Thursday, 7 January 2021

CORRUPT INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY OFFICE

Because of having to spend much time in the confines of my flat, I decided to spend some of that time looking at certain aspects of how the IPO illegally and criminally took away the registered Trade Mark 'Viper' from me and for some unknown reason gave it to a crook, who had been my agent for my sports car kit- which from early 1986 I had called 'Viper'. I manufactured this car in kit form and fully built, from Jan 1986 to 2002. 

In this blog you will see the full story of how that agent in 1991, when he heard Chrysler were attempting to register that Trade Mark, had offered to sell them the T/M for a cool £500,000 posing as the legal owner of that Mark. Also by this time he had decided not to continue being my agent but to steal my chassis designs and the Trade Mark name and copy the kit and car and sell the copies himself. So he obviously told Chrysler he owned the T/M, knowing full well he did not and that is termed; making an application in 'bad faith' and we used this fact again and again to the IPO and at the last  hearing held in 2010-only to be ignored.

Now the fact is, that I owned it (unregistered until I won against Chrysler in 2002) the trade mark was well known in the kit car trade and is also well documented in many magazines with endless adverts and write-ups it was also featured in videos about Cobras in the UK and was also featured on BBC and ITV news, when we secured a multi-million pound order for a 100 cars a year to Japan. (Read the recently out book: 'Snakes Alive- the cream of British Cobra replicas in the 80's ' by Peter Filby who is a well known Kit Car expert and author who ran the kit car magazine 'Which Kit' for many years, where the history of my company and car featured prominently) Yet Chrysler still attempted to register the T/M and I had to oppose them. Eventually they failed and I won registration, but for some reason the IPO I now know, thought I should not have won. But strangely enough they never said they thought this at the time and right up to 2010. But as you will see in this blog, from 2002 immediately after they had to give me registration, after I got rid of Chrysler, they embarked on their crooked efforts to take it off me- see all the history of this-all in this blog if you read it all.

They finalised this effort to divest me at the 2010 hearing ( a hearing brought about by my crooked ex agent by the name of Robert Busbridge, where he wished to make my registration invalid) where the IPO now said openly that they had made a mistake back in 1996-giving me registration. It became obvious that in their arrogance and cheek that at this hearing that they were going to use it to rectify this mistake. All their corrupt practices since 2002 greatly cost me large losses of money, health and how it meant my business became now worth carrying on. At the beginning of their decision document by hearing officer, he said this: "The Marks, goods of the two parties are identical. The registration of the Trade Mark 2070139 (my registration Reference number after the Chrylser hearing) was accordingly granted in violation of the provisions of Sections 5(1) (2) (a) and should be declared invalid under sections 47 (2) (a) and (b) of the Trade Marks Act (1994) In fact I did not register it under the 1994 Act but under the 1938 Act, yet this doesn't seem to matter to them and they applied the later 94 Act-is this legal? I wonder, as the 38 Act could be very different to the 94 Act, but no matter, as since 1992 they have consistently behaved incompetently and illegally, so this is just normal behaviour by them and it's too late now. 

So at the time I'd had enough of the bastards, having had to endure 20 years of criminality and incompentcy from both the IPO and my crooked ex agent and the Dorset Police. I'd borrowed just over £6K to fight that 2010 hearing and suffered more incompetence from an alleged IP specialist lawyer, who failed miserably when up against the mighty IPO and their bottomless pit of tax payers money. The only way I could stop the IPO corruption was to fight them in the High Court and they knew this and knew I had no money to do it. So basically I gave up and never went further legally and so never even looked at whether their excuses re the parts of the TMA they said gave them the right to do what they did, was 100% right.

That is until now when trying to find something to do because of COVID, I started to look back at what those bastards in the IPO did over those many years and which were entirely illegal. With special attention as to how they deliberately smeared my integrity by making many lies to the Dorset Police and to each other in internal documents I got hold of etc- all about me and very personal too. They all showed a complete BIAS against me and civil servants in such cases are supposed to be unbiased in how they deal with any such cases.

