"I was rejected because I want to challenge the claims by county wildlife trusts to commit to honesty and fair play to avoid criminal activities"

Says Tony Barnett

Another phone call from the wildlife trust, this time rejecting my proposal to become affiliated/associated with that org, the reasons for this is because as members I would want to challenge the claims by county wildlife trusts to commit to honesty and fair play by staying within the confines of common land and conveyance legislation so as to avoid criminal activities and conflict with all that support Natural Phenomena to include the neighborhood.

The person I spoke to was Johnathan Allardyce, this person is a sketch artist, his credentials do not cover any aspect of common land, conveyance or criminal law, yet he is a spokesperson for the wildlife trust headquarters, but based in Scotland, the only time he has serious contact with flora and fauna is when sketching, or when out posing in front of the public, so basically he is just a bit celebrate to try to pull the wool over his audience on behalf of the equally ignorant wildlife trust employees.

My examination of the trust through our conversation was to ascertain information on procedure when appealing for funding, like applying to pins for consent for works on common land and then appealing for funding to complete the project, what do you mean he asked, well, are you aware of Yateley Common, yes, he said, well as you are aware that has been stopped, by you I take it he said that's right and how it was achieved was by using the legislation's, ie evidence to show title of the common land, which was not possible.

I was told that that was just my opinion, a very sound opinion I would say because of law of property act 1925 , the commons registration act 1965 and the superior 1189 act and the fact since 1290 the statute Quia Emptories, which allowed for lands that were shown to be freehold, subject to the statute Quo Warranto 1189 could be sold in fee simple, so opinion does not come into it at all, facts do though, also since the 1290 act no new manors could be created..

Allardyce will not accept that entering into any land deal does not require evidence to show that the vendor/grantor has jurisdiction to make deeds of grant, grants of easement or conveyance of section 9, now section 45 common land, fate accompli takes over stating that we have been told we can do this so like it or lump it, the council will support the fraudulent actions, therefore so will the police and courts.

Now this person who's only qualifications is illustration drawings, not true to type but of his own representation/interpretation is just that and fails to consider that people are intelligent and do not make statements without first research for factual evidence concerning the matter.

So when he tried to assassinate my character he is taking on more than he can chew when he stated that I had not won any court battles against any charity, well anyone that have been to court with me will offer to support my statements that I have never lost any court battle because the court will not take me on, no solicitor in the county where common land is the subject will defend mitigation, neither will they support litigation, so no court trial can ever be carried out, a moral victory for Common Heritage and Horseytalk.

I did try to enlighten Allardyce to the 1998 European Convention on Human Rights, in particular article 6, which states that full disclosure of documentary evidence from both sides and that witnesses must also dive evidence on examination, these same rights are part of the Magna Marta which is a statute, to refuse to allow those rites is a criminal act, putting the matters before a criminal court is just vengeful persecution, because in a civil court where the matters should be held and if, I was given my rites under article 6, they would have lost!

So applications for such disclosure was refused, I was not allowed to examine the applicants/claimants and evidence submitted by me or on behalf of others was not used in court, any application for copies of transcript where the matters were tracked was refused and as solicitors would only defend or comment on behalf of me and others through court niceties and not as is required by their profession and judges are quite content with courtroom fraud spewing out, this court finds for the other side, on what I ask, the section states that innocent until PROVEN, it is not only the judges hair style that is false, the entire persona of these Judges are false.

So you can how these parasite charities are able to get away with mortgage fraud, criminal damage, in 1285, it was ruled in the assizes that under section 219 that owner's would be acting lawfully to enclose common land surplus to his tenant commoner requirements from levancy to couchancy to include winter fodder the summer was able to produce, however, for the 2006 commons act the 1285 act was repealed under section 47-1 of that act, 47-2 of the same act states that any act of enclosure that may subsist along side of the 1285 is prohibited.

It appears through the ignorance or bloody mindless that or because commoners or most do not graze or take soil or peat or eastovers or or turf or piscary or pannage, and so claim that the commoners have abandoned their rights, and that the public don't have a say in the matter against enclosure, well 47-1` and 47-2 is there for reference, surely with an education like Allardyce claims to have would have galvanized him to advise Stephanie Hilbourne and David Attenborough and Pro Aubrey Manning recognized as one of the country's leading authorities on animal behavior.

Prof Manning has a degree in Zoology, nothing else in his write up shows experience in natural phenomena, common lands, conveyance the statutes 1189,1290,1925,1965 or 2006, so what about the fraud act 2006, false representation, abuse of office, failure to disclose and loss and gain, but, as it is the public where the funding comes from, what about their rights under the commons acts, free unimpeded access from all points of view, the provisions written within the 2000 crow act, this it is claimed,enabled him to rise to the rank of professor of natural history, obviously in good company with Attenborough, neither have the status of Gadsden, lecture at law Cardiff University, born and lived on the land,both Allardyce and this man live in Scotland, there is no common Land in the country, so how, under his description of being an animal behaviorist and a sketch artist do they qualify for the positions they are in at wildlife trust?

One other point to understand is that section 9 commons(1965 act) and section (45 common lands 2006 commons act) are not registered as property,do not appear on the law of property act 1925 register, but were registered as common land to prevent no mans land becoming any mans land by the commons commissioner and vested into the care of the registering authority but the act gave no jurisdiction.

Those that follow the "conservationist charities" need to wake up, the charity commission must now investigate these charities after first examining themselves, we want our democratic rites returned and those that have been exposed as not fit for purpose removed from the list.

A few points to look at under the charities fraud act:

• Donation fraud
• The trustees power to avoid fraudulent transfers
• fraud and financial crime
• Sentences for offences under the 2006 fraud act
• Fraud guidance for charity section mortgage fraud (using property not belonging as collateral)