IN DETAIL. THE FULL LEGAL CASE AGAINST WAVERLEY BOROUGH COUNCIL

- THERE ARE NO CONCLUSIVE/DEFINITIVE OWNERS/GRANTORS REGISTERED ON THE COMMON OWNERS REGISTER, IT IS FAIR TO SAY THAT THE REGISTERS HELD AT SURREY REGISTRATION AUTHORITIES ARE INCOMPLETE/INCORRECT.

Says Tony Barnett

FRENSHAM COMMON CL87 IS REGISTERED FOR GRAZING, EASTOVERS AND FOR HORTICULTURAL RIGHTS.

THERE ARE PRIVATE RIGHTS OF WAY REGISTERED ALSO.

THE MAIN BENIFACTOR TO THE RIGHTS IS MRS TUSSLER CL1026; THERE IS NO DECLARATION TO ABANDONMENT OR EXTINGUISHMENT OF HER REGISTERED RIGHTS.

THESE RIGHTS ARE GRAZING, RIGHTS IN THE SOIL AND EASTOVERS.

ALSO MRS WYLIE CL 1046 HAS RIGHTS OF EASTOVERS; THERE IS NO DECLARATION OF ABANDONMENT OR EXTINGUISHMENT OF HER REGISTERED RIGHTS.

MRS TUSSLER CL 1026, HAS SOLE RIGHTS TO PISCARY AND RIGHTS IN THE SOIL ON CL 232(GREAT POND) AND PISCARY ON CL 430 (LITTLE POND), THESE TWO REGISTRATIONS BECAME FINAL ON 16/10/81(GREAT POND) AND 14/12/1983, LITTLE POND.

THE TAKING OF FISH IS FOR OWN DOMESTIC USE BY TUSSLER.

THAT IS THE FULL RIGHTS REGISTER HELD AT THE REGISTRATION OFFICE IN SURREY IN RELATION TO CL 87,232,430

THE 2005/6 COMMONS ACT STATES THAT A COMMONER MAY NOT, LET, LEASE, SELL OR EXTINGUISH THE RIGHTS AWAY FROM THE PROPERTY, SO REGISTERED, THEREFORE ANY STATEMENT INDICATING COMMONERS HAVE AGREED TO OTHER USES/USERS, CARRIES NO WEIGHT.

LAND REGISTRY DOCUMENT SY631105, CREATED 24/9/2009

THIS IS LAND, FILED UNDER SY631105 AS LAND LYING EAST AND SOUTH EAST OF FRENSHAM.

IT STATES THAT ON 25/1/93 HAS BENEFITS OF RIGHTS GRANTED BY A DEED (NOT SEEN) FOR RIGHTS OF WAY, ON WHAT? FRENSHAM COMMON OR PONDS NOT MENTIONED.

PROPRIETORS, THE NATIONAL TRUST, ON THE SAME DAY/DATE, RESTRICTIONS WERE PLACED BY? (NO IDENTITY).

TITLE No SY688111, IS A LAND REGISTRATION OF TITLE, AGAIN OBTAINED BY LORRAIN PARSONS FROM LAND REGISTRY IN DURHAM.

SY688111 SHOWS A LEASE OF LEASEHOLD LAND, OBTAINED 17/8/99, BEING LAND LYING TO THE EAST AND SOUTH WEST TO FRENSHAM, BUT NOT NAMED AS FRENSHAM COMMON CL87.

THE VENDOR, WHO CANNOT BE TRACED, ALLEGEDLY ENTERED INTO A CONVEYANCE IN 1954, BUT OF WHAT?

THE PURCHASER, WITH NO TITLE DEEDS OR CONVEYANCE DOCUMENT TO SHOW GOOD TITLE, SEEMS, BUT NOT MENTIONED, HAD A LEASE AGREEMENT REGISTRATION CREATED AND FILED UNDER SY 625308, FOR A PEPPERCORN RENT, 14/12/ 98 FOR A PERIOD OF 73 YEARS TO (1) THE NATIONAL TRUST, AND (2)WAVERLEY BOROUGH COUNCIL.

FURTHER, IT IS STATED THAT THE “LANDLORDS” TITLE IS REGISTERED, IN WHAT AND WHO IS THE LEGAL LAND OWNER?

THERE IS STILL NO MENTION OF FRENSHAM COMMON, OR THE TWO PONDS, BUT THE REGISTER CLAIMS THE PROPRIETORSHIP REST WITH WAVERLEY BOROUGH COUNCIL,”TITLE ABSOLUTE”.

NO TITLE DEEDS TO PRE-DATE 1189 OR EVEN CONVEYANCE, EPITOME OR AN INDENTURE DOCUMENT CAN BE DISCLOSED.

THERE ARE MANY SY’s FILED ON BOTH LAND REGISTRATION DOCUMENTS, WHICH CAN BE TREATED AS BOGUS, PRODUCTION OF PRE-REGISTRATION OF TITLES AND CONVEYANCE DOCUMENTS WAS NOT POSSIBLE.

THERE ARE NO CONCLUSIVE/DEFINITIVE OWNERS/GRANTORS REGISTERED ON THE COMMON OWNERS REGISTER, IT IS FAIR TO SAY THAT THE REGISTERS HELD AT SURREY REGISTRATION AUTHORITIES ARE INCOMPLETE/INCORRECT.

PROOF OF OWNERSHIP IE LORD OF THE MANOR OR OTHER OWNER-S MUST DISCLOSE DOCUMENTATION.TITLE DEEDS THAT PRE-DATE 1189, TIME EMMIMORIAL.

EVIDENCE THAT THIS IS STILL A REQUIREMENT WAS INVESTIGATED BY GADSDEN AND MORE RECENTLY BY PAUL STAFFORD, MEMBER OF THE CHANCERY BAR.

IN HIS WRITINGS HE REFERS TO “GOING BEYOND QUIA EMPTORIES” 1290.

THE STATUTE QUIA EMPTORIES WAS AN ACT BY KING EDWARD 1, TO END SUBINFEUDATION (Prof Thomas. N. Bison 2001) ON SUBINFEUDATION AND SUBTERFUGE

PAUL STAFFORD GOES ON TO SAY; THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, HELD IN 1585, THAT “A MANOR CANNOT BE CREATED AT THIS DAY NEITHER BY A COMMON PERSON OR THE QUEEN” THIS MEANS NO NEW MANORS WERE CREATED AFTER 1290.

THE SAME ACT WAS CALLED UPON IN LEWIS J’s CASE IN 2008, IRBY FELL.

THAT BEING SO HOW DID A CONVEYANCE OF FRENSHAM COMMON LAND (MANORIAL WASTE) COME TO BE SOLD, OR MADE SUBJECT TO DEEDS OF GRANT?

THIS THEN NEGATES ANY CLAIM THAT IS HELD BY THE LAND REGISTRATION DOCUMENTS SHOWING “LEASES AND OWNERSHIP” BY THE NATIONAL TRUST AND WAVERLEY BOROUGH COUNCIL IN REGARD TO FRENSHAM COMMON CL87 AND PONDS CL232 AND CL 430,AS NONE CAN DISCLOSE EVIDENCE TO LEGAL OCCUPATION/LOCUS STAN-DI.

THAT BEING THE CASE, THE MATTERS OF CLAIMS TO PINS FOR CONSENT TO CARRYOUT WORKS ON FRENSHAM COMMON CL87 WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE NATIONAL TRUST AND THE LEASING OF COMMONERS RIGHTS TO PISCARY ON PONDS CL232 AND CL430 NEED TO BE ADDRESSED, TOGETHER WITH IMPEDIMENTS TO ACCESS FROM ALL POINTS OF VIEW.

THERE IS ALSO THE LEASING OF THE GREAT POND CL232 TO FRENSHAM SAILING AND YATCH CLUB, WHICH UNDER THE 2000 CROW IS PROHIBITED,SAILING/BOATING AND SWIMMING IN/ON NON TIDAL WATERS IS AN OFFENCE.

HOWEVER, WAVERLEY BOROUGH COUNCIL HAS ISSUED LICENCES TO FARNHAM ANGLING SOCIETY.

OBVIOUSLY TRUSTING THE AUTHORITY, RICHARD CANE, THE MAIN VOICE OF THE ANGLING SOCIETY, PAID OR AUTHORISED PAYMENT OF £7,000 PLUS VAT FOR RIGHTS TO FISH ON CL 430 AND £150 PLUS VAT FOR FISHING RIGHTS ON CL232, TO WAVERLY BOROUGH COUNCIL.

RICHARD IS AN HONEST MAN, AND IN HIS WORDS WOULD NOT BE TEMPTED TO DISHONESTY.

HE UNDERSTOOD THOUGH THAT TO FISH LAWFULLY IN BOTH PONDS HE WOULD NEED TO REGISTER WITH THE COUNCIL AND TO OBTAIN A LEASE AGREEMENT.

ALTHOUGH A LEASE WAS OBTAINED, IT DID NOT MAKE FISHING IN THE PONDS LEGAL, EVEN THOUGH THE MEMBERS HELD ROD LICENSES, THERE IS NO ONE TO GIVE CONSENT.

RICHARD HAD EXPLAINED TO ME THAT ONE OF THE SOCIETY MEMBERS CLAIMED TO OWN THE LITTLE POND AND HAD DECIDED TO END HIS INTEREST IN THE SPORT.

THE ANGLING SOCIETY OFFERED TO PURCHASE THE POND FROM HIM, HE REFUSED AND HE CLAIMED HE HAD GIVEN THE POND TO THE NATIONAL TRUST (REASON, NO TITLE DEEDS).

THE NATIONAL TRUST HOWEVER DENY ANY ASSOCIATION WITH THE PONDS AND ONLY CLAIM LOCUS STAN-DI, ON CL87 FRENSHAM COMMON.

THEY CAN ONLY CLAIM AN INTEREST IN THE ANCIENT MONUMENTS, THE COMMON LAND WAS REGISTERED AS A SECTION 9 FOR THE 1965 CRA AND VESTED IN THE PROTECTION OF THE REGISTERING AUTHORITIES, BUT THE ACT/SECTION GIVES NO JURISDICTION.

AS THE PISCARY IS REGISTERED TO A COMMONER ON BOTH PONDS, THIS IN ITS SELF SHOWS WAVERLEY BOROUGH COUNCILS MALADMINISTRATION, AS COPIES OF REGISTERED COMMONERS RIGHTS WERE/ARE IN EXISISTANCE AND OBTAINABLE AT SURREY CC.

HELEN GILBERT, IF CONTACTED BY JANE BOWDEN, WOULD/SHOULD CONFIRM THAT THERE IS NO COMMON OWNERS REGISTER.

THE APPLICATION FOR CONSENT FOR WORKS WAS SUBMITTED BY JANE BOWDEN AT WAVERLEY BOROUGH COUNCIL, THE FIRST APPLICATION WAS NOT SIGNED, PINS STATE THAT IT WAS SIGNED LATER, I HAVE NOT SEEN THIS RE-SUBMITTED DOCUMENT.

THE NATIONAL TRUST OR ENGLISH HERITAGE OR ANY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC COULD HAVE MADE A LAWFUL APPLICATION TO PINS IN THEIR OWN RIGHT, TO ENCLOSE THE BARROWS, SO WHY DID WAVERLEY COUNCIL HAVE TO STOOP TO FALSE REPRESENTATION?

THE SIMPLE TRUTH IS THAT THROUGH THE APPLICATION, THE CONSENT GIVEN (ALTHOUOGH PROVISIONAL) COULD BE USED TO MISLEAD THE PUBLIC AND HAS, BEEN USED TO MISLEAD.

THE APPLICATION TO ERECT ENCLOSURE AROUND THE “BARROWS”, COULD, HAVE PRESUADED MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC TO BELIEVE THAT ALL OTHER ACTIONS BY THE COUNCIL WERE ALSO WITH THE CONSENT OF THE PLANNING INSPECTORATE AS CONCLUSIVE OF MATTERS SO REGISTERED.

THE CONSENT HOWEVER IS ALWAYS ACCOMPANIED BY A SUPPLEMENTARY, WHICH STATES THAT PROVIDING THE WORKS ARE NOT IN BREACH OF ANY ENACTMENT OR BYE-LAW THEY WILL BE LAWFUL.

ALTHOUGH STATED TO BE FACT, THE COMMON LAND, BY ITS 1965 REGISTRATION ACT, IS NOT SUBJECT TO REGULATION, SO THERE ARE NO BYE-LAWS, THE PROTECTION OF THE ANCIENT MONUMENTS, IF REGISTERED, IN THE PROTECTION OF? BY THE SECRETARY OF STATE, WOULD HAVE LOCUS STAN-DI (STAND UP IN COURT) AFFORDED TO THE APPLICANT-S.

THIS IS THE SAME AS COMMONERS REPORTING UNLAWFUL ACTS, ON THE COMMON TO THE REGISTERING AUTHORITIES, THESE ARE THEN PERSUED THROUGH THE COUNTY COURTS.

THE PUBLICS INTEREST IN THE COMMON IS THROUGH THE COUNCIL, BUT, WHERE THE COUNCIL ARE THE OFFENDERS, THE PUBLIC HAVE A RELATORY ACTION IN THE HIGH COURT (GADSDEN).

THE LEASES, OR ALLEGED LEASES BY THE NATIONAL TRUST TO FRENSHAM COMMON, MADE TO WAVERLEY BOROUGH COUNCIL, ARE UNLAWFUL.

IF, THE NO HORSE RIDING DISC’S WERE LAWFUL, THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN POSITIONED LEGALLY AND WOULD STILL BE IN SITU, AS IT IS, THEY HAVE BEEN REMOVED THROUGH LEGAL DEMANDS.

THE COUNCIL ARE ALSO OBLIGATED TO RETURN THE COMMON LAND BACK TO THE STATE IN WHICH WAS BEFORE THE PLACING OF SIGNAGE AND OTHER CONSTRUCTIONS.

THE ANGLERS, IF THEY CONTINUE TO ACCESS THE PONDS, THEY ARE BREAKING THE LAW, AS IT IS PROVIDED IN THE LEGISLATION THEY ARE TRESSPASERS.

RICHARD CANE DID SAY THAT THE SOCIETY IS PREPARED TO WAIT UPTO SIX MONTHS FOR THE COUNCIL TO REMEDY THE SITUATION, OR ACTION THROUGH CIVIL PROCEDURE WILL FOLLOW.

THE YATCH AND SAILING CLUB HAVE ALSO STATED THAT A LEASE HAS BEEN OBTAINED FROM WAVERLEY COUNCIL, AS OF YET NO INDICATION OF FEES PAID HAS BEEN FORTHCOMING, BUT THEY TO ARE PROHIBITED UNDER LEGISLATION, FROM USING THE WATERS.

THE FALSE REPRESENTATION/APPLICATION BY THE COUNCIL TO PINS DID NOT INCLUDE CONSTRUCTION OF CAR PARKING FACILITIES, CHARGES FOR THE USE, AND ERRECTING ENCLOSURE AROUND THE POND, SITING NOTICE BOARDS, ECAVATING THE GREAT POND.

THE MATTERS NOW ARE UNDER INVESTIGATION BY THE LGO AT MY REQUEST, NOT AT ANYTIME DID RICHARD CANE ASK ME TO CARRYOUT WORKS FOR THE SOCIETY.

I CONTACTED THE POLICE, COUNCIL AND THE LGO AS OF RIGHT, ALL THE INFORMATION PASSED TO ME WAS GIVEN TO THE AFORE MENTIONED, I ACTED AS A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC IN THESE MATTERS.

GUIDENCE FROM ME TO HIM ON THE LEGISLATION WAS ACCEPTED AS WAS INFORMATION ON THE PONDS BY RICHARD WAS ACCEPTED BY ME, WHAT HE DOES, IS UP TO HIM.

AS BOTH PONDS ARE REGISTERED AS COMMON LAND, THEY AND THE SAILING AND YATCH CLUB ARE TRESPASSERS, AND MY REMIT IS TO KEEP PUBLIC AMENITIES AVAILABLE FREE FROM ANY IMPEDIMENTS.

THE PONDS ARE CONSERVATION AREAS, WE AS MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC ARE ENTITLED TO PEACEFUL ENJOYMENT OF SUCH PLACES, FOR AIR, EXERCISE AND RECREATION.

THE COUNCIL “RANGER” ON FRENSHAM COMMON HAS NO AUTHORITY.

THE STATEMENT FROM THE “ENFORCEMENT OFFICER” AT SURREY CC TO DANIEL BAINBRIDGE, IS A FEEBLE ATTEMPT AT KEEP HIS JOB.