The £7 million (?) (US$12m) swindle, engineeredby surveyors and lawyers, and implementedwith the assistance of tribunal, courts,accountant and police |
Six years of harassment, intimidation, bullying and blackmail tactics
|
My Diary - 2008IntroductionYear six of the horrendous 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 # 22 and # 23) • ...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" (My Diary 20 March 2007). Of course, the source is also Mr 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 # 22 and # 23) . I concluded this letter by saying:
(*) Sourced from the website of the then Department for Constitutional Affairs, on 14 March 2007 Recently, a journalist (Financial Times Magazine, 22-23 December 2007) (*) 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 2008The 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...
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 Ministry of Justice 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). 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!: introduction to to My Diary, and to the home page) 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 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. 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" My 9 January protest had an effect......as it prompted:
w/c 4 February 2008
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" 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) 28 battles since 2002, I now share his view: there is no control. It's like a giant 'trompe l'oeil'. (see 20 October 2008 for follow-up)
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 here - a practice that seems to me to be reminiscent of medieval times. I wonder whether the journalist 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) And how about the whistle blower who, also in the last few days, reported that the police has 'apparently' been bugging hundreds of conversations between lawyers and their clients (in a prison environment) - which is of course illegal. Will he be branded as suffering from 'mental disorder'?
... (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:
(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)
..."Has this country reached the stage where finding a court and a judge committed to operating under the 'Overriding Objective' (*) has become impossible?"... (*) Sourced from the website of the then Department for Constitutional Affairs, on 14 March 2007 and stating: "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" . (Since then, there has been one courageous, brave MP prepared to 'speak out' - see My Diary 13 April 2008) (To quote Che Guevara: "It is a sad thing to not have friends, but it is even sadder to not have enemies" ) Secondly, 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 page point # 7 , # 10 , # 12 , # 14 , # 15 ) - and endless opportunities to do so. ( Document library point # 3 , 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. (*) 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 victroy 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) 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!)
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
'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" (Kensington & Chelsea police # 4 ) (*) Comparing my experience with West London County Court in 2002-2004 v. since the beginning of 2007: it's obvious!
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' (Mr 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 Mr 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 November 2006). 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). 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 (Mr 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 (Mr 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 helping them strengthen, rather than loosen their hold (for other examples see e.g. Mr 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"
Why has Deputy 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 # 6.1 , # 11 ; [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!
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:
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. (*) 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. 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 6 May 2008 below). Oh yeah! in our country, money can give you carte blanche to do whatever you want, and buy you 'friends' wherever you need them. Having said that, while many are corruptible, 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):
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)
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 includes 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. 13 April 2008 - A brave, courageous Member of ParliamentUnder 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 to make?" 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'. 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, 'gentlemen's club' type of 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 possiblity of collusion. Oh well, that still leaves the court!). (Note at end April: Yep! as I expected - see 30 April 2008) 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. (Link to 7 June 2008) More people willing to 'speak out'. This time about being spied on by a local council
This is to be added to another example, that of the journalist who reported being followed (as captured above, under w/c 4 February 2008 )
It also states that the recruitment of undercover agents and informants is permitted by the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act and lists the situations giving "the right to snoop": "national security; preventing and detecting crime or preventing disorder; in the interests of the economic well-being of the UK; protecting public health; collecting any tax duty, levy or other imposition, contribution or charge payable to a government department; any other purpose prescribed in an order made by the Secretary of State". There is certainly a lot of scope for interpretation... and hence flexibility in the situations where these powers can be claimed to apply - as demonstrated by the above example. I wonder: under which of these headings would challenging the police, court, council, 'regulatory' bodies, etc. come under? "preventing disorder", or perhaps "protecting economic well being"? and for how long would the surveillance be 'deemed to be necessary'? The Daily Mail also reports that "councils have the power to access telephone or mobile records, although not the content of calls" and that "last year they made 1,700 requests to access the information". Councils are just one of "800 pubilc bodies and quangos with this power" (Mail on Sunday, 30 September 2007). As to tax inspectors, they "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" "...the power to sanction the use of surveillance techniques [come] under the same rules that govern the work of MI5, GCHQ and the police" (Mail on Sunday, 24 February 2008). The newspaper reports opposition to the new powers by professional bodies, including the Institute of Chartered Accountants. Given its member-centric focus (see Pridie Brewster for my experience with the ICAEW), it may be that it views this as 'bad news for business'? In a follow-up article, in its 6 June 2008 edition, 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". The newspaper also reports that "Last year, councils and government departments made 12,494 applications to use 'direct surveillance', the equivalent of 34 requests every day". Even Members of Parliament appear to not be immune from the snoops: My Diary 7 June 2008 22 April 2008 - Man left with a criminal record for overfilling his dustbinToday's media reports that a man who refused to pay a £110 on-the-spot fine for 'illegally' over filling his dustbin by four inches was taken to court where he was ordered to pay £235. Apparently, he was threatened with prison if he failed to pay, and has ended-up with a criminal record. In its Comment section, the Daily Mail wrote "Meanwhile, violent offenders escape with a caution, and shoplifters with a simple £80 fixed-penalty notice. What price common sense?" To which I will add: "Meanwhile, rogue landlords and their equally rogue aides escape with no sanction of any kind" And another group that appears to enjoy immunity from prosecution is the 'Westminster village' (politicians): example of the expense claims from Members of Parliament and Ministers who abuse the system... some, to the tune of several hundred thousand Pounds) (based on media reports). The example of this man, added to my horrendous experience since 2002, further reinforces in my mind what I captured in My Diary - 20 February 2007 "This country has turned completely upside down". How can anybody not lose confidence and respect in a system that acts in this manner? 23 April 2008 - Two 'ordinary' people, who, like me, feel very let down by the courtsThe 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 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:
Following the Court 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.). [(*) In the past because I resigned from my job in January due to ...] 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 battles (list in Document library). 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 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). 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.
(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 April 2007 ) My application is in response to the 9 April 2008 case management 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 case management directions do not allow time to ensure I am supplied with the information I require to defend myself against the claim - as
In support, 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: 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 case management directions as reflecting consideration for the Overriding Objective (*) comprised under Part 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules:
(*) 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 # 7) • 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 demanding that I pay a £1,700 (US$3,000) fee (WLCC # 14 ) - 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 2003-2004 pay a lot more than they were legally liable for (see WLCC , among others, point # 6 , point # 5 ; Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor point # 6.3 and point # 6.6 ; Pridie Brewster point # 18 )... ...and WLCC did this on the basis of a claim that was in very serious breach of Civil Procedure Rules as the statement of truth was signed by Ms Hathaway, Martin Russell Jones - see My Diary 9 March 2007 (In addition to being based on false information - which WLCC knew - WLCC point # 2 , point # 3 , point # 4 )
Sure enough: my application was refused - see 3 June 2008
The above is my introduction to the 'standard disclosure' list of documents I sent to Portner and Jaskel today - as per the directions contained in the 9 April 2008 case management directions (detailed under 30 April 2008, above).
(*) Information in support of my statement: "...innocent victim of fraud..."
"...aided and abetted since 2002 by a supporting cast comprising of lawyers..."
"...surveyors..."
"...accountants..."
"...their professional associations..."(NB: See also 15 May 2008 for expanded detail on some of the following parties) The Law Society for England & Wales
The Bar Council
The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors
The Institute of Chartered Accountants for England and Wales
"...the Court Service..."
"...LVT..."
"...housing departments..."
"...Ombudsmen..."Legal Services Ombudsman
Local Government Ombudsman
"...Land Registry..."
"...and the police."
HAVING TOLD ME THAT THEY WERE THERE TO ENSURE MY RIGHTS AS PER LEGISLATION, REGULATIONS, THEIR CODES OF CONDUCT, THEIR REMIT......ALL OF THE ABOVE HAVE LED ME TO GO INTO LONG, DRAWN OUT BATTLES - WITH THE OUTCOME THAT ALL OF MY COMPLAINTS HAVE BEEN REJECTED, AND MY REQUESTS IGNORED (home page # 4.24 - cost to me of complaints - by mid 2006)The message is very loud and clear: SHUT-UP! YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS.[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 did what they did, said what they said, wrote what they wrote all for the sake of a penthouse flat and three other flats” Fair minded, reasonable visitor to the site: Do you see why I wrote "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 March 2007, 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 Mr Ladsky on - whilst providing him with all manner of support. I repeat the question I captured under 30 April 2008 (above) |
