D-DAY FOR BENNETT

And I hope the Judge has requested that alleged libel has to be proved by the McCanns, or at least that they have to be present at further hearing and not just merely represented by CR. Can hardly bear the wait...

That's why the forkers cannot get to grips with the truth about the whole issue of Madeleine being abducted. They are unable to understand anything of consequence.

I keep being amazed all over again that they have so little knowledge of the real world, law, anything, Lily.

Ordinarily, we would feel pity for people such as those?

But they revel in their ignorance, Lily, they use it as an excuse for their sadistic, vicious behaviour towards the McCann family and others.

And no-one believes they care one jot for Madeleine McCann - look at the way they talk about her, in public, as if she were a lump of meat, and not a human being.

They disgust me, the whole lot of them.

Apologies, Bonny. I meant poor people in other circumstances - definitely not forkers.

Bennett's taking his time about spinning this, isn't he?

Posted by: emilyb3. on February 8, 2012 6:32 PMwhat silence? who here was in court today to report on what happened? patience dear, patience, i'm sure you will hear from the horse's mouth in due course

You'd have thought that even she could have worked out by now that if it had gone well, Bennett would have been shouting from the rooftops.

And the only reason we're waiting to hear it from the 'horse's mouth' is to see how he is going to wriggle round the truth about what ACTUALLY happened.

And how he made a total idiot of himself.

Posted by: emilyb3. on February 8, 2012 6:44 PMlol
so why exactly are you hiding what YOU know lizzi, is it because its total crapola perchance?

i asked you to have patience to find out from the man himself, any one of your internet buddies unless they were there cant know ergo neither can you

Apeman 'I'll snap your neck' Hardy seems to have a touch of the rattled cages...

@greenink211 @RingoStarfish regarding #McCanns. Oh dear, you're rather wrong on all counts. Firstly, I never stated that I would be there at Court. I merely posted that I HOPED to be there some weeks ago. I have since made several posts stating that I would not be there.

Secondly, my information regarding the Court procedures came from NOT speaking to Mr. Bennett, (although I HAVE spoken to him) but from the Clerk of the Court herself.

Thirdly, I never stated that the Judge chastised the McCanns. It was their representation, (look it up under 'R' in the dictionary), to whom he directed his concerns.

Fourthly, it was a GOOD day for Tony Bennett in court today, not a bad one as your Tweet suggests.

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

See, here's the thing. Some of us know what the supposed 'chastisement' was about. And really, it's nothing to get excited about. Silly Apeman.

I suppose Apeman got his version from the rabble making fools of themselves during a break? Who had to be asked to show some respect by another member of the public?

And I really do not know how Bennett is going to explain away the HORRIBLE blunder he made. But that's his problem

silkcut says:
you mean he chastised carter ruck? LOL good one

well they have come out with some ridiculous statements as well as porkies not to mention acting like bullies

haha cant wait to hear

Boy, is she in for a disappointment.

Tears before bedtime, anyone?

I think she's used to disappointment BB.

A whole new story of "drowning the sorrows" looms large though.

As you say, those of us who do know what happened are enjoying it all.

Indeed, Barbie; I cannot imagine how the forkers and hounders are going to take to Bennett revealing that he did a huge chunk of CR's job for them today - what a blunder to make

And I doubt if the five 'mature' *cough* persons who were lacking in the social graces and insisted on discussing their 'theories' in loud voices at the break made a very good impression on the judge, either.

I'm surprised they didn't start hauling leaflets out of their carrier bags

Oh, an accurate report from someone else who was there has appeared on Amazon...

hotrod says:
Justine Spencer
Tony Bennett made a complete fool of himself at the High Court today. His turn out of supporters amounted to a pathetic 5 largely uneducated and ungroomed carrier bag carrying OAP's who could not even restrain themselves during the 5 minute break from banging on about sedatives and various conspiracy theories which not only offended me immensely but showed total lack of respect for proceedings which is why I had to loudly tell them to shut up and save their ignorant gossip for the pub rather than in the High Court. The so called big guns failed to show yet are now apparently experts on what went down. From someone who was there it didnt go well for Bennett. He floundered as he attempted to represent himself, making wildly irrelevant points, muddying the waters, lacking clarity/focus and showed generally himself up to be a total fool who was way out of his depth. He cut a pathetic and a very lonely figure. He was denied an attempt to delay proceedings and made laughable promises that he had not recently made any libellous comments. He also admitted that he took all the into for his book from Amarals book. Isn't that plagerism? Amaral should probably sue Bennett for ripping off his book. To not put a finer point on it, Bennett was pi**ing in the wind. Body language of the judge clearly displayed that he was not impressed with Bennett. It's not looking good for Bennett.

i think the cheap cideeeer will be guzzling down her neck as we speak...shes quite irrate over on sky with my help of course

I just had a look, it's hilarious - she is going to be in some state when reality sinks in.

