BENNETT CLUTCHES AT LEGAL AID STRAWS

lily wrote: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.......

Such an apt description of the man.

Jean-Pierre.t50 wrote: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.

He can grandstand to his cult from now till the end of time, it is not going to make a blind bit of difference in the High Court.

Seriously, I can see the judge sending him to the cells for contempt if he carries on like this in the High Court.

Bennett should have paid Kirwans (another good firm of lawyers) that 5000 GBP, as they suggested, to settle the undertaking issue. He could have saved himself all this.

He had the money for it.

Good point about Kirwens - he did receive appropriate legal advice before signing the undertaking (which he signed to stay the libel action - which he had been advised he was likely to lose)

" is there credible evidence that something other than abduction is the reason Madeleine was reported missing in the first place?" - ie are the McCanns guilty of something? Dangerous ground - unless proven in a criminal court, saying that someone has committed a crime is defamation.

Tugendhut made it clear that if Bennett succeeded in being released from his undertakings then that would open the way for the libel action which he would likely lose (which is why he gave the undertaking the first place) and this could lead to financial ruin for him.

Is there a way out? Yes - throw himself on the mercy of the court, and give a further undertaking that he will never mention this case or the McCanns again. Make an offer towards reasonable costs, and walk away.

Will he do that?

No, he is not exactly the sharpest knife in the drawer, is he. The adulation of his followers means more to him than his and his wife's future comfort.

He seems to be having that 'forgetting' problem again, Jean-Pierre. Tonight, he said:

* 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?

The answer has to be, Yes, and Yes.

In his own words, about the meeting with Kirwans:

It became clear during our meeting that Kirwans had spent a lot of time at Senior Partner level both exploring representation by a barrister and trying to bring about, through insurance companies, a ‘no win, no fee’ basis for representing us. They had not succeeded. It was also clear that Senior Partner Michael Sandys has carried out a careful, forensic analysis of ‘60 Reasons’ which had taken him some time. I think it is possible to argue that we were not strictly under a legal obligation to pay them a penny and should have paid them nothing. However, Debbie and I both agreed that we should make a payment to Kirwans simply as a gesture of goodwill and appreciation, especially since we did get the benefit if top-level legal advice on this occasion, and they had written a couple of letters to Carter-Ruck for us.

Maybe he doesn't remember putting all this on the internet?

Some good stuff here, isn't there?

http://anthonybennett-fraudster.blogspot.co.uk/search?updated-max=2009-11-15T14:31:00-08:00&max-results=7

Quote:

I just kept thinking, my God, I've lived 37 years in Germany, and where do I go to, to meet extreme right-wing idiots for the very first time? - England, Harlow!!

bb1 wrote:Some good stuff here, isn't there?

http://anthonybennett-fraudster.blogspot.co.uk/search?updated-max=2009-11-15T14:31:00-08:00&max-results=7

Quote:

I just kept thinking, my God, I've lived 37 years in Germany, and where do I go to, to meet extreme right-wing idiots for the very first time? - England, Harlow!!

Too right Bonny.
3. After Kirwan's lambasting email vowing to never work with you because you were arrogant, the next day there was a miraculous turnaround after you had allegedly spoken to David Kirwan.

Arrogant, Bennett? Never in this world

Bennetts after leagal aid?

MMM, I wonder where this little lot went?

2. The account was jointly operated in that not one penny could be taken out of the account without both Debbie Butler and I signing cheques.‘The Sun’ article refers to the possibility that people might have mistakenly donated to The Madeleine Foundation thinking it was to support the fund to help find Madeleine. No-one donated on that basis. Incidentally Debbie Butler has publicly called for people who donated to the Foundation to ask for their money back. No-one has yet done so.Yes, the account has just over £2,700 in it.As for claims that people sent in ‘tens of thousands of pounds’, the actual total income to the Foundation between its establishment and the end of September 2009 was £8,104.05, made up a follows:

Income £ p

Loan from T Bennett 20 00
Loans from D Butler 350 00
Donations 590 00
Cash subscriptions 10 00
All Net PayPal Income(payments for books,subscriptions and donations) 5580 00
Cash sales of the booklet 1464 90
Retail booksellers 19 15

TOTAL: 8104 05

Madeleine Foundation members were recently sent a set of income and expenditure accounts in our newsletter.I now deal with ‘The Sun’ statement that ‘Mr Bennett is thought to have £90,000 in private accounts’. This is how that statement arose:

At the meeting with Kirwans, Solicitors, Liverpool, on 2 October 2009, the lawyers asked about our personal financial circumstances. I told them honestly that my current annual income was £14,000 (I have just filed my tax return) and that I had ‘a few tens of thousands’ saved up for my old age. This is where the ‘£90,000’ comes from.I take this opportunity to say that I have not made one penny either from the sale of ’60 Reasons’ nor in any way from The Madeleine Foundation; indeed it was my declared intent at the outset to make not a penny in any way connected with Madeleine’s disappearance. Our accounts will shortly be audited and that will I trust make it still plainer that there is no fraud or financial impropriety or irregularity in the conduct of The Madeleine Foundation’s affairs.


He hasn't done a days work in years, yet he is earning enough to pay tax on

What was it Bennett said? Oh yes....

I am going to post here all the e-mails sent by you since 3 November so that people can see for themselves that I am not evading any allegation against me. I will reply to each and every one below, then reproduce the run of emails between us.

Maybe he didn't expect anyone to collect them?

This is funny:

Incidentally, since Wednesday (5th) November you have blocked me (and Grenville Green) from visiting your website. People keep e-mailing me telling me about further accusations against me on your site which I cannot even see for myself. That is unfair. I would prefer you to stop publishing these unfounded allegations. But if you insist on doing so, at least let me see what they are so that I can respond. I need to see all the new allegations that people say you are publishing on your site.

He must have colonies of moths living in his wallet, Maggs. Look at this:

We offered the sum of £500.00 to Kirwans for their advice to date which was accepted and paid by us. I should explain that this was in respect of several hours of advice and assistance from Kirwans during the period 24 September until today, notably including a sentence-by-sentence analysis of the ‘60 Reasons’(libellous) book by Partner Michael Sandys.

How many hours - days - does Bennett think that took a legal professional to do? And he grudgingly handed over a paltry £500? I can only assume that Kirwans were glad to see the back of him.

I bet he is kidding himself that none of this will be in Kirwans files - the files they will be passing on to anyone unfortunate enough to get dragged into representing him.

bb1 wrote:He must have colonies of moths living in his wallet, Maggs. Look at this:

We offered the sum of £500.00 to Kirwans for their advice to date which was accepted and paid by us. I should explain that this was in respect of several hours of advice and assistance from Kirwans during the period 24 September until today, notably including a sentence-by-sentence analysis of the ‘60 Reasons’(libellous) book by Partner Michael Sandys.

How many hours - days - does Bennett think that took a legal professional to do? And he grudgingly handed over a paltry £500? I can only assume that Kirwans were glad to see the back of him.

I bet he is kidding himself that none of this will be in Kirwans files - the files they will be passing on to anyone unfortunate enough to get dragged into representing him.

Yeah Bonny,

Moths in his wallet, and silly cows filling it up for him. Think they have been had??

Oh my, look at this! This passed me by at the time! He is replying to the former admin of MM:

http://anthonybennett-fraudster.blogspot.co.uk/search?updated-max=2009-10-26T18:06:00-07:00&max-results=7&start=4&by-date=false

Having agreed to their terms I have no choice but to comply with them.That means I have actually already started the process of deleting or arranging to have deleted any posts on any forum where I have suggested that the parents know about Madeleine's death and have covered it up.Furthermore I have over the weekend written a detailed letter to Carter-Ruck in which I have given a specific undertaking in the terms asked for in paragraph (4) above. Interpreting that strictly, as no doubt the McCanns and Carter-Ruck would do, it means I cannot repeat the allegations I have made against the McCanns in a book or booklet, in a leaflet, on the internet. in an e-mail, or even in a letter to family and friends.As you can see, the Carter-Ruck did mention in their original letter by name three forums.

Furthermore I have over the weekend written a detailed letter to Carter-Ruck in which I have given a specific undertaking in the terms asked for in paragraph (4) above

He didn't just agree to their terms at Kirwans.

HE WENT OUT OF HIS WAY TO WRITE A SEPARATE, PERSONAL LETTER OF ACCEPTANCE OF THEIR TERMS

He's Friar Tucked.

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

Must have been as he gave them not once, but TWICE.

That weekend he must have been absolutely desperate about what would apparently happen to him should the libel case have gone ahead on the Monday. He was racing round on the Friday like a blue-arsed fly it seems getting the undertaking back to CR and then to MAKE IT PERFECTLY CLEAR that he was capitulating to absolutely everything he wrote a detailed letter accepting EVERYTHING in the undertaking without exception.

And since then he has allegedly broken every single aspect of that undertaking.

It looks to me as if he is now trying to justify what everyone else believes is his breaking of that undertaking by trying to prove that his lies are no such thing by using Amaral and Cristovao's books and the doggy video(s) to demonstrate TRUTH. I am surprised he hasn't used Hideho's homages to the disgraced cop to prove that Amaral is actually not a criminal.

The token sensible person on haverns is trying to make him see sense again:

"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." You sound so envious Tony, the put your hand in your pocket now and get legal advice, not from well wishers on the internet. The claiments no doubt have insurance. The Law is simple in most cases apart from financial.

You seem to be stuck in the past Tony in more ways than one.

