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'
|You are here > Home > My Diary - 2008
My Diary - 2008
Year 7 of the horrendous, sheer utter hell nightmare (My Diary started in Year 2002) and the first anniversary of my website.
At the beginning of 2007 I wrote "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"
Was I 'blessed' in 2007? If you consider some of the major events:
The threat of bankruptcy and of losing my flat, followed by the 27 February 2007 fraudulent claim filed against me by Portner and Jaskel - which can only be on behalf of Mr Andrew Ladsky (see My Diary 3 October 2006 , Directorships and Advisors to Jefferson House)...
...claim which, thanks to the 'double act' with West London County Court is - ten months on - still 'hanging over my head' (specifically, see WLCC # 18.2)
...leading me to go through - so far - ten months of horrendous torment, distress and anguish
False accusations by Kensington & Chelsea police which, in addition, branded me as a "Nazi" - "because of my franco-german (sic) origin" (My Diary 20 March 2007). Of course, the source is also Andrew Ladsky
Suffering the fourth malicious leak in two years, that caused extensive damage to my flat (My Diary 20 July 2007); the previous one, at the beginning of the year narrowly missed my flat (6 February 2007)
Renting a room in East London for seven months, starting in April 2007, in order to give me 'some' feeling of security, and bring back 'some kind' of normality in my life (My Diary 2 August 2006) (Of course, during that time, I continued paying the mortgage on my flat, council tax, water rates, etc. - and the flat remained empty: no point renting it as the person would be harassed e.g. Other Residents; malicious leaks)
(I might ADD other events relating to my ex. employer)
Anybody with a modicum of emotional intelligence would no doubt say: No, 2007 was certainly not a year of 'blessings' for me. It's been hell, a continuation of the 'prison sentence' - in solitary confinement.
However, against all of that, I have had the priceless, unfailing and unbelievable support of my US website Host who stood firm in keeping my site online. It takes a tremendous amount of courage to do what my website Host has done - and continues to do for me. While my website may not bring me justice and redress, I now know that it is helping other leaseholders - hence, giving me the satisfaction of knowing that I am achieving my secondary objective.
Will 2008 be the year that brings me justice and redress? My last letter in 2007 was my 27 December 2007 response to the 20 December 2007 reply from the Customer Service department of Her Majesty Court Justice to my 13 November 2007 complaint against West London County Court (see WLCC # 18.2) . I concluded this letter by saying:
"NO, I DO NOT WANT West London County Court to proceed with my case.
...I insist that my case is IMMEDIATELY transferred to a court and a judge committed to operating under CPR’s ‘Overriding Objective’. (*) Yes, I do still hold the belief that this requirement can be met – although I will admit that this belief is currently being stretched to the limit"
(*) Sourced from the website of the then Department for Constitutional Affairs, on 14 March 2007
Recently, a journalist (Financial Times Magazine, 22-23 Dec 07) (*) talking about the trial of the Nat West Three and Conrad Black in the United States of America, said to be in favour of outsourcing white-collar crime cases to the USA. In light of my experience so far in this country, and on the basis of the tremendous support from my website Host, I sure wish that my case could be transferred to a court in the USA.
(*) Article headed "Job done. Outsourcing admin to india makes sense, so why not white-collar justice to the US?"
Tuesday 9 January 2008
The continuation of what I see as a game being played by the Customer Service department of Her Majesty Court Service (see WLCC # 23 for the 2 January 2008 follow-up to my 27 December 2007 letter - WLCC # 22 ) has led me...
And this is what I had strapped on my back...
...a reproduction of the home page to my website
I wear this practically every time I go out.
I also handout cards depicting this visual.
Before setting out on my protest, I checked the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 to ensure I was not breaching the exclusion zone for protests. (The first person to be fined - and jailed - was in 2007: "Parliament war protester jailed over £600 fine", The Daily Telegraph, 23 Aug 07). The Ministry of InJustice is outside of this zone (so far! :-) )
(Re. this Act: Yes, in spite of being constantly reminded by politicians that this country is a "democracy", protesting within a large area that includes Parliament and other government buildings is regarded as amounting to "Serious Organised Crime". In light of my very comprehensive first-hand experience, I view the title of this Act as being particularly appropriate for the residential leasehold system and its supporting infrastructure - a view shared by e.g. a visitor to my site).
Somebody nonetheless contacted the police as I was approached by a male and a female police officer. The man did the talking. He said that they were from Alpha station (?) He asked for my name in order to complete a form which, 'I think' he referred to as "form 1519".
In reply to my question about the purpose of the form, he told me that it was to record the fact that the police had stopped me to ask me why I was carrying a placard. That it would not lead to my having a police record (!!!) (NB: Control of people through FEAR! (Home Note 4 ; criminalization of 'the little people'). Anyway, I already have a 'police record' - for 'daring' to report harassment - Kensington & Chelsea police # 2 and # 1)
I asked whether I was breaching any laws. "No" was the answer. I consequently challenged him on stopping me, saying that under the Human Rights Act 1998 I have the right to freedom of expression (Article 10). I therefore repeated my question as to his objective in completing the form - to which I was treated to a repeat of the original reply.
The officer then told me that I was under no obligation to comply and that I could also raise a complaint if I so wished. As you can imagine, this led me to laugh (see Kensington & Chelsea police). I gave him a little card of my website suggesting he looks at the section on Kensington & Chelsea police. As to my details, he had a pick of c. 900 documents on my website. I then walked off, wishing them a "good day", and continued to pace up and down the front of the Ministry of Justice building.
A complaint frequently voiced by the police (in the media) is that it has "too much paperwork" to deal with, taking it away from its policing activities. On the basis of this incident (which, in addition to filing in a form, could have potentially led to dealing with a complaint), it leads me to wonder how much of this 'paperwork' is actually self-generated.
What also comes to mind is that it is easier to target me, a non-threatening woman, for no apparent reason - other than, quite clearly, attempt to intimidate me - rather than deal with criminals, including those of the 'white-collar' kind.
On the upside, I received support from passers-by, spurring me on to continue with my fight for justice, to not give up. Three people had themselves / had relatives who had a leasehold flat and had recently received massive, unjustified service charge demands from their landlords, one of which was a council (see My Diary 22 November 2008). A man told me that he was reduced to living on £10 per week (US$17) following a battle with his landlord - but he was not going to give up the fight.
One person told me: "They are not going to do anything love; they are all criminals in there" as he pointed towards the Ministry. Some people lamented the current state of affairs with government overall. I certainly do. At times I could not fight back the tears from finding myself being reduced to having to do this. All I want are the rights I have been told I have the right to demand.
So, I will continue advertising my plight in public places by wearing my back strap, and by holding a placard stating: "Victim of leasehold fraud - Noëlle Rawé - www.leasehold-outrage.com"
...as it prompted:
- two communications from WLCC: an Allocation questionnaire - for which my 26 January 2008 response was to demand that my case is transferred to another court "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"`(see point # 24 ) (NB: Subsequent note: Article 13 is OMITTED from the UK Act)
- an amended version of its 3 April 2007 notice. It therefore took four requests from me over a period of six months to finally get it (see WLCC # 2.2)
w/c 4 February 2008
I have been walking the streets holding this placard
This is what I am reduced to doing in an attempt to get the right to exercise my rights under the Human Rights Act 1998: Article 6 - "Right to fair hearing"
(Forget Article 13 - "Right to effective remedy" It's NOT in the Act)
s previously, I get quite a few people talking to me. It's a great way of finding out what 'the man and woman in the street' think. This week, an MP said on TV that the mood among his constituents is "on the point of insurrection". There is certainly disgust and contempt.
I have been told that this country is "turning into a banana republic". I replied "banana kingdom?". The man laughed and said "Yeah! that's right!". An Englishman asked me what my problem was. Having told him very briefly, he said "This town has turned very, very nasty, it's cut throat now; the law of the jungle"
(This person came across as having 'class'; what I would describe as 'a real Englishman'. This encounter reinforced my perception that what has been happening to me since 2002 would not have happened some twenty five years ago. This was a very different country then).
Another person, of foreign origin, who said to be living in London for the last two years said "There is a lot of corruption here. They say there isn't, but that's not true. The minute you scratch the surface, it's crawling with maggots".
Top of mind seemed to be media reports about a Conservative MP claiming very substantial sums of money for one (or more?) family member/s by (allegedly?) falsely stating that the person/s was/were helping him in his work as an MP. One person said "They are all in there to line their pockets". Another person said "It's not the House of Commons, it's the House of Thieves" (Note at May 2009: This person was spot on!)
Four years ago, an Australian friend told me that, to him, the country looked like a giant bicycle running with nothing to control it: no frame, no handlebar, no chain. Just looking at my (so far) nearly 40 battles since 2002, I now share his view: there is no control. It's like a giant 'trompe l'oeil'. (see 20 Oct 08 for follow-up)
I also had another encounter this week, and it was of a very unpleasant kind: Mr Andrew Ladsky, in one of the local streets.
He told me: "You are mad" (*). This makes it the second time he says this to me. (The previous time was on 19 Ap 05).
I know that this is how Mr Ladsky has been portraying me for a long time - to whoever cares to listen to him, such as e.g. the man who followed me on 16 May 2006. In 2007, he also phoned, as well as wrote to my employer making similar claims (see 15 May 2008).
I shouted back to Mr Ladsky that he is "a criminal" and "a pile of s***" ( you can guess the word). (NB: I am surprised he did not contact his "crime investigators" 'friends' at Kensington & Chelsea police to complain - see K&C police # 2)
And a 'criminal' he certainly is e.g. see below 22 November 2008 'Court claims = FRAUD TOOLS
(*) I thought it was the residential leasehold sector mafia and its supporters' standard way of discrediting women who 'dare' challenge them. I have since discovered that, for the same reason, they can also portray men as 'mad' - My Diary 22 November 2008
(See 15 May 2008, below, for another encounter with Ladsky)
Branding people who expose conduct in breach of legislation / regulations / codes of conduct as 'suffering from mental disorder' appears to be the defence of choice in this country - a practice that seems to me to be reminiscent of medieval times.
I wonder whether the journalist (whistleblower) who, in the last few days, also reported being bugged (*) as well as followed will, like me, be branded as "paranoid" ? (NB: on BBC1 early evening news / local news) (See below, 13 April 2008 for surveillance activities by government departments)
(*) See Persecution # 3: Phones, for extracts from a press articles, and Mobile communications for evidence that my mobile phones are also being interfered with.
And how about the whistleblower who, also in the last few days, reported that the police has 'apparently' been bugging conversations between lawyers and their clients (in a prison environment) - which is of course illegal. Will he be branded as suffering from 'mental disorder'? (Subsequent note: Probably. Yet, he was likely to be right (below))
9 February 2008
More proof that the claim filed against me is FRAUDULENT
Either West London County Court has opted to ignore my correspondence of 26 January 2008 and can 'suddenly' set a case management hearing in the space of four working days - and not inform me of it - or...
... (after being silent since the end of September 2007), Mr Ahmet Jaffer, Portner, is continuing with his games: with a covering letter dated 7 February 2008, he sent me a 'List of Documents: Standard Disclosure', dated 4 February 2008 (Portner # 24)
Comparing the list of documents supplied by his client with the counterclaims / issues I have raised in my 12 September 2007 "Defence & Counterclaim", it is blatantly obvious that they do not address them.
This evidence is to be added to:
- Portner and Jaskel falsely claiming that it had not received my Skeleton Argument (Portner # 17 )
- A four months silence between its 26 September 2007 "Defence to counterclaim" (Portner # 22 ; # 23 ) and this latest document
(Subsequent note - On 6 June 2008 Mr Ladsky dropped "ALL" of the 27 February 2007 claim against me - see below 7 June 2008 entry - preceded by 3 June 2008 which covers my Witness Statement - and 14 August and 26 August 2008 for the preposterous excuse, as well as: 11November 2008 for a 'snapshot' of events during my 16-month battle with Portner and West London County Court; 22 November 2008 for confirmation that court claims = FRAUD TOOLS)
..."Has this country reached the stage where finding a court and a judge committed to operating under the 'Overriding Objective' has become impossible?"...
"To be absolutely clear: I now have NO CONFIDENCE and NO TRUST in WLCC.... I am sure that any fair minded, reasonable person considering what has taken place with this court since 2007, added to what took place in 2002-2004, would have no difficulty understanding my position.
"To also be absolutely clear: if your Court Service wants to continue ‘rolling over’ for Mr
Andrew Ladsky et. al., I am prepared to continue fighting all of you for my right to justice and redress until the very end..."
Yes, I am sure that my 'un-English' way of being very direct and open is 'putting backs up'. At least, 'I' have the guts to say what I think - in a public environment - and to direct it at the people with the responsibility to do something about it - unlike e.g. the spineless, underhanded hypocrites in government who voice criticisms to journalists by only allowing them to attribute their comments to an "unnamed source" .
(To quote Che Guevara: "It is a sad thing to not have friends, but it is even sadder to not have enemies" )
Secondly, as a tax-paying, (law abiding) British Citizen, I have the right to demand access to the justice system.
Thirdly, they have had FIVE YEARS to help me - i.e. perform their remit - before, out of absolute despair, I resorted to launching this website (Home Overview) - and endless opportunities to do so. (Document library summary of my battles)
It is now more than one year since the relaunch
(*) of my website which, at the time, I
hoped would put pressure on resolving my
situation - leading me to close it down shortly
after launching it. Instead, gigantic egos, (instead
of intelligence), have continued to 'attack'
me, redoubling in their efforts to 'finish
me off' by the most unbelievably underhanded
means (e.g. home Introduction).
(*) My Diary: initial launch on 19 September 2006 ; Mr Ladsky's threat of libel action on 3 October 2006 ; my ISP caves in by closing my website on 6 October 2006 ; 17 October 2006 I approach my current ISP, who, by end October 2006, agrees to host my website ; relaunch on Christmas day 2006
'Finishing me off' has been Mr Andrew Ladsky's objective for the last five years as, on 3 January 2003, he told me: "I am going to get you this year!" And he certainly was convinced of this, as he continued to secure assistance from:
(1) West London County Court, when, on 27 August 2003, he called me "a loser"; (2) the triple act between Piper Smith Basham/Watton, Mr Stan Gallagher and Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor, when he greeted me with a very arrogant, smug tone, in November 2003.
Well, five years on, in spite of being 'heavily bruised and battered', I, "the loser" , am still around - not giving up on my fight for justice and redress against the actions he has instigated against me through his supporting bunch of thugs. (See 15 May 2008 , below)
(Subsequent note - A victory to report: on 6 June 2008 Mr Ladsky dropped "ALL" of the 27 February 2007 claim against me - see below 7 June 2008 entry - preceded by 3 June 2008 which covers my Witness Statement. See also My Diary 22 November 2008: court claims = FRAUD TOOLS)
Evidently, none of them believed me when I said that I would fight to the death. They are clearly incapable of 'stepping out of their mindset' and "walking a mile in my shoes". I have been 'turning the other cheek' too many times already - starting with Mr Andrew Ladsky by paying £6,350 (US$11,200) which, legally, I did not owe (see Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor point # 3 , # 6.8 , WLCC point # 12 ; Martin Russell Jones point # 18 ).
(There is space on my website to accommodate a lot more... and the option of sending a copy of it on a CD-ROM to an endless number of parties).
I am absolutely serious about being prepared to end-up 'on the pavement'. There have been a number of occasions during my (so far) six-year 'prison sentence' - during which I have been subjected to mental torture on a daily basis - when I have considered the option of 'ending it all' e.g.
but every time the thought has crossed my mind, I have kicked it away with great force, because resorting to doing this would be very convenient for my 'attackers' and their supporters who have made me go through absolute, sheer utter hell since 2002.
As I continue fighting, the very damning 'black on white' evidence keeps piling up, allowing me to make ever stronger statements / claims / accusations (*) - and add to the horror of my story of what can happen to a leaseholder who 'dares' to challenge a 'sacrosanct' landlord.
What has, and continues to happen, in the 21st century, in a country that is a member of the European Community and has signed-up to the European Convention on Human Rights is absolutely unbelievable - as it is actively / implicitly endorsed by the government. (Meanwhile, it lectures other countries on Human Rights. What hypocrisy!)
(*) Subsequent note: Sure enough! See e.g. My Diary 11Nov 08 'More games and lies' ; 22 Nov 08 'threat of forfeiture, bankruptcy proceedings, as well as court claims = FRAUD TOOLS'
In addition, having
put, not just my head, but 'my whole
body' above 'the parapet', I must 'maximise
my return' by seeing it through to
the very end.
There has to be a positive outcome.
If not for me, then, at least for others ( e.g. My Diary 11 November 2006 ) i.e. have my horrendous, very traumatic experience act as a trigger for change.
I hope that the media will help in achieving this outcome (as, unfortunately, nowadays, action only takes place as a result of 'naming and shaming' in the media).
Saturday 1 March 2008
Following on from the above point:
judging from the lead article in
the latest newsletter from C.A.R.L. (http://www.carl.org.uk),
the c. three million leaseholders certainly need the media's help
to get out of their shackles.
The article, headed "Secret Commonhold consultations" (*) highlights that these consultations
"have been taking place for some time between the government and its friends in the property industry through the Commonhold Consultative Working Group. This group is dominated by developers and others with everything to gain from obstructing commonhold tenure and keeping millions of 'homeowners' trapped in the leasehold system".
...and that these consultations exclude organisations representing leaseholders.
(*) See Mr John Prescott point # 4 (then overall Head of Housing) for some prior events under 'New Labour' in relation to the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002
Adding weight to C.A.R.L.'s position, is the refusal by the civil servant at the Ministry of Justice to provide C.A.R.L....
"...with details of the membership...nor any information about its deliberations - despite the Freedom of Information Act"
'Plus ça change, plus c'est la même
chose' as this department is evidently
continuing in the footsteps of its predecessor,
the Department for Constitutional Affairs
(*), when its Head, Lord
Falconer of Thoroton was reported in 2006
to be "pressing ahead with plans to
limit the Freedom of Information Act" (Falconer # 6 )
(*) Comparing my experience with West London
County Court in
2002-2004 v. since the
of 2007: it's obvious!
Com'on Mr Gordon Brown, Prime Minister, ACT as per your claims during the Party conference last year:
"I have strongly held moral principles of right and wrong. This is my moral compass. This is who I am"
Liberate the leaseholders from
their shackles. How many more websites
like mine relating horror stories
is it going to take to put an end
to the tyranny inflicted by the parasitic
residential leasehold 'mafia'?
As somebody once said "It's
always the right time to do the
But it won't be Gordon Brown, as he has demonstrated that he is not the person he claimed to be: next entry; MPs expenses; inquiry on Iraq war
A visitor to my website sent me a comment saying that she "was devastated that the petition about abolishing leasehold was rejected by government". And added "It is more convenient to them to turn a blind aye on this situation".
On 21 February 2007, I wrote in My Diary "Let's not raise our hopes...". It is blatantly obvious that nothing would be done: it is now 11 years since 'New Labour' launched 'An End to Feudalism' (John Prescott # 4.1 ). What has happened since?
In 2002, a Consultation paper on residential leasehold reform was issued, which again demonstrated awareness of the highly abusive practices of some landlords: "despite all the safeguards, bad landlords have found ways to continue with their old abuses, and have invented some new ones". (In light of my very comprehensive first-hand experience since 2002, landlords' aides comprising of rogue lawyers, accountants and surveyors need to also be included).
The reply to the petition talks about the introduction of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002. See John Prescott # 4.2 on how it has translated in practice.
See also the experience of a group of leaseholders trying to buy the freehold on their flats (My Diary 11 Nov 06). One year later, also at the C.A.R.L. AGM, the same leaseholder representative said that they were still battling out in court with the freeholder. The cost to the leaseholders by then? c. £250,000 (US$441,000). (And much higher since: see My Diary 22 Nov 08)
I think you will agree that these leaseholders' experience, added to the comments in the House of Lords and the House of Commons, fly in the face of the claim made in the 5 March 2008 response that the 2002 Act "makes the purchase of the freehold...easier".
Consider also that, in spite of its very forceful criticisms of the residential leasehold system in its 1997 "An End to Feudalism", New Labour has retained the barbaric forfeiture legislation (John Prescott # 4.3 ). In its 5 March 2008 reply, the Office of the Prime Minister would have us believe that it is concerned about a potential breach of Human Rights if it were to impose a commonhold form of tenure. Why isn't it concerned about forfeiture which IS a blatant breach of Human Rights?
The reality is that landowners in this country are a very powerful group - as highlighted by Mr Barry Gardiner, MP, during his 8 January 2002 speech to the House of Commons (John Prescott # 7 ) (See also the 'Great Estates' ; 'Who owns Britain?' ; examples of new entrants). It can also be said that they have very far reaching tentacles.
Judged on its performance to date, all that New Labour has done since coming to power is help them strengthen, rather than loosen their hold (for other examples see e.g. John Prescott # 5 and # 6 ).
As accurately stated by C.A.R.L. : "New Labour will be remembered as the party that promoted the expansion of a policy (residential leasehold) that is a millennium out of date"
In the 5 March 2008 response from the Office of the Prime Minister, I also note the claim that the government is:
"making the resolution of disputes quicker, easier and cheaper by moving jurisdiction for the majority of disputes from the courts to the leasehold valuation tribunal"
Why has Deputy District Judge (*) McGovern, West London County Court, denied my application for transfer of my case to the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal on 24 August 2007?
Why am I being treated differently?,
Subsequent note - My answer: Because the LVT would have had to recognise the evidence in support of my position that the 27 February 2007 claim is fraudulent. (I certainly would have made sure that it did). So, it was 'best' to keep the case under the control of WLCC. But the plan failed as Mr Ladsky eventually 'threw in the towel' on 6 June 2008 (see below, 7 June 2008)
And because it was a set-up (WLCC # 5.2 , # 11 ; My Diary 11 Nov 08 'More lies and games' ; my 19 January 2009 reply to to the points of dispute ; 'court claims = FRAUD TOOLS' ; [ADD])
(*) Practising solicitors and barristers sit as Judges and Registrars in the courts. It is commonly recognised that it can result in unfair judgements. Consider that they can potentially preside over a case involving their own firm. How about that for conflict of interest!
13 March 2008
West London County Court's reply to my 26 January 2008 letter was the threat to "strike out [my] defence" - which could have left the "the claimant" free "to apply for a judgment" against me
On 13 March 2008, I took delivery of a 7 March 2008 Order from West London County Court, posted on 10 March 2008. It states:
"Before District Judge Ryan...It is ordered that unless the Defendant do file and serve a completed allocation questionnaire by no later the 4.00 pm on the 14 March 2008, that the Defence be struck out without further order from the court"
The covering letter states a consequence of this as "the Claimant may apply for judgment"
Had I gone to my PO Box one day later (!!!), you can bet your bottom dollar that this what would have happened... no doubt leading all to have a celebration.
In light of the threat from West London County Court (*), added to being reminded of other leaseholders' appalling experience with other courts, as well as tribunals, I opted to return the Allocation questionnaire - supported by notes - explaining why I could not answer the majority of the questions, in the process repeating for the nth time the major issues.
(*) Subsequent note: I have discovered that these terms are stated under Civil Procedure Rules Part 26, Rule 2.5
Given the deadline, I hand-delivered the documents to West London County Court on 14 March - as testified by the stamp from the court on the first page of the Allocation questionnaire.
Having given me a 24-hr turnaround, by 13 April, i.e. one month later, I have yet to hear from the court. I wonder why? Has my reply spoilt a plan? I am tempted to compare the pressure placed on me with that previously used in the 27 September 2007 Order. However, it would be unfair as, when it first sent me an allocation questionnaire in January, the court did give me considerable time to reply.
23 March 2008
Today's Mail on Sunday, "I’m half bulimic ... I eat a lot but don’t throw up, Minister tells his baffled guests", reports the comments made by the "Trade Minister, Lord Jones, formerly Sir Digby Jones" to some foreign businessmen and diplomats. He is quoted as saying:
"We don't care what colour you are;
we don't care if we can't pronounce your names,
and we don't care where your money comes from.
We just want you to invest in our country".
It caused a 'bit of a stir'. I don't see why. It's the truth. He could have added: and you will be able to find greed-ridden lawyers, surveyors, accountants, who will happily breach legislation, regulations, codes of conduct on your behalf - as they do not have to worry about sanctions from the 'regulators' (see Overview of my complaints). Oh yeah! in our country, money can give you carte blanche to do whatever you want, and buy you 'friends' wherever you need them.
(Subsequent note - And by that we mean: all the way up to the House of Lords where we can change legislation to suit your specific needs. 'Service' also available in the House of Commons) (As you can see, I was not exaggerating in the claims I made at the time I wrote this entry)
Having said that, while many are corruptible (e.g. My Diary 22 Nov 08 ; Jan 09 ; 11 Nov 08), some deplore the 'blindfold attitude' - and have the courage to say so publicly e.g. 'Letters to the Editor' in C.A.R.L.'s Spring 2008, Issue 23 newsletter, from a member of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales (ICAEW):
"As a chartered accountant I personally am horrified at the abject disregard by my Institute for its responsibilities in respect of leasehold trust accounts. I have submitted complaints about two accounting firms...and discovered that the procedures of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales (ICAEW) made it as difficult as possible to obtain any form of satisfaction...
...the ICAEW appears to wholly disregard the outrageous misbehaviour of landlords and their managing agents, failing entirely to bring professional parties associated with or supportive of such miscreants to account.
In conclusion, I agree wholeheartedly with your statement: The time is long overdue when accountants can no longer regulate themselves"
e.g. A member of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, the Managing Director of a firm of managing agents was reported in the 10 June 2006 issue of the Estates Gazette as saying (in relation to gross over-charging on insurance premiums by managing agents)
"The alternative is that managing agents improve the professionalism of their service."
"It will take an almighty shake-up to clean up the sector and improve standards"
See Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors point # 6, for industry observers' comments.
And some of our regulators can 'show their teeth' e.g. Office of Fair Trading (OFT) re. allegations of collusion among construction companies - which include Mansell (# 12 on OFT list; company that carried out the works at Jefferson House). Although allegations refer to both, private and public sector contracts, the OFT is limiting its investigation to the latter. Of course! Why bother about the 'little people'!
13 April 2008 - A brave, courageous Member of Parliament
Under the entry for 18 February 2008, I had 'a go' at the "spineless, underhanded hypocrites in government" who voice criticisms to journalists by only allowing them to attribute their comments to an "unnamed source" . What was fresh in my mind at the time was BBC2's
Newsnight reporting on MPs' perceptions of the House of Commons Speaker. To demonstrate the response Newsnight had received from the MPs when it asked whether it could quote them, it showed telephone handsets being slammed down, as well as doors being slammed shut.
Well, there is at least one MP with courage: today's
Mail on Sunday (*) reports that Douglas Carswell, Conservative MP, has spoken out. He is quoted as saying:
"No other MPs have so far been willing to speak out. I am the first. Apparently, I am told, it's "just not cricket". It's not what "one does if one wants to get on". Besides, don't I know that if I upset him, Mr Speaker might not call me to speak in a debate again? Well, I'm trying to represent my constituents, not play cricket. I am not in politics to "get on",
but to speak up.
And if Mr Speaker does take
umbrage and not call on me to speak, surely
that merely reinforces the point I am trying
(*) At: http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=559309&in_page_id=1770
In the 'Comment' section, the Mail on Sunday wrote: "At last a lone, brave MP dares to say what others only mutter behind their hands... Douglas Carswell deserves enormous credit for breaking rank..." . Yep! agree. Big tick for Mr Carswell.
I know only too well what it takes 'to speak out' - (as do other whistleblowers). Hopefully, unlike me, Mr Carswell will not suffer detrimental consequences. At least, he has some buffer to protect him, not least the fact that he is a man and, I assume, unlike me, not of foreign origin.
(My 'double handicap' in standing-up and fighting for my rights in what is a male dominated environment. Add to that the fact that, as a non-lawyer, I am representing myself. In a status-conscious, lawyer-dominated environment, this must be perceived as 'unbelievable arrogance'.
However, drawing on my very comprehensive first-hand experience with the legal sector, I am of the view that frustration is top of the list as, by representing myself, it precludes the possibility of collusion. Oh well, that still leaves the court!). (Note at end April: Yep! as I expected - see 30 Apr 08 - and more evidence at 30 Jan 09)
I hope that others in government will follow Mr Carswell's lead on 'speaking out', and give priority to their stated responsibility over their personal agenda... my situation is crying out for such a change in attitude. (Fat chance of them doing that. They are too busy lining their pockets)
(Link to Leasehold)
More people willing to 'speak
out'. This time about being spied on by a local council
A couple in Poole, Dorset, reported being spied on by their local council for more than two weeks because of suspicions that they had enlisted their child in a school outside of their catchment area (see story on the BBC's website.
They were so shocked that surveillance had been used in this kind of situation that (I assume) they contacted the media.
Human rights pressure group Liberty called the spying "ridiculously disproportionate" and "intrusive". It is also reported as saying:
"It's one thing to use covert surveillance in operations investigating terrorism and other serious crimes, but it has come to a pretty pass when this kind of intrusive activity is used to police school catchment areas.
This is a ridiculously disproportionate use of RIPA [The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000] (see also below) and will undermine public trust in necessary and lawful surveillance"
This is to be added to another example, that of the journalist who reported (among other), being followed.
Who else is being spied on in 'Stasi', Orwellian Britain? EVERYBODY! (At June 2013: I was right!)
Daily Telegraph articles: 15 Nov 10: "Big Brother Britain has grown out of all proportion", covers numerous areas; CCTV, the Intercept Modernisation Programme, covert surveillance, fingerprinting of children, etc;
Daily Telegraph, 15 Dec 10: "Surveillance state 'more intrusive than ever'"
"Britons are already the most-watched citizens in the democratic world because of an array of systems including CCTV, cameras that track vehicles, vast government databases and the sharing of personal data... use of unmanned helicopter drones... was “quite probable”..." [NB: It has happened].
(Yes, Ms Alibhai-Brown, "...Britannia as she was burns, burns down..." - and far too few of those affected are trying to put out the fires).
Some of the tools of Orwellian, 'Stasi' Britain include:
- (5)- A 'superdatabase' "to capture the world's e-mails, calls, texts and internet use".
- (11)- Law firms, and many others, employing individuals, on behalf of their clients, to fraudulently obtain highly confidential information on their client's opponent
Other examples of what is happening in practice
(1)- REGULATION OF INVESTIGATORY POWERS ACT 2000 (RIPA)
(See Definitions for extracts)
30 Sep 07, Daily Mail: "councils have the power to access telephone or mobile records, although not the content of calls...last year they made 1,700 requests to access the information".
Councils are just one of "800 public bodies and quangos with this power" (1)
"Tax inspectors have been given wide-ranging new powers to bug people's homes and private phone calls. They also have the go-ahead to intercept emails and plant listening devices in suspects' cars and offices" (2)
6 Jun 08, the Daily Mail reported that Kensington & Chelsea Council (covers my area) "used RIPA powers to spy on a resident who they suspected of misusing a disabled parking badge".
"Last year, councils and government departments made 12,494 applications to use 'direct surveillance', the equivalent of 34 requests every day".
15 Mar 08 (pg 8), Daily Mail: "More than 850 of the so-called 'covert human intelligence sources' have been recruited over the last two years by local authorities and government departments to snoop on the public.
Government papers say that they include agents, informants and officers working undercover - at a reported annual cost of £150m [US$265m]".
4 Nov 11, Telegraph - "Councils have mounted millions of snooping operations in past decade, finds report": Reporting the findings of human rights group, Justice:
"Public bodies have sought to use the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (Ripa) on nearly three million occasions in the past decade to snoop on people ; 20,000+ warrants for the interception of phone calls, emails, and internet use ; 30,000 directed surveillance, where someone can be followed, have their house watched ;
2.7 million requests for phone bills or location data ; 4,000 authorisations for intrusive surveillance, where bugs are planted [in houses and cars]"
"Many more cases have never been made public, such as the warrants and authorisations on behalf of the security and intelligence services, including MI5, MI6, and GCHQ"
"Fewer than 5,000 applications were approved by a judge [not a safeguard!]...the Investigatory Powers Tribunal [QB # 6(1)] only upheld 10 of 1,100 complaints" [see Indy article of 17 Jan 13]
1 Jul 11, Guardian - "Snooping requests on the rise":
"Public bodies asked for confidential communications information on more than half a million occasions last year – a rate of one every minute - an increase of 10% in 2 years, fueling concerns of a growing surveillance state".
"The majority came from police and security services". "This includes list of telephone numbers dialed and email addresses to which messages have been sent, but not their content". (*)
17 Mar 13, Metro - "Big Brother is watching: Department for Transport and 27 councils spend £3.9 million to snoop on you":
"Research by civil liberties and privacy campaigners Big Brother Watch (BBW) claims that the Department for Transport (DfT) and 27 councils in England and Wales have paid private investigators to spy on their behalf"
BBW is also reported as saying: "Unlike the US, British law isn’t strong enough to stop evidence obtained by illegal surveillance being used in court and the punishments for people deliberately flouting the law are trivial."
ITV - reported the councils as including mine, Kensington & Chelsea.
What must be noted is that the above data is based on those who responded to the requests for information. The numbers will be much higher than those quoted above - because there is ABSOLUTELY NO control - as evidenced by the abuses that are taking place.
Further, as reported in the above, 30 Sep 07 Daily Mail article, there are over 800 bodies with the right to snoop (listed under Schedule 1 of RIPA - see extracts in My Diary 2011).
The obvious conclusion is that there are tens of thousands of official snoops / goons spying on the population. Certainly, (as I have discovered), the centre of London is literally, crawling with them, on foot - and in unmarked cars and vans.
(How many people does it take to implement e.g. 12,500 surveillance authorisations over 1 year...- with EACH spanning over many days, weeks and months, and some even longer?)
(On 28th/29th Aug 14, on BBC Radio 4 World Tonight, I heard Lord Carlisle say that it requires 60 people to have somebody followed for 1 year).
This, added to: (1) the spy systems; (2) the criminal psychological harassment; (3) the 'little people's inability to stop the blatant abuse of power by the state...
- lead me to conclude that this kingdom has adopted the Stasi model - lock, stock and barrel, while updating it - principally for the benefit of 'certain criminals'.
Even Members of Parliament appear to not be immune from having their telephone conversations listened to by the state (as opposed to, apparently, by some media organisation/s) - and nor are journalists (My Diary w/c 4 Feb 08)...
(1) And 'maybe' their movements were also tracked through the 'spy bins' (below).
(2) 'Interesting' to see how THEY react when THEY find themselves on the receiving end of what THEY allowed to be done to 'the little people' e.g. below, # 2, hacking into computers).
To be expected: some councils use RIPA to silence whistleblowers e.g.
"The tentacles of the Secret State extend even as far as a branch of Starbucks in Derby", Private Eye, 1380 – 28 Nov – 11 Dec 14, pg 14 (see extracts under Whistleblowers, UK Gvt local)
POLICE ACT 1997
Powers under this Act have come to be known as the "bug and burgle" powers. See Definitions for extracts.
INTELIGENCE SERVICES ACT 1994
Gives GCHQ the right "to monitor or interfere" with electronic communications. Definitions for extracts.
(It sure does that - on a MEGA SCALE - see below, # 6)
INVESTIGATORY POWERS BILL
In the 2015 Queen's speech - "An Investigatory Powers Bill - "Security services' powers to be extended in wide-ranging surveillance bill", The Guardian, 27 May 15
"allowing tracking individual web and social media use, but also giving the security services’ powers of bulk interception of the content of communications." (1)
"It will also “provide appropriate oversight and safeguard arrangements” (2)
Private Eye, 1417, 29 Apr-12 May 16 (pg 16) - "Online snooping - A snooping update...":
"After finally admitting the existence of bulk personal datasets (BPDs) last year, MI5 gave the “electoral roll, telephone directories or travel-related data” as examples."
"It now emerges they go rather further than that, with routine requisitioning of innocent people’s medical records, communications with their lawyer, financial data and even the petitions they’ve signed."
“Some of this data is publicly available, some of it is purchased and some of it is acquired covertly”, reads a newly disclosed MI6 note."
"…through its new Investigatory Powers Bill the government is trying to legitimise techniques it’s been using illegally for years , all without revealing what those techniques are."
"...it legalises the secret activities of GCHQ that were revealed by CIA whistleblower Edward Snowden – described as “equipment interference” in the bill, but better known to the rest of us as hacking.
"The bill obliges tech companies to help them with this hacking through “the removal of electronic protection applied by a relevant operator to any communication or data”. But it doesn’t make it clear whether companies could be forced to remove end-to-end encryption."
If all devices are made deliberately crackable, eventually all devices will be cracked – either by criminals or by other governments. Internet banking will no longer be safe and nor will anything else online."
"Theresa May’s surveillance plans should worry us all", The Guardian, 12 Jun 16 - By John Naughton
"...the new investigatory powers bill...is a Machiavellian masterpiece..."
"...under cover of the resulting fuss, it slipped in authorisation of a massive extension of intrusive state power under the banal heading of "equipment interference"."
"..."equipment interference" is authorised hacking. It's what the security services have been doing covertly for ages without, as far as I can see, explicit legal authorisation."
"What it means is anything from penetrating computer systems by covertly installing malware (viruses, trojans etc) on to them, using keyloggers to monitor every keystroke, tapping into cables, installing malware on smartphones and so on." (*)
Continued to go at great speed, it then received Royal assent: "Snooper's charter bill becomes law, extending UK surveillance", The Guardian, 29 Nov 16.
"Porn crackers", Private Eye, 9-22 Dec 16:
"The government is to force internet users to hand over their personal details whenever they want to watch porn."
"Under the misleadingly named Digital Economy Bill, which has just sailed through its third reading without a vote , it will be necessary to prove one’s age before accessing any type of porn....
[by giving] for example, credit card details, even for free sites – or other personal information, such as driving licence data or your National Insurance number."
"This data, along with the name of the site visited, will be retained for future reference." (*)
(1)- My initial assumption is that it is intended to protect children. However, the "without a vote" suggests that it is of no concern to legislators (MPs and peers).
(2)- WHY retain the data?
Will users end-up getting a visit by the state to discuss ‘their habits'? Or, will the snoops use this as free market research for identifying 'the best sites'?
Combine that with the state’s track record on 'looking after people’s data' (MPs page).
The following are brief extracts from an article in The Sunday Times of 4 Jan 09, headed "Police to step up hacking of home PCs" with sub-title "Under a new EU rule, officers can snoop on your e-mails":
"The Home Office has quietly adopted a new plan to allow police across Britain to hack into people's personal computers without a warrant.
The move follows a decision by the European Union's council of ministers... [It led] civil liberty groups and opposition MPs [to] describe it as a sinister extension of the surveillance state that drives "a coach and horses" through privacy laws...
...It allows French, German and other EU countries to ask British officers to hack into someone's UK computer and pass on any any material found...
An amendment to the Computer Misuse Act 1990 made hacking legal if it was authorised and carried out by the state". (1)
"A remote search can be granted if a senior officer says he "believes" that it is "proportionate" and necessary to prevent or detect serious crime - defined as any offence attracting a jail sentence of more than three years" (2)
The article reports the means for hacking as: (1) A 'keylogging' device in the computer that records and transmits suspect's keystrokes typed [KPMG did this to me];
(2) "Virus or 'malware' sent as an attachment to an e-mail to monitor all internet activity"; (3) "Surveillance van  from which officers can hack into a home or office computer via wireless network" (3)
"Intelligence officers given immunity from hacking laws, tribunal told", The Guardian, 15 May 15
Reports that the human rights watchdog, Privacy International, has filed a complaint with the Investigatory Powers Tribunal about the state "making under the radar changes to the Computer Misuse Act (changes introduced by the Serious Crime Act 2015)" .
"The unnoticed re-writing of a key clause gives GCHQ staff, intelligence officers and police immunity from prosecution for hacking into computers, laptops and mobile phones..." (1)
"It is not known what category of offences are covered" (1)
"In February, the Home Office did publish a “draft equipment interference code of practice” which explained how law enforcement officials could track down serious criminals  and terrorists  by hacking into their computers."
In fact it's a lot more than computers:
Private Eye, 1409, 8-21 Jan 16 (pg 30):
In the context of the government's decision to fast track the Investigatory Powers Bill (above), the Eye reports the assessment of "Ross Anderson, professor of security engineering at Cambridge University:
"He pointed out that it is not just computers that will be spied on, but “everything going over your Wi-Fi network will be included, from your iKettle to your smart TV. “Even toy dolls now talk to data centres"
"Great British Firewall” proposed by the surveillance agency GCHQ",
"GCHQ's 'Great British Firewall' raises serious concern – privacy groups", The Guardian, 14 Sep 16 (1)
"Privacy groups have expressed serious concern at the prospect of a "Great British Firewall" to protect major British companies against malicious hackers."
"They said they were worried that it could be used to deny freedom of speech , with the government potentially able to designate sites they disapprove of as “malware”."
"Thomas Falchetta, a legal officer for Privacy International, said: “Given the broad scope of GCHQ’s hacking operations both domestically and abroad , this seems like the fox protecting the chicken.”"
"Michael Harris, an adviser to Don’t Spy On US, an umbrella group for privacy organisations, said: “It is outrageous. It is what China is up to...China’s Great Firewall is used for extensive censorship of sites it judges to be hostile."
(3)- Pre-broadcast censorship of programmes, and a Home Office "extremism analysis unit"
"Theresa May's plan to censor TV shows condemned by Tory cabinet colleague", The Guardian, 21 May 15
"Theresa May’s proposal to give Ofcom the new powers to take pre-emptive action against programmes that included “extremist content”" (1)
"May...said the government had to look at the role of Ofcom in relation to “what is being beamed into people’s homes”." (2)
"Last week’s Downing Street statement also confirmed there will be legislation to introduce...extremism-disruption orders to “combat groups and individuals who reject our values  and promote messages of hate”,..." (4)
The Home Office has an "extremism analysis unit".
(1)- As can be seen from the reports included under this section, the British state's definition of "extremism" defies the imagination.
What will replace "the extremist content"? On the telescreens: 'The Two-Minutes Hate', with contents devised by the 'Ministry of Truth' - as already tested extensively e.g. the hate campaign against: (1)- immigrants; (2)- 'benefit cheats'.
(No, I do not condone cheating. However, I do get very angry to see that those on the lower rungs of society get sanctioned, while e.g. those in the financial sector who have caused thousands of times bigger losses to society get away scot-free.
Add to that the fact that, after the 2008 financial meltdown, THEY were bailed out with over one trillion pounds of taxpayer money - making them, surely, the biggest scroungers ever).
(2)- How about "the government looking at" the criminals it is - deliberately - inflicting on people in their home? Oh! Forgot! They are perceived to be making "cherished contributions".
(3)- The 'great' "British Values" - as exemplified by the conduct of Theresa May et.al. in the Establishment
(4)- That's Theresa May out then - as she is a KEY instigator of "hate" in this island-kingdom. Er, well, no! One year later, she became the unelected prime minister.
(See also: # 1, above, the planned "Extremism Bill"; below, # 8, 'Confidential Intelligence Unit' and "domestic extremism")
(4)- Extraction of data from people's mobile phones: (1)- through 'spy bins' (YES!); (2)- by the police, etc.
(My photograph - at Barbican station)
Use of 'spy bins' (1)
Quartz first reported the news that Renew London (obviously with the endorsement of the City of London), fitted recycle bins (photograph) in the business district, with technology that allows tracking people's movements through their mobile phones.
TechEye, 12 Aug 13, "Londoners stalked by data harvesting recycle bins" - reported that between end May-early June 13 "over four million events were captured, with over 530,000 unique devices captured."
The excuse from Renew London's CEO Kaveh Memari? - reported in The Guardian, 14 Aug 13, "Cyber spies in London recycle bins told to move on":
"He told Quartz, "London is the most heavily surveillanced city in the world,"... As long as we don't add a name and home address, it's legal." (2)
(iii)- Private Eye, # 1362, 21 Mar-3 Apr 14, pg 31 - "Dodgy data deals"
"Between them, consumer intelligence companies, credit reporting agencies and data marketing firms hold detailed and current information on almost the entire population.
They often suffer data breaches...Since there is no law requiring big data companies to reveal hacking or even use encryption, it usually gets covered up. Only when the damage is massive do we see it in the news, as was the case with [4 named companies] recently."
"While Washington is looking hard at Silicon Valley data brokers in the US…the chances of scrutiny here look slim, even though some of the biggest companies directly named in the inquiry report…also operate extensively in the UK."
"Judging by how the Data Protection Act is taken as a joke by techies and as a useless tool by prosecutors [*], few indeed."
(*) Add to that judges who, for the purpose of assisting persecution - totally ignore it; Queen's Bench - MPS Summaries: Events ; Breaches of the law.
Private Eye, # 1360 – 21 Feb–6 Mar14, pg 29:
"EYESPY – Target market – Documents released by campaigning group Privacy International at the end of last year under the banner of the Surveillance Industry Index give a revealing glimpse of UK firms’ marketing of spy products to anybody who’s prepared to pay."
"Panoptech's mapping software helps the user spy on people's mobile communications and movements...The partners listed on Panoptech's site include BT, Dell, Vodafone and Orange."
"Cambridge Consultants, sells wireless data collection devices that record identification details from mobile phones in the vicinity."
"In this profit-driven orgy of spying and monitoring, it’s hard to know where privacy ends and unlawful surveillance and data collection begin."
"Use of indiscriminate phone interception by police increases", The Guardian, 11 Oct 16
“Documents obtained by Bristol Cable, a citizen media cooperative [revealed] controversial surveillance technology that indiscriminately harvests information from mobile phones being used by at least seven police forces across the country:
Metropolitan Police [MET], West Mercia, Warwickshire, West Midlands, South Yorkshire, Staffordshire, Avon and Somerset."
"The hardware, known as an IMSI catcher, tracks handsets across an area of several miles, connecting to them by impersonating phone masts, and can be used to pinpoint owners’ location or intercept phone calls and text messages”
"The hardware is also referred to as CCDC, covert communications data capture. A MET document shows £1,037,223 allocated for “CCDC” to telecommunications firm CellXion."
"The police refused to acknowledge the acquisition of this technology…claiming that any disclosures could assist criminals and terrorists."
[How - given that it has been known for at least 2 years (above) that they use it?
= the standard excuse from Her Majesty's police...that has a very unique definition of "criminals"]
(1) In the light of the so-called "crime reports" Her Majesty's police holds against me = translate into the exact opposite.
(2) Lie exposed - as another media subsequently reported that the technology can be used (= IS USED) to extract mobiles' data at e.g. demonstrations. (A technology already supplied to e.g. the Forward Intelligence Teams (below)?)
Note also that the police already has the technology to stop communications to / from mobile phones within a certain radius (to interfere with demonstrations / protests). (Looks like we should start breeding carrier pigeons!... until they also find a way of catching them).
(5)- A superdatabase "to capture the world's e-mails, calls, texts and internet use".
See below, # 6.
(6)- Database to monitor people's movements in and out of the UK
8 Feb 09, The Sunday Times - "Spy centre will track you on holiday" - "The government is building a secret database to track and hold the international travel records of all 60m Britons. 
"The intelligence centre will store names, addresses, telephone numbers, seat reservations, travel itineraries and credit card details...for up to 10 years...the spy centre will house more than 300 police and immigration officers.
A similar number of technicians will help check travelers' details against police, MI5, benefit agency and other government "watch lists" ..."
"...opposition MPs, privacy campaigners and some government officials fear it is a significant step towards a total surveillance society...
Some immigration officials with knowledge of the plans admit there is likely to be public concern. "A lot of this stuff will have legitimate use in the fight against crime and terrorism, but it's what else it could be used for that presents a problem"" (2)
(7)- Reports by the House of Lords - CCTV, etc. Recording of people's conversations.
8 Feb 09, The Sunday Times - "Spy centre will track you on holiday" (see entry, above)
"In a report last week ['Surveillance: Citizens and the Sate'], the House of Lords constitution committee, whose members include Lord Woolf, the former lord chief justice, called for a significant cut back in the state's surveillance powers.
It said Britain's traditions of privacy and democracy were under threat from pervasive and routine electronic spying and the mass collection of personal information".
[Come on! You ALL get massive kicks from spying on 'the little people' e.g.
"State spying helps to create extremists. My father was one of them", The Guardian, 31 Aug 16 - by Francis Beckett...
- who reports his father being spied on between 1945 and 1955, and his "reading at the National Archives, verbatim my parents’ telephone conversations from 60 years ago..."
He said: "When these restrictions were lifted, the surveillance continued, masterminded by Graham Mitchell, who became deputy director of MI5 in 1956...."
"[his] memoranda...betray a deeply unhealthy pleasure in the secret power his position gave him over the life of another man."
The Guardian, 6 Feb 09, also covered this report - "Lords: rise of CCTV is threat to freedom - World's most pervasive surveillance undermines basic liberties, say peers."(1)
"The peer say Britain has constructed one of the most extensive and technologically advanced surveillance systems in the world in the name of combating terrorism and crime and improving administrative efficiency..." (2)
"...Although many surveillance practices and data collection processes are unknown to most people , the expansion in their use represents "one of the most significant changes in the life of the nation since the end of the second world war", the report says.
The committee warns that the national DNA database (on which "more than 7% of the population is already logged") could be used for "malign purposes" , challenges whether CCTV cuts crime and questions whether local authorities should be allowed to use surveillance powers at all..."
"But the report is silent on proposals from Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary, for a "superdatabase" tracking everybody's emails, calls, texts and internet use and from Jack Straw, the then justice secretary [or, as I preferred to call him: the InJustice secretary] to lower barriers on the widespread sharing of personal data across the public sector" (5)
(2)- Omitted: (1) 'To assist and protect 'certain criminals' like e.g. Andrew Ladsky and his gang of racketeers', (2) by neutralizing"domestic extremists" 'like me'.
(3)- Of their own doing, as the Lords (and MPs) devised / endorsed the legislation that prevents people from finding it out: the highly secretive Investigatory Powers Tribunal
(4)- See below, database with 16 million photographs. And that's not the only one! See breach Data Protection Act 1998
(5)- 15 Nov 10, Daily Telegraph - "Big Brother Britain has grown out of all proportion", reported, among others, an intention by the new administration to go ahead with this database.
IN FACT, they (Labour and members of the subsequent Coalition) were all laughing their head off at us - as,
by 2010, GCHQ had already set-up this MEGA-database (Operation Tempora) - hacking into, not just the UK's, but also "the world's phone calls and internet traffic, and accessing the content of emails":
"GCHQ taps fibre-optic cables for secret access to world's communications", Guardian, 21 Jun 13.
The following year: "Vodafone reveals existence of secret wires that allow state surveillance", See extracts under Intro to 'surveillance' legislation, on the Persecution page.
And note also that phone companies have staff on the Home Office's payroll.
(No wonder "the report was silent on the proposals")
In 2009, as they were finalising it:
"GCHQ denies snooping claim", Guardian, 4 May 09
"In an unusual move in response to a weekend report, the agency, which does not usually comment on media stories, said in a statement: "GCHQ is not developing technology to enable the monitoring of all internet use and phone calls in Britain, or to target everyone in the UK.
Similarly, GCHQ has no ambitions, expectations or plans for a database or databases to store centrally all communications data in Britain."
Recording in the streets - "Council plans to listen in on street life", Telegraph, 4 May 05 - "Westminster council is planning to attach 24-hour surveillance microphones to its lamp posts". "CCTV camera microphones to be axed"
Telegraph, 27 Jan 08 - "Some councils, including Westminster in London, began testing the new cameras last year... Many are fitted with microphones which can "bug" conversations up to 100 yards away".
"The Information Commissioner said that the use of cameras to record voices would be allowed only in "extremely special circumstances" such as the detection of crime." (*)
(8)- Confidential Intelligence Unit and/or the National Public Order Intelligence Unit - police National Database - and recruitment of informers by the police
8 Feb 09, Mail on Sunday - "Secret police to spy on British 'subversives"
"The Confidential Intelligence Unit (CIU) is a secret police intelligence unit set-up to spy on Left-wing and Right-wing political groups... and will mount surveillance and run informers on 'domestic extremists'.
Its job is to build up a detailed picture of radical campaigners...the unit will work closely with Government departments, university authorities and private sector companies to 'remove the threat of criminality and public disorder that arises from domestic extremism..." (1)
"...The CIU will also use legal proceedings to prevent details of its operations being made public". "Its chief will play an active part in obtaining Public Interest Immunity Certificates from Government Ministers" (2)
22 May 10, Daily Mail - "Police keep secret files on 1,900 protesters". It states:
"After taking over MI5’s covert role watching groups such as the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, trade union activists and Left-wing journalists six years ago, ACPO’s National Coordinator for Domestic Extremism (NCDE) has now given a detailed description of its work for the first time.
It says it is targeting domestic extremism  ‘most commonly associated with “single-issue” protests, such as animal rights, environmentalism, anti-globalisation or anti-GM crops’.
It is also combating ‘crime and public disorder linked to extreme Left or Right-wing political campaigns". "...the information [on people] comes from police forces." (2)
A fellow pensioner, John Catt, aged 86, was categorised as "a domestic extremist" for attending peacefully protest marches, and closely monitored (Guardian article, 3 May 11 "Protester to sue police over secret surveillance").
(Typically) facing a police that acts like Rottweilers, he issued proceedings that led to the Court of Appeal which ruled that including him on the police's National Extremism Database "breached his human right to respect for private life"
("Police surveillance of this kind undermines our democracy': Judges rule that action against peaceful protester John Catt was unlawful", Independent, 14 Mar 13).
Of course, the Rottweilers appealed and, (unsurprisingly e.g. My Diary 2011-Intro) after this victory intended to string him along, John Catt lost his legal battle at the supreme court in 2015
("The Supreme Court ruled that the police had lawfully kept the records on Catt", The Guardian, 4 Mar 15) (copy of judgment) (*)
In 2016 John Catt took his six-year battle to the European Court of Human Rights ("Protester, 91, goes to European court over secret police files", The Guardian, 25 July 16). In the light of my experience with this court e.g. Overview # 18(3) to # 18(5) - I wish him the very best of luck.
(*) The Network for police monitoring reported this as "Supreme Court grants “judicial approval for the mass surveillance of UK protest movements”", 3 Mar 15. Among other, it states:
"... intelligence-gathering itself remains highly secretive and the process for challenging it is deeply flawed."
Also: "The Supreme Court says that overt intelligence-gathering “has never been concealed from those who wish to know about these matters”.
Netpol’s experience working with campaigners to obtain alleged ‘domestic extremist’ data suggests the exact opposite....if information is provided, it is often partial and incomplete." (1)
And: "This case also demonstrates the limits of relying on the courts to protect against unwarranted police surveillance." (2)
"A group of journalists is also taking legal action against the police" [reported at the time of the above John Catt case] after discovering that the “domestic extremism” unit had recorded its professional activities on a database" (The Guardian, 20 Nov 14)
"The group, whose case is supported by the National Union of Journalists, said it was challenging a decision by the police to refuse to disclose the most up-to-date parts of the files to them during the legal action."
18 Oct 13, Guardian - "Police face legal challenge over secret files on protesters"
"Campaigners to sue over national domestic extremism database, which lists many people with no criminal record." "The latest available total [of individuals on the database] is 7,500, although it is known to have topped 9,000."
24 Apr 09, Guardian - "Police caught on tape trying to recruit Plane Stupid protester as spy". It states that
"Undercover police are running a network of hundreds of informants inside protest organisations who secretly feed them intelligence in return for cash, according to evidence handed to the Guardian".
(NB: Another example in support of my conclusion that there must be tens of 000s of official snoops spying on the population in this 'Stasi' state). (It is like the Thought Police in Orwell's 1984!).
In the 3rd tape (recorded by the protester/s), the police officers state: "We work for the community intelligence section"
The 'Plane Stupid' environmental protester said to have had meetings with the police after being released on bail following a Plane Stupid protest in Scotland.
"During the taped discussions... (the men who claim to be a detective constable and his assistant) Indicate that she could receive tens of thousands of pounds to pay off her student loans in return for information about individuals within Plane Stupid...that it would be tax free...
but warn her that her activity could mean she will struggle to find employment in the future and result in a criminal record ...
Explain that spying could assist her if she was arrested. "People would sell their soul to the devil" (3)
4 Aug 14, The Guardian - "Activists complain to IPCC over police efforts to recruit them as informers"
"The four campaigners say that coercive and at times repeated police approaches caused them to abandon their political campaigning , or left them stressed and paranoid."
"One of the quartet, a 23-year-old single mother, said she stopped campaigning against racism  after police threatened to prosecute her if she told anyone, including her mother, about the attempt to recruit her as an informer."
"One said that a police officer made two unannounced visits to his home and later followed him and his four-year-old daughter to a supermarket where he tried to thrust an envelope stuffed with cash into his hands." (2)
What can happen if you refuse to be an informant?
The Independent's article of 22 May 09, "Home Secretary was warned of MI5's 'blackmailing of Muslims'", suggests that...
it can lead to prolonged "blackmail and intimidation... and coercion" and that,...
in this particular instance, the young Muslim men "were targeted by the Security Service who threatened to set them up as terror suspects" (*)
Police national database - "Police launch mugshots database to catch criminals who move around the country", Independent, 12 Nov 12,
The photographs of an estimated 16 million people are being put on a national police database for the first time next year to try to stop criminals escaping detection simply by moving around the country."
"National police guidelines introduced in 2010 say that information held on an individual "must not be excessive and must be proportionate to the risk they pose to the community" [*]
"Big Brother Watch, said: "For the police to make themselves judge and jury when deciding what information they should be holding is a flagrant abuse of due process and a serious threat to people's civil liberties."
(9)- Met's Forward Intelligence Teams (FITs)
3 Dec 10, Guardian - "UK Uncut protesters spied upon by undercover police", stating, among other:
"Scotland Yard has deployed undercover officers to spy on a network of activists whose viral campaign against tax avoiders threatens to close down hundreds of shops in the run-up to Christmas.
The surveillance officers were first used at a protest in October, the Guardian can reveal, despite an assurance given to parliament last year that only officers in full uniform gather intelligence at protests"
(10)- The British state's 'Ministry of Love' (Orwell's 1984) DOES lock-up 'inconvenient people' - and young children are locked-up in police cells
(10.1) Scotland Yard's Fixated Threat Assessment Centre (FTAC) was reported on by the Evening Standard, on 27 May 07, in an article headed "Revealed: Blair's secret stalker squad" (link to article found on http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread284391/pg1) (It had previously been covered by its then sister paper, the Mail on Sunday).
The article states "The Government has established a shadowy new national anti-terrorist unit to protect VIPs, with the power to detain suspects indefinitely using mental health laws... It was given sweeping powers to check more than 10,000 suspects' files...
The team's psychiatrists and psychologists have the power to order treatment - including forcibly detaining suspects in secure psychiatric units.
Using these powers, the unit can legally detain people for an indefinite period without trial, criminal charges or even evidence of a crime being committed and with very limited rights of appeal.
Until now it has been the exclusive decision of doctors and mental health professionals to determine if someone should be forcibly detained. But the new unit uses the police to identify suspects...
Scotland Yard, which runs the shadowy unit, refuses to discuss how many suspects have been forcibly hospitalised by the team because of "patient confidentiality"" (!!!) ...
"So-called 'sectioning' allows a patient to be held for up to six months before a further psychological assessment. Patients are then reviewed every year to determine if they can be released."
Considering the nature of FTAC and the state's response to dissenters / people who blow the whistle on its wrongdoings, it is easy to imagine that those who, like me, persist in their fight for justice and redress, run the risk of being sectioned. I believe that this the 3rd 'preferred objective' in my case.
As demonstrated by these examples, once it locks you up, the 'Ministry of Love' has free rein to do whatever it wants to you - which can be 'very unpleasant'.
(10.2)- The Court of Protection - In addition to the above, FTAC, the case of Maurice Kirk, as well as hearing it from an MP on Radio 4's 'Today in Parliament' (towards the end of 2010), I had further confirmation that Britain DOES lock-up 'inconvenient people' by the MP John Hemming, during the 25th Jan 11 meeting at the House of Commons who said to have helped the release of one of his constituents from a mental institution.
The ONLY reason she had been locked-up - and drugged - was to 'shut her up'. (Evidently, the 'Thought Police' and its 'Ministry of Love' 'did not like' what she was saying / doing). (See My Diary 2011, Secret Prisoners, for detail, including media reports)
(Related articles by The Daily Telegraph: (1) 4 Feb 11: "Court bans man with low IQ from having sex" (by the High Court; (2) 5 Feb 11: "Behind the closed doors of England's most secretive court") (This court has been criticised before e.g. in 2009 - see Legal home page - Media WLCC)
(NB: As evidenced by Maurice Kirk's experience, and mine with the 'specialist' on 7 May 08, added to the Community Support Officer, TDC Simon J Dowling of Notting Hill police "speaking to social services" because 'he' 'deemed' that "[I] may have some mental issues" (regurgitating what Andrew Ladsky was telling him)...
...- there is no shortage of morally depraved, extremely SICK individuals who will come to the help of your enemies to put you 'out of action' by getting you locked-up / attempt to get you locked-up (see My Diary 25 Jan 11 ; QB # 4(3) for other evidence I give in relation to me) - including dishing out the criminal psychological harassment to achieve the objective. (Note that this is also happening to some very brave souls in the public sector)
I repeat my above comment.
(10.3) Young children locked-up in police cells - "Concerns raised over number of children held in police cells under Mental Health Act", Independent, 18 Nov 12
"Police officers often face “no realistic option” other than locking children as young as 11 years old in cells under mental health laws." "Under the Mental Health Act children suspected of being mentally ill and in “need of care or control” can be taken to a safe place for assessment.
But in exceptional circumstances, where psychiatric units or children’s homes are unavailable, they are placed in cells... for more than 24 hours in some cases."
"Detention of children overnight in police cells 'is chronic breach of law'", The Guardian, 13 Jan 14
"A Freedom of Information Act request by the Howard League for Penal Reform disclosed in October that children aged 17 and under were held overnight in police cells on 40,716 occasions in 2011, indicating that it has become the rule rather than the exception."
(11)- Law firms, and many others
To this massive army of snoops must also be added the law firms who, on behalf of their clients, employ private detectives to spy on people, including obtaining fraudulently all kinds of highly personal information e.g. bank account and credit card details by using 'blaggers'.
They do this by contacting the banks, etc. pretending to be a variety of organisations. Apparently, within a few days, they can obtain a very comprehensive profile of an individual (BBC2, 1 Jun 09, ‘Who’s watching you?’)
(While I know first-hand what this thoroughly corrupt, vermin-infested sector can do (e.g. Overview), in my case, they don't need to bother as, as part of the criminal psychological harassment: (1)- their 'brothers' in the police, steal financial statements from my post, and give them to Rachman Andrew Ladsky;
(2)- other Masons' flunkies, in the state sector provide him with other personal information e.g. the Pension Service that claimed that it "lost my Birth Certificate" - My Diary 9 May 12).
In June 2013, a "leaked" SOCA report, in the context of the phone-hacking scandal, confirmed further this activity. Apparently, it also identifies many other types of organisations doing the same thing...but Lord Justice Leveson who led 'the inquiry' - joined SOCA in covering-up the evidence.
When the state does that, added to the above (to which I add my case as another example) - clearly demonstrating that the law is there to be ignored - it is no surprise to see that many follow its lead. Quoting Norman Baker, LibDem MP, in his 24 Jan 10 Mail on Sunday article: “If you lay down the tracks, that’s the way the train goes.”
Private Eye, # 1348 - 6-19 Sep 13, from pg32 - "Watching the detectives" - Contains a market mapping of the private snoops - including the Big 4 accountancy firms,...
and refers to, among others, Diligence, where former Tory Leader Michael Howard was once a director.
Private Eye, # 1366 - 16-29 May 14, pg34 - "Watching the detectives" - Gives examples of the users of the private snoops (*)
- "Israeli mining wheeler-dealer Dan Gertier"
(*) Interestingly, they are all Jewish.
Use of snoops appears to be 'a Jewish thing'. They also call on 'the motherland' for resources e.g. Vincent Tchenguiz.
(I also conclude that Mossad also has some operatives in the UK - 'protecting Jewish interests'...and are perhaps funded with taxpayer-money through the Jewish militia, the Community Security Trust).
They are in the ideal environment in which to indulge (added to their 'preferred status'); other example: 'Jewish' Andrew David Ladsky who has had me dogged, hounded, tracked, monitored, etc - operating as a fully integrated team with the police and related.
As the sector is an ideal recruitment ground for ex. police officers, including from the large pool of those who "retire or resign to avoid facing misconduct proceedings" - the line between the private and public sector is seriously blurred - and also explains the appalling conduct - as in my case.
(12)- There must be well over 1 million 'Stasi' spying on the population
When you consider all of the above and, based on e.g. my experience, the limitless supply of official and occasional snoops (snapshots: Persecution # 2 ; My Diary # 2.4))...
...added to the 850,000 in the US accessing GCHQ's data, + ?...
...- there must be well over 1 million 'Stasi', at any point in time - spying on people, gathering data on them.
(Under the Stasi, "A former Stasi colonel who served in the counterintelligence directorate estimated that the figure could be as high as 2 million if occasional informants were included").
It certainly makes it easy to understand how somebody can be under constant surveillance for a very long time: when the 'Stasi' is not tailing one person, it can tail another one.
"MI6 to recruit hundreds more staff in response to digital technology", The Guardian, 21 Sep 16
"MI6, which employs 2,500 people at present, deals with intelligence-gathering and operations abroad, while MI5 is responsible for security within the UK."
The government announced last year that the security services would be given 1,900 additional staff – and MI6 is the main beneficiary."
"The head of MI6, Alex Younger, speaking in Washington DC on Tuesday, said:..."
“The third and most important part of British intelligence is the surveillance agency GCHQ, which in partnership with the US National Security Agency, is responsible for scooping up most of the intelligence through tracking phone calls, emails, chat lines and other communications.”
THE POLICE STATE PAR EXCELLENCE!
The greater the level of systemic institutional corruption in a country, the greater the need for surveillance of the 'little people', 'the Proles', to ensure they don't interfere / are hounded if they do.
And there sure is A LOT corruption in this "fantastically corrupt" country! (e.g. Overview ; My Diary Jan 09) - which has been reported by the media for a long time (e.g. My Diary 2 Aug 06).
Looks to me as though the powers that be are setting-up an environment of total, unaccountable freedom to quash any opposition / dissent / questioning, etc. (while behind the gigantic trompe l'oeil they are squeezing the 'cash machines' to the tune of millions of Pounds, down to the last penny - without fear of sanction... well, 'little sanction').
In addition to the surveillance measures (hacking into people's computer, monitoring their emails, phone calls, etc) (above).
On 16 Feb 09, legislation came into effect allowing the police to stop anybody from taking photographs of them - on the grounds of 'national security'.
- In Apr 09 - Enfield park: the park manager (?) was arrested, under section 44 of the Terrorism Act, by the two police officers he had photographed driving "erratically" in the park.
- Apparently, the police is not allowed to drive in the park. (That's how they use the anti-terrorist legislation: against the 'little people' of this country who 'dare' to stand up and expose wrongdoings by the state, the Establishment).
- The day after, the Daily Mail reported that, on the grounds of 'national security', an Austrian tourist and his son were stopped by the police and asked to delete immediately photographs they had been taking of a London bus - and were asked for their names, with passport as evidence, name and address of the hotel where they were staying.
- But maybe London Buses will be asked by the police to close down immediately the site - failing which, face prosecution under anti-terrorist legislation? (Unsurprisingly, the Austrians tourists were quoted as saying that they "will never come back to this country").
Also on the grounds of 'national security' - in early 2009, it was reported that inquests involving the police can be held in secret.
By 'amazing coincidence', this announcement was made c. 3 weeks after the end of the inquest in relation to Mr Jean Charles de Menezes, during which witnesses' accounts contradicted the police's version of events.
Several months later, in May 09, it was reported that Jack Straw, InJustice Secretary, had dropped the plan because the move "did not command the necessary cross-party support" .
The Mail on Sunday article of 25 Oct 09, “As police begin armed patrols, a campaigner deplores the Government’s disturbing plan to make inquests secret” suggests that the plan is nonetheless going ahead.
31 May 09, Mail on Sunday - "Police who killed siege lawyer are unlikely to be charged"
"Police marksmen involved in the fatal shooting of barrister Mark Saunders are unlikely to face prosecution.
A report from the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) investigation is expected to result in no charges being brought against individual firearms officers....
informal conversations between the IPCC and the Crown Prosecution Service have convinced lawyers that the armed officers are exonerated".
See also Media page, the case of Mr Ian Tomlinson.
Another example: the reported cover-up by the police in relation to a judge alleged to, among others, have abused a child.
The Complainant ended-up having to go to the High Court to get an order against the (partly police-staffed) 'Independent' Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) to investigate the case.
As well as employ lawyers (of course, paid for by the taxpayer)
In an attempt to get a ban on reporting - as done by e.g. Leicestershire police, following the Nov 09 tragic suicide of Mrs FIONA PILKINGTON and of her handicapped daughter - reported to have made a total of "33 desperate calls to the police" - and got no help:
"'No excuses': Home Secretary attacks police and council over failures that led to death of tormented mother and daughter", Daily Mail, 29 Sep 09:
"..police dismissed Miss Pilkington as 'over-reacting' and classed her as 'low priority'"
"[The then Home Secretary, Alan Johnson] insisted that the case was exceptional".
In fact during part of that time, an identical case was taking place, that of "Mr DAVID ASKEW, who had learning difficulties who, with his family, reported 88 incidents of harassment over a 6-year period.
"He died in March 2010 following another incident of harassment".
So much for Johnson's highly trumpeted "relaunch" of the 'Policing Pledge' - 6 months before Mr Askew's death.
"The woman who is standing-up to feral thugs", The Sunday Times, 4 Oct 09
"One of the most upsetting things in the Pilkington case...was that [Fiona Pilkington, above] kept logs in which she recorded that the police said the abuse she suffered from neighbours was a problem for the local authority and the local authority said it was a problem for the police"
[NB: Typically sending the 'little people' from pillar to post].
"Asher, too, has kept records of her efforts to get those in authority to put a stop to the unceasing abuse. "They kept passing the buck", she told me."
"She feels that because she lives on a council estate she is pigeonholed as being thick and stupid...Police and councils do not react and the lack of empathy or any desire to help makes her feel crushed by the whole of society."
23 April 2008 - Two 'ordinary' people, who, like me, feel very let down by the courts
The Times, 23 April 2008, "Gang victim Gary Newlove’s widow hits out at courtroom ‘disgrace’" reports the comments of two victims of violent crime when they gave evidence at an inquiry. One said
"the way that victims were treated in the courtroom was "utterly disgraceful". "It’s utterly disgraceful because you think that the courts are for you, that they are your safety net.”
The other is quoted as saying: "that money and power had influenced the decision to grant bail when the man was accused of murder".
Until 2002, like them, I also believed that the courts were there for me, and I believed that this was the case irrespective of creed, gender and financial means. As I wrote e.g. on the home page to the site (point # 7) one day, I finally admitted to myself that "I had been well and truly conned" - and my world collapsed.
I have since realised that it was very naïve of me to believe in what I had been told. Why was I so gullible? I attribute it to a combination of religious upbringing and being told to respect the law, institutions, etc. Unfortunately, I am now 'stuck' with 'my programming' for the rest of my life - leading me to continue with my fight for justice and redress; to demand what I have been told I have the right to demand.
Recently, I told somebody that I was continuing with my fight in spite of the fact that I very clearly was not going to get justice and redress, and that my objective in doing this was to demonstrate what can happen to a leaseholder who 'dares' to stand-up and fight for her / his rights against a landlord.
The person disagreed with my view that I would not get justice and redress, citing the example of a Court of Appeal ruling this month that one of the world's most dangerous terror suspects cannot be deported to his home country out of concern that his treatment there might be in breach of his Human Rights, including right to a fair trial. Among others, this man has reportedly made a speech advocating the killing of people.
My reply was that seeing this 'makes me hurt' even more, as it leads me to ask:
- Why is it that – unlike me – they are all, quite clearly, considered to be above the law in this country?
Following the Court of Appeal ruling, one MP is quoted as saying "Yet again, terrorists are laughing at us and remaining in this country's at the taxpayer's expense".
I am one of the taxpayers, one who, for six months plus of the year, got up everyday to go to work (*) to give all that I earned to the government in the form of taxes (40% income tax, 17.5% VAT on practically everything I buy, council tax, etc.) - paying in total an estimated £500,000.
(*) In the past because I resigned from my job at KPMG in January 2008.
What did I - and still currently - get in return since 2002? Repeated kicks in the teeth, 'GET LOST!' messages - as evidenced by the outcome of my 50+ battles.
Very clearly, I have and continue to be perceived - at best, as 'not worth helping'; 'not worth ensuring that I can exert my rights'. While they all dismiss me, turning their nose up at me, they don't turn their nose up at my hard-earned money that helps pay for their salary, perks, pension, etc.
Don't take me wrong: of course it is possible to get justice and redress in the courts - and indeed, as exemplified by the above example, protection of statutory rights.
Unfortunately, overall, (based on my experience (Case summary) and that of other leaseholders I am in contact with (e.g. see Lord Falconer # 4) the concepts of justice, protection of rights and redress tend to be interpreted very differently in residential leasehold disputes (Note: see next entry, 30 April 2008, for yet another example in support of my position).
(Subsequent note: and My Diary 11 Nov 08 for a snapshot of events with WLCC)
As I wrote to the Parliamentary Ombudsman on 22 November 2004
"There is a saying: ‘An Englishman’s home is his castle’.
When I opted to become a British national as a commitment to a country where I have spent all of my adult life (*), I had not appreciated that this saying only applies to a minority of the population resulting in the likes of me, or the ‘Great Unwashed’ as I understand we are called in some circles, having some statutory rights only on paper – not in reality"
(*) Up to 2002 this country had been very good to me. Of particularly great importance, it provided me with the opportunity to realise my dream of furthering my education - culminating in an MBA. (In France, I had to start working when I was 14 years old. Hence, I arrived in the UK with no qualification to speak of). It also gave me the opportunity to escape an environment associated with very painful memories, etc.
The conclusion I have come to since 2003 is that "It does not pay to be an honest, decent, law-abiding citizen with principles and integrity" (as I wrote e.g. in my 6 April 2005 letter to Mr Michael Howard).
Recently I have been thinking that, if I had my life all over again, in the world as it is now - and with the knowledge I now have of it - I would be one of the biggest white-collar criminals around. When I say that to people who know me, they laugh out loud, saying that I am "too moral" to do that.
They are right. I could not do it. At the end of the day we all have to live - and die - with our conscience.
30 April 2008
14 months on, West London County Court continues to pursue its 'mission to make me pay'...
...leading me to file an application to the court
(NB: WLCC point # 28 contains a more detailed version of this entry)
Today, I have hand-delivered this application to West London County Court.
(NB: As a result of more 'crash learning', I have discovered that 'making an application' requires using one of the numerous court forms. I now assume that this is what was meant when I was told by HMCS in its 10 January 2008 letter that I "had not made an application for contesting the court's jurisdiction". (WLCC # 23 )
Why didn't it say so - including in its 10 January 2008 letter? It knows that I am a litigant in person. Opted to keep me in the dark in the hope of catching me out again?
Well, this time: I HAVE filed in a form! and I am quoting the CPR rules and practice direction in support - and I have paid £40 (US$71) (... the parable of the horse who fell down a well - My Diary 5 Apr 07 )
My application is in response to the 9 April 2008 so-called 'case management directions' Order, issued by District Judge Ryan.
This order was posted on 21 April 2008, with this 18 April 2008 'Notice of trial to the Defendant' - giving the date as 21 August 2008.
These actions are a follow-up to my filing the allocation questionnaire (as detailed above under 13 March 2008, and under WLCC # 26 ).
Reasons for my application? As explained in my application, I have made it "in the interests of justice and efficiency" as the so-called 'case management directions' do not allow time to ensure I am supplied with the information I require to defend myself against the claim - as
- (1) Point 2.a of the case management order states that the deadline for request for copy of documents is 21 May 2008;
- (2) it does not specify a time limit for reply. In any case this would be too short, as
- (3) the witness statements are to be exchanged two weeks later, on 4 June 2008.
IT'S INTENTIONAL AND PART OF THE GAME PLAN TO HELP LADSKY ET.AL. STEAL FROM ME - and District Judge Ryan underhandedly covered-up his back (WLCC # 27)
In support, in my Application I quote:
• Practice Direction (PD) 28 - 3.3: “The court’s first concern will be to ensure…that the necessary evidence is prepared and disclosed", and
• PD 28 - 3.9 "Where the court is to give directions on its own initiative and it is not aware of any steps taken by the parties other than the service of statements of case, its general approach will be:
(1) to give directions for the filing and service of any further information required to clarify either party’s case"
As I note under Part C of my application, the timetable must allow for the filing of court orders to obtain information, stating:
"As repeatedly highlighted to the Court and the Claimant – over the last 12 months - in numerous documents (skeleton argument, defence to the claim, notes to the allocation questionnaire, etc.): I need better particulars to be able to defend myself against the claim – including writing my witness statement. By right, I should have been provided with the main evidence I require a long time ago"
"Under Rules 26.5(3) and 31.12(1) the court had the option of giving directions / issuing an order for specific disclosure. It opted to not do this - in spite of my highlighting the need in the supporting document to my allocation questionnaire"
I follow this by highlighting that "given the claimant's conduct to date, the timetable must allow for the filing of court orders for disclosure of information (citing the rules)... (including) against other parties (e.g. accountants for Jefferson House; surveyors involved in determining the percentage shares of service charges), as well as " to obtain further information to clarify matters"
I emphasise that all the information supplied to me, as well as already in my possession, must be endorsed by statements of truth from the supplying parties. In this context I highlight the fact that WLCC denied me access to the LVT's expertise by refusing my application for transfer of the case (WLCC point # 11)
(NB: Fellow leaseholders: note the following CPR rules, in Part 32 - Evidence)
I emphasise that"In highlighting this requirement for statements of truth, I am also conscious of Rule 32.19 (1) Notice to admit or produce documents -
“A party shall be deemed to admit the authenticity of a document disclosed to him under Part 31 (disclosure and inspection of documents) unless he serves notice that he wishes the document to be proved at trial”, and of Rules 32.19(2); 31.16 and 31.11 (see WLCC # 28 for detail), as my 'sixth sense' warned me of a potential plan to present me with "evidence" in situations where I would not be able to challenge it due to e.g. lack of information)
I follow this by asking for changes in the directions for the trial bundle, and by a suggested revised timetable.
Question for you fair minded, reasonable visitor to the site: Considering the above, do you view the 9 April 2008 so-called 'case management directions' as reflecting consideration for the Overriding Objective (*) comprised under Part 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules:
"...overriding objective of enabling the court to deal with cases justly.
(2) Dealing with a case justly includes... (a) ensuring that the parties are on an equal footing..."
(d) ensuring that it is dealt with expeditiously and fairly
1.2 Application by the court of the overriding objective
The court must seek to give effect to the overriding objective when it – (a) exercises any power given to it by the Rules; or (b) interprets any rule subject to rule 76.2." ?
(*) Sourced from the website of the then Department for Constitutional Affairs, on 14 March 2007
In justifying my heading for this entry "West London County Court continues to pursue its 'mission to make me pay', I also take the following into consideration:
• The fact that it issued a 3 April 2007 'Notice that acknowledgement of service has been filed' falsely stating "The defendant responded to the claim indicating an intention to defend part of the claim" (WLCC # 2.2)
• Its total lack of support in ensuring that Portner supplied me with the information I required (WLCC # 9 )
• Its refusal to have my case transferred to the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal (WLCC # 11 )
• Its 27 September 2007 letter masquerading as an order, demanding that I pay a £1,700 (US$3,000) fee (WLCC # 12.3) - and the subsequent contradicting explanations (WLCC point # 22 and point # 23 ) - not to mention the three months plus silence that followed my 2 October 2007 letter to WLCC
• It has very clearly ignored my 26 January 2008 letter "To a Judge committed to the concept of Justice" (WLCC # 24)
• It had, yet again, 'another attempt' with its 7 March 2008 order that contained the threat to "strike out [my] defence" by giving me a very tight deadline to reply (WLCC # 26)
I interpret the above events as attempts to prevent the case from proceeding to a hearing, and conclude from the 9 April 2008 case management order that the objective is to now 'get me' at the trial.
Well, WLCC was instrumental in making some of the other leaseholders in 2002-04 pay a lot more than they were legally liable for (see WLCC, among others, points # 6 , # 5 , # 8 , # 9 ; Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor points # 6.3 and # 6.6 ; Pridie Brewster point # 18 ; Overview Note 2 - Evidence of a c. £500,000 theft)...
...and WLCC did this on the basis of a claim that - in my non-lawyer opinion - was in very serious breach of Civil Procedure Rules as the statement of truth was signed by Joan Hathaway, MRICS, Martin Russell Jones - see WLCC Key point # 1(3) / My Diary 9 Mar 07 (In addition to being based on false information - which WLCC KNEW - WLCC points # 2 , # 3 , # 8 , # 9)
My! my! my! Who is Andrew Ladsky / are Ladsky et.al. that so many people (*) are prepared to put their reputation on the line for?
(*) Including from a quarter I did not expect. I may expand on this over the coming months
Obvious answer: protected by Freemasons
|Sure enough: my Application was refused - see 3 June 2008
6 May 2008
Entry moved to Overview Note 2
Overview of my '40+', which became '50+' legitimate 'cries for help' and complaints - in vain: moved to Doc library.
Overall summary of outcomes of my complaints: moved to Doc library Introduction; summary.
In a speech at the NATO conference, Strasbourg, 4 April 2009, Gordon Brown, Prime Minister said that "There is no intention to infringe the rights of women in Afghanistan". How about applying the same policy at home? How silly of me! Politicians are too busy feathering their nest and building their property portfolio at the taxpayer's expense to worry about this kind of thing.
[To the above must be added the actions by .....] (I might ADD 2007 events with my ex. employer )
What can be said about ALL of them? “They turned a blind eye and a deaf ear / did what they did / said what they said / wrote what they wrote ALL for the sake of a penthouse flat and three other flats
- so that a bunch of crooks could generate a multi-million Pound jackpot”
- see the summary 'threat of forfeiture and bankruptcy proceedings, as well as court claims = FRAUD TOOLS
Fair minded, reasonable visitor to the site: Do you see why I wrote, above, "I am the victim of fraud aided and abetted by a supporting cast comprising of..."? (15 May 2008 below contains additional detail)
In My Diary, 9 Mar 07, I wrote "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?".
The answer is loud and clear: 'they' have not stopped laughing, clapping and cheering Ladsky on - whilst providing him with all manner of support - and it REALLY is ALL MANNER of support.
I repeat the question I captured under 30 April 2008 (above)
My! my! my! Who is Andrew Ladsky / are Ladsky et. al. that so many people (*) are prepared to put their reputation on the line for?
(*) Including from a quarter I did not expect. I may expand on this over the coming months [ADD]
It beggars belief that Ladsky (and his associates?) can so freely command such outrageous acts against me (and my fellow leaseholders) (*) - in the 21st century, in a country that calls itself ‘civilised’ and has signed-up to the European Convention on Human Rights. The POWER OF MONEY!... regardless of how it has been obtained - and the power of connections.
(*) See also 15 May 2008, below
That, will never cease to shock me, and anger me. WHY is it allowed to happen?
As I know from my contact with numerous other leaseholders, this is happening across the board (at very great cost to them) . How can it be allowed to happen? Why is it that a man who overfills his dustbin by 4 inches ends-up with a criminal record (Media page) while crooked landlords and their equally crooked aides are given 'carte blanche' by 'the system' to do exactly as they please? How can such injustice be allowed to take place? WHY is it allowed to take place?
Mr Gordon Brown, Prime Minister, with "strongly held moral principles of right and wrong [that are your] moral compass" - what is your answer to the questions?
As I wrote in my 24 March 2009 letter to my then MP, Sir Malcolm Rifkind
"The Government has set up a helpline to help people report loan sharks who swindle them out of several hundred Pounds (e.g. Guardian article of 3 March 2009 "Loan shark helpline targets illegal lenders") – and the police and the courts take action against the perpetrators.
By contrast, it turns a blind eye and a deaf ear to a landlord and his aides who swindle people to the tune of c. £500,000 – thereby helping them do it. (And I know of many other leaseholders in other blocks who have a similar story to tell). Why the two-tier system?"
As I also know from other leaseholders, the more we fight for our rights, generally, the greater the opposition, push back - and the greater the penalty for 'daring' to challenge the system - because the 'little people' don't do that!. I know of leaseholders who, in spite of having a sound position, have ended-up being c. £100,000 (e.g. Lord Falconer # 4 ); c.£50,000; £45,000 worse off. As I wrote in My Diary - 11 Nov 06 "The whole system is geared to test the determination - and financial staying power of the leaseholders" . Subsequent note: see My Diary 22 Nov 08 for further evidence of this.
And, when somebody like me continues fighting for justice and redress... well, my website tells the story: you get persecuted.
However, the impact of the recession is forcing leaseholders to 'come out', as they find it increasingly more difficult to "hand on the baton" e.g. The Observer article of 5 April 2009 "Flat owners left flat broke as service charges shoot through the roof"
And another example to add: the following is from a communication I received recently from a group of leaseholders in a block of flats in London:
"We have just seen your interesting entry on the web about Martin Russell Jones. As
we have a similar problem with them (enormous demands etc.) and are going to  We suspected that they are dishonest in the large demands being sent us as well as other signs and would greatly appreciate any advice or information you could give us. They were 'appointed' over our heads by  which has connections with CKFT - very fishy!"
(Subsequent communication): "Thank you so much for  and all the helpful information. I was really grateful for your website and have drawn other residents' attention to the parallels with what is going on here "
(Further subsequent communication): "Your website has certainly been a blessing here and I really trust you will be able to be free of all the difficulties which have beset you and which you have so bravely fought. Thank you for sharing your experiences to help others like ourselves"
I am not in the least surprised by this communication. Of course Martin Russell Jones is continuing in its ways. It has the blessings of its 'professional' association, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. Subsequent note - and for further proof of this in August 2008, see RICS # 12
(NB: For other examples of MRJ overcharging leaseholders in other blocks, see Martin Russell Jones point # 42)
(Subsequent note: other blocks to be added: see below, 19 May 08 ; 24 Sep 08)
The connection with Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor also looks like 'bad news' for the leaseholders.
What makes me feel good about this communication (and that from other leaseholders) is that my website is of help to others. That, on its own, makes what I am going through - worthwhile.
As I wrote in My Dairy - 16 June 2006 "At the risk of sounding 'self-important', (which is certainly not the intention), I feel that I have a moral duty to use my now very well documented experience to expose what is going on in the leasehold sector in its widest sense (i.e. including the surrounding infrastructure of courts and tribunals, lawyers, managing agents, etc.)
So, message to the organized crime mob - at large - that prefers spending
a fortune which, so far, must be many,
many times the objectives I
want to achieve (and then close down the
website and leave the country): go ahead,
keep the fight going, keep taking your
revenge for my exposing the details of
my case on this website - after
FIVE YEARS of having all the doors repeatedly
slammed in my face -
keep adding more and more damning evidence
to the absolute horror of my case.
Having failed to achieve justice and redress, if I can spare some people from going through the horrendous suffering I have been made to endure, and continue to endure since 2002 - this will at least be one positive outcome. (Every day I ask the question: Dear God, why did you let me buy the lease on this flat?)
I really wish I had come across a website like mine in 2002, as I would have paid the £14,400 (US$25,400) - I did not owe - and got out of the block. I know, I would have been another party that helps keep the system in place, but... (I guess you could also argue that, if people react as I think I would have done on seeing a website like mine, my website is actually helping perpetuate the system).
Note at October 2008: and I really, really wish I had seen this press article in 2001.
15 May 2008
Andrew David Ladsky IS in "very serious need" of a 'reality check'
Today I came out of the block at the same time as Andrew David Ladsky. He told me: "You are in very serious need of help". (Previous instances: My Diary w/c 4 Feb 08 and 19 Apr 05 he told me that I was "mad" - as well as his letter of 26.03.07 to KPMG, my then employer, in which he wrote that I "display clinical paranoia" (KPMG # 3.5) (*)
Is it - yet another - 'coincidence' that Ladsky said this to me? See My Diary 2009 - Introduction-Dr-MP - one week previously).
(*) I thought it was the residential leasehold sector mafia and its supporters' standard way of discrediting women who 'dare' challenge them. I have since discovered that, for the same reason, they can also portray men as 'mad' - My Diary 22 Nov 08 (Not leasehold related: see the comments in a KPMG report about the HBOS whistleblower)
Considering the following events...
• Telling me "I am going to get you this year" (My Diary 3 Jan 03)
• Getting one of his female accomplices to phone me at work to tell me "Don't worry, they won't kill you" (My Diary - Jan/Feb 04 )
• Getting his network to attempt to trap me (My Diary 2009 introduction)
• Causing malicious leaks in my flat: My Diary 8 Aug 05 ; 18 Aug 05 ; 20 Jul 07 ; Photo gallery - Bedroom - and one that narrowly missed my flat on 6 Feb 07
• Having my windows hosed late at night / in the early hours of the morning (under the guise of watering the plants on the railing): (My Diary - 6 Sep 05 , 4 Oct 05 , 7 Apr 06 , 4 Sep 06 ; 9 Jan 09 - also in February 2008)
• Anonymous phone calls; pressing my door bell late at night; also late at night, throwing hard object at my windows (Kensington & Chelsea police # 1)
• Making a complaint to the police that I "swore at [him]" leading to my being threatened with "charges of harassment" and to having "the complaint fully recorded by the police" (Kensington & Chelsea police # 2 )
• Making an unsubstantiated complaint to Kensington & Chelsea police that my website contains "anti-Semitic" comments, and the police initially implying to my website Host that I had 'committed a crime' - and 'for good measure', branding me "a Nazi" - "because of my franco-german (sic) origin" (My Diary 20 Mar 07 ; K&C police # 3) Who ARE THE RACISTS?!
• Contacting the Tenancy Relations Officer at the housing department I had approached for assistance, asking him for all the information I had supplied to the TRO (request refused) (My Diary 5 Nov 02)
• Having me monitored and followed (Persecution # 2 ; Examples: My Diary 26 Oct 03 ; 19 Apr 06 ; 16 May 06 ; year 2010)
(NB: I know that Ladsky et. al. - and supporters at large - are focusing on these claims in an attempt to deflect attention away from the very damning evidence I have on my website - because I 'can't prove it' . (However, see - My Diary home page and Dr-MP in the introduction to My Diary 2009).
My guess is that my being a woman, is also given as added weight to their assessment. (Added to being of foreign origin, branded "a Nazi" - "because of my franco-german (sic) origin"??). Maybe I should start putting on my website the photographs I have taken... and the full number plate of the cars. (NOTE at (1) October 2008: I am starting to do that ; (2) Having stopped, I started to do it again in 2010)
In the meantime, fair minded, reasonable visitor to the site: don't you find it rather 'interesting' that, having looked at what I report in My Diary (examples, My Diary - 20 Mar 07), (given its accusation, you would expect the police to have done this), the only thing that Notting Hill police et. al. at Kensington & Chelsea police considered fit to do was to send an email to my website Host implying that I had committed a crime, and brand me "a Nazi" - "because of my franco-german (sic) origin"?
Furthermore, it DID NOT contact me at ANY POINT IN TIME. WHY NOT? considering that it implied I had committed "a crime" (K&C police # 3)
• Harassment of the person who was running the residents association (Head Residents Association) by means of "aggressive, threatening behaviour", "up to 30 nuisance calls a day", "demanding that I handover the Chairmanship and all the files of the Residents Association to him". Harassment witnessed by another resident "Her experience was horrendous. I was there on two occasions..." (18 April 2002 email)
• Harassment of Other Residents through "unprovoked direct verbal and other abuse by Mr Ladsky" "He acted like a petty tyrant, and I am not afraid to put on record that I believe that he is capable of any unscrupulous actions in order to achieve his aims" (1 November 2002 letter); "using a key to try and enter our flat; my wife was alone in the flat" , etc.
Harassment of the Elderly Resident who took the initial step for investigating the service charge demands. And harassment of, 'perhaps', Resident K
• Harassment of Nucleus, the local Citizens Advice Bureau, through threatening correspondence and abusive phone calls intended to stop Nucleus helping us
• As Andrew Ladsky has been identified by Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor (CKFT) and Portner (Portner and Jaskel LLP) as "[their] client" (e.g. Advisors: CKFT ; Portner and Jaskel LLP) and, the Law Society's standard reply to points in my complaint against both firms is that they "acted on the instructions of their client" (e.g. Portner # 5.1 ; CKFT # 6.4 ):
• Getting Lanny Silverstone, CKFT, to threaten me with forfeiture (take the flat from me) and of contacting my mortgage lender unless I immediately paid the £14,400 (US$25,400) 'service charge' demand (My Diary 10 Oct 02 ; CKFT # 6.2 ). Consider that:
- (1) the 17 June 2003 London LVT findings had the effect of reducing the global sum demanded by 70% (including the reserve fund) - (LVT # 4)
- (2) Ladsky wrote me (and other leaseholders ) on 25 January 2001 "...as I own flats 34 + 35 I pay 17% of the building charges and I should assure you it is in my interest to keep any costs as reasonable as possible" (NB: He certainly made sure that he looked after "[his] interests")
• Getting CKFT to file a claim against me (and 10 of my fellow leaseholders) in WLCC - in the absolute knowledge that the tribunal had told us to NOT PAY the service charge demand until it had issued its determination and it had been implemented (CKFT # 2 ; # 6.1 ; WLCC # 2 , # 6 , # 8 , # 9 , # 10 , # 12 )...
... and getting CKFT to very aggressively pursue the action against the leaseholders - before the tribunal had issued its determination - resulting in 9 out of the 14 flats listed on the claim (Particulars of claim and list) paying the FULL amount of the service charge + a further 16 flats also paid the full amount (CKFT # 6.6 , CKFT, # 6.3 ; Pridie Brewster # 2 , # 3 , # 18) v. the LVT's 70% reduction (inc. contingency fund) (LVT # 4)...
...and the fact that the sum payable by EACH leaseholder should have been CAPPED at £250.00 (NB: Further evidence that the leaseholders were made to pay monies not due and payable: do you think that Ladsky et. al would have made me an 'offer' for £6,350 (US$11,200) if they could prove that I owed the original demand of £14,400 (US$25,400)?) (See the summary 'threat of forfeiture and bankruptcy proceedings, as well as court claims = FRAUD TOOLS)
...how to explain that, having absolute knowledge of the LVT action (WLCC # 2 , # 5 , my Defence and seven letters to the courts), WLCC allowed CKFT to pursue the action? (WLCC Summary of events , Breach of legal requirements)
• CKFT opting to have Joan Hathaway, MRICS, Martin Russell Jones, sign the statement of truth on the 2002 WLCC claim - amounting to a very serious breach of Civil Procedure Rules (WLCC Key point # 1(3) ; My Diary 9 Mar 07) - and WLCC nonetheless proceeding with the claim, including issuing judgment/s and charging order/s against my fellow leaseholders, etc. (WLCC # 5 , # 6 , # 14 ; Lord Falconer of Thoroton # 1, # 2 , # 5 )
• Getting CKFT/MRJ to supply a 'very convenient' lease with the WLCC claim, falsely claiming that it was representative of all the leases in the block (CKFT # 6.7 ; WLCC # 3 )
• Getting Lanny Silverstone and Ayesha Salim, CKFT, to make FALSE statements against me in court (CKFT # 6.3 , # 6.6 ; WLCC # 9 )
• Getting CKFT to make very extensive use of threats of "proceedings" - of course, always "with costs" - in an attempt to get his own way, which included forcing me to 'strike a deal' - in breach of the terms of my lease and statutory requirements
(CKFT # 3 ; # 3 ; # 6.4 ; # 6.5 ; # 6.8 ; WLCC # 8 ; # 10 ; # 12 ; Piper Smith Basham/Watton # 7 ; # 7.4.3 ; # 7.4.4 ; # 7.6 ; # 7.7 ; # 7.8 ; # 7.9 ; # 7.9.1 ; # 7.9.2 ; # 7.12.1 ; # 7.13.1 ; # 7.13.2 ; # 7.14 ; # 7.17.1 ; Stan Gallagher # 3 ; # 3.e ; # 4.1 ; # 5 ; # 9 )
• Having made me an offer for £6,350 (US$11,200)
(v. the original demand of £14,400 (US$25,400), Ladsky evidently dictated to Ayesha Salim, CKFT, that I should be made to continue going through hell, as it took another 6 months of battling with CKFT to finally get a Consent Order endorsed by the court (Piper Smith Basham/Watton # 7.13.3 ; WLCC # 13 ) - followed by more hell from the courts (WLCC # 14 ; WCC # 1)
• Getting Lanny Silverstone, CKFT, to join in 'on the act', by sending me the highly defamatory and threatening letter of 4 February 2003 after Ladsky reported me to the police for "swearing" at him (Kensington & Chelsea police # 2 ) (Lanny Silverstone has sent me many threatening letters: CKFT # 3 . The difference in style with e.g. a letter sent 12 days later to another leaseholder (CKFT # 6.2 ) clearly showing that his client earmarked me for maximum harassment, intimidation and blackmail
• Getting Ayesha Salim, CKFT, to threaten the Elderly Resident who reported Ladsky for harassment to the police by demanding "compensation for the slanderous allegation, damaging our client's reputation" (I can't stop laughing at these claims) (11 October 2001 letter)
• Getting Daniel Broughton, Portner and Jaskel, to send me a BOGUS 'notice of first refusal' (PJ # 1 )
• Getting Jeremy Hershkorn, then at Portner, to, over a period of several weeks, repeatedly threaten my website Host with proceedings unless my Host closed down my website, claiming that "all of the allegations on [my] website are clearly untrue and therefore defamatory" (My Diary - 5 Feb 07). He had succeeded with my previous website host, so he thought that he would try his luck again (My Diary 3 Oct 06 ; PJ # 2 )
• Getting Jeremy Hershkorn to threaten me with "bankruptcy proceedings, forfeiture" (*) (taking the flat away from me, and "costs" in the name of a company I had NEVER heard of (16 February 2007) (PJ # 15 ), if I failed to immediately pay £8,937 (US$15,800) (PJ# 3 ).
(*) = same approach as that used by CKFT # 6.2 ; My Diary 10 Oct 02 (An approach endorsed by 'my' then solicitor Lisa McLean - Piper Smith Basham # 7.19... in spite of having absolute knowledge that the service charge demand, and hence the claim filed against me were fraudulent: PSB # 1 , # 7.7 It makes me think of the comment by the Reader of The Times - My Diary 12 Apr 07
• Getting Jeremy Hershkorn to file a (FRAUDULENT) claim against me when the threat of "bankruptcy and forfeiture" failed to achieve his objective (Not only had I never heard of the company, I don't know how much I owe - if anything: my 12 September 2007 Defence) (PJ # 6) (Subsequent note: my 3 June 2008 Witness Statement).
Hence, this was Ladsky's response to my 25 February 2007 reply asking for clarification, as well as copy of “a statement dated 13th February 2007 which indicates how the sum of £8,937.28 (US$15,800) has been calculated" that was not enclosed with the 16 February 2007 malicious letter.
• Getting Hershkorn to file an application for judgment against me - as evidenced by the 19 April 2007 Order from WLCC refusing the application (Portner # 13 )
• Getting Ahmet Jaffer, Portner - and his barrister, Mr Greg Williams - to lie to the court that they had not received my Skeleton Argument (PJ # 17 )
• Getting Portner and Jaskel to file a vexatious claim against the Elderly Resident
• Getting his surveyor, Brian Gale, MRICS, - in tandem with Joan Hathaway, MRICS, Martin Russell Jones - to lie to the leaseholders about the true nature of the 'major works' (MRJ # 13 )
• Getting Brian Gale, MRICS, to lie to the tribunal in his 13 December 2002 "Expert Witness" report stating "categorically that the specification makes NO provision for any construction of an additional floor nor any future requirement in the building to create a penthouse flat" (BG # 2 ) and doing this with the support of Hathaway (Major works - home page)
• Getting Brian Gale to lie about me in his second "Expert Witness" report to the tribunal, dated 24 February 2003, by falsely claiming that I had been supplied with the priced specifications, and, acting in tandem with him, falsely claiming - in correspondence to the tribunal - that I was "the only tenant objecting to the service charge demand" (BG # 3 , # 4 )
• Getting Brian Gale, MRICS, and Mansell Construction Services to lie to the leaseholders in their November 2004 "description of the works" claiming that the works being performed were "replacing asphalt roof" and doing "general repair and refurbishment " - when, in reality, they were, among others, building a penthouse flat (BG # 8.1 ; Mansell ; Major works )
• Getting his barrister, Mr Warwick, to make a slanderous, scurrilous claim about me during the tribunal hearing by stating that "the reason [I have] been challenging the service charge demand is because I did not want to pay it" (My Diary 13 Mar 03) (LVT hearings are public)
• Getting MRJ to not supply other essential information e.g. year-end accounts (Kensington & Chelsea housing # 1 ; # 2 ; MRJ # 37 ; Pridie Brewster # 2 ) (In breach of the terms of my lease, I have not been supplied with the year-end accounts since 2004 - yet, Ladsky et.al. have filed 'another' claim against me) (PJ # 6 )
• Getting Ms Joan Hathaway, MRICS, Martin Russell Jones, to issue service charge demands - and threats of proceedings, in the name of a company which, the evidence suggests, did not exist at the time (MRJ # 24 ; Owners identity # 2 )
• As in the case of Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor and Portner and Jaskel, getting Martin Russell Jones to threaten proceedings 'galore' to anybody who 'dares' protest against breaches of covenants in their lease and / or their statutory rights (MRJ # 26 ; # 28 ; # 40)... a 'tone' it set within weeks of being appointed as 'managing' agents for Jefferson House in 1989 (MRJ # 1 )
• As a means of securing payment of the service charges by the leaseholders, getting Hathaway to lie to individual leaseholders by claiming that payment had been received from the others (MRJ # 15 ) - and concurrently lie that no objections had been received from other leaseholders (MRJ # 32)
• Getting Joan Hathaway, MRICS, MRJ, to portray me as a liar to the tribunal by falsely claiming that I had been supplied with a priced version of the specification for the works. (She contradicted herself during the hearing, leading the tribunal to postpone the substantive hearing "in the interest of justice") (LVT # 3 ). This had been preceded by the same lie in correspondence (MRJ # 33 ) including to the tribunal ( MRJ # 14 ) - supported by the threat of proceedings, in her 20 September 2002 letter, if I did not immediately pay the 'service charge' demand (MRJ # 14 )
• Getting Hathaway to supply a very 'convenient' lease with the application to the LVT, falsely claiming that it was representative of all the leases in the block (LVT # 8.1.4 ; MRJ # 23 ) - an action repeated with the court claim (MRJ # 22 ; WLCC # 3)
• Getting MRJ (through CKFT) to lie to the court that the LVT findings had been implemented, and reflected in the service charge demands (CKFT # 6.6 ; MRJ # 16 ; # 17 ; Pridie Brewster # 18 )
• Getting Barrie Martin, FRICS, Martin Russell Jones, to make outrageous, libelous accusations against me in his 4 August 2004 letter stating
that " [I] refused to pay [my] contribution [for the works] and this resulted in the proceedings before the LVT which of course resulted in the considerable delay in the commencement of the work" (MRJ # 25 ) (And 'maybe' copied all the leaseholders on the letter (?))
Ladsky had previously asked his other 'puppets' at CKFT to make these scurrilous accusations against me:
(1) in his 25 June 2003 letter, Lanny Silverstone wrote, (as he was attempting to force me to strike a deal with his client) "...without going through the costly LVT process which has now resulted in a percentage uplift in the contract figure and a significant delay in the project" ; (2) in the 21 October 2003 'offer', Ayesha Salim wrote "...and to continue to defend these proceedings is her own. Her decision to do so has caused inconvenience and expense to all the lessees of the building."
(NB: (1) 'Steel Services' filed the application in the tribunal (LVT Introduction); (2) As captured in the 17 June 2003 LVT/SC/007/120/02 report (ref. #992 on the LVT database) under point 64 "Although she is in the minority, the Respondent's legal right to challenge the Applicant's proposal, as she has done, cannot be fettered" .
This was in response to Ladsky asking the Chair during the hearing whether I would "pay the £250,000 (US$441,000) of additional costs that will be incurred as a result of the delay in the start of the works due to the hearing?" (My Diary 5 Feb 03)...
...and (3) NINE months AFTER the tribunal issued its report, in her 26 March 2004 letter to "All Lessees", Joan Hathaway, MRICS, MRJ, wrote: "Due to extensive delays in collecting the contributions from all (NB!!!) lessees...") (My question: Who is in need of "very serious help"?)
• Using MRJ to take revenge on me for challenging the 'service charge' demand by, three months AFTER the Consent Order sealing acceptance of the 21 October 2003 "offer" had been endorsed by the court on 1 July 2004, issuing me with:
- (2) another one three weeks later for £15,500 (US$27,300) - equally unsupported (MRJ # 18 )
- While I did not pay them - because I knew they were bogus - 14 months later, the next invoice was 'mysteriously' £10,254 less (9 January 2006 invoice)
(See my 3 June 2008 Witness Statement for detail) (PJ # 29 , # 30 no witness statement from Ladsky et.al. , # 31 Notice of discontinuance of "ALL" of the 27 February 2007 claim against me
- (3) Add to that yet ANOTHER, TOTALLY UNSUPPORTED, and DEFINITELY FRAUDULENT demand 'from' MRJ =Ladsky of 9 July 2010 for £24,000 (US$42,000) (Martyn Gerrard: Background , # 2)
• Serious neglect of the immediate areas external to my flat, I view as other vindictive acts:
- (1) Keeping the corridor immediately by the entrance to my flat unswept for months. The detritus included a used plaster, and what appeared to be the top part of a used condom (Photo gallery - Corridor by my flat - 18 September 2005; Pack Filth my flat)
- (3) using the area outside of my windows as a rubbish dump, and for storage; not cleaning my windows since before the start of the works in 2004 i.e. for now 4 years (photo gallery - Area outside my windows ; Pack Broken step ; Pack Filth my flat)
- (NB: maybe the hosing of my windows in the middle of the night (detailed at the top of this entry) is considered as 'cleaning my windows'? :-) )
• Another thing to add: Following the change of the lock on the main entrance door, I sent this 26 July 2005 letter to Martin Russell Jones, asking for two extra keys.
As can be seen from the letter, to this effect, I enclosed a cheque for £30.00, as well as a self-addressed, prepaid, special delivery envelop. To this day i.e. nearly three years on, I have not even received an acknowledgement. Outcome: I can't give a spare key to family / friend to come to my aid.
Actually, it would require that I can call somebody as, for the last two weeks, during day time, I can't get a signal on my mobile phones when I am in the flat. I can when I am out of the flat. The signal appears to come back on after c.17h30... when people come back to the block.
(NB: I am dependent on mobile phones as my landline in the flat was cut-off c. 2-3 years ago - without my consent). (Not because I was not paying my bills). (Subsequent note at July 08: 24 hours after putting this entry on my website, I was able to get the signal on my mobile phones during the day.
(See also how the corrupt Hutchison 3G deprived me of my mobile phone number for more than three months: My Diary 29 Dec 08 , 23 Jan 09 ; Computer, for what happened with my Vodafone 3G card, and as well as Phones, for extracts from a press article "Minister in 'cahoots with mobile phone firms on price fixing'", and another one headed "Phone firms net £9m for giving data to the police")
= More evidence that actions are being orchestrated against me, added to the evidence contained in My Diary 2009 - Introduction... and I can add a lot more evidence to this) (ADD; ADD2)
• Allowing the accountants to produce accounts that are in serious breach of my lease - and of course, on which the service charge demands are based (Pridie Brewster # 5 ; # 18 ) (Subsequent note: also covered in my 3 June 2008 Witness Statement)
What had Andrew David Ladsky said in his 25 January 2001 letter to the leaseholders?
".the costs of any additional floor on the property will NOT be borne by the residents" "All tenants are of course protected by the Landlord and Tenant Acts to ensure those carrying out any works do so reasonably."
...I believe that any fair minded, reasonable person with integrity would agree with me that the person who is "in VERY serious need of help" IS Andrew David Ladsky. He certainly fits the profile of a sociopath. (I look forward to Ladsky taking me up on that).
(In his 26.03.07 letter to my then employer, KPMG, he wrote that I was "undoubtedly suffering from clinical paranoia" and, in one of his phone calls to KPMG, said that I was "clinically unwell". The objective of his letter was to secure the assistance of my (willing) employer in putting pressure on me to close down my website. As can be seen from his letter, his tactics include: of course, FALSE claims and accusations; highlighting parties covered on my website with which KPMG has a working relationship; threatening defamation proceedings.
Andrew David Ladsky had done this previously (i.e. prior to 2006) by jumping on the fact that I had (stupidly) sent a personal fax to Kensington & Chelsea Housing on 24 October 2002, copied to the LVT, and one to the LVT, on the same date - on KPMG's headed paper.
In the fax to K&C, I highlight, among others, the BVI's policy of "protection of assets from expropriation or confiscation orders from foreign governments" and state "(Hence, they could siphon-off - at this stage - £750,000+ from Jefferson House residents and make it disappear)"
While in the fax to the LVT, I wrote, among others that "...some flats are owned by people connected with the headlease - namely, Mr Andrew David Ladsky..."
Although he clearly had 'no leg to stand on', Lanny Silverstone, Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor (CKFT), nonetheless tried to make something out of the above extracts in order to involve KPMG by sending this 28 November 2002 letter to KPMG, and one to me of the same date - in each instance demanding "compensation" failing which it would "start proceedings".
The real motive was vengeance for my communicating, in my fax to Kensington & Chelsea Housing, that Steel Services was a non-existent company as it had been "STRUCK-OFF the [British Virgin Islands] register for non-payment of the licence fee" (Owners identity # 2)... with very serious implications on CKFT and Ladsky's other puppets (Owners identity # 2)
My 'internal radar' was right: THEFT DID TAKE PLACE: of c. £500,000 (US$882,000) e.g. Theft Act s.17 - False accounting ; WLCC # 2 , # 5 , # 6 , # 8 , # 9 , # 12 , # 14 ; My Diary 22 Nov 08: 'threat of forfeiture, bankruptcy proceedings, as well as court claims = FRAUD TOOLS')
(As Ladsky had one of his thugs phone the Head of my department at KPMG, I had sent this 31 October 2002 letter to CKFT)
It really beggars belief that Ladsky et. al. can so freely carry out and command such outrageous actions against me (and my fellow leaseholders). Meanwhile... 'I' am branded "a Nazi". (My Diary 20 Mar 07 ; Kensington police # 3). Who are the 'Hitlers'... in 21st century England?
What I have - and continue to be made to endure -amounts to, among others, a breach of my Human Rights, under Article 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998 "Prohibition of torture - No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment"
19 May 2008 - Another block to add to the list for Martin Russell Jones
I received the following comment on my website: "Martin Russell Jones 'run'  (1) Court, Kilburn (2), in a similar fashion"
(1) Area in north London
This makes it the second block to be brought to my attention in the last two weeks (see 6 May 2008 above) - to be added to the other three previously identified: see Martin Russell Jones points # 18 and # 42
3 June 2008 - My 'knockout' (74-page) Witness Statement (4-page Main Points) - preceded by, among other, information that the airspace of Jefferson House was transferred from 'Steel Services' to 'Rootstock Overseas Corp' for "£1" on 8 January 2007
It took me c. three weeks of solid work to write my Witness Statement. In addition to writing the content, I also had to reference it to 240 supporting documents (list supplied in my 6 May 2008 Standard Disclosure).
Preceding events to my sending my Witness Statement to Portner on 3 June 2008:
- On 13 May 2008 I took delivery of a 1 May 2008 Order issued by District Judge Nicholson who refused my 30 April 2008 application (30 April 2008 - above) stating "If the Defendant wishes to obtain information from the Claimant the Defendant should make a request for the information, and if it is not given the Defendant should make an Application to the court”
- I replied on 14 May 2008 (copying the Rt. Hon Jack Straw, InJustice secretary) that "the court is perfectly aware that the Claimant has not supplied me with the information I should, by right (covenants in my lease, and my statutory rights) have been provided with – a long time ago”.
In support of my position of a “game plan to prevent me from getting the information in time to write my Witness Statement, I emphasised that, "given the Claimant’s conduct to date, I would need to make a request for information", and highlighted "PD 18 5.5(2) which requires allowing 14 days for reply before filing an application in court for an order". (In the last paragraph I wrote: "Whatever the outcome: my conscience is clear")
- I was proven right: on 19 May 2008, I sent a CPR Part 18 Request to Portner (Portner and Jaskel LLP), giving a 14-day deadline for reply by 2 June 2008. It did NOT reply.
(See Dr-MP for another 'interesting' preceding event in the month of May 2008)
Thanks to District Judge Ryan who issued case management directions that did not allow for the provision of the required information (30 Apr 08, above) and District Judge Nicholson refusing my application to amend the timeline of the case management directions - in breach of CPR (WLCC # 28) - I was left with having to write my Witness Statement without key information "required to clarify [Rootstock]'s case" and to which I am legally entitled - greatly prejudicing my position.
That's the game the judges wanted to play:..
...I had only one round...
...I would fight for a 'knockout'.
One exception re the provision of information: following my 16 May 2008 letter to Portner and Jaskel LLP, asking for documents from its 4 February 2008 standard disclosure (Portner # 24), one turned out to be a 8 January 2007 transaction for Jefferson House's airspace. It states that the:
“Property: Airspace of Jefferson House, 7 to 13 Basil Street, London SW3 1AX” was transferred on “8 January 2007” from “Steel Services Limited” to “Rootstock Overseas Corp, Republic de Panama” for “the sum of £1.00”.
The transaction was “Signed as a deed on behalf of Steel Services Ltd, a company incorporated in the British Virgin Islands by Enrique Sibauste… acting under the authority of the company”
As I wrote in my 3 June 2008 Witness Statement, point 51:
"My being supplied with this document only now (it was registered 7 weeks prior to filing the 27 February 2007 claim), provides yet another example of PJ and its client’s perverse, devious, warped mentality - considering that I first asked for clarification 15 months ago – and subsequently stated the issue in, among other, major documents served on them: my 3 May 2007 Skeleton Argument ; my 12 September 2007 Defence"
(It 'smells' of revenge for my figuring out, and exposing, the scam with the 10 February 2006 "Notice" (Portner # 1 ; more detail in My Diary - 18 February 2006 ). Clearly, the 'boys' don't like being outsmarted by a woman).
Rather 'interesting' to note that the "transferor" of the title for the airspace is "Steel Services" - considering that it was the "lessee" of Lavagna Enterprises (Headlessor # 2 ) (And ditto in relation to the 24 May 2006 transfer "by Steel Services" of its title "to Rootstock Overseas Corp" (Headlessors # 3 ) - given that Steel Services was a "lessee" of Lavagna Enterprises (Headlessors # 2 )
Prior transactions about the 'airspace' also indicate 'internal shuffling of papers' (Headlessors # 4).
As I wrote under points 52 to 56 of my 3 June 2008 Witness Statement, the 8 January 2007 transaction still leaves many questions unanswered...(Headlessor # 5 ) My explanation: all these paper companies have the same person trying to hide behind them: Andrew Ladsky (Headlessor # 5 ; # 7 ; Owners identity ; Directorships ; Freehold ownership ; BVI registration ) ('Maybe' the creation of Lavagna Enterprises as a superior headlessor was done for the purpose of borrowing money?)
Under point 57 of my Witness Statement, I wrote:
Under the L&T 1985 Act I have the right to know who controls my home. It is clear that, with no mechanism in place to control the residential leasehold sector, no matter how hard I try to get an answer to my question - at any one point in time - I will never know"
Another of my predictions materialised:
- The 9 April 2008 case management directions state “Both parties shall, by 4pm on Wednesday, 4th June 2008, serve on each other the witness statements of themselves and of all witnesses (other than expert witnesses) on whom they intend to rely”
- Under point 2 of my 3 June 2008 Witness Statement I wrote: "Considering the (well documented) conduct of the Claimant, i.e. Mr Andrew Ladsky (et.al.?), the requirement “serving on themselves” leads me to anticipate that I will not receive the Claimant’s Witness Statement as directed – allowing Mr Ladsky and supporters at large to see my Witness Statement first – in the knowledge that there will be no sanction for not complying with the WLLC Order (as happened with the 19 April 2007 WLCC Order in relation to the skeleton arguments) (Portner # 16 ; # 17 ). I hope to be proven wrong"
I knew I would not be proven wrong: I did NOT receive the witness statement from "Rootstock Overseas Corp / Steel Services Ltd / Sloan Development" (Portner # 6.1 ) i.e. Andrew Ladsky.
This is a REPEAT of what took place with the previous fraudulent claim of 29 November 2002 - see My Diary 22 Nov 08 - Court claims = FRAUD TOOLS.
As I wrote in my 5 June 2008 letter to Mr Ahmet Jaffer, Portner (Portner and Jaskel LLP):
"If your Client is so sure that he can justify his claim against me:
1. Why have you failed to send me your Client’s Witness Statement by the 4 June 2008 deadline set in the WLCC’s Case Management directions Order of 9 April 2008?
2. Why has your Client repeatedly ignored – over the past 16 months - my numerous requests for evidence in support of the claim? I remind you that I first asked in my 25 February 2007 reply to Mr Jeremy Hershkorn’s letter of 16 February 2007 in which he threatened me with bankruptcy proceedings and forfeiture unless I immediately paid the sum of £8,937.28 – in the name of a company I had never heard of at the time (as subsequently proven). Your client’s reply was to ask your firm to file the 27 February 2007 claim against me.
3. Why have you failed to reply to my 19 May 2008 Part 18 Request for information?
4. Why did your Client falsely claim in his 22 August 2007 Skeleton Argument that you had not received mine of 3 May 2007? On the basis of this false claim, point 8 of the Skeleton Argument states “The Claimant has delayed service of its skeleton to the present date in the hope that it may have been able to respond constructively to Defendant’s arguments on the application”
As per the 9 April 2008 WLCC directions, I only sent my Witness Statement to Portner and Jaskel... but I am sure that it quickly found its way to individuals connected with the court - and beyond.
(Events are also captured in my 19 January 2009 reply to the points of dispute)
7 June 2008 - "Roostock (sic) Overseas Corp, Steel Services" and "Sloan Development" i.e. Andrew David Ladsky et.al. have 'thrown in the towel' by DROPPING"ALL of the 27 February 2007 claim" against me
Yep! As can be seen in the 6 June 2008 'Notice of discontinuance', (sent on the day Portner received my 5 June 2008 letter, and the day after it received my 'knock-out' 3 June 2008 Witness Statement), Ladsky et.al. dropped "ALL of the claim" against me. That's right, the claim - endorsed by a Statement of Truth (Portner # 6.3) - for which Ladsky asked Jeremy Hershkorn, (now ex.) Portner and Jaskel LLP to...
...send me a letter, dated 16 February 2007, threatening me with "bankruptcy proceedings", "forfeiture" (taking the flat away from me) (copy), and "costs", in the name of "Rootstock Overseas Corp", a company I had NEVER heard of (PJ # 15 ), if I failed to "immediately pay £8,937" (US$15,800) (PJ # 3) ...
... file an application for judgment against me - as evidenced by the 19 April 2007 Order from WLCC refusing the application (PJ # 13 )
...and for which Ladsky got the then Martin Russell Jones to supply the Particulars of claim, as well as send me a 1 March 2007 invoice for £8,937 (US$15,760) (PJ # 7 )
Let's not forget also:
(1) The 3 October 2006 fax from the corrupt Hershkorn to my then ISP in which he threatened the ISP with "proceedings for defamation and for substantial damages and costs" if it did not "close down [my website] within 48 hours", as well as demanding "an apology...along with your suggestion for damages, which must be substantial...", because "[my website] contains suggestions that our client [Mr Ladsky] is guilty of criminal activities and fraud all of which are totally unsubstantiated, outrageous and false... Our client's reputation has been severely damaged..." (I can't stop laughing at that).
Hershkorn concluded the letter with "We will of course, take all appropriate steps to enforce any judgement obtained in the UK against you" (My 5 October 2006 reply highlighting that he did not provide one single item of evidence in support of his accusations - Defamation Act 1996 ) (My Diary 3 Oct 06 ; PJ # 2 )
(2) Jeremy Hershkorn's repeated threats of "proceedings and damages and costs" to my current website Host - over a period of several weeks - unless my Host closed down my website, by - yet again - making highly libellous, scurrilous claims against me, stating "all of the allegations on [my] website are clearly untrue and therefore defamatory" (My Diary 5 Feb 07 ; PJ # 2) Of course, yet again, Hershkorn did not provide any evidence in support of his accusations.
(3) When Hershkorn backed off, following my 28 February 2007 complaint against Portner and Jaskel to the Law Society (PJ # 4 , # 5), it led Andrew David Ladsky to take-up the harassment of my website Host himself, by making several threatening phone calls to my Host - repeating the same libellous, scurrilous claims and accusations against me, and the same threats - thereby continuing with his 'standard approach' e.g. his 26 March 2007 letter to my employer; the 28 November 2002 letter from CKFT to my employer, and its letter to me of the same date; CKFT's letters to two residents
Considering that, since the 27 February 2007 claim was filed against me (PJ # 6 ) ALL my documents to WLCC and Portner and Jaskel are based ENTIRELY on the contents of my website: If the claims on my website are "false", "outrageous", "unsubstantiated" and "defamatory" of 'the good character' of Mr Ladsky (I can't stop laughing at that): why has 'Rootstock' i.e. Ladsky dropped "ALL" of his (second) fraudulent claim against me? (The first fraudulent claim was in November 2002 - Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor ; WLCC, Martin Russell Jones, LVT, etc.)
This (and the rest of my experience e.g. overview under 15 May 08, above; Overview of my complaints ; Case summary) makes me think of the comment by the Reader of The Times "My father used to say that the mafia never got a foothold in this country because our legal system was more corrupt than they were. Now I know what he meant!" (My Diary 12 Apr 07). SO DO I ! And, to this, I add the police.
As you can see in various parts in the section for Portner and Jaskel, West London County Court - Post 2004, My Diary - Year 2007, etc., I have always maintained that the claim was fraudulent (*) - and have said so in numerous documents to Portner and Jaskel and West London County Court over the last 16 months.
(*) In my - non-lawyer- opinion (with a victory to my credit :-) ) the conduct, including letters and emails, amount to breach/es by Portner and Jaskel - and its client (PJ # 5.1 ) - of (NB: comments in brackets after the Acts are extracted from the Acts) :
(See my 19 January 2009 reply to the 'claimants' points of dispute)
They also amount to numerous breaches of the Solicitors Code of Conduct but, given the attitude of the Law Society (PJ # 4 , # 5), and in relation to my complaint against Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor (CKFT) and Piper Smith Basham/Watton - snapshots: Doc library # 2) - I am not wasting my time listing them...
...as, very clearly, like Lanny Silverstone and Ayesha Salim, CKFT, and Richard Twyman and Lisa McLean, Piper Smith Basham/Watton, it is viewed by the Law Society as having "discharged its professional duties with [no]thing less than complete integrity and probity" and consequently has no need to worry about "severe sanctions". (And ditto from the Bar Council in the case of Mr Stan Gallagher : # 16 , # 17 and # 18)
Why drop the claim against me now, considering that - just one week previously - Ahmet Jaffer, Portner, had sent me a letter, dated 23 May 2008, (posted on 27 May), on which he copied WLCC suggesting that the claim should be moved from 'fast-track' to 'multi-track' "to allow time for the very voluminous bundle of documents you have submitted as well as hear oral evidence..."
I attribute it principally to the strength of my 3 June 2008 Witness Statement (4-page Main Points) (3 June 2008 - above) in which I left 'no stone unturned'...
...and to the fact that I was not represented - thereby precluding the possibility of arriving at 'an arrangement' with 'my' legal 'advisers' - as happened with the equally fraudulent 29 November 2002 WLCC claim, ref. WL203537, filed against me, also in WLCC (My 19 October 2003 Witness Statement ; CKFT # 6.8 ; Piper Smith Basham/Watton # 7.12.1) - and,...
...unlike in 2003-2004 (Home Overview ; My Diary 11 Mar 07 ; CKFT ; WLCC ; Lord Falconer), the ploys and 'games' in 2007-08 failed to make me cave in - in spite of their 'renewed vigour', including failed to lead me to appoint legal 'advisers' (WLCC # 9 , # 11) (see my 19 January 2009 reply to the points of dispute) = second time round: the FEAR tactics had NO hold on me
Knowing that (as with the 29 November 2002 claim: My 19 October 2003 Witness Statement), I would not receive a witness statement from Ladsky et.al., I opted to wait until the day after the (4 June) deadline for the exchange of witness statements to send my 5 June 2008 reply to Portner in which I highlight, among other, the following from the 9 April 2008 so-called 'case management directions' “4) No party may rely on or adduce the evidence of any witness whose statement has not been served in accordance with this Order”.
NB: In relation to Mr Jaffer's comment in his 23 May 2008 letter “We received your letter of 21st May 2008 enclosing two lever arch files of copy documents you wish to rely upon at the hearing of this claim. The majority of the documents provided (without any request from us)…”:
I followed my 'sixth sense' (*) opting to hand-deliver (covering letter of 21 May 2008) an integral copy of all the documents listed in my 6 May 2008 Standard Disclosure - as I explained in my 5 June 2008 letter. (*) There MUST be a bundle for a hearing, and I wanted to make sure that MY documents were in it. (Also playing on my 'sixth sense' was what took place with Dr-MP at the time i.e. in May 2008)
I also wrote to WLCC on the same day, i.e. 5 June 2008, reporting the fact that the 'claimant' had not submitted a witness statement and that it clearly had implications on the management of the case.
Somebody suggested an additional factor: "somebody got cold feet". If so, my view is that it is in the 'higher echelons' i.e. parties outside of Ladsky's immediate circle (as he clearly does not have any sense of personal boundaries e.g. other court cases, and 'his puppets' kowtow to his every wish).
(NB: Visitor to the site not connected in any way with my case: in reading the rest of this entry, please bear in mind that my website does not contain 'the whole story', namely, some major events since 2007. I 'might' add the 'missing parts' at a later stage).
Question to the evil, corrupt, morally depraved barbarians who, as a cover-up tactic and out of revenge for my exposing their actions / their 'friends' actions have scurrilously labeled me a 'mental case'...
...in the process, resorting to the most despicable means to try to make it stick:
how do you think reasonable, fair minded, honest people will assess e.g...
... (1) My (Litigant in Person) 3 June 2008 Witness Statement - that triggered the 6 June 2008 Notice of Discontinuance of "ALL" of the 27 February 2007 claim filed against me in West London County Court?
(2) My conclusions: 'threat of forfeiture and bankruptcy proceedings, as well as court claims = FRAUD TOOLS' , and Theft of c. £500,000 (US$882,000) to generate a multi-million Pound jackpot?
(3) My 19 January 2009 reply to Portner and Jaskel's Points of dispute?
(4) My 2 January 2010 Subject Access Request to the Ministry of 'Justice'? (Legal-Home # 9 )
(5) My 12 July 2009 complaint to the Parliamentary Ombudsman?
(6) My 13 August 2009 reply to the police following my 28 May 2009 Subject Access Request to Kensington & Chelsea police; my 20 September 2009 reply to the 25 August 2009 'get lost' from the police (Kensington police # 5); my 2 June 2010 s.10 Notice and supporting document? (Kensington police # 5.1)
(7) My 2 February 2010 letter to Sir Paul Stephenson, Met Commissioner; Alan Johnson, Home Secretary; Sir Malcolm Rifkind; Ann Abraham, PHSO?
(8) My 19 April 2011 claim against the police et.al.? (My Diary - 19 Apr 11)
The work of a "mad" (*), "clinically unwell" (KPMG # 3.2), "emotionally unstable" "extremely paranoid"; suffering from mental issues", "suffering from clinical paranoia" (KPMG # 3.5 ; My Diary - home) woman who should be "locked-up in a psychiatric unit"? (See My Diary 25 Jan 11 for other evidence I cite in support of my assessment that the objective of the mafia is to get me locked-up / 'out of action')
Oh dear!...Back to your cave and the drawing slab then! You abhorrent evil, morally depraved scum!
NB: Indicative of how they perceive women in this country: in the Law of Property Act 1925, Part VIII is headed 'Married Women and Lunatics' (Subsequent note: following my reporting this, the header was removed).
(*) I thought it was the residential leasehold sector mafia and its supporters' standard way of discrediting women who 'dare' challenge them. I have since discovered that, for the same reason, they can also portray men as 'mad' - My Diary 22 Nov 08 (Not leasehold related: see the comments in a KPMG report about the HBOS whistleblower (who is ex. KPMG).
In fact, "vile, orchestrated smear campaigns and character assassinations" ARE THE STANDARD RESPONSE to anybody who 'dares' to challenge public sector individuals and their cronies (Whistleblowers e.g. Dr Shiban Ahmed, Alder Hey hospital ; Kay Sheldon, CQC ; Dr David Drew, Walsall Manor hospital ; Dr Hayley Dare, West London Mental Health NHS Trust).
Is this going to be the end of this claim? Civil Procedure Rule 38.7 states "
A claimant who discontinues a claim needs the permission of the court to make another claim against the same defendant if –
(a) he discontinued the claim after the defendant filed a defence (I did: 12 September 2007); and
(b) the other claim arises out of facts which are the same or substantially the same as those relating to the discontinued claim" Looking at what happened with WLCC since 2007, and in 2002-2004 with the previous fraudulent claim: only time will tell.
While it has not changed the overall picture in relation to the flat - at least it's a step in the right direction.
Under Civil Procedure Rules 38(6) "...a claimant who discontinues is liable for the costs which a defendant against whom he discontinues incurred on or before the date on which notice of discontinuance was served on him"
I sent this 26 June 2008 Statement of Costs to Portner, detailing my costs over the last 16 months - a total of £ £7,756 (US$13,676), giving 4 July as deadline for payment. I warned that if my costs were disputed, I would file an application for an order for costs.
As expected, more than two weeks past the deadline: no response. So, on 22 July 2008, I sent Portner a 'Notice of Commencement of Assessment of Bill of Costs' (outcome of more 'cramming in' of the CPR), and of researching other sources of information. The deadline for reply is 13 August. With the notice "for information purposes", I also sent my 22 July 2008 draft 'Statement of Case' in support of my position - should the matter proceed to an assessment hearing. (See below, 14 Aug 08 for the preposterous reply and 26 Aug 08 for evidence in support of my assessment, as well as 11Nov 08 for follow-on events - culminating in my 19 January 2009 amended reply to the points of dispute, and the 30 January 2009 so-called 'hearing' at SCCO)
In his 1 August 2008 reply "AJ" i.e. Ahmet Jaffer states that my bill of costs has been sent to "Costs Draftmen to settle points of dispute..." For follow-up see below: 14 Aug 08 ; 26 Aug 08 ; 11 Nov 08 - and the 'more of the same treatment' hearing in the Supreme Court Costs Office on 30 Jan 09.
- Those who, for the sake of personal gains, have/continue to turn a 'blind eye and a deaf ear' to wrongdoings and malpractice - in breach of their responsibility
- Those who are only too happy to 'lap-up' whatever they are told, because it's 'safer' to join the crowd and the conspiracy of silence, than to highlight the facts / the truth / stand-up for what is right (Note at May 09: Demonstrating the extent of corruption in the system, is that there is fear of retaliation even at the highest level: the House of Lords)
- Those who have – and continue – to scheme against me using the most unbelievably wicked, underhanded, deceitful, gutter tactics, including...
...the snakes in the grass with their fake claims of concern and their palpably fake smiles;...
...the spineless, gutless, greedy lackeys who kowtow(ed) to ingratiate themselves with morally depraved individuals in authority in the hope of personal gains
if you ever get your forgotten conscience out of storage, reflect on the fact that the root cause for what you did / said / wrote is Andrew David Ladsky and his gang of racketeers deciding that I (and my fellow leaseholders) should pay for the costs of adding a penthouse and 3 other apartments to Jefferson House - costs for which I (and my fellow leaseholders) are NOT liable.
The outcome of the c. £500,000 (US$882,000) theft - obtained through extortion tactics? It resulted in generating a multi-million Pound jackpot.
And to those of you who are / have been 'lapping-up' whatever you are / were told, rallying to the cry of 'Off with her head!', swallowing 'the pill' to make you feel better, reflect on something else:
if, when I was presented with the £14,400 (US$25,400) invoice in 2002, I did not believe in the system, would have I taken the route I took? (I really wish I had seen the Daily Telegraph article in 2001).
As I wrote e.g. in my 3 June 2008 Witness Statement, under point 16 "Is it any wonder that, having started on the basis of absolute trust and confidence in the Court Service in general, I was left with neither at the end of my ordeal in August 2004?"
And, if one day you can understand these concepts: what drove me are my sense of justice, as well as moral principles. I did not want to be treated differently from my fellow leaseholders (e.g. CKFT # 3 , # 6.3 , # 6.8 ; Stan Gallagher # 3.e.1 , # 3.e.2 , # 4.1 ; Piper Smith Basham/Watton # 7.14 , # 7.14.1 ; WLCC # 10 ; Pridie Brewster # 3 , # 18).
My moral principles are not available 'on tap': 'on' when it comes to e.g. declaring my income for tax purposes, 'off' when I am being ripped off / see others being ripped off - because it's 'dangerous' to stand up for what is right and just.
We ALL have to live - and die - with our conscience.
I hope that my achievement leads you to choke on your pieces of silver.
It is a mark of your moral depravation and warped mentality that you act(ed) as though Andrew Ladsky is the victim and I am the criminal (Home page Introduction);
that you are doing /did this by pretending to take his accusations, claims and rantings seriously for the purpose of using them as an excuse to take action against me for exposing your / 'your friends' 'true' practices - exposure entirely triggered BY Andrew David Ladsky's actions, and YOUR / 'YOUR friends' subsequent actions (e.g. Home page Overview ; My Diary 2009 - Introduction)
(8) - (Removed re. then Shadow Immigration Minister Damian Green being arrested following raising home office's blunders)
After this long aside...
...There are hundreds of thousands of leaseholders in this country going through the kind of hell and mental torture I have, and continue to suffer - every day.
See e.g. comments # 13 , # 6 , # 19 , # 20 , # 22 , # 24 and # 31 for further - appalling - evidence in support. - all for the sake of feeding the greed of individuals with interests in the residential leasehold sector (e.g. Home page Note 9 , Note 8) - and there is absolutely NOWHERE to turn to for help (e.g. Home page Introduction, # 7)
Look at what has and continues to happen to the people who sent me a comment - and to some of those I know (My Diary 11 Nov 06 ; Lord Falconer # 4 ). Look at what has and continues to happen to me - in spite of the unbelievable amount of 'black on white' evidence against Mr Ladsky and his aides (Court claims = FRAUD TOOLS);
the 'mutual help and fellowship' reflected in the concerted actions against me between various parties which, on the face of it, 'should not' be connected (e.g. examples under e.g. Protection from Harassment Act 1997 ; the Malicious Communications Act 1988 ; also My Diary 15 May 08 and summary outcomes of my 50+ legitimate 'cries for help' and complaints - in vain)
Of course, my fellow leaseholders at Jefferson House have also suffered greatly - as evidenced by e.g.
- letter from Leaseholder C to the LVT "I paid...not of my own free will, but because I felt intimidated and threatened....It may appear that the persons who paid all or a portion of the assessment are accepting of the assessment and proposal from Steel Services and MRJ as fair. Not so in my case, it is out of fear (the sine qua non of the business model). Steel Services and MRJ will take legal action if I do not comply"
...leading a significant number to give up and leave e.g. Block sale of flats...further reinforcing the business model (Unlike me, the apartment was not their main home) - leaving me with trying to prevent others from falling into the trap: My Diary 9 Jan 07 ; 3 Mar 07
- Other of my fellow leaseholders since then - see comments # 20 , # 22
QUESTION # 1: Where does it say that landlords and their supporting infrastructure have the right to do the following to leaseholders:
- deny them access to their legal rights and justice
- make false, scurrilous claims and accusations against them to their friends, contacts and a wide range of other parties to obtain information on them, provide them with trick assessment and advice - all with the aim of 'making them pay' for 'daring' to fight back by demanding the rights they have been told they have the right to demand
- have 'inconvenient' evidence removed from records, and false evidence placed on records to cause them detriment
- falsely imply that they have committed a crime
- make racist, xenophobic comments against them
- have them under 'surveillance' = persecuting them, as well as interfering with ALL their means of communications, including stealing their post, intercepting their emails, etc.
- make their daily life a living hell
- rob them of their life savings, of their property, of their livelihood, of their life?
(You don't have to be physically dead to lose your life e.g. metaphorically, I died in 2002)
If you know where this is captured, please use the comment section for your reply. There are c. 3 million leaseholders eagerly awaiting the answer. No doubt, it will also be of interest to many other parties e.g. the United Nations Committee on Human Rights. (In its 15 August 2008 issue, The Guardian newspaper has an article headed "Labour warned over limits to freedom of expression - UN report says terror and libel laws are interfering with human rights" What would the United Nations Committee make of the above?).
DOES THAT SUGGEST TO YOU A CIVILISED COUNTRY? This country that I so much liked that I made it my home, has changed beyond recognition.
QUESTION # 2: With (so far!) the exception of 'rob them of their property', under question # 1, I have been subjected to / suffered all of the above. Why? Can somebody please tell me.
I have done NOTHING WRONG
I AM NOT THE CRIMINAL
I AM THE VICTIM OF ORGANIZED CRIME
Have a look: my 3 June 2008 Witness Statement; my 2 January 2010 Subject Access Request to the Ministry of 'Justice' (Legal-Home # 9) ; See above: 15 May 08 and 6 May 08
See 22 Nov 08: threat of forfeiture and bankruptcy proceedings, as well as court claims = FRAUD TOOLS
My 'crime' is that:
In 2002, when I received what I knew to be a fraudulent 'service charge' demand (having had no prior dealings with the courts and the police) I had naïve blind trust and faith in what I had been told by the state in my previous 33 years in this country: that I had rights, I had the right to demand, and that there was a system in place – I am paying for through taxes (over £500,000) (US$882,000) – I could call on in time of need, ensuring that my rights would be upheld (Home Note 8)
- (1) Among other, it led me to obey the directions given to me by a tribunal to "NOT PAY" (end of pg 5) the (fraudulent) 'service charge' (London Leasehold Valuation Tribunal (LVT) # 1) and ended-up battling with this government department (LVT Points of note, # 6 , # 7), the courts, following the filing by CKFT of the FRAUDULENT 29 November 2002 claim against me in WLCC, on behalf of Steel Services =Andrew Ladsky et.al., as well as with other parties, as I tried to get the directions implemented - and they repeatedly ignored them (West London County Court (WLCC) Summary of events , # 2, # 5, # 6, # 8, # 9, section D incl. my Defence and seven letters to the courts; Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor (CKFT) # 6.1 ; Piper Smith Basham/Watton (PSB) # 7.7 , # 7.14 , # 7.4 , # 7.4.3, etc. ; Stan Gallagher summary, # 3.f ; Pridie Brewster # 3 , # 10, # 17, # 18 , # 19)...
...In the process they ALL, not only turned a blind eye and a deaf ear to the - often - criminal actions against me (and my fellow leaseholders), they actively assisted them, including subjecting me to horrendous, vicious, cruel, sadistic treatment (LVT Summary of events ; WLCC Summary of events, Breaches of legal requirements ; legal sector complaints departments ; Kensington police)
- (2) I have moral principles and a strong belief in justice. Among other, they led me to fight for fair and just treatment of my fellow leaseholders (CKFT # 3 , # 6.3 , # 6.8 ; WLCC # 8, # 9, # 10 ; Martin Russell Jones (MRJ) # 19 ; Pridie Brewster # 3 , # 18) - but this was held - and used against me (Stan Gallagher- Summary of events ; PSB # 7.14 , # 7.14.1)
- (3) Finally admitting to myself that I had been well and truly conned by the state, against my moral principles, I ended-up accepting the 21 October 2003 "offer" by SS =Ladsky et.al. for £6,350 (v. the £14,400 originally demanded) - even though, legally I did NOT owe this amount either (WLCC # 13) My plan was to then leave the country.
- (4) But, that was not going to be the end of it: I, a woman, of limited financial means, with no influential connections, and of Franco-German origin (Andrew Ladsky is 'Jewish', as well as, at least, some of his aides) - had 'DARED' to stand-up to 'Mr Ladsky', 'Mr I Am So Important...'. So, to punish me, three months after the 1 July 2004 Consent Order was endorsed by the court, he asked MRJ to send me an invoice with a "Brought forward balance" of £14,400 - as though no offer had been made, accepted and paid. Three weeks later, it was followed by another invoice, this time for £15,500 (WLCC # 13 ; RICS # 12 ; MRJ # 18)
- (5) Enough was enough: I had given in once, I was not going to give in a second time. My experience with the tribunal and WLCC (endorsed at higher level: LVT # 7 ; Lord Falconer) had been so horrendous and traumatic - rather than approach them, I proceeded with filing complaints against various parties hoping to get better treatment from the 'regulators'. IN MY DREAMS! (Overview of my complaints ; Legal Services Ombudsman # 7 , # 8)
- (6) Out of utter despair, after FIVE YEARS - of absolute, sheer utter hell, facing a gigantic wall of blind eyes and deaf ears, as well as blatantly obvious collusion and conniving between parties in the public and private sector, I 'DARED' to launch my website, hoping that doing this would put pressure on resolving my situation - leading me to close it within days, at most a few weeks after its launch - and leave the country. In other words: I was hoping for intelligence and common sense (Home-Overview) It proved to be A VAIN HOPE!
(7) My 'DARING' to stand-up for my rights, in the process challenging Andrew Ladsky et.al., their mob of lawyers, surveyors, accountants - and their 'regulators', judges and court staff, tribunal panel and staff, etc. - unleashed an unbelievably vicious, perverse, cruel, sadistic, barbaric vendetta against me by, among others: Portner and Jaskel on behalf of "[its] client", Andrew Ladsky; the WLCC judges and court staff, following Portner filing, on behalf of Ladsky et.al., another FRAUDULENT claim against me on 27 February 2007; the Supreme Court Costs Office; Kensington & Chelsea police ; KPMG, my then employer. It has also led to a death threat; attempts to get me locked-up in a mental institution, by: a medical practitioner; Kensington police (Key points # 8 , # 10) And other relationships are, likewise, NOT 'off-limit'.
- (8) What is ALL of this in aid of? For the sake of a bunch of crooks getting away a multi-million Pound jackpot?
- (9) At the end of my working life, contrary to the obvious expectation: I will NOT be 'a good little girl' and just “walk away” and ignore the unbelievable injustice I have and continue to suffer that has robbed me of the major part of what I have worked for in my life - for the sake of a bunch of crooks getting away with a multi-million Pound jackpot and to save the sorry, corrupt skin of their supporters who decided that they are entitled to breach my statutory rights (e.g. my 2 February 2010 letter to various parties)
To those saying "why don't I just walk away?" (e.g. My Diary Oct 05 ; 16 Jun 06) I say: why don't you give me all that I have lost and compensate me for all that I have suffered - as a result of being conned by a corrupted system? By the way: do you want to buy my flat? Yet, you expect me to deceive potential buyers! "Hand on the baton" like some people have told me I "should" do.
NOBODY has the right to tell me that I 'should' accept injustice - for the second time - and live my retirement in destitution as a direct consequence of it. It's MY LIFE and ONLY 'I' live it.
I WILL fight to the death (My Diary Oct 05 ; home) for justice and redress (my objectives). In spite of the FEAR tactics I will NOT suffer in silence (home)
This is the 21st century, not the 11th century.
And 'I' am branded a "Nazi"?!?!
Can somebody please explain to me?
Am I on the wrong planet, or they ALL living in a parallel world? (e.g. Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors)
As it stands: being an honest, decent, law-abiding individual who defers to authority is very clearly a MAJOR HANDICAP in this country.
David Miliband (Foreign Secretary) is quoted in the Mail on Sunday, 31 August 2008, as saying (in the context of Georgia) "The British people want a government that stands up for what it believes in and speaks out for the victims of aggression or injustice...".
When will New Labour "stand up...and speak out for the victims of aggression or injustice" in the residential leasehold sector (press articles ; Comments) - and implement what it claimed to "believe in", in its 1997 pre-election policy document 'An End to Feudalism'?
How many more websites like mine is it going to take to put an end to this feudal system that is used to cause so much misery to so many people?
Mr Gordon Brown, Prime Minister, with "strongly held moral principles of right and wrong [that are your] moral compass" - what is your answer to the question...having sold-out again to the 'landlords'?
To my wonderful American website Host who - in spite of not knowing me - has so consistently supported me:
THANK YOU A MILLION TIMES for believing me... and many million times more
You truly deserve FIRST PRIZE for your integrity and extraordinary courage.
(NB: Regarding the legal sector: it's not just leaseholders who are suffering at its hands e.g.
- Scotland Against Crooked Lawyers (SACL) (http://www.sacl.info) ; About SACL (http://www.sacl.org.uk) ; Latest News (http://www.sacl.info/about.htm) ; SACL links (http://www.sacl.info/links.htm) - which also provides links to other sites e.g. Dunblane Unburied (http://www.dunblaneunburied.tk) - referred to in My Diary 3 March 2007. At the time, the site that was accessible was 'Dunblane Abandoned'. As I understood it, these poor families appear to be denied justice due to, it seems, among other, the case being somehow connected to 'protected' paedophiles. Children alleged to have been abused were in an orphanage. Having spent part of my childhood in one (where the only bad treatment was being beaten-up), I also feel very deeply for them.
14 August 2008 - Ladsky et.al.'s preposterous, laughable excuse for dropping the claim
(NB: see also My Diary 26 Aug 08 for my reply and filing of an application for a detailed assessment hearing; 11Nov 08 and 19 Dec 08 for follow-on events)
Portner sent its 11 August 2008 reply to my 22 July 2008 notice, giving, under paragraph 1.4, an absolutely outrageous, preposterous explanation for dropping the claim: that "in June of 2008 advice was obtained from counsel wherein it was found that the demand for ground rent and service charges served by the managing agent had given the incorrect identity and address for the landlord and was therefore invalid pursuant to s.47 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987. It was as a direct result of this that Notice of Discontinuance was filed”
No reason was given on the 6 June 2008 Notice of Discontinuance, evidently thinking that it would be the end of it, leaving Ladsky and his aides free to promote this preposterous reason, in the knowledge (based on past experience) that they would be highly unlikely to be challenged. (See next entry, 26 August 2008, for my reply)
Fascinating to see how the situation is handled when - unlike with the 29 November 2002 claim, ref. WL203537 - there has not been the option of arriving at 'an arrangement' with members of the fraternity (My 19 October 2003 Witness Statement ; Stan Gallagher-Summary of events; CKFT # 6.8 ; Piper Smith Basham/Watton # 7.13.2 , # 7.13.3 , # 7.14 , # 7.15 , # 7.17 , # 7.12.1) - and,...
... unlike in 2003-2004 (Home Overview ; My Diary 11 Mar 07 ; CKFT ; WLCC ; Lord Falconer), the ploys and 'games' in 2007-08 failed to make me cave in - in spite of their 'renewed vigour', including failed to lead me to appoint legal 'advisers' (WLCC # 9 , # 11) = second time round: the FEAR tactics had NO hold on me.
This clearly proves that, in both instances, the claim was used as a TOOL FOR FRAUD - confirming my assessment of the tactic following the first fraudulent claim of 29 November 2002 (home Note 4).
'Unfortunately', the majority of my fellow leaseholders 'caved in' in relation to the 29 November 2002 claim - as evidenced by the fact that 9 out of the 14 flats listed on the claim (Particulars of claim and list) ended-up paying the FULL amount of the service charge, and a further 16 flats also paid the full amount (CKFT # 6.6 , CKFT # 6.3 ; Pridie Brewster # 18).
THEY DID NOT OWE THE C. £500,000 (US$882,000) THEY COLLECTIVELY PAID - AS A RESULT OF FEAR TACTICS - ALL FOR THE SAKE OF GENERATING A MULTI-MILLION POUND JACKPOT.
(NB: Considering what has happened to me for 'daring' to fight back against the scam: being persecuted (e.g. My Dairy 15 May 08 ; home introduction ; being under surveillance) I should say 'fortunately', instead of 'unfortunately'.
The worst part of it is that this kind of conduct is widely endorsed: Overview of my complaints - resulting in my being treated as 'the criminal' instead of the victim - while the criminals are treated as though they are 'the victims' (e.g. RICS # 12 ; police Overview , Outcome , # 2 , # 3) - and laughing their head off.
Of course, I forgot, silly me: Portner and Jaskel, Lanny Silverstone and Ayesha Salim, Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor, and Richard Twyman and Lisa McLean, Piper Smith Basham/Watton evidently have the blessings of the Law Society.
Well, unlike the Law Society, I view ALL as having very seriously failed to discharge their professional duties (Portner# 4 and # 5 ; outcome of my complaints). (And ditto from the Bar Council in the case of Mr Stan Gallagher : # 16 , # 17 and # 18)
(Subsequent note: The Detailed Assessment hearing is 'due' to take place on 4 November 2008. See, below, 11 Nov 08 for what happened)
More on this later. (I have many enemies monitoring my website). In the meantime:
Exposed in the public domain for malpractice? Adopt the "Tradition with a modern edge" approach: modify the name of your firm; make sure your people cannot be identified = the approach adopted in June/July 2008 by Portner and Jaskel LLP which now trades under 'Portner' - see start of section on Portner for detail.
26 August 2008 - Reply and Application to WLCC for assessment hearing
This is my 26 August 2008 reply to the 11 August 2008 'points of dispute', as well as application to WLCC for an assessment hearing. My reply to the preposterous, laughable excuse for dropping the claim (14 August 2008, above) is on page 5, under point 2.2. In summary:
- (2) that over a period of 16 months, starting with my 25 February 2007 letter, I questioned the identity of my 'landlord' at least 8 times (*) in various documents,
- and conclude: "Having received all of the above – the Defendant waits 16 months - until “June 2008” to “obtain advice from counsel”?"
- "The reality is that the Defendant could not defend its 27 February 2007 because it is fraudulent. But, maximum fun was squeezed out of it by all over a period of 16 months... "
The Detailed Assessment hearing is 'due' to take place on 4 November 2008. Subsequent note: I wrote 'due' as I anticipated that more games would be played - see My Diary 11 November 2008 for what happened.
(*) Actually, over the 16-month period, I did this a total of 11 TIMES:
- (1) 22 March 2007 Acknowledgment of Service, highlighting that there are 2 names for the 'claimant'
- (2) 4 April 2007 Application to contest jurisdiction, cc'd Portner
- (8) 26 January 2008 letter to “A Judge committed to the concept of Justice”, c/o WLCC, cc’d Portner
- (10) 30 April 2008 Application to vary the 9 April 2008 Case Management directions, cc’d Portner
Obviously, as in the case of my 8 communications to the courts, including my Defence and Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor in relation to the previous, 29 November 2002 equally fraudulent claim filed against me - the ink mysteriously disappears from my documents before they arrive, or shortly afterwards.
4 September 2008 - The RICS' threat of proceedings for defamation - and its - UNBELIEVABLE - prediction - implying encouragement - that "No doubt Martin Russell Jones will also be taking similar legal action against you" (!!!)
