Copyright © Richard Perry 2018. Copyright commencement date is 14th February 2018.
Richard Perry Versus.
google-site-verification: google320503b3a0976d93.html
Group 1 Defendants Page 2
The Offending product, the evidence, fraudulent judgements, conflicting findings of fact and the misconduct and crime carried out by the UK Patent Office.
During proceedings in the civil cases and in the Patent Office opinion request, the Defendants had drafted a counter argument as to why they thought their product didn’t infringe my patent. There is quite a bit of overlap here between this page and the ‘Defendant Judges’ pages because they were aided and abetted by Judge Richard Hacon and I have to show this evidence in full on the Defendant Judges pages in proof of corruption, fraud and the abuse of the administration of justice - because it would be obvious to a child that my patent has been defrauded. My patent GB2390104: My fence bracket is used to secure a fence panel to a fence post. A copy of the certified patent can be found in the Evidence page top menu bar above. This is a very simple product formed from a single piece of material – there are not any mechanical working parts and there are not any electrical parts. It simply fits over the corner of a fence panel and secures the panel to the post. Claim One of the patent claims states: A bracket for securing a fence panel to a fence post, the bracket being adapted to embrace the corner of a fence panel and comprising a main body having a rectangular central portion adapted in use to lie along the top of the panel and two contiguous triangular portions adapted in use to lie one each side of the panel with one apex adjacent the post and the other spaced therefrom and flange means adapted in use to lie against and be attached to the post.
Again - here it is: Defendant’s product with a main body displaced at a decline - Almost identical to the drawing in my patent (page 2 of 6) as shown below right. I had invented this in the instance of fences being on a slope and angled towards the post. Simple. Therefore proving Hacon’s judgement is corrupt. This was proven in the Court of Appeal where he was contradicted by his own colleagues.
To attempt to get around my patent, the barristers of the defendants broke the patent claims down into nine structural points as follows: i) A bracket for securing a fence panel to a fence post ii) the bracket being adapted to embrace the corner of a fence panel iii) and comprising a main body having a rectangular central portion iv) adapted in use to lie along the top of the panel v) and two contiguous triangular portions vi) adapted in use to lie one each side of the panel vii) with one apex adjacent the post and the other spaced therefrom viii) and flange means ix) adapted in use to lie against and be attached to the post.
And here it is:
i). A bracket for securing a fence panel to a fence post. (And as claimed in Betafence’s own CAD drawing).
fence post
fence bracket
wire fence panel
iii). And comprising a main body having a rectangular central portion:
ii). The bracket being adapted to embrace the corner of a fence panel
v). And two contiguous triangular portions
vi). Adapted in use to lie one each side of the panel
vii). With one ‘Apex’ adjacent the post and the other spaced therefrom
The word ‘Apex’ was put into the patent by the Patent Office and this is where the corruption begins to appear. More about this below. What is meant by ‘Apex’ is simply the word ‘point’ or ‘end’: One point adjacent the post (1) and the other (2) spaced therefrom. It can also even mean one point adjacent the post (3) and the other (2) spaced therefrom. There isn’t anything complicated about that and it is blatantly obvious what is meant.
Judge Richard Hacon’s corruption and deliberate rubbishing of my patent rights: In case CC13P00980 Judge Richard Hacon found that I had proven five out of these nine points (Judgement points 56,58,59,61,70). He deliberately failed to ask me about any of the other evidence and I wasn’t allowed to present it, such as FH Brundle’s own marketing literature that the Defendants stupidly enough even lodged themselves that states the ‘V beam is the top of the panel’ which was crucial in determining the point (iv). This was subsequently proven in the Court of Appeal along with point (iv). I also came up against corruption in that court which is discussed in detail on the ‘Defendant Judges’ pages. I don’t want to go into it here because it gets complicated but all these courts have done is deliberately rubbished my patent rights and made judgements that send me around in circles between the Patent Office, The Defendants and the Courts, just trying to wear me down to try to make me give up. The remaining points are easily be demonstrated by the sample shown above: point (i) is an unchallengeable given fact, points (ii) and (vi) are proven by the sample as i’ve just demonstrated. The fraudulent part of Judge Richard Hacon’s judgement is that he deliberately interpreted the patent using phrases and words that don’t even appear in the patent at all to support his own fraudulent and corrupted findings and to rubbish my patent and counterclaim against the Defendants for patent infringement. I had claimed fraud on my claim form but the courts refused to allow any claim for fraud to go ahead in relation to intellectual property rights. This is because they refuse to recognise the value of, or enforce, IP rights under any circumstances whatsoever. It is a horrendous attitude towards innovation and prosperity: fuck over all your entrepreneurs so your country goes bankrupt. Great idea. Oh but they did invent the toilet didn’t they? The shitter. They did invent the shitter because there’s so much shit going around. So anyway, (went off track a bit there), the fraudulent part of R. Hacon’s judgement was that: 1). Prior to the trial, it was ordered by Mr. Justice Arnold that I could bring the full set up of the fence panel, bracket and post to court to demonstrate how the apparatus fitted together. A day or two prior to the trial Defendant Collyer Bristow LLP emailed me and told me that I didn’t have to bring anything because they would bring it. I naively believed them. On the day of the trial they deliberately attended without the fence post and so it was more or less impossible to show how the bracket fixed the panel to the post. Hacon couldn’t even see how it worked. Several times he just dumped it down on his desk because he couldn’t make head or tail of it. I told him what the Defendants had done and he refused to adjourn because he knew that with the post present, I would easily prove infringement, which is what he didn’t want. It made it difficult to explain. He says in his own judgement on one point where the post was essential ‘Mr. Perry struggled to answer’. Judgement and full explanation will be published under ‘Defendant Judges’ pages. This hasn’t ever been a balanced or fair trial from the start. This is abuse of Human Rights and right to a fair trial. It is appalling actually. 2. More importantly, in his judgement, he then claimed that the bracket had to be ‘horizontal in use’ and related his statement to a drawing in my patent where one of the options for the use of the product can be horizontal - across the top of a flat topped fence panel. The words ‘horizontal in use’ do not appear anywhere in the patent at all - I know because I wrote it and invented it. Yet if one reads the patent and looks at page 2/6 of my drawings, it is God damn fucking obvious that the Defendants have manufactured a bracket where the body is displaced at a decline, which is exactly as shown in my patent (see below). Judge R. Hacon deliberately ignored this completely and he has then published his abusive judgements all over the world to try to rubbish patent rights. This is called fraud by false representation and abuse of the administration of justice. These are criminal offences. He has subsequently aided and abetted the Defendants in every hearing since; often refusing to allow me to speak, deliberately rubbishing everything I have said in plain and simple English, and has supported and enouraged the Defendants, despite them standing before him telling barefaced lies, and submitting false and perjured document after false and perjured document. Proven in evidence in their own witness testimony. He has made highly defamatory judgements against me that have seen me face public ridicule and lose my good business standing in the UK retail industry. I demand this person is removed from Judicial Office immediately. He is a named Defendant in my claim.
Conflicting Findings of fact between Richard Hacon’s judgement and Lewison’s Judgement in the Court of Appeal.
The two triangle body portions each side of the main body. Defendant Stuart Baran tried to argue that the sides were quadrilateral because of the blunted off corners adjacent the post, which even though that was not accepted, it still wouldn’t be a quadrilateral anyway because all four sides would have to be of the same length.
The bracket sits down over the top corner of the fence panel and the end wire that forms the corner of the panel is housed inside the two triangle sides of the main body. This was accepted and proven in the Court of Appeal
The word ‘embrace’ was put into my patent by the Patent Office. Whilst the bracket is partially wrapped around and hugging the corner of the fence panel, the word embrace should simply be replaced with ‘hold’ or ‘secure’. More about this below. All corner wires are ‘embraced’, secured, retained, held fast, hugged, engaged.
So that’s it - patent fraud proven in evidence. Every integer of my patent claim one breached. It should also be noted that I also have dependant claims allowing for modifications - found in the patent. Hacon ignored all of it. Even in his own judgement he provides the law himself that there is a one step modification allowed before a patent is evaded, so they have to modify the product by more than one step. They haven’t which is why they couldn’t get their own patent. This is serious crime and fraud, aided and abetted by people susposed to uphold our rights, liberties and freedoms.
The Patent Offices’ unlawful conduct to try to throw off the case: The main point that caused confusion or that was used to deliberately rubbish my patent rights was due to the use of the words ‘apex’ and ‘embrace’ found in the wording of the Claim One that was drafted by the Patent Office. This led to further wrong or deliberately wrong interpretation so that I couldn’t enforce my rights. In the Court of Appeal I had proven every point because I was talking and demonstrating the sample. At the end of the hearing the Judge (Lewison) then claimed that I hadn’t demonstrated two points which strangely enough turn out to be the very two points having the word ‘apex’ in one point and the word ‘embrace’ in the other point - both put into the patent by the Patent Office. This is an abuse of justice and deliberate rubbishing of my rights. The judge didn’t even give me any chance of explaining these points and never asked, except he had aksed about every other point as proven in the published transcript of judgement - copy found in the evidence page top menu bar. So we have the court trying to pass the blame on to the Patent Office to try to send me around in circles back to them to try to fight them, which they know would be hopeless. This is abuse of EU Treaties and a breach of sincere co-operation with Europe in relation to the enforcement of IP. I later filed a claim to amend the two words in the patent and not because the invention didn’t cover those terms/meanings, but because they are simply the wrong words to have used even though my suggested words of ‘point’ or ‘end’ and ‘hold’ or ‘secure’ mean exactly the same and have the same dictionary /thesaurus definition. The court buried that claim and it has never been seen ever again. Claim Number XXXXXXXX because it would further prove fraud of my intellectual property rights by the Defendants. The mere fact that the court removed all existence of this claim is corruption and abuse of the justice system.
Conspiracy and Intent proven in undeniable evidence. Finally on this page: after having gone over this situation for years, looking through the evidence and trying to fathom why there has been such injustice, it actually doesn’t matter which direction questions are now asked from, because whatever excuse the Defendants may be able to make up to evade liability for one instance, they get caught by another. Because this has gone on for such a long time, there is just too much proof of crime from every angle this is looked at. At the end of the day, if they didn’t think they were doing anything wrong or had any believable excuse, then why are they using my name to order all of the goods? There is no way out of these crimes that they have committed. The tragedy about it is that all they had to do in 2004 was come to me and say ‘we love your products, here’s a sign on bonus and a royalty and we’ll all make a fortune’. instead they chose serious and organised crime, because they all believe in Zog and think that anyone not in their silly club, is diseased. One final point to make: THE POLICE MIGHT NEED TO MAKE A NOTE OF THIS: 1). It is proven that the Indian Manufacturer Pankaj Mehru of Mehru Engineers had recieved purchase orders in my name to order the infringing goods. We know from his own emails that he contacted me directly from India. An important question that someone raised is this: How did Pankaj Mehru know about me? The Defendants impersonated me by using my name, but how did he know that I was connected to fencebrackets? How did he know where to find me when I had never done any business with this person and have never met him? The Police need to speak to this person because obviously the Defendants must have claimed they owned my patent, they must have told him all about my business and must have gone to great lengths to conceal their crime, and Mr. Mehru has this evidence. He is now refusing to co-operate with me and I have lost contact with him. Have Betafence paid him off?
There is a lot more to this. See Defendant Judges pages. I have been told by a national firm of accountants /lawyers that in fact, it doesn’t make any difference really whether this judgement is fraudulent or not, because now have the second theft of the second patent GB2401616, carried out by Group 2 Defendants, who are trading with Group 1 and Collyer Bristow LLP claimed they had knowledge of letters I had written to Group 2 Defendants which again they couldn’t have known about and owuldn’t have any reason to know about if they were not all committing criminal conspiracies to steal and defraud millions of pounds of patent rights. Letter of the 22nd August. See Defendant Law Firms pages. To Summarise, we have: 1. corrupted judgements and conflicting findings of fact, 2. we have patent infringement proven in evidence, 3. we have unlawful and dishonest legal tactics by the Defendants, 4. we have all the surrounding evidence of fraud, (false CAD design sheets, suspect patent applications, the use of my name to order all the goods, undeniable proof of conspiracy) 5. we have a malicious prosecution based on perjury to conceal a conspiracy, 6. we have Patent Office and Court Administration trying to cover one anothers backsides, 7. we have the Defendants failing to produce any evidence that would give them an alibi, 8. we have all the evidence even prior to proceedings proving intent to and commission of commit criminal acts, 9. we have the Defendants without any patent on their offending product and when they have IP on everything else they sell, 10. we have undeniable proof that the Group 1 Defendants are trading with the Group 2 Defendants who have targeted my second patent, 11. we have a bankruptcy order obtained through fraud, 12. we have the Defendants trying to change my personal tax details at HMRC to make it look like I lived and worked within 45 minutes of their Head Offices, 13. we have a legal defence of ‘we didn’t know’ and ‘it wasn’t us’ along with hundreds of pages of false witness testimony that is proven in evidence in their own words to be false…. 14. we have the United Kingdom Police Force claiming they ‘don’t know what crime is’, 15. we have Government Officials being bribed, lobbied and coerced by the Defendants into committing misconduct and other criminal offences… ….I mean, come on, how long can this ugly and sinister situation go on for? These are crimes against humanity and I deserve justice, restitution and a very large amount of compensation.
My patent drawing page 2/6:

Entire corner of fence panel

embraced, retained,

secured, by the

embodiment of the bracket

as a whole - without the top

flange it wouldn’t work.

viii). And flange means ix). Adapted in use to lie against and be attached to the post.
The flange is the top flange that is adjoined to the rectangular central body at the bend/fold. Shown by the line I have drawn across the photo.
Declined main body with vertical flange as shown on page 2/6 of my patent drawings.
iv). Adapted in use to lie along the top of the panel
The top of the panel is the ‘V’ beam on the uppermost horizontal plane and as shown in the Defendant’s own marketing literature (right) and also as stated in their own falsified CAD drawing. The bracket fits down over the V beam (the top of the panel) also pictured in photo 1 above.
Readers can view this in larger scale in the document attached: Click Here
UPDATE JAN 2020 - London Economic Crime Directorate now involved in complex fraud investigation. CONFESSION RECEIVED FROM ONE OF THE DEFENDANTS Begbies Traynor Group Law firm - CRIMINAL CHARGES NOW TO BE ISSUED IN THE CRIMINAL COURTS: CLICK HERE