BENNETT FOUND GUILTY OF CONTEMPT OF COURT?????

Jayelles wrote:

Sabot wrote:
I've been to The Houndation Site to have a look. It is a copy of The Order that The Judge will fill in when he or she decides what to do with him.
I think you will find that The Contempt Order is a forgone conclusion. Bennett has broken The Undertaking and is in Contempt of Court.
By posting that up he is just stirring the shit to raise sympathy and outrage amongst his dwindling bunch of supporters. He already knows he is going to get clobbered, he just doesn't know how yet.

That's the way I interpret it sabot. The document has been prepared in advance of the hearing and the relevant bits will be filled in or crossed out and then signed AFTER the hearing. By the time the judge signs it, he WILL have read x,y,and z.

That's about it, Jay. An Application has been made and The Judge is considering what to do with him as we speak.

Bennett's Counsel will be present at the time, if he's got one, but there isn't anything to argue, so I don't think it matters.
He made an undertaking. He broke it. All over bar the shouting.

Oh, I nearly forgot. He will have to pay The McCann's Costs.

Very true, Tony. My own feeling is that the document is genuine - only a madman would fake up something like that - but bits have been whited out?

The judge has read what the McCanns application said and has agreed that Bennett is in contempt of court and must stand trial for it

muratfan wrote:The judge has read what the McCanns application said and has agreed that Bennett is in contempt of court and must stand trial for it

Where was it you saw soap on a rope being sold, again?

bb1 wrote:Very true, Tony. My own feeling is that the document is genuine - only a madman would fake up something like that - but bits have been whited out?

It looks to me as though a Form has been issued in readiness, with The Case Number. Bennett has added shortened versions of the names of the people involved. I don't know if this is an offence, but he is certainly pushing his luck.

Jayelles wrote:

Sabot wrote:

bb1 wrote:Very true, Tony. My own feeling is that the document is genuine - only a madman would fake up something like that - but bits have been whited out?

It looks to me as though a Form has been issued in readiness, with The Case Number. Bennett has added shortened versions of the names of the people involved. I don't know if this is an offence, but he is certainly pushing his luck.

The hearing is in February.

All Bennett can do in February is offer mitigation, like, "I am insane."

Sabot, isn't tampering with a court document an offence?

I think it must be, Tony - and as for sticking it on the internet, I've never heard of anyone doing something, so, well, undignified and unBritish before...

I have forced myself to reread Bennett's waffle about the matter.

MCCANNS

Application for committtal to prison

At 6.20pm the same day (Thursday), a process server employed by Carter-Ruck came up to Chippingfield in a ‘Godfather’-style limousine, driven by another person, and handed me a large and heavy cardboard box, measuring 16" x 14" x 12" (40cm x 35cm x 30cm for those who do metric), containing 5 huge ring binders of statements on behalf of the McCanns, and accompanying evidence. These contained over 3,000 pages in total, mostly photocopies of my articles on the Madeleine Foundation website and several dozen postings on Jill Havern’s site. 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.

There was also a summons to attend the Royal Courts of Justice to be committed to prison for contempt of court (alternative remedies being a suspended prison sentence, a fine, or seizure of assets, or any combination of these). The case has been listed for a hearing before a judge on Wednesday 8 February. The summons alleges a wholesale breach of one of the four undertakings I gave to the High Court on 25 November 2009, namely not to libel the McCanns.

I intend to defend the McCanns’ application. Arguably, as I have already been advised by one local lawyer, the undertaking I gave in 2009 was too ‘sweeping’ and should either be modified or even withdrawn, given that it amounts virtually to an undertaking to say nothing about the case ever again. The lawyer also suggested it was given under oppressive circumstances, a matter I have already raised under Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights with the European Commission on Human Rights, which is currently looking into my claim that the way British laws allows wealthy libel litigants to get their way over defendants who cannot hope to match their financial and legal resources amounts to a breach of human rights. The government has promised to rectify this manifestly unjust situation as a result of a successful campaign by the Libel Reform Campaign.

Included amongst the papers is an 84-paragraph, 27-page affidavit sworn by Senior Partner at Carter-Ruck, Isabel Hudson. I can reproduce parts of that affidavit, but not those parts that include extracts of my disputed articles and postings. We’ll therefore display a redacted version of it on our website.

In Paragraph 58 of her affidavit, Ms Hudson states that a letter sent by myself to Carter-Ruck on 8 June 2011 prompted the McCanns to say “enough is enough”. The McCanns and Carter-Ruck then began what Ms Hudson says in Paragraph 65 was “a painstaking and time-consuming process” of analysing as many postings of mine as they could find on Jillhavern’s forum, to see how many might be construed as libellous. They think that around 50-60 of my 3,700 posts on the forum might breach my undertaking, while the other 3,640-3,650 apparently do not. That explains why, as the forum-owner will confirm, Carter-Ruck have spent literally hundreds of hours on this forum in the past few months, searching for potentially libellous comments, in order to bolster their application to commit me to prison. The forum-owner’s logs record the precise time and length of each visit by Carter-Ruck.

So, in order to show he is not in contempt of court, Bennett has, only today, put more rubbish about the McCann case on the internet, and posted his document.

That should help him a lot.....

crazytony wrote:Sabot, isn't tampering with a court document an offence?

He could have photocopied the original and typed the names on that. I don't know if this is an offence but it sounds pretty contemptuous to me.

I would say his actions show complete contempt for the Queen's Bench, personally. It probably sounds odd, but Bennett just isn't a gentleman - his behaviour would have got him drummed out of any officers' mess a long time ago.

I don't see anything that shows that he has already been found guilty.

It looks to me like this is a draft document and is what CR are asking for as punishment for Bennett on behalf of the McCanns.

BUT it looks very much like Bennett might be lying. In that post of his he says that the McCanns are trying to put him in prison and another option is to seize his assets.

BUT they are not asking for him go go to prison at all and there is no mention in that document of seizure of assets though that might follow if he failed to pay the fine or costs.

Reading it carefully they are asking ONLY for a suspended sentence or a fine together with costs. It says Prison AND suspended sentence OR a fine.

As for being drummed out of an officers' mess. I doubt he would have ever got in unless it was to serve the drinks, peel the spuds or clean the floors.

bb1 wrote:I think it must be, Tony - and as for sticking it on the internet, I've never heard of anyone doing something, so, well, undignified and unBritish before...

I have forced myself to reread Bennett's waffle about the matter.

MCCANNS

Application for committtal to prison

At 6.20pm the same day (Thursday), a process server employed by Carter-Ruck came up to Chippingfield in a ‘Godfather’-style limousine, driven by another person, and handed me a large and heavy cardboard box, measuring 16" x 14" x 12" (40cm x 35cm x 30cm for those who do metric), containing 5 huge ring binders of statements on behalf of the McCanns, and accompanying evidence. These contained over 3,000 pages in total, mostly photocopies of my articles on the Madeleine Foundation website and several dozen postings on Jill Havern’s site. 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.

There was also a summons to attend the Royal Courts of Justice to be committed to prison for contempt of court (alternative remedies being a suspended prison sentence, a fine, or seizure of assets, or any combination of these). The case has been listed for a hearing before a judge on Wednesday 8 February. The summons alleges a wholesale breach of one of the four undertakings I gave to the High Court on 25 November 2009, namely not to libel the McCanns.

I intend to defend the McCanns’ application. Arguably, as I have already been advised by one local lawyer, the undertaking I gave in 2009 was too ‘sweeping’ and should either be modified or even withdrawn, given that it amounts virtually to an undertaking to say nothing about the case ever again. The lawyer also suggested it was given under oppressive circumstances, a matter I have already raised under Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights with the European Commission on Human Rights, which is currently looking into my claim that the way British laws allows wealthy libel litigants to get their way over defendants who cannot hope to match their financial and legal resources amounts to a breach of human rights. The government has promised to rectify this manifestly unjust situation as a result of a successful campaign by the Libel Reform Campaign.

Included amongst the papers is an 84-paragraph, 27-page affidavit sworn by Senior Partner at Carter-Ruck, Isabel Hudson. I can reproduce parts of that affidavit, but not those parts that include extracts of my disputed articles and postings. We’ll therefore display a redacted version of it on our website.

In Paragraph 58 of her affidavit, Ms Hudson states that a letter sent by myself to Carter-Ruck on 8 June 2011 prompted the McCanns to say “enough is enough”. The McCanns and Carter-Ruck then began what Ms Hudson says in Paragraph 65 was “a painstaking and time-consuming process” of analysing as many postings of mine as they could find on Jillhavern’s forum, to see how many might be construed as libellous. They think that around 50-60 of my 3,700 posts on the forum might breach my undertaking, while the other 3,640-3,650 apparently do not. That explains why, as the forum-owner will confirm, Carter-Ruck have spent literally hundreds of hours on this forum in the past few months, searching for potentially libellous comments, in order to bolster their application to commit me to prison. The forum-owner’s logs record the precise time and length of each visit by Carter-Ruck.

So, in order to show he is not in contempt of court, Bennett has, only today, put more rubbish about the McCann case on the internet, and posted his document.

That should help him a lot.....

So he has already been found guilty of contempt....HoHum!

I can't see proof of him having been found guilty but I can see strong signs of him lying about what the McCanns are trying to do to him. It seems incredibly generous of them to be only demanding a suspended sentence as that document shows them to be doing.

I am totally lost; I read



as he HAS been found guilty, and February is the penalty phase?

I can't even get a grip on what order this has all happened in.

bb1 wrote:I am totally lost; I read



as he HAS been found guilty, and February is the penalty phase?

I can't even get a grip on what order this has all happened in.

I can't either Bonny.
I am wondering if he has altered any of it to suit.
Where's Sans or Anna, they would know better?

Yes it looks like a draft ready to be filled in in February. When it is signed and filled in then the wording will be right.

But there is NO demand from the McCanns for him to go to prison. Just a suspended sentence.

It says his Counsel or Solicitor was there.

But Judges generally take their time when deciding on Sentence. Hence February.

But what is his point? He is in Contempt of Court. He didn't think he was going to get off scott free, did he?

greenink211 wrote:Yes it looks like a draft ready to be filled in in February. When it is signed and filled in then the wording will be right.

But there is NO demand from the McCanns for him to go to prison. Just a suspended sentence.

It is this part of the document that confuses. It is dated 2011 saying it has been dealt with.

An error maybe. Draft document drawn up in 2011 and that date used. Same error on signature line at end of document. It clearly says it is a draft order not a real one.

Also it very clearly says that there is no demand on the part of the McCanns for a jail sentence, only a suspended one. Is Bennett trying to avoid saying how generous that sounds?

I know, Tony - I am lost.

It seems to read:

That at some point, presumably recently, the contempt of court was proven.

In February, the court moves to the penalty phase.

The McCanns are NOT seeking to have Bennett imprisoned; they just want him to SHUT UP.

But-

Bennett proposes to argue that he is not in contempt in February?

I am totally baffled as to just what has happened, beyond, sticking it on the internet to get sympathy is the act of a cad and a bounder!

It clearly says it is a draft order not a real one.

Aha! The mists start to clear! Bennett is at it again?

The McCanns are NOT seeking to have Bennett imprisoned; they just want him to SHUT UP.
You mean he isn't going to prison?
Bent Nose Bert is going to be so disappointed

I suspect the draft order was drawn up by CR not Bennett because surely he would have drawn one up that would have shown the McCanns are seeking to have him put in prison or the other options. But you can never be sure.

Anyone know yet what was erased below the 'draft////order'?

Standard wording. and it IS a draft. The court can apply a range of sanctions. Ranging from prison to fines. In this case, prison, suspended while he behaves himself. Or a fine.

Whatever will make him stick to the undertaking he gave.

Bennett is a sneaky little creep.