I think Bennett has rather missed the boat with whatever it is he was planning to spin; the truth about what happened is leaking out all over the place.

Another silly forker:

So it sounds like the McCanns lawyers were told they were being vexatious?!

Nope; but it was kind of Bennett to save Carter Ruck a bit of work - right in front of a judge

Bennett's spun version of events has finally appeared - try not to laugh too much.


Resume of today’s Case Management hearing
sharonl Today at 7:26 pm

Tony has asked me to post this brief resume of today’s Case Management hearing.

QUOTE TONY:

The hearing was only ever about getting the matter ready for trial.

The hearing lasted around 1 hour and 50 minutes. The McCanns were represented by Jacob Dean (barrister), Adam Tudor, Isabel Hudson and two assistants.

Carter-Ruck had proposed a timetable for serving and filing evidence ahead of the trial and proposed that the trial would last for 1-2 days, to be held as soon as practicable on or after 10 April.

I made a number of applications at the hearing, which out of courtesy I notified to Carter-Ruck by hand on 2 February.

My application to have a ‘McKenzie friend’ [lay helper] with me at the hearing was granted by consent, and I thank my friend who acted as my McKenzie helper today.

I made an outline application to be allowed to apply for one part of the original undertaking I gave to be rescinded. This was granted. I have until 22 February to submit that application. That involves paying a Court fee of £80.00 and submitting detailed reasons for that application. At this point I will say that I do not propose to seek to rescind any of the following undertakings, all of which I have abided by except for the sale of one book to Mr Michael Gunnill (see below):

• To deliver up all hard copies of “What really happened to Madeleine McCann? 60 key reasons which suggest that she was not abducted” (known in short as ‘60 Reasons’) to Carter-Ruck
• To deliver up all hard copies of the leaflet entitled “What really happened to Madeleine McCann? 10 key reasons which suggest that she was not abducted
• To destroy any electronic version of ‘What really happened to Madeleine McCann? 60 key reasons which suggest that she was not abducted”.
• To destroy any electronic version of the leaflet entitled “What really happened to Madeleine McCann? 10 key reasons which suggest that she was not abducted
• To close our website, whose domain name was: www.madeleinefoundation.org‘
• To use my best endeavours to delete or otherwise prevent access to any and all defamatory allegations about the Claimants published by him on the website http://missingmadeleine.forumotion.net
• To use my best endeavours to delete or otherwise prevent access to any and all defamatory allegations about the Claimants published by him on the website http://democracyforum.co.uk
• To use my best endeavours to delete or otherwise prevent access to any and all defamatory allegations about the Claimants published by him on the website http://www.anorak.co.uk
• To use my best endeavours to delete or otherwise prevent access to any and all defamatory allegations about the Claimants published by him on the website www.truthformadeleine.com
• To pay £440.00 towards the Defendant’s costs [subsequently reduced to £400.00.]

I applied for an Order that ‘the Claimants [the McCanns] do specify which words they allege constitute alleged breaches of my undertaking’. This was because of what I claimed was a lack of clarity in the McCanns’ application. The Practice Rules are very specific in requiring that in a contempt of court allegation, the Claimants must be precise and full in explaining to the Defendant precisely why he is alleged to be in breach of an undertaking to such an extent that he deserves to be sent to prison.

I had also asked for more time to prepare my defence. The Judge was concerned about the volume of paperwork I was faced with [153 alleged breaches of the undertaking] and said that ‘there is considerable force in Mr Bennett’s request for more time to prepare his defence’.

This was resolved as follows. The Judge invited Jacob Dean [the McCanns’ barrister] to take a 5-minute adjournment to consider whether he wished to reduce his 153 alleged breaches to, say, ‘the 10 most serious breaches’. He said that if the McCanns could prove those breaches, it was unnecessary to prove the other 143. After 15 minutes, the McCanns’ legal team came back into Court and said that they would submit a new application based on ‘around 25’ of the most serious breaches. The trial will then be confined effectively to an examination of just those 25 alleged breaches. The Judge gave them until 4pm on Friday 17 February to serve this new application on me. He also suggested to Mr Dean that Carter-Ruck needed to be much more precise than they had been about the words I used that were said to be in breach of the undertaking and which term of any undertaking they were alleged to breach.

The Judge granted me until 9 March to reply to the McCanns’ revised application [the McCanns had originally asked for my response by 22 February.

The McCanns will then have the right to reply to my response. They will have to serve this on me by 5 April.

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. I was granted permission to apply for a Witness Order against Mr Gunnill requiring to attend the trial and give evidence. I shall be doing that shortly.

