BC

Bar Council (Member: Mr Stan Gallagher)

BGA

Brian Gale Associates, Mr Andrew Ladsky's surveyor

BM

Mr Barrie Robert Martin, FRICS (Fellow of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors), Martin Russell Jones

'Surfaces' when Ms Joan Hathaway needs 'assistance'.

BVI

British Virgin Islands Financial Services

CKFT

Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor, solicitors acting for 'Steel Services' (Advisors to Jefferson House ; Headlessors ; Freehold ownership ; Owners identity ) - Contacts: Mr Lanny Silverstone and Ms Ayesha Salim

Has identified Mr Andrew David Ladsky as its client

CPR

Civil Procedure Rules

DCA

Department for Constitutional Affairs (Subsequently disappeared following the creation of the Ministry of Justice)

Headed by Lord Falconer of Thoroton, the (then) Lord Chancellor, it (then) covered the courts, the Legal Services Ombudsman, the Land Registry, and other departments.

FSA

Financial Services Authority

ICAEW

Institute of Chartered Accountants in England & Wales; member: Pridie Brewster

JH

Ms Joan Doreen Hathaway, MRICS (Member of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors), Martin Russell Jones, the main contact for Jefferson House

K&C

Kensington & Chelsea council

L&T [date]

Landlord & Tenant Acts

LGO

Local Government Ombudsman

Part of the (then) Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM)

At the time of my dealings with the LGO, it reported to the same minister (Nick Raynsford) who's other responsibilities included, among others, Local Government. (I perceive this situation as amounting to conflict of interest)

LM

Ms Lisa Mclean, Legal Assistant, Piper Smith & Basham/Watton

LSO

Legal Services Ombudsman

Part of the (then) Department for Constitutional Affairs (DCA), (then) headed by Lord Falconer of Thoroton

LVT

Leasehold Valuation Tribunal

Part of the (then) Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM)

MRJ

Martin Russell Jones, 'managing' agents for Jefferson House since 1989

ODPM

Office of the Deputy Prime Minister - then headed by Mr John Prescott

PJ

Portner and Jaskel , solicitors acting for Rootstock Overseas Corp, Sloan Development and, previously Steel Services (Advisors to Jefferson House ; Headlessors ; Freehold ownership ; Owners identity ) Contacts: Mr Jeremy Hershkorn, Mr Ahmet Jaffer, Mr Daniel Broughton

Has identified Mr Andrew David Ladsky as its client

PSB

Piper Smith Basham/Watton - solicitors who were 'supposed' to be acting for me. Contacts: Mr Richard Twyman, Ms Lisa McLean

OSS

Office for the Supervision of Solicitors. (It has since been re-badged as Consumer Complaints Service...and more since: My Diary 12 April 2007 ) (Members: Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor ; Piper Smith Basham/Watton , Portner and Jaskel )

(According to an article in the Law Gazette of 3 August 2006 , the Law Society's complaints service spent £29 million (US$51 million) to handle nearly 19,000 complaints over a period of one year)

Resident H

Person who was running the Residents Association at Jefferson House until May 2001

RICS

Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors; members Ms Joan Doreen Hathaway, MRICS, and Mr Barrie Martin, FRICS, Martin Russell Jones ; Mr Brian Gale, MRICS

And TOTALLY unlike these corrupt, evil, morally depraved individuals: my surveyor, Mr Tim Brock, LSM Partners

S.[number]

A short-cut for 'section' when referring to a section in an Act

TRO

Tenancy Relations Officer - at Kensington & Chelsea Housing department

WCC

Wandsworth County Court

WLCC

West London County Court 2002-2004 ; West London County Court - Post 2004

What is forfeiture?

In its Summer 2004, issue 12, C.A.R.L. ( www.carl.org.uk ) describes forfeiture as...

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

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

A significant proportion of these words are drawn from my complaints : (1) to the Law Society against Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor (on 20 December 2004) and Piper Smith Basham (on 16 March 2004); (2) to the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors against Martin Russell Jones (1.1MB) (on 2 February 2005); (3) to the Bar Council against Mr Stan Gallagher (on 5 April 2004)

The word 'breach' is used on numerous occasions and relates to the section of an Act / code of conduct, or a Clause in my lease. In these instances the name of the Act / code of conduct / the word 'My lease' links to the last part of this section 'Extracts from legislation, codes of conduct and my lease' that comprises of more comprehensive extracts

PLEASE NOTE that:

•  Neither Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor nor Martin Russell Jones have come back to me since my complaint i.e. they have not refuted the content of my complaint. See Piper Smith Basham and Mr Gallagher for their replies.

•  In its 3 May 2006 reply to my letter of 30 April 2006 (1.1MB) Portner and Jaskel did NOT address a single point in my letter. Please note that, in this letter, I stated for example that its client (which I knew to be Mr Andrew Ladsky) had committed a criminal offence against me (under Section 10 (A) of the Landlord & Tenant Act 1987). Indeed, Portner and Jaskel wrote: “…your letter is irrelevant in places, misguided in others and incorrect in parts…”. In 'typical style', when I filed a complaint with the Law Society against Portner and Jaskel, it returned a verdict of "no malpractice" (Portner # 4 )

•  Throughout the site (probably in excess of 40 times) , I have emphasised that I am NOT a lawyer e.g. Home page # 4.18 , # 7 , # 17 ; Home page to 'Lawyers, courts & Legal Services Ombudsman' # 5 ; Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor # 6 , # 8 ; Martin Russell Jones # 13 , # 14 , # 24 ; Pridie Brewster # 21 , etc. In addition, when unclear, I write "it seems to me" e.g.re Laytons (under 'Notices by landlord' ) ; My Diary 18 February 2006, in relation to the so-called "notice of first refusal" sent to me by Portner and Jaskel

Against that, as stated on the home page to the site (# 15 ) : 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 1996 : Qualified privilege; Common law privilege )

Abuse

Examples

•  Used by a leaseholder in the block to describe Mr Ladsky, in her letter to me of 1 November 2002

•  My perception that West London County Court and Wandsworth County Court have assisted 'Steel Services' in abusing Jefferson House's leaseholders by turning a 'blind eye and a deaf ear' to the evidence supplied against the claim WL203537, and associated Particulars of claim (1.1MB), as well as breaches of legislation (WLCC # 1 , # 2 , # 3 , # 4 )

•  My perception that the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal has, likewise done the same thing by, among others: (1) wilfully failing to perform its remit ( # 6 , # 7 ); (2) in spite of its very damning report, LVT/SC/007/120/02, (3) agreeing to Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor's request for a hearing following my 20C application (# 5 , # 9 ) ; (4) failing to inform all the leaseholders of the application by 'Steel Services' ( # 10.2 ) ; (5) failing to copy "some" leaseholders on key elements of the application ( # 8.1.4 ; # 10.3 )

•  My perception that the Land Registry endorses abuse of leaseholders by landlords by registering title in complete disregard of the impact on the lease - and refuses to take action when brought to its attention (My Diary 28 March 2006 )

•  The 'carte blanche' handed to landlords and their aides by the government, partly through / non-implementation of legislation (see e.g. Mr John Prescott # 4 and sub-points; # 5 , # 6 ), and partly by having absolutely nothing in place to help leaseholders who fall victim of abusive landlords and their aides - in spite of the claims to the contrary (see Mr John Prescott # 1 and sub-points ; # 2 and sub-points)

Anguish

Examples

•  Receiving the 29 November 2002 claim, ref WL203537 and Particulars of claim (1.1MB) when I (and others leaseholders) had specifically been told - one month previously - by the tribunal to NOT pay the service charge demand (My Diary 6 December 2002 , End January 2003 )

•  Missing the 28 May 2004 hearing due to West London County Court crass incompetence - at which the opportunity was taken to have the action against me open to further proceedings when the court KNEW that an agreement had been reached - as evidenced by the 23 August 2004 reply from the Court Service

•  Wondering what other 'punishment' I am going to be made to suffer for daring to challenge the service charge demand and continuing to fight against the ensuing, ongoing vicious vendetta against me (My Diary 2 August 2006 , Home page # 4.15)

See also Despair , Distress , Torment ,

Arrogant

Examples

• Portner and Jaskel’s 10 February 2006 so-called “S.5 L&T 1987 Notice of first refusal” is fraudulent as it FALSELY claimed that 'Steel Services' was still the Lessor for the whole of Jefferson House at the time - when, in fact, six week previously, 'Steel Services' had disposed of its headlease interest to Lavagna Enterprises, thereby losing control of the last floor of Jefferson House - and becoming a lessee of Lavagna Enterprises (Headlessors ; Owners identity). (The 10 February 2006 "notice" is a carbon copy of previous notices when 'Steel Services' was the headlessor for the whole block (e.g. 13 December 2000 "notice" ; # 2 - 13 December 2000"Notice by landlord"). Nonetheless, Mr Daniel Broughton, Portner and Jaskel, repeated the lie twice during the notice period – as summarised in my 30 April 2006 letter to Mr Broughton - see Portner # 1 ; # 3 - 10 February 2006 bogus "Notice by landlord" ; Property Misdescriptions Act 1991 

My guess that Mr Andrew Ladsky was the instigator of this malicious, vicious act also proved to be right as Portner and Jaskel helpfully confirmed this in its (libellous, scurrilous) 3 October 2006 letter to my then ISP - PLUS the 'standard' Law Society's reply of 30 March 2007 to my 28 February 2007 complaint that Portner "Acted on the instructions of their client" - Portner # 5.1

What fuels this arrogance? Portner's knowledge that it has carte blanche from its 'professional' association, the Law Society, to do exactly as it pleases (Portner # 4 and # 5)

•  The court service charter allowing courts 10 days to reply to correspondence while "courts are only required to give five working days notice of a hearing date"

•  Every other government department I have approached for assistance during my horrendous nightmare experience since 2002 e.g. Kensington & Chelsea Council, the Local government Ombudsman, the Court Service

•  All the so-called 'regulatory bodies' I have approached with a complaint against one of their members: legal sector, the RICS, the ICAEW...

...as well as their members e.g. Piper Smith Basham's response following what I view - considering events by then - as my very generous letter of 2 December 2003 letter to its Managing Partner and Complaint Officer ( PSB # 3 and its subsequent replies )

Assault

Examples

•  Being pushed in the corridor by Mr Ladsky on 26 February 2002

Bias

Examples

• My view of Mr Gallagher's assessment of my position - as I captured under point 135 of my 29 August 2004 reply (see also 'Breach' Bar Council Code of Conduct)

• Government departments having ears only for a member of their own 'tribe' - at the expense of the leaseholders / consumers, in the process implying that we are all liars, and / or imbeciles when putting forward evidence of breach statutory rights / malpractice e.g.

• The LVT taking only notice of the correspondence from Ms Hathaway e.g. her 8 October 2002 fax, 'her' 20 January 2003 letter - while ignoring all of my correspondence and that of numerous other leaseholders ( # 8.1 , # 8.1.2 , # 8.1.3 ) , as well as what we had all reported at the 29 October 2002 pre-trial hearing ( # 1 , # 10.3 )

• My view of events in West London County Court and Wandsworth County Court that they, in effect, let Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor 'run the show' (My 29 June 2004 letter to Lord Falconer )

• The judge in West London County Court I view as 'falling over backwards' to be of assistance to Ms Ayesha Salim -while admitting that he had not read the skeleton argument. And, very clearly, nor had he read any of the file (Lord Falconer # 3 )

• Reported by other leaseholders, as well as by the press (Lord Falconer # 4 )

• My view of the Legal Services Ombudsman's handling of my complaints against the Law Society (# 2 , # 3 ), and the Bar Council ( # 4 ), as well as # 5 and # 6

• My view of the Local Government Ombudsman's handling of my complaint against Kensington & Chelsea housing, and of the central housing department as being heavily biased towards landlords

• The view I now also hold of the police following my first-hand experience (see also My Diary 22 July 2005)

Blackmail

Examples

My - non-lawyer - assessment of the conduct of all of the following who did this with the objective of making me pay monies not due and payable:

•  West London County Court that, in 2007, falsely claimed that I had filed a counterclaim; demanded I pay £1,700 and gave me three working days to do this - and subsequently, with the assistance of Her Majesty Court Service, attempted to cover it through deceit - point # 18 my complaint to the Court Service , point # 19 repeating the main points in my complaint, point # 23 and point # 22 highlighting the deceit and cover-up by WLCC and the Court Service

•  West London County Court's actions in 2002 - 2004 that pursued the claim against me (and 10 other leaseholders - representing in total 14 flats) in the full knowledge that: (1) an abuse of process of court was taking place ; (2) the Particulars of claim were false; (3) proceeded to issue judgement/s against some of my fellow leaseholders - before the LVT issued its determination ; (4) to the very end, ignored my repeated claim that 'Steel Services' had not implemented the 17 June 2003 LVT determination

Among others, Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor drew-up the - FALSE - claim against me and 10 other leaseholders - representing 14 flats - when, one month previously, during the 29 October 2002 pre-trial tribunal we, the leaseholders, had been told to NOT pay until the tribunal had issued its determination and it had been implemented. In support of this, we were given a leaflet which, on page 5 states that ""...a recent Court of Appeal case ruling (Daejan Properties Limited v London Leasehold Valuation Tribunal) determined that LVTs only have the jurisdiction to decide the reasonableness of disputed service charges that are still unpaid"

Among others, CKFT's client, Mr Andrew Ladsky, and Ms Hathaway were in attendance at this pre-trial hearing. One month later, Ms Hathaway filed the claim in West London County - under a Statement of Truth (1.1MB) (As she is the managing agent, it amounts to a very serious breach of Civil Procedure Rules by West London County Court - point # 23 )

• Mr Jeremy Hershkorn, Portner and Jaskel who, in February 2007 - acting for Mr Andrew Ladsky, threatened me with bankruptcy proceeding and taking the flat away from me, as well as Mr Ahmet Jaffer who took over from Mr Hershkorn - point # 3 and point # 15 , point # 16 , point # 17 , point # 23

• Mr Lanny Silverstone and Ms Ayesha Salim, Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor e.g. point # 1 threatening to forfeit my lease and, on top of this, on behalf of a company that did not exist, point # 3 filing a fraudulent claim against me (and 10 other leaseholders) - and committing an abuse of process of court in the process , point # 5 a series of threatening letters, point # 6.2

•  Ms Lisa McLean and Mr Richard Twyman, Piper Smith Basham (now Piper Smith Watton) e.g.point # 7 evidently deciding with CKFT that they would force me to strike a deal, point # 7.2 falsely claiming I had seen the reply they sent to CKFT, point # 7.3 contrary to what had been agreed, agreeing to the payment of interest , point # 7.6 placing emphasis on threats instead of giving me a balanced opinion, point # 7.7 changing position to assist the scam, point # 7.9.2 my view that there was a shared understanding between Piper Smith Basham, Mr Stan Gallagher, CKFT and Martin Russell Jones that another - equally fraudulent service charge demand would be sent, point 7.11 engineering the situation to limit my ability to input into the reply, point 7.12 leading me to relinquish on my objective of getting my costs back from 'Steel Services'

The Law Society for England and Wales rejected my complaint against the above three firms : Portner and Jaskel, Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor, Piper Smith Basham (now Piper Smith Watton)

And the Legal Services Ombudsman rejected my complaint against the Law Society for its handling of my complaint against Piper Smith Basham and Cawdery Kay Fireman & Taylor

•  Mr Gallagher who, at the time of the 'offer', repeatedly brandished the threat of "costs" in my face as a means of bullying me into accepting the 'offer' (I will not add 'allegedly' as it is glaringly obvious that this was the intention) (Mr Gallagher # 3.a.4 ) , and continued to do so in his initial reply of 9 June 2004 (I counted 10 instances in his 29 page reply) leading me to ask (point 67, 29 August 2004 ) "Mr Gallagher wants me to believe that, with this body of evidence, the odds were against me? Was Mr Gallagher acting for me or the other side?" (Of course, he challenged my statement in his 11 October 2004 reply) (Mr Gallagher # 5.1 ) (See also 'Breach' Bar Council Code of Conduct)

Of course, the Bar Council rejected my complaint against Mr Gallagher, and the Legal Services Ombudsman rejected my complaint against the Bar Council

•  For instances of blackmail by Ms Joan Hathaway and Mr Barrie Martin, Martin Russell Jones: they are endless

See also below:

• 'Breach': Criminal Justice Act & Public Order Act 1994 - Section 4A

• 'Breach': Malicious Communications Act 1988

• 'Breach': Protection from Harassment Act 1997

• Bullying , Coerce , Intimidate ; Torment ; Treatment - Medical

Breach

Breach

Examples

In my 'NON-LAWYER opinion'

Having previously quoted breach of this Act in some of my documents, as well as listed examples in this section, going through the Act again has 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 3 June 2008 Witness Statement. Hence, the alleged debts were NOT due

THE COURTS CLAIMS = FRAUD TOOLS

Breach

Examples

In my 'NON-LAWYER opinion'

THE COURTS CLAIMS = FRAUD TOOLS

•  Mr Stan Gallagher endorsed Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor's position, and consequently that of Mr Andrew Ladsky, that the sum demanded for the "major works" was an "interim demand" - in spite of being provided with 'black on white' evidence to the contrary (Mr Gallagher # 1.3 , # 1.4 ) Under point 67 of my 25 March 2005 reply to the Bar Council, I pointed that Mr Gallagher (and Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor were "alone in their interpretation of my lease" as I had obtained an opinion from "several other lawyers" (Mr Gallagher # 2.2 )

•  Under point 68 of my 25 March 2005 reply to the Bar Council's decision of 27 January 2005, I highlighted my disbelief at Mr Gallagher's endorsement of breach of covenants in my lease, and of my statutory rights under the Landlord & Tenant Act 1985 Section 21, as well as Section 25 - as he was of the view that "Similarly, adding conditions for the disclosure of the accounts. can only complicate matters further and jeopardise the prospects of compromising the claim on realistic terms" (his email of 12 November 2003) (Mr Gallagher # 2 , # 2.1 ) (Like me, Kensington & Chelsea Housing viewed non-performance as a breach of my statutory rights, including amounting to committing a criminal offence: K&C # 2 )

•  Mr Gallagher ignored the fact that the service charge demand of 15 July 2002 (invoice 17 July 2002 ) breached several covenants in my lease e.g. Clause 2(2)(f) ; Clause 2(2)(g)(i) ; Clause (2)(2)(j) . This is evidenced by the fact that in the Notice of Acceptance, the sum total of his comments about my lease were: "The absence of due compliance with the service charge certification provisions prescribed by the lease" (Mr Gallagher # 1.6 , # 2 ; # 3.e.2 , # 7.1 )

To my subsequently challenging him on this point, he replied ( point 55, 9 June 2004 ) "the more vaguely this argument is presented, the better". To which my reply (point 123, 29 August 2004 ) was "For whom?" (Mr Gallagher # 1.6 , # 2.1 ; # 2.2 )

•  Mr Gallagher continued to endorse 'Steel Services' breaches of not only my lease and my statutory rights, but also of what I consider as outright abuse of my most basic rights by stating (point 3(3) of his 11 October 2004 reply): "landlord's apparent breaches of the service charge accounting are not matters that negate a contractual obligation to pay service charges" (Mr Gallagher # 2.1 )

•  In addition to ignoring my lease, Mr Gallagher also turned a 'blind eye and a deaf ear' to the 17 June 2003, LVT/SC/007/120/02 determination by the tribunal (ref #992 on the LVT database), as the sum total of his comment in the Notice of Acceptance was: "...your client=s claim, as adjusted to take account of the LVT=s determination remains proceedings." Therefore, among others, Mr Gallagher made no reference to the fact that the lack/insufficient specification had not been addressed. (Mr Gallagher # 5.1 , # 7 )

•  Further evidence that Mr Gallagher turned a 'blind eye and a deaf' to the LVT determination :

• (1) in his initial reply (point 21, 9 June 2004 ) to my complaint, Mr Gallagher described the LVT determination as a '"mix bag"
• (2) my reply (point 72, 29 August 2004 : "Given that the LVT determination is the crucial element in the resolution of the dispute, isn't it rather telling that, out of his 29 page reply, it is the only comment that Mr Gallagher has made about the LVT determination? " (Mr Gallagher # 3 (a) ; # 3.a.1 )
• (3) This led Mr Gallagher to change 'his tune' as, in his subsequent reply of 11 October 2004 , he wrote point 4(1)) : "At the time I did not consider that the course of the proceedings before the LVT was likely to carry much, if any, weight on the question of costs in the county court proceedings"
• Please note the "At the time". In other words, in Mr Gallagher's eyes a reduction of £500,000 (US$882,000) of the sum demanded (inc. the contingency fund) "is not likely to carry much, if any weight on the court proceedings" (Mr Gallagher # 3.a.2 , # 3.a.3 )
• He eventually admitted (point 4(1)of his 11 October 2004 reply:
• "I accept that the outcome was a significant reduction in the amount due from the tenants" (point 8)
• "I accept that it is possible that, given the level of the sums disallowed by the LVT and the criticisms that could be made about the landlord's conduct, a Court may have been persuaded to make no order for costs" (point 6) (Mr Gallagher # 3.a.3 )
• (4) Yet , at the time of the 'offer', Mr Gallagher had repeatedly been brandishing the threat of "costs" in my face as a means of bullying me into accepting the 'offer' (I will not add 'allegedly' as it is glaringly obvious) (Mr Gallagher # 3.a.4 , # 4.1 ) , and had continued to do so in his initial reply of 9 June 2004 (I counted 10 instances in his 29 page reply) leading me to ask (point 67, 29 August 2004 ) "Mr Gallagher wants me to believe that, with this body of evidence, the odds were against me? Was Mr Gallagher acting for me or the other side?" (Of course, he challenged my statement in his 11 October 2004 reply) (Mr Gallagher # 5.1 ) (I continued making this claim - because that is what I believe the evidence demonstrates - Mr Gallagher # 15 , # 19)

•  Mr Gallagher also changed 'his tune' in relation to his assessment of the so-called "Notice" issued by Martin Russell Jones i.e. Mr Ladsky et. al. as, under point 3(2) of his 11 October 2004 reply that, at the time of the offer he had "concluded that the landlord had substantially complied with the statutory consultation procedure" while, previously, under point 58 of his 9 June 2004 reply, he wrote:

"The acceptance letter did not include a reference to the inadequate specifications of the major works there was no need to get into a criticism of the inadequate way in which the works had been specified or tendered"

In addition to viewing Mr Gallagher's 11 October 2004 reply as an attempt to 'recover' from his 9 June 2004 'mistake' (triggered by my subsequent reply of 29 August), I also view him as having a rather unique interpretation of S.20 requirements - and this Lands Tribunal case (website printscreen) - which is very similar to mine - adds support to my view

Please note that in her 3 October 2003 letter to me (i.e. before the 28 October meeting), Ms McLean wrote "We had also discussed CKFT to prepare proper specification so that the items that were insufficient could be properly detailed...I accept that you had asked repeatedly for the specification. Where does this point take us now?" (PSB # 7.7 )

•  Mr Gallagher held against me the fact that I had "refused opportunities" to strike a deal with Mr Ladsky et. al. Hence, Mr Gallagher held against me

• (1) the fact that I had obeyed (for as long as I could) the direction given to me at the 29 October 2002 pre-trial hearing to NOT pay the service charge demand until the tribunal had issued its determination - and it had been implemented - in line with statutory requirements and the terms of my lease (Mr Gallagher # 3.e.1 , # 3.f.1 ) (Mr Gallagher took pains to emphasise that he was writing a book on LVTs i.e. to communicate that he is an 'expert' on the subject # 3.f.2 , # 12 )
• (2) the fact I have strong moral principles that prevented me from being treated differently from the other lessees i.e. striking a deal on terms other than those specified in my lease (Mr Gallagher # 3.e.2 )

•  In his reply to the 'offer', Mr Gallagher ignored the fact that the lease supplied with the 22 November 2002, WL 203537 claim (1.1MB) against me - 'apparently' for flat 23 - is materially very different from my lease in relation to Clause (2)(2)(c)(i) as it states "the amount of service charge payable is to be determined by and at the sole discretion of the lessor". My lease most definitely does not contain this outrageous contract term under the same numbered Clause. Hence, it amounts to making materially untrue claims to the court as to my contractual obligations. (Mr Gallagher # 1.1 , # 9 , # 7.1 )

As a result of my pointing this out in my 17 December 2002 defence to the claim - SIX WEEKS LATER (and therefore nearly two months after filing the claim) - in his 23 January 2003 letter, Mr Lanny Silverstone asked me to supply a copy of my lease. (I did) (see CKFT # 6.7 ; MRJ # 22 ; WLCC # 3 )

•  As I captured under point 52 of 25 March 2005 letter to the Bar Council, in relation to Mr Gallagher boasting that the reply had been accepted: "He just said 'amen' to everything [in the offer]. Of course his reply was received was open arms" (Mr Gallagher # 11 ) and it certainly was! (My Diary Latter part of November 2003)

The reply did not reflect what had been agreed at the 28 October 2003 meeting (Mr Gallagher # 7 , # 8). In addition, my 'advisers' did not evidently consider breaches of covenants in my lease, of my rights under several Acts, etc. qualifying as sufficient reasons to challenge the 'offer' (Mr Gallagher # 9 , # 15 )

At the end of the day: Mr Gallagher (# 13 ), the Bar Council (Mr Gallagher # 16 ) and the Legal Services Ombudsman ( # 4 ) (Mr Gallagher # 17 ) disagreed with me that I had a valid complaint against Mr Gallagher - and, at the 'very end of the day', came up with the 'piece de resistance' that "Mr Gallagher's involvement concerned a time frame of only about three weeks" (Mr Gallagher # 18 )

In my 25 March 2005 letter to the Bar Council, I drew its attention to this rule in its Code of Conduct, as well as the rules below

Breach

Examples

(See above )

Breach

Examples

(See above )

Breach

Examples

(See above )  

Breach

Examples

In my 'NON-LAWYER opinion'

•  I highlighted this rule to the Bar Council under point 26 of my 25 March 2005 reply (Mr Gallagher # 5. 1 )

Breach

Examples

In my 'NON-LAWYER opinion'

•  I highlighted this rule to the Bar Council under point 81 of my 25 March 2005 reply (Mr Gallagher # 16 )

Breach

Examples

In my 'NON-LAWYER opinion'

See: West London County Court (2002-2004) ; West London County Court - Post 2004

Portner / Portner and Jaskel LLP

Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor (CKFT)

Piper Smith Basham/Watton

Mr Stan Gallagher

Breach

Examples

In my 'NON-LAWYER opinion'

THE COURTS CLAIMS = FRAUD TOOLS

For a comprehensive overview of surrounding events - see my 3 June 2008 (74 pg) Witness Statement; (4pg Main Points)

•  The 16 February 2007 letter from Mr Jeremy Hershkorn, then at Portner and Jaskel, who - acting for Mr Andrew Ladsky - threatened me with "bankruptcy proceedings", forfeiture (taking the flat away from me), and "costs" in the name of "Rootstock Overseas Corp", a company I had never heard of (Portner # 15 ), if I failed to immediately pay £8,937 (US$15,800) (Portner # 3 )

•  One of Mr Andrew Ladsky's responses to my 25 February 2007 reply asking for clarification was to ask Mr Hershkorn to file a claim against me in West London County Court, on 27 February 2007 (Portner # 6 )

•  Knowing full well that the claim against me was fraudulent, Portner and Mr Ladsky kept the claim going for 16 months, when Mr Ladsky finally 'threw in the towel' on 6 June 2008 by dropping "ALL of the claim" against me (Portner # 31 ) They therefore ignored my reasons for challenging the claim - with evidence in support - in several documents, starting within 2 months of having the claim filed against me: (1) my 4 April 2007 application contesting the court's jurisdiction (WLCC # 3 ) (sent to Portner on 30 June 2007 - (2) my 3 May 2007 Skeleton Argument (WLCC # 5 ) - which obviously did not fit in with Mr Ladsky's plan, as Portner and Mr Ladsky's barrister, Mr Greg Williams, lied that they had not received mine - Portner # 17

The preceding events to the claim being dropped on 6 June 2008 were:

(1) my 3 June 2008 (74 pg) Witness Statement; (4 pg - Main Points) (Portner # 29)

(2) my letter of 5 June 2008, in response to the 23 May 2008 letter from Mr Ahmet Jaffer in which he suggested having the case transferred 'one level' up, from 'fast track' to 'multi-track'. In my letter, I highlight the main events of the previous 16 months proving that Mr Ladsky and Portner KNEW that the claim was fraudulent - detailed in Portner # 30 )

And further proof that the claim was fraudulent is the outrageous, preposterous excuse given by Portner for dropping the claim in its 11 August 2008 reply to my 22 July 2008 notice "it was found that the demand for ground rent and service charges served by the managing agent had given the incorrect identity and address for the landlord". My response knocking out this preposterous excuse is on page 5, under point 2.2 of my 26 August 2008 reply (key points: Portner # 33)

•  The 7 October 2002 letter from Mr Lanny Silverstone, Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor - acting for Mr Andrew Ladsky - in which he threatened to forfeit my lease and contact my mortgage lender unless I immediately paid the sum of £14,400 (US$25,400) (CKFT # 1 , # 6.2 ). Compared to the letter he sent ten 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 so distress that I ended-up being physically sick (My Diary 10 October 2002 ) )

•  In my 17 October 2002 reply, I wrote: "2.1 As stated in my (recorded delivery) letters of 11 August 2002 and 16 September 2002 letters to Martin Russell Jones, I require additional information before I can agree to the demand. I have not received a reply...".

•  Mr Lanny Silverstone's response of 21 October 2002 was "We are sure that Martin Russell Jones will provide you with copies of such information as you are entitled to receive pursuant to section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act"

•  The 20 September 2002 reply to my request for information from Ms Hathaway, MRICS, Martin Russell Jones 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” ( MRJ # 25 , # 26 )

•  The 29 November 2002 FRAUDULENT claim ( WL 023 537) filed in West London County Court by Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor - FALSELY - stating in the Particulars of Claim (1.1MB) that "[I] have failed to pay the service charges... that they are now due and owing from [me] to the Claimant." and include a 'Statement of Truth' signed by Ms Joan Hathaway, MRICS, Martin Russell Jones which states: "The Claimant believes that the facts stated in this Claim Form are true" (CKFT # 2 , # 3 ) (NB: Endorsement of the witness statement by Ms Hathaway, a 'managing agent' - amounts to a very serious breach of CPR - My Diary 9 March 2007)

The Particulars of claim are FALSE given that:

• the tribunal had, one month previously, specifically told me (and other leaseholders to NOT pay the service charge) (*);
• seven months LATER, the outcome of the 17 June 2003 LVT/SC/007/120/02 determination (ref #992 on the LVT database) was a reduction of nearly 70% (incl. the contingency fund) in the original sum demanded, from £736,206 (US$1.3 million) down to £235,947 (US$416,000) (see also LVT # 4 ; Pridie Brewster # 2 , # 3 , # 5 , # 8 , # 10 , # 12 , # 13 , # 17 , # 18 , # 19 , # 20 )
• the service demand breached statutory requirements: L&T 1985 - section 20(3)(a); 20(3)(b); 20(4)(e) - as amply demonstrated by the tribunal's 17 June 2003 determination (Stan Gallagher # 1.7 )
• the demand was in breach of the terms of my lease - Clause 2(2)(c)(ii); 2(2)(e); 2(2)(g)(i); 2(2)(j) (Stan Gallagher # 1.6 )

(*) One month previously, during the 29 October 2002 pre-trial tribunal hearing we, the leaseholders, had specifically been told to NOT pay until the tribunal had issued its determination and it had been implemented. In support of this, we were given a leaflet which, on page 5 states that ""...a recent Court of Appeal case ruling (Daejan Properties Limited v London Leasehold Valuation Tribunal) determined that LVTs only have the jurisdiction to decide the reasonableness of disputed service charges that are still unpaid" (LVT # 1 )

Among others, CKFT's client, Mr Andrew Ladsky, and Ms Joan Hathaway, MRICS, Martin Russell Jones, were in attendance at this pre-trial hearing.

In my 17 October 2002 letter I asked "Are you aware that Steel Services has applied to the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal for determination of the reasonableness of the charge for the major works?" In his 21 October 2002 letter, Mr Lanny Silverstone wrote: "We are aware that Steel Services has applied to the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal" (CKFT # 2 )

•  Furthermore, to further assist its client's fraudulent objectives, with the claim, CKFT also provided a copy of the lease 'apparently' for flat 23 claiming that it is representative of my lease. This is NOT true, as it is materially different from my lease in relation to Clause (2)(2)(c)(i). Hence, it amounts to making materially untrue claims to the court as to my contractual obligations. As a result of my pointing this out in my 17 December 2002 defence to the claim - SIX WEEKS LATER (and therefore nearly two months after filing the claim) - in his 23 January 2003 letter, Mr Lanny Silverstone asked me to supply a copy of my lease. (I did) (CKFT # 6.7 ; WLCC # 3 ; MRJ # 22 )

(See also West London County Court # 1 , # 2 , # 4 , # 6 )

•  So, in addition to making inappropriate use of forfeiture legislation (CKFT # 6.2 ), ignoring breaches of covenants in my lease, and of my statutory rights (CKFT # 6.4 ; # 6.5 ) CKFT also committed an abuse of process of court (CKFT # 2 ; # 6.1 )

•  Mr Lanny Silverstone and Ms Ayesha Salim further lied during the proceedings (WLCC # 8 ; # 10 ) - including under a statement of truth (CKFT # 6.6 )

•  With the assistance of Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor, Martin Russell Jones continued issuing - FALSE - documents to West London County Court - and to other leaseholders - namely for the 24 June 2003 (WLCC # 7 ; # 8 ) and 26 August 2003 (WLCC # 9 ; # 10 ) hearing, FALSELY claiming that I then owed £10,917 (US$19,250).

•  Mr Lanny Silverstone and Ms Ayesha Salim, Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor, sent me a dozen highly threatening, fraudulent, libellous letters, always "with costs" (Of course! ) - principally intended to force me to strike a deal with their client, Mr Andrew Ladsky i.e. make me pay monies that were not due and payable (CKFT # 5 ; WLCC # 10)

•  Letters from e.g. Leaseholder C and Leaseholder M, and other events demonstrate that the intimidation tactics used by Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor / Martin Russell Jones / Portner and Jaskel LLP worked in relation to some of the other leaseholders (MRJ # 25 , # 26 ; LVT # 8.1.2 ; Other Residents ; Elderly Resident)

•  Evidently - my 'advisers' - Mr Richard Twyman and Ms Lisa McLean, Piper Smith Basham/Watton, and Mr Stan Gallagher, did not view these serious breaches against me under the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990, Ch.41, S.17, etc - as material - Mr Gallagher # 1.1 , # 5.1 , # 9 ; PSB # 7.12.1 ...

...because they are from the same breed as Mr Lanny Silverstone and Ms Ayesha Salim, and Mr Jeremy Hershkorn, Mr Ahmet Jaffer and Mr Daniel Broughton - Portner and Jaskel...

... - as further exemplified by the following: in spite of having absolute knowledge that the 17 July 2002 service charge demand was fraudulent (PSB # 7.7 ) Ms Lisa McLean, Piper Smith Basham/Watton , wrote in her letter to me of 25 September 2003 in relation to the 7 October 2002 threat of forfeiture of my lease by Mr Lanny Silverstone that "...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 )

Of course, what I have come to nickname "the fertiliser for malpractice" - the Law Society - (My Diary 12 April 2007) has dismissed all my complaints against its above members i.e. Portner and Jaskel, Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor and Piper Smith Basham/Watton. And of course, the same outcome of "no malpractice" from the Bar Council. And to round it off: the seal of approval from the Legal Services Ombudsman (Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor ; Stan Gallagher. And of course, likewise, the Court Service dismissed my complaint against West London County Court and Wandsworth County Court: Lord Falconer of Thoroton. Nice clubby set-up!

(See also related:

• Malicious Communications Act 1988
• Protection from Harassment Act 1997
• Theft Act 1968 / Theft (Amendment) Act 1996
• Defamation Act 1996
• Fraud Act 2006
• Bullying , Coerce , Intimidate ; Torment ; Treatment - Medical )

•  What I view as Mr Ladsky and Portner and Jaskel's highly vicious 'attack' on the Elderly Resident; also in My Diary, 18 February 2006

Breach

Examples

In my 'NON-LAWYER opinion'

THE COURTS CLAIMS = FRAUD TOOLS

For a comprehensive overview of surrounding events - see my 3 June 2008 (74 pg) Witness Statement; (4pg Main Points)

•  In the public environment of the tribunal hearing on 5 February 2003 - as members of the public came in and out of the hearing - portraying me as a liar and as an individual who defaults on her obligations, Mr Andrew Ladsky blamed the tribunal proceedings on me, asking 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?" (My Diary - 5 February 2003 )

•  During the tribunal hearings - as members of the public came in and out of the hearings - Mr Warwick, Steel Services counsel - FALSELY - portrayed me to the tribunal as a dishonest person, who breaches contractual obligations, by stating that "the reason [I have] been challenging the service charge demand is because I did not want to pay it" (LVT # 3 ; My Diary 13 March 2003)

•  During the tribunal hearings - as members of the public came in and out of the hearings - Mr Andrew Ladsky and Mr Brian Gale, MRICS - FALSELY - portrayed me as a liar, a dishonest person who defaults on her obligations (Brian Gale # 4 ).

•  At the 24 June 2003 West London County Court hearing (My Diary - 24 June 2003), in front of other leaseholders and their party - hence: members of the public - Mr Lanny Silverstone, CKFT, FALSELY portraying me as a liar and as an individual who defaults on her obligations, demanded that I pay for his client's costs for the day.

Prior to the hearing, in the waiting area of the court, in front of several people - Mr Lanny Silverstone handed me some documents stating that I owe his client money - which was not true (as, among others, the LVT determination had not been implemented) (My Diary 24 June 2003)

(See also related:

• Malicious Communications Act 1988
• Protection from Harassment Act 1997
• Theft Act 1968 / Theft (Amendment) Act 1996
• Defamation Act 1996
• Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 - Chapter 41- Section 17
• Fraud Act 2006
• Bullying , Coerce , Intimidate ; Torment ; Treatment - Medical )

Breach

Examples

In my 'NON-LAWYER opinion' au

THE COURTS CLAIMS = FRAUD TOOLS

For a comprehensive overview of surrounding events - see my 3 June 2008 (74 pg) Witness Statement; (4pg Main Points)

Defamation of my name and of my character from highly libellous, scurrilous claims and accusations made against me by Mr Andrew Ladsky, Mr Jeremy Hershkorn, Portner and Jaskel and Kensington and Chelsea police to my website hosts

•  Acting for Mr Andrew Ladsky, over a period of several weeks, Mr Jeremy Hershkorn, Portner and Jaskel, sent a massive amount of emails to my current website Host, threatening my Host with legal "proceedings and costs and damages" unless my Host closed down my website, by making highly libellous, scurrilous - unsupported - claims against me, stating "all of the allegations on [my] website are clearly untrue and therefore defamatory" (Portner # 2 ; My Diary 5 February 2007 )

•  Desperate to stop me from exposing the detail of my case, the corrupt Mr Jeremy Hershkorn had - also on behalf of Mr Ladsky - faxed a 3 October 2006 letter to my first website host, threatening my host with "proceedings for defamation and for substantial damages and costs" if it did not close down my website, making highly libellous, scurrilous - unsupported - claims against me that "[my website] contains suggestions that our client [Mr Ladsky] is guilty of criminal activities and fraud all of which are totally unsubstantiated, outrageous and false... Our client's reputation has been severely damaged..." (I can't stop laughing at that). Mr Hershkorn concluded the letter by stating "We will of course, take all appropriate steps to enforce any judgement obtained in the UK against you" (Portner # 2 ; My Diary 3 October 2006 )

As I pointed out in my 5 October 2006 reply to Mr Hershkorn's letter of 3 October 2006, his outpour of claims of defamation fails to meet the requirements of the Defamation Act 1996 as he has not identified a single item on my site he considered as defamatory

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

Considering that, since the 27 February 2007 claim was filed against me (Portner # 6 ) ALL my documents to WLCC and Portner and Jaskel are based ENTIRELY on the contents of my website: If the claims on my website are "false", "outrageous", "unsubstantiated" and "defamatory" of 'the good character' of Mr Ladsky (I can't stop laughing at that): why, on 6 June 2008, has 'Rootstock' i.e. Mr Ladsky dropped "ALL" of his (second) fraudulent claim against me? (My Diary - 7 June 2008 ; 3 June 2008 (My (74 pg - 3 June 2008 Witness Statement) (4 pg - Main Points) ; Portner # 31 )

It follows that Portner and Jaskel has defamed my name and my character in the eyes of reasonable persons - as evidenced by the fact that my ISP closed down my website (which triggered a series of events)

•  When Mr Hershkorn backed off as a result of my complaint to the Law Society against Portner and Jaskel (Portner # 4 ), Mr Ladsky took over the harassment of my current website Host by making highly threatening phone calls himself on several occasions.

•  Unable to force my website Host to close down my website, in his rage at being exposed for what he is, Mr Ladsky asked 'his friends' at Kensington & Chelsea police to provide 'some assistance' by falsely claiming to my website Host that my website contains "anti-Semitic comments". On the basis on this libellous, scurrilous accusation, Mr Ladsky's 'friend' implied - without providing any evidence in support - in his highly libellous, scurrilous, racist and xenophobic emails of 16 March 2007 and 20 March 2007 to my website Host that I had 'committed a crime' and, for 'good measure', branded me as "a Nazi" (My Diary - 20 March 2007)

Mr Andrew Ladsky has also made highly libellous, scurrilous claims and accusations against me to my then employer in the course of numerous communications, including in his 26 March 2007 letter - stating, among others, that I was "clinically unwell" and "suffering from paranoia" (My Diary 7 Jun 08)

[ consequences - ADD]

Defamation of my name and of my character by Mr Andrew Ladsky ; Mr Brian Gale ; Ms Joan Hathaway, MRICS, and Mr Barrie Martin, Martin Russell Jones, Mr Warwick, 'Steel Services' counsel - by making highly libellous, scurrilous claims and accusations against me - in the context of the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal proceedings, as well as in related documents that are in the public domain

•  During the tribunal hearings - as members of the public came in and out of the hearings - Mr Warwick, Steel Services counsel - FALSELY - portrayed me to the tribunal as a dishonest person, who breaches contractual obligations, by stating that "the reason [I have] been challenging the service charge demand is because I did not want to pay it" (LVT # 3 )

•  During the tribunal hearings - as members of the public came in and out of the hearings - Mr Andrew Ladsky and Mr Brian Gale, MRICS - FALSELY - portrayed me as a liar, a dishonest person who defaults on her obligations (Brian Gale # 4 ).

Some of their highly libellous, scurrilous comments are contained in the LVT report - accessible by the public on the LVT database. This includes Mr Ladsky stating in his letter to the tribunal (point 50) that I was "the only tenant challenging the service charge demand" v. e.g. Mr Silverstone's 23 May 2003 application (i.e. after the tribunal hearings) to West London County Court identifying that the court action was still proceeding against at least four other leaseholders. Hence, as a result of Mr Ladsky and Mr Gale highly libellous, scurrilous claims against me being contained in the LVT report, their defamation of my name and of my character has been ongoing since 2003 (Brian Gale # 3 )

•  Mr Andrew Ladsky and Mr Brian Gale, MRICS, have also defamed my name and my character by - FALSELY - portraying me in other documents related to the LVT proceedings, as a liar, and a dishonest person who defaults on her obligation. This includes Mr Brian Gale's 24 February 2003 'Expert Witness' report to the tribunal (Brian Gale # 4 ). It led me to write this reply, handed to the tribunal by my counsel on the last day of the tribunal hearings. However, if this reply is not attached to his report - which is accessible by the public - his highly libellous, scurrilous claims against me can lead me to suffer highly detrimental consequences.

•  Ms Joan Hathaway, MRICS, Martin Russell Jones, has defamed my name and my character by - FALSELY - portraying me in documents to the tribunal - and therefore in the public domain - as a liar, and a dishonest individual who defaults on her obligations (LVT # 3 ). Among others, it includes 'her' 20 January 2003 letter to the tribunal - FALSELY - claiming that I had been supplied with the priced specification. While her lie was exposed during the 5 February 2003 hearing (captured under point 14 of the 17 June 2003 LVT/SC/007/120/02 report), leading to a postponement of the substantive hearing "in the interest of justice" (point 16) ( LVT # 2 , # 3 , # 8.1 , # 8.1.2 , # 8.1.3 ) - seen in isolation, her letter can lead me to suffer highly detrimental consequences.

•  While Ms Joan Hathaway, MRICS, Martin Russell Jones was, like Mr Ladsky and Mr Gale claiming to the tribunal that I was "the only tenant challenging the service demand" and "everybody else has paid" (MRJ # 14 ) v. ONE YEAR AFTER, in her 26 March 2004 letter to "All Lessees", Ms Hathaway wrote "Due to extensive delays in collecting the contributions from all (NB!!!) lessees..." (MRJ # 14 )

Since 2003, the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal has been defaming my name and my character

•  Since 2003, the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal has been defaming my name and my character by having the summary of the case (ref # 992 on the LVT database) on its database - accessible by the public - FALSELY- accusing me of being the cause of the proceedings - while capturing under point point 64 of its report that I had the "...legal right to challenge the Applicant's proposal..." and knowing full well that its report was very damning of the specification and pricing drawn-up by Mr Brian Gale (Mr Prescott # 1.4 )

Mr Lanny Silverstone and Ms Ayesha Salim, Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor, and Ms Joan Hathaway, MRICS, Martin Russell Jones, have defamed my name and my character by issuing documents - that are in the public domain - containing highly libellous, scurrilous claims and accusations against me

•  Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor and Ms Hathaway filed a claim ( WL 023 537), dated 29 November 2002, in West London County Court FALSELY stating in the Particulars of Claim (1.1MB) that "[I] have failed to pay the service charges... that they are now due and owing from [me] to the Claimant." and include a 'Statement of Truth' signed by Ms Hathaway which states: "The Claimant believes that the facts stated in this Claim Form are true" (CKFT # 2 , # 3 ) (NB: Endorsement of the witness statement by Ms Hathaway, a 'managing agent' - amounts to a very serious breach of CPR - My Diary 9 March 2007)

The Particulars of claim are FALSE given that:

• the tribunal had, one month previously, specifically told me (and other leaseholders to NOT pay the service charge);
• seven months LATER, the outcome of the 17 June 2003 LVT/SC/007/120/02 determination (ref #992 on the LVT database) was a reduction of nearly 70% (incl. the contingency fund) in the original sum demanded, from £736,206 (US$1.3 million) down to £235,947 (US$416,000) (see also LVT # 4 ; Pridie Brewster # 2 , # 3 , # 5 , # 8 , # 10 , # 12 , # 13 , # 17 , # 18 , # 19 , # 20 )
• the service demand breached statutory requirements: L&T 1985 - section 20(3)(a); 20(3)(b); 20(4)(e) - as amply demonstrated by the tribunal's 17 June 2003 determination (Stan Gallagher # 1.7 )
• the demand was in breach of the terms of my lease - Clause 2(2)(c)(ii); 2(2)(e); 2(2)(g)(i); 2(2)(j) (Stan Gallagher # 1.6 )

The claim is also against 10 other residents - and hence: members of the public - obviously, with no restriction on the circulation of the claim. While, on the copy of the claim accessible on my website, I have blocked out the name of the other leaseholders - I am sure that they have not blocked out my name on their copy of the claim.

•  With the assistance of Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor, Martin Russell Jones continued issuing - FALSE - documents to West London County Court - and to other leaseholders - namely for the 24 June 2003 (WLCC # 7 ; # 8 ) and 26 August 2003 (WLCC # 9 ; # 10 ) hearing, FALSELY claiming that I then owed £10,917 (US$19,250). Consequently, they FALSELY portrayed me to the court - and more importantly in documents that are in circulation in the public domain - as a dishonest individual who defaults on her obligations

As in the case of the documents in relation to the LVT proceedings which contain highly libellous, scurrilous claims against me, I could suffer great financial loss as a result of these documents being in the public domain as, seen in isolation, any reasonable and respectable person who comes across these documents will think less of me as a result. Among others, this could have a catastrophic effect on my future employment prospects, as my job applications may be rejected due to the scurrilous statements made against me in the various documents.

(See also related:

• Malicious Communications Act 1988
• Protection from Harassment Act 1997
• Theft Act 1968 / Theft (Amendment) Act 1996
• Defamation Act 1996
• Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 - Chapter 41- Section 17
• Bullying , Coerce , Intimidate ; Torment ; Treatment - Medical )
  

Examples

•  I have used the expression "fair comment" on numerous occasions on the site, usually in the context of drawing-up one or more conclusions

•  As a 'pre-emptive measure' - Attention is drawn to "Qualified privilege" and the "Reynold's defence" as I consider events in my case, at the generic level, to be of public interest - with the hope that my case will be a trigger for change (Home page # 17 , Legal )

Breach

Examples

In my 'NON-LAWYER opinion'

THE THREAT OF BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS, OF FORFEITURE, AS WELL AS THE COURTS CLAIMS = FRAUD TOOLS

For a comprehensive overview of surrounding events - see my 3 June 2008 (74 pg) Witness Statement; (4pg Main Points)

•  Mr Jeremy Hershkorn, then at Portner and Jaskel, who - acting for Mr Andrew Ladsky - in his 16 February 2007 letter, threatened me with "bankruptcy proceedings", forfeiture (taking the flat away from me), and "costs" if I did not immediately pay the FRAUDULENT sum of £8,937 (Portner # 3 ) (US$15,800) - to 'Rootstock Overseas Corp', a company I had never heard of (Portner # 15 )

•  Ignoring my 25 February 2007 reply in which I asked for clarification, Mr Hershkorn proceeded to file a claim against me in West London County Court on 27 February 2007 - Portner point # 3 ; WLCC # 1 - under a Statement of Truth - knowing full well that the claim against me was FRAUDULENT (Portner # 6.3 )

•  Capitalizing on WLCC's assistance (Portner # 12 ; WLCC # 2 , # 7 ), Mr Hershkorn filed an application for judgment against me - as evidenced by the 19 April 2007 Order from WLCC refusing the application (Portner # 13 )

Proof that the claim against me was fraudulent: after a 16-month battle, 'Rootstock' i.e. Mr Andrew Ladsky 'threw in the towel' on 6 June 2008 by dropping "ALL of the claim" against me (Portner # 31 )

And further proof that the claim was fraudulent is the outrageous, preposterous excuse given by Portner for dropping the claim in its 11 August 2008 reply to my 22 July 2008 notice "it was found that the demand for ground rent and service charges served by the managing agent had given the incorrect identity and address for the landlord". My response knocking out this preposterous excuse is on page 5, under point 2.2 of my 26 August 2008 reply (key points: Portner # 33)

The preceding events were:

(1) my 3 June 2008 (74 pg) Witness Statement; (4 pg - Main Points) (Portner # 29)

(2) my letter of 5 June 2008, in response to the 23 May 2008 letter from Mr Ahmet Jaffer in which he suggested having the case transferred 'one level' up, from 'fast track' to 'multi-track'. In my letter, I highlight the main events of the previous 16 months proving that - OF COURSE - Mr Ladsky and Portner KNEW that the claim was fraudulent - detailed in Portner # 30 )

(See also related:

• Malicious Communications Act 1988
• Protection from Harassment Act 1997
• Theft Act 1968 / Theft (Amendment) Act 1996
• Defamation Act 1996
• Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 - Chapter 41- Section 17
• Bullying , Coerce , Intimidate ; Torment ; Treatment - Medical )

Breach

Examples

In my 'NON-LAWYER opinion'

• 

Breach

Examples

In my 'NON-LAWYER opinion'

• 

Breach

Examples

In my 'NON-LAWYER opinion'

•  Breach of this rule by Mr Daniel Broughton, Portner and Jaskel - see section L&T Act 1987 - section 4(b) and section 5(2); Property Misdescriptions Act 1991

Breach

Examples

In my 'NON-LAWYER opinion'

•  Breach of this rule by Mr Daniel Broughton, Portner and Jaskel - see Property Misdescriptions Act 1991

Breach

Examples

In my 'NON-LAWYER opinion'

• 

Breach

Examples

In my 'NON-LAWYER opinion'

•  Breach of this rule by Mr Daniel Broughton, Portner and Jaskel - see section L&T Act 1987 - section 4(b) and section 5(2); Property Misdescriptions Act 1991

Breach

Examples

In my 'NON-LAWYER opinion'

• 

Breach

Examples

In my 'NON-LAWYER opinion'

•  Piper Smith Basham falsely claiming on three separate occasions that I had agreed to the reply sent by Mr Richard Twyman to CKFT on 13 November 2003 (Piper Smith Basham # 4 , # 7.13 , # 7.13.1 , # 7.13.2 ) (CKFT # 6.8 ) (My Diary December 2003 )

• 

Breach

Examples

In my 'NON-LAWYER opinion'

•  Piper Smith Basham falsely claiming on three separate occasions that I had agreed to the reply sent by Mr Richard Twyman to CKFT on 13 November 2003 (Piper Smith Basham # 4 , # 7.13 , # 7.13.1 , # 7.13.2 ) (CKFT # 6.8 ) (My Diary December 2003 )

•  Breach of this rule by Mr Daniel Broughton, Portner and Jaskel - see Property Misdescriptions Act 1991

Breach

Examples

In my 'NON-LAWYER opinion'

THE COURTS CLAIMS = FRAUD TOOLS

•  The 7 October 2002 letter from Mr Lanny Silverstone, Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor - acting for Mr Andrew Ladsky - in which he threatened to forfeit my lease and contact my mortgage lender unless I immediately paid the sum of £14,400 (US$25,400) (CKFT # 1 , # 6.2 ). Compared to the letter he sent ten 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 so distress that I ended-up being physically sick (My Diary 10 October 2002 ) )

• (1) Mr Lanny Silverstone persistently ignored the evidence against his client's claim (CKFT # 5 )
• (2) Two weeks later, in his 21 October 2002 letter he wrote: "We are aware that Steel Services has applied to the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal" (CKFT # 2 )
• (3) During the 29 October 2002 pre-trial tribunal hearing (attended by his client ), we, the leaseholders, were told to NOT pay (page 5) until the tribunal had issued its determination and it had been implemented.
• (4) In spite of this, precisely one month later, CKFT drew-up a claim against me and 10 other leaseholders - representing 14 flats - in West London County Court (ref: WL203537) for the full amount (1.1MB) demanded in the 15 July 2002 service charge demand
• (5) The tribunal issued its determination, LVT/SC/007/120/02 (re f#992 on the LVT database) on 17 June 2003 i.e. SEVEN months AFTER CKFT drew-up the claim. The outcome was a reduction of nearly 70% of the sum demanded (incl. contingency fund) (CKFT # 6.3 ) (LVT # 4 )
• (6) CKFT supplied a lease with the 29 November 2002 court claim - 'apparently' for flat 23 - claiming - under a Statement of Truth (1.1MB) - that it is representative of my lease. This is NOT true. This lease is materially different from my lease in relation to Clause (2)(2)(c)(i). Hence, it amounts to making materially untrue claims to the court as to my contractual obligations. TWO months after filing the claim, in his 23 January 2003 letter, Mr Lanny Silverstone asked me to supply a copy of my lease. (I did) (CKFT # 6.7 )
• (7) Among the breaches of several statutes, the demand, and by implication the claim, are also in breach of covenants in my lease - Clause 2(2)(c)(ii); 2(2)(e); 2(2)(g)(i); 2(2)(j) (CKFT # 6.4 )

•  Ms Lisa McLean, Piper Smith Basham/Watton, who, in spite of having absolute knowledge that the 17 July 2002 service charge demand was fraudulent, wrote. in her letter to me of 25 September 2003 in relation to the 7 October 2002 threat of forfeiture of my lease by Mr Lanny Silverstone that "...it is perfectly legitimate for a landlord or those advising the landlord to threaten forfeiture proceedings for non-payment of service charges" (see also Piper Smith Basham # 7.19)

Breach

Examples

In my 'NON-LAWYER opinion'

•  Mr Daniel Broughton, Portner and Jaskel, went back on his 10 February 2006 "offer" by stating in his 3 April 2006 letter "The disposal being offered... is not any interest in the property that may be held by Lavagna Enterprises Ltd" (see S.4 L&T Act 1987)

Breach

Examples

In my 'NON-LAWYER opinion'

THE COURTS CLAIMS = FRAUD TOOLS

•  Piper Smith Basham falsely claiming on three separate occasions that I had agreed to the reply sent by Mr Richard Twyman to CKFT on 13 November 2003 (Piper Smith Basham # 4 , # 7.13 , # 7.13.1 , # 7.13.2 ) (CKFT # 6.8 ) (My Diary December 2003 )

• 

Breach

Examples

In my 'NON-LAWYER opinion'

THE COURTS CLAIMS = FRAUD TOOLS

• 

Breach

Examples

In my 'NON-LAWYER opinion'

•  This rule has been breached by Mr Daniel Broughton, Portner and Jaskel. See Property Misdescriptions Act 1991

Breach

Examples

In my 'NON-LAWYER opinion'

• 

Breach

Examples

In my 'NON-LAWYER opinion'

THE COURTS CLAIMS = FRAUD TOOLS

• 

Breach

Examples

In my 'NON-LAWYER opinion'

•  I consider Piper Smith Basham's reply of 18 December 2003 to my letter of 2 December 2003 (which, given events, I view as exceptionally generous and conciliatory) as a 'get lost' letter (Piper Smith Basham # 3 )

I consequently hold the view that the Law Society has failed to take the action stated under this rule as it replied on 22 September 2004 "...I do not consider that there was a failure to adequately address your complaints." (Piper Smith Basham # 3 )

Breach

Examples

In my 'NON-LAWYER opinion'

• 

Breach

Examples

In my 'NON-LAWYER opinion'

• 

Breach

Examples

In my 'NON-LAWYER opinion'

•  My demand to the Customer Service of Her Majesty Court Service - see West London County Court - post 2004 # 22 and # 23

• 

Breach

Examples

• 

Breach

Examples

•  My statement on the home page to the site and in My Diary in December 2005 that "I TOO I HAVE THE RIGHT TO BE HEARD"

Breach

Examples

In my 'NON-LAWYER opinion'

•  My demand to the Customer Service of Her Majesty Court Service - see West London County Court - post 2004 # 22 and # 23

Breach

Examples

•  + silverstone 7 oct

Breach

Examples

THE THREAT OF FORFEITURE, BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS, AS WELL AS THE COURTS CLAIMS = FRAUD TOOLS

•  The £736,207 (US$1.3 million) 15 July 2002 service charge demand sent by Ms Hathaway, and associated 17 July 2002 invoice v. the 17 June 2003 determination that had the effect of reducing the service charge by nearly 70% (incl. the contingency fund)

•  [breach of 1st part: leaseholders made to pay full amount; breach of 2nd part [ ] ]

Breach

Examples

•  With the 7 August 2002 application she filed with the tribunal, Ms Hathaway falsely claimed that the lease she supplied was representative of my lease (see LVT #8.1.4)

Breach

Examples

•  Martin Russell Jones and its client's 15 July 2002 service charge demand for the costs of the "major works" (17 July 2002 invoice ) was in breach of this statutory requirement. (Mr Gallagher # 1.2 , # 3.b , 3 (d) ) Non-provision of this information is evidenced by, among others, communication from the leaseholders (LVT # 1 , # 3 , # 8.1.2 , # 8.1.3 ; Martin Russell Jones # 14 )

This message was FINALLY taken on board by the tribunal at the 5 February 2003 hearing, leading it to postpone the start of the substantive hearings to 13 March 2003 "in the interest of justice" (LVT # 3 , # 8.1.3 )

•  A Section 20 notice has NEVER been issued following the LVT/SC/007/120/02 determination (ref. #992 on the LVT database) (Piper Smith Basham # 7.4.1 ) ( Mr Gallagher # 3.a.3 , # 3.d.1 )

Breach

Examples

•  As very clearly demonstrated by [ ]

Breach

Examples

•  The Leasehold Valuation Tribunal breached this statutory requirement by opting to not inform some of the leaseholders of the 7 August 2002 application

Breach

Examples

•  Ms Hathaway breached this requirement at the time of the appointment of Mr Brian Gale, Mr Ladsky's surveyor, as she stated that my reply - she said to have looked at on 28 January 2002, the date set for the reply - had been received past the deadline

Breach

Examples

•  Non-compliance with my repeated requests to Ms Hathaway for a copy of the 2002 year-end accounts (see Martin Russell Jones # 37 ) led me to approach the Tenancy Relations Officer at the Kensington & Chelsea Town who sent a Section 21 request' to Ms Hathaway and CKFT, dated 25 June 2004

Breach

Examples

•  Mr Gallagher has endorsed the breach of my statutory right by describing, in his email of 13 November 2003 , my 7 November 2003 request for a copy of the year-end accounts as a request that "can only complicate matters further and jeopardise the prospects of compromising the claim on realistic terms." (Mr Gallagher # 2.1)

• 

Breach

Examples

• 

Breach

Examples

•  In its 25 June 2004 s.21 request to Ms Hathaway, MRICS, Martin Russell Jones, on which Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor was copied, Kensington & Chelsea Housing emphasised that non-performance amounted to a criminal offence, and that "The Council prosecutes such contraventions..." (Actually, these turned out to be hollow words: see Kensington & Chelsea Housing and Local Government Ombudsman)

Breach

Examples

In my 'NON-LAWYER opinion'

•  Pretence at complying with this statutory requirement by issuing bogus "notices" of disposal - relying on the usual 'bag of tricks' used by rogue landlords and their aides. In the case of the 13 December 2000 "notice", actions were taken to dissuade leaseholders from exercising their statutory rights:

• A claim of "burden of litigation" was made in the "notice"
• This claim was followed-up by an identical letter to all lessees, from Mr Andrew Ladsky, dated 25 January 2001, to further reinforce the threat when he realised that leaseholders were pursuing the offer - in spite of his harassment and intimidation of the Head of the Residents Association - see also Notice by landlord - 13 December 2000
• Issuing of the "notice" just before Christmas was clearly intended to reduce leaseholder's ability to organise themselves for a reply

See below, other breaches under this Act

Breach

Examples

In my 'NON-LAWYER opinion'

•  Mr Daniel Broughton, Portner and Jaskel, acting for his client Mr Andrew Ladsky, has breached this statutory as:

(1) the description of the property in the 10 February 2006 'so called' "notice" he sent is a carbon copy of previous notices e.g. 13 December 2000 when his client had the headlease interest on the last floor of Jefferson House;

(2) he went back on his 10 February 2006 "offer" by stating in his 3 April 2006 letter "The disposal being offered... is not any interest in the property that may be held by Lavagna Enterprises Ltd" (Note the "may be held" - see next entry)

•  It would 'seem' that Laytons solicitors has, likewise committed a breach under this section, as it subsequently withdrew the offer of 13 December 2000 using the excuse that it had not supplied the annex to the "notice" - hence, breaching section 5(2) of the L&T Act 1987

Breach

Examples

In my 'NON-LAWYER opinion'

•  Mr Daniel Broughton, Portner and Jaskel, on behalf of his client Mr Andrew Ladsky-Steel Services has breached this section of the Act as:

(1) the 10 February 2006 so-called "notice" he sent does not "contain particulars of.the property to which it relates" - as his client had, 10 days previously sold its headlease interests to Lavagna Enterprises Limited. Yet the description of the property is a carbon copy of previous notices e.g. 13 December 2000 when his client had the headlease interest on the last floor of Jefferson House.

Mr Broughton evidently set-out to deceive as he stated in his 3 April 2006 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 flats, without showing the name of Steel Services, nor the address.

(2) The "notice" does not reflect the true "interest in that property" - as Mr Broughton described Steel Services as the "headlessor" v. (a) the 26 February 2002 county court claim in which Portner and Jaskel described it as the "freeholder" ; (b) in his 5 October 2004 letter to "All lessees", Mr Barrie Martin also described Steel Services as the "freeholder".

This suggests that Mr Broughton has also breached the Money Laundering Regulations 2003, "Know your client" - which his trade association, the Law Society, has made a point of communicating to its members

For further detail see: 10 February 2006 'notice by landlord'; My Diary 18 February 2006 and 29 April 2006

Consequently, Mr Broughton has also breached S.1(3) and S.1(5)(a) of the Property Misdescriptions Act 1991, as well as Rule 26.01 of the Solicitors Code of Conduct

•  Contrary to what it stated in its 13 December 2000 "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.

Further proving that (like the 10 February 2006 "notice") the 13 December 2000 "notice" was bogus, is the fact that a change in the ownership structure nonetheless took place two weeks later, on 1 June 2001 - as can be seen on the Land Registry title for Steel Services, NGL 373 333.

It also worth noting that in her 26 April 2001 letter, the Head of the Residents Association reported to the leaseholders that with "a week left to the deadline, our solicitor had not received any communication from Laytons"

Breach

Examples

In my 'NON-LAWYER opinion'

•  Portner and Jaskel's client Mr Andrew Ladsky-Steel Services has committed offences against me by not offering me "first refusal" in relation to five transactions (NB: Covered briefly in my 3 June 2008 Witness Statement under headings # 6 and # 5):

(1) When Steel Services, title NGL 373333, became a 'lessee' of Lavagna Enterprises Ltd (said to be registered in the British Virgin Islands), 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 2006 transfer of title NGL37333 from Steel Services to Rootstock Overseas Corp, a company said to be registered in Panama (Headlessors # 3)

If it is suggested in relation to the 24 May 2006 transaction that Portner and Jaskel’s 10 February 2006 so-called “S.5 L&T 1987 Notice of first refusal” amounts to compliance with the L&T Act 1987 - it DOES NOT - as it FALSELY claimed that 'Steel Services' was still the Lessor for the whole of Jefferson House at the time - when, in fact, six week previously, 'Steel Services' had disposed of its headlease interest to Lavagna Enterprises, thereby losing control of the last floor of Jefferson House - and becoming a lessee of Lavagna Enterprises (Headlessors ; Owners identity). (The 10 February 2006 "notice" is a carbon copy of previous notices when 'Steel Services' was the headlessor for the whole block (e.g. 13 December 2000 "notice" ; # 2 - 13 December 2000"Notice by landlord"). Nonetheless, Mr Daniel Broughton, Portner and Jaskel, repeated the lie twice during the notice period – as summarised in my 30 April 2006 letter to Mr Broughton - see Portner # 1 ; # 3 - 10 February 2006 bogus "Notice by landlord" ; Property Misdescriptions Act 1991 

My guess that Mr Andrew Ladsky was the instigator of this malicious, vicious act also proved to be right as Portner and Jaskel helpfully confirmed this in its (libellous, scurrilous) 3 October 2006 letter to my then ISP - PLUS the 'standard' Law Society's reply of 30 March 2007 to my 28 February 2007 complaint that Portner "Acted on the instructions of their client" - Portner # 5.1

(3) The transfer of the 'Airspace of Jefferson House', title BGL 51266, from Steel Services to Lavagna Enterprises Limited in January 2006 (Headlessors # 4 )

(4) The 'airspace' was then transferred "by Steel Services", "from Steel Services" to "Rootstock Overseas Corp" for "£1" on 8 January 2007 (Headlessors # 5)

(5) As briefly detailed above under the sections of the L&T 1987 Act - and comprehensively under # 2 -13 December 2000 "Notice by landlord" - the opportunity to buy headlease was fraudulently taken away from leaseholders in the context of the so-called"notice" of 13 December 2000

Breach

Examples

In my 'NON-LAWYER opinion'

THE THREAT OF FORFEITURE AND BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS, AS WELL AS THE COURTS CLAIMS = FRAUD TOOLS

For a comprehensive overview of surrounding events - see my 3 June 2008 (74 pg) Witness Statement; (4pg Main Points)

•  The 21 August 2008 letter from the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) threatening me with starting defamation proceedings if I "did not remove all references to the RICS on [my] website within 14 days" . It failed to reply to my 4 September 2008 letter - demonstrating that this letter amounts to the use of FEAR tactics in an attempt to get its own way: cover-up its deceit. UNBELIEVABLY, considering Martin Russell Jones' conduct, as a means of 'piling on the fear', in its letter, the RICS also wrote “No doubt Martin Russell Jones will also be taking similar legal action against you” (RICS # 11 and # 12)

(The 21 August 2008 letter was preceded by a 14 August 2008 letter to which I replied on 18 August 2008)

•  Acting for Mr Andrew Ladsky, over a period of several weeks, Mr Jeremy Hershkorn, Portner and Jaskel, sent a massive amount of emails to my current website Host, threatening my Host with legal "proceedings and costs and damages" unless my Host closed down my website, by making highly libellous, scurrilous - unsupported - claims against me, stating "all of the allegations on [my] website are clearly untrue and therefore defamatory" (Portner # 2 ; My Diary 5 February 2007 )

•  Desperate to stop me from exposing the detail of my case, the corrupt Mr Jeremy Hershkorn had - also on behalf of Mr Ladsky - faxed a 3 October 2006 letter to my first website host, threatening my host with "proceedings for defamation and for substantial damages and costs" if it did not close down my website, making highly libellous, scurrilous - unsupported - claims against me that "[my website] contains suggestions that our client [Mr Ladsky] is guilty of criminal activities and fraud all of which are totally unsubstantiated, outrageous and false... Our client's reputation has been severely damaged..." (I can't stop laughing at that). Mr Hershkorn concluded the letter by stating "We will of course, take all appropriate steps to enforce any judgement obtained in the UK against you" (Portner # 2 ; My Diary 3 October 2006 )

As I pointed out in my 5 October 2006 reply to Mr Hershkorn's letter of 3 October 2006, his outpour of claims of defamation fails to meet the requirements of the Defamation Act 1996 as he has not identified a single item on my site he considered as defamatory

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

Considering that, since the 27 February 2007 claim was filed against me (Portner # 6 ) ALL my documents to WLCC and Portner and Jaskel are based ENTIRELY on the contents of my website: If the claims on my website are "false", "outrageous", "unsubstantiated" and "defamatory" of 'the good character' of Mr Ladsky (I can't stop laughing at that): why, on 6 June 2008, has 'Rootstock' i.e. Mr Ladsky dropped "ALL" of his (second) fraudulent claim against me? (My Diary - 7 June 2008 ; 3 June 2008 (My (74 pg - 3 June 2008 Witness Statement) (4 pg - Main Points) ; Portner # 31 )

And the reason eventually given by Portner and Jaskel LLP for dropping the claim ? The preposterous excuse that "it was found that the demand for ground rent and service charges served by the managing agent had given the incorrect identity and address for the landlord" (Portner # 33 ; RICS # 12 ). My reply to this preposterous excuse is on page 5, under point 2.2 of my 26 August 2008 application for an assessment hearing

•  The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors' threat of proceedings for defamation without giving any evidence in support of its accusations - in spite of being asked - its letters: 14 August 2008 ; 21 August 2008 ; my replies: 18 August 2008 ; 4 September 2008 (RICS # 11 and # 12)

And, adding to this, a prediction by the RICS that “No doubt Martin Russell Jones will also be taking similar legal action against you” UNBELIEVABLE! (RICS # 12 )

•  The 16 February 2007 letter from Mr Jeremy Hershkorn, then at Portner and Jaskel, who - acting for Mr Andrew Ladsky - threatened me with "bankruptcy proceedings", forfeiture (taking the flat away from me), and "costs" in the name of "Rootstock Overseas Corp", a company I had never heard of (Portner # 15 ), if I failed to immediately pay £8,937 (US$15,800) (Portner # 3 )

The distress and anguish that this letter caused me was absolutely horrendous - principally because I had no knowledge of this part of the law - which is precisely what the evil, morally depraved, sociopaths, Mr Ladsky and Mr Hershkorn were counting on. By coincidence, on the day I took delivery of the letter, I met a friend in a store. I broke down in tears. That evening, the utter despair led me to think about the option of 'ending it all' but, my 'guardian angel' quickly pushed that thought out of my mind. I HAD to fight back against the evil, greed ridden, morally depraved, 'mafia'; if not for me, then at least for other leaseholders who are going through a similar hell to mine. There HAD to be a positive outcome to the horrendous suffering I have been made to endure since 2002. I could not give up.

•  Ignoring my 25 February 2007 reply in which I asked for clarification, Mr Jeremy Hershkorn, Portner and Jaskel, proceeded to file a claim against me in West London County Court on 27 February 2007 - Portner point # 3 ; WLCC # 1 - under a Statement of Truth - knowing full well that the claim against me was FRAUDULENT (Portner # 6.3 ). The horrendous hell was continuing.

•  Unable to force my website Host to close down my website, in his rage at being exposed for what he is, Mr Ladsky asked 'his friends' at Kensington & Chelsea police to provide 'some assistance' by FALSELY claiming to my website Host that my website contains "anti-Semitic comments". On the basis on this - TOTALLY UNSUPPORTED - libellous, scurrilous accusation, Mr Ladsky's 'friend' implied - in his highly libellous, scurrilous, racist and xenophobic emails of 16 March 2007 and 20 March 2007 to my website Host - that I had 'committed a crime' and, for 'good measure', branded me as "a Nazi" (My Diary - 20 March 2007)

•  Considering the conduct of Kensington and Chelsea police : Its 27 January 2003 letter in which it threatened me with "charges of harassment" following a complaint by Mr Andrew Ladsky, and stating that "the complaint has been fully recorded by the police" .

In my 11 February 2003 response I asked for "THE FACTS". I never received a reply.

Of course, Ms Ayesha Salim, Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor, also joined in on 'the act': letter of 4 February 2003.

These events took place just before the LVT hearing and were clearly intended to scare me, make me give-up (My Diary: 3 Jan 03 ; 20 Jan 03 ; 23 Jan 03 ; 5 Feb 03 )

•  The 27 September 2007 threatening letter from West London County Court demanding that 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 # 14 ). Evidence of an intention to cause me distress: following my challenging events: the subsequent contradicting explanations (WLCC # 22 , # 23 ) ; the three months plus silence that followed my 2 October 2007 letter to WLCC; silence broken by an Order dated 19 December 2007 - sent on 7 January 2008 (NB !!!) stating “The Defendant having failed to comply with the Court’s request by letter dated 27 September 2007 to pay the Counterclaim fee, the Counterclaim stands struck out” (WLCC # 23 )

•  The 21 March 2003 Order from WLCC WRONGLY telling me that a Charging order hearing concerned me - and continuing to do so when challenged - causing me an unbelievable amount of distress and anguish (WLCC # 5 ; Lord Falconer # 1)

•  In spite of WLCC having absolute knowledge that agreement has been reached with 'Steel Services', in its 9 June 2004 Notice West London County Court WRONGLY informed me that I was the defendant in a trial - without giving any detail. In spite of being challenged, after 10 days of unbelievable anguish, torment and distress, Wandsworth County Court, to which my file had been transferred, still maintained that the trial concerned me. Eventually it sent me this 23 July 2004 letter stating that I am "not required to attend" - and in the process treats me like an illiterate idiot (WLCC # 14 ; Lord Falconer # 5. 1)

•  The 7 October 2002 letter from Mr Lanny Silverstone, Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor - acting for Mr Andrew Ladsky - in which he threatened to forfeit my lease and contact my mortgage lender unless I immediately paid the sum of £14,400 (US$25,400) (CKFT # 1 , # 6.2 ). Compared to the letter he sent ten 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 so distress that I ended-up being physically sick (My Diary 10 October 2002 ) )

•  Mr Lanny Silverstone and Ms Ayesha Salim, Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor, sent me a dozen highly threatening, fraudulent, libellous letters, always "with costs" (Of course! ) - principally intended to force me to strike a deal with their client, Mr Andrew Ladsky i.e. make me pay monies that were not due and payable (CKFT # 5 ; WLCC # 10)

•  The bogus invoices from Martin Russell Jones: (1) 21 October 2004, stating a "Brought forward balance" of £14,452 (US$25,600) - with no explanation whatsoever. This was the same amount as the original, 17 July 2002 demand of £14,400 (US$25,400). Hence, it totally ignored the fact that I had accepted - and paid - the 21 October 2003 'offer' from 'Steel Services' - which had been sealed, 3 months previously, in the 1July 2004 consent order (CKFT # 4 ; WLCC # 12 ; # 13 ) ; (2) three weeks later, another invoice, dated 16 November 2004, this time with a "Brought forward balance" of £15,447 " (US$27,300) - likewise, with no explanation whatsoever (MRJ # 18 )

Although obvious to me that these invoices were malicious acts motivated by revenge for my challenging the service charge demand - and therefore I did not pay them - they caused me an enormous amount of distress and anguish - which, of course was the intention (Home page # 4.15 ) - leading me to cancel my Christmas holiday (My Diary - End 2004 ). The next invoice, 14 months later, was 'mysteriously' £10,250 less: 9 January 2006: £5,625 (US$9,900)

•  The 20 September 2002 reply to my request for information from Ms Hathaway, MRICS, Martin Russell Jones 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” ( MRJ # 25 , # 26 )

•  Letters from e.g. Leaseholder C and Leaseholder M, and other events demonstrate that the intimidation tactics used by Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor / Martin Russell Jones / Portner and Jaskel LLP worked in relation to some of the other leaseholders (MRJ # 25 , # 26 ; LVT # 8.1.2 ; Other Residents ; Elderly Resident)

•  The 4 August 2004 letter from Mr Barrie Martin, FRICS, Martin Russell Jones, in which he wrote that “[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” While this claim is quite clearly highly defamatory, scurrilous and libellous, I suspect that this ‘story’ was fed to other residents. I replied on 11 August 2004. (MRJ #25)

•  The 12 November 2003 17h09 email from Mr Stan Gallagher in which, in breach of the terms of my lease, and my statutory rights, he dismissed my request to be provided with the 2002 accounts for Jefferson House. As can be seen from what he wrote in his email "Similarly, adding conditions for the disclosure of the accounts can only complicate matters further and jeopardise the prospects of compromising the claim on realistic terms" There are numerous other points in his email, such as - FALSELY - claiming that I was in a "very weak position"; that "if this offer is not accepted and the matter proceeds to trial it is virtually certain that the claimant will beat it and Ms Rawé will be ordered to pay the Claimant's costs" (Stan Gallagher # 2 , # 3.a.4 ; # 4.1)

Under these points i.e. # 2 , # 3.a.4 ; # 4.1, I present evidence in support of my position that the intention of Mr Gallagher - and Mr Twyman ( PSB # 7.9 ; # 7.9.1 ) - was to cause me distress and anxiety (which they succeeded in doing) by providing me with a highly biased - FALSE - assessment of my position, in order to coerce and bully me into accepting what 'they' had decided they wanted me to do - because what I wanted - based on my rights - "would not be accepted by the Claimant" i.e. Mr Andrew Ladsky (Stan Gallagher # 4.1 )

I was vindicated when, as a result of filing my 5 April 2004 complaint with the Bar Council against Mr Gallagher, he changed his tune in the subsequent exchange of correspondence as I was able to prove him wrong (e.g. Stan Gallagher # 5 )

•  The 13 November 2003 - 15h53 email from Mr Richard Twyman, Piper Smith Basham/Watton he sent me stating that he was going to send the draft to CKFT "in the next 10 minutes". (PSB # 6.1 ; # 7.2 ) This email caused me an enormous of distress as I was at work (My Diary 13 November 2003 ). This, added to the events of the previous days (My Diary 28 October 2003 , 6 November 2003 , 7 November 2003 , 11 November 2003, 12 November 2003 ) (and subsequent events) provide evidence that Mr Twyman had made a deal with CKFT i.e Mr Andrew Ladsky that they would force me to accept the reply they had concocted

Mr Twyman claimed to be doing this " as advised". He was referring to the 13 November 15h32 email from Mr Stan Gallagher in which he FALSELY claimed that the drafts had to be sent by 16h00 (Stan Gallagher # 10 )

Mr Twyman and Mr Gallagher colluded on this dirty trick with the objective of sending a reply that would 'suit' Mr Andrew Ladsky. (This collusion between the cabal comprising of Mr Richard Twyman and Ms Lisa McLean, PSB, Mr Stan Gallagher and Ms Ayesha Salim, CKFT, had been set in motion from the start - CKFT # 3 , # 6.8 ).

(NB: Imagine if Mr Richard Twyman, Ms Lisa McLean and Mr Stan Gallagher had been 'advising' me in relation to the 2nd fraudulent claim of 27 February 2007 from Mr Ladsky! I certainly would not have ended-up with what I achieved - by myself: Mr Ladsky 'throwing in the towel' (Portner and Jaskel # 31 )

•  The 14 November 2003 email from Mr Richard Twyman, Piper Smith Basham/Watton in which he LIED about the time at which he received my reply - all because he wanted Mr Ladsky to have the reply that he and the rest of the cabal had concocted (PSB # 7.13 ; My Diary 14 November 2003 )

This was an unbelievably traumatic experience. I went through absolute, sheer utter hell during that time. The impact on me was horrendous: I lost 5kgs (nearly a stone) during the month of November 2003. 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 - November 2003) (Also: My Diary - 28 October 2003 , 11 November , 12 November , 13 November , Christmas 2003 ). After a month of further battling with Piper Smith Basham, by mid-December 2003, I took back control of my case (My Diary - December 2003)

•  The 12 December 2003 letter (sent by email) from Ms Lisa McLean, Piper Smith Basham, who LIED about the presentation of my 19 October 2003 Witness Statement - motivated by closing the 'behind the scene' deal she had agreed with CKFT i.e. Mr Ladsky. For proof that she lied, see My Witness Statement at 19 October 2003. In support of my statement 'closing the deal', the section also summarises her desperate actions, and those of Mr Richard Twyman and Mr Skuse to impose their decision on me

•  The 21 January 2004 letter from Ms Lisa McLean, Piper Smith Basham/Watton, in which - with the aim of causing me anguish and distress - she FALSELY claimed "There is also of course the outstanding issue of the concluded agreement" - in a desperate attempt to close the 'behind the scene' deal with CKFT i.e. Mr Ladsky (PSB # 4 , # 7.13.1 , # 7.13.2 , 7.13.3 , # 7.14 ; CKFT # 6.8 ; My Witness Statement at 19 October 2003)

•  The deceit, threats, bullying and coercion in the stream of emails in September 2003 from Ms Lisa McLean, Piper Smith Basham - in collusion with Ms Ayesha Salim, CKFT, and Mr Barrie Martin, FRICS, and Ms Joan Hathaway, Martin Russell Jones - intended to stop me from proceeding with my 20C application - thereby allowing 'Steel Services' to charge its LVT related costs to Jefferson House's leaseholders. Ms McLean went as far as saying "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') They succeeded in achieving their objective (PSB # 7.19, #7.18.2, #7.18.5 ; CKFT # 6.9 ; Martin Russell Jones # 43)

This too was an unbelievably traumatic experience. I went through absolute, sheer utter hell during that time - My Diary Sep 2003 - 20C application

Of course, what I have come to nickname "the fertiliser for malpractice" - the Law Society - (My Diary 12 April 2007) has dismissed all my complaints against its above members i.e. Portner and Jaskel, Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor and Piper Smith Basham/Watton. And of course, the same outcome of "no malpractice" from the Bar Council. And 'to round it off': the seal of approval from the Legal Services Ombudsman (Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor ; Stan Gallagher). And likewise, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors has dismissed my complaint against Martin Russell Jones.

(See also related:

• Protection from Harassment Act 1997
• Theft Act 1968 / Theft (Amendment) Act 1996
• Defamation Act 1996
• Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 - Chapter 41- Section 17
• Fraud Act 2006
• Bullying , Coerce , Intimidate ; Torment ; Treatment - Medical )

Breach

Examples

•  Further evidence that the calculation of the service charges payable by individual leaseholders is based on a fixed global sum to which the relevant fixed percentage share is applied, is also found in:

•  Ms Hathaway's 30 August 2002 letter "The amount demanded is as the terms of the lease. There is no separate list. Details of the percentages are included in the schedules to previous accounts.   The sum demanded is based on the percentage of your lease, which is 1.956%..."

•  Steel Services-Martin Russell Jones supplied these percentages with the application to the LVT. They are also clearly evidenced, among others by the documents supplied to West London County Court by CKFT, for the 24 June 2003 and 26 August 2003 hearing.

(See MRJ #19;

Breach

Examples

•  The 17 June 2003 LVT/SC/007/120/02 determination (ref #992 on the LVT database) by the tribunal was a reduction of nearly 70% (incl. the contingency fund) in the original sum demanded, from £736,206 (US$1.3 million) down to £235,947 (US$416,000) (see also LVT # 4 ; Pridie Brewster # 2 , # 3 , # 5 , # 8 , # 10 , # 12 , # 13 , # 17 , # 18 , # 19 , # 20 )

•  I highlighted this clause to Ms McLean in my 21 August 2003 letter, stating "This is an important point..." - to no avail (Piper Smith Basham # 7.9 ). (I also highlighted under points 103 - 105 of my 20 December 2004 complaint against CKFT - which, of course, was likewise, ignored. (CKFT # 6.4 ) (This clause was highlighted to Ms Hathaway by one of the leaseholders' solicitors)

Breach

Examples

•  Breach of covenant by Mr Ladsky et. al. and their aides as the 17 July 2002 £14,400 (US$25,400) demand sent with the 15 July 2002 letter was NOT in any way shape or form reflected in the 2001 year-end accounts. This blatantly obvious fact was recognised by Ms McLean in her 3 October 2003 letter (PSB # 7.9 , Mr Gallagher # 1.6 )

Breach

Examples

•  Breach of covenant by Ms Hathaway (# 37 ) who repeatedly ignored my requests for a copy of the 2002 accounts - leading me, in June 2004, to seek assistance from Kensington & Chelsea Housing (# 1 )

•  Mr Gallagher has endorsed the breach of this covenant in my lease by describing, in his email of 13 November 2003 , my 7 November 2003 request for a copy of the year-end accounts as a request that "can only complicate matters further and jeopardise the prospects of compromising the claim on realistic terms." (Mr Gallagher # 2.1) - as did Piper Smith Basham by aligning itself with this position (Piper Smith Basham # 7.9 )

Breach

Examples

• The 15 July 2002 demand (and accompanying 17 July 2002 invoice) was NOT an interim demand - it was a demand for full payment (CKFT # 6.4 ; MRJ # 5 , Mr Gallagher # 1.2 , # 1.3 , # 1.4 , # 1.5 , # 1.6 ) (Piper Smith Basham # 7.9 ) ...

...and it was a HIGHLY EXTORTIONATE DEMAND as the the 17 June 2003 LVT/SC/007/120/02 determination (ref #992 on the LVT database) by the tribunal was a reduction of nearly 70% (incl. the contingency fund) in the original sum demanded, from £736,206 (US$1.3 million) down to £235,947 (US$416,000) (see also Mr Brian Gale , LVT # 4 ; Pridie Brewster # 2 , # 3 , # 5 , # 8 , # 10 , # 12 , # 13 , # 17 , # 18 , # 19 , # 20 )

• In addition, it also amounts to a breach of my statutory rights under Section 19(2) of the Landlord & Tenant Act 1985 (Mr Gallagher # 1.7 , Piper Smith Basham # 7.9.1 )

Breach

Examples

Linked to the above, in relation to Clause (2)(2)(h) of my lease:

•  In my complaints / my replies to the parties' response to my complaints (point 98 of my 20 December 2004 complaint against Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor ; point 49 of my 29 August 2004 reply to Mr Gallagher ; point 83 of my 30 November 2004 reply to the Law Society in relation to my complaint against Piper Smith Basham ; point 123 of my 2 February 2005 complaint (1MB) to the RICS against Martin Russell Jones) I drew attention to this clause in my lease, stating

"'Even if' lawyers want to argue that the sum demanded is an "interim payment" (although I simply cannot see how this could be demonstrated in view of the facts), I would like to draw the attention to: Clause (2(2)(j) of my lease... Consider this in the context of the fact that the original demand I received was £14,400.19 (US$25,400) while the impact of the LVT determination meant that it should be reduced by nearly 70% to £4,615" (US$8,135)

As the impact of the 17 June 2003 LVT/SC/007/120/02 determination (ref #992 on the LVT database) reduced the sum demanded of £14,400 (US$25,400) to £4,615 (US$8,135), it follows that, in filing the claim against me under a ' Statement of Truth ' (1.1MB) Ms Hathaway, Martin Russell Jones and Cawdery Kaye Fireman Taylor who produced the claim have breached this covenant in my lease

(CKFT # 6.4 , MRJ # 5 , Mr Gallagher # 1.6 , Piper Smith Basham # 7.9 )

Breach

Examples

•  Steel Services cannot keep within its covenants in my lease as it has sold its headlease interests to Lavagna Enterprises Limited.

As also evidenced in the case of Kintyre Ltd v Romeomarch Property Management Ltd in which the Land Registry Adjudicator dismissed the application to register the lease, because: "The roof space was required for the proper management of the roof." It thereby endorsed the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal determination: LON/ENF/1177/04

•  Ms Hathaway breached this covenant as she stated in her 7 June 2001 letter that "works are now overdue", and in her letter of 4 March 2003, under point 38 that repair works had not been carried out for nine years. Yet, the works were only started in September 2004... focusing on the construction of the penthouse flat - see Photo gallery

Breach

Examples

•  As Steel Services no longer has control over the whole, it cannot perform this covenant in my lease (MRJ#47;

•  Prior events demonstrate that the block has not been properly insured (MRJ# 47;

Breach

Examples

•  By means of threat of proceedings, in her 28 February 2005 letter, Ms Hathaway is endorsing her client's breach of my lease

Breach

Examples

In my 'NON-LAWYER opinion'

THE THREAT OF FORFEITURE, BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS, AS WELL AS THE COURTS CLAIMS = FRAUD TOOLS

"Criminal property"

• 

"Criminal conduct"

• 

"Know your client"

•  Clear evidence of breach by Portner and Jaskel LLP (Mr Jeremy Hershkorn and Mr Ahmet Jaffer) as it waited 16 months to clarify an identity issue about its client (Portner # 33 )

•  And, considering the evidence, Portner and Jaskel (Mr Daniel Broughton) ALSO breached this requirement (communicated by the Law Society to its members) in relation to the 10 February 2006 (bogus) "Notice" of disposal - as its client 'Steel Services' was NOT the controlling party of the asset offered - see Portner # 1 ; # 3 - 10 February 2006 bogus "Notice by landlord" ; Property Misdescriptions Act 1991 ; Headlessors ; Owners identity

• (Assuming that this section of the MLR was in application in 2002) Over a period of at least three 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 the company did not exist. (Owners identity # 1 , # 2 ; CKFT # 1 )

“Knowing receipt”

•  Martin Russell Jones committed this offence on the basis that, as defined under Section 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 in various parts of this section - and more comprehensively under Martin Russell Jones.

Breach

Examples

In my 'NON-LAWYER opinion'

THE COURTS CLAIMS = FRAUD TOOLS

• 

Breach

Examples

In my 'NON-LAWYER opinion'

THE THREAT OF FORFEITURE, BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS, AS WELL AS THE COURT CLAIMS = FRAUD TOOLS

•  MRJ sought improperly to recover monies by way of service charges which were not due and payable.

•  Martin Russell Jones continued issuing documents to West London County Court - and to other leaseholders - namely for the 24 June 2003 and 26 August 2003 hearing, falsely claiming that I then owed £10,917 (US$19,250). These documents deliberately set out to mislead as Martin Russell Jones had absolute knowledge that these documents contained false statements

•  Martin Russell Jones and CKFT aided and abetted their client in obtaining criminal proceeds as the Consent Order for £6,350 (US$11,200), endorsed by West London County Court on 1 July 2004 represents an amount I ended-up paying as a result of their extortion and fraudulent tactics i.e. acts defined under UK legislation as "criminal" - was not due and payable

Breach

Examples

In my 'NON-LAWYER opinion'

THE COURTS CLAIMS = FRAUD TOOLS

• 

Breach

Examples

In my 'NON-LAWYER opinion'

• Mr Daniel Broughton, Portner and Jaskel, on behalf of his client Mr Andrew Ladsky-Steel Services has breached this Act as:

(1) the 10 February 2006 so-called"notice" he sent does not "contain particulars of the property to which it relates" - as his client had, 10 days previously sold its headlease interests to Lavagna Enterprises Limited. (Perhaps, more accurately, 'six weeks previously', as the Land Registry document gives 15 December 2005 as the date of the transaction). Yet the description of the property is a carbon copy of previous notices e.g. 13 December 2000 when his client had the headlease interest on the last floor of Jefferson House.

Mr Broughton evidently set-out to deceive as he stated in his 3 April 2006 letter to me that he "deliberately omitted to include pages one and two of the Land Registry title for Steel Services" . While it resulted in supplying a list of flats, without showing the name of Steel Services, nor the address - thereby breaching the Act, the obvious reason for his withholding the page is 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"

As I pointed out in my 30 April 2006 (1.1MB) letter to Mr 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) this Act is that Mr Broughton has committed a criminal offence.

It follows that Mr Broughton has also breached: (1) S.5(2) of the L&T Act 1987; (2) several rules of the Solicitors Code of conduct: Rule 26.01; Rule 12.02 - To act lawfully; Principle (d) - Repute of solicitors; Principle (e) - Standard of work

Breach

Examples

In my 'NON-LAWYER opinion'

THE THREAT OF FORFEITURE, BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS, AS WELL AS THE COURTS CLAIMS = FRAUD TOOLS

For a comprehensive overview of surrounding events - see my 3 June 2008 (74 pg) Witness Statement; (4pg Main Points)

•  Acting for Mr Andrew Ladsky, over a period of several weeks, Mr Jeremy Hershkorn, Portner and Jaskel, sent a massive amount of emails to my current website Host, threatening my Host with legal "proceedings and costs and damages" unless my Host closed down my website, by making highly libellous, scurrilous - unsupported - claims against me, stating "all of the allegations on [my] website are clearly untrue and therefore defamatory" (Portner # 2 ; My Diary 5 February 2007 )

•  Desperate to stop me from exposing the detail of my case, the corrupt Mr Jeremy Hershkorn had - also on behalf of Mr Ladsky - faxed a 3 October 2006 letter to my first website host, threatening my host with "proceedings for defamation and for substantial damages and costs" if it did not close down my website, making highly libellous - unsupported - claims against me that "[my website] contains suggestions that our client [Mr Ladsky] is guilty of criminal activities and fraud all of which are totally unsubstantiated, outrageous and false... Our client's reputation has been severely damaged..." (I can't stop laughing at that). Mr Hershkorn concluded the letter by stating "We will of course, take all appropriate steps to enforce any judgement obtained in the UK against you" (Portner # 2 ; My Diary 3 October 2006 )

Considering that, since the 27 February 2007 claim was filed against me (Portner # 6 ) ALL my documents to WLCC and Portner and Jaskel are based ENTIRELY on the contents of my website: If the claims on my website are "false", "outrageous", "unsubstantiated" and "defamatory" of 'the good character' of Mr Ladsky (I can't stop laughing at that): why, on 6 June 2008, has 'Rootstock' i.e. Mr Ladsky dropped "ALL" of his (second) fraudulent claim against me? (My Diary - 7 June 2008 ; 3 June 2008 (My (74 pg - 3 June 2008 Witness Statement) (4 pg - Main Points) ; Portner # 31 )

And further proof that the claim was fraudulent is the outrageous, preposterous excuse given by Portner for dropping the claim in its 11 August 2008 reply to my 22 July 2008 notice "it was found that the demand for ground rent and service charges served by the managing agent had given the incorrect identity and address for the landlord". My response knocking out this preposterous excuse is on page 5, under point 2.2 of my 26 August 2008 reply (key points: Portner # 33)

•  In October 2006 and subsequently, Mr Ladsky contacted my (now ex.) employer on numerous occasions, making some of the same outrageously libellous, scurrilous claims against me... and a lot more.

•  Mr Jeremy Hershkorn, then at Portner and Jaskel, who - acting for Mr Andrew Ladsky - in his 16 February 2007 letter, threatened me with "bankruptcy proceedings", forfeiture (taking the flat away from me), and "costs" if I did not immediately pay the FRAUDULENT sum of £8,937 (Portner # 3 ) (US$15,800) - to 'Rootstock Overseas Corp', a company I had never heard of (Portner # 15 )

The distress and anguish that this letter caused me was absolutely horrendous - principally because I had no knowledge of this part of the law - which is precisely what the evil, morally depraved, sociopaths, Mr Ladsky and Mr Hershkorn were counting on. By coincidence, on the day I took delivery of the letter, I met a friend in a store. I broke down in tears. That evening, the utter despair led me to think about the option of 'ending it all' but, my 'guardian angel' quickly pushed that thought out of my mind. I HAD to fight back against the 'mafia'; if not for me, then at least for other leaseholders who are going through a similar hell to mine - by being a trigger for change. There HAD to be a positive outcome to the horrendous suffering I have been made to endure since 2002.

•  Ignoring my 25 February 2007 reply in which I asked for clarification, Mr Jeremy Hershkorn, Portner and Jaskel, proceeded to file a claim against me in West London County Court on 27 February 2007 - Portner point # 3 ; WLCC # 1 - under a Statement of Truth - knowing full well that the claim against me was FRAUDULENT (Portner # 6.3 ). The horrendous hell was continuing.

The ongoing harassment of my website Host by Mr Hershkorn and his malicious letter of 16 February 2007 led me to write a letter of complaint against Portner and Jaskel LLP to the Law Society on 28 February 2007 asking for "appropriate action against your member" (Portner # 4 and # 5) (Of course, none was taken= continuation of my previous experience - and, considering events in relation to the 2007 claim = further confirmation of my conclusion of a 'CLAN')

My complaint to the Law Society led Mr Hershkorn to back-off, and Mr Ladsky to take-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.

•  Still unable to force my website Host to close down my website, in his rage at being exposed for what he is, Mr Ladsky asked 'his friends' at Kensington & Chelsea police to provide 'some assistance' by falsely claiming to my website Host that my website contains "anti-Semitic comments". On the basis on this libellous, scurrilous accusation, Mr Ladsky's 'friend' implied - without providing any evidence in support - in his highly libellous, scurrilous, racist and xenophobic emails of 16 March 2007 and 20 March 2007 to my website Host that I had 'committed a crime' and, for 'good measure', branded me "a Nazi" (My Diary - 20 March 2007)

•  Considering the conduct of Kensington and Chelsea police - Its 27 January 2003 letter in which it threatened me with "charges of harassment" following a complaint by Mr Andrew Ladsky, and stating that "the complaint has been fully recorded by the police" .

In my 11 February 2003 response I asked for "THE FACTS". I never received a reply.

Of course, Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor also joined in on 'the act': letter of 4 February 2003.

These events took place just before the LVT hearing and were clearly intended to scare me, make me give-up (My Diary: 3 Jan 03 ; 20 Jan 03 ; 23 Jan 03 ; 5 Feb 03 )

•  The 27 September 2007 threatening letter from West London County Court demanding that 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 # 14 ). Evidence of an intention to cause me distress: following my challenging events: the subsequent contradicting explanations (WLCC # 22 , # 23 ) ; the three months plus silence that followed my 2 October 2007 letter to WLCC; silence broken by an Order dated 19 December 2007 - sent on 7 January 2008 (NB !!!) stating “The Defendant having failed to comply with the Court’s request by letter dated 27 September 2007 to pay the Counterclaim fee, the Counterclaim stands struck out” (WLCC # 23 )

•  The 9 April 2008 case management Order issued by District Judge Ryan, West London County Court, which makes no allowance for ensuring that I am provided with 'Rootstock' s evidence - in spite of having absolute knowledge that I have not been supplied with the information (WLCC # 28 ) And the subsequent 9 May 2008 rejection by District Judge Nicholson of my 30 April 2008 application for amendment to the timeline (WLCC # 30 ) This left me in the highly stressful and prejudiced position of having to write my 3 June 2008 (74pg) Witness Statement (4pg Main Points) without key information (My Diary 3 June 2008)

•  The Leasehold Valuation Tribunal refusing my 12 January 2003 request for a postponment of the 5 February 2003 hearing as Martin Russell Jones had not provided me with the required information - in breach of the directions issued by the tribunal (LVT # 2 , My Diary c. 17 January 2003 )

•  The 7 October 2002 letter from Mr Lanny Silverstone, Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor - acting for Mr Andrew Ladsky - in which he threatened to forfeit my lease and contact my mortgage lender unless I immediately paid the sum of £14,400 (US$25,400) (CKFT # 1 , # 6.2 ). Compared to the letter he sent ten 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 so distress that I ended-up being physically sick (My Diary 10 October 2002 ) )

•  Mr Lanny Silverstone and Ms Ayesha Salim, Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor, sent me a dozen highly threatening, fraudulent, libellous letters, always "with costs" (Of course! ) - principally intended to force me to strike a deal with their client, Mr Andrew Ladsky i.e. make me pay monies that were not due and payable (CKFT # 5 ; WLCC # 10)

•  The bogus invoices from Martin Russell Jones: (1) 21 October 2004, stating a "Brought forward balance" of £14,452 (US$25,600) - with no explanation whatsoever. This was the same amount as the original, 17 July 2002 demand of £14,400 (US$25,400). Hence, it totally ignored the fact that I had accepted - and paid - the 21 October 2003 'offer' from 'Steel Services' - which had been sealed, 3 months previously, in the 1July 2004 consent order (CKFT # 4 ; WLCC # 12 ; # 13 ) ; (2) three weeks later, another invoice, dated 16 November 2004, this time with a "Brought forward balance" of £15,447 " (US$27,300) - likewise, with no explanation whatsoever (MRJ # 18 )

In my 19 December 2003 correspondence to Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor I accepted 'Steel Services' ' offer ' of £6,350 (US$11,200) in settlement of my share of the costs for the 'major works' (i.e. the original demand of £14,400 (US$25,400) - except the demand for £143 (US$250) of interest - and included full payment with my reply . (For reasons, see West London County Court and My Diary from 16 June 2003 to 26 August 2003 ) (Re. the issue of interest, see also Mr Gallagher #8 and Piper Smith Basham # 7.3 )

Evidence of this is that Ms Ayesha Salim, CKFT, had stated, in her 28 May 2004 letter to me, acceptance of the Consent Order I had drafted while, in her 15 June 2004 letter, she stated having sent it to the court for approval and sent me a copy with her correspondence of 14 July 2004 . Consequently, with the previous payment I had made following the 26 August 2003 hearing, I paid a total of £6,350 (US$11,200) (which I did NOT owe). Wandsworth County Court endorsed the document sealing the agreement on 1 July 2004

In my letter of 31 December 2003 , I wrote to Ms Hathaway, Martin Russell Jones informing her of this payment.

Although obvious to me that the 21 October 2004 and 16 November 2004 invoices were malicious acts motivated by revenge for my challenging the service charge demand - and therefore I did not pay them - they caused me an enormous amount of distress and anguish - which, of course was the intention (Home page # 4.15 ) - leading me to cancel my Christmas holiday (My Diary - End 2004 ). The next invoice, 14 months later, was 'mysteriously' £10,250 less: 9 January 2006: £5,625 (US$9,900) (Martin Russell Jones # 18 )

•  The 20 September 2002 reply to my request for information from Ms Hathaway, MRICS, Martin Russell Jones 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” ( MRJ # 25 , # 26 )

•  Letters from e.g. Leaseholder C and Leaseholder M, and other events demonstrate that the intimidation tactics used by Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor / Martin Russell Jones / Portner and Jaskel LLP worked in relation to some of the other leaseholders (MRJ # 25 , # 26 ; LVT # 8.1.2 ; Other Residents ; Elderly Resident)...

... as does the 23 May 2003 application to WLCC by Mr Lanny Silverstone, Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor, which 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" (CKFT # 6.3 ; Lord Falconer of Thorton # 1 ) ...

...as does the experience of the 5th Defendant in Wandsworth County Court (Lord Falconer of Thoroton # 6 )

...as do the accounts: In breach of the terms of the lease, and of their statutory rights, 9 out of 14 flats on the 29 November 2002 West London County Court claim ended-up paying the full amount demanded in the claim + a further 16 flats also paid the full amount (Pridie Brewster # 18 ) - see Section 17 of the Theft Act 1968 - False accounting

•  The 4 August 2004 letter from Mr Barrie Martin, FRICS, Martin Russell Jones, in which he wrote that “[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” While this claim is quite clearly defamatory, libellous and scurrilous, I suspect that this ‘story’ was fed to other residents. I replied on 11 August 2004. (MRJ #25)

•  The 21 January 2004 letter from Ms Lisa McLean, Piper Smith Basham/Watton, in which - with the aim of causing me anguish and distress - she falsely claimed "There is also of course the outstanding issue of the concluded agreement" - in a desperate attempt to close the 'behind the scene' deal with CKFT i.e. Mr Ladsky (PSB # 4 , # 7.13.1 , # 7.13.2 , 7.13.3 , # 7.14 ; CKFT # 6.8 ; My Witness Statement at 19 October 2003)

•  The deceit, threats, bullying and coercion in the stream of emails in September 2003 from Ms Lisa McLean, Piper Smith Basham - in collusion with Ms Ayesha Salim, CKFT, and Mr Barrie Martin, FRICS, and Ms Joan Hathaway, Martin Russell Jones - intended to stop me from proceeding with my 20C application - thereby allowing 'Steel Services' to charge its LVT related costs to Jefferson House's leaseholders. Ms McLean went as far as saying "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') They succeeded in achieving their objective (PSB # 7.19, #7.18.2, #7.18.5 ; CKFT # 6.9 ; Martin Russell Jones # 43)

This was an unbelievably traumatic experience. I went through absolute, sheer utter hell during that time - My Diary Sep 2003 - 20C application

•  The 29 November 2002 claim ( WL 023 537) filed in West London County Court by Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor - FALSELY - stating in the Particulars of Claim (1.1MB) that "[I] have failed to pay the service charges... that they are now due and owing from [me] to the Claimant." and include a 'Statement of Truth' signed by Ms Joan Hathaway, MRICS, Martin Russell Jones which states: "The Claimant believes that the facts stated in this Claim Form are true" (CKFT # 2 , # 3 ) (NB: Endorsement of the witness statement by Ms Hathaway, a 'managing agent' - amounts to a very serious breach of CPR - My Diary 9 March 2007)

The Particulars of claim are FALSE given that:

• the tribunal had, one month previously, specifically told me (and other leaseholders to NOT pay the service charge);
• seven months LATER, the outcome of the 17 June 2003 LVT/SC/007/120/02 determination (ref #992 on the LVT database) was a reduction of nearly 70% (incl. the contingency fund) in the original sum demanded, from £736,206 (US$1.3 million) down to £235,947 (US$416,000) (see also LVT # 4 ; Pridie Brewster # 2 , # 3 , # 5 , # 8 , # 10 , # 12 , # 13 , # 17 , # 18 , # 19 , # 20 )
• the service demand breached statutory requirements: L&T 1985 - section 20(3)(a); 20(3)(b); 20(4)(e) - as amply demonstrated by the tribunal's 17 June 2003 determination (Stan Gallagher # 1.7 )
• the demand was in breach of the terms of my lease - Clause 2(2)(c)(ii); 2(2)(e); 2(2)(g)(i); 2(2)(j) (Stan Gallagher # 1.6 )

THE COURTS CLAIMS = FRAUD TOOLS

PERSECUTION by West London County Court in 2003 - 2004 and by Wandsworth County Court in 2004 (in addition to the events with the claim)

• The 21 March 2003 Order from WLCC WRONGLY telling me that a Charging order hearing concerned me - and continuing to do so when challenged - causing me an unbelievable amount of distress and anguish (WLCC # 5 ; Lord Falconer # 1)

• WLCC WRONGLY telling me on 18 March 2004 that a judgment has been entered against me (Lord Falconer # 2 )

• WLCC ignoring instructions, leading me to miss the 28 May 2004 hearing - with catastrophic consequences as the ensuing order stated that the claim against me was "stayed" i.e. just suspended (WLCC # 3 ) I was so distraught that I could not stop myself from crying in the street (Lord Falconer # 4) AND when I went to WLCCC to get a copy of the transcript, it initially DENIED that a hearing had taken place (Lord Falconer # 5.2 )

• In spite of WLCC having absolute knowledge that agreement has been reached with 'Steel Services', in its 9 June 2004 Notice WLCC WRONGLY informed me that I was the defendant in a trial - without giving any detail. In spite of being challenged, after 10 days of unbelievable anguish, torment and distress, Wandsworth County Court, to which my file had been transferred, still maintained that the trial concerned me. Eventually it sent me this 23 July 2004 letter stating that I am "not required to attend" - and in the process treats me like an illiterate idiot (WLCC # 14 ; Lord Falconer # 5. 1)

•  With the assistance of Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor, Martin Russell Jones continued issuing - FALSE - documents to West London County Court - and to other leaseholders - namely for the 24 June 2003 (WLCC # 7 ; # 8 ) and 26 August 2003 (WLCC # 9 ; # 10 ) hearing, FALSELY claiming that I then owed £10,917 (US$19,250). Consequently, they FALSELY portrayed me to the court - and more importantly in documents that are in circulation in the public domain - as a dishonest individual who defaults on her obligations.

Continuation of the GAMES and the LIES in 2007-2008 by Portner and West London County Court - snapshot in My Diary 11 November 2008

THE COURTS CLAIMS = FRAUD TOOLS

•  The impact on me of the sheer, utter hell - instigated and driven by Mr Andrew Ladsky - I have been made to endured by:

Mr Lanny Silverstone and Ms Ayesha Salim, Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor ; Ms Lisa McLean and Mr Richard Twyman, Piper Smith Basham/Watton ; Mr Stan Gallagher ; Ms Joan Hathaway, MRICS, and Mr Barrie Martin, FRICS, Martin Russell Jones ; Mr Brian Gale , MRICS ; Mr Jeremy Hershkorn, Mr Ahmet Jaffer and Mr Daniel Broughton, Portner and Jaskel e.g. My Diary

• In relation to some of the court hearings: 16 June 2003 ; 17 June 2003 , 22 June 2003 , 24 June 2003 , 9 August 2003 , 26 August 2003 , 4 September 2003 , 24 August 2007 ; All the section on Lord Falconer of Thoroton)
• In relation to my 20C Application: September 2003
• In relation to the 'offer' from 'Steel Services': 28 October 2003 , 11 November , 12 November , 13 November , November 2003 , Christmas 2003 (see also PSB # 7.13 and sub-points ; # 7.15 ; # 7.18.3 , # 7.19 , # 7.20 ; CKFT # 5 Mr Gallagher # 12)
• Following the very large, unsupported, bogus service charge demands, as the implication was that I was 'back to square one' after two years of sheer utter hell: End of 2004
• Some of my 'bigger downs' on the emotional roller coaster 16 June 2006 and 20 August 2006
• Following the threat of bankruptcy and of forfeiture of my flat, and the fraudulent claim filed against me: 11 March 2007
• A lot more took place in 2007, which I did not record in my online Diary [ADD].

Added to the trauma of being a victim of fraud - (THE THREAT OF FORFEITURE, BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS, AS WELL AS THE COURTS CLAIMS = FRAUD TOOLS) - being dragged through the courts (I am an honest, law abiding person who had never set foot in a court) - must added the very traumatic treatment I suffered from West London County Court, as well as Wandsworth County Court in 2002-2004 - My Diary 19 June 2005 ; Lord Falconer of Thoroton point # 4 and # 5 - and similar treatment in 2007-2008: West London County Court - Post 2004...

...and the treatment by Kensington & Chelsea police in 2002, 2003, and in 2007: My Diary 20 March 2007...

...as well as my battle with Kensington & Chelsea Housing and the Local Government Ombudsman in 2004 and 2005..

...and my battle with the the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal in 2003

Not to mention my soul-destroying battles with the so-called 'regulators': the Law Society (CKFT, Piper Smith Basham, Portner and Jaskel), Bar Council (Stan Gallagher) and the Legal Services Ombudsman ; Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales (Pridie Brewster) ; Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (Martin Russell Jones)

SUMMARY of my soul-destroying battles: My Diary 6 May 2008

...has been ABSOLUTELY HORRENDOUS. AN ONGOING MENTAL TORTURE SINCE 2002. This is a breach of my Human Rights, under Article 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998

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

I AM THE VICTIM OF ORGANISED CRIME. Yet, I have, and continue to be treated as though I am the criminal... and the criminals have been - and continue to be treated as though they are the victims.

•  Mr Ladsky contacting the Tenancy Relations Officer, Kensington & Chelsea Housing, I had approached for assistance, demanding that he hands over to him "all the correspondence" I had sent (My Diary 5 November 2005)

•  Harassment at work:

• Getting a female accomplice to phone me at work to tell me "Don't worry, they won't kill you" (My Diary - January / February 2004 )
• Several anonymous phone calls at work (My Diary - Late February - Early March 2002)

•  Ongoing harassment in the flat e.g.:

• Malicious leaks in my flat: my bathroom on 11 March 2002 and 18 August 2005 and, ten days previously, in my bedroom on 8 August 2005 - see Photo gallery bathroom, bedroom ; a leak that narrowly missed my flat on 6 February 2007 : Photo gallery corridor by my flat - and one that definitely did not miss my flat (My Diary 20 July 2007)
• Hosing of my windows hosed in the early hours of the morning: 6 September 2005, 4 October 2005, 7 April 2006, 4 September 2006; in February 2008 ; 9 January 2009
• Object thrown at my windows late at night: (My Diary - 15 February 2002 and 3 April 2002 )
• Pressing my door bell late at night (leading me to disconnect it) (captured in 5 May 2002 letter to Sir Toby Harris, then head of the Metropolitan Police Authority)
• Anonymous phone calls to my home: (My Diary - 17 February 2002; 19 February 2002 ; Kensington & Chelsea police # 1 )
• Electricity cut off only in my flat (My Diary - 8 July 2006), as well as water (My Diary - 21 August 2005)
• Electricity cut-off only in my flat, as well as four other flats that are under the control of the headlessor - My Diary 8 March 2009
• No hot water and no heating in my flat - for 3 days, starting on Christmas day 2007; for several days in March 2009
• No hot water and no heating for 5 days during the Easter break of 2003 (My Diary Easter break 2003)
• Mobile phone signal cut-off for two weeks (My Diary - 15 May 2008)
• Neglect and misuse of the areas around my flat (My Diary - 15 May 2008)
• Mr Andrew Ladsky telling me "I am going to get you this year" (My Diary 3 January 2003)
• Other instances of harassment and intimidation in 2002 - (Kensington & Chelsea police # 1 ) captured in 5 May 2002 letter to Sir Toby Harris, then head of the Metropolitan Police Authority

Other forms of persecution:

• the 3 mobile phone network preventing me from transferring my mobile number to another network (My Diary 29 December 2008)
• threatening 'message' on my mobile phone voicemail (My Diary on 2 January 2009

Fear for my safety (as I very clearly cannot rely on the police for protection), and the anguish of being in the flat meant that I was staying in the office until very late at night, including at weekends. Eventually, in April 2007, I started to rent a room in East London, and did this until November 2007. Before reintegrating the flat, I spent a substantial sum of money on making it more secure. Of course, it does not provide me protection against the various forms of harassment. But, at least, I no longer feel the need to sleep all dressed up and with a knife by me in the bed (My Diary - 2 August 2006)

•  My being followed / monitored since at least 2003 e.g. events for which I have a witness 26 October 2003; 1st June 2005; 25 October 2007. Other examples: the same man on 10 September 2005; 27 February 2006; 18 March 2006 and 24 April 2006

By 'amateurs' e.g. 16 July 2005; 26 August 2005; 21 December 2005; 25 December 2005; 15 January 2006; 19 April 2006; 16 May 2006

By another type (usually displaying extreme arrogance and sense of superiority), which, while it has some experience of following people - it is not all that great as I have tricked them on numerous occasions e.g. 4 January 2006 and 15 January 2006; 2 August 2006, 30 July 2006 much to their annoyance e.g. Rest of week beginning 23 January 2006, at times, to the extent of taking retaliatory action e.g. 1 August 2006

At times, the intention has been to scare me, intimidate me; taking revenge e.g.

•  Four men, after midnight, waiting in a parked car, in a deserted street, wating for me to arrive, on my own. As I was about to cross the - dead-end - street, they started the car and drove it straight at me - My Diary 1 August 2006

•  I was ambushed by a man when I was on my own, in a deserted street, after midnight -19 April 2006

•  On another occasion, after midnight, in a deserted alley, a man, hiding in dark recesses, came straight at me - 23 August 2006

•  I have found myself in situations of being 'hunted' / encircled - 26 February 2006 ; 17 March 2006 ; 22 March 2006

•  Hosing of my windows at 01h00 am and 02h45 am - 7 April 2006 ; 4 September 2006

I hold the view that Mr Andrew Ladsky incriminated himself on 19 April 2005 as being, at least, one of the people having me followed, by telling me "you are mad" and to "go and see a psychiatrist". On that day I had seen a therapist I had not seen in over two years. I give the events on 19 April 2006 and 16 May 2006 as providing additional supporting evidence of involvement by Mr Ladsky

However, there are DEFINITELY other parties behind - My Diary home, including mobile phones; also 13 April 2008 for media reports on people being spied on, and government resources

•  My post being intercepted (which is a criminal offence under section 83 of the Postal Services Act 2000) forcing me to open a PO Box (My Diary May 2003) - and the highly distressing events that folowed (My Diary 1 July 2006 , 2 November 2006 , 4 and 5 November 2006 , 7 November 2006 )

(See also related:

• Malicious Communications Act 1988
• Theft Act 1968 / Theft (Amendment) Act 1996
• Defamation Act 1996
• Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 - Chapter 41- Section 17
• Fraud Act 2006
• Bullying , Coerce , Intimidate ; Torment ; Treatment - Medical )

•  Harassment by Mr Andrew Ladsky of the person who was running the Residents Association at Jefferson House (see also Notices by landlord - 13 December 2000)

•  Harassment by Mr Ladsky of other residents through "unprovoked direct verbal and other abuse by Mr Ladsky" "He acted like a petty tyrant, and I am not afraid to put on record that I believe that he is capable of any unscrupulous actions in order to achieve his aims" (1 November 2002 letter), etc; of the Elderly Resident. And 'perhaps' of Resident K (There is something 'very fishy' about events with this resident).

•  Harassment of Nucleus Citizens Advice Bureau

Breach

Examples

In my 'NON-LAWYER opinion'

• Section 15 - Obtaining property by deception
• Section 15A - Obtaining a money transfer by deception
• Section 16 - Obtaining pecuniary advantage by deception
• Section 17 - False accounting
• Section 21 - Blackmail
• Section 24 A - Dishonestly retaining a wrongful credit

Section 15 - Obtaining property by deception (NB: From 15 January 2007, superseded by the Fraud Act 2006)

THE COURTS CLAIMS = FRAUD TOOLS

• ATTEMPTED DECEPTION: The bogus invoices from Martin Russell Jones: (1) 21 October 2004, stating a "Brought forward balance" of £14,452 (US$25,600) - with no explanation whatsoever. This was the same amount as the original, 17 July 2002 demand of £14,400 (US$25,400). Hence, it totally ignored the fact that I had accepted - and paid - the 21 October 2003 'offer' from 'Steel Services' - which had been sealed, 3 months previously, in the 1July 2004 consent order (CKFT # 4 ; WLCC # 12 ; # 13 ) ; (2) three weeks later, another invoice, dated 16 November 2004, this time with a "Brought forward balance" of £15,447 " (US$27,300) - likewise, with no explanation whatsoever (MRJ # 18 )

In my 19 December 2003 correspondence to Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor I accepted 'Steel Services' ' offer ' of £6,350 (US$11,200) in settlement of my share of the costs for the 'major works' (i.e. the original demand of £14,400 (US$25,400) - except the demand for £143 (US$250) of interest - and included full payment with my reply . (For reasons, see West London County Court and My Diary from 16 June 2003 to 26 August 2003 ) (Re. the issue of interest, see also Mr Gallagher #8 and Piper Smith Basham # 7.3 )

Evidence of this is that Ms Ayesha Salim, CKFT, had stated, in her 28 May 2004 letter to me, acceptance of the Consent Order I had drafted while, in her 15 June 2004 letter, she stated having sent it to the court for approval and sent me a copy with her correspondence of 14 July 2004 . Consequently, with the previous payment I had made following the 26 August 2003 hearing, I paid a total of £6,350 (US$11,200) (which I did NOT owe). Wandsworth County Court endorsed the document sealing the agreement on 1 July 2004

In my letter of 31 December 2003 , I wrote to Ms Hathaway, Martin Russell Jones informing her of this payment.

See also

• Section 15A - Obtaining a money transfer by deception
• Section 16 - Obtaining pecuniary advantage by deception
• Section 17 - False accounting
• Section 21 - Blackmail
• Section 24 A - Dishonestly retaining a wrongful credit

Back to Theft Act sections

Section 15A - Obtaining a money transfer by deception (NB: From 15 January 2007, superseded by the Fraud Act 2006)

Given the examples contained in

• Section 15 - Obtaining property by deception
• Section 16 - Obtaining pecuniary advantage by deception
• Section 17 - False accounting
• Section 21 - Blackmail

THE COURTS CLAIMS = FRAUD TOOLS

•  Letters from e.g. Leaseholder C and Leaseholder M, and other events demonstrate that the intimidation tactics used by Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor / Martin Russell Jones / Portner and Jaskel LLP worked in relation to some of the other leaseholders (MRJ # 25 , # 26 ; LVT # 8.1.2 ; Other Residents ; Elderly Resident)

Back to Theft Act section

Section 16 - Obtaining pecuniary advantage by deception (NB: From 15 January 2007, superseded by the Fraud Act 2006)

THE THREAT OF FORFEITURE, AS WELL AS THE COURTS CLAIMS = FRAUD TOOLS

For a comprehensive overview of surrounding events - see my 3 June 2008 (74 pg) Witness Statement; (4pg Main Points)

•  In 2002, Ms Joan Hathaway, Martin Russell Jones was demanding from leaseholders, the sum of £736,000 (US$1.3 million) - under the threat of prosecution (e.g. letter to me of 20 September 2002 and of 24 September 2002 to another leaseholder) - as well as receiving money on behalf of Steel Services when, in fact, the evidence suggests that Steel Services did not exist (Owners identity; MRJ # 24 )

•  During the same period, in his 7 October 2002 letter, Mr Lanny Silverstone, CKFT, was threatening me with forfeiture and prosecution unless I immediately paid the sum of £14,400 (US$25,400) - thereby attempting to enforce the £736,000 (US$1.3 million) service charge demand sent by Ms Hathaway (Owners identity; CKFT # 6.9 , # 1 , # 6.2 )

•  It also follows that the same applies to Pridie Brewster: for a period of time, it was claiming to be acting on behalf of Steel Services when, in fact, the evidence suggests that it did not exist (Owners identity; Pridie Brewster # 14 )

•  The outcome of the 17 June 2003 LVT/SC/007/120/02 determination (ref #992 on the LVT database) was a reduction of nearly 70% (incl. the contingency fund) in the original sum demanded, from £736,206 (US$1.3 million) down to £235,947 (US$416,000) (LVT # 4 )

•  The 23 May 2003 application to WLCC by Mr Lanny Silverstone, Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor, 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" (CKFT # 6.3)... as do the accounts - see Section 17 - False accounting

•  In breach of leaseholders' statutory rights, the determination was not implemented. In his 2 August 2004 letter, Mr Barrie Martin, FRICS, Martin Russell Jones, informed "All Lessees" of the appointment of a new contractor, Mansell Construction Services. Deceptively, Mr Martin did not included the 11% management fee and VAT. The total sum demanded is in fact £669,937 (US$1.181 million) making a difference of only £66,269 (US$113,732) relative to the original sum demanded of £736,206 (US$1.3 million) - or 9% less (when in fact it should be less 68%). (MRJ # 13 , # 17 )

•  Ms Hathaway, MRICS, and Mr Barrie Martin, FRICS, Martin Russell Jones, and Mr Brian Gale, MRICS, lied to the leaseholders of Jefferson House, and to the tribunal, by claiming that the works were just repair and maintenance, when, in fact they entailed the addition of a penthouse flat and 3 others flats (Major works ; Photo gallery )

•  (a) Ms Hathaway, wrote in her 30 August 2002 letter to me: "We are informed that there is no intention to build the penthouse at the current time"

•  (b) The letter 'from', Ms Hathaway, MRICS, of 4 March 2003 - supplied as part of the evidential documents to the tribunal in which she stated "...regarding the proposed penthouse .although the planning permission was granted it was subsequently found that the scheme was not a viable proposition...there are no plans to build the penthouse at the property" (Planning applications ; MRJ # 9 , # 12 , # 13 )

•  (c) The 13 December 2002 "Expert witness" report from Mr Brian Gale, MRICS, to the LVT: "I am able to categorically state that the Specification makes NO provisions for any construction of an additional floor nor any future requirement in the building to create a penthouse flat" (Planning applications ; Mr Brian Gale )

•  (d) Mr Brian Gale's identified "defects" and "remedies" during his "condition survey" - and his interpretation in practice (2.4MB)

•  (e) Mansell - Mr Brian Gale who described the works as including "replacing asphalt roof" (Planning applications , Mansell )

•  (e) Mr Barrie Martin, FRICS, Martin Russell Jones, in his 14 July 2004 letter to me: "External repair and redecoration work plus internal refurbishment of common parts"

V.

•  In breach of the terms of the lease, and of their statutory rights, 9 out of 14 flats on the 29 November 2002 West London County Court claim ended-up paying the full amount demanded in the claim + a further 16 flats also paid the full amount (Pridie Brewster # 18 ) (See also S.17 False Accounting)

This is the reason why Martin Russell Jones did not want to supply me with a copy of the accounts for 2002 and 2003 (Pridie Brewster # 1 ). When I finally obtained them , following a battle, firstly with Kensington & Chelsea housing, and secondly with the Local Government Ombudsman, the section on the contributions paid by the leaseholders was withheld (LGO # 7 )

See also:

• Section 15 - Obtaining property by deception
• Section 17 - False accounting
• Section 21 - Blackmail

Back to Theft Act sections

Section 17 - False accounting

THE THREAT OF FORFEITURE, BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS, AS WELL AS THE COURTS CLAIMS = FRAUD TOOLS

For a comprehensive overview of surrounding events, as well as evidence - see my 3 June 2008 (74 pg) Witness Statement; (4pg Main Points)

•  As a result of being copied on my 30 March 2005 letter to Ms Hathaway, MRICS, Martin Russell Jones, Mr Roger Clement, accountant, Pridie Brewster, replied in his 15 April 2005 letter that he was not aware of the 17 June 2003 LVT determination. In my 17 April 2005 correspondence I supplied him with 48 evidential documents. I followed this by another letter of 9 May 2005. (PB # 3 )

•  As, 3 months later, Mr Clement had not acknowledged either of my letters, on 19 July 2005, I contacted the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales (ICAEW) asking for assistance (PB # 4 ).

