Tony Barnett writes to the Court

- HAD JUDGE KHAN, SAVED HIS JUDGEMENT AND CONDUCTED AN UNBIASED COURT, HE WOULD HAVE LEARNED THAT I AND TWO OTHERS WERE NOT TRESPASSING, BUT WERE ON COMMON LAND, AND NOT LAND OWNED BY TRISH HAINES, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF WCC.

- JUDGE KHAN WOULD ALSO HAVE LEARNED THAT THE FENCING DID NOT BELONG TO WCC AND THAT SUBJECT TO THE COMMON COMMISSIONERS DECISION, WCC ONLY HAS THE PROTECTION OF THE RIGHTS AND COMMON LAND ITSELF VESTED IN THEM, AND THAT IT DOES NOT BESTOW ANY JURISDICTION.

- NO PROOF THAT WCC WERE OWNERS OR HAD LEGAL OCCUPATION OF HARTLEBURY COMMON CL68 WAS DISCLOSED.

- THE CLAIMS BY TRISH HAINES CHIEF EXECUTIVE AT WCC, MADE TO THIS COURT AND TO THE PLANNING INSPECTORATE ARE VEXATIOUS AND CONSIST OF FALSE REPRESENTATIONS?

Says Tony Barnett

I HAVE TODAY RECEIVED NOTICE THAT I, TONY BARNETT, DEFENDANT IN THESE MATTERS, WILL HAVE A HEARING FOR COMMITTAL PROCEEDINGS MADE AGAINST ME, AND TWO OTHERS

I ATTENDED COURT ON THE DAY OF JUDGE KHANS DECISION; THE CLAIMANTS STATED THAT I AND TWO OTHERS WERE INVOLVED WITH DAMAGE TO FENCING BELONGING TO THE COUNCIL AND THAT OF DAMAGING COUNCIL OWNED LAND.

HAD JUDGE KHAN, SAVED HIS JUDGEMENT AND CONDUCTED AN UNBIASED COURT, HE WOULD HAVE LEARNED THAT I AND TWO OTHERS WERE NOT TRESPASSING, BUT WERE ON COMMON LAND, AND NOT LAND OWNED BY TRISH HAINES, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF WCC.

JUDGE KHAN WOULD ALSO HAVE LEARNED THAT THE FENCING DID NOT BELONG TO WCC AND THAT SUBJECT TO THE COMMON COMMISSIONERS DECISION, WCC ONLY HAS THE PROTECTION OF THE RIGHTS AND COMMON LAND ITSELF VESTED IN THEM, AND THAT IT DOES NOT BESTOW ANY JURISDICTION.

SUBJECT TO THAT, I WAS NOT GIVEN MY RIGHTS TO HAVE A FULL EXAMINATION OF THE CLAIMS, OR TO EXAMINE THE CLAIMANTS, IN ESSENCE NOT A FAIR TRIAL.

THE JUDGEMENT WAS BIAS IN FAVOUR OF THE COUNCIL, NO PROOF THAT WCC WERE OWNERS OR HAD LEGAL OCCUPATION OF HARTLEBURY COMMON CL68 WAS DISCLOSED.

THE DECISION TO NOT COMPLY WITH THE JUDGEMENT WAS FORCED UPON THOSE THAT ENTERED THE COMMON LAND, THEIR RIGHTS.

AS THE COURT IS AWARE, AN ARREST WAS MADE ON HARTLEBURY COMMON, THE PERSON ARRESTED MADE NO STATEMENT, AND WAS RELEASED ON BAIL AND COMPLIED WITH, NO FURTHER ACTION BY THE POLICE, AN NFA WAS THE RESULT OF THE MONTH LONG BAIL CONDITIONS.

THIS WOULD HAVE BEEN THE CORRECT TIME FOR WCC TO APPLY FOR THE ORDER NOW BEFORE THIS HONOURABLE COURT, NO APPLICATION WAS MADE, SO THE POLICE WENT WITH THE LACK OF COMMITMENT TO THE ARREST APPLIIED FOR BY THE COUNCIL, AND SO ISSUED THE NFA.

ENTRY ONTO THE COMMON LAND RESUMED AFTER THAT PERIOD, WITH THE POLICE ISSUING A STATEMENT THAT NO POWERS OF ARREST WAS HELD, NORMAL ACCESS HAS RESUMED SINCE THAT DECLARATION.

IT WAS ALSO STATED THAT THE WORKS CARRIED OUT BY WCC WERE LAWFUL AND THAT CONSENT HAD BEEN FORTHCOMING FROM THE SECRTARY OF STATE.

MAY I SUBMIT TO THIS HONOURABLE COURT THAT THE CLAIMS BY TRISH HAINES CHIEF EXECUTIVE AT WCC, MADE TO THIS COURT AND TO THE PLANNING INSPECTORATE ARE VEXATIOUS AND CONSIST OF FALSE REPRESENTATIONS?

IT WAS THROUGH DIRECTIONS OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE, TO LIZ NETHER, FOR THAT OFFICER TO APPLY TO THE PLANNING INSPECTORATE, FOR PLANNING CONSENT, STATING THAT WCC WERE THE OWNERS OF HARTLEBURY COMMON CL68, THUS FALSELY CLAIMING THAT THE COMMON LAND WAS FREEHOLD.

IT IS ALSO REQUIRED THAT ALL APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING CONSENT FROM DEFRA OR THE PLANNING INSPECTORATE MUST INCLUDE FULL DISCLOSURE.

IT HAS BEEN STATED BY THE LEGAL OFFICE AT (POLLOCK) WCC NO TITLE DEEDS EXIST, THEREFORE A STATUTORY DECLARATION MUST HAVE BEEN APPLIED TO THE APPLICATION

ALSO, A LAND REGISTRY DOCUMENT HAS BEEN OBTAINED; THIS CAN ONLY BE ACHIEVED ON DISCLOSURE OF PRE-REGISTRATION OF TITLES, OR BY STATUTORY DECLARATION.

THE CONSENT FROM THE PLANNING INSPECTORATE CONTAINS A “SUPPLEMENTARY”, WHICH STATES THAT PROVIDING THE WORKS ARE NOT IN BREACH OF ANY ENACTMENT OR BYE-LAW THEN THE WORKS WILL BE LAWFUL.

FOR THIS I WILL CITE THE 2006 FRAUD ACT, FALSE REPRESENTATION AS ONE BREACH OF THE MANY ENACTMENTS, TO INCLUDE CRIMINAL DAMAGE, 1971-1 TO COMMON LAND HARTLEBURY COMMON CL68

FURTHER ENACTMENTS BREACHED BY TRISH HAINES WILL, FORM PART OF MY MITIGATION, (TO BE DISCLOSED) ON RECEIPT OF CLAIMANTS LITIGATION.

I NOW APPLY TO THIS HONOURABLE COURT THAT THE DATE FOR THIS HEARING BE VACATED TO ALLOW FOR SUCH EVIDENCE TO BE COMPILED, AND FOR THE MATTERS TO BE RELEASED TO A HIGHER COURT, PREFERANCE WILL BE THE HIGH COURT LONDON, ALSO THAT;

AN ORDER IS MADE FOR FULL DISCLOSURE TO SHOW PRE-REGISTRATION OF TITLES ALSO;

THE MANNER IN WHICH THE LAND REGISTRY DOCUMENT WAS OBTAINED ALSO;

AN ORDER FOR SUMMONSES FOR PERSONS TO BE EXAMINED BEFORE THIS HONOURABLE COURT AND TO DISCLOSURE OF EVIDENCE ON WHICH THEY WILL RELY ON.

TO THIS HONOURABLE COURT,

I APPLY FOR THE FORMS FOR COURT SUMMONSES IN RESPECT OF THE PERSONS NAMED BELOW;

CHIEF EXECUTIVE TRISH HAINES.
LIZ NETHER,
TOM POLLOCK

AND ALL OTHER PERSONS MAKING STATEMENTS IN SUPPORT OF THE CLAIMANT, WHICH HAVE BEEN NAMED AS WITNESSES BY WCC.

I WILL REQUEST THAT THIS HONOURABLE, ALLOW MY RIGHTS TO A FAIR AND PUBLIC HEARING, AND TO DEFEND MY RIGHTS AS IS LAID DOWN UNDER THE HUMAN RIGHTS ACT,

ARTICLE 6.

THIS ACT PROVIDES THAT I HAVE THE RIGHT TO A FAIR AND PUBLIC HEARING, THIS APPLIES TO BOTH CRIMINAL CHARGES AGAINST ME AND CIVIL RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS