Email this site to a contact

 

I view Mr Jeremy Hershkorn, Mr Ahmet Jaffer and Mr Daniel Broughton as evil, corrupt and morally depraved individuals - conduct endorsed by the Law Society and West London County Court

portner / portner and jaskel LLP and law society

 

Question: If you are solicitors who have had their malpractice exposed in the public domain (because your 'regulator', the Law Society, turns a 'blind eye and a deaf ear' to malpractice): how do you attempt to hide what you have done and ensure you cannot be individually exposed in future?

Answer: (1) Modify the name of the firm; (2) Remove all possibilities of identifying the individuals by (i) having no name on your stationary; (ii) use only the individuals' initials in their email address; (3) state that "a list of members' names is open to inspection" at your office.

How is this approach described? "Tradition with a modern edge"

This is what 'Portner', a firm of solicitors located at 63/65 Marylebone Lane, London W1U 2RA has done in June/July 2008: contrast its 1 August 2008 and 6 June 2008 letters.

It will cut down the costs of what appears to be high turnaround of staff: I count five reprints in the last 17 months (see list of names in the top, right hand corner): 10 February 2006 ; 3 May 2006 ; 16 February 2007 ; 12 July 2007 ; 7 February 2008

Since June/July 2008 Portner and Jaskel LLP "trades" under 'Portner'

(NB: Portner is covered in my 3 June 2008 (74 pg) Witness Statement; (4 pg) Main Points)

In reading the section, bear in mind that on 6 June 2008, Mr Andrew Ladsky dropped "ALL" of the 27 February 2007 claim against me - see below from point # 26

 

Portner and Jaskel has confirmed in its 3 October 2006 letter to my then website host that its client is Mr Andrew Ladsky. (See also My Diary 3 October 2006 ; Advisors to Jefferson House ; Directorships ; Owners identity ; Headlessors )

In spite of having Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor (CKFT) as the nominated solicitors for 'Steel Services' on the Land Registry ( NGL 373 333 ) ( at 22 February 2006), Portner and Jaskel is also acting for 'Steel Services' - at least, in relation to me.

Portner and Jaskel is another firm of solicitors, used by Mr Andrew Ladsky, I can only describe as evil, corrupt, morally depraved and vicious (I hold the same view about Mr Andrew Ladsky's other 'puppets', Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor, Martin Russell Jones - and the rest).

I first came across this firm and its bullying and intimidatory tactics in 2002 when it viciously 'attacked' the then Elderly Resident at Jefferson House.

Individuals who have approached me from this firm are:

Mr Daniel Broughton - in relation to the so-called 10 February 2006 "Notice of first refusal" - see summary below, and for more detail, My Diary - 18 February 2006

Mr Jeremy Hershkorn who threatened me with bankruptcy (point 3 below) and proceeded with filing the 27 February 2007 fraudulent claim against me in West London County Court - see events below. (A public announcement indicates that, around mid-May 2007, Mr Jeremy Hershkorn joined another firm of solicitors, Magrath & Co, 66/67 Newman St, London W1T 3EQ)

Mr Ahmet Jaffer who took over from Mr Jeremy Hershkorn and has since been the main contact.

I view Mr Jeremy Hershkorn, Mr Ahmet Jaffer and Mr Daniel Broughton as evil, corrupt, morally depraved individuals... but, as demonstrated in this section (point # 4 below): they have the blessings of their 'professional' assocation, the Law Society, to act as they do. (= same as Mr Lanny Silverstone and Ms Ayesha Salim, Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor, as well as Mr Richard Twyman and Ms Lisa McLean, Piper Smith Watton

Events with this firm are related in chronological order.

A 'snapshot' - Having...

...in a letter dated 16 February 2007, threatened me with bankruptcy proceedings and of taking the flat away from me (forfeiture) in the name of a company I had never heard of (point # 15 ) if I failed to "immediately pay £8,937" (US$15,800) (point # 3 )...

...filed an application for judgment against me - as evidenced by the 19 April 2007 Order from WLCC refusing the application (point # 13 )...

...in a letter dated 3 October 2006, threatened my then ISP with "proceedings for defamation and for substantial damages and costs" if it did not "close down [my website] within 48 hours", as well as demanding "an apology...along with your suggestion for damages, which must be substantial...", because "[my website] contains suggestions that our client [Mr Ladsky] is guilty of criminal activities and fraud all of which are totally unsubstantiated, outrageous and false... Our client's reputation has been severely damaged..." (point # 2 ) (My Diary - 3 October 2006 )

... repeatedly threatened my current website Host with proceedings unless my Host closed down my website, claiming that "all of the allegations on [my] website are clearly untrue and therefore defamatory" (point # 2 ; My Diary - 5 February 2007 )...

...Portner and Jaskel sent me a 6 June 2008 'Notice of discontinuance' by its client Rootstock Overseas Corp / Steel Services / Sloan Development i.e. Mr Andrew Ladsky - of "All of the 27 February 2007 claim" against me

Keen to do whatever it can to help its client in his fraudulent activities, in 2006 it sent me a bogus 'notice of first refusal' (point # 1 )

Sections

(The documents referred to in this section are also listed under the 'Document library': Year 2006 and Year 2007+ )

 

(1) The 'bogus' 10 February 2006 "Notice of first refusal"

Stating that it was "acting as agent for Steel Services", Portner and Jaskel sent me what it described as a "Notice by landlord to qualifying tenants of proposed disposal, Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 Section 5" , dated 10 February 2006.

I view this so-called "notice" as bogus and believe that it was done purely for my 'benefit' as a means of 'having fun' / taking revenge (as with e.g. the invoices sent to me three months after the exchange of the Consent Order - for which Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor ensured endorsement by the court ).

The following is a reduced version of what is contained under My Diary - 18 February 2006. The "notice of first refusal" states:

“We Portner and Jaskel as agents for Steel Services Ltd (“the landlord”) give you notice as follows:”

"This notice relates to the leasehold land and buildings known as Jefferson House 7 to 13 (odd) Basil Street Chelsea London SW3 ("the building")."

"The landlord has a leasehold interest in the building..." "the property" means the building"

“This notice constitutes an offer by the landlord to dispose of the property…”

Needless to say that a 'notice' of this type is an important legal document as it commits the 'landlord' to deliver on the offer made in the document (L&T Act 1987 - section 4 ).

•  The " notice" sent by Portner and Jaskel is, in terms of the description of the property, a carbon copy of, for example, the "notice" of 13 December 2000 sent by Laytons solicitors (Notices by landlord # 2 ) - at the time when 'Steel Services' i.e. 'my landlord', was the headlessor for the whole of Jefferson House

•  On two subsequent occasions (3 March 2006 and 11 March 2006), I asked Portner and Jaskel to confirm the detail of the property being offered for disposal, stating :

My understanding of this is that the "Notice", refers to the building, as it stands now, in its entirety i.e. the whole of Jefferson House. Please, confirm"

In each instance, the contact, Mr Daniel Broughton, confirmed that this was the case (6 March 2006 and 14 March 2006).

•  In actual fact, his client, 'Steel Services' i.e. Mr Andrew Ladsky et. al. had, two / seven weeks previously, become a "lessee" of Lavagna Enterprises Ltd (Headlessors) to which it had also disposed of its headlease interest on the last floor of Jefferson House i.e. the "airspace" which includes the title for the penthouse flat and associated car parking space.

•  As you would expect, legislation ( Section 5(2) of the L&T Act 1987) requires supplying particulars of the property offered for disposal. Portner and Jaskel did this by supplying the Land Registry title for Steel Services - minus the first page - hence, minus pages one and two.

What page one states (at 22 February 2006 ) : “(20.10.2004)...the Air Space abutting and above the level of the surface of the roof of Jefferson House has been removed from this title”

Having determined that the so-called "notice" was fraudulent, I opted to catch Mr Broughton and Mr Ladsky at their game, by stating the following in my 30 March 2006 letter to Mr Broughton:

"It follows that the "disposal" being offered in the "Notice" for £120,000 is the Title for Lavagna Enterprises Limited, as it owns - as of 31 January 2006 (i.e. barely 10 days before you sent the "Notice"):

  • One Title covering all the floors of Jefferson House, except the last floor and the roof
  • One Title covering the airspace of Jefferson House which includes the Title for the penthouse flat, as well as associated parking space.

As you omitted to include pages one and two of the Title for Steel Services when you sent me the "Notice", I assume that you have, likewise, omitted to include the other above-mentioned Titles. Please, confirm"

This was the reply from Mr Daniel Broughton, dated 3 April 2006 :

“The disposal being offered, as per the content of the notice, is in respect of the interest held in the property by Steel Services Ltd and not any interest in the property that may be held by Lavagna Enterprises Ltd”

As I pointed out in my 30 April 2006 reply, "Therefore [the offer] is not "as per the content of the notice""

As to his comment "not any interest in the property that may be held by Lavagna Enterprises Ltd", I asked whether he was "suggesting that the information held on the Land Registry is false?"

The blatantly obvious conclusions from this are that:

  • Mr Broughton - repeatedly - lied about the property being offered for sale
  • When found out, Mr Broughton WENT BACK on the offer he made in the "notice of disposal"

In the same letter of 30 April 2006 letter, I wrote :

"It is abundantly clear that your intention was to mislead. Judging from the date of the mortgage obtained from HSBC, point six, on page three (supplied by your firm), which states 31 January 2006, the copy of title NGL 373333 i.e. Steel Services was obtained just prior to your sending the “Notice” "

In his 3 April 2006 reply Mr Broughton stated that he had "deliberately omitted" to include the first page of the title, giving as reason "our client is not required to provide this information"

In the same reply of 30 April 2006 I argued that:

"Deliberately omitting" to include pages one and two of the Land Registry title for NGL 373 333 which, among others, had the effect of supplying a list of flats - without the name of Steel Services, nor the address showing anywhere on the pages supplied - does not amount to compliance with the above section (Section 5(2) )of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987. Hence, I consider your assessment that "our client is not required to provide this information" as wholly incorrect"

My non-lawyer assessment, captured in my 30 April 2006 letter is that Portner and Jaskel has committed breaches of statutes, as well as rules comprised under the Solicitors Code of Conduct of the Law Society for England and Wales:

Property Misdescriptions Act 1991 which "prohibits the making of false or misleading statements about property matters" - section 5(a) "false" means false to a material degree".

I draw your attention to section 1(3) of the Act "A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable (b) on conviction on indictment, to a fine"

I also stated to Mr Broughton : “considering that I, a member of the public, was able to uncover the information about the ownership of the block; wrote you on two occasions asking you to confirm that the “notice” refers to the building, as it stands now, in its entirety i.e. the whole of Jefferson House”, he would not be able to use Section (5)2 of the Property Misdescriptions Act 1991 – 'Due diligence defence'

Landlord & Tenant Act 1987 section 5, as well as section 4 (Amendment 89– (1) ) which states :

(b) references to making a disposal of any description shall be construed as references to entering into a contract to make such disposal”

Solicitors Code of Conduct

•  Rule 26.01 - Solicitors selling property

•  Rule 18.01 – Definition of undertaking and Rule 18.09 – Undertaking on behalf of clients, stating that these rules “might be relevant”

•  Principle (a) – Independence and integrity

•  Principle (d) – Repute of solicitors’ profession

•  Principle (e) – Standard of work

•  Rule 12.02 – “A solicitor must not act where the instructions would involve the solicitor in a breach of the law…”

As to 'Steel Services', that it committed a criminal offence in relation to Section 10A (1) of the L&T Act 1987 by not "offering me first refusal" when it disposed of its assets to Lavagna Enterprises. Also, that the disposal of the assets has led to Steel Services, my landlord, being unable to perform major covenants in my lease.

The reply I received from Portner and Jaskel is dated 3 May 2006. (It is also included at the back of my 30 April 2006 letter). It states:

"Whilst your letter is irrelevant in places, misguided in others and incorrect in parts you are of course free to pursue whatever course you so wish should you feel further action is required"

(For additional detail see Notices by landlord # 3 , # 3.1 , # 3.2 ; My Diary 18 February 2006)

Throughout this website I have stated that I am not a lawyer. However, I believe that anybody of moderate intelligence would, when considering the above evidence, arrive at the same conclusions: Portner and Jaskel and its client Mr Andrew Ladsky "deliberately" set out to mislead me and, in the process, committed serious breaches of legislation - as well as breaches of the Law Society Code of Conduct.

(NB: On the upside, responding to this bogus "notice" gave me the opportunity to 'pay back' the evil scums at Portner and Jaskel for what they did to the Elderly Resident - see My Diary 18 February 2006 ; 29 April 2006 ; Elderly Resident )

Back to list

(2) Ongoing harassment of my website Host by Mr Jeremy Hershkorn - instigated by Mr Andrew Ladsky to get my Host to close down my website - by making false accusations

Desperate to stop me from exposing the detail of my case - on behalf of Mr Ladsky - Mr Jeremy Hershkorn - faxed a 3 October 2006 letter to my first website host, threatening my host with "proceedings for defamation and for substantial damages and costs" if it did not close down my website, making highly libellous, scurrilous - unsupported - claims against me that "[my website] contains suggestions that our client [Mr Ladsky] is guilty of criminal activities and fraud all of which are totally unsubstantiated, outrageous and false... Our client's reputation has been severely damaged..." (I can't stop laughing at that).

Mr Hershkorn concluded the letter by stating "We will of course, take all appropriate steps to enforce any judgement obtained in the UK against you" (My Diary 3 October 2006 )

The threat of "proceedings and costs and damages" had the desired effect with my first website host - as it closed down my website (My Diary - 3 October 2006)

Trying his luck again, over a period of several weeks, Mr Jeremy Hershkorn, sent a massive amount of emails to my current website Host, threatening my Host with legal "proceedings and costs and damages" unless my Host closed down my website, by making highly libellous, scurrilous - unsupported - claims against me, stating "all of the allegations on [my] website are clearly untrue and therefore defamatory" (My Diary 5 February 2007 )

As can be seen by the fact that my website is still live, my (very courageous) Host did not cave in to the empty threats from Mr Jeremy Hershkorn - 'empty' because he would not have been able to justify his accusations - as very amply evidenced by a number of events discussed below e.g. (see also point # 30 below)

  • Opting to not reply to my 3 May 2007 Skeleton Argument - by Portner and Jaskel-its client falsely claiming in their 22 August 2007 Skeleton Argument they had not received mine
  • his client's so-called "Defence to Counterclaim" of 26 September 2007 (written by a barrister) which amounts to just one and a half page - to my 12 September 2007 "Defence & Counterclaim" All that this one-and-half page document does, is try to argue invalid technical points (as I explained in my 2 October 2007 letter to WLCC, cc 'd Ahmet Jaffer, Mr Jeremy Hershkorn's replacement)
  • the 4 February 2008 'List of documents' (the first document received from Portner and Jaskel since the 26 September 2007 "Defence to Counterclaim") which very clearly does not address the issues / counterclaims raised in my 12 September 2007 "Defence & Counterclaim" - see point # 24 below

Doesn't that substantiate my position?

(Note at June 2008: and the proof is that Mr Andrew Ladsky has DROPPED "ALL of the claim" against me (point # 31, below)

In - my non-lawyer opinion - I hold the view that Portner and Jaskel and Mr Andrew Ladsky have committed offences against me and my website Host under the Malicious Communications Act 1988 and the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. Furthermore, against me, under the Defamation Act 1996

Back to list

(3) In his 16 February 2007 letter, Mr Jeremy Hershkorn, Portner and Jaskel, threatened me with proceedings, Statutory demand and hence bankruptcy, forfeiture (losing my flat), as well as costs if I did not immediately pay the sum of £8,937 (US$15,800) to "Rootstock Overseas Corp" - a company I had never heard of - and did this in the context of claiming that he had very comprehensive knowledge of the details of my case

On 24 February 2007 I took delivery of a 16 February 2007 letter from Mr Jeremy Hershkorn, Portner and Jaskel, headed: "Rootstock Overseas Corp - Outstanding arrears £8,937.28" (US$15,800)

At the time, I had NEVER heard of this company. Proof that I had not can be seen in the 12 July 2007 letter from Mr Ahmet Jaffer, Portner and Jaskel (in reply to mine of 30 June 2007): "We notified you by our letter of 27th February 2007 that the title to the premises was transferred from Steel Services Limited to our clients, Rootstock Overseas Corp on the 24th May 2006"

In my 12 August 2007 reply, I asked Mr Ahmet Jaffer to supply me with a copy of the correspondence he claimed had been sent to me. He totally ignored my request = this is, yet again, another lie by Portner and Jaskel.

Consider that Mr Jeremy Hershkorn expected me to pay £8,937 (US$15,800) to a company I had never heard of - and was threatening me with bankruptcy if I did not pay immediately!

It is particularly important to note this point in relation to Mr Hershkorn's follow-up action - as he filed the 27 February 2007 claim against me - see below # 6 .

The 16 February 2007 letter from Mr Jeremy Hershkorn states : "We have been instructed by Rootstock Overseas Corp in connection with outstanding arrears of service charge due and which relate to the above premises, details of which you are fully aware of "

My reaction was: as I have never heard of this company, it follows that I have never had any dealings with it - and consequently cannot have "outstanding arrears" - which was my reply on 25 February 2007.

Mr Hershkorn then states that, as of now, correspondence to / from Martin Russell Jones "in relation to arrears" is through Portner and Jaskel. (As the saying goes : "Birds of a feather flock together")

The second paragraph starts with "We enclose a copy of a statement dated 13th February 2007 which indicates how the sum of £8,937.28 (US$15,800) has been calculated"

NOTHING was enclosed with the letter.

The rest of the letter :

"We note that you have failed to make the payments as requested, and as a result of the same, we are instructed to inform you that if payment of £8,937.28 (US$15,759) is not received by us on behalf of our client by close of business on Friday 23rd February 2007 (emphasis as per letter), proceedings will be issued against you for the full amount due together with interest, without further notice"

(My break in the paragraph)

"Such proceedings will not be confined to the service of a Claim Form in the appropriate court but will also include the issue of Statutory Demand, which is required under the Insolvency Act 1986 prior to the presentation of a Bankruptcy Petition. Such proceedings will be without prejudice to our client's other rights of recovery and enforcement so far as your property is concerned. (NB: i.e take the flat away from me) (see definition of forfeiture)

We are currently preparing proceedings in order to avoid any delay as we note that this matter has been outstanding for some considerable time. If proceedings are commenced and the amount is then paid before proceedings are served, we give you notice that you will nevertheless be liable to discharge the court fees and costs upon such proceedings. The proceedings will not be withdrawn until such court fees are paid in full.

We trust that it will not be necessary to issue proceedings and we look forward to receiving your payment within the specified time. Please be advised accordingly"

Although the threats are made in the name of a company I have never heard of, I nonetheless undertook comprehensive desk research on the Insolvency Act, statutory demands and bankruptcy proceedings.

What I found out (captured in My Diary, 3 March 2007) demonstrates the evilness of Mr Jeremy Hershkorn, : note how he 'piles up' the stages in succession, on top of one another, as a 'fait accompli' i.e. denying me having any rights -and how he emphasises the threat of finding myself destitute, by having my property taken from me, as well as having to pay costs.

In my - 'non-lawyer' opinion - I hold the view that Portner and Jaskel has committed offences under the:

•  Fraud Act 2006 (which came into force on 15 January 2007) :

2. Fraud by false representation

(1)(a) dishonestly makes a false representation, and (b) intends by making the representation (i) to make a gain for himself or another

(2) A representation is false if - (a) it is untrue or misleading, and
(b) the person making it knows that it is, or might be, untrue or misleading.
(3) "Representation" means any representation as to fact or law..."

•  Malicious Communications Act 1988

•  Protection from Harassment Act 1997

•  Theft Act 1968 - S.21 Blackmail

Also of consideration in my above assessment is that Mr Jeremy Hershkorn had claimed very comprehensive knowledge of the details of my case - as he wrote to my website Host that "all the allegations contained in [my] website are not true" (My Diary 5 February 2007 )

(The above 'alleged' breaches are to be added to the other breaches of statutes at the time of the so-called "notice" of 10 February 2006 - as summarised above...and considerably more subsequent to these events)

Back to list

(4) Well, the Law Society of England and Wales - yet again - disagreed with me...

While I found the conduct of Portner and Jaskel in relation to the 10 February 2006 "notice" absolutely outrageous, considering my very extensive first-hand experience with the Law Society (i.e. my complaint against Cawdery Kaye & Taylor and Piper Smith Basham, and follow-up involving the Legal Services Ombudsman ) I saw no point filing a complaint against Portner and Jaskel.

Well, the 16 February 2007 letter, combined with Portner and Jaskel's ongoing bullying and intimidation of my US website Host to get it to close down my website (My Diary 5 February 2007), led me to change my mind. Also, I hoped that since my 2004 complaints a 'new regime' might have been implemented at the Law Society. This turned out to be 'in my dreams'.

I headed my 28 February 2007 letter to Mrs Fiona Woolf, President of the Law Society of England and Wales:

"A firm, Portner and Jaskel, London W1U 2RA, stating that it is “regulated” by your Office, has been sending me fraudulent / deceitful and threatening correspondence, as well as harassing my US Website Host provider"

and provided 14 enclosures as supporting evidence. I conclude by asking Mrs Woolf "to take appropriate actions against your member in relation to the matters raised in this letter"

It led to the 2 March 2007 reply that the handling of complaints against solicitors is now with the Legal Complaints Service, and that it operates "independently of the Law Society". I had my doubts about this claim - and I was, yet again, proven to be right.

This was followed by a 12 March 2007 (1.1MB) letter from the Legal Complaints Service (LCS), as well as guidance leaflet (also attached). The letter states that it will determine whether it "can help with your concerns".

(NB: I noted that the LCS is at the same address as the Law Society's previous "Consumer Complaints Service" to which I addressed, for example, my complaint of 20 December 2004 against Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor - as can be seen in my covering letter of the same date.

The "Consumer Complaints Service" was a renaming from "Office for the Supervision of Solicitors" (which was also at the same address) - as can be seen when I filed my 16 March 2004 complaint against Piper Smith Basham: # 4, # 5 and # 6 (i.e. nine months previously) )

As can be seen from the LCS's letterhead and booklet, its proposition is defined as"Resolving complaints about solicitors". I thought: Makes a change from its predecessors I came to view - based on my very comprehensive first-hand experience - as "Obstructing complaints".

Back to list

(5) ...in the process demonstrating approval of solicitors: threatening members of the public with bankruptcy and of taking their property away for non-payment of monies to a company they have never heard of; issuing fraudulent documents; making false accusations to a third party against a member of the public

I received a 30 March 2007 letter from the Solicitors Regulation Authority. I had no idea that this was a follow-up to the 12 March 2007 acknowledgement from the Legal Complaints Service - and the 30 March 2007 does not provide any explanation, other than state:

"Regulating the profession. Your report about Portner & Jaskel. I write further to previous correspondence in respect of this matter"

The pre-printed text at the bottom of the page reads "The independent (NB!!!) regulatory body of the Law Society of England & Wales"

This 'information sheet' was enclosed with the letter. It states: "How we deal with concerns in the Conduct Assessment and Investigation Unit (from people who are not clients)". It continues:

The Conduct Assessment and Investigation Unit is part of the Compliance Directorate of the Solicitors Regulation Authority"

What are all these names? What happened to the Legal Complaints Service? Vanished into thin air?

Other extracts from the 'information sheet' - on page 1:

"Our aim is to regulate the solicitors' profession effectively. So, we welcome concerns about solicitors' behaviour (conduct) as this helps us to regulate properly.

lf you are concerned about the way someone else's solicitor has behaved, we can investigate if there is clear evidence that the solicitor has broken the rules of professional misconduct. (These rules are to do with the standard of behaviour of solicitors.)

We assess the reports of misconduct and identify any possible instances when the rules which govern the professional conduct of solicitors are broken"

Doesn't that sound reassuring to the public?

The rest of it announces the content of the letter:

This assessment may also find that the conduct rules were not broken...The reasons for this may be:

  • it is clear that no rule has been broken
  • there is no clear evidence to support the allegations of misconduct"

"In your particular case, the caseworker decided that your report of misconduct fell into one of the categories listed above. We will not be investigating your report any further"

Oh dear! What does the 30 March 2007 letter say?

"Our objective is to regulate solicitors in the interests of the public and users of legal services. All the information we receive as regulator of the profession is useful. Our powers enable us to discipline solicitors for misconduct (e.g. to reprimand them) and to place controls on how they practise"

Doesn't that sound reassuring as well to members of the public?

"Please note that we do not award compensation or provide other financial redress"

Who does if you, as a member of the public, have been the victim of misconduct from a solicitor?

Back to list

(5.1) In relation to my complaint that Portner and Jaskel sent me a letter, dated 16 February 2007:

(1) in the name of a company I have never heard of,

(2) threatening me with bankruptcy proceedings if I failed to immediately pay the sum of £8,937 (US$15,800) which this company, unknown to me, claimed I owed

(3) threatening me with the loss of my flat

(4) stating that it was in the process of "preparing proceedings in order to avoid any delay" and that "costs" were already being clocked-up against me

The Solicitors Regulation Authority's reply is:

"I have considered the information that you have provided and I am unable to conclude that there has been any breach of the rules in this matter. Portner & Jaskel are clearly acting on the instructions of their client in this matter"

"Acting on the instructions of their client". This is a repeat of the reply I had from the Law Society following my 20 December 2004 complaint against Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor. Indeed, in its 8 February 2005 letter, it stated, in relation to:

•  my complaint (under 1.1.1.1) that "CKFT acted fraudulently, with deceit, taking unfair advantage", it replied: "As you will be aware, a solicitor is required to act upon his/her client's instructions and in his/her client's best interest" (A)

•  my complaint (under 1.1.2.2) that "CKFT demanded from me monies that were not due and payable", it replied "....CKFT on a client's instructions were at liberty to issue proceedings"

• my complaint (under 1.1.3.2) that "CKFT refuted my defence", it replied "in refuting your defence CKFT would have been relying upon their client's instructions" (A)

(A) 'Funny' how the Law Society did not hold this view in relation to my 16 March 2004 complaint against my then solicitors, Piper Smith & Basham.

Why the 'double standard'? Why is it that Mr Ladsky's advisors have 'carte blanche' to do exactly as they please in answering his dictates - while I have evidently no right to expect my legal 'advisors' to deal with me as per the Solicitors Code of Conduct?

My 19 February 2005 reply to the Law Society was (point 2 - and ditto under points 14 and 18)

"Your conclusion suggests that, if for example, Mr Ladsky instructs Mr Silverstone and/or Ms Salim to shoot you because he is unhappy with the reply you have provided to my complaint against CKFT, they would be under a duty to do so. This, to me, is the logical extension of your position"

The same reply applies to the comment from the Solicitors Regulation Authority.

This latest reply, added to those I received to my complaints to the Law Society in 2004 and 2005 lead me to conclude that...

...SOME solicitors are robots...

...with extremely basic - 'Law Society endorsed' - programming

As to the rest, to quote from The Guardian, 6 March 2007, "A glut of barristers at Westminster has led to a crackdown on dissent", "...some of them are able to perform a passable impression of human beings"

The 30 March 2007 letter from the Solicitors Regulation Authority continues with:

"They are entitled to take a robust approach..." (NB: Law Society euphemism for solicitors ignoring members of the public statutory rights, including Human Rights!)

"... and advise you of the steps that their client is able to take if payment is not made" (YEP! THAT'S WHAT IT SAYS !)

"There is no misconduct in them doing so (NB!!!) and I do not consider that the letter is either threatening or that it amounts to harassment. I will not be pursuing this issue further"

In other words: The "independent from the Law Society" Solicitors Regulation Authority approves of solicitors threatening members of the public with bankruptcy proceedings and with taking their flat away for non-payment of monies to a company they have never heard of. UNBELIEVABLE! From which cave have these people crawled out of?

In relation to the comment "... I do not consider that the letter is either threatening or that it amounts to harassment ":

I wish the caseworker at the Solicitors Regulation Authority to, one day, find himself at the receiving end of a letter unlawfully threatening him with bankruptcy. Let him see whether or not it feels "threatening".

My message to him: if finding yourself in this situation causes you so much stress that you end-up fainting, I can - from my personal experience on 19 June 2005 - recommend St Thomas hospital. I am sure it will come to you as a surprise but: YES, going through the relentless, horrendous nightmare I have been going through since 2002 IS AFFECTING MY HEALTH.

In - my non-lawyer opinion - I hold the view that Portner and Jaskel and Mr Andrew Ladsky have committed offences against me under the Malicious Communications Act 1988 and the Protection from Harassment Act 1997

Back to list

(5.2) In relation to my complaint that Portner and Jaskel sent me the fraudulent and deceitful so-called "Notice of first refusal" (detailed above)

The Solicitors Regulation Authority replied:

"I have considered the information regarding this issue and I am unable to take the matter further.

lt is clear that this issue was concluded in 2006. So that we are able to carry out a fair investigation (NB!!!), we apply time limits to reports of professional misconduct. We normally only consider reports to misconduct if they are made to us within six months of the event in question.

lf we are contacted more than six months later, we may decide not to investigate"

"There do not seem to be any special circumstances to persuade us to investigate this matter" (YEP! THAT'S WHAT IT SAYS !) "I will not be taking any further action on this issue"

"...we may decide not to investigate"

I read this as: "We 'might' have decided to investigate but, seeing that it's you.......(?) woman (?).....(?), who has dared set-up a website exposing all the events in your case, we are not going to do it. So...

"lf you consider that certain Acts of Parliament have been breached then those are legal issues for the courts to consider"

Here we go again: the game of being sent from 'pillar to post'

"You will need to take independent legal advice as to what steps you can take to remedy the position"

Ho! Am I the Law Society's "regulatory body" - meant to police the conduct of solicitors - as I was apparently meant to under its previous name?

Just as well the Solicitors Regulation Authority started its letter with: "Our objective is to regulate solicitors in the interests of the public and users of legal services" !

Back to list

(5.3) In relation to my complaint that Portner and Jaskel has been harassing my US Website Host

"I have considered this issue and again it is clear that the firm are acting on the instructions of and in the best interests of their client"

Here we go again: "on instructions from their client"!

In - my non-lawyer opinion - I hold the view that Portner and Jaskel and Mr Andrew Ladsky have committed offences against me and my website Host under the Malicious Communications Act 1988 and the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. Furthermore, against me, also under the Defamation Act 1996

And the conclusion from the Solicitors Regulation Authority:

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

HOORAY FOR SELF-REGULATION!

(NB: Given the reply, I opted to do some research on the Solicitors Regulation Authority, as well as on the Legal Complaints Service. See My Diary 12 April 2007)

Fair minded, reasonable visitor to the site: I give the 16 February 2007 letter from Mr Jeremy Hershkorn (point # 3, above), the events relating to the 10 February 2006 "notice" (point # 1, above)- and the 30 March 2007 reply from the Law Society...

...as further evidence in support of my summary for the section on 'Lawyers, Courts & Legal Services Ombudsman' : "The Wild West"

Other examples of malpractice / injustice suffered at the hands of the legal sector:

Legal Bullies - http://www.legalbullies.co.uk

Unjustis - http://www.unjustis.co.uk

And, unfortunately, it's not any better in Scotland: 'Scotland Against Crooked Lawyers' (SACL) (http://www.sacl.info) (In My Diary 3 March 2007 I also refer to the case of a Scottish lawyer who ended being ostracised by the Scottish Law Society, apparently, for taking on cases of injustice) (The SACL website also provides links to other sites e.g. Dunblane Unburied (http://www.dunblaneunburied.tk) - referred to in My Diary 3 March 2007).

And this website relates to Ireland: Crooked Lawyers - http://www.crookedlawyers.com

With this attitude from 'so-called' regulatory bodies, it is no surprise to see what took place subsequently with Portner and Jaskel - as detailed in the remainder of this section.

In My Diary - 12 April 2007, at the end of the entry I quoted a comment from a Reader of The Times, 16 April 2007: ""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!"

In - my non-lawyer opinion - I hold the view that Portner and Jaskel has committed offences against me and my website Host under: the Malicious Communications Act 1988 and the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. Furthermore, against me, also under the Defamation Act 1996

Back to list

(6) Mr Jeremy Hershkorn's reply to my 25 February 2007 letter querying the identity of "Rootstock Overseas Corp" (in reply to his 16 February 2007 letter in which, among other, he threatened me with bankruptcy proceedings) was to file a fraudulent claim against me in West London County Court for £10,357 (US$18,262) - under a Statement of Truth

'Fraudulent': see below from point # 29

(6.1) Three names on the claim, including two being described as my "landlord" / "lessor" - and no address for the "claimant"

On 9 March 2007, I took delivery of a West London County Court claim, 7WL 00675, filed on 27 February 2007 by Portner and Jaskel, giving "Roostock Overseas Corp" as the name for the "Claimant" (instead of "Rootstock") - which it describes as "the lessor" i.e. 'landlord' for my flat.

As related earlier on in this section, this was news to me as I had never heard of "Rootstock", nor indeed "Roostock".

The Particulars of Claim state: "Landlord: Steel Services Ltd" . This is the entity I have been told since 1996 is my 'landlord'.

In addition to West London County Court accepting a claim on which the name of the claimant is different from that listed on the Particulars of Claim, it appears to have also failed to ensure compliance with Civil Procedure Rules - Part 16 - Statements of Case - Practice Direction (*)

"2.2 The claim form must include an address at which the claimant resides or carries on business. This paragraph applies even though the claimant’s address for service is the business address of his solicitor"

(*) Sourced from the website of the then Department for Constitutional Affairs, on 14 March 2007

In addition to being in the fascinating position of having two 'landlords', I also noted a third name on the claim: Sloan Development. It can be seen in the directory path at the bottom of the page on the claim: "G:\Bulstrode\data\docs\S\23208 - Sloan Development\002 Miscellaneous Matters\Oyez Forms\Claim Form - Ms N"

Sloan Development is discussed under Headlessors # 2 , # 6 and Owners identity # 3 , # 4. Among others, it was party - with 'Steel Services' - in the 5 August 2005 transaction on the lease for the penthouse flat.

Back to list

(6.2) In breach of Civil Procedure Rules, no evidence of my 'contractual obligation' was supplied with the claim - leading me to fear a repeat of the situation with the 29 November 2002 claim from 'Steel Services'

The claimed sum of £10,357 (US$18,262) is made-up :

  • "£8,937.28 for charges" (US$15,759) - hence, the same amount as demanded in the 16 February 2007 letter from Mr Jeremy Hershkorn in which he threatened me with bankruptcy if I failed to immediately pay this sum (see point 3, above) ;
  • "£1,069.31 of interest" (US$1,885);
  • " £250 court fee" (US$440) , and
  • "£100 of solicitor’s costs" (US$176)
  • (NB: I continue to use the exchange rate from the time of setting-up the site: £=US$1.76329)

The section ‘Brief details of claim’ states: “Non payment of monies due under a lease dated 10th March 1986” while, under the ‘Particulars of Claim’, the third paragraph states: “Under the terms of the lease dated 10th March 1986, the Defendant covenanted to pay the Claimant all service and other charges as they fell due. The Claimant will refer to the said lease for its full terms and effect”

In - my non-lawyer opinion - I hold the view that Portner and Jaskel has committed an offence against me under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 and the Fraud Act 2006

Portner and Jaskel did NOT supply a copy of my lease i.e. 'contractual obligation' with the claim. WHY NOT? This in in breach of Civil Procedure Rules - Part 16 - Statements of Case - Practice Direction (*)

"7.3 Where a claim is based upon a written agreement (1) a copy of the contract or documents constituting the agreement should be attached to or served with the particulars of claim and the original(s) should be available at the hearing"

(*) Sourced from the website of the then Department for Constitutional Affairs, on 14 March 2007

Considering the statement "the Defendant covenanted to pay the Claimant all service and other charges as they fell due" it suggested to me an intention to supply a lease that had the same terms as the lease, 'apparently for flat 23, that was supplied with the 29 November 2002 West London County Court claim, WL 203 537 (1.1MB) - FALSELY claiming that it was representative of my lease. (See West London County Court # 3 ; Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor # 6.7 )

It certainly was a 'very convenient lease' as Clause (2)(2)(c)(i) states "The amount of Service Charge payable by the Lessee for each financial year of the Lessor shall be a fair proportion (to be determined by and at the sole discretion of the Lessor)..." (Would a leaseholder sign up to that?)

Back to list

(6.3) Mr Jeremy Hershkorn signed the 27 February 2007 claim under a Statement of Truth - in spite of claiming very comprehensive knowledge of the details of my case - as he wrote to my website Host that "all the allegations contained in [my] website are not true"

Civil Procedure Rules - Part 22 - Statements of Truth - Practice Direction (*) states :

"3.7 Where a party is legally represented, the legal representative may sign the statement of truth on his behalf. The statement signed by the legal representative will refer to the client’s belief, not his own"

"3.8 Where a legal representative has signed a statement of truth, his signature will be taken by the court as his statement:"

"(3) that before signing he had informed the client of the possible consequences to the client if it should subsequently appear that the client did not have an honest belief in the truth of those facts (see rule 32.14)"

Rule 32.14 False statements (*) : (1) Proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against a person if he makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth"

(*) Sourced from the website of the then Department for Constitutional Affairs, on 14 March 2007

Quite clearly, Mr Jeremy Hershkorn had familiarised himself with the details of my case in considerable depth as, in the process of harassing my website Host over a six-week period, from mid-January 2007, to get my Host to close down my site, he wrote:

"The first and opening page of the website is clearly defamatory and untrue as is the rest of the pages referred to and linked to the website you host. By way of example, our client has certainly not "swindled £7 million (US$12 million)" or indeed any other sum, and the allegations contained in the remainder of the website are untrue"

Hence, Mr Jeremy Hershkorn cannot claim that he did not have very comprehensive knowledge of my case at the time he filed the 27 February 2007 claim against me.

Of course, Mr Hershkorn did not provide any evidence in support of his accusations.

In - my non-lawyer opinion - I hold the view that Portner and Jaskel has committed offences against me and my website Host under the Malicious Communications Act 1988 and the Protection from Harassment Act 1997

Well, here is my latest update which provides a good summary of events and issues: the 12 September 2007 "Defence & Counterclaim" I filed in West London County Court. As I will cover later on, at the time of writing in mid-December 2007, Portner and Jaskel has (like West London County Court) gone into 'silent mode' since the end of September 2007. I wonder why - considering the above claims made by Mr Jeremy Hershkorn to my website Host.

For further proof that the claim against me is FRAUDULENT, see point # 17 (Portner falsely claimed that it had not received my 3 May 2007 Skeleton Argument) and point # 24 below (for lack of supporting evidence)

Back to list

(7) Two days after the claim was filed, Martin Russell Jones drew-up an invoice, dated 1 March 2007, that is £249 (US$440) LESS than the claim - and did this in the name of "Landlord: Steel Services Ltd" - in spite of this entity having apparently disposed of its title to "Roostock Overseas Corp", 10 months previously

The 1 March 2007 invoice from Martin Russell Jones states a "Brought forward balance" of £8,688 (US$15,300) v. the Particulars of Claim - also supplied by Martin Russell Jones to Portner and Jaskel - that state £8,937 (US$15,760). Hence, in the space of 48 hours, the amount I am 'deemed' to owe was inexplicably reduced by £249 (US$440)

Nothing else was supplied, other than this document in relation to the electricity charge of £23.80. (This amount is not included on the 27 February 2007 claim).

Of particular note: the 1 March 2007 invoice from Martin Russell Jones states: "Landlord: Steel Services" According to Mr Ahmet Jaffer and the Land Registry title he supplied me with in his 12 July 2007 correspondence, Steel Services had disposed of its title to Roostock Overseas Corp on 24 May 2006 i.e. 10 months previously (see also below point # 15)

Back to list

(8) On 4 April 2007, I sent WLCC my Evidence in support of my application contesting the court's jurisdiction

See WLCC # 3

(9) In the same, 4 April 2007 document, I also made a second application: "An extended Civil Restraint Order against the Landlord"

See WLCC # 4

(10) On 3 May 2007 I filed my Skeleton Argument in WLCC

See WLCC # 5

(11) Filing of the Skeleton Argument was in preparation for a hearing set by WLCC for 8 May 2007. With one working day to the hearing, WLCC cancelled it following communication from Mr Jeremy Hershkorn - and rescheduled it for 24 August 2007 i.e. three-and-half months later

See WLCC # 6 for its rescheduling of the hearing during the month of August, which is the holiday period - and the 24th of August was a Friday - before a bank holiday (!!!)

Back to list

(12) WLCC supplied a 3 April 2007 Notice to Portner and Jaskel falsely stating that I "intend to defend part of the claim"

While, on Saturday 5 May 2007 I had not received any communication from WLCC, I had two letters from Mr Jeremy Hershkorn, Portner and Jaskel waiting for me at my PO Box.

The first one, dated 1 May 2007, is to copy me on what he had sent to West London County Court.

It comprises of a letter dated 1 May 2007 stating that he "only just received today"` the 19 April 2007 WLCC order - which he attached, having written - himself - on it "Received 1/05/2007".

Yeah, right!`I receive it on Saturday 28 April, but the solicitors that filed the claim against me, receive it two working days later!! ((As can be seen from Mr Hershkorn's letter to WLCC, solicitors and the courts have a DX system to communicate between each other)

Mr Hershkorn continues: "We wish to bring to the Court's immediate attention that apart from receiving Notice that an Acknowledgement of Service has been filed by the Defendant dated 3'" April 2007..."

GET READY FOR THIS ONE! "...(a copy of which we enclose)..." Look at what the West London County Court 3 April 2007 "Notice that acknowledgement of service has been filed" says:

"The defendant responded to the claim indicating an intention to defend part of the claim.

The defendant has 28 days from the date of service of the claim form with particulars of claim, or of the particulars of claim to file a defence"

How much bigger did I need to make the cross on the 22 March 2007 Acknowledgement of Service when I selected option #3 "I intend to contest jurisdiction"?

In the fourth box, at the top of the form, I underlined - in red : "wish to contest the court's jurisdiction"

NOBODY CAN FAIL TO SEE THIS.

Back to list

(13) The advantage of this to Mr Jeremy Hershkorn, Portner and Jaskel, was the ability to claim that he had "not received a defence" from me - thereby providing a reason for asking that the 8 May 2007 hearing be cancelled - and prior to this - filing an application for a judgement to be issued against me

In his 1 May 2007 letter to WLCC, Mr Jeremy Hershkorn states:

"...we have not received anything further from the Defendant or the Court. Neither have we received a copy of the Defendant's application to contest the jurisdiction or any evidence in support, nor a copy of the Defendant's Defence"

My reply to this is: not my problem. Firstly, because it was not I who did not capture what I had written on the Acknowledgment of Service. Secondly, the guidance notes supplied with the claim by WLCC only make a passing reference to contesting the court's jurisdiction. I had to look at the CPR to determine that "an application must be supported by evidence"

As I wrote to Mr Ahmet Jaffer, Portner and Jaskel, in my 30 June 2007 letter when I supplied him with a copy of my 4 April 2007 Evidence in support of my application for contesting the court's jurisdiction: "This lack of information led me to consult the Civil Procedure Rules, Part 11 - "Disputing the court's jurisdiction". It does not stipulate a requirement to serve a copy of the evidence on the other party".

If Mr Jeremy Hershkorn is to be believed: he had not heard anything from WLCC since the 3 April 2007 "Notice that acknowledgement of service has been filed". Some 'very interesting' points to note here:

•  Having received my Acknowledgment of Service on 23 March 2007, WLCC 'apparently' waited until 3 April 2007 to inform Portner and Jaskel.

•  WLCC has the time to supply Portner and Jaskel with a document falsely stating that I "intend to defend part of the claim" - but, since receiving my Application contesting the court's jurisdiction on 5 April 2007 - in the whole month that followed, it has not had the chance to inform Portner and Jaskel - the solicitors that FILED the claim AGAINST ME ???

And of course, Portner and Jaskel did no attempt to contact the court during one month! Yeah, right !

Have I got 'S T U P I D' written on my forehead? (Having just looked in the mirror I can answer that: No!)

OF COURSE PORTNER AND JASKEL HAD BEEN IN CONTACT WITH WLCC DURING THE MONTH OF APRIL: This is evidenced by the 19 April - 26 April 2007 WLCC Order - Point 2: "In view of the defendant's application the claimants request for judgment is refused"

I guess that I should be 'grateful' that WLCC did not accede to Mr Jeremy Hershkorn's demand.

Back to list

(14) The other reason given by Mr Jeremy Hershkorn for asking that the 8 May 2007 hearing be cancelled, is that Portner and Jaskel had received a cheque for £1,069 (US$1,885) falsely claiming that it had been sent "on my behalf"

The person who, with a letter dated 6 April 2007, sent the £1,069.31 cheque is 'Martin', the visitor to my website who sent me the first comment (referred to under My Diary 12 January 2007). I do not know this person. Having thanked him for his initial email, we then exchanged a few emails - as he stated that he "once owned a leasehold flat in a block owned by a company registered abroad and had a few of the same problems you have had".

As can be seen from my email of 9 April 2007 to this person in response to his email of 5 April 2007, I had no knowledge that he had done this:

"You sent a cheque to Portner and Jaskel? Seriously? I am sure you must be serious. Martin you are very kind but, I do NOT owe the money these corrupt solicitors and their client claim I owe.

While I can prove, among others, from the document I sent to the court that I most definitely do NOT admit to owing the amounts claimed - and therefore I had no knowledge of what you did, you must contact Portner and Jaskel and say that you are going to stop the cheque. I don't know what you wrote to Portner and Jaskel but, you must explain that you did this of your own bat"

As can also be seen from my previous email to him of 21 March 2007, I made it abundantly clear by, among others, providing various URLs to my website, that I had a £6,100 credit. I also wrote:

"As I explained e.g. under 9 March 2007, not only have they never acknowledged my correspondence, out of what can only be described as vengeance, they have bombarded me with fraudulent upon fraudulent invoices since the Consent Order"

The visitor never replied to my 9 April 2007 email.

(NB: Considering the above events, I find the whole episode with this visitor to the site rather 'strange' and more to the point, view it as a set-up - as the sum offered 'happens to be' the full amount of interest claimed in the 27 February 2007 claim - thereby implying that I owed all of the sums claimed.) (This is in addition to providing Portner and its client with the opportunity to ask for cancellation of the 8 May 2007 hearing and WLCC with 'setting-up', more than 4 months later, the 24 August 2007 hearing (WLCC # 11)

I provided a reply to Mr Ahmet Jaffer in my 30 June 2007 letter

Mr Jeremy Hershkorn concluded his 1 May 2007 letter to West London County Court:

"In the circumstances, we would be grateful if you would please arrange for the hearing on the 8th May 2007 to be adjourned to a future date and for further directions to be given for the service of evidence..." etc.

"We thank you for your assistance in this matter..."

How about: "We are profusely grateful for your unfailing assistance to our client?" (considering also events in 2002 - 2004) (I summarised some of the events in my 5 December 2007 letter to HMCS Customer Service)

As to Mr Jeremy Hershkorn's second letter, it is dated 4 May 2007, and states among others:

"...we have been informed by telephone today (Oh really?) that the hearing on 8th May 2007 has been adjourned..."

Oh yeah! "Upon the Courts own motion. The Court has made this order of its own initiative without a hearing"

Back to list

(15) Five months after the 16 February 2007 threat of bankruptcy and the 27 February 2007 claim - both compiled by Mr Jeremy Hershkorn in the name of "Rootstock Overseas Corp" (claim states "Roostock") I finally received 'some' information on the identity of this company - which further adds to the number of major issues

In my 30 June 2007 letter to Mr Ahmet Jaffer, on which I copied WLCC, I wrote: "in my 25 February 2007 letter to Mr Jeremy Hershkorn, I asked for an explanation as to the identity of "Roostock Overseas Corp" as I had never heard of it before. To date I have had no reply, or acknowledgment"

It (finally) led Mr Ahmet Jaffer to reply in his 12 July 2007: We notified you by our letter of 27th February 2007 that the title to the premises was transferred from Steel Services Limited to our clients, Rootstock Overseas Corp on the 24th May 2006"

I never received this communication. In my 12 August 2007 reply, I asked Mr Ahmet Jaffer to supply me with a copy of the correspondence he claimed had been sent to me. He totally ignored my request = this is, yet again, another lie by Portner and Jaskel.

With his letter, Mr Jaffer attached a Land Registry title for "Rootstock Overseas Corp" describing it as having gained ownership of the title "from Steel Services", for £120,000 (US$212,000), on 24 May 2006, and to being domiciled in Panama (NB: A similar type of jurisdiction to the British Virgin Islands - see Owners identity for companies domiciled there).

It is rather 'interesting' to note that the "transferor" of the title is "Steel Services" - given that Steel Services was a "lessee" of Lavagna Enterprises (Headlessors # 3, # 4 , # 5 ).

My explanation: all these 'paper companies' have the same person trying to hide behind them: Mr Andrew Ladsky (Headlessor # 5 ; # 7 ; Owners identity ; Directorships ; Freehold ownership ; BVI registration ) ('Maybe' the creation of Lavagna Enterprises as a superior headlessor was done for the purpose of borrowing money?)

It led me to raise a number of points / ask a number of questions in my 12 August 2007 reply:

  • The fact that I had not been offered first refusal - amounting to a criminal offence under Section 10A of the Landlord & Tenant Act 1987. I pointed out that, in case he thought of highlighting it, the so-called 10 February 2006 "notice" sent by Mr Daniel Broughton could not be regarded as compliance as it contained false and misleading information - as I wrote in my letter to him of 30 April 2006 - see point 1 above for detail
  • The fact that Steel Services (Headlessors # 1 ) had become a 'lessee' of Lavagna Enterprises in early 2006 (Headlessors # 2 ). Consequently, "What is the exact definition of the premises?" (NB: In his 12 July 2007 letter Mr Ahmet Jaffer wrote: "the title to the premises..."
  • Another of my point was: "As you claim that the change of ownership took place on 24 May 2006, how do you explain that the Particulars of Claim – which are in the name of “Landlord: Steel Services” - include sums of monies for periods up to 24 December 2006 i.e. seven months post the 24 May 2006 date?"

Actually, three months into year 2007, the 1 March 2007 invoice from Martin Russell Jones also states: "Landlord: Steel Services" (!!!)

For a detailed assessment of the issues, see my 12 September 2007 "Defence & Counterclaim"

In my 12 August 2007 letter, I took the opportunity to write: "your firm’s conduct and that of your client is of the most despicable" - which I followed by relating some of the past events.

As Portner and Jaskel had positioned itself as a go-between with Martin Russell Jones in its 16 February 2007 letter (admittedly, "in relation to arrears"), in the penultimate part of my letter, I reported the latest malicious leak in July 2007 - and supplied photographs. Needless to say that there was no follow-up.

In the last part, I confirmed that I would be seeking "my costs on an indemnity basis" and would "reiterate my request to WLCC for a Restraining Order against your client"

I confirmed this again in my 22 August 2007 letter to Mr Jaffer to supply him with my costs - in anticipation of the 24 August 2007 hearing.

Back to list

 

(16) I only received a copy of "Rootstock"'s Skeleton Argument (produced by a barrister) less than 48 hours before the 24 August 2007 hearing - in spite of asking Mr Ahmet Jaffer on two occasions - each time copying WLCC - and writing two separate letters to WLCC asking for its assistance - on which I, likewise, copied Mr Jaffer. (By contrast, Portner and Jaskel took possession of my Skeleton Argument on 4 May 2007)

These letters are:

•  30 June 2007 to Mr Jaffer, copied to WLCC: "You have had my skeleton argument since 4 May 2007. I require that you provide me with your skeleton argument within seven days of receipt of this letter, so that I can make my own preparations for the forthcoming court hearing"

•  12 August 2007 to Mr Jaffer, copied to WLCC:" URGENT AND IMMEDIATE ATTENTION - You have failed to provide me with your Skeleton Argument. In my attached letter of 12 August, I have asked the court's assistance in ensuring you send me your Skeleton Argument by 16 August 2007. I remind you that you are in possession of my Skeleton Argument since 4 May i.e. for more than three months. Your failure to provide me with the requested information adds weight to my – amply supported position - that your client’s claim against me is dishonest and vexatious."

•  12 August 2007 to WLCC, copied to Mr Jaffer: Headed: "Your assistance in getting the skeleton argument from Portner and Jaskel". I wrote: "I wish to bring to your attention the fact that Portner and Jaskel has so far failed to supply me with its skeleton argument, and by the same token, evidence in support of its client’s claim against me. By contrast, it received my skeleton argument on 4 May 2007 i.e. more than three months ago.

The hearing is scheduled for 24 August 2007. Clearly, non-provision of the skeleton argument puts me in a highly unfair and very disadvantageous position in relation to the hearing.

Hence, Portner and Jaskel is in breach of its legal obligations under Section 1.3 of the CPR, “Duty of the parties: The parties are required to help the court to further the overriding objective“"

•  16 August 2007 fax to WLCC, copied to Mr Jaffer: "One week to the 24 August 2007 hearing and Portner and Jaskel has not supplied me with its skeleton argument. Yet, it has now been in possession of my skeleton argument for three and half months (since 4 May 2007)

The unwillingness to date to provide the requested information - including failure to comply with your court’s order of 26 April 2007 - provide overwhelming support to my position that the claim against me is dishonest and vexatious. (Hence, a repeat of Steel Services Ltd claim filed against me in your court in November 2002).

Concurrently, this conduct provides evidence that the claim is a waste of court time, as well as my time. Quite clearly, this breach of the rules of court is intended to gain an unfair advantage and calculated to inhibit your court from furthering the overriding objective"

Eventually, sometime on Wednesday 22 August 2007, a two-page “Skeleton argument on behalf of the Claimant for hearing on 24 August 2007” produced by Mr Greg Williams of 2 Gray’s Inn Square Chambers, and attached covering letter from Mr Ahmet Jaffer of Portner and Jaskel were delivered by courier to my PO Box address. Hence, less than 48 hours before the hearing (on 24 August 2007) - and three-and-half months after it had received mine

As I was not living near my PO Box at the time, I tended to make relatively infrequent visits. Considering the timing of the delivery, it is my guess that Mr Ahmet Jaffer and his client were relying on my not going to my PO Box, so close to the hearing - considering, among others, the lack of response to my above letters. But, I listened to my 'internal radar'. As one of my friends said: "that's the kind of trick you would expect from them" Indeed!

YES, "Rootstock Overseas Corp" and its solicitors, Portner and Jaskel, decided to employ a barrister to face me... a non-lawyer! :-) (I have obviously progressed since 2002-2004 when the opponent was' just' a solicitor) (Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor)

Back to list

(17) "Rootstock"'s 22 August 2007 Skeleton Argument, produced by Mr Greg Williams, 2 Gray's Inn Square Chambers, did not reply to mine - by LYING that it had not received my 3 May 2007 Skeleton Argument - and therefore, also lied about me to WLCC

Point 5 of Rootstock Skeleton argument states “The Claimant has not received a copy of the Defendant’s skeleton argument in support of her application. The Defendant asserts in correspondence that the Claimant has had her skeleton argument since 4 May”

Damn right it had received it - as I proved in my 22 August 2007 fax to WLCC by attaching a copy of the printscreen of the Royal Mail website confirming that my document had been delivered. I tried to also send the fax to Portner and Jaskel but, as its fax machine 'appeared' to not work, I ended-up having it biked over.

Consider as well: 'if' it were true that Portner and Jaskel had not received my Skeleton Argument, why wait until 22 August to say so? As evidenced by my four letters detailed under the previous point, since 30th June I had been saying to Mr Ahmet Jaffer that he had been in possession of my Skeleton Argument since 4 May 2007.

At the 24 August 2007 WLCC hearing, Mr Greg Williams, barrister, 2 Gray's Inn Square Chambers, asked me to show him the original post office receipts - which, of course, I had - knowing the evil, morally depraved mob I am dealing with.

Their lie provides overwhelming support to my position that the claim against me is FRAUDULENT, and the lack of supporting evidence further endorses my position - see