Hands Off Hartlebury Common
Contact the author of the petition
Re: more court stuff
I'm glad its clear to you, the title you refer to is not proof of good title as you say. Title exists, in the context of ownership as a statment of propretorial rights. The title you refer to is from a list of former interested- keepers- parties that is all. The issue of ownership IS important in a claim such as this where, to carry out works and to bring about civil actions, then title is pivotal.
This is important in this case because of the claim of ownership of a common, not just some peice of ordainary land. Any former claim to ownership is bogus because a common cannott be bought or sold and at the time in question, it would have been illegal for WCC to own the common anyway. It is not for us to prove that they have not title but for them to prove they have in a proper setting.
Since the "purchase" from the church commissionars was in the early 60's the ownership documents should be evident. To suggest that they might have been thrown away is laughable.
Back to basics though, a claim of title at the land registry does not prove ownership. WCC have simply assumed the rights of ownership. There was nothing wrong with our legal representation, just the circumstances of where we were.
Steve McCarron
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Take it down again, we have already notified the police
There will never be cattle on hartlebury common
It is as simple as that
Steve
Re: more court stuff
Actually, money has already been wasted on the fence that nobody want's
I'm saving you money!
This comment has been removed by the author of the petition.
Re: News in the Kidderminster Shuttle
#623: I love the common! - News in the Kidderminster Shuttle
Overwhelming majority of people??????
This comment has been removed by the author of the petition.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
#630: - Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Don't think so
Re: Re: Re: more court stuff
#632: - Re: Re: more court stuff
Your worried about money, why didn;t you stop them!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This comment has been removed by the author of the petition.
This comment has been removed by the author of the petition.
This comment has been removed by the person who wrote it.
This comment has been removed by the author of the petition.
This comment has been removed by the person who wrote it.
This comment has been removed by the person who wrote it.
This comment has been removed by the author of the petition.
This comment has been removed by the author of the petition.
This comment has been removed by the person who wrote it.
This comment has been removed by the person who wrote it.
This comment has been removed by the person who wrote it.
This comment has been removed by the person who wrote it.
This comment has been removed by the person who wrote it.
This comment has been removed by the person who wrote it.
This comment has been removed by the person who wrote it.
This comment has been removed by the author of the petition.
| This discussion has been closed. |
Re: Re: Re: Re:
#617: - Re: Re: Re:
Just read article from shuttle I would like to ask steve why he is not going to pay for the damage that he has done, what will happen if you don't (won't you be arrested ).When will you be going to court again are you not worried about havng more court costs to pay.Do you not think that the council will put the fence back up and put the cattle on now.Or will you take it back down again??