IS BENNETT A MENTALLY-ILL FORMER TURKISH SOLDIER?

crazytony wrote:

Sabot wrote:Once exposed, Sociopaths do become rather obvious. Suddenly all sorts of questions are answered. And they all do go too far in the end, at least for their current victim. They then go off and find another victim who is also bound to suffer.
And anyone who happens to spot them is instantly slandered with half truths and innuendo.
Believe me, their charm is boundless when it suits them, but their viciousness is crippling.

I believe you, and I am so terribly sorry you had to suffer; at the hands of one, to gain your knowledge.

Thanks, Tony. But this has done me a world of good. It has suddenly laid to rest the thought that it was all my fault, and that I was in some way responsible for his ills.
Sociopaths deliberately target individuals, and I had enough money to make me interesting.
I could not have known, and I couldn't have seen it coming. That makes me feel a whole lot better.
I won't bore you with the details of what he did to his next victim, but it was a whole lot worse than he did to me. And she was already lined up before I left. She lost her house in the end because he used it as collateral, with her acquiescence.

But if Mrs. Bennett has had to put up with this sort of treatment for more than thirty years, then I can easily understand why she does nothing to stop him. Sociopaths are quite able string along their victims, if the victim doesn't know how to get out.

In fact, he probably targeted Debbie Butler. I don't think she had all that much, but enough to tide him over.

Haven't there been a series of comfortably-off women who foolishly got involved with Bennett? There was that German Vera, and the one who who calls herself Chatelaine due to owning one....

bb1 wrote:Haven't there been a series of comfortably-off women who foolishly got involved with Bennett? There was that German Vera, and the one who who calls herself Chatelaine due to owning one....

Indeed, Bonny. Bennett knows exactly who to target for whatever purpose, and how to go about it. I have looked at him with a very critical eye, and I can see the charm.
Okay, you might think that my reasoning is flawed, but I know what to look for.
And personally, I am more than able to believe that he has had affairs in the past. This could explain why he left Chippingfield for a while. Sociopaths do this sort of thing to put their victims in their place, if their victims are getting a bit shirty. And then they go back full of supposed remorse. Sheesh, I have seen all of this shit. And Yes, I did fall for it.

Is there a limit in your country as to how much you can have in your bank before receiving Legal Aid?

I checked, Tony - this is all about Legal Aid in England and Wales;

http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/wales/law_w/law_legal_system_e/law_taking_legal_action_e/help_with_legal_costs.htm

If you have disposable capital (savings) of over £8,000, you won't get Legal Help. Disposable capital includes:

money in the bank
valuable items
the value of your home (if you own it). This depends on how much the property is worth and how much your mortgage is.
You have to include your partner's capital unless your partner is the person who you are in dispute with.

Remember Bennett informing his cult that he couldn't get legal aid because he had more than £8,000 in the bank?


The conditions are very tight, and the Treasury is NOT going to write Bennett a blank cheque just on his say-so. He is liable to find he has to account for every penny of his income and expenditure.

IMO, he knows this and is just trying to delay the day of reckoning.

bb1 wrote:I checked, Tony - this is all about Legal Aid in England and Wales;

http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/wales/law_w/law_legal_system_e/law_taking_legal_action_e/help_with_legal_costs.htm

If you have disposable capital (savings) of over £8,000, you won't get Legal Help. Disposable capital includes:

money in the bank
valuable items
the value of your home (if you own it). This depends on how much the property is worth and how much your mortgage is.
You have to include your partner's capital unless your partner is the person who you are in dispute with.

Remember Bennett informing his cult that he couldn't get legal aid because he had more than £8,000 in the bank?


The conditions are very tight, and the Treasury is NOT going to write Bennett a blank cheque just on his say-so. He is liable to find he has to account for every penny of his income and expenditure.

IMO, he knows this and is just trying to delay the day of reckoning.

If he has tens of thousands, surely he doesn't qualify for any assistance?

