DEFENCE STATEMENT

(Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996, section 5 & 6;
Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 (Defence Disclosure Time
Limits) Regulations 2011; Criminal Procedure Rules, rule 15.4)

This is my 3rd defence
statement

WITNESS
STATEMENT

Criminal
Procedure Rules, r27. 2; Criminal Justice Act 1967, s. 9; Magistrates’
Courts Act 1930, s.5B

URN

Statement of: Mr. Simon Paul Cordell

Age if under 18: Over (if over 18
insert ‘over 18')
Occupation: News
Reporter!

This statement (Consisting of 21
Page{s) each signed by me) is true to the best of
my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in
evidence, I shall
be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it anything which I know to be false, or do not believe to be true.

Dated: 18/11/2025

(Signed)

(On
behalf of Mr. Simon Paul CORDELL) (Date Signed) 03/12/2025

·
Unlawful Actions Taken Against Me by Rebbeca O’ Hare and Co!

a)
The unlawful actions taken against me by the occupier  Rebbeca O’ Hare of 115 Burncroft
Avenue, and her collaborators. These persons illegal actions were achieved
through coordinated setups, false allegations, and procedural manipulation,
all of which are documented and exhibited through the following evidence:

·
Exhibits 1, 2, 3, 4, 5:  Evidence Covering the Years 2006 to
2011

a)
We hereby submit the Claimant’s “Exhibits
1, 2, 3, 4, 5” in support of these court proceedings. These
Exhibits all  contain contemporaneous
entries spanning the years “2006 till 2025” and are
presented as evidence for the following reasons:

1+    Exhibits
1: -- These are the Emails: that my mother
sent on my behalf due to me going to her and explaining what my neighbors
were doing to me illegally rather than going to their front doors.

2+    Exhibits
2: -- Contains two Enfield Council Report Forms
that both initiated Mr. Simon Paul Cordells Diary to be developed.

*
The First Form given to him to fill in was: “The
Enfield-Council-Incident Diary-Received.pdf”

*
The Second Form given to
him was: “The Enfield Insurance
Incident report form 2013 - 2020.pdf”

b)
The First Form:
The
official incident diary form provided by the Enfield Council to us was too
restrictive in its layout. The small boxes limited me to “Brief legal
Notes,” which prevented me from recording the full details of each
incident so, to ensure accuracy, context, and a complete record of events, I
was forced to create my own diary alongside the council’s form, but
they refused to accept it after I put them in receipt of it allowing Rebbeca
O ‘ Hare and Co to continue till date.

c)
The Second Form: this is what
the wood green Police Skipper / custody Officer keeps using to say I got
mental health issues behind my back, in his fabricated notes. The Police
Skipper I am referring to is the officer who has lost all the past cases
against me when helping The Enfield Council label me as the perpetrator and
them as the victims when it’s the other way around as Exhibit 1,
emails prove as we reported them for months prior to the swap.

1+    Exhibits
3: -- The Diary: these files document the Claimant’s lived
experiences, interactions, and events relevant to the case during the
complete period.

2+    Exhibits
4: -- Housing Transfer and Decorating Files

3+    Exhibits
5: -- All Case Original Court Application Case Files

4+    Exhibits
6: -- 2014-Extracts-from-Diary

1+1 Exhibits
1: --

*         Weblink 1 To Digital Copy: <Dir> 06. 06-03-2019 Emails Attachments

*         Weblink 2 To Digital Copy: <Dir> https://everyoneloginto.me/03.%20R-2014-and-Onwards/06.%2006-03-2019%20Emails%20Attachments/

2+1 Exhibits
2: --

*
Weblink 1 To Digital Copy:
<Dir> 11. Enfield Insurance and the Incident report forms

*
Weblink 2 To Digital Copy:
<Dir> https://everyoneloginto.me/03.%20R-2014-and-Onwards/11.%20Enfield%20Insurance%20Incident%20report%20form/

3+1 Exhibits
3: --

*         Weblink 1 To Digital Copy: <Dir> 08. Diary 19-10-25

*         Weblink 2 To Digital Copy: <Dir> https://everyoneloginto.me/08.%20Diary%2019-10-25/

4+1 Exhibits
4: --

*
Weblink 1 To Digital Copy:
<Dir> 05. Housing Transfer
and Decorating Files

*
Weblink 2 To Digital Copy:
<Dir> https://everyoneloginto.me/03.%20R-2014-and-Onwards/05.%20HousingTransfer%20and%20DecoratingFiles/

5+1 Exhibits
5: --

*         Weblink 1 To Digital Copy: <Dir> 07. All Case Original Court Application Case Files

*         Weblink 2 To Digital Copy: <Dir> https://everyoneloginto.me/03.%20R-2014-and-Onwards/07.%20All%20Case%20Original%20Court%20Application%20Case%20Files/

6+1 Exhibits
6: --

*         Weblink 1 To Digital Copy: <Dir> 01. 2014-Extracts-from-Diary

*         Weblink 2 To Digital Copy: <Dir> https://everyoneloginto.me/03.%20R-2014-and-Onwards/01.%202014-Extracts-from-Diary/

d)
It provides a chronological account that
supports the Claimant’s assertions and timeline.

e)
It reflects the Claimant’s state of
mind, observations, and responses to key incidents under dispute.

f)
It serves as a primary source of factual
reference, unaltered and maintained by the Claimant throughout the years in
question.

01

·
Accused as liable

*
Doctors!

*
Enfield Council!

*
Met Police Force!

*
The listed
occupants apart from 119

01.
The reason that
we have adduced this exhibit into these proceedings is as listed below!

Evidence: Exhibit 7 /

This is a
picture of the front layout of Burncroft Avenue

Purpose of the Image:

This
diagram supports my case by:

·
Documenting who lives where in relation to “Flat
115 Rebecca O’Hare’s flat.”

·
Clarifying visibility and access points,
especially relevant to her claims about seeing or being seen.

·
Establishing physical layout for forensic
contradiction of her timeline.

Breakdown of Labels and Their Significance:

Annotation

Description

Relevance

BATHROOM & BEDROOM WINDOWS 115

Rebecca
O’Hare’s flat

1.    Rebecca O’Hare (Flat
115,)
illegally sublets the council flat, breaching tenancy agreements.

a)    Her flat’s windows
(bathroom & bedroom) are central to her false claims about visibility
and movement.

b)    This map disproves her
disapprove ability to see or interact safely as stated, while, exposing her
harassment and intimidation against me.

c)    The image supports the
pattern of her illegal occupation and targeted victimization, towards me,
undermining her credibility and demonstrating systemic failure to address
her misconduct.

Annotation

Description

Relevance

BURNCROFT AVENUE CORRIDOR WINDOW 2ND FLOOR STAIRS

Communal stairwell
window

1.    This is in between the
second and third floor but easily accessible for assessing whether she
could have seen me or vice versa.

Annotation

Description

Relevance

JOHN IRVING RENTED FLAT BATHROOM & BEDROOM
WINDOWS 117

Another
resident’s flat

1.    Statement:
Flat 117 Burncroft Avenue – Council-Enabled Harassment, Fabricated
Legal Process, and Evidentiary Breakdown

·
Flat 117 Burncroft Avenue, originally rented
by John Irving, has been sublet to Enfield Council through a private
intermediary, “Ashdale Services Limited,” a
residential accommodation management company. Ashdale, in collaboration
with the council, places temporary occupants in this flat under statutory
frameworks such as the Housing Act. These placements have consistently
involved individuals who have participated in sustained harassment,
intimidation, and coordinated attacks against me.

·
The flat itself has been deliberately
neglected and weaponized. Its creaking floors and structural damage are not
incidental, they are used by occupants to create psychological disruption.
Despite repeated reports, the council has failed to intervene, allowing the
flat to operate as a “Torture Room,” with
its occupants acting as tools to destabilize my life and dismiss my right
to live peacefully.

·
This abuse is not isolated. “Ashdale
Services Limited,” another property enforcement
company, issued notices permitting random inspections and threatening
eviction for damages but yet they have ignored the deliberate misuse of the
property by council-placed individuals, as I reported them or as they
should have been inspected. This dual failure by both Ashdale and Enfield
Council has enabled a system of abuse, surveillance, and environmental harm
that violates my rights and safety.

·
In one particularly egregious incident, “John
Irving Attempted To Break Into My Home,” falsely claiming to
be a plumber. I immediately reported this to a council officer named “Lemmy”
and recorded the interaction. Instead of investigating or protecting me,
Lemmy met with John Irving and together they produced a “Fabricated
Statement” designed to cover up the break-in attempt. This
false statement was later used in a possession order against me.

·
However, due to the strength of my evidence,
including recordings, surveillance logs, and witness accounts they could
not bring the cases to trial and the Housing possession order cases, and
two injunction order cases were all lost. Yet the authorities continued to
trap me in an “Illegal And Abusive Legal Process,”
imposing conditions based on “Fraudulent And Fabricated Claims.”
These actions were designed to set me up, to keep me confined within a
system that ignored due process and enabled ongoing harm.

·
The council’s failure to act on
tenancy violations, their complicity in enabling harassment, and their
reliance on falsified documentation all point to a coordinated effort to
undermine my existence. The misuse of Flat 117 and surrounding properties
has had a direct and measurable impact on my health, safety, and legal
standing.

Evidence: Exhibit 8 /

·
Weblink 1:
<Dir> This just come out of
117 3rd set of ten in 2 years

·
Weblink 2:
https://everyoneloginto.me/03.%20R-2014-and-Onwards/This%20just%20come%20out%20of%20117%203rd%20set%20of%20ten%20in%202%20years/

Annotation

Description

Relevance

DEBRA ANDREWS BATHROOM & BEDROOM WINDOWS 113

Flat directly above
Mine!

Timeline of
Occupants and Actions from Flat 113 Burncroft Avenue

1. Debra Andrews – Initial Disruption
Phase:

Role: First
known hostile occupant of Flat 113.

Actions:

a.    She
initiated noise-based harassment, deliberately targeting my rest and work
hours to disrupt my daily life.

She colluded with other residents to create a
hostile and intimidating living environment.

Her behavior set the foundation for a continuing
pattern of provocation and harassment originating from this flat.

Furthermore, government officials exploited her
vulnerabilities, including her cholesterol and mental health history, the
loss of custody of her three children, and her struggle with alcoholism, to
fabricate false records against me. They used this to produce misleading
reports and misrepresentations of my conduct to themselves, the authorities
as part of an illegal campaign to attack me and discredit me.

1+    Initiated “Noise-Based
Harassment,” particularly targeting my rest and work hours.

2+    She  “Colluded with Other
Residents” to create a hostile living environment.

3+    Her
behaviour laid the groundwork for what would become a “Pattern of
Provocation” from this flat.

4+    She was
involved and used by Government Officials illegally to attack me they used
her cholesterol mental health history and prior 3 children taken away from
her as well as alcoholism dependency in creating “False History
Against Me Were They Developed a Fake Record of False Reporting and
Misrepresentation of My Conduct” to authorities.

Followed Then
Afterwards By: --

2. George Quinton
– Escalation and Surveillance:

Role:
Successor to Debra Andrews.

Actions:

a.
Introduced “Surveillance-Like
Behaviour,” including monitoring my movements and
interactions while mentally and physically attacking me.

b.
He deliberately victimised me and copycatted
the prior occupant.

c.
George Quinton – Escalation and
Deliberate Neglect: While Debra Andrews was still residing in the
flat, my mother and I repeatedly wrote to the council about the poor and
unsafe condition of the floors. When Debra moved out, the council placed
builders into the flat and then assigned George Quinton as the new
occupant. The council claimed that all repair work had been completed, but
this was false, they had only been pretending to replace the floor. When
George allowed my mother and me into the flat, we discovered that the floor
had been cut into numerous uneven pieces, resembling the piano keys in the
movie Big that
Tom Hanks famously jumps on. The nails were improperly fixed, especially at
the corners, creating multiple trip hazards on each section of the floor.
This dangerous flooring was deliberately left in this hazardous state,
seemingly to enable George to continue copying Debra’s pattern of
harassment and victimisation. The council’s failure to properly
repair the flat not only ignored safety standards but actively facilitated
ongoing abuse against me.

d.
His tenure marked a shift from passive
disruption to “Active Targeting.”

Followed Then
Afterwards By: --

3. Ambrose –
Tactical Provocation:

Role:
Occupant following George Quinton.

Actions: Pattern of Council-Enabled Harassment: Debra
Andrews, George Quinton, and Ambrose Atoro!

Debra Andrews –
Foundation of Provocation:

d)  Debra
Andrews was the initial occupant whose behavior laid the groundwork for
sustained harassment.

a.
She initiated “Noise-Based
Attacks,” deliberately targeting my rest and work hours.

b.
She “Colluded
With Other Residents” to create a hostile living environment.

c.
Her conduct established
a “Template Of Provocation” that subsequent
occupants replicated.

d.
Critically, Debra was “Used
Illegally By Government Officials” to attack me. They
exploited her vulnerabilities, including her mental health history,
cholesterol issues, alcoholism, and the loss of custody of her three
children, to fabricate a false narrative against me.

e.
This manipulation led
to “False Reporting And Misrepresentation Of My Conduct,”
forming the basis of a fraudulent record used to justify further legal
action.

Followed Then
Afterwards By: --

George
Quinton – Escalation, Surveillance, and Council Negligence

·
George Quinton succeeded Debra and escalated the
harassment.

·
George Quinton was placed in the flat following
Debra Andrews, continuing and escalating the pattern of harassment against
me. His behavior included:

a.
Surveillance-Like
Monitoring: tracking my movements and interactions.

b.
Mental And Physical
Intimidation: including deliberate
noise-based disruption during legal preparation.

c.
False Reporting And
Misrepresentation Of My Conduct:
submitted to authorities to reinforce a hostile narrative.

d.
Exploitation Of Unsafe
Housing Conditions:
including a deliberately fragmented floor left unrepaired by the council.
When my mother and I were later allowed into the flat, we documented the
flooring, cut into uneven sections with improperly fixed nails, creating
trip hazards and psychological stress.

·
George’s conduct was not isolated, it was
shaped by a vulnerable personal history. He suffers from Mental
Health Issues, stemming in part from the Loss Of His Mother
At A Young Age, which left him emotionally destabilized. This
trauma contributed to his susceptibility to manipulation and erratic
behavior. There are also serious allegations concerning Sexuality
Exploitation During His Youth, which may have further
impacted on his psychological state.

·
Despite his known vulnerabilities, Enfield
Council Placed George In A Flat Already Associated With Harassment And
Provocation, without safeguards or supervision. Rather than
offering support, the council enabled a situation where George’s
instability was weaponized allowing him to replicate and escalate the
tactics used by Debra Andrews.

·
This placement must be viewed as part of a broader
pattern of Council-Enabled Provocation, where vulnerable
individuals with known histories were strategically positioned to
destabilize me and obstruct my legal defence.

Ambrose
Atoro – Strategic Placement Despite Violent History:

·
Ambrose was placed in the flat after George,
despite a Documented History Of Extreme Violence.

a.
At age 20, Ambrose
committed a Brutal Armed Robbery at Brick Lane Post Office,
assaulting the postmaster with a fake handgun and causing grievous bodily
harm.

b.
He had Escaped
From Chase Farm Hospital the day before, where he was being held
for schizophrenia.

c.
He was sentenced and
transferred under “Section 47 Of The Mental Health Act 1983,”
with a “Section 49 Restriction,” meaning he could
not be released without approval from the Secretary of State.

d.
According to housing
transfer records dated “12 August 2021,” Ambrose
was “Explicitly Barred From Returning To The Area Of His
Previous Victim.”

e.
Despite this, “Enfield
Council And Police Placed Him At Burncroft Avenue,” near my
residence, already destabilized by Debra and George.

f.
Ambrose was reportedly
offered “Early Release” on the condition of
accepting psychiatric treatment, and his placement appears to have been “Strategically
Designed To Provoke Further Escalation.”

g.
Since arrival, he has
engaged in “Floor Banging, Verbal Baiting, And Timed
Disturbances,” especially during legal
preparation, mirroring the tactics of his predecessors.

Legal
Implications

·
The council’s decision to place three
successive occupants, each with escalating patterns of harassment and known
vulnerabilities, constitutes “Gross Negligence And
Institutional Abuse.”

a.
They Ignored
Safeguarding Protocols.

b.
They Enabled
Coordinated Harassment.

c.
They Manipulated
Vulnerable Individuals To Provoke And Destabilize Me.

·
This pattern must be formally addressed in court
as part of a broader abuse of process and denial of my right to live safely
and prepare my legal defence without obstruction.

·
Evidence: Exhibit 9 /

*
Weblink 1: <Dir> Ambrose Upstairs

*
Weblink 2: <Dir> People - Neighbours
Ambrose Newspaper File Master 12-08-21

*
Weblink 3: <Dir> 13.
Some-MP4-Flat-Attack-Bits

4. Richard Edward
Skinner – Current and Most Aggressive Phase:

Role:
Present occupant of Flat 113.

Actions:

a.
Engages in persistent and direct provocation,
including loud stomping and heavy footsteps directly above my front room
during critical times when I am working or preparing legal documentation.

b.
His actions are deliberately timed and
coordinated with council activities to disrupt and interfere with my
ability to compile legal evidence, demonstrating a calculated psychological
harassment campaign.

c.    The
intensity and nature of his conduct pose a serious threat to my physical
and mental well-being, amounting to a life-endangering pattern of
harassment through an ongoing spree of illegal actions targeted against.

Evidentiary Pattern:

Each
occupant has “Built Upon the Tactics of The Previous,”
escalating from noise and passive disruption to “Active
Setups, False Allegations, And Coordinated Interference.”

The
flat itself has become a “Central Node of Harassment,”
with each resident contributing to a sustained campaign against me.

My
documentation, including spatial maps, video evidence, and
contradiction tracking—clearly shows that Flat 113 has been used
as a “Strategic Platform for Destabilization.”

Annotation

Description

Relevance

CHRISTINE SMITH BATHROOM & BEDROOM WINDOWS 95

Ground-floor flat

Exhibit:
Christine Smith – Foundational Role in Coordinated Legal Targeting:

*
Subject: Christine Smith, Secure
Council Tenant of Burncroft Avenue

*
Status: Still the Current
Occupier as of 06/10/2025

*
Reference: “Secure
Council Tenants” registry and Now Claimant’s evidence
archive

Summary:

·
Christine Smith has remained a “Secure
Council Tenant” at Burncroft Avenue, with confirmed occupancy
as of “2006.” Over the years, the Now Claimant
has amassed a “Large Magnitude of Evidence”
showing that Christine Smith played a “Central and Initiating
Role” in the illegal activities and administrative targeting
that followed.

·
Her involvement is not incidental, it is “Foundational.”
Without her actions and coordination, “None of The Court Order
Applications or Government System Entries” but mostly any “Mental
Health History” that allows illegal targeting of the Now
Claimant would even exist. She positioned herself as the “Root
Cause and Enabler,” working alongside “Co-Defendants
and Unnamed Collaborators” to embed false narratives and
procedural traps.

Key Points of
Involvement:

Christine
Smith’s name appears across “Multiple Government
Systems,” linked to applications and entries that “Triggered
Legal Actions” against the Now Claimant.

Her
status as a “Secure Tenant” gave her “Institutional
Access and Credibility,” which she used to “Seed
False Claims” and support fabricated allegations.

She
operated in tandem with “At Least Two Named Individual and
Others,”

a.    Stain Curtis,

b.    Carron Dunno,

-
forming a “Network of Complicity”
that spans housing, legal, and administrative channels.

Her
actions laid the groundwork for “Subsequent Setups,”
including those involving:

a.    Flat 113 (Debra Andrews,
George Quinton, Ambrose, Richard Edward Skinner) and Flat 115 (Rebecca
O’Hare).

Evidentiary Importance:

Christine
Smith’s “Role” is “Not
Reactive, It Is Generative.” She is the “Origin
Point” for the systemic targeting.

Her
continued occupancy as a secure tenant suggests “Institutional
Protection or Oversight Failure,” despite
the volume of evidence against her.

This
exhibit supports the claim that the harassment and legal targeting
were “Not Isolated Incidents,” but part of a
“Coordinated Campaign Rooted in Tenancy Privilege and
Administrative Manipulation.”

Annotation

Description

Relevance

HASSAN OZMAN BATHROOM & BEDROOM WINDOWS 97

Adjacent flat

Exhibit: Hassan Ozman (“Ozzie”)
– Criminal Activity and Council Negligence:

a.    Subject: Hassan Ozman –
Secure Council Tenant

b.    Address: 97 Burncroft Avenue (Next
Block of Flats)

c.    Status: Occupant from “2004”
to at least “06/10/2025”

d.    Alias: “Ozzie”
– One person + sub-renters

Summary:

·
Hassan Ozman, known locally as “Ozzie,”
has been a “secure council tenant” at “97
Burncroft Avenue” since approximately 2004, with
confirmed occupancy up to “06/10/2025.”
His flat is located in the “Next Block,” but his “Front
Room and Bedroom Walls Are Directly Side-By-Side with The Now
Claimant’s,” allowing for physical and auditory
interference.

·
Ozzie has routinely “Rented His Council
Flat Out to Loggers,” and this also includes the bedroom
alone of whom such illegal
loggers  have remained a “Persistent
and Disruptive Problem.” These sub-renters have contributed
to a pattern of illegal activity and environmental destabilization, leading
to a complete loss of usage of my bedroom.

Criminal Conduct and
Documentation:

Hassan
Ozman has committed “Multiple Crimes Against the Now
Claimant,” including acts of aggression and disruption.

These
incidents have been “Documented in The Now
Claimant’s Diary,” and supported by “Audio
Recordings, Video Footage,” and “Witness
Testimony” from third parties.

One
such event is described as an “Illegal Frenzied Escapade,”
in which Ozzie was caught in the act.

Despite
the volume and clarity of evidence, both “Enfield Council and
The Police Have Refused to Fairly Investigate” or act on
the documented crimes.

Spatial Impact:

Ozzie’s
flat shares “Wall-To-Wall Proximity” with
the Now Claimant’s front room and bedroom.

This
positioning allows him to “Create Noise, Vibration, And
Psychological Pressure,” even from a separate block.

His use
of sub-renters further “Amplifies the Disruption,”
creating a rotating cast of hostile occupants with no accountability.

Evidentiary Importance:

Establishes
Hassan Ozman as a “Long-Term, Institutionally Protected
Tenant,” despite repeated criminal behaviour.

Highlights
the “Failure of Enfield Council and Police”
to act on clear evidence, recordings, and witness accounts.

Demonstrates
how “Spatial Adjacency and Sub-Letting Practices”
have been weaponized to destabilize the Now Claimant’s living
environment.

Supports
the broader claim that harassment and criminal setups are “Not
Isolated,” but part of a “Multi-Flat,
Multi-Tenant campaign” rooted in council negligence.

Annotation

Description

Relevance

THE NOW CLAIMANTS BATHROOM
& BEDROOM WINDOWS 109

My flat

Crucial for establishing my location and line-of-sight during the
incidents.

Annotation

Description

Relevance

STAIN CURTIS OLD FLAT BATHROOM & BEDROOM
WINDOWS 111

Historical resident

Flat
111 Burncroft Avenue — Tenancy History, Timeline, and Impact on Me

1.    Tenants
Documented:

Stain Curtis and his wife: Secure
tenants until wife’s passing in 2010 and Stain until 2020.

Janice Burton: Transitional
occupant after Stain’s death.

New Secure Tenant: Assigned “30/09/2022.”

2.    Timeline
and Actions:

Before 03/09/2010:

Stain Curtis and his wife lived together in Flat 111 as secure
tenants. During this time, their presence was stable, and no
significant issues were noted affecting me directly.

03/09/2010:

Stain’s wife passed away, marking the start of a negative change
in the flat’s environment.

2010 to ~2013:

After his wife’s death, Stain Curtis began living alone and
started drinking heavily and once the tenancy was officially
transferred in just Stains name, he soon allowed Debra Andrews to
become his drinking partner and lover as they became an intimate
relationship. The Enfield Council transferred the flat of 111 into
Stain Curtis’ name in “Late 2013” and this is when
the harassment escalated.

2013 to 14/02/2020:

During
this period, I experienced increasing harassment from noises, aggressive
behavior, and intimidation originating from Flat 111. Stain’s
drinking contributed to a volatile atmosphere and several incidents where
he was verbally and physically aggressive towards me, while using his flat
as a weapon to hurt and torcher me while no person would protect my life
from harm by them. I thought they was going to kill me, and I would become
a murder investigation that the police and councils would cover up.

Stain, sometimes
together with other occupants or alone, would engaged in targeted actions
designed to disturb my peace and wellbeing. This included:

a)    Loud
noises and floor banging directly to my kitchen wall and Rebecca
O’Hare would copy the him and the last tenants of 115.

b)   Aggressive
confrontations and threats, some of which I recorded.

c)    Ongoing
intimidation that affected my ability to live and work peacefully or defend
myself fairly in the courts of law.

d)   The
environment created by Stain and others volatile and contributed heavily to
my distress during these years.

February 2020 – October 2021: The Shiftwork of Harassment

Stain Curtis’s
death in mid-February 2020 didn’t mark the end of the
campaign—it marked its evolution. Flat 111 may have gone quiet for a
moment, but the silence was tactical. The surrounding flats, 113,
115, 117. activated like a relay team. The harassment didn’t
pause. It rotated.

“They
worked in shifts. Rebbeca O’Hare, Richard Edward Skinner, the
occupants of 117, Ozzie, and the loggers—each took turns.”
Whether it was stomping, baiting, or timed disruptions, the tactics were
coordinated. The goal was clear: destabilize me, obstruct my legal work,
and provoke reactions that could be weaponized.

Stain’s absence
didn’t deter them, it emboldened them. His legacy wasn’t
buried; it was inherited. They weren’t just neighbours. They were
successors to a blueprint of psychological warfare. Each one tried to outdo
the last, chasing notoriety like it was currency. They weren’t just
copycats. They were auditioning to be the next headline the next “Hot
Killer” in a campaign that the council refused to dismantle.

And through it all, I
documented every shift, every sound, every betrayal. Because truth
doesn’t sleep, even when they work in shifts.

Between 2021 and 2022:

Janice Burton briefly occupied the flat as a transitional tenant. Her
time in Flat 111 was short-lived, as she gave up her tenancy after
incidents that involved her indirectly contributing to the hostile
atmosphere and me recording them.

30/09/2022:

A new secure tenant was assigned to Flat 111. Since then, the
flat’s impact on my situation has shifted just slightly but the
history of disruption from this address remains a significant part of
the wider pattern of harassment I have endured.

3.    Summary:

a)    Flat
111, particularly during Stain Curtis’s tenancy after his
wife’s passing, was a major source of harassment, intimidation, and
distress for me. The aggressive behavior, noise disturbances, and
threatening actions from this flat formed a core part of the hostile
environment I experienced at Burncroft Avenue. The transitional occupancy
by Janice Burton briefly extended this disruption, and while the new
tenant’s impact is currently limited, the legacy of Flat 111’s role
in my challenges remains clear, and that being that the police and council
officers are the ones that allowed these crimes to flourish.

Annotation

Description

Relevance

BATHROOM & BEDROOM WINDOWS 119

Upper-level flat

Did not get involved in attacking me!

Strategic Use in Mr S. P.
Cordell’s Defence Case:

This annotated image
helps you:

·
Disprove Rebecca’s claim: of seeing me
in the corridor or being threatened from a specific vantage point.

·
Establish your own visibility: e.g., if I
were outside or inside during key moments.

·
Support witness statements: e.g.,
neighbours who could or couldn’t have seen the interaction.

·
Challenge tenancy legitimacy: e.g., if
Rebecca’s flat was sublet or occupied unlawfully.

01.

·
Accused as liable

*
Doctors!

*
Enfield Council!

*
Met Police Force!

*
The listed
occupants apart from 119

02.
The reason that
we have adduced this exhibit into these proceedings is as listed below!

Evidence: Exhibit 10 /

a)
This is a
picture of the front layout of Burncroft Avenue

·
Exhibit: Christine Smith
(Flat 95) – Strategic Surveillance, False Allegations, and Coordinated
Access

a)    Christine
Smith, occupant of Flat 95, has played a deliberate and sustained role in the
harassment campaign against me.

b)    Her
flat’s “Bathroom And Bedroom Windows Directly Overlook The
Front Entrance Of My Property,” giving her a clear and
uninterrupted line-of-sight into my daily movements. While such visibility is
not inherently illegal, it was “Exploited As A Tactical Vantage
Point,” used to monitor, provoke, and ultimately fabricate
criminal allegations against me.

c)    In
addition to this visual access, “Christine’s Back Garden
And Front Room Provide Indirect Physical Access To My Garden,”
separated only by “Ozzie’s Garden,” which
served as a narrow buffer. This layout was strategically manipulated.
Christine, in coordination with “Stain Curtis” and “Carron
Duno,” allowed Carron to use two “Light-Skinned
Children” placed under her welfare—children who were not
biologically hers, but had been left in her care following the death of their
mother, who had been in a relationship with Carron’s male associate.

d)    Christine
Smith then falsely alleged that I had entered my garden and “Threatened
The Children,” despite the fact that I had “Not
Stepped Into The Garden At All.” The police arrived, refused to
disclose the identities of the alleged victims, and proceeded to “Section
Me Under False Pretenses.” I was later released on bail and
able to “Prove The Truth,” leading to the “Charges
Being Dropped In Court.”

e)    This
incident was not a misunderstanding, it was a “Coordinated Setup,”
designed to:

1+    Weaponize
Christine’s line-of-sight and garden access.

2+    Fabricate
a criminal narrative to justify police intervention.

3+    Shield
Stain Curtis from exposure for his illegal tapping and harassment,
particularly the “Kitchen Wall Tapping” now
replicated by Rebbeca O’Hare and others.

4+    Reinforce
a council-backed campaign of obstruction and psychological destabilization.

f)     Christine
Smith’s involvement must be formally addressed in court as part of the “Systemic
Abuse Of Process,” the “Normalization Of
Surveillance-Based Harassment,” and the “Denial Of
My Right To A Safe And Fair Living Environment.”

·
Exhibit Hassan Ozman: (Flat 97)

a)
Hassan Ozman has been involved in coordinated
harassment alongside other neighbours. His bedroom and bathroom windows face
key communal areas and my flat, enabling him to observe and falsely report my
movements or the tenants he sublets the bedroom to. His actions have
supported the council’s fabricated narrative and helped sustain the
campaign of abuse against me and all while he and his tenants use drill and
other objects to bang on my bedroom and front room walls or just simply tap
with their fingers.

·
Exhibit the Now Claimants: (Flat 109)

a)
This is my residence. The image marks my bathroom
and bedroom windows, as well as the back garden. It also shows where I was
collecting my dinner during the incident. This location is central to
disproving Rebecca O’Hare’s timeline and supports my documented
movements and innocence.

·
Exhibit Stain Curtis: (Flat
111, Old Occupant)

a)
Previously occupied by Stain Curtis, this flat
has historical relevance to the decline in community safety, as well as my
wellbeing and expectancy of life.
It was part of the block where harassment escalated, and its occupants
contributed to the toxic environment that the council failed to address.

·
Exhibit Rear Car Park: (Where
Rebecca O’Hare Parked)

a)
This is the exact location where Rebecca
O’Hare parked on 02/08/2025. The image disproves her
claim of entry and interaction, with myself, while showing were she states
she remained in the car park while I was outside resolving a delivery issue.
Her timeline is physically impossible based on this layout as demonstrated even
more so, below!

·
Exhibit BB5 – 3: (Front
Layout of Burncroft Avenue)

a)
This image shows the front layout of Burncroft
Avenue. It establishes the physical structure of the block, entrance points,
and flat positions. It is essential for understanding movement patterns and
disproving claims made by neighbours and council officers.

·
Exhibit John Irving’s Flat: (117)

a)
Flat 117 is sublet by John Irving to Enfield
Council and Co, who have placed individuals there that have attacked and
harassed me. The flat was deliberately left in poor condition, with damaged
floors used to provoke and monitor me as I have Exhibited as Mp4
and Jpgs as well as in written statements. Despite reports, the
council enabled this abuse, making it part of their coordinated campaign.

02.

·
Accused as liable

*
Doctors!

*
Enfield Council!

*
Met Police Force!

*
The listed
occupants apart from 119

03.
The reason that
we have adduced this exhibit into these proceedings is as listed below!

Evidence: Exhibit 11 /

·
Exhibit Burncroft Avenue Corridor – 2nd
Floor Stairs:

a)
This image shows the internal corridor layout of
Burncroft Avenue, specifically the second-floor stairs. It marks the front
doors of Flat 109 (my residence) and Flat 111 (formerly occupied by Stain
Curtis), as well as the communal staircase leading to the upper flats. This
layout is critical for disproving claims made by neighbours and council
officers about my movements and visibility. It shows the physical separation
between flats and the sightlines available, directly undermining fabricated
allegations about corridor encounters and disturbances.

03.

·
Accused as liable

*
Doctors!

*
Enfield Council!

*
Met Police Force!

*
The listed
occupants apart from 119

04.
The reason that
we have adduced this exhibit into these proceedings is as listed below!

Evidence: Exhibit 12/

·
Exhibit Surveillance Camera Above Communal
Entrance

*
Location: Ground Floor
Entrance, Burncroft Avenue

*
Label: Camera
Present from 2006 till 2025

*
Subject: Long-Term
Presence of Resident-Installed Surveillance and Selective Enforcement.

·
Summary:

a)    This exhibit
shows a surveillance camera mounted above the communal entrance of Burncroft
Avenue, labelled as present continuously from 2006 through 2025.
The camera was “Installed by A Resident, Not the Council,”
and has remained in place throughout this period.

b)    In contrast,
my prior personal safety camera, installed outside my flat’s front door
for protection and to document harassment, was forcibly disabled by police on
14 August 2016. Later that year, Council Officer
Sarah Fletcher issued a formal notice demanding its removal by 25
November 2016, with threats of financial penalty, despite no damage
being caused or regulation or laws being broken.

·
Key Context and Implications:

a)    The
resident-installed communal camera remained untouched, while my safety camera
was singled out and removed.

b)    This selective
suppression stripped me of the critical ability to gather real-time evidence,
which would have “Undermined the False Council and Mental Health
Records Being Constructed Against Me.”

c)     Those false
records never diagnosed as genuine or leading to a conviction were illegally
used to justify “Unlawful Orders and Legal Harassment,”
manipulated and deliberately fabricated by police and council alongside with
true offenders.

d)    Had my safety
camera “Not Been Taken Down,” Rebecca
O’Hare would have lacked the means to orchestrate her setup against me
with such impunity.

e)    The council
and associated officials’ failure to protect my right to record enabled
a “Coordinated Campaign of Harassment and Defamation.”

·
Legal and Evidentiary Importance:

a)    Demonstrates “Deliberate
Suppression of Tenant Safety and Evidence-Gathering Tools” while
allowing other surveillance to remain.

b)    Establishes a
direct link between the “Removal of My Camera and The Fabrication
of False Legal and Medical Histories.”

c)    Supports
claims of “Discriminatory Enforcement and Collusion Between
Council, Police, And Certain Neighbours.”

d)    Highlights how
these actions facilitated Rebecca O’Hare’s ongoing ability to
harass and set me up without accountability.

·
Outcome:

a)    My camera was
disabled and removed starting 14th August–November
2016, leaving me vulnerable and unable to prove my innocence.

b)    The
resident-installed communal camera remained operational through 2025,
underscoring the unequal application of surveillance policies.

c)     This exhibit
is central to exposing the systematic denial of my rights and the unlawful
campaign against me.

04.

·
Accused as liable

*
Doctors!

*
Enfield Council!

*
Met Police Force!

*
The listed
occupants apart from 119

05.
The reason that
we have adduced this exhibit into these proceedings is as listed below!

Evidence: Exhibit 13 /

·
Forensic Breakdown, Why Rebecca
O’Hare’s Stairwell Account Is Implausible

a)
Rebecca claims she went back downstairs to
retrieve a nappy bag, implying a hurried return to the ground floor. However,
given the “Close Proximity of The Stairwell to The Front Door,”
logic dictates that she would have simply exited directly and “Not
Paused or Lingered” in the corridor unless she had a
reason to stop.

b)
If my back was turned at the time, I would not
have seen her descending. But as she exited her flat, she would have “Immediately
Realised I Was Already in The Corridor and At the Front Door,”
based on the timing of my movements. The layout makes this unavoidable.

c)
Had I heard her footsteps or movement on the
stairs, I would have “Naturally Turned Around and Spotted Her.”
The stairwell is open, with clear sightlines over the banister. Any
person descending would be visible, and any person already in the corridor
would instinctively look up or toward the sound.

d)
For her version to be true, she must have “Deliberately
Stopped at The Bottom of The Stairs,” “Rather”
than making a direct exit. Her statement does not acknowledge this pause or
explain why she would linger, especially if she felt threatened or was in a
hurry. This omission is critical.

e)
Moreover:

1+
She could have seen me from halfway down the
stairs or spoken to me over the banister.

2+
Her failure to mention this natural visibility
suggests “Intentional Narrative Shaping,” not a
spontaneous or truthful account.

3+
Her timeline requires me to be both unaware and
present yet not engaged, “A Contradiction” given
the confined space and human instinct to respond to nearby movement.

·
Conclusion:

a)
Rebecca’s account is “Logically
and Physically Implausible.” It relies on a compressed and
contradictory timeline, ignores natural human behaviour, and fails to account
for the spatial realities of the stairwell. Her version of events is “Constructed
to Support a False Allegation,” not to reflect what
actually occurred.

05.

·
Accused as liable

*
Doctors!

*
Enfield Council!

*
Met Police Force!

*
The listed
occupants apart from 119

06.
The reason that
we have adduced this exhibit into these proceedings is as listed below!

Evidence: Exhibit 14 /

·
Forensic Rebuttal: Corridor Layout and False
Allegation by Rebecca O’Hare

*
Location: Second Floor Corridor, Burncroft Avenue

*
Flats Involved: 113 (Richard Edward Skinner), 115 (Rebecca O’Hare)

*
Date of Statement: 02 August 2025

*
Subject: Misrepresentation of Door Interaction, Builder Engagement, and Threat
Claims

·
Spatial Reality:

a)    The “Second-Floor
Corridor Is Extremely Narrow,” with only a few feet between
each door.

b)    “Richard’s
Door (Flat 113)” is closest to
the stairwell entrance and is the first door you reach.

c)     “Rebecca’s
Door (Flat 115)” is directly
behind where I stood. Simply “Turning Around Places Me
Face-To-Face with Her Door,” if it were present!

d)    Therefore, “Any
Interaction That Occurred Was Incidental and Proximity-Based,”
Not targeted or intentional.

·
Logical Breakdown:

a)    Rebecca “Admits
I Knocked at Richard’s Door,” not hers. That confirms my
intent and direction.

b)    For her to
engage with me, she had to “Come to Her Flat Door Voluntarily,”
I did not knock or call for her.

c)    The “Builder
Present at Her Door Spoke to Me First.” Rebecca had “No
Authority to Decide Whether He Should Speak to Me.”

d)    Her claim that
I approached her is “Disproven by Her Own Admission and The
Corridor’s Layout.”

e)    The
interaction only occurred because “She Inserted Herself into The
Situation,” not because I sought her out.

f)      In contrast, “Rebecca
O’Hare Resides in Flat 115,” which is positioned “Above
My Hallway but To the Side of My Hallway and Kitchen.” Our
bedrooms have an “Open Gap Between Them Consisting of the Hallway
and Stairs,” meaning that her bedroom is adjacent but not
directly above mine and to the side of mine.

g)    Rebecca has
used this positioning to cause targeted disruption in the following ways:

1+
From her “Hallway,” she
squawks and creaks the floorboards, using these sounds to make me unwell by
monitoring movement and creating tension through her presence, while
deliberately attacking me with pre-meditated intent.

2+
From her “kitchen”, she
has repeatedly banged on floors and walls, sending vibrations directly into
my kitchen and front room, and into my body and ears and this effects where I
cook, work, and rest.

·
Evidentiary Significance:

a)    Her statement
contains another clear contradiction: acknowledging I knocked at
Richard’s door, then claiming I was “Banging on Her Door,”
which was “Removed by The Contractor,” as she
herself states.

b)    The “Tight
Layout of The Corridor Makes It Impossible to Be Near One Door Without Being
Near the Other, But  My Proximity
Was Not Intended.”

c)     Her version of
events is “Structurally and Spatially Implausible” and
designed to support another  “False
Allegation.”

d)    The “Video
She Submitted Does Not Contain the Threats She Claims to Have” and  disprove her serious accusations.

·
Conclusion:

a)
Rebecca’s claim that I approached her or
threatened her is “Factually Incorrect and Contradicted by Her
Own Words, The Corridor Layout, And Her Video Evidence“. I
knocked at Richard’s door in response to harassment. She chose to
engage, and the builder-initiated contact. The layout of the corridor means
any interaction was incidental. Her narrative is not supported by the “physical
environment, the timeline, of her events or in  collaboration with the factual
evidence” and must be treated as a “Fabricated
Account Designed to Criminalize Proximity and Silence My Self-Defence.”

06.

·
Accused as liable

*
Doctors!

*
Enfield Council!

*
Met Police Force!

*
The listed
occupants apart from 119

07.
The reason that
we have adduced this exhibit into these proceedings is as listed below!

Evidence: Exhibit 15 /

·
Stairwell Access and Observation Point

a)
The stairwell between the second and third floors
provides “Easy and Direct Access” to the last two
flats in the block. Its location and design make it a convenient route for
residents moving between floors without having to use the main corridor
extensively.

b)
Additionally, this stairwell area serves as a
natural “Observation Point,” which Rebecca
could use to monitor activity at the building’s front entrance, much
like how her bathroom and bedroom windows offer views to keep an eye on the
surroundings.

c)
This positioning allows for discreet observation
and could contribute to her awareness of who is coming and going, reinforcing
her ability to watch the communal spaces without needing to be at the front
door constantly.

·
Accused as liable

*
Doctors!

*
Enfield Council!

*
Met Police Force!

*
The listed
occupants apart from 119

08.
The reason that
we have adduced this exhibit into these proceedings is as listed below!

Evidence: Exhibit 16 /

·
Statement: Comparative Impact of Flats 117 and
119 on My Home

*
Location: Burncroft
Avenue.

*
Flats Involved:

1+
Flat 117 (Mathiylagans) –
Full-room impact.

2+
Flat 119 – No involvement

a)
The harassment I’ve faced began with the
occupants of “Flat 117,” the Mathiylagans family,
as documented in my “2014 and Onwards” file
starting at Section 2014. Due to the structural layout of the building, “Flat
117 Sits Directly Above My Flat” but with 115 in between
allowing them to affect “Every Room in My Home and Bedroom,
Kitchen, Hallway, Bathroom, And Front Room and All Through Deliberate Noise,
Floor Banging, And Coordinated Disruptions.” This was a 24-hour
7 days a week attack against me a human being and British citizen.

·
Evidentiary Importance:

a)
Establishes the “Full-Spectrum
Harassment from Flat 117,” beginning years prior and affecting
all rooms.

b)
Clarifies that “Rebecca’s
Influence Is Spatially Limited but Strategically Disruptive,”
focused on the most sensitive areas of my home.

c)
Supports the claim that the flat of “117
Occupants Flat Has Contributed to A Sustained Campaign of Psychological
Pressure,” exploiting their spatial advantage with other
neighbours such as Rebbeca O’Hare!

INFO

Statement Exhibit BB0
– 1 /

·
Accused as liable

*
Doctors!

*
Enfield Council!

*
Met Police Force!

*
The listed
occupants apart from 119

09.
The reason that
we have adduced this exhibit into these proceedings is as listed below!

Evidence: Exhibit 17 /

·
Picture-111-115-117-Attack-Point
– Coordinated Harassment via Kitchen Adjacency and Weaponized Flooring

a)
This image shows the reality of my living
conditions and the coordinated harassment I continue to endure. My
kitchen—labelled as “The Now Claimant’s Kitchen”
is surrounded by “Flats 111, 113, 115, and 117.”
These aren’t just neighboring units. They are tactical positions used
to target me.

b)
“Flat 111,”
previously occupied by “Stain Curtis,” was the
origin point of the harassment. He lived on the ground floor, on the same
block, next side to me. He initiated the wall tapping, especially through the
kitchen wall, timed to provoke and destabilize me. His tactics were
deliberate, rhythmic, and psychologically invasive.

c)
Directly above him in “Flat 115,
Rebbeca O’Hare” moved in and continued the harassment
seamlessly. She didn’t just replicate Stain’s tactics—she
escalated them. Her flat gives her access to both the vertical floors and
shared walls, which she uses to mirror the tapping, stomping, and baiting
techniques. She lives in the same block next side to me, and her actions are
rehearsed and deliberate. She operates as if inheriting a role, using the
same timings, same pressure points, and same psychological triggers.

d)
“Flat 119,”
which sits above both 111 and 115, has not been involved.

e)
On “My Side Of The Block,”
the harassment is just as coordinated. “Flat 113,”
currently occupied by “Richard Edward Skinner,”
continues to use the floors to attack me. His flat was previously occupied by
“Ambrose Atoro,” and after Ambrose
moved out, the council attempted a superficial fix to the flooring. I was
present when the work was carried out. They sprayed foam under the main beams
on one side of the room—not a proper structural repair, but a cosmetic
patch job.

f)
Richard has deliberately re-damaged the
temporary fix. He replicates the tactics of previous occupants, using the
same beam-based mechanics to generate impact. By standing on one end of the
long beam near his front door, he lifts the entire floor section—then
drops it with force, creating targeted bangs directly above my kitchen. He
does this in “Every Room,” not just the kitchen.
The attacks extend above my “Bedroom And Toilet,”
areas I’ve been unable to safely access since “2014 And
Even Before.” If I enter those rooms, I am “Visibly
Attacked,” the harassment intensifies, and the banging becomes
violent and targeted.

g)
Above 113 is “Flat 117,”
originally occupied by “Mathiylagans and Co.” “Co”
refers to a cousin named “Kanthren,” who was hiding
inside the front room. He pretended to live in “Flat 119”
but was actually operating from 117, where he initiated the early tapping
attacks. Mathiylagans allowed and supported him, giving him cover and access.
When the tapping began above my head while I was working, I went directly to
Mathiylagans to ask who was responsible. They blamed “Debra
Andrews,” a deflection I didn’t understand at the time,
because I didn’t yet know about Kanthren’s presence.

h)
I then knocked at Debra’s flat to ask
her directly. She blamed Mathiylagans in return. No one took responsibility.
No one stopped. The harassment escalated. At that time, “Stain
Curtis was in a Relationship With Debra,” and together they
joined the pattern, using their positions to contribute to the noise setups
and psychological pressure.

i)
This isn’t incidental. It’s
structured. Each flat plays a role. The floors have been altered, the walls
exploited, and the council continues to allow it. My kitchen, my workspace,
my home—turned into a battleground by design.

j)
The harassment is rotational, coordinated, and
council enabled. And I continue to document every moment of it.

(Signed)

(On
behalf of Mr. Simon Paul CORDELL) (Dated Signed) 03/12/2025

Signature
witnessed by: