BENNETT CLUTCHES AT LEGAL AID STRAWS

Now he's getting advice from members:

Maybe the trial won't take place until Tony has legal representation, hence their "helpfulness."

There are direct access barristers on the net, an email to one or two outlining the case would be useful for feedback.

A 30 min talk either via phone or in person is less than £100, and if Tony needs a solicitor they will advise. If it's a lost cause at least they will tell him so.

I really do think Tony needs to spend some money now or they'll wipe the floor with him. He won't know the best angle to take or how best to present it whereas a barrister will and possibly even know how that particular judge works.

Please Tony at least email a couple of them, that won't cost a penny.

-------------

They're not quite getting it, are they? Bennett WANTS to be a martyr. Nothing is stopping him from sticking his hand in his own well-filled pockets. Just like no-one forced him to breach his agreement with the High Court.

Getting his ego stroked by his internet fan club is more important than anything else to Bennett, IMO.

The last thing he is going to do is face reality - that he hasn't a leg to stand on.

I think that The Legal Committee should insist on Bennett paying a small proportion of his savings for A Barrister's Opinion. £1,000 should cover this. And then if this Opinion is favourable for Bennett they can sensibly consider granting an amount towards his Defence, taking into account his bulk savings.
That should sort this out.

But what happens when Bennett gets told the hard truth - that he is on a hiding to nothing? It's the end for him and his vendetta - the end for his supporters and their hate campaign, too.

I reckon he WANTS to portray himself as the brave little LIP, to keep this charade going as long as possible?

ETA, he says he has 'tens of thousands of pounds'.

So, what is stopping him sticking his hand in his own pocket and spending, say ten thousand of it on good legal advice? Anyone sane would.

He probably has had some Legal Advice which is why he doesn't want to spend any more of his own money on a dead duck. But he won't be telling anyone about that.

Maybe he is waiting for all those hundreds of members of his forum to stick their hands in their pockets and rescue him?

Ah yes, that makes sense, Sabot - he has already been told he is up sh*t creek and paddle-less, but is carrying on with this pantomime for as long as he can. God forbid he should actually tell his fans the truth!

He might have a bit of a wait for that, Lily, as the exciting news about the COLD fund for him and Gonc got all of four replies.

Two were to say there seemed to be a virus on the COLD site, one to quote the Daily Mail, and only one actually donating money.....

I expect that all of The Barristers are IN IT. Everyone else is.

bb1 wrote:Ah yes, that makes sense, Sabot - he has already been told he is up sh*t creek and paddle-less, but is carrying on with this pantomime for as long as he can. God forbid he should actually tell his fans the truth!

He might have a bit of a wait for that, Lily, as the exciting news about the COLD fund for him and Gonc got all of four replies.

Two were to say there seemed to be a virus on the COLD site, one to quote the Daily Mail, and only one actually donating money.....

Surely there must be some big mistake there? Only one donation?

But he is frequently letting everyone know that there are thousands of people reading his site and just look at all those members............

Don't they care?

Re: McCanns v Bennett: LATEST - 4 June 2012
ShuBob Today
Where will the money be coming from if he doesn't get legal aid? Even if both sides use barristers, one side will still come off worse.

Don't tell me reality is starting to dawn on them.....

What has changed since Bennett wrote this?

AJSBennett Says: October 2nd, 2009 at 10:42 pm
THE DECISION TO ACCEDE TO CARTER-RUCK’S DEMANDS

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


Today began at 4.00 am for Debbie and 5.00 am for me as we had an appointment with Kirwans Solicitors, Liverpool at 11.00am.
The meeting was with Partners David Kirwan and Michael Sandys, Solicitor Julia Kirwan and Media Advisor Nick Mason and lasted four hours with three short interruptions.
Clear advice was given that because of the high degree of uncertainty in libel litigation, no guarantee could be given that if we defended a libel suit, we would win. It was emphasised in graphic terms by one of the Partners that on a worst-case scenario the outcome could mean complete financial ruin for both Debbie and myself, with all our savings raided and court orders made to recover the equity value each of us have in the homes we own. It was also emphasised that Carter-Ruck had immense resources both within their firm and beyond them, that they could sustain a case lasting many weeks, and that to defend the proceedings would require us to engage libel lawyers at huge fees which neither of us could remotely afford to pay.
We were further advised that correspondence between Kirwans Solicitors and Carter-Ruck on 24, 25 and 29 September and 1 October revealed a strong likelihood that Carter-Ruck had indeed already drafted a libel writ and would be ready to walk into the High Court on Monday (5th Oct) at 9.00am to issue a writ, unless we acceded to their demands in full by close of play on Friday (i.e. today).
Accordingly we telephoned Carter-Ruck at 3.14pm today and faxed them written notice of our accession to the McCanns’ demands at 3.25pm. Attempts to speak to both Adam Tudor and Isabel Hudson, the two main Solicitors conducting the litigation for Carter-Ruck, failed as we were informed that ‘the entire department’ was tied up in a meeting this afternoon. That was still the case when we telephoned again at 4.47pm to make absolutely sure that our fax had been safely received. Julia on the switchboard confirmed that it had been.
Kirwans offered to assist us with concluding written terms of settlement with the McCanns, via Carter-Ruck, if we paid them a retainer of £5,000 plus VAT. After a short period of consideration,(a nano-second) Debbie and I decided that neither of us could afford 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. As we cannot afford further legal help, we shall have to deal with any further correspondence with Carter-Ruck ourselves.
FINALLY…
I wish to make it clear to all readers of this forum, whoever they are, that as from today we gave notice to Carter-Ruck that we acceded to their demand that The Madeleine Foundation website be ’suspended permanently’. Stevo has exercised what he asserts are his rights associated with registration and ownership of the domain name etc. and is now in personal and sole control of this website which has been re-named.
THIS WEBSITE THEREFORE IS NO LONGER IN ANY SHAPE OR FORM UNDER THE CONTROL OR DIRECTION OF THE MADELEINE FOUNATION

Thanks, Tony.

We were further advised that correspondence between Kirwans Solicitors and Carter-Ruck on 24, 25 and 29 September and 1 October revealed a strong likelihood that Carter-Ruck had indeed already drafted a libel writ and would be ready to walk into the High Court on Monday (5th Oct) at 9.00am to issue a writ, unless we acceded to their demands in full by close of play on Friday (i.e. today).
Accordingly we telephoned Carter-Ruck at 3.14pm today and faxed them written notice of our accession to the McCanns’ demands at 3.25pm. Attempts to speak to both Adam Tudor and Isabel Hudson, the two main Solicitors conducting the litigation for Carter-Ruck, failed as we were informed that ‘the entire department’ was tied up in a meeting this afternoon. That was still the case when we telephoned again at 4.47pm to make absolutely sure that our fax had been safely received. Julia on the switchboard confirmed that it had been.

Just look at that! Bennett may have 'forgotten' what he did at Kirwans - but Carter Ruck haven't.

I'm surprised Bennett isn't suing Kerwan's for forcing him and Butler into signing that Undertaking. Or maybe he's got that on hold.

TRUST
Portia Today

ShuBob wrote:
Where will the money be coming from if he doesn't get legal aid? Even if both sides use barristers, one side will still come off worse.


Negative.

Any judge would be dutibound to protect the weaker party, observing a balanced approach.

That is their job.

No, it isn't any judge's job to protect someone who is too mean to pay for their own defence, despite having 'tens of thousands' in the bank.

They really do need to do a reality check - and that one needs another nic, instead of a pretendy legal one.

Do they think The Judge is going to feel sorry for Bennett for Stalking, Hounding and Libelling The McCanns?
What very strange ideas some of them appear to have.

Any judge would be dutibound to protect the weaker party, observing a balanced approach.


It's crazy; that's like saying the judge should feel sorry for the poor lickle wickle serial killer who only gets a Legal Aid defence, against high-powered prosecuting counsel.

I don't think they can grasp that Bennett is not the victim here, he's the aggressor.

bb1 wrote:
Any judge would be dutibound to protect the weaker party, observing a balanced approach.


It's crazy; that's like saying the judge should feel sorry for the poor lickle wickle serial killer who only gets a Legal Aid defence, against high-powered prosecuting counsel.

I don't think they can grasp that Bennett is not the victim here, he's the aggressor.

That has been buried in the mists of time, Bonny. This was part of Bennett's strategy. Fortunately it won't work with The Judge. But no doubt the Forkers will be howling in outrage when Bennett gets done.

Any judge would be dutibound to protect the weaker party, observing a balanced approach.

No, the Judge is there to decide between two opposing points of view. He is there to arbitrate and decide which set of evidence presented to him carries the proper weight to be judged as correct. It is nothing to do with him as to the financial fun and games; that is ONLY decided AFTER the verdict is given. Where do these eejits get these ridiculous ideas from?

Definition of a legal Judge: To make a decision or reach a conclusion after examining all the factual evidence presented. To form an opinion after evaluating the facts and applying the law.

A public officer chosen or elected to preside over and to administer the law in a court of justice; one who controls the proceedings in a courtroom and decides questions of law or discretion.

I see no resemblance to this Portia's idea of what a Judge's powers are. LL

Thanks for the clear summary, LL. I don't think that lot actually understand what is happening with Bennett. They seem to have forgotten that he made a legally-binding agreement AND THEN REPEATEDLY BROKE IT.

I really cannot see any way out for him, personally.

bb1 wrote:Thanks for the clear summary, LL. I don't think that lot actually understand what is happening with Bennett. They seem to have forgotten that he made a legally-binding agreement AND THEN REPEATEDLY BROKE IT.

I really cannot see any way out for him, personally.

You're welcome. He is going to keep this up ad infinitum as it is the ONLY way he can stay in the spotlight. Once he has been to court and his lies and erratic behaviour are out for all to see, he will be, as far as I can see, totally shafted. I am sure he has lost it; I shall sit back and watch. LL

LL, I don't think Bennett can help himself. He'd barely announced that he was going to be quiet from now on, when he was posting sly digs and stupid pomes.

The adoration of those idiots, in cyber-space, seems to count for far more than anything that is happening in real life.

Fancy being adored by that lot. Or even wanting to be. What an indictment to a wasted life.
Sad really.

A reminder of why Bennett hasn't a leg to stand on:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/apr/25/madeleine-mccann-case-reopen-call

quote:

Dismissing conspiracy theories about Madeleine's parents' involvement, Redwood said he believed the girl's disappearance was the result of "a criminal act by a stranger".

Tony Bennett To Steve Marsden
D. Kirwans

The initial letter to Debbie Butler from Nick Mason of Kirwans on 21 November talked about the possibility of their helping us on a pro-bono basis. Nothing more than a possibility. That then changed to ‘possibly’ on a ‘no win, no fee’ basis, whatever that means in a case of libel proceedings. 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. Debbie herself came up with the figure of £500, and as I had the MF chequebook with me, we signed there and then, handed the cheque to them and I obtained a receipt for our records.


You refer to our ‘accelerated capitulation’. Just as I did, Debbie heard the words: “Libel law is uncertain. Libel law is complex. No-one can confidently predict the outcome of a libel writ. Even if you cannot fully prove one single sentence or statement in your booklet or on your website, you may be found guilty of libel. You have made a very serious allegation in your book and on your website, namely that the McCanns know what happened to Madeleine and are deliberately covering it up. Carter-Ruck charge fees of £500 an hour and you both face financial ruin”.

Up against that top-level legal advice, I made my decision to accede.You mentioned this in one of your emails: “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”. I know nothing about this and I understand that you somehow got involved in correspondence with Kirwans and that this e-mail was sent to you. All I recollect is that I had two or three conversations with David Kirwan on a mobile ’phone whilst I was walking in Northumberland and these were about fixing a date for a meeting and also authorising him to write a letter to Carter-Ruck explaining that we needed more time in which to take expert legal advice.

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

I believe both Amaral and Cristóvão's book along with the dog videos were available before Bennett conceded to Carter Ruck's demands? And, as Bennett has stated he intends to use the above mentioned in his defense against the libel case he is embroiled in. I have to wonder, why did Bennett not use them in 2009?
Nothing has change in regards to the evidence, on his own admission, Bennett was given top level legal advice not to defend the case.
Even insurance companies turned down Kirwan's application for a no win no fee, coverage.
Which indicates they knew Bennett would lose. So, what makes Bennett think he is going to win a case he was advised he couldn't win?

I think it is a combination of things, Tony. He left the meeting with Kerwan's to the last minute, possibly in some mistaken belief that Carter Ruck wouldn't proceed against him, and then panicked when he realised that they were all set to go. You can see this in his frantic attempts to ensure that they had received his Undertaking on that day.
Then he went away and decided that he had been tricked into signing. He wasn't tricked, but people of his ilk always feel as though they have been.
Since then he has been trying to change the goal posts, but has in fact, backed himself into a corner.
I also suspect that he has been hoping to delay the whole thing until after The Amaral Libel Trial in the forlorn hope that Amaral will win, although how he thinks that will help him I really do not know. Except that is is all happening in Europe.