D-DAY FOR BENNETT

Vera Steinke?

Yes, that's the one!

Yoyo isn't very bright, is he?

While TB and friends adjourned to a nice place for lunch to celebrate their minor victory, what's betting the mccanns and lawyers would have convened to discuss new strategies where frayed nerves are on display after their setback.

Frayed nerves?

Bennett conceded, in front of the judge, that one of the main planks of the complaint about the contempt of court was true - the judge even pointed out to him that he had proved CR's case for them.

Bennett then topped that off with making a totally false and malicious statement about a journalist in front of the entire court

All CR have to do is weed out a couple of dozen of Bennett's most ghastly posts, from the hundreds of ghastly Bennett posts - otherwise, Bennett did their job for them.

I should think they were still laughing this morning.

Another delusional forker:

Tony should seek to have the McCann couple declared vexatious litigants the next time he appears before a High Court Judge.

And I say that not in jest. There really are grounds for doing so here, and the fact that the judge has directed their legal team to have them reduce their "Breach" list from 153 points to just 10 shows that he thinks their actions as being somewhat frivolous and without merit.

No, it doesn't. It shows that there is so much evidence against Bennett, the court scarcely knows where to start.

Like in criminal trials, where the accused is charged with one, specimen offence, and twenty others are taken into consideration?

That's what it means.

Sorry to burst all those hounder bubbles, but they really ought to face reality.

http://regretsandramblings.com/2012/02/09/a-few-biscuits-short-of-a-packet/

Quite; his false and malicious allegations about a journalist yesterday have got Bennett into rather a lot of hot water, without the idiot forkers making matters worse with their abuse, which I am sure is being noted by the court.

And as for the jokers who think the press should be taking an interest in this - newsflash, stupid people, they are.

Did they all forget what Mike Gunnill does for a living?

Another deluded forker:

Sugar Plum says:
If Gunnill is called as a witness and it transpires he was asked by someone connected to the McCanns to carry out the entrapment do you think the judge is going to look favourably on that ?

Big problem there - Bennett defamed a journalist right in front of a judge when he also admitted to breaching the terms of the previous agreement.

Bennett and others jumped to totally the wrong conclusion about the whole business, and have repeatedly libelled Mr Gunnill over the matter.

So, no, the judge is not going to look favourably on Bennett making malicious and false accusations in court.

This is all getting ridiculous again. All Carter Ruck need is 10 of the worst and 10 of the lesser worster, which they have definitely got.
Meanwhile, Mr. Bennett has to prove that Mike Gunnill deliberately collaborated with Carter Ruck, which was hardly necessary anyway. Mr. Bennett can't prove anything.

As for too much evidence, what about the endless garbage Mr. Bennett has sent to Carter Ruck, most of which doesn't even make sense. Mr. Bennett did this deliberately to try to raise the costs for The McCanns, and to deplete The Fund for the search for their daughter.

Yes, Sabot - and it is clear he was scheming to drag the McCanns into it. Thank goodness the judge saw what he was up to and stopped that in its tracks.

Bennett has really blown both his feet off with his malicious and false allegations about Mike Gunnill. Which is entirely his own fault for jumping to totally wrong conclusions.

SafariSara Sara
Bennett and cronies engage in witness intimidation - Judge Tugendhat is beeing informed of these antics #McCann regretsandramblings.com/2012/02/09/a-f…

Oh good, that sort of thing won't go down very well at all with the judge; he might see it as Bennett's Flying Monkeys trying to intimidate a witness.

http://regretsandramblings.com/2012/02/09/a-few-biscuits-short-of-a-packet/

Excellent point from Jayelles. I am sure the court will be hearing all about the treatment Mr Gunnill received from the hounders, when they tried to destroy his business for the unpardonable sin of being unable to take a flattering photo of Butler.

Bennett does know all this is liable to be heard in court? No? Oh well, it was him who opened the door for all that to be heard in evidence, it is entirely his own fault.

bb1 wrote:http://regretsandramblings.com/2012/02/09/a-few-biscuits-short-of-a-packet/

Excellent point from Jayelles. I am sure the court will be hearing all about the treatment Mr Gunnill received from the hounders, when they tried to destroy his business for the unpardonable sin of being unable to take a flattering photo of Butler.

Bennett does know all this is liable to be heard in court? No? Oh well, it was him who opened the door for all that to be heard in evidence, it is entirely his own fault.

Oh Gosh, so he has. What The Foundation Members did to Mike Gunnill can now all come out. And let's face it, what they did ti Mike Gunnill was more than reason enough for Mike Gunnill to act in the way he did. And now he will be able to tell The Court all about it.

Yes - and just think how many members of the media have been on the receiving end of disgusting abuse from the Truthseekers?

I am sure they are just waiting to open those floodgates and tell the world the truth about the forkers and hounders.

What a Silly Billy Bennett is. Hmm?

Sabot wrote:This is all getting ridiculous again. All Carter Ruck need is 10 of the worst and 10 of the lesser worster, which they have definitely got.
Meanwhile, Mr. Bennett has to prove that Mike Gunnill deliberately collaborated with Carter Ruck, which was hardly necessary anyway. Mr. Bennett can't prove anything.

As for too much evidence, what about the endless garbage Mr. Bennett has sent to Carter Ruck, most of which doesn't even make sense. Mr. Bennett did this deliberately to try to raise the costs for The McCanns, and to deplete The Fund for the search for their daughter.

That is correct, Sabot. Even if CR did ask Gunill to buy the booklet, (which I do not believe), then what is the problem? A test for Bennett - which he failed. He did sell the booklet. So if he sold so easily.........

And that is where Bennett blew his own feet off, falsely alleging Mr Gunnill bought the booklet under orders from the McCanns/Carter Ruck.

It's one thing coming out with rubbish like that on the internet, but Bennett did it in the High Court. In Bennett's own words:

I applied for an Order that Michael Gunnill be produced as a witness and was able to inform the Judge in outline of how Mr Gunnill had obtained a ’60 Reasons’ book from me by entrapment, and how Mr Gunnill had boasted about doing this ‘on behalf of a third party’ which I believed to be the McCanns, via Carter-Ruck

Not for the first time, Bennett 'believed' wrongly.

Jean-Pierre.t50 wrote:

Sabot wrote:This is all getting ridiculous again. All Carter Ruck need is 10 of the worst and 10 of the lesser worster, which they have definitely got.
Meanwhile, Mr. Bennett has to prove that Mike Gunnill deliberately collaborated with Carter Ruck, which was hardly necessary anyway. Mr. Bennett can't prove anything.

As for too much evidence, what about the endless garbage Mr. Bennett has sent to Carter Ruck, most of which doesn't even make sense. Mr. Bennett did this deliberately to try to raise the costs for The McCanns, and to deplete The Fund for the search for their daughter.

That is correct, Sabot. Even if CR did ask Gunill to buy the booklet, (which I do not believe), then what is the problem? A test for Bennett - which he failed. He did sell the booklet. So if he sold so easily.........

And Bennett admitted it in Court, so heaven knows what purpose he has in questioning Mike Gunnill about it. Although I have to say that this seems like a very good idea to me.
In the meantime Bennett was also encouraging others of his supporters to sell The Leaflets, and there are Emails to prove this.

Not sure about Carter Ruck, but I admit to being a bit of a pragmatist about them.
For four years we have watched Bennett getting worse and worse, constantly pushing his luck to see how far he could go, always seeming to believe that no one could stop him. Even we were beginning to think that no one could.
I don't want him to go to prison, but I suspect that he does.

http://regretsandramblings.com/2012/02/09/a-few-biscuits-short-of-a-packet/

Anna Raccoon
Collapse
" I will be interested to see what Mike Gunnill has to say for himself in the witness box!"

So will the rest of the world - after all, they are finally going to be able to repeat the words of an accredited journalist on oath covered by privilege.

Everything Mr Gunnill says will be reported at length. It will be riveting. That is so long as Bennett manages to raise the 80 quid to start an action.....

Dig deep ladies, you don't want to miss the chance of hearing what Mr Gunnill has to say for the sake of a measly 80 quid do you?

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

I wonder if it is slowly dawning on Bennett that he has hoist himself with his very own petard?

Why for you want me collapse, eh? You go collapse yourself, me heap nice person.........

Regards,

Ms Raccoon

ETA, oh, I know what happened, a typo sprang into the C & P! Yes, that'll be it.

A lilkely story, Bonny. Sorry, but Brown does it better.

So is she now Anna Duarte? Or is it Adam Raccoon?

Come on.....she is AWESOME.

lily wrote:Come on.....she is AWESOME.

I am, I am.

(and I could see you from here, bonny, scratching your head, trying to figure out what I was on about!)

annaraccoon wrote:

lily wrote:Come on.....she is AWESOME.

I am, I am.

(and I could see you from here, bonny, scratching your head, trying to figure out what I was on about!)

You are, you are, Anna. We are always so happy to see you here.

I 'fessed up in my edit, I did. Well, not really me. It was my mouse's fault, my mouse ate too much of the blog and then regurgitated it. And that's my story

Oh dear. Why does Bennett keep harping on about Carter Ruck having 5 in court?

http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t4280p140-new-judge-tugendhat-will-hear-mccanns-contempt-application-1030am-wednesday-8-february

There were 4. Dean, Hudson, Tudor and a legal assistant. That makes 4. Two male, two female.

They also seem to be cock a hoop that the 153 have been reduced to 25. And some think that this means that the rest are discarded. They are not.

CR had already highlighted the ten most serious breeches of the undertaking in exhibit A and in the skeleton argument. The other 143 were for completeness.

The reason for isolating 25 is both to prove their case with the most serious breeches, and to then see which of the remaining 143 are breeches and which are not (on a representative sample basis).

"Well, well, if they have to put in a new application listing only 25 breaches, I cant help wondering if the alleged breach of the sale of 60-reason leaflet would be included this time round because it would involve implicating their bait they used to entrap TB. If they rescind that, maybe it's valid reason enough for TB to cite their litigation intention was vexatious." -

Christ on a bicycle, how stupid can they get.