I had applied for an Order that one of the McCanns make a Witness Statement to (a) state what evidence there is that Madeleine McCann was abducted and (b) to state what evidence there was, as claimed in Isabel Hudson’s Affidavit, that any of my actions had, as the McCanns claimed, ‘harmed the search for Madeleine’. These applications were refused. The Judge said that it was for the Claimants to give whatever evidence they felt was necessary to support their application to commit me to prison and that if I felt there was insufficient evidence that an abduction had occurred I would have the right to make submissions about this in my closing speech at the trial.

I applied for the McCanns to produce certified English translations of the two judgments against them in the Portuguese Court of Appeal (October 2010) and Portuguese Supreme Court (March 2011). The Judge refused, after asking the McCanns’ barrister if Dr Amaral’s book was now freely available in Portugal, to which of course he agreed. He said that if I considered these relevant, I should produce these myself. One of my supporters at the hearing kindly volunteered afterwards to see if she could obtain these for me.

The trial is scheduled for 2 days, any time on or after 17 April 2012.

In conclusion, I would like to thank each and every one of the eight people who kindly troubled to attend court to support me, and it was a pleasure to buy them all lunch at the Dulcis Cafe afterwards.

UNQUOTE TONY

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

Under all that waffle:

His efforts to drag the McCanns into it: REFUSED

His efforts to turn it into some kind of quasi-criminal trial: REFUSED.



His efforts to try to drag the actual 'McCann case' into it: REFUSED

His efforts to try to drag Gonc's book into it: REFUSED

And this is where he really, really BLUNDERED COMPLETELY:


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

As Judge Tugendhat remarked at that point, Bennett proved Carter Ruck's case as soon as he admitted that in court.

It was beyond stupid. It was epically stupid. There are no words for how stupid that was.

Carter Ruck are now selecting the best bits from Bennett's various breaches; frankly, it wouldn't matter if Bennett dragged Barak Obama into court -

HE ADMITTED IN FRONT OF A JUDGE THAT HE SOLD THE LEAFLETS

And topped that off with making a totally baseless allegation.

In court.

In front of various witnesses and a judge.

Boy, was that stupid

Re: Retired Lawyer Faces Jail for Harrassing McCanns - Telegraph
The End Is Nigh Today
contrary wrote:
So it sounds like the McCanns lawyers were told they were being vexatious?!



Vexatious Litigation is frowned upon and so it is good to see that the Courts are looking at the issue on merit rather than on any other basis.

And this should not escape the attention of any other respondent in other McCarterruck actions - someone needs to ensure Amaral is made aware that this has happened as he should be entitled to refer to it in the context of his own defence

How wrong can you be about anything?

But hey, please feel free to tell Gonc his book is totally irrelevant to British law courts

I had applied for an Order that one of the McCanns make a Witness Statement to (a) state what evidence there is that Madeleine McCann was abducted and (b) to state what evidence there was, as claimed in Isabel Hudson’s Affidavit, that any of my actions had, as the McCanns claimed, ‘harmed the search for Madeleine’. These applications were refused.

What a sadistic swine he is.

Thankfully, the judge saw through him and stopped that nonsense.

Wonder how long we are going to have to wait for him to own up to what the judge said to him when he admitted selling the leaflet?

The Dulcis Cafe? Oh My. I'm sorry I missed that. The first time Bennett ever paid for anything.
Allegedly.

I am sure you won't mind, Sabot, if I savour the moment when, in front of witnesses, lawyers, court officials and a judge, Bennett not only admitted breaching the contempt of court order, but made a totally false and libellous accusation:

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.

What Bennett 'believes' won't cut the mustard, I am afraid, as he is totally wrong.

But hey, if you're going to admit to breaching a contempt of court order, and make a completely false allegation, why not go large and do it in front of a High Court judge?

http://thehoundingofthemccans.blogspot.com/2012/02/five-vicious-old-bats-with-their.html




And showed their usual pig-ignorance by exchanging their foul 'theories' in court during a break.

I wonder what Bennett is going to do when it dawns on him that he has to withdraw his false and malicious allegation that Mike Gunnill bought the leaflet on behalf of the McCanns?

And he made it in front of a judge, too.

Oopsie

DodgyDrPayne Dr David Payne
Hah! The odious @mikegunnill will have to take the stand in court now for his deception tactics - couldn't happen to a nicer bloke! #mccann
---------

Oh, I am sure the judge will agree that Mike Gunnill is a very nice bloke indeed; especially when he hears that Mr Gunnill only became involved in this because Bennett and the gang tried to wreck his business.

Judges don't like that kind of thing.

Bennett blundered very badly today, very badly indeed.

He admitted to the judge that he breached the contempt of court order. And made a totally false accusation in front of the judge.

Posted by: emilyb3. on February 8, 2012 8:28 PMthanks for that yng

the mccanns wouldnt like to be seen involved in entrapment would they like they shouldnt have something better to do saddos

But they weren't.....Bennett made a malicious and false accusation in front of a High Court judge.

Now who's the saddo?