BENNETT CLUTCHES AT LEGAL AID STRAWS

He's posted this:

McCanns v Bennett: LATEST - 4 June 2012
Tony Bennett Today at 8:27 pm

BACKGROUND

The two-day trial in the case of McCanns v Bennett, due to be heard on 9 & 10 May 2012, was adjourned at my request and by mutual consent, in order for me to explore the possibility of being granted Legal Aid under exceptional circumstances. This because there was a gross inequality of arms in the case, the McCanns’ lawyers, carter-Ruck, having anon on 19 April that they had already spent ‘well over £120,000’ in costs on the case so far. The McCanns are employing a barrister, their most senior partner Adam Tudor, and another partner, Isabel Hudson in their application to commit me to prison. I was unrepresented at the hearing on 8 February before Mr Justice Tugendhat.

LEGAL AID

On 4 May, Mr or Ms Ka Poh Ling, of the Legal Services Commission (LSC)’s Central Complaints Handling Team, wrote to me confirming the LSC’s original decision NOT to consider me for Legal Aid. S/he wrote:

“I can confirm that if you have capital above £8,000, after any relevant deductions, then legal aid will not be available to you. However, it remains open to you to submit an application to our Special Cases Unit through a contracted solicitor if your financial circumstances change”.

However, it appeared that Mr/Ms Ka Poh Ling had ignored what is called ‘the pensioner’s disregard on capital’, as set out in Paragraph 7-4 and Appendix 2 of the LSC Manual, which applies to those aged 60 or over.

To cut a long and complex story short, it appears that the effect of the pensioner’s disregard could entitle me to Legal Aid.

AN APPEAL

I therefore appealed.

On 24 May I received a further letter from the LSC, this time from Ms Helen Riley, Director of Case Management.

The LSC reversed their previous decisions in December last year and on 4 May this year.

This time, Ms Riley wrote: “We can formally confirm whether you can receive Legal Aid when we receive an application from a Legal Aid solicitor, acting on your behalf…The next step you need to take is to find a Legal Aid solicitor to take on your case and to submit an application [for Legal Aid] on your behalf”.

I have now made applications to a number of solicitors and given them an outline of the case. I expect to be able to instruct someone fairly soon to apply for Legal Aid on my behalf.

As I agreed with Carter-Ruck on 3 May, I have kept them fully informed of all these developments.

I should add for the record that Carter-Ruck, on behalf of the McCanns, have always accepted that I should be represented, this being a formal application to imprison me, and they themselves suggested I apply for Legal Aid. Carter-Ruck themselves seemed to be surprised that the LSC refused my initial application, and have agreed that I should have sufficient time in which (a) to see if I qualify for Legal Aid and (b) if I do, to be able to fully instruct a solicitor and barrister (in which case they will have to start by reading around 5,000 pages of documentation from Carter-Ruck and a further 440 from me.

I should also add, for the record, that in their last letter to me dated 18 May, carter-Ruck themselves suggested the names of three Lon don firms of solicitors known to do Legal Aid work in human rights-type cases, and I shall also be writing to each of them.

Finally, in Carter-Ruck’s last letter, they asked me to make clear that in this case Adam Tudor is charging ‘only’ £660 an hour, inclusive of VAT, and Isabel Hudson ‘only’ £540 an hour (including VAT).

SUMMARY

To sum up:


I need to find a Legal Aid solicitor who will agree (no doubt for a fee) to apply on my behalf to the LSC for Legal Aid.
The LSC will then consider whether or not to grant me Legal Aid, and if so on what terms. They will consider both my means, and the ‘merits’ of the case. On the latter point, Carter-Ruck do not in any way dispute that, subject to a test of my means, I should be able to receive Legal Aid for the simple reason that I face serious consequences if I lose, namely imprisonment, a fine, seizure of assets, or even a combination of all three.
If I can qualify for Legal Aid, I shall no longer have to represent myself.
If I do not qualify for Legal Aid, I shall have to represent myself, as there is no way I can afford to match the McCanns’ enormous fire-power.
It is likely to be a few weeks before the court is able to fix a new date for the 2-day trial. It may even be that he trial will need longer than two days.
VIDEO EVIDENCE IN COURT OF MARTIN GRIME AND EDDIE & KEELA IN THE McCANNS' APARTMENT, THE McCANNS' HIRED CAR, IN THE McCANNS' VILLA, AND EXAMINING THE McCANNS' CLOTHES AND CUDDLE CAT

One more point.

On this thread: http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t5140-blacksmith-another-cracking-piece#111737

…‘Newintown’ wrote (and I am very grateful to her/him for pointing this out):

“Tony, you are probably well aware of the fact, but I thought I would just mention it, that the showing of the videos of Martin Grime, Eddie & Keela in Praia da Luz should be mentioned by your solicitor/barrister in your witness statement/court proceedings prior to the trial, as they may not be able to be used in evidence if they are not mentioned in the paperwork put before the judge for him to read up on on your behalf beforehand. I hope that makes sense.

If any facts/items are brought into a trial which the Judge was not aware of previously, they may be classed as inadmissable by the other side.

Having been through a very long, protracted court case myself I know how the other side's solicitor/barrister will try all they can to dismiss any evidence that goes against their client, especially if it hasn't been put through the proper legal procedure”.

REPLY: That is quite right and, in general terms, neither side is allowed to bring up new points at the trial. All thje evidence should be laid out beforehand so that neither side, nor the court, is taken by surprise.

Fortunately I had anticipated this, and Paragraph 119 of my Applciation to be released from one of my undertakings reads as follows:

QUOTE

An extended video of Martin Grime taking his cadaver dogs around the McCanns’ holiday apartment has been made public (during the latter half of 2008) as part of the release of around 80% of the evidence collected by the Portuguese police. It is submitted with the very greatest of respect that before the court makes a decision as to what action if any to take in response to the Claimants’ committal application it might wish to view the entire original footage of Martin Grime’s visits with his dogs to the McCanns’ apartment, accompanied as it is by Mr Grime’s commentary on the alerts of his dogs. The video of this event has been placed on the internet where hundreds of thousands of people have already viewed it.

UNQUOTE

THANK YOU

Thank you once again to all those who have wished me well, and especially to all those who have offered me practical help one way or another, including many on this forum.


“The ultimate ignorance is the rejection of something you know nothing about and refuse to investigate” - Dr. Wayne Dyer.

Sorry, can't help it.

However, it appeared that Mr/Ms Ka Poh Ling had ignored what is called ‘the pensioner’s disregard on capital’, as set out in Paragraph 7-4 and Appendix 2 of the LSC Manual, which applies to those aged 60 or over.

WRONG AGAIN Women over 60 are pensioners. MEN ARE NOT till 65!

Oh, that's why he's been trying to delay it, Maggs! Look who has a Special Day later this year:

Anthony John Stuart Bennett (commonly known as Tony Bennett, born 7 September 1947

bb1 wrote:Oh, that's why he's been trying to delay it, Maggs! Look who has a Special Day later this year:

Anthony John Stuart Bennett (commonly known as Tony Bennett, born 7 September 1947

Shame it will have to be in place before then, Bonny.
He won't get legal aid, he can try king farook, he'll still not get it.
So Bennett try robbing rich old ladies, cos you are toast.

What solicitor is going to touch him with a barge pole?

Don't know, Maggs - it's not as if Bennett has a leg to stand on, unless he is planning to plead insanity? Maybe some young relatives of the Carter Rucks are just setting up in business, cutting their legal teeth, as it were, and will take this on just for the practise?

Do we really care if he gets Legal Aid? It isn't as though he is going to win. I know it's Tax Payers money, but it is only a loan, and he will probably only get a percentage anyway.

Notice he is wittering on about the doggie movie:

The video of this event has been placed on the internet where hundreds of thousands of people have already viewed it.

And why is that of the slightest relevance to whether or not he has committed contempt of court?

He made an agreement with HM the Queen in the person/s of the High Court of England and Wales.

He broke that agreement, end of.

As any solicitor will tell him.

If, he isn't released from the undertaking and, remember; he has had over two years to apply for his release from it, the dog videos will be deemed as irrelevant.

If he is released, it means a new trial and, the Portuguese Attorney General's ruling, will come into play. Including the AG' statement where he accuses the Portuguese Police of playing Sherlock Holmes.

Edited to add: The fact that Amaral was removed from the case for incompetence; will also be used by the McCanns lawyer.
The reliability of the dog evidence will be challenged using the Jersey children's home case; with COCONUTS and sperm being the main issue.

One name damns the doggy movies:

LEVY

The reliability of the dog evidence will be challenged using the Jersey children's home case; with COCONUTS and sperm being the main issue.

Given that Grime's doggies seem to be world leaders at woofing at floors, but rubbish at finding cadavers without a human around to tell them where to woof, only a fool would even think about showing a doggie movie.

And which version is it? There are at least three - all of which passed through Levy the Liar's paws before he sold one of them to the Sun.

Or is it the one made by the mysterious second cameraman who can be glimpsed in some shots?

Provenance is sooo important, isn't it? And as you say, he has had over two years to show doggy fillums and didn't.

Which makes them totally irrelevant to the contempt of court proceedings.

It is hard to believe he has had any legal training whatsoever; his local CAB could have told him he's on a hiding to nothing with this behaviour. And all the time, he is racking up court costs.

http://thehoundingofthemccans.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/grime-and-dogs.html

They won't listen, they never do, Tony. I can think of only one occasion when Eddiewoof actually found a cadaver without a human showing him where it was. On that occasion, the remains of the murdered woman smelled so bad, that not only did the other police dog smell them, the humans did, too.

Can't wait to see the judge's reaction when he gets shown doggie movies.

Just a reminder of the agreement Bennett made with the High Court; one read of it is enough to show why he is in so much trouble:

On 27 August 2009, Carter-Ruck sent legal letters to myself and our former Chairman Debbie Butler making the following demands:
1) the permanent suspension of our website
2) to cease selling and distributing ‘60 Reasons’
3) to cease distributing ‘10 Reasons’
4) to refrain from alleging that the McCanns knew what had really happened to Madeleine
5) to use our best endeavours to remove from the internet any posts where we had accused the McCanns of knowing what really happened to Madeleine.

On Friday 13 November I sent the following letter to Carter-Ruck:

"Further to my e-mail of yesterday’s date, and your most recent letter of 10 November, I confirm that I will accept the requirements your clients seek to impose on me. I therefore herewith sign and return the undertaking with a penal notice that you require me to sign and I will pay the £440.00 your clients require. Please find my cheque in the sum of £440.00 enclosed.

I confirm my undertaking to deliver up all hard copies in my possession or control of my book: “What Really Happened to Madeleine McCann? - 60 Reasons which suggest that she was not abducted” and the leaflet: “What Really Happened to Madeleine McCann? - 10 key reasons which suggest that she was not abducted”. I did this by delivering in person a parcel containing the remaining copies of those publications in my possession to your Shoe Lane office on Saturday 31 October. All electronic versions of those documents on my computer have been deleted.

I further undertake to use my best endeavours to delete or otherwise prevent access to any previous defamatory allegations of mine concerning your clients on the four websites you mention in your letter. Further, I undertake not to repeat allegations that your clients are guilty of, or are to be suspected of, causing the death of their daughter Madeleine McCann, and/or of disposing of her body, and/or lying about what happened and/or seeking to cover up what they had done, nor to repeat any similar allegations, whether by myself or my servants or agents or otherwise howsoever.

This is being sent today by Recorded Delivery.

Yours faithfully

Tony Bennett

ENCS: 1. Signed Draft Order with Penal Notice in the name of Claimants Gerry McCann and Kate McCann and defendant Tony Bennett
2. Personal cheque in the sum of £440.00"

The basics of the case against Bennett consists of him saying Madeleine is dead and the McCanns did the deed.
Bennett, must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the child is dead and the McCanns killed her.
How is he going to do it? He cannot use hearsay, he cannot use Levy's spliced and diced video. Bennett has to stick, word for word to the official files. There has been no new evidence since the Portuguese Attorney General issued the files in 2008. We know this because, the Portuguese Judiciary Chief and the AG, stated last month they would not be reopening the case, there had been no new evidence presented to warrant such an action.

He cannot use hearsay, he cannot use Levy's spliced and diced video. Bennett has to stick, word for word to the official files.

I don't think he grasps that, Tony. If he insists on using doggie movies, well, let him, it will put an end, once and for all, to the Dogs don't lie nonsense.

And even if he manages to find someone willing to present his plea for legal aid, that person is going to request all Bennett's files from Kirwans.

He is going to see for himself that Bennett breached his own, legally-binding, agreement. He may even find out how reluctant Bennett was to pay Kirwan's modest bill.

Short of pleading guilty by reason of insanity, I don't see any realistic way out of this for Bennett.

I have some advice for Bennett. Stop listening to his forum members and pay a few pounds for the advice of a decent libel lawyer. Otherwise, his members are going to force him into bankruptcy.

OH MY!

Are E-Mail And On-Line Activities Subject To Laws Relating To Defamation?

Yes, laws relating to defamation are applicable to e­mail and other online activities. For example, if a person commits libel against you through e­mail or other on­line activities, the publisher, and any re­publisher, of the offensive statement can be held accountable for damages. This is why it is wise to be careful about anything you write in an e­mail message or online chat room. If the victim is harmed by your action, you can be held liable for his or her losses.

If you think you've been defamed by false information passed on by a computer channel, or worry about whether you can make an aggressive advertising claim, it might be worth talking to a qualified lawyer.

I must find out al those emails I had from Bennett, that he thought wouldn't get out.
I'm sure I put them under a dossier filed as TRASH!

He still hasn't found me I'm behind you

crazytony wrote:The basics of the case against Bennett consists of him saying Madeleine is dead and the McCanns did the deed.
Bennett, must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the child is dead and the McCanns killed her.
How is he going to do it? He cannot use hearsay, he cannot use Levy's spliced and diced video. Bennett has to stick, word for word to the official files. There has been no new evidence since the Portuguese Attorney General issued the files in 2008. We know this because, the Portuguese Judiciary Chief and the AG, stated last month they would not be reopening the case, there had been no new evidence presented to warrant such an action.

I think Bennett is trying to say that he has a right to say these things because everyone else is saying them, even though there is no proof.
I believe that there is some obscure part of Libel Law that says you can say untrue things if you believe them to be true, but the sheer size of Bennett's Campaign against The McCanns and the length of time would invalidate this in Bennett's Case. Just saying he believes it to be true is not an argument that he can use, although he might well try.

crazytony wrote:I have some advice for Bennett. Stop listening to his forum members and pay a few pounds for the advice of a decent libel lawyer. Otherwise, his members are going to force him into bankruptcy.

These are the acts of a madman, IMO, Tony.

The best thing Bennett could do is actually SPEND HIS OWN MONEY and pay for a few hours' proper legal counsel, to try to find a way out of this.

The only way he can save himself is to withdraw NOW. To back down, issue grovelling apologies, and never, ever, mention anything even vaguely connected with the McCanns again. In fact, leave the internet, unless it is to do something of use, like updating the Historic Harlow blog, or similar.

He's in the wrong, totally and utterly.

Now, personally, I couldn't give a flying one - I would be delighted to see the whole hate crusade stopped, once and for all, and shown up for the nasty vendetta it really is. But that's just me

The only lawyer who is going to tell Bennett to fight this is one who is on the make, IMO. No decent lawyer is going to tell him to carry on with this insanity.

I don't particularly want to see Bennett humiliated and beggared, but I expect I'll cope if he insists.
Personally, I think he is incapable of backing off because he would lose too much face. So he probably feels that destitution would be better.

Utter madness, Sabot. That preaching hate and lies to a bunch of nutters on the internet matters more to him than his family, their future, anything, is astounding.

How does he think his family are going to feel when his antics are all over the tabloids? When the wealth of material they have gathering about HIM is printed?

And for what? To torment the family of a missing child, and anyone who supports them. How does he think that is going to go down with the good people of Britain?

Sabot wrote:
I don't particularly want to see Bennett humiliated and beggared, but I expect I'll cope if he insists.
Personally, I think he is incapable of backing off because he would lose too much face. So he probably feels that destitution would be better.

Let's face it, even if he was to concede and swear he won't do it again; he would be back on the forums using another pseudonym within seconds of conceding.

True, Tony - he's certainly used enough fake names before. But seriously - what's the point of it? He's wrong, he is totally and horribly wrong, and a thousand fake names isn't going to change that.