Says Tony Barnett

It has been suggested that I explain why, since the new act of parliament the 2006 commons act, battles in court over public rites of access either by horse or by dog walkers are not being protected by courts especially when charities and councils are the reason why such impediments are being allowed to happen.

Pre the 2006 commons act all case involving access to common land went before a civil court for judgement, there my requests for full disclosure of documents and witness's against me/commoners or public objectors was accepted and as was always the case there were no such documents in assistance, so we won, applications to the secretary of state for consent to enclose common land or to build on common land always involved public opinion whether for or against the application, full disclosure was also required if the applicant was claiming some rites, as the representative for the secretary of state was able to adjudicate and make decisions on the claimed rites and judge public opinion the matters were solved and judgment was always given to the objectors against development or enclosure of ancient rites of way.

The 2006 common act, created by Labor, abolished the the post of commons commissioner and replaced him with the planning inspectorate (Pins) here there is no professional body able to adjudicate documentary evidence and as such none are required, consent is given but with a get out clause for pins officers, this is a supplementary which reads; providing the works are not in breach of any enactment or bye-law they will be lawful, if you consider that the common lands at the centre of applications made to pins by councils and charities are common lands and rites of way are lands that are not freehold, no title deeds and none are included in the 1925 law of property act as owned freehold, conclusion, they cannot be subject too fee simple, both freehold and fee simple were statutes created in 1290 Quia Emptories statute, so applications by councils and charities to pins claiming to be owners are in breach of enactments; false representation, and because they cannot disclose documents or refuse then that also comes under the 2006 fraud act.

I am then caused to take the matters before the courts, citing fraud and applying for full disclosure of documentation and witness's, sometimes i was taken to court for lawfully removing developments, i.e. gates and fences and signs, this has been my field of experience since 1968, so I know what I do is lawful, the council and charities apply to the police for my yet this is civil and not a police matter, the intention is to put me before a criminal court for prosecution and conviction, the judges always state "this case is outside of my jurisdiction as the matters are civil and I am a criminal judge", you would think that the court would refer he matters to the correct court, no way, because the council is government and the charities are quangos my rites under article 6 of the European convention on Human rites are denied, subsequently there is no trial but a ruling subject courtroom fraud is given and vast amounts are leveled against me, does it ever get paid, do I comply with the court order, no I bloody well do not, one so called fine was paid for by members of our organisation because officers from Winston Green prison came to arrest me,,and I was prepared to go with them.

Some cases of councils,charities and forestry commission since the 2006 common act have been won out right but this has always involved the general public, horse riders dog walkers and conservationist and not by commoners or those claiming trading rites, they are just parasites and rely on Joe public to do the fighting for them, I am involved in another such action on behalf of Joe public in Sandbach Cheshire, the winger? the market hall traders, this time the public cannot help because they are trading in an unlawful building on common land, so at they moment it is like knocking when no ones in, there leader? Daniel Williams through ignorance will not have the claim rites document examined by the profession, so, the council sense his weakness, when the council proceeds with its agenda where will this Williams be? I have already challenged the councils solicitor Simon Masters, he has failed to meet the challenge, he is guilty of supporting False Representation but also of false representation when applying for a land registry document CH620392to be created by Birkenhead Land registry, however the land registry have no file on the application and Simon Masters the council solicitor cannot disclose a copy of his application and neither can the council, the traders deserve too lose their pitches for then 5 months and some forever, just as commoners have lost their product on common land for the same reason to frightened of the council.