You mention solictors reading it but passing on to a barrister. Then dispense of solicitors and go direct, it's the new way. Solicitors have their place in drawing up contracts etc but how many can hold their own against a barrister in court?

Your points may have been valid before you signed the undertaking, but you signed it and I've said over and over, you now have to concentrate on damage limitation, costs to be precise, as nowhere have I found commital to prison for contempt in a libel case in the UK.

The only defense I can think of is you weren't told how serious making an undertaking could be. It does after all have a penal notice attached and I can see a suspended sentence looming.

Our posters here should realise that this is not a libel case so presenting evidence for such is futile, and I wish Tony would confirm that. I even misread the situation myself due to being distracted as a plaintiff in one court case and defendant in another. My mind was otherwise occupied. Damn divorce.

Thre are heads in the sand here and Tony's is not the only one.

The only defense I can think of is you weren't told how serious making an undertaking could be.

That doesn't really work, does it, what with him saying he had first class advice from Kirwans, and him sending a SECOND letter to CR accepting the undertaking. I seem to recall Bennett posting about making changes CR hadn't even asked for?

As I said prior, it is about the undertaking he signed and broke. Everything else is irrelevant.
Is he guilty of contempt, yes. End of story.

bb1 wrote:The token sensible person on haverns is trying to make him see sense again:

"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." You sound so envious Tony, the put your hand in your pocket now and get legal advice, not from well wishers on the internet. The claiments no doubt have insurance. The Law is simple in most cases apart from financial.

You seem to be stuck in the past Tony in more ways than one.

You mention solictors reading it but passing on to a barrister. Then dispense of solicitors and go direct, it's the new way. Solicitors have their place in drawing up contracts etc but how many can hold their own against a barrister in court?

Your points may have been valid before you signed the undertaking, but you signed it and I've said over and over, you now have to concentrate on damage limitation, costs to be precise, as nowhere have I found commital to prison for contempt in a libel case in the UK.

The only defense I can think of is you weren't told how serious making an undertaking could be. It does after all have a penal notice attached and I can see a suspended sentence looming.

Our posters here should realise that this is not a libel case so presenting evidence for such is futile, and I wish Tony would confirm that. I even misread the situation myself due to being distracted as a plaintiff in one court case and defendant in another. My mind was otherwise occupied. Damn divorce.

Thre are heads in the sand here and Tony's is not the only one.

The only defense I can think of is you weren't told how serious making an undertaking could be.

That doesn't really work, does it, what with him saying he had first class advice from Kirwans, and him sending a SECOND letter to CR accepting the undertaking. I seem to recall Bennett posting about making changes CR hadn't even asked for?

This is exactly what it is all about:

NO LIBELCASE

but contempt of courtcase.

"The only defense I can think of is you weren't told how serious making an undertaking could be." End Quote.

Don't you just love that. Who but a dishonourable man would need to be told. And if Bennett uses that as a Defence it will only serve to prove it.

"Mr Bennett - did you sign an undertaking not to libel the McCanns?"

"I did your honour. But I did not understand that it meant I could not libel the McCanns"

"why did you think that, Mr Bennett"

"Well, nobody explained to me what I was signing, and it had all these long legal words. I was misled. Its not my fault"

"Mr Bennett, I believe you at one time qualified as a solicitor of the high court? "

"Yes, your honour.

"So how can you claim not to understand a simple undertaking?"

"I was struck off, your honour"

Just spat my Large Gin all over the keyboard.

Jean-Pierre.t50 wrote:"Mr Bennett - did you sign an undertaking not to libel the McCanns?"

"I did your honour. But I did not understand that it meant I could not libel the McCanns"

"why did you think that, Mr Bennett"

"Well, nobody explained to me what I was signing, and it had all these long legal words. I was misled. Its not my fault"

"Mr Bennett, I believe you at one time qualified as a solicitor of the high court? "

"Yes, your honour.

"So how can you claim not to understand a simple undertaking?"

"I was struck off, your honour"

Sabot wrote:

Just spat my Large Gin all over the keyboard.

A keyboard? At this hour in the morning?

Jean-Pierre.t50 wrote:

Sabot wrote:

Just spat my Large Gin all over the keyboard.

A keyboard? At this hour in the morning?

I've been awake since 2 am, I'll have you know. And it is only a small one.
And as they say in The Navy, The Sun is always over a key board somewhere.

yeah yeah yeah

Jean-Pierre.t50 wrote:"Mr Bennett - did you sign an undertaking not to libel the McCanns?"

"I did your honour. But I did not understand that it meant I could not libel the McCanns"

"why did you think that, Mr Bennett"

"Well, nobody explained to me what I was signing, and it had all these long legal words. I was misled. Its not my fault"

"Mr Bennett, I believe you at one time qualified as a solicitor of the high court? "

"Yes, your honour.

"So how can you claim not to understand a simple undertaking?"

"I was struck off, your honour"