Of course he doesn't, Tony. Why he thinks the rules that apply to a destitute, mentally-ill Turk also apply to him, I really do not know.

I personally think he is just trying it on, he knows he has no grounds for this.

Carter Ruck are very kindly giving him time to go through the motions, so he can't moan and play the martyr about it.

crazytony wrote:Is there a limit in your country as to how much you can have in your bank before receiving Legal Aid?

There is an amount. I don't know how much, but it will be limited, and it won't be anywhere near £90,000. Probably in the region of £8,000, if that much.

I am pretty certain that Bennett did make a profit from The Foundation. We never did discover which company did The Printing of all of the garbage, or see the receipts, but believe me it was a licence to fiddle, along with The Postage Stamp Saga.
I ran my own Business for several years, and it didn't take me long to work out what to do. But I had the sense to know that what I could see, the Tax Man would see also. Bennett doesn't have this ability because he thinks he is smarter than other people. He also convolutes things, and diversifies to make it more difficult to keep track of what he does. All classic moves when you are on the fiddle.

'A few tens of thousands' suggests it is at least £30,000 - yet he won't spend a penny of his own money on legal advice?

Legal Aid is for GENUINELY poor people, not misers.

Has anyone seen accounts from the Hounderfund recently? Or from the Gonc fund? Thought not....

TB:

It's the gall of him thinking he is entitled to legal aid when he brought all this on himself and has a very healthy bank balance that gets me, Pedro.

bb1 wrote:It's the gall of him thinking he is entitled to legal aid when he brought all this on himself and has a very healthy bank balance that gets me, Pedro.

It gets all of us, Bonny. But if he gets relatively free legal representation then there will be more money for The McCanns if he gets done for Libel. Always presuming that someone will represent him.
Which ever way you look at it, he actually can't win. He did break his Undertaking. And if the Undertaking was coerced under pressure, then he committed Libel, many times. Even Kirwan's told him that.
So I don't have a real problem with him getting Legal Aid providing he meets their criteria.
And aren't we ever learning a lot about how to Libel someone like him and get away with it.

yes bb1, the only thing TB is entitled is psychological treatment.

Nice of him to post YET MORE LIBEL on the Met's FB page, no less.

And no, I am not repeating it in public....

Oh good God, he is stark, staring, mad:

An outing for 'The Truth of the Lie'
Tony Bennett Today at 12:33 pm

bristow wrote:
The UK will surely HAVE to have an English copy printed and be on sale in this land of freedom .... or not?

ps I take it this applies to every English speaking country?

The English translation of 'The Truth About A Lie' by Anna Esse is one of the documents already exhibited to my two Affidavits and will form part of my defence to the committal-to-prison application against me by Dr Gerald and Dr Kate McCann - and part of my application to be released from some of the Court undertakings I gave to the McCanns and the High Court on 25 November 2007.

So will the entirety of 'astro's translation of A Estrela de Madeleine - 'Madeleine's Star' - by Paulo Cristavao.

The case of McCanns v Bennett can be reduced to one simple sentence: The McCanns' insistence that there is 'no credible evidence' that Madeleine died in Apartment 5A against my assertion that there is at least some credible evidence that points to this.

The whole trial will probably revolve around that question, one way or another, and will of course enable me to put before the judge what I say the credible evidence amounts to.

This (assuming anyone comes to the trial and reports what is said) will thus be an opportunity for some of the British public to get to know some of the key contents of Dr Amaral's book.



How bonkers do you have to be to think quoting Cristovao is GOOD?

Does Bennett really not know about Cristovao and the rape and fraud allegations?

About the vast array of charges he is now facing, for fraud, blackmail, wiretapping, entrapment, etc? Because you can be sure Carter Ruck do.

You can also be sure that Carter Ruck know that the PJ are trying to kick Cristovao and Gonc out of the PJ Old Boys' Association, and stop their police pensions.

Oh, and they will also know all about Gonc's recent bizarre behaviour..

But, if Bennett wants to use those two as character witnesses, who are we to stop him?

You couldn't make it up.

Oh stop it, my ribs are sore.....


'Truth of the Lie' Returns to Bookshops BUT NOT IN THE UK
Tony Bennett Today
david_uk wrote:

Tony Bennett wrote:
The case of McCanns v Bennett can be reduced to one simple sentence: The McCanns' insistence that there is 'no credible evidence' that Madeleine died in Apartment 5A against my assertion that there is at least some credible evidence that points to this...

erm. might be an idea not to let the 'other side' know your plan in advance!?, good luck mind!

My two Affidavits and evidence were disclosed to the McCanns on 23 March as per a Court order. Both sides have to disclose the evidence they seek to rely on in advance; normally, therefore, there are no big 'surprises' at Court, though depending on the skill of the cross-examiner and the truthfulness of each witness, some new issues may be teased out in the process of the cross-examinations



And Carter Ruck already know he is going to quote those two as the Source of his allegations?

MWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

bb1 wrote:Does Bennett really not know about Cristovao and the rape and fraud allegations?

About the vast array of charges he is now facing, for fraud, blackmail, wiretapping, entrapment, etc? Because you can be sure Carter Ruck do.

You can also be sure that Carter Ruck know that the PJ are trying to kick Cristovao and Gonc out of the PJ Old Boys' Association, and stop their police pensions.

Oh, and they will also know all about Gonc's recent bizarre behaviour..

But, if Bennett wants to use those two as character witnesses, who are we to stop him?

You couldn't make it up.

If I remember correctly, Amaral's book is banned in UK.

Tony, he was TOLD BY THE JUDGE at the last hearing that what happens in Portugal is of no relevance to the High Court of England and Wales; it doesn't seem to have sunk in...

If Bennett starts reading out the crap those two chancers wrote, he is likely to be sent to the cells for contempt.

No, Tony. I don't think Amaral's book has been banned in UK. He just couldn't find a publisher to take it on. And if he had it published in UK in English then there would be a separate Libel Suit. This would also include any book shop daft enough to sell it.
The proceed would of course, be frozen.
And anyway, we can all read it on The Net, if we want to.

Sabot wrote:
No, Tony. I don't think Amaral's book has been banned in UK. He just couldn't find a publisher to take it on. And if he had it published in UK in English then there would be a separate Libel Suit. This would also include any book shop daft enough to sell it.
The proceed would of course, be frozen.
And anyway, we can all read it on The Net, if we want to.

Thank you, Sabot.

bb1 wrote:Tony, he was TOLD BY THE JUDGE at the last hearing that what happens in Portugal is of no relevance to the High Court of England and Wales; it doesn't seem to have sunk in...

If Bennett starts reading out the crap those two chancers wrote, he is likely to be sent to the cells for contempt.

So he cannot quote from Amaral's book. Oh dear

No British publisher would be mad enough to take on a book by someone with a criminal conviction for lying which accuses innocent people of heinous crimes.

As for Cristovao - it beggars belief that Bennett would think quoting him is a GOOD idea.

crazytony wrote:

Sabot wrote:
No, Tony. I don't think Amaral's book has been banned in UK. He just couldn't find a publisher to take it on. And if he had it published in UK in English then there would be a separate Libel Suit. This would also include any book shop daft enough to sell it.
The proceed would of course, be frozen.
And anyway, we can all read it on The Net, if we want to.

Thank you, Sabot.

Je vous en prie.

This doesn't mean that I approve of Book Banning, Tony. For me, you pays ya money and ya takes ya choice. But Britain ain't all that keen on people making direct accusations without any proof whatsoever. Certainly not from some furrin dickhead who already has a conviction for lying.
As far as I am concerned he can publish his book in UK any time he likes. And he could self publish, of course. But the truth is that he wouldn't dare.