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 - 2011

 

Introduction to year 10 of my life-destroying, horrific experience in the English residential leasehold sector 'concentration camp'

1. What would Judge Abbott say?

In 1820, in the court case of R v Borron (1820) 3 B & Ald 432, 106 ER 721, involving a magistrate being indicted for the offence of misconduct in public office, judge Abbott CJ stated (at 434) (106 ER 721 at 721-722):

“They [magistrates] are indeed, like every other subject of this kingdom, answerable to the law for the faithful and upright discharge of their trust and duties.

But, whenever they have challenged upon this head, either by way of indictment, or application to this Court for a criminal information, the question has always been, not whether the act done might, upon full and mature investigation, be found strictly right, but from what motive it had proceeded; whether from a dishonest, oppressive or corrupt motive, under which description, fear and favour may generally be included, or from mistake or error. In the former case, alone, they have become the objects of punishment.

To punish as a criminal any person who, in the gratuitous exercise of a public trust, may have fallen into error or mistake belongs only to the despotic ruler of an enslaved people, and is wholly abhorrent from the jurisprudence of this kingdom

Nearly 200 years on, I wonder what judge Abbott would say about "this kingdom", in the 21st century, when looking at my case (not to mention that of other victims e.g. Victims Unite; petition to Stop the Oppression of the British People; Comments):

  • What his assessment of those who have / continue to do this to me would be. I venture that it would include: "...dishonest, oppressive or corrupt motive, under which description, fear and favour may generally be included..."...

...and would ask why "they have [not] become the objects of punishment". The answer to that is: a gigantic network of symbiotic relationships who collude through implicit / explicit 'MEMORANDUMS OF UNDERSTANDING' e.g. Law Society and ACPO (police) (copy)

2. The State’s credentials in relation to ‘the little people’ in the residential leasehold sector 'concentration camps', and other 'little people'

What the State can say in relation to the residential leasehold sector: as you can see from our impeccable credentials on e.g. the home page of this website, owned by what we call the "Nazi" Bitch (the basis of the case is that our protégé Andrew Ladsky wanted a multi-million £ jackpot),...

...as well as the site’s Comments page - in the private and public residential leasehold sector, in order to rip off the c.7m leaseholders, we - under the control of our 'ever so revered', 'sacrosanct' freeholder-landlord friends - have fine-tuned the art of oppression and abuse to a level which, I think you will agree, cannot be faulted.

We (legislators, housing minister (e.g. Keith Hill, John Prescott (and Local Government), Caroline Flint, Shahid Malik, John Denham, Grant Shapps - and MANY others),...

courts, tribunals, councils, police, ombudsmen (Local Government, Legal Services, Parliamentary, etc) are doing this through our very active assistance in the setting-up, maintenance and protection of the 7 million-strongconcentration camps...

...– by subjecting the leaseholders ('the Proles' / "the Great Unwashed" / "the Oiks") to years of unrelenting mental torture if they ‘dare’ stand-up to us, our freeholder-landlord friends and their aides

– until our combined 'mincing machine' gets them to shut-up and go and lick their wounds somewhere out of sight / destroys them / puts them 'out of action' (other examples # 13, # 17, # 16 , # 24, # 31).

The 'mincing machine' is set in motion by the landlords' aides sending the leaseholders what the leaseholders describe as 'exorbitant service charge demands' (e.g. to the Bitch: previously in 2002, 2004+ , and currently; media articles). (Our landlord friends and masters - as well as some councils that do the same thing - don't see it that way; only as money THEY decided they are entitled to receive).

In an attempt to scare the hell out of the leaseholders and 'induce them' to pay, the landlords' aides will often threaten forfeiture of their apartment (as they have done, so far, twice with the "Nazi" Bitch) - even bankruptcy (also with her, as well as with her fellow leaseholders).

The leaseholders' repeated requests for supporting evidence are frequently ignored (e.g. # 1 ; # 2 / # 3 ; # 4 ; # 5). It can include denying them access to the (often bogus) accounts for their block, forcing them to go into a long, drawn out battle - and still not get the full accounts (e.g. council, ombudsman) - as, of course, we are not going to act against our 'sacrosanct' freeholder-landlord friends (and, in any case, some of our councils do the same thing e.g. comments # 31 ; # 34).

On looking at section 152 of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002, 'Statements of accounts', those who don't know how to read legislation get the impression that landlords have an obligation to supply them with a statement of accounts. They don't! Why? Because 9 years on: we have not brought this section into force.

(Subsequent note: This is STILL the case at Jun 14 i.e. 12 years later - by using deliberate delaying tactics - see CLRA 2002, including other tricks). It will NOT happen because (as in e.g. the case of taxation) the interested parties: the 'sacrosanct' freeholders-landlords dictate the legislation - to ensure the continuation of their carte blanche to rip-off leaseholders; same thing with the barbaric forfeiture legislation).

Come on! We must ensure that there are no barriers to ripping-off the leaseholders! When we are challenged on this, we say (laughing our head off) “[the Government]…is keen to avoid imposing further burdens on landlords and managers such as provisions for regular statements of account which would, in turn, increase costs for service charge payers”.

(NB: 'Of course', leaseholders 'prefer' saving 50 pence (US75 cents)... in order to be ripped-off by 000s of £s. These clowns REALLY take people for utter imbeciles).

The objective in doing that is to not only inflict mental torture, but also, if the leaseholders have not been scared off and refuse to pay, to force them into the 'hyena enclosure' of 'professional' advisers who specialise in property, and are a tightly knit community i.e. 'with mutual understanding'

(Of course, there are exceptions, but it's a guessing game for the leaseholders). At this stage, the 'inducement' to pay comes in the form of the 'make the commercial decision pill'. Success on this = a win-win for the landlord and both sets of advisors.

If that fails, then it's the 'gas chamber' (courts, Leasehold Valuation Tribunal, Lands Tribunal, Court of Appeal, Supreme Court). We all act in concert by pushing the Great Unwashed into the 'gas chamber' e.g. the RICS telling the "Nazi" Bitch "to go to the LVT".

(While there are, what the Bitch and other of the Great Unwashed would describe as "highly professional, impartial" individuals among the above parties, given the chance i.e. 'the right incentive', quite a few of them will collude with the landlords against the leaseholders.

They know they can do this - without fear of sanction - as we, in collaboration with them, have ensured that no part of 'the ring' is actually regulated e.g. outcome of the Bitch's complaint to:

(1)- the Law Society against: (i)- Portner and Jaskel; (ii)- Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor (CKFT);

(2)- to the RICS against Martin Russell Jones (MRJ);

(3)- outcome of her numerous other complaints).

Depending on 'the goodwill' of the landlords, the leaseholders 'might' be provided with 100+ pages of the information they have been demanding for months, barely 36 hours before they are dragged into the 'gas chamber' (example ; other examples), or not at all (example).

Examples of other practices aimed at breaking the Oiks' physical and mental resistance with the aim of making them give up and give in, include:

  • (1) One part of the judicial system telling them to NOT pay a 'service charge' demand until it has reached a decision, while another part concurrently ignores their protests that the claim is therefore an abuse of process (WLCC # 2 ), and forges ahead with it...
  • - hence, yes: telling them that they must pay (WLCC # 5 , # 6) - monies they DO NOT LEGALLY OWE (WLCC # 6 , # 7 , # 8 , # 9 , # 12).
  • (10) Ensuring they cannot get support from some of their fellow leaseholders during the proceedings (LVT # 1).
  • (11) FALSELY telling them - and persisting in doing so - that

If they were under the hallucinogenic concept that they could represent themselves, the benefit of the above is that they usually give in and fulfill our objective of their employing 'advisors' (WLCC # 11 ; LVT # 2.3). Then: it's party time!

In the legislation, we wrote that the leaseholders have "the right to ask a leasehold valuation tribunal to determine whether you are liable to pay service charges".

However, to dissuade them from challenging our landlord friends, we have set the maximum amount of costs they can recoup to £500 (Sch 12, para.9(3)(a) of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002) (some call that 'an insulting amount'). We have done the same thing in relation to the next level up: the Lands Tribunal.

(Subsequent note: Modified by s.29 - Costs or expenses, of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 - under which "The costs of and incidental to- all proceedings in the First-tier and Upper Tribunal - are at the discretion of the Tribunal in which the proceedings take place."

This is good news IF the tribunal is driven by the concept of justice: paying due regard to the evidence and the rule of law i.e. NOT as per my experience in 2002-03 - Summaries: Events ; Breaches of the law ; Overall outcome on me)

We have done this knowing that, to have a fighting chance of facing the landlords' usual army of surveyors, barristers, and even QCs, the leaseholders will need to employ a similar set of expensive advisers. Of course, we don't tell them that, so that our landlord friends and their aides can crush them at the first hearing.

Indeed, in our promotional material we emphasise that they have "no need for professional representation", as "the tribunal is less formal than the courts". (In typical public sector style, we nonetheless recommend they get 'professional advice').

Those who have caught on to the con / realised it once they were caught in the process (e.g. the Bitch) end-up paying huge costs (relative to their wealth) e.g. the "Nazi" Bitch spent £30,000 in 2003 (for a £14,400 demand - that was fraudulent! How we all laughed at that!). ('Our Most Revered Lord and Master Andrew Ladsky', his aides and supporters were seriously 'cheesed off' when she turned-up unexpectedly with an army of advisers).

We have told our landlord friends to include a 'notice' of the above 'friendly reminder' of the leaseholders' 'rights', and limitation on costs with any 'service charge demand' e.g. this 16.02.11 'demand'. (This notice, we devised with our landlord friends, includes the trick of stating liability for "improvements" - even though, in their lease, many leaseholders are only liable for 'repairs and maintenance').

We also state in our promotional material that "each party pays their own costs".

That's another claim that has us rolling on the floor with laughter - as the parties who pay for ALL the costs are the leaseholders as, one way or another, our landlord friends recoup ALL their tribunal-related costs through the 'service charges'. Hence: that's a double whammy for the leaseholders.

(See e.g. "LKP overturned forfeiture on £800,000 flat", Leasehold Knowledge Partnership, 8 May 13 - which, (in addition to demonstrating the sheer horrors of leasehold) - states: "Legal costs are NOT caped at £500 at LVT. The Ministry of Justice and LEASE, the Leasehold Advisory Service, must stop repeating this misleading information.") (See NOTE, above, for evidence)

(See also Comment # 39).

Yes, the leaseholders can attempt to prevent the landlords from charging their costs to them - if the outcome of the hearing/s was in their favour, and IF the tribunal decided to record it as such e.g. they did not for the Bitch (business model #20).

In her case, they went as far as making up a cost increase they blamed on her - and placed this on a public database - so that she could be blamed by her fellow leaseholders. Anyway, by then, many of her fellow leaseholders had already been bullied by the court into paying the full amount demanded. But, whatever we can do against the "Nazi" Bitch - we will do.

You could argue that, when the landlord has been found at fault, the tribunal should automatically make an order at the end of the hearings to prevent his costs being charged to the leaseholders - and have the power to enforce it. ("The Oiks" would say: in addition to ordering the landlord to pay ALL of their costs).

But that would not be fun. The leaseholders must be made to pay for the 'privilege' of 'perhaps' stopping the landlord from charging his costs to them - by filing an application = more hearing/s = more costs (which, as you will recall, they cannot recoup) (NB: At the time). (e.g. the experience of the "Nazi" Bitch: LVT # 5).

Is that the end of it? Of course not! If, as the leaseholders would say: 'the tribunal had a decent, impartial, professional panel' - and the landlord decides to ignore the tribunal's decision - the leaseholders must issue court proceedings or, more often than not, the landlord will appeal to the next level up: the Lands Tribunal (where he might have 'friends' - including higher up).

('Conveniently' the tribunal has no enforcement power. Of course, we don't say that either in our promotional material, or if we do, it's hidden somewhere.

The aim is to entice 'the Proles' / "the Oiks" into the 'gas chamber' and give them 'a dose' that will disable them and take away their hallucinogenic concept that they are not there to be used, abused and tormented at will).

= Yep! More costs to the leaseholders! = By then, they will probably have spent multiples of the original demand... v. the £500 they 'might' get (NB: see NOTE, above, for changes) IF our friends are 'favourably disposed'. Ha! Ha! Ha! (Other people's experience / assessment of the LVTs: (1) http://www.leasehold-valuation-tribunals.org.uk/ ; My Diary 22 Nov 08 ; Comment # 39).

(If an abuse of process is taking place by the landlord concurrently pursuing court proceedings (to which the court 'conveniently' turns a blind eye), and he opts to ignore the tribunal's findings, the 'inducement' tactics can include a salvo of threatening letters to the recalcitrant leaseholders).

Of course, if, in the course of proceedings, we find that some parts of the legislation does not meet 'the needs' of our 'sacrosanct' freeholder-landlord friends - our judges will change it / put their own 'interpretation' on it.

For example, for Daejan Properties:

In 2001/02, the Court of Appeal determined that "LVTs only have jurisdiction over service charges that are still unpaid" (LVT # 1.5).

Proving that it was devised to meet a temporary 'need': (1) it was scraped some time later; (2) the advisors of 'Our Most Revered Lord and Master Andrew Ladsky' ignored it - as did the Bitch's 'advisors', who held against her the fact that she was abiding by this ruling (Gallagher-Summary of events). (The fun we have with the Oiks... unending!).

In 2013, in Daejan Investments v Benson and others (1), Lord Neuberger, in the Supreme Court, concluded that leaseholders' right under s.20 of the L&T Act 1985 to be consulted before the start of major works was

"not a freestanding right [2]. Instead, what should be considered was whether the leaseholders suffered prejudice as a result of the landlord's failure to comply with statutory consultation" (3).

(1) I know some of the leaseholders concerned. When I saw Daejan persisting in escalating the case to the highest court in the land (added to its above, prior 'preferential treatment'), I concluded that, in spite of the outcome against it in the lower courts - it was expecting a favourable outcome.

(NB: It was partly my reason for not attending the hearing, on 4 Dec 12).

(2) "s.20 of the L&T Act 1985 [Limitation of service charges: consultation requirements] is NOT a freestanding right"

s.20(1) of the L&T Act 1985: A landlord's failure to comply with the consultation requirements before carrying out major repairs to a block of apartments, means that the amount to be paid by each tenant is capped at £250.

s.20ZA(1) to the L&T Act 1985 (see below)

 

From (1) the (then) Leasehold Valuation Tribunal (LVT), the leaseholders were dragged through (2) the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber), and (3) the Court of Appeal. All 3 agreed to refuse Daejan dispensation from compliance with the requirements of s.20 of the L&T Act 1985.

Then, in the 4th one, the Supreme Court (against which there is no right of appeal), one individual, Lord Neuberger (with whom 2 others agreed: Lord Clarke of Stone-cum-Ebony; Lord Sumption, and 2 dissented: Lord Hope of Craighead; Lord Wilson of Culworth) says:

"NO. Wrong decision". "I do not accept the view that a dispensation should be refused in such a case solely because the landlord seriously breached, or departed from, the Requirements.”

(3) "Instead, what should be considered was whether the leaseholders suffered prejudice as a result of the landlord's failure to comply with statutory consultation"

How can the leaseholders quantify "prejudice" (*) - post the event, once works have been carried out?

(*) The (then) LVT found that Daejan had failed to comply with the consultation in 3 respects: (1) failure to provide a summary of observations it received, and its response (stage 2);

(2) failure to make the estimates available for inspection, and not giving the leaseholders a full 30 days to respond (stage 2) - leading the leaseholders to believe that the contract had already been awarded;

(3) not giving 30 days for observations to be made. From these, the LVT concluded that the leaseholders had been caused substantial prejudice - especially by # 2.

The LVT rejected Daejan's argument that it was for the leaseholders to demonstrate that they had lost i.e. that they should identify the submissions they would have made, had they not been dissuaded from doing so. (Imagine "demonstrating prejudice " in the case of the Ladsky racketeers: Brian Gale ; their communication to leaseholders, tribunal and courts).

Hence, Daejan's argument IS the view endorsed by Lord Neuberger and 2 other judges.

s.20ZA(1) to the L&T Act 1985, as amended by s.151 of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002, states:

"Where an application is made to a leasehold valuation tribunal for a determination to dispense with all or any of the consultation requirements in relation to any qualifying works or qualifying long term agreement, the tribunal may make the determination if satisfied that it is reasonable to dispense with the requirements."

 

NOWHERE does the section state: 'The seriousness of the landlord's breach of the requirements is IRRELEVANT. The tenants MUST PROVE that they suffered substantial prejudice'.

I hold the view that it amounts to A CHANGE in the legislation (*) = 'lobbying of the Lords in court' (to be added to the other lobbying of the Lords (and MPs) that takes place to change 'inconvenient' legislation e.g. CLRA 2002).

(*) Others, with the expertise, agree with me e.g. "Lord Neuberger: what have you done, as Daejan is cited in Leasehold Valuation Tribunals", Leasehold Knowledge Partnership, 18 Jun 13 - that reports: "Huge problems are emerging in leasehold as a result of Lord Neuberger’s Supreme Court decision in the Deajan case..." Quelle surprise!

"New ruling favours Goliath over David in leaseholder battle", Guardian, 14 Mar 13 - reports: "...the £1.3bn property giant Daejan Investments."

"Leaseholders 'at risk' from supreme court consultation judgment", Guardian, 8 Mar 13 - quotes "[the] chairman of the Federation of Private Residents' Associations:

"Managing agents will use decisions like this to bamboozle leaseholders into extra expense. They will be carrying out unnecessary bureaucratic works and charging it to the service charges account."

I also hold the view that this 'interpretation' provides 'the missing card' for s.20 of the L&T Act 1985 - that seals the unhindered legal right by landlords to rip-off leaseholders to their hearts content.

(See the previous card handed to landlords, in 2003, under the same section, s.20 of the L&T Act 1985, in relation to the 'notification of major works')

From where I am standing: Lord Neuberger, Lord Clarke of Stone-cum-Ebony, and Lord Sumption = 3 others to be added to the list of "landlords' friends".

(No doubt Rachman Andrew David Ladsky and his racketeer puppets, Martyn Gerrard, were salivating in anticipation of this decision: MG # 2(6)).

= Another so-called 'right' to be added to the list of 'jokes of statutory rights' e.g. (1) leaseholders' 'right' to know who controls their home (BVI # 2); (2) leaseholders 'right' to be provided with a summary of accounts (KC Housing # 2 ; LGO # 7), and (3) 'right' to expect their council to prosecute for non-compliance - as per its power under s.34 of the L&T Act 1985 (KC Housing # 2.6 ; LGO # 7).

(NB: To which can be added e.g. the Human Rights Act that 'very conveniently' OMITS 2 CRITICAL ARTICLES: Article 1: Obligation to respect Human Rights; Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy).

As to those that 'appear' to be "freestanding", to guarantee continued, unhindered abuse and exploitation of leaseholders, they are NOT brought into force e.g. 'requirement' to supply leaseholders with 'statements of accounts', or are given 'an interpretation' (as per above) that wipes them out.

(NB: The unhindered abuse of leaseholders who 'dare' stand-up for their so-called 'rights' - in the process, challenging 'Establishment'-controlled criminal activities - is also ensured through other 'jokes of statutory rights' e.g. in my case, re. the illegal psychological harassment and 'surveillance'.

In fact, in my case, the evidence demonstrates - undeniably (Kangaroo court) - that, when facing a multi-criminal, 'Jewish', sacrosanct Mason landlord - none of my so-called 'rights' are "freestanding").

 

No doubt, on the publication of this judgment, there was jubilation, as well as celebrations all over the place - especially within the Jewish community, celebrating its ongoing control of the residential leasehold sector, and of its supporting infrastructure

(my case demonstrates wide ranging, total control), as well as anticipated additional kudos from its grateful landlord peers - ALL seeing THE MONEY flowing in their coffers.

 

The ONLY thing that is "freestanding" in the residential leasehold sector and its supporting infrastructure, and can be seen miles away, is the blatant, feudal treatment of leaseholders, the ongoing abuse and oppression...

...- against which the media and other organisations have campaigned relentlessly for many years e.g. Telegraph, 21 Jan 06: "It's a feudal form of property ownership and new laws do little to protect us. Everywhere leasehold has us tied in chains" ...

...- but to which the powers that be have - and continue - to turn a blind eye and deaf ear to - because of GREED / under the thumb of the powerful landlords.

If the leaseholders's first exposure to the 'gas chamber' has not achieved the desired breaking of their physical and mental resistance, they are dragged back in the 'gas chamber' time and time again by our landlord friends and their aides seeking appeals to higher courts (e.g. above) / filing other fraudulent claims against them.

Some have been dragged all the way up to the then House of Lords – at a total cost of £400,000.

The costs of the courts and tribunals which, in relation to some freeholders-landlords, are estimated to amount to several million £ for each? (C.A.R.L.'s Leaseholder, Spring 2011, Issue 32)

Who cares! The taxpayer picks up the tab! (Like the taxpayer picks-up the tab for the massive costs of landlord-tenant legislation). Anything to keep our 'sacrosanct' freeholder-landlord friends and masters happy!

As you can see, it's very simple: there is NO level playing field; NO equality of arms; the 'rights' are a one way traffic. Look at any lease e.g. the "Nazi" Bitch's lease.

If she breaches a covenant, 'Our Most Revered Lord and Master Andrew Ladsky' can come down on her like a ton of bricks, including taking the apartment away from her. If HE breaches ANY of the covenants - and regardless of his conduct - there are NO sanctions whatsoever included in the lease.

The Bitch would say that if you contrast her lease with The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1994, Schedule 3, Reg.4(4)- "Indicative and illustrative list of terms which may be regarded as unfair":

1. "Terms which have the object or effect of -

(b) inappropriately excluding or limiting the legal rights of the consumer vis-a.-vis the seller or supplier or another party in the event of total or partial non-performance or inadequate performance by the seller or supplier of any of the contractual obligations..."

(c) making an agreement binding on the consumer whereas provision of services by the seller or supplier is subject to a condition whose realisation depends on his own will alone;

(e) requiring any consumer who fails to fulfil his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation;

(f) authorising the seller or supplier to dissolve the contract on a discretionary basis where the same facility is not granted to the consumer, or permitting the seller or supplier to retain the sums paid for services not yet supplied by him where it is the seller or supplier himself who dissolves the contract;

(l) providing for the price of goods to be determined at the time of delivery or allowing a seller of goods or supplier of services to increase their price without in both cases giving the consumer the corresponding right to cancel the contract if the final price is too high in relation to the price agreed when the contract was concluded;

(n) limiting the seller’s or supplier’s obligation to respect commitments undertaken by his agents or making his commitments subject to compliance with a particular formality;

(o) obliging the consumer to fulfil all his obligations where the seller or supplier does not perform his;

(p) giving the seller or supplier the possibility of transferring his rights and obligations under the contract, where this may serve to reduce the guarantees for the consumer, without the latter’s agreement;

(q) excluding or hindering the consumer’s right to take legal action or exercise any other legal remedy, particularly by requiring the consumer to take disputes exclusively to arbitration not covered by legal provisions, unduly restricting the evidence available to him or imposing on him a burden of proof which, according to the applicable law, should lie with another party to the contract"...

...her Lease is DEFINITELY AN UNFAIR CONTRACT - and forfeiture law is "a weapon of mass destruction".

But, no worry: the Office of Fair Trading is not going to get involved in that (e.g. when, in 2008, it investigated allegations of collusion among construction companies, it limited its investigation to public sector contracts - even though there is extensive collusion and corruption in private sector contracts e.g. the contractors involved in the Bitch's block).

To emphasise the TOTAL lack of regulation of the sector:

Whereas, to offer financial advice, ‘a man and a dog’ outfit 'needs' to be vetted by, and registered with the FSA, freeholders-landlords who control what is, for most people, their main financial asset and can, at times, handle millions of £s of leaseholder money (e.g. Tchenguiz's Peverel control of 200,000 properties) are NOT subjected to ANY kind of control...

...- and can therefore have a criminal record ‘as long as your arm’. Indeed, in addition to the many current 'rogue players', or 'Rachman landlords' as some leaseholders call them, there is NOTHING to stop individuals such as e.g. Bernie Madoff, or Peter Sutcliffe reported to have killed 13 women from being freeholders-landlords.

We don't care! It's not our assets.

In fact, to help them, we give them the right to hide behind offshore paper companies and "sham directors".

And yes, you've guessed it: concurrently, we 'give' leaseholders 'the statutory right to know who controls their home'. As evidenced by the Bitch' experience: that's another source of endless fun for our 'sacrosanct' freeholder-landlord friends and masters.

(Of course, we apply the same hands-off policy in the private rented sector...

...Private Eye, 1385 – 6-19 Feb 15, pg 10

"New dividing lines are emerging over the private rented sector, which is the least regulated in the western world and has doubled in size in a decade.

The government has so far resisted calls for more protection for tenants. Some very modest reforms have made it into law, but others have been beaten back by the powerful landlord lobby – helped no doubt by the fact that a third of MPs are themselves landlords." (*)

(*) = MPs are continuing to feather their nest at the expense of the taxpayer; (expenses scandal).

Events one year later endorsed the assessment e.g.

The Tory landlord MPs who don’t care if rented homes aren’t fit to live in”, The Guardian, 15 Jan 16

"Almost the entire Conservative party rejected a Labour amendment to the housing bill that required landlords to keep homes in a liveable standard."

"No wonder Conservative MPs don’t want rules to make private rented homes habitable – 39% of them are landlords"

As to regulating the supporting infrastructure, as we've said earlier: it is, likewise, totally unregulated e.g. summary outcome of the Bitch's complaints ; leaseholders at the C.A.R.L. 22 Nov 08 meeting.

The previous government had plans to introduce regulation of managing agents but, as Julian Knight of The Independent reports in his 13 Feb 11 article, "Big society? Big rip-off", the current housing minister, "Grant Shapps, has killed off the intended legislation".

(Grant Shapps has confirmed 'his' hands-off approach in his 04.02.11 letter to the "Nazi" Bitch) (see below, 4 Feb 11) (NB: Meanwhile, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS), continues with its assessments of "insufficient evidence").

To recap on some of the 'legislative rights' of leaseholders covered above - aimed at helping our 'sacrosanct' freeholder-landlord friends and masters:

A State machinery that automatically turns a blind eye to any unfair / unlawful / illegal practices - and will devise / amend / 'interpret' legislation to facilitate abuse and extortion:
  • Forfeiture - a "weapon of mass destruction" that - legally - allows a landlord to get possession of an asset that can be several thousand times the debt 'alleged' to be owed. 'Alleged' as, in the majority of cases, the objective of the threat of homelessness is to scare leaseholders into paying monies they do NOT owe (e.g. my case).

That's our policy:

A FREE-FOR-ALL...

... - for A N Y B O D Y who brings us M O N E Y,...

... L O A D S OF M O N E Y.

(We are at the centre of a web of offshore jurisdictions that brings us A LOT OF MONEY!).

Isn't that an overall, brilliantly devised extortion system?

Isn't that a system that screams out: 'Welcome greed-ridden, ruthless crooks - and especially evil, cruel, sadistic, sociopathic / psychopathic crooks!

The (Masonic) door is wide open to help you fill your pockets to your heart's content'.

Of course: there has been an avalanche of takers (and it keeps on growing, as many new developments are also under the leasehold regime). As to the outcome of our wide-open door, free-for-all policy, it can be seen from e.g. the "Nazi" Bitch's experience ; media articles ; C.A.R.L.'s newsletters ; the Comments on this site ; the reports on the (then) LVT's and Lands Tribunal' s database.

Concurrent to the above treatment, many of the leaseholders are subjected to ongoing harassment and persecution - aimed at making them pay whatever is demanded of them / force them to sell - which is another opportunity to rip them off.

A great outcome is when they get affected to the extent of no longer being able to do their job. No job = no income = no ability to fight us and our mates and a good chance for our 'dear landlord friends' to forfeit the lease. (Men don't escape the mental breakdown).

For example, in 2002, the "Nazi" Bitch was a Commercial Due Diligence manager in KPMG’s Mergers and Acquisitions division.

The ongoing harassment (she reported - of course, in vain - to the local ‘SS’, as she now calls Kensington & Chelsea police) unsettled her, and the (fraudulent) July 2002 demand of £14,400 ‘from’ MRJ = 'Our Most Revered Lord and Master Andrew Ladsky', was the coup de grace that led to her being moved to a non-client facing role 'until her situation was resolved'.

In 2003, she tried to resolve her situation by accepting and paying 'Our Most Revered Lord and Master's "offer" of £6,350 "as a means of putting an end to the dispute" - even though, legally, she did not owe this amount either.

But, 'Our Lord and Master' decided that he was going to make her pay for daring to stand-up to him, and since then, he and his aides have pursued her relentlessly, as she would say, 'like a pack of demented, blood-thirsty hyenas' - which means that she never got back into her previous job.

Something for us to savour until she finally dies.

Having already achieved the above, we and 'Our Most Revered Lord and Master Andrew Ladsky' were over the moon when she resigned from KPMG in January 2008.

Thanks to our friends: a brilliant outcome!

The "Nazi" Bitch says that she can "no longer work in this country" (and she has not since then) "because she has lost her trust in the business environment".

It eventually forced her into early retirement (8 years earlier than planned) as what she had left of her savings was rapidly dwindling. So, in addition to

  • (i)- the lost opportunity for a higher income had she continued to do client work;

as well as loss of earnings..

- the Bitch has also ended-up with a lot less money than she would have had for her pension.

That's in addition to knowing that we and 'Our Most Revered Lord and Master' have:

  • etc., etc, etc.

= 'the 'concentration camp' regime par excellence'! What absolute, pure joy!

Yep! ALL BECAUSE 'Our Most Revered Lord and Master Andrew Ladsky' decided that he wanted the Jefferson House 'concentration camp' leaseholders to pay for the construction of a penthouse, and addition of 3 other apartments, so that he could make a multi-million £ jackpot.

Of course, bowing with extreme reverence and kissing his feet, we told him: "Your wishes are our command, O' Great One".

We also guaranteed him that, should any of his leaseholders dare stand-up to him and his aides, whether lawyers, surveyors or accountants, they would of course be protected by 'the Brotherhood', including what we call the 'regulators' of these professions and, as relevant by us (e.g. ombudsmen) (Doc library).

For example, the police, through ACPO, has a Memorandum of Understanding with the Law Society.

And, of course, we would also protect any of the public sector parties, including judges, tribunal panel, etc - as evidenced by the outcome of the "Nazi" Bitch's complaints.

I think you will agree from the contents of this website that we stood, and keep standing by our promise every step of the way. We sure know how to look after our friends, don't we? And, as you can also see from this website, we give to our, and our 'dear friends' enemies in equal measure.

Isn't this website an absolutely brilliant endorsement of our 'all-inclusive one-stop-shop offering'?

In addition to being a brilliant marketing tool, it's also of great help to us by warning 'would-be challengers' of what awaits them if they dare stand-up to us and our friends.

As the Bitch would say, "borrowing an expression used by the European Court of Human Rights in some cases that engage Article 10 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights: "Right to freedom of expression": my website must have a "chilling effect" on the 'little people' who look at it".

(Would we want what we and 'Our Most Revered Lord and Master' and his aides have done and continue doing to the "Nazi" Bitch done to the women in our family, such as our mother, wife, daughter, grand-mother, aunt, cousin, niece? Pass).

If the Great Unwashed report the harassment to the police, it ensures that our landlord friends are protected by: failing to investigate; failing to record the evidence; covering it up with lies; fabricating evidence against the Great Unwashed; dismissing their complaints, etc. (as they did with the "Nazi" Bitch in 2002, 2003, 2007and October 2010).

After their experience, the Great Unwashed should get the message that the police is not there for them, but for us and our mates.

Indeed, whenever our landlord friends decide they need our help to frighten the Great Unwashed to bend them to their will and shut them up, we jump to their diktats and record fictitious complaints against the Great Unwashed as “crime reports – at times without ever contacting them; or if we do, we ignore their request for evidence.

Having beaten the Great Unwashed as much as we can, including making them lose most of their life savings on lawyers, surveyors, etc.

- for those who still dare stand up to us and our mates, we fabricate excuses to lock them up - relying on the help of helpful medical specialists.

Having them under our complete control gives us the chance to break them down. (Yes: we DO lock-up ‘inconvenient people’).

If we can’t drive them ‘round the bend’ because some of them are tougher than others e.g. the "Nazi" Bitch who says that "with God's help" she is going to fight us "until the last breath in [her] body" ?

No problem! Through ‘The Brotherhood’, etc., we and our freeholder-landlord friends rally support by portraying them as “mad” to as many people as we can. This is particularly so in the case of women.

(NB: 'secret prisoners' ; other example ; whistleblowers: Dr Shiban Ahmed ; Kay Sheldon, CQC ; Dr David Drew ; Dr Hayley Dare).

(As reflected by the near-total dominance of men in positions of power, women are generally perceived as inferior. At times, we employ them to do things we haven't got the guts to do ourselves (e.g. dismissing "legitimate" complaints; inflicting harassment). They do it because it makes them feel important and valued.

You could say that e.g. nearly 90 years after we headed one Part of the Law of Property Act 1925 as ' Married Women and Lunatics' - we have not changed). (NB: It was subsequently removed!)

You’d be amazed at the eagerness with which the Great Unwashed's medical specialists, long-standing doctor, ‘friends’ and acquaintances, work colleagues, etc. jump on the bandwagon by supporting our 'assessment' – and hence assist us and our 'landlord friends and masters'.

Many others, such as work colleagues, including managers, even join in the tormenting and persecution to help speed up the achievement of our objective.

(That’s the Great Unwashed for you. We know from years of experience that many among them are as "sadistic" and "greed-ridden" as we are i.e. from the same mould. Yep! We know that "People would sell their soul to the devil").

As we are doing this, our tribe members such as the police, also describe them on their systems as suffering from mental issues and, to add weight to 'their assessment', they "speak to social services" to express their 'concerns' – and record doing this on the systems so that 'this card' can be pulled out at the 'appropriate time'.

If we fail to achieve our objective of getting them locked-up? No problem: this is "ORWELLIAN SURVEILLANCE BRITAIN", as the Bitch calls it. We keep them under constant surveillance, including in their apartment.

We also monitor their phones, emails, post and computer - and, for the fun of it, we interfere with them and/or intercept communications, so that e.g. they miss a family funeral; never receive their financial post; to delete 'inconvenient' evidence).

(NB: On 17 Oct 10, Sergeant Avison said to not doubt my claim that I am being followed. In light of the evidence, how could Her Majesty's police deny it?)

We even monitor them / have them monitored when they are overseas.

In the case of the "Nazi" Bitch we do it in tandem with 'Our Most Revered Lord and Master Andrew Ladsky'.

She says that he has had her dogged, hounded and monitored since at least 2002, including doing it himself in 2002. Initial objective? To determine whether she could be "a mark".

(There are other examples on this site, including e.g. that of a journalist).

There are essentially 3 Acts under which surveillance can - officially - take place (the links go to extracts on the Definitions page):

(1)- Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA);

(2)- Intelligence Services Act 1994;

(3)- Police Act 1997.

(See this document for more comprehensive extracts; see also, on the Persecution page: Introduction to 'surveillance' legislation for the comments by William Hague, then Foreign Secretary, and follow on sections)

Re. RIPA, as you can see from Schedule 1, we've made sure that many of us have the right to issue authorisations to have the Great Unwashed under surveillance. In the case of the "Nazi" Bitch, it includes several parties that are, shall we say, 'rather annoyed' with her, and have long memories. And of course, we ALL help each other:

  • 13ZA. Ministry of Justice (Date in force: 22 Aug 07)

(NB: my case: Charles Falconer and Jack Straw, re:

  • (i) West London County Court in 2002-04 - judges were: District Judge Wright; District Judge Madge, and in 2007-08 - judges were: District Judge Nicholson; District Judge Ryan; Deputy District Judge McGovern;
  • (ii) Wandsworth County Court in 2004 - judge was: District Judge Ashworth;
  • (iii) Supreme Court Costs Office on 30 Jan 09 - Deputy Master Hoffman;
  • (v) Legal Services Ombudsman in 2004-05 was Zahida Manzoor)

The Bitch might add '5. The intelligence services', covered under Schedule 1, citing: snoops who 'spring up within minutes' of where she is.

As TDC Simon J Dowling of Notting Hill Kensington police's Community Support Unit also contacted social services to see if "they [were] aware of her", because 'he' 'and' 'PC K O’Brien' concluded that "she may have some mental issues" and "is obviously extremely paranoid" ...

...- it 'may be' that some parts of the National Health Service, included under Schedule 2 of the Act, has also decided to have her under surveillance.

3. What mechanism is there to prevent abuse (of the above)?

The"Nazi" Bitch would say, as evidenced by her experience and that of others, "in practice: NONE" - because it relies on the authorising parties to report, to the Commissioners, the authorisations granted, renewed or cancelled e.g. s.96 of the 1997 Act; and s.35(1) and s.36(1) of RIPA - and, 'of course', there is no independent supervision. (NB: Hence, the title of the Act "Regulation" is a joke).

(NB: My assessment as to the lack of control was endorsed in Jun 13: (1) by "the British spies"; (2) Intelligence commissioners; (3) Intelligence and Security Committee)

Who is going to complain other than the person under surveillance who, by definition, should not be aware that s/he is under surveillance? If they do complain, like the "Nazi" Bitch (and other examples she is citing on her site), they have to prove it...

- and we deny it by portraying them as "mad", "suffering from mental issues", being "extremely paranoid" e.g. also the case of Kay Sheldon, CQC.

If they want to make a formal complaint, we refer them to the Tribunal we have established under s.65 of the RIPA - typically - making sure they get little help as, under s.67(2) of the RIPA, the Tribunal's powers are limited to judicial review.

(NB: In Hatton v United Kingdom (2003) 37 EHRR 28, the European Court of Human Rights determined that judicial review does not satisfy the requirement of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy...which, in any case we have NOT included under the Act).

(NB: see QB # 6(1) for my position that I have NO PROTECTION WHATSOEVER AGAINST THE BLATANT ABUSE OF POWER BY THE STATE - and the fact that my conclusion that the tribunal is a waste of time (and money) was endorsed subsequently by 2 media articles).

True, at times, we do get caught e.g. the evidence captured by the Bitch in relation to e.g. her phones, emails, post, computer, her reports on, and photographs of the people who follow her, were planted / asked to obtain information about her e.g. 3 Apr 10 ; 17 Apr 10; the 86 year old protestor we have been monitoring for several years, and classified as "a domestic extremist".

Councils have also been caught abusing the RIPA e.g. to spy on people believed to have enlisted their child in a school outside a catchment area; another example is the Bitch's council, Kensington & Chelsea who spied on an individual it suspected of misusing a disabled parking badge.

More recently, what the "Nazi" Bitch would describe as "the blatant lack of control, or compliance with the legislation" was exposed by the Guardian reporting on the covert surveillance of campaigners.

Nick Herbert, the minister of state for the police claimed to have “had no knowledge of the case until the Guardian disclosed it" and apparently did not know that the covert surveillance officer was living the high life on an alleged £200,000+ allowance - courtesy of the taxpayer. On the face of it, the Met Commissioner, who should have known about it, also 'appeared' to be in the dark as to what had been taking place.

As I said earlier on: we do NOT believe in control of ANY kind and, as exemplified by this website, we perceive ourselves, like our friends, to be above the law of the land - especially in relation to the 'little people'.

We also have what we call 'Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangement' e.g. Maurice Kirk.

The cost of covert surveillance and interception? We don't care! The taxpayer picks-up the tab.

To give you an example (in addition to the one above): to try to get 'the scalp' of one of their own, up to 2003, Kensington police et.al spent £5-7 million. Outcome? They ended-up owing him c.£400. (Yes: Kensington police is the Bitch's local station).

'The budget' allocated for the "Nazi" Bitch? As you can see from what she reports ('surveillance' ; other actions): UNLIMITED! - which, looking at the claims of expenditure re. Julian Assange - means that it amounts to millions of £s.

At least, in her case, unlike with Dizaei, we don't have to pay for renting an apartment next to hers as 'Our Most Revered Lord and Master Andrew Ladsky' controls Jefferson House - and he gives us carte blanche to do as we please in terms of surveillance equipment.

If we are not getting the evidence we want from bugging the Great Unwashed' homes, constantly monitoring them and their means of communication, we resort to throwing them 'hooks', and 'interview' them (by using the covert human intelligence sources referred to above), to (among others) detect any sign of mental breakdown...

...while concurrently taking steps to maximise the chance of their eventually breaking down e.g. exorbitant 'service charge' demands that keep on increasing; stealing their post ; making it clear to them that they do NOT have the right to have rights (police ; courts: first and second document, in 2011; others);

that wherever they turn to for help nobody will lift a little finger to help them; hounding, persecuting them - and making it clear to them that they are being dogged and hounded; intercepting and withholding their emails, post, voicemails and text messages - reinforcing the message that they are MOST DEFINITELY being targeted, etc., etc.– at which point we pounce on them.

To justify our action, we retrieve our police, social services records, etc., as well as records ever so kindly compiled by our friends e.g. from the Great Unwashed’s medical specialists, their employers when they took part in the persecution, etc.

The Great Unwashed can fight as much as it wants to get this data off our systems (e.g. the "Nazi" Bitch has been fighting since August 2009): it WILL stay on our systems until we can use it against them i.e. to 'get rid of them' – and we will fight tooth and nail to keep it there.

(Subsequent note: proven by my experience following filing a 19 Apr 11 Claim against the police et.al.: QB # 4 ; summaries: Events ; Breaches of the law ; snapshot: Kangaroo court ; police-Outcome ; snapshot: breach Data Protection Act 1998).

Why are we doing that in relation to the "Nazi" Bitch?

'R E T R I B U T I ON': in addition to her profile that makes her a soft target for discrimination and persecution (we are spineless, misogynist, xenophobic cowards), because we, as the Bitch calls us: "the Brotherhood" - literally - treat the Great Unwashed daring to stand-up to us and our mates, daring to expose our true practices and method of operating - as an act of terrorism (other example) that must be absolutely punished.

As evidenced by other examples on this site: NOBODY who dares do that to us / our mates will escape this treatment. (Others who dare to protest against anything we categorize as e.g. "domestic extremists").

The Bitch attributes our conduct to "a combination of being blinded by [our] extreme arrogance, belief of superiority, and a very serious lack of intelligence - leading [us] to not see further than the end of [our] nose, and digging an ever more gigantic hole for [ourselves]; in the process, dragging down the hole with [us] more and more of those [we] wanted to protect / revenge, as well as others".

She says that "extreme arrogance and stupidity is a very deadly mix ". Well, right now we are having a lot fun and are thoroughly enjoying the very sweet taste of revenge and retribution - because our view is that ALL of what has and continues to take place is the "Nazi" Bitch's fault. ALL OF US ARE 'HER' VICTIMS! (see Masons section for name of individuals involved):

  • Charles Falconer in 2004, Jack Straw in 2007-08 and individuals they controlled in Her Majesty's Court Service Complaints department, in 2004 and in 2007-08, refusing to act on her "cries for help" and ignoring and/or rejecting her, as she would say, "legitimate" complaints? That's HER fault!
  • (iii) in October 2010, refusing to investigate her 2 complaints of harassment? That's HER fault!
  • Her Majesty's Police Complaints Authority deciding, in 2002, to "protect Kensington & Chelsea police officers - and by extension Ladsky" - "by being hands-off" when she complained against Kensington & Chelsea police? That's HER fault!
  • ALL the 'regulators' of the professions to which she complained: Law Society in 2004 (twice) and in 2007; Bar Council in 2004;
  • - deciding to "protect Ladsky's aides - and by extension Ladsky" - by ignoring her "legitimate"`complaint/s? That's HER fault!
  • Her Majesty's Members of Parliament, in 2002 and 2009 deciding to "protect the above as well as Ladsky" - by telling her to, in effect, 'Get lost!' when she asked for their help? That's HER fault!

Etc;. etc., etc.in relation to the rest.

WHATEVER you care to cite: we say IT'S HER FAULT! SHE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR EVERYTHING! WE ARE 'HER' VICTIMS. And THAT'S WHY SHE MUST BE PUNISHED AND DESTROYED.

Concurrently, her ‘Jewish’ landlord and his tightly-knit community of mates who - like us - fully support his actions, view the "Nazi" Bitch daring to stand-up to them and challenge them - 'an ever so superior breed who perceive themselves as having the God-given right to take whatever they want from others' - as warranting unleashing the ‘hunt and destroy the Nazi war criminal brigade’.

Why? Because they perceive attempts to prevent them from stealing money to gain a multi-million £ jackpot, having their scam and method of operating exposed - to be on a par with sending people to the gas chamber during World War II.

(Even though 'Our Most Revered Lord and Master' IS THE ROOT CAUSE for the launch of her website at the end of 2006 that resulted in their exposure (as well as ours) as, as stated earlier, the Bitch did accept his "offer" in 2003 "as a means of putting an end to the dispute").

So, they will keep on persecuting her until they destroy her e.g. after the fraudulent claims against her, the 2 threats of forfeiture, the threat of bankruptcy, the death threat (another one added on 14 Jun 14), other physical threats (with our assistance), other forms of harassment, including the ongoing dogging, hounding, tracking and monitoring (with our very active help), etc. etc., etc. - currently, they are demanding payment of an ever growing - "fraudulent" - 'service charge' demand that has now reached £28,000.

And yes: if ALL of us had behaved as she thinks we should have (in her Catholic way of thinking), none of what is reported on this website would have taken place.

.

BUT: 'Our Most Revered Lord and Master Andrew Ladsky' would not currently be sitting on a multi £ jackpot, and we would not be enjoying the benefits that followed from assisting him and his aides.

Excuse the expression, but we practically wet ourselves from laughing when the Bitch sent her complaints / "'cries for help'" to e.g. 'her' MP, Malcolm Rifkind, the previous Justice minister, Jack Straw; his predecessor, Charles Falconer; the Parliamentary Ombudsman, Ann Abraham. They are Jewish. As IF they are going to help HER against our "Jewish" 'Our Most Revered Lord and Master Andrew Ladsky'!

Sometimes, we and 'our landlord friends and masters' strike it lucky by getting Mother Nature on our side: the years of ongoing mental torture break down the immune system of the Great Unwashed - and they get cancer (*), heart attacks, etc. That’s a time for an even bigger celebration!

(*) Refers to a leaseholder I know. She battled against her abusive landlord and equally abusive aides for 7 years, including being dragged through the courts on numerous occasions.

In June 2005, when the Bitch fainted on a bus and was taken to hospital, we thought that we were onto a winner.

Before that, as she puts it, "the hell she was going through with 'her' advisors" had led her to get sleeping pills from her doctor in November 2003. She says that she lost 5kg in Nov 03, nearly one stone. In Dec 03 she went to a centre in France for stress-related treatment where she said that she was diagnosed with low blood pressure.

(YES: Since 2002 I have been living in a 'concentration camp' - controlled BY Andrew David Ladsky, a Rachman landlord and his equally racketeer aides...

And the only thing the State has done for me since 2002 is treat me like a non-entity, a piece of dirt who does not have the right to have rights;

inflict torment, terror, persecution, harassment, bullying, 'retribution', humiliation, defamation of my name and character, made me lose a very large part of my life-savings, told me repeatedly to 'Get lost'...

...and, in more recent years, has unlawfully been monitoring, as well as interfering with ALL my means of communication: mobile phones, post, email, computer, as well as,...

...in tandem with Ladsky, hounding me and persecuting me...

...- with the outcome of totally destroying my life).

As evidenced by e.g. the Victims Unite website (pdf comments), the 7 million-strongconcentration camps (we are absolutely determined to keep because of its unending massive source of greed-satisfaction for our parasitic freeholders-landlords, their aides, and the rest of the supporting infrastructure) are only part of our portfolio.

As you can see from e.g. the case of Maurice Kirk (numerous imprisonments; locking up in a psychiatric unit; categorising him as a ‘terrorist’ (Note!!!) to justify applying MAPPA (Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangement) level 3 surveillance;

withholding medical records to prevent him from having an operation, leading him to survive on morphine, etc.), and other cases - like 'Our Most Revered Lord and Master Andrew Ladsky' - regardless of the situation - we use, and keep on using the same tactics for as many years as it takes (e.g. some of the Great Unwashed have been fighting for more than 20 years).

And we will continue to have fun as the ‘get "the Oiks" blacklist’ (see example, Media page) gets handed down to new recruits in the public sector et.al. – until we have destroyed them.

We show them who calls the shots!

As the Bitch would say: "Yes, we make all the ‘right noises’ by saying that our, until recently, 'friend' Gaddafi must back off, let go – but we are doing EXACTLY as he is.

The difference is that he is killing Libyan people with bullets, whereas we are killing British people through mental torture. That’s our typical, underhanded, behind-closed doors style".

If anybody accuses us and / our friends of having led to the death, or mental breakdown of the Great Unwashed, we’ll have no problem finding as many medical 'specialists' as we want to absolve us of all responsibility.

We laugh our head off from conning the Proles / the Great Unwashed - by taking half of what they earn (i.e. ALL the fruit of 6 months of their yearly labour) - by telling them that we need that to pay for courts, tribunals, police, etc, there to serve them as and when they need them - when in fact, at least in relation to leaseholders, they are there to predominantly serve us and our friends.

Hence: the Mugs pay us to oppress them and abuse them to our hearts’ content. Isn’t that hilarious?

Having helped ourselves very generously, we tell our parasitic landlord friends and their aides, banks, accountancy firms, insolvency practitioners, etc., that they can take over, and suck as much more blood as they can from the Mugs – while relying on our unfailing support and assistance. (NB: see the experience of others on the Victims Unite website (pdf comments))

The Bitch says that "extreme cruelty, evilness, viciousness, perversion and sadism are [our] first, middle and last names".

Having read the above, what would judge Abbott CJ say about "this kingdom" in the 21st century? That it is controlled by "despotic rulers"? Irrelevant question!

Morals, humanity, human rights, rule of law: What’s that? Many of us only understand MONEY, that’s our ‘GOD’. Look at us: barely one week after protestors were killed in the Middle-East, our Prime Minister, David Cameron, was there visiting officials with eight arms manufacturers (Guardian, 21 Feb 11).

More often than not we hide our game e.g."Blair secretly courted Robert Mugabe to boost trade", (The Independent, 30 Aug 10). Behind the rhetoric and slagging match fed through the media - and despite

"international condemnation of Mr Mugabe's regime - Labour was secretly negotiating to establish close trading and political relations with Harare. At this time, Mr Mugabe was under growing pressure to accept responsibility for "crimes against humanity"...".

The article states that "...a Foreign Office briefing to Mr Blair argued the advantages of meeting the African President outweighed human rights concerns".

Ditto re. e.g. Gaddafi e.g. “Libya and Britain: the new special relationship”, (The Sunday Times, 6 Sep 09) ; “Lockerbie: medical experts were urged to predict bomber’s early death, (The Sunday Telegraph, 6 Sep 09) ; “British police training Libyan force ‘insult to memory of PC Yvonne Fletcher’”, (The Daily Telegraph, 18 Sep 09) ;

a ‘cards on the table’ article in the Comment section of The Telegraph of 26 Feb 11, by Guest Contributor, Michael Burleigh, “Exposed: Gaddafi Inc.” - which, among others, discusses the Gaddafis ties with Britain.

(Yes, many other states, including my country of birth, France, do similar things with other states – but that does NOT make it right, because two or more wrongs will NEVER make a right).

3. Driven only by their self-serving interests

A few years into my horrific experience, somebody told me that I had “more balls than a whole army”.
While I took this in the spirit in which it was said, I consider it a sign of an enslaved people to view somebody who simply insists on demanding to exert the rights the legislators have told him/her have the right to demand as “having balls”.

Why should we be scared of asking the individuals in the public sector – none of whom, all the way up to the Prime Minister, would exist without us, the taxpayers, their employers – to do their job? The Government should be scared of the people - not the reverse.

Imagine if we, as employees, were treating our corporate employers as the public sector and many politicians treat us. I think you will agree that we would not stay in the job for very long.

For a long time, I used to think that politicians and other public sector individuals had, to put it more politely, ‘no back bone’. I have now come to the conclusion that their lack of action / actions are dictated solely by their self-serving interests e.g.

(1) - Iraq war

Mandarins who kept quiet in spite of disapproving of Tony Blair’s approach around the time of the decision to invade Iraq, and were challenged by Claire Short for their lack of action (while Robin Cook resigned in protest at the decision to invade) - “Mandarins dispute Blair's assertion on Iraq intentions”, (The Independent, 26 Jun 11)

The weasel words of my enemy Jack Straw, former (In)Justice Secretary, at the Chilcot inquiry – “Iraq war inquiry: Straw urged Blair to explore alternatives to conflict”, (The Guardian, 2 Feb 2011).

(Another example: waiting until he is in opposition to comment about the ringleaders of a sex gang – “Straw under fire for linking race to sex attacks", (The Independent, 9 Jan 11)

Another one of my enemies, John Prescott (who: conned me into challenging Ladsky's application in the tribunal ; oversaw the retention of forfeiture, and the removal of leaseholder's 'rights', etc.),...

who did nothing, in spite of claiming during the Chilcot inquiry that he had “doubts about the intelligence used to justify the invasion of Iraq” - and described “many of the reports about Saddam Hussein’s supposed weapons of mass destruction” as “appearing to be just “tittle tatlle”” – “Prescott reveals Iraq invasion 'doubts'”, (The Independent, 30 July 10)

Outcome: hundreds of British army men and women killed, as well as hundreds of thousands of Iraqis - and countless number of them maimed for life, with their life destroyed (and A LOT MORE happening since).

(2) - Phone-hacking

(See below, # 2.1, report and revelations in 2013)

It is ‘fascinating’ to see how the MPs ‘miraculously’ recover their voice (v the decision to invade Iraq, above), and get into action when they are directly concerned by events - and, as per usual, only after events have been exposed by the media.

It relates to allegations of phone-hacking by the News of the World newspaper and, it would appear, et.al. – which, it is claimed, the police has failed to properly investigate.

One of the first few, if not the first to take charge was John Prescott (the one who, among other, kept quite about the Irak war (above)), reported, in “John Prescott launches phone-hack judicial review claim”, (Press Gazette, 17 Sep 10) to have “launched a claim for a judicial review of the Metropolitan Police’s handling of the case”.

He is quoted as saying

“It is my belief they didn’t [release all the information they had] and I hope the judicial review will finally reveal why justice not only wasn’t done but wasn’t seen to be done

Also, that “he will ask the courts to declare that his human rights were breached. An award of damages by way of just satisfaction for the violation of my convention rights

And he kept at it, repeatedly raising the issue, while, like others, concurrently invoking the “importance of the public having confidence in the police” – which I view as an excuse to cover-up the reality: they are incensed that the police ‘dares’ to treat them as it treats us, the ‘little people’.

Yes, that’s the same John Prescott who, when he was Deputy Prime Minister and headed housing and local government – shelved New Labour’s ‘An end to Feudalism’ – and not only turned a blind eye and a deaf ear to the practices of the ‘Rachman’ landlords and their aides, he actually assisted them. Among others (e.g. the then LVTs, housing departments, Local Government Ombudsman), he did this by ensuring that the ‘appropriate’ legislation was in place, including retaining forfeiture which - he knew - was used as a tool for fraud.

Very clearly, he did not give a damn about the 3 million leaseholdershuman rights, about the test of objective impartiality that “justice must not only be done; it must be seen to be done". Seeing what he does – and says - because his phone might have been hacked in, what would he do if he had lost his home through unlawful forfeiture? What would he do if, like me, he was faced by a 'system' that - EVERY STEP OF THE WAY - denied him justice and redress - and resulted in destroying his life?

Prescott was followed by others.

As reported in the Guardian of 26 Jan 11, “Labour MP calls for outside force to investigate Met over phone hacking”, Tony Watson, MP, wrote to the Director of Public Prosecution “to make the case that there had been a conspiracy to prevent the course of public justice…

On the face of it, it appears that certain officers in the MPS [Metropolitan Police Service] have not only failed properly to follow evidence, but have taken active measures to conceal it…

The possibility that these officers are guilty of perverting the course of justice and/or misfeasance in public office and/or conspiracy now requires urgent investigation by an independent police force"

 

Tessa Jowell, MP, who hired lawyers – “Phone-hacking row escalates as Tessa Jowell speaks out”, (Guardian, 27 Jan 11)

 

Harriet Harman, in “Harman: Police must investigate phone-hacking allegations”, (The Independent on Sunday, 23 Jan 11), saying that

"Hacking into people's phones is illegal. Obviously the criminal law has got to be complied with and if it is broken then it should be investigated by the police and it should be enforced"

Police's media mates

In its wide-ranging article of 23 Jan 11, headed, “The Met: Undercover, over-familiar… and falling on The Job”, The Independent states that

“MPs who investigated the saga were critical of the Yards’ handling of the case. The Yard [Scotland Yard] remains “obstructive” towards potential victim.

 

While, in its 28 Jan 11 article, “A police force that has lost public trust”, it states:

“Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of the still unfolding phone-hacking scandal is the behaviour of the Metropolitan Police…

Two conclusions present themselves: either the police were incompetent or they were intent on turning a blind eye to illegality…But wilful blindness in this instance seems the more likely explanation”.

(Like e.g. the Guardian, 27 Jan 11, “Police handling of the phone-hacking scandal has history”), The Independent reports the view from the political sphere that

There is a widespread suspicion that the police attempted to quash this investigation because of its cosy relationship with News International.

It goes on to state: “If the police have tried to thwart this investigation the implications will be toxic. The public expect and demand that the police investigate allegations of malfeasance without fear, favour or partiality.

The suspicion that they soft-pedalled an investigation into a powerful newspaper group risks undermining faith in the rule of law”.

 

Indy journalist, I suspect that I speak for many of the ‘little people’ by saying that we have lost our confidence and trust in the police a long time ago – because of the way it has and continues to treat us (e.g. my experience; that of Maurice Kirk) – with the blatantly obvious implicit / explicit blessings of the politicians, including at times our own MP (e.g. Malcolm Rifkind) who are set on revenge for our ‘daring’ to stand-up to them, their mates and their cronies.

So, quite frankly, we don’t give a damn if, with possibly a few exceptions, the police does not investigate the hacking of MPs’ phones.

This, to us, is of no importance compared to the ongoing discrimination, harassment, persecution and mental torture the police is subjecting us to – by ignoring our rights, treating us like dirt, spying on us, UNLAWFULLY interfering with our phones, emails, post, hacking into our computer, etc.

"Obviously the criminal law has got to be complied with and if it is broken then it should be investigated by the police and it should be enforced". Yes. So, WHY do MPs such as e.g. 'mine' (at the time) (Malcolm Rifkind and his predecessor, Michael Portillo) (both Conservative) (as well as the previous leader of the Conservatives, Michael Howard) IGNORED the failures by Kensington & Chelsea police in my case?

How about the MPs expanding 1% of the energy they are deploying in relation to phone-hacking, including demanding so loudly that the police performs "its duties" - to investigate WHY some police officers not only turn a blind eye and a deaf ear to criminal activities by landlords and their aides, they actually help them rip-off and persecute leaseholders - and, when you face them with the criminal evidence, they reply: "It's a civil matter"?

Silly me: It has no consequences on the MPs. So: why bother? In addition to which, Parliament’s strong lobby of freeholders and lawyers is not going to bite its own hand for the sake of the ‘little people’; 'these pieces of dirt are there to be used, abused and tormented at will' – through implicit / explicit ‘memorandums of understanding’ e.g. Law Society and ACPO (copy).

(It is high time for a repeat of Operation Countryman - and this time, ensuring that the officers don't get off scot-free e.g. "Prince Charles asked for Met to be renamed the 'Royal Metropolitan Police'", The Daily Telegraph, 24 Jan 11)

(2.1) Phone-hacking - Report and revelations in 2013 and 2014

Following the (above) phone-hacking revelations, in 2011, Lord Justice Leveson was appointed by the then PM, David Cameron, to conduct an inquiry.

(1 of 5) "Pressure grows on Lord Leveson to explain why he ignored hacking beyond the press", Independent, 24 Jun 13

"In 2012, one of the witnesses, Ian Hurst, a former British Army intelligence officer, attached, to his witness statement, a confidential report from the Serious Organised Crime Agency (Soca) that show that senior officers knew for years that law firms, telecoms giants, high-profile celebrities and insurance companies were also employing private investigators to break the law and obtain private data."

The article reports that 2 sources, including "a private investigator whose activities were detailed in the report told the Independent that 80% of the hacking was attributable to blue-chip companies and only 20% attributable to the media."

"Six days after receiving the report, Lord Justice Leveson issued a public ruling formally rejecting Mr Hurst's evidence, including the Soca report, as it was "highly fact specific" and would take "lengthy and time consuming analysis of the very considerable detail".

The article also reports that "Mr Hurst’s lawyer urged him to not serve the papers on Lord Leveson.

This report was "leaked" at the end of June 2013. Asked why it had been ignored,

"A Leveson Inquiry spokesman said: Evidence on other issues would have been considered to have been outside the terms of reference." [ Contrast with the above reasons, said to have been given at the time, for rejecting it].

(PREDICTABLY, it was a cover-up involving Masons - see Media pg, Indy, 10 Jan 14)

 

(2 of 5) "MPs act on blue chip phone hacking: Legal and insurance firms 'behind 80%' of snooping, police report told Leveson", Daily Mail, 22 Jun 13

The report dates back to 2008. Among the practices revealed by the report… were live telephone interceptions, computer hacking, police corruption and obtaining itemised phone bills."

"But the judge’s final report simply made a passing reference, acknowledging that buyers of personal data ‘included the media, insurance companies, lenders and creditors, parties involved in family disputes, criminals with what are likely to have been criminal or malicious intentions, including witness and juror intimidation."

If Soca had uncovered evidence of widespread criminality or questionable practice, why were they reporting it to the Leveson Inquiry and not investigating and prosecuting people?(1)

The Mail reports: "Claims that Lord Justice Leveson turned a blind eye to wrongdoing by his fellow lawyers as well as insurers and local councils caused a considerable stir online."

Keith Vaz is reported as saying: " When the committee conducted its inquiry we asked for all the relevant information from Soca. It appears that all these documents were not provided. I will be putting this on the committee’s agenda for Tuesday and asking members if we should recall the relevant witnesses.’ (2)

(1) My answer - in the light of the data supplied: because it involves too many protected parties i.e. 'brothers'; (evidence in my case, given that Notting Hill police apparently reported ME (!!!) to SOCA that very dutifully turned a blind eye to the evidence against Ladsky and his gang of racketeers.

Further, it is not the first time that this is exposed - in the public domain - e.g. BBC 2, 1 Jun 09, 'Who's watching you? That was 4 years ago. What has the State done about it? NOTHING!.

(2) 'Safe' for him to say that as, as the Mail reports: "SOCA will soon be replaced by a new National Crime Agency" = I submit, yet another meaningless comment from him.

I also find the timing of "the leak" rather 'interesting': immediately after the revelations by the NSA whistleblower.

 

(3 of 5) ONE MONTH LATER - "Exclusive: 'Bigger than phone hacking' - Soca sat on blue-chip dirty tricks evidence for years", Independent, 25 July 13

"Following weeks of damaging revelations in The Independent, Soca finally bowed to political pressure earlier this week and privately released to MPs the historical details which its investigators ignored for years. Private investigators' client list include 101 clients."

"However, the agency has classified the material as secret to safeguard individuals’ human rights [1] and protect the “financial viability of major organisations by tainting them with public association with criminality.” (2)

"Trevor Pearce, the director-general of Soca, decided to classify the details of blue-chip companies, in line with Cabinet Office guidelines about sensitive material." (2)

"During another police inquiry, the Soca report said officers found a document entitled “The Blagger’s Manual”, which outlined methods of accessing personal information by calling companies, banks, HM Revenue and Customs, councils, utility providers and the NHS." (3)

"Illegal practices identified by Soca investigators went well beyond the relatively simple crime of voicemail hacking and also included police corruption, computer hacking and perverting the course of justice." (4)

(NB: On 20 July 13, the Indy preceded this article with: "Exclusive: New blue-chip dirty tricks scandal revealed after 12 years of silence")

(1) = Specious claptrap, and another example of deception by the public sector - as the European Convention obviously does not give individuals the right to commit criminal activities with impunity. As evidenced by my case, 'this right' is an addition added by the British State.

(PREDICTABLY, the excuses were motivated by cover-up involving Masons - see Media pg, Indy, 10 Jan 14)

(2) ONLY IN THIS COUNTRY - ruled by 'The God of Money' - which, by contrast, has NO QUALMS criminalizing 'the little people' for the most ridiculous reasons.

(3) As per my comment, above: they could have watched the BBC programme on 1 Jun 09.

(4) Hence, the excuses by Leveson.

 

(4 of 5) "Leveson, knacker and the silent witness", Private Eye, No 1344, 12-25 July 13, (pg 7)

It states that "the appearance of a witness at the inquiry, that of Peter Tickner, who was director of internal audit for the Metropolitan Police between 1995 and 2009, was cancelled following a last minute plea from the Met's QC that his witness statement had arrived too late for the Yard to prepare a response to his allegations about the former commissioner Lord (Ian) Blair".

The Eye states that what Mr Tickner wrote (about a contract awarded by the Met) was "no more than what Blair said in his book".

Judging from the article, the auditor, Mr Tickner, appeared to be 'a thorn in the thigh' of some senior Met individuals. It states that

"he took early retirement in 2009, weary of the constant attempts to obstruct his work. As part of his severance deal, he had to sign a gagging clause to stop him becoming a whistleblower.

If he had testified to Leveson, however, that clause would have been overriden... Hence the panic among senior officers when they saw him listed as a witness".

"Despite acknowledging "the considerable assistance that Mr Tickner has given, and the work that has gone into the preparation of his witness statement", Leveson ruled that "the interests of my inquiry would not be sufficiently advanced" by hearing his evidence."

The Eye goes on to discuss some events reported by Mr Tickner in his statement. And, towards the end of the article, states:

"In short, even though Leveson admitted that Tickner's claims "clearly fall within the terms of reference" of his inquiry, he decided not to bother with "any examination of their substance" because it might contradict what Knacker had said on oath. Trebles all round at Scotland Yard!"

It concludes with:

"Health ministers recently claimed to be horrified to learn that NHS whistleblowers were silenced by making their severance payments conditional on signing a gagging clause.

This is what also happened to Tickner - and on the one occasion when he could have spoken without fear of legal retribution, the unholy alliance of Lord Justice Leveson and Scotland Yard shut him up.

Can we expect similar expressions of horror from Theresa May and Boris Johnson, to whom the Met is supposedly accountable?" (*)

(*) Based on my experience with both: NOP! Because THEY ACT AS FERTILISER FOR MALPRACTICE - BY IGNORING THE CONDUCT. In fact, what Johnson is likely to reply is: "Fuck off and die!" (as he said to a taxi driver, on 18 Jun 15 - source: The Guardian).

And ANOTHER ONE TO BE ADDED:

(5 of 5) "Leveson inquiry: The spy, the judge and the ‘cover-up", 2 Mar 14, Independent - by Tom Harper (who, in 2014, also had articles on "The corruption of Britain" (media pg))

"Sir Brian Leveson “pulled his punches” over evidence of “serious police corruption at the very highest level” because it was “too hot to handle”, according to a complaint that has been lodged with the judicial watchdog by a News of the World hacking victim, Ian Hurst, a former British Army intelligence officer."

"According to transcripts, Sir Brian repeatedly asked Mr Hurst to give him details of the report, saying: “I need to know what I need to know.”

"The former intelligence officer said he followed Sir Brian’s instructions and prepared a second witness statement, which included details of the intelligence report.

But in the intervening months, Sir Brian appeared to have a change of heart, and rejected Mr Hurst’s new evidence."

"In his complaint, Mr Hurst said: “The Met gathered this intelligence in 2006, it leaked out into the public domain in 2011 yet the [police officer] has still not been arrested and it is 2014.

[The NOTW executive] has still not been charged with any offences, despite the Met holding prima facie evidence of his criminality dating back to at least 1998 which I have seen and can provide you with.”

"A spokesman for the Judiciary said: "The Inquiry has now concluded and all of Lord Justice Leveson's conclusions are set out in his Report.

The Inquiry didn't provide any kind of commentary outside of the hearings on what was included or not during the course of the Inquiry and it wouldn't be appropriate to start doing so now. He has nothing to add to his Report."

""In any event, the terms of reference for the Inquiry were about the culture, practices and ethics of the press and how they engaged with the public, the police and politicians. Evidence on other issues would have been considered to have been outside those terms of reference."

""As you yourself indicate, Lord Justice Leveson dealt with the point of Ian Hurst's evidence in his ruling of 26 March 2012.""

Conclusion: The Leveson report looks another report that can join e.g. the Hutton report.

 

(3) - Covert surveillance of campaigners

(see above, RIPA legislation; also, My Dairy 2008: 'Confidential Intelligence Unit and/or National Public Order Intelligence Unit')

Motivated, yet again, by their self-serving interests, on occasions, the politicians also recover ‘miraculously’ from their collective amnesia when the actions, and indeed, lack of action by some of their own are widely exposed by the media.

A recent example relates to the Crown Prosecution Services being forced to review the case against some environmental campaigners after “claims that the police withheld significant secretly recorded tapes from the defence and the court”.

CPS reviews environmental activists’ convictions, The Guardian, 28 Jan 11:

"…This is now the fifth supposedly independent inquiry sparked by the Guardian's revelations about Mark Kennedy… allegedly at the centre of a £250,000-a-year undercover operation within the climate change movement"

Clean-up of covert policing ordered after Mark Kennedy revelations, The Guardian, 18 Jan 11:

reports that Nick Herbert, the minister of state for police and justice said to have

“had no knowledge of the case until the Guardian disclosed that the prosecution of six activists…collapsed because of Kennedy’s role in it”.

And that “The home affairs committee chairman, Keith Vaz, who said Kennedy was "no James Bond", also pressed the minister to investigate the alleged £200,000 expenses bill run up by Kennedy” (*)

(*)- Considering his expenses claims, Keith Vaz is most definitely NOT the one who should throw the 1st stone. But... 'the guard dog' has to appear as though he is performing his official role). (To my knowledge, the £200,000 bill was, like ALL the other inconvenient information - brushed under the carpet).

Who run the under-cover operations? The Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) which, unbelievably, is an ‘independent company’.

The media has raised concerns about it since 2009. No action was taken. Why? Might it because, 'behind the scene', ACPO serves the purposes of many, including through its implicit / explicit ‘memorandums of understanding’ e.g. Law Society and ACPO?

As a result of the Guardian’s articles, ‘all over sudden’, the MPs wake-up from their collective amnesia by deciding that...

(in the above Guardian article of 18 Jan 11):

“ACPO should be stripped of its power to run undercover spies”,

with Nick Herbert saying that

“The Kennedy case demonstrated strongly that ACPO, a limited company, should no longer have the responsibility for sensitive national organisations such as the unit that runs covert operations gathering intelligence on protest groups in England and Wales.

The Government is strongly of the view that there needs to be proper accountability for ACPO and its successor body”

and quotes Sir Hugh Orde, the ACPO’s Chairman,

“said that chief police officers firmly supported the government's aims.

What is vitally important is that national units have a transparent accountability framework that provides public confidence".

Spying on protest groups has gone badly wrong, police chiefs say, The Guardian, 19 Jan 11:

Jon Murphy, who speaks on the issue for the Association of Chief Police Officers… added that the public would be reassured if there was a degree of independent oversight…”

Funny how 'their concern for the public' only surfaces when they are exposed.

I strongly suspect that both Orde and Murphy said this laughing to themselves as they were thinking about the implicit / explicit ‘memorandums of understanding’ ACPO has with various parties.

Being, ‘on the face of it’, in the dark as to what goes on in their departments, another one that was put on the spot is...

my enemy, the Met Commissioner, Sir Paul Stephenson (my Claim against him - in relation to which he lied through his teeth),...

who failed to provide a committee of MPs with the “full facts” about undercover surveillance of protestors when he gave evidence to the committee after the G20 protests

Undercover police spy ring: minister to be questioned about Mark Kennedy”, The Guardian, 17 Jan 11 ; Met counter-terrorism chief to take over protest spy unit, The Guardian, 25 Jan 11.

 

(NB: Given that, under RIPA, authorisation for covert surveillance must come from the Met Commissioner / Home Secretary, it suggests that the process, and hence the legislation is ignored, or else, somebody else is issuing the authorisations without recording them).

The Met Commissioner could have reported the use of police officers as agitators during a peaceful anti-Iraq war demonstration in London, as well as the positioning of “snipers on rooftops”...

– leading the journalist to write “These days it appears permissible to wave a gun at Britons exercising their democratic rights” (Mail on Sunday, 22 Jun 08, “Was my ‘friend’ a stooge or a thug?”) (Next: they’ll fire the guns...maybe from their unmanned drones).

What the above phone-hacking and undercover surveillance events suggest to me is that the MPs (who include ministers) have no authority and no control over the police. (Subsequent note: because it is part of 'the Brotherhood'?)

(NB: A subsequent article from the Guardian, 25 Nov 12: "Former spy Mark Kennedy sues police for 'failing to stop him falling in love'" reported that "[he was] demanding up to £100,000 for 'personal injury'")

That’s what happens when you ignore your duties and responsibilities in exchange for favours, such as making a deal to persecute the ‘little people’ who ‘dare’ stand-up to you, your mates in the public sector and private institutions, and your cronies.

Another example: the bodyguard of one of ‘my other friends’, Alan Johnson, former Home Secretary, who had an affair with Johnson’s wife.

As the sayings go: ‘Chickens come home to roost’; ‘As you sow, so shall you reap’.

So, not only have you, Parliament, lost the (evidently misplaced) respect of many of the ‘little people’ (from e.g. the expenses scandal; selling amendments to legislation (Lords, MPs); ensuring that some of you escape prosecution; nonetheless walk away with a 'golden goodbye', etc.)...

- you have also lost the respect of those you are meant to control. As always, those who are left to suffer are the ‘little people’.

Up to 2002-03 I had absolute trust and faith in "this kingdom['s]"' system. If I did not, I would not have taken the route I took (challenging Ladsky's application in the London tribunal because I knew that the 'service charge' demand was fraudulent; challenging the fraudulent claim in West London County Court; (tried) to report the harassment to Kensington police in 2002, etc., etc.).

In fact, I would have either, never set foot in this country or, if I only saw its true face once I was in, I would have left before I found myself in this situation.

Nearly 10 years into my horrific, life-destroying experience as the innocent victim of organized crime, and also looking at the experience of others, including the criminalization of 'the little people' for the most ridiculous reasons - I have now come to the conclusion that the State is the worst enemy of the ‘little people’,...

... and that this island-Kingdom is controlled by amoral, extremely vicious, cruel, sadistic, greed-ridden, power-corrupted, ego-crazed, parasitic, sociopathic / psychopathic monsters,...

... for the benefit of amoral, extremely vicious, cruel, sadistic, greed-ridden, ego-crazed, parasitic, sociopathic / psychopathic monsters.

If the above are what HM The Queen referred to as the "dark forces operating in this country", with all due respect, I hold the view that it is just a fancy name for greed-ridden sociopaths / psychopaths without an iota of humanity.

YES: "Britannia as she was burns, burns down..."

 

25 Jan 11 - Another Victims meeting at the Palace of Westminster

Relative to our previous meeting on 21 July 10, this time, several MPs attended at various points of the meeting.

Victims of lawyers and of Her Majesty's judiciary was the common denominator between all of us, the c.40-50 victims who attended. Within these, there were some victims of insolvency practitioners (another sector that is unregulated), of accountants, banks, and of other professions.

The combined suffering in that room was gigantic, and the courage and determination to seek justice and redress of equally gigantic proportion. While this is our first objective, it was clear that our secondary objective is altruistic: there must be an end to this wholesale injustice.

An elementary principle for addressing an audience is: know your audience.

One MP said that the only way to achieve resolution of our situation was to use the correct route / system / follow procedures: if a public authority has failed to perform its duty: file an application for judicial review; if a court is believed to have failed in its duty:

appeal to a higher court; if the same thing happens again: go to the next higher court, and so on up to the Supreme Court. Then, having exhausted all the hierarchy of English courts, if you are still unhappy: take your case to the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR).

1. Following ‘procedures’, going through ‘the system’, is EXACTLY what we have been doing (e.g. my case; Maurice Kirk who has made c. 100 (yes!) applications / appeals) - and this happened when THESE MPs WERE in government. It amounts to throwing us back at the very people who have and continue to cause us to suffer injustice: some of the judiciary FAILING to implement the rule of law.

2. WHY SHOULD WE, THE VICTIMS, HAVE TO PUT OURSELVES THROUGH THIS TREADMILL- AND LOSE EVEN MORE OF OUR LIFE SAVINGS?

WHY AREN'T PROVIDED WITH - EFFECTIVE REMEDIES - FROM THE VERY BEGINNING?

EVERY STEP OF THE WAY WE GET REPEATEDLY KICKED IN THE TEETH - AND ARE SENT FROM PILLAR TO POST

(e.g. outcomes of my "following the correct procedures": my numerous (legitimate) complaints that ended-up with a 'Get Lost!', and my recent experience with the 'Independent' Police Complaints Commission; comments from other victims).

This is institutionalised punishment of the innocent victims of crime from this and previous governments’ flagrant failure to ensure that the rule of law prevails; flagrant failure to ensure that public authorities perform as per their statutory duty; flagrant failure to ensure regulation and control of the professions (e.g. outcome of my complaints; media articles / reports re. the residential leasehold sector (I now call the 'concentration camps') and managing agents).

As Barry Gardiner, MP, rightly said: "To have a right but no means of implementing that right is to have no right at all"

And they are incensed that we resort to exposing chapter and verse of our case on the Worldwide Web!?!? Give us the means of accessing justice and redress - and we won't do that. (We have better things to do with our life - and our money). Our doing this is of YOUR OWN DOING.

All that these MPs and Lords do is churn out legislation. Don’t give a damn how and whether it actually gets implemented - while the miscreants among their mates and cronies get their sadistic kicks from putting us through their 'mincing machine'.

3. How are we supposed to do all of that? Well, ‘of course’: ALL by ourselves - i.e. without lawyers!

4. Indeed, to my asking: How are we meant to cover the costs of doing all of this?” the reply was "If you are on benefit, you get legal aid".

(NB: As reported in the media, e.g. The Independent, 15 Nov 10 “Legal aid to be fixed for some civil cases” under the 'new scheme' introduced by the current ‘Justice’ minister, Ken Clarke, legal aid is only available where life or liberty is at stake”. The article states the (very low) qualifying amount of “assets” to get legal aid, as well as the areas that have been axed = ‘little people’ you’d better learn the law - FAST!. But ‘big people’ such as e.g. the freeholders who cost the taxpayer millions of £ in court costs: you have, of course, nothing to fear).

5. To my asking "And if you are not on benefit?" Answer: “The cost of applications to courts is just a few hundred pounds”. ("A few hundred pounds" is evidently neither here nor there for an MP on a £66,000 salary + expenses)

6. Me: How about the legal knowledge required to do this, including knowing about the procedures?No answer.

Looking at how: (1) the MPs and the Lords identified for prosecution in relation to the expenses scandal, and the selling of amendments to legislation (Lords, MPs); (2) those who are alleging that the police has failed to investigate the hacking of their phones - have immediately run to lawyers, I can guarantee that not one MP would do what they are telling us is open for us to do – even in a lower court.

Having spent the last two years learning about various areas of law, I can confirm that it requires ‘a hell of a lot’ of knowledge to do that. Furthermore, from my experience with the legal sector, that it also requires having balls”. (That comes when you reach the stage of extreme frustration and anger and of having nothing left to lose).

What the MP has also failed to say is that:

  • As can be seen from my experience (2002-04; 2007-08 and Jan 09), it can take up to well over a year for a case to go through a single court; if that is multiplied by 3 or 4 courts = c.6 years!
  • It can take up to a year for a judicial review.
  • If you ever make it to the ECtHR, it can take up to several years before you get a judgment.

In other words, if the corrupt elements in the English court 'system' are intent on putting you through their ‘mincing machine’ and have fun with you (because they don’t like you challenging them and their mates and /or you have not sufficiently lined the pockets of 'the tribe' to buy justice), it could be 10 years+ before you get to the end of the line.

And when you get to the end of the line i.e. to the ECtHR - if successful (*), more often than not, it is a moral victory rather than true compensation as, if you are lucky, the award will generally be a few thousand pounds, plus your ECtHR related costs. If you are partially lucky, you might just get a verdict that ‘the finding of a violation of your right/s constitutes just satisfaction’. (ECtHR judges are from the EU countries).

(*) Subsequent note: In Jan 12, I submitted an Application to the ECtHR; see the outcome.

Examples of how the courts, tribunals, as well as police can mess you around if your card is marked by the corrupt elements in ‘the system’ who are siding with your opponent (in addition to my experience of blatant bias by the tribunal, the courts and the police):

  • A victim who had been made (unlawfully) bankrupt said that forged documents had – knowingly – been used by the court/s in proceedings against him. Several other victims who have also been made (unlawfully) bankrupt said to have had the same experience.
  • Several said that the outcome of their case had clearly been decided prior to the hearing as the judge - read – his previously prepared judgment at the end of the hearing. (NB: The same thing most definitely happened to me at the 24 Oct 11 so-called 'hearing' in the Queen's Bench Division)
  • Other victims talked of the courts, as well as police ‘losing key evidence’ in support of the victims' case.
  • One reported that a High Court judge had apparently told him: “The evidence is in your favour, but I find in favour of your opponent”. To the victim asking “Why?” he said that the reply was “It’s his turn to win”
  • Other examples: see the cases of other victims on the website, Victims Unite ( http://victims-unite.net) (pdf of comments) and note, among others, Maurice Kirk’s experience with the courts, the police, etc.

Cost of being messed around by ‘the system’ that fails to perform its statutory duty – thereby failing to ensure that justice is done and is seen to be done?

As an example, in my case, after battling - in vain - for more than 3 months with the then London LVT, its conduct forced me to employ advisors; costs: £30,000.

After battling - also in vain - for 9 months with West London County Court (WLCC) in 2002-03, and for several weeks with Wandsworth County Court, their conduct also forced me to employ advisors; costs: £10,000. (Detail of costs in 12.07.09 complaint to the Parliamentary Ombudsman ; my 02.01.10 Subject Access Request to the Ministry of (In)Justice).

At the time, I had many other costs that are the direct result of the fraudulent demand against me – a total of c.£50,000. Yes: for a £14,400 fraudulent ‘service charge’ demand 'from' Joan Hathaway, MRICS, Martin Russell Jones = Andrew Ladsky! And it continued, because I did not go and lie down quietly, beaten up, in some remote corner of this planet.

In relation to yet another fraudulent claim filed against me, by Jeremy Hershkorn, Portner and Jaskel, in WLCC in 2007-08, in spite of the unbelievably vicious, cruel, sadistic and perverse treatment I was again subjected to in WLCC, this time for a period of 16 months - much to the immense frustration and anger of the judges and court staff:I held firm, and was a Litigant in Person throughout.

It nonetheless cost me £9,000 (I only recouped £2,500). In fact, it cost me more than that, as I did not record all of my time (which, as per court rule, I calculated at £9.25 per hour) (home-Overview # 3 and # 4). In fact, it cost me A LOT MORE than that.

If you were to proceed all the way up to the Supreme Court and employ lawyers, how much might you be spending in total? Based on the experience of a group of leaseholders: c.£400,000. How many of the ‘little people’ can afford to do that?

When you are in litigation against the public sector it will keep on challenging you, drag you through higher courts by filing appeals. Unlike you, it does not care about the costs because it comes from the public purse i.e. your money as a taxpayer.

Yep! YOU are the Mug paying them to fight you! (As detailed earlier on on this page, when you are a leaseholder fighting against a landlord, more often than not you end-up with a double whammy).

To survive in this totally unregulated country, riddled with collusion and corruption within a massive network of symbiotic relationships (outcome of my complaints; 'concentration camps'), you need an army of lawyers on a retainer basis - and a correspondingly very big pot of money - a fact on which your enemies rely (e.g. my case in March-April 2007 when Andrew Ladsky was orchestrating attacks on me on several fronts simultaneously).

As abundantly evident from my experience (Case summary) and that of others - politicians and public authorities et.al. in that sphere orbiting way, way above us, the ‘little people’ - generally don’t give a damn about injustice against us or, like a visitor to my site summed-up colloquially - and accurately: "They don't give a crap".

In fact, the epitome of the British Establishment, Boris Johnson, then Mayor of London and Head of the Mayor's Office for Policing and Crime, summed up the Establishment's perception of 'the little people' very succinctly in his reply to a taxi driver, on 18 Jun 15: "FUCK OFF AND DIE!" (Source: The Guardian).

To many of them we are pieces of dirt, 'the Proles' / "the Oiks" / "the Great Unwashed" / "the Lobbyists" - non-entities who do not have the right to have rights - there to be used, abused and tormented by them, their hangers-on and cronies - at will.

Of course, when it concerns 'THEM', they make sure THEY are protected e.g. the vast array of provisions in the legislation and related Regulations to ensure 'fairness of treatment' of the police in misconduct and complaints proceedings; ensuring that they do not "become the objects of punishment" by closing rank and circling the wagons.

Hence: a definite case of 'THEM AND US'... in this, as they keep pushing down our throats: "in a democratic society". What a myth!

7. Another 'suggestion' from the MPs was that “[our] tactic should be to generate publicity”. WHY? This amounts to, yet again, placing the onus on the victims to take action - all because the MPs are protecting their self-serving interest. They want to be able to say that they were ‘forced into action because of media coverage’ (e.g. ACPO, above).

Furthermore, look at my case and that of others for how we get immediately persecuted and ostracised by the state and its clique of cronies for ‘daring’ to expose our case in the public domain - as a last resort 'cry for help'.

SECRET PRISONERS - held in the 'Ministry of Love' (Orwell's 1984)

One MP, John Hemming, Chairman of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Family Law and the Court of Protection, said to have helped the release of one of his constituents from a mental institution.

As reported in: (1) The Daily Telegraph of 5 Feb 11, “John Hemming MP: Court of Protection must be reformed” ; (2) the Independent of 18 Jul 12, “John Hemming: Deprivation of liberty system is riddled with conflicts of interest”...

...the ONLY reason she had been locked-up - and drugged - was to 'shut her up'. Evidently, the 'Thought Police' 'and its 'Ministry of Love' did not like' what she was saying / doing. (The same thing was done to Maurice Kirk).

John Hemming is reported as saying in the Indy article: “that the assessment of capacity were substantially flawed, but was not picked up by the system”. Also:

"We should allow people subject to these constraints on liberty (secret prisoners) to speak out publicly if they wish".

And: "The basic question is whether people are being deprived of their liberty for the convenience of the local authority (*) or whether it is necessary or even essential for their security(*) Imagine being at the hands of e.g. Slough council!

In his 28 Oct 10 blog, headed ‘Secret Prisoners’, John Hemming raised, among other, the following:

  • (1) "locking up someone with no right to instruct a solicitor to contest the jailing, and banning the media from talking about it”;
  • (2) "jailing purely on the basis of the decision of a social worker employed by a local council".

In the 5 Feb 11 Daily Telegraph article, John Hemming also asked for “urgent action on the accountability of the court" (below), as well as "the reliability of expert opinion.

He who controls who the piper is calls the tune. The tune called by the local authority is "go to jail, go directly to jail and do not collect an independent opinion on the way".

He also states that he has "been asking Parliament to establish an inquiry into the number of secret prisoners there are in the UK".

It is the second time I hear an MP admitting what many people already know. (If my memory serves me right, I think I heard the other MP on Radio 4's 'Today in Parliament' (towards the end of 2010).

Another example, reported by the Independent, in its 8 Feb 13 article: “Pensioner 'held prisoner' by local council wins legal victory”.

The article relates that "Knowsley council applied to the Court of Protection for an order to have a 69-year old woman incarcerated in a psychiatric hospital in Nov 11".

"The council did not consult her or her family.

She was isolated, by being largely unable to communicate with other residents or see her husband.

When the detention order was due to expire six months later, the council applied to have it extended without giving her an opportunity to put forward a case that her condition had improved".

As indicated by the header of the article, she won her case. "The council admitted that it breached her human rights". (NB: A very rare occurrence nowadays!).

The woman is reported as saying:

Even though it’s been months since I was able to come home, I still can’t sleep. I’m constantly worried that they’re going to take me away again

(= the Stasi State. What took place reminds me of Orwell's 1984 (Part 1, Chp 1): "When arrests by the Thought Police took place at night, and for which in the vast majority of cases, there was no trial, no report of the arrest. People simply disappeared, always during the night.")

 

The Court of Protection

In its 5 Feb 11 article, “Behind the closed doors of England’s most secretive courts”, and 28 Sep 11 article, 'Right to die case: how Britain's most secretive court operates", the Telegraph reported that,...

to the Court of Protection's initial role of administering the financial affairs of anyone found to be of unsound mind, (*) were added, under the Mental Capacity Act 2005, decisions on medical treatment of the mentally ill.

They include: "experimental or innovative treatment; using a degree of force to restrain the person to carry out the treatment", etc.

And that: "It was made clear that cases dealt with the new powers would not be open to scrutiny".

It reported that "Between Jan 08 and Dec 09 the court received 2,695 applications in “personal welfare” cases”"

 

"Revealed: How UK justice is dispensed out of hours down the phone line", Independent, 24 Jun 13

"Court of Protection judges are making life-or-death decisions over the phone, with incomplete information, in proceedings that are not always recorded."

"John Hemming MP [above] described the use of out-of-hours hearings by local authorities as "appalling"; "the most extreme version" of the Court of Protection, "where the family are not told about it but the judge is called to rubber-stamp a decision".

He accused ministers of complacency in failing to investigate the practice."

"Legal experts believe the out-of-hours service can be used cynically to rush through rulings that would be more rigorously opposed in court."

"Written evidence is rarely used out-of-hours, so the judge usually relies on an over-the-phone case summary by one barrister [from the local authority]."

"As hearings are often not recorded, there is no transcript, limiting the ability to appeal against a decision".

(NB: I repeat my above comment)

 

(*) This court has been highly criticised before in relation to its "administration of financial affairs of people of unsound mind " e.g. in 2009, when Jack Straw was the (In)Justice Minister - see Legal - Media reports)

Until May 10, the Court of Protection had held all its hearings behind closed doors. Since then, "it started to open up as a result of pressure from The Daily Telegraph and other media groups".

However, in its 19 Apr 11 article, the Telegraph reported that "the court has issued gagging orders banning journalists from approaching 65 different people": "Secrecy fears after court bans contact with 65 people".

(NB: Another one described as 'highly secretive' is the Investigatory Powers Tribunal (QB # 6(1))

(NB: In relation to imprisonment, the case of James Best provides an example of both, the ridiculous reason used for putting somebody in HM Prisons, and the very dire treatment prisoners can be subjected to).

YEP! In Britain, locking-up of 'inconvenient people' DOES take place.

In addition to the courts doing this, see the police's Fixated Threat Assessment Centre (FTAC), and the fact that "under the Mental Health Act", it locks-up children as young as 11 in police cells.

Once the 'Ministry of Love' (Orwell's 1984) locks you up, you are at its mercy - giving it totally free rein to dish out the 'revenge' (including the "innovative treatment" (above))

e.g. the Winterbourne View specialist hospital where - as reported by BBC Panorama, 1 Jun 11, "Four arrests after patient abuse caught on film", through secret filming, showing...

"some of the hospital's most vulnerable patients being repeatedly pinned down, slapped, kicked, dragged into showers while fully clothed and doused with cold water as punishment, pulled by their hair, taunted and teased".

And, coming to your rescue, will take massive mobilization because - TYPICALLY - (e.g. the case of the elderly woman (above); the Stafford hospital) - "a relative who reported his concerns to both management and to the 'Care Quality Commission' (CQC), did not have his complaint taken up". (Followed by the usual platitudes from a government department that has been exposed).

1 YEAR LATER, the 'Care Quality Commission' was again in the spotlight - also as a result of secret filming - this time, in an elderly care home, Ash Court, London - "Undercover: Elderly Care", BBC Panorama, 30 Apr 12 ;

"Regulator criticised after woman assaulted in care home", BBC 23 Apr 12 -

"appalling treatment of an elderly care home resident with dementia".

"The care home was passed as "excellent" by the Care Quality Commission". "Five workers were sacked, with one pleading guilty to assault was sentenced to 18 months in prison ".

(A relative complained that "the [subsequent report was] not an honest document" = more of the usual from the English public sector: cover-up!).

 

ANOTHER YEAR, and the 'Care Quality Commission' found the 'ideal solution': "Its senior officials ordered that evidence of its failure to prevent a scandal at a hospital maternity unit be destroyed" - "Cover-up over hospital scandal", Telegraph, 18 Jun 13.

Other articles: "Cover-up over 16 baby deaths: How health bosses destroyed report into hospital where all the warnings were ignored", Daily Mail, 18 Jun 13 ;

"'Rotten NHS culture' led to cover-ups", Telegraph, 23 Jun 13

"Regulators deleted the review of their failure to act on concerns about University Hospitals of Morecambe Bay NHS Trust, [Furness General Hospital] where police are investigating the deaths of at least eight mothers and babies.

There have been accusations that midwives colluded to hide errors."

"The original internal review had been ordered after questions were asked about why CQC had given the NHS trust a clean bill of health in April 2010."

It was not until September 2011 that the trust was finally warned that the failings were so serious that it would be closed down without major changes.

By then the trust had the highest mortality rate in the country, with 600 “excess deaths” in the previous four years."

(NB: Note that the Health Service Ombudsman had (of course) "refused to investigate [the complaint from one of families]" - "stating that it was "pleased" with the way the trust had responded" - PHSO - Note).

Note also (under Whistleblowers) the CQC smearing the very courageous "Kay Sheldon, CQC board member", "after she made well founded accusations against the CQC."

And the appalling mistreatment of people in care homes continues:

"Behind Closed Doors: Elderly Care Exposed", BBC Panorama, 30 Apr 14

"Secret filming [*] inside two of Britain's care homes [Oban House, South Croydon; Old Deanery, Essex] uncovers what can happen away from the eyes of relatives and inspectors. It shows the lives of some elderly and vulnerable people blighted by poor care.

Care workers have been suspended and others convicted of assault following the filming - revealing residents being neglected and mistreated."

(*) At Oban House, in Sep 12 by a patient's daughter; by a BCC undercover journalist in Old Deanery.

 

Recently I saw an article in a law journal in which a lawyer was promoting "the benefit" to landlords of going to the Court of Protection. (Considering:

  • (5) Sergeant Avison's comment on 17 Oct 10 "We have to keep information in case you commit an offence and end-up in court". As I replied: "False information, that’s what you are planning on using against me in court?”
  • (7) the medical 'specialist' who, in 2008, could not wait to get me locked-up, added to the ready availability of others who will equally agree to anything (one has to assume, in exchange for the 'right incentive'):

And in case that plan cannot yet be implemented, there is the cranking-up of the persecution and harassment

(e.g. the fraudulent £27,500 demand that includes £24,000 sent to me now for the fourth time, while continuing to ignore my correspondence), continued victimisation and marginalisation

(e.g. Kensington police; court service) – while watching my every move - in the hope that this will finally finish me off through affecting my physical health so seriously that it will eventually kill me - or like the poor woman who was tormented by thugs for 10 years and had her 33 pleas for help to the police ignored: commit suicide.

As evidenced by the experience of many victims of State injustice: that’s the ultimate objective. A view shared by many of the victims present at the meeting.

How is this different from e.g. China that is so readily criticised on Human Rights, by this and previous governments, as well as British-based Human Rights organisations, for its treatment of ‘dissidents’, including sending them to ‘rehabilitation centres’? At least, unlike in this country, China does not really try to, among others, hide, cover-up the fact that it has ‘dissidents’ under surveillance (as can be seen on British TV reports).

 

4 Feb 11 - Grant Shapps, Housing Minister since May 2010 (Coalition Government), is of the view that the managing agents sector does NOT need to be regulated, because "the vast majority of leaseholders are happy with the service they receive"

Incensed by Grant Shapps' comment that "the vast majority of England's three million leaseholders are happy with the service they receive" and that he is "satisfied that the system strikes the right balance between the the rights and responsibilities of tenants and landlords", I sent him a letter, dated 16.12.10, with which I enclosed the FRAUDULENT 'service charge' demand of £24,000 'from' MRJ (=Andrew Ladsky) and my letters asking for evidence - which have been ignored.

It led to a 05.01.11 reply, I challenged in my 19.01.11 response (with supporting enclosures), as well as thanked him for admitting the obvious: that managing agents are NOT regulated. (NB: Yet again confirmed in 2010-11)

The response was a 04.02.11 letter, from Chris Humphreys, that concludes with: "...whilst the Government is not convinced of the case for further regulation including regulating managers in the residential leasehold sector the matter is being kept under consideration". (NB: As there is NO regulation of the residential leasehold sector and supporting infrastructure, use of "further" is misleading)

This was a repeat of what was said in the 05.01.11 letter. My 19.01.11 reply (*) was: "When will you actually do something? When there are leaseholders hanging from every protrusion on the Palace of Westminster... because that would ‘not look good’ to the outside world, would it? Who is pulling your strings Minister?"

(*) To Grant Shapps, as Chris Humphreys had not stated his role in his 05.01.11 letter. This, added to the name, led me to think of Sir Humphreys, in the (brilliant) BBC series 'Yes Minister' - and to suspect that it was a code name for letters destined for the round filing cabinet on the floor i.e. the bin.

(Suspicion triggered by, among other, the evident code name used by West London County Court: 'DEFY' - that came to light following my 02.01.10 Subject Access Request to the Ministry of (In)Justice)

In his letter, C Humphreys overlooks what I wrote in relation to my experience with the RICS. (Yet again repeated in 2011. Why change when you have the full back-up of government to turn a blind eye to fraud and other criminal activities undertaken by your members?).

As evidenced by G Shapps' above comments: presented with a pure white piece of paper, if it suits them, public officials will swear until they are blue in the face that it is jet black. He also falls back on the public sector, including politicians' usual trick for protecting the miscreants in their midst: by claiming the so-called 'strict rule of protocol'. I have stopped counting the number of times I have been dished that one.

The previous government had plans to introduce regulation of managing agents but, as Julian Knight of The Independent on Sunday reports in his 13 Feb 11 article, "Big society? Big rip-off", "Grant Shapps has killed off the intended legislation". Mr Knight states:

"Do I need to remind Mr Shapps that he is the minister who decided to tear up a cross-party consensus on improving the rights of leasehold property owners...from being exploited by unscrupulous management companies appointed by the freeholder? The legislation - before it was killed off by Mr Shapps - would have finally brought transparency to the whole managing agent industry".

Giving an example of the racketeering that takes place in relation to the insurance of leasehold blocks of apartments, Mr Knight concludes with: "Mr Big society Mr Shapps? Big rip-off more like"

They will NOT do anything - in the same way that they will NOT do anything in relation to the residential leasehold system (e.g. the fate of 'An End to Feudalism'; 'Gordon Brown' rejecting the petition to abolish residential leasehold) - BECAUSE THE LAND AND PROPERTY OWNING MASONS SAY SO.

In his 19 Aug 12 article, "Stop sheltering dodgy freeholders, Mr Shapps", Mr Knight states that "The pressure for change is building". Given the history to date: it will only happen with the help of the media.

Sunday 13 Feb 11 - I tell Andrew Ladsky to "run along to go and cry on the shoulder of your friend, Chief Superintendent Mark Heath at Kensington police, because I just swore at you"

Morning

At c.11h30, on my way out of Jefferson House, as I arrive at ground level, I see Andrew Ladsky in the corridor, also on his way out. Feeling energised from having just done my exercises, seeing him is like placing a red rag in front of a bull (the red rag being the 9 years of sheer, utter hell he has - so freely - been allowed to subject me to in the 'concentration camp').

As he is in front of me in the main entrance door, I call him a "f*****g criminal vermin" (I repeat my Comments under Persecution (1)(4)).

He starts blurting out his standard reply "you are ma" but then stops. (Maybe he is losing support for that line of attack). He tells me to "be careful" as he points to the camera in the corridor (My Diary Apr-May 05). (Continuing to demonstrate a very serious lack of intelligence (like the rest of the mafia) to this day, he is STILL trying to use the same scare tactics - because that's all he knows (other example: the fraudulent demand) - and because that's where his support system rests.

IMBECILE! I am way, way past that post). I reply that "I don't give a s**t" and at the same time, do a one finger gesture at him and in the direction of the camera.

He holds the door telling me to "get out". I reply "No". At which point he says "I can stop you from getting in" (i.e. the fob key system that he controls - My Diary 22 Jul 05).

This, yet again, demonstrates the 'Hitler-like' dictator in action. (Typically - he cut off my phone line in c.2005-06; he has been cutting off the electricity and hot water to my apartment on several occasions, etc., etc., etc.- see summary list).

To this I also reply "I don't give a s**t". (I have a plan if this happens).

He gets out of Jefferson House, turns left towards Harrods; crosses the street (i.e. Basil Street), walking rapidly. I follow him and, shouting to the top of my voice say: "Come on Andrew Ladsky, criminal vermin: run along to go and cry on the shoulder of your friend, Chief Superintendent Mark Heath at Kensington police because I swore at you"

(Based on what he and his friend, PC Neil Watson 206BS, "Crime Investigator", Chelsea police, did in 2003). (His 27.01.03 letter describing himself as a "Crime Investigator" and telling me that I had better shut-up and not challenge 'Dear Mr Ladsky' "or there may be further consequences" )

Instead of following him and continue to do this, I turn to go in the opposite direction on Basil St, as I had intended. I had let off steam, and felt even better than I had felt from doing this.

There you are 'Hitler' Ladsky: the evidence for your local 'SS' and your lackeys so that they can file, yet another "crime report" against me (previous 2003 and 2007), and recycle even more of the lies, malicious, perverse accusations and poisonous fabrications against me - and, with your other lackeys - in this "Big, Fair, Morally-driven, Democratic Society" - crank-up the persecution against me even more.

It would appear that Ladsky followed my advice (doing like e.g. the goon he put on my tail on 16 May 06), as afterwards, I noted what appeared to be a higher than usual number of police cars in the streets in which I walked after 'our meeting'. That's important police business, isn't it - worth spending their claim of "insufficient funds" on? (LIke it was 'justified' for them to e.g. come and attempt to intimidate me on 10 May 10). How much is there left of 'the budget allocated to me' compared to e.g. the £5-7 million allocated in relation to Dizaei? I guess it's 'unlimited'.

Evening - Looks like Andrew Ladsky is back to using the Addison Lee taxi service to monitor me

At. c21h30, I was in the City - hence far from the base of Ladsky's 'dogs' and those of the local 'SS' i.e. Kensington police (e.g. My Diary 2010) - and in an area with limited facilities at that time of night, on a Sunday. It seemed to me that an Addison Lee people carrier service, that had just parked alongside (obviously closed) offices, appeared to be interested in my movements.

it is not the first time that I notice this since being in that area in similar circumstances over recent months.

This is a CONTINUATION of what I reported in My Diary e.g. 27 May 2006 - 01h15 a.m. (NB: which, by the way, was before I launched my website).

That man should be locked-up under the Mental Health Act 1983. Being a 'Jew' who has branded me "a Nazi" - "because of my franco-german (sic) origin" - looks like he and his mob are going to pursue me like a war criminal until my death - perceiving my 'daring' to stand-up to them for my rights in relation to their fraudulent activities as being equivalent to sending people to the gas chamber during World War II.

But, unlike for war criminals, no implementation of the rule of law for me when I am in court, or when dealing with the police.

16 Feb 11 - Tom O'Karne, Martyn Gerrard, London N3 1LP, claims that he is acting for "Rootstock Overseas Corp, Panama", and that his firm has taken over from Martin Russell Jones as 'managing' agents for Jefferson House.

Evidently claiming that "Rootstock" is 'my landlord', in 'his' 16 Feb 11 correspondence, he, among other, makes an unsupported, because fraudulent, 'service charge' demand of me of nearly £27,535

See Martyn Gerrard # 2, for detail

c.week 2 of Mar 11 - As part of the British State's criminal psychological harassment regime - on a bus, I am called "a whore", "a bloody foreigner who comes to this country as a freedom fighter" - and an assortment of other abusive names - proving, yet again, (among other) that photographs and / or film footage of me are widely circulated.

One evening, I boarded a bus in north-east London, from a stop I have been using fairly frequently, at roughly the same time. I was wearing: a three-quarter-length coat buttoned-up to under my chin, jeans and trainers. I was NOT wearing my T-shirt (which I normally wear over my clothes). (Message to the 'Gestapo': That's right; look at the video recording taken while I was on the bus: I was NOT wearing my T-shirt).

On walking past a man to go and sit at the back of the bus, I could feel that he was looking at me intently. While I did not look at him, from what I saw from the corner of my eye: he was white, overweight, short-medium height (further confirmed), dressed casually, and appeared to be in his 60s.

After c. 2 stops, I saw from the corner of my eye that he turned round to look at me. I again ignored him by continuing to look at the street. He then went to the upper deck where he remained for the next 2-3 stops.

On coming back down, I could see from the reflection in the window that he was looking in my direction. He started to call me "a whore; a bloody foreigner who comes to this country as a freedom fighter", etc., etc., etc.

From where did he get the information that: (1) I am a "foreigner"? (I certainly did not have a French flag wrapped around me; I did not speak to anybody). (Actually, I also have British nationality - part of my (now very deeply regretted) decision to make this country my home); (2) I am a "freedom fighter"? (If that's how the 'Gestapo' portrays me: I like it :-) )

This HAS to be one of the hundreds of 000s of snoops/goons that are crawling all over the place + somebody who had been snooping on me before and/or had been shown/given a photograph and/or film footage of me. (Subsequent note: Given what took place on 13 Feb 13, I am more inclined to think that it had been planned).

= Yet MORE PROOF that, in addition to Ladsky's scum, I AM ALSO UNDER SURVEILLANCE BY THE STATE - and, in the process, continue to be persecuted, insulted, victimized - with attempts to humiliate me in public = continuation of the British State's criminal psychological harassment.

(See the Dizaei example for evidence of an unlimited budget when Her Majesty's police et.al. decide to get somebody's scalp - and add to that the Ladsky mafia's permanent resources)

 

As I was ignoring him, and never once looked at him, he kept on repeating the abuse, and adding more to it.

The sequence of events suggests I was probably observed through the CCTV cameras as this was taking place. Hence, the scum had performed, like a monkey, on the order of his 'Stasi' masters, so that they, (and him), could get a sadistic kick from watching me.

Bad luck! I know your games vermin. (I repeat my Comments under Persecution (1)(4)). (As can be seen from the photographs, there can be at least up to 11 CCTV cameras on just one bus. This is 'Orwellian Surveillance Britain' AND I am being specifically tracked and monitored).

(The previous attack of abuse on a bus, which also included trying to hit me, was on 16 Nov 10)

Latter part of Mar 11 - By 'amazing coincidence', on 2 occasions, a few days apart, Andrew Ladsky leaves Jefferson House at the same time as me - a 'coincidence' I conclude is connected with my Pre-action letter

During the following c. 10 days after I sent a 17 Mar 11 Pre-action letter, by 'amazing coincidence', Ladsky came out of Jefferson House at the same time as me. (He hides in apartment 9 (e.g. his 26.03.07 letter to my then employer, KPMG), which is located on the ground floor, a few steps from the main entrance). (I do believe that my apartment is bugged; other example: 26 Feb 12 ).

Maybe the objective was to tempt me to another opportunity to vent my frustration - while recording 'the evidence' (see 13 Feb, above) so that it would make it 2 occasions - a requirement for committing an offence under s.7 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 - allowing his local 'SS' lackeys to file another "crime report" against me, and thereby add to 'their evidence' in pursuance of their ultimate objective.

(It may be that he and his Masons' lackeys are wary of repeating what PC Neil Watson 206BS, who described himself as a "Crime Investigator", did in 2003 - as they know that I am now aware of the legislation).

Or maybe they were attempts to intimidate me / remind me of ' his power' because, like his lackeys (who, no doubt, immediately informed him that I had sent a Pre-action letter) (like e.g. he was informed immediately of my having approached 'my' then MP, Malcolm Rifkind), he can't believe that somebody with my profile would contemplate filing a claim against THEM - all by myself.

Surely, the "Nazi" Bitch can't have gained the necessary legal knowledge since the last fraudulent claim I filed against her in 2007. She would need advisors which, at that level, would cost her a fortune - she does not have. If she did nonetheless managed it, it would - again - offer us the opportunity to beat her into submission and, this time, we'll make sure she loses all that she has left, and we drive her to the point of finally achieving our objective: putting her 'out of action' - for good.

(NB: I believe that the above assumptions play a part in: (1) among other, Chief Superintendent Mark Heath, Kensington police, ignoring, since August 2009, my repeated demands in relation to the so-called "crime reports", and repeated warnings that I would take legal action if they were not met;

(2) Ladsky and his mob perceiving themselves free to keep on sending me an ever growing - fraudulent - 'service charge' demand - while ignoring my correspondence.

That's what they rely on. These people are psychopaths / sociopaths who, after money / power, get their kicks out of terrorising, tormenting, persecuting, harassing, bullying, humiliating and debasing the 'little people', especially one of the 'little people' like me - because

(1) they conclude that the 'little people' do not have the means to fight back; (2) they know that wherever the 'little people' turn to for help they will be told to 'get lost' ).

Stupid, arrogant, ego-crazed, vicious, cruel, sadistic, misogynistic, psychopathic / sociopathic parasites.

The encounters 'may' also be due to Ladsky 'perhaps' getting worried about the evidence I give in support of my demands for rectifications and/or deletions and/or additions and/or destruction of reports data - as detailed in my 02.06.10 s.10 Notice and supporting document to Mark Heath (which I supplied with the Claim) - and the bundle of 49 documents I had supplied to the police Public Access Office with my 13 Aug 09 reply - to which I refer in my supporting document, and will - obviously - use in the context of the Claim.

To this I will also add more recent, equally damning evidence as to the so-called "good character of Mr Ladsky" (e.g. Jeremy Hershkorn, Portner, in 2006-07 ; Lanny Silverstone, CKFT, in 2002 ; Ayesha Salim, CKFT, in 2001)...

...- such as the (yet again), FRAUDULENT, 'service charge' demand he had his puppets sent me, so far, 4 TIMES since July 10 (3 times by Joan Hathaway, MRICS, Martin Russell Jones (MRJ);

last time by Tom O'Kane, Martyn Gerrard), and currently stands at £27,535. This makes it the THIRD MAJOR FRAUDULENT DEMAND sent to me by Ladsky's racketeer puppets.

On the other hand, in light of my experience since 2002 (Case summary)... perhaps Ladsky is not worried.

Subsequent note: That's right. He was NOT. 'The Brotherhood' continued to stand by him as though glued to him with industrial strength glue: e.g. my Comments to the PACK OF LIES 09.08.11 MPS Order following my 19 Apr 11 Queen's Bench Claim (QB # 4(6). (Under QB # 4(6), and summaries: Events ; Breaches of the law - see how far his 'brother' Master Eyre stood by him).

 

Friday 9 Apr 11 - 9h45 - Another scum communicating that I am being monitored

9h47 - Herbert Crescent

9 Apr 11 - 9h46 - corner Hans Crescent, Herbert Crescent

 

9h47 - Herbert Crescent

9h47 - Herbert Crescent

As I arrived on Hans Crescent from Pavillion Road, I saw this man standing on the left-hand corner of Hans Crescent and Herbert Crescent - facing Pavillion Rd, the Harrods end of Hans Crescent. He immediately looked at me. A woman was unlocking the door to the children's clothes shop. Although he was quite a few meters away from her, and turned away from her, I initially assumed that he was with her .

Having walked past, my 'internal radar' was telling me otherwise. So, I decided to turn around, by which time he had turned around and was turning left into Herbert Crescent.

I took the photographs of him with his back to me because my 'internal radar' told me that he would backtrack. He did. I took the second 9h47 photograph. I then continued on my way.

Can't tell whether this was one of Ladsky's scum, or one of the local 'SS' / one of their local goons (unlike e.g. 25 Apr 11, below). To me this translates as continuation of the harassment and persecution.

(I again repeat that I am observed from the time I leave the Jefferson House 'concentration camp' - and that it entails usually more than one snoop in order to cover the routes I might take).

19 Apr 11 - As a Litigant in Person, I filed a Claim against the police et.al. as, after 20 months of battling (since August 2009) in relation to the 3 "crime reports" (2002, 2003, 2007) (police # 5) that include:

(1)- my sending numerous letters to the police, including an s.10 Notice (police # 5.5); my complaint being 'referred' to the IPCC (police # 5.4);

(2)- my 'cries for help' to other parties - ALL of my correspondence continued to be ignored.

Hence, treatment that amounts to (continuing, since 2002) to tell me: 'you piece of dirt, you do not have the right to have rights'. (Yet again confirmed by the conduct of KCP in October 2010 ; police # 6). I preceded the claim with a pre-action letter dated 17 March 2011.

I WILL FIGHT TO THE VERY END, NO MATTER WHAT - BECAUSE I WILL NOT STAND THE POLICE HOLDING UNLAWFUL, MALICIOUS, SO-CALLED "CRIME REPORTS" AGAINST ME.

Subsequent note: see Queen's Bench Division page

A fellow pensioner, (John Catt), who, like me, is fighting back against the police: I saw in the Guardian of 3 May 11, "Protester to sue police over secret surveillance".

He is 86 years old and discovered that he was classified as "a domestic extremist" by the police because he (peacefully) attended protest events. Yep! Orwellian Britain! Like somebody said: "At least he is lucky he did not get killed". (Subsequent note: he finally won his case in 2013).

Saturday 16 Apr 11 - Encounter with one of the local, arrogant (and psycho), 'I am on the side of the criminals' Masons' flunkeys

In the morning, before I turned into the street where my PO Box is located, I walked past one of the local 'I am on the side of the criminals Masons' flunkey. I was wearing my T-shirt. Although I did not look at him (I can no longer bear the sight of them), I noticed that he seemed to be looking at my T-shirt.

c. 10 minutes later, in a nearby street, I happened to walk past him again. As I did so, (yet again, without looking at him), he said, in an arrogant, challenging, contemptuous, mocking tone "Alright then?". I ignored him.

(NB: Note this comment - from a police officer who, by then, had seen me twice in the space of 10 minutes - and the fact that I was wearing my T-shirt that says: "Victim of fraud and corruption"; I am a woman (which the State has a particular duty to protect). It says it all, doesn't it?... to be added to the outcome of my 7 visits to KCP, in Oct 10, and all the other events with KCP since 2002). (*)

I assume that he had been 'informed' as to who I was. I also assume (in light of the discriminatory treatment I have been subjected to by ALL the officers I have been in contact with at Kensington and Chelsea police since my first contact in 2002, and those at Notting Hill police who NEVER contacted me in 2007)...

...that my sending a pre-action letter covering the events in 2002, 2003, 2007, 2009-10 and October 2010 is news that is going round the local police stations like wild fire: how could I, 'the piece of dirt', the non-entity who does not have the right to have rights, 'dare' do that? - because, 'of course', they ALL perceive themselves as 'the poor victims'.

I wonder how many other police stations in the Metropolis do, like Kensington, Chelsea and Notting Hill police: perceive themselves to be at the exclusive service of criminals?

Maybe, considering also my experience with the local courts, in 2002-04, 2007-08, 2004 and the local housing department in 2004 - this borough should be renamed the 'Royal Borough of Organized Crime and Corruption'.

(*) Following protestors occupying the roof of the Libyan embassy, for several weeks afterwards, there were some 20+ officers at the embassy. About a dozen standing next to each other on the pavement, and the rest sitting in vans parked on the pavement.

On several occasions I walked right under their nose, wearing my T-shirt. While I made a point of not looking at them I could feel that some looked at me. Needless to say that none of them ever bothered to talk to me... like others who walk past me as though I am invisible - except the one above who took the opportunity to show contempt and mock me.

But then, the poor woman who made a total of 33 'cries for help' to the police, over a period of apparently 10 years, because she and her daughter were being harassed by thugs, was also ignored - eventually leading her and her daughter to commit suicide.

I filed the Claim on 19.04.11. While the 3 Defendants have not received it, they - and Andrew Ladsky - have evidently been informed by the court, as the Masons' flunkeys dog me, hound me, track me, monitor me every step of the way by using the full arsenal, including police helicopters (28 July 11 ; 15 Aug 11 ; 19 Nov 11) - as well as harass me and persecute me.

As evidenced below (11 Aug 11) , one of their objectives is to prevent me from getting help.

(NB: I updated this entry post my 6 Jun 11 update of the site by, among other, including a link to my Claim)

 

Friday 22 Apr 11 - One of the local 'SS' reports back to base on my movements

Around lunchtime, I was in Hyde Park, heading towards Edgware Road. About 50 metres after the bridge, past the coffee shop, in the alley called Main Street, a police van was parked in the middle of the alley. Other than a couple a few metres behind me, there was nobody close to the van.

An officer was sitting in the passenger seat. The window was pulled all the way down. I walked along that side of the van. Having gone past and walked about two steps, I heard him say: "She's just gone past".

Before getting to the park, I suspected that I was being followed.

(See also the previous entry. My having filed the Claim must be going round the Kensington, Chelsea and Notting Hill police stations like wild fire)

(See the Dizaei example for evidence of an unlimited budget when Her Majesty's police et.al. decide to get somebody's scalp - and add to that the Ladsky mafia's permanent resources)

Easter Monday 25 Apr 11 - 10h17 - Andrew Ladsky sends another one of his 'dogs' to follow me - and makes it clear that this is what he is doing

 

On leaving Jefferson House 'concentration camp', I turned right in order to go to the bus stop on Sloane St. The stop is near the corner with Basil St.

Within c.1-2 minutes of my being there, this man (a similar, younger version of Andrew Ladsky) arrived from where I had come from. He positioned himself against the lamp post, as in the photograph - on the corner of Basil St and Sloane St.

(Bear in mind that it is c.10h12 a.m., on Easter Monday, and that the streets are practically deserted; none of the shops are opened).

He remained in this position. I decided to take a photograph.

After a while the bus I wanted to take arrived. He was still in the same position. Once I boarded the bus, he left, turning back down Basil St - perhaps on the assumption that Her Majesty's British Transport police et.al. would then take over tracking me through the CCTV cameras they control / access on public transport e.g. wk 2 of Mar 11 ; 13 Dec 10 ; 12 Jul 10 (that's one of the things that Her Majesty's police does when it wants to get somebody's 'scalp' e.g. Dizaei).

25 Apr 11 - 10h17 - Corner of Basil St and Sloane St

And if I am not on the bus, the British Transport police et.al. will track me through the street CCTV cameras e.g. the local 'SS' who had evidently lost track of me in March 2010.

And, in addition, there is of course the vast army of 'Stasi' spread all over the place, who turn-up within minutes of my being somewhere - and, at times, make it clear that I am not escaping them e.g.13 Jul 10, and will even hound me in public toilets to make sure I have not given them the run - as happened on 13 Dec 10, preceded by one of Ladsky's 'dogs' also doing this 14 Apr 10.

And if that fails, there is the option of alerting the local cavalry that will immediately spring into action e.g. 15 Jan 06; or calling on a British Transport police's helicopter.

(And if I am overseas? Other goons will be put on my tail).

It is abundantly clear from what took place that the intention was to, yet again, for the umpteen time, communicate that I am under close surveillance. Given events, this was clearly one of Ladsky's 'dogs'.

Ladsky has his 'dogs' hounding me and tracking me - in tandem with State goons: see snapshots - Persecution # 2.

In addition to, I believe, bugging of my apartment, it also includes UNLAWFULLY monitoring and interfering with ALL my means of communication: mobiles; post - including stealing it; emails - including interception, as well as giving some of them / the content, and the email address of my correspondents to Ladsky.

My summary slide as to the obvious content of the 'interception warrants'.

Early May 11 - Ladsky has his 'dogs' waiting for me at bus stops and then hound me

Ladsky continues to have his 'dogs' hound me, tracking me from the Jefferson House 'concentration camp' and back to Jefferson House - in the process taking steps to ensure that I am aware of it.

Since the beginning of May he has the 'dogs' running (literally on one occasion) ahead of me into Basil St. Having gone past Jefferson House, the 'dog' stopped running and continued by walking at a leisurely pace. (He had been waiting for me to arrive near the vicinity of the bus stop).

(When I am using the library in North East London which is open until late at night, Ladsky tends to use Addison Lee cars to signal when I am leaving the library. The car departs, and then circles around me as I am walking towards the bus stop) (I note the number plate when I first see the car parked near the library). He then has the 'dogs' waiting for me at the bus stop where I get off or, given events, they might board the bus 2-3 stops before.

Given his extremely sick psyche, one possible reason: I wrote in my pre-action letter and Claim that I find being hounded extremely distressing and an attack on my human dignity - as his ever growing - fraudulent - 'service charge' demand is not having the 'desired effect'.

Monday 9 May 11 - 22h30 - One of Ladsky's 'dogs' tracks me in a McDonald, and then hounds me and harasses me on my way to, and at the bus stop

On coming out of an internet café on Edgware Rd, I went to a McDonald.

Within c.10 minutes, the tall, thin African man in the photo (might be Ethiopian) walked in and looked at me. He went in the area of the counter, but remained stationary, facing me and looking at me . I concluded he was one of the 'dogs' sent by Ladsky. He left after c. 30 seconds (having not bought anything).

When I left McDonald c. 13-14 minutes later, I walked in the direction of the bus stop. The 'dog' was close behind me. I walked in the direction of the bus stop. At the height of the bus stop, I walked c.12m into the entrance to a side street that is immediately behind the stop.

The 'dog' was hovering around, constantly looking at me. Eventually I walked up to him, took the photograph, and told him, loudly, to go and 'f***' off with your master Ladsky. He walked away.

(NB: On 26 Mar 12, I was also tracked into a McDonald. This time by Her Majesty's police / related services - as always at the service of 'Dear Mr Ladsky' )

Edgware Rd - 22h47

 

10 May 11 - As part of its ongoing criminal psychological harassment regime, the British State continues to steal my post. I did not receive the Notice issued by the court

As I had anticipated, given the previous 'selective interception' of my post, I did NOT receive the Notice of Issue from the court. I opted to wait until the last day for one of the Defendants to have filed its acknowledgment of service before going to the court. The court said that it had sent me the document. It gave me a copy. Did it? (see below, events with the police's Defence)

Well, whether or not it did, the conclusion is STILL the same: the State continues to UNLAWFULLY intercept and withhold my post.

 

Wednesday 11 May 11 - 10h00 - Hans Crescent - Sloane St

It seems that one of those hiding with Ladsky behind the offshore paper companies 'might' be getting worried

[ ]

Friday 13 May 11 - 21h00 - Sloane St - Sloane Square

I stayed on the bus past my usual stop and got off 2 stops further on [ ]

Volkswagen; Jewish, part of the mob; lives in Jefferson House; he has been sent before to track me

[ ]

Friday 20 May 11 - c.12 hours after I updated my website, the 'retribution regime' continues: 'watering the plants' in front of my windows - at 05:30 a.m.

Yesterday afternoon, I updated my website for the first time since 24 Dec 10.

12 hours later, the retribution continued as, at 05:30 this morning, I was woken-up by a large amount of water falling in front of my windows - in the process of 'watering the plants' placed on the railing (photograph). In spite of the size of the containers, the hose pipe, which appeared to be on full blast, was left in place for several minutes.

For good measure, the 'watering' also included some hosing of my windows.

This is a repeat of took place on:

Examples of other forms of criminal psychological harassment and persecution.

Among the causes for the 'retribution': the fact that I can VERY EASILY prove that the 'service charge' demand sent to me, so far, 4 times, is FRAUDULENT. Andrew Ladsky and his gang of racketeers were not expecting that as I had not raised it in any of my replies.

I wanted to see what the next move would be / how many times the demand would be sent to me. Maybe, as 'suggested' by the RICS, I was expected to go to the tribunal / 'an advisor' - and thereby waste - yet again - a lot more of my money, as well as my time... not to mention the distress, torment, persecution, humiliation, bullying, harassment, etc., etc., I would - yet again - be subjected to as part of 'the package' (see e.g. snapshot under Kangaroo court).

Saturday 21 and Sunday 22 May 11 - (Among others) the same goon captured in My Diary 30 Jun 10, continues dogging me and hounding me in Knightsbridge - and beyond.

OF NOTE: 1 month previously, I had filed my 19.04.11 Claim in the Queens Bench Division, in which I referred to his harassment (para.118) - of course, as with everything else: IGNORED!

Sat 21 May - At c. 10h15 I took a bus from Knightsbridge to go to Gloucester Road. I suspected that I was being monitored (*)

In the street on which the Gloucester Road tube station is located, I went into shops. As I came out, I saw that the goon was c. 20 metres ahead of me, and turning back to look in my direction. I pretended to not see him.

I crossed the street. In shop windows I could see that he was looking in my direction. I went back down the street.

(*) As i have reported on numerous occasions, it takes place from the time I leave the Jefferson House 'concentration camp'. Meanwhile, Andrew Ladsky who keeps having fraudulent, upon fraudulent 'service charge' demands sent to me since 2002; has so far filed two fraudulent claims against me (2002 and 2007) (in the process showing absolute, utter contempt of the courts); ...

...committed numerous other criminal offences against me - of which the police, having "look[ed] at [my] website", is fully aware of - is, not only, NOT under surveillance - but actively protected and supported by the Masonic network e.g. the police has "No crime report against Mr Ladsky" - whereas it holds 2 FALSE so-called "crime reports" (2003; 2007) against me - HIS VICTIM). (SEE UPDATE)

Sun 22 May - By c. 13h I went to my PO Box. From there I backtracked to get back on the Brompton Road. I then walked on the elevated section of the pavement (30 Jun 10 events). As I did so, the goon was walking in my direction and purposely passed very close to me to ensure I would see him. I continued walking as though as I had not seen him.

I crossed the street to go into M&S. On leaving the shop, as I started to walk in the direction of Harrods, I saw from the corner of my eye that the goon was resting on the railing on the elevated section of the pavement, looking in my direction. Yet again, I pretended to not see him.

= Yet more criminal psychological harassment and persecution by the psychopaths... who will of course continue to do this, not least because they know that I spot the goons - from the time I leave the Jefferson House 'concentration camp'.

Where, as the innocent victim of organized crime, can I turn to for help in this "Fair, Morally-driven, Democratic Society" ? NOWHERE - as demonstrated by my experience with Her Majesty's Kensington & Chelsea police in October 2010 when I tried to file a complaint of harassment against this man.

(The preceding harassment was on Friday 20th, within 12 hours of my updating my website)

(See the Dizaei example for evidence of an unlimited budget when Her Majesty's police et.al. decide to get somebody's scalp - and add to that the Ladsky mafia's permanent resources)

 

Friday 27 May 11 - Tracked down by Andrew Ladsky's scum - working (yet again) in tandem with State goon/s - following my being LIED TO BY THE COURT.

Further, within 24hrs of my reporting this hounding on my website, I was also harassed inside a private library by 2 of the Masons' flunkeys.

At c.12h30, on leaving the Royal Courts of Justice, instead of, as I have done previously, turning left, I turned right in the direction of Aldwych. I then turned right into Kingsway and, a few metres up, went into a fairly large coffee shop.

I sat at the front-end of the shop, a few tables from the door. Other tables were occupied. There were other tables further inside the shop, some of which were also occupied.

Having been there for c. 10-12 minutes, a man walked into the coffee shop, holding a mobile phone to his ear. He was in his c.30s, possibly of mediterranean origin. He looked like a rough type wearing his 'Sunday best': a cap in a brown and beige kind of tweed pattern, and similar jacket.

I immediately sensed that he was looking for me. My feeling was confirmed as his eyes went directly to me. He did not look at anybody else. (A repeat of what took place on e.g. 9 May 11 in McDonald)

(As to how they track me: through the British Transport police et.al. controlled / accessed CCTV cameras on buses (photographs) and in the streets (that's one of the things that Her Majesty's police does when it wants to get somebody's 'scalp' e.g. Dizaei), and then through the State goons who are patrolling the area e.g. 13 Dec 10 ; w/k 2 Mar 11 when I concluded that I was being observed on the bus ; 21 May 11.

If that fails, the local 'cavalry' is sent to track me down e.g. 15 Jan 06 ; or just one of the local 'SS' e.g. Mar 10. And of course, there is also the option of the British Transport police using one of its helicopters = I AM BEING HOUNDED BY PSYCHOS)

To cover-up his true motive for coming into the coffee shop, he pretended to be looking for somebody as he walked 2-3 steps past my table, turned around immediately and then walked out of the shop. As he was nearing the door, he was talking on his mobile, and continued to do so once out. He turned left.

I assumed that he was one of Ladsky's scum as, as with many of the others, he was in his image: vertically challenged (e.g. 6 Jun 09 ; 5 Jun 11). He also emanated a very toxic aura. (As I wrote previously e.g. My Diary 13 July 10, it is difficult for me to explain as I do not have the terminology, but it's like an electric field/an invisible aura that radiates their thoughts / feelings. In the 13 July example, as well as the one on 15 Jun 09 my 'internal radar' proved to be right), (as it has on many other occasions)).

27 May 2011 - 12h51 - Kingsway

27 May 2011 - 12h51

27 May 11 - 12h51 - Kingsway

On leaving the coffee shop, I also turned left as I had intended. I did not see him. However, my 'internal radar' led me to feel that I was being followed. I turned round and, among the numerous people on the pavement (lunch time hour), spotted the man in the photographs (as I had done e.g. on 25 Oct 07). He stopped walking abruptly and appeared to me to be figuring out his next move.

My take on his reaction is that my turning round suddenly and looking directly at him had unsettled him. Likewise, I felt a negative energy from this man. This, plus his reaction, added to the body language and facial expression (superior / arrogant); the attire, in an office area, from a man of an age who should be working (this attire is too casual, even for a dress-down Friday) - led me to conclude that he was a police covert surveillance goon (*)

His next move was to cross the street. At which point, I took the above photographs. As he walked towards Holborn, he did not look in my direction. He then turned right into Remnant St. It 'may be' that there was/were another/others who picked-up where he left off.

(*) To be added to those who monitored me from the time I left the Jefferson House 'concentration camp' earlier on that morning. Good use of taxpayer money, isn't it? Meanwhile, Ladsky is laughing his head off!

(NB: Although I am under constant surveillance, I suspect that the below events are connected with something that took place with the court at the beginning of the week (see below) - rather than with the fact that I again updated my website the previous day, which included (among other):

Subsequent note: what I did NOT report at the time of the above entry, because I needed to be sure - as it implied collusion and conniving between the court and the police (irrebutably confirmed by subsequent events e.g. my Comments to the pack of lies 09.08.11 MPS Order (QB # 4(6) ; summaries: Events ; Breaches of the law):

  • As, by Wednesday 25th May, I had not received the Defence from the Met Commissioner (the deadline for serving was the 24th), I went to the court. I was told “It has sent it. It’s with Master Eyre” and to “come back on Friday”.
  • I returned on Friday because, by then, I still had not received it. Speaking to the same person, I repeated what she had told me on the Tuesday. She denied it, and said that the court “has not received it

Question: Did Her Majesty's Master Eyre review the MPS’ Defence before it was sent to me? (It was eventually posted on 1 Jun 11 - see QB # 4(1)) OR, was this conduct a continuation of the police demonstrating its utter contempt of me, and of its treating me like a piece of dirt, a non-entity who does not have the right to have rights? (e.g. snapshot under breach: Data Protection 1998 ; Article 3 ; Article 8 ; Article 14)

While I am being heavily dogged and hounded on a permanent basis, I conclude, in the light of what I was told by the court staff, that the particular objective on this day was in case I tried to get legal help... so that it could be blocked e.g. 11 Aug 11, below

Within 24hrs of putting the above on my website (minus the subsequent note), I was harassed by what I concluded were 2 of the Masons' flunkeys - one of which I had seen before and had assessed as 'police-connected'.

I was in the library of my ex. university, I have been using regularly. It is a private library for use by students and alumni like me who are provided with a card in order to get access. The floor area is large, with many rows. It was near empty.

Clearly intending to get my attention, one of the psychopaths sat at the end of the row on which I was working, dangling his feet. Knowing his objective to, very clearly, harass me as well as attempt to intimidate me, I barely glanced at him and saw that he was wearing a very similar, tweed-like cap, as worn by the rough type who came into the coffee shop on 27th May 2011 (as detailed above).

I briefly glanced at the other man. It seemed to me that I had seen him before and had assessed him as being 'police-connected'. They both looked extremely arrogant and full of themselves - further confirming to me that they were from the police. I heard them laugh. They left within the next c. 90 seconds.

THIS AMOUNTS TO BLATANT CRIMINAL PSYCHOLOGICAL HARASSMENT BY THE BRITISH STATE.

How did these 2 thugs get access to the private library - that requires a pass?

What was the trigger to the 'retribution'? Exposing one of the State's goons (i.e. above photographs)? (I cannot imagine that the corrupt State elements care too much about my above description of one of the mafia's 'dogs'; but, perhaps 'Dear Mr Ladsky' objected to my describing as being 'vertically challenged')....

...Added to my not seeking legal help, communicating that 'I' 'the non-entity', intended to continue handling the case by myself - thereby depriving the Masonic mafia of a potential opportunity to 'get me' e.g. below, 11 Aug 11, preceded by 28 Jul 11?

(Finding it difficult to accept my conclusions on what took place? In addition to a list of other examples under Persecution # 2 - see e.g. snapshot under breach: Data Protection Act 1998 ; violations of European Convention rights: Article 2 ; Article 3 ; Article 8 ; Kangaroo court ; the Dizaei example of Her Majesty's police et.al. spending millions of £s in an attempt to 'get the scalp' of one of their own - and add to that the Ladsky mafia's permanent resources)

Sunday 5 Jun 11 - 11h50 - Another of Ladsky's 'dogs' tracking me from the time I leave the Jefferson House 'concentration camp' (previous recorded example: 25 Apr 11)

On leaving the 'concentration camp', I went alongside Harrods and crossed Brompton Road at the pedestrian crossing that is at the height of the main entrance to the store.

 

5 June 11 - 11h50 - in front of Harrods

11h51 - on the opposite pavement from Harrods

As my 'internal radar' told me that I was being followed (as usual), I stopped in front of a shop window. In the reflection, I spotted immediately the man in the photograph. And likewise,immediately my 'internal radar' led me to conclude that he was another of Ladsky's 'dogs' (as dogs are used by e.g. the police to track people). Like many of those that Ladsky has put on my tail, I assessed him to be of Jewish origin.

He had arrived from the same direction as me, and was waiting to cross the road, as I had done. I saw in the reflection that he was looking in my direction. As he did do, he put his sunglasses on. (It was overcast, and started to rain a few minutes later). I prepared my camera and took the above the 2 photographs.

I went into the Sainsbury local store that is across from Harrods. I remained close to the entrance to see what the scum would do next. I knew he would come into the shop. I went into alley, then pass another one. He was still there, empty handed, at the head of an alley, close to the exit. Having picked-up the items I wanted, I proceed to the cash desks. He was no longer where I had seen him. As I was paying, I kept an eye on the exit, as well as on the other cash desks. I did not see him.

My 'internal radar' told me that he was still in the store. So, on leaving the store, I turned left and walked a few meters to the side of the store in order to be out of view from within the store. As soon as I had done that, the scum came out of the store, of course, empty handed. He looked in my direction and then turned right - the below photographs.

As evidenced by these examples, this hounding has been going on incessantly for many years.

11h56 - Outside Sainsbury

11h56 - Past Sainsbury

One minute later

 

NOTE: From then on, the entries on my website did NOT go live until 24 July 2012. The last update had been on 6 Jun 11.

 

June - July 11 - I spent the time writing documents in relation to my 19.04.11 Claim

See Queen's Bench Division page

 

7 Jul 11 – Listening to a conversation I am having from a public phone box, 'not liking' what I say, the 'Stasi' interferes in order to end my conversation

In addition to listening to my conversations: (i) on my mobile phones; (ii) on a landline in an internet café, (iii) the 'Stasi' also listens to the conversations I have from public phone boxes I have been using on more than one occasions.

An example of this took place on 7th July 11, when I was talking to a contact from a phone box at a university where I use the library. (I had previously used this phone to e.g. talk to the Treasury Solicitors, solicitors for the Home Office, in relation to my 19 Apr 11 Claim against the Home Office).

The phone box had been accepting my coins. At one point, I told the person about the death threat I received in Jun 09 (“Enjoy your life. You don’t have long to live”) and followed this by saying: “Because of my experience with the police since 2002, every night when I go to bed, I ask myself whether this is going to be the night I am going to be killed. In the morning, when I wake-up and realise that I have made it through the night, I ask myself: am I going to be killed today?”.

I needed to put more coins in the phone box. I had a large assortment of coins with me. No matter what I put in the phone box, which must have been half a dozen different coins, none of them were accepted. I told my contact that this line was being listened to because I had used it previously and that what was happening was that ‘they’ were interfering with it to end my conversation.

(It had happened before, in 2007, with another public phone box, near to the apartment, I had used previously. I had phoned a contact in the north of England. Except that this time the money I had put it in was not being used up. As soon as I commented on this to my contact, my credit started to run down).

As agreed on the phone, I subsequently met with the 7th July person, as he said that he could help me in relation to my 19 Apr 11 Claim. The meeting took place in a pub in Putney. Having concluded a long time ago that I cannot trust anybody in this country and, with my ‘internal radar’ being on alert from certain things during the meeting, I wondered whether my contact had been bought (like e.g. my medical practitioners).

On leaving the pub, I saw a Masons' ‘dog’ positioned about 40 metres away.

As I had told myself during the meeting that I would not pursue the matter, I did not.

(Finding it difficult to accept my conclusions on what took place? In addition to a list of other examples under Persecution # 2 - see e.g. snapshot under breach: Data Protection Act 1998 ; violations of European Convention rights: Article 2 ; Article 3 ; Article 8 ; Kangaroo court ; the Dizaei example of Her Majesty's police et.al. spending millions of £s in an attempt to 'get the scalp' of one of their own - and add to that the Ladsky mafia's permanent resources)

 

Thursday 28 Jul 11 – Clearly worried I might ask for help ahead of tomorrow's court hearing, the Masonsflunkeys monitor me very closely - and, not taking any chances, have one of Her Majesty's British Transport police's helicopter as back-up

The hearing of the Met Commissioner’s 30.06.11 Application to have my 19 Apr 11 Claim struck out is set for tomorrow, 29th, at 13h30 (see what happened at the so-called 'hearing': QB # 4 (4))

As I reached the grocery store, on St John St, very close to the university (where I frequently stop on my way to the library), I spotted 2 men sitting in a car, parked in front of the grocery store.

The one in the passenger seat appeared to me to be of Jewish origin. The one in the driver seat had the look of being ‘police connected’.

My ‘internal radar’ went on alert. I concluded that their interest was in me and, while I am being hounded everyday, (and, on my way, had already spotted some 'dogs'), the ‘effort’ that had gone into doing this, led me to conclude that it was connected with the next day’s hearing (the car, perhaps in case I then took a taxi) - and that, for sure, the Masonic mafia's plan was to clubber me at the hearing.

On coming out of the grocery store, I would normally turn right to go to the university. However, I saw that the driver had come out of the car, and was sitting in a mini square area, c.25m down to my left – and looking in my direction.

I walked over, and sat on a bench next to his. He obviously did not like it, as he got up and went to sit on an elevation, c. 8m away, facing me. As per usual, the mobile phone came out - no doubt to report that I had spotted them. At this point, I took the photograph.

 

St John St - 11h06

Annoyed, he walked back to the car. I took the other photographs.

It was a Mercedes registration number HK52 MRV

Instead of backtracking, I left by a side street, Percival St, a few metres down, slightly lengthening my route to go to the university.

As had happened on another occasion when I took that route, a British Transport police helicopter was hovering over practically stationary, above houses in Malta St, a residential street. Hence, had I taken the direct route, it would have been out of my view and hearing.

My conclusion: the helicopter was there as back-up to the 2 Masons' flunkeys. (Other instances of my being hounded (as well harassed) by Her Majesty's British Transport police's helicopters: snapshots - Persecution # 2)

In addition to my premonition materializing the following day (QB # 4 (4)) - this evidence speaks for itself, including confirming, yet again, that Her Majesty’s British Transport police et.al. monitor me through the CCTV cameras on buses, as well as in the streets. (Of course, yet more evidence of this in 2012)

Oh no! I forgot! "I am obviously extremely paranoid as I think that I am being followed by the police as well as numerous people employed by my enemies, and this is not the case". Isn't that right, CORRUPT CRIMINAL VERMIN (*) at Kensington, Chelsea & Notting Police?

Making me, 'of course', 'a risk' to "my" 'poor' "Jewish" "neighbour" (Note the true role), 'Dear Mr Ladsky', "the vulnerable victim" 'I' "intimidate" (text in quotation marks from Her Majesty's Kensington & Notting police's so-called "crime report" it holds against me) and 'dare' describe as "that evil, greed-ridden monster" (Her Majesty's Master Eyre). Isn't that so?

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

(These 'assertions' and comments are HILARIOUS - when you consider the evidence contained e.g. under Advisors to Jefferson House; Extortion and Overview. Note that my objecting to the above (among many others), was described by Her Majesty's judiciary as "[amounting to] a most obvious attempt to re-write history" (QB # 4(6)(1)). This demonstrates how SICK and INSANE the British State has become).

(Finding it difficult to accept my conclusions on what took place? In addition to a list of other examples under Persecution # 2 - see e.g. snapshot under breach: Data Protection Act 1998 ; violations of European Convention: Article 2 ; Article 3 ; Article 8 ; Kangaroo court ; the Dizaei example of Her Majesty's police et.al. spending millions of £s in an attempt to 'get the scalp' of one of their own - and add to that the Ladsky mafia's permanent resources)

 

Friday 8 Aug 11 - Day on which the Tuesday 02.08.11 Draft Order sent to me by the court, by 1st class post, on that day, was delivered. It had clearly been (UNLAWFULLY) intercepted by the police - with the aim of limiting my ability to reply.

See Draft Order section on the court's page: QB # 4 (5)

(This is a repeat of what it did with the 22 Feb 10 letter 'from' the IPCC).

 

11 Aug 11 - The Masonic mafia ensures I cannot get legal help. No problem, I don't need it. I approached a law firm specialising in cases against the police as a test, and in order to accumulate more of the very damning evidence against the State. ('Maybe' one day, somebody with integrity and authority will do something. 'Maybe'....).

Having said at the 9 July 11 so-called ‘hearing’ (QB # 4 (6)) that I intended to challenge the PACK OF LIES 09.08.11 MPS Order ‘from’ Her Majesty’s Master Eyre, I frantically set about doing desk research – as I had absolutely no idea how to do it. I had one month to do this. With God’s help, I was absolutely determined to face up to the challenge (and I did! - ALL BY MYSELF - with the help of some good books) (QB # 4 (7)) .

While knowing that I had less than a 0.00001% chance of success ((i) previous experience with a lawyer in 2007, and with ‘my’ advisors in 2003 – added to (ii) the fact that I am being hounded and tracked wherever I go (see recent some examples above: 28 Jul ; 27 May ; 21-22 May), and (iii) cannot be contacted: post, phones, emails) - I nonetheless opted to contact a firm of lawyers specialising in cases against the police.

In other words: I did this more as a test than anything else – and it substantiated the conclusion I had anticipated .

I took a bus I take frequently, and got off several stops before my ‘usual stop’. At the law firm, I asked to speak to somebody, explaining that I could not phone or write. Asked to come back after 45 minutes, I went to a nearly hotel for a coffee.

On my return, I spoke to somebody and, having briefly explained my case, was told that I would “hear of the decision by letter within a few days”. I did NOT receive anything.

On leaving the firm, I stopped in a nearby square. I spotted at least one man, arrogant, smug, who made it obvious to me that I had been tracked.

As I have reported many times before, it is crystal clear that I am being tracked through the State-controlled CCTV cameras on buses, and in the streets. I contend that this adds further proof of this.

This experience confirmed to me that I should continue handling the case by myself – not least because ALL of my means of communication are interfered with.

(Finding it difficult to accept my conclusions on what took place? In addition to a list of other examples under Persecution # 2 - see e.g. snapshot under breach: Data Protection Act 1998 ; violations of European Convention: Article 2 ; Article 3 ; Article 8 ; Kangaroo court ; the Dizaei example of Her Majesty's police et.al. spending millions of £s in an attempt to 'get the scalp' of one of their own - and add to that the Ladsky mafia's permanent resources)

Given that:

... - WHY are they evidently so scared of me, and so obsessed with me - the 'little person' with no power and no influence?

(Examples of previous occasions: (1) 16 May 10 ; (2) 18 Sep 10 ; (3) 22 Sep 10 ; (4) 28 Jul 11) (The next time was (5) 19 Nov 11, followed by (6) 23 Mar 12) (There have been others I have not reported)

15 Aug 11 - Watching my every move, the 'Luftwaffe' arrives within 10 minutes of the other Masons' 'Stasi' losing track of me.

 

On my way to the university’s library, I stopped in a nearby little park, an unusual occurrence for me. I did this partly because it seemed to me that, on leaving the bus stop, my movements were being observed.

I sat in an enclosed area. Within about 10 minutes, I heard a helicopter fly very close by. From the sound, it was circling around.

Within c. 2 minutes it came back, but this time it had widened its circle such that it ended-up flying within my field of view. I concluded it had spotted me as, it immediately turned around and flew closer to where I was. The psychos had found me - and let me know they had - by dishing out more of the British State's criminal psychological harassment.

YEP! That's how Her Majesty's police treats me, the GLARINGLY OBVIOUS INNOCENT VICTIM OF ORGANIZED CRIME: it hounds me like a 'criminal' and/or a 'terrorist' -

...while the criminal, Andrew David Ladsky - Her Majesty's Kensington & Notting Hill police obligingly describes in a so-called "crime report" it holds against me, as:

"my" 'poor' "Jewish" "neighbour" (Note the true role) "the vulnerable victim" 'I' "intimidate" and 'dare' describe as "that evil, greed-ridden monster" (Her Majesty's Master Eyre)...

...- who IS behind - ALL that has happened to me since 2002 - has, since then, been actively assisted and protected by the British State - and is currently laughing his head off at me.

(These 'assertions' and comments are hilarious - when you consider the evidence contained e.g. under Advisors to Jefferson House; Extortion and Overview. Note that my objecting to the above (among many others), has been described by Her Majesty's judiciary as "[amounting to] a most obvious attempt to re-write history" (QB # 4(6)(1)). This demonstrates how SICK and INSANE the British State has become).

The additional motive for my being hounded is that I said I would appeal against the PACK OF LIES 9 Aug 11 MPS Order (QB # 4 (6) and # 4 (7)). It is done with the objective of ensuring I cannot get help e.g. 28 July 11, 11Aug11.

(I repeat my above suggestions re. the credibility of my assessment - as well as my question).

 

7 and 8 Sep 11 – Her Majesty's local post sorting office denies it is intercepting some of my post – but needs 24hrs to come up with this answer

Knowing that some of my post continues to be intercepted (e.g. letters from financial institutions with which I have accounts, including my monthly bank statements), I went to the post office sorting office, on Exhibition Road, that handles the post for my PO Box.

It was 10h00. I asked to speak to the manager. In reply to the question asking the purpose, I replied that I was not getting some of my post. The person disappeared out of the desk area for c. 1 minute. On his return, he told me “he is not in” and to “come back tomorrow”. The reply when I asked for the time was “He is in everyday between 08h00 and 13h00”. Evidently, “every day” - except on that day!. My conclusion was that he needed to get an ‘approved answer’.

I returned the following day in the morning, and did see the manager. I repeated my position that some of my post was being withheld at the sorting office. He, of course, denied it saying that "[I] should talk to [my] PO Box people".

As I have maintained for a long time, the nature of the items intercepted proves – undeniably – that my post is (UNLAWFULLY) intercepted at the instigation of the police / by the police itself who makes its 'selection' at the sorting office – which is a State-controlled department.

There is NO WAY that my PO Box manager would be made to do that. Among others, it would require issuing an interception warrant (s.5 of RIPA), and renewing it every 6 months (s.9 of RIPA)

 

4 Oct 11 - "Tell Boris what you think!"... he won't pay attention if it does not suit him - et.al...

...(and might even tell you to "Fuck off and die!" (The Guardian, 18 Jun 15))

I received a questionnaire from the Mayor, Boris Johnson, headed: "Tell Boris what you think!".

As he is the Chair of the Metropolitan Police Authority (subsequently renamed the 'Mayor's Office for Policing and Crime (MOPC)'), in my 04.10.11 reply I wrote: "My top issues are police corruption and residential leasehold fraud".

In relation to the police, I wrote: "Get rid of Chief Superintendent Mark Heath as he considers himself and his officers to be above the law and to be at the service of criminals (my landlord)" (police # 5.2). And: "Get rid of the many corrupt officers. Remind the rest that they are not above the law" (police # 9.2; media page).

In addition to providing my website URL, I also supplied a copy of my 13.09.11 letter to the IPCC (police # 5.4 ; QB # 5).

In relation to the residential leasehold system, to provide information, I supplied a copy of my 04.10.11 letter to the GLA (below) - which, in any case, he would have got, as he apparently sponsored the GLA survey.

My reply was evidently 'not liked' as: (i)- I did not receive an acknowledgment ; (ii)- 3 weeks later, Her Majesty's judiciary in the Queen's Bench Division continued to maintain, at the 24 Oct 11 'hearing', the 9 Aug 11 pack of lies Order...

- that gives the police carte blanche to continue processing its unlawful packs of lies so-called "crime reports" against me...

- so that the 'retribution' regime - using the key tool: mental torture - can continue to be inflicted on me - the glaringly obvious innocent victim of organized crime.

Of note: ahead of the Mayor election (My Diary 3 May 12), Boris Johnson had the nerve to send me a letter, headed "Noëlle", asking me to vote for him.

 

Thursday 6 Oct 11 - Within 48hrs of my responding to a government's survey on service charges, Andrew Ladsky had been informed of my doing it

At the 24 Sep 11 C.A.R.L. AGM, a representative of the Planning and Housing Committee, Greater London Assembly (GLA), informed the CARL members that it was conducting a survey on service charges in the residential leasehold sector, and would welcome input.

While having zero hope of things changing in the sector (e.g. (i) the binning of 'An End to Feudalism' ; (ii) the dismissal, in 2008, of the petition to abolish residential leasehold ; (iii) 'the housing minister' claiming, in Feb 11, that "the majority of leaseholders are happy with the system") - I opted to nonetheless reply for the sole purpose of adding to the mountain of evidence.

To this effect, I compiled this analysis of the 'service charges' for the Jefferson House 'concentration camp'. I supported it with 17 documents (list at the end of my analysis) explaining, in my 04.10.11 letter, that I was doing this "because some of what is captured may be hard to believe".

As suggested during the AGM meeting, I copied my letter to 'my' GLA member, Sir Merrick Cockell. He did not acknowledge it. (As detailed in Wikipedia, he is also: (i) Leader of Kensington and Chelsea council; (ii) Chairman of the Local Government Association).

(Subsequent note - Might his silence have been attributable to his being on the side of landlords and property developers? See K&C council - Intro).

Within 48hrs of my letters being delivered, Ladsky was in the entrance corridor (immediately above my apartment) stomping his feet as hard as he could (*) (**) I concluded he had been informed of my correspondence - in the same way that he had been told immediately about: (i) my correspondence to 'my' then MP Sir Malcolm Rifkind - which, as i reported, had led to my being subjected to further persecution; (ii) my 17.03.11 Pre-action letter.

(*) Ladsky repeated this on 26 Feb 12 in relation to my Application to the European Court of Human Rights = communication through the MASONIC NETWORK)

(**) Therefore behaving like a 4-year old having a tantrum because he can't get his way.

Ladsky first started to use this 'means of communication' back in 2002 (associated with other forms of harassment), as soon as I started to challenge the true nature of "the works" (police # 1 background) - as I reported e.g. on pg 4 of my 09.08.03 letter to Her Majesty's District Judge Wright. It was followed by a repeat, less than 3 weeks after my letter, on 31 Aug 03. Why? I was 'daring' to continue to fight for my so-called 'rights'.

And ever since, i.e. over the last 10 years, he has found an ever growing, massive army of '4-year olds' like him who have, and continue to jump at the opportunity to join him in his tantrums - and in the 'retribution' for my 'daring' to stand-up to them.

 

Monday 17 Oct 11 – The Masons' 'Stasi' tracks me and monitors me to see if I am going to deliver my Request for Oral Hearing of my 30.08.11 Application for Permission to Appeal against the PACK OF LIES 09.08.11 MPS Order

In 'her' 06.10.11 Order, Her Majesty's Justice Lang fully endorsed the PACK OF LIES 09.08.11 MPS Order 'from' Her Majesty's Master Eyre - by denying my 30.08.11 Application for Permission to Appeal against the Order (QB # 4(7)). Today is the deadline for filing my Request for Oral Hearing of my 30.08.11 Application.

I went to my ex. university to finalise it. The Masons' 'Stasi' hounded me from the time I left the university (and had obviously tracked me there... as per usual!).

I went to a nearby post office to post my 17.10.11 Request to the Met Commissioner (evidence at the back of my Request). One of the 'Stasi' was at the bus stop and, very clearly, not waiting for a bus. In fact, he was making it clear that his interest was in me. In my usual way (one finger in my back), I communicated to him that I was aware of this.

Since the 02.08.11 Draft Order - (which was a test, and to which I replied as best I could in my 07.08.11 response (QB # 4(5)), the Masonic mafia had been counting on my not having the knowledge to appeal.

I repeat my above suggestions re. the credibility of my assessment - as well as my question.

August was a very frantic time, doing desk research, as I started from a base of zero knowledge and there is A LOT to learn – and digest. And, of course, I had to prepare my documents - see court section.

Concluding from events with the court (29 Jul 11 'hearing', 2 Aug 11 Draft Order ; 9 Aug 11 Order) that my 30.08.11 Appeal Application would - for sure - be denied - in September and October, I continued learning frantically while developing my 17.10.11 Request.

It is abundantly clear from what took place during the 24 Oct 11 so-called 'hearing' and events in relation to 'the Order' (QB: # 4(7)3 and # 4(7)4) - as well as the ongoing persecution since then - that my 17.10.11 Request was 'not liked'.

I decided I was going to file an Application with the European Court of Human Rights (which I did in Jan 12). Perhaps one of the reasons for continuing to hound me as though I were a terrorist, was in case I approached a lawyer to do this (e.g. 11 Aug, above). Keep hoping mafia!

YEP! As with EVERYTHING ELSE that has taken place since 2002 - IT IS ALL DUE to 'Dear Mr Ladsky' deciding that he was 'entitled' to make a multi £ jackpot at my expense (and that of my fellow leaseholders) - and they ALL said: Yes, of course! You've got to hand it out to this country: it sure knows how to look after its criminal friends.

 

5 and 12 Nov 11 - Ladsky's brigade monitors my departure from the Jefferson House 'concentration camp'

Early on the morning of 5th November, Harrods had its parade going through Basil St. The street had therefore been cleared of parked cars. When I came out at c. 10h20, only 3-4 cars were parked.

One of these was a dark blue Range Rover, number plate X777 SQF.

I had spotted this car a long time ago as I had seen it many times before on leaving the ‘concentration camp’, in the morning, parked in the street. Every time, I saw a man who looked to me to be of Jewish origin, sitting very low in the driver’s seat as if to avoid being seen.

I concluded he was a ‘sentinel’ tasked with communicating my departure – ‘maybe’ at times when Ladsky is not in the ‘concentration camp’.

From early September, I decided to make it obvious that I was aware of him by standing by the car. Because of my conclusion as to his ‘sentinel’ role, on a few occasions, I also went round nearby streets, and positioned myself by the car when getting back to Basil St.

On Saturday 5th Nov, in addition to the ‘sentinel’ in the car, I also spotted, on the pavement, about 30 metres up from the car, just before the fire station, what appeared to me to be another one. He was stationary. He was of Mediterranean origin, possibly Jewish. Likewise, same type of look as many of the others. I was on the opposite pavement. I did not communicate my awareness of them.

At the height of the fire station, I crossed the street, and went into the alley by the fire station. Having walked slowly, about one third of the way up, I backtracked to Basil St – camera ready.

One man, of Mediterranean origin, coming from the direction from which I had arrived, was crossing the street and stopped to talk to the ‘sentinel’ in the car (photograph). The man by the fire station was on the phone.

Basil St - 10h30

 

On Saturday 12th Nov, on leaving the ‘concentration camp’, I turned left, and left into a side street. I walked down, and then remained there for c. 1 minute. I then walked back to Basil Street. As I reached Basil St, the 'sentinel' was coming out of his car.

 

Basil St - 12h11

He seemed to have spotted me as, after walking a few metres, he stopped behind a tree, as though he was hiding, and was looking in my direction.

Coming from the fire station side, a woman came to talk to the sentinel. They then walked towards his car.

 

Saturday 19 Nov 11 - Early afternoon - The 'Thought Police' (Orwell's 1984) 'not liking' what I said on the phone to one of my cousins, yet again, one of the 'Luftwaffe' hounds me and harasses me.

I was hounded and harassed by one of Her Majesty's British Transport police helicopter in the City (business district), near the library I have been using regularly for a while (on Bunhill Row). Being a Saturday, the area was very quiet. Instead of cutting through a cemetery, as I frequently do, I used a parallel street. I could hear a helicopter flying back and forth over the area of the cemetery.

(The psychos knew where I was from their mates monitoring me through the British Transport police et.al. controlled / accessed CCTV cameras on public transport).

Having spotted me, it lost height, and remained practically stationary immediately above me. It was clear that I was its point of interest. (Subsequent note: the height of the helicopter was c. the same as on 30 Nov 13 - when I took a photograph)

The reason for this other blatant evidence of criminal psychological harassment by the British State? I concluded it was connected with what had taken place earlier on which, I assume, includes one or all of the following:

(1) From an internet café, I phoned one of my cousins.

  • (i) I told her about the 'trick' with the 2 Aug 11 Draft Order (QB # 4(5)) (Up to this point, I had not said anything to anybody). I frequently use this telephone facility and, for a long time, have suspected that it is monitored by the State, which would mean GCHQ.
  • (ii) At the end of my conversation, I told my Cousin: "Don't listen", and communicated a rude "message to GCHQ".

(2) After the internet café, I stopped in a nearby restaurant for a sandwich. There is a bus stop immediately in front of it. I spotted a man, in his early 30s, medium height, dressed in a shabby, light grey tracksuit, standing inside the bus stop giving him a view into the restaurant. My 'internal radar' led me to conclude that he was connected with the police.

As soon as I sat down next to where he was standing, he walked away, outside of the sheltered area of the bus stop. As he did this, I said "Ladsky's pig". I know he heard me as he quickly looked back. He immediately took his mobile phone out of his pocket and talked. He then walked away, in the direction of the traffic as, having boarded a bus, I saw him c.60m up from the bus stop.

I submit that this evidence speaks for itself, including confirming, yet again, that: (i) Her Majesty's security services are listening to my phone conversations ; (ii) Her Majesty’s British Transport police et.al. monitor me through CCTV cameras on buses, as well as in the streets. (Of course, yet more evidence of this in 2012)

Oh no! I forgot! "I am obviously extremely paranoid as I think that I am being followed by the police as well as numerous people employed by my enemies, and this is not the case". Isn't that right, CORRUPT CRIMINAL VERMIN (*) at Kensington, Chelsea & Notting Police? Making me, 'of course', 'a risk' to my 'poor' "Jewish" "neighbour" (Note the true role), 'Dear Mr Ladsky', "the vulnerable victim" 'I' "intimidate" (text in quotation marks from Her Majesty's Kensington & Notting Hill police's so-called "crime report" it holds against me), and 'dare' describe as "that evil, greed-ridden monster" (Her Majesty's Master Eyre). Isn't that so?

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

(These 'assertions' and comments are HILARIOUS - when you consider the evidence contained e.g. under Advisors to Jefferson House; Extortion and Overview. Note that my objecting to the above (among many others), has been described by Her Majesty's judiciary as "[amounting to] a most obvious attempt to re-write history" (QB # 4(6)(1)). This demonstrates how SICK and INSANE the British State has become).

(I repeat my above suggestions re. the credibility of my assessment - as well as my question).

 

20 Nov 11 - The Masonic mafia decided that, after withholding my post - for 3 weeks - as part of its criminal psychological harassment - I should be 'allowed' to get 'some of it'.

Today, for the 1st time since 30th Oct, I discovered that some of my post had been delivered. Hence, I had NOT had ANY post for 3 weeks. I KNOW for a fact that some was sent before - and I can see that it is missing.

What was the potential trigger? I assume my 17.10.11 Request for Permission to Appeal which was very clearly not to the mafia's 'liking' and, I think it can be safe to assume: not expected. It was dismissed (for the 2nd time) at the 24 Oct 11 so-called 'hearing' (QB # 4 (7)3)

 

25 Nov 11 - 'Dog' 'not happy' that I figured out his ploy

On coming out of the ‘concentration camp’ I walked to the pedestrianised area alongside Harrods (Hans St). I spotted some ‘suspects’. Instead of continuing to Brompton Road, I went alongside the back of Harrods (Basil St). I sometimes use that route to cause confusion among the ‘dogs’, and very rarely go into Harrods.

I suspected that one, or more of them would ‘follow me’ by walking through Harrods. I was proven right.

Half way down the length of the store, I entered it, and came face to face with one of the ‘dogs. Tall, in his late 30s/early 40s, he was wearing a blouson, jeans, newspaper stuck in the back pocket of his jeans, and had a definite cop facial expression.

The body language told me that he was not expecting to see me there. He went past me for c. 5 metres, then back-tracked. I remained where I was, ‘confirming’ that I had spotted him, as he again looked at me. I then took the escalator.

(I repeat my above suggestions re. the credibility of my assessment - as well as my question).

Yes, that’s the type of activity on which the State spends my (and other taxpayer) money: hounding me, an glaringly obvious innocent victim of organized crime - in the process of running a protection racket, as well as a retaliation service for my ‘daring’ to stand-up and fight for my rights.

.

Friday 16th Dec 11 – The Masonsflunkeys track me to a laundrette, and then continue hounding me

For the first time, I used a launderette located in Seymour Place, a little street parallel to Edgware Rd, near Marble Arch. I took a bus from the ‘concentration camp’ to get to it.

Within 8-10 minutes of being there, I spotted what appeared to me to be one of the search ‘dogs. I anticipated that goons would no doubt be positioned shortly within the vicinity.

Having done my laundry, one hour later I left the laundrette. Looking to my left, I saw a man standing on the corner with Seymour Place and Upper Berkeley. My ‘internal radar’ told me that it was one of the goons.

Looking to my right, I saw another goon, standing at the beginning of the street, on the opposite pavement of Seymour St i.e. at the T junction, resting against the wall, eating a sandwich. (At least he came prepared for the wait :-))

I decided I would first take a photograph of him, and catch the other one later.

I therefore walked down in his direction and, coming out from behind a parked van, took the 14h14 photograph.

Seymour St - 14h14

I then backtracked on Seymour Place. The other one was still standing on the corner with Upper Berkeley.

At the pub which is about half way from where the 2 goons were positioned, I turned right into Great Cumberland Mews to see if they would follow me. It’s a dead end mews that leads to a car park.

Having spent c. 1 minute in the mews, I turned back and, as I arrived back alongside the pub: sure enough, goon #2 had come down the street. I knew he would do this and had my camera ready giving me a ‘nice photograph’.

To give himself composure, he went to the side of the pub for 2 seconds, as though he was looking in the window.

Seymour Pl - 14h17

Seymour Pl - 14h17

Seymour Pl - 14h18

Seymour Pl - 14h18

He then walked off back in the direction of the corner where he had been standing, turning into Upper Berkeley, that leads into Edgware Rd.

As per usual, like little children who need to run to their mummy when something does not go their way (e.g. the Masons' police flunkey on 19 Nov, above), as soon as he turned his back to me, he took his mobile phone out of his pocket and started to talk. I guess he had to report that he had been well and truly spotted.

Leisurely, I took the same way, turning right on Edgware Rd.

I could feel a pair of eyes in my back. It was the goon, hiding in a recess. (One of their tactics is to go into a shop, to be out of view, and then they resume the chase e.g. as per the above, 25 Nov example).

I went into a shop. The goon was gone or, at least, out of view, by the time I came out.

This evidence speaks for itself, including confirming, yet again, that Her Majesty’s British Transport police et.al. monitor me through the CCTV cameras on buses, as well as in the streets. (Of course, yet more evidence of this in 2012)

 

Edgware Rd - 14h23

Oh no! I forgot! "I am obviously extremely paranoid as I think that I am being followed by the police as well as numerous people employed by my enemies, and this is not the case". Isn't that right, CORRUPT CRIMINAL VERMIN (*) at Kensington, Chelsea & Notting Police? Making me, 'of course', 'a risk' to my 'poor' "Jewish" "neighbour" (Note the true role), 'Dear Mr Ladsky', "the vulnerable victim" 'I' "intimidate" (text in quotation marks from Her Majesty's Kensington & Notting Hill police's so-called "crime report" it holds against me) and 'dare' describe as "that evil, greed-ridden monster" (Her Majesty's Master Eyre). Isn't that so?

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

(These 'assertions' and comments are HILARIOUS - when you consider the evidence contained e.g. under Advisors to Jefferson House; Extortion and Overview. Note that my objecting to the above (among many others), has been described by Her Majesty's judiciary as "[amounting to] a most obvious attempt to re-write history" (QB # 4(6)(1)). This demonstrates how SICK and INSANE the British State has become).

As I remained on Edgware Rd for a while, I came across other ‘dogs’. On one occasion, when I let it be known that I was aware of it, the ‘dog’ departed.

(I repeat my above suggestions re. the credibility of my assessment - as well as my question).

 

Christmas - New Year's break - I went to France, and was also dogged there = a continuation of my being dogged when I am overseas

It took place when I was in Paris, as well as 500km away from Paris. I noted predominantly men: it seemed to me, mostly of French origin; also a North African / Jewish man. In Paris, definitely one woman, I concluded was doing this in tandem with the one of North African / Jewish origin. I communicated to him my awareness of what he was doing. He walked away.

In Paris, they hounded me, among others, in shops, leading me, on one occasion, to say: "Les chiens des Francs-Maçons sont à la chasse!" (the Masons' dogs are hunting) - as I had spotted 2 hovering around me. The one within earshot walked away immediately, shortly followed by the other one. (Yes, they 'might' have been store security but, my 'internal radar' was telling me otherwise - added to the other instances).

Hence: the international network of the Masonic - 'Jewish' mafia acts like a kind of 'INTERPOL FOR ORGANIZED CRIME', hounding its victims. (Perhaps some of its British flunkeys had also been sent to 'enjoy a break' - at the British taxpayers' expense e.g. my trip to the US in Aug 10)

(I repeat my above suggestions re. the credibility of my assessment - as well as my question).

Back to top