BENNETT TRYING TO WRIGGLE OUT OF CONTEMPT OF COURT CHARGES

I'm not even sure that this is desperation. They don't seem to have any connection to reality at all. They have been making these predictions for nearly five years now, and without a vestige of embarrassment when they are repeatedly proved 100% wrong. Just how long can they keep this up?
I had no idea, you know, that some people could be so abysmally stupid. It's a bit sad really.

I think they are very close to what us students of fruitloops call the 'Hearing Voices' stage, Sabot.

They certainly don't seem to have too much grip on reality.

Speaking of, a reminder of the email Bennett sent to a member of MM - and why has he not explained all this to his own site, I wonder?

1. I wrote on 13 February to Carter-Ruck suggesting that a two-day trial could be avoided, especially now that I had resigned from the Commitee of MF, no longer owned the MF domain name, had given up being a Moderator on Jill's forum, and had decided to cease campaigning re Madeleine's disappearance.



2. Carter-Ruck wrote back on 20 February offering proposals for a settlement. I would describe them as 'onerous'



3. I have made a provisional appointment to see a Solicitor in a few days' time to discuss Carter-Ruck's letter



4. In the meantime I have made a formal application to be released from one of the undertakings I gave back in 2009. If there is no agreement, matters will proceed to a 2-day trial when the McCanns will ask for me to be committed to prison and I shall ask to be freed from my undertakings - on free speech grounds. With a billion or so people in around 30 countries worldwide able to buy, read, discuss and debate 'The Truth About A Lie', it seems rather harsh that I should face a term of imprisonment for publishing and discussing his thesis. Especially as one of my opponents says that he has 'no objection to people purporting [= propounding] theories' and is 'a strong believer in the freedom of speech'.

So, if he has turned over a new leaf, then why would he need permission from CR to start abusing the McCanns all over again?

And note he has twisted what Gerry McCann said out of all recognition - some 'new leaf'.

A point which is also dealt with here:

http://regretsandramblings.com/2012/02/27/just-a-few-quick-questions/

He says he's given up Moderating, but has he given up his "Admin" Status? Knowing his propensity for twisting words, I somewhat doubt it.

Classic forker delusion, saved by someone on the Brunty blog. Most of emu's gibbers have been deleted as usual, but someone saved this one:

Posted by: tesvetnal69 from UK on February 26, 2012 10:47 PM

Posted by: emilyb3. on February 26, 2012 10:46 PMnight jl had a quick peek before bed same ole same ole

patsgot their feathers ruffled lololol good on her

a psychic said ages ago the truth will comeout fouryears later when a woman speaks out well its nearl
y five yearsnow but we have enid o dowd pat brownand kate lol not lpng to fo

Same old illiterate waffle




a psychic said ages ago the truth will comeout fouryears later when a woman speaks out well its nearl
y five yearsnow but we have enid o dowd pat brownand kate lol not lpng to fo

Definitely hearing Voices - what on earth is that supposed to mean in Humanspeak?

Sabot wrote:
He says he's given up Moderating, but has he given up his "Admin" Status? Knowing his propensity for twisting words, I somewhat doubt it.

And what about his socks, Sabot? LuzLady had an outing yesterday; for some unknown reason, she seems to have taken to posting in green.

And she was awfully eager to say what a wonderful site it was.

He is also playing the "the McCanns want me committed to prison" card. Which is somewhat disingenuous of him. In the event of him being found to be in contempt of court, the sanctions available to the high court include fines, injunctions or a custodial sentence, suspended.

Nasty, creepy little man.

Sad it is Sabot... these people are like sheep and they will follow Bennett to the ends of the earth and back... I mean look at hentie on sky yesterday.... it was laugh all the same as she repeats the same things over and over again and her devotion to the Bennett unbreakable...

I was in stitches at this post from hentie, Anita - Fern copied it, or it would have gone too, when Sky cleaned the mess up:

Posted by: hentie from kent on February 26, 2012 5:50

I don't need to peep Fern. It comes, sadly, straight into my mail from FB and Twitter.

When you post as much as you, it's on the web.....no getting away from it

So, Hentie's idea of a good time is getting people to email her posts by Fern? Get a life

Oh dear.....

hardlinemarxist ‏ @mccannexposure Reply Retweet Favorite · Open
too much speculation on a snippet of info on #mccann v Bennett by #mccann supporters = mass of misinformation, ignore

Poor old SWALK, has no-one told her Bennett emailed further details to a member of MM? Another one betrayed

bb1 wrote:I was in stitches at this post from hentie, Anita - Fern copied it, or it would have gone too, when Sky cleaned the mess up:

Posted by: hentie from kent on February 26, 2012 5:50

I don't need to peep Fern. It comes, sadly, straight into my mail from FB and Twitter.

When you post as much as you, it's on the web.....no getting away from it

So, Hentie's idea of a good time is getting people to email her posts by Fern? Get a life

I saw that
She really is losing the plot.... once someone mentions Bennett on she comes right on cue shouting the odds... I loved this one by Fern... very apt

Posted by: Fern from Keplar- 22b on February 26, 2012 5:43 PM

Evening Sammy,

Hentie has got herself into quite a froth this afternoon along with AM and JL.

I can so easily picture each one of them gossiping over a garden fence, hair in curlers with a roll-up hanging from the corner of mouths, gossiping over the latest bit of 'hearsay' that occured a few doors down )

I suspect they are all running scared, Anita - Bennett certainly is. He hasn't shown face on his own forum to explain this, has he?

Indeed, they are frantically trying to clamp down on discussion about it.

Not for the first time, he released bad news via HLM's blog, but she doesn't seem to know he then sent an email to an MM member, with a fuller explanation, which was posted last night.

Do not ask me what is going on with them all, beyond they are frantically trying to bury bad news.

They had all their hopes pinned on Bennett, remember - he was going to go the full nine yards, waving the rusty sword of Truthseeking, or something.

Instead, the wheels have come off his wagon and he is nowhere to be seen, but is leaving others to do his dirty work.

Tis all a bit of a damp squib, intit. There we all were, expecting this Grand Expose, and what did we get? Zilch, Nada, Rien de Bluddy Tout.
Of course, we all knew that Bennett would be useless in Court, but there's nothing like a bit of Public Humiliation to shut someone up. And we have rather earned the laughs.
Still, never mind, I doubt we've heard the last of him.

Sabot. A question. On the basis of what we have seen here, and if you were Adam Tudor or Isabel Hudson - would you let Bennett off teh hook and agree terms to settle without a court hearing?

bb1 wrote:I suspect they are all running scared, Anita - Bennett certainly is. He hasn't shown face on his own forum to explain this, has he?

Indeed, they are frantically trying to clamp down on discussion about it.

Not for the first time, he released bad news via HLM's blog, but she doesn't seem to know he then sent an email to an MM member, with a fuller explanation, which was posted last night.

Do not ask me what is going on with them all, beyond they are frantically trying to bury bad news.

They had all their hopes pinned on Bennett, remember - he was going to go the full nine yards, waving the rusty sword of Truthseeking, or something.

Instead, the wheels have come off his wagon and he is nowhere to be seen, but is leaving others to do his dirty work.

That they are... as they know Bennett is finished and this will send out a clear message that what they are doing is disgusting and against the law... this may be the slap in the face they need to wake up and change... but then again I won't hold my breath..

I really think it is beginning to dawn on some of them that this will all come out in the press and then their families will see what vile sick people they really are...

Deleted.

Jean-Pierre.t50 wrote:Sabot. A question. On the basis of what we have seen here, and if you were Adam Tudor or Isabel Hudson - would you let Bennett off teh hook and agree terms to settle without a court hearing?

Yes, absolutely. Provided he adhered to the terms demanded. And we do know from Bennett's email that Terms have been put forward, albeit "Onerous" according to Bennett. Presumably Reasonable Costs, and some sort of Financial Contribution to The Fund. Although I am not sure about the Financial Contribution because I don't know if this would be a Legal if it was demanded.

However, I would fight any move to get any of The Undertakings rescinded, and also ensure that there would remain means to bring Bennett back to Court if he breaks any of The Undertakings again, although presumably this would be a given.

I see no point in dragging him into Court if he appears to be prepared to behave, and I have no personal dislike of Bennett, nor any desire to see him in Prison.
So effectively, apart from Prison, all things can be accomplished without resorting to Court.

I can add one other matter, namely that the McCanns have withdrawn the claim that the sale of one book to Michael Gunnill breached Part A of my undertakings (not to sell or distribute '60 Reasons'). However, the act of sending this book to Michael Gunnill is still retained by the McCanns as alleged breach of undertaking No. 1 on a list of 25 alleged breaches of Part C.

I understand it may be regarded as a breach of my undertaking if I were to re-state what Part C of my undertakings required me not to do.

What? Que????

Tut tut:

1. By the McCanns to have me imprisoned

He seems to have missed the phrase 'suspended sentence' out by mistake.

He really isn't helping himself with antics like this; it no doubt goes down a treat with his rapidly-dwindling band of followers, but that doesn't make it true in the real world.

Is there a lawyer in the house? I cannot understand his convoluted excuses.

Phew! Thank goodness yoyo has come along to explain it all!


e: TRIAL DATE McCanns v Bennett 9 & 10 May 2012
aiyoyo Today


@ TB
I can add one other matter, namely that the McCanns have withdrawn the claim that the sale of one book to Michael Gunnill breached Part A of my undertakings (not to sell or distribute '60 Reasons'). However, the act of sending this book to Michael Gunnill is still retained by the McCanns as alleged breach of undertaking No. 1 on a list of 25 alleged breaches of Part C.


Just as I thought that CR probably wont come out unscratched when MG takes the witness stand, so how come I am not surprised they withdrew their main claim. They have effectively contradict themselves - how can the act of sending the booklet constitute a breach when the sale of it isn't? I know they are now not saying that it isn't a breach of Part A, just that they are not pursuing it anymore in view of the development not to their favour. So that being the case, no sale = no sending. Furthermore, in this instance it wasn't even a sending per se; rather it was a courier company despatched by MG or third party who came to collect from TB's doorstep.
I hope TB can find out who dispatched the courier company to pick up from him, who foot the bill for that?

Not sure how that is going to play out in Court, but surely this case hinges on CR being able to prove their no. 1 charge on their list is a breach.

CR is using manipulative strategy to circumvent the flaw in their prime charge. If TB can prove that their charges, as offshoots of their prime charge which incidentally is flawed on fundamentals, then maybe the case can be thrown out as vexatious.


1. It isn't vexatious.

2. The only person who is contradicting themselves is Bennett.

3. Why is anyone assuming Bennett is telling the truth about this?

4. Our copy of his original agreement is in our members area - wouldn't like to make Bennett libel anyone, would we?
Reading that, Bennett's attempt to spin the matter of the leaflet becomes crystal clear.

5. He took an oath not to distribute the leaflet - he broke that oath.

Simples.

More libel on Bennett's site, from someone calling themselves 'Portia'.


Clearly, they don't want TB to interrogate MG as a witness to the 'sale' of the booklet. TB would have grilled him and uncovered the traces back to MG's handler(s). These handlers then would have taken the rap.

Now, they will remain unknown/unseen/safe

That is totally untrue, and it is falsehoods like that that are going to finish Bennett off.

bb1 wrote:Phew! Thank goodness yoyo has come along to explain it all!


e: TRIAL DATE McCanns v Bennett 9 & 10 May 2012
aiyoyo Today


@ TB
I can add one other matter, namely that the McCanns have withdrawn the claim that the sale of one book to Michael Gunnill breached Part A of my undertakings (not to sell or distribute '60 Reasons'). However, the act of sending this book to Michael Gunnill is still retained by the McCanns as alleged breach of undertaking No. 1 on a list of 25 alleged breaches of Part C.


Just as I thought that CR probably wont come out unscratched when MG takes the witness stand, so how come I am not surprised they withdrew their main claim. They have effectively contradict themselves - how can the act of sending the booklet constitute a breach when the sale of it isn't? I know they are now not saying that it isn't a breach of Part A, just that they are not pursuing it anymore in view of the development not to their favour. So that being the case, no sale = no sending. Furthermore, in this instance it wasn't even a sending per se; rather it was a courier company despatched by MG or third party who came to collect from TB's doorstep.
I hope TB can find out who dispatched the courier company to pick up from him, who foot the bill for that?

Not sure how that is going to play out in Court, but surely this case hinges on CR being able to prove their no. 1 charge on their list is a breach.

CR is using manipulative strategy to circumvent the flaw in their prime charge. If TB can prove that their charges, as offshoots of their prime charge which incidentally is flawed on fundamentals, then maybe the case can be thrown out as vexatious.


1. It isn't vexatious.

2. The only person who is contradicting themselves is Bennett.

3. Why is anyone assuming Bennett is telling the truth about this?

4. Our copy of his original agreement is in our members area - wouldn't like to make Bennett libel anyone, would we?
Reading that, Bennett's attempt to spin the matter of the leaflet becomes crystal clear.

5. He took an oath not to distribute the leaflet - he broke that oath.

Simples.

Er - as far as I can recall, Bennett sent MG the 60 reasons booklet in the post. The booklet was then collected from MG by courier.

So what the f&8!ing hell is yoyo going on about.

I have no idea, Jean Pierre.

I've looked again at the top 25 breaches - I'm not repeating them all, I had to edit them the first time as some were in themselves libel - but right at the top is:

No. 1 (previously 1) Allegedly breaching an undertaking not to sell my book ‘60 Reasons’ by ‘selling’ a book to one Michael Sangerte. I told ‘Michale Sangerte’ that the book was no longer for sale. When Michael Sangerte said he required it because he claimed it would one day ‘be an important historical document’ for which he was ‘prepared to pay a high price’, I agreed to find a copy for him, and sent it to him in exchange for its normal previous price, £5 including postage. The buyer turned out to be Michael Gunnill of Upchurch, Kent, who had deliberately deceived me*** into selling a copy which otherwise I had absolutely no intention of doing.

-------------

Looks to me like all CR is doing is cutting out a repeated complaint?


***Admin note -

: TRIAL DATE McCanns v Bennett 9 & 10 May 2012
ShuBob Today at 1:15 pm

Good luck Tony.

Hopefully, with the MAIN claim withdrawn, they will abandon the entire case against you

And ShuBob's record of being 100% wrong, 100% of the time, still stands.

Far from being withdrawn, that charge is still top of the list.

Yes. Bennett did send the booklet to Mr. Gunnill by Post, and postage was included in the £5 he charged. But this is just another example of how they fail to take in relevant details. So basically, whatsername is talking sheit again.

But now Bennett seeks to have his Main Undertaking set aside? Actually, he is just waffling because this is not going to happen. Unless The McCanns proceed to pursue him for the original Libel, as pointed out by The Judge.
Personally, I don't care which. But Bennett's main problem is that he thinks he is so clever, when in fact he has very little conception of The Law. Abysmal, actually.

Re admin note: A tip for Bennett. It was a classic sting. If you dont want to get stung, then try keeping your promises.