Wednesday, 29 September 2010

Corrupt Judges & Judge Hobbs. Latest evidence.

I have had to ring the T/Sol and spoke with a Mr Prior to whom I sent these requests. Straight away I could tell that this man was going to be unhelpful and downright nasty. On the question of did RB send in statements and were there guidelines on how an appeal was conducted he said "I would have to find out about those elsewhere" I had to push him as to where that elsewhere was and he said the IPO. I told him that they said it was for him to deal with. No response on who was right, but on more pushing he said the IPO had Tribunal Notices in which I would find such information.

He told me that he had posted me a copy of the transcript of my appeal before Annand. However I did not give him my address and he will have a two year old address to which that will now go to. They take some beating these civil servants.

Now here it is plain I am being deliberately messed around here and it seems that they do not want to let me have any documents re this hearing. I suppose they know I am after Hobbs. You can bet your life on that one.

So now it will be a letter to their CEO with a complaint that I am being stonewalled.

I did find out from the IPO that there is a Law Manual and they sent me a copy. In a section in that which deals with hearings and appeals in Section 2 paragraph 1 it states:- 'Rules of the registrar; Those representing the registrar and working in the registry, particularly in the tribunal section must remain impartial at all times and therefore are unable to advise litigants on their cases.'
This of course you can see was not adhered to by either James of the Tribunal Section or by Hobbs. Which of course is a big part of my complaint. Hobbs will say he works under the T/Sol on these hearings and this is why I am asking for their rules and guidelines etc.

Further on in that section they quote an Appointed Person (probably Hobbs) in the case of 'Trocadero' (BL 0/440/99) saying "It is not for those arbitrating to become involved in 'debate'

So once again we have a rule which clearly states that what Hobbs and James did was to 'debate' the situation that the Applicant (Busbridge) was in and how he could wiggle his way out of that, and that was illegal.

WHAT HAVE YOU GOT TO SAY ABOUT THAT HOBBS????

Keep reading on as I will get my info in the end and that will seal it for Hobbs.

No comments:

Post a Comment