Email this site to a contact

 

This section contains: my 'layperson' definition of some of the terms used in this website; dictionary definition of words; extracts from legislation, codes of conduct and my Lease - on which I have based my position

 

Abbreviations / Definitions - (Under Ongoing development)

 

(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').

 

The KEY SECTIONS (linked to others) are: EXTORTION and KANGAROO COURTS

This page also comprises of:

(1. Abbreviations used on this site - Section removed)

2. Definition of terms: freehold; leasehold; forfeiture

3. Definition of words from dictionaries and charity organisations, followed by examples. In the case of the word 'breach', the following legislation, codes of conduct, as well as my lease are covered:

See Police page, E- Police legislation and regulations, extracts from:

(This document is a compilation of extracts from various Acts, in relation to my 19 Apr 11 Claim)

Each instance, includes examples of breach - in my NON-LAWYER - opinion

PLEASE VISIT http://www.legislation.gov.uk as Acts get amended.

 

  C O M M E N T S

 

(1)- Abbreviations

(Section removed)

(2)- Definition of terms: freehold, leasehold and forfeiture...and 'nothing will change'

 

Introduction

The following is a mix of 'my layperson ' definitions of some terms used in this website, as well as some extracts from legislation.

Please, refer to the appropriate sources for the 'official' / expert definition / the latest version / updates e.g. the website of Leasehold Advisory Service (LEASE), a London-based, taxpayer-funded department which also publishes free leaflets and guides.

My personal assessment of LEASE (from first-hand experience, in 2002-03) is that, being a government department, you get the 'party line' (See John Prescott # 5 and # 6).

In fact, it is (one of very many) landlords' right hands e.g. from the Leasehold Knowledge Partnership website:

"Prisk to Bottomley: what’s the evidence that the Leasehold Advisory Service is not ‘balanced’? Well, how about this for starters", 23 Apr 13;

"LEASE should not pitch callers into ALEP's 'den of cheque books'", Jan 16 - "Out-of-hours callers to LEASE can be put in contact with solicitors who are members of ALEP [*] ..The service has been on offer since July [2015]".

(*) ALEP, the 'professional' association that includes Martyn Gerrard as a member.

However, at the time of my contact, LEASE demonstrated good knowledge of legislation.

To find out about the drawbacks / limitations / difficulties in implementing the legislation, talk to other leaseholders. (Note: At the 22 Nov 08 C.A.R.L. AGM, some leaseholders told me that they assessed LEASE as "useless" - My Diary 22 Nov 08).

The problem with the Acts is that they are amended (at times, in a very significant way) through Statutory Instruments - which (as you would expect) are not the easiest things to find. The Acts can also be changed - in court (!!!) e.g. Daejan case in 2013, as well superseded by newer Acts.

My suggestion is to access the Acts through http://www.legislation.gov.uk as they 'usually' incorporate the changes. (Select the 'Amended' option on the left handside).

However, note that this database is not as comprehensive as those used by the professionals, and can be misleading e.g. the case of s.152 of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 that does not tell you that it has not come into force.

(The objective is to make leaseholders spend money on lawyers - so that they can be induced into caving in: Overview Note 4; Business model).

If you do a search on the Web, you will find numerous other sources of information on leasehold, including books.

It is a big industry, as there are some 7 million leaseholders in the United Kingdom, and it is probably fair to say that, in this - deliberately unregulated sector - the majority are being abused by landlords and their aides in one form or another.

In support of my claim, I give the list of cases on the websites of the property tribunals... not to mention the courts (see also, below, leasehold).

1 of 4 (of # 2)- What is freehold?

A freehold property means a property owned in perpetuity. It is yours to keep for as long as you live. You can pass it on to your children, who can then pass it on to their children, etc.

In other words, it is the system in existence practically throughout the world...except in the United Kingdom.

See next entry for the profile of the major British freeholders.

Back to top

2 of 4 (of # 2)- What is leasehold in the context of a residential property - and who are the major players?

Off-the-record, an MP (I 'think' this one is one of the very few 'honourable' ones :-) ) described residential leasehold to me as "A licence to print money"

Personally, the outcome of my extremely traumatic, horrendous nightmare experience since 2002, added to that of other leaseholders (see e.g. My Diary 22 Nov 08 ; media reports (Note # 9))...

- leads me to describe the residential leasehold system as a government-assisted form of terrorism and mental torture...

...and leasehold properties as 'concentration camps' - with many controlled, like mine, by greed-ridden, parasitic, extremely vicious, cruel, perverse, sadistic psychopathic / sociopathic 'Rachman' landlords and their aides...

- who are totally unregulated: e.g. lawyers ; surveyors ; accountants.

As reported in e.g. the New Stateman of 22 Aug 13 - “When you buy a London flat, you're not really becoming an owner - The weird reality of leaseholds

"Freeholds are sometimes worth much less than the value of individual flats, with the result they can end up in the hands of small-time property barons with devious ways of squeezing money from their tenants."

[NB: It refers to my case, but has inaccuracies: re. the sum claimed from individual leaseholders; the end use of the fraudulent demand].

"Leasehold flats: what estate agents won’t tell you". (Extracts under My Diary 2016).

"Mail on Sunday urges right to manage or buy the freehold", Mail on Sunday, 8 Aug 16

"A LEASE survey that found that 57 per cent of leaseholders regretted buying their property"

[And ask the same people still stuck in their properties 4-5 years down the line, and I suspect that the percentage will be 90%+]

Leasehold is the dominant form of tenure for flats (apartments) in the United Kingdom, principally England and Wales.

It is estimated that there are some 7 million leaseholders in Britain - and the number is "growing at unprecedented levels" - from the Financial Times, Aug 16, "Leasehold flats: what estate agents won’t tell you".

It is "growing at unprecedented levels " because:

  • (1)- There is no compulsion on developers to build new apartments on a commonhold basis.

As e.g. one of the sector's 'advisors', Ker, stated on its website in Aug 16:

Adding value – Creating a freehold ground rent investment.

Large developers make money from selling ground rent investments when all the flats in the development are sold- so why not benefit yourself?

  • (2)- The legislation (Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002) claimed to "allow leaseholders to convert ownership to commonhold" i.e. buy their apartment's allocated share of the freehold (same principle as ownership of apartments in other countries)...
  • The hurdles are hugely magnified when dealing with 'difficult' (an understatement) freehold owners (e.g. see My Diary 22 Nov 08).

(For some leaseholders' experience in relation to various matters see: Comments and My Diary 22 Nov 08).

In tandem with the supporting infrastructure - the residential leasehold sector is - deliberately - totally unregulated (like the private rented sector) - thereby acting, unsurprisingly, as a magnet for greed-ridden, ruthless crooks.

On paper you have 'rights' but, more often than not, in practice, the means claimed to be 'there to help you implement your rights' are in fact there for the benefit of the landlords (e.g. my case ; Case summary).

Among the numerous examples, I also cite the British state giving landlords the right to hide behind offshore shell companies while 'giving' leaseholders 'the right to know who controls their home'.

If you want to live for example in London, you have very little choice but to buy a leasehold apartment - making you a 'leaseholder' - as there are relatively few 'Commonholds'.

(Your other option is a house. They 'tend to be' freehold properties - but not all (My Diary 2016- "new-builds scandal"). Nowadays, you are highly unlikely to find a freehold house for less than £1 million (US$1.8m) - at least in the centre of London, and it will probably be the size of a garage).

The leasehold system is an archaic, feudal, outrageously unfair form of tenure. You only need to look at the umbrella term for the legislation pertaining to it : 'landlord-tenant' to get the message. Unfortunately, it's only once you are in the trap that you notice these things.

Put simply, under a leasehold form of tenure, you buy the right - from the freehold owner of the block of apartments, or the headlessor, or superior headlessor (two or one level below the freehold owner) (see e.g. the structure in my block - at Feb 06) - to live in the apartment for a given number of years, which can be anything from a few years to 100 years+.  

What you pay for is usually equivalent to the full freehold value of the property - as you can readily see when you compare the price of apartments in London with that of, for example, in the major cities in mainland Europe.

This leads many people, especially foreigners unfamiliar with the leasehold system, but also many British people to believe that they actually 'own' the property. You often hear people say that they "bought a flat" (as I did). They have not. They have only bought a lease i.e. paid rent for 'x' number of years in advance.

Those who have the foresight - and perseverance - to carefully wade their way through the legal jargon of the terms of the lease (or contract) (e.g. mine) (which is different for each block, and sometimes within a block) will usually conclude that some, if not many of the contract terms are highly unfair and unjust e.g. My Diary 2011 for the OFT's definition of 'unfair contract terms').

In fact, many read like a form of 'enslavement' (with the 2016 examples of 'ground rent terms' topping the league table). (Most leaseholders do not tend to read their lease, partly due to the frequently convoluted text, and partly because they view it as 'something legal, best left in the hands of a solicitor'...more often than not to their demise).

Whereas in other countries property tends to be regarded as an investment that grows in value over time, if you have a leasehold apartment, in effect, your investment actually depreciates year-on-year - until it gets to 'zero value'.

However, depending on a number of factors, including the amount of time left on your lease, the increase in property prices - the lease on the apartment can be sold for more than the purchase price. (Remember that this is my 'layperson' explanation. Hence, consult expert, professional sources for an informed assessment...while being weary that they have a vested interest!).

Note also that the rapacious vultures will have their claws sunk deep into you up to the point when you sell your lease i.e. 'sell your apartment' e.g.

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

"Conveyancing Association demands leasehold sector overhaul", Financial Times, 2 Aug 16

(More detail under Legal home- Intro)

While throughout the term of your lease you have paid for all the upkeep of the block, and might even have paid for improvements / enhancements to it, at the end of the term, you have nothing left.

That's right: NOTHING! You either buy a new lease i.e. 'buy your apartment / house' all over again - at the current 'market price' - or you end-up with your possessions on the pavement as the freehold owner / headlessor regains the property from you and sells the lease again on the open market... in a perfect state of repair and maintenance - as YOU have paid for ALL the costs.

And the cycle repeats itself - thereby perpetuating ownership of property in the hands of relatively few freeholders - who, to protect and add to their fortune:

  • devise their own advantageous financial models for the valuation of lease extensions - used as the sector standards;
  • set up trusts to avoid paying inheritance tax;

(*) To this must be added the fact that a third of members of parliament (i.e. legislators) are themselves landlords. ("The private rented sector is the least regulated in the western world": Private Eye, 1385, 6-19 Feb 15)

Profile of residential freeholders, headlessors and superior headlessors (above)

The residential leasehold sector is a very powerful oligarchy of 'sacrosanct', money-driven individuals.

Residential leasehold - The 'Great Estates' et.al.

Huge swathes of central London are owned by a handful of so-called 'Great Estates'.

(See My Diary 1 Nov 03 for some brief extracts of 'Who owns Britain?')

"Building up: Property big-hitters' riches pass the £100 billion mark", Evening Standard, 9 Nov 12 - "The combined value of the 4 "great estates" has jumped £1.3bn to £14.2bn..."

The Crown Estates

"West End boom bags the Queen £230m surplus", Evening Standard, 7 Jul 11, "The portfolio of the Crown Estate was valued at £7.3bn".

In its 1390, 17-30 Apr 15 issue, Private Eye reported the value at £10bn.

(In Kensington Palace Gardens HM The Queen sold a lease on a home for £200m to an offshore tax heaven company. In fact, she has been doing rather well in recent years from her overseas offshore territories).

Grosvenor Estates, Duke of Westminster

Following the death of his father Gerald Cavendish Grosvenor, in Aug 16 (The Guardian): "New Duke of Westminster [Hugh Grosvenor] inherits £9bn fortune aged 25", The Guardian, 10 Aug 16 - and "becomes the third wealthiest landowner in Britain".

His fortune is protected: "Inheritance tax: why the new Duke of Westminster will not pay billions", The Guardian, 11 Aug 16.

Aiming to squeeze as much money as possible on lease extensions, the Grosvenor Estate devised its own formula (the "Gerald Eve graph") - used as the standard approach since 1996 (Private Eye, 1428, 30Sep-13Oct16, pg 39).

The formula is currently (in 2016) being challenged e.g. "Property tribunal upholds lease extension ‘scandal’ that pays millions to freeholders", Leasehold Knowledge Partnership, 21 Jun 16. (No surprise that the tribunal would do this - see e.g. below, my experience (and that of fellow leaseholders).

(Needless to say that the late Duke, (who, as revealed by a newspaper a while back, 'liked ladies of the night'), was a close friend of the royal family - and showered with 'elite' gongs by HM The Queen).

Other 'Great Estates'

E.g. "Building up: Old money", Evening Standard, 9 Nov 12, "the 4 old London estates: Grosvenor, Cadogan, Howard de Walden and Portman cover 600 acres".

Cadogan Estates is owned by the Earl of Cadogan e.g. the case of the leaseholders who incurred c. £400,000 costs as he fought them tooth and nail to keep them under his thumb.

The Church of England

It also owns a vast number of properties...and does not believe in charity when it concerns its estate e.g. use of forfeiture (below) in the case of Church Commissioners for England v Koyale Enterprises Inc.

(In my 24.07.16 letter to, among others, Archbishop Justin Welby, a member of the House of Lords and, therefore, a legislator, I challenged him on his 'condemnation' of "hate crimes" by citing examples of what is taking in place in the residential leasehold sector as a result of legislation; he did not reply).

Further, they also export their medieval method of operating e.g. Duke of Westminster's acquisition of two famous flea markets in Paris who, within one year, announced rent increases of between 35% and 70%.

However, he faced the spirit of people in a republic that guillotined its aristocracy: "Siege of the people's castle - This British aristocrat cannot be allowed to destroy Parisians' beloved flea markets", The Guardian, 17 Oct 07,...

and got the boot in 2014: "Duke of Westminster sells stake in Paris flea market at a loss", The Guardian, 23 Apr 14.

Residential leasehold - Profile - The new entrants

The dominant profile appears to vary by region. In London, there appears to be a strong contingent of notorious Rachman Jewish landlords, typically supported by their equally notorious gang of Jewish racketeers 'managing' agents, surveyors, lawyers and accountants e.g. my case; other examples below - with the gangs evidently operating as a close-knit community.

Behind them there is also a massive support structure (Advisors # B).

Their conduct conveys: Venimus, vidumus, vicimus (we came, we saw, we conquered)...

‘because we saw we could have a totally unhindered run of the place...we now control well beyond the property sector'.

As evidenced by my case (and that of fellow leaseholders) (Home page Overview), these rapacious vultures operate as organized crime gangs by coordinating their extremely vicious, cruel, morally depraved attacks on their victims - doing this with the active assistance of state resources.

'Dare' to challenge them and stand up to them for your so-called 'rights', they, calling, as required on their vast dedicated network of scum and thugs, combined with the very active assistance of state's resources: 'their brothers'...

- will persecute you relentlessly, by any means possible, until they destroy you. (Look at the cases on the property tribunals databases...as well as court cases).

(1 of 5)- Tchenguiz brothers

E.g. Mail on Sunday article of 19 Oct 08, "David vs Goliath: VINCENT TCHENGUIZ feels force of pensioner power"

it reported 78 pensioners being grossly overcharged for service charges who "have won tribunal hearings leading to cuts in fees worth hundreds of pounds a year, with some residents receiving a rebate of almost £1,000".

One pensioner is quoted as saying: "All they can see in front of their eyes is pound signs - it's all about money",

and another: "It is such a mess. We are being ripped-off left, right and centre".

The article identified the companies involved as: (1)- apartments built by McCarthy & Stone, "which was bought off the stock market for £1.1 billion by a consortium including HBOS, private equity firm West Coast Capital, and another pair of billionaire brothers, Simon and David Reuben" (see Jewish lobby);

(2)- "managed by Consensus, a property management group chaired by Mr Vincent Tchenguiz".

(More detail under Overview Note 9)

 

In issue 1339, 3-16 May 13 (pg 29), Private Eye reported: "TCHENGUIZ Brothers [above] – Tcheeky boys!

The Iranian-born brothers – or the offshore based Tchenguiz Family Trust own one percent of all residential freeholds in the country, including all the retirement leasehold freeholds sold to them by McCarthy and Stone, and the freeholds or head leases of prime London apartment blocks..."

"The real money…is in owning the “managing agent” contracted to manage the ground rent and maintenance." [Very true, or controlling them e.g. the so-called "RICS, ARMA, et.al. regulated" Martyn Gerrard].

"In late 2006 the brothers also bought Peverel [subsequently owned by private equity firms Chamonix and Electra], the largest block managing agent in the country, focusing on the retirement market.

By appointing Peverel…the brothers could happily dole out lucrative contracts to their own subsidiaries."

In the case of the Charter Quay block (which, through the then LVT, regained £500k) "the structure of the Tchenguiz empire was described by the tribunal as “quasi-biblical”.

County Estate Management was the freehold owner of Charter Quay, with the Tchenguiz family trust at the top of the tree which in turn owned Euro Investments Overseas, a BVI [British Virgin islands] company.

"Euro Investments Overseas in turn owned Rochell Ventures Ltd, another BVI company, which owned Aztec OpCo (No 2) Ltd, an English company. This owned Aztec CBG OpCo Ltd and Roadweald Ltd."

"Aztec CGG OpCo Ltd owned Sonata Group Ltd, which in turn owned County Estate Management."

 

The above 19 Oct 08 Daily Mail article also states:

"It is not the first time that Vincent Tchenguiz's property operations have been challenged over excessive fees to older residents.

In December 2005, his Estates and Management business was accused of exploiting vulnerable leaseholders by Labour MP Barry Sheerman..."

The suffering of the Tchenguiz leaseholders must have been heightened by...

...the 22 Jun 12 Evening Standard's article, quoting a comment from Vincent Tchenguiz, in the header: "Money comes and goes, in the end it's just digits", as well as, among others:

"I once bought a Lamborghini. I drove it for two days, put it away in a garage and forgot about it". [= the all important need to flaunt wealth - like the Candy brothers (below) and Philip Green]

There is also The Times article of 26 Sep 09 "Residents urged to fight back against retirement home charges".

If he needs additional help, Vincent Tchenguiz calls on the motherland e.g. his case against Black Cube.

Others may be doing the same thing, as well as perhaps calling on the official Jewish militia, the Community Support Trust - in addition to, as in the case of the Ladsky mafia, calling on the state.

(2 of 5)- Daejan Properties

"...the £1.3bn property giant" (from "New ruling favours Goliath over David in leaseholder battle", Guardian, 14 Mar 13) (see the case it (unbelievably) won in the Supreme Court, in 2013).

(3 of 5)- Sinclair Gardens Investment

One of its leaseholders described it as: "having turned intimidatory litigation into an industry".

(4 of 5)- The Candy brothers

(Information on them / connected with them is sourced essentially from Private Eye: issues 1395 (July 15), 1396, 1410, 1416 and 1422 (July 16)).

"The Candy brothers, Nick and Christian like to be portrayed as fabulously up-market, wealthy and successful"

"The brothers frequently boast of their fancy yachts,..."

[Like e.g. Vincent Tchenguiz (above) and Philip Green, previous BHS owner. Also like him, Christian Candy is a Monaco resident].

Their flagship block of apartments is One Hyde Park in Knightsbridge, London, e.g. "One Hyde Park: a slice of the British Virgin Islands in central London", The Guardian, 26 Nov 12.

It was developed with the financial backing of the Qatari Investment Authority. (Hamad bin Jassim bin Jaber Al Thani (‘HBJ’), then Qatar's prime minister, has a joint venture in the development, and bought a duplex for £120m).

To develop One Hyde Park, for tax purposes, as soon as they received planning permission, the brothers, (advised by KPMG), set up Project Grande (Guernsey) Ltd (Guernsey: an offshore jurisdiction).

Typically for the sector, other companies are also domiciled offshore e.g. Candy & Candy Ltd's holding company is owned by a British Virgin Islands company.

You would think that people who can spend tens of millions of pounds on an apartment, and are prepared to pay "annual service charges of "approximately" £161,000" (Financial Times, Aug 16) would be spared the 'Candy treatment'.

Well, no - as Mr Geoffrey Logue discovered after he had "paid deposits of more than £4.4m for an as yet unbuilt flat". Having got wind that Mr Logue was embroiled in a legal action in the US, through his CPC Property Group company Christian Candy issued proceedings to freeze Mr Logue's assets - even though it had nothing to do with him.

The judge dismissed Candy's "implausible claim" that he was "concerned that the deposit payments might be tainted by money laundering".

The judge, also noted that "there was considerable evidence to suggest the concern was that if judgement was obtained against Logue, the deposit could be forfeited and the property resold at the current market value with the developers keeping the lot."

The Eye states that the action "backfired spectacularly" on the brothers.

Another example is that of Mr Mark Holyoake who,...

in a detailed claim in the high court, "has recounted threats by Christian Candy that he would “fuck up” Holyoake’s world and that the brothers would go to any lengths to get what they wanted"; (*)

that "he was "unlawfully bullied and coerced...a victim of intimidation, blackmail...". (*)

"The Candy brothers deny all the allegations".

(*) Typical tactics e.g. my experience with the Andrew David Ladsky gang of racketeers - and, indeed, that of my fellow leaseholders e.g.: Residents Association; Elderly Resident; other residents.

The difference in our case is that the so-called 'law enforcers': judiciary, police: ref # 1 and ref # 2, as well as others - have been - and continue to be - on the side of the crooks...because we are specks of dust relative to people with money e.g. the Qatari government, a friend of this kingdom.

The Qatari government has also been at the receiving end of the 'Candy treatment' in the context of the (blocked) redevelopment of Chelsea Barracks.

In the context of the court action, the judge said:

[Christian] Candy and his team were considering how they could achieve what they wanted – namely money quickly;...

that the Candy brothers’ companies were “two-man bandsin which the pursuit of profit is of the highest concern”.

 

(5 of 5)- Ground Gibley Ltd - Teddy Sagi - Part of / joining the group?

From Private Eye 1403, Oct 15, (pg 42), and 1422, July 16, (pg 36)

"Ground Gibley, a British Virgin Island company, is part of the Camden Market Holdings Group (which also owns the neighbouring Camden Lock Market via a Guernsey company) [= another offshore shell company] and has been acquiring land in the area to build a £300m “mixed use” luxury housing development."

(Financed by bank Leumi?)

In 2007 and 2015 Camden council (in London) sold properties and land to Ground Gibley Ltd for £5m and £675,000.

"The ultimate owner of the property group is Israeli billionaire Teddy Sagi, a former pornographer who spent nine months in prison in the 1990s after admitting “grave deceit, bribery and insider trading(*)

"Councils must ordinarily publish full details of sales above a certain value. But by relying on an arcane provision of the Local Government Act 1972, Camden kept these details secret".

(*) He chose the right country e.g. some of the Lords and MPs accepting bribes; the police doing the same thing...not to mention the British banks rigging the FOREX, LIBOR, etc. rates.

Back to top

3 of 4 (of # 2)- What is forfeiture? [Copy of definition]

In its Summer 2004, issue 12, C.A.R.L. described forfeiture as...

"...the weapon of mass destruction that bullying landlords use to intimidate leaseholders into paying excessive and often fraudulent service charge demands"

Forfeiture is a right given to a landlord to bring a lease to an end earlier than it would normally terminate - in the event of some default by the tenant.

'Courtesy' of the then Labour government, more specifically Keith Hill, Minister of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister then headed by John Prescott - who issued Statutory Instrument 2004-3086 [Copy with my Comments] which, of course, to this day, remains in force - a landlord can take your apartment away from you if:

you have owed £350.01 (US$617) - for 3 years and 1 day.

(NB: s.167 Failure to pay small amount for short period, of the (below) CLRA 2002 - states that the maximum cannot be set above £500. So, Hill, Prescott et.al. knocked off £150.

Note also that the sum of £350.01 is reduced by 'default charges' (s.167(3)). Examples of 'default charges' are (at Nov 16) the "£210" claimed by Martyn Gerrard (summary # 2)

Hence: if your apartment is worth e.g. £400,000 - you are made to pay 1,143 times the value of the debt!

To add insult to injury, while you are thrown out unto the pavement, if you have a mortgage, you STILL have to pay your mortgage lender any outstanding amount.

How many properties are forfeited? "Too expensive to give figures on leasehold forfeiture, says Ministry of Justice", LKP, 25 Mar 15

In a 3 Dec 03 article, " Left homeless for £25 " (US$44), the Evening Standard reported on a leaseholder who was left homeless because, while she had apparently sent at least 2 cheques to the landlord, he opted to not cash them, instead running along to the 'landlord-friendly' court to obtain a forfeiture order.

The journalist described forfeiture as "a uniquely savage penalty inflicted only on leaseholders".

In Sep 14, the Leasehold Knowledge Partnership reported: "Woman has £165,000 flat forfeited over what began as £290 ground rent demand".

A judge in Liverpool County Court was reported in the press in 2004 as having thrown out a lender's demand of £384,000 it claimed had accrued from an original loan of £5,750 - on the grounds that it "grossly contravenes principles of fair dealing"

Surely, current forfeiture law which allows recovery of what can be several thousand times the alleged debt ought to more than qualify as "grossly contravening principles of fair dealing" - and as being a definite candidate for "unfair contract terms".

How about that for feudalism and serfdom being alive and kicking in this island-Kingdom? (And they will be 'surprised' when there is a repeat of the 1381 English rebellion against the Establishmment).

Just as well that Labour had issued a 1997 pre-election paper: 'An end to feudalism'!

Of note: the same Keith Hill one year prior to endorsing the above SI - stated on a BBC Radio 4 programme (home page) that

"the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act does not adequately address the serious problems posed to leaseholders by the continued presence of forfeiture on the statute books.

We didn't probably appreciate quite how significant this was for some of our citizens."

Unbelievable! In the same class as the comments of many other politicians et.al. in the public sector.

Reality:(like their successors) Keith Hill and John Prescott, Labour - the so-called 'Party of the people' (*) - were (probably with other MPs / Lords prepared to "adapt / amend legislation for a fee") in the back pocket of the rogue landlords and their aides who dominate the residential leasehold sector...

...- careful to not 'upset' the 'sacrosanct', greed-ridden, parasitic, extremely vicious, cruel, perverse, sadistic 'Rachman' landlords and their aides - by giving them the run of the mill to dictate this outrageous right of forfeiture. (In the same way that e.g. taxation is devised by 'the big boys' for their own benefit).

(Of course, they have been rewarded for facilitating this outcome (among other actions in the sector that are detrimental to leaseholders e.g. Commonhold& Leasehold Reform Act 2002, below):

(1) - Keith Hill "was appointed as the independent regulator for the Association of Residential Managing Agent's (ARMA)" (the body that endorses e.g. Martyn Gerrard - as discussed in this document);

(2) - John Prescott was made a Peer. Yes, he is the one who, in 2010, proclaimed that his "human rights" had been breached because his mobile phone might have been hacked in

Another one who also used the revolving door is ex. Housing Minister, Mark Prisk who "became a "strategic adviser" to landlord, Essential Living Ltd, for which he will earn £18,000 a year on top of his MP's salary" (Private Eye, # 1373, 22 Aug-4 Sep 14, pg 11)).

The criminal elements sure use this legislation as a means of bullying and intimidating leaseholders into paying monies that are - more often than not - NOT due and payable e.g.:

  • the 16.02.07 letter from Jeremy Hershkorn, then at Portner and Jaskel, who not only threatened me with "forfeiture", he also threatened me with "bankruptcy proceedings... and costs" - in the name of a company I had never heard of (see, below, Extortion)

The threat of forfeiture (and bankruptcy proceedings, as well as court claims) = FRAUD TOOL

Another example is Lisa McLean, Piper Smith Basham/Watton (who was meant to act 'for me') who, in spite of having absolute knowledge that 'the service charge' demanded of me was fraudulent (PSB # 7.7 ) - endorsed Lanny Silverstone's letter of 07.10.02 in her letter to me of 25.09.03 - stating

"...it is perfectly legitimate for a landlord or those advising the landlord to threaten forfeiture proceedings for non-payment of service charges" (PSB # 7.19 , # 7.18.5)

Rule 17.05 - Letters before action, in the Solicitors Code of Conduct states (when I looked in 2005): “When writing a letter of claim a solicitor must not demand anything other than that recoverable under the due process of law”

But, the inappropriate use of the threat of forfeiture will continue, because criminal solicitors have 'carte blanche' to do exactly as they please from their so-called 'professional' association, the Law Society - as they had by the then Legal Services Ombudsman:

(CKFT: Law Society # 2.5 , LSO # 2 ; Portner and Jaskel: Law Society # 2.6; overview of the outcomes of my 50+ legitimate 'cries for help' and complaints)...

- making all these so-called 'regulations', 'codes of conduct' just window dressing - in 'The island-Kingdom of Make-believe'. Hooray for 'self-regulation' !

Forfeiture (copy of definition) is a form of slavery. In her Jun 14 speech (e.g. "Queen's Speech 2014: The bills in full", Telegraph, 4 Jun 14), Her Majesty The Queen said:

"my government...my ministers...are introducing a Modern Slavery Bill to prevent slavery and human trafficking and to force perpetrators to compensate their victims."

When will The Queen put an end to forfeiture and "force [those who abused it] to compensate their victims [for the extremely cruel, vicious, barbaric treatment they have subjected them to]?

Isn't that what a state that claims to have "a well regarded legal system", and "to not walk on by while human rights are trampled into the dust" - should do?

By the way, local councils also use forfeiture e.g. against an 84 year old man.

(*) Another example of double-face dealing by Labour, the so-called 'Party of the people': it introduced the Human Rights Act 1998 - BUT studiously: omitted 2 critical articles: Article 1- Obligation to respect Human Rights ; Article 13- Right to an effective remedy = the Act is a sham...and has, of course, been kept as such by the succeeding Tories.

Back to top

4 of 4 (of # 2)- Because of the profile of the vested interests, nothing will be done to address the issues in the residential leasehold sector

Looking at the 8 Sep 16 LKP’s article, "All Party Parliamentary Group on leasehold and commonhold established today".

It lists what are described as "the aims” of the (I believe, resurrected) group, under the “joint chairmanship of Sir Peter Bottomley and Jim Fitzpatrick". (Other members include Barry Gardiner).

That's what they are: "aims" - not objectives.

E.g. Aim # 2 – “To alleviate the distress and hardship of leaseholders, particularly the elderly

How? By handing out boxes of aspirin, anti-depressants and sleeping pills?

While I agree with protecting the elderly, all leaseholders, regardless of age are equally in need of - effective - protection – because the FEAR weapon is equally effective on all of us...

– due to our lack of knowledge of legislation, (that is, deliberately, constantly changing), terminology, forms and processes, etc., etc. - which makes us easy targets in this environment of vampiric, rapacious, evil, ruthless, monsters...

...and requires an unbelievable amount of determination, resourcefulness and mind-control to survive the constant attacks.

E.g. (1)- the (young) leaseholder who spent 3 days researching the meaning of just one word;

(2)- my being in the same situation, over a 10-day period, as I was trying to tell the court that a "charging order" hearing had nothing to do with me;

(3)- I remember contemplating committing suicide when I received the illegal threat of “bankruptcy and forfeiture” – because I had no knowledge about the former, and could not see a way out.

To achieve change requires taking a ‘SMART’ / 'SMARTER' approach.

Hence, my prediction is that nothing of significance will happen – because there isn’t the will to make it happen – as control is in the hands of the vested interests who will continue doing what they have done over the last 130 years.

In this context, I highlight Aim # 4 that refers to “consider the case for reform of forfeiture legislation recommended by the Law Commission in 2006”. That was 10 years ago...

- and nothing has changed, because "the government and its officials...argue that it is a very minor issue", LKP.

Further, even if some legislative changes are made - it still won't make a difference for the majority of leaseholders...

- because, as very amply demonstrated by my experience, when 'the law enforcers', the judiciary, face the sacrosanct landlords (with some more so than others...or less depending on who is challenging the landlord)...

they suffer from sudden attacks of extreme blindness to the evidence and amnesia about the rule of law - even as you keep plastering the evidence under their eyes...

- because it is a "fantastically corrupt" environment in which the crooks are deliberately allowed to 'get away with it' (other example: bid-rigging).

Hence my message:

 

AVOID RESIDENTIAL LEASEHOLD PROPERTY LIKE THE PLAGUE

Back to top

 

(3)- Definition of words - From dictionaries and charity organisations

To ensure clarity of meaning, I have listed below a significant number of words used on the site, giving the dictionary/ies description (COED = Concise Oxford English Dictionary definition) and followed them by examples that led me to use the words on the site.

I started the list by using words contained in my complaints to the Law Society, RICS, etc. (summary of my complaints).

The word 'breach' - defined in the COED dictionary as "The act of breaking a law, agreement, or code of conduct" - is used on numerous occasions, and relates to the section of an Act / code of conduct, or a Clause in my Lease. Examples are cited, stating that they are 'in my NON-LAWYER opinion'. I have also noted this fact on numerous occasions throughout this site.

Against that, as stated on the home page: I too have the right to be heard (*)

(*) Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights "Right to freedom of expression" - comprised under the Human Rights Act 1998; Defamation Act ; see also QB # 4(6)(5))

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE ACT 1970 - Section 40

(1) A person commits an offence if, with the object of coercing another person to pay money claimed from the other as a debt due under a contract..."

Having previously quoted the breach of this Act in some of my documents, going through the Act again led me to change my mind - as it refers to "debt due under a contract".

ALL my challenges of 'the service charge' demands stem from non-compliance with my Lease, statutory rights, non-provision of information, etc. - as listed e.g. in my 03.06.08 Witness Statement. Hence, the alleged debts were NOT due - see Extortion

BAR COUNCIL CODE OF CONDUCT - 303 (in 2005) - A barrister:

"(a) must promote and protect fearlessly and by all proper and lawful means the lay client's best interests and do so without regard to his own interests or to any consequences to himself or to any other person (including any professional client or other intermediary or another barrister)"

"(b) owes his primary duty as between the lay client and any professional client or other intermediary to the lay client and must not permit the intermediary to limit his discretion as to how the interests of the lay client can best be served”

(NB: see also follow-on entries from this 'Code')

Examples of breach of the above - in my NON-lawyer opinion

Concurrently consider also the data contained under Extortion, and the snapshot: Threats of forfeiture and bankruptcy, as well as court claims = fraud tools.

Stan Gallagher's page contains: (1)- a Summary of Events; (2)- Breaches of the law (detailed, below, under Malicious Communications Act 1988); (3)- Snapshot of my complaints against him.

My Comments to Stan Gallagher's 13.11.03 Draft consent order and notice 'in reply' to 'Steel Services' =Andrew David Ladsky's 'Part 36 offer' of 21.10.03 provide an overview of the main events.

What took place is unbelievable - but in line with the typical residential leasehold sector mafia tactics: Overview Note 4 - evidenced irrebutably by the list of documents Gallagher was supplied with: after page 29 of his initial 09.06.04 reply to my complaint.

In tandem with Richard Twyman and Lisa McLean, PSB, through collusion and conspiring, Stan Gallagher batted for Andrew David Ladsky (my profile v. Ladsky's: 'a brother'!) by being hell-bent on aiming to coerce me and bully me into accepting his 21.10.03 'Part 36 offer'...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Following my complaints (Doc library # 2.3 and # 2.4), the follow-on pirouettes and U-turns by the Bar Council and the then Legal Services Ombudsman were, to say the least 'fascinating': LSO # 4.

Yes, in my 25.03.05 letter to the Bar Council, I drew its attention to this rule in its Code of Conduct, as well as the rules below = a typical, complete waste of time!

Bar Council Code of Conduct - 307. A barrister must not:

"(a) permit his absolute independence integrity and freedom from external pressures to be compromised"

"(c) compromise his professional standards in order to please his client the Court or a third party”

Examples of breach: see above

Bar Council Code of Conduct - 5. Conduct of work - 5.2 - "A barrister must assist the court in the administration of justice...must not deceive or knowingly or recklessly mislead the court"

Example of breach - I highlighted this rule to the Bar Council under para.26 of my 25.03.05 reply (Gallagher # 5. 1)

Bar Council Code of Conduct - Rule 901 - "Any failure by a barrister to comply with this Code shall constitute professional misconduct"

Examples of breach - I highlighted this rule to the Bar Council under para.81 of my 25.03.05 reply (Gallagher # 16)

Back to top

CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES (CPR)

Pre-action conduct

Section III - Para.6.2: "[the parties] must make appropriate attempts to resolve the matter without starting proceedings". Para.7 deals with 'Exchanging information before starting proceedings'.

Part 1 - "Overriding Objective"

Rule 1.1(1) "...the overriding objective of enabling the court to deal with cases justly".

Rule 1.2 - (a) “Ensuring the parties are on an equal footing; (d) "ensuring cases are dealt with fairly”

Rule 1.2 "The court must seek to give effect to the overriding objective when it - (a) exercises any power given to it by the Rules..."

Rule 1.3 "The parties are required to help the court further the overriding objective"

Rule 1.4 "Court's duty to actively manage cases..."

Pt 32, 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. (Part 22 makes provision for a statement of truth)".

(2) "Proceedings under this rule may be brought only- (a) by the Attorney General; or (b) with the permission of the court"

Pt 22, Practice Direction

Para.3.11 - "An agent who manages property or investments for the party cannot sign a statement of truth. It must be signed by the party or by the legal representative of the party"

Para.4.1 - "If a statement of case is not verified by a statement of truth, the statement of case will remain effective unless it is struck out, but a party may not rely on the contents of a statement of case as evidence until it has been verified by a statement of truth"

Examples of breach of the above - in my NON-lawyer opinion

•  The fraudulent 29.11.02 claim filed against me (and 13 other apartments), by Lanny Silverstone, CKFT: below, Kangaroo crt # 2.

•  The fraudulent 06.08.03 Application for summary judgment, filed against me by Ayesha Salim, CKFT: Extortion ; CKFT # 6.6 ; WLCC # 11.

•  The fraudulent 27.02.07 claim (7WL00675) filed against me by Jeremy Hershkorn, then at Portner and Jaskel, in West London County Court (Kangaroo crt # 4) , with the statement of truth endorsed by him - thereby breaching Rule 32.14, as well as the Pre-action protocol, as he ignored my 25.02.07 reply to his malicious 16.02.07 letter (below, #

Extortion).

•  The 13.12.02 "Expert Witness" report from Andrew Ladsky's surveyor, Brian Gale, to the then London LVT - with an "Expert Witness Statement" endorsed by Brian Gale (*): Gale # 2.1 , # 7.2.

•  The 24.02.03 "Expert report / Proof of evidence" report to the tribunal - endorsed with a statement of truth by Brian Gale (*): Gale # 2.1.

•  Her Majesty's Met Commissioner's pack of lies 23.05.11 Defence to my 19 Apr 11 Claim: QB # 4(2)

•  The 30.06.11 Application by the Met Commissioner falsely claiming that all of my 19 Apr 11 claims should be "struck out": QB # 4(3)

•  The IPCC's blanket denial, in its 18.05.11 Defence, of my 19 Apr 11 Claim - it endorsed with a statement of truth: QB # 5(4)

•  The IPCC's endorsement, with a statement of truth, of its 07.06.11 Application to have all my 19 Apr 11 claims struck out - thereby breaching Rule 32.14: QB # 5(5)

(*) If these tribunals were not covered by CPR, there must surely have been regulations covering the making of false statements. Actually, according to an LVT 2003 brochure, "surveyors acting as expert witnesses are governed by the RICS" (Gale Intro) = no control whatsoever!

For OTHER CPR - BREACHED - in relation to my case, see:

 

Courts

Concurrently

1

West London County Court - 2002-04

CKFT and Andrew David Ladsky

2

Wandsworth County Court in 2004

CKFT and Andrew Ladsky

3

West London County Court - 2007-08

Portner (and Jaskel) and Andrew Ladsky

4

Supreme Court Costs Office- Dec 08-Jan 09

Portner (and Jaskel) and Andrew Ladsky

5

Queen's Bench Division- 2011

-

For BREACH OF TRIBUNAL RULES - see London tribunal- 2002-03 - concurrently with Brian Gale, Martin Russell Jones, CKFT and Andrew David Ladsky.

See also 'Test for judicial bias'.

Back to top

COMMONHOLD AND LEASEHOLD REFORM ACT 2002 (CLRA) (Access to full Act)

s.151 - Consultation about service charges

s.152 - Statements of accounts

s.156 - Service charge contributions to be held in separate account

(For the other sections, see 'Part 1 - Chpt 5 - Other provisions about leases'

The JOKE title Act as - under 'Part 1 - Chpt 5 - Other provisions about leases' - it curtails / ensures preventing leaseholders from getting important rights = a chapter driven by the God of Money (I have not looked at the rest of the Act), and part of the 'box-set' that includes forfeiture (above).

s. 151 - From 31 Oct 03, it amended s.20 of the L&T Act 1985 with s.20ZA - with the very clear objective of favouring rogue landlords and their aides BY:

  • removing the then requirement to supply an estimate, up-front to leaseholders;
  • with, now, supplying, instead, a 'notice' of "intention to carry out qualifying works" and "describing them in general terms" = a bare minimum e.g. Martyn Gerrard's 16.02.11 'Notice' and 27.03.15 'Notice' (Notices # 4 and # 7)...
  • ...- forcing the leaseholders to go and "inspect them" at the agents' premises "during working hours" = loss of time and, if you work, time off work = loss of income = a (relied on, deliberate) disincentive to do it.

There are a total of 8 stages - all entailing correspondence between parties.

When, as in my case, you are dealing with a gang of criminals, who do everything they can to prevent you from getting information (LVT # 2.2) , and therefore from being able to input, including: issuing notices just before Christmas; developing fraudulent (Gale # 7) and - deliberately - badly drawn-up specifications that are consequently unusable (Gale # 6); claiming they have not received your letters, or simply ignoring them, etc: you do NOT stand a chance of exerting your 'joke of a statutory right'.

I can only describe this amendment to the legislation as: 'Just what our sacrosanct landlords ordered!" Because - as in the case of e.g. forfeiture legislation - devised jointly by them and the legislators. (Other example: tax avoidance schemes devised jointly by the large corporations / their Big 4 accountancy representatives and the Treasury and HMRC: BVI # 4)

(As in the case of e.g. forfeiture, this was another 'gift' from John Prescott and Keith Hill).

ADD to that the 2013 decision that "It is NOT a freestanding right".

s.152 - It wiped out s.21 of the L&T Act 1985 - putting this in its place - while ensuring it was NOT brought into force (13 years later, at Oct 15 - it was NOT).

There have been umpteen 'consultations' = delaying tactics - to prevent implementation i.e. help the rogue landlords and their aides to continue ripping-off leaseholders e.g.

  • 04.06.xx - Office of Deputy Prime Minister (John Prescott) - Accounting for leaseholders monies & summaries of tenants rights & obligations
  • 07.10.xx - Association of Chartered Certified Accountants
  • 08.01.xx - Communities & Local Government - A consultation paper on regular statements of accounts and designated client accounts

Consequence: it also precludes exercising the dependent so-called 'rights'.

Then, in 2011, 'the usual suspects' i.e. lobbyists composed predominantly of the landlords' aides, led by the ICAEW, issued TECH 03/11 - Guidance on accounting and reporting in relation to service charge accounts...(long title)...

...- which, 'of course', does not provide leaseholders with the information and guarantees they need to ensure they are not being ripped-off e.g. what was produced by the ICAEW-endorsed Errington Langer Pinner - that falsely claimed that it had "followed" the guidance (Martyn Gerrard 'supporting evidence to demands' ; pdf summary).

s.156 - It amended s.42 of the L&T Act 1987 - and added:

Oh! And to further ensure that nothing happens, and that the blame is spread far and wide and so thinly that nothing can stick against anybody: 9 housing ministers in 13 years under Labour; 4 under the coalition in as many years (at July 14).

Overall conclusion: I repeat my message.

Back to top

COURTS AND LEGAL SERVICES ACT 1990 - Chapter 41- Section 17

An officer of the court e.g. solicitor has a duty to ensure “the proper and efficient administration of justice”

(a) a duty to the court to act with independence in the interests of justice; and

(b) a duty to comply with rules of conduct of the body relating to the right and approved for the purposes of this section; and those duties shall override any obligation which the person may have (otherwise than under the criminal law) if it is inconsistent with them.

The courts expect "litigation to be started as a last resort after attempts have been made to settle the dispute by negotiations or other means..."

The parties "to have exchanged information (a 'cards on the table' approach): for claimants to provide to defendants detailed letters of claim (letters before action) to which defendants are expected to respond also in detail"

Examples of breach of the above - in my NON-lawyer opinion

•  07.10.02 threat of forfeiture by Lanny Silverstone, Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor (CKFT) - for non-payment of a fraudulent demand: below, Extortion.

On top of this, he did this on behalf of a company that did not exist (Owners identity # 2)

•  Confirming, in his 21.10.02 reply to my 17.10.02 letter that he knew that his client, Andrew David Ladsky, had filed a 07.08.02 application in the then London LVT, Silverstone nonetheless proceeded with filing a claim against me and fellow leaseholders (Kangaroo crt # 2)

•  Letters from e.g. Leaseholder C and Leaseholder M, and other events demonstrate that the intimidation tactics used by CKFT, Martin Russell Jones, Portner and Jaskel - worked in relation to some of the other leaseholders: LVT # 1.4 ; Other Residents ; Elderly Resident.

•  Evidently - 'my advisors' - Richard Twyman and Lisa McLean, Piper Smith Basham/Watton, and Stan Gallagher, did not view these serious breaches against me as material - my Comments to 13.11.03 Gallagher's "draft consent order and notice" ; Summary of events.

•  Jeremy Hershkorn, then at Portner and Jaskel, who filed a 27.02.07 claim against me in West London County Court (Kangaroo crt # 4) - doing it in breach of CPR Pre-action Protocol, by ignoring my 25.02.07 reply to his 16.02.07 letter in which he threatened me with "bankruptcy proceedings, forfeiture [copy of definition] and costs" (The claim ended with a 06.06.08 Notice of Discontinuance (more detail under Extortion).

•  Other example: Ladsky's Portner and Jaskel highly vicious 'attack' on the Elderly Resident; also in My Diary 18 Feb 06.

Back to top

CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT & PUBLIC ORDER ACT 1994 - Section 4A

"...criminal offence to cause harassment, alarm or distress with intent by using threatening words" (It can only be an offence if it happens in a public place)

Examples of breach of the above - in my NON-lawyer opinion

•  Andrew David Ladsky and his gang of racketeers attacked me in the public environment of the tribunal and the court - falsely portraying me as an individual who defaults on her contractual obligations - (thereby also breaching the Defamation Act)

Examples under Extortion.

Back to top

DATA PROTECTION ACT 1998 (Access to full Act)

This document provides comprehensive extracts

Examples of breach of the above - in my NON-lawyer opinion

(DPA) - Her Majesty's Kensington police

•  Numerous breaches of my rights under the Act, as well as under Recital 28 of the Data Protection Directive 95/46/EC...

...- (and concurrently: (1)- of Article 8 of the European Convention, with further violations under Article 3 , Article 14; (2)- under the Defamation Act ; (3)- Malicious Communications Act.)...

...- through its processing 3 so-called "crime reports" against me - (and, no doubt, a lot worse, I have NOT seen e.g. reaction of police officer on 16 Oct 10) - and unlawfully denying me access.

•  I submitted a 28.05.09 Subject Access Request to the police (police # 5.1), leading me to receive, in July 09, 3 heavily redacted "crime reports" - following which I went into a long, soul-destroying battle (police # 5).

Following my filing a 19 Apr 11 Claim against Her Majesty's Met Commissioner, in July 11, the police supplied me with another less redacted version, it then tried to retrieve (e.g. its 28.07.11 letter) - because it provides undeniable support to some of my key conclusions (QB # 4(3))

(I compiled and discussed the text that had been redacted in the 3 "crime reports" in my 29.08.11 police Witness Statement).

Overall - without a shred of supporting evidence - these so-called "crime reports" libellously and maliciously portray me as:

I most strongly assert that the objectives of these so-called "crime reports" are to:

(see police Overview - and consider these so-called "crime reports" in the context of police conduct regulations)

•  KEY to the web of lies and accusations against me in the "crime reports" is the Kensington police mafia deliberately describing Ladsky as "my neighbour" - when the relevant description is 'landlord': police # 1 KP(1A)

(DPA) - 2002 "CRIME REPORT" (Overview)

•  My complaint to Her Majesty's Chelsea police (Kensington police), on 18 Feb 02, of suffering ongoing harassment from Andrew David Ladsky - including receiving a string of anonymous phone calls over several days (due to my challenging his intended fraud), for which I identified him as the perpetrator / instigator (police # 1 background).

•  Kensington police went out of its way to protect its 'brother' through - undeniable - deceit, cover-up and fabrications (police # 1 Key Pts).

(NB: It did the same thing in relation to my fellow leaseholders' complaints of suffering harassment from Ladsky as, in spite of at least 4 complaints, it has "no crime report against Mr Ladsky": police # 4).

(DPA) - 2003 "CRME REPORT" (Overview)

•  It concerns a so-called 'complaint' against me by Ladsky to his henchmen in HM's Chelsea police, that "[I had] used abusive language towards him" - of course, failing to report that he had provoked me.

His motive was to scare me from pursuing (10 days later) my challenge of his application to the tribunal (Kangaroo court). 3 weeks previously, Ladsky had told me: "I am going to get you this year!" (police # 2 background).

To make the accusation of harassment stick against me, Ladsky falsely claimed that 'I had a history of doing this' (police # 2 KP(4)).

He made other false, highly vicious and libellous accusations against me, which his henchmen accepted without any challenge (police # 2 Key Pts).

The processing of this data is, therefore, in blatant breach of my rights under the DPA (detail contained in my 17.10.11 Appeal Request (QB # 4(7)), and my 26.01.12 Application to the ECtHR (ECt # 1).

Before contacting me, Ladsky's henchmen processed a criminal charge against me of a "Confirmed" "Substantiated Offence of Harassment" (Note the "confirmed" and "substantiated") (police # 2 KP(1)).

In relation to this, under para.23 of his 25.06.11 pack of lies Defence (QB # 4(2)), Her Majesty's Met Commissioner, stated outrageously:Processing of the 2003 report is not unlawful. [It] does not accuse [me] of anything;…”. (See extracts from the Act / below for the fact that what the police did - DOES amount to holding a criminal charge against me).

•  Then, a "crime investigator" sent me this bullying, threatening, malicious 27.01.03 letter telling me, in effect, that I had better shut-up and not challenge 'Dear Mr Ladsky' "or there may be further consequences".

•  Ignoring my 11.02.03 letter asking "for precise detail - in writing - of the accusation against me" - on the day it received it - HM's police closed down the report, falsely claiming that it had been "unable to contact [me]" (police # 1 KPs (11) - (13)).

Therefore, Her Majesty's Kensington police has denied me the right to defend myself against Ladsky's false accusations (thereby also violating my rights under Article 8 of the European Convention).

Since then, it has ignored my irrebutable evidence against its "crime report".

Among the many absolutely outrageous, arrogant defences by Her Majesty's Met Commissioner in his 23.05.11 Defence (QB #4(2)):

(i) para.23 "Kensington police did not deny [me] the right to defend [myself] against the accusations and opinion of [me]" ; (ii) para.23 "It is not required by the DPA to do so" (police # 2 KP(16))

How much more glaringly obvious evidence of police (and judiciary) collusion with Ladsky is required?

(DPA) - 2007 "CRIME REPORT" (Overview)

•  Another so-called 'complaint' against me, by Rachman Andrew David Ladsky, on 15 May 07, to his henchmen at Notting Hill police (part of Kensington police).

This time, Ladsky's motive (and, very clearly, in the background, that of 'the Brotherhood', as I had 'upset' some of its corrupt elements) was to secure the closure of my website - something Ladsky had tried to do desperately over the previous 2.5 months: police # 3 background.

Yet, again, this "crime report" it is a web of totally unsupported, false, libellous, highly vicious and malicious accusations against me, and opinions of me - to which Her Majesty's police added liberally (police # 3 Key Pts) - and which can be summarised as per the above, overall summary.

I repeat my above list of documents in which I explain comprehensively how the "crime reports" amount to numerous breaches of my rights under the DPA.

•  Demonstrating the very malicious intent (as well as (continuing) conspiring and collusion with Ladsky) - the Kensington police mafia never contacted me about this so-called 'complaint'.

Needless to say that in my 19 Apr 11 Queen's Bench Division Claim and subsequent documents, I repeated this fact endlessly, starting with my Particulars of claim.

As discussed under e.g. QB # 4(3), Her Majesty's Met Commissioner failed to address this in his Defence.

As to HM's Master Eyre, demonstrating glaring collusion and conspiring with the police and Ladsky, in 'his' 9 Aug 11 Order (QB # 4 (6)) he claimed that "the police took the matter up with [me]" (QB # 4 (6)(1)) (see Kangaroo court).

•  Instead of contacting me - and after it had processed a criminal charge against me: aConfirmed”, “Substantiated Racial Incident”, “Anti-Semitic Racial Incident”, “Hate Crime – Race, Religion(Note the "confirmed" and "substantiated") (police # 3 KP(1))...

... - it sent a highly vicious, malicious, libellous, racist, xenophobic e-mail of 16.03.07 to my website Host (below, breach Malicious Communications)

It also accused me of being a Nazi and an anti-Semite - "because of my franco-german (sic) origin" - and demanded the immediate closure of my website (police # 3 KP(4)).

•  Having failed to contact me - at any point in time - thereby denying me, yet again, the right to defend myself against the false accusations, Her Majesty's Kensington police mafia captured in its "crime report" that it has "NO SUSPICION OF FALSE REPORTING" (police # 3 KPs 3(1)(2) ; QB # 4(3))

•  Another outrageous, but also hilarious entry - that demonstrates - considering what is contained under e.g. Extortion, Advisors that HM police (and judiciary) have no sense of the ridicule - is the claim that 'Dear Mr Ladsky' is 'the poor' "VULNERABLE VICTIM" who feels "INTIMIDATED" - 'by me' !!! (also discussed under QB # 4(3)).

•  To add more weight to its claim of 'my waging some kind of "racist" vendetta against Ladsky' - the police recycled the false accusation in the 2007 "crime report" and, in the process, endorsed it (police # 3 KP(3)(1)(13))

During the 'hearing' of the Met Commissioner's Application, HM's Master Eyre attempted to gain 'evidence' in support of the accusation (QB # 4(6)(1)). Having failed, he nonetheless captured it in 'his' Order (QB # 4(6)(1)).

Eyre dismissed ALL my claims in his pack of lies 09.08.11 MPS Order (my Comments are attached) (QB # 4(6)), claiming among that they "[amount to] a most obvious attempt to re-write history" (QB # 4(6)(1)).

His mates then confirmed (QB # 4 (7)(2)), and reconfirmed the Order (QB # 4 (7)(3)), the latter entailing my issuing this 17.10.11 Appeal Request in which I discussed the breaches of my rights, supported by case law. (This is extremely corrupt, psycho island-Kingdom - BIG TIME!)

Of course, the other lapdog, the IPCC also joined the pack: it illegally granted the police 'dispensation' from compliance with the requirements of the Data Protection Act 1998 (YES!) (police # 5.4 ; QB # 5(2)).

(Note that HM's Kensington police also "advised [Ladsky], the victim, re. civil procedures defamation of character" (police # 3 KP(3)(2)(7)). What a mafia - and a psycho one at that!)

Contrast the above with:

  • (i) para.6: “the mere fact that an allegation is recorded on the CRIS [Crime Report] does not mean that the allegation is treated as being true”;
  • (ii) para.8: “…In carrying out investigations officers will always be aware of the subjectivity [of the complainant] and as such will keep an open mind” (police # 3 KP(3)(1)(13));

Evidently, the above assertions do NOT apply when 'the complainant' is 'the brother', Andrew David Ladsky. Indeed, Her Majesty's corrupt police:

"is unable to comment on the alleged falsity of Mr Ladsky’s claims or on their allegedly being malicious or misleading": para.23 of Her Majesty's Met Commissioner's 23.06.11 Defence (QB # 4(2) ; police # 2 KP(16));

(NB: Note that:

(i)- the police had been "look[ing] at [my] website" in 2007 (16/03/07-18h56 entry) (police # 3 KP(3)(2)(9)); (in fact, probably before that, and has since continued to monitor it very closely, as well as attempted to delete it in 2014)

(ii)- what it recorded following my complaint in 2002: police # 3 KP(17))

"is satisfied that the crime reports represent an accurate account of what police were told even if [I] do not agree with what was said." (Steve McSorley, Professional Standards, Kensington police - police # 5.2)

Added to - 'of course':

If the crime reports were to be altered at the complainant’s request this would set a new precedent for crime reporting and recording across the UK.

This complaint is therefore an abuse of process” (police application to the IPCC - police # 5.4).

•  Denial of my rights, led me to submit a 26.01.12 Application to the European Court of Human Rights (ECt # 1). (As 'my luck' would have it, at the time, it was under British mandate, headed by Sir Nicolas Bratza)

A 06.06.12 letter (my Comments are attached) communicated that 'one' judge, Judge Vincent A. De Gaetano, (Malta) had rejected my application - without giving any reason - thereby breaching Article 45 of the Convention (ECt # 2).

Unsurprisingly, having been given the green light by the British judiciary (in the British courts, and while on secondment in the ECtHR) - Her Majesty's police has continued to - in breach of my rights - process the "crime reports" against me.

(DPA) - Her Majesty's ministry of (In)Justice

•  It also breached the Data Protection Act 1998 - by failing to address my 02.01.10 Subject Access Request: Legal home # 9

Back to top

DEFAMATION ACT 2013 (Access to full Act) (see below re. 'Fair comment' and 'Reynolds defence' - in operation during the first 7 years of the existence of my website).

s.1 - Requirement of serious harm - "A statement is not defamatory unless its publication has caused or is likely to cause serious harm to the reputation of the claimant."

Defences

s.2- Truth- (1)- "...defendant to show the imputation conveyed by the statement complained of is substantially true"; (3)- "If one or more of the imputations is not shown to be substantially true, the defence does not fail if, having regard to the imputations shown to be substantially true, the imputations not shown to be substantially true do not seriously harm the claimant's reputation."

s.3 - Honest opinion- (2)- "The first condition is that the statement complained of was a statement of opinion"; (3)- "The...statement...indicated, whether in general or specific terms, the basis of the opinion."

(4)- "The third condition is that an honest person could have held the opinion on the basis of- (a)- any fact which existed at the time the statement...was published; (b)- anything asserted to be a fact in a privileged statement published before the statement complained of."

(7)- "...a statement is a "privileged statement" if the person responsible for its publication would have one or more of the following defences..."- (a)- "a defence under section 4..."

s.4- Publication on matter of public interest - (1)- "It is a defence to an action for defamation for the defendant to show that- (a)- the statement complained of was, or formed part of, a statement on a matter of public interest; and (b)- the defendant reasonably believed that publishing the statement complained of was in the public interest".

(5)- "...the defence under this section may be relied upon irrespective of whether the statement complained of is a statement of fact or a statement of opinion."

[Definition of 'libel' - "Publication of a statement which exposes a person to: hatred, ridicule or contempt or which causes him to be shunned or avoided or which has a tendency to injure him in his office, trade or profession in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally". I need to determine if this is captured in the legislation and, if so, where.]

[I am guided by the assumption that the following still holds: 'The words have to be commensurate with the offence e.g. a liar has to be a serial liar'.]

Examples of precedents

Littledale J., in McPherson v. Daniels (1829) 10 B. & C. 263, 272: “The law will not permit a man to recover damages in respect of an injury to a character which he does not or ought not to possess.”

Crompton J., in Campbell v. Spottiswoode (1863) 3 B. & S. 769, 779: “It is the right of all the Queen's subjects to discuss public matters”.

Lord Denning M.R., in London Artists Ltd. v. Littler [1969] 2 Q.B. 375, 391: "Whenever a matter is such as to affect people at large, so that they may be legitimately interested in, or concerned at, what is going on; or what may happen to them or others; then it is a matter of public interest on which everyone is entitled to make fair comment."

Lord Phillips, in Flood v Times Newspapers Limited [2012] UKSC 11 [at para.2] - "Protects the publication of defamatory matters to the world at large where: (i) it was in the public interest that the information should be published - ‘right to know test’ ; and (ii) the publisher has acted responsibly in publishing the information".

Fair comment: Abolished through repeal of s.6 of the Defamation Act 1952 (s.3(8) of DA 2013). While it existed from the time I published my website, in 2006, until 2013 (and I frequently referred to it) - in my non-lawyer opinion - the requirements were very similar to those of the latest Act - and I met them, including expressing opinions "without malice".

Reynolds defence: Abolished (s.4(6) of DA 2013). It referred to "public interest" and, I believe, "qualified privilege".

Examples of breach of the above - in my NON-lawyer opinion

•  As can be seen, I am not making statements not supported by evidence / often, very extensive and very damning evidence. In the process, I have taken the best care I could in considering it. Further, to avoid ambiguity, I provide the dictionary definition of words to which objection might be raised, as well as support them by examples from my case.

•  I consider events in my case to be definitely of 'public interest' - and hope that, at a minimum: it will spare others from going through the absolute sheer utter hell I have, and continue to go through, since 2002; that my case will be a trigger for change: Home page Note 11 , Legal.

See also my comments under Article 10 of the European Convention.

While I have taken great care to ensure that what I am reporting is the truth, and that my opinions are supported extensively by facts - others have most definitely NOT done this - in the process, defaming my name, character and reputation on an ongoing basis:

•  Since 2003, by Her Majesty's Kensington police processing - as well as circulating "to 50,000 people", as well as a very large number of other public sector parties (Media pg - Telegraph 20 Mar 13 ; police # 5.5) its so-called "crime reports" against me (see, above, breach of Data Protection Act 1998).

•  Since 2003, by Her Majesty's tribunal in its so-called 'summary of the case' (ref # 992 on the LVT database) (LVT # 7 ; Prescott # 1.4) - accessible by the public - and its 17.06.03 report (detail, below, Kangaroo crt # 1)

Also, by Her Majesty's judiciaries (Kangaroo crts) who have been issuing Notices and Orders against me falsely portraying me as somebody who defaults on her contractual obligations; as a criminal - documents that have been in the public domain ever since.

•  In 2007, by Her Majesty's Kensington police emails 16.03.07 and 20.03.07 to my website Host (detail, under breach Malicious Communications Act).

•  In 2006, by Jeremy Hershkorn, then at Portner and Jaskel, in his 03.10.06 fax to my then website host (detail under breach Malicious Communications Act 1988).

•  Since 2002, by Andrew David Ladsky and his gang of racketeers, in documents that are in the public domain - falsely portraying me as an individual who defaults on her contractual obligations, and as a liar:

  • the lies about me by Ladsky in his letter to the tribunal - captured under para.50 of the 17.06.03 tribunal's report - falsely claiming that "[I was] the only tenant challenging the service charge demand" (Gale # 2.2) (in the process, acting in concert with his gang: e.g. 'Major works' - Note)
  • the lies about me by Joan Hathaway, MRICS, of the then MRJ, in 'her' 20.01.03 letter to the tribunal - falsely - claiming that I had been supplied with the priced specification. Her lie was exposed during the 5 Feb 03 'hearing' (captured under para.14 of the 17.06.03 tribunal report) - leading to a postponement of the substantive hearing "in the interests of justice" (para.16) ( LVT # 2 , # 3).

•  Since 2011, Martyn Gerrard falsely portraying me to the Jefferson House leaseholders and, by extension, to whoever else they show the documents to - as being responsible for additional costs e.g. its 23.06.11 (MG # 3).

These documents are highly prejudicial to me as, seen in isolation, any reasonable and respectable person who comes across them will think less of me as a result.

•  Andrew David Ladsky also made highly libellous, scurrilous claims and accusations against me to my then employer, KPMG - in the course of numerous communications: 05.10.07, including in his 26.03.07 letter (KPMG # 3.5).

•  As evidenced by what took place on e.g. 12 Oct 15, the Ladsky mafia et.al. are - of course - continuing to defame my name, character and reputation to whoever is prepared to give them the time of day.

Back to top

EQUALITY ACT 2010 (Access to full Act)

Part 2 - Chpt 1 - Section 4- "The protected characteristics": s.9(1)(b)(c)- "Race" ; s.11(a)- "Sex".

Chpt 2 - s.13- "Direct discrimination" - (1) "A person (A) discriminates against another (B) if, because of a protected characteristic, A treats B less favourably than A treats or would treat others"

s.26- "Harassment"- (1) "A person (A) harasses another (B) if- (a) A engages in unwanted conduct related to a relevant protected characteristic, and (b) the conduct has the purpose or effect of-- (i) violating B's dignity, or (ii) creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for B"

Part 3 - s.29- "Provision of services"- (1) "A person (a "service-provider") concerned with the provision of a service to the public or a section of the public must not discriminate against a person requiring the service by not providing the person with the service" ; (2) "... must not, in providing the service, discriminate against a person (B)- (c) by subjecting B to any other detriment";

(3) "...must not, in relation to the provision of the service, harass- (b) a person to whom the service-provider provides the service" ; (4) "...must not victimise a person requiring the service by not providing the person with the service" ; (5) "...must not, in providing the service, victimise a person (B)- (a) as to the terms on which A provides the service to B; (c) by subjecting B to any other detriment"

Part 4 - s.35- "Management" - (1) "A person (A) who manages premises must not discriminate against a person (B) who occupies the premises- (c) by subjecting B to any other detriment" ; (2) "... must not, in relation to their management, harass- (a) a person who occupies them" ; (3) "...must not victimise a person (B) who occupies the premises- (c) by subjecting B to any other detriment"

Part 8 - s.111 - "Instructing, causing or inducing contraventions" - (1) "A person (A) must not instruct another (B) to do in relation to a third person (C) anything which contravenes Part 3, 4 or section 112(1) (a basic contravention)"

s.112- "Aiding contraventions" - (1) "A person (A) must not knowingly help another (B) to do anything which contravenes Part 3, 4 or section 111 (instructing, causing or inducing contraventions) (a basic contravention"

(ALL, in force: 1 Oct 10)

(In relation to the state, see Human Rights Articles after this entry)

Examples of breach of the above - in my NON-lawyer opinion

•  Andrew David Ladsky

•  Martyn Gerrard

•  the then Martin Russell Jones (MRJ)

Back to top

EUROPEAN CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS 1950 (NOT COMPRISED under Sch.1 of the Human Rights Act 1998 - BUT assumed by the European Court of Human Rights in the context of cases relating to the United Kingdom)

Article 1 - Obligation to respect Human Rights

(One of 2 KEY articles omitted - see Schedule 1 of Act; the other is Article 13)

 

EUROPEAN CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS 1950 (as set out in Sch.1 of the Human Rights Act 1998)

Article 2 - Right to life - "1. Everyone’s right to life shall be protected by law..."

(See key Articles OMITTED)

Examples of breach of the above - in my NON-lawyer opinion

•  Under the doctrine of ‘positive obligations’, public authorities have a duty to protect individuals from the acts of others.

It therefore includes the state protecting me from ongoing harassment in, among others, my apartment, including living under horrendous conditions...

...- in violation of The First Protocol, Article 1 - a positive obligation the British state has - and continues to ignore.

The state is also under an obligation to take particular steps to protect certain categories of people who are known to be vulnerable - which includes women - and to do this without discrimination on the basis of personal characteristics - as in my case (Article 14)

•  I contend that, in relation to my Oct 10 complaints of harassment by two men, the state also failed to comply with its obligation under this Article - see detail under breach Article 3

•  Fear for my safety (as, in spite of paying for it, I very clearly cannot rely on Her Majesty's police for protection), and the anguish of being in the apartment - meant that, when I was working, I was staying in the office until very late at night, including at weekends. Eventually, in Apr 07, I started to rent a room in East London, and did this until Nov 07. (Adding thousands of £s to my costs).

Before reintegrating the apartment, I spent a substantial sum of money on making it more secure... until early 2014 when my "security-lock" supplier, BANHAM, gave a key of my apartment to Andrew Ladsky - leading me to revert back to taking the measures I reported in My Diary 2 Aug 06.

(Note that, with the objective of backing-up their portrayal of me as "suffering from mental issues", the psychos: Ladsky and his Kensington and Notting Hill police henchmen captured in the so-called 2007 "crime report" that "[I] sleep with a knife by me in the bed". You can see why!

•  To this I add the numerous attempts at making me fear for my life, including a death threat on 15 Jun 09; "Enjoy your life. You don't have long to live", to which an implied death threat was added on 14 Jun 14 - in the knowledge that I have no protection whatsoever.

As I wrote e.g. under para.171 of my 19.07.11 Home Office Witness Statement (QB # 6(1)), "every day I ask myself: Is today the day I am going to be killed? Is tonight the night I am going to be killed?" (See mental torture)

What did Her Majesty's Theresa May, then Home Secretary, do? She continued to endorse warrants to have me persecuted: Persecution # 4.2 and # 4.3 (and now she is Prime Minister, she is no doubt continuing with the endorsement).

EUROPEAN CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS 1950 (as set out in Sch.1 of the Human Rights Act 1998)

Article 3 - Prohibition of torture - "No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment"

(See key Articles OMITTED)

(Equality and Human Rights Commission (http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/fairer-britain))

Examples of breach of the above - in my NON-lawyer opinion

•  The state has an absolute obligation to ensure compliance with this Article.

•  Repeated, wilful discrimination, entailing contempt, lack of respect, designed to humiliate and debase the individual - are types of conduct found by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), in its decisions, to amount to degrading treatment - to which I add: mental torture.

•  Her Majesty's

...ignoring my asking repeatedly that the breaches of my rights under the DPA be addressed - and therefore the concurrent violation of my rights under Article 8...

...- violations endorsed by Queen's Bench judiciaries: summaries: Events ; Breaches of the law.

•  Kensington & Chelsea police refusing, in Oct 10, to investigate my 2 well documented complaints of harassment against 2 men, in the process making me make a total of 7 visits: police # 6. It amounts to the state also violating my rights under Article 2.

Her Majesty's police told me: "the police cannot capture unlawful information against people; that's a breach of the Data Protection Act" . I viewed this as 'a spit in the face' - as this is exactly what it is doing in relation to me (snapshots, above, under breach Data Protection Act 1998).

•  I also highlight that, throughout my 7 visits, I wore, over my coat, my T-shirt stating, in large lettering: “Victim of fraud and corruption – www.leasehold-outrage.com”. None of the officers ever commented on it and hence, never asked me about it (para.140 of my 19.07.11 police Witness Statement).

In fact, when they see me in the streets, wearing it, they laugh / make contemptuous remarks e.g. My Diary 16 May 11 , end Apr 12)

Following my filing a 19 Apr 11 Claim against Her Majesty's then Met Commissioner, Sir Paul Stephenson (QB # 4), he lied in his 23.05.11 Defence (QB # 4(2)) about what the police had said to me at the time.

I had irrebutable evidence against the lie, as I had recorded the conversion. With my 14.06.11 Reply (police # 6), I supplied the court and Defendants with a copy of the recording (Overview # 17) - as well as transcript.

•  The above are a continuation of my experience with HM's police since my first contact in 2002 - when it very clearly, deliberately failed to take action following my complaint of repeated harassment against Andrew Ladsky: police Overview ; Outcome.

•  From 2007, the 'retribution' regime grew exponentially for my 'daring' to launch this website - thereby also violating my rights under Article 10.

It means that the British state has placed me outside the protection of the law - leaving me with no protection whatsoever - see violation of my rights under Article 2 and Article 8.

(See Kangaroo crt # 6(4) for my experience with the European Court of Human Rights)

Back to top

EUROPEAN CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS 1950 (as set out in Sch.1 of the Human Rights Act 1998)

Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (hearing)

"1. In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law...."

"2 Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law"

"3. Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights: (a) to be informed promptly,...and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him;... (c)... to defend himself in person..."

ECtHR’s definition of a ‘charge’: “the official notification given to an individual by the competent authority of an allegation that he has committed a criminal offence”; “Can be constituted by any official act that carries the implication that the individual has committed a criminal offence, and likewise substantially affect the situation of the individual”

(See key Articles OMITTED)

Examples of breach of the above - in my NON-lawyer opinion

I repeat my above references.

See snapshots under kangaroo courts which cover the following:

Her Majesty's Court Service 'Customer Service'

  • My 2007-08 ignored 'cries for help' / requests for transfer of the case to another court to:
  • (2)- "A Judge committed to the concept of Justice, c/o WLCC" (WLCC # 24);

•  Her Majesty's police wilfully ignoring my irrebutable evidence against the criminal charges - pre and post filing my 19 Apr 11 Claim (above, breach Data Protection Act 1988)

(However: see Kangaroo crt # 6(4) for my experience with the European Court of Human Rights)

EUROPEAN CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS 1950 (as set out in Sch.1 of the Human Rights Act 1998)

Article 7 - Right to no punishment without law - "1. No one shall be held guilty of any criminal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a criminal offence under national or international law at the time when it was committed"

"Crime records" held against me by Kensington police which falsely accuse me of having committed "criminal offences" - without providing any evidence in support - and the concurrent treatment by the police - see breach Data Protection Act 1998 ; police Outcome.

EUROPEAN CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS 1950 (as set out in Sch.1 of the Human Rights Act 1998)

Article 8 - Right to respect for private life

"1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private life and family life, his home and his correspondence"

"2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others"

Correspondence includes letters, emails, as well phone calls. For an interference to be justified it must be "in accordance with the law" - this means that there has to be clear legal basis for the interference and that the law should be readily accessible.

(See key Articles OMITTED)

Examples of breach of the above - in my NON-lawyer opinion

The British state is unlawfully violating my rights under Article 8:

(1)- By the police processing, and circulating "to 50,000 people", as well as a very large number of other public sector parties (Media pg - Telegraph 20 Mar 13 ; police # 5.5) libellous, extremely vicious, cruel, malicious data against me in so-called "crime reports" (see, above, breach of Data Protection Act 1998).

It is doing this in spite of having absolute knowledge that they are false: Overview # 18.

(2)- By the police and related agencies - on a daily basis - unlawfully - dogging me, stalking me, hounding me, tracking me, monitoring me, as well as harassing me and persecuting me - and taking actions intended to make me fear for my life.

The psychos even persecute me by helicopters, as well as hound me in public toilets.

The British state dishes out this persecution by, in part, the police operating in tandem, as a fully integrated team with the Andrew Ladsky mafia's resources.

In the process, the British state is circulating widely photographs and /or film footage of me to an army of goons: examples under Persecution # 2.

Snapshots ; my 19.07.11 Home Office Witness Statement (QB # 6(1))

(I highlight that over 90% of the time I am wearing my T-shirt, "Victim of Fraud and Corruption - www.leasehold-outrage.com" - and since Dec 12: "Victim of corrupt police and judges")

(3)- By - unlawfully - monitoring and interfering with ALL my means of communication:

  • phones - including interception and retention of important messages, as well as interfering with public phones;
  • post - including stealing important post;
  • e-mails - including interception and retention of important emails, and giving some of them / their content to Andrew David Ladsky, as well as the email address of my correspondents;

My 19.07.11 Home Office Witness Statement (QB # 6(1))

(4)- By - unlawfully - bugging my apartment directly / through Ladsky.

Yet, I am the glaringly obvious innocent victim of organized crime - NOT a criminal. (Case summary ; e.g. Extortion).

As blatantly obvious by my experience and that of others, the measures intended to prevent abuse of the surveillance legislation are ignored. (See My Diary 2011-Introduction) = yet more 'window dressing'.

In my 26.01.12 Application to the ECtHR, I also included the 'surveillance' and events re my means of communication.

As I also stated: I have no protection whatsoever against the blatant abuse of power by the state (QB # 6(1)) - and nor have I any for my life - see violation of my rights under Article 3.

(See Kangaroo crt # 6(4) for my experience with the European Court of Human Rights)

Back to top

EUROPEAN CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS 1950 (as set out in Sch.1 of the Human Rights Act 1998)

Article 10 - Right to Freedom of expression

"1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers...".

2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary"

(See other key Article OMITTED)

Examples of breach of the above - in my NON-lawyer opinion

I too have the right to be heard - without being persecuted for it.

Indeed, I submit that, since the launch of my website, in 2006, a lot of the barbaric treatment I have - and continue - to be subjected to by (among others) various state parties: Her Majesty's courts (Kangaroo crts), police (e.g. examples under breach Article 8, above), etc. - amount to 'retribution' for 'my daring' to exert my right.

See QB # 4 (6)5(2) for undeniable evidence of this.

The miscreants being exposed on my website: it is of their own doing.

Given their 'assessment' of my claims - and of 'my state of mind': why are they evidently so scared of me and so obsessed with me - 'the little person' with no power and no influence?

Re. para.2 of the Article:

•  As I wrote under para.58 of my 17.10.11 Appeal Request against the pack of lies 09.08.11 MPS Order (my Comments are attached) (QB # 4(6)): If my ‘criticisms and accusations’ (definition of ‘tirade’) were not justified and true, I would no doubt have had proceedings filed against me a long time ago". (QB # 4(5)(2))

I also draw your attention to:

  • the fact that, in each instance, I have given everybody full representation by capturing their position comprehensively - stating where they said it, and, for the purpose of verification, supply their documents.

Furthermore, the context of ALL of my dealings with ALL the parties covered on this website has been as a consumer / member of the public. As they were happy to do what they did to me, write what they wrote to me - a consumer / member of the public - surely, they cannot object to having their positions / views made public.

As a consumer, if I have a bad experience with any supplier of consumer goods or services, I can potentially approach e.g. the BBC's consumer programme, Watchdog, on which my case - and supporting evidential documents - could be explained and shown to millions of viewers - as has already been done for tens of thousands of cases. And it includes naming individuals and approaching them - on camera.

I do not see any difference between this and my experience with the various parties referred to on this website. (Case summary)

•  Re. "the prevention of disorder or crime": see e.g. Extortion ; police: Overview & Outcome ; # 2 KP(16) and # 3 KP(9) re. para.11(v);

breach Data Protection Act 1998 ; violations of European Convention rights: Article 2 , Article 3 , Article 8 , Article 14 - and concurrently: Kangaroo crt.

•  Re. "for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary": see e.g. snapshot under Kangaroo courts.

•  As to my claim of violations of my rights under this Article, which was included in my 26.01.12 Application to the European Court of Human Rights - see Kangaroo crt # 6(4) for my experience with this court.

(NB: To respect the privacy of my fellow leaseholders, I have redacted their name on documents, including those available in the public domain).

EUROPEAN CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS 1950 (NOT COMPRISED under Sch.1 of the Human Rights Act 1998 - BUT quoted by the European Court of Human Rights in the context of cases relating to the United Kingdom)

Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy - "Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity."

(One of 2 KEY articles omitted; the other is Article 1)

•  This violation of my right is glaringly obvious from my experience with Her Majesty's courts and tribunal - see snapshot under Kangaroo courts.

Back to top

EUROPEAN CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS 1950 (as set out in Sch.1 of the Human Rights Act 1998)

Article 14 - Prohibition of discrimination - "The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status"

ECtHR’s meaning of discrimination “a difference in treatment which has no reasonable and objective justification”.

(See key Articles OMITTED)

•  This Article is engaged as a result of violations of my above rights under: Article 2, Article 3 , Article 6 , Article 8 , Article 10.

•  In relation to Her Majesty's police, this discrimination is glaringly obvious from the flagrant difference in treatment when 'Dear Mr Ladsky' makes 'a complaint' against me: 2003 and 2007

- v. when I attempt to make a complaint against him: 2002; October 2010 (snapshots, above, under breach Data Protection Act 1998 ; breach Article 3)

•  Ditto about how Her Majesty's judiciary treats me v. Ladsky - when he files fraudulent claims against me (snapshots, below, under Kangaroo courts)

My suffering blatant discrimination and victimization from other state parties.

EUROPEAN CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS 1950 (as set out in Sch.1 of the Human Rights Act 1998)

Part II - The First Protocol - Article 1 - Protection of property - "Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions"

•  My apartment wired like a 'Christmas tree' - by the state / Ladsky with the assistance of the state

•  My suffering numerous instances of harassment in my apartment: examples under Protection from Harassment Act 1997.

Back to top

FRAUD ACT 2006 (came into force on 15 Jan 07) (Access to full Act)

2. Fraud by false representation

(1) A person is in breach of this section if he-
(a) dishonestly makes a false representation, and
(b) intends, by making the representation-
(i) to make a gain for himself or another, or
(ii) to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.

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

3. Fraud by failing to disclose information

A person is in breach of this section if he-
(a) dishonestly fails to disclose to another person information which he is under a legal duty to disclose, and
(b) intends, by failing to disclose the information-
(i) to make a gain for himself or another, or
(ii) to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss"

No gain or loss needs actually to have been made.

The maximum sentence is 10 years imprisonment.

Examples of breach of the above - in my NON-lawyer opinion

•  Jeremy Hershkorn, then at Portner and Jaskel - acting for Andrew David Ladsky - who, in his 16.02.07 letter, threatened me with "bankruptcy proceedings and forfeiture" (taking the apartment away from me) (copy of definition), and "costs" if I did not pay immediately the sum of £8,937 (US$15,800) to a company I had never heard of (more detail under Extortion)

Ignoring my 25.02.07 reply in which I asked for clarification, Hershkorn proceeded with filing a 27.02.07 claim against me in West London County Court (Kangaroo crt # 4 ; Portner # 6 ; WLCC # 1)

After 16 months of hell, the claim ended with a 06.06.08 Notice of Discontinuance of "ALL" the claim against me - without giving any reason (Portner # 31)

•  The totally unsupported, because fraudulent, 09.07.10 demand of £24,002 (US$42,322) 'from' the then Martin Russell Jones (MRJ) was followed by 2 repeats of the demand - while ignoring my letters asking for evidence in support: see Extortion.

•  The totally unsupported, because fraudulent, repeated and ever growing demands 'from' the "RICS, ARMA, ALEP et.al. regulated" Martyn Gerrard that ignores my challenges of the demands (see Extortion)

•  The so-called "accounts" produced the ICAEW-endorsed Errington Langer Pinner that are deliberately not compliant with my Lease - implying that they are fraudulent (Advisors # 10A).

Back to top

GUIDE TO THE PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT OF SOLICITORS (The)

Principle (a) - Independence and integrity

Based on the outcome of my complaints to the Law Society against :

(1)- CKFT;

(2)- Portner and Jaskel;

(3)- Piper Smith Basham/ Watton

- summarised under Doc library # 2

- I perceive all of these so-called "rules" as a sham, a pretence at regulation - in The island-Kingdom of Make-believe...

...- leaving all free to behave in whatever way they choose - without fear of sanction.

(Note that the dismissal of my legitimate complaints was given the seal of approval by the then Legal Services Ombudsman, Zahida Manzoor, CBE : re. CKFT, re. Piper Smith Basham/Watton).

Principle (c) - Must act in the best interest of the client

Principle (d) - Repute of solicitors' profession

Principle (e) - Standard of work

Principle (f) - Duty to the court

Rule 12.02 - Act lawfully - "A solicitor must not act where the instructions would involve the solicitor in a breach of the law …"

Rule 12.08 - Care and skill - “A solicitor must carry out a client’s instructions diligently and promptly"

Rule 12.09 - Not taking advantage of client - "A solicitor must not abuse the solicitor/client fiduciary relationship by taking advantage of the client"

Rule 17.01 - Fairness - "Solicitors must not act in a way that is fraudulent, deceitful..."

Rule 17.05 - Letters before action - “When writing a letter of claim a solicitor must not demand anything other than that recoverable under the due process of law”

Rule 18.01 - Definition of undertaking - "...any unequivocal declaration of intention addressed to someone who reasonably places reliance on it and made by: (a) a solicitor..."

Rule 18.09 - Undertaking on behalf of clients - “A solicitor will be held personally liable to honour an undertaking given 'on behalf of' anyone..."

Rule 21.01 - Duty to not mislead the court

Rule 21.21-4 - Must check the truth of what client says when relied on before the court or in pleadings

Rule 26.01 - Solicitors selling property - "Solicitors must comply with the Property Misdescriptions Act 1991 and regulations made under it"

Annex 21I - "The courts expect litigation to be started as a last resort after attempts have been made to settle the dispute by negotiations or other means..."

6. The statement of truth - Part 22 - "Proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against a party for any false statement of truth with dishonest intent"

Section 30.02 (6) - Investigation of complaints - “Failure by the firm to attempt to resolve a complaint under practice rule 15 may result in additional compensation being awarded, if a formal decision has to be made”

Back to top

INTELLIGENCE SERVICES ACT 1994 (Access to full Act)

"An Act to make provision about the Secret Intelligence Service and the Government Communications Head-quarters..."

s.1(2) "The functions of the Intelligence Service shall be exercisable only-

  • (a) in the interests of national security, with particular reference to the defence and foreign policies of Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom; or
  • (b) in the interests of the economic well-being of the United Kingdom; or
  • (c) in support of the prevention or detection of serious crime"

s.3(1) "There shall continue to be a Government Communications Headquarters [NB: GCHQ] under the authority of the Secretary of State [NB: Foreign Secretary]; and, subject to subsection (2) below, its functions shall be-

  • (a) "to monitor or interfere with electromagnetic, acoustic and other emissions and any equipment producing such emissions and to obtain and provide information derived from or related to such emissions or equipment and from encrypted material;"

s.3(2) "The functions referred to in subsection (1)(a) above shall be exercisable only-

  • (a) "in the interests of national security, with particular reference to the defence and foreign policies of Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom; or
  • (b) "in the interests of the economic well-being of the United Kingdom in relation to the actions or intentions of persons outside the British Islands; or
  • (c) "in support of the prevention or detection of serious crime"

s.5 - Warrants: general

  • s.5(1)- To enter on or interfere with property or with wireless telegraphy requires a warrant issued by the Secretary of State.
  • s.5(2)- "...applications for warrants made by the Security Service, the Intelligence Service or GCHQ". "The Secretary of State grants the applications if it thinks it necessary for the action to be taken..."

s.5(3B) defines "the conduct" justifying granting a warrant as:

  • (a) "it involves the use of violence, results in substantial financial gain or is conduct by a large number of persons in pursuit of a common purpose; or
  • (b) offence for which a person of 21 yrs+, with no previous convictions could reasonably be expected to be sentenced to imprisonment for a term of 3 or more years"

(Hence, similar to RIPA's s.81(3)serious crime”, below)

s.6 Warrants: procedure and duration, etc.

I discuss the breaches of this Act under Persecution: # 4.2 and # 4.3.

(NB: GCHQ sure "monitors" - as well as extracts - the content of a lot of communications! - see Intro to 'surveillance' legislation)

Back to top

LANDLORD AND TENANT ACT 1985 - s.19(2) (Access to full Act)

- "Where a service charge is payable before the relevant costs are incurred, no greater amount than is reasonable is so payable, and after the relevant costs have been incurred any necessary adjustment shall be made by repayment, reduction or subsequent charges or otherwise"

(NB: see follow-on entries for other extracts from the Act)

Examples of breach of the above - in my NON-lawyer opinion

•  By Rachman Andrew David Ladsky who asked Joan Hathaway, MRICS, of the then MRJ, to send:

The impact of the tribunal's findings was to reduce the sum by £500,000, or 70%: LVT # 4.

(Part 2 of 10 of LTA 1985) - Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 - Section 19(2B) (costs to be incurred) - At the time, specified the content of landlord's application for determination of reasonableness of service charge (from Statutory Instrument No.1853, Sch.1, Part II; came into effect on 1 Sep 1997) e.g.

5. "The name and address. of each respondent and each other person who is or may be liable by way of service charge for any part of the expenditure charged for in a service charge."

6. "(2), a copy of the lease or leases, or other document under which the service charge is payable and any demand for payment of the disputed service charge showing..."

8. The matters upon which the applicant intends to rely in support of his application; and where he intends to rely on any document, a copy of that document".

•  With his 07.08.02 Application to HM's tribunal (below, Kangaroo crt # 1) Rachman Ladsky - MRJ filed a 'very convenient' lease, falsely claiming that it was representative of my Lease: LVT # 1.3

(Part 3 of 10 of LTA 1985) - Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 - Section 20(3)(a) - "At least two estimates of the works shall be obtained..." (at the time)

(Since replaced by 20ZA, inserted by s.151 CLRA 2002, above)

•  Breach by Rachman Andrew David Ladsky - MRJ in the context of:

(1) - 15.07.02 'service charge' demand for the "major works", and 17.07.02 invoice to me: Extortion ; Gallagher # 1.2 , # 3.b , 3 (d).

Non-compliance is also evidenced by, among others, communication from my fellow leaseholders to the London LVT: LVT # 1.4 and to MRJ: MRJ # 14.

The tribunal finally took the message on board at the 5 Feb 03 'hearing' - leading it to postpone the start of the substantive hearings to 13 Mar 03 "in the interests of justice" (LVT # 3) - but, thanks to its conniving and conspiring with the Ladsky mafia, the majority of my fellow leaseholders did not get the information to which they were legally entitled: Kangaroo crt # 1 ; LVT # 1.2 to # 1.6.

(2)- A new contractor, Mansell, was appointed in breach of consultation procedures: 02.08.04 letter 'from' Barrie Martin, FRICS, MRJ (see Extortion)

(Part 4 of 10 of LTA 1985) - Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 - Section 20(3)(b) - "A notice accompanied by a copy of the estimates shall be given to each of those tenants or shall be displayed in one or more places where it is likely to come to the notice of all those tenants"

(In force at the time I received the 17.07.02 demand, attached to the 15.07.02 correspondence - that breached this statutory requirement) (Extortion)

(See Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 (above) that subsequently replaced the requirement - to facilitate further the fraud by the sacrosanct landlords)

•  Breach, as evidenced by the above.

(Part 5 of 10 of LTA 1985)- Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 - Section 20(4) - “For the purposes of s.(3) the tenants concerned are all the landlord’s tenants of flats in the building by whom a service charge is payable to which the costs of the proposed works are relevant” (At the time)

•  Breach by Her Majesty's then London Leasehold Valuation Tribunal - by opting to exclude the Jefferson House leaseholders on communications: below, Kangaroo crt # 1.

(Part 6 of 10 of LTA 1985)- Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 - Section 20(4)(e) - “The landlord shall have regard to any observations received in pursuance of the notice…” (At the time)

Breach by Rachman Ladsky and his gang of racketeers - e.g.

(Part 7 of 10 of LTA 1985)- Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 - Section 21(1) - “A tenant may require the landlord in writing to supply him with a written summary of the costs incurred"

(A 'right' that became a JOKE, as s.152 of CLRA 2002 (above) has not been brought into force)

•  See, below, breach of Clause 2(2)(g)(i) of my Lease.

(Part 8 of 10 of LTA 1985)- Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 - Section 21(4) - “The landlord shall comply with the request within one month of the request or within six months of the end of the period…” (year-end for the accounts)

(Ditto - became a JOKE - see s.152 of CLRA 2002 (above)

•  As per above

In his 13.11.03 email, 'my advisor', Stan Gallagher endorsed the breach of my Lease, following my demanding a copy of the accounts in my 07.11.03 letter (And that was not the only thing he did - see breach: Summary of events ; Malicious Communications Act 1998.

(Part 9 of 10 of LTA 1985)- Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 - Section 21(5) - “The summary shall set-out the costs in a way showing how they are or will be reflected in demands for services charges”

(Ditto about becoming a JOKE, as s.152 of CLRA 2002 (above) has NOT been brought into force)

 

(Part 10 of 10 of LTA 1985)- Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 - Section 25 - (1) - “It is a summary offence for a person to fail, without reasonable excuse, to perform a duty imposed on him by section 21...", (2) "A person committing such an offence is liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale"

(Ditto: JOKE, because now non-existent - see s.152 CLRA 2002, above)

•  Hollow words: e.g. my experience when I approached my local council of Kensington & Chelsea.

Back to top

LANDLORD AND TENANT ACT 1987 - Part 1 - Tenants' rights of first refusal - Section 1 (1) (Access to full Act)

A landlord who makes "a relevant disposal" must comply with section 5.

(NB: see follow-on entries for other extracts from the Act)

Examples of breach of the above - in my NON-lawyer opinion

•  Pretence at compliance by Rachman Andrew David Ladsky getting his puppets to issue bogus "notices" of disposal - relying on the usual 'bag of tricks' used by rogue landlords: Notices # 1 and # 2.

• I contend that  Ladsky also breached my right in relation to 4 transactions (NB: Covered briefly in my 03.06.08 Witness Statement under headings # 6 and # 5):

(1)- When 'Steel Services' became a 'lessee' of Lavagna Enterprises Ltd , in late 2005/early 2006, in the process losing control of the last floor of Jefferson House - as can be seen on the title BGL 56642 for Lavagna Enterprises (Headlessors # 2)

(2)- The 24 May 06 transfer of 'Steel Services' title to 'Rootstock Overseas Corp' (Headlessors # 3)

(3)- Transfer of the 'Airspace of Jefferson House', title BGL 51266, from Steel Services to Lavagna Enterprises Limited in Jan 06 (Headlessors # 4)

(4)- The 'airspace' was then transferred "by Steel Services", "from Steel Services" to "Rootstock Overseas Corp" for "£1" on 08.01.07 (Headlessors # 5)

See below, other breaches under this Act.

(Part 2 of 4 of LTA 1987)- Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 - Part 1 - Notices conferring rights of first refusal - Section 4 (The following is 'at the time)

"Application of right of first refusal in relation to contracts - Amendment 89-

"(a) references to a disposal of any description shall be construed as references to a contract to make such disposal,

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

Breach by Daniel Broughton, Portner and Jaskel, acting for Andrew Ladsky, as:

...his 10.02.06 'so called' "notice" was a carbon copy of previous notices (e.g. 13.12.00) in spite of the fact that 'Steel Services' no longer had control of the last floor of Jefferson House (thereby also breaching: s.5(2) of the Act, and the Property Misdescriptions Act 1991); he also went back on 'the offer' (Notices # 3)

•  It would 'seem' that Laytons solicitors, likewise committed a breach under this section, as it subsequently withdrew the offer of 13.12.00 using the excuse (planned all along) that it had not supplied the annex to the "notice" - (hence, also breaching section 5(2) of the L&T Act 1987)

(Part 3 of 4 of LTA 1987)- Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 - Part 1 - Notices conferring rights of first refusal - Section 5(2) (At the time)

"A notice under this section must -

(a) contain particulars of the principal terms of the disposal proposed by the landlord, including in particular -

(i) the property to which it relates and the estate or interest in that property proposed to be disposed of"

I repeat my above comments about Broughton, and add that he very clearly, set-out to deceive as he stated in his 03.04.06 letter that he "deliberately omitted to include pages one and two of the Land Registry title for Steel Services" .

Among others, it resulted in a list of apartments, without showing the name of Steel Services, nor the address.

The obvious reason for his withholding the page was the entry at the bottom of page 1": S.5 ...the air space...of the roof of Jefferson House has been removed from this title".

Broughton repeated the LIE twice during the notice period – as summarised in my 30.04.06 letter to him - see Portner # 1 ; # 3 - 10 Feb 06 bogus "Notice by landlord" ; Property Misdescriptions Act 1991.

  Contrary to what it stated in its 13.12.00 "notice", Laytons, solicitors, failed to include the particulars of the "disposal". When this was pointed out, it used this as an excuse for withdrawing the offer (this was planned all along).

Proving further that the 13.12.00 "notice" was bogus, is the fact that a change in the ownership structure nonetheless took place 2 weeks later, on 1 Jun 01: Notices # 2.

(Part 4 of 4 of LTA 1987)- Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 - Section 10A (1) - "Offence of failure to comply with the requirements of Part I"

 A landlord commits an offence if, without reasonable excuse, he makes a relevant disposal affecting premises to which this Part applies" (a) without having first complied with the requirements of section 5 as regards the service of notices on the qualifying tenants

"(2) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard" (i.e. a 'criminal offence')

•  see s.1(1) of the Act, above, for detail

Back to top

MALICIOUS COMMUNICATIONS ACT 1988 (Access to full Act)

s.1(1), (2A), (3) - ‘Offence of sending letters etc with intent to cause distress or anxiety’ (as amended by the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001, s.43) (a criminal offence)

(1) Any person who sends to another person-

(a) a [letter, electronic communication or article of any description] which conveys-

(i) a message which is indecent or grossly offensive;

(ii) a threat; or

(iii) information which is false and known or believed to be false by the sender; or

(b) any [article or electronic communication] which is, in whole or part, of an indecent or grossly offensive nature,

is guilty of an offence if his purpose, or one of his purposes, in sending it is that it should, so far as falling within paragraph (a) or (b) above, cause distress or anxiety to the recipient or to any other person to whom he intends that it or its contents or nature should be communicated.

[(2A) In this section 'electronic communication' includes--
(a) any oral or other communication by means of [an electronic communications network]; and
(b) any communication (however sent) that is in electronic form.

(3) In this section references to sending include references to delivering [or transmitting] and to causing to be sent[, delivered or transmitted] and "sender" shall be construed accordingly.

(4) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or to both"

(NB: Malicious communications represent a KEY component of criminal psychological harassment)

(See also PROTECTION FROM HARASSMENT ACT 1997)

Examples of breach of the above - in my NON-lawyer opinion

Sections - Malicious Communications Act 1988

(MComs) - Andrew David Ladsky - and Joan Hathaway, MRICS, and Barrie Martin, FRICS, of the then Martin Russell Jones (MRJ)

Many examples under Extortion e.g.:

•  The 20.09.02 threat of prosecution 'from' Hathaway to my legitimate request for information (Extortion)

•  16.12.02 letter 'from' Hathaway = Ladsky - intended to intimidate me and cause me distress because Ladsky 'did not like' my 25.11.02 letter to the tribunal (LVT # 2.1)

•  The 04.08.04 letter 'from' Barrie Martin, FRICS, falsely blaming me for "additional costs" (Extortion)

•  The bogus invoices of 24.05.04, 21.10.04 and 16.11.04 that Ladsky asked Hathaway to send me for my 'daring' to stand up to him (detail under Extortion)

•  The totally unsupported, because fraudulent, 09.07.10 demand of £24,002 (US$42,322) 'from' the then Martin Russell Jones (MRJ) was followed by 2 repeats of the demand - while ignoring my letters asking for evidence in support: see Extortion.

Back to Statute / list

(MComs) - Andrew David Ladsky - and several at Martyn Gerrard, inc. Saul Maurice Gerrard

•  Since 2011, the totally unsupported, because fraudulent ever growing demands 'from' the "RICS, ARMA, ALEP et.al. regulated" extremely sick racketeers, Martyn Gerrard that concurrently ignores my correspondence (more detail under Extortion).

Back to Statute / list

(MComs) - Andrew David Ladsky - and Lanny Silverstone and Ayesha Salim, CKFT

Many examples under Extortion e.g.

•  The 07.10. 02 letter containing the illegal threat of forfeiture (copy of definition) and of contacting my mortgage lender - unless I paid immediately the fraudulent 17.07.02 demand of £14,400 (Extortion).

•  Following filing a malicious, so-called "complaint" against me with his henchmen at Chelsea police (see breach Data Protection Act 1998) - to add to the intimidation and scare tactics, one week later (and as he had done in the case of 2 my fellow leaseholders who had 'dared' report him to the police for harassment),..

...Ladsky asked Silverstone to send me a malicious, threatening 04.02.03 letter, repeating Ladsky's false accusations against me to the police (detail under Extortion).

•  3 months previously, Ladsky had also seized on the fact that I had (stupidly) sent a fax on my employer's headed paper to Kensington & Chelsea housing and the tribunal (My Diary 15 May 08) - by asking Silverstone to send me a malicious, threatening 28.11.02 letter, accusing me falsely having made "defamatory remarks about Mr Ladsky" in my faxes, and demanding the "payment of damages, which must be substantial".

As stated in the letter, Silverstone also sent a 28.11.02 letter to my then employer, KPMG, repeating the same false, libellous, malicious accusations against me, and also threatened "proceedings"

•  The salvo of malicious, threatening, bullying letters from Silverstone and Salim, principally intended to force me to strike a deal with their client Andrew Ladsky i.e. make me pay monies that were not due and payable (CKFT # 3)

Back to Statute / list

(MComs) - Andrew David Ladsky - and Jeremy Hershkorn and Ahmet Jaffer, Portner and Jaskel

Many examples under Extortion e.g.

•  In 2006, desperate to stop me from exposing the detail of my case on this website = his and his 'brothers' criminal activities - Rachman Ladsky asked Hershkorn to fax a highly malicious, vicious 03.10.06 letter to my first website host making, as I pointed out in my 05.10.06 reply, totally unsupported accusations against me.

He also threatened my host with "proceedings for defamation and for substantial damages and costs" if it did not close down my website (Extortion ; Portner # 2)

• In 2007, the 16.02.07 highly vicious, cruel, malicious and perverse letter from Hershkorn, in which he threatened me with "bankruptcy proceedings, forfeiture" (taking the apartment away from me) (copy of definition), and "costs" - if I did not pay immediately £8,937 to a company I had never heard of (Extortion).

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

The distress and anguish this letter caused me was absolutely horrendous (it even led me to consider committing suicide...but only briefly). The key issue was my lack of knowledge of this part of the law (added to my experience to date with HM's courts (Kangaroo crts) - which is precisely what the evil, morally depraved, monsters Rachman Ladsky and Hershkorn were counting on.

•  Ignoring my 25.02.07 reply, Hershkorn filed a 27.02.07 claim against me (Kangaroo crt # 4) - that ended, after 16 months of sheer utter hell, in a 06.06.08 Notice of Discontinuance of "ALL the claims" against me (Portner # 31).

Back to Statute / list

(MComs) - Andrew David Ladsky

His letter, captured under pt 50 of the 17.06.03 LVT report - falsely portraying me as 'an individual who defaults on her contractual obligations' (LVT # 5.4)

•  Having, with his henchmen in the Kensington police mafia, failed to intimidate and bully my website Host into closing down my site (below, breach Malicious Communications),...

... Rachman Andrew David Ladsky then attacked me through my then employer, KPMG - by sending this 26.03.07 malicious letter, in which he made highly vicious, false and libellous accusations against me - (thereby also breaching the Defamation Act)

(detail under KPMG # 3.5...and a lot more on the page for what took place subsequently)

Back to Statute / list

(MComs) - Richard Twyman & Lisa McLean, Piper Smith Basham(Watton) and Stan Gallagher

1. 'Response' to the 21.10.03 'Part 36 offer' from 'Steel Services' = Ladsky (see Extortion)

For an overview of events:

Gallagher sent his 'draft Consent Order and Notice of Acceptance' - I had not seen (My Diary 13 Nov 03) - as an attachment to a 13.11.03-15h32 email.

Taking advantage of the fact that I was at work, and to further limit the possibility of my replying to these drafts - because they did NOT represent what had been agreed - he wrote: "Presumably this ought to be served by 4.00 pm today" - thereby citing falsely the deadline when dealing with courts (Gallagher # 10)

Having deliberately gone into silent mode over the previous 5 days, 20 minutes later, Twyman sent me a 13.11.03-15h53 email, stating that he was going to send the draft to CKFT "in the next 10 minutes" - claiming to be doing this " as advised" (by Gallagher, above) (PSB # 6.1 ; # 7.2).

Trying as best as I could to 'digest' the documents, likewise, as best I could, I made some annotations, and faxed them to Twyman and Gallagher at 16h29. They were not taken into account as, the following day...

... in his 14.11.03 email, Twyman lied that he had received my faxed comments one hour "after the 4.30 usual close of business" (contrast that with the above "16h00" claim). (I was able to provide irrebutable evidence against that lie - see my Comments to the draft documents).

Twyman also lied by claiming in his 14.11.03 email: "understanding this to be your instructions the same was sent at the time" and that my "comments were, in any event, inconsistent with a request for inclusion" (PSB # 4 , # 7.3 , # 7.13 , # 7.13.1 , # 7.13.2 ) (CKFT # 6.8 )

• With the aim of causing me further anguish and distress, in 3 subsequent letters, Piper Smith Basham continued to insist I had agreed to the reply - of course, without providing any evidence in support, because it did not exist - letters of:

They had to fulfil the deal they had very clearly made with CKFT i.e. Rachman Andrew David Ladsky.

• In Dec 03, I took back control of my case, which threw a spanner in the works of the cabal - as evidenced by the summary of events under My 19 Oct 03 Wit. Stat # 1.

Until I took back control of my case, I went through the most horrendous and unbelievably traumatic time at the hands of 'my advisers'. They made me go through absolute, sheer utter hell:

I lost 5kgs (nearly a stone) during the month of Nov 03. Most nights, even though I went to bed at midnight, or later, I would wake up by 4 - 5 a.m. unable to get back to sleep (My Diary - Nov 03) (Also: My Diary 2003: 28 Oct , 6 Nov , 7 Nov , 11 Nov , 12 Nov , 13 Nov , Christmas 2003).

2. My 20C Application to the then London LVT

In fact, the barbaric and extremely traumatic treatment had started at the beginning of Sep 03, in the context of my 20C Application (LVT # 5.1) - with the aim of making me abandon my Application - an objective in which they succeeded (LVT # 5.3 ; PSB # 7.19, # 7.18.2, # 7.18.5 ; CKFT # 6.9 ; My Diary Sep 03 - 20C application).

Colluding and conspiring with Ayesha Salim, CKFT, and Barrie Martin, FRICS, of the then MRJ, McLean used deceit, threats, bullying and coercion tactics in her Sep 03 stream of emails and faxes to me - intended to stop me from proceeding with my 20C application.

She went as far as stating, in her 19.09.03 fax: "Were I the representative for the landlord armed with this knowledge, I would seek costs against you on an indemnity basis" (She was acting as "the representative of the landlord" - while getting me to pay her fees to 'act FOR me').

In spite of Lisa McLean having absolute knowledge that the 17.07.02 'service charge' demand was fraudulent (e.g. her 09.04.03 letter to my then solicitors)...

...- in her 25.09.03 reply to my raising, in my 25.09.03 email, the 07.10.02 threat of forfeiture [copy of definition] of my apartment by Lanny Silverstone, (below, Extortion) - she stated: "...it is perfectly legitimate for a landlord or those advising the landlord to threaten forfeiture proceedings for non-payment of service charges" (PSB # 7.19 ; # 7.18.5)

Back to Statute / list

(MComs) - Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS)

In its hitlerian 14.08.08 letter, the fertiliser for malpractice that is criminally putting the likes of the then MRJ, Martyn Gerrard and Brian Gale in the path of unwary leaseholders - threatened me with "proceedings for defamation if [I] failed to remove immediately from [my] website all the references to the RICS".

Ignoring my 18.08.08 reply that it failed to provide any supporting evidence, in its 21.08.08 letter it continued with the threats: "legal action against you for damages for slander and legal costs"...

....as well as continued to demonstrate its endorsement of criminal conduct by its members - by stating: “No doubt Martin Russell Jones will also be taking similar legal action against you” Unbelievable! (RICS # 12)

Among other, in my 04.09.08 reply, I highlighted its failure to: (1)- address my legitimate questions; (2)- comply with the CPR 'Pre-action protocol for defamation'.

I concluded that its conduct amounted to committing offences against me under the Malicious Communications Act 1988, and Protection from Harassment Act 1997.

Back to Statute / list

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

  • 27.09.07 threatening letter, masquerading as an 'Order', demanding I pay £1,700 (US$3,000) to "file a counterclaim" - knowing full well that it was an impossibility for me to do this (WLCC # 12.3). See Kangaroo crt # 4 for evidence of its glaringly obvious intention to cause me distress and torment.
  • 09.06.04 Notice - without giving any detail - falsely informing me that "[I was] the defendant in a trial" - In spite of its having absolute knowledge that it could not be true - and maintaining its position over the following 6 weeks (Kangaroo crt # 2)

Back to Statute / list

(MComs)- Her Majesty's Kensington, Chelsea & Notting Hill police

•  2003 so-called "crime report" against me of a "Confirmed", "Substantiated Offence of Harassment" - following false, malicious and totally unchallenged accusations against me by Andrew David Ladsky.

Following it by a 27.01.03 letter warning me that I I had better shut up and not challenge 'Dear Mr Ladsky', "or there may be further consequences".

(More detail, above, under Data Protection Act 1998, including under the Introduction)

•  2007 so-called "crime report" against me of a “Confirmed”, “Substantiated Racial Incident”, “Anti-Semitic Racial Incident”, “Hate Crime – Race, Religion” - following, yet again, another false, highly vicious and malicious complaint against me by Andrew David Ladsky.

(More detail, above, under Data Protection Act 1998, including under the Introduction)

As the aim was to secure the closure of my very 'inconvenient' website, instead of contacting me, Ladsky's henchmen sent a highly vicious, malicious, libellous, racist, xenophobic email of 16.03.07 to my website Host - headed "Website with anti semitic (sic) views" - falsely accusing me - without providing any supporting evidence - of:

  • having 'committed a crime', by stating: "I am the police officer dealing with this crime" (*)

and demanded the immediate closure of my website: police # 3 KP(4).

(*) it was a false representation of his powers.

Following being challenged by my website Host who asked "Are you aware that there are laws against making false accusations?" - it backed down in his follow on email of 20.03.07 by stating "there is nothing we as a police force can do except class it as a racist incident"

...- while still not providing any evidence in support of its accusation - and, concurrently, continued to brand me "a Nazi" - "because of my franco-german (sic) origin"": police # 3 KP4(2)...

...- thereby, in addition to demonstrating blatant racism, continuing to also breach the Defamation Act.

Likewise, in its email, it still attempted to bully and intimidate my website Host further, by asking: "who deals with any complaints about websites in the US and I'll pass this on to the victim"

Back to Statute / list

Back to top

MONEY LAUNDERING REGULATIONS (*) / PROCEEDS OF CRIME ACT 2002 (**)

(*) Effective 1 Mar 04 ; (**) Effective 24 Feb 03

(NB: The below data was captured in 2007)

Money laundering is the process by which the proceeds of crime are converted into assets which appear to have a legitimate origin, so that they can be retained permanently.

Section 327 - Concealing - (1) a person commits a criminal offence if (a) conceals (b) disguises (c) converts (d) transfers criminal property. (3) ... includes concealing or disguising its nature, source, location, disposition, movement or ownership or any rights with respect to it.

Section 328 - Arrangements - (1) A person commits an offence if he enters into or becomes concerned in an arrangement which he knows or suspects facilitates (by whatever means) the acquisition, retention, use or control of criminal property by or on behalf of another person

Section 329 - Acquisition, use and possession of criminal property. (1) A person commits an offence if he- (a) acquires criminal property; (b) uses criminal property; (c) has possession of criminal property

Section 330 - Failure to disclose (1) A person commits an offence if

  • (2) he (a) knows or suspects (b) has reasonable for knowing or suspecting that another person is engaged in money laundering
  • (3) the information came to him in the course of a business in the regulated sector
  • (4) he does not make the required disclosure as soon as is practicable

Section 413 - Criminal conduct means any conduct,

  • (1)(a) wherever committed, which constitutes an offence or (b) which would do so under UK law. Includes for example, theft, criminal deception, blackmail, extortion and fraud
  • (4) - A person benefits from conduct if he obtains property or pecuniary advantage as a result of or in connection with the conduct
  • (5) - It is immaterial (a) whether conduct occurred before or after the passing of this Act, and (b) whether property or a pecuniary advantage constituting a benefit from conduct was obtained before or after the passing of this Act

Section 414 - Criminal property - Property is criminal if it constitutes a person's benefit in whole or in part which include cost savings or increases in value or profits as a result of criminal conduct - in any form.

(1) Property is all property wherever situated and includes- (a) money; (b) all forms of property, real or personal, heritable or moveable;

(3) (a) property is obtained by a person if he obtains an interest in it.

Hence, a thief is not only a thief but also a money launderer, because he is in possession of stolen property - the proceeds of his crime.

An individual is deemed to be in possession of criminal property if he knows or suspects that the property is the result of criminal conduct, even if he did not commit the crime himself / herself.

Section 415 - Money laundering offences

  • (1) An offence under section 327, 328 or 329 is a money laundering offence
  • (2) (b) Aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring the commission of an offence specified in subsection (1)

Know your customer - Obligation on solicitors, accountants, managing agents, etc., to know their client - before, and after taking on a client i.e. must keep information up-to-date, particularly evidence of identity and understanding of the client's business and activities

Knowing receipt - "Dishonest assistance to a trustee by assisting, with knowledge, in a fraudulent and dishonest design on the part of the trustees”

Examples of breach of the above - in my NON-lawyer opinion

"Know your client"

•  After pursuing a court claim for 16 months (filed by Jeremy Hershkorn), Ahmet Jaffer, Portner and Jaskel, claimed to have done this "under the incorrect identity and address for the landlord" 11.08.08, para.1.4 (Portner # 33).

•  In his 10.02.06 (bogus) "Notice" of disposal, Daniel Broughton, Portner and Jaskel falsely represented his client 'Steel Services' as the controlling party of the property offered ( Portner # 1 ; # 3 - 10 Feb 06 "Notice by landlord" )

• (Assuming that this section of the MLR was in application in 2002) - over a period of at least 3 months, Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor, Martin Russell Jones and Pridie Brewster said to be acting on behalf of 'Steel Services' when, in fact, the evidence suggests that it did not exist. (Owners identity # 1 , # 2 ; CKFT # 1).

“Knowing receipt”

•  The then Martin Russell Jones committed this offence on the basis that, as defined under s.42 of the Landlord & Tenant Act 1985, a landlord is the trustee of the account(s) in which tenants’ service charge contributions are paid - and on the basis of the offences detailed under the Theft Act - and more comprehensively under Extortion.

Money Laundering Regulations / Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (extracts, above)

Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales (ICAEW) guidance to accountants (NB: in 2007)

4.2 "Someone is engaged in money laundering under the Act where they: .."Enter into or become concerned in an arrangement which they know or suspect facilitates (by whatever means) the acquisition, retention, use or control of criminal property by or on behalf of another person; And they know or suspect that the property in question constitutes or represents a benefit from criminal conduct"

4.3 "Property is criminal property if it "Constitutes a person’s benefit in whole or in part (including pecuniary and proprietary benefit) from criminal conduct; or represents such a benefit directly or indirectly, in whole or in part; and the alleged offender knows or suspects that it constitutes or represents such a benefit"

6.6 "...Section 340(3)(b) of the Act specifies that “property is criminal property if it constitutes a person’s benefit from criminal conduct ... and the alleged offender knows or suspects that it constitutes or represents such a benefit

6. "Knowledge and suspicion - "Accountants...must report knowledge or suspicions of money laundering (whether involving a client or other party) to NCIS...This includes circumstances where such accountants should have been suspicious (i.e., where they have reasonable grounds for suspicion) as well as where they are suspicious"

"Knowledge is likely to include: • Actual knowledge; • Shutting one’s mind to the obvious; • Deliberately refraining from making inquiries, the results of which one might not care to have;• Knowledge of circumstances which would indicate the facts to an honest and reasonable person"

6.3 "...businesses, and individuals, would commit an offence even if they did not know or suspect that a money laundering offence was being committed, if they had reasonable grounds for knowing or suspecting that it was. In other words, if another reasonable person in the same position would have been suspicious and made a report, a person who does not make a report may have committed an offence"

7.1 "Reporting - Money laundering reports need to be made irrespective of the quantum of the benefits derived from, or the seriousness of the offence"

See section on Pridie Brewster. Hence, the above is another piece of window dressing.

Money Laundering Regulations / Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (extracts, above)

Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) - Additional guidance (NB: in 2007)

"It is a criminal offence to enter into a become concerned in an arrangement which you know or suspect facilitates that acquisition, retention, use or control of criminal property"

"Criminal property is...anything which constitutes or represents a person's benefit from criminal conduct (directly or indirectly) and you know or suspect that it constitutes or represent that benefit....As you can see, the definition of criminal property is extremely wide"

"The Act introduces criminal liability for failing to disclose information when there are reasonable grounds for knowing or suspecting that another person has engaged in money laundering..then this is sufficient to establish guilt"

Ditto about window dressing by a so-called "regulator" e.g. snapshot of the outcome of my complaint against the then Martin Russell Jones to the RICS: RICS # A...

...leaving, in the Ladsky gang of racketeers, the other "RICS et.al regulated", Martyn Gerrard, as well as Brian Gale - free to operate in complete disregard of the law.

Money Laundering Regulations / Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (extracts, above)

Law Society, England and Wales - Chapter 3 - Money Laundering Regulations 2003 (NB: in 2007)

The above hyperlinked document which contains extracts states:

3.1 "...almost all solicitors will now be within the regulated sector..."

3.3 "Solicitors may also wish to apply the requirements of the ML Regulations 2003 across the whole scope of their activities in order to protect against the committing of an offence under the statutory criminal law"

"This law applies even if the particular activities are not “relevant business” and, therefore, are not covered by the ML Regulations 2003"

Ditto about window dressing by another so-called "regulator"; see, above, Guide to solicitors conduct.

Back to top

MY LEASE

Examples of breach of the above - in my NON-lawyer opinion

Clause (2)(2)(c)(i) (of my Lease) The amount of service charge payable by each lessee is a fixed percentage share calculated on a global sum which is the same same for ALL the lessees.

•  Her Majesty's West London County Court judiciary helped the Ladsky mafia breach this Clause: Kangaroo court # 2 , below.

Clause 2(2)(c)(ii) (of my Lease) "The lessor will use its best endeavours to maintain the annual service charge at the lowest reasonable figure consistent with the due performance and observance of its obligations"

•  Following the tribunal hearings, the £500,000 reduction in the 15.07.02 demand of £736,206 (US$1.3m) "for the major works", down to £235,947 (US$416,000): Kangaroo court # 1, below.

Clause 2(2)(e) (of my Lease) Costs to be included in the service charges "...as the accountant may in his reasonable discretion consider it reasonable to include...by way...of costs expenses and outgoings already incurred or by way of provision for expected future costs expenses and outgoings..."

Clause 2(2)(f) "As soon as the accountant shall have determined the amount of the service charge payable by the lessee for the relevant financial year...

...the accountant shall prepare a written statement containing a summary of the costs expenses and outgoings incurred by the lessor during the relevant financial year together with any future sums indicated by the accountant pursuant to Clause 2(2)(e).. and specifying the amount of the service charge payable by the lessee...

...and in the accountant's certificate, shall certify... that the sum specified as aforesaid represents the amount of the service charge payable by the lessee... "

•  The 17.02.02 £14,400 (US$25,400) demand from me (sent with the 15.07.02 correspondence) (Extortion) was NOT in any way shape or form reflected in the 2001 year-end accounts.

This blatantly obvious fact was finally recognised by 'my advisor' Lisa McLean (who was batting for Ladsky) in her 03.10.03 letter (PSB # 7.9 , Gallagher # 1.6)

Clause 2(2)(g)(i) (of my Lease)

"...after the end of each financial year the lessor shall furnish to the lessee...a copy of the accountant's certificate"

Clause 2(2)(b)

"..financial year means the financial year of the lessor for which the amount of the service charge is being determined"

(The year-end for Jefferson House is 31 December)

•  I have NOT been supplied with Lease-compliant (but unverified) accounts since the 1993 accounts.

Even the non-compliant have been withheld from me - leading me to write numerous letters - in vain - to Joan Hathaway, MRICS, then MRJ (MRJ # 37)

•  It forced me to, in June 04, seek the assistance of Kensington & Chelsea Housing that sent her a 25.06.04 s.21 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 Notice about committing "a criminal offence" (K&C # 1 , # 2)

As the British state is controlled by crime, I ended-up with a deliberately incomplete copy of the "accounts" (LGO # 7)

•  Since then, MRJ's successor, Martyn Gerrard has, in cahoots with the ICAEW- endorsed Errington Langer Pinner continued with the criminal psychological harassment - through provocation - by sending so-called "accounts" produced in total disregard of my Lease (Advisors # 10A)

As what is produced are works of fiction (my 04.10.11 response and 04.10.11 analysis to the GLA survey on service charges), it could be argued that it makes little difference.

Clause (2)(2)(h) (of my Lease) "The lessee, if required...to pay to the lessor such sum in advance and on account of the service charge as the lessor or its agents shall from time to time specify at its or their discretion to be a fair and reasonable interim payment"

•  Linked to, above, Clause 2(2)(c)(ii) - The associated 17.07.02 demand from me of £14,400 (US$25,400) was NOT an interim demand; it was a demand for full payment (CKFT # 6.4 ; Gallagher # 1.2 to # 1.6 ; Piper Smith Basham # 7.9)

Clause (2)(2)(j) (of my Lease) "...nothing shall disable the Lessor from maintaining an action against the Lessee in respect of non-payment of interim payment...

subject nevertheless to the Lessor establishing in such action that the interim payment demanded and unpaid was of a fair and reasonable amount having regard to the amount of the Service Charge ultimately payable by the Lessee"

Linked to the above, in relation to Clause (2)(2)(h) of my Lease.

As the tribunal findings reduced the demand by nearly 70% - it follows that the 29.11 02 claim filed against me (below, Kangaroo court # 2) breached this covenant in the lease.

Further, as the gang of racketeers never implemented the tribunal findings: LVT # 4.3, as well as appointed a new contractor, Mansell - in breach of consultation procedures - the maximum it could demand from me (and from EACH of the other leaseholders) was £250 (Overview Note 2 ; Extortion ; CKFT # 6.4 , PSB # 7.9)

•  In my complaints / my replies to the parties' response to my complaints

(pt 98 of my 20.12.04 complaint against CKFT;

pt 49 of my 29.08 04 reply to Gallagher;

pt 83 of my 30.11.04 reply to the Law Society re. my complaint against Piper Smith Basham;

pt 123 of my 02.02.05 complaint to the RICS against Martin Russell Jones)

I drew attention to this clause in my Lease.

Clause 5(1) (of my Lease) - "The lessor covenants with the lessees to

5(1) "maintain repair redecorate renew amend clean repoint repaint grain varnish whiten and colour..."

5(1)(a) "the structure of the building... roofs...external and internal walls... chimney stacks gutters..."

•  'Steel Services' could NOT comply - as it had sold its headlease interests to Lavagna Enterprises Limited; (Case: Headlessor # 10)

•  07.06.01 letter from Joan Hathaway, MRICS, of MRJ, that "works are now overdue", and her 04.03.03 letter, under pt 38 that repair works had not been carried out for 9 years.

Yet, 'the works' were only started in Sep 04... focusing on the construction of the penthouse - see Photo gallery

Clause 5(2)(4) (of my Lease) “To insure and keep insured the building…and in case of destruction of or damage to the building or any part thereof… to lay out all monies received in respect of such insurance … in rebuilding and reinstating the same…"

•  Ditto about being unable to perform this covenant, due to not having control.

•  Prior events demonstrate that the block had not been properly insured (MRJ # 47) (Since then? I do NOT know, as I have NOT been provided with information since 2004) (see Clause 2(2)(g)(i), above)

Clause 5(5)(b) (of my Lease) “(The lessor) to remove each day (excepting Sundays) from the flat all domestic refuse and rubbish…”

•  By means of threat of proceedings, in 'her' 28.02.05 letter, Hathaway, MRICS, was endorsing her client's breach of my Lease

Back to top

POLICE ACT 1997 (Access to full Act)

The Act states under s.92 that to carry out surveillance of private premises by means of wireless telegraphy the police requires an authorisation.

Under s.93(5)(b) the Met Commissioner can grant such authorisation, and does this on an application made by a member of his police force (s.93(3)(i)).

Under s.93(2),(2B), in granting the authorisation, the Met Commissioner must believe that (a) it is “necessary” for the purposes of preventing (NB: Note "preventing" which leaves the door wide open to abuse) or detecting serious crime and (b) that the action is “proportionate” "to what the action seeks to achieve".

s.93(4) defines "serious crime" as per s.81(3) of the RIPA, above.

These powers have come to be known as the "bug and burgle" powers - to be added to the police's numerous other powers.

In relation to my case, I discuss the breach of this Act on the Persecution page, under # 4.3

Back to top

PROPERTY MISDESCRIPTIONS ACT 1991 (Access to full Act)

"An Act to prohibit the making of false or misleading statements about property matters in the course of estate agency business and property development business"

Offence of property misdescription - s.1(3) "A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable - (a) on summary conviction , to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, and (b) on conviction on indictment, to a fine"

Section 1(5) For the purposes of this section- (a)"false" means false to a material degree, (b) a statement is misleading if (though not false) what a reasonable person may be expected to infer from it, or from any omission from it, is false "

Due diligence defence - Section 2 - "A person shall not be entitled to rely on the defence...by reason of his reliance on information given by another unless he shows that it was reasonable in all the circumstances for him to have relied on the information, having regard in particular- (a) to the steps which he took, and those which might reasonably have been taken, for the purpose of verifying the information..."

Examples of breach of the above - in my NON-lawyer opinion

(See s.5(2) of the L&T Act 1987 for breach of that Act, as well as breach of the Property Misdescriptions Act 1991 by Daniel Broughton, Portner and Jaskel, on behalf of his client Andrew Ladsky-'Steel Services', when he sent a FRAUDULENT 10.02.06 so-called"notice" of 1st refusal)

See

As I pointed out in my 30.04.06 letter to Broughton, "considering that I, a member of the public – was able to uncover the above information about your client, and had written to you twice to confirm the content of the "notice", I suggest that you will not be able to use the “Due diligence defence”

My non-lawyer conclusion from S.1.3(b) of this Act is that Broughton has committed a criminal offence.

PROTECTION FROM EVICTION ACT 1977 (Access to full Act)

s.1 - Unlawful eviction and harassment of occupier

"(2) If any person unlawfully deprives the residential occupier of any premises of his occupation of the premises or any part thereof, or attempts to do so, he shall be guilty of an offence..."

"(3) If any person with intent to cause the residential occupier of any premises--

(a) to give up the occupation of the premises or any part thereof; or

(b) to refrain from exercising any right or pursuing any remedy in respect of the premises or part thereof;

does acts [likely] to interfere with the peace or comfort of the residential occupier...he shall be guilty of an offence."

[(3A) ...the landlord of a residential occupier or an agent of the landlord shall be guilty of an offence if--

(a) he does acts likely to interfere with the peace or comfort of the residential occupier..., or

(b) he persistently withdraws or withholds services reasonably required for the occupation of the premises in question as a residence,

and (in either case) he knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, that that conduct is likely to cause the residential occupier to give up the occupation of the whole or part of the premises or to refrain from exercising any right or pursuing any remedy in respect of the whole or part of the premises."

"(4) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable-- (b) on conviction on indictment, to a fine or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years or to both."

s.6 - Prosecution of offences

"Proceedings for an offence under this Act may be instituted by... (a) councils of districts and London boroughs..."

Examples of breach of the above - in my NON-lawyer opinion

Below, under Protection from Harassment Act 1997 and, under Persecution # (1)(16).

Back to top

PROTECTION FROM HARASSMENT ACT1997 (Access to full Act)

s.1- Prohibition of harassment

(1) "A person must not pursue a course of conduct-

(a) which amounts to harassment of another, and

(b) which he or she knows or ought to know amounts to harassment of the other"

(2) "...the person whose course of conduct is in question ought to know that it amounts to [or involves] harassment of another if a reasonable person in possession of the same information would think the course of conduct amounted to [or involved] harassment of the other"

(As inserted by the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005, s 125(1), (2)(b))

s.2- Offence of harassment

(1) "A person who pursues a course of conduct in breach of [section 1(1) or (1A)] is guilty of an offence"

(2) "A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or both"

s.2A Offence of stalking - introduced by s.111 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (links to the Act)

(3)- "...examples of acts..."

(a) following a person,

(b) contacting, or attempting to contact, a person by any means,

(d) monitoring the use by a person of the internet, email or any other form of electronic communication,

(e) loitering in any place (whether public or private),

(f) interfering with any property in the possession of a person,

(g) watching or spying on a person."

s.4 Putting people in fear of violence

(1) "A person whose course of conduct causes another to fear, on at least two occasions, that violence will be used against him is guilty of an offence if he knows or ought to know that his course of conduct will cause the other so to fear on each of those occasions"

(2) Test...: "...if a reasonable person in possession of the same information would think the course of conduct would cause the other to to fear on that occasion."

(4) "A person guilty...is liable- (a) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years, or a fine, or both, or (b) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or both."

s.4A Stalking involving fear of violence or serious alarm or distress - introduced by s.111 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012

(1) "A person ("A") whose course of conduct--

(a) amounts to stalking, and (b) either--

(i) causes another ("B") to fear, on at least two occasions, that violence will be used against B, or

(ii) causes B serious alarm or distress which has a substantial adverse effect on B's usual day-to-day activities,

is guilty of an offence if A knows or ought to know that A's course of conduct will cause B so to fear on each of those occasions or (as the case may be) will cause such alarm or distress."

(3) "For the purposes of this section A ought to know that A's course of conduct will cause B serious alarm or distress which has a substantial adverse effect on B's usual day-to-day activities if a reasonable person in possession of the same information would think the course of conduct would cause B such alarm or distress."

(4) "It is a defence for A to show that--

(a) A's course of conduct was pursued for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime,..."

s.7- Interpretation of this group of sections

(1) "This section applies for the interpretation of [sections 1 to 5A]"

(2) "References to harassing a person include alarming the person or causing the person distress"

[(3) "A "course of conduct" must involve--

(a) in the case of conduct in relation to a single person (see section 1(1)), conduct on at least two occasions in relation to that person, or

(b) in the case of conduct in relation to two or more persons (see section 1(1A)), conduct on at least one occasion in relation to each of those persons.]

(3A) "A person's conduct on any occasion shall be taken, if aided, abetted, counselled or procured by another--

(a) to be conduct on that occasion of the other (as well as conduct of the person whose conduct it is); and

(b) to be conduct in relation to which the other's knowledge and purpose, and what he ought to have known, are the same as they were in relation to what was contemplated or reasonably foreseeable at the time of the aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring" (as inserted by the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001, s.44(1)(2))

(2) "This section has effect in relation to any aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring that takes place after the coming into force of this section".

(As inserted by the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001, s.44(1)(2) - Collective harassment)

(4) ""Conduct" includes speech"

(NB: See also Criminal psychological harassment - and Malicious communications Act 1988)

Examples of breach of the above - in my NON-lawyer opinion

Sections - Protection from Harassment Act 1997

(PHA)- Andrew Ladsky - and Lanny Silverstone & Ayesha Salim, CKFT

Examples

In addition to numerous examples under Extortion (below), see the salvo of malicious, threatening, bullying letters they sent me in July-Aug 03: CKFT # 3.

Back to Statute / list

(PHA)- Andrew Ladsky - and Jeremy Hershkorn & Ahmet Jaffer, Portner and Jaskel

Examples

•  in Jan-Feb 07, Hershkorn sent a massive amount of emails to my current website Host, threatening my Host with legal "proceedings and costs and damages" unless it closed down my website, by making highly libellous, scurrilous - totally unsupported - accusations against me (Portner # 2)

As Hershkorn backed-off following my 28.02.07 complaint to the Law Society (Portner # 4 and # 5), Ladsky took-up the harassment of my website Host himself, by making several threatening phone calls to my Host - repeating the same libellous, scurrilous accusations, and the same threats.

• The 16.02.07 letter from Hershkorn, in which he threatened me with "bankruptcy proceedings, forfeiture" (taking the apartment away from me) (copy of definition), and "costs" if I did not pay immediately the - fraudulent - sum of £8,937 to a company I had never of (more detail under Extortion).

•  The 26.02.02 malicious claim filed against the Elderly Resident, by Portner and Jaskel. It was preceded by a bullying 02.01.02 letter from Rachman Ladsky - see Elderly Resident for other harassment suffered by this very brave man, at the hands of the Ladsky gang of racketeers.

Back to Statute / list

(PHA) - Andrew Ladsky - and Joan Hathaway, MRICS, and Barrie Martin, FRICS, Martin Russell Jones (MRJ)

Many examples of this under Extortion e.g.

•  The 20.09.02 letter 'from' Hathaway, threatening me with proceedings if I failed to pay immediately the fraudulent 17.07.02 demand (Extortion).

•  The bogus invoices of 24.05.04, 21.10.04 and 16.11.04 that Ladsky asked Hathaway to send me for my 'daring' to stand up to him (detail under Extortion)

•  The totally unsupported, because fraudulent, 09.07.10 demand of £24,002 (US$42,322) 'from' the then Martin Russell Jones (MRJ) was followed by 2 repeats of the demand - while ignoring my letters asking for evidence in support: see Extortion.

•  Letters from e.g. Leaseholder C and Leaseholder M, and other events demonstrate that the intimidation and harassment tactics used by Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor (CKFT), Martin Russell Jones, Portner and Jaskel - worked in relation to some of the other leaseholders: MRJ # 25 , # 26 ; LVT # 1.4 ; Other Residents ; Elderly Resident.

Back to Statute / list

(PHA) - Andrew Ladsky - and Saul Maurice Gerrard, Jon Wolbrom, MRIPM - et.al. at Martyn Gerrard

•  Since 2011, the totally unsupported, because fraudulent ever growing demands 'from' the "RICS, ARMA, ALEP et.al. regulated" extremely sick racketeers, Martyn Gerrard.

Concurrently, to add to the criminal psychological harassment, it ignores all my correspondence (more detail under Extortion).

Back to Statute / list

(PHA) - Richard Twyman and Lisa McLean, Piper Smith Basham (Watton) and Stan Gallagher

• For examples of the horrendous and extremely traumatic treatment I was subjected to by 'my advisers' from Sep to Dec 03, see Malicious Communications Act 1988, ss 1 & 2A: Twyman, McLean and Gallagher

Back to Statute / list

(PHA) - Her Majesty's courts and tribunals

•  See Kangaroo courts for the extremely traumatic treatment I suffered at the hands of Her Majesty's courts, as well as two tribunals over (so far) a 9-year period .

Back to Statute / list

(PHA) - Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS)

•  Its threats of proceedings for defamation - without providing any evidence in support of its accusations - and its prediction: “No doubt Martin Russell Jones will also be taking similar legal action against you” (detail under breach Malicious Communications Act)

Back to Statute / list

(PHA) - Andrew David Ladsky

•  (Added to the other forms of harassment Ladsky had subjected me to by then - see Extortion). I had approached the Tenancy Relations Officer, Kensington & Chelsea Housing, asking for his assistance in determining the name of the directors for Jefferson House (Owners identity # 1).

As evidenced from the 05.11.02 email to me from the TRO, Ladsky had contacted him, asking him to hand over to him "all the correspondence" I had sent.

In his 06.11.02 email to me, the TRO said to refuse to do it, that I was "entitled to a degree of confidentiality when you have sought assistance from us..." (My Diary 5 Nov 02)

•  At the 5 Feb 03 tribunal hearing Ladsky asked the Chair "Will Ms Rawé pay the £250,000 (US$441,000) of additional costs that will be incurred as a result of the delay in the start of the works due to hearing?" As stated under pt 64 of the 17.06.03 tribunal's report I was "within my rights to challenge the application" (Summary # 1.1) (Extortion)

In addition to the events covered under e.g. Extortion

•  Harassment at work:

  • Getting one of his female accomplice to phone me at work to tell me "Don't worry, they won't kill you" (My Diary - Jan / Feb 04 )

•  Ongoing harassment in the apartment i.e. "At the property" to quote Ladsky's vermin solicitor, Lanny Silverstone, CKFT, in his 04.02.03 letter to me (Extortion) - thereby also amounting to criminal offences under s.1 of the Protection from Eviction Act 1977 e.g.:

  • Mobile phone signal cut-off for 2 weeks (15 May 08)
  • Malicious leaks and major floodings of my apartment - 9 times by 2014 (Persecution # 16).
  • Electricity cut-off only in my apartment, as well as 4 other apartments that are under the control of the headlessor (8 Mar 09)
  • No hot water and no heating in my apartment - for 3 days, starting on Christmas day 2007; and for several days in Mar 09
  • No hot water and no heating for 5 days during the Easter break of 2003 (Easter break 2003)
  • Numerous hosing of my windows, in the early hours of the morning - in the process of 'watering the plants' (My Diary # 2)
  • Banging on my windows, in the middle of the night, for several minutes, while concurrently laughing and talking loudly: 22 Feb 13, from 01:57 a.m. ;
  • Pressing my door bell late at night (leading me to disconnect it - since 2002) (captured in: my 13.03.02 complaint to the then Police Complaints Authority; my 05.05.02 letter to Sir Toby Harris, then head of the Metropolitan Police Authority, and in my ) (police # 1 background)
  • Man urinating in front of my windows late at night, on 13 Mar 09
  • Since 28 July 05, ignoring my 26.07.05 demand for 2 extra fob keys for the main door (so that I could give the spare ones to my family in case I need help) (MRJ # 45)

Other forms of persecution:

•  Harassment by Ladsky of the person who was running the Residents Association at Jefferson House (see also Notices by landlord - 13 December 2000)

•  Harassment by Ladsky of other residents (01.11.02 letter to me), etc; of the Elderly Resident. And 'perhaps' of Resident K

•  Harassment by Ladsky of Nucleus Citizens Advice Bureau

Back to Statute / list

(PHA) - Her Majesty's police et.al. in related services

As examples, I repeat the entries under:

 

(PHA) - Her Majesty's Kensington, Chelsea & Notting Hill police

•  In 2002, the 27.01.03 bullying, threatening letter from the "Crime Investigator", warning me that I had better shut up and not challenge 'Dear Mr Ladsky', "or there may be further consequences". He chased me by letter of 06.02.03 (police #

Further proving the harassment, he IGNORED my 11.02.03 letter asking for "precise detail - in writing - of the accusation against me". On the day it received it, Her Majesty's police closed down the "crime report", FALSELY claiming that it had been "unable to contact [me]" - see Malicious Communications Act 1998, ss 1 & 2A, for detail.

•  In 2007, its highly vicious, malicious, libellous, racist, xenophobic emails of 16.03.07 and 20.03.07 to my website Host (detail under breach Malicious Communications Act).

Back to Statute / list

(PHA)- Mobile phone operators in tandem with Her Majesty's police et.al.

  • Over a period of 3 months, preventing me from transferring my mobile number to another network (My Diary 29 Dec 08 ; 23 Jan 09)
  • Intercepting voice messages, including some that led to my missing a family funeral (in conjunction with Her Majesty's police et.al. intercepting my emails and post)
  • It was preceded by a voice 'message', on the same day, clearly intended to scare me (My Diary 2 Jan 09)
  • Cutting off the service for several weeks.

Back to Statute / list

Back to top

REGULATION OF INVESTIGATORY POWERS ACT 2000 (RIPA) - (Access to full Act)

Section 2 Interception

Interception of an individual's post and electronic communications is allowed under s.1(2)(5) if it is authorised by section 3, or under s.5(1) if the Secretary of State has issued a warrant (s.7(1)) to this effect.

The grounds for issuing a warrant are that: it must be necessary and “proportionate” "to what is sought to be achieved by that conduct"` S.5(3) lists the grounds as:

  • (a) in the interests of national security;
  • (b) the prevention or detection of serious crime;
  • (c) to safeguard the economic well-being of the United Kingdom; or
  • (d) to give effect to an international mutual assistance agreement in circumstances equivalent to those falling within (b)."

Under s.81(3)serious crime” is defined as:

  • (a) an offence that would lead to imprisonment for a term of three years or more;
  • (b) conduct involving the use of violence, or resulting in substantial financial gain, or conduct by a large number of persons in pursuit of a common purpose.

Section 8 of RIPA relates to the 'Contents of warrants',

while section 9 states that they are "valid for only 6 months and cannot be renewed unless the Home Secretary believes that the warrant continues to be necessary on grounds falling within s.5(3)" (above)

Individuals authorised to make an application to the Home Secretary for an interception warrant include the Met Commissioner (s.6(2)(e)).

s.26(2) Directed surveillance

s.28(2) states that a person authorised in Part I or II of Schedule 1 to grant an authorisation [a very large number] can only do so if he believes that it is "necessary" on the grounds falling under s.28(3) – which are:

  • (a) in the interests of national security;
  • (b) the prevention or detection of crime or prevention of disorder;
  • (c) to safeguard the economic well-being of the United Kingdom;
  • (d) for public safety;
  • (e) to protect public health;
  • (f) for the assessment and collection of taxes…; or
  • (g) for any purpose (not falling within paragraphs (a) to (f)) specified by an order from the Secretary of State."

RIPA also permits surveillance outside the UK (s.27(3))

s.26(3) Intrusive covert surveillance

s.32(2) states that persons authorised to grant an authorisation (Secretary of State and Met Commissioner) can only do so if they believe that it is "necessary" on the grounds falling under s.32(3) and "proportionate" "to what is sought to be achieved by that conduct".

The grounds listed for justification are:

  • (a) in the interest of national security;
  • (b) for the prevention or detection of serious crime;
  • (c) in the interests of the economic well-being of the United Kingdom."

s.26(8) Covert human intelligence source

s.29(2) states that a person authorised in Part I of Schedule 1 to grant an authorisation can only do so if he believes that it is "necessary" and "proportionate" "to what is sought to be achieved by that conduct". The grounds for justification, listed under s.29(3) are as per s.28(3), listed above.

In relation to the Metropolitan police, the applicant for an authorisation is a member of that force (s.33(1)) (NB: Hence, could be e.g. Kensington & Chelsea police)

Under s.30(2) an authorisation that combines an authorisation for directed surveillance and for covert human intelligence requires the authorisation to be issued by the Secretary of State.

I discuss the breaches of this Act under Persecution: # 4.2 and # 4.3.

(I conclude from media reports, as well as my experience, that there are tens of thousands of 'surveillance goons' spying on the population)

Back to top

THEFT ACT 1968 / THEFT (Amendment) ACT 1996 (Access to full copy of Act)

Section 1 - Basic definition of theft

(1) "A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it; and "thief" and "steal" shall be construed accordingly"

Section 7 - Theft

"A person guilty of theft shall on conviction on indictment be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding [seven years]".

From the Act, definition of 'deception' for section 15: "...‘deception’ means any deception (whether deliberate or reckless) by words or conduct as to fact or as to law, including a deception as to the present intentions of the person using the deception or any other person"

Section 15 - Obtaining property by deception (NB: From 15 Jan 07, superseded by the Fraud Act 2006)

(NB: The Act defined 'property' as including money)

(1) "A person who by any deception dishonestly obtains property belonging to another, with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it, shall on conviction on indictment be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years"

(2) "...a person is to be treated as obtaining property is he obtains ownership, possession or control of it , and 'obtain' includes obtaining for another or enabling another to obtain or retain "

(4) "...'deception' means any deception (whether deliberate or reckless) by words or conduct as to fact or as to law, including a deception as to the present intentions of the person using the deception or any other person "

Examples of events for section 15 of the Theft Act

Section 15A - Obtaining a money transfer by deception (NB: From 15 January 2007, superseded by the Fraud Act 2006)

"(1) A person is guilty of an offence if by any deception he dishonestly obtains a money transfer for himself or another

(2) A money transfer occurs when (a) a debit is made to one account; (b) a credit is made to another, and (c) the credit results from the debit or the debit results from the credit

(5) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years"

Section 15A - Supplementary - 15B

"(2) 'Deception' has the same meaning as in section 15 of the Act" ("For purposes of this section ‘deception’ means any deception (whether deliberate or reckless) by words or conduct as to fact or as to law, including a deception as to the present intentions of the person using the deception or any other person")

(3) 'Account' means an account kept with - (a) a bank; or (b) a person carrying on a business which falls within subsection (4)

(4) A business falls within this subsection if - (b) any other activity of the business is financed, wholly or to any material extent, out of the capital of or the interest on money received by way of deposit; and 'deposit' here has the same meaning as in section 35 of the Banking Act 1987 (fraudulent inducement to make a deposit)

(5) For the purposes of subsection (4) above - (a) all the activities which a person carries on by way of business shall be regarded as a single business carried on by him"

Examples of events for section 15A of the Theft Act

Section 16 - Obtaining pecuniary advantage by deception (NB: From 15 Jan 07, superseded by the Fraud Act 2006)

(1) “… by any deception dishonestly obtaining for… another any pecuniary advantage…”

Examples of events for section 16 of the Theft Act

Section 17 - False accounting - (Access to Act)

(1) "Where a person dishonestly, with a view to gain for himself or another or with intent to cause loss to an-other,-
(a) destroys, defaces, conceals or falsifies any account or any record or document made or required for any accounting purpose; or
(b) in furnishing information for any purpose produces or makes use of any account, or any such record or document as aforesaid, which to his knowledge is or may be misleading, false or deceptive in a material particular;
he shall, on conviction on indictment, be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding seven years"

(2) "For purposes of this section a person who makes or concurs in making in an account or other document an entry which is or may be misleading, false or deceptive in a material particular, or who omits or concurs in omitting a material particular from an account or other document, is to be treated as falsifying the account or document"

Examples of events for section 17 of the Theft Act

Section 21 - Blackmail - (1) "A person is guilty of blackmail if, with a view to gain for himself or another or with intent to cause loss to another, he makes any unwarranted demand with menaces..." (See below for the dictionary definition of blackmail).

Examples of events for section 21 of the Theft Act

Section 24 A - Dishonestly retaining a wrongful credit

Theft (Amendment) Act 1996 - 24A

"(1) A person is guilty of an offence if-
(a) a wrongful credit has been made to an account kept by him or in respect of which he has any right or interest;
(b) he knows or believes that the credit is wrongful; and
(c) he dishonestly fails to take such steps as are reasonable in the circumstances to secure that the credit is cancelled.

(4) A credit to an account is also wrongful to the extent that it derives from - (b) an offence under section 15A of this Act; (c) blackmail (NB: From 15 January 2007, under the Fraud Act 2006, (as with subsection 3), replaced by subsection "2A - A credit to an account is wrongful to the extent that it derives from... (b) blackmail...")

(6) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years"

Examples of events for section 24A of the Theft Act

Examples of breach of the above - in my NON-lawyer opinion

Sections - Theft Act

Theft Act - Section 15 - Obtaining property by deception (NB: From 15 Jan 07, superseded by the Fraud Act 2006)

See, below, s.17 - False accounting

Back to Theft Act sections

Theft Act - Section 15A - Obtaining a money transfer by deception (NB: From 15 Jan 07, superseded by the Fraud Act 2006)

See, below, s.17 - False accounting

Back to Theft Act section

Theft Act - Section 16 - Obtaining pecuniary advantage by deception (NB: From 15 JaN 07, superseded by the Fraud Act 2006)

See, below, s.17 - False accounting

Back to Theft Act sections

Theft Act - Section 17 - False accounting

Examples

See Extortion (For a comprehensive overview of surrounding events, as well as evidence - see my 03.06.08 Witness Statement)

As Joan Hathaway, MRICS, MRJ, and Lanny Silverstone, CKFT, were demanding monies, as well as making threats on behalf of a company that did not exist...

...- It follows that the accountants, Pridie Brewster, were also, for a period of time claiming to be acting on behalf of a company that did not exist: Owners identify # 2.

•  From being copied on my 30.03.05 letter to Hathaway, Roger Clement, accountant, Pridie Brewster, replied in his 15.04.05 letter that "[he was] not aware of the 17.06.03 LVT report".

In my 17.04.05 correspondence I supplied him with 48 evidential documents. I followed this by another letter of 09.05.05 (Pridie Brewster # 3)

As, 3 months later, Clement had not acknowledged either of my letters, on 19.07.05, I contacted the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales (ICAEW) asking for assistance (Brewster # 4)

From there ensued a one year battle with the ICAEW (Brewster # 5 - # 17) which argued against my position, while acknowledging that Pridie Brewster was breaching covenants in my Lease (Brewster # 8) - (further evidenced by the 06.01.xx "2006 Estimated expenditure for Steel Services" (PB # 20)).

•  Further, in its 29.08.06 letter, the ICAEW also confirmed that the tribunal findings had not been reflected in the accounts.

In addition to assessing the 2003 accounts as deficient, the ICAEW said to be of "the opinion" that the 2005 accounts would be "key" in addressing major questions about the costs of the major works - and the contributions by the leaseholders.

•  In its 29.08.06 letter, the ICAEW returned a verdict of "no malpractice" by Pridie Brewster that flew in the face of the evidence. To top it all, the ICAEW placed the responsibility 'on me' for performing Pridie Brewster's obligations (Brewster # 19)

•  The so-called "accounts" produced the ICAEW-endorsed Errington Langer Pinner that are deliberately not compliant with my Lease - implying that they are fraudulent (Advisors # 10A).

Back to Theft Act sections

Theft Act - Section 21 - Blackmail

Examples

•  20.09.02 reply 'from' Joan Hathaway, MRICS, Martin Russell Jones, to my - legitimate - requests for information following 'her' - threat of prosecution (below, Extortion)

•  07.10.02 letter from Lanny Silverstone, Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor (CKFT) - in which he threatened to forfeit my Lease (take the apartment away from me) (copy of definition) and contact my mortgage lender unless I paid immediately a fraudulent demand of £14,400 (US$25,400) (Extortion).

•  Silverstone and Ayesha Salim, CKFT sent me a salvo of malicious, threatening, bullying letters - principally intended to force me to strike a deal with their client, Andrew David Ladsky i.e. make me pay monies that were not due and payable (CKFT # 3)

•  The 16.02.07 letter from Jeremy Hershkorn, then at Portner and Jaskel, who threatened me with "bankruptcy proceedings, forfeiture [copy of definition], and costs" in the name of a company I had never heard of (detail under Extortion)

•  Letters from e.g. Leaseholder C and Leaseholder M, and other events demonstrate that the intimidation tactics used by Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor (CKFT), Martin Russell Jones, Portner and Jaskel - worked in relation to some of the other leaseholders: MRJ # 25 , # 26 ; LVT # 1.4 ; Other Residents ; Elderly Resident.

