BENNETT CLUTCHES AT LEGAL AID STRAWS

Rose wrote:yeah yeah yeah

Ha! You don't believe I've got a small keyboard? Now where did I put that Gin Bottle. It was under the bed the last time I looked.

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"

I love the fact that he didn't just sign it once.

HE AGREED WITH IT SO MUCH, HE SIGNED IT ALL OVER AGAIN IN A LATER LETTER.

Ye gods:
__________________

Re: McCanns v Bennett: LATEST - 4 June 2012
Châtelaine Today at 11:16 am

.I think it possible that the leaflet distribution in Rothley tipped the scale and raised a "lust" for blood and revenge. IMO, of course..
Châtelaine


Posts: 28
Join date: 2011-11-30
Location: Le Château





. Re: McCanns v Bennett: LATEST - 4 June 2012
Jean Today at 11:39 am

.Yes I'm inclined to think so too. On reflection perhaps it would have been better not to do that but I don't think we then knew to what extent the McCanns would go to ruin people who hadn't fallen for their fairy tales.

___________________

I am, for once, rather lost for words.........

I wonder, J-P, do they actually think they have some right to stalk, abuse and harrass innocent people? That they are entitled to act like an internet lynch mob?

Their spite, arrogance and lack of respect for the law is astounding.

So they didn't know how far The McCanns would go to protect themselves? Just how far would Bennett have gone if The McCanns had allowed him to carry on? Personally, I shudder to think.

I am sure the disgusting, libellous obscenities being spouted in this thread on Bennett's home forum:

Re: CADAVER (SORRY) SPERM DOGS

have been noticed. Please, no-one repeat them in public here; I am sure screenshots are being taken and sent to the right people at this very minute.

bb1 wrote:I am sure the disgusting, libellous obscenities being spouted in this thread on Bennett's home forum:

Re: CADAVER (SORRY) SPERM DOGS

have been noticed. Please, no-one repeat them in public here; I am sure screenshots are being taken and sent to the right people at this very minute.

So the perverts still haven't read the files?
I suppose they are hinting at what the Beast of Portimao said, in his toilet roll. Shame it turned out to be saliva from another child that had stayed in the apartment a month before the McCanns. So much for their cleaners eh?
Have you noticed Gonc's mind set is just like the perv's. F****g

STILL NO DIVORCE FROM SOAPY

Oh I see there's a Swiss newbie on hellhole, kiko.
She's trying awfully hard not to be English, it ain't working though

xxxxhttp://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t5156p10-martin-brunt-s-blog-life-of-crimexxxx

I suppose they are hinting at what the Beast of Portimao said, in his toilet roll

No, they aren't, Maggs - this is ten times worse. Which only goes to show what depraved, sick minds they have, that they can think such things, never mind publically post them.

http://thehoundingofthemccans.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/bennett-delayed-for-four-years.html

A timely reminder of Bennett's less-than-impressive legal 'career'.

Re: McCanns v Bennett: LATEST - 4 June 2012
Jean Today

I do hope that nasty piece of work Kololi hasn't been reincarnated! I've heard of the rewritten carol - but only from a troll on another site - so didn't know whether it really exists. I can't really comment as I haven't read it but it does sound like an error of judgement.

That of course does not mean that everything else that Tony does is wrong. I have encountered a few people in my time who write others off on the strength of one mistake and quite honestly they are pains in the rear.

How she has the nerve to call anyone a 'troll' is beyond me - but maybe they should be reminded of what Bennett did to a much-loved Christmas carol?

SONG FOR CHRISTMAS
By Tony Bennett

Silent night, peaceful night
All is calm, all is ‘so right’

An evening out boozing, without any child
The latest sedatives, strong and not mild
Booze in heavenly peace
Booze in heavenly peace.


No silent night, no peaceful night’
Madeleine’s gone’, now start the fight
Off to the priest for a quick requiem mass
Claim an abduction, as bold as brass
The Find Madeleine Fund is born
The Find Madeleine Fund is born.

Silent night, we say we’re white
The PJ see us in a different light
Interviews and rogatories thrust in our face
Even the Pope says we’re a disgrace

Only a mattress in my cell
Only a mattress in my cell

__________________

by Tony Bennett on Tue Dec 30, 2008 5:04 pm

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

I seem to recall he was going to be struck off the solicitors' roll for that, and a few other things, but he had 'forgotten' to renew his status or something?

That sounds suspiciously like Fraud to me.

Sabot wrote:
So they didn't know how far The McCanns would go to protect themselves? Just how far would Bennett have gone if The McCanns had allowed him to carry on? Personally, I shudder to think.

It is intriguing that certain parties argue that Bennett should have freedom of expression and action. And to be able to say what he wants.

If that is accepted, then it follows that the McCanns have a similar right - to take action to stop him.

The olny difference is that they have the law on their side.

The sensible person has had another try at reasoning with them:


Until this morning I hadn't realised that Tony received legal advice on signing. Presumably they would have pointed out the serious consequences of breaching the undertaking and I'm sure would have tried to avoid signing it if at all possible. If he can find a way around that, saying it was disproportionate to his publishings for example, I dare say libel will rear its head again and the whole cycle will resume and at what cost to his health.

Avoid signing it? That doesn't really work when there is a record of his panic about the fax reaching CR.

Indeed, he liked it so much that he personally wrote to CR accepting it a few days later:

.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.

Hilarious! He is still trying to wriggle, squirm and re-write history:

Re: McCanns v Bennett: LATEST - 4 June 2012
Tony Bennett Today

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

Spaniel, you have clearly misunderstood the legal position, though I have spelt it out previously in the forum.

Let's review the history of this in stages.

On 27 August 2009, the McCanns claimed that '60 Reasons' and '10 Reasons' were libellous.

PRIOR TO 25 November 2009, the McCanns issued a LIBEL CLAIM (what used to be called a 'libel writ') against me in the High Court, claiming damages for defamation.

On 25 November 2009, that libel claim was 'STAYED'. That means, in terms, suspended, or postponed. Certainl;y not abandoned.

The McCanns agreed not to proceed with their libel claim subject to two conditions:

1. I paid their court fees of £400, and

2. I signed and agreed to a number of penal undertakings.

On 1 December 2011 the McCanns served me with committal-to-prison proceedingss.

On 8 February before Mr Justice Tugendhat I applied for permission to cross-apply within these proceedings for an order that I be released from three specific parts of the undertakings I gave.

Mr Justice Tugendhat, in granting me permission to make such an application, said, and I quote: "Mr Bennett, you do realise that by making such an application, you will bring into play the Claimants' original libel claim against you, which has merely been stayed, not abandoned?"

I said that I fully understood this.

Thus, Spaniel, you are incorrect. The issue of libel is very much live in this case and comes into play particularly in relation to the application I have made to be released from three of my undertakings. My application was made in February and my Affidavit in support of that application was filed and served on 23 March 2012.

I must make one other comment on those who attempt to insist that this is more or less a straight matter of: "Did Tony break his undertaking or not - Yes or No".

As both the European Court of Human Rights and the British courts have ruled (see Hammerton v Hammerton), a court decision arrived at when there has not been equality of arms is a violation of human rights under Article 6(1) and is therefore, effectively, invalid. The High Court decided to accept an undertaking in a situation where the defendant did not have equality of arms - indeed, nothing like it. Under Article 6(1), that decision was invalid.

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

He's wasting his time with this 'equality of arms' stuff. He himself made that a matter of record:

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. Having conceded that, Kirwans offered to settle the terms of any written agreement with Carter-Ruck for a fee of £5,000 plus VAT, to be paid upfront. Both of us agreed that we could not afford this either from Madeleine Foundation funds or from our own resources. 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

Oops!

All Bennett is achieving, IMO, is demonstrating his gross ignorance of the law, and denial of the mess he is in. Does he really think that Kirwans are going to be happy about the manner in which he is now describing them, having previously praised them for giving TOP LEVEL LEGAL ADVICE?

He is in for one or two very nasty shocks, IMO.

On 25 November 2009, that libel claim was 'STAYED'. That means, in terms, suspended, or postponed. Certainl;y not abandoned.

The McCanns agreed not to proceed with their libel claim subject to two conditions:

1. I paid their court fees of £400, and

2. I signed and agreed to a number of penal undertakings.

That's odd.

He seems to have forgotten to mention the TOP LEVEL LEGAL ADVICE he got from Kirwans.

Or that he liked the agreement with Carter Ruck so much, he wrote to them personally accepting it.

Never mind, Carter Ruck and Kirwans will have records of all this to show the court.

Does Bennett think that if The Undertaking is lifted that his previous Libel won't count anymore?

WRONG. And add to that his Libel since he signed The Undertaking.

bb1 wrote:On 25 November 2009, that libel claim was 'STAYED'. That means, in terms, suspended, or postponed. Certainl;y not abandoned.

The McCanns agreed not to proceed with their libel claim subject to two conditions:

1. I paid their court fees of £400, and

2. I signed and agreed to a number of penal undertakings.

That's odd.

He seems to have forgotten to mention the TOP LEVEL LEGAL ADVICE he got from Kirwans.

Or that he liked the agreement with Carter Ruck so much, he wrote to them personally accepting it.

Never mind, Carter Ruck and Kirwans will have records of all this to show the court.

The correct wording on his document reads; Held In Abeyance

Now the departed Kololi has returned - he/she was driven away with finger-pointing and shrieks of Burn the witch! a while back.


Re: McCanns v Bennett: LATEST - 4 June 2012
Meagain Today at 4:02 pm

Sorry I did not mean to deceive and thought the name would have clued people as it did you, Candyfloss. I couldn't log in as Kololi as you kindly did as I asked.

This situation intrigues me and I could not resist because I cannot for the life of me understand how a person can say and do what Mr Bennett has done and then play the victim especially as he should know the law.

I know people can make mistakes (I make many) and not everything that they do is wrong, Jean. Are you allowing that luxury for the McCanns? There are some errors of judgement, however, that, in my opinion, are not actually errors of judgement and are indeed actions that are carried out knowing the risk of consequence to them. Leaving three children alone in a strange apartment would be one and breaching an undertaking that you have given to a court would be another. Both carry risks and both have been carried out by inteliigent people who should have known better.

If you want to look at the Xmas carol, Jean, along with the emails showing that Mr Bennett did, indeed, breach his undertaking within mere weeks of agreeing to it, you may wish to read a blog called "stick a fork in me" as I understand it is all there. It might even be stick a fork in me I am cooked or something similar. You can get the link from that site I was accused of coming from.

Rest assured, I won't be pestering - just could not believe my eyes when I caught up with this thread and the poor Mr Bennett frenzy so gave in to an urge to respond. Take care all. K.
=============

Expect more finger-pointing and shrieking shortly - he/she also pointed out:

Absoloutely, but that is the way of things until the law changes and Mr Bennett is not a poor pensioner as some would have us believe. Didn't he once mention he had £80,000 in savings?

Spaniel and Portia have nailed it.

Whilst it may seem morally unfair that they have access to greater amounts of money than him and so can afford to take action that most of us would only be able to dream about if faced with similar, a legal undertaking was made and not challenged at the time and should therefore, have been upheld by those taking it.

We may not like the truth or the facts but the truth and the fact in this case is very simple. Two people gave a legal undertaking to the courts and one of them decided after the event that he would ignore his committment. I would tend to agree with Spaniel's observation too - if the undertaking is shown in court to have been too wide and thus unreasonable, then the roundabout may continue spinning back to the libel aspect if the McCanns so choose.

For us ordinary souls, the law does indeed need changing to make the playing field level, but Mr Bennett having been a solicitor was more than aware of the potential consequences of his action in breaching his undertaking. He should have stopped after the leaflet drop, or even after giving leaflets to Sym to sell but most certainly before his disgusting re-writing of a Xmas carol as if Madeleine had written it from the grave.

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

Sadly, the sort of people who can post the depravity being exhibited there today, are likely to find the desecration of a Christmas carol highly entertaining.

I cannot for the life of me understand how a person can say and do what Mr Bennett has done and then play the victim especially as he should know the law.


IMO, it doesn't matter one bit that Bennett is attempting to rewrite history, what actually happened is all recorded at Carter Ruck, Kirwans - and all over the internet.

It's futile.
==============

Mien Fuhrer, the Red Army tanks are parked outside the bunker!

REPLY: Under Clause 678, subsection eleventy-nine of the Overthrowing Megalomaniacs Act, 1891, I am fully entitled to demand that they remove their tanks at once as it is a clear breach of my Yuman Rites that they have greater fire power than I do.

Furthermore, I will be lodging a complaint, as is my right under the Overthrowing Megalomaniacs Act, 1891, because of the circumstances under which the Red Army tanks come to be parked outside.

I was entrapped into invading the Soviet Union. They tricked me into thinking they would not retaliate, indeed, I had to be persuaded to invade them by their own blandishments. How could I have known that they would take offence to my laying waste half of their nation?

No-one told me they would be a bit annoyed with me, so it's their fault, not mine, for not warning me.

Mien Fuhrer, the Red Army tanks are parked outside the bunker!

MEIN!! LL

Bennett seems to rely on article 6 of the ECHR. He appears to think that if a judgement is made in case where there is "inequality of arms" then that judgement is invalid

"As both the European Court of Human Rights and the British courts have ruled (see Hammerton v Hammerton), a court decision arrived at when there has not been equality of arms is a violation of human rights under Article 6(1) and is therefore, effectively, invalid. The High Court decided to accept an undertaking in a situation where the defendant did not have equality of arms - indeed, nothing like it. Under Article 6(1), that decision was invalid."

But perhaps a look at what article 6 actually says might be instructive:

1.In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgment shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interest of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice.
2.Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.

3.Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights:
(a) to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him; (b) to have adequate time and the facilities for the preparation of his defence; (c) to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require; (d) to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him; (e) to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court.

Prior to signing the original undertaking, he received advice from a qualified solicitor, who offered to represent him for a fee of £5000. (ie some 16% of his free assets). He declined.

Tricky to argue "insufficient means".

Having broken an undertaking freely entered into, and continued to libel a grieving family, Bennett now wants free legal represenation.

What is the difference between this and a benefit scrounger?

OOPS!

bb1 wrote:OOPS!