CORRUPT GOVERNMENT LEGAL DEPARTMENT-CONTINUED.94.

Because the GLD, then the Parliamentary Ombudsman, fobbed me off with lies and refused my requests for answers and an investigation into Hobbs QC, I went back to my MP one Tobias Ellwood.
If you have followed this story of Government corruption you will know that in a previous post I told you that earlier on he promised to help me, after I'd reminded him that his declaring that he specialised in helping veterans and as I was a veteran myself, he should help. I'd said that when my current efforts came to nothing as I believed they would, I would then contact him for help.

So when recently I'd reached that inevitable situation, I sent him a letter dated 30th July 2019 and I waited some weeks without getting a reply (which is normal and why these things drag on for years). Now I know that he has office staff dealing with letters and emails being sent him and so I sent in an email enquiring as to how things were going re a reply and that was on the the 19th August.  So predictably my email was replied to by one of his staff, a Megan Dittoes, dated 21st August. You can see below copies of those letters and emails plus the continuation of our contacts from then on. The wording in them will show you what Ellwoods staff were saying and my replies and they should be self explanatory.

On the 19th August I'd got a letter from the Parliamentary Ombudsman telling me the inevitable, that they were  not going to do anything re the GLD despite all the evidence I'd given them re their refusing to answer a few simple questions re Appointed Persons.You can see the copy of that letter on the previous post.

You can see that Megan Gittoes on the 21st August email to me, is saying I cannot have a face to face meeting with Tobias due to the ABUSE she thinks I indulged in when in an email on the 10th January 2017 (some two and three quarters of a year ago) I had told him off, for failing to help me over a completely different case where a Dorset Police Officer perverted the course of justice by ALTERING A WITNESS STATEMENT TO READ THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT THAT WITNESS SAID.  Copy is shown so you can see exactly what I said and decide yourself if what I said was indeed abuse or merely exercising my rights to complain he wasn't helping me as an MP should. But as is now usual in this crazy world we now live in, IF YOU TELL ANYONE OFF AND LEGITIMATELY SO, you get accused of ABUSE.
They don't even know the definition of that word, but blatantly use it to attack you and stop you from being able to meet with the MP, who is supposed to represent you and help you in cases like this. You will see exactly what I said to him in the copy posted below.

So now I have to only, get my case and evidence over to Tobias by emails, rather than doing it all at a meeting. That makes my efforts to get across to him all the evidence and him being able to cross exam me and in a meeting that could all be done very quickly, as opposed to snails pace emails when his staff will take ages to deal with everything.

Then I get an email on the 20th Sept, from a Lizzy Mahon and it is straight away apparent that she
and no doubt Megan Gittoes have misinterpreted some of the evidence I have given them. You will see in the email reply, what I have had to say on that. But it shows you that civil servants do this all the time, and sometimes its deliberate because they want to twist the facts, so they then make your case appear differently and then they can say there is no case and Bye Bye.

I am now waiting to see what eventuates here. But I am not confident because I cannot see Tobias willing to take on the UK Justice Establishment as he will have to in this case. I will post all the goings on as they happen.

Here are the emails that have gone to and from Tobias's office.

Mr Tobias EIlwood.MP, House of Commons, London. SWIA IAA.

30/7/19.

Dear Mr Ellwood,

A TOP I/P BARRISTER ONE HOBBS QC AND A TOP LAW OFFICER-MR JAMES OF THE IPO. CONSPIRED TOGETHER TO TAKE AWAY FROM ME, MY LEGALLY REGISTERED TRADE MARK. ALL MY EFFORTS SINCE 2008 TO NOW HAVE ALL UNLAWFULLY REFUSED TO HAVE THIS INVESTIGATED SO I CAN AT LAST OBTAIN THE JUSTICE I AM ENTITLED TO.

In actual fact, in 2006 I came to you over the beginnings of this sordid history, when I was being lied to by the IPO over the bogus Appeal Hearing they had set up, which set in motion all the corrupt actions they went on to carry out and thus started all my problems.  I had complained to the CEO of the IPO at that time and as he was not coming up with answers, I contacted you. You wrote to him but got nowhere and that was a portent of what would happen every time I tried to get this investigated.

However, since then the IPO continued with their corrupt actions, helping my adversary Mr.R. Busbridge who had been my London agent until he conspired to copy my car designs and use my Trade Mark as well. He wished to steal my Trade Mark `VIPER' in order to trade on my goodwill I had built up in that Mark and which would be attached to his copy of my car. Thus fooling the public into thinking they were buying a car they had read about and from my company. But all the actions that were enacted at the 2006 alleged 'Appeal Hearing' were deliberately set up to make it appear he was getting a bona-fide appeal hearing. But in actual fact he was getting legal advice how to get around the hearing he had lost to me and he was also promised help from the IPO to do this. In 2010 at the last of five Tribunal Hearings, the IP0 made sure they trashed my evidence. (put forward by my I/P lawyer- he said he could not believe how the IPO had treated me and how they had manipulated that hearing and ignored all the evidence we put before them) At that hearing they took away my legally obtained and registered Trade Mark and gave no legal reasons for doing so. I had no money to appeal to the High Court which is what my lawyer wanted me to do.

The stress of dealing with the IPO which started in 1992 and as I say went to 2010, gave me a massive heart attack in 2002 that I was lucky to survive. From then on and to 2010, I was under more stress over their actions, which by then I had no money, which I could use to fight them in the High Court, over the corrupt way they were acting.

The turning and pivotal point actually started at that bogus alleged appeal hearing, held in March 2006. I had just won the previous hearing which my adversary Busbridge was trying to appeal. You will see in my notes and the list of government justice departments I have been forced to go to to try to get Justice and how I have been treated and denied justice. Again, had I been able to afford legal representation, non of this would have happened. You I am sure, will know that British people like me can no longer get legal aid for almost everything.

You will see that just lately I have been trying to get, firstly the Ministry of Justice and then the Government Legal Department to investigate the Barrister and his unlawful and even criminal actions. When they just treated me as if I were an oaf they could mess around with lies and passing the buck etc. That forced me to go to the Parliamentary Ombudsman. But they, as it is well known,
are not really there to help and protect members of the Public, who are being walked all over by a government body, but are there to PROTECT the very people you are complaining about.
I can show you that I am not making this up, as it is ALL DOCUMENTED. Starting with that bogus hearing and through every stage to just recently. For despite my giving the Ombudsman documentary evidence that the MOJ were failing to deal with my complaint or to answer my legit questions, they refused to censure them in any way.

If that were not bad enough, this despicable exercise by them, was REPEATED when I took my complaints to the GLD who also refused to answer questions. The Ombudsman just played me about and then cynically told me it would also not deal with my complaint re the GLD. No explanations as to why either, and they are duty bound to give you an explanation.

As there is quite a lot of documentary evidence, about events at the bogus hearing and then all my efforts to obtain justice after that, I am only telling you the skeleton facts along with a shortened list of each approach to each judicial body that I have made since 2008. For I need to know if you will do the right thing and help me to get justice. If you are, then I can show you a document which gives a bigger picture of what has gone on at each stage. Once that is read and you still think you could help (and I see no reason why you could not) then I could show you the full documentary evidence, in order to put you fully in the picture of what all these terrible civil servants have done, most of it unlawful too.

The fact that your wife is a lawyer would mean you would have an independent person who could give their verdict on all. For let's not beat about the bush here. What I am alleging is that the highest IP Barrister in the land (Hobbs QC-Google him) committed not only unlawful acts at that bogus appeal hearing/meeting, but he Perverted the Course of Justice. AND I CAN EASILY PROVE THAT !

Let me make it plain, I am no fool who knows nothing about anything and I know who the Establishment works for in this country and it is THEY who I am fighting. FOR I AM ALLEGING THAT A HIGH UP BARRISTER DELIBERATELY AND CYNICALLY COMMITTED CRIMINAL ACTS, AIDED AND ABETTED BY A HIGH UP LEGAL OFFICER IN THE IPO! ! ! ! I know, and its been proved to me over and over since 2008, that no one in the legal profession and in the Justice Establishment want to touch this ...... "Ooh we don't want to rock the boat here or put ourselves at risk by taking this on, so we must do the right thing by our fellow Establishment members and protect them" So because I have no money to take it out of their hands and get it into the High Court and hopefully have it dealt with by an HONEST AND STRAIGHT JUDGE???? and away from the rats I've been forced to deal with up to now, they have been able to just walk all over me.

SO NOW THE QUESTION IS; HAVE YOU THE DECENCY AND THE GUTS TO TAKE THIS ON AND DEAL WITH IT??? If you have, firstly I would send you the full story, then at some stage we would have to meet so I can go over the full story verbally and show the documentary evidence that is there in bundles. So I hope to hear from you in the near future ..... NOW YOU ARE BACK TO BEING A BACK BENCHER and so now unable to claim you have too much work ! ! Don't forget what you told me in your email of the 3rd May. As an MP you are able to approach the Ombudsman and ask why they have behaved the way they have. Similarly with the MOJ and the GLD and of course that's what I wish you to do. But you will need the FULL info on all this, to do that. Plus don't forget I am an ex Vet who gave the best years of my life to the country-this is my reward!

********************************************************************************
THE  LETTER I  SENT YOU
From:   ken cook (sailerboy63@yahoo.co.uk)
To:        tobias.ellwood.mp@parliament.uk
Date:    Monday,19 August 2019,12:20 BST

For attention of MEGAN.

Hi,

I find it very odd that a constituent sends you an important letter and you say you have'nt received it. Something very wrong there.

So I am attaching that very letter and I want to stress that I know MP's cannot actually do investigations but they do have the powers to ask government departments why they are doing whatever, which their constituents are complaining about. After all, all government departments have a Minister who is supposed to make sure they run properly and ANY MP can approach them and ask for answers.

I wish now to actually meet with Tobias to go over this whole case and explain the non actions of three departments who are refusing to act and are lying all the time through their back teeth in their efforts to hide the facts of my case because they know if my case gets out it will cause no end of trouble for them.

I hope to be contacted by whoever in order to set up a meeting in Bournemouth, sooner rather than later.

Regards,
Ken Cook.

********************************************************************************
COPY OF EMAIL I SENT ELLWOOD COMPLAINING ABOUT HIM NOT HELPING ME - USED TO ACCUSE ME OF 'ABUSE' - DESPITE BEING TOLD I HAD ABUSED HIM IN
SEVERAL EMAILS, I WAS ONLY SENT COPY OF THIS 'ONE' EMAIL'

 ken cook
 To: ELLWOOD, Tobias

 Comments

10 January 2017 09:28

ln December I asked you to supply me with the answer to a simple question. You couldn't even do that and spun me a load of nonsense in your reply.

Ever since you became an MP and I was forced to come to you several times trying to get you to do your MP's job and help a constituent, but you have each time that you are nasty, incompetent, only interested in bettering yourself whilst you shamelessly climb the greasy pole in politics. Reading your CV plainly shows what you are all about.

Thanks to you I never got the help I could have, had I had a good MP who was genuinely interested in doing their job for the people that voted them into their cushy jobs. As a result I suffered from a massive injustice heaped upon me by a government department and the Dorset Police. And you did NOTHING.

Now I also asked you a simple question as to who (Minister) was responsible for the Housing Ombudsman and you lied to me in your answer, which I KNEW was wrong. So I rang the HO myself and eventually got them to admit who the Minister who was responsible for them, was. Either you are bone idle or you are stupid .... take your pick.

YOU ARE EASILY THE WORST MP I HAVE EVER COME ACROSS AND I'VE MET A FEW IN MY TIME. YOU ARE NOTHING BUT A FRAUD AND I CANNOT WAIT TO SEE YOU GET YOUR COMEUPPANCE.

K.COOK
********************************************************************************
From:   ken cook (sailerboy63@yahoo.co.uk)
To:        tobias.ellwood.mp@parliament.uk
Date:   Wednesday, 21  August 2019,16:25 BST

I am shocked to the core to receive this email and what you have said. Your accusation that I have ABUSED him, simply is not true. For a start, it is ages since I asked him to deal with anything.  I do remember complaining that he didn't help me ages ago and complaining is quite different to abusing someone. Maybe you will send me copies via email of the occasions you think I have abused him.  I find it astonishing that you trawl through years of previous contacts a person has had with Mr Ellwood as it's almost like you are trying to find some excuse in order to have him get out of seeing me. That would be outrageous, so what is it? That's if you will tell me,  I'm thinking.

Isn't it up to Mr Ellwood to decide this and not someone he employs who was not part of any long gone contacts I had with him.  My recent contacts did not end in such accusations AND HE PROMISED that when I had got to the point I needed his help, he would help. So am I to take it that he was lying to me?? Now that I have reached that point. Or is it that he now thinks that the subject matter is such that he wants to not get involved.??
Regards
K.Cook

********************************************************************************
On Wednesday, 21 August 2019,15:58:35 BST, Tobias Ellwood wrote

Dear Mr Cook,

Further to our recent telephone conversation (Note no telephone conversations took place) I have since reviewed your cases that you have had with Tobias.  Unfortunately, after reviewing your correspondence to our office mainly Tobias over the past couple of years I will not be able to offer your a surgery appointment.

This is due to the abuse aimed towards Tobias in a number of your emails.  Our office operates on a zero tolerance basis for any kind of abuse and while we are happy to continue to assist you on your case, as advised by our security services, we will not be able to facilitate a surgery.
If you wish for me to resend you the correspondence to which I am referring I would be more than happy to do so.

You are of course welcome to call or email should you have questions.

Kind regards,

Megan
Megan Gittoes
Parliamentary Assistant Office Of Rt. Hon Tobias Ellwood - MP for Boumemouth East

* SEE THE EMAIL ABOVE FROM JAN 2017 WHICH SHE REFERS TO IN THIS EMAIL *

******************************************************************************

From: ken cook Sent: 21 August 201919:22 To: Ellwood Tobias, Subject: Re:

Hi,

On rereading your email I have several questions for you.

1. Can you tell me why it was necessary for you to review all my contacts via mostly emails, to Mr Ellwood especially going back several years. For this sounds to me that you are conducting a witch hunt in order to find anything you can use against me and stop me from actually explaining my case face to face and why I wish him to become involved in order to help me.
2. Can you explain to me why it was necessary for you to get advice from some 'SECURITY SERVICE. Am I viewed as some sort of terrorist who may harm Mr Ellwood?? Someone who may stab him or assault him?? I am a squeaky clean 78 year old ex marine and auto engineer businessman and EX FORCES POLICEMAN and from a police family. Yet it seems I am some sort of threat. I find this astounding and absolutely out of order - Am I living in a country like Russia where when you are trying to get JUSTICE against how the AUTHORITIES have treated you, you're viewed as a threat to the system and denied even seeing the person who is supposed to help you when the State is trying to shut you up because you are complaining about how a State entity has committed unlawful acts, which has ruined your life and business.
3. Can you explain that despite saying what you have said and intimated about me seeing Mr Ellwood face to face, you are happy to assist me on my case. I cannot see how those who work in an office can help as only Mr Ellwood can help as it is he that has the power to help.

Finally please get to me sooner rather than later, those massively offending emails of years ago as l am not getting younger and wish to get on with this case before I die.

Regards,
Ken Cook
*******************************************************************************
From:   Tobias EIIwood (tobias.ellwood.mp@parliament.uk)
To:        sailerboy63@yahoo.co.uk
Cc:        tobias.ellwood.mp@parliament.uk
Date:    Friday, 23 August 2019,14:29 BST

Dear Mr Cook,

Thank you for coming back to me so quickly.
I would be more than happy to answer your questions and like my previous email I have copied in Tobias for transparency.   I would like to make clear that this was in no means a witch hunt and I have at no point accused you of the things you claim.  As explained we have a zero tolerance policy of any kind of abuse. That includes verbal`  As requested I will of course forward these referenced emails.
To answer your first question, I did not review your cases to find a reason for Tobias to not be involved.  As previously explained he can be involved.   I reviewed them for further understanding.  As I work for Tobias I have always monitored and followed any cases that come in therefore I already had a brief understanding.   I reviewed your case so I was able to properly advise Tobias on how we can best offer his assistance, which we will still do.
Secondly, I did not get advice from our security services specifically regarding your case or your correspondence. I am sincerely apologise for the misunderstanding.  As I work for an MP, Parliament requires I undertake certain levels of training from our provided security service and operate under their policies. For clarification, these are policies Parliament have in place due to the amount Of threats and abuse Members and their staff receive.  We cannot under any circumstances provide a surgery if their have been any instances of any kind of verbal abuse.  This is not an attack on you personally however, it is non negotiable.
Thirdly, we are able to assist with your case without undertaking a surgery.  So you are aware, our team assist Tobias on all casework and are able to undertake any and all cases on behalf of Tobias. Any work our team undertakes is on behalf of Tobias.  Any letters written would be from the member and Tobias would be present at any meetings.  His team are hired and trained to assist on all cases.
In order to move forward quickly and effectively, we will undertake all requests in the attached letter.  I can only apologise that we did not receive that but I thank you for having sent that now.  The requests include taking your case to the Ministry Of Justice.  As well as this I would like to contact the Ombudsman and enquire of when you should expect to receive a response and why there has been such a delay.
As you are aware, I have all the previous information that Tobias has seen however I would be happy to review any further information you have that you wish for Tobias to consider when writing.   Similarly if their is a specific instruction you wish for Tobias to undertake please of course outline this.
Once again I apologise for any offence caused or that you feel you have not been sufficiently assisted by Tobias in the past but I look forward to rectifying this.  You may not feel the attached correspondence is reason enough to refuse a surgery, but I must advise our position will remain the same.

As ever you are welcome to call me, if you wish to discuss this over the phone and please do not hesitate to ask should you have any further questions.

Kind regards,
Megan
Megan Gittces
*********************************************************************************

For the attention of Megan Gittoes
From:   ken cook (sailerboy63@yahoo.co.uk)
To:        tobias.ellwood.mp@parliament.uk
Date:    Tuesday, 3 September 2019,19:53 BST

Re your last email. Attached is a letter to Mr Ellwood with supporting evidence documents.
Re your own remarks in your reply,  I am compelled to remark on them:
Whilst you claim you are not conducting a witch hunt against me, the fact you have trawled through and researched the previous contacts I've had with Tobias, even going back to early 2017 (over two and a half years ago) and re a completely different subject matter to my current requests ...... so why was that? lt definitely looks like a witch hunt to me in order to stop me having what any constituent has the right to do.  Is Tobias (the 'Hero`) so thin skinned he cannot face being face to face with a 78 year old constituent?? Where you even employed by Tobias then?? But in any case you are not aware of the facts of why I was so annoyed and upset with him on only one email and quite rightly so.  I had come within an inch of being killed when on my motorbike and was injured and by a horrendous cynical act by a motorist when I was on a mini roundabout and turning with right of way. The PC who attended took witness statements, perverted the course of justice by altering a woman's statement who said I was not at fault and the car driver was, to then read, 'I was at fault'. You cannot get worse than that and as is usual with our police today, they were giving me the run around and protecting their policeman when I complained  re this. All Tobias could say was I should go to the IPPC, who were and still are a complete waste of space and he should have known that, as they were constantly in the papers back then and being slated for not being INDEPENDENT AND FULL OF EX COPS ON THEIR STAFF!!
So I was well within my rights to complain about him to his face and use the words I did.  I AM AFRAID YOU OBVIOUSLY DO NOT KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THE WORD 'ABUSE' REALLY MEANS,  (Look it up in a dictionary) for I was passing judgement on his unwillingness to act against the Police and on behalf of his constituent. I am a straight talking Northerner and what I said was 100% the truth and any constituent has the right to pass judgement on his MP when they are being let down .... THAT IS OUR RIGHT ! and the `words I used were not swear words but rightly very strong and truthful words. You are just using them to stop me being able to conduct a meeting with Mr Ellwood which because of what this case entails, there is quite an amount of evidence and it's complex AND he may have questions?? Plus I want to make sure he UNDERSTANDS THEM ALL. The case would get done much more quickly this way. What you and Tobias should understand is that what went on absolutely needs to be exposed and it is in the National Interest to do so, for it undermines the whole of our justice system and shows it up for what it really is these days. For if a Judge QC can break the law with impunity...WHAT DOES THAT SAY ABOUT OUR RULE OF LAW?? If he refuses to do it, I am determined I will do it and there are some avenues I could use, which the Establishment will hate.  WHICH  IS  IT TO BE??
Anyway I am starting by sending him a letter very briefly outlining the case, together with the transcript of what went on and the opinion of a barrister re that bogus hearing that was dressed up as a bona-fide appeal hearing. All the other evidence I am holding back and will only divulge it depending on what Tobias does, if anything.  Plus will he still be around and still be an MP, judging by what shenanigans are happening right now in our wonderful political system re the Brexit nonsense?
Best regards,
Ken Cook.
********************************************************************************
VIDEO EVIDENCE  FOR TOBIAS
From:   ken cook (sailerboy63@yahoo.co.uk)
To:        megan.gittoes@parliament.uk
Date:    Friday,13 September 2019,16:48 BST

If Tobias found the time from all the TV news programmes he is on these days,  I would hope that he's read my email and evidence documents??
lf he can bring himself to do this, I would suggest he also looks at my YouTube videos, found by searching under my name (Ken Cook)(also Ken Cook Cobras) which will show him how the UK Justice system/IPO has ruined my business and life and how the worst and pivotal part of their campaign was the bogus set up appeal hearing, which you already have the transcript of and the Barristers opinion of that.
He will also see on my YouTube website, what I designed, manufactured and sold until all this happened. Proving that I once had a successful and expanding business, and contributing to export figures, not to mention employing up to 25 people.
But then he has to have the will to give his time and attention to doing this, unlike his previous history.  I look forward to hearing from him in the near future, now he's not on Parliamentary/government cabinet duties.

Kind Regards,

Ken Cook.

******************************************************************************
From:   Elizabeth.mahon@parliament.uk
To:        sailerboy63@yahoo.co.uk
Date:    Friday, 20 September 2019,11:46 BST

Dear Mr Cook,

I understand you have previously been in contact with my colleague Megan regarding your case. Whilst she will continue to lock over this, she has asked me to liaise with you for the time being.
I would like to inform you that Tobias has contacted the Parliamentary Ombudsman to ask for an update on your complaint and to find out when you can expect to receive a response, as we appreciate it has now been over four months since Tobias sent off your submission.
Furthermore, upon your request Tobias has also written to the Lord Chancellor and Secretary Of State for Justice, the Rt Hon Robert Buckland QC MP, at the Ministry of Justice to seek the reasoning behind the decision that your case was not within their jurisdiction.
I will of course let you know once Tobias has received a response from them. Please be aware that we allow 20 working days before chasing them for a response due to the amount of correspondence they receive.
Kind regards,
Lizzy
Lizzy Mahon
********************************************************************************
From:   ken cook (sailerboy63@yahco.co.uk)
To:         Elizabeth.mahon@parliament.uk
Date:    Friday, 20 September 2019,13:11  BST

Hi, Thank you for your update email.  I have to set you right on what has gone on between me and the P.Oms. Why I have contacted Tobias is because they have knocked back my request for them to sanction or whatever, the Government Legal Department, for their refusal to answer three simple questions I asked them, and give me the answers. This fact is within the facts I gave Tobias. So he should be asking the Ombudsman:-  WHY HAVE THEY REFUSED TO DO ANYTHING,  RE THAT THE GLD LIED TO ME ABOUT THE FACT THEY SUPPLY APPOINTED PERSONS (A/P's) TO THE IPO.  I GAVE THEM AN EMAIL THE IPO SENT ME, WHERE THEY CATEGORICALLY SAID THE GLD DO SUPPLY THEM WITH A/P'S. YET EVEN THO' I SHOWED THAT TO THE GLD, THEY CONTINUED TO SAY THEY DID NOT. THEN THEY REFUSED TO ANSWER MY LEGITIMATE QUESTIONS ABOUT A/P's, like who employs them, who is their boss and who pays them for their services. (I WANT TO KNOW THIS SO I CAN APPROACH THEM AND ASK THEM TO INVESTIGATE THE UNLAWFUL ACTIONS OF THAT BARRISTER) What either the MOJ or the GLD should be doing, is investigating the fact that a prominent QC broke the law several times including 'perverting the course of justice' !! And on that fact, there is the absolute evidence he did that, which can be seen in the evidence l've just sent Tobias. He needs to read all that so as to see what I am saying ..... is absolutely 100% true and not made up nonsense by me!! The barristers opinion document I sent Tobias showed law breaking. Tobias if he reads what I have said and sent him surely he can see that for some years now all my efforts to get this barrister QC investigated have been systematically rebuffed with lies and denials etc, etc. by the whole of the justice system...THUS DENYING ME JUSTICE. No use telling me to report this to the Police for the reasons I have already given Tobias. They don't do justice these days and constantly refuse to investigate so much. As you should well know.
So what you have said below about Tobias and what he's said to the Ombudsman is on the wrong tack as they have concluded nothing more than excuses to do nothing. Hence my writing to Tobias as l've said.
What you have told me re him contacting the MOJ is right, but he should also have asked why they will not investigate the acts by a Barrister that works for an arm of the MOJ? (The Treasury solicitors/GLD are an arm Of the MOJ and that is quite clear they are, even tho they, the MOJ will have it otherwise) I have already provided proof of that and can do so again if necessary. So now hope you get the right picture on all this and you can ring me ANYTIME if you are not absolutely clear what this is all about. ` .... 07494785828

What all this boils down to is the whole of the British Justice Establishment simply want to bury, wrong doing by one of their own!I!! !!!

