Tuesday, 28 September 2010

Corrupt Police & IPO-How they aided a crook.

I have in this blog talked about so called evidence given into all the hearings by the conman RB and how most of it was irrelevant trash and denigratory to myself. How the IPO allowed all this nonsense. Now I have unearthed an IPO document which states:- "The information declared in the documents should be strictly confined to the points at issue" So once again you see that throughout all the hearings in this case (some 7) RB filled ALL his evidence statements with irrelevant nonsense and denigratory trash about me. The IPO stood by and allowed all this in defiance of their own rules.
In his last lot of so called evidence statements (for his Invalidity action against my registration)he even sent them a thick wad of copies of the pages of this very blog. Yet Lord Wolf has said "poorly drafted and elliptically worded documents can lead to confusion and to a waste of time and resources for both parties"
So why have the IPO consistently ignored what RB put into ALL his statements? This at complete variance with their own rules and laws.
I have also talked about the corrupt way the Hobbs Appeal Hearing was conducted and I am now researching just what is allowed to be heard and how an appeal has to be conducted. I have asked the Treasury Solicitors to provide me with any guidance documents as to how an appeal should be conducted. So far they are dragging their feet on that one and we all know why. So we shall see.
I have also got RB's Statement of Grounds for that case. He lists 6 reasons for appeal ling and NOT ONE OF THEM HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE DECISION REASONS THAT LANDAU GAVE IN 2005 FOR RB TO LOSE HIS REGISTRATION!!
So much for Statement of Grounds should only contain statements that are strictly to do with the points at issue. Once again why did the IPO and the T/Sol ignore that?
I have also asked the T/Sol for a transcript of my own appeal against the Foley decision. Prof Annand had said she was only going to look at the issues in hand which is what she should have done. When I get this (if the T/Sol don't invent lies for not being able to provide this) I can then compare how the Hobbs appeal was conducted as opposed to how she conducted a similar appeal hearing. I will report on that when I can.

No comments: