Email this site to a contact



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

My Diary - 2009


(Quick links: (1) the 30 Jan 09 Supreme Court Costs Office hearing; (2) my 12 July 2009 complaint to the Parliamentary Ombudsman; (3) my 28 May 2009 Subject Access Request to the police)

Year eight of the horrendous, sheer utter hell nightmare (My Diary started in Year 2002) and the second anniversary of my website. OR:

'Continuation of the diary of A PERSECUTED VICTIM OF ORGANIZED CRIME - who is NOT a criminal - in 21st century England - while the criminals, hiding within the network of symbiotic relationships, continue to laugh their head-off'

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...

- 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"... 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, cruel, sadistic, 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, sadistic 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 London 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) (29 November 2002 Particulars of claim) 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 (Case summary), 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, with no influential connections, and of Franco-German origin (Andrew Ladsky is 'Jewish' (*), as well as, at least, some of his aides: e.g. CKFT and Portner and Jaskel (*)) 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.

(*) In name, rather than in practice, as they evidently perceive themselves to be exempt from compliance with some of the 10 Commandments, or ‘fundamental laws of the Jews’, namely those which prohibit: theft, false testimony, and coveting others’ goods. But then, as they have / continue to demonstrate, laws don't mean anything to them.

So, he had his puppets, Martin Russell Jones (MRJ), 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, bestial 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) 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.

West London County Court

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 # 18 and # 24);

summarised in my 24 March 2009 letter to my then MP, Sir Malcolm Rifkind; more detail in my 2 January 2010 Subject Access Request to the Ministry of 'Justice') (Legal-Home # 9),...

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 2002-04. (WLCC Introduction)

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, so-called 'hearing' (My Diary 30 Jan 09)

The following has been transferred to the PERSECUTION page - under Persecution # 3:


Somebody asked me: What do they gain from stealing your financial statements and other post (added to the events with my mobile phones and other phones and, with my e-mails - that led me to, among other, miss my Uncle's funeral)?

Section transferred to PERSECUTION page


The following: supporting evidence of other types of individuals only too happy to act against me.

Some of the events are summarised / referred to under: (1)- Criminal psychological harassment and (2)- Freemasons (Persecution page); (3)- My Diary # 2.4.


(1)- Medical

(See above Introduction)

(NB: None of the following 3 individuals are National Health Service) (My experience with e.g. St Thomas hospital, London, part of the NHS, was excellent - My Diary 19 Jun 05)

(1 of 3) My ('well connected' to the Establishment) doctor, AG, (yes, my Jewish doctor of 37 years (!!!) about whom I stated in My Diary 20 Mar 07, that I trusted him with my life).

On 10 Apr 08, he denied (while looking very ill-at-ease, shifty, repeatedly turning the top 1-2 pages of my file) that I had seen him on 16 Apr 07,...

...and consequently claimed to have no record of the repeat prescription for tranquilisers and anti-depressants he had given me because of the state I was in as as a result of the treatment I was being subjected to at KPMG, my then employer (KPMG # 4.1).

(Treatment which, ‘by coincidence’, started 10 days after TDC Simon J Dowling, K&C police, failed to intimidate and bully my website Host into closing down my website (KPMG # 3.4 ; Overview # 13)).

(I am sure I saw my doctor made a note of my visit and of the prescription).

The purpose of my 10 Apr 08 visit was to ask him for a referral to a psychiatrist (for the purpose of evidence in relation to my Claim against KPMG in the employment tribunal (KPMG # 12) re. ‘mitigating my loss’ following my resigning from KPMG in Jan 08) (after 10 years) - and being psychologically unable to work since due to my experience.

As soon as I stated this, he replied You should not have filed a claim against KPMG, which he again repeated.

This took place within 2-3 minutes of the 'consultation' - and without asking me why I had done it.

Shortly afterwards, instead of asking me what he had prescribed me, whether it had been of help, he kept probing me to find out whether I had recorded my conversations at KPMG. (He did not get a reply: KPMG # 13.1). (I HAD recorded my meetings at KPMG: # 8.1 and # 9.1).

When I reiterated my request for a referral, he replied that he could not do it, giving as reason You should have come and see me before. It was then 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 of the prescription, with a covering letter, including a summary of events at KPMG that had led me to see him. (Needless to say that I never saw him again).


(2 of 3) The psychiatrist (found through a contact), I saw on 7 May 08, Dr-MP, for the purpose of mitigating my loss re. the Apr 08 Claim I filed against KPMG (# 12), (having failed to get a referral from 'my doctor', above),...

... 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', 'recommended' that I "should immediately book [myself] in a clinic for two weeks" (KPMG # 13.2).

(YES: With the help of amoral individuals like him, the British State DOES lock-up 'inconvenient people'). ("Under the Mental Health Act", the police also locks-up children as young as 11 in police cells).

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 case it provides another 'opportunity' to act against me.

(Subsequent note - see Persecution # 2, for snapshots of more recent evidence of my being under 'surveillance').

In this instance, the opportunity was quite clearly seized upon.

KPMG would not have been the only one to benefit from my being 'out of action'.

By 'amazing coincidence', I had to, among others, serve my Witness Statement by 4 Jun 08 i.e. within less than a month (WLCC # 27.1).

Outcome of my serving my 03.06.08 Statement - as a Litigant in Person?

It led the evil crooks, Andrew Ladsky, to drop "ALL of the 27 February 2007 claim" against me, on 06.06.08 (Overview # 11 ; Portner # 31).

Who is "In very serious need of help"?

And that's a lot more than just Andrew David Ladsky and his gang of psycho racketeers!

See also My Diary 3 Jun 08 for events that took place during the month of May 08: the blatantly obvious plan to beat me into paying the claim. It sure would have been 'very convenient' for me to be 'out of action' during that time!

Conclusion: 'Dare' to challenge a bunch of crooks and 'the system' that actively assists them and protects them, as well as 'dare' to file an action for harassment, persecution and victimization at work - and the message is 'Get thee to an asylum!'

(NB: This was a continuation of attempting to put me 'out of action' e.g. in his 16 Mar 07 entry on the police system, regurgitating what Andrew Ladsky told him, TDC Simon J Dowling of Notting Hill police's 'Community Safety Unit' wrote

"I believe she may have some mental issues so will be speaking to social services to see if they are aware of her” (police #3 Kpt # 3(2)(8)

NOTE also that KPMG was concurrently joining the dots with its 'brothers': # 5 and # 5.2)

Needless to say that it was the first and last time I saw this corrupt 'specialist'.

Dr MP = Another one in the English medical profession not familiar with the concept of integrity and probity! (1)

I sent him this 11.05.08 letter in which I captured events. He did not reply.

Considering Andrew David Ladsky' s comment - one week later - on 15 May 08, that "[I am] in very serious need of help"...

- 'might it be' that those who have me - unlawfully - under 'surveillance' (Persecution # 2 and # 3) - 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 Ladsky said this to me on 15 May 08, he was most definitely informed of the fact I approached 'my' then MP, 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 Sir Malcolm Rifkind)

(Subsequent note: Rifkind is not the only one who informed Ladsky of my correspondence - see My Diary 26 Feb 12)

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". (2)

(1)- Other examples:

A - (Subsequently added) re. Kay Sheldon, CQC, the doctor who made false accusations against her about her mental health, and "stated in an email that he would be involved in her case "behind the scene""

B - The Sunday Telegraph, 6 Sep 09 "Lockerbie: medical experts were urged to predict bomber's early death" "Medical evidence that helped the Lockerbie bomber to be released was paid for by the Libyan government, which encouraged doctors to say he had only three months to live"

On 4 Sep 09, The Daily Telegraph had an article "Jack Straw admits Lockerbie bomber's release was linked to oil". (Jack Straw was the then (In)Justice Secretary).

On 16 Mar 10, The Daily Mail had an article "Lockerbie bomber is better than ever brags Gaddafi's son... seven months after terrorist was given only three months to live" The article states that "Five months after the release, Libya announced plans to invest £5billion in the UK") (NB: See the case of Yvonne Fletcher when Jack Straw was Foreign Secretary)

(See also the experience of Maurice Kirk with, among others, the medical profession).

(2)- 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, sadistic, barbaric treatment (my case e.g. abuse, bullying, harassment, victimization, threats, intimidation, persecution (see criminal psychological harassment)...

...- actions that are very clearly regarded by certain individuals in the public sector 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. (Subsequent note: CONFIRMED!) (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" - (which can be aided by 'helpful' medical practitioners: my case ; that of: Dr Shiban Ahmed ; Kay Sheldon, CQC ; Dr David Drew ; Dr Hayley Dare) thereby cutting them off from support in their battle.

(The ease of manipulation against the brave fighters is unbelievable e.g., in addition to my case: Haringey social worker ; the HBOS whistleblower - 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 'organized 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. '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.

In his book, “What next in the law?”, Lord Denning wrote “Whoever may be guilty of abuse of power, be it the Government, State, employer, trade-union, or whoever, the law must provide a speedy remedy, otherwise the victims will find their own remedy. There will be anarchy ”

So, if you have moral values - if you come across somebody with the guts to stand-up, somebody who is not intimidated by the persecution and FEAR tactics, not scared to put their head above the parapet: if you can't help them, at least don't act against them. (Whistleblowers examples)

It ought to be obvious that these people are a true asset to this country - which comprises of a majority of 'little people'.


(3 of 3) The 'specialist' I saw on 7 Aug 08 [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.

During the consultation I was asked for the name of my GP. I said that I was going to change to a new one. When asked which, I gave the name of one in South Kensington I had no intention of using. As I subsequently passed in front of that doctor's surgery, a scum who had previously been monitoring me was sitting in a car a few metres from the entrance to the surgery.

(NB: Note that the British State has given itself the right to bug doctor/patient conversations and other communications) (as well as lawyer/client communications)

(NB: Mob: my family and French friends have detail of events in relation to all the above 3 - 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 Jan 09 a reflection of frustration at having failed? I wonder what will be next?

I was provided with the answer on 15 Jun 09: DEATH THREAT (Another one was added on 14 Jun 14)

(NB: In my 02.02.10 letter to Paul Stephenson, then Met Commissioner; Alan Johnson, then Home Secretary; 'my' then MP Malcolm Rifkind; Ann Abraham, then PHSO, I remarked on their lengthy silence / lack of action; stating: "you ALL appear to have retreated to your communal bunker", and asked whether " this is in expectation of my "not having long to live"?" )

(Events that are 'rattling the cages': (1)- the follow-up to my 28.05.09 Subject Access Request to Kensington police; (2)- the follow-up to my 12.07.09 complaint to the PHSO; (3)- my preceding four-month battle with Sir Rifkind; (4)- my 02.01.10 Subject Access to the Ministry of 'Justice'. (Legal-Home # 9)

If I am going to be 'put out of action' I want the horror of my case to be widely recorded. Hopefully, it will spare others from going through what I have gone through since 2002 - as the glaringly obvious innocent victim of organized crime).


(2)- My so-called 'friends' and acquaintances

(See above Introduction)

It is abundantly clear that, in 2008, some of my male contacts (in addition to my doctor) 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 Jan 08. 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. 5 minutes, he repeated the same question 3 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 apartment, 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 08, 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.


Another one (also English) who, I concluded, had his strings pulled by an ex. civil servant (who, in turn, was having his strings pulled by his previous masters): in Dec 09, after a tirade of misogynistic, bigoted comments, told me to stop fighting and to "Get a life!" - and that, in relation to the 15 Jun 09 death threat "Enjoy your life. You don't have long to live": "That's what that man meant!"

("Get a life!" is probably what he would also say to the families of the up to 1,200 people who died through neglect at the Stafford Hospital - and are trying to get justice).

Barely a few minutes later, he said, with a lot of bile, about his neighbour who is planning to build an extension "She's going to have a surprise. I have written to the council". I asked whether the neighbour had failed to apply for planning permission. "No, but she has not placed a notice... her extension will affect me ...", etc.

Conclusion: 'I' 'should' ignore ALL my rights, the loss of the major part of my 40 years of life savings, the horrendous and very traumatic treatment I have been subjected to since 2002, etc. - as the GLARINGLY OBVIOUS INNOCENT VICTIM OF CRIME - but God forbid that 'he' should have his rights denied. God forbid that 'he' should suffer any detriment.

On another occasion he told a friend who believed that she had been short-changed of £10 by a restaurant: "Phone them! Don't let them get away with it!"


(The attempts to make me give-up my fight by 3 other British individuals who, I conclude are (without realising it) being manipulated by, among others, ex. civil servants, have continued in early 2010 (other example above).

My guess on the trigger? My correspondence in 2009-10 to: (1) Paul Stephenson, then Metropolitan Police Commissioner and Alan Johnson, then Home Secretary ; (2) Kensington police ; (4) the Parliamentary Ombudsman ; (4) and my 02.01.10 Subject Access Request to the Ministry of 'Justice')

What have they (aside from the 3 in early 2010) been told about me that has led them to betray me - in the name of crooks after a multi-million £ 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 'Dear 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 scum in tow, CONTINUING to track me as though I were a terrorist. In case I had failed to notice it, the first weekend (in Apr 07), 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 2 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 - and, given the above description, that he was one of Kensington police's Masons' flunkeys).

An example of what took place with this acquaintance was on Friday 31 Aug 07. I had taken the day off in order to work on my Defence (Her Majesty's West London County Court # 12 ; Overview # 11).

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 police 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).

[KPMG started to monitor, as well as report on my movements, in 2007]


(3)- Individuals used to attempt to trap me

(See above Introduction; also, snapshots under Persecution # 2.8)

(See My Diary 13 Apr 08 for a 24 Apr 09 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 corrupted, vermin-infested, criminal sector)

(1 of 4) 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 27.02.07 claim ("All of the claim" against me was eventually dropped (Overview # 11) who - of course without my knowledge - with a letter dated 06.04.07 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 27.02.07 claim - thereby implying an admission of liability of all of the claim (Portner # 14). This 'visitor' NEVER replied to my email of 09.04.07.

More of these 'helpers / plants' were recruited in 2008:


(2 of 4) In Nov 08, 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, Ladsky - captured in my 19.01.09 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 (Overview # 11) - 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 (Overview # 12 ; 30 Jan 09). I therefore saved myself (among others) several thousand Pounds - no doubt to the great annoyance of quite a few people in 'the Brotherhood'.

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 Dec 08 / early Jan 09 the individual sent me a link to a site relating to the Holocaust.

(I view this as a - further confirmation (police: # 3 KP (3)(2)(5) ; # 3 KP (3)(2)(6)) - that the vendetta against me is also racially motivated because I am of part German descent)


(3 of 4) 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 of my franco-german (sic) origin", 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.

(*) Perhaps still influenced by the fact that, 700 years before Hitler did it, "England became the first European nation to require Jews to wear a marking badge, and expelled them from England..." (Wikipedia)?).

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' (who, in the process (in my opinion), impersonated a police officer) 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 an "anti-Semite"?

(*) Yes! I had guessed correctly - see police # 3 KP (6)3.

And the Masonic mafia has not given-up on its attempts to create 'evidence' in order to back-up its libellous portrayal of me as "a racist" - see Her Majesty's Master Eyre in 2011 - QB # 4 (6)(1)

I find it extraordinary that the Jewish community lets Andrew Ladsky and his gang of racketeers use the Holocaust as a passport to criminality - and hence trade on the souls of those killed by monsters.

One thing for sure: Ladsky and his 'Jewish' aides are 'Jewish' only in name, rather than in practice, as they evidently perceive themselves to be exempt from complying with some of the 10 Commandments, or ‘fundamental laws of the Jews’, namely those which prohibit: theft, false testimony, and coveting others’ goods.


(4 of 4) Another 'visitor' to my site, claiming to be a woman, sent me a message in Dec 08 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 Ladsky's gang of racketeers; collusion between them and a high court judge (*) ; filing an action for £1 million, etc. It gave a contact number. I took no action.

(*) Subsequent note: I don't need that information - as I have experienced it first hand! (Overview # 18(2))

I have since received similar emails, including from somebody claiming to be closely connected to Andrew Ladsky = all written / engineered by him.

They were followed by another plant i.e. trap in 2010, I revealed in My Diary 6 Aug 12, and another one, on 13 Feb 13.

Andrew David Ladsky is is not just "very seriously sick" - he is an evil, insane psycho - actively assisted and protected by individuals in his image.


(And, of course, the 'Nazis' keep trying to 'get me' e.g. My Diary 3 Apr 10 ; 17 Apr 10 ; 13 Jul 10 - and they will keep on doing it, because that's their very sick psyches)

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, sadism, perversion and betrayal I have been at the receiving end of in this country since 2002 - as an INNOCENT VICTIM OF ORGANIZED 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.


The section on Freemasons ('the Brotherhood') has been transferred to the PERSECUTION page - under Persecution # 6


As I wrote in my 24.03.09 letter to 'my' then 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 have done nothing wrong. My only 'crime' is that I naïvely believed what I was told by the State.

'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, because 'they' don't like having a mirror held to 'their' face (as also evidenced by the experience of others), as it reflects 'their' failure to do their job, frequently amounting to failure to perform their legal remit / malpractice / collusion / corruption / fraud.

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 Mar 07) (My Diary 20 Mar 07):

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

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

(See also the Policing Business Plan for 2009-12)

= Typical hot air State propaganda.

As very amply demonstrated on my website: "make sure action is taken" = make sure the criminals are protected. Yet again proven in October 2010, and in 2011.

= Same attitude as in 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 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. (I repeat my Comments under Persecution (1)(4))

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, sadistic, barbaric treatment I have been subjected to in this country since 2002 as an innocent victim of organized 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 which, in addition to my life since 2002, 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 over £500,000 (US$882,000) in tax, sourced from:

  • income tax on my earnings and employment benefits, and subsequently on my pension;
  • 17.5% and subsequently 20% VAT on practically all the goods and services I buy;
  • local council tax;
  • tax on interest from savings;
  • other forms of tax e.g. on petrol when I had a car; airport tax.

I have been a net contributor to this country.

As I wrote in my 24.03.09 letter to 'my' then MP, Sir Malcolm Rifkind:

This, as a British taxpayer, gives me the right to expect that when:

I go into a court, it will perform as per its stated mandate - by ensuring justice and redress.

I approach the police - it will perform as per its stated mandate by taking action against the individuals who have committed criminal offences against me.

In her column in The Independent, 2 Feb 09, Yasmin Alibhai-Brown quoted the anti-slavery judge, Williams Mansfield, in 1768: "Let justice be done, though the skies may fall".


In a speech at the NATO conference, Strasbourg, 4 Apr 09, 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 Sep 06: 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.


2 January 2009 - A hint of a potential physical threat?

Today a 'message' was left on my voicemail (other mobile) around midday. The only thing that could be heard was a repeated snapping sound, like a small, dry twig being broken.

I wonder whether I should take this as a hint of a potential physical threat... as the plan hatched-up in May 2008 (Dr-MP), followed by another one in August 2008 (Ms Y) (preceded by confirmation of support for 'the cause' in April 2008 (Dr-AG) - failed.

Does the "Don't worry, they won't kill you" 'reassurance' communicated to me in a call, at work, in Jan/Feb 04 still apply? (A year earlier, on 3 Jan 03 Andrew Ladsky had told me "I am going to get you this year!")

'The Brotherhood' evidently wanting to ensure that it was causing me anxiety, later on that day a bogus, malicious text message was sent to my mobile phone - see photographs above.

(Note at 15 June 2009: Apparently, I "don't have long to live")

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 scum, 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 and other criminal psychological harassment 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 organized 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:

  • [REMOVED following update of My Diary - home, that included shifting mobiles and computer)
  • Addition of extracts from press articles to previous entries / expanding on the entries:

(1) corrupt lawyers - and using the quote from the Chairman of the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal in the context of the outcome of my complaints to the Law Society against Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor, Piper Smith Basham/Watton and Portner and Jaskel LLP e.g. Overview ; 22 November 2008: under threat of forfeiture and bankruptcy proceedings, as well as court claims = FRAUD TOOLS, and adding the 'Fraud' visual

(2) the journalist who was arrested by the police and, among others, threatened to go to prison "For life"; was taken to court where the judge threw the case out

(3) in relation to the arrest of Damian Green, Shadow Immigration Minister (who raised the issue of blunders by the home office), the addition of several paragraphs starting with quoting from The Independent's article of 30 November 2008, "The police are a law unto themselves" . (The paragraph starting with 'Jacqui Smith' was there before the update)

(4) Addition of two other cases to the entry for 22 Apr 08 (subsequently transferred to Media page): "Apple core lands man in jail", and "A criminal record for forgetting to pay 90p Oyster fare"

  • Placing under the 'Latest' sub-section at the top of the home page to my site my conclusion - in my non-lawyer opinion - that, in threatening me with defamation proceedings, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors had committed a criminal offence against me under the Malicious Communications Act 1988. (I have since removed it) (However, I had already written this in my 4 September 2008 letter to the RICS - and had previously placed it at the end point # 12 under the RICS section).

9 January 2009 - 'Watering of the plants' in front of my windows at 03:45 a.m. - in below freezing temperature

Oh! dear! oh! dear! Looks like I continue to upset the mob by what I am putting on my website (*) as, yet again, I was treated to the hosing of my windows at 03h45 a.m. - under the guise of 'watering the plants' in front of my windows. (Previous occasions were: My Diary 6 Sep 05 , 4 Oct 05 , 7 Apr 06 , 4 Sep 06 ; also in February 2008).

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.

Against this and the prior event, above, added to my horrendous and very traumatic experience since 2002 - as a VICTIM OF ORGANIZED CRIME - (I have done NOTHING wrong) - consider that I am living in a country that claims...

"to speak out for the victims of aggression...",...

led by Mr Gordon Brown, New Labour Prime Minister, who claims to have ...

... "strongly held moral principles of right and wrong [that] are [his] moral compass"


11 January 2009 - British bank, Lloyds TSB, pays $350m penalty to the US Authorities to end the US Justice Department's investigation of faked records of banking transfers


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 (Case summary): "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

23 January 2009 - Ofcom has come to the rescue by helping me get the PAC for my mobile phone from Hutchison 3G

After my very extensive, horrendous nightmare experience with 'regulators' / 'watchdogs' (summary outcome of my 'cries for help' / complaints), this assistance deserves to be trumpeted about. THANK YOU Ofcom!

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. Ms Charlotte Cullen replied on 21 January 2009.

As can be seen in her letter, although Ofcom "does not become involved in individual complaints" (I should have contacted Otelo), Ms Cullen 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:

"Your explanations confirm my conclusion in my 8 December 2008 letter: "Any fair minded, reasonable person would conclude, as I have, from the above events, that 'a game' is being played""

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.

It is abundantly clear that my switching to another operator was perceived as 'inconvenient': need to 'spin the story about me' to a new entity to secure its assistance in monitoring my calls.

(Note at Feb 2010: Indication that Hutchison 3G's successor is 'on board': I am not getting messages on my voicemail. Trigger? My 2 February 2010 letter to various parties in which I report events with Hutchison 3G? The fact that I do not use my phone to make calls? (Because, as previously, I suspect that it is monitored - and this supports my view) etc, etc, etc)


30 Jan 09 - Following Portner & Jaskel = Andrew David Ladsky issuing me with a 06.06.08 Notice of Discontinuance of "ALL the 27.02.07 claims [against me]" (Overview # 11), I started an action to get my costs back (Portner from # 32).

In spite of the very damning evidence against the claim, Her Majesty's Deputy Master Hoffman, in the Supreme Court Costs Office, allowed me to recover only 30% of my costs - and, of course, no sanctions were taken against Portner and its client Andrew Ladsky.

Introduction and Overview

Events are summarised under Overview # 12.

Continuing with the criminal psychological harassment tactics (Overview # 11) - 4 hours before the hearing was "due to take place" in Her Majesty's West London County Court - on 4 Nov 08, District Judge Nicholson transferred the case to HM's Supreme Court Costs Office. The 'hearing' was scheduled for 30 Jan 09.

2 weeks before, in my 19.01.09 reply, I turned down a 14.01.09 £4,500 (US$7,900)"offer" from "Rootstock Overseas Corp" et. al. = Andrew David Ladsky - by describing it as "derisory" as, by then, my costs amounted to £8,675 (US$15,300).

Continuing with the blatant conspiring and conniving that had taken place in HM's WLCC, HM Deputy Master Hoffman allowed me only £2,507 + interest = £2,641 (US$4,600) = 30%.

'Of course', Hoffman did not grant me any other compensation, nor did he utter the word 'sanction' against Portner and Jaskel and its client, Ladsky for what they had done to me (Portner summaries: Events; Breaches of the law; Overall outcome).

(Extended) SUMMARY OF EVENTS - Her Majesty's Supreme Court Costs Office - 2008-09

(See below, Breaches of the law)

(NB: Events are covered in my 02.01.10 Subject Access Request to the Ministry of (In)Justice - pages 81 to 86. See Legal-Home # 9 for the 24 Mar 10 'reply' from the SCCO which, (typically), totally ignored my questions).

(1)- A fraudulent 27.02.07 claim, ref. 7WL00675, was filed against me in Her Majesty's West London County Court, by Jeremy Hershkorn, Portner and Jaskel, on behalf of, quite clearly, his client, Andrew David Ladsky (WLCC # 1 ; Overview # 11).

  • (2)- Both claiming to be "my landlord";
  • (3)- Each claiming a different amount of money from me:
  • £8,933 (US$15,750) by "Steel Services" (WLCC # 1).

(2)- When I returned the 22.03.07 Acknowledgment of Service form, I also attached a copy of the 1st page of the claim, and of the Particulars - on which I had made annotations in order to highlight the above issues - as they obviously had a material impact as to the legality of the claim against me (WLCC # 2).

As discussed in the WLCC summaries: Events; Breaches of the law - in spite of this, and of a lot more evidence from me subsequently, HM WLCC judiciaries nonetheless proceeded with the claim - reasons: under Overall outcome.

(3)- After 16 months of absolute sheer utter hell, Ahmet Jaffer, Portner = Ladsky issued me with a 06.06.08 Notice of Discontinuance of "ALL of the claims [against me]" - without giving a reason (Portner # 31).

(4)- As per my rights under Civil Procedure Rules (CPR), I started an action to get my costs back. Of course, my doing this was seized upon to continue with the criminal psychological harassment regime (Portner # 34).

In their 11.08.08 'response' - 'Points of Dispute', the Ladsky gang (predictably) challenged every single one of my claims.

Top of the 'league table', was the preposterous, laughable excuse that it had dropped the claim, because it had 'just realised' (after 16 months) that it had pursued it under the "wrong entity".

I had raised the issue, and hence the issue as to the legality of the claim against - 11 times over the period (Portner # 33).

It was glaringly obvious from the lack of reason for ending the claim, as well as from subsequent events, that the Ladsky - WLCC mafia perceived the Notice as marking the end of the matter - not expecting me to follow it by an action for my costs - which, of course, led to more 'retribution' - as discussed under Portner from pt # 32, and under this entry.

(5) - Ahmet Jaffer, Portner, sent me a 14.01.09 "Without prejudice save as to costs" letter, on behalf of "Rootstock Overseas Corp" = Ladsky - stating:

"We would be willing to recommend to our client that it pays to you an all in figure of £4,500.00 [US$7,900] in full and final settlement of your costs claim in this matter."

The costs Portner = Ladsky had, were in my 11.11.08 update: £7,277.

By the time I received the "offer", my costs amounted to £8,397 (US$14,800).

In my 19.01.09 reply, I turned down the "offer", describing it as "DERISORY" as, from the time the 27.02.07 fraudulent claim was filed against me (WLCC # 1), Portner-Ladsky and their 'partners' in HM WLCC had cost me (in addition to horrendous torment, anguish, distress and trauma - over a period of 21 months!):

  • by 30 Jan 09 - £8,675 (US$15,300) costs – including interest. (I had more costs than that);
  • 52 hours of lost income;
  • over 500 hours of my life - destroying my life.

(6) - Ahead of the 'hearing', I hand-delivered to the court my 19.01.09 Amended Reply to the 11.08.08 'Points of Dispute'. (NB: 'Amended': I took advantage of the "cancellation" of the non-existent "4 Nov 08 hearing" to rework my documents (Portner # 34)).

In my 19.01.09 document:

  • I amply explained my costs, the reasons I was forced to incur them, and detailed the conduct of ‘the claimants’ over the 16 months, from the time the 27.02.07 claim was filed, to the time the 06.06.08 Notice of Discontinuance was issued.
  • I included a 5-page summary, detailing very clearly why I believed to be entitled to – at a minimum - get all of my costs back (and referred to the appropriate CPR).

In the summary, I reported my conclusions on

  • "the persistent 'blind eye and deaf ear' attitude - by all";
  • "the games played with the objective of wearing me down so that I would capitulate and pay the sums demanded", etc. and that,
  • "the claim [Events # 1] should not have been filed, and should certainly not have been allowed to proceed = a repeat of events with the Claimant and WLCC in 2002-04."

My last point was: "The outcome of both claims provides undeniable proof that the threats of forfeiture and bankruptcy proceedings, as well as the court claims, were used as tools for fraud".

Hence, by just reading the summary, nobody could be in any doubt whatsoever that:

  • (1)- the claim against me was totally without merit, vexatious, malicious and fraudulent, and
  • (2)- the conduct of Portner and its client Ladsky was deceitful, criminal, obstructive, as well as blatant abuse of the court process and contempt of court.

In fact, I most strongly contend that any reasonable person who just looked at my 5-page summary, would have concluded that the only place for these thoroughly evil, vampiric, racist, misogynist crooks - was prison. (Even more so when you consider the case of e.g. Norman Scarth (media pg)).

With this, I also supplied a 480 page bundle of 153 supporting documents (including to Portner) which, of course, included, among others, all the documents I had served on WLCC from the time the claim was filed against me, as well as all the correspondence – to which I referred in my 19.01.09 Reply.

(7)- At the 30 Jan 09 so-called 'hearing', from the start, I could feel that Her Majesty's Deputy Master Hoffman was decidedly frosty and hostile towards me (a continuation of what was, by then, my 5th similar experience with the so-called 'justice system' of this Kingdom). His conduct continued throughout 'the hearing'.

(8)- When, at the start of the 'hearing', I suggested 'setting the scene' before going into the detail of whether or not I should have spent £1 on an item - by going through my Key Points summary in my 19.01.09 Amended Reply (Events # 6) - Hoffman bluntly refused my doing this.

WHY? Because it provided a summary of the events which, under CPR, Hoffman had to take into consideration (Breaches CPR # 2) - but, had conspired to ignore, hell-bent on continuing in the footsteps of 'his brothers' in WLCC: totally ignoring the rule of law.

Hence, my 19.01.09 reply was totally ignored - although it had clearly been looked at - and discussed - before 'the hearing'. In the light of this blatant abuse of power, I therefore used it (from memory) to reply to some of the points raised.

(9)- The only document that was used during the 'hearing' was my 11.11.08 Bill of Costs (which Hoffman criticised - sycophantically repeating 'the criticism' the Ladsky gang had had the gall to make: Portner # 34). (See above, Introduction to My Diary 2009, why I opted to do this action by myself).

(10)- At one point, Hoffman asked me to show him my 22.03.07 Acknowledgement of Service - proving it had been discussed ‘behind the scene’ with his masonic mates in WLCC, who, clearly, had not recovered from 'my daring' to return it with marked pages from the claim (Events # 2) (why pick on this document?) - as he asked me, in a hostile, patronizing tone, why I had done this.

I replied: for the purpose of highlighting the fact that there are two names for the 'claimant': "Roostock (sic) Overseas Corp." and "Steel Services". Reply (in a continuing, hitlerian, condescending, hostile 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 heard 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, hitlerian tone) "You should not have done it!"

Translation: "My good friends in West London County Court are incandescent fury with 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 and wider arena you have exposed on your website, anticipated that, somebody like you, one of the 'Great Unwashed', as a Litigant in Person, they would be able to quickly 'get you' / take their revenge.

(Like they, as well as their chums in the tribunal, did eventually eventually achieve against 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] - and ending-up by your taking an action they were very clearly not expecting - only adds to their and chums' incandescent fury against you.

Add to that, their unlawful, as well as criminal actions, in relation to the 29 Nov 02 claim (summaries: Events ; Breaches of the law).


(11)- My costs (in chronological order):

By 30 Jan 09, my costs amounted to £8,398.51 (US$14,809) + interest of £277.59 (US$489) = £8,675.10 (US$15,300)

HM's Deputy Master Hoffman granted me only £2,507.07 + interest since the 06.06.08 Notice of Discontinuance

= £2,641 (US$4,600) - as evidenced by the 09.02.04 letter from Portner.

Hence, Hoffman granted me only 30% of the sum I claimed.

(1)- MY COSTS - Associated with the 24 Aug 07 'hearing', led by Her Majesty's Deputy District Judge McGovern, of my Application for transfer of the case to the tribunal (WLCC # 11)

In breach of my statutory rights under Schedule 12 s.3 of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002, Deputy District Judge McGovern (= a solicitor) refused my Application for transfer of the case to the then London Leasehold Valuation Tribunal.

WHY? Because the WLCC mafia wanted to maintain and retain control of the criminal psychological harassment regime it had subjected me to from the time the claim was filed against me.

  • (1)- Compiling my 04.04.07 Application to transfer the case - supported by numerous documents - as evidenced by the 04.04.07 list ( WLCC # 3) - Costs: £634 (US$1,120).
  • (i)- repeatedly chasing Portner for the information to which I was legally entitled and needed to defend myself against the claim (Portner # 15);
  • (ii)- chasing its client skeleton argument (Portner # 16);
  • (4) The costs associated with trying to get a transcript of the 'hearing' - so that I could write my Defence (of course: NOT received in time) (WLCC # 12.2).

"ALL DISALLOWED - because [my] application was refused" (events captured in my 19.01.09 reply to 'the points of dispute').

(2)- MY COSTS - Compiling and serving my 12.09.07 Defence (WLCC # 12)

HM's Deputy Master Hoffman arbitrarily reduced the cost of compiling and issuing my 12.09.07 Defence, from £759 (US$1,338) to £500 (US$882) - by querying the fact that I was charging for loss of income i.e. taking time off work (!!!) - in spite of:

  • supplying my timesheets as evidence;
  • the police mafia watching the house - leading 2 of them, on that day (31 Aug 07, above), to knock on the door around midday.

So, motive? Probably because Hoffman's 'brothers' in the police were still fuming from the fact that, on that day, I had fooled them - and he wanted to score on their behalf.

That's what Hoffman's whole game was about, anyway: 'revenge' / 'retribution' on behalf of his 'brothers' - and especially his most revered Master: 'the brother', 'Dear Mr Andrew David Ladsky'.

Hence, Hoffman treated 'me' as a liar...

...- in a situation in which a 06.06.08 Notice of Discontinuance of "ALL of the claims [against me]" had been issued i.e. proving that the claim filed by vampiric, evil, Rachman Ladsky and his corrupt solicitor, Jeremy Hershkorn - was fraud.

(3)- MY COSTS - Challenging the WLCC's 27.09.07 letter masquerading as an Order, demanding I pay immediately £1,700 (US$3,000) - endorsing it with the threat of "striking out [my] counterclaim" =Defence, if I did not (WLCC # 12.3)...

... - and my chasing - in vain - a reply to my response, that: (i)- led me to file a complaint; (ii)- led both, Ladsky and WLCC mafia to go into silent mode until Jan 08 i.e. for more than 3 months (WLCC # 15).

Very clearly coming under the banner of criminal psychological harassment, and part of the overall hell-bent determination on issuing a judgment against me to make me pay monies I did not owe...

... - I received, 'from' one of the WLCC's henchmen, a 'Mr Joseph', a 27.09.07 letter masquerading as an Order - that unlawfully demanded from me, the payment of £1,700 (US$3,000), threatening to "strike out [my non-existent] counterclaim" =Defence, if I did not pay immediately.

In my 02.10.07 reply, I strongly challenged the demand. Evidently, my reply was 'not liked' as, in spite of my repeatedly chasing a response, 3.5 months later, I still had not received a reply.

(Demonstrating undeniably the conniving and conspiring, Portner-Ladsky had also gone into 'silent mode: Portner # 22).

The ongoing silence led me to file a 13.11.07 complaint with HMCS 'Customer Service'. (Typically), it came to the rescue of WLCC by endorsing the 27.09.07 letter as 'a valid letter' - in the process, providing 2 totally different 'explanations' (WLCC # 15).

Continuing with the charade, District Judge Nicholson then issued a '19 Dec 07' Order "striking out [my non-existent] counterclaim for failing to comply with the 27 September 2007 letter".

Hence, he did this more than 3 months after the 27.09.07 letter - that gave a "5 October 2007 deadline for payment, failing which [my] counterclaim will be struck out"!

The conduct of the WLCC judiciary and staff was so appalling that, in the context of my complaint, I asked for the case to be transferred to another court - doing this, in total, 5 times. The games being played and blatant conniving, led me to send 2 'cries for help' to Jack Straw, then (In)Justice Secretary, as well as copy him on 3 letters (WLCC # 24.2-summary). Typically: he took no action.

In fact, my protest resulted in District Judge Ryan threatening "to strike out my Defence leaving the claimant free to apply for a judgment against [me]" i.e. get me to pay the whole claim - if I did not file my Allocation Questionnaire - he then dutifully ignored (WLCC # 26 and # 27.1).

Costs : £360 (US$635). (It also included my chasing - on 4 occasions - an amended version of the 03.04.07 Notice that falsely and deliberately claimed that, in my 22.03.07 Acknowledgment of Service I had stated an "intention to defend part of the claim" (WLCC 2.2).

Hoffman's comment: "ALL DISALLOWED because up to you if you want to complain" (!!!!!!)

('Little Me', 'the piece of dirt', had 'dared' to not fall into the fraudulent trap set by members of 'the tribe', as well as complained against them - in the worse than Wild West environment in 'The Kingdom of Make-Believe'. Sacrilege!).

(4)- MY COSTS - Compiling, filing and serving my 30.04.08 Application (WLCC # 27.2), to vary the 09.04.08 so-called 'case management directions' issued by Her Majesty WLCC District Judge Ryan (WLCC # 27.1)

My 30.04.08 Application, relates to the 09.04.08 so-called 'case management directions', issued by HM WLCC District Judge Ryan - that deliberately and perversely ensured that that I would not be supplied with the information to which I was legally entitled and needed to defend myself against the claim - and I had been clamouring for in my documents.

(As discussed under WLCC # 21.1-Com # 8 - to cover-up his blatant, deliberate failure to comply with many CPR - and hence, his hell-bent determination to secure the claim against me, Ryan made the absolutely outrageous claim that "[he wrote] the directions without considering representations from the parties".

In very blatant breach of many CPR, in his 01.05.08 Order, the other part of the double act, HM WLCC District Judge Nicholson denied my Application - in the process demonstrating unbelievable perversion, sadism, viciousness and evilness. My 14.05.08 reply, cc'd Jack Straw, the then (In)Justice secretary (WLCC # 27.3).

(NB: Costing me more hours of my time, as well as costs - in spite of having an absolute certainty that it would not lead anywhere - I nonetheless followed Nicholson's highly vicious, perverse and sadistic direction that "[I] should make a request to the claimant for information" (WLCC # 27.3, Com # 3)...

...- by sending a 19.05.08 CPR Part 18 Request to Ahmet Jaffer, Portner and Jaskel. Not only did Jaffer not reply, he did not even acknowledge it (Portner # 25).

"ALL DISALLOWED - because [my] Application was refused".

(5)- MY COSTS - Compiling and supplying Portner with an integral copy of my 06.05.08 Standard Disclosure documents (Portner # 26)

Costs: £232 (US$410)

Hoffman "DISALLOWED" my costs of supplying an integral copy of my 06.05.08 Standard Disclosure documents - "because not requested by the 'claimant" - thereby regurgitating 'brother' Ladsky's 'complaint' in the 23.05.08 letter (Portner # 30).

My translation: “Disallowed because, by doing that, you removed from Portner’s client and our 'brother' Ladsky, the ability to trick you in the contents of the bundle” - which was, of course, the plan, as evidenced by the 'complaint'.

I did this because:

As per CPR, the 09.04.08 so-called 'case management directions' issued by HM WLCC District Judge Ryan stated, under para.7 "Not more than seven or less than three clear working days before the trial, the claimant shall file at court an indexed and paginated bundle of documents... and shall serve a copy of it on the Defendant. The parties shall endeavour to agree the contents of the bundle before it is filed..."

Ryan knew from Portner's conduct that I did not have a hope in hell of cooperation - and I highlighted this under para. 4 of my 30.04.08 Application to vary the directions.

Knowing that there are no dirty tricks the Ladsky mafia will not resort to (examples at the time: (i)- using a plant in an attempt to make me pay for the whole claim: Portner # 14; (ii)- lying that it had not received my Skeleton argument: Portner # 16.2 - not to mention the previous ones: see Extortion), as I explained in e.g. in My Diary 7 Jun 08, I followed my 'sixth sense'.

Further, it was blatantly obvious at the time that they were all dying for the opportunity to 'get me' - by whatever means - including getting me sectioned: e.g. Dr-MP (above), in May 08 i.e. at the time.

(6)- MY COSTS - Compiling my 03.06.08 Witness Statement (WLCC # 30)

Hoffman "allowed in full" the £1,202 (US$2,120) cost of producing my ('knockout') 03.06.08 Witness Statement...

... - on the grounds that "it would be difficult to find a solicitor who could produce a document like that for this cost".

(NB: Considering the reaction to, and actions by Hoffman's 'brothers' in West London County Court to my previous documents ((1)- my 22.03.07 Acknowledgement of Service (WLCC # 2) ; (2)- my 04.04.07 Application to contest jurisdiction (WLCC # 3) ; (3)- my 03.05.07 Skeleton Argument (WLCC # 5 , # 11) ; (4)- my 12.09.07 Defence (WLCC # 12)...

...they had all very clearly chocked on my Witness Statement.

(7)- MY COSTS - Printing and stationary costs of £360 (US$635)

ONLY £50 (US$88) was "allowed because these costs are normally a percentage included in the fees"

= Hoffman treated 'me', a Litigant in Person, as though I were a solicitor working for a client (!!!). I guess, on the upside: official recognition that I had graduated to lawyer status.

(8)- MY COSTS - Postage costs of over £200 (US$350)

They were predominantly for recorded / special delivery post.

Hoffman's comment: "ALL DISALLOWED because in this country communication with the courts is through regular post".

Translation: punishment for 'my daring' to remove opportunities to 'get me' - by the court and the Ladsky gang - being unable to claim that 'they had not received various documents from me'. Of course, that still did not stop the Ladsky mafia from trying e.g. claiming that it had not received my Skeleton argument: Portner # 16.

Note the xenophobic comment: "in this country". (While I have retained my French accent, I am a British National. Funny how they don't turn up their nose at me when it comes to taking a large amount of tax from me).

(9)- MY COSTS - Other costs

In my Bill of Costs, I had included other costs - which, likewise, I had incurred solely as a result of having a fraudulent claim filed against me i.e. through no fault of my own e.g.

  • Attending the 24 Aug 07 'hearing': £381 (US$670) (WLCC # 11)


(12)- At the end of the 'hearing', the matter of the 14.01.09 £4,500 (US$7,935) “offer (Events # 5) was raised.

When I showed Her Majesty's Deputy Master Hoffman my reply of 19.01.09 (Events # 5), he expressed scorn as soon as he read my header “Your derisory “offer” of 14 January 2009

In the light of the unbelievably damning evidence in the case, it confirmed further the mast to which Hoffman had pinned his colours.

Clearly, 'little Me', 'the piece of dirt', was not expected to undertake the procedure to claim for my costs - and it was highly inconvenient - FOR ALL. (WLCC Overall outcome).

Hoffman did not bother to read the rest of my letter. Obviously (in the light of the rest of the events), because he (in breach of CPR), had seen it before the 'hearing'.

(13)- There was "No order as to costs" (Ladsky was claiming costs of £1,535 (!!!)).

(14)- Of course - in line with his 'brothers' approach in WLCC - Hoffman never uttered the word ‘sanction’ against Portner and its client, 'the brother', Andrew David Ladsky - in spite of filing what was a blatantly obvious, vexatious, malicious, fraudulent claim against me – with no legally recognised ground - and making me go through 23 months of absolute, sheer utter hell (for the 2nd time).

I most strongly contend that, on the basis of the 'mountain' of unbelievably damning evidence against Portner and Ladsky - captured in my 19.01.09 reply to their 11.08.08 'Points of dispute' (and supported by numerous documents in my 22.01.09 bundle) - NO reasonable judiciary regardful of its duty to act judicially would arrive at the above assessment.

(15) - When Hoffman asked me whether I intended to appeal, I replied that I would not, as it was blatantly obvious that my 'card was marked' with Her Majesty's Court Service - thereby depriving me, the victim of crime - in breach of my rights - of access to justice and redress.

(I was again proven right:

My name for all of that? ‘The wonders of the British Establishment - in very sick, "Corrupt Britain" - in which the State acts as one with 'certain criminals'.


BREACHES OF THE LAW - Her Majesty's Supreme Court Costs Office - 2008-09:

In - my NON-lawyer opinion (*) - Her Majesty's Deputy Master Hoffman, Supreme Court Costs Office committed breaches of Civil Procedure Rules, of statutes - including committing criminal offences against me.

(*) I contend that it does not require being a lawyer, or a genius, to arrive at the conclusions.

(See: (1)- summary of events, above; (2) definition of 'bias')

•  Civil Procedure Rules (CPR)

  • Rule 1.1 - "Dealing with cases justly";
  • Rule 1.1(2)(a) - "Ensuring the parties are on an equal footing" - for the reasons detailed above and in this section - including perversely blocking me from referring to my 19.01.09 Amended Reply - because it included matters he had to consider in making his Order (Events # 8).
  • (3)- In the process, Hoffman failed to consider the court's powers under (NB: I had included the following in the summary of my 19.01.09 Amended Reply (Events # 6 and # 8)):
  • Rule 44.3(4) “The court must have regard to all the circumstance, including the conduct of the parties” and (5) “conduct before, as well as during the proceedings…whether the claimant succeeded in his claim" (Events # 3 - Notice of Discontinuance).
  • - and, considering that I was a Litigant in Person - facing a large, fraudulent claim:
  • PD 44 – para 8.4“In deciding what order to make about costs, the court is required to have regard to all the circumstances”.

(NB: As explained in the 5-page summary of my 19.01.09 Amended Reply, the nature of the costs I claimed complied with various CPR Rules).

•  Protection from Harassment Act 1997 (= criminal offences)

Events which Hoffman "knew" "would cause [me] distress" (s.7(2)):

  • (2)- Totally ignoring the absolutely relevant and very compelling evidence I supplied (he had read e.g. his comment about my 03.06.08 Witness Statement (Events # 11(6))...
  • (3)- Continuing to turn a deaf ear when, during the 'hearing', I quoted, from memory, some of the evidence contained in the summary to my Reply (Events # 8).
  • (4)- Aiming to make me feel at fault for returning, with my 22.03.07 Acknowledgment of Service, 2 pages from the claim, on which I had flagged-up major issues that had a material impact on the legality of the claim against me (Events # 2) - by challenging me in an hitlerian, condescending tone (Events # 10).
  • (5)- Branding me a liar in relation to the cost I claimed for writing my 12.09.07 Defence (Events # 11(2)) .

•  Defamation Act 1996 (see extracts)

•  Data Protection Act 1998

•  European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1950 (as set out in Sch.1 of the Human Rights Act 1998):

For the reasons detailed under the above Summary of events, and in this section:

However, as the Act is a sham - as it excludes 2 critical articles - it can be argued that 'no breach took place'.

Conduct by Her Majesty's Deputy Master Hoffman - OVERALL:

I most strongly contend that Hoffman's blatant and outrageous failure to deal with my case justly (CPR Rule 1.1), stemmed from his conspiring with 'his brothers' in WLCC - in order to cover-up their unlawful conduct - thereby joining them in totally ignoring the rule of law.

Further, that the motive was 'revenge' / 'retribution' on behalf of his 'brothers' - and especially his most revered Master: 'the brother', 'Dear Mr Andrew David Ladsky' - for 'my daring' to stand-up to them for my so-called 'rights'. (WLCC Overall outcome).

OVERALL OUTCOME ON ME of the above Events and Breaches of the law - as the innocent victim of crime:

In spite of the claim (Events # 1) being proven - irrebutably - to be fraudulent (Events # 3):

Getting back only £2,641 (US$4,600) of my £8,675.10 (US$15,300) costs = 30% (Events # 11) - from my very-hard-earned life savings.

No compensation for the loss of 52 hours of income.

No compensation for the trauma of having a fraudulent claim filed against me.

No compensation for the numerous breaches of my rights.

No compensation for my being subjected to 23 months of absolute, sheer utter hell - of ongoing mental torture, terrible torment, anguish, distress and trauma.

No compensation for the loss of over 500 hours of my life - destroying my life.

These are NOT courts of law - but kangaroo courts "criminally placed before the people".

With a court (and tribunal) system like that - as 'a certain type' of criminal: you've got it made:

you set the ball rolling and, all you have to do is: sit back, and watch the courts / tribunals do your dirty work. (Ditto with the police -

I must repeat the conclusion captured in various parts of this site - because it is so outrageous, so shocking, and so utterly unbelievable:

THE ROOT CAUSE of ALL of the above Events and Breaches of the law - added to ALL the others - as well as ALL the other events reported on this website?

ALL because 'Dear Mr Andrew David Ladsky' decided he was 'entitled' to make a multi-million £ jackpot through theft and extortion at my expense (and that of my fellow leaseholders)...

...And ALL, in his army of henchmen, said:

Yes, of course! O' Great One!


(To do what he did - to gain £500k - isn't 'Mr Big' - is it? So: why the unfailing support?

Because he is Jewish and / or because he is a Freemason who – as a result of his OWN actions – has exposed other Freemasons who, cowardly, take it out on me instead of him ?)


Jan 09 - If a Lord 'needs' £120k for amending legislation, what's the going rate for 'fixing' court claims for 'sacrosanct' landlords?

In an article headed "Revealed: Labour lords change law for cash", in its 25 Jan 09 edition, The Sunday Times reports that, using undercover journalists posing as lobbyists on behalf of a fictitious overseas company looking to set-up in the UK, it found 4 New Labour peers prepared to do business with 'lobbyists'.

(Of the 10 peers contacted, 1 New Labour, 3 Conservative, 1 LibDems and 1 Ulster Unionist peers refused). (NB: It successfully repeated this with MPs - see below, 'MPs for cash')

All four New Labour peers offered to help secure legislative changes citing previous changes they had helped secure for their 'clients'.

The 'going rate' ranged from £24,000 to £120,000 - with one of the peers, Lord Taylor of Blackburn, 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".

(Private Eye 1433, 9-22 Dec 16, reports that he died in Nov 16, following an accident at a pedestrian crossing).

(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)

(See also below: 'Peers for cash', followed by 'MPs for cash', "Like a cab for hire")

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).


The following week, in its 1 Feb 09 issue, The Sunday Times wrote (Comment section) that "the political classes have known about these abuses for years and done almost nothing about them". Of course not, because many of the peers and MPs are on the make: lining their pockets to their heart's content at the expense of the taxpayer - see next entry.

So, like the MPs, and the residential leasehold sector: best 'not rock the boat old chap! Doing very nicely out of it. Thank you very much.

The Sunday Times also reports a comment made by one peer to another peer "many years ago" that "he was making more money in the Lords than he ever did as an MP" (That means 'a lot' - see below 'Feb 09')

(Re. the visual: Journalists for all types of newspapers, as well as readers, have repeatedly described this imagery when talking about the scandal - and have continued to do so as more and more evidence of gross abuse of expenses by MPs came to light over the following weeks)

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 (now risible) title and their seat - because they are 'above the law' (Feb 09, below).

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. (Subsequent note: No point for guessing that I would turn out to be right - see below).

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 (see 'MPs for cash'), whereas when I approach 'my' MP - whose role is to represent me in Parliament - I am told to 'Get Lost!'? (In 2002 and in 2009).


Considering the obvious 'fixing' that has been taking place against me (and my fellow leaseholders) in the London LVT and the courts:

...I believe it is fair and appropriate for me to ask:

  • (2)- Who was involved in the 'fixing'?
  • (3)- Who got what? for what? from whom?

As an innocent victim of organized crime who has been persecuted by (among others) the courts and 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' then MP, Sir Malcolm Rifkind, asking that my complaint is referred to the Parliamentary Ombudsman, as well as raised with other relevant parties) (Subsequent note: see the predictable outcome: summary of my complaint to Rifkind # 1.9; to the PHSO # 1.10).

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 State machinery - including the courts and the police. 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!

February 2009 and beyond - Politicians - "Off the hook!"; "Not broken any rules!" were the headlines in February...

...eventually followed in May by calls from the public for "prosecution"

In this country, aside from the 'little people', nobody is held accountable for anything (e.g. Home - Overview # 7 , # 20). The following events provide 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 as a consequence of this, their failure to do their job, frequently amounting to failure to perform their legal remit / malpractice / collusion / 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 (I repeat my Comments under Persecution (1)(4)) like Andrew Ladsky and his stable of puppets



(See also: above, Peers for sale ; below: 'MPs for cash' - "Like a cab for hire" , and MPs expenses)

Those (in the "House of Frauds", The Sunday Times, 17 May 09) - caught by the media 'police':

  • Lord Laird (asking questions and influencing debates in Parliament)

Further to the 'peers for cash' scandal (above), on 12 Feb 09, 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 "because it was far from clear how criminal law applies to peers"

= 'They are 'above the law!'; have carte blanche to do whatever they want.

Also, that there are "very clear difficulties in gathering and adducing evidence". (= 'The Brotherhood')

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 - like the rest of the Establishment e.g. Stafford hospital, below.

Ditto with the sacrosanct landlords, their aides and the supporting infrastructure to the residential leasehold sector (summary outcomes of my 50+ legitimate 'cries for help' and complaints - in vain). 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 Apr 09, 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 of Blackburn (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 was one of the people who lays down the law of the land, telling the rest of us what to do!) (Private Eye 1433, 9-22 Dec 16, reports that he died in Nov 16, following an accident at a pedestrian crossing).


In e.g. "Guilty peers Lord Taylor of Blackburn and Lord Truscott face a year's suspension", the 26 Apr 09 Sunday Times reported: "undercover Sunday Times reporters posing as lobbyists found that the two peers were prepared to help to amend legislation in return for cash.";

"Expenses scandal: three face suspension from House of Lords", Telegraph, 16 Oct 10: "Lord Taylor of Blackburn and Lord Truscott – were suspended from the House of Lords for six months for misconduct,... They were found by a Lords committee to be willing to change laws in exchange for cash."

Lord Truscott's reaction, is covered in e.g."'Peer for hire' likens his plight to that of Guantanamo inmate", The Sunday Times, 17 May 09

"In a letter of appeal obtained by this newspaper, Truscott criticised the [House of Lords] sub-committee which found against him stating...

..."I felt like a Guantanamo inmate. I was continually interrupted, with one member in particular being aggressive". "My wife, whose uncle spent time in the Gulag, can't escape a feeling of déjà vu: [it is] 1930s Russia. Stalin is in power. Political committees decide an individual's fate on the basis of ill-founded allegations"

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:


The treatment comprises of abuse, bullying, harassment, victimization, being terrorised, physical threats, including being told: "Enjoy your life. You don't have long to live",...

intimidation, persecution, defamation of my name and of my character, horrendous anguish at seeing tens of thousands of Pounds of my very hard-earned life savings disappear as I repeatedly failed to get justice and redress wherever I turn to, etc.

With which country/ies would you associate this treatment?

What have 'I' done wrong to be subjected to this treatment? NOTHING! I 'dared' to stand-up against Establishment-controlled organized crime - set-up to make me (and my fellow leaseholders) pay monies I did NOT owe. The objective? So that Andrew David Ladsky could realise a multi-million Pound jackpot.

Evidently, it is a heinous crime in this country to stand-up against organized 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 ORGANIZED 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, because 'they' don't like having a mirror held to 'their' face (as also evidenced by the experience of others), as it reflects 'their' failure to do their job, frequently amounting to FAILURE TO PERFORM THEIR LEGAL REMIT / 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, 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 09, "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 31 May 09, The Sunday Times, in "Lord Clarke confesses that he has been milking his expenses" and "Remorseful peer says he fiddled expenses" reported 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.


On 3 May 09, The Sunday Times revealed "Labour peer claims £100,000 expenses on empty flat she said was her home". It concerns Baroness Uddin.

The outcome reported in the article of 12 Mar 10 in The Times was to be expected: "Baroness Uddin escapes prosecution over £100,000 claims". Also reported in e.g. The Daily Telegraph "Baroness Uddin cleared over expenses scandal"

(Subsequent notes: In its 16 Oct 10 article (hence, post Labour government), "Expenses scandal: three face suspension from House of Lords", the Daily Telegraph reported that "Baroness Uddin... is set to be suspended from the Lords for between a year and 18 months, and has agreed to pay back £125,000 in wrongly claimed expenses". "Suspended for 12/18 months"?

Why didn't she end up in prison? Why was she allowed to return?

Five years later, in its 1395, 26 Jun-9 July15 issue, under its regular feature "Called to ordure", Private Eye reported what Uddin had said in the House of Fraud:

We know that many who represent the public in high office are often disconnected."

"We have heard loud and clear the opinions of people who feel disempowered and disengaged from their leaders

You could not make it up!


By 25 Oct 09, The Sunday Times reported that it had "identified more than 20 peers whose claims are questionable", including the £230,000 claimed by Baroness Goudie, the main subject of its article "No 10 ally's £230,000 expenses bill"

In its 27 Jan 11 article, "Peer let off despite 'doubts' about her expenses", The Daily Telegraph reported that "Baroness Goudie, a friend of Gordon Brown, who claimed £250,000 in parliamentary expenses on a flat she visited only occasionally was spared punishment after quietly repaying £5,000"

In its 17 Oct 10 article, "Benefit cheats are 'mugging taxpayers' says Osborne" the Independent, reported "Chancellor George Osborne today announced a crackdown on benefit cheats, comparing them to muggers robbing taxpayers of their hard-earned money... And repeat offenders could have their benefits suspended for as long as four years"

Doesn't what Baroness Uddin, Baroness Goudie have done amount to "robbing the taxpayers of their hard-earned money"? If one of 'little people' had been caught "robbing" the public purse to the tune of £125,000+, s/he would have ended-up with a long-term prison sentence.

Indeed, one month later, in its 23 Nov 10 issue, Metro had an article headed "£113,000 fraud gipsy is jailed" - "A 'shameless' Romanian gipsy who stole more than £113,000 in benefits from the British taxpayers was yesterday jailed for three years..." (You can see from the article on whose side this (free) London paper is).

Another blatant evidence that the legislators are above the law of the land.... well, most of them...


Daily Telegraph: 29 Sep 10 - "MPs' expenses: Lord Taylor of Warwick denies charges of false accounting";

25 Jan 11- "Lord Taylor [of Warwick] found guilty of fiddling his parliamentary expenses";

26 Sep 12 - "Peers jailed for expenses fraud ordered to pay back £188,000"


"Peers jailed for expenses fraud ordered to pay back £188,000", Telegraph, 26 Sep 12 - "Lord Hanningfield, a 72-year-old former pig farmer, whose given name is Paul White, was heard to have netted £67,413 in total. He was ordered to pay pack £37,158.50 within six months or face 15 months behind bars." "He was convicted of 6 counts of false accounting".

"Both men [with Lord Taylor of Warwick] were jailed last year for 12 months..." (NB: What was James Best's sentence "for stealing a gingerbread man from a looted shop"?)

This time, thanks to an investigation by the Daily Mirror, Hanningfield was again caught at it in 2013: "Lord Hanningfield suspended from Lords for a year over allowance claims", The Guardian, 12 May 14 ;

"Tory peer Lord Hanningfield banned from Parliament - for not doing any work", Independent, 12 May 14 - Both articles refer to Hanningfield:

"...collecting the attendance allowance on 11 days in July 2013 after spending as little as 21 minutes in parliament."

The Privileges and conduct committee:

  • asking that "he repays the £3,300 he wrongly claimed". (Note the language: "wrongly"!);
  • "should be banned from Parliament building until May 2015" (Note: "should". ) - and that "his suspension is the stiffest penalty the Lords can inflict on one of its members". (They really are laughing in our face).


From Private Eye, 1417, 29 Apr-12 May 16 (pg 12):

"In October 2010 he was suspended for fiddling his housing claims and had to repay £27,446"

"In May 2016... he faces an eight-month suspension... [in relation to] 63 journeys between his home and Westminster, [for which] he claimed mileage from both parliament and from a charity he worked for, the Ethnic Minority Foundation."

His record in the the House of Fraud:

In the past 10 years: he has asked a grand total of two written questions; spoken just three times; voted, on average, just over five times a year."

"He belongs to none of the Lord’s 33 select committees, nor is he listed as a member of any of Westminster’s 513 all-party parliamentary groups."


In addition to Baroness Uddin, in 2009, other peers were also cleared of any wrongdoing, following a ruling by a Committee chaired by Baroness Hayman (who was herself under formal investigation for allegedly abusing the system) (another great example of 'self-regulation'),...

on the basis that, as reported in e.g. The Sunday Times of 14 Feb 10, "Lords 'stitch-up clears peers on expenses", "...a lord "need only "visit" a property, with no obligation to stay overnight, on one day a month while the House of Lords is sitting" for it to qualify as their main home".

As the journalist wrote "By that definition, a peer's main home could be a supermarket or a dentist's surgery...".

A Reader of The Sunday Times wrote on 25 Oct 09 in connection with the article re. Baroness Goudie "The Lords is my gravy train, I shall not want (for anything)...".

Another wrote "If it were not for the fact that these freeloaders on society... have their own police and army protecting them... then I think a settlement of this problem would have been reached years ago" . Very true. I call it the network of symbiotic relationships = 'the Brotherhood'.

Note also in the 16 Oct 10 Daily Telegraph article, how the House of Lords has taken steps to avoid the peers being caught out in future "The new regime will allow all peers to claim a lump sum payment of £300 a day for "clocking in" at Parliament".

For £300 a day, I'd turn up at the House of Lords and "clock in", and then 'go to my club for lunch'. (Addition in 2014: as per e.g. Lord Hanningfield, above)

(And to think that there are 800+ of them in the House of Lords for this island! How ridiculous). (Some statistics: if 800 peers claim £300 per day, 250 days per year = £60m...+ numerous other expenses).

Other media report some of the 'noble' peers turning up just to sign the register in order to collect their £335 daily allowance (before the above).

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: these people lay the law of the land, telling the rest of us what to do.


Of course, in a free-for-all environment (*), in which the only 'policemen' are undercover journalists, the 'noble' peers have continued on their merry way.

(*) 'ALL' = Only those with money, prepared to part with it

In "Peer drawn into lobbying scandal resigns from party", the 2 Jun 13 Telegraph reported the findings of its joint investigation with BBC Panorama; "Cash for questions: Lord Laird caught seeking 'monetary reward' for political influence – undercover footage" (1 Jun 13):

"Lord Laird...offered to arrange for Parliamentary questions to be asked in return for a retainer fee of £2,000 a month".

"To help the undercover reporters posing as lobbyists, he said that he was prepared to set-up a Parliamentary group ["on Fiji, to overturn sanctions on the country"], and "bribe" colleagues to ask questions and influence debates". (Bribing: a familiar British state activity).

"Lord Laird's offer to "bribe" colleagues by offering them a free trip to Fiji"".

"The peer was recording saying: “I’ll deny having said this, but it’s a bribe the sort of thing I can say to these guys … you put that question down now, I thought you were interested in Fiji, would you like to come down to it, you know, I believe it’s quite nice … I can whisper that.

"MP PATRICK MERCER, who took £4,000 from the undercover reporters, and has since resigned, invited other MPs to join the group...saying that they included "several freeloaders that would like to go to Fiji" and one who asked to take his wife".

(In Telegraph, 1 Jun 13, "Row over lobbying and MPs' 'freebies'"), "he boasted to the undercover journalists that he had persuaded 18 MPs to join the group".

"[One of the 18 MPs] was Keith Vaz, the Labour chairman of the home affairs select committee".

"Keith Vaz's special interest in Fiji puzzles his multi-cultural constituents", Telegraph, 9 Jun 13 - "Why was Labour MP Keith Vaz so keen to join an all-party Parliamentary group on Fiji? The Telegraph visited his Leicester constituency to find out". (see also, below, other media reports on Keith Vaz) (He got his comeuppance in Aug 16 (below)).

"Mr Mercer, who believed that contract by 'the lobbyists' would be worth £24,000, did not declare the £2,000 of the £4,000 payment in the register of interests for MPs"

"By resigning the Conservative whip, Mr Mercer is able to stay in Parliament as an independent MP until the 2015 election".

Using a quote in its header: "Patrick Mercer cash-for-questions case the worst of its kind, report says", the Telegraph, 1 May 14 - reported other extracts from Parliament's standards committee: "it is the worst case of its kind that the watchdog has encountered"; "We are not aware of a case relating to a sitting MP which has involved such a sustained and pervasive breach of the House's rules on registration, declaration and paid advocacy"

REALLY? How about the conduct of all the others (starting below)... not to mention the Peers!



Ex-cabinet minister Lord Cunningham and former senior police officer Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate - BOTH caught by undercover journalists from the Sunday Times "over claims they offered to carry out parliamentary work in return for cash" - "'Crooks' in the Lords will be expelled, Nick Clegg pledges", Telegraph, 4 Jun 13.

BOTH referred in the 10 Jun 13 Telegraph article, "Lobbying row MP Tim Yeo denies 'coaching' witness", as, "like Lord Laird, as denying wrongdoing".


'MPs FOR CASH' - "Like a cab for hire"


To add to 'the set', after the Labour 'peers for cash' episode 14 months ago (Jan 09 and Feb 09, above) (added to Labour's 'cash for peerage' episode (My Diary 2 Aug 06)), 'the Lockerbie bomber', etc., etc., on 21 Mar 10, we have the Labour 'MPs for cash" - followed by more.

Those caught by the media 'police':

  • Patrick Mercer (asking questions and influencing debates in Parliament)
  • Tim Yeo (facilitating introductions and coaching a witness)
  • Jack Straw (below) ("influence to change European Union rules; "use of charm and menace to influence Ukrainian law".

The first 3 were exposed in a joint investigation by The Sunday Times and Channel 4's Dispatches programme (shown on 22 Mar 10), who used an undercover reporter posing as a company executive looking to hire MPs for lobbying work: Sunday Times articles "Revealed: Labour's cash for influence scandal" ; "'I' am like a cab for hire - at up to £5,000 a day".


Recorded on video (like the others), the MP who made this statement, Stephen Byers, former Trade and Transport Secretary (and hence, ex. Cabinet minister), claimed to have secured a secret deal with the Transport Secretary, Lord Adonis, on behalf of a rail company which, the article reports, "left a burden on the taxpayer of hundreds of millions of pounds" .

And, for a chain of supermarkets that he names, he claims to have secured amendments on food labeling through Lord Mandelson, the Business Secretary.

The same evening, after the programme was shown on Channel 4, Peter Mandelson was on BBC2's Newsnight and asked about Byers's claims. Suddenly putting on a face that would scare little children, he icily denied Byer's claims.

The article reports that, after the meeting, "Byers sent a quick note to the reporter saying it was "good to meet" . However, "the next day, he sent an email to the reporter effectively claiming that he had lied throughout the meeting". (if so, having seen his performance: he definitely deserves an Oscar).

The article quotes a source, said to be close to senior management in the rail company, as saying that Byer's version of events is "a close footprint" that was "pretty accurate".


Another one, Patricia Hewitt, former Health Secretary, said "her daily cost for a range of advice and services that included helping to influence legislation was £3,000" She said "If you've got a client who needs a particular regulation removed, then we can often package that up [for a minister]"


A third one, Margaret Moran (below), who made bogus expenses claims (and claimed during the interview that she had "not been disciplined" over her expenses) (see below, her trial in Nov 12), agreed to start immediately to use her position to influence government policy - while she was still a Labour MP: Sunday Times, 21 Mar 10, "Expenses scandal MP boasts of her girl-gang contacts".

She said that she was "well connected with a 'girls' gang' of mates", naming Jacqui Smith, Hazel Blears, Caroline Flint and Harriet Harman, the Deputy Leader of the Labour party.

The article states that "after she had left the meeting, a second reporter phoned her constituency office, saying his mother wanted to see Moran about a housing problem. "She is not doing any appointment" was the reply. "She is not very well at the moment"". (c. 2 years later she was, likewise, "too unwell" to attend proceedings against her).

The following day, The Times, 23 Mar 10, reported "Labour suspends cash-for-influence MPS" and that "neither Lord Mandelson, nor Lord Adonis acted improperly... Lord Adonis confirmed a conversation with Mr Byers over the franchises but Lord Mandelson denied any such exchange took place".

Consequently, "The Prime Minister refused to agree to an official investigation by the Cabinet Office after receiving "reassurance" from the permanent secretaries of the relevant departments...".

The Daily Telegraph, 22 Mar 10, "Stephen Byers, Patricia Hewitt and Geoff Hoon suspended over lobbying allegations" reported "The Prime Minister has seen the statements from the departments and is satisfied that there is no impropriety" (It reminds me of Tony Blair re. John Prescott - My Diary 2 Aug 06)

(On 20 Sep 10, the Daily Telegraph had an article, "Secret deals still being offered to MPs")

(In its 6 Apr 11 article, headed "Every single ex-MP claimed a 'golden goodbye' - at a cost of millions to taxpayer", the Telegraph reported that: "Stephen Byers and Geoff Hoon, who were caught up in a cash for access lobbying scandal, received maximum payments, along with ex-cabinet colleagues Patricia Hewitt, Des Browne and John Reid".

So did "Douglas Hogg, the former Conservative minister who claimed for a moat on his expenses, and Derek Conway, who was expelled from the Tories after overpaying his son on his taxpayer-funded allowances to work as a parliamentary researcher"


(See above, Lord Laird)


As in the case of the 'noble' peers e.g. Lord Laird, above, the 'honourable' MPs (above) are continuing on their merry way.

"Lobby row: Energy policy MP Tim Yeo 'filmed boasting about introducing businessmen to Government'", Telegraph, 9 Jun 13 - "The Conservative MP who scrutinises energy policy has been filmed boasting that he can be paid to introduce businessman to members of the Government".

"Tim Yeo, a paid director and shareholder of Eurotunel, the holding company for GB Railfreight, said that he coached the MD of the latter before he gave evidence to the committee". "I told him [Mr Smith] in advance what to say. Ha. Ha."

"When asked if he would be interested in a £7,000-a-day consultancy contract with a solar company, the MP said: "If you want to meet the right people, I can facilitate all those introductions and I use the knowledge I get from what is quite an active network of connections. The reporters queried if this included Government figures. Mr Yeo replied "Yes"".

The following day, in the Telegraph: "Lobbying row MP Tim Yeo denies 'coaching' witness".

(In Nov 15, Tim Yeo was reported to have lost a libel case against the Sunday Times - in connection with the above).

(Similar subject: see Minister in ‘cahoots with mobile phone firms on price fixing’”)


Cabinet ministers, MPs, MEPs and Quangocrats on the "gravy train"


(See also above, MPs for cash - "Like a cab for hire")

In its Comment section, The Sunday Times, 22 Feb 09, has an article headed "A country in crisis needs moral leaders". It states " 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"

(1) Refers to JACQUI SMITH, Home Secretary (on her way out... and gone by 5 Jun 09), who, apparently, over recent years, claimed a total of c. £116,000 on her main home, falsely claiming that it was her second home.

Among her claims, those that have generated considerable media coverage (including overseas), as well as ridicule by the public are: claiming £10 for porn movies, and £.0.88 for a bath plug.

Since then, many more MPs have been reported in the media, especially by The Daily Telegraph. Examples:

Of note: following the very damning exposure, Parliament has since taken steps to avoid investigation:

Private Eye, 1379, 14-27 Nov 14: "Trebles all round in the Commons at the news that all the evidence about profiteering from the MPs’ expenses racket before 2010 has been shredded."

"The MPs’ standards committee (aka the double standards committee) and parliamentary commissioner, Kathryn Hudson, told some Isle of Wight complainants who wanted a proprer inquiry into the amounts claimed by local Tory MP Andrew Turner, that all records of Turner’s expenses claims had been destroyed, because paperwork should not be kept longer than three years."

•  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. (It has been renamed (renamed 'Communities and Local Government' (CLG), "£25,000 bill as Government drops single word from department name", Mail on Sunday, 30 Aug 09).

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 as 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 horrendous experience with the Court Service since 2002, and more recently under The "Right Honourable" JACK STRAW, Lord Chancellor (see, below, his 2015 exist), I note with interest...

The Daily Telegraph article of 8 May 09 "Jack Straw apologises for bungling claim: MPs expenses":

"On July 20, 2008, two months after learning that MPs' expenses would be made a note, marked "in confidence" [NB!!!], Mr Straw admitted that since 2004... he had filed expenses claims for council tax... at the full rate...

At the same time, he had been paying his local authority half that amount by registering the property as his second home...".

His excuse? "I am afraid that the reality of life over the last few years is that I've often had to complete the claims in marginal time and without recourse to all the records".

[But he had enough "records" to calculate claiming back the full amount since 2004]. (He was reported to have paid back what he overclaimed).

(See also, below, his excuses for "demanding £7,500 to install a new kitchen" - and note what his 2nd successor, CHRIS GRAYLING, did (below)...followed by his successor, MICHAEL GOVE (also below).

Adding these to the reports on: Shahid Malik (below); Vera Baird (below); Eleanor Laing (below) - exemplify the 'value system' of Her Majesty's individuals who operate in 'the justice system'...matching that of her judiciary).

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".

On the basis of my first-hand experience with Jack Straw and his Ministry of (In)Justice (timeline of appointments): I second that motion as :

  • Not only does Jack Straw turn a blind eye and a deaf ear to misconduct, including breaches of statutes and / or Civil Procedure Rules by:
  • (2) in the context of my 13 Nov 07 complaint against WLCC to HMCS Customer Service (WLCC # 18), I sent Straw 2 'cries for help', as well as copied him on 4 other letters: he failed to take action (WLCC # 24.2- Straw summary ; 'cries for help' summaries # 1.7 and # 1.8).
  • He therefore also actively endorses the conduct, in the process continuing to breach statutes = Acts as a fertiliser for malpractice: My 02.01.10 Subject Access Request to the Ministry of 'Justice' - Legal-Home # 9

To this can be added:

  • his readiness to make U-turns when 'economic interests' are at stake e.g. "Lockerbie bomber 'set free for oil'", "Secret letters reveal Labour's Libyan deal", The Sunday Times, 30 Aug 09;

(Note that, in 2009, Jack Straw was appointed 'Anti-Corruption Champion').

(In the same year, Straw claimed that "a review had shown no evidence of “impropriety or malpractice” as a result of judges being Freemasons" Considering e.g. my evidence = another typical British State's 'review')

6 years later, the Daily Telegraph facilitated the realisation its (above) May 09 conclusion

In Jan-Feb 15, in a sting operation by Channel 4 Dispatches and the Daily Telegraph (*), undercover journalists pretending to represent a fictitious Chinese company, filmed Jack Straw saying, among other:

"He had operated “under the radar” to use his influence to change European Union rules on behalf of a commodity firm which paid him £60,000 a year.

He also claimed to have used “charm and menace” to convince the Ukrainian prime minister to change laws on behalf of the same firm."

"...normally, if I’m doing a speech or something, it’s £5,000 a day, that’s what I charge."

Channel 4 Dispatches - "Politicians for hire - Jack Straw"

"Jack Straw and Malcolm Rifkind face 'cash for access' allegations", The Guardian, 22 Feb 15

(NB: Sir Malcolm Rifkind was 'my' MP. See the page for my experience with him)

"[Claiming] he had made clear from the outset that any discussion he entered into related to what he might do once he was no longer a serving MP, [he said]:

"I am mortified that I fell into this trap" (1)

"In my 36 years in which I have been a member of parliament, I have acted with complete probity and I believe integrity as well" (2)

"Straw and Rifkind suspended over 'cash for access' claims", Channel 4, Feb 15

(*) For other sting operations / exposures, see above, Peers for cash ; MPs for cash ; Ministers, MPs, MEPs

(1)- Translation: I am besides myself with fury for being shown for what I am.

(2)- Translation: 'And I can't stop myself from lying'. (Contrast his claims with the above examples)

Out of the Commons, but sources of income lined up...

... e.g. Private Eye, # 1386 - 20 Feb - 6 Mar 15, pg 12:

"Former Labour foreign secretary the “Right Honourable” Jack Straw has taken a part-time job paid for by the corrupt and dictatorial government of…Kazakhstan". (*)

...and still having a say in State matters e.g.

"Freedom of Information Act review 'may curb access to government papers'", The Guardian, 17 July 15

"Ministers have launched a cross-party review of the Freedom of Information Act that is likely to be viewed as an attempt to curb public access to government documents."

"Members will include Jack Straw, the former foreign secretary, who is already on the record calling for the act to be rewritten."

(He has a vested interest in keeping some information out of the public eye).

(*) Following in the footsteps of Prince Andrew

Oh! And predictably (with Malcolm Rifkind) on course for a peerage! (Rifkind # B)


•  Another 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:

"From a natural justice perspective I feel a justifiable exception would be the fairest manner to deal with the current situation"

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 [US$9] 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 (US$5,290) '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 (US$1,287) for the massage chair). The Daily Telegraph reports that Mr Malik's salary was £95,617 (US$168,600).

(*) The most outrageous claim for a home cinema system, reported by The Daily Telegraph, is from SIR GERALD KAUFMAN: £8,900 (US$15,693). 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 Jun 09)

A week later, in its 12 Jun 09 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 = 3 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.

Of note: At the time of the initial revelation, The Daily Telegraph reported that "Mr Malik's responsibilities include improving transparency at the ministry [of InJustice]".

He obviously felt he could exclude himself, as does The Rt Hon Jack Straw who is reported to have sent his note to the Fees Office marked "in confidence" .

(Under the banner of "transparency" - I sure would like to see the notes that have been exchanged in relation to my case: in 2002-04, and complaint ; in 2007-08 (snapshot), and for the 30 January 2009 hearing)

I note, Mail on Sunday, 7 Jun 09, "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. Margaret Beckett was subsequently covered in The Sunday Times, 23 Aug 09 "MARGARET BECKETT in 'take pity' plea on expenses"

•  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!"

And spend it they have!

According to the series of disclosures by The Daily Telegraph (other articles), (in addition to the phantom mortgages, the double counting of allowances between a married couple, etc) the taxpayer has been paying for the MPs to:

renovate and furnish their property/ies, on numerous occasions, just prior to selling them; pay for servants' quarters; repair / maintain their swimming pool, tennis court, garden, moat;...

...(1), tune a piano; (1), install a duck island (2); hang their chandelier; add mock Tudor beams; horse manure (yep! and a lot of it) (2); etc. - including paying for their porn movies, bath plug, nappies, hair straighteners, tooth flosser, chocolate bar and dog food.

(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)

Following the disclosures, the MPs continued to run for cover, shamelessly attempting to put the blame on 'the system'. They claimed that the expenses were "within the rules" i.e.

the Green Book which states that expense claims must be "wholly, exclusively and necessarily incurred in the course of performing your Parliamentary duties" and "above reproach" ; that they had "done nothing wrong" because they filed their expenses claims "in good faith" - and they had been "approved by the Fees Office".

As with the Lords and the MEPs, 'they' devised the rules - which, by any stretch of the imagination, cannot be interpreted as including many of the items that have been claimed for - and 'they' monitor them.

If the many who abused the system did not know that what they were doing is wrong: they have no place in the House of Commons = as many of the electors have been saying: "the majority of them should be kicked out".

Apparently, the Fees Office, the unit that 'deals' with MPs expenses, had been told by the Speaker, Michael Martin, to keep quiet when it raised concerns about excesses c. four years ago.

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".

I wonder what CHRIS GRAYLING, 2nd successor to Jack Straw (appointed after Kenneth Clarke in Sep 12) has to say about his expense claims?

In its 1364 - 18Apr-1May 14 issue, pg 8, Private Eye wrote that "his record is long overdue for serious scrutiny".

It referred to the Telegraph's 2009 disclosures that: "after his election in 2001, Grayling claimed mortgage payments on 2 properties: a house in his constituency that is 17 miles from Parliament, and a flat in London where he already owned 2 that were let out."

"Claiming for two mortgages was against the Common rules, but Grayling told the fees office it was necessary because he could not get a 100 percent mortgage on the new London flat". (NB: First-time buyers: cue to weep in sympathy).

"The Telegraph's disclosures revealed that:

  • in May 2005, Grayling claimed £4,250 for redecorating; £1,1561 for a new bathroom. In June he claimed £1,341 for new kitchen units, and in July a further £1,527 for plumbing and £1,950 for rewiring the flat.
  • This meant that in the 2005-06 financial year he had almost the maximum allowance."
  • "in the next financial year...he submitted: a decorators' bill of £2,250...claiming the decorator had only just submitted his invoice a year late...£3,534 for service and maintenance that was [also] paid by the fees office even though [it] referred to costs incurred in 2005-06."

The assumption by Private Eye for the lack of challenge by "the double standards committee": "possibly because by the time his expenses were revealed by the Telegraph in 2009 he was already shadow home secretary, and soon to be minister."

Private Eye concludes with: "As justice secretary, Grayling is making a name by banning prisoners from being sent books. If his expenses claims are ever properly investigated, might he discover for himself what life is like inside? Perish the thought!"

I repeat my above comments.

MICHAEL GOVE (Wikipedia) - He succeeded Chris Grayling as Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for 'Justice', making him the 3rd successor to Jack Straw, in the same position. (The following is from Wikipedia, at 20/07/15) (Wikipedia has this section on the MPs expenses scandal):

"Between Dec05-Ap 06, he claimed more than £7,000 on a house; around a third of the money was spent at OKA, an upmarket interior design company established by Viscountess Astor, PM David Cameron’s mother-in-law."

"Shortly afterwards he reportedly 'flipped' his designated second home, a property for which he claimed around £13,000 to cover stamp duty." "Gove's second home was not in his constituency"

"He also claimed for a cot mattress, despite children's items being banned under updated Commons Rules. Gove said he would repay the claim for the cot mattress, but maintained that his other claims were "below the acceptable threshold costs for furniture" (*)

"While he was moving between homes, on one occasion... following a constituency engagement, he charged the taxpayer more than £500 per night's stay."

(*) Reminds me of the comments by e.g. Shahid Malik (above) and Margaret Beckett (above).

I repeat my above comments.

Their comments following being exposed displays an attitude that epitomises the true face of the 'ruling class' and its 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.




ANTHONY STEEN, "a Tory grandee" who is alleged to have "claimed tens of thousands of pounds on his country estate, including the cost of a forestry expert to inspect his trees. Like others, Steen merely blamed the system: “It is not a question of feeling we have done something wrong. It is just the system which is wrong”" ("House of Frauds", The Sunday Times, 17 May 2009)

The Independent, 22 May 09, in its article "Anthony Steen: 'You are all jealous'" reports that Mr Steen has claimed £87,700 in expenses over four years, and quotes some of his comments during a BBC interview

"I think I have behaved impeccably. I have done nothing criminal. And you know what it's about? Jealousy. I have a very, very large house. Some people say it looks like Balmoral" (NB: Is he competing with Her Majesty The Queen?)

He attacked the Freedom of Information Act, blaming it for his exposure and said "What right does the public have to interfere in my private life?"

One of the newspapers' Readers wrote "Smug, arrogant fool... It has everything to do with the public!... we paid for it old boy!", while another wrote "He says his home and lifestyle are private - yet he insisted on financing them with public funds...."

In light of my extensive experience with the legal sector, I am not in the least surprised to hear that Mr Steen is a barrister.

MARGARET MORAN, the Luton South MP who claimed £22,000 for rot treatment to her partner's house , etc., said that she would resign, giving among others, "impact on my health" of the media attention, as one of her reasons.

Note that 10 months later, while 'still' "unwell" , she had a lively meeting with reporters posing as lobbyists, with whom she agreed to use her position as an MP to influence government policy - in exchange for cash.

And 2 years later, in Nov 12, she was 'so' "unwell", that she "was unable to attend her trial" - leading her to get away scot-free: "Margaret Moran received £53,000 in bogus MP expenses, jury finds", Guardian, 13 Nov 12 -

"Margaret Moran received more than £53,000 in fraudulent expenses, a jury has found...

Though jurors at Southwark crown court in London were unable to return a guilty verdict, they unanimously ruled the 57-year-old former assistant whip committed 15 counts of false accounting and six counts of using a false instrument over claims for parliamentary expenses between 2004 and 2008."

"Adjourning the case, Judge Mr Justice Saunders said: "She is presently being treated by psychiatrists at home and that treatment will continue"

Aside from: If you can't do the time, don't commit the crime:

(1)- By contrast, James Best, a man WHO WAS suffering from mental (as well as physical) problems was put in jail by Her Majesty's Masonic police and judiciary "for stealing a gingerbread man from a shop that had been looted";

(2)- If she is 'that sick', how come that she is not in a psychiatric hospital? (The State has no problem locking-up SANE 'little people' in its dungeons).

= Claim of being "ill" = 'Go-past-jail' card

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 (starting three years ago e.g. "Prescott lets rip in loan scandal", 27 Mar 06), Mail on Sunday and The Sunday Times (also starting three years ago e.g. "'Black hole' in the ministers' house expenses", 26 Mar 06), 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. (Other examples: Whistleblowers page). 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!

In fact, the MPs fought tooth and nail to keep that system, including prevent the detail of their expenses from being published. Some stated in their defence that they reformed the system in c. 2003. I dread to think what they were claiming before that.

Having been, over several weeks, heavily shamed, ridiculed and criticised on a large scale for their lack of morality and probity, some finally began to 'see the light' by writing cheques to pay back some of their claims, as well as pay tax they had avoided (apparently, c. £500,000 was paid back by mid June) - clearly seeing it as bringing the matter to a close (e.g. Hazel Blears). A clear example of their perceptions of being above the law of the land.


The media reported that the man who supplied the data to The Daily Telegraph is a former SAS officer. In its 24 May 2009 issue, the Mail on Sunday had one front page article "Mole who blew the whistle on MP expenses is a 'swashbuckler' with a £7million trail of debt".

Whatever the reason for doing this, the consistent message that came back from the c. 150 Readers was: we don't care; he's done all of us a great service e.g.

"Irrelevant. Totally, totally irrelevant...The population of the UK are eternally grateful to him for exposing the greedy, corrupt and venal behaviour of our MPs..." ;

"Let's stop shooting the messenger, shall we?

Let's just be thankful that there are people like him who will whistleblow for all our sakes." {Indeed, added to many others with the guts to do it]

Like it or not, this man now has a place in history..."

"Without him, we would never know what total sleazebags run our country"

"For his services to the country, all his debts should be cancelled"

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 freeloaders 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: (1) 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";

(2) The Independent, 29 July 2009, "The Big question: What progress has been made in reining in MPs' expenses?" (3) Daily Express, 26 Aug 10, "Swearing MPs brand expenses staff 'monkeys'"

(*) As a result of my extensive first-hand experience (e.g. Legal Services Ombudsman, Local Government Ombudsman, Parliamentary Ombudsman, the - police staffed - 'Independent' Police Complaints Commission) - and other evidence

e.g. barrister who escalated his complaint to the Scottish Legal Services Ombudsman; 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, Mr 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 of the expense receipts that covers-up the evidence;

So much for his "strongly held moral principles of right and wrong". (Ditto when, in June 2009, he announced an inquiry into the Iraq war - with a "ban on apportioning blame").

He very clearly has a unique interpretation of "transparency" and of demonstrating that wrongdoings are "offensive to my Presbyterian upbringing". Many commentators say that "he is desperate to hang on to his job". It shows!

(NB: On 20 Sep 10 i.e. post Labour Government, the Daily Telegraph had an article, "Secret deals still being offered to MPs")

The Guardian, 22 May 2009, "Cameron rebukes Tory MP over 'McCarthyite witch hunt' comment", reports NADINE DORRIES, MP, as saying

"The way they [The Daily Telegraph] are deploying their tactics and the way they are treating MPs has reached a point now, at almost two weeks, where I think people are seriously beginning to crack...

...this has got to the point now which is almost unbearable for any human being to deal with... Everyone fears a suicide. If someone isn't in, offices are called and checked"

Ms / Mrs Dorries: In addition to being monitored as though I were a terrorist, and hence suffering ongoing invasion of my private life - the treatment I am being subjected to, comprising 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, horrendous anguish at seeing tens of thousands of Pounds of my very hard-earned life savings disappear as I repeatedly failed to get justice and redress wherever I turned to, etc...

...started 2,845 DAYS AGO...

..(at 15 June 2009), or more accurately, 7,195 DAYS AGO - as can be seen from the section on Martin Russell Jones, with 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.



It is a jail sentence which, at times, has led me to consider 'ending it all'. I suspect that, if prisoners of war were treated in this way, it would be regarded as a breach of the Geneva Conventions.

I am living, taking precautions as though I were a criminal: constantly on my guard, while the criminals are laughing their head off.

What have I done wrong to be subjected to this kind of treatment? NOTHING! 'Me', 'the Prole', 'dared' to stand-up against Establishment-controlled organized crime - set-up to make me (and my fellow leaseholders) pay monies I did not owe.

The objective? So that Andrew Ladsky could realise a multi-million Pound jackpot.

Evidently, it is a heinous crime in this country to stand-up against organized 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 ORGANIZED 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.

See e.g. my 3 June 2008 Witness Statement; my 19 January 2009 reply to the points of dispute; my 12 July 2009 complaint to the Parliamentary Ombudsman; my 2 January 2010 Subject Access Request to the Ministry of 'Justice' (Legal-Home # 9 ); my experience with Kensington police in 2002, 2003, 2007, 2009-10+, including October 2010.

‘They’ are persecuting me for ‘their’ wrongdoings, because 'they' don't like having a mirror held to 'their' face (as also evidenced by the experience of others), as it reflects 'their' failure to do their job, frequently amounting to FAILURE TO PERFORM THEIR LEGAL REMIT / 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!'

I know: it's the standard reply from fortress Westminster and fortress Whitehall - and that I am in good company (Whistleblowers)

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):

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

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

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

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 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. (I repeat my Comments under Persecution (1)(4)).

I have been crying out for help since 2001.

And, as everywhere else, when I contacted MPs for help, including my own MP - in 2002, and in 2009, I was told to in effect 'GET LOST!' (Second time round, I am not going to let my MP get away with it)

And hundreds of thousands of leaseholders are suffering similar treatment e.g. Comments # 12 , # 14 , # 15 , # 19 , # 29 , # 30 - including over MANY, MANY YEARS e.g. My Diary 22 Nov 08.

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 the current Government 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 (see other examples). And the root cause? GREED - making Oliver Cromwell's remark to Parliament "Gold is your God" - just as relevant today.

If you and the MPs who complain of the treatment "over the last two weeks" have the guts: why don't you come to the C.A.R.L. AGM next November and find out about people's experience at the hands of the corrupt to the core residential leasehold system and its supporting infrastructure of lawyers, courts, tribunals, surveyors, accountants, councils, ombudsmen, etc...

... - acts to which you and your peers have consistently been turning a blind eye and a deaf ear to for years - ...

...and ask them how it is affecting their health, their wellbeing, their relationships, their life savings - their life (e.g. My Diary 22 Nov 08 ; Comments

Alternatively, I am sure that many of us would be happy to come to the House of Commons to tell you about the absolute, sheer utter hell we are being subjected to day after day, week after week, month after month, year after year. C.A.R.L. would no doubt be happy to organise this meeting.

I dare you to do it!

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".

Having praised Gordon Brown on television, the following day, when she had been passed over, she resigned, sending him a scathing letter of resignation. 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 (explanation of forfeiture) - among many other broken promises made to leaseholders.

And, as we are seeing under this government of fear, smear and persecution - it happily sets about destroying anybody who 'dares' stand in its way.

Fortress Westminster

No wonder the 'noble' peers, 'honourable' and 'right honourable' MPs in fortress Westminster, (like their friends in fortress Whitehall) - turn a blind eye and a deaf ear to the appalling failings of 'self-regulation'...

... including the outrageous, barbaric abuses in the residential leasehold sector...

... and don't give a damn how innocent victims of crime like me are treated by their sycophantic cronies and the system.

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 examples: (1)- re. the England and Wales Law Society and Legal Services Ombudsman; (2)- the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales: "Bogus auditor let off")...

- 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.

KEITH VAZ (Wikipedia)

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 (*), from Jul 07 to Sep 16 (see below), who attempted to put pressure on a High Court judge to halt proceedings against Shahrokh Mireskandari, a ‘lawyer’ at Dean & Dean.

(The judge is reported to have reacted “furiously” to this request). (Thank God, yes: there are some decent judges).

(Around that time, the Daily Mail run a series of articles on Mireskandari; it reported "he is a convicted conman who has dubious legal qualifications, and described him as "a crook".

I know some of Mireskandari's victims, and sat with them in court for moral support. Facing Mireskandari, I definitely agreed with the description of "crook").

Vax Wikipedia profile (at 20/07/15) also reports some of his other unsavoury actions: "Filkin inquiry"; "Hinduja affair"; his "Suspension from the House of Commons", etc.

It also states that Patrick Mercer MP (above) described Vaz as "a crook of the first order..." (See, below, 'other media on Keith Vaz', including about the expenses he charged to the taxpayer).

(*) The task of the Committee is defined as: "examining the expenditure, administration, and policy of the Home Office and its associated public bodies".

I copied Vaz and each of the other 9 members of his committee on my 25.11.14 letter to Theresa May, then Home Secretary (HO # 3.1(4)), that reported matters that fell very much under the remit of his committee.

The only follow-up to my letter has been a continuation of the persecution.

In 2015, I wrote that it came as no surprise that he was reappointed as Chair, under the new May 2015 Tory government. Well...

(like Jack Straw (above) and Malcolm Rifkind) - and again thanks to the media (this time the Sunday Mirror)...

I am delighted he got his comeuppance:

"Keith Vaz resigns as chair of home affairs select committee", The Guardian, 6 Sep 16 - "Senior Labour MP steps down from influential committee following string of allegations about sex workers and drugs."

(More detail under My Diary 6 Sep 16)

Other media reports on Keith Vaz:

"Vaz, that's short for Vaseline, Boris", Sunday Times, 15 Feb 09

"The mayor of London, Boris Johnson, is in trouble for using lots of four-letter words in a telephone conversation with the Labour boss of the home affairs select committee, Keith Vaz.

I don't find that surprising. It is hard to imagine speaking to Vaz for more than 12 seconds without swearing profusely and smashing the phone into the wall."

"More worryingly is something else Boris said. He told Vaz: "I used to think that you were a straight guy". This cannot possibly be true.

There is surely nobody in Britain who would equate Keith Vaz with the description "straight guy", not even Keith Vaz."

This is the man who has been castigated in parliament for failing to declare financial links to the Hindujas, blocking investigations by the parliamentary ombudsman into his business dealings and political donations and lying about how many properties he owned.

He was suspended from the Commons for a month for breaches of MPs' code of conduct, including "a contempt of the House"."

The words "slippery as an eel in a bucket of chicken grease" seem to me more accurate than "straight", but there we are."

"£75,000 for a flat 12 miles from home", Daily Telegraph, 9 May 09

"Keith Vaz, chairman of the home affairs select committee, claimed more than £75,000 in expenses [between 2004 and 2007] for a flat in Westminster despite his family home being a £1.15m house just 12 miles from Parliament."

"His claims included monthly mortgage interest payments of between £1,500 and £1,750, £200 in monthly grocery bills and £50 per month for a cleaner."

"In May 2007, shortly after claiming for the flat's £2,073 service charge and £1,022 council tax bill, he began renting it out and designated the Leicester property as his second home.

In all, Mr Vaz made claims of about £16,000 relating to the house, including more than £480 on 22 cushions, most of them silk; £2,614 for a pair of leather armchairs and an accompanying foot stool;

£1,000 on a dining table and leather chairs; £750 on carpets; £150 on a lamp and lampshade. Commons guidelines said MPs should "avoid purchases which could be seen as extravagant or luxurious"."

[The visitors of the "washing machine salesman" must have been impressed].

"Throughout the year, Mr Vaz also regularly made monthly claims of exactly £200 for repairs, £200 for service or maintenance and £200 per month for a cleaner. At the time, MPs did not need to submit receipts for claims totaling less than £250."

"In May 2008, Mr Vaz ceased renting out the London flat, reverted to designating it as his second home and resumed claiming the interest on the mortgage. In the first two months of the last financial year, he claimed a further £6,567 on the flat."


See also, other media on Keith Vaz, captured on this site :

= All from # 2: meaningless comments, as NO REAL action to address the issues is taken by the committee he then chaired, the Home Affairs Select Committee. His aim was just to get his photograph with a quote in the media, that sounded 'ever-so-good' = job done!

The above examples are to be added to others revealed in 2008 e.g.

  • Tory MP SIR NICHOLAS WINTERTON and wife Lady Ann who claimed £165,000 in second home allowance for their London flat even though they had already bought it outright.
  • After the revelation from the Mail on Sunday, the MP's local newspaper in his Macclesfield constituency"reversed the result of a readers' online survey on Sir Nicholas conduct after it said it had found cheating on a massive scale " ("Who voted 50 times from a tiny village in Germany to back MP in expenses row ?", Mail on Sunday , 12 March 2008).
  • Having said, in May 2008, that he was "appalled" by the Wintertons' conduct, David Cameron, Tory Leader, took no action, letting the Wintertons continue to accumulate the financial benefits from being MPs - including pension. It is only now, i.e. one year later, that the Wintertons have announced that they are stepping down.
  • Tory MP, DEREK CONWAY, who was reported to have paid his son c. £50,000 (Evening Standard, 11 March 2008), falsely claiming that he had done research work for him.
  • A Tory MEP reported, in 2008, to have diverted c. £400,000 of taxpayers money into his company
  • Also exposed in 2008 is CAROLINE SPELMAN, (then) Tory Chairman, who charged the cost of her nanny to the taxpayers.

Derek Conway and Caroline Spelman apparently paid back some / all (?) of the money - and they are still MPs.

My take on this: message to all the men and women currently in prison for stealing: 'Give it back, and walk out of prison today!'

Actually, you don't even have to give it back to walk free.

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. Overview of my complaints ; 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 - examples.

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, bestial treatment against me): "I now hold the view that England can justifiably describe itself as a criminals paradise"

While this - evidently very long standing - feeding frenzy by politicians and, it appears, Whitehall, goes on at the taxpayers' expense...

...the Government is bombarding us, the 'plebs' / the 'Great Unwashed', with dictatorship-like advertising e.g. TV ad showing a car being crushed for failing to pay the road tax (NB: a few weeks after I wrote this, the ad was changed to a compacted block of metal transforming into a mobile phone, prompting to ensure payment of the road tax) ; telling us in radio ads "benefit fraud: you won't get away with it; we'll get you" (*)

Yep! Definitely: one law for us and no law for 'them' behind the gigantic trompe l'oeil hiding a massive network of symbiotic relationships - headed by a Prime Minister with a "strong moral compass". So: just more of the same as under his predecessor, Tony Blair e.g. My Diary 2 Aug 06

(*) 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, 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.

(On 20 Sep 10, the Daily Telegraph had an article, "Secret deals still being offered to 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 imprisonment 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) ( 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).

February 2009 - 'Now' there are calls for "people to speak out"

The revelation this month that Mr Moore, the HBOS whistleblower, was sacked for 'daring' to challenge HBOS's strategy has caused a public outcry - leading many to emphasise the importance of people reporting concerns / wrongdoings.

To this I say GET REAL!

Look at: (1)- the criminal psychological warfare I have and continue to be subjected to for 'daring' to stand-up against Establishment-controlled organized crime;

(2)- the experience of others for also 'daring' to stand-up / challenge: Mr Moore ; the call centre operator ; the M&S employee;

Neil Mitchell ; the woman placed on a blacklist by her council ; some of the signatories to the petition 'Stop the oppression of the British people' ; a visitor to my site. (See Whistleblowers page for other examples).

(See also, below, 15 Jun 09, for other examples of how the Government treats the 'little people', and Overview # 7 for Michael Durant's assessment of his experience).

'Dare' to challenge and expose the Establishment / its henchmen and flunkeys, and the 'knives are out'. Your card is marked - as there is absolutely nowhere for 'the little people' to turn to for help and protection...

and it seems to me that more is being put in place 'to shut them up' e.g. the Confidential Intelligence Unit.

If you, 'the Prole', prove to be too 'inconvenient', in this Orwellian, 'Stasi' island-Kingdom, you run the risk of being locked-up and drugged - e.g. My Diary 13 Apr 08 # 9 ; 25 Jan 11

(20) - The Labour Government even tried to muzzle senior judges (in relation to the treatment of Binyam Mohamed) - articles from

The Independent of 13 Feb 10 "Ministers and agencies in defence of the indefensible" ; "When in doubt, shout conspiracy",

as well as a coroner "Shocking censorship - Father of soldier whose death was blamed on lack of kit lambasts minister's bid to silence coroner" (The Daily Mail, 19 Mar 08)

Against the above, consider the Civil Service claims in e.g. its recruitment ad of 4 Oct 09, in The Sunday Times We value objectivity, honesty, integrity and impartiality

Against the above, note the reasons for Jacqui Smith's list of "undesirable" visitors to this country (below, 6 May 09) (see related: Home Office)

Having read this evidence (in addition to my experience) (Case summary), 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. (See MPs-Home)

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 - whistleblowers examples.

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 / subsequent note: as I am about to be killed.

(*) In his book, "Greed, Fraud & Corruption - A Guide to Organisational Ethics" (published by Management Books 2000 Ltd), Samuel A. Malone has a section on 'whistleblowing' (page 82), in which he gives examples of the experience of whistleblowers, as well as quotes the findings from a survey on whistleblowers, reported by the Irish Times of 27 Jul 04. He follows this with "Thus the consequences for the whistleblower are very serious..."

Sunday 8 March 2009 - The evil, greed-ridden, amoral barbarians are getting desperate to force me out of the flat: electricity (yet again) cut-off in my flat

After the 'message' on 2 Jan 09, the hosing of my windows at 03h45 on 9 Jan 09, today, at 04h00 the electricity was cut-off in my flat.

I had been asleep for about two hours, but woke-up suddenly. The electricity had just been cut-off. I heard a car depart c. 3-4 minutes later.

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. (I forced the locked wooden panels to be able to see my meter).

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:

(Subsequent note: no heating in - only my flat - since c. end January 2009)

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!'.

(Subsequent note - For more evidence of ongoing persecution: see follow-up events to my contacting (1) 'my' then MP, Sir Malcolm Rifkind, and rest of the section, and ; (2) the Parliamentary Ombudsman ; (3) the outcome of my Subject Access Request to: (i) the Ministry of 'Justice' ; (ii) the police ; (4) events with my mobile phone, post, etc )

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)...



...but, for the purpose of feeding the greed of 'certain' individuals'...

...'lynching' law-abiding, decent people of this country, using terrorist-like tactics against them, terrorising them, causing them years of ongoing mental torture, physically threatening them - including death threat, defaming their name and their character, totally destroying their life and their prospects, making them lose everything they've worked for...

... IS - as very amply evidenced on this website - very clearly regarded by certain individuals in the State as "acceptable" and "part of their standards and values"

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. (* - end of entry)

Consider that in the context of the highly coordinated, extremely vicious, cruel, criminal tactics and sadistic treatment I have been subjected to - in THIS country by, among others, the State - as the INNOCENT VICTIM OF ORGANIZED 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 British media - and rightly so.

Why is it that no sanctions are taken against those who have - and continue - to inflict this sadistic, 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):

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

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

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

As very amply demonstrated on my website: "make sure action is taken" = make sure the criminals are protected

(Subsequent note: conclusion further endorsed by the reports I received from Kensington & Chelsea police (K&C # 1 , # 2 , # 3) and subsequent events to my Subject Access Request (K&C police # 5 ; Home Office)

= 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 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. (I repeat my Comments under Persecution (1)(4)).

(Subsequent note: (1) see the outcome of my Subject Access Request to: (i) the Ministry of 'Justice' (Legal-Home # 9) ; (ii) the police (Kensington & Chelsea police # 5) ; (2) Note my experience with 'my' then MP, Sir Malcolm Rifkind ; and (3) with the Parliamentary Ombudsman ; (4) events with my mobile phone, post, etc)

In its 31 July 2009 article, "Brown tries to win back voters with 'fair play' pledges", the Daily Mail reports "Gordon Brown hopes to win back the vote of Middle Britain by appealing to their sense of fair play and core values...

Business Secretary Lord Mandelson said last night: "The core values of Middle Britain are rooted in what this country is best known for around the world: our dogged sense of fair play".

Yes, many of the 'little people' in this country have a sense of 'fair play' (and many other qualities, not least kindness and compassion) - but, as evidenced by my experience and that of others (e.g. Case summary ; Whistleblowers ; Overview of my complaints ; 7 Jun 08 ; Comments),...

the country is controlled by a Government that does not even understand the meaning of these words. As Mr Littlejohn rightly concluded in his 10 July 2009 Daily Mail column "Labour has created a self-serving tyranny of lying and concealment, where duplicity is rewarded...".

As I am reminded by his article and other cases, I am one of many treated in a similar way. It is a society in a very sorry state that treats innocent, decent people in this manner - while helping and protecting the miscreants.

Another example of New Labour's "acceptable standard and values" - and its style: "Police charge 'suicide' man who delayed the trains for four hours", (The Mail on Sunday, 23 Aug 09) Having been persuaded to not jump from the bridge, the man was subsequently locked-up in a police cell and taken to court to face prosecution for causing financial loss.

(NB: = a major offence against the 'God of Money'!). How shocking and ugly is this? All those involved in the police, Jack Straw's Crown Prosecution Service and courts - should hang their head in shame. But then, this Government will lead somebody to commit suicide for the sake of £3,000 (My Diary Feb 09+)

See also other examples of the State and the Government's interpretation of "this country's standards and values" (My Diary 15 Jun 09 ; Labour Peers for sale ; Labour MPs for cash ; MPs-Home)

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 (2009-10 Alan Johnson) .

And it will continue to be the same thing: on 6 June, Jacqui Smith was replaced by Alan Johnson who eld the post of Health Minister. (See Home Office)

We have "ministers who have lost their grip" (MPs-Home) = placemen and placewomen for the Cabinet , as well as MPs. Question is: who are the overall - unelected - 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 (see MPs-Home)

(*) Adding more evidence to Mr Littlejohn's conclusion that "Labour has created a self-serving tyranny of lying and concealment..." (Whistleblowers): in its 19 July 09 article, "Johnson ditches Jacqui Smith's least-wanted list as a 'blunder'".

It states that: "The initiative was seen at the time as an attempt by Ms Smith to save her job after the expenses controversy... individuals had been placed on the list... simply on the off-chance they may decide to visit. Two on the list... were serving ten years in a Russian jail..."

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 Ombudsman

In 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.

(Also reported in e.g.The Times:"Failure to gag Private Eye clears the way to publication of rulings against lawyers", 21 May 09 ;

"No confidentiality in Law Society complaint", 2 Jun 09 ; The Guardian, "Law Society 'lost control' of investigation into top solicitor", 24 May 09)

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 (Doc library # 2.2); 'Consumer Complaint Service' (e.g. my 20 December 2004 complaint against Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor (CKFT) (Doc library # 2.5).

In light of my experience (snapshots ; Case summary) 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.



The following are some of the comments made by the three lords justices, Toulson, Hughes and Sullivan in the Appeal Court judgment - reported by Private Eye (see above):

"It is singularly unattractive to argue that confidentiality should be recognised by the law in order to protect the interests of a solicitor against whom an adverse finding has been made"

"A citizen should have the right to shout from the rooftop if he wanted, that a complaint about a solicitor had been rejected because the Law Society were a complete shower investigating one of their own"

HOORAY for decent judges! (I sure wish I'd come across one of those as I was dragged through the courts by the Ladsky mafia - in 2002-04 and in 2007-08 - and when I tried to get my costs back on 30 January 2009)

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. YEAHHHHHH! Great!...added to the fact that, I think, the 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 Police

Considering events with Kensington & Chelsea police, including the fact that

  • (1) it "fully recorded a complaint" against me in 2003;
  • (2) that "consequences" had derived from this complaint;
  • (3) in 2007, having first implied that I had 'committed a crime', it recorded a complaint against me as "a racist incident"

- 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. See Kensington police # 5 for the 'replies'

15 June 2009 - After more than a three-month battle with 'my' then MP, Sir Malcolm Rifkind, I, "the powerless", have "taken the power from the powerful" by referring my complaint against the Court Service and the London Leasehold Valuation Tribunal to the Parliamentary Ombudsman

See the sections: Sir Malcolm Rifkind ; Parliamentary and Health Services Ombudsman


In the postscript to my 24 March 2009 letter to Sir Rifkind, I report that on 12 March 2009 - which was 48 hours after my 7 March 2009 letter was delivered to his Constituency Office - to make sure I heard him, Andrew Ladsky stood outside my windows expressing disbelief to somebody at the fact that I had contacted Sir Rifkind.

I wrote that I assumed the source to be one of the parties covered in my letter (communication between constituents and their MPs are confidential) - Sir Rifkind was likely to have approached, and that it certainly provides additional weight to my conclusion of collusion with Ladsky.

I assume that Ladsky's intention was to further reinforce the message that he is so well connected, and hence protected e.g. comment from DC Adams, Kensington & Chelsea police 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! (Subsequent note: there definitely is no shortage of help: in addition to Sir Rifkind, the PHSO, see also Kensington police - including point # 5 + Home page-Overview + the 'replies' from the Ministry of 'Justice' - Legal Home # 9)

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"? As can be seen from the next entry : there has been a change of plan.

Saturday 6 June 2009 - Yet again, Andrew Ladsky has sent one of his scum to the French Institute to monitor me

I was seating at the back of the upper floor of the library, near the WWII books which include books on the Holocaust. There was relatively little space between me and the shelves.

Around 16h00 the man in the photograph came in and started to look at the books. My 'internal radar' led me to immediately feel that 'his visit' was connected with my being there. He stayed for about 20 minutes, at times immediately behind me, or standing very close to me. He left with 3-4 books.

I left the library at 17h49, hence 1.5 hrs later. On coming down into the foyer, I spotted him sitting on a chair in a corner (not obvious behind the pillar) 'looking' at one of the Institute's brochures (i.e. the photograph).

I took a newspaper and positioned myself next to him. After c. 2 minutes I took the photograph. Within the following minute, he took out a mobile phone, and did something on it I could not see as he turned himself further away from me. He left in the following 1-2 minutes.

Other, subsequent examples, in My Diary, of my being dogged and hounded by (among others) Ladsky's scum (all of these I also assessed as being of Jewish origin): (1) on my way to the French Institute e.g.: 24 Mar 10 ; 27 Jul 10 (mediterranean type; not sure if Jewish);

(2) also in the French Institute e.g. on 29 Jul 10; (3) on leaving the Institute: 23 Mar 10; 13 May 10 ; 20 Jul 10


15 June 2009 - Apparently, I should "enjoy [my] life" because "[I] don't have long to live"

(the previous threat was on 2 Jan 09, followed by more harassment on 9 Jan 09 - added to what took place in 2008 - and previously) (NB: Another implied death threat was on 14 Jun 14)

This 'prediction' was made to me today at c. 12h30 by a 60 something cyclist in Hyde Park. (NB: I saw the Masons' scum again, in 2011, alongside Harrods. He looked at me in an arrogant, spiteful way - probably thinking that he had the Masonic mafia behind him).

As per usual, the minute I step out of Jefferson House, I have scum on my tail. (See My Diary - From Apr-May 05 for spy cameras at Jefferson House ; My Diary 22 July 05 for features of the entrance system). (For other examples, see My Diary 2010 - including snapshot under 23 May 10).

They are circling around me like vultures, spying on me as though I were a terrorist. On whose payroll are they? I don't know (*) (although some are definitely from Ladsky's inner circle).

What is a certainty is that there are thousands of snoops operating across the country at any point in time - employed by a mix of police, councils, other government departments, as well as by law firms, and organisations, including the media.

Media reports in July 2009 indicate that the job of spying on people is helped by, among others, bribing police officers to look-up information (e.g. registered address of cars; CCTV footage).

(In the 13 Feb 10 article, in The Independent, "Root out corrupt officers, police told", Nick Hardwick, chairman of the 'Independent' Police Complaints Commission, said to be aware "of officers using the police computer system to pass information to criminal associates" and quotes an example). (But...see Kensington police # 5 for my experience with the (partly police-staffed) 'Independent' Police Complaints Commission)

(*) I highlight the fact that (1) I reported the death threat to, among others, Sir Paul Stephenson, Metropolitan Police Commissioner, and the Minister heading the police, Alan Johnson, Home Secretary, in my 28 November 2009 letter to them;

(2) I again noted it in my 2 February 2010 letter to both of them (and other parties) ; (3) my letters were copied to Kensington police, the police Directorate of Professional Standards, and in turn, to the 'Independent' Police Complaints Commission (Kensington police # 5)

OUTCOME? NOBODY in the police has approached me about this.

With so much collusion going on in the gigantic network of symbiotic relationships, operating in a free for all environment, it certainly makes it easy to understand how somebody can be under constant surveillance - for a very long time: when the snoops are not tailing one person, they can be tailing another one.

(Meanwhile, they let a known criminal on the loose - leading to the torture and stabbing to death of two of my compatriots: "Jack Straw accused of buck passing over murder of French students", The Times, 10 Jun 09. It sure gives some perspective on their priority).

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.

He was in his 60s, of English descent. 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". (Indicating that he knew something about me).

Oh dear, oh dear! looks like the organized crime mob is getting upset and impatient that I am not showing signs of breaking down / giving up - and continuing with my fight (two weeks previously I sent this Subject Access Request to the police.

I am also battling with 'my' then MP, Sir Malcolm Rifkind, to send my complaint to the Parliamentary Ombudsman) - and this in spite of, among others, previous threats e.g. 2 Jan 09 ; others - and therefore planning to bump me off.

(Subsequent note - For further indication of this: see also my 2 February 2010 letter to Sir Paul Stephenson, Met Commissioner,, headed "When am I due to be killed?")

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.

(Subsequent note at Feb 10: see e.g. Home Page-Overview for evidence that I was, yet again, correct in my assessment)

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 the evil, sociopathic monster, 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 (US$882,000) 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 organized 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 ORGANIZED 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, vicious, cruel, sadistic, barbaric treatment since 2002 - have destroyed.

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 organized crime mafia frighten me with its death threats. Ladsky, their mob, and their supporters decided to continue the fight, NOT I.

'They' decided that anybody who 'dares' stand-up to them must be taught a lesson (as this Government is doing with others) - shown as an example to scare others from even thinking of dissenting against 'the system'...

- in the process, demonstrating that this treatment is quite clearly regarded by the State as "acceptable" and "part of [their] standards and values".

Okay! 'They' can kill me, but until then 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. As the long-standing campaigner, Barry Gardiner, MP, (Labour), said during the 26 June 2009 House of Commons debate on service charges in the residential leasehold sector "To have a right but no means of enforcing that right is to have no right at all" (See Overview # 20 for further extracts; C.A.R.L.'s Leaseholder, Summer 2009 - Issue 27, for further detail)

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 - all in the name of feeding the greed of crooks. 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 (London LVT ; WLCC 02-04 ; 07-08 ; SCCO 30 Jan 09); (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, likewise, 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 by the legislators I have the right to demand - in the process ending-up challenging the courts, a tribunal, the police, the professions, the so-called 'regulators', etc.(Overview my cries for help/complaints)...

- for not performing as per their legal mandate, stated remit, 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 this dispute to an end". IN VAIN!

Food for thought:

(1 of 9 ) - Stafford hospital

Do you think that...

... the family of up to 1,200 patients who died as a result of "neglect", in the Stafford hospital, between Jan 05 and Mar 09 - Daily Mail, 6 Feb 13:

"patients were left lying in their own urine and excrement for days, forced to drink water from vases, given the wrong medication",

ever imagined that their loved ones would be treated in that way and, that they, themselves

"[would] be ignored or even reproached when pointing out the most basic things which could have saved their loved ones from horrific pain or even death".

"They were dismissed as "lobbyists"" (*), "David Nicholson is not the right person to guide the future of the NHS", Guardian, 6 Mar 13.

(*) Aren't the "lobbyists", those who offer the Lords and MPs payment of a substantial "retainer fee" for changing legislation, etc?

(Other examples of relatives being ignored: Winterbourne View; Morecambe Bay NHS Trust)

Further, as reported in 2010, that they would see management, not only walk away scot-free, but also with a substantial pay-off? Telegraph:

And it continued - as reported in the 6 Feb 13 issue of:

In its 6 Feb 13 article, the Telegraph reported: "David Cameron: doctors should have been struck off after Stafford hospital scandal" and,

How about those above them? Probably Masons = protected.

Indeed, also in a 21 Feb 13 Telegraph article: "Mid Staffs scandal: NHS chief must not be scapegoat, says PM", David Cameron was reported as saying that:

Sir David Nicholson, chief executive of the NHS since 2009, and of the strategic health authority that sheltered Mid Staffs beforehand "has properly acknowledged and apologised for the mistakes the regional health authority made when he ran it for that short period of time"

- which, evidently 'makes it okay'.

Would the then Prime Minister David Cameron have held the same view if members of his family were included in the 1,200 dead?

Note that Nicholson claimed to have no knowledge of what took place, and did not perceive himself as having any responsibility;

"His only admission of personal responsibility appeared to be regret that he had not met with the families of the bereaved", "David Nicholson is not the right person to guide the future of the NHS", Guardian, 6 Mar 13.

Ditto about the gagging of "at least 170 hospital doctors", and of "almost 600 staff by NHS hospital trusts" - David Nicholson claimed to have knowledge of "only one gagging order".

Of course, there was the old favourite 'Newspeak' comment from Cameron: "the Government will learn the lessons".

Evidently, it has come as a surprise to 'the tribe' - running a hospital - that 'the little people' need water and food to survive.

Officially, why is nobody held to account for, what I view, as the mass-murder of 1,200 people at the Stafford hospital (above)? In the Telegraph, 14 Feb 13 article,

"Mid Staffs: police chief challenged over failure to investigate": "The force has said that it has not acted because it believes that current laws would not allow successful prosecutions." (!!!)

This is outrageous. It is an absolute certainty that if 'little people' were responsible for the death of 1,200 members of 'the tribe', 'the tribe' would have no difficulty finding "laws to allow successful prosecution"...

...- on which the whole of its machinery would concentrate with great haste - using the 2011 riots template (e.g. the case of the poor man "James Best, who was imprisoned for stealing a gingerbread man from a bakery that had been looted", etc. (Media pg) - absolutely outrageous!).

As is glaringly obvious from the conduct of the Establishment: it perceives itself to be above the law of the land - and its 'brothers' in the police, immediately endorse its 'conclusion' that 'none of the law applies to it'. Job done boys!

Another example: Peers for sale scandal, in 2009 (above)

(2 of 9) - Mr Ian Tomlinson

Do you think that...

...the family of Mr Ian Tomlinson (links to media report), an innocent bystander trying to get back home after work, who was killed by the police during the G20 demonstration ever imagined that this would happen to him...

.. - and that in response to their asking for an inquiry, in addition to cover-up, they would be told

“it would be “inappropriate” for the Metropolitan Police Authority… to take up their concerns.

There is nothing any of us can say to reverse the situation of what happened last April”?

The monster politician who said that? Lady Victoria Borwick, now Conservative MP for Kensington.

(3 of 9) - Mr Jean Charles de Menezes

Do you think that... members of Mr Jean Charles de Menezes, who live in Brazil, ever imagined that their loved one would be fatally shot by the British police;

that they would end-up in a British court, challenging the court, as well as the police...

...- and end-up, after a four-year battle for justice, "thoroughly disgusted and alarmed" (as reported in the media) and walking out of the court in protest?

(4 of 9) - Canadian Lady re. Mr Jean Charles de Menezes

Do you think that...

...the Canadian Lady ever imagined being treated as she was by the police...

...including being locked-up in a British police cell - for "doing the right thing" in relation to Mr Jean Charles de Menezes?

Extacts under Whistleblowers.

(5 of 9) - Ms Yvonne Fletcher

Do you think that...

...the family of the police officer, Yvonne Fletcher, who was killed in the 80s by gun shots from the Libyan Embassy in London, ever imagined that this would happen - and that the Government would strike a deal with Libya?

In its 13 Sep 09 article, "Secret deal over killer of WPC Yvonne Fletcher", The Sunday Times reported

"The Libyan killer of a British policewoman 25 years ago will never be brought to justice in Britain after a secret deal approved by Jack Straw...when he was foreign secretary.

At the time Britain was negotiating trade deals worth hundreds of millions of pounds with Libya...The Foreign Office said... the Fletcher family know all this and have not considered it a big issue".

The article reports that the Fletcher family denied being told.

There was a follow-up article in The Mail on Sunday of 8 Nov 09 "Gaddafi offered hand over WPC's killers 17 years ago"

However, the case resurfaced in the media in 2015- 16 e.g.

[ ]

(6 of 9) - Laurent Bonomo and Gabriel Ferez

Do you think that...

...the families of the French students, Laurent Bonomo and Gabriel Ferez, who were tortured and stabbed to death: "Jack Straw accused of buck passing over murder of French students", The Times, 10 Jun 09.

(The article highlights failures by the probation service, the courts and the police) - ever imagined that this would happen?

(Jack Straw apologised to the families e.g. "Reports into the management of Dano Sonnex within the criminal justice system, Ministry of ‘Justice’, 4 Jun 09")

(7 of 9) - Mr Mark Saunders

Do you think that...

...the family of the barrister, Mr Mark Saunders (links to articles), who was fatally shot by police marksmen ever imagined that this would happen,...

...and that they would end-up in court challenging the 'Independent' Police Complaints Commission and the Crown Prosecution Service over their decision to not charge any of the armed officers? (Mail on Sunday, 31 May 09, "Police who killed siege lawyer are unlikely to be charged")

(8 of 9) - Brave woman who reported judge for alleged child abuse

Do you think that...

...the (very brave and very determined) woman who reported to the police, her ex-husband, a judge, for allegedly abusing a child, expected having to battle with the so-called 'Independent ' Police Complaints Commission...

...- to the extent of needing to go to the High Court to get an order to force the IPCC to investigate?

(9 of 9 ) - Man who changed his mind about committing suicide

Do you think that...

...the man who changed his mind about committing suicide, ever imagined that he would be arrested by the police and end-up in court?

Clearly, the answer to all of the above examples 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.

(Aside from being at the mercy of the State in many other areas of life). If you ever have the misfortune of finding 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, used, abused and trampled on by morally depraved, parasitic elements of the so-called 'ruling elite' who consider themselves and their cronies to be above the law of the land; they've had enough of, like so many have said recently in the media: being treated "like serfs" (example of a later article).


From Mid July 2009 - No online updating of website

From mid July 2009 until end March 2010 i.e. for eight months - I purposely did NOT update my website to give ALL the opportunity to show common sense and intelligence by resolving my situation – leading me to close the website, and leave the country - never to return - as I have been wanting to do since 2003 (e.g. Home page-Overview).

I had already done this for seven months, from May to December 2007 (by May 07, my site had only been online for 4.5 months; hence, relatively few people not connected with my case had seen it) but, 'they' did not take the opportunity. (Instead 'they' redoubled in their sadistic, barbaric persecution e.g. West London County Court [ADD]).

This time, I extended an offer to 'my' then MP, Sir Malcolm Rifkind, in my 7 November 2009 letter, in which I wrote

"As my MP, will you be ‘The One’ who – finally - demonstrates intelligence and common sense and say ‘Enough is Enough!’ and help me achieve my objectives – thereby seizing on the opportunity you still have to take the credit for resolving my situation? (Significant correspondence from you, and from me to you since July, has yet to be placed on my website). (I would like to leave the country permanently – alive and well – having achieved my objectives - by the end of this year)"

The 10 November 2009 'reply' was

"I acknowledge receipt of your letter of 7th November addressed to Sir Malcolm.

Yours sincerely"

It is abundantly clear from this, and the below events, that 'THEY' WANT TO CONTINUE THE WAR. 'THEIR' DECISION. THAT'S WHAT 'THEY' WANT: I WILL CONTINUE TO FIGHT...

... until 'they' kill me. (Home page-Overview)...

... - in the process continuing to accumulate the EXTREMELY SHOCKING AND TRULY SICKENING evidence of what can happen, in this country, part of Western Europe, in the 21st century, to an honest, decent, law-abiding leaseholder who 'dares' to stand-up to a criminal landlord, his equally criminal aides, and the corrupted system that protects them.

For battles from mid-July 2009 (ALL of which are continuing at March 2010) - see:

  • (1) Sir Malcolm Rifkind re. my filing a complaint with the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman against the London LVT, Court Service, and HMCS 'Customer Service'

For other events - see Home page-Overview.

Back to top