Thursday, 16 September 2010

Corrupt Police & IPO-How they aided a crook.

In my post, of two back, where I talk about my local Police, I need to show you just how these devious civil servants work. When I had a meeting with this useless copper Brimicombe and he had a fit of the intimidation's against me because I wouldn't let him get away with saying perjury had not been committed, he let the cat out of the bag.
He said "I have read all your blog" and it was said with the tone of voice that telegraphed that he thought negatively about it. I would say that in his mind, after he had read it, he thought one or all of the following:-
1/ I was a nutter hell bent on revenge against the IPO and or Busbridge.
2/ What I have said and how I have said it in this blog is outrageous.
3/ That I was telling lies and none of what I have said is true.
4/ That what I have said and how I have said it shows I am a real nasty character and should therefore be dealt with by them as such.

Now what you have to understand here is how did he know I had a blog running on the IP issues?
For what I have not told you is that Busbridge in his efforts to blacken my name, as he has done consistently since day one, sent the IPO a copy of my blog in amongst his so called evidence at the last hearing in January. He said he was doing this as an act of civil goodness to show the IPO what an awful character I was. He made a point of telling the IPO that I had said nasty things about them. Well I damn well would wouldn't I? For that is the whole point of the expose the IPO AND LIAR BUSBRIDGE for what they all are.
Of course the IPO can damn well do nothing about my speech and all that, and no doubt thought that this blog is not being seen by too many people and that it would have no effect. On that score they are right but all that is about to change as I am about to make every effort to up the ability of this blog to be seen by many more people.
Back to the Police and the IPO. So the IPO tells this copper that I have the temerity to have this blog and you can just imagine what else they tell him about me as I have said already. I can imagine the torrent of personal abuse and lies against me they will have indulged in. All this to brainwash the copper against me as a person! Hence why his attitude towards me on a personal basis from when I first starting talking to him, changes to the present time and this fit he had against me.
It also explains why they decided they would not investigate it and thought up all these feeble lying excuses to do this.
This act by the IPO, of course, can be said to be an act of perverting the course of Justice. The IPO simply do not want to see me have success in any way in bringing them all to book for their lies, corruption, incompetence, failures to carry out their own Laws and Rules etc. I go even further, I now believe that in the early days there is a good chance they deliberately put my opposition application to oppose Chrysler's application to register my Mark, in front of Busbridges similar application which he PUT IN JUST BEFORE MINE. Now I am sure that their rules would say that the earlier application would be heard first. That would make sense for DO NOT FORGET I LOST MY REGISTRATION OF MY MARK THIS LAST JANUARY ON THE GROUNDS THAT BUSBRIDGE APPLIED TO REGISTER THIS MARK BEFORE I DID!!! So why wasn't this same law applied at the beginning, back in 1992?????
If you look at the course of events starting at that time, at the actions of the IPO as to when they let me and Busbridge have our applications heard, it is all out of order. WHY DID THE IPO LET ME HAVE MY APPLICATION TO OPPOSE CHRYSLERS APPLICATION TO REGISTER MY MARK VIPER, BEFORE THE APPLICATION BUSBRIDGE ALSO HAD PUT IN TO DO THE SAME???????
The Rules have to be that the person who put in the FIRST application had it heard FIRST!!
had that rule been applied in 1992, the outcome of this long saga oflies and corruption would have turned out very different and I say the IPO knew it would and it would have inevitably turned out in favour for me. By twisting things it seems that they were able to work it, minus a few glitches like the Landau decision which fucked up their schemes, to have it turn out the way they wanted it to.
I say this is yet another act of corruption by the IPO and that there were forces at play here that I have yet to find out what they were.
Then you have this alleged appeal hearing that took place in 2005 before this Judge Hobbs. This was supposed to be an appeal by Busbridge against the decision of Landau who said Busbridge had to lose his registration as I have outlined before. Now an appeal hearing is supposed to follow a pattern. Busbridge would have had to put in his statement of Grounds of Appeal, in which he outlines the LEGAL reasons he thought the Landua decision was not lawful. He may also have put in other statements of what he saw as facts to be considered by Hobbs in support of his appeal.
At the hearing Hobbs should have gone over some of those statements and asked for clairifications if needed, ask Busbridge did he want to add verbally to any of those statements, and so on. If you read the transcript of that hearing it is quite cklear that this was no APPEAL HEARING! It was nothing mnore than a MEETING between the IPO in the figure of Mr James, who is a big wig manager of the tribunal section , Hobbs the hearing Judge and Busbridge.
Straight away you have to ask, why had the IPO sent such a senior figure to the hearing as James? I say it is because this hearing has been worked out in advance by the IPO and Hobbs, who let us not forget IS NOT INDENDENT, AS HE SHOULD BE as he is virtually an employee of the IPO because of all the work he does for them, that the hearing will be a discussion and not an appeal hearing. (This is against all the Rules for appeal judges)
Why do I say this? I believe that the IPO simply did not want it to be an appeal hearing even though Busbridge had asked to appeal, because they wished Busbridge to be able to circumvent the decision of Landau and this would be a means to surrupticiously achieve this under the guise of this being an appeal hearing. It would be dressed up as such but was really just a way of guiding Busbridge towards a path were he could go down and achieve eventually, a registration in his own name and Landau could be forgotten as if it had never happened.
So this is exactly what happened. Hobbs and James engage in spending two thirds of the time that hearing took in giving advice to Busbridge under the guise that they were only talking about case history. But a proper appeal hearing does not discuss case law. Case law would show up in the decision document AFTER the appeal had been heard and the hearing officer is making out the reasons for his decision. By doing this Hobbs & the IPO can tell Busbridge, verbally, what his legal position is by by mentioning similar cases. Hobbs even makes a point of asking Busbridge after they had finished if he UNDERSTOOD ALL THAT THEY HAD TALKED ABOUT. That gave the game away as what he really was asking is, "Did you understand all the hints we gave you in all those talks?" But these arrogant bastards didn't give damn as this meeting was not attended by anyone who could blow the whistle. No ordinary IPO employees, only their top man who is in on it and of course Hobbs, who no doubt would do anything in order to higher his cred with the IPO.
Then Hobbs goes into giving Busbridge loads of advice which as I have said is illegal. All designed to show him what track he must take to circumvent the position he is in. James even openly states that if he takes this track and asks the IPO to take a stance, "THEY WILL NOT STAND IN HIS WAY" NOW IF ALL THAT IS NOT CORRUPT, I AM A MONKEYS UNCLE!
And as I have told you already Hobbs even throws in some insults about me for good measure, knowing I could not asnwer or fight back. No doubt they all thought I would never find out about all this. (Again against the Rules for Judges)
Further proof that this is what really happened and is shown by the reluctance and the lies of the IPO when I kept asking what had happened with this hearing and what was the decision. I was lied to as was my MP as to why there was a delay in finding out what the decision of the appeal was. In actual fact there was to be no decision as Busbridge had been advised to drop the appeal and go off on the path he had been advised to do so by Hobbs. The IPO wanted to keep that quiet for as long as possible so Busbridge had the time to do what he had to do. So it all came to pass that he was successful in being able to ignore the decision of Landau and to eventually get his registration of my mark and to eventually get the IPO to take my mark off me in last January.
What needs to be answered is why did the IPO not want me to have registration. I will tell you why I think that is, in the next post.

No comments: