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

Sans, because he is such a kind gentleman, tried to help Bennett but was kicked down and yes, Bonny, called a troll.

Bennett can't say that no one tried to help him and Sans' help was as good as it gets.

No doubt the hounders will all be itching to give him the benefit of their useful wise words. One or two of them could even draft his documents. I'm sure the Judge will be impressed with words like 'he could off said'.........

He should have listened to Sans - it was the best advice he was going to get, and it was free.

Instead, he has half-wits like Zoe egging him on:

Rothley Pillowcase ‏@RothleyPillow
@bischofield #mccann s lawyers may be MOST FEARED but they can only work with what they got! Whereas > @zampos has PJ & UK cops FILES :-) )

No, he doesn't.

He has the 'dodgy translations with key sections missing' files.

Carter Ruck, like others, have accurately- translated files. Which also contain all the bits that Morais and co didn't like, so missed out of what they posted as 'the files'.

Start to get the picture?

Bennett sez:

I’m sorry I didn’t let anyone know in advance about this hearing. I felt embarrassed that people came at their own expense and time to support me last time.

ORLY?

Isn't it more like the truth that he didn't want anyone reporting back on what the Judge ACTUALLY said?

Surely Bennett isn't going to bring the dogs into it?
If he does, I can see the very professional Carter & Ruck breaking into song and asking everyone to join in. All together now.
'I've got a lovely bunch of coconuts'

Anyway, the McCanns’ barrister, Jacob Dean, tried to argue that my giving of an undertaking to the McCanns in November 2009 was just like making a voluntary contract and that any breaches of the undertaking by me should be treated just like an ordinary breach of contract. He tried to suggest that there was no effective legal argument in defence of breaching an undertaking. He wanted an immediate committal hearing. If that hearing held that I had committed a breach, he would then go on to make a new application, at a separate hearing, that my application to vary three of the 16 undertakings I gave would (on the basis of the evidence I had so far provided) stand no chance of success.

Bennett really is a purblind fool - he has marched right into disaster. In return for stopping libelling people, he would have kept the shirt on his back. The media is going to crucify him - there are all sorts of old scores waiting to be settled there.

What's that old saying about, Be careful what you wish for.....?

I know, Tony, he is set fair for ruin. Is he going to produce Ho-Ho's appalling fillums? Gibbers about clones?

I wonder how his family feel about this? His poor wife faces the prospect of having to sell their home to settle his debts.
Has Bennett given even one iota of thought to her and what may happen if he losses?

Tony, I don't think he thinks about ANYTHING except how to keep those idiots who follow him quiet, for just a little longer...oh, and how to smear and hassle the McCanns, of course.

Deluded hounder:

I don't envy you taking on TM and CR in court alone. Is there really no lawyer out there who is willing to take this on pro bono ?

They should have thought of that before they abused Sans and called him a 'troll', shouldn't they? Who on earth do they think is going to take on a lost cause like Bennett, with his abusive and ignorant hangers-on?

He's walked right into the trap Sans warned him about, and it is entirely his own fault.

He hasn't even told the truth about events today - how on earth does he think he is going to make any kind of good impression in court?

Thats delusion piled upon ignorance.

Nobody will take on this "pro bono" for the absolutely simple reason that Bennett cannot possibly win.

The very fact that he cannot get a "pro-bono" lawyer should tell the morons that he has no chance.

They're all off in La-La Land, Greenink, busily giving him advice, and picturing themselves as Rumpole of the Bailey.

It hasn't even dawned on them that, apart from anything else - THEY HAVEN'T READ THE FULL, PROPER POLICE FILES.

All they've got are the edited, mistranslated ones.

But they cannot even grasp something as basic as that.

MOM OF TWO ‏@GILLYSPOT
@JillyCL @michaelalves07 Jilly is correct. Amaral's documentary fits evidence from released Police files in #McCann case very closely.



That's a good 'un

I don't know about pro bono. Is there anyone out there who will do it for money, even?

I can feel another bout of hysterical laughter coming on. Must have a lie down soon.

Sabot wrote:
I don't know about pro bono. Is there anyone out there who will do it for money, even?

I can feel another bout of hysterical laughter coming on. Must have a lie down soon.

Am I mistaken in thinking that there must be a "FREEDOM OF SPEECH" supporter who will come forth and lavish millions (if need be) on this crucial battle in the legal history of England, who will ensure that the little man is not trodden on by the powers of evil which seek to ...

Mmmm? What exactly are the powers of evil seeