My Local MP Vince Cable Says I Should Just Live With It
Never in history will you hear of a case like this...
where all these parties have been caught up in a major cover up of epic proportions which can be easily proven with hard physical evidence: -
RBS, the largest bank in the world (at the time)
Tesco's, Britain's largest retailer
HMV, Britain's largest music retailer (at the time)
Direct Line, Britain's leading car insurer
Everything Everywhere, the largest digital communication company in Britain
Adecco, the World's largest provider of HR Solutions
UK Mail, one of the UK's leading integrated Postal Operators
Russell Cooke Solicitors, a top 100 legal firm
Newlyn Plc bailiffs, largest independent company since 1999
Surelock Private Investigators
London Borough of Richmond Upon Thames Council
Her Majesty's Court Service
The Trading Standards
Crown Prosecution Service (CPS)
The Metropolitan Police and many more
Cover ups are usually impossible to prove as they often lack credible verifiable evidence, however, I can prove with hard physical evidence that cover ups DO exist as I have lived through one for the past nine years (since 2006).
I can also prove that if the British State is against you then: -
There is no law &
There are no human rights
You may find this hard to believe, however, I am living proof of this and I have the evidence to prove it as you will see on this website.
Home Raided Three Times In One Day For Selling Same CD's as Tesco's & HMV
It started nine years ago, on 5 June 2006, when without any warning my home was raided and all my company stock was seized by Richmond Trading Standards, Twickenham Police & The British Phonographic Industry (“The BPI”). I was arrested on suspicion of Copyright offences for simply selling the same mixtape CD's that were selling in HMV, Tesco's, Play.com and many more stores.
I explained to the police that they had made a mistake as the mixtape CD’s were purchased directly from the official distributors and were also selling in HMV, Tesco’s and many other stores. I was subsequently released on police bail and when I returned home, the authorities shockingly attempted to carry out a further two raids on my home without a valid search warrant.
The search warrant presented clearly stated that it could only be used once and as it had already been executed in the morning raid, it could not be used again. However, despite being denied entry and despite being without a valid search warrant, one Richmond Trading Standards officer took the law into his own hands and forced entry into my home in order to attempt to seize a computer he forgot to seize in the morning raid.
Immediately after the raids, complaints were made to Richmond Upon Thames Council Chief Executive Mrs Gillian Norton, Local MP Dr Vincent Cable and to the Borough Commander of Richmond Police Ian Edwards.
When it was brought to their attention that my home had been unlawfully raided three times in one day for selling the same CD’s that were selling in HMV & Tesco’s, instead of putting things right, a cover up was ordered instead which has been ongoing for the past nine years funded by tax payers money.
Authorities Changed & Falsified A Search Warrant
The search warrant which was used on 5 June 2006 was issued under the Copyright, Designs & Patents Act 1988. Three weeks later, the search warrant completely changed overnight to being issued under the Trade Marks Act 1994.
In 2006, the Trading Standards could not lawfully enter premises without a search warrant when investigating Copyright offences. However, they had greater powers of entry when investigating offences under the Trade Marks Act and could lawfully enter any business dwelling without a warrant. Instead of admitting that the raids were unlawful, the authorities went to great lengths to cover it up by falsifying a new search warrant under the Trade Marks Act and claiming that this was the search warrant used on the day of the raids.
The authorities thought that there would be no evidence to prove that the search warrant had changed overnight, however, what they didn’t realize was that they had left paperwork on the day of the raids conclusively proving that the search warrant executed was issued under the Copyright, Designs & Patents Act.
Authorities Changed & Falsified My Arrest Details
Richmond Trading Standards and Twickenham Police both confirmed in writing on numerous occasions that I was arrested on suspicion of selling CD’s which breach Copyright legislation. However, after the search warrant suddenly changed overnight from Copyright to Trade Marks, my arrest details also suddenly changed overnight from being arrested under suspicion of Copyright offences to Trade Mark offences.
On 31 August 2006, the Borough Commander of Richmond Upon Thames Police force Ian Edwards personally emailed me to confirm that on 5 June 2006 I was actually arrested for selling pirate DVD’s – a Trade Marks Act offence. I was completely devastated as my company had never purchased or sold any DVD’s, this was completely fabricated from thin air. Not only had the search warrant changed from Copyright to Trade Marks, but to make everything tally up I was now being framed for an offence under the Trade Marks Act.
I wrote to the Borough Commander on a further two occasions to explain that a mistake has been made and I have the paperwork to prove it, however, the Borough Commander would not do the right thing and repeatedly confirmed on each occasion that I was arrested for pirating of DVD’s. Numerous complaints were made to Scotland Yard stating that the Borough Commander was framing me for pirating of DVD's, however, Scotland Yard failed to investigate these serious complaints. A few weeks after my complaint, the Borough Commander left the Metropolitan Police force, however, my complaints were never dealt with.
Authorities Tried To Frame Me & Even My Mother For Selling Counterfeit Clothing
At the same time that the Police tried to frame me for pirating of DVD's, Richmond Trading Standards tried to frame me for another Trade Marks Act offence – selling counterfeit clothing. As the search warrant changed from Copyright to the Trade Marks Act, in absence of any evidence to bring a case to trial under the Trade Marks Act, the authorities horrendously tried to frame me and even my mother with selling counterfeit clothing.
On 5 June 2006, when my property was raided a few samples of clothing that were purchased by my company from the official distributors were also seized from my property. On 3 August 2006, Richmond Trading Standards procured a witness statement from Private Investigators Surelock which stated that my mother and I had damaged clothing brands by selling inferior counterfeit versions of their goods breaching the Trade Marks Act 1994.
However, the witness statement from Surelock was completely false. Firstly, the witness statement stated that my mother and I had sold clothing when my mother and I had never sold any items of clothing. Secondly, the witness statement confirmed that my mother and I had both sold counterfeit versions of clothing when the clothing was in fact genuine.
I could not understand why the authorities were stating that the clothing was counterfeit when the clothing was purchased from the official distributors. As such, I wanted to get to the bottom of this to find out whether the official distributors had sold me counterfeit clothing or whether the authorities were lying and trying to frame me.
A complaint was made to the police informing the police that an official distributor had sold me counterfeit items. A witness statement from Surelock International was provided as evidence to confirm that the distributor had allegedly sold me counterfeit clothing.
Shockingly, the police were not concerned that a major distributor had allegedly sold me counterfeit versions of clothing and instead the Police ludicrously confirmed in writing that selling counterfeit clothing was a civil matter.
The manufacturers were also not concerned that a distributor of their clothing had sold me so-called counterfeit versions. The manufacturers even went to the drastic lengths of refusing to test the clothing for authenticity when clothing manufacturers usually spend millions of pounds a year on enforcing and removing fakes from the marketplace, on marketing and educating the public about inferior versions of their brand.
Bizarrely, instead of testing the clothing for authenticity, the manufacturer instead contacted the distributor to offer me a deal on condition that I stop all further enquiries on this matter. I refused to accept the deal and proceeded with my inquiries.
After months of trying to make their story fit to try and frame me and my mother, the Trading Standards eventually caved in and returned the items they deemed counterfeit. Once caught out, they all remained silent which is a pattern with every party involved in this operation.
There were no apologies from Richmond Trading Standards or from Surelock Private Investigators to this very day when both my mother and I could have been jailed for ten years if we did not move heaven and earth to prove that the expert witness statement was completely false. An inquiry needs to be done into this as I was fortunate on this occasion, but how many others may have been framed by false witness statements from Surelock Global Investigators and Security Consultants (www.surelock.org)?
Authorities Covered Up Investigations Into HMV & Tesco's
After the Police & Trading Standards failed in their repeated attempts to frame me for a Trade Marks Act offence, I was informed in writing that I would not be prosecuted as the CPS had decided to take no further action. (click here for exhibit) This was a major relief as it was confirmed in writing that the case was closed and I would not face a trial.
However, my company stock, the same CD's that were selling in HMV, Tesco's, Woolworths & Play.com had not been returned by Richmond Council as they claimed they were illegal.
The authorities claimed that it's a criminal offence for me to sell the same mixtape CD's that were currently selling at my local supermarkets and high street. They also claimed that it's a criminal offence for me to even purchase a Mixtape CD from HMV, Tesco's, Woolworths etc. Although they claim that these Mixtape CD's are illegal, instead of removing them from HMV etc and arresting their directors, the authorities conducted a major cover up instead and allowed them to profit from what they called criminal activity.
My Mother & I Arrested To Prevent A Data Protection Act Form Being Submitted
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) confirmed that I would not face any trial which was a great relief after this terrible ordeal. As the CPS confirmed that I would not be prosecuted, I wanted a copy of my file from the CPS. As such, I visited the CPS office in Tolworth Towers on 5 December 2006 where the staff were extremely friendly until I provided them with my name.
After I provided them with my name, the staff refused to provide me with any information whatsoever and as a result I requested my file under the Data Protection Act. The CPS staff claimed that they were exempt from requests under the Data Protection Act and as such I was forced to leave empty handed.
I subsequently found out that the CPS were not exempt from requests under the Data Protection Act after finding a Data Protection Act form for the CPS online. I returned to the CPS office on 14 December 2006 with my mother to hand in the Data Protection Act form. We didn't make it to the CPS reception as we were met by a CPS Business District Manager in the corridor which leads to the CPS reception.
The District Manager denied my mother and I access to the public office reception ridiculously claiming that an appointment is required just to visit a public office reception to hand in a Data Protection Act form. This was very strange as I had not required an appointment when I previously visited the reception on 5 December 2006.
The District Manager explained that an appointment is necessary to visit the reception as defendants could be carrying a gun and as such an appointment is therefore needed so that the staff working at the reception could be assured that defendants are not carrying a gun.
This explanation was nonsensical as the CPS office had no security scanners, x-ray machines etc and an appointment would not have any effect whatsoever on whether one is carrying a gun or not. I complied with this strange request and made an appointment for the next day at 2pm to simply visit the public reception at the CPS to hand in a Data Protection Act form.
On 15 December 2006, my mother and I visited the CPS and were once again denied access to visit the public office reception to simply hand in a Data Protection Act form. Tolworth Towers is a huge building with multiple businesses operating there. As such as we walked into the foyer on Tolworth Towers, we were met by a CPS lawyer who refused to accept the Data Protection Act form although I had complied with all the previous requests from the CPS.
The CPS lawyer explained that he is not allowed to accept the Data Protection Act form and that we must cease and desist in proceeding to hand in this form. To prevent us handing in the Data Protection Act form which the CPS must accept by law, the CPS lawyer took the law into his own hands and called the police to have my mother and I arrested.
My mother and I were handcuffed, humiliated and arrested by the police without any explanation. We were taken to Kingston Police Station and then released without interview or charge. The paperwork from the Police confirms in writing that we were arrested as the CPS refused to accept a Data Protection Act form and as such an arrest was necessary to prevent a possible breach of peace occurring. (Click here for exhibit)
The police warned my mother and I not to return to the CPS to submit our Data Protection Act form or we would be arrested for breach of peace. So effectively, if the CPS does not want to comply with the law, they can call the police to have you arrested. Any other citizen would be able to hand in their Data Protection Act form with just one visit to the CPS reception, why were we refused on three visits to the CPS and why did they take such extreme measures of calling the police to arrest us instead of accepting the form which they must accept by law?
A notice of publication (click here for exhibit) was sent to the CPS to see if they have any issues or objections to this publication and to provide them with their right of reply. The CPS chose not to respond.
Authorities Changed Decision Not To Prosecute Overnight
On 3rd January 2007, Richmond Council's Chief Executive Mrs Norton personally e-mailed me to confirm that summonses have been issued against me and to state that I would be facing trial. (click here for exhibit) It all became crystal clear why the CPS and the police took such extreme measures by having me and even my mother arrested instead of providing me with my file as the authorities had reneged on their decision not to prosecute. (click here for exhibit)
Just as the search warrant and my arrest details changed overnight and the nature of the offence changed overnight from CD's to DVD's to Counterfeit clothing, so did the decision not to prosecute change overnight from no further action – no court appearance to being summonsed to Court.
Court Tried Me Without Any Witnesses, Without Any Case Papers and When The Court Had No Jursidiction to Even Try Me
My health deteriorated rapidly as the Court's continued to subject me to constant ill-treatment. At court hearings, Judges repeatedly refused to deal with the issues in the case, refused to deal with the issue that the proceedings were null and void in law, the issue of my witnesses and the issue of non-disclosure (no case papers) from the prosecution. I even explained to a Judge that I have evidence to prove that my solicitors have been corrupted by the other side, in which the judge stated "find an uncorrupted solicitor then."
The last thing you would expect a Judge to say is "find an uncorrupted solicitor then", when one is bringing such a serious matter to the attention of the Judge. You would expect the Judge to ask to see the evidence to support such strong allegations and at the very least look into the matter.
Court Changed and Falsfied Legal Decision Overnight
At this stage, after the Court had tried me without any jurisdiction to do so; after a search warrant had been changed; after denying me my right to witnesses; my right to a lawyer; my right to see valid court papers of the case against me; and after the nature of the offence changed in the middle of the trial; I thought that things could not get any worse, but they did.
Tried In Great Britain With Just 3 Days Notice - Where Are My Human Rights?
The court clerk's notes confirm that the Trial Judge and examining Justices' were happy to proceed with the trial in full knowledge that a legal decision was falsified overnight without any explanation to the severe detriment of the defendant. The Trial Judge and examining Justices' knew that I had less than 3 days to prepare for a trial and were not concerned that my right to call witnesses, my right to adequate time and facilities to prepare a defence and my right to disclosure were all denied.
Despite pleading with the Judge for a fair trial and additional time to prepare for the trial, the Judge proceeded with the trial in full knowledge that I was given less than 3 days notice for a trial.
The trial was a complete farce, where only the prosecution gave evidence and were not cross-examined at all due to unfair nature of the proceedings. As I was not allowed to call any witnesses and as I was not allowed sufficient time to prepare for the trial, when the prosecution witnesses were put to me to be cross examined, I had no choice but to say “I would like to cross examine you and ask you questions, however, I have not been afforded reasonable time to prepare a defence as the Court has only given me three days notice for this trial thus breaching all my rights to a fair trial.”
The trial Judge was quite concerned with these statements I was making to each witness. The Judge was so concerned that she stopped the trial. The Judge stated “you should come back tomorrow. While your at home, think of a few questions that you could ask each witness.“
I explained that I have right to a fair trial and asked if it's fair to be tried with just 3 days notice? The next day on 18 March 2008, once again, when the prosecution witnesses were once again put to me to be cross examined, I had no choice but to say “I would like to cross examine you and ask you questions, however, I have not been afforded reasonable time to prepare a defence as the Court has only given me three days notice for this trial thus breaching all my rights to a fair trial.” Each witness looked bemused however, the Judge allowed the case to proceed.
I was subsequently convicted for the second time when the Court had no jurisdiction to try me. In total, two convictions are against my name, when legally, I have not even been tried once as the proceedings are null and void in law. An appeal was immediately lodged against the Copyright conviction as no one should face trial in Great Britain with just 3 days notice.
Court Overrules Two Independent Medical Reports Confirming Illness and Instead Calls It Voluntary Absence In Order Throw Out My Appeal
Due to serious illness, I was unable to attend my appeal against the Copyright conviction on 7 July 2008. My Mother attended Kingston Crown Court on my behalf and informed the Judge of my serious ill health. My Mother supplied a medical report to the Judge from Dr. Robertson, Senior Partner of Cross Deep Surgery which verified my serious ill health and confirmed that the appeal should be postponed on medical grounds (click here for exhibit). I was in no fit state to attend Court let alone conduct my appeal which was confirmed by the GP in the medical report.
However, the presiding Judge, had preconceived reservations about me and would not accept the medical report on face value. The Judge stated that I may have feigned an illness. The Judge challenged the medical report and ordered that another medical be carried out to see if I am fit to attend my appeal when Dr. Robertson had already confirmed that I was too unfit to attend my appeal just one working day earlier.
The Judge explained that the doctor must attend court as he needs to know more about the history of the case and must then re-examine me with immediate effect to see if I can attend Court and conduct my appeal on the same day. Although, I could barely move and was on strong medication, as the Judge would not accept one medical report, I was forced to comply with the Judge's order and obtained a second medical opinion from an independent doctor's surgery.
Dr. Natasha Rennie of Medi-Clinic confirmed in her medical report dated 8 July 2008 that I was suffering from severe stress symptoms and confirmed in writing that I could not attend Court for at least three weeks. (click here for exhibit) She prescribed further strong medication to tackle the symptoms.
After my Mother submitted the second medical report, to my shock horror, I was informed that the Judge had dismissed my appeal on grounds that I was voluntary absent when two medical reports conclusively prove the contrary.
It seems that I cannot win either way. When I previously handed in a letter confirming that I could not attend a pre-trial hearing due to illness, I was forcibly arrested and jailed as the Judge explained I needed to submit medical evidence from a GP alongside the letter to prove that I was unwell. This time, as advised I submitted two medical reports from two independent doctor surgeries, and yet again it is not good enough for the Court's as the Judge overruled the medical evidence stating that I am voluntary absent instead.
Any other British Citizen would have had their appeal postponed on medical grounds if they submitted one medical report let alone two; however, the Judge showed absolutely no compassion for my serious ill health by disallowing my appeal on grounds of voluntary absence. This does not make any sense whatsoever. Why would I intentionally not turn up to my own appeal in order to clear my name?
The whole point of an appeal is that when a mistake has been made, it is brought to the attention of a Court for the mistake to be put right and overturned. When a Judge is challenging medical reports and had preconceived reservations about the appellant before the appeal has even been heard, then there are serious issues about the fairness and partiality of the Judge.
The Judge went to mountainous lengths to challenge a full medical report and in contrast, when it has been brought to his attention through numerous letters that the proceedings are a nullity due to the invalid committal and that the search warrant has been falsified, these matters are never looked into, let alone challenged. Two independent medical reports from two independent doctors confirmed that I was seriously unwell and despite this, the Judge dismissed my appeal stating that I was voluntary absent and awarded £2,000 costs against me for an appeal I didn't even have. If this is the law, then God help us all.