Evidence

The evidence so far that proves my claim and allegations is extensive, indisputable and undeniable. The defendants are unable to produce any evidence that would give them an alibi because they don’t have it, therefore also proving my allegations. If an ordinary person on the street was accused of serious criminal charges and they were innocent, they would say ‘here’s the evidence or alibi, you’re wrong’. What they wouldn’t do is start employing large lawfirms to bring malicious and meritless lawsuits based on false witness testimony and documents that are designed to conceal crime, to a United Kingdom Court of Law. This is a breach of any legal practice licences, totally immoral and more than that, this is called perjury under the Perjury Act, Concealment and Corroboration under the Criminal Law Act and it undermines the entire Rule of Law. It is a public disgrace - solicitors standing before a Judge in a UK Court of Law, lying through their teeth, knowing that every word they are saying is designed to conceal crime and evade punishment without any evidence whatosoever that gives them an alibi and refusing to hand over any evidence that proves my case. This is also known as Fraud by abuse of position, Perjury, Deception, Participation in Serious Crime and a Failure to report a suspicion of money laundering: stealing intellectual property rights, producing products that they know infringe those rights and then turning the proceeds from the sales of those goods into ‘supposedly’ legitimate money and then putting a legal defence to a civil court which is “we didn’t know and it wasn’t us”. This defence/excuse for bringing malicious and perjurious claims against me has been fully accepted in a United Kingdom Civil Court, along with the other statement “our client would lose business if anyone found out about this”. Yeah - God damn right they would and they’ll be going to jail for it as well. Astonishingly, these firms think that they are so big and powerful, they continue to send me correspondence that is designed to conceal crime and they think they’re going to get away with or or be able to pay me off. There aren’t going to be any deals - that chance has passed. My evidence is substantial and already includes and is not in any way limited to: 1. Undeniable intellectual property fraud/theft proven in evidence (not all of this can be published yet). 2. The unlawful use of my name on purchase orders to order counterfeit and patent infringing goods and according to the Indian Manufacturer receiving the orders, there are ‘many’ of them: There is a copy of one of the purchase orders using my name below. It should be highlighted that the page numbers on the bottom right were added to the pages by the Defending Law firm and submitted by that same firm to a United Kingdom Court of Law where it is blatantly obvious there is serious crime being carried out by them. These documents were used by them to bring a prosecution against me - that is called Perjury under the Perjury Act 1911, Fraud under the Fraud Act 2006, Participation in Serious Crime, Dishonest Assistance, Aiding, Abetting & Subornation, Corroboration, Other offences akin to Perjury and it undermines the entire Rule of Law. The High Court Judge involved in this has deliberately aided them and allowed them to carry on doing it. He claimed ‘they’ve done nothing wrong’ whilst being well aware of, and presented with, undeniable proof of a criminal conspiracy to steal tens of millions of pounds worth of my IP rights and then he denied me all access to any evidence whatsoever that he knew would further prove my case. Read about it under the Judicial Corruption page click here. I demand this person is removed from Judicial Office immediately and the Law firm involved disbarred and jailed. 3. Hundreds of pages of documents drafted to conceal crime and proving intent to commit crime. 4. Trademark Theft - Companies using my registered trademarks to launch patent infringing/counterfeit products. This is serious economic crime. To explain: I invent a product, patent it and think of a name for it that I register as a trademark. The defendant comes along, produces a product that is designed to copy and infringe the product I patented, and then to add insult to injury they call their offensive product the same name that I trademarked for the product that I invented which they have stolen!! The corrupt Wiltshire Police claim - ‘we can’t see how there is any crime’ when, if you go the Crown Prosecution’s own website, it’s all on there. https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/intellectual-property-crime 5. Intentionally manipulated CAD drawing sheets with falsified design drawing dates and copyright dates to make it look like ‘they’ thought of my products miraculously only 6 weeks before I filed my patent and to provide themselves with a false alibi, when it is proven in 3 other pieces of related evidence that the dates are false and that the CAD drawings couldn’t have been drawn on the supposed date and therefore ‘they’ couldn’t have thought of my product before I did. 6. Above is supported by a patent application filed by the criminals with the Patent Office which was then abandonded before they put their counterfeit product into production and when ‘they’ realised that ‘they’ couldn’t get around my patent. 7. Their own witness testimony, that is designed to conceal evidence and which is also perjurious, also supports the fact/allegation of the false CAD sheets. 