Defendant Law Firms Page 3

<< Back to Particulars Index Page

<< Back to Page 2

Here is the falsified BETAFENCE CAD drawing and explanations of it below: Note the Date the drawing is claimed to be drawn of 9th June 2003 and the Copyright date of 2005.

Notes on this drawing: 1). There are two products pictured: one is the product stolen from my patent, designed to secure the fences at the corners of the fence panel to the fence post. The second is another of their products designed to secure the mid portion of the panel to the post. The appearance of the second product in the same CAD drawing is important. I have researched Betafence patents. The second product has a patent application on it that is dated around 2005, which tallies with their witness statement ‘because 2005 is when we first sold the product’ even though that statement was made in relation to the product stolen from my patent. The second product was designed and manufactured first, long before they thought of the first product that I patented in 2003 and after I asked them of they would licence it in 2004. It is impossible that the first product could have been produced before the second one because if it had, there would be their own patent application on it, an application preceeding the application of their second product’s patent application in 2005. There isn’t one. The only one they made was lodged within 6 weeks of when I approached them as detailed on page two, on the last page. That application was then abandoned because they couldn’t get around my patent. 2). The Defendants failed to produce the original drawing that could be tested in a lab to verify the date it was drawn and if they had any evidence whatsoever, why not offer it freely to the court and why would they be using my name to order all of the goods??? 3). If it ever could be proven that the drawing was drawn in 2003, then this is the only other explanation to these manipulated dates situation: Supposing they drew the drawing a mere six weeks before I filed my patent application which was confidential between myself and the patent office. They wouldn’t have know about my application and hadn’t filed their own. The explanation is: I simply beat them to the post and knowing that I had a patent granted GB2390104 they continued to manufacture and distribute the goods knowing that they were defrauding me. So there’s the criminal intent again. However this scenario doesn’t make sense because they still wouldn’t have put a copyright date of 2005 on the drawing when they claim to have drawn it in 2003. 4). Nobody would put a copyright date on their drawing 2 years in advance at the time of drawing it - it is nonsense. One would want copyright protection from the minute you have drawn it to stake your claim at that point in time. 5). The Defendants haven’t ever been able to say anything positive about the product I allege is stolen from my patent. If you’re the inventor and you know your invention is genuine and you believe you thought of it first, you would have a story of exuberance and excitement to tell the world - like I have under the Richard Perry LIfe page above. You would be able to tell how you invented it and you would offer this type of story to a Court. The Defendants haven’t ever done that and can’t because they didn’t invent it - I did. Those points are supported below by the appearance of the second product’s patent application:

Because this is a lot to take in, to summarise again the events before proceedings were issued against me and to put it in a choronological order, therefore proving crime, i’ve gone through it again: 1. I invent my fencebracket between 2002 - 2003 and file a patent in August 2003 GB2390104. 2. In 2004 I write to the Defendants asking if they would licence my product / patents. They claim not interested. 3. Six weeks later they file a patent application shown above which I allege is on my own product that was then abandoned because they couldn’t get around my patent. 4. They begin manufacturing the product in India anyway knowing that they are defrauding me, and using the plan to evade liability under the patents act: one makes, one imports, one distributes. etc as previously explained and using my name on their purchase orders to order all of the goods. 5. In 2005 (could be earlier we dont know) they are using a falsified CAD sheet to give to the manufacturers to have the products made. 6. In 2006 - 2006 they approach me and ask if i want to ‘go to India’. I declined due to the cagey nature of the call etc. 7. In 2010 I write by chance to the Defendants again and they reply “we don’t sell wooden fencing only metal fencing” to try to conceal the offences that they are already comitting and they immediately set up a company and put all of their money and assets into it to try to ring-fence and conceal proceeds from crime under company liability. That alone is fraudulent trading. 8. In 2012 I am approached directly by the Indian Manufacturer (as shown on the evidence page top menu bar above) asking if he can deal with me directly because he has had some payment issues with the Defendants. He provides the evidence and a purchase order with my name on it and says “we are already manufacturing your range of products and selling it in the UK”. He claims there are ‘many’ of these orders but in fear of the Defendants and fraud liability he refuses to provide any further details. The Police need to speak with this person. P. Mehru. 9. In early 2012 I write to Betafence and ask them what the fuck is going on and allege patent offences. They reply on 25th July 2012. 10. I then research and find FH Brundle (a national firm) as a named distributor on Betafence’s website. I contact them and they immediately run to their London law firm to start concocting legal defences after one letter of complaint from an individual. The law firm Collyer Bristow LLP (Patrick Wheeler) replies stating they have knowledge of the letter of the 25th July that was sent to me by KOB acting for Betafence. As previously explained, they couldnt have known about this letter unless they were committing serious criminal offences. This is verified and proven in their own words and false witness testimony used to issue and serve proceedings in a United Kingdom Court of Law. 11. In 2012/2013 Britannia Fasteners submit another falsified drawing to the UK Patent Office in order to challenge an opinion. This is Fraud. The UK Patent Office are complicit in refusing to enforce IP rights and play along with the Defendants and provide an opinion identical to what the Defendants have put to them in their observations in reply. 12. In 2013 the Defendants submit their own witness testimony “because 2005 is when we first sold the product”. 13. We have dozens of documents of the Defendant’s own witness testimony proven to false, untrue and misleading and which is used to issue and serve proceedings with criminal plans to try to keep all the Defendants separate. We’ve now only got to the point where proceedings begin. There are thousands of pages of documents. Later they petitioned a bankruptcy order obtained through serious crime and judicial corruption and then lied to Police and misled the Police. Evidence to follow in upcoming pages. All of the above coincides and proves my allegation of their conspiracy to try to avoid punishment under the wording of the Patents Act 1977 as it was worded prior to 2012 and trying to get away with defrauding me of millions of pounds that rightfully belongs to me. The Judges and Government Officials involved in aiding them and abetting them should be jailed as well. This is serious economic crime and it destroys innovation and business enterprise that is the future of the Country. It should also be noted again that I have never been allowed to discuss this in any court hearing and when I have put in on paper, it has been deliberately ignored. The Defendant known as Betafence merged with the USA firm Hesco - a merger based on serious crime. I will be writing to the Treasury Department of the United States who authorised the merger to inform them of these crimes. These are serious crimes against me and proven in evidence in the Defendant’s own words and documents that they submitted to the courts themselves and even long before any proceedings were ever issued. Already there are dozens of charges of perjury, concealment, conspiracy, fraud, corroboration, subornation etc. The United Kingdom Police Force claims “ we can’t see any crime” and “we don’t know what crime is” - see Police Corruption pages for proof. Top menu bar >>> UK Government Corruption >>> Police Corruption. Next is the beginning of the civil cases based on fraud and perjury - Page 4. Click below.

Continued Page 4 >>>>

Application: 05075879 Date:14th April 2005 Earliest priority date. Same named inventor as shown in the CAD drawings. Police and FBI - you need to speak to Mr. Humphries. The bracket shown in the CAD drawing above that is stolen from my patent does not appear anywhere before the date of 2005 and it is pictured in the same drawing as this product which is proven to have been invented in 2005 by their own application! Full copy of this doc can now be found clicking the link found bottom of page.

Copyright date of 2005 next to falsified date of 2003.

product stolen from my patent in same drawing as second product that was not invented until 2005 therefore proving the date of 2003 is false and designed to conceal fraud. See below.

Defendant’s own numbering submitted to the high court. This is fraud and perjury and criminal attempts to conceal crime.

So the above is point 3. in the events before proceedings issued against me. I will summarize everything again shortly but next we have points four and five.

If the Defendants had ever designed, manufactured and sold the product prior to 2004, then why haven’t they been able to adduce a single shred of evidence that proves it? Why haven’t they been able to say: ‘you’re wrong, here are our manufacturing and sales records of this product backed up by genuine invoices and bank statements, proving we sold it prior to 2004’? They can’t because they know full well they didn’t and all they can say is: ‘we didn’t know’ and ‘it wasn’t us’ – which is their actual defence as they stated in Court, and which is totally unacceptable and unbelievable and it makes a complete mockery of the entire justice system.

Point 4). Suspect telephone conversations with Group 1 Defendants “do you want to go to India?” Sometime between 2006 - 2009 (I have to check the records for the actual year because i‘m currently out of the UK) I had received a telephone call from a witheld number which I believe was from the Defendants in Group 1. The caller said: “i’m calling on behalf of a large manufacturer; i’m not going to tell you who it is, but do you want to go to India?” Meaning - do you want to have your products manufactured in India by us. I immediately said no because it was a cagey phone call, it sounded underhanded as the caller wouldn’t even provide his name and also at the time, Defendant Henry Hulme (Group 2) had been hounding me to put manufacturing into India and had been carping on about saving 2p per unit. (Henry Hulme had done some business with me before counterfeiting my products). I was happy with my Chinese manufacturer who I had never had any problems with and who produced my products precisely how I wanted them and I trusted them, and therefore to move manufacturing to another Country with people I didn’t know and after my products had become established, could have been disasterous. I believe this was Group 1 Defendants who by now had realised that my business was fast becoming established; I had produced more products and now had known patent rights and they knew all along that they had been defrauding me since 2004 after they claimed they didn’t have any interest in me or my patents or products. I asked the Police to get hold of the telephone records to trace the call but they refused.

Point 5). “We don’t sell wooden fencing only metal fencing”. In 2010 I again wrote to Defendant in Group 1 known as FH Brundle sending samples and asking them if they would have any interest in taking on my products and patents etc. They replied with a carefully worded letter that stated “we don’t sell wooden fencing, only metal fencing” as previously explained on the other pages in this particulars of claim. They declined my offer and then immediately formed a new company at Companies House and put 13 million pounds into it after having traded for (according to them) “150 years of honest business”. I had thrown out my copy and Judge Mann in the Rolls Building, London, refused to allow access to the copy the Defendant has. If they have disposed of this letter it is another criminal offence of concealment and tampering / perverting justice.

Undeniable Proof of Fraud and Serious Crime

Betafence Enlarged Documents from above: Click Here:

Full copy of this doc can now be found HERE: CLICK HERE