- I WILL NOT COMPLY WITH THE ORDER. THE JUDGEMENT WAS A BIASED ONE, GIVEN BY A MEMBER OF THE JUDICIARY, WHO, I ACCUSED OF COURTROOM FRAUD.

- MY RIGHTS TO ENTER HARTLEBURY COMMON WILL ALWAYS BE ACCESSED, IF A PRISON TERM IS FORTHCOMING, SO BE IT, I WILL NOT COMPLY WITH THE ORDER.

Says Tony Barnett

I HAVE TODAY RECEIVED FROM THE COURTS A GENERAL FORM OF JUDGEMENT OR ORDER.

THIS IS REGARDING MY APPEARANCE BEFORE JUDGE RUNDELL ON THE 19tH.

I GAVE NO UNDERTAKING AT ANY TIME TO ANY COURT IN WORCESTER NOR WILL I, I WILL THEREFORE NOT COMPLY WITH THE ORDER, THE JUDGEMENT WAS A BIAS ONE, GIVEN BY A MEMBER OF THE JUDICIARY, WHO, I ACCUSED OF COURTROOM FRAUD.

HE NEITHER SERVED HIS MASTERS THE COUNCIL OR HIS STANDING WITH ANY DIGNITY AND AS SUCH HIS JUDGEMENT HAS NO VIABILITY.

HIS CONDUCT WAS AN INSULT TO THE CROWN AND THE LAWS OF THIS LAND, THE PARLIAMENTARY BILL AND THE ROYAL ASSENT GIVEN TO THE LAWS PASSED BY PARLIAMENTARY BILL

MY RIGHTS TO ENTER HARTLEBURY COMMON WILL ALWAYS BE ACCESSED, IF A PRISON TERM IS FORTHCOMING, SO BE IT, I WILL NOT COMPLY WITH THE ORDER.

Report of the Trial

The story of the trial - Mrs Susan Barnett

- We have had our common stolen from us and ordinary parishioners and members of the public wish to know why

- I have a £20.000 charging order on my property, which means that it is in danger of being re-possessed by my mortgage provider. This has been granted on the basis of a judgment made by a judge who said;
"Whilst I have no knowledge or experience in these matters I am willing to accept that this document (conveyance) does show ownership by the council of the common"

- In the parish of Hartlebury and surrounding areas we have gathered over 2000 signatures of people who are opposed to the work being carried out at Hartlebury Common

Says Steve McCarron, Worcester Commons Association

The issue of ownership of Hartlebury Common is of some considerable interest to me since I now awaiting a committal hearing for breaking an injunction for me not to visit Hartlebury Common. Myself and the larger community of Hartlebury do not accept the councils claims as illustrated below by you.

If they or I did, then you would not be receiving this communication by me and I would not have availed myself to peculiar and grotesque pernicious punishments meted out by a local authority which is bias and corrupt and which is supported by an equally bias and corrupt judiciary.

We have had our common stolen from us and ordinary parishioners and members of the public wish to know why the church- you seems to have replied with an answer to Mr Tony Barnett's inquiry which seems conveniently expedient and lacking in academic detail.

The reply to him is an invention bereft of the most basic conventions related to the registrations of property, title and ownership and seems to have been penned by the council themselves. It contains numerous mistakes, omissions and superfluous inclusions; for instance........

1/ the common was owned by the Manor of Hartlebury If this was the case it was freehold, where is the title, or titles? Also, the common would not have been "owned" as it was a common, and was disposed of as manorial waste. Where is the documentation to support these prepositions?

2/ The Commissioners Property department, as is their standard practice, retained some files relating to rights that had been granted and/or retained and also kept a copy of the conveyance for the sale to WCC. Where is the original, and why was THAT not kept?

At the end of the day, such historical matters may not seem of much importance in our modern world. However, when in the present there are serious infringements of our civil liberties, human rights, violations of personal freedoms, then these matters ARE of a major significance. If the liberty and potential incarceration of individuals is at stake also then these matters have to be investigated fully. This does not mean that matters have been satisfied in a telephone conversation with an interested protagonist.

On top of everything else I have a £20.000 charging order on my property, which means that it is in danger of being re-possessed by my mortgage provider. This has been granted on the basis of a judgment made by a judge who said;

"Whilst I have no knowledge or experience in these matters I am willing to accept that this document (conveyance) does show ownership by the council of the common"

In the parish of Hartlebury and surrounding areas we have gathered over 2000 signatures of people who are opposed to the work being carried out at Hartlebury Common. Myself and them would have hoped for a more academic and less expedient response from yourself.

The 1968 conveyance is a fraudulent document in so much as it cannot exist in the real world, and again, this would not matter too much if it was not for the prosecutions and punishments meted out in answer to our spirited but lawful objections.

Do you think you could look again at the answer you have given to us and re-assess the validity of this document please.

Says Steve Yandall

You have been tried on several occassions for adopting your legal right to access Common Land and for removing illegal obstructions from that same land?You were,in essence,denied your right to air and exercise whilst courts denied the supremacy of laws, 900 years old ,that remain current?

The courts which made judgments against you admitted ignorance of the laws which you attempted to uphold but made a decision to judge without knowledge of or reference to those laws?

The courts accepted 'ownership' of Common Land by those accusing you without reference to documentation that could prove otherwise?

Most/all courts have denied you High Court access thus denying expert judicial scrutiny whilst admitting their own lack of knowledge?

Says Craig Weatherhill

The Court (Judge Randall) became a co-conspirator (or aider-and-abetter) in the illegal works that had been done on the Common.

Appeal to the High Court, if you're able to, Tony, then the European Court.

Disgusting! But so very Century 21 corrupt Britain.