BENNETT CARRIES ON REGARDLESS

bb1 wrote:You may find something interesting in the member's area, Tony

Nice one Bonny

Now, if I were a judge, I would regard what Bennett did on - was it Sunday? - as clear harrassment, and an attempt to intimidate.

I thought Bennett had had some legal experience, but he can't have.

Because I just looked up the meaning of EX PARTE ORDER in English law and it seems to bear little resemblance to the version he fed the sheeples.

It does, in fact, seem to be more like a temporary restraining order till a case is heard.

In which case, Bennett is up sh*t creek without a paddle.

Our Tony has this screenshot:


http://thehoundingofthemccans.blogspot.com/?zx=bd7d5ff2f7285e1a






Just look at how Bennett described the 'ex - parte' order:

The summons, technically called a Defamation Claim, was accompanied by an ex parte Order also made on 9 August by Master Eyre in the High Court, which requires that “any non-party seeking access to, or copies of any documents before the court or on court records (including statements of case and witness evidence) must make an application for such access on notice to the parties. Documents filed at court in respect of this action are to be placed in a sealed envelope marked: ‘Not to be provided to any non-party without the leave of a Judge or the Senior Master of the Queen’s Bench Division and on prior notice to the parties’.”


He seems to have ignored the bit about it being a form of temporary restraining order.

Well, he must have done, to have invented 'luzlady', then carried on trying to intimidate Mr Smethurst by stalking family members - including children.

And topping that off with the ridiculous nonsense about Masons. Does he think remarks from members of Havern's like:


What we need to do is to identify all of the other people in that photo and find out what they do, as it is these people who will be the first ones that he turns to in an emergency.

have gone unnoticed.

What is Bennett planning next? To stalk anyone who has ever been in the same photo as Mr Smethurst?

I suspect Bennett is going to struggle to find representation, personally. No-one is going to want to get involved with this lunacy.

Especially when they find out that CR work on these matters WITHOUT PAYMENT.

Remember, Bennett libelled CR themselves by stating that they had earned millions from the McCanns' Madeleine fund, when there is not one bit of truth in that.

Oops sorry Bonny, I forgot to mention it here my bad

crazytony wrote:Oops sorry Bonny, I forgot to mention it here my bad

"Crazy" you must be more careful. What sort of music are you playing at the moment, that could be the issue? See you on the dark side, I have extra details to add.


Syd

I am unable to answer this question for legal reasons.

Freedomsydney2 wrote:

crazytony wrote:Oops sorry Bonny, I forgot to mention it here my bad

"Crazy" you must be more careful. What sort of music are you playing at the moment, that could be the issue? See you on the dark side, I have extra details to add.


Syd

I only listen to the best music and final countdown suits the situation at the moment, don't you think?

And it would be brought back by popular demand.

Waste of time, Jay, he has been told that a thousand times - he doesn't WANT to know the truth.

bb1 wrote:Waste of time, Jay, he has been told that a thousand times - he doesn't WANT to know the truth.

He doesn't let the truth about anything get in his way.

He's playing games, isn't he?

Jayelles wrote:This made my day. Look at what the "similar topics" generator turned up at the bottom of his "Questions" thread:-

ETA, but there is nothing legal stopping him answering that TRUTHFULLY, is there? Of course, that would mean admitting that someone in the PJ illegally passed on phone numbers, etc., to that ghastly Cabrita woman, and that the reference was actually to do with speaking to the media.

See, nothing hard about replying TRUTHFULLY, is there?

I keep getting a banner ad at the top of the forum saying 'We get rid of slander for you.'

Wouldn't that be wonderful, Jay?

Just reading about ex-parte actions:

http://www.gillhams.com/dictionary/555.cfm

evidence setting out the reasons why the application for the interim injunction is made without notice;

Would clear evidence someone is targetting a man's wife and children qualify? Yes, I think it would....

UPDATE 25.8.11
Tony Bennett Today at 9:14 pm

UPDATE

No futher word yet from Carter-Ruck on either matter.

Carter-Ruck has failed to date to reply to the questions I was entitled to ask them under the Pre-Action Protocol on Defamation, which Smethust breached by issuing his libel writ prematurely.

Smethurst has not yet filed his Particulars of Claim either.

The McCanns have not yet served any formal application for me to be committed for contempt of court.

I woud like to place on record my appreciation for an anonymous letter-writer whose letter arrived today, signed 'A Wellwisher'. Clearly a legal man, he has given me two very important pieces of legal advice in relation to the contempt of court claim. Can't say anything more than that as I don't want to make Carter-Ruck's life any easier.

If you are reading this, 'Wellwisher', your final paragraph is noted and I am all the more grateful for your help.

Also thanks to a member from this forum who has joined The Madeleine Foundation today and has added a donation to his subscription. If you are reading this, our latest book and a supply of leaflets will be on their way to you tomorrow.

Yes, of course he has - isn't you is it, Muratfan?

Anyway - who does Bennett think he is kidding? He is failing to explain to the brain-dead members of hellhole that the 'ex parte order' he dismissed with s trivial explanation is, in fact, a form of

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

Which he proceeded to ignore.

Never mind, he will be getting all the attention he could possibly desire before too much longer

If you are reading this, 'Wellwisher', your final paragraph is noted and I am all the more grateful for your help.

Might be Stevo with his "Fair Use' advice?

Carter-Ruck has failed to date to reply to the questions I was entitled to ask them under the Pre-Action Protocol on Defamation, which Smethust breached by issuing his libel writ prematurely.

Smethurst has not yet filed his Particulars of Claim either.

The McCanns have not yet served any formal application for me to be committed for contempt of court.


The mists are clearing....



I see...many angry people....they seem to be holding papers....they are shaking their fists at a tall, balding tramp - oh, I hear a voice saying something strange....

TURKEYS VOTE FOR EARLY CHRISTMAS

Whatever can it mean?

Rereading Bennett's drivel. I believe what has happened here is; Mr. Smethurst has applied for the restraining order to be issued first and the application for libel is pending.
ETA: The restraining order is more important than the libel. Mr.Smethurst needs to prevent Bennett harming his family.

Agree, Tony - that all sounds about right.
Naturally, Bennett will not be telling the truth, just his version of it. Never mind, it will all come out in the wash

I would also add, that Bennett's highly repugnant innuendos regarding Mr S are most likely included in any temporary order. Plus, remember, the documents are sealed which effectively gags Bennett in those specific areas.

Just a reminder:





And this is who is trying to teach law to Carter Ruck and Ed Smethurst?

I know, Bonny. It totally cracks me up every time I think about it.

bb1 wrote:Just a reminder:





And this is who is trying to teach law to Carter Ruck and Ed Smethurst?

Can I file my complaint thus?
Tony Bennett is an Oxygen Thief.