•  From there ensued a one year battle with the ICAEW (PB # 5 - # 17 ) which argued against my position, while acknowledging that Pridie Brewster was breaching covenants in my lease (PB # 8) - (which is further evidenced by the "2006 Estimated expenditure for Steel Services" (PB # 20) ).

•  In its 29 August 2006 letter, the ICAEW also confirmed that the 17 June 2003 LVT determination had NOT been reflected in the accounts.

Outcome: In breach of the terms of the lease, and of their statutory rights, 9 out of 14 flats on the 29 November 2002 West London County Court claim ended-up paying the full amount demanded in the claim + a further 16 flats also paid the full amount (Pridie Brewster # 18 )

•  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 August 2006 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 (PB # 19 )

•  In breach of the terms of my lease, and of my statutory rights, I have not been supplied with accounts for Jefferson House since 2004. However, it can be safe to assume that the accounts have not been restated.

•  This is to be added to the fact that they are not compliant with the terms of my lease.

Hence, the accounts for Jefferson House - on which service charge demands are based - are FALSE

See also

• Section 15 - Obtaining property by deception
• Section 16 - Obtaining pecuniary advantage by deception
• Section 21 - Blackmail

Back to Theft Act sections

Section 21 - Blackmail

THE THREAT OF FORFEITURE, BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS, AS WELL AS THE COURTS CLAIMS = FRAUD TOOLS

For a comprehensive overview of surrounding events - see my 3 June 2008 (74 pg) Witness Statement; (4pg Main Points)

•  •  Mr Jeremy Hershkorn, then at Portner and Jaskel, who - acting for Mr Andrew Ladsky - in his 16 February 2007 letter, threatened me with "bankruptcy proceedings", forfeiture (taking the flat away from me), and "costs" if I did not immediately pay the FRAUDULENT sum of £8,937 (Portner # 3 ) (US$15,800) - to 'Rootstock Overseas Corp', a company I had never heard of (Portner # 15 )

•  Ignoring my 25 February 2007 reply in which I asked for clarification, Mr Jeremy Hershkorn, Portner and Jaskel, proceeded to file a claim against me in West London County Court on 27 February 2007 - Portner point # 3 ; WLCC # 1 - under a Statement of Truth - knowing full well that the claim against me was FRAUDULENT (Portner # 6.3 )

•  Evidence that the 27 February 2007 claim filed against me was fraudulent is that, on 6 June 2008, 'Rootstock' i.e. Mr Andrew Ladsky dropped "ALL" of his (second) fraudulent claim against me (My Diary - 7 June 2008 ; 3 June 2008 (My (74 pg) - 3 June 2008 Witness Statement) (4 pg - Main Points) ; Portner # 31 )

•  The 7 October 2002 letter from Mr Lanny Silverstone, Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor - acting for Mr Andrew Ladsky - in which he threatened to forfeit my lease and contact my mortgage lender unless I immediately paid the sum of £14,400 (US$25,400) (CKFT # 1 , # 6.2 ). Compared to the letter he sent ten 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 so distress that I ended-up being physically sick (My Diary 10 October 2002 ) )

•  The 20 September 2002 reply to my request for information from Ms Hathaway, MRICS, Martin Russell Jones 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” ( MRJ # 25 , # 26 )

•  The 29 November 2002 claim ( WL 023 537) filed in West London County Court by Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor - FALSELY - stating in the Particulars of Claim (1.1MB) that "[I] have failed to pay the service charges... that they are now due and owing from [me] to the Claimant." and include a 'Statement of Truth' signed by Ms Joan Hathaway, MRICS, Martin Russell Jones which states: "The Claimant believes that the facts stated in this Claim Form are true" (CKFT # 2 , # 3 ) (NB: Endorsement of the witness statement by Ms Hathaway, a 'managing agent' - amounts to a very serious breach of CPR - My Diary 9 March 2007)

The Particulars of claim are FALSE given that:

• the tribunal had, one month previously, specifically told me (and other leaseholders to NOT pay (pg 5) the service charge);
• seven months LATER, the outcome of the 17 June 2003 LVT/SC/007/120/02 determination (ref #992 on the LVT database) was a reduction of nearly 70% (incl. the contingency fund) in the original sum demanded, from £736,206 (US$1.3 million) down to £235,947 (US$416,000) (see also LVT # 4 ; Pridie Brewster # 2 , # 3 , # 5 , # 8 , # 10 , # 12 , # 13 , # 17 , # 18 , # 19 , # 20 )
• the service demand breached statutory requirements: L&T 1985 - section 20(3)(a); 20(3)(b); 20(4)(e) - as amply demonstrated by the tribunal's 17 June 2003 determination (Stan Gallagher # 1.7 )
• the demand was in breach of the terms of my lease - Clause 2(2)(c)(ii); 2(2)(e); 2(2)(g)(i); 2(2)(j) (Stan Gallagher # 1.6 )

•  With the assistance of Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor, Martin Russell Jones continued issuing - FALSE - documents to West London County Court, for the 24 June 2003 (WLCC # 7 ; # 8 ) and 26 August 2003 (WLCC # 9 ; # 10 ) hearing, FALSELY claiming that I then owed £10,917 (US$19,250).

•  Mr Lanny Silverstone and Ms Ayesha Salim, Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor, sent me a dozen highly threatening, fraudulent, libellous letters, always "with costs" (Of course! ) - principally intended to force me to strike a deal with their client, Mr Andrew Ladsky i.e. make me pay monies that were not due and payable (CKFT # 5 ; WLCC # 10)

•  Being placed under an unbelievable amount of stress, for the sake of my health (My Diary - 28 October 2003 , 11 November , 12 November , 13 November , November 2003 , Christmas 2003), in my 19 December 2003 correspondence to Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor I accepted 'Steel Services' ' offer ' of £6,350 (US$11,200) in settlement of my share of the costs for the 'major works' (i.e. the original demand of £14,400 (US$25,400) - even though, legally, I did not owe this sum . Wandsworth County Court endorsed the document sealing the agreement on 1 July 2004

•  Letters from e.g. Leaseholder C and Leaseholder M, and other events demonstrate that the intimidation tactics used by Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor / Martin Russell Jones / Portner and Jaskel LLP worked in relation to some of the other leaseholders (MRJ # 25 , # 26 ; LVT # 8.1.2 ; Other Residents ; Elderly Resident)

•  The 9 January 2006 service charge demand from Ms Hathaway, stating a "Half-yearly service charge in advance" of £815 (US$1,435), based on "Steel Services estimated expenditure for 2006" - which covers all the flats when, in fact:

• (1) three weeks previously, Steel Services had sold its leasehold interest on the last floor of Jefferson House to Lavagna Enterprises. The penthouse flat was a lessee of Lavagna Enterprises (Headlessors)
• (2) three new flats were added ( #18A , # 33A and # 35A ) in the course of the "repair and maintenance works" ( Summary slide ; Headlessors ; Pridie Brewster # 12 )

•  The deceit, threats, bullying and coercion in the stream of emails in September 2003 from Ms Lisa McLean, Piper Smith Basham - in collusion with Ms Ayesha Salim, CKFT, and Mr Barrie Martin, FRICS, and Ms Joan Hathaway, Martin Russell Jones - intended to stop me from proceeding with my 20C application - thereby allowing 'Steel Services' to charge its LVT related costs to Jefferson House's leaseholders. Ms McLean went as far as saying "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'). They succeeded in achieving their objective (PSB # 7.19, #7.18.2, #7.18.5 ; CKFT # 6.9 ; Martin Russell Jones # 43

See also

• Section 15 - Obtaining property by deception
• Section 16 - Obtaining pecuniary advantage by deception
• Section 17 - False accounting

Back to Theft Act sections

Section 24 A - Dishonestly retaining a wrongful credit

•  In light of the above: ditto in terms of the breach of this section of the Act

(See also related to the Theft Act sections:

• Malicious Communications Act 1988
• Protection from Harassment Act 1997
• Defamation Act 1996
• Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 - Chapter 41- Section 17
• Fraud Act 2006
• Bullying , Coerce , Intimidate ; Torment ; Treatment - Medical )

Bullying

Examples

THE THREAT OF FORFEITURE, BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS, AS WELL AS THE COURTS CLAIMS = FRAUD TOOLS

•  West London County Court that, in 2007, falsely claimed that I had filed a counterclaim; demanded I pay £1,700 and gave me three working days to do this - and subsequently, with the assistance of Her Majesty Court Service, attempted to cover it through deceit - point # 18 my complaint to the Court Service , point # 19 repeating the main points in my complaint, point # 23 and point # 22 highlighting the deceit and cover-up by WLCC and the Court Service

•  West London County Court's actions in 2002 - 2004 that pursued the claim against me (and 10 other leaseholders - representing in total 14 flats) in the full knowledge that: (1) an abuse of process of court was taking place ; (2) the Particulars of claim were false; (3) proceeded to issue judgement/s against some of my fellow leaseholders - before the LVT issued its determination ; (4) to the very end, ignored my repeated claim that 'Steel Services' had not implemented the 17 June 2003 LVT determination

•  The 7 October 2002 letter from Mr Lanny Silverstone, Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor - acting for Mr Andrew Ladsky - in which he threatened to forfeit my lease and contact my mortgage lender unless I immediately paid the sum of £14,400 (US$25,400) (CKFT # 1 , # 6.2 ). Compared to the letter he sent ten 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 so distress that I ended-up being physically sick (My Diary 10 October 2002 ) )

•  Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor drawing-up the - FALSE - claim against me and 10 other leaseholders - representing 14 flats - when, one month previously, during the 29 October 2002 pre-trial tribunal we, the leaseholders, had been told to NOT pay until the tribunal had issued its determination and it had been implemented. In support of this, we were given a leaflet which, on page 5 states that ""...a recent Court of Appeal case ruling (Daejan Properties Limited v London Leasehold Valuation Tribunal) determined that LVTs only have the jurisdiction to decide the reasonableness of disputed service charges that are still unpaid"

Among others, CKFT's client, Mr Andrew Ladsky, and Ms Hathaway were in attendance at this pre-trial hearing. One month later, Ms Hathaway filed the claim in West London County - under a Statement of Truth (1.1MB) (As she is the managing agent, it amounts to a very serious breach of Civil Procedure Rules by West London County Court - point # 23 )

• Mr Jeremy Hershkorn, Portner and Jaskel who, in February 2007 - acting for Mr Andrew Ladsky, threatened me with bankruptcy proceeding and taking the flat away from me, as well as Mr Ahmet Jaffer who took over from Mr Hershkorn - point # 3 and point # 15 , point # 16 , point # 17 , point # 23

•  By Mr Ladsky at the 5 February 2003 LVT hearing who 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?"

(The reply is captured under point 64 of the 17 June 2003 LVT/SC/007/120/02 report (ref. #992 on the LVT database) : "Although she is in the minority, the Respondent's legal right to challenge the Applicant's proposal, as she has done, cannot be fettered"

•  The so-called "invitations" written by Mr Lanny Silverstone, CKFT, which can more accurately be described as bullying and intimidation tactics:

25 June 2003 ".the costly LVT process has now resulted in a percentage uplift in the contract figure and a significant delay in the project. We should, therefore, strongly urge you to meet with our client."

24 July 2003 "Clearly substantial costs will be incurred if the court has to deal with the determination of this issue. this is a matter which could be dealt with between the parties. we reserve the right to refer to this and previous correspondence in relation to any subsequent issue as to costs"

7 August 2003 ) letter to my solicitors (of a few hours) "...we have made numerous offers to meet with your client in order to try and resolve this matter by negotiation. She has declined to accept those offers. We shall contend that this is a relevant matter in relation to the question of costs"

•  Piper Smith Basham falsely claiming on three separate occasions that I had agreed to the reply sent by Mr Richard Twyman to CKFT on 13 November 2003 (Piper Smith Basham # 4 , # 7.13 , # 7.13.1 , # 7.13.2 ) (CKFT # 6.8 ) (My Diary December 2003 )

•  Events with Mr Twyman: 11 November 2003; 12 November 2003; 14 November 2003 - and Mr Gallagher 13 November 2003 - afternoon;

•  What I consider as the use of coercion, bullying and intimidation tactics by Mr Twyman and Ms McLean, Piper Smith Basham (the Law Society disagrees with me), among others, in relation to my 20C application. The Law Society can disagree with me as much as it wants, but its members made 'me' go through absolute, sheer utter hell during that time - see Piper Smith Basham # 7.19, #7.18.2, #7.18.5 . See also Martin Russell Jones # 43 which includes evidence against Ms Ayesha Salim, CKFT # 6.9; My Diary Sep 2003 - 20C application

•  Mr Gallagher who, at the time of the 'offer', repeatedly brandished the threat of "costs" in my face as a means of bullying me into accepting the 'offer' (I will not add 'allegedly' as it is glaringly obvious that this was the intention) (Mr Gallagher # 3.a.4 ) , and continued to do so in his initial reply of 9 June 2004 (I counted 10 instances in his 29 page reply) leading me to ask (point 67, 29 August 2004 ) "Mr Gallagher wants me to believe that, with this body of evidence, the odds were against me? Was Mr Gallagher acting for me or the other side?" (Of course, he challenged my statement in his 11 October 2004 reply) (Mr Gallagher # 5.1 ) (See also 'Breach' Bar Council Code of Conduct)

•  The ICAEW's threat in its 23 August 2005 letter " if I do not receive a reply within the next 7 days I will be recommending the file for closure" , as the reply it was chasing was to its 4 August 2005 letter i.e. sent three weeks earlier, during the month of August which is a holiday period (Pridie Brewster # 6 ) Of course, the ICAEW continued using the same tactic in relation its 29 August 2006 reply (Pridie Brewster # 22 )

•  The state of the area around my flat: the step (1.1MB) in front of my windows that remained broken for nearly one year; the filth around my flat. See also Photo gallery

See also related - 'Breach': Malicious Communications Act 1988 ; Theft Act 1968 / Theft (Amendment) Act 1996 ; Fraud Act 2006 ; Defamation Act 1996 ; Criminal Justice Act & Public Order Act 1994 ; Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 - Chapter 41- Section 17 ; Coerce , Intimidate ; Torment ; Treatment - Medical

Clan

Examples

•  My view of the group comprising of: the courts, the Law Society, the Bar Council and the Legal Services Ombudsman

Coerce

Examples

•  My view - initially captured under point 5 of my 5 April 2004 complaint against Mr Gallagher [and PSB ] - that Mr Gallagher and Mr Twyman had engineered the situation to prevent me from inputting into the reply to the 21 October 2003 'offer'. Following the total rejection of my complaint by the Bar Council, I again repeated this under point 45 of my 25 March 2005 reply to the Bar Council (Mr Gallagher # 10 )

•  How I view Mr Gallagher, Mr Twyman and Ms McLean's conduct from the time the 'offer' was received - [ ] (My Diary 28 October 2003 , 6 November , 7 November , 11 November , 12 November , 13 November ) and following Mr Twyman sending the reply - without my consent [ ] (My Diary 14 November 2003)

•  Piper Smith Basham (now Piper Smith Watton) FALSELY claiming on three separate occasions that I had agreed to the reply sent by Mr Richard Twyman to CKFT on 13 November 2003 (Piper Smith Basham # 4 , # 7.13 , # 7.13.1 , # 7.13.2 ) (CKFT # 6.8 ) (My Diary 13 December 2003, 14 November , December 2003 )

•  My view of Piper Smith Basham's reply of 18 December 2003 to my letter of 2 December 2003 (which, given events, I view as exceptionally generous and conciliatory) as, in reply to my wanting it to send another reply to CKFT which reflects what had been agreed, it states; "...would only lead to further litigation at your cost..." (Piper Smith Basham # 3 )

•  Ms Hathaway letter to me 20 September 2002: “…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”

•  Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor drawing-up the - FALSE - claim against me and 10 other leaseholders - representing 14 flats - when, one month previously, during the 29 October 2002 pre-trial tribunal we, the leaseholders, had been told to NOT pay until the tribunal had issued its determination and it had been implemented. In support of this, we were given a leaflet which, on page 5 states that ""...a recent Court of Appeal case ruling (Daejan Properties Limited v London Leasehold Valuation Tribunal) determined that LVTs only have the jurisdiction to decide the reasonableness of disputed service charges that are still unpaid"

Among others, CKFT's client, Mr Andrew Ladsky, and Ms Hathaway were in attendance at this pre-trial hearing. One month later, Ms Hathaway filed the claim in West London County - under a Statement of Truth (1.1MB) (It amounts to a very serious breach of Civil Procedure Rules by West London County Court - point # 23 )

•  In reply to my insisting that the Bar Council deals with my complaint (rather than follow its suggestion that I chase Arden Chambers for a reply), the comment in its 6 May 2004 reply : "It might well have been that they could have given you satisfaction and, if not, you could then have come to me, giving you two rungs of the ladder, so to speak" (Mr Gallagher # A )

• Engineering a propitious environment for coercion tactics by eliminating the residents association as a result of harassment of the person heading it

See also related - 'Breach': Malicious Communications Act 1988 ; Theft Act 1968 / Theft (Amendment) Act 1996 ; Fraud Act 2006 ; Defamation Act 1996 ; Criminal Justice Act & Public Order Act 1994 ; Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 - Chapter 41- Section 17 ; Bullying ; Intimidate ; Torment ; Treatment - Medical

Collude

Examples

•  West London County Court that, in 2007, falsely claimed that I had filed a counterclaim; demanded I pay £1,700 and gave me three working days to do this - and subsequently, with the assistance of Her Majesty Court Service, attempted to cover it through deceit - point # 18 my complaint to the Court Service , point # 19 repeating the main points in my complaint, point # 23 and point # 22 highlighting the deceit and cover-up by WLCC and the Court Service

•  West London County Court's actions in 2002 - 2004 that pursued the claim against me (and 10 other leaseholders - representing in total 14 flats) in the full knowledge that: (1) an abuse of process of court was taking place; (2) the Particulars of claim were false; (3) proceeded to issue judgement/s against some of my fellow leaseholders - before the LVT; (4) to the very end, ignored my repeated claim that 'Steel Services' had not implemented the 17 June 2003 LVT determination

•  My view - supported by ample 'black on white' evidence - that 'my advisers' colluded with the aim forcing me to accept the 'offer' from Mr Andrew Ladsky - and that this expectation had been the game plan all along (Piper Smith Basham (now Piper Smith Watton) # 7 , # 7.14 , # 7.17 , # 7.17.1 , # 8 ) (Mr Gallagher Introduction ; 3.e.2 , # 19 ) (CKFT # 3 , # 6. 8 ) (My Witness Statement ) (My Diary 28 October 2003 , 6 November , 7 November , 11 November , 12 November , 13 November , afternoon of 13 November 2003 )

•  My view - supported by 'black on white' evidence - that Ms Lisa McLean, Piper Smith Basham/Watton, Ms Ayesha Salim, Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor, Mr Barrie Martin, FRICS, and Ms Joan Hathaway, Martin Russell Jones colluded in relation to my 20C Application to the LVT (PSB # 7.18 ; MRJ # 43 ) - and the LVT provided some 'very helpful assistance' (LVT # 5 )

•  As my 16 March 2004 complaint against Piper Smith Basham, and my 20 December 2004 complaint against Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor were rejected by the Law Society, and the Bar Council rejected my 4 April 2004 complaint against Mr Gallagher I, likewise, hold the view that the Law Society and the Bar Council colluded with their member - and this is abundantly evident from their replies.

• Considering that the Legal Services Ombudsman - who had been supplied with all the relevant documents - endorsed the decision of the Law Society ( # 2 ) / ignored the Law Society's handling of the complaint against Piper Smith Basham ( # 3 ), and endorsed the decision of the Bar Council ( # 4 ) - I, likewise, hold the view that this Ombudsman colluded with the Law Society and the Bar Council.

Example of evidence in support of my position: this Ombudsman's comment on page 3 of her 30 August 2005 reply: "The outcome of the (LVT) determination was largely favourable for your landlord" ...

...against the fact that the outcome of the 17 June 2003, LVT/SC/007/120/02 determination (ref #992 on the LVT database) was to reduce the global sum demanded of £736,000 (US$1.3 million) by nearly 70%, down to £235,947 (US$416,000) (incl. contingency fund). In other words, £500,000 (US$882,000) of the sum demanded was NOT considered as reasonable.

•  Considering, the overwhelming amount of 'black on white' evidence I supplied to the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors in my 2 February 2005 (1.1MB) complaint against Martin Russell Jones, I also hold the view that the RICS colluded with its member in dismissing my complaint - and further confirmation of this, more than 3 years later, with the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, in its 21 August 2008 letter - UNBELIEVABLY - encouraging Martin Russell Jones to issue proceedings against me for defamation - see RICS # 12

•  For the same reason i.e. the overwhelming amount of evidence I supplied

•  Portner and Jaskel’s 10 February 2006 so-called “S.5 L&T 1987 Notice of first refusal” is fraudulent as it FALSELY claimed that 'Steel Services' was still the Lessor for the whole of Jefferson House at the time - when, in fact, six week previously, 'Steel Services' had disposed of its headlease interest to Lavagna Enterprises, thereby losing control of the last floor of Jefferson House - and becoming a lessee of Lavagna Enterprises (Headlessors ; Owners identity). (The 10 February 2006 "notice" is a carbon copy of previous notices when 'Steel Services' was the headlessor for the whole block (e.g. 13 December 2000 "notice" ; # 2 - 13 December 2000"Notice by landlord"). Nonetheless, Mr Daniel Broughton, Portner and Jaskel, repeated the lie twice during the notice period – as summarised in my 30 April 2006 letter to Mr Broughton - see Portner # 1 ; # 3 - 10 February 2006 bogus "Notice by landlord" ; Property Misdescriptions Act 1991 

My guess that Mr Andrew Ladsky was the instigator of this malicious, vicious act also proved to be right as Portner and Jaskel helpfully confirmed this in its (libellous, scurrilous) 3 October 2006 letter to my then ISP - PLUS the 'standard' Law Society's reply of 30 March 2007 to my 28 February 2007 complaint that Portner "Acted on the instructions of their client" - Portner # 5.1

•  The LVT waiting more than two months to inform the leaseholders of the application to the tribunal by 'Steel Services' and the pre-trial hearing. The application was filed on 7 August 2002. The first letter from the LVT informing the leaseholders of the application is dated 8 October 2002. It makes no reference to the pre-trial hearing scheduled for 29 October. In fact, it waited another two days, announcing it in its 10 October 2002 letter. Many leaseholders lived overseas. By the time they received the letter, the unbelievably short notice meant that - 'very conveniently' for 'Steel Services' - they could not attend (LVT # 10.1 )

•  In sending the above correspondence to leaseholders, quite clearly, the LVT took its cue from 'Steel Services' as to which leaseholders should NOT be informed of the application - in the process committing a breach of their statutory rights under section 20(4) of the Landlord & Tenant Act 1985 (LVT # 10.2 )

•  The LVT opted to not copy me - as well as "some" other leaseholders - on the appendices to the 7 August 2002 application - which included the priced specification all of us had been clamouring for (LVT # 10.3 )

•  The LVT talking only notice of the correspondence from Ms Hathaway e.g. her 8 October 2002 fax, 'her' 20 January 2003 letter - while ignoring all of my correspondence and that of numerous other leaseholders, as well as what we had all reported at the 29 October 2002 pre-trial hearing

•  The Legal Services Ombudsman wholeheartedly endorsing:

(1) the decision of the Law Society in relation to my complaint against CKFT

(2) the decision of the Bar Council in relation to my complaint against Mr Stan Gallagher - including both her, and the Bar Council in its last communication 'dutifully' stating Mr Gallagher's laughable excuse that "his involvement concerned a time frame of only about 3 weeks"

(3) her lack of action in relation to my highlighting that the Law Society kept on ignoring the evidence I had supplied in relation to my complaint against Piper Smith & Basham

•  The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, which, in spite of providing it with very comprehensive evidence in my complaint (1MB) against Martin Russell Jones, returned the verdict of having "insufficient weight of evidence to place this matter before an RICS disciplinary committee"

•  The 'blind eye, deaf ear' attitude of the Land Registry - My Diary 28 March 2006

See also related - 'Breach': Malicious Communications Act 1988 ; Theft Act 1968 / Theft (Amendment) Act 1996 ; Fraud Act 2006 ; Defamation Act 1996 ; Criminal Justice Act & Public Order Act 1994 ; Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 - Chapter 41- Section 17

Complicity

Examples

•  Kensington & Chelsea police has turned a 'blind eye and a deaf ear' to Mr Andrew Ladsky's criminal acts - under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997:

- At least five residents, including myself, reported acts of harassment by Mr Andrew Ladsky to Kensington & Chelsea police (Kensington & Chelsea police point # 1 and point # 3 ) This reporting was denied by Paul Webster, Detective Inspector who stated in his 23 April 2002 letter "No crime report has been reported to this police borough regarding Mr Ladsky..." (also covered under points # 1 and # 3)

In addition to turning a 'blind eye and a deaf ear', Kensington & Chelsea police has sided with Mr Andrew Ladsky as:

(1) In 2002, it concocted a story and made up excuses in order to, among others, not reveal the owner of the Reach telephone number from which one (or more?) of the anonymous phone calls I received were made - WHY? (Kensington & Chelsea police # 1 )

(2) When, in January 2003, Mr Ladsky claimed that I "swore at [him]", Kensington & Chelsea police turned against me stating, in its 27 January 2003 letter "Of perhaps greater importance is the fact that any further such outbursts may result in charges of harassment being made against you, as this initial complaint has been fully recorded by the police." (Kensington & Chelsea police point # 2 )

(3) It aimed to assist Mr Ladsky in his desperate attempts to get my website closed down by approaching my website Host on 16 March 2007, endorsing his unsupported accusation that my website "contains anti-Semitic comments". In the process, Kensington & Chelsea police implied that I had 'committed a crime', as well as branded me as "a Nazi".

When challenged by my website Host who replied "Are you aware that there are laws against making false accusations?", Kensington & Chelsea police backed down stating in its 20 March 2007 reply "There is nothing we as a police force can do other than classify it as a racist incident" - while still not providing any evidence in support - for the simple reason that the accusation is FALSE. (Events captured in My Diary - 20 March 2007)

Worthy of particular note in relation to Kensington & Chelsea police's conduct is the 11 July 2002 reply from Sir Toby Harris, then Chair of the Metropolitan Police Authority, in the context of my complaint against Mr Ladsky in 2002:

"...you seem convinced that Mrs [x] acted under the direction of Mr Ladsky.

While this may or may not be the case, the police cannot act on the basis of your suspicions, however strongly held, and must act only on the basis of established facts"

Very clearly, this does not apply when the complainant is Mr Andrew Ladsky.

From where I am standing, these events since 2002 amount to complicity.

Contempt

Examples

•  My view that Mr Lanny Silverstone and Ms Ayesha Salim, Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor ; Mr Jeremy Hershkorn and Mr Ahmet Jaffer, Portner and Jaskel ; Ms Joan Hathaway, MRICS, Martin Russell Jones ; Mr Brian Gale, Brian Gale Associates - hold / have consistently held the English judiciary in absolute, utter contempt - view I expressed to Her Majesty Court Service in my 28 January 2008 reply - point # 23 - and in my 26 January 2008 letter "TO: A judge committed to the concept of Justice, c/o West London County Court" - point # 24

•  One of the terms I use to describe the people I consider are observing me / following me / harassing me / attempting to scare me / intimidate me

Corrupt

Examples

•  A description - at best, 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

•  By the time I launched my website in Autumn 2006, the word corruption featured frequently in the British press in relation to individuals in government / government departments - My Diary July 2006. Thanks to the media, in 2009 widespread sleaze was exposed in the House of Lords, House of Commons, in the quangos, in the police, etc. My Diary Jan 09 ; Feb 09

See also related - 'Breach': Malicious Communications Act 1988 ; Theft Act 1968 / Theft (Amendment) Act 1996 ; Fraud Act 2006 ; Defamation Act 1996 ; Criminal Justice Act & Public Order Act 1994 ; Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 - Chapter 41- Section 17

Covenant

Examples

•  The clauses in my lease setting-out responsibilities / obligations

Crime - Criminal

Examples

Breaches of each of the following Acts amount to committing criminal offences.

Examples of events / actions I have been subjected to are included under each:

• 'Breach' - Criminal Justice Act & Public Order Act 1994
• 'Breach' - Landlord & Tenant Act 1985 - s.25(1)
• 'Breach' - Landlord & Tenant Act 1987 - s.10A(1)
• 'Breach' - Malicious Communications Act 1988
• 'Breach' - Fraud Act 2006
• 'Breach' - 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
• 'Breach' - Property Misdescriptions Act 1991
• 'Breach' - Protection from Harassment Act 1997
• 'Breach' - Theft Act 1968 / Theft (Amendment) Act 1996

THE THREAT OF FORFEITURE AND BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS, AS WELL AS THE COURTS CLAIMS = FRAUD TOOLS

The pay-off : Owners identity # 3 , # 3.1 ; Block sale of flats

But, no prosecution takes place, because this country is soft on crime... except if you happen to be one of the 'little people' i.e. with limited income and no connections to the gigantic web of symbiotic relationships. Then, you can end-up with a criminal record for all kinds of absolutely ludicrous reasons e.g. overfilling your dustbin by four inches, or end-up in in jail over an apple core...

...and / or, like me, being persecuted for 'daring' to stand-up against crime, challenge and expose incompetence / malpractice / collusion / fraud and other criminal activities / practices - because the 'little people don't do that!'.

The 'little people' don't challenge the 'big people's scams. Therefore, those who 'dare' to do it 'must be made to know their place': that contrary to the window dressing (*) legislation, regulations and codes of conduct, they are there to be used and abused... and that the 'big people' will go after them with a vengeance for 'daring to step out of line' by demanding their 'rights'.

(*) As blatantly obvious by e.g. the outcome of my complaints - overview My Diary 6 May 2008

Crook

Examples

•  See Crime-Criminal

Cruel

Examples

•  WRONGLY being told by West London County Court and Wandsworth County Court - on THREE OCCASIONS - that an action concerned me - and continuing to do so when challenged:

• (1) a charging order hearing - maintaining the position for a week from 27 March 2003 to 1 April 2003
• This event caused me an unbelievable amount of torment, distress and anguish. (My Diary 24 March 2003 ; 25 March 2003 ; 30 March 2003 ; 1 April 2003 ) (Lord Falconer # 1 )
• (2) claiming, on 31 March 2004, that a judgement had been entered against me on 18 March 2004 (Lord Falconer # 2 )
• (3) over a five-week period maintaining that I was the defendant in a trial (Lord Falconer # 5.1 )

See also related - 'Breach': Malicious Communications Act 1988 ; Theft Act 1968 / Theft (Amendment) Act 1996 ; Fraud Act 2006 ; Defamation Act 1996 ; Criminal Justice Act & Public Order Act 1994 ; Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 - Chapter 41- Section 17 ; Bullying ; Coerce , Intimidate ; Torment ; Treatment - Medical

Deceive / Deception

Examples

•  Mr Gallagher (see Bar Council Code of Conduct)

•  Compared to the 15 July 2002 original service charge demand for the works, Mr Barrie Martin, FRICS, in his 2 August 2004 letter did not provide the actual cost for the works as he stated the amount as “£513,656.70 + VAT” . He also did not mention the addition of an 11% management fee. The addition of these items brings the total to £669,936 (US$1.182 million), thereby making this just £66,269 (US$117,000) or 9% cheaper than the Killby & Gayford quote.

The impact of the LVT/SC/007/120/02 determination was to reduce the original sum demanded of £736,000 (US$1.3 million) by £500,000 (US$882,000) (incl. the contingency fund) down to £236,000 (US$416,000) (LVT # 3 , # 4 , # 6 , # 7 , # 8 ; Pridie Brewster )

see also 'Breach' - Theft Act 1968 / Theft (Amendment) Act 1996

Defame

Examples

•  See Breach of Defamation Act 1996

Despair

Examples

• Having my 12 January 2003 request to the tribunal for a postponement of the 5 February 2003 dismissed (My Diary c. 17 January 2003 , End January 2003 )

• Being evidently considered as a 'non-entity' by West London County Court (WLCC ; My Diary 16 June 2003 , 17 June , 22 June , 24 June , 26 August ) - as well as by its 'head office', the Court Service (Lord Falconer# 1 , # 3 , etc)

•  Hitting very 'deep lows' e.g. My Diary September 2003 - My 20C application ; 16 June 2006; 20 August 2006;

•  Spending over 1,800 hours of my life filing complaints against the various parties - and fighting with their complaints department and higher level - to end-up with having none of my complaints upheld - while knowing that my complaints are valid (Document library ; Home page # 4.24 , # 7 , # 10 )

•  Absolutely everywhere I have turned to for help and assistance has led me to go into battle - a total of 28 battles since 2002 - and the outcome of all of that is that, seven years on, and I am in bigger mess now that I have ever been (Document library) (Home page

•  Feeling extremely sickened by what I am seeing since 2003 when I finally removed my blindfold. Not surprisingly, it has left me with absolute, total, utter contempt for the whole system (My Diary 16 May 2006 ) - and what I read in the press about the current administration only adds to my very negative perceptions. I can't see the light at the end of the tunnel. (My Diary 21 August 2006 )

See also related - 'Breach': Malicious Communications Act 1988 ; Theft Act 1968 / Theft (Amendment) Act 1996 ; Fraud Act 2006 ; Defamation Act 1996 ; Criminal Justice Act & Public Order Act 1994 ; Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 - Chapter 41- Section 17 ; Bullying ; Coerce , Intimidate ; Torment ; Treatment - Medical

Despicable

Examples

•  One of the terms I use to describe the people I consider are observing me / following me / harassing me / attempting to scare me / intimidate me

Dictator

Examples

•  Mr Ladsky phoning the Tenancy Relations Officer at the Kensington& Chelsea Housing department I had approached for assistance - asking him for all the information I had provided

Dishonest

Examples

See related - 'Breach': Malicious Communications Act 1988 ; Theft Act 1968 / Theft (Amendment) Act 1996 ; Fraud Act 2006 ; Defamation Act 1996 ; Criminal Justice Act & Public Order Act 1994 ; Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 - Chapter 41- Section 17

Dismissed

Examples

•  Response from my then MP, Mr Michael Portillo on 28 May 2002 - and subsequently

•  The "get lost", "sort out the mess we've made yourself" reply from the Land Registry - My Diary 28 March 2006

•  The appalling treatment I received from the court staff (Falconer #2;

Distress

Examples

•  Receiving the 17 July 2002 £14,400 (US$25,400) service charge demand from Ms Hathaway, MRICS, Martin Russell Jones (My Diary c. 22 July 2002 , Summer 2002 )

•  Receiving the 7 October 2002 letter from Mr Lanny Silverstone, Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor - acting for Mr Andrew Ladsky - in which he threatened to forfeit my lease and contact my mortgage lender unless I immediately paid the sum of £14,400 (US$25,400) (CKFT # 1 , # 6.2 ). Compared to the letter he sent ten 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 so distress that I ended-up being physically sick (My Diary 10 October 2002 ) )

• Receiving the - FALSE - claim against me (and 10 other leaseholders - representing 14 flats) which was drawn-up by Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor when, one month previously, during the 29 October 2002 pre-trial tribunal we, the leaseholders, had been told to NOT pay until the tribunal had issued its determination and it had been implemented. (My Diary 6 December 2002 )

• The horrendous, sheer, utter hell I was made to go through at the time of the reply to the 'offer' as a result of the actions by Mr Richard Twyman and Mr Stan Gallagher (My Diary 11 November 2003 , 13 November , November 2003 , Christmas 2003 ) ( Piper Smith Basham # 6.1 , # ( Mr Gallagher # 6 , ) (My Diary 13 November 2003 )...

Their trade associations can disagree with me as much they want (Mr Gallagher # 14 ): I felt these emotions and, believe me, they were VERY, VERY REAL - and I hold the view that they were inflicted on me by my 'advisers' NOT acting in my best interest. (see 'Breach' Bar Council Code of Conduct + PSB )

•  The 28 October 2003 meeting with Ms McLean and Mr Gallagher (My Diary 28 October 2003 )

[ 20C application]

[28 May 2004 ]

See also related - 'Breach': Malicious Communications Act 1988 ; Theft Act 1968 / Theft (Amendment) Act 1996 ; Fraud Act 2006 ; Defamation Act 1996 ; Criminal Justice Act & Public Order Act 1994 ; Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 - Chapter 41- Section 17 ; Bullying ; Coerce , Intimidate ; Torment ; Treatment - Medical

Double-dealing

Examples

•  How I view Mr Gallagher and Mr Twyman's conduct at the time of the reply to the 'offer' (My Diary 13 November 2003 ) - which, as with everything else in my complaints, was rejected by their respective trade associations

Under point 60 of my 29 August 2004 reply (to Mr Gallagher's response of 9 June 2004) "I note with interest Mr Gallagher turning the table on me and his tendency to side with Steel Services, MRJ, CKFT and Piper Smith & Basham" (see 'Breach' - Bar Council Code of conduct)

Evil

Examples

THE THREAT OF FORFEITURE, BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS, AS WELL AS THE COURTS CLAIMS = FRAUD TOOLS

• Portner and Jaskel’s 10 February 2006 so-called “S.5 L&T 1987 Notice of first refusal” is fraudulent as it FALSELY claimed that 'Steel Services' was still the Lessor for the whole of Jefferson House at the time - when, in fact, six week previously, 'Steel Services' had disposed of its headlease interest to Lavagna Enterprises, thereby losing control of the last floor of Jefferson House - and becoming a lessee of Lavagna Enterprises (Headlessors ; Owners identity). (The 10 February 2006 "notice" is a carbon copy of previous notices when 'Steel Services' was the headlessor for the whole block (e.g. 13 December 2000 "notice" ; # 2 - 13 December 2000"Notice by landlord"). Nonetheless, Mr Daniel Broughton, Portner and Jaskel, repeated the lie twice during the notice period – as summarised in my 30 April 2006 letter to Mr Broughton - see Portner # 1 ; # 3 - 10 February 2006 bogus "Notice by landlord" ; Property Misdescriptions Act 1991 

My guess that Mr Andrew Ladsky was the instigator of this malicious, vicious act also proved to be right as Portner and Jaskel helpfully confirmed this in its (libellous, scurrilous) 3 October 2006 letter to my then ISP - PLUS the 'standard' Law Society's reply of 30 March 2007 to my 28 February 2007 complaint that Portner "Acted on the instructions of their client" - Portner # 5.1

•  Action by Mr Andrew Ladsky, the police and Ms Ayesha Salim, CKFT

•  A local council taking an 84 year old man's flat away through forfeiture law

See also related - 'Breach': Malicious Communications Act 1988 ; Theft Act 1968 / Theft (Amendment) Act 1996 ; Fraud Act 2006 ; Defamation Act 1996 ; Criminal Justice Act & Public Order Act 1994 ; Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 - Chapter 41- Section 17 ; Bullying ; Coerce , Intimidate ; Torment ; Treatment - Medical

Extortion

Examples

THE THREAT OF FORFEITURE, BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS, AS WELL AS THE COURTS CLAIMS = FRAUD TOOLS

The 16 February 2007 letter from Mr Jeremy Hershkorn, then at Portner and Jaskel, who - acting for Mr Andrew Ladsky - threatened me with "bankruptcy proceedings", forfeiture (taking the flat away from me), and "costs" in the name of "Rootstock Overseas Corp", a company I had never heard of (Portner # 15 ), if I failed to immediately pay £8,937 (US$15,800) (Portner # 3 )

•  Ms Hathaway, MRICS, ignoring my legitimate requests for the priced specifications and instead threatening me with legal proceedings, in her letter of 20 September 2002

•  The 7 October 2002 letter from Mr Lanny Silverstone, Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor - acting for Mr Andrew Ladsky - in which he threatened to forfeit my lease and contact my mortgage lender unless I immediately paid the sum of £14,400 (US$25,400) (CKFT # 1 , # 6.2 ). Compared to the letter he sent ten 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 so distress that I ended-up being physically sick (My Diary 10 October 2002 ) )

•  Other acts by Mr Lanny Silverstone and Ms Ayesha Salim, Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor - although the Law Society England & Wales disagrees with me

See also related - 'Breach': Malicious Communications Act 1988 ; Theft Act 1968 / Theft (Amendment) Act 1996 ; Fraud Act 2006 ; Criminal Justice Act & Public Order Act 1994 ; Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 - Chapter 41- Section 17 ; Bullying ; Coerce , Intimidate ; Torment ; Treatment - Medical

False

Examples

• 

Fear

Examples

The modus operandi for controlling the 'little people' , while the crooks use THE THREAT OF FORFEITURE, BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS, AS WELL AS THE COURTS CLAIMS AS TOOLS FOR FRAUD

•  Events captured in My Diary e.g. object thrown at my windows late at night on 15 February 2002 and 3 April 2002; anonymous phone calls to my home: 17 February 2002; 19 February 2002; anonymous phone call at work;

• My door bell pressed in the middle of the night - leading me to file a complaint with the police and to report events, as well as disconnect my door bell - since 2002

• Living in fear for my safety, and in war-time like conditions, wondering what disaster is going to be caused maliciously to my flat (20 August 2006)

• ...knowing that I cannot count on the police for protection as it dismissed my complaint of harassment against Mr Ladsky (and that of at least three other residents), while it "formally recorded" a complaint against me by Mr Ladsky for "swearing at him"

•  Resident K, held by the police as being the originator of the anonymous phone calls, cornering me on 24 April 2002 (i.e. three months before the 11 July 2002 letter from the police) to say that she has "nothing against me" - and my subsequently discovering, on the Land Registry, a caution in favour of Steel Services against her flat 

See also related - 'Breach': Malicious Communications Act 1988 ; Theft Act 1968 / Theft (Amendment) Act 1996 ; Fraud Act 2006 ; Defamation Act 1996 ; Criminal Justice Act & Public Order Act 1994 ; Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 - Chapter 41- Section 17 ; Bullying ; Coerce , Intimidate ; Torment ; Treatment - Medical

Fertiliser

Examples

•  The view I now hold of the English so-called 'regulatory bodies' comprising of the Law Society , Bar Council , Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors , Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales ) stating that their attitude and behaviour act as a fertiliser for malpractice in their sector

•  The view I now hold that Lord Falconer, as head of the Department for Constitutional Affairs, covering among others, the courts , the Legal Services Ombudsman , the Land Registry acts a '