8. The defendants attempted to change my tax returns at HMRC to make it look like I worked for them at the time they were using my name to order the counterfeit goods - HMRC refuses to hand over this evidence despite it being HMRC themselves that alerted me to it. HMRC have then gone on a witch hunt against me sending me threats and bailiffs to my house to collect the equivelant of $90,000 in unpaid taxes when I haven’t even earned $90,000 in the last 7 years combined due to this situation that left me bankrupt. I reported it to the Police and then HMRC sent another letter claiming it was a mistake and told me that ‘there should have been a mountain of correspondence sent to you before it ever gets to that stage” then reverted to an original sum that I actually owed which was 40 GBP which I paid - yes 40 pounds, not 40,000 pounds. This is bullying, intimidating, abuse of Human Rights and invoking powers of the state for an unlawful purpose. In a similar situation in Canada, the Canadian Revenue Agency were ordered to pay a couple almost $2,000,000.00m in compensation and damages for doing this and i’ve had to endure YEARS of it - Government departments carrying out crime against individuals and all because the United Kingdom refuses to enforce intellectual property rights. 9. Proof that some of the defendants planned and carried out a criminal conspiracy to steal and defraud my IP rights because without commiting criminal offences some of the defendants couldn’t have know about the actions of the others. The proof of this was also submitted to a UK Civil Court of Law and the corrupt judge involved willingly laped it up and dismissed this proof of serious crime and then ordered another fraudulent judgement against me. This constitutes several criminal offences. See the Judicial Corruption Page click here. 10. Proof that Government employees have aided and abetted the defendants and tried to pervert the course of justice, and have carried out several other related criminal offences such as interferring in civil cases when induced by the Defendants and then witholding rights and information until the civil cases had passed when they knew the information and rights would prove my case. The Judges involved refused to allow access to the evidence as well. 11. Records of telephone conversations that prove the defendants knew they were commiting serious crime against me such as “would you like to go to India” meaning, in the context of the call, would I like them to manufacture my products in India. I declined. 12. The forming of new Companies at Companies House and the filing of false and misleading documents for the purpose of hiding assets, when the Defendants know they have been caught - and they’re still doing it to this day, hoping that they have been clever enough. However, money and assets accumulated from the proceeds of crime cannot be hidden or protected by registering Limited Companies. This is also a breach of the Companies Act, it is fraudulent trading and money laundering. 13. Documentation being sent to me to deliberately mislead me and to conceal crime. 14. Witnesses to death threats made against me by the defendants. The Defendants are so dumb that they actually got my phone number wrong and phoned my distributor thinking it was me telling them that were going to “bury me in concrete”. 15. Emails and threats made by the defendants. 16. Police Officers claiming that over 20 criminal offences are all ‘the same offence as patent infringement’ and ‘the police don’t investigate patent infringement’. These high ranking officers have corroborated and concealed evidence, committed fraud, aided and abetted the other defendants and refused to investigate anything whatsoever. They deliberately mislead civil cases and refuse to adduce the evidence that I know they have, or which can be obtained, that proves my allegations. Improper conduct of a Police Officer carries a punishment of 3 years to life in prison under the Criminal Justice & Courts Act 2015 and their actions are also conspiracy to commit misconduct in Public Office. 17. Fraudulent judgements being made against me by corrupt judges who denied all access to any evidence that the Judiciary knows proves my allegations, and then making fraudulent judgement against me claiming that I don’t have a ‘high enough level of evidence’ because they have deliberately denied access to it. I’ve had other judges contradicting those judgements stating that the evidence would prove my allegations and yet further refuse all access to the evidence again. This was for the purpose of aiding and abetting the defendants and furthering a corrupt United Kingdom Government agenda of refusing to enforce intellectual property rights under any circumstances whatsoever. 18. Civil cases being brought against me by law firms bound by ethics, oaths and practice licences. Cases based on perjury, false witness testimony and fraud - proven in undeniable evidence and signed and sealed with their own names on it along with statements that confirm they submitted these documents to the Courts. This undermines the entire Rule of Law. It is downright disgraceful, abusive and makes a complete mockery of the entire Justice system. A corrupt Judiciary has then knowingly allowed this disgusting behaviour to continue. The law firms and Judges involved in this are listed as Defendants. 19. Failure to provide any honest and legitimate reason why the defendants do not sell some of the products that I alledge have been stolen from me when they are flooding the worldwide market place with these products and yet don’t sell them in the UK, when the construction methods are the same in most of those countries. This proves intent to try to get around the law by using their foreign corporations and sister companies to distribute the goods. This is called conspiracy under the criminal law because the activity began/ or is in partnership with firms in the UK. 20. The Defendants’ own marketing literature citing parts of my patent therefore proving patent fraud. 21. We now have other witnesses coming forward making the same or similar allegations against the same Defendants - so other people that they have also fucked over are coming out of the woodwork. 22. One Defendant sent me a letter in response to my reaching out to various firms offering licence opportunities. His letter says: ‘we don’t sell wooden fencing only metal fencing’ and then himself and his daddy immediately set up a company at Companies House and put 13 million pounds into it because they realised they had been caught and “after 150 years of doing honest business” (according to their own emails). Why would you form a company after 150 years of ‘honest trading’ and put 13 million pounds into it at the same time you have received a letter that you know identifies goods that you are counterfeiting, if you don’t have anything to hide? 23. Another of the Defendants who have stolen my fencebrackets patents and my rafterclips patents and even rafterclips trademarks claim that ‘we don’t sell wooden fencing’. Surprising similar defence. Then they immedaitely deleted links to the front firm distributing the goods from their wesbite to try to conceal their crime. However, they were not clever enough because I printed it all off and now also have additional evidence from the European Trademarks Office. The reason they are making the statement ‘we don’t sell wooden fencing’ is because they are trying to get around my patent where wooden fencing is named as one of the uses of the product. Then they produce a product that is stolen from my Rafterclips patents, flood the global market place with it and then claim that they are marketing it under the name ‘Rafterclip’ because it is descriptive of the product’s use. They could have easily called it Rafter Connector, or Rafter Bracket or Rafter Fixing - but my name ‘Rafterclip’ is more pizazzy and more marketable. This is why the United Kingdom Patent Office granted it to me as a trademark. This is serious and organised crime by Companies who think they can abuse our system, break the law, and then try to argue out of it after they have committed the crime. Extract from the Crown Prosecution Service’s OWN Website: Criminal Offences contrary to the Trade Marks Act 1994 (TMA) Section 92 TMA covers unauthorised use of trade mark, in relation to goods. Section 92 is not confined to fraudulent misapplication/misuse, the prosecutor does not have to prove mens rea - R v Keane [2001] FSR 7; no requirement to prove mens rea, the offence is one of "near absolute liability" - Torbay Council v Satnam Singh (1999) 163 JP 744. Section 92(1)(a),(b),(c), (2) and (3) offences are all hybrid offences, for which the maximum sentence on indictment is 10 years' imprisonment or an unlimited fine. Section 103(2) sets out the definition of use. Elements of the offence To establish the offence under section 92(1)(a) the prosecutor must prove: Registration of the trade mark - the prosecutor must prove that, on the date of the commission of the alleged offence, the trade mark was registered; and the registration had been published; Rafterclips is my registered trademark. "Application of a sign to goods within the registration" - the prosecutor must prove that: the sign is identical to, or likely to be mistaken for, the registered trade mark in question: the Defendants’ own letter to me confirms they are doing it and then try to argue out of it. (This letter cannot yet be published due to pending case). the goods are goods in respect of which the trade mark is registered OR, if they are not the trade mark has a reputation in the United Kingdom and the use of the sign takes or would take unfair advantage of, or is or would be detrimental to, the distinctive character or the repute of the trade mark the application of the sign was by the defendant (or the defendant conducted one of the activities set out in section 92(1)(b) or (c)) Lack of consent by the proprietor - In Houghton v Liverpool City Council [2000] Crim.L.R. 574 - lack of consent is "... a matter, like so many matters of fact, that may be the subject of proper inferences by the court, never forgetting the criminal standard of proof applies. In this case ... the inference is most plainly to be drawn." That the registered trade mark was being used as a trade mark. See my website www.fencebrackets.com / rafterclips.com (forwarded to fencebrackets.com) For each of the offences in section 92(1) - (3) it is also necessary for the prosecutor to prove that the person conducted the activities "... with a view to gain for himself or another, or with intent to cause loss to another." Defendant refused to licence my patents or stock my products and then commits serious crime. These words appear in the Theft Act 1968 and the meaning given for the purposes of that Act (section 34(2)(a)) is "... 'gain' and 'loss' are to be construed as extending only to gain or loss in money or other property, but as extending to any such gain or loss whether temporary or permanent and (i) 'gain' includes a gain by keeping what one has, as well as gain by getting what one has not; and (ii) 'loss' includes a loss by not getting what one might get, as well as a loss by parting with what one has...". R v Zaman [2002] EWCA Crim 1862, considered whether the words "with a view to" have the same meaning as "with intent to" in section 92 - and concluded, dismissing the appeal, that they did not.