Re: MCCANNS, SMETHURST COMMENCE LEGAL ACTION AGAINST BENNETT

**muratfan** Sun Dec 04, 2011 1:33 pm

bb1 wrote:It is worth remembering that, every single time one of them spammed twitter, the Brunty blog, or similar, with Bennett's filth, screengrabs were taken as evidence of how widely his vile inventions were being spread.

That disgusting KaOssis/TDH deviant alone has cost Bennett thousands.

Especially as he said he would stop him and his friends to stop spreading the lies.

**bb1** Sun Dec 04, 2011 1:37 pm

Bennett cannot say he was not warned - few people would have shown such restraint, for so long, as the McCanns and his other victims have.

Remember him sneering back in October...

There has been no further correspondence since I reported 16 days ago on page 6 of this thread. That means it is now 63 days since I first heard from the McCanns. They have not yet issued an application for me to be committed for contempt of court. But it could well be in tomorrow's post.

Now he knows what was taking the time - all those boxes and files that got him in such a frenzy Pcorneater

**Maggs** Sun Dec 04, 2011 1:39 pm

Bennett is going to get Mike Gunnill bought up in Court, I do hope he does rofl

Can you imagine it? "Mike gunnill bought a book under false pretences, me Lord!
I only sold it him cos he was desperate for a copy yaydance

Oh my sides ache reading that crap.

I hope Ed Smethurst gets to show the pic's Bennett took of his home and work places, especially the keypad on the gates.

**muratfan** Sun Dec 04, 2011 1:51 pm

I wonder if i will get a mention rofl

The court will be rofl

if he does

**Lamplighter** Sun Dec 04, 2011 1:53 pm

He claims he has never wanted to get the McCanns into court - reallY????

Published: 20/11/2007 00:00 - Updated: 27/11/2007 11:50
Solicitor's bid to prosecute McCanns fails By Web Reporter
HARLOW solicitor Tony Bennett, famous for his campaigning on behalf of the family of Stuart Lubbock, looks to have failed in his bid to prosecute the parents of missing girl Madeleine McCann.

The 60-year-old former UK Independence Party Parliamentary candidate, "metric martyr" and long-running bane of disgraced entertainer Michael Barrymore, had alleged the couple were guilty of child neglect, under the 1933 Children and Young Persons Act, by leaving Madeleine alone in their holiday apartment on the night she went missing.

But Leicester Magistrates' Court has decided to turn down the summons request.

The decision was announced by the judicial communications office at the High Court.

A spokesman said: "After careful consideration, the request to issue a summons against Gerald and Kate McCann for alleged offences contrary to section 1 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 has been refused as it is clear this court does not have the necessary jurisdiction."

**Maggs** Sun Dec 04, 2011 2:02 pm

muratfan wrote:I wonder if i will get a mention

The court will be if he does

You might have to wait till Bennett gets the McCanns in court MF. Pcorneater

**muratfan** Sun Dec 04, 2011 2:11 pm

Awww....i want my day in court. Just imagine the questioning

" Are yo Muratfan, Ian West the photographer, or are you muratfan Ian West known as truth, or are you muratfan the banker from London, or Muratfan who works for Carter Ruck or Muratfan who has insider knowledge from the courts?"

Answer " No your Honour"

Court "okay goodbye"

**greenink211** Sun Dec 04, 2011 2:13 pm

I am surprised that Kennedy has let him off so easily (though we still don't know HOW MUCH BENNETT PAID IN DAMAGES FOR HIS ILLEGAL ACTIONS AGAINST KENNEDY) as it was clear as day that the apology he made was a LIE.

**bb1** Sun Dec 04, 2011 2:56 pm

He's clearly retired so the criminal record won't particularly be a burden to him.

He isn't 65 yet, HB, so whatever he is living on, it's not his state pension.

**bb1** Sun Dec 04, 2011 3:03 pm

And the TDH deviant is still repeating the lies and filth Bennett dreamed up; good!

That's another few quid that will be coming out of Bennett's pocket for starting this.

**crazytony** Sun Dec 04, 2011 3:04 pm

**Lamplighter** Sun Dec 04, 2011 3:06 pm

bb1 wrote:He's clearly retired so the criminal record won't particularly be a burden to him.

He isn't 65 yet, HB, so whatever he is living on, it's not his state pension.

And, from what I remember, his State Pension is dependent on his having paid his NHI, so many years gets you a full pension, which reduces if you haven't paid or have underpaid, missed some payments etc. Now, is he registered as self-employed, at least from the time he left the Council/the legal firm/s he says he worked for? I was self-employed all my life and my financial adviser was very hot on my paying the NHI. His reasoning was that, even if I stayed well-off and very solvent, there might come a time when I would perhaps need the State Pension; one could never predict the future. If ben tit has not made sure he paid the NHI payments then he could end up with 1/2 or even no state pension. LL

**bb1** Sun Dec 04, 2011 4:30 pm

I ROFLMAO every time I look at this--

Get 'em Gonçalo Today
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.

Why on earth would Scotland Yard want to talk to that incompetent perjuror? Unless to help the PJ bring charges against him to do with the diary business, amongst other things?

**Pedro Silva** Sun Dec 04, 2011 4:46 pm

Sabot, your words are mine.

**bb1** Sun Dec 04, 2011 4:49 pm

Anyone know what B$own has got to say about her forum friend coming unstuck? Pcorneater

**greenink211** Sun Dec 04, 2011 6:34 pm

She is so knowledgeable about societal interactions. Anyone would think she was a social scientist with decades of experience in the field. Wouldn't they? Personally I am bowled over by the breadth of this woman's knowledge. Psychology and Psychiatry, Criminology, Sociology, History. What does this woman NOT know?

**Sabot** Sun Dec 04, 2011 6:40 pm

It looks to me as though she is drunk.

**bb1** Sun Dec 04, 2011 6:49 pm

Oh, Lord save us, now Bennett's lot are trying to teach Ms Hudson the law...

Isabel Hudson's Affidavit
PeterMac Today

An affidavit is a written sworn statement of fact voluntarily made by an affiant or deponent under an oath or affirmation administered by a person authorized to do so by law. An affidavit is a type of verified statement ..., meaning it is under oath or penalty of perjury,..." Wiki.

Para 9 - "The claimants found themselves thrust into the public eye as a result of the abduction of their three-year-old daughter..."

This is an affidavit. A sworn statement of fact.
What evidence does she have that this is correct ?
If she does have evidence that there was an abduction, she should have notified the relevant authorities as soon as she became aware of it.
If she does not, then she is stating as fact to the Court something which she does not know, and cannot prove to be true. On oath, and under penalty of perjury.

The wording is quite clear. She could have said "alleged", or "supposed" or "possible". She could have hedged it and qualified it, but she did not.
She is a lawyer whose command English is one of the main reasons for her success in her chosen profession.

It remains a matter of fact that not one of the professional and trained people who looked into this case was persuaded that there had been an abduction.
Only Kate McCann said so. Those who follow her simply accept her word, because in fact there is nothing else.

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

Oh, how wrong they are!

It remains a matter of fact that not one of the professional and trained people who looked into this case was persuaded that there had been an abduction.

Wrong - it's only Gonc and his clique who have pushed his stupid 'parental involvement' thesis. Scotland Yard, the media, the non-Gonc PJ know differently. Clearly, the pitchforkers have one or two nasty shocks coming their way.

Instead of insisting that the world is flat, why don't they go investigating Gonc and co? Or are they scared of what they will find?

And really, Ms Hudson needs no lecture on the law from a bunch of pitchforking idiots.

**lily** Sun Dec 04, 2011 6:56 pm

What always gets me, Bonny, is where exactly is the proof that Madeleine was not abducted?

**muratfan** Sun Dec 04, 2011 7:11 pm

lily wrote:What always gets me, Bonny, is where exactly is the proof that Madeleine was not abducted?

The dogs remember..eddie and Keela,

However the first search dogs who arrived picked up Madeleine's scent towards the car park..i would trust the first dogs scent trail

**bb1** Sun Dec 04, 2011 7:11 pm

What on earth can you say to people like this?

abuseofpower Get 'em Gonçalo
Carter Ruck's Isabel Hudson has lied on her sworn Affidavit jillhavern.forumotion.net/t3945-isabel-h… #mccann Nothing new there then.

No, she hasn't - but hey, if they want to carry on accusing people of lying on oath, who are we to stop them?

Why are they so silent on the subject of their idol Gonc being CONVICTED of lying on oath, and having had his sentence upheld on appeal?

I think they must all be too far gone in their hatred to see the truth even when it is biting them on their noses.

**bb1** Sun Dec 04, 2011 7:13 pm

The dogs remember..eddie and Keela,

Specifically, one dog, mf. I know Keela did make one false alert, but there was a trace of Gerry's blood on the keyfob both dogs woofed at, and there were a few spots of Portuguese tiler blood under the tiles.

God knows what they think Eddie woofed at; as he is on record as alerting to blood, cubes of burned pork, semen, tennis balls, and leftover food, it could have been anything.

**lily** Sun Dec 04, 2011 7:29 pm

bb1 wrote:The dogs remember..eddie and Keela,

Specifically, one dog, mf. I know Keela did make one false alert, but there was a trace of Gerry's blood on the keyfob both dogs woofed at, and there were a few spots of Portuguese tiler blood under the tiles.

God knows what they think Eddie woofed at; as he is on record as alerting to blood, cubes of burned pork, semen, tennis balls, and leftover food, it could have been anything.

The thing is, as we know, that the dogs woofing is proof of nothing save Gerry's blood on the key fob.

Rebelo was satisfied with the results regarding the dogs and the FFS.

**bb1** Sun Dec 04, 2011 7:45 pm

Rebelo was satisfied with the results regarding the dogs and the FFS.

Good point; or maybe Rebelo is IN IT too?

**bb1** Sun Dec 04, 2011 7:56 pm

What an excellent letter Ms Hudson writes:

Accordingly, the Claimants respectfully
request the Court take this consideration lnto account, together with the obsessive
and persistent nature of the Defendant's conduct against them to date, when
deciding what sanction (if any) to apply,

Not a word wasted, no waffle or deflection there. And what a perfect description!

OBSESSIVE AND PERSISTENT

Sponsored content