"Laws/legislation are available to the public but there are problems gaining those rights I have been in more courts than I care to mention, if not as a guest then as supporter of members of the public wishing to regain their rights of lawful ancient access to bridlepaths and footpaths over common land and for ancient rights to open countryside rights of dog walking and horse riding"

Says Tony Barnett

Since the abolition of the office of the Commons Commissioner by the labour government in 2006 and then the creation of the Planning Inspectorate put in place, rights under common law to open unimpeded access to the countryside and the loss of rights to unimpeded access to ancient ingress to bridlepaths and footpaths on Registered Common Land that the 1965 Common Lands Registration Act provides for.      

Schedule 4 paragraph 6 of the 2006 commons act provides the public with the rights to enforce against unlawful works on common land

This Act came about because these lands were not subject to Freehold Status, thus are not subject to Fee Simple and so were given the protection of section 9 of the 1965 Act from unlawful works or occupation taking place, any claims of ownership must be by way of Section 4 of the 1965 Act:     Section 4 (1) provides, subject to the provisions of this section, a registration authority shall register any land as common land or a town or a village green or, as the case may be, any rights of common over or ownership of such land, on application duly made to it and accompanied by such declaration and such other documents  (if any) as may be prescribed for the purpose of verification or of proving compliance with any prescribed conditions .

Pre the 2006 commons act, all applications went before the Commons Commissioner/Secretary of State for adjudication of all claims  made, this is where such claims to 1965 common lands registration being made were scrutinised for accuracy and where false claims were brought under the Fraud act siting false Representation (now under the 2006 Fraud act) many applications that were objected to pre 2006  were rejected by the Secretary of State's officials keeping commoners rights and that of access by the public from any points of view secure.

However, since the imposition of the Planning Inspectorate (PINS) no evidence needs to be disclosed because Pins is not able to adjudicate, they have no legal standing, or understanding  on conveyance laws, so, they give consent to applications made by the local authority and charities, but, issue a supplementary(condition) with the consent which says that providing the works are not in breach of any enactment or bye-law they will be lawful (please see A above)  the overriding breach is false representation because the lands are registered under section 9 of the 1965 common lands registration act (CRA), there is enough evidence at council offices and archives to show this.

The corruption doesn't end there, in essence it doesn't start there either

The corruption dosent end there, in essence it dosent start there either, the applicants conjure up a corrupt "Epitome of Titles" which they present to the Land Registry, this government office colludes with the applicants and creates a land registry document without examining the contents of the corrupt Epitome of Titles, the document itself (the epitome)will not stand  up in court because it cannot be substantiated by disclosure of any of the documents so mentioned/referred to, also it does not hold a land registry No either, it is no good sending the Corrupt Epitome to PINS either because they cannot adjudicate, however, that and the created land registry document will be accepted by the "Funders" of monies,  (HLF) Heritage lottery Funding from Camelot, Landfill Subsidiaries on application made to it on behalf of the "conservation charities"

Let it be said, this money/funding is for good causes, not for frauds to  use to benefit personal agendas. That's how the likes of the RSPB,Butterfly conservation, wildlife Trusts, National Trust, the list goes on.

I have had confirmed by a conveyance solicitor, whose colleague and client were, still are using property not owned as collateral being guilty of Mortgage Fraud, the firm of solicitors is Roythorne & co, Lincolnshire and Peterborough, I hide from no one, these are facts.

There is also the Higher Level Stewardship (HLS) from Natural England another Quango (Brexit hopefully will exterminate this quango), money for this "elite" corrupt government office is from Europe but, the money is for bona-fide landowners, yet it is given to anyone land owner or not, in fact in my experience, farmers don't want them on their land, so the money goes to Councils on application by an underling/minor official at the council offices and as I have witnessed those that have been stopped by the intervention of Horseytalk staff's objections to the application, have lost their jobs, this is why the CEO or the legal/financial officers at those council offices have not undersigned any of the applications made to the various departments, PINS,Land registry and natural England. 

The government, HMRC, has in place officers that examine applications for any funding as most of the monies is from tax, this office is "Ensure" so, applications for funding requires that the project MUST, be within a 10 mile radius of a landfill site and Must be by the owner of the land where the project is to be, or a signed statement from an owner for the application to succeed, if the application comes from a Quango, those requirements are kicked into touch, yet to make a false application (False representation) to such government offices carries a prison sentence or a fine or both, how many charities or CEO's have been cautioned, none to my mind.

I have forgot how many times I have been arrested since 2006, this was for removing unlawful works from common land, yet schedule 4 paragraph 6 of the 2006 commons act provides the public with the rights to enforce against unlawful works on common land, it is not a crime even if  you were not aware of the legislation and removed the impediments, as the common land is footpath/bridlepath as wide as it is long, you are not breaching any law by removing the impediments just as you would not be prosecuted from removing a blockage on any pavement or road, unless of course it was there by law.

Article 7 of the  of the 1998 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) provides that there is no Punishment without law

Since the creation of the 2006 commons Act, the act's of removing unlawful works from common lands or in many cases helping others to regain lawful access to the common lands, the local authorities, having gaining land registry documents,  HLS, and consents from PINS, have applied to have those engaged in removing gates,fences and cattle grids, plus signage arrested by the police.

Article 7 of the  of the 1998 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) provides that there is no Punishment without law meaning that until the arresting officers do disclose documentary evidence that the 1971 (1) criminal damage act has/is being breached or that you are causing a breach of the peace,section 5, then they have no powers to engage in no more than to observe because the works/acts are civil, if the applications are made by charities (as mentioned before) or by some a council official which support the charities, arrest will be made, statements from the applicants will be forwarded to the courts and you have a date.

Clause 39  of the Magna Carta States  ( if you prefer that than ECHR) "No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land" Clause 40 states that to no one will we sell, to no one deny or delay right or justice"  a different format to that of the 1998 ECHR, but still in force today.

What about Article 5 ECHR while it is still in situ (1) "everyone has the rights to liberty and security of  person. No one shall be deprived of their liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law.

Everyone who is deprived of their liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of their detention shall be decided speedily and their release ordered if the detention is not lawful.

Everyone who has been the victim of arrest or detention in contravention of this article shall have an enforceable right to compensation, as I am still discussing ECHR it will  be correct to bring in Article 6 of ECHR, this article provides that everyone is entitled to appear in an open court, to have disclosed  copies of evidence against them, to have examined or to examine their accusers themselves. 

From the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State;"I can confirm that the legal frame work for human rights in the UK is based on the human Rights Act 1998.The human rights Act gives effect to the right in European Convent on Human Rights, meaning that any person in the UK can uphold their rights in a UK court.The Act makes it unlawful for any public authority to act in a way which is incompatible with a convention right. If an individual were to consider that a public authority acted unlawfully they would be able to bring proceedings against the authority. Again, the individual involved may wish to seek independent advice if they would like to discuss their particular situation and the merits of bringing court proceedings".

That letter of support for my knowledge of such legislation was given on 14th  March 2017 since that time I have again corresponded with the new Lord  Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice and await his reply via my MP,  and why not write to him? 

The new Lord chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice David Lidington MP has told the Legal Eagles: " your intellect, your sharp legal minds, your wealth of knowledge, together with your dedication, personal integrity and commitment ensure we have a judiciary that is fair, free from improper influence, and truly independent'. really?

I remember trying to cross a busy road  and after several attempts I was approached by a policeman, excuse me Sir, there is a Zebra crossing up there to which I replied,"I hope it is has more success than me, meaning to my access to the other side where fair justice is available. Quite upset at my remarks he was well, I have never had cause to lavish praise on any member of the legal eagles or the police for that matter, let's hope then that the "Legal Eagles" lay golden eggs for us after being reminded/prompted hopefully by Mr Lidington

I have pointed out what laws/legislation is available to the public, however, I must now inform you of difficulties  in gaining your rights, using any of the laws provided to you under the Magna Carta and the 1998 ECHR.

Since taking on the roll of Commoners Chairman and that of Common Heritage chair, I have been in more courts than I care mention, if not as a guest then as supporter of members of the public wishing to regain their rights of lawful ancient access to bridlepaths and footpaths over common land and for ancient rights to open countryside rights of dog walking and horse riding, before 2006, only once was I put before acriminal court, in my own interest

I applied for Crown court, the claim was that I had breached the 1971-1 criminal damage Act by removing gates positioned over common land, I was able to show that as the land was a section 9 of the 1965 CRA,  and not criminal, the matters were disallowed as a criminal matter and I was released from court, all other such matters Pre 2006 were heard either in the presence of thesecretary of state's representative( I was given judgement against the offender-s) or in the County Courts, in the county court I was  the mitigant, although actions against me were disallowed, the circuit Judge ran with the fox and hounds in as much as he would not grant me full disclosure of the alleged title deeds, which, it was proved that this common land was being stolen/unlawfully and occupied by using the Also Known As (AKA), which for protection from such atrocities of theft of common land I registered under the protection of Common Heritage 2001 in 2002 12 months before the fraudulent Epitome of Titles to the AKA was disclosed to Telford Land Registry to gain a registered title document.

This is not/was not an isolated case, since joining up with Peter Biddlecombe at Horseytalk, I have spread my involvement  activities with the Equestrian folk on matters of the serious impediments to bridleways gates,fences, cattle grids, horse and riders have met with horrific injuries, fatalities are not uncommon. If I can explain to you that common land access is by personal choice, simply because by nature the existence of such areas are conservation areas even if they are part of someone's demesne property, they are the result of Natural phenomena and habit for the wildlife, Lords of the Manor must observe the geology, archaeological and the flora and fauna aspects of such areas, but the common lands we are fighting to retain and in some cases regain are the common lands stolen by local authorities and "conservation charities", as the lands are only vested into the local authority which gives it no jurisdiction but are empowered as an owner in possession to take action against unlawful occupation and other interference with the land, but the authorities are one of the worst offenders and are willingly  to collude with others to steal common land, Shropshire CC claimed a purchase of common land in that county but used a the vehicle the AKA, a new roadway was constructed and land for a vehicle park, no application to the secretary of state was made and the developments have no insurance, this was highlighted when the council tried to sell the vehicle park to Burger King, I stopped that by demanding full disclosure, however, that has not stopped the fraudulent activities by using the land as a pay and display, the public that did not pay and display were prosecuted, I park there, yet no prosecution has happened, application's in court for full disclosure under article 6 ECHR was refused, Butterfly Conservation claim to own one part of this common, claiming to have paid £240,000 for the AKA land from Graeme Berkeley Mr AKA, the payment is alleged to have made to Philip Cookson the solicitor for Roythorne & Co, yet the conveyance solicitor at that firm Paul Osborne stated that both his colleague and client were/have committed Mortgage Fraud by using property not own as collateral.

Further Mortgage fraud by Mr AKA was the land for roadworks,this apparently only cost the district council £140, again no title deeds or conveyance doc, applications were made to PINS for consent for works on the AKA and given, a land registry document was granted after a fraudulent Epitome of Titles was drawn up, two by Cookson of Roythorne & co, no doubt full of contempt the council drew up their own. 

Common Land in Worcester was stolen by the local authority with the help of the Ecclesiastical, church of England's claim of previously owning the common land, of course I challenged this corporation to disclose other documents apart from the fake conveyance document, this they could not do and admitted as much, yet the corruption was so long