CORRUPT INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY OFFICE. 97.

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. A replica of an Aston Marton Volante car was featured on Top Gear (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 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-up 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. So these comments being made about me 'personally' when anyone in the IPO at that date had virtually no contact in any way with me. IT SHOWS WHAT WAS GOING ON IN THE MINDS OF SOME PEOPLE IN THE IPO AND AT AN EARLY STAGE OF MY CONTACTS WITH THEM....WHY WAS THIS??

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 - (Did Busbridge speak with people in the IPO giving them his opinions about me?) 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! PLUS AT THAT DATE AS I HAVE SAID, I'D HARDLY HAD THAT MUCH CONTACT WITH THE IPO-SO WHERE IS ALL THIS COMING FROM.??

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.

__________________________________________________________________________________

Corrupt Police & IPO-How they aided a crook. 69.

 

THE IPO

You may well ask what have they got to do with the Corrupt Dorset Police. Well no doubt you have not read all of this blog for if you have you will know it started because of the corrupt way the IPO were dealing with me over the stealing off me, of my Trade Mark Viper, by my ex agent and aided by the IPO. The Dorset Police came into the equation when I went to them in Sept 2009 to ask them to investigate the perjury and forgery committed by Busbridge in any number of IPO court hearings. You will see despite my pointing out to the IPO that this was going on and they should investigate and that included me making to their CEO a Formal Complaint that they were ignoring criminal acts and refusing to investigate them, they refused to lift a finger.

So after the final debacle of a corrupt hearing held in 2010 where I was told by the IPO they would deal with these criminal acts.....they of course never even touched on them. So then I was obliged to go to my local thoroughly corrupt mob of criminals in uniform and beg them to investigate.  It was when they started treating me as if I were a criminal that I included them onto this blog.

Well this last week I have suddenly got time on my hands so I started to sort out all the bundles of files on all this very unsavoury behaviour by the IPO and the DPA. (Dorset Police Authority) Hopefully when I win the lottery I can  use them to sue the ass off all those bastards who ruined my thriving business and stole all my designs and Trade Mark. Fat chance but I can dream on. Anyhow doing this has brought back to me just how corrupt all these BASTARDS are. Reading all the evidence of that and what they did has once more enraged me and made me as mad as hell. Reminded me just how helpless British people are when trying to fight the ESTABLISHMENT !!!(When they don't have the money to do so, and they tell us we live in a democracy ???)

I read the emails and letters I did managed to drag out of the IPO through the FOIAct. In a couple of them we have two totally corrupt and criminally minded bastards from no less than the LEGAL OFFICE of the IPO, telling the useless and corrupt cop in Bournemouth Police, a Sgt Brimicombe all the lies and bad mouthing about me, that he could think of. All that of course was done to colour him against me, paint me as being this and that, so he would be put off DOING HIS JOB  and being independent and looking at the reams of documentary evidence I'd given him. So this IPO asshole by the name of Colombo tells Brimicombe that I write this blog and......STATES THAT HE FOUND THE ENTRIES EXTREMELY SHOCKING AND OFFENSIVE SO BEWARE IF YOU DO READ IT. He then gives him my URL so he can read it which I know he did.
Now, this even now when I re-read it some years on, brings it home to me just how CORRUPT THE IPO ARE !!! and just how they did every dirty trick in the book to stop me from ever getting JUSTICE AGAINST THE ROTTEN, CORRUPT AND CRIMINAL BASTARDS !!!! HOW THEY WERE UTTERLY DETERMINED TO TAKE OFF ME MY T/M AND GIVE IT TO THIS CROOK BUSBRIDGE.

You see I pull no punches in this my blog AND I CONTINUE TO DO SO. So why do I do this? Why did I call all those bastards in the IPO that and call them criminals.......because I WANTED THEM TO TAKE ME TO COURT, maybe on libel charge or dream up some criminal charge to heap upon me. That way I would have been able to get legal help, to show up in court just how corrupt and criminal they all are and were. For which I had no money (and they knew this)  to take them to court. Of course they have never done that for they know they would lose.

So here are their names once again for the World to see:- JAMES - HEAD OF LEGAL DEPARTMENT OF THE IPO. ......COLOMBO - LEGAL DPT.....HAYWARD - LEGAL DPT.