Thank you,

Ken Cook

********************************************************************************

CORRUPT PARLIAMENTARY OMBUDSMAN & GOVERNMENT LEGAL DEPARTMENT. 93.

The last post dealt with my efforts with the Ombudsman to get them to censure the GLD over their refusal to answer some simple questions about who employs Appointed Persons and who is responsible for their actions when they commit crimes.

On the 2nd July they knocked back my complaint about the GLD. Then, as I am allowed, I asked them to review it and gave a wealth of reasons why their original decision was entirely wrong. I included on the last post, a copy of the letter I sent them. After waiting a month and a half I got their inevitable knockback reply dated 19th August 2019. See copy below. Once again it's just more civil service lying, twisting the facts, ignoring other facts and so on. What they have said on their page 1, is all pure civil service waffle and having it that their original decision was pure gold standard and correct and they simply will not listen to any facts as to why large parts of it were wrong and that is even shown in further documentary evidence I sent them.

Astonishingly they even tell me that in their review, they will not budge from their original decision as it is FINAL. How arrogant can you get? They may as well say every comment we make
is 100% correct and true and even if you send us evidence that it is not correct and true, we still will not budge.

On their second page they start off by saying "In your review request you say the complaint is about the conduct of a barrister during the legal process". This is absolutely typical of how civil servants twist things and LIE. For in my email letter of the 4th July headed "APPEAL AGAINST YOUR DECISION OF THE 2ND JULY" - look at what I said in my last paragraph:-
"IT IS CLEAR THAT MY COMPLAINT ABOUT THE GLD, IS THE REFUSAL TO ANSWER MY QUESTIONS AND LYING TO ME"
Yet they ignored that and the fact that the questions I asked the GLD are:- Who employs Appointed Persons and who pays them and who is responsible for their performance and ACTIONS at hearings?
I was forced to ask them (the GLD) these three questions as they would not answer them and kept giving me statements that were at odds with the FACTS, that the GLD are heavily involved with A/P's. I supplied them with copies of emails which showed they were heavily involved in supplying A/P's and how Appeals went. They choose to ignore this and side with the GLD this is seen by their comments in paragraph 3 on Page 2. For they said "Therefore the GLD should not respond to complaints about conduct" This when again, I had said in heavy printed capitals exactly what I was complaining about re the GLD. Of course I had explained to the GLD the BACKGROUND of why I was asking these three questions.
They also stated that an A/P is appointed by the Judicial Appointments Commission, which is a lie as they do not and I explained what the JAC had told me as to what role they played in the murky world of who appoints and who employs A/P's and so on. It is all deliberately made obscure so one can not get to who actually is responsible for the sods, when they break the law. IT IS TYPICAL of the Establishment and all those in the judicial world.....IT IS ALL SMOKE AND MIRRORS TO STOP YOU EVER FINDING OUT WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR A/P'S

They tell me that the JCIO are the people who I should go to re the actions of a Barrister A/P and this despite me telling them that I had already done this years ago and got nowhere.
*********************************************************************************

19 August 2019

our Reference:        F0005931
Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

Dear Mr Cook

Your request for a review of our decision.

You recently requested a review of the decisi.on we reached on your complaint about Government Legal Department  (GLD).
I am writing to you as an Operations Manager to give you our decision on that request and explain the reasons for this. I fully apprec.ate how strong you feel about this matter.
However,  having reviewed your request,  I  have decided our original decision on your complaint was correct.  Please note that my decision has been checked and approved by another Operations Manager as part of our quality assurance process.
We are the last stage of the complaints process, which  means we make the final decisions on unresolved complaints. We do this independently and impartially and often that requires us to make difficult decisions that not everybody will agree with.
Once we have given our decision on a complaint,  this is final unless we see evidence that suggests we got something wrong. We understand that people may not always agree with our decisions and  I  recognise you think our decision was wrong.  However, we will not review our decision just for that reason.
When someone asks us for a review, we do not automatically look at the whole of the original complaint again.  Instead, we look to see if we took account of all the relevant evidence and made a fair and robust decision  based on this.  We will usually only consider if we should review a decision once.
In your review request you say the complaint is about the conduct of a barrister during the legal process.
You believe that the GLD should be responding to questions about the Barristers conduct.  You dispute that the barrister is independent of GLD and as they have provided details of barristers they should be responsible for conduct. You have provided letters from the Treasury Solicitors Office which you say show that GLD are heavily involved,  and emails from the head of law which says the Treasury Solicitors will allocate the case to an Appointed Person.
An Appointed  Person is appointed to the role by the Judicial Appointments Commission. A barrister is independent of GLD. Allocating a case to an Appointed Person does not mean they are responsible for the actions of that person. Therefore the GLD should not respond to complaints about conduct. A complaint about conduct of a barrister would need to be raised with Judici.al Conduct Investigations Office  (JCIO).  We have seen GLD have responded to your concerns explaining this.
While we acknowledge you do not agree with our decision, as you have not provided any new evidence or shown our decision is wrong, we will not be taking any further action.

Summary

We have taken into consideration the explanations you have provided for why you think we got our decision wrong.  We appreciate how important this matter is to you;  however,  after carefully considering all of the circumstances of your complaint we have decided that a review is not warranted.
Please note that a consideration of a review request marks the end of our complaints process.

Yours sincerely

Vivien Johnson
Operations Manager


********************************************************************************
I hope you can see from reading what exactly I was asking the Ombudsman to look into re the GLD, and then looking at what they have said in reply, you will pick up their lies and obfuscations. The twisting of the facts in order to confuse and ignoring facts. One example of the latter is where I gave them a copy of the email I got from the IPO which categorically stated they got A/P's from the GLD
yet the GLD denied this. How I reiterated in CAPITALS the three questions I asked the GLD to answer and which they ignored/refused to answer.
********************************************************************************

Saying that the JAC appoint Appointed Persons is AN OUTRIGHT LIE, and they say this even tho' I had contacted the JAC who confirmed they had no role in appointing Appointed Persons and I told the GLD this.....they ignore this as it does'nt fit in with all their lying statements they have made to get out of making any rulings against the GLD.

Even at this stage I STILL DO NOT KNOW WHO IN FACT APPOINTS APPOINTED PERSONS, WHO PAYS THEM AND WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THEM-ESPECIALLY WHEN THEY FALL DOWN ON THEIR JOB AND PEOPLE WISH TO COMPLAIN ABOUT THEM. ALL THE STATEMENTS YOU END UP GETTING FROM A PLETHORA OF DEPARTMENTS ARE ALL DESIGNED TO KEEP THE TRUE FACTS FROM YOU, SO YOU DO NOT KNOW WHO TO DIRECT YOUR COMPLAINT TO, THAT THE LAW HAS BEEN BROKEN AND THE A/P NEEDS TO BE INVESTIGATED AND CHARGED WITH BREAKING THE LAW.

OF COURSE IF YOU HAVE MONEY YOU HOPEFULLY CAN TAKE ON A QC AND GET IT INTO COURT FOR AN ALLEGED INDEPENDENT JUDGE WHO CAN DEAL WITH ALL THE FACTS. HOWEVER CAN ONE ABSOLUTELY BE SURE THAT EVERY JUDGE WILL BE INDEPENDENT AND GIVE YOU A FAIR HEARING AND DECISION??????.....THAT IS THE HUNDRED MILLION DOLLAR QUESTION. I WONDER.

I SUGGEST YOU READ THE EMAILS I HAVE POSTED ON THE RECENT POSTS WHICH I GOT FROM ALL THE VARIOUS JUSTICE DEPARTMENTS WHO INDULGED IN A MERRY-GO-ROUND OF PISSING ME ABOUT AND NOT ANSWERING MY QUESTIONS AS TO WHO EMPLOYS AND PAYS AND IS RESPONSIBLE FOR APPOINTED PERSONS.  

Corrupt Government Legal Department Pt 3-89.

In my last post I told you that I had sent into this shower a comprehensive Formal Complaint against Hobbs QC. With documentary evidence to back up my allegations. This was quite a hefty set of documents as I included copy of the 47 page transcript of his corrupt meeting when he carried out all his unlawful actions.

They are supposed to deal with such requests within 20 days and true to form it took well over that for me to get their excuses and whitewash letter dated the 12th March. This was a one page letter with 5 very short paragraphs/sentences. In short like their letter, they merely denied they ever employed Hobbs or for that matter that they had ever sent him to the shonky IPO hearing. They even had the cheek to lie that they even supplied what are called Appointed Persons to hear Appeals on behalf of IPO Appellants.

Of course I have a letter from the IPO that puts that lie to rest because they confirmed that they get their A/P's off the GLD. What liars these civil servants all are.

So obviously I have now sent in a complaint about all this to the CEO of the GLD and Mr J.Jones
and that is where I am now at. No doubt it will either be ignored or whitewashed again

I would put onto this blog on the right all of the letter together with all the supporting documents that went with it. However it is all far too long and in any case a lot of it is already to be seen on this blog. IE the Transcript is on, plus the Barristers opinion document  and they say it all or most of it all. I will in due time show the reject letter and any response I finally get, if any.

I have also sent yet another letter to the Sunday Times (already asked their Editor to stand up to his claim they investigate such stuff, but the bastard never even acknowledged let alone contacted me for the full details and evidence. Thus proving that our National big newspapers are all part of our Establishment cover up machinery, because they simply will not expose our corrupt justice system with all its corrupt and useless Judges and lawyers like Hobbs.

Corrupt Ministry of Justice-AGAIN. 85.

In past, but fairly recent posts, I chronicled my efforts of complaining to the MoJ, that one of their employee Barristers, a Hobbs QC, who is viewed as the top Barrister in the Intellectual Property world and all matters to do with IP, cynically set up in conjunction with the top IPO legal man, a Mr James, a bogus alleged 'Appeal Hearing'.

Why set it up, is the question anyone would ask? Well it became clear after the dirty deed was done in 2005, that for some reason the IPO after confirming back in 1996 that I had legally proved my right to the Trade Mark 'Viper', (and this done for me by legal IP experts) had made 'A MISTAKE. They cynically said so at the last Tribunal Hearing in 2010...."we had made a mistake" and their way of 'correcting' this alleged mistake, was to subject me to a great number of corrupt actions, which started with the bogus appeal hearing and was absolutley pivotable in governing all that happened after it. This was the ONLY WAY they could play enough dirty tricks that would eventuate in their ability to finalise their long held wish to strip me of my legitimately proven 'right' to that T/M. That they for some reason didn't want me to have. I have several theories as to why they felt this way, but how do I prove them??

So that bogus hearing or as I prefer to call it 'a meeting' had to be set up the way it was. For they had determined that the only way they could carry out the dirty tricks they had in mind, to 'wrestle' back my T.M was to 'ADVISE' the little crook who had set his eyes of stealing that T/M (so he could sell it for £500K to Chrysler) and steal my well known sportscar manufacturing business, making a copy of my Cobra Replica which I had called 'VIPER'. (For those who may think I had copied the AC Cobra exactly-think again-for my chassis bore no relation to the AC and was Jag based, and the body was also quite different. It was more of a look-a-like than and exact replica, yet Busbridge copied my car 100% with no differences.) They simply should not have allowed his request for an appeal against the decision that had gone against him and given by a Hearing Officer called Landau. For the crook Busbridge, his criminal game was really over. He had no legal bona-fide rights to any sort of appeal, yet they gave him one. WHY???

They could hardly tell him;  'come to the IPO HQ and we will give you a bucket full of legal advice....all shonky of course-which will enable you to get out of the legal corner you are now in'.....could they ?? But they could and did as I say, illegally give him this shonky appeal hearing, which would enable them to come face to face with him and this all dressed up as a bona-fide appeal hearing. But once that cynical and bogus meeting started, they never carried out any pucka appeal hearing at all and that can clearly be seen if you bother to read the transcript of it which can be seen at the right hand column on this blog. All you will see is 47 pages of legal advice giving which is strictly forbidden, yet they obvioulsy thought......"Who is going to know all this and who can do anything aagainst us as we HAVE THE POWER.....BASTARDS.

Why else did they refuse me attendance (illegally) of this meeting? Why else did they not tell me that I could have attended as a member of the Public.?? Why else did they refuse, despite my asking many times over 15 months as did my MP, where is the decision of what we thought had been a pucka APPEAL HEARING??????? They lied through their back teeth each and every time....IT'S ALL THERE IN BLACK AND WHITE AND THEY EVEN LIED TO MY MP, SO CONFIDENT WERE THEY THAT NO ONE COULD TOUCH THEM !!!!!!

Eventually I was told that the appeal had been droppped by Busbridge after he'd been given all that legal advice and told what to do, which included dropping the BOGUS appeal. The IPO said they would then go on and help him to carry out their advice....it's all there in the transcript which they never thought I'd get my hands on. Of course this all explains the extraordinary lengths involved thereafter and including others in the Justice Establishment, who have for 8 years now tried to bury all this and cover it up.

You will have seen my recent efforts to get the MoJ to take legal action or at least see that legal action is taken against Hobbs for his criminality. You will have seen their lies and squirming, to get out of it by claiming they have no jurisdiction to 'do anything' That they will not even say why they have no 'JURISDICTION !! This even the Parliamentary Ombudsman, who are set up to make sure that all government departments act legally and competently and so on, they have also lied by saying they cannot make the MoJ take action, when that is CLEARLY NOT WHAT I HAD ASKED THEM TO DO, AS WHAT I HAD ASKED, WAS "JUST ASK THE MOJ TO EXPLAIN WHY THEY HAVE NO JURISDICTION OVER ONE OF THEIR EMPLOYEES?" ITS JUST MORE SQUIRMING AND TRYING IT ON.

If one reads the MoJ website you will see it is clearly stated in their various boasts of what they are about and that all the lawyers and Barristers that work for them in their arm of justice, called the Government Legal Department, are employees.  Not as elsewhere in the justice system where Barristers cannot be touched, as they are completely independent of anyone (like Judges). Thus this gives them the ability to carry out such illegal activities as Hobbs did and with absolute impunity.
However as I state, as Hobbs was not independent like that, so he should be answerable to his bosses- the MoJ.  For his criminal behaviour at that bogus held meeting, dressed up as an appeal hearing. Hence why the MoJ simply refuses to answer my questions and is obfuscating and lying in order to fob me off and cover it all up.
I am going to one last time write to the snake oil salesman, a Mr Jake Hancock,of the Parliamentary Ombudsman, a supreme lying shit who terms himself as a 'INTAKE CASE WORKER' but in reality is just a pen-pushing jerk whose job is to FUCK UP ANYONE with the temerity to try and expose the one bastard in this government department, who should be in jail!! I will AGAIN TELL HIM I WANT AN ANSWER AS TO WHY THE MOJ HAS NO JURISDICTION TO SEE ONE OF ITS EMPLOYES FACE THE LAW OF THE LAND ?????? AFTER ALL ISN'T THAT THE JOB OF THE MOJ....AND TO SEE LAWS ARE OBEYED AND 'JUSTICE IS DONE AND BE SEEN TO BE DONE??????

I got a reply from arch snake oil salesman, Jake Hancock, in which he simply said he couldn't add to anything he'd already said in his last letter where he covered up for the MoJ as stated above. Again he chose to ignore me saying that I'd asked him to get the MoJ to state why they had no jurisdiction and I'd not asked him to get the MOJ to take action merely to answer a simple question.....YOU SEE THIS IS HOW THESE ASSHOLE CIVIL SERVANTS WORK: You ask a simple question they don't want to answer as it will give the game away, so they change it slightly, to you asking something similar but quite different and then they can make their lying excuses. You can go back a HUNDRED TIMES pointing out what they've done, yet they just either ignore you or tell you to go away, or they just repeat their lying excuses ad infinitum. 

Members of the British Public are being denied legal aid to bring such cases as mine, or ANY cases re ANYTHING except of course if you are a criminal juts like the recent case of that young bloke who got his girlfriend killed in his speed boat lark. He failed to turn up at his court case for manslaughter and went to Georgia. YET THE LEGAL AID BOARD GAVE HIM LEGAL AID TO FIGHT AN APPEAL WHILE HE WAS ON THE RUN !!!! THIS IS THE BARMY COUNTRY WE LIVE IN . My case has ramifications for the justice system and therefore is IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST to be held and exposed.THIS IS HOW OUR MUCH LAUDED JUSTICE SYSTEM IS BEING RUN IN OUR BROKEN COUNTRY. No wonder they are doing everything to hide it, cover it up and so on. ARE YOU PROUD TO BE BRITISH????

 

Corrupt Teresa May- IPO & Ministry of Justice-latest events. 79.

Over the past four months I have attempted to try and get these useless and corrupt individuals to look at how their ministry and a barrister in it acted corruptly. I talk here about that 2005 alleged Appeal Hearing where the CORRUPT Hobbs QC did what he did.
I first of all sent off a letter to a Liz Truss, then a Justice Minister, heading the letter that it should only be read by her. (Described in a previous post) All I got was a brush off crop of lies from some unknown CLERK.

She departed after 5 minutes in office having done sod all about anything, as they do and another useless wretch takes over....Lidlington. By this time I have the Barristers opinion, so that gets included. He departs after 5 minutes in office and we now see what a **** he is when he gives a good impression on TV of being like just the detestable Blair, in looks and speech. Yet another useless wretch arrives 5 minutes later on and this time it is this guy called Gauke, who I prefer to call Gawky Gauke and who the Press also are obviously not impressed with, either.

Eventually after 6 WEEKS I get a letter from the Ministry - BUT NOT FROM LIDLINGTON OR GAUKE, but from a clerk called Skinner and his reply. In my subsequent reply I show my displeasure at the lies and misreading of my letter that he has indulged in to get out of doing anything. So see, he has obviously not read my letter and its points and how he ignores completely the legal opinion document I enclosed. It will be all self explanatory when I eventually put all the recent documents to the MoJ and then to Saint Teresa on the links to the right where many documents to the whole history can be seen. At this point in time I await a reply from Gauke which I know I will not get. In fact I don't expect any reply, going on past experiences and indeed wekks on I find that this is exactly the case....absolutely no reply from Gawky Gauke.

If the Justice Ministry believe the they can just lie and lie and thus get rid of me, they can think again for there are other avenues to still go down  to eventually try to get JUSTICE. So long as my health keeps up and my brain still works they will have to kill me to-get rid of me!!

IPO.

Why bother with the exact same mob who has been responsible for a lot of the corruption I have had heaped upon me? Well during my thinking on the history from day one, it has always been in my mind that right from day one back in 1992, when I was forced to have to come into contact with his corrupt and useless mob, there has always been one question I could never get any answer on. It is to do with DID THE IPO DELIBERATELY PUT ME INTO THE COURT TO OPPOSE CHRYSLER
BEFORE BUSBRIDGE?? ( my criminal ex agent who stole my car designs and Trade Mark Viper)
To elaborate: When Chrysler applied to register the T/M Viper in Jan 1990, Busbridge applied to the IPO to oppose that application, before my Patent Agent did, by about 2 weeks. He also applied to register the Mark himself, again before I did and by some 4 years. My Patent Agent always said that when I actually applied was of no importance, as opposing Chrysler and winning would show I had first rights, by a mile and so when I applied was of no consequence. So he only applied in 1996.
So I thought that by posing to the IPO as a student of Trade Mark law having seen the IPO online description of the corrupt 2004 Hearing, which the IPO made sure Busbridge won. ( I had opposed his application to register and don't forget by then I had already been given registration on winning against Chrysler) So because this description plainly stated I had started use of the T/M in 1985 and Busbridge only (and illegally) since 1992. They had stated that as he had applied to register before me-I could not oppose his application. Thus rubbishing the law that states that the first to use is the rightful owner. So discrepancy 1. Discrepancy 2 is obviously going on that premis, why was Busbridge not made to oppose Chrysler BEFORE me?? all outcomes would have been MASSIVELY DIFFERENT had that happened.
So I sent a letter to General Enquiries making these two points.....who gets heard first when multiple applications are made to Oppose a Registration Application by a third party....the first to apply?
Similarly who gets to be heard first when multiple applications to register are made, the first to apply? I was eventually told the question had been passed onto the relevant department...The Tribunal Section.

YOU COULD NOT MAKE UP WHAT HAPPENED NEXT-FOR I GET A REPLY FROM NON OTHER THAN A RAOUL COLOMBO-HEAD OF THAT SECTION..........
THIS IS THE LYING BASTARD WHO IS OBVIOUSLY STILL IN A JOB AT THE IPO AND STILL A HIGH UP MANAGER,  YEARS AFTER HE LIED THROUGH HIS BACK TEETH OVER THE CORRUPT 2005/6 BOGUS APPEAL HEARING HELD BY HOBBS QC. LIED TO ME AND MY MP....ITS ALL IN THIS BLOG IF YOU CARE TO GO BACK.
HERE HE IS NOW REPLYING TO ME IN A LETTER IN WHICH HE LIES AGAIN IN HIS EXPLANATIONS. (See his reply when its put into the link to the documents to do with this latest example of lies and corruption of the IPO and MoJ)
It becomes obvious to me he has twigged on that this person asking, is not a K.Weber but ME. For he, when I reply, showing that his answers make no sense, he then refuses to reply. So I go back to General Enquiries and pose the same question in a different way..... two weeks later NO REPLY. SO YOU SEE I HAVE OBVIOUSLY HIT A NERVE HERE AND I BELEIVE THAT THE IPO DELIBERATELY DEALT WITH THE APPLICATIONS FROM ME AND BUSBRIDGE IN THE EARLY DAYS, IN A CORRUPT AND INCORRECT WAY, SO AS TO GET OUTCOMES THEY WISHED TO GET.

I have along the way had legal advice that what they should have done is put both my opposition to Chrysler and Busbridges....together so that we both would have appeared in that 1998 court hearing. Busbridge would have lost and that would have been the end of his continued crooked actions, all aided by the IPO. If he didn't like that outcome he would have had to APPEAL.... IN THE HIGH COURT.....which he COULD NOT AFFORD TO DO....GOODBYE CROOK!!! I had to win and that would eventually have been the end of it all.
So one has to believe that this CROOK IPO MANAGER-COLOMBO, REALISES I AM ONTO SOMETHING AND HE IS UPTO HIS LYING ONCE AGAIN.

BE PATIENT TO SEE ALL THE EVIDENCE, AS IT WILL ALL GO INTO THE LINK. I AM WAITING TO SEE HOW I GO WITH MY LATEST EFFORT TO GET NEWSPAPERS ONTO THE FACT THAT THE MoJ ARE CORRUPT AND ARE TRYING TO BURY IT ALL BY REFUSING TO DEAL WITH MY LETTERS AND EVIDENCE.(Along with Mrs May)
HOWEVER I HAVE NO MORE FAITH IN UK NEWSPAPERS AS THEY SEEM TO MOSTLY FAVOUR POLITICIANS AND LET US FACE IT AND BE HONEST.....TO INVESTIGATE MY ASSERTIONS IT WILL SHOW HOW WE DO NOT LIVE IN A LAND UNDER THE RULE OF LAW....HOW CAN WE? WHEN OUR MoJ BARRISTERS WITHIN IT AND EVEN THE MINISTER IN CHARGE, ARE DOING THEIR BEST TO HIDE WHAT WENT ON.....BECAUSE IT WOULD PROVE WE DO NOT LIVE BY THE RULE OF LAW-BECAUSE OUR POLICE NOWADAYS WILL NOT INVESTIGATE ANYTHING AND THE JUSTICE SYTEM IS THOROUGHLY BENT.

VERY SOON NOW, I WILL BE DOING ANOTHER VIDEO TO GO ON HERE-WHERE I WILL GO OVER ALL THE RECENT HAPPENINGS RE MY TRYING TO GET JUSTICE AND HOW I HAVE GOT NOWHERE. NOT EVEN SAINT TERESA WILL LIFT A FINGER AND SHOW US JUST HOW  MUCH OF A SAINT SHE IS!!!!!!

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

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

                           addtional info on facts contained in the video. Thanks.

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

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

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

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

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.