From the records I still have and I still have all of them, I could see again the TMAct validations they claimed to have that enabled them to  rip away the very registration I had legally proved, gave me the rights to that TM- 'Viper'. Section 5 of the TMAct basically says that a trade mark application can be refused if there, at the time it was made, there was another entity using the same T/M and the goods were very similar or the same and already registered or I was guilty of passing off', as someone else had earlier rights due to use or registration.

Now here it is as plain as can be, that this is yet another IPO set up. THE FACTS ARE; at the time I started making my Cobra Replica kits and cars in Jan 1986, -there were no other car manufacturers using the T/M 'Viper' I did not engage as an agent- the Busbridge brothers- until Feb/March 1988 and when I did, I gave them the right to use the T/M for advertising purposes only-AS MY AGENTS AND NOT IN THEIR OWN RIGHT !! THAT IS BLINDINGLY OBVIOUS AND THIS IS NORMAL WITH ALL COMPANIES THAT USE AGENTS FOR THEIR PRODUCTS.

It was only when one of the brothers - Robert saw that in 1991 with Chrysler coming on the scene, it gave him the opportunity to make claims to them that he was the only company using the T/M and he wished to register it as well.  SO WHERE WAS THIS OTHER EARLIER REGISTRATION OR EVEN USE OF THAT MARK BY OTHERS,THAT THE IPO WERE NOW USING AS AN EXCUSE TO TAKE AWAY MY REGISTRATION???????? The Busbridges never used my Mark until around Feb/March 1988 and Chrysler never started advertising and/or importing their Viper Yank type sports tank, until well into the 90's!!

Now one should ask why Chrysler did not use the parts of the 1994 TMA that the IPO now used against me (even tho it would have had to be in 1990, when they applied-IT WOULD COME UNDER THE 1938 TMA that they would have to use and did that have the same provisions as the 94 TMA ??) They were at that time the 3rd biggest car manufacturers in the World and had the money to use Londons best IP Lawyers which they did use. THIS IPO EXCUSE STINKS.

Section 47 again is merely a repeat of Section 5 re earlier rights, registrations and use, which as I have pointed out - could not exist as NO ONE WAS USING, EITHER REGISTERED OR UNREGISTERED-THIS MARK - 'VIPER' BEFORE I STARTED TO USE IN IN JAN 1986.

So it is another example of how DEVIOUS CIVIL SERVANTS USE ACTS AND PARTS OF THEM WITH LOADS OF SECTIONS-SUB SECTIONS-AD INFINITUM, TO BLIND AND CONFUSE ALL AND SUNDRY. We, when I was in the Forces used to say that this kind of devious behaviour was 'BLINDING THEM WITH SCIENCE'  In this case blinding everyone with endless legal sentences in endless sections and sub sections. Knowing no one will be in a position to argue the toss, unless they APPEAL, - AFTER THE DECISION DOCUMENT CAME OUT MONTHS LATER AND THIS 2010 ONE TOOK AGES TO GET OUT - which they knew I could not afford to make-so they would get away with their subterfuge, illegality and corruption.. 

These kinds of acts are being done by devious corrupt civil servants all day long and not just to me and you can see endless examples that luckily make the papers and once again I say; we may as well be living in RUSSIA. !!!!!!!!  

AN OVERVIEW OF THE CLEAR INTENTION OF THE IPO TO TAKE AWAY MY TRADE

 MARK-VIPER-AND BY ANY MEANS.

I will now show how they achieved this and their illegal and corrupt methods that they used-they
will be seen in all the various stages of my fight with them and which kicked off right after they awarded me T/M in 2002. This was right after my fight with Chrysler, when they tried to register my Mark.

It is my contention that there was more than meets the eye to that fight but as with cases like this, I as a mere ordinary member of the public with very limited resources and clout, cannot prove what may have gone on between Chrysler and the IPO. However the FACTS of that battle and it was a battle, show that all was not squeaky clean. For a start why did the IPO deliberately allow theChrysler application case go on for over 6 years when their application and my opposition was pretty straight forward? When questioned years later why this was so, their incredible excuse was that it was not a straight forward case and 'unusual'. It could not have been more straight forward! Was Chrysler doing what many American companies do-using their clout to influence governments and their departments like the IPO? After all they were putting in a huge investment into setting up sales in Europe and organising a one make race series for their Viper V10?

So unfortunately I have to start the story after the date I eventually won my fight against Chrysler as they at last gave in and that was January 2002. The IPO then had to award me the Mark and if they had not they would have been breaking their own regulations. However IMMEDIATELY after they did that, they allowed Robert Busbridge who had been my London agent for my Cobra Replica – which I called  “Viper”, to oppose my registration and to also put in an application for him to register the T/M Viper. As the two applications were similar I was able to get the IPO to roll them both into one case.

To show how ‘suspect’ their allowing Busbridge to oppose my registration can be seen in a number of ways. Firstly they knew EXACTLY who he was and his HISTORY, as he appeared as a witness in the Chrysler hearing put in by them to denigrate me with accusations of me forging our agency agreement. They knew from my evidence in that case that he had been my agent from 1988 to 2001 when I sacked him and that he had tried to sell the rights to my Viper T/M to Chrysler for £½ M.  Now he was telling the court that I was a forger who had forged our agency agreement. This in order to show the court I was not to believed in anything I said.

However through what was said in the Chrysler hearing, they KNEW he had only started to have anything to do with the T/M Viper from 1988 onwards and that I had started to use it from Jan 1986, and even then it was as MY AGENT and was thus given the right to use my T/M, but only as my agent. Now it is incumbent on the IPO to study applications and the evidence presented, to make sure it was a bona-fide application. I have it in writing from the IPO that this is the case. Had they done this they would have seen that this was a CLEAR case of his application was being made in ‘bad faith’ as he obviously knew of my use of the T/M from 1986 onwards and during the time he was an agent of mine (1988-2001) he was only using it as my ‘agent’. So here we see the beginning of questions as to the honesty of the IPO and what were they up to?   

Then when they allowed him to go ahead despite my strong objections and comments on this irregularity, he obviously put in two evidence/statement documents backed up with reams of alleged documentary evidence, to back up his application. Another requirement of the IPO is to look at this evidence and the statements to check they are relevant as per Procedural Rules on Evidence. Here we see a second example of how biased the IPO were, as the vast majority of his evidence in all forms was totally irrelevant and highly derogatory to me. I believe that too shows that the IPO were up to no good and biased against me as evidence that is derogatory should not be allowed. For I was then obliged to counter Busbridges lies and forged documents he put in, instead of me having to just stick to relevant facts and IP law. To understand all that went on at that hearing you should read my book ‘Justice Denied’ and the chapter on that hearing.

In that book in Chapters 13, which dealt with all the evidence both I and Busbridge put in and in Chapter 14 which deals with the actual hearing. You will see all the ways the IPO through their Hearing Officer Reynolds, went against me at every turn. I believe that this hearing was a complete set up and I also believe that that can be readily seen in those chapters of the book as well. If you actually read the transcript of that Reynolds hearing you will see just how biased and a complete set-up it all was.

At this juncture it should be pointed out that in 1999 Busbridge attempted to have me jailed and thus out of his way,(maybe Chrysler had a hand in this?) by getting the Police to charge me with forgery, perjury and perverting the Course of Justice. You will see that he was totally unsuccessful in this and I WAS FOUND NOT GUILTY! Yet you will see that Busbridge in his Reynolds evidence for making my registration invalid, which it was allowed to stay in, he made much of this 'forgery case' in order to denigrate me and impute that my evidence was not to be  believed.  Why did the IPO allow that to stay in? Not only that, why did Reynolds actually and outrageously tell me when he was handling the hearing to have my registration voided, make reference to the fact that I had been charged with the forgery of our agency agreement document? When I protested that it was irrelevant to the case and should not have been allowed in AND IN ANY CASE I WAS FOUND ‘NOT GUILTY' he said that if the Forgery case had been carried out as a ’Civil Case’ I would have been found guilty. This astonishingly shows how biased he was and must have gone to the trouble to read up on the forgery case, even though it was a completely different case and NOT EVEN HEARD BY THE IPO, BUT IN A COUNTY COURT IN DORSET !!!! Thus this shows yet another example of IPO bias against me and how this hearing was a set-up.

Another example of how the IPO allowed in irrelevant evidence by Busbridge was the fact that I had taken out legal action against Busbridge for breach of copyright law for copying the Viper chassis I had designed. I WAS ABLE TO GET Legal Aid for this and took on a local large & well known Bournemouth law firm to handle it all. But the lawyer I had to deal with turned out to almost certainly, not to be a lawyer who specialised on IP matters and law. For he spent ages on the case getting nowhere, and Busbridges lawyer running rings around him. After around two years he then told me that EU IP law said that copyright only lasted 10 years and I had designed the Viper Jaguar based chassis in 1986 and it was now 1996 so I was out of time and had to drop it. Of course this was an outright lie, but I did not know that at the time and I trusted him, for after all he was a lawyer and then I trusted that lawyers knew what they were doing and yet I found out much later that copyright lasted 100 years !! I DON’T TRUST ANY LAWYERS ANY MORE - SINCE THEN !!

Reynolds made the snide remark that my action against Busbridge for Copyright breach ”had petered out”. Thus making it seem that I had had a weak case and had had to drop it….far from the case and as before-IT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CASE HE WAS HEARING. He had said it to belittle me and my case and make me appear to be a flaky and underhand type of person whose written evidence was not to be taken any notice of. THUS ANOTHER PIECE OF EVIDENCE THAT REYNOLDS WAS BIASED TOWARDS ME AND WISHED TO BE ON THE SIDE OF BUSBRIDGE.

There are so many ways that Reynolds showed his bias against me in that hearing that I will not go over each one of them. The two above I mention were so bad that they have to be pointed out as supreme evidence of how biased he was and therefore as he was acting on behalf fo the IPO, they too were biased and had directed him to behave the way he did. However there is yet one more example I should add; Busbridge in his evidence to try and show that my assertion, that because he had in 1993 gone bankrupt, he could no longer claim to own any asset such as a non registered T/M. So he claimed that whilst he was working off his bankruptcy, he had at the beginning of it had ‘assigned’ the non registered Viper T/M (can a non registered T/M be assigned? ) to a third party-a limited company he had set up with his wife -(favourite trick of criminals). I had pointed out that (a) how can a bankrupt do that (b) the limited company records showed he was listed as a company director of that company which was against the law as he was a bankrupt and he only came off when I complained about that to Companies House. (c) That Busbridge had taken many years to tell the IPO of these alleged ‘assignments’ and well out of the time limit for doing so, even if it had been legal to do this-which it wasn’t. Then incredibly on point (d)- he let the IPO know all about these alleged ‘assignments’ but not before his last act was to assign the T/M back to himself-just in time for the 2004 hearing- and the IPO swallowed all that !! THE POINT HERE IS THAT REYNOLDS AND THE IPO SHOULD HAVE SEEN ALL THIS AS BEING ALL ILLEGAL-SO NOT TO BE ALLOWED INTO THIS CASE AS EVIDENCE. This shows more bias towards Busbridge and against me.

After I inevitably lost this Reynolds case, I made such a fuss to the IPO about all their illegality over  the illegality of those alleged assignments, that they eventually decided to have another one of their Hearing Officers look at the whole case again. Now to show how underhanded the IPO were being-they never told me of this and the next thing is I hear, A YEAR OR MORE LATER, that they in 2005 will hold this hearing about the assignments. But I was not told what date or where it would be held or the exact date. This again shows up the corrupt nature of the IPO over all of this. For I should have been able to attend this hearing AS IT WAS ABOUT MY TRADE MARK !! and the hearing would not have been held had I not, in effect, made the IPO have to carry it out. So it was MY RIGHT to be at that hearing especially as they allowed Busbridge to attend it, so able to indulge in more of his lies and I was therefore not able to point them all to the criminal actions Busbridge had indulged in at that Reynolds hearing and to whoever was officiating at that hearing.

When I was eventually told what that hearing had decided (It was heard by a Mr Landau) I was ecstatic as I had WON AS HE FOUND BUSBRIDGE HAD NO RIGHTS TO THE T/M. Yet that feeling never lasted more than 5 minutes, as the IPO then inexplicably allowed RB to put in a request to appeal it! From here-on in, one can see just how corrupt the IPO are and what they were up to. For as most people should know; that even get an appeal for any legal matter, one has to (a) show fresh evidence (b) show that in law the Judge made mistakes and so on or that new evidence had since come to light. One simply cannot just say “I don’t like what the outcome was because I lost so I want an appeal”. Yet the IPO ignored all that in giving him an appeal, because his reasons 5or 6 of them, showed no reasons that could stand up in law for getting an appeal. So yet another example that the IPO simply did not want me to win anything and would do anything to stop me. What they now went on to do, made it ABSOLUTELY CLEAR THAT THIS WAS THE CASE.

IT CAN BE CLAIMED BY ME THAT FROM THIS POINT ON THE IPO WOULD STOP AT NOTHING TO TAKE MY T/M AWAY FROM ME & GIVE IT TO RB AND THEY WENT AND PLANNED A STRATEGY TO CARRY OUT CERTAIN ACTS THEY KNEW I WOULD BE POWERLESS TO STOP IN-ORDER THAT THEY COULD WORK THIS.
 
1/ They told RB that his appeal could be heard by a third party and that they would be totally INDEPENDENT from the IPO. This person is called ‘THE INDEPENDENT PERSON’He chose that route.

2/ They made sure that this person who would be picked out by the Treasury Solicitors, was some one they knew very well and who they could get to ‘arrange things’ to go their way. The Barrister that was picked, a Hobbs QC, was a person who spent all or practically all of his professional life hearing various IP court cases in their courts. This is easily seen when you research his work history and what he officiated in. They obviously worked out with him a strategy they would use during that hearing, together with their Head of Law Office-a Mr James who also would be present,. (very unusual for this to happen) so the two of them would make sure the outcome was an IPO one.

3/  Any hearing decision document should be reported to all concerned within no more than a couple of weeks or even less. Yet the IPO DELIBERATELY withheld it from me for over a year and lied and lied to me and my MP as to why this was so.

When I eventually was told the outcome of that hearing, it was no surprise. In actual fact there had been no decision as the IPO & Hobbs had pursuaded Busbridge to drop his appeal !!!!! See the book ‘Justice Denied’ for all the facts on all this and see the CRIMINAL actions the IPO & Hobbs QC carried out at that bogus hearing. Read my blog:- “I am raging Mad” and see all the facts on that AND read the Transcript therein. You will see exactly what these corrupt bastards did. They knew that there was no way I would be able to appeal their actions and that’s why they made sure they kept their actions from me for over a year and refused me attendance to that bogus appeal hearing. It was no appeal hearing but merely a get together where the IPO through James and the ‘Facilitator’ Hobbs and the perpetrator Busbbridge could concoct a way to get round the Landau decision which had messed up the IPO’s desire to strip me of my legit T/M. Here you should know that the IPO Hearing Officers are supposed to be INDEPENDENT of everyone including the IPO. Most are and no doubt Tuck at the Chrysler hearing was, as was the H/O Landau. He put a spanner in the works of the CORRUPT IPO !!

In that transcript you will read some of the remarks that Hobbs made which make it clear the the IPO wanted rid of me-for some unknown reason.  I have annotated in the margins my comments of all the things said which were all illegal ‘advice giving’, but the most telling anti-myself remark made by Hobbs QC and to Busbridge and is seen on lines 1-3 page 33 is:- “ I have looked at, as you know the Registry (IPO) record, the case details, the case history, ( here he is actually stating he has read ALL the notes on all my fights in all the 3 hearings, from day one)….the long sordid history.

You should concentrate on that word-”SORDID” for what he is saying and implying is that everything I did and said in the two hearings I was involved in- were ‘sordid’ !! The Collins Dictionary states that this word means-’dirty, foul,squalid, degraded, vile and or base. Not only is it illegal for a judicial person to make such comments against a person who had been denied the ability to attend this hearing and therefore was not able to defend himself against this attack, but it shows that Hobbs is anti and heavily biased against myself (as would be the IPO by implication) and he is FOR the Appellant. How illegal is all that?? Not to mention that he trying to destroy my integrity AND I WAS NOT ABLE TO DEFEND MYSELF FROM HIS ATTACK AS I HAD BEEN DENIED ATTENDANCE- I WONDER WHY??? If the above remarks by Hobbs were not terrible enough, he then on line 5 says “I have the history at the same time relating to Daimler Chrysler on a mark which was 265 (Ref No) and this looks like a complete and utter mess to me” 

IT SHOULD BE NOTED HERE THAT THE TWO ABOVE COMMENTS MADE BY HOBBS QC WERE ABSOLUTELY 'ILLEGAL' - For Judges hearing any case are not allowed by law to come out with personal opinions and in this case they were opinions on matters that were not part of the 'appeal' he was supposed to be hearing.
For what he is again relating to is my opposition hearing against Chrysler and he is saying in his grand opinion that it was all a ‘an utter mess’ and if it was which I do not think for one moment it was-whose fault was that? Certainly not mine or my legal team. Yet the IPO obviously think it was and they were prepared to make me pay for it in order to correct a cock they obviously now thought they had made-up or rather that things never went the way they wanted and here I am sure they had struck up a deal with Chrysler.  The IPO have made it clear through Hobbs that they thought I was ‘sordid’ as seen in the above pronouncement and so they had no compunction to set out TO OVERTURN MY VICTORY. Starting with the corrupt 2004 Reynold hearing and then the Hobbs hearing. The fact that even if they had made a legal mistake in their hearing officers decision (Tuck) in 1996, who found for me- was it all MY FAULT? Then you should understand the fact I was going to lose all the monies they forced me to spend right up to 2010 and after, (around £20K) plus the ruination of my business and life - this was just all ‘tough titty’ was obviously what all in the IPO thought.

Now the point here can be made that the hearing vs Chrysler, was totally put together by my legal team, so how was it ‘sordid’ as everything they did and said was entirely ‘LEGAL’? At the 2004 hearing re Busbridge trying to make my registration void, all I did and said, was trying to show that all the statements put into his evidence by Busbridge were lies (perjury) and five of his documents were forgeries (with proof of that) -so how was all that ‘sordid; as one has a RIGHT to DEFEND ones position and in the way I was forced to do so.

When the IPO allowed Busbridge to oppose my T/M registration in 2002 from then on, I complained to the IPO as to why they did this, giving them my reasons. Obviously they did not like this but IT WAS MY RIGHT TO DO SO!  Much later on , through the Freedom of Information Act I required the IPO to furnish me with any letters, emails or notes they generated which were mentioning myself. It was a long shot as I wanted to see what anti myself remarks they had made against me. Strangely enough I was amazingly successful as I got a number of them sent me.

1/ In the earliest note dated 7th Jan 2004 2004 the writer (an AH) who was obviously an IPO worker probably working on the papers generated when I opposed Busbridge’s application to register my Trade Mark. He was seemingly making notes for a file they had on this ‘Viper’case and so any other IPO worker also working on this case would know what type of person I was. I had rung and spoken to him about the incompetence of the IPO in how they were handling this case. All that is OK but what was not OK is that he said; Mr Cook-”He seemed upset”. This as if one had no right to be upset at how the IPO were making mistakes etc and totally and ruinously affecting my business and livelyhood.
Comment; Then there was a second note below the first one by another IPO worker-a B.Povall, which related to him phoning me back-once again the emphasis is on how I felt and then at the end stating that I put the “phone down abruptly” and this once more is emphasis on how the writer had a bad opinion of me and on a ‘personal’ basis. How it can be deducted how I put the phone down is beyond me and it shows that he was more concerned with showing me up in a poor light rather than just relating what the conversation was about.   

2/ The second copy note was dated 25th Feb 2004 and this time by an unknown IPO worker. It states:   "There is a great deal of history between X (Busbridge) and the Registered Proprietor Mr Cook (I being the registered owner of the Trade Mark ‘Viper’)  
Comment; It should be noted that at this date, I had had limited contact with the IPO on any  personal level. I only had put in my evidence documents to Busbridges evidence statements, which were full of lies and forged documents and personal slights against me, which the IPO should not have allowed into evidence. So yes, I was annoyed and rightly so, as it showed incompetence and or bias.

The FACT is that by saying there is ‘a great deal of history’, he is passing a personal opinion because it implies there was bad blood between us and how could he really know that? And on a matter that should not have been his business. How was he aware of any ‘history’? - for to know that - if it was correct, he would have had to have read the reams of evidence RB put in and all my replies in my own evidence. This person would have to be a prominent person in that case and not just a clerk who would not spend ALL their time just on one case or in depth. That shows ‘BIAS’ against me and in any case what did he actually mean by ‘history’ ? It also shows the writer wishes anyone who would later on read the file-they should know all these personal feelings about me and to colour their opinions and further actions in this case and maybe to my detriment.
Then to say “Mr Cook can be very difficult’ again shows an extreme bias against me, especially as the writer does not qualify why I may be ‘difficult’. Of course what I think the IPO thought about me was formed by my not letting them get away with all their incompetence and bias against me and the slowness of all they did which was affecting greatly, my business. This by constantly pulling them up about all that. Also I was not backward in telling them what my opinions and thoughts were on all that-AS WAS MY RIGHT TO DO SO-AS THEY WERE MESSING UP MY LIFE & BUSINESS!

3/  Now the action moves to how the IPO made anti Cook comments to the Dorset Police in order to colour how they viewed me and to get them to drop my request that they investigate all the perjury and forgery committed by Busbridge, in all the hearings he appeared in and gave evidence in. Between 2004 and 2009 I had complained to the IPO again and again that they investigate this, but was always ignored and denied. Yet in 2009 they said that at the last hearing set down to be heard in 2010, they would deal with it all then.
Just prior to that hearing I went to the Dorset Police with a large file showing all the cases of these criminal actions that he committed, when and where they were committed, the reasons he did that and the documentary evidence to back up all my assertions. They refused to deal with it as the IPO told them what they had told me and that was - it would be dealt with in the 2010 hearing. So I had to wait until I saw they indeed kept to their promises.

Of course the hearing did not even touch on any of that,  and I knew it would be so. So I then went back to the Police and asked them to now deal with it as the IPO had not done what they promised.
The Detective, a Sgt Brimicombe predictably went back to the IPO and now I was faced with
the IPO slagging me off to Brimicombe and telling outright lies to him about perjury- mainly to denigrate me and influence Brimicombe against me. My FIOA request was designed to try and find out EXACTLY what Haywood had verbally said to Brimicombe...but of course they never coughed that up-predictably. They were absolutely successful in this brainwashing of Brimicombe and I was then faced with a very belligerent and hostile Brimicombe who refused to investigate. His attitude was astonishing and he also threatened me that he walk walk out of the interview room !!!! when I tried to educate him on perjury etc. Note that the Met & Dorset Police were happy back in 1999 to charge me with perjury and forgery and even go as far as getting into a County Court at GREAT cost to the public, yet now they were doing all they could to deny me justice.

Now I knew that the IPO had sent Brimicombe a number of emails and one had told him that perjury hadn’t been committed and THAT IT WASN’T A CRIMINAL ACT BUT A CIVIL MATTER !! Again under the FOIA I requested copies of all emails and letters between the Police and the IPO. In the copies I got  was an email which clearly was designed to denigrate me, which is what in this document I am trying to show. It was from a Mr Haywood of the IPO to this Sgt Brimicombe and said; “Please see the attached document and below as requested, and a link to Mr Cook’s blog. Some of the entries I found extremely shocking and offensive, so beware if you read it.”…..HOW CLEAR AND DAMNING IS THAT AND CLEARLY DESIGNED TO COLOUR THE MIND OF THE POLICE AND GET THEM TO DROP AN INVESTIGATE THAT WOULD HAVE CLEARLY SHOWN THAT THE IPO FAILED IN LAW TO INVESTIGATE CRIMINAL MATTERS!!!!!!!
Needless to say it worked and all my complaints about that to various bodies were all whitewashed and I got nowhere...ALL VERY SHOCKING BUT THE NORM IN BRITAIN TODAY!!
Of course my blog was started in 2008 to show the Public all the criminal actions of the IPO and ALL bodies including the Police and could only be ‘Shocking’ to all those bodies. I don’t deny my language it’s forthright, to the point, pulls no punches and some of it can be swear words to emphasise my anger etc. SO MUCH FOR FREEDOM OF SPEECH, BUT THE British Establishment hate people like me who show them up for what they really are.

Finally the hearing in 2010;  Salthouse, the hearing officer in this hearing made remarks that again showed that the IPO had a bad opinion of myself and at this hearing were not afraid to voice them; the first evidence of the opinion of the IPO about me and this case can be seen by what him saying that the IPO had made mistakes in the past. He can only be referring to the fact that the IPO thought I should never have won against Chrysler and that was their mistake, because that is the ONLY hearing that I ever won in the 10 years between 1996 and 2010. So the only time the IPO could have made this mistake!!

At the beginning of that hearing Salthouse the Hearing Officer stated that the IPO were sick of this long ongoing case and once and for all wished at this hearing, to put an end to it all. Of course those words NEVER APPEARED IN THE TRANSCRIPT - I WONDER WHY?? 

He later on in the decision document said that the Trade Mark Viper stated that the Trade Mark Viper would be taken off me and it would be "as if it had never been awarded to me" Doesn't that just show that the IPO had indeed been of the mindset that at the 1996 Tuck hearing where I won against Chrysler had been a big mistake (but of course no reasons as to how it was a mistake have ever been forthcoming from the IPO) and so the IPO makes a mistake that ruined the life of a person and that is just "Tough Shit Lad" TO HELL WITH THE RULE OF LAW AND THAT THE UK JUSTICE SYSTEM IS THE BEST IN THE WORLD AS WE ESTABLISHMENT JOHNNIES ARE FOND OF TELLING THE PEASANTS AROUND THE WORLD-PASS ME THE SICK BUCKET !! 

 
So this last hearing which I viewed as my last chance to get JUSTICE and that was why I took on an IP Lawyer at a cost of £6500 which I had to borrow off my son. It again turned out that one has NO CHANCE TO WIN AGAINST THE STATE WHEN THEY DECIDE TO GET YOU. ON THAT SCORE A BARRISTER I CAME ACROSS TOLD ME THAT IN HIS EXPERIENCE IF YOU UPSET HIGH UP MEMBERS OF THE CIVIL SERVICE--THEIR FURY WILL KNOW NO BOUNDS AND THIS IS WHAT THEY WILL DO-JUST  AS THEY DID AGAINST ME- UK JUSTICE IN THE 21ST CENTURY AND ALL MY EFFORTS SINCE 2010 TO APPEAL TO EVERY POLITICIAN THAT HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH OUR JUSTICE SYSTEM INCLUDING RIGHT UP TO THE JUSTICE MINISTER BUCKLAND HIMSELF !!, PLUS ALL THE JUSTICE SYSTEMS AVENUES TO APPEAL SUCH CRIMINALITY, BUT I HAVE GOT ABSOLUTELY NOWHERE.

For the British Establishment have bandied together to deny me any JUSTICE and all my attempts and the results can be seen in depth in my blog and with all with documentary evidence that backs up all I claim.

__________________________________________________________________________________











No comments: