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. 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.

Intellectual Property Office-How they aided a crook. 33.

THE 2010 HEARING BEING A DUAL HEARING ON MARTINS APPLICATION TO RECTIFY THE BUSBRIDGE REGISTRATION AND ROBERTS APPLICATION TO MAKE MY REGISTRATION INVALID. 28th January 2010. 9.30. London.

At last we are at a position were both I and Martin MAY get justice at last? Firstly Martin can get to see the fraudulant application to register a Trade Mark that did not legally belong to the Busbridges, and made in his name without his knowledge, get reverted to being listed at the IPO as having been made in the partnerships name and not as Robert Busbridge was able to fraudulantly get changed by perjury to only his name. Then the Landau decision at last enacted and the Registration will not be allowed to be renewed and will fall by the wayside.

If that happens then Roberts cheeky application to have my legal registration made invalid, will automatically be thrown out.

On top of this there is the perjury committed by Robert, not once but dozens of times, in order to gain registration. I as you will know if you have read this blog from the beginning, I have complained about his blatant perjury to the IPO and they said they would deal with this at this hearing.......WE WILL SEE, but as I now have a supposed expert lawyer representing me this time, maybe the IPO will now see that they will not be able to continue with their blatant disregard for justice and for not following the laws and rules. However I cannot help wondering if they even give a stuff, and will just go on blundering ever deeper into their cover up of their past injustices and maladministrations. For if they do find for me and Martin then they will be admitting that they made mistakes in the past. Those of you that understand the mindset of civil servants will know they JUST HATE ADMITTING THEIR MISTAKES AND WILL DO ANYTHING TO GO ON HIDING THEM. So watch this space for maybe a miracle will happen or maybe it will be business as usual?
I will want to see Robert Busbridge charged with PERJURY & PERVERTING THE COURSE OF JUSTICE and if the IPO refuse to do this, then I will push the Police to do it. I am absolutely determined he is not going to get away with it, especially when he wasted over £100,000 of Public money, in having me charged with forgery and perjury, this by fraud.

Intellectual Property Office-How they aided a crook. 31.

Again it has been some time since I last updated and this is because as we all know all government departments only move at snails pace. Even though I complained months ago about the provable perjury of Busbridge, they have refused to act only saying that they will deal with all that at the Invalidity Hearing which has taken until now for me to even get a date for it.
As I said in previous post I have taken on an I/P lawyer and he contacted the IPO to get them to agree to have a telephone conference to discuss the rolling up of three actions into one hearing. This was then made into two actions, namely the application by Martin to rectify the register again due to his brothers lies made throughout all the hearings. Martin sent the IPO a statement in which he laid out all his complaints as to what had happened throughout the various hearings which started in 2004 with his application to register the T/M. Especially Roberts application to rectify the register to read that he was now the only registered owner of the mark.
So the IPO turned this into an application to rectify made by Martin. Of course even though I am inextricably linked to all this, I was to be once again kept out of it. So at this conference which took weeks before it happened on the 17th Nov, my lawyer asked that I be allowed to be part of this process and that we wanted the application made by Busbridge to make my registration of my mark, made invalid, to be heard at the same time.
The IPO agreed to this but let us face it, it was no magnaminous decision as they really could not refuse, unless they wished to make it look like they were complete assholes. We were all given until the end of Dec 2009 to get in all our statements and evidence, then a hearing to be heard on the 28th January 2010. So this is now going to be very interesting and I am going to find out just what the IPO are really all about. Are they going to continue to deny me justice and ignore all my evidence once again, or are they finally going to start applying themselves, for now I HAVE SOMEONE ACTING FOR ME THAT CANNOT BE FOBBED OFF. (SO I THOUGHT BACK THEN) For it is not only me who is saying that all the statements made by Robert are lies, but his brother is confirming that all I have said was true and it was all lies.
The main lies being that there was a signed agency agreement in 1989, that they were agents, that they stole my trade mark off me as well as my car designs, that I did not abandon my mark to them, that Robert applied for registration in both their names without Martins knowledge, that Robert did try to sell the mark to Chrysler for half a million, thus giving him the reasons for all his actions, and he did that again without his brothers knowledge. That he lied in his statements saying he never knew where his brother was and the last known address of Martin in Spain, given the IPO in a sworn statement, was made up. Plus a multitude of other lies told in every statement he ever made in all the five hearings to date.
So now we have the task of replying to all the statements Robert has made in the two cases and demolishing them. As with all his statements they are full of vacuous waffle that have nothing to do with the cases and they still contain lies as he just cannot help himself from lying as he is a pathological liar.
So for those of you who are really interested in this unbelievable case, especially anyone who is in I/P, keep looking in as the end is hopefully on the horizon.

Intellectual Property Office-How they aided a crook. 27.

I have now put in my official complaint letters both to the TSol over the hearing in front of Hobbs QC and to the CEO of the IPO whoever that is these days. I have sent copies to my MP, for what that is worth??

Information has come to light which could blow this case wide open, and I am just waiting for the right time to release that. It will be interesting to see what the IPO then have to say for themselves. Watch this space.  

Had I realised back at the Reynolds hearing back in 2004 that if I had used the trial transcript
to show that Busbridge was perjuring himself, I may have been able to get those oafs, the IPO to see that Busbridge's evidence was flawed and not reliable. However this just shows that when people like me who cannot afford to use expensive IP lawyers, we end up not getting justice thanks to the way the IPO runs itself and it's stupid laws and rules.

Intellectual Property Office-How they aided a crook. 26.

Since my last post re the IPO, I had emailed them again and got a reply from the boss of the Tribunal section a Mr Allan James to the effect that I had been answered....go away. So I decided to reread the transcript of the appeal Busbridge made before Hobbs QC, back in 2006, against the Landau decision that he should lose the registration. Something was nagging me about all that was said and it was a pretty long winded document of 40+ pages.

The fact that nothing one since that appeal was dropped and the Landau decision was never thus carried out has rankled me and enraged me. On reading it again it suddenly came to me what was going on here. Why the IPO simply refused to answer me, they were deeply involved in a sham of an appeal hearing. It wasn't an appeal hearing at all as I've said, but a cosy get together between the IPO in a MR James, Oh yes, the very same bastard who was refusing to reply to my pertinent questions, and it was becoming very clear why.

You see if you read this document and all the waffle in it between James and Hobbs ( who by the way is very heavily involved in the IPO and therefore NOT INDEPENDENT AND IN ANY CASE WHY WAS HE AT THAT HEARING?? )  For he represented the IPO and Busbridge was supposed to be appealing an IPO decision (Landau's) Yet here he was in this hearing and discussing with Hobbs how Busbridge can circumvent the Landau decision by taking certain steps including dropping this appeal. THIS ALL TELLS YOU JUST HOW CORRUPT THE IPO ARE. They said that if he did that ,he would be able to get the registration in his own name and hey presto.
The IPO as you know from my past posts, then spent over a year telling me and my MP lies as to why they could not tell me what was happening re this Hobbs decision, when all the time they knew full well, as they were present (through James) and knew what they had set in train and giving Busbridge time to try and find his brother to try and get him to sign over his half of the business, so he could then go to the IPO and say 'well now I do own all the business, register it' Fait accompli!!
So now I had to complain to the CEO of the IPO and I also as you know have my MP on a warning basis. I compiled a 5 page letter to the CEO and also a 5 page complaint to the Treasury Solicitor as they run these appointed persons QC's. If I can copy them onto this blog I will do so, so all can see what I have said and get a fuller grasp of the story of how the IPO and the QC have stitched me up.
I have no faith that the CEO will do anything going on past complaints to past CEO's, (they change their CEO's as fast as the rotten politicians change their Ministers. So then it will be down to making yet another complaint to the Parliamentary Ombudsman, and we all know how useless they are. My MP has just got to get involved and do some pushing, but how can you have any faith in that useless lot. All they are interested I is filling their pockets. I have never got any help at any time from any of them. Truly the man in the street is treated like shit in this country, only the crooks and immigrants get anywhere.

Intellectual Property Office-How they aided a crook. 25.

Since my last post several things have happened. I have set out an official complaint to the CEO of the IPO re the behaviour of their Tribunal/Law Sections. Namely a Mr Roaul Colombo and a Mr Allan James ( the head) If you have read all of my posts you may remember that back in 2005 I won in a hearing held by a Mr Landau when he said that Busbridge should not be allowed to continue with the registration of the trade mark Viper. He appealed that before an Appointed Person a MR Hobbs QC. Held in March 2006.

You will see that I was excluded from that hearing and I had great trouble getting the IPO to tell me what was going on after it had been heard and what was the decision. I could see that something was going on. Both I and my MP were pissed around and lied to by these two characters above. It took a YEAR before I found out that Busbridge had dropped the appeal and had moved onto other ways of getting his wicked way. I did not even know what had been said at this hearing.

Well the first thing you will have seen Busbridge did was to apply to Rectify the Register, that's in an earlier post. I lost that one too, and I then appealed it. Before that appeal on a chance, I asked the IPO for transcript to see what had been said in the Hobbs appeal. I couldn't believe it to be sent one and I think some unknowing civil servant sent it by mistake. What I read made my blood boil.

So I had been asking the Tribunal section as to why the Landau decision was never enacted. No matter what I said over many months I just kept getting the run round. Them acting dumb and giving me so called answers that were not answers at all. I knew they were up to no good. So I have just reread this transcript and I can now see the wood for the trees, and it has come to me.

These bastards in the IPO deliberately decided that although there were no compelling legal reasons why any appeal hearing person could overturn Landau, the IPO certainly did not want that to happen, because that would mean I would win at last. Why don't they want me to win???????

It is now clear to me that even though Busbridge had no legal right to an appeal against the Landau decision, they would give him the appeal. They would illegally keep me out of the Hobbs hearing so they could do in the hearing, whatever they wanted even tho' it had been dropped. SO THE ALLEGED APPEAL HEARING TURNED INTO A MASSIVE 'FREE' LEGAL ADVICE SESSION TO GET BUSBRIDGE TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THEY NOW TOLD HIM TO DO AND WITH THE HELP OF THE IPO. IT IS ALL THERE TO BE SEEN IN THAT TRANSCRIPT. Then keep me waiting for well over a year and a half for the decision (if there was one) and that would give Busbridge the time to carry out their advice to find his brother etc, etc. Then also get him to drop the appeal whilst he was in it and that would get the IPO off the hook to make a decision on an appeal, that should never have been allowed in the first place....TALK ABOUT CORRUPTION THE IPO HAVE NO COMPETITORS- EXCEPT NOW WE KNOW THAT THE POST OFFICE IS ON A PAR WITH THEM. They could hold me off for as long as it was necessary by claiming it was out of their hands and up to the Appointed person (HOBBS) and he could take his time. Then they could make up whatever excuses they liked to enable Busbridge to carry out with the help of the IPO, to go through more applications that they advised him to do, in order to complete their plan to wrest away from me the Viper T/M.

Intellectual Poperty Office-How they aided a crook. 4.

