Email this site to a contact

 

Another one in 'the 'Andrew Ladsky et.al. camp'

Sir malcolm rifkind, M.P.

 

Sir Malcolm Rifkind is (at early 2010) my Tory Member of Parliament. He succeeded Michael Portillo, another Tory, in 2005.

According to Wikipedia: Sir Malcolm is a Queen's Counsel (a senior barrister appointed on the recommandation of the Lord Chancellor). Under John Major, his last appointment was in 1995 as Foreign Secretary, a post he held until 1997 when the Conservatives lost the general election. He received his knighthood in John Major's resignation honours. (For further detail, see Wikipedia).

The Factsheet M1 – 2008 ' You and your MP', on the Parliament's website (www.parliament.uk) (at 16 March 2009), states, among other:

“If your problem is a matter for which Parliament or central government is responsible…then you should contact your Member of Parliament...

How does your MP deal with your problems?

…there is a number of methods available to try to resolve the matter:

  • A letter from your MP to the relevant department or official will often provide a solution
  • Your MP may decide to take matters a stage further by writing to the Ministry involved
  • Your MP may make an appointment to see the Minister personally

…not all problems have an easy solution. The Minister may not be able to give the answer you wanted to hear, but if the decision has been made in the right way, there may be little that can be done…

...If some essential procedure has been missed out i.e. if there has been maladministration, your MP may be able to take your case to the Parliamentary Ombudsman (also called the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration). The Ombudsman is sometimes able to resolve such cases where there has been administrative incompetence but can only be approached via your MP, you cannot approach the Ombudsman directly

All of the methods discussed so far allow problems to be kept confidential...

...If you are not satisfied with treatment received: 1. make a complaint to the local party association / write to the party’s headquarters..."

While I had cause to contact Sir Malcolm and ask for his help, my experience with his predecessor, Michael Portillo( who, on three occasions, told me to in effect 'get lost!'), had led me to conclude that it would be yet, another waste of time. However, considering the public outrage following exposure by the media of the conduct of some peers and MPs, I thougth that, second time round, I might get a better response.

So, I sent Sir Malcolm this 7 March 2009 letter stating my objectives as: "As my MP, I would like to meet with you to discuss how you will help me – a law-abiding, British taxpayer (who has so far paid an estimated £500,000 in tax in this country):

1. Get the police and the Court Service perform as per their mandate, ensuring that the perpetrators of criminal acts against me are brought to justice as, to date, by aiding and abetting their c. £500,000 fraud –and concurrent fear tactics - both have demonstrated that they perceive themselves to be at their service, at the exclusion of mine.

2. Get redress for the horrendous and very traumatic treatment, as well as financial loss I have suffered at the hands of West London County Court over a period of three years (20 months + 16 months).

3. Get redress from Kensington & Chelsea police for treating me as though I am a criminal, instead of what I am: the victim of crime - and, in the process, using intimidation and harassment tactics, as well as making racist, xenophobic comments against me.

4. Determine why I am under surveillance by the police – and put an end to it.

5. Get redress from the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal (LVT) for the traumatic treatment and financial loss it has caused me to suffer by failing to perform its remit.

My overall objective is to be reinstated to the position I was in when I received the fraudulent ‘service charge’ demand in July 2002, and ‘dared’ to ask - what I consider to be a perfectly reasonable question to ask: “What are you going to spend my £14,400 on?” - and leave this country, as it is no longer the country I decided to make my home and committed to by taking the British nationality".

For this purpose, I related my experience in some detail since 2002, in particular with West London Country Court in 2002-04 (further detail under Lord Falconer) and in 2007-08, as well as with Kensington & Chelsea police - both located in my borough i.e. for which Sir Malcolm Rifkind is the MP. I also relate events with the London Leasehold Valuation Tribunal - a key party in my horrendous experience.

The 11 March 2009 reply was the all too familiar 'GET LOST!' concluding "As matters stand, I believe you have exhausted your options; the only advice I can offer, however, is that if you have new evidence you should take legal advice"

In my 24 March 2009 letter I replied “Considering (1) the content of my letter; (2) the fact that you state in your opening paragraph that you have “carefully read” my “detailed letter”; (3) the role of an MP vis-à-vis his Constituents - I find your comments extremely shocking”.

I emphasise that the nature of my complaint most definitely meets the criteria for asking Sir Rifkind's assistance, by:

•  quoting from the House of Commons factsheet M1 - 2008 'You and your MP'

•  providing the dictionary definition of 'maladministration' “Manage or administer badly or dishonestly”

•  quoting from the Parliamentary Ombudsman (PHSO) Annual report 2007-08 ; (1) the booklets: the General Principles; the Principles of: 'Good Administration', 'Complaint handling' and 'Remedy' ; (2) the fact that, as detailed in the 2007-08 report, the PHSO dealt with, among others: 152 complaints against HM Court Service; 100 complaints against the Tribunals service; 25 complaints against the Ministry of Justice.

I then state:

"I believe that any fair minded, reasonable person with integrity would agree with me that what I related in my letter to you of 7 March 2009, demonstrates, at the overall level, serious breach of mandate and concurrent gross breach of trust by “central government departments”, and at the lower level, a catalogue of, at best, very serious “maladministration” – justifying your referring the detail of my case in relation to the tribunal and the courts to the Parliamentary Ombudsman for the purpose of redress – as well as for ensuring that appropriate action is taken against the various individuals to prevent them from inflicting the same treatment on others.

In relation to ensuring that, when dealing with my case, the Court Service and the police perform as per their stated mandate – to raise this with the respective ministers, Rt. Hon. Jack Straw, MP, Justice Secretary and the Rt. Hon. Jacqui Smith, Home Office Minister. And, in the case of obtaining redress from the police, to also raise this with Mrs Smith – as my experience with the Police Complaints Authority makes it abundantly clear that, currently, I do not stand a chance"

I follow this by providing more detail than in my 7 March 2009 letter (resulting in a 30 page letter) stating "Hence, this letter can be passed on ‘as is’ to the relevant parties"

In the conclusions I ask "What gives Mr Andrew Ladsky and his aides the right to control the authorities by getting them to deny me my rights - thereby helping them with their fraudulent activities? As a British taxpayer (who has so far paid c. £500,000 in tax in this country) - and victim of their criminal actions – I have the right to know"

I also highlight, among others "The Government has set up a helpline to help people report loan sharks who swindle them out of several hundred Pounds (e.g. Guardian article of 3 March 2009 "Loan shark helpline targets illegal lenders") – and the police and the courts take action against the perpetrators. By contrast, it turns a blind eye and a deaf ear to a landlord and his aides who swindle people to the tune of c. £500,000 – thereby helping them do it. (And I know of many other leaseholders in other blocks who have a similar story to tell). Why the two-tier system?"

The 'You and your MP' factsheet states that correspondence from a constituent to his / her MP is confidential. As I relate in the postscript to my letter, on 12 March - which was 48 hours after my 7 March 2009 letter was delivered to Sir Rifkind's Constituency Office - to make sure I heard him, Andrew Ladsky stood outside my windows expressing disbelief to somebody at the fact that I had contacted Sir Rifkind. I wrote that I assumed the source to be one of the parties covered in my letter - Sir Rifkind was likely to have approached, and that it certainly provides additional weight to my conclusion of collusion with Ladsky.

I assume that Ladsky's intention was to further reinforce the message that he is so well connected, and hence protected e.g. comment from DC Adams, Kensington & Chelsea police on 27 March 2002 "You won't be able to prove a link with Andrew Ladsky", that no matter who I approach - no action will ever be taken against him. I view this latest event as adding weight to my conclusion of assistance and protection of a 'sacrosanct landlord' by Freemasons / Jewish network (Ladsky is Jewish... in name rather than in practice). There certainly is no shortage of help!