See from point # 11 of the section on the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors.
24 September 2008 - Another block of flats I have alerted to Martin Russell Jones' business practices - to be added to the others: comments # 11, # 12 and # 15 (Others since: # 20 , # 22 , # 30)
"I happened upon your website while trying to check-up on Joan Hathaway from Martin Russell Jones.
I am extremely concerned. This woman is doing exactly the same to leaseholders in a block where I own a flat. Although I am at the end of my tether with their demands for more and more money for service charges, and her complete indifference to whatever letters I have been sending her, I really thought it was sheer incompetence. I had no idea I was dealing with a confidence trickster .
And the RICS is of the view that "No doubt Martin Russell Jones will also be taking similar legal action against you"?!?!?
October 2008 - The 'giant bicycle' has crashed
At the end of the entry under w/c 4 Feb 08 I wrote "Four years ago, an Australian friend told me that, to him, the country looked like a giant bicycle running with nothing to control it: no frame, no handlebar, no chain".
I added "Just looking at my (so far) 28 battles since 2002, I now share his view: there is no control. It's like a giant 'trompe l'oeil' ". (snapshot of the outcome of my 'cries for help' and my complaints). (Subsequent note: to this I add the non-response in 2010 to my Subject Access Request - and therefore continuation of the breach of my statutory rights, this time under the Data Protection Act 1998 - by: the Ministry of 'Justice' ; the Home Office - as well as examples reported in the media (MPs-Home)
Look at what has been happening in the UK in recent weeks: a taxpayer £500bn rescue of the financial sector, and part nationalisation of practically all the major banks.
It is only now that mayhem has happened (economic recession, rising unemployment, growing number of home repossessions, etc), that there is consensus on introducing proper regulation. (Subsequent note at Feb 09 - see the entry on the HBOS whistleblower: the CEO of HBOS was also on the board of the banking sector regulator, the Financial Services Authority)
What scale of disaster is it going to take to have 'proper' regulation of the professions?
How many more websites like mine, relating horror stories, are required to prove that self-regulation does not work - and that very urgent action is required? Even individuals within the professions are saying this.
More recent examples of failure of self-regulation: (1)- re. the England and Wales Law Society and Legal Services Ombudsman; (2)- the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales: "Bogus auditor let off"
What is extremely depressing, is to hear a highly respected Member of Parliament - who is genuinely appalled, and concerned, by the state of the legal sector - say, in relation to wrongdoings by a solicitor, that it would take "courage" on the part of the Solicitors Regulation Authority (i.e. the Law Society) to take action against this solicitor "because he works for one of the major firms". Why?
(By the way, the Law Society does not even take action against high street firms e.g. Portner and Jaskel, Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor and Piper Smith Basham/Watton - Overview)
Without crooked lawyers, the courts would lose their 'bread and butter'! (see My Diary 20 Oct 08)
As to the residential leasehold sector, although, like many people e.g. press articles; C.A.R.L. - and the Labour Party before it was elected (it clearly changed its position - and confirmed this in March 2008), I firmly believe that this feudal, barbaric system must be abolished - it must , at a minimum, be regulated. What is going on in that sector is monstrous.
20 October 2008 - I really, really wish I had seen that in 2001
Today I joined a demonstration at the Royal Courts of Justice, organised by CASIA (Complaints Against Solicitors, Action for Independent Adjudication). One of the members gave me a copy of an article published in the Daily Telegraph of 5 April 2001, "Yesterday in Parliament". It reports:
"Austin Mitchell (Labour) said..."In law, the practice of the mafia regulating the mafia has failed, is failing and needs to be abolished.
He said the Lord Chancellor's department had taken on the role of protecting vested interests and was in collusion with the Law Society".
While It's good to know that a politician arrived at the same conclusion (The 'Clan') (Lawyers, Courts and LSO home page), I really, really wish I had seen this article at the time, as it would have saved me from having my life being totally destroyed (home - Overview)
Better still: I wish somebody had explained to me that, unlike in my home country which is only c. 30km from this island, here, you don't 'buy a flat' - and what you let yourself in for is a contract of enslavement (e.g. press articles) with your 'masters' totally free to do as they please (e.g. summary outcomes of my 50+ legitimate 'cries for help' and complaints - in vain) .
I feel so betrayed - and conned.
Had I known then what I know now...I was so naïve, so trusting of everything I was told by the 'New Labour' administration. When I hit the pavement, I'll put on the other side of my board: "Conned by 'New Labour" - currently headed by Mr Gordon Brown who wants "people to trust him" (his comment to the media) (v. e.g. My Diary 1 Mar 08 , 11 Mar 08) and emphasises "creating a society that both addresses injustice and stresses personal responsibility" - Home Note 9)
By the way, among the people who took part in the demo, some had / continue to have horrific experiences with courts and lawyers. And there are many, many more who have similarly horrific experiences e.g. see comment # 16 , # 19.
But, because the victims are gagged through FEAR, we are all kept in the dark as to what is actually going on - leaving only those like me who have reached the stage of having nothing to lose (home - Overview), going public with their story... and ending-up facing the 'lynch mob' - on their own.
(It is fascinating to observe how, having the guts to take the moral stance and stand-up by your principles, stand-up for your rights and speak out against injustice and malpractice - turns you into a pariah and lines you up for punishment... if you happen to be one of the 'little people'.
I think you will agree that it speaks volumes for the current state of affairs in this country. It is extremely sad to see that it has come to this).
As I have asked before: why is it that the decent judges and lawyers appear to be standing back? Why don't they speak out (as some, bravely do, in the other professions)? Is the legal sector so diseased that there is no cure? Is their silence due to fear of retaliation (e.g. the case of the Scottish lawyer)? What's the reason?
For how long are we going to have to suffer from, as one visitor to my site wrote (# 16) "a Judicial system criminally placed before the people"?
I think for a long time to come - as I have come to the conclusion that crooked lawyers are the 'bread and butter' of the courts. Imagine how different the landscape would look if all lawyers acted as per their code of conduct, legislation and regulations: after all that I have heard, and seen, I hypothesise that it would lead to a massive drop in the number of cases going to court e.g. the claims filed against me and my fellow leaseholders would not have been filed (e.g. snapshot under My Diary 15 May 2008).
And, if in the other parts of the food chain, the other professions (surveyors, accountants, etc.) also did the same? Cases like mine would not exist. I would have been able to continue enjoying my life, keep on building my life savings to give me some security - and I would have had a future to look forward to. All of that has been stolen from me - ALL in the name of GREED! (See Comments e.g. # 13 , # 16 , # 19 , # 24 , # 31 for other examples of lives being destroyed)
11 November 2008 - The 4 November 2008 Detailed Assessment hearing - which had been twice confirmed to me - was cancelled - and an order was issued - earlier on on that day, for the case to be transferred to the Supreme Court Costs Office (*) - which provides me with an opportunity
(*) The hearing is 'due' to take place on 30 Jan 09 - see 19 Dec 08
On Thursday 30 October 2008, I went to West London County Court to get confirmation that, as per the 12 September 2008 Notice of Detailed Assessment Hearing in relation to my 26 August 2008 Application, the 4 November hearing was still scheduled to take place, at 14h00, in West London County Court. I was told: Yes.
On Monday 3 November, at 14h30, I was again in WLCC to get confirmation that the hearing was still due to take place the following day. Yet again, I received confirmation that it was - by the same person. He appears to be in charge of my file as, while he is sitting away from the counter, behind a pillar, every time I go to the court (e.g. previous instances: (1) when I filed my 14 March 2008 Allocation Questionnaire (My Diary 13 Mar 08); (2) when I filed my 30 April 2008 Application to vary the 9 April 2008 Case Management Directions (My Diary 30 Apr 08 and 3 Jun 08) - the person closest to the counter looks at him (before I say anything) and he comes to the counter - in addition to going back to his desk in order to address my requests.
As I have a temporary mobile number, prior to going to the court, I wrote it on the 12 September 2008 order (and made a copy because I anticipated another trick) and gave it to the man, explaining that this was the number on which to phone me, if necessary. He did not appear too keen to take it.
I therefore turned up (with an acquaintance) on Tuesday 4 November at 13h45, for the hearing, due to start at 14h00. At at the allocated time, we were asked to go in the court. I determined that the judge was District Judge Nicholson (the Judge who refused my 30 April 2008 Application - see My Diary 30 Apr 08 and 3 Jun 08). He told me that, the previous day, the court had received a 3 November 2008 fax from Portner - which he read out to me. (I took delivery of the hyperlinked document on 4 November).
As can be seen, Mr Ahmet Jaffer claims that he was "unaware" of the 4 November hearing, and that the first he had heard of it was from my 31 October 2008 fax - which "only came to [his] attention today".
He goes on to state "In the circumstances we would ask that the hearing be adjourned..." = another lie and more game, as the court had reconfirmed to me during my visit on 30 October 2008 that it had sent Portner a notice of the hearing.
(Examples of previous games, lies and downright collusion:
- West London County Court proceeding with the 27 February 2007 claim in the absolute knowledge that there are TWO NAMES for the ''claimant'. Indeed, as can be seen in my 22 March 2007 Acknowledgement of Service, I went to great lengths to bring this to the attention of the court (WLCC # 2) (Subsequent note: Judging by what took place at the 30 January 2009 Supreme Court Costs Office Detailed Assessment 'hearing' (My Diary 30 Jan 09), my black on white evidence is evidently proving to be 'rather inconvenient' for WLCC - and so it should!)
- Letting me raise - 11 TIMES - over more than one year, in documents to Portner and WLCC (My Diary 26 Aug 08), the issue about the identity of my 'landlord' / ownership of the last floor of Jefferson House (Portner # 27) (I view this, in part, as revenge for my exposing the 10 February 2006 "Notice of first refusal" as bogus: Portner # 1)
- WLCC falsely capturing in the 3 April 2007 'Notice that Acknowledgment of Service has been filed' that, in my 22 March 2007 'Acknowledgment of Service' I had stated "an intention to defend part of the claim", which was used as one of the excuses by Mr Hershkorn in his 1 May 2008 letter to WLCC to ask for cancellation of the 8 May 2007 hearing, stating that he had "not received my defence" (Portner # 12 ; # 13)
- WLCC waiting more than one week, until 27 April 2007, to send the 19 April 2007 order that the skeleton argument needed to be filed by 3 May 2007. As this left me with just three days to do it, on 30 April 2007, I sent a fax to WLCC asking for an extension. In its 1 May 2007 order - posted on 3 May (!!!) - it gave me one extra day.
- 24 hours before the hearing I did not know why the hearing had been cancelled. When I spoke to the court staff he said that he would send me a copy of the letter the court had received from Portner. He did not - leading me to send this fax on 4 May 2007.
- The total lack of action by WLCC when I kept highlighting that I had not received the 'Claimant'' skeleton argument (WLCC # 9 )
- The 4 month silence from WLCC and Portner that followed WLCC's letter of 27 September 2007 in which it demanded payment of £1,700 "to file a counterclaim" and mine of 2 October 2007 (WLCC # 12.3 , # 2.2) - which led me to file a complaint on 13 November 2007 with HMCS 'Customer Service' (WLCC # 18 , and subsequent points).
- Manipulation by WLCC of what I wrote in my 12 September 2007 Defence, in order to justify its 27 September 2007 demand for payment of £1,700 - following my 13 November 2007 complaint to HMCS 'Customer Service' (WLCC # 22)
- More than 3 months (!!!) after the 27 September 2007 demand, on 7 January 2008, WLCC sent me a 19 December 2007Order stating "The Defendant having failed to comply with the Court's request by letter of 27 September 2007 to pay the Counterclaim fee, the Counterclaim stands struck-out"
- The refusal of my 30 April 2008 application to vary the 9 April 2008 case management directions to ensure that I would be provided with the evidence in support of the 27 February 2007 claim - to which I am legally entitled (My Diary 30 Apr 08 , 3 Jun 08)
- The very obviously intentional long delay in supplying the tape of the 24 August 2007 hearing to my selected transcribing company (WLCC # 13)
- Mr Ahmet Jaffer falsely claiming that he had not received my Skeleton Argument (Portner # 17)
- Mr Jaffer falsely claiming that Mr Hershkorn had sent me the title for Rootstock on 27 February 2007 (Portner# 15)
- The lies made by Mr Jeremy Hershkorn to my previous and current website Host (Portner # 2 ; My Diary 3 Oct 06)
etc., etc., etc.
Not to mention the 'discretionary' application of CPR such as e.g.
- (1) Ordering that I pay £293.70 to "Rootstock" - even though (1) WLCC knew that there are TWO NAMES for the 'claimant', and that I had repeatedly been raising the issue of the identity of the 'claimant'; (2) WLCC was in no doubt from the documents I had supplied by then to the court that the claim was fraudulent; (3) the 'claimant' had not served its statement of costs (WLCC # 11)
- (Had there been an address, there might not have been the opportunity for a 'good laugh' (Portner # 27) as revenge for my establishing that: (i) the 10 February 2006 "Notice of first refusal " is bogus (Portner # 1); (ii) Ms Joan Hathaway, MRICS, Martin Russell Jones and Mr Lanny Silverstone, Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor were: threatening me (and my fellow leaseholders) with proceedings (MRJ # 26 , # 32 ; # 14 ; CKFT # 3) and forfeiture (CKFT # 1 , # 6.2) in the name of a company - 'Steel Services' - which, the evidence suggests, did not exist at the time as I determined that it had been "Struck-off the [British Virgin Islands] register for non-payment of the licence fee" (Owners identity # 2 ; CKFT # 1, # 6.9). Further, the Jersey address was ALSO FALSE.
= A continuation, by WLCC, of the 'discretionary' application of CPR when it comes to 'Steel Services' aka Andrew Ladsky: see WLCC Key point # 1(3) / the 29 November 2002 Particulars of claim (hyperlink from the 'Statement of truth'): "An agent who manages property or investments for the party cannot sign a statement of truth.... Consequences of failure to verify...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" What actually happened? WLCC issued judgments, charging order/s, etc. e.g. WLCC # 5 , # 6 , # 14 , including the appalling judgment against the 5th Defendant
(See also my 19 January 2009 reply to the points of dispute - and My Diary 30 Jan 09 for detail of the hearing)
As to whether the trigger for those 'games' and 'discretionary application of CPR' is the fact that I exposed, by launching my website at the end of 2006, what took place in WLCC in 2002-04 in relation to the previous fraudulent claim, ref. WL203537 (court claims = FRAUD TOOLS): while it no doubt plays a part (which, of course, it should not), as can be seen from my experience PRE launching the website (Case summary) (and that of my fellow leaseholders) at the time with the courts, and the follow-up to my 'cry for help' to Lord Falconer of Thoroton - I was subjected to unbelievably appalling, and very traumatic treatment.
My 'cries for help' resulted in being sent from 'pillar to post' by the Law Society and the Court Service 'Customer Service' in the context of my 20 December 2004 complaint to the Law Society against Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor (CKFT) and my 29 June 2004 'cry for help' to Lord Falconer of Thoroton in relation to events with West London County Court in 2002-2004).
Yep! 'games' is certainly the operative word! What a 'mafia'! (Subsequent note - 'Fixing' also takes place e.g. in the House of Lords where 'special requests' for changes in legislation can be purchased. The power of money! And if you are a crook facing proceedings, you can also try your luck with a senior MP
What else can you expect under a system that is corrupted to the core? e.g. My Diary Jan 09 ; Feb 09 ; It sides with the criminals against the victims e.g. Overview of my complaints ; 30 Jan 09 ; Kensington & Chelsea police - and acts like the criminals e.g. local council ; police ; MPs ; peers)
(The lies and the games = the 'bread and butter' of the courts - and those who pay for it are the 'little people' like me and my fellow leaseholders (see Kangaroo court) - and, e.g. visitors to my site - with the blessings of the Court Service 'regulator' - including the Office of the Minister heading the Ministry of (In)Justice - see WLCC # 20 , # 23 , # 24 , # 25 , # 30 for my letters to / copied to Jack Straw, the 'Justice' Secretary ; summary in my 24 March 2009 letter to 'my' then MP, Sir Malcolm Rifkind)
I asked at what time the court had received the fax on 3 November: "At 11h07". I pointed out to the Judge that I had come to the court 3.5 hours later (at 14h30) and that I had not been informed of this. Reply "It takes a while to be put on file".
District Judge Nicholson also told me that, in the morning, the staff had tried to phone me. I replied that this was not so. I gave him a copy of the notice I had left with the court staff the previous day, on which I had written my mobile number (in large writing) and said that no calls had been made. He took the copy and said that he would raise it.
Judge Nicholson said that, in any case, he had issued an order "at 10h00 this morning" for the case to be transferred to the Supreme Court Costs Office "because it's a detailed assessment". When I asked why this order was made on the day of the hearing, considering that my application was filed more than 2 months previously, on 26 August 2008, the reply was "The Judge made an error"
By 11 November, I have not received a copy of the order. (Subsequent note: I took delivery of it on 15 November. It was posted 2nd class post on 11 November 2008)
A previous visitor to my site sent me an email, as a result of seeing my temporary entry for the 4 November hearing:
"I hope that the Cost Assessment Hearing went ahead as planned on 4th November 2008 with a favorable outcome. That's my idealistic side
My realistic, and pessimistic side, is erring on the possibility that certain other events took place, I will list them:
( 1 ) Hearing delayed or postponed
( 2 ) Documents misplaced or missing
( 3 ) Non attendance of party..."
On the right track, but ordering a transfer of the case to another part of the Court Service 4 hours before the hearing is a new one for the visitor to add to his list.
As the case is being transferred, I am taking the opportunity to amend my documents starting with the Bill of Cost I sent Portner on 26 June 2008 as, in its 11 August 2008 Points of Dispute, under point # 1.11, it wrote "unfortunately the Defendant's Bill of Costs fails to comply with the requirements of CPR Part 43 and therefore this hampers the Claimant's ability to consider the reasonableness of each and every individual claim for costs made". (My reply of 26 August 2008)
As far as I can make out, it may be that I should have split the Correspondence section into sub-groups. I cannot change this because Portner used my numbering for its reply. I have nonetheless made some amendments - including amending the amount of 'loss of pay' for producing two of the documents. (I intended to communicate this during the 4 Nov hearing). I sent Portner my 11 November 2008 Amended Bill of Costs with a covering letter explaining the amendments - including the adjustments to 'loss of pay' - as well as a supporting schedule of my timesheets.
In my temporary entry I wrote: A warning sign? The 12 September 2008 notice describes me as the "Defendant" . (No, this is not due to an error on my part - as can be seen on my 26 August 2008 application, I have entered my name as the 'Claimant'... and my £300 cheque has been cashed!).
Having raised this with the court, I determined that, while I have filed the application for the detailed assessment hearing, I am still considered as the Defendant. So, I am going to change my 26 August 2008 reply accordingly. (Not easy when it's all new territory and you are doing it by yourself :-) - as one of my 'comrades in arms' testified)
According to this 18 December 2008 Notice from the Supreme Court Costs Office, the Detailed Assessment hearing is 'due' to take place on 30 January 2009. It did. And as can be seen, it was 'more of the same treatment'.
22 November 2008 - The C.A.R.L. Annual General Meeting. The 'blindfold' has come off many people's eyes - realising that they have been hoodwinked... (and, since February 2009, they 'should' have 20/20 vision)
My 6th attendance at the AGM and still many of the familiar faces I saw last year, the year before that, and the year before that, etc.
Some told me: "I remember when you talked about your case in 2003 - and it's still going on!?" "Yes, like yours! Why are we still all here today?"
We all concluded that we are prisoners in our home.
Teasingly, some told me that one of my compatriots, William the Conqueror, was responsible for the introduction of the leasehold system in this country. I replied that, while this idiot should have limited himself to bringing 'du pain, du vin et du fromage' (bread, wine and cheese) (quoting from a previous(?) advertising campaign for Boursin cheese), countries such as Australia where the British exported the system, had got rid of it. Why not here? After all, this was 1,000 years ago. The world had moved on since.
The consensus on the reply: because here it's still a feudal system dominated by individuals with a vested interest in keeping it going. But, like a member wrote to C.A.R.L., The Leaseholder, Autumn 2008-Issue 25, under "Medieval cronyism", "Leaseholders need to stand-up and be counted, and not be intimidated..." (Note at Jun 09: The sleaze revealed by the media in the House of Commons and House of Lords has, in recent months, been a great spur to 'emancipation').
The 3 leaseholders who talked about their case, included the leaseholder who, in 2006, provided an update on the decision by the Lands Tribunal in relation to his case. The leaseholders have since gone to the Court of Appeal; next step is the House of Lords.
Hence, these leaseholders have now been battling for 4 years: total cost to date? c. £300,00 (US$529,000) and by the time they have gone to the House of Lords? c. £400,000 (US$705,000). (See the Leaseholder, Spring 2009, Issue 16, for the ruling by the House of Lords: 'Earl Cadogan v Sportelli).
That's one thing the government sure does not tell you when it promotes its Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 e.g. in the 5 Mar 08 reply from the Office of Gordon Brown, Prime Minister, to the petition to abolish residential leasehold (My Diary 11 Mar 08) "The Government introduced the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 (the 2002 Act). The 2002 Act made significant changes to the rights of leaseholders, including making the purchase of the freehold...".
As highlighted in: the House of Commons and House Of Lords, the media, and by C.A.R.L. in its newsletters (*) as well as communications to politicians and civil servants: the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 is a "flop", it's unworkable - and the above, is one very damning example in support of this assessment.
- (*) (1) Summer 2007-Issue 21 "New Leader...new housing policy?"
- (2) Autumn 2006- Issue 19 "Tribunal pushes up cost of freeholds", including Member's letter "New Labour or Feudal Labour?"
- (3) Summer 2006-Issue 18 "Carry on Consulting"
- (4) Spring 2006-Issue 17 "Government must end unfair valuations", and "The Commonhold flop"
- (5) Autumn 2005-Issue 15 "Commonhold tenure"
- (6) Autumn 2004-Issue 13 "Leasehold the most rapidly growing property tenure"
- (7) Summer 2004-Issue 12 "Don't hold your breath"
- (8) Spring 2003-Issue 9 "New legislation a flop - it's official" , and a reproduction of the Guardian article"In search of common sense"
- (9) Autumn 2002-Issue 8 "Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act"
In the same way that the government does not tell you that, contrary to the way they are positioned, the Leasehold Valuation Tribunals have, to quote a leaseholder who attended the C.A.R.L. meeting: "no teeth whatsoever" as they have no power to enforce their decisions.
This comment led many others to agree. Hence, these leaseholders agree that, like me (LVT # 8.1.5 , # 8.1.6 , home Note 8) they were tricked into believing that LVTs would provide them with an enforceable decision. At which point I said: "it's all part of the game of wearing down leaseholders, getting them to give-up, beating them into submission" - to which there was agreement.
These comments were made in the course of a presentation by a representative from LEASE, following my saying to the representative that, 5 years ago, when I was told about the LVTs (e.g. Home Note 8), there was no mention of this fact anywhere. Evidently, this is still the case. One leaseholder said to the representative:
"Don't send people to the LVTs, it's a complete waste of money and time". Others agreed.
(See also e.g. C.A.R.L.'s The Leaseholder - Autumn 2006-Issue 19 "Tribunal lottery" ) (As can be seen in some of the other issues of The Leaseholder, some leaseholders do get treated justly and fairly by the LVT = it is a "lottery")
One thing I noted among many people is that the 'blindfold' has fallen off their eyes e.g.:
"Within minutes, I felt that there was collusion between the panel and my landlord's party.
Their surveyor, who had come across as friendly previously, went into a personal, humiliating attack against me during the hearing. I felt under attack, I was shaking. He revealed himself to be a liar and very dishonest"
(NB: Ditto in terms of my perception of collusion / siding with the landlord and his aides when I went to the London LVT in 2003, following 'Steel Services' application of 07.08.02 to the LVT (Overview # 2 , LVT # 8 to # 11 , # 5) which turned out to be correct: LVT # 6 , # 7 ; the outcome of the 'determination' v. the Case summary on the LVT database)
"We were seriously sha***d by the LVT. The only people they could hear in the room were the landlord's barrister and surveyor. And it continued when we took our case to the Lands Tribunal.
It's my country. I was born here. But that evidently doesn't give me the right to justice. Makes me sick. I've got to get out of here"
"The LVT leaflet, LEASE and the website tell you that you don't need representation in the LVT. Then you turn up on your own, and you find that the landlord has employed a QC to face you. Can you imagine? A QC for an LVT hearing!"
(NB: Inequality of arms in the LVTs was a point agreed on by many leaseholders - and tallies with my own experience - LVT # 2 , # 8.1.5, etc.) (See also C.A.R.L.'s The Leaseholder e.g. (1) Autumn 2006-Issue 19 "Tribunals raise the stakes" ; (2) Spring 2006 - Issue 17 "DGA over charges on insurance...again" ; (3) Autumn 2001-Issue 7 "Leasehold Valuation Tribunals" which reports on the findings from a survey conducted by Sheffield Hallam University)
"As I was sitting there, looking around I was thinking: my barrister and my solicitor: paid to be there by me ; the barrister, solicitor and surveyor for the landlord: paid to there by me and my fellow leaseholders - as their costs would, in all likelihood, end-up in one form or another in the service charges ...
- even though the service charge demand of £70,000 they expected me to pay, and similar for the others, was fraudulent ;
the members of the panel: paid to be there by me and other taxpayers in this country. So, none of them with any care as to how long it would take and what the outcome would be.