Back to Theft Act sections

Theft Act - Section 24 A - Dishonestly retaining a wrongful credit

•  In the light of the above: Breach s.17 - False accounting = ditto in terms of the breach of this section of the Act

Back to top

Assault

COED - "Law - An act that threatens physical harm to a person, whether or not actual harm is done"

Example

•  Being pushed in the corridor by Andrew Ladsky on 26 Feb 02 (police # 1)

Abuse

COED: "Treat with cruelty or violence; involving illegality"

Anguish

COED: "Severe mental or physical pain or suffering"

Blackmail

Definition sourced from 4 different English dictionaries, as well as the website of charity organisations who deal with this particular issue:

  • “To exact or attempt to exact (money or anything of value) from (a person) by threats or intimidation”;
  • “The exertion of pressure or threats, esp. unfairly, in an attempt to influence someone’s actions”;
  • “The act of making others do what one wants through fear”;
  • “Being made to feel afraid or timid"

(See also Theft Act 1968, s.21 - "Blackmail")

Bully

Definition sourced from 4 different English dictionaries, as well as the website of charity organisations who deal with this particular issue:

“To intimidate or badger with threats” ; “Bully – a person who hurts, persecutes, or intimidates weaker people, especially to make him / her do something” ; “The act of intimidating a weaker person to make them do something” ; “A bully is an individual who tends to torment others. Bullying is generally seen as a form of harassment

(See also Malicious Communications Act 1988 ; Theft Act - s.21 Blackmail ; Protection from Harassment Act 1997)

Coerce

COED: "Persuade (an unwilling person) to do something by using force or threats"

Despair

COED: "The complete loss or absence of hope"

Distraught

COED: "Very worried and upset"

Distress

COED: "Extreme anxiety, sorrow or pain"

Fear

COED: "An unpleasant emotion caused by the threat of danger, pain or harm"

(See criminal psychological harassment)

Goad

COED - "provoke to action or reaction"

Harass

COED: "Torment by subjecting to constant interference or intimidation" "Derivatives - harassment, harassing."

(See Protection from Harassment Act 1997)

Hellhole

COED: "Oppressive or unbearable place"

Hound

COED: "To harass or persecute relentlessly, drive away, out, etc., by persistent harassment"

Ill-treatment

COED: "Act cruelly towards"

Intimidate

COED: "Frighten or overawe (someone) especially in order to make them do what one wants"; "Derivatives: intimidation, intimidatory..."

(See also Malicious Communications Act 1988 ; Theft Act - s.21 Blackmail ; Protection from Harassment Act 1997)

Lynch

COED: "Of a mob or group of people; condemn and put (a person) to death (esp. by hanging) for an alleged offence without a legal trial";

Chambers: "To judge and put to death without the usual forms of law"

Mental torture

COED: "Infliction of severe mental suffering, anguish, agony, torment"

(See criminal psychological harassment ; extracts from a Canadian website)

Persecute

COED: "Subject to prolonged hostility and ill-treatment" "Persistently harass or annoy"

(In addition to Overview, including # 19 - see:

Terrorise

COED: "Create and maintain a feeling of terror"

Terrorism / terrorist

COED: "The unofficial or unauthorized use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims";

terrorist: "A person who uses terrorism in the pursuit of political gains"

Replace political aim with economic gain = my view of the residential leasehold system - in the context of the current environment (home page)

Threaten

COED: "A statement of an intention to inflict injury, damage, or other hostile action as retribution"

(See also Theft Act 1996 - s.21 - Blackmail)

Torment

COED: "Severe physical or mental suffering"

(See criminal psychological harassment)

Track

COED: "To follow the progress of"

(In my case, (among others) the criminals in the CCTV control rooms)

Traumatic

COED: "Distressing, emotionally disturbing"

Victimize/ Discriminate

COED: "Make a victim of; cause to suffer inconvenience, discomfort, harm, etc. Also, single out for punitive or unfair treatment";

Chambers dictionary: "To single out for oppressive treatment"

(see extracts from a Canadian website on psychological harassment)

(Discriminate: see Article 14 of the European Convention)

Examples (in support of above descriptions starting with 'Abuse')

This website is bursting at the seams with irrebutable evidence of:

  • abusing me; blackmailing me; victimizing me; discriminating against me;
  • taking actions to bully me; coerce me; harass me; hound me; intimidate me; lynch me; persecute me; threaten me; torment me; track me;
  • taking actions to cause me anguish, distress, fear, mental torture and trauma.

And they have ALL done it for the benefit of one key beneficiary: Andrew David Ladsky - 'the brother'.

See:

  1. Persecution
  2. Extortion
  3. Kangaroo court
  4. Treatment during, and outcome of my 50+ legitimate 'cries for help' and complaints: summaries of outcomes ; Overview: # 7 ; Summary of events;
  5. Hitting very 'deep lows' e.g. My Diary Sep 03 - My 20C application ; 16 Jun 06; 20 Aug 06;
  6. Treatment-medical

Examples contained under BREACHES of e.g.

  1. Data Protection Act 1998
  2. Defamation Act
  3. Civil Procedure Rules
  4. European Convention on Human Rights: Article 2 ; Article 3 ; Article 6 ; Article 8 ; Article 13 ; Article 14
  5. Protection from Harassment Act 1997, ss 1 & 2

(Other examples not connected with my case - demonstrating the dominant psyche of the English Establishment, including of its vast army of flunkies and henchmen and women: (1)- Hillsborough ; (2)- Stafford hospital ; (3)- Rotherham ; (4)- Winterbourne View ; (5)- Ash Court ; (6)- Morecambe Bay NHS Trust)

Back to top

Aiding and abetting

COED: "Encourage or assist (someone) to do something wrong, in particular to commit a crime"

Cahoots

COED: "Informal; colluding or conspiring together secretly"

Collude

COED: "To come to a secret agreement in order to deceive others; conspire"

Complicity

COED: "The fact or condition of being involved with others in an unlawful activity; partnership or involvement in wrongdoing"

Connive

COED: "Conspire to do something unlawful or harmful"

Conspire

Book, Law of Torts: "The tort of conspiracy is committed when (a) 2 or more persons (b) wilfully and without lawful justification, (c) combine to cause actual injury or damage to a legitimate interest of the plaintiff"

Double-dealing / Duplicity

COED: "Deceitful behaviour" ; Duplicity / duplicitous - OED: "The quality of being deceitful in manner or conduct; the practice of being two-faced, of dishonestly acting in 2 opposing ways; insincerity; double-dealing"

See also in the same group: Corruption, Organized crime, Masons

Examples (in support of above descriptions starting with 'Aiding and abetting')

This website is bursting at the seams with glaringly obvious evidence of aiding and abetting; collusion; complicity; conniving; conspiring, as well as evidence of double-dealing.

I repeat the examples under the above section starting with 'abuse'.

ALL done for the benefit of one key beneficiary: Andrew David Ladsky - 'the brother'.

Back to top

Arrogant

COED: "Having an exaggerated sense of one's own importance or abilities"

Condescending

COED: "Offensively patronizing"

Contempt

COED: "The feeling that someone or something is worthless or beneath consideration" ;

" Beneath contempt: "Utterly worthless or despicable"

Debase

COED: "Lower the quality, value or character of"

Disdain

COED: "Consider to be unworthy of oneself or of one's notice; regard with disdain; scorn"

Dismiss

COED: "Treat as unworthy of serious consideration"

Humiliate

COED: "Injure the dignity and self-respect of"

Patronize

COED: "Treat with an apparent kindness which betrays a feeling of superiority"

Self-regarding

COED: "Given to or characterized by self-regard; conceited; vain"

Examples (in support of above descriptions starting with 'Arrogant')

Over the years, in addition to the Andrew David Ladsky mafia:

...- added to others in the private sector, such as the professions so-called 'regulators'...

...- have ALL demonstrated the above characteristics / treated me in these various ways.

WHY? Because of my profile - they perceive/d me 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...

...for the benefit of a thoroughly evil, Rachman vermin: Andrew David Ladsky - 'the brother' (Overview # 19).

•  Because I worked in the financial services sector, in my Ethics and Compliance return, I had to declare that I was facing the (fraudulent) 29.11.02 claim (Extortion)

Back to top

Assassin

COED: "A person who murders someone for political or religious reasons"

Cabal

Chambers dictionary: "A small group or council united for some secret purpose, esp political intrigue ; a secret plot or intrigue"

Clan

COED: "A group with a strong common interest"

Clique

COED: "A small close-knit group of people who do not readily allow others to join them"

Corrupt

COED: "Willing to act dishonestly in return for money or personal gain"; "evil or morally depraved"

Coterie

COED: "Small exclusive group of people with shared interests or tastes"

Crony

COED: "An intimate friend or associate"

Establishment

Chambers dictionary: "(With 'the' and cap; often derogatory); the class in a community or in a field of activity who hold power; usually because they are linked socially, and who are usually considered to have conservative opinions and conventional values"

(See My Diary # 2.5, and reference to book: "The Establishment - And they get away with it", by Owen Jones)

Gang

COED: "An organised group of criminals (or disorderly young people)"

Hanger-on

COED: "Person who associates sycophantically with another person"

Mafia

COED: "A group exercising a hidden sinister influence". Chambers dictionary: "Any group considered to be like the Mafia in the criminal and unscrupulous use of power, fear, etc. to gain its ends"

Masons

Masons - Clandestine organisation "with rules stating that members (who, in the UK, are only men) must do all they can to support each other, look after each other and keep each others' lawful secrets"

Mob

COED: "Disorderly or violent crowd"; "the mob - N.Amer: the Mafia"

Monster

COED: "An inhumanly cruel or wicked person"

Organized crime

COED: "Of or pertaining to a coordinated organization directing (esp. illegal) operations on a large or widespread scale. Esp .organised crime"

Based on my first-hand experience: by far the biggest player in organized crime is the Establishment: politicians, judiciary, police, the professions, etc.

Prostitute

New Shorter Oxford dictionary - "Put (one's talents, skills, etc) to an unworthy or corrupt use or purpose, sacrifice (self-respect, honour, etc.), for the sake of personal or financial gain"

Protection racket

COED: Protection: "Payment of money to criminals to prevent them from attacking oneself or one's property";

Racket: "A fraudulent scheme for obtaining money, a person's line of business".

In my case, it is the state (police, courts, council, etc.), as well as the professions and the 'regulators' that are running a protection racket.

Rotten

COED: "Corrupt; very bad or unpleasant."

Vermin

COED: "Very unpleasant and destructive people" .

Chambers dictionary: "Obnoxious or despicable people"

(NB: Where I have used this word: I repeat my Comments under Persecution (1)(4))

= NOT an 'elite'

COED: "A group of people considered to be superior in a society or organization"

Examples (in support of above descriptions starting with 'Assassin')

•  'Corrupt' at a minimum, in the sense of "morally depraved" - I view as applying to the majority of the parties against whom evidence is contained on this site - although there has to be a personal motive, and hence "personal gain" for their actions.

•  'Mafia', 'Masons' and their henchmen and lackeys with their layers upon layers of flunkeys', 'organized crime', 'protection racket' and 'vermin': I submit that, any fair minded, reasonable, honest individual would agree that the use of the words is, in varying degrees, justified - and supported - by irrebutable 'black-on-white' evidence on this site.

I cannot begin to express the extreme level of visceral revulsion I feel at the morally depraved, amoral individuals for the extremely vicious, cruel, sadistic, perverse actions they took / are taking against me.

Back to top

Cover-up

COED: “An attempt to conceal the truth about a mistake or a crime”

Deceive

COED: "Deliberately cause (someone) to believe something that is not true"

Dishonest

COED: "Not honest, trustworthy, or sincere"

Fabricate

COED: "Invent (a lie, dishonest story, etc.)";

Fabrication: "A false statement"; Chambers dictionary: "To devise falsely"

False

COED: "Not according with truth or fact" "Deliberately intended to deceive"

Lie - Liar

COED: "An intentionally false statement" - "A person who tells lies"

Mythomaniacs

COED: "An abnormal or pathological tendency to exaggerate or tell lies"

Misinform

COED: "Give false or inaccurate information"

Mislead

COED: "Cause to have a wrong impression about someone or something"

Misrepresent

COED: "To give a false or misleading account"

Trump

COED: "Fabricate or invent (an accusation, excuse, etc.)";

Trumped-up - Chambers dictionary: "Concocted and put forward unscrupulously"

Examples (in support of above descriptions starting with 'Cover-up')

This website is bursting at the seams with irrebutable evidence of:

  • lies; false claims and accusations; deception; dishonesty;
  • wilful conduct in turning a blind eye to them, endorsing them, supporting them, adding to them.

it also contains numerous examples of cover-up, fabrications and misrepresentations.

E.g. I cite the examples under:

(I also repeat the above examples no connected to my case)

Back to top

Crime - Criminal

COED: "An action which constitutes a serious offence against an individual or the state and is punishable by law"

COED: "A person who has committed a crime"

Criminalize

COED: "Turn (someone) into a criminal by making their activity illegal" (my case)

Crook

COED: "Informal - A person who is dishonest or a criminal"

Examples (in support of above descriptions starting with 'Crime-criminal')

Breaches of EACH of the following Acts amount to committing criminal offences.

In the case of the Andrew David Ladsky gang of racketeers, they are also referred to under Extortion:

  1. Criminal Justice Act & Public Order Act 1994, s.4A
  2. Landlord & Tenant Act 1985, s.21(1) and s.25(1)
  3. Landlord & Tenant Act 1987 - s.10A(1)
  4. Malicious Communications Act 1988, ss 1 & 2A
  5. Fraud Act 2006, ss 2 & 3
  6. Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 and Money Laundering Regulations + guidance from the ICAEW + guidance from the RICS + guidance from the Law Society England and Wales
  7. Property Misdescriptions Act 1991
  8. Protection from Eviction Act 1977, s.1
  9. Protection from Harassment Act 1997, ss 1 & 2
  10. Theft Act 1968 / Theft (Amendment) Act 1996

But, NO prosecution takes place - because of 'the wonders of the Brotherhood', in a "fantastically corrupt" environment.

It leads to thoroughly evil, Rachman Andrew David Ladsky, the KEY instigator of the crimes - who "gave the instructions" to his gang of racketeers (as well as carrying out some himself)...

...being treated by Her Majesty's Kensington & Notting Hill police, as well as by Her Majesty's judiciary (kangaroo courts) as being the 'poor' "vulnerable victim who is intimidated by [me]"...

...- while they concurrently brand me - and treat me - as "the criminal" for 'daring' to stand-up to all of them: "crime reports" under Data Protection Act 1998, above, including the claim of processing these reports against me "for the prevention and detection of crime" and "for the apprehension or prosecution of offenders": QB 4(6)1 (Unbelievable!).

(See also: violations of European Convention rights: Article 2 , Article 3 , Article 8 , Article 10 , Article 14 ; police Overview, Outcome).

Note that my objecting to the false accusations against me was described by Her Majesty's judiciary as "[amounting to] a most obvious attempt to re-write history" (QB # 4(6)(1)). This demonstrates how sick, corrupt and insane the British state has become.

Other examples of blatant criminality against me by the British state:

(NB: As demonstrated by these examples, the Establishment has a high propensity to criminalize 'the little people' - with the objective of instilling fear / 'retribution', etc.)

Back to top

Amoral

COED: "Lacking a moral sense; unconcerned whether something is right or wrong"

Barbaric

COED: "Savagely cruel"

Bloodsucking

COED - bloodthirsty: "Eager to kill and maim"

Cruel

COED: "Disregarding or taking pleasure in the pain or suffering of others"

Cut-throat

COED: "Ruthless and intense; (dated) a murderer or other violent criminal"

Despicable

COED: "Deserving hatred or contempt"

Evil / Satanic

COED: "Extremely wicked and immoral" ;

Satanic - OED: "Characteristic of or befitting Satan, extremely wicked, diabolical, infernal"

(I repeat my Comments under Persecution (1)(4)) (Based on my religious beliefs, I view those acting against me as deserving of these descriptions).

Execution

COED: "An act of executing a condemned person; executioner"

Malefic

COED: "Causing harm"

Morally depraved

COED: "Morally corrupt; behaving without principles of right and wrong" [NB: Often, more appropriately described as amoral)

Perverse

COED: "Obstinate or persistent in error or wrongdoing"

Ruthless

COED: "Having no pity or compassion; pitiless; merciless"

Sadistic

COED: “The tendency to derive sexual gratification or general pleasure from inflicting pain, suffering or humiliation on others”

Savage

COED: "Fierce, violent and uncontrolled; cruel and vicious; primitive, uncivilized; a brutal or vicious person"

Vicious

COED: "Morally or practically condemnable; reprehensible; cruel or violent; Literary - Immoral"

Chambers dictionary: “spiteful; immoral, depraved

Vindictive

COED: "Having or showing a strong or unreasoning desire for revenge"

Wanton

OED - "(Of a cruel or violent action) deliberate and unprovoked"

Wicked

OED: "Marked by, or having a character disposed to serious and wilful wrongdoing (freq. cruel and injurious acts); morally depraved"

Wilful

COED: "Of an action, etc. done on purpose, deliberate, intentional"

Examples (in support of above descriptions starting with 'Amoral')

This website is bursting at the seams with glaringly obvious evidence of:

  • amorality; cruelty; despicable conduct and individuals; evilness; viciousness; sadism; barbaric treatment;
  • moral depravation; perversion; ruthless conduct that is wilfully malicious, vicious, cruel, etc.

E.g. I cite the examples under the above sections starting with:

Back to top

Anti-Semite

COED: "Anti-Semitism: Hostility to or prejudice against Jews"; "Hostility: Hostile behaviour"; "Hostile: Feeling or showing dislike or opposition"

Defame

COED: "Damage the good reputation of" "Derivatives: defamation; defamatory"

(See also Defamation Act)

Disparage

COED: "Bring discredit or reproach upon; dishonour; lower in esteem"; "degrade, lower in position or dignity"

(See also Defamation Act)

Libel

COED - "Law - the publication of a false statement that is damaging to a person's reputation"

(See also Defamation Act)

Malicious

COED: "Characterised by malice; intending or intended to do harm"

(See also Malicious Communications Act 1988)

Scurrilous

COED: "Making scandalous claims about someone with the intention of damaging their reputation"

Slander

COED: "Law - The action or crime of making a false spoken statement damaging to a person's reputation" "A false and malicious spoken statement"

Racist

COED: "A person believing in, advocating, or practising racism" ;

Racism: " (Belief in, adherence to, or advocacy of) the theory that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, qualities, etc., specific to that race, esp. distinguishing it as inferior or superior to another race; prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism based on this"

Reputation

COED: "The beliefs or opinions that are generally held about someone or something"

Xenophobic

COED: "A deep antipathy to foreigners or to foreign things"

Examples (in support of above descriptions starting with 'Defame')

This website is bursting at the seams with irrebutable evidence of:

  • documents making libellous, scurilous claims and accusations against me...
  • ...- with some based on slanderous comments, while other slanderous comments were made against me in the forum of a tribunal and a court.

ALL were made with the glaringly obvious malicious intent of defaming and disparaging my name, character and reputation.

See also

In the case of Her Majesty's Kensington & Notting Hill police, they also include emails containing racist and xenophobic comments: breach Malicious Communications.

Back to top

Dog

COED: "Being dogged; dogging: follow closely and persistently"; "Informal: a contemptible man; Australia/NZ: informal: an informer or traitor"

Goon

COED: "A bully boy; a thug (US slang)"; Chambers dictionary: "A hired thug (US slang)"

Pig

COED: "Informal, derogatory: a police officer"

(In France, our derogatory term is ‘chicken’ – I believe from a quote from Jean Paul Sartre: “Jamais je ne donnerai un homme aux poulets” ) (See text below)

Examples (in support of above descriptions starting with 'Dog')

In my world - the title of 'police officer' must be reserved for individuals who behave as per the conduct expected of 'a police officer' i.e. in line with police legislation and regulations, as well as other legislation.

Given that I am the glaringly obvious victim of organized crime - any individual employed by the police (and therefore taking my taxpayer money) - who carries out / ensures the carrying out of e.g. the examples cited, above, under:

FOR:

And, further, lies under 'statements of truth' for the purpose of continuing with the 'retribution' regime against me...

...definitely deserves to be described by the derogatory term of 'PIG' - and more accurately: 'Masonic pig' / 'Masons' pig' - preceded by 'sociopath' / 'psychopath', 'insane', 'evil monster' in turn preceded by 'criminal' - from repeatedly breaching e.g.:

In addition, taking taxpayers' money as salary, etc. , having sworn - under oath - "to prevent all offences against people" - and, instead protect criminals at the expense of their victims - amounts to a criminal offence under the Theft Act.

As I wrote on the police page: Having started from the basis of trust and faith in the British police - as a result of my experience with Her Majesty's police since 2002, it now leads me to feel absolute, utter disgust and extreme loathing and repulsion.

I cannot bear the sight of any of them - feelings that are reinforced continuously e.g. its endlessly hounding me and persecuting me ; Media page - police.

Back to top

Extortion

COED: “To secure (money, etc.) by intimidation, violence, or the misuse of influence or authority”

Racketeer

COED: "A person participating in or operating a dishonest or illegal business, frequently practising fraud, extortion, intimidation, or violence"

Chambers dictionary: "A person who extorts money or other advantage by threats or illegal interference" ;

Racketeering - COED: "The practice or business of a racketeer, esp. as (part of) a system of organised crime"

Rachman

COED - "An unscrupulous landlord"

Rachmanism - COED: “The exploitation and intimidation of tenants by unscrupulous landlords; 1960’s after the notorious landlord Peter Rachman”;

Ruffian

COED - "A violent or lawless person"

Parasite

Chambers dictionary: "A hanger-on or sycophant; a person who lives at the expense of others or society and contributes nothing"

Pestilence

COED - "Harmful to morality or public order; unhealthy, destructive"

Predator

COED - "A person who exploits others"

Rapacious

COED: "Aggressively greedy"

Shyster

COED - "A person, especially a lawyer, who uses unscrupulous methods"

Vulture

COED: "A contemptable person who preys on or exploits others"

Vampire

COED: "A person who ruthlessly exploits others" ; vampiric; vampirism

Examples (in support of above descriptions starting with 'Extortion')

To feed its insatiable greed, as well as for 'retribution' purposes for 'daring' to stand up to it - in its toolbox of criminal psychological harassment tactics...

...- the racketeering mafia uses the threats of forfeiture, bankruptcy proceedings, as well as court claims.

These people - led by - Andrew David Ladsky, are among the MOST EVIL on this planet.

As the Law Society kept throwing in my face: "they are acting on the instructions of their client" - which, evidently, in this "fantastically corrupt", worse than Wild West environment - makes it 'alright' (summaries of my complaints against lawyers)...

with the same attitude found in relation to accountants (# 6.1), and surveyors (# 6.2).

Hence: the reason it takes place.

 

The 21.12.01 letter from Joan Doreen Hathaway, MRICS, of the then Martin Russell Jones (MRJ), on behalf of 'Steel Services' = Andrew David Ladsky, to the Jefferson House's leaseholders, about

"a condition survey for redecoration of the exterior and associated repairs "

and, of key importance in the light of subsequent events:

"We have to state that the sum quoted may be exceeded due to disbursements but these will be of a minor nature.

Sufficient funds are held to cover the cost of the works within the Reserve Fund"

•  Within days of 'my daring' to challenge Hathaway on the true nature of the intended "major works": my 02.02.02 email to her - I started to suffer harassment from Andrew David Ladsky - which included receiving anonymous phone calls: police # 1- Background.

It led me to file a complaint with Her Majesty's Chelsea police, but Ladsky's henchmen went out of their way to protect him: police # 1 - Key Pts.

•  In 'her 26.03.02 letter to me, Hathaway denied that the works were connected to a planning application to build a penthouse apartment (Planning applications # 1).

On the same day, she sent this 26.03.02 letter to all the leaseholders that "the works could be £1.5m or significantly more or less". This was many times the cost of previous "repairs and maintenance" (that were a rip-off).

•  Then came the 15.07.02 demand of the global sum of £736,200 (US$1.3m) "for the major works"; and the 17.07.02 demand of £14,400 (US$25,400) from me (Overview # 1).

Because unsupported, it breached the requirement of the then s.20(3)(a) of the Landlord and Tenant (LTA) Act 1985.

In fact, as it was subsequently proven to be fraudulent (explanation below), it also breached e.g.

The 20.09.02 reply 'from' Hathaway to my - legitimate - requests for information (my letters: 11.08.02, 16.09.02 ; 'her' previous 'replies': 20.08.02, 30.08.02) - was:...

“…we have to require payment by return...if payment is not made now our client, Steel Services will have no alternative other than to instruct solicitors to commence legal proceedings to obtain payment”

Thereby amounting to a breach of: (1)- Theft Act s.21 Blackmail, and (2)- of the Malicious Communications Act 1988.

(NB: Hathaway first used the tactic of the threat of "proceedings" within weeks of being appointed: her 30.10.89 letter to leaseholders - MRJ # 1)

Of note, Hathaway made the threat in the name of a company that did not exist (Owners identity # 2). And, concurrently, she was also using a false address in Jersey...

...- both of which meant breaching the Money Laundering Regulations / Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 - "Know your client".

She also lied in 'her' 20.09.02 letter, by claiming that "other lessees [had] paid their contribution" (below, 29 Nov 02 claim).

07.10.02 letter from Lanny Silverstone, Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor (CKFT) - acting for Andrew David Ladsky - in which he stated:

"In the event that payment [the 17.07.02 demand for £14,400 ( US$25,400)] is not received by Martin Russell Jones by 10 am on Monday 14 October, we have instructions immediately to commence proceedings for recovery of the debt"

"Our client also reserves the right to take action to forfeit your lease [copy of definition] for breach of covenant and to communicate with your mortgagee (if any), if such action becomes necessary"

Note that Silverstone did this:

  • 1. on behalf of a company that did not exist (hence, repeating what Hathaway had done) (Owners identity # 2);

He therefore breached:

Also of note, compared to the letter he sent 10 days later to the solicitors of another leaseholder, it clearly demonstrates the intention to "cause [me] alarm and distress" - with the objective of making me pay monies that were not due and payable (CKFT # 6.2)

(It caused me so much distress that I ended-up being physically sick: My Diary 10 Oct 02)

Ladsky had filed the 07.08.02 application in the tribunal, following the mini revolt among the leaseholders, caused by the July 02 demand.

As summarised under Kangaroo crt # 1, some blatant conspiring and colluding took place between the tribunal and the Ladsky gang of racketeers.

The key milestones were:

(1)- At the 29.10. 02 pre-trial 'hearing', the tribunal specifically telling me (and fellow leaseholders) to NOT pay the demand until the tribunal had issued its determination, and it had therefore been implemented i.e. reflected in the demand.

In support, it gave us this booklet which, on pg 5, quotes the outcome of a Court of Appeal ruling (involving Daejan Properties Limited) that

"LVTs only have the jurisdiction to decide the reasonableness of disputed service charges that are still unpaid" (LVT # 1.5).

As can be seen from the tribunal's 29.10.02 directions, among others, Ladsky and Hathaway were in attendance.

(2)- 7 months later, the tribunal issued its 17.06.03 report. However, it failed to perform its statutory duty (LVT # 4.2) by not including a summary of the impact of its findings on the global sum demanded. (Reason explained briefly under Kangaroo crt # 1 and # 2)

Based on the assessment by my surveyor (as the tribunal failed deliberately to perform its duty: LVT # 4.2) - the outcome was a £500,000 (US$882,000) reduction, or nearly 70% (incl. the contingency fund) in the original sum demanded, from £736,206 (US$1.3m) down to £235,947 (US$416,000) (LVT # 4 ; Brian Gale # 6 and # 7)

•  The tribunal's report is dated 17.06.03 - LVT/SC/007/120/02 (ref #992 on the LVT database) - hence 7 months after the 29.11.02 fraudulent claim was filed against me - and 13 other apartments (below, Extortion)

•  Aiming to intimidate me from pursuing my challenge of his 07.08.02 Application, on 25 Jan 03 (10 days before the 5 Feb 03 tribunal 'hearing'), Ladsky filed a false, so-called "complaint" against me with his police henchmen who (without contacting me) immediately processed a "criminal charge" against me, following it by a threatening letter (above, breach DPA).

•  Three weeks previously, he had told me: "I am going to get you this year!" (police # 2 background).

•  To add to the intimidation and scare tactics, one week after his above 'complaint' (and, as he had done in the case of 2 my fellow leaseholders who had 'dared' report him to the police for harassment: police # 4),..

...Ladsky asked Silverstone to send me a malicious, threatening 04.02.03 letter - repeating Ladsky's false accusations against me to the police (police # 2 background) (and describing him as "the tenant of Flat 35") - threatening to

"take injunctive steps prior to other proceedings against [me]"

In the light of subsequent events - 'the gem' in the letter:

"The due process of law is under way to claim the perfectly proper service charges that are due from you"

•  3 months previously, Ladsky had also seized on the fact that I had (stupidly) sent a fax on my then employer's headed paper to Kensington & Chelsea housing and the tribunal (My Diary 15 May 08)...

...- by asking Silverstone to send me a malicious, threatening 28.11.02 letter, making libellous accusations against me by:

  • accusing me falsely of having made "defamatory remarks about Mr Ladsky" in my faxes, and
  • demanding the "payment of damages, which must be substantial".

As stated in the letter, Silverstone also sent a threatening 28.11.02 letter to my then employer KPMG, repeating the same false, libellous, malicious accusations against me (police # 2 - Background.

Ladsky repeated the libellous accusations about my faxes, when he made his so-called "complaint" against me (breach Data Protection Act) to his henchmen: police # 2 KP(8).

•  In spite of knowing that we had been told by the tribunal to not pay, one month later, Lanny Silverstone, CKFT, filed a 29.11.02 claim (WL 023 537) against me (and 13 other apartments) - in West London County Court in the name of the landlord 'Steel Services' = Ladsky (Kangaroo crt # 2)

The Particulars of claim stated that "[we] had failed to pay the service charges... that they are now due and owing from [us] to the Claimant".

The statement of truth was endorsed by Joan Hathaway, MRICS, MRJ.

Hell-bent on helping 'the brother' Ladsky secure as much as he could from the leaseholders - so that he could make his multi-million £ jackpot - his judiciary mates forged ahead with the claim - in the process turning a deliberate blind eye to the fact that (among other):

  • (2)- breached numerous CPR rules, including:
  • (i)- one that should have prevented Ladsky from relying on the statement of case (above, breach CPR ; WLCC # 2(2));
  • (ii)- the fact that the 'very convenient' lease supplied with the claim was falsely claimed to be representative of my Lease - a fact I had raised in my 17.12.02 Defence to the claim (WLCC # 3 ; CKFT # 6.7) (Ladsky had done the same thing with his application to the tribunal: LVT # 1.3)

And forge ahead with the claim, they did - by issuing judgments against my fellow leaseholders from at least end-Jan 03 i.e. 4.5 months before the tribunal issued its report (WLCC # 5)

•  Having, 2 weeks previously, endorsed the court claim against 14 apartments (out of the then 35 - that included some with Ladsky-headlessor as the leaseholder), in ‘her’ 16.12.02 letter to me, Joan Hathaway, MRICS, wrote: …the tenants in the block, the vast majority of whom have paid…

(As detailed later, in 'her' 26.03.04 letter, Hathaway was singing a very different tune).

This letter was intended to intimidate me and cause me distress, because Ladsky 'did not like' my 25.11.02 letter to the tribunal (LVT # 2.1) - thereby amounting to a breach of the Malicious Communications Act 1988, ss 1 & 2A.

•  Having lied in the Particulars of Claim she endorsed with a 'statement of truth', Hathaway continued issuing - false documents to WLCC - for:

...- falsely claiming that I then owed £10,917 (US$19,250)

Salim very clearly colluded and conspired with Hathaway in committing contempt of court, as in 'her' 06.08.03 Application - endorsed with a statement of truth (thereby breaching CPR Rule 32.14) - she stated that the enclosures contained a

"...revised Major Works Apportionment setting out the revised estimate for the works and calculation of the percentages due from each of the tenants at the property."

It showed an across the board reduction of 24.9% (WLCC # 10 , # 11 ; CKFT 6.6).

In fact, by then, her firm had made at least 'some' of the leaseholders pay the full amount demanded in the original demand of 15.07.02 (thereby breaching the Theft Act: s.16 Obtaining pecuniary advantage by deception ; s.17 False accounting) - as evidenced from my attached analysis of the enclosures sent to me by the ICAEW with its 29.08.06 letter.

Silverstone's 23.05.03 application to WLCC i.e. one month before the tribunal issued its 17.06.03 report - provides undeniable evidence that leaseholders were made to pay monies not due and payable:

"The Claimant has obtained judgment or settled proceedings against all Defendants, except the following: 1st., 2nd., 5th. and 7th. Defendants" (WLCC # 6 ; LVT # 4 ; CKFT # 6.3)

•  With the assistance of Her Majesty's West London County Court (WLCC # 6) (preceded by that of Her Majesty's tribunal: Kangaroo crt # 1) - by the end of 2003 - Ladsky and his stable of racketeers had succeeded in making 9 out of the 14 leaseholders listed on the 29.11.02 claim, pay the full amount of the original demand

+ a further 16 apartments (my analysis attached to the ICAEW's 29.08.06 letter). (Apartments that had not paid had Ladsky-headlessor as leaseholder) (Pridie Brewster # 3 , # 10, # 17 to # 19 )...

...in the process, breaching leaseholders statutory rights under (among others) s.20(4) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, as well as Clause (2)(2)(c)(i) in the lease.

•  Letters from e.g. Leaseholder C and Leaseholder M, and other events demonstrate that the intimidation tactics used by CKFT, Martin Russell Jones, Portner and Jaskel - worked in relation to some of the other leaseholders: LVT # 1.4 ; Other Residents ; Elderly Resident.

(I did my best to communicate the true outcome of the tribunal hearings to as many of my fellow leaseholders as I could: my 06.07.03 letter but, by then, all but one had caved in).

Obviously, 'the landlord' cannot charge the leaseholders differentially other than on the basis of their share of a global service charge which must be the same for all.

Hathaway's letter of 30.08.02 (in reply to mine of 11.08.02):

"The amount demanded is as per the terms of the lease. There is no separate list.

Details of the percentages are included in the schedules to previous accounts [1993, the only ones I have that are compliant with my Lease (but unverified); the percentages are also given e.g. at the back of Ladsky's 07.08.02 application to the tribunal].

The sum demanded is based on the percentage of your lease, which is 1.956%..."

The message that the leaseholders can only be charged on the basis of a global sum that must be the same for all was made very clearly by the tribunal (Kangaroo crt # 1)...

...in its 21.07.03 letter to Lanny Silverstone, CKFT, (in reply to his 17.07.03 letter asking it to specify how much I should pay):

"It is not the duty [*] of the Tribunal to assess the particular contribution payable by any specific tenant but only to determine the reasonableness, or otherwise of the service charges as a whole to go on the service charge account from which no doubt you can assess the proportion for that particular tenant"

(*) A "duty" it failed to perform (see, below)

 

So much for Andrew David Ladsky's claims in his 25.01.01 letter to the leaseholders (*):

"...the costs of any additional floor on the property will NOT be borne by the residents";

"All tenants are of course protected by the Landlord and Tenant Acts to ensure those carrying out any works do so reasonably."  

And "...as I own flats 34+35 I pay 17% of the building charges and I should assure you it is in my interest to keep any costs as reasonable as possible".

(*) He had distributed the letter, containing threats, with the aim of dissuading the Jefferson House leaseholders from pursuing his bogus 13.12.00 "Notice of 1st refusal": 13 Dec 03 notice.

 

•  Note also Ladsky's own admission to his police henchmen:

“This charge was challenged at the leasehold valuation tribunal who reduced this amount quite significantly” (police # 3 KP(3)(1)(5))

•  Because I was 'daring' to stand-up for my so-called 'rights' to the 'Jewish' mafia, Silverstone and Salim subjected me to a salvo of malicious, threatening, bullying letters - principally intended to force me to strike a deal with their client Andrew Ladsky i.e. make me pay monies that were NOT due and payable (CKFT # 3 and # 6.2 ; # 3 ; WLCC # 10 ; Overview Note 4)...

...in the process, committing breaches under: (1)- Malicious Communications Act 1988, ss 1 & 2A ; (2)- Protection from Harassment Act 1997, ss 1 & 2; (3)- Theft Act s.21 Blackmail.

•  Lanny Silverstone also portrayed me as a liar in his 17.07.03 letter to District Judge Wright (WLCC # 9) - thereby breaching the Defamation Act.

•  After making me go through 12 months of absolute, sheer utter hell, (My Diary: from 10 Oct 02), Salim then issued me with a 21.10.03 'Part 36 offer' for £6,350 (US$9,900) (WLCC # 12).

"Our client maintains that, as a result of the LVT decision dated 17th June 2003, it is entitled to payment from your client of the sum of £10,917.27..."

"...and to continue to defend these proceedings is her own. Her decision to do so has caused inconvenience and expense to all the lessees of the building..."

"...without any admission whatsoever, our client has, once again, reviewed the revised apportionment [!!!] dated 24th June 2003."

"...this leaves your client with a liability of £6,350 plus interest [*] (of which £2,255 was paid on 10 September 2003"

(*) I refused to pay the interest; see my Comments to Gallagher's "draft consent order and notice" ; Gallagher # 8 ; PSB # 7.3 ;

Although, legally, I did not owe this amount either - from being placed under an unbelievable amount of stress - also by 'my advisors' (My Diary 2003: 28 Oct , 11 Nov , 12 Nov , 13 Nov , Nov 03 , Christmas 2003)...

...- for the sake of my health, in my 19.12.03 letter to CKFT, I wrote that I was accepting - and paying - the 21.10.03 'Part 36 offer' "for the sake of bringing this dispute to an end". (Reasons: WLCC # 12(2)). (I was dreaming!)

•  Note that at the time, in breach Clause 2(2)(g)(i) of my Lease, and of s.21(4) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, over a period of nearly one year, Joan Hathaway, MRICS, repeatedly ignored my numerous requests for a copy of the 2002 accounts (MRJ # 37)

It forced me to, in June 04, seek the assistance of Kensington & Chelsea Housing that sent Hathaway a 25.06.04 s.21 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 Notice that, under "Section 25 it is a summary criminal offence to fail to comply with the requirements..." (K&C # 1 , # 2)

(NB: After a long battle with the housing department (summary # 5.3), and its 'regulator', the Local Government Ombudsman - in 2005 (summary # 5.4) - I only received a deliberately incomplete copy of the accounts - as the section on the contributions paid by the leaseholders was withheld - because theft had taken place: LGO # 7).

•  Because I had 'dared' stand-up to the mafia (Overview # 3 ; Note 4), Salim, in tandem with WLCC, followed by Wandsworth County Court, subjected me to a further 6 months of absolute, sheer, utter hell (WLCC # 13) - before finally issuing me with a 01.07.04 Wandsworth County Court-endorsed Consent Order for £6,350 (US$9,900) - in full settlement of 'my share' of the costs of "the major works" (!!!)

•  In the pursuit of its insatiable greed, the Ladsky mafia lied to everybody: Jefferson House leaseholders, tribunal and courts (and, as related above, in my case, also to the police and to my then employer) - in the process, breaching (among other) numerous legislation.

In addition to the above, other examples of their unbelievable lies and deceit - and concurrent utter contempt for the rule of law - are contained under:

In relation to Gale, note his - and Mansell's - definition of "replacing asphalt roofs":

Back of Jefferson House in Jul 02...

...and in Sep 05

In my case, in the context of the tribunal and courts, the mafia also went to town in defaming my name, character and reputation - by portraying me as a liar, a dishonest person who defaults on her contractual obligations e.g.

  • At the 5 Feb 03 tribunal 'hearing' - as members of the public came in and out of the 'hearing', Ladsky asked the Chair: "Will Ms Rawé pay the £250,000 (US$441,000) of additional costs that will be incurred as a result of the delay in the start of the works due to the hearing?" (My Diary 5 Feb 03)
  • (The reply is captured under para.64 of the 17.06.03 report: "Although she is in the minority, the Respondent's legal right to challenge the Applicant's proposal, as she has done, cannot be fettered") (NB: I was "in the minority" thanks to the tribunal's collusion with Ladsky and his gang - see Kangaroo crt # 1).
  • Ladsky continued to do this during the hearings, playing a double act with his surveyor, Brian Gale, MRICS - falsely portraying me as a liar, a dishonest person who defaults on her contractual obligations (Gale # 2)
  • Ladsky's corrupt counsel, Warwick, added his contribution during the 13 Mar 03 hearing, also as members of the public came in and out of the hearing, by stating that "the reason [I have] been challenging the service charge demand is because I do not want to pay it" (LVT # 5.4(4) ; My Diary 13 Mar 03)
  • a 24.06.03 "Major works apportionment" demanding payment of £10,917 (US$19,250), and
  • a 24.06.03 "Draft Order and Case Summary" stating that I owed monies to his client, including his costs for the day .

•  Because the tribunal findings did not meet Ladsky's 'needs' (i.e. making his multi-million £ jackpot) - in breach of leaseholders' statutory rights, and rights under the lease, the racketeers never implemented the findings...

...- greatly assisted by the fact that, in breach of its statutory duty, the tribunal had deliberately failed to include, in its report, a summary of the impact of its findings "on the reasonableness of the global sum demanded" (WLCC # 8)

Of course, its so-called 'summary of the case' it placed on its public database, also fails to report the true position (and concurrently falsely blames me for a fictitious "cost increase" (LVT summary ; Kangaroo crt # 1).

•  The racketeers capitilized immediately on this freebie e.g. 04.08.04 letter 'from' Barrie Martin, FRICS, of the then MRJ:

[I] refused to pay [my] contribution and this resulted in the proceedings before the LVT which of course resulted in the considerable delay in the commencement of the work” (LVT Summary # 1)

•  INSTEAD, Hathaway prepared the ground for the next move, by sending a 26.03.04 letter to "All Lessees", stating: "Due to extensive delays in collecting the contributions from all [!!!] lessees..." .

(Contrast that with 'her' (above) 16.12.02 letter to me, 15 months previously, claiming that "the majority of the tenants have paid")

•  It was followed by a 02.08 04 letter 'from' Barrie Martin, FRICS, informing "All Lessees" of the appointment of a new contractor, Mansell Construction Services. (2nd August was the day that the last valiant leaseholder on the 29.11.02 claim, capitulated in Wandsworth County Court (and appeared to have been, likewise, 'crucified' : WCC # 2))

In 'his' letter, Martin claimed that the cost for "the works" were “£513,656.70 + VAT” - failing to mention the addition of an 11% management fee.

The addition of the fee + VAT brought the total to £669,936 (US$1.182m) - thereby making a difference of only £66,269 (US$117,000), or 9% less than the 15.07.02 demand of £736,200 (US$1.3m) - that was the subject of the 07.08.02 Application to the tribunal - that resulted in a 70% reduction: LVT # 4.

Hence, MRJ - and its client - were continuing to commit breaches under (among other) the Theft Act s.17 False accounting.

Of importance: failure to implement the consultation requirements meant that the maximum that could be demanded of each leaseholder was £250 (US$440), or a total, for the then block of 35 apartments of £8,750 (US$15,429).

Contrast that with the £500,000 (US$882,000) that was paid and kept (Pridie Brewster: # 2 , # 3 , # 8 , # 10 , # 17 to # 19).

• Note that Barrie Martin, FRICS, continued to misrepresent 'the works' in 'his' 14.07.04 letter to me, as he defined them as

"External repair and redecoration work plus internal refurbishment of common parts".

Evidently, in the world of Rachman Ladsky and his gang of racketeers this description includes the construction of a massive penthouse, as well as addition of 3 other apartments. (Amazingly, by 2016, they had 'disappeared': Martyn Gerrard # 30).

•  In retaliation for 'my daring' to stand -up to him, Ladsky asked Hathaway, MRICS, to send me 3 totally unsupported bogus invoices (my identical Comments are attached to the invoices)

  • 21.10.04, to which £1,000 was added, as it stated "Brought forward balance: £14,452" (US$25,600) (3 months after the Consent Order) (WLCC # 13.4)

Hence, the original, 17.07.02 demand of £14,400 (US$25,400) (and claim) - as though no 'offer' had been made, accepted and paid (above) and sealed by a court-endorsed Consent Order (above).

My ignoring the 21 Oct 04 invoice as well - because I knew it was fraud - led 3 weeks later, to another demand, dated 16.11.04, this time with a "Brought forward balance" of £15,447" (US$27,300) - likewise, with NO explanation whatsoever.

Note that in my 31.12.03 letter to Hathaway, I had informed her of my making the payment to CKFT.

The demands therefore breached: (1)- Theft Act s.17 False accounting; (2)- Malicious Communications Act 1988, ss 1 & 2; (3)- Protection from Harassment Act 1997, ss 1 & 2 (all criminal offences i.e punishable by emprisonment).

Although obvious to me that these invoices were malicious acts motivated by 'revenge' for 'my daring' to challenge Ladsky - and I therefore did not pay them - they caused me an enormous amount of distress and anguish - which, of course, was the intention (criminal psychological harassment) - leading me to cancel my Christmas holiday (My Diary - End 2004).

•  The next invoice, 14 months later, was 'mysteriously' £10,250 less: 09.01.06: £5,625 (US$9,918). It included a fraudulent "Half-yearly service charge in advance" of £815 (US$1,435). As in the case of the above bogus invoices, I, likewise, ignored it (MRJ # 18).

•  In Oct 06, through Jeremy Hershkorn, then at Portner and Jaskel, Ladsky succeeded in getting the closure of my 'inconvenient' website - by: (1)- making highly defamatory, malicious, vicious accusations against me in his 03.10.06 fax to my then website host - which, as I pointed out in my 05.10.06 reply, were totally unsupported - that my site:

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

Our client's reputation has been severely damaged..." [I can't stop laughing at that - considering what is contained under e.g. this section]

(2)- by making threats of "proceedings" against the host - thereby breaching the Defamation Act, and the Malicious Communications Act 1988, ss 1 & 2A (Portner # 2).

•  After I relaunched my website, on 25 Dec 06, in Jan-Feb 07, Ladsky and Hershkorn tried to repeat their success with my current (priceless) website Host - using the same tactics - and therefore breaching the same Acts, as well as the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, ss 1 & 2.

•  Having failed to achieve his objective, Ladsky, once again, asked for the assistance of his henchmen in the Kensington police mafia - by, on 15 Mar 07, filing another so-called 'complaint' against me (the snapshot under breach Data Protection Act details the unbelievable events - including the police mafia's emails to my website Host).

•  Having, with his Kensington police henchmen, failed to intimidate and bully my website Host into closing down my site, Ladsky then attacked me through my (very compliant) then employer, KPMG, by sending this 26.03.07 letter, in which he made highly vicious, false, malicious accusations against me (KPMG # 3.5)...

...- thereby breaching the Defamation Act and Malicious Communications Act, ss 1 & 2A .

From then on, I started to suffer horrendous victimisation at KPMG - eventually leading me to resign in Jan 08. Being psychologically unable to look for other work, it forced me into early retirement, 8 years earlier than planned - and leading to lose over £1million in potential income and pension (Overview # 14)

(Apparently, Ladsky started to contact KPMG in Oct 06. At the time, I was not told about it. Notes of a Feb 07 call from him show that he had also made outrageous, slanderous accusations against me).

•  6 weeks prior to his above 'complaint' to his mates at Kensington police, and while he was still harassing my website Host (Portner # 3), Andrew David Ladsky asked Jeremy Hershkorn to send me this illegal 16.02.07 letter

"We have been instructed by Rootstock Overseas Corp [I had never heard of the company - Portner # 15] in connection with outstanding arrears of service charge due..of which you are fully aware of."

"We enclose a copy of a statement dated 13th February 2007 which indicates how the sum of £8,937.28 [US$15,800] has been calculated" [Nothing was enclosed]

"...if payment is not received by us on behalf of our client by close of business on Friday 23rd February 2007, proceedings will be issued against you for the full amount due together with interest, without further notice"

"Proceedings...will also include the issue of Statutory Demand, which is required under the Insolvency Act 1986 prior to the presentation of a Bankruptcy Petition."

"Such proceedings will be without prejudice to our client's other rights of recovery and enforcement so far as your property is concerned" [= forfeiture: taking the apartment away from me; copy of definition] and "costs"...

As demonstrated by subsequent events - thereby breaching:

(In addition to 'forfeiture', threatening 'bankruptcy' is another typical Rachman Ladsky tactic e.g. Residents Association's letter to him)

•  In breach of CPR Pre-Action Protocol, ignoring my 25.02.07 reply in which I asked for clarification, Hershkorn filed a 27.02.07 claim against me in Her Majesty's West London County Court - with:

  • "Roostock (sic) Overseas Corp" demanding “£10,356.59” (US$18,260) from me, and
  • each being represented by a different firm: Portner for "Roostock", CKFT for "Steel Services"

•  2 days after the claim was filed against me, MRJ, sent me a 01.03.07 invoice for £8,688 v. the £8,993 demanded in the claim by "Steel Services".

•  Knowing full well that the claim against me was fraudulent (in addition to breaching numerous CPR, legislation and my Lease), Portner and Ladsky, in collusion with Her Majesty's judiciaries, kept it going for 16 months of absolute sheer utter hell.

•  At this point, having ALL had their very sick, cruel, sadistic fun, 'Roostock (sic)/Steel Services/Sloan Development' i.e. Ladsky finally ' issued me with a 06.06.08 Notice of Discontinuance of "ALL of the claim" against me (Overview # 11 ; Portner # 31).

The trigger was my 03.06.08 Witness Statement - which contains a comprehensive overview of events from 2002 - up to that point.

•  Demonstrating that the mafia was not expecting it, is the 23.05.08 letter from Ahmet Jaffer to the court, in which he suggested having the case transferred 'one level' up, "from 'fast track' to 'multi-track'" (WLCC # 31).

•  In my 05.06.08 reply, I highlighted the main events over the previous 16 months proving that - of course - Ladsky and Portner knew the claim was (like the previous one) fraudulent (Portner # 30) (as did Her Majesty's judiciaries).

They - and HM's Judiciaries - had therefore deliberately and wilfully ignored the evidence I had supplied in defence to the claim - in numerous documents - starting within 2 months of having the 27.02.07 claim filed against me (e.g.WLLC # 27.3 Com 3)

•  Another example of how sick these psychos are, they had planted an individual as 'a visitor' to my site - and used him to 'send' a cheque to Portner - falsely claiming he had done this 'on my behalf'. The amount of the cheque was the precise amount of interest demanded in the claim - thereby implying I owed the whole claim (Portner # 14).

(The use of plants is one of the favourite traps used by the mafia: landlords and their aides...who follow the example of the British state).

•  Further proof that the claim was filed against me as 'retribution' - is the outrageous, preposterous excuse given by Portner for dropping it, under para.1.4 of its 11.08.08 reply to my 22.07.08 Notice for claiming back my costs:

"it was found that the managing agent had given the incorrect identity and address for the landlord".

I knocked this out under pt 2.2, pg 5, of my 26.08.08 reply (Portner # 33).

In my documents to Portner and the court, I had raised the issue as to the identity of my 'landlord' - and consequently the issue as to the legality of the claim against me - a total of 11 times over a 16-month period.

It also amounts to Jeremy Hershkorn and Ahmet Jaffer breaching the Money Laundering Regulations / Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 - "Know your client".

•  Other forms of persecution by Ladsky, in 2007, included flooding of my apartment (My Diary 20 July 07) - having first failed in his objective in Feb 07 (My Diary 6 Feb 07).

See other examples over the years, under Protection from Harassment Act 1997, and under Persecution (1)(4)(16) - added to many others - thereby breaching (among others) s.1 of the Protection from Eviction Act 1977.

And the criminal psychological harassment has - of course - continued ever since. (Why would it stop when you have the state as your key ally in dishing it out?)

•  The totally unsupported, because fraudulent 09.07.10 demand of £24,002 (US$42,322) 'from' the then Martin Russell Jones, was followed by 2 repeats of the demand - while ignoring my letters asking for evidence in support: 15.07.10 ; 17.11.10 ; 16.12.10 (Martyn Gerrard: Background , # 2) - thereby, yet again, committing offences under:

•  The totally unsupported, because fraudulent ever growing demands 'from' the "RICS, ARMA, ALEP et.al. regulated", "award-winning agency...where integrity counts", extremely sick racketeers, Martyn Gerrard.

They started with the 16.02.11 demand - for an unnamed party - that brought the 'service charge' fraud to £27,470 (US$48,551) - using outrageous "estimates of expenditure" (MG # 2).

It has since been followed by many other equally fraudulent demands: Overall summary ; 'Service charge' ; 'Electricity'...

- latest version of my pdf summaries, with my Comments: "service charges"; "electricity"; ground rent.

•  Proving the fraud - and concurrent aim of inflicting criminal psychological harassment - over more than 5 years, Gerrard has been ignoring ALL my correspondence: 07.07.11 (MG # 3) ; 07.02.12 (MG # 5)...

...- including my 'Special Delivery Next Day' 10.02.14 document in which I challenge its demands over the previous 3 years - because it, Ladsky et.al. had been preparing for the next attack.

•  Consider that these demands are made, in the context of the fact that I have NOT been provided with Lease-compliant (but unverified) accounts for Jefferson House since 1993 = more than 20 years! - thereby breaching Clause 2(2)(g)(i) of my Lease (a legal contract), as well as:

In 2016 the mob found another shyster, Mark Henry Wagner, Wagner & Co (Advisors # 5A), keen to take legal action against me.

 

IF 'I' had done the above, I would be in prison. WHY AREN'T THEY?

(It certainly cannot be due to lack of awareness of the facts and irrebutable evidence among the relevant parties; nor, indeed, due to lack of clarity as to the events, as well as the legal implications (*): My Diary # 2.6. I also highlight that, by 2016, my website has been live for 10 years).

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

(See an example of a case that has similarities - in which the individuals ended-up with prison sentences of up to 32 months - for doing much less than that).

Answer: Evidently, extremely sick elements within 'the Brotherhood' - v. my profile = Unlike them, I don't have Her Majesty's police, judiciary and ministers in my pocket.

And, unlike them, I am not perceived as making "cherished contributions" = I am not showering them with money (I have 'only' paid over £500,000 in tax since arriving in this country).

Given the above, consider:

re. Andrew David Ladsky e.g.:

re. Ladsky's gang of racketeers:

  • ALL my complaints against them were, 'of course', dismissed by their 'regulator' and, on occasions, the 'regulator' of the 'regulator' - on the ground of "No misconduct / No malpractice" - see summaries of my complaints:

And ditto about my complaints against 'my' advisors who helped the Ladsky racketeers rip me off:

Anybody wants to argue with my conclusion that this Kingdom is NOT regulated?

Back to top

Fertiliser

 

COED - "A chemical or natural substance added to soil to increase its fertility"

•  The so-called 'regulators' in the public and private sector who not only turn a blind eye to malpractice, including criminal conduct - they actually endorse it - as evidenced by the outcome of my 50+ legitimate 'cries for help' and complaints.

Fraud / Fraudster

Collins English Dictionary definition: “Deliberate deception, trickery or cheating intended to gain an advantage; an act or instance of such deception; something false or spurious”

COED - "Wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain" "Derivative - fraudster"

Examples under Fraud Act 2006, ss 2 & 3 ; various sections of the Theft Act

Greed

COED - "intense and selfish desire for wealth, power..."

Characteristic found across this website; Andrew David Ladsky and his gang of racketeers - and their supporters in the state and private sector.

Back to top

Incompetent - Crass incompetence

COED - Incompetent: "Not sufficiently skilful to do something successfully"

COED - Crass: "Showing a gross lack of intelligence or sensitivity"

My initial explanation for the way I was treated by the state sector.

However, I subsequently changed my view to events being driven by corrupt elements in 'the Brotherhood'.

(Like a visitor to my site wrote (Comment # 4): "Once is accident, twice is coincidence, three times and it is enemy action" )

Innocent

COED - "Not guilty of a crime or offence"

What I AM - as is GLARINGLY OBVIOUS to any fair minded, reasonable, honest visitor to the site - when considering the overwhelming evidence captured on this site: Home -Overview ; Case summary.

Integrity

Collins English dictionary definition: "Adherence to moral principles; honesty; the quality of being unimpaired"

COED - "The quality of having strong moral principles"

•  How I consider I have acted - unlike the parties against whom I have captured evidence on this site e.g. Home page-Overview.

Examples:

•  Top of the list of acting with integrity is HostDime, my priceless American website Host.

Also:

(1)- Mr Tim Brock, my surveyor in relation to the then London LVT 2003 hearings, and subsequently e.g. LVT # 4.1;

(2)- Ms Yemah Barlay, Nucleus Citizens Advice Bureau (in 2001), approached by some of my fellow leaseholders in relation to various issues relating to Jefferson House;

(3)- Mr Sandy McDougall, a previous Tenancy Relations Officer at Kensington & Chelsea housing, I had approached to help me determine the ownership identity of Jefferson House (Owners Identity # 1 & # 2 ; summary # 5.1);

(4)- Ms Rebecca Scott, and (5)- Ms Joy Julien, Royal Courts of Justice Citizens Advice Bureau (in 2004), in connection with the fraudulent claim filed against me;

(6)- 'In-house' Team, at the Royal Courts of Justice, that assists Litigants in Person (in 2011; QB Introduction), in connection with the Claim I filed against the police et.al.;

(7)- Ms Charlotte Cullen, Ofcom (in 2009), in connection with Hutchison 3G, mobile phone provider, deliberately messing me around (summary # 5.10);

(8)- Mrs Melissa Sharples and (9)- Ms Claire Prescott, Postwatch (in 2006) in connection with the Royal Mail having fun with my post (summary # 5.8).

(10)- the medical people at St Thomas hospital following my fainting on a bus (My Diary 19 Jun 05).

Yep! That's all! The rest has stabbed in the back - many doing repeatedly / on an ongoing basis.

Back to top

Investigate

COED: “To carry out a systematic or formal inquiry into (an incident or allegation) so as to establish the truth

•  Considering the dictionary definition of 'investigate', the outrageous lies by Her Majesty's Met Commissioner that the police "investigated":

(1)- My 2002 complaint against Andrew Ladsky (above, under breach DPA)

Assertion made under para.8 of his 23.05.11 Defence (QB #4(2)), and para.10 his 30.06.11 Application to have my 19.04.11 Claim struck out (QB #4(3)).

I rejected the blatant lie under paras 23-25 of my 19.07.11 MPS Witness Statement.

False assertion endorsed by HM's Master Eyre in pack of lies 09.08.11 MPS Order (QB: # 4(6) , # 4(7)(2) and (3)) (and subsequently by his mates justices Lang and Mackay: 06.10.11 and 24.10.11 Orders. My (identical) Comments are attached to each Order).

(2) - Ladsky's 2003 so-called 'complaint' of "harassment" against me (above, under breach DPA)

The Met Commissioner made the claim under para.11 of his 30.06.11 Application (QB # 4(3)).

In fact, the Kensington police mafia ignored my 11 Feb 03 letter, and then closed down the report falsely claiming that "[I had] not responded"

I rejected this blatant lie and discussed the undeniable evidence in support of my position under paras. 29-33 and 43-45 of my 19.07.11 MPS Wit.Stat.

In his pack of lies 09.08.11 MPS Order, under Reason 3(2), Eyre falsely claimed that "the police took the matter no further".

(3) - Ladsky's 2007 so-called 'complaint' against me that my website contained "anti-Semitic views against [him]", etc (above, under breach DPA)

Her Majesty's Met Commissioner made the claim under para.9 of his 23.05.11 Defence (QB # 4(2)) and para.13 of his 30.06.11 Application Wit.Stat. (QB # 4(3)).

It is glaringly obvious from the fact that the police - never contacted me - that it cannot make this claim.

In my 19.04.11 Particulars of Claim, under paras 5.c, 9.f and 21.a, I very clearly stated - and repeated - that the police had NOT contacted me following this so-called 'complaint'.

I was so shocked by this conduct by the police that I also repeated this on several occasions in my 19.07.11 MPS Wit.Stat: paras 8, 49, 58 and 84 - and discussed the undeniable evidence, under paras 48-59.

In spite of this evidence, Eyre wrote under Reason 3(3) (QB # 6(1)) of 'his' pack of lies 09.08.11 MPS Order that "The police took the matter up with me"...

