bennett rebuttal to Carter Ruck

Tony Bennett Today at 10:55 pm
The first part of the Carter-Ruck letter today demanded the removal of 21 articles, letters or other document from our website, partial removal of another article, and amendments to our Home Page.

The Madeleine Foundation Committee has tonight consulted and agreed to put out the following statement as soon as practicable on our website. The removal of the articles concerned will also take place as soon as practicable:

Statement:



IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT REGARDING
THE CONTENTS OF THIS WEBSITE

17 August 2011




Following receipt of a package by Secretary Tony Bennett from Carter-Ruck at 3.35pm on 17 August 2011, alleging that he is in breach of an undertaking he gave to the High Court on 25 November 2009 about the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, we are removing many items from our website.

Carter-Ruck’s letter complained about the contents of part of our Home Page, and parts of our article titled ‘The Madeleine McCann mystery and the strange role of Madeira lawyer, Marcos Aragao Correia.

[ NOTE: The letter from Carter-Ruck and Mr Bennett’s reply both dated 17 August 2011 are viewable here:

(These should both be viewable on our website shortly - T.B.). ]

As a result, but without any admission that any of the material is libellous of the McCanns nor that Mr Bennett has breached the terms of his undertaking, we are taking the following action a soon a practicable:




Amending our Home Page
Removing the entirety of all the other 21 articles about which Carter-Ruck complain ( in whole or part) until further notice, pending the outcome of further correspondence with Carter-Ruck.

A convenient list of the articles we have removed from view are listed below.

We are carefully reviewing each article to consider whether, in each case, it could be considered to contain either libellous material or material by Tony Bennett which could be held to breach his undertaking.

We are very sorry that it has not been possible for you to view some of our articles today. We will be reviewing the situation regularly and will make announcements on our Home Page concerning the removed articles as soon as we can.

- Committee of The Madeleine Foundation, 17 August 2011


Tony Bennett
Researcher

Posts: 3510
Join date: 2009-11-25
Age: 63
Location: Harlow, Essex

http://www.madeleinefoundation.org.uk/

Back to top

pending the outcome of further correspondence with Carter-Ruck.


Has he got a death wish? What is there to discuss? Talking time is long gone, he has pushed people way, way too far.

bb1 wrote: pending the outcome of further correspondence with Carter-Ruck.


Has he got a death wish? What is there to discuss? Talking time is long gone, he has pushed people way, way too far.

and yet he's about to disappear for another 4 days? As they say on Muriel's Wedding, WHAT a coincidence!

I think he's trying to appear to his cult members that he is somehow in control of what is happening?

Did I read that he was disappearing for a konference, or something, rhodes?

He would be better to spend the weekend in a prayer circle, frankly, as he hasn't one at present. I suspect the 'bestiality' is the last straw....

Yes Bonny, and can you blame them?

Seriously, if ever there was a time for Bennett to hire a proper lawyer, it is now.

Bennett is a proper lawyer....he told me so and i believe what he says ....

At least he's got more hair on top.

veniviedivici nobby-Lobby
@
@zampos I hope you are going to fight them this time , instead of rolling over like a tummy tickelled lap dog ! Where's my £400 ? #McCann

Bit of a problem there for Bennett, what with him having made it all up

Do you think Laffin is also worried about not getting his 400 GBP?

Oh goodie, LuzLady's back!

Re: Edward Smethurst's yearly holidays at the Ocean Club, Praia da Luz
LuzLady Yesterday at 11:58 pm

I can well understand your need to be cautious about me, I don't blame you in the least.

Admin has spoken, they know who I am and can vouch for me.

The main reason I posted was to let you know about the (until now!) well-kept secret that Ed Smethurst and his family regularly holiday at their friends apartment over here in Praia, still, as time goes on maybe someone else will confirm this, then perhaps you'll feel able to trust what I say a bit more than you do now.

btw no I don't know exactly where the apartment is, I'll try and find out.

Ed's still not been seen this time round btw, maybe he's too involved trying to get a hundred grand out of Mr Bennett right now.

Thanks for the pms, tbh I'm not going to reply to them, sorry, I had a message for you all which in time you'll find out was a 100percent correct.

If there's anything more I can find to help you, I will, otherwise you won't be hearing from me for a while.

ps. I knew Smethurst was important, but wow! THAT important, British Nuclear Fuels and a big Freemason, not someone to mess with I guess.

Keep sleuthing, Stella

Keep sleuthing Stella? You have got to be joking.

I had a message for you all which in time you'll find out was a 100percent correct

What was it - you are a bunch of conspiraloon nutjobs?

The main reason I posted was to let you know about the (until now!) well-kept secret that Ed Smethurst and his family regularly holiday at their friends apartment over here in Praia..............

btw no I don't know exactly where the apartment is, I'll try and find out.

Of course you don't.

Admin has spoken, they know who I am and can vouch for me.

Is this her?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IO3iUYnQeSE&playnext=1&list=PL92507EC90C6B3EE5

He's posted CRs original letters:

http://www.madeleinefoundation.org.uk/Carter%20Ruck%20-%20letter1.pdf

It's a very long letter, but I think, from a first read, that Bennett has had it.

I can't see anything to argue with in it. One or two phrases - it may come out odd, as it is currently in pdf form:

As previously, the arguments you put forward range from being (at best) legally
irrelevant to completely spurious and as such we have no intention of addressing them
in any detail here.
----------------------


You heve also purported to suggest that you can evade liability under the law of libel
and circumvent the terms of your undertakings to the Court by positing allegations as
questions. That is sirnply not correct.

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

The rest simply is not copying - it's a job for tomorrow, frankly, as it is too long to correct.

Suffice to say, no-one is interested in his stupid games, flim-flammery, and evasion; he is facing contempt of court proceedings.