Email this site to a contact

 

 As a glaringly obvious victim of organized crime, desperate to get justice and redress: over 50 legitimate 'cries for help' and complaints - using-up nearly 3 whole years of my life, and c.£4,600 in costs - and only one fully actioned = WIDESPREAD CORRUPTION

 

Document LibrarY - MY 'CRIES FOR HELP' AND COMPLAINTS

 

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

 

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

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

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

 

Sections (*)

(1)- My legitimate complaints and 'cries for help' - in vain - in relation to Her Majesty's tribunal and courts

(1.1)- My legitimate 06.09.03 complaint - in vain - to Her Majesty's Siobhan McGrath, then President of the LVTs, against HM's then London Leasehold Valuation Tribunal (LVT)

(1.2)- My legitimate 06.09.03 complaint - in vain - to Her Majesty's John Prescott, then Deputy Prime Minister and Head of Housing, against HM's then London Leasehold Valuation Tribunal (LVT)

(1.3)- My legitimate 20.06.04 and 08.07.04 complaints - in vain - to Her Majesty's West London County Court

(1.4)- My legitimate 08.07.04, 19.07.04 and 22.07.04 complaints to Her Majesty's Wandsworth County Court

(1.5)- My legitimate 29.06.04 'cry for help' - in vain - to Her Majesty's Lord Falconer of Thoroton re. events with HM's West London County Court and Wandsworth County Court

(1.6)- My legitimate complaints of 30.06.07+ 3 other letters, and of 02.10.07+ 2 other letters - in vain - to Her Majesty's West London County Court

(1.7)- My legitimate 13.11.07 complaint - in vain - to Her Majesty's 'Customer Service' against Her Majesty's West London County Court and subsequent battles

(1.8)- My legitimate 11.12.07 and subsequent 'cries for help' - in vain - to Her Majesty's Jack Straw, then (In)Justice Secretary, re. HM's West London County Court

(1.9)- My legitimate 07.03.09 'cry for help' - in vain - to 'my' then Member of Parliament (MP) Her Majesty's Sir Malcolm Rifkind re. the courts and police

(1.10)- My legitimate 12.07.09 complaint - in vain - to Her Majesty's Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman, then Ann Abraham

(1.11)- My legitimate 02.01.10 Subject Access Request - in vain - to the Ministry of 'Justice', then headed by Her Majesty's Jack Straw

(1.12)- My legitimate 31.10.11 complaint - in vain - to Her Majesty's Justice MacKay, Queen's Bench Division

(1.13)- My legitimate 28.11.11 complaint - in vain - to Her Majesty's Office for Judicial Complaints against Justice MacKay, Queen's Bench Division

(1.14)- My legitimate 26.01.12 Application - in vain - to the European Court of Human Rights against the British state

(2)- My legitimate complaints - in vain - against 3 lawyers

(2.1)- My legitimate 02.12.03 complaint - in vain - to 'my' solicitors, Piper Smith Basham/Watton

(2.2)- My legitimate 16.03.04 complaint - in vain - to the Law Society against 'my' solicitors, Piper Smith Basham/ Watton

(2.3)- My legitimate 20.01.04 (26.01.04) complaint - in vain - to 'my' barrister, Stan Gallagher, Arden Chambers

(2.4)- My legitimate 05.04.04 complaint - in vain - to the Bar Council against 'my' barrister, Stan Gallagher, Arden Chambers

(2.5)- My legitimate 20.12.04 complaint - in vain - to the Law Society, against Andrew David Ladsky's solicitors, Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor (CKFT)

(2.6)- My legitimate 28.02.07 complaint - in vain - to the Law Society, against Andrew David Ladsky's solicitors, Portner and Jaskel

(3)- My legitimate complaints - in vain - to Her Majesty's then Legal Services Ombudsman (LSO), Zahida Manzoor CBE, against the Law Society and the Bar Council

(3.1)- My legitimate 05.12.04 complaint - in vain - to Her Majesty's then Legal Services Ombudsman (LSO), Zahida Manzoor CBE, against the Law Society for its handling of my legitimate complaint against 'my' solicitors, Piper Smith Smith Basham(Watton)

(3.2)- My legitimate 25.03.05 complaint - in vain - to Her Majesty's then Legal Services Ombudsman (LSO), Zahida Manzoor CBE, against the Bar Council for its rejection of my legitimate complaint against 'my' barrister, Stan Gallagher, Arden Chambers

(3.3)- My legitimate 20.02.05 complaint - in vain - to Her Majesty's then Legal Services Ombudsman (LSO), Zahida Manzoor CBE, against the Law Society for its rejection of my legitimate complaint against Andrew David Ladsky's solicitors, Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor (CKFT)

(4)- My legitimate complaints - in vain - against Her Majesty's police

(4.1)- My battles in Feb-Mar 02 - in vain - with Her Majesty's DC DR Adams, CID, Kensington Police

(4.2)- My legitimate 13.03.02 'cry for help' - in vain - to Her Majesty's then Police Complaints Authority and Directorate of Professional Standards

(4.3)- My legitimate 02.04.02 'cry for help' - in vain - to Her Majesty's DI Paul Webster, Kensington Police

(4.4)- My legitimate 05.05.02 and 31.05.02 'cry for help' - in vain - to Her Majesty's Sir Toby Harris, Chair of the then Metropolitan Police Authority

(4.5)- My legitimate 11.02.03 request - in vain - to Her Majesty's PC Neil Watson, Chelsea police

(4.6)- My repeated 17.08.03 'cry for help' - in vain - to Her Majesty's David Blunkett, Home Secretary

(4.7)- My 13.08.09 and 20.09.09 battles - in vain - with Her Majesty's police Public Access Office

(4.8)- My 20.09.09, 08.10.09 and 08.10.09 'cries for help' - in vain - to Her Majesty's Kensington, Chelsea & Notting Hill police's Mark Heath, Chief Superintendent and Borough Commander and Acting Chief Inspector Steve McSorley

(4.9)- My 28.11.09, 02.12.09 and 02.02.10 'cries for help' - in vain - to Her Majesty's Sir Paul Stephenson, then Met Commissioner and HM's Alan Johnson, then Home Secretary

(4.10)- My 18.02.10 letter - in vain - to Her Majesty's DI Crispin Lee, Police Directorate of 'Professional Standards'

(4.11)- My 18.02.10 letter, copying my legitimate 18.02.10 letter - in vain - to Her Majesty's Independent Police Complaints Commission

(4.12)- My DPA s.10 Notice of 02.06.10 and 02.06.10 letter - in vain - Her Majesty's Kensington, Chelsea & Notting Hill police's Mark Heath, Chief Superintendent and Borough Commander

(4.13)- My 08.10.10 and 08.10.10 complaints of harassment against 2 men - in vain - to Her Majesty's Chelsea and Kensington police

(4.14)- My 25.11.14 letter reporting - in vain - to Her Majesty's then Home Secretary Theresa May, and 18 other state parties, including HM's then Prime Minister, David Cameron - the unlawful actions against me by the police and related services

(5)- My legitimate 'cries for help' and complaints to other of Her Majesty's departments

(5.1)- My legitimate 'cry for help' e.g. 08.03.02, 10.04.02 and 28.07.02 - actioned - by Her Majesty's Sandy McDougall, Kensington & Chelsea housing against 'Steel Services'

(5.2)- My legitimate 30.06.02 complaint - in vain - to Her Majesty's Local Government Ombudsman against HM's Kensington & Chelsea Planning department

(5.3)- My legitimate 06.06.04 'cry for help' followed by many other documents - in vain - to Her Majesty's Kensington & Chelsea Housing against 'Steel Services' = Andrew David Ladsky

(5.4)- My legitimate 17.09.04 complaint - in vain - to Her Majesty's Local Government Ombudsman against HM's Kensington & Chelsea housing

(5.5)- My legitimate 28.03.06 complaint - in vain - to Her Majesty's Land Registry, then headed by Lord Falconer of Thoroton

(5.6)- My legitimate 23.04.05 demand - in vain - to the then Financial Services Authority

(5.7)- My legitimate 'cries for help' of 17.05.05, 11.03.06, 03.07.06 and 02.11.06 - in vain - to Her Majesty's Royal Mail

(5.8) - My legitimate 02.11.06, 07.11.06 and 27.11.06 'cries for help' - actioned - by Her Majesty's Postwatch against HM's Royal Mail

(5.9)- My legitimate demands of 29.10.08, 08.12.08, 29.12.08 and 29.12.08 - in vain - to Hutchison 3G, the 3 mobile phone network

(5.10)- My legitimate 08.01.09 'cry for help' - actioned - by Her Majesty's Ofcom against Hutchison 3G, the 3 mobile phone network

(5.11)- My legitimate 27.05.02 and 02.08.02 'cries for help' - in vain - to 'my' then Member of Parliament (MP) Her Majesty's Michael Portillo that local government departments are contributing to my and fellow leaseholders facing a major fraud

(5.12)- My legitimate 01.07.02 'cry for help' - in vain - to Her Majesty's Ken Livingstone, then Mayor of London

(5.13)- My 17.05.05 complaint - in vain - to Her Majesty's Office of the Ombudsman for Estate Agents against the then Martin Russell Jones

(6)- My legitimate complaints - in vain - to state-endorsed private sector 'regulators'

(6.1)- My legitimate 19.07.05 complaint - in vain - to the Institute of Chartered Accounts in England and Wales (ICAEW) against Pridie Brewster

(6.2)- My legitimate 02.02.05 complaint - in vain - to the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) against the then Martin Russell Jones (MRJ)

(7)- My legitimate complaints - in vain - to others

(7.1)- My 17.01.08 grievance - in vain - to my then employer KPMG

(7.2)- My 03.02.14 complaint - in vain - to my "security lock" provider, Banham

(*) 'Her Majesty's' - for the police, view as linking to this; for all the others, to this.

  C O M M E N T S

 

Introduction - and reminders

This page, supported by a summary (below), provides summaries of my 50+ - legitimate - 'cries for help' and complaints since 2002 - overall: in vain.

(Overview # 7 includes an overall assessment of my experience).

They have cost me nearly 3 whole years of my life, and c. £4,600 of my life-savings (US$8,100).

What have I achieved as a result of going through this soul-destroying, unbelievable sheer utter hell?

NOTHING...other than a continuation of:

(You can see why when you look at the outcome of my complaints against some of them: CKFT: # 2.5 and # 3. 3 ; Portner: # 2.6 ; MRJ: # 6.2 (and, now, by extension: Martyn Gerrard, as well as Brian Gale);..

Pridie Brewster: # 6.1 (and, now, by extension, Errington Langer Pinner).

Because:

(1)- I am one of 'the little people';

(2)- I 'dare' to challenge criminal activities, and fight for justice and redress;

(3) - I am facing a vast army of extremely cruel, vicious, perverse, despotic, sadistic, power-corrupted, ego-crazed, amoral, self-regarding and extremely arrogant monsters - or, more accurately: assassins - I have been:

  • treated with utter contempt and disdain - like a piece of dirt, a non-entity who does not have the right to have rights;
  • treated as an illiterate; an imbecile; etc, etc., etc.

In fact, the way I have - and continue to be treated - as the glaringly obvious victim of organized crime - reminds me of the movie, Hard Target (with Jean Claude Van Damme), in which anybody with enough money to spread around the authorities can, as a form of recreation, hunt any homeless person - to the kill.

And because these institutions were either set-up as shells, or have rotted to the point of being reduced to carcasses.

= Overall, as succinctly summed up by Boris Johnson, then Mayor of London and Head of the Mayor's Office for Policing and Crime - I have been told to:

"FUCK OFF AND DIE!" (quite literally re. the latter)

Hence = a complete waste of time and money...and indescribable suffering?

(Aside from being able to live with myself from knowing that I have done all I could)- no, because I hope that it will, at a minimum, horrify enough people - and thus act as a trigger for change (= a very big hope, considering how rotten to the core the whole system actually is).

In the meantime, the downside of this page is that people who, like me, have legitimate complaints against members of the Establishment, might look at it and say: no point complaining!...

...thereby turning it into an upside for the Establishment (that will have got many into rage, added to my list of individuals) - as, evidently: if nobody complains, it gives it even more of a carte blanche to do as it pleases - and, concurrently, allows it to claim that 'everybody is happy with the institutions'.

However, I hope that those with grievances that are important to them will not be put off - and that my experience will be of value to them, in particular the tactics used against complainants.

Some reminders:

In reading this page, remember:

(1)- How my case started:

In July 2002, when I was presented with a 'service charge' demand of £14,400 (US$25,400), I 'dared' to ask the question "what are you going to spend it on?" (Overview # 1)

I then 'dared' to insist on getting a reply to what I consider to be a perfectly reasonable question to ask.

(2)- The ROOT CAUSE for the actions and lack of action of ALL but 3 parties covered on this page is a thoroughly evil, greed-ridden, vampiric, multi-criminal Rachman crook, Andrew David Ladsky...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Back of Jefferson House in July 2002...

...and in September 2005

For more detail, see this Feb 06 diagram.

Joining the rest of 'the Brotherhood'

- they ALL said:

Yes! Of course! O' Great One!

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

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

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

I add that only the corruptible can be corrupted.

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

 

Health and safety warning

In reading this page, be careful to not fall off your chair because you cannot stop yourself from laughing...

...as you recall the following claims made by the then Prime Minister, David Cameron:

(1 of 4 ) - in Jan 12:

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

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

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

(2 of 4 )- "The fight against corruption begins with political will" - by David Cameron - The Guardian, 12 May 16

"First we will expose corruption, so there is nowhere for the corrupt to hide." (1)

"Secondly, we will do everything possible to punish the corrupt and support those affected by corruption." (2)

"...will prosecute the corrupt and seize their assets..." (3)

"Third, we will drive out corruption by challenging corrupt behaviours around the world." (4)

"We will establish partnerships between different countries' institutions and professions to help build a shared culture of honesty and probity." (5)

(1)- 'Except in our country where they will be most welcome...if they have lots of money'.

(2)- I highlight that I first approached David Cameron for assistance, in 2009, by copying him on my 19.10.09 letter to 'my' MP Sir Malcolm Rifkind (below # 1.9), when he was in opposition, and Leader of the Conservative party - and received a predictable 'Get lost!' (Rifkind # 5).

5 years later, I twice copied him (and 18 others, including Cabinet ministers) (HO # 3.1(iv)) on my 25.11.14 letter to Theresa May, then Home Secretary (below, # 4.14) - from which, yet again, he could be in no doubt whatsoever that I am the blatant victim of (widespread) corruption (and other criminal activities).

The response? Nothing from him (nor from any of the others) - other than a continuation of the ongoing persecution against me - in tandem with the Andrew David Ladsky mafia. (Perhaps I should view Cameron's comment, the day after my letter was delivered to Downing St, that "immigrants are net contributors to this country", as his partial 'response' to my letter).

(3)- "seize their assets" Oh yeah! 'As with we have done with Ladsky's ill-gotten multi-million £ jackpot' = 'we don't seize assets in which we've had a very helping hand in their realisation'!

(4)- "Around the world" because, 'of course': 'we are not at all corrupt!' - 'Only other countries are corrupt!' = Continuing with the British Empire mode of superiority.

(5)- "share" our interpretation "of honesty and probity" - for example, that demonstrated by:

= Countries that are not as corrupt as we are (there must be many) will certainly learn a lot from us!

See also David Cameron's comments, in 2015, re. "tackling corruption" - followed by my quoting some examples of corruption in the UK. (Yes: in addition to all of those reported on this page). See also Media page covering some of Britain's corrupt institutions.

= Overall: like his rhetoric on the tax havens; because part of the same Establishment tribe e.g. his motivation for wanting to keep offshore trusts veiled in secrecy.

(3 of 4 )- "Afghanistan and Nigeria 'possibly most corrupt countries' Cameron lets slip", The Guardian, 10 May 16

"PM David Cameron was overhead telling the Queen that "leaders of some fantastically corrupt countries" would be attending the meeting [see below], before singling out the two nations"

Mr Cameron: I can't comment about Afghanistan. As to Nigeria, whilst I worked in nearby countries of Cameroon and Ivory Coast, it was many years ago.

However, I can certainly comment about this island-kingdom's Establishment - and say with absolute certainty that it is "fantastically corrupt" - because controlled by crime, for the benefit of crime.

I add that only the corruptible can be corrupted.

Adapting Roberto Saviano's comment in 'Gomorrah' - 'Italy's other mafia': 'I know it - and I am proving it beyond any reasonable doubt' - through this page and many others on this website to which it is linked.

I also add Nigeria's reply to the above: "Nigeria not seeking a Cameron apology, but 'wants its assets back'", The Guardian, 11 May 16

"President Buhari of Nigeria has said he does not want an apology from David Cameron for calling his country "fantastically corrupt", but a return of the billions taken out of his country and sent to London."

"He said: over the years 2014 to 2015, they [the old administration] brought in not less than $37bn into London from Nigeria."

 

(4 of 4)- "...So why then is Britain not even close to squeaky clean?" - by Simon Jenkins - The Guardian, 12 May 16 - [Referring to the 'anti-corruption event' that was held in London on 12th May 16] -

"A British world corruption conference is a bit like the selection of Libya in 2003 to chair the UN Commission on Human Rights."

 

See also "To end corruption, start with the US and UK. They allow it in broad daylight" - by Jeffrey Sachs - The Guardian, 12 May 16

Back to list

 

Summary of my experience with the British Establishment's so-called 'complaints system'

 

Overview of my complaints and 'cries for help'

Pre website launch - Feb 02 - Sep 06

Post website launch

Total

Number of 'cries for help' / complaints

31

23

54

Number accepted and resolved

0

1

1

Number actioned, but not to expectations / not resolved

1

1

2

Total number of documents arguing the case

146

88

234

Total number of pages of documents arguing the case (1)

c.870

c.890

c.1,760

Total number of supporting documents (2)

c.2,260

c.610

c.2,870

Total number of pages of supporting documents

c.5,820

c.1,910

c.7,730

Total production costs (£) (3)

c.2,100 (US$3,700)

c.1,600 (US$2,820)

c.3,700 (US$6,520)

Total postage costs (£)

c.510 (US$900)

c.390 (US$690)

c.900 (US$1,590)

Total costs (£)

c.2,610 (US$4,600)

c.1,990 (US$3,500)

c.4,600 (US$8,100)

Total time - hours (4)

c.2,120

c.2,400

c.4,520

Equivalence in weeks, based on a 35-hour week

60

69

129

Equivalence in years, based on a 45-week year

1 year and 4 months

1 year and 6 months

2 years and 10 months

(1)- My longest 'cries for help' / complaints were:

At times, my follow-up documents were also long e.g.

(2)- The largest (initial) bundles of documents (I subsequently supplied more) were:

(3)- The highest production costs relate to:

Many others are £150+

(4)- In many instances, it includes time for desk research because, with the English public sector et.al. in the Establishment you must be armed to the teeth before you approach them, as they will automatically throw the ball back at you and attempt to hoodwink you.

True, looking at this page, they still do; but, at least you can prove their lies, their deceit, their fabrications, their cover-up, their closing of rank, their corruption, etc.

I have also included the time going to the post office to post my letters 'Special delivery next day' / 'Recorded delivery' - to cut out the excuses for not replying. In total, I must have spent several weeks in post offices.

I highlight that I was in full time employment until Jan 08 (KPMG # 10.2). Hence, to do the desk research and write the documents, I had to find the time in the evenings, at weekends and by using my annual leave - which was not enough, leading me to buy extra days. (Yes = more costs). (My time (and a lot more money) was also taken up on dealing with the related events e.g. My Diary # 1).

Examples of amount of time used up:

  • ECtHR: c.1,100 hours (below, # 1.14); it includes c.600 hours of desk research (I bought several (500+ page) legal books, and went through them nearly page by page, making notes as I went along);
  • (re. my above comment about 'needing to be prepared to the teeth when challenging the English Establishment': it also applies in this instance as, at the time of my complaint, the court was under British mandate);
  • Bar Council re. Stan Gallagher: c.260 hours (duration of process: 14 months from the time of my complaint) (below, # 2.4); in fact, added to Stan Gallagher and Arden Chambers (below, # 2.3) they cost me c.300 hours of my life;
  • Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales (ICAEW): c.240 hours (process lasted 13 months) (below, # 6.1);
  • Kensington & Chelsea housing: c.230 hours (below, # 5.3); in fact with the Local Government Ombudsman (below, # 5.4), they used up c.290 hours of my life.

As to the longest duration of my complaint, it was nearly 5 years - with the Royal Mail (below, # 5.7).

Remember the ROOT CAUSE for ALL of this (above notes)

 

Individual stats on my legitimate 'cries for help' and complaints (Overview, above) (see also the Introduction)

(Cream coloured rows = pre the launch of my website in Sep 06)

 

'Cry for help' / complaint; number supporting documents

To (*)

Number of documents arguing / subsequently arguing my case

Outcome

Duration; time spent and costs

(1)- Her Majesty's tribunal and courts

1. (# 1.1)

06.09.03; 5 documents

Her Majesty's Siobhan McGrath, then President of the LVTs, against HM's then London Leasehold Valuation Tribunal (LVT)

2 letters

Rejected

2 months; c.20 hours; c.£30

2. (# 1.2)

(23-pg) 01.07.02 pack; 06.09.03; 7 documents

Her Majesty's John Prescott, then Deputy Prime Minister and Head of housing against HM's then London Leasehold Valuation Tribunal (LVT)

8 letters (incl. being copied on my letter to the media)

Rejected

14 months; c.60 hours; c.£40

3. (# 1.3)

20.06.04; 08.07.04; 9 documents

Her Majesty's West London County Court

-

Ignored

2 months; c.15 hours; c.£20; no response

4. (# 1.4)

08.07.04; 19.07.04; 22.07.04; 14 documents

Her Majesty's Wandsworth County Court

-

Ignored

3 weeks; c. 15hrs; c.£20

5. (# 1.5)

(9-pg) 29.06.04; 34 documents

Her Majesty's Lord Falconer of Thoroton against HM's West London County Court and Wandsworth County Court.

-

Rejected

2 months; c.40 hours; c.£45

6. (# 1.6)

30.06.07; 12.08.07; 14.10.07; 28.10.07; 3 documents

02.10.07; 14.10.07; 28.10.07

Her Majesty's West London County Court

 

Ignored

4 months; c.25 hours; c.£45

7. (# 1.7)

 

13.11.07; 17 documents

Her Majesty's 'Customer Service'

5

Rejected

4 months; c.90 hours; c.£110

8. (# 1.8)

11.12.07; 18.02.08; 13 documents

Her Majesty's Jack Straw, then (In)Justice Secretary re. HM's West London County Court

4

Rejected

3 months; c.20 hours; c.£70

9. (# 1.9)

07.03.09

'My' then Member of Parliament (MP) Her Majesty's Sir Malcolm Rifkind re. the courts and police

9 letters + 7 supporting documents + full copy of my complaint to PHSO

Rejected

8 months ; c.110 hours; c.£220

10. (# 1.10)

(46-pg) 12.07.09; 164 documents

Her Majesty's Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman, then Ann Abraham

5

Rejected

12 months; c.110 hours; c.£170

11. (# 1.11)

(86-pg) 02.01.10 Subject Access Request

Her Majesty's Ministry of 'Justice'

1

Ignored

2 months; c.75 hours; c.£60

12. (# 1.12)

31.10.11

Her Majesty's Justice MacKay, Queen's Bench Division

1

Rejected

1 month; c.4 hours; c.£12

13. (# 1.13)

28.11.11; 7 documents

 

Her Majesty's Office for Judicial Complaints against Justice MacKay, QB

 

Rejected

1 week; c.5 hours; c.£30

14. (# 1.14)

(134-pg) 26.01.12 Application; 120 documents

European Court of Human Rights against the British state

5

Rejected

14 months; c.1,100 hours; c.£520

(2)- 3 lawyers

15. (# 2.1)

02.12.03, preceded by 3 letters

Piper Smith Basham/Watton

6 letters

Rejected

2 months; c.40 hours; c.£50

16. (# 2.2)

(39 pg) 16.03.04 complaint; 80+ documents

Law Society against Piper Smith Basham/Watton

7 letters, incl one of 33 pages

Essentially rejected

8 months; c.200 hours; c.£160

17. (# 2.3)

20.01.04 (26.01.04); 40 documents

Stan Gallagher, Arden Chambers.

-

Ignored

10 weeks; c.40 hours; c.£45

18. (# 2.4)

(23 pg) 05.04.04; 125 documents

Bar Council against Stan Gallagher, Arden Chambers

3 other major documents' + 3 letters

Rejected

15 months; c.260 hours; c.£225

19. (# 2.5)

(71 pg) 20.12.04; 130 documents

Law Society, against Andrew David Ladsky's solicitors, Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor (CKFT)

1 major letter

Rejected

3 months; c.120 hours; c.£145

20. (# 2.6)

(5-pg) 28.02.07; 14 documents

Law Society, against Andrew David Ladsky's solicitors, Portner and Jaskel

-

Rejected

1 month; c.20 hours; v. £25

(3)- Her Majesty's then Legal Services Ombudsman (LSO), Zahida Manzoor CBE

21. (# 3.1)

05.12.04; 13 documents

Against Law Society re. my complaint against Piper Smith Smith Basham/Watton

1 major letter

Rejected

6 months; c.30 hours; c.£35

22. (# 3.2)

25.03.05; 35 documents

Against Bar Council re. my complaint against Stan Gallagher, Arden Chambers.

2 major letters

Rejected

5 months; c.30 hours; c.£110

23. (# 3.3)

20.02.05; 51 documents

Against Law Society re.my complaint against Andrew David Ladsky's solicitors, Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor (CKFT)

-

Rejected

5 months; c.45 hours; £90

(4)- Her Majesty's police

24. (# 4.1)

20.02.02; 21.02.02; 25.03.02; 26.03.02

 

Her Majesty's DC DR Adams, CID, Kensington Police

several phone calls

Ignored

5 weeks; c.4 hours; c.£8

25. (# 4.2)

(3-pg) 13.03.02

Her Majesty's then Police Complaints Authority and Directorate of Professional Standards

 

Ignored

2 weeks; c.7 hours; c.£11

26. (# 4.3)

(3-pg) 02.04.02

Her Majesty's DI Paul Webster, Kensington Police

 

Ignored

3 weeks; c.5 hours; c.£3

27. (# 4.4)

(4-pg) 05.05.02; 17 documents; 31.05.02

Her Majesty's Sir Toby Harris, Chair of the then Metropolitan Police Authority

 

Rejected

2 months; c.30 hours; c.£20

28. (# 4.5)

11.02.03

Her Majesty's PC Neil Watson Chelsea police

 

Ignored

c.2 hours; c.£2; no response

29. (# 4.6)

(4-pg) 17.08.03; 11 documents (all repeated 9 times)

Her Majesty's David Blunkett, Home Secretary

 

Ignored

10 days; c.25 hours; c.£85

30. (# 4.7)

(38-pg) 13.08.09; 49 documents; (38-pg) 20.09.09

Her Majesty's police Public Access Office

 

Ignored

3 months; c.130 hours; c.£100

31. (# 4.8)

(3-pg) 20.09.09; 3 major documents; 08.10.09; 08.10.09; 9 documents

Her Majesty's Kensington, Chelsea & Notting Hill police's Mark Heath, Chief Superintendent and Borough Commander and Acting Chief Inspector Steve McSorley

 

Ignored

2 months; c.25 hours; c.£45

32. (# 4.9)

(8-pg) 28.11.09; 11 documents; (4-pg) 02.12.09; (19-pg) 02.02.10

Her Majesty's Sir Paul Stephenson, then Met Commissioner and HM's Alan Johnson, then Home Secretary

8 others individuals addressed / copied

Ignored

3 months; c.145; c.£120

33. (# 4.10)

(7-pg) 18.02.10

Her Majesty's DI Crispin Lee, Police Directorate of 'Professional Standards'

 

Rejected

c.20 hours; c.£5; no reply

34. (# 4.11)

18.02.10 to copy on (7-pg) 18.02.10 ltr

Her Majesty's Independent Police Complaints Commission

 

Rejected

2 weeks; c.1hour; c.£8;

35. (# 4.12)

S.10 Notice (66-pg) 02.06.10; (10-pg) 02.06.10

Her Majesty's Kensington, Chelsea & Notting Hill police's Mark Heath, Chief Superintendent and Borough Commander

 

Ignored

c.200 hours; c.£170; no reply

36. (# 4.13)

(3-pg) 08.10.10; (3-pg) 08.10.10

Her Majesty's Chelsea and Kensington police

 

Rejected

2 weeks; c.30 hours; c.£5

37. (# 4.14)

(8-pg) 25.11.14 (repeated 37 times)

Her Majesty's then Home Secretary Theresa May, and 18 other state parties, including HM's then Prime Minister, David Cameron

 

Ignored

c.60 hours; c.£130; no response.

(5)- Other of Her Majesty's departments

38. (# 5.1)

e.g. 08.03.02; 10.04.02; 28.07.02; 10 documents

Her Majesty's Sandy McDougall, Kensington & Chelsea housing against 'Steel Services'

4

Actioned (but not resolved)

10 months; c.90 hours; c.£140

39. (# 5.2)

30.06.02; 5 documents

Her Majesty's Local Government Ombudsman against HM's Kensington& Chelsea Planning department'

1

Rejected

10 days; c.15 hours; c.£10

40. (# 5.3)

06.06.04; 210 documents

Her Majesty's Kensington & Chelsea Housing against 'Steel Services' = Andrew David Ladsky

15 - incl. e.g. (8-pg) 11.11.04 and (42-pg) 11.11.04 (a total of c.1,700 pages)

Ignored

7 months; c.230 hours; c.£560

41. (# 5.4)

17.09.04; 146 documents

Her Majesty's Local Government Ombudsman against HM's Kensington & Chelsea housing

16 - incl. e.g. 11.11.04 and (42-pg) 11.11.04 (a total of c.250 pages)

Ignored

8 months; c.60 hours; c.£110

42. (# 5.5)

28.03.06; 10 documents

Her Majesty's Land Registry, then headed by Lord Falconer of Thoroton

1

Rejected

1 month; c.40 hours; c.£16

43. (# 5.6)

23.04.05; 9 documents (145 pages)

The then Financial Services Authority

 

Rejected

3 months; c.40 hours; c.£50

44. (# 5.7)

17.05.05, 11.03.06, 03.07.06, 02.11.06; 5 documents

Her Majesty's Royal Mail

4 + 25+ letters to organisations to inform of my new PO Box address, etc

Ignored

nearly 5 years (from 2003); c.110 hours; c.£100

45. (# 5.8)

02.11.06, 07.11.06, 27.11.06; 32 documents

Her Majesty's Postwatch against HM's Royal Mail

 

Actioned (but not to my expectations)

2 months; c.25 hours; c.£20

46. (# 5.9)

29.10.08, 08.12.08, 29.12.08, 29.12.08; 10 documents

Hutchison 3G, the 3 mobile phone network

2

Ignored

5 months; c.50 hours; c.£40

47. (# 5.10)

08.01.09; 7 documents

Her Majesty's Ofcom against Hutchison 3G, the 3 mobile phone network

 

Actioned

10 days; c.20 hours; c.£11

48. (# 5.11)

(18-pg) 27.05.02 pack; 02.08.02

'My' then Member of Parliament (MP) Her Majesty's Michael Portillo re. local government departments

 

Rejected

3 months; c.50 hours; c.£25

49. (# 5.12)

(23-pg) 01.07.02; 12 documents

Her Majesty's Ken Livingstone, then Mayor of London

 

Rejected

2 months; c.20 hours; c.£23

50. (# 5.13)

17.05.05; 5 documents (136 pages)

Her Majesty's Office of the Ombudsman for Estate Agents against the then Martin Russell Jones

 

Rejected

3 days; c.6 hours; c.£34

(6)- State-endorsed private sector 'regulators'

51. (# 6.1)

19.07.05; 150 documents (= c.600 pages)

Institute of Chartered Accounts in England and Wales (ICAEW) against Pridie Brewster

9

Rejected

13 months; c. 240 hours; c. £200

52. (# 6.2)

(124 pg) 02.02.05; 245 documents

Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) against the then Martin Russell Jones (MRJ)

7

Rejected

8 months; c.260 hours; c.£290

(7)- Others

53. (# 7.1)

17.01.08 grievance

KPMG

 

Rejected

4 months; c.200 hours; .£70

54. (# 7.2)

03.02.14 complaint

My "security lock" provider, Banham

 

Ignored

2 weeks+; c.12 hours; c.£24

(*)- Re. 'Her Majesty's' - see the note in My Diary # 2.6

Back to list

 

(1)- My legitimate complaints and 'cries for help' - in vain - in relation to Her Majesty's tribunal and courts

 

(1.1)- My legitimate 06.09.03 complaint - in vain - to Her Majesty's Siobhan McGrath, then President of the LVTs, against HM's then London Leasehold Valuation Tribunal (LVT)

Events in relation to Her Majesty's - then - London Leasehold Valuation Tribunal (LVT) are summarised under: Overview # 2; the snapshot under kangaroo courts # 1.

More detail is contained in the summaries on the tribunal's page: Events ; Breaches of the law that include committing criminal offences against me (as well as against my fellow leaseholders) - and Overall outcome on me.

The conduct of Her Majesty's management and staff in that masonic tribunal was absolutely outrageous - based on collusion and conspiring with the Ladsky mafia = widespread corruption.

Events took place in the context of the 07.08.02 Application filed by the then Martin Russell Jones (MRJ), on behalf of ‘Steel Services’ = Andrew David Ladsky, to determine the reasonableness of the global sum demanded of £736,207 [US$1.3m] (LVT Intro).

It had been preceded by Her Majesty's J.C. Sharma JP, FRICS, who had chaired the 29 Oct 02 pre-trial hearing (LVT # 1.4), and to whom, I (and fellow leaseholders) had repeated that we had not been provided with the information to which we were legally entitled (LVT # 1 and # 2). He subsequently opted to ignore it.

(1)- Hell-bent on helping Ladsky realise his multi-million £ jackpot, HM's tribunal Panel, comprising of:

  • the Chair, Mrs J.S.L. Goulden JP,
  • Mr J Humphrys, FRICS, and
  • Dr A Fox BSc PhD MCIArb...

wilfully failed to perform its legal remit, as defined under s.19(2B) of the L&T Act 1985 (LVT # 7)...

...- by not including, in its 17.06.03 report (ref `LVT/SC/007/120/02 - # 992 on the LVT database), a summary of the impact of its findings on the global sum demanded - which was a reduction of £500,000 (US$880k) (incl. £140k said to be in the contingency fund) (LVT # 4.1).

Typically playing the 'Frustrate and Discourage game', Her Majesty's Siobhan McGrath, then President of the then LVTs, twice refused my (3-page) request of 06.09.03, supported by 5 documents (14 pgs), to have a summary included - and therefore address the tribunal's major failing.

In 'her' 12.09.03 letter, 'she' claimed that "the tribunal cannot reopen a decision".

To this I replied, in my 06.10.03 letter: "it's about your tribunal doing its job".

In her 2nd 'no' letter, of 26.11.03 (LVT # 7) - 'she' claimed:

It would not be appropriate for the Tribunal to produce a summary of their decision as this may well be regarded as providing additional reasons”.

In the light of the tribunal's statutory remit (LVT # 4.2), this answer is absolutely outrageous and unbelievable!

(NB: YES! £500,000 (US$880k) worth of "additional reasons" for my fellow leaseholders to refuse to pay the fraudulent ‘service charge’ demand / ask for a refund /...

...go back to West London County Court for its role in abusing its power, bullying them and terrorising them into paying monies not due and payable (WLCC # 2 , # 5 , # 6 , # 8 , # 9 , # 10 , # 12 ; Pridie Brewster # 2 , # 3 , # 18).

Of note: I also copied my complaint to Her Majesty's John Prescott, then Deputy PM, also heading Housing (see # 1.2, below).

(2)- Also ‘very conveniently’ for Andrew David Ladsky - the tribunal Panel made an assertion, under para.2 of its 17.06.03 report, about a fictitious[6%] cost increase - at a date that was 3 months post signing its report - and libellously blamed me for this so-called “future increase.

In my 09.11.03 letter, supported by 5 documents, to McGrath , I asked that the summary be amended to reflect the facts. Continuing to play games, McGrath claimed that it was LEASE's responsibility.

I had also copied LEASE on my letter. No action was taken. (LVT # 7)

Hence: since 2003 - by having its report and so-called 'summary of the case' on its online, public database - Her Majesty's tribunal has - wilfully - been defaming my name, character and reputation. (LVT # 7 , 'Case summary').

Overall, this masonic hellhole tribunal caused me an unbelievable amount of torment, anguish and distress - not only at the time, but also post issuing its 17 Jun 03 report, as its failure to perform its legal remit resulted, over the following year, in an on-going battle in the courts ( WLCC # 8 to end of page ; Falconer) with CKFT...

...- and beyond, as the 2nd fraudulent claim filed against me of 27.02.07, also in WLCC, was also relevant.

Further, not only did it cost me £30,000 (US$53,000) of my very-hard-earned life-savings, and many other costs (LVT # 4.3) - to challenge a fraudulent (LVT # 1) demand of £14,400 (US$25,400) - its unfailing assistance to Andrew David Ladsky also cost me tens of thousands of £s afterwards.

Statistics

3 letters from me - copied to others; 10 supporting documents; = c.20 hours of my life; c.£30 costs; duration: 3 months;

+ more time spent - in vain - in the context of:

  • (2)- my complaint to the Parliamentary Ombudsman: below, # 1.9 and # 1.10;

The wonders of the Establishment, in very sick and "fantastically corrupt" Britain - in which the state acts as one with 'certain criminals' (also covered above).

Back to list

(1.2)- My legitimate 06.09.03 complaint - in vain - to Her Majesty's John Prescott, then Deputy Prime Minister and Head of housing against HM's then London Leasehold Valuation Tribunal (LVT)

I copied Her Majesty's John Prescott, then Deputy Prime Minister and Head of housing on my (3-page) 06.09.03 complaint, and 5 supporting documents, to Siobhan McGrath against the tribunal (# 1.1, above).

Of course, typically, in the 06.10.03 letter from a Clare Corcoran, his Office endorsed the 'response' 'from' McGrath.

I highlight that I had already approached Prescott - in vain:

  • my (23-page) 01.07.02 pack to him, supported by 12 documents, explaining the desperate situation I, and fellow leaseholders were in (his 19.07.02 'reply', and mine of 29.07.02) ;
  • copying him on my all my identical letters to the media e.g. my 17.08.03 letter to the Guardian (# 4.6, below).

Statistics

11 documents, including a 23-page pack; supported by 7 documents; = c.60 hours of my life; c.£40 costs; duration: 14 months;

+ more time spent - in vain - in the context of:

  • (1)- my complaint to the Parliamentary Ombudsman: below, # 1.9 and # 1.10;

I also repeat my above notes.

Back to list

(1.3)- My legitimate 20.06.04 and 08.07.04 complaints - in vain - to Her Majesty's West London County Court

My 20.06.04 letter of complaint to Her Majesty's West London County Court had been preceded by many others - as can be can be seen from the summaries: Events ; Breaches of the law ; Overall outcome on me; the shorter summary under Overview # 3.

The most recent key event had been at the 24 Jun 03 hearing, when Her Majesty's District Judge Wright - unbelievably - in the light of the very damning evidence against the claim had, in 'her' 24.06.03 Order issued directions for Andrew David Ladsky to file for summary judgment against me (and a fellow leaseholder): WLCC from # 8.

In this instance, my (3-page) 20.06.04 complaint, supported by 5 documents, referred to several issues, among others:

  • deliberately making me miss the 28 May 04 so-called 'hearing' - so that District Judge Madge could give Ladsky a freebie: 'his' 28.05.04 Order that the action against me be "stayed" - in spite of having absolute knowledge that an agreement had been reached (WLCC # 13.2);
  • deliberately keeping me in the dark as to what had been said during the so-called 'hearing' - by, 2 weeks on, failing to respond to my request for a tape of 'the hearing' to be sent to my nominated transcribing company (WLCC # 13.3);
  • sending me a 09.06.04 notice - it knew was wrong - that "[my] case has been transferred to Wandsworth County Court for listing and trial before Circuit Judge" - without any explanation whatsoever (WLCC # 13.3).

As my complaint was (typically) followed by silence, one week later, I sent a 29.06.04 'cry for help' to Lord Falconer of Thoroton (below, # 1.5)

However, as I had 'a trial' hanging over my head, for which I did not know the reason, nor when it would take place, and WLCC had still failed to respond to my letter, I sent it, yet another, 'Special delivery next day' letter, of 08.07.04, supported by 4 documents:

  • chasing a response to my letter;
  • reporting that it had sent the wrong tape to my transcribing company (!!!).

(As discussed under Lord Falconer # 5.3, (# 1.5, below) WLCC took 2 months to finally supply the right tape).

Of course, it likewise, did not respond to my 08.07.04 letter.

This was a very blatant continuation of that hellhole, masonic kangaroo court's criminal psychological harassment regime against me - continuing to operate as per the diktats of 'the brother' Andrew David Ladsky.

The outcome of the 29.11.02 claim against me (et.al.) so viciously and perversely pursued by Her Majesty's judiciaries?

A 21.10.03 'Part 36 offer' that knocked off more than £8,000 - which, legally, I did NOT owe either (WLCC # 12).

Statistics

2 letters, supported by 9 documents = c.15 hours of my life; c.£20 costs - no response;

+ more time spent - in vain - in the context of:

  • (2)- my complaint to the Parliamentary Ombudsman: below, # 1.9 and # 1.10;

I also repeat my above notes.

Back to list

(1.4)- My legitimate 08.07.04, 19.07.04 and 22.07.04 complaints to Her Majesty's Wandsworth County Court

Summaries: Events ; Breaches of the law ; Overall outcome on me.

Because:

... - I also opted to contact HM's Wandsworth County Court.

My ('Special delivery next day') 08.07.04 letter to the court, supported by 2 documents:

  • acknowledging its 01.07.04 Order endorsing the Consent Order I agreed with Ladsky';
  • that the WLCC's 09.06.04 Notice - addressed to me - and stating that my case is being "transferred to the Wandsworth County Court for listing and trial before Circuit Judge" - does not provide any reason;
  • that I am absolutely sick with worry, as I do not understand what is happening.

On 19th July i.e. 10 days later (!!), one of the court's staff, a Mr Zaidi, phoned me.

My 19.07.04 fax to him, with 4 supporting documents, relating the main points of the conversation:

  • his confirming that "the trial will be taking place on 17th August", and "advising [me] to attend as [I was] the Defendant";
  • when I said that a Consent Order had been agreed, and this court, Wandsworth County Court, had sent me a 01.07.04 Order endorsing the Consent Order - he replied that he would phone me back;
  • on phoning me back, he asked me to send him a copy of the Consent Order, because he 'could not find it';
  • my repeating that I wanted confirmation, in writing, as to whether or not the 17th August trial concerned me - and if so, to provide directions as:
  • (1)- none were supplied in the 09.06.04 Notice ; (2)- those listed in the 28.05.04 Order appear to relate to Defendant # 5 - and I also supplied a copy.

Without any follow-up (as had been promised), 3 days later, I sent a ('Special delivery next day') 22.07.04 letter to Her Majesty's District Judge Ashworth, supported by 8 documents:

  • that I disagreed with the 28.05.04 Order issued by HM's District Judge Madge, West London County Court (WLCC # 13.2);
  • 7 weeks after receiving the WLCC's 09.06.04 Notice (WLCC # 13.3), I was still in the dark as to why I was the Defendant in a trial due to take place in 3 weeks time.

It finally led to a 23.07.04 'reply' of the type I imagine the British Establishment would send to a 'lowly' individual in one its colonies, at the time of its Empire:

"You are not required to attend the hearing on the 17th August 2004 as your case has now settled."

Part 5 of the order of 28th May 2004 states that is the claim against the 5th Defendant that was to be listed"

(See WCC # 1 for my Comments)

= 20 days after my 8th July letter = further confirmation of - deliberate - criminal psychological harassment by the Establishment.

Of course, the same arrogant, condescending, insulting treatment continued in the next letter of 28.07.04, dictated by Her Majesty Judge Knowles, that confirmed the above letter - see WCC # 1.

Statistics

3 letters, supported by 14 documents = c.15hrs; c.£20 costs; duration: 3 weeks;

+ more time spent - in vain - in the context of:

  • (2)- my complaint to the Parliamentary Ombudsman: below, # 1.9 and # 1.10;

I also repeat my above notes.

Back to list

(1.5)- My legitimate 29.06.04 'cry for help' - in vain - to Her Majesty's Lord Falconer of Thoroton re. events with HM's West London County Court and Wandsworth County Court.

Failure by West London County Court to acknowledge my 20.06.04 complaint (# 1.3, above) led me to send a (9-page) 29.06.04 'cry for help', supported by 34 documents, to Lord Falconer of Thoroton...

- on which I also copied Christopher Leslie MP, with responsibilities for the court service, and David Lammy MP, for Human Rights (But: see my above note).

In this letter, I repeated the content of my 20.06.04 complaint to WLCC, as well as reported some prior, outrageous events - including the equally outrageous injustice suffered by some of my fellow leaseholders.

In the light of 'the reply', I highlight, among other that, under para.45, I reported that the tribunal had reduced the sum demanded by £500,000 (But: see above, # 1.1 and # 1.2).

For the unbelievably outrageous events that took place in these kangaroo courts, see summaries:

Giving the courts more opportunity to dish out their criminal psychological harassment regime against me, 2 months later, one of Falconer's flunkeys, Ian Anderson, sent me this 23.08.04 typical Establishment-'reply'.

Overall it amounts to:

  • absolving the courts of any accountability and responsibility - by covering up what they had done - and failed to do - through fabrications, deceit and excuses;
  • treating me as an illiterate, an imbecile, and a liar;

and provides undeniable proof of Falconer's collusion with the West London County Court and Wandsworth County Court's judiciary ; the then London LVT panel and its president ; Andrew David Ladsky and his gang of racketeers.

In relation to the matters that were the most pressing for me at the time, the replies from Ian Anderson, Head of Customer Service:

  • Having made me miss - deliberately - the 28 May 04 'hearing' (WLCC # 13.2)

'Reply': "a hearing cannot be vacated once listed": LFT # 3.

  • Capturing in the 28.05.04 Order that the action action against me be "stayed", when, in fact, District Judge Madge had absolute knowledge that agreement had been reached (WLCC # 13.2 and # 13.3).

'Reply': "suggest you speak to the claimant solicitors"; "appeal the decision": LFT # 4.

  • Falsely telling me in a 09.06.04 Notice that I was "the Defendant in a trial" - without any explanation - and then piling on the criminal psychological harassment (WLCC # 13.3)

'Reply': Must be seen to be believed: LFT # 5.1.

  • Concurrently, and equally deliberately, keeping me in the dark as to what had been said during 'the hearing' - by failing to respond to my request for a tape of 'the hearing' (WLCC # 13.3)

'Reply': "could not locate the tape due to the file having been transferred" (I repeat: wrongly transferred): LFT # 5.3.

Christopher Leslie MP and David Lammy MP? Of course, they did not respond.

Statistics

1 letter, supported by 34 documents; copied to 2 other MPs = c.40 hours of my life; c.£45 costs; duration: 2 months from the time of my 'cry for help';

+ more time spent - in vain - in the context of:

  • (1)- my complaint to the Parliamentary Ombudsman: below, # 1.9 and # 1.10;

I also repeat my above notes.

Back to list

(1.6)- My legitimate complaints of 30.06.07+ 3 other letters, and of 02.10.07+ 2 other letters - in vain - to Her Majesty's West London County Court

It was abundantly clear that, 3 years on, nothing had changed in Her Majesty's West London County Court since the extremely traumatic, horrendous hell it had subjected me to in 2002-04 (e.g., above, # 1.3 and # 1.5).

Events in relation to Her Majesty's West London County Court in 2007-08 are summarised under: Overview # 11; the snapshot under kangaroo courts # 4.

More detail is contained in the summaries on the court's page: Events ; Breaches of the law that include committing criminal offences against me ; Overall outcome on me.

From the time the fraudulent 27.02.07 court claim was filed against me by Andrew David Ladsky's corrupt solicitor, Jeremy Hershkorn, then at Portner and Jaskel,...

I was subjected to atrocious and very traumatic treatment by HM's judiciary and staff in that hellhole, masonic, kangaroo court (= a repeat of what took place in 2002-04).

Among the battles, 2 led me to escalate my complaint higher up.

The first relates to my falling into the trap set by Deputy District Judge McGovern in his (outrageous) 24.08.07 Order: "2. Defence & Counterclaim to be filed..." (WLCC # 11) - by describing my 12.09.07 Defence as a 'Defence & Counterclaim'.

I explained that I was using the title set in the Order, but very clearly could not file a 'counterclaim' - as I had not been provided with information to which I was legally entitled (in spite of my repeating this endlessly). In his 26.09.07 'Defence to counterclaim' Ladsky's barrister, Greg Williams, argued the obvious fact: I had not submitted 'a counterclaim' (Portner # 22).

The game plan was for me to fall into the trap - on which the monsters jumped immediately by sending me a 27.09.07 letter, from a 'Mr Joseph', masquerading as an 'order', attempting to defraud me of £1,700 (US$3,000) - and endorsing it with the threat of "striking out my [non-existent] counterclaim" = Defence - if I did not pay it immediately (WLCC # 12.3).

My (3-page) 02.10.07 reply to Ladsky's 'Defence to counterclaim', as well as WLCC's verbal demand of £1,700, on 1 Oct 07, was 'not liked' by the Ladsky - WLCC mafia - as they then went into silent mode for more than 3 months e.g. my chaser letters of 14.10.07 and 28.10.07.

This, in particular, led me to file a 13.11.07 complaint with HMCS (below, # 1.7)

The second battle was that WLCC was ignoring my 30.06.07 request (supported by 3 documents) for an amended version of its 03.04.07 notice that falsely claimed that, in my 22.03.07 Acknowledgment of Service "[I had] indicated an intention to defend part of the claim" (WLCC # 2.2).

Having chased a reply in my 12.08.07 letter (that included my asking, of course - in vain - for its assistance in getting the skeleton argument from Portner), I repeated this in my chaser letters of 14.10.07 and 28.10.07 - and still no response.

The outcome of the 27.02.07 claim so viciously, cruelly and perversely pursued against me over a period of 16 months by HM's District Judge Nicholson and Ryan?

A 06.06.08 Notice of Discontinuance of "ALL the claims against [me]" (Portner # 31).

(Of course, the 'lynching' then continued, up to the so-called 'hearing' in HM's Supreme Court Costs Office, on 30 Jan 09 (Overview # 12 ; kangaroo court # 5).

I did not file a complaint against HM's Deputy Master Hoffman - because it would have been a continuation of the waste of my time and money - as evidenced below, # 1.7).

Statistics

7 letters, supported by 3 documents; = c. 25 hours of my life; c. £45 costs; duration: 4 months;

+ more time spent - in vain - in the context of:

  • (1)- my complaint to the Parliamentary Ombudsman: below, # 1.9 and # 1.10;

I also repeat my above notes.

Back to list

(1.7)- My legitimate 13.11.07 complaint - in vain - to Her Majesty's 'Customer Service' against Her Majesty's West London County Court and subsequent battles.

I repeat the first 4 paragraphs under # 1.6, above.

As had happened with the previous fraudulent claim, the atrocious and very traumatic treatment entailed HM's judiciary wilfully, perversely, cruelly and viciously - e.g.:

  • (1)- HM's District Judge Nicholson turning a blind eye to my irrebutable evidence in my numerous documents, as well as failing to even acknowledge them (WLCC # 27.3 Com 3);
  • (2)- capturing false information in notices and orders (WLCC # 2.2);
  • (3)- delaying sending them to me to put me under even more pressure, as well as cancelling 'hearings' that had never been intended to be held (WLCC # 2.2);
  • Etc.

As outlined under # 1.6, above, by end Oct 07, the evil WLCC monsters had also been ignoring 7 letters from me.

They included the matter relating to the 27.09.07 letter, 'from' a Mr Joseph, masquerading as an 'order', attempting to defraud me of £1,700 (US$3,000) - and endorsing it with the threat of "striking out my [non-existent] counterclaim" = Defence - if I did not pay it immediately (WLCC # 12.3).

When their ploy failed, both mafias: HM's WLCC judiciary and Ladsky-Portner and Jaskel went into silent mode (WLCC # 15)...

- leading me to send a (4-page) 13.11.07 complaint, supported by 17 documents, to Kevin Pogon, HMCS Regional Director, 'Customer Service' (WLCC # 18).

In addition to the issues referred to, above, under # 1.6, I also raised other matters in my complaint - outlined under WLCC # 18.1.

Having told me in his initial 15.11.07 reply that he would "get back to [me] within the next two weeks with a full response", two weeks later, in his 29.11.07 letter, Suki Bhangra, HMCS 'Customer Service' added a further 2 weeks for the reply (WLCC # 18).

Viewing this as a continuation of the extremely vicious, perverse and sadistic games played by HM's WLCC judiciary, in my (4-page) 05.12.07 reply, I asked for "my case to be transferred immediately to a court and a judge operating under CPR’s ‘Overriding Objective." ...

- citing some of the many, equally outrageous events that had been taking place in that hellhole, "fantastically corrupt" court in 2002-04 (WLCC # 18.1).

(Typically) 'my daring' to send this letter prompted more punishment by the mafia as, in its 10.12.07 letter it: totally ignored my demand; and added another "two weeks to respond to [my complaint]".

Enough was enough of the delaying tactic - which was a blatant continuation of the criminal psychological harassment by HM's WLCC, in which its HMC's 'Customer Service' mates were (typically), only too happy to take part.

It led me to send a 11.12.07 'cry for help' to HM's Jack Straw, then (In)Justice Secretary (below, # 1.8)

In my (4-page) 27.12.07 reply, headed "Confirmation of collusion" - I challenged the initial 20.12.07 'response' to my complaint, from the Southwark Bridge office - that included some unbelievable fabrications in order to cover-up the blatantly obvious outrageous and criminal conduct by WLCC (WLCC # 18.2).

As subsequently confirmed irrebutably, 'the response' had been dictated by WLCC: # 1.11, below.

In my 27.12.07 letter, I also stated: "I insist that my case is IMMEDIATELY transferred to a court and a judge committed to operating under CPR’s ‘Overriding Objective" - and cc'd Jack Straw.

My pacing up and down in front of the Ministry of (In)Justice on 9 Jan 08, holding a placard, led to my being placed back to square one: 02.01.08 letter from a Lynsey Noon (WLCC # 18.2).

It was followed by a 10.01.08 'response' from Paulette James OBE, 'Customer Service', Petty France (head office).

As can seen from my Comments (WLCC # 18.2), it was a series of outrageous (but typical) cover-ups through fabrications, deceit, turning a bind eye to the blatant evidence, trivialising / ignoring 'inconvenient' parts of my complaint - in order to avoid holding WLCC to account. She even had the gall to turn the table on me.

The 'replies' to my complaint are yet more examples of how unbelievably sick, perverse, vicious and cruel these people are, and how they ALL collude and conspire with each other.

I headed my (6-page) 28.01.08 reply with "ABSOLUTE CONFIRMATION OF COLLUSION" (WLCC # 18.2).

I also sent a 26.01.08 letter addressed "To: A Judge committed to the concept of Justice, c/o of WLCC" - asking for the transfer of my case to another court. Of course: in vain! (WLCC # 24.1).

Statistics

6 letters, supported by 17 documents; = c. 90 hours of my life; c. 110 costs; duration: 4 months;

+ more time spent - in vain - in the context of:

  • (2)- my complaint to the Parliamentary Ombudsman: below, # 1.9 and # 1.10;

I also repeat my above notes.

Back to list

(1.8)- My legitimate 11.12.07 and subsequent 'cries for help' - in vain - to Her Majesty's Jack Straw, then (In)Justice Secretary, re. HM's West London County Court

As discussed under # 1.7, above, sick and tired of the delaying tactic - which was a blatant continuation of the criminal psychological harassment by HM's West London Court Court, in which its HMC's 'Customer Service' mates were (typically), only too happy to take part...

led me to send a (1-page) 11.12.07 'cry for help', supported by 5 documents, to HM's Jack Straw, then (In)Justice Secretary (WLCC # 18.1).

Of course, as discussed under # 1.7 - it was in vain.

In Feb 08, I still persisted in trying to get help from HM's Jack Straw, by sending him a (3-page) 18.02.08 letter, supported by 8 documents - of course, yet again: in vain! (WLCC # 24.2).

In May 08, I also copied Straw on my 14.05.08 letter to HM's District Judge Nicholson - yet again repeating, as well as demonstrating further the very blatant discrimination the court was continuing to subject me to - to which had been added District Judge Ryan (WLCC # 2.3-Com 3).

As detailed in the summary under WLCC # 24.2, in total I sent 2 letters to Straw, and copied him on 4 letters = 6 letters, supported by evidence, making it abundantly clear that some very serious gross misconduct was taking place in HM's West London County Court.

What did Straw do? (As in the case of his predecessor, HM's Lord Falconer of Thoroton (# 1.5, above) (timeline of appointments): he took no action = endorsed the conduct.

But, he was "too busy to respond" (10.01.08 letter from Paulette James OBE; WLCC # 18.2). Perhaps, "too busy" "with operating “under the radar” to use his influence to change European Union rules on behalf of a commodity firm which paid him £60,000 a year"?

(Yep! The following year, in 2009, Straw was appointed...'Anti-Corruption Champion'!)

One month later, the 12.03.08 'response' from Paulette James OBE, HMCS 'Customer Service' continued to confirm the masts to which its colours, and hence those of HM's Jack Straw were pinned: those of HM's WLCC's, and of the 'the brother' Andrew David Ladsky and his gang of racketeers.

In the process, it added to the criminal psychological harassment: WLCC # 24.2

Statistics

2 letters, supported by 13 documents, + copied on 4 other letters; = c. 20 hours of my life; c. £.70 in costs; duration: 3 months from the time of my 'cry for help';

+ more time spent - in vain - in the context of:

  • (1)- my complaint to the Parliamentary Ombudsman: below, # 1.9 and # 1.10;

I also repeat my above notes.

Back to list

(1.9)- My legitimate 07.03.09 'cry for help' - in vain - to 'my' then Member of Parliament (MP) Her Majesty's Sir Malcolm Rifkind re. the courts and police

My above experiences (above, from # 1.1) with Her Majesty's tribunal, courts, 'Customer Services' and their heads, led me to send 'my' then MP Sir Malcolm Rifkind a (14-page) 07.03.09 'cry for help' - stating "I would like to meet with you to discuss how you will help me".

I stated that my objective was "to get redress for the horrendous and very traumatic treatment, as well as financial loss I suffered at the ends of the tribunal and the court" - and provided comprehensive detail.

In addition, I also asked for his assistance in relation to events with Her Majesty's Kensington & Chelsea police (MR # 1).

The courts: West London County Court and Wandsworth County Court (kangaroo courts # 2 to # 4), as well as the police were local = in Rifkind's patch.

The 11.03.09 'reply' from Malcolm Rifkind was the all too familiar 'Get lost!':

As matters stand, I believe you have exhausted your options" [!!!]

"the only advice I can offer, however, is that if you have new evidence [1], you should take legal advice." (2)

(1)- "If you have new evidence" - Given the content of my letter, this comment is absolutely unbelievable.

It is another typical British Establishment's 'Get lost!' - the 'Frustrate and discourage tactic' (header 2) in the hope that it will make you give up on your complaint.

I have included other examples under Rifkind # 2.

I spelt out my "evidence" in my (30-page) 24.03.09 reply.

In this, I also captured extracts from a House of Commons factsheet about the role of an MP and his/her referring a constituent 's complaint to the Parliamentary Ombudsman - and likewise, captured extracts from the PHSO' booklets (MR # 2).

(2)- "take legal advice" = Another 'Get lost!' favourites used by the British Establishment, its henchmen and flunkies - hoping that 'the Proles' do not have the money to do this; other examples:

  • the Law Society re. my complaint against CKFT (below, # 2.6).

Rifkind's23.04.09 'reply' amounted to his 2nd 'Get lost' (MR # 3).

I headed my 08.05.09 reply with "Why are you refusing to refer my complaint to the Parliamentary Ombudsman?" - and provided numerous examples that fell within the remit of the PHSO.

Evidently 'not liking' my reply, one month later, he had not responded - leading me to send a 08.06.09 chaser letter.

His failure to respond led me to go over his head by approaching the PHSO directly - and informing him of this in my 15.06.09 letter - on which I copied David Cameron, as well as the PHSO.

It led Rifkind to lie in his 17.06.09 'reply' - as well as give the game away about his planned conniving and conspiring with the PHSO (MR # 4). I challenged his lie in my 01.07.09 letter, and said that I would send him my complaint for the PHSO.

4 months after my 07.03.09 'cry for help', HM's Sir Malcolm Rifkind finally agreed, in his 03.07.09 letter, to forward my complaint to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman.

I hand-delivered, to the House of Commons, my full complaint pack to the PHSO - containing, as detailed in my 13.07.09 letter to him:

  • (4)- covering letter.

stating that I was doing the same for the PHSO.

Hell-bent on wanting to ensure that he had finally got rid of me = achieved his only objective of protecting his tribe members: 'the brothers' - in his 24.08.09 letter, he chased a reply from me to the 29.07.09 'get lost' from the PHSO.

(See # 1.10, below, for subsequent events with the PHSO).

I sent Rifkind more correspondence, including a 19.10.09 letter summarising my experience with him, and cc'd David Cameron.

The following year, concluding that Rifkind was behind the PHSO's prolonged silent mode tactic (Persecution # 1(4)(8)), and doing this in cahoots with the police, I included him, with the PHSO, as one of the addressees on my 02.02.10 letter: # 4.9, below.

Statistics

10 letters, supported by 7 documents, as well as copying him on my complaint to the PHSO that added 470 pages;

+ copying him on letters to PHSO; = c.110 hours of my life; c.£220 costs; duration: 8 months from the time of my 'cry for help'.

I also repeat my above notes.

Back to list

(1.10)- My legitimate 12.07.09 complaint - in vain - to Her Majesty's Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman, then Ann Abraham

After a 4-month battle with Sir Malcolm Rifkind (# 1.9, above), having finally managed to force my access to Her Majesty's Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO), I filed a complaint against:

My complaint comprised of:

  • (3)- a 390-page bundle of 164 supporting documents - with a 4-page index;
  • (4)- a 13.07.09 covering letter to the PHSO, and a 13.07.09 letter to Rifkind.

In reply to Q6 of the complaint form, "What do you want the Ombudsman to do?", I stated that I wanted to be reimbursed of my costs; get compensation; take steps to ensure that the same thing would not happen to others.

What followed demonstrated that collusion and conspiring had (of course!) taken place between Her Majesty's PHSO, then Ann Abraham = the Brotherhood's lapdog, and Sir Malcolm Rifkind (# 1.9, above)...

...as, in the 29.07.09 'get lost!', from a Pamela Micallef, 'the Ombudsman' rejected my complaint by deceitfully claiming:

“I have made enquiries with both organisations and it is clear that Ms Klosterkotter-Dit-Rawé has not completed HMCS and RPTS complaints procedures (PHSO # 2.3)

The PHSO knew, from the information I supplied, that it was a lie - and I highlighted this in my 27.08.09 reply (PHSO # 2.3) .

My clearly unexpected challenge (it had closed down the file), led the mafia to make a U-turn: Pamela Micallef's 22.09.09 letter; 30.09.09 from Rifkind - stating that it was "reconsidering my complaint".

Of note, in its 29.07.09 'get lost' it had stated: "We have carefully considered the papers".

However, the 22 Sep 09 letter also alluded to the next excuse it would use for its next 'Get lost!'.

Exactly one year after the initial 'Get lost!', in its second 'Get lost' of 29.07.10 from a James Harrigan - the mafia came up with an entirely new excuse for letting all the parties get away scot-free for their absolutely appalling conduct - that:

"[my] complaints cannot not be dealt with under the Parliamentary Commissioner Act" (PHSO # 2.6)

When it could not twist the Act to meet its needs, leaving parts of my complaint 'it could address', it (typically):

  • misrepresented my complaints;
  • sided with the miscreants by finding excuses for their actions / lack of action e.g. "the costs [I] claim to have incurred do not appear to have arisen as a consequence of those potential failings";
  • concluded that "an investigation would almost certainly not result in [my] receiving any reimbursement of the professional costs [I] incurred, or the "very substantial" compensation [I] seek"...
  • ..."Nor do we consider those potential failings to be serious enough, even if proven, to warrant payment of substantial compensation" [Absolutely unbelievable!]

The prolonged typical silent mode tactic (Persecution # 1(4)(8)), clearly implemented in cahoots with the police and, I assume, on Rifkind's order, had led me to include the PHSO, Ann Abraham, as one of the addressees on my 02.02.10 letter: # 4.9, below.

During that year of waiting, the mafia's criminal psychological harassment and victimization tactics entailed, among other (discussed under PHSO # 2.5):

  • using 3 different caseworkers - (or were they just 3 different bogus 'contact names'?): 28.05.10 letter;

Statistics

46-page complaint, supported by a 400-page bundle of 164 documents; 5 letters supported by 9 other documents;

= c.110 hours of my life; c.£170 costs; duration from the time of my complaint: 12 months.

I also repeat my above notes.

Back to list

(1.11)- My legitimate 02.01.10 Subject Access Request - in vain - to the Ministry of 'Justice', then headed by Her Majesty's Jack Straw.

My position at the end of 2009 was:

  • from my first ever contact, in 2002 (West London County Court), with Her Majesty's so-called 'justice system' (e.g. kangaroo courts), as well as in the context of my subsequent, legitimate complaints (above, from # 1.1), I had been consistently denied justice and redress - thereby treating me like a piece of dirt, a non-entity who does not have the right to have rights (Overview # 19);
  • Her Majesty's police was continuing to subject me to the same treatment, this time in relation to my 28.05.09 Subject Access Request to the police (# 4.7, below).

In the light of this, my next step was to submit a (86-page) 02.01.10 Subject Access Request (SAR), under the Data Protection Act 1998, to the Ministry of (In)Justice - with the objective of identifying what led the parties to take the actions they took / failed to take in my case.

In my SAR, I covered the same parties as in my complaint to the PHSO (# 1.10, above) and, likewise, provided very comprehensive detail of events.

In each instance, I included a section 'Information request', asking very specific questions as to what led the parties to take the actions they took / failed to take in my case - and detailing the documentation I required.

And the typical British Establishment's 'Frustrate and Discourage tactics' (header 2) started...

...with the 11.01.10 follow-up letter from a Hanna Law, asking me to

identify which parts of the Department you wish me to conduct the searches e.g. such as a specific office of the Tribunals Service or court…”

The question was outrageous and laughable because, as I highlighted in my 19.01.10 reply, the front page of my 02.01.10 document lists the individual locations, and the 2nd page identifies the individuals concerned - for each location.

Of course, it was followed by more of the same games, that included the usual deceit and lies.

Clearly with the objective of continuing to feed its very sick, sadistic needs, a Katrina Hutchins, HMCS 'Customer Service' (above: # 1.5 ; # 1.7 ; # 1.8) - sent me a copy of 154 documents - representing practically everything I had sent as part of my supporting documents to my various documents / documents it knew I had been supplied with.

= NOT the answer to my questions in my 02.01.10 SAR.

Among the 154 documents, there were only 8 documents I did not have, 3 of which proved 'informative' (Legal home # 9) - with one in particular:

A 13.12.07 draft letter "from Miss Prentice, West London Courthouse" - that provides irrebutable proof that those complained against actually dictate 'the replies' to the complainants:

- this draft, with the West London County Court address (situated in West London), is undeniably the draft used, one week later, by Suki Bhangra, HMCS Southwark Bridge office (situated in South East London), for 'his' 20.12.07 'reply' to my 13.11.07 complaint (WLCC # 18.2).

= Same as the rest - as demonstrated by the evidence contained on this page - in the island-kingdom of make-believe: they ALL collude and conspire with each other.

(More detail of events is provided under Legal home # 9).

Overall outcome: Total failure to address any of my questions = very blatant breach of my statutory rights under the Data Protection Act 1998.

= A continuation of the breach of my rights by Her Majesty's Ministry of (In)Justice, then headed by HM's Jack Straw (who was part of the individuals who had ignored my 'cries for help': in 2007-08; above, # 1.8) - and of the typical British Establishment 'mutual protection society'.

Statistics

(86-page) SAR; 1 letter and 2 documents = c. 75 hours of my life; c. £60 in costs; duration from the time of submitting the SAR: 2 months

I also repeat my above notes.

Back to list

(1.12)- My legitimate 31.10.11 complaint - in vain - to Her Majesty's Justice MacKay, Queen's Bench Division

In the context of my 19 Apr 11 claim against the police (et.al.), in Her Majesty's Queen's Bench Division, (snapshot under kangaroo court # 6),...

I filed a (legitimate) 17.10.11 Appeal Request against Her Majesty's Judge Lang's 06.10.11 Order that refused me permission to appeal against HM's Master Eyre's pack of lies 09.08.11 Order (QB # 4.7).

Following the so-called 'hearing' of 24 Oct 11 - at which he denied my appeal (QB # 4.7(3)) - HM Justice Mackay, issued a 24.10.11 Order that:

  • failed to include 'his' reasons;
  • did not refer to my Appeal Request which was the subject of 'the hearing';
  • gave the wrong date for my Application.

= A document unlikely to be identified through an audit trail and, if it were: not damning.

In my 31.10.11 letter, I asked that he "re-issue the Order, stating your reasons for the dismissal of my Application" (as per e.g. the 09.08.11 (pack of lies) Order from Master Eyre). Two weeks later, I chased a reply in my 14.11.11 letter.

The 25.11.11 'response':

"The transcript of reasons given at the hearing on 25 [24] of October can be obtained from the Courts Recording and Transcription Unit at the Royal courts of Justice on payment of the appropriate fee."

Translation: Get lost!

Add to your distress of having your legitimate Appeal Request dismissed - by spending even more money - on top of the £235 you paid for the Application - which definitely did not state that 'you had to pay extra for the Order' - and by getting more hassle.

Yep! Her Majesty's corrupt judiciaries in the kangaroo court were hell-bent on piling it on until the very end!

I filed a complaint with the Office for Judicial Complaint - next entry, # 1.13

Statistics

2 letters; = c. 4 hours of my life; c. £12 in costs; duration: 1 month

I also repeat my above notes.

Back to list

(1.13)- My legitimate 28.11.11 complaint - in vain - to Her Majesty's Office for Judicial Complaints against Justice MacKay, Queen's Bench Division

Following the 'Get lost!' from Her Majesty's Queen's Bench Division's Justice MacKay (# 1.12, above), I submitted a 28.11.11 complaint to HM's Office for Judicial Complaints (QB # 4.7(4)).

In the header, I defined my complaint as "Complaint against Lord Justice Mackay, High Court London, for failing to state his Reasons in an Order, and now asking me to pay - an unspecified amount - in order to obtain transcription of his Reasons".

In typical style, in its 05.12.11 'reply' from a Natasha Kumalo, it rejected my complaint by misrepresenting it.

In the process, it also demonstrated that, in its instances of "conduct", it excludes 'discriminatory conduct'.

Statistics

1 letter; 7 supporting documents; = c. 5 hours of my life; c. £30 in costs; duration: 1 week

I also repeat my above notes.

Back to list

(1.14)- My legitimate 26.01.12 Application - in vain - to the European Court of Human Rights against the British state

I am including this rejection because it was the outcome of direct involvement by Her Majesty's judiciary... et.al. in the British state(?)

In May 2009, I filed a Subject Access Request with the police (# 4.7, below).

The heavily redacted, highly vicious, cruel, perverse and libellous packs of lies so-called "crime reports" I received from the police, led me to go into several, drawn-out battles, in the pursuit of the implementation of my rights under the Data Protection Act 1998 (Overview # 18.1).

After 2 years of battling, the ongoing illegal processing of the data about me, led me to file, in Her Majesty's Queen's Bench Division, a 19 Apr 11 claim against the police, to which I added the IPCC and Home Secretary.

As can be seen from the Summaries: Events ; Breaches of the law ; Overall outcome on me ; also under Overview # 18(1) , # 18(2) ; kangaroo court # 6...

...Her Majesty's judiciaries: Master Eyre, Justice Lang and Justice MacKay demonstrated a very blatant, hell-bent determination to ensure the continuation of the breach of my rights.

= It amounted to - yet again - another of Her Majesty's courts turning into a kangaroo court in my case - and denying me access to justice and redress.

Because I am extremely distressed by the processing of the "crime reports" (that are circulated to / accessible by more than 50,000 people) - I spent about 3 months doing desk research on human rights, buying books, making hundreds of photocopies, and making over 100 pages of notes.

I submitted a (132-page) 26.01.12 Application to the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), supported by a (750-page) bundle of 120 documents.

A 06.06.12 letter from a Paul Harvey - stated:

...a single-judge formation (V. A. De Gaetano...decided to declare inadmissible your application...".

"...the Court found that the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention have not been met”.

Judge Vincent A. De Gaetano (Malta) breached Article 45 of the European Convention - as he failed to give a reason for rejecting my legitimate Application (Overview # 18.3).

My complaint at high level: Commissioner for Human Rights and Secretary General, provided further confirmation that the ECtHR had rejected my complaint in breach of my rights (Overview # 18.4 and # 18.5).

What happened: As 'my luck' would have it, at the time of my Application, the ECtHR was under British mandate, with Her Majesty's Sir Nicolas Bratza as President who, under the court's rules, had completed control over my Application (ECtHR # 2.1).

= Bratza found a very compliant judge from a little island, prepared to breach the Convention in order to reject my legitimate Application.

In fact, the hint that my Application was doomed from the start was communicated to me by the police's counsel, Nicholas Wilcox, on 9 Aug 11 (QB # 4.6(5).

Statistics

132-page Application, supported by a 750-page bundle + other supporting documents; 5 letters + supporting documents

= c. 1,100 hours of my life (incl. c.500 hours for desk research); c .£520 in costs; duration from the time of submitting my Application: 14 months.

I also repeat my above notes.

Back to list

 

(2)- My legitimate complaints - in vain - against 3 lawyers

The reasons I filed the complaints, in 2004, against 3 lawyers, and then against the Law Society and the Bar Council (# 3, below).

At the time of the reply to Andrew David Ladsky's 21.10.03 'Part 36 offer' through Ayesha Salim, CKFT, solicitors (# 2.5, below), I had appointed as 'my' advisors:

It turned out to be a very big mistake - as, through conniving and conspiring with CKFT, they batted for Andrew David Ladsky, and went into over-drive attempting to coerce me and bully me into accepting 'the offer':

  • my Comments on the 13.11.03 Draft Consent Order and Draft Notice of Acceptance 'by' Stan Gallagher;

Aiming to beat me into submission, they demonstrated their expertise at criminal psychological harassment by subjecting me to extremely cruel, vicious, sadistic and perverse treatment - making me go through absolute sheer utter hell.

PSB falsely claimed (e.g. 14.11.03 letter ; PSB # 7.13) that I had given my consent to the 13.11.03 reply sent by Richard Twyman to CKFT.

After nearly 2 months of battling, in Dec 03, to the cabal's extreme frustration and fury, I took back control of my case (My Diary Dec 03) - and sent my own reply of 19.12.03 to CKFT.

My doing this threw a spanner in the works of the cabal, making its criminal psychological harassment strategy backfire (19 Oct 03 Wit.Stat # 1).

While I had irrebutable i.e. written evidence to support my position that I had been bullied and threatened with the aim of making me accept what the cabal had decided 'I should endorse', not surprisingly, in the light of - by then:

...I was worried that CKFT - Ladsky would file yet another fraudulent claim against me, claiming an alleged breach of agreement.

Further, thanks to Her Majesty's 'ever-so-obliging' then London Leasehold Valuation Tribunal: 'Summary' # 1 - the Ladsky organized crime mafia was accusing me of being "responsible for"

Also, at the time, there were the fraudulent invoices (Overview # 6) - that falsely implied that I had 'not' paid for "the major works".

While I had several documents to produce in evidence, least of all the fact that in her 24.11.03 letter Lisa McLean had asked me to confirm that "the consent order may be signed" (My 19 Oct 03 Wit.Stat. # 1), I thought that filing a complaint would be another key element in my line of defence.

In each instance, I ended-up battling with their so-called 'regulator': Law Society or Bar Council, and then with the 'regulator' of the 'regulators': Her Majesty's Legal Services Ombudsman (# 3, below).

Back to list

(2.1)- My legitimate 02.12.03 complaint - in vain - to 'my' solicitors, Piper Smith Basham/Watton

See Introduction on the Piper Smith Basham/Watton page for my reasons for appointing this firm.

The main individuals were Lisa McLean, Litigation Assistant who had a reporting line to Richard Twyman, Partner.

My appointing this firm turned out to be a VERY BIG mistake, as it very shortly started to bat for Andrew David Ladsky: my 16.03.04 complaint to the Law Society (below # 2.2) ; Malicious Communications Act 1988.

As discussed in the above introduction, under # 2, it then continued to do this with 'my' barrister, Stan Gallagher (# 2.3, below) at the time of the reply to Andrew David Ladsky's 21.10.03 'Part 36 offer' - and went into over-drive attempting to coerce me and bully me into accepting 'the offer'.

I first tried to resolve the situation with McLean; my letters / faxes of: (1)- 20.11.03; (2)- 23.11.03; (3)- 26.11.03; (4)-12.12.03.

Then, in my extremely conciliatory (4-page) 02.12.03 letter (supported by 9 documents), I escalated my complaint to PSB's Senior Partner, Richard Berns, and Ian Skuse, Complaints Officer.

As can be seen from e.g. My 19 Oct 03 Witness Statement- # 1 , in their typically arrogant, 'Get lost!' 18.12.03 'reply', they continued to aid and abet the criminal activities of the Ladsky gang of racketeers - and claimed:

  • to be "satisfied that the quality of the service we provided was perfectly acceptable", and that
  • "[my] file [was] properly managed".

In my (7-page) 24.01.04 reply, I started by saying: "you do not specifically address any of the points in my letter" - and then dealt with each of their claims. I then stated that I would be filing a complaint with the Law Society (which, no doubt, had them rolling on the floor with laughter).

In their 30.01.04 'response' they claimed: "At this stage, little point would be served in responding to each of the matters that you raised".

Yep! that's the excuse used to avoid addressing their corrupt conduct...they knew would be ignored by the Law Society.

Statistics

6 letters from me; 9 supporting documents; = c.40 hours of my life; c.£50 costs; duration from the time of my complaint: 2 months.

Back to list

(2.2)- My legitimate 16.03.04 complaint - in vain - to the Law Society against 'my' solicitors, Piper Smith Basham/Watton

For preceding events, see, above # 2.1.

I submitted a complaint to the Law Society against Piper Smith Basham/Watton (PSB) - comprising of:

  • 16.03.04 covering letter, supported by 5 documents;

I copied my complaint to Ian Skuse, Complaints officer, PSB.

The overall summary of my complaint was:

"Abuse of fiduciary relationship, negligence, non-compliance with client instructions and use of intimidation and coercion tactics in relation to a 'Landlord-Tenant' service charge dispute with Steel Services represented by Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor, solicitors (CKFT)"

The initial reply of 27.04.04 from the caseworker, Rajdeep Tutt, screamed out: 'Get lost! We don't want to deal with your complaint' - suggesting I contact... another solicitor (yes!) - re. my expecting:

  • to get back at least £5,000 of the fees I had paid to PSB (*): "compensation by the Law Society is a maximum of £5,000, and in most cases, a much lower sum is awarded";
  • being compensated for the distress, and loss of earning.

(*) PSB cost me £6,500 (US$11,300) in fees (including £1,500 for counsels), and £1,500 in other costs, including loss of earnings = around £10,000.

However, out of 'the kindness of her heart', "because of the amount of litigation [I had already gone] through [she was] proceeding with [her] investigation."

In my 30.04.04 letter I replied that I had complied with the Law Society's complaints guidelines, and reiterated my request that it deals with my complaint. In the process, I again supplied a copy of PSB's 'replies' to my complaint (= more costs to me).

In her 02.06.04 'reply' Tutt continued with the 'Frustrate and discourage tactics' (header 2) - including making some absolutely outrageous assertions e.g. claiming that, in effect, 'the Law Society had no control over solicitors' v. what it stated on its website: LSO # 3. (As can be seen from the entry, the LSO then picked up the baton, repeating the same thing).

My 17.06.04 reply required 7 pages, in which I painstakingly cross-referenced my points with my complaint. Two pages were taken up by responding to Tutt's comments about my assertion that Twyman and McLean had subjected me to bullying and intimidation, that "they had been merely advising you of your legal position".

With it, I supplied another lot of 70 supporting documents (a 300-page bundle).

With her letter, she sent me a copy of her 02.06.04 letter to PSB. As she had given 10 days to PSB to respond, in my 06.06.04 letter (and email) I spent several hours, highlighting some very significant errors.

Hell-bent on letting PSB get away with gross misconduct, in her 08.06.04 reply Tutt stated that she had not discussed them with PSB, "but will do so later, if necessary".

These were relevant points to address - at the time. As I reported in my 30.11.04 letter to her, she, 'of course', never found it "necessary" to do so.

And the Law Society sure continued to be hell-bent on letting PSB get away scot-free for its gross misconduct, some of which is classified as criminal:

With the objective of avoiding to address the issues by muddling them up, its 'Frustrate and discourage tactics' entailed providing only a partial 'reply' to my complaint:

03.08.04 letter, to which Rajdeep Tutt attached a 01.07.04 'reply' from Ian Skuse, PSB (# 2.1, above) containing numerous lies and outrageous claims - to which the Law Society very conveniently continued to turn a blind eye e.g.

(1)- The claim that I had faxed my comments on the draft reply to Andrew David Ladsky's 21.10.03 'Part 36 offer' - one hour later that I had actually done (pts 76, 81 to 83 of my 16.03.04 complaint).

To cover-up the fact that Richard Twyman had lied in his 14.11.03 email, by stating that he had sent Stan Gallagher's13.11.03 draft reply to CKFT "understanding this to be your instructions" (pts 78-80 of my complaint)...

...in 'her' 03.08.04 'reply' to my complaint, Tutt concluded outrageously that "the timing was immaterial".

(2)- The fact that, during the 28 Oct 03 meeting set-up to discuss the reply to 'the offer', I could not get Stan Gallagher and Lisa McLean to take into consideration the requirements of my Lease (a legal contract of paramount importance in the context of the reply) (pts 23- 27 of my 16.03.04 complaint).

The Law Society never picked-up on Skuse's 01.07.04 reply: "There is certainly no evidence on our file to suggest that this was a regularly raised topic" (!!!) (Unbelievable!).

In particular, it failed to ask Piper Smith Watton why it:

  • (1)- expects clients to identify the issues;
  • (2) expects them to keep on repeating them endlessly;
  • (3) and still not take action.

In 'her' 03.08.04 letter, Tutt stated about Skuse's 01.07.04 'reply “I cannot see that the solicitors’ letters addressed all of the issues you raised…" (pg 11) and would "pursue the matter further".

She also asked me to "respond, giving [my] reasons if [I] disagreed" (pg 11). (As stated above, she had opted to ignore my 06.06.04 feedback).

In my 16.08.04 letter, I replied that I would only respond once I had a complete reply (03.09.04 letter from Law Society agreeing...and no doubt, at the same time, cursing me to hell).

Of course, the games continued - with more exchange of letters.

There was a 2nd 'reply' from Skuse: 25.08.04 in which he continued with the very blatant lies.

'Part 2' of the Law Society's 'reply' to my complaint was its 22.09.04 letter - I did not receive, leading me to have to chase it (19.10.04). (Reason for the failure? For sure, the Law Society was in contact with the Bar Council-Stan Gallagher, monitoring my replies to his 'response' to my complaint: # 2.4, below).

Agreeing to only a few minor parts of my complaint, the Law Society could not even make-up its mind on the insulting amount of compensation as, in its 22.09.04 letter, it suggested a sum between "£150 (US$260) - £200 (US$350)"....

...while still continuing with its games: “It may be that I alter the view that I have reached so far” (More about this below).

Having said in my 28.10.04 letter that I would respond by the end of November, in my (33-page) 30.11.04 correspondence I provided a very comprehensive response to the 'replies' from the Law Society and Piper Smith Watton - including relating events that had taken place over the previous 5 months.

In relation to the "£150 compensation", under para.156 I asked whether it was meant to be "compensation for postage costs".

As, very clearly, the Law Society's intention was to - typically - keep me going round 'like a hamster on a wheel' until I accepted its ludicrous assessment with the objective of making me give up on my complaint - I filed a complaint with the then Legal Services Ombudsman, against the Law Society: # 3.1, below.

However, the Law Society was not giving up on its objective of getting me to accept its outrageous assessment, or keep me running like a hamster on a wheel.

Indeed, in 'her' 08.12.04 letter Tutt added to her absolutely outrageous conduct by stating: "I welcomed you to provide further information or evidence which you felt may have caused me to reconsider the views I had reached" - which is not what she had stated in her above 22.09.04 'reply'.

"further information or evidence" - Absolutely unbelievable!

It is another typical British Establishment's 'Frustrate and discourage tactic (Header 2) to avoid taking action e.g. 'my' then MP Sir Malcolm Rifkind did the same thing: Rifkind # 2, which also contains other examples I have received.

Statistics

A 39-page complaint; form and related docs + copied to Piper Smith Watton; 80 supporting documents; 7 letters, including one of 33 pages;

= c.200 hours of my life; c.£160 in costs; duration from the start of my complaint: 8 months.

Hooray for 'self-regulation' - in the worse than Wild West environment of very sick and "fantastically corrupt" Britain, in which the Establishment acts as one with 'certain criminals' (also covered above).

Back to list

(2.3)- My legitimate 20.01.04 (26.01.04) complaint - in vain - to 'my' barrister, Stan Gallagher, Arden Chambers.

Stan Gallagher was my nominated barrister for responding, by 13 Nov 03, to the 21.10.03 'Part 36 offer' made by 'Steel Services' = Andrew David Ladsky, through his solicitors CKFT (Overview # 3).

Hence, as in the case of 'my' solicitors, Richard Twyman and Lisa McLean, Piper Smith Basham/Watton (# 2.1, above) - he was meant to 'act for me'.

As discussed in the above introduction, in 'his' 13.11.03 reply, colluding and conspiring with the mafia: Twyman and McLean, Piper Smith Basham/Watton and CKFT - and possibly directly with Andrew David Ladsky...

A summary of what took place is provided under Gallagher-Summary of events, as well as in my Comments to the 13.11.03 Draft Consent Order and Draft Notice of Acceptance drawn-up 'by' Gallagher.

There is also a snapshot on the Definitions page, under Malicious Communications Act.

In addition to evidently perceiving me as an easy target who could be fooled, coerced and bullied (my being a woman; 'a foreigner', etc. - with, at the time, much less knowledge of the law than I have now) - in the process (in line with the typical residential leasehold sector mafia tactics: Overview Note 4) - he:

  • turned a complete blind eye to the evidence;
  • failed to do what had been agreed;
  • ignored my legislative rights, as well as rights under my Lease;
  • made threats about 'the dire consequences' if I failed to follow his 'expert' recommendations, as well as made other lies.

As explained above, under the introduction, in Dec 03, I took back control of my case, and sent my own reply to CKFT.

The introduction also details my reasons for filing a complaint against Gallagher - et.al.

I first complained to Stan Gallagher, stating in my (6-page) 20.01.04 letter (supported by 17 documents) that 'his' reply did not reflect what had been agreed at the 28 Oct 03 meeting (with McLean, and my surveyor; McLean's 28.10.03 notes of the meeting). Also, that he provided unbalanced, biased advice and misrepresented events in order to endorse his actions.

Following his 23.01.04 email that I should address my complaint to his Chambers complaints department, I sent Andrew Arden a copy of my letter to Gallagher, with a 26.01.04 covering letter; a copy of the 17 documents, to which I added another 5; a total of 22 documents.

I summarised my complaint as:

"Giving me incomplete and wrong advice and not taking the opportunity to remedy the situation in spite of my highlighting the shortcoming of the advice / emphasising the binding nature / relevance of legal documents (an action which, as the client, I should not have had to take) - leading me to suffer a detrimental outcome"

As, 10 weeks later, I had not received a reply from Arden Chambers, I filed a complaint with the Bar Council (below, # 2.4).

Statistics

2 letters; 40 supporting documents; = c.40 hours of my life; c.£45 in costs; duration: 10 weeks from sending my complaint.

Back to list

(2.4)- My legitimate 05.04.04 complaint - in vain - to the Bar Council against 'my' barrister, Stan Gallagher, Arden Chambers.

For preceding events, see # 2.3, above.

I filed a (23-page) 05.04.04 complaint with the Bar Council (BC) with a separate summary - supported by 48 documents (100 pages) (covering letter and BC's form) - and copied Arden Chambers on everything.

I summarised my complaint as:

"...abuse of fiduciary relationship by giving me biased, unbalanced advice, ignoring highly material facts and non-compliance with what had been agreed in relation to a 'Landlord-Tenant' £14,400.19 service charge dispute....with detrimental consequences, including on my physical and emotional health, as well as financial position"

It generated a 14.04.04 letter from Michael Scott, Complaints Commissioner, Bar Council, to Arden Chambers - asking whether it was going to deal with my complaint.

What followed felt very much like the 'Frustrate and discourage game (header 2)'.

To this, Arden Chambers, replied on 23.04.04 that it "would be happy to deal with my complaint".

Its excuse for not even acknowledging my complaint for 10 weeks: "the delay has arisen because of the Easter holidays". Evidently, with Arden Chambers, "the Easter holiday" starts at the end of January.

On the same day, in its 23.04.04 letter, it told me that, because I had filed my complaint with the BC, I should not send my communications to Arden. (It then changed this in its 04.05.04 letter following the BC's position).

It was followed by a 28.04.04 letter to me, and 28.04.04 letter to Arden, from the dutiful lackey, Michael Scott, who concocted a cover-up excuse for Arden failing to respond, by claiming that the BC had given Gallagher "confusing messages" - which was absolutely not true. Indeed, in his 23.01.04 email to me, Gallagher demonstrated clear understanding of the procedure options.

Scott stated that "Arden Chambers should deal with [my] complaint".

In my 03.05.04 letter to Scott (cc'd Arden), I rejected this on the grounds that Arden Chambers had been treating me with contempt and, in the process, breaching the Bar Council's code of conduct. I therefore asked that the Bar Council deals with my complaint.

In addition to continuing with his cover-up excuse for Arden, in his 06.05.04 reply, Scott also made an implied threat with the aim of coercing me: "It might well have been that they would have given you satisfaction and, if not, you could then have come to me; giving you two rungs of the ladder, so to speak"

I translated this as a rejection of my complaint - and proved to be correct.

By then, more than 3 months had gone by since I had filed my complaint with Arden Chambers.

It took another 2 months before I received a reply from Stan Gallagher. Although his reply is dated 09.06.04, I only received it on 3rd July. (The delay appears to have been caused by Piper Smith Watton - as evidenced by: 25.06.04 letter from the BC to PSB; 30.06.04 reply from PSB).

While it took 5 months for me to get an initial reply to my complaint, the BC's Karin Seidenstein had the gall to give me "3 weeks to respond": 02.07.04. She then used bullying tactic when I did not: 17.08.04.

From there followed an exchange of replies, intercepted with letters from the BC:

(1)- Mine to Gallagher of 29.08.04 (40 pages), supported by an additional set of 62 documents - bringing the total supplied, by then, to 110 documents; (at the beginning of my reply, I commented on the Bar Council's bullying tactic).

In his 16.09.04 letter, the BC's Adrian Turner (= Arden Chambers) in effect complained about the length of my reply, 'imposing' on Gallagher's time. (He should not have continued to justify his appalling conduct - that caused ME not just a lot of "time", but a lot more besides that e.g. West London County Court # 13).

(2)- His 11.10. 04 reply - preceded by, due to his lies, my having to write a 24.10.04 letter (supported by 8 documents) to my surveyor to confirm what he said during the 28 Oct 03 meeting.

Of note: while the BC had forgotten its 'code of conduct' when Arden Chambers ignored my complaint for 10 weeks (above), it 'suddenly' remembered it when Gallagher failed to provide his reply to the BC: Seidenstein's 12.10.04 letter to Gallagher, quoting "paragraph 905(d) of the code of conduct" = Okay to treat the complainants with contempt - but not the 'almighty' BC.

(3)- My (11-page) 31.10.04 reply (that took me a long time, as I crossed-referenced it to parts of previous documents) - and to which I added a further 7 documents. (I also copied my surveyor on the letter).

Some key parts of the replies are discussed under Gallagher-Summary of events.

In its 02.11.04 acknowledgment, the BC informed me "the Complaints Commissioner has decided to take further advice".

With no communication, more than one month later, in my 09.12.04 letter I chased a reply. (When it concerned me, the BC poodle gave me only "3 weeks to respond" e.g. 13.10.04 but, for when it concerns the BC: no such restriction).

In its 10.12.04 letter, it stated "in 3-4 weeks". By its 19.01.05 letter, it had been extended to 26 Jan - because: "the Complaints Commissioner has decided that this complaint should be referred to the Professional Conduct and Complaints Committee".

Then came the (predictable) Bar Council's decision in Karin Seidenstein letter of 27.01.05:

"The Professional Conduct and Complaints Committee of the General Council...decided that there was no professional misconduct or inadequate professional service on the part of Mr Gallagher.

The complaint was accordingly dismissed"

"Under the Rules, there is no mechanism for you to appeal this decision.

The Committee however, may be prepared to look at the matter again if you have some additional evidence in support of your complaint which was not included in the letters you have already sent" (*)

(*) Absolutely unbelievable! It is another typical British Establishment's 'Frustrate and discourage tactic (Header 2) to avoid taking action.

'My' then MP Sir Malcolm Rifkind did the same thing: Rifkind # 2 - which contains other examples I have received.

It took me more than one week to write my (17-page) 25.03.05 reply to the BC's above rejection of my complaint against Gallagher, as I referred to:

  • (1)- my complaint and supporting evidence;
  • (2)- Gallagher's replies and mine - in the process cross-referencing everything by capturing the relevant paragraph/s; (a fact that was subsequently recognised by the Bar Council (LSO # 4).

In the second paragraph, I stated: "This reply is for the benefit of Mrs Zahida Manzoor CBE, Legal Services Ombudsman, to whom I am referring my complaint".

I wanted to ensure that the LSO had the absolute proof that the Bar Council had been provided with irrebutable evidence, and had opted to turn a blind to it.

Towards the end of my letter, I wrote:

"Yet again, I ask: what evidence was the Committee supplied with?

If it was supplied with the evidence I provided, it leads me to the view that your Committee does not have the integrity to perform the role implied in its remit"

"Your Office is not serving the public interest. I view it as having a conflict of interest which leads to lack of objectivity and integrity"

On the same day, I sent a 25.03.05 complaint against the Bar Council to the then Legal Services Ombudsman - leading to some amazing U-turns and pirouettes (# 3.2, below).

Statistics

4 major documents, up to 40 pages in length, supported by over 120 documents; at least 3 other letters from me

= c.260 hours of my life; over £225 in costs; duration: 15 months from filing my complaint.

I repeat my above comments.

Back to list

(2.5)- My legitimate 20.12.04 complaint - in vain - to the Law Society, against Andrew David Ladsky's solicitors, Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor (CKFT)

I repeat my introduction under # 2, above, for my reasons for filing, with the Law Society, a (71-page) 20.12.04 complaint - supported by 132 documents - against Andrew David Ladsky's solicitors, CKFT, namely Lanny Silverstone and Ayesha Salim.

I summarised my complaint as:

"...for committing criminal offences against me and causing highly detrimental consequences on my physical and emotional health, as well as financial position - in the process of supporting its client Steel Services' unlawful claim against me of a service charge demand of £14,400"

I concluded my complaint with:

"...CKFT and its client... instead of addressing statutory requirements, opt for an arsenal of blackmail, extortion, bullying and intimidation tactics in order to, one way or another, obtain payment..."

In the light of the 'responses', I emphasise that, in the summary of my complaint, under header 1.1, and taking 2 pages to do this, I captured several key parts of the solicitors' so-called Code of Conduct (extracts under Definitions) - and under each, detailed how CKFT had very blatantly breached the code.

For what took place - see Summaries: Events ; Breaches of the law ; Overall outcome on me.

Many of the events are also covered under Extortion, as well as under Advisors to Jefferson House - CKFT.

I included all of the events in my complaint.

As can be seen from their conduct Silverstone and Salim are thoroughly evil, extremely corrupt, amoral, cruel, vicious, perverse and sadistic monsters who, as I stated in my complaint, perceive themselves as having the right to ignore the law of the land in order to secure their own ends.

Predictably, in its 08.02.05 ‘reply’ from a Gurjinder Sanghera, the Law Society made a blanket rejection of my - legitimate - complaint. In the process:

(1)- it turned a blind eye to the very damning evidence, and claimed "the information you provided does not demonstrate that CKFT acted as alleged";

(2)- endorsed CKFT's criminal conduct by using one of its favourite excuse: "a solicitor is required to act upon his/her client's proper instructions and in his/her client's best interests";

  • (The Law Society repeated the same thing re. my complaint against Portner & Jaskel: Portner # 5.1; evidently, 'this obligation' applies only to solicitors acting for Andrew Ladsky - not to solicitors meant to be acting for me: # 2.2, above);

and that includes "being at liberty to issue proceedings...to determine whether the sums claimed were due or not" Yep! That's what it says under para.1.1.2.2.

  • = You want monies that are not due and owed to you? No problem! We know from 'our regulator' that we can try our luck by (among many other illegal, criminal tactics) filing a claim. We are counting on the defendant being too scared / too broke to fight us = easy money!
  • "Your conclusion suggests that, if for example, Mr Ladsky instructs Mr Silverstone and/or Ms Salim to shoot you because he is unhappy with the reply you have provided to my complaint against CKFT, they would be under a duty to do so. This, to me, is the logical extension of your position"
  • (3)- made some other absolutely outrageous comments;
  • (4)- used the typical 'Frustrate and discourage tactic' - by claiming (falsely in many instances) that parts of my complaint were "legal issues"; "matters for the court; the police" (CKFT # 7 ; with my response to those claimed to be "matters for the court", discussed under WLCC # D))

The Law Society's Gurjinder Sanghera concluded with:

"...I am not in a position to take any of your concerns any further"

Its 'reply' is discussed in detail on CKFT's page, from # 6.

Clearly unable to challenge my (8-page) 19.02.05 reply,...

...in his 17.03.05 letter, Gurjinder Sanghera stated:

"...read through your letter and do not believe that I can add anything further over and above what is cited in my letter of 8 February 2005."

(At least I had gained the Law Society not attempting to get me to run like a hamster on a wheel, as it had done in relation to my complaint against Piper Smith Watton: # 2.2, above).

I opted to file a complaint against the Law Society with the Legal Services Ombudsman - see below, # 3.3.

Statistics

2 main documents, up to 70 pages in length, supported by 132 documents = c.120 hours of my life; c. £145 in costs; duration: 3 months from the time of my complaint.

I repeat my above comments.

Back to list

(2.6)- My legitimate 28.02.07 complaint - in vain - to the Law Society, against Andrew David Ladsky's solicitors, Portner and Jaskel

My (5-page) 28.02.07 complaint, supported by 14 enclosures addressed to Fiona Woolf, then President of the Law Society, against Andrew David Ladsky's solicitors, Portner and Jaskel (snapshot under 'Advisors to Jefferson House')...

...was triggered by Jeremy Hershkorn harassing and threatening my current website Host, over a period of several weeks - as well as threatening my Host with defamation proceedings - by making highly malicious and libellous accusations against me (Portner # 2).

To this, I added:

  • ...- in the name of a company I had never heard of - (as I stated in my 25.02.07 reply) - if I failed to pay immediately the sum of £8,937 (US$15,800) (Portner # 3);

I summarised my complaint as:

"A firm, Portner and Jaskel, London W1U 2RA, stating that it is “regulated” by your Office, has been sending me fraudulent / deceitful and threatening correspondence, as well as harassing my US Website Host provider"

I concluded by asking Mrs Woolf "to take appropriate actions against your member in relation to the matters raised in this letter"

My complaint is discussed in detail under Portner # 4 and # 5.

For the 3rd time (previous, above, # 2.2 and # 2.5) the Law Society provided undeniable evidence that it is a fertiliser for malpractice.

(1)- Re. Threatening me with "bankruptcy proceedings, forfeiture and costs" - if I failed to pay immediately £8,937 to a company I had never of (Portner # 5.1).

The 30.03.07 'reply' to my complaint, from a Alex Sutherland, 'Solicitors Regulation Authority' (= the Law Society):

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

Portner & Jaskel are clearly acting on the instructions of their client in this matter" (2)

"They are entitled to take a robust approach [3] and advise you of the steps that their client is able to take if payment is not made" (4)

"There is no misconduct in them doing so and I do not consider that the letter is either threatening or that it amounts to harassment." (5)

"I will not be pursuing this issue further"

(1)- Have a look at "the rules" (the following are hyperlinked to extracts):

Does it look to you as though "there has not been any breach of the rules in this matter"?

(2)- This was a repeat of the Law Society's 'reply' to my complaint against CKFT (# 2.5, above)

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

(4)- This is absolutely outrageous when you consider that this threatening demand was illegal (Portner # 3), as well as what took place subsequently - see Summary of events.

(5)- Unbelievable!

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

The sum of money 'I so categorically owed that it warranted threatening me with bankruptcy and forfeiture'?

Portner issued me with a 06.06.08 Notice of Discontinuance of "ALL the claims against [me]" (Portner # 31).

(2)- Re. sending me a fraudulent "Notice of first refusal"

To avoid addressing it, the Law Society claimed that my complaint was

"outside our normal six-month limit, and that there were no special circumstances to persuade us to investigate the matter"

- followed by the typical tactic of telling me to "get legal advice" (Portner # 5.2) (NB: = another one of the favourite 'Get lost!'; other examples: above # 1.9)

I highlight that, on page 4 of my 28.02.07 complaint, I listed the rules of the Law Society's Code of Conduct breached by Portner, as well as legislation.

(3)- Re. the fact that Portner had conducted a prolonged campaign of harassment against my website Host, supported by threats.

The equally unbelievable - and standard 'reply' from the Law Society in the 30.03.07 reply':

"it is clear that the firm are acting on the instructions of and in the best interests of their client" (Portner # 5.3)

And the overall conclusion:

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

Unsurprisingly, the criminal activities by Portner continued unabated: Summary of events ; Overview # 11 and # 12.

But, there was clearly no point my filing another complaint with its lapdog, the equally corrupt Law Society.

Statistics

1 main document, supported by a 30-page bundle of 14 documents = c.20 hours of my life; c.£25 in costs; duration: 1 month from filing my complaint.

I repeat my above comments.

Back to list

 

(3)- My legitimate complaints - in vain - to Her Majesty's then Legal Services Ombudsman (LSO), Zahida Manzoor CBE, against the Law Society and the Bar Council

 

(3.1)- My legitimate 05.12.04 complaint - in vain - to Her Majesty's then Legal Services Ombudsman (LSO), Zahida Manzoor CBE, against the Law Society for its handling of my legitimate complaint against 'my' solicitors, Piper Smith Smith Basham/Watton

I filed a complaint with Her Majesty's then Legal Services Ombudsman (LSO) against the Law Society for its handling of my complaint against Piper Smith Smith Basham/Watton - # 2.2, above.

My complaint consisted of a 05.12.04 letter supported by 13 documents, including my (39-page) 16.03.04 complaint to the Law Society, and my final 30.11.04 reply (33 pages).

In my complaint, I stated that I was doing this because I "[saw] no point engaging in further correspondence"

What then took place is discussed under LSO # 3.

It demonstrates absolutely undeniable conniving and conspiring between the LSO and the Law Society:

having confirmed that she was considering my complaint, 5 months later, the LSO changed her tune, and...

...when I challenged the replies: (6-page) 22.05.05, Zahida Manzoor's lies in her 07.06.05 'reply' - to cover-up the content of the previous correspondence - were absolutely sickening.

Needless to say that I did no go back to the Law Society = Another win for the mafia's 'pillar-to-post' tactic.

Statistics

2 major letters supported by a pack of 13 documents; = c.30 hours of my life; c. £35 in costs; duration: 6 months from the time of my complaint.

I also repeat my above notes.

Back to list

(3.2)- My legitimate 25.03.05 complaint - in vain - to Her Majesty's then Legal Services Ombudsman (LSO), Zahida Manzoor CBE, against the Bar Council for its rejection of my legitimate complaint against 'my' barrister, Stan Gallagher, Arden Chambers.

I filed a 25.03.05 complaint supported by 35 supporting documents, with Her Majesty's then Legal Services Ombudsman (LSO) against the Bar Council (BC)...

for its rejection of my legitimate 05.04.04 complaint against 'my' barrister, Stan Gallagher, Arden Chambers (# 2.4, above).

And the U-turns and pirouettes started!

5 days after my 25.03.05 reply (# 2.4, above) to the Bar Council's rejection my complaint against Stan Gallagher, it sent me a 30.03.05 letter - stating:

"In light of the issues you have raised, I am seeking further advice namely whether your complaint should be re-considered in the light of your analysis"

Note that by the time the BC sent me this letter, 12 months had passed since it had received my 05.04.04 complaint.

And, as reported in my 25.03.05 letter to the BC (# 2.4, above), numerous correspondence had been exchanged arguing about my complaint.

It was followed immediately by one from its poodle:

2 days after the letter from the BC, I received a 01.04.05 'reply' 'from' a Steve Lees, Operations Manager, Legal Services Ombudsman to my 25.03.05 complaint - stating:

"However, it appears from what you have told us in the application form that the Ombudsman is unable to help because the Bar Council are still investigating your complaint and there are no strong reasons which would justify the Ombudsman's involvement at this stage"

 

I highlight that, in its 27.01.05 rejection of my complaint (# 2.4, above) (a copy of which I provided to the LSO) - the Bar Council had stated:

"Under the Rules, there is no mechanism for you to appeal this decision"

"If you are dissatisfied with the way your complaint has been considered by the Bar Council, you may approach the Legal Services Ombudsman (LSO) to investigate the way in which we have dealt with it".

 

In my 02.04.05 reply to the LSO, I refuted its claim - stating:

" there is absolutely nothing in the documents sent which could remotely lead to this conclusion".

"There is nothing new in my 25 March 2005 reply, apart from highlighting sections from the Bar Council code of conduct.

Are the Bar Council and barristers who were members of the Committee that reviewed my complaint now saying that they do not know their own code of conduct?"

I also asked that the LSO proceeds with my complaint - and copied the BC on the letter.

Given the evidence, I can only conclude that the Bar Council contacted the Legal Services Ombudsman with the aim of making a U-turn and evidently received a sympathetic ear.

The outcome of my challenging the LSO led to a 08.04.05 letter stating that it would investigate my complaint. In other words: the Legal Services Ombudsman also made a U-turn.

But, there were more twists and turns - see LSO # 4 for events.

In the light of what had taken place over the previous 6 months - added to the 'replies' from HM's LSO to my other complaints ( # 3.1, above, and # 3.3, below), the following came as no surprise.

The 30.08.05 'reply' 'from' Her Majesty's then LSO, Zahida Manzoor, CBE - stated :

"I take the view that the Bar Council's response to your complaint namely that you failed to disclose a sufficient case of professional misconduct or of inadequate professional service against Mr Gallagher, was satisfactory and that their decision to close their file was justified for the reasons given in their letter dated 27 January 2005"

Among the most shocking comments 'from' Manzoor - I highlight:

On page 3 of 'her' 30.08.05 reply:

"The outcome of the [then London Leasehold Valuation Tribunal] determination was largely favourable for your landlord"

This is absolutely unbelievable, and absolutely outrageous! When I read that, it made my blood boil.

See the reasons under LSO # 4.

(See LSO # 4 for evidence of Manzoor holding the Bar Council in high regard).

Statistics

3 documents; my complaint supported by a 350-page bundle of 35 documents; = c.30 hours of my life; c. £110 in costs; duration: 5 months.

I also repeat my above notes.

Back to list

(3.3)- My legitimate 20.02.05 complaint - in vain - to Her Majesty's then Legal Services Ombudsman (LSO), Zahida Manzoor CBE, against the Law Society for its rejection of my legitimate complaint against Andrew David Ladsky's solicitors, Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor (CKFT)

I filed an (11-page) 20.02.05 complain supported by 51 documents (list at the end of my complaint), with Her Majesty's then Legal Services Ombudsman (LSO) against the Law Society...

for its rejection of my legitimate 20.12.04 complaint against Andrew David Ladsky's solicitors, Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor (CKFT) (# 2.5, above).

Predictably, the 11.07.05 decision from the lapdog HM's Zahida Manzoor CBE was another 'Get lost'!

"In the circumstances...I take the view that the Law Society's response was satisfactory and that their decision to close their file was justified."

...in the process making some outrageous assertions.

See LSO # 2 for detail.

Statistics

1 main document, supported by 51 documents; = c.45 hours of my life; c.£90 in costs; duration: 5 months from filing my complaint.

I also repeat my above notes.

Back to list

 

(4)- My legitimate 'cries for help' and complaints - in vain - to, and against Her Majesty's police

 

(4.1)- My battles in Feb-Mar 02 - in vain - with Her Majesty's DC DR Adams, CID, Kensington Police

Following Andrew David Ladsky making a series of anonymous phone calls to me on my landline in the apartment (he had done the same thing to e.g. the person running the Residents Association who was 'daring' to stand-up to him)...

- I went to Her Majesty's Chelsea police to file a 19.02.02 complaint (I persisted in doing in spite of the attitude of the attendant) (police-Overview # 1).

Concurrently, I also reported suffering other forms of harassment from Ladsky (police # 1-Background). (I was 'daring' to challenge him and threatening his set-up e.g. # 5.1, below).

From my first contact with HM's DC DR Adams, CID, Kensington police, he immediately demonstrated an hell-bent determination to protect Ladsky.

(That contact marked the start of Her Majesty's departments, including their overall heads - all the way up to her Cabinet ministers - being absolutely hell-bent on protecting the multi-criminal 'brother' Andrew David Ladsky and, by extension, his gang of racketeers - at any cost...and ALL the others followed the lead).

Adams' protection of Ladsky started by claiming that my complaint had been "lost". I faxed him another one: 20.02.02, in which I also reported that British Telecom (BT) had determined that:

  • on 17 Feb 02, 13 anonymous phone calls were made to my phone between 21h50 and c. midnight - all from the same number;
  • on 19 Feb 02, 7 calls were made between 17h53 and 18h43.

The following day, I sent him another fax, reporting that BT was chasing me for the form, and that it had been able to trace "a total of 20 calls": 21.02.02.

When I told Adams that Ladsky was behind the calls, and that some of my fellow leaseholders had also complained against him to this police station, he replied: "nobody else has complained about Ladsky".

When I cited the example of "the man in flat 12" (Elderly Resident) , he replied, disparagingly "the 71-year old man" (as I reported e.g. in my 13.03.02 complaint to the PCA, on which I copied Adams - # 4.2, below).

Hence, Adams knew that his claim was false. In fact, by then, at least 4 of my fellow leaseholders had also complained - to this police station - of suffering harassment from Ladsky (police # 4).

Adams also told me: "You won't be able to prove a link with Andrew Ladsky" (as I reported in e.g. my 02.04.02 letter to DI Webster - # 4.3, below).

And so, Her Majesty's DC DR Adams set about achieving this objective through laughable fabrications and excuses, he piled on top of each other, as I was not giving up on my complaint. Examples contained in my communications to him:

(1)- my 25.03.02 fax (he, of course, ignored) in which I asked him to capture what he claimed the resident had told him - that:

  • 'she now admits having made the anonymous phone calls to me';
  • her phone had 'mysteriously reappeared at her door' (5 days earlier, Adams claimed that she had told him that 'her phone was stolen last November');
  • 'she had also complained of being harassed by Ladsky' (police # 1).

(2)- my 26.03.02 fax challenging his claims that:

  • in effect, 'I had been making the anonymous to myself' (yep!) and, when challenged: "something must have gone wrong with your answering service";
  • what was "very odd is that there is no subscriber for the landline number";
  • I had checked with BT; the reason it could not provide a subscriber name was because the phone was registered with another supplier, Reach Europe - and BT had communicated this to Adams who, of course, had not told me.

The lies, fabrications, excuses and the assertion "You won't be able to prove a link with Ladsky" - led me to file a complaint with HM's then Police Complaints Authority (# 4.2, below)

Statistics

4 faxes; filing the complaint a second time; phone calls; = c.4 hours of my life; c.£8 in costs; duration: 5 weeks from the time of my complaint.

I also repeat my above notes.

Back to list

(4.2)- My legitimate 13.03.02 'cry for help' - in vain - to Her Majesty's then Police Complaints Authority and Directorate of Professional Standards

Frustrated by the outcome of my experience with DC DR Adams, CID, Kensington police (# 4.1, above) (and with Andrew David Ladsky continuing with his harassment (police # 1-Background)...

I sent this (3-page) 13.03.02 'cry for help' to Her Majesty's then Police Complaints Authority (PCA), in which I related events - and on which I copied Ladsky's 2 henchmen: DC DR Adams and DC Crockett, CID, Kensington police (all sent 'Recorded delivery).

A 25.03.02 letter from Duncan MacPherson, police Directorate of Professional Standards (DPS) informed me that the PCA had copied it on my 13.03.02 letter to the PCA, and that it had forwarded it to Kensington police.

As I reported on page 3 of my 05.05.02 letter to Sir Toby Harris (# 4.4, below), when I phoned: both, the Police Complaints Authority and Directorate of Professional Standards threw me back at Kensington police. Talk of throwing back the ball!

With no other option, I sent a letter to HM's DI Paul Webster: # 4.3, below.

Statistics

1 letter; phone calls; = c.7 hours of my life; c. £11 in costs; duration: 2 weeks from the time of my 'cry for help'.

I also repeat my above notes.

Back to list

(4.3)- My legitimate 02.04.02 'cry for help' - in vain - to Her Majesty's DI Paul Webster, Kensington Police

Getting nowhere with HM's DC DR Adams (# 4.1, above), and seeing that my complaint to HM's Police Complaints Authority had turned out to be a waste of my time, and money (# 4.2, above),...

I sent this (3-page) 02.04.02 'cry for help' to HM's DI Paul Webster, Kensington police, reporting the events, as well as the lies and threats by Adams, and asking for his help in identifying the subscriber for the landline number.

In his 23.04.02 letter, HM's Detective Inspector Paul Webster wrote:

"[the resident was] identified as having made the calls from [the mobile] phone";

"Normally the opinion of the victim is canvassed before a decision is taken whether to charge [the offender] ... In this case [the resident] was formally warned because of the nature of the offence and also because of the apologies and good character" (1)

"No crime report has been reported to this police borough regarding Mr Ladsky..." (2)

"At this time the three calls to you not made by [the resident] have not been traced, DC Adams will contact you when we receive a result from the subscriber.

I have been informed they have a major backlog in the system" (3)

(1)- That stunk of (the continuation) of a cover-up

(2)- = A continuation of the lie by DC DR Adams (# 4.1, above) as, by then, at least 4 of my fellow leaseholders had also complained - to this police station - of suffering harassment from Ladsky: Police # 4.

(3)- In the light of what had taken place to date, added to the fact that, by then: it was 7 weeks since British Telecom had provided the numbers to Kensington police, and more than 2 months since I had filed my complaint (# 4.1, above) - I translated this as: 'we'll never give you the information'.

I therefore opted to escalate my complaint to HM's then Metropolitan Police Authority: # 4.4, below.

Statistics

1 letter, and 1 supporting document; = c.5 hours of my life; c.£3 in costs; duration: 3 weeks from the time of my 'cry for help'.

I also repeat my above notes.

Back to list

(4.4)- My legitimate 05.05.02 and 31.05.02 'cry for help' - in vain - to Her Majesty's Sir Toby Harris, Chair of the then Metropolitan Police Authority

The 23.04.02 'response' from Her Majesty's Detective Inspector Paul Webster (# 4.3, above) led me to send Her Majesty's Sir Toby Harris (police # 1), Chairman of the then Metropolitan Police Authority a (4-page) 05.05.02 'cry for help', supported by 17 documents.

In this I reported what had been happening since filing my 19.02.02 complaint with HM's Chelsea police: the obvious fabrications, the excuses, the very dismissive treatment (# 4.1, above).

In relation to the PCA and DPS telling me that 'I should sort things out with Kensington police' (# 4.2, above) - I stated that what had been happening "warrants an independent review of their investigation".

Lack of response (aside from a 13.05.02 acknowledgment), led me to send a chaser email: 31.05.02.

In this email, I took the opportunity to add recent events - that amounted to yet more fabricated stories by HM's DC DR Adams, CID, Kensington police - and his conclusion that "the matter is now closed".

It led to a 05.06.02 reply:

"...the MPA...can only ask the Metropolitan Police Service to provide an update on the actions already taken..."

"...[as] the investigating officers appear to be making some positive progress [1], it might be more useful for you to maintain that contact rather than involve Lord Harris who could not add very much to the process." (2)

Followed by asking me to complete "a disclosure form" (I had already returned, following its 13th May letter), "if [I] still wish Lord Harris to make some general enquiries"

1)- They sure were "making positive progress"...on their fabrications.

(2)- I translated that (correctly) as a 'Get lost!'.

I was in the claws of the corrupt Kensington police - and nobody would come to help me: 'the Brotherhood' was closing rank to protect 'the brother' Ladsky (although, in those days, I was not clued-in to that).

Then came the predictable 11.07.02 letter from Her Majesty's Sir Toby Harris (police # 1) - that:

"[the resident] is held fully responsible for the crime"

"...you seem convinced that [the resident] 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" (1)

Re. investigating the subscriber for the landline number:

"Although the subscriber for the landline was never identified [2] ...officers have to act with consideration for resource and time expenditure...nothing further would be gained by ascertaining that information" (3)

"...it does seem unlikely that ascertaining this information would assist your ultimate goal which appears to be to prove that you are being harassed by a party or parties that wish to force the sale of your home for their own financial gain." (4)

(1)- Contrast that with what took place in 2003 (# 4.5), and in 2007 (# 4.7 ; # 4.8 ; # 4.9, etc.)!

(2)- = There had been a change of plan in the story I would be given as, on 23 May 02, DC DR Adams claimed that the resident was "also responsible"; spinning the totally unbelievable story that 'she had made the 3 calls from a nearby hotel' (police # 1).

(3)- Unbelievable! 'The Brotherhood' had certainly kicked in!

(4)- Yep! As irrebutably proven.

In my (2-page) 04.08 02 reply (cc'd Chelsea police), I wrote, among others:

" ...I would point out that there is the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. But, this is conveniently ignored by the police".

"...my dealings with the police in recent months, have led me to totally - and for ever - lose my confidence in the British police"

Statistics

1 letter supported by a (36-page) bundle of 17 documents; 2 other letters; = c.30 hours of my life; c.£20 in costs; duration: 2 months from the time of my 'cry for help'.

I also repeat my above notes.

Back to list

(4.5)- My legitimate 11.02.03 request - in vain - to Her Majesty's PC Neil Watson, Chelsea police

(As discussed under police # 2), on 25 Jan 03, as I was walking out of 'the concentration camp', totally ignoring Andrew David Ladsky who was standing by the lift with a woman, he provoked me by saying: "Better luck next time!" followed by a sarcastic laugh.

I assumed he was referring to the impending then London Leasehold Valuation Tribunal 'hearing' on 5 Feb 03, and that he had it ‘sewn-up’ - as already indicated by the events that had taken place by then: summaries: Events ; Breaches of the law ; Overall outcome on me (and more followed; some referred to under # 1.1, above).

'Not liking' my reply ('Go fuck yourself!'), he immediately run along / got on the phone to his henchmen in the local police, to file 'a complaint' against me (police-Overview # 2).

The follow-up was a 27.01.03 letter 'from' (1) Her Majesty's PC Neil Watson, Chelsea police - stating, among other:

“The police have been informed by a Mr Andrew Ladsky that you verbally abused him in public over some sort of dispute revolving around your premises”.

[After referring to 'a witness']: ”…I am aware I only have his side of the story, however, if events occurred as he described them, then an offence would appear to have been committed by you.

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." (2)

"I wish to make it clear that my role in this is purely neutral at the moment, but it would be remiss of me not to advise you of the following: Please avoid (if you can) any confrontation with Mr Ladsky or there may be further consequences(3)

"Neil Watson PC206BS - Crime Investigator" (4)

(1)- My conclusion is that this letter was dictated to him.

(2)- Without having my side of the story, he immediately "records a complaint against [me] on the police [system]". (So much for the claim by Sir Toby Harris! (# 4.4, above))

(3)- This amounted to a very blatant threat, intended to shut me up. (Ditto re. Harris' claim)

(4)- And this was intended to add to the intimidation and fear tactic.

Laughing my head off from visualising the scene (police # 2-Background), and from the police having no sense of the ridicule - I did not, as he asked, 'contact him'.

So, 'he' followed it by a 06.02.03 chaser note. In my 11.02.03 reply, I stated that "Given the extreme vagueness of the accusation" I required specific details - which I listed.

'He' did not respond.

As I discovered subsequently from getting the "crime report" (# 4.7, below), the police then closed down the report, claiming that "[I had] not responded" (police # 1- KP 13).

Statistics

(In addition to a good laugh): 1 letter ; = c.2 hours of my life; c.£2 in costs; no response.

I also repeat my above notes.

Back to list

(4.6)- My repeated 17.08.03 'cry for help' - in vain - to Her Majesty's David Blunkett, Home Secretary

In summer 2003, feeling trapped following my experience with:

and with nowhere to turn to - I sent an identical letter to c. 10 media, supported by 11 documents, on which, each time I copied 7 of Her Majesty's Cabinet ministers, including the then Prime Minister, Tony Blair.

In my letter, I related my horrendous experience with the police, the tribunal and the court e.g. my 17.08.03 letter to the Guardian.

Among those copied, I included David Blunkett, then Secretary of State for the Home Office (HO # 1).

The 27.08.03 'reply' from the Home Office:

"...the matters are the responsibility of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister" (1)

"I have therefore transferred your letter [to office of DPM] who have agreed to arrange for a suitable reply to be sent to you". (2)

(1)- Absolutely outrageous! Consider that:

  • (2)- on pg 4 of my letter, I report: "I cannot rely on Kensington police for protection" - and support this by providing damning evidence.

Hence: David Blunkett ignored my letter - I sent him at least 10 times and, every time, with the 11 supporting documents.

The only thing in my letter that concerned John Prescott, then Deputy Prime Minister, were what I reported about the London LVT (as well as my comments relating to housing matters).

(2)- The "suitable reply from John Prescott"? None...until I copied him, the following month, on my 06.09.03 letter to McGrath (# 1.1, above) - to which, of course, his 'reply' was 'Get lost!' (# 1.2, above)

(Note also that, on my letter, I also copied Lord Falconer of Thoroton, then head of the courts. Likewise, in spite of the damning events I reported on pg 3 of my letter - he took no action. In fact, as reported # 1.5, above, one year later, he continued to do this when I sent him a 29.06.04 'cry for help').

I also highlight the slogan at the bottom of the 27.08.03 letter from the Home Office: "Building a safe, just and tolerant society". They sure like to **** on 'the little people' from a great height!

Statistics

10 letters, each supported by a 22-page bundle of 11 documents; = c.25 hours of my life; c. £85 in costs; duration: 10 days from my 'cry for help'.

I also repeat my above notes.

Back to list

(4.7)- My 13.08.09 and 20.09.09 battles - in vain - with Her Majesty's police Public Access Office

As reported under # 4.5, above, in 2003, Chelsea police failed to respond to my demand for specific details of the accusation against me by Andrew David Ladsky.

In 2007, having failed to (yet again) force the closure of my website by harassing my website (Overview # 9), Ladsky approached his corrupt henchmen at Kensington police for assistance - who were only too happy to help as 'the Brotherhood' 'did not like' my website either.

As discussed under e.g. Overview # 13, without ever contacting me, the police contacted my website Host, demanding the immediate closure of my website - by making malicious, highly defamatory accusations against me - including accusing me falsely of "having committed a crime".

(Having failed in their objective, the plan then switched to Ladsky attacking me - successfully - through my then employer, KPMG: Overview # 14).

As the police twice denied me the right to defend myself against Ladsky's accusations, I submitted, to Her Majesty's police Public Access Office, a 28.05.09 Subject Access Request, supported by a 7-page document in which I related key events (police # 5.1).

After my needing to send a 22.07.09 chaser letter, It led to my receiving 3 "crime reports":

- which, in spite of being heavily redacted, were, of course, outrageous packs of lies (key points under police # C ; snapshots under Breach Data Protection Act 1998).

Spending many hours, I painstakingly went through the 3 reports, commenting on the entries, and ended-up writing a (38-page) 13.08.09 reply, I supported with 49 documents.

I included a page of Overall Conclusions, highlighting the numerous lies, the omissions, the cover-ups, etc. by Her Majesty's Kensington police. My first 2 points were:

  • the absolutely outrageous claim that "[I] suffer from mental issues",
  • and the equally outrageous comment that it "would be speaking to social services to see if they are aware of [me]" (police # 3 KP # (2)(10)).

Not surprisingly, I was (and still am) absolutely incensed by reading this (added to some other entries e.g. branding me "a Nazi", "because of my franco-german (sic) origin": police # 3, KP 4).

Portraying people as 'suffering from mental issues' is a typical British Establishment's tactic to get rid of 'inconvenient people' - on which vermin Ladsky aimed to capitalise with the cooperation of the police et.al. (Persecution # 4(14)).

Within days of my first ever contact with Her Majesty's Kensington police (# 4.1, above) it had demonstrated utter contempt and disdain towards me.

As time went by, the officers revealed themselves to be thoroughly evil, rotten to the core mafia monsters...

...and these so-called "crime reports" proved it - including the fact that HM's police makes a perfect match with Andrew David Ladsky and his gang of racketeers.

While that corrupt vermin is dripping with hatred towards me, I can assure it that the feeling is mutual.

It has continued to be reinforced ever since - due to the below subsequent events, as well as the fact that it is behind a lot of the persecution I have and continue to be subjected to (police # C (1) and # C (2)) - making it a mafia of assassins.

Predictably, the 25.08.09 'response' to my 13.08.09 reply - stated:

"...have forwarded your concerns on to the Investigating Officer who will if he feels necessary update the report, if this is completed I will forward you a (sic) updated version"

"...I can confirm after making enquiries there is no further information we can provide you with." (*)

(*) Absolutely outrageous! It was, of course, a lie: QB # 4.3

Absolutely furious with this 'response' - that amounted to the Kensington police mafia continuing to ignore my rights, yet again spending many hours, I wrote this (38-page) 20.09.09 reply.

To demonstrate that the police was breaching my legislative rights under the Data Protection Act 1998:

  • in the first 5 pages, I included extracts from the Act;
  • devising my headings by drawing from the Act, under each, I then compiled the contents from the 3 reports that breached my rights.

I was so incensed by the police branding me as "suffering from mental issues", and "contacting social services", that I added 4 pages to my reply relating the impact the lies by the police and Ladsky had had on me at my then employer, KPMG that saw it fit to join them in persecuting me (# 7.1, below).

I copied this reply, as well as previous correspondence to HM's Chief Superintendent Mark Heath (# 4.8, below).

HM's police Public Access Office did not respond to my letter.

Statistics

2 major documents ; = c.130 hours of my life; c. £100 in costs; duration: 3 months from the time of my Subject Access Request.

I also repeat my above notes.

Back to list

(4.8)- My 20.09.09, 08.10.09 and 08.10.09 'cries for help' - in vain - to Her Majesty's Kensington, Chelsea & Notting Hill police's Mark Heath, Chief Superintendent and Borough Commander and Acting Chief Inspector Steve McSorley

Incensed by the so-called "crime reports" processed against me by Kensington police, and the 'response' to my protests 'from' the police Public Access Office (= Kensington police) (# 4.7, above),

...I took my battle to Her Majesty's then Chief Superintendent and Borough Commander Mark Heath who, under the Data Protection Act 1998, was the data controller.

In my 20.09.09 letter to him I reported events, and copied him on the correspondence: (1)- my 13.08.09 reply to the so-called "crime reports"; (2)- the 25.08.09 'response'; (3)- my 20.09.09 reply - amounting to a bundle of c.80 pages.

In my letter, I also asked 14 questions about what gave his officers the right to do what they had done, and failed to do - and concluded with:

"As the above are very clearly in breach of, among others, the Police Professional Standards, as Head of K&C police: what are you going to do in the face of this litany of outrageous, gross misconduct?"

I also asked that

"a letter be sent immediately to my website Host retrieving all the malicious and libellous accusations made against me by your member of staff, Trainee Detective Constable Simon J Dowling of the 'Community Safety Unit', in his 16 March and 20 March 2007 emails to my website Host - and that you copy me on the letter".

Then came the predictable 'Get lost!' of 22.09.09 which was sent by Her Majesty's Steve McSorley, A/Chief Inspector (police # 5.2) (1)

"I note that you have quite clearly expressed your concerns about accuracy to Jenna Neville at the Metropolitan Police Public Access Office" (2)

"...if you are dissatisfied with her [3] response I would suggest you contact the office of the Information Commissioner." (4)

(1)- Looking at the Kensington, Chelsea & Notting Hill police website, I found (at 1 Sep 09) that McSorley was "Acting Chief Inspector, Professional Standards & Performance"

It also stated: "Steve is responsible for all matters relating to complaints, misconduct and civil actions. He also heads the Operational Performance Unit and leads on improving the borough's performance around Citizen Focus" (Yep! Definitely worth a good laugh, when you also consider what happened next).

(2)- Evidently not "clearly" enough, as he and Heath took no action. Actual meaning: Oh! dear! Oh! dear! I 'dared' to challenge the "fantastically corrupt" Kensington police mafia.

(3)- "her" = 'my'

(4)- Translation: Get lost! 'Ever since you first contacted our police station, in 2002 (# 4.1, above), we haven't given a damn about your legislative rights; so, we are certainly not going to start doing this now... because, like our executive (My Diary # 2.6) we are 'above the law'

(See also # 4.9, below, for his subsequent letter to me).

In my 08.10.09 reply, I challenged HM's McSorley, heading my letter: "In light of your role at Kensington & Chelsea police: how do you explain your response of 22 September 2009?".

I noted that he had totally ignored both, the content of my letter to Heath and its supporting enclosures - and asked for an explanation.

I copied on my 08.10.09 letter to HM's Mark Heath, headed: "Do you endorse the treatment I have and continue to be subjected to by Kensington & Chelsea police?"

Copying him on the 20.09.09 letter I had sent him; the 22.09.09 'reply' from McSorley, and my 08.10.09 reply, I then asked: "Can you please confirm to me whether or not you endorse his conduct? If so: why? If not: how will you assist me?"

Lack of response after one month, led me to send a 11.11.09 letter to Heath, and a 11.11.09 chaser to McSorley.

It led to another 'Get lost!': the 17.11.09 'reply' from Heath's Office that:

The Borough Commander has asked Chief Inspector McSorley to write again to you in order to outline the previous advice given.

Enough was enough! I escalated my complaint to the then Met Commissioner, Sir Paul Stephenson, and then Home Secretary, Alan Johnson (# 4.9, below).

(Note that, concurrently 'my' MP Sir Malcolm Rifkind (# 1.9, above) and the Parliamentary Ombudsman (# 1.10, above) were playing a similar game against me = were operating in cahoots with the police). (Kensington & Chelsea police was in Rifkind's patch).

Statistics

5 letters, 1 supported by an 80-page bundle; = c.25 hours of my life; c. £45 in costs; duration: 2 months from my 'cry for help'.

I also repeat my above notes.

Back to list

(4.9)- My 28.11.09, 02.12.09 and 02.02.10 'cries for help' - in vain - to Her Majesty's Sir Paul Stephenson, then Met Commissioner and HM's Alan Johnson, then Home Secretary

The repeated 'Get lost!' from Her Majesty's Kensington & Chelsea police's Mark Heath, Chief Superintendent and Borough Commander and Acting Chief Inspector Steve McSorley (# 4.8, above)...

led me to send a (8-page) 28.11.09 'cry for help' to Her Majesty's Sir Paul Stephenson, Met Commissioner (police # 5.2), and HM's Alan Johnson, Home Secretary (HO # 2).

To substantiate my demands about the so-called "crime reports", I provided a summary of events supported by a 100-page bundle of 11 supporting documents - to each of them.

Post sending the letter, I received...

...an absolutely outrageous 20.11.09 letter from Her Majesty's Steve McSorley, Acting Chief Inspector, Professional Standards & Performance (police # 5.2)

“For the sake of clarity, may I stress that I do not accept that there has been any “gross misconduct” by any of our officers in relation to the various crime reports in which you are named." (1)

Nor do I accept that TDC Dowling made “malicious, scurrilous or libellous allegations” when he contacted your website host." (2)

With regard to the wording of the crime reports, I am satisfied that this represents an accurate account of what police were told at the time even if you do not agree with what was said by third parties." (3)

Consequently I… will not be making any alterations to the various crime reports… unless enforcement notice is served by the Information Commissioner(4)

(1)- Unbelievable! But: to be expected from this "fantastically corrupt" police: the mafia rallying to protect the mafia.

(2)- Again: unbelievable! see police # 3 KP(4)

(3) - Also captured by Paul Stephenson, under para.15 of his 23.05.11 Defence against my 19.04.11 Claim. But, when it relates to ALL my communications, Her Majesty's police becomes suddenly totally blind and deaf: QB # 4 ; Overview # 18(1).

(4)- It most definitely is not how the Data Protection Act 1998 operates.

It led me to send this (4-page) 02.12.09 letter to HM's Stephenson and Johnson - headed: "Head of Kensington police approves of illegal conduct by some of its officers"

Using a 21-question format, I reported the gross misconduct, some criminal (QB Breaches law), by Kensington, Chelsea and Notting Hill police - and concluded with:

"In a nutshell: Mark Heath approves of his officers providing assistance to a crook in shutting-up his victim - by whatever means."

(Police # 5.2 - contains comprehensive extracts).

Of course, hell-bent, like the others to add to the criminal psychological harassment, Stephenson and Johnson continued to turn a blind eye.

And they continued!...

...as related in my (19-page) 02.02.10 letter to them, and to 'my' MP Sir Malcolm Rifkind (# 1.9, above) and the Parliamentary Ombudsman (# 1.10, above) who were concurrently playing another typical British Establishment's tactic: the prolonged silent mode game (Persecution # 1(4)(8)).

I headed my letter: "When am I due to be killed?" (referring to the 15 Jun 09 death threat: "Enjoy your life. You don't have long to live").

I stated that I was asking "because you ALL appear to have retreated to your communal bunker"

I then related events in relation to each of them, and captured extracts from the exchange of correspondence. I also covered events with the tribunal and the courts - ALL demonstrating the unbelievable corruption, collusion, conspiring, etc., that had / continued to be taking place.

I remind you of the reason for their conduct (above).

On my letter, I copied 6 individuals, including the then Prime Minister, Gordon Brown - needless to say: in vain!

The replies from Her Majesty's Alan Johnson, Home Secretary? 23 Dec 09 letter from a Miss A. Lean, and a 24 Feb 10 letter from a Mr K Allen - of, course: can't help! And that from a minister with responsibility for the police! (police # 5.2)

When you consider Her Majesty's Stephenson and Johnson's failure to act following my supplying them with extremely damning evidence against the police, it demonstrates - irrebutably - that they are corrupt to the core, as well as thoroughly evil, cruel, vicious and perverse monsters.

No wonder the police behaves as it does! (See also the media page).

And when you also consider what I reported about the tribunal and the courts: it is glaringly obvious that they were ALL in cahoots with each other - and can therefore ALL be painted with the same brush.

I had received a 03.12.09 letter from Stephenson's office that he had forwarded my first 2 letters to the Directorate of Professional Standards - but: the objective was to add to the criminal psychological harassment: police # 5.3.

One thing for sure, my letters will have had the assassins and their henchmen and henchwomen rolling on the floor with laugher, and feeding their insatiable need for sadistic kicks.

Of course, being endorsed at high level, the criminal psychological harassment continued: # 4.10, below.

Statistics

3 major letters; 200 pages of supporting documents; letters addressed to / copied to 8 other individuals;

= c.145 hours of my life; c.£120 in costs; duration: 3 months from the time of my 'cry for help'.

I also repeat my above notes.

Back to list

(4.10)- My 18.02.10 letter - in vain - to Her Majesty's DI Crispin Lee, Police Directorate of 'Professional Standards'

The trigger to my 02.02.10 letter to Her Majesty's Sir Paul Stephenson, then Met Commissioner et.al. (# 4.9, above)...

...was an absolutely outrageous '21.01.10' (1) letter from Her Majesty's DI Crispin Lee, Directorate of 'Professional Standards' (police # 5.3):

"I am writing in connection with the complaint you made on 2 December 2009" (2)

"I have reviewed the issues you raise and I have decided to apply to the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) to dispense with your complaint." (3)

"This is because I consider that you made your complaint more than 12 months after the alleged misconduct without good reason; (4)

that your complaint has been made only because you have been unable to obtain the result that you desire through the Public Access Office; (5)

and that given the time elapsed it is impracticable to investigate the issues about which you are complaining" (6)

"The IPCC will consider my request and inform you if they have granted a dispensation or whether we are required to deal with your complaint. Until that decision is made no further action will be taken with your complaint."

If you have any further enquiries, I must ask you to get directly in touch with the IPCC" (7)

(1)- In 'inverted' commas because, as can be seen from the envelop, it was posted on 4th Feb 10 - day on which my 02.02.10 letter was delivered to Stephenson et.al. - thereby proving that it was the trigger.

(2)- False - as is glaringly obvious from # 4.7, above, "my complaint" was my 13.08.09 letter, followed by my 20.09.09 letter - on which I then copied Chief Superintendent Mark Heath (# 4.8, above).

In addition to being confirmed in the 3rd paragraph of the letter, it was also confirmed by Stephenson under para.21 of his 30.06.11 Application to have my Claim "struck-out" (QB # 4(3)).

(3)- = When in trouble: run immediately to the poodle, the so-called 'Independent' Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) that will automatically endorse the conduct, regardless of its nature, and rubber-stamp any decisions...

(which is exactly what happened: # 4.11, below ; supporting evidence from other cases: police # 5.4 - because, for starters, it is staffed by police officers on secondment).

(4)- From doing desk research, I discovered that DI Lee was quoting from Reg.3(2)(a),(f) and (4)(b)(ii) of the Police (Complaints and Misconduct) Regulations 2004 (hard copy, pg 10)...

which is totally irrelevant as it cannot be called upon to interfere with a data subject's rights under the Data Protection Act 1998. (This Regulation is the trump card frequently used by the police and its poodle to avoid dealing with complaints...and conveniently given to them by the legislators).

(5)- Oh! dear! Oh! dear! I, 'the little person', am 'daring' to object to the breach of my legislative rights by the corrupt Kensington & Chelsea police mafia.

(6)- Anything to protect the local mafia!

Consider his comments in the light of the remit of the Directorate of Professional Standards (police # 5.3). So: a perfect match with Acting Chief Inspector Steve McSorley - his counterpart in Kensington & Chelsea police (above, # 4.8 and # 4.9).

(7)- I started the contact with the poodle, by copying it on my (7-page) 18.02.10 reply to Lee - which was for the benefit of the IPCC: I challenged his outrageous comments, and provided a summary of the correspondence, as well as extracts, since my first letter of 13.08.09 to the police's PAO (# 4.7, above).

The objectives of this continuing, outrageous total disregard of my rights:

  • (3)- continue protecting him.

And 'the fun' continued with the IPCC # 4.11, below.

Statistics

1 major document; = c.20 hours of my life; c.£5 in costs; no reply to my letter.

I also repeat my above notes.

Back to list

(4.11)- My 18.02.10 letter, copying my legitimate 18.02.10 letter - in vain - to Her Majesty's Independent Police Complaints Commission

As reported under # 4.10, above, I copied my 18.02.10 reply to Her Majesty's DI Crispin Lee, Directorate of 'Professional Standards' to HM's 'Independent' Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) with this 18.02.10 letter.

It was followed by an outrageous, hitlerian letter 'from' the IPCC police's poodle:

a 22.02.10 letter 'from' a Matthew Johnson:

'He' started by regurgitating the totally irrelevant excuses in DI Crispin Lee (et.al) letter of 04.02.10 (above) - followed by:

"If you would like this investigation to continue, you must write to me within seven days of this letter providing good reasons for the delay in making your complaint" (1)

"If you do provide a sound explanation for the delay I should make you aware that I am also considering the dispensation on the grounds of 'abuse of process' (that the complaints procedure does not exist in order for crime reports to be amended - there being another, more appropriate, remedy in the form of the Information Commissioner), and 'not reasonably practicable to investigate, (the length of time that has passed since the incidents occurred brings the practicality and value of any investigation into question)" (2)

(1)- I took delivery of the letter on 7th Mar 10. It was not in my PO Box on the 28th. = Yet again colluding with the local Kensington police mafia (Persecution # 3.2) my PO Box supplier had withheld the letter so that I would 'conveniently' miss the "seven-day deadline".

It made no difference, as I would not have wasted yet more of my time replying.

(2)- Absolutely outrageous! For my comments, see police # 5.4.

I also read the letter as a precursor to a decision that had already been taken (as e.g. in the case of the 'Get lost!' from the PHSO-Rifkind: # 1.10, above) - and proved to be correct.

The 02.03.10 'Get lost!' 'from' Matthew Johnson (= the police et.al. in the Jewish-Freemason Brotherhood) was essentially a rehash of 'his' previous letter which, itself was a rehash of Crispin Lee's letter - this time turning the threats into decisions - that ended with:

"As a result, we have agreed to grant a dispensation." (1)

"This means that the police do not have to investigate this matter." (2)

(1)- As a result of filing a 19.04.11 Claim against the police, IPCC (and Home Secretary), I obtained a copy of the police Application claimed (I conclude: falsely) to have been filed on 22.01.10. Its content adds to the outrageous claims and excuses by the police: Queen's Bench # 5.1,...

as do the 02.03.10 'minutes' 'by' Matthew Johnson: QB # 5.2.

(2)- And all concerned in the police went to the pub to celebrate getting away scot-free, buying an extra large drink for the obedient poodle Matthew Johnson...

and rejoicing in being able to continue dishing out the persecution against me (My Diary ; Persecution pg).

Statistics

1 letter, to copy it on 2 letters; = c.1 hour of my time; c.£8 in costs; duration: c.1 month from the start of the (4+ Feb 10) application by the police.

I also repeat my above notes.

Back to list

(4.12)- My legitimate DPA s.10 Notice of 02.06.10 and 02.06.10 letter - in vain - to Her Majesty's Kensington, Chelsea & Notting Hill police's Mark Heath, Chief Superintendent and Borough Commander

Having also failed to get the remedy I rightly and legally deserved from the IPCC (# 4.11, above) - and more than ever determined to clear my name of the Kensington, Chelsea and Notting Hill police's malicious, highly defamatory and vicious accusations against me and opinions of me in the so-called “crime reports”,...

I undertook extensive desk research - that led me to discover that I could submit a Section 10 Notice under the Data Protection Act, and that it imposes a requirement to "respond within 21 days".

Concluding that I had found the solution to my problem, I submitted, to Her Majesty's Kensington, Chelsea & Notting Hill police's Mark Heath, Chief Superintendent and Borough Commander, a Section 10 Notice under the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA) - comprising of:

(1)- a (66-page) 02.06.10 document in which I commented on "the 3 "crime reports" - in column format:

  • (1)- reproducing the content of each, broken down into sentences / paragraphs;
  • (2)- my objections, reasons - and references to my replies of 13.08.09 and 20.09.09 in which I raised the objections and provided reasons;
  • (3)- the DPA principle/s breached;
  • (4)- description of the documents in support of my objections - supplied in my 13.08.09 bundle.

(2)- a (10 page) 02.06.10 letter in which:

  • I summarised the breaches of the DPA, as well as other legislation;
  • defined my demands;
  • listed my questions he had failed to address;
  • explained why I was reduced to doing this, listing all the actions I had been taking since submitting my 28.05.09 SAR (i.e. above, from # 4.7) ;
  • concluded by emphasising that under s.10(3) of the DPA , he had 21 days to respond.

In the light of ALL of the above, starting with # 4.1 - can you guess the outcome?

That's right: he did not even acknowledge my documents = yet again, the corrupt Mark Heath et.al. breached legal requirements...

demonstrating - yet again - that, in this "fantastically corrupt" island-kingdom, 'the law enforcers': police and its other half, the judiciary (e.g. kangaroo courts) are among the worst law breakers.

As summarised under Overview # 18, it led me to file a 19.04.11 Claim against the police, the IPCC, and the then Home Secretary Theresa May (# 4.14, below).

(Of course, it resulted in predictable conniving, collusion and conspiring between the parties: Summaries: Events ; Breaches of the law ; Overall outcome on me - and this went all the way up to the European Court of Human Rights, following my filing an Application: # 1.14, above.

Oh! YES! The Queen's Bench mafia made me pay £8,478 costs...to the police! my 22.08.11 payment.

Among my key police documents (in addition to my 19.04.11 Claim) I draw your attention to my 19.07.11 and 29.08.11 Witness Statements, and my 17.10.11 Appeal Request detailing my legal position...a lot of which I had been repeating endlessly to the parties concerned for more than 2 years).

Statistics

A 66-page document, and 10-page letter + extensive desk research on the DPA;

= c. 200 hours of my life; c. £170 in costs; no reply.

I also repeat my above notes.

Back to list

(4.13)- My 08.10.10 and 08.10.10 complaints of harassment against 2 men - in vain - to Her Majesty's Chelsea and Kensington police

In Oct 10, I made a total of 7 vain attempts at getting HM's police at Chelsea & Kensington to investigate my 2 well-documented complaints of harassment against 2 men:

My conclusion that the former was one of Ladsky's 'dogs', and the latter a police informant, was confirmed by the fact that, in addition to refusing to investigate my complaints, the police's focus was on the former. It continued to be case, after I filed a 19.04.11 Claim against the Met Commissioner (police # 6).

It led Her Majesty's Met Commissioner, Sir Paul Stephenson to, in his 31.05.11 Defence (QB # 4(2)), deny falsely, the excuses I had been given at the time for not investigating my complaint. I was able to provide undeniable proof of the lies - as I had recorded the 16 Oct 10 conversation with PC Belky Giles.

(Recording under e.g. Overview # 17; discussed under police # 6)

I did this with my 14.06.11 Reply to parts of the Defence, discussing it under paras 10-13, and by supplying, to each of the 3 Defendants, as well as the court, a CD-ROM with a recording of the conversation, as well as a transcript.

I also supplied a copy of the notes I was given at the time, that added further proof as to what I had been told (QB # 4 (2)3).

Statistics

Complaints packs; 7 visits to the local police stations; = c.30 hours of my life; c.£5 in costs; duration: 2 weeks from the start of my complaint.

I also repeat my above notes.

Back to list

(4.14)- My 25.11.14 letter reporting - in vain - to Her Majesty's then Home Secretary Theresa May, and 18 other state parties, including HM's then Prime Minister, David Cameron - the unlawful actions against me by the police and related services

In my (8-page) 25.11.14 letter to Her Majesty's then Home Secretary Theresa May, I stated that the trigger was her recent speech at the Conservative Party conference - specifically, her claims v. what she and others in the police (for which she is the overall head) had and continued to do against me.

I cited .e.g. :

  • the unlawful ongoing hounding and persecution (*);
  • the unlawful processing of the so-called "crime reports" against me, and the numerous, vain battles I had engaged in to put an end to the processing (above, # 4.7 to # 4.12);
  • the fact that these were all taking place in the context of my being the very blatantly obvious victim of organized crime - and my having provided the police with a mountain of black-on-white evidence in support of my position' (*)
  • etc.

(*) For brief overviews see: HM's Kensington & Chelsea police:

I concluded by stating that I was "not expecting a response from you - nor from those copied - unless it is about finally ensuring that I get justice, redress and compensation for the extremely traumatic, life-destroying treatment I am being subjected to since 2002"

As can be seen from HO # 3.1(iv), those copied included:

  • the leaders of the other main political parties: Nick Clegg; Ed Miliband; Natalie Bennett;
  • 2 Cabinet level ministers: Philip Hammond; Chris Grayling who had responsibility for the Ministry of (In)Justice;
  • Simon Hughes, Minister for Justice and Civil Liberties;
  • the Met Commissioner, Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe (who had replaced Sir Paul Stephenson (# 4.9, above), in Sep 11);
  • Boris Johnson, then head of the Mayor's Office for Policing and Crime.

= a total of 19 letters, each sent under separate post.

With no response from any of them, 2 weeks later, again under separate post, I sent each of them a copy of my letter.

Evidently determined to have the label of assassins stick to them, the only response to my letter has been a continuation of the persecution by the British state.

Statistics

8-page document x 19 x 2; = c.60 hours of my life; c.£130 in costs; no response.

I also repeat my above notes.

Back to list

 

(5)- My legitimate 'cries for help' and complaints to other of Her Majesty's departments

 

(5.1)- My legitimate 'cry for help' e.g. 08.03.02, 10.04.02 and 28.07.02 - actioned - by Her Majesty's Sandy McDougall, Kensington & Chelsea housing against 'Steel Services'

Sections 1 and 2 of the Landlord & Tenant Act 1985 refer to tenants' statutory rights to be provided with the identity of the landlord, as well as the name and address of every director and secretary of the landlord.

 As discussed under Owners identity # 1, after Ms Yemah Barlay, Nucleus, Citizens Advice Bureau was given the runaround for several months by Joan Hathaway, MRICS, of the then MRJ (= Andrew David Ladsky)...

- in Jan 02, I approached Mr Sandy McDougall, Tenancy Relations Officer, Kensington & Chelsea housing for help.

As discussed under sections # 1 and # 2, the same thing happened to Mr McDougall. He contacted LEASE who confirmed to him that Steel Services had to comply with the law.

In addition to Hathaway, he was also lied to by Daniel Fireman, partner, CKFT, who, in his 01.08.02 letter, claimed: "Steel Services is an existing entity".

In fact, it was a non-existing entity as it had been "struck off the British Virgin Island register for non-payment of the licence fee" (08.08.02 reply to me from the BVI).

My asking the tribunal (# 1.1, above), in my 22.10.02 letter, "How can a non-existent company file an application in the tribunal?" alerted the mafia to my awareness of this fact, and to evidently pay the fee, as CKFT supplied Mr McDougall a 'Certificate of Good Standing' for SS (!!!) - he then sent me with his 05.11.02 email (Owner's ID # 2.1).

(Of course, HM's tribunal did not bother replying to my letter: LVT # 01).

In his 13.11.02 email to me, Mr McDougall stated his legal department facing "a contradiction: Steel Services being struck off v. having a certificate of good standing"

That was the end of it. After 10 months of endless correspondence back and forth, I was left in exactly the same position: I still had not been provided with the name of the directors who owned Jefferson House. 

I sent several letters to Mr McDougall in which I provided him with updates, as well as findings from my desk research, including supplying him with the latest version of Land Registry titles e.g. my 10.04.02 and 28.07.02 letters.

In my 08.03.02 letter, I also reported the fact that he had identified me in his communications as the person requesting the information had made me a target for harassment - of course, by Andrew David Ladsky (police # 1-Background) (# 4.1, above),..

who, 4 months earlier, had done the same thing to Ms Yemah Barlay, Nucleus, who had also 'dared' to do the same thing (among others).

Statistics

At least 4 letters supported by at least 10 enclosures; = c. 90 hours of my life, incl. desk research, purchase and analysis of Land Registry records; c.£140 in costs; 10 months from my 'cry for help'.

Back to list

(5.2)- My legitimate 30.06.02 complaint - in vain - to Her Majesty's Local Government Ombudsman against HM's Kensington & Chelsea Planning department'

In my 30.06.02 complaint, supported by 5 documents, to HM's Local Government Ombudsman (Planning applications # 3), I reported that Kensington & Chelsea Planning department had:

  • (2)- I had gone in person to the department to say that the planning application breached my Lease as e.g.:
  • (3)- I had quoted from DTLR legislation - 11.08.60.00 Planning permission - Covenant 158 - about the impact on a freeholder from doing this;

...and stated the planning department's respective replies

"Not our problem. Get a lawyer! Get legal advice!"

"Well that may be, but it's not our problem. Get a lawyer!"

I also reported that I had contacted 'my' local MP, Michael Portillo, asking him to get the planning department to reverse its decision (# 5.11, below) , and had got the same answer: "Get a lawyer!"

= One of the favourite 'Get Lost!' replies; other examples under Rifkind # 1.9, above.

What I was beginning to realise is typical in this island-kingdom - the 11.07.02 'reply' from Jack McKenna, Local Government Ombudsman was a 'Get lost!':

"Your complaint...you have not said anything in criticism of that decision apart from pointing to what you regard as a height restriction in the terms of your lease" (1)

"Unfortunately, this does not appear to be a material planning consideration that the council has to take into account" (1)

"The terms of your lease and the breach of any covenants... are essentially a private matter between you and the freeholder or head lessee:

they are not matters for the council to consider or deal with..." (1)

"If you believe [1] that constructing the penthouse will breach the terms of your lease, then that is a matter ultimately for the courts..." (2)

"Obviously, the projected costs of the building works...are daunting, but you do have some protection under the terms of the Landlord and Tenant Act and in particular recourse to the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal if you consider any of the resulting service charges to be unreasonable" (3)

(1)- In my 27.07.02 reply I stated that "it is outrageous that the planning department of a local authority has no obligation whatsoever to ensure there are no restrictions on a building when it grants a planning application".

As to the "if you regard", I stated: "it is not 'what I regard as' - but what the legal system 'regards as.'"

I also quoted the DTLR legislation extracts I had supplied - and asked: "What is the purpose of this? Is this just another meaningless, worthless piece of paper?" Very clearly, the answer is: YES!

(2)- THEY create the problem - and then tell YOU to sort it out - for which the actual translation is: 'And we are counting on your not having the money to do this i.e. challenge our dear, sacrosanct landlords masters'.

In my 27.07.02 letter I stated, among other that: "councils should not be acting as a money-making machine for lawyers."

As to my "going to the courts": looking at my very extensive experience with Her Majesty's courts: kangaroo courts - it would only amount to another massive waste of my time and money.

(3)- "you do have some protection under the Landlord and Tenant Act and in particular recourse to the Valuation Tribunal"

Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Look at my experience with this corrupt tribunal: Summaries: Events ; Breaches of the law ; Overall outcome on me. (See also above, # 1.1 and # 1.2).

Statistics

1 visit to Kensington & Chelsea planning department; 1 complaint application supported by 5 documents, one follow-up letter; = c.15 hours of my life; c. £10 in costs; 10 days from the start of my complaint.

I also repeat my above notes.

Back to list

(5.3)- My legitimate 06.06.04 'cry for help' followed by many other documents - in vain - to Her Majesty's Kensington & Chelsea Housing against 'Steel Services' = Andrew David Ladsky

Pursuant to section 34 of the Landlord & Tenant Act 1985, housing departments are the prosecuting authority for contraventions.

After more than one year of the Ladsky mafia ignoring my numerous letters asking - as per my legislative rights, and rights under my Lease - for the 2002 accounts for Jefferson House, as well as trustee accounts, I resorted to approach HM's Kensington & Chelsea housing for its assistance...

- by sending it this 06.06.04 letter, with which I supplied my 19.05.04 letter to the then Martin Russell Jones that summarised my numerous requests.

And so started, yet again, another soul-destroying, drawn-out battle, and a lot more of the typical British Establishment's 'Frustrate and Discourage tactics' (header 2).

The previous Tenancy Relations Officer (Sandy McDougall, I had approached in 2002 re. the identity of the ownership of the block) (# 5.1. above) had been replaced by John Hutchings.

As, after my chasing him, he communicated an intention to familiarise himself with my case, in my 25.06.04 letter, I provided him with an update, I supported with 20 documents.

What looked 'promising' was John Hutchings' 25.06.04 s.21 Notice to the then MRJ, cc'd CKFT

"Section 25 makes it a summary criminal offence to fail to comply with the requirements of Section 21 or Section 22 without reasonable excuse.

The Council prosecutes such contraventions and if convicted the landlord could face a substantial fine.

Please respond to this letter within 21 days, failure to do so may result in this authority instigating prosecution proceedings"

However, it turned out to be an empty threat.

In my 02.07.04 letter to Hutchings, I noted that he had failed to mention my request for the trustee accounts - and provided him with 6 documents, that included my 4 requests to MRJ and CKFT for these accounts, starting in May 03 - that had all been ignored. I reiterated my point in my 05.07.04 letter to him.

(Re. the trustee accounts, the following year, I also battled with the then FSA: # 5.6, below)

Past the 21-day deadline, I chased Hutchings who then told me that Barrie Martin, FRICS, of the then MRJ, had claimed to have "sent the 2002 accounts to all lessees" - and sent me a copy of Martin's 16.07.14 letter in which he stated this. I then received a similar, 19.07.04 letter from Barrie Martin.

In his 19.07.04 letter to Barrie Martin, Hutchings repeated my position that I had not received the accounts - while continuing to fail to pursue my request for a copy of the trustee accounts.

I repeated my position, in my 22.07.04 and 25.07.04 letters to Hutchings, that I had not received the accounts, and asked him to get Martin to send them to him, and then forward to me.

Reality: the reason the Ladsky mafia had not sent me the 'accounts' was because it had lied to the Jefferson House leaseholders (Overview from # 1 to # 3) in order to defraud them - so that Andrew David Ladsky could realise his multi-million pound jackpot...

- and I knew for a fact that fraud had been taking place: from challenging the demand in the London tribunal: # 4. (With my 25.06.04 letter to Hutchings I had provided him with evidence of the fraud).

What happened from then on led me to conclude that Ladsky had called on his 'brothers' to get their puppets to back off - OR: their henchmen in the council had approached them 'for guidance',...

...as, when I spoke to him, 'John Hutchings' came up with the outrageous excuse that

"the council cannot pursue Steel Services because it is domiciled in the British Virgin Islands".

I vehemently challenged this in my 06.08.04 letter, citing the claim it had filed in West London County Court - and the Order it had been made to comply with - and provided copy of documents.

My reply threw a spanner in the works of the cabal (as can also be seen by what followed) as, typically, it then went into silent mode.

As can be seen from the above # 1.3 , # 1.4 , # 1.5, I was also battling with that local court at the time.

Hence, it is highly likely that the local 'brothers' i.e. bent judiciary in West London County Court and Wandsworth County Court 'advised' the council on how it 'should' proceed = what it should do to protect them from exposing the fraud in which they were continuing to play an active part.

At my wit's ends, I approached 'my' Ward Councillor, Shireen Ritchie, asking for her help by sending her this 30.08.04 letter, supported by a (90 page) bundle of 42 documents (partly to help identify the name of the parties for prosecution, and partly to back-up what I was reporting) - stating that...

"3 months since my first contact, and 2 months since John Hutchings sent the letter to MRJ threatening proceedings for failure to respond within 21 days" - and I still did not have the accounts.

In her 02.09.04 email, Ritchie told me that she had "asked Gerald Wild, Chief Housing Officer, to look into the case".

I sent Wild a 10.09.04 chaser email. With still no contact, I tried to phone him on 15th Sep, and spoke to a Ana Carretas, and followed this by a 15.09.04 email.

Gerald Wild's continuing failure to contact me led me to file a complaint with the Local Government Ombudsman: below, # 5.4.

I concluded that my complaint triggered Shireen Ritchie to send me a 30.09.04 letter. It contained misinformation, I highlighted in my reply of 05.10.04, as well as excuses, I counteracted (K&C # 3).

Then, the blatant colluding and conspiring with 'Steel Services' - the then Martin Russell Jones = the 'brother' Andrew David Ladsky was continued by Gerald Wild in 'his' 15.10.04 letter that was a pack of misinformation, excuses and get out clauses to avoid taking action and, in effect, also branded me a liar; my (8-page) 11.11.04 reply (on which I copied 6 others) (K&C # 2.4)

It was followed by a 25.10.04 ridiculous request 'from' John Hutchings, for documents that were totally irrelevant - and clearly intended to add to the criminal psychological harassment.

I played the game: my 42-page 11.11.04 reply, supported by c.170 page of 135 enclosures - all sent to 6 individuals in total = over 1,700 pages! (K&C # 2.5)

Clearly not expecting to get this reply, it was then followed by a 16.12.04 letter 'from' Jean Daintith, Executive Director, that continued with the lies and excuses (K&C # 2.6).

In tandem with the LGO Investigator, Patrick Moriarty, the mafia decided to punish me by not giving me the so-called accounts it had received from Barrie Martin, FRICS, MRJ: his 05.11.04 email to Hutchings.

Statistics

16 documents; 2 copied to 6 other individuals: 1 of 8 pages, the other of 42 pages, as well as its 170-page bundle of 132 documents - bringing the total number of pages to c.1,700;

= c. 230 hours of my life; c. £560 in costs; duration: 7 months from my 'cry for help'.

Kensington & Chelsea Council followed by the Local Government Ombudsman, cost me in total nearly 300 hours of my life, and c. £600 in costs - and made me battle - in vain - for nearly one year.

I also repeat my above notes.

Back to list

(5.4)- My legitimate 17.09.04 complaint - in vain - to Her Majesty's Local Government Ombudsman against HM's Kensington & Chelsea housing

With my battles with Kensington & Chelsea housing leading me nowhere (above, # 5.3), I filed a 17.09.04 complaint with the Local Government Ombudsman, against the council.

In his 05.10.04 letter, Patrick Moriarty, Investigator, Local Government Ombudsman (LGO), stated

"the Council may not yet have had a reasonable opportunity to deal with your complaint."

- and suggested a further "8 weeks" of grace (LGO # 1)

By then it was 10 weeks since John Hutchings had sent the 25.06.04 letter asking for the demand to be met "within 21 days" (above), and 6 weeks since I had asked 'my' ward councillor, Shireen Ritchie, for help.

The side Moriarty was on was abundantly clear (and was a repeat of my experience, 2 years earlier, with the LGO (above, # 5.2).

So, the same 'show' continued, for the same reasons as in the case of the council: detailed under LGO # 3: the tribe closing rank to protect the corrupt 'brothers' in the local courts, as well as punish me for 'daring' to stand up to them.

With my 11.11.04 letter, I copied the LGO on my (42-page) 11.11.04 reply to John Hutchings, Tenancy Relations Officer, supported by the c.170 page of 135 enclosures.

Siding with his mates in the council, 'the brothers' self-important, power-corrupted henchman Patrick Moriarty communicated, in a 16.11.04 email to the council, on which he copied me, that

"due to [my] response, we will treat this as a new complaint"

= He was putting my complaint back to square one.

In response to my 17.11.04 email querying his action,...

...in his 17.11.04 email, Patrick Moriarty, Investigator, LGO, confirmed that he had

"closed down my complaint as premature"

Dishing out yet more criminal psychological harassment, he added

"I cannot confirm at this stage that your complaint will be pursued, because for example, checks are carried out to confirm that the complaint is in the Ombudsman's jurisdiction" (LGO # 3).

2 months since my 17.09.04 detailed complaint - and they still 'had not determined' "whether it is a complaint that the Ombudsman should pursue"!!!

What a mafia of thoroughly evil, rotten to the core monsters!

All of them sure make a perfect match with Andrew David Ladsky and his gang of racketeers.

In my 24.11.04 letter to the Parliamentary Ombudsman (PHSO # 3), I referred to my experience with the Local Government Ombudsman. Rightly or wrongly, I believe that this then Ombudsman intervened 'behind the scene' as,...

I received a 13.01.05 email from Moriarty, claiming "an understanding that the accounts you were seeking have now been sent to you." He knew it was not true.

As they were all playing games, in the same way that I had not responded to Jean Daintith, I also ignored his email, including his chaser email of 26.01.05.

Following his chasing me also by phone, and after talking to him,...

...in his 09.02.05 letter, Patrick Moriarty, Investigator, LGO, stated:

"The council has now sent me copies of the accounts [*] which it had been told would be sent to you during week commencing 8 November 2004."

"I enclose a copy of these accounts for you [2002 and 2003 so-called 'accounts']

"It seems to me that this is the remedy you sought in making your complaint...."

(*) In my (7-page) 27.02.05 letter to Moriarty (on which I copied 6 individuals in the council), I highlighted the fact,...

3 months earlier, in his 05.11.04 fax to John Hutchings, Tenancy Relations Officer, Barrie Martin, FRICS, Martin Russell Jones had stated that he was faxing him "the 2003 accounts".

In my letter, I asked:

  • "When were the 2002 accounts received by Mr Hutchings?"
  • "Why were they not sent to me at the time?"

In my 27.02.05 letter to Moriarty (in which I also challenged many other points in the 16.12.04 letter 'from' Jean Daintith (LGO # 4 and # 5),...

I argued that the so-called accounts Moriarty had sent me breached:

Waiting nearly 2 months to 'reply' to my 27.02.05 letter, in 'his' 14.04.05 email, Patrick Moriarty claimed (LGO # 7):

"As I understand it you remain unhappy that the summaries do not show how costs are or will be reflected in demands for service charges."

You mention in your letter, that this is covered by Clause 21(5) of the Act, but I have been unable to find this wording in our office copy." (*)

(*) I had quoted exactly as per the Act.

= Get yourself a new "office copy" Mr Moriarty or, more accurately: remove your corruption blinkers off.

Two years later, following my complaint to ICAEW against Pridie Brewster (below, # 6.1) with its 29.08.06 correspondence, the ICAEW sent me the parts that were missing from 'the accounts': detail of the contributions paid by the majority of the apartments.

(See Overview # 3 that summarises the massive fraud that took place).

Did Patrick Moriarty know about the content of these enclosures?

In the light of my assessment of what had been taking place shortly after I approached the council: my answer is: YES!

(I highlight that, at time, I had sent a 06.04.05 kind of 'cry for help' to Michael Howard - of course, also in vain).

In my 17.04.05 reply to Moriarty, I pointed out that, in his 25.06.04 s.21 Notice to MRJ and CKFT, John Hutchings had quoted from s.21(5) of the Act.

Unable to argue against my response, in 'his' 12.05.05 'reply', Patrick Moriarty, Investigator, Local Government Ombudsman, fell back on the public sector's old favourites in order to avoid taking action:

"...even if the freeholder had not complied with the terms of s21(5) as you allege, it is the council's view that it would not be in the public interest to prosecute the case."

although s34 states that proceedings for any offence under the Act may be brought by a council, this is at its discretion."

Etc.

(My Comments on this letter are under LGO # 7)

Statistics

17 documents,supported by 146 documents; c.60 hours of my life; c.£110 in costs; duration: 8 months from the start of my complaint.

The Local Government Ombudsman, preceded by Kensington & Chelsea Council, cost me in total nearly 300 hours of my life, and c. £600 in costs - and made me battle - in vain - for nearly one year.

I also repeat my above notes.

Back to list

(5.5)- My legitimate 28.03.06 complaint - in vain - to Her Majesty's Land Registry, then headed by Lord Falconer of Thoroton

(As discussed under Headlessors # 10), in my (3-page) 28.03.06 letter to Her Majesty's Land Registry, I pointed out that its granting a superior headlease to Lavagna Enterprises (Headlessors # 2)...

- that resulted in my landlord, 'Steel Services', becoming "a lessee of Lavagna Enterprises" - had rendered the headlease materially defective - as it no longer had control of the roof.

I therefore requested that it revokes the superior headlease - supporting my position with the Kintyre v. Romeomarch case.

With my letter, I supplied 8 supporting documents, relating principally to the 10 Feb 06 so-called "Notice of disposal" (Notices # 3) - proving that 'Steel Services' had lost control of the roof (as well as demonstrating that it was fraudulent).

Typically for this island-kingdom's pubic sector that is dripping with hatred for 'the little people', while it licks a certain part of the anatomy of the sacrosanct landlords so hard that you can barely see the feet sticking out,...

...it led to a 04.04.06 typical 'Get lost!' from a Mrs L Booth, at Her Majesty's Land Registry:

"Regrettably, I do not have details of the Adjudicator case referred to in your letter and am unable to comment further on that decision"

"I regret that the Registry is unable to simply revoke the lease and title of BGL 56642"

"The Registry is not able to provide legal advice and I would suggest that you seek independent legal advice in respect of your concerns" (*)

(*) Firstly, typical government department's 'reply': padding by picking on something which - very clearly - I did not ask. The reason I provided the information was glaringly obvious - but 'inconvenient' to take into consideration: a landlord's fraudulent activities!

Secondly, "Get legal advice" = One of the British Establishment, its henchmen and flunkies favourite replies to get rid of 'the little people - other examples, above under Rifkind # 1.9.

In my 18.04.06 letter I challenged the response by pointing out the Land Registry HAD caused the mess. Therefore, it was up to it to clean it up - not me.

I also supplied a copy of the Kintyre v. Romeomarch case, as well as printscreens from the Adjudicator website detailing the Adjudicator's role and contact details - as it was 'apparently' incapable of finding the information - thereby 'demonstrating' incapability at implementing the requirements of the Land Registration Act 2002.

My letter generated another 'Get lost!' of 25.04.06 from Her Majesty's Land Registry, this time from a M G Garwood:

"... the case of Kintyre Ltd v Romeomarch Property Management Ltd...the facts are [different]" (1)

"...you feel that the roof space is required for the proper management of the premises..." (2)

"It does not, however, follow that the lease registered under title BGL 56642, which includes the roof space, is void.

As to what action, if any, is possible to resolve the perceived difficulty is not a matter upon which the Registrar can advise" (3)

(1)- Oh dear! It is not an exact replica; never mind that the key issue is the same.

(2)- 'Of course', the landlords' lapdog is not going to formulate an opinion on the obvious - especially when it concerns a landlord that is an Establishment's protégé: Andrew David Ladsky.

(3)- THEY created the situation by granting the title, and typically for this island-kingdom's public sector, they place the responsibility on 'me' to sort out the mess they created!

Her Majesty's Land Registry that falls over backwards for the crooks in the property sector: Offshore jurisdictions.

I did not waste my time responding. Hence, the 'Frustrate and Discourage Tactics' (header 2) had, yet again, worked!...

...leaving Andrew David Ladsky and his gang of racketeers with carte blanche to rip-off the Jefferson House leaseholders through blatant lies and deceit - so that Ladsky could make his multi-million £ jackpot.

Statistics

2 letters, 25 pages of support documents; = c.40 hours of my life, including desk research; c.£16 in costs; duration: 1 month from the start of my complaint.

I also repeat my above notes.

Back to list

(5.6)- My legitimate 23.04.05 demand - in vain - to the then Financial Services Authority

As, on the then Financial Services Authority (FSA) website, I could only find the then Martin Russell Jones (MRJ) being registered to conduct insurance business (printscreen),...

I sent David Strachan, Director, FSA, a 23.04.05 letter asking "whether MRJ is also authorised by the FSA to hold trust funds" and "to explain the factors that determined your decision to approve their authorisation."

To provide evidence as to my legitimate reason for asking, I supplied a copy of: (1)- my (120-page) 05.02.05 complaint to the RICS against MRJ (below, # 6.2); (2)- the so-called '2003 accounts', and (3)- my 30.03.05 letter to MRJ, in which I challenged the 'accounts'

= very damning evidence of criminality.

The 12.05.05 'reply' from a Mr T Mulholland amounted to a 'Get lost!' - in the form of 'Big Brother knows best' - when dealing with 'a Prole':

"It is not our practice to comment on the specific issues which have led to a firm being authorised"

"...could I ask you to inform the FSA of the final outcome of your complaint filed with the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors"

In my 04.06.05 letter to David Strachan, Director, I stated that I was entitled to be provided with the definition of the selection criteria, added to the consideration of MRJ's conduct - in relation to which I added yet more damning evidence.

For the 2nd time, I asked the FSA "to confirm that MRJ has FSA authorisation to hold statutory trust funds."

Re. its asking to be informed of the outcome of my complaint to the RICS, I replied that I expected "the FSA, established by statute, to carry out its own investigation into MRJ, uninfluenced by the views of its own trade union."

In the 20.06.05 'reply' a Ms M Reid, FSA, refused to tell me whether MRJ had authorisation to hold statutory trust funds - using the following outrageous excuse:

"This is because the Act imposes restrictions on how we can deal with the confidential information we receive"

In my 04.07.05 letter, I replied:

"Given that MRJ's authorisation to undertake insurance business can be seen on the FSA's website, I assume that if it had authorisation to hold trust fund monies, it would, likewise, be displayed on the FSA's website.

I followed this by highlighting the fact that, in 'her' 15.07.02 letter, Hathaway was asking from the Jefferson House leaseholders the sum of £735,000 (US$1.3m) (Overview # 1).

In addition, Martin Russell Jones also held a contingency fund 'said' to amount to c. £140,000 (US$250,000).

In other words, MRJ was withholding nearly £1million of leaseholders' monies - without being subject to regulation!

BUT: it was doing this on behalf of an Establishment's protégé: Andrew David Ladsky - and that, very clearly, made it 'okay'.

Concluding that the FSA processes were very seriously flawed, I also commented on the fact that, "when unacceptable methods of operating are reported, the FSA cannot even be bothered to investigate." (It asked me for the outcome of my complaint to the RICS).

The 26.07.05 'reply' from M Reid was so nonsensical, that I did not bother responding. She mockingly stated: "I hope we have now dealt with matters to your satisfaction" (!!!)

= The use of the Frustrate and discourage tactic (header 2) by the English public sector, devoted to the support of certain criminals had, yet again, achieved its objective.

Statistics

3 letters, and 9 supporting documents amounting to 145 pages; = c.40 hours of my life, including research time; c.£50 in costs; duration: 3 months from the start of my legitimate demand.

I also repeat my above notes.

Back to list

(5.7)- My legitimate 'cries for help' of 17.05.05, 11.03.06, 03.07.06 and 02.11.06 - in vain - to Her Majesty's Royal Mail

In My Diary Dec 02, I reported that I had set up a "Keep Safe" facility for the time that my regular postman was on holiday because his replacement left the mail in the entrance in Jefferson House and, as a result, some of mine had been intercepted.

In My Diary May 03, I reported that the unreliability of the "Keep Safe" 'service' had led me to set up a PO Box.

After another 2 years of unreliable service that included my frequent complaining, including at least 2-3 times from the beginning of 2005, I sent a 17.05.05 'cry for help' to Adam Crozier, then Chief Executive, Royal Mail. I said that I was so desperate to get a reliable service that I was enclosing a cheque for £540, which amounted to paying 5 times the cost of the yearly service.

I also reported my concern about the lack of verification of identity on some occasions when I collected my post.

14.06.05

Mine to Tim Evans

That: his reply to my 17.05.05 letter to Crozier was actually delivered to my apartment; I had not received my returned cheque, and had gone to my bank to put a stop on it.

10.09.05

Mine to Tim Evans

Headed: "Mail is being delivered to my home. What other mail has likewise, been brought to the block of flats? I do not know."

15.09.05

From Tim Evans

"Contacted Mr Vinroy Osbourne, manager at Chelsea Delivery Office who interviewed the reserve delivery officer responsible for this mistake; promised he would take greater in future; he and I will do everything to ensure no further mistakes occur"

11.03.06

Mine to Adam Crozier

That during October, November and December 2005 more of my letters were delivered to the block; since the middle of January 2005, at least 25 letters were delivered.

That I had not received some important letters, legal and financial.

04.04.06

From Lisa Dunne

"I understand that this matter is causing you considerable distress [*]; give you my assurance that I am confident that you will receive no further problems."

"I contacted Paul Prendergast, Delivery Office manager and Brett Thomas, Delivery Sector manager and asked them to investigate."

"There will be a special instruction card placed on the delivery frame to ensure all delivery officers are aware not to deliver any mail to your address"

"gesture of goodwill, enclose cheque for £54.00 which is to cover the fee you paid to have your mail transferred into your PO Box"

03.07.06

Mine to Adam Crozier

"Last week 3 letters were delivered to the block; 2 were important.

Have other important letters been delivered? I have no idea - until one day (if I am lucky), I get a reminder, I am told I have missed out on a deadline, I find other parties with knowledge of my private and confidential information.

"I am reduced to tears" [*]. Re. the £54 refund: "No amount of money can relieve the constant anguish of wondering whether the mail I get actually represents what I was sent."

12.07.06

From Claudia Orrego

"Contacted Linton Rawlings manager Chelsea Delivery Office; he has spoken to all the staff concerned about taking more care; he is monitoring your mail that a special instruction card placed on the delivery frame;

"fully appreciate the security of your post is of utmost importance and careless mistakes can cause undue concern" (*)

"we consider the safety of all mail to be paramount; we have a dedicated Security Team within Royal Mail"

02.11.06

Mine to Adam Crozier

"My 4th letter to you in 17 months", I followed by providing a summary. "While I was actually reduced to tears at the time [*], little did I know that a lot worse was yet to come."

"On 9 Oct 06, among more letters delivered to the block was also the "Special instruction" card" (I included a photograph in my letter).

"On 2 Nov 06, 12 items of post were handed to me at the sorting office; of these 9 items were not for me." (I also included a photograph); "one of the 3 items had been sent 17 months ago."

"I know for a fact that other mail has been sent to me.

  • Where is my personal mail Mr Crozier?
  • Who has it been given to?
  • Who is currently reading my personal mail Mr Crozier?

After more than 2 years of battling with your department: I have had it!

I am copying Postwatch, BBC Watchdog and the Daily Mail on this letter."

(*)- They will have said: Hooray! Objective achieved!

What was taking place was not due to 'incompetence': the frequency and the nature of the events demonstrate that it was done deliberately.

The reason? Punishment for 'my daring' to complain against, and challenge various parties in the Establishment - as related on this page - as well as 'my daring' to stand up their protégé Andrew David Ladsky and his gang of racketeers.

This punishment by the local sorting office was driven by the vermin monsters in the local Kensington police (and they have continued doing this, even though I then switched to a PO Box on the other side of town). (See the example of what 'just' a council, Slough council, did against an individual it 'did not like').

Typically for the English Establishment and its henchmen, they dished out the punishment (and continue to do so) through criminal psychological harassment: header 1.8:

"using something, personal, private information to make the person feel vulnerable"

(At the time, Adam Crozier, Royal Mail CEO, was receiving a yearly salary of £1m+ = enough of an incentive to agree to any of 'the brothers' demands).

On 7 Nov 06, I set-up a PO Box in the private sector, and I approached Postwatch - below, # 5.8. It led to more letters from Royal Mail:

27.11.06 from Royal Mail:

"very important to us to provide a reliable service"; "delivery officer manager at Chelsea will issue a new Special Instruction card; will do his utmost to ensure you receive the service we would expect for our customers" (1)

"I know that you have incurred a number of costs whilst dealing with this matter...Therefore I enclose a cheque for £20 as a goodwill gesture" (2)

(1)- They knew from being copied on my 07.11.06 letter to Postwatch that, on 7 Nov 06, I had set-up a PO Box in the private sector. And they continued in with the same 'assurances': 05.12.06.

(2)- How about that for a very blatant spit in the face? However, thanks to Postwatch:

08.01.07 from Royal Mail:

"I have considered all of the information provided, as an extreme gesture of goodwill I will refund the fees paid by yourself for the PO Box service between May 2006 and May 2007, totalling £112.30" (1)

"I am sorry we cannot consider any consequential losses in terms of compensation in this matter" (2)

(1)- Reimbursing me for a so-called 'service' it did not provide was "an extreme gesture of goodwill"! Plus, I stopped using 'the service' 7 months before the end of the year. What a gift! = They were continuing to spit in my face.

(2)- See the below stats for what Royal Mail cost me - added to an unbelievable amount of anguish and distress over a period of 3 years - and that's all it offered!

See below, below, # 5.8, the 15.01.07 letter from Postwatch confirming that the Royal Mail could (of course, and typically) treat 'the little people' like pieces of dirt.

Meanwhile, its CEO, Adam Crozier, was pocketing £1m+ of taxpayer money as salary! (Yes: in 2005-06)

Statistics

7 letters, supported by 5 documents; needing to write to at least 25 organisations to inform them of my new PO Box address, as well as change my financial accounts due to concern about potential identity fraud + communications to my family and friends;

= c.110 hours of my life (from 2003); c.£100 in costs; duration: nearly 5 years from the time I started to complain about 'the service'.

I also repeat my above notes.

Back to list

(5.8) - My legitimate 02.11.06 and 07.11.06 'cries for help' - actioned - by Her Majesty's Postwatch against HM's Royal Mail

As discussed above, under # 5.7, Royal Mail's failure to address my repeated complaints led me to submit a 02.11.06 'cry for help' with Postwatch, after which I provided an update in my 07.11.06 letter (on which I copied Adam Crozier, CEO, Royal Mail).

Mrs Melissa Sharples, contacted Royal Mail, and with her 14 Nov 06 copied me on the letter. No link to the letter because, while it was a letter I should have had framed, as a public sector department was finally on my side...I misled it! (I am very annoyed about that).

I replied on 27.11.06, and supplied a further 20 supporting documents.

Quoting her comment that: she "...cannot offer any guarantee that Royal Mail will make payment, as they will class these costs as "consequential"...Royal Mail are not obligated to pay these"...

...I stated that this policy from a government department did not surprise me - and highlighted the contrast with the £1m+ salary for Adam Crozier, CEO of Royal Mail.

Having referred to the monetary and time costs the Royal Mail had caused me to incur, added to prolonged anguish and distress - I suggested the sum of £3,000 (US$5,300) as compensation.

I added that I wondered how much Adam Crozier would have demanded if he had been made to endure what his organisation had subjected me to over the last 3 years.

The follow-on letters from the Royal Mail are discussed above, under # 5.7.

15.01.08 letter from Mrs Melissa Sharples, Postwatch:

"I appreciate that you will be disappointed [with the £112.30; above, Royal Mail letter of 8 Jan 07] because this amount falls short of what you would have liked,

but as explained, Royal Mail are not obligated to pay any redress towards costs that you have incurred as a result of their service failures" (1)

"The PO Box service is not a requirement of Royal Mail's licence agreement and therefore, there is no statutory compensation scheme in place" (2)

(1)- I was not surprised, because it reflects the typical way the British state treats 'the little people': like pieces of dirt.

The "not obligated" meant that it could have, of course, paid me compensation commensurate for the treatment it had subjected me to. BUT: it was not going to do it - because it was intentional.

(2)- Yet, it was offering 'the service'. Typically for this island-kingdom, there is always a get-out clause to avoid accountability.

Statistics

3 letters with 32 supporting documents; = c.25 hours of my life; c.£20 in costs; duration: 2 months from my 'cry for help'.

I also repeat my above notes.

Back to list

(5.9)- My legitimate demands of 29.10.08, 08.12.08, 29.12.08 and 29.12.08 - in vain - to Hutchison 3G, the 3 mobile phone network

(Events discussed in My Diary 29 Dec 08 and 23 Jan 09)

As summarised in my 08.12.08 letter to Kevin Russell, Chief Executive, Hutchison 3G:

  • from early Aug 08, his company was sending me text messages that "[my] 3SIM won't work in this mobile";
  • on visiting one of the 3 stores, I was told that I needed to buy a 3G phone;
  • having said that none of them met my requirements, on 12 Sep 08, I bought a 3G phone not linked to any network, and that the 3SIM card worked;
  • by mid Oct 08, I had received voicemail text messages, but could not access my voicemail;
  • I was told in a 3 store that: 'I needed to change my SIM card'; 'my phone had to be a 3G from 3';
  • on 2 occasions, when I talked to 'customer service' to order a replacement SIM card, it hang up on me, as soon as I replied to its question, that I had just bought a 3G phone, and had no intention of buying one from 3;
  • getting a shop assistant to make the call, I was told that I would get a new SIM card by 27 Oct 08.

With still no card, added to the way I had been treated by the Hutchison's bullies, in my (Special Delivery Next Day) 29.10.08 letter to Hutchinson 3G I requested the Port Authorisation Code (PAC) so that I could transfer my mobile number to another network supplier.

Of note: as Ms Cullen, Ofcom (below # 5.10), wrote me in her 21.01.09 letter: "Ofcom regulations state that a PAC (or the reason why it can't be provided) must be sent to the customer within 2 working days from receipt of the customer's request"

Then Hutchinson 3G continued dishing out the criminal psychological harassment regime on behalf of its mates in 'the Brotherhood', in particular the police, for whom it had my phone under surveillance / was allowing them access (Persecution # 3.1) - not least because it was getting paid for doing it.

And, of course, for the ultimate benefit of Andrew David Ladsky.

04.11.08 letter from Hutchison 3G :

"I can understand how upsetting it is for you not able (sic) to use your phone" (1)

"We suspended your service due to the reason that you were using a 2G Sim card in a 2G phone" (2)

"...we allow the usage of our Sim in phones which are enable for 3 Services and are authorised by us for connection to the 3 network. This will also help you to avoid any serious damage to your phone " (3)

"...you have £41.25 cash credit. We surely want you to use the cash credit...so for this reason I've 'haven't (sic) issue you a PAC and have arranged to unsuspend your services."

"As soon as we activate your services we'll send a replacement Sim card which you can use in a 3 phone [4] and use the credit on your account."

"It will take us three days to activate your services and three days to send you a replacement card" (5)

"We hope you will reconsider your decision leaving us" (6)

"You can tell us what your thought about our reply by doing a quick survey...We'd love to hear from you, and we'll use your feedback to help improve the way we do things" (7)

(1)- And could have added: we and our mates are sure getting lots of sadistic kicks from this. (But not as much as they would have liked because, for obvious reasons, I make little use of my mobile phones).

I commented on this in my (4-page) 08.12.08 to Kevin Russell, CEO, saying that "the events demonstrate that 'a game' is being played - and the intended irony is evident in this paragraph"

(2)- This was November; I had bought a 3G phone 2 months earlier... but not from 3!

(3)- = An anti-competition policy, supported by a scare tactic.

(4)- As I stated in my 08.12.08 letter to Kevin Russell: in spite of my making it crystal clear that I am not prepared to buy a 3 phone; my asking for the PAC number in order to transfer my phone to another network - you nonetheless expect me to purchase "a 3 phone" in order to "use the credit on [my] account".

(5)- How about that for continuing to pile on the criminal psychological harassment!

(6)- Of course! How could I possibly contemplate stopping my custom to a bunch of hitlerian bullies!

(7)- Unbelievable! It must have been one of the inputs from 'the Brotherhood', in particular the police. The colloquial way of describing this: taking the piss...big time!

And the criminal psychological harassment continued:

  • 7 Nov 08 - on the phone: "I can't give you the PAC number because you have not received the SIM card"
  • 8 Nov 08 - I received the SIM card; on the phone: "Can't give the PAC code because the SIM card has not been cleared; can't do it today because it's Saturday"
  • 10 Nov 08 - on the phone: "Can't give you the PAC code; there is a problem with the system; will contact you in next 48 hours"

I stopped phoning; 4 weeks later i.e. by early Dec 08: no contact = the typical silent mode tactic (Persecution # 1(4)(8)). It was 5.5 weeks since my 29.10.08 letter requesting the PAC code.

I sent Kevin Russell, CEO, the 08.12.08 letter referred to earlier, asking for the PAC number by return of post - and enclosed a self-addressed, 'Special delivery Next Day' envelop for this purpose.

3 weeks later: still no SIM card - leading me to, yet again, send a letter to Kevin Russell, CEO: 29.12.08 letter, in which I wrote:

"...your company has now been messing me around for the last three months. Why?

1. Who has asked you to do this? I want the name of the individual/s, position / rank and contact details.

2. What reasons has / have the individual/s given you to do this?

3. Why are you complying?

I followed this by stating "my conclusion that events with your company are linked to my case..."

Also that: if I did not receive the PAC by return of post, I would contact Ofcom; I was copying Allan McLuckie, Director of Customer Services on the letter: my 29.12.08 letter to him.

Of course, they failed to provide the PAC - leading me to send a 08.01.09 'cry for help' to Ofcom - who luckily, decided to help me (below, # 5.10)

On the day it received the letter from Ofcom, Hutchison finally sent me the PAC = 3 months after my asking for it (recall that under regulations it had to do it "within 48 hours"!)...

...and how in 'his' 22.01.09 letter Stuart Borland treated me as an imbecile:

"The replacement SIM card, due to be processed on 23rd October 2008 and issued to you, was regrettably not processed."

"It appears that this was due to the call on that date dropping..."

"Due to internal system limitations, our Customer Services were then unable to provide you with the PAC on 7th November 2008..."

Ending with: "thank you for your valuable feedback"

In my 25.01.09 reply, I recapped on my all my communications to Hutchison over the previous 3 months.

I commented on the "call dropping" as "an interesting euphemism for slamming the phone in my face - twice.". I also repeated my above 3 questions.

Underestimating my true costs (see stats below), I demanded "a £182 payment as compensation for the financial loss and aggravation I suffered, and including the reimbursement of my £41 credit."

It was the cue for Hutchison to continue treating me as an imbecile and a piece of dirt.

09.02.09 letter 'from' Stuart Borland:

"I was not aware of any contact from OFCOM...My response was based on your correspondence that was received at the Executive Office." (1)

"...there was no intention by the agents at 3 to delay the issuing of the PAC to you."

"...3 do not as a rule offer compensation for loss of income...I would however like to offer you a cheque for the sum of £75.00."

"This sum incorporates your postage costs, the remaining credit on your account and a goodwill gesture for the level of service that you have received." (2)

(1)- My 1st letter to "the executive office" was one month earlier: my 08.12.08 to Kevin Russell (above).

(2)- In my 20.02.09 reply, I pointed out that: "the sum representing "a goodwill gesture" amounts to £13.86"; I did not consider this an acceptable offer; for the sake of bringing the matter to a close, I would accept £120.

Hutchison agreed to this: Borland's 05.03.09 letter.

Overall conclusions: hell-bent on assisting its Establishment mates, as well as the ultimate beneficiary, Andrew David Ladsky, Hutchison 3G:

For a laugh: 6 years later, Private Eye, 1396, 10-23 July 15, pg 14 - reported: "Three recently launched a new campaign called "make it right".

"The mobile industry sucks and for too long it has gone unchallenged", runs the copy. "At Three, we're changing all that".

The Eye also reports that "Three began its crusade by stealing the campaign name and hashtag from a charity, in this case Brad Pitt's eco-housing initiative Make It Right founded in 2007...."

(I also noted "EU blocks Three's £10.25bn bid for O2 as anti-competitive", The Guardian, 12 May 16:

"Merged mobile firm would have become UK's largest; Commission feared higher prices and reduced choice" - add to that spreading its above method of operating.

So: well done Ms Margrethe Vestager, Europe's competition commissioner).

Statistics

6 documents, supported by 10 documents; = c.50 hours of my life, including some desk research time; c.£40 in costs; duration: 5 months from the start of my complaint.

I also repeat my above notes.

Back to list

(5.10)- My legitimate 08.01.09 'cry for help' - actioned - by Her Majesty's Ofcom against Hutchison 3G, the 3 mobile phone network

The deliberate failure by Hutchison 3G to send me the Port Authorisation Code (PAC) for my mobile phone (above, # 5.9), led me to send a 08.01.09 'cry for help' to Ofcom.

Although Ofcom was not the right watchdog to contact,...

...I was lucky to find a kind person with integrity and compassion, Ms Charlotte Cullen, who made an exception, and contacted Hutchison: her 21.01.09 letter to me:

"Ofcom regulations state that a PAC (or the reason why it can't be provided) must be sent to the customer within 2 working days from receipt of the customer's request."

"Due to the difficulties you have recently experienced with 3 regarding this issue, I escalated a copy of your complaint to them for review."

"They will now be expected to make direct contact with you in reply."

As discussed under Hutchison, the impact of Ms Cullen's letter was immediate as, on the day it received it, Hutchison "made direct contact" by sending me the PAC number.

I sent Ms Cullen a 25.01.09 'thank you' letter.

My second success with a watchdog (first was with Postwatch, # 5.8, above) - and even though Ofcom was not the right watchdog to contact.

Isn't that great? When you've gone through the absolute, sheer utter hell I have been going through since 2002: trust me; it does feel great to finally get some help; to finally get somebody who recognises that your 'cry for help' / complaint is legitimate.

= To finally get somebody who is not a lapdog of 'the Establishment'.

Statistics

2 documents, and 7 supporting documents; = c.20 hours of my life, including desk research; c. £11 in costs; duration: 10 days from my 'cry for help'.

I also repeat my above notes.

Back to list

(5.11)- My legitimate 27.05.02 and 02.08.02 'cries for help' - in vain - to 'my' then Member of Parliament (MP) Her Majesty's Michael Portillo that local government departments are contributing to my and fellow leaseholders facing a major fraud

By May 02, it was clear from events that I and fellow leaseholders were facing a major fraud by Andrew David Ladsky and his gang of racketeers (Overview # 1).

It was also becoming clear that government departments, including those in my local borough of Kensington & Chelsea were hell-bent on assisting Andrew David Ladsky in his criminal activities: Kensington & Chelsea police- above, # 4.1 and # 4.3 ; council's planning dept- above, # 5.2.

Facing blocks everywhere I had turned to for help, as well as the prospect of having to spend tens of thousands of £s to fight against the intended fraud, I approached 'my' then local MP, Michael Portillo, for help.

To brief him, ahead of my meeting with him, I prepared this (18-page) 27.05.02 pack providing an overview of events.

During the meeting, Portillo told me that he did not think that he could help me, but that he would nonetheless think about it. He obviously did not spend too much time 'thinking' as, on the same day...

....in a letter dated 28 May 2002, he stated that:

he could not help and suggested that I "get legal advice"

= One of the British Establishment, its henchmen and flunkies favourite replies to get rid of 'the little people - other examples, above under Rifkind # 1.9.

(NB. No hyperlink to the letter, as it is 'lost' somewhere in my files. However, what I am quoting can be verified from the follow on correspondence - referred to below).

Following my contacting another Member of Parliament (to whom I had sent a similar pack), in his 29.07.02 letter to me, Portillo wrote:

"I am very sorry that your worries in respect of Jefferson House continue"

"However, as you will know from my earlier letter of 28 May, as your local Member of Parliament, I do not see how I can assist you in your current situation but would suggest that the best way forward for you is, if you can, to obtain a sound legal opinion" (*)

(*) And if I cannot afford to "obtain a sound legal opinion"? (first hoping that I am not going to end up with a corrupt lawyer (# 2, above)...followed by corrupt judiciaries)?

What do I do - as the innocent victim of organized crime?

Accept to be ruined by a 'sacrosanct' landlord and his 'brothers' - and commit suicide?

Answer: YES! And the criminal psychological harassment regime will go into overdrive to ensure that I do.

In my 02.08.02 letter to Portillo, I demonstrated that I was not exaggerating.

Outcome? Of course, another 'Get lost!': 06.08.02 - making it the 3rd 'Get lost!' from Michael Portillo.

(Needless to say that his successor, Sir Malcolm Rifkind, was in the same mould e.g. above, # 1.9.

And, indeed, as was the then leader of the Conservative Party, Michael Howard to whom I reported my experience with the local government, as well as with Michael Portillo).

Statistics

1 main document and 2 letters; = c.50 hours of my life, including meeting with Portillo (which cost me a half day of work); c.£25 in costs; duration: 3 months from my 'cry for help'.

I also repeat my above notes.

Back to list

(5.12)- My legitimate 01.07.02 'cry for help' - in vain - to Her Majesty's Ken Livingstone, then Mayor of London

From May 2002, I was absolutely frantic, as:

  • my meeting with 2-3 lawyers had led me to the conclusion that fighting the demand could end-up costing tens of thousands of £s - without a limit.

Furthermore, my experience with the police since Feb 02 (several entries under # 4, above), added to my experience with Kensington & Chelsea planning (above, # 5.2) was causing me to have a feeling of being trapped, at the mercy of a bunch of criminals.

In addition to approaching 'my' then MP Michael Portillo (above, # 5.11), I also approached John Prescott, then head of housing (above, # 1.2).

As Ken Livingstone was then Mayor of London, I also sent him this (23-page) 01.07.02 'cry for help' (similar pack to that sent to Prescott and Portillo, and several others who did not bother to respond / claimed they 'could not help') - supported by 12 documents.

The 06.08.02 "personal reply" from Dave Turner:

"...there is nothing legally the Mayor, the GLA [1], or indeed I could do"

"...there is nothing we can do"

"...make sure that you seek the best legal advice about your home" (2)

(1)- Greater London Assembly; the organisation I (predictably) wasted my time responding to, in Oct 11- My Diary 6 Oct 11.

(2)- The favourite reply - other examples, above under Rifkind # 1.9.

At least, it was an improvement on Boris Johnson who sent me a questionnaire: "Tell Boris what you think" - and did not bother to reply (My Diary 4 Oct 11).

With my 27.08.02 letter, I supplied the 17.07.02 demand of £14,000 I had received after sending the pack to Ken Livingstone, and stated:

At least, it is reassuring to know that when I get thrown out of my flat because I cannot pay the charges and I lose everything, I can turn up on the doorstep of City Hall with my suitcase in the knowledge that Mr Livingstone will then be able to help me"

Statistics

1 main document (recycled from similar ones), supported by 12 documents, and 1 letter; = c.20 hours of my life; c.£23 in costs; duration: 2 months from my 'cry for help'.

I also repeat my above notes.

Back to list

(5.13)- My 17.05.05 complaint - in vain - to Her Majesty's Office of the Ombudsman for Estate Agents against the then Martin Russell Jones

As the then Martin Russell Jones was also an estate agent (its website (in 2004) stated "Members of the NAEA (National Association of Estate Agents)" ,...

I approached Mr Stephen Carr-Smith, Estate Agents Ombudsman, by copying him, with my 17.05.05 letter, on my 02.02.05 complaint to the RICS (# 6.2, below), as well as other documents.

In the 19.05.05 letter, to which it attached a leaflet, his Office rejected my complaint - by stating:

"...the Ombudsman is only empowered to consider a complaint which is against one of the member agencies"

"According to our records, Martin Russell Jones is not a member and your complaint is, therefore, outside the Ombudsman's Terms of Reference".

How many consumers know that membership of the Estate Agents Ombudsman is not compulsory - and consequently operates in a different manner from the other ombudsmen?

= Another sham at leading 'the little people' into believing that it offers an avenue for redress.

= A pointless scheme as those likely to be found at fault are obviously not going to join.

As with everything else, you only discover it when you start 'scratching the surface'.

Statistics

1 letter, with a 136-page bundle of 5 supporting documents; = c.6 hours of my life; c.£34 in costs; duration: 3 days from my complaint.

Back to list

 

(6)- My legitimate complaints - in vain - to state-endorsed private sector 'regulators'

 

(6.1)- My legitimate 19.07.05 complaint - in vain - to the Institute of Chartered Accounts in England and Wales (ICAEW) against Pridie Brewster

Pridie Brewster was the firm of accountants that signed-off the so-called 'accounts' for the Jefferson House 'concentration camp' - at least, those I have up to 2004. (Snapshot: Pridie Brewster (A)).

(It 'appears' to have been replaced by another "ICAEW endorsed", Errington Langer Pinner).

Pridie Brewster signed-off the "2002 accounts" and "2003 accounts" for Jefferson House - by stating:

"...it is our opinion that the attached schedule of costs, expenses and outgoings is sufficiently supported by receipts and other documents...and specifies the amount payable by each lessee"

I highlight Clause 2(2)(e) and (f) of my Lease (extracts) - "accountant"...

"to include reasonable costs incurred - or to be incurred"

"certify that in his opinion the summary represents a fair summary of the costs and outgoings...

...and that it is sufficiently supported by accounts receipts and other documents"

"to determine the amount payable by the lessee"

"to certify that the sum specified represents the amount of the service charge payable by the lessee..."

(See also Clause 2(2)(c)(ii) - "obligation on landlord to maintain service charges at the lowest reasonable figure")

Pridie Brewster's decree that "the costs are sufficiently supported" and that "the accounts specify the amount payable by each lessee" - is false.

Among other, 'the accounts' fail to reflect the findings from the tribunal hearings that resulted in a £500,000 reduction (US$882k) (incl. £144k claimed to be the contingency fund) in the 15.07.02 global demand of £736,000 (Overview # 2 ; LVT # 4.1)...

that stated on many occasions that "the tribunal was frustrated by the lack of detail and lack of costing in the specification": extracts, Brian Gale # 6.

There is another issue: non-compliance with consultation procedures that has the effect of reducing the amount that could be demanded from each leaseholder down to £250 (US$441) (Overview # 5).

I copied Pridie Brewster on my 30.03.05 letter to Joan Hathaway, then MRICS, of the then Martin Russell Jones (MRJ), in which I raised the issues - in the process referring to my Lease, as well as to legislation.

It led Roger Clement, Pridie Brewster, to reply in his 15.04.05 letter:

"...we were not made aware of the LVT determination of 17 June 2003 at the time that we were preparing our certificate."

" Since receiving your letter I have requested a copy of this determination and this was provided to me yesterday"

Aiming to help as best as I could, with my 17.04.05 letter I supplied Roger Clement with copy of 48 documents - a bundle of 250+ pages. It included provided him with a copy of:

  • (1)- my Lease he should have had - and consulted;
  • (5)- the 21.07.03 reply from the tribunal to Lanny Silverstone, CKFT, letters of 17.07.03 and 21.07.03 asking how much I should pay - that proved that, of course, the sum that could be asked from each lessee had to be based on a global sum that was the same for all (WLCC # 8);

In each instance, I provided a brief explanation of the document.

From this information, could Roger Clement, Pridie Brewster, be in any doubt that a major fraud had been taking place - and that he had been party to it (above)? NO!

I repeat the same question in relation to the ICAEW that accessed this information. Very clearly: NO!

I then provided Clement with additional information in my 09.05.05 letter - supported by 6 other documents.

Lack of response led me, after 3 months, to send this 19.07.05 letter to ICAEW, requesting its assistance "in getting Pridie Brewster to re-state the year-end accounts for Jefferson House" - and supplied 12 supporting documents. They included a copy of my above 17 Apr 05 letter to Roger Clement.

In typical 'self-regulatory body' dictatorial style (*), and using the equally typical British Establishment' 'Frustrate and Discourage tactics' (header 2) - from then on the ICAEW took on an adversarial tone, and totally ignored the content of my correspondence = the very damning evidence.

(*) Other examples: Law Society- above # 2.2 ; # 2.5 ; # 2.6 ; Bar Council- above # 2.4 ; RICS- below # 6.2

The 04.08.05 letter 'from' Jim Vessey, caseworker, ICAEW:

"Is there any evidence that Pridie Brewster were made aware of the LVT hearing or the decision?" [!!!]

He confirmed that Pridie Brewster was breaching covenants in my Lease:

"I do not see anywhere in the accountants' report an opinion provided that the costs have been checked for reasonableness or completeness or that an audit has been performed to ensure that they been provided all the information."

"...unless you have evidence to the contrary [*]...then I am of the belief that the Investigation Committee would not consider that Pridie Brewster's actions warrant disciplinary action."

(*) "Provide evidence": one of the typical British Establishment's 'Get lost'! - in the hope that it will make you give up on your complaint. I have included other examples under Rifkind # 2.

In my (4-page) 01.09.05 reply I challenged his statements by, among other, providing extracts from documents - I had already supplied him / Roger Clement with.

In 'his' 06.09.05 'reply', Jim Vessey - stated:

"What legislation are you referring to when you state that the previous accounts need to be adjusted and reissued? This is an important query as Pridie Brewster will want to know..." (1)

"The accountant's report is not that of an audit but merely states that they have examined the records provided to them by the managing agents." (2)

Therefore the accountant's report is saying exactly what you are saying, in that Pridie Brewster only reviewed information provided to them (and no audit was conducted)" (2)

"You may wish to have a higher level of assurance...I suggest you direct this request at the managing agent." (3)

"...the LVT is looking at the reasonableness of the costs, something that Pridie Brewster has not done." (4)

"It will be for the tenant or the landlord to separately consider whether the costs disclosed in the summary are excessive [5] and, if necessary, to take the dispute to the LVT who can consider the matter." (6)

"I have not identified any heads of complaint that would, in my personal opinion, lead to a potential disciplinary action" (7)

(1)- Section 19(2) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 - which states:

"Where a service charge is payable before the relevant costs are incurred, no greater amount than is reasonable is so payable..."

Added to my Lease that states the same thing.

(2)- = Confirmation that, in effect, Pridie Brewster was acting as a typesetter (an expensive one at that).

On page 2 of my 07.03.06 letter, I captured extracts from Clause 8 of the Fourth Schedule of my Lease: "All fees and costs incurred in respect of the accountant's certificate and of accounts kept and audits made for the purpose thereof."

(3)- Unbelievable!

(4)- Contrast that with the above requirement in my Lease.

(5)- Again: Unbelievable!

(6)- And, yet again: Unbelievable! His previous sentence states that "the LVT looked at the reasonableness of the costs"

And he knew that for a fact, as he had the 17.06.03 LVT report - as he stated at the beginning of 'his' 06.09.05 letter.

= That was the 'Frustrate and Discourage tactics' (header 2) going into overdrive....

as the actual issues 'he' was 'very conveniently' opting to ignore - as I pointed out in my 07.03.06 letter are:

  • (1)- the tribunal findings have not been reflected in the accounts;
  • (2)- the costs have not been sufficiently supported (see, above).

As I wrote in my letter: "This is conclusive evidence that the expenses were not supported by anything other than a desire to appease the client" (= 'dear Mr Ladsky')

(7)- Unbelievable!

'I' = the Jewish-Freemason Brotherhood;

"haven't identified": because I was told to ignore the very damning evidence...

as, for starters, 'we had to protect the 'brothers' i.e. bent judiciary in West London County Court and Wandsworth County Court' who had illegally made your fellow leaseholders pay monies that were not due and payable'.

The letter was also a continuation of the dictatorial tone adopted in the 23.08.05 letter, that amounted to my being expected to 'ask the ICAEW for permission' to not jump immediately to reply to its correspondence (same as e.g. the Bar Council- # 2.4, above).

(In fact, Jim Vessey, caseworker, came across as having been on the same bullying course as e.g. (i)- DC DR Adams, CID- # 4.1, above ; (ii)- Acting Chief Inspector Steve McSorley- # 4.8, above ; (iii)- Patrick Moriarty, Investigator, Local Government Ombudsman- # 5.4, above).

Because I did not respond, the little dictator communicated in 'his' 02.11.05 letter the had "closed the investigation".

If the corrupt ICAEW and its 'brothers' thought they had got rid of me: they had not. I embarked on extensive desk research.

Armed with the evidence from a court case, I sent a (4-page) 07.03.06 letter (already referred to above), in which I also referred to:

  • (1)- the Association of Certified Accountants' position on its interpretation of the meaning of "certification";
  • (2)- an article from Audit News that stressed the importance of referring to the lease when drawing up accounts for leasehold properties.

I concluded with: "Perhaps you would now like to deal with my complaint in a professional manner."

My challenge led to the involvement of another caseworker: a Mrs Vicky Smith who, in 'her' 16.03.06 letter took offence at my 07.03.06 letter - claiming that

"The Institute takes its obligations as a Regulatory Body very seriously".

...and then proceeded by, of course, following the same path as her colleague.

Aiming to be helpful because the 24.05.06 letter 'from' Vicky Smith had given me a tiny bit of hope (she had copied me on her letter to Pridie Brewster), I sent her a 06.06.06 synopsis re. the identity of 'Steel Services', supported by 54 documents.

In the same spirit, I also sent her this 12.07.06 letter, supported by a further 16 documents - including a photograph of the penthouse apartment. By then, from the information I had provided over the previous 12 months, the ICAEW could be in no doubt whatsoever that a major fraud had been taking place.

In fact, by providing yet more evidence, I was continuing to waste my time and money...

...as then came what was to be expected from an English so-called 'regulator': the 29.08.06 letter 'from' Vicky Smith, ICAEW (et.al. in the Jewish Freemason Brotherhood):

"The ICAEW does not believe that there is grounds for disciplinary action against Pridie Brewster"

"...what is crucial in the decision is that the LVT stated that tenants could willingly contribute towards the extra costs should they wish to do so(*)

 

(*) It refers to para.64 of the tribunal 17.06.03 report:

"Even the works are deemed to be improvements by this Tribunal [my Lease excludes this], there would be nothing to prevent the tenants deciding that they want them carried out...

The only caveat is that the Respondent and other tenants could not be forced to contribute in the case of improvements and/or works not determined as reasonable by the Tribunal."

Question for the ICAEW, Her Majesty's bent judiciaries, Ladsky et.al. in the Jewish-Freemason 'Brotherhood':

How do you answer that one mafia?

On the upside, the ICAEW confirmed that the leaseholders had paid monies that were not due and payable = ripped-off of £500,000 (Overview # 3 ; # 5).

To add to the affront that is never in short supply among the British Establishment and its henchmen and henchwomen when it concerns 'the little people', 'Vicky Smith' also expected me to take on the role of Pridie Brewster - by listing a series of questions "[I] should ask the managing agents".

(I have added my Comments to the 29.08.06 'reply').

Overall: a 'reply' that proves the falsity of the ICAEW's claims (above, and on its website) - and of its 'guidance' amounting to window-dressing e.g. Money laundering from which it clearly perceives itself to also be exempt from compliance

= typical for this "fantastically corrupt", worse than Wild West environment.

Statistics

10 letters, supported by 150 documents (total of c.600 pages); = c.240 hours of my life, including extensive desk research; c.£200 in costs; duration: 13 months from my complaint.

I repeat my above comments.

Back to list

(6.2)- My legitimate 02.02.05 complaint - in vain - to the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) against the then Martin Russell Jones (MRJ)

(There is a snapshot on the RICS page: RICS # A)

By the time I finally approached the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS), in early 2002, I had been going through 14 years of hell at the hands of Martin Russell Jones (MRJ) - entailing constant battles that started in 1989, as soon as it took over the 'management' of Jefferson House.

What finally triggered my complaint was the unsupported, because, yet again, fraudulent demand (*) of 21.10.04, for £14,450, followed by a 16.11.04 repeat (Overview # 6).

(*) Fraudulent 'service charge' demands, supported by endless lies, deceit, fabrications and threats were MRJ's key attributes: overview under JH Advisors # 6 ; the lies to cover-up the construction of the penthouse, as well as related letters, including attributing part of the fraud to me.

The £14,450 was the same amount as in the 17.07.02 demand (Overview # 1), and 29.11.02 West London County Court claim; Particulars (Overview # 3).

= It was reprisal by Rachman Andrew David Ladsky for 'my daring' to challenge his, and gang of racketeers' criminal activities - as,...

"to put an end to the dispute", I had, in my 19.12.03 letter to CKFT, accepted his 21.10.03 'Part 36 offer' of £6,350 (= £8,000 less than the claim) - even though, legally, I did not owe this amount either (# 2, above). Hathaway knew this from my 31.12.03 letter to her.

I wanted the RICS to be in absolutely no doubt that my complaint about these latest fraudulent demands were only the tip of the iceberg: that its members, Barrie Robert Martin, FRICS, and Joan Doreen Hathaway, MRICS, are individuals with a long history of criminal activities (potted history ; extortion).

To communicate this history, I supplied the RICS with:

It turned out to be an enormous waste of my time and money, as the "royally endorsed" RICS then demonstrated that it turns a blind eye to criminal conduct - hence the reason Barrie Martin and Joan Hathaway fell free to do what they did at Jefferson House (and in other blocks).

As I had been told by other leaseholders that the RICS had this reputation, I went to its office (across from Parliament...'of course': Peers for cash; MPs for cash) where I bought its book, RICS Service Charge Residential Management Code, as well as obtained its "Rules of Conduct, Core Values and Principles".

Going through them page by page, I then used them to structure the summary of my complaint = the RICS could be in doubt whatsoever as to the breaches committed by Barrie Martin and Joan Hathaway.

Predictably for an English 'regulatory body', the initial communication of 01.03.05 'from' Simon Love, Conduct manager, RICS, contained excuses and back out clauses to avoid dealing with my complaint:

Re. the 7 points on page 1 in my summary, listing my assessment of the legislation breached by MRJ:

"The RICS will not usurp the powers of justice...appropriate forum for these would be through civil or criminal proceedings" (1)

"The RICS' Service Charge Residential Management Code is not mandatory [2], but should be used a guide by members...they should be able to justify their reasons for departing from it" (3)

"no power to assess or award compensation and cannot compel a chartered surveyor to do so" (4)

(1)- I challenged this in my (9-page) 05.03.05 reply (supported by a further 8 documents) by analysing the breaches of each of the legislation in the context of the RICS' Code and of its 'Core Values and Principles'.

(2)- As per usual in this island-kingdom, as soon as you scratch the surface, you discover that there is a backout clause - real or made up to suit the situation.

(E.g. (2 months after this RICS letter), the 12.05.05 'reply' from Patrick Moriarty, Investigator, Local Government Ombudsman, that whether or not the council performs its legal remit is "at its discretion"- # 5.4, above).

(3)- "No obligation"...but "should be able to justify" = a British Establishment's sauce.

(4) = The RICS has taken steps to dissuade consumers from complaining.

Having provided additional information in my 21.03.05 letter, I sent a 18.04.05 chaser letter, followed by another one: 05.05.05, on which I copied Louis Armstrong, CEO, RICS, and Barry Gilberston, President, RICS (as always, sending the correspondence by 'Special delivery next day' / 'Recorded delivery').

The 13.05.05 reply 'from' Simon Love, Conduct manager:

"I would like to confirm that this department is taking your complaint very seriously" (1)

"I would appreciate it if you could give a short summary of the main issues to which your complaint relates." (2)

(1)- He then repeated this in 'his' 10.06.05 letter.

The more these so-called 'regulators' emphasise this - the more you know they are lying (other example, ICAEW's 16.03.06 letter- # 6.1, above). Same with politicians e.g. David Cameron's claims (above).

(2)- They did not want to use the summary I supplied, because it unequivocally details Joan Hathaway and Barrie Martin's numerous breaches of:

  • (1)- the RICS' so-called "Rules of Conduct";
  • (2)- the RICS Service Charge Residential Management Code.

(The below final 'Get lost!' of 04.11.05 endorsed my conclusion).

In my 02.06.05 reply, I pointed out that I had already supplied a summary.

In the light of the psyche of the English Establishment, and the fact that the decision to reject my complaint had evidently already been taken - there was also another motive in making this 'request': add to the criminal psychological harassment.

The above letter arrived after my 17.05.05 letter to the RICS, making it my 3rd chaser letter. In this I drew conclusions from the RICS' silence, and copied, among other, the Ombudsman for Estate Agents (above, # 5.13).

The 10.06.05 'reply' 'from' Simon Love, Conduct manager, RICS, continued with the standard use of 'Frustrate and discourage tactics' (header 2) - having started the letter with:

"I would dispute most vehemently any suggestion that the RICS is not taking the matter seriously"

"...if we are able to help on your complaint..."

"...it does appear...your allegations of, amongst others money laundering [1]...The RICS cannot take over the role of the police or the courts."

"When you believe there has been a breach of your lease, which amounts to a breach of contract, this is again, a matter over which we do not have jurisdiction." (2)

"If you wanted to pursue this matter through the courts and you were successful, again, this is something that we can look at" (2)

Followed by gibberish about the RICS Code (3)

"...without intending any criticism of the LVT, there might still be an outstanding issue over the 25.6% [4] of the service charge that the LVT were unable to decide as to the reasonableness of it." (5)

"...should I [6] deem the matter to have sufficient weight of evidence to place it before the PCP [something, Conduct Panel (?)] for their consideration, ..." (7)

(1)- Of note: the RICS issued its members with 'guidance' on the Money Laundering Regulations / Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.

Its 'reply' very clearly communicates that it perceives its members - as well as itself - as being exempt from compliance.

= same as the other so-called 'regulators' e.g. ICAEW, # 6.1, above.

(2)- = 'Our members cannot be expected to respect contracts'.

'Yes, okay, under Rule 11.1 of our 'Service Charge Residential Management Code' [end of pg 2 of my summary] we say: "Managing agents should comply with the provisions of the lease for recovery of service charges"...

but, as I have just explained: the code is not mandatory'.

So: go to the kangaroo courts! You know, and we know that it's not going to lead you anywhere...other than add to your distress and loss of money. Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha!'

(3)- That led me to the conclusion that: if it is "not mandatory": how can there be a breach?

(4)- Yes, and add to that the fact that a further 23% could not be demanded because ruled as "improvements" (LVT # 4.1)

(5)- Unbelievable! The "outstanding issues" are clearly explained in the LVT 17.06.03 report- extracts under Brian Gale # 6 - and, by implication, what needs to be done.

Oh! But mustn't deprive 'the brother', 'dear Mr Ladsky' of his multi-million £ jackpot!

(6)- 'I' = the Jewish-Freemason Brotherhood (as e.g. (3 months later) in the 06.09.05 letter 'from' Jim Vessey, ICAEW- # 6.1, above).

(7)- Absolutely unbelievable! It is another typical British Establishment's 'Frustrate and discourage tactic (Header 2) to avoid taking action.

'My' then MP Sir Malcolm Rifkind did the same thing: Rifkind # 2 - which contains other examples I have received.

I did not waste my time replying.

The next letter 'from' Simon Love, Conduct manager, RICS, was 03.08.05 that continued with the 'Frustrate [big time] and discourage tactics' (header 2)

"I have received a reply to my letter of enquiry regarding your complaint." (1)

"I would be grateful if you could review the reply and enclosures and give your comments." (2)

(1)- 'From' Joan Hathaway, MRJ, which, aside from the lies, outrageously portrays Ladsky's henchman, Barrie Martin, FRICS, and henchwoman, Joan Hathaway, MRICS, as 'having played no part in the events'.

(2)- 'He' was asking me "for my comments" on a 'reply' (that was evidently not the first one) - without telling me what had been asked.

I had provided the RICS with the necessary information to assess 'the reply'; it was up to it to do it.

Reality: the objective was to add to the psychological harassment, by making me waste my time repeating what I had already said - and better still for the RICS and its mates: not reply.

I debated whether I should waste more of my time repeating what I had already said. Having, by then, already made an enormous investment in time and costs, I thought I'd better do it - and thereby complete 'the circle'.

I sent this (4-page) 14.10.05 letter, picking up on some of the things I had already communicated. Referring to Simon Love's claim, in 'his' 10.06.05 letter (above) - that 'the RICS was taking my complaint' seriously - I wrote: "To date, I have not seen any evidence that your Office is taking my complaint seriously."

Then came the final 'Get lost!' in the 04.11.05 letter 'from' Simon Love, Conduct manager, RICS:

"I [1] am of the opinion that there is insufficient weight of evidence to place this matter before an RICS disciplinary committee currently." (2)

"Should you be unable to provide corroborative evidence of a breach of the Rules [3] I will have no option other than to close the matter." (4)

(1)- That 'I' again = the Jewish-Freemason 'Brotherhood'

(2)- Unbelievable!...but typical - see RICS # 6 for comments by industry observers.

(3)- My summary identifies breaches galore of 'the Rules' (partly the reason they wanted to me to write "a shorter summary": the 13.05.05 letter, (above))

It is also 'fascinating' to note the comment in the light of the claim made in the 10.06.05 letter (above) that "the code is not mandatory".

In fact, in an Aug 16 FT article, "Leasehold flats: what estate agents won’t tell you", the RICS was quoted as saying that

"[its] code cannot strike off managing agents or other “unfit persons” responsible for levying unreasonable charges because there is no compulsory register"

Consequently:

(4)- Something the RICS had been wanting to do from the time it received my complaint: its initial letter, above,...

added to the consideration of helping 'the brothers': protect the bent judiciaries in West London County Court and Wandsworth County Court; help Ladsky retain his multi-million £ jackpot.

So: everybody gets away scot-free!

f note: 3 years later, the RICS attempted to gag me.

Statistics

1 major document of 124 pages; 13 other letters and documents (including copying others); 245 supporting documents, including an initial bundle of 220 documents;

= c.260 hours of my life (including desk research); c.£290 in costs; duration: 8 months from the start of my complaint.

I repeat my above comments.

Back to list

 

(7)- My legitimate complaints - in vain - to others

 

(7.1)- My 17.01.08 grievance - in vain - to my then employer KPMG

(Page on KPMG; Overview # 14)

I joined KPMG, in Oct 07 and, for the following 9 years, was very happy working for the firm.

It all changed from Feb 07 when I started to suffer horrendous victimisation.

As explained in the introduction, the sole reason behind it (of course, never expressed) was 'my daring' to launch my website, exposing chapter and verse of my case.

= Exposing the corruption and criminal conduct of members of the English Establishment - starting with some of the judiciaries and police.

Being one of the pillars of the Establishment, as well as earning millions of £s in fees from government contracts, KPMG agreed with its tribe members that I should be very severely punished for committing this, evidently, 'heinous crime'.

Of course, KPMG totally ignored the reasons that led me to do this - leading me to discover (with enormous shock) (*) a side to KPMG I did not know existed:

its sharing the same 'value' and attitude as those of Andrew David Ladsky, his gang of racketeers, and of the bent elements in the Establishment who help/ed and protect them from the legal consequences of their criminal activities:

that my being one of 'the little people' evidently gives all an automatic right to rape me financially and psychologically = treat me as a non-entity who does not have the right to have rights.

(*) I know, I will come across as very naïve but, to me, KPMG was whiter than snow; I felt very proud to work for the firm, and totally bought into its Values; and, until then, it had always been very good to me.

The key tool used for the punishment was criminal psychological harassment e.g.

through conspiring with Ladsky (KPMG # 3.4) - for 24 days, cutting me off from the internal network, as well as internet (KPMG # 4) - and then making me sign a letter that I would not use the internet (KPMG # 4.2).

I was subjected to many other forms of humiliation and harassment e.g.: KPMG # 6.

In addition to Ladsky, other external members of the gang of assassins, included his mates in the local Kensington police (KPMG # 3.4). Even my doctor of 37 years added his support (KPMG # 13).

What was the last straw for me, were the lies during my so-called 'performance appraisal': KPMG # 8.

Using the diary of events I had been keeping, I wrote a (27-page) 17.01.08 grievance, in which I referred to 70 documents I compiled into a bundle, and offered (my offer was not taken up).

Reliving the events as I was writing it, by the time I finished it, I decided that - no matter what - I would no longer allow myself to be subjected to this kind of treatment, and resigned in Jan 08 (KPMG # 10.2).

The 'no matter what' was that, I knew that what I had been subjected to had traumatised me to the point where I would be unable to look for other work...

- which is what happened, leading me to take early retirement - that translated into losing 8 years of work = a loss of over £1 million in potential salary and pension.

Yep! All 'thanks' to 'Dear Mr Ladsky' and his wanting to make his multi-million £ jackpot!

4 months later, in his 22.05.08 'reply' to my 17.01.08 grievance, KPMG partner, Peter Terry failed to address the majority of it. As to the parts he selected, his replies amounted to lies (KPMG # 11(3) and # 11.1).

So: No different from the above 94%.

Statistics

1 major document of 27 pages, and preparation of a bundle of 70 documents; (there were many more other documents);

= c.200 hours of my life (including keeping a diary of events, and desk research); c.£70 in costs; duration: 4 months from submitting my grievance.

Back to list

(7.2)- My 03.02.14 complaint - in vain - to my "security lock" provider, Banham

As discussed in detail under My Diary 17 Jan 14, on that day, one or more of the Andrew David Ladsky monsters entered my apartment in order to pour a lot of water on my bathroom floor.

As (for obvious reasons) I have not given them the key to my apartment, it follows that my "security lock" provider, Banham, gave them access.

On my visit to the local showroom, on 30 Jan 14, I was told that "Banham would only give the key at the request of the police".

I sent a ('Special delivery next day') 03.02.14 letter to Banham, asking it to provide me with detail of the police that had asked it to do it, including the reason/s given.

Lack of response, led me to send a ('Special delivery next day') 18.02.14 chaser letter, with which I enclosed a self-addressed 'Special delivery next day' envelop for reply.

It led to a 20.02.14 letter from Banham denying it had given access to my apartment, or supplied the key to anybody...

- adding other typical Kensington police mafia input (examples under # 4, above): (1)- that "[I] discuss what happened with those to whom [I] have given a copy of [my] key"; (2)- recommending I change the locks (!!)

(Since my reporting the events on my website, a Banham car is frequently parked in my street, often immediately in front of my windows - something that has continued e.g. in 2016).

Statistics

A visit to the local showroom, and 2 letters; = c.12 hours of my life; c.£24 in costs; duration: over 2 weeks.

 

ALL THE PARTIES REPORTED ON THIS PAGE HAVE CAUSED ME TO DEVELOP THIS WEBSITE - AND THEN MAINTAIN IT.

THIS OUTCOME IS OF THEIR OWN DOING.

(On the upside: to the 3 individuals who have helped me (clearly identified on this page), it gives me the opportunity to praise you publicly. Thank you once again for your help).

  C O M M E N T S

Back to top