BENNETT CLUTCHES AT LEGAL AID STRAWS

Tony's right, all the material he thinks is somehow going to save him was available the first time around, so what he thinks is going to change now by showing doggie movies and quoting a 'book' by a convicted liar and a 'book' by someone facing uncountable charges of gangsterism and corruption I do not know.


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.

Wasn't it LaffinThug who put them in touch?

Was it him or Photon, Bonny? One of the two I believe?

This has got to be the funniest, most deluded, post yet on the subject. Naturally, it's by yoyo:

I am out of UK for so long I no longer know whether one can approach the citizen advice to seek information about where to get public assisted legal aid.

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. There is no short cut way to know what one chances are. Not even CR can advise or guarantee Mccanns chances. It could swing either way.

Oh, btw CR is a service not a business - professional firms are after all not trading companies.
They don't depend on finished transaction or dealing to earn their silvers. They get paid anyway for work already done; doesn't matter if this case progresses no further, they would still bill their clients for service already rendered. It is not a question of cash flow to buy more goods to continue the business. Their cash flow depends on the number of cases they have - in short its about quantity in cases and of course having financially rich clients to mug. Surely if this case is pending, their time is then free and can work on other cases if cash flow is their main concern. It's not as if they have to push this case through to collect their fees.

The merits of the case weight heavily on the evidence than anything else. Of course if TB is disadvantaged by being up against a financial heavy weight opposite party who brought this against him, and he has no avenue or mean for a level playing field in terms of legal representation, then a wise Judge will have to take this disparity into consideration when deliberating and deciding on his verdict.
------------

'Out of UK'? Out of Planet Earth, more like.

There's this thing called the 'internet' - law firms are listed there so people can see what they specialise in.

There's this thing called 'Yellow Pages' - law firms are listed there so people can see what they specialise in.

Bennett really should come clean, and tell them he is trying to postpone the day of judgement because he knows he is going to lose, and lose badly.

As for:


Oh, btw CR is a service not a business

Does their bank manager know CR is no longer a business? I think they should be told.

It's a complex case that needs time to get in-depth into the details then work the defend from there.

No, it isn't at all complex.

Bennett made a legally-binding agreement with the court in 2009. Bennett then drove a coach and horses through that agreement. Which is why he is charged with contempt of court.

Lily, I wonder just what Photon/Thug told Bennett - he clearly thought he wasn't going to get a bill, and also clearly would have refused to pay Kirwans if he could:


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.

If Bennett thinks law firms are going to be falling over themselves to represent a client with his track record, he is sadly mistaken.

Doesn't he realise that any new firm would, as a matter of course, ask Kirwans for their file on him?

Oh, btw CR is a service not a business

If Yoyo cannot understand the above, then what does it say about his/her understanding of this whole Contempt of Court issue of Bennett's?

Lily, I wonder just what Photon/Thug told Bennett - he clearly thought he wasn't going to get a bill, and also clearly would have refused to pay Kirwans if he could:


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.

If Bennett thinks law firms are going to be falling over themselves to represent a client with his track record, he is sadly mistaken.

Doesn't he realise that any new firm would, as a matter of course, ask Kirwans for their file on him?

I wonder what they told him too? Did they tell him that he would be getting the first consultation for free? Did either of them offer to help him? Of course we would have no idea about that.

However, it seems he got advice on more than one occasion. It also seems from what he wrote that he was prepared to argue the case in the event he did receive a bill. Making a token payment was better than risking a potential fall out with Kirwins?

Didn't he then do something unpleasant towards them involving faked e-mails, or something similar, if I recall it correctly? I seem to remember thinking that he would not be able to ask them for help after that......

Yes, Bonny. Kirwins would have been asked for the file in the event that Bennett went to another firm for representation. He should know that of course, what with him having qualified at some point in his life......

Did he post their private emails? He did something to Kirwans involving emails, but he has pulled so many low tricks on people, one loses track.....

I have this notion that Bennett thinks he can somehow get fresh representation without previous files about him being passed on; after all, one look at those, and any legal person - any legal intern - will know he hasn't a leg to stand on.

His followers are truly, stunningly stupid, aren't they? A hilarious thread has just been hastily removed - that gillydot idiot made a complete fool of herself over a photo.

She was convinced it was a Big Clue that was going to Crack the Case and should be sent to the Yard; naturally, it wasn't, she was just demonstrating yet again that she has 'issues' and the thread was hurriedly removed to spare her blushes.....

If you read the delusional garbage they post, you can see how Bennett gets away with pulling the wool over their eyes; his problem is that the real world isn't as well, thick, as his fans are.

He did post their e-mails, Bonny. This was around the time that they were doctoring some e-mails, IIRC.

IMO only really gullible people would believe Bennett and fall for his manipulations but they do. If they tried to step back, understand how the world works outside of their bubble, they would see it all for what it is.

Someone should tell them, their thread in which gillydot made a complete plonker of herself is still showing in the indeX.


Police search fo...
Today at 10:09 am
candyfloss

He did post their e-mails, Bonny. This was around the time that they were doctoring some e-mails, IIRC.

Yes, that does indeed ring a bell, Lily. I assume Bennett thinks that any new legal representative he may get will not be made aware of misconduct like that?

Here is something Bennett should think about.
Kirwin's, couldn't get an insurance firm to back them on a no win no fee basis.
The lawyers would give the insurance firm the details of the case and which firm of lawyers they were up against. The insurance firm declined. What should that tell Bennett?

Excellent point, Tony - I confess, I had forgotten that.

I cannot help suspecting that Bennett already knows he's sunk, and that he is just playing out this pantomime to avoid having to tell the hounders the truth.

Tony, that should have told Bennett loads.

I suppose it is possible that he is so deluded himself that he cannot face the reality that he cannot win? The reality that Gonc is how we say he is?

Bonny, they were even unable to get a barrister to take the case.

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

Oh dear......

He is up that creek for sure.

From what I could make out, legal aid in civil cases involves 'merit' - the case must have some chance of winning. That an insurance company couldn't be before Bennett decided to ignore a legally-binding document speaks volumes, IMO.

In a way, it will be a pity if he is refused legal aid - he will never be done whining about it.

Unless - he knows he is going to be refused, and that the refusal will give him an excuse to settle on any terms Carter Ruck may choose to offer?

That way, he would be able to walk away with some of his 'tens of thousands of pounds' intact?

In a way, it will be a pity if he is refused legal aid - he will never be done whining about it.

Central to this matter is the fact that Bennett, for some unknown reason, is unable to accept responsibility for his own actions. That is why he finds himself in this situation.

Didn't Bennett make an offer to Carter Ruck, which they refused? This will be on record.

Incidentally, or not, The Judge will decide the case on the points of Law that have been broken, and while he might treat Bennett with some patience as a Litigant in Person, it will not affect his decision legally, especially as he, The Judge will know that Bennett is far from destitute.

PS. I think the Email Business had something to do with Bennett saying that Kerwan's were asking for more money when in fact they weren't.

That's right, Sabot. It was about the costs.

Didn't Bennett make an offer to Carter Ruck, which they refused? This will be on record.

Oh yes, so he did, Sabot.

Of course the judge will know that Bennett has substantial funds, just as he will know about COLD.

It would be something else if part of his offer were to not discuss any of this case, blah blah blah, again.

lily wrote:It would be something else if part of his offer were to not discuss any of this case, blah blah blah, again.

I can't see Bennett offering that, Lily. He probably offered The McCanns a Right to Reply on Hell Hole if they answered the 48 Question. He's barmy enough.

Completely barmy enough, Sabot. Karma is going to strike him really hard.......

lily wrote:Completely barmy enough, Sabot. Karma is going to strike him really hard.......

I wish it would bloody well hurry up a bit, Lily. Although Bennett won't see it as Karma. He will see it as victimisation. But who cares as long as someone shuts him up. He is a nasty little man with barely middle class megalomania.

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.

That really should have told Bennett to pack it in, instead of even considering leaving Kirwans with the bill for work done on his behalf.

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.

And that was an offer he shouldn't have refused.

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.