BENNETT CLUTCHES AT LEGAL AID STRAWS

Oh my!

It's just dawned on me:

During our 4-hour long meeting, Debbie and I conceded, however reluctantly, that we had no realistic alternative but to accede to Carter-Ruck’s demands.

So, they met with a law firm for four hours, on top of all the preparatory work Kirwans had done -

AND THEY PAID KIRWANS A DERISORY FIVE HUNDRED QUID? RELUCTANTLY?

That is more like £2,000 worth of work and time.

I would not be at all surprised if Bennett is on an unofficial blacklist.

Bennett didn't exactly pay it, did he?

And then Debbie Butler cried all the way home. We thought because Bennett had conceded defeat, but I have long suspected it was because she had just found out that that Bennett was light years more wealthy than she was, after she had been paying all of his expenses. I bet that smarted.

lily wrote:Bennett didn't exactly pay it, did he?

So far, Bennett has never paid for anything. Not even the Stamps he so assiduously collects.
Stamps can be turned into cash, you know. Very difficult to keep track of.

Sabot, you know Debs smarted. She had gone so far as to say on a forum that she loved the bones of the man.

So long as she had her uses for him, he used her. Plain and simple. She knew it.

Then the arguments started, remember? The fall outs between Bennett, Debs and Stevo. Bringing poor Mike into it and trying to wreck his business. What a to do.

It was never at any time conducted with maturity.

bb1 wrote:Here's something you don't see very often - someone on Haverns talking sense.

aiyoyo, anyone working for profit is a business, whether it's a one man band or a multi million pound company. CAB is a service, though I doubt that they hold lists of legal aid lawyers specialising in libel!

This is not a complicated libel case. This is contempt of court resulting from a breach of undertaking and carries a penal notice. Libel will be shown to support the breach though.

It is black and white. You make a promise voluntarily to court then intentionally break that promise, that is contempt. Even if the respondent can show on a technicality, say the undertaking wasn't served on him for instance, it would be back to the beginning for libel.

I don't understand the reluctance of putting one's own money on the line even if simply to obtain damage limitation. If he forks out 15k to save 100k, I'd say it was worth it wouldn't you? Costs and recompense can be reduced by the Judge via a clever advocate.

I simply don't understand the thinking here.

One thing I have found is that it's a myth that a lawyer's success fee can be 100% of costs as it is most unlikely.

ETA. A point on the judge asking CR to reduce the many examples of libel supporting the breach is not one in the eye for them, it was simply unnecessary for so many to be submitted as a small number would suffice.


That won't go down well.

It is the most sensible written script I have ever seen come out of that hell hole.

Well, I did feel sorry for her, Lily. Bennett did treat her very badly. Used her and then humiliated her in public. But she has had all of the chances that she is getting from me to redeem herself.
But Bennett is a Con Man, and he conned her good and proper. Believe me, I know the type. He is a Sociopath, among other things.

I don't understand the reluctance of putting one's own money on the line even if simply to obtain damage limitation. If he forks out 15k to save 100k, I'd say it was worth it wouldn't you? Costs and recompense can be reduced by the Judge via a clever advocate.

No-one can understand that. Why won't he put his own hand, in his own pocket? He's boasted about having 'tens of thousands' - which I suspect is far more than most of his cult do - yet he won't part with a penny to save himself.

Madness.

I know you did, Sabot.

He's still manipulating others too only they don't know it.

His type never want to spend their own money, Bonny. They get others to part with their's instead. I think he could be called a miser?

Bennett doesn't seem to grasp that the case against him hasn't changed.
Amaral's book was released in 2008 as were the dog videos and; the soccer VP's book was also on the shelves before 2009. Bennett, had the chance to use the material then, he chose not to, I cannot see it being allowed into evidence now.
Plus, the case is about what he said, not what two crooked cops said.

Bennett started this. Bennett Hounded, Stalked and Libelled The McCanns. No one forced him too. He did this because he wanted to, although his motives still escape me to some extent.
Personally I think he saw a Best Seller in this, and released his booklets to test the ground, but that is just my opinion.
And then he went too far. But did he seriously believe that The McCanns would go on putting up with this indefinitely?
This is all his own fault, and he has brought this upon himself. Time to pay The Piper in some shape or form.

I think he wanted to write a best selling book too, Sabot.

The biggest problem for him is that he thought his hero Gonc was correct about what happened to Madeleine. So, he most likely expected the McCanns to back down in fear.

If it hasn't sunk in with the forkers and hounders by now that they are totally, utterly, wrong, it never will.

lily wrote:I think he wanted to write a best selling book too, Sabot.

The biggest problem for him is that he thought his hero Gonc was correct about what happened to Madeleine. So, he most likely expected the McCanns to back down in fear.

I'm sure he did expect The McCanns to back down in fear, Lily. And so did Gonc. But when did Evidence ever come into this in so far as Gonc and Bennett are concerned? There is no Evidence and there never has been. This is why The McCanns have never been Charged, or even Arrested. There is no Cover Up. The McCanns are Innocent. Although actually we shouldn't even need to say so. It is a Fact.

Yes, Sabot. We cannot say it often enough. The McCanns are innocent. Tough sh*t to those who think otherwise.

If Bennett is found guilty, I sincerely hope Carter and Ruck go after Bennett's little friend Sharon SWALK, next.

And having announced:

But I'll take all your advice - I'll be keeping quiet for a bit.

Bennett can't resist wading in to have a go at whoever that was who attempted to bring a bit of common sense into proceedings and agree with the reality-challenged yoyo:


Equality of arms in legal proceedings - a human right
Tony Bennett Today

aiyoyo wrote:
Spaniel, to be fair,l I don't think this is a black and white case where a barrister can safely advise about TB chances just by cursory look or just by preliminary discussion of the case. It's a complex case that needs time to get in-depth into the details then work the defend from there.

I agree very much with this assessment. Right from the start, any solicitor would have to have looked at all the documents in the case - those submitted by C-R when they delivered a large cardboard box of papers to my door - before advising. And because of the complexities, s/he would have to have gone to a barrister for a written opinion. The issues in the case include:

* were any undertakings broken?

* were the undertakings reasonable ones to give in the first place?

* were the undertakings given only because of an oppressive inequality of arms in the first place?

* were any of the undertakings a breach of the European Convention rights to freedom of expression and freedom of speech?

* were any of the statements made in the original '60 Reasons' booklet and '10 Reasons' leaflet libellous in the first place?

* should any of the undertakings now be revoked? - and, last but not least, perhaps the most fundamental question of all in this complex case:

* is there credible evidence that something other than abduction is the reason Madeleine was reported missing in the first place?


Or not?

These are complex questions on which Drs Gerald and Kate McCann have been able to engage the country's finest, and most expensive lawyers - AND a barrister.

I need to be able to match that level of expertise and legal firepower.

The case has been adjourned sine die to give me a fighting chance of being able to do so.

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

He's an idiot; he has about as much understanding of law as a jellyfish. And is it me, or is he dangerously close to yet more libel?

He seems to be ignoring this again:

http://ukhumanrightsblog.com/incorporated-rights/articles-index/article-10/


Article 10
Article 10 | Right to freedom of expression
Read posts on this Article


Article 10 of the Convention provides:

(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.

(2) The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

------

Yes, undertakings were broken. No, there was no inequality as he was at Kirwins (a firm he seemed to praise) the day he signed them.

He really is clutching at straws?

This is absolutely ridiculous.


These are complex questions on which Drs Gerald and Kate McCann have been able to engage the country's finest, and most expensive lawyers - AND a barrister.

Does he suffer from some kind of comprehension problem?



It is scarcely the McCanns' fault that no-one would touch him with a bargepole in 2009, and I doubt if much has changed now.

HE IS IN THE WRONG.

And he can spin this garbage for the benefit of the hounders from now till Doomsday, it will make no difference in the real world.

I think he is becoming dangerously close to Suicidal. What he is saying is that anyone who can't afford a Barrister has the right to Libel anyone because they can't afford to defend themselves, in which case they shouldn't be prosecuted.
In fact, all he had to do was to back off and shut up, but now he's saying that he has a right to do what he has been doing because The McCanns are being defended against him.

That seems to be about it, Sabot.

He has invented quite a bit since the first hearing. Tugendhut made it crystal clear that the case rests on 2 things.

What undertakings were given?

Did Bennett break any of them?

That is it.

He may wish to try to turn this into a trial of the mccanns or a human rights issue but that will not work! As he will find out.

Absolutely J-P. He always twists and turns everything to suit himself. Thankfully, the law doesn't have to twist and turn to suit him.

I really find him such an odious toad.......

Can I say he's a Lying Devious Pervert who is trying to escape the consequences of his Criminal Actions? I can't afford a Barrister.