In the postscript to my 24 March 2009 letter, I also report "For several days afterwards I was subjected to further persecution: no hot water, added to having no heating from the day after the electricity was cut-off in my flat on 8 March 2009. On 16 March 2009, I saw Mr Ladsky by the entrance to the block (talking to a woman with a pram) and called him “a criminal” and “a thief” who “stole c. £500,000 from the leaseholders to build a penthouse flat and add three other flats to the block”. His usual reply was “You are mad”. Mine, that he was the one who is “clinically unwell” (his comment about me in his 26 March 2007 letter to KPMG). He told me to “Go f*** yourself”. I returned the ‘compliment’"

The following day i.e. 13 March 2009, at 00h25 a.m. a man urinated in the area in front of my windows.(Detail in My Diary 15 Jun 09)

(The next 'event' was a DEATH THREAT on 15 June 2009)

One month later, the 23 April 2009 reply from Sir Rifkind was a continuation of what amounts to: ‘Get lost! I am not going to help you put my friends / tribe members in the dock’, as he wrote “Members of Parliament are not able to intervene in the decisions that have been taken by courts of law. If a member of the public feels they have been wrongly treated, then they have the right to appeal to a higher level of court and that is something you must discuss with your legal advisers. If you feel you have already done that, or are unable to do so, then I am afraid there is no further action that can be taken”

Sir Rifikind also wrote that I had “repeated [my] concerns in [my] 24 March letter”. I highlighted this in my 19 October 2009 letter to him, stating "Yes, because you forced me to do this by being deliberately blinkered and continuing to push me away. (In the process, you cost me many more hours of my time, as well as other costs)"

I replied on 8 May 2009 “Why are you refusing to refer my complaint to the Parliamentary Ombudsman?” – stating “You state in your letter “Members of Parliament are not able to intervene in the decisions that have been taken by courts of law”. I am not expecting you to do this. If some items of my complaint are viewed as such (I would like the Parliamentary Ombudsman to make this decision), the majority most definitely come under maladministration”. Drawing from my 24 March 2009 letter, I then quote numerous examples.

As I wrote in my 19 October 2009 letter "Evidently, you – and clearly: ‘et.al.’ - did not like my reply as, one month later, ‘you’ still had not responded". The lack of response led me to send an 8 June 2009 chaser letter headed “Why the silence?” , asking Sir Rifkind to respond to my 8 May 2009 letter.

As Sir Rifkind maintained his silence, on 15 June 2009, I opted to contact the PHSO – using as my header a quote from his Party Leader, David Cameron “I, “the Powerless”, am opting “To take the power from the powerful” (*) …and stating: “I am going over the head of my Tory MP, Sir Malcolm Rifkind, as he has evidently decided that you should not consider my complaint against the Court Service and the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal”.

(*) On 26 May 2009, in the televised part of one of his speeches, David Cameron, Tory Leader, said: “Voters are furious… Attitudes have to change big time. Politicians have to change”
“There needs to be a massive redistribution of power – from the powerful to the powerless"

I sent a 15 June 2009 letter to Sir Rifkind to copy him on my letter to the Ombudsman, stating, among other "You appear to be in the habit of blocking the 'little people' from getting redress from Government departments e.g. from The Sunday Times, 31 May 2009 ["MI6 tempts rebel ex-spy back home"] “In 1995…when Malcolm Rifkind was then Foreign Secretary, [he] ruled that [Richard Tomlinson’s] case (who had been “sacked by MI6 without explanation”) could not be heard at an industrial tribunal. Tomlinson was stung by the apparent injustice”

Also on 15 June 2009, I also copied David Cameron, asking him to liaise with Sir Rifkind to ensure the necessary steps were taken to refer my complaint. I copied the PHSO on both letters.

The reply from Sir Rifkind's Office on 17 June 2009 was

"Sir Rifkind has not refused to take your issue to the Parliamentary Ombudsman because he believed you had already done so. In your letter of 7th March you quoted your dissatisfaction of endless battles with the "regulators, watchdogs/ombudsmen, other government departments". If you have not pursued this matter with the Parliamentary Ombudsman and still wish to do so, I enclose the relevant form..."

Contrast this reply against:

  • (1) my 8 May 2009 letter “Why are you refusing to refer my complaint to the Parliamentary Ombudsman?”;
  • (2) the fact that, five weeks later, in spite of a chaser letter after four weeks of waiting, I had not received a reply;
  • (3) as I pointed out when I phoned Sir Rifkind's office (following a message being left on my mobile on 17 May): to refer a complaint to the Parliamentary Ombudsman, I need to go through my MP; Sir Rifkind has been my MP since 2005; since then, I have suffered horrendous treatment by the courts and the police; have I ever contacted him? No!

They are SO underhanded and deceitful. I find that repulsive.

As I wrote in my 19 October 2009 letter to Sir Rifkind "As to ‘your’ shameless excuse: it is fascinating to note that, when I inform you, my MP, that my complaints against various parties – including against some: in your patch, under your watch - have resulted in my having to engage in endless battles with regulators, watchdogs/ombudsmen and other government departments – all with the outcome that amounts to a ‘get lost’ – it is of no interest to you. How do you explain that?"

In my 8 May 2009 reply, I asked, in relation to Sir Rifkind's offer in his 23 April 2009 letter “if you have not made any complaint directly to the police or the IPCC, then I would be happy to forward the papers on your behalf” : “Other than just post my complaint, what would be your role?”. As I wrote in my my 19 October 2009 letter "You ignored my question in your eventual ‘response’ of 17 June 2009. My assumption is that you were somehow informed that I had filed a Subject Access Request with the police on 28 May 2009 (Kensington & Chelsea police is in your patch)"

Following my 1 July 2009 letter to Sir Rifkind informing him that I would be "sending [him] the pack for the Parliamentary Ombudsman by the end of next week" , he replied on 3 July 2009, saying that he would forward my complaint to the Ombudsman.

Events by then with Sir Rifikind, added to, among others, my very extensive experience of complaining against various parties in the public (as well as private) sector - led me to immediately note the last sentence in Sir Rifkind's letter of 17 June 2009 "The Ombudsman will also need confirmation that you have followed the appropriate formal complaints procedures" - and conclude that an attempt would be made by the PHSO to use this as an excuse to reject my complaint. I WAS RIGHT! (see PHSO # 2)

On Monday 13 July 2009, I hand-delivered to:

(1) Sir Rifkind's Office at the House of Commons:

(2) The PHSO: a 13 July 2009 letter informing the Ombudsman of the delivery of my complaint and bundle to Sir Rifkind - and enclosing a copy of my reply to Q5 "What are you complaining about?" stating, "in case Sir Rifkind wishes to keep the copy I am supplying him with".

(See PHSO # 2 for further detail)

In his 30 September 2009 letter, Sir Rifkind copied me on the - second reply - of 22 September 2009, 'from' the PHSO.

I replied on 19 October 2009, heading my letter with "Considering that you are my Member of Parliament: why are you colluding with the parties from which I have and continue to suffer wrongdoings - and by extension with Andrew Ladsky et.al.?"

Referring to events with the PHSO, I wrote "...I concluded from your letter of 17 June 2009 "The Ombudsman will need confirmation that you have followed the appropriate complaints procedures" - that this would be used as an excuse to reject my complaint. I was right".

In support of my header, I summarised my experience with Sir Rifkind since my original letter of 7 March 2009; give examples of what other MPs have / are doing for their constituents, and state:

“and I look at your claim under //accessible.malcolmrifkind.org.uk “I am the Member of Parliament for Kensington & Chelsea…I… will do all I can to help you as a constituent with any problem”…and I ask myself: Why, in the face of ‘my mountain’ of ‘black on white’ evidence of unbelievable injustice, of being subjected to the most horrendous, vicious, perverse, barbaric treatment – a very significant part of which is attributable to three government departments located in your constituency: West London County Court, Kensington & Chelsea police (and Kensington & Chelsea housing), departments that have the mandate to protect me and help me get justice and redress from my attackers – not collude with them – you are not assisting me?”

I follow this by: ”In fact, as evidenced by events since my 7 March 2009 letter, not only are you not coming to my assistance, you are actually acting against me. Why? Very tellingly, you have not even offered to meet with me. (NB: I start my 7 March 2009 letter to Sir Rifkind with "As my MP, I would like to meet with you to discuss how you can help me...")

"The whole world can see from the ‘black on white’ evidence that I am the innocent victim of crime. How come you can’t see that or, more appropriately: why are you turning a blind eye to it? Why are you, by implication, endorsing my being punished and persecuted for ‘daring’ to challenge a crook and his aides unlawfully deciding that I (and my fellow leaseholders) should pay for the construction of a penthouse flat and addition of three other flats to Jefferson House, as well as related costs – so that this vermin could realise a multi-million Pound jackpot?

Why are you opting to assist the insane, highly vicious vendetta against me? I have done NOTHING wrong. I AM THE VICTIM, NOT the criminal. Your ‘friends and protégé’ don’t like having a mirror held to their face – because it reflects their incompetence, maladministration, malpractice, collusion, deceit, corruption and fraud. Whose fault is it?... “

I followed this by repeating what I wrote in my previous letters to Sir Rifkind, amply demonstrating that I am the innocent victim of organised crime who, among others, on 19 December 2003, accepted ‘Steel Services’ i.e. Andrew Ladsky’s 21 October 2003 ‘offer’ of £6,350 (v. the original 17 July 2002 demand of £14,400) (29 November 2002 Particulars of claim) “for the sake of bringing the dispute to an end” – even though, legally, I did not owe this amount either. IN VAIN! I again highlighted the persecution I have continued to be subjected to since then for ‘daring’ to challenge the fraudulent service charges demanded of me.

I then stated: “In May 2007, one of my fellow constituents wrote on the site www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/malcolm_rifkind/kensington_and_chelsea#numbers “…Rifkind has never represented my constituency for anything since I have been watching him. He is a deadbeat useless blood-sucker who is usurping his position as MP”, while in March 2008, he wrote “I am not sure who Malcolm Rifkind speaks for…and I don’t believe he represents me or any of my countrymen… he’s rarely spoken about Kensington & Chelsea affairs…”.

And followed this by: “I share this constituent’s view about your not representing Kensington & Chelsea. In fact, judging from your occasional comment in the House of Commons, and press articles, your main interest appears to be foreign policy – in spite of the fact that you last held a role in this area in the mid 90s.

As to your interest in particular constituents, any fair minded, reasonable person with integrity would, I am sure, agree with me that, based on my experience with you: it is highly biased and prejudiced.

On pages 4 and 5 of my 27 August 2009 reply to the Parliamentary Ombudsman, and page 20 of my 20 September 2009 response to the Police Public Access Office, I listed several factors in support of my conclusion as to why I have and continue to suffer prejudice and bias from, among others, public sector departments in your constituency. I hold the view that they equally apply in your case. As I concluded in my letter to the Parliamentary Ombudsman “Had I been a well connected, wealthy man, prepared to generously line the pockets of City lawyers et. al., I would definitely not have been treated as I have by the LVT and the courts. In fact, as I am dealing with cowards, it is highly improbable that I would have found myself in this situation””.

The reply from Sir Rifkind's Office was a 23 October 2009 letter stating “I acknowledge receipt of your letter of 19th October addressed to Sir Malcolm. Your case is now with the Ombudsman and we will have to await her decision. Yours sincerely”.

I had copied David Cameron on my 19 October 2009 letter - and received this 26 October 2009 reply.

I replied to Sir Rifkind on 7 November 2009, heading my letter “Since when has Andrew Ladsky been ‘ruler of Kensington & Chelsea?” stating: “Considering what I wrote in my letter (let alone in my previous correspondence), I believe that any fair minded, reasonable person with integrity looking at the evidence would understand why it leads me to the conclusion that, like the local police, council and court, you appear to also answer to Andrew Ladsky. I wonder why.

When was he elected ‘Ruler of Kensington & Chelsea’? By whom? When and how was he - and concurrently his aides that he “instructed” and continues to “instruct” - given the right to operate above the laws of the land e.g. Protection from Harassment Act 1997; Fraud Act 2006; Theft Act 1968 / Theft Amendment Act 1996; Malicious Communications Act 1988; Money Laundering Regulations / Proceeds of Crime Act 2002; Courts and Legal Services Act; Criminal Justice Act & Public Order Act 1994, etc…

…as well as the Civil Procedure Rules e.g. repeated contempt of court (NB: WLCC in 2002-04 and in 2007-08) and tribunal, incl. false statements of truth, false claims in expert witness reports, etc.– and hence, given the right to – repeatedly - treat Her Majesty’s Court Service with absolute, utter contempt?

