Stuffed by the State- how it can ruin your life. 78.

     Please read the previous post to this before you (or after) view this video as it gives you

                           addtional info on facts contained in the video. Thanks.

DECEMBER 2017- I HAVE NOW OBTAINED A BARRISTER-COUNSEL'S OPINION ON THIS THOROUGHLY CORRUPT 2005 BOGUS IPO HEARING, THAT I TALK ABOUT IN THIS VIDEO- HE AGREES WITH EVERY POINT I HAVE MADE. HE MAKES 11 LEGAL POINTS AS TO HOW IT WAS ILLEGAL INCLUDING THE FACT THAT I WAS DENIED ATTENDANCE TO IT. IN THE NEW YEAR I WILL BE PUTTING ON HERE A SECOND VIDEO WHERE I WILL GO OVER WHAT HE SAID.

I AM  PUTTING ONTO THIS BLOG COPY OF HIS OPINION LETTER WHICH CAN BE
                          SEEN ON A LINK TO THE RIGHT OF BLOG PAGE .
YOU WILL SEE HE BRINGS UP 11 LEGAL POINTS WHICH I HERE LIST:-

1. HE AGREES IT WAS NOT AN 'APPEAL' HEARING, SO WHY WAS IT HELD?
2. THE 'APPOINTED PERSON'(AP) SHOULD HAVE DEALT ONLY WITH THE DECISION OF LANDAU.
3. THE IPO SHOULD NOT HAVE DENIED ME THE RIGHT TO ATTEND AS IT DEALT WITH MY 'REGISTERED TRADE MARK'. THE A.P SHOULD HAVE NOTIFIED ME OF THE HEARING AND THAT I COULD ATTEND.
4. THE A.P DID NOT 'DETERMINE THE APPEAL' BROUGHT BY BUSBRIDGE.(in other words he never dealt with it in any way)
5. THE A.P DID NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO ADJOURN THE ALLEGED APPEAL-'HIGHLY IRREGULAR' (this is legal speak for 'ILLEGAL)
6. IT WAS UNLAWFUL TO ALLOW THE APPELLANT (RB) TO WITHDRAW AND 'FIX' DEFECTS IN HIS CASE. 
7. RB HAD NO RIGHTS TO REGISTER THE TRADE MARK ON THE BASIS OF ALLEGED ASSIGNMENTS (As decreed by the Landau decision he was supposed top be appealing)
8. THE A.P 'MISUNDERSTOOD' (DELIBERATELY I SAY) THE DECISION OF LANDAU.
9. THE MANNER IN WHICH THE BOGUS APPEAL HEARING WAS CONDUCTED WAS 'IRREGULAR' AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN TAKEN ON TO A JUDICIAL REVIEW.
10. MR JAMES OF THE IPO LEGAL DEPARTMENT HAD NO RIGHT TO BE PRESENT.
11. THE A.P SHOULD NOT HAVE ADVISED RB AS HE DID THROUGHOUT THIS BOGUS HEARING AND EVEN STATED HE SHOULD NOT-BUT CARRIED ON DOING IT ANYWAY!!!! 

THE WHOLE OF THIS HEARING WAS A TRAVESTY OF JUSTICE AS I HAVE CLAIMED FOR YEARS, WITH THE IPO  AND MORE IMPORTANTLY THE JUSTICE MINISTRY & THEIR MINISTER-REFUSING TO DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT.