Re: BENNETT IS BONKERS - THE NEVER-ENDING STORY

**lily** Wed Mar 28, 2012 5:18 pm

That's why he got his stick out, Sabot? Eek

**bb1** Sun Apr 01, 2012 12:03 pm

Gunnill summoned to Court
Tony Bennett Today at 10:31 am

Ribisl wrote:
Thank you Tony for the update. We are all behind you and keeping a close watch on how things develop. Glad to hear you are receiving extra legal advice. But please be careful as you are up against a most malicious bunch of practitioners in libel law.

Be careful. To accuse Carter-Ruck of 'malice' may be libelling an entire firm of lawyers. 'Experienced and expensive' perhaps. But not 'malicious'.

A brief update.

On 23 March I wrote to Carter-Ruck on various procedural matters, to which I await a reply. My letter included this sentence:

So far as your two additional witnesses are concerned, please confirm that Michael Gunnill will be produced for cross-examination.

As a result, Carter-Ruck have had to issue an application for Michael Gunnill to attend Court on 9 May 2012 (first day of the 2-day trial) at 10.00am.

The application cost a fee of £45.00, and Carter-Ruck have offered to pay him £110.30 to cover his travelling costs and loss of time on the day. If I lose the case, I shall probably be asked to meet these costs, plus Carter-Ruck's charges for their time in issuung this application, charged at either £1,000 per hour plus VAT (Adam Tudor's rate) or £800 an hour plus VAT (Isabel Hudson's rate).

The Court granted Carter-Ruck's application last Wednesday (28 March).

Carter-Ruck have until 20 April to reply to my Application and Defence.

rofl

'Produced for cross examination'?

MWAHAHAHA rofl

He really does think he's Perry Mason, doesn't he?

If I lose the case, I shall probably be asked to meet these costs

No 'probably' about it, old chap, you are going to get the bill for the whole lot.

I suppose Bennett does realise he will be on oath, and it's not like a forum - he can't go running to the mods if he hears something he doesn't like?

Pcorneater

**crazytony** Sun Apr 01, 2012 12:25 pm

This case of Bennett's, it is a civil case, isn't it?

**bb1** Sun Apr 01, 2012 12:28 pm

Yes, Tony. Though from the way Bennett is carrying on, one would think the Feebs had Mr Gunnill hidden away in witness protection. Rolling Eyes

**crazytony** Sun Apr 01, 2012 12:29 pm

bb1 wrote:Yes, Tony. Though from the way Bennett is carrying on, one would think the Feebs had Mr Gunnill hidden away in witness protection.

I think Bennett is in for a severe shock then.

**bb1** Sun Apr 01, 2012 12:33 pm

He sure is, Tony - the bluff, bluster and abuse he is so fond of directing at people on the internet isn't going to cut it in the High Court.

I quite seriously could see Bennett being sent to the cells for contempt by the judge - he has no idea of how to behave on serious, formal occasions.

**crazytony** Sun Apr 01, 2012 12:36 pm

bb1 wrote:He sure is, Tony - the bluff, bluster and abuse he is so fond of directing at people on the internet isn't going to cut it in the High Court.

I quite seriously could see Bennett being sent to the cells for contempt by the judge - he has no idea of how to behave on serious, formal occasions.

Is he still trying to get himself released from the court undertaking he signed in 2009?

**bb1** Sun Apr 01, 2012 12:39 pm

As best as I can follow him, yes, Tony, he is - his legal pronouncements are as wooly and confused as everything else he pens.

Bennett wants to be free to libel the McCanns as much as he wants - so, what does that tell any judge about him?

Besides that he has absolute contempt for UK law?

**crazytony** Sun Apr 01, 2012 12:42 pm

bb1 wrote:As best as I can follow him, yes, Tony, he is - his legal pronouncements are as wooly and confused as everything else he pens.

Bennett wants to be free to libel the McCanns as much as he wants - so, what does that tell any judge about him?

Besides that he has absolute contempt for UK law?

If he is released from it, that would mean the book he wrote before the files were released comes back into play.
He's gerflucked.

**bb1** Sun Apr 01, 2012 12:50 pm

This is one for people who know more about the law that I do, Tony, but I can see the judge being so totally p*ssed off with Bennett and his contempt for the law of the land, he throws the book at him.

Has Bennett been following Leveson? Anything? Apparently not, or he would know that

EVERY SINGLE THING HE HAS BASED HIS VENDETTA ON IS A LIE.

Yet that lot have the gall to call themselves 'truthseekers' - they wouldn't know the truth if it bit them on the bum.

They're nothing but an internet lynch mob, and there should be no place for them in decent society.

**Lamplighter** Sun Apr 01, 2012 12:53 pm

Same judge, Mr Justice Tugendhat? Oh, calamity! LL Hahau

**crazytony** Sun Apr 01, 2012 12:56 pm

bb1 wrote:This is one for people who know more about the law that I do, Tony, but I can see the judge being so totally p*ssed off with Bennett and his contempt for the law of the land, he throws the book at him.

Has Bennett been following Leveson? Anything? Apparently not, or he would know that

EVERY SINGLE THING HE HAS BASED HIS VENDETTA ON IS A LIE.

Yet that lot have the gall to call themselves 'truthseekers' - they wouldn't know the truth if it bit them on the bum.

They're nothing but an internet lynch mob, and there should be no place for them in decent society.

The FSS would be called as witness. Which, would be end of game, for Bennett.

**Lamplighter** Sun Apr 01, 2012 2:31 pm

On 23 March I wrote to Carter-Ruck on various procedural matters, to which I await a reply. My letter included this sentence:

So far as your two additional witnesses are concerned, please confirm that Michael Gunnill will be produced for cross-examination.

As a result, Carter-Ruck have had to issue an application for Michael Gunnill to attend Court on 9 May 2012 (first day of the 2-day trial) at 10.00am.

The application cost a fee of £45.00, and Carter-Ruck have offered to pay him £110.30 to cover his travelling costs and loss of time on the day. If I lose the case, I shall probably be asked to meet these costs, plus Carter-Ruck's charges for their time in issuung this application, charged at either £1,000 per hour plus VAT (Adam Tudor's rate) or £800 an hour plus VAT (Isabel Hudson's rate).

The Court granted Carter-Ruck's application last Wednesday (28 March).

Carter-Ruck have until 20 April to reply to my Application and Defence.

How, if as per his comment that he has not had a reply, does he know that Mr Gunnell has been served to appear and the various costs? Anyone know the answer? LL

**bb1** Sun Apr 01, 2012 2:34 pm

Ah, an excellent point, LL - how does Bennet know that when he hasn't had a reply?

Reminds me of when he told the hounders a pack of lies about what a judge said about Facebook, to cover the fact that he couldn't prove his obscene allegations.

**crazytony** Sun Apr 01, 2012 2:44 pm

The application cost a fee of £45.00, and Carter-Ruck have offered to pay him £110.30 to cover his travelling costs and loss of time on the day. If I lose the case, I shall probably be asked to meet these costs, plus Carter-Ruck's charges for their time in issuung this application, charged at either £1,000 per hour plus VAT (Adam Tudor's rate) or £800 an hour plus VAT (Isabel Hudson's rate).

The Court granted Carter-Ruck's application last Wednesday (28 March).
Is Bennett allowed to put the above on the Internet?

**Lamplighter** Sun Apr 01, 2012 2:48 pm

Ah, but is it true, tony? If so I would say not, but if just plucked from the air and therefore incorrect, I don't think it matters. LL

**crazytony** Sun Apr 01, 2012 2:53 pm

Lamplighter wrote:Ah, but is it true, tony? If so I would say not, but if just plucked from the air and therefore incorrect, I don't think it matters. LL

How would he know the costs then?

**bb1** Sun Apr 01, 2012 2:58 pm

Just because Bennett says those are the costs, it doesn't mean he knows anything at all...if you see what I mean?

**Lamplighter** Sun Apr 01, 2012 3:07 pm

bb1 wrote:Just because Bennett says those are the costs, it doesn't mean he knows anything at all...if you see what I mean?

He makes everything up just to make it seem he is at the center of things and impress the shrooms. LL.

**Rose** Sun Apr 01, 2012 3:10 pm

So far as your two additional witnesses are concerned, please confirm that Michael Gunnill will be produced for cross-examination.

Maybe it's me or a language issue, but as this expression is so disrespectful, as if this is a hunk of meat instead of a human being. Grrr..

I wonder if the Judge will allow Bennett a cross-examination. That is a lawyer's job and Bennett is not represented by a lawyer.

Oh excellent idea to charge Bennett for Gunnill to confirm Bennett's contempt of court with the bookie wookie.

**crazytony** Sun Apr 01, 2012 3:14 pm

I wonder if it will come out in court that Bennett wanted the payment check to be made out in his mother's name?

**Lamplighter** Sun Apr 01, 2012 3:20 pm

crazytony wrote:I wonder if it will come out in court that Bennett wanted the payment check to be made out in his mother's name?

If Mr Gunnill is asked about it he will I am sure reply with the truth. LL

**bb1** Sun Apr 01, 2012 3:22 pm

It's bound to, Tony, and Bennett has no-one to blame but himself - he opened the door for all that and more to be introduced in court.

I am looking forward to the court, and the media, hearing that the only reason Mr Gunnill is in any way involved with Bennett is Stevo, Bennett and Butler attempting to ruin his business.

Does Bennett think the NUJ have forgotten about that bit of intimidation? Boy is he in for a nasty shock.

I know what you mean, Rose - I reckon Bennett has been watching ancient Perry Masons for legal advice, and reckons CR have got Mr Gunnill hidden away somewhere.

Bennett appears to be increasingly disconnected to Planet Earth, IMO.

**crazytony** Sun Apr 01, 2012 3:24 pm

Lamplighter wrote:
crazytony wrote:I wonder if it will come out in court that Bennett wanted the payment check to be made out in his mother's name?
If Mr Gunnill is asked about it he will I am sure reply with the truth. LL

Which raises the question, just how many books did Bennett sell and use his mother's bank account to hide the monies in?

**bb1** Sun Apr 01, 2012 3:45 pm

Oh, I hadn't thought of that, Tony. Bennett has opened a real can of worms for himself, hasn't he?

Anyone with a grain of sense would pack it in and do something useful, like joining the Beautiful Harlow association, or something.

For the life of me, I cannot grasp why his only goal seems to be to tell lies about the McCann family; questions must be asked about his sanity.

Sponsored content