...one of many such instances of collusion between HM's judiciaries and police in relation to my claim (see below, Kangaroo court # 6).

Back to top

Kangaroo court

Chambers dictionary:

"A court operated by a mob, by prisoners in jail, or by any improperly constituted body; a tribunal before which a fair trial is impossible; a comic burlesque court"

Bias

COED: "Inclination or prejudice for or against one thing or person"

See Test for judicial bias

Injustice

COED: "Lack of justice" ; "An unjust act or occurrence"

Examples (in support of above descriptions starting with 'Kangaroo court')

In my case, Her Majesty's following courts and tribunal were turned into 'kangaroo courts' - with "the mob" being corrupt to the core judiciaries - demonstrating glaring bias and lack of impartiality - resulting in my suffering outrageous injustice.

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

Further, I highlight that my adding the summaries to the legal pages (from which the following extracts are sourced), 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.

The conduct of HM's judiciaries is absolutely outrageous and extremely shocking.

As most (if not all) started as solicitors and barristers (and many of the practising solicitors and barristers sit as judges and registrars), they are the product of, among other, the fertilisers for malpractice: Law Society and Bar Council who tell them that they are untouchable, and therefore free to do whatever they want (summaries of my complaints section 2).

The message is then reinforced by their lapdogs, as well as by their mates in the British Establishment:

- and ultimately by Her Majesty The Queen - in whose name they operate.

The difference in treatment when multi-criminal Rachman Andrew David Ladsky files fraudulent claims and applications against me (the first 5 in the below list) - v. when 'I' file legitimate claims : # 6 and # 7 in the list...

... leads me to the conclusion: the power of 'the Brotherhood' - v. my profile - that results in NONE of my so-called 'rights' being "freestanding". It includes with the ECtHR - detail below.

Just as well as that "Britain has a long and exemplary record on human rights" - and 'in which the rule of law is paramount'!

Against which godforsaken hellhole is this island-Kingdom benchmarked against to claim that it has "a well regarded legal system"?

(No doubt, the former Lord Chancellor, Michael Gove attributed the events to "the creaking, outdated, dysfunctional system" (Legal- Other media)).

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 Her Majesty's courts do your dirty work. (Ditto with the police, et.al.).

(This section is summarised, below; there is also a table under Overview # 19)

Sections - Kangaroo courts (As you can see, my assessment is based on A LOT of first-hand experience)

(Kangaroo crt)- (1)- Her Majesty's then London Leasehold Valuation Tribunal (LVT) - in 2002-03

Glaringly obvious collusion and conspiring took place between Her Majesty's tribunal panel and clerk to assist Andrew David Ladsky and his gang of racketeers in their fraudulent demand (see also Extortion). ('Poor' Mr Ladsky 'needed the money to make his multi-million £ jackpot'!).

(Summaries: Events ; Breaches of the law ; Overall outcome on me ; Overview # 2)

Examples of events:

  • (i)- it waited 2 months to announce that the application had been filed (LVT # 1.1) - and, in breach of their legislative rights, communicated this only to "some" of my fellow leaseholders (LVT # 1.2);
  • (iii)- it withheld from us ALL the supporting enclosures to the Application - data to which we were legally entitled, and had all been clamouring for (LVT # 1.3 , # 1.4 , # 3).
  • (From obtaining the appendices afterwards, I discovered that Ladsky had supplied a 'particularly convenient' lease falsely claiming that it was representative of all the leases: LVT # 1.3).
  • Outcome: I ended-up being the main leaseholder challenging the demand (LVT 1.6) (and, consequently, bearing all the costs)
  • WHY? Because the findings were 'highly inconvenient' for Ladsky (and their mates in West London County Court - below).
  • Based on the assessment by my surveyor - the outcome was a £500,000 (US$882,000) reduction, or nearly 70% (incl. the contingency fund) in the original sum demanded, from £736,206 (US$1.3m) down to £235,947 (US$416,000) (LVT # 4 ; Brian Gale # 6 , # 7)
  • Siobhan McGrath, then President of the then LVTs, repeatedly turned down my requests for the inclusion of a summary in the report - claiming, in her 26.11.03 letter: "It would not be appropriate for the Tribunal to produce a summary of their decision as this may well be regarded as providing additional reasons (summary of my complaint # 1.1)
  • ... Yes! £500,000 worth of “additional reasons” (WLCC # 6). (I did my best to communicate the true outcome of the tribunal hearings to as many of my fellow leaseholders as I could: my 06.07.03 letter but, by then, they had caved in).
  • ."a delay" - knowing full well that IT was the cause (summary # 1);
  • a fictitious"cost increase [of 6%] - at a date that was 3 months post signing its report ...
  • ...thereby committing ongoing defamation of my name, character and reputation since 2003. (McGrath also refused to take action in relation to the 'summary': LVT # 7 ; Prescott # 1.4).

Back to list

(Kangaroo crt)- (2)- Her Majesty's West London County Court (WLCC) - in 2002-04

Same introduction as per above, for the tribunal.

(Summaries: Events ; Breaches of the law ; Overall outcome on me ; Overview # 3)

Examples of events:

•  At the 29 Oct 02 LVT pre-trial 'hearing' (29.10. 02 ; LVT # 1.4) we, leaseholders, were specifically told by the tribunal to NOT PAY the 15.07.02 / 17.07.02 demand - until - the tribunal had issued its determination - and it had been implemented i.e. reflected in the demand. In support, it gave us this booklet quoting, on pg 5, a Court of Appeal case (LVT # 1.5).

(NB: Of course, relatively few leaseholders were aware of this, due to what took place with the tribunal (above)).

Lanny Silverstone, CKFT, filed a 29.11.02 claim (WL 023 537) against me (and 13 other apartments).

•  WLCC proceeded with the 29.11.02 claim - in spite of the fact that it was:

•  As evidenced in Silverstone's 23.05.03 application (Extortion) it forged ahead with the claim, issuing judgement/s and Charging Orders against some of my fellow leaseholders - at least from Jan 03; hence, 5 months before the tribunal issued its 17.06.03 report...

...- thereby making them pay monies that were not due and payable and, consequently, also denying their rights (by year-end 2003 - 9 out of the 14 apartments on the claim were made to pay the full amount demanded (WLCC # 5 , # 6)

(+ a further 16 apartments, bringing the total to £500,000 (US$882,000): my analysis attached to data supplied to me by the ICAEW in its 29.08.06 letter (those that had not paid had Ladsky-headlessor as leaseholder))

•  Continuing to turn a deliberate blind eye to the blatant evidence, and to demonstrate amnesia about the rule of law, District Judge Wright provided assistance to CKFT = Andrew David Ladsky in setting-up a Summary Judgment hearing against me (and a fellow leaseholder): 24.06.03 Order (WLCC # 8) - and then continued with the same performance during the 'hearing' (WLCC # 9).

•  The atrocious way I had been treated by the judiciary (and court staff: Lord Falconer of Thoroton), led me to accept (19.12.03 letter to CKFT) Ladsky's 21.10.03 'Part 36 offer' of £6,350 (US$9,900) (v. the £14,400 (US$25,400) demanded: 17.07.02 letter; 29.11.02 claim) - even though, legally, I did NOT owe this amount either (WLCC # 12(2))

•  Failure of the ploy the Ladsky mafia had devised with 'my advisors' (Intro to my 19 Oct 03 Witness Statement) - led to my being subjected to a further 6 months of hell by the mafia - in which I include HM's judiciary, and court staff:

  • deliberately making me miss the 28 May 04 'hearing' at which District judge issued a 28.05.04 Order that the action against me be "stayed" - in spite of knowing that agreement had been reached (WLCC # 13(2) ; Lord Falconer # 3)...and also denying that the 'hearing' had taken place (Falconer # 5.2);
  • also in spite of knowing that agreement had been reached: sending me a 09.06.04 Notice - that did not provide any detail - informing me - falsely - that I was the defendant in a trial in Wandsworth County Court (WLCC # 13(3) ; Falconer # 4) (Not the first time it provided me with false notices e.g. WLCC # 5 ; Falconer # 1);
  • the mafia maintained the position for 6 weeks - making me go through yet more horrendous torment, anguish and distress as, concurrently, both courts were keeping me deliberately in the dark by withholding the recording of the 28 May 04 'hearing' for nearly 2 months (Falconer # 5.3)

Back to list

(Kangaroo crt) (3)- Her Majesty's Wandsworth County Court - in 2004

Same introduction as per above, for the tribunal.

(Summaries: Events ; Breaches of the law ; Overall outcome on me)

•  This other hellhole court, made me go through a further 5 weeks of mental torture - by falsely maintaining that 'I was the defendant in a trial', and, likewise, treated me like a piece of dirt (WCC # 1)

•  The evidence suggests that it also helped racketeers Ladsky and CKFT rip-off the last valiant leaseholder on the claim - by making him pay as much as the original fraudulent sum demanded, plus costs: 02.08.04 Order (WCC # 2)

Back to list

(Kangaroo crt)- (4)- Her Majesty's West London County Court - in 2007-08

This time, what took place (and carried on afterwards in other courts), was motivated by 'retribution' by Andrew David Ladsky and his judiciary mates - for 'my daring' to launch my website, exposing, with irrebutable evidence - their criminal activities.

Evidence: the comment made to me by the police's Counsel Nicholas Wilcox (in the Queen's Bench Division, below, # 6) : "Master Eyre is not pleased with your website" (QB # 4 (6)(5)(2)).

(Summaries: Events ; Breaches of the law ; Overall outcome on me ; Overview # 10 and # 11)

Examples of events:

•  Following a 16.02.07 threat of "bankruptcy and forfeiture [copy of definition] and costs" from Jeremy Hershkorn, Portner and Jaskel (Extortion) = Ladsky - ignoring (in breach of CPR's Pre-Action Protocol) my 25.02.07 letter in which I asked for clarification, Hershkorn filed a 27.02.07 claim (7WL00675) against me (Portner # 6 ; WLCC # 1).

•  From then on - in spite of the fact that the claim breached numerous CPR and legislation, as well as my Lease - HM's WLCC judiciary perversely and very viciously pursued the claim - in glaring collusion and conspiring with 'the brother', Andrew David Ladsky and his racketeers, Portner and Jaskel:

The 27.02.07 claim stated:

  • two "landlords";
  • each represented by a different firm of solicitors;
  • each demanding payment of 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" (WLCC # 1).

•  Clearly impacting on the legality of the claim against me, I first started to raise the issue in my 22.03.07 Acknowledgment of Service, by attaching pages from the claim on which I clearly identified the issues (WLCC # 2). It ignored it.

From then on, I raised the issue a further 10 times - making it a total of 11 times over a 16-month period. It still took no action.

•  It sent Portner a 03.04.07 'Notice that Acknowledgment of service has been filed' - falsely stating that I had "indicated an intention to defend part of the claim'. As can be seen on my 22.03.07 Acknowledgment of Service, I could not have made it any clearer that I "intend[ed] to contest the court's jurisdiction" (WLCC # 2.2)

•  It ignored repeatedly the fact I had NOT been supplied with the information necessary for me to defend myself against the claim.

Evidenced, among others, by District Judge Ryan's so-called 'case management directions' of 09.04.08 that failed to "consider [my] representation" in the 3 additional pages I attached to my 14.03.08 Allocation Questionnaire - in which I very clearly reiterated the issues - proving that the claim against me was fraudulent (WLCC # 27)

(By then, i.e. over the previous 15 months, I had already raised the issues umpteen times in my documents to the court).

•  It denied me right of access to a Leasehold Valuation Tribunal (WLCC # 11) - (not that it would have made any difference - considering my experience with Her Majesty's tribunal in 2002-03 (above)).

•  In his 01.05.08 Order, District Judge Nicholson refused my 30.04.08 application for amendment to the timeline (WLCC # 27.3).

This left me in the highly stressful and prejudiced position of having to write my 03.06.08 Witness Statement without key information to which I was legally entitled to defend myself against the claim.

•  As I predicted in my 03.06.08 Wit.Stat. (WLCC # 30) - the 'claimants' failed to supply me with their witness statement. (This was a repeat of what took place with the 29.11.02 claim (above)).

•  Because, this time, I was a Litigant in Person throughout the process (thereby removing the possibility of a 'behind the scene deal' with 'my advisors') - once they all had their very cruel, sadistic fun - the Ladsky mafia issued with me with a 06.06.08 Notice of Discontinuance of "ALL" of the 27.02.07 claim against me (PJ # 31) - with no reason given.

•  Evidently not expecting that I would file for my costs, following my 22.07.08 Notice (Portner # 32), in 'its' 11.08.08 'Points of Dispute', para.1.4, Portner made the outrageous and preposterous claim that it had "dropped the claim because the managing agent had given the incorrect identity for the landlord" (contrast that with my 11 communications)

•  WLCC sent me a 27.09.07 threatening letter, masquerading as an 'Order', demanding I pay, within 3 days, £1,700 (US$3,000) to "file a counterclaim" - knowing full well that it was an impossibility for me to do this, and threatening to strike out my Defence if I did not (WLCC # 12.3).

The evidence of a deliberate intention to cause me distress can be seen from the follow-on events to my 13.11.07 complaint to Her Majesty's Court Service 'Customer Service': the lies and the cover-up to 'justify' the demand (summaries # 17 and # 1.8).

•  More discrimination and 'retribution' followed from HM's District Judge Nicholson: having received, 2 months previously, my 26.08.08 Application for a Detailed Assessment hearing, 4 hours before the 04.11.08 'hearing', he issued a 04.11.08 Order for the case to be transferred to the Supreme Court Costs Office (Portner # 34).

Back to list

(Kangaroo crt)- (5)- Her Majesty's Supreme Court Costs Office - on 30 Jan 09

I repeat my introduction, above, under WLCC.

(Summaries: Events ; Breaches of the law ; Overall outcome on me ; Overview # 12)

In spite of the very damning evidence against the 27.02.07 claim (above), in Jan 09, Her Majesty's Deputy Master Hoffman allowed me to recover only 30% of my costs.

And, of course, the word 'sanction' against the 'claimants' = Ladsky (et.al.?) and Portner for filing what was a glaringly obvious vexatious, malicious, fraudulent claim against me - with no legally recognised ground - and making me go through absolute sheer hell for 23 months - was NOT uttered.

•  Prior to the so-called 'hearing' of 30 Jan, Portner sent me a 14.01.09 £4,500 (US$7,900) "offer" stating that it was "an all in figure in full and final settlement of your costs in this matter" - "Without prejudice".

The costs Portner had were those in my 11.11.08 update: £7,277. By the time I received the "offer", they amounted to £8,397 (US$14,800). In my 19.01.09 reply, I turned down it, describing it as "derisory".

•  At the so-called 'hearing', Hoffman did not allow me to refer to my 19.01.09 reply to Portner's 11.08.08 Points of Dispute, I had preceded it with a 5-page summary very clearly detailing why I believed to be entitled to – at a minimum - get ALL of my costs back.

•  He challenged me on returning the 22.03.07 Acknowledgment of Service with my annotations (above) - and told me "You should not have done this. You should have only returned the form the court sent you". (NB: Because my doing this was 'highly inconvenient for his mates in West London County Court).

•  Hoffman implied I was a liar in the context of the costs I was claiming for writing my 12.09.07 Defence. (NB: 'Maybe' his 'brothers' in the police were still fuming from the fact I had fooled them on 30 Aug 07).

•  When the 14.01.09 'offer' was raised, Hoffman expressed scorn as soon as he read the header of my 19.01.09 reply "Your derisory "offer" of 14 January 2009" (and did not bother reading the rest - evidently (in breach of CPR) already knowing the content).

Reason? My undertaking the procedure to claim for my costs was not expected - and - it was 'highly convenient’.

•  Hoffman only allowed me £2,507 of my costs, plus interest since the 06.02.08 Notice of Discontinuance (Portner's letter of 04.02.09) - bringing the total to £2,641 v. my costs of £8,675 (Ladsky was claiming costs of £1,535.25).

Back to list

(Kangaroo crt)- (6)- Her Majesty's London Queen's Bench Division - in 2011 (followed by the European Court of Human Rights)

(Summaries: Events ; Breaches of the law ; Overall outcome on me) (I highlight my note about the QB's staff).

This time, it is I who filed a claim (as a Litigant in Person): 19.04.11 in the Queen's Bench Division - against Her Majesty's Met Commissioner, the 'Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) and the Home Secretary (Overview # 18).

The trigger to my filing the Claim is detailed under QB # 1.

ALL of my claims were - summarily - dismissed by Her Majesty's Master Eyre.

Examples of events:

(1)- Police

(Summaries: Events ; Breaches of the law)

•  In a pack of lies 09.08.11 MPS Order (my Comments are attached) (QB # 4(6)) - that entailed my being made to pay the police's costs of £8,478 (US$14,950) (my 22.08.11 payment).

Following my filing an Appeal against the Order (QB # 4(7)), it was confirmed by Justice Lang (QB # 47(2)), and reconfirmed by Justice MacKay (QB # 4(7)(3))

  Examples of absolutely outrageous 'Reasons' (under QB # 4(6)) for dismissing my claims - that demonstrate undeniably the wilful, perverse blindness to the irrebutable evidence in the case - which were a regurgitation of Her Majesty's Met Commissioner's lies in his 23.06.11 Defence (QB # 4(2)), and 30.06.11 Application (QB # 4(3))

(Snapshots of breach, above: Data Protection Act 1998 ; violations of Article 8, Article 3, Article 14 of the Convention ; comprehensive detail in my 26.01.12 Application to the ECtHR (ECt # 1):

  • During the 'hearing' of the Met Commissioner's Application, Master Eyre attempted to gain 'evidence' in support of this outrageous accusation (QB # 4(6)(1))
  • (4)- Related the previous point, endorsement of the false accusation that "[I used] the terms "pigs and monkeys" to refer to Mr Ladsky and his allies" (QB # 4 (6)(1))...
  • ...- and the collusion with the police and Ladsky that "the police not surprisingly recorded the [2007] complaint as a racial incident and nothing more" (QB # 4 (6)(1))...
  • - in spite of having no evidence in support, and of my denying it, yet again, under e.g. para.77 of my 19.07.11 Witness Statement.
  • (5)- Endorsement of the false claim that the police had "investigated" the complaints (see 'investigate', above)

  Eyre also colluded and conspired with Her Majesty's Met Commissioner who sent me a less redacted version of the so-called "crime reports" - after the so-called 'hearing' of his Application to have my Claim "struck out" - and therefore, after I had filed and served my 19.07.11 Witness Statement in response to his Application (QB # 4.3). (I then filed a 29.08.11 Supplementary Wit.Stat in the context of my appeal).

  Of course, Eyre concurrently dismissed my claims of malpractice / misfeasance in public office (QB # 4 (6)(3)).

You can see from the above "the masts to which the learned Master very firmly pinned his colours" - as I wrote under para.61 of my 17.10.11 Request for appeal hearing (QB # 4(7)3).

(2)- 'Independent' Police Complaints Commission (IPCC)

(Summaries: Events ; Breaches of the law)

  In 'his' 29.07.11 Order (my Comments are attached) Master Eyre dismissed all my claims (QB # 5(7)) - with costs of £3,703 (US$14,95) (my 13.09.11 payment. copied to the Home Secretary).

The 'legal' reason: ' I should have filed for judicial review'. Firstly, I took, what I viewed as a legitimate alternative: submitting a Notice under s.10 of the DPA (see police # 5.5).

Secondly, had I been a Master, seeing the fact that the IPCC had:

  • (1)- illegally granted 'dispensation' to the police from compliance with the requirements of the DPA: QB # 5(2);
  • (3)- then claimed to have "acted in accordance with its duties": QB #5(5)
  • - I would not have let it walk away with the Order it was given: QB # 5(7)

(3)- Home Secretary

(Summaries: Events ; Breaches of the law)

  In 'his' 09.08.11 Order (my Comments are attached) Master Eyre dismissed all my claims (QB # 6(2)) - with costs of £5,000 (US$8,820) (my 22.08.11 payment).

The 'legal' reason: ' I should have filed a complaint with the Investigatory Powers Tribunal instead'.

The point I started to argue and quickly give up, because I was not listened to - is that the tribunal does NOT offer me the opportunity to get an effective remedy: QB #6(1)

(4)- European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR)

  The (above) blanket dismissal of my claims, led me to submit a 26.01.12 Application to the court (ECtHR# 1) - covering the police, related services, and the judiciaries.

  The 06.06.12 letter (my Comments are attached) communicated that ONE judge, Vincent A. De Gaetano (Malta) rejected my Application - in the process breaching Article 45 of the Convention (ECtHR # 2).

As 'my luck' would have it, at the time of my Application, the ECtHR was under British mandate, headed by Sir Nicolas Bratza (ECtHR # 2.1).

Subsequent events with the court (Overview # 18(4)), and higher up (Overview # 18(5)) - demonstrate that the ECtHR cannot justify the rejection of my Application.

= Bratza had found a very compliant, corrupt judge from a little island, prepared to breach the Convention in order to reject my legitimate Application. (In Aug 11, I had received a hint from Nicholas Wilcox, MPS counsel, that my Application would be dismissed (QB # 4.6(5)).

Back to list

(Kangaroo crt)- (7)- Her Majesty's Stratford Employment Tribunal - in 2008

My initial experience with this tribunal re. my 03.04.08 Claim against KPMG communicated that, had I pursued it, I was on course for a repeat of injustice.

Back to list

(Kangaroo crt)- SUMMARY AND OVERALL OUTCOME of my experience with Her Majesty's tribunal and courts since 2002:

  • ...I am placed outside the protection of the law and of the state (also confirmed by Her Majesty's police) (likewise, very clearly perceived to be 'above the law'), there to be used, abused and tormented at will - by ALL.
  • Denying me access to information I was legally entitled to, in order to defend myself against the claims and applications / in support of my position;
  • Re. the 3 court actions: ignoring consistently ALL the evidence I supplied - preferring instead to pay heed only to the lies of my opponents (thereby implying that I was a liar) - and concurrently turning a blind eye to their lies, including their contempt of court.
  • (i)- treating me as a liar;
  • (ii)-fabricating 'evidence' against me;
  • (iii)- maintaining an action against me open, in spite of knowing that agreement had been reached.
  • To further assist my opponents, and with the aim of causing me yet more distress and anguish: issuing me with numerous false notices.
  • Loss of more than £1 million in potential income and pension - due to failing to give me an effective remedy from 2003 - as:
  • taking his cue from his tribunal panel, judiciary (and police) lapdogs, Ladsky has been persecuting me ever since - including enlisting the help of my then employer, KPMG, leading me to resign, and then being psychologically unable to look for another job - thereby losing 8 years of work.

The ROOT CAUSE for everything?

'The brother' and 'sacrosanct' landlord, Andrew David Ladsky, deciding he was 'entitled' to make a multi-million £ jackpot at my expense (and that of my fellow leaseholders) - and ALL, in his army of henchmen and monster"arslikhan" lapdogs, said: Yes, of course! O' Great One!

Back to list

Back to top

"Arslikhan"

One of Private Eye's unique expressions.

Flunkey

COED: “(Chiefly derogatory) a liveried manservant or footman”; Chambers dictionary: "A servile person"

Lackey

COED: “A servile or obsequious person”

Lapdog

COED: "A person who is completely under the influence of another"

Puppet

COED: "A person, group, or country under the control of another"

Stooge

COED: "An assistant, esp. one undertaking mundane or unpleasant tasks; an unquestionably loyal or obsequious subordinate; a compliant person"

Sycophant

COED: "A person who acts obsequiously towards someone in order to gain advantage" - sycophancy; sycophantic

Examples (in support of above descriptions starting with 'Flunkey')

Some of my more flattering terms for the vermin (I repeat my comments under Persecution (1)(4))

I repeat the examples cited under:

And add the Andrew Ladsky's gang of racketeers, as well as those who ignored my legitimate 'cries for help' and complaints.

Low life

COED - "Disreputable or criminal people or activities"

Scum

COED - "A worthless or contemptible person or group of people"

Slimeball

COED - "A repulsive or despicable person"

Thug

COED - "A violent and aggressive man, especially a criminal"

Examples (in support of above descriptions starting with 'Low life')

- Those who have and continue to help the evil, amoral, extremely vicious, cruel and sadistic Andrew David Ladsky.

Scum gallery; see also examples for next definitions.

Despot

COED: "A ruler who exercises absolute power, especially in a cruel or oppressive way"

Dictator

COED: "An autocratic person"

Henchman

COED - "A faithful follower or political supporter, especially one prepared to engage in crime or dishonest practices"

Hitler

COED: "An authoritarian or tyrannical person"; hitlerian

Insane

OED: "In a state of mind that precludes normal perception and behaviour, and ordinary social interaction; mad"

Insanity - Chambers dictionary: "A degree of mental illness causing one to act against the social or legal demands of society; utterly unwise, senseless"

Junkie

COED: "A person with an obsessive dependency on or enthusiasm for something"

Lunatic

OED: "An insane person; a person of unsound mind; a madman"

Nazi

COED: "Derogatory ; a person with extreme racist or authoritarian views"

Psychopath

OED: "A person suffering from chronic mental disorder with abnormal or violent social behaviour; loosely: a mentally or emotionally unstable or aggressive person"; "informal: an unstable and aggressive person";

Chambers dictionary: "Someone suffering from a behavioural disorder resulting in inability to form personal relationships and indifference to or ignorance of his or her obligations to society, often manifested by antisocial behaviour such as acts of violence, sexual perversion, etc"; psychopathic.

Sociopath

COED: "A person with a personality disorder manifesting itself in extreme antisocial attitudes and behaviour"

Extracts from http://home.datawest.net/esn-recovery/artcls/socio.htm

"Pathological Lying - Has no problem lying coolly and easily"

"They do not consider other people's wishes, welfare or rights. They can be manipulative and may lie to gain personal pleasure or profit"

"Does not see others around them as people, but only as targets and opportunities. Instead of friends, they have victims and accomplices who end up as victims. The end always justifies the means and they let nothing stand in their way"

"Believe they are all-powerful, all-knowing, entitled to every wish, no sense of personal boundaries, no concern for their impact on others"

"Unable to empathize with the pain of their victims, having only contempt for others' feelings of distress and readily taking advantage of them. Their skills are used to exploit, abuse and exert power"

"Seeks out situations where their tyrannical behavior will be tolerated, condoned, or admired"

Sick

COED: "Mentally ill or disordered; perverted"

Supremacist

COED: "An advocate of the supremacy of a particular group, especially one determined by race or sex"

Twisted

COED: "Esp. of a person: emotionally or mentally unbalanced; neurotic; perverted"

Tyrant / tyranny

COED: "A cruel and oppressive ruler / government ; Any person exercising power or authority on a cruel and arbitrary way, or oppressively ; a cruel, violent or wicked person"

Examples (in support of above descriptions starting with 'Despot')

- Andrew Ladsky and his gang of racketeers

- The many corrupt, amoral, power-mad, extremely sick and sadistic individuals in the British state who very actively help them and assist them : Persecution page - including Her Majesty's very seriously unhinged British Transport Police.

- Others who do the same thing e.g. My Diary # 2.4.

•  In her 01.11.02 letter to me, one of my fellow leaseholders described Andrew Ladsky as "a petty tyrant".

Other examples NOT connected with my case - demonstrating the dominant psyche of the English 'Establishment': the treatment of whistleblowers and criminalization of 'the little people'.

Back to top

Retribution, Reprisal, Vengeance, Punishment

COED Definitions:

Retribution: "Punishment inflicted as vengeance for a wrong or criminal act"

Reprisal: "An act of retaliation"

Vengeance: "Punishment inflicted or retribution exacted for an injury or wrong"

Punishment: "Inflict a penalty on as retribution for an offence; treat harshly or severely"

EXCEPT that I have NOT done anything wrong (Persecution # 6).

As demonstrated by my experience since 2002 (Case summary), ALL the actions against me stem from 'my daring', me, 'the little person', to stand-up for my rights against a Rachman landlord and his gang of racketeers, as well as their supporters in the state and private sector...

...- leading them all, in their extremely sick mind, to perceive themselves as being 'my victims'.

•  See Persecution

Rip-off

COED - "An article that is greatly overpriced"

Scam / Swindle

COED - Scam: "Informal - A dishonest scheme; a fraud"

COED - Swindle: "Use deception to deprive of money or possession"

Sham

COED - "Trick, hoax, imposture; delude with false pretences; put on, fob off (a person) with something deceptive or worthless; make false pretences; pretend, feign" - a shammer; shamming.

Steal

COED - "Take (something) without permission or legal right and without intending to return it"

Theft

COED - "The action or crime of stealing"

Examples (in support of above descriptions starting with 'Rip-off')

•  See Extortion ; Kangaroo court ; Martyn Gerrard ; Notices

•  re. insurance for the block: MRJ # 47

•  Overview # 19 , # 20 , Note 8

Back to top

Ruining - My life

COED - "Dramatic decline; a downfall" "damaged irreparably; reduce to a state of ruin"

Case summary ; Introduction to My Diary

Treatment - Medical

COED - "Medical care for an illness or injury"

•  Being physically sick at work upon reading the 07.10 02 letter from Lanny Silverstone (Extortion; CKFT # 1 , # 6.2)

•  Seeing my doctor on 18 Nov 03 to get sleeping pills, as I could not sleep due to the extreme anxiety inflicted on me by 'my advisers' (My Diary 13 Nov 03 ; Nov 03 ; Malicious Communications Act 1988, ss 1 2A: Richard Twyman & Lisa McLean, Piper Smith Watton and Stan Gallagher ; Gallagher- Summary of events ; # 14)

•  Being diagnosed as having low blood pressure in Dec 03 due to stress and exhaustion that had led me, among others, to lose 5kg (nearly one stone) in weight during November-early December 2003 (Gallagher # 14)

•  Ending up in hospital on 19 Jun 05 after fainting (for the first time in my life) on a bus - attributed to stress (Collude ; breach of Article 3 of the European Convention)

Shambles

COED - "Informal - A chaotic state" "Archaic - A butcher's slaughterhouse"

My initial assumption about West London County Court and Wandsworth County Court - but, as the experience continued, (see Kangaroo court), I subsequently changed my mind: it was intentional, and driven by 'the Brotherhood'

Back to top