Isabel Martorell* writes about Leveson; Bennett latest - up creek and paddleless

bb1 wrote:That, I do not know, Tony - I understand it is possible the libel case will be heard by a different judge.

And if Bennett and his clowns think that people are not aware of what Bennett falsely claimed the judge said - they can think again.

Surely he isn't so damned stupid to believe Carter & Ruck will not be viewing his recent diatribe?

He's a bigger fool than anyone thought if he is kidding himself that they don't know about it, Tony. Telling whoppers about a judge ahead of your own trial is about as stupid as it gets, IMO.

He most certainly has not helped himself by his displays. Well that's Bennett being Bennett.

bb1 wrote:He's a bigger fool than anyone thought if he is kidding himself that they don't know about it, Tony. Telling whoppers about a judge ahead of your own trial is about as stupid as it gets, IMO.

Is he telling whoppers though?
Can anyone verify what was said in court?

I don't understand why he can't see that he shouldn't have done that, even if what he said was true.
He can't win this Case whichever way it goes, but to go blabbing about it half way through show such a lack of knowledge of legal etiquette. And he loses more credibility everytime he opens his mouth.

Bennett does realize it will be the legally translated documents the judge will see and not the mish mash that is online?

OMG. I hope he isn't going to feel sorry for Bennett because some Portuguese arseholes deliberately mistranslated The Files, and then spread them all over The Hate Sites.

crazytony wrote:Bennett does realize it will be the legally translated documents the judge will see and not the mish mash that is online?

I wonder if that has anything to do with some forker thinking it is entitled to see the properly-translated ones, Tony

Good night everyone. Look forward to reading more tomorrow.

Night, Lily. xx

Nite nite, Lily, well.

bb1 wrote:

crazytony wrote:Bennett does realize it will be the legally translated documents the judge will see and not the mish mash that is online?

I wonder if that has anything to do with some forker thinking it is entitled to see the properly-translated ones, Tony

Does this mean that some forker knows it's been conned?

mccannpjfiles ‏@mccannpjfiles
@findmadeleine Will you inform me when you will be putting YOUR official English translations on your site please? Re:discrepancies #McCann

Now why would it be so arrogant as to think it is entitled to get PROPER translations, that other people have paid for, for free?

Proper, Certified Translations cost a lot of money. And they are always accurate. None of your deliberate mistakes to make innocent people look guilty.

Bennett is in for the shock of his life if he doesn't obtain the officially translated files. Even J Morais's translations of the files is abysmal. Bennett, would be wise to spend some money to get a proper translation before he makes a fool of himself in court.

I think it's far, far too late, Tony. Look how many times people tried to get him to grasp what the simple phrase, the only assumption, meant.

He refused to listen, just as they have all wilfully chosen to ignore the many errors in the Dodgy Files.

He has had more than enough chances to stop this, and chose to ignore everyone who tried to warn him. I haven't forgotten the vile treatment Sans received from the hounders when he tried to help Bennett.

Hell mend the lot of them, now.

A few brief points if I may.

Bennett and various cronies make much of "the fund" funding this action against Bennett. And that the CR costs are currently in the region of £165,000.

The actual position as I understand it is that CR are acting on a contingency fee basis "aka No win no fee". This means that if they were to lose the action, then the McCanns would pay CR nothing.

However, if they win, the losing side pays their bill, plus a risk premium of up to dounble the usual fee.

CR will have offered this because they have assessed that there is an excellent chance of winning. I further understand that there is an insurance will cover Bennetts costs should he win, but that this cost cost will be added to his bill for costs if he loses.

Even after taxing CRs bill, he is in for somewhere in the range of £75K to £100K. Which would wipe out his savings and probably result in a charge on his house, to be paid when the house if sold (by the Bennets or by their executors in due course).

And for what? A little man standing on his rights to libel and besmirch the name a couple of grieving parents, in pursuit of his rights to "free speech" and to show off in front a bunch of keyboard friends.

