Criminal perjurous Landlord and prejudiced Judge
Steve Smith
a criminal Landlord and a prejudiced County Court Judge. If you are a
Landlord then please don't bother reading this or at least don't reply
telling me how you think Landlords can do whatever they like because
it's not the Middle Ages, we have laws to protect tenants, these laws
are democratic because Landlords are outnumbered by Tenants, I've
heard it all before, and if you do then you'll be flamed. At the end
of the day, no Landlord is forced to sign a Tenancy Agreement but they
must abide by its terms. Tenants must also abide by the Tenancy
Agreement, but if they don't, then the Landlord can take legal action,
not illegal action, to evict them.
I had no choice but to leave my first flat because that Landlord kept
coming round without warning and demanding to come in, although by law
he had to make appointments at least 24 hours in advance and I had the
right to disagree and set a mutually convenient day and time. Most of
the time this was to do with a faulty ballcock in my cistern which was
spraying onto the back yard of the shop downstairs and onto the head
of the shopkeeper when he went out to the toilet. Whenever this
happened I had no indication until my Landlord came and banged on the
door demanding to come in immediately. It took nearly 5 years before I
found out this was illegal, because the legal jargon covering this is
"quiet possession and enjoyment", or in my Tenancy Agreement (on Oyez
Stationery) "the Tenant may quietly possess and enjoy the property". I
then had to wait another 2 years before the Landlord did this again
before I could read my prepared speech to him laying down the law.
This situation didn't really change, was giving me high blood pressure
and could have led to a heart attack, so eventually I had to leave.
After I moved into my next flat, things seemed to be OK, but
eventually I realised the situation was even worse. It turned out that
my new Landlord wasn't a proper Landlord at all. By "a proper
Landlord" I mean someone whose main activity and income comes from
being a Landlord. He had rented out the only flat he owned either as a
scheme to help prevent it from being repossessed, or because he
preferred to go off and live with a girlfriend or a series of
girlfriends, but he was such a lying perjuring bastard that I don't
know which one of these is true. If I had known this, then I wouldn't
have touched the flat with a barge pole and would have preferred to be
temporarily homeless for a few weeks until the right flat came along.
This would probably have been in a converted Solicitor's Office which
I had viewed before. I knew it was a converted Solicitor's Office
because it was local to where I was living and I'd considered using
that Solicitor against my first Landlord. This also meant that it
couldn't possibly be the Landlord's only home, because it was only
just being turned into a home.
A few weeks into the Tenancy I got a letter from Abbey National
building society addressed to "The Occupier". This said that Mortgage
Repossession Proceedings were underway and gave me the address where
my Landlord was living. I felt sick and immediately phoned a Tenancy
Relations Officer who had been advising me about my previous Landlord
starting about 4 years before this. He said that if the building
society did repossess the flat, then this meant it would be several
months before I had to get out. This would have been far better for me
than what eventually happened. I didn't think I could afford to look
for and move into another flat because I couldn't afford it. BTW, this
means that Abbey National Building Society were fully aware of what my
Landlord was doing and I later found out in Court that this is unusual
because most Mortgage lenders don't allow their Mortgagees to rent out
their properties.
A few months later I met my Landlord for the first time in the County
Court reception. He introduced himself to me, and told me he'd just
paid off nearly all the Mortgage Arrears. We went into what looked
like a Judge's Chambers with a Solicitor for Abbey National. The
Solicitor said that as nearly all the arrears had been paid he would
like to drop the case and the Judge agreed.
This Landlord is a black racist, a Hate Criminal, a professional
squatter and a mail thief. He broke into the flat and said "You're
just sitting on your fuckin' white arse living rent free" (I had some
rent arrears). Later on (like the disgraced Reggae or Ragga artist
Shabba Ranks) he called me a "Batty Boy", meaning queer cunt. After
being forced out of the flat by Injunction Order he came to the door,
ripped off my notice about having no callers without appointment due
to what he had done and said "I'll slit your fuckin' throat! And you
don't know me, you queer!" I'm not gay, but because I don't fit in
with his ideas he thinks I am. After he broke in he told me about his
previous activities as a squatter. While he was trespassing in the
flat he opened my mail.
I left the flat and took legal action to get him out. I returned after
about 2 weeks to find he'd gone, but so had all the furniture, several
boxes containing important papers, and the boiler had been sabotaged
so I had no central heating or hot water.
Later still, the Landlord started taking legal action to evict me, so
this made me feel better, because I was convinced that he wasn't going
to do anything illegal to me again and that I'd be able to leave there
in an orderly way after finding a new flat.
Eventually, the Landlord sent an accomplice who had helped to harrass
and burgle me before. He put the flat under siege, including
physically cutting my phone line twice, removing a light bulb on the
stairs, and disabling my satellite dish. Finally, he smashed the
window in my front door, and shouted threats that he would kill me in
about 2 days time if I hadn't left the building by then. I waited
about half an hour before going out to get to the Police Station or a
phone, then he suddenly appeared, mugged me for my keys and beat me up
while shouting hate crime abuse.
After this I went to a safe house in the middle of nowhere. It was my
Mum's place. I planned on staying there for 2-3 days so my Landlord
would reoccupy the flat in breach of Injunction Order, then the Police
were supposed to go there and arrest him for setting foot in the flat,
as well as interfering with my belongings there. About 24 hours after
arriving at my Mum's place I got a phone call from the Police saying
that they had allowed the flat to be taken over and would stand by and
let me be burgled. This meant I had been forced into exile and lost
most of my lifestyle. I was in exile from civilisation for 2 years 9
months.
The Court proceedings went on over a period of about 10 months. During
this time there were a few different Judges. Each time I went to Court
there was a different Judge. This may be normal when dealing with
County Courts.
The final Judge in the case was prejudiced against me. I was getting
Legal Aid because I was unemployed, but my ex Landlord seemed to have
no Legal Representation at all, although a particular Solicitor had
been "assisting" him. This was either because legally he hadn't got a
leg to stand on, or he was pretending he couldn't get Legal Aid to try
and get the Judge to sympathise with him but actually he preferred to
conduct his own defence.
The Judge was immediately interested in me and my ex Landlord's
employment status. I had to admit I was unemployed because I was on
Legal Aid, but if I hadn't admitted it then I would have been
perjuring myself. My ex Landlord claimed to be a self employed Painter
and Decorator, said how much he earned per month, and also claimed to
be only about 1 month in arrears with his Mortgage, but offered no
evidence to support any of these claims. I'm pretty sure that
employment status is irrelevant to the case anyway.
My ex Landlord also perjured himself over 90% of the time. There must
be proof of one of his lies in the Court records. In February he said
in Court that he was unemployed, but in December he referred back to
events in February claiming that at that time he had been unable to
get Legal Aid because he wasn't signing on, so in that case he
wouldn't have been unemployed. If he wasn't working, but not signing
on, then he could easily have signed on to entitle himself to Legal
Aid. This more or less proves he was lying. He also kept changing his
story about how he repossessed the flat and the Judge didn't challenge
him about it. After his accomplice had put the flat under siege and
mugged me in the street, he waited a couple of days to make sure I'd
gone. He then went to the Police Station with a Possession Order. This
is no good without a Bailiff's Warrant to enforce it. I was supposed
to be given notification of how far proceedings had gone, but I never
received it. This could have been because there was no letterbox and
mail had been getting pushed under the door, but with the security
gate locked this was impossible, so it was put just inside the
security gate. This meant that some mail could have blown away before
I went to check. The Police advised him not to go round to the flat.
He then went straight to the flat and reoccupied it. This was in
breach of the Injunction Order banning him from entering the flat or
interfering with my belongings.
I asked the Police to go round to the flat to check on the situation.
They only did this several hours later, because the Police don't care
about Illegal Evictions. They then phoned me in the middle of the
night to tell me there were people in the flat, they accepted they
were living there (in a Crime Scene!) and would stand by and let me be
burgled because the Landlord might claim I owed him money and "that
would put us in a difficult position legally". My Landlord then stole
most of my belongings, including my PC system, photos, notebooks,
magazine cuttings, clothes, CD's, PC floppy disks (but not older Amiga
floppy disks), an old style music centre, a toaster, a cafetiere, a
garden chair, etc, etc.
NOTE FOR ALL TENANTS IN ENGLAND AND WALES: Any anti theft software you
may have on your PC is no good, because the Police think that
Landlords are allowed to steal their Tenants' belongings.
My Barrister asked my ex Landlord what items had been in the flat when
he repossessed it. He said "I don't know, a hi fi". The hi fi was on
the list as one of the items he stole. He denied that any of the other
items on the list had been there when he repossessed the flat.
Several times during the final 2 day Hearing, this Judge refused to
allow pieces of vital evidence from me to be presented. These included
hotel receipts. My Solicitor was also incompetent because she said
months before this Hearing that we could refer to these items in a
statement, then produce them in Court later on. After this and some
delay she never asked me to send copies of these documents to her, so
I thought it was OK to just present them in Court, but it wasn't.
Summing up, the Judge said that the Defendant (i.e. my ex Landlord)
was "hard working", but that the Claimant (i.e. me) was "a devious
manipulative individual". It was all I could do to restrain myself
from shouting something like "You fuckin' Public Schoolboy Landlord
Freemason unemployed hating moron wanker!", but I thought I'd be held
in Contempt of Court and locked up until I apologised to the bastard,
so I kept quiet. My ambition is to launch an appeal, get my ex
Landlord to sell the flat (which has since gone up in value, wiping
out his previous alleged negative equity) then give me the money, and
get this Judge disbarred. I thought I saw him in a pub a few months
ago, but it was difficult to tell because he wasn't wearing his wig
and I felt sick about it. He drank a whole bottle of wine by himself
with a meal and paid with a Switch card, but I didn't manage to see
the name on it.
I would appreciate any suggestions or legal information about how to
deprive my ex Landlord of his lifestyle for at least 2 years 9 months,
cause disruption to his life for over 4 years, and permanently relieve
him of his flat as well as most of his belongings. These belongings
would include nearly all his photos, all his clothes apart from the
ones he was wearing at the time, all his mail, and all his CD's
because he stole these things from me. I want to drive him to despair,
then hopefully he'll kill himself, because this is what he made me
feel like doing.
--
Steve Smith
Richard Miller
Smith <roughc...@yahoo.co.uk> writes
>This is about a miscarriage of justice against me.
It's about a case that went against you. Whether it is a miscarriage or
not is not really for you to say.
>It's all to do with
>a criminal Landlord and a prejudiced County Court Judge.
This sort of assertion never looks good. It suggests that you have
already made up your mind that you are right and everyone else is wrong,
so you are not really approaching this matter with a view to responding
to advice that doesn't say exactly what you want to hear. I hope I am
wrong.
> If you are a
>Landlord then please don't bother reading this or at least don't reply
>telling me how you think Landlords can do whatever they like because
>it's not the Middle Ages, we have laws to protect tenants, these laws
>are democratic because Landlords are outnumbered by Tenants, I've
>heard it all before, and if you do then you'll be flamed. At the end
>of the day, no Landlord is forced to sign a Tenancy Agreement but they
>must abide by its terms. Tenants must also abide by the Tenancy
>Agreement, but if they don't, then the Landlord can take legal action,
>not illegal action, to evict them.
>
>I had no choice but to leave my first flat because that Landlord kept
>coming round without warning and demanding to come in, although by law
>he had to make appointments at least 24 hours in advance and I had the
>right to disagree and set a mutually convenient day and time. Most of
>the time this was to do with a faulty ballcock in my cistern which was
>spraying onto the back yard of the shop downstairs and onto the head
>of the shopkeeper when he went out to the toilet. Whenever this
>happened I had no indication until my Landlord came and banged on the
>door demanding to come in immediately.
Mutual convenience does not apply in the case of situations that need
urgent resolution, as this clearly did. The landlord was quite clearly
in the right and you were quite clearly in the wrong.
> It took nearly 5 years before I
>found out this was illegal, because the legal jargon covering this is
>"quiet possession and enjoyment", or in my Tenancy Agreement (on Oyez
>Stationery) "the Tenant may quietly possess and enjoy the property". I
>then had to wait another 2 years before the Landlord did this again
>before I could read my prepared speech to him laying down the law.
>This situation didn't really change, was giving me high blood pressure
>and could have led to a heart attack, so eventually I had to leave.
The landlord could quite properly have sued you for failing to allow
necessary access.
>
>After I moved into my next flat, things seemed to be OK, but
>eventually I realised the situation was even worse. It turned out that
>my new Landlord wasn't a proper Landlord at all. By "a proper
>Landlord" I mean someone whose main activity and income comes from
>being a Landlord.
So what?
>He had rented out the only flat he owned either as a
>scheme to help prevent it from being repossessed, or because he
>preferred to go off and live with a girlfriend or a series of
>girlfriends, but he was such a lying perjuring bastard that I don't
>know which one of these is true. If I had known this, then I wouldn't
>have touched the flat with a barge pole and would have preferred to be
>temporarily homeless for a few weeks until the right flat came along.
I can't see why. And if it was so important to you, why didn't you ask
and make enquiries?
>This would probably have been in a converted Solicitor's Office which
>I had viewed before. I knew it was a converted Solicitor's Office
>because it was local to where I was living and I'd considered using
>that Solicitor against my first Landlord. This also meant that it
>couldn't possibly be the Landlord's only home, because it was only
>just being turned into a home.
>
>A few weeks into the Tenancy I got a letter from Abbey National
>building society addressed to "The Occupier". This said that Mortgage
>Repossession Proceedings were underway and gave me the address where
>my Landlord was living. I felt sick and immediately phoned a Tenancy
>Relations Officer who had been advising me about my previous Landlord
>starting about 4 years before this. He said that if the building
>society did repossess the flat, then this meant it would be several
>months before I had to get out.
That is a matter of pure practicalities, not the state of the law. The
BS has an automatic right to get you out immediately if it has a right
to possession against your landlord and has not consented to the
tenancy.
> This would have been far better for me
>than what eventually happened. I didn't think I could afford to look
>for and move into another flat because I couldn't afford it. BTW, this
>means that Abbey National Building Society were fully aware of what my
>Landlord was doing and I later found out in Court that this is unusual
>because most Mortgage lenders don't allow their Mortgagees to rent out
>their properties.
"Being aware" and consenting are two entirely different things.
>
>A few months later I met my Landlord for the first time in the County
>Court reception. He introduced himself to me, and told me he'd just
>paid off nearly all the Mortgage Arrears. We went into what looked
>like a Judge's Chambers with a Solicitor for Abbey National. The
>Solicitor said that as nearly all the arrears had been paid he would
>like to drop the case and the Judge agreed.
Sounds like a reasonable solution.
>
>This Landlord is a
*****************************************************************
>.
Whoah! Slow down, matey, that is no way to get legal advice. Your
landlord is your landlord, and your personal opinion of him has no
bearing on your legal position. It does, however, mean that you have
just libelled him, probably entitling him to damages that would far
outweigh any damages you might be entitled to for any wrong you claim to
have suffered.
> He broke into the flat and said "You're
>just sitting on your fuckin' white arse living rent free" (I had some
>rent arrears).
So he was right.
> Later on (like the disgraced Reggae or Ragga artist
>Shabba Ranks) he called me a "Batty Boy", meaning queer cunt. After
>being forced out of the flat by Injunction Order
Who was forced out? What injunction order?
> he came to the door,
>ripped off my notice about having no callers without appointment due
>to what he had done and said "I'll slit your fuckin' throat! And you
>don't know me, you queer!" I'm not gay, but because I don't fit in
>with his ideas he thinks I am. After he broke in he told me about his
>previous activities as a squatter. While he was trespassing in the
>flat he opened my mail.
>
>I left the flat and took legal action to get him out. I returned after
>about 2 weeks to find he'd gone, but so had all the furniture, several
>boxes containing important papers, and the boiler had been sabotaged
>so I had no central heating or hot water.
>
>Later still, the Landlord started taking legal action to evict me, so
>this made me feel better, because I was convinced that he wasn't going
>to do anything illegal to me again and that I'd be able to leave there
>in an orderly way after finding a new flat.
Your story makes absolutely no sense here.
>
>Eventually, the Landlord sent an accomplice who had helped to harrass
>and burgle me before. He put the flat under siege, including
>physically cutting my phone line twice, removing a light bulb on the
>stairs, and disabling my satellite dish. Finally, he smashed the
>window in my front door, and shouted threats that he would kill me in
>about 2 days time if I hadn't left the building by then. I waited
>about half an hour before going out to get to the Police Station or a
>phone, then he suddenly appeared, mugged me for my keys and beat me up
>while shouting hate crime abuse.
And I presume you reported all these crimes to the police immediately?
>
>After this I went to a safe house in the middle of nowhere. It was my
>Mum's place. I planned on staying there for 2-3 days so my Landlord
>would reoccupy the flat in breach of Injunction Order, then the Police
>were supposed to go there and arrest him for setting foot in the flat,
>as well as interfering with my belongings there. About 24 hours after
>arriving at my Mum's place I got a phone call from the Police saying
>that they had allowed the flat to be taken over and would stand by and
>let me be burgled. This meant I had been forced into exile and lost
>most of my lifestyle. I was in exile from civilisation for 2 years 9
>months.
OK, now I know for sure that you are either a twat or a troll. How can
you have lost two years nine months of your lifestyle when you so
clearly need to get a life?
--
Richard Miller
Steve Walker
> In message <462d6b12.04031...@posting.google.com>, Steve
> Smith <roughc...@yahoo.co.uk> writes
>> After this I went to a safe house in the middle of nowhere. It was my
>> Mum's place. I planned on staying there for 2-3 days so my Landlord
>> would reoccupy the flat in breach of Injunction Order, then the
>> Police were supposed to go there and arrest him for setting foot in
>> the flat, as well as interfering with my belongings there. About 24
>> hours after arriving at my Mum's place I got a phone call from the
>> Police saying that they had allowed the flat to be taken over and
>> would stand by and let me be burgled. This meant I had been forced
>> into exile and lost most of my lifestyle. I was in exile from
>> civilisation for 2 years 9 months.
>
> OK, now I know for sure that you are either a twat or a troll. How can
> you have lost two years nine months of your lifestyle when you so
> clearly need to get a life?
I sense that you're losing patience here Richard - it's probably only
obvious to those who know you well and can read the subtle signs, but
there's definitely a hint of irritation peeping through....
ROFLMAO!
Anon Poster
I was wondering at what point the penny would drop. I'm surprised that
Richard posted a reply at all, but I'm glad he did - that was a laugh!
Steve Smith
> In message <462d6b12.04031...@posting.google.com>, Steve
> Smith <roughc...@yahoo.co.uk> writes
> >This is about a miscarriage of justice against me.
>
> It's about a case that went against you. Whether it is a miscarriage or
> not is not really for you to say.
>
I don't agree with that, or the rest of your reply. You are probably
an evil criminal Landlord yourself, or you've never been in the
position of having to rent a flat, or you've never bothered to move
out of your parents' place at all.
> >It's all to do with
> >a criminal Landlord and a prejudiced County Court Judge.
>
> This sort of assertion never looks good. It suggests that you have
> already made up your mind that you are right and everyone else is wrong,
> so you are not really approaching this matter with a view to responding
> to advice that doesn't say exactly what you want to hear. I hope I am
> wrong.
>
The Landlord breached the Tenancy Agreement on various points and the
penalties for this include fines totalling thousands of Pounds as well
as one or more prison sentences.
> > If you are a
> >Landlord then please don't bother reading this or at least don't reply
> >telling me how you think Landlords can do whatever they like because
> >it's not the Middle Ages, we have laws to protect tenants, these laws
> >are democratic because Landlords are outnumbered by Tenants, I've
> >heard it all before, and if you do then you'll be flamed. At the end
> >of the day, no Landlord is forced to sign a Tenancy Agreement but they
> >must abide by its terms. Tenants must also abide by the Tenancy
> >Agreement, but if they don't, then the Landlord can take legal action,
> >not illegal action, to evict them.
> >
> >I had no choice but to leave my first flat because that Landlord kept
> >coming round without warning and demanding to come in, although by law
> >he had to make appointments at least 24 hours in advance and I had the
> >right to disagree and set a mutually convenient day and time. Most of
> >the time this was to do with a faulty ballcock in my cistern which was
> >spraying onto the back yard of the shop downstairs and onto the head
> >of the shopkeeper when he went out to the toilet. Whenever this
> >happened I had no indication until my Landlord came and banged on the
> >door demanding to come in immediately.
>
> Mutual convenience does not apply in the case of situations that need
> urgent resolution, as this clearly did. The landlord was quite clearly
> in the right and you were quite clearly in the wrong.
>
>
This situation never needed urgent resolution, because it was a leak,
not a fire or a flood. The Landlord always took at least a few days to
sort it out after being told by the shopkeeper. Before he contacted
his plumber he should have phoned *me* to get a list of days and times
when it would be convenient, to help make a mutually convenient
appointment. He never bothered to do this, probably because he was too
miserly. I got this advice from a council Tenancy Relations Officer,
so who do you think you are to say you know better than him?
> > It took nearly 5 years before I
> >found out this was illegal, because the legal jargon covering this is
> >"quiet possession and enjoyment", or in my Tenancy Agreement (on Oyez
> >Stationery) "the Tenant may quietly possess and enjoy the property". I
> >then had to wait another 2 years before the Landlord did this again
> >before I could read my prepared speech to him laying down the law.
> >This situation didn't really change, was giving me high blood pressure
> >and could have led to a heart attack, so eventually I had to leave.
>
> The landlord could quite properly have sued you for failing to allow
> necessary access.
> >
No he couldn't! I didn't say he couldn't come in at all, I only said
he must make an appointment instead of just turning up out of the
blue, demanding to come in immediately.
> >After I moved into my next flat, things seemed to be OK, but
> >eventually I realised the situation was even worse. It turned out that
> >my new Landlord wasn't a proper Landlord at all. By "a proper
> >Landlord" I mean someone whose main activity and income comes from
> >being a Landlord.
>
> So what?
>
This wasn't what I expected.
> >He had rented out the only flat he owned either as a
> >scheme to help prevent it from being repossessed, or because he
> >preferred to go off and live with a girlfriend or a series of
> >girlfriends, but he was such a lying perjuring bastard that I don't
> >know which one of these is true. If I had known this, then I wouldn't
> >have touched the flat with a barge pole and would have preferred to be
> >temporarily homeless for a few weeks until the right flat came along.
>
> I can't see why. And if it was so important to you, why didn't you ask
> and make enquiries?
>
I was on the verge of homelessness. The Letting Agency didn't know it
was the only flat he owned and it seems that Letting Agencies don't
have to find out if this is the case, or even if it's a Council Flat
being illegally let out.
> >This would probably have been in a converted Solicitor's Office which
> >I had viewed before. I knew it was a converted Solicitor's Office
> >because it was local to where I was living and I'd considered using
> >that Solicitor against my first Landlord. This also meant that it
> >couldn't possibly be the Landlord's only home, because it was only
> >just being turned into a home.
> >
> >A few weeks into the Tenancy I got a letter from Abbey National
> >building society addressed to "The Occupier". This said that Mortgage
> >Repossession Proceedings were underway and gave me the address where
> >my Landlord was living. I felt sick and immediately phoned a Tenancy
> >Relations Officer who had been advising me about my previous Landlord
> >starting about 4 years before this. He said that if the building
> >society did repossess the flat, then this meant it would be several
> >months before I had to get out.
>
> That is a matter of pure practicalities, not the state of the law. The
> BS has an automatic right to get you out immediately if it has a right
> to possession against your landlord and has not consented to the
> tenancy.
>
Well it never came to that anyway. You're probably wrong about the
Building Society having the right to get me out immediately, because
you were wrong about the points listed above.
> > This would have been far better for me
> >than what eventually happened. I didn't think I could afford to look
> >for and move into another flat because I couldn't afford it. BTW, this
> >means that Abbey National Building Society were fully aware of what my
> >Landlord was doing and I later found out in Court that this is unusual
> >because most Mortgage lenders don't allow their Mortgagees to rent out
> >their properties.
>
> "Being aware" and consenting are two entirely different things.
>
Surely this means that they had consented or that no consent was
required, otherwise they would have repossessed the flat for breach of
the Mortgage Agreement.
> >
> >A few months later I met my Landlord for the first time in the County
> >Court reception. He introduced himself to me, and told me he'd just
> >paid off nearly all the Mortgage Arrears. We went into what looked
> >like a Judge's Chambers with a Solicitor for Abbey National. The
> >Solicitor said that as nearly all the arrears had been paid he would
> >like to drop the case and the Judge agreed.
>
> Sounds like a reasonable solution.
>
> >
It was, but I wish they *had* repossessed it because then I wouldn't
have been illegally evicted.
> >This Landlord is a
> *****************************************************************
> >.
>
> Whoah! Slow down, matey, that is no way to get legal advice. Your
> landlord is your landlord, and your personal opinion of him has no
> bearing on your legal position. It does, however, mean that you have
> just libelled him, probably entitling him to damages that would far
> outweigh any damages you might be entitled to for any wrong you claim to
> have suffered.
>
He is my *ex* Landlord. It's not my personal opinion, it's the law. I
haven't libelled him, because I haven't mentioned his name.
> > He broke into the flat and said "You're
> >just sitting on your fuckin' white arse living rent free" (I had some
> >rent arrears).
>
> So he was right.
>
He wasn't right. It's perfectly legal for a Tenant to move into a flat
after paying the advance rent and deposit, then never pay any more
rent. I've never, ever done that though. I don't know how some people
get away with it. Perhaps they don't, but it's propaganda made up by
evil Landlords.
> > Later on (like the disgraced Reggae or Ragga artist
> >Shabba Ranks) he called me a "Batty Boy", meaning queer cunt. After
> >being forced out of the flat by Injunction Order
>
> Who was forced out? What injunction order?
>
The Landlord was forced out of the flat he had illegally reoccupied.
He was forced to leave by Injunction Order.
> > he came to the door,
> >ripped off my notice about having no callers without appointment due
> >to what he had done and said "I'll slit your fuckin' throat! And you
> >don't know me, you queer!" I'm not gay, but because I don't fit in
> >with his ideas he thinks I am. After he broke in he told me about his
> >previous activities as a squatter. While he was trespassing in the
> >flat he opened my mail.
> >
> >I left the flat and took legal action to get him out. I returned after
> >about 2 weeks to find he'd gone, but so had all the furniture, several
> >boxes containing important papers, and the boiler had been sabotaged
> >so I had no central heating or hot water.
> >
> >Later still, the Landlord started taking legal action to evict me, so
> >this made me feel better, because I was convinced that he wasn't going
> >to do anything illegal to me again and that I'd be able to leave there
> >in an orderly way after finding a new flat.
>
> Your story makes absolutely no sense here.
> >
I don't understand why you say it doesn't make sense.
> >Eventually, the Landlord sent an accomplice who had helped to harrass
> >and burgle me before. He put the flat under siege, including
> >physically cutting my phone line twice, removing a light bulb on the
> >stairs, and disabling my satellite dish. Finally, he smashed the
> >window in my front door, and shouted threats that he would kill me in
> >about 2 days time if I hadn't left the building by then. I waited
> >about half an hour before going out to get to the Police Station or a
> >phone, then he suddenly appeared, mugged me for my keys and beat me up
> >while shouting hate crime abuse.
>
> And I presume you reported all these crimes to the police immediately?
> >
I didn't report *all* these crimes to the Police immediately, due to
my past dealings with them and their lack of action. I immediately
reported the Landlord when he first came to the door without an
appointment, rang the doorbell, started banging on the door, then
shouting "Open this fuckin' door". After he broke in with an
accomplice I was prevented from phoning anyone because they'd have
grabbed the phone and kicked my head in. The next day they made me
phone my Mum to extort money out of her for rent arrears. During the
conversation my Mum asked me if what he'd done was illegal. I said it
was and she asked if I'd phoned the Police. I said "I can't, he's
*here*!" She asked if I'd like her to do it, so I said yes. The Police
turned up several hours later, made their excuses and left. After
being mugged I reported it immediately, but no further action was
taken.
> >After this I went to a safe house in the middle of nowhere. It was my
> >Mum's place. I planned on staying there for 2-3 days so my Landlord
> >would reoccupy the flat in breach of Injunction Order, then the Police
> >were supposed to go there and arrest him for setting foot in the flat,
> >as well as interfering with my belongings there. About 24 hours after
> >arriving at my Mum's place I got a phone call from the Police saying
> >that they had allowed the flat to be taken over and would stand by and
> >let me be burgled. This meant I had been forced into exile and lost
> >most of my lifestyle. I was in exile from civilisation for 2 years 9
> >months.
>
> OK, now I know for sure that you are either a twat or a troll. How can
> you have lost two years nine months of your lifestyle when you so
> clearly need to get a life?
YOU are the twat or troll. I'll find out as much as I can about you
and why you're making these evil bigotted comments against law abiding
Tenants. Before I was exiled I used to do lots of things including
going for nights out, doing night classes, choosing which supermarket
to shop at, buying a Doner Kebab takeaway, talking to various people
in the street or in shops or pubs, and joining clubs or organisations.
After being exiled to the middle of nowhere there were no nights out
worth going to in that area, the lack of public transport and my lack
of money meant no night classes and no choice of supermarket unless my
Mum was well enough to drive, there was only one Kebab shop locally
which could only be accessed for about an hour per day because they
opened about an hour before the last bus back from the town to the
stinking village, and the locals were obviously in favour of living in
a rural area so that meant I couldn't fraternise with them, otherwise
they'd have tried to brainwash me into becoming a Country Bumpkin. The
only things I had left of my former life were alcohol, satellite TV,
and Internet access. One girl at the local supermarket fancied me like
mad. She would have been one of my ideal women if she'd been a city
dweller, but I knew that no matter what she looked like she was a
Country Bumpkin who would try to brainwash me into staying in that
area. If she turned up in London, then I'd talk to her, but it's not
likely she will turn up in London.
--
Steve Smith
Jack Nichols
this closing argument for Martha, Diva Steweart?
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury. Martha Stewart is not guilty. You
have heard the evidence, there is no need to rehash. But let us assume
that she is guilty. What is the very worst that she has done?
Prosecutor James Comey said that this case is about lying to
investigators and to investors. Prosecutor James Comey is absolutely
right. If this government protected investors, Martha Stewart would be
free to protect their interests.
Martha Stewart was not truthful to investigators because they falsely
claimed that she was guilty of securities fraud. Having acted like it
was a crime to receive a casual stock tip, Martha Stewart lied because
pompous Prosecutors who feed off the generosity of the Federal
Government, were threatening to destroy her life. Ms. Stewart is not a
fool. A stockbroker in her earlier life, Martha Stewart clearly
understood the rules against insider trading, so when her stockbroker
called with a "great tip" she knew that it was possible to allege that
she was committing securities fraud by engaging in illegal insider
trading and she naturally lied to avoid the perception, and that is
not a conspiracy.
If your broker at Merrill Lynch called you and told you that insiders
in a stock you owned were trying to sell their shares, what would you
do? Would you be guilty of committing securities fraud if you sold
your shares? That is what the government would like to suggest and
under these circumstances, I would advise you to do whatever it takes,
to protect yourself from the conspiratorial rants that improperly
threaten your life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Now I know that you people have absolutely no idea who Martha Stewart
is. You have absolutely no idea what it takes to be married to a
billion dollar empire full of jobs and taxable income. You have no
idea that when Martha Stewart rejects the conspiratorial rants of the
Federal Government, her misdemeanor is about as significant as lying
about sex. That is what Martha Stewart essentially did, and if any of
you think that you would advise your children to plead guilty to
committing securities fraud when they are innocent, then Martha
Stewart's lies are criminally material. We live in a world where
perception is called reality, and who can blame Martha Stewart for
lying about the perception, to avoid the opportunity to promote a
false reality? Make no mistake about it, that is exactly what Martha
Stewart did, and everybody knows it.
Martha Stewart is not being charged with insider trading because she
is not guilty. She is being charged with "obstruction of justice" and
"conspiracy" because she refused to corroborate the fantasies of the
Federal Government. As the head of Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia
Martha Stewart does not even have time for her own family, let alone
the bizarre, preposterous suggestion that she engaged a conspiracy to
pocket a nickel.
Clearly, when law enforcement falsely claimed that Martha Stewart was
guilty of fraudulent, insider training, Martha Stewart was induced to
lie, and that is called entrapment. That is illegal, and if Martha
Stewart is guilty for refusing to cooperate with corrupt Prosecutors,
then we need to re-write the law. In the meantime, Martha Stewart has
not engaged in any behavior that can even remotely be called a
criminal offense.
The Wall Street Journal is the sternest of critics when it comes to
the world of business, and to quote directly:
"With regard to the now-dismissed securities fraud charge, it's worth
noting that ever since the feds intervened to "protect" Miss Stewart's
shareholders, their stock has been languishing. On the news Friday
that the albatross had been lifted, these holders watched their stock
rise nearly 11%, closing at a level it hadn't seen since June 2002.
Which begs the question: Who hurt the shareholders of Martha Stewart
Living more: Martha, or the prosecuting U.S. Attorney? The market's
already given its answer."
If the Wall street Journal suggests that the prosecuting attorney is
in fact the actual villain, what makes you think that Martha Stewart
is guilty of any criminal conduct? If you want to restore faith in
Wall Street, what makes you think that the Wall Street Journal does
not?
Make no mistake about it, ladies and gentlemen, Martha Stewart is not
guilty, and that is not a matter of my opinion. It is a matter of the
fact that you do not have the capacity to prove otherwise.
A woman who employs thousands and generates taxable profits should be
applauded, not condemned.
Unlike all the crooks who have milked small investors of billions of
dollars and still enjoy their freedom, Martha Stewart did not cook the
books of her company, she did not treat Martha Stewart Living
Omnimedia as her personal piggy bank, she did not run her company into
the ground, she did not lie to shareholders, employees, analysts and
pension fund managers, and she does not deserve to be bullied by
overreaching prosecutors. After all, apples are not oranges, and if
prosecutors do not recognize the difference between ordinary business
dealings and criminal behavior, what makes them think they deserve
anybody's respect?
The Defense rests.
Announce YOUR verdict, here !
Richard Miller
<spam...@beeb.net> writes
Oh dear, and I tried so hard to conceal my true feelings. :-)
--
Richard Miller
Paul C. Dickie
<ric...@seasalter0.demon.co.uk> writes
>In message <462d6b12.04031...@posting.google.com>, Steve
>Smith <roughc...@yahoo.co.uk> writes
>>This is about a miscarriage of justice against me.
>
>It's about a case that went against you. Whether it is a miscarriage or
>not is not really for you to say.
>
>>It's all to do with
>>a criminal Landlord and a prejudiced County Court Judge.
>
>This sort of assertion never looks good.
But at least he hasn't (yet) claimed that it was all due to a conspiracy
against him by Thargian Jew-Masons from the planet Quacko. There may
still be some cause for hope...
>It suggests that you have already made up your mind that you are right
>and everyone else is wrong,
And where have we seen that before?
>>This Landlord is a
>*****************************************************************
>
>Whoah! Slow down, matey, that is no way to get legal advice. Your
>landlord is your landlord, and your personal opinion of him has no
>bearing on your legal position. It does, however, mean that you have
>just libelled him, probably entitling him to damages that would far
>outweigh any damages you might be entitled to for any wrong you claim to
>have suffered.
How can he have libelled someone that he neither named nor gave
sufficient information about to allow someone to guess who it was
supposed to be?
>> He broke into the flat and said "You're just sitting on your fuckin'
>>white arse living rent free" (I had some rent arrears).
>
>So he was right.
Unless the tenant was standing at the time...
>>Eventually, the Landlord sent an accomplice who had helped to harrass
>>and burgle me before. He put the flat under siege, including
>>physically cutting my phone line twice, removing a light bulb on the
>>stairs, and disabling my satellite dish. Finally, he smashed the
>>window in my front door, and shouted threats that he would kill me in
>>about 2 days time if I hadn't left the building by then. I waited
>>about half an hour before going out to get to the Police Station or a
>>phone, then he suddenly appeared, mugged me for my keys and beat me up
>>while shouting hate crime abuse.
>
>And I presume you reported all these crimes to the police immediately?
But aren't they all in the pay of the landlords or their JMF masters?
>>After this I went to a safe house in the middle of nowhere. It was my
>>Mum's place. I planned on staying there for 2-3 days so my Landlord
>>would reoccupy the flat in breach of Injunction Order, then the Police
>>were supposed to go there and arrest him for setting foot in the flat,
>>as well as interfering with my belongings there. About 24 hours after
>>arriving at my Mum's place I got a phone call from the Police saying
>>that they had allowed the flat to be taken over and would stand by and
>>let me be burgled. This meant I had been forced into exile and lost
>>most of my lifestyle. I was in exile from civilisation for 2 years 9
>>months.
>
>OK, now I know for sure that you are either a twat or a troll.
^^^^^^
Is that better or worse than his being a "Batty Boy"? (And I understood
that curious expression was the work of the alleged entertainer Ali-G,
rather than some alleged singer by the name of Shabby Ranks.)
>How can you have lost two years nine months of your lifestyle when
>you so clearly need to get a life?
Assuming that his mother does not reside "away from civilisation", one
might wonder if that was the time he spent in gaol?
--
< Paul >
Paul C. Dickie
Smith <roughc...@yahoo.co.uk> writes
>Richard Miller <ric...@seasalter0.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:<$mxnWyCgr
>4TA...@seasalter0.demon.co.uk>...
>> In message <462d6b12.04031...@posting.google.com>, Steve
>> Smith <roughc...@yahoo.co.uk> writes
>> >This is about a miscarriage of justice against me.
>>
>> It's about a case that went against you. Whether it is a miscarriage or
>> not is not really for you to say.
>
>I don't agree with that, or the rest of your reply.
I'd have been astounded if you had agreed with any of it.
>You are probably an evil criminal Landlord yourself, or you've never
>been in the position of having to rent a flat, or you've never bothered
>to move out of your parents' place at all.
NNTP-Posting-Host: 82.35.53.101
Not Kingston Internet. Phew!
>> That is a matter of pure practicalities, not the state of the law. The
>> BS has an automatic right to get you out immediately if it has a right
>> to possession against your landlord and has not consented to the
>> tenancy.
>
>Well it never came to that anyway. You're probably wrong about the
>Building Society having the right to get me out immediately, because
>you were wrong about the points listed above.
Richard is a lawyer. You patently are not.
Whether you're a twat, troll, "Batty boy" or simply an idiot, I do
believe I'd prefer others to decide.
>> > This would have been far better for me
>> >than what eventually happened. I didn't think I could afford to look
>> >for and move into another flat because I couldn't afford it. BTW, this
>> >means that Abbey National Building Society were fully aware of what my
>> >Landlord was doing and I later found out in Court that this is unusual
>> >because most Mortgage lenders don't allow their Mortgagees to rent out
>> >their properties.
>>
>> "Being aware" and consenting are two entirely different things.
>
>Surely this means that they had consented or that no consent was
>required, otherwise they would have repossessed the flat for breach of
>the Mortgage Agreement.
No.
>> OK, now I know for sure that you are either a twat or a troll. How can
>> you have lost two years nine months of your lifestyle when you so
>> clearly need to get a life?
>
>YOU are the twat or troll. I'll find out as much as I can about you
Oh, really?
>they'd have tried to brainwash me into becoming a Country Bumpkin.
Rather than an Urban Bumpkin? Yes, I can see how you might resent that.
>The only things I had left of my former life were alcohol, satellite
>TV, and Internet access. One girl at the local supermarket fancied me
>like mad. She would have been one of my ideal women if she'd been a
>city dweller, but I knew that no matter what she looked like she was a
>Country Bumpkin who would try to brainwash me into staying in that
>area. If she turned up in London, then I'd talk to her, but it's not
>likely she will turn up in London.
For her sake, I sincerely hope she never does.
--
< Paul >