Bennett's Turned Up

This has appeared on his forum; it's marginally less tedious than usual, so I'll post it.

No-one will be surprised to learn that Bennett thinks his problems are everyone's fault except his own.

MCCANNS v BENNETT - The committal to prison trial will take place for 1 or 2 days, sometime in April or later
Tony Bennett Today at 11:20 pm

As a result of a letter from Carter-Ruck dated 13 January and received by me on Friday after I returned from a short holiday, I can now confirm that the ‘Committal Hearing’ where the McCanns are seeking to have me committed to prison, fined, or have my assets seized (and all three are possible in a serious contempt case) will not now take place on 8 February.

The McCanns asked for the date of 8 February to be used for a Directions/Procedure hearing called a ‘Case Management Hearing’, to which I agreed as I need a lot more time to prepare my defence.

Mr James Tipp, Deputy Court Manager and Court Co-ordinator, has agreed and in an e-mail to Carter-Ruck also dated 13 January, he wrote:

“The committal hearing on the 8th February 2012 will now be listed for a two hour directions hearing as requested [by Carter-Ruck]”.

THE DRAFT ORDER

Carter-Ruck have drafted the Order they would like the Court to grant. It provides as follows:


I must file my reply no later than 4pm on 22 February
The McCanns to have a chance to reply by 21 March
The McCanns’ committal-to-prison application be heard after 10 April
The trial to be fixed for either 1 or 2 days
‘Costs in the case’.

I am likely to seek to change those proposed directions, if only to seek a great deal more time to prepare my defence. The McCanns on their own admission began together with Carter-Ruck to prepare their Committal application back in June. They served it to me, unannounced, six months later, by two men in a limousine on 1 December, in a box containing five thick Lever Arch files and 2,000 pages of argument and evidence.

LEGAL ADVICE AND COSTS

For the record, I have taken the advice of a local Solicitor who advised that the terms of the undertaking I was forced to give in November 2009 were unusually wide and there were good grounds for them at least to be varied.

He did advise that I should be legally represented if at all possible, but after making enquiries via solicitors and the Legal Services Commission who run the Legal Aid scheme, no Legal Aid is possible to anyone who has savings over £8,000, which I have. He then quoted me figures for advising and said that in view of the many complexities and unusual features of this case, he would need to seek a written Opinion from an experienced barrister. Because of the sheer amount of material which the McCanns have placed before the court, and the need for both the solicitor and barrister to read and consider all the documentation, plus look up and apply all relevant law and case precedent, the cost of being advised alone would run to a 5-figure sum.

My solicitor is not one of the very few solicitors who has what are called ‘rights of audience’ in the Royal Courts of Justice, which means that if I wish to be represented in court, this would mean I would again have to hire a barrister. Again, I have been advised that if you include court attendance on say 3 days of both barrister and solicitor and possibly solicitor’s clerk myself, and dealing with all the preparation of the case, correspondence with the court and Carter-Ruck, preparing Witness Statements, Skeleton Arguments of the case and so on and so forth, the whole bill for legal representation alone would cost potentially tens of thousands of pounds, money I just haven’t got.

I therefore have to struggle on, on my own and unaided, on what feels like a very unequal contest indeed.

The main bone of contention for the McCanns is the opinions I have given on this very forum and on the Madeleine Foundation website.

They accept that I have adhered strictly to the undertakings I gave (1) to close our former website, (2) not to sell or distribute the ‘60 Reasons’ booklet and (3) not to sell or distribute the ‘10 Reasons’ leaflet, the only exception to that being the sale of a book to a photojournalist, Mike Gunnill, who under the name of Michael Sangerte insisted that he needed a physical copy of the book ‘for the purposes of historical research’ - after I had initially refused to sell him a book.

THE HEARING ON 8 FEBRUARY - WILL I BE ENTIRELY ON MY OWN?

I have asked via a unit called the Masters Support Unit at the High Court if the hearing on 8 February will be in open court or in chambers, and have also asked if I could bring a relative or a friend to take notes at the hearing. I got a very short note back saying that all the answers are in a book called ‘Civil Court Practice’, otherwise known as the ‘White Book’, which I could buy from a legal bookshop. Even to get that answer took four e-mails dated 23 and 30 December and 5 and 20 January. I am still trying to find out if anyone is allowed to accompany me to the hearing.

CARTER-RUCK's COSTS

I have raised the question of costs with Carter-Ruck, given the following statement by Dr Kate McCann in her book, ‘madeleine’. On page 287 of that book, she wrote: “Adam Tudor and his colleague Isabel Hudson continue to do a vast amount of work for us, without payment, most of it quietly, behind the scenes”.

Not so in my case, it seems. By way of response, Carter-Ruck have clarified the position so far as claiming costs against me is concerned. This is what they have said:

“In relation to your queries about our clients’ costs, we entered into as fee-paying retainer with our clients in relation to this Contempt of Court application. As previously indicated ,our clients intend (as they are entitled) to seek an Order for the repayment of their costs by you in the event that their application is successful”.

I think I have previously indicated that the McCanns claim I have breached the undertaking I gave the High Court in November 2009 in 149 instances, once by selling a book to Mike Gunnill, and on 148 other occasions by words I have used in postings, articles and leaflets published between January 2010 and August 2011.

SURPRISING CLAIMS OF LIBEL

There are not a few surprising claims of alleged libel.

Alleged breach of undertaking number 148 is described as ‘The 48 Questions video recording created by and featuring the Defendant”. When this was brought to our attention by Carter-Ruck in August, we decided to voluntarily remove that video from YouTube, despite the fact that we could not see how a mere recital of those 48 questions could possibly constitute libel when they consist of a list of questions made public by the Portuguese Police, and are still available to read on the BBC website, and have been published in numerous British and Portuguese newspapers and elsewhere on the internet.

Alleged breach of undertaking number 2 is described as “The Madeleine McCann Case Files, Volume 1, booklet published by the Defendant”. Once again, seeing that this is merely a compilation of a selection of documents made public three years ago by the Portuguese Police, it is hard to see where the libel lies in reproducing them. Furthermore, Carter-Ruck do not specify what parts of that book are said to be libellous. For example, is it possible to view Inspector Tavares de Almedia’s interim report containing the police team’s assessment of what may have happened to Madeleine McCann as ‘libellous’?

I should add here that “The Madeleine McCann Case Files, Volume 1”, was first published by us in late January 2010. The McCanns have made no objection to the publication of this booklet during their occasional correspondence with me during 2010 and 2011 and I confess I was hugely surprised to find that they regarded this as libellous. In their recent letter of 13 January 2012, they say:

“You are continuing to publish some of the publications complained of in our clients’ application against you for Contempt of Court - most notably, by continuing to offer the booklet “The Madeleine McCann Case Files Volume 1’ for sale via your website”.

We honestly cannot see on what grounds the reproduction of e.g. the 48 questions, the interim report of Inspector Tavares de Almeida, the evidence of Martin Grime, the Gaspar statements and excerpts from the lengthy ramblings of Jane Tanner can constitute either libel or a breach of my undertaking.

Therefore our 108-page book remains for sale on our website, price £4 including postage; now may be your last chance to get a copy to give to your relatives, friends an acquaintances before it is banned, like 60 Reasons and 10 Reasons.

A BATTLE - PICKED

On page 290 of ‘madeleine’, Dr Kate McCann writes this:

“We have taken action against one or two websites, but it has proved almost impossible to get this stuff removed from some of them, particularly those hosted in the USA. Friends flag up some of the worst offenders for us, but in the end it comes down to picking your battles”.

Well, I have been well and truly ‘picked’.

I don’t mean this in any way unkindly, but for those of you who can type away your opinions on what really happened to Madeleine McCann without fear of inviting a libel action, think yourselves fortunate. It’s a freedom that might be curtailed later, if I lose this battle and if Lord Leveson has anything to do with changing press freedoms and internet law.

Finally, thanks so much to all of you who say kind things about my stand. They may not stop me going to prison, paying a heavy fine, or losing all my savings and my home, but I assure you they are a solace and a comfort at a time of stress, and I appreciate each and every one of them.

===========

Clearly, it hasn't occurred to him to simply STOP DOING IT, as he couldn't even post that without snide remarks.

I am likely to seek to change those proposed directions, if only to seek a great deal more time to prepare my defence.

Been taking lessons in wriggling out of court dates from Gonc, has he?

He, and he alone, decided he would write contemptuous lies about the McCanns.
He, was given a chance to cease and desist and signed documentation conceding to do so. He lied, and for this he must pay. So, he can shut the hell up! Whining old fool!

This is just typical of the forkers though, Tony. Bennett is the aggressor, but he playing the victim.

The situation is all his own fault; he isn't even stopping it now, he thinks it's big and clever to make allegations and snide remarks in his argument with CR.

Well, the cost of his grandstanding will be coming out of his own pocket.

bb1 wrote:This is just typical of the forkers though, Tony. Bennett is the aggressor, but he playing the victim.

The situation is all his own fault; he isn't even stopping it now, he thinks it's big and clever to make allegations and snide remarks in his argument with CR.

Well, the cost of his grandstanding will be coming out of his own pocket.

He was given so many chances, and he blew them all. I have no sympathy for him.

those of you who can type away your opinions on what really happened to Madeleine McCann

...why don't you just STFU and butt out? How would the forkers like forums being dedicated to nothing but abusing them and their families? Yet they think they have a right to do it to the McCanns and other?

And he is, as usual, twisting:

where the McCanns are seeking to have me committed to prison

No they aren't; Bennett breached his solemn word to the High Court - and no-one is trying to imprison him. I would have thought even they could grasp the meaning of 'suspended sentence'.

I don't have any sympathy for him either, Tony. He's brought all this on himself, he was given chance after chance, and just ignored everything, including the law of the land.

bb1 wrote:those of you who can type away your opinions on what really happened to Madeleine McCann

...why don't you just STFU and butt out? How would the forkers like forums being dedicated to nothing but abusing them and their families? Yet they think they have a right to do it to the McCanns and other?

And he is, as usual, twisting:

where the McCanns are seeking to have me committed to prison

No they aren't; Bennett breached his solemn word to the High Court - and no-one is trying to imprison him. I would have thought even they could grasp the meaning of 'suspended sentence'.

I don't have any sympathy for him either, Tony. He's brought all this on himself, he was given chance after chance, and just ignored everything, including the law of the land.

You know what, I admire the McCanns for their patience. I would have had him locked up the very moment he breached the court order!

Same here, Tony - why should anyone have to put up with behaviour like this? And I don't see the judge being too impressed with his ramblings, evasions and diversions.

bb1 wrote:Same here, Tony - why should anyone have to put up with behaviour like this? And I don't see the judge being too impressed with his ramblings, evasions and diversions.

He said a solicitor told him the initial order was too sweeping. I thought Bennett himself had been a solicitor? Must have been a pretty damned poor one if he couldn't understand what he was signing. He, if he is wise, should shut the hell up. Doesn't he realize, legal folks can read too?

You must admit, Tony, Bennett and Gonc are a well-matched pair, both full of hot air and bombast when they're playing to the gallery.

But when they are finally called to account for their actions, they suddenly get cold feet and start blaming everyone else for their troubles.

Yes, well, as you say Bonny, they sowed the wind, now let them reap the whirlwind.

No point in his wasting loads of money on barristers. Even with a team of them, I couldn't see the end result being any different. Save a little for the missuses old age



No she didn't Tone! Tell the truth now

Because of the sheer amount of material which the McCanns have placed before the court....

Which is but a drop in the ocean compared to the yards of meaningless guff which we can expect Bennett to try to introduce......

That is without doubt doubt Anna. And the court will be able to cut through it all.
Bennett does not seem to realise that this is not about libel per se, and that seeking to justify his contempt by using a libel defense will not work. The McCanns have made a complaint about his breaking the undertaking he gave a couple of years ago. Arguing now that the terms were too wide will not help - he did not seek to have the original undertaking set aside and therefore it stands. Has he breached it? There is really no doubt that he has - simply reading his posts on Haverns is evidence enough.

It will be up to the court to decide on the remedy - whatever will make him stop breaching the undertaking. The court may well decide that imprisonment would allow him to play the martyr while a progressive fine may be force enough.

A good point was made above - Bennett could simply stop. By what right does he claim to be able to accuse the McCanns of committing various crimes? It will certainly be interesting in April.

I really thought he had come to his senses by keeping his head down for the last few weeks. This would have helped if he had continued to do so. But No, he has to play the martyr which will no doubt engender a load more Libellous posts from his buddies. He drops himself in the shit every time he opens his mouth.

If he just said sorry and kept his mouth shut he would probably get off quite lightly. But then anyone who can't see that The 48 Questions Video was Libellous is a dead duck.

By what right does he claim to be able to accuse the McCanns of committing various crimes?
-----------

Exactly, sans. Have you seen how those freaks on Bennett's forum are entertaining themselves just now? They are enjoying making up sicko stories about Madeleine having been kept, alive and drugged, in Robert Murat's supposed 'secret cellar' in the days leading up to the 3rd. With her parents' full knowledge and consent, naturally.

They are bl**dy disgusting, the lot of them, and they must have minds like maggots that they can invent this sh*t for their own delight.

But they seem to think they have some Godgiven right to do this to people. Then whine like Bennett if anyone dares call them to account for their foul behaviour.

How would they like it if someone did it to them? If they were the targets of filth like this? Or would that be different - there does seem to be one law for them and another for everyone else.

I therefore have to struggle on, on my own and unaided, on what feels like a very unequal contest indeed.

Who the f*ck does Bennett think he is?

He and the rest of the nutjobs launched this hate campaign; he's kept it up despite being given chance after chance by his victims - and he is even doing it in his whinge about how hard-done-by he is.

HE HAS NO RIGHT TO DO ANY OF IT.

He broke the undertaking he freely signed; this is entirely his own fault, no-one else's, and LYING in the whinge doesn't help his cause any.

Does he really think that he and his internet lynch mob are above the law?

Let us not forget Bennett's most recent incarnation:



following these blatant lies from him:





Where's the apology for those LIES, then?

Oh, why bother - Bennett even LIED in the course of last night's tale of woe; what else can you expect from someone who breaks their solemn vow to the High Court?

Hounder:

Tony, you know as always that I support you. I am shocked to see that you cannot have legal support though when the people you are fighting are using such as they are, though financed by the money donated for the search of their daughter according to them.

Is anyone going to follow this story in the press? And I don't mean just local papers but national ones. Is there anything at all that I / we can do to help you?

Excuse me? Why the Hell should the taxpayer have to stump up for this? Can't they read?

no Legal Aid is possible to anyone who has savings over £8,000, which I have.

He can put his hands in his pocket and pay his own legal bills, instead of thinking he can sponge off the State. I shudder to think how much taxpayers' money has been wasted on his vexatious, stupid letters to the police, the Home Office, and others.

Oh, I very much hope this is ALL OVER THE TABLOIDS; it's about time the rest of the world got to see the freaks who get their jollies from hounding the parents of a missing child.

" Is there anything at all that I / we can do to help you?"

Yes. Underwrite cost of a lawyer......

This bears careful reading, sans:


For the record, I have taken the advice of a local Solicitor who advised that the terms of the undertaking I was forced to give in November 2009 were unusually wide and there were good grounds for them at least to be varied.

He did advise that I should be legally represented if at all possible, but after making enquiries via solicitors and the Legal Services Commission who run the Legal Aid scheme, no Legal Aid is possible to anyone who has savings over £8,000, which I have. He then quoted me figures for advising and said that in view of the many complexities and unusual features of this case, he would need to seek a written Opinion from an experienced barrister. Because of the sheer amount of material which the McCanns have placed before the court, and the need for both the solicitor and barrister to read and consider all the documentation, plus look up and apply all relevant law and case precedent, the cost of being advised alone would run to a 5-figure sum.

My solicitor is not one of the very few solicitors who has what are called ‘rights of audience’ in the Royal Courts of Justice, which means that if I wish to be represented in court, this would mean I would again have to hire a barrister

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

Interesting, is it not, that this 'solicitor' won't touch it with a bargepole; and it is scarcely surprising Bennett has been told to seek advice from Counsel.

And why is he whining about the volume of material? It's all his own words, being dumped back on him.

He generated the material, no-one else.

Anyway, I am sure that Counsel will simply give him the same advice as people here and elsewhere are.

1. STFU

2. Apologise - indeed, grovel if need be.

3. Make a VERY hefty donation to the Find Madeleine fund.

4. Close down your sites.

5. Use your energy on something useful, like cleaning up rubbish in Harlow.

6. Never, ever, mention Madeleine or the McCanns again.

7. Never, ever, again, start stalking and harrassing ANYONE.

He might just manage to wriggle out of this with the only damage being to his savings account - and isn't he lucky to have one of those these days!

Scrub all that ^^^^^^. He's Friar Tucked. Emboldened by getting his ego stroked by the Hounders, Bennett has just posted this:


Re: MCCANNS v BENNETT - The committal to prison trial will take place for 1 or 2 days, sometime in April or later
Tony Bennett Today at 12:09 pm

Nina wrote:
Tony, you know as always that I support you. I am shocked to see that you cannot have legal support though when the people you are fighting are using such as they are, though financed by the money donated for the search of their daughter according to them.

Is anyone going to follow this story in the press? And I don't mean just local papers but national ones. Is there anything at all that I / we can do to help you?

Yes, much is made these days of achieving 'equality of arms' in legal contests in the U.K., but in libel cases this is rather a sick joke.

In terms of firepower and resources, it is a bit like a bloke with a sling or a bow and arrow up against a bloke with a nuclear arsenal at his disposal.

Mind you, the case histories of William Tell and David provide a measure of encouragement...ironically it was the death of King David's child by Bathsheba that got Dr Kate McCann reading one section of her Bible very avidly, in 2 Samuel Chap 12 vv 14-24, well worth a read if you've got a dust-laden Bible on your shelves. Shortly after, they had another child. Solomon. So it wasn't all bad news.

As for what you and others can do, Nina, thanks very much for asking, I would suggest:

* keep digging,

* publicise all relevant facts about the case,

* support Goncalo Amaral's support fund and, if possible,

* come and support me by being at the trial, it will be great to be among a few friends when I go down - or stay up.

Oh, and if you haven't already done so, please sign the petition calling for a full public enquiry into all aspects of the disappearance of Madeleine McCann; our support for this petition is listed as 'Breach of Undertaking No. 89' on the Carter-Ruck list of my 149 alleged breaches of my undertaking; to sign, click on the Care2 icon on our home page: www.bennettisbonkers.org.uk

As the petition itself is listed as a possible breach of my undertaking, there is a real risk that the court, after the trial, might order its removal.

-----------

Words fail me.

It seems to have escaped Bennett that HE is the bully and the bad guy, and GONC is the tyrannical thug.

bb1 wrote:I therefore have to struggle on, on my own and unaided, on what feels like a very unequal contest indeed.

Who the f*ck does Bennett think he is?

What a shame

But

Who the f*ck cares?.
I find his moaning hilarious. Everything is self inflicted, serves the perv right.
No doubt 1 or 2 of the numpty's will cough up

Rights of audience:

In English law, a right of audience is a right to appear and conduct proceedings in court.

Traditionally, only barristers had rights of audience and, as of 2008, they still enjoy rights of audience in every court in England and Wales. However, rights of audience are now granted to a wider class of persons and are governed by the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990, s.27, as amended by the Access to Justice Act 1999, ss.36-39. The 1999 Act removed earlier restrictions on employed lawyers, such as counsel for corporations, exercising rights of audience (ss.37-38)

Courts and Legal Services Act 1990
The following have rights of audience:
Rights granted by authorised bodies:
Bar Council, grants rights to all barristers in all courts (ss.27(9)(a), 31);
Law Society of England and Wales, grants rights to solicitors but require specific additional qualifications to appear in the higher courts (ss.27(9)(b), 31);

Well, that last comment sure tells us how qualified a solicitor bent tit is, doesn't it? Bottom of the heap and so must be this legal nonentity he was blathering about earlier. And NO barrister is going to take this on; contempt of court is a very serious matter, especially when it is so blatant and continuous. To be involved would mark any barrister's card negatively. And now he has admitted he has money he'll never get pro bono. If found guilty, there will be no financial gain for anyone representing him as his assets will no doubt be seized and forfeit to the court. LL

come and support me by being at the trial, it will be great to be among a few friends when I go down - or stay up.

I hope they do just that; I hope a bunch of the freaks go and disrupt the court - you know what they are like, they will act as if it's their home cesspit and start asking the judge how much 'Team McCann' is paying him, and demanding that witnesses be banned.

These creatures are incapable of behaving in a normal, civilised fashion; they are bound to cause disruption in court like a bunch of homeys cheering on a solja.