BENNETT TRYING TO WRIGGLE OUT OF CONTEMPT OF COURT CHARGES

This has appeared on SWALK's blog:

Update on McCann & McCann v Bennett

25
FEB
I can report that negotiations are currently in progress between Tony and Carter-Ruck to see if there is any way that the contempt of court matter can be settled without the need for a 2-day trial. In the meantime, and pending any agreement if there is to be one, Tony, on 22 February, made a cross-application within the contempt proceedings to be released from one of his undertakings. No date has yet been fixed for the trial. I will provide more information as when available.

So, what happened to all the false and malicious accusations he made in front of a High Court judge then? Is he suddenly not keen on the harrassment of Mike Gunnill by him and his hounders being all over the media?

bb1 wrote:This has appeared on SWALK's blog:

Update on McCann & McCann v Bennett

25
FEB
I can report that negotiations are currently in progress between Tony and Carter-Ruck to see if there is any way that the contempt of court matter can be settled without the need for a 2-day trial. In the meantime, and pending any agreement if there is to be one, Tony, on 22 February, made a cross-application within the contempt proceedings to be released from one of his undertakings. No date has yet been fixed for the trial. I will provide more information as when available.

So, what happened to all the false and malicious accusations he made in front of a High Court judge then? Is he suddenly not keen on the harrassment of Mike Gunnill by him and his hounders being all over the media?

Damned Coward!
ETA: I wonder if it is because one of his statements was, those shutters could not be opened from the outside?

Now, what was it he said to Judge Tugendhat, in the High Court?

Oh yes...

.......had boasted about doing this ‘on behalf of a third party’ which I believed to be the McCanns, via Carter-Ruck

Bennett suddenly gone off the notion of hurling false and malicious accusations, has he? Wonder why that would be?

Damned Coward!
ETA: I wonder if it is because one of his statements was, those shutters could not be opened from the outside?

Well, Pete and Patsy did make him look a bit of an idiot, didn't they, Tony? No doubt we will wait a very long time to get the truth and a straight answer out of Bennett, as usual.

Isn't it interesting, if it's bad news, he always announces it via HLM's blog, never Haverns, where all his fans are.

But he is still posting on Havern's forum.

Not this he isn't, Tony, at least, not in public.

Oddly, Brown doesn't seem to have bothered addressing her fans, either.

I couldn't even begin to guess, HB, but the one he is really scared of is the sale of his leaflet....that goes ahead, and all sorts of nasty things about the hounders will end up all over the media, IMO.

bb1 wrote:Not this he isn't, Tony, at least, not in public.

Oddly, Brown doesn't seem to have bothered addressing her fans, either.

Isn't that a bit odd?
He is posting on Havern's but, not the stuff his cult should read?
I find that very odd.

Probably hasn't worked out a way to let them know he's backed down yet again, Tony, and is leaving SWALK to do his dirty work again.

Its the one were he undertook not to accuse the McCanns of knowing what happened to Madeleine and of covering up her death


If that's correct, then he's even more bonkers than I thought.

Dear Mr Ruck,

Please release me from the agreement what I made, cos it is my Yuman Rite to go around accusing your clients of doing away with their daughter and hiding it.

Yours ever,

The Comb.

I don't really see that going down too well.....

So this cross application.................I am confused. He agreed to certain terms (how long ago, a year or more?) has had a considerable amount of time to apply to be released and hasn't. How come he is applying now then, after he's breached it, been proven to have breached it and doesn't like the idea of facing the consequences?

It doesn't ring right, does it? Clearly, Bennett is trying some scheme to get himself out of trouble, without getting him and his hounders all over the tabloids, and is trying to find a way to sell this retreat to the faithful......

barbiecar wrote:So this cross application.................I am confused. He agreed to certain terms (how long ago, a year or more?) has had a considerable amount of time to apply to be released and hasn't. How come he is applying now then, after he's breached it, been proven to have breached it and doesn't like the idea of facing the consequences?

November 2010 he signed the undertaking and paid the 400 GBP court fees.

barbiecar wrote:So this cross application.................I am confused. He agreed to certain terms (how long ago, a year or more?) has had a considerable amount of time to apply to be released and hasn't. How come he is applying now then, after he's breached it, been proven to have breached it and doesn't like the idea of facing the consequences?

How can he 'cross petition' at this point in the proceedings? He set his stall out in the High Court, and made some very serious, and false, allegations.

Now he wants to retract, but without actually stopping doing the very thing that got him into this situation to begin with?

I don't think it quite works like that.....

He's had ample time to ask for the agreement to be set aside, Tony. I don't think you can do it once you are in the High Court because you want to carry on repeating the offending behaviour?

bb1 wrote:He's had ample time to ask for the agreement to be set aside, Tony. I don't think you can do it once you are in the High Court because you want to carry on repeating the offending behaviour?

I don't know the British law on it, Bonny.
However, he took legal advice and paid 500 GBP for that advice which was to sign the undertaking. If he has redress, it should be against the lawyer who advised him to put his signature on the document.

Well, Bennett doesn't seem to know the law on it, either, Tony....

I made a mistake on the date. It was 2009 not 2010 And Bennett Knew He Could Have The Order Lifted

Thursday, 26 November 2009




COURT ORDER – McCANNS –v- BENNETT
– 25 November 2009



Tony Bennett Today at 5:36 pm

This is just to report here that yesterday in the Queens Bench Division, Dr Gerald McCann and Dr Kate McCann made an application against me, Reference 5196 of 2009, for an unspecified amount of damages for libel, though limited to 'no more than £50,000', and for an injunction restraining me from making any further libellous allegations against them.

On the basis of previous correspondence conducted via Carter-Ruck since their first e-mailed letter sent on 27 August 2009, and on the basis of a signed undertaking by myself earlier this month, the following has been agreed BY CONSENT:

1. I have given a number of undertakings as required by Carter-Ruck on behalf of the McCanns

2. The McCanns have agreed that the proceedings be 'stayed' indefinitely, that is, suspended or held in abeyance

3. I have already paid what was said to have been the Court fee of £440.00. There was no personal appearance in Court by any of the parties.

4. The McCanns have made no other claim against me in respect of their costs.

Carter-Ruck stated today: This is the end result of the Carter-Ruck letter to me on 27 August alleging harassment and libel. The harassment issue against me was dropped.I don't know what is happening re. the Carter-Ruck letters to Debbie Butler.The McCanns can apply to proceed with their action if they think I am in breach of my undertakings, and the Court could consider me in contempt of court, remedies for which include fines, seizure of assets, a prison term, or all three.Equally, should new information come to light, I could apply to have the Order lifted.

New information?

That would have to be something or another alleging the McCanns might be guilty.

It's never emerged ...
Nothing has changed at all, HB.
And yes Ali, only Bennett would cut off his nose to spite his face.

They all seem to live in some strange, dark world of fantasy, which bears no resemblance to the real world.

Gonc's just come out with more ramblings in a piece which gives a heavy plug to Bennett. Don't ask me why.

It may be worth remembering what happened in court. Bennett said that he would like to apply to vary the terms of the undertaking. Tugendhut said that if he did that it would lead to the McCanns re instigating the libel proceedings that Bennett gave the undertaking to avoid in the first place.

Socks ahoy!

Re: CMOMM IS *STILL* the most popular Madeleine McCann discussion forum on the internet (from 16 August 2011)
LuzLady Today at 1:26 pm

Just popping in to say Hi!

I've got no new info for you all, sorry, but I lurk here and am fascinated with all the stuff available relating to poor Madeleine.

When I joined (August), there were around 1,300 members, now I see from the OP that there's 1,628, just shows the interest, and congrats to all concerned for maintaining this lively and informative forum

Hate to break it to the hounders, but the REAL Luzlady was Portuguese, did not come out with nonsense like that, and most certainly did not make multi-colored posts.

