Hands Off Hartlebury Common

Contact the author of the petition

This discussion topic has been automatically created of petition Hands Off Hartlebury Common.

This post has been removed by the author of this petition (Show details)

2011-07-07 01:37


This post has been removed by the author of this petition (Show details)

2011-07-07 01:39


This post has been removed by the author of this petition (Show details)

2011-07-07 08:24


This post has been removed by the author of this petition (Show details)

2011-07-07 09:54


This post has been removed by the author of this petition (Show details)

2011-07-07 09:56


Steve McCarron

#606 court

2011-07-07 13:32

Court went well, exactly what we expected. Not according to the few nutters (council employees, supporters) who still pester me with their nuisance comments. When we left court, we knew, that this would be confirmed easily.
1 Renewel of the abandoned campaign, ie, lots of needlessly, spiteful and angry comments.
2 But the timing is the giveaway, the doors to the courts had hardly closed when they started again.
We had hardly left the building and had not told a soul but supprise supprise, their sputtering campaign of ignorance has had a breath of oxygen.

So I will post this comment myself, now lets see what they have to say.

Steve McCarron
Steve McCarron

#607 court

2011-07-07 13:35

Today was a great day. The halfwits at county hall still could not prove ownership. A confused looking Tom Pollock tried to keep up with events but will be remembered by us all for pulling faces when our legal counsel spoke.
The judge, if you can call him that, did not understand basic conveyancing and commons law.
Todays result is exactly what we anticipated and expected. The campaign is going ahead as planned.

To all council employees, can you be a bit more imaginative when leaving comments. No matter how hard you try, you all sound the same?

This post has been removed by the author of this petition (Show details)

2011-07-07 14:36


Steve McCarron

#609 campaign

2011-07-07 14:45

The campaign is going ahead as planned.


Guest

#610 Re: campaign

2011-07-07 15:18

#609: Steve McCarron - campaign 

 

Don't you think its unfair to remove my post? I've followed this site for weeks and genuinely wanted an answer. I'm not surprised people don't support you. Your attitude to people is awful.

This post has been removed by the author of this petition (Show details)

2011-07-07 15:51


Steve McCarron

#612 Re: Re: campaign

2011-07-07 16:32

#610: - Re: campaign

People do support us, we are now heading for 1000 signatures in four weeks. We are recieving letters and phone calls offering support and even funds to fight this abberation of process. Also, we did not lose at court yesterday, we won, but you cannott see that. There will never be cattle on hartlebury common, ever, not because of my opinion but because of the thousands of people that will never let that happen.

Sorry if I deleted your post by accident but it's tough dealing with so much information 24/7

Oh by the way, I have a loveley attitude, just ask anyone I have dealt with personally.

Steve McCarron

#613 going to plan

2011-07-07 16:34

Trish Haines.
I attended county court in Kidderminster on the 6th July 2011 to listen too corrupt and fraudulent claims by the barrister? hired to defend(abysmally) those claims. This action was sanctioned by yourself , and so we?I hold you responsible.
Of course the council was successful in convincing a bias judge that the statements you offered were true(false representation, FRAUD).

As we/I do not intend complying with the bias order passed down, an application to the Supreme Courts in London has now been addressed.

As you are the leader of this corrupt council,we/I will apply for your attendance, together with full disclosure of pre-registration of titles, and original deeds of grants.

We/I claim that the spraying and cutting down of trees, gorse broom and heather, the lighting of fires, the enclosure(which will be pulled down) is in breach of Parliamentary Legislation; 2000 crow act, 2006 commons act and the 2006 fraud act, all of which are on the statute books and have received Royal Assent.

My involvement will continue, should I ever be arrested, or prevented from lawful unimpeded access to Hartlebury common, my QC Patrick Upward, will be instructed accordingly.

Tony Barnett

Carol

#614

2011-07-07 18:26

Steve could you put a post in the announcements to tell us what went on and what you intend to do next at least the idiots can't post on there
One way to stop the idiots.
We will know the truth if you put it there

This post has been removed by the author of this petition (Show details)

2011-07-07 19:27


This post has been removed by the author of this petition (Show details)

2011-07-07 19:31


This post has been removed by the author of this petition (Show details)

2011-07-07 19:34


Steve McCarron

#618 court again

2011-07-07 19:50

I'm not hiding the "Truth" as you call it. Did WCC provide the evidence of ownership, they have had plenty of time to find complete title

NO

The judge, if you can call him that, chose to ignore this small ommission from process, which he felt was acceptable.

In a higher court, this would not be the same case.

We would have "Lost" if WCC could have shown good title and therfore the costs and fees might have been relevant. As it is we have already told the judge and the council, we do not have the slightest intention of paying these.

Do you really think that subsequent to such incompatence, we would regard ourselves as losers and the council winners?

We have only just begun and for us, yesterday was a victory.

On the 22nd of June we went to county hall and asked fiona morgan, legal representative, if we could see the title deeds. No she said, you are not entitled to see them. Wrong.
We told her this and then she said they were not at county hall. Wrong.
She then tried to claim that they were kept at the land registry. Wrong.
Three times she claimed she new exactly where they where. At the land registry. Wrong, if they had them, they would be at county hall.

In court, after all this time, they could still not produce the elusive paperwork.
The paperwork shown to the judge did not show title but when presented to him by WCC, he simply acceded that title had been shown when in fact it had not.
Steve McCarron

#619 Re: Re: Re: Re:

2011-07-07 19:52

#617: - Re: Re: Re:

It's never easy doing the right thing

This post has been removed by the author of this petition (Show details)

2011-07-07 19:56


This post has been removed by the author of this petition (Show details)

2011-07-07 20:22


Steve McCarron

#622 Re: idiot

2011-07-07 20:23

#620: -

Elusive claim to title

Once again, Worcestershire County Council failed to provide conclusive proper title, if there is such a thing for Hartlebury Common.

You know, that thing you keep in a safe, or in a box under the stairs, the deeds to your house. Everybody knows where theirs is if you have a purchased property. Not WCC

 

The judge, if you can call him that, chose to ignore this small ommission from process, which he felt was acceptable.

In a higher court, this would not be the same case.

We would have "Lost" if WCC could have shown good title and therfore the costs and fees might have been relevant. As it is we have already told the judge and the council, we do not have the slightest intention of paying these.

Do you really think that subsequent to such incompatence, we would regard ourselves as losers and the council winners?

We have only just begun and for us, yesterday was a victory.

On the 22nd of June we went to county hall and asked fiona morgan, legal representative, if we could see the title deeds. No she said, you are not entitled to see them. Wrong.
We told her this and then she said they were not at county hall. Wrong.
She then tried to claim that they were kept at the land registry. Wrong.
Three times she claimed she new exactly where they where. At the land registry. Wrong, if they had them, they would be at county hall.

In court, after all this time, they could still not produce the elusive paperwork, even though Fiona Morgan new exactly where they were.


The paperwork shown to the judge did not show title but when presented to him by WCC, he simply acceded that title had been shown when in fact it had not. The same paperwork, was in our possession, prior to us seeing Ms Morgan. We had discounted it and it was NOT regarded as good title, which is why we were making our visit to county hall. So, what paperwork was she referring to?

He acceded to WCC because they told him that they were legal documents and in his words "I am not qualified to make these decisions" on these matters.

 

I still get crank messages but, I say again that this is simply not reflected by the feedback of people helping us who live locally and all the people we talk to.

We knew that the court appearence would be unusual and to think that we would have resolution this early on might have been welcome but unlikeley.

We knew before hand what the outcome would be.

Our campaign goes on, not because we lost, or won. It is because we are right and when you see something in life which is wrong it is easy to walk on, not put yourself at risk, to be the subject of ridicule. It is not the brash, or loud, or voiciferous that drive us but the quietley spoken words of ordainary people who feel bullied and threatened by the people who are supposed to represent them.

We have notified the police that we intend to continue to take the illegal enclosure down. This will commence shortly.

 

Steve McCarron

This post has been removed by the author of this petition (Show details)

2011-07-07 20:24


This post has been removed by the author of this petition (Show details)

2011-07-07 20:33


This post has been removed by the author of this petition (Show details)

2011-07-07 20:35