Says Tony Barnett

ON READING THE CONVEYANCE DOCUMENT, IT DOES NOT MENTION PRE-REGISTRATION OF TITLES, OR HOW HE GAINED THE LAND REGISTRY DOCUMENT A STATUTORY DECLARATION.

THE LR DOCUMENT ALSO SHOWS THAT FOR THE 1926 LANDS REGISTRATION ACT, ONSLOW ONLY RECORDED THE LANDS A VESTED AND NOT AS DEMENSE LANDS,ONSLOW WAS CLAIMING COPYHOLD/TENURE, BUT FROM WHO?

THE REASONING BEHIND THAT IS THE FIRST ENTRY ON THE LAND REGISTRY DOCUMENT, IS A STATEMENT FROM ONSLOW THAT THE COMMON-S WERE ONLY "VESTED", THIS ACT WAS PERFORMED WHERE THE LAND WAS/IS NOT THE DEMENSE LANDS OF THE MANOR (ONSLOW'S) AND WOULD ONLY HAVE BEEN "HELD" BY HIM.

I GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE, THE 1965 COMMONS REGISTRATION ACT ISSUED A SECTION 9 TO COMMONS WHERE AN OWNER COULD NOT BE TRACED, UNDER THAT SECTION THE COMMONS COMMISSIONER "VESTED" THE COMMON LAND IN THAT COUNTY INTO THE PROTECTION OF THE LOCAL AUTHORITY, BUT, AS THE AUTHORITY WERE NOT OWNERS IN THE SOIL, THE VESTING GAVE THE REGISTERING AUTHORITIES NO JURISDICTION, SO THE COUNCIL "HOLD" THE COMMON LANDS, AS IN "HELD".

THIS THEN AFFORDS NO RIGHTS TO GRANT DEEDS OF EASEMENT OR "LET" TO THE COUNCIL.

YOU HAVE NOT DISCLOSED INFORMATION AS WHAT "PRODUCT" THE COMMONS ARE CAPABLE OF PRODUCING, AS THAT PRODUCT WILL HAVE BEEN TAKEN AS CORRECT BY THE UNIVERSITY OF ABERYSTWYTH FOR THE 1965 CRA, THAT WILL BE THE ONLY LAWFUL RIGHTS TO BE REGISTERED, THE 2006 COMMONS ACT SUBSTANTIALLY RE ENACTED THE LEGISLATION ON RIGHTS OF COMMON IN THAT A COMMONER MAY NOT;LET,LEASE,SELL OR EXTINGUISH THEIR RIGHTS AWAY FROM THE APPLICATION LANDS TO WHICH THE RIGHTS ARE REGISTERED.

IT WILL BE PRUDENT FOR YOU TO EXTINGUISH THE LEGAL AGREEMENT WITH SWT, THIS CAN BE CHALLENGED IN LAW.

YOUR AGENDA TO ENCLOSE THE COMMONS WILL BE IN BREACH OF SECTIONS 47-1747-2 OF THE 2006 COMMONS ACT SHOULD YOU ENCLOSE, THEREFORE THE PUBLIC HAVE THE RIGHT TO ENFORCE AGAINST UNLAWFUL WORKS.