Additional proof of perjury and fraud, conspiracy etc.. Additional proof that Collyer Bristow LLp claimed that they were representing “all three companies for convenience” therefore proving conspiracy and perjury etc is found in their very own application for a second restraining order against me where their own application in IP2015000090 is filed and served by Patrick Wheeler with another of his own false witness statements and the firms named as applicants are Betafence and FH Brundle. They deliberately continued to keep the third firm Britannia Fasteners out of the proceedings. Stuart Baran didn’t attend and they changed their barrister to try to continue feigning honesty. They were aided and abetted once again by Judge Richard Hacon who yet again denied all access to any evidence whilst he knows they are standing there submitting false witness testimony and pejured fraudulent cases. Defendant Mr. Patrick Wheeler of Collyer Bristow submitted the application and sent yet another letter to the court himself, pandering to the court to allow Richard Hacon to hear their fraudulent application. As proven in the previous pages, the Defendant’s plan was to keep all three firms separate, backed up by at least four of their own separate witness statements, in order to try to conceal a conspiracy of ‘definitely not working together’ etc to try to avoid the previous wording of the Patents Act before it was amended in 2012/2014. After they thought they had won the civil cases and Hacon had struck out my second claim, they admitted by their own actions several times that Betafence, FH Brundle and Britannia Fasteners are indeed all ‘working together’ and hence ‘conspiring and corroborrating’. Collyer Bristow then thought that it was ‘safe’ to join all the firms again because they thought that they were past the finishing line and didn’t need to maintain the veil of ‘wholly separate entities’ as they previously testifed. The proof is found in Collyer Bristow’s own letter of 17 March 2017 to the Court which is fraudulent and constitutes perjury under the Perjury Act. That’s 7 years in custody for this instance alone.

Letter 17 March 2017 addressed to Richard Hacon. “My clients, FH Brundle and Betafence Ltd, have filed an application for a General Civil Restraint Order” … Therefore proving the ‘My clients’ firms never were separate. Their case against me was brought by false witness testimony and perjury. and “in order to avoid any period of time where Mr. Perry is not subject to a CRO…” Desperate to try to prevent a claim for conspiracy, fraud and perjury from ever being heard because Hacon would have to give permission for it to be heard. Jan 2020: It is now proven in evidence that this application was fraudulent and criminal.

This proves outright fraud and attempts to conceal serious crime, proven in yet another of their own letters submitted to the judge involved in this horrendous abuse of the justice system. They did in fact continue with their application to do everything they could to prevent my claim for fraud, conspiracy, theft, perjury and everything else from ever being heard, and were yet again aided and abetted by Richard Hacon. He once again denied me all access to any evidence and then gave the Defendants their second (and extremely defamatory) restraining order when he knew the evidence I was requesting would further prove my allegations and prove that even that second application was highly perjurious. This is crime being carried out by a judge who is supposedly protecting our rights, liberties and freedoms. This is also a London law firm bound by practice licences and ethics standing in court before a judge submitting hundreds of pages of false witness testimony. It is in total contempt for any Court or Rule of Law. These people need to be jailed. Therefore, even if Collyer Bristow do try to claim ‘we didn’t know’ and ‘it wasn’t us’ (when they claimed only to represent FH Brundle in 2012), at this point in 2017 and after 4 years of civil cases, they very well ‘did know’ of the crimes that they have particpated in, and yet continued to break the law by submitting more and more false evidence and untrue or misleading statements, and more perjured applications. A disgrace to the Country and the legal profession. The details of the second retraining order application and judgement found under ‘Defendant Judges’ pages on Particulars of Claim Index Page. See also Defendant Law Firms Page 5.

A few questions for Collyer Bristow and Patrick Wheeler. (i) In 2012 and prior to the issuing of your claim against me in 2013, and then from 2013 to the point in 2015 where you decided to represent ‘all three companies for convenience’ according to Stuart Baran, your change of representative form, and your own letter of 17th March 2017, and in your actual application for a GCRO, it was suggested by Richard Hacon that to explain your knowledge of the letter of 25th July 2012, Betafence could have indemnified FH Brundle against loss for selling the offending product. Therefore now that FH Brundle have incurred hundreds of thousands of pounds in court costs which they have no way of recovering: Do you have any proof in the form of bank statements, payments, invoices for legal fees or correspondences that proves that Betafence reimbursed FH Brundle for those losses? To the Reader: They don’t. Betafence didn’t, because there never was any such conversation because if they had, why not offer this evidence freely to the court instead of trying to conceal crime by taking out more and more restraining orders? Their own letter above proves the firms were conspiring all along and always were ‘working together’ to carry out economic crime. Therefore, even if one firm said to another ‘we’ve got your back, don’t worry we’ll find some extra trade for you…” this type of thing, it doesn’t matter: Their own witness testimony is proven to be false and Mr. Wheeler’s own email to me (that he also copied to the court) states that he confirms he doesn’t have any other correspondence prior to October 2012. The question is therefore a bit pointless asking, but it proves criminal offences of concealment and conspiracy etc. and guilty act and mind. If the Defendants suddenly do come up with any letters it would be further fraudulent because they would have been forged. These people are done. It’s over, and if they’re not going to pay up I will issue criminal charges and i’ll go to the ends of the earth to find a firm or Authority that will land a mulit-billion lawsuit on their heads. (ii) In your letter to me of 22nd August 2016, you claimed you had knowledge that I had contacted the Group 2 Defendants who I allege have defrauded my second patent GB2401616 for my second fencebracket. How did you know that I had contacted John Abernethie, Birkdale Sales, because I didn’t reveal this information to you, FH Brundle or Betafence? Unless they were conspiring against me there wouldn’t have been any reason for them to have known? The answer is because after I found out about the second patent offence carried out by the Group 2 Defendants, John Abernethie went running to FH Brundle for protection and because they thought the civil proceedings and bankruptcy would stop any claims for fraud being litigated against them, so they tried to use that knowledge to their advantage. The proof of this is found in a letter to me from J.Abernethie himself that has a copy of Hacon’s order attached to it; said letter in which he claims he would report me to the court if I didn’t stop asking them about the second patent offence. His letter also had an attachment from their American lawyer and their US parent firm/resourced giving them details of Hacon’s order in favour of FH Brundle. See Group 2 Defendants pages for details. This is a second point of merit to give standing in the US courts. (iii) In that same letter of August 22nd 2016 you also threatened to apply for comittal proceedings against me, which is a serious grevious threat. Therefore: What was the reason that you mentioned the Group 2 Defendants in that letter, if it didn’t have any bearing on the actions of FH Brundle if and according to you, they were not conspiring? The answer is because they were trying to conceal crime and play on a hoax that I had breached the injunction against me that prevented me from making threats against FH Brundle, and therefore if I made threats about my second patent to the Group 2 Defendants, they would try to tell the court I was indirectly threatening FH Brundle and there would be more punishment for me. This highlights the lengths these wretched people are going to, to try to get away with a multi-million pound crime, and all because they can’t think of anything for themselves. (iii) In 2013 in your claim known as CC13P00980 you claimed to the court that your reason for bringing the claim against me was because ‘if anyone found out about this, we [our clients] would lose business’. Now that the details of the civil case and even this website have been published, and even after letters and rumours have gone half way around the world and through the entire UK fencing industry, have your clients lost any business? If not, why not? (would prove further malicious prosecution) and If so, why? - What do you think the reason is if there isn’t any truth to any of my allegations? Do you even have any proof that they have lost business? (because people don’t generally support serious crime against others). (iv) Why didn’t you provide an affidavit in 2012 to support your testimony that FH Brundle were not ‘working together’ with Betafence and that FH Brundle were, according to you, only a ‘reseller’? (because it would have been perjury). (v) Considering that all three companies were involved in either the manufacture, import or distribution of the offending Nylofor product, and now that the wording of the Patents Act has changed in 2012/2014 to include punishment for ANYONE handling goods manufactured, re-sold, imported or distributed without the patent holder’s permission, and if the firms really were ‘all separate entities’ and ‘not working together’ as you testified: What would your excuse be now that the wording of the Patents Act has changed (to try to prevent exactly this situation) and now that we have proof that all three companies were ‘working together’ and involved in a part of this plan to defraud my patent rights ? It is difficult wording this question but basically it proves that they tried to keep all three firms separate to try to evade punishment due to the previous way the Patents Act was worded. (vi) following on from question (v) above: Would you still have any need to try to keep all three firms separate or out of proceedings completely? If not, why not? (vii) By the content of your letter to me of 22nd August 2016 and other emails between us surrounding the issue of the second patent theft, it obviously became apparent to you that there was other crime bring comitted by the trading partners of your client FH Brundle. Having found this out, (because I also emailed you at the time and pointed it out, hence ‘you have also written to this firm”), can you tell me: What steps did you take to enquire about the nature of my allegations about the second offence to see if there was any merit or truth to it and can you provide any documentation to support your answer? This will reveal any conversations with the other Defendents or shed light on any such conversations and that can be explored further. If they didn’t take any steps or due dilligence (‘hang on what the fuck is really going on here; we have a law firm bound by ethical practice rules to protect’) it proves negligence in the least, but further intent that they were desperately trying to block a serious fraud claim being litigated and were participating in serious and organised crime. (viii) Why did you/your firm continue to represent FH Brundle and Betafence and file for a second restraining order in 2017 if your firm isn’t involved in serious crime or trying to prevent any claim for fraud and conspiracy? This is a question about their practice ethics because if they knew or suspected other offences by the second Group, it would be another criminal offence to continue representing the first Group Defendants and therefore Collyer Bristow should have immediately withdrawn any legal services. They didn’t. (ix) Have you ever offered to withdraw legal services from either Betafence or FH Brundle? If not, why not? If you did, why? (x) Why did you try to keep Britannia Fasteners Ltd out of any proceedings? (xi) Did you ever contact Britannia Fasteners to enquire as to why they did not reply to or attend any legal proceedings whatsoever? If not why not? if you did, what did they say ? Where’s the proof ? Britannia Fasteners were being directed by Betafence as proven by the emails between myself and the Indian Manufacturer and it was the Defendant’s plan to keep Britannia Fasteners out of any proceedings due to the plan to try to evade the Patents Act, however, they committed a criminal conspiracy. (xii) For Stuart Baran: In your ‘Response to grounds for appeal and proposed new claim’ in Point 24 of your submission in B30BS3XX that you authored and submitted to Judge P. McCahill at the Bristol High Court you stated:

