- to reclaim our rights to ancient rights of way on horseback,

- to persuade MP's and Councillors to put an end to the fraudulent claims to ownership of these common lands

- to remove all enclosure and unlawfully placed livestock

- and to reinstate the lands.

Says Tony Barnett

No matter how I try to describe the theft of Manorial Waste/waste of "A" village Manor, waste's as judge by the Commons commissioner in 1965 section 9 as land where no owners could be traced, where the villagers had, and by law still have rights for Horse riding, dog walking and private nature studies by the members of the public, the only description is by "theft" by employing stealth.

There is therefore no one to make deeds of grant, grants of easement or conveyance because of that judgement simply because there are no documentation in the form of pre-registration of title deeds to pre-date 1189, the conveyance act does not provide any other procedure than to disclose proof of ownership, the land registry and local authority are bound by the same legislation.

All legislations are created by our Government in London and are Parliamentary Bills and are passed as such, like the afore mentioned bill, once passed by Parliament, they are then put before the Queen to obtain Royal Assent, then they become law of the land and recorded.

Well as we know the bills/Statutes mean nothing to those that govern us, rights to lawful unimpeded access to these common lands is being stolen by government, this has been made easier by the 2006 commons act, an act of Parliament made by Tony Blair's government and given Royal Assent, the need to disclose which was required by the Secretary of State and the Commons Commissioner has been done away with, we now have a Quango that has no education, no respect and is there to collude with the local government when application are made to enclose common lands.

The 2006 commons act is a bill passed by Parliament and given Royal assent, the is also the fraud act of 2006, again given Royal Assent, all new bill's passed in that year were given Royal Assent, like the repeal of the enclosure act.

The act somehow overlooked the fraud act when applications by councils or applications supported by councils were made and those are false representation and failure to disclose, this is where your elected councillor should step in because to hold such public office requires that person to be clean in office and above reproach, as such your chosen councillor should oppose the fraud and collusion where theft of common land, where the council are supporting mortgage fraud and supporting the prosecution of members of the public demonstrating against these crimes otherwise stay out of office.

What I am saying is that your elected councillor is as corrupt as the council, he /she will have taken the oath of office, but then your elected MP is from the same mould, the information needed is with the council or an MP that wishes to serve his constituents is able to gain all documentary evidence required, they have no excuse and are only status minded.

There are miles of ancient rights of access all over this country for equestrian and walkers etc., the land is or should be on the definitive plan and statement held by all council offices, but have them examined as I believe all councils are corrupt these documents could have been tampered with.

There is also fraud in higher places than council and MP's, I have had reasons to claim that the Ecclesiastical are also fraudulent and have challenged the bishop, he of course will not support either side openly and so leaves any challenge to claims to others.

This is common land in Worcester; the council (not the CEO) claimed ownership through a purchase from the church of England but could only disclose a conveyance plan,10 a penny and useless without title deeds, however an application was made to pins who gave consent, the entire flora and fauna was cut down, the common land enclosed and livestock introduced subject to the consent from pins, however the consent is only provisional until the applicants have proven ownership, which they never will, but, the consent is disclosed to the court who will also collude.

Hartlebury common was registered as a section 9 for the 1965 commons registration act where no owners could be traced, this then flies in the face of the claims of the church of England in London and the council, in the end, the statement admitted that the conveyance could be challenged as the first and only one drawn up, which as the council tried to claim that it was only a copy the original being lost, if it was a copy, then I could not challenge it as being fraudulent.

Three though were prosecuted, I offered to stand trial also on the grounds that the act of removing the enclosure was lawful, all three of us went before the Worcester criminal court, the lawful acts were civil, that was clarified by the bent judge who stated that the matters were civil, that was clarified by the bent judge who stated that the matters civil and outside his jurisdiction because he was a criminal judge, that is where he should have transferred the matters, he did not and set judgement, I have never complied with that order and never will.

I have written to the Queen before, I did have a reply but one cannot state that the words on the reply were hers, but a copy of my letter was sent to No 10 to be forwarded onto Pickles, no reply from him or from the letter myself and colleagues delivered to No 10.

This letter however was to complain to the Queen as the head of the Church of England, here again I cannot state that the refusal came from her or that she ever saw the letter, it just said "the Queen has asked me to thank you for your letter, while careful note has been taken of the content of your letter, I should explain that the Queen, as supreme Governor would not intervene in the day to day running of the church of England".

I don't believe the letter was ever disclosed to the Queen.

I had also had good cause to write Prince Charles and enclose a copy of a book I had written, the reply came quickly with a thank you and remarks on the amount of documents etc., and what a wonderful job of trying to bring back the common land to lowland heath I was doing.

So when I had an occasion to challenge the National Trust, making false claims on ownership of Frensham Common and using the land as collateral and allowing the National Trust act 1971 sub 23 I wrote to the president Prince Charles himself.no reply, the questions are, who is pulling the strings?

If there is someone preventing action or opinion from being voiced, why then is there any need to have bills passed in Parliament and given Royal assent?

The answer to this letter is quite clear, the legislation is quite clear; the common lands not included in the 1925 and 1936 lands registration act are not freehold, other lands registered was town and village greens, but here the local authority had ownership, but if nothing had been done, then such lands as waste lands land of a manor (common lands) then such would have been at considerable risk of encroachment from nearby properties, for no man's land is in danger of being every man's land, the need for section 9 of the 1965 commons registration should now be quite clear, and the 1189 act for full disclosure.

It will of course require pro activities to reclaim your rights to ancient rights of way on horseback, for dog walkers and amateur botanists etc. to bring MP's and Councillors to put an end to the fraudulent claims to ownership of these common lands and to have removed all enclosure and unlawfully placed livestock and the reinstatement of the lands.

I have pledged to speak up at any meeting/hearing.