Dear Mr Green

Mr Barnett is being threatened with committal for not paying a substantial amount of money for alleged damage by removing unlawful impediments to public access from common land in Shropshire belonging allegedly to Butterfly Conservation on land allegedly owned by Butterfly Conservation.

Senior executives of Butterfly Conservation will, however, neither confirm nor deny that the property he alledgedly removed or even the land belongs to them. Originally, Mr Barnett was taken to Court not directly by the Police but by a person claiming he was a representative of Butterfly Conservation although this has not been confirmed by the organisation.

This person involved the Police thereby turning what should have been, if anything, a Civil matter into a Criminal Action. This was confirmed subsequently by the District Judge, Judge Bruce Morgan, who stated in Court that the matters were Civil and outside his jurisdiction because he was a criminal judge.

He, however, proceeded with the hearing. In the course of this hearing, he refused to make the claimants disclose proof to substantiate their claims and that punishment was due.

He ruled Mr Barnett was guilty as charged.

All this can be confirmed by Court documents.

Mr Barnett was, therefore, refused his rights to an open and fair Civil trial.

His rights under Article 6 of the European Human Rights Act were denied him. He was not allowed to question the prosecution witness and to have other prosecution witnesses and evidence brought before the court. His rights under Article 7 of the European Courts on Human Rights were also denied him.

Mr Barnett then applied for these matters to be referred to the High Court. This was denied.

Since then he has taken the only option available to him. He took these matters to Shrewsbury Crown Court. The judges said the matters were outside their jurisdiction and refused to lift the decision of the earlier Court and referred him back to the Magistrates Court where, they said, he should again apply to have the matters quashed.

He took the matters back to the Magistrates Court, as instructed, but because he would not show contrition nor apologize for alledgedly removing the unlawful impediments from the common land his application was refused.

He could not, however, apologise because no documents were presented to the Court to prove that the so-called land owners actually owned the land. There is no conveyance/purchase documents. There are no title deeds to show the common land is freehold or to show the aka is the lawful title to the common land. The application to PINS is forged/wrongly obtained. The Land Registry Document is invalid.

Mr Barnett is currently trying to bring these matters before the High Court to obtain a Judicial Review in order to have the matters quashed and to obtain compensation for the way he has been illegally treated.

He has, however, been again threatened with committal if he does not comply with the order to pay for the alleged damage. I hope you will agree that the only way to sort this matter out is by either dismissing the whole affair or arranging a new trial.