Proof that Stuart Baran claimed that Collyer Bristow LLp were representing ‘all three Defendants’ is also found in Judge Richard Hacon’s own Judgement of 25th September 2015:

Richard Hacon refers to all three Defendants in paragraphs 1 - 4 of his judgement. “Today Mr Perry appears in person, the defendants are all represented by Dr Baran.” Proving again the firms never were separate, the witness testimony is false and they tried to keep Britannia Fasteners out of the proceedings. Criminals don’t willingly turn up to court though, do they.

Considering that patent infringement is now proven in evidence and by the same points that you set out yourself in your original defence, do you now admit that FH Brundle and Betafence infringed the patent, even though you may have obtained a judgement by Judge Richard Hacon deliberately rubbishing my patent? and If you do admit infringement as proven in the evidence, do you also admit the other offences of conspiracy, fraud, perjury and everything else? (xiii) In your professional opinion as a barrister, do you think that patent infringement is the same offence as fraud or conspiracy or perjury? (xiv) If you don’t admit fraud, or conspiracy, or perjury, can you explain why you testifed in 2013 that the three Defendants FH Brundle, Betafence and Britannia Fasteners were according to you ‘wholly separate entities’ when you later testified to judge Hacon in 2015 that you were representing ‘all three firms for convenience’ as proven by Richard Hacon’s own judgement of 25th September 2015 para. 1 - 4 ? (xv) Therefore if you accept that patent infringement and fraud are entirely different offences why did Collyer Bristow tell Wiltshire Police ‘you have to prove patent infringement to prove fraud’ in order to throw off a Police investigation? (xvi) Can you explain why you didn’t attend the hearing for a second restraining order against me after you had attended every other hearing and authored almost every claim, defence, and response in all of the previous hearings and cases?