Defendant Law Firms: What they did, where and when, evidence. Update Jan 2020 - confessions now proven serious and organised crime.

Background to the crimes carried out by the Law Firms involved

Defendants:

1.

Collyer Bristow LLP,

2.

Begbies Traynor Group,

3.

Wake Smith LLP

4.

Mark Serby

5.

Mr. Patrick Wheeler

6.

Mr. Stuart Baran

7.

Mr. Michael Locke

8.

Mr. Paul Haworth

Correspondence Files & (Lower down and on subsequent pages) - Events prior to proceedings: 1. letters between myself and FH Brundle/Collyer Bristow in 2012 before they issued proceedings found in 20 section white numbered bundle below. 2. Correspondence between me and Defendant Wake Smith click  3. Correspondence between me and Defendant BegbiesTraynor (BT) 2015 - 2017 click  4. During proceedings in civil cases between 2013 - 2017: 5. 36 page Proposed Witness Questioning Document for Defendant Patrick Wheeler click  OR: server 1 click here 6. 20 Section White Numbered Bundle. click  Server 2 click 7. 25 Page Bundle of Correspondence from Collyer Bristow verifying that they had submitted all the documents to the Court. click  - each submission is one count of perjury or a criminal offence - there are hundreds of documents. server 2 click here 8. Proof that FH Brundle do in FACT manufacture products screenshot of one of their old catalogues that they removed after 2010 once they realised they had been caught so that they could try to claim they were only distributors and ‘resellers’ and importers. Click Here  server 1 click here

During a hearing before HHJ Hacon on March 27th 2017, I presented undeniable evidence that in a letter received from Collyer Bristow LLp on 15 th October 2012, (pictured earlier above) they stated that they had knowledge of a letter dated 25 th July 2012 sent from KOB law firm in Belgium (acting for BETAFENCE in July 2012), to myself. This was a legally privileged letter that FH Brundle and Collyer Bristow LLp couldn’t possibly have known about unless Betafence and FH Brundle were unlawfully sharing legally privileged information and for an unlawful purpose, because the first time I had contacted FH Brundle alleging any offence was 5 th October 2012 three months after the letter of 25 th July 2012. The London Law Firm Defendant told me in his own witness testimony and statements they lodged at the High Court that they didnt have any other correspondence prior to October and therefore there is not any lawful way they could have known about the letter of July 25th. The only way they could have known is through organised crime. HHJ Hacon quickly and eagerly supported their crime and lawlessness and told me that one scenario that could explain how Collyer Bristow LLp knew about the letter of 25 th July 2012 is that FH Brundle could have gone to Betafence asking for Betafence to indemnify FH Brundle against the offending goods and for telling FH Brundle to distribute goods that infringe my patent (as proven in evidence) and therefore Betafence could have told FH Brundle about their letter to me. It should be noted that Hacon couldn’t come up with any other reason. I said if that is the case then lets see the evidence. He said “Oh, well - no” and immediately made another restraining order against me. That is particpation in serious crime, abuse of the adminstration of justice and subornation to perjury. He then made a second fraudulent restraining order against me when he knew the criminals were standing before him submitting yet another perjured application based on false witness testimony and fraud. In this case and if this possible scenario did take place, then the Defendants should be able to provide the original copy of any letter from Betafence to FH Brundle prior to 5 th October 2012 that clearly states and proves that Betafence indemnified FH Brundle and told them that everything was above board and that Betafence would indemnify FH Brundle against loss. NOTE: This would be invalid anyway because they are trying to conceal serious crime as proven in evidence throughout this site and FH Brundle continued to co-operate and commit crime as proven by the perjured case they brought against me). I would like the original copy of any such letter which I don’t believe even exists; said original copy that can be verified in a laboratory to verify the date/age of the ink, the date/age of the paper and the time lapse of indentations in the paper; said indentations that are pressed into the surface of the paper by the tool applying the ink, therefore providing a time when the letter was drafted and when the ink was adhered to the paper: to prove that any such letter was provided from Betafence to FH Brundle. I don’t believe any such letter exists for several reasons: 1). If it does exist, then why wouldn’t the Defendants simply have freely and willingly offered this proof in advance in an honest way in 2012 and before five years of court cases and hundreds of thousands of pounds of financial loss, as well as the losses I have suffered as a result, which wouldn’t make any commercial sense to a large corporation – if they were going about their business in an honest way, it wouldn’t ever be worth it. 2). I saw a tall lanky bold headed individual who looked like he had lukemia and a scruffy curly haired man hanging around my trade stand at one of the trade shows in 2007/2008. These individuals were clearly up to no good and when I approached them, they quickly made off without engaging in any conversation. In 2013 I saw these two very same individuals at the first trial – the bold headed one who looks like he has lukemia was working for FH Brundle and the other scruffy man was representing Betafence. Therefore these Defendants knew what they were doing, knew they were breaking the law and committing crimes against me and they’ve carried on doing it. These types of people don’t go about things in any lawful way and therefore I don’t believe they have the proof of any indemnity letter without forging more evidence which is yet another criminal offence. Any such indemity wouldn’t even be valid because they are carrying out serious crime. 3). It is possible that even if FH Brundle did approach Betafence for indemnity, Betafence could have lied to FH Brundle and provided a dishonest letter of indemnity. Why did FH Brundle refuse to provide the affidavit I requested in 2012 to state that they were only ‘re-selling’ the product as they claimed/testifed AND why would John Abernethie (Birkdale Sales, Defendant’s GROUP 2) go running to FH Brundle after receiving my allegations of the second patent offence, if John Abernethie didn’t believe that FH Brundle were involved in the crimes? If they are all “wholly independent and separate entities” who don’t even know one another’s sales figures as they testify, (Reply to Defence and Counterclaim, TAB 14 sub section 1, page 3, para. 9) they wouldn’t have any reason not to provide the affidavit. Concealment of the offences is proven by the letter of 22 nd August 2016 from Collyer Bristow LLp claiming that they knew I had written to John Abernethie (GROUP 2 DEFENDANT), said letter which, if FH Brundle (GROUP 1 DEFENDANTS) and Birkdale Sales were not conspiring against me, they wouldn’t know about. There wouldn’t be any lawful reason for John Abernethie to go running to FH Brundle showing them my letters to him accusing him of the second patent offence if he didn’t think FH Brundle were involved or could influence the situation or prevent me chasing John Abernethie and Birkdale. Actus Reus & Mens Rea. There is too much evidence supporting my allegations from any way these questions are answered by the Defendants, especially when none of them have any patent on either of the products that I allege they stole from me, when they have patents on everything else they sell. Hacon’s Theory Disproven: I wish to see: 1. Proof of any insurance policy held by Betafence that would indemnify FH Brundle from criminal activity. (This would now be proven as fraudulent in any circumstances anyway). 2. Letter of indemnity from Betafence to FH Brundle dated prior to 5 th October 2012 that can be verified in a lab as explained above. 3. Proof that the invoices for legal costs in CC13P00980 from Collyer Bristow LLp to FH Brundle were reimbursed to FH Brundle by Betafence and proof that this was done prior to April 30 th 2015 and the making of the Bankruptcy Order, OR, up to the point when Collyer Bristow LLp (after they thought they had won) decided to “represent all three companies”. (Stuart Baran hearing on 25 th Sept. 2015 and as proven in their own change of representative form found in the 20 Section White Numbered Bundle). This would prove that there was any ‘indemnity’ agreement in place. Lets stop kidding ourselves – we all know there wasn’t. 4. I have asked Collyer Bristow to provide this evidence and proof – they refuse because it doesn’t exist therefore proving Conspiracy under the Criminal Law Act 1977. See Email, TAB 38 Page 510. 5. Justice Birss’s Order of 14 th June 2017 in IP2015000090: (Application to Subpoena Evidence for use in an Appeal to rescind the 2nd fraudulent restraining order made by Judge Hacon): Tab 34, page 477, para. xix: Judge Colin Birss’s own words: “The true purpose of that request is to show that these letters do not exist….which in turn is to support Mr. Perry’s claim for fraud and conspiracy”. Judge Colin Birss knew that the evidence I was asking for would prove serious crime and that the Defendants were unable to produce any alibi.

The beginning of the civil Cases. In 2012 I receive a letter out of the blue from an Indian Manufacturer > “we are already manufacturing your range of products and selling it in the UK”. (copy of letter found under the evidence tab top menu bar). In 2012 I write to the Defendant firms to get to the bottom of who is defrauding me. Several letters went back and forth. Me to Britannia Fasteners Ltd who are ordering the goods in my name from the Indian Manufacturer on behalf of Betafence. Indian Manufacturer tells me Betafence have to give the stamping authority as it was ‘their’ product. Letter from me to Betafence. Reply from KOB in Belgium with a defence. Letter of 25th July 2012. I investigate and find out FH Brundle is also distributing the goods. I write to FH Brundle in October 2012. Replied immediately by the Law firm with pejurious statements and threats of legal action to try to ward me off and prevent me enforcing my rights. So we have one firm ordering the goods in my name, one firm manufacturing the goods and one firm distributing the goods. A plan to avoid every link in the meaning of the Patents Act 1977. PREVIOUS PATENTS ACT 1977 BEFORE 2014: Said ONLY people manufacturing the product in the territory could be held liable for infringement which supports the evidence that the claimants in the case tried to make it appear that they were all separate entities as per law firm’s Mr. Patrick Wheeler’s sworn testimony. This was to try to skirt around the Patents Act 1977 before amendment in 2014 and conceal their conspiracy. He refused to provide any affidavit to state otherwise. See New Wording of Amended Act Below: NEW AMENDED ACT AFTER 2014: Where the invention is a product, the infringing acts according to s.60(1)(a) are to make, dispose of, offer to dispose of, use or import the product or keep it whether for disposal or otherwise;

This is a criminal conspiracy to defraud intellectual property rights or conspiracy to injure. Mulcahy   v.   R.(1868).   Nothing   need   be   done   in   pursuit   of   the   agreement:   repentance,   lack   of   opportunity   and failure   are   all   immaterial.   It   is   the   course   of   conduct   agreed   upon   which   is   critical ;   if   that   course   involves some   act   by   an   innocent   party,   the   fact   that   he   does   not   perform   it   and   thus   prevents   the   commission   of   the substantive offence, does not absolve the parties to the agreement from liability. Lord Bridge in R v Anderson - quoted in R v Hussain said:[12] An essential ingredient in the crime of conspiring to commit a specific offence or offences under section 1(1) of the Act of 1977 is that the accused should agree that a course of conduct be pursued which he knows must involve the commission by one or more of the parties to the agreement of that offence or those offences. 1. USING MY NAME TO ORDER THE GOD DAMN GOODS. 2. FILING PATENT APPLICATIONS ON THE VERY SAME PRODUCT I PATENTED WHICH IS THEN ABANDONED. 3. FALSIFIED CAD DESIGN SHEETS TO TRY TO MAKE IT LOOK LIKE THEY THOUGHT OF MY IDEA SIX WEEKS BEFORE MY PATENT FILING DATE. SAID DESIGN DATE THAT IS PROVEN TO BE FALSE. 4. SUBMISSION OF MORE FALSIFIED DRAWINGS TO THE PATENT OFFICE DURING THE OPINION REQUEST. 5. HUNDREDS OF PAGES OF FALSE WITNESS TESTIMONY. 6. ‘We don’t sell wooden fencing, only metal fencing’ to try to get aorund the use of the product described in the patent. 7. Setting up new Companies at Companies House immediately afterwards and putting 13 million pounds of assets into it after (and according to their own emails) ‘150 years of honest business’ 8. malicious prosecutions to try to conceal the conspiracy and crime. And that’s just for starters. Lord Bridge in R v Anderson also said: But, beyond the mere fact of agreement, the necessary mens rea of the crime is, in my opinion, established if, and only if, it is shown that the accused, when he entered into the agreement, intended to play some part in the agreed course of conduct in furtherance of the criminal purpose which the agreed course of action was intended to achieve. Nothing less will suffice; nothing more is required. It is not therefore necessary for any action to be taken in furtherance of the criminal purpose in order for a conspiracy offence to have been committed. This distinguishes a conspiracy from an attempt (which necessarily does involve a person doing an act) see Criminal Attempts Act 1981. What would their excuses be now that the wording of the Patents Act has changed considering that they are all handling the goods? UPDATE JAN 2020: IN 2019, A CONFESSION HAS BEEN RECEIVED FROM BEGBIES TRAYNOR GROUP PROVING THE CRIMES FROM THE BEGINNING. SEE 2019 CONFESSIONS PAGE FROM HOME PAGE.

The Charges:

1.

Perjury under the Perjury Act 1911, multiple

counts,

2.

Aiding, Abetting & Subornation,

3.

Dishonest Assistance.

4.

Corrupting Public Morals

5.

Conspiracy under Criminal Law Act 1977

6.

Criminal Attempts Act offences

7.

Fraud, Fraud Act 2006, multiple counts etc. It goes

on - Companies Act Offences, Bribery Act Offences

etc.

8. Corroboration 9. Barratry, Deceit etc.

I ask this ultimate question in the 36 page proposed witness questioning doc: The problem is Mr. Wheeler, that unless your ONLY client, on 15 th October 2012, ‘FH Brundle’, WAS IN FACT ‘working together’ with Betafence Ltd, and sharing privileged and confidential information about my complaint, for the only possible purpose of conspiring to injure me or concealing their conspiracy, how could you or your client ‘FH Brundle’ have possibly known that KOB acting for Betafence Ltd had written to me on 25 th July 2012? (Copy of KOB Letter found 20 section White Numbered Bundle Tab 14, Sub-Tab 13 – there isn’t any mention of FH Brundle anywhere in the letters because I didn’t know these firms were trading together until afterwards and having researched it on the internet where one defendant advertises partnerships with the other Defendants). Link to 20 section bundle found top of page point 6 and link to proposed witness questioning point 5.