Email this site to a contact

 

Another court that turned into a kangaroo court in my case...with the subsequent endorsement of the European Court of Human Rights

OTHER COURTS

 

(If the linked documents within the PDFs do not open, try with Internet Explorer:

 

If Internet Explorer does not go to a specific part of a page on my website i.e. does not link to an anchor:

In the Internet Explorer browser, select Tools, then 'Compatibility View settings'.

Under 'Add this website' enter: 'leasehold-outrage.com' and click 'Add').

 

This page covers events with:

(1)- Her Majesty's London High Court Queen's Bench Division re. my 2011 Claim;

(2)- the European Court of Human Rights re. my 2012 complaint

- both of which turned into kangaroo courts - as well as

(3)- my complaint to the Commissioner for Human Rights, and Secretary General, Council of Europe.

Sections list (below)

 

In reading this page on ALL the parties involved in the events, remember that the ROOT CAUSE for their actions and lack of action is a thoroughly evil, greed-ridden, vampiric, multi-criminal Rachman crook, Andrew David Ladsky...

...- deciding, with his gang of racketeers (1) that I (and fellow leaseholders) would be made to pay for:

and related works - for which we are NOT liable...

(1) Since 2011, Martyn Gerrard has been in the driving seat

(2) Amazingly, by 2016, they had 'disappeared': Gerrard # 30.

Back of Jefferson House in July 2002...

...and in September 2005

...so that Ladsky could make a multi-million £ jackpot...

... - that includes a penthouse apartment (Planning application; Land Registry title)...

...that was: "categorically NOT going to be built" (Brian Gale, MRICS, 13.12.02 "Expert Witness" report to the tribunal - # 7.1),

because it was not a viable proposition" (Joan Hathaway, MRICS, MRJ - 04.03.03 letter) (Overview # 3)...

...sold for £3.9 million (US$6.9m) in Dec 05, and on the market in Oct 07, for £6.5m (US$11.5m)

For more detail, see this Feb 06 diagram.

For whom ALL the parties referred to on this page joined the other assassins - in saying:

Yes! Of course! O' Great One!

Because...

 

...to do what Ladsky did - to gain £500k - isn't 'Mr Big' - is it?

So: why the across-the-board unfailing support?

Firstly, because this island-Kingdom is controlled by crime, for the benefit of crime - resulting in its being "fantastically corrupt".

I add that only the corruptible can be corrupted

Secondly, because he is 'Jewish' and / or because he is a Freemason who – as a result of his own actions – has exposed other Freemasons who, cowardly, take it out on me instead of him.

 

In reading this page, remember also the claims by the then Prime Minister, David Cameron - in Jan 12:

"...Britain...[has a] well regarded legal systems and...a long and exemplary record on human rights..."

"We are not and never will be a country that walks on by while human rights are trampled into the dust"

(But then, the UK's Human Rights Act excludes 2 critical articles: Article 1 - Obligation to respect Human Rights; Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy = the Act is a sham).

(United Nations Human Rights Chief, Zeid Ra’ad al-Hussein, did not respond to my 24.07.16 letter in which I raised these issues) (My Diary 24 July 16).

 

Sections

(NOTE, above, browser set-up)

1. Her Majesty's London High Court - Queen's Bench Division - April-October 2011

-----

-----

-----

-----

*****

2. European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR)

*****

3. Overall consequences on me of what is reported on this page:

 

  C O M M E N T S

 

1. Her Majesty's London High Court - Queen's Bench Division - April-October 2011

 

INTRODUCTION

 

This section relates my experience with 3 of Her Majesty's Judiciaries following filing my Litigant in Person 19.04.11 Claim against the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police Service ('MPS'), 'Independent' Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) and Home Office.

I submit that, considering the evidence in the case, any fair minded, reasonable, honest person would agree with me that, in my case, this court was turned into a kangaroo court - as I submit that, on the basis of the evidence in the case, NO reasonable judiciary regardful of its duty to act judicially would reach the conclusions it did.

In other words: I most strongly submit that Her Majesty's judiciaries demonstrated glaringly obvious bias and impartiality (*) (NB: ONE European Court of Human Rights Judge disagreed with me - see below).

(NB: in 2016, disgusted, a barrister resigned from the Bar, describing high court judges as “The majority are so removed from reality, so steeped in preserving the status quo, they cannot begin to see the point you are making to them”).

My assessment excludes the court staff for whom, bar one (My Diary 27 May 11), I only have praise, and found them to be at the opposite end of the spectrum from the staff in West London County Court in 2002-04 and 2007-08. (A special 'thank you' (again) to the 'in-house' Team that assists Litigants in Person - for its invaluable help on a particular occasion). If only these individuals and court staff could have been the judiciaries!

(*) It was a repeat of my experience, since 2002, with Her Majesty's other courts, and one tribunal - I ended-up being dragged through 'courtesy' of the evil, greed-ridden, Rachman Andrew David Ladsky, and his gang of racketeers.

As evidenced on this page: as with everything else on this site - Ladsky is also the ROOT CAUSE for my filing this 19 Apr 11 Claim. (I repeat my above comments).

(See, next, summaries: Events ; Breaches of the law)

Back to sections

 

Summary of events - Her Majesty's Queen's Bench Division - 2011:

Overall, the dominant terms are:

leading me to start using, on this site, the term kangaroo court.

(NB: My adding these summaries to the page, in 2013, led to an immediate massive increase in the attacks against me by Her Majesty's British Transport Police helicopters: 2013 summary # 2 - that has continued ever since)

Queen's Bench - Summary of events - Sir Paul Stephenson, Her Majesty's then Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) (#4)

(See below, Breaches of court rules and statutes) (I repeat my above comments)

(1) - Following filing a 28.05.09 Subject Access Request (police # 5.1), I received, from the police, 3 "crime reports" processed by Kensington, Chelsea and Notting Hill police:

In spite of being heavily redacted, in blatant breach of (among others), the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA), they contained false, totally unsupported, highly malicious, vicious, libellous accusations against me - overall, portraying me as:

(2) - From there followed nearly one year of soul-destroying battles with the police: at the local, Public Access Office, Directorate, and Met Commissioner level, being, at the time, Sir Paul Stephenson - with all - deliberately, and persistently ignoring the overwhelming, irrebutable evidence I kept repeating against the so-called "crime reports" - and therefore, failing to take action (Doc library from # 4.7).

In the case of Stephenson, it included, among others, my 02.12.09 letter, setting out, in the form of 21 questions, the misconduct, some criminal (below), by Kensington, Chelsea and Notting Hill police (letter also addressed to his boss, Alan Johnson, then Home Secretary) (police # 5.2).

It included, also in breach of the DPA, the then Chief Superintendent Mark Heath, Borough Commander, Kensington police, ignoring my 02.06.10 s.10 Notice and (67pg) supporting document - detailing very clearly, and irrebutably, how the so-called "crime reports" are blatant packs of lies - and how they consequently breach my rights (among others), under the DPA (police # 5.5).

Subsequent documents, also detailing comprehensively how the "crime reports" breach my rights under the DPA, as well as other statutes - with the addition of supporting case law, and the Met Commissioner's 'responses':

(My 19.07.11 MPS Witness Statement also discusses the issues in detail but, without legal arguments - as they cannot be included in witness statements). (Snapshots: breach DPA).

(3) - It was then followed by the police-staffed's 'poodle', the 'Independent' Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) - illegally - granting 'dispensation' to the MPS from compliance with the requirements of the DPA (police # 5.4).

(4) - As, one month after my detailed, 17.03.11 Pre-action letter, that included a copy of my above s.10 Notice (pt # 1(2)), Stephenson was clearly intent on continuing to not address the situation (*) (pt # 1(2.2)) - (as a Litigant in Person), I filed a detailed 19.04.11 Claim (pts # 1(3) and # 1(4)).

(*) It was a continuation of Stephenson's criminal psychological harassment as, 20 months previously, I had made him fully aware of the issues with the "crime reports", and with his police station of Kensington, Chelsea and Notting Hill (police # 5.2).

(NB: In Sep 12, Stephenson was "attacking the justice system" (!!!) See an earlier reply to Stephenson, from a lawyer).

In my Claim, I also included the fact that, in Oct 10, Kensington & Chelsea police had, in spite of my 7 attempts, refused to investigate my 2 well-documented complaints of harassment against 2 men (Overview # 17).

(5) - The blatant contempt, disdain and psychological harassment continued, by Stephenson withholding, from me (of course, not the court), his Defence, until one week after the deadline for filing (pt # 1(4.1)).

(6) - In addition to the blatant, arrogant belief of being 'above the law', Stephenson's perverse, contemptuous, insulting, dismissive and defamatory 23.05.11 Defence was (like the "crime reports") a web of lies...under a 'Statement of Truth'! (pt # 1(4.2))

(To be expected, as Stephenson had consistently ignored my prior, very damning evidence (above) - thereby providing irrebutable proof of his endorsement of the misconduct and criminal actions by his officers).

Among the many 'gems' in his 23.05.11 Defence:

  • Para.17 - "All of [my] claims under the DPA are misconceived and without merit".
  • When you look at the content of my above documents - also discussed, in detail, under: police: # 1 , # 2 and # 3 - the blatant lie hits you in the face.
  • Para.11 - "the police complied at all times with the data protection principles" ; "The data was processed in accordance with [my] rights under the DPA" ; "[My] personal data is accurate, adequate, relevant". Ditto.
  • Para.22 - "no rectifications, deletions or amendments are required". Ditto.
  • Para.13 - "the Data Protection Principles do not require the police to (a) record every piece of information, (b) information according to [my] preferences."
  • - v. what he stated under para.6 of his 30.06.11 Application (pt # 1(4.4)): “All the details [supplied] must be recorded…”.
  • Para.23 - "the police is unable to comment on the alleged falsity of Mr Ladsky’s claims or on their allegedly being malicious or misleading" - unbelievable!
  • (To make his 'complaints' stick, the police did not challenge him on any of his accusations e.g. 20.11.09 letter from A/Chief Inspector Steve McSorley: police # 5.2. In fact, the mafia police added to them liberally - as evidenced by the contents of this section).
  • In 2003, "Kensington police did not deny [me] the right to defend [myself] against the accusations and opinions of [me]".
  • v. the fact that it ignored my 11.02.03 letter asking for "precise detail - in writing - of the accusation" and, on the day it received it, closed down the report claiming that "[I had] not responded" (police # 2 KP # 11 to # 13) - to which Stephenson's 'response' (under the same para) was: the police is not required to do so under the DPA" - Unbelievable!
  • Processing of the 2003 report is not unlawful. [It] does not accuse [me] of anything…”
  • stating: "I am the police officer dealing with this crime", and asking my Host for "the name of the organisation in the US that deals with any complaints about websites" (police # 3 KP(4))...
  • ... - Stephenson's 'response': "As part of [the police's] investigations, Dowling made inquiries to [my] website Host. He indicated the nature of the allegations he was investigating, but did not suggest that [I] was guilty of the alleged conduct...
  • These emails were sent in the ordinary course of an investigation into complaints made against [me]. They made no accusations against [me]". Unbelievable!
  • Para.40 - In relation to my attempts, in Oct 10, to file 2 complaints of harassment - Stephenson denied the excuses I had been told. I was able to prove him wrong, as I had recorded the conversation, and supplied both, the recording and the transcript (pt # 1(4.2)(3)).

(7) - One week later, Stephenson filed a 30.06.11 Application for Summary Judgment to have ALL of my claims "struck out" (pt # 1(4.3)). In breach of CPR, he did not provide any reasons - merely regurgitating his outrageous assertions in this above Defence.

  • Under para.10, he asserted that "the police investigated my 2002 complaint", and, under para.11, repeated the same lie about Ladsky's 2003 'complaint'.

However, neither in his Defence, nor his Application, did he respond to my stating that, in relation to the so-called 'complaint' of 2007 - the police had never contacted me at any point in time - a fact I repeated in my 19.04.11 Particulars of Claim, under paras 5c, 9.f, 21.a, 56 and 67p.

(8) - The 'hearing' of the Application was set for 29 July 11 (pt # 1(4.4)). In preparation, I responded with a 19.07.11 Witness Statement.

Demonstrating further the evilness, corruption, sadism, and perversion of the police - after I had filed and served my Wit.Stat. - the police sent me a significantly less redacted version of the "crime reports" (pt # 1(4.3)) - which, for the following obvious reasons, it attempted to retrieve from me e.g. 28.07.11 letter (pt # 1(4.3)).

While absolutely outrageous, and demonstrating further the insanity of Kensington, Chelsea, and Notting Hill police, some of the comments that had been previously redacted, in the 2007 "crime report", are nonetheless hilarious e.g.

See pt # 1(4.3) for some of the other 'gems' that had previously been blocked out. I captured the majority in my 29.08.11 Wit.Stat. (in connection with my Appeal: pt # 1(4.7)(1)).

(9) - The 29 Jul 11 'hearing', led by Her Majesty's Master Eyre (pt # 1(4.4) was a charade - as I was facing an audience that was hell-bent on 'crucifying' me.

Eyre did not make any comments following my:

  • repeating the fact that I had been denied the right to defend myself against all of the accusations, and that all my correspondence, including s.10 Notice had been ignored;
  • repeating some of the very damning key points in my 19.07.11 Witness Statement - to which I added the corresponding breaches of my rights under the DPA, as well as other statutes (as witness statements cannot contain legal arguments);
  • raising the issue of the redacted text, citing some notable examples, as well as the fact that the police had supplied me a less redacted version of the reports post my filing my Wit.Stat.

In fact, as I was going through my list, the looks exchanged between Eyre and Paul Stephenson's counsel, Nicholas Wilcox - confirmed the collusion and conniving - that had been evident from the start.

The only time Eyre commented, was when I raised my very strong objection to Andrew David Ladsky being described as "my neighbour" in the 3 "crime reports" (police # 1 KP1A) - as it is a key foundation to the packs of lies reports. To this, Eyre replied: "He is your neighbour, isn't he?" (pt # 1(4.3)).

Eyre ended the hearing at the point of discussing costs. I had anticipated that this would happen as, in breach of CPR, Stephenson had not supplied me with his costs, ahead of the hearing.

The objective of the conniving was to test the pack of lies 02.08.11 Draft Order, to see how I would respond - draft Order which the police had intercepted, to reduce my response time (pt # 1(4.5)).

(10) - Of course, also ignoring my 'best as I could' reply of 07.08.11, on 9 Aug, 'last part' of the 'hearing' of Stephenson's above Application - HM's Master Eyre printed his sycophantic 02.08.11 Draft Order as a final, 09.08.11 Order: pt # 1(4.6) - under which I discuss some of his many, outrageous lies (my comments are also attached to the Order). In summary:

  • he endorsed the absolutely outrageous accusation that, on my website, "[I used] the terms "pigs and monkeys" to refer to Ladsky and his allies... not very surprisingly in view of Ladsky being Jewish, he took offence "; and, because the evidence does not exist to support the accusation, during the 'hearing', Eyre attempted to create it (pt # 1(4.6)(1)).
  • (2) Eyre backed-up the police's actions, and lack of action - in the process, resorting to portraying me as a liar, imbecile - thereby undermining my credibility - e.g. unbelievably:
  • (i) he asserted that the police had contacted me in 2007 (pt # 1(4.6)(1));
  • (ii) in relation to my Oct 10 complaints of harassment, for which I had provided Eyre with undeniable proof of Stephenson's lie (pt # 1(4.2)(3)) - he just wrote: "the police recorded the matter, but took no action" - thereby implying - falsely - that my complaints were unsubstantiated / unactionable (pt # 1(4.6)(2)).
  • (3) Eyre fully endorsed Stephenson's outrageous blanket denial of breaching / violating any of my statutory rights (pt # 1(4.6)(3)), absolved the police of any misconduct in public office (pt # 1(4.6)(3)) - stating:
  • "the action against the Met Commissioner amounts to no more than a most obvious attempt to re-write history, and is completely devoid of merit" (pt # 1(4.6)(1)); "[All my] allegations are misconceived and unfounded" (pt # 1(4.6)(3)).

(11) - Outcome: it left the police with its 1st 'trophy', and 'me' with police's costs of £8,478 (US$14,950) (!!!): my 22.08.11 payment, letter in which I continued to expose many of the lies, as well as conniving and collusion that took place. It did not respond to my letter.

(12) - I filed a 30.08.11 Application for Permission to Appeal against Eyre's pack of lies 09.08.11 Order (pt # 1(4.7)). My Application was DENIED (thereby giving 'trophy' # 2 and # 3 to the police, to add to its database, as 'evidence' of 'the truth' of its so-called "crime reports" against me) - BY:

= The (typical) most blatant, closing of rank among the Establishment = 'the Brotherhood', in very sick, "corrupt Britain".

Queen's Bench - Summary of events - 'Independent' Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) (# 5)

(See below, Breaches of statutes) (I repeat my above comments)

The introduction to section # 5, provides an overview of my 19 Apr 11 Claim against the IPCC.

(1) - Following 6 months of battling - in vain - with the police (summary: Doc library # 4.7 to # 4.9), DI Crispin Lee, Directorate of 'Professional Standards', approached the IPCC - using false excuses to have my complaint dismissed (police # 5.3).

(2) - 'Of course', the police-staffed's 'poodle', 'the IPCC', endorsed the police's '22.01.10' (read 4 Feb 10) Application for Dispensation (pt # 1(5.1)) - based on the totally irrelevant Reg.3 of the Police (Complaints and Misconduct) Regulations 2004...

...- resulting in 'its' - illegally - granting 'dispensation' to the police from compliance with the requirements of the Data Protection Act 1998 (pt # 1(5.2) ; police # 5.4).

'The gem' in the Application, by DI Crispin Lee, Directorate of 'Professional Standards':

If the crime reports were to be altered at the complainant’s request this would set a new precedent for crime reporting and recording across the UK. This complaint is therefore an abuse of process

(3) - Demonstrating further the blatant conniving and collusion, in 'its' '02.03.10 Minutes of Application', and correspondence to me (pt # 1(5.2)), 'the IPCC' (=police) made some equally outrageous claims - that totally ignored my rights under the DPA - including stating:

"the police ha[s] a strong case for dispensation" ; "investigating [my] complaint now would likely cause an injustice" Unbelievable! (pt # 1(5.2)).

As had happened with the MPS Draft Order (Event # 9, above), the police also intercepted 'an IPCC' letter to me, giving a ridiculous deadline for response - this time ensuring I did not get the letter until after the deadline had passed (pt # 1(5.2)).

(4) - Without having any knowledge of my case, in 'its' 18.05.11 Defence, it opted for a blanket denial of all my claims (pt # 1(5.4)).

(5) - Also under a statement of truth, 'the IPCC' continued with the lies, as well as denials in 'its' 07.06.11 Application to have ALL my claims "struck out" - and emphasised that "[I] should have challenged its decision through judicial review" (pt # 1(5.5)).

Proving that the state relies on the majority of people not having the means to do this, is 'the IPCC's comment under para.23 of 'its' 07.06.11 Application:

"A successful judicial review challenge would have resulted in the IPCC having to retake its decision on the dispensation and would have therefore provided [me] with a complete remedy to that aspect of [my] complaint."

WHY didn't it provide me with "a complete remedy" - at the time i.e. in Feb 10?

(6) - Of course, in his 29.07.11 Order (my Comments are attached), HM's Master Eyre agreed with the argument (pt # 1(5.7)) - in the process turning a blind eye to:

  • (1) the IPCC - illegally - granting dispensation to the police from compliance with the requirements of the DPA (pt # 1(5.2) ; police # 5.4);
  • (2) the IPCC had very clearly connived and colluded with the police - in the process, ignoring legislation, including its statute-based duty, as well as police regulations and guidance (pt # (5.3)) - while claiming, under 'statements of truth', that it had not done this (pts # 1(5.5) and # 1(5.6));
  • (3) the fact I had taken, what I viewed as a legitimate alternative: submitting an s.10 Notice to the police (as it imposes a legal requirement to reply) (it, 'of course', ignored!) (Events # 2 / police # 5.5)

...resulting in 'my' having to pay costs of £3,703 (US$14,95) to the IPCC (!!!): my 13.09.11 payment, (letter copied to the Home Secretary) - in which I continued to expose many of the lies, conniving and collusion that took place (pt # 1(5.7)).

(7) - 'Of course', typically, 'the IPCC' engaged in other forms of criminal psychological harassment tactics: (1)- at the Pre-action stage (pt # 1(2.4)) ; (2)- making me ask repeatedly for a sealed copy of the Order (pt # 1(5.7)) ; (3)- other events, under s.5.2 of my Comments attached to the 29.07.11 Order.

= The (typical) blatant closing of rank among the Establishment = 'the Brotherhood', in very sick, "corrupt Britain".

Queen's Bench - Summary of events - Theresa May, Her Majesty's Secretary of state for the Home Department (# 6)

(See below, Breaches of statutes) (I repeat my above comments)

The introduction to section # 6, provides an overview of my 19 Apr 11 Claim against Theresa May. Essentially, that since at least the summer of 2005, Home Office departments have (and continue) to have me - unlawfully - under constant 'surveillance' (Persecution # 2),

...including monitoring and interference with all my means of communication (Persecution # 3), as well as bugging / ensuring the bugging of my apartment (Persecution # 3.5) (many examples captured in my 19.07.11 Home Office Witness Statement: pt # 1(6.1))...

...which is absolutely outrageous, and an unbelievable abuse of power - as I am a law-abiding individual - who has done nothing wrong.

It is crystal clear from my experience - since 2002 - with the police, tribunal and courts, 'my' MP, the 'regulators', etc.,etc., (Case summary) that this ongoing, barbaric, tyrannical treatment is motivated by 'revenge' for no other reason than my 'daring' to stand-up against Establishment-controlled organized crime for my so-called 'rights',...

... as well as 'my daring', after 5 years of fighting - in vain - for justice and redress, to expose chapter and verse of my case on this website (e.g. comment by Paul Stephenson's counsel that "Master Eyre is not pleased with your website" (pt # 1(4.6)(5)(2)) - added to, (in the same section), Eyre's comments in his Order).

(2) - In 'response' to my Claim, Theresa May filed a combined 07.07.11 Defence and Application to have all my claims "STRUCK OUT", on the ground that "the appropriate body for [my] claims is the Investigatory Powers Tribunal".

It amounts to (typically) sending 'the little people' on a wild goose chase as, for the reasons explained under pt # (6.1) - the Investigatory Powers Tribunal does not offer me the opportunity to get an effective remedy. I stated this as early as the Pre-action stage (pt # 1(2.3)).

In fact, more to the point: (typically) the Investigatory Powers Tribunal is another rubber-stamping office for the state's abuse of power e.g. media articles (pt # (6.1)). Come on! The British state giving 'an effective remedy' to its people against its abuse of power? That would be the day!

(3) Outcome:

 

Summary of events - European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) (# 2)

(See below, Breach of Convention)

(1) - Having reached 'the end of the line' in the UK, I submitted a 26.01.12 Application to the ECtHR, covering the police, related services (*), and the Queen's Bench judiciaries (pt # 2(2.1)).

(*) Due to the claim in the 2007 "crime report" of my being "paranoid because [I] think the police and numerous parties employed by [my] enemies may be following me" (police # 3 KP(3)(3)(2)(8) and (9)), and of "suffering from mental issues" (KP(3)(3)(2)(10))...

... - under section 2.3 of my Application, I drew attention to the Witness Statements I had issued in the context of my 19 Apr 11 Claim, that reported numerous examples of my being hounded; of interference with all my means of communication; etc. and cited some examples (pt # 1(6.1)).

(2) - The 06.06.12 letter (my Comments are attached) stated that one judge, Vincent A. De Gaetano (Malta), declared "[my] Application inadmissible, because it fail[ed] to meet the criteria under Articles 34 and 35" - without giving any reason - thereby breaching the European Convention (pt # 2(2)).

(3) - In spite of the letter stating that "[I had] no right of appeal" - as my detailed analysis led me to conclude that the assertion was false (pt # 2(2)), I sent a 18.09.12 letter to the (then British) President of the court, Sir Nicholas Bratza, to which I attached a copy of my analysis of the Articles - asking for an assessment of my conclusions (pt # 2(2.1)).

Typically, to avoid dealing with my question, the 11.10.12 'reply' misrepresented my request (pt # 2(2.1)).

(4) - Determined as ever to get justice and redress, I sent:

Both washed their hands of it, claiming that they "cannot interfere with judicial decisions" (pt #2(4)).

It is not a judicial decision. The only thing that is 'judicial' about it, is a judge deciding that he could exempt himself from compliance with a requirement of the Convention which, of course, he cannot. It should therefore be of concern to both, the Commissioner and Secretary General.

(5) - Conclusion: ' the Defender of Human Rights', the ECtHR, approves of the violations of my human rights by Her Majesty's police, related services and judiciaries.

(6) - At Apr 13, I still could not find my Application on the court's database (pt # 2(3)).

The glaringly obvious objective of Her Majesty's Queen's Bench judiciary (backed-up by the European Court of Human Rights...under the British presidency of Sir Nicholas Bratza):

to ensure the police's retention of the "crime reports" in their current state, and concurrent criminal charges against me - for the purpose of their all continuing with the 'retribution' against me...

...out of 'revenge' for my 'daring' to stand-up against Establishment-controlled organized crime, and its 'brother', Andrew David Ladsky,...

...as well as 'my daring', after 5 years of fighting - in vain - for justice and redress, to expose the detail of my case on this website (e.g. "Master Eyre is not pleased with your website" (pt # 1(4.6)(5)(2)) and, in the process, expose various parties, which include some of the judiciary.

Overall outcome on me (see below)

My name for what has - and continues to take place? ‘The wonders of 'the Brotherhood' - in very sick, "corrupt Britain" - in which the Establishment acts as one with 'certain criminals'.

(Adding credence to my conclusions - see the Jan 14 Indy articles that report on police's findings of "corruption of the criminal justice system et.al. by Freemasons").

Back to sections

Breaches of the law - Her Majesty's Queen's Bench Division - 2011:

In - my NON-lawyer opinion (*) - Her Majesty's Queen's Bench Master as well as judiciaries, committed breaches of Civil Procedure Rules, of statutes - including committing criminal offences against me (I repeat my above overall comments):

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

Further, I highlight that my adding these summaries to the page, in 2013, led to an immediate massive increase in the attacks against me by Her Majesty's British Transport Police helicopters: 2013 summary # 2 - that has continued ever since.

 

Queen's Bench - Summary of breaches of the law - Sir Paul Stephenson, Her Majesty's then Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) (#4)

(See: (1) summary of events, above; (2) definition of 'bias') (I repeat my above comments)

•  Civil Procedure Rules

  • (2) - Throughout - failing to perform its duty under, Part 1 - "Overriding Objective" (extracts): Rule 1.1(2) - "Dealing with a case justly; (a) ensuring the parties are on an equal footing; (b) "saving expense", etc. And, IGNORING Stephenson's failure, under Rule 1.3 "to help the court to further the overriding objective".
  • and in his 30.06.11 Application for Summary Judgment to have all of my claims "struck out" (pt # 1(4.3)] and verifying them by a statement of truth" - as he, most definitely, could not have had "an honest belief in their truth".
  • This includes Eyre also sycophantically turning a blind eye to the lies, in relation to my 2 complaints of harassment in Oct 10 - in spite of my providing him with irrebutable evidence of the lies - as I had recorded the conversation (pt # 1(4.2)(3)).
  • ...I demonstrated (more than) "reasonable grounds for bringing it" (Rule 3.4(2)), and the irrebutable evidence I subsequently supplied confirmed I had "real prospect of succeeding at trial" (Rule 24.2).
  • Further, in the process, Eyre ignored the breach of PD 24, para.2(3) - as Stephenson had failed to provide any evidence in support of his outrageous Application. Indeed, what he wrote amounted to: 'That's what we've done - and we are right!' (pts # 1(4.2) and 1(4.3)).
  • (5) - Eyre placing me deliberately and perversely "on an unequal footing" (Rule 1.1(2)) - by failing to take action against Stephenson who filed a significantly less redacted version of the so-called "crime reports" - ahead of the 'hearing' of his Application - once I had filed and served my 19.07.11 Witness Statement in response to his Application (pt # 1(4.3)).
  • To make-up for Stephenson's failure to respond, in his Defence, to my assertion that the police never contacted me in 2007 about the so-called 'complaint', to give an iron-clad 'proof' to his mate, Eyre also added that "the police [had] contacted me in 2007" - in spite of my repeatedly stating that it had not (pt # 1(4.6)(1)).
  • Eyre sycophantically endorsed the accusation that, on my website, "[I used] the terms "pigs and monkeys" to refer to Ladsky and his allies... "; and, because the evidence does not exist to support the accusation, during the 'hearing', Eyre attempted to create it (pt # 1(4.6)(1)).
  • Ignoring my 'best as I could' reply of 07.08.11 (from which any judiciary mindful of his/her duty to act judicially would have concluded that the Order was seriously flawed) - he then turned the Draft Order into his final Order.
  • a 06.10.11 Order, claiming that "[my] Application [was] misconceived and unfounded", and that it "[did] not have a real prospect of success" (pt # 1(4.7)(2)) - thereby breaching Rules 3.4(2) and 24.2 (# 4, above);
  • a 24.10.11 Order - stating: "It is ordered that this application for appeal is refused" - failing to state the reason/s - which led me to (yet again) go into another vain battle (pt # 1(4.7)3), and # 1(4.7)(4))...

•  Data Protection Act 1998:

Totally ignoring the very blatant and numerous breaches of the Act (below) - by stating that "ALL of [my] allegations are misconceived and unfounded" (pt # 1(4.6)(3)); "no more than a most obvious attempt to re-write history" (pt # 1(4.6)(1)) - and failing to exert its powers to issue Orders to the police, under:

  • s.14(2) to comply with the requirements of the Act, including "ordering the rectification, blocking, erasure or destruction of any of those data": s.14.(4);
  • s.15(2) "to provide the court with an unredacted version of the report to determine and assess the logic involved in the decision to block the data" (NB: Kensington police has not released a lot of the data to me - I most strongly believe: in breach of s.7(4) (pt # 1(4.3));
  • s.14(3) "to [then] notify 3rd parties of the rectification, blocking, erasure or destruction of the data"; (NB: The police is circulating the "crime reports" far and wide: police # 5.5);
  • s.13(2) to pay me "Compensation for failure to comply with the requirements of the Act".

AND:

European Data Protection Directive 95/46/EC

Totally ignoring the requirements:

  • Recital 28 - “…any processing of personal data must be lawful and fair to the individuals concerned
  • Directive 14 - "A data subject must be granted the right to “object at any time on compelling legitimate grounds..."
  • Article 22 - "Member states must provide for “the right of every person to a judicial remedy for any breach of the rights guaranteed him by the national law applicable to the processing in question"

•  Malicious Communications Act 1998 - (see extracts) (= criminal offences):

  • (1) - The 02.08.11 'Draft Order' - as HM's Master Eyre could be in doubt whatsoever that what he had written was a pack of lies. (But, his objective and that of his police mate, Stephenson was to test the final version of the Order (pt # 1(4.5)).

•  Theft Act - s.21- Blackmail (see extracts) (= criminal offence)

•  Protection from Harassment Act 1997 (see extracts) (= criminal offences):

  • By - over a period of 6 months - wilfully, perversely and repeatedly ignoring all my - very compelling - evidence against the so-called "crime reports" - in the process, breaching my rights under statutes and CPR - as detailed in this section.

•  Defamation Act (see extracts)

Her Majesty's Queen's Bench Division is defaming my name, character and reputation by processing:

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

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

BUT: see my above Note. Hence, it can be argued that there have been no breaches.

In addition to its breaching the above CPR (as relevant) - in striking out all of my claims against the then Met Commissioner, Sir Paul Stephenson - Her Majesty's Queen's Bench Master Eyre, and Justices Lang and MacKay, also turned a blind eye to - and therefore endorsed - the following breaches of statutes by the police:

(The following is contained in a summary form in my 19.04.11 Particulars of Claim, and discussed comprehensively in the documents listed, above, under Events # 2).

•  Data Protection Act 1998:

  • Ongoing breaches of numerous parts of this Act, that include practically all of the Data Protection Principles. (For snapshots: see breach DPA).
  • Unsurprisingly, under para.34 of his 23.05.11 Defence, Paul Stephenson had the gall to claim: "The MPS's failure to acknowledge [my] purported s.10 Notice was not "wilful or reckless", but in accordance with the law" (police # 5.5).

•  Malicious Communications Act 1998 (see extracts) (= criminal offences)

  • (2) - The Mar 07 emails to my website Host, 'from' Trainee Detective Simon Dowling, that branded me "a Nazi", "anti-semite (sic)", "because of my franco-german (sic) origin", claimed that "[I had] committed a crime" (Event # 6)...
  • ... - and, in relation to which, Stephenson claimed that "[the emails] were sent in the ordinary course of an investigation" and "made no accusations against me" (!!!)
  • (3) - Following my initial response on the "crime reports" (police # 5.1), the letters I then received:
  • 25.08.09 from Jenna Neville, Public Access Office, claiming that "no further information can be provided" (v. sending me, subsequently, a less redacted version of the 3 reports) (pt # 1(4.3) ; police # 5.1);
  • 20.11.09, also from McSorley: "I do not accept that there has been any "gross misconduct" by any of our officers" ; "I do not accept that TDC Dowling made "malicious, scurrilous or libellous allegations" when contacting your website host";
  • "I am satisfied that the crime reports represent an accurate account of what police were told at the time even if you do not agree with what was said";
  • "Consequently I...will not be making any alterations to the various crime reports...unless enforcement notice is served by the Information Commissioner."

•  Protection from Harassment Act 1997 (see extracts) (= criminal offences)

  • (2) - In spite of the irrebutable and very damning evidence I supplied endlessly against their content and hence, in support of my rights under the DPA: the extremely perverse and sadistic ongoing processing of the highly malicious, vicious, libellous "crime reports" - and hence, ongoing breach of this Act (Events # 6).
  • (4) - Over a period of nearly one year, my soul-destroying battles with the police - at all levels - ignoring repeatedly the evidence I supplied (Doc library from # 4.7 to # 4.10) ; Malicious Coms # 3, above), including failure to respond to my 02.06.10 s.10 Notice (Events # 2).

Defamation Act (see extracts)

  • (3) - Likewise, I repeat point # 2 - under both Acts.

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

(Of course, under paras. 17, 18 and 34 of his 23.05.11 Defence, Paul Stephenson also denied violating any of my rights - in spite of violating them on an ongoing basis)

BUT: see my above Note. Hence, it can be argued that there have been no breaches.

The police's breaches of legislation I reported in my Claim - that were excluded / 'sort of' excluded by Her Majesty's Queen's Bench judiciaries.

In his pack of lies 09.08.11 MPS Order, HM's Master Eyre sycophantically bowed to the police's counsel, Nicholas Wilcox, by regurgitating his position, that "[I could] not bring a private-law action in relation to a breach of statutory duty".

Knowing that it was a lie (e.g. private individuals can file for judicial review - as sarcastically pointed out by e.g. the IPCC (pt # 5.5)) (although, note e.g. the Police Conduct Regulations, and Police Reform Act 2002) - Eyre ' then stated:

"Even if [I could] it was clear that for all of the reasons set out in the Met Commissioner's [pack of lies] Defence that [my] allegations are misconceived and unfounded" (pt # 4.6(3)).

Note that, hell-bent on continuing to deny me my right of access to justice and redress = hell-bent on protecting the police, in her 06.10.11 Order, HM's Justice Lang also added another exclusion to the list: the Malicious Communications Act (QB # 4.7(2)).

•  Misconduct in public office

See a summary of my assessment under pt # 1(4.6)(3).

•  Criminal Procedure and Investigation Act 1996 - Re. the "criminal charges" held against me (pt # 1(4.6)(1)): breach of s.1(4) that places "a duty on the police to conduct an investigation with a view to determining whether a person should be charged with an offence".

Note that, 'of course', Paul Stephenson - falsely - claimed that "the police [had] investigated the [3] complaints" (pt # 1(4.3))

•  Police (Conduct) Regulations (police # (E))

•  Police Reform Act 2002 (police # (E))

  • I repeat the same comment that the police (followed by the IPCC) very clearly breached this Act in my case.

As I asked under para.127 of my 17.10.11 Appeal Request in relation to the claim that: “[I] cannot pursue [these breaches] in a private claim”: "Who will take action against the police?"

(I could have added other claims, but the statute-based time limit had passed).

What else can you expect from the lower level, when it knows that the Head of the police and his Head, a Cabinet minister, will endorse its conduct (Events # 2 and # 6)...

...and the latter know that the judiciary will, likewise, rubber-stamp the conduct (Events # 10, # 12, and this section).

Queen's Bench - Summary breaches of the law - 'Independent' Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) (# 5)

(See: (1) summary of events, above ; (2) definition of 'bias') (I repeat my above comments)

IPCC actions / lack of action ignored by Her Majesty's Master Eyre in striking out my claims against the IPCC, in his 29.07.11 Order (pt # 1(5.7)):

(1) - Illegally granting dispensation to the police from compliance with the requirements of the Data Protection Act 1998 (pt # 1(5.2) ; police # 5.4).

(2) - Ignoring legislation, including its duty under the Police Reform Act 2002 (pt # 1(5.3))...

...(3) - while claiming - under statements of truth - that it had not done this (pts # 1(5.5) and # 1(5.6)) - thereby also ignoring the breach of CPR Rule 32.14(1) (extracts) - as 'the IPCC' (=police) "most definitely, could not have had "an honest belief in their truth".

(4) - Protection from Harassment Act 1997 - By ignoring, repeatedly the evidence I supplied, firstly in the context of my Feb 10 complaint (pt # 1(5)), and secondly in the context of my claim (pts # 1(2.4) , # 1(3) , # 1(5)) - added to other forms of psychological harassment (pt # 1(5.6)).

It includes breach of s.7(3A) by wilfully aiding and abetting the harassment by the police and, by extension by Andrew Ladsky.

(5) - Defamation Act (see extracts) ignoring 'the IPCC' (=police)'s defamatory comments about me in their documents filed in court: (i)- 18.05.11 Defence (pt # 1(5.4)) ; (ii)- 07.06.11 Application for Summary Judgment against me (pt # 1(5.5));

(iii)- 19.07.11 Witness Statement (pt # 1(5.6)) ; (iv)- '22.01.10' police Application for Dispensation (pt # 1(5.1)) ; (v) '02.03.10 Minutes of Application' (pt # 1(5.2)),...

...and Her Majesty's Queen's Bench Division aiding and abetting the defamation of my name, character and reputation - by processing these documents, as well as the breach of,...

(6) - Data Protection Act 1998 - s.4 and all of Schedules 1, 2 and 3.

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

BUT: see my above Note. Hence, it can be argued that there have been no breaches.

OUTCOME: A 29.07.11 Order from Her Majesty's Master Eyre (pt # 1(5.7)) - making 'me' pay costs of £3,703 (US$14,95) to the IPCC (!!!): my 13.09.11 payment (pt # 1(5.7)), ...

- amounting to a breach of the Theft Act - s.21- Blackmail (see extracts) (= criminal offence) - by defrauding me, as the Order that I pay the IPCC's costs was "unwarranted" - but I nonetheless paid them, from knowing that if I did not, I would suffer serious consequences.

Queen's Bench - Summary breaches of the law - Her Majesty's Secretary of State for the Home Department (# 6)

(See: (1) summary of events, above ; (2) definition of 'bias') (I repeat my above comments)

As discussed on the Persecution page, the Home Office has and continues to breach numerous statutes.

Attempting to push me towards the rubber-stamping Investigatory Powers Tribunal (Events # 2) - does NOT give the Home Office departments and its current, as well as previous Heads, the right to ignore the rule of law.

(1) - In having me dogged, stalked, hounded, harassed, persecuted, etc. - on daily basis, as well as using plants (Persecution # 2):

BUT: see my above Note. Hence, it can be argued that there have been no breaches.

(2) - Monitoring, as well interfering with all my means of communication (Persecution # 3):

BUT: see my above Note. Hence, it can be argued that there have been no breaches.

(3) - Bugging / ensuring the bugging of my apartment (Persecution # 3.5)

BUT: see my above Note. Hence, it can be argued that there have been no breaches.

Outcome: 09.08.11 Order from Her Majesty's Master Eyre - making 'me' pay costs of £5,000 (US$8,820) to the Home Office (!!!): my 22.08.11 payment (pt # 1(6)(2)), ...

- amounting to a breach of the Theft Act - s.21- Blackmail (see extracts) (= criminal offence) - by defrauding me, as the Order that I pay the Home Office's costs was "unwarranted" - because the conduct is unlawful, and the British state does not provide me with a means of putting an end to it. I paid the costs from knowing that if I did not, I would suffer serious consequences.

Summary breach of the law - European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) (# 2)

(See, above, summary of events)

European Convention

Breach of Article 45 by, in the 06.06.12 letter, failing to provide a reason in support of the assertion that my 26.01.12 Application "fail[ed] to meet the criteria under Articles 34 and 35" (pt # 2)...

...- because it is not true. It is, yet again, the outcome of one of Her Majesty's judiciaries' actions (pt # 2.1).

Overall outcome on me

- as the innocent victim of blatant abuse of power by the state (Case summary) - In "Britain [, that] has a long and exemplary record on human rights":

See, below, pts # 2(5) and # 3

With a court (and tribunal), as well as police (et.al.) systems like that - as 'a certain type' of criminal: YOU'VE GOT IT MADE in this "fantastically corrupt", worse than Wild West environment of 'The island-Kingdom of Make-Believe'.

It provided me - for the 6th, 7th and 8th time - with confirmation that these are not courts of law - but kangaroo courts "criminally placed before the people".

Back to sections

 

(1)- TRIGGER TO EVENTS

The trigger to the following events was Her Majesty's police ignoring my statute-based Notice of 02.06.10 (supporting document) (police # 5.5), in relation to 3 heavily redacted "crime reports" it sent me in July 09 (police # 5.1), following my submitting a 28.05.09 Subject Access Request under s.7 of the Data Protection Act 1998:

Overall, the "crime reports", falsely, maliciously and therefore libellously (*) portray me as:

...leaving the key beneficiary, "my" 'poor', "Jewish" "neighbour" (!!!), Andrew David Ladsky, the "vulnerable victim" 'I'intimidate" (quotation text is from Her Majesty's Kensington & Notting Hill police's 2007 so-called "crime report" it holds against me), and to whom 'I', 'of course', represent 'A RISK' - currently enjoying the fruit of his fraudulent activities - while laughing his head off at me for having his 2003 and 2007 so-called ‘complaints’ against me remaining in their current state - as discussed below.

(*) None of the accusations against me and opinions of me are supported by evidence - because it does not exist. For further proof of this, see below how sick, twisted individuals attempted to create it - in support of a KEY false accusation.

The extreme distress and anguish caused to me by these so-called "crime reports" is compounded by factors detailed below, under # 4(6)(3) and police # 5.5.

My 02.06.10 s.10 Notice was preceded by many costly, soul-destroying battles, over a period of 6 months (police # 5) that entailed:

On 3 separate occasions, starting in Sep 09, I had warned the police, including the Met Commissioner, that, if my - legitimate - demands were not met, I would issue proceedings. They obviously did not think that I would; and if I did, would require legal help - providing an opportunity to block it (e.g. My Diary 11 Aug 11). (NB: 10 YEARS ON, and their unbelievable arrogance and utter contempt of me STILL leads them to underestimate my determination and ability to, with God's help, fight for justice and redress until the last breath in my body). (As I reported in e.g. My Diary 14 Apr 12: and, instead of resolving the situation, 'the 4-year olds' continue with their tantrums!)

As I was taking this action against the police, I decided to also include the IPCC for its conduct in Feb-Mar 10, and the Home Office for having its departments - UNLAWFULLY - dogging me, hounding me, tracking me, monitoring me, harassing me and persecuting me since at least the summer of 2005 - as though I were a terrorist - including monitoring all my means of communication, as well as interception.

(See, above, summaries: Events ; Breaches of the law)

Back to sections

 

(2)- PRE-ACTION STAGE

 

 

CPR's Pre-action protocol - Section III and Annex A which require, among others, to:

  • 6.1(1) "exchange sufficient information about the matter to allow them (claimant and defendant) to understand each other's position and make informed decisions about settlement and how to proceed"
  • (2) "make appropriate attempts to resolve the matter without starting proceedings"
  • 6.2 "The parties should act in a reasonable and proportionate manner in all dealings with one another..."
  • Para.7 deals with 'Exchanging information before starting proceedings'.

 

(2.1)- I sent a detailed (27 pgs) 17.03.11 Pre-action letter to:

To ensure they all had the information required, with my Pre-action letter, to each of them, I also supplied:

Under section 5 of my letter, I summarised my demands, and asked for "a full written answer within 21 days".

They ALL opted to NOT take action - other than attempt to stop me from proceeding.

To be expected considering past events, from then on - continuing to act in tandem with the Ladsky mafia's resources - I was more than ever hounded, tracked, monitored, harassed and persecuted by the corrupt elements in Her Majesty's police and related services / their flunkies (My Diary from 9 Apr 11)

(See, above, summaries: Events ; Breaches of the law)

Back to sections

(2.2)- Her Majesty's Met Commissioner

The MPS’s Directorate of Legal Services acted on behalf of Her Majesty's Met Commissioner in relation to my Claim. By letter of 18.03.11, it acknowledged my Pre-action letter. In its follow-on letter of 01.04.11, it tried to push me towards the Information Commissioner.

In my 04.04.11 reply, I challenged its “suggestion” by referring to the Data Protection Act 1998 and asked it to let me know if it was aware of a rule of law that nullified my right. It did not, as its follow-on letter of 07.04.11 was merely an acknowledgment of mine.

This was a repeat of what: (i) Her Majesty's Acting Chief Inspector Steve McSorley, ‘Professional Standards’, had written to me in his 22.09.09 letter (police # 5.2), and continued to insist I do, in his 20.11.09 letter (police # 5.2),...

followed by (ii) Matthew Johnson at the IPCC in 'his' 22.02.10 letter (police # 5.4) who, likewise, continued to maintain this position in 'his' 02.03.10 letter (police # 5.4).

The Data Protection Act 1998 does NOT impose a requirement on a data subject to do this. (This is supported by case law). Very clearly, their objective was to continue 'having fun' with me by putting me back on the treadmill.

The 01.04.11 letter also asked for “3 months to investigate [my] allegations”. In my 04.04.11 reply I refused, stating that I had communicated my position to the police, in numerous correspondence, to a variety of parties since Aug 09. Its objective was clear: to make me miss the deadline for filing a claim under the European Convention.

(See, above, summaries: Events ; Breaches of the law)

Back to sections

(2.3)- Her Majesty's Home Secretary

The Treasury Solicitor acted on behalf of the Home Office in relation to my Claim. Typically (police # 5.2 ; Home Office 2009-10 and 2003), its 21.03.11 ‘response’ to my Pre-action letter was a ‘GET LOST!’ - claiming an understanding that ‘I had copied it on my letter for information’.

In my 29.03.11 reply I wrote that this was not the case, quoting from my 17.03.11 letter. To this, in its 07.04.11 letter, it responded that “what [I] report requires authorisation under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers 2000 (RIPA)” and that “[I] should approach the Investigatory Powers Tribunal”.

My 17.04.11 reply was that the Tribunal does not offer me an effective remedy because its role is limited to judicial review (below, # 6(1)). In fact, it would have been more accurate for me to state: because like ALL the other so-called 'regulatory mechanisms' of this country - it is just a rubber-stamping office. My assessment was subsequently endorsed by 2 media articles (below).

It replied, post filing my Claim, by letter dated 25.05.11, essentially repeating the same thing i.e. ignoring my comments, by stating, in the last paragraph: "Under s.67(2) of RIPA where the Tribunal hears proceedings by virtue of s.65(2), it will apply the same principles for making its determination in those proceedings as would be applied by a court on an application for judicial review". See, below, Her Majesty's Home Secretary, for detail of subsequent events.

As to the 2nd paragraph in the letter, I concluded that it 'jumped' on the opportunity I provided in the notes to my 29.03.11 letter. See my comments at the bottom of the 25.05.11 letter.

(NB: More detail on the above letters is contained under Theresa May - Home Office # 3)

(See, above, summaries: Events ; Breaches of the law)

Back to sections

(2.4)- 'Independent' Police Complaints Commission

The IPCC did NOT respond, leading me to send a 17.04.11 letter. In its 21.04.11 letter, it claimed that it “[had] not received my letter”. It had, as evidenced by the proof of delivery attached to the back of my 17.03.11 letter, sent by ‘Special delivery’.

In the light of: (i) my experience with the IPCC ; (ii) the fact that it is staffed by serving police officers on secondment ; (iii) my experience with the police up to that point ; (iv) media reports - I concluded that it intentionally failed to respond (part of the persecution tactics). (As I told the caseworker: Are you expecting me to believe that a c.150-page pack, addressed to your Chairman, and sent by 'Special Delivery' - went 'astray'?)

(See, above, summaries: Events ; Breaches of the law)

Back to sections

 

(3)- FILING OF MY CLAIM

Failure to achieve a result at the Pre-action stage (above), led me to file a Claim.

Being a Litigant in Person, prior to filing my Claim, it had to be reviewed by the court. Contrary to what I had been told to anticipate, it was reviewed on the day I brought it. This was done by Master Eyre who scanned through it while I was in his office, and gave me the go ahead.

Having finalised my Claim, I filed it on 19 Apr 11 – and was given ref. HQ11X01471. It was composed of:

  • Annex 2 – My costs (detailed in the Particulars)

A 26.05.11 Notice from Master Eyre set the Allocation hearing for 5 Jul 11.

(See, above, summaries: Events ; Breaches of the law)

Back to sections

 

(4)- HER MAJESTY'S COMMISSIONER OF POLICE OF THE METROPOLIS

In my Particulars of Claim, my claims against the Met Commissioner, then Sir Paul Stephenson, are comprised under section 1, paras 1 to 139. On the Claim form, I summarised them as:

  • (2) Damages by reason of MPS officers’ breach of statutory duty under the Police Conduct Regulations and other legislation in the handling of the complaints relating to the said reports and concurrent data capture.

(4.1)- Continuing to treat me with utter disdain and contempt by not serving me with his Defence.

Her Majesty's Met Commissioner was due to file and serve his Defence at the latest by Tuesday 24 May 11. As, by the 25th I had not received it, I went to the court, and was told: "It has filed a Defence. It's with Master Eyre". Explaining that my post gets intercepted, to my asking when I should come back, the reply was: "Friday morning".

As, by Friday 27th I still had not received it, I returned to the court to ask for a copy. By the same woman, I was told that "the Met Commissioner has not filed a Defence". When I challenged her by quoting what she had told me on the Tuesday, she denied it.

I opted to go and see Master Eyre to explain the situation. In reply to his stating that "[I had] received a defence from the IPCC", I said that, while connected, it was not the same thing. I said that the lack of defence from the Met Commissioner meant that I could file for default judgment. However, in practice, I did not particularly want to do that as my objective was to resolve the situation in relation to the "crime reports", and that it was only the repeated failure by the police to address my demands that had led to my filing the Claim. He told me that I "could wait until the 5th July Allocation hearing".

(On leaving the court, I was (as per usual) heavily dogged, hounded and monitored - no doubt, on this occasion, with the added anticipation that the 'apparent' lack of Defence from the Commissioner would lead me to seek legal advice - My Diary 27 May 11)

I sent a 31.05.11 letter to the MPS asking whether it intended to file a Defence. It posted it to me on 1 Jun 11. The Defence is dated 23.05.11 (!!!)

(See, above, summaries: Events ; Breaches of the law)

Back to sections

(4.2)- Under a statement of truth, making a blanket denial in his 23.05.11 Defence of breaching / violating any of my rights – and adding further lies in relation to my Oct 10 complaints of harassment.

I can only describe the 23.05.11 Defence from Sir Paul Stephenson, Her Majesty's then Met Commissioner, as an outrageous pack of lies - endorsed by a statement of truth. In the context of the blanket denial, I highlight para.1.6 of CPR PD Pt 3a: "A defence may fall within rule 3.4(2)(a) where: (1) it consists of a bare denial..." (NB: However, as detailed below, EVERY aspect of the Defence was endorsed by Her Majesty's Judiciaries, including ONE European Court of Human Rights Judge -below).

1. The 3 "Crime reports"

In the Particulars of Claim, my claims in relation to the "crime reports" are contained under paras 1-87 and 105-112.

For Her Majesty's Met Commissioner's absolutely outrageous claims that the processing of the "crime reports" is compliant with the requirements of the Data Protection Act 1998 - see Police:

Snapshots: under breach of Data Protection Act 1998.

Under para.17 of his 23.05.11 Defence, the Met Commissioner 'determined' that "All of [my] claims under the DPA are misconceived and without merit".

See also, the IPCC section, below, for the unbelievably outrageous excuse by Her Majesty's police for retaining the so-called "crime reports" in their current state.

2. Police's 2007 emails to my website Host

These refer to the 16.03.07 and 20.03.07 emails from the police to my website Host. They are reproduced, and discussed, under police # 3 KP(4). In the Particulars of Claim, my claims in relation to these emails are contained under paras 88-104. They include claims under the Malicious Communications Act 1988 and Protection from Harassment Act 1997.

For Paul Stephenson's absolutely outrageous 'justifications' for sending the emails, and thereby, likewise, absolving his officers of ANY wrongdoing, see police # 3 KP (4) ; snapshot under breach: Defamation Act ; Malicious Communications Act 1988: police ; Protection from Harassment Act 1997: police.

Note also that Her Majesty's police contacted the then Serious Organised Crime Agency (!!!): police # 3(5).

It does that in relation to 'me', on the basis of accusations it knows damn well it cannot substantiate - because they are NOT true - while it turns a blind eye to the criminal activities of Ladsky and his gang of racketeers who ARE operating as an organized crime gang - describing them as "A civil matter" - in spite of the fact that this type of activities lands others with prison sentences of up to 32 months - for doing much less.

Further, under para.11(ii) and (iv) of his 23.05.11 Defence - endorsed by a statement of truth - Paul Stephenson, 'justified' the processing of his packs of lies so-called "crime reports" (above) against me - and concurrent criminal charges (below) - as being

  • "for the prevention and detection of crime" and

The above is sick beyond words. What a thoroughly evil, and insane mafia!

The glaring conclusion is that, in this island "Kingdom", that "has a strong and exemplary record on human rights", it is the victim of crime that ends-up being criminalized for 'daring' to stand-up for his/her so-called 'rights'.

(NB: Note that, at the time he was in office, Stephenson had complained "that members of the public are making speculative legal action against the police". See Media page, the 11 Oct 10 reply from a lawyer).

3. My October 2010 complaints of harassment to the police

In the Particulars of Claim, my claims in relation to my 2 (well-documented) complaints of harassment against 2 men, to Kensington & Chelsea police in Oct 10, are contained under section 1.3, paras 113-136. They are: (i) 08.10.10 complaint against the 20 & 27 Jul 10 man; (ii) 08.10.10 complaint against the 30 Jun 10 and previous occasions man.

In my 14.06.11 Reply, I was able to prove with irrebutable evidence in support that Her Majesty's Met Commissioner had lied in his Defence in relation to what took place in Oct 10. In fact, I had recorded the conversation.

With my reply, I filed and served (to the 3 Defendants) a CD-ROM with the recording, as well as transcript - see police # 6

I highlight that, as demonstrated by what I captured in my Particulars of Claim and the recording I subsequently supplied, that: no - unlike Her Majesty's Met Commissioner (Defence and Application), the IPCC (Defence and Application) and the racketeering Ladsky gang - I do not consider myself at liberty to lie under statements of truth i.e. commit contempt of court (CPR Rule 32.14). This is a point I made under para.10 of my 14.06.11 Reply.

(Evidently, given the lack of sanction against ANY of them, it is acceptable for them to do it. Why? Obvious answer: 'the Brotherhood'!) (This was a repeat of what took place in 2002-03, 2002-04, 2007-08 and Jan 09 - snapshots: CPR ; Kangaroo court).

(See the Media page for other examples of similar conduct).

I also highlight the sadistic comment (considering my experience) from the Met Commissioner, under para.41 of his 23.05.11 Defence, that "if [I was] dissatisfied with the MPS' handling of or investigation of [my] allegations against Mr Ladsky in October, the proper course of action [was for me] to complain to the MPS and/or the IPCC" - see police- Overall outcome on me.

(See, above, summaries: Events ; Breaches of the law)

Back to sections

(4.3)- Making a 30.06.11 Application for Summary Judgment to have ALL of my claims "STRUCK OUT" and – with the full knowledge of Her Majesty’s Master Eyre - placing me on "an unequal footing" (CPR Overriding Objective),...

...by limiting my ability to respond by withholding key data in the 3 "crime reports" that provided very strong support to some of my key conclusions.

(It made it the 4th time, since 2002, that Her Majesty's judiciary knowingly and wilfully placed me on "an unequal footing").

Under para.5 of his 23.05.11 Defence (above), Her Majesty's Met Commissioner stated an intention to apply under CPR Rule 3.4(2) to have my claims "STRUCK OUT".

In his 30.06.11 Application, he demanded that

[my] claim be struck out [CPR 3..4(2)] and/or summary judgment [CPR 24.2] be entered in favour of the MPS and that [I] pay its costs – because: there are no reasonable grounds for bringing these claims; the claims have no real prospect of success”.

He followed this by stating: “of the reasons set out in the witness statement attached hereto”.

I contend that he did NOT give ANY reason, as all he did was continue with his blanket denials, as well as added some padding by discussing how the police ‘deals’ with complaints.

I responded to this Application with a 19.07.11 Witness Statement. (NB: No, at the time, I did not also supply a skeleton argument. However, in addition to my detailed Particulars of Claim, Her Majesty's Master Eyre had, by then, seen my 27.06.11 IPCC Wit.Stat. in which I (wrongly) included legal arguments by referring extensively to the Data Protection Act 1998). (I submitted a replacement Wit.Stat – see IPCC)

As can be seen from my 19.07.11 letter to the court, I filed and served my 19.07.11 MPS Wit.Stat. (as well as the other 2: IPCC and Home Office) on 20th July.

AFTER I had done this - as evidenced by its 21.07.11 letter stating that it was "sending [me] the bundle" - on 22 Jul, the police supplied me with a significantly less redacted – as well as incomplete - version of the 3 “crime reports: 2002, 2003 and 2007v the Jul 09 version on which I based my 19.07.11 Wit.Stat: 2002, 2003 and 2007.

Her Majesty's Master Eyre knew this had happened from my 24.07.11 letter to the court, with which I included a copy of my 24.07.11 letter to the MPS.

Hence, he knew that I had been placed on "an unequal footing" (CPR Overriding Objective) (*) In the letter to the MPS, I listed the pages that were missing from the 3 "crime reports", relative to the Jul 09 version. As to the below 'gems', I compiled them in my notes for the 29 July 'hearing' (below).

(NB: Subsequently, I again raised the issue of my being placed on an "unequal footing" under para.10 of my 17.10.11 Request (below), stating that I had been “treated unjustly”).

(*) This was happening to me for the 4th time. The previous occasion was in 2007-08 with Her Majesty's judiciaries, District Judge Ryan and Nicholson in West London County Court, who wilfully ignored the fact that I did not have the necessary information, to which I was legally entitled, to defend myself against the (fraudulent) 27.02.07 claim: Overview # 11 ; WLCC # 26 , # 27.

The previous occasions were:

I compiled most of the text that had previously been redacted in the Jul 09 version of the "crime reports" in my 29.08.11 Supplementary MPS Witness Statement (in relation to my Appeal Application; see below). This text is discussed, in detail, under each of the 3 “crime reports” on the police page: # 1 – 2002 ; # 2 – 2003 ; # 3 – 2007.

Top of 'the league table’ among the text that was redacted in the Jul 09 version (above) – and provides irrebutable evidence of complicity, collusion and conspiring between Her Majesty’s police and Ladsky - are:

15/03/2007-16h14-‘Primary Investigation Details: 4’ entry: the “victim [i.e. Ladsky] considers himself intimidated” (police # 3 KP (3)(1))

It is repeated under the 'Victim Details' section: "vulnerable / intimidated victim": "Y" (police # 3 KP (3)(1))

As I wrote under: (i) para.21 of my 29.08.11 MPS Wit.Stat; (ii) para.11(2) of my 17.10.11 Request (related to my Appeal Application, below),

This claim is hilarious considering what Ladsky has done and instigated against me (and fellow leaseholders) since 2002”.

Under the former, I wrote: “Clearly, it was blocked to prevent me from challenging it: its aim is to add weight to the fictional story that ‘poor Mr Ladsky’ is an innocent victim”. (See below, the insanity of Reason 8 of the Order).

A close 2nd in 'the league table' is under the 15/03/2007-16h14-‘Primary Investigation Details: 6’ entry, the police's claim of having:No suspicion of false reporting" (police # 3 KP (3)(1))

Note that the police NEVER contacted me at ANY point in time following this so-called 'complaint' by Ladsky - thereby denying me the right to defend myself against the accusations. (This was a repeat of what took place in relation to Ladsky's so-called 'complaint' of 2003 - see below).

Under para.23 of my 29.08.11 MPS Wit.Stat. I wrote: "In the light of the numerous false, malicious accusations and opinions of me in the report, it is abundantly clear why this entry was blocked. How can the police make this categorical statement given that it never contacted me, the owner and author of the website - at any point in time?".

I followed this by listing paragraphs in my 19.07.11 MPS Wit.Stat. in which I had repeated this fact, because I was so shocked by this conduct by the police. I then added: "It does provide irrebutable confirmation of the police’s blind determination to make this so-called “crime report” stick against me". I repeated this under para.11(1) of my 17.10.11 Request.

In the light of what took place subsequently (Her Majesty's Master Eyre's Reason 3(3), below), note also that, in my 19.04.11 Particulars of Claim, I repeated several times that the police had not contacted me at any point in time: I captured this under paras 5c, 9.f, 21.a, 56 and 67p.

Under para 63 of my 17.10.11 Request, I wrote: "Of note: the Met Commissioner failed to address this in his Defence".

While the overt objectives of the blanket endorsement of the "crime report" are to portray me falsely, maliciously - and therefore libellously as:

...I contend that the covert objective is to endorse and cover-up the unlawful actions, lack of action and decisions by Her Majesty's tribunal Panel and Judiciaries (by dismissing my (irrebutable) evidence against the content of the "crime reports"). (This is a typical English Establishment's tactic).

The pursuit of these objectives continued in the context of my Claim - as glaringly obvious from: the below 9 Aug 11 Order, and subsequent endorsement in the 6 Oct and 24 Oct 11 Orders.

Among the other 'gems' that were redacted in the Jul 09 version of the "crime reports"`are:

1. Further portraying me as 'waging some kind of "racist" vendetta against 'Dear Mr Ladsky'', the 'poor' innocent "vulnerable victim" 'I' `intimidate", and as 'a danger' to him :

  • the claims that Ladsky is 'an outsider' (NB: described in the 3 "crime reports" as "my neighbour" (!!!)) who was 'merely' "involved with the business that carried out the repairs and improvements which is the reason the victim believes he has become a target for abuse on the website": police # 3 KP (3)1(12)...

2. Further portraying me as 'defaulting on my contractual obligations':

3. Further protecting Ladsky from the fact that, HE - at a minimum - MADE some of the anonymous phone calls to me in 2002:

  • the cock-and-bull story on how the resident 'admitted to also making the calls from a landline number': police # 1 KP (3)
  • ...and the contractions as to when the resident 'made the admissions': police # 1 KP (3)

(Other of the previously redacted text demonstrates what I already knew - and had said, as well as written at the time: other residents had complained to Kensington & Chelsea police of suffering harassment from Ladsky - including of his making anonymous phone calls to them: police # 1: KP (3) , events ; police # 4)

As you can imagine from the above, the police tried desperately to get the 22 Jul 11 version of the "crime reports" back from me e.g. 28.07.11 letter. The excuse given? That "some of what they had given me breached other individuals' rights under the Data Protection Act 1998" (!!!!) (The nerve of that mafia is beyond belief).

The fact that the redacted text was provided in the 22 Jul 11 version also proves that Her Majesty's Met Commissioner - and his staff lied about breaching (further) my rights under the Data Protection Act 1998.

Under para.10 of my Particulars of Claim, I stated my suspicion that the police was withholding data from me in breach of my rights under the Data Protection Act 1998. As demonstrated by the above - I was right (and there is, for sure, a lot more retained by the police and its mates - and far more damaging - as suggested by e.g. the police officer's reaction on 16 Oct 10). It proves - undeniably - the falsity of the assertions:

  • (i) under para.25 (and para.12) of the Met Commissioner's 23.05.11 Defence (above), and (ii) para.15 of his 30.06.11 Application (above), that the police had "released data to me to the extent required and/or permitted under s.7(4) DPA" ;
  • (iii) of the claim in the 25.08.09 letter from the MPS Public Access Office that "there is no further information we can provide you with" (police # 5.1)

Considering subsequent events, note that I reported the above under para.86 of my 19.07.11 MPS Wit.Stat, and paras 13-15 of my 17.10.11 Request.

Note that in relation to each of the complaints, the Met Commissioner claimed that his officers had "investigated" the complaints:

Considering the facts - and the dictionary definition of "investigate" - it is abundantly clear that Her Majesty's police did not "investigate" the complaints.

(See, above, summaries: Events ; Breaches of the law)

Back to sections

(4.4)- At the 29 July 11 so-called 'hearing' of the Met Commissioner's 30.06.11 Application, I repeated the key issues, and breaches of my rights under the Data Protection Act 1998, as well as challenged the text that had been redacted in the Jul 09 version of the "crime reports".

The complicity, conspiring and conniving between Her Majesty's Master Eyre and the Met Commissioner's Counsel were glaringly obvious - including the fact that a scheme had been cooked-up.

The 'hearing' of the Met Commissioner's 30.06.11 Application for Summary Judgment took place in 2 stages - with the 1st and main one, being on 29.07.11. (I had anticipated this would happen - see below) On that day, it was preceded by the 'hearing' of the IPCC's Application (below)

(Of note: Clearly worried I might seek legal help at the last minute, the previous day, the mafia had its flunkeys positioned, among other, in a car and a helicopter - ready to give chase: My Diary 28 Jul 11)

During this ‘hearing’, I repeated many of the key issues in my 19.07.11 MPS Witness Statement– stating where I had said this, and highlighted breaches of my rights, in particular, under the Data Protection Act 1998.

Hence, added to: (i) my detailed Particulars of Claim - and supporting Annex 1 (above); (ii) my 14.06.11 Reply to parts of the Met Commissioner's Defence (above) ; (iii) my 27.06.11 IPCC Wit.Stat (above) - Her Majesty's Master Eyre had absolute knowledge of the issues.

I did not cover everything, as I was conscious that, under CPR Pt 24, the ‘hearing’ was not a trialnor a mini-trial (para.28 of my 17.10.11 Request).

Indeed, in this situation, the only question for the court to consider is whether the case attacked hassome real prospects of success”. (This is supported by case law e.g. in Three Rivers DC v Bank of England: “The criterion which the judge has to apply under Pt 24 is not one of probability, it is the absence of reality”).

During the 'hearing', I also raised the issue of the text that had been redacted in the Jul 09 version (above) citing the 'gems', challenging the assertions, and asking why they had been redacted.

As I reported under para.72 xii of my 17.10.11 Request, in relation to the claim by Her Majesty's police that it had "No suspicion of false reporting": “my asking this [question] led the police's Counsel [Nicholas Wilcox] to look at Master Eyre”.

In the process of challenging the redacted text, I also emphasised the fact that it had been supplied to me after I had filed and served my 19.07.11 Wit.Stat - and it had been received (as evidenced by the police's letter of 21.07.11, stating that it was "sending [me] the bundle"). In other words: I re-emphasised the fact that I had been placed on "an unequal footing" (CPR Overriding Objective).

I also raised my very strong objection to Her Majesty's police describing Ladsky as "my neighbour" in each of the 3 "crime reports" (v. the true role) - as it is the foundation on which the majority of the content of the 2003 and 2007 so-called "crime reports" relies - as does much of the 2002 report:

my 29.08.11 MPS Wit.Stat. ; paras 18 & 19 of my 19.07.11 MPS Wit.Stat. (police # 1 KP (1A) ; police # 2 KP (2) ; police # 3 KP (2)).

As I wrote under para.20 of my 17.10.11 Request, to this Her Majesty's Master Eyre replied: "He is your neighbour, isn't he?"- clearly demonstrating which side he was on.

Master Eyre ended the ‘hearing’ at the point when costs should have been discussed, claiming he had “run out of time”. His theatrics included asking in a kind of 'apologetic', 'embarrassed' way when it could be completed. When I said that the Home Office’s Application ‘hearing’ (below) was scheduled on 09.08.11 at 14h30, he faintly smiled to himself, and fixed it on that date, at 14h00.

I knew the ‘hearing’ would not be completed on that day as, in breach of CPR (Pt 44 PD, para.13.5(2)), the Met Commissioner had not sent me his Schedule of Costs (it was first sent to me by letter dated 04.08.11). (It was sent a 2nd time by letter dated 10.08.11). (By contrast, the IPCC, for which the Application ‘hearing’ took place immediately prior to that of the MPS, had sent me its costs).

(See, above, summaries: Events ; Breaches of the law)

Back to sections

(4.5)- I very strongly contend that, in continuing complicity with the police, the pack of lies 02.08.11 Draft Order (intercepted by the police to limit my ability to respond) was sent by Her Majesty's Master Eyre as a means of 'testing' the final version of the Order.

While Master Eyre did not say anything about it during the 29 Jul ‘hearing, he subsequently sent me, what I can only describe, as a pack of lies 02.08.11 Draft Order (see, below, for detail)

It was posted 1st class on that day, a Tuesday. While it should have arrived the following day, it was only delivered on Friday 5th. Luckily, (having a premonition) I had unusually gone to my PO Box on that day of the week and time (the PO Box people told me that it had “just been delivered”).

(My conclusion is that, as with some of my other important post (see Persecution # 3 - ‘Post’), it had been intercepted at the sorting office by the local police / under its direction – see My Diary 7-8 Sep 11).

As ‘the completion’ of the Application ‘hearing’ was scheduled for Tuesday 9th August, from 14h00, I replied as best I could and posted my 07.08.11 reply on Monday 8th, by ‘Special Delivery – Next Day before 13h’.

As best as I could’ as, at the time, I had no knowledge of the format for responding i.e. formulate an appeal. Still, I believe that any unbiased, impartial judiciary would have concluded from my response that the Draft Order was very seriously flawed and unfair – even more so considering the evidence that had already been supplied.

(See, above, summaries: Events ; Breaches of the law)

Back to sections

(4.6)- The pack of lies 09.08.11 MPS Order 'from' Her Majesty's Master Eyre - dismissing ALL my claims as "misconceived and unfounded" - which, in addition to glaringly obvious collusion and conniving, demonstrates the extremely arrogant belief that it would be the end of my case by:..

...(1)- undeniably endorsing Her Majesty's police's and Andrew Ladsky's numerous false, malicious, highly vicious - and therefore libellous accusations against me and opinions of me in the "crime reports" - as being 'the truth';...

...(2)- backing-up Her Majesty's police's actions, and lack of action - in the process, resorting to portraying me as a liar;...

...(3)- fully endorsing Her Majesty's police's outrageous blanket denial of breaching / violating any of my rights - in the process, absolving it of any wrongdoings - by dismissing my claims of misfeasance / misconduct in public office -...

...leaving the police with 'a trophy', and me with its costs of £8,478

(NB: See below, how Her Majesty's Justices Lang and Mackay fully endorsed this Order)

On 9 Aug, as Master Eyre claimed that he had “not seenmy 7 Aug reply, I gave him a copy. Other than note in ‘his’ 09.08.11 final Order: “AND UPON the Claimant’s application for leave to appeal on the grounds set out in her 8-page Comment on the draft” - he took no notice of its contents, and proceeded with printing ‘his’ Draft Order as a final version.

Note also at the 29 Jul 11 so-called 'hearing' (above), I had again repeated the key issues (contained in my 19.07.11 MPS Wit.Stat), as well as raised the concurrent breaches of my rights. (NB: I expanded further on these in my 17.10.11 Request, re. my below Appeal against this 09.08.11 Order).

I most strongly submit that Her Majesty's Master Eyre wilfully and perversely ignored the irrebutable evidence in the case in order to assist the MPS’ retention of the “crime reportsin their current state, and concurrent criminal charges against me (2003 and 2007 "crime reports") – so that it - et.al., including the judiciary - can continue to use them maliciously against me...

... – in the process, blindly endorsing the MPS and Andrew Ladsky’s false, malicious, highly vicious - and therefore libellous accusations against me and opinions of me, as well as the MPS’ blanket denials of non-compliance with the law, and of misfeasance / misconduct in public office (under statements of truth).

Further, that Her Majesty's Master Eyre wilfully and deliberately turned a blind eye to my being placed on "an unequal footing"(above).

I most strongly contend that - totally failing to take the evidence into account - Her Majesty's Master Eyre sycophantically endorsed lock, stock, and barrel the outrageous claims made by the then Met Commissioner, Sir Paul Stephenson, in his 23.05.11 Defence (above) and 30.06.11 Application (above) - by regurgitating them e.g.:

 

1. "Crime reports" and police's Mar 07 emails to my website Host

REASON 3(3) - That, in relation to Ladsky's so-called 2007 'complaint' (above), "The police took the matter up with [me]": police # 3 KP (8). Contrast that with the above! What glaringly obvious conniving with the police to cover-up its deliberate failure to contact me and, in the process, endorse its outrageous claim of "No suspicion of false reporting" (above)

Under para.63 of my 17.10.11 Request, I wrote: “…as with other evidence, the learned Master deliberately failed to take into account at all the fact that the MPS never contacted me at any point in time in relation to the 2007 ‘complaint’ (Particulars paras 5.c, 9.f and 21.a).

Being so shocked by this conduct by the police, I repeated this on several occasions in my Witness Statement: WS1 § 8/104, § 49/119-120, § 58/122 and § 84/129. I also re-emphasised it during the Application hearing {NB: above]. Of note: the MPS failed to address this in its Defence

And under para.65 of my 17.10.11 Request: “I contend that the objective of this false assertion is to cover-up the MPS’ unlawful failure to contact me – and allow it ‘to prove’ by means of a ‘court order’ that ‘it did’ - in the expectation that the Order striking out my claim would be the end of the matter. If this is denied, I would like to know how the learned Master can back-up his assertion”.

REASON 3(3) - The claim that "[the police made] unsuccessful attempts to get [my] web-host's co-operation".

The actual translation is that 'the Brotherhood' was besides itself with fury at being unable to scare my website Host into closing down my website: police # 3 KP (4)

I replied under para.68 of my 17.10.11 Request that "this assertion is false" and that "Master Eyre failed to take into account at all the replies from my website Host asking for evidence in support of the accusations". I added: "but the response was clearly ‘not liked’; and, evidently, this is still the case".

REASON 3(3) - Eyre's sycophantic endorsement that "[I used] the terms "pigs and monkeys" to refer to Mr Ladsky and his allies".

And that "Mr Ladsky, not very surprisingly in view of what he says is his racial background took offence": police # 3 KP (3)2(5)

Under para.59 of my 17.10.11 Request, I noted that Eyre had “deliberately ignored the evidence contained under para. 77 of my Witness Statement”.

And, under para.60, wrote: “during the hearing [NB: above], as though, (in breach of CPR Pt 24), the Master was conducting a mini-trial on this particular issue, he attempted to force me to admit that Ladsky could have arrived at the conclusion that I was referring to him (as evidenced by his statement “not very surprisingly”).

I denied this, stating that the objective was to falsely portray me as an anti-Semite. It was clear that the Master’s objective was to gain support for the false 15/03/2007-16h14 entry that “…parts of [my website]… are alleged to be of a racial nature and [make] numerous references by name to the victim…” (police # 3 KP (3)2)

As he asked me the question, Master Eyre turned to his computer, asking me for my website’s URL “to see where I said this” (‘his’ Reason 3(3): “she now says that the terms she used were not strong enough, and changed the description to “morally depraved, despicable beneath contempt scum”). Of course, he knew exactly where it was. His game and intimidation tactics were intended to try to catch me out.

(For the purpose of 'retribution' - using their key tool: mental torture), the key objective of the so-called "crime reports" is to portray me as "a racist" waging some kind of vendetta against 'Dear Mr Andrew Ladsky',...

describing him as "my" 'poor' "Jewish" "neighbour" (!!!), the "vulnerable victim" 'I' "intimidate" and to whom, 'I', 'of course' 'represent a risk'. (See, below, the insanity of Reason 8).

However, 'the Brotherhood' does not have a shred of evidence to back it up - because it does not exist e.g. police # 3 KP (3)2.

Demonstrating how very sick and twisted these people are, they try the kind of trick that Eyre used.

Hence, in spite of having no evidence in support, Eyre nonetheless repeated the false accusation in the Order and, in the process, endorsed it.

(At least another 2 have tried to do this as well. One of them, in 2008, I reported in my Diary: clearly one of the local police Masons' flunkeys, he provoked me when I was in an Internet café, by telling me: "Hitler should have killed them [Jews] all, don't you think?". (Only a Masons' flunkey would make that kind of comment without fear of being prosecuted).

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

I also cite the fact that, some time afterwards, an entry was made in the so-called "crime report", on "17/07/2008" that I had been "Eliminated": police # 3 KP (6)(3). This is 16 months after the so-called "crime report" was processed, and the 19/03/2007-17h59 entry stated: "This matter is complete").

In the light of what took place with Master Eyre, 'the Brotherhood' has evidently not given up on its objective of finding 'supporting evidence' to one of its accusations, that is key to the foundation of its so-called "crime reports" - and thereby make the "criminal charges" stick against me.

The entry that states that I have been "Eliminated"? Irrelevant! - as demonstrated by the fact that the 2003 "crime report" also states that I have been "Eliminated"; yet, the false accusation has been recycled and, in the process, endorsed by Her Majesty's police in the 2007 "crime report": police: # 2 KP (17) ; # 3 (3)1(13)

REASON 3(3) - Master Eyre's endorsement that "not surprisingly [the police] recorded [the 2007 'complaint'] as a racial incident and nothing more"

Under para.72 of my 17.10.11 Request I reiterated, by referring to my 19.07.11 Wit.Stat. that the accusation of a Confirmed”, “Substantiated Racial Incident”, “Anti-Semitic Racial Incident”, “Hate Crime – Race, Religion - was FALSE – and that “to this day the MPS has failed to provide evidence to back-up any of its accusations” (police # 3 KP (1)).

While under para.76, I wrote: "Had the learned Master taken into account the evidence....he would have known that his endorsement of the police action was perverse. Therefore he would, and should have determined that the Met Commissioner's claims of compliance with the DPA are false..."

Also in my 17.10.11 Request, under para.42(2), I referred to the Met Commissioner's 30.06.11 Application (above): "Under para.5 his Application, the Met Commissioner states: Cris is used to store information on crimes reported to the police…”; under para.6: “All the details [supplied] must be recorded”;

under para.8: “…The reasons for initially recording that a person is a suspect are wide and varied, and are often a matter of the subjectivity of the witness. In carrying out investigations officers will always be aware of the subjectivity and as such will keep an open mind

Under para.43, I wrote: "In the light of the above, I contend that the question that should have been asked of the Met Commissioner, ‘the police’, is: How does it explain its readiness to process – without any challenge whatsoever – and without giving me the right to defend myself [NB: above] – any accusation against me and opinion of me in “crime reports” when Ladsky is the ‘complainant’ and, in the process, endorse them fully (e.g. “No suspicion of false reporting”)

- v its failing to record any of the leaseholders’ reporting of harassment by Ladsky, including my complaints in October 2010? I give this as additional support to my position, (commented on under Reason 5 that I “allege malice, conniving with Mr Ladsky”) of the police complicity with Ladsky".

(I repeat my above comments)

REASONS 3(2) and 3(3) - In relation to the 2003 and 2007 "crime reports", that "the police took the matter no further".

It damn well did: by holding criminal charges against me: police: # 2 KP (15) ; # 3 KP (8) - as I wrote under: (i) paras 51, 72 and 73 of my 19.07.11 MPS Wit.Stat.;

(ii) paras 110(3) and 113 of my 17.10.11 Request, in relation to both "crime reports" - charges that it and its Masonic pals have every intention of continuing to use against me - until they put me 'out of action'. (In this state, "under the Mental Health Act", the police even locks-up children as young as 11 in police cells).

Also of note: under paras 53 and 54 of my Particulars of Claim, I reported that the police had, in 2003, failed to acknowledge my 11.02.03 letter asking for "precise detail - in writing - of the accusation against me", and then closed down the "crime report", falsely claiming I had not responded: police # 2 KP (12) and (13) - thereby denying me the right to defend myself against the accusations.

The outrageous, arrogant, 'we are above the law' reply from the then Met Commissioner, Paul Stephenson, under para.23 of his 23.05.11 Defence was: “It is admitted that the MPS has not responded to some of the Claimant's written requests for precise details of the complaints against her. It is not required by the DPA to so”.

Having repeated the facts, under para.52(2) of my 17.10.11 Request, under para.102(3), I wrote: "The police has not answered any of my questions".

Recall the fact, above, that Her Majesty's police also denied me the right to defend myself against the accusations in the 2007 so-called "crime report". Yet, in both instances - and without a shred of evidence in support - it processed a "confirmed" and "substantiated" criminal charge against me: 2003 - police # 2 Key Pt (1); 2007 - police # 3 Key Pt(1).

(I repeat my above comments)

REASON 3(1) - that "the police duly investigated my [2002] complaint and concluded that there were no grounds for pursuing the complaint" = Eyre is assisting the police in the cover-up (see above)

Under paras 37 of my 17.10.11 of my Request I wrote that Master Eyre was “repeating [the police] false assertions” and had “failed to take the evidence into account”. I continued covering it under paras 39-45.

REASON 4 - refers to my demands under the Data Protection Act 1998, that "[I] brought this action to compel the police to correct its record of Incident (1), to delete its records of (2) and (3) and to compensate [me] for its failure in relation to (4)".

I responded under paras 88-96 of my 17.10.11 Request by emphasising the legitimacy of my demands and quoted case law. I preceded this by listing, under para.89, the Met Commissioner's defences.

Under para.95, I wrote: "As the Met Commissioner is ‘so concerned’ about the “prevention and detection of crime” (*) : why, in the face of the very extensive amount of ‘black-on-white’ evidence on my website of false accounting, fraud, harassment, malicious communications, etc. against Ladsky and his aides (which the police “looked at”: 16/03/2007-18h56 entry) [NB: police # 3 KP (3)2(9)]...

- has it failed to take action? Why, in spite of this evidence is it treating Ladsky as ‘the victim’ and - without any supporting evidence – treating me as ‘the criminal’?"

(*) Re. para.11(ii) and (iv) of his 23.05.11 Defence (above), his 'justification' for processing his WEB OF LIES so-called "crime reports" against me (and concurrent criminal charges (above)) - as being "for the prevention and detection of crime" and "for the apprehension or prosecution of offenders": police # 2 KP(16) / police # 3 KP(9).

(I repeat my above comments)

REASON 8: In relation to my demands, under the Data Protection Act 1998: “However, there is also this: the action against the Met Commissioner amounts to no more than a most obvious attempt to re-write history, and is completely devoid of merit”.

Unbelievable! = Master Eyre is treating me as a liar and, by extension, as an individual who committed contempt of court. Contrast his statement with the contents of the so-called "crime reports" (e.g. above: 'Trigger to events' ; "crime reports" ; 'league table of 'gems'').

Under para.145 of my 17.10.11 Request, I wrote: “This conclusion by the learned Master further confirms that he has totally failed to take into account the evidence I supplied. My objective is not to “re-write history”, but, in line with my rights, to ensure accuracy in order to ‘reflect history

 

2. My Oct 10 complaints of harassment to Chelsea police & Kensington police

REASON 3(4) - In relation to my Oct 10 complaints of harassment to Chelsea and Kensington police (police # 6), Master Eyre wrote that they “recorded the matter, but took no action

Under para.79 of my 17.10.11 Request, I wrote that the statement "falsely infers that my 2 complaints to the police: 20 & 27 July 2010 man, and 30 June 2010 man and previous occasions were unsubstantiated / unactionable (Particulars, para.115). I contend that any fair minded, reasonable, honest individual would agree with me that I provided ample evidence for 'the police' to act: WS1 paras 130 and 131"

I followed this by stating: "The learned Master failed to take into account at all the fact that I had provided irrebutable evidence, in the form of a recording and transcript, with my 14.06.11 Reply to the Met Commissioner's Defence, that he had lied by falsely claiming, under para.40 of his Defence that..." (above)

REASON 4 - states: "...and to compensate [me] for its failure in relation to (4)". Under para.96, I wrote: "and to actually investigate my complaints - as I captured under para.136 of my Particulars of Claim".

 

3. Overall

REASON 5 - That "[I] take no fewer than 139 paragraphs to set out [my] case against the Met Commissioner alone..." I replied to this under para.99 of my 17.10.11 Request: "At least, I defined my Claim comprehensively - in compliance with CPR". I concluded that the precise definition of my claims was evidently 'not liked'.

(NB: Ditto in terms of my identifying the key individuals in the Particulars, as Master Eyre asked me to take the names out: my 24.07.11 letter to the court. I did this the correct way: by crossing out the names - which, I suspect, did not meet the intended objective).

Reason 5 continues with listing the Acts under which I submitted my claims - to which, in my 17.10.11 Request I responded, including quoting the Met Commissioner's defences, as well as case law, under:

  • (i) paras 98-108 re. the Data Protection Act 1998, including, under para.107, emphasising my absolute right under s.10 of the DPA, as well as the fact that my 02.06.10 s.10 Notice had led the police to commit, yet another breach of my rights under this Act (police # 5.5);
  • (i) has a policy of keeping reports until individuals reach 100 years of age: WS1 § 14/105;
  • (iii) makes its data available to numerous other parties e.g. law enforcement agencies, courts, central and local government, etc (Particulars, paras.17, 20 and 21)".
  • My overall reply, under paras 100: "As undeniably demonstrated by the content of this document, the learned Master totally ignored the police’s breaches of my rights under the Act (Particulars, 1.1.1.1). He also ignored Recital 28 of Directive 95/46/EC which states: “Any processing of personal data must be lawful and fair to the individual”:
  • (ii) paras 109-115 re. the European Convention - following my 02.06.10 s.10 Notice (police # 5.5) - quoting the violations of my rights from the processing of the "crime reports", under paras 111-115, which I preceded with the Met Commissioner's defences under para.110 and, as in other instances, followed this by highlighting Master Eyre's "failure to take the evidence into account" (NB: ONE European Court of Human Rights Judge disagreed with me - see below);
  • (iii) paras 116-121 re. the Malicious Communications Act 1988 - in relation to the police's Mar 07 emails to my website Host (above), challenging the Met Commissioner's outrageous claim that "[he did] not need to respond to my my claims" because "the emails were sent in the ordinary course of an investigation" (police # 3 KP (4));
  • (iv) paras 122-126 re. the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 - also in relation to the above emails, challenging the Met Commissioner's assertion that "[I] did not have a claim under this Act" because "the emails did not amount to harassment, as this conduct was pursued for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime" (police # 3 KP (4)).

Reason 5 continues "...to say nothing of alleging malice, conniving with Mr Ladsky, intimidation, misfeasance in public office, &c."

I responded to Eyre's Reason under paras 129-133 of my 17.10.11 Request.

In relation to misfeasance in public office, I replied to this under paras 131, stating: "I contend that:

  • (iv) its refusal to act on my complaints of harassment [NB: police # 6] – amount to misfeasance/misconduct in public office (Particulars, paras 24, 99, 104 and 135)".

And, under para.132, wrote: "In these contexts, I contend that:

  • (i) the police misused and/or abused and/or falsely represented its power and/or rights;
  • (iii) victimised me and/or demonstrated unlawful and/or unreasonable discrimination against me by ignoring my rights and its legal obligations". (NB: As I wrote under para.67 of my Particulars of Claim - adding, "while favouring Ladsky"). I followed this by quoting case law, under paras 133.

Reason 5 also refers to my claims under the Police (Conduct) Regulations, Criminal Procedure and Investigation Act 1996 and Police Reform Act 2002 (police - D- Police legislation and regulations).

Apparently, I cannot claim under these Regulations and Acts (police - D- Police legislation and regulations). Under para.125 of my 17.10.11 Request, I wrote: "I contend that the police breached these statutes in relation to its dealings with me. If I “cannot pursue [these breaches] in a private claim” (06.10.11 Order): who will take action against the Met Commissioner?"

Reason 5 ends with the fact that "[I] claim for various forms of relief, including some £70,000 in damages" Under para.135 of my 17.10.11 Request, I specified that, of the £66,936 claimed (US118,000), £48,000 (US$84,640) was for damages, the rest being expenses. I followed this by quoting the Met Commissioner's defences, as well as case law, under paras 135-140.

REASON 6 is a sycophantic regurgitation of Stephenson's - unlawful - position: “(1) On the authorities, there is as a matter of general principle no right to bring a private-law action in relation to a breach of statutory duty.”

Knowing that it was lie (e.g. private individuals can file for judicial review - as sarcastically stated by e.g. the IPCC (# 5.5, below)) - he then stated:

“(2) Even if this could be viewed as a possible private-law action for breach of statutory duty, it would be clear for all of the reasons set out in the Met Commissioner's Defence that [my] allegations are misconceived and unfounded.

REASON 7 - “There can be no answer to those objections.

I replied to this under para.143 of my 17.10.11 Request: "I contend that the decision by the learned Master to endorse the Met Commissioner's blanket denial of his obligations under the above statutes is perverse in that, on the basis of the evidence in the case, no reasonable master regardful of his/her duty to act judicially would reach the conclusion that my “allegations are misconceived and unfounded”."

REASON 9 - “For those reasons, the Met Commissioner's application must be granted.

It meant that Her Majesty's police ended-up with 'a trophy' (its 1st of 4) (see below for the next 2; also below for the 4th one): a court Order that gave it the green light to go on processing the false, highly vicious and malicious so-called "crime reports" against me...

...while I ended up being made to pay it costs of £8,478 (US$14,950) (*) : my 22.08.11 letter to the police enclosing payment, in which I continued to expose many of the lies and conniving that took place. It did not respond to my letter.

(*) I wonder whether the police provided my bank statements and other financial statements it stole from my post, as a means of determining how much I could be made to pay (Persecution # 3.2 - Post)... while giving a copy to 'Dear Mr Ladsky' to help him determine the size of the fraudulent, upon fraudulent demands he can send me?... which, 'of course', for 'my convenience', "I can pay over the phone by using my debit card".

This order amounts to defamation of my name, character and reputation.

 

4. One question for Her Majesty's Met Commissioner, Her Majesty's Master Eyre - and his judiciary friends who subsequently endorsed 'his' 09.08.11 Order (below).

If the then Met Commissioner, Paul Stephenson, was ‘so certain’ of his position in his 23.05.11 Defence (above), and his 30.06.11 Application to have my claims "STRUCK OUT" (above): why did he make me a 07.07.11Without Prejudice Offer” of “not pursu[ing] the costs of [his] application” if “[I] discontinu[ed] my Claim"?

In my 13.07.11 letter, I rejected “the offer” on the ground that it had “not given me reasons to discontinue my claim – which I maintain”.

Not only would Kensington, Chelsea, Notting Hill police - et.al. have been able to claim that ALL of their - FALSE - assertions in the Met Commissioner’s Defence and Application Wit.Stat were ‘therefore undeniably proven’ – the Met Commissioner would have also hit me with his other costs.

Evidently, to this day, they ALL continue to perceive me as an imbecile.

5. Also of note:

(1)- Demonstrating further the complicity, collusion and conniving between Her Majesty's Eyre and Her Majesty's Met Commissioner:

On 9 Aug 11, while waiting to go into Master Eyre’s room, I communicated my awareness of ‘the Draft Order trick’ (above) to Her Majesty's Commissioner’s Counsel, Nicholas Wilcox, saying that I had been alerted to it by the fact that, in breach of CPR, he had not sent me his client’s costs ahead of the 29 Jul 11 ‘hearing’ (above). He told me that “[I was] going to lose”.

I replied that, considering the evidence I had, I would take my case to the European Court of Human Rights. (At the time, I thought that the dismissive, arrogant look meant he was thinking that I would not have the necessary knowledge to pass the prior hurdles that would clearly be waiting for me. While I did pass the hurdles, and did file the Application with the ECtHR (below), in the light of the rejection (below), there was clearly more in the look than what I had assumed at the time).

(2)- It is abundantly clear that what took place was part of the 'retribution' package for my 'daring', after 5 years of fighting in vain - to set-up a website, relating chapter and verse of my case, in the process exposing all the miscreants (as well as my 'daring' to stand-up to them for my so-called 'rights) - hence, also violating my rights under Article 10 of the Convention:

On 9 Aug 11, Nicholas Wilcox also told me: “Master Eyre is not pleased with your website”.

I replied that it was obvious from events and ‘his’ Draft Order (above) [NB: which was turned into the final 09.08.11 Order], and that he should ask me how I felt about the treatment I have and continue to be subjected to by, among others, the courts and the police since 2002.

Note under REASON 3(3) of 'his' 09.08.11 Order (above) how ‘Master Eyre’ shows his barely veiled fury at my website – and frustration at being unable to do anything about it: “The Claimant had by now launched her own web-site. It consists of a single page of nearly 50,000 words, in other words the single page is as long as some published novels…

(NB: Thereby proving that Master Eyre looked at my website - and even calculated the number of words on a page!!!! And 'he' makes that kind of Order?!?!?).

Under para.55 of my 17.10.11 Request, I wrote: “This is irrelevant (in addition to being incorrect, as my website contains many sections). However, it helps confirm the Master’s disposition towards me”.

Also under REASON 3(3): “…The page is no more than a sustained tirade against Mr. Ladsky and his supposed allies”.

Under para.58 of my 17.10.11 Request, I wrote: “If my ‘criticisms and accusations’ (definition of ‘tirade’) were not justified and true, I would no doubt have had proceedings filed against me a long time ago. As to my being ‘angry’ (definition of ‘tirade’), I leave the court of ‘Joe public’ to judge me on that in the light of my experience since 2002 with various State parties and other parties in the professions”. (Case summary)

(NB: I draw your attention to the requirements for 'defamation' under the Defamation Act, as well as my rights from: Fair comment and Reynolds defence (in operation at the time). Also to my comments under Article 10 of the European Convention).

Under para.61, I wrote that the 'Reason' "further confirms the masts to which the learned Master very firmly pinned his colours".

(3) (Considering the evidence in the case) note also HM's Master Eyre sickeningly and repulsively prostrating himself at Ladsky’s feet – thereby demonstrating his unequivocal endorsement of Ladsky being above the law of the land, and of his all-consuming greed, moral depravation, extreme viciousness, cruelty and sadism - by stating under:

REASON 2 of 'his' above Order - that “In 2002, there were proceedings before the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal which have left [me] with a burning sense of grievance towards Mr Ladsky: indeed, [I] recently described [Ladsky] as “that evil, greed-ridden monster””.

(Given the evidence in the case e.g. overview under Extortion - when I saw his objecting to that, I thought I was hallucinating). In my 17.10.11 Request, I replied to this under:

(i) Para.24, stating: "The learned Master did not state during the 29.07.11 hearing [NB: above] that: “[I] was left with a burning sense of grievance towards [Ladsky]”.

This assertion is false. (Any “grievance” I had was towards the London LVT for failing to perform its duty by not providing me with an effective remedy) [NB: Overview # 2 ; LVT # 4 , # 7 ; summaries: Events ; Breaches of the law].

"It is clear (considering also the learned Master’s other Reasons) that he is making this assertion by drawing on the false and malicious accusations and opinions of me contained in the reports". I then listed them, under paras 25 & 26, followed by, under para 27, Her Majesty's Met Commissioner's defences, and under para.28, the breaches of my rights under the DPA.

(ii) In relation to the last part, I replied to this under paras 29-31 by quoting examples in support of my assessment. Under para.31, I wrote: “in my world a person who does that is an “evil, greed-ridden monster” to which I add: extremely cruel, vicious, sadistic, and without an iota of humanity” - which was a waste of time - because they all come from the same mould.

They all see the black-on-white evidence of criminal offences, including from Ladsky's own admission - to the police - but they still prostrate themselves at his feet! Absolutely unbelievable! (I repeat my above comments - as well as draw attention to David Cameron's 25 Jan 12 claim that "Britain has a well regarded legal system").

REASON 3(2) - in relation to my response to Ladsky provoking me on 25 Jan 03 by telling me “Better luck next time”, followed by a sarcastic laugh (leading me to conclude, correctly as it turned out (Overview # 2), that he had the impending then London Leasehold Valuation Tribunal hearing ‘sewn-up’) (police # 2) - that “[I] say - though without the least sign of shame - that [I] reacted by using the most disgusting and undignified language towards him…”.

I replied to this under paras 47-49 of my 17.10.11 Request, highlighting that Eyre had totally ignored my reply under para.34 of my 19.07.11 Wit.Stat, preferring to rely on the MPS’ 25/01/2003-13h55 entry (police # 2 KP(3)) – which fails to reflect what actually took place. Under para.49, I noted the fact that, during the ‘hearing’, Master Eyre did not ask me whether I felt “ashamed” and what I would have replied – had I been asked.

I contend that the sycophantic outpouring of ‘sympathy’ for Ladsky and proclamations of ‘shock’ and ‘disgust’ are used, at least in part, to divert attention away from the very active, key role played by some state parties in the events since 2002 i.e. judiciary, tribunal, police, heads of departments, ‘regulators’, etc. (Persecution # 6)

(See, above, summaries: Events ; Breaches of the law)

Back to sections

(4.7)- My 30.08.11 Application for Permission to Appeal against the pack of lies 09.08.11 MPS Order 'from' Her Majesty's Master Eyre was, of course, denied - 1st time by Her Majesty's Justice Lang in 'her' 06.10.11 Order who described all my claims as "misconceived and unfounded";

2nd time by Her Majesty's Justice Mackay in 'his' 24.10.11 Order, in the case of the latter:

(1)- without stating his Reasons; (2)- without referring to my 17.10.11 Request; (3)- stating a wrong date for my Appeal Application - and, in typical English public sector (and, indeed, private sector) style, in its 05.12.11 letter, the Office for Judicial Complaints, dismissed my 28.11.11 complaint against the Order.

 

In 'his' pack of lies 09.08.11 MPS Order (above), Her Majesty's Master Eyre stated:

"It is ORDERED that leave be refused, there being for the reasons already given no real prospect of success or other compelling reason for granting leave" (*)

"Statement for Rule 40.2(4):

  • (a) The above ruling on the application is not final.
  • (b) Any appeal lies to a single Judge of this Division. (NB !!!)
  • (c) Leave to appeal has been refused (see above)"

 

1. My 30 Aug 11 Application for Permission to Appeal

My Application was composed of:

  • 29.08.11 Skeleton Argument - with my claims of breaches / violations of my rights supported by references to legislation and case law;
  • 29.08.11 Supplementary MPS Wit.Stat. - for the reasons discussed above;

 

2. 06.10.11 Order 'from' Her Majesty's Justice Lang

Her Majesty's police got its 2nd 'trophy' as, in 'her' 06.10.11 Order, Her Majesty's Justice Lang, refused my Appeal Application (above) - in the process, fully endorsing all the Reasons in Her Majesty’s Master Eyre’s 09.08.11 Order (above).

Among other, 'she' described ALL my claims as:

"MIsconceived and unfounded"

I do not consider that the appeal would have a real prospect of success, nor that there is some compelling reason why the appeal should be heard.”

In fact, relative to Eyre who, in his Order, bowed to the police by sycophantically excluding my claims under various police Acts (above, # 4.6(3)),

- hell-bent on denying me acccess to justice and redress = hell-bent on protecting the police, under para.2 of her Order, Lang added another exclusion: Malicious Communications Act.

As I asked under para.127 of my 17.10.11 Request: "Who will take action against the police?"

Under para.148 of my 17.10.11 Request, I wrote: "I strongly contend that I have “a real prospect of success”, and that the “compelling reason” is detailed throughout this document".

Indeed, I most strongly contend that, in my 19.04.11 Particulars of Claim, I demonstrated (more than) "reasonable grounds for bringing my Claim" (CPR Rule 3.4(2)), and the irrebutable evidence I subsequently supplied confirmed I had "real prospect of succeeding at trial" (CPR Rule 24.2) - at least in an unbiased, impartial court.

Consequently, I repeat my conclusion under the Introduction to this page that, on the basis of the evidence in the case, no reasonable judiciary regardful of its duty to act judicially would reach Justice Lang's above conclusions.

I consequently submit that she was also party to the collusion and conspiring with the Met Commissioner. (NB: one European Court of Human Rights judge disagreed with me -see below).

Further, this order endorses the defamation of my name, character and reputation.

It left me the option of filing a Request for Oral Hearing of my Permission to Appeal.

 

3. 24.10.11 Order 'from' Her Majesty's Justice Mackay

When I filed my above 30 Aug Appeal Application, I knew it would be denied. I therefore continued to research frantically legal sources, which led me to discover some precedents on writing an appeal application.

Shortly after filing my (above) Application, I started to work on my Request. Hence, by the time I received the above Order of 06.10.11 giving me "7 days to apply for a hearing" (Reason 3), I was nearing the completion of my 17.10.11 Appeal Request.

Under para.149, I wrote: "If not addressed, for the reasons detailed in this document, the decision of the learned Master and of the Right Honourable Lady Justice will result in injustice and breach of my right to an effective remedy under Article 13 of the Convention, and under Article 22 of the Data Protection Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament".

(Needless to say that, on 17 Oct, day of the deadline for filing my Application, I was (as per usual) heavily dogged and hounded, including by one of the 'Stasi' who made it obvious: My Diary 17 Oct 11).

The outcome of the 24 Oct 11 so-called 'hearing' was that Her Majesty's police got its 3rd 'trophy' as, in 'his' 24.10.11 Order, Her Majesty's Justice MacKay wrote:

IT IS ORDERED that this application for permission to appeal is refused

I very strongly contend that this 'Order' was agreed ahead of the 'hearing' - and that my 17.10.11 Request was 'not liked'.

In support of my position, I cite:

  • The fact that Her Majesty’s ‘Justice’ Mackay read ‘his’ Reasons i.e. had them prepared ahead of the ‘hearing’ (as I wrote in my 28.11.11 complaint to the Office for Judicial Complaints (see below) (NB: Some of my fellow victims of injustice have reported the same thing happening to them: My Diary 25 Jan 11).
  • As stated on the 24.10.11 'Order': “the Respondent was neither present nor represented”.
  • The fact that ‘he’ failed to include ‘his’ Reasons for rejecting my – legitimate - Appeal (above), and subsequently refused to do so (see below).
  • The fact that the 'Order' does not refer to my 17.10.11 Request – which was the subject of the ‘hearing’ (The 'Order' only states: "And upon the Judge having read the written evidence filed"). (Does this mean that my Request was destroyed?).
  • To this could also be added the wrong date for my Application, as it states “30 October 2011” - instead of ‘30th August 2011’.

See below, MPS' Application to the IPCC for 'Dispensation', re. Mackay's clearly colluding with the Met Commissioner - by endorsing the police's 'reason' for refusing to deal with my complaint: use of the totally irrelevant Reg.3 of the Police (Complaints and Misconduct) Regulations 2004.

In the light of this, I repeat my conclusion under the Introduction to this page that, on the basis of the evidence in the case, no reasonable judiciary regardful of its duty to act judicially would reach Justice Mackay's above conclusion. I consequently submit that he was also party to the collusion with the Met Commissioner. (NB: And I must also repeat: one ECtHR Judge disagreed with me - see below).

Further, this order endorses the defamation of my name, character and reputation.

 

4. My 28.11.11 complaint to the Office for Judicial Complaints

As Justice Mackay had NOT stated in the 'Order' his Reasons for refusing my Application, I sent him this 31.10.11 letter, asking him to do this by re-issuing his Order, backing my request by citing a CPR Rule.

Lack of response led me to send a chaser letter, dated 14.11.11.

His 25.11.11 reply was that if I wanted to get the Reasons, I should “pay for transcription”.

In my 28.11.11 letter to the Office for Judicial Complaints, in the header, I defined my complaint as "Complaint against Lord Justice Mackay, High Court London, for failing to state his Reasons in an Order, and now asking me to pay - an unspecified amount - in order to obtain transcription of his Reasons".

In support of my reasons for objecting to this demand, I cited:

  • Article 6 of the European Convention that states that "courts have a duty to provide reasoned judgments for their decisions" (To meet the requirement of a "fair hearing" it must be possible to understand the verdict);
  • the fact that, in any case, Justice Mackay had prepared his Reasons ahead of the 'hearing', as he read them out;
  • the fact that the 09.08.11 and 06.10.11 Orders state the Reasons, and I did not have to pay for this.

In typical English public sector (and, indeed, private sector) style, in its 05.12.11 letter, the Office for Judicial Complaints, dismissed my 28.11.11 complaint against the Order.

It did this by, equally typically, misrepresenting my complaint, falsely claiming that it was about "judicial decisions or judicial case management".

Pg 1 of the letter states "The OJC can only investigate complaints about the personal conduct of judicial office holders... Examples of personal conduct include but are not restricted to the use of profane, racist or sexist language or shouting". Evidently, it excludes discriminatory conduct.

Hence, another example to be added to a very long list, that includes Her Majesty's Courts 'Customer Service' (Home page Legal # 8)

(See, above, summaries: Events ; Breaches of the law)

Back to sections

It represented 'the end of the line' - in 'The island-Kingdom of Make-believe' - as s.54(6) of the Supreme Court Act 1981 provides that "there is no appeal from the decision of a single judge on an application for permission to appeal".

It led me to file a 26.01.12 Application with the European Court of Human Rights (below)

 

  C O M M E N T S

 

(5)- 'INDEPENDENT' POLICE COMPLAINTS COMMISSION (IPCC)

My claims against the so-called ‘Independent’ Police Complaints Commission are under Section 2, paras 140-152 of my Particulars of Claim. On the Claim form, I summarised them as:

"(3) Damages and costs by reason of breach of statutory duty by the IPCC following the Claimant’s complaint against the conduct of MPS officers, as stated above".

The more detailed summary is:

In granting dispensation to the MPS from dealing with "[my] complaint" (*) (below) in relation to the 3 “crime reports” (above: # 1 ; # 4 (2)), it wilfully and recklessly failed to perform its “duties” and use its “powers” under the Police Reform Act 2002.

Further, that it did this by using the totally irrelevant Reg.3 of the Police (Complaints and Misconduct) Regulations 2004 - leading it to - illegally - exempt the police from compliance with the requirements of the Data Protection Act 1998 (police # 5.4).

(*) "[my] complaint", as the police and IPCC (= I submit: the police: police # 5.4) opted to select my 02.12.09 letter to the then Met Commissioner, Paul Stephenson (and then Home Secretary, Alan Johnson) (police # 5.2) as being ‘my complaint’ – as can be seen e.g. on pg 3 of the MPS’ Application for Dispensation' (below).

In fact, ‘my complaint’ was contained in the following 2 documents – with which the IPCC said to have been supplied (pg 3 of the Application for Dispensation - below):

  • my 13.08.09 letter to the MPS’ Public Access Office in which I provided my feedback on the content of the 3 “crime reports”, and backed-up my position by providing a bundle of 49 supporting documents (police # 5.1)

The fact that it was understood by the MPS to be ‘my complaint’ – is confirmed under para 21 of the Met Commissioner's 30.06.11 Application to have my claims "struck-out" (# 4 (3), above): “The Claimant continued to complain about the alleged breaches of the DPA in her letter of 2 December 2009

Following filing my 19.04.11 Claim, in Jun 11, the IPCC supplied me with the following 3 documents:

  • (1) ‘Application for Dispensation’ (below) ;
  • (2) ‘Minutes of Application’ (below);
  • (3) ‘IPCC’ letter granting the Dispensation to the police (below).

Back to sections

(5.1)- The police’s ‘Application for Dispensation’ to the IPCC (alleged to have been filed on '22.01.10') from dealing with my (legitimate) demands under the Data Protection Act 1998, was based on the totally irrelevant Reg.3 of the Police (Complaints and Misconduct) Regulations 2004 - and revealed the outrageous argument that...

... "If the crime reports were to be altered at [my] request this would set a new precedent for crime reporting and recording across the UK"

The 'alleged date' as, to the question on the form asking: “Complainant advised of application (please attach copy of letter)”, the “Yes” box has been ticked (police # 5.4).

This is clearly not true, as I was informed of this in a letter dated '21.01.10' - but only posted 2 weeks later, on 4th Feb (police # 5.3). It further confirms my conclusion at the time that my 02.02.10 letter to the Met Commissioner (police # 5.3) had been the trigger for the 'application'.

According to the police's 'Reason for Application' on pg 2 of the '22.01.10' Application:

1. In 'justification' for using the "12 months deadline" (police # 5.4)

I was expected to have filed a Subject Access Request well before doing it on 28.05.09

because [I] was aware of the incidents at the time that they happened. Indeed, in many instances [I] was aware of the issues at the time they happened. The delay in making this complaint is therefore entirely due to [my] delaying [my] FoIA request”.

This is something that Her Majesty’s ‘Justice’ Mackay threw at my face during the 24 Oct 11 ‘hearing’ (above) in the context of adding his support to the police's choice of Reg.3 for refusing to deal with my complaint. I replied that the implication of this claim was that every 6 months, or less, I was expected to contact the police to determine what it holds on me.

Aside from - the material facts – that:

  • in 2007, the police did not contact me at any point in time in relation to the so-called ‘complaint’ against me by Andrew David Ladsky - leaving me in the dark as to what it did (police # 3 KP (8) and, above, the outrageous claim of having "No suspicion of false reporting");
  • in 2003, the police failed to respond to my 11.02.03 letter asking for “precise detail – in writing – of the accusation against me” (see, above, for the Met Commissioner's outrageous 'defence' to this part of my Claim);
  • as demonstrated by events, the Metropolitan Police only provides what it feels like providing – in total disregard of the rights of a data subject (see, above: 1st , 2nd - re. the version of the "crime reports" it supplied me with on 22.07.11)...

...- I pointed out to ‘Justice’ Mackay that the Data Protection Act 1998 does not specify a time limit for making a Subject Access Request.

Further, Directive 14 of the Data Protection Directive 95/46/EC, on which the DPA is based, states that “a data subject must be granted the right to object at any time on compelling legitimate grounds relating to his particular situation to the processing of personal data relating to him” – which is most definitely my case.

Nonetheless, Mackay still persisted in trying to validate the police's choice of this Regulation = another example of blatant collusion with the police. (NB: one European Court of Human Rights Judge disagreed with me - see below)

2. 'The gem' in the Application (police # 5.4)

If the crime reports were to be altered at the complainant’s request this would set a new precedent for crime reporting and recording across the UK. This complaint is therefore an abuse of process”.

Considering the content of the so-called "crime reports" and concurrent breach of my rights: this is absolutely unbelievable!...

... given that: (i) the police denied me the right to defend myself against the accusations (above) ; (ii) contrary to the police's classification of the 2003 and 2007 "crime reports" - I have NOT committed 'criminal offences' (above) ; (iii) the police is blatantly breaching my rights under the DPA (police # 5.1)

Note also how - repulsively (considering the evidence in the case) - Her Majesty's Master Eyre added his support to this position, under Reason 8 of 'his' 09.08.11 Order (above)

Further, these packs of lies "crime reports" amount to defamation of my name, character and reputation.

 

3. I 'should' complain - instead - to the Information Commissioner (police # 5.4: 1st , 2nd)

"This is not a matter that should be addressed through the complaints system. It is a matter for the Information Commissioner"

False. I do not need to do this. The Data Protection Act 1998 does not impose this requirement.

I stated this under: (ii) para.89 of my 19.07.11 IPCC Wit.Stat ; (ii) paras.58(2) and (5) of my 29.08.11 Skeleton Argument ;

(iii) paras 107(1) and 108(2) of my 17.10.11 Request – citing, in relation to the latter 2, the case of R. (Lord) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2003] EWHC 2073 (Admin) and, in relation to the latter, actually quoting from the case. See police # 5.4 for my other comments.

4. In 'justification' for claiming that my complaint was an "abuse of process" (police # 5.4)

[I] resorted to complaining due to [my] being unable to secure amendments to the crime reports

Ditto about being unbelievable!

Firstly, I have the absolute right under the Data Protection Act 1998 (s.10) to demand the end of processing of data about me that is causing me "distress and damage".

Secondly, consider this comment in the light of the IPCC's definition of "abuse of process".

The reality: Oh dear! Oh dear! I ‘dared’ to not walk away, viciously beaten up like a dangerous, demented animal by Her Majesty's police (who has malicious, ulterior motives for continuing to process the data against me) and instead ‘dared’ to stand-up for my rights.

5. In 'justification' that "it is impracticable to investigate [my] complaint" (police # 5.4)

That “[I] focus on numerous details within the crime reports that are of little or no practicable significance and relate to actions and or entries completed a long time ago. It is impracticable and totally disproportionate to launch an investigation into such matters after such a long time.

Neither is any other process under the PRA practicable

Ditto about being unbelievable! - considering the evidence: 2002, 2003 and 2007 "crime reports" which, of course, the police does not have a problem recycling when it suits; hold in reserve for using against me in court (Sgt Avison on 17 Oct 10) (police # 5.4).

And of course: must NOT change the KEY "neighbour" description, as it would totally undermine the content of the "crime reports" (above)

In my Comments to the 29.07.11 IPCC Order, under section 2.2.4, I detail numerous names not included by the MPS in its '22.01.10' Application form, under 'Allegation and officer details' - following which, I ask: "Do you view the above examples as being "impracticable and totally disproportionate to investigate?"".

I follow this by: "in typical English public sector style, it is, 'of course', absolutely imperative that none of those responsible should be held to account" (See the fact that - with the absolute knowledge of the IPCC - "police officers are encouraged to "resign" or "retire" rather than face disciplinary proceedings" (and look at the preceding articles re. the IPCC).

Note also the 1st paragraph, on pg 1 of the Application: “The complainant was involved in a dispute that was long-running”.

Yes: thanks to Her Majesty's police - et.al. in 'the Brotherhood, including judiciaries' actively assisting and protecting the Rachman Andrew David Ladsky, an evil, sadistic, extremely cruel, vicious crook and his stable of racketeer aides - who decided that he was 'entitled' to make a multi £ jackpot at my expense (and that of my fellow leaseholders)...

– and will stop at absolutely nothing to feed his all-consuming greed (as some of my fellow leaseholders have also said: Other Residents ; Head Residents Association).

(See, above, summaries: Events ; Breaches of the law)

Back to sections

(5.2)- In 'its' '02.03.10 Minutes of Application' 'the IPCC' unbelievably "determined" that, while "[I] have not explained the reason for the delay in making my complaint",

and "have not responded" within, what was evidently perceived as a 'generous' less than one week deadline - the police Application made"a very strong case for dispensation"

On pg 1, section headed ‘Casework Manager’s concerns regarding the application', the comment 'from' Matthew Johnson, that "[I] had not received ‘his’ 22.02.10 letter (police # 5.4) by the time I sent mine of 18.02.10 to the IPCC" (police # 5.4),...

...copying it on my 18.02.10 reply to DI Lee (police # 5.3) and that “This may explain why [I have] not explicitly addressed the issue of why [I am] making [my] complaint such a long time after the event”.

Unbelievable! All the evidence the IPCC claimed to have been supplied with (pg 3 of the Application) (which lists my complaints and subsequent correspondence (police # 5.1 , # 5.2 and # 5.3), as well as the "crime reports")...

... - which it claimed to have "read" and "considered" (below) - in which I highlighted endlessly the breaches of the Data Protection Act 1998 - added to the fact that it received my 18.02.10 reply to DI Lee (police # 5.3) on the day Matthew Johnson posted ‘his’ 22.02.10 letter, in which I, again, highlighted that the DPA does NOT impose a time limit on a data subject to ensure the implementation of his/her rights...

...– and ‘he’ makes that kind of statement!?!? Was Matthew Johnson a police officer on secondment – perhaps from Kensington, Chelsea or Notting police?

The ‘concerns’ go on to state: “However, I have given her time to respond…”. In fact, 'his' dictatorial letter of 22.02.10 gave less than 1 week to respond (police # 5.4(2))

Further, as I wrote under para.104 of my 19.07.11 IPCC Wit.Stat:

this letter was intercepted (*) and only delivered to my PO Box once the deadline for reply had passed.

However, I did not reply, because I concluded that if the IPCC could not see “my reasons” - as well as my rights - from all the documents with which it would have been supplied by the MPS - then there was nothing else I could do to convince it”.

To this I will add: and because the collusion was glaringly obvious

(*) Very clearly by the police / under its direction - as I submit, also took place with the 2 Aug 11 MPS Draft Order (above) See also Persecution # 3 - Post

In 'his' above Minutes, 'Matthew Johnson' continues: “… notwithstanding her representations, consider this a very strong case for dispensation”.

And, in the following paragraph, on pg 2, under ‘Recommendations’:

Ms Rawé has copied the IPCC into her response to DI Crispin Lee’s letter of 21st January 2010…"

"I have read Ms Rawé’s seven page submission but it does not provide good reasons for the delay in making the complaint. Therefore I recommend that this dispensation [NB: above] should be granted because the incidents occurred three, seven and eight years ago and Ms Rawé has not provided a good reason for this delay and that injustice would likely be caused by the delay".

Unbelievable! But to be expected from a police officer / the police's 'poodle'.

Who is causing injustice to whom? (One of many other cases)

'He' continues:

"I am granting this dispensation application on the basis that it would not reasonably be practicable to complete the investigation due to the substantial amount of time that has passed since the events happened.

Furthermore Ms Rawé’s complaint is about personal data held on three crime reports. She opines that this data is inaccurate, unlawful, unfair, in breach of the principles of data protection and in contravention of her human rights.

Ms Rawé wishes these reports to be amended. Modification of crime report entries is not the purpose of the complaints system and such an objective might best be realised by application to the information commissioner. Therefore I consider the complaint to represent an abuse of procedure and recommend a dispensation is also granted on this ground

Again: Unbelievable!

I repeat my comments under (1) above, and again stress that:

Reg.3 of the Police (Complaints and Misconduct) Regulations 2004 is totally irrelevant.

It cannot be called upon to interfere with my rights under the Data Protection Act 1998. (Nor, indeed, the right of ANY other data subject)

As evidenced by other cases reported in the media, this Regulation is the 'trump card' frequently used by the police and its 'poodle', the IPCC, to avoid dealing with complaints (police # 5.4)

Re. “abuse of process”, under para.103 of my 19.07.11 IPCC Wit.Stat I wrote: “I could not believe the content of the letter [ 22.02.10 ; police # 5.4(2)]. How could my exerting my rights under the DPA amount to “an abuse of process”?

The 22.02.10 'from' the IPCC contained the above.

Following on from this, was the 02.03.10 letter to me ‘from’ Matthew Johnson, “granting dispensation to the MPS from dealing with my complaint” - outrageously stating that

"investigating [my] complaint now would likely cause an injustice"; and

"the misconduct complaints system does not exist in order for changes to be made to old crime reports" (police # 5.4(3))

Of course, it also continued to push me towards the Information Commissioner (police # 5 4(3))

As I wrote under para.105 of my 19.07.11 IPCC Wit.Stat. "I had assessed the IPCC's 22.02.10 letter as 'preparatory ground for the next instalment'. I proved to be right. Exactly one week later, it sent me a 02.03.10 letter that is a near carbon copy of the 22.02.10 letter".

‘Interestingly’, in ‘his’ 02.03.10 letter to Detective Chief Inspector Mark Nanji (supervising officer of DI Crispin Lee – as stated on pg 3 of the Application), in which 'he' granted the 'dispensation', ‘Matthew Johnson’ wrote: “The complainant has not responded or provided good enough reasons for us to refuse your application”.

If I “did not respond, which, for the reasons detailed above, I did not, how could my ‘non-response’ be assessed as “not providing good enough reasons”?

I submit that, in the light of events, in particular the extreme blindness to the evidence in the case, added to the 21 Jan 10 letter being posted on 4 Feb (police # 5.3) - that all the paper work: Application, ‘Minutes of Application’, 22.02.10 letter, and possibly the 02.03.10 letter - were all done at the same time – either by a police officer (I again ask whether Matthew Johnson was a police officer on secondment), or under police’s diktats.

(See, above, summaries: Events ; Breaches of the law)

Back to sections

(5.3)- It is glaringly obvious that the IPCC colluded and connived with the police, and that, in addition to illegally granting it 'dispensation' from compliance with the requirements of the Data Protection Act 1998, it equally - very blatantly - failed to perform its statutory duty under the Police Reform Act 2002,...

...and, in the process, ignored the police's Standards of Professional Behaviour, as well as paid lip service to the Home Office Guidance and its own Guidance to the police

See police # 5.4 for the statutory role and powers of the IPCC - defined under the Police Reform Act 2002. (They are listed, under paras 2 and 3 of the IPCC's 07.06.11 Application Wit.Stat to have my claims "struck-out" (below))

(As I summarised under para.143 of my Particulars of Claim), the IPCC's statutory duty is "to create and maintain public confidence in the police complaints system by ensuring that all complaints concerning the police are conducted efficiently and effectively, and that the process manifests an appropriate degree of independence".

This includes, "recording conduct matters involving the commission of a criminal offence or behaviour justifying disciplinary proceedings".

Under para.149 of my Particulars of Claim I wrote that the IPCC had “wilfully and recklessly failed to perform its statutory duty under the Police Reform Act 2002”.

In my Comments to the 29.07.11 IPCC Order (below), I quote from the Data Protection Act 1998, the IPCC Guidance and Home Office Guidance, and provide examples in support of my position that the IPCC IGNORED them. The headers are:

  • 3.2.1 - The breaches of my statutory rights by the police are crystal clear - “from the facts – and the law” (B7, pg173 ; police # 5.4)
  • 3.2.2 - What took place – and failed to take place - very clearly demonstrates the various officers’ “actions and decisions or omissions to act in breach of legislation” (#17, pg18)
  • 3.2.3 - The “discrimination” and “lack of fairness” I was subjected to by the various officers, including, the Chief Superintendent, ‘Professional Standards’, as well as the then Met Commissioner – are equally glaringly obvious (Annex A, pg164 ; police # 5.4 ; Overview ; # 5.1 , # 5.2 , # 5.3)
  • 3.2.5 - The evidence of “corruption” and/or “malpractice” by the various officers is also glaringly obvious (Annex A, pg164 ; police # 5.4)

Under section 3.3 of my Comments to the 29.07.11 Order, I ask: Can the IPCC claim that:

  • 1. It has the right to grant the police “dispensation” from compliance with legislation?
  • 3. It “assessed [my] complaint in the light of its facts and the law that applies to it”? (B7, pg173 / police # 5.4)
  • 4. It considered whether in their “actions and decisions or omissions to act or decide”, the officers concerned were “breaching legislation”? (#17, pg18)
  • 5. My complaining that the police breached my absolute right under s.10 of the Data Protection Act 1998 by failing to address my (repeated) demands (police # 5.5), amounts to an “abuse of process” and that I did this “through manipulation or misuse of the complaints system in order to initiate or progress [my] complaint”? (#180, pg57 / police # 5.4)
  • 7. In considering whether “the service provided by [the officers] reached the standard a reasonable person could expect” (police # 5.4) - it “applied an objective standard of [what] a reasonable person in possession of the available facts could reasonably expect – having regard to the Standards of Professional Behaviour and Home Office Guidance”? (#433, pg 113 and #434, pg114 ; police # 5.4)
  • 9. It considered whether the officers had “a case to answer in respect of misconduct or gross misconduct”? (#298, pg83 ; police # 5.4)
  • 10. In a nutshell: that it complied with its “statutory duties and powers” pursuant to the Police Reform Act 2002?

And conclude with: The glaringly obvious answer to all of these questions is a resounding: NO.

Under header 5.2, pg 57 of my 1st IPCC Witness Statement of 27.06.11 (below), I reported my view that "there had clearly been collusion going on between the police and the IPCC".

Under para.19 of its 'tidying up' 19.07.11 Wit.Stat (below) 'the IPCC' wrote that "it is not pleaded in [my] Claim", adding: "Given the severity of this allegation it should have been. The fact that it is not pleaded undermines the credibility of that assertion". As just detailed above: It IS "pleaded": “wilfully and recklessly".

The collusion is glaringly obvious from the above. To this, I add: (i) the fact that 'the IPCC' falsely defined my complaint as being my 02.12.09 letter to the Met Commissioner (above); (ii) its 'tidying-up' Wit.Stat. (below).

(See, above, summaries: Events ; Breaches of the law)

Back to sections

(5.4)- In 'its' 18.05.11 Defence (hence, under a statement of truth), 'the IPCC' opted for blanket denial of all of my claims - and, unbelievably, did this without having any knowledge of the case

This - unbelievable - fact can be seen from:

  • (i) para.6 of its 18.05.11 Defence, under which it claimed to be “unable to admit or deny the existence of [my] alleged letter of 18th February 2010”;
  • (ii) under para.4 of its 2nd Wit.Stat of 19.07.11, it wrote: “following filing of the Defence [it] was able to locate the case file. This accounts, in some part, for the Second Defendant’s application containing more detail than the Defence”.

The Defence starts off by stating that my Claim should be "STRUCK OUT"; goes on to justify its "lawful" decision to grant dispensation to the police; claims that "[I have] failed to provide any representations to the IPCC as to why dispensation should not be granted"; "denies breaching any of its statutory duty", etc. The obvious conclusion is that the content was supplied by the police.

(See, above, summaries: Events ; Breaches of the law)

Back to sections

(5.5)- Also under a statement of truth, 'the IPCC' continued with the lies, as well as denials in 'its' 07.06.11 Application to have ALL my claims "STRUCK OUT" - and emphasised that I "should have challenged its decision through judicial review"

In its 07.06.11 Application to have my claims "STRUCK OUT", 'the IPCC' claimed:

Paras 18-20 - “[I] have not identified any duty which has been breached through the IPCC’s acts or omissions” ; "Manifestly, the IPCC acted in accordance with its statutory duties and powers. As such there is no merit in the claim"

[Contrast that with: my Claim (above) and the above detail!] and, that "its functions pursuant to s.10 of the Police Reform Act are not duties the breach of which gives rise to any civil liability" [NB: contrast that with the above]

Para 21 - My claims of “malpractice or misconduct in public office or misfeasance in public office” are similarly without merit

[because:] "The matters alleged do not disclose any cause of action as alleged or at all" ; "the IPCC acted in accordance with its statutory duties and powers. As such there is no merit in the claim" [NB: Ditto re contrasting with the above]

Paras 6-15 - "[It] took my representations into account" [NB: Ditto]

Para.20 - "[I] failed to identify any loss occasioned by the IPCC" [NB: The loss is glaringly obvious]

Paras 13 & 14 - "[I] did not challenge the decision to grant dispensation by way of judicial review"; "[it] first became aware of my contention through my Pre-action letter" [see above]

Para.22 - "The three month time limit expired in June 2010 and [I am] seeking to circumvent that time limit by making this claim

Para.23 - “A successful judicial review challenge would have resulted in the IPCC having to retake its decision on the dispensation and would have therefore provided [me] with a complete remedy to that aspect of [my] complaint.

Instead of which [I am] now seeking compensation for effectively the IPCC’s decision to grant a dispensation

Under para.109 of my 19.07.11 IPCC Wit.Stat, I wrote: "By then [NB: time at which 'the IPCC' granted the 'dispensation' (above)] I had been battling, solidly, for 6 months. And, despite my numerous, very laborious and costly efforts, and my resorting to approaching the highest level in the Metropolitan Police asking for assistance [NB: police # 5.2], I had made no progress whatsoever...".

Under para.110, I wrote: “…I embarked on extensive desk research with the objective of finding a means of circumventing the repeated refusals to meet my demands. I bought a book on the DPA. From this, I realised that I could submit a Notice under Section 10.

As it imposes a requirement on a data controller to respond within 21 days, I concluded that doing this would be the solution to my problem”. As I also reported under para.110: “This was all in vain, as [Chief Superintendent Mark Heath] failed to respond to my 2nd June 2010 Notice" (police # 5.5)..

I consider my taking this alternative to judicial review as being perfectly legitimate (with the added benefit of being less costly). As evidenced by ‘his’ 29 Jul 11 IPCC Order (below), ‘Master Eyre’ did not share my view.

As I wrote on pg 2, lines 38-41 of my 13.09.11 letter to the IPCC: “Clearly, it is not enough that you get paid taxpayer money to do a job, to get you to do it, we, taxpayers, have to pay thousands of £ out of our taxed income to employ lawyers to file an application for judicial review. Evidently, you, the MPS, and by extension the Home Office, are relying on the fact that relatively few people have the means to do this”.

That’s their game! I submit that para.23, above, in the IPCC’s Application Wit.Stat supports my position.

However, in my case, considering my experience with Her Majesty’s judiciary since 2002 (snapshot under Kangaroo court), including in 2011 in the context of my Claim (as detailed on this page) - it can be safe to assume that my filing for judicial review would have only resulted in my wasting even more money, as well as time.

(See, above, summaries: Events ; Breaches of the law)

Back to sections

(5.6)- The 'tidying-up' 19.07.11 Witness Statement 'from' the IPCC - in anticipation of 'favourable' Orders - ...that 'should have' tightened further the noose around its neck.

'The IPCC' issued me with a 19.07.11 Wit.Stat, claiming that it was "in response" to my 1st Wit.Stat of 27.06.11. It posted it on the day it received my replacement Wit.Stat of 19.07.11 (*) - at 10h35 (proof at the back of my 19.07.11 correspondence to the court).

(*) I did this because, in my 27 Jun 11 Wit.Stat, I referred to legislation and included opinions, and subsequently realised that I could not do this e.g. 01.07.11 court’s Notice. However, as I wrote on pg 2, lines 36 & 37 of my 13.09.11 letter to the IPCC: "I absolutely stand by everything I wrote - and endorsed with a statement of truth"

I submit that what triggered this 2nd Wit.Stat. was the advanced knowledge that 'its' 07.06.11 Application (above) was ‘in the bag’ – and that what it had done, and failed to do, would be endorsed by ‘irrebutable evidence’ in the 09.08.11 MPS Order (above) striking out all of my claims, among other, under the Data Protection Act 1998.

So, ‘for the record’ – its file and court file – it was now ‘safe’ to claim / reassert – under a statement of truth - that it had done everything 'by the book', was absolutely 'justified' in granting the 'Dispensation' (above) to the MPS, and 'above reproach of any kind'.

Among others, I cite:

Paras 5-11 - Assertion that the IPCC was "supplied" - and "considered" - "all the documents" listed on pg 3 of the Application (above), as well as my 18.02.10 letter to DI Crispin Lee (police # 5.3). Of note, in relation to the latter claim: 'mysteriously' in 'its' 22.02.10 letter it makes NO reference to the latter!

Para 13 – That it “granted the application on a number of alternative grounds in addition to the “12 month elapsed” ground, namely that it would be an abuse of process of the complaints procedure and that it would not be practical to investigate the complaint, as evidenced by the letter of 2nd March 2010” [police # 5.4]

Para 14 – “In addition the “12 month elapsed” ground also requires the IPCC to conclude either that no good reason for the delay has been shown or that injustice would be likely to be caused by the delay.

The IPCC concluded that both of those applied in this case as is evidenced by the letter of 2nd March 2010” [ police # 5.4]

Paras 15 – Quoting my statement that“the Data Protection Act entitles [me] to require a data controller to stop processing data about [me] at any time”, it nonetheless dismissed my claim of its being “misguided” in using Reg.3 of the Police Regulations 2004.

Para.17 - It admitted that “The investigation of a complaint or a conduct matter may involve consideration of the Data Protection Act”.

It then used a red herring to divert attention away from its failure to perform its statutory duty by holding the MPS to account for failing to comply with legislative requirements - by stating that it “does not have the power to make a police force alter the information that it retains”.

Para 18 – It referred to the police’s right to make an application for dispensation on, among other, the “12 month elapsed” ground, and that “The IPCC is not therefore misguided in its application of that ground but has simply applied the Regulations as it is entitled to do and in fact did in this case”.

Under para.3, it claimed that its failure to respond to my Pre-action letter (above) was “caused by an oversight” and that “there is no documentation that would suggest that it was intentional”.

I cover this in my Comments to the 29.07.11 Order, under s.5.2, including detailing how it messed me around at the time, and made me incur extra costs. Under s.6, I detail what I describe as 'Other pay back' tactics' that also entailed messing me around and making me incur extra costs.

(See, above, summaries: Events ; Breaches of the law)

Back to sections

(5.7)- The 29.07.11 IPCC Order 'from' Her Majesty's Master Eyre "STRUCK OUT" my claims on the ground that I had "not disclosed reasonable cause of action in private law", and that "[my] challenge ought to have been made, if at all, by seeking judicial review" - leaving me with the IPCC's costs of £3,703.

The Application 'hearing' took place on 29 Jul. It was fairly brief, as the IPCC Counsel, Mr Dixey, focused on the position that "[I] should have filed for judicial review".

Unbelievably, Dixey also tried to obtain a 'Restraint Order' against me for filing "a vexatious claim" (CPR Rule 3.4(6)). Master Eyre refused.

The Reasons for dismissing my claims - with costs of £3,703 (US$6,530), state:

"1. The Claimant's allegations disclose no reasonable cause of action in private law"

"2. The Claimant's challenge ought to have been made, if at all, by seeking judicial review"

"3. The only reason that the Claimant gives for not having followed that route is that "it would have cost £70,000"

"Leave to appeal refused, for the reasons given there being no real prospect of success or other compelling reason for granting leave"

"Statement for Rule 40.2(4):

  • (a) The above ruling on the application is not final.
  • (b) Any appeal lies to a single Judge of this Division. (NB !!!)
  • (c) Leave to appeal has been refused (see above)"
  • (d) Any further application for leave is to be made to the single judge."

Considering the evidence in the case, above, starting at pt # 2: does this Order appear fair to you?

Should a judiciary turn a blind eye to, among other, the IPCC illegally granting the police 'dispensation' from compliance with the requirements of the Data Protection Act 1998?

My view: ‘the poodle’ got a nice, juicy bone which, in the light of my experience since 2002 (Case summary), including following filing my above Claim - I submit was in recognition of services rendered to 'the Brotherhood'.

In relation to Reason 3, it is NOT true. As can be seen under para.111 of my 19.07.11 IPCC Replacement Wit.Stat (above), I wrote: "The rejection of my complaint by the IPCC [NB: above], added to the failure of my strategy number 2, above, [NB: refers to para.110 under which I referred to my s.10 Notice, above: #4 (6)(3) , # 5 (5) ; police # 5.5] led me to conclude that the only solution left was to file a claim – as I knew I could do under the DPA.

As I did not have £70,000+ to spend on legal advisers, I embarked on 8 months of intensive desk research in order to do this – resulting in my 19th April 2011 claim".

(NB: To which I could have added: aside from the costs - and assuming that 'the Brotherhood' 'allowed' a lawyer to act for me (e.g. my experience with a lawyer in 2007 ; on 11 Aug 11): based on my experience with Piper Smith Basham and Stan Gallagher when they batted for Andrew Ladsky (e.g. Summary of events ; also captured in my Comments to the 13.11.03 'Draft Consent Order and Notice of Acceptance') - it is a near certainty that a lawyer, 'allowed' to act for me, would have acted against me.

In line with the very sick psyche of, evidently, many in 'the Brotherhood', the lawyer would have ensured I went through absolute sheer utter hell. (9 yrs on, and I still remember vividly the very traumatic and extremely cruel and vicious treatment Lisa McLean, Richard Twyman and Stan Gallagher - in tandem and in collusion with the Ladsky gang - put me through: My Diary 2003: Sep , 22 Oct , 28 Oct , 6 Nov, 7 Nov , 11 Nov , 12 Nov , 13 Nov , 14 Nov , November.

Further, others in 'the Brotherhood' would have also played an active part in 'the scheme' by, among other, interfering with all my means of communication: phones, post and emails).

I did not challenge the Order partly because of the reason given that I ‘should’ have filed for judicial review, and partly because I had a bigger fish to catch: the Metropolitan Police Service, following the pack of lies 09.08.11 Order ‘from’ Master Eyre (above: Order ; my 30 Aug 11 Appeal Application)

Hence, (as in the case of the other 2 Defendants to my Claim, the Met Commissioner (above) and Home Secretary (below)), I did not challenge the IPCC’s costs of £3,703.

Having made me waste more time and costs in relation to the Pre-action correspondence (above), as well as at the time of the compilation of the bundle (above), 'the IPCC' opted to continue having fun, by making me ask repeatedly for a sealed copy of the Order (detailed under s.6.2 of my Comments to the 29.07.11 Order). It eventually sent me a sealed copy by letter of 08.09.11.

I enclosed payment of the £3,703 with my 13.09.11 letter to the IPCC, and took the opportunity to highlight again the lies and conniving that took place.

The 20.09.11 'response' was: "I am writing to acknowledge receipt of your letter dated 13th September 2011 enclosing a cheque for £3,703.00. Yours sincerely"

By letter of 13.09.11, I also copied the Home Secretary on my letter to the IPCC - stating that she very clearly approved of the conduct of the MPS and IPCC - as, in the context of my Claim, I had copied her on ALL the main documents.

I concluded my letter with: "Please, no reply, unless it is to inform me that you have taken action to remedy the outrageous breach[es] of my rights and injustice I have and continue to be subjected to by your departments". I DID not receive a reply.

(See, above, summaries: Events ; Breaches of the law)

Back to sections

 

  C O M M E N T S

 

(6) HER MAJESTY'S SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT

In my Particulars of Claim, my claims against Her Majesty's Home Secretary are contained under section 3, paras 155-175.

On the Claim form, in the limited space I had left, under pt # 5, I summarised them as "Damages, including HRA, by reason of interference by the state with the Claimant's private life".

The fuller summary is:

Her Majesty's Home Office has, since at least the summer of 2005, and continues to – unlawfully – having me under constant 'surveillance' (as though I were a terrorist), including monitoring and interference with ALL my means of communication (phones, post, e-mail, computer), bugging of my apartment...

...– In breach of legislation, as I can most categorically state that, in the 43 years I have lived in this country (now, much to my immense regret), I have never been, nor am I currently engaged in any activity and/or conduct defined by the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2002 (‘RIPA’) (*) and/or the Police Act 1997 (**) that justify the said surveillance and interception (para.164 of my Particulars of Claim)

(*) Partly captured under Definitions

(**) Partly captured under Definitions

Back to sections

(6.1)- The Home Secretary filed a combined 07.07.11 Defence and Application to have all my claims "STRUCK OUT" on the ground that "the appropriate body for [my] claims is the Investigatory Powers Tribunal".

I submit that the tribunal does not offer me an 'effective remedy' - and the Home Secretary and Her Majesty's Master Eyre knew this. (Subsequent media reports endorse my view).

The Home Secretary's Counsel was David Barr. Under para.4 of her 07.07.11 Defence, the Home Secretary stated that:

"[She] denies that [she] is liable to [me] whether as alleged or at all but does not plead in detail to the Particulars of Claim at this stage because:

4.1 the pleaded claims are an abuse of process in that they contravene the provisions of s.17 RIPA (exclusion of matters from legal proceedings); and/or

4.2 the only appropriate tribunal for the determination of [my] HRA claims against [her] is the Investigatory Powers Tribunal: see s.65(2)(a) RIPA.

Consequently, the High Court does not have jurisdiction to hear the HRA claim: see R(A) v Director of Establishments of Security Service [2009] UKSC 12; and/or

4.3 the appropriate forum for the determination of [my] allegations of breach of statutory duty by [her] is the Investigatory Powers Tribunal: see s.65(2)(b) read with s.65(4) RIPA

4.4 [she] does not authorise directed surveillance, intrusive surveillance or the use of covert human intelligence by the Metropolitan Police: see ss.28, 29 and s.32 read with s.41 RIPA" (**)

6. If and insofar as the claim survives [her] application to strike out then [she] will seek permission to amend this Defence and plead in detail to [my] case. Inter alia, this will include reliance upon a limitation defence in relation to all aspects of the HRA claim relating to alleged events more than 1 year before the issue of proceedings" (***)

Re. paras 4.2 & 4.3, this is what Her Majesty's Home Office had replied to me at the Pre-action stage (above)

Re. para.4.4, I highlight s.30(2) RIPA: “An authorisation that combines (a) an authorisation for directed surveillance under s.28”, and (b) “for covert human intelligence under s.29, requires the authorisation to be issued by the Secretary of State”. 'If' she does not do it for the police, she does it for the intelligence services - that are clearly involved in my case.

As to s.41(1), it relates to her right to grant authorisation for "intrusive surveillance" if "the application is made by a member of any of the intelligence services", as well as others.

My response to Her Majesty's then Home Secretary, Theresa May's Application to have my Claim "STRUCK OUT" consisted only of my 19.07.11 Wit.Stat. In this, I detailed numerous events I attribute as being undertaken by state parties:

  • approaching medical practitioners I saw: paras 62-64 and 136 (My Diary 2009-Medical);
  • when I was working, as soon as I left the office: paras 100-105 (My Diary: 4 Jan 06 , 9 Aug 07);
  • surveillance by local uniform officers: paras 106-108 (My Diary: 22 Apr 11 , 16 Apr 11);
  • being hounded and harassed by police helicopters: paras 109-114 (My Diary: 16 May 10 , 18 Sep 10);
  • use of covert surveillance overseas: paras 115-118 (My Diary: July 10);

(NB: There have been many, many more since then, including more harassment and persecution by police helicopters).

In my 19.07.11 Wit.Stat (above), I wrote:

Para 132: "I am absolutely livid with fury to be under this highly intrusive, very distressing constant daily surveillance and interference with my private life, and from realising that photographs/film footage of me are being widely circulated for the purpose of hounding me – and with clearly a highly damaging ‘story’ about me being fed to the snoops.

This is an ongoing direct attack on my human dignity".

Para.133: "In the 43 years I have lived in this country I have never been engaged in any activity and/or conduct that justifies this extreme, ongoing surveillance, as well as monitoring and interception of my means of communication.

I am a law-abiding, decent, taxpaying individual who, until 2002, when I was dragged kicking and screaming by Andrew Ladsky into this truly horrendous nightmare that has totally destroyed my life, had never had any dealings with the police and the courts." (NB: Hence, in my previous 33 years in this country)

Para.134: "And, as is blatantly obvious, contrary to the malicious opinions of me captured by the police in its 2007 “crime report” opinions it communicated to social services: I do not suffer from “mental issues” (*)

(*) Para.164.a of my Particulars of Claim ; this assertion is made by Her Majesty’s police under the 16/03/2007-18h56 entry (police # 3 KP (3)2(10)).

Given other content in the “crime reports” intended to support this assertion (above: # 1 , # 4 (3) , # 4 (6) ; police-Overview & Outcome) - I assume that the objective in doing this is to provide 'an excuse' pursuant to s.28(3) of RIPA.

(NB: Considering what they have ALL done to me since 2002, I think that 'I' should be the one who "speaks to social services" to report them as "suffering from [very serious] mental issues")

Para.135: "I have done nothing wrong. I am the innocent victim of organised crimenot the criminal. I am a victim who ‘dares’ stand-up for her rights, and is being persecuted for ‘daring’ to do this."

Para.136. "I cannot begin to express the level of repulsion I feel at the morally depraved, vicious, cruel and sadistic actions against me e.g. making me miss my Uncle’s funeral; approaching 2 of my medical contacts, and making a deal that entailed: trying to lock me up in a mental institution; falsely suggesting that I needed an operation."

Para.137: "This highly intrusive surveillance and interference have blighted my life. In addition to making me live constantly on my guard as though I were a criminal on the run, it, among others: (i) affects all of my daily activities in a highly material way;

(ii) has led me to cut-off ties with all my UK contacts to avoid the risk of their being also monitored; (iii) has greatly reduced my frequency of contact with my family and friends in France, as well as affects the content of these contacts.

In effect, it has stopped me from having a normal life – a Fundamental Human Right, as I have done nothing wrong. In the process, in order to survive, it has led me to ‘shut down’ parts of me that are about being a human being – another Fundamental Human Right."

(NB: Suspecting, from a conversation I had with somebody in Nov 12, that Her Majesty's police / related services 'might' be cooking 'a story' involving my Dec 98-Jan 99 holiday in Yemen, I have added 2 documents to the entry: My Diary 15 Jan 06)

As demonstrated irrebutably under Breach of Legislation, Persecution page - what I report (above) is not 'surveillance' in accordance with the rule of law...

...– but, in fact, tyrannical persecution - under the banner of ‘retribution’ - using their key tool: mental torture - for no other reason than 'my daring' to stand-up against Establishment-controlled organized crime, and its 'brother', Andrew David Ladsky...

...- by fighting for my so-called 'rights' ('retribution' in inverted commas, as I have not done anything wrong: definition of retribution).

And, it is also abundantly clear, that this is definitely psycho territory - big time!

As I captured on the police page, I am absolutely convinced from events that the content of the so-called "crime reports" of 2003 and 2007 (in addition to, for sure, far more damaging data I have not seen) - are key to the ‘justification’ given by corrupt Mason-led state parties for dogging me, stalking me, tracking me, hounding me, harassing me, persecuting me, and monitoring me - on a daily basis -...

... including ALL my means of communication which, at times, entails interference:

  • phones, including interception and retention of important voice messages; it also includes interference with public phones;
  • post - including stealing important post e.g. letter informing me of a family funeral (done in conjunction with the interception and retention of voice messages, and of an email) ; stealing ALL my financial post;

These actions amount to criminal psychological harassment by the British state.

(NB: Her Majesty's police and related services are so busy hounding and persecuting the victims of 'certain' criminals, that an individual, Ibrahim Magag, supposed to be "under surveillance" from being placed "under a terrorism prevention notice", absconded by jumping in a taxi: "Terror suspect called taxi to escape 24-hour surveillance, MPs told", Guardian, 8 Jan 13.

The article reports what Theresa May, said in Parliament: "The police are doing everything in their power to apprehend Magag as quickly as possible". Obviously not entailing an order to stop hounding the victims of criminals i.e. aiding and abetting organized crime - in which SHE plays a key role.

One thing for sure - as evidenced by the above - if 'I' had called a taxi, the police would have been on to me immediately - and likewise, if I had sent an e-mail instead, because, in this island-Kingdom, 'daring' to stand-up against Establishment-controlled organized crime is clearly perceived as 'the worst act of terrorism').

The worst part of what I report (above) is that, taking into account all those who, since 2002, joined the Ladsky camp by acting against me, added to the hundreds, over the years involved in - unlawfully:

...means that it adds-up to a sample size that is at least in the hundreds.

I discuss this in My Diary # 2.4, and support it, under the NOTE, at the end of the page, by citing numerous examples.

Under Executioners I have identified c.200 named individuals.

Contrary to the above assertion made by Her Majesty's then Home Secretary, Theresa May - endorsed by Her Majesty's Master Eyre in 'his' Order (below) - I submit that, considering what I report above, the Investigatory Powers Tribunal does not offer me the opportunity for an 'effective remedy' - and that, of course, they both knew that.

(Note that I had communicated this at the Pre-action stage, above).

WHY?

1. In considering a complaint, the Tribunal’s approach is limited to judicial review (s.67(2) and (3)(c)). It therefore considers the procedural and substantive legality of the authorities’ decisions and actions – not the admissibility of the evidence.

Hence, the police’s “crime reports that are a web of false, malicious, highly vicious accusations against me and opinions of me, as well as, for sure, even more damaging data I have not seen – will not be challenged. (I again highlight e.g. the police’s claim of “No suspicion of false reporting”, in the 2007 “crime report (above)).

2. While the Tribunal has the right to inspect any files held by those involved in the authorisation or execution of surveillance and interception (s.58) – as in the case of the parties’ submissions – the Tribunal considers them behind closed doors (s.69(4)(b)): Kennedy v United Kingdom, ECtHR Application No. 26839/05) at [19] (*). If it does hold a hearing, it does NOT have to disclose it (Tribunal Rule 6(2)(a)).

(*) Link to the tribunal: http://www.ipt-uk.com/default.asp?sectionID=8&chapter=2

3. The Tribunal may NOT disclose to the complainant any of the data it has obtained (Rule 6(2)(b)-(e)).

In the light of the evidence in my case, it is a certainty that the police et.al. will claim the ‘right’ to non-disclosure under one, or more of the grounds listed under s.69(6)(b) and Rule 6(1) – and, more likely, the typical excuse: “in the interest of national security”.

Hence, I will not be shown the data on which the Tribunal based its decision, and will not, consequently, be able to challenge it.

4. Outcome: Based on the false and highly libellous data held about me in the “crime reports” and other data I have not seen, the Tribunal will conclude that the surveillance and interception I am being subjected to are 'lawful'

– and the only thing I will get is a verdict of: “No determination in my favour” - as it operates a policy of “neither confirm nor deny” (s.68(4) and 69(4)(d)).

(In 2015, human rights groups - who had gone through the process with the tribunal - were reported to have arrived at the same conclusion.

 

Leaving aside the above legal argument - and more to the point: (typically) the Investigatory Powers Tribunal is another rubber-stamping office for the British state's abuse of power e.g.

"Undercover police tricked women into sex like James Bond - judge", Independent, 17 Jan 13 - (re. the covert surveillance of campaigners, in My Diary 2011) "Secret service: Tribunal powers - The Investigatory Powers Tribunal is one of the most secretive judicial bodies in the country...

Currently headed by the Court of Appeal judge Lord Justice Mummery, it has been critcised for being highly secretive. It is [exempt] from freedom of information requests, it holds most of its hearings in private, there is no obligation to take oral evidence and many of the final judgments are not published.

Those submitting claims against surveillance have complained that they are usually unable to contest the evidence against them because they cannot see it. It also rarely finds in favour of claimants. Between 2000 and 2010, of the complaints we know about, only ten were upheld out of 1120".

-----

"GCHQ taps fibre-optic cables for secret access to world's communications", Guardian, 21 Jun 13 - Extracts under Persecution # 4, Introduction to 'surveillance legislation' -

Note GCHQ boasting to its American partners: "So far [the Investigatory Powers Tribunal] has always found in our favour".

Come on! The British state giving 'an effective remedy' to its people against its abuse of power? That would be the day! (See the 'Get Lost!' outcome of my 50+ legitimate 'cries for help' and complaints, most to public sector parties).

HOWEVER: attempting to push me towards the rubber-stamping tribunal does not give the Home Office departments and its current, as well as previous Heads, the right to ignore the rule of law.

(See above, Summary - Breaches of the law)

Translation of the above: I have no protection whatsoever against the blatant abuse of power by the state (*)

And, as evidenced by what I report, those with the responsibility for ensuring that the rule of law is observed are very clearly endorsing the unlawful conduct.

Outcome: state resources can continue freely – working in tandem with ‘Dear Mr Ladsky’s resources

(NB: One European Court of Human Rights judge, Vincent A. De Gaetano, (Malta), agrees with all of this - see below).

(*) Note that the Confidential Intelligence Unit was reported by the media, in 2009, as intending to "use legal proceedings to prevent details of its operations being made public...obtain Public Interest Immunity Certificates..."

(See, above, summaries: Events ; Breaches of the law)

Back to sections

(6.2)- The 09.08.11 Home Office Order 'from' Her Majesty's Master Eyre "STRUCK OUT" ALL of my claims against the Home Secretary...

...by endorsing her position that I 'should have' approached the Investigatory Powers Tribunal - leaving me with its costs of £5,000.

The very brief 'hearing' of the Home Secretary's Application to have my claims "STRUCK OUT" (above) took place on 09.08.11. The Counsel acting for the Home Secretary was Mr Sheldon.

During the ‘hearing’, I attempted to argue my case (above), but very quickly gave-up as I was not listened to and was cut short.

No, I did not write a skeleton argument. Anyway, considering how I had been treated by then by Her Majesty's judiciaries, it would very clearly not have made any difference. Hence, concluding that I did not stand a chance, I did not appeal against the Order - which states:

"AND for the reasons set out in Paragraph 4 of the Third Defendant's Defence" [NB: above]

"IT IS ORDERED as follows:

1. As against the Third Defendant, the claim-form and Particulars of Claim are struck out, and the action dismissed.

2. There is judgment for the Third Defendant for the costs of the action, including this application, assessed summarily at £5,000"

Considering the evidence in the case, above: does this Order appear fair to you?

Further, what can be said about Her Majesty's then Home Secretary, Theresa May?

 

As can be seen from the 05.08.11 correspondence from the Treasury Solicitor, it was claiming "costs" of £5,388. Master Eyre cut it down to £5,000 (US$8,820) saying "this court gets many claims like that", and that it "should not have spent this time, as this type of complaint must be referred to the tribunal." (or words to that effect)

In a ‘last chance saloon’ attempt, I captured my above position on the last page of my 22.08.11 letter to the Treasury Solicitor (with which I enclosed payment of £5,000).

As in the case of the other 2 Defendants, my 22.08.11 letter to the police (above) and 13.09.11 letter to the IPCC, on which I copied the Home Secretary (above) - I also took the opportunity to again, highlight the lies, conniving and collusion that took place following filing my Claim.

The 25.08.11 reply was: "It is regretted but I am unable to comment on the information within the 7 pages of your said letter"

My comments to that: 'Yeah, I am a lawyer, and, like Master Eyre (*) 'I can't see' that the MPS (above) which comes under the umbrella of my client, nor my client, have done anything illegal'. (*) and his mates who 'dealt' with my Appeal against 'his' 09.08.11 pack of lies MPS Order (above)

(See, above, summaries: Events ; Breaches of the law)

Back to sections

(7) (Moved to summaries: Events ; Breaches of the law)

 

  C O M M E N T S

 

2. EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS (ECtHR)

 

(2.1)- I submitted a 26.01.12 Application to the ECtHR. (Andrew David Ladsky was informed of this, before the Court sent me the acknowledgement letter).

With a 26.01.12 covering letter, I submitted a 26.01.12 Application to the Court, and supporting bundle of documents. My claims of violations of my rights covered:

  • the police's refusal to investigate my Oct 10 complaints of harassment (above)
  • my being under unlawful 'surveillance' by the state, and interference with all my means of communication (above), and of there being no remedy available to me for protection (above)
  • the Judiciary involved in my 19 Apr 11 Claim (above), who dismissed all my claims (above: 1st , 2nd, 3rd)

(NB: As detailed under the next section, ONE ECtHR Judge, Judge Vincent A. De Gaetano, (Malta), 'disagreed' with me)

OF NOTE: Andrew David Ladsky had clearly been made aware of my Application before the Court wrote me an acknowledgment letter: My Diary 26 Feb 12. (The same thing was repeated with my 15 Jan 13 letters to the Council of Europe's Secretary General, and Commissioner for Human Rights: # 4, below)

Yes! the knives are being sharpened to a razor-blade-finish, and the clandestine stabbing is continuing with renewed vigour because, as with all the others: this outcome is, 'of course': 'my fault' - in this instance, 'because':

  • It is 'MY FAULT' that none of them evidently believed my warnings that, if my demands were not met, I would file proceedings.
  • It is 'MY FAULT' that they ALL continued to underestimate my determination, as well as ability to fight against injustice.
  • It is 'MY FAULT' that Her Majesty's Justice Mackay concluded that he could, likewise, deny my Appeal.
  • It is 'MY FAULT' that none of them, either expected me to escalate my case to the ECtHR, or, I submit, if I did, believed that I would be prevented from doing it.

As ONE ECtHR Judge endorsed their actions and decisions, it may finally lead to the implementation of the 15 Jun 09 death threat ("Enjoy your life. You don't have long to live") - that was repeated on 14 Jun 14. I don't care: metaphorically, I died in 2002.

Intended to demonstrate that it controls everything - as part of its ongoing criminal psychological harassment regime, the British state intercepted the 28.02.12 letter of acknowledgment of my 26.01.12 Application.

I found the markings on the envelop in which it was sent puzzling: as can be seen, on top of the French franking, a sticker was affixed that states: "Returns (LP), PO Box 4025, Slough SL1 0NJ ; UKMail express parcels & mails'. The French franking states: 'Economique Autorisation', '99 Paris Inter'; 'Port Payé France' ; '01.03.12'. (Contrast that with the envelop in which the 06.06.12 rejection of my Application was sent).

Why should a letter: (i) with only my name and address as the addressee; (ii) posted in France; (iii) franked there ; (iv) clearly stating, on the envelop, the name of the sender, as well as its address - have such a sticker subsequently affixed to it stating a return address to a mail service in the UK?

I phoned UKMail to ask for an explanation. Aside from being told "to phone the sender", I was told that "the sender had used UKMail to send me the letter". This is very clearly not the case as, for this to happen, the letter would have had to be sent to UKMail. Further, why would the Court pay for postage from France? I also add that it took 2 weeks for the letter to reach me.

At the time of capturing the events, I wrote: I may be off-mark, but, in a country in which the state, in spite of its claims to the contrary, does not give a damn about human rights - as evidenced by my experience over the last 10 years (Case summary) (I also highlight the fact that its Human Rights Act excludes Article 1 - Obligation to respect human rights, and Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy) - with, to quote HM The Queen: "the dark forces operating in this country", including their propensity to steal private and confidential post - I suspect that a system has been set-up to intercept mail to and from the ECtHR.

I was NOT "off-mark" - as this has since been repeated with the 19.02.13 'reply' from Thorbjørn Jagland, Secretary General of the Council of Europe (see, below)

(How did my Application to the ECtHR go through?

It was not posted in this country, as I concluded that, as the police can get state employees to unlawfully intercept my incoming post, it can do the same thing with my outgoing post (i.e. post that requires going to the post office to send by recorded delivery) as:

(i) the police and related services, in tandem with the Ladsky mafia resources, are dogging me, hounding me, tracking me everywhere I go;

(ii) coming after me, the state goons evidently ask what I have done e.g. My Diary 3 May 12. Based on my 10-year experience, my guess is that 'the Brotherhood' was counting on this fallback measure).

(Yes, Article 34 of the Convention (below) states that "The High Contracting Parties undertake not to hinder in any way the effective exercise of this right [right to submit an application to the Court]". Considering 'the Brotherhood's' demonstration, since 2002, of how 'it cares' about my numerous other statutory rights, does it look to you as though it would have 'made an exception'?)

(See, above, summaries: Events ; Breaches of the law)

Back to sections

 

(2)- In a 06.06.12 'reply', one judge, Vincent A. De Gaetano (Malta), declared my 26.01.12 Application "inadmissible" - without giving any reason

- thereby breaching Article 45 of the European Convention - leading to the conclusion that he approves of the violations of my human rights by Her Majesty's police, related services, and Judiciaries.

(NB: Permission to reproduce banner: not sought; 'no entry' signs are my additions)

The 06.06.12 letter (with my Comments) from the ECtHR rejected my (above) 26.01.12 Application.

(NB: As per the (above) 28.02.12 letter, it is signed by ‘Paul Harvey, Legal Secretary’; I conclude from the name that he is British). (Note that, as 'my luck would have it', at the time of my Application, the ECtHR was under British mandate - below, # 2.1)

The letter states:

I write to inform you that on 30 May 2012 the European Court of Human Rights, sitting in a single-judge formation (V. A. De Gaetano [(*)] assisted by a rapporteur in accordance with Article 24(2) of the Convention), decided to declare inadmissible your application lodged on 26 January 2012 and registered under the above-mentioned number.

In the light of all the material in its possession, and in so far as the matters complained of were within its competence, the Court found that the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention have not been met”.

(*) Vincent A. De Gaetano is a Judge from Malta – as can be seen on the ECtHR’s website (copy of entry)

WHY has my Application been declared “inadmissible”? No reason given.

Failure to state the reason/s amounts to a breach of Article 45 of the European Convention:

Reasons shall be given for judgments as well as for decisions declaring applications admissible or inadmissible”.

It is certainly the minimum a complainant is entitled to expect from a Body, there to ensure compliance with the Convention’s rights – including treating individuals with dignity (Article 3).

How Article 45 translates in practice: example from Appendix 15 of (my ‘bible’), Taking a Case to the European Court of Human Rights, Philip Leach, 3rd Ed, Oxford University Press:

“The Court found that the right relied on was not a right included in the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Convention. Accordingly, the application was incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention, within the meaning of Article 35(3)”.

'The conclusion' to be drawn from the assertion that “[Judge De Gaetano has determined that my Application] does not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35” – is that 'my Application fails to meet each and every one of the criterion under these Articles'.

In relation to Articles 34 and 35, I count a total of 16 potential criteria for rejection – and deal with them in turn.

ARTICLE 34 Individual applications

The court may receive applications from any person, non-governmental organisations or group of individuals claiming to be the victim of a violation by one of the High Contracting Parties of the rights set forth in the Convention or the Protocol thereto. The High Contracting Parties undertake not to hinder in any way the effective exercise of this right".

1. ‘I’, ‘the victim of the violations’, HAVE made the Application.

2. The violations of the rights I am complaining of ARE contained in the European Convention: I specifically cite them in my Application – also stating exactly where I raised them in my Claim and subsequent documents filed in court (as well as served). Further, I support my claims by quoting from decisions from the ECtHR.

3. The UK IS a Contracting Party to the rights in relation to which I claim a violation as, not only have I checked that it was, there are decisions by the ECtHR in relation to the UK which concern these rights (and I cite some examples in my Application).

Hence, the assertion that “[my Application] does not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Article 34”- is:
 

ARTICLE 35 Admissibility criteria

“1. The court may only deal with the matter after all domestic remedies have been exhausted, according to the generally recognised rules of international law, and within a period of six months from the date on which the final decision was taken”

“2. The Court shall not deal with any application submitted under Article 34 that

(a) is anonymous; or

(b) is substantially the same as a matter that has already been examined by the Court or has already been submitted to another procedure of international investigation or settlement and contains no relevant new information”.

“3. The Court shall declare inadmissible any individual application submitted under Article 34 if it considers that:

(a) the application is incompatible with the provisions of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, manifestly ill-founded, or an abuse of the right of individual application; or

(b) the applicant has not suffered a significant disadvantage, unless respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto requires an examination of the application on the merits and provided that no case may be rejected on this ground which has not been duly considered by a domestic tribunal”

“4. The Court shall reject any application which it considers inadmissible under this Article. It may do so at any stage of the proceedings”.

4. Para.1 - Under 2. Section II, 2.4 of my Application, I discussed my 19 Apr 11 Claim by referring to the documents: pre-action stage, post filing, including my Appeal Application and the Orders that rejected it (detail, above).

Under 4. Section IV, I discussed the Orders – and reproduced them - as well as my Appeal Application, and subsequent document.

In the last paragraph (para.356) I stated: “I have now exhausted the domestic remedies (Article 35(1) of the European Convention) as CPR Rule 52.16(7) states: “Section 54(6) of the Supreme Court Act 1981 provides that there is no appeal from the decision of a single judge on an application for permission to appeal””.

It is therefore glaringly obvious from what I reported, that I complied with the domestic procedural rules, including the deadlines - and went through all the stages that qualify as "[having] exhausted all the domestic remedies”.

5. Para.1 - Likewise, it is abundantly clear that in my 19.04.11 Claim, and in my subsequent documents filed in court, that I raised the violations of my Human Rights – by specifying them – thereby giving the domestic court the opportunity to consider my claims.

6. Para.1 - Very clearly, my Application WAS within the ‘6-month’ period. The period starts from the time of the last decision: in my case, 24 Oct 11. As stated in the 06.06.12 letter, my Application was "lodged on 26th January 2012". (It was posted on that day, and delivered the following day). Hence, just 3 months after the final decision.

7. Para.2(a) - As evidenced by my Application: it is NOT anonymous.

8. Para.2(b) - As I answered to Q20 on the Application form, “Have you submitted the above complaints to any other procedure of international investigation or settlement? If so, give full details”: “NO, I HAVE NOT”.

9. Para.3(a) - re “compatibility with the provisions of the Convention or the Protocols” – which has 4 aspects:

10. (i)- my complaint IS about violations that have occurred within the jurisdiction of the UK (ratione loci);

11. (ii)- my complaint concerns rights that ARE protected by the Convention (ratione materiae);

12. (iii)- the violations of the rights I complained about HAVE been ratified by the UK (ratione temporis);

13. (iv)- my complaint relates to violations of my rights BY state parties (ratione personae).

14. Para.3(a) - re “manifestly ill-founded or an abuse of the right of individual application” – when you look at all the evidence I supplied in support of my Application (bundle of documents), you would have to be brain-dead to conclude that my Application falls into these categories.

(To this I add the following: (1) My Application complies with the requirements of Court ‘Rule 47– Contents of individual application’, and its Practice Direction, under ‘I-General’ and ‘II-Form and contents’ – including providing a summary in my 26.01.12 covering letter;

2) the - non-existence - of other factors that could lead to an application being rejected e.g. ‘falsifying documents’; ‘wilfully withholding relevant information from the Court’).

15. Para.3(b) - Ditto re. “suffering a significant disadvantage” e.g. denying me the right to defend myself against totally unsupported, false accusations. (NB: Her Majesty's Kensington police, as well as Her Majesty's Master Eyre, attempted to create 'evidence' in support of a key false accusation - see above), and concurrent criminal charges (above) held against me by the police in “crime reports” - that falsely, maliciously and therefore libellously portray me as:

  • (Consider these claims against the snapshot under Extortion, of what Ladsky, as well as his evil gang of racketeers - "under his instructions" - have done against me since 2002);

Further:

  • (also in breach of my rights under the Data Protection 1998), refusing to provide me with the contact details of organisations, such as “social services” to whom the police has supplied data about me – as well as withholding from me, no doubt, even far more damaging data than what it has deemed ‘I was entitled to see’;

Article 27(1) of the Convention (and Court Rule 52A) (copy) state: “A single judge may declare inadmissiblean application submitted under Article 34, where such a decision can be taken without further examination”.

How can Judge Vincent A. De Gaetano who, on taking office,...

...pursuant to Rule 3 of the Court, made the following declaration:

I swear” or “I solemnly declare” – “that I will exercise my functions as a judge honourably, independently and impartially”...

...– hold the view that my Application could be “dismissed without further consideration”? (*)

(*) From the Court’s ‘Resolution on Judicial Ethics’ (28 Jun 08) (copy): "I-Independence: In the exercise of their judicial functions, judges shall be independent of all external authority or influence". "II-Impartiality: Judges shall exercise their function impartially and ensure the appearance of impartiality…"

"III-Integrity: Judges’ conduct must be consistent with the high moral character that is a criterion for judicial office. They should be mindful at all times of their duty to uphold the standing and reputation of the Court"

How many individuals in the English police and courts and in the ECtHR – if they had the above done in relation to them - would not see it as “suffering a significant disadvantage”? The obvious answer is: NONE. It is an absolute certainty that they would raise hell, scream outrage from the rooftops, and fight tooth and nail for justice and redress.

(NB: Subsequent to my writing this, the reaction of the English police, end Sep 12, following being - allegedly - called "plebs" by an MP, in the course of a verbal exchange - very amply supports my conclusion - see Media: The 'pleb' saga).

16. Para.3(b) - While some of my claims of violations of my rights e.g. in relation to the processing of false, damaging data in the “crime reports” have entailed the ECtHR looking at similar violations (indeed, I cited some examples in my Application) the point is that my rights continue to be violatedbecause the police, followed by the domestic court have failed to take action.

Hence, the violations of my rights have NOTbeen duly considered by a domestic court” – as glaringly obvious from what I report in my Application. Consequently, I have been denied justice and redress – and continue to be denied justice and redress.

Hence, in the light of the above, I, likewise, contend that the assertion that “[my Application] does not meet the admissibility criteria set out under Article 35”- is:

I therefore conclude from the above that Judge Vincent A. De Gaetano:

  • (2) considers himself exempt from compliance with the European Convention Articles, including Article 45, as well as the Rules of Court (copy).
  • (NB: The court's 'right of non-compliance' was confirmed - see below: # 2.1, and # 4).

 

The 06.06.12 letter goes on to state:

This decision is final. It is not subject to appeal either to the Grand Chamber or to any other body. The Registry is unable to provide you with any further details concerning the Single Judge’s decision. Consequently, you will not receive any further correspondence from the Court in connection with this case. In accordance with the Court’s instructions, the file will be destroyed one year after the date of the Single Judge’s decision.

The present communication is made pursuant to Rule 52A of the Rules of Court” [NB: Rule 52A relates to a single judge taking a decision - copy)

(The alarm bell first started ringing when I concluded that Andrew Ladsky had been informed of my Applicationbefore the Court had written its (above) 28.02.12 acknowledgment letter: My Diary 26 Feb 12).

(NB: Is there a Masonic code in the date used for the rejection: 06.06.12?) (The Notice of Discontinuance of "ALL of the 27 Feb 07 claim against me" (Overview # 11), was dated 06.06.08)

(See, above, summaries: Events ; Breaches of the law)

Back to sections

(2.1)- My above conclusion was confirmed following my 18.09.12 letter to Sir Nicolas Bratza, then British President of the European Court of Human Rights.

(Yes, as 'my luck' would have it, my Application (above) was filed (no choice due to timing requirements), at a time when the presidency was under British mandate).

In spite of the above penultimate paragraph, I wrote this 18.09.12 letter to Sir Nicolas Bratza, (with which I supplied a copy of my above analysis - as attached to the 06.06.12 letter of rejection), stating:

"As detailed in my attached analysis....an assessment of each of the 16 criteria, relative to my 26.01.12 Application to your Court, has led me to the following conclusions:

the claim that my Application breaches Article 34, as well as Article 35 – is false;

it follows that Judge De Gaetano ‘evidently’ approves of the violations of my human rights by Her Majesty’s named Judiciaries, police and related services.

Please, let me know in what way, if any, my [above] conclusions are incorrect – such that they justify Judge De Gaetano’s rejection of my Application."

I added:

"If I do not hear from you by the end of your mandate as President of the European Court of Human Rights, due to terminate on 31st October 2012, I will conclude that my above assessment is correct..."

As in the case of the 06.06.12 letter of rejection (above), the 11.10.12 'reply' is also from Paul Harvey. Based on my very extensive first-hand experience (Overview # 7), I assessed this letter as a typical British Establishment-jackboot, authoritarian, contemptuous response which, equally typically, when it has not got a leg to stand on, totally ignores the content of documents, opting instead to fabricate its own story. It states:

"I should remind you that the European Convention on Human Rights does not contain any provision for appeal against a decision by which the European Court of Human Rights has declared an application inadmissible. The Court's decision declaring your application inadmissible is therefore final."

In my 18.09.12 letter, am I "appealing against the decision [to reject my Application]"? NO.

ALL that I asked for in my 18.09.12 letter was for 'an assessment of my conclusions' that, contrary to the assertion made in the (above), 06.06.12 rejection letter, my Application does not in fact "breach Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention".

In other words, I was seeking a reply as per the above example - and, therefore, a reply compliant with Article 45 of the Convention.

The 11.10.12 letter then states:

"I should also point out that, by virtue of Article 35 § 2 (b) of the Convention, the Court could not deal with any further application submitted by you which was substantially the same as the above application and which contained no relevant new information."

Can my 18.09.12 letter be construed in any way, shape, or form as:

  • (1) a "further application"? As glaringly obvious: NO;
  • (2) being "substantially the same as my 26.01.12 Application"? Ditto: NO

Conclusion: The fact that my 18.09.12 letter led to the above 11.10.12 'reply' (*) - proves that the 06.06.12 wholesale claim of "non-compliance with Articles 34 and 35" - cannot be substantiated - thereby confirming my above analysis.

It also includes the above conclusions about Judge Vincent A. De Gaetano.

(*) It sent me an identical letter, dated 13.11.12. (I had sent my 18.09.12 letter 3 times, the 3rd time on 8 Oct 12). As this 13.11.12 letter is post the British presidency of the Court (ended 31st Oct 12): is the message that the new President of the Court also endorses the (above) 06.06.12 rejection?

The 11.10.12 letter ends with:

"Moreover, I should inform you that the Court and its Registry have a very heavy workload. The Registry can therefore no longer answer your letters nor accept any telephone calls from you."

When I read that, and saw the signature as amounting to 4 underlines, I could not help saying: 'Hi Hitler!' (By the way: I had never phoned the court).

YEP! That's 'the European Court of Human Rights' ... under British mandate, headed by Sir Nicholas Bratza (see also the below 'fascinating' statistic from its time in office)...with undeniable approval at the higher level: Secretary General and Commissioner for Human Rights (below)

I draw your attention to the fact that Sir Nicolas Bratza had control of my Application throughout as, under:

  • Court Rule 52(1) (copy): “Any application made under Article 34 of the Convention is assigned to a Section by the President of the Court” (NB: There are 5 sections)
  • Court Rule 27A(1): “The President of the Court: appoints single judges; draws-up in advance the list of Contracting Parties in respect of which each judge will examine applications throughout the period for which that judge is appointed to sit as a single judge
  • Article 24(2) of the Convention (and Court Rule 18A (1) and (2) and Rule 27A(3)): “When sitting in a single-judge formation, the Court shall be assisted by non-judicial rapporteurs who shall function under the authority of the President of the Court. They are appointed by the President of the Court”.
  • In its 2011 Annual report, (Annual reports section) under para.23, pg 18, the court states: “An individual application that clearly fails to meet one of the admissibility criteria [NB! contrast with above] is referred to a single judge, who decides on the basis of a note prepared by or under the responsibility of a rapporteur

= Sir Nicolas Bratza had found an extremely compliant judge from a litte island prepared to breach the Convention in order to reject my legitimate Application.

In fact, the hint that my Application was doomed from the start was communicated to me by the police's counsel, Nicholas Wilcox, on 9 Aug 11 (above, # 4.6(5)).

Note Sir Nicolas Bratza's comment, reported in the Guardian article, "Politicians told to stop 'exaggerated' criticism of human rights court", of 27 Jan 12 i.e. on the day the court received my (above) 26.01.12 Application:

"We must continue to ensure that the court remains strong, independent and courageous in its defence of the European convention on human rights."

= Comment in the same class as those from David Cameron - 2 days earlier!

 

To this, I add the standard ‘Get Los!’ outcome of my 50+ legitimate ‘cries for help’ and complaints to parties in the English state sector, as well as other institutions (Overview # 7).

(I wonder what decision I would have received from the ECtHR Judge from Ukraine, or from Russia - see My Diary 25 Jan 12).

(See, above, summaries: Events ; Breaches of the law)

Back to sections

(3)- Some 'fascinating' statistics: (1)- Under the 2012 British presidency of the Court, the number of UK applications declared "inadmissible or struck out" more than doubled - from 28% in 2011, to 62% in 2012; (2)- I cannot find a record of my Application on the ECtHR's Hudoc database.

(1)- I produced the attached graph using the ECtHR's data from its 'Analysis of statistics' (available from its website) for 2011 (reduced copy) and 2012 (reduced copy).

As can be seen, in 2012, under the British presidency of Sir Nicolas Bratza (above), the percentage of UK applications "Declared inadmissible or struck out" more than doubled - from 28% in 2011, to 62% in 2012.

Isn't that a 'fascinating' statistic?

In a Guardian, 27 Jan 12 article, "Politicians told to stop 'exaggerated' criticism of human rights court", Sir Nicolas Bratza was reported as emphasising that, in 2011, "of the 19 judgments related to the UK, the court ruled against the UK on just 8 occasions".

In the Guardian article of 27 Jan 12, "European court of human rights: which countries get the most judgments?" these "occasions" are listed as: "5 - for lack of effective investigation" ; "3 - for not offering a fair trial"; "2 - for failing on its duty on prohibition of torture" = 10 cases, "2 of which were 'friendly settlements'"

(I do not yet have the stats for 2012).

How many more valid applications against the UK were dismissed in the same way as mine?

No doubt that if 'bad' Russia / Ukraine (David Cameron in Jan 12) - (contrasted with the UK, in the 1st article: "the court ruled against the UK on just 8 occasions, compared with 121 violations found against Russia and 105 against Ukraine") - had subjected me to the treatment I report in my 26.01.12 Application, the ECtHR would have upheld my Application - and ruled against the country.

(2)- Since the (above) 06.06.12 rejection of my (above) 26.01.12 Application, I have - in vain - on numerous occasions (last time in Apr 13), attempted to find my Application (#11632/12) on Hudoc, the ECtHR's database.

As can be seen from e.g. the ECtHR's 'Analysis of Statistics', it compiles statistics on 'Applications declared inadmissible or struck out' e.g. in the 2012 version: pg 4, ' C2 - Inadmissibility or strike out decisions, Processing of applications' ; pg 6, '3. Applications decided "by decision (inadmissible or struck out)" ; pg 9, 'Figure 6 - Major procedural steps in processing of applications' - added to the individual country charts, as for e.g., the UK, from which I used the data to produce the above graph.

WHY is my Application not on the ECtHR's database?

(See, above, summaries: Events ; Breaches of the law)

Back to sections

(4)- Determined as ever to get justice and redress, I sent: (1)- a 15.01.13 letter to Nils Muižnieks, Commissioner for Human Rights, Council of Europe; (2)- a 15.01.13 letter to Thorbjørn Jagland, Secretary General of the Council of Europe...

... - asking them to "ensure that the European Court of Human Rights deals with my 26.01.12 Application" as, "in breach of my rights and of its remit, the Court is in fact refusing to deal with my Application".

Deliberately misrepresenting my letters, their 'response' confirmed further that the ECtHR cannot justify the rejection of my Application - leading to the conclusion that 'the Defender of Human Rights' approves of the ongoing violations of my Human Rights by Her Majesty's police, related services and judiciaries.

(Yet again, Andrew David Ladsky was informed immediately of my sending the letters).

 

(1)- Nils Muižnieks, Commissioner for Human Rights, Council of Europe

(1) My 15.01.13 letter to Mr Muižnieks

"While I am aware that your entry on the CoE’s website states that “you do not deal with individual complaints”, I am addressing this letter to you, because:

  • my complaint relates to the ECtHR failing to comply with the Convention;
  • my attempt at resolving the matter at the ECtHR level has failed;
  • your Mandate includes “fostering effective observance of human rights at member states level” and must, by extension, include the ECtHR."

I followed this by explaining events (supported by 6 enclosures) i.e.:

  • my (above) analysis demonstrates that the assertion is false;
  • in its 11.10.12 letter, the ECtHR refused to address my (above) 18.09.12 request for an assessment of my above conclusions - by misrepresenting my request, in order to avoid dealing with it;
  • "the obvious conclusion from events is that - in breach of its remit, and of my rights - the ECtHR is refusing to deal with my 26.01.12 Application - thereby amounting to discrimination."

I stated that I was copying Mr Thorbjørn Jagland, Secretary General of the Council of Europe, on the letter and its enclosures - explaining my reasons. Likewise, I copied Mr Muižnieks on the letter.

(2)- As, 6 weeks later, I had not received a reply to my 15.01.13, I sent a 04.03.13 chaser letter.

In addition to also sending my previous enclosures, with this letter, I also sent: (1) the 15 Jan 13 proof of postage, and 18 Jan 13 proof of delivery of my 15.01.13 letter (attached at the back of the letter); (2) a copy of my 04.03.13 letter to Thorbjørn Jagland (below) - bringing the total to 9 supporting enclosures.

(3)- As, more than 2 months later, I still had not received a reply, on 26th March, I phoned Mr Muižnieks:

The woman who replied tried to get rid of me immediately, by telling me, in what came across as an aggressive, domineering tone: “The Commissioner does not deal with individual complaints”. I replied that I was aware of this – as I stated in my 15.01.13 letter (above).

Then: “He cannot interfere with judicial decisions”. (NB = same as the excuse given by Mr Jagland in his (below) 19.02.13 letter).

To my challenging her by saying that my complaint refers to the breach of the Convention by the court (above) - hence "it is NOT a judicial decision"she still would not bulge.

I said: “So, the message from the Commissioner to country X, Y, Z is: do we as we say, not as we do; the Court is exempt from compliance with the European Convention. Fantastic!”.

The response to my saying that the Commissioner does not reply to letters was: “It is a small office; it takes a long time”. By mid-June 13 i.e. 5 months after my letter: still no reply.

 

Note the "Mandate of the Commissioner for Human Rights" e.g.

  • "foster the effective observance of human rights, and assist member states in their implementation";
  • "identify possible shortcomings in the law and practice concerning human rights";
  • "facilitate the activities of national ombudsperson institutions and other human rights structures; and provide advice and information regarding the protection of human rights across the region".

The Commissioner:

  • "co-operates with a broad range of international and national institutions as well as human rights monitoring mechanisms";
  • "engages in close co-operation with other Council of Europe bodies";
  • "has the right to intervene as a third party in the proceedings of the European Court of Human Rights, either by submitting written information or taking part in its hearings"

Looking at that, it is abundantly clear that non-compliance by the European Court of Human Rights with the requirements of the Convention - is an issue that should be of prime concern to the Commissioner for Human Rights.

 

(2) Thorbjørn Jagland, Secretary General of the Council of Europe

(1) My 15.01.13 letter to Mr Jagland

Stating that I was enclosing my (above) 15.01.13 letter to Mr Muižnieks and its enclosures, I wrote:

"I am copying you on this correspondence, because:

  • having failed in my attempt to resolve the matter with the President of the ECtHR [above], you and Mr Muižnieks appear to me to be the most likely to deal with my complaint: ensuring that the ECtHR deals with my Application."

(2)- As, 6 weeks later, I had not received a reply to my 15.01.13 letter, I sent a 04.03.13 chaser letter. (See below; the British state had intercepted the 19.02.13 letter).

In addition to also sending my previous enclosures, with this letter, I also sent: (1) the 15 Jan 13 proof of postage, and 18 Jan 13 proof of delivery of my 15.01.13 letter (attached at the back of the letter); (2) a copy of my 04.03.13 letter to Nils Muižnieks - bringing the total to 9 supporting enclosures.

(3) 19.02.13 'reply' to my above letter from Mr Jagland:

"I regret to inform you that the Secretary General of the Council of Europe cannot intervene in respect of any judicial proceedings initiated before the Court, either when they are pending or once they have been concluded." (1)

"Your letter has, however, been forwarded to the Registry of the Court for information" (2)

Followed by asking me to:

"address all future correspondence directly to the Central Office of the Registry of the Court";

"note that there will be no further correspondence from the Private Office of the Secretary General regarding this matter"

(1)- = Deliberate misrepresentation of my letters (my (above) 15.01.13 letter to Mr Muižnieks, and (above) 15.01.13 letter to Mr Jagland)...

...- as the issue is - very clearly - not "a judicial decision",

... - but failure by the ECtHR to comply with the requirements of the European Convention - under Article 45 (above)...

...- which is definitely a matter for the overall Head of the Council of Europe (and indeed, for the Commissioner for Human Rights).

= It provides further confirmation that the ECtHR cannot justify the rejection of my Application - leading to the conclusion that 'the Defender of Human Rights' approves of the violations of my Human Rights by Her Majesty's police, related services and judiciaries.

(2)- To provide the court with confirmation that the Secretary General approves of its breaching the European Convention? For those concerned to have a good laugh at my expense?

 

OF NOTE: As in the case of my Application (#1, above / My Diary 26 Feb 12), Andrew David Ladsky was informed immediately of my sending the 15 Jan 13 letters: 19 Jan 13.

(It screams out: international Masonic-'Jewish' network). (NB: This court approves of Freemasonry).

 

(NB: As happened with the court's (above) 28.02.12 letter of acknowledgment of my 26.01.12 Application, the British state (typically) also intercepted the (above) 19.02.13 letter from Mr Jagland.

As can be seen, this time, on top of the French franking, a sticker was affixed, stating: "TNT post, 178, 2 L, WB1, EC1, LPG PO Box 903, Aylesbury, HP20 9FL"

The French franking states: 'Economique Autorisation', '99 Paris Inter'; 'Port Payé France' ; '26.02.13' (which is 1 week AFTER the date of the letter! = hint of something going on).

(Contrast with e.g. the envelop in which the 06.06.12 rejection of my Application was sent).

(I repeat the rest of my above comments in relation to the interception of the 28.02.12 letter)

The letter was only delivered to my PO Box on 19th or 20th March i.e. nearly 1 month after being posted. Further, to make sure that all concerned had a good laugh (*): it arrived open 'due to' using an envelop on which the gum did not stick.

(*) My conclusion influenced principally by the fact that it was posted 1 week after the date of the letter.

The motivation this time for the criminal psychological harassment by the British state? (Among others) counting on the fact that, lack of reply would lead me to waste my time and money to send a chaser letter (above) – so that the psychos could get their sadistic kick).

:(NB: Of course, my 'daring' to send the letters led to more criminal psychological harassment: My Diary from 18 Jan 13).

(See, above, summaries: Events ; Breaches of the law)

(4.1)- In addition to, yet again, confirming that the rejection of my Application cannot be justified, the other obvious conclusion from their 'response' is that (among other) - BOTH, the Secretary General of the Council of Europe, and the Commissioner for Human Rights - perceive the European Court of Human Rights as being exempt from compliance with the requirements of the European Convention...

...leading me to conclude from my overall experience with the ECtHR that it is a sham...when it concerns 'its friends'.

In the light of:

... - Note Mr Jagland's comments in:

(1)- his 28 Feb 13 'Address to the High Level Segment of the United Nations Human Rights Council' (access through 'Speeches 2013'):

"...the three most pressing challenges we are facing currently in Europe..."

"The first is the fight against corruption and other forms of misuse of power. Corruption is a threat to democracy and it undermines citizens' trust in the rule of law."

"According to recent data, almost three quarters of the citizens of Europe perceive corruption as a major problem in their country..."

"The first precondition for fighting corruption is a trustworthy, effective and independent judiciary. The problems in this sector are many. Some have lengthy proceedings, in other countries the judiciary is corrupted or controlled by the executive power"

"Fighting corruption also requires genuine freedom of expression..."

"...a number of Council of Europe human rights treaties complement UN standards. Together they form an unprecedented and effective legal framework to protect human dignity"

"All these treaties have an integrated approach including prevention measures, protection of victims..."

(2)- "President of European human rights court dismisses reform ideas", Telegraph, 19 Apr 12 - in which he played a double act with Nicolas Bratza:

"We have to keep in mind that human rights are very often about protecting the rights of minorities [1]. It cannot be left to a majority within a society to protect such rights. These rights cannot be subject to shifting political winds." (2)

(1) Whistleblowers, like me, (other examples) are definitely part of a minority.

(2) 'But can be ignored on the order of prominent Masons in the international network'.

= In the same vein as: (1)- David Cameron's 2012 speech to the Council of Europe; (2)- his endorsement of William Hague's assertions about the "lawful conduct" and "tight control" of the spy services; (3)- the claims of his predecessor, Gordon Brown - and, (4)- those of his predecessor, Tony Blair.

Reiterating the evidence:

...understandably, leads me to conclude that the European Court of Human Rights is a sham... when it concerns 'its friends'. (Winston Churchill must be turning in his grave).

(It leads me to question strongly the Abu Qatada case (My Diary 25 Jan 12).

 

 

I remind you of the ROOT CAUSE for their actions and lack of action (top of page).

I wonder: do they ALL have a timeshare on the penthouse apartment?

If so, given the ever-growing sheer number of those involved in protecting Andrew David Ladsky, they will soon run out of days in the year.

Are there any institutions left that are not prostituting themselves to criminals?

(See, above, summaries: Events ; Breaches of the law)

(5) Outcome of the rejection of my Application by the ECtHR:

(1)- 'Very conveniently', Her Majesty's police was given a 4th 'trophy' to add to its database as 'irrebutable proof' of 'supporting evidence' to its pack of lies"crime reports".

(Previous 'trophies' were the above Orders from Her Majesty's Judiciaries of 9 Aug 11, and of 6 Oct 11 and 24 Oct 11, following my 17.10.11 Request for Oral Hearing of my (above) Appeal Application).

(2)- The English police, Home Secretaries (Persecution: # 4.2 and # 4.3), Foreign Secretaries, and English judiciary - get away scot-free from their blatant violations of my human rights.

(3)- The British state has free rein to continue with the wholesale violations of my rights (next point).

(See, above, summaries: Events ; Breaches of the law)

 

3. OVERALL CONSEQUENCES ON ME OF WHAT IS REPORTED ON THIS PAGE...

... in "Britain [, that] has a long and exemplary record on human rights":

(1) - The key beneficiary - according to Her Majesty's Kensington & Notting Hill police's so-called "crime report" it holds against me:

"my" 'poor', "Jewish" "neighbour" (!!!), Andrew David Ladsky, the "vulnerable victim" 'I'intimidate", to whom 'I', 'of course', represent 'a risk',

as well as 'dare' describe as "that evil, greed-ridden monster" (Her Majesty's Master Eyre) (contrast that with e.g. Overview ; Extortion ; Advisors to Jefferson House)

- is currently enjoying the fruit of his fraudulent activities - while laughing his head off at me for having his so-called 'complaints' against me:

...remaining in their current state.

 

(2) - In breach of the law of the land...

...- (1) - the British state, in tandem with Ladsky's scum, have carte blanche - in relation to me, the glaringly obvious victim of organized crime - to continue, on a daily basis - to dog me, hound me, track me, stalk me, monitor me, harass me, persecute me (in the process, circulating widely photographs / film footage of me), and make me fear for my life...

 

...– and (2) - the British state can also continue to torment me by interfering with ALL my means of communication:

  • phones - including interception and retention of important messages e.g. relating to a family funeral;

 

(3) - Nearly 3 whole years of my life, and tens of £000s in costs from my very hard-earned life-savings - fighting - in vain - against the pack of lies"crime reports".

From my battles in 2002, following - attempting - to file a complaint of harassment against Andrew David Ladsky (police # 1 , background), followed by:

  • (4) my soul-destroying battles, from Aug 09 to Feb 10, with the police, including the then Met Commissioner, Paul Stephenson, and the then Home Secretary, Alan Johnson, as well as the ‘Independent’ Police Complaints Commission - to get them to comply with my rights under the Data Protection Act 1998, in relation to the "crime reports" (police # 5);
  • (7) preparing for, pre-filing (# 2, above) , and pursuing my 19.04.11 Claim (as detailed on this page), including appealing against the 9 Aug 11 police Order (# 4(6) and # 4(7), above)...

...Her Majesty's police and her judiciaries have:

  • cost me over 4,000 hours of my life. Based on a 35-hour week, it amounts to more than 2.5 years of my life.

To these are added:

  • + tens of £000s in other costs. (Limited by the fact that I did everything by myself i.e. no lawyer).

The European Court of Human Rights cost me an additional c.1,100 hours of my life, and c.£500 in costs.

= More than 3 whole years of my life, and tens of £000s in costs from my very hard-earned life savings - ALL IN VAIN.

 

WHY? I remind you of the ROOT CAUSE for ALL the parties' actions and lack of action (top of page)

(See, above, summaries: Events ; Breaches of the law)

Unbelievable! Isn't it?

 

  C O M M E N T S

 

ALL THE INDIVIDUALS REFERRED TO ON THIS PAGE CAUSED ME TO DEVELOP THE PAGE.

THIS OUTCOME OF THEIR OWN DOING.

Back to top