Expensive hobby....

eta - My old man was genuinely trying to help him see some sense. And it was not only the antis he got abuse from, interestingly. It was evenly spread which suggests he was on the right track.

Morning, Jean Pierre.

What I don't understand about this is why Bennett should have to pay such a huge amount more than just their Costs if he loses, since it is The Complainant's Solicitors who opt for this "No win, no fee", and Bennett has no say in that at all. The Defendent takes all of the risks while The Claimant and their Legal Team take no risk at all.
It does seem a trifle unfair to me, so I can only suppose that there must be a logical reason that has so far escaped me. Especially as he will also have to pay Damages.
I am trying to understand this from a purely legal point of view. And my question in no way relates to my opinion of Bennett.

And you are right about Sans. It wasn't just Antis who lambasted him for trying to help Bennett with legal advice. A shocking display all round. Talk about No Good Deed Going Unpunished.

It does seem a bit unfair, but it does mean that people can go to law without a large financial risk. If they have a case that is sufficiently good that a lawyer will take the risk that if they lose, he does not get paid.

Therefore the system is to some degree self correcting - a weak case (on either sise) would not warrant contingeny fee funding. And basically this means that if you cant get a lawyer to take your case on this basis, you should consider very carefully whether to proceed - unless you have very deep pockets of course.

There are people on both 'sides' who don't grasp why Justice is blind, J-P, and it wasn't just the hounders who behaved disgracefully over that matter.

Bennett has NO excuse; there was a phase when people attempted to explain to him civilly why he was horribly, totally wrong - they just got the usual abuse. There is one hounder-forker in particular who calls anyone who dares say anything she doesn't approve of, a 'troll' - a real nasty bit of work.

Ah well, I am sure she and the rest of them will be more than happy to hand over their savings to Bennett, to make up for abusing people who were trying to HELP him.

Does this mean that The Defendant, ie. Bennett could do the same thing if he has a good Defence? Although it is hardly likely that they would both have a good chance of winning.
And does The Judge have any discretion about the amount of Costs, obviously including The Barrister's Fee?
And supposing this involves a charge against Bennett's house which he might not be immediately forced to sell, and since his half might not be large enough to cover the Costs, how does everybody on the winning side get paid? Let alone those on the losing side.

Sorry to be a pain, but I am really interested in this.

Think we all are, Sabot, I certainly haven't a clue how it works. All I know is that Bennett isn't telling the truth about anything.

bb1 wrote:Think we all are, Sabot, I certainly haven't a clue how it works. All I know is that Bennett isn't telling the truth about anything.

It has long seemed a bit unfair to me, Bonny. My opinion of Bennett is irrelevant. A bit like Sans, I suppose.
I have thought about it and tried to see how it works, but not all people who bring Libel actions are poor. In fact, most of them aren't, so it only benefits the few so far, although more might follow.
I guess I just don't understand the double penalty when it seems that No win, No Fee is sufficient for the winners to come out unscathed financially.

I just want Bennett tried fairly and punished fairly if he loses.

No doubt The Nasties will love this, but then they never did have any conception of what is fair, or our attitude The Law as it stands. And my minor concerns are hardly going to affect the current situation. But Bennett can always quote me if he likes.

And No, I won't be Donating to his cause.

They're very easily fooled, aren't they?

Jamal Rashid ‏@JamalJRashid
@FBI_Eddie @anotherviv @RothleyPillow Judge Tugendhat has certainly set his stall out nicely. Looking forward to expert witnesses. #mccann

Just one problem - the judge didn't do any such thing. Mind you, if they are all convinced that the judge came out with that, and that Bennett is telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth - why then, every single one of them should be contributing to his defence costs, shouldn't they?

Deluded forker that understands neither hearsay nor Bennett:

At one point in the proceedings, and I quote, Mr Justice Tugendhat said: "Suppose it's established that the Claimants had lied about what happened?

No, that's what Bennett claims the judge said....not the same thing at all.

Still, if the Truthseekers are absolutely convinced that that is the truth, then they will all be rushing to donate their life savings to Bennett.

Won't they?