Whereas I, I was trembling, thinking: every extra hour is going to immediately cost me several hundred pounds to my barrister and my solicitor - and more later on. I was their meal ticket.
They were all feeding on me"
Some leaseholders told me that the LVT was "scared" of their landlord because this landlord is particularly litigious. You can guess the outcome on the leaseholders! (See also e.g. C.A.R.L.'s The Leaseholder - Autumn 2006-Issue 19 "LVT caves in to landlord bullies" ).
Members' comments about the Lands Tribunal:
"You could see from the exchange between the judge and the landlord's counsel that they knew each other well.
Of course they do! It's a club, and they know who is buttering their bread: landlords. Same thing in the LVT!"
(NB: See Lord Falconer # 4 for the experience of other leaseholders)
"A mess" ; "Utter shambles"
A man told me that the stress of the ordeal he was put through by the LVT / the Lands Tribunal led him to go and see his doctor, and that he broke down in tears when he met with him. (That's the ultimate objective: get people to break down, beat them into submission)
Lanny Silverstone, Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor (CKFT) (snapshot under 'Advisors to Jefferson House') in his 07.10.02 letter (My Diary 10 Oct 02 ; CKFT # 1 , # 6.2).
The 17.07.02 £14,400 (US$25,400) demand - issued by Martin Russell Jones (MRJ) - I was so categorically 'considered to owe' that it 'justified' threatening me - illegally - with forfeiture (copy of definition) and "contacting my mortgage lender", as well as filing a 29.11.02 claim against me (ref. WL203537),...
... turned into a 21.10.03 'Part 36 offer' for £6,350 (US$11,200) which, "for the sake of bringing the dispute to an end", in my 19.12.03 letter I accepted - even though, legally, I did not owe this amount either.
But that was not going to be the end of it: Andrew David Ladsky had to take his 'revenge' for my 'daring' to stand-up to him e.g. Overview # 6 ; My Diary 11 Mar 07 ; police: # 2 background , Outcome.
In fact, because a new contractor was subsequently appointed in breach of statutory requirements - legally, I only owed £250 (US$441) (Overview # 5).
(By the way, in her 25.09 03 letter, 'my' solicitor, Lisa McLean, Piper Smith Basham/Watton, approved of Lanny Silverstone threatening me with "forfeiture" (copy) - describing it as "perfectly legitimate" (PSB # 7.19) - when she had absolute knowledge that the 'service charge' demand, and hence, court claim against me were fraudulent e.g.
her 09.04.03 letter to my then solicitors (PSB # 1 , # 7.7) ; she had attended part of the LVT hearings, and had a copy of the LVT report)
(see Stan Gallagher-Summary of events; more detail in my Comments to 'his' 13.11.03 'draft consent order and notice - for the double-dealing that went on at the time of the 21.10.03 'Part 36 offer').
But then, like Silverstone, McLean makes extensive use of malicious communications as a means of achieving her illegal objectives - see breach of Malicious Communications Act 1988.
For the purpose of demonstrating the 'tandem approach' between lawyers and surveyors in their organized crime activities: in 'her' 20.09.02 letter, Joan Hathaway, MRICS, of the then Martin Russell Jones (MRJ),...
... threatened me with proceedings, stating "...if payment is not made now our client, Steel Services, will instruct solicitors to commence legal proceedings" (MRJ # 14 , # 26)
Of course, she did the same thing with some of my fellow leaseholders e.g. to Leaseholder D who wrote this in his letter to her of 24.09.02 "...your letter of 20 September in which you threaten legal proceedings in the event of not receiving payment from us..." (MRJ # 14 , # 26)
(Hathaway had previously threatened proceedings - also as a means of breaching covenants in my lease - in her 28.02.05 letter "Your landlord Steel Services have told us that they will strictly enforce with legal proceedings and associated costs..." (MRJ # 26)
In fact, she revealed her propensity to threaten proceedings within weeks of being appointed as 'managing' agents: her 30.10.89 letter"...we will have no alternative than to inform our client who will no doubt take legal action against you" (MRJ # 1)
And 'I' am branded "a Nazi" by Andrew David Ladsky and his henchmen in Her Majesty's police and judiciary?!?!
Of course, as the then MRJ had the blessings of, among others, its so-called 'regulator', the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS), it continued with its fraudulent activities - see Martyn Gerrard - Background.
And of course, it has continued with its successor, Martyn Gerrard, the "RICS, ARMA, ALEP et.al. regulated, award-winning agency"...where integrity counts" - sending totally unsupported, fraudulent upon fraudulent demands: Summaries: Overall ; 'Service charge' ; 'Electricity' - and ignoring my correspondence.
And what did the May 2010 appointed Housing Minister have to say about the residential leasehold sector? "All is well with leaseholders!"... as he cashed in on the benefit of saying this.
Jeremy Hershkorn, (then at) Portner and Jaskel (snapshot under 'Advisors to Jefferson House'), in his 16.02.07 letter who, in addition to threatening me with "forfeiture" (copy),...
... also threatened me - illegally - with "bankruptcy proceedings" and "costs" (Portner # 3) - in the name of a company I had never heard of if I failed to pay immediately £8,937 (US$15,800) (Overview # 10 ; PJ # 15).
It was 'based' on information, also supplied 'by' the then Martin Russell Jones (Portner # 3) (and NOT supplied to me at the time of the threat). This is one of the typical tactics used by satanic Rachman Ladsky and his gang of racketeers e.g. letter to him from the Residents Association.
This sum which, likewise, I was so categorically 'considered to owe' that it 'justified':
- (3)- filing an application for judgment against me (as evidenced by the 19.04.07 Order from WLCC refusing the application (Portner # 12)...
... - turned into a £0.00 demand - after a 16-month battle with Portner and Jaskel and Her Majesty's judiciaries, as well as court staff, in West London County Court , as "ALL" of the 27.02.07 claim filed against me was dropped by issuing a 06.06.08 Notice of Discontinuance (Overview # 11 ; Portner # 31). (see Kangaroo courts # 4 )
(Such is the arrogance of Andrew David Ladsky and his racketeer solicitor Ahmet Jaffer, Portner and Jaskel, the contempt with which they perceive me - and their justified belief in 'the system' i.e. 'the Brotherhood' (e.g. outcome of the 30 Jan 09 Supreme Court Costs Office 'hearing' - Overview # 12),...
...that one week before receiving my 03.06.08 Witness Statement, in his 23.05.08 letter, Jaffer suggested that the case be moved from "fast-track to multi-track" (Portner # 30))
The trigger to dropping "ALL of the claim" against me was my ('Litigant in Person') 03.06.08 Witness Statement - and was the response, instead of sending me 'Roostock (sic) Overseas Corp. / Steel Services / Sloan Development' witness statement (as per the 09.04.08 so-called 'case management directions') (WLCC # 27) (My Diary 7 Jun 08 ; 3 Jun 08).
The preposterous reason subsequently given for dropping the claim (Portner # 33) provides additional proof that the claim was fraudulent (I challenged the identity of 'the Claimant' a total of 11 times over a 14-month period!) - but it provided Ladsky, Portner and their mates in Her Majesty's judiciaries with 16 months of satisfying their sadistic needs, and need for 'retribution'.
It amounted to a 'part repeat' of what happened with the West London County Court's 29.11.02 fraudulent claim, ref. WL203537 (Particulars of claim), filed against me (and 10 of my fellow leaseholders, representing a total of 14 apartments at Jefferson House) (Overview # 3) .
Indeed, contrary to the WLCC Order that witness statements had to be "served / exchanged by 4.00 pm on 21 October 2003", 'Steel Services', aka Andrew David Ladsky, did not supply a witness statement - opting instead to send a 21.10.03 'Part 36 offer' for £6,350 (US$11,200) (v. the £14,400 (US$25,400) demand) - nearly 2 hours after its witness statement was due.
'Fascinating' to see the difference in outcome when - unlike with the 29.11.02 claim, ref. WL203537 - there has not been the option of arriving at 'an arrangement' with members of the fraternity (My 19 Oct 03 Witness Statement ; Stan Gallagher-Summary of events; CKFT # 6.8 ; Piper Smith Basham/Watton # 7.13.2 , # 7.13.3 , # 7.14 , # 7.15 , # 7.17 , # 7.12.1) - and...
...unlike in 2003-2004 (Overview # 3 ; My Diary 11 Mar 07 ; CKFT ; WLCC ; Lord Falconer), the ploys and 'games' in 2007-08 failed to make me cave in - in spite of their 'renewed vigour', including failed to lead me to appoint legal 'advisers' (WLCC # 9 , # 11) = second time round: the FEAR and persecution tactics had NO hold on me.
The outcome clearly proves that, in both instances, the illegal threat of forfeiture (copy) and claim were used as tools for fraud - confirming my assessment of the tactic following the 1st fraudulent claim of 29.11.02 (home Note 4)
In addition to the illegal threats of forfeiture, threat of bankruptcy proceedings, and of having the fraudulent claims filed against me - consider also that Andrew David Ladsky had asked his corrupt, racketeer solicitor, Lanny Silverstone, CKFT, to threaten me and my then employer, KPMG, with defamation proceedings...
.... unless he received "substantial payments for damages", "substantial offers of compensation"...
...for damage to his reputation "among right thinking people" (see breach Malicious Communications Act 1988) .
I can't stop laughing at that when you consider e.g. the data contained under Extortion.
For detail, see Kensington, Chelsea & Notting Hill police: section # 2: KP(8) ; background.
Of course, no payment was ever made to Ladsky - and he never implemented his bogus threats = Blatant use of fear tactics by means of malicious communications = his trademark (see also e.g. Elderly Resident ; Nucleus Citizens Advice Bureau)
What absolute, utter vermin! (I repeat my Comments under Persecution (1)(4)). They are the ones who defamed - and continue to defame my name, character and reputation.
For other examples see breach: (1)- Courts and Legal Services Act 1990, Chpt 41, s.17 ; (2)- Criminal Justice Act & Public Order Act 1984, s.4A ; (3)- Defamation Act 1996 ; (4) Data Protection Act 1998 ;
And 'I' am branded "a Nazi" by Andrew Ladsky and his henchmen in Her Majesty's police and judiciary?!?! Who are the 'Hitlers' and 'Himmlers' - in 21st century England?
The worst part of it is that this kind of conduct - which is organized crime - is widely endorsed and actively supported : 'the Brotherhood' - resulting in my being treated as 'the criminal' instead of what I am: the glaringly obvious victim...
...- while the criminals are treated as though they are 'the victims' (e.g. RICS # 12 ; police: Overview , Outcome , # 1 , # 2 , # 3) - and laughing their head off (summary outcomes of my 50+ legitimate 'cries for help' and complaints)...
...THE POWER OF MONEY! AND CONNECTIONS.
Of course, I forgot, silly me: Portner and Jaskel, Lanny Silverstone and Ayesha Salim, Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor, and Richard Twyman and Lisa McLean, Piper Smith Basham/Watton have the blessings of their fertiliser for malpractice: the Law Society, to behave as they do - and know that their 'regulator', the Law Society, has a 'Memorandum of Understanding' with the police (ACPO) (copy).
Well, unlike the Law Society (and the Bar Council re. Stan Gallagher) (followed by the then Legal Services Ombudsman, I view ALL as having very seriously failed to discharge their professional duties (Doc library # 2 and # 3).
(In relation to actions by Lisa McLean, Richard Twyman and Stan Gallagher at the time of the 21.10.03 'Part 36 offer' by 'Steel Services' = Ladsky - see my Comments attached to Gallagher's 13.11.03 ' draft consent order and notice', I faxed to Twyman and Gallagher at the time).
Comment from another leaseholder during the CARL AGM meeting:
"To pile the pressure on me, and gain advantage, the freeholder's barrister had several inches thick of documents delivered to me the day before the hearing, at 9 o'clock in the evening"
A visitor to my site: Comment # 24, also reports late delivery of documents (It 'might' be by the council rather than by a lawyer)
(NB: Similar tactics have been used in my case, intended to put me at a disadvantage / take advantage of me i.e. steal money from me e.g.
- (2)- The 29.11.02 WLCC claim, filed against me (and 10 of my fellow leaseholders, representing 14 apartments) - by CKFT: (1) in breach of the directions given to us by the tribunal to NOT PAY ; (2) without the required supporting evidence; (3) a lease, falsely claiming that it was representative of my lease (WLCC # 3) (Overview # 3)
- (7) "Rootstock" ' skeleton argument was delivered by bike to my PO Box less than 48 hours before the 24 Aug 07 so-called hearing (Portner # 16) But that did not make a difference - as the outcome had evidently been pre-agreed)
Members' comments about managing agents/surveyors:
One of the panel of leaseholders said that she had been fighting for 20 years (!!!) and that, as a Litigant in Person, it is an unbelievably harrowing experience.
She explained, among others, you have to deal with terminology that is alien to you and, if you get it wrong e.g. not doing things at the right time, in the right way, months of work can go down the plughole - not to mention the often very dire consequences. She gave the example of a legal term, saying that it took her 3 days of "googling" to finally find the definition.
Listening to her, I knew exactly what she had been, and continue to go through (e.g. My Diary 24 Mar 03 ; 25 and 30 Mar 03 ; Lord Falconer # 1 ; My Diary 18 Mar 07). It is extremely stressful... which is what the criminal landlords, their aides and the supporting infrastructure are counting on - so that they can 'get you' (Business model # 2).
The LEASE representative also talked of social sector leaseholders receiving service charge demands of £25,000+ (US$44,000+) (See also C.A.R.L. newsletter Autumn 2008-Issue 25 for cases of up to £50,000 - reported in the Evening Standard article of 1 Oct 08).
I already knew about this from attending a meeting in Bethnal Green, referred to in My Diary 26 Apr 06. At the time, I wrote that the leaseholders had no hope of being able to pay.
Well, according to the LEASE representative, they have / will have the opportunity to get a loan. Great! Clubber the less well-off with more debts - paying for local councils' mismanagement of their housing stocks. It makes my blood boil.
(Meanwhile the 'noble' peers and 'honourable' MPs are feathering their nest at the taxpayer's expense - including demanding payment of a £3,000 flat-screen TV, pleading that it is "natural justice")
As we were talking over drinks, one woman told us that the landlord's parties were portraying her as "mad". I said: "Ditto for me (My Diary 7 Jun 08 ; w/c 4 Feb 08 ; 15 May 08). Looks like the standard way in this country of disparaging women who refuse to be trodden on" .
One of the men said "Actually, they did the same to me; the landlord and his aides went round the other leaseholders saying this about me".
Conclusion: challenge fraud, corruption, malpractice and people's failure to do their job, frequently amounting to failure to perform their legal remit, and you are branded as "mad".
Oh! and let's not forget the addition of the "Nazi" label if you happen to have German blood in you (Notting Hill police 16.03.07 and 20.03.07 emails to my website Host - Overview # 13)
The C.A.R.L. members were clearly enraged at the way they were being treated - across the board. We look at the players in the residential leasehold sector from our point of view: we would not treat people as they do. But the majority of the players have no morality whatsoever (we all agreed on that).
They are driven by their insatiable greed - and their cowardice and that of the supporting system, leads them to do this by picking on the 'little people' - in the process, destroying their life (e.g. Overview ; My Diary home page ; Christmas 2006 ; Document library summary ; Comments # 16 , # 19 , # 24 , # 31 ; Member's 'Letter to the Editor', The Leaseholder, Summer 2008-Issue 24)
And, as we all agreed: leaseholders have absolutely nowhere to turn to for help. Like me (Overview # 7 ; O Overview of my complaints), some leaseholders filed complaints, going through all the formal stages, 'the loops' right up to Ombudsmen and got as I did, what amounts to: GET LOST! GET LOST! GET LOST! GET LOST!... In my case, when I received 'a reply' to my 'cries for help' to MPs, including party leaders, and all the way to the Prime Minister, the response was the same: GET LOST!
(Because, likewise, they have no morality whatsoever) - except some help from the Parliamentary Ombudsman, and the previous Tenancy Relations Officer at Kensington & Chelsea housing (5 Nov 02)
As a member wrote to C.A.R.L., 'Letter to the Editor', Summer 2004-Issue 12
"There is nowhere for leaseholders to turn to! No prosecuting authority = no law enforcement = anarchy"
Having gone, as I have, all the way to the 'top of the tree', both, in terms of politicians, and in terms of complaints against government departments - where else can I go? NOWHERE!
There is NOWHERE to turn to - except God - asking for the strength to continue the fight until a miracle happens: somebody in authority taking action. (Subsequent note - I can't stop taking action. So, I have contacted my MP, Sir Malcolm Rifkind)
You either walk away, full of resentment and anger for having suffered injustice, being conned and treated like dirt, a non-entity with no rights, and frequently, having lost a large part of your life savings...or, you set-up a website, as I have done (*) - in the hope of putting pressure on resolving your situation and, failing that, of being a trigger for change - in the meantime, being of help to others who, like you, are going through absolute, sheer, utter hell.
(*) A growing number of people are setting-up websites / blogs.
The tide may be about to turn: many of the C.A.R.L. members have 'seen the light' and I think that other people are in the process of seeing it as well, realising that they are treated as the 'golden goose' (Subsequent note: The tide has definitely turned since May 2009... into a tsunami of outrage).
This realisation comes from a number of factors:
- losing their job, and as a result, their home because of the economic recession, while some are being made bankrupt as well as lose their home from being targeted by "vicious", merciless debt collecting agencies "for as little as £1,800" (The Sunday Times, "Persecuted for bank debts of just £750", 11 January 2009);
- seeing the bankers and company directors of companies in trouble still awarding themselves massive pay packages (on 11 Feb 09, Eric Daniels, CEO of Lloyds Banking Group described his £1m+ a year as a "relatively modest salary"), or walking away with very large 'compensation payments' - in other words: being rewarded for failure;
Like a female member of CASIA told me: "High time for a major clean up!" (Subsequent note: including the House of Lords and House of Commons - My Diary Jan 09 ; Feb 09)
Early December: In 'Today in Parliament', BBC Radio 4, I heard somebody in the House of Lords deplore the impact on the country of 11 years of 'New Labour'. I agree. It is extremely sad.
And - what is much sadder than this - is that those who cry "Wolves!" are fired at instead of the 'wolves' (whistleblowers ; I am NOT the criminal. I am the victim of organized crime)...
- and that this is done with widespread endorsement and extensive participation.
THAT'S THE REAL TRAGEDY!
19 December 2008 - The Detailed Assessment hearing is 'due' to take place on 30 January 2009 at the Supreme Court Costs Office, London
According to this 18 December 2008 Notice from the Supreme Court Costs Office, the Detailed Assessment hearing is 'due' to take place on 30 January 2009 at 14h00. (It did - and as can be seen, it was 'more of the same treatment)
In case of interest: these hearings are open to the public - but, based on my experience (My Diary 4 May 07 ; 4 Nov 08), check before turning up.
Prior events: (1) I sent my Statement of Costs on 26 June 2008 ; (2) Portner sent the 11 August 2008 Points of Dispute, giving an outrageous, preposterous reason for dropping the claim; (3) while Mr Andrew Ladsky and his solicitor, Mr Ahmet Jaffer continued with their games by requesting that the 4 November 2008 hearing be cancelled on the grounds that they were "unaware" of the hearing until my fax of 31 October 2008, it was cancelled for a different reason: four hours before it was due to take place, Judge Nicholson issued an order for transfer to the Supreme Court Costs Office (My Diary 11 Nov 08). Hence this latest Notice.
(Subsequent note - The SCCO hearing did take place - see My Diary 30 Jan 09)
29 December 2008 - Another one who is also 'playing the persecution game', Hutchison 3G, the mobile phone network provider i.e. '3' network...
...leading me to write to its Chief Operating Officer, Mr Kevin Russell
Back in August, it sent me an initial text stating "In one month's time your 3SIM won't work in this mobile, pop into a 3store to discuss the best options...". This was followed by three identical texts until mid September.
I opted to buy a phone not linked to any network and put the 3 SIM card in it. It worked until I 'think' c. mid-October (for obvious reasons: Persecution # 3.1, I rarely use my phone) when, following a text message from 3 that I had one or more voicemails I tried to phone the service and could not get through.
Upon returning to the same store, on 23 Oct 08, I was told that I also needed to change the SIM card. (As can be seen from the above text, this was new information). Secondly, that it had to be a 3 phone.
In addition to saying that I had just bought a new one and had no intention of buying one from 3, I also pointed out that:
- (1)- it was not a requirement when I switched my mobile number to 3. Had it been, I would have gone somewhere else;
- (2)- other mobile phone service providers do not impose this requirement;
- (3)- this policy must surely be in breach of competition rules.
After spending several minutes calling the 'Customer Service' department in order to get a new SIM card, the line went dead when I said that I had no intention of buying a 3 phone. Another call resulted in the same outcome: when I said that I had no intention of buying a 3 phone, again the line went dead.
On the third attempt (following getting one of the shop assistants to phone), when I repeated that I had no intention to buy a 3 phone, I was told that I would receive a card at the latest by 27 October, but that "the card might not work, or it might only work for a few days" - because I did not have a 3 phone.
Nearly one week later: still no card. Considering the way I had been treated, added to the fact that the SIM card would probably not work, and that I had immediately sensed that a game was being played, I sent this 29 October 2008 letter requesting the port authorisation code in order to move to another network.
It was followed by this 4 November 2008 letter from 3 (the black stains all the way down the left-hand margin are on the original letter) stating, among others, that it was not sending me the PAC number because I had credit which, I would lose, if I were to move to another network.
And to use the credit? I needed to have a 3 phone of course! It is obvious from the letter that the writer knew that I did not have a 3 phone - (as I explained in my 8 December 2008 letter - see below).
I phoned on 7 November 2008 saying that I still wanted to move immediately to another network. At this point I was asked for the number of the "new SIM card". Of course, by then i.e. two weeks after being told that I would receive it "within 2-3 days", I still had not received the card. The reply was "It was sent yesterday".
I did receive it the following day. So, yet again, I phoned 'Customer Service'. I was told "I can’t give you the PAC code because the SIM card has not been cleared. I will phone you on Monday to let you know if it is cleared or not”. The "or not" led me to expect a "not" on the Monday.
Also of note: having insisted the previous day that the PAC could not be given to me "because you have not got the card", I was not asked about the number of the card. Hence, what was the purpose of insisting that I had the new card in order to issue me with the PAC number?
When I challenged this latest excuse saying that, in light of the fact that the employee had just been “retrieving my details” for the purpose of the call, he obviously had access to the system, he replied “The office is closed on Saturday. It can only be done during week days”.
On the Monday, I got a call from 3 which turned out to be as I had anticipated, as I was told “There is a problem with the system. I can’t give you the PAC code. I will contact you in the next 48 hours”. This was a blatantly obvious continuation of a 'game' being played. However, I said very little, partly because I knew that the ploy was to get me annoyed, and partly because I felt that it was staged to ensure a witness to my reaction. (Yes Adrian: I saw right through the game! You really have sunk to a new low!... and after 33 years!!!)
Of course, the 3 employee did not phone me back. Clearly, the expectation was that I would keep on phoning to get the PAC number - allowing the mob to have a good laugh at my expense.
Instead, I waited for one month, and sent this 8 December 2008 letter to Mr Kevin Russell, CEO, of Hutchison 3G, in which I related events - and asked for the PAC "by return of post", enclosing a self-addressed, 'special delivery' envelop "to avoid any more games".
In the letter, I also commented on the irony of the first sentence of the 4 November 2008 letter from 3: “I can understand how upsetting it is for you not able (sic) to use your phone…”
Three weeks later, and still no PAC. So, today, I sent this 29 December 2008 letter to Mr Kevin Russell, CEO, quoting from the Ofcom website www.ofcom.org.uk/consumeradvice/mobile/switching:
“Mobile phone customers have the right to take their mobile phone number with them when they switch from one mobile company to another”
In addition to, yet again reiterating my demand for the PAC, I wrote:
"...your company has now been messing me around for the last three months. Why?
1. Who has asked you to do this? I want the name of the individual/s, position / rank and contact details.
2. What reason/s has / have the individual/s given you to do this?
3. Why are you complying?
"Having demonstrated an enormous amount of patience, I am now opting to put this letter and previous correspondence on my website...
Not surprisingly, in light of my experience with your company, added to my experience with the police, the courts, etc...I have come to the conclusion that events with your company are linked to my case, and are therefore of public interest as additional evidence of what can happen to an honest, law-abiding individual with moral principles and integrity who ‘dares’ to challenge fraud, collusion, malpractice and incompetence".
I copied the letter to the Director of Customer Services.
I don't know about you, but I describe what has and continues to take place with Hutchison 3G as persecution.
Maybe it's part of an 'economy drive': by depriving me from using this mobile number, it leaves it with only one to monitor. (I know that my other mobile is also being monitored. Likewise, it has been taking place for a very long time).
(For the avoidance of doubt: NO, I am NOT a criminal. I AM THE VICTIM OF ORGANIZED CRIME... facing some very seriously sick people)
(Subsequent note: further evidence: the threatening 'message' on 2 Jan 09 ; other events in 2008 ; the 13 July 2010 demand 'from' MRJ, making it the third major fraudulent demand since 2002 ; my continuing to be dogged, hounded and monitored as though I were a terrorist)
Until the next chapter (see My Diary 23 Jan 09 for my 'cry for help' to Ofcom).
In the meantime, I draw your attention to the extracts from a press article headed "Phone firms net £9m for giving data to the police", and another one headed "Minister in 'cahoots with mobile phone firms on price fixing'" - under Phones.
Back to top