Bennett's Turned Up

bb1 wrote:She hasn't mentioned it, Sabot. If it's the real one, well, all I can say is, What a miracle!

She was on her last legs and numbering her days on the Mirror forum, anorexia wasn't it? Doomed she was. Done well for herself hasn't she?

He doesn't understand that he's not allowed to Libel people and break Court Undertakings, and other stuff like Stalking.
The Judge will have to speak to him in small writing without any big words. And then charge him big money for the lesson.

Lord spare us, he's churned out more rubbish - and he is trying to teach Carter Ruck law


Replies
Tony Bennett Today at 7:18 pm

Thanks all of you for your kind comments, here are the main points asking for a response and here are my replies:

David_uk wrote: Endlessly facinating yet disturbing! this whole affair. Mr Bennett, please may I ask if you have considered inviting the press to comment, take an interest or attend the court hearing?

REPLY: No. But one of our supporters, who I think doesn't post here, did (entirely on his own initiative) contact a legal journalist from one of the main TV media, who replied straightaway: "Yes, I'm happy to do what I can on this story. Do keep me in the picture as the hearing date approaches".

If I may make a comment on the media, I think they are unlikely to report on this case at all unless there is a very unusual outcome. The media wil ldecide for themselves whether this case is of sufficient interest to cover at all.

aiyoyo wrote:



IMHO, they are afraid of the verdict of their case against Amaral. A ruling against them will have a very significant impact on their litigations against TB. A verdict in Amaral's favour means TB can cite the ruling to his advantage. No sane UK judge will disregard another court's ruling completely, even if it is the ruling of a foreign country jurisdiction - because all jurisdictions are based on principles of justice and truth.



REPLY: Actually, I have made this very point in correspondence with Carter-Ruck. Clearly it would be a legal nonsense now if Goncalo Amaral's book and documentary can be freely sold, read and discussed in one country covered by the European Convention on Human Rights (both Portugal and the U.K. are), yet people in another country are not allowed to see and discuss what he has written.



Indeed, on this basis I can disclose that I asked the McCanns for the final trial of the action in my case to be postponed until after the final trial on the McCanns -v- Amaral and TVi and Guerra e Paz matter. This met with a dusty answer from Carter-Ruck, namely:



"The Portuguese libel proceedings agaisnt Mr Amaral have no bearing on this case. You appear to be labouring under the misapprehension that because both the U.K. and Portugal are signatories of the European Convention on Human Rights, this means thatt he courts of England and wales are bound by Portuguese judgments in which the Convention has been considered. This is simply incorrect. Portuguese Court decisions provide neither binding nor even persuasive authorty in the English courts..."



Actually, that is rather a different point from the one I was making, namely that a U.K. court would be bound to consider a decision in the final trial of the McCanns' action against Amaral that his book was not libellous.



In fact, it was the decision of the Portuguese court in Lisbon to accede to the McCanns' request for an injunction on his book and on the documentary that was certainly a factor in the decision I had to take a few weeks later to concede to the McCanns' demands. I do believe that the lanscape chnaged after Amaral's October 2010 victory in the Portuguese Appeal Court, when the court lifted the ban on his book.





Miraflores wrote: I'd be interested to see if the UK press reports this. Assuming that it does get reported, however hard they spin it in the McCanns favour (which they will), there are bound to be people asking just why the McCanns are doing this and how it helps them find their daughter.

REPLY: This is actually explained by the McCanns in the Affidavit of Isabel Hudson in support of the contempt application. She explains: "On 8 June 2011 we received a lengthy letter from the Defendant, responding to our letter to the ISP of 'mccannexposure', which had apparently been passed to him...While the Claimants remained loath top dignify the Defendant's activities, the Defendant's response made clear that unless further action was taken against him, he was likely to libel the Claimants further and to continue to breach the undertakings he had given...the Claimants were especially concerned about the effect that this conduct may have on the ongoing search for their daughter" [Hudson Affidavit, paragraphs 56 and 57].

Miraflores wrote: I imagine that the McCanns are hoping that Tony will throw in the towel and be an easy victory for them.

REPLY: It is really too late now to 'throw in the towel'. I am compelled by the High Court to account for my actions and will endeavour to give full and careful reasons for my actions and my publications both in my Witness Statement and in open court.

Kololi wrote: If I have read it right, it is Mr Bennett who is likely to ask for the schedule to be altered so that he has time to prepare his defence. That reads to me as if he may ask for a longer time so it's not them asking - or have I misunderstood totally?



REPLY: The McCanns were given a date of 8 February for the full trial, but asked to change that into a Case Management Hearing, citing as their reason: 'To give Mr Bennett more time to prepare his defence'. When they wrote to me last week proposing a date of 22 February for me to submit my evidence, I decided to ask for more time and have now done so.



Pauline wrote: I think it is very important that tony has legal representation but I understand it will be expensive. So I suggest Tony puts up bank account details so that those of us who can make a donation to his costs do so. This is one positive thing we can all do; some may find £5 a struggle, others may be able to donate much more. Please don't settle out of court. That is what they want.



Jay 2001 wrote: Mrs M told Aled Jones that she could forgive the 'abductor', but she and the team have pursued TB and GA with ruthless zeal.



aiyoyo wrote: It is a breach against TB's right to freedom of free speech. Besides GM himself claimed he believes in free speech and people are free to purport theories.



Jay2001 wrote: Tony appealed for 'legal' type help and I hope that he gets it - there must be some brains out there who could help

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

May well be, but you won't find them hanging around with stalkers, forkers and haters, dear. And you all merrily insulted the one person who might just have been able to give Bennett neutral advice for free - Bennett did his usual and posted emails to entertain you all.

So, hard cheese, looks like you're on your own. Maybe Yoyo can help, if he can take his 'mind' off fortune-telling by chopstick for long enough.

This is a good bit:


Indeed, on this basis I can disclose that I asked the McCanns for the final trial of the action in my case to be postponed until after the final trial on the McCanns -v- Amaral and TVi and Guerra e Paz matter. This met with a dusty answer from Carter-Ruck, namely:



"The Portuguese libel proceedings agaisnt Mr Amaral have no bearing on this case. You appear to be labouring under the misapprehension that because both the U.K. and Portugal are signatories of the European Convention on Human Rights, this means thatt he courts of England and wales are bound by Portuguese judgments in which the Convention has been considered. This is simply incorrect. Portuguese Court decisions provide neither binding nor even persuasive authorty in the English courts..."

Quite; and isn't it interesting that he thought he could do a Gonc and get the trial postponed indefinitely? What happened to all that vainglorious boasting about wanting to face the McCanns in court?

Don't you just love it when their insults come back and bite them on the bum.

Sans knows what to do but he's not telling, and can you blame him?

Well, why should he, after that shoddy, childish business, Sabot? No, Bennett's on his own, bed, made, lie on.

Of course, he could always ask Smif 'Me' for the benefit of his advice, couldn't he? The hounders were all encouraging Bennett to listen to 'Me' a few weeks ago.

And look how well that's worked out!

So there they are, Amaral and Bennett, both back pedalling as fast as they can because they need more time. They couldn't even think of different reasons. They had to snitch off each other
How much more bloody time do they need? They have both had ages to get their acts together.
Even I couldn't have made this up.

See, this is the quality of the legal advice he can expect from the forkers. Myths noticed that one of the MM had tried to be 'helpful'....

I googled Directions Procedure Hearing and got this:

http://www.courts.sa.gov.au/community/going_to_court/civ_direct.html

[Last Updated 04/08/2010]

What is a directions hearing?.....etc, etc......

You would have thought the letters 'au' in the link would have been a bit of a hint as to why this advice is worse than useless, wouldn't you?

It comes from:




You couldn't make it up......

I have some advice for him. When he is erecting his new home, he must make sure the pegs are securely in the ground.

Maybe they are labouring under the illusion that we still ship our convicts out to Oz and use Ozzie laws?

feckwits, the lot of them

crazytony wrote:I have some advice for him. When he is erecting his new home, he must make sure the pegs are securely in the ground.

he has £90k in the bank, if he believes in his cause so much and "getting the truth out there", then why isn't he using it for legal fees?

He's always got those Carter Ruck boxes he was so taken with to fall back on, and perhaps he could do something with the CR files he was so strangely attracted to.

rhodes wrote:he has £90k in the bank, if he believes in his cause so much and "getting the truth out there", then why isn't he using it for legal fees?

Exactly, Rhodes. The hounders seem to be ignoring the bit about Bennett not getting legal aid BECAUSE HE HAS TOO MUCH MONEY.

Oh, if those idiots want to hand over their cash to him, who cares?

But isn't it very revealing that he isn't prepared to put his own money where his mouth is?

bb1 wrote:

rhodes wrote:he has £90k in the bank, if he believes in his cause so much and "getting the truth out there", then why isn't he using it for legal fees?

Exactly, Rhodes. The hounders seem to be ignoring the bit about Bennett not getting legal aid BECAUSE HE HAS TOO MUCH MONEY.

Oh, if those idiots want to hand over their cash to him, who cares?

But isn't it very revealing that he isn't prepared to put his own money where his mouth is?

I wonder what he has done with the foundation funds?

Given a fair chunk of them to Gonc?

bb1 wrote:Given a fair chunk of them to Gonc?

Silly me, I had forgotten about that.

rhodes wrote:he has £90k in the bank, if he believes in his cause so much and "getting the truth out there", then why isn't he using it for legal fees?

I've been doing some sums. With interest over three years make that £100,000, and I am being conservative here. It is probably more than that now.

Still no sign of Morais publishing accounts for the Gonc fund.

Oh, we gave Cabrita two grand a couple of years ago, and the rest is in safe hands, honest, doesn't really cut it.

Remember all the guff about how every cent was going to be accounted for? Hasn't happened, has it?

bb1 wrote:Still no sign of Morais publishing accounts for the Gonc fund.

Oh, we gave Cabrita two grand a couple of years ago, and the rest is in safe hands, honest, doesn't really cut it.

Remember all the guff about how every cent was going to be accounted for? Hasn't happened, has it?

Yeah, No, that was never going to happen.

REPLY: No. But one of our supporters, who I think doesn't post here, did (entirely on his own initiative) contact a legal journalist from one of the main TV media, who replied straightaway: "Yes, I'm happy to do what I can on this story. Do keep me in the picture as the hearing date approaches".


I don't know why, but there's something about that that reminds me of Inside Out and Nice Mr Hare......

I don't know why, but there's something about that that reminds me of Inside Out and Nice Mr Hare......
Who spoke with a creepy voice

Oh, stop it, my sides hurt!

TheToon1892 NUFC 1892
@
@BacardiKid @spudgun01 You should start a campaign, everyone in support of Bennett refuses to pay council tax until #McCann´s investigated

Fantastic idea! You can all get your goods siezed and join Bennett in jail, that'll really show those McCanns who's boss

bb1 wrote:Oh, stop it, my sides hurt!

TheToon1892 NUFC 1892
@
@BacardiKid @spudgun01 You should start a campaign, everyone in support of Bennett refuses to pay council tax until #McCann´s investigated

Fantastic idea! You can all get your goods siezed and join Bennett in jail, that'll really show those McCanns who's boss

Oh that will be wonderful. I can see the headlines now. McCann stalker encourages people to break the law, in support of his stalking a grieving family.

I have to say, Tony, I am not at all impressed with the quality of advice Bennett is getting from the forkers.

Serves him right for being so rude and horrid