Email this site to a contact

 

I view Jeremy Hershkorn, Ahmet Jaffer and Daniel Broughton as evil, corrupt, amoral, sociopathic individuals - conduct endorsed by the Law Society, Her Majesty's West London County Court, Supreme Court Costs Office - and ultimately by the Ministry of (In)Justice

portner / portner and jaskel - at Jefferson House, 11 Basil St, London SW3 1AX - and law society

 

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

 

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

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

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

 

From June/July 2008 Portner and Jaskel LLP "trade[d]" under 'Portner'.

 

Sections list (below)

 

In reading this page on Portner and Jaskel and the Law Society 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 others in his gang of racketeers (1) that I (and fellow leaseholders) would be made to pay for:

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

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

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

Back of Jefferson House in July 2002...

...and in September 2005

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

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

...that was: "categorically NOT going to be built" (Brian Gale, MRICS, 13.12.02 "Expert Witness" report to the then London LVT),

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 Portner, and in particular, the thoroughly corrupt, amoral, evil, vampiric, extremely cruel, vicious, sadistic and perverse monsters and racketeers - Jeremy Hershkorn, Ahmet Jaffer and Daniel Broughton, as well as the Law Society

joined the other assassins- in saying:

Yes! Of course, no problem! We'll do absolutely anything for money!

Because...

 

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

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

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

I add that only the corruptible can be corrupted.

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

 

Sections

(NOTE, above, browser set-up)

 

  C O M M E N T S

 

Introduction

(Snapshot under 'Advisors to Jefferson House)

Question: If you are solicitors who have had their criminal activities exposed in the public domain (because your 'regulator', the Law Society, turns a 'blind eye and a deaf ear' to ALL malpractice) (# 4 and # 5 , below ; Doc library # 2): how do you attempt to hide what you have done and ensure you cannot be individually exposed in future - allowing you to continue in your fraudulent ways?

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 did in June/July 2008: contrast its 01.08.08 and 06.06.08 letters.

It will cut down the costs of what appears to be a high turnover of staff: I counted 5 reprints in 17 months (see list of names in the top, right hand corner): 10.02.06 ; 03.05.06 ; 16.02.07 ; 12.07.07 ; 07.02.08

From June/July 2008 Portner and Jaskel LLP "trade[d]" under 'Portner'.

Client and contacts

Jeremy Hershkorn confirmed in his 03.10.06 letter to my then website host, that "his client [was] Andrew Ladsky" (# 2, below). (Advisors to Jefferson House ; Directorships ; Owners identity ; Headlessors ; Freeholder).

In spite of having Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor (CKFT) as the nominated solicitors for 'Steel Services' on the Land Registry Title (NGL 373 333) (at 22 Feb 06), Portner was also acting for 'Steel Services' - at least, in relation to me (# 1, below).

I first came across this firm of mafia solicitors and their bullying, intimidation and extortion tactics in 2002, when it viciously 'attacked' the then Elderly Resident at Jefferson House.

Individuals I had contact with are:

JEREMY HERSHKORN, who threatened me with "bankruptcy proceedings, forfeiture and costs" (# 3 below) (copy of definition of 'forfeiture'), and proceeded with filing the 27 Feb 07 fraudulent claim against me (# 6, below) in Her Majesty's West London County Court (Overview # 11).

(A public announcement indicated that, around mid-May 07, Hershkorn left Portner and Jaskel to join another firm of solicitors, Magrath & Co, 66/67 Newman St, London W1T 3EQ)

AHMET JAFFER, Portner and Jaskel, who took over from Jeremy Hershkorn, and remained the main contact.

DANIEL BROUGHTON, Portner and Jaskel - in relation to the 10 Fe 06 so-called "Notice of first refusal" - see summary, # 1, below, and for more detail: Notices by landlord # 3 , My Diary 18 Feb 06.

In the light of my experience with the above 3 individuals (added to what they did to the Elderly Resident) - I view them as thoroughly evil, extremely cruel, vicious, sadistic, corrupt, amoral, vampiric psychopaths and monsters

= in the image of their client: the Rachman monster Andrew David Ladsky - and fitting in perfectly with the rest of his gang of racketeers.

ALL are very clearly vermin (I repeat my Comments under Persecution (1)(4)) who get endless enjoyment = sadistic kicks from inflicting as much suffering as they can on their victims. These are very sick individuals.

'Great ambassadors' for the Jewish community that frequently complains of being "victims of antisemitism in society"!...

a claim that attracts heavy state support.

Being in the ideal environment to feed their insatiable craving, as discussed below, under # 4 and # 5, their conduct is, 'of course', endorsed by their 'professional' association, the fertiliser for malpractice, the Law Society.

Further, as also discussed on this page, and summarised under kangaroo courts, in this "fantastically corrupt", worse than Wild West environment, it has also been actively endorsed and supported by:

some of Her Majesty's Judiciaries in West London County Court (Overview # 11) ; one of her Deputy Masters, in the Supreme Court Costs Office (Overview # 12), and ultimately, by the Ministry of (In)Justice.

(= Same as for Lanny Silverstone and Ayesha Salim, CKFT, as well as Richard Twyman and Lisa McLean, Piper Smith Watton - (Doc library # 2 ; Summary of events ; Overview Notes # 4)).

Back to list

Summary of events - Portner (and Jaskel) - 2006-09:

(Some snapshots as well under 'Advisors to Jefferson House' - Portner and Jaskel)

(See, below, Breaches of the law)

(See Martyn Gerrard for the continuation of the fraudulent demands - and hence, continuation of the criminal psychological harassment)

(1)- My initial contact with Portner and Jaskel was Daniel Broughton sending me a bogus, and therefore fraudulent 10.02.06 so-called "Notice of first refusal" "on behalf of Steel Services" =Ladsky (pt # 1). Clearly, my exposing the fraud, got the Ladsky mafia into a rage, that 'I', with my profile, had 'dared' do this.

(2)- With the aim of gaining the closure of my website - and succeeding - Jeremy Hershkorn-Andrew Ladsky sent a malicious 03.10.06 letter to my then ISP, making totally unsupported, false, scurrilous, libellous accusations against me, and some hilarious claims about Ladsky - and threatened the 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 demanded "your suggestion for damages, which must be substantial" (pt # 2).

They attempted to repeat the same thing with my current website Host - by waging a prolonged campaign of ongoing harassment against my Host (pt # 2) - and, very clearly: failed.

(3)- Incandescent with fury by their failure, Ladsky-Hershkorn sent me a malicious, illegal 16.02.07 letter threatening me with "bankruptcy proceedings, forfeiture [taking the apartment away from me] [copy of definition] and costs" - in the name of "Rootstock Overseas Corp" - a company I had never heard of at the time - if I failed to "pay immediately £8,937" (US$15,800) - for which they falsely claimed they had "enclosed a copy of a statement" (pt # 3) - as subsequently proven (pt # 15).

(Threatening 'bankruptcy' is a typical vampiric, Rachman Ladsky tactic e.g. Residents Association's letter to him).

(4)- In spite of my previous experiences with the Law Society in 2004-05, the ongoing harassment of my Host and the 16.02.07 letter prompted me to file a 28.02.07 complaint (pt # 4), taking the opportunity to add the bogus 10.02.06 "Notice" (pt # 1).

Of course, (typically), and in spite of the claims made (pt # 5) - nothing had changed with the Law Society, as the overall outcome, in its 30.03.07 letter was (another) typical 'Get Lost!: "No misconduct by Portner" (pt # 5.4).

(5)- Ignoring my 25.02.07 reply challenging the 16.02.07 threats, because I had never heard of the company, and no information was enclosed - Ladsky-Hershkorn filed a (fraudulent) 27.02.07 claim (ref. 7WL00675) against me in Her Majesty's West London County Court (pt # 6). Of critical importance - the claim:

  • both claiming to be “my landlord”
  • each claiming a different amount of money from me:
  • £10,356.59 (US$18,260) by "Roostock", and
  • £8,933.28 (US$15,750) by "Steel Services" (pt # 6).

Further: in breach of court rules (CPR) Ladsky-Hershkorn failed to:

  • (1)- supply a copy of my Lease with the claim - while nonetheless stating that the claim was based on it (WLCC # 1.1);
  • (2)- give a business address for each of the claimants - with the objective of ensuring endless hours of perverse, sadistic fun - for all (WLCC # 1.2).

(6)- In my 22.03.07 Acknowledgment of Service, I went to great lengths to highlight the above issues - as can also be seen from the printscreens (WLCC # 2).

Ladsky's 'brothers' and henchmen in Her Majesty's West London County Court ignored it - and continued ignoring it - in spite my raising the issue of the identity of 'my landlord', and hence the issue as to the legality of the claim against me - a total of 11 times over a 16-month period.

(Of note: The 'disapproval' of my action continued in Her Majesty's Supreme Court Costs Office, where Ladsky's other 'brother' Deputy Master Hoffman had the nerve to reprimand me for 'daring' to return pages from the claim with my annotations on them: 30Jan09-pt # 10)..and made me pay for it: 30Jan09-pt # 11).

REASON? Because they were - ALL - hell-bent on using the claim against me as 'retribution' for my 'daring' to stand-up to them: 'the almighty' organized crime mafia.

And they, evil, vampiric, racketeers Andrew Ladsky and Portner, and their equally evil judiciary 'brothers' and other henchmen in Her Majesty's West London County Court sure went for it - over a period of 21 months - by subjecting me to horrendous, ongoing criminal psychological harassment over the whole period - in the process, demonstrating blatant hell-bent determination to secure the claim against me.

(7)- Continuing in the pursuit of their perverse, sadistic kicks, the Ladsky mafia waited 5 months after filing the claim against me, preceded by the malicious 16.02.07 letter, to send me a title that "Steel Services" had transferred its title to "Rootstock Overseas Corp." - which still left many questions unanswered (pt # 15).

(8)- Blatant collusion, conniving and conspiring took place between the Ladsky gang and its henchmen in Her Majesty's West London County Court:

(1)- Issuing a 03.04.07 "Notice that Acknowledgement of Service has been filed", falsely and deliberately stating that "[I had] indicated an intention to defend part of the claim" - giving the mafia the opportunity to file for Summary Judgment against me - without, of course, telling me (WLCC # 2.2).

(2)- ALL my documents, over the 16 months (list under Fraud Act 2006, below) were totally and deliberately ignored - including in Orders: WLCC # 11 , # 27 - leaving me in the highly prejudiced position of having to write my Witness Statement without the information to which I was legally entitled and needed to defend myself against the claim (pt # 25 ; WLCC # 30).

They included my letters asking the court's help in getting "the claimants" skeleton argument (WLCC # 9). But then, Ladsky's henchmen in WLCC had also ensured that my transcribing company was not provided with the tape of the 24 Aug 07 so-called 'hearing' (WLCC # 11) - until after I had written my Defence (WLCC # 12.2).

(3)- Falling into the trap set by 24.08.07 Order, by describing my 12.09.07 Defence as a "Defence & Counterclaim" - provided the opportunity to issue me with a 27.09.07 letter masquerading as an Order, demanding I pay immediately £1,700 (US$3,000) - endorsing it with the threat of "striking out [my] counterclaim" = Defence, if I did not (WLCC # 12.3).

My challenging it in my 02.10.07 letter to WLCC, cc'd Portner, was ignored, leading me to send chaser letters, and to eventually file a 13.11.07 complaint with HMCS 'Customer Service' (WLCC # 15). From there, the Ladsky gang and court went into silent mode for more than 3 months (pt # 22).

(4)- Fabrication of excuses to "cancel" hearings none of them had never had any intention of holding - with the objective of feeding their perverse, sadistic needs for 'a good laugh':

  • (ii)- "the 4 Nov 08 hearing" - to make me waste my time - including the trips I had made to the court, up to the previous day, to get confirmation that it would take place (pt # 34).

(9)- To avoid responding to my very damning evidence against the claim, in my 03.05.07 Skeleton Argument (WLCC # 5.1), in its 22.08.07 so-called 'Skeleton Argument', the Ladsky mafia lied that it had not received mine, and sent it to me less than 48 hours before the so-called 'hearing' (pt # 16.2).

(10)- Continuing in the pursuit of their perverse, sadistic kicks, the Ladsky gang sent me a 04.02.08 so-called 'standard disclosure' that very clearly did not address the issues I had raised.

Further, it did this before the case management directions were issued, and before I filed my Allocation Questionnaire (pt # 24). In breach of CPR Rule 26.9(2), the court did not send me a copy of the gang's Allocation Questionnaire - whereas I sent the gang a copy of mine (WLCC # 26).

(11)- Desperate to extort the monies from me, the Ladsky mafia set-up a back-up scheme, by using a plant, a 'Martin Faulkner', to send a 06.04.07 letter cheque for £1,069.31 (US$1,885) - falsely - claiming 'he' was "sending it on [my] behalf". The sum was the precise amount of interest claimed in the 27 Feb 07 claim - thereby implying that I owed the whole claim (pt # 14).

(12)- With the same objective of securing the claim against me, the following year, a few weeks before I was due to submit my Witness Statement, the Ladsky mafia set-up another plant - this time, in an attempt to (among others), see the kind of witness statement I would write (pt # 14).

(13)- Counting on the fact that I had - deliberately - not been supplied with the information I needed, in its patronizing, ironic 23.05.08 letter the Ladsky gang "suggest[ed] that the case be transferred from fast-track to multi-track" - with the benefit to the mafia that they avoided the more demanding CPR pre-hearing requirements. I replied, post issuing my Witness Statement (WLCC # 31).

(14)- As I had predicted in my 03.06.08 Witness Statement - I did not receive one from "the claimants" = Ladsky (WLCC # 30).

(It was a repeat of what took place with the previous - equally fraudulent - 29 Nov 02 claim, filed against me (and 13 other apartments) - also in Her Majesty's West London County Court: WLCC # 12).

(15)- Instead, and proving further that the claim was fraudulent - the Ladsky gang issued me with a 06.06.08 Notice of Discontinuance of "ALL the claims against [me]" - without stating a reason (pt # 31).

Time to call it a day. The Ladsky mafia and its henchmen in WLCC had had their fun. Not only had they:

  • (ii)- cost me over 500 hours of my life;

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

(16)- Further proof of the fraud, if any more was required, came in the context of pursuing my costs - with the Ladsky mafia making, in its 11.08.08 'Points of Dispute', the preposterous, laughable excuse for dropping the claim, that it had 'just realised' (after 16 months!) that it had pursued the claim under the "wrong entity".

I had raised the issue, and hence the issue as to the legality of the claim against me 11 TIMES over that period (pt # 33).

(17)- 2 weeks before the 30 Jan 09 so-called 'hearing' at the Supreme Court Costs Office, the Ladsky gang made me a 14.01.09 "offer of £4,500" (US$7,900) "in full and final settlement of your costs in this matter" - which, in my 19.01.09 reply, I refused as "derisory"...

...- as, by then, Portner, its client, and their 'partners' in Her Majesty's WLCC, had cost me (in addition to horrendous torment, anguish and distress) over 500 hours of my life ; 52 hours of lost income, and numerous others costs which, by then, amounted to £8,675 (US$15,300) (30Jan09 - Event # 5).

But, Ladsky knew he could, likewise, rely on the support from 'the brother', Deputy Master Hoffman - as he only granted me £2,507 of my costs + interest (30Jan09-Event # 11).

Of course, continuing in the footsteps of 'his brothers' in HM West London County Court: the word 'sanction' against Portner and its client - was not uttered.

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

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

(Overall outcome on me - below)

Back to list

Breaches of the law - Portner (and Jaskel) - 2006-09:

(See, above, Summary of Events)

In - my NON-LAWYER opinion (*) - Jeremy Hershkorn, Ahmet Jaffer, Daniel Broughton, Portner (and Jaskel) and their client, Andrew David Ladsky have, (like CKFT, MRJ and Brian Gale, MRICS), committed breaches of Civil Procedure Rules, of statutes - including committing criminal offences against me - as well as breaches of my Lease:

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

Note that their 'brothers' in Her Majesty's West London County Court not only turned a blind eye and deaf ear to ALL their breaches - they actively helped them in committing them,..

...and their 'brother' in Her Majesty's Supreme Court Costs Office, continued in their footsteps.

 

•  Civil Procedure Rules

  • (i)- Rules 16.3 and 16.4 by providing false Particulars;
  • (ii)- PD 22, paras 3.7 and 3.8 - by endorsing a 'statement of truth', as they definitely could not have had "an honest belief in the truth [of the claims made]" (pt # 6.3).
  • (6) - Rule 24.2 - by Hershkorn filing a fraudulent application for Summary Judgment against me, and Rule 23.4 by not serving me on his application (WLCC # 2).
  • (7) - PD 44 - para.13.5(2) - By failing to serve me with a statement of costs, ahead of the 24 Aug 07 'hearing' (WLCC # 11).

•  Courts and Legal Services Act 1990, chp 41, s. 17 (see extracts):

  • (1) - Following Jeremy Hershkorn's 16.02.07 illegal threat of "bankruptcy, forfeiture and costs"; of "proceedings being prepared, and of being liable for costs" - with the objective of extorting £8,937 (US$15,800) from me, he knew was not due and payable; falsely claiming that "supporting evidence [was] enclosed", and doing this in the name of a company I had never heard of (pts # 3 , # 31),...

•  Theft Act

  • (1)- Ladsky-Hershkorn's 16.02.07 illegal threat of "bankruptcy, forfeiture [copy of definition] and costs"; of "proceedings being prepared, and of being liable for costs" - with the objective of extorting £8,937 (US$15,800) from me, they knew was not due and payable; falsely claiming that "supporting evidence [was] enclosed", and doing this in the name of a company I had never heard of (pts # 3 , # 31).
  • (3)- On the basis of his totally unsupported, false, scurrilous, libellous accusations against me - Hershkorn's attempts to extort monies from my website hosts in his 03.10.06 fax to my previous host, and numerous emails to my current Host - by demanding "substantial damages", and threatening them with "proceedings" if they did not close down my website immediately (pt # 2)

•  Fraud Act 2006 (see extracts) (= criminal offences)

  • (2) - add that, over a period of 16 months, until Portner finally issued me with a 06.06.08 Notice of Discontinuance (pt # 31), Jeremy Hershkorn and Ahmet Jaffer ignored repeatedly my demands for evidence in support of the sums demanded / highlighting that I did not have it - placing me in a highly prejudiced position:
  • (3)- my 03.05.07 Skeleton Argument (WLCC # 5) - to avoid addressing it - including at the so-called 24 Aug 07 'hearing' (pt # 18) - in their 22.08.07 so-called 'skeleton argument' Jaffer-Ladsky falsely claimed that "[they had] not received it " (pt # 16);
  • Not only did Jaffer-Ladsky so-called 04.02.08 'standard disclosure' failed to address the issues I had raised - it added to them (pt # 24).
  • OUTCOME: I was left with writing my 03.06.08 Witness Statement without the evidence to which I was legally entitled and needed in order to defend myself against the claim (WLCC # 30).
  • (3) - Without telling me - Hershkorn filed for Summary Judgment against me (not granted due to, I concluded, a change of plan) (WLCC # 2.2).
  • (5) - With the same objective of securing the claim against me, the following year, a few weeks before I was due to submit my Witness Statement, Ladsky set-up another plant - this time, in an attempt to (among others), see the kind of witness statement I would write (pt # 14).
  • Proof that the claim was fraudulent: 06.06.08 Notice of Discontinuance of "ALL the claims against [me]" - without giving an explanation (pt # 31).

•  My Lease - Ignoring the requirements:

  • Etc. (as I was not supplied with any evidence).

•  Money Laundering Regulations / Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (= criminal offences)

  • (1)- Ahmet Jaffer claiming, under para.1.4 of his 11.08.08 'Points of Dispute' that "...that the demand for ground rent and service charges served by the managing agent had given the incorrect identity and address for the landlord..."...
  • (2)- Daniel Broughton, in his so-called 10.02.06 "Notice of first refusal" - in which he made false claims about ownership of titles by his client 'Steel Services', and then backtracked when caught out (pt # 1).

•  Property Misdescriptions Act 1991 - s.1(3), s.1(5) (see extracts) (= criminal offence)

•  Landlord & Tenant Act 1987

  • (2)- the 08.01.07 transfer of the Airspace of Jefferson House "from Steel Services to Rootstock" (pt # 24.2).

•  Malicious Communications Act 1988, ss 1 & 2A (see extracts) (= criminal offences):

  • (4) - The 04.02.08 so-called 'standard disclosure' Ahmet Jaffer sent me: before I filed my Allocation Questionnaire, and therefore before case management directions were issued - that very clearly did not address the issues I had raised (pt # 24).

•  Protection from Harassment Act 1997 (see extracts) (= criminal offences) - including s.7(3A) by wilfully aiding and abetting the harassment by "their client", Andrew David Ladsky.

  • (1) - I repeat the entries under CPR.
  • (6) - I repeat the entries under my Lease.
  • (7) - Because Ladsky-Jaffer did not want to address my very damning evidence against the claim - they: (i)- ignored my letters, over a 7-week period, to provide me with a copy of their skeleton argument (pt 16.1);
  • (ii)- lied in their 22.08.07 so-called 'Skeleton Argument' that they had not received mine of 03.05.07 (WLCC # 5.1), and provided me with a copy of theirs less 48 hours before 'the hearing' (pt # 16.2).
  • (2)- "the 4 Nov 08 hearing" - to make me waste my time - including the trips I made to the court, up to the previous day, to get confirmation that it would take place (pt # 34).
  • (10) - Counting on the fact that I had deliberately not been supplied with the information to which I was legally entitled, Jaffer sent me a patronizing, ironic 23.05.08 letter, "suggesting that the case be transferred from fast-track to multi-track" - using the laughable excuse "because of [my] voluminous bundle of documents" (WLCC # 31).
  • (11) - Ongoing harassment of my current website Host, by Jeremy Hershkorn, over a period of several weeks, followed by ranting phone calls from Ladsky to my Host - causing me, obviously, a lot of anxiety (pt # 2) - and leading me to file a 28.02.07 complaint with the Law Society (pt # 4).

In fact what that mafia did amounted to subjecting me to extremely cruel, vicious, barbaric, perverse, sadistic, criminal psychological harassment over a period of 28 months(from Oct 06).

•  Defamation Act (see extracts)

  • (3) - Ladsky-Hershkorn falsely claiming in their 01.05.07 letter to the court, that they had "received on [my] behalf" payment of the full amount of interest claimed - thereby implying that I owed the whole claim (pt # 12.2).

•  Data Protection Act 1998

Overall outcome on me of the above Events and Breaches of the law - as the innocent victim of crime (Case summary):

28 months of absolute, sheer utter hell - of ongoing mental torture, terrible torment, anguish, distress and trauma - including the distress from the Law Society's outrageous 'replies' to my complaint (# 5).

That evil, vampiric, criminal vermin (I repeat my Comments under Persecution (1)(4)) only gave up on the claim - once it had :

Cost me over £10,000 in costs from my very-hard-earned life savings.

Cost me 52 hours of lost income (30Jan09 - Event # 5).

Cost me over 500 hours of my life; it destroyed my life.

Ensured that I also lost my job at KMPG = also destroying the rest of my life (Overview # 14)

WHY?

I therefore submit that the comments made at the time of issuing the 6 Jun 08 Notice, were along the following:

"ANOTHER step in the retribution accomplished boys! Well done!"

"BUT, mustn't relax. As you would expect from a Nazi, this is a tough bitch.

SO, mustn't relent on the psychological harassment - until we finally get her."

(It was glaringly obvious from the lack of reason for ending the claim, as well as from subsequent events, that the Ladsky - WLCC mafia perceived the Notice as marking the end of the matter - not expecting me to follow it by an action for my costs - from pt # 32).

Back to list

 

(1)- The bogus 10.02.06 "Notice of first refusal" issued by Daniel Broughton"on behalf of Steel Services" =Andrew David Ladsky.

Stating that it is 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 10.02.06.

I viewed this so-called "notice" as bogus and believed that it was done purely for my 'benefit' as a means of 'having fun' / taking 'revenge'. (Other example: the fraudulent 16 Feb 11 "Notice by landlord", also instigated by evil Rachman Ladsky, this time, through his equally evil 'managing' agents, Martyn Gerrard, the "RICS regulated, award-winning agency...where integrity counts".

The following is a reduced version of what is contained under Notices by landlord # 3 (My Diary 18 Feb 06).

The 10.02.06 "notice of first refusal" stated:

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 s.4).

•  The " notice" sent by Portner was, in terms of the description of the property, a carbon copy of, for example, the 13.12.00 "notice" sent by Laytons solicitors (Notices by landlord # 2) - at the time when 'Steel Services (SS)' i.e. 'my landlord', was 'the headlessor' for the whole of Jefferson House.

•  On 2 subsequent occasions: 03.03.06 and 11.03.06, I asked Daniel Broughton 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, Broughton, confirmed that this was the case: letters of 06.03.06 and 14.03.06.

•  In actual fact, his client, SS i.e. Ladsky had, 2 / 7 weeks previously, become a "lessee" of Lavagna Enterprises Ltd (Headlessors # 2) to which it had also disposed of its headlease interest on the last floor of Jefferson House i.e. the "airspace" which includes/d the title for the penthouse and associated car parking space.

•  As you would expect, legislation (s.5(2) of the L&T Act 1987), requires supplying particulars of the property offered for disposal. As can be seen from the 10.02.06 'notice', the corrupt Daniel Broughton 'did this' by supplying the Land Registry title for SS - minus the 1st page - hence, minus pages 1 and 2.

What page 1 stated - at 22.02.06:

“(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 Daniel Broughton and Ladsky at their game, by stating the following in my 30.03.06 letter to 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"

The 03.04.06 reply from Broughton:

“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 30.04.06 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 were that:

  • (2)- When found out, he went back on the offer he made in the "notice of disposal" - thereby also breaching the L&T Act 1987 s.4 (extracts).

In the same letter of 30.04.06, 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 03.04.06 reply Broughton stated that

"[he had] deliberately omitted" to include the 1st page of the title,

giving as 'reason' "our client is not required to provide this information"

In the same reply of 30.04.06 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 30.04.06 letter to Broughton, was that Portner and Jaskel committed breaches of statutes, as well as rules comprised under the Solicitors Code of Conduct of the Law Society for England and Wales:

  • Adding: 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 Daniel 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 s.(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”

As to SS, (=Ladsky) that it had committed a criminal offence in relation to s.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 led to SS, 'my landlord', being unable to perform major covenants in my Lease.

I also quoted from the Solicitors Code of Conduct which, 'of course', is a complete waste of time - as evidenced by # 5, below.

The 03.05.06 reply from Broughton (It is also included at the back of my 30.04.06 letter):

"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"

(Aside from the unbelievable, but typical arrogance from the Ladsky gang) = We don't care, because 'our Dear client', has the whole of the English Establishment prostrating itself at his feet.

So, we know that, wherever you turn to, you will not only face a dead end, you will be persecuted further, tenfold, for daring to show us up for what we are: a bunch of very sick crooks.

(For additional detail see Notices by landlord # 3 , # 3.1 , # 3.2 ; My Diary 18 Feb 06)

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 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 , sociopathic scum at Portner and Jaskel for what they did to the Elderly Resident - see My Diary 18 Feb 06 ; 29 Apr 06 ; Elderly Resident).

(See, above, summaries: (1) Events ; (2) Breaches of the law by Portner and Jaskel and its client, Andrew Ladsky)

Back to list

 

(2)- Ongoing harassment of my website Host by Jeremy Hershkorn - instigated by Andrew David Ladsky, to force my Host to close down my website - by making false, totally unsupported, and therefore libellous and malicious accusations against me.

Desperate to stop me from exposing the detail of my case on this website - on behalf of Andrew David Ladsky,...

... the corrupt racketeer Jeremy Hershkorn - faxed a malicious 03.10.06 letter to what was then, my 1st website host:

"We act on behalf of Mr Andrew Ladsky."

"That website contains a significant number of unsubstantiated [1] allegations against our client which are wholly false, clearly highly defamatory [2] and actionable in law." (3)

"The site also contains other defamatory allegations against a number of law firms and other professional advisors to Steel Services and our client." (4)

"The site contains suggestions that our client [Ladsky] is guilty of criminal activities and fraud all of which are totally unsubstantiated, outrageous and false." (2)

"The allegations and contents of the site are clearly the result of a personal vendetta being conducted against our client." (5)

"Our client's reputation has been severely damaged by the allegations that your company has chosen to publish on the internet." (2)

"Our client requires that within 48 hours you remove the offending web site from the internet and that you provide our client with an apology on your web site along with your suggestion for damages, which must be substantial, and which must reflect the seriousness of the allegations that you have published against our client." (6)

"Your failure to deal with the above by close of business in the UK on Thursday 5th October 2006 will result in us instituting legal proceedings against your company for defamation and for substantial damages and costs." (6)

"We will of course, take all appropriate steps to enforce any judgement obtained in the UK against you" (6)

(1)- Rachman Ladsky wanted me to "substantiate" my claims further: he got it! e.g. Extortion

(2)- I can't stop laughing at that - e.g. what is contained under Extortion

(3) = A very blatant breach of the Malicious Communications Act 1988 (see extracts)

(4)- False as, regardless of who Hershkorn was referring to (he did not specify), my claims are very amply substantiated.

(5)- Unlike, 'of course', what his vermin (I repeat my Comments under Persecution (1)(4)) client, Ladsky, has been doing against me since 2002.

(6)- Unbelievable, but to be expected from that mafia - Hitlerian Hershkorn = Ladsky made these outrageous threats and demands - without providing an iota of evidence - because he could not! (And Ladsky brands 'ME' "a Nazi"!)

= Blatant breaches under:

In my 05.10.06 letter, I replied to Hershkorn that he had not provided any evidence whatsoever in support of his accusations, and asked that he does so for each of them. Of course, he ignored my letter.

(NB: See the requirements for 'defamation'). (See also my comments under QB # 4(6)(5)(2) (in relation to my 2011 Claim) re. the obvious accuracy of the content of my website - and my rights).

The UNLAWFUL threat of "proceedings and costs and damages" had the desired effect - as the website host closed down my website on 6th Oct 06 (My Diary 3 Oct 06). Having found a new, and current, (wonderful) website Host, HostDime, after adding more 'fortifications' to my site, I relaunched it on 25 Dec 06.

Trying his luck again, over a period of several weeks (My Diary 5 Feb 07), Hershkorn, sent a massive amount of malicious emails to my current website Host, repeating 'his' = Ladsky's prior formula of threatening my Host with legal "proceedings and costs and damages" unless my Host closed down my website immediately, by - yet again - making highly libellous, scurrilous - totally unsupported - accusations against me e.g.

"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"

= Cue to laugh out loud e.g. Overview # 1 , # 3.

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' Hershkorn. 'Empty', because Hershkorn could NOT justify his outrageous accusations against me...

...- further proven by subsequent events to be false: the 27.02.07 claim Hershkorn filed against me (# 6, below) - which culminated in the 06.06.08 Notice of Discontinuance of "ALL of the 27 February 2007 claim" against me (# 31, below).

(Remember that Andrew David Ladsky IS the one who, having started the fight, decided to continue - leading me to launch my website)

(NB: Note that, having failed to achieve his objective, concurrent with filing the claim against me, Ladsky attacked me through his henchmen at my local police, as well as through my then employer - something he had been doing since Oct 06).

(See, above, summaries: (1) Events ; (2) Breaches of the law by Portner and Jaskel and its client, Andrew Ladsky)

Back to list

 

(3)- Without providing any supporting evidence, in his 16.02.07 highly threatening, malicious letter, Jeremy Hershkorn, Portner and Jaskel = his equally evil and vampiric client, Andrew David Ladsky,

illegally threatened me with "bankruptcy proceedings, forfeiture" (losing my apartment) (copy of definition), as well as "costs" - if I did not pay immediately the sum of £8,937 (US$15,800) to "Rootstock Overseas Corp" - a company I had never heard of at the time.

On 24 Feb 07, I took delivery of a highly threatening, malicious 16.02.07 letter from Jeremy Hershkorn, headed: "Rootstock Overseas Corp - Outstanding arrears £8,937.28" (US$15,800) - stating:

"We have been instructed by Rootstock Overseas Corp [1] in connection with outstanding arrears of service charge due and which relate to the above premises, details of which you are fully aware of."

"We have seen copies of the correspondence passing between you and our client's Managing Agents, Martin Russell Jones [2] and would request that all future correspondence be sent to this firm so far as the arrears are concerned." (3)

"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" (4)

"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, proceedings will be issued against you for the full amount due together with interest, without further notice" (5)

"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." (6)

Such proceedings will be without prejudice to our client's other rights of recovery and enforcement so far as your property is concerned" (7)

"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" (8)

"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" (8)

(1)- "instructed by Rootstock" - My reaction was: as I have never heard of "Rootstock Overseas Corp.", it follows that I have never had any dealings with it - and consequently cannot have "outstanding arrears" - which was my reply on 25.02.07.

(2)- "We have seen correspondence between you and Martin Russell Jones"

Hence: Hershkorn knew about the situation - including the fraudulent invoices (Overview # 6). Further, 4 months previously, he 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" (# 2, above).

(3) "future correspondence to us" - Yep! "Birds of a feather flock together"

(4) "enclose a copy of a statement dated 13th February 2007" - Nothing was enclosed with the letter - as I pointed out in my 25.02.07 reply.

See # 15, below: Ahmet Jaffer repeated the same lie in his 12.07.07 letter: "We notified you by our letter of 27th February 2007". He then ignored my asking him, in my 30.06.07 letter, for a copy of what he claimed had been sent to me.

(5) "proceedings will be issued" = Blatant breaches of legislation by evil, vampiric vermin (I repeat my Comments under Persecution (1)(4)) Hershkorn and Ladsky - under:

(6) "Bankruptcy petition" - Ditto about breaching:

Threatening 'bankruptcy' is a typical vampiric, Rachman Andrew David Ladsky tactic e.g. Residents Association's letter to him.

(7) "right of recovery of [my] property" = Take the apartment away from me - under forfeiture (copy of definition). Ditto about breaching:

(8) "preparing proceedings; will have to pay court fee and other costs" - Ditto about breaching:

OVERALL:

The business model of the evil, vampiric, criminal 'Jewish' mafia - in the pursuit of its insatiable greed:

THREATS OF BANKRUPTCY, FORFEITURE AND COURT CLAIMS = FRAUD TOOLS

(see also Extortion)

It is important to note that 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, forfeiture and costs" if I did not pay immediately - as he then filed a 27 Feb 07 claim against me - for the sum demanded - in the name of that company... as well as others - see # 6, below.

The 16 Feb 07 letter was one of the standard tools in the toolkit of the evil, vampiric, racketeering Ladsky mafia - aimed at inflicting their extremely cruel, vicious and perverse treatment for 'my daring' to stand-up to them by challenging their criminal activities, as well as expose them (# 1, above).

That vermin (*) is sick beyond words!

YES! That's the vermin (*) the British state - and others with its endorsement - actively assist and protect!

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

(I repeat the above: Remember that Ladsky IS the one who decided to continue the fight: Overview # 5)

Needless to say that the above 16 Feb 07 letter caused me an indescribable amount of distress, anguish and torment - such that, one day, overwhelmed by my lack of knowledge of bankruptcy proceedings and, knowing from past experience, that there was no point my trying to get legal help, I contemplated committing suicide.

That was exactly what the satanic, racketeering Ladsky mafia were counting on from their criminal psychological harassment. (Re 'satanic': I repeat my Comments under Persecution (1)(4)).

NO WAY was I going to play into their hand. So far, with God's help, I had found the strength and resourcefulness to survive the evil Ladsky mafia's barbaric treatment (and that of its supporters) for 5 years. I WOULD overcome its latest barbaric attempt as well.

While the threats were made in the name of a company I had never heard of, I nonetheless undertook, frantic, comprehensive desk research on the Insolvency Act, statutory demands and bankruptcy proceedings - thereby costing me, yet, many more hours of my life.

What I found out (captured in My Diary 3 Mar 07) demonstrates the evilness, extreme cruelty, viciousness and perversion of Jeremy Hershkorn - and his client, Ladsky.

Note how they 'piled up' the stages in succession, one on top of the another, as a 'fait accompli' i.e. denying me having any rights - and how they emphasised the threat of finding myself destitute, by having my property taken from me, as well as having to pay costs.

These are NOT human beings as, unlike many in the animal kingdom, they are incapable of showing any sign of humanity. In fact, I view them (like the rest of the Ladsky gang of racketeers) as the lowest form of vermin on this planet. (I repeat my Comments under Persecution (1)(4))

(See # 5.1, below, for the Law Society's 'response' to my complaint about this letter).

(See, above, summaries: (1) Events ; (2) Breaches of the law by Portner and Jaskel and its client, Andrew Ladsky)

(See Martyn Gerrard for the continuation of the fraudulent demands)

Back to list

 

(4)- For the 3rd time the Law Society of England and Wales provided undeniable evidence that it is a fertiliser for malpractice...

While I found the conduct of Portner and Jaskel in relation to the 10 Feb 06 so-called "notice" absolutely outrageous (# 1, above), considering my very extensive first-hand experience with the Law Society (i.e. my complaint against Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor (CKFT) and against Piper Smith Basham/Watton, and follow-up involving the Legal Services Ombudsman), I saw no point filing a complaint against Portner and Jaskel.

Well, the 16.02.07 letter from Jeremy Hershkorn (and Andrew David Ladsky) (# 3, above), combined with his ongoing harassment and intimidation of my US website Host to force the closure of my website (# 2, above) - 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 28.02.07 letter to Fiona Woolf, then 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 concluded by asking Mrs Woolf "to take appropriate actions against your member in relation to the matters raised in this letter"

It led to the 02.03.07 reply that the handling of complaints against solicitors was now with the Legal Complaints Service, and that it operated "independently of the Law Society". I had my doubts about this claim - and was, yet again, proven right.

It was followed by a 12.03.07 letter from the Legal Complaints Service (LCS), as well as guidance leaflet (also attached). The letter stated that it would determine whether it "can help with your concerns".

(NB: I noted that the LCS was at the same address as the Law Society's previous "Consumer Complaints Service" to which I addressed, for example, my 20.12.04 complaint against Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor (CKFT) - 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 16.03.04 complaint against Piper Smith Basham/Watton (i.e. 9 months previously). And the reincarnations continued with the 'Solicitors Regulations Authority' - # 5, below.

As can be seen from the LCS's letterhead and booklet, it defined its proposition 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".

The following sections discuss - "[the typical lack of] resolution of [my] complaint".

(See, above, summaries: (1) Events ; (2) Breaches of the law by Portner and Jaskel and its client, Andrew Ladsky)

Back to list

 

(5) ...as the Law Society rejected my (above) 28.02.07 complaint against Portner and Jaskel - thereby demonstrating approval of solicitors doing the following to members of the public:

(1)- threatening them with bankruptcy and of taking their property away for non-payment of monies to a company they have never heard of (# 5.1);

(2)- issuing them with a fraudulent"Notice of First Refusal" (# 5.2);

(3)- conducting a prolonged harassment campaign of their website Host - with the aim of getting the closure of their website - by making threats and libellous accusations (# 5.3).

Following my 28.02.07 complaint, (# 4, above), I received a 30.03.07 letter from the Solicitors Regulation Authority, with an Information Sheet. Starting with the latter - in order to set the scene for the letter.

The Conduct Assessment and Investigation Unit - Information Sheet stated:

"How we deal with concerns in the Conduct Assessment and Investigation Unit (from people who are not clients)."

The Conduct Assessment and Investigation Unit is part of the Compliance Directorate of the Solicitors Regulation Authority" (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." (2)

"When can we investigate?"

"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.)" (2)

"How we deal with your report of misconduct"

"We assess the reports of misconduct and identify any possible instances when the rules which govern the professional conduct of solicitors are broken" (2)

This may also find that the conduct rules were not broken or that the report involves issues which we cannot investigate. The reasons may be:

- it is clear that no rule has been broken;

- there is no evidence to support the allegations of misconduct; and

- that the matter is one which the Regulation Board of the SRA has decided does not call for investigation"

"In your particular case, the caseworker [3] decided that your report of misconduct fell into one of the categories listed above" [3] We will explain the reasons for this in a separate letter addressed to you. We will tell the solicitor that you have raised the matter and then close the file"

(1) What were all these names? What had happened to the Legal Complaints Service (# 4, above)? Vanished into thin air?

(2) Doesn't that sound reassuring to the public?

(3) "the caseworker" = 'the Brotherhood', "decided that your report of misconduct fell into one of the categories listed above...explained in a separate letter". Oh Dear! Oh Dear! What did the letter state?

The introductory paras in the 30.03.07 letter from the Solicitors Regulation Authority, sent with the above Information Sheet:

"Regulating the profession.

"Our objective is to regulate solicitors in the interests of the public and users of legal service." (1)

"All the information we receive as regulator of the profession is useful" (2)

"Our powers enable us to discipline solicitors for misconduct (e.g. reprimand them) and to place controls on how they practice" (3)

"Please note that we do not award compensation or provide other financial redress" (4)

Your report about Portner & Jaskel. I write further to previous correspondence in respect of this matter" (5)

(1)- "to regulate solicitors in the interests of the public"

Translation: 'As you know from your experience: like our protectors in the state sector, we absolutely don't give a damn about the public'.

(2)- "all information we receive is useful"

Translation: 'It is used to calculate our performance bonus for the successful implementation of the standard policy of this country's institutions of getting rid of the complainants i.e. 'the Proles', "the Great Unwashed" / "the Oiks" / "the Lobbyists" - and then "the information" goes straight into the shredder (to ensure our misconduct does not come back to bite us).

(3)- "our powers enable us to discipline solicitors"

Translation: 'As you know from your experience: we never do that against a clan member - unless we feel the heat of the media, etc'.

(4)- "do not award compensation or financial redress"

= Further reassurance to solicitors = continue on your merry way boys and girls! The more 'the Proles' are being made aware of this, the smaller the likelihood of their complaining. What a mafia!

(5)- See next points

(See, above, summaries: (1) Events ; (2) Breaches of the law by Portner and Jaskel and its client, Andrew Ladsky)

Back to list

(5.1)- Law Society's approval of Portner and Jaskel threatening me with "bankruptcy proceedings, forfeiture and costs" - if I failed to pay immediately £8,937 (US$15,800) to a company I had never of (# 3, above).

Re. my 28.02.07 complaint, (# 4, above), that Portner and Jaskel sent me a malicious, illegal 16.02.07 letter (# 3, above), threatening me with:

  • "bankruptcy proceedings",
  • without providing any supporting evidence, in spite of claiming that it had "enclosed it", and
  • 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.

With my complaint, I had supplied a copy of the letter, as well as copy of my 25.02.07 reply to Portner.

The 30.03.07 'reply' to my complaint, from the 'Solicitors Regulation Authority':

"I have considered the information that you have provided [1] and I am unable to conclude that there has been any breach of the rules in this matter." (2)

Portner & Jaskel are clearly acting on the instructions of their client in this matter" (3)

"They are entitled to take a robust approach [4] and advise you of the steps that their client is able to take if payment is not made" (5)

"There is no misconduct in them doing so and I do not consider that the letter [above] is either threatening or that it amounts to harassment [6]. I will not be pursuing this issue further"

(1)- I had no idea that this was a follow-up to the 12.03.07 acknowledgement from the Legal Complaints Service (# 4, above) - and the 30 Mar 07 letter does not provide any explanation, other than state, at the bottom of the page:

"The independent (NB!!!) regulatory body of the Law Society of England & Wales" (NB: = Controlled by the fertiliser for malpractice, the Law Society)

In the light of the 'reply', I opted to do some research on the Solicitors Regulation Authority, as well as on the Legal Complaints Service - and made some predictable discoveries - see My Diary 12 Apr 07.

(2) "No breach of rules" - In the light of the events reported on this page, I draw your attention to the following from The Guide to the Professional Conduct of Solicitors (the following are linked to extracts):

(3) "Acting on the instructions of their client". (Also repeated in relation to the ongoing harassment of my website Host by Jeremy Hershkorn - # 5.3, below).

This was a repeat of the 'reply' I had received from the Law Society, following my 20.12.04 complaint against CKFT. Indeed, in its 08.02.05 letter, it stated, in relation to:

•  my complaint (para.1.1.1.1) that "CKFT acted fraudulently, with deceit, taking unfair advantage"

'Reply': "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" (CKFT # 6.1) (A)

•  my complaint (para.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" (CKFT # 6.1)

• my complaint (para.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" (CKFT # 6.4) (A)

(A) 'Funny' how the Law Society did not hold this view in relation to my 16.03.04 complaint against 'my' then solicitors, Piper Smith & Basham/Watton (summary # 2.2). (My Comments to the 13.11.03 "draft notice and consent order" provides an overview of events; summary of events under Stan Gallagher. They were batting for Andrew David Ladsky).

Why the 'double standard'?

Why is it that Ladsky's advisors have 'carte blanche' to do exactly as they please in answering his diktats - while I have evidently no right to expect 'my' legal advisors to deal with me as per the Solicitors Code of Conduct? (Amazing what a 'brother' is 'allowed' to ask of his solicitors).

In relation to CKFT, my 19.02.05 reply to the Law Society was (para.2 - and ditto under paras 4 and 18) (CKFT # 6.4):

"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'.

(4) "They are entitled to take a robust approach"

= Law Society's euphemism for solicitors having carte blanche to operate in total disregard of the rule of law (see, above, Breaches of the law by Portner).

(5) "...advise you of the steps that their client is able to take if payment is not made"

YEP! That's what it say! This is absolutely outrageous.

See # 31, below, for the fact that ALL the claims against me were dropped; see also Extortion.

(6) "There is no misconduct in Portner sending the 16.02.07 letter [# 3, above] and I do not consider that the letter is either threatening or that it amounts to harassment"

Unbelievable?

These people are totally, utterly amoral. From which cave have they crawled out of?

I wish the caseworker at the 'Solicitors Regulation Authority' to, one day, find himself at the receiving end of a letter- illegally - threatening him with "bankruptcy" and of taking his property away. Let him see whether or not it feels "threatening". That's another henchman to be added to the cast of 1000s!

CONCLUSION: According to 'the regulator of solicitors', the 'Solicitors Regulation Authority', it is perfectly acceptable for Portner and Jaskel to, among others - breach:

= Portner and Jaskel is (like "its equally criminal client") 'above the law of the land'!

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

(See, above, summaries: (1) Events ; (2) Breaches of the law by Portner and Jaskel and its client, Andrew Ladsky)

(See Martyn Gerrard for the continuation of the fraudulent demands)

Back to list

(5.2)- Law Society's approval of Portner and Jaskel sending me a fraudulent "Notice of First Refusal" (# 1, above)

Re. my 28.02.07 complaint, (# 4, above), that Portner and Jaskel sent me the fraudulent 10.02.06 so-called "Notice of first refusal" (# 1, above).

Note that, in support of my claim of fraud, I had also supplied a substantial number of supporting evidence - including my last reply of 30.04.06, from which I captured extracts, including among others breaches of the Solicitors Code of Conduct - specifying the Rules breached.

In its 30.03.07 letter, ''the Solicitors Regulation Authority' replied:

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

"It is clear that this issue was concluded in 2006. So that we are able to carry out a fair investigation, 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." (1)

"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." (2)

"I will not be taking any further action on this issue."

"lf you consider that certain Acts of Parliament have been breached then those are legal issues for the courts to consider." (3)

"You will need to take independent legal advice as to what steps you can take to remedy the position." (4)

(1) "to carry out a fair investigation, apply 6-month time-limit" - Contrast that with the claims made in the Info Sheet, and at the beginning of the letter, under # 5, above.

(NB: For another example of 'fairness consideration', on this occasion, using totally irrelevant legislation: see the 'Independent' Police Complaints Commission, police # 5.4(3) ; QB: # 6(1) and # (6)(2)).

(2) "There does not seem to be any special circumstances to persuade us to investigate this matter"

YEP! That's what it says! Ditto re contrasting this with the claims made in the Info Sheet, and at the beginning of the letter, under # 5, above,...

...as well as Rule 12.02 - Act lawfully (extracts). But, 'of course', a breach of that Rule is not a matter for concern. What a mafia!

(3) "breaches of Acts are issues to be considered by the courts"

Here we go again: the typical game of sending the complainants from pillar to post - which the Law Society had, of course, already done to me in relation to my 20.12.04 complaint against CKFT (CKFT # 6): WLCC - D.

To which he could have added: and you know the treatment you are going to get there - see e.g. kangaroo courts.

(4) "take independent legal advice" - Noting also "independent" - Yes, 'of course', go and line the pockets of our totally unregulated members, and give them another chance to abuse you e.g. Summary of events; also captured in my Comments to the 13.11.03 "draft notice and consent order".

CONCLUSION: according to the Law Society's "regulatory body" - 'tasked with policing the conduct of solicitors' - I was meant to do its job, as I was also evidently meant to, before its being re-badged under another name.

Just as well 'the Solicitors Regulation Authority' started its 30.03.07 letter with: "Our objective is to regulate solicitors in the interests of the public and users of legal services" !

I repeat my above Comments.

(See, above, summaries: (1) Events ; (2) Breaches of the law by Portner and Jaskel and its client, Andrew Ladsky).

Back to list

(5.3)- Law Society's approval of Portner and Jaskel conducting a prolonged harassment campaign of my website Host - with the aim of getting the closure of my website, by making threats and libellous accusations (# 2, above)

Re. my 28.02.07 complaint, (# 4, above), that Portner and Jaskel had been harassing my US Website Host for several weeks, with the objective of forcing the closure of my website - by making libellous accusations against me (# 2, above).

The 30.03.07 conclusion from 'the Solicitors Regulation Authority' was:

"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 (# 5.1, above): "acting on the instructions of their client"!

Absolutely unbelievable! Portner and Jaskel committing - repeatedly:

...- is, in the view of 'the regulator of solicitors': perfectly acceptable!

I repeat my above comments.

(See, above, summaries: (1) Events ; (2) Breaches of the law by Portner and Jaskel and its client, Andrew Ladsky)

(See Martyn Gerrard for the continuation of the fraudulent demands)

Back to list

(5.4) Overall conclusion by the Law Society: "No misconduct by Portner and Jaskel"

Typically, the overall conclusion from 'the Solicitors Regulation Authority' to my 28.02.07 complaint, (# 4, above) was, in its 30.03.07 letter:

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

Conclusions

The Law Society and its "independent" arm (see My Diary 12 Apr 07), the Solicitors Regulation Authority - approve of Portner and Jaskel doing the following to a member of the public:

  • (1)- Threatening her with "bankruptcy and of seizing her property for non-payment of monies" to a company she had never heard of (# 5.1, above).
  • (2)- Issuing her with a fraudulent "Notice of First Refusal" (# 5.2, above).
  • (3)- Conducting a prolonged harassment campaign of her website Host - with the aim of forcing the closure of her website, by making threats and libellous accusations (# 5.3, above).

WHY? Because having a multi-criminal, 'Jewish', sacrosanct Mason landlord as "client" - also gives these criminals the right to ignore the rule of law.

I repeat my above comments.

What happens to those who endorse the gross misconduct by solicitors - such as the then President of the Law Society, Fiona Woolf (# 4, above)? In 2013 she was appointed Lord Mayor of the City of London!

(See LSO-Intro for detail, including about 2 others who very actively helped the Ladsky mafia in its criminal activities)

In spite of the continuation of the absolutely outrageous conduct by Portner and Jaskel, for obvious reasons, I saw no point filing another complaint with the Law Society.

(See, above, summaries: (1) Events ; (2) Breaches of the law by Portner and Jaskel and its client, Andrew Ladsky)

Back to list

 

(6)- In breach of CPR's Pre-Action Protocol - the 'reply' from Jeremy Hershkorn, Portner and Jaskel, to my 25.02.07 letter querying the identity of "Rootstock Overseas Corp" (his 16.02.07 letter, # 3, above) - was to file a - fraudulent - 27.02.07 claim, Ref. 7WL00675, against me, in Her Majesty's West London County Court (WLCC)...

...which, in spite of very serious issues with the claim - Her Majesty's WLCC's judiciary accepted and viciously and perversely pursued...

... - due to their ALL being hell-bent on using the claim as a tool for 'retribution' (WLCC # 2).

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

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

Totally ignoring the Pre-Action Protocol - Jeremy Hershkorn's 'response' to my 25.02.07 reply to his malicious, highly threatening 16.02.07 letter (# 3, above), was to file a 27.02.07 claim, ref. 7WL00675, against me in Her Majesty's West London County County Court (WLCC) - of which I took delivery on 9 Mar 07.

In filing the claim, Hershkorn continued to show utter contempt for the rule of law - because he had the full endorsement of Her Majesty's WLCC's judiciary - see WLCC # 1.

Back to list

(6.1)- The claim: (1)- had 2 different company names (with a 3rd one in the file name path) - neither of which gave a business address ; (2)- both claiming to be 'my landlord';

(3)- each represented by a different firm of solicitors; (4)- each demanding a different, large amount of money from me...

... - facts I went to great lengths to highlight in my 22.03.07 Acknowledgment of Service.

Important things to note about the 27.02.07 claim, 7WL 00675:

Claim form

Claimant – Roostock (sic) Overseas Corp [1], c/o Portner and Jaskel LLP

Particulars of claim

The Claimant is the Lessor of premises known as Flat 3 Jefferson House… The Defendant has failed to pay the sum of £8,937 in respect of service charges…

the charges are detailed on the attached schedule – which was a 13 Feb 07 invoice from Martin Russell Jones (MRJ), headed “Landlord: Steel Services c/o C.K.F.T.(2)

(1)- As related under # 3, above, this was news to me as I had never heard of "Rootstock", nor, indeed, of "Roostock".

(2)- "Steel Services Ltd", was the entity I had been told, since 1996, was my 'landlord'.

HENCE:

(1)- There were 2 different company names as "the claimants"; (*)

(2)- Both claiming to be “my landlord”;

(3)- Each represented by a different firm of solicitors;

(4)- Each demanding that I pay a different amount of money:

  • £10,356.59 (US$18,260) by "Roostock (sic) Overseas Corp", and
  • £8,933.28 (US$15,750) by "Steel Services"

The £10,356.59 claimed by "Roostock (sic) Overseas Corp" was made-up of:

  • " £250 court fee" (US$440), and
  • "£100 of solicitor’s costs" (US$176)

(NB: Given the - deliberately - incomprehensible state of the Particulars of claim, I produced my own version of the 'service charges', I sent to Portner with my 22.05.08 letter).

In the 22.03.07 Acknowledgment of Service I returned to Her Majesty's WLCC, I went to great lengths to highlight the above - see WLCC # 2 ; # 12, below.

(*) In fact, there was a 3rd name on the claim: Sloan Development. It was in the file name path, at the bottom of the claim: "G:\Bulstrode\data\docs\S\23208 - Sloan Development\002 Miscellaneous Matters\Oyez Forms\Claim Form - Ms N". (I believe that it should be 'Sloane Developments': Headlessors # 6).

Among other, on Land Registry records, 'Sloan Development' was party with SS in the sale of the penthouse (that was NOT going to be built!) to a 3rd party, in Aug 05 - for £3.9 million.

In breach of CPR - there was - deliberately - no business address for either of "the claimants".

CPR PD 16 - Statement of case - para.2.2 states:

"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"

(see WLCC # 1.2)

(See, above, summaries: (1) Events ; (2) Breaches of the law by Portner and Jaskel and its client, Andrew Ladsky)

(See Martyn Gerrard for the continuation of the fraudulent demands)

Back to list

(6.2)- ‘Very conveniently’ for Roostock (sic) Overseas Corp” and "Steel Services" = Andrew Ladsky, 'the brother' - in breach of CPR PD 16 – para 7.3, Her Majesty's WLCC judiciary also accepted the claim without having my Lease, i.e. my - and landlord - contractual obligations.

In his ‘Brief details of claim’ (# 6.1, above), Jeremy Hershkorn, Portner and Jaskel, wrote:

Non payment of monies due under a lease dated 10th March 1986

and, in the 3rd para of the Particulars of Claim:

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

 

However, 'very conveniently' - in breach of CPR PD 16 - para.7.3 - Hershkorn failed to supply a copy of my Lease - see WLCC # 1.1.

(See, above, summaries: (1) Events ; (2) Breaches of the law by Portner and Jaskel and its client, Andrew Ladsky)

Back to list

(6.3) In addition to committing the above serious breaches of Civil Procedure Rules (# 6.1 and # 6.2) - by endorsing the 27.02.07 claim with 'a Statement of Truth' (# 6.1), Jeremy Hershkorn, Portner and Jaskel, also wilfully, aided and abetted Andrew David Ladsky in committing contempt of court.

As discussed under # 31, below, after an extremely traumatic, horrendous 16-month battle, Portner issued me with a 06.06.08 Notice of Discontinuance of "ALL of the claim" against me.

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

Para.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"

Para.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"

Very clearly, Jeremy Hershkorn knew that his client Ladsky most definitely, could NOT have had "an honest belief in the truth [of the claims made]".

Indeed, Hershkorn had looked at my website - leading him to make the following (libellous) assertions:

(1)- 4 months previously, - in his 03.10.06 letter to my first ISP (# 2, above), Hershkorn wrote, among other:

  • "[my] website contains a significant number of unsubstantiated allegations against our client which are wholly false, clearly highly defamatory..."
  • "The site also contains other defamatory allegations against a number of law firms and other professional advisors to Steel Services and our client."
  • "The site contains suggestions that our client [Ladsky] is guilty of criminal activities and fraud all of which are totally unsubstantiated, outrageous and false."

(2)- 3 months later, in one of his numerous communications to my current Website Host (# 2, above):

"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, Jeremy Hershkorn cannot claim that he did not have knowledge of my case at the time he filed the 27.02.07 claim against me - including of the repeated fraudulent invoices I had, already at the time, covered at length, in various parts of this website (Overview # 6).

(See, above, summaries: (1) Events ; (2) Breaches of the law by Portner and Jaskel and its client, Andrew Ladsky)

(See Martyn Gerrard for the continuation of the fraudulent demands)

Back to list

 

(7)- Two days after the claim was filed, Martin Russell Jones (MRJ) drew-up a 01.03.07 invoice, in the name of "Steel Services, represented by CKFT" - that was £249 (US$440) less than the claim from "Steel Services"

- and did this, in spite of "Steel Services" having apparently disposed of its title to "Rootstock Overseas Corp", 10 months previously (# 15, below).

The 01.03.07 invoice from MRJ, stating:

"Landlord: Steel Services, represented by CKFT", "Brought forward balance" of £8,688 (US$15,300)

- v. the 27.02.07 Particulars of Claim - also supplied by MRJ - that stated £8,937 (US$15,760) (# 6.1, above).

Hence, in the space of 48 hours, the amount I was 'deemed' to owe to "Steel Services" 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 was not included on the 27 Feb 07 claim). (I reproduced the Particulars, as they were - intentionally - incomprehensible).

Of particular note: according to Ahmet Jaffer and the Land Registry title he supplied me with in his 12.07.07 correspondence, SS had disposed of its title to "Rootstock Overseas Corp" on 24 May 06 i.e. 10 months previously (see also below, # 15).

(See, above, summaries: (1) Events ; (2) Breaches of the law by Portner and Jaskel and its client, Andrew Ladsky)

(See Martyn Gerrard for the continuation of the fraudulent demands)

Back to list

 

(8)- I sent Her Majesty's WLCC a 04.04.07 Application Contesting the Court's Jurisdiction, requesting - as per my rights under Sch.12, s.3 of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 - the transfer of the case to the then Leasehold Valuation Tribunal.

I also made a 2nd Application: "An extended Civil Restraint Order against the Landlord"

(NB: Includes previous header # 9)

See WLCC # 3

Back to list

(9) (Moved to # 8, above)

(10) (Moved to # 12, below)

(11) (Moved to # 12, below)

 

(12) Ahead of a hearing 'set', allegedly "for 8 May 07", I filed a 03.05.07 Skeleton Argument in Her Majesty's WLCC.

Keen to assist the Andrew Ladsky mafia, its West London County Court henchmen had issued it with a malicious 03.04.07 Notice, it used to file for Summary Judgment against me (without telling me).

When a change of plan was evidently decided, 2 tactics were used "to cancel the 8 May 07 hearing" - with the objective of ensuring that they could ALL subject me to many more months of ongoing criminal psychological harassment.

(NB: Includes previous sections # 10, # 11 and # 13)

12.1 - My 03.05.07 Skeleton Argument

See WLCC # 5 for the criminal psychological harassment tactics used by Her Majesty's District Judge Nicholson and court staff.

The section also refers to the type of contents in my Skeleton Argument.

12.2 - The Ladsky-WLCC mafia's 'reasons' for "cancelling the 8 May 07 hearing"

While, by Sat 5 May 07 I had, of course, not received any communication from Her Majesty's West London County Court (WLCC # 5), I had 2 letters from Jeremy Hershkorn, Portner and Jaskel.

LETTER # 1 - 07.05.01 letter to me from Jeremy Hershkorn, Portner and Jaskel:

"...we enclose a copy of our letter sent today to The West London County Court together with enclosures [1] referred to, the contents of which are self-explanatory."

"We look forward to hearing from you in respect of this letter and our previous letter dated 17th April 2007." (2)

(1) The enclosures were:

(2) see # 14, below

Hershkorn's 01.05.07 letter to Her Majesty's WLCC:

"...we enclose a copy of an Order dated 19th April 2007 [1] made by District Judge Nicholson which we have only just received today through the Document Exchange." (2)

"We note that the Defendant's application to contest jurisdiction [3] has been listed for the 8th May 2007...and that the parties are to file and serve Skeleton Arguments...by 4.00pm on the 3rd May 2007." (1)

"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 3rd April 2007 (a copy of which we enclose) [4] we have not received anything further from the Defendant or the Court." (5)

"Neither have we received a copy of the Defendant's application to contest the jurisdiction or any evidence in support [6], nor a copy of the Defendant's Defence." (7)

"We have previously written direct to the Defendant following a letter received from Mr. Martin Faulkner and we enclose a copy of our letter dated 17th April 2007 (together with enclosure referred to) [8] to which we have not received a reply."

"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 [9] and for further directions to be given for the service of evidence to enable us to consider the Defendant's evidence and application (once received) [9] and for the Defendant to respond to our letter." (9)

"We thank you for your assistance in this matter..." (10)

(1)- See WLCC # 5 - the Order demanding the filing of Skeleton Arguments by 3 May 07.

(2)- "only just received today" - On the Order, Hershkorn wrote: "Received 1/05/2007".

Pull the other one! I received it on Sat 28 April, but the solicitors that filed the claim against me, and has a DX system for communicating with the courts 'received it 2 days later!'

(3)- "Defendant's application to contest jurisdiction" - My 04.04.07 Application: WLCC # 3.

(4)- "enclose a copy of the Notice" - WHY supply the court with a copy of its own document? Answer: to give an excuse to send it to me, because:

What did the WLCC's 03.04.07 Notice that Acknowledgment of Service has been filed state? Get ready for this one!

"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"

As can be seen from the document, of which printscreens are captured under WLCC # 2(2) - nobody could fail to see that I stated: "[I] intend to contest the court's jurisdiction".

It is glaringly obvious that this was done deliberately - as discussed under WLCC # 2.2, with the objective of securing the claim against me.

Indeed, as also discussed under WLCC # 2.2, the vampiric vermin (I repeat my Comments under Persecution (1)(4)) Jeremy Hershkorn, Portner and Jaskel, had used this malicious "Notice" to file for Summary Judgment against me [CPR 24.2] (*)...

... - without, of course, telling me - as evidenced by para.2 of the 19.04.07 Order: "In view of the defendants application the claimants request for judgment is refused." (WLCC # 5).

(*) See e.g. the Met Commissioner doing this against me, in 2011: QB # 1(4.3)

In filing for Summary Judgment against me, Jeremy Hershkorn, Portner and Jaskel, breached :

CPR Rule 23.4 - by failing to "serve [me with] a copy of [his] application"

(5)- "since the 3rd April 2007 Notice we have not received anything further... from the court" - LIAR and more glaring evidence of collusion and conspiring with Her Majesty's WLCC - indeed:

  • Her Majesty's WLCC had found the time to supply Portner with a document falsely stating that I "intend to defend part of the claim" ...

And 'of course', Jeremy Hershkorn did not attempt to contact the court during one month! Yeah, right!

Have I got 'stupid' written on my forehead? (Having just looked in the mirror I can answer that: No!)

Of course Hershkorn had been in contact with Her Majesty's WLCC during the month of April: as discussed under the previous comment, he had filed for Summary Judgment against me.

(6)- "not received a copy of the Defendant's application to contest the jurisdiction [WLCC # 3] or any evidence in support"

NOT my problem, because, as explained under WLCC # 3, the guidance notes supplied with the claim, only made a passing reference to contesting the court's jurisdiction. I therefore had to consult CPR - and saw no requirement to serve a copy on the other party.

I captured this in my 30.06.07 letter Ahmet Jaffer, when I supplied him with a copy of my 04.04.07 Application.

(7)- "nor a copy of my Defence" - Under CPR Rule 11 I did not need to file a defence.

The blatant lie in the 03.04.07 'Notice' (comment # 4, above) was coming in handy!

(8)- "its 17th April 2007 (together with enclosure referred to" - see # 14, below, the outrageous, but in character, back-up scheme set-up by the vampiric, racketeering, Ladsky mafia to secure winning the claim against me.

(9) "8th May 2007 to be adjourned" - The alleged hearing' - none of them had ever had any intention to hold - was "cancelled" (WLCC # 5)...

- but only after Her Majesty's District Judge Nicholson (clearly, in collusion with 'the brother', Ladsky and Hershkorn) had ensured that I would be made to suffer - by giving me only 3 working days to write my 03.05.07 Skeleton Argument (WLCC # 5).

Outcome: Being, at the time, in full time employment, at KPMG, meant that to do it, I ended-up taking 3 days from my annual leave = lost income, as well as had to work through the night.

Note that, at the time, I was also being subjected to horrendous victimization at KPMG - in collusion with the Ladsky and 'Brotherhood' mafia.

My tormentors at KPMG will have therefore fed back to them the impact the 19 Apr 07 Order was having on me - giving ALL endless hours of sadistic enjoyment.

Hence, 'reasons' - given for asking that "the 8 May 07 be cancelled":

(1) - "not copied on my 04.04.07 Application to contest the jurisdiction" [WLCC # 3]: (1) for the reason explained under Comment # 6, above: not my problem

+ as Hershkorn very clearly knew about it: Comment # 5, above - he could have asked me for a copy, and had 1 month in which to do it.

BUT, doing that, would have deprived Hershkorn, Ladsky, and his 'brothers' and other henchmen and monsters in Her Majesty's WLCC of many more months of endless sadistic kicks, from subjecting me to their extremely cruel and vicious ongoing criminal psychological harassment.

(NB: I made the same mistake of not copying Portner on my 03.06.08 Witness Statement - but, it very clearly did not prevent it from getting a copy of it - immediately: below, # 29 and # 31).

Note that, by contrast, Jeremy Hershkorn, Portner and Jaskel = Ladsky - and Her Majesty's WLCC judiciary found it 'perfectly acceptable' to not inform me that an Application for Summary Judgment had been filed against me - in the process, breaching CPR (Comment # 4, above).

(2) - "not replied to the 17.04.07 letter" - that was a criminal set-up to extort monies from me (# 14, below).

(Note that, 17 months later, continuing to be driven by the same objective of inflicting further criminal psychological harassment - also in collusion with Portner, this time, Ahmet Jaffer - the same District Judge Nicholson, cancelled 'the 4 Nov 08 hearing' - just 4 hours before - 'on the basis' of a fabrication by Jaffer (# 34, below).

(10)- "We thank you for your assistance in this matter"

How about: "We are profusely grateful for your continued and unfailing assistance to our client - your 'brother'"? (Considering what took place in that court in 2002-04: summaries: Events; Breaches of the law).

 

LETTER # 2 - (letter # 1, above) - 04.05.07 from Jeremy Hershkorn, Portner and Jaskel - stating, among others:

"Further to our letter dated 1st May 2007 to the West London County, we have been informed by telephone today [*] that the hearing on 8th May 2007 has been adjourned..."

(Followed by repeating his demand for a copy of my 04.04.07 Application to contest court's jurisdiction (WLCC # 3), and a response to his 17.04.07 letter (# 14, below)).

Oh yeah! And - it did this "Upon the Courts own motion. The Court has made this order of its own initiative without a hearing" (WLCC # 5).

The wonders of 'the Brotherhood' - in very sick "corrupt Britain"!

(See, above, summaries: (1) Events ; (2) Breaches of the law by Portner and Jaskel and its client, Andrew Ladsky)

(See Martyn Gerrard for the continuation of the fraudulent demands)

Back to list

(13)- (Moved to # 12, above)

 

(14)- One of the reasons given by Jeremy Hershkorn, Portner and Jaskel, in his above, 01.05.07 letter to WLCC, for asking for "the cancellation" of the alleged "8 May 07 hearing",...

was his claim that 'he had received', 'from' a 'Martin Faulkner', a cheque for £1,069.31 (US$1,885) - falsely - claiming that it had been sent "on my behalf" - sum that was precisely the amount of interest claimed by "Roostock (sic) et.al." in the 27 Feb 07 WLCC claim - thereby implying that I owed ALL of the claim.

It was a criminal back-up scheme, set-up by the vampiric, racketeering Ladsky mafia in case its Application for Summary Judgment against me was not pursued.

In his 17.04.07 letter to me, Hershkorn wrote:

"...we have received Notice from the Court that you have filed an Acknowledgment of Service..." (1)

"Whilst we await to receive your Defence [1] to our client's Claim in accordance with the Civil Procedure Rules, we enclose a copy of a letter dated 6th April 2007 received from Martin Faulkner of flat 4, 13 Belsize Grove, London NW3 4UX together with a copy of a cheque for £1,069.31 dated 6th April 2007 payable to Martin Russell Jones" (2)

"Before we are in a position to respond to Mr Faulkner's letter, would you please provide us with a response in respect of the same and whether you will agree to the acceptance of this cheque in part payment of our client's Claim."

(1)- I ignored it because, as discussed under WLCC # 2.2, I had returned my 22.03.07 Acknowledgment of Service very clearly stating: "[I] intend to contest the court's jurisdiction". Hence, I knew that I did not need to file a Defence.

I should have known better that the 2 mafia: WLCC and Ladsky and his racketeers - had conspired as, explained, above, under # 12, Letter 1/ WLCC # 2.2.

(2)- The 06.04.07 letter 'from' a "Martin Faulkner', Flat 4, 13, Belsize Grove, London, NW3 4UX" to Hershkorn - stated:

Flat 3, Jefferson House, 11 Basil Street

"On behalf of Miss N Rawé, who is too honest for her own good, I am sending you a cheque for the interest (£1,069.31) you claim she owes.

I hope this first installment will kick-start future installments and help break the impasse.

Please send me a receipt at the above address and another receipt to Miss Rawé."

The 6 Apr 07 cheque, for £1,069.31, was made out to "Martin Russell Jones".

This 'Martin Faulkner' was a so-called 'visitor' to my website who sent me the 1st comment (referred to under My Diary 12 Jan 07). 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 09.04.07 to him, in response to his of 05.04.07, 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 21.03.07, 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"

This so-called 'visitor' never replied to my 09.04.07 email. What a surprise!

This was a criminal back-up scheme by the evil, vampiric, racketeering, Ladsky mafia to secure winning the claim against me = extort monies from me not due and payable...

...- in case the action taken by its WLCC henchmen, by falsely capturing in the 03.04.07 WLLC Notice that I "intend[ed] to defend part of the claim" failed.

(As explained under WLCC # 2.2, it was "refused" or, more likely, not pursued due to a change of plan).

These communications amount to criminal offences, under:

As summarised on the Persecution page, under # 2.8, the use of plants by Ladsky and his mafia (as well as his henchmen in the police) - is a typical tactic used to trap their victims.

As to 'Martin Faulkner', flat 4, 13 Belsize Grove, London NW3 4UX, as I reported in e.g. My Diary 6 Aug 12 (in relation to, yet another plant set-up by Ladsky), another Ladsky plant had contacted me, the following year i.e. 2008, giving the same address - but stating "FLAT 5" instead.

The letter was posted in Windsor - which is next to Henley Upon Thames - for which Ladsky gives an address: Youngs Farm, Kentons Lane, Henley on Thames, RG10 8NX.

In May 08, 'she' = satanic (*), vampiric, vermin (*) Ladsky tried to trick me into, among others, writing a witness statement - claiming that 'her' block was connected with some of the same mob.

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

Objective: Ladsky had filed the (fraudulent) 27 Feb 07 claim against me - and wanted to see what kind of witness statement I would write (although he had already seen my 19 Oct 02 Witness Statement). Well, he saw it - and it made him capitulate.

In his 01.05.07 letter to Her Majesty's WLCC (# 12, above), Hershkorn wrote that "[he had] not received a reply from me to his [above] 17th April 2007 letter."

I did not acknowledge the letter from the mafia until the end of June 07. I did this, briefly, in my 30.06.07 letter to Ahmet Jaffer. As far as I was concerned, I had already provided my answer to the mafia - at the time.

YES! That's the vermin (*) the British state - and others with its endorsement - actively assist and protect!

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

(See, above, summaries: (1) Events ; (2) Breaches of the law by Portner and Jaskel and its client, Andrew Ladsky)

(See Martyn Gerrard for the continuation of the fraudulent demands)

Back to list

 

(15)- Five months after the 16.02.07 threat of "bankruptcy and forfeiture" from "Rootstock Overseas Corp" (# 3, above), and the 27.02.07 claim in which, with "Steel Services", it claimed to be my "landlord" (# 6, above) - I finally received 'some' information on the identity of this offshore, 'paper company' - which added further to the number of major issues.

In my 30.06.07 letter to Ahmet Jaffer, on which I copied Her Majesty's WLCC, I wrote, among others:

"...in my 25 February 2007 letter to Mr Jeremy Hershkorn [# 3, above], 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 received no reply or even an acknowledgment"

"You will be aware that, under English law, there can be no claim for monies owed unless evidence can be produced of goods or services rendered under contract.

In simple terms, what services or goods does “Rootstock Overseas Corp” claim it has supplied to me - since the Particulars of Claim supplied with the 7WL 00675 West London County Court claim [# 6, above] refer only to Steel Services Ltd – my landlord?"

"What is the connection between Steel Services Ltd and "Roostock Overseas Corp"?"

"As my requests have been outstanding for more than four months, I require that you supply this information by return of post."

"You have had my skeleton argument since 4 May 2007 [# 12, above]. 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."

"Should you fail to meet my requests I shall ask the Court to adjourn the hearing and direct you to provide the documentary evidence or reiterate that your claim be dismissed on the grounds that it is vexatious and wasteful of court time. I shall be seeking my full costs on an indemnity basis, including interest."

It (finally) led Jaffer to reply in his 12.07.07 letter:

"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"

Obviously, I never received this communication (as I reported at the time in my 25.02.07 reply).

In my 12.08.07 reply, I asked Ahmet Jaffer to supply me with a copy of the correspondence he claimed had been sent to me. He ignored my request.

Of course they had NOT supplied this information to me. The 16 Feb 07 letter was one of the standard tools in the toolkit of the vampiric, psycho Ladsky mafia - to inflict maximum distress and anguish on their victims - from which they get endless sadistic kicks.

That vermin is sick beyond words! (I repeat my Comments under Persecution (1)(4))

With his above 12.07.07 letter, Jaffer attached a 24.05.06 Land Registry title for "Rootstock Overseas Corp" - stating the following:

"2. Title number of the property: NGL 373333

3. Property: Jefferson House, 7 to 13 Basil Street, London SW3 1AX

4. Date: 24th May 2006

5. Transferor: Steel Services" (1)

6. Transferee: Rootstock Overseas Corp

7. Transferee's intended address(es) for service (including postcode) for entry on the registry. You may give up to three addresses for service one of which must be a postal address but does not have to be within the UK. The other addresses can be any combination of a postal address, a box number at a UK document exchange or an electronic address: (2)

Edificio PH Plaza 2000, Calle 50, Apartado 6307" (3) " , Panama 5, Republic of Panama" (4)

9. The Transferor has received from the Transferee for the property the sum of £120,000.

13. Signed as a deed on behalf of Steel Services Ltd, a company incorporated in the British Virgin Islands [5] by Enrique Sibauste [3], being a person who, in accordance with the law of that territory, is acting under the authority of the company."

(1)- As Steel Services was a 'lessee' of Lavagna Enterprises (Headlessor # 2) at the beginning of 2006 - how to explain that, in May 2006, Steel Services is the "transferor" of the title to Rootstock? Surely, the "transferor" should be Lavagna Enterprises?

My explanation is that these offshore paper companies have the same multi-criminal Rachman individual attempting to hide behind them: Andrew David Ladsky.

(See # 24.2, below, for the fact that, the following year, 'Steel Services' also transferred the 'airspace' to Lavagna Enterprises).

(2)- The right - stated on this Land Registry document i.e. under UK legislation - to give "up to 3 address, that do not have to be in the UK "...

...(3) - combined with the use of "sham directors" (BVI # 2) - this is a private address,...

...(4)- Panama = another offshore jurisdiction,...

... - make a complete, and very clearly - deliberate - mockery of legislation claiming to 'give' leaseholders 'the right' to know who controls their home.

(5)- When it paid the licence fee (BVI # 1)!

The above so-called 'transfer', still left many questions unanswered. (See # 24.2, below, for another title).

I headed my 12.08.07 reply to Jaffer: "URGENT AND IMMEDIATE ATTENTION" (and cc'd WLCC, including on the enclosures (WLCC # 9)) - and raised the following:

  • The fact that Jaffer had failed to supply me with his skeleton argument - in spite of my asking for it, 6 weeks previously, in my above 30.06.07 letter - stating:
  • 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.".
  • "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[# 6, above] - include sums of monies for periods up to 24 December 2006 i.e. seven months post the 24 May 2006 date?"

(NB: Actually, 3 months into year 2007, the 01.03.07 invoice from Martin Russell Jones (MRJ) also stated: "Landlord: Steel Services" ((!!!) (# 7, above)).

(For a detailed assessment of the issues, see my 12.09.07 Defence ; my 03.06.08 Witness Statement).

I also took the opportunity to state: "your firm’s conduct and that of your client is of the most despicable" - which I followed by relating some of the past events - which must have given them endless masturbation time. (To those this may offend: apologies, but, in the light of the conduct of this mafia, I believe that this is the right way of describing their reaction to it).

As, in his 16.02.07 letter [# 3, above], Jeremy Hershkorn had positioned Portner and Jaskel as a go-between with MRJ (admittedly, "in relation to arrears"), in the penultimate part of my letter, I also reported the latest malicious leak in July 2007 - and supplied photographs. Needless to say that there was no follow-up. They must have ALL been bent over with laughter for weeks on end.

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" (WLCC # 3.2). Likewise, it must have had them rolling on the floor with laughter.

I confirmed this again in my 22.08.07 letter to Jaffer, in which I supplied him with my costs - in anticipation of the 24 Aug 07 hearing - and EQUALLY important: copied Her Majesty's WLCC on this correspondence. (See WLCC # 11 for issue about this at the 24 Aug 07 hearing).

(See, above, summaries: (1) Events ; (2) Breaches of the law by Portner and Jaskel and its client, Andrew Ladsky)

(See Martyn Gerrard for the continuation of the fraudulent demands)

Back to list

 

(16)- While Portner and Jaskel had received my Skeleton Argument on 4 May 07, I only received "Rootstock"'s 22.08.07 so-called 'Skeleton Argument', produced by Greg Williams, 2 Gray's Inn Square Chambers, less than 48 hours before the 24 Aug 07 'hearing'...

- in spite of my asking for it 4 times, over the previous 7 weeks, which Her Majesty's WLCC knew - because of my 2 letters, and being copied on the other 2.

REASON: because the Ladsky mafia did not want to address my very damning evidence against the claim. So, typically for that mafia, it covered it up by lying.

(NB: Includes previous section # 17)

16.1 - My attempts - over a 7-week period - to get "the claimants"'s Skeleton Argument:

2 letters to Ahmet Jaffer, Portner and Jaskel - each copied to Her Majesty's West London County Court:

6 weeks after my initial demand, I started to write to Her Majesty's West London County Court: 2 letters - each copied to Ahmet Jaffer:

16.2 - "Rootstock"'s 22.08.07 so-called 'Skeleton Argument'

After writing the above letters, eventually, sometime on Wed 22 Aug 07, this 2-page 22.08.07 so-called 'Skeleton Argument', produced by Greg Williams of 2 Gray’s Inn Square Chambers, with attached covering letter from Ahmet Jaffer were delivered by courier to my PO Box address.

Hence, less than 48 hours before the 'hearing' (on 24 Aug 07) - and 3.5 months after it had received mine.

As I was not living near my PO Box at the time (My Diary 2009-Intro), I tended to make relatively infrequent visits. Considering the timing of the delivery, it is my guess that Ahmet Jaffer and his client, Ladsky, 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!

"Rootstock"'s 22.08.07 2-page so-called 'Skeleton Argument' - prepared by "Greg Williams, 2 Gray's Inn Square Chambers" (1)

(Paras 1 to 4, taking up the 1st page and a 1/4 of page 2, cover previous events: claim, orders)

5. "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." (2)

6. "Following correspondence between the parties, on 30 June 2007 the Defendant sent to the Claimant a letter with lengthy enclosures which she states are full copies of her evidence sent to the Court on 4 April." (3)

7. "Having read the enclosures of 30 June the Claimant is uncertain what argument the Defendant is making in respect of contesting jurisdiction." (4)

8. "The Claimant has delayed service of its skeleton argument to the present date in the hope that it may have been able to respond constructively to Defendant's arguments on the application." (5)

9. "Notwithstanding the above, the Claimant respectfully submits that the Court does have jurisdiction to hear the Claim." (6)

(1)- "Greg Williams" - YES, Rachman Ladsky and his racketeer solicitors, Portner and Jaskel, decided to employ a barrister to face me... a non-lawyer! :-)

(I had obviously progressed since 2002-04, when the opponent was' just' Ladsky's other racketeering, evil, solicitors, Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor (CKFT)).

(2)- "has not received a copy of the Defendant's skeleton argument"

Damn right it had received my 03.05.07 Skeleton Argument (# 12, above) - as I proved in my 22.08.07 fax to Her Majesty's WLCC, by attaching a copy of the printscreen of the Royal Mail website confirming that my document had been delivered. I also tried to 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 detailed under the previous point, over the previous 7 weeks, Ahmet Jaffer had received 4 letters from me - very clearly stating that "[he had] been in possession of my Skeleton Argument since 4 May 2007".

Reality: The vampiric, Ladsky mafia did not want to reply to my 03.05.07 Skeleton Argument, because the evidence against its claim (# 6, above) was very damning...

...- (as proven irrebutably by its 06.06.08 Notice of Discontinuance, # 31, below) - and supported by legal arguments (see WLCC # 5, for the type contained).

So, true to form: Ladsky and his mafia lied - as they had lied to e.g. (1)- the same court in 2002-04; (2)- the London tribunal in 2002-03 (LVT # 5.4).

But, hey, why not do it - as:

In fact, lying by 'the tribe' against 'the little people', is its accepted norm - as demonstrated further by e.g. my experience following my filing a 19 Apr 11 Claim in Her Majesty's Queen's Bench Division: summaries: Events; Breaches of the law.

At the 24 Aug 07 WLCC 'hearing' (WLCC # 11), Greg Williams asked me to show him the original post office receipts - which, of course, I had - knowing the evil, vampiric, gang of racketeers I am dealing with.

(3)- "on 30 June 2007 [I] sent to the Claimant a letter with lengthy enclosures which [I] state[d] [were] full copies of [my] evidence sent to the Court on 4 April"

Enclosure # 4 to my 30.06.07 letter to Ahmet Jaffer, Portner and Jaskel (# 15, above) was my 04.04.07 Application and Evidence contesting the court's jurisdiction - with which I supplied numerous supporting documents - as evidenced by the list (WLCC # 3) - which Jeremy Hershkorn had:

(4)- "the claimant is uncertain from the enclosures of 30 June what argument [I am] making in respect of contesting jurisdiction"

To this I say: evil vermin! (I repeat my Comments under Persecution (1)(4)) - as my arguments were very clear - and summarised under para.2.1 (WLCC # 3.1 for extracts).

Further, they were subsequently supported by additional legal arguments in my 03.05.07 Skeleton Argument...it had, 'of course', "not received" (Comment # 2, above).

But, what else can you expect from that mafia!

(5)- "The Claimant has delayed service of its skeleton argument to the present date in the hope that it may have been able to respond constructively to Defendant's arguments on the application"

Unbelievable! I repeat my comments under # 2, as to the source of this mafia's belief that it can lie with impunity.

(6)- "Claimant submits that the Court does have jurisdiction to hear the Claim"

And the wish of 'the brother', Andrew David Ladsky was dutifully acted upon - with the cooperation of another corrupt solicitor - see WLCC # 11

(See, above, summaries: (1) Events ; (2) Breaches of the law by Portner and Jaskel and its client, Andrew Ladsky)

(See Martyn Gerrard for the continuation of the fraudulent demands)

Back to list

(17) (Moved to # 16, above)

 

(18)- As had been planned (WLCC # 5.2), a 'very accommodating' solicitor (*), Deputy District Judge Mc Govern, chaired the WLCC 24 Aug 07 so-called 'hearing'.

McGovern perversely refused my request - under Sch.12, s.3 of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 - to have my case transferred to the then Leasehold Valuation Tribunal.

Equally perversely, in spite of the issues with the claim, and of my written evidence that it was fraudulent - ordered that I pay £293.70 (US$518) costs to "the claimant" - in the process, continuing to demonstrate contempt of CPR.

See WLCC # 11 for detail.

 

(19)- Following the 24.08.07 WLCC Order (WLCC # 11), I developed a 12.09.07 Defence (without the benefit of having a transcript of the 'hearing', as Andrew Ladsky's henchmen in Her Majesty's West London County Court had withheld the tape deliberately).

I fell into the trap set by the Order, by describing my document as a "Defence & Counterclaim"

- on which Ladsky's corrupt henchmen and monsters in WLCC jumped, by sending me a 27.09.07 letter masquerading as 'an Order', demanding I pay immediately £1,700 (US$3,000), failing which my "counterclaim" = Defence, would be "struck out".

(NB: Includes previous headers # 20 and # 21)

See WLCC # 12 for detail.

Back to list

(20) (Header moved to # 19, above)

(21) (Header moved to # 19, above)

 

(22)- Portner and Jaskel sent Her Majesty's WLCC a 26.09.07 "Defence to Counterclaim", produced by Greg Williams - arguing what was glaringly obvious: my 12.09.07 "Defence & Counterclaim" was not a "Counterclaim".

As I had the fake 27.09.07 'Order' hanging over my head (WLCC # 12.3), I sent a 02.10.07 letter to WLCC, cc'd Portner. My letter was 'not liked' as, in spite of chaser letters (also cc'd to Portner), it failed to respond - leading me to, 6 weeks later, file a 13.11.07 complaint with HMCS 'Customer Service'.

BOTH, WLCC and Portner = 'the brother' Ladsky, went into silent mode until Jan 08 i.e. for more than 3 months.

(NB: Includes previous section # 23)

For my letters, see WLCC # 15.

Providing more evidence of the collusion, conniving and conspiring that had been taking place so far - including in dishing out their criminal psychological harassment against me - following my letters, Portner = 'the brother' Ladsky,

...in tandem with their corrupt henchmen and monsters in Her Majesty's West London County Court - went into silent mode: Ladsky for 4 months, and WLCC for more than 3 months.

That was 'fascinating', considering Rachman Ladsky's assertions - through his henchmen at Portner - in:

Had Portner and Jaskel's client, Ladsky run out of "instructions"? (Picking-up the 'standard reply' from the Law Society: # 5.1 and # 5.3, above).

However, I did have 'communication' from evil, criminal vermin (I repeat my Comments under Persecution (1)(4)) Andrew David Ladsky: no heating and no hot water in my apartment for 3 days - starting on Christmas day. It reminded me of what took place during the Easter break in 2003 - one of many such instances: see other examples under Protection from Harassment Act 1997.

Portner having, like Her Majesty's WLCC, gone into 'silent mode' since the end of Sep 07 - prompted me (in addition to other factors) to head my 27.12.07 response to the 20.12.07 'reply' 'from' HMCS 'Customer Service' with "CONFIRMATION OF COLLUSION" (WLCC # 18.2) (The 20 Dec 07 letter was a follow-up to my 13 Nov 07 complaint to HMCS 'Customer Service' - WLCC # 18).

The 10 Jan 08 'reply' from HMCS 'Customer Service', led me to change my header to "ABSOLUTE CONFIRMATION OF COLLUSION" (WLCC # 18.2).

On 11 Jan 08, Her Majesty's WLCC sent me an Allocation Questionnaire. Instead of returning it, I asked, 'of course' - in vain - for the case to be transferred to another court (WLCC # 24).

(See, above, summaries: (1) Events ; (2) Breaches of the law by Portner and Jaskel and its client, Andrew Ladsky)

(See Martyn Gerrard for the continuation of the fraudulent demands)

Back to list

(23) (Moved to # 22, above)

 

(24)- Continuing to prove the collusion and conspiring with Her Majesty's WLCC, with his 07.02.08 letter, Ahmet Jaffer sent me a so-called 'List of documents: Standard disclosure' - before the case management directions were issued, and before I filed my Allocation Questionnaire.

It was clear from the list of 10 items that it did not address the issues I had raised. Demonstrating the typical evilness, perversion and sadism of the Ladsky mafia, it contained a title that had been transferred 7 weeks before filing the claim against me.

24.1 - Ahmet Jaffer's 04.02.08 so-called 'Standard Disclosure'

With his 07.02.08 letter, Ahmet Jaffer sent me a so-called 'List of Documents: Standard Disclosure', dated 4 Feb 08. It was 'fascinating' on a number of counts:

  • 1. Jaffer did not send me his client's Allocation questionnaire (and nor did WLCC - in breach of CPR Rule 26.9(2)).
  • The deadline set by WLCC was 28 Jan 08. While I did not return the one I was sent, opting instead to send the 26.01.08 letter c/o WLCC (WLCC # 24) – on which I copied Jaffer - my correspondence was delivered to both on 28 Jan 08.

I did not ask for a copy of the documents, because I was waiting for directions from the court.

Back to list

24.2 - Demonstrating the typical evilness, perversion and sadism of the Ladsky mafia, the 07.02.08 so-called 'Standard Disclosure' contained a title that the airspace of Jefferson House was "transferred from Steel Services to Rootstock" (for "£1") 7 weeks before filing the claim against me.

(NB: Includes previous section # 27)

Following the 09.04.08 so-called 'case management directions' issued by Her Majesty's District Judge Ryan (WLCC # 27.1), when I supplied Ahmet Jaffer, Portner, with my Standard Disclosure (# 26, below), in my 06.05.08 covering letter, I asked:

"Should I assume that your 4 February 2008 'List of documents: Standard disclosure' is still valid?"

Of course, continuing with the criminal psychological harassment regime, Jaffer did NOT reply to my letter.

In my 16.05.08 letter to Jaffer, I wrote:

"I conclude from your lack of response to my question...that the reply is a 'yes'"

- and asked him to supply me with documents from his 04.02.08 so-called 'standard disclosure' (# 24.1, above). One turned out to be a registered transaction for Jefferson House's airspace - stating:

Transfer of whole of registered title(s)

2. "Title number(s) of the property": BGL51266"

3. “Property: Airspace of Jefferson House, 7 to 13 Basil Street, London SW3 1AX” (1)

4. "Date: 8/1/07"

5. "Transferor: “Steel Services Limited

6. "Transferee: “Rootstock Overseas Corp"

7. "Transferee's intended address(es)...: Edificio PH Plaza 2000, Calle 50, Apartado 6307, Panama 5, Republic de Panama(2)

9. "The Transferor has received from the Transferee for the property the sum of One Pound (£1.00)"

13. “Signed as a deed on behalf of Steel Services Ltd, a company incorporated in the British Virgin Islands [3] by Enrique Sibauste [2] … acting under the authority of the company

(1)- See Headlessor # 5.

(2)- The same "sham director" (BVI # 2) as in the case of "Rootstock Overseas Corp" (# 16.2, above) = Rachman Ladsky playing monopoly with paper companies.

(3)- When it paid the licence fee (BVI # 1)!

As I wrote in my 03.06.08 Witness Statement, para.51:

"My being supplied with this document only now (it was registered 7 weeks prior to filing the 27 February 2007 claim), provides yet another example of PJ and its client’s perverse, devious, warped mentality - considering that I first asked for clarification 15 months ago – and subsequently stated the issue in, among other, major documents served on them: my 3 May 2007 Skeleton Argument ; my 12 September 2007 Defence"

(See, above, summaries: (1) Events ; (2) Breaches of the law by Portner and Jaskel and its client, Andrew Ladsky)

(See Martyn Gerrard for the continuation of the fraudulent demands)

Back to list

 

(25)- Continuing to be absolutely hell-bent on helping their 'brother', Andrew Ladsky win the claim against me, his 'brothers' and henchmen in Her Majesty's West London County Court, District Judge Ryan and Nicholson issued Orders that very blatantly breached numerous CPR.

As I had predicted in my 14.05.08 reply to Nicholson, I was left with having to write my Witness Statement - without - the information to which I was legally entitled, and needed in order to defend myself against the claim - as Ahmet Jaffer did not reply to my 19.05.08 CPR Part 18 Request.

(NB: Includes previous section # 28)

See the actions, and lack of action by Andrew Ladsky's equally corrupt 'brothers' and henchmen in Her Majesty's WLCC - continuing to be hell-bent on helping their 'brother' win the claim against me:

  • ...supported by 3 additional sheets in which I very clearly reiterated the issues - and concluded with: “Directions need to be issued to ensure that the Claimant provides me with the necessary information to defend myself against the claim”.
  • To cover-up his deliberate failure to comply with many CPR, Ryan made the absolutely outrageous claim that he wrote the 'directions "without considering representations from the parties" (WLCC # 27.1);

In his 01.05.08 Order (WLCC # 27.3), Ladsky's henchman and equally corrupt 'brother', Her Majesty's West London County Court District Judge Nicholson wrote:

"If the Defendant wishes to obtain information from the Claimant the Defendant should make a request for the information, and if it is not given the Defendant should make an Application to the court

As discussed under WLCC # 27.3, Comment # 3, the perversion, sadism, viciousness and evilness of that mafia is beyond words...

...as, over the previous 15 months, I had, in documents filed in court, and served on Portner and Jaskel - repeated endlessly that I did not have the information I needed to defend myself against the claim - which I supported with a massive amount of evidence.

In my 14.05.08 reply to Nicholson (WLCC # 27, Comment # 4), I stated that his game plan was to continue to ensure that I would not be provided with the information I needed to write my Witness Statement.

Nonetheless, for the record, wasting a lot more of my time, on 19 May 08, I hand-delivered this 19.05.08 CPR Part 18 Request to Ahmet Jaffer, Portner and Jaskel - giving (as per CPR) a 14-day deadline for reply - by 2 Jun 08. In this 7-page request, I asked for / for evidence of / raised the issue about:

  • Ownership of Jefferson House.
  • My revised share of the service charges.
  • Year-end accounts for Jefferson House: 2004 re. the assessment by the ICAEW; 2005, and 2006.
  • Explanation for the “Steel Services estimated expenditure for the year ended 2006".
  • My £6,100 credit due to non-compliance with s.20 consultation procedures.
  • My exemption from all legal costs in connection with any proceedings arising out of the application to the LVT dated 7 August 2002.
  • The service charges: 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006.
  • The reserve fund and contributions.
  • The insurance policy.
  • The 21 Oct and 16 Nov 04 invoices.
  • Electricity charges.

Not only did Ahmet Jaffer not reply, he did not even acknowledge it.

So, thanks to Andrew Ladsky's corrupt, taxpayer-funded 'brothers' and monsters in Her Majesty's West London County Court: District Judge Ryan and Nicholson (in addition to his corrupt solicitors, Portner and Jaskel)...

...- in very blatant breach of CPR: (WLCC # 27.1, Comment # 8 ; # 27.2) - I was left in the highly prejudiced position of having to write my Witness Statement - without - the information to which I was legally entitled.

That's the game Her Majesty's West London County Court judiciary, and their 'brother' Andrew Ladsky and his racketeer solicitors, Portner and Jaskel, wanted to play: I had only one round.

I would fight for a 'knockout'.

(See, above, summaries: (1) Events ; (2) Breaches of the law by Portner and Jaskel and its client, Andrew Ladsky)

Back to list

 

(26)- I sent Ahmet Jaffer, Portner, a 06.05.08 Standard Disclosure, listing 243 documents - "in support of my position that since 2002 I am the innocent victim of organized fraud".

On 21 May 08, I hand-delivered an integral copy of the documents to Portner.

As per the 09.04.08 so-called 'case management directions' issued by Her Majesty's West London County Court District Judge Ryan (WLCC # 27.1), I sent Ahmet Jaffer, a 06.05.08 Standard Disclosure, listing 243 documents.

On the form, my introduction to the list of documents was:

"My list of documents is to support my objective of demonstrating in my witness statement and at trial that I continue to be the innocent victim of fraud - aided and abetted since 2002 by a supporting cast comprising of lawyers, surveyors, accountants, and their professional associations, the Court Service, LVT, housing departments, Ombudsmen, Land Registry and the police...

...That - in addition to suffering defamation of my name and character - in the process, I have suffered breach of covenants in my lease, of my statutory rights, as well as rights under court rules - and have been subjected to harassment and bullying"

See WLCC # 31, my Comments to Ahmet Jaffer's letter of 23.05.08, for my reasons for the number of documents - which I subsequently hand-delivered to Portner.

(See, above, summaries: (1) Events ; (2) Breaches of the law by Portner and Jaskel and its client, Andrew Ladsky)

(See Martyn Gerrard for the continuation of the fraudulent demands)

Back to list

(27) (Moved to # 24, above)

(28) (Moved to # 25, above)

 

(29)- In the light of the ongoing, blatant determination by Andrew Ladsky's henchmen in Her Majesty's West London County Court (judiciary and staff) to secure the claim against me (WLCC # 27),...

...I went all out to develop a 'knockout' 03.06.08 Witness Statement.

As I had anticipated, I did not get one from 'the claimants': "Roostock (sic) Overseas Corp. , Steel Services Ltd" = Andrew David Ladsky.

See WLCC # 30, for detail

(See, above, summaries: (1) Events ; (2) Breaches of the law by Portner and Jaskel and its client, Andrew Ladsky)

(See Martyn Gerrard for the continuation of the fraudulent demands)

Back to list

 

(30)- Counting on the fact that I had deliberately not been supplied with the information to which I was legally entitled in order to defend myself against the claim (WLCC # 27), Ahmet Jaffer, Portner and Jaskel, had sent me a patronizing, ironic 23.05.08 letter, "suggesting that the case be transferred from fast-track to multi-track"

- using the laughable excuse: "because of [my] voluminous bundle of documents" - which, he also complained, "[he had] not requested". I replied by letter of 05.06.08.

See WLCC # 31 for detail.

(See, above, summaries: (1) Events ; (2) Breaches of the law by Portner and Jaskel and its client, Andrew Ladsky)

(See Martyn Gerrard for the continuation of the fraudulent demands)

Back to list

 

(31)- In the 06.06.08 Notice of Discontinuance, "Roostock (sic) Overseas Corp, Steel Services, Sloan Development" i.e. vampiric, Rachman Andrew David Ladsky dropped "ALL of the 27 February 2007 claim" against me - without stating a reason.

 

That's right - THE CLAIM:

(1)- endorsed with a Statement of Truth by Jeremy Hershkorn, Portner and Jaskel, on behalf of his client, Andrew David Ladsky (# 6.3, above);

(2)- preceded, 2 weeks previously, by Rachman Ladsky asking his equally satanic (*), vampiric, solicitor Hershkorn to send me a 16.02.07 letter ...

(typically), threatening me with "bankruptcy proceedings, forfeiture [copy of definition] and costs" - in the name of a company I had never heard of (# 15, above) - if I failed to "pay immediately £8,937" (US$15,800) (# 3, above);

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

(3)- they were so hell-bent on extorting the monies from me that:

  • they filed an application for summary judgment against me (WLCC # 2.2);

What led to issuing the 06.06.08 Notice of Discontinuance? My 03.06.08 Witness Statement (WLCC # 30)

What did my Witness Statement contain?

Like ALL my other documents filed in court, and served (summary, WLCC # 27.3, Comment # 3), it was based entirely on the contents of my website,...

...which the Ladsky mafia had again attempted to secure the closure by threatening my website Host, repeatedly with...

..."proceedings for defamation and for substantial damages and costs" 'because'

"[my website] contains suggestions that our client [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..." (# 2, above) (I can't stop laughing at that - see e.g. Extortion)

If the claims on my website were "false", "outrageous", "unsubstantiated" and "defamatory" of 'the good character' of Ladsky: WHY did he drop"ALL" of his (2nd) fraudulent claim against me?

The 1st fraudulent claim was the 29 Nov 02 claim, also filed in HM West London County Court (Overview # 3 ; summaries: Events; Breaches of the law ; Overall outcome).

After blatant conspiring, collusion and conspiring between Ladsky and my so-called 'advisors' Piper Smith Basham/Watton and Stan Gallagher (Summary of events ; my Comments to the 13.11.03 "draft notice and consent order") - it ended up in an "offer" (WLCC # 12).

BUT, this time, I was not ‘represented’ in relation to the claim. Hence, the Ladsky mafia could not repeat the same trick: arriving at 'an arrangement' with 'my' legal advisors.

Furthermore, unlike in 2002-04 (Overview # 3 ; Lord Falconer ; CKFT), the sadistic, perverse, extremely vicious, cruel, barbaric ploys and 'games' used - by ALL - in 2007-08 - failed to make me cave in - including failed to lead me to appoint legal 'advisors' (WLCC # 9 , # 11)

= 2nd time round: the fear and other criminal psychological harassment tactics had no hold on me - very clearly leading – ALL - to go into a state of immense fury and rage.

Considering that - just one week previously - Ahmet Jaffer was asking for "the case to be transferred to multi-track" (WLCC # 31): why drop the claim now?

"SO: 'Another step in the retribution accomplished boys! Well done!"

"BUT, mustn't relax. As you would expect from a Nazi, this is a tough bitch.

SO, mustn't relent on the psychological harassment - until we finally get her."

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

 

The outcome clearly proved that, as in the case of the 29 Nov 02 claim, the 27 Feb 07 claim was used as a fraud tool,...

...and, in both instances - with the undeniable very active assistance of Her Majesty's West London County Court's judiciary and staff:

2002-04: Events; Breaches of the law;

2007-08: Events; Breaches of the law.

The worst part of it is that, in this "fantastically corrupt", worse than Wild West environment, this kind of conduct is widely endorsed (Overview # 7),...

...- resulting in my being treated as 'the criminal', while the criminals are treated as my 'victims'...

... - as demonstrated by Her Majesty's Kensington police describing Andrew David Ladsky as "[my] vulnerable victim who feels intimidated by [me]" - in a so-called "crime report" it holds against me...

...- instead of what I AM: THE GLARINGLY OBVIOUS VICTIM OF ORGANIZED CRIME...

...- leaving them ALL to laugh their head off at me.

When will the Ladsky mafia 'bless me' with another of "its contributions": another fraudulent claim (making it the 3rd one)?

Time will tell.

(See Martyn Gerrard for the continuation of the fraudulent demands)

(See, above, summaries: (1) Events ; (2) Breaches of the law by Portner and Jaskel and its client, Andrew Ladsky)

Back to list

 

(32)- As per CPR, I sent Portner and Jaskel my 26.06.08 Statement of Costs - a total of £7,756 (US$13,676). Lack of response led me to send a 22.07.08 'Notice of Commencement of Assessment of Bill of Costs' - and a 'Draft Statement of Case'.

 

Civil Procedure Rule 38(6) states:

"...a claimant who discontinues is liable for the costs which a defendant against whom he discontinues incurred on or before the date on which notice of discontinuance was served on him"

As stated under the previous point, it is a certainty that, following the 06.06.08 Notice of Discontinuance of "ALL the claims [against me]", the Ladsky - WLCC mafia perceived the Notice as marking the end of the matter - not expecting me to follow it by an action for my costs.

In my 26.06.08 Statement of Costs, spanning the previous 16 months, I gave Portner until 4 July to reply, stating that if my costs were disputed, I would file an application for an order for costs.

Predictably, 2 weeks past the deadline: no response. So, I sent Portner a 22.07.08 'Notice of Commencement of Assessment of Bill of Costs' (outcome of more 'cramming in' of the CPR), and of researching other sources of information. The deadline for reply was 13 Aug.

With the notice "for information purposes", I also sent my 22.07.08 'Draft Statement of Case' in support of my position - should the matter proceed to an assessment hearing.

In his 01.08.08 reply "AJ" i.e. Ahmet Jaffer stated that he had sent my bill of costs to "a Costs Draft men to settle points of dispute..."

(See, above, summaries: (1) Events ; (2) Breaches of the law by Portner and Jaskel and its client, Andrew Ladsky)

(See Martyn Gerrard for the continuation of the fraudulent demands)

Back to list

 

(33)- In their 11.08.08 'Points of Dispute', Portner and its client Ladsky gave the preposterous, laughable excuse for dropping the claim (# 31, above) that "the managing agent had given the incorrect identity for the landlord"...

- considering that I raised this issue, and therefore the issue as to the legality of the claim against me - a total of 11 times over a 16-month period - with both, Portner AND Her Majesty's WLCC judiciary.

I replied on 26.08.08 in the context of my Application to WLCC for an assessment hearing.

On 13 Aug 08, Portner sent this 11.08.08 'reply' to my 22.07.08 Notice of Commencement of Assessment of Bill of Costs' (# 32, above) - stating under para.1.4, an absolutely outrageous, preposterous and laughable explanation for issuing the 06.06.08 Notice of Discontinuance claim (# 31, above):

"in June of 2008 advice was obtained from counsel wherein it was found that the demand for ground rent and service charges served by the managing agent had given the incorrect identity and address for the landlord and was therefore invalid pursuant to s.47 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987.

It was as a direct result of this that Notice of Discontinuance was filed

As reported under # 31, above - the Ladsky mafia did not give a reason for issuing the 06.06.08 Notice of Discontinuance, evidently thinking that it would be the end of it, leaving it free to promote this preposterous, laughable 'reason' - in the knowledge (based on past experience) that they would be highly unlikely to be challenged.

My response is on page 5, under para. 2.2 of my 26.08. 08 reply and Application to HM West London County Court for an assessment hearing (for which I paid £300 (US$530), and supported with 56 enclosures). In summary:

•  Aside from highlighting the legislative requirement imposed on solicitors under the Money Laundering Regulations / Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 to "know your client" (NB: making this the 2nd time that Portner had breached this requirement - see # 1, above), I highlighted that:

•  (1)- Portner also acted for 'Steel Services' (# 3 - 10 February 2006 "Notice of first refusal"), and had done so for a long time (e.g. Elderly Resident), as well as acted for Andrew Ladsky (# 2, above).

•  (2)- That over a period of 16 months, starting with my 25.02.07 letter (# 3, above), I questioned the identity of my 'landlord' at least 8 times (*) in various documents,

and concluded: "Having received all of the above – the Defendant waits 16 months - until “June 2008” to “obtain advice from counsel”?"

"The reality is that the Defendant could not defend its 27 February 2007 claim because it is fraudulent.

But, maximum fun was squeezed out of it by all - over a period of 16 months... " (NB: WLCC summaries: Events; Breaches of the law ; Overall outcome ; Portner summaries: Events; Breaches of the law ; Overall outcome).

(*) Actually, over the 16-month period, I did this a total of 11 TIMES:

'Obviously', as in the case of my 8 communications to the courts and Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor (CKFT) in relation to the previous, 29.11.02 equally fraudulent claim filed against me - also in Her Majesty's West London County Court - the ink 'mysteriously' disappears from my documents before they arrive, or shortly afterwards. (See snapshots under kangaroo courts).

The Detailed Assessment hearing was 'due' to take place on 04.11.08. It did not. See next entry.

(See, above, summaries: (1) Events ; (2) Breaches of the law by Portner and Jaskel and its client, Andrew Ladsky)

(See Martyn Gerrard for the continuation of the fraudulent demands)

Back to list

 

(34)- More lies and psychological harassment games by Ahmet Jaffer, Portner - in tandem with Andrew Ladsky's 'brother', Her Majesty's West London County Court District Judge Nicholson - resulting in the "cancellation" of the non-existent "4 Nov 08 Detailed Assessment hearing",...

and a transfer to Her Majesty's Supreme Court Costs Office - providing me with the opportunity to amend my documents.

In response to my 26.08. 08 Application for an assessment hearing, I received a 12.09.08 Order from Her Majesty's West London County Court District Judge Nicholson - stating:

"TAKE NOTICE that the DETAILED ASSESSMENT HEARING will take place on

4 November 2008 at 2:00 PM"

Please note: This case may be released to another Judge, possibly a different Court."

In the light of my experience over the previous 19 months with that hellhole masonic court that very clearly perceived itself to be at the exclusive service of 'the brother', Andrew Ladsky and his gang of racketeers,...

... including my experience with Nicholson who: (1)- had "cancelled the 8 May 07 hearing" he very clearly never had any intention of holding (WLCC # 5.2) ; (2)- had refused my absolutely legitimate Application to vary 'the directions' (WLCC # 27.2),...

...I anticipated that 'the hearing would not take place'. I was right!

On Friday 31.10.08, I sent a fax to Ahmet Jaffer, Portner - stating, among other:

"CONFIRMATION OF 4 NOVEMBER 2008 DETAILED COST ASSESSMENT HEARING

The Court reconfirmed that it had sent you a notice of the hearing. I nonetheless attach the copy I received"

Because the Order stated that 'the hearing' might take place in a different court, as explained in My Diary - 11 Nov 08, the previous day, I had gone in person to the court, to get confirmation. It was confirmed to me, including having sent a Notice to Portner.

True to form, the WLCC-Ladsky mafia had more criminal psychological harassment in store for me.

Knowing that it would be cancelled, to add to the evidence of the psychological harassment against me, I returned to the court on Monday 3 Nov, at 14h30. It was again confirmed that 'the hearing' would take place, as planned, the following day. It was the same staff, who was clearly a member of 'the Ladsky team'.

I had written my mobile number on a copy of the 12 Sep 08 Order. I practically had to force it on him, asking him to phone me if there was a change of plan.

What the court had at the time - which I did not know about, but could feel, was...

...a 03.11.08 fax letter from Ahmet Jaffer to Her Majesty's WLCC - stating:

"We attach a copy of a fax letter received from the Defendant,...dated 31st October 2008 [above] together with attachments which only came to the writer's attention today." (1)

"We were unaware of any Detailed Assessment hearing until receipt of the above communication [1] and please confirm whether any Notice of Assessment Hearing was sent to us and, if so, when and how" (2)

"In the circumstances we would ask that the hearing be adjourned [3] and please ensure that Notice is given to us [2] allowing sufficient time for Costs Draftsman to be instructed..."

(1)- Believe that - given the one-team approach with the WLCC judiciary and staff, from the start + the fact that it had been confirmed to me? (above) Like my Skeleton Argument Jaffer claimed "[he had] not received"! (# 16.2, above)

(2)- = Pantomime!

(3)- Discussed below.

Jaffer sent me his above letter by post.

With, of course, no phone call from the court, on Tuesday 4 Nov 08, I went to the court for the time stated on the above Order.

As I reported in e.g. my 02.01.10 Subject Access Request to the Ministry of (In)Justice (Lawyers & courts # 9) - from para.226:

  • That, in any case "[he had] issued an Order this morning at 10h00 for the case to be transferred to the Supreme Court Costs Office" (His 04.11.08 Order, posted on 11 Nov).
  • When I asked why the hearing had been "cancelled" just 4 hours before the stated time for "the hearing", and more than 2 months after I filed my Application (# 33, above), Nicholson replied: “The judge made an error.” (!!!)
  • To my raising the fact that I had come to WLCC the previous day, at 14h30 – hence, 3.5 hours after it had received the fax from Portner - and that the hearing had been confirmed to me. Reply: “It takes a while to be put on file" (!!!)
  • Nicholson said that one of the court staff had phoned me in the morning. This was not true.

I took the opportunity to review my submissions - starting with the Bill of Cost I sent Portner on 26.06.08 as,...

in its 11.08.08 'Points of Dispute', under para.1.11, Portner wrote:

"unfortunately the Defendant's Bill of Costs fails to comply with the requirements of CPR Part 43 [1] and therefore this hampers the Claimant's ability to consider the reasonableness of each and every individual claim for costs made". (2)

(1)- 'Of course', Portner and its client Ladsky 'are in a position to lecture me on "compliance with CPR"!

The gall of that mafia is beyond words.

(2)- 'Unlike' the presentation of its 27.02.07 Particulars of claim - that were such a mess that, to understand what they covered, I produced my own version, and sent it to Portner with my 22.05.08 letter. I repeat my comment about that vermin mafia.

I replied under para.2.8 of my 26.08.08 response and Application; 26.08.08 covering letter to Portner (# 33, above).

I sent Portner my 11.11. 08 Amended Bill of Costs with a covering letter explaining the amendments.

(See, above, summaries: (1) Events ; (2) Breaches of the law by Portner and Jaskel and its client, Andrew Ladsky)

(See Martyn Gerrard for the continuation of the fraudulent demands)

Back to list

 

(35)- Two weeks before the 30 Jan 09 so-called 'hearing' at Her Majesty's Supreme Court Costs Office, Portner's client, Andrew Ladsky, made me a 14.01.09 "offer of £4,500" (US$7,900) "in full and final settlement of your costs in this matter"

- which, in my 19.01.09 reply, I refused as "derisory" - as, among others, by then my costs amounted to £8,675 (US$15,300).

But, Ladsky knew he could, likewise, rely on the support from 'the brother', Deputy Master Hoffman - as he only granted me £2,507 of my costs + interest.

Of course, continuing in the footsteps of 'his brothers' in HM West London County Court: the word 'sanction' against Portner and its client - was not uttered.

See My Diary 30 Jan 09 for detail.

(See, above, summaries: (1) Events ; (2) Breaches of the law by Portner and Jaskel and its client, Andrew Ladsky)

(See Martyn Gerrard for the continuation of the fraudulent demands)

 

ALL THE INDIVIDUALS REFERRED TO ON THIS PAGE CAUSED ME TO DEVELOP IT - AND THIS WEBSITE, AND THEN MAINTAIN IT.

THIS OUTCOME IS OF THEIR OWN DOING.

 

  C O M M E N T S

Back to top