be okay for him to stay in my flat.

This morning, I sent him text messages from each of my mobiles to ask him whether he had arrived.
By late afternoon I phoned him on his mobile. We agree to meet on the corner of Harrods between 18h15 – 18h30. Realising that I am going to be late, I send him a text message saying that I will be there by c. 18h45.

I arrive by the corner of Harrods at 18h40. There must be over 50 people on the pavement around the station. Before I see my friend, my ‘internal radar’ goes on alert as, among the crowd, I immediately spot a man who looks to me like a cop. Short, in his 40s, grey hair cut very short, wearing a suit. I get the impression I have seen him before. Not sure. I make a beeline for the man, placing my back to him for two-three seconds while doing a ‘one finger’ gesture in my back. Although my back is turned, I feel anger oozing out of the man.

I then spot my friend and go over to him. I tell him that I believe that the man is there to observe us. I purposely point my finger in his direction. My friend tells me that he arrived at c. 18h05 and that the man was already there and had been looking at him. (My friend had a suitcase). Like me, my friend immediately spotted him when he arrived and had the same thought as me that he is likely to be a cop.

My friend is a bodyguard of many years. His clientele includes some of the 'rich and famous', high ranking government officials, etc.

We go to my flat, and, after c. one hour we make our way to a local restaurant. The restaurant is set away from the street as it has a large courtyard in front of it. We are placed about three tables away from the window. After c. 45 minutes, we both notice a man, wearing glasses and a brown blouson, lurking around in the courtyard. He is looking at us. On seeing that, I do the ‘one finger’ gesture holding my hand by my face. The man departs.

Another c. 30 minutes go by then, a man, in his late 30s, c. 1.80m, average build, English, wearing just an 'office-type' shirt, walks quickly alongside the window of the restaurant, and back, disappearing out of view. Again, my 'internal radar' goes on alert. After c. two minutes I get up to have a look at the side of the window. The man is there, stationary, like hiding in the deep, dark recess. He is wearing head phones. I go back to the table and explain to my friend what I have seen. My friend goes to have a look. The man is still there.

We left c. 15-20 minutes later. When we came out, the man was still in the same position: in the deep, dark recess of the window. And of course, in spite of the low temperature, still only wearing a shirt. I made it very obvious that we saw that he was still there.

My friend agreed with me that the events of the evening were, to say the least, very odd indeed, sharing my view that these people were interested in us.

The other thing to note is that I arranged to meet with my friend by using my mobile phones.

To those who dismiss my reporting that I am being monitored - because they want to protect themselves and / or others / because they do not understand the importance of the evidence contained on my website / because it threatens their comfort zone / out of bigotry, I say: good luck trying to discredit my friend! I have to say, it was amusing to see how some people were 'choking' on my reporting that an experienced bodyguard had witnessed these events.

There is a saying that 'God works in mysterious ways'. I am counting on that. One day, the truth will, somehow, come out.

For other events, see the top of this page, 'Note at December 2007'. A lot more has taken place since I last updated My Diary in early May 2007. I may decide to include other events at a later stage.