MCCANNS, SMETHURST COMMENCE LEGAL ACTION AGAINST BENNETT

greenink211 wrote:I don't know enough about the law to answer this but will Bennett be liable for some damages and costs to Smethurst if he caves in next week and Smethurst lets him off. And will he still have hefty costs or damages to pay in February over his apparent refusal to abide by his underaking to the high court? Because I would have thought costs are piling up at a rate of knots.

Perhaps CR were just being nice to him and giving him lots of strong cardboard for walls and plastic folders for the roof?

I am unsure how UK laws work GI. However, here if he caved, he would be liable for the pursuant's costs.

crazytony wrote:

greenink211 wrote:I don't know enough about the law to answer this but will Bennett be liable for some damages and costs to Smethurst if he caves in next week and Smethurst lets him off. And will he still have hefty costs or damages to pay in February over his apparent refusal to abide by his underaking to the high court? Because I would have thought costs are piling up at a rate of knots.

Perhaps CR were just being nice to him and giving him lots of strong cardboard for walls and plastic folders for the roof?

I am unsure how UK laws work GI. However, here if he caved, he would be liable for the pursuant's costs.

I would have thought the same applied here but really don't know.

bb1 wrote:The cardboard box was of exceptional quality, while these were no ordinary lever arch files.

Sounds like they may come in handy.

They are going to cost Bennett a bit more than they cost Carter Ruck. This could be the most expensive cardboard box ever. About the same price as his house probably.

He is a perfect example of a wannabee, an unsuccessful old man who never made much of his life; who carries a burden of spite against the world on his narrow, bowed shoulders; whose whole being oozes envy and jealousy; who uses gullible, less than bright people as 'cannon fodder' while he stays at the back and watches what happens. He also has delusions of grandeur; I am sure his decision to go to court is so he can defend himself and call the McCann's to the witness box and cross-examine them. However, what is the issue here is not the McCanns and the assorted theories re Madeleine, it is whether bennett broke his undertaking, and also whether he encouraged others to aid and abet him. The court will be harsh as he claims to be/have been a solicitor, he therefore should know the rules; he has no leg to stand on, as ignorance is not acceptable from a person claiming to know the law. The McCanns have no need to be there; Ms Hudson appears to be a very efficient lady well versed in the law. He would do well to admit his crime, and ask the court for mercy, rather than go through what will be a charade. If he does this, his punishment will be less than if he persists in his present course. I would think a period of reflection would be good for him; after all, if he does get committed, he will face some nasty times - most prisoners will be aware of his hounding of the McCanns, after all PCs and the internet are now available in prison, and they will not be kind. LL

I agree with Lamplighter.

Nice choice of prisons in and around London:
Belmarsh
Brixton
Feltham
Holloway (if I remember rightly this is for women only)
Isis
Pentonville
Wandsworth
Wormwood Scrubs

Also, in Essex (bent tit does live in Essex, doesn't he?:
Bullwood Hall
Chelmsford

LL

Lamplighter wrote:Nice choice of prisons in and around London:
Belmarsh
Brixton
Feltham
Holloway (if I remember rightly this is for women only)
Isis
Pentonville
Wandsworth
Wormwood Scrubs

Also, in Essex (bent tit does live in Essex, doesn't he?:
Bullwood Hall
Chelmsford

LL

What's wrong with Devil's Island?

Sabot wrote:

Lamplighter wrote:Nice choice of prisons in and around London:
Belmarsh
Brixton
Feltham
Holloway (if I remember rightly this is for women only)
Isis
Pentonville
Wandsworth
Wormwood Scrubs

Also, in Essex (bent tit does live in Essex, doesn't he?:
Bullwood Hall
Chelmsford

LL

What's wrong with Devil's Island?

That's French - if still operating. No, he'll get 'the treatment' in an English jail. And UK lags are very sentimental about family and kids, especially the older ones. LL

At the risk of being a wet blanket, I do not think the McCanns actually do have the desire to see Bennett in prison. They want him to stop his campaign.
______________________

80. As such, it apps,arc that even ths clear threat of contempt proceedings has not baen
suFficient for the Defendant to desist from breaching the undertakings whlch ho gave
to the Court

81, The Claimants are pware that lf ths Defendanl ls indeed found in contampt of Court,
the romedies open to tha Court include a sentence of lmprisonment (which may bo
suspended, possibly eubject to certaln conditions being lmposed) as well as boing
finod. The Clairnants are also aware that it is open to the Court to grant an
inJuncgon ngain$t ths Defendant, ordering him now to abide by the terms of the
undertakings he gave,

82. lt is of eourse ulllmately for the Court to decide first, whether any contempl has been
committed.ancl (if so) what the appropriato eanctlon is, having hesrd submis$long
from both parties. The Clatmants' purpose in bringlng these contempt proceedings is
in tho hope that the Court will be able to intervene to stop the Defendant's
contemptuous conduct once and for all. Accordingly, the Claimants respecffully
request the Court talro this consideration lnto account, together with the obsessive
and persistenl nalure of the Dsfendant''s conducl against them to date, whsn deciding what sanction (if any) to ePply,

83 Although it goes without saying that the court should and will take the Defondant's
convention rights into account when considerlng this applioation I respectfLtlly draw
tho attention of the Court (and the Defendant) to paragraph 1,4 of the Practlce
Direction to R$C 52 which statss expressly that .,[,Jn a// case tha, Convention rlghts
of those involved shou/d particularly be borne in mind' lt shauld he noted that tha
burden of proof, having ragard fo lha possroility that e parson may be sonl fo prison'
islhatthealtegationbeprovedbeyondreasonabledoubt'"
84. For the reasons givon above and to be given in argument I re$pectfully submit that
theDefendant'scontemptofcourtisestablishedbeyondreasonabledoubt'Afinding
that tho Defendant is in contempt, and any $anction imposed consequent on that
fln ing, would plainly constitute an interference wlth the Defendant's right to freedom
ofexpressionguaranteedbyArticlel0oftheConvention.Hclwever,in
circumslances where the Defendant has freely glven an undefiat<ing to the court not
to act as complained of in this application, and in doing so settled libel proceodings
against him brought in order to protect the reputations (and thus tho Article I rights)
oftheC|aimants,lrespectfullyinvitotheCourttofindthatanysuchinterferenceis both necessary and proportionate.
__________________

So they are aware of the possibility of prison being one of the sanctions. They are also aware of the effect on his right to freedom of speech, and have dealt with both in their submission.

Probably not, sans, but the thought of his incarceration is indeed a nice one! By the way, what happened to your post, it seems to be extremely garbled? LL

That often happens when anything is copied from PDF, LL - I don't know why, but it doesn't copy properly.

Nothing like fooling yourself, is there?

Re: LATEST on the 3 libel actions - alleged contempt of court x 1, and alleged libels x 2
Stella Today at 8:45 am

If Goncalo Amaral is cleared of Libel 9th-10th of Feb and Tony's hearing is delayed until after that, surely it would blow the case against Tony WI---------------------------DE open.

Bring it on !!!!

=============

Oh, so Gonc is going to be able to prove his 'thesis' involving burials on beaches, fridges, transporting decomposing cadavers in hire cars, etc., is he?

Snowballs, in Hell

Lamplighter wrote:Probably not, sans, but the thought of his incarceration is indeed a nice one! By the way, what happened to your post, it seems to be extremely garbled? LL

Oh yes it is LL.

It looks like Sans copied the PDF as thats how it comes out. Have no fear Bennett has kindly emailed it all round with some nice pic's of his posh files, box and weighing scales. http://bit.ly/vhSm29



>----Original Message----
>From: ajsbennett@btinternet.com
>Date: 03/12/2011 21:35
>To: <ajsbennett@btinternet.com>
>Subj: MF News:McCanns' High Court Application to have Tony
Bennett committed to prison

Please find below a statement The Madeleine Foundation has issued
tonight about the McCanns' forthcoming application to the High Court to
have me committed to prison for allegedly breaching the High Court
undertaking I gave on 25 November 209 not to libel them.

The McCanns' application to commit is supported by a 27-page affidavit
prepared by Senior Partner at Carter-Ruck, Isabel Hudson. Those parts
of the affidavit that we are able to show without being accused of
further libelling the McCanns can be found on our website www.madeleinefoundation.org.uk
or via this short link:

http://bit.ly/vhSm29

Tony Bennett, Secretary

The cardboard box was of exceptional quality......




.......while these were no ordinary lever arch files





They were beautifully finished in the attractive Oxford blue livery of Carter-Ruck, complete with their logo and full contact details.

Is there a word for people who get excited by office stationery?

bb1 wrote:The cardboard box was of exceptional quality......




.......while these were no ordinary lever arch files





They were beautifully finished in the attractive Oxford blue livery of Carter-Ruck, complete with their logo and full contact details.

Is there a word for people who get excited by office stationery?

What was he expecting Bonny? A Walkers crisp box

So, what happened to all that Free Speach on Bennett's forum? Someone has just been banned because:

always found his posts ambiguous at best, pro abduction at worst

How very dare anyone raise the possibility that Madeleine McCann is alive! Burn the heretic!

But I digress; something seems to have been overlooked in all the hoo-ha:

BRIAN KENNEDY

Brian Kennedy’s concerns that I had libelled him have now been settled on terms acceptable to both parties. No court order or undertaking is involved and I did not pay any of Mr Kennedy’s costs.

So, the question is:

HOW MUCH DID BENNETT DONATE TO THE FIND MADELEINE FUND?

And he is still at it, isn't he. More innuendo. And he is encouraging his Cult Followers to keep on with the Libel.
Enough to try the patience of a Saint.
I don't want the stupid man to go to prison, but I think he does. In fact I think he is actively working on it. Persecuted at Christmas. Jesus, I might throw up.

I think we might have to wait to find that out, Bonny. But you can bet it wasn't Peanuts.

Please, stop it, my ribs are sore with laughing.

Get 'em Gonçalo Today at 8:33 am

Goncalo Amaral said he would be happy to fly to London to help NSY with their whitewash review, so I think you should invite him to give evidence at your trial. He seems quite interested in this case.


ROFLMAO

Think you'll find Gonc has his own legal problems to deal with that week, dear


BTW, Gonc's stuffed. Maybe he forgot to share with the pitchforkers, but he doesn't have an Ace up his Sleeve.

It was all hot air, bombast and, well, lies.

I am sure he can explain it all to the judge. Not that the judge is going to be very impressed - who would be?

Oh dear, Bennett's surfaced......

Costly
Tony Bennett Today

Xavier wrote:
Well lets look it from another perspective. Tony has finally succeeded in provoking the McCanns into taking action against him. Posters here complaining that this has now happened is daft - from his actions Tony clearly knew exactly what he was doing. And he has said on a number of occasions that he wants to get the McCanns into court...


REPLY: I have taken a vow of silence on this forum from now on until the court case. But I cannot allow that incorrect statement to stand. I have never, ever, said I 'want to get the McCanns into court', and nowhere will you be able to find any such statement I have ever made.

It would be good if you would please respond and accept that.

What I may have said is that IF the McCanns were to take me to court, then I would be prepared for that, or e.g. that I would defend statements about the case that I have made. No-one in the right mind WANTS to face a committal to prison or other libel action, facing lawyers who rack up their costs at £562.50 an hour (£9.37 a minute; £4,500 for an 8-hour day).

Yet more irrelevancies and diversions; it doesn't matter whether CR get paid in peppercorns or gold bars, it is BENNETT who is at fault, however much he twists and spins.

What does she think Gonc is going to do? Stand up in a British Court and tell The Judge that Bennett has a right to spout this shite because he said so? Things don't work like that in UK. Although I sometimes suspect that they do in Portugal.

She is very stupid, isn't she.

You only have to look at what she tried to post on CR's blog to see that, Sabot. According to her, the PJ passed the NOTW an English translation of Kate McCann's diary; she should be glad CR spared her blushes and kept quiet.

No-one would have known then what a plonker she made of herself. No wonder they cannot grasp anything complicated, like evidence, law, that sort of thing.

bb1 wrote:Oh dear, Bennett's surfaced......

Costly
Tony Bennett Today

Xavier wrote:
Well lets look it from another perspective. Tony has finally succeeded in provoking the McCanns into taking action against him. Posters here complaining that this has now happened is daft - from his actions Tony clearly knew exactly what he was doing. And he has said on a number of occasions that he wants to get the McCanns into court...


REPLY: I have taken a vow of silence on this forum from now on until the court case. But I cannot allow that incorrect statement to stand. I have never, ever, said I 'want to get the McCanns into court', and nowhere will you be able to find any such statement I have ever made.

It would be good if you would please respond and accept that.

What I may have said is that IF the McCanns were to take me to court, then I would be prepared for that, or e.g. that I would defend statements about the case that I have made. No-one in the right mind WANTS to face a committal to prison or other libel action, facing lawyers who rack up their costs at £562.50 an hour (£9.37 a minute; £4,500 for an 8-hour day).

Yet more irrelevancies and diversions; it doesn't matter whether CR get paid in peppercorns or gold bars, it is BENNETT who is at fault, however much he twists and spins.

"NO ONE IN THEIR RIGHT MIND." I told ya, he wants to go to prison.

I am intrigued as to where exactly he gets his figures from re CR. In a legal firm, fees are calculated in many diverse ways, dependant on various factors, period of time spend in preparation, length of proceedings, number of staff employed and so on. I doubt CR/Ms Hudson has divulged any of this to him, he is just plucking figures out of the air. I can only assume his basis is the costs that are being claimed? LL

He will have the information from Carter Ruck - it will be noted in the bundle for the Smethurst cost enquiry on Wednesday.

I have obtained the footage of Bennett's Solicitors advice when he asked if they can defend him