Email this site to a contact

 

The English injustice system...in the residential leasehold sector

HER MAJESTY'S west london county court - Post 2004 - Re. Jefferson House, 11 Basil St, London SW3 1AX

 

(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').

 

Sections list (below)

 

In reading this page on Her Majesty's West London County Court, remember that the ROOT CAUSE for the actions and lack of action by her judiciary and staff is a thoroughly evil, greed-ridden, vampiric, multi-criminal Rachman crook, Andrew David Ladsky...

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

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

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

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

Back of Jefferson House in July 2002...

...and in September 2005

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

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

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

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

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

For more detail, see this Feb 06 diagram.

For whom Her Majesty's West London County Court judiciary and staff...

joined the other assassins - in saying:

Yes! Of course! O' Great One!

Because...

 

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

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

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

I add that only the corruptible can be corrupted.

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

 

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

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

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

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

 

Sections

(NOTE, above, browser set-up)

 

  C O M M E N T S

 

Introduction

Delighted with the 'excellent service' he and his gang received from this court in 2002-04: summaries: Events ; Breaches of the law ; Overall outcome on me,...

...in Feb 07, Andrew David Ladsky used another member from his gang of racketeers, Jeremy Hershkorn, then at Portner and Jaskel, London W1U 2RA, to file another fraudulent claim against me: 27.02.07, ref. 7WL00675.

For 21 months, between Mar 07 and Nov 08, I was subjected to even worse treatment by Her Majesty's WLCC judiciaries, court manager and other court staff - I would describe as even more vicious, cruel, perverse and sadistic than what took place in 2002-04.

They were 21 months of absolute sheer utter hell, of ongoing mental torture, terrible torment, anguish, distress and trauma.

They, in tandem with Portner-Andrew David Ladsky, behaved like a barbaric 'lynch mob' of evil monsters - hell-bent on securing the fraudulent claim against me.

What took place in this hellhole, masonic, barbaric, kangaroo court is also discussed under:

It is also covered (among many other documents) in:

  • (3)- My 03.06.08 Witness Statement (re. another fraudulent claim filed against me by Ladsky in WLCC: Overview # 11).

Reason? I repeat my conclusions about my experience with this court in 2004-04: its failure to perform its legal remit and ensure the integrity of the rule of law...

...stem from its judges, court manager and other court staff evidently perceiving the 'sacrosanct' landlord, and 'brother', Andrew David Ladsky and his gang of racketeers - as having the 'divine right' to defraud me, and as 'retribution' for 'my daring' to stand-up to ALL of them - and fight for my so-called 'rights'. In one word:

C O R R U P T I O N (*)

(It is said that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. My website demonstrates this very amply) (Case summary).

(*) Used in the dictionary’s sense of moral depravation, as well as in the sense of “Willing to act dishonestly in return for money or personal gain” - because there has to be a reason for the glaring bias by Her Majesty's WLCC judiciary, court manager and other court staff ignoring repeatedly the evidence, breach of CPR, of statutes, of the Lease...

... - and hence, I again stress: failing repeatedly to ensure the integrity of the rule of law - as summarised, below, under: (1)- Events ; (2)- Breaches of the law ; (3)- Overall outcome on me.

By then, it made it my 4th similar experience with the so-called 'justice system' of this island Kingdom (Overview # 19 ; kangaroo courts).

To this I add:

Overall reason: because (like others in the Establishment), ALL perceive somebody with my profile as a piece of dirt, a non-entity who does not have the right to have rights - there to be used, abused and tormented at will - BY ALL.

(NB: I also cite the experience of a visitor to my site, with this court: Comment # 19).

(NB: Other people are also complaining of corrupt individuals in the judicial system see e.g. Victims Unite (http://victims-unite.net) and the petition to Stop the Oppression of the British People (My Diary 3 Apr 10), as well as the Comments) (copy of extracts at 2010).

(Other examples of bias by judges).

The test for judicial bias - I repeat my entry under WLCC 2002-04 - Introduction.

In relation to 'abuse of process of court' and 'vexatious proceedings' - I add that:

Summary of events - Her Majesty's West London County Court - 2007-08

(See: below, Breaches of the law ; above, definition of 'bias' and 'vexatious proceedings')

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

(1) - Andrew David Ladsky - Jeremy Hershkorn, Portner and Jaskel, 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" (Portner # 3).

(2) - Ignoring my 25.02.07 reply challenging the 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 # 1). 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 # 1).

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

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

(3) - 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 (pt # 2).

Ladsky's 'brothers' and henchmen in HM's West London County Court ignored it - and continued ignoring it - in spite of 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 'daring' to do this continued in HM's Supreme Court Costs Office, where Ladsky's other 'brother' HM's 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).

(*) A similar thing took place with that hellhole, masonic, kangaroo court, in 2002-04, when it ignored repeatedly my highlighting - 7 times, over a 7-month period - that an abuse of process was taking place.

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 David Ladsky and Portner, and their equally evil judiciary 'brothers' and other henchmen in HM'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.

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

  • - giving the mafia the opportunity to file for Summary Judgment against me - without, of course, telling me (not pursued) (pt # 2.2).
  • Further proof that it was done deliberately and maliciously: I wrote 4 letters asking for an amended version. It finally sent it to me: 11.01.08 = more than 6 months later (pt # 2.2).
  • Also "[I don't] need a copy of the amended notice because [I] know the content of [my] acknowledgment of service" (!!!) (pt # 18.2-10Jan-Com9)
  • (2) - I filed a 04.04.07 Application contesting the court's jurisdiction, asking, under Sch.12, para.3 of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002, for the case to be transferred to the then London Leasehold Valuation Tribunal - as the case certainly warranted it (pt # 3).
  • (3) - In anticipation of a "8 May 07 hearing of my Application" - I filed and served a 03.05.07 Skeleton Argument - for which, for the fun of it, I was deliberately given very little time (pt # 5).
  • The clearly non-existent "hearing" was "cancelled because of communication from the claimant" - which was: "not received from [me]":
  • In spite of the overwhelming evidence in the case, and in breach of my rights, McGovern denied my Application (pt # 11).
  • Equally perversely, in spite of the issues with the claim, and of my written evidence that it was very clearly fraudulent, in his 24.08.07 Order, McGovern ordered that I pay £293.70 (US$518) costs to "the claimant" - in the process, continuing to demonstrate contempt of CPR - as the Ladsky gang had not supplied a statement of costs (unlike I) (pt # 11).
  • - endorsing it with the threat of "striking out [my non-existent] counterclaim" = Defence, if I did not (pt # 12.3) - and counting on the likelihood that I would not take delivery of it on time (pt # 12.3-Com3).
  • (i)- one added-up all the sums contained in the claim - 'leading' "the court to total the counterclaim at £20713.18" (pt # 18.2-20Dec-Com3);
  • (ii)- the other claimed: "you were asked to pay £1,700 because you had not put a limit on your counterclaim" (!!!!) (pt # 18.2-10Jan-Com17).
  • As I pointed out to both, they failed to address my request in my complaint: "confirm that this letter is as per court regulations".
  • The initial 'response' to my complaint led me to take my protest to the street, holding a placard, as I paced up and down in front of the Ministry of (In)Justice (pt # 18.2) - with the predictable outcome of prompting more of the same.
  • (6) -My 'daring' to protest was followed by a 07.03.08 Order from HM's WLCC District Judge Ryan threatening to "strike out [my] defence" if I did not file my Allocation Questionnaire by 14 Mar 08 (giving me only 24hrs to do this) (pt # 26.1).
  • Faced with this threat, I filed, and served, a 14.03.08 Allocation Questionnaire, supported by 3 additional sheets, in which I very clearly reiterated the key issues - and concluded my list of 20 points with:

Directions need to be issued to ensure that the Claimant provides me with the necessary information to defend myself against the claim (pt # 26.2).

  • Ryan covered it up by making the absolutely outrageous claim that "[he] wrote them without considering representations from the parties"
  • (8) - I filed, and served, a 30.04.08 Application to vary the so-called 'case management directions' (pt # 27.2).
  • (9) - While I knew that it would not lead anywhere - and wrote this in my 14.05.08 reply to Nicholson (pt # 27.3, Coms # 3 and # 4) - for the record,...
  • - in very blatant breach of CPR - I was left in the highly prejudiced position of having to write my Witness Statement - without - the information to which I was legally entitled.
  • (11) - In the light of the ongoing, blatant determination by Ladsky's henchmen in Her Majesty's WLCC (judiciary and staff) to secure the claim against me, I went all out to develop a 'knockout' 03.06.08 Witness Statement.
  • 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': Portner from # 32.
  • (13) - Further proof of the fraud, if any more was required, came in the context of pursuing my costs - with the Ladsky gang 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)- the 19.04.07 Order by more than one week, resulting in my having only 2 working days to write my 03.05.07 Skeleton Argument (extended by one extra day, after causing me the hassle of asking for an extension) (at the time, I was in full time employment) - and then "cancelling the 8 May 07 hearing" (pt # 5);
  • (ii)- making me lose a lot of valuable time for follow-up actions (pts # 27.1 , # 27.3).
  • (2)- Ensuring that my transcribing company was not provided with the tape of the 24 Aug 07 so-called 'hearing' (pt # 11) - until after I had written my Defence (pt # 12.2).
  • (3)- Fabrication of excuses to "cancel" 'hearings' none of them had ever had any intention of holding - with the objective of feeding their perverse, sadistic needs for 'a good laugh' at my expense:
  • (i)- "8 May 07 hearing" - for which they gave me only 3 working days to write my skeleton argument (pt # 5). (Events # 4(3), above).
  • (ii)- "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 (Portner # 34).
  • (4)- Ignoring my letters asking for help in getting "the claimants" skeleton argument (pt # 9) (it did not want to send me, because it did not want to address my very damning evidence; so typically for that mafia, it lied it had not received mine (Portner # 16).

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'...

...and especially those from a group that makes "cherished contributions" to Her Majesty's government = shower it with a lot of money.

(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

Breaches of the law - Her Majesty's West London County Court - 2007-08:

(See above: (1) summary of events; (2) definition of 'bias' and 'vexatious proceedings')

In - my NON-LAWYER opinion (*) - Her Majesty's West London County Court's judiciary, as well as staff 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.

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

•  Civil Procedure Rules

  • (1) - Throughout - failing to perform its duty under, Part 1 - "Overriding Objective": Rule 1.1 - "Dealing with cases justly" ; Rule 1.1(2)(a) - "Ensuring the parties are on equal footing"; (b) "Saving expense", etc. ; Rule 1.4 "Duty to manage cases".
  • (2) - Failing to use its power under Rule 3.4(2) to strike out the 27.02.07 claim, that very glaringly, "[would] obstruct the just disposal of the proceedings" - and, further, also breached:
  • (ii)- PD 16 - para.2.2 - by failing to capture the business address for each of "the claimants".
  • (5) - HM WLCC District Judge Ryan issuing 09.04.08 so-called 'case management directions' (pt # 27.1) that perversely ignored everything in my 14.03.08 Allocation Questionnaire, supported by 3 additional sheets, in which I very clearly reiterated the key 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” (pt # 26.2).
  • To cover-up his deliberate failure, Ryan made the absolutely outrageous claim that "[he] wrote them without considering representations from the parties".
  • In the light of the evidence in the case, in doing this, Ryan breached numerous CPR: Rules 26.5, and 26.8 ; PD 26: the court's obligations listed in the introduction, several parts of para. 2.2 , para.4.2 (pt # 27.1, Com # 8).
  • Also Rule 26.9(2) by not providing me with a copy of "the claimants" Allocation Questionnaire (in filing mine, I also served it) (pt # 26.2).
  • (7) - Outcome: In very blatant breach of CPR (and others of my rights) - I was left 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.
  • (ii)- instead, it issued me with a 06.06.08 Notice of Discontinuance of "ALL the claims [against me]" - without stating a reason (Portner # 31);
  • (iii)- in its subsequent 11.08.08 'Points of Dispute', it made 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".

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

  • (1) - HM's Deputy District Judge McGovern defrauding me by, in his 24.08.07 Order, ordering that I pay £293.70 (US$518) "to the claimant" - in spite of the issues with the claim, and of my written, very compelling evidence, that it was fraudulent - forcing me to pay, as I knew that if I did not, I would suffer serious consequences (pt # 11).
  • (2) - The 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 non-existent] counterclaim" = Defence, if I did not (Events # 4(5)). (From its contents, under CPR Rule 3.1(3), it should have been an Order).

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

  • (2) - The 03.04.07 "Notice that Acknowledgement of Service has been filed" that falsely and deliberately stated that "[I had] indicated an intention to defend part of the claim" - giving Ladsky-hershkorn the opportunity to file for Summary Judgment against me - without telling me (Events # 4(1)).

•  Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 - Sch.12, s.3

•  My Lease

  • By ignoring the evidence I supplied:
  • Etc. - as I was not supplied with evidence.

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

  • (3) - I repeat CPR # 6 - and make the same addition as above in relation to HM's District Judge Nicholson: that he was hell-bent on securing the claim against me, as well as on adding to the criminal psychological harassment.

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

  • (1) - I repeat the entries under CPR.
  • (6) - Also with the objective of securing the claim against me, delaying - deliberately - sending me Orders and Notices (summary - pt # 2.2).
  • (7) - Ensuring that my transcribing company was not provided with the tape of the 24 Aug 07 so-called 'hearing' (pt # 11) - until after I had written my Defence (pt # 12.2).
  • (8) - With the objective of feeding their perverse, sadistic needs for 'a good laugh' at my expense - using fabrications 'by' the Ladsky gang to "cancel hearings" none of them ever had any intention of holding:
  • (ii)- 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 - 4 hours before the so-called "4 Nov 08 hearing", Nicholson cancelled it and, in his 04.11.08 Order, stated that the case be transferred to the Supreme Court Cost Office.
  • To my asking why this was taking place more than 2 months after I had filed my 26.08. 08 Application (Portner # 33), he replied: "The judge made an error" (Portner # 34).
  • (9) - Ignoring my letters asking for help in getting "the claimants" skeleton argument (pt # 9).

In fact, the above, comes under the banner of criminal psychological harassment.

•  Defamation Act (see extracts)

  • By its ongoing processing of the claim and other documents - IF the processing does not clearly indicate, on all the relevant documents, that "ALL the claims against [me]" were dropped, in a 06.06.08 Notice of Discontinuance (Portner # 31).

•  Data Protection Act 1998

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

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

...as further confirmed by the non-response to my 02.01.10 Subject Access Request to the Ministry of (In)Justice (Legal-Home # 9), and the 'Get lost!' to my 12.07.09 complaint (form) to the Parliamentary Ombudsman.

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

FURTHER: HM's West London County Court District Judge Nicholson and Ryan also turned a blind eye, and therefore also endorsed the breaches of Civil Procedure Rules, of statutes - including committing criminal offences against me - as well as breaches of my Lease - BY

Jeremy Hershkorn, Ahmet Jaffer and their client, Andrew David Ladsky

- see Portner, Summary - Breaches of the law.

 

In relation to Her Majesty's Court Service 'Customer Service':

 

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

For the reasons detailed under pts: # 18.2-20Dec ; # 18.2-10Jan ; # 24.2-12Mar:

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

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

21 months of absolute, sheer utter hell - of ongoing mental torture, terrible torment, anguish, distress and trauma - including the distress from the 'replies' to my complaint to HM Court Service 'Customer Service' (# 18 and # 24).

Of being treated like a non-entity who does not have the right to have rights, there to be used, abused and tormented at will - by ALL.

The Ladsky gang and its henchmen in WLCC only gave up - after they 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 KPMG = also destroying the rest of my life (Overview # 14)

WHY?

  • (It may also be that one or more of the WLCC individuals were Jewish).

I therefore submit that the comment made at the time of issuing the 6 Jun 08 Notice, was 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, must not 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 - Portner from # 32).

(Of course, events continued in the same vein, at the 30 Jan 09 'hearing', in Her Majesty's Supreme Court Costs Office - making it by then, my 5th similar experience with the so-called 'justice system' of this island Kingdom (Overview # 19)).

These are not courts of law - but kangaroo courts "criminally placed before the people".

With a court (and tribunal) system like that - as 'a certain type' of criminal: YOU'VE GOT IT MADE: you set the ball rolling and, all you have to do is: sit back, and watch the courts / tribunals do your dirty work. (Ditto with the police - et.al.).

 

I remind you of the root cause (top of page) for all of the above Events and Breaches of the law - added to ALL the others - as well as ALL the other events reported on this website.

Unbelievable; isn't it?

 

(1)- Her Majesty's West London County Court judiciary accepted (and very viciously and perversely pursued) the (fraudulent) 27.02.07 claim, ref. 7WL00675, filed against me by Jeremy Hershkorn, Portner and Jaskel, on behalf of 'the brother', Andrew David Ladsky - in spite of the fact that - among others - it had:

(1)- two different company names; (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.

Totally ignoring 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'.

... the 'response' from Jeremy Hershkorn, Portner and Jaskel = Andrew David Ladsky, to my 25.02.07 reply to his malicious, 16.02.07 letter, in which he threatened me with "bankruptcy, forfeiture [copy of definition] and costs" if I did not pay immediately £8,937 (US$15,800) to "Rootstock Overseas Corp" - a company I had never heard of at the time (Portner # 3),..

...was to file a (fraudulent) 27.02.07 claim, Ref. 7WL00675, against me in WLCC. I took delivery of this claim on 9 Mar 07.

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 I communicated in my 25.02.07 reply to Hershkorn (Portner # 3), 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 "claimants" on the claim (*);

(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:

  • "£1,069.31 of interest" (US$1,885)
  • " £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 fact, there was a 3rd name on the claim: Sloan Development (Headlessors # 6). 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".

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. I believe that the name is also 'SloanE DevelopmentS'

Very clearly, this claim came under CPR Rule 3.4 - Power to strike out a statement of case -

(2) "The court may strike out a statement of case if it appears to the court- (a) the statement of case discloses no reasonable grounds for bringing the claim; (b) the statement of case is an abuse of the court, or is otherwise likely to obstruct the just disposal of the proceedings"

As discussed under # 2.1, below, in my 22.03.07 Acknowledgement of Service, I went to great lengths to raise the issue as to the identity of my 'landlord'.

Not only did Her Majesty's WLCC judiciary ignore it repeatedly, I was actually persecuted for 'daring' to do it.

Note that 16 months after filing the claim, Portner and its client Andrew Ladsky claimed to have 'just realised' that they had pursued it under the "wrong entity" (Portner # 33).

I had raised the issue 11 times over a 16-month period.

= More evidence of blatant criminal psychological harassment.

(See, above, for summaries of: (1)- Events ; (2)- Breaches of CPR, statutes, and of my Lease)

(1.1)- ‘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', Jeremy Hershkorn wrote:

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

and under 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.

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

Ever heard of a dispute over a contract, being argued - in court - without having the contract?

Well, that's what happens in the English (In)Justice system - that is "so well regarded throughout the world" - providing yet another example that 'the rule of law' is just decoration used to con 'the Proles' into believing they have rights, and the outside world into believing the same thing.

(NB: Maybe HM's WLCC judiciary considered this 'an improvement' on its pursuing the 29 Nov 02 claim, ref WL203537 - in the absolute knowledge that the lease supplied with the claim was not representative of my lease: WLCC # 3 ; CKFT # 6.7).

(In addition to numerous other issues: summaries: Events; Breaches of the law).

(See, above, for summaries of: (1)- Events ; (2)- Breaches of CPR, statutes, and of my Lease)

Back to list

(1.2)- Her Majesty's WLCC judiciary also ignored the breach of CPR PD 16 - para 2.2 - by allowing the claim to be filed - deliberately - without capturing the business address for Roostock (sic) Overseas Corp, nor that of the 2nd ‘claimant’: Steel Services Ltd

CPR PD 16 - 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"

But, had the business address be given, there would not have been many opportunities for a 'good laugh' - by all e.g. waiting 4 months after filing the claim, and 5 months after threatening with "bankruptcy, forfeiture and costs" (Portner # 3) - to provide me with the title for "Rootstock" (Portner # 15).

(NB: It was the psychos 'revenge' for my establishing that:

But, given the UK's company laws, the "fantastically corrupt", worse than Wild West environment, it was evidently perceived as 'immaterial': LVT # 01.

(See, above, for summaries of: (1)- Events ; (2)- Breaches of CPR, statutes, and of my Lease)

Back to list

(1.3)- In the light of the outcome, 16 months later: a 06.06.08 Notice of Discontinuance of "ALL the claims [against me]" (Portner # 31) - Jeremy Hershkorn, Ahmet Jaffer and their client, Andrew David Ladsky - also breached the following:

Providing false Particulars of claim - under:

CPR Rule 16.3 - Statement of value to be included in the claim - (2) "The claimant must, in the claim form, state- (a) the amount of money claimed..."

CPR Rule 16.4 - Contents of the particulars of claim - (1)(a) Provide "Detail of the interest sought"

By endorsing the 27.02.07 claim with a 'statement of truth', Jeremy Hershkorn, Portner and Jaskel, also, wilfully, aided and abetted Andrew David Ladsky in committing contempt of court:

Civil Procedure Rules - Part 22 PD - 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]" - (Reasons: Portner # 6.3).

(See, above, for summaries of: (1)- Events ; (2)- Breaches of CPR, statutes, and of my Lease)

Back to list

 

(2) In my 22.03.07 Acknowledgement of Service of the 27.02.07 claim - I did 2 things that were very clearly 'disapproved of' by Andrew Ladsky's 'brothers' and his other henchmen in Her Majesty's WLCC:

(i)- I very clearly highlighted the issues detailed under # 1, above - which they perversely ignored, and continued to do, in spite of my repeating it 11 times over a 16-month period - due to their being hell-bent on using the claim as a tool for 'retribution';

(ii)- I stated:"I intend to contest the court's jurisdiction" -...

... but, to give the Ladsky gang an excuse to file for Summary Judgment against me, in their 03.04.07 Notice, they falsely and deliberately captured that "[I] intend[ed] to defend part of the claim"

(NB: Includes previous section # 7)

2.1 - Issues about the 27 Feb 07 claim, # 1, above

In my 22.03.07 Acknowledgement of Service, I went to great lengths to highlight the fact that the claim contained 2 names: “Roostock (sic) Overseas Corp” and “Steel Services Ltd” - as can be seen from the printscreens:

On the Acknowledgment of service form (under which I also affixed a card with the address of my website)

On the front page of the claim form

In the claim, on the 1st page of the “13 Feb 2007 Statement from Martin Russell Jones.

Demonstrating undeniable collusion and conspiring with 'the brother', Ladsky, and his corrupt solicitors, Portner and Jaskel, Her Majesty's West London County Court judiciary failed to take action...

...- including over the following 21 months - in spite of 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.

WHY? 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.

(NB: Still fuming from the fact that I had 'dared' to do that, at the 30 Jan 09 so-called 'hearing', in the Supreme Court Costs Office, the WLCC judiciary's other 'brother', HM's Deputy Master Hoffman, challenged me, in an authoritarian, condescending tone, on my doing it: Events # 10).

(See, above, for summaries of: (1)- Events ; (2)- Breaches of CPR, statutes, and of my Lease)

2.2 - Stating: "I intend to contest the court's jurisdiction"

I believe that, in my 22.03.07 Acknowledgment of Service I could not have made this any clearer - as can be seen from the printscreens:

In the upper part of the form

At the bottom of the page

Nobody can fail to see this.

Well, in spite of my doing the above, 6 weeks later, through Portner, and clearly planned (Portner # 12) - I obtained a 03.04.07 WLLC "Notice that Acknowledgement of Service has been filed" - stating:

"[I had] indicated an intention to defend part of the claim." !!!!

Anybody wants to argue with me that this was not a continuation of HM's West London County Court's blatant collusion and conspiring with 'the brother', Ladsky, and his corrupt solicitor, Jeremy Hershkorn, Portner and Jaskel?

The objective of this malicious Notice:

To secure the fraudulent claim against me - with all its major failings - added to the fact that I was deliberately not provided with the information to which I was legally entitled and needed to defend myself against the claim (# 27, below).

WHO did that?

For sure, a Ladsky gang's henchman (+ other/s?) in the WLCC court staff (* below)

Of their own bat, or with endorsement from Her Majesty's WLCC judiciary?

In the light of the conduct of the judiciary in relation to all the other aspects of the case (as related on this page), I am opting for: with its absolute endorsement.

As evidenced by para.2 of the 19.04.07 Order issued by HM's District Judge Nicholson (# 5, below) - on the basis of the above malicious Notice,..

... the evil, vampiric Jeremy Hershkorn, Portner and Jaskel, had filed for Summary Judgment against me [CPR 24.2] (*) - of course, without telling me - as it states:

"In view of the defendants application the claimants request for judgment is refused."

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

How to explain the "refusal"? My conclusion: An agreed change of plan because:

  • (1)- all my documents would be placed on this website; hence, if it had been granted, so would have the (additional) black-on-white evidence of collusion and corruption;

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"

Further proof that the above capture in the 'Notice' was done deliberately and maliciously by Andrew Ladsky's henchmen in HM's West London County Court - with the aim of helping him secure the 27 Feb 07 claim against me:

(NB: Includes previous section # 17)

I wrote Her Majesty's WLCC 4 letters asking for an amended version:

'Triggered' by my 13.11.07 complaint to HMCS 'Customer Service' (# 18, below), WLCC finally sent me an 11.01.08 amended version - hence more than 6 months after my original request.

What did 'Customer Service' do? A typical cover-up of fraudulent misconduct: describing what had been captured as "an error", and "an amended notice was sent" (# 18.2 -10Jan-Coms 7 & 8).

Also "[I don't] need a copy of the amended notice because [I] know the content of [my] acknowledgment of service" (!!!) (# 18.2-10Jan-Com9).

     
 

(*) As well as doing the above, the Her Majesty's WLCC staff did other things subsequently - thereby demonstrating that, like its judiciary masters, it was absolutely on the side of criminals...as well as very sick and vicious - and adding to an already very long list:

  • (2)- ensuring I would not have a transcript of the 24 Aug 07 'hearing' at the time of writing my Defence (# 12.2, below);
  • (3)- the 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 non-existent] counterclaim" =Defence, if I did not (Done by staff - with the obvious endorsement of Nicholson. Or, was sender a nom de plume for Nicholson?) (# 12.3, below);
  • (4)- waiting until the following week to post the 07.03.08 Order issued by HM's District Judge Ryan - thereby giving me only 24 hours to return my Allocation Questionnaire, failing which my Defence would be "struck-out" (# 26, below) - and then going silent for more than one month (# 26.2, below);
  • (7)- on ALL the documents, the infantile, deliberate misspelling of my surname, Klosterkotter (as correctly captured on the claim) - into 'Klosterotter' e.g. (1)- 03.04.07 Acknowledgment of Service Filed (above) ; (2)- 19.04.07 Order (below) ; (3)- 24.08.07 Order (below) - and it continued, as demonstrated by (4)- 15 months later, the 04.11.08 Order (Portner # 34).
 
     

(See, above, for summaries of: (1)- Events ; (2)- Breaches of CPR, statutes, and of my Lease)

Back to list

 

(3)- I submitted a 04.04.07 Application, contesting the court's jurisdiction - hoping I had done it correctly, as the court's information did not provide guidance. I also included "An Extended Civil Restraint Order against the ‘landlord’" Application.

(NB: Includes previous section # 4)

3.1 - Contesting jurisdiction: transfer of case to the then London Leasehold Valuation Tribunal

Schedule 12 of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002, states, under para.3, Transfer:

(1) "Where in any proceedings before a court there falls for determination a question falling within the jurisdiction of a leasehold valuation tribunal, the court-

(a) may by order transfer to a leasehold valuation tribunal so much of the proceedings as relate to the determination of that question,..."

While the guidance notes supplied with the 27 Feb 07 claim went go to great lengths about the procedure for "admitting the claim / part of the claim, or disputing it", only a passing reference was made to 'contesting the court's jurisdiction'. I concluded from this that, while people are allowed to be 'litigants in person' i.e. can represent themselves, the courts evidently do not view this as extending to contesting the jurisdiction of a court.

Looking through CPR, under Part 11 - "Disputing the court's jurisdiction", I found Rule 11.2(b) - stating:

"an application must be supported by evidence"

While the CPR does not mention the need to complete a form for this purpose, I nonetheless went through all the 100+ forms contained in the CPR to make doubly sure. I could not find one.

Headed: "Application to West London County Court under Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) Rule 11 - Disputing the court's jurisdiction re. Claim 7WL00675" - under para.21, I summarised my 04.04.07 Evidence in my Application as:

"Request that the jurisdiction be transferred to the LVT as:

"(1) the claim relates to service charges under residential leasehold

(2) the Defendant disputes the claimed charges

(3) the case is linked to the Tribunal’s determination of 17 June 2003, LVT/ SC/007/120/02 (ref #992 on the LVT database)" (NB: Which it most definitely was: LVT # 4)

The issues I raised made it glaringly obvious that the case needed to be transferred to the tribunal. In the document I also quoted extensively from, among others, my Lease.

With my Application, I supplied numerous supporting documents - as evidenced by the list.

(NB: In the light of my experience with the then London Leasehold Valuation Tribunal (see summaries: Events; Breaches of the law; Overall outcome) - it was the equivalent of my asking to jump from one part of hell, into another part. But: that's all that's available!) (See # 11, below, for the outcome).

(See, above, for summaries of: (1)- Events ; (2)- Breaches of CPR, statutes, and of my Lease)

3.2 - "Extended Civil Restraint Order against the 'landlord'"

In the process of going through the majority of the CPR (a major undertaking!) I came across:

Rule 3.4(2)(b) “Vexatious Claimant”, and

Part 3C – Statements of Case, PD: “Extended Civil Restraint Orders – 3.1 (3) “…where a party has persistently issued claims or made applications which are totally without merit

In my above, 04.04.07 Application, I wrote that I was making the application "On the basis that this is the second false Claim filed against the Defendant by her ‘Lessor’. Details contained in this document".

I certainly proved to be right: Portner # 31.

Subsequently, I repeated my Application in: (1)- my 03.05.07 Skeleton Argument (# 5, below) ; (2)- my 12.09.07 Defence (# 12, below) - which, of course, continued to be ignored.

In the light of Andrew Ladsky and, by extension, his mob's total control of Her Majesty's West London County Court judiciary, not only in relation to this 27 Feb 07 claim, but also in relation to his 29 Nov 02 claim (summaries: Events; Breaches of the law; Overall outcome) - I would have stood more chance of asking the Pope to convert to Islam.

(See, above, for summaries of: (1)- Events ; (2)- Breaches of CPR, statutes, and of my Lease)

Back to list

(4) (Moved to # 3, above)

 

(5)- Continuing with their criminal psychological harassment regime, Her Majesty's WLCC District Judge Nicholson and court staff - gave me only 3 working days to file my 03.05.07 Skeleton Argument...

... - in the knowledge that, through collusion and conspiring with Jeremy Hershkorn, Portner and Jaskel = Andrew Ladsky, 'the brother', Nicholson would then "cancel" the 8 May 07 'hearing' - none of them had ever had any intention of holding (# 5.2)

(NB: Includes previous sections # 6, # 6.1, # 7, # 7.1 and # 8)

5.1 - Skeleton Argument

On Saturday 28 Apr 07, I took delivery of a 19.04.07 Order issued by Her Majesty's District Judge Nicholson - stating:

1. "The Defendants application to contest the jurisdiction be listed for hearing on:

08 May 2007 at 14:00 at West London County Court

"Parties are to file and serve skeleton arguments and any authorities relied upon by 4pm on 03 May 2007"

2. "In view of the defendants application the claimants request for judgment is refused."

Hence, it gave me only 2 working days to do this, as the document would need to be sent by Wednesday 2 May.

Note that the Order was posted more than one week later, on 27 April.

Using up a considerable amount of my time, on Monday 30 Apr, I tried phoning the court - in vain. I eventually resorted to sending a 30.04.07 fax, stating, among other:

"I am unable to produce this within this deadline.

Consequently, I wish to have an extension."

I nonetheless had to follow-up with another call.

In his 01.05.07 Order, HM's District Judge Nicholson granted me 'one' extra day i.e. for the document to be with the court on Friday 4 May.

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.

In my comprehensive 03.05.07 Skeleton Argument, I repeated the points I had made in my 04.04.07 Application (# 3, above) - and added more legal arguments by referring to, as well as capturing extracts from:

  • (1)- my Lease (I had already quoted some of the Clauses in my Application);
  • (2)- various legislation;
  • (3)- various CPR;

...thereby demonstrating that I had a very strong case. I also supported my document with 67 enclosures.

Under para.12, I repeated my Application's s above summary, heading it with: "Request for transfer to the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal under Schedule 12 Section 3 of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002".

(See, above, for summaries of: (1)- Events ; (2)- Breaches of CPR, statutes, and of my Lease)

5.2 - In collusion with Hershkorn = Ladsky, 'the 8 May 07 hearing', none of them had ever had any intention of holding - was "cancelled".

As the above Order stated: "in some instances a case may be released to another judge, possibly a different court", on Friday 4 May 07, I phoned WLCC to confirm where 'the 8 May hearing' would be taking place - which was a Tuesday. Monday 7 May was a bank holiday.

Reply: "The hearing has been cancelled". When I asked for the reason, I was told: "It's not on the file" Then, at some point, that it was "because of communication from the claimant".

Of course, I had not received anything.

The WLCC staff added that "A letter has been sent to you yesterday". I asked for the communication to be faxed to me. This is what I received: a 03.05.07 Order from HM's District Judge Nicholson - stating:

"Upon the Courts own motion. The Court has made this order of its own initiative without a hearing..." (1)

"Upon reading a letter from the Claimant's solicitors dated 1 May 2007 a copy of which is annexed" (2)

"IT IS ORDERED THAT

1. Vacate hearing on 8 May 2007.

2. Relist first open date after 18 May 2007..." (3)

3. Defendant do serve a copy of her application and evidence in support on Claimant's solicitors by 4pm 10 May 2007"

(1) = Decided with 'the brother', 'Dear Mr Ladsky'.

(2)- This letter, which, I had been told, was the reason for 'the hearing' being "cancelled", was deliberately not faxed to me.

I phoned the court but, because I had not asked for the name of the person I spoke to in the morning, I was asked to fax my request as: "your file cannot be found", "assumed to still be with the person who has sent you the fax". (It was not a big team).

Hence, it was a continuation of the criminal psychological harassment - proven further by the fact that, as asked, I sent a 04.05.07 fax at 15h00 requesting it. I did not receive anything.

The WLCC staff had said: "A letter has been sent to you yesterday". Of course, the following day, I did not receive a letter from WLCC. In actual fact, I only received it on Tuesday 8 May i.e. on the day 'the hearing' was allegedly 'scheduled to take place'.

See Portner # 12, for the 07.05.01 letter to the court, from Jeremy Hershkorn. As summarised under Portner # 12, my Comment # 9, the Ladsky gang gave 2 'reasons' for 'asking for the "cancellation of the 8 May 07 hearing":

  • (NB: But, by contrast, it was evidently, 'perfectly acceptable' for Hershkorn = Ladsky to file for Summary Judgment against me - without telling me!: # 2.2, above).
  • (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: Portner # 29 , # 31).
  • (2) "[I] had not replied to [its] 17.04.07 letter" - that was a criminal set-up to extort monies from me - that entailed using a plant to pay - without my consent - the full amount of the interest in the claim, thereby implying that I owed the whole claim (Portner # 14).
  • (It was the Ladsky gang back-up scheme to secure winning the claim against me, in case its Application for Summary Judgment against me was not pursued: # 2.2, above).

= The whole thing was a set-up - BY ALL - with the intention of continuing to inflict on me their extremely cruel, vicious and perverse criminal psychological harassment.

(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 and Ladsky - and for sure: et.al. in WLCC (Portner # 34)).

Of note: The WLCC-fed 'explanation' 'from' HMCS 'Customer Service' for "cancelling the hearing"? "because [I] did not file an application" (# 18.2-10Jan-Coms 12 & 13). Contrast that with the above = (Typical) deliberate cover-up of psychological harassment by WLCC.

(3) During my conversation with the WLCC staff, I was told that "the hearing" had been "rescheduled" to 24 Aug 07.

Reply to my questioning a 3.5-month delay: "There is only one judge in WLCC" (!!!!) Utter rubbish! (As evidenced by - at the time: Nicholson + Ryan working as a double act e.g. # 27, below).

Reality: the conniving objective was to substitute a judge by a 'very accommodating' solicitor (as evidenced by what took place: # 11, below) - which would also limit the amount of dirt on the judges' hands (thereby implementing a public sector policy of spreading it around to dilute responsibility).

(1)- August is the holiday period; (2)- the 24th was a Friday - just before the bank holiday. Hence: a time when many people tend to be away... including judges - leading to one of Hershkorn's peers, ‘Deputy’ District Judge McGovern, presiding over the so-called 'hearing'.

(NB: Of course, (and typically), following my complaint, HM's Court Service 'Customer Service' continued to stick to the same story: letters of 20.12.07 and 10.01.08 (from # 18, below).

(See, above, for summaries of: (1)- Events ; (2)- Breaches of CPR, statutes, and of my Lease)

Back to list

(6) (Moved to # 5, above)

(6.1) (Moved to # 5, above)

(7) (Moved to # 2, above)

(7.1) (Moved to # 5, above)

(8) (Moved to # 5, above)

 

(9)- While Portner and Jaskel had received my Skeleton Argument on 4 May 07 (# 5, above), I only received "Rootstock"'s 22.08.07 so-called 'Skeleton Argument', containing lies, 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 - and copying the court.

(NB: Includes previous section # 10)

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

Of note, following the 19 Apr 07 Order (# 5.1, above), Portner and Jaskel had received my 03.05.07 Skeleton Argument on 4 May 07.

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

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

•  12 August 2007 - Headed: "Your assistance in getting the skeleton argument from Portner and Jaskel".

"I wish to bring to your attention the fact that Portner and Jaskel has so far failed to supply me with its skeleton argument, and by the same token, evidence in support of its client’s claim against me [# 1, above]. By contrast, it received my skeleton argument on 4 May 2007 i.e. more than three months ago [# 5.1, above]."

The hearing is scheduled for 24 August 2007 [# 11, below].

Clearly, non-provision of the skeleton argument puts me in a highly unfair and very disadvantageous position in relation to the hearing."

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

•  16 August 2007 fax:

"One week to the 24 August 2007 hearing [# 11, below] and Portner and Jaskel has not supplied me with its skeleton argument. Yet, it has now been in possession of my skeleton argument for three and half months (since 4 May 2007) [# 5.1, above]"

The unwillingness to date to provide the requested information - including failure to comply with your court’s order of 26 April 2007 - provide overwhelming support to my position that the claim against me [# 1, above] is dishonest and vexatious [1]. (Hence, a repeat of Steel Services Ltd claim filed against me in your court in November 2002)." (2)

Concurrently, this conduct provides evidence that the claim is a waste of court time, as well as my time. Quite clearly, this breach of the rules of court is intended to gain an unfair advantage and calculated to inhibit your court from furthering the overriding objective [extracts] " (3)

(1)- Of course, I was proven right: Portner # 31.

(2)- For what took place, see summaries: Events; Breaches of the law.

(3)- It must have had them ALL rolling on the floor with laughter.

(See, above, for summaries of: (1)- Events ; (2)- Breaches of CPR, statutes, and of my Lease)

9.2 - 22.08.07 "Rootstock"'s so-called "Skeleton Argument"

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, was 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 discussed under Portner # 16.2, to avoid addressing my very damning evidence against the claim [# 1, above], typically, the Ladsky gang lied that it had not received my 04.05.07 Skeleton Argument.

Note that it had not denied receiving my 04.04.07 Application (# 3, above) (with my 30.06.07 letter (Portner # 15). My Application contained very clear detail of the issues - supported by evidence.

As discussed under # 5.1, above, relative to this Application, my 03.05.07 Skeleton Argument included the addition of legal arguments.

(See, above, for summaries of: (1)- Events ; (2)- Breaches of CPR, statutes, and of my Lease)

Back to list

(10) (Moved to # 9, above)

 

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

McGovern perversely refused my request - under Schedule 12, Section 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.

(*) Practising solicitors and barristers sit as judges and registrars in the courts. It is commonly recognised that it can result in injustice. Consider that they can potentially preside over a case involving their own firm. How about that for conflict of interest!

Her Majesty's Deputy District Judge McGovern presided over the 24 Aug 07 hearing in HM's WLCC.

He announced that the purpose of the 'hearing' was to consider my application for transfer of the case to the then Leasehold Valuation Tribunal: my 04.04.07 Application (# 3, above), and 03.05.07 Skeleton Argument (# 5.1, above).

Greg Williams (who wrote the 22.08.07 so-called 'Skeleton Argument') (Portner # 16.2) - represented 'the claimants'.

The 24.08.07 Order 'from' Deputy District Judge McGovern = pre-agreed between 'the Brotherhood':

"IT IS ORDERED THAT

"1. Application dismissed." (1)

"2. Defence & Counterclaim to be filed by 14 September 2007." (2)

"3. Defendant pay claimant's costs of today assessed at £293.70 by 7 September 2007." (3)

(1) "Application dismissed" - Note:

Schedule 12 of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002, states, under para.3, Transfer:

(1) "Where in any proceedings before a court there falls for determination a question falling within the jurisdiction of a leasehold valuation tribunal, the court-

(a) may by order transfer to a leasehold valuation tribunal so much of the proceedings as relate to the determination of that question,..."

 

As stated under # 3.1, above, under para.21 of my 04.04.07 Evidence in my Application - I wrote:

"Request that the jurisdiction be transferred to the LVT as:

"(1) the claim relates to service charges under residential leasehold

(2) the Defendant disputes the claimed charges

(3) the case is linked to the Tribunal’s determination of 17 June 2003, LVT/ SC/007/120/02 (ref #992 on the LVT database)" (NB: Which it MOST DEFINITELY WAS: LVT # 4)

It was glaringly obvious from the issues I raised that the case needed to be transferred to the tribunal. In the document, I also quoted extensively from, among others, my Lease.

In reply to my argument that, based on my first-hand experience, LVTs have specialists to deal with the issues in my case, McGovern replied, in a contemptuous, ironic tonic: "the court also has specialists" (as I captured under para.1.4 of my 02.10.07 letter to WLCC).

Translation: the WLCC 'brothers' wanted to keep my case under their control - because they, and their 'brother', Andrew David Ladsky were hell-bent on one objective: 'to get me' = "kill [me], zip up the bag, bring [me] to the morgue"

(NB: In my 12.09.07 Defence, under header # 9, I emphasised my concern at this refusal - stating: "Considering the above issues, the Defendant highlights her concern that her application for transfer of the case to the LVT was refused."

However, in the light of my experience with the then London Leasehold Valuation Tribunal (see summaries: Events; Breaches of the law) - it was the equivalent of asking to jump from one part of hell, into another part. But: that's all that's available!).

As stated under # 5.1, above, I also repeated the issues in my 03.05.07 Skeleton Argument - and included additional legal arguments. However, in spite of being used at 'the hearing' - its contents were ignored - because 'very inconvenient'.

This decision also breached government policy, re-emphasised by the Office of the then Prime Minister, Gordon Brown - in its 05.03.08 email to me (in response to the "petition to abolish leasehold" ) (My Diary 11 Mar 08):

"making the resolution of disputes quicker, easier and cheaper by moving jurisdiction for the majority of disputes from the courts to the leasehold valuation tribunal”

(2)- The "& Counterclaim" was a trap - and I fell right into it (below from # 12 to # 15).

(3) "Defendant pay claimant's costs of today assessed at £293.70 [(US$518]"

Following having the 27 Feb 07 claim filed against me (# 1, above) - I had raised the issue that the claim:

  • had 2 claimants: "Roostock" (sic) and "Steel Services",
  • both claiming to be my 'landlord',

IN:

(1) my 22.03.07 Acknowledgement of Service

By doing, as detailed under # 2, above.

(2) my 04.04.07 Application (# 3, above)

By stating, e.g.

Para.2.1- "Who is the Claimant, “Roostock Overseas Corp”?"

Para.2.2- “Roostock Overseas Corp” is unknown to the Defendant who is only aware of ‘Steel Services Ltd’ as being her ‘Lessor’, or ‘Landlord’.

(3) my 03.05.07 Skeleton Argument (# 5.1, above)

By stating, e.g.

Para.1- "What is the true identity of the Claimant - and the address?". “Roostock Overseas Corp” describes itself as “the Lessor” of the Defendant’s flat,

whereas the Particulars of Claim (on Martin Russell Jones (MRJ) letter headed paper) state “Landlord: Steel Services Ltd” (This discrepancy was highlighted to WLCC by the Defendant with the 22 March 2007 Acknowledgement of Service)

Para.1.1- "The Defendant is only aware of 'Steel Services Ltd' as being her 'Lessor', or 'Landlord'..."

4.5 months after filing the claim against me, with his 12.07.07 letter, Ahmet Jaffer, Portner and Jaskel, had supplied me with a 24.05.06 Land Registry title for "Rootstock Overseas Corp" - stating that

"Steel Services" had "transferred its title to Rootstock Overseas Corp" (Portner # 15).

However, as I reported in my 12.08.07 reply to Jaffer (i.e. before the hearing), it still left many questions unanswered as to the role of "Rootstock" (Portner # 15).

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

FURTHER:

It was glaringly obvious from my above documents that the claim was fraudulent.

Hence, in blatant collusion with 'the brother', Andrew Ladsky, McGovern made me pay unlawfully, and perversely "costs to the claimant".

In addition, HM's WLCC Deputy District Judge McGovern did this by demonstrating continued contempt of CPR requirements:

CPR Part 44 Practice Direction, para.13.5(2)

Each party who intends to claim costs must prepare a written statement of the costs he intends to claim...

(4) The statement of costs must be filed at court and copies of it must be served on any party against whom an order for payment of those costs is intended to be sought. The statement of costs should be filed and the copies of it should be served as soon as possible and in any event not less than 24 hours before the date fixed for the hearing

Portner did not send me, nor to the court, a statement of costs.

By contrast, I did comply with CPR, by sending my costs in my 22.08.07 letter to Ahmet Jaffer - and cc'd WLCC. (NB: Due to lack of knowledge, I had also included costs incurred not specifically in relation to the 'hearing').

The amount of costs was arrived at by:

  • Williams: "I don't know, the solicitors have not given me the detail"
  • McGovern: "How much are your own costs?"

McGovern then turned to me, saying words to the effect that 'I was lucky I did not have to pay for Portner's costs as well'.

The perversion and sadism of these thoroughly evil monsters is unbelievable!

(NB:I sent the cheque to Portner and Jaskel on 10.09.07, and cc'd WLCC). (I only received the Order from WLCC on 7 Sep. it was posted on 6 Sep).

Hence, HM's WLCC Deputy District Judge McGovern also ignored:

CPR Part 44 PD para 13.6 -

“The failure by a party, without reasonable excuse, to comply with the foregoing paragraphs [above] will be taken into account by the court in deciding what order to make about the costs of the claim, hearing or application, and about the costs of any further hearing or detailed assessment hearing that may be necessary as a result of that failure”

(See, above, for summaries of: (1)- Events ; (2)- Breaches of CPR, statutes, and of my Lease)

Back to list

 

(12)- Following the 24.08.07 WLCC Order (# 11, above), 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 (# 12.2). I fell into the trap set by the Order, by describing my document as a "Defence & Counterclaim"

- on which Ladsky's WLCC henchmen 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" (# 12.3).

12.1 - My 12.09.07 Defence "& Counterclaim"

The 24.08.07 WLCC Order (# 11, above) stated: "Defence & Counterclaim to be filed by 14 September 2007".

I looked up 'counterclaim' in the Civil Procedure Rules and concluded that it was an impossibility for me to file a separate counterclaim as, I did not know how much I owed - if anything, nor did I know which, among the multiplicity of companies was actually my 'landlord'. (Same situation in 2016 = 9 years later!).

I had made that abundantly clear from the time the claim was filed against me - by repeating it endlessly:

  • re. the issue of the identity of my 'landlord': in 3 major documents, over a 2-month period (# 11, above, Com # 3);

As a lay person, the use of the word 'counterclaim' made sense to me, as I was making ‘counterclaims’ in my document ‘in defence’ of the claims against me.

I therefore opted to adopt the title of "Defence & Counterclaim" for my 12.09.07 Defence. It was a trap!

As Andrew Ladsky's Ahmet Jaffer, Portner and Jaskel, and, concurrently his barrister, Greg Williams - had lied by claiming in their 22.08.07 so-called 'Skeleton Argument' that they had not received my 03.05.07 Skeleton Argument (Portner # 16.2),...

the following day, I captured a printscreen of the Royal Mail website confirming that my Defence had been delivered. On that day, I sent the printscreen to WLCC, with my 13.09.07 letter, and cc'd Ahmet Jaffer.

(See # 15, below, for Ladsky's counsel arguing what was glaringly obvious: my Defence was not a 'counterclaim').

(See, above, for summaries of: (1)- Events ; (2)- Breaches of CPR, statutes, and of my Lease)

12.2 - Andrew Ladsky's henchmen in Her Majesty's West London County Court ensured that I would not have a transcript of the 24 Aug 07 so-called 'hearing' (# 11, above), at the time of writing my Defence.

(NB: Includes previous section # 13)

To help me write my Defence (# 12.1, above), I submitted, to Her Majesty's West London Court, a (Recorded Delivery) 28.08.07 Tape Transcription Request form "for the purpose of supplying a copy of the recording to Beverley F. Nunnery & Co".

As stated in the 24.08.07 Order (# 11, above), my Defence had "to be filed by 14 Sep 07". By 1 Oct 07 i.e. 2 weeks post filing my Defence, the transcribing company (Beverly F. Nunnery) still had not received the tape.

As can be seen in my 07.10.07 letter to the company, the WLCC staff said to have forwarded my request for the tape to a judge on 14 Sep 07 i.e. on the day I had to serve my Defence!

I give this as another proof of the criminal psychological harassment against me by that hellhole, masonic, kangaroo court.

I reported the full events in my 13.11.07 complaint to HMCS 'Customer Service' (# 18, below) - which also included:

  • the fact that my transcribing company only received the tape on 2 Oct;
  • by letter of 28.10.07 I chased the company for the transcript, and that on 31 Oct I was told "the judgment part of the transcript has been sent to the court for review" and that "[I would] get the hearing part within 2-3 days";
  • the fact I sent a 07.11.07 chaser letter, and was finally told, on 9 November that "everything is ready" - hence 10 weeks after the 'hearing'.

Typically, HMCS 'Customer Service' colluded with WLCC - by stating:

The tapes were with another transcriber who was preparing another transcript for another case. The tapes were then forwarded to another transcribers (sic) on 1 October 2007.The transcript was then forwarded for approval by the Judge on 14 November 2007 (!!!!)" (# 18.2-20Dec).

That's the problem with lying: you've got to remember your lies! WHAT A MAFIA!

(Note that, in 2004, in relation to their 'brother' Ladsky's other fraudulent claim against me (WLCC # 12), his WLCC henchmen had done the same thing - this time, with the objective of keeping me in the dark for 2 months - as a means of adding to the psychological harassment: WLCC # 13.3 ; Lord Falconer of Thoroton # 5.3).

These people are sick beyond words - and typical of the psyche of many in the (taxpayer-funded) English public sector.

(See, above, for summaries of: (1)- Events ; (2)- Breaches of CPR, statutes, and of my Lease)

12.3 - The 27.09.07 letter from Andrew Ladsky's henchmen in Her Majesty's West London County Court, masquerading as an Order, demanding I pay immediately £1,700 (US$3,000), endorsing it with the threat of "striking out [my] Defence", if I did not.

(NB: Includes previous sections # 13 and # 14)

When, on Monday 1 Oct 07, I phoned Her Majesty's WLCC to ask why, after more than one month, my nominated company had still not received the tape of the hearing for transcription (# 12.2, above), instead of getting a reply to my question, I was told immediately:

"You have to pay £1,700 [US$3,000] to file your counterclaim"

I could not believe my ears. I replied that I had not received any communication to this effect.

I was told: "something had been sent to [me]". (As I reported in my 13.11.07 complaint to HMCS 'Customer Service', I took it delivery of it on 3rd October). I added that, in any case, it was an impossibility for me to file a counterclaim - as was obvious from my documents to the court (# 12.1, above).

The 27.09.07 communication from Ladsky's henchmen, a 'Mr Joseph', 'Courts Section', (et.al.), in Her Majesty's West London County Court - which is a letter masquerading as an 'Order':

The court received your counterclaim [1] against the claimant in the above case." (2)

"Either a fee of £1,700 or an application for a fee exemption or remission should have accompanied the counterclaim. Neither was enclosed." (3)

"If by 05 October 2007 you have not paid the fee or applied for a fee exemption or remission, your counterclaim will automatically be struck out [3] without further order of the court." (4)

"This means that you would not be able to proceed with your counterclaim(5)

(There were 2 notes at the bottom of the page, referring to "fee exemption / remission")

(1)- My 12.09.07 Defence for which, as discussed under # 12.1, above, I had fallen into the trap set by the 24 Aug 07 Order, by describing it as a "Defence" "& Counterclaim".

As also discussed, there was absolutely no way that I could file "a counterclaim", and it was glaringly obvious from my documents.

(2)- 27 Feb 07 claim (# 1, above).

(3) "a fee of £1,700 should have accompanied the counterclaim" ; "If by 05 October 2007 you have not paid the fee...your counterclaim will automatically be struck out"- (Heil Hitler!)

To secure the outcome of "striking out [my non-existent] counterclaim" = Defence - the mafia's tactics relied on my not getting this ‘letter’ on time as:

And, if I did get the letter before 5th Oct (as, indeed, I did)? I submit that the mafia was relying on the threat of "striking out [my Defence]", combined with the extremely short notice - to panic me into paying the £1,700 [US$3,000].

"your counterclaim will automatically be struck out"; "This means that you would not be able to proceed with your counterclaim"

= Strike out my Defence - which is what they had ALL been dying to do - so that a judgment could be issued against me - to make me pay to 'the brother', Andrew David Ladsky - monies that were NOT due and payable (Portner # 31).

(A fact that had been glaringly obvious from the start: (1)- issues with the claim: # 2.1, above; (2)- what WLCC captured in the 3 Apr 07 'Notice that acknowledgment of service has been filed': # 2.2, above).

These thoroughly evil individuals are sick beyond words!

For the reasons discussed above, this demand for payment of £1,700 (US$3,000), made with a menace, was unwarranted and therefore illegal - amounting to a breach of:

(4)- "without further order of the court"

While this correspondence has the components of an Order:

CPR Rule 3.1(3) - “When the court makes an order, it may” (a) “make it subject to conditions, including a condition to pay a sum of money into court“ (b) “specify the consequence of failure to comply with the order or a condition”.

...it is in fact a letter masquerading as an 'order' (see # 15, below).

(See, above, for summaries of: (1)- Events ; (2)- Breaches of CPR, statutes, and of my Lease)

Back to list

(13) (Moved to # 12.2 and # 12.3, above)

(14) (Moved to # 12.3, above)

 

(15)- 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 (# 12, above), I sent a 02.10.07 letter to WLCC, cc'd Portner. It 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 = Ladsky, went into silent mode until Jan 08 i.e. for more than 3 months. WLCC broke its silence by posting, on 7 Jan 08, a '19.12.07' Order from District Judge Nicholson "striking out [my non-existent] counterclaim" - thereby aiming to validate the fraudulent 27.09.07 letter.

(NB: Includes previous sections # 16 and # 21)

In his 26.09.07 "Defence to Counterclaim", Greg Williams (who had produced the previous so-called 'skeleton argument': Portner # 16) argued that my 12.09.07 "Defence & Counterclaim" was "not a counterclaim" - thereby endorsing the glaringly obvious. (I forgot to note the date on which I received it).

As I had the fake 'Order' of 27.09.07 hanging over my head, that demanded that I pay £1,700 (US$3,000) by 5th October (# 12. 3, above), I sent a 02.10.07 letter to Her Majesty's WLCC, on which I cc'd Ahmet Jaffer.

In this, I explained how I had interpreted the wording in the 24 Aug 07 Order (# 11, above), and emphasised that it was an impossibility for me to file a counterclaim - stating, among other:

"1.4 - I can only state that the sub-claims ‘cannot be true’, as I cannot put a monetary value to my counterclaims to the sub-claims due to, as I stated in my demand for transfer of the case to the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal, the need for specialist input

In my 12 September 2007 Defence and Counterclaim... I wrote: Paragraph 141, sub-heading 8.6.4: “while I do not know how much I owe – if anything – to whoever my ‘Lessor’ is – in the three groupings of service charges, I am certain that I do not owe the sums claimed

In conclusion: having been denied my right of access to the LVT [# 11, above] – which, I know from first-hand experience, is positioned to deal with the issues in the case – I cannot now be expected to give a monetary value to my counterclaims. I therefore await the input from the court’s ‘specialists’ referred to by Deputy Judge McGovern at the 24 August 2007 hearing.

2 Even if I were able to put a monetary value to my counterclaims, I do not know the entity/ies against which I should file the claim. There are five in total… and ‘might’ be more (?)

...Furthermore:

In spite of Steel Services Ltd being ‘apparently’ no longer connected with Jefferson House, the 1 March 2007 invoice I received from Martin Russell Jones [Portner # 7], i.e. ten months after the 24 May 2006 transaction between Rootstock Overseas Corp and Steel Service Ltd [Portner # 15] – and two days after the current claim was filed - states the “Landlord” as “Steel Services Ltd” (paragraph 44).

Steel Services Ltd has been described to a court, a tribunal, the Defendant (and other Leaseholders), as the “freeholder” for Jefferson House (paragraphs 45 and 46). Yet, during that time, Land Registry records stated the Freeholder as Jefferson House Limited – (this was still the case when I obtained a copy of the records in February 2006) (paragraph 46) ['Freehold ownership'].

At the end of 2005 / early 2006, a superior Headlessor was added: Lavagna Enterprises Ltd [Headlessor # 2]. As detailed under paragraphs 32 to 38 of my Defence and Counterclaim, Steel Services Ltd became a ”Lessee” of Lavagna Enterprises Ltd and, in the process, lost control of the top floor of the block" [Headlessors].

Unsurprisingly, in the light of main events since the start of the claim: (1)- issues with the claim: # 2.1, above ; (2)- what WLCC captured in the 3 Apr 07 'Notice that acknowledgment of service has been filed': # 2.2, above) ; (3)- the denial of my - legitimate - request to transfer the case to then London LVT (# 11, above)...

- my 02.10.07 letter was 'not liked' - by ALL.

Lack of response led me send a 14.10.07 chaser letter, followed by another chaser letter, on 28.10.07 - each time copying Ahmet Jaffer.

The, by then, 6-week ongoing silence, led me to file a 13.11.07 complaint with HMCS 'Customer Service' (# 18, below).

The reason my above 02.10.07 letter was 'not liked' - by ALL?

Because the 27.09.07 communication was a malicious, blackmail letter masquerading as an 'order' - and it failed to intimidate me, and more specifically: failed to panic me (# 12.3, Com # 3) into paying £1,700 (US$3,000) I did NOT owe (# 12.3, above).

Proof of this:

  • (i)- in the 20.12.07 'response' (# 18.2): "because the court totalled the amount of the counterclaim at £20713.18 [US$36,520]" (It had added-up ALL the sums in the claim) (Com # 3);
  • (ii)- in the 10.01.08 'response' (# 18.2): "you were asked to pay a fee of £1,700...because you had not put any limit on your counterclaim; therefore the court must charge the maximum fee of £1,700" (!!!) (Com # 17).
  • (4) - Both of the above 'responses' failed to address my question in my 13 Nov 07 complaint: "provide confirmation that this letter [27.09.07] is as per court regulations".
  • (5) - In fact, as demonstrated by (among others) the above outrageous 'explanations', in order to (typically) cover-up the criminal (Blackmail; Fraud; Harassment) misconduct, they actually endorsed the letter.

Of course, with the aim of continuing to 'justify' the 27.09.07 letter - the charade continued:

19.12.07 [1] Order from Her Majesty WLCC District Judge Nicholson:

"IT IS ORDERED THAT

The Defendant having failed to comply with the Court's request by letter dated 27 September 2007 to pay the Counterclaim fee, the Counterclaim stands struck out." (2)

(1)- While dated 19 Dec 07, the Order also states: "4 January 2008". It was posted on 7 Jan 08 - leading me to conclude that it was the outcome of 'consultation' with Paulette James who sent me the 10 Jan 08 'response' (# 18.2, below).

Hence my view (added to consideration of the events with this court) (and previously) - that '19 Dec 07' is as 'reliable' as the '21 Jan 10' letter from DI Crispin Lee, Police Directorate of 'Professional Standards': police # 5.3.

(2) = "striking out [my non-existent] counterclaim" (!!!) - and doing this more than 3 months after the 27.09.07 letter - that gave a "5 October 2007 deadline for payment, failing which [my] counterclaim will be struck out"! (# 12.3, above).

(In addition to repeating my absolute belief that the letter was not compliant with CPR), it confirmed the obvious: that it was malicious (in addition to being fraudulent).

Further, it also demonstrated that Her Majesty's District Judge Nicholson knew about the letter.

Hence: 'Mr Joseph', Court section, was either a nom de plume, or the letter had been farmed out to cover-up Nicholson's involvement - in the same way that:

  • (1)- The so-called 'case management directions' were, 'on the face of it', farmed out to HM District Judge Ryan (# 27.1, below) - thereby 'allowing' to use the trick that "the directions were written without considering representations from the parties" (Com # 8).
  • (3)- Nicholson "cancelled the [non-existent] 4 Nov 08 hearing" just 4 hours before, giving the excuse that, in the 2 months the court had had my Application for costs, 'it had not been realised' that it should be transferred to another court due to: "The judge making an error" (Portner # 34).

(See, above, for summaries of: (1)- Events ; (2)- Breaches of CPR, statutes, and of my Lease)

Back to list

(16) (Moved to # 15, above)

(17) (Moved to # 2.2, above)

 

(18)- The lack of response to my 02.10.07 letter (# 15) challenging the malicious 27.09.07 letter (# 12.3), led me to file a 13.11.07 complaint with Her Majesty's Court Service 'Customer Service'.

From there followed the (typical) delaying tactics - leading me to send an 11.12.07 'cry for help' to Jack Straw, then (In)Justice Secretary (# 18.1).

In my 27.12.07 reply, I challenged the initial 20.12.07 'response' to my complaint, and demanded "the immediate transfer of the case to a court and a judge committed to operating under the Overriding Objective".

(Typically), the 10.01.08 'response' continued to spin the WLCC-fed fabrications, in order to cover-up the gross misconduct and, in parts, contradicted the previous concocted stories - leading me to head my 28.01.08 reply with "Absolute confirmation of collusion" (# 18.2).

18.1 - My 13.11.07 complaint to HMCS 'Customer Service', and the (typical) follow on delaying tactics that led me to send an 11.12.07 'cry for help' to Jack Straw, then (In)Justice Secretary.

(NB: Includes previous sections # 19 and # 20

The lack of response to my 02.10.07 letter challenging the malicious 27.09.07 letter masquerading as an 'order' (# 12.3, above) - in spite of my chaser letters (# 15, above)...

- led me to file a 13.11.07 complaint (supported by 17 enclosures) with Kevin Pogson, Regional Director, Her Majesty Court Service 'Customer Service', Southwark Bridge.

In my 13.11.07 complaint - I raised:

  • (1)- The 27.09.07 letter giving me a 3-day notice to pay £1,700 "to file a counterclaim", and threatening to have my "counterclaim" (=Defence) "struck-out", if I failed to do this (# 12.3, above) - and asked:
  • (ii)- "confirmation that this letter is as per court regulations";
  • (iii)- why my letter and chaser letters were ignored.
  • (2)- The 03.04.07 Notice that captured deliberately false information about my 22.03.07 Acknowledgment of Service (# 2.2, above) - and the failure, in spite of my 4 requests, to supply me with an amended version (# 2.2, above) - asking for the reason.
  • (3)- "Rescheduling the 8 May 07 hearing" 3.5 months later (# 5.2, above), blaming the delay on "having only 1 judge in WLCC" (# 5.2) .
  • (4)- Taking one month to send the tape of the 'hearing' to my transcribing company, and then the court delaying the review of the company's transcription - resulting in my getting the transcript 10 weeks after 'the hearing' (# 12.2, above).
  • (6)- Asking "what is / are the next steps? as I asked in my 28.10.07 letter to WLCC".
  • I concluded with: "This claim has now been ‘hanging over my head for nine months’. I want to exert my right to defend myself against it and to have my case dealt with justly and fairly by WLCC i.e. as per the Overriding Objective.’"

 

15.11.07 reply from Kevin Pogson's Executive Assistant, HMCS 'Customer Service', Southwark Bridge:

"I have forwarded your correspondence to Linda Lennon, Area Director...Her office (which is located in this building) will investigate your complaint thoroughly and provide a response to you shortly."

 

15.11.07 reply from Suki Bhangra, Customer Service Officer, HMCS 'Customer Service', Southwark Bridge:

"I have asked the Court Manager of the above County Court for a full report and we will provide you with a full response to your letter within the next two weeks."

 

29.11.07 letter from Suki Bhangra, Customer Service Officer, HMCS 'Customer Service', Southwark Bridge:

"Unfortunately we are not in a position to respond to you in full regarding your complaint, as this matter is being investigated by the court."

"We aim to respond to you in full regarding this matter within the next two weeks."

Seeing the above letter as a continuation of the games being played by WLCC, I headed my 05.12.07 reply to Suki Bhangra, Customer Service Officer, HMCS 'Customer Service', Southwark Bridge (cc' d Kevin Pogson) - with:

"I demand that my case is immediately transferred to a court and a judge committed to operating under CPR’s ‘Overriding Objective."

So that I can exercise my rights under the European Convention on Human Rights, comprised under the Human Rights Act 1998: Article 6 – “Right to fair hearing”, and Article 13 - "Right to effective remedy"

(BUT: I repeated my above Note. Hence, it can be argued that there have been no breaches).

"I find it most interesting that WLCC requires (so far) one month to answer what I view as straightforward questions in my 13 November 2007 correspondence to your Office i.e."

I then repeated the questions in my (above) 13.11.07 complaint.

Having highlighted the fact that I still had not received a reply to my 02.10.07 letter to HM WLCC court manager, I then asked why WLCC was not managing my case - as per CPR's Overriding Objective 1.4.

Among others, I referred to the major issues with the claim; the fact that I had flagged them up (summary of my documents by then + my Defence), starting with my Acknowledgment of Service.

To back-up further my demand for a transfer of my case to another court, I summarised some of the key events that had taken place with WLCC in 2002-04 (Events; Breaches of the law; Overall outcome) - in relation to the 29 Nov 02 claim filed by 'Steel Services' = Andrew David Ladsky.

Any true professional, tasked with the role of handling complaints, could not fail to see that I had a very legitimate complaint, and would have understood why I did not believe that this court would handle the case as per CPR (and I continued to be proven right).

(Typically) 'my daring' to send the above letter prompted more 'punishment' by the mafia:

10.12.07 letter from Suki Bhangra, Customer Service Officer, HMCS 'Customer Service', Southwark Bridge:

"I apologise for the length of time it is taking for the court to investigate this matter...I will look into this and respond to you within the next two weeks."

Enough was enough of the delaying tactic, by asking, for the 2nd time, for "a 2-week extension" - which was a blatant continuation of the criminal psychological harassment by HM WLCC, in which its mates were (typically), only too happy to take part.

It led me to send an 11.12.07 'cry for help' to Jack Straw, the then (In)Justice Secretary (timeline of appointments).

In my letter, repeated the above header, and having explained briefly what took place, wrote, among other:

"It is blatantly obvious that a game is being played to prevent my case from proceeding to a hearing.

For example, at the date of writing, I still have not received a reply from West London County Court to my 2 October 2007 letter [# 15, above] (nor indeed correspondence of any kind since its 27 September 2007 letter (attached)) [# 12.3, above], and nor have I heard from the claimant since its 26 September 2007 correspondence." [# 15, above]

"I perceive events to be attributable to the fact that my case highlights that a number of parties have not acted as per their stated remit. They made the decision. Not I. I will not suffer injustice for their sake."

"I hold the view that what is taking place amounts to denying me my right to defend myself against this fraudulent claim [NB: I was proven right on both counts: # 27, below; Portner # 31] and, thus, among others, a breach of my rights under the Human Rights Act 1998 for a “fair hearing” and “effective remedy." (*)

"I have suffered injustice for the last five years. No more! As a tax paying, (law abiding) British Citizen, I have the right to demand access to the justice system."

"I trust you will help me in my quest for justice and redress by acceding to my demand."

(*) BUT: I repeat my above Note. Hence, it can be argued that there have been no breaches.

(See, above, for summaries of: (1) Events ; (2) Breaches of CPR, statutes, and of my Lease)

Back to list

18.2 - In my 27.12.07 reply, I challenged the initial 20.12.07 'response' to my complaint - which led to a 10.01.08 'response' 'from ' Paulette James, that, (typically), continued with the WLCC-fed fabrications, in order to cover-up the gross misconduct.

(NB: Includes previous sections # 22 and # 23)

20.12.07 'response' to my (above) 13.11.07 complaint, 'from' Suki Bhangra, Customer Service Officer, HMCS 'Customer Service', Southwark Bridge - that was dictacted by the WLCC mafia - see Legal-Home # 9:

"...I am now in a position to respond to the issues you have highlighted in your 13 November 2007 letter."

"...the Court delayed the adjourned hearing for three and half (sic) months...the reason was that the first available date to re-listed (sic) your claim was on 24 August 2007, the Court listed (sic) was fully booked from May to July 2007" (1)

"...your Defence and Counterclaim [2]...there was Counterclaim (sic) fee of £1,700, which is the reason why you were required to pay £1,700 is that in your Counterclaim you stated that

The Defendant - a litigant in person demanding payment of the sum of £10,356.59, comprising £8,937,28 for charges, £1069.31 of interest, £250 court fee and £100 of solicitors fees" (3)

"Once the court totalled the sum of the counterclaim it was £20713.18[US$36,520] (4)

"A letter was sent to you on 27 September 2007 stating that if the court does not receive fee (sic) of £1,700 by 5 October 2007, your Counterclaim would be automatically be (sic) struck out" (5)

"...there was a delay in sending the tapes to the transcribers as the tapes were with another transcriber [6] who was preparing another transcript for another case that was heard on the same day as your matter . The tapes were then forwarded to another transcribers (sic) on 1 October 2007 [7]. The transcript was then forwarded to the Court for approval by the Judge on 14 November 2007 and was then sent back on the same day to the transcribers to be amended." (8)

"The Court has informed me that following your letter of 2 October 2007 they have (sic) at your request, been referred to a District Judge. The contents of your letter are noted. However it is not the functions of the court to enter into detailed correspondence with the parties to litigation about the merits of points taken in pleadings or other aspects of the case." (9)

"I hope that I have been able to address the issued (sic) you have raised in your letter..." (10)

Many of my following comments to the above letter are based on my 27.12.07 reply to Suki Bhangra, headed with: "CONFIRMATION OF COLLUSION",

and cc'd: Jack Straw (above); Linda Lennon, HMCS Area Director, Southwark Bridge Road (above); Alex Lark, HMCS Customer Service, Petty France (below).

(1)- "next available date for hearing was 24 Aug" - For the reasons discussed under # 5.2, Com # 3, I do not buy that.

(2)- My 12.09.07 Defence, I fell into the trap of describing as a "Defence & Counterclaim" (# 12, above) - which was recognised by the Ladsky gang as being what it was: just a Defence (# 15, above).

(3)- Compare the following:

What I wrote under para.2, pg 1 of my 12.09.07 "Defence & Counterclaim"

v. what is claimed in the above letter:

“The Defendant – a Litigant in Person - was served the 27 February 2007 Claim, 7WL 00675, on 9 March 2007 – demanding payment of the sum of £10,356.59, comprising £8,937.28 for charges, £1,069.31 of interest, £250 court fee, and £100 of solicitor’s costs”

The Defendant - a litigant in person demanding payment of the sum of £10,356.59, comprising £8,937,28 for charges, £1069.31 of interest, £250 court fee and £100 of solicitors fees"

It was a typical English public sector fabrication - when caught with its pants down - concocted in order to cover-up the blatantly obvious malicious, blackmail and fraudulent intent of the 27.09.07 letter (# 12.3, above).

This is demonstrated further by the following - including the lie:

  • (1)- (4) "the court totalled the sum of the counterclaim it was £20713.18" - As I pointed out in my 27.12.07 letter to Bhangra:
  • "I note from HMCS EX50 ‘County Court Fees...– From 1 October 2007’ that the cost for filing a claim ranging in value from £15,000 [US$26,450] to £50,000 [US$88,165] is £360 [US$635]."
  • Hence, how could I be asked to pay £1,700 [US$3,000] for "a counterclaim of £20,713.18"?
  • (2)- Following pursuing my complaint, an entirely different 'explanation' was given in the (below) 10.01.08 letter:
  • "The £1,700 was due to [my] filing a counterclaim for an unspecified amount"
  • - v. the above: "the court totalled the counterclaim at £20713.18".

(5)- "27.09.07 letter that if payment of £1,700 not made, [my] Counterclaim would be struck out"

Bhangra failed to address my asking, in my above 13.11.07 complaint, "for confirmation that this letter is as per court regulations". (Ditto in the 2nd 10.01.08 'response', below)

WHY? Because it was not. It was a letter masquerading as an 'order' (# 12.3, above) - and part of the ongoing criminal psychological harassment by Ladsky's henchmen.

(6)- "tapes were with another transcriber"; (7) " then forwarded to another transcribers (sic) on 1 October 2007" ; (8) "transcript then forwarded for approval by the Judge on 14 Nov 07 and sent back to transcribers to be amended"

= Another (typical) concocted story - piled on top of the other lies I had been told at the time - as evidenced by what I report: # 12.2, above - proving further that the tape was, of course, withheld deliberately.

(9)- "your letter of 2 October 2007 [# 15, above], referred to a District Judge ; contents noted ; not functions of the court to enter into detailed correspondence with the parties about the merits of points taken in pleadings or other aspects of the case."

Absolutely unbelievable - when you consider the content of the 27.09.07 letter (# 12.3, above). = Another (typical) fabrication - that provided further evidence of the malicious and fraudulent intent of the letter.

I replied: “This is not a reply. It is a pathetic attempt at avoiding providing a reply...”

As to the "contents [being] noted": they most definitely were not (# 27, below).

As in the case of the "counterclaim" (Com # 3, above), an entirely different, and equally outrageous fabrication was concocted in the (below) 10.01.08 'response' (Com # 16).

(10)- "I hope that I have been able to address the issued (sic) you have raised in your letter..."

The gall of these people!

In my 27.12.07 letter, I noted that Bhangra also failed to address my reporting that, in spite of my 4 requests, WLCC had not supplied with me with an amended version of the 03.04.07 Notice (my complaint, above).

And, of course, he also failed to address my demand for the case to be transferred to another court.

Consideration of the above led me to write, among other:

"I really do believe that any fair minded, reasonable person would agree with my conclusion that the above provides further evidence of collusion between WLCC and Portner and Jaskel and its clientRootstock Overseas Corp, Steel Services, et. al” - for which it identified Mr Andrew Ladsky as contact. (NB: Likewise, at the date of writing, I have not received any communication from Portner and Jaskel since the 26 September 2007 “Defence to counterclaim”).

"I believe that any fair minded, reasonable person would endorse my position that your repeated failures to address the points in my complaint lead to the conclusion that (sadly) the collusion extends to your department"

"NO, I DO NOT WANT West London County Court to proceed with my case."

"I insist that my case is IMMEDIATELY transferred to a court and a judge committed to operating under CPR’s ‘Overriding Objective’. Yes, I do still hold the belief that this requirement can be met – although I will admit that this belief is currently being stretched to the limit"

Of note: Whereas Suki Bhangra had spelt my surname, Klosterkotter, correctly in his previous letters: 15.11.07 (above) ; 29.11.07 (above), in this instance, he joined in with the infantile WLCC staff by spelling it as 'Klosterotter'.

The above 20.12.07 'response' from HMCS 'Customer Service' led me to take my protest to the street, by pacing up and down in front of the Ministry of (In)Justice - while holding this placard (My Diary 9 Jan 08).

Jack Straw, the then (In)Justice Secretary (see above)

"Collusive": I was justified in saying that - and, as demonstrated by subsequent events: Summaries: Events; Breaches of the law - continued to be proven right.

My doing this, and my above 27.12.07 reply to the 20.12.07 'response', had the effect of prompting another 'response' to my complaint that was, predictably, more of the same: 10.01.08 letter, preceded by 2 letters:

21.12.07 from Alex Lark, HMCS Customer Service Unit, Petty France:

"...your letter of 10 December 2007 [above] addressed to Ministry of Justice." [NB: Actually addressed to Jack Straw]

"We aim to prepare a response by 16 January 2008..."

With my 27.12.07 reply, headed: "CONFIRMATION OF COLLUSION", I supplied a copy of my above 27.12.07 reply, and reiterated:

"I insist that my case is IMMEDIATELY transferred to a court and a judge committed to operating under CPR’s ‘Overriding Objective’.

Yes, I do still hold the belief that this requirement can be met – although I will admit that this belief is currently being stretched to the limit."

I again cc'd Jack Straw (above), and Linda Lennon, HMCS Area Director, Southward Bridge Road (above).

02.01.08 from Lynsey Noon, Customer Service Officer, HMCS 'Customer Service', Southwark Bridge:

"...sorry you do not feel that we have supplied you with an adequate response [20.12.07, above] to your concerns [my 13.11.07 complaint, above]..."

"I have asked the Court Manager, of West London County Court for a full report and we will provide you with a full response to your letter within the next two weeks."

7 weeks previously (# 18.1, above), the 15.11.07 reply 'from' 'Customer Service', Southwark Bridge, had stated: "...asked the Court Manager...for a full report and we will provide you with a full response to your letter within the next weeks"

Hence, it was back to square one! The name for that? 'The Frustrate and Discourage Game'.

10.01.08 'response' 'from' Paulette James OBE, HMCS 'Customer Service' Unit, Petty France:

"...your letter of 10 December 2007 addressed to Jack Straw [above] and your further letter of 27 December addressed to Alex Lark [above]...the Minister has many calls upon his time..." (1)

"I have been asked to consider your complaint [2]. In doing so I have read all the previous correspondence and the report from the court and have made further extensive queries of the court myself." (3)

[03.04.07 Notice [4]]"... the lack of response to your letters of 2, 14 and 24 October [5]...all three letters were received...no indication that the court responded, and I am sorry that that should have been the case [6], they had in fact acted to correct the error relating to your acknowledgment of service [7] I understand that an amended notice was sent" (8)

"...It is not necessary for the court to send a copy of it to you since you are already aware of the content of your acknowledgment. [9] It may be for this reason that the court may not have responded to your letters [10], although I believe it would have been helpful if they had sent a letter confirming what they had done"

"That the claimant had been made aware of your correct intention was indicated by their letter to the court of early May..." [11]

"The reason you were only allowed a very short extension of the time for filing your skeleton argument is because the judge had not received the application for the adjournment from the claimant’s solicitors and therefore, assumed the 8 May 07 hearing was imminent" (12)

"Their request would not have been necessary had you filed an application regarding the court's jurisdiction [13] as you were meant to do under the procedural rules"

"The procedure to be followed... for an intention to contest the court's jurisdiction is set out on the form'. It makes it quite clear that you must file an application..." (14)

"...why you have heard nothing further from the court since 27 September...The short answer is that neither you, nor the claimant, have taken any further action since that time." (15)

"You have suggested that the court has failed in not carrying out its case management duties. I should explain that judicial case management is only invoked when the court is satisfied that it has before it a claim and a valid defence.

lt is unclear because of the striking out of your counterclaim whether that is the situation with this case, for example, you have made no formal application to reinstate your counterclaim." (16)

"You have also questioned why you were asked to pay a fee of £1,700...You had not put any limit on your counterclaim. In circumstances where the claim or counterclaim is unspecified, the court must charge the maximum fee of £1,700." (17)

So far as your allegations of collusion are concerned, I have found no evidence whatsoever to support your contention [18] and none which suggests you have been denied a fair hearing since the matter has not yet come to a final hearing.

I cannot therefore confirm your complaint in this respect (19)

"...your "demand" for the case to be transferred, I should explain that if you wish the case to be transferred you will have to make a formal application to the court giving your reasons for requesting and supporting evidence." (20)

"I should make it very clear that Ministers have no powers to intervene in matters that are before the courts. Judges are independent of Government and must be free to make their decisions without any external influences." (21)

Many of my following comments to the above letter are based on my 28.01.08 reply to Paulette James, headed with: "ABSOLUTE CONFIRMATION OF COLLUSION", and cc'd Jack Straw.

(1)- "Jack Straw too busy to reply to your letters"

I replied: "Mr Straw should be made aware of what is going on in his department - thereby providing him with the opportunity to take action. Hence, I am – yet again – copying him on this letter."

He was probably "too busy" "with operating “under the radar” to use his influence to change European Union rules on behalf of a commodity firm which paid him £60,000 a year"

Of course, as evidenced by the subsequent events reported on this page: in spite of being made aware repeatedly of the situation (summary under # 24.2, below) - (typically) Straw took no action.

(2)- My 13.11.07 complaint, above. (3)- In the light of her subsequent comments, I emphasise Paulette James' claims.

(4)- 03.04.07 Notice (# 2.2, above).

(5) "lack of response to my letters" - 1 letter is missing, as I first started asking in my 30.06.07 letter (# 2.2, above). As can be seen from pg 2 of my 13.11.07 complaint, not only did I refer to this letter, I also attached a copy (as I did for the other 3).

= (Typical) cover-up of misconduct: by ignoring it, it reduces the time lag by more than 3 months.

(6)- "all my letters received; no indication court responded; I am sorry" - Not up to her to apologise. Why is she doing it? Why did not she take action against the court?

(7)- "they had acted to correct the error"

She claimed to have "looked at everything" and she describes what was captured in the 03.04.07 Notice as "an error"!!! It is absolutely undeniable from the evidence that what was captured in the Notice was done deliberately (# 2.2, above)

= Another (typical) cover-up of fraudulent misconduct - by failing deliberately to note the evidence - as well as (typical) ploy: by describing it as "an error", she, the puppet - and court - do not have to address it.

(8)- "an amended notice was sent" - Yes, more than 6 months after my original request: 11.01.08.

= Another (typical) cover-up of misconduct.

(9)- "[I don't] need a copy, because [I] know the content of [my] acknowledgment of service"

Unbelievable! = Another (typical) cover-up of misconduct.

I replied: "Totally beside the point. What matters is what is on record in my file. I have the statutory right to demand that information held about me is correct – and to have this confirmed to me" (As I wrote in my above 13.11.07 complaint, by referring to the Data Protection Act 1998).

(10)- "may be reason court may not have responded to your letters"

= She did not ask or, more accurately, was spinning her (typical) cover-up story.

(11)- "claimant's May letter shows made aware of my intention"

= Another (typical) deliberate cover-up of misconduct - as she had deliberately omitted, in the 01.05.07 letter "we have not received a copy of the Defendant's Defence" (Portner # 12.2) - which, 'on the face of it', 'demonstrated' that it was not "aware of my intention", and in fact filed for summary judgment against me (# 2.2, above).

In reality, it was, but the conniving meant that it could use the fabricated Notice (# 2.2, above) as an excuse to file for Summary Judgment against me.

(12)- "reason [I was] only allowed a very short extension for filing [my] skeleton argument [was] because the judge had not received the application for adjournment from claimant and assumed the 8 May 07 hearing was imminent"

= (Typical) deliberate cover-up of psychological harassment by WLCC - by fabricating a story - as my 13.11.07 complaint was that the 19.04.07 Order was posted more than one week later, thereby giving me only 2 working days to write my Skeleton Argument (# 5.1, above).

(13)- "Claimant request would not have been necessary had you filed an application regarding the court's jurisdiction"

= Another (typical) fabrication to cover-up the psychological harassment by WLCC - as:

(1)- this was never communicated to me ; (2)- the 'hearing' of my 04.04.07 Application (# 3, above) - as was - 'took place' on 24 Aug 07 (# 11, above);

(3)- the Ladsky mafia gave 2 reasons for asking for a "cancellation": "not received from [me]": (i)- a copy of my application; (ii)- a reply to its (criminal set-up) 17.04.07 letter (Portner # 12.2, Com # 9).

(14) "the form makes it quite clear that you must file an application"

Note the patronizing tone in making an assertion she had very clearly not checked - as the 'Guidance Notes' did not state this.

= Another (typical) cover-up fabrication.

(15)- "...reason you have not heard from court since 27 September is because neither you, nor claimant, have taken any further action since that time."

Unbelievable -but typical turning of blind eye to the evidence.

How about my 02.10.07 letter? (# 15, above). Wasn't that taking action? Of course, it was ignored because 'inconvenient' - as demonstrated by the ensuing silence, that lasted for more 3 months.

I wrote: "As the implication is that the Court Service is 'self-service', how about I issue my own judgment as well? I sure like that idea."

Note how the puppet, Paulette James (typically) turned the table on me - by endorsing the 27.09.07 letter - in order to avoid dealing with the fact that it was a fraudulent, malicious letter masquerading as an 'order' (# 12.3, above).

As I pointed out in my 28.01.08 letter, she did not reply to my question in my 13.11.07 complaint: "is the 27 September 2007 communication from WLCC compliant with court regulations?"

Of course it was not. That's why her (and Bhangra) failed to answer my question. In my reply to James I described the letter as "bullying, intimidation and, more accurately: blackmail".

(16)- "You suggested court failed its case management duties [re. not responding to my 02.10.07 letter - # 15, above]" ; " judicial case management only when court is satisfied that it has before it a claim..."

Note that Paulette James endorses the court pursuing the claim - that should have been struck out (# 1, above) YEP! That's what the English 'justice' system considers "a valid claim"!

"has before it...a valid defence...unclear because of striking out of your counterclaim whether that is the situation...you have made no formal application to reinstate your counterclaim"

= Of course, and (typically), in spite of the evidence, Paulette James continues to endorse the 27.09.07 letter as being compliant with CPR.

I replied: "What a concoction! Who has determined that my defence is 'not valid'?...There is no counterclaim "to strike out", for the simple reason that I did not file a counterclaim."

Note that this glaringly obvious fact was endorsed by the Ladsky gang in its 26.09.07 "Defence to Counterclaim" (# 15, above).

Further, I had also explained in my 02.10.07 letter to WLCC that it was an impossibility for me to file a counterclaim - letter it ignored in spite of my chaser letters (# 15, above).

But, (typically), for the purpose of continuing with the cover-up of the gross misconduct, Paulette James, who had "looked at everything" - studiously avoided to note these documents.

Of course, WLCC continued with the charade - by sending me, more than 3 months after the 27.09.07 letter that demanded "payment of £1,700 by 5 October 2007 ", a 07.01.08 Order from HM District Judge Nicholson that "struck-out [my non-existent] counterclaim" (# 15, above).

(17) "you were asked to pay a fee of £1,700...because you had not put any limit on your counterclaim; therefore the court must charge the maximum fee of £1,700"

Unbelievable! Contrast that with the previous, and entirely different concoction in the above 20.12.07 letter, claiming that "[I] had filed a counterclaim which the court totalled at £20713.18" (Com # 3).

As I wrote in my 28.01.08 letter: "You cannot even agree among yourselves on ‘the story’ you are going to spin", and concluded on this point with: "When will you all stop 'digging your hole' and 'come clean' ?"

The extent they will go to to cover-up ANY misconduct by members of their 'tribe' knows absolutely no bounds. WHAT A MAFIA! And that gets paid taxpayer money!

(18) "your allegations of collusion, I have found no evidence whatsoever to support your contention"

Quelle surprise! As very amply demonstrated by the above, not only had Paulette James turned a blind eye to everything, she very clearly colluded with West London County Court by ignoring the gross misconduct and / or covering it up with its fabrications she sycophantically regurgitated.

Hence the header to my 28.01.08 letter: "ABSOLUTE CONFIRMATION OF COLLUSION"

I replied: "From where I am standing, it looks to me like the ‘severe case of blindness’ that was evident in 2002-04 is continuing."

(19) "no evidence whatsoever which suggests you have been denied a fair hearing since the matter has not yet come to a final hearing. I cannot therefore confirm your complaint in this respect"

In my previous letters to her colleagues (above: 5 Dec 07 ; 27 Dec 07 ; 27 Dec 07), I had stated that I wanted my case transferred to another court "So that I can exercise my rights under Article 6 - "Right to a fair hearing". (I forgot to mention what took place at the 24 Aug 07 'hearing' (# 11, above)).

My reply was: “you appear to not understand the meaning of “so that””, and that “any fair minded, reasonable person who looked at the events with this court would, I am sure, understand my position”.

(20)- "...your "demand" for the case to be transferred" - "your "demand""- Oh Dear! Oh Dear! my employees do not like my giving them orders.

Note that she tells me that "[I must] make a formal application to the court" - BUT does not tell me that I must use a form to do so . Come on! Doing so would have spoilt their fun.

In fact, 'the need to use a form' was only communicated to me in the covering letter to the 07.03.08 Order from HM West London County Court - posted 3 days later, leading me to receive it on 13 Mar 08 - stating:

"...unless your Allocation Questionnaire is filed on 14 March 2007 your defence will be struck out and the Claimant may apply for Judgment." (# 26 and # 27, below).

This is yet another example of how unbelievably sick, perverse and vicious these people are, and how they ALL collude and conspire with each other.

(Paulette James sent me another letter that confirmed further the mast to which her colours were pinned: # 24.2, below)

No knowing any better, I then made another attempt at getting the case transferred to another court - without using 'a form' - of course: in vain (See # 24, below).

(21) "Ministers have no powers to intervene in matters that are before the courts." - But the 'Justice' minister (at the time, Jack Straw) IS certainly responsible for the conduct of the individuals in the courts.

"Judges are independent of Government and must be free to make their decisions without any external influences." Cue to laugh out loud. In addition to my, by then, 6 experiences with courts and a tribunal that were not just "influenced", but clearly controlled by Andrew Ladsky and his gang - see Falconer # 4 for other examples.

There are more points covered in the 10.01.08 letter, and in my reply of 28.01.08.

I concluded my letter with: "I no longer wish to correspond with your Office as it is proving to be a waste of my time".

My overall assessment of the (above) 10.01.08 'response' from Paulette James OBE

'OBE' means Order of the British Empire (apparently, there is still one!).

In Paulette James' case, I submit that OBE stands for:

 

'ORDER of the BROTHERHOOD for EXCELLENCE'...

 

... in implementing the standard English public sector policy of colluding and conspiring with those complained against (*); covering up their gross misconduct through fabrications and deceit, while turning a persistent blind eye to the evidence - in the process, treating the complainants as non-entities, as well as imbeciles.

(*) More evidence of this, in the context of my subsequently filing a 02.01.10 Subject Access Request with the Ministry of (In)Justice - see Legal-Home # 9.

YEP! The above 'responses' were Jack Straw's Ministry of (In)Justice's interpretation of "We value objectivity, honesty, integrity and impartiality" (Recruitment ad in The Sunday Times, 4 Oct 09). (Summary of timeline for post of 'Justice' secretary)

(See, above, for summaries of: (1)- Events ; (2)- Breaches of CPR, statutes, and of my Lease)

Back to list

(19) (Moved to # 18.1, above)

(20) (Moved to # 18.1, above)

(21) (Moved to # 15, above)

(22) (Moved to # 18.2, above)

(23) (Moved to # 18.2, above)

 

(24)- Instead of completing the allocation questionnaire attached to the 11.01.08 Notice - that would have implied my endorsement of the case staying with WLCC - and, not knowing what else to do - I sent a 26.01.08 letter "To: A Judge committed to the concept of Justice, c/o of WLCC", asking for the transfer of the case to another court. By then, it made it the 4th time I had asked various parties to do this.

Lack of response, led me to send Jack Straw, then (In)Justice Secretary, a 18.02.08 letter - making it my 5th letter (# 24.2).

The 12.03.08 'response' from HMCS 'Customer Service' continued to confirm the mast to which its colours, and hence those of Jack Straw were pinned: that of WLCC's (# 24.2).

 

(24.1) - My 26.01.08 letter "To: A Judge committed to the concept of Justice, c/o of WLCC" - asking for the transfer of the case to another court.

The 11.01.08 Notice to which an allocation questionnaire was attached for completion "by 28 Jan 08", was the 1st communication I received from Her Majesty's West London County Court since its 27.09.07 letter masquerading as an Order (# 12.3, above).

Hence, after a 3.5 months silence - and this in spite of the fact that it had been in possession of my 12.09.07 Defence since 13 Sep 07.

What had been taking place in that hellhole, kangaroo court, from the time the claim was filed, added to what had taken place in 2002-04 (summaries: Events; Breaches of the law; Overall outcome) - meant that, understandably, I wanted the case to be transferred to another court - hoping that I would get better treatment.

By then I had already communicated this 4 times:

  • (5)- I also cc'd Jack Straw on my 28.01.08 reply to Paulette James, stating that I had sent the following 26 Jan 08 letter (# 18.2).

So, instead of returning the allocation questionnaire (1), I sent this 26.01.08 letter (2) "To: A Judge committed to the concept of Justice, c/o West London County court"

- asking for the case to be "transferred to a court and a judge committed to operating under the Overriding Objective" - and cc'd Ahmet Jaffer, Portner and Jaskel.

(1)- Under threat, I eventually returned an Allocation Questionnaire - # 26, below.

(2)- Not knowing any better, I did not use a form as, while in her 10.01.08 letter, Paulette James, HMCS 'Customer Service Unit', told me that "[I should] make a formal application" - she studiously avoided telling me that I should use a form - because part of a sick plan - as discussed under Com # 20, above.

BUT, using 'a form' would not have made any difference to the outcome: the blind determination to keep the case under the control of the WLCC judiciary - namely Her Majesty's District Judge Nicholson.

In my 26.01.08 letter:

I stated "... my perception [that] WLCC...has - and continues – to allow itself i.e. judicial process and its representatives to be treated in absolute and utter contempt by the Claimant and its aides", and highlighted:

  • the lies by Portner and Ladsky e.g. (1)- the claim they had "received on my behalf, payment of £1,069.31" (Portner # 14); (2)- the claim that they "had not received my Skeleton Argument" (Portner # 16);

I also cited examples of the Ladsky mafia's lies to the then London Leasehold Valuation Tribunal (LVT # 5.4).

Of course, this was a complete and utter waste of time - as, in ALL the instances, the courts and or tribunal deliberately turned a blind eye and a deaf ear to ALL the lies.

I stated that "...by turning down my application (at the 24 August 2007 hearing) [# 11, above]...for transfer of my case to the LVT, WLCC has ‘lined me up’ for unjust treatment."

And: "Anticipating that a proper evaluation of the claim will support my position that, at a minimum, the claim against me is largely false, and might even be entirely false [1] actions will need to be taken against the parties that have filed the claim against me. Considering WLCC’s actions to date, it would not do this". (2)

(1)- I was proven right on that: Portner # 31.

(2)- And proven right on that as well: Breaches of the law, above - and it continued in Her Majesty's Supreme Court Costs Office on 30 Jan 09.

I followed this by listing what I concluded - "in my non-lawyer opinion" - are breaches of CPR, of statutes, and of my Lease by Portner and Jaskel and the 'landlord' (Summary - Breaches of the law)...

- which was another waste of time as Her Majesty's WLCC judiciaries not only turned a blind eye and deaf ear to them - they actively helped Portner-Ladsky in committing them.

I concluded with:

"As a (law abiding) British National, I have the right to demand access to the ‘justice’ system. And, as through taxes, I am already paying for a Court Service that is positioned to ensure I get ‘justice’, I expect to get this service at no additional cost i.e. not needing to pay for the cost of transferring my case to a court and a judge committed to operating under the Overriding Objective."

(See, above, for summaries of: (1)- Events ; (2)- Breaches of CPR, statutes, and of my Lease)

Back to list

24.2 - Lack of response to my above 26.01.08 letter, led me to send Jack Straw, then (In)Justice Secretary, a 18.02.08 letter - making it my 5th letter.

The 12.03.08 'response' from HMCS 'Customer Service' continued to confirm the mast to which its colours, and hence those of Jack Straw were pinned: that of WLCC's

(NB: Was section # 25)

In my 18.02.08 letter to Jack Straw, then (In)Justice Secretary, I wrote, among other:

"Three weeks on, I have not received a reply to my [above] 26 January letter"

"Has this country reached the stage where finding a court and a judge committed to operating under the 'Overriding Objective' has become impossible?"

"To be absolutely clear: I now have NO CONFIDENCE and NO TRUST in WLCC.... I am sure that any fair minded, reasonable person considering what has taken place with this court since 2007, added to what took place in 2002-2004, would have no difficulty understanding my position.

To also be absolutely clear: if your Court Service wants to continue ‘rolling over’ for Andrew Ladsky et. al., I am prepared to continue fighting all of you for my right to justice and redress until the very end"

"Practically everyday I hear in the media government representatives saying that “nobody is above the law”. I would like to see that in relation to my case - ‘No ifs, no buts’. [NB: Slogan in an advertising campaign, at the time, against benefit fraud].

I trust that, as Head of the Court Service, you will ensure I get the appropriate forum to defend myself against this (second) fraudulent claim, as I assume that the overall Head, Her Majesty the Queen, wants to be associated with a Court Service that ensures that justice prevails - as per the motto ‘Dieu et mon Droit

(In relation to this letter, I wrote in My Diary 18 Feb 08 "Yes, I am sure that my 'un-English' way of being very direct and open is putting 'backs up'. At least, 'I' have the guts to say what I think - in a public forum - and to direct it at the people with the responsibility to do something about it..." - people who get paid 'by me', the taxpayer, to do their job. I am their employer, not their slave).

In summary - in the context of my 13.11.07 complaint to HMCS 'Customer Service' (# 18, above) - Jack Straw, then (In)Justice Secretary received from me:

2 letters:

4 letters - through being copied on them:

  • (2) my 27.12.07 letter to Alex Lark, Customer Service Unit (# 18.2);

= 6 letters making it abundantly clear that some very serious gross misconduct was taking place in West London County Court.

What did Jack Straw do?

Like his predecessor, Lord Falconer of Thoroton - and typically: NOTHING! - thereby endorsing the conduct,...

...which meant that the WLCC judiciary and staff continued on their same merry-way - as evidenced by the below events (from # 26), and under Portner # 34.

Of course, Straw was "too busy" to be concerned with serious gross misconduct by this court - and "too busy" to remember his joint responsibility, with the Lord Chief Justice, under the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 - for dealing with complaints against judges - that includes the power to sack them.

BUT: why rock the boat and, in particular: risk the very attractive pension pot - for somebody 'like me'?

YEP! The above and below 'responses' were Jack Straw's Ministry of (In)Justice's interpretation of "We value objectivity, honesty, integrity and impartiality" (Recruitment ad in The Sunday Times, 4 Oct 09). (Summary of timeline for post of 'Justice' secretary)

12.03.08 letter from Paulette James, HMCS 'Customer Service' - stating:

"Thank you for your further letter of 18 February addressed to Jack Straw which raises more or less the same issues that were raised before [1] and dealt with in my reply to you of 10 January." (2)

"I understand that you have written in similar terms to West London County Court. The information they have given in response reflects that given in my earlier letter (3), that is, that if you wish the case to be transferred elsewhere you must make a formal application."

"In addition you have been reminded that you must file a completed allocation questionnaire by Friday this week or face having your defence struck out" (4)

(1)- "your 18 February letter raises more or less the same issues" - YES - and proving that they had (typically) been ignored.

(2)- The gall of these people! She describes her (above) 10 Jan 08 letter as "having dealt with [my (above) complaint]! (NB: Same claim made 'by' Suki Bhangra in 'his' 20.12.07 'response' (# 18.2, above).

(3)- "reflects my earlier letter" - only in part, as the missing - important information - she deliberately omitted to mention, was that I needed to use 'a form', and to tell me which one (Com # 20, above).

(4)- Refers to the 07.03.08 Order (# 26, below) = More blatant evidence of the mast to which Paulette James pinned her colours.

(See, above, for summaries of: (1)- Events ; (2)- Breaches of CPR, statutes, and of my Lease)

Back to list

(25) (Moved as # 24.2, above)

 

(26)- Her Majesty's West London County Court District Judge Ryan's 'reply' to my 26.01.08 letter asking for the transfer of the case to another court (# 24, above), was a 07.03.08 Order threatening to "strike out [my] defence" if I did not file an Allocation Questionnaire by 14 March.

It was another attempt at issuing judgment against me, as I only received it on the 13th. I filed, and served, a 14.03.08 Allocation Questionnaire, supported by 3 additional sheets, in which I very clearly reiterated the key issues (# 26.2).

26.1 - The 07.03.08 Order from Her Majesty's WLCC District Judge Ryan

Following my 26.01.08 letter (# 24, above), I received this 07.03.08 Order - stating:

"Before District Judge Ryan..."

"It is ordered that unless the Defendant do file and serve a completed allocation questionnaire by no later the 4.00 pm on the 14 March 2008 [1], that the Defence [# 12, above] be struck out without further order from the court"

 

To emphasise the threat, the covering letter stated:

"[if I failed to comply with the Order] your defence will be struck-out and the Claimant may apply for Judgment" (2)

(1)- The date of the Order, 7 Mar 08, was a Friday. As can be seen from the envelop, it was only posted on the 10th, a Monday. I only received it on the 13th i.e. the day before the deadline!...

...proving for the 4th time, Andrew Ladsky's henchmen in Her Majesty's WLCC being absolutely hell-bent on helping him win the claim against me (summary of previous occasions: # 2.2, above) - in addition to proceeding with the claim in spite of the very major issues (# 1, above).

(2)- To which could have been added: 'something we have been dying to do from the start'.

(See, above, for summaries of: (1)- Events ; (2)- Breaches of CPR, statutes, and of my Lease)

Back to list

26.2 - My 14.03.08 Allocation Questionnaire

In light of the above threat (but in line with CPR Part 26, Rule 2.5), I submitted a 14.03.08 Allocation questionnaire - supported by 3 additional sheets.

In these 3 supporting sheets, I, yet again, raised the critical issues, I had already raised in my 12.09.07 Defence (# 12, above), i.e. 6 months previously (and many, also in my 04.04.07 Application to Contest Jurisdiction (# 3, above), and in my 03.05.07 Skeleton Argument (# 5.1, above) – hence 11 months previously) - explaining why I could not answer the majority of the questions.

I concluded my list of 20 points with: “Directions need to be issued to ensure that the Claimant provides me with the necessary information to defend myself against the claim

Given the deadline, I hand-delivered the documents to West London County Court on 14 March. Although not required to do it under CPR, I sent a copy to Ahmet Jaffer, Portner.

By contrast, Her Majesty's West London County Court committed another breach of CPR: Rule 26.9(2) - by not supplying me with a copy of "Roostock and Steel Services" allocation questionnaire.

Having given me a 24-hr turnaround, by 13 April i.e. one month later, I still had not heard from the court.

It was clear that it was a continuation of the criminal psychological harassment regime - and was a repeat what had taken place with the 19.04.07 Order, when I was given only 2 working days to file my Skeleton Argument (# 5.1, above) - in preparation for a so-called 'hearing' the mafia never had any intention of holding (# 5.2, above).

Of course, driven like junkies, to feed their addiction to sadistic kicks - Ladsky's WLCC henchmen continued to do this.

(See, above, for summaries of: (1)- Events ; (2)- Breaches of CPR, statutes, and of my Lease)

Back to list

 

(27)- Having threatened to "strike out [my] Defence if [I] did not file an Allocation Questionnaire" (# 26.2) - HM's WLCC District Judge Ryan then issued 09.04.08 so-called 'case management directions' (# 27.1) that perversely ignored everything in my 14.03.08 Allocation Questionnaire - thereby breaching numerous CPR.

Ryan covered it up by making the absolutely outrageous claim of writing them "without considering representations from the parties". To ensure I lost even more valuable time, they were sent to me 2 weeks post-issuing.

I filed a 30.04.08 Application to vary the 'directions' (# 27.2).

Equally perversely, and in breach of CPR, in a 01.05.08 Order (posted 8 days later), Ladsky's other henchman and 'brother', District Judge Nicholson refused my Application - very blatantly demonstrating the ongoing collusion and conspiring with Ladsky in their blind determination to secure the claim against me, as well as in inflicting their continued criminal psychological harassment regime (# 27.3).

 

27.1 - The 09.04.08 so-called 'case management directions' issued by Andrew Ladsky's henchman and 'brother', Her Majesty's WLCC District Judge Ryan, that perversely and deliberately ignored everything in my 14.03.08 Allocation Questionnaire (# 26.2, above), concurrently breaching CPR...

- leading me to file an Application (# 27.2, below)

Her Majesty's West London County Court District Judge Ryan's 09.04.08 so-called 'case management directions' (1) - stating:

1. "The claim is allocated to the Fast Track." (2)

2. "Disclosure of documents shall be dealt with as follows:

a) "Both parties shall give to each other standard disclosure by list, the lists to be served by 4pm on Wednesday, 7th May 2008." (3)

b) "Any request for a copy, or inspection, of any document shall be complied with by 4pm on Wednesday, 21st May 2008." (4)

3. "Both parties shall, by 4pm on Wednesday 4th June 2008, serve on each other the witness statements of themselves and all witnesses (other than expert witnesses) on whom they intend to rely." (5)

4. "No party may rely on or adduce the evidence of any witness whose statement has not been served in accordance with this Order without further permission from the court." (5)

5. "Completed pre-trial check lists shall be sent to the court by 4pm on Friday 4th July 2008." (6)

6. "The claim shall be listed for trial on the first open date after 4th August 2008 with a time estimate of one day." (6)

7. "Not more than seven nor less than three clear working days before the trial, the Claimant shall file at court an indexed and paginated bundle of documents...and shall serve a copy of it on the Defendant. The parties shall endeavour to agree the contents of the bundle before it is filed..." (7)

8. "Because this Order has been made by the court without considering representations from the parties [8], the parties have the right to apply to have the order set aside, varied or stayed. A party wishing to make an application must send or deliver the application to the court (together with any appropriate fee) to arrive within seven days of service of this Order." (9)

(1)- Evidently continuing to 'dislike' my documents (above: # 2 , # 3 , # 5.1 and # 12), this time, my 14.03.08 Allocation Questionnaire (# 26.2, above) = continuing to be hell-bent on being able to issue judgment against me - to make me pay to 'the brother', Andrew David Ladsky - monies that were NOT due and payable -...

Ladsky's 'brother', HM's Deputy District Judge Ryan, and his other henchmen in HM's West London County, waited until Wednesday 21 Apr i.e. nearly 2 weeks to post the Order to me - leading me to take delivery of it on 23 Apr 08.

Hence, they deliberately made me lose nearly 2 weeks in the timeline.

(2)- "allocated to Fast-Track" (see # 31, below, the Ladsky gang subsequently "suggesting a transfer to Multi-Track")

(3)- "Disclosure to be served...by 7th May 08"

Note that, as part of the ongoing criminal psychological harassment, Ahmet Jaffer, Portner and Jaskel, had, more than 2 months previously, sent me a 07.02.08 so-called 'Standard Disclosure' - that very clearly did not address the issues in the claim (Portner # 24).

(4) Any request for a copy, or inspection, of any document shall be complied with by 21st May 2008"

(See # 27.3, comment # 3, below - for the perversion and sadism in that 'direction', and Portner # 25)

(5) "Both parties shall, by 4th June 2008, serve on each other the witness statements of themselves..." ; No party may rely on or adduce the evidence of any witness whose statement has not been served in accordance with this Order"

(See # 30, below)

(6) "pre-trial checklist to be sent to court by 4 July"; "claim listed for trial after 4 Aug"

Did not take place, as "ALL of the claim [was] discontinued" - See Portner # 31.

With the above Order, was also this 18.04.08 'Notice of trial to the Defendant' - giving the date as 21 Aug 08.

(7) "Claimant to compile bundle not more than 7 days nor less than 3 clear working days before the trial...and serve a copy of it on the Defendant. The parties shall endeavour to agree the contents of the bundle before it is filed"

(See below, # 28 and # 31)

(8) "Because this Order has been made by the court without considering representations from the parties..."

This is absolutely outrageous.

In addition to his blatant objective of subjecting me to more criminal psychological harassment by forcing me to take subsequent action - by filing an Application (# 27.2, below)...

- his objective was to also cover-up his - deliberate - failure to comply with numerous CPR.

Evil, despicable Mason!

Definitely kangaroo court!

CPR Rule 26.5 - “Before deciding the track to which to allocate proceedings or deciding to give directions for an allocation hearing to be fixed, the court may order a party to provide further information about his case."

Ryan had overwhelming evidence that I did not have the information to which I was legally entitled, and needed in order to defend myself against the claim (# 1, above).

CPR Rule 26.8 – “(1) When deciding the track for a claim, the matters to which the court shall have regard include… (h) the views expressed by the parties; and (i) the circumstances of the parties

PD 26 - Para.4.2 - Allocation to track: (1) “In most cases the court will expect to have enough information from the statements of case and allocation questionnaires to be able to allocate the claim to a track and to give case management directions."

Ryan knew that 1 day would not be enough to address the issues I had raised.

CPR Practice Direction 26 - Case management -Preliminary stage: Allocation and re-allocation -

which, in its introduction states - “Reminders of importance rule provisions” - Rules 1.1 The Overriding Objective” ; “1.4 The duty of the court to further the objective by actively managing cases ;

Part 3 The court’s case management powers (which may be exercised on application or on its own initiative) and the sanctions which it may impose…” ; Parts 32-35 “Evidence, especially the court’s power to control evidence…"

Para 2.2 - Provision of Extra Information: “(1) This paragraph sets out what a party should do when he files his allocation questionnaire if he wishes to give the court information about matters which he believes may affect its decision about allocation or case management."

(2) "The general rule is that the court will not take such information into account unless the document containing it either: (a) confirms that all parties have agreed that the information is correct and that it should be put before the court, or (b) confirms that the party who has sent the document to the court has delivered a copy to all the other parties

I had copied Ahmet Jaffer, Portner, on my 14.03.08 Allocation Questionnaire (# 26.2, above), including the 3 additional sheets summarising the issues – and Ryan knew this from:

CPR PD 26 - Para.2.2(3) - Provision of Extra information:

“...examples of information which will be likely to help the court: (d) the directions the party believes will be appropriate to be given for the management of the case"

In the 3 additional sheets attached to my 14.03.08 Allocation Questionnaire, I concluded my list of 20 points with:

“Directions need to be issued to ensure that the Claimant provides me with the necessary information to defend myself against the claim”

CPR PD 26 - Para.2.2(3) (e) about any particular facts that may affect the timetable the court will set; (f) any facts which may make it desirable for the court to fix an allocation hearing or a hearing at which case management directions will be given."

What I supplied certainly "affected the timetable", and certainly made it obvious that a case management hearing was required.

CPR Rule 26.9(2) - “When the court serves notice of allocation on a party, it will also serve – (a) a copy of the allocation questionnaires filed by the other parties; and (b) a copy of any further information provided by another party about his case (whether by order or not)”

Andrew Ladsky's henchmen in Her Majesty's WLCC also ignored this requirement.

But hey, one more, one less, does not matter, as CPR are very clearly just for decoration...like the British Human Rights Act! (my note near the top of the page).

(9)- "...the parties have the right to apply to have the order set aside, varied or stayed. A party wishing to make an application must send or deliver the application to the court (together with any appropriate fee) to arrive within seven days of service of this Order"

= More, glaringly obvious criminal psychological harassment - planned from his outrageous claim (Comment # 8, above). The objective was also to catch me out, to see whether I would know how to do it.

(See # 26.4,below)

(See, above, for summaries of: (1)- Events ; (2)- Breaches of CPR, statutes, and of my Lease)

Back to list

27.2 - My 30.04.08 Application to vary the 09.04.08 so-called 'case management directions' issued by Her Majesty's WLCC District Judge Ryan

Para.8 of the 09.04.08 so-called 'case management directions' issued by Her Majesty's WLCC District Judge Ryan (# 27.1, above) - stated:

"...the parties have the right to apply to have the order set aside, varied or stayed. A party wishing to make an application must send or deliver the application to the court (together with any appropriate fee) to arrive within seven days of service of this Order"

As discussed under # 27.1, these so-called 'directions' were very clearly a continuation of the criminal psychological harassment. Also, another attempt to catch me out - hoping that I would not know I needed to use 'a special form' (*).

(*) I assumed that this is what "Paulette James OBE", HMCS 'Customer Service' meant in her 10.01.08 'response', that I "had not made an application for contesting the court's jurisdiction" (above, # 18.2). She could have stated that but, of course: best not help 'the Proles' (Orwell's 1984) fight 'the Brotherhood'. (Of note: The 24 Aug 07 'hearing' nonetheless took place).

Well, as a result of more 'crash learning' (the parable of the horse- My Diary 5 Apr 07) - for my 30.04.08 Application - I: (1)- DID use 'a form' ; (2)- quoted CPR Rules and Practice Direction in support ; (3)- paid the £40 (US$71) fee.

I explained that I was making my 30.04.08 Application, "in the interests of justice and efficiency, because the case management directions do not allow time to ensure I am supplied with the information I require to defend myself against the claim - as:

  • (2)- it does not specify a time limit for reply (contrary to Practice Direction (PD) 28 – 3.9). In any case this would be too short, as
  • (3)- the witness statements are to be exchanged two weeks later, on 4 June 2008.

In support, I quoted:

CPR PD 28 - para.3.3: “The court’s first concern will be to ensure…that the necessary evidence is prepared and disclosed."

para. 3.9: "Where the court is to give directions on its own initiative and it is not aware of any steps taken by the parties other than the service of statements of case, its general approach will be:
(1) to give directions for the filing and service of any further information required to clarify either party’s case
"

Under Part C of my my 30.04.08 Application, I wrote:

"The timetable must allow for the filing of court orders to obtain information."

"As repeatedly highlighted to the Court and the Claimant – over the last 12 months - in numerous documents (skeleton argument, defence to the claim, notes to the allocation questionnaire, etc.): I need better particulars to be able to defend myself against the claim – including writing my witness statement.

By right, I should have been provided with the main evidence I require a long time ago."

"Under Rules 26.5(3) and 31.12(1) the court had the option of giving directions / issuing an order for specific disclosure. It opted to not do this - in spite of my highlighting the need in the supporting document to my allocation questionnaire"

"given the claimant's conduct to date, the timetable must allow for the filing of court orders for disclosure of information, under Rule 31.12, as well as under Rule 31.17 for court orders for disclosure against other parties (e.g. accountants for Jefferson House; surveyors involved in determining the percentage shares of service charges) [that] may also be required"

"There may also be a need to apply, under Rule 18.1, for one or more orders to obtain further information to clarify matters."

"I emphasise that all the information supplied to me, as well as already in my possession, must be endorsed by statements of truth from the supplying parties."

"As, in August 2007, the court denied me access to extensive expertise by refusing my legitimate application for transfer of the case to the LVT [ # 11, above], I require that disclosure information supplied to me by the Claimant, its accountants, surveyors, lawyers, others, if any - is endorsed by statements of truth.

This is to provide me with reassurance on the veracity, authenticity, as well as compliance with my lease and statutory rights in relation to the accounts for Jefferson House, service charge demands and other information to which I am entitled e.g. detail of the ownership profile of Jefferson House."

"In highlighting this requirement for statements of truth, I am also conscious of Rule 32.19 (1) Notice to admit or produce documents - “A party shall be deemed to admit the authenticity of a document disclosed to him under Part 31 (disclosure and inspection of documents) unless he serves notice that he wishes the document to be proved at trial”, and of

"Rule 32.19 (2) A notice to prove a document must be served – (a) by the latest date for serving witness statements; or (b) within 7 days of disclosure of the document, whichever is later”

(NB: In making my requests, I was also conscious of, among others,

  • Rule 31.16 - "Disclosure before proceedings start: (1) This rule applies where an application is made to the court under any Act for disclosure before proceedings have started; 3(d) disclosure before proceedings have started is desirable in order to (i) dispose fairly of the anticipated proceedings" and
  • Rule 31.11 - "Disclosure continues during the proceedings (2) If documents to which that duty extends come to a party's notice at any time during the proceedings, he must immediately notify every other party"

as my 'sixth sense' warned me of a potential plan to present me with "evidence" in situations where I would not be able to challenge it due to e.g. lack of information).

I followed this by asking for changes in the directions for the trial bundle, as well as with a suggested revised timetable.

OUTCOME: Ladsky's other henchman and 'brother', Her Majesty's District Judge Nicholson refused my 30 Apr 08 Application (# 27.3, below).

(See, above, for summaries of: (1)- Events ; (2)- Breaches of CPR, statutes, and of my Lease)

Back to list

27.3 - In his 01.05.08 Order, Andrew Ladsky's other henchman and 'brother', Her Majesty's West London County Court District Judge Nicholson perversely refused my 30.04.08 Application (# 27.2, above) to vary the 09.04.08 so-called 'case management directions' issued by his 'brother', HM's District Judge Ryan (# 27.1) - thereby also breaching CPR.

(NB: Includes previous section # 29)

The 01.05.08 Order (1) from Her Majesty's West London County Court District Judge Nicholson:

IT IS ORDEDERED THAT

"The Defendants' (sic) Application is Refused." (2)

"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 [3] the Defendant should make an Application to the court (4)

(1)- 1st May 08 was a Thursday. The Order was was posted 8 days later, on Friday 9 May 08, leading me to take delivery of it on Tuesday 13 May 08. Considering the content of the Order, it demonstrated the ongoing, absolute blind determination to secure the claim against me.

It was a REPEAT of what had taken place several times previously (summary under 2.2, above).

(2) "Application refused" - Unbelievable! when you consider the content of my 30.04.08 Application (# 27.2, above).

I most strongly contend that, on the basis of the evidence in the case, no reasonable judiciary regardful of its duty to act judicially would make that kind of Order.

So, I say the same thing, as in the case of Her Majesty's WLCC District Judge Ryan (comment # 8, above): Evil, despicable Mason!

(3) "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"

YEP! Definitely kangaroo court!

The perversion, sadism, viciousness and evilness of that mafia is beyond words. No wonder they make such a good team with Andrew Ladsky and his gang of racketeers!

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:

I had also done this in my letters e.g.:

  • (5)- my 26.01.08 addressed: "TO: A Judge committed to the concept of Justice, c/o West London County Court" (# 24, above).

How many more times did I need to report it for it to be noted?

It provides further, absolutely undeniable proof of collusion, conniving and conspiring between Her Majesty's West London County Court judiciary and Portner and Jaskel = Andrew David Ladsky.

= The extremely sick 'Brotherhood' mafia that considers itself as having the divine right to use, abuse and persecute 'the little people' like me, to their hearts content...

I repeat my note near the top of this page.

In my 14.05.08 reply to HM's WLCC District Judge Nicholson (cc'd Jack Straw, (In)Justice Secretary (*)) - I stated:

"If [I] wish to obtain further information". As your court is perfectly aware from the several major documents I have submitted over the last 15 months, the Claimant has not supplied me with the information I should, by right (covenants in my lease, and my statutory rights) have been provided with – a long time ago”.

My case is not being handled with consideration for:

- the Overriding objective (2) Dealing with a case justly includes...(a) ensuring that the parties are on an equal footing"

- PD 28 3.3: "The court's first concern will be to ensure...that the necessary evidence is prepared and disclosed"

(Other points, under next Comment)

(*) For my other letters to Jack Straw, see above # 20 , # 23 and # 25.

(4) "the Defendant should make an Application to the court" = continuing with the perversion and sadism.

In my above (Comment # 3) 14.05.08 reply - I wrote:

"It is abundantly clear that the game plan is to make me file applications to the court to ‘perhaps’ obtain the information – after the deadline for submission of my witness statement. Indeed,

as PD 18 5.5(2) requires allowing “at least 14 days since the request was served and the time stated in it for a response has expired”,

allowing time for the court to issue the order/s, and the time for compliance, it would be at least one month before I ‘might’ receive the information. The outcome will be that I do not have better particulars by the time I need to file my witness statement.

(No doubt, other ‘games’ will also be played up to – and during the hearing e.g. Rules 31.16 and 31.11).

Clearly, nothing has changed since my very traumatic experience with this Court in 2002-2004,...that resulted in the Court - knowingly - inflicting injustice on me (and even worse on my fellow leaseholders) [NB: summaries - Events; Breaches of the law]...

"It is [Oops! should not have 'is'] beggars belief that Mr Ladsky (and his associates?) can so freely command judges to commit such outrageous acts against me (and fellow leaseholders) – in the 21st century, in a country that prides itself on its legal system, and has signed-up to the European Convention on Human Rights. (*)

Whatever the outcome: my conscience is clear."

(*) BUT: I repeat my above Note.

Of course, I was proven right: 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. Not only did Jaffer not reply, he did not even acknowledge it (Portner # 25).

Note the power Her Majesty's WLCC judiciary had under CPR Rule 18.1:

(1) "The court may at any time order a party to– (a) clarify any matter which is in dispute in the proceedings; or (b) give additional information in relation to any such matter, whether or not the matter is contained or referred to in a statement of case."

(3) "Where the court makes an order under paragraph (1), the party against whom it is made must– (a) file his response; and (b) serve it on the other parties, within the time specified by the court."

So, thanks to Andrew Ladsky's corrupt, taxpayer-funded 'brothers' 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: (above, # 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, for summaries of: (1)- Events ; (2)-Breaches of CPR, statutes, and of my Lease)

Back to list

 

(28)- I sent Ahmet Jaffer, Portner and Jaskel, 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"

As per the 09.04.08 so-called 'case management directions' issued by Her Majesty's West London County Court District Judge Ryan (# 27.1, above), I sent Ahmet Jaffer, Portner and Jaskel, 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 # 31, below, for my reasons for the number of documents)

(See, above, for summaries of: (1)- Events ; (2)- Breaches of CPR, statutes, and of my Lease)

Back to list

(29) (Moved to # 27.3, above)

 

(30)- 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 (# 27, above),...

...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 Ladsky.

The 09.04.08 so-called 'case management directions' issued by HM's WLCC District Judge Ryan (# 27.1, above) - stated:

3. "Both parties shall, by 4pm on Wednesday 4th June 2008, serve on each other the witness statements of themselves and all witnesses (other than expert witnesses) on whom they intend to rely."

In the light of the ongoing, blatant determination by Andrew Ladsky's henchmen in HM's West London County Court (judiciary and staff) to secure the claim against me (# 27, above), I went out all out to develop a 'knockout' 03.06.08 Witness Statement.

Under para.2, I wrote:

"Considering the (well documented) conduct of the Claimant, i.e. Mr Andrew Ladsky (et.al.?), the requirement “serving on themselves” leads me to anticipate that I will not receive the Claimant’s Witness Statement as directed...

allowing Mr Ladsky and supporters at large to see my Witness Statement first – in the knowledge that there will be no sanction for not complying with the WLLC Order (as happened with the 19 April 2007 WLCC Order in relation to the skeleton arguments [# 9, above]. I hope to be proven wrong"

I knew I would not be proven wrong: I did NOT receive the witness statement from "Rootstock Overseas Corp / Steel Services Ltd / Sloan Development" i.e. Andrew Ladsky.

This 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 HM's West London County Court: WLCC # 12.

Due to lack of knowledge, I had not served my Wit.Stat. on Portner. However, given the double-act - from the start - between HM's WLCC judiciary and staff, and Portner- Ladsky - they got hold of it immediately - as evidenced by the 06.06.08 Notice of Discontinuance (# 32, below).

Of note: to see the kind of witness statement I would write, Ladsky had used a plant: Portner # 14.

(See, above, for summaries of: (1)- Events ; (2)- Breaches of CPR, statutes, and of my Lease)

Back to list

 

(31)- 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 (# 27, above), 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.

 

The 23.05.08 letter from Ahmet Jaffer, Portner and Jaskel:

"We received your letter dated 21st May 2008 enclosing two lever files of copy documents, you wish to rely upon at the hearing of this claim [1] The majority of the documents provided (without request from us) are disproportionate and irrelevant to the issues in the proceedings." (2)

"Please understand that the Courts are extremely busy [3] and therefore you must contain your issues to the present claim of the outstanding services (sic) charges." (2)

"This case is listed for a fast-track hearing with an estimated length of one day. It is highly unlikely that the Judge hearing this case will have sufficient time to read the very voluminous bundle of documents you have submitted [4] as well as hear oral evidence and submissions on both sides within one day."

"We would suggest therefore (subject to the Court's approval) that this case be transferred to a Multi-Track listing [5] with a (sic) estimated length of hearing of 2 days otherwise we risk being adjourned to a date months ahead with the ensuing additional expense." (6)

cc. The Court Manager, West London County Court.

(1)- "received from [me] two lever files of copy documents...without request from us" (I hand-delivered them to Portner).

Para.7 of the 09.04.08 so-called 'case management directions' issued by Her Majesty's WLCC District Judge Ryan (# 27.1, above), placed the responsibility on Portner to compile the trial bundle. While this was as per CPR Rule 39.5, including the timing, as defined under Pt 39 PD para.3.1 - in the light of the conduct to date - BY:

• (1) Portner,

...ignoring my repeated requests for supporting evidence - starting before it filed the claim against me: its 16 Feb 07 threat of "bankruptcy and forfeiture" (Portner # 3).

Hence, there was absolutely no chance of compliance with the last part of para.7 of 'the directions': "The parties shall endeavour to agree the contents of the bundle before it is filed".

• (2) Her Majesty's West London County Court judiciary :

...it was an absolute certainty that the bundle would NOT contain the evidence I needed, in an attempt to make-up for the failure to provide me with the evidence I had requested, and to which I was legally entitled. And this was demonstrated in the next sentence (see next Comment).

My supplying the bundle was foiling the mafia's plan!

(2)- "The majority of the documents... are disproportionate and irrelevant to the issues in the proceedings."

Translation: 'we don't like them because they can help you argue against the claim'.

Indeed, from the start, the mafia: WLCC judiciary and Ladsky and his corrupt solicitors had been turning a blind eye to my main documents, and supporting documents:

  • my 04.04.07 Application to contest jurisdiction - supported by 66 appendices (# 3, above)

Also, the 27.02.07 claim covered 4 years - during which many events took place. (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).

(3)- "the Courts are extremely busy". Note the patronizing comment. Evidently, they are so "busy" that they don't have the time to ensure the implementation of the rule of law.

(4)- "highly unlikely that the Judge will have sufficient time to read the very voluminous bundle of documents"

As Ladsky's WLCC 'brothers' had not read anything in 15 months or, more accurately: turned a blind eye to everything (see previous Comment for key documents): there was no risk of that.

Come on! Preceded by HM's Deputy District Judge McGovern (# 11, above) - Ladsky's 'brothers', Ryan (# 27.1, above) and Nicholson (# 27.3, above) were blatantly hell-bent on backing a claim they should have struck-out from the start.

(5)- "suggest therefore... case be transferred to a Multi-Track listing"

This had been planned.

Benefit to the Ladsky and WLCC mafia: they avoided the CPR pre-hearing requirements that are more demanding than for ‘fast-track’ and, in particular, having to respond to me face-to-face - as they require a case management hearing.

(6)- "with the ensuing additional expense".

The gall of that 'Jewish' mafia is beyond words - another typical example from them: Ayesha Salim, CKFT: CKFT # 3 ; WLCC # 12.

 

Knowing that I would NOT receive a witness statement from "Roostock (sic) Overseas Corp / Steel Services Ltd" nor, indeed, from "Sloan Development", I opted to wait until the day after the deadline for the exchange of witness statements (# 30, above) - to send my 05.06.08 reply to Jaffer's above letter of 23.05.08.

"If your Client is so sure that he can justify his claim against me:

1. Why have you failed to send me your Client’s Witness Statement by the 4 June 2008 deadline set in the WLCC’s Case Management directions Order of 9 April 2008? [# 27.1, above]

2. Why has your Client repeatedly ignored – over the past 16 months - my numerous requests for evidence in support of the claim?

I remind you that I first asked in my 25 February 2007 reply to Mr Jeremy Hershkorn’s letter of 16 February 2007 in which he threatened me with bankruptcy proceedings and forfeiture [copy of definition] unless I immediately paid the sum of £8,937.28 – in the name of a company I had never heard of at the time (as subsequently proven) [Portner # 3]. Your client’s reply was to ask your firm to file the 27 February 2007 claim against me. [# 1, above]

3. Why have you failed to reply to my 19 May 2008 Part 18 Request for information? [Portner # 25]

4. Why did your Client falsely claim in his 22 August 2007 Skeleton Argument that you had not received mine of 3 May 2007? [Portner # 16.2] On the basis of this false claim, point 8 of the Skeleton Argument states “The Claimant has delayed service of its skeleton to the present date in the hope that it may have been able to respond constructively to Defendant’s arguments on the application”"

I also sent this 05.06.08 letter to WLCC - stating, among other:

"The Claimant has failed to send its Witness Statement by the stated deadline... the 9 April 2008 Case Management directions Order [# 27.1, above]:

"(4) No party may rely on or adduce the evidence of any witness whose statement has not been served in accordance with this Order”

"Clearly, this failure by the Claimant has major implications in terms of the management of the case."

(See, above, for summaries of: (1)- Events ; (2)-Breaches of CPR, statutes, and of my Lease)

Back to list

 

(32)- 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.

 

See Portner # 31 for detail.

(See, above, for summaries of: (1)- Events ; (2)- Breaches of CPR, statutes, and of my Lease)

Back to list

 

(33)- As per CPR, I sent Portner and Jaskel my 26.06.08 Statement of Costs - a total of £7,756 (US$13,676) - that led the Ladsky gang to give the most preposterous, laughable excuse for dropping the claim...

and the criminal psychological harassment regime by the Ladsky gang and its judiciary 'brothers' continued.

 

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"

For subsequent events, see Portner and Jaskel from # 32.

(See, above, for summaries of: (1)- Events ; (2)- Breaches of CPR, statutes, and of my Lease)

 

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

THIS OUTCOME IS OF THEIR OWN DOING.

 

  C O M M E N T S

Back to top