"The judge followed normal patterns in protecting the council, but we still have a good case

Whether all the horses belonged to Danny or on permanent loan makes no difference the horse were stolen from the rightful keeper"

Says Tony Barnett

We were in court on Monday, there we met a bias judge and clowns calling themselves solicitors, bailiffs and an estate agent, the judge followed normal patterns in protecting the council, but we still have a good case.

I have arranged with a QC from the Chancery Barr that if we obtain a solicitor to refer the matters of the land registry document being a forgery in as much information included on the document not being accurate and was applied for through false representation by the applicant and created by the land registry officer being complicit, that then will show that what I have stated that the council do not own the land or buildings, then it will be taken on,

The charge of theft will stand, whether all the horses belonged to Danny or on permanent loan makes no difference the horse were stolen from the rightful keeper,

Read Tony Barnett's Court report in full below

Stanmer Horse Rescue Centre v Brighton and Hove Council

"I believe that we now need to have the land registry document challenged "

Says Tony Barnett

On Monday 24th of October I acted as Mackenzie Friend to Mr.Danny Cross in Brighton-Hove county court, this was to seek the courts order to regain his horses back that were stolen on the morning of the 19th September 20016 from land that is a National Park,South-Down's National Park in fact.

The identity of the land was identified by the park authorities as it being in its custody, also a statement was that all planning rights and repairs was held by the National Park, however, their is hearsay that Brighton-Hove council own the land and buildings that were occupied by Mr Cross, but the National Parks were adamant that they were both inside the National Parks boundary and under its custody subject to the vesting when the common land was dedicated as a National Park.

The proposal to create a national park for south downs date back to the 1940's, however it was not until 1999 that the idea received firm government support, after a public inquiry that took place between 2003 and 2009 the government announced its decision to make the South Downs a national park on 31/3/2009, becoming operational 1'4'2011,, please note this was a decision by "Central Government" and not Brighton-Hove city council, this will also show that the land is not freehold, within its boundary are included not only the South Downs but also part of the western Weald, which is a geologically and ecologically quite different district.

Right then, if some one like me living outside the area can do a complete search, why was it not so easy for Jame Pavey of IrwinMitchell solicitors from that area? but what about the solicitor that I spoke too on Monday, why didn't he do the search himself? this would have saved having a further incompetent council employee Jessica Hamilton engaging James Pavey for opinion, not only on the ownership rights but also on the animals act 1971 as amended by the 2015 control of horses act 2015, this same solicitor? also engaged a barrister to defend the council against me supporting Mr.Danny Cross.

The application(which the judge never read) was for the return of all of the 38 stolen horses and nothing else, the land registry document was not mentioned(copy of original court paper with this letter), handed into the court, it was returned being not how it was liked, this is because I had claimed one of the defendants was Jessica Hamilton.

Why did I identify her a a defendant, well the CEO and the legal office wanted nothing to do with it, but all of horseytalk readers will understand why this happens and that is because she was on her in making the decision to gain a blue peter badge, if she got away with it then she would be "one of the boy's" then the CEO and legal and everyone else would have bought the round of drinks, had failed(and there is still time) her position would have become redundant and her out of work for bringing the council into disrepute, but what about the maladministration of the legal department, it could not defend the council in this matter and had to engage real legal representatives at the expense of the Brighton-Hove rate payers, and still got nowhere apart from a bias judge scratching out the claim.

This judge had not even read our bundle and so did not know it was a claim saying we had not made a claim, but once it was brought to his attention that we then he decided it was not written to his satisfaction and wanted it put in a format he wanted, he did refuse my application for the matters to be referred to a higher court which would have made directions for full disclosure from all 3 parties.

I believe that we now need to have the land registry document challenged (council solicitor referred to it as title deeds), this then will be for the QC I have in mind to make that challenge which will include examination of the applicants application to include documents and also the land registry employee that created the document, my belief is that the land registry document was created by false representation (2006 fraud act) and that the land registry employee was complicit.

As mentioned before Horseytalk has been involved for a number of years investigating claims of ownership by local councilors and charities and have had abandonment and refusal by government to have claims registered but also works that have been completed removed by councils.

Although the matters are civil and the police in Brighton will not get involved there is still criminal activities involved, the Brighton-Hove council have been using the land in question claiming ownership but cannot substantiate that claim, therefore we can identify mortgage fraud, this has involved using property not owned as collateral, demanding payment from Stanmer Horse Rescue Centre. Mr Danny Cross.

I have spoken to the national park, they would prefer not to become involved, but the statement from them is that all rights belong to that organisation and will not confirm that the council has any management agreement with them.

May I try to explain that the South Down National Parks may not enter into any partnership because they have no other jurisdiction similar to that of the MOD on requisition of of commoners that have registered rights, the sole function of the national parks is conservation and rights to go to court for injunctions against unlawful activities.

"It would Interest me to hear what they have to say about this irresponsible act of theft which appears to be in direct contravention to the Animals Act 1971"

RIDERS CONTINUE FIGHT TO GET THEIR HORSES BACK FROM LAW-BREAKING COUNCIL

HOW MY HORSES WERE STOLEN BY BRIGHTON AND HOVE COUNCIL

Danny Cross reveals the full story

To read his story click here

"There is a case to be heard Mr Cross. Get legal representation and I will personally hear your claim"