Still, I suppose green is a change from blue

Jean-Pierre.t50 wrote:It may be worth remembering what happened in court. Bennett said that he would like to apply to vary the terms of the undertaking. Tugendhut said that if he did that it would lead to the McCanns re instigating the libel proceedings that Bennett gave the undertaking to avoid in the first place.

He'll be pushing his luck, as usual, and assuming that they won't. Like all of his ilk he sees any sign of compassion as a sign of weakness.
The McCanns don't want to beggar him or his wife. They just want him to shut up and stop libelling them. Hopefully, The Judge will accomplish that.

Alibobs wrote:Just where are all these 1,628 members because the members showing online on Haverns tells a very different story!!

So does the post count, Ali....


Our users have posted a total of 78195 messages
We have 1628 registered users

How long have they been going, with all those members - a bit over two years?

Look at ours in six months...

Our users have posted a total of 35242 messages
We have 48 registered users

Do the maths - they should have way, way more posts than they do, instead of a bit over twice as many as we do, in a forum that has been going for more than two years, with more than a thousand members.

AJSBennett Says: October 2nd, 2009 at 10:42 pm
THE DECISION TO ACCEDE TO CARTER-RUCK’S DEMANDS

Today began at 4.00 am for Debbie and 5.00 am for me as we had an appointment with Kirwans Solicitors, Liverpool at 11.00am.
The meeting was with Partners David Kirwan and Michael Sandys, Solicitor Julia Kirwan and Media Advisor Nick Mason and lasted four hours with three short interruptions.
Clear advice was given that because of the high degree of uncertainty in libel litigation, no guarantee could be given that if we defended a libel suit, we would win. It was emphasised in graphic terms by one of the Partners that on a worst-case scenario the outcome could mean complete financial ruin for both Debbie and myself, with all our savings raided and court orders made to recover the equity value each of us have in the homes we own. It was also emphasised that Carter-Ruck had immense resources both within their firm and beyond them, that they could sustain a case lasting many weeks, and that to defend the proceedings would require us to engage libel lawyers at huge fees which neither of us could remotely afford to pay.

We were further advised that correspondence between Kirwans Solicitors and Carter-Ruck on 24, 25 and 29 September and 1 October revealed a strong likelihood that Carter-Ruck had indeed already drafted a libel writ and would be ready to walk into the High Court on Monday (5th Oct) at 9.00am to issue a writ, unless we acceded to their demands in full by close of play on Friday (i.e. today).

Accordingly we telephoned Carter-Ruck at 3.14pm today and faxed them written notice of our accession to the McCanns’ demands at 3.25pm. Attempts to speak to both Adam Tudor and Isabel Hudson, the two main Solicitors conducting the litigation for Carter-Ruck, failed as we were informed that ‘the entire department’ was tied up in a meeting this afternoon. That was still the case when we telephoned again at 4.47pm to make absolutely sure that our fax had been safely received. Julia on the switchboard confirmed that it had been.

Kirwans offered to assist us with concluding written terms of settlement with the McCanns, via Carter-Ruck, if we paid them a retainer of £5,000 plus VAT. After a short period of consideration,(a nano-second) Debbie and I decided that neither of us could afford this. We offered the sum of £500.00 to Kirwans for their advice to date which was accepted and paid by us. I should explain that this was in respect of several hours of advice and assistance from Kirwans during the period 24 September until today, notably including a sentence-by-sentence analysis of the ‘60 Reasons’(libellous) book by Partner Michael Sandys. As we cannot afford further legal help, we shall have to deal with any further correspondence with Carter-Ruck ourselves.
FINALLY…
I wish to make it clear to all readers of this forum, whoever they are, that as from today we gave notice to Carter-Ruck that we acceded to their demand that The Madeleine Foundation website be ’suspended permanently’. Stevo has exercised what he asserts are his rights associated with registration and ownership of the domain name etc. and is now in personal and sole control of this website which has been re-named.
THIS WEBSITE THEREFORE IS NO LONGER IN ANY SHAPE OR FORM UNDER THE CONTROL OR DIRECTION OF THE MADELEINE FOUNATION