I have now been sent the transcript of my own appeal against the decision of Hearing Officer Foley in favour of the Busbridge.
Professor Annand heard it if you remember and have read all this blog. Why I wanted to read it is because I obviously could not remember all that I said or more importantly, what she said. I did remember that she mentioned several times that she could not deal with previous matters and had to stick strictly to matters concerning only Foley. THIS IN STARK CONTRAST TO HOW HOBBS HEARD THE APPEAL BY LIAR. Again if you have been reading all this story you will remember that I have accused Hobbs of corruption for the way he conducted his hearing did and not deal with any evidence that Liarman may have put in. That all he did was give advice to Liarman and slag me off. Which I was positive, was all against all the rules, not only applying to Judges, but rules that applied to how appeals had to be conducted.
Now having read the Annand transcript it is perfectly clear that this bastard corrupt Judge Hobbs is as guilty as hell. The way the two appeals were heard has to be seen to be believed, for it is as plain as your nose he never conducted any of that hearing as he legally should have done- if you study how Annand
conducted her Appeal Hearing.
I have been trying to get the Treasury Solicitors who appoint these supposedly independent persons, to tell me what Rules or Laws they work under to control how these appeals are conducted. To show that there are indeed such rules the A/P's have to work to, just let me tell you exactly what Annand said:-
1/
What Landau did or did not say is not within my jurisdiction to decide upon."
2/ "When the boundaries of what is happening have not been appreciated"
3/ "What Hobbs said is nothing to do with me"
4/ "They were different proceedings, so it is not upto me to say anything"
5/ "It is not my jurisdiction"
6/ "I must say I have no power to say anything about Mr Reynolds decision ....or your fight with Chrysler"
YOU COULDN'T BE CLEARER THAN THAT, IN MY ESTIMATION, especially the remark about the fight I had with Chrysler, for Hobbs mentions that when he slagged me off. It clearly shows that the way Hobbs conducted his hearing was not only against Judges rules but against other rules, which if the IPO have told me correctly are called Civil Procedure Rules. (I will look those up and see what I see)
The IPO kept telling me that they couldn't advise me on how an appeal before an appointed person should be conducted, as they are solely under the jurisdiction of the T/Sol and
they have proved for the past week to be as slippery as an eel.
They know I am after Hobbs and they know that should they give me the information I am after, they will be helping my efforts to bring him to heel and justice. Their Mr Prior who I have had dealings with before and found to be a totally unhelpful twerp, has proved to be as unhelpful as ever this time, too. I asked him to let me know if Liarman had put in any evidence statements into the appeal as Hobbs never mentioned any such statements. In fact Hobbs never discussed anything Busbridge had said in his defence. Nor did he discuss the decisions of Landau which Busbridge had allegedly appealed in front of Hobbs. It was all advice, advice and more advice. Whereas with Annand she talked non stop about my evidence and Busbridges evidence and only about what Foley had said or did not say. As he was the Hearing Officer of the hearing I was appealing, then that is OK.
In my many thoughts on how Hobbs conducted this sham appeal, one has to ask again, why did he do this and now I think I can tell you my appraisal or hypothesis of his actions..........................
The IPO have known for a long time (actually since about 2002 at least) that I have been so pissed off with them over their crap actions, and incompetence that has meant Busbridge has been able to continue since 1992 to steal business off me, by his stealing my car designs and trade mark from me. They have helped him do this in many ways which are adequately described throughout this blog.
I have lost a whole lot of money through all this, my business, and my health and happiness. So damn true I want to sue the ass off the IPO and they know that. In other words I have lost a lot, so have a strong reason to want to sue them. On the other hand Busbridge has no reason to sue them at all. Quite the opposite. For why would he want to bite off the hand that has been feeding and helping him all these years? Knowing that, who do you think the IPO would have favoured, to get this Trade Mark? Anyone with half a brain would be able to see that if the IPO could wangle it by any means and even foul means, to give Busbridge the mark, then the chances of them being sued would diminish to almost zero.
Being civil servants they could not take the chance that I could put them up on the dock where all their transgressions and incompetence would be laid bare. High up managers wouldn't want to be seen as useless as it would effect their jobs and pensions and whatever. So like all true corrupt assholes that proliferate in the huge State machinery we now have, they worked out their dirty plans, probably starting in 2002 and have been at it ever since. Of course once they started it there was no going back and in they went ever deeper. Landau nearly upset the apple cart but Hobbs was no doubt roped in to extricate them.
Now why would Hobbs do that? Well as I have said many times up to now, he is in up to his neck with the IPO and is obviously very much beholden to them. Most of his work is for them and no doubt if you read between the lines at the number of times his name crops up on IPO websites, you will see like I see that he is mentioned all over the place. I expect the IPO worship him like a God.(He probably thinks he is, too) So if the IPO approached him he would fall over himself to please them and keep very much in with them. It would do his street cred no end with them. The Treasury Solicitors will no doubt be also well in with the IPO shower, on the premise that all civil servants stick together to protect each other. They remind me of a daisy chain....the bastards.
The Insolvency Service who were supposed to deal with Busbridges bankruptcy did exactly the same incompetent job as the IPO and then lied through their back teeth to cover up the fact that Busbridge pulled a fast one over them over the trade mark and keeping from them that he was trying to flog it to Chrysler for £500K when he is supposed to be BANKRUPT!!!!! They should line all civil servants up and shoot the bloody lot as they are all useless, and then start again with strict controls over them and how many of them there are.
Going back to this woman Annand. Even though it appears she did follow the rules of how an appeal has to be conducted, for me that does not let her off the hook and make her whiter than white, or even shows she is independent as she boasted she was and would be so. For there were a few remarks that showed to me that she too is probably in the pay of the IPO, for don't forget she too works for the IPO as a hearing officer so she CANNOT be independent in matters where I am fighting the IPO as much as I am fighting Busbridge. At the beginning of this appeal she spent much time on dealing with my request to have allowed further evidence out of time. This because Foley had in explaining his decision had put at least 50% of his reasoning into the fact that Busbridge must be allowed to have the mark, said that he legally owned the application for the Mark. This because the Insolvency Service had sent Busbridge a letter confirming that they had not had any interest in the mark asset. This letter had been sent not long before the hearing, so was recent, yet when I contacted them to complain that they were helping an ex bankrupt who had no claim to the mark, I was told they couldn't comment on what they had been told by Liarman back in 1993 or what they had thought about this asset. This because they had destroyed all the files to his bankruptcy. Yet they could say to Busbrdige with positivity that they had not had any interest in it. How could they say this now if they had no files to consult?????? Yet another example of behaviour of a government department that begs many questions.
So I tried to have it out with them and this took a long time being as civil servants only work at one pace....snails pace. The time limit for me to get in my evidence for the appeal before Annand went by and hence why when I had as many answers as I was going to get, I tried to put them in. During the first half of the hearing she spent a lot of time trying to blind me with science. Telling me that most of what I was trying to put in was already in the files of the Registry. Quite frankly I could not be bothered arguing with her as I sensed she had made her mind up anyway, so after my telling her a number of my thoughts which I felt was wasting my time anyway, but I wanted it down on record anyway, I let it go. My point here without stating every thing she said or I said is that it became plain she did not want to see why I was trying to address what had been said by Foley. After all the appeal was arguing why I thought Foley was wrong in his decision making. That seemed as if she just did not want to see that and she made all these excuses for not allowing it. This to me shows that she had a certain program made up, already on her mind and it did not include agreeing with me at all.
Then she caps it all by intimating that all the waffle about the Insolvency matters not a jot as it has nothing to do with what the hearing by Foley was all about. That was to allow Busbridge to Rectify the Records. In plain English that means getting his brother Martins name taken off the application to register the mark and ultimately to end up with only his name shown as owner of the mark. She says that whatever way this appeal goes Busbridge will still have his name on the ownership of the mark. Either as sole owner or joint owner.
Now Landau had clearly said it should be in the joint names and trading as Cobretti Engineering. As Cobretti had gone bankrupt and was a partnership that no longer traded then it should die a death. All that as you will have seen was ignored by the IPO when Busbridge appeal against that was dropped.
She then goes onto saying that in any case, all the arguments one way or the other about the Insolvency Service etc has nothing to do with the appeal. I then point out that the appeal is appealing what Foley brought up and he made a big deal about the Insolvency. She replies that she does not have to agree with Foley in any case.
So once again we have yet another hearing were the officer hearing it disagrees with what previous hearing officers have said or the path they have gone down. This opens another can of worms which I will not go into here as I will deal with that in my next post. She then goes onto discussing the actual Foley decision and my appeal against that, which I will not go into in great detail, for reasons you will see. I have already commented elsewhere on all her arguments on that in back posts of this blog.
She at one point says that in her opinion that what Landau said in his decision and that I complained it had not been enacted, is shown by her comment; " Can I just say that Landaus decision in fact, evaporated because Mr Landaus decision was concerned with assignments that were withdrawn" Quite why when she has already firmly stated that she will not be drawn into or comments on other cases, beats me. But it shows that maybe she wanted to defend the IPO and their actions by saying this erroneous remark. I pointed out to her that she was wrong as Landau did not just deal with assignments but dealt with legal matters over the way the partnership broke up and more. She then shuts up by saying: "What Mr Landau said or did not say is not within my jurisdiction to decide upon" So why did she make that comment about why it "evaporated"? More like it was just bloody well ignored, I say!!
Now she nails her colours to the mast by saying something that for me shows she has sympathy for Liarman. She says; " Really I feel for both of you, in that you have had to do a lot of proceedings".(good grammar for a Professor!) Now I know she has read all the history of my fight against Liarman stealing my IP. Yet astonishingly she says she has sympathy for Busbridge, yet any proceedings he has had to undergo is entirely his own fault for being a lying ,stealing, thief of my IP property. So why has she got sympathy for this criminal? She will have seen what he has been up to and she will have seen he is nothing more than a conman thief.
Then she shows that in fact she has already made up her mind about this appeal before it has even taken place, for she states: " I will give the decision in writing. It should not be too long getting to you" Indeed it was written up and delivered within a WEEK and that is unprecedented because all other decisions have taken months to get to me, even as much as EIGHT months. This shows to me that she knew before hand what her decision was and what she would say. The actual appeal therefore was a waste of time for me as what was its purpose? It was all just smoke and mirrors once again. Make it look like you are getting heard and something you say and bring up at the hearing can have an effect. Bullshit!
