Email this site to a contact


The 'Wild West' - controlled by Masons

Lawyers, Courts & Legal Services ombudsman - Home


(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: '' and click 'Add').


Sections list (below)


In reading this page on the courts, lawyers and 'regulators', 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 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 the courts, lawyers and 'regulators' joined the other assassins - in saying:

Yes! Of course! O' Great One!

Because... 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-kindgom 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 reply to my 24.07.16 letter in which I raised these issues) (My Diary 24 July 16).



(NOTE, above, browser set-up)


  C O M M E N T S


(1)- Introduction

The 4 elements of my case: the courts, lawyers, their 'professional' associations and the then Legal Services Ombudsman are combined together because I concluded - based on the evidence from my very extensive first-hand experience - that they acted in tandem across the board.

Daily Telegraph, 5 April 01, "Yesterday in Parliament":

"Austin Mitchell (Labour) said..."In law, the practice of the mafia regulating the mafia has failed, is failing and needs to be abolished.

He said the Lord Chancellor's department had taken on the role of protecting vested interests and was in collusion with the Law Society".

Unfortunately, at the time, I missed this article. (I was head down, working my socks off - in the process giving the full 6 months of my yearly income to the British state in the (naïve) belief that it would fulfill its part of the contract: by being there for me in time of need).

By 2002, when this extremely traumatic, horrendous nightmare happened, I had never had any dealings with courts, nor lawyers (except the ('fatal') time when I bought the lease on my apartment).

(I am a law-abiding individual e.g. My Diary # 2.4 ; my 19.07.11 Witness statement to the then Home Secretary, Theresa May: Queen's Bench # 6.1).

I must stress that the perceptions I then held of the legal sector overall were diametrically opposed to the perceptions I now have:

A vile, corrupt, vermin-infested sector

As a reasonable, fair minded visitor to the site, I believe that, once you have familiarised yourself with the - 'black on white' evidence - starting with this snapshot: threat of forfeiture and bankruptcy proceedings, as well as court claims = fraud tools...

...- and the detail of events with the courts and the tribunal (e.g. kangaroo courts ; my 02.01.10 Subject Access Request to the Ministry of (In)Justice (section 9 , below) ; my complaint to the Parliamentary Ombudsman) (see: Case summary) - you will, at a minimum, understand why I hold this view. (See also Comments from visitors to my site).  

'At a minimum' as, if you have had dealings with the legal sector in England, I hope it was a happy experience (and hence you were not one of the yearly 19,000+ people who bother to complain against a solicitor ("Complaints about solicitors jump 13 per cent in four years", Daily Telegraph, 9 Jul 08).

And, if you had/have to complain: I hope that (unlike me: Sir Malcolm Rifkind) you had/have a good Member of Parliament, as well as media support, as it appears to be the only way of getting the so-called 'regulators' into action (see My Diary 2007 for examples). 

Of course, I do recognise that 'somewhere out there', lost among the thoroughly vile lawyers - and yes, some equally thoroughly vile judges - the sector includes some highly competent, true professionals with the utmost level of integrity. (In the same way that they exist in another very poorly perceived sector: surveyors).

Unfortunately, those prepared to stand-up against the appalling state of the legal sector (e.g. in 2013, a "leading human rights barrister Ben Emmerson QC", was reported as deploring the loss of status of the UK "as leader on the rule of law and human rights") - are very few and far between.

There can only be one explanation as to why the majority is keeping quiet: because malpractice is the norm. Indeed, if professional conduct was the norm, unprofessional conduct would be treated as deviant behaviour, and therefore condemned by the group.

There are others who express their dissatisfaction / critiques publicly, and endorse them by taking action, but they are usually directed at sectors, other than the legal sector e.g.

  • Christian Khan solicitors, objecting to "the police's refusal to investigate claims that officers supplied information to an illegal blacklist of construction workers".

A Reader of The Times newspaper wrote (My Diary 12 Apr 07):

"My father used to say that the mafia never got a foothold in this country because our legal system was more corrupt than they were. Now I know what he meant!"

I do as well! And, to this Establishment mafia, I add the police, and others.

It is said that 'a picture speaks a thousand words'.




This is my summary of what I conclude is happening in (among others) the English legal sector.

'My daring' to challenge this set-up that includes an hell-bent determination to protect and assist organized crime by 'certain individuals' has since led to my being subjected to ongoing extremely vicious, perverse, sadistic, barbaric persecution: My Diary...

...led by a trio comprising of Andrew David Ladsky, and his henchmen in the local police and local judiciary (kangaroo courts # 2 to # 4).

An acquaintance who worked in the English courts for several years, dealing with solicitors and barristers on a daily basis, once told me: "The chances of finding an honest lawyer these days are one in a million. "

While it is clearly an exaggeration, I nonetheless consider it as an informed view.

My very comprehensive first-hand experience with the sector leads me to another conclusion that,... failing to take action following my legitimate complaints (summaries under Doc library # 1 , # 2 and # 3) (*) (it does not require being a lawyer, or a genius to see that my complaints are legitimate)...

...ALL these so-called 'regulators' and 'complaints departments' are acting as fertiliser for malpractice and, at times, down right criminality in the legal sector.

Indeed, when faced with complaints, their policy is to nail down the floorboards, allowing the rats to carry on freely with their destruction, as well as multiply in peace.

(*) And that of other complainants who, I know from contacts, tend to be treated similarly: with utter contempt and disdain; 'non-entities who do not have the right to have rights' (e.g. Victims Unite website; PDF of comments).

It's a very cosy network of Masons with, e.g. the Law Society having a 'Memorandum of Understanding' with the police (ACPO) - that has its own Masonic lodge.

One I did not complain to is the Bar Standards Board (BSB) which, on its website, claims, under:

  • What we do, to: "Monitor the service provided by barristers to assure quality"; "Handle complaints against barristers and take disciplinary or other action where appropriate".
  • 'The regulatory objectives': "To promote and protect the public interest" ; "To protect and promote the interests of consumers".

Judging from Private Eye's article, in issue 1344, 12-25 July 13 (pg 31), "Leaviss do", had I done so, I would, of course, have had the same experience as with all the others:

"A further damaging report came this May, when the Legal Services Board found that the BSB could provide no evidence that it was listening to the views of consumers who use barristers."

"A recent survey by the BSB itself found that 67 percent of those who complained found the process closed and unfair."

As can be seen from my experience, the residential leasehold sector is associated with "fantastically corrupt" conduct by the legal sector (among many others e.g. summaries of my 50+ legitimate 'cries for help' and complaints - in vain).

Another aspect of the sector that is rampant with corruption is conveyancing. (I have been reporting this under Business # 29 since the launch of my website in 2006) e.g.

"Conveyancing Association demands leasehold sector overhaul", FT, 2 Aug 16

Quoting the Association: “The extortionate costs being levelled, coupled with a distinct lack of motivation to provide the necessary information means action has to be taken, especially when (by our reckoning) 75 per cent of leaseholders are being charged excessive fees for the work involved – in 2015 this equates to 200,000 cases.”

Sadly, many leasehold owners do have disputes with their freeholders, and the matter rests until the flat is about to be sold. Then up pops the freeholder with demands for immediate cash settlement, and if the matter is not resolved the sale falls through.”.."

The powers a freeholder has to scupper a sale is scandalous."


"Leasehold sales are bedevilled with ‘extortionate’ charges and game-playing, says the Conveyancing Association", Leasehold Knowledge Partnership, 3 Aug 16

"Today, 57% of all transactions in Greater London and 40% in the North West are for leasehold properties."

"There is also often a duplication of costs with leaseholders required to pay multiple parties to complete their LPE1 (Leasehold Property Enquiry) form."

"No redress system is available with no effective consumer rights and no recourse to the ombudsman given its lack of jurisdiction over costs unless the complaint is in respect of a breach of agreement for those costs."


In addition, as reported 6 years previously by the Mail on Sunday in its 24 May 10 article, there is the issue of the payment of bribes: "Referral 'bribery' review needs to dig deeper"

(= Copying: (1)- the Lords and MPs; (2)- the police; (3)- other state as well as private sectors).

Indeed, there is "no redress system".

The main players in conveyancing are estate agents and lawyers.

Estates agents - As can be seen from my analysis of Martyn Gerrard's 'professional' memberships and awards - they amount to just decorations on letterhead paper.

As to the lawyers, unsurprisingly (and as can be gathered from the above articles), they are also unregulated - as demonstrated by the following sham claims by the Law Society:

"Soliciting cash", Private Eye, 1428, 30 Sep-13 Oct 16 (pg 38)

"The Law Society says that accreditation through its Conveyancing Quality Scheme (CQS) ensures clients are guaranteed their lawyers meet the highest standards..."

"It says it has a pool of trained assessors who will visit practices to ensure both compliance and that lawyers are providing the correct information."

"However, freedom of information requests have revealed that no such visit has taken place in the last two years...“the pool” consists of just four assessors, who since the scheme was launched in 2010 have visited a grand total of 12 out of the 3,000-plus firms that have registered."

"More than 99 percent of applications are approved"

"Asked how it “verified solicitors’ skills and expertise” and ensured that they demonstrated a “proven competency”, the Law Society declined to comment."


At the time of my complaints, my first-hand experience led me to agree with Sir David Clementi's conclusions following his review of the legal profession (as reported in the Financial Times of 16 Dec 04)

"The current regulatory system is flawed."

"It has insufficient regard to the interests of consumers"

"...I am not satisfied that the main frontline bodies have always put consumer interests ahead of their own interests."

What has since been done to - really - address the issues? Judging from e.g. the BSB, above, and the following examples: nothing! Just trompe l'oeil - in 'The island-kindgom of Make-Believe' e.g.

In 2009, Lord Hunt was quoted in "Lord Hunt outlines vision for regulation" (Law Society Gazette, 7 May 09) - as saying in the context of reviewing legal regulation (another one!) that

"only 'minor' adjustments to the Law Society's internal governance may be required to yield 'enormous benefit' for the regulation of law firms".

Who appointed him to do "the review"? The Law Society! = Who pays the piper calls the tune!

There have been several websites that cited examples of some seriously corrupt conduct among the judiciary and lawyers. Needless to say that, in this island-kindgom that:

  • claims to have "a long an exemplary record on human rights" and "to not walk on by while human rights are trampled into the dust" (David Cameron, then Prime Minister, (above))... secure the closure of the sites, the owners were hunted by the equivalent of a very large pack of demented blood-thirsty Rottweilers, hell-bent on the kill = the British Establishment.

Hence, the sites have either been forcibly closed down e.g.

(1)- Scotland Against Crooked Lawyers (SACL) that focused in particular on the judiciary (at one point, it covered c.140), and had some truly horrific cases.

It also provided links to other sites claiming horrendous abuses by the state e.g. Dunblane Unburied ( - referred to in My Diary 3 Mar 07. (In the same entry, I refer to the case of a Scottish lawyer who ended-up being ostracised by the Scottish Law Society, apparently, for taking on cases of injustice).

(2)- Crooked Lawyers ( (Ireland; hence, not UK)

This site now displays a High Court "Correction Order -; pursuant to the defamation Act" ; the plaintiff was Damien M.P. Tansey.

or have changed focus / now limit the content e.g.

(3)-  Legal Bullies ( - focuses on just one case.

(4)- Solicitors From Hell ( (In 2011, the Law Society succeeded in having it closed down). From a brief, rapid scan through: the focus has changed.

(The British state also attempted to do this with my website in 2007, and again in 2014 - by using tactics the 'traditional mafia' would be proud of).

(It is a typical response from this "we fully support freedom of expression state" see e.g. websites of other whistleblowers).

Well, I will NOT be intimidated from revealing the absolutely outrageous injustice I have - and continue - to be subjected to... leaving my tormentors to be eaten up by their rage.

As one of the (decent) judges said in the case against Private Eye in 2009 (My Diary 27 May 09):

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

(NB: As I have found to my very great cost, in England, failure to take action against malpractice and down right criminality is a common denominator - not only in the private sector e.g. surveyors and accountants, but also in the state sector...

- because part of the same tribe - (see e.g.summaries of my 50+ legitimate 'cries for help' and complaints - in vain).

To quote Norman Baker, Liberal Democrat MP, in his Mail on Sunday article of 24 Jan 10:

“If you lay down the tracks, that’s the way the train goes”

Back to list


(1)- Cawdery Kaye Fireman and Taylor (CKFT), London NW3 1QA - and Law Society - and Legal Services Ombudsman (2002-05)

(In addition to Portner, # 4, below) CKFT are / were Andrew David Ladsky's solicitors, namely, in relation to me, Lanny Silverstone and Ayesha Salim. (CKFT has been acting / acted for Ladsky for many years).

For what took place - see Summaries: Events ; Breaches of the law ; Overall outcome on me ; Overview # 1, # 2 , # 3 , # 19.

Many of the events are also covered under Extortion, as well as under 'Advisors to Jefferson House' - CKFT.

(Some visitors to my site have also commented on CKFT - See the Comments section).

As can be seen from their conduct, Silverstone and Salim are thoroughly evil, extremely cruel, vicious, sadistic, amoral, perverse, racketeering monsters and vermin (I repeat my Comments under Persecution (1)(6))...

...who perceive themselves as having the right to behave above the law of the land - because told by 'the regulators' (outlined below) in the Establishment that they can do so.

As discussed briefly under summary # 2.5 (and in detail on the CKFT page, from # 6) , I filed a 20.12.04 complaint against CKFT with the Law Society.

Predictably, suffering from extreme blindness to the very damning evidence, and concurrently making some absolutely outrageous comments... resulted in a 08.02.05 'Get lost!' from the Law Society - concluding with:

"...I am not in a position to take any of your concerns any further"

Equally typically, in its 'reply' the Law Society made very extensive use of the 'Frustrate and Discourage tactics' (Header 2) - by falsely claiming, in relation to many events, that they were "matters for the courts, the police, etc."

My 19.02.05 challenge led to more 'Get lost!' in the 17.03.05 'reply' (leading me to write in My Diary, at time: "Got you Law Society!").

And, of course, the same outrageous conduct continued with the then Legal Services Ombudsman, Zahida Manzoor CBE, with whom I filed a 20.02.05 complaint against the Law Society.

The 11.07.05 'reply' 'from' Zahida Manzoor CBE = 'the Brotherhood':

"In the circumstances I take the view that the Law Society's response was satisfactory and that their decision to close their file was justified."

See LSO # 2 for detail.


The battles with Law and the LSO spanned 7 months, from Dec 04 to Jul 05.

Costs to me: c.150 hours of my life down the drain, as well as c. £140 in costs.

Hooray for 'self-regulation' - in this "fantastically corrupt", worse than Wild West environment, in which the Establishment acts as one with 'certain criminals'.

Back to list


(2)- Piper Smith & Basham/Watton (PSB) - and Law Society and Legal Services Ombudsman (2003-05)

Piper Smith Basham (now known as Piper Smith Watton) was 'my' nominated firm of solicitors from the end of Aug 03 until Dec 03.

The reasons for my appointing it, and then dropping it, are discussed under:

For surrounding events see: kangaroo courts # 1 and # 2.

My main contact was Lisa McLean, Litigation Assistant, who had a reporting line to Richard Twyman, Partner.

Between Sep - Nov 03 (My Diary) this extremely cruel, vicious, perverse, sadistic, amoral vermin (I repeat my Comments under Persecution (1)(4)) made me go through absolute sheer utter hell - and for 'the privilege', cost me £10,000 (US$17,600) of my very-hard-earned life-savings.

Very shortly after my appointing them, they started to bat for Andrew David Ladsky.

By the time of Ladsky's 21.10.03 'Part 36 offer' - they (in tandem with Stan Gallagher) (# 3, below) went into over-drive attempting to coerce me and bully me into accepting 'the offer':

  • more detail in my Comments on the 13.11.03 Draft Consent Order and Notice of Acceptance 'by' Stan Gallagher.

PSB falsely claimed (e.g. 14.11.03 letter ; PSB # 7.13) that I had given my consent to the 13.11.03 reply sent by Richard Twyman to CKFT.

After nearly 2 months of battling, in Dec 03, to the cabal's extreme frustration and fury, I took back control of my case (My Diary Dec 03) - and sent my own reply of 19.12.03 to CKFT.

My doing this threw a spanner in the works of the cabal, making its criminal psychological harassment strategy backfire (19 Oct 03 Wit.Stat # 1).

I first tried to resolve the situation with McLean. Then, in my 02.12.03 letter (I viewed as extremely conciliatory) I escalated my complaint to PSB's Senior Partner, Richard Berns, and Ian Skuse, Complaints Officer.

As can be seen from: section 1 of my 19 Oct 03 Witness Statement; summary # 2.1, their typically arrogant, dismissive 18.12.03 'reply' was a 'Get lost!', followed by another 'Get lost!': 30.01.04, in 'response' to my reply of 24.01.04 - in which they continued to - falsely - insist that I had given my agreement to 'the reply to the offer' sent by Twyman on 13 Nov 03.

I submitted a 16.03.04 complaint to the Law Society against Piper Smith Basham - supported by 140+ documents.

It became clear to me that the Law Society's intention was to - typically - keep me going round 'like a hamster on a wheel' until I accepted its ludicrous assessment = it was playing the typical 'Frustrate and Discourage game' (Header 2) - with the objective of making me give up on my complaint (more detail under summary # 2.2).

I therefore opted to file a 05.12.04 complaint against the Law Society with Her Majesty's then Legal Services Ombudsman.

After some 'fascinating' events (LSO # 3), 5 months later,...

... in a letter dated 12.05.05, the LSO turned down my complaint on the grounds that I did not have a final decision from the Law Society:

"your referral to my Office is premature ".

I sent a 22.05.05 reply.

The set-up between the mafia:

Had I caved in for the purpose of escalating my complaint to the then LSO (given that I was 'meant to have' "a final decision" before doing this), I can guarantee that I would then have received the following reply from the LSO: "But you accepted their decision. So, what are you complaining about?"  

Moreover, this reply would have been most strongly put to the fore by the Law Society.

In my 22.05.05 reply, it led me to ask the then LSO, among others:

"Precisely how many more letters am I expected to write back to the Law Society repeating exactly the same thing: "you have not considered the evidence I supplied"?

How many more of their correspondence in which they twist, distort and muddle the facts (all with the aim of wearing me down so that I give up) am I meant to answer?

Exactly for how long is this 'game' meant to be taking place? Is it perhaps until I have passed the 3-year deadline for issuing proceedings against Piper Smith & Basham?"

As I was not prepared to go 'back on the wheel', wasting many more hours of my time, as well as costs - I did not go back to the Law Society.

= A success for the mafia's 'pillar-to-post' tactic.

I repeat my Note under # 1, above.


The battles with PSB, followed by 'the regulators' spanned 20 months, from Nov 03 to Jun 05.

Costs to me: c.280 hours of my life down the drain, as well as c. £180 in costs.

Back to list


(3)- Stan Gallagher, Arden Chambers, London WC1N 2ES - and Bar Council and Legal Services Ombudsman (2003-05)

Stan Gallagher was 'my' nominated barrister for responding, by 13 Nov 03, to the 21.10.03 'Part 36 offer' made by 'Steel Services' = Andrew David Ladsky, through his solicitors CKFT (Gallagher Intro ; Overview # 3).

Hence, as in the case of 'my' solicitors, Richard Twyman and Lisa McLean, Piper Smith Basham/Watton (# 2, above) - he was meant to 'act for me'.

Instead, Stan Gallagher turned out to be a corrupt, double-dealing, cruel, vicious, perverse, sadistic, amoral vermin (I repeat my Comments under Persecution (1)(4)) who (with Twyman and McLean) opted, through collusion and conspiring, to bat for Andrew David Ladsky (my profile v. Ladsky's: 'a brother'!)... being hell-bent on aiming to coerce me and bully me into accepting the 21.10.03 'Part 36 offer'...

...- on terms the cabal had decided = leaving the door wide open for the Ladsky mafia to come back and ask me for more monies, while being equally hell-bent on sparing it any accusation of illegal conduct - by not challenging anything in 'the offer'

- Summaries: Events ; Breaches of the law.

What took place is unbelievable - but in line with the typical residential leasehold sector mafia tactics: Overview Note 4.

My Comments to Gallagher's 13.11.03 'Draft Consent Order and Notice of Acceptance' 'in reply' to 'the offer' provide an overview of main events.

For surrounding events see: kangaroo courts # 1 and # 2.

In reading the following, consider that under para.23 of his 09.06.04 reply, Stan Gallagher had taken pains to highlight that he was writing a book on litigation in the LVT. In other words, aiming to communicate that he was 'an authority' on this matter.

(He was indeed writing a book, ' Leasehold Valuation Tribunals: A Practical Guide' which states that it " Sets out all the powers, responsibilities and jurisdiction of the LVT").

As detailed under the headers in the Summary of events, Stan Gallagher:

  • (1)- Outrageously endorsed breaches of my Lease and of my statutory rights.
  • (2)- Dismissed a £500,000 reduction in the sum demanded as immaterial, as well as endorsed other breaches of legislation.

Following my challenge of his reply to my complaint (below), he then changed his tune.

  • (3)- Yet, Gallagher repeatedly brandished the threat of "costs" as a means of bullying and coercing me into accepting the 'offer' - as well as giving conflicting opinions on it.

Likewise, following my challenge of his reply to my complaint, he then changed his tune; this time, partly, by giving reasons that did not stack-up with the evidence.

In fact, Gallagher held against me the fact that I had complied, for as long as I could, with the direction given to me by the then London LVT at the 29.10.02 pre-trial 'hearing' to NOT pay 'the service charge' demand until the tribunal had issued its determination - and it had been implemented (LVT # 1.5) - in line with statutory requirements and the terms of my Lease.

  • (5)- To stop me from challenging the reply - because it did NOT reflect what had been agreed - Gallagher and Twyman (gave me only 20 minutes, while I was at work, to review the documents I had not seen before - and then sent them to CKFT without my consent.
  • (6)- Gallagher then claimed that "[his] strategy worked"

Under paras 52, 55, 56 and 79 of my 25.03.05 reply to the Bar Council, I wrote: "He just said 'amen' to everything [in the offer]. Of course his reply was received was open arms"

(I did not pay Stan Gallagher's fees (of £1,440). Having raised this in his initial reply to my complaint, he did not follow it up).

As I detailed under summary # 2.3, I initially filed a 26.01.04 complaint against Gallagher with his Chambers, Arden Chambers.

As, 10 weeks later they had not replied, I then escalated it to the Bar Council, by filing a 05.04.04 complaint: summary # 2.4.

After one year of battling, the Bar Council's decision of 27.01.05 in relation to my 05.04.04 complaint:

"The Professional Conduct and Complaints Committee of the General Council...decided that there was no professional misconduct or inadequate professional service on the part of Mr Gallagher.

The complaint was accordingly dismissed"

In my 25.03.05 reply I discussed my initial complaint; the evidence I had supplied; Gallagher's replies and mine - and said that I was doing this for the benefit of the then Legal Services Ombudsman (LSO) to whom I was referring my complaint.

I filed a 25.03.05 complaint with the then Legal Services Ombudsman against the Bar Council (LSO # 4).

From there followed a fascinating display of U-turns and pirouettes by the Bar Council and the LSO.

Eventually, I received this 30.08.05 'reply' from the LSO:

"I take the view that the Bar Council's response to your complaint namely that you failed to disclose a sufficient case of professional misconduct or of inadequate professional service against Mr Gallagher, was satisfactory and that their decision to close their file was justified for the reasons given in their letter dated 27 January 2005"

For detail of events with the corrupt then Legal Services Ombudsman, Zahida Manzoor CBE - see LSO # 4.

I repeat my Note under # 1, above.


These battles with Stan Gallagher, the Bar Council and the then Legal Services Ombudsman spanned 19 months from end Jan 04 to end Aug 05.

Costs to me: c.280 hours of my life down the drain, as well as c. £180 in costs.

Back to list


(4)- Portner and Jaskel LLP / Portner, London W1U 2RA - and Law Society (2006-09)

(In addition to CKFT, # 1, above) Portner are / were Andrew David Ladsky's solicitors, namely, in relation to me: Daniel Broughton, Jeremy Hershkorn and Ahmet Jaffer. (Portner also acted for Ladsky in relation to the Elderly Resident).

For what took place - see Summaries: Events ; Breaches of the law ; Overall outcome ; Overview # 9 , # 10 , # 11.

See also, WLCC, # 6.2, below re. the fraudulent claim it filed against me.

Many of the events are also covered under Extortion, as well as; under 'Advisors to Jefferson House' - Portner.

As can be seen from their conduct, Broughton, Hershkorn and Jaffer are thoroughly evil, extremely cruel, vicious, sadistic, amoral, perverse, racketeering monsters and vermin (I repeat my Comments under Persecution (1)(6))...

...who perceive themselves as having the right to behave above the law of the land - because told by 'their regulator' (outlined below) in the Establishment that they can do so.

As briefly discussed under summary # 2.6 (and in detail under Portner # 4 and # 5), I filed a 28.02.07 complaint with the Law Society against Portner.

It was triggered by the fact that, over a period of several weeks, it had been harassing and threatening my website Host, with the aim of securing the closure of my website. To these I added:

For the 3rd time (previous, above, # 1 CKFT and # 2 Piper Smith Watton) the Law Society provided undeniable evidence that it is a fertiliser for malpractice.

The Law Society's overall conclusion in its 30.03.07 letter - was:

"I am unable to conclude that the firm has breached any of the rules of conduct and my file is now closed"

Its 'replies' to each parts of my complaint are absolutely outrageous.

I repeat my Note under # 1, above.


Time from my complaint to getting a reply: one month

Costs to me: c.20 hours of my life down the drain, as well as over £30 in costs.

Back to list


(5)- Her Majesty's then Legal Services Ombudsman (LSO) (2004-05)

I referred 3 complaints to Her Majesty's then Legal Services Ombudsman, Zahida Manzoor CBE: 2 against the Law Society, and 1 against the Bar Council - snapshots under section # 3.

They are discussed in detail on the LSO's page:

You will see that, overall, the corrupt sycophant Zahida Manzoor CBE attempted to throw me back at her masters, as well dismissed my legitimate complaints - in the process, regurgitating their outrageous claims and excuses, as well as adding others.

I repeat my above note.


Duration for the 3 complaints: 7 months.

Costs to me: c.130 hours of my life down the drain, as well as over £120 in costs.

Back to list


(6A)- Her Majesty's' then London Leasehold Valuation Tribunal (2002-03)

My having to deal with this tribunal came as a result of Rachman Andrew David Ladsky filing a 07.08.02 application "to determine the reasonableness of the [fraudulent] global sum [he] demanded of £736,200 [US$1.3m]" (LVT Intro).

I assume that, at the time, the tribunal came under the same umbrella as the courts. In any case, its panel chairs were selected by the Lord Chancellor, head of the courts.

As can be seen from the: Summaries: Events ; Breaches of the law ; Overall outcome on me ; Overview # 2 ; kangaroo court # 1,... with the rest of the mafia covered on this page, the dominant themes were: collusion, conniving, conspiring and corruption.

This hellhole, masonic, kangaroo tribunal started my experience of absolute, sheer utter hell with Her Majesty's so-called 'justice' system (my above note).

It was a truly horrendous and extremely traumatic experience that forced me (LVT # 2.3) to spend a large part of my very-hard earned life savings: £30,000 (US$53,000), to challenge a fraudulent 17.07.02 'service charge' demand, from me, of £14,400 (US$25,400)...

...- and left me with a - wilfully - near useless report (LVT # 4.3) - as Her Majesty's tribunal panel, comprising of:

  • the Chair, Mrs J.S.L. Goulden JP,
  • Mr J Humphrys, FRICS, and
  • Dr A Fox BSc PhD MCIArb...

- deliberately - failed to perform its legal remit (LVT # 4.2).

As summarised under summary # 1.1, and discussed in detail under LVT # 7, Siobhan McGrath, then President of the then LVTs, twice refused my request to address this major failing...

...- because doing so would be highly inconvenient for her master, Andrew David Ladsky - as it would interfere with his plan to make the Jefferson House leaseholders pay for his multi-million £ jackpot (Intro note, above).

In addition to blocking me (and fellow leaseholders) as much as it could from challenging the application (LVT # 1), the tribunal also colluded and conspired with the Ladsky mafia, as well as 'my' advisors, to make me abandon my 20C application - to stop Ladsky from putting his tribunal-related costs on the service charges for 'the concentration camp' - and succeeded (LVT # 5).

Further, also with the aim of continuing to assist 'the brother', Andrew David Ladsky, since 2003, the tribunal has, on its online, public database, a report and so-called 'summary of the case' that - wilfully - defames my name, character and reputation: summary page... Her Majesty's corrupt Siobhan McGrath and LEASE have ignored my demand to amend it to reflect the facts.

Of course, my copying Her Majesty's John Prescott, the then Deputy Prime Minister and Head of housing on my repeated requests to McGrath resulted in yet another 'Get lost!' (summary # 1.2).

(See My Diary 22 Nov 08 for the experience of other leaseholders).

I repeat my above note.


Time from my complaint to the last 'Get lost!': 3 months.

Costs to me: c.55 hours of my life down the drain, as well as c. £60 in costs.

+ more time spent - in vain - in the context of:

  • (1)- my complaint to the Parliamentary Ombudsman: summaries # 1.9 and # 1.10;
  • (2)- my Subject Access Request: summary # 1.11

Back to list


(6)- Her Majesty's West London County Court

(NB: West London County Court - as well as Her Majesty's: Wandsworth County Court (below); Supreme Court Costs Office (below); the then London Leasehold Valuation Tribunal (above) - are covered, among many other documents, in:

The page on Lord Falconer of Thoroton discusses, in detail, his then department's 23.08.04 'reply' to my 29.06.04 'cry for help', following events with the courts in 2004.

Section # 8.2, below, provides links to my complaints to HM 'Customer Service', in 2007-08, against West London County Court).

The predictable - because typical - outcome from all: Get Lost!


(6.1)- Her Majesty's West London County Court (2002-04)

My contact with this court (the first ever in my life, after 33 years of being in this island-kindgom), came as a result Her Majesty's West London County Court illegally accepting and proceeding - with the 29.11.02 - fraudulent - claim, ref WL 203 537,...

... filed against me and 10 of my fellow leaseholders (representing a total of 14 apartments) - by Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor (CKFT), (# 1, above) on behalf of 'Steel Services' = Andrew David Ladsky (WLCC # 1). (See also Extortion).

As related in the summaries: Events ; Breaches of the law ; Overall outcome on me - and supported by comprehensive detail on the page, hell-bent on securing this fraudulent claim for the benefit of 'the brother', Ladsky, the judiciaries: Her Majesty's District Judge Wright and District Judge Madge (at least in my case),

and staff in that hellhole masonic, kangaroo court made me go through 20 months of absolute sheer utter hell - using their key tool: mental torture.

Summaries also under: Overview # 3 , kangaroo court # 2.

It went on and on willfully and deliberately ignoring the very damning evidence against the claim - starting with proceeding with it in spite of, (among many others):

  • (1)- having absolute knowledge that an abuse of process was taking place (WLCC # 2.1);

As related in the summaries, its conniving and conspiring with CKFT = Andrew David Ladsky continued to be very blatant.

One year into the life-destroying battle, Ladsky issued me with a 21.10.03Part 36 offer’ of £6,350 = knocked off £8,000 from the claim (WLCC # 12). But, legally, I did NOT owe this amount either (CKFT # 4).

Towards the end of the page, under '(D) How the 'Clan' sends people like me from 'pillar to post'', I have included the Law Society's comments in relation to the court - in the context of my complaint against CKFT (summary # 2.5) . Among others, I draw your attention to my Defence and 8 letters to the courts.

Section (E) contains the obvious conclusions to be drawn from my experience that it is 'apparently' 'up to the victims to deal with the corruption in the courts';

Section (F) that the key parties cannot plead ignorance of the facts and events'

I repeat my above note.


20 months of absolute sheer utter hell; hundreds of hours of my life, including time spent on my complaints: summary # 1.3

£15,000 in costs

+ more time spent - in vain - in the context of:

Back to list

(6.2)- Her Majesty's West London County Court (2007-08)

The occasion for this second horrendous extended session with Her Majesty's West London County Court (previous, # 6.1, above) was its judiciary (yet again) illegally accepting and proceeding with the 27.02.07, ref. 7WL00675,...

... filed against me by Rachman Andrew David Ladsky's racketeer solicitor, Jeremy Hershkorn, Portner and Jaskel (# 4, above)

Working in tandem with Portner and, by extension, Ladsky, for 21 months - from Mar 07 to Nov 08, Her Majesty's monster judiciaries:

  • District Judge Nicholson,
  • District Judge Ryan, and
  • Deputy District Judge McGovern...

as well as staff in that hellhole masonic, kangaroo court made me go through absolute, sheer utter hell - of ongoing mental torture, terrible torment, anguish, distress and trauma... can be seen in the Summaries: Events ; Breaches of the law ; Overall outcome on me - supported by comprehensive detail of events on the page.

Other summaries: Overview # 11 ; kangaroo court # 4. (See also Extortion).

The objective was 'revenge' for 'my daring' to stand-up to the Establishment mafia since 2002 - and they sure went all out for it - as summarised under Overall outcome on me. It included making me lose my job at KPMG.

As related in the summaries, the WLCC mafia's conniving and conspiring with Portner = Andrew David Ladsky was very blatant.

  • It started with accepting the 27.02.07 claim, in spite of the fact that it breached numerous CPR, legislation and my Lease: WLCC # 1.
  • It was followed by falsely capturing in the 03.04.07 Notice that, in my 22.03.07 Acknowledgment of Service, I had stated that "[I] intend to defend part of the claim" when, in fact, I had very clearly stated (and emphasised) "I intend to contest the court's jurisdiction" (WLCC # 2).

On so it went, on and on, and on:

  • totally ignoring the content of my numerous documents - supported by very damning evidence against the claim;

16 months later, once all the monsters had got their quota of sadistic kicks...Portner issued me with a 06.06.08 Notice of Discontinuance of "ALL the claims against [me]" (Portner # 31).

BUT: I did something they were not expecting - see # 7A, below.

I repeat my above note.


21 months of absolute sheer utter hell; over 500 hours of my life - including time spent on my letters of complaints: summary # 1.6

Over £10,000 in costs, and 52 hours of lost income; losing my job.

+ more time spent - in vain - in the context of:

Back to list


(7)- Her Majesty's Wandsworth County Court (2004)

Another hellhole, masonic, kangaroo court I had to deal with, in Jun-Jul 04...

- because, as part of 'the fun', the mafia in Her Majesty's West London County Court and Wandsworth County Court led me to believe - falsely - for 7 weeks, that "[I was] the Defendant in a trial"...

...causing me unbelievable torment, anguish and distress.

Her Majesty's judiciaries were District Judge Ashworth and Judge Knowles.

Summaries: Events ; Breaches of the law ; Overall outcome ; kangaroo court # 3. (See also Extortion)

I repeat my above note.


20 hours of my time writing letters: summary # 1.4

c.£30 in costs

+ more time spent - in vain - in the context of:

  • (1)- my complaint to the Parliamentary Ombudsman: summaries # 1.9 and # 1.10;
  • (2)- my Subject Access Request: summary # 1.11.

Back to list


(7A)- Her Majesty's Supreme Court Costs Office (30 Jan 09)

Following the 06.06.08 Notice of Discontinuance of "ALL the claims against [me]" (Portner # 31), I did something the Ladsky mafia and its 'brothers' in Her Majesty's West London County Court (# 6.2, above) very clearly did not expect me to do:

I filed an Application to get back, at least, all my costs (Portner # 32 -and to the end of the page).

This was the cue for more criminal psychological harassment by District Judge Nicholson.

As part of his farm out policy (e.g. WLCC # 27), 4 hours before the hearing of my Application (that had never been intended to be held), he transferred it to HM's Supreme Court Costs Office (Portner # 34) - thereby giving another one of his mates the opportunity to also have some fun at my expense.

As reported in the Summaries (My Diary 30 Jan 09): Events ; Breaches of the law ; Overall outcome on me ; also under Overview # 12 and kangaroo court # 5...

Deputy Master Hoffman dished out more criminal psychological harassment by, among other, granting me only 30% of my costs.

Of course: no mention of 'sanction' against Ladsky-Portner for filing a fraudulent claim against me and subjecting me, by then, to nearly 2 years of horrendous suffering (# 6.2, above).

WHY? Because, among other, Hoffman was not only protecting his WLCC mates, he was also taking revenge on their behalf e.g.

  • during the so-called 'hearing', he asked me why I had returned my 22.03.07 Acknowledgment of Service form with a copy of the 1st page of the claim, and of the Particulars - on which I had made annotations in order to highlight the very serious issues with the claim (WLCC # 2) - and, in an hitlerian tone, told me "You should not have done it";
  • he barred me from referring to my 19.01.09 Reply to Ladsky-Portner's Points of dispute (pt # 8).

I repeat my above note.


c.100 hours of my time (19.01.09 detail of my costs to Portner - I underestimated);

c.£400 costs

+ more time spent - in vain - in the context of:

  • (1)- my complaint to the Parliamentary Ombudsman: summaries # 1.9 and # 1.10;
  • (2)- my Subject Access Request: summary # 1.11.

Back to list


(7B)- Her Majesty's Queens Bench Division, London High Court (2011)

In May 2009, I filed a Subject Access Request with the police (summary # 4.6).

The heavily redacted, highly vicious, cruel, perverse and libellous packs of lies so-called "crime reports" against me I received from the police, led me to go into several, drawn-out battles, in the pursuit of the implementation of my rights under the Data Protection Act 1998 (Overview # 18.1).

After 2 years of battling, the ongoing illegal processing of the data about me, and the fact that, at the Pre-action stage, (typically) none of the parties attempted to resolve the situation: QB # 2...

...led me to file, in Her Majesty's Queen's Bench Division, a 19 Apr 11 claim against the police, to which I added the IPCC and Home Secretary.

As can be seen from the Summaries: Events ; Breaches of the law ; Overall outcome on me ; also under Overview # 18(1) , # 18(2) ; kangaroo court # 6...

...Her Majesty's judiciaries: Master Eyre, Justice Lang and Justice MacKay demonstrated a very blatant, hell-bent determination to ensure the continuation of the breach of my rights.

= It amounted to - yet again - another of Her Majesty's courts turning into a kangaroo court in my case - and denying me access to justice and redress.

Reason? Same as previously: 'retribution' for my 'daring' to stand-up to and challenge the corrupt to the core Establishment and its protégé.

Because I am extremely distressed by the processing of the "crime reports" (that are circulated to / accessible by more than 50,000 people) - I submitted a 26.01.12 Application to the European Court of Human Rights.

As discussed under summary # 1.14, even in the European Court of Human Rights, I also fell prey to Her Majesty's judiciary - in 'the Brotherhood'.

I repeat my above note.


Some 2,000+ hours of my time; tens of £000s in costs (QB # (3)(3))

+ the time and costs involved in my filing an Application with the ECtHR (summary # 1.14).

Back to list


(8)- Her Majesty's Courts 'Customer Service'


(8.1)- Her Majesty's 'Customer Service' - In 2004

The page on Lord Falconer of Thoroton relates to the 29.06.04 'cry for help' I sent him (when he was then heading the (then) Department for Constitutional Affairs), and on which I copied (equally in vain) the then minister for the courts, and then minister for Human Rights.

I discuss the 23.08.04 'reply' I received from the Court Service (2 months later).

See summary # 1.5.

I repeat my above note.


1 letter, supported by 34 documents; copied to 2 other MPs = c.40 hours of my time; c.£55 costs; 2 months.

+ more time spent - in vain - in the context of:

  • (1)- my complaint to the Parliamentary Ombudsman: summaries # 1.9 and # 1.10;
  • (2)- my Subject Access Request: summary # 1.11.

Back to list

(8.2)- Her Majesty's 'Customer Service' - In 2007-08: WLCC pts # 18 and # 24

The atrocious treatment I was being subjected to in West London County Court (# 6.2, above) led me to file a 13.07.11 complaint with HMCS 'Customer Service' (WLCC # 18).

The 'replies' I received were - of course - in exactly the same style as the one I had received, 3 years previously from Her Majesty's Courts 'Customer Service' department (# 8.1, above): typically - amounting to collusion and conspiring with the court...that was dictating the replies! (below, # 9).

See summaries # 1.7 and # 1.8.

I repeat my above note.


8 letters, supported by 30 documents; = c.110 hours of my time; c.£180 costs; 4 months.

+ more time spent - in vain - in the context of:

  • (1)- my complaint to the Parliamentary Ombudsman: summaries # 1.9 and # 1.10;
  • (2)- my Subject Access Request: summary # 1.11.

Back to list


(9)- The 'replies' from the Ministry of (In)Justice to my 02.01.10 Subject Access Request under the Data Protection Act 1998 = continuation of the breach of my rights by the ministry of (In)Justice - and of its allegiance to 'the Brotherhood'.

I sent this (86-page) 02.01.10 Subject Access Request under the Data Protection Act 1998 to the Ministry of (In)Justice (summary # 1.11) - covering events with:

As I wrote in e.g. my 02.02.10 letter to various parties, including 'my' then MP, Malcolm Rifkind and Ann Abraham, then Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman, this Subject Access Request was prompted in part by my experience with Ann Abraham since filing my 12.07.09 complaint (summary # 1.10) and because...

... I want to know why - as a law-abiding, taxpaying (£500,000+), British, glaringly obvious victim of organized crime - 3 courts and a tribunal concluded that they could ignore their legal remit by denying me justice and redress, in the process:

  • turning a blind eye and a deaf ear to blatant breaches of: Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) ; numerous Acts, including of my statutory rights ; of my rights under the terms of my lease;

In the case of each of the above main parties, I included a section 'Information request', asking very specific questions as to what led the parties to take the actions they took / failed to take in my case - and detailing the documentation I required.

And the typical British Establishment's 'Frustrate and Discourage tactics' (header 2) - started...

...the 11.01.10 follow-up letter, asked me the outrageous and laughable question of

identifying which parts of the Department you wish me to conduct the searches e.g. such as a specific office of the Tribunals Service or court…”

The question was ‘outrageous and laughable’ because, as I highlighted in my 19.01.10 reply, the front page of my 02.01.10 document lists the individual locations, and the 2nd page identifies the individuals concerned - for each location.

Furthermore, the front page and following page of my document contains a list headed The sections and page location are – listing all the sections in the document with their corresponding page number – and have sections headed Information request from…” e.g. “West London Count Court – for 2002-04”; “West London County Court – for 2007-08”.

It led to a 21.01.10 reply that I will

"receive a response by 1st March 2010"


Conclusions about the so-called 'replies' to my 02.10.10 Subject Access Request (SAR), under the Data Protection Act 1998, to the Ministry of (In)Justice:


(1)- 25.02.10 'reply' from the Ministry of (In)Justice Data Access & Compliance Unit

The 25.02.10 letter states:

"the Tribunal Services have confirmed that they do not hold the information requested.

This is because the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal does not fall within the remit of the Tribunal Service. Residential Property Tribunal Service may hold the information that you have requested"

As I noted at the beginning of my 02.01.10 SAR:

"...the panels’ chairs are appointed by the Lord Chancellor (Source: )..."

Hence: BY the Ministry of (In)Justice.

(The letter also contains the blatant lie that the RPTS "provide an independent, fair and accessible tribunal service in England for settling disputes involving private rented and leasehold property..." - see # 6.A, above)


(2)- 01.03.10 'reply' from 'Communications Officer, at HMCS Southwark Bridge


It was sent by a 'Communication Officer', in HMCS Southwark Bridge (office from which I received the initial 'replies' to my 13.11.07 complaint (WLCC # 18 and # 24).

It starts off by falsely stating that my Request is "in relation to case no 7WL00675 Rootstock Overseas Corp" - which is the fraudulent 27.02.07 claim filed against me in West London County Court by Portner and Jaskel (Overview # 11).

It then lists only 'some' of the sections contained in my 02.01.10 SAR which, on their own, clearly contradict the first paragraph of the letter. The sections that are left out are:

Having detailed some of my so-called 'rights' under the Data Protection Act 1998 - which ALL, very clearly could not give a damn about,...

on page 2, the 01.03.10 it states:

"...we are unable to comment on judicial decisions or select which points taken in pleadings or other aspects of the case led to those decisions" (1)

"Therefore we have decided to release all your personal data [2], that we have identified which relates to you from the case file that we hold. This data is being processed for the purpose of your court case..." (2.2)

(1)- = A typical attempt by the mafia to fob me off / avoid dealing with my legislative right - as my questions refer to the reasons for the non-observance / non-compliance and therefore non-implementation of:

  • (1)- the direction given to me (and my fellow leaseholders) by the tribunal;
  • (2)- numerous Civil Procedure Rules;
  • (4)- my rights under several covenants in my lease.

(2)- = Our very unique interpretation of what amounts to "personal data".

2.2 - DOCUMENTS supplied with the 01.03.10 letter from HMCS (I have compiled in this list)

•  A total of 154 documents - representing practically everything I had sent as part of my supporting documents to my various documents / documents it knew I had been supplied with.

= NOT the answer to my questions in my 02.01.10 SAR

•  None of the remaining documents supplied address any of my questions in my 02.01.10 SAR

•  NOT one document supplied in relation to:

(NB: See below, point # 3, for 'the reply' from the Supreme Court Costs Office)

•  Of the 154 documents, there are only 8 I did not have. Of these:

A 13.12.07 draft letter "from Miss Prentice, West London Courthouse" - that provides irrebutable proof that those complained against actually dictate 'the replies' to the complainants:

- this draft, with the West London County Court address (situated in West London), is undeniably the draft used, one week later, by Suki Bhangra, HMCS Southwark Bridge office (situated in South East London), for 'his' 20.12.07 'reply' to my 13.11.07 complaint (WLCC # 18.2).

= Same as the rest: Doc library - in the island-kindgom of make-believe.

  • One internal memo of interest, dated 25.09.07, from "DEFY" to "District Judge", stating next to 'I enclose' "Letter dated 16/08/07" 'from Defendant' (NB: = one month after I sent it) - with the 'comments' blocked out...
  • (The other 2 'memos' are practically blank)
  • An 11.01.08 'Notice that a Defence has been filed' (NB: = 4 months after I served my 12.09.07 Defence!!) (The mafia had gone into 'silent mode' for 4 months).
  • A 09.04.08 document stating: "District Judge Ryan used the Civil Directions 3 template" for the so-called 'case management directions' of 09.04.08.
  • Two fax covers, one to me, one to Portner.


(3)- 24.03.10 'reply' from the Supreme Court Costs Office (SCCO)

Under the Data Protection Act 1998, the reply to a Subject Access Request must be supplied within 40 days. As detailed in the 21.01.10 letter from the Ministry of (In)Justice, the deadline for reply was 1 Mar 10.

Hence: yet again, a one-finger sign from the SCCO (see My Diary 30 Jan 09 for detail of the so-called 'hearing').

Why did the SCOO need an extra 3+ weeks to reply? Did it compile a lot of documents?

Actually, it only sent me 2 documents, both of which I already had: the 18.12.08 Notice of hearing set for 30 Jan 09, and the Final Costs Certificate (a total of 2 pages). See the list I compiled.

The 24.03.10 letter states, on page 2:

"We have not identified record of any meetings, briefings, electronic transmissions and / or records of telephone calls relating to the issue of the said certificate on the file."

Really? How about the records that led Deputy Master Hoffman (# 7(A), above) to e.g.:

Where are these records, these briefing notes?

  • Protecting the 2007-08 WLCC mafia (# 6.2, above) that is incandescent with rage at 'my daring' to expose its corruption: District Judge Nicholson, District Judge Ryan, Deputy District Judge McGovern?

In reproducing my Request from my 02.01.10 SAR, in its 24.03.10 letter, the SCCO totally omitted to include my questions on pages 85 and 86 of my document - that refer specifically to SCCO.

The 24.03.10 letter ended with:

"If you are dissatisfied with the Departments handling of your subject access request, then it is open to you to take the matters to the courts or to the Information Commissioner"

The above 01.03.10 'reply' 'from' HMCS Southwark Bridge stated the same thing.

Typical lapdogs of the British Establishment. They deliberately don't address what you asked for - thereby deliberately breaching your rights, because they absolutely don't give a damn...

- and then use the typical 'Frustrate and discourage tactic' (Header 2), intended to keep you running on a wheel like a hamster.

In the process, to add to their sadistic kicks, they throw you back at the same parties: the judiciary 'brothers' in the kangaroo courts against which you are complaining.

They are very, very sick monsters!

Hence, ALL of them ignored my 02.01.10 Subject Access Request.

I repeat my above note.


(86-page) SAR; 1 letter and 2 documents = c.75 hours of my time; c.£60 in costs; 2 months


Considering what took place with the above parties - these so-called 'replies' of 25.02.10 , 01.03.10 and 24.03.10 - amount to a blatant breach of my statutory rights under the Data Protection Act 1998...

...- and a continuation of the blatant breach of my statutory rights by the ministry of (In)Justice...

...added to numerous breaches of Civil Procedure Rules e.g. WLCC 2002-04 ; WLCC 2007-08 ; Supreme Court Costs Office ; other examples.


This, added to the nature of the documents I supplied to the courts, as well as HMCS 'Customer Service' 'responses', provides further, overwhelming evidence of collusion and conspiring with Andrew David Ladsky and his gang of racketeers : CKFT (# 1, above), and Portner and Jaskel (# 4, above)...

...- which the individuals concerned in the courts want to (typically) cover-up... clearly with the blessings of the Ministry of (In)Justice - at the time, headed by Jack Straw, (In)Justice Secretary and Lord Chancellor (as well as Cabinet Minister)...

...- a Ministry that had a recruitment ad in The Sunday Times of 4 Oct 09 claiming "We value objectivity, honesty, integrity and impartiality"

OUTCOME: ALL my questions remain outstanding.

= Continuation of the message (as in the case of the police, its high level executive and its so-called complaints 'regulator' - supported by Queen's Bench judiciaries)...

...- that the British state perceives me as a non-entity who does not have the right to have rights, there to be used and abused at will - by ALL.

And a resounding (to quote Boris Johnson, then London Mayor and Head of the Mayor's Office for Policing and Crime): "FUCK OFF AND DIE!"

As Harriet Sergeant, guest contributor, wrote in her 28 Feb 10 article in The Sunday Times, headed "The state sector's big evil: it does not sack" (triggered in part by the death, through neglect, of up to 1,200 people at the Stafford Hospital - and subsequent events):

"However horrific is the offence, rarely is anyone brought to book, let alone sacked... those responsible for shocking treatment of the public remain untouched and even flourish...

...Making politicians look good too often has come at the expense of the public in their care"


Other MEDIA on the legal sector


In 2006, the then Home Secretary, John Reid, said that the Home Office was "not fit for purpose".

My experience with Her Majesty's Court Service that has unlawfully denied me access to justice and redress 9 times , over a 9-year period - lead me to most definitely arrive at the same conclusion about her Court Service - and more specifically, her judiciary.

The following articles; the Victims Unite website; other cases reported on the Media page - provide additional evidence:

MICHAEL GOVE (kicked out in 2016) - "Justice system badly failing most users, says Michael Gove", The Guardian, 22 Jun 15

...from which, 'of course', he excludes the most obvious cause: the judiciary.

"Justice secretary [1] says: There are two nations in our justice system at present:

"the wealthy, international class who can choose to settle cases in London [2] with the gold-standard of British justice; (3)

everyone else, who has to put up with a creaking, outdated system..." (3)

"While those with money can secure the finest legal provision in the world, the reality in our courts for many of our citizens is that the justice system is failing them. Badly." (4)

"The people who are let down most badly by our justice system are those who must take part in it through no fault or desire of their own: victims and witnesses of crime [5], and children who have been neglected."

"It is the poorest in society who are disproportionately the victims of crime [6], and who find themselves at the mercy of this creaking and dysfunctional system" (3)

(1)- (re. "Justice system") - Michael Gove, was appointed in May 15, as Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for the Ministry of (In)Justice.

He took over from Chris Grayling; (the one who, (like all the others), failed to take action following being copied on my 25 Nov 14 letter to Theresa May, then Home Secretary).

(2)- (re. "Justice system") - e.g. Russian oligarchs fighting over agreements (one case was reported in the media to have generated c. £100m in fees for London lawyers); Saudi Arabia royal family members filing divorce cases.

Not to mention 'the libel tourism' cases.

(3)- (re. "Justice system") - Concise Oxford dictionary definitions: "creaking": "show weakness or frailty under strain"; "outdated": "out of date or obsolete"; "dysfunctional": "not operating normally or properly".

How fascinating that "the creaking, outdated and dysfunctional system" 'suddenly' transforms itself into "a gold standard" operating system when dealing with "wealthy individuals".

Who does Michael Gove think he is addressing? Complete idiots?

It is blatantly obvious that the common denominator is not"the system", but the judiciary - that is, to say the least, "dysfunctional" = not operating as per its official remit,...

...and actually turning the profile of judiciaries into figures for utter contempt and repulsion (leading e.g. a barrister to resign in disgust at "the judges, in particular in the high court"),...

...and Her Majesty's courts into bottomless cesspits of moral depravation and interconnecting caves of corruption - I summarise as: kangaroo courts.

In my case

I repeat my introduction to this section that Her Majesty's judiciary has unlawfully denied me access to justice and redress - in the UK - 8 times, over a 9-year period...

...- as well as by the European Court of Human Rights, when it was under British mandate, headed by Sir Nicholas Bratza - thereby bringing the total to 9 times.

Initially to help a Rachman criminal landlord, Andrew David Ladsky, and his gang of racketeers, in his realising a multi-million £ jackpot at my expense and that of my fellow leaseholders.

Subsequently, as punishment for:

In relation to others

In addition to the victims reported on the Victims Unite website, the Comments received on my website, there are endless media reports citing people suffering appalling injustice - as a result of deliberate actions by the judiciary e.g.

  • (1)- Re. the Cardiff Three, the judge who sentenced 3 witnesses to "18 months in prison for lying under oath" - while having knowledge that "they had been abused, bullied and manipulated by the police"; the clear indication is that (yet again) the judiciary colluded with the police;
  • (4)- The appeal judge who 'conveniently' concluded that a police officer "had not intended to throw [a woman] into a cell" ("the injury above her eye required stitches") - thereby allowing him to get his job back.
  • (6)- The appalling actions of judges in the Court of Protection: examples below, and under 'Secret prisoners'.
  • (8)- The British judiciary seizing on the opportunity to export its corrupt method of operating e.g. in my case, to the ECtHR: Overview # 18(3), # 18(4), # 18(5).

To these are added the inquiries led by judges who obligingly ensure that 'their' findings meet the needs of the Establishment (*)...not to mention their own personal needs for recognition and reward.


  • (2)- In line with the Establishment's mantra, their wrongdoings are automatically covered-up (examples of press articles, below).

(*) Private Eye, 1389, 3- 16 Apr 15, pg 10 – Referring to "the court of appeal overturning most of [a] libel verdict", it raised:

"...the appeal judges did not discuss the question that has bothered everyone who knows the real story: how can you be sure of a fair hearing in a case involving the Conservative party when it appears that you can’t swing a cat in the Strand [location of "The Royal Courts of Justice"] without hitting a judge with Tory connections?"

"Lawyers who even hint at possible political connections among the judicial classes are breaking a terrible taboo.

If they succeed in forcing the judge to stand down, they will fear retribution from whoever takes over the case, for daring to question the faith that judges are “above politics”." (*)

(*) Even though they are dictated to by politicians e.g. when they issue reports to suit the needs of the political class; on the outcome of cases e.g. at the time of the riots.

(4)- (re. "Justice system") - "the justice system is failing [the non-wealthy]. Badly"

I would say appallingly - and, I conclude, on a par with the world's most corrupt systems the Establishment and its flunkies are always keen to point the finger at...

...starting with the then Prime Minister, David Cameron, who, in 2012, claimed: "Britain has a well regarded legal system".

(5)- (re. "Justice system") - "The people who are let down most badly by our justice system are those who must take part in it through no fault or desire of their own: victims...of crime "

My case exactly. In my previous 33 years in this island-kindgom, I had never had dealings with the courts (and police) - because law-abiding.

Suddenly, I am forced to deal with these institutions, because a bunch of criminals decide they can use me as a free access cash dispenser.

Having been told that these institutions (I am being asked to pay for) are there to enforce the rule of law - what do I discover? They side with the criminals against me!

(6)- (re. "Justice system") - "It is the poorest in society who are disproportionately the victims of crime"

Of course, because they (such as I) are perceived as non-entities who do not have the right to have rights and, therefore, ideal targets for abuse and exploitation.

Criminals only have to look at how the state treats 'the little people' - starting with the courts, and the experience of whistleblowers - to get the message that they have carte blanche to do whatever they like in this total laissez-faire, don't give a damn island-kingdom environment.

Evidently, Mr Gove, in spite of the fact that it is your responsibility, like your predecessors, you are not going to have the backbone to take action in relation to gross misconduct and, at times, criminal conduct by the judiciary...

...opting to, instead, waste taxpayer-money on the fringes of "the system".

P.S. In the light of the entry on your Wikipedia profile (at 20/07/15): "Twitter smear attacks on opponents controversy"; NO, I do not use Twitter (nor any other similar means of communication). However, feel free to leave a comment on my website; I will publish it.


Media reports on the judiciary getting away scot-free


Freedom Of Information: Names of misbehaving judges are too rarely made public”, (The Independent, 4 Jul 08)

The 13.05.08 refusal by the Office for Judicial Complaints - to address the questions, on the grounds that it might prejudice effective conduct of public affairs (see QB # 4.7(4) for my experience with this office)

[Based on my case: "might prejudice" the kangaroo courts judiciary from getting more business from criminals].

"Secret list of porn judges 'does exist", (The Times, 17 May 07)

But Lord Falconer claimed that it was "exempt from the Freedom of Information Act 2000"

"Judge accused of child abuse 'let off by police'", (The Times, 2 Nov 07)

"The case has raised questions about the IPCC's complaints procedure...

It ruled the complaint to be out of time" [by 6 days] and that the “allegations of inappropriate behaviour towards children, domestic violence and mortgage fraud” did not constitute “special circumstances” allowing it to extend the 28-day period"

"Child abuse cover-up allegations over top policeman who quit", (The Times, 24 Nov 07)

"The police authority has been under fire from critics who claim the police chief has been "let off the hook" by being allowed to leave" [The IPCC is partly police-staffed].

One year later: "Review of judge sex abuse inquiry ordered after ex-wife's complaint", (The Guardian, 16 Sep 08)

Only because of the sheer determination of the complainant who filed for judicial review.

Judges in sex video case go unpunished”, (The Guardian, 23 May 08);

Judge in sex blackmail case gets third pay rise, (The Daily Telegraph, 2 Nov 07);

"£300,000 for judge off sick after blackmail trial", (The Daily Telegraph, 2 Jun 09) - "Judge Khan has been off sick for a year on full pay despite a critical report into his conduct"

"Judge cleared of rush-hour flashing", (The Times, 13 Jun 07)

"...there was no independent evidence to identify him as the guilty man..." and

"...the police had not tried to find any evidence to corroborate the allegations..." (!!!)

"'Flashing' judge will not face further charges", (The Times, 2 Aug 07).

"Racism, drink-driving and improper conduct... the case against judges", Independent, 28 Mar 07

"Judge Margaret Short sacked for being rude to solicitors", (The Times 21 Apr 09)

"She has been removed by the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice after a “history of complaints”.


A judge will only get sacked for misconduct vis-à-vis a tribe member - perceived as 'unacceptable'... unlike falling over backwards to help criminals rip-off their victims.

And, "to help judges deal with the emotional problems and stresses of the job...a 24-hour counselling helpline [was set-up]": "Racism, drink-driving and improper conduct... the case against judges", The Independent, 28 Mar 07.


The court of Protection


"Behind the closed doors of England's most secretive court", Daily Telegraph, 5 Feb 11

See My Diary 2011 - 'Secret prisoners' - for related articles.


"Secret court seizes £3.2bn from elderly... and even forces furious families to pay to access own bank account", Mail on Sunday, 25 Oct 09


"The secret court of living hell: Straw promises to review Court of Protection after MoS exposes shocking catalogue of flaws", Mail on Sunday, 1 Nov 09


The Crown Prosecution Service


"Judge attacks CPS 'shambles'", Independent, 29 Sep 10

"Judge Jeremy Roberts, an Old Bailey judge, is quoted as saying "the shambles caused by the failures of the CPS...

It just simply looks awful to members of the public who come to these courts expecting to see justice done and cases heard properly, and then they see the kind of shambles which has occurred in this case and others...

I am sure this won't be the last case where we have similar problems."


"Inspectors condemn failings in London CPS", Independent, 16 Mar 10

"Mismanagement of cases means many more are dropped either before or during trial than in the rest of England and Wales...preparation of routine crown court cases displayed a "lack of intellectual rigour" the report said...

The report also uncovered high levels of staff turnover. Hammersmith in west London had seven chief prosecutors in one year....

There were 437 cases dropped at magistrates' court simply because the prosecution was not ready and an adjournment was refused..."


"CPS is badly managed and failing... say its own staff", Mail on Sunday, 14 Sep 08

The article reports the findings from an internal survey (Help Shape our Future) - stating:

“The Crown Prosecution Service is a badly managed and failing organisation that cannot keep pace with bringing criminals to justice…The damning verdict...paints an alarming picture of the organisation headed by Sir Ken Macdonald".

"Only half of the 5,644 who answered a total of 102 questions believe the teams they work in ‘have the right skills and experience to conduct…work effectively.

Meanwhile, just one in four thinks poor performance is dealt with effectively…Just 26 per cent believe the service is well managed, falling to 18 per cent in London”.

Given the automatic closing of rank and cover-up (e.g. Overview # 7 ; the Establishment), it is amazing that these findings were published.


"Corrupt MoD official can keep £1.5m", Guardian, 18 Jan 08

"A corrupt civil servant behind one of the biggest frauds in Whitehall history has managed to avoid paying anything towards a £1.5m confiscation order because the Crown Prosecution Service delayed enforcing it for 11 years..."





  C O M M E N T S

Back to top