From now on the Cobra/Viper story is really two stories in one. There was the ongoing story of the business of making the Cobra/Vipers and there was the never ending saga of all the legal matters that would open out. Not just one legal story but one legal fight after another and all bar one involving the biggest bunch of incompetents going at the then Patent Office in Cardiff. I often wondered if the whole place was really staffed by Welsh sheep, but you can make your own mind up.
The very first legal battle of course, started, while I was finishing off the business in Germany, but as I have already said it got off to a very slow start. Kings presented direct to Chrysler evidence that Busbridge trading as Cobretti Engineering was or had been my agent until I sacked him at the end of 1991. We gave them copies of the agency agreement and letters that had been sent to Busbridge warning him that I was the legal owner of the Mark. Also evidence that I had been using the Mark since early 1986. I thought that it was simple, they would accept this evidence as it was on record in many places that I had been using the Mark as both Brightwheel and Brightwheel Replicas had been well known companies and the product had been well known and well advertised with records of articles in the National press and the two TV companies BBC and ITV.
I thought they would tell Busbridge to get lost and would sit down and talk with myself as to what we would do over them wanting to register my Mark, which even though it was not registered, i had Common Law on my side with indisputable proof of prior usage to them. But then I have always found the Yanks to be prime assholes, to use one of their terms, and didn't I know. Not only had I had to put up with two Yanks of dubious standards who were typical Yanky bullshit merchants, but I had also been to the States a good few times when we were trying to take on an agent to cover selling our kits throughout the States. Every Yank I ever dealt with and I had dealt with them in San Franscisco, Atlanta, Niagra Falls, and Buddy Holly country in the middle of Texas. Every damn one of them was nothing more than a lying scheming, bullshitter who would fuck you around with empty promises. I had got sick of them by 1990 and now I was having to deal with one of their biggest car makers who were to turn out not one jot better than all the cockroaches I had met before. Talk about duplicitous, I think they invented the word.
Well of course Chrysler did not accept my evidence and my not knowing exactly what Busbridge had said to them, did not help. It became evident fairly soon that Bob Busbridge at least was a Yank in disguise, as he was an arch liar and he had fed them with a story full of lies which the stupid bastards seemed to have believed.
At this point I should point out that I only seemed to hear tales as told by Bob Busbridge and no mention of Martin Busbridge. I was to find out over the years by little stories people who knew me and who heard it on the grapevines, and in snippets of evidence that Bob gave over the years. Whilst I did not get the full story until years later I may as well tell you it now and this way you can see up front what happened, why, and how and why Bob is what he is. Quite frankly I think he should have been certified years ago, as he is patently a serial liar or technically they call it being a pathological liar. What annoys me intensely is that throughout my story I never make statements I cannot back up with documentary evidence. I had given the Patent Office dozens and dozens of examples of his lying, which you would think would alert them to the fact that here they are dealing with someone who is at least economical with the truth to being an outright liar and his evidence therefore has to be viewed with the utmost suspicion and in many case be discounted completely. In all the years of dealing with these third raters, never once did they do this. It seemed to me that they believed every word he ever uttered even when I showed he had categorically lied.
You will see all this as I go through the whole story, but at the beginning his first lies in his fairy tale story he spun them was that he owned the Mark because he started using the Mark Viper in 1987 by selling kits. Of course he omitted to tell them that at that time I was using him as an agent for BRL and I had not taken him on until about February 1988. That this was the case until I then took him on again as my agent for my new business from September 1989, called Classic Replicas. He then said when my first trading company Bightwheel Replicas Ltd (BRL) had gone bankrupt I had run off with all the customers money to Switzerland and had abandoned the Cobra business in the UK. They then felt they could legitimately take it over which they did. So Chrysler there you have it, we are the legal owners now!! Do a deal with us and give us lots of lovely lolly!!
Now what had happened to Martin? When I had stayed with him in 1990 for a week, he owned a house with his wife and her parents not too far from Sutton in a nice area. Apparently Bob had persuaded him to take out a second mortgage on that house to give them some working capital either to see them through a difficult patch or even to save the business or even to pay for all the frantic copying of my products, that they were undergoing at that time. But of course whoever was running the business did not have a clue and they were heading for disaster. First they could no longer afford the expensive workshop and as I told you already they moved into a cheaper workshop which they shared with some reptile they had met who had some tenuous link with cars. I heard it was him that put all the ideas into their heads about what they could get out of Chrysler etc. Then when I started to threaten all sorts of legal action, this had been the last straw with Martin, and if the truth were known probably the tenuous state of their finances hadn't helped either.
Certainly by the end of 1992 he broke completely with Bob and he disappeared and had never been seen again, and to this day he has had no contact with his brother. A pretty extreme state of affairs, you may well say, and I would agree with you. What could have happened to make this drastic situation happen? I heard from a reliable source that because the bank called in its loans which could not be paid it had meant that Martin lost his house and that cost him his marriage. Naturally he would not feel kindly disposed to his brother and I feel that he probably blamed him both for dragging him and the business into legal fights that he did not want to be involved in, maybe he had never agreed to the stealing of my business, I do not know, but it is a possibility. Knowing just how useless Bob was at everything he did, no doubt he was mainly to blame for the finances.
Funnily enough I passed his house some years after in the late 90's and I saw his wife come out of the front door, so although he definitely was not around and was in the USA, and then later on in Spain, she was still there. So I can only surmise that if the story about the loan on the house was true, that maybe her parents bailed her out, but he went anyway. Whatever.

So we have this situation that Chrysler are believing his cock and bull story and I have to fight it every inch of the way and this fight took me no less than FIVE YEARS PLUS!!!! I am committed to do this because if I do not Chrysler will get registration, they may do some sort of deal with Busbridge, maybe he will get money for something I own, and I will end up with nothing, not even my own Trade Mark.