click here to read more

Says Naomi Smith

Says Naomi SmithIt is all too possible to round a corner on horseback and come upon a group of cattle with no prior warning -this WILL result in a horse being badly spooked at best, bolting at worst -it is only a matter of time ........... read more

Defending our rights

- How I defeated all attempts by prosecution to have me committed, made bankrupt and injunctions, fines and court costs and from any attempts by the council for me to pay for alleged damaged, saw them forced into discontinuance.

- Why rights to access common lands are protected by 193 1925 LPA and cannot be taken away

- Why we should remember the law,”there is no punishment without law” that act was already on our statute books. but it has been added to the human rights act, article 7.

Says Tony Barnett

Says Tony Barnett1st June 2001, that was the date of my arrest and subsequent charge under the 1971 (1) of the criminal damage act.

I had lawfully removed a set of gates that were impeding lawful access to registered common land.

It was subsequently thrown out of the Crown Court and all charges against me scratched out, I had no case to answer to, my actions were seen as lawful and belonged in a civil court and not a criminal court.

Undaunted, the applicant and council pursued the matters in Telford county court under the civil law act of this country, this soon brought into action the alleged owner of the land who applied to the court for me to be made bankrupt and for various injunctions, I refused to abide by any court order which had come from a district judge as I already had judgement from the crown court and the circuit judge Mitchell.

Judge Mitchell gave his final decision in 2003 that I or anyone, is acted lawfully, to remove any unlawful impediment from rights of way that have been placed on ancient rights of way over common land and from rights of way that are recorded on the definitive plan and statement.

There was a failing with Judge Mitchell and that was he would never grant me the rights to full disclosure, yet scratched out the poor attempts by the prosecution on common land legislation.

Pre 2005-6 commons act, I defeated all attempts by prosecution to have me committed, made bankrupt and injunctions, fines and court costs and from any attempts by the council for me to pay for alleged damaged, saw them forced into discontinuance.

Since the 2005-6 commons act came into operation, fraud has become endemic, more of our rights to open access common lands, mainly to commons that were registered in 1965 as lands where no owners could be traced, identified as S 9, that are being stolen and allowed to be, by the same Parliament that created the protection of common land laws.

MP’s who’s constituents complain of loosing rights to ancient bridle and footpaths to councils and the parasitic conservationist claiming ownership, but who cannot disclose any title deeds or jurisdiction on common lands let alone lawful occupation of Rural Common Lands,then go on and gain £100,000’s from another government quango Natural England.

The application to PINS is loaded with false representation, no lawful document can be disclosed to show the lands as freehold, yet a corrupt (and there are many) land registry office will create a document, again containing false information, claiming the council as “proprietor” or title absolute.

The document from PINS accept’s such application’s and give consent, again no evidence is required, this is because they are not of the profession of conveyance solicitors, for this, there is attached to each consent a “Supplementary”, a get-out clause.

The supplementary is a warning if read correctly and stands for “providing the works are not in breach of any enactment or bye-law they will be lawful, the common lands are rural and not subject to any regulation act such as bye-laws as there is with Urban and Borough common lands.

As false representation,failure to disclose is identified under the 2006 fraud act as fraud, and using property not belonging as collateral is also fraud, should the parties involved be prosecuted and convicted?

Certainly one “tony barnett” has been prosecuted and convicted in the criminal courts even though the courts stated that the alleged actions of the defendant are civil and the criminal courts have no jurisdiction, should I then be cleared of all charges?

As the court stated my actions were civil, but causing concerns with the council and police, is not welcome, Well one Police Commissioner, now Lord Blair, emphasized the need for conflict as an essential part of natural and human progress, without decisions to risk all, to resist justice and oppression- as we have all seen so powerfully in the Middle East, to take on and overturn received wisdom, mankind stagnates and loses sight of its highest purpose.

The decision to rebel against the status quo remains triumphantly admirable and conflict is an essential part of natural and human progress.

As I stated earlier, the 2005-6 commons act has made any act of false representation by the council and those that the council supports acceptable, what was once civil, the authorities will now make criminal, whereas removing unlawfully placed impediments over lawful and ancient rights of way, and which appear on the definitive plan and statement is lawful,but now the council apply for arrests, claiming criminal damage, this is contrary to schedule 4 paragraph 6 of the 2006 commons act which provides the rights of the public to enforce against such unlawful developments etc.

As provided earlier, my actions have all been civil, I have never taken away/stolen, gates/fencing etc by removal from the area,I just lifted them from the earth, hence, my actions have been civil.

When civil becomes a criminal matter according to the police, this is British legal failings, what of course I’m referring to is the Mafia style operation- which councils, LGO, magistrate’s court’s and police are all party to and leave those affected by council’s systematic fraud with no legal redress.

It is widely known that accusations of council fraud reported under the 2006 fraud act are “dismissed” as civil, and not a matter for the police who have no powers of arrest.

This view however is contrary to the fraud act 2006 and that of Baroness Scotland of Asthal in the house of lords (Crime:Fraud).

If police crime units can conveniatley get out out of investigating issues arising from so called civil matters; where do they draw the line? ie, at what point do issues originating from civil matters become serious enough to be re-classified as criminal?

Obviously systematic fraud by councils and their allies who breach the 2006 fraud act and yet are not considered serious enough to be classed as criminal.

My experience in civil becoming criminal, enacted by councils prosecuting members of the public, are in Shropshire by obtaining convictions from Market Drayton magistrates courts, supported by our ignorant police, criminally, willfully neglected by bent solicitors from the area subjecting innocent members of the public to a criminal record.

This land is common land, stolen and unlawful developed and criminally occupied by the parasitic Shropshire County Council, I was prosecuted and convicted through perjury by council employees and court room fraud by the Shropshire courts, did I pay, will I pay?

Again the police were involved, if, the act had been carried out, it would have been civil, yet I occupied the offenders seat in a criminal court.

I had applied under article 6 human rights act for disclosure of documents and prosecution witnesses, this application was refused, I had also applied under article 7, this states there is no punishment without law, but the police made the arrest, so the magistrates jumped through the hoop, I know that threats and cautions from the courts and police is none enforceable and I wont comply, they don’t honor the law so why should anyone else and yes, they will read this.

In the house of lords, a member described his reason for none compliance, this was his reason, quote” we trade our natural freedom in return for equal access to protection of the law,when that access is denied, then the contract is broken and all bets are off, there is no obligation for one side to fulfill their part when the other refuses”.

I know that I am innocent of all charges, but pleading not guilty is never accepted, so similar to the stance taken in the house of Lords I state reasonable excuse, either mitigation cannot be argued because the prosecution do not have any documents to prove otherwise, so any judgement from the courts I do not comply with (the contract is broken).

If court orders are broken it matters not, the judgement was by way of courtroom fraud and therefore not lawful, further directions/judgments are given, but I have always looked upon those as intimidation.

Your rights to access common lands are protected by 193 1925 LPA and it can not be taken away from, where the lawful access points are depends, if an owner that can disclose pre registration of title to Rural common land, then, a deed of declaration and order of limitations under the 1925 act is applied for, thus regulating the land for access points and manner of access, but the common may not be enclosed.

The 2006 commons act gave us acts of Parliament with one hand and then took it away with the other, so, if it can be fully examined by challenging the claimants to disclose evidence of ownership to pre date 1189 and no such documents exist to show lawful ownership and conveyance documents, then you have the rights to remove and reinstate you lawful rights of access.

The 2006 act gave us the rights to apply to the courts under section 41 of the 2006 act to have all of the works removed and the damage repaired, that is your rights, it’s on the statute book, it was given Royal Assent.

Before making his decision, the courts “should” make inquiries as to the legality of the works, this can only be done by full disclosure, this the court will not do, so an application to have the matters referred to the Queens bench, this also will be refused, your solicitor(if any) will not support your application, you will soon understand why,he is obliged to show “court niceties” and implore you to accept the verdict.

This is where you all need to stick together and remove the works, gates, signage,fences what ever is impeding you, remember the law,”there is no punishment without law” that act was already on our statute books. but it has been added to the human rights act, article 7, should the police arrive on the scene, ask for evidence to show you are committing an offence.

If there is a breach of the peace, then both sides should be taken to court, but on the lack of evidence held by those that claim criminal damage has been committed to their property, will see you free and a claim can be made again under s 41, its your fight, stick together and you will win.

There is a lot of listed complaints on Horseytalk regarding loss of open access on ancient routes for riding and walking, all being stolen since the 2006 commons act came into being, new Quangos have been set up to blind the public, all are corrupt, but safe, the police, the courts, solicitors, MP’s now have no fear of maladministration or losing professional standing, the councils too, who were corrupt anyway don’t fear of being identified as corrupt and lack of professional standards, they will be safe from prosecution because as they provide a safety net for judges accused of courtroom fraud, they too will be protected and your MP will say “I cannot” interfere, he/she is there to defend constituents, Eric Pickles, communities and local government will not become involved, he will not answer emails, letters or phone calls,Cameron goes on sick leave,the police will say, “it is civil, we cannot become involved, “bollocks”, if that is the case, how can they arrest you for criminal offences? face it, you need to defend yourselves, take back what is yours by birth right, what two WW were fought and died for, don’t let the few be the only ones to fight.

Says Linda Wright

Says Linda WrightWe moved to a Shropshire location a year ago having surveyed the local OS map and noted the significant number of bridleways around the property. Sadly the map appears a total fiction. Scarce any of the bridleways are usable ........... read more

Read more here

Email this to a friend !!

Enter recipient's e-mail: