BENNETT IS BONKERS - THE NEVER-ENDING STORY

This update on his legal woes has appeared on Havern's:


McCanns v Bennett: UPDATE 12.3.12
Tony Bennett Today at 9:09 am

I post this update in the McCanns -v- Bennett committal-to-prison application for information - but will be unable to take questions on it.

Following the Case Management hearing before Mr Justice Tugendhat in the High Court on 8 February, I wrote on 13 February making proposals to Carter-Ruck for this matter to be settled without the need for what would undoubtedly be a stressful, and costly, High Court trial, now fixed for 9 and 10 May.

My proposals were not accepted.

Instead, Carter-Ruck replied on 20 February setting out the McCanns' terms for settling this matter before 9 May:

1. I admit that I have breached the undertakings given by me to the High Court on 25 November 2009

2. I formally acknowledge that these undertakings are binding on me

3. I agree to be bound by a Court injunction (instead of undertakings) in exactly the same terms as those I agreed to in 2009

4. That I 'use my best endeavours' to remove all publications, articles and postings by myself, wherever they are, to which the McCanns object, and specifically all of the 153 publications which they claimed in the original committal bundle on 1 December were breaches of one or more of my undertakings. That would include their demand that I cease to sell the book 'The Madeleine McCann Case Files: Vol 1'

5. I pay the McCanns' 'reasonable costs' of bringing the application, those costs to be assessed by the court if they cannot be agreed between me and the McCanns.

If all of that is agreed by me, they will, in return, agree not to press the court for me to be sent to prison, fined, or have my assets seized, although they point out (correctly) that despite any agreement between me and the McCanns, the court would have the right, if it saw fit, to impose any sanction that the judge saw fit to do so under the circumstances.

Carter-Ruck's letter (which by the way is not marked 'Private & Confidential' nor is it 'Without Prejudice') concludes:

"If you are not willing to agree to such terms, then our clients will be left with no choice but to pursue their application against you and to seek a final determination from the court".

HELP WANTED

I now have until Friday 23 March to submit to the Court and to Carter-Ruck a sworn Affidavit setting out in full my reasons for the application I issued at Court on 22 February to be released from Part C of my undertakings, namely that part which in effect required me not to libel the McCanns any further.

I have now completed a first draft of that.

I have one or two people advising me on the contents. If any of you here have some time during the next 5 days to look over the Affidavit (or a part of it, it's quite long), and offer comments and suggestions, please 'pm' me ASAP or e-mail me at: ajsbennett@btinternet.com

Once again, I'm sorry, but this posting is for information only, I won't be joining any discussion about it.

____________________________________________

Seriously, what on earth is wrong with the man?

I now have until Friday 23 March to submit to the Court and to Carter-Ruck a sworn Affidavit setting out in full my reasons for the application I issued at Court on 22 February to be released from Part C of my undertakings, namely that part which in effect required me not to libel the McCanns any further.

He has just told the entire world that he is seeking the permission of the High Court to carry on libelling the McCanns.

I can see that going down really, really well with Carter Ruck. NOT.

I can't see The Judge being all that keen either. Is he really, really mad?

Following the Case Management hearing before Mr Justice Tugendhat in the High Court on 8 February, I wrote on 13 February making proposals to Carter-Ruck for this matter to be settled without the need for what would undoubtedly be a stressful, and costly, High Court trial, now fixed for 9 and 10 May.

My proposals were not accepted.

Wonder what his proposal was - that he be allowed to say whatever he likes, about anyone he decides to target, and no-one is allowed to object?

He's in La-La land, from what I can see.

And if I am reading it correctly, he has actually admitted libelling the McCanns - but is asking for permission from the court to carry on libelling the McCanns with the court's blessing.

Re: McCanns v Bennett: 153 alleged breaches reduced to 25
Gillyspot Today at 7:27 am

Were they stalling for time to get their "honeytrap" on Paiva finished or is it simply they are scared now to go back to Portugal because of the Scotland Yard and PJ work? I would imagine that if they go back to PT they could well be easily kept there if things are going as I hope.


MWAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHA

Delusional idiot - the McCanns had nothing whatsoever to do with Paiva sending naughty photos of himself to...someone.

Why on earth would the McCanns be 'scared' to go back to Portugal? They have nothing to be 'scared' of....

Amazing that the forkers are still being fooled by the hot air emitting from Team Gonc via Portuguese tabloids and Ms Morais.....

bb1 wrote:Re: McCanns v Bennett: 153 alleged breaches reduced to 25
Gillyspot Today at 7:27 am

Were they stalling for time to get their "honeytrap" on Paiva finished or is it simply they are scared now to go back to Portugal because of the Scotland Yard and PJ work? I would imagine that if they go back to PT they could well be easily kept there if things are going as I hope.


MWAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHA

Delusional idiot - the McCanns had nothing whatsoever to do with Paiva sending naughty photos of himself to...someone.

Why on earth would the McCanns be 'scared' to go back to Portugal? They have nothing to be 'scared' of....

Amazing that the forkers are still being fooled by the hot air emitting from Team Gonc via Portuguese tabloids and Ms Morais.....

Okay, did anyone notice if Paiva was wearing a plaster cast on either arm?
I know I didn't, which would indicate neither arm was twisted up his back. So no one was forcing him to send whatever to whoever.
A bit like Bennett and the book sale, he wasn't forced either.

crazytony wrote:

bb1 wrote:Re: McCanns v Bennett: 153 alleged breaches reduced to 25
Gillyspot Today at 7:27 am

Were they stalling for time to get their "honeytrap" on Paiva finished or is it simply they are scared now to go back to Portugal because of the Scotland Yard and PJ work? I would imagine that if they go back to PT they could well be easily kept there if things are going as I hope.


MWAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHA

Delusional idiot - the McCanns had nothing whatsoever to do with Paiva sending naughty photos of himself to...someone.

Why on earth would the McCanns be 'scared' to go back to Portugal? They have nothing to be 'scared' of....

Amazing that the forkers are still being fooled by the hot air emitting from Team Gonc via Portuguese tabloids and Ms Morais.....

Okay, did anyone notice if Paiva was wearing a plaster cast on either arm?
I know I didn't, which would indicate neither arm was twisted up his back. So no one was forcing him to send whatever to whoever.
A bit like Bennett and the book sale, he wasn't forced either.

Ricardo Paiva was Coerced and Blackmailed, and it was The McCanns wot dune it.

Oh right, so poor little Ricardo was somehow 'forced' to pose *cough* at Portimao PJ station and send a total stranger a photo of the posing.

And then he was blackmailed...? I don't think that one quite works....

It works for The Pitch Forkers, so it must be Troo. And us vile lot are ruining his life.

HELP WANTED

I now have until Friday 23 March to submit to the Court and to Carter-Ruck a sworn Affidavit setting out in full my reasons for the application I issued at Court on 22 February to be released from Part C of my undertakings, namely that part which in effect required me not to libel the McCanns any further.

I have now completed a first draft of that.

I have one or two people advising me on the contents. If any of you here have some time during the next 5 days to look over the Affidavit (or a part of it, it's quite long), and offer comments and suggestions, please 'pm' me ASAP or e-mail me at

I cannot believe I am reading that.

He really, really must want to lose everything. Has he no common sense whatsoever?

Oh, just answered that bit. What on earth are his Believers going to do with his Affidavit? Are they sharp lawyers?

Here is some free advice for Bennett:

1. Sign on the dotted line.

2. Do not even THINK of libelling the McCanns or anyone else, ever, ever again.


If he follows my free advice, he might just escape with the shirt on his back, a roof over his head, and most of his savings intact - because let's not forget, the reason he can't get Legal Aid is that he has TOO MUCH MONEY.

An affliction most of us are spared in these recessionary times.

Is he for real? Or do you think he might be taking the piss?

He's not going to take the sensible option, Bonny, because well, quite frankly, he is too stupid and stubborn. Heaven knows why he thinks this is a freedom of speech issue. I am so embarrassed for him even stating that he is a retired solicitor.

He must have received the qualification in a box of cocoa pops.

lily wrote:He's not going to take the sensible option, Bonny, because well, quite frankly, he is too stupid and stubborn. Heaven knows why he thinks this is a freedom of speech issue. I am so embarrassed for him even stating that he is a retired solicitor.

He must have received the qualification in a box of cocoa pops.

You can get a degree in Theology, Lily, but it doesn't mean you understand God, or have the ability to be a Vicar.

You do have a point, Sabot. I should rephrase that. He is completely inexperienced in the ways of a solicitor.

lily wrote:You do have a point, Sabot. I should rephrase that. He is completely inexperienced in the ways of a solicitor.

You need a razor sharp mind for that, Lily. Oh, and an understanding of The English Language helps.

http://thehoundingofthemccans.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/less-than-four-days-after-signing-his.html

So, only four days after signing his last court undertaking, Bennett joined Havern's - and after that, carried on as if nothing happened, including the sicko post on Tony's blog.

Not really a man of his word, is he?

bb1 wrote:http://thehoundingofthemccans.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/less-than-four-days-after-signing-his.html

So, only four days after signing his last court undertaking, Bennett joined Havern's - and after that, carried on as if nothing happened, including the sicko post on Tony's blog.

Not really a man of his word, is he?

How the hell can anyone believe he will conform this time?
He is an out and out liar and he is never going to change!

Speak of the devil....

Onwards and upwards
Tony Bennett Today

In the last 164 days since the OP, membership of CMOMM is up by 247, (from 1,418 to 1,665).

A new member joins this forum every 16 hours.

I think he means a new sock gets knitted every 16 hours

bb1 wrote:Speak of the devil....

Onwards and upwards
Tony Bennett Today

In the last 164 days since the OP, membership of CMOMM is up by 247, (from 1,418 to 1,665).

A new member joins this forum every 16 hours.

I think he means a new sock gets knitted every 16 hours

Bonny, 1,384 of them, appear to connect from the same IP.

Why am I not surprised, Tony? It's a bit of a giveaway that only ten people ever bother to post on that site.

bb1 wrote:Why am I not surprised, Tony? It's a bit of a giveaway that only ten people ever bother to post on that site.

It was our Muratfan that gave the initial clue. After that, it was easy to do what Muratfan had done

I don't know who Bennett thinks he's kidding - apart from himself.

bb1 wrote:I don't know who Bennett thinks he's kidding - apart from himself.

He is hoping to say in trial, that over a thousand people believe he is right.

crazytony wrote:

bb1 wrote:I don't know who Bennett thinks he's kidding - apart from himself.

He is hoping to say in trial, that over a thousand people believe he is right.