I also vainly hoped some legal entity would read all I showed in this blog and would volunteer to help out them all. Of course in this country unless your story gets big and in the news....you have no chance. The papers only want salacious stories and boring stories about some old bloke whose had his life made a misery at the end of it.....just isn't the type of news they look for. I KNOW FOR I TRIED AGES AGO AND GOT NOWHERE.

Corrupt Police & IPO-How they aided a crook. 52.

Because our corrupt Police Forces of Dorset and The Met refuse to investigate the criminal actions of Busbridge, I have been forced to report the Met to the Independent Police Complaints Commission. They don't have a good reputation as being independent so we will see how they fare. I cannot yet report the Dorset shower as they have since September 1st, deliberately gone slow on officially turning down my official complaint about their non actions. Well this is typical of the Police these days who in my book are nothing more than a rabble in uniform. By acting as they are doing they make themselves no better than the crims they are supposed to be protecting us from. This by a rabble of crims themselves, only they are in uniform. I mean it takes a crim to recognise one as the saying goes.....how true.
When I finally get a knock back from the Dorset Rabble Yeomanry, I will then send in my report on them to the IPCC, no doubt for yet another fruitless exercise in futility.

Dorset Police are also behaving in a disgusting way by refusing to divulge the emails and letters that went between them and the equally corrupt IPO. What have they to hide I ask????????? They haven't even kept to the rules by issuing me with an official refusal AND IN FACT THEY ARE JUST IGNORING MY REQUEST AND EVEN THEIR DEPUTY CHIEF CONSTABLE REFUSES TO ANSWER MY LETTER ASKING WHY HIS FORCE IS BEHAVING THIS WAY. Then of course the Met have done the very same, but at least they issued the refusal and that lets you go on to lay a complaint to yet another official so called watchdog, who will no doubt turn out to be a toothless as all the other dozens of these parasites that exist in this wonderful country of ours.
I tell you I may as well be living in RUSSIA for all the corruption and useless incompetents we have all around our government bodies/institutions and our corrupt politicians.

Don't forget Ken Clarke...He the 'Criminals Friend' still hasn't replied to my complaint about that the Corrupt Judge Hobbs who hasn't been dealt with. This is how those in Politics behave, when you get them into a corner and they know they are in the wrong and they just don't want to act for to do so will be an admission of their uselessness......THEY IGNORE YOU!!!!!!

Then there is yet another corrupt politician, none other than the ATTORNEY GENERAL, DOMINIC GRIEVE. MP, who refuses to say whether the IPO were right to say that perjury cannot be investigated by anyone unless the A/Gen gives his OK. Again he is in a corner so what does he do? He says I am asking for legal advice which he doesn't do, when all I am doing is asking him to verify if another government is lying or is telling the truth and what is his job in relation to the reporting of perjury?????

I have yet to see how the INFORMATION COMMISSIONER does re my complaints at not getting the documents I have requested from the IPO, the PARLIAMENTARY OMBUDSMAN (who will no doubt invent excuses not to release what documents they got from the IPO)and lastly also from the DORSET POLICE and the MET POLICE.

QUITE FRANKLY I DON'T EXPECT ANY OF THESE GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS TO BEHAVE PROPERLY AND ABOVE SUSPICION, BUT I AM DOING ALL THIS PUSHING SO I CAN SHOW YOU ALL JUST HOW CORRUPT OUR SYSTEM IS WHEN THE ESTABLISHMENT DECIDE THEY WILL NEVER ALLOW YOU JUSTICE. THEY ALL BAND TOGETHER AND YOU CAN KISS JUSTICE ON IT'S ASS.

Corrupt Police & IP-How they aided a crook.51.

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.

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

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.

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!

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.

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.

Corrupt Police & IPO-How they aided a crook. 40.

In my post, of two back, where I talk about my local Police, I need to show you just how these devious civil servants work. When I had a meeting with this useless copper called Brimicombe and he had a fit of the intimidation's against me because I wouldn't let him get away with saying perjury had not been committed, he let the cat out of the bag.
He said "I have read all your blog" and it was said with the tone of voice that telegraphed that he thought negatively about it. I would say that in his mind, after he had read it, he thought one or all of the following:-
1/ I was a nutter hell bent on revenge against the IPO and or Busbridge.
2/ What I have said and how I have said it in this blog is outrageous.
3/ That I was telling lies and none of what I have said is true.
4/ That what I have said and how I have said it shows I am a real nasty character and should therefore be dealt with by them as such.

Now what you have to understand here is how did he know I had a blog running on the IP issues?
For what I have not told you is that Busbridge in his efforts to blacken my name, as he has done consistently since day one, sent the IPO a copy of my blog in amongst his so called evidence at the last hearing in January 2010. He said he was doing this as an act of civil goodness to show the IPO what an awful character I was. He made a point of telling the IPO that I had said nasty things about them. Well I damn well would wouldn't I? For that is the whole point of the blog.....to expose the IPO AND LIAR BUSBRIDGE for what they all are.
Of course the IPO can damn well do nothing about my blog....free speech and all that, and no doubt thought that this blog is not being seen by too many people and that it would have no effect. On that score they are right, but all that is about to change as I am about to make every effort to up the ability of this blog to be seen by many more people.
Back to the Police and the IPO. So the IPO tells this copper that I have the temerity to have this blog and you can just imagine what else they tell him about me as I have said already. I can imagine the torrent of personal abuse and lies against me they will have indulged in. All this to brainwash the copper against me as a person! Hence why his attitude towards me on a personal basis from when I first starting talking to him, changes to the present time and this fit he had against me.
It also explains why they decided they would not investigate it and thought up all these feeble lying excuses to do this.
This act by the IPO, of course, can be said to be an act of perverting the course of Justice. The IPO simply do not want to see me have success in any way in bringing them all to book for their lies, corruption, incompetence, failures to carry out their own Laws and Rules etc. I go even further, I now believe that in the early days there is a good chance they deliberately put my opposition application to oppose Chrysler's application to register my Mark, in front of Busbridges similar application which he PUT IN JUST BEFORE MINE. Now I am sure that their rules would say that the earlier application would be heard first. That would make sense for DO NOT FORGET I LOST MY REGISTRATION OF MY MARK THIS LAST JANUARY 2010 ON THE GROUNDS THAT BUSBRIDGE APPLIED TO REGISTER THIS MARK BEFORE I DID!!! So why wasn't this same law applied at the beginning, back in 1992?????
If you look at the course of events starting at that time, at the actions of the IPO as to when they let me and Busbridge have our applications heard, it is all out of order. WHY DID THE IPO LET ME HAVE MY APPLICATION TO OPPOSE CHRYSLERS APPLICATION TO REGISTER MY MARK VIPER, BEFORE THE APPLICATION BUSBRIDGE ALSO HAD PUT IN TO DO THE SAME???????
The Rules have to be that the person who put in the FIRST application had it heard FIRST!!
had that rule been applied in 1992, the outcome of this long saga of lies and corruption would have turned out very different and I say the IPO knew it would and it would have inevitably turned out in favour for me. By twisting things it seems that they were able to work it, minus a few glitches like the Landau decision which fucked up their schemes, to have it turn out the way they wanted it to.
I say this is yet another act of corruption by the IPO and that there were forces at play here that I have yet to find out what they were.
Then you have this alleged appeal hearing that took place in 2005 before this Judge Hobbs. This was supposed to be an appeal by Busbridge against the decision of Landau who said Busbridge had to lose his registration as I have outlined before. Now an appeal hearing is supposed to follow a pattern. Busbridge would have had to put in his statement of Grounds of Appeal, in which he outlines the LEGAL reasons he thought the Landua decision was not lawful. He may also have put in other statements of what he saw as facts to be considered by Hobbs in support of his appeal.
At the hearing Hobbs should have gone over some of those statements and asked for clairifications if needed, ask Busbridge did he want to add verbally to any of those statements, and so on. If you read the transcript of that hearing it is quite clear that this was no APPEAL HEARING! It was nothing mnore than a MEETING between the IPO in the figure of Mr James, who is a big wig manager of the tribunal section and Hobbs the hearing Judge and Busbridge.
Straight away you have to ask, why had the IPO sent such a senior figure to the hearing as James? I say it is because this hearing has been worked out in advance by the IPO and Hobbs, who let us not forget IS NOT INDENDENT, AS HE SHOULD BE as he is virtually an employee of the IPO because of all the work he does for them, that the hearing will be a discussion and not an appeal hearing. (This is against all the Rules for appeal judges)
Why do I say this? I believe that the IPO simply did not want it to be an appeal hearing even though Busbridge had asked to appeal, because they wished Busbridge to be able to circumvent the decision of Landau and this would be a means to surrupticiously achieve this under the guise of this being an appeal hearing. It would be dressed up as such but was really just a way of guiding Busbridge towards a path were he could go down and achieve eventually, a registration in his own name and Landau could be forgotten as if it had never happened.
So this is exactly what happened. Hobbs and James engage in spending two thirds of the time that hearing took in giving advice to Busbridge under the guise that they were only talking about case history. But a proper appeal hearing does not discuss case law. Case law would show up in the decision document AFTER the appeal had been heard and the hearing officer is making out the reasons for his decision. By doing this Hobbs & the IPO can tell Busbridge, verbally, what his legal position is by by mentioning similar cases. Hobbs even makes a point of asking Busbridge after they had finished if he UNDERSTOOD ALL THAT THEY HAD TALKED ABOUT. That gave the game away as what he really was asking is, "Did you understand all the hints we gave you in all those talks?" But these arrogant bastards didn't give damn as this meeting was not attended by anyone who could blow the whistle. No ordinary IPO employees, only their top man who is in on it and of course Hobbs, who no doubt would do anything in order to higher his cred with the IPO.
Then Hobbs goes into giving Busbridge loads of advice which as I have said is illegal. All designed to show him what track he must take to circumvent the position he is in. James even openly states that if he takes this track and asks the IPO to take a stance, "THEY WILL NOT STAND IN HIS WAY" NOW IF ALL THAT IS NOT CORRUPT, I AM A MONKEYS UNCLE!
And as I have told you already Hobbs even throws in some insults about me for good measure, knowing I could not answer or fight back. No doubt they all thought I would never find out about all this. (Again against the Rules for Judges)
Further proof that this is what really happened and is shown by the reluctance and the lies of the IPO when I kept asking what had happened with this hearing and what was the decision. I was lied to as was my MP as to why there was a delay in finding out what the decision of the appeal was. In actual fact there was to be no decision as Busbridge had been advised to drop the appeal and go off on the path he had been advised to do so by Hobbs. The IPO wanted to keep that quiet for as long as possible so Busbridge had the time to do what he had to do. So it all came to pass that he was successful in being able to ignore the decision of Landau and to eventually get his registration of my mark and to eventually get the IPO to take my mark off me in last January.
NOW IF ALL THAT IS NOT CORRUPT I DO NOT KNOW WHAT IS!! and that is why I am saying that the IPO, Mr JAMES AND JUDGE HOBBS ARE ALL CORRUPT.
What needs to be answered is why did the IPO not want me to have registration. I will tell you why I think that is, in the next post.

Corrupt Police & IPO-How they aided a crook. 39.

For some 13 months now I have been trying to get our wonderful Police force to charge the liar conman with multiple counts of perjury. The IPO over the years since 2002 have steadfastly refused to even look at perjury for reasons which I think I know why, but of course proving it is my next big job. Anyway I gave my local plod idiots an official notification of all the counts of perjury and all the documentary evidence that proved it had been committed.

What do they do, they get straight on the phone to the IPO and they talk them out of doing anything. I can imagine the tale they span them, like I am a nutter hell bent on causing trouble and everything had been dealt with by them and there was no problems to be dealt with. But the worst stuff they brainwashed the cop who was speaking to them, was that there could be no perjury at an IPI hearing as no the persons in it did not have to take an oath. Now this cop either was a complet oaf to take thaat in or he and the IPO thought they coud get away with that lie. So when I was back with the Police asking them that as the IPo had not kept their promise way back to the Police, that they would deal with all the alleged perjury tec at thate 2010 hearing-whcih of course they had no intention of doing so They came back to me, and this was last August and said that the IPO were best placed to deal with it and I should give them the chance to do that at the last hearing that was coming up- the one last January 2010

Well of course as you will have seen they did not deal with it, and so in August when I found that out, I went back to them. They messed me about for weeks and weeks and it seemed that they were not going to do anything. So I kept pushing them by giving them a concise list of each and every act of perjury, forgery and perverting the course of justice committed since 2002, plus the documentary evidence to back up each allegation. Still nothing, then after complaining to their Inspector that nothing was happening, I was suddenly told after three months of being messed around that they will not do anything. Their excuse being that it was not committed in their area. This completely ignoring the fact that they charged me with perjury on a bunch of perjured lies from conman Busbridge back in 1999 and for alleged perjury committed in London. It is so clear that they have been brainwashed by the IPO.

Indeed they had been and it shows just how corrupt the IPO are and were anti me and were going to stop at nothing TO STOP ME EVER SETTING UP JUSTICE AND SHOWING ALL THE PERJURY THAT WAS NEVER DEALT WITH BY THE IPO, and clearly had set up the Police to wreck this meeting we were having. For he now had another cop sitting in, obviously as a witness, for he knew that he was going to indulge in severely having a go at me. He was very angry and shouting and sticking his face near mine to frighten me and maybe thought due to whatever the IPO had told him about me, maybe I would react physically. as I was nothing more than a criminal. But it was he that was acting as if he would indulge in physical acts against me as they do.  So in effect I was now the ' not only of Busbridge but now the POLICE - a Victim' He accused me of trying to make money out of the IPO and that no crimes had been committed (here he was referring to Busbridge and no doubt also the IPO) When I tried to claim that perjury was a criminal offence and he should know that full well, that sent him off on another shouting rant. I could clearly see that he was not going to lift a finger, so I stopped him going on and left the room thinking I would report him to the Chiet Constable-which I did -to absolutely no effect- as is usual. For what the IPO did in brainwashed this cop with all the lies they would clearly know were lies and so should the Police have full well have known-The Police & IPO should have been severely dealt with. But as one has no money it means once again criminality is not dealt with and they get away with it.  So folks, if a murder has been committed in Dorset it would be a waste of time going to our Dorset Dickheads because they won't want to know! Well I suppose that is what you get with a load of country bumpkins acting as coppers!!!

I also had to put up with these raving corrupt cops saying that the IPO had said that it was impossible for conman to have committed perjury, as all the statements had been heard in a tribunal where no oath had been taken. Another example of corrupt excuses from the IPO as we all know that statements made to tribunals come under the same Perjury Act 1911 (amended).They think you are so stupid that you will believe this Certainly the cops do or is it they just jumped on that to get out of it?
 

So the fight goes on in a number of fresh ways and it is nowhere near over yet.
Now I have also reported the corruption committed by the corrupt Judge Hobbs QC at the appeal hearing  in 2005, which I have reported way back in this blog, to Kenneth Clarke. This as he is the Head of the Judiciary. Of course this blubbery, scruffy oaf, didn't even have the decency and nor did his staff, to acknowledge receipt of my complaint. So that necessitated getting my MP to act once more as a postman and deliver a second copy of the first one and in person. A month has gone by and still not a peep. I am taking bets as to how that will end up.
This is so far, a never ending campaign by the Establishment to cover up for each other. Not one department has EVER dealt with the criminal acts of this conman.
I urge anyone reading this blog to read an excellent book by a David Fraser called "A Land Fit for Criminals" Now immediately the title says it all and I have only read a few pages and already he has come out with some statements that are so parallel with what I think. I quote:-
"Every year 30 million people are victimised by criminals.
The book is aimed at the general public to help them understand how and why our justice system disrupts and disadvantages them, rather than the CRIMINALS!
It identifies the justice systems preoccupation with the offender.
They are driven by ideology and cost saving and are no longer interested with the protection of the Public.
It highlights the harmful effect of crimes on its victims and the lack of recognition by Parliament, civil servants, and criminal justice practitionersof its corrosive effect on the standard of life and general well-being of millions of people.
Alienation of the public by the police and the jusicial system in general....and the failure to provide justice and retibution for victims.
All spoke of their total failure to get local politicians, MP's, criminal justice officials or indeed anyone to take any notice of their desperate situation."

You can apply all those statements to my case with this conman and all the assholes in the civil service that I have been forced to deal with. It is 10 years since he wrote those words and as the very same situation is still here with us, that shows that nothing changes and never will until the Revolution, as they say.

Corrupt Police & IPO-How they aided a crook. 38.

In my last post I said what has happened to me over the past 19 years is an injustice. Whoever is reading this blog now may not have read all of it and the story from the beginning. So for those I am going to do a breakdown on just what an injustice this has been. One in very brief form, so I will list the ways injustices have been done, starting from May 1992;

1/ The IPO accept the application from Busbridge (RB) to register what is my own trade mark I used from 1986 (and this was unknown to me) and in the name of himself and his brother Martin (MB). Yet a few weeks later the partnership breaks up in June 92 and yet RB asks the IPO a few weeks later to do a minor change to the names shown on the application, but still it will show the two names even though the partnership has broken up and no longer exists.

I notify the IPO and ask why they still have the application in the name of a none existent partnership........IGNORED. Their mistake No 1.

2/RB applies to the IPO to oppose Chryslers application to register the same mark (VIPER).

3/ I oppose the same application but even though I have applied AFTER RB, it is my application that is allowed to go ahead and even though the RB opposition IS NOT WITHDRAWN that is allowed to slumber on with no action. Mistake No 2 as RB's opposition should have been the one to be going ahead before mine.

4/ In 1993 RB goes bankrupt.......I notify the IPO and ask why are you now allowing an application to go ahead when not only is there no partnership but the remaining bloke (RB) is now bankrupt......The IPO IGNORE ME AGAIN.......Mistake No 3.

5/ My opposition to Chrysler starts going down the path to an eventual hearing and the IPO puts the application of RB to register, on HOLD until my case finishes!!! Why, because he applied to register before I did, as my slow Patent Agent who thinks that as I can prove I had usage going back to long before RB can ever do so, have precedence. Why did the IPO not let RB's application go ahead instead of putting it on hold????????? Mistake No 4. My own application went in in 1996.

6/I eventually win against Chrsyler after 10 years of time wasting by Chrsyler at great cost to me, and I am GIVEN REGISTRATION STRAIGHT AWAY.......Mistake No 5. (bear in mind that RB has an application to register before me)

7/ I am almost immediately told by the IPO that now they will let RB's held up application to register, go ahead. I am put in the position that I am forced to oppose it.

8/ Around this time RB puts in an application to have my registration made invalid on the grounds that he put in an application before me. I complain that we have now parallel actions and surely they should hear my opposition first as if I win then the other is academic. They agree. Mistake No 6. For now it should have been obvious to the IPO that by their own rules as RB applied before me, on paper he has the strongest claim? Even though his application should never have been allowed in the first place due to his bad faith and having been allowed to continue in the face of the partnership breaking up and being bankrupt. Of course to the IPO, these are of no consequence to them, as they care not a fig for the real law (partnership law for one) Mistakes No 7. ( more mistakes will also be seen to have occured later on as to whether he should have been allowed to keep up his application)

9/ At the opposition to his application to register hearing, despite masses of evidence that I was the legal owner and registered on the evidence of my use back to 1986, ( Do not forget that common law states the first to use a mark is the legal owner of it) the vacuous hearing officer gives RB registration. At this point I have to say that his decisions DID NOT INCLUDE THE OBVIOUS ONE IN THAT HE APPLIED TO REGISTER BEFORE ME.... no he uses a series of incredible other reasons which are laughable. As I am not rich I cannot afford to oppose in the High Court, and have to let it go. Their mistake again in giving registration to a crook who lied over 160 times in his evidence and who they believed ....Mistake No 8.

10/ In that hearing I at least got the IPO to look at a legal point over alleged assignments of the mark by RB and another hearing was held in 2005 when this time a decent uncorrupted hearing officer points out that the application had been made illegally, as the other partner (MB) had not given up his rights to the 50% of the partnership assets etc etc. One to me (so I thought)

11/RB can appeal and does.(2006) He is heard before a barrister called Hobbs and when you look up his history he is a big wheel in IPO circles. It seems that he is revered and can do no wrong. Now if you read the transcript, he breaks all the rules of Judge by giving RB free advice and showing clear bias, and sets RB off on a track whereby he is told he can circumvent the last hearing officers decision. Big mistake No 9. I have reported this corrupt bastard but I will give you good odds, the ruling classes will be banding together to protect the fucker. Mistake No 10. This of a judge gives the game away because he makes remarks about me and what he thinks about my action against Chrysler, and I am not even part of this appeal nor has that action got anything to do with this appeal. More on this in the next post.

12/ The crook RB can now go on to apply to rectify the registry records and get his brothers name booted off. Which of course he does. (2008) He wins of course and all my evidence is ignored once more. The more this goes on the more I can see that the IPO have an agenda to not let me win, despite whatever evidence I supply. So  he wins again. I believe their reasons are biased and corrupt. Mistake No 11.

13/ Of course I now have to appeal (2009) even though I know by now that I will not win. I don't and any good evidence I give of past incorrect actions etc, are ignored. Mistake No 12.

14/ I am at the end of the line now and RB has registration and of course now the IPO can and does let RB reactivate his Invalidity action which he had started way back in 2002. This time I think I must take on a lawyer to make sure that this action is led by someone that can get all the past corrupt actions of both the IPO and RB corrected. His evidence is is correct and is based on the invalidity of the application of RB in the begining way back in 1992. However even though I warn him that I believe the IPO would not let me win, as to do so will open the way for me to sue them for all the corrupt actions they have committed since 1992, he obviously thinks he will win. Of course we lose AGAIN! and ALL our evidence is totally ignored!!! Mistake No 13. (Unlucky for me) The IPO use the IP law which apparently says that the first to apply, even if the application was illegal and corrupted , has precedence. Now I ask why did the hearing officer back in 2004 when I opposed his application to register the mark, use this law???? It stinks to high heaven. Everything that we used as evidence that this action should fail due to perjury and bad faith, breaking of partnership laws etc, is ignored.

So what we have here is a crook that comes along and pinches your designs and products AND trade mark. In other words he pinches your whole business!! The IPO back all his illegal actions and believe absolutely all his hundreds of lies that he tells in absolutely every document he puts in as evidence. Everything you say is ignored and even questioned as to whether it is true. They intimate you are a forger of a document (the agency agreement between you and RB) that you
have been found not guilty of in a court of law. The obvious forgery and perjury of RB is ignored even though you have consistently complained about it, and even though the IPO say they will investigate at this last hearing....and do not do so!! It reeks of corruption, because they are plainly biased and they obviously have this agenda to not let you win in any way. Even when you have legal representation who concurs that I have been shamefully treated and that the actions of the IPO are unbelievable.
This means that the course of getting justice is a joke and brought into disrepute. That a governmental department is prepared to ignore obvious and persistent acts of perjury and forgery and perverting the course of justice. What does that say about the IPO?????
What does that say about all the members of the public who create I/P in copyright, trade marks, design rights, or patents, getting protection from crooks who wish to steal their I/P ?? How can they get protection from a bunch of incompetent bastards who when they know someone is going to sue them for incompetence, do everyhting they can to do them down and stop you from doing that. Tell me what is the point of the IPO??????? They are like EVERY CIVIL SERVICE DEPARTMENT IN THE LAND....UTTERLY USELESS, INCOMPETENT AND ANTI THE PUBLIC WHO WISH TO EXPOSE THEM FOR WHAT THEY REALLY ARE!!!!!

NOW DO NOT FORGET THAT THEIR CORRUPTION IS FURTHER HIGHLIGHTED BY THE FACT THAT MARTIN BUSBRIDGE WHO TURNED UP IN 2009 AND WHO CONFIRMED WHAT I HAD BEEN SAYING ALL ALONG, ABOUT RB BEING MY AGENT, WHICH THE IPO DISBELIEVED, HIS EVIDENCE IS DISMISSED AS THE RAMBLINGS OF A PERSON WHO IS OBVIOUSLY HAS AN AGENDA OF HATE AND ANGER AGAINST HIS BROTHER. ALL HIS EVIDENCE OF HOW HE WAS DONE BY RB OUT OF HIS SHARE OF THEIR BUSINESS IS ALSO IGNORED. ALL THE LEGALITIES ABOUT HOW RB TOOK OVER ILLEGALY THE ASSETS OF THEIR PARTNERSHIP ARE DISMISSED WITH QUESTIONABLE CASE LAW, WHICH MY LAWYER SAYS WAS INCORRECT. IT IS JUST UNBELIEVABLE.