As a member of Her Majesty’s Parliament, and a ‘Sir’ [NB: I forgot to say ‘and a Queen’s Counsel’], how do you explain that, in your constituency of Kensington & Chelsea – under your watch - Andrew Ladsky and his aides are allowed to use Her Majesty’s public sector departments for their fraudulent aims – and thereby treat these departments with absolute, utter contempt? Is Ladsky more important than Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second? Should I therefore bin my Affirmation of Allegiance to Her Majesty?

In the conclusions to my first letter to you of 7 March 2009 I asked “What gives Mr Andrew Ladsky and his aides the right to control the authorities by getting them to deny me my rights - thereby helping them with their fraudulent activities? As a British taxpayer (who has so far paid c. £500,000 in tax in this country) - and victim of their criminal actions – I have the right to know. To be the victim of crime is one thing. (There are criminals everywhere). But to be victimized and persecuted by State departments with the mandate to ensure my rights for justice, redress and protection (which, as a taxpayer, I am entitled to expect), and see these departments side against me with the perpetrators - is absolutely outrageous”

For 35 years I happily paid tax that was spent, among other, on the remuneration package and other expenses of individuals in the courts, the police, council, Parliament (hence, including yourself), etc., in the understandable belief that they would be there for me if I ever needed to call on them to act as per their stated mandate. What happened after 35 years of doing this, when I knocked on their door and said “I need your help now”? Not only have I – and continue – to receive a consistent ‘Get lost!’, I find that they are colluding with my attackers against me.

If only I could have received a tenth of the support and devotion Andrew Ladsky and his aides have – and continue - to receive from ‘the system’.

Evidently, in spite of the endless number of lifelines I have thrown in an attempt to resolve my situation – instead of meeting my objectives - the course is set on fighting me until I have somehow been annihilated – in the process continuing to waste a vast amount of taxpayer money. (How much taxpayer money has so far been wasted to scheme me against me (incl. with non-public sector parties), planning and implementing the highly vicious, perverse vendetta against me, developing and coordinating the replies to my correspondence, monitoring me, etc.? It must be an astronomical amount)”

In the concluding paragraph of my letter I wrote: “As my MP, will you be ‘The One’ who – finally - demonstrates intelligence and common sense and say ‘Enough is Enough!’ and help me achieve my objectives – thereby seizing on the opportunity you still have to take the credit for resolving my situation?...”

The 10 November 2009 reply from Sir Rifkind's Office was “I acknowledge receipt of your letter of 7th November addressed to Sir Malcolm. Yours sincerely”

(NB: I also copied David Cameron on my 7 November 2009 letter - and did not receive a reply).

I am a member of the Liberal Democrats. In Nov-Dec 2009, In the local LibDems' newsletter, our Prospective Parliamentary Candidate for Kensington quoted Sir Rifkind “It is vital that the link between people and their representatives be straightened and restored”,...

... and wrote: “Perhaps Sir Malcolm would care to use his next column to elaborate on quite how he does that in Kensington & Chelsea? No-one I have spoken to can tell me. There is a tradition in the UK of holding advice surgeries so that local people can ask for help. Sir Malcolm’s website has no surgery times”.

IT IS ABUNDANTLY CLEAR FROM MY EXPERIENCE (and, it would appear, that of fellow constitutents (*)) THAT SIR RIFKIND'S CLAIM “I am the Member of Parliament for Kensington & Chelsea…I… will do all I can to help you as a constituent with any problem” - IS FALSE.

(*)Constituent # 1: see above

Constituent # 2: In the local LibDems' newsletter (referred to above), our Prospective Parliamentary Candidate for Kensington also reports the outcome of one my fellow constituents attempting to set a meeting with Sir Malcolm and apparently got: “an automated message response “Thank you for contacting me””.

Back to top