As I told you in my last post, today I got the decision from the Parliamentary Ombudsman. As expected a TOTAL WHITEWASH. Everytime you contact them they go running to the IPO, and they feed them full of lies because it is obvious they will NEVER admit to any wrongdoing. It is a total farce, but one I wanted to go through so I could show you that YOU WILL NEVER GET JUSTICE WHEN YOU HAVE TO RELY ON ANY GOVERNMENT BODY. They all band together and cover each others arses.
One interesting statement he made was that even though I gave the IPO evidence of perjury and Forgery, they did not believe me, or the evidence of Kunzli or Martin as apparently we are all liars. Yet Robert Busbridge is an angel, whiter than white and they can believe everything he says. Rather than give the evidence to the right authorities to decide whether these crimes were committed, I am damned by the IPO who act as Judge and Jury and without so much of actually examining my evidence closely
Look at copies of all my letters to them on this last futile act and see their reply. See the evidence in emails and documents I gave them that proved that the IPO had promised to deal with this perjury in Jan 2010, which they reneged on. Some of these are already on this site and the latest will be added to the documents link in due course.
Showing posts with label Viper V8. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Viper V8. Show all posts
Wednesday, 29 December 2010
Wednesday, 6 October 2010
Corrupt Police & IPO-How they aided a crook. 46.
We can now easily see that the Intellectual Property Office since 2004, when the first hearing by Reynolds took place and right through to this last Invalidity hearing in front of Salthouse, have overseen hearings that were riddled with faulty decision making, and the ignoring of their own TMA Law or their Rules.
1/ REYNOLDS; Would not accept a perfectly good evidence document that would have demolished Busbridges case, Would not accept a valid legally made evidence statement made by my solicitor for a higher Court. Had he accepted it would have shown beyond doubt that Busbridge was my agent.
Made several wrongful statements in order to back up his decision. Saying I had abandoned the mark/ I had not controlled the advertising of Busbridge and he could take over the T/M after BRL ceased business even thought there was no evidence they owned it/ ignored the law on abandonment/ saying wrongly that I had not used my T/M during my relationship with Liarman and that gave him the right to it, when the evidence showed otherwise.
2/ FOLEY: He proceeded to look at the application under the TMA Section 64 (1) when he should have proceeded under 64 (5).
Made mistakes by saying it was not an error in the Register when it was an error.
Said he will not revisit previous hearings, then spends much time doing this.
Said I made an application for Rectification when I never did.
He ignored partnership laws which said that Liarmans take over of his brothers assets were illegal.
Obviously did not understand how the IPO should react to bankruptcy.
Made unsubstantiated claims about Martin Busbridge accepting an indemnity. (Which can be shown by Martins later Affidavits)
Corrupt Police & IPO-How they aided a crook. 45.
I have today been notified that indeed Busbridge did not offer up any statements of evidence for the Hobbs appeal. I find this astonishing as what he said in his Statement of Grounds was utter irrelevant tosh and certainly not valid legal argument to get an appeal. In fact it wasn't even legal argument but just him whinging about how hard done by he was.
This explains why Hobbs merely referred to the fact that he had read it. Now had this been a pukka appeal hearing and not the corrupt party it was, Hobbs would have referred to those grounds in at least some ways. As it was irrelevant crap he kept away from saying anything about it.
It pretty much nails this hearing as the utterly corrupt tea party it was, designed solely to allow the IPO's golden boy, Busbridge to get away from having his trade mark taken from him as Landau said it should, and eventually to be able to allow them to take away mine. That would then stop me from suing them as they knew I hadn't the money to do that, unless some fairy God Mother came along in the form of a kindly IP lawyer who thought his profession was being brought into disrepute and wanted to do the right thing in the form of a civic duty, and help me right all the despicable things the IPO have done and allowed to be done by Liarman. Pigs might fly.
So on this theme I have to tell you once again how unlikely that seems to be. For I have been trying for some time now to find a lawyer who would just answer a series of 17 legal questions I want answers to. If I could get these answers I could then show that legal minds have looked at certain aspects of the whole history of the IPO's actions since 1992 and they have broken rules again and again. (if I am right of course and I think mostly I am)
So I approach no less than FOUR lawyers with whom I had been associated with over the past ten years. Either they had given me legal assistance by answering questions or they had represented me when I was bringing my fight against Chrysler to a head. I reckoned it better to try and use people who knew me. The first gave a terse "NO way" the second wanted me to pay him tens of thousands so he could start a legal action against the IPO and Busbridge and refused to answer just the questions. The third said they were too busy, and the fourth hasn't replied.
I think that most lawyers are only interested in the big picture, the big money spinning case. Wasting time answering a few questions is not their forte. Or it could be that they just do not want to take on the IPO as it may give them black marks in their future contacts with them.
Maybe they think that their is some case going on because I keep getting asked what case am I involved in, and this spooks them as they do not want me spouting their remarks, as they may have got their questions wrong. All the questions I think are quite straight forward and deal mainly with questions of law as it stands. Whatever it further brings them down in my eyes.
In this country as say opposed to the USA there is virtually no Pro Bono work done and I think that speaks volumes for the way British lawyers regard the poorer part of the British Public and that their hearts are wallets and not hearts. Of course I will get my answers one way or the other and then I will be able to present a case for suing the IPO.
Another interesting subject I can report again, is that I have just read a very interesting book called "A country fit for criminals" The name of this book really caught my eye when I saw it in my local library. It is written by a very experienced man who spent most of his life in prison work and work with the Probation Service. Here are some interesting and true quotes that relate to my case:-
1/ WHILST WRITING THIS BOOK WAS CONTACTED BY A NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO HAD BECOME DESPERATE IN THEIR SEARCH FOR PROTECTION FROM CRIMINALS. ALL SPOKE OF THEIR TOTAL FAILURE TO GET LOCAL POLITICIANS, MP'S CRIMINAL JUSTICE OFFICIALS, POLICE OR INDEED ANYONE TO TAKE NOTICE OF THEIR DESPERATE SITUATIONS.
2/ THE ROTTING INFLUENCE OF THIS EVER GROWING MOUNTAIN OF CRIMES WHICH ARE NEVER DEALT WITH FROM PSYCOLOGICAL, LEGAL OR JUSTICE STANDPOINT IS FAST UNDERMINING OUR FAITH IN LAW AND ORDER AND OUR BELIEF IN THE JUSTICE SYSTEM.
3/ ALL GOVERNMENTS SINCE THE 60'S HAVE GONE OUT OF THEIR WAY TO INTRODUCE POLICIES THAT HAVE ENCOURAGED CRIMINALS TO BECOME MORE CRIMINAL. NUMEROUS OBSTACLES HAVE BEEN PUT IN THE WAY OF ARRESTING AND CONVICTING THEM.
4/ WHEN I STARTED AS A POLICE PROSECUTOR EVERYONE WANTED TO PROSECUTE. THE POLICE WANTED TO PROSECUTE, THE COURTS WANTED TO DEAL WITH CASES AND MAGISTRATES WANTED TO SENTENCE. NOW NO ONE WANTS TO DO ANY OF THESE THINGS.
5/ PROSECUTORS MUST ALWAYS THINK CAREFULLY ABOUT THE INTERESTS
OF A CRIME WHEN DECIDING WHETHER OR NOT TO PROSECUTE AN OFFENDER. HOWEVER IN PRACTICE THE GROUNDS ON WHICH THEY HAVE TO MAKE THIS DECISION RESOLVES SO MUCH AROUND COSTS AND THE NEEDS TO SAVE MONEY THAT THE VICTIMS ARE RARELY GIVEN THOUGHT.
6/ THE PURPOSE OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM IS TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC FROM CRIME AND PROVIDE JUSTICE FOR THOSE VICTIMISED BY CRIMINALS.
7/ OVER 90 PER CENT OF OFFENCES ARE GOING UNPUNISHED.....THE GOVERNMENTS DETERMINATION 'TO FILTER OUT' AS MANY OFFENDERS AS POSSIBLE FROM THE JUSTICE SYSTEM BY WHATEVER MEANS, IN ORDER TO CONTROL EXPENDITURE, RATHER THAN BRING THEM TO JUSTICE.
All those statements cover my situation in one way or the other and they show just how this country has deteriorated in my lifetime. This CONMAN BUSBRIDGE had played this system as it is now and has got away with it at each turn. So from day one when he could see that he could lie to everyone in authority and get away with it, it emboldened him to go on and commit more lies because he knew he would be believed and no one would dig even a little and expose his lies. The lies just got more and more bold and outrageous and now we have reached the end and he was able to con the IPO completely all along the line and they have been more concerned about a criminal than me, THE VICTIM!! (As shown by the remark Annand said when she said she was really sorry for all the cases he had had to go through!!)
There is on the web a similar story to mine which I came across yesterday. A chap the same age I me had been conned out of his IP but this time not by a member of the public, but by no less than members of a government department......Business Links. Now I know something about these people as I too aproached them some years back to see if I could get funding to expand my business. I personally thought it was just another smoke and mirrors case, all talk and no action. I never got anywhere and dropped them as yet another example of government uselessness.
However in his case he gave them his business plan to prove he had a viable proposition. He too needed funds to be able to start it. These Link assholes saw it was a good viable project and stole all his plans while telling him that is not a goer. They are now operating a viable and ongoing business that is based on his plans. He like me has been totally unable to get justice, due to the fact that in this asshole of an unequal country of ours that favours the criminals and the feckless and the rich, there is no longer any legal aid. There is more to his story than I have put here and if you are interested go to his website www.tfc-training.com/intellectual_property_theft.htm
This explains why Hobbs merely referred to the fact that he had read it. Now had this been a pukka appeal hearing and not the corrupt party it was, Hobbs would have referred to those grounds in at least some ways. As it was irrelevant crap he kept away from saying anything about it.
It pretty much nails this hearing as the utterly corrupt tea party it was, designed solely to allow the IPO's golden boy, Busbridge to get away from having his trade mark taken from him as Landau said it should, and eventually to be able to allow them to take away mine. That would then stop me from suing them as they knew I hadn't the money to do that, unless some fairy God Mother came along in the form of a kindly IP lawyer who thought his profession was being brought into disrepute and wanted to do the right thing in the form of a civic duty, and help me right all the despicable things the IPO have done and allowed to be done by Liarman. Pigs might fly.
So on this theme I have to tell you once again how unlikely that seems to be. For I have been trying for some time now to find a lawyer who would just answer a series of 17 legal questions I want answers to. If I could get these answers I could then show that legal minds have looked at certain aspects of the whole history of the IPO's actions since 1992 and they have broken rules again and again. (if I am right of course and I think mostly I am)
So I approach no less than FOUR lawyers with whom I had been associated with over the past ten years. Either they had given me legal assistance by answering questions or they had represented me when I was bringing my fight against Chrysler to a head. I reckoned it better to try and use people who knew me. The first gave a terse "NO way" the second wanted me to pay him tens of thousands so he could start a legal action against the IPO and Busbridge and refused to answer just the questions. The third said they were too busy, and the fourth hasn't replied.
I think that most lawyers are only interested in the big picture, the big money spinning case. Wasting time answering a few questions is not their forte. Or it could be that they just do not want to take on the IPO as it may give them black marks in their future contacts with them.
Maybe they think that their is some case going on because I keep getting asked what case am I involved in, and this spooks them as they do not want me spouting their remarks, as they may have got their questions wrong. All the questions I think are quite straight forward and deal mainly with questions of law as it stands. Whatever it further brings them down in my eyes.
In this country as say opposed to the USA there is virtually no Pro Bono work done and I think that speaks volumes for the way British lawyers regard the poorer part of the British Public and that their hearts are wallets and not hearts. Of course I will get my answers one way or the other and then I will be able to present a case for suing the IPO.
Another interesting subject I can report again, is that I have just read a very interesting book called "A country fit for criminals" The name of this book really caught my eye when I saw it in my local library. It is written by a very experienced man who spent most of his life in prison work and work with the Probation Service. Here are some interesting and true quotes that relate to my case:-
1/ WHILST WRITING THIS BOOK WAS CONTACTED BY A NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO HAD BECOME DESPERATE IN THEIR SEARCH FOR PROTECTION FROM CRIMINALS. ALL SPOKE OF THEIR TOTAL FAILURE TO GET LOCAL POLITICIANS, MP'S CRIMINAL JUSTICE OFFICIALS, POLICE OR INDEED ANYONE TO TAKE NOTICE OF THEIR DESPERATE SITUATIONS.
2/ THE ROTTING INFLUENCE OF THIS EVER GROWING MOUNTAIN OF CRIMES WHICH ARE NEVER DEALT WITH FROM PSYCOLOGICAL, LEGAL OR JUSTICE STANDPOINT IS FAST UNDERMINING OUR FAITH IN LAW AND ORDER AND OUR BELIEF IN THE JUSTICE SYSTEM.
3/ ALL GOVERNMENTS SINCE THE 60'S HAVE GONE OUT OF THEIR WAY TO INTRODUCE POLICIES THAT HAVE ENCOURAGED CRIMINALS TO BECOME MORE CRIMINAL. NUMEROUS OBSTACLES HAVE BEEN PUT IN THE WAY OF ARRESTING AND CONVICTING THEM.
4/ WHEN I STARTED AS A POLICE PROSECUTOR EVERYONE WANTED TO PROSECUTE. THE POLICE WANTED TO PROSECUTE, THE COURTS WANTED TO DEAL WITH CASES AND MAGISTRATES WANTED TO SENTENCE. NOW NO ONE WANTS TO DO ANY OF THESE THINGS.
5/ PROSECUTORS MUST ALWAYS THINK CAREFULLY ABOUT THE INTERESTS
OF A CRIME WHEN DECIDING WHETHER OR NOT TO PROSECUTE AN OFFENDER. HOWEVER IN PRACTICE THE GROUNDS ON WHICH THEY HAVE TO MAKE THIS DECISION RESOLVES SO MUCH AROUND COSTS AND THE NEEDS TO SAVE MONEY THAT THE VICTIMS ARE RARELY GIVEN THOUGHT.
6/ THE PURPOSE OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM IS TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC FROM CRIME AND PROVIDE JUSTICE FOR THOSE VICTIMISED BY CRIMINALS.
7/ OVER 90 PER CENT OF OFFENCES ARE GOING UNPUNISHED.....THE GOVERNMENTS DETERMINATION 'TO FILTER OUT' AS MANY OFFENDERS AS POSSIBLE FROM THE JUSTICE SYSTEM BY WHATEVER MEANS, IN ORDER TO CONTROL EXPENDITURE, RATHER THAN BRING THEM TO JUSTICE.
All those statements cover my situation in one way or the other and they show just how this country has deteriorated in my lifetime. This CONMAN BUSBRIDGE had played this system as it is now and has got away with it at each turn. So from day one when he could see that he could lie to everyone in authority and get away with it, it emboldened him to go on and commit more lies because he knew he would be believed and no one would dig even a little and expose his lies. The lies just got more and more bold and outrageous and now we have reached the end and he was able to con the IPO completely all along the line and they have been more concerned about a criminal than me, THE VICTIM!! (As shown by the remark Annand said when she said she was really sorry for all the cases he had had to go through!!)
There is on the web a similar story to mine which I came across yesterday. A chap the same age I me had been conned out of his IP but this time not by a member of the public, but by no less than members of a government department......Business Links. Now I know something about these people as I too aproached them some years back to see if I could get funding to expand my business. I personally thought it was just another smoke and mirrors case, all talk and no action. I never got anywhere and dropped them as yet another example of government uselessness.
However in his case he gave them his business plan to prove he had a viable proposition. He too needed funds to be able to start it. These Link assholes saw it was a good viable project and stole all his plans while telling him that is not a goer. They are now operating a viable and ongoing business that is based on his plans. He like me has been totally unable to get justice, due to the fact that in this asshole of an unequal country of ours that favours the criminals and the feckless and the rich, there is no longer any legal aid. There is more to his story than I have put here and if you are interested go to his website www.tfc-training.com/intellectual_property_theft.htm
Tuesday, 5 October 2010
Corrupt Police & IPO- How they aided a crook. 44.
In my last post I mentioned that Annand said that she thought that Foley had first of all applied the wrong Trade Marks Act to this appeal, then she did not agree with the way Foley had talked about previous hearings when he should only be dealing with rectification and not revisiting old hearings, nor did she agree with his bringing up the question of Insolvency, you have to wonder about the veracity of any of the hearings I have been involved in.
I have long thought that our justice system stinks, no matter what arm of it you look at. I guaranty that if you presented any long and complex case to say 6 different hearings or Court cases and the people involved in those hearings or court cases were in each case totally different, yet they were presented with exactly the same evidence, you would get 6 different interpretations and 6 different results.
The same seems to happen in IPO cases because IP law and rules are to my mind, so mind bogglingly complex and open to different interpretations depending on who is hearing them It also appears to me that because of the endless rules it would take a hearing officer with a mind like a computer to be able to remember all these laws, let alone what they all mean.
Each hearing as I say has shown to me that each hearing officer did not have a handle on the evidence before him nor any overall understanding of all the laws that could apply to that case. So in the Reynolds case he made gross errors in interpretation of the laws and failed to treat good evidence in a way it should have been.
Landau obviously took a completely different look at the same evidence and came up with a completely different decision.
Hobbs seemed to also think that what Landau decreed did not tally with his ideas as could be seen by what he and James discussed in the 32 pages of case history many of which covered the same grounds as Landau did, but came to different interpretations
Foley it appears made mistakes as I have pointed out and Annand said so, so her interpretations were different to Foley's and she saw what Landau had covered and said in a different way too.
This all makes me believe that all these people don't know what the hell they are doing. Then when you look at all the mistakes various IPO workers have made over the years as well and that is evidenced in all my letters and paperwork I have from day one in 1992 to 2010. All in all this lot are an incompetent rabble who it is hard to have any faith in at all. And that is on top of the fact that I believe that the IPO have worked all these hearings to come out with the results they wanted, anyway. This for the reasons I outlined in the last post.
I am busy researching for info on how appeals should be conducted as I have intimated. I have told you already how the T/Sol are prevaricating on whether to let me know what evidence Busbridge put in to the Hobbs appeal and whether they have guidelines for judges hearing appeals. Once I get what info I need, then I will be putting it all together and showing how the Hobbs appeal was definitely crooked.
I have already sent in my complaint about the Hobbs behaviour at that hearing and his slagging off of me and how the OJC and the ombudsman have whitewashed my complaints to them, to no less than Ken Clarke MP, the Head Of the Justice Ministry and this through my MP. I will push my MP for him to act on my behalf on this as I am determined to bring this rat Hobbs to book.
Next stop if all that fails is the media with my evidence.
I have long thought that our justice system stinks, no matter what arm of it you look at. I guaranty that if you presented any long and complex case to say 6 different hearings or Court cases and the people involved in those hearings or court cases were in each case totally different, yet they were presented with exactly the same evidence, you would get 6 different interpretations and 6 different results.
The same seems to happen in IPO cases because IP law and rules are to my mind, so mind bogglingly complex and open to different interpretations depending on who is hearing them It also appears to me that because of the endless rules it would take a hearing officer with a mind like a computer to be able to remember all these laws, let alone what they all mean.
Each hearing as I say has shown to me that each hearing officer did not have a handle on the evidence before him nor any overall understanding of all the laws that could apply to that case. So in the Reynolds case he made gross errors in interpretation of the laws and failed to treat good evidence in a way it should have been.
Landau obviously took a completely different look at the same evidence and came up with a completely different decision.
Hobbs seemed to also think that what Landau decreed did not tally with his ideas as could be seen by what he and James discussed in the 32 pages of case history many of which covered the same grounds as Landau did, but came to different interpretations
Foley it appears made mistakes as I have pointed out and Annand said so, so her interpretations were different to Foley's and she saw what Landau had covered and said in a different way too.
This all makes me believe that all these people don't know what the hell they are doing. Then when you look at all the mistakes various IPO workers have made over the years as well and that is evidenced in all my letters and paperwork I have from day one in 1992 to 2010. All in all this lot are an incompetent rabble who it is hard to have any faith in at all. And that is on top of the fact that I believe that the IPO have worked all these hearings to come out with the results they wanted, anyway. This for the reasons I outlined in the last post.
I am busy researching for info on how appeals should be conducted as I have intimated. I have told you already how the T/Sol are prevaricating on whether to let me know what evidence Busbridge put in to the Hobbs appeal and whether they have guidelines for judges hearing appeals. Once I get what info I need, then I will be putting it all together and showing how the Hobbs appeal was definitely crooked.
I have already sent in my complaint about the Hobbs behaviour at that hearing and his slagging off of me and how the OJC and the ombudsman have whitewashed my complaints to them, to no less than Ken Clarke MP, the Head Of the Justice Ministry and this through my MP. I will push my MP for him to act on my behalf on this as I am determined to bring this rat Hobbs to book.
Next stop if all that fails is the media with my evidence.
Monday, 4 October 2010
Corrupt Police & IPO- How they aideed a crook. 43.
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!
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!
Tuesday, 28 September 2010
Corrupt Police & IPO-How they aided a crook. 42.
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. -WHY.
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 appealing 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.
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 appealing 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.
Thursday, 16 September 2010
Corrupt Police & IPO-How they aided a crook. 41.
Now to the reasons why this corrupt mob, the IPO, must have decided to act they way they did.
As in the previous post where I have said they kicked off in 1992 by behaving in a strange way.
First they refuse to accept bona-fide evidence from my Patent Agent that Busbridge had been an agent of mine and therefore had no legal claim to my Trade Mark. Then they ignore our evidence that his partnership was no longer in being and that as the application he had been made in the partnership name, surely this now meant the application had to fail.
Then they had held back Busbridges application to register and let mine proceed even though he had applied first. So by the end of the nineties and into early 2.000's I was mightily pissed off with this mob and this feeling was further exacerbated when they allowed Busbridge to put in an application to make my Trade Mark Invalid. So in late 2001 I started strongly complaining to the IPO and their Chief Executive Officer.
I made it plain that I thought that the IPO were incompetent and that they were costing me money in lost profits by having allowed Busbridge to be able to trade with my Trade Mark. So they from that date were on notice that I was of a mind to sue them. What they did not know is I really had no means to be able to do that. I simply could not afford to do it and if I had, I would have done it long ago. In fact had I had 'Loads O' Money' I would have shut Busbridge up, back in 1992 and have dealt with the IPO too.
I have the belief that this could be one of the reasons why the IPO wanted me out of the way. Also you have to believe that civil servants are well known for wreaking revenge on people they see as a threat or they want to shut them up. You read story after story of the tricks they pull to do this, so I would not be the first. They are renowned for wanting their own way and will do anything to get their own way. So a powerful argument there, for their behaviour.
Then you have to ask questions about what was the relationship between Chrysler and the IPO
in the beginning. I know full well what American companies are capable of doing having been in business there. The Yanks are the most corrupt of the so called leading and most civilised nations. They will stop at nothing for the almighty dollar.
Chrysler wanted to register their sportscar, which in the USA they also called Viper, in the UK and Europe. They probably thought they would sell loads here and they had a race series lined up for it, to promote it in Europe & the UK. So they would not be happy that their efforts in the UK were being thwarted. They had the money and the services of top UK IP lawyers to do what was necessary to GET IT REGISTERED. What we have to ask is how far were they willing to go?
In my mind and knowing Yanks intimately as I do, I wouldn't trust Chrysler as far as I could throw the fat bastard Yanks. The way they dealt with me over about 10 years was execrable and typically Yanky. They twisted and turned and you couldn't trust their word for one second. It would certainly answer my thoughts and questions as to why the IPO behaved the way it did even from early 1992. Maybe one day I will prove it, and you can be assured I will not stop trying to find out.
As in the previous post where I have said they kicked off in 1992 by behaving in a strange way.
First they refuse to accept bona-fide evidence from my Patent Agent that Busbridge had been an agent of mine and therefore had no legal claim to my Trade Mark. Then they ignore our evidence that his partnership was no longer in being and that as the application he had been made in the partnership name, surely this now meant the application had to fail.
Then they had held back Busbridges application to register and let mine proceed even though he had applied first. So by the end of the nineties and into early 2.000's I was mightily pissed off with this mob and this feeling was further exacerbated when they allowed Busbridge to put in an application to make my Trade Mark Invalid. So in late 2001 I started strongly complaining to the IPO and their Chief Executive Officer.
I made it plain that I thought that the IPO were incompetent and that they were costing me money in lost profits by having allowed Busbridge to be able to trade with my Trade Mark. So they from that date were on notice that I was of a mind to sue them. What they did not know is I really had no means to be able to do that. I simply could not afford to do it and if I had, I would have done it long ago. In fact had I had 'Loads O' Money' I would have shut Busbridge up, back in 1992 and have dealt with the IPO too.
I have the belief that this could be one of the reasons why the IPO wanted me out of the way. Also you have to believe that civil servants are well known for wreaking revenge on people they see as a threat or they want to shut them up. You read story after story of the tricks they pull to do this, so I would not be the first. They are renowned for wanting their own way and will do anything to get their own way. So a powerful argument there, for their behaviour.
Then you have to ask questions about what was the relationship between Chrysler and the IPO
in the beginning. I know full well what American companies are capable of doing having been in business there. The Yanks are the most corrupt of the so called leading and most civilised nations. They will stop at nothing for the almighty dollar.
Chrysler wanted to register their sportscar, which in the USA they also called Viper, in the UK and Europe. They probably thought they would sell loads here and they had a race series lined up for it, to promote it in Europe & the UK. So they would not be happy that their efforts in the UK were being thwarted. They had the money and the services of top UK IP lawyers to do what was necessary to GET IT REGISTERED. What we have to ask is how far were they willing to go?
In my mind and knowing Yanks intimately as I do, I wouldn't trust Chrysler as far as I could throw the fat bastard Yanks. The way they dealt with me over about 10 years was execrable and typically Yanky. They twisted and turned and you couldn't trust their word for one second. It would certainly answer my thoughts and questions as to why the IPO behaved the way it did even from early 1992. Maybe one day I will prove it, and you can be assured I will not stop trying to find out.
Tuesday, 4 May 2010
Corrupt Intellectual Property Office-How they aided a crook. 35.
Since my last post after the hearing of the 28th Jan 2010, we are here three months later and still no decision given. Are the IPO scrabbling around trying to think of how they can squirm out of the predicament they have got themselves into??? I mean they have spent the time since 1992 listening to a serial perjurer lying to them ad nauseum and now his lies have been blown and they have been put into the position that they simply have to do something about the perjury.
However of course to do so means they will be admitting that they are dysfunctional, incompetent and have given succour to a criminal and have walked all over a legitimate owner of a trade mark and have ruined that persons life and health, in doing so. AND WE ALL KNOW HOW MUCH CIVIL SERVANTS JUST HATE TO HAVE TO ADMIT THEY ARE INCOMPETENT. Are they scrabbling around trying to work out just how they can get out of the hole they have dug themselves into, hence they delays? Their own guidelines say that a decision should come within 4-6 weeks and here we are at twice that time. My solicitor rang them a month ago asking what was going on, to get the answer that they were just starting to put together their decision, so what were they doing for two months after the hearing?? My guess is that they are having problems working out how to give an honest decision and deal with the serial perjury committed by this criminal who has run rings round them. In the meantime he happily is trading on with his copy of my product and using my trade mark, as if nothing has ever happened and he has committed no crimes. On the subject of crimes I have heard that in 1991/2 he did indeed commit crimes which I am trying to find a way of being able to bring to the attention of 'our simply wonderful Police' ??
I just wonder what their answer is going to be, but if it is another one of their whitewashes, they will have another fight on their hands as I do not intend to let them get away with their 19 years of sheer incompetence -to my detriment. I will fight them until my death if necessary as I have never been willing to put up with the ruling classes of this rotten country. They walk all over the ordinary folk, all the time and I am just one of hundreds of thousands who have suffered at their hands. Look at how the bastards treat our armed forces when they have suffered dreadful injuries and that is only one example.
SO KEEP WATCHING THIS SPACE AS WE MAY GET A DECISION SOON AND THEN IT IS ONTO THE AFTERMATH OF THAT, AS IT'S NOT OVER UNTIL I GET REAL JUSTICE!!!
Their own guidelines state that decisions should be forthcoming within 4-6 weeks and here we are at a point of time that is TWICE THAT LENGTH OF TIME. My solicitor even asked them a month ago what was happeneing and was told that the decision making was about to be started and we should get the decision in April. SO WHERE IS IS IT?? JUSTICE DELAYED IS JUSTICE DENIED AND ALL THAT. However the IPO are not interested in justice and I just wonder where it will all go. If justice is not forthcoming they are going to have a real fight on their hands as I am not going to cave into the bastards. I will die first before I do that, so we will see and if it does not come this month then the fight will start
However of course to do so means they will be admitting that they are dysfunctional, incompetent and have given succour to a criminal and have walked all over a legitimate owner of a trade mark and have ruined that persons life and health, in doing so. AND WE ALL KNOW HOW MUCH CIVIL SERVANTS JUST HATE TO HAVE TO ADMIT THEY ARE INCOMPETENT. Are they scrabbling around trying to work out just how they can get out of the hole they have dug themselves into, hence they delays? Their own guidelines say that a decision should come within 4-6 weeks and here we are at twice that time. My solicitor rang them a month ago asking what was going on, to get the answer that they were just starting to put together their decision, so what were they doing for two months after the hearing?? My guess is that they are having problems working out how to give an honest decision and deal with the serial perjury committed by this criminal who has run rings round them. In the meantime he happily is trading on with his copy of my product and using my trade mark, as if nothing has ever happened and he has committed no crimes. On the subject of crimes I have heard that in 1991/2 he did indeed commit crimes which I am trying to find a way of being able to bring to the attention of 'our simply wonderful Police' ??
I just wonder what their answer is going to be, but if it is another one of their whitewashes, they will have another fight on their hands as I do not intend to let them get away with their 19 years of sheer incompetence -to my detriment. I will fight them until my death if necessary as I have never been willing to put up with the ruling classes of this rotten country. They walk all over the ordinary folk, all the time and I am just one of hundreds of thousands who have suffered at their hands. Look at how the bastards treat our armed forces when they have suffered dreadful injuries and that is only one example.
SO KEEP WATCHING THIS SPACE AS WE MAY GET A DECISION SOON AND THEN IT IS ONTO THE AFTERMATH OF THAT, AS IT'S NOT OVER UNTIL I GET REAL JUSTICE!!!
Their own guidelines state that decisions should be forthcoming within 4-6 weeks and here we are at a point of time that is TWICE THAT LENGTH OF TIME. My solicitor even asked them a month ago what was happeneing and was told that the decision making was about to be started and we should get the decision in April. SO WHERE IS IS IT?? JUSTICE DELAYED IS JUSTICE DENIED AND ALL THAT. However the IPO are not interested in justice and I just wonder where it will all go. If justice is not forthcoming they are going to have a real fight on their hands as I am not going to cave into the bastards. I will die first before I do that, so we will see and if it does not come this month then the fight will start
Saturday, 30 January 2010
Corrupt Intellectual Property Office-How they aided a crook. 34.
The hearing was as I expected. A no nonsense, bruiser type bother boy, hearing officer, called Salthouse. He was no doubt hand picked by the IPO to make sure that the Busbridge brothers did not come to blows or indulge in endless slagging each other off. And of course to make sure the hearing was conducted to the good of the IPO.
I thought that Robert Busbridge showed his usual colours of a cringing, snivelling liar, trying to belittle his brother and of course me. He told his usual lies of how he was a saint and saviour of the customers of Brightwheel Replicas after it had ceased trading, when of course by my taking on the brothers as my agent after this event, it gave those customers somewhere to go, and they benefitted beacuse this of course gave Cobretti business. He also tried to pin the bankruptcy of BRL on me, when he knew full well that the company had ceased trading due to my partners closing it down AFTER I had resigned. The hypocrosy of this evil man knows no bounds, for he completely ignores his own bankruptcy and the effects on HIS creditors.Well I hope the IPO ignored all that kind of irrelevant crap. However they have form for not ignoring it and being swayed by his lies.
My lawyer did a very good job of laying out case law regards the partnership and the non legal way it finished, thus making the application by only one partner, for registration, void. He also gave many reasons why the application for the Invalidity of my registration should fail, all based on law. How the two main reasons Busbridge relied on for this application, namely passing off and he having a prior right to me, where all legally wrong. Pointing out that it was he that was guilty of passing off my product and trade mark not the other way round.
I will attach the skeleton argument to this blog soon, so you can all see our argument.
Now this Salthouse made a comment at the beginning of this hearing which ABSOLUTELY LAID IT OUT INTO THE OPEN WHY TEH IPO HAVE SPENT SO MUCH TIME OPPOSING MY EVERY MOVE FROM 1992 RIGHT THROUGH TO THIS 2010 HEARING. HE SAID THAT THE IPO WERE WELL AND TRULY FED UP WITH MY CASE WHICH HAD GONE ON FOR SO LONG AND TAKEN UP SO MUCH OF THE IPO's TIME THAT THEY WERE GLAD THAT THIS SHOULD END IT ALL. THAT IT WOULD RECIFY A MISTAKE THEY HAD MADE. (Now the never said exactly what he meant by all that but it is clear to me what he meant).
For what he was saying was that as far as the IPO were concerned the Hearing Officer who heard my opposition case to Chrysler over registering my Trade Mark, had made a mistake and obviously that would have given Chrysler the case and my Trade Mark. I have long thought that there was jiggery pokery involved in that case and I have as you will see, said that I always thought that Chrysler bent arms in the British Government to get this Trade Mark (that they already had registered in all of the EU, given to them). Don't forget that they would have spent an enormous amount of money to set it all up to sell their 'Viper' in the EU & the UK. I wouldn't mind betting that the Hearing Officer who heard that case was under orders to do that. Now he was quite an old bloke ready I think fcoming up to retirement. Just maybe he didn't follow orders of being old stock so wouldn't get involved in non legal goings on-hence why Salthouse SAID A MISTAKE HAD BEEN MADE WHICH NEEDED TO BE CORRECTED and waffled on some more about this-see the transcript and you will see what I am saying. IT ALL STINKS TO HIGH HEAVEN-ONCE AGAIN.
Of course now we have to wait for the IPO to issue their decision, but I have absolutely no faith in them whatsoever, as I have constantly said. They have an agenda which is best known only to them. Once that decision is given, of course if it does go against me, I will appeal it. We will know exactly what had been in the IPO minds all along and we will then have their mindset out in the open and will be able to fight it. I got the impression that their minds were already made up prior to the hearing and the hearing was just window dressing. For they have read the written evidence and as they said have read all the previous hearings, so what was said at this hearing was nothing new.
Of course one big thing that the have to address, and we made sure we made comment on that, and that is the question of all the lies and perjury eminating from Robert Busbridge. We made sure we pointed out that the IPO had specifically said they would deal with that at the hearing.
Of course we made sure that his lying and dishonesty and making applications in bad faith, were highlighted. Of course now we had a second witness to all the dishonesty namely Martin.
I personally cannot see how the IPO can find for Robert based on his obvious lying and bad faith, and partnership law and IPO law that were not adherred to. But as I have said over and over again-the IPO have shown time and again they have an agenda on this case that is hard to fathom. So we will see.
In the meantime Robert Busbridge will be sweating it out, and if his demeanour at the hearing is anything to go by, which was not so cocky as before, he will be sweating it out.
Saturday, 14 June 2008
Intellectual Poperty Office-How they aided a crook. 4.
From now on the Cobra/Viper story is really two stories in one. There was the ongoing story of the business of making the Cobra/Vipers and there was the never ending saga of all the legal matters that would open out. Not just one legal story but one legal fight after another and all bar one involving the biggest bunch of incompetents going at the then Patent Office in Cardiff. I often wondered if the whole place was really staffed by Welsh sheep, but you can make your own mind up.
The very first legal battle of course, started, while I was finishing off the business in Germany, but as I have already said it got off to a very slow start. Kings presented direct to Chrysler evidence that Busbridge trading as Cobretti Engineering was or had been my agent until I sacked him at the end of 1991. We gave them copies of the agency agreement and letters that had been sent to Busbridge warning him that I was the legal owner of the Mark. Also evidence that I had been using the Mark since early 1986. I thought that it was simple, they would accept this evidence as it was on record in many places that I had been using the Mark as both Brightwheel and Brightwheel Replicas had been well known companies and the product had been well known and well advertised with records of articles in the National press and the two TV companies BBC and ITV.
I thought they would tell Busbridge to get lost and would sit down and talk with myself as to what we would do over them wanting to register my Mark, which even though it was not registered, i had Common Law on my side with indisputable proof of prior usage to them. But then I have always found the Yanks to be prime assholes, to use one of their terms, and didn't I know. Not only had I had to put up with two Yanks of dubious standards who were typical Yanky bullshit merchants, but I had also been to the States a good few times when we were trying to take on an agent to cover selling our kits throughout the States. Every Yank I ever dealt with and I had dealt with them in San Franscisco, Atlanta, Niagra Falls, and Buddy Holly country in the middle of Texas. Every damn one of them was nothing more than a lying scheming, bullshitter who would fuck you around with empty promises. I had got sick of them by 1990 and now I was having to deal with one of their biggest car makers who were to turn out not one jot better than all the cockroaches I had met before. Talk about duplicitous, I think they invented the word.
Well of course Chrysler did not accept my evidence and my not knowing exactly what Busbridge had said to them, did not help. It became evident fairly soon that Bob Busbridge at least was a Yank in disguise, as he was an arch liar and he had fed them with a story full of lies which the stupid bastards seemed to have believed.
At this point I should point out that I only seemed to hear tales as told by Bob Busbridge and no mention of Martin Busbridge. I was to find out over the years by little stories people who knew me and who heard it on the grapevines, and in snippets of evidence that Bob gave over the years. Whilst I did not get the full story until years later I may as well tell you it now and this way you can see up front what happened, why, and how and why Bob is what he is. Quite frankly I think he should have been certified years ago, as he is patently a serial liar or technically they call it being a pathological liar. What annoys me intensely is that throughout my story I never make statements I cannot back up with documentary evidence. I had given the Patent Office dozens and dozens of examples of his lying, which you would think would alert them to the fact that here they are dealing with someone who is at least economical with the truth to being an outright liar and his evidence therefore has to be viewed with the utmost suspicion and in many case be discounted completely. In all the years of dealing with these third raters, never once did they do this. It seemed to me that they believed every word he ever uttered even when I showed he had categorically lied.
You will see all this as I go through the whole story, but at the beginning his first lies in his fairy tale story he spun them was that he owned the Mark because he started using the Mark Viper in 1987 by selling kits. Of course he omitted to tell them that at that time I was using him as an agent for BRL and I had not taken him on until about February 1988. That this was the case until I then took him on again as my agent for my new business from September 1989, called Classic Replicas. He then said when my first trading company Bightwheel Replicas Ltd (BRL) had gone bankrupt I had run off with all the customers money to Switzerland and had abandoned the Cobra business in the UK. They then felt they could legitimately take it over which they did. So Chrysler there you have it, we are the legal owners now!! Do a deal with us and give us lots of lovely lolly!!
Now what had happened to Martin? When I had stayed with him in 1990 for a week, he owned a house with his wife and her parents not too far from Sutton in a nice area. Apparently Bob had persuaded him to take out a second mortgage on that house to give them some working capital either to see them through a difficult patch or even to save the business or even to pay for all the frantic copying of my products, that they were undergoing at that time. But of course whoever was running the business did not have a clue and they were heading for disaster. First they could no longer afford the expensive workshop and as I told you already they moved into a cheaper workshop which they shared with some reptile they had met who had some tenuous link with cars. I heard it was him that put all the ideas into their heads about what they could get out of Chrysler etc. Then when I started to threaten all sorts of legal action, this had been the last straw with Martin, and if the truth were known probably the tenuous state of their finances hadn't helped either.
Certainly by the end of 1992 he broke completely with Bob and he disappeared and had never been seen again, and to this day he has had no contact with his brother. A pretty extreme state of affairs, you may well say, and I would agree with you. What could have happened to make this drastic situation happen? I heard from a reliable source that because the bank called in its loans which could not be paid it had meant that Martin lost his house and that cost him his marriage. Naturally he would not feel kindly disposed to his brother and I feel that he probably blamed him both for dragging him and the business into legal fights that he did not want to be involved in, maybe he had never agreed to the stealing of my business, I do not know, but it is a possibility. Knowing just how useless Bob was at everything he did, no doubt he was mainly to blame for the finances.
Funnily enough I passed his house some years after in the late 90's and I saw his wife come out of the front door, so although he definitely was not around and was in the USA, and then later on in Spain, she was still there. So I can only surmise that if the story about the loan on the house was true, that maybe her parents bailed her out, but he went anyway. Whatever.
So we have this situation that Chrysler are believing his cock and bull story and I have to fight it every inch of the way and this fight took me no less than FIVE YEARS PLUS!!!! I am committed to do this because if I do not Chrysler will get registration, they may do some sort of deal with Busbridge, maybe he will get money for something I own, and I will end up with nothing, not even my own Trade Mark.
The very first legal battle of course, started, while I was finishing off the business in Germany, but as I have already said it got off to a very slow start. Kings presented direct to Chrysler evidence that Busbridge trading as Cobretti Engineering was or had been my agent until I sacked him at the end of 1991. We gave them copies of the agency agreement and letters that had been sent to Busbridge warning him that I was the legal owner of the Mark. Also evidence that I had been using the Mark since early 1986. I thought that it was simple, they would accept this evidence as it was on record in many places that I had been using the Mark as both Brightwheel and Brightwheel Replicas had been well known companies and the product had been well known and well advertised with records of articles in the National press and the two TV companies BBC and ITV.
I thought they would tell Busbridge to get lost and would sit down and talk with myself as to what we would do over them wanting to register my Mark, which even though it was not registered, i had Common Law on my side with indisputable proof of prior usage to them. But then I have always found the Yanks to be prime assholes, to use one of their terms, and didn't I know. Not only had I had to put up with two Yanks of dubious standards who were typical Yanky bullshit merchants, but I had also been to the States a good few times when we were trying to take on an agent to cover selling our kits throughout the States. Every Yank I ever dealt with and I had dealt with them in San Franscisco, Atlanta, Niagra Falls, and Buddy Holly country in the middle of Texas. Every damn one of them was nothing more than a lying scheming, bullshitter who would fuck you around with empty promises. I had got sick of them by 1990 and now I was having to deal with one of their biggest car makers who were to turn out not one jot better than all the cockroaches I had met before. Talk about duplicitous, I think they invented the word.
Well of course Chrysler did not accept my evidence and my not knowing exactly what Busbridge had said to them, did not help. It became evident fairly soon that Bob Busbridge at least was a Yank in disguise, as he was an arch liar and he had fed them with a story full of lies which the stupid bastards seemed to have believed.
At this point I should point out that I only seemed to hear tales as told by Bob Busbridge and no mention of Martin Busbridge. I was to find out over the years by little stories people who knew me and who heard it on the grapevines, and in snippets of evidence that Bob gave over the years. Whilst I did not get the full story until years later I may as well tell you it now and this way you can see up front what happened, why, and how and why Bob is what he is. Quite frankly I think he should have been certified years ago, as he is patently a serial liar or technically they call it being a pathological liar. What annoys me intensely is that throughout my story I never make statements I cannot back up with documentary evidence. I had given the Patent Office dozens and dozens of examples of his lying, which you would think would alert them to the fact that here they are dealing with someone who is at least economical with the truth to being an outright liar and his evidence therefore has to be viewed with the utmost suspicion and in many case be discounted completely. In all the years of dealing with these third raters, never once did they do this. It seemed to me that they believed every word he ever uttered even when I showed he had categorically lied.
You will see all this as I go through the whole story, but at the beginning his first lies in his fairy tale story he spun them was that he owned the Mark because he started using the Mark Viper in 1987 by selling kits. Of course he omitted to tell them that at that time I was using him as an agent for BRL and I had not taken him on until about February 1988. That this was the case until I then took him on again as my agent for my new business from September 1989, called Classic Replicas. He then said when my first trading company Bightwheel Replicas Ltd (BRL) had gone bankrupt I had run off with all the customers money to Switzerland and had abandoned the Cobra business in the UK. They then felt they could legitimately take it over which they did. So Chrysler there you have it, we are the legal owners now!! Do a deal with us and give us lots of lovely lolly!!
Now what had happened to Martin? When I had stayed with him in 1990 for a week, he owned a house with his wife and her parents not too far from Sutton in a nice area. Apparently Bob had persuaded him to take out a second mortgage on that house to give them some working capital either to see them through a difficult patch or even to save the business or even to pay for all the frantic copying of my products, that they were undergoing at that time. But of course whoever was running the business did not have a clue and they were heading for disaster. First they could no longer afford the expensive workshop and as I told you already they moved into a cheaper workshop which they shared with some reptile they had met who had some tenuous link with cars. I heard it was him that put all the ideas into their heads about what they could get out of Chrysler etc. Then when I started to threaten all sorts of legal action, this had been the last straw with Martin, and if the truth were known probably the tenuous state of their finances hadn't helped either.
Certainly by the end of 1992 he broke completely with Bob and he disappeared and had never been seen again, and to this day he has had no contact with his brother. A pretty extreme state of affairs, you may well say, and I would agree with you. What could have happened to make this drastic situation happen? I heard from a reliable source that because the bank called in its loans which could not be paid it had meant that Martin lost his house and that cost him his marriage. Naturally he would not feel kindly disposed to his brother and I feel that he probably blamed him both for dragging him and the business into legal fights that he did not want to be involved in, maybe he had never agreed to the stealing of my business, I do not know, but it is a possibility. Knowing just how useless Bob was at everything he did, no doubt he was mainly to blame for the finances.
Funnily enough I passed his house some years after in the late 90's and I saw his wife come out of the front door, so although he definitely was not around and was in the USA, and then later on in Spain, she was still there. So I can only surmise that if the story about the loan on the house was true, that maybe her parents bailed her out, but he went anyway. Whatever.
So we have this situation that Chrysler are believing his cock and bull story and I have to fight it every inch of the way and this fight took me no less than FIVE YEARS PLUS!!!! I am committed to do this because if I do not Chrysler will get registration, they may do some sort of deal with Busbridge, maybe he will get money for something I own, and I will end up with nothing, not even my own Trade Mark.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)