Says Tony Barnett

I have a mandate from the county court in Shropshire and also under the CRA 1965 which entitles me to remove any unlawful enclosure from Whitchurch Heath Common CL21, the acknowledgement that this is my right as it is for any member of the public to do came from Circuit Judge Mitchell at Telford, recognizing that the works were unlawful and that CL21 was not of freehold title.

There was also my registration claiming the aka Prees Heath which is signed and dated by the commons registration officer 15/7/2002 and that for the 1965 commons registration act, Whitchurch Heath Common was one of the 62 commons in Shropshire that were put before the common commissioner for registration.

It is recorded that the attempts to have the aka prees heath registered to read Whitchurch Heath also known as prees heath, this failed, it is on my file but also filed with the OSS, which, beggars belief when claims to ownership of the common land by butterfly conservation's Steven Lewis applied to pins for consent for works on Prees Heath, OSS supported the application knowingly that the common lands in Shropshire are registered under section 9 of the 65 CRA.

As is known by the council.police and all of the parasitic organisations and certain Quango's that is exactly what I do/did and as there was no powers of arrest from the police I was doing quite well and did reclaim rights of way.

Because I was given judgement each and every time I was taken to court, the police with the encouragement of local authorities now decided on making the matters criminal so that the police do become involved to prosecute and bring me before the criminal courts.

Anyone worth their salt will never accept this agenda, well I will never and as such refuse to abide with any courts ruling which commits courtroom fraud by denying a defendants rights to a fair and open court hearing.

For those that are not acquainted with the European Convention on human rights, article 6 provides that an accused person is entitled to full disclosure of evidence from the prosecution, the right to to have witness summons made by the court, the right to examine any witness against them or to have them examined for them and to appear in an open court.

Article 7,this states that there is no punishment without law, the need for article 6 therefore will determine one way or the other, my rights under those two articles were refused by the courts, this, is courtroom fraud, even if you had council you would not be defended because of the "court niceties, which is demanded by the courts where the authorities are in collusion".

The form is a demand for payment from one of my court hearings, this form shows "Judicial blackmail" it can never be forced legally, but through such threats can frighten the public and as such will pay the amount because of fear of a criminal record, the thought of the bailiffs coming to their homes being committed to prison, this I understand, but step aside for a moment, if, articles 6&7 of the human rights act was allowed and subject to the conditions you were found guilty in law, then the court order will stand, my experience is that the reason why courts will not afford you your rights under the European Convention on Human Rights because you will defeat your accusers.

I have spoken to the parasite that sent the form to my house, challenging them to come and arrest, "suicide"? no, this will force the courts to honor my human rights and put my accusers behind bars for perjury/false representation. In conclusion, should anyone wish to apply under section 41 of the 2006 commons act, pay my expenses ie travel/overnight stay and for the papers to be put before the courts(civil), contact WWW,HorseyTalk.net, this does not apply to BHS, but disillusioned members, may take up the offer.

Tony Barnett writes to The Court Manager, Telford County Court .

"I wish to apply for court order form for the removal of works from Whitchurch Heath Common"

Says Tony Barnett