Bennett's Turned Up

bb1 wrote:It's an absolute piece of nonsense, Tony - and Bennett must know he hasn't a snowball's in Hell chance, or he would happily pay the bill for his own defence.

That he won't, says all that is needed about his case.

What I don't get, he is supposed to be a qualified solicitor. Surely he knows something about the law?

Same old same old, Tony. One Law for him and another Law for other people. And he never was any good at it anyway. That's why he no longer has a Licence.

He and the other wannabe lawyer 'Dr' Goncalol make a perfect couple...of fakes.

And a new day brings more desperate straw-clutching from the hounders-

The last thing the mccanns would want is press interests during the trial. No reasons why the press cant be invited.
Also if TB's supporters were to hold a protest by marching outside Court against the mccanns' suppression of free speech it would bring them unwanted attention. Placards display would be useful " gerry believes in free speech he told the Leveson Inquiry "

Really? Even headlines like, VILE SICKO STALKER IN COURT?

And a demonstration by a bunch of lunatics outside the High Court would be absolutely perfect - with any luck, they would be arrested for harrassment and obstruction.

There are, predictably, nasty remarks like:

The saddest thing is all this time and effort being put into legal libel cases.

What a shame these people can't put their time and effort into finding out where or what happened to that little girl.

That, coming from the very people who keep trying to meddle with the Scotland Yard review, takes the biscuit for hypocrisy...and as for:

Thats because there isn't anything to find out, they know what happened

No, they don't, actually, which is why the world regards you lot as nutcases and an internet lynch mob.

They do keep coming up with these marvellous ideas like marching on Downing Street and blockading The Law Courts, but they never seem to actually do any of them. This is really boring. I want to see who they are so we can play Who's Who.

Oh, in the name - Head Hounder himself posted a late night whinge:

Again, I thank all those who've stopped by to wish me well.

Apart from Committee members and trusted supporters who've already been helping me compile a defence document, I have had two new serious offers of help, so that's encouraging.

Not sure if I can say this, but I will anyway, surely if the abduction of Madeleine were proven, self-evident, if there was really no doubt at all about it, then anyone who disagreed would truly be regarded as lunatic and beyond the fringe and could safely be totally ignored? - instead of which we get these titanic struggles against Amaral and latterly myself, with massive resources and legal firepower being pulled in and libel letters being sent all over the place -and even all those prodigious efforts have hardly resulted in scepticism about the abduction claim lessening.

I have really made an effort not to make any direct accusations against the McCanns over the past 2 years - even Dr Kate McCann half acknowledged this on page 312 of her book - yet in 50 postings on this forum I am accused of having transgressed a line, not it appears in the remaining 3,750 postings though.

For example, I did of course in my affidavit undertake, quote: "not to repeat allegations that the Claimants are guilty of, or are to be suspected of...lying about what happened..." Does that mean, for example, that neither I nor anyone else can discuss an obvious, flat contradiction between the witness statements of two of the material witnesses to an event?

Is it libellous, for example, to repeat the details of Inspector Tavares de Almedia's interim report of 10 September? - something we did a full two years ago now in 'The Madeleine McCann Case Files - Volume 1', yet by letter of 1 December 2011 has now become an alleged breach of undertaking?

The Court will have to make a ruling on each of the 149 alleged separate breaches of the undertaking. At that rate, even 2 days may be too short a time for all the evidence and submissions to be made.

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

FFS - I would have thought it WAS self-evident by now that Madeleine McCann was abducted. If it wasn't, then they would not have to invent lurid, gruesome 'theories' involving clones, masons, medical experiments and secret basements.

No-one gives a flying one if they sit in their cesspits churning out conspiraloon trash. No-one cares what Chucky and her ilk think of anything.

But Bennett has taken his vendetta to the McCanns' home. He has made up disgusting filth about supporters of the McCanns and spread his obscene lies all over the internet.

He tried to get the twins taken away from their parents; he tried to get Gerry McCann sacked.

He stalked Gerry McCann all the way to Parliament and boasted about it. He has wasted tens of thousands of pounds of taxpayers' money with his endless interference in police matters.

He and the hounders pranced about on the steps of Downing Street as part of their insane vendetta.

He has, in short, conducted an incessant hate campaign against the McCanns and anyone who supports them, in real life in the real world.

He promised, on oath, to stop it. He broke his oath.

And he needn't try to claim 'free speech' for himself when he seeks to deny it to others.

His Free Speach is the speech of the Nazi thug silencing the democrat- it is nothing but Hate Speech.

Isn't that post Libellous? He ain't half asking for it.

I know, Sabot, it's ridiculous. He seems to suffer from some strange mental condition, which not only allows him to delude himself, but also to compulsively LIE:

I have really made an effort not to make any direct accusations against the McCanns over the past 2 years

What - the Devil made him do it? That whole site is nothing BUT direct accusations against the McCanns.

Sticking, JMHO! on some piece of filth doesn't work.

They are currently enjoying discussing pervy fantasies about Madeleine being hidden, alive and drugged, in Murat's secret basement - with her parents' agreement.

Now, what does it say about them that they can invent 'theories' like that? Nothing good, that's for sure.

Can you imagine what the media is going to do to people who enjoy discussing 'theories' like that - I am sure a suitable description will be found for them.

I don't know, Bonny. I despair sometimes. They know that they are lying and making things up, so they must be sick in the head. God knows what they get out of doing this. It isn't as though anyone actually believes them, so they are just talking to themselves. What a way to spend a life. Living in a Cess Pit and sick with hatred.

They know that they are lying and making things up, so they must be sick in the head.

I've little doubt of that, Sabot - look at that lunatic Textusa, churning out whackjob delusions and faking all those replies so it can pretend people actually pay attention to its gibbers.

I don't know about anyone else, but I am increasingly bored with their rubbish about blankets, bags and all the rest of it. If they can't be ar@ed actually reading the files and seeing the truth for themselves, well, who cares?

They can't make their lies, gibbers and delusions be true, no matter how they try, so they don't really matter.

BUT - the likes of Bennett and Gonc are a very different matter. Those two are conducting a vendetta; they are deliberately spreading LIES and trying to thwart efforts to find Madeleine McCann.

You have to wonder why, especially in Gonc's case - what's he trying to hide?

Perhaps the pair of them could share the same padded cell for the rest of their days.

Lord save us, he's whinged again:

The hearing on 8 February
Tony Bennett Today at 12:42 pm

Once again, many thanks for the kind messages.

For those enquiring about the location and timing of the hearing on Wednesday 8 February, it will certainly be at the Royal Courts of Justice at The Strand, but the time of hearing, the Court or Room number where the hearing will be held etc., are not yet known to me.

Yesterday however I did get this reply from Mr James Tipp, Deputy Court Manager:

With regards to the court number, name of Judge and starting time, this will all be confirmed after 2 o'clock on the 7th February 2012. You can obtain this information by ringing our office. alternatively, our list will be published on our website and can be obtained from the following link:

http://www.justice.gov.uk/guidance/courts-and-tribunals/courts/hearing-lists/list-queens-bench.htm

Unfortunately, he didn't give me the 'phone number nor the title of his office, so I've written back asking for that information so that I know what number to ring. I won't know the exact venue and time until some time in the afternoon on 7 February therefore. If anyone is making their own enquiries that afternoon as to the time and venue, the case will be listed as:

Gerry McCann and Kate McCann -v- Tony Bennett, Court Claim number HQ 09 D 05196

So far acting as un unrepresented litigant in the High Court has been a dispiriting experience and extracting information that I need from staff there is worse trhan extracting blood from a stone.

For example, I have written 5 times to the Masters Support Unit and to the Deputy Court Manager Mr Tipp asking these important questions:

1. Will the hearing be in open court or in chambers?

2. Am I allowed to have someone with me at the hearing to take notes?

These e-mails were sent on:

23 December
30 December
5 January
20 January and
23 January.

Both questions remain completely unanswered.

An unrepresented litigant should at the very least be able to get prompt answers to reasonable questions.
That's not my experience in the Smethurst and McCann litigation thus far.

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

So, what's stopping him putting his hand in his pocket and paying for a proper lawyer then?

And no, the courts don't owe him any special favors - this is the real world, not some makey-uppy 'court of public opinion' on a hate site.

An unrepresented litigant should at the very least be able to get prompt answers to reasonable questions.

Why? Why does he think he is entitled to special treatment? He started all this; he needn't bother whining now. He wants to remember:

THE COURTS OWE HIM NOTHING, HE HAS NO ENTITLEMENT TO SPECIAL TREATMENT

and more importantly

THE REASON HE CAN'T GET LEGAL AID IS THAT HE HAS TOO MUCH MONEY

If he won't pay for a brief, well, that's his lookout.

UNREPRESENTED LITIGANT.

Are we supposed to feel sorry for him? He has got at least £100,000 in savings. I have added £10,000 to his original £90.000 because he must have earned that much in interest during the last three years. And that's for doing NOTHING. Except Stalking, of course, but that didn't cost him anything because his supporters always end up paying his expenses.
So if he chooses to be unrepresented, that's his look out, unless his supporters pay again, which no doubt some of the pillocks will.

And just exactly what does he think Kate and Gerry would have done if a benefactor hadn't stepped in?

I don't understand his whining. He knew it was coming so why is he carrying on like and idiot?
He has been defaming the McCanns for four years. In 2009 he signed an undertaking for the courts saying he would stop. It is now 2012 and he continues to libel the parents.
He, has said the original document he signed was too sweeping but he never challenged it for two years. His attempt to use ignorance for this is laughable considering he has had a license to work in the legal field.
It is time he took responsibility for his actions and stopped whining like a baby who has lost its favorite blanket.
In other words, grow up Bennett, your childhood is over!

I simply cannot be bothered with his whining about his self-inflicted injuries, Tony.

What, did he think he could carry on this harrassment and abuse forever, and no-one was ever going to say, Enough's enough!

It's disgusting, bullying and dishonorable. He was given chance after chance, and kept on sticking two fingers up to the law.

For crying out loud, BENNETT BROKE A SOLEMN VOW TO HM THE QUEEN AS REPRESENTED BY THE HIGH COURT OF ENGLAND AND WALES.

It doesn't come much more dishonorable than that.

He has more than enough money to pay for his own defence, but won't. I suspect that is because he knows he is totally, completely, and utterly in the wrong.

Never mind, Debs seems to be back onside again. I am sure that will cheer Bennett up

A reminder of the kind of press coverage Bennett can look forward to...







Can't wait, me

A couple of points, which may have been overlooked.

If he loses, then Bennett will be liable for the McCanns costs. And even Bennett thinks he will lose. Arguing that he only libelled the McCanns in 50 out of 3750 posts will not really cut much ice with the court.

In asking for the court time on the 8th February 2012 to be used for a case management hearing (usually held in front of a judge sitting in chambers), they are seeking to minimise the costs. At this conference, the general direction of the case will be set, and the relative strength and weakness of the plaintiff and defendants case will be considered. In my experience judges are pretty good at assessing which cases have sufficient doubt that they should go to full trial. And those which do not.....

In requesting this date to be used for a hearing, CR are clearly pretty confident of their ground.

The second point is in relation to their "retaining" Carter Ruck. Assuming they win, costs will be lower than they would be under the "no win, no fee" basis - when Bennetts liability for the McCanns costs would be just under double.

It should be clear that the McCanns are bending over backwards to stop Bennett with minimum damage to him.

If they were minded to take him to the cleaners, well.......

That's the whole point, he would have gone on and on. He would have stalked them around their very house, followed them where ever they went. He was already getting worse by the week before he signed the Undertaking, but even that didn't stop him.
The same thing happened with Gonc. The pair of them were Bear Baiting to see how far they could go. In the end The McCanns were forced to do something.

Arguing that he only libelled the McCanns in 50 out of 3750 posts will not really cut much ice with the court.


Indeed; it's like Ted Bundy arguing that he met 100 women, but only killed 30 of them, so should get off.

Thanks for the post, sans. I don't think it has sunk in with the forkers - it isn't the McCanns who will be paying the cost of this.

It's Bennett.

Nice one, Tony!

http://thehoundingofthemccans.blogspot.com/2012/01/who-is-to-blame-for-bennetts-libel.html

Liking this:

So very true Tony

He must be about due to make another martyrpost, begging people to help him - we haven't had one since lunchtime

bb1 wrote:He must be about due to make another martyrpost, begging people to help him - we haven't had one since lunchtime

His fellow stalkers should put their hands in their pockets!

Even better, he could put his own hands in his pockets - if he didn't know he was on a hiding to nothing, Tony.

If he believes he is right and the McCanns are wrong; then he should have no fear in using his own money.