The £7 million (?) (US$12m) swindle, engineeredby surveyors and lawyers, and implementedwith the assistance of tribunal, courts,accountant and police |
, 
Seven years of harassment, victimisation, intimidation, bullying and blackmail tactics
|
My Diary - 2009IntroductionYear eight of the horrendous, sheer utter hell nightmare (My Diary started in Year 2002) and the second anniversary of my website. OR:
But the 2008 scandals, revealed in part by the whistleblowers - as well as, at the start of 2009, the overwhelming evidence of sleaze in the Palace of Westminster and Whitehall village (i.e. politicians and civil servants) e.g. My Diary Jan 09 and Feb 09, the damning reports on the police - including the arrest of a senior MP who publicised blunders by the Home Office, the ever growing surveillance society, and equally fast-growing number of objectors, from all quarters - prove La Fontaine to be correct that "Patience et longueur de temps Font plus que force ni que rage"... ...as events have added more weight to my position (finally, I no longer feel like a lonely voice) allowing me to now state and provide supporting evidence for the conclusion I arrived at a long time ago: that the extremely vicious, barbaric vendetta I have, and continue to be subjected to, is being orchestrated in a two-prong approach by individuals able to recruit a very wide range of 'helpers' to carry out their bidding. The first element of the two-prong highly vicious, barbaric vendetta against me, is evidently driven by Andrew Ladsky - the "petty tyrant" (expression used by one of my fellow leaseholders) who, on 3 January 2003, told me, with a lot of venom in his voice: "I am going to get you this year!" Why? Because I 'dared' to challenge his application to the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal - and hence: his scam. Since then, he has relentlessly pursued this objective, regardless of consequences on others. (Four years ago I wrote to the Local Government Ombudsman that "it ought to be obvious to those with the most at stake that some discretion should be used in granting the 'sacrosanct landlord' status to individuals". But, such is the arrogance... ) A key milestone was six years ago when I took the 'big step' of overlooking my rights, by accepting his 21 October 2003 "offer" and paid £6,350 (v. the £14,400 original demand) which, legally, I did not owe - but did this, as I explained in my 19 December 2003 letter to his solicitors, Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor (CKFT), "for the sake of bringing this dispute to an end". I wanted to move on with my life which, after my experience with the various parties, translated into wanting to leave the country. Among sane people, the convention is that, when party A makes an offer to party B, which party B accepts by making payment to party A - and this acceptance is endorsed by a court - the transaction is taken as concluding the matter. This universally accepted principle is not recognised by Andrew Ladsky: he decided that it was not going to be the end of it. Like the majority of my fellow leaseholders, I WOULD be made to pay him whatever amount he deemed fit, and I, 'a woman', of limited financial means and no influential connections, who had 'dared' stand-up to him - 'Mr I Am So Important, So Superior to Anybody Else', Entitled to Get My Every Wish and Take Whatever I Want from Others' - would be severely punished by him and his equally sociopathic 'supporters' for 'daring' to do it. So, he had his puppets, Martin Russell Jones, send me invoices in October and November 2004 as though no agreement had been reached and endorsed by a court, and no payment made (My Diary 11 Mar 07) Since then, he has continued because he can rely on an infrastructure, comprising of puppets only too happy to carry out his wishes, regardless of legislation, regulations and codes of conduct, and of a behind the scene back-up system that shares the same ethos: that leaseholders are there to be used and abused - in the knowledge that no sanctions will be taken against any of them - as those with the power to take action: the 'honourable' and 'right honourable' MPs and 'noble' peers, are, likewise, very busy committing their own abuses - demonstrating that they share the same ethos of entitlement e.g. # 1, # 2 , # 3 , and use some of the same tactics, such as false accounting, fraud, as well as intimidation and bullying to secure payment. The behind the scene back-up system is the second element of the two-prong, highly vicious, barbaric vendetta against me. It piggybacks on Andrew Ladsky's actions / diktats - determined to help him get whatever he wants from me, including revenge - as well as revenge for themselves for my 'daring' to challenge and stand-up to the back-up system - in the process conveniently ignoring the fact that: (1) Mr Ladsky and his aides ARE THE ROOT CAUSE of ALL that has taken place. Reason: they have money and connections. I don't - giving them the right to use me and abuse me to their heart's content - and getting away with it; (2) they ALL had FIVE years to do something about it but, as in the case of the MPs' expenses, such is their unlimited collective arrogance and grossly inflated sense of self-importance and power that they opted to dismiss me - because the 'little people' like me don't do that and have to be made to know their place. I concluded 2007 by claiming, in my 27 December 2007 letter to HMCS Customer Service, that events with West London County Court over the previous 10 months, from the time it received the 27 February 2007 claim, provided "Confirmation of collusion" (WLCC # 22). In making this claim, I also took into account events that had taken place with this court in 2002-04 - in relation to me and my fellow leaseholders. I believe that any fair minded, reasonable person, with integrity, looking at what took place with this court in 2008 (snapshot in My Diary 11 Nov 08), added to the responses to my 13 November 2007 complaint from the Court Service (WLCC # 19 , # 22 , # 23 ; summarised in my 24 March 2009 letter to my MP, Sir Malcolm Rifkind), will agree that events provide further compelling evidence in support of my conclusion. Furthermore, that WLCC's actions were also motivated by revenge for my exposing, on this website, what took place in that court in 2002-2004. Considering the conduct of Portner and Jaskel and its client - captured in my 19 January 2009 reply to their points of dispute - evidence of revenge by the Court Service is also apparent from the 30 January 2009 Supreme Court Costs Office Detailed Assessment hearing (My Diary 30 Jan 09) Mobile communicationThe 'games' played by Hutchison 3G, the 3 network mobile phone provider over a four-month period starting in October 2008 (My Diary 29 Dec 08) leading me to involve Ofcom - which finally led to Hutchison 3G supplying me with the PAC number in its 22 January 2009 letter. Why should Hutchison 3G play these games? (My Diary 23 Jan 09) Add to that, in the previous year, the Vodafone logo appearing on my Word documents from which I conclude - as a non-expert - that my computer was being hacked into (My Diary home) Medical(NB: None of the following three individuals are National Health Service) (My experience with e.g. St Thomas hospital, London, part of the NHS, was excellent - My Diary 9 Jun 05) (1) My ('well connected') doctor (yes, my Jewish doctor of 37 years about whom I stated in My Diary 20 Mar 07, that I trusted him with my life) who, on 10 April 2008 [ADDDrG], claimed (while looking very ill-at-ease, shifty, repeatedly turning the top 1-2 pages of my file) to have no record of the fact that, on 16 April 2007, he gave me a repeat prescription for tranquilisers and anti-depressants because of the state I was in as a result of what was taking place at work. (I am sure I saw him made a note of it). He did not ask me if I remembered what he had prescribed me, nor did he ask me if it had been of help. In fact, it was clear that he wanted to get rid of me as soon as possible. (Having learnt a great deal since 2002, I had scanned the prescription and the packagings. After the visit, I sent him a copy with a covering letter, including a summary of events that had led me to see him) (More on this later) [ADD] (2) The psychiatrist I saw on 7 May 2008 ([ADDDrP] for the purpose of filing a claim against [ADD]) (more on this later) whose objective was quite clearly to 'put me out of action': he was very clearly not interested in what I had to say, getting impatient with me, hurrying me on, and, within less than half-an-hour of the 'consultation', suggested that I "should immediately book [myself] in a clinic for two weeks" (referred to in My Diary 7 Jun 08). Of note: knowing that my mobile phones are monitored, I went to the 'specialist' office to make the appointment. Hence, it provides further proof that I am under surveillance - in part for the purpose of determining who I contact. In this instance, the opportunity was quiet clearly seized upon: by 'coincidence', I had to, among others, serve my Witness Statement by 4 June 2008 i.e. within less than a month. Outcome of my serving my (70 pg) Statement? It led the crook, Andrew Ladsky, to drop "ALL of the 27 February 2007 claim" against me on 6 June 2008. Who is "In very serious need of help"? And that's more than just him! See also My Diary 3 Jun 08 for events that took place during the month of May: the blatantly obvious plan to beat me into paying the claim. It sure would have been convenient for me to be out of action during that time! Also of note: the 'specialist' also asked me whether I had family in France. Thank God I have, as well as very trusted friends, and that I have kept my French nationality. When two of my friends, a couple, were in London a few weeks later, I told them what the 'specialist' had 'recommended'. We had a good laugh. They said "Ah! that's how they deal with 'dissidents' here?" Actually, judging from media reports, the term appears to be "Domestic extremists" or, in my case (?): "Nazi Domestic Extremist". It can be the other part of 'the plan' when people continue to fight back against the wrongdoings of 'certain well connected individuals' - refusing to accept injustice. They are subjected to ongoing, barbaric treatment (my case e.g. abuse, bullying, harassment, victimization, threats, intimidation, persecution - actions that are very clearly regarded by the State as "acceptable...part of the standards and values of this country") until they are 'broken' - providing the excuse to have them sectioned. (I have heard of people to whom this happened). I conclude that it was the motive behind my being asked whether I have family in France. (I know I have been followed in France). Furthermore, the ground is prepared, and process speeded-up by portraying the courageous fighters, at every opportunity, through a coordinated campaign - as "mad" - thereby cutting them off from support in their battle. (The ease of manipulation against the brave fighters is unbelievable e.g. the social worker ; the HBOS whistleblower [ADD] - which is why it's done!) As the battle is drawn out because the sociopathic persecutors are pathologically incapable of backing-off - and know they have carte blanche to do exactly as they please - (e.g. mine started in 2002, and could have ended in 2003), (of course, it should never have started) - the fighters can also lose support from family and friends who get fed-up hearing about their battle, as well as have difficulty seeing 'the facts' i.e. the 'true face of the system' (e.g. My Diary 16 Jun 06 , 3 Oct 06). (Thanks to the (mercifully relatively free) media, this will have changed over the last few months as a result of: hearing about the treatment suffered by whistleblowers ; millions of people being the victims of greedy bankers, uncontrolled under a "cosy", laissez-faire regime ; exposure of scandals and sleaze in the Palace of Westminster and Whitehall village, highlighting the sordid conduct of politicians e.g. My Diary Jan 09 and Feb 09, including the typical, immediate denials of wrongdoings, of responsibility, and circling of the wagons on being exposed). Meanwhile, the courageous fighters are under close surveillance to gather any scrap of evidence that the treatment they are being subjected to is having the 'desired effect' - ready to pounce on them [ADD] Their home can also be broken into in order to steal incriminating evidence from them e.g. that of Mr Neil Mitchell and a leaseholder I know. When you consider the rest of the tactics used e.g. in my case, the tandem approach between the lawyers, courts, tribunals, surveyors, accountants; 'on tap' assistance from the police; the physical threats (as also happened to e.g. Mr Neil Mitchell) - I don't know about you, but I call that 'organised crime' - on a big scale. (A visitor to my site also arrived at this conclusion). I am not the only one arriving at the above conclusions - see e.g. www.standyourground.co.uk. 'Standing your ground' is certainly a hell of a challenge in this country (under the current environment)! But, if we all walk away with our tail between our legs, taking the repeated beatings silently, too scared to stand-up for our rights, for justice, turning a blind eye and a deaf ear to wrongdoings: where do we end-up? Look around! There is your answer. So, if you have moral values - if you come across somebody with the guts to stand-up, somebody who is not intimidated by the FEAR tactics, not scared to put their head above the parapet: if you can't help them, at least don't act against them e.g. the social worker ; Mr Moore, HBOS, etc. It ought to be obvious that these people are a true asset to this country - which comprises of a majority of 'little people'. It was my first, and needless to say, only visit to this 'specialist' - to whom I sent a letter, dated 11 May 2008 [ADD] capturing what had taken place. Considering Mr Ladsky's comment one week later, on 15 May 2008, that "[I am] in very serious need of help" - 'might it be' that those who have me under surveillance - and had been 'counting their chickens before they hatched' - told him something along the line of "Don't worry about the French bitch Mr Ladsky / Andrew. It's in the bag!" ? 'If so': was this said while licking his shoes? Just asking out of curiosity. (While it could be coincidence (another one! :-) ) that Mr Ladsky said this to me on 15 May 2008, he was most definitely informed of the fact I approached my MP, Sir Malcolm Rifkind, to ask for his assistance i.e. knew the content of my correspondence - which is meant to be confidential (just as well it does not matter) - see My Diary 15 Jun 09) (3) The specialist I saw on 7 August 2008 [ADDMsY] (who was standing in for one I (used) to see on a yearly basis for check-ups, based in another location) who, on the basis of 12 months old information, could not wait to get me on the operating table within the following week. (I subsequently saw a French doctor who simply could not understand this 'specialist''s assessment). Of note, on 7 August, I arrived early for the appointment. About ten minutes before my appointment, a man arrived, carrying a briefcase. He was English, in his 30s, 'office type'. He looked across at the receptionist without saying anything, while continuing to walk. Both nodded their heads implying a prior arrangement. He went into the office next to the specialist I saw. (NB: Mob: my family and French friends have detail of events in relation to all three - and supporting evidence - which you may know...) This, plus the experience with the psychiatrist, does stink of a coordinated effort to attempt to put me out of action. Was the 'message' on 2 January 2009 a reflection of frustration at having failed? I wonder what will be next? I was provided with the answer on 15 June 2009: DEATH THREAT My so-called 'friends' and acquaintancesIt is abundantly clear that, in 2008, some of my male contacts were tasked with obtaining information from me - with a particular emphasis on my plans in relation to my ex .employer, KPMG, from which I resigned in January 2008. While their underhanded, sly approach is sickening, their persistence has also been comical. Evidently, like the rest of the mob, my being a woman leads them to perceive me as being particularly stupid. One of these, is somebody I have known for 33 years, and considered like a brother (e.g. My Diary 5 Feb 03). In addition to his obsessive interest in my intentions re. KPMG (on one call, in the space of c. five minutes, he repeated the same question three times because I was not answering him), another example is when he tried to fish information from me about a high profile individual I had never mentioned to him before. Four days before the conversation, I had met this individual in the street, close to my flat, and had exchanged a few words with him. I concluded that the mob had been watching me, and was worried that a wealthy individual (who is not a friend of the Establishment) might come to my rescue by helping me. Another 'friend' is somebody I have known for 25 years. He appeared to have his strings pulled by the one above. (Although he never mentioned being in contact with him, it was obvious from the timing of the calls, as well as the questions from both of them). In July 2008, when the latter left a message on my voicemail saying that he wanted to talk me "about KPMG", when I returned his call and asked "do you have a message to communicate?", the reply was "no" - to which mine was "Then I don't want to talk about it". Another, is a 'friend' I have known for about 6 years, about whom I wrote in My Diary 20 Mar 07 that I considered him as "one of my very good friends". I did. Likewise, he demonstrated an obsessive interest in my plans re. KPMG. What have they been told about me that has led them to betray me - in the name of crooks after a multi-million Pound jackpot? Who is their contact? What have they sold me for? I certainly would like to know the going rate for a 33 year and 25 year friendship. Did it include at least a "thank you" card from Mr Ladsky? And there have been others, only too keen to pass on information about me to the mob e.g. the person from whom I rented a room in 2007. I had known him for about 12 years. (As background: I knew from the time I moved in that I had the scums in tow, tracking me as though I am a terrorist. In case I had failed to notice it, the first weekend (in April 2007), when I was coming back by train from the centre of town, one of them, in his 30s, with a very arrogant 'cop' look, dressed in casual clothes, dangled under my nose a plastic bag from Partridges (which appeared to be empty), while looking at me intently with a superior, self-important, very arrogant air. Partridges is an upmarket delicatessen with only two of its shops using this particular bag (I checked with the shop): both in my local / nearby area of Kensington & Chelsea. In addition to the obvious body language, the probability of somebody in Hackney shopping in Partridges is extremely small). (I concluded from the choice of carrier bag that this individual was obviously well acquainted with the area). An example of what took place with this acquaintance was on Friday 31 August 2007. I had taken the day off in order to work on my Defence. I got up at my usual time and dressed-up smartly, ready to go out. Once he had left, I changed into casual clothes and stayed in the house all day. I concluded from the (hilarious) look on his face when he came back in the evening that he had passed on the information to the mob and had been told that I had not left the house. (Two men, wearing suits, rang the bell around midday. I saw them from the first floor. I ignored them). [ADD - monitoring at KPMG; from April-May 2007] Individuals used to attempt to trap me(See My Diary 13 Apr 08 for a 24 April 2009 article in The Guardian about the police running a network of hundreds of informants inside protest organisations, and BBC2's 'Who is watching you?' about law firms fraudulently obtaining highly personal information on their client's opponent - not a surprise to me from that thoroughly corrupt, vermin-infested, criminal sector) (1) It is obvious that, in 2007, the 'visitor' to my website who could be in no doubt whatsoever from my website - and my emails to him - that I absolutely denied the sum claimed in the 27 February 2007 claim ("All of the claim" against me was eventually dropped) who - of course without my knowledge - with a letter dated 6 April 2007 to Portner and Jaskel, 'opted' to send a cheque for £1,069.31. This amount 'happened to be' the precise, full amount of interest claimed in the 27 February 2007 claim - thereby implying an admission of liability of all of the claim (Portner # 14). This 'visitor' NEVER replied to my email of 9 April 2007. More of these 'helpers / plants' were recruited in 2008: (2) In November 2008, my 'sixth sense' told me that an individual was 'recruited' for the purpose of scaring me into employing a cost draftsman for the purpose of claiming back my costs (My Diary 14 Aug 08 , 26 Aug 08 , 11 Nov 08). In addition to running the risk that, as with some of my previous 'advisers', the cost draftsman would be 'batting for the other side', it would have cost me several thousand Pounds. Considering the unbelievably damning evidence against Portner and Jaskel and its client - captured in my 19 January 2009 reply to their points of dispute - any fair minded, reasonable person with integrity would say that I was bound to get ALL my costs back - as well as compensation for the horrendous and very traumatic treatment I was subjected to over a period of 16 months - not to mention the court taking action against Portner, including for contempt of court . However, based on my experience with the Court Service in 2007-08, and previously in 2002-04, I knew that, short of a miracle, I would not be able to recoup all of my costs - and I was right (My Diary 30 Jan 09). I therefore saved myself (among others) several thousand Pounds - no doubt to the great annoyance of quite a few people. Following my silence and, I conclude, the surveillance 'reports' that the ploy had failed as I had not contacted a cost draftsman, in case I had missed his ethnicity, end December 2008 / early January 2009 the individual sent me a link to a site relating to the Holocaust. (I view this as a - further indication - that the vendetta against me is also racially motivated because I am of part German descent) (3) In 2008, on numerous occasions, within about 5 minutes of my arriving at an Internet cafe (at different times of the day), a man would turn up. Several times, I remarked to him on this 'amazing coincidence'. On, I think the second occasion, I briefly talked about my case. When he asked me about who the people were, in the context of my giving the names, I said that I had learnt from the police that the driver 'of activity' is Jewish, and, quite clearly, so are his aides. And that, among others, because I am of part German descent, it had led to my being branded a "Nazi" by Kensington & Chelsea police. To this he replied, looking at me intently "Hitler should have killed them all, don't you think?". While very shocked by this statement, I limited my reply to saying that I had a Jewish doctor, as well as Jewish friends. This statement was clearly intended to provoke me. Actually, I think that this took place after my last visit to this doctor. (Yet another) coincidence? Andrew Ladsky and his "officer dealing with this crime" friend desperately trying to make their scurrilous accusations against me stick - in view of the fact that somebody who has put her trust in a Jewish doctor - for 37 years - cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be labelled anti-Semitic? I find it extraordinary that the Jewish community lets Andrew Ladsky and his mob use the Holocaust as a passport to criminality - and hence trade on the souls of those killed by monsters. (4) Another 'visitor' to my site, claiming to be a woman, sent me a message in December 2008 that I assessed as a jumble of baits demonstrating a desperate attempt to get me to establish contact. Among others - specifying that I "should not put [her message] on [my] website" - it claimed evidence against the mob I am fighting against; collusion between the mob and a high court judge; filing an action for £1 million, etc. It gave a contact number. I took no action. I have since received similar emails, including from somebody claiming to be closely connected to Andrew Ladsky = all engineered by him. That man is "very seriously sick". The above events (added to others yet to be placed on the site) are the reasons for my writing in the introduction to the site "nor is there a limit as to what they are prepared to do to discredit / cover-up the evidence, and 'make me pay' for going public" - after FIVE YEARS of crying out for help. Such is their unlimited collective arrogance, sense of self-importance and power that comes from the gigantic network of symbiotic relationships - operating in a free for all environment. Seen from my perspective, my beliefs and values, the level of cruelty, viciousness, evilness, perversion and betrayal I have been at the receiving end of in this country since 2002 - as an INNOCENT VICTIM OF ORGANISED CRIME - disgusts me, repulses me, angers me, as well as shocks me beyond belief. It is a society in a very sorry state that treats innocent people in this manner, while helping and protecting the miscreants. And the root cause? GREED - making Oliver Cromwell's remark to Parliament "Gold is your God" - just as relevant today. (Leaving aside the psychological make-up that leads the above to act in this manner) What driving force can get the courts (West London County Court: 2002-04 ; 2007-08 ; Wandsworth County Court ; Supreme Court Costs Office), lawyers and their 'regulators' (Piper Smith Basham/Watton ; Mr Stan Gallagher ; Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor ; Portner and Jaskel), a tribunal (Leasehold Valuation Tribunal), surveyors and their 'regulators' (Martin Russell Jones, Brian Gale), accountant and their 'regulators' (Pridie Brewster), Member of Parliament (Sir Malcolm Rifkind), the police (Kensington & Chelsea police ; Metropolitan Police Authority), mobile phone companies (Hutchison 3G ; Vodafone), my doctor (Dr G), medical specialists (Dr P ; Ms Y), my so-called 'friends', acquaintances, as well as [ADD]... ...to surge like a school of jellyfish (*) to act against me - adding, as expressed by a visitor to my site, "more and more coffins" to the list? (*) = spineless ; attack where you can't see them, and from many points In addition to a racially motivated vendetta by an evidently well connected Jewish network - because I am partly of German descent, leading, among others, to my being branded a "Nazi" - I view the other link as including the "charitable" Freemasons. (Some savvy business people, including Freemasons, agree with my conclusion). (Other people pursuing their battles also refer to / conclude involvement by Freemasons e.g. www.standyourground.co.uk, blog by a visitor to my site, and www.dunblaneunburied.tk) (If this link does not work, see 'Useful Links' provided by Scotland Against Crooked Lawyers) And, as I have already asked in various parts of the site, including in my 7 March and 24 March 2009 letters to my MP, Sir Malcolm Rifkind: How come that Mr Andrew Ladsky and his aides can so freely command such outrageous acts against me (and my fellow leaseholder), get the authorities to deny me my rights - thereby helping them with their fraudulent activities? Why are they protected? This country is the birthplace of Freemasonry. It's the 'world leader'. Although Freemasonry in this country is highly secretive (unlike e.g. in France where there is 'some' openness e.g. article in Le Point, issue No 1897, 22 January 2009, "Francs-Maçons - Le Grand Retour"), the profile of members is common knowledge: aristocrats, judges, lawyers, public sector representatives, including the police, members of partnerships (accountancy firms, law firms, surveyors, etc.), captains of industry, etc. down to the 'foot soldiers' such as e.g. office security people whose job is to pass information 'up the chain'. A few years ago, Her Majesty The Queen was reported in the media to have said to Princess Diana's butler that "There are dark forces operating in this country...". My view: Yes, and the name of these "dark forces" is Freemasonry. (NB: The 9 March 2008 issue of the Daily Mail had an article headed "Freemasons open a new branch...at Buckingham Palace", stating, among other that "...it is being formed by members of the Royal Household and police who protect the Royal Family.... The Palace has no power to halt the formation of the lodge... the Queen's cousin, the Duke of Kent, is head of the organisation as Grand Master of the United Grand Lodge of England... a spokesman for the Queen said "Buckingham Palace has not, and would not, endorse this sort of arrangement. No permission has been given by the Palace for a Buckingham Palace lodge or anything similar" "The founding of the lodge has also alarmed Royal staff who do not want to be associated with the fraternity famed for bizarre initiation rites, mystical regalia and mysterious codes of conduct. It is also likely to cause consternation among career women in the Palace, as it is a men-only organisation. Masons are widely believed to further the business and professional interests of brother Masons, although they would deny this and claim it is a harmless social and charitable organisation" (NB: Why the need for secrecy then?). The article also states that the lodge was due to be "consecrated on 19 May 2008" As I wrote in my 24 March 2009 letter to my MP, Sir Malcolm Rifkind: "My life has been ruined, leaving me with nothing to look forward to. If the expectation at this stage - is still – that I am just going to walk away and die quietly in some remote corner of this planet to suit morally depraved, corrupt individuals: I WILL NOT. I WILL FIGHT LIKE A DEMON - TO THE VERY END - for JUSTICE AND REDRESS – as I AM THE INNOCENT VICTIM OF CRIME – NOT THE CRIMINAL" I have done NOTHING WRONG. My only 'crime' is that I believed what I was told. 'Others' have committed criminal offences against me. 'Others' with the mandate to protect me and help me get justice and redress from my attackers have colluded with them, deciding to endorse and support their criminal conduct against me. ‘They’ are persecuting me for ‘their’ wrongdoings. And ALL are getting away with it, while 'I', the innocent, law-abiding victim, am treated as though I am a criminal. Consider that this is taking place in a country that claims on its police website (Kensington & Chelsea police - at 23 March 2007) (My Diary 20 Mar 07):
As very amply demonstrated on my website: "make sure action is taken" = make sure the criminals are protected= Same attitude as other parts of the system - because it's the standard set at the top: 'We, peers, MPs and quangocrats use the public purse to pay for building our property portfolio and feather our nest. So, of course, you, Andrew Ladsky and your aides...as a result of???? - can do the same thing with the leaseholders, without fear of sanction - and you can count on widespread support' = PARADISE for vermin like him and his stable of puppets. Well, the lynch mob can keep crying 'Off with her head!' - as I will NOT 'shut-up' - even in the face of death threats. I WILL keep on fighting until the last breath in my body - consequently, prepared to die as a direct result of the horrendous, barbaric treatment I have been subjected to in this country since 2002 as an innocent victim of organised crime - as I will NOT stand injustice, losing all of my working life's work for the sake of crooks getting away with a multi-million Pound jackpot, and to spare the sorry, corrupt skin of their supporters who decided that they are entitled to get away with it. In my (I believe, representative) world, if you want something: you get it lawfully. What I 'HAD' until this horrendous, unbelievably traumatic nightmare that has so far cost me a very large part of what spent my working life saving to secure a very modest retirement: I worked for - very hard, made big sacrifices to build a nest egg. I did not ask for pity, using the excuse that I was brought-up in part in an orphanage, by foster parents, etc. I took the bull by the horns and worked damn hard to ensure modest financial security - putting myself through seven years of studying from age 24 - culminating in an MBA (More detail under My profile). I earned my money honestly. I did NOT steal it. I did NOT acquire it through extortion, by deceiving, misleading, blackmailing, defrauding, abusing, bullying, harassing, victimizing, terrorising, threatening, intimidating, persecuting, etc. others. I calculate that since arriving in this country, I have paid in the region of £500,000 in tax (maybe more), sourced from income tax on my earnings and interest on savings, 17.5% VAT on practically all the goods and services I buy; local council tax and other forms of tax. I have been a net contributor to this country. As I wrote in my 24 March 2009 letter to my MP, Sir Malcolm Rifkind: This, as a British taxpayer, gives me the right to expect that when:
In her column in The Independent, 2 February 2009, Yasmin Alibhai-Brown quoted the anti-slavery judge, Williams Mansfield, in 1768: "Let justice be done, though the skies may fall". TIME FOR JUSTICE - AND THE END OF THE PERSECUTION. In a speech at the NATO conference, Strasbourg, 4 April 2009, Mr 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? As I stated when I launched my website in September 2006: my ultimate objective is to be reinstated to the position I was in in July 2002 i.e. the time when I 'dared' to ask what I consider to be a perfectly legitimate question "Yes, works need to be done , but on what are you going to spend the £14,400 (US$25,400) you are demanding of me?" - and then leave the country (as I wanted to do in 2003) - as it no longer is the wonderful country I decided to make my home and committed to by taking the British nationality.
It would not be the first time that I am physically threatened - see e.g. My Diary home page. If 'they' think 'they' are scaring me: they are NOT! While one of the 'little people', I am not afraid of misogynist, racist, xenophobic, sociopathic, power-corrupted, greed-ridden, ego-crazed scums, with monumental arrogance, who have decided that I should be 'severely punished' for 'daring' to stand-up to them, not being intimidated by their fear tactics - leading them to delude themselves into acting as though they are the victims rather than the guilty parties - and rallying others to 'the cause'. I wonder whether they would do this to the women in their family? I would not put it past them! This organised crime mob makes the commonly known mafia look like kindergarten. (While I know very little about the latter, somehow, I don't think that it would gang-up to persecute a woman who is the victim of crime while falling over backwards to help and protect her attackers). Before this 'message', I last updated my website in the evening of 31 December 2008. The main updates were:
The temperature was below freezing = 'ideal' conditions for 'watering plants'. Don't you think? :-) Contrary to the obvious expectation, I was still up. I banged on one of the windows and told the scum to clear off - which he did. ((*) The last update included, among others, the addition of this page with the above entry and the beginning of the introduction; beefing-up of the section on lawyers under the 22 November 2008 entry, as well addition of the shark and evil face visuals) Later on that morning, I asked the porter who had given the order. He said that he would report it to the managing agents. I replied that he could tell the 'managing' agents and its equally criminal client that they are not scaring me. Obviously, given my experience with the police, including the surveillance, plus the experience of my fellow leaseholders (and that of another leaseholder): no point reporting the obvious harassment - even though it is a criminal offence - as, next time, the scum 'might' come with a police escort.
Over the weekend, the media reported that Lloyds TSB has paid the $350m to settle charges that during 1995-2007, in both Britain and Dubai, it faked documents so that clients in Iran, Libya and Sudan could skirt US sanctions on business transactions in the US. In its article of 11 January 2009, headed "Lloyds pays for busting US sanctions", The Sunday Times reports that "The US Justice Department said Lloyds' offices removed information such as customer names, bank names and addresses so wire transfers would not be flagged and blocked as improper by American financial institutions". It also quotes from "a statement issued by Lloyds on Friday" : "We are committed to running our business with the highest levels of integrity and regulatory compliance across all our operations and have undertaken a range of significant steps to further enhance our compliance programmes". At the start of My Diary for 2008 I wrote "I sure wish that my case could be transferred to a court in the USA". Yes, I realise that the US is, like, for example, my country of birth, France (*), far from perfect (with the exception of my website Host :-) ), but, like 'I think' in France, it does take sanctions against the 'big people' - unlike the UK - which appears to only take sanctions against the 'little people' (e.g. before the 'NatWest 3' were extradited to the US, where they were sentenced, I remember hearing on a radio station that "an unnamed source" (they always are!) "in the City" had said that their conduct "was foolish" (further proving that 'they' immediately close rank). By contrast, this country puts a man in jail "over an apple core"; hands out a criminal record for: "overfilling a dustbin"; "forgetting to swipe a travel card") (*) As I tell English people who go on the defensive when I talk about my experience in this country since 2002: "It would not surprise me to hear that the word 'corruption' was invented in France". To which I add: "So what? Does it mean that we have to adopt a defeatist attitude by turning a 'blind eye and a deaf ear' to it? Since when do two wrongs make a right? Is this the kind of society we want to live in, and for the children of this country to inherit?" to which I will now add: "and, in the meantime have as role model?" - More evidence in support of my position - see below Jan 09 and Feb 09
How wonderful to be able to give praise. (I sent a 'thank you note' on 25 January 2009). (The previous occasion was more than two years ago, with another 'watchdog' : Postwatch (My Diary 25 Nov 06). Unfortunately, I misled its letter. I am very annoyed about that). I concluded My 2008 Diary with a 29 December entry relating my experience with Hutchison 3G, the 3 mobile phone service provider, and what were by then my third and fourth letters to get the Port Authorisation Code (PAC) in order to transfer my mobile number to another operator. As Hutchison 3G continued to ignore my correspondence, I sent this 8 January 2009 letter to Ofcom asking for its assistance. It replied on 21 January 2009. As can be seen in the letter, although Ofcom "does not become involved in individual complaints" (I should have contacted Otelo), the person nonetheless "escalated a copy of [my] complaint to 3". In the context of events with Hutchison 3G, please note the statement in Ofcom's letter "Ofcom regulations state that a PAC (or the reason why it can't be provided) must be sent to the customer within 2 working days from receipt of the customer's request". The involvement by Ofcom had the desired effect as, the following day, in its 22 January 2009 letter, Hutchison 3G - FINALLY - sent me the PAC number i.e. nearly three months after my original request of 29 October 2008 - while claiming in its 9 February 2009 letter that its doing this was not because I had approached Ofcom. As I wrote in my 20 February 2009 reply "Your letter demonstrates that you (and unnamed parties) continue to perceive me as an imbecile" Its explanations for events in its 22 January 2009 letter? They don't stack-up. How could they? In my 25 January 2009 letter I wrote:
It's amazing how they ALL - in their men-only world - continue to treat me like an imbecile, and even more amazing to see those prepared to join in on the infantile, perverse 'games' - conveying desperation at trying to get back at me - in the meantime, digging an ever bigger hole for themselves. Like a visitor to my site said "They all come across as unbelievably stupid". Yep! as well as extremely twisted, vicious and perverse. Or, to put it simply: VERY SICK. In my 25 January 2009 letter, I reiterated the three questions I asked in my 29 December 2008 letter, and asked to be reimbursed of my costs, which I calculated at £140.14 (charging less time than it has actually cost me) + my £41.25 credit, bringing the total to £181.39. In its 9 February 2009 reply - in which, of course, it ignored my questions - Hutchison offered me £75.00 to cover my postage costs, the remaining credit on my account and a "goodwill gesture". I replied on 20 February 2009 that, as my postage costs and remaining credit amount to £61.14, it follows that the amount of the "goodwill gesture" is £13.86. I made a counter-offer of £120.00 and this was agreed - and payment received. Having been deprived of my mobile number for more than three months, I am finally able to use it - with a new operator - which, unlike 3, does not have a requirement to buy one of 'its' phones.
On 17 January 2009, I took delivery of a 14 January 2009 £4,500 "offer" from Portner and Jaskel (posted on 15 Jan) from "Rootstock Overseas Corp" et.al. aka Mr Andrew Ladsky - stating that it was "an all in figure in full and final settlement of your costs in this matter" - "Without prejudice". My 11 November 2008 updated total costs were in £7,277. By the time I received the "offer", they amounted to £8,397. My total costs at 30 January 2009 were £8,675 In my 19 January 2009 reply, I turned down the "offer" describing it as "derisory" From the very beginning, I could feel that Deputy Master Hoffman was decidedly frosty and hostile towards me. It continued throughout the hearing. Considering my experience with the Court Service in 2007-08, and previously in 2002-04, I had no illusion. I viewed this hearing as a means of adding further evidence of how a leaseholder of limited financial means and no influential connections, and on top of that, 'a woman', who is the - very obvious - victim of fraud by a sacrosanct landlord and his equally well protected aides (outcome of my complaints), gets treated by the Court Service. When, at the start of hearing, I suggested 'setting the scene' before going into the detail of whether or not I should have spent £1 on an item (I intended to refer to the Key Points at the beginning of my 19 January 2009 amended reply to the 11 August 2008 Points of Dispute), it was forcefully rejected by Deputy Master Hoffman. My 19 January 2009 reply was TOTALLY IGNORED - although it had clearly been looked at - and discussed - before the hearing. I used it (from memory) to reply to some of the points raised. The only document that was used during the hearing was my 11 November 2008 Bill of Costs (for which my presentation was criticised). When Deputy Master Hoffman asked me to show him my 22 March 07 Acknowledgement of Service, in an hostile tone, he asked why I had also sent the other pages. I reply that I had done this for the purpose of highlighting the fact that there are TWO NAMES for the 'claimant': "Roostock Overseas Corp." and "Steel Services". Reply (in an authoritarian tone): "You should not have done this. You should have only returned the form that the court sent you". My reply: "I receive a claim that has TWO NAMES as the 'claimant', one of which I have never hear of, both claiming to be my 'landlord', and demanding that I pay over £10,000, and you expect me to not say anything?"` Reply (in a continuing, authoritarian, hostile tone) "You should not have done it!" My translation: "My good friends in West London County Court are extremely angry that you have this black on white evidence against them as they should not have proceeded with the claim. They, plus their chums in the legal arena (including ex. boss Lord Falconer of Thoroton? who, 'poor thing', had friends organise a party to help him find a job), and wider arena you have exposed on your website, as well as the chums of these chums [e.g. ADD] thought that, as a Litigant in Person, one of the Great Unwashed, they would be able to quickly 'get you' / take their revenge. (Like they and their chums did eventually 'get you' in 2003-04). The fact that they very clearly under-estimated you led them to keep on trying to get you (hence why the process dragged on for 16 months) - only adds to their and chums' incandescent fury against you". To which can be added "On top of the fact that, likewise, in relation to the previous fraudulent claim of 29 November 2002 against you (and 10 of your fellow leaseholders), they should not have proceeded with the claim - as the statement of truth on the Particulars of Claim was signed by the 'managing agents" (e.g. My Diary 9 Mar 07) "Furthermore, in proceeding with the claim, they had knowledge that an abuse of process of court was being committed" (WLCC # 2 , my Defence and 7 letters to the courts) "They sure are mad at you for putting this on your website - and their chums share their outrage", and ... ..."All are especially enraged by the fact that you have exposed their extortion tactics: threat of forfeiture, bankruptcy proceedings and court claims = FRAUD TOOLS" My costs connected with the 24 August 2007 hearing (WLCC # 11) i.e. preparation of my 4 April 2007 application to transfer the case to the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal (WLCC # 3 , # 4), of my 3 May 2007 Skeleton Argument (WLCC # 5 , # 6), the endless correspondence - in vain: chasing Portner for the information to which I am legally entitled, chasing its client skeleton argument (WLCC # 9 , # 10), asking WLCC to assist, the costs associated with trying to get a transcript of the hearing - were all disallowed because "the application was refused " - by Deputy District Judge McGovern (WLCC # 11) (events in my 19 January 2009 reply to the points of dispute) And of course, as was my claim to be reimbursed of the £293.70 Deputy District Judge McGovern had ordered that I pay at the 24 August 2007 hearing (WLCC # 11) My costs associated with my 30 April 2008 application to vary the 9 April 2008 case management directions so that I would be supplied with the information to which I am legally entitled: disallowed because my application was refused (WLCC # 28 , # 30 ; My Diary 30 Apr 08 ; 3 Jun 08) My costs associated with printing and delivery of an integral copy of my 6 May 2008 Standard Disclosure documents: disallowed because "not requested by the 'claimant'" (As I explained e.g. in My Diary 7 Jun 08, I followed my 'sixth sense', suspecting that the intended plan was to claim that a request had been made, and documents not received (there MUST be a bundle for a hearing) - allowing to demand judgment against me. It was blatantly obvious that they were all dying for the opportunity to do this e.g. the 7 March 2008 threat - My Diary 13 Mar 08) (*) (Also playing on my 'sixth sense' was what took place with Dr P at the time i.e. in May 2008) (*) There is no end to the bag of tricks by Andrew Ladsky and his morally depraved, corrupt aides e.g. Portner claiming that it had not received my Skeleton Argument (WLCC # 5 , # 6 , Portner # 16); using other individuals to 'get me' e.g. 'visitor' to my site (Portner # 14) - and of course, filing fraudulent claims against leaseholders. The £1,202 cost of producing my ('knock-out) 3 June 2008 Witness Statement was allowed in full on the grounds that "it would be difficult to find a solicitor who could produce a document like that for this cost". (While the presentation of my Bill of Costs was criticised, the overall quality of my documents was praised. At least, that's something - for a non-lawyer! :-) ) But the cost of producing my 12 September 2007 Defence was arbitrarily reduced from £759 to £500 - by querying the fact that I was charging for loss of income i.e. taking time off work. (I supplied my timesheets as evidence). In other words...
Of my £360 printing costs and stationary costs, only £50 was allowed - "because these costs are normally a percentage included in the fees" My costs associated with endlessly chasing a reply to my 2 October 2007 letter were disallowed (WLCC # 14 , # 15 , # 16 , # 17, # 21) My costs associated with my 13 November 2007 complaint to HMCS 'Customer Service' that led me to write a significant number of letters due to the persistent blind eye and deaf ear attitude: disallowed because "up to you if you want to complain" (WLCC # 18 , # 19 , # 20 , # 22 , # 23 , # 24 , # 25) My postage costs of over £200 which are predominantly for recorded / special delivery post were all disallowed because "in this country communication with the courts is through regular post". As far as I am concerned, the benefit of having proof of postage, and delivery, was worth every penny. (NB: re. the "in this country": until 2002, when a bunch of criminals comprising of Andrew David Ladsky; Joan Doreen Hathaway, MRICS, Martin Russell Jones; Lanny Silverstone, Partner, Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor (CKFT) filed a fraudulent claim against me in West London County Court : I had NEVER had any dealings with the courts - either during my preceding 35 years in this country, or previously) There was "No order as to costs" - see my 19 January 2009 reply to Portner's 14 January 2009 "offer" in which I quote from CPR in relation to the timing of an 'offer'. (Mr Ladsky was claiming costs of £1,535) Considering the unbelievably damning evidence against Portner and Jaskel and its client - captured in my 19 January 2009 reply to their points of dispute - any fair minded, reasonable person with integrity would say that I was bound to get ALL my costs back - as well as compensation for the horrendous and very traumatic treatment I was subjected to over a period of 16 months - not to mention the court taking action against Portner, including for contempt of court. However, based on my experience with the Court Service in 2007-08, and previously in 2002-04, including with Lord Falconer's 'Customer Service' department, I knew that, short of a miracle, I would not be able to recoup all of my costs - and I was right. I therefore saved myself (among others) several thousand Pounds by not employing a costs draftsman - no doubt to the great annoyance of quite a few people. In light of what took place, when asked by Deputy Master Hoffman whether I would challenge the decision, I replied that I would not – as it is blatantly obvious that ‘my card is marked’ by the Court Service – and has been since 2002 (WLCC ; Lord Falconer of Thoroton) - confirming to me that, as it stands, my website is the closest I am going to get to justice. Agreed: it's one up on some dictatorships. 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 miscreants against the victims e.g. My Diary 6 May 08 ; 11 Nov 08 ; Kensington & Chelsea police - and acts like the miscreants e.g. local council ; police ; MPs ; peers - including persecuting those who 'dare' to blow the whistle e.g. Canadian Lady ; social worker. It is said that 'power corrupts, and that absolute power corrupts absolutely'. This recent massive amount of new evidence leads me to repeat what was on my site at the time of the launch in September 2006 (which is likely to have been given as an example for rallying to the cries of 'Off with her head!', backing the ongoing, highly vicious, barbaric treatment against me): "I now hold the view that England can justifiably describe itself as a criminals paradise" (An aside: the Cost Draftsman employed by the 'claimant' was particularly pleasant). (I was likewise to him, as he was just doing his job).
The 'going rate' ranged from £24,000 to £120,000 - with one of the peers, Lord Taylor, saying that "Some companies pay me £100,000. That's cheap for what I do for them". The newspaper reports that he "boasted that he had used his position in the House of Lords to change the law on behalf of a credit check company". (I bet you thought I was exaggerating in my entry under 23 Mar 08 when I wrote "Oh yeah! in our country, money can give you carte blanche to do whatever you want, and buy you 'friends' wherever you need them" ) (I suspect that it has been one of the items on my site given as example to gain support from the troops and justify retaliatory actions against me) Having been exposed, with extracts of voice and video recordings on The Sunday Times website - which were shown on television - the peers maintain that they have "not done anything wrong". (And sure enough... - see below Feb 09) Back in 2003, I would have been horrified by this. Today I say: Ah! that's the going rate! I wondered how it worked. I now understand why some are prepared to pay - by means of 'loans' / 'donations' to the Labour Party - up to (?) £1.5 million for a peerage ('cash for peerage scandal' - came to light in 2006, under Tony Blair - and of course, the outcome was: no charges held against anybody).
That's why many of them go into politics: not to serve the country, but for self-serving motives. And these unelected, unaccountable 'noble men and women' know that they can even commit perjury (e.g. Lord Archer, Lord Black) and still hold on to their title and their seat - because they are 'above the law' (My Diary Feb 09). Even after this latest scandal, you can still feel the 'I say old chap, let's not be too harsh. We don't need to look at rules. After all, WE ARE the Lords, the ruling class, the Establishment. They sure perceive themselves as a breed towering high above the 'Great Unwashed' like me - see deliberation re. the fate of those prepared to accept bribes As a taxpayer who pays for peers, MPs, etc, I want to know why companies can use 'lobbyists' to get access to peers and ministers, whereas when I go to see my MP - whose role is to represent me in Parliament - I am told to 'GET LOST!'? (In 2002 and in 2009).
As an innocent victim of organised crime who has been persecuted by the courts and has suffered injustice, and as a British taxpayer - who pays, among others, for the courts - I have the right to ask and to expect an answer to my questions - and I intend to pursue this. (I wrote to my MP, Sir Malcolm Rifkind, asking that my complaint is referred to the Parliamentary Ombudsman, as well as raised with other relevant parties) In its Comment section, The Sunday Times wrote "Time to clean up the House of Lords". Yes - as well as the House of Commons, and many other parts of the government machinery - including the courts (e.g. My Diary 11 Nov 08 , 22 Nov 08 , 30 Jan 08) It really is high time for a major clean up. But are the right people in place to do it??? Judging from this entry and the following: NO!
I initially started this entry by referring to My Diary home in which I wrote that, aside from the 'little people', "nobody is held accountable for anything in this country" - and that events provided further evidence of this. In May 2009, it took several days of disclosure of unbelievable wholesale abuse of 'expenses' claims by politicians to finally trigger some token action. It has been a show of disgusting moral depravation by MPs, of lack of probity and honour, of closing rank while spurting out the evidently agreed replies, denying any wrongdoings, using feeble, lame excuses (= a typical reaction - which is very alien to me) and subsequently defending their sordid conduct by using excuses that seal the fate of crooks in the courts (except, of course, the crooks I am dealing with; the 30 Jan 09 hearing): being sent to jail. Looking at the media reports, reminds me of the replies and treatment I received following my numerous 'cries for help' and complaints: extreme arrogance, gross self-importance, pompous, contemptuous, self-regarding, patronizing, condescending, dismissive attitude, refusal to admit any wrongdoings, responsibility and accountability, mutual exoneration - resorting to lying, denials, cover-up, misrepresentations, fabrications, outrageous, breathtaking justifications / excuses. So strong is the belief of being 'untouchable' in their mutual protection fortress, that the 'noble' peers and 'honourable' and 'right honourable' MPs very clearly did not anticipate what followed: being shamed, humiliated and ridiculed - day after day after day by the media - as well as by the public who ended-up lynching the MPs verbally. (Same thing in my case: so strong is the various parties' unlimited collective arrogance, grossly inflated sense of self-importance and power from their massive network of chums that they did not expect that, after FIVE YEARS of telling me to, in effect, to 'get lost!', I, one of the 'Great Unwashed', would launch this website as a last resort 'cry for help' - in the process exposing chapter and verse of my case - and hence, their incompetence, malpractice, collusion and corruption). It shows that those who have abused the system come from the same mould and live in the same parallel universe: CROOKS UNIVERSE. = PARADISE for vermin like Andrew Ladsky and his stable of puppets 'Peers for cash'Further to the 'peers for cash' scandal (My Diary Jan 09), on 12 February, the media reported that, "after consulting with the Crown Prosecution Service, the police decided against conducting an investigation of the 'cash-for-amendments affair'". That it had "carefully reviewed the allegations" and said that it was "far from clear how criminal law applies to peers". Also, that there are "very clear difficulties in gathering and adducing evidence". (= A case of ' You let me do what I want, I'll let you do what you want'?) In its 12 Feb 09 issue, The Times headed an article "Off the hook. It increasingly looks as if politicians are above the law". They certainly behave as though they are - as are, based on my (very extensive) first-hand experience, the sacrosanct landlords, their aides and the supporting infrastructure to the residential leasehold sector (snapshot of outcomes of my 'cries for help' and complaints). All part of the same crowd! (NB: And if you happen to be the Speaker: to save you embarrassment, you can block an inquiry. (Refers to Michael Martin) It's all very cosy at Westminster) (Note: Mr Carswell succeeded in his motion: the Speaker resigned in June. He was replaced by John Bercow, reported by The Daily Telegraph to have "flipped the designation of his main and second homes... designating each as his main home at the time he sold it. It meant he paid no capital gain tax on either sale. While he insisted that he had done nothing wrong , Mr Bercow said he had decided to "voluntarily" pay to the taxman £6,508 plus VAT - the tax he could have been required to pay...") On 26 April 2009, The Sunday Times had an article "Guilty peers Lord Taylor of Blackburn and Lord Truscott face a year's suspension". It states "They could now be barred from parliament for up to a year and lose tax-free allowances of up to £335 a day". In May, some newspapers reported that Lord Taylor (who asked for a £120k yearly retainer to organise changes to legislation) claimed that "he had been guilty of no more than "loose talk over lunch"; that he was "a loquacious old man with an advanced degree of self-satisfaction, but one who is easily confused and who rambles on". (And he is one of the people who lays down the laws of the land, telling the rest of us what to do!)
Lord Truscott: You are NOT even beginning to experience the daily, horrendous suffering and mental torture I have been subjected to - in THIS country - since 2002 - as a result of actions by judges, court staff, a tribunal, the police, lawyers and their so-called 'regulators', surveyor # 1 and # 2, and their so-called 'regulator', accountants and their so-called 'regulator', local council, Ombudsman # 1 and # 2, [ADD], etc. The treatment comprises of abuse, bullying, harassment, victimization, being terrorised, physical threats, including being told that I "don't have long to live", intimidation, persecution, defamation of my name and of my character, etc. What have 'I' done wrong to be subjected to this treatment? NOTHING! I 'dared' to stand-up against organised crime - set-up to make me (and my fellow leaseholders) pay monies I did NOT owe. The objective? So that Andrew Ladsky et. al. could realise a multi-million Pound jackpot. Evidently, it is a heinous crime in this country to stand-up against organised crime, to refuse to be used and abused by criminals. In fact, so heinous - that it carries the death penalty. Hence, you could say that, currently: I am on death row. That's right: 'I' AM THE INNOCENT VICTIM OF ORGANISED CRIME. 'Others' have committed criminal offences against me. 'Others' with the mandate to protect me and help me get justice and redress from my attackers have colluded with them, deciding to endorse and support their criminal conduct against me. ‘They’ are persecuting me for ‘their’ wrongdoings. And ALL are getting away with it, while 'I', the innocent, law-abiding victim, who has ended-up in my situation because I naïvely believed what YOU, the House of Lords, issued / endorsed: so-called 'rights' YOU said I had the right to demand - am being persecuted with behind closed doors cries of 'Off with her head!' Evidently, the treatment I have and continue to be subjected to since 2002 is regarded by the State as "acceptable... part of the standards and values of this country". And this country criticises other countries for their breach of Human Rights; claims "to speak out for the victims of aggression..." What hypocrisy! It is a society in a very sorry state that treats innocent people in this manner, while helping and protecting the miscreants. And the root cause? GREED - making Oliver Cromwell's remark to Parliament "Gold is your God" - just as relevant today. The Times, 21 May 2009, "Reputations on the line as Lords debate suspension of two peers", reports that the whole House of Lords spent "two hours debating" whether to "suspend" you and Lord Taylor "for six months". As, apparently, neither of you had the guts to attend, you might like to know that the decision was described as "very severe"; seen as a "monumental, life-changing, defining moment..." WHAT??? By contrast, innocent people like me suffer terrible injustice in this country (e.g. have a look at the Comments) - and nobody gives a damn at the Palace of Westminster. But of course, who are we relative to 'noble' peers? On 3 May 2009, The Sunday Times revealed "Labour peer claims £100,000 expenses on empty flat she said was her home". It concerns Baroness Uddin. While on 31 May 2009, in "Lord Clarke confesses that he has been milking his expenses" and "Remorseful peer says he fiddled expenses" that Lord Clarke "admitted that he had claimed up to £18,000 a year for overnight subsistence when he had often stayed with friends for free..." and that he "has apologised for his "terrible error", is the first member of the House of Lords to concede that peers knowingly abuse their allowances to boost their income". The article also states that "He feared he will be turned on by other senior peers for exposing the laxity of the Lords expenses system". I conclude from this that this type of conduct is the norm. If it were not, it would be treated as deviant behaviour - and therefore condemned by members of the group. Other media report some of the 'noble' peers turning up just to sign the register in order to collect their £335 daily allowance. One journalist said to have overheard a lord being turned away on a Friday at 12h00 because the session had finished and that, as he was walking away, on meeting others who were coming to do the same thing, he said "No point chaps! The buggers finished early today!". In the real world, this conduct, and that above, qualify for summary dismissal and prosecution by the employer - which will result in a jail sentence. Yes, and these people lay the laws of the land, telling the rest of us what to do. Cabinet ministers, MPs, MEPs and Quangocrats on the "gravy train"In its Comment section, The Sunday Times, 22 Feb 09, has an article headed "A country in crisis needs moral leaders". It states "..it is deeply disturbing to discover the extent that politicians share the same moral deficit [as bankers]... the reputation of our political class has been in free fall..". "...Does a home secretary who abuses her parliamentary housing allowance (1), along with peers who take payment for amending legislation, have any better understanding of ethical behaviour than the European members of parliament who are revealed today to be able to tap £1m each from their own political gravy train?" "All say that they have not broken any rules, a plea that merely adds weight to the evidence against them. They just don't get it. This country is in crisis. The last thing it needs is a discredited political class"
• Cabinet Minister, Tony McNulty , Employment Minister, who claimed £60,000 in second-home allowances on his parents' house even though he does not stay there. (Has since left his post). • Hazel Blears, Cabinet Minister, Communities Secretary i.e. Local Government, who, it was initially revealed, nominated one residence as her second home for the purpose of claiming expenses, while, for tax purposes, she claimed that it was her main home. Vehemently denying any wrongdoing, a few days after the revelation, she was shown on television brandishing a cheque said to be for £13,332, in the name of the tax authorities, and to represent the capital gains tax she had managed to avoid paying. Although Gordon Brown, PM, described her conduct as "totally unacceptable", (typically) he did nothing about it. At the time she resigned , the 3 June 2009 Daily Telegraph had an article headed "Hazel Blears' resignation 'due to capital gains tax avoidance on another property'". The replacement for Hazel Blears? Shahid Malik. Local Government covers housing. No wonder that this department turns a blind eye and a deaf ear to the fraudulent activities of landlords and their aides (e.g. Kensington & Chelsea housing ; Local Government Ombudsman) - and engages in the same activities e.g. Comment # 31 , My Diary 26 Apr 06. And no wonder, that New Labour continues to uphold, as well add legislation that allows landlords to rip-off leaseholders (Prescott # 4 , # 5 , # 6). The conduct of Caroline Flint, a previous housing minister, also speaks volumes for this department. • Elliot Morley, Labour backbencher, a former minister, who apparently claimed a total of £16,000 for a mortgage he had already paid off 21 months previously. He "blamed his error on "sloppy accounting"". The insulting, utter contempt with which they treat the electorate is unbelievable. (Other MPs have since been alleged to have done the same thing) • Tory backbenchers, Andrew MacKay and his wife who, over the years, are reported to have each claimed a full yearly second home allowance. Mr MacKay claimed that there was "nothing unreasonable" in his expense claims. (Following disclosure by The Daily Telegraph, Mr MacKay was asked to step down by the Tory Leader; c. two weeks later, his wife announced that she would stop being an MP). • In light of my experience with the Court Service since 2002, and more recently under The Right Honourable Jack Straw, Lord Chancellor, I note with interest The Daily Telegraph article of 8 May 2009 "Jack Straw apologises for bungling claim: MPs expenses":
As Simon Heffer of The Daily Telegraph wrote (9 May 09) "What a coincidence that the money was repaid before our disclosures. Any number of MPs ought to resign for their appalling behaviour, but there would seem to be a compelling case that the Lord Chancellor should be the first". Considering as well what the Rt Hon Jack Straw turns a blind eye and a deaf ear to (e.g. WLCC # 20 , # 22 , # 23 , # 25), and his propensity to let others carry the can e.g. "Jack Straw accused of buck passing over murder of French students", The Times, 10 June 2009: I second that motion! • The second example in the legal arena is that of Shahid Malik, then Justice Minister, covered in The Daily Telegraph articles of 15 May 2009: "The justice minister, his home and the convicted landlord" and "A cut-price rent at home while claiming £66,000 on expenses" . Of the various disclosures, Mr Malik tried to claim for a "£2,100 40in flat-screen". When his claim was refused, he is reported to have pursued the matter, stating, among other:
Contrast that with the fact that a very brave "Housing campaigner committed suicide after receiving a £3,000 legal bill from Hazel Blears" (Daily Mail, 24 Apr 09) (Hazel Blears, then Head of Local Government, and therefore housing). The campaigner is reported to have been "fighting on behalf of hundreds of people over a £5 increase in rent". "From a natural justice perspective" anybody who needs to do that certainly deserves to be treated with compassion. (Note the fact that the bill was delivered to the campaigner "Within half an hour of his court defeat"). But of course, £3,000 nicely covers the cost of a £2,100 flat-screen TV, plus a £500 home DVD system (*) and a "£730 massage chair". (Although the limit for a television is £750, the Fees Office is reported to have agreed to give Mr Malik "£1,050, together with £250 for the DVD system". It also reimbursed him the £730 for the massage chair). The Daily Telegraph reports Mr Malik's salary was £95,617. (*) The most outrageous claim for a home cinema system, reported by The Daily Telegraph, is from Sir Gerald Kaufman: £8,900. He is reported (The Daily Telegraph, The Complete Expenses Files), to have told a local newspaper "If I can say so in a very chaste way, I live very modestly. I don't have much in the way of luxuries". I wonder what his constituents who are "in one of the poorest areas of the country" think of that. Two days before the initial disclosure by The Daily Telegraph, Shahid Malik was reported (by the same newspaper) to have said "It grieves me to see multi-millionaires claiming thousands for repairs to their country estates while many hard-working families face an uncertain future". These people have no morals. Following the disclosure by The Daily Telegraph, Mr Malik was suspended while claiming "I have nothing to apologise for... I have not abused the rules. I have been absolutely at the core of the rules". By the first week of June he had been "cleared of wrongdoing" - and was appointed...yes, Communities Secretary, taking over from Hazel Blears. (Gordon Brown, PM, (typically) refused to release the details of the investigation. So much for his new claim of "transparency". He was forced to cave in: "Gordon Brown forced into revealing report on Shahid Malik finances", The Daily Telegraph, 10 June 2009) A week later, in its 12 June 2009 article, The Daily Telegraph revealed "Shahid Malik failed to tell the whole truth on expenses" - thereby criticising the hasty appointment. It led to Malik being replaced by John Denham = three heads of Local Government and housing in c. 10 days. That must be a record for the game of musical chairs typical of departments' appointments.
I note, Mail on Sunday, 7 June 2009, "Rebel Blears could lose Commons seat" that "Gordon Brown axed Housing Minister Margaret Beckett after she made it clear that she wanted to return to a Secretary of State post". They sure don't spend much time in their post the housing ministers. I wonder why. • The third example in the legal arena was reported in The Daily Telegraph, 9 May 09 "Vera Baird: Solicitor General tried to claim cost of Christmas tree and decorations". She "put through a £286 expenses claim for "miscellaneous items" but Commons officials spotted that the receipts were for festive decorations and refused to pay. Her £4,570 bill for furniture was also cut down because the items were deemed too "luxurious", and she was told she could not claim £349 for a metal, wall sculpture" Ms Baird, who is reported to be on a £125,602 salary, is quoted as saying "I did not take issue with the fees office for rejecting claims. I was grateful for their guidance on how the rules should be interpreted". This person who is "One of the Government's chief lawyers...deputy to the Attorney General, the Government's chief legal adviser" needs to be told that she cannot make the taxpayers pay for her Christmas tree, and art for her walls? Considering her role, as Ms Baird admits to being totally clueless about the real world, I vote her as another one who should be dismissed. • Harry Cohen, MP for a constituency in East London, was reported in the Mail on Sunday, 29 March 2009, to have "...claimed the maximum £104,701 in the past five years for his house in East London..". "He denies cheating taxpayers by claiming a second-home allowance while maintaining that his main home is a single bedroom schoolhouse and seaside caravan 70 miles from his constituency". The MP is quoted as saying "When MPs were given the allowance they were told "Go and spend it, boys" and that's what I have done! It is my right!"
(1) £2,115 claim by Douglas Hogg, Tory, reported to have initially denied the claim for cleaning the moat at his manor house. He is a barrister (!!!) (2) £1,645 claim by Sir Peter Viggers, Tory, who, one week before the revelation, is reported to have said to his local newspaper "Personally, I have, of course, always scrupulously observed the rules". He also claimed for 28 tons of manure. And a significant number avoided paying capital gains tax on selling their property/ies by flipping their second home back and forth e.g. Hazel Blears; John Bercow; Sir John Butterfill, Tory, "who gave back more than £60,000". (He is the one who claimed £20,000 for his servants' quarters); Eleanor Laing, shadow justice minister (!!!) who was told by David Cameron, Tory Leader, to pay up to £180,000 in tax she avoided paying by flipping her properties) (Sourced from The Daily Telegraph, The Complete Expenses Files) The day after Harry Cohen's comment, "we were told to 'go and spend it'", it started to be 'the preferred answer', with some MPs saying that the practice of using expenses to 'bump-up' their salary was encouraged with a wink and a nod as far back as the 70's, and that this was done because the electorate would not have approved a salary increase. How about that for deceit? Of course, it was said without any trace of shame, or guilt. Imagine employees saying to their employer: 'for years we've helped ourselves from the cash till to the tune of one third plus of our salary because we knew you would have refused to give us a salary increase. What the MPs are asking their constituents to accept, through their lame, feeble excuses is the equivalent of the employer replying: That's alright. Don't worry. I understand. Of course you had to do it. Poor you! Encouraged by whom? In exchange for what? Being placemen and placewomen controlled by unelected parties - who ask MPs to turn a blind eye and a deaf ear to anything embarrassing, inconvenient, etc.? (In his Mail on Sunday column of 3 May 2009, Vince Cable, (highly respected) Liberal Democrat Treasury Spokesman, wrote: "The real scandal about Parliament is not that a few (it's not "a few", it's 'a lot' of) MPs abuse the system of claiming for London accommodation but that it has allowed itself to be treated as a doormat by over-poweful Governments... I am ashamed to be a parliamentary eunuch - and my 645 colleagues should be, too". But: the 645 MPs also include all the ministers)
Looking at some of the MPs' pathetic pleas to the Fees Office to allow their expense claims (The Daily Telegraph, "Baby's cots and 'slum' kitchens, the desperate pleas from MPs", 9 May 2009), reminds me of the claims made by dodgy beggars e.g. "I don't want to leave my family destitute" ; "Old flat. Decrepit. Health reasons. Living in slum" ; Jack Straw who "asked for permission to install a £7,500 kitchen saying it was necessary because his daughter had complained that the old one was worse than her student digs" (The Daily Telegraph, The Complete Expenses Files) - while some amount to bullying e.g. "Reducing the payment by over £1,000 affects my cash flow. Please expedite the payment" . The tsunami of public anger and outrage finally led many to say that the whole expenses system is "rotten" / "does not work" / "needs to be changed" ... while blaming 'the system' for their conduct e.g. the Rt Hon Jack Straw "I will not be the only person in Blackburn [his constituency] who's made an error in good faith (NB: the lawyer talking)...the system needs reform" - in the process displaying an attitude that epitomises the true face of the ruling elite and their cronies beneath the thin layer of veneer: an extremely arrogant, grossly self-important, self-regarding, contemptuous, condescending, medieval 'lord of the manor' attitude, with a breathtaking sense of entitlement e.g.
Why is it that none of them complained about 'the system' before? Are the people meant to represent their constituents in Parliament too shy / scared to speak-out - and act? (Judging from Mr Carswell's comment on 13 April 2008, and Lord Clarke's: they are too scared to rock the boat - especially when it would be inconvenient for them). Why did it require the disclosures by The Daily Telegraph, preceded by those from the Daily Mail, Mail on Sunday and The Sunday Times to arrive at this conclusion? Simple: because they were found out. Why is it that Westminster's immediate reaction following the disclosures by The Daily Telegraph was to call in the police - not to investigate the MPs - but to identify the source of the leak? (*) Because it's the standard reaction from spineless miscreants, with no honour, when exposed for wrongdoings: attempting to bury their actions by diverting attention to the 'little people' who 'dared' to expose the wrongdoings - while going all out for their scalp like a pack of hyenas. Such is the depth and width of the support network that they've never considered the saying 'If you can't do the time, don't commit the crime'. (*) The police decided against doing this stating that "it would not be in the public interest". Wise move!
This man - and The Daily Telegraph - have certainly done the country a very great service. After c.six weeks of daily revelations of outrageous abuse, on 18 June 2009, Parliament published heavily blacked-out receipts of MPs expenses. And 'they' keep telling us, the 'little people' - as they spy on us: 'if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear'. It does prove that, without The Daily Telegraph, none of the scumbags would have been exposed - and that they very clearly intend to continue in their way behind the front-end claims of reform and of "independent" (*) supervision. Proof of this: The Times article of 20 June 2009 "MPs plot to abandon publication of receipts" which states "The changes would make less information available for public scrutiny, despite the anger caused this week by the way in which details were blacked out from the official files" (*) As a result of my extensive first-hand experience (e.g. Legal Services Ombudsman, Local Government Ombudsman) - and other evidence e.g. the Legal Services Board - whenever the word "independent" is branded about, ensuring that it features in nearly every sentence, I now read: window dressing, collusion, puppet. Note that on 31 May 2009, Gordon Brown, Prime Minister, said on the BBC1 Andrew Marr Show that he finds "the revelations about the MPs conduct offensive to my Presbyterian upbringing". So "offensive" that (1) he apparently tried to prevent the publication of the expenses; (2) is said to have refused revealing the findings about Shahid Malik (3) endorses the publication of a highly redacted version that covers-up the evidence; (4) sets-up a "Well-being" support line line for the 'poor', "distressed", miscreants; (5) proposes 'new regulation' that exempts them from standard criminal law. So much for his "stongly held moral principles of right and wrong" (Same in relation to his proposed inquiry on the Iraq war) The Guardian, 22 May 2009, "Cameron rebukes Tory MP over 'McCarthyite witch hunt' comment", reports Nadine Dorries, MP, as saying
(A week later, Ms Margaret Moran, the Luton South MP who claimed £22,000 for rot treatment to her partner's house resigned, giving among others, "impact on my health" of the media attention, as one of her reasons. Others have since used the same excuse).
...(at 15 June 2009), or more accurately, 7,195 DAYS AGO - as can be seen from the section on Martin Russell Jones, with Ms Joan Doreen Hathaway, MRICS, issuing threats of prosecution as a means of intimidation, within weeks of being appointed, in 1989, by the bully landlord. And yes, this conduct has the blessings of MRJ's 'professional' association, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors - which, likewise, attempted to bully and intimidate me.
‘They’ are persecuting me for ‘their’ wrongdoings: malpractice, collusion, corruption, fraud. And ALL are getting away with it, while 'I', the innocent, law-abiding victim, who has ended-up in my situation because I naïvely believed what YOU, in the House of Commons, issued / endorsed: so-called 'rights' YOU said I had the right to demand - am being persecuted with behind closed doors cries of 'Off with her head!' And YES, it is happening in the context of a police that states on its website (Kensington & Chelsea police - at 23 March 2007) (My Diary 20 Mar 07):
As very amply demonstrated on my website: "make sure action is taken" = make sure the criminals are protected= Same attitude as other parts of the system - because it's the standard set at the top: 'We, peers, MPs and quangocrats use the public purse to pay for building our property portfolio and feather our nest. So, of course, you, Andrew Ladsky and your aides...as a result of???? - can do the same thing with the leaseholders, without fear of sanction - and you can count on widespread support' = PARADISE for vermin like him and his stable of puppets.
Evidently, the treatment I have and continue to be subjected to since 2002 is regarded by the State as "acceptable... part of the standards and values of this country". And this country criticises other countries for their breach of Human Rights; claims "to speak out for the victims of aggression..." What hypocrisy! Meanwhile, the MPs who have misappropriated public funds, flipped their homes to avoid paying tax, have Downing Street rushing to set-up a "well being support line" - "Downing Street sets-up support line for MPs distressed over expenses claims", (The Guardian, 18 June 2009). It is a society in a very sorry state that treats innocent people like me in this manner, while helping and protecting the miscreants. And the root cause? GREED - making Oliver Cromwell's remark to Parliament "Gold is your God" - just as relevant today.
But I know that you won't, because (as evidenced by your comment), like, evidently many of the MPs, you could not give a damn about the horrendous suffering, the injustice taking place outside the walls of your Palace of Westminster fortress. And you will do and say whatever it takes to retain your position and remain on the gravy train e.g. Caroline Flint, Europe Minister, who, it is reported in the media (at 7 June 2009), agreed to Downing Street's request that "she backs Gordon Brown publicly, being given an indication that, if she did this, he would fulfil her ambitions by making her a fully-fledged Cabinet Minister". The following day, when she had been passed over, she resigned, sending a scathing letter of resignation to Gordon Brown. As she was previously Housing Minister: her turn to also be let down: New Labour's broken promises of putting "An end to feudalism" and of addressing forfeiture legislation - among many other broken promises made to leaseholders.
It really is a gigantic trompe l'oeil hiding a massive network of symbiotic relationships. In his Mail on Sunday 3 May 09 column, Dr Vince Cable wrote that "the job [of an MP] is not clearly defined (*) We do a lot of work on behalf of individual constituents, but much of it could be done by local councillors or official complaints bodies and Ombudsmen, if they worked better" (*) MPs do not have a job description Based on my very extensive first-hand experience: they don't work AT ALL (see more recent example) - and politicians know this, and have known this for a very long time - but have done nothing about it leaving the true professionals to battle it out as best they can. Why? Not because they very clearly don't have the moral authority to do something about it, but because, (like their expense system), it suits their personal agenda - not least the fact that many are members of some of these so-called 'professional' bodies, namely the Law Society and Bar Council. And no wonder that some of them lower themselves to the level of the crooks to help them: Keith Vaz, MP, chairman of the House of Commons Home Affairs Select Committee who asked a High Court judge to halt proceedings against Dr Mireskandari, a ‘lawyer’ at Dean & Dean. (The judge is reported to have reacted “furiously” to this request). (Thank God, yes: there are decent judges). (I know some of the victims of Dr Mireskandari, and I was with them in court. That man is a scum). The above examples are to be added to others revealed in 2008 e.g.
The Sunday Times, 31 May 2009, reports "Travel, food, chauffeurs - quangocrats are at it too", quoting the director of the TaxPayers' Alliance "Quango expenses are potentially even worse than MPs". Why is it that the National Audit Office is evidently closing its eyes to the misappropriation of public funds by the Lords, MPs and the quangocrats? In a 2 November 2007 article, the Daily Mail reported "PAC (Public Accounts Committee which polices the work of the NAO] pressed over buried BAE report", stating "John Bourn is stepping down as auditor general following a row over his extravagant expenses...". Yep! They are ALL at it! 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 miscreants against the victims e.g. My Diary 6 May 08 ; Kensington & Chelsea police ; courts # 1 , # 2 - and acts like the miscreants e.g. local council ; police ; MPs ; peers - including persecuting those who 'dare' to blow the whistle e.g. Canadian Lady ; social worker. It is said that 'power corrupts, and that absolute power corrupts absolutely'. This recent massive amount of new evidence leads me to repeat what was on my site at the time of the launch in September 2006 (which is likely to have been given as an example for rallying to the cries of 'Off with her head!', backing the ongoing, highly vicious, barbaric treatment against me): "I now hold the view that England can justifiably describe itself as a criminals paradise"
(*) In her column, in The Times, 11 May 09, Libby Purves, reports that the "new online hobby among the dissatisfied taxpaying classes is to go to the http://www.dwp.gov.uk/benefitfraud, the government hotline for reporting cheats, and grass-up Cabinet ministers..." Given that, for example, a man ends-up in jail for discarding an apple core in the street, can we expect to see jail sentences for MPs who have misappropriated public funds and avoided paying capital gains tax by flipping their homes? At 5 June 2009, the Daily Mail reported"MPs to escape prosecution over expenses scandal as police say charges are highly unlikely". Ten days later, there were reports that the police was investigating 3-4 MPs. Although some lawyers have been quoted in the media as saying that some of the MPs have committed offences under the Fraud Act 2006 and the Theft Act 1968 - it will turn out to be yet, another pantomime, as suggested by the comment from Gordon Brown who evidently perceives MPs as being above the laws of the land"The sanctions available against financial misconduct or corruption have not been updated to meet the needs of the times" . My translation: as the MPs have not included these in the rule book, they can't be charged. That he (and his Lord Chancellor, Jack Straw) perceive the MPs as being above the laws of the land was further evidenced three weeks later, when the draft bill to regulate their conduct stated a maximum of one year emprisonment for fraud (House of Commons debate, 1 July). The maximum sentence under the Fraud Act 2006 is 10 years. Note: The 8 Mar 09 issue of The Sunday Times reports "Tycoon finances 'X Factor' party to clean up politics". "Sir Paul Judge...hopes the new party (Jury Team) (http://www.juryteam.org) will act as a lightening rod for voters alienated by Westminster's tribal divisions and endemic scandals". An academic is reported as saying "The idea that a non-party party could get very far is far-fetched". My view: given the current situation of widespread institutional corruption, I think he might be glad he did not add "if it does, I'll eat my hat". (Subsequent note: Unfortunately, it did not get enough votes to be represented in the European Parliament... but the BNP got nearly 1 million votes = 2 MEPs to represent the UK in Europe).
To this I say GET REAL! Look at my experience for 'daring' to challenge the so-called 'regulators', the courts, the police, etc., that of Mr Moore and others e.g. the call centre operator ; the M&S employee ; Mr Neil Mitchell ; the Canadian Lady ; the Northern Rock employee ; the social worker. Having read this evidence, anybody still prepared to "speak out" (under the current environment) must have a desire for persecution, being ostracised as though they are suffering from rabies, and for totally destroying their life and losing everything they've worked for. How many does that leave? 'Standing your ground' (site: Stand Your Ground) is certainly a hell of a challenge in this country! But, if we all walk away with our tail between our legs, taking the repeated beatings silently, too scared to stand-up for our rights, for justice, turning a blind eye and a deaf ear to wrongdoings: where do we, the 'little people' end-up? Look around! There is your answer. So, if you have moral values - if you come across somebody with the guts to stand-up, somebody who is not intimidated by the FEAR tactics, not scared to put their head above the parapet: if you can't help them, at least don't act against them e.g. the social worker ; Mr Moore, HBOS, etc. It ought to be obvious that these people are a true asset to this country - which comprises of a majority of 'little people'. Since the recent revelations about the whistleblowers, some people have been telling me "You were right!". Great! I'll remember that when I hit the pavement.
Having determined that the fuses were intact in my flat, I went to the electricity meters to see if I could figure out what had been done. The lights were on in the corridor. I bumped into some residents returning to their flat, who checked in their flat and said that the electricity was on. By c. 10h30 I had an electrician investigate. He determined that only my flat and those on the same row: flats 4, 9, 10 and 11 had no power. What a coincidence, as I think that the leaseholder for all of these flats is the headlessor / freeholder e.g. flat 9 is Andrew Ladsky's 'office'. The electrician suggested I phone the electricity company as further investigation would require cutting off the electricity for the whole block. Of course, as we, leaseholders are invoiced by Martin Russell Jones - instead of the electricity company - it requires going through MRJ. (As can be seen under point # 47 of the section on Martin Russell Jones, I have had a long run battle with MRJ - just trying to get a copy of invoices from the electricity company). As would have probably happened when I reported the - evidently malicious - leak in my flat on 18 August 2005 - Martin Russell Jones would have considered it 'appropriate' to take one week, or maybe even longer, to have the 'fault' investigated. I left the flat and returned by c. 13h30. The electricity was back on in my flat. The electrician came back around 16h00 to check something. Surprised to see that the electricity was back on, he asked whether I had contacted the electricity company. To my replying in the negative, we concluded that his visit in the morning might have had something to do with the 'fault' being addressed. Maybe because the electrician witnessed the electricity being back on, and make appear what had happened in the morning as being due to a fault rather than a deliberate act - one hour later, from c. 17h00 the electricity started being switched on and off - and this time, affecting also the corridor by my flat - as well as, I think, the whole block. Eventually, from c. 18h00 it was switched off until c. 23h00. The following morning, I had electricity - but no hot water. The heating had also been switched off. (The corridor by my flat felt warm by contrast). (The following day I had hot water, but still no heating). Previous instances of similar events:
Yes, I DO call that PERSECUTION. And yes, I am living in London, capital of the United Kingdom, part of Europe, where people are 'meant' to have 'rights', including Human Rights - led by a government that claims to "speak out for the victims of aggression". Clearly, this is limited to overseas. As I wrote in the introduction to this year's Diary: I could have been out of the flat in 2003 but, Andrew Ladsky decided otherwise - because, as is very amply demonstrated on this site, he does not subscribe to conventional business principles - nor norms of conduct - and nor do those who support him with cries of 'Off with her head!'. (See follow-up events to my contacting my MP, Sir Rifkind, for more evidence of ongoing persecution) 6 May 2009 - "Inciting hate, people to commit criminal acts...", etc. are "unacceptable; against the standards and values of this country" (Jacqui Smith, (then) Home Secretary)...
The media reports that the Home Office has a black list of 16 'undesirable' foreigners barred from entering the UK (includes a US DJ), because of "their views" perceived as "inciting violence, hate, people to commit criminal acts...", etc. Consider that in the context of the highly coordinated, extremely vicious, cruel, criminal tactics and barbaric treatment I have been subjected to - in THIS country - as the INNOCENT VICTIM OF ORGANISED CRIME since 2002 = over the last 2,845 days (at 15 Jun 09): e.g. abuse, blackmail, extortion, bullying, harassment, victimization, physical threats, including being told that, apparently, I "don't have long to live", intimidation, persecution, defamation of my name and of my character. Tens of thousands of British people have a property in my home country, France, and some have moved there permanently because they prefer it to the UK, "Like the way of life in France". If any of them were subjected to this treatment in France, there would be cries of outrage in the Brtish media - and rightly so. Why is it that no sanctions are taken against those who have - and continue - to inflict this barbaric treatment on me? It certainly cannot be due to ignorance of the facts: my 'cries for help' and complaints - not to mention the fact that the government (and its cronies) have been monitoring my site since its launch. Ditto in relation to my fellow leaseholders, as well as other leaseholders e.g. My Diary 22 Nov 08 - # 1 , # 2 ; Comments # 12 , # 14 , # 15 , # 19 , # 29 , # 30. Why is this kind of treatment inflicted / widely endorsed and supported by the State? Consider this in the context of what it claims on one its websites "Don't suffer in silence. Bullying hurts and you don't have to endure it" ... ...on its police website (Kensington & Chelsea police - at 23 March 2007) (My Diary 20 Mar 07):
As very amply demonstrated on my website: "make sure action is taken" = make sure the criminals are protected= Same attitude as other parts of the system - because it's the standard set at the top: ''We, peers, MPs and quangocrats use the public purse to pay for building our property portfolio and feather our nest. So, of course, you, Andrew Ladsky and your aides...as a result of???? - can do the same thing with the leaseholders, without fear of sanction - and you can count on widespread support' = PARADISE for vermin like him and his stable of puppets. This recent, massive amount of new evidence leads me to repeat what was on my site at the time of the launch in September 2006 (which is likely to have been given as an example for rallying to the cries of 'Off with her head!', backing the ongoing, highly vicious, barbaric treatment against me): "I now hold the view that England can justifiably describe itself as a criminals paradise" It is a society in a very sorry state that treats innocent people in this manner, while helping and protecting the miscreants. And the root cause? GREED - making Oliver Cromwell's remark to Parliament "Gold is your God" - just as relevant today. Back in 2006, the Home Office, which comprises the police, was described as "not fit for purpose". Three years on, and it's still the same thing (other example: revelations by Damian Green). And it will continue to be the same thing: on 6 June, Jacqui Smith was replaced by Alan Johnson who held the post of Health Minister. Regardless of competence, who, in the real world, would be able to move as CEO from one organisation to another that bears no resemblance to the previous one? Add to that the fact that they spend so little time in their post that they gain little understanding of the departments there are heading. Further proof of this: three heads of Local Government and housing in c. 10 days. That must be a record for the game of musical chairs typical of departments' appointments. So, we have placemen and placewomen as ministers, and hence for the Cabinet, as well as MPs. Question is: who are the overall - non-elected - puppet masters? e.g. Who made Labour go back on its promise in its 1997 manifesto 'An end to feudalism'? In 2006, a journalist wrote at the time "I would suggest that this whole Government is "not fit for purpose"". This is still the case e.g. most recently, the failures by the probation service, the courts and the police that led to two French students, Laurent Bonomo and Gabriel Ferez being stabbed to death - "Jack Straw accused of buck passing over murder of French students", The Times, 10 June 2009. The circumstances are all too familiar, a replay of other cases e.g. Victoria Climbie and Baby P's death. 27 May 2009 - Landmark victory for Private Eye which could benefit users of legal services - and further damning evidence against the English and Welsh Law Society and Legal Services OmbudsmanIn its 29 May 2009 issue (#1237), Private Eye has an article headed "Private Eye wins court case!" - 'Michael Napier & Irwin Mitchell v Pressdram'. It relates to the law firm, Carter Ruck, attempting to prevent Private Eye from publishing details of a complaint made against its client, Irwin Mitchell, law firm, and its senior partner, the former Law Society president, Michael Napier. Private Eye states that, unhappy with the Law Society's response to his complaint, the Complainant, Mr Ford, a barrister, had escalated his complaint to the Legal Services Ombudsman for England & Wales, and that "because of Napier's "position of prominence in the Law Society" it in turn passed the file to the Scottish Legal Services Ombudsman to investigate". According to The Lawyer, 1 June 2009, in "Davenport comes good for Private Eye in Irwin Mitchell privacy battle", it is Mr Ford who asked the Scottish Ombudsman to review how the Law Society had handled the complaint. Whether the reason is the former or the latter, it is fascinating when you consider that e.g. at 3 June 2009, the Ombudsman's website states "In creating the role of Ombudsman it was Parliament's intention to protect the interests of the consumers of legal services - clients and members of the public. She does this by ensuring that the professional bodies conduct fair, thorough and efficient investigations of complaints about members". In light of this, why should the fact that Napier is the Law Society's former president matter? It adds weight to my conclusion at the time of my referring my two complaints against the Law Society, and one against the Bar Council to the Legal Services Ombudsman: "The Legal Services Ombudsman = the 'rubber-stamping' office of the Law Society and the Bar Council". That was "the intention" of Parliament - with a high representation of lawyers: to protect the interests of their peers. Private Eye reports that the Scottish Ombudsman's assessment is "highly critical of various aspects of the way in which the Law Society had handled the complaint", while The Lawyer, under "Davenport comes good for Private Eye in Irwin Mitchell privacy battle", states "The Law Society had upheld an original complaint, but did not find the offence serious enough to refer it to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal". It confirms another of my conclusions, in March 2007, in the context of my complaint against Portner and Jaskel: that its latest incarnation, the Solicitors Regulation Authority is, behind the name change, the same long-standing fertiliser of malpractice Law Society when its complaints department was successively called: 'Office for the Supervision of Solicitors' (e.g. my 16 March 2004 complaint against Piper Smith Basham/Watton); 'Consumer Complaint Service' (e.g. my 20 December 2004 complaint against Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor (CKFT)). In light of my experience (snapshot) with the blind eye and deaf ear 'regulators' of the vermin-infested, criminal legal sector (e.g. extortion; fraudulently obtaining highly personal data on people; stealing from sick miners) (criminal conduct is quite clearly the norm) - it's a great victory for people in my situation.
As Private Eye wrote under"Get Carter Fucked": "Had Napier and Irwin Mitchell won their confidentiality case, not only would the Eye have been unable to report on a case which is clearly in the public interest, it would have jeopardised the reporting of other disciplinary and ombudsmen's rulings". Private Eye reports that Michael Napier "spent £350,000 in court costs", and that he was ordered to pay Private Eye's costs. Nice one - as I think that rejection of my complaint against Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor (CKFT) and Piper Smith Basham took place under his watch. On the date of the issue of Private Eye, 28 May 2009, Michael Napier stepped down from the Legal Services Board (e.g. The Lawyer, 28 May 2009). The role of the newly established Legal Services Board? "To supervise approved regulators of the legal sector"! Further proof that, for all the talk of 'independent this' and 'independent that', it's always the same crowd that stands behind the window dressing - pulling the strings of the front-office puppets. Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose! 28 May 2009 - I have sent a Subject Access Request to the PoliceConsidering events with Kensington & Chelsea police, including the fact that
- and I have NEVER been provided with any evidence, I decided to file this 28 May 2009 request under the Data Protection Act 1998. The police has 40 days to reply. [ ] 15 June 2009 - I, "the powerless", have "taken the power from the powerful" by referring my complaint against the Court Service and the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal to the Parliamentary OmbudsmanOn 26 May 2009, in the televised part of one of his speeches, David Cameron, Tory Leader, said:
Well, on 15 June 2009, I decided to kick-start the implementation of his policy by going over the head of my current Tory MP, Sir Malcolm Rifkind (ex. Foreign Secretary) - as he had evidently decided that this Ombudsman should not consider my complaint. Considering what had been taking place, such as peers for sale; gross abuse of expenses by MPs; reports on the police; the near financial meltdown in the context of a "cosy" relationship between the FSA and the banks, etc., by the beginning of March, I decided it was time to approach him to ask for his assistance - as the Conservatives are constantly protesting and crying "outrage" at the Government. (Like everybody else I approached for help since 2002, my previous MP, Michael Portillo, also a Tory, had, in effect, told me - on three occasions - to 'get lost!') So, I sent Sir Rifkind this 7 March 2009 letter stating my objectives as: "As my MP, I would like to meet with you to discuss how you will help me – a law-abiding, British taxpayer (who has so far paid an estimated £500,000 in tax in this country):
My overall objective is to be reinstated to the position I was in when I received the fraudulent ‘service charge’ demand in July 2002, and ‘dared’ to ask - what I consider to be a perfectly reasonable question to ask: “What are you going to spend my £14,400 on?” - and leave this country, as it is no longer the country I decided to make my home and committed to by taking the British nationality". For this purpose, I related my experience in some detail since 2002, in particular with West London Country Court in 2002-04 (further detail under Lord Falconer) and in 2007-08, as well as with Kensington & Chelsea police - both located in my borough i.e. for which Sir Rifkind is the MP. I also relate events with the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal - a key party in my horrendous experience. The 11 March 2009 reply was the all too familiar 'GET LOST!' concluding "As matters stand, I believe you have exhausted your options; the only advice I can offer, however, is that if you have new evidence you should take legal advice" In my 24 March 2009 letter I replied “Considering (1) the content of my letter; (2) the fact that you state in your opening paragraph that you have “carefully read” my “detailed letter”; (3) the role of an MP vis-à-vis his Constituents - I find your comments extremely shocking”. I emphasise that the nature of my complaint most definitely meets the criteria for asking Sir Rifkind's assistance, by:
I then state:
I follow this by providing more detail than in my 7 March 2009 letter (resulting in a 30 page letter) stating "Hence, this letter can be passed on ‘as is’ to the relevant parties" In the conclusions I ask "What gives Mr Andrew Ladsky and his aides the right to control the authorities by getting them to deny me my rights - thereby helping them with their fraudulent activities? As a British taxpayer (who has so far paid c. £500,000 in tax in this country) - and victim of their criminal actions – I have the right to know" I also highlight, among others "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?" I assume that Ladsky's intention was to further reinforce the message that he is so well connected, and hence protected e.g. DC Adams' comment on 27 March 2002 "You won't be able to prove a link with Andrew Ladsky", that no matter who I approach - no action will ever be taken against him. I view this latest event as adding weight to my conclusion of assistance and protection of a 'sacrosanct landlord' by Freemasons. There certainly is no shortage of help! In the postscript to my 24 March 2009 letter, I also report "For several days afterwards I was subjected to further persecution: no hot water, added to having no heating from the day after the electricity was cut-off in my flat on 8 March 2009. On 16 March 2009, I saw Mr Ladsky by the entrance to the block (talking to a woman with a pram) and called him “a criminal” and “a thief” who “stole c. £500,000 from the leaseholders to build a penthouse flat and add three other flats to the block”. His usual reply was “You are mad”. Mine, that he was the one who is “clinically unwell” (his comment about me in his 26 March 2007 letter to KPMG). He told me to “Go f*** yourself”. I returned the ‘compliment’" The following day i.e. 13 March 2009, at 00h25 a.m. a man urinated in the area in front of my windows. I heard liquid falling in front of my windows. I thought it was a repeat of the hosing of my windows (latest occurrence on 9 Jan 09). As I looked out of the windows, nobody was standing in front of them. Within a few seconds, the liquid stopped falling. I then heard somebody coming down the steps that lead to the main entrance and then saw that it was a man: blond, wearing glasses, in his 30s. I conclude from this he had been urinating from the steps to the entrance. What next? Defecation in front of my windows? Followed by? What was the potential physical threat communicated on 2 January 2009? Should I be reassured by the comment "Don't worry, they won't kill you"? (Note: see what came next - which has since been followed by a DEATH THREAT) One month later, the 23 April 2009 reply from Sir Rifkind was a continuation of what amounts to: ‘Get lost! I am not going to help you put my friends / tribe members in the dock’, as he wrote “Members of Parliament are not able to intervene in the decisions that have been taken by courts of law. If a member of the public feels they have been wrongly treated, then they have the right to appeal to a higher level of court and that is something you must discuss with your legal advisers. If you feel you have already done that, or are unable to do so, then I am afraid there is no further action that can be taken” I replied on 8 May 2009 “Why are you refusing to refer my complaint to the Parliamentary Ombudsman?” – stating “You state in your letter “Members of Parliament are not able to intervene in the decisions that have been taken by courts of law”. I am not expecting you to do this. If some items of my complaint are viewed as such (I would like the Parliamentary Ombudsman to make this decision), the majority most definitely come under maladministration”. Drawing from my 24 March 2009 letter, I then quote numerous examples. One month later, the lack of response led me to send an 8 June 2009 chaser letter headed “Why the silence?” , asking Sir Rifkind to respond to my 8 May 2009 letter. In my 15 June 2009 letter to the Parliamentary Ombudsman, I wrote "one week since my chaser letter, and five weeks since my 8 May letter, Sir Rifkind has not replied to my letter - hence, my decision “to take the power from the powerful”, by contacting you directly". I sent a 15 June 2009 letter to Sir Rifkind to copy him on my letter to the Ombudsman, stating, among other "You appear to be in the habit of blocking the 'little people' from getting redress from Government departments e.g. from The Sunday Times, 31 May 2009 “In 1995…when Malcolm Rifkind was then Foreign Secretary, [he] ruled that [Richard Tomlinson’s] case (who had been “sacked by MI6 without explanation”) could not be heard at an industrial tribunal. Tomlinson was stung by the apparent injustice” Also on 15 June 2009, I did the same for David Cameron, asking him to liaise with Sir Rifkind to ensure the necessary steps were taken to refer my complaint. I copied the Parliamentary Ombudsman on both letters. The reply from Sir Rifkind's Office on 17 June 2009 was "Sir Rifkind has not refused to take your issue to the Parliamentary Ombudsman because he believed you had already done so. In your letter of 7th March you quoted your dissatisfaction of endless battles with the "regulators, watchdogs/ombudsmen, other government departments". If you have not pursued this matter with the Parliamentary Ombudsman and still wish to do so, I enclose the relevant form..." Contrast this reply against (1) my 8 May 2009 letter “Why are you refusing to refer my complaint to the Parliamentary Ombudsman?”; (2) the fact that, five weeks later, in spite of a chaser letter after four weeks of waiting, I had not received a reply; (3) as I pointed out when I phoned Sir Rifkind's office (following a message being left on my mobile on 17 May): to refer a complaint to the Parliamentary Ombudsman, I need to go through my MP; Sir Rifkind has been my MP since 2005; since then, I have suffered horrendous treatment by the courts and the police; have I ever contacted him? No! Following my 1 July 2009 letter to Sir Rifkind (to which he replied on 3 July, saying he would forward my complaint to the Ombudsman), and to the Parliamentary Ombudsman - on Monday morning, 13 July, I hand-delivered to: (1) Sir Rifkind's Office at the House of Commons: a completed Parliamentary Ombudsman's complaint form - with a 46-page reply to Q5 "What are you complaining about?"; (*) a bundle of 164 supporting documents - amounting to 390 pages - with a 4-page index; a 13 July 2009 covering letter (*) References to documents not yet hyperlinked to individual documents (2) The Parliamentary Ombudsman: a 13 July 2009 letter informing the Ombudsman of the delivery of my complaint and bundle to Sir Rifkind - and enclosing a copy of my reply to Q5 "What are you complaining about?" stating, in case Sir Rifkind wishes to keep the copy I am supplying him with. In reply to Q6 of the complaint form, "What do you want the Ombudsman to do?", I wrote: (1) Get the departments to reimburse me the £50,000 costs they forced me to incur as a direct result of their outrageous conduct (2) Obtain very substantial compensation from the departments for the horrendous and extremely traumatic treatment they have subjected me to - over a period of FOUR WHOLE YEARS. (3) Recommend / ensure that disciplinary action is taken against the relevant individuals (4) Demand that the departments submit - to your Office - the steps they are going to take to prevent others from being subjected to the same treatment (I know they are continuing to do the same thing to others i.e. leaseholders in other blocks) [ ]
On leaving Jefferson House, I went to Hyde Park. When I was on the little bridge, next to the east-side coffee shop, a cyclist, who had come from behind me, stopped very close to me, on my right-handside. I immediately felt a very toxic aura emanating from him. I continued walking. Coming from behind me, on my left-handside, he stopped c. 5 metres ahead of me, pretending to be reading an inscription on a statue stand. Being convinced that his interest was in me, I decided to put it to the test. I walked past him and turned right at the end of the bridge. He did the same thing, cycling on the road. I continued walking for a few metres. He turned round to look at me, and back ahead. At this point, I turned round and, doing a one finger sign in my back, I walked back to the height of the bridge and positioned myself against the tree across from the bridge. The cyclist turned round, cycled back, and stopped in front of me. I asked him what his problem was. He saw that I was getting my camera out and positioned himself to my side. Having told me "You are French", and that he had been to France, he said "I have to stop cycling because it's not allowed and the police could stop me". I told him that it was a stupid reply pointing out other people who were cycling past us. (Cycling is definitely allowed in the park). And what did it have to do with him doing all these manoeuvres? At this point he said "Enjoy your life. You don't have long to live". I replied "Great! I look forward to that!" - to which he said "You don't behave as though you are". Oh dear, oh dear! looks like the organised crime mob is getting upset and impatient that I am not showing signs of breaking down / giving up - and continuing with my fight (Subject Access Request to the police; complaint to Parliamentary Ombudsman) - and this in spite of, among others, previous threats e.g. 2 January 2009 ; others - and therefore planning to bump me off. Evidently, my 'daring' to continue to stand-up for my rights, refusing to accept injustice, has led to a change of plan since Jan/Feb 2004 when I was told "Don't worry, they won't kill you" . It confirms my view that "This organised crime mob makes the commonly known mafia look like kindergarten". I can see that a waiting game is being played e.g.
On 6 October 2006 I asked "What will be the ultimate true price of these flats?" Metaphorically, I died in 2002. It now appears that I will soon be killed as part of the price - turning me into 'a cause célèbre' (Hence my reply to the scum: "Great!"). It certainly gives a whole new meaning to the expression 'A life changing experience': you end-up on death row!. So, in preparation for my, apparently 'soon to be death', I thought I'd help Andrew Ladsky draw-up his list of invitees to celebrate 'wiping the bloody "Nazi" French bitch off the face of the earth' and thank all of those who have helped him and his associates achieve this. More specifically, help them steal c.£500,000 from Jefferson House leaseholders to build a penthouse flat and add three other flats to Jefferson House - so that they could cash in on a multi-million Pound jackpot . Also, to thank them for helping - and joining - him and his puppets in taking revenge against me for my 'daring' to stand-up to their organised crime. I have therefore set-up a new page 'The Executioners - My profile', in which I am going to draw-up the list of ALL the parties who, in one way or another have acted against me - the INNOCENT VICTIM OF ORGANISED CRIME - since 2002 - hence, parties in the Ladsky camp. I will also place my profile, for the record of the life they, puppet-string-pullers, and the voyeurs who could have done something - but opted to stand by, watching me being subjected to the most horrendous, barbaric treatment since 2002 - have destroyed. But of course, this is regarded by the State as "acceptable"; "part of the standards and values of this country" A police officer said to the Plane Stupid campaigner that "People would sell their soul to the devil". He is right. I am certainly very happy that I am going to die with my conscience rather than the conscience of those who have, in one way or another, acted against me since 2002. In the meantime, I will NOT let the organised crime mafia frighten me with its death threats. I will continue to fight with all the strength that God gives me. It includes continue to expose the evidence - in the hope of, at least, being a trigger for change. There HAS to be change. Slavery has NO PLACE in the 21st century. Like a leaseholder wrote to C.A.R.L. "Medieval cronyism - Leaseholders need to stand-up and be counted, and not be intimidated...". It is also TOTALLY UNACCEPTALBE for the State (courts, tribunal, police, council, ombudsmen, etc.) to abuse its power and breach its mandate by treating an innocent victim as I have and continue to be treated. It is NOT what I, and other taxpayers pay for. If you are an average person like me, decent, law-abiding, you might be thinking from looking at my website: it does not concern me, I’ll never be in that situation. My reply is: While, I really, really wish from the bottom of my heart that it never happens to you / members of your family / friends, I say: think again! If, in 2001 you had told me that (i) I would end-up in court; (ii) would be treated as a criminal, I would have replied: With all due respect, you are mad. This will never happen to me. I am a law-abiding person. I have, and always have had an impeccable credit record, because what I - truly - owe: I pay - on time. I mind my own business, don't bother anybody. I pay my taxes. I give my whole to my employer, etc. How could I possibly end-up in court? For what reason? I would have given you the same answer if you had told me that the police would treat me like a criminal. As evidence, I would have also told you that, in my previous 35 years in this country, I have NEVER had dealings with courts or police. Look at what happened to me! Look at the absolute horror of the sheer, utter hell I have and continue to be put through for 'daring' to stand up for the rights I have been told I have the right to demand, in the process ending-up challenging the courts, a tribunal, the police, the professions, the regulators, etc. - for not performing as per their stated remit, mandate, and as per legislation, regulations and codes of conduct. Note also that, in 2003, I took the big step of overlooking my rights for the sake of bringing the matter to a close. In vain! Food for thought:
Clearly, the answer is: ‘No’. What has happened to these people, to me, my fellow leaseholders, and the people who sent me a comment, clearly shows that you don’t know what awaits you ‘round the corner’, when you might find yourself - as an innocent victim - at the mercy of the State. If you ever have the misfortune to find yourself in this situation: is this how you want to be treated? You cannot therefore ignore what is going on. It's like e.g. the MPs, peers, MEPs and quangocrats expenses: if left unchallenged, the abuses will - of course - continue. The State is NOT there to protect the miscreants in its midst and among its cronies It is there FOR ALL THE PEOPLE of this country - to act as per its stated mandates. The last two months have shown that change IS possible, that a fortress can be made to crumble if you find the cracks and enough people keep going at them (proving the leaseholder right). It CAN be done - and it WILL be done, because the good people of this country are showing - and will continue to show - that they've had enough of being ripped-off, of injustice, double-standards, deceit, collusion, cover-ups, whitewash and blackwash; they've had enough of being exploited by a morally depraved, parasitic elite that considers itself and its cronies to be above the laws of the land; they've had enough of, like so many have said recently in the media: being treated "like serfs" |
