Tony Barnett in Court - " I AM PREPARED TO GO TO JAIL."
Says Tony Barnett
"I WAS IN COURT ON MONDAY 24TH, AND DUE TO UNCLEAR WORDING FROM PLANNING INSPECTORATE, OR THE BIASED JUDGES CLAIMED UNDERSTANDING OF THE ACTS, MY APPEAL WAS TURNED DOWN, AND I WAS LEFT WITH A BILL.
NOW THIS MONEY WILL NEVER 'BE PAID.'
I AM PREPARED TO GO TO JAIL.
MORE ON THIS LATER WHEN I GET THE COURT PAPERS!"
Tony Barnett asks Planning Inspectorate to define "Supplementry"
IF SPELMAN, SPORLE AND WARMAN CANNOT GIVE, OR WON'T GIVE, THEN HOW CAN THAT "SUPPLEMENTRY" CLAUSE BE EXPLAINED TO A COURT?
Says Tony Barnett
I WAS ASKING CHRISTINE GRIFFEE OF THE PLANNING INSPECTORATE TO "DEFINE" SUPPLEMENTRY, A WORD USED WHEN GIVING CONSENT ON ON APPLICATION FOR WORKS ON COMMON LAND, IE FENCING AND GATES.
CHRISTINE IS ONE PERSON I CAN GET TO WITHOUT ANY PROBLEM, SHE CANNOT GIVE A MORE DEFINED ANSWER, THAT IS WHY SPELMAN PASSES ANY ENQUIRIES DOWN, AND IN THE END THAT IS WHY CHRISTINE IS DELEGATED TO ANSWER ANY QUERIES.
SO IF SPELMAN, SPORLE AND WARMAN CANNOT GIVE, OR WON'T GIVE, THEN HOW CAN THAT "SUPPLEMENTRY" CLAUSE BE EXPLAINED TO A COURT? BIAS JUDGES KNOW WHAT IT IS INTENDED TO MEAN, BUT THEY SAY "IT DOES NOT SAY WHAT YOU SAY IT MEANS".
THE SPOKEN WORD FROM SPORLE AND WARMAN IS "THE APPLICANT MUST EXAMINE THE ACTS, LAWFUL RIGHTS OF THE VENDOR, BYE-LAWS AND OTHER RIGHTS ATTACHED TO THE LAND", BUT SPELMAN,SPORLE AND WARMAN WILL NOT PUT THAT DEFINITION INTO WRITING.
Have you been able to get a definition of the word "Supplementry" If so, please tell us.
Regina-v-Anthony Vincent Barnett.
"My belief is that the judgement passed by Judge Barrie, CC, and Mr.Davies and Mr.Whally Magistrates, bias in favour of Stephen Lewis. It is with that held belief, that my intention not to abide with the judgement is the correct decision, and for that I am prepared to go to Prison." Tony Barnett
Click here to read in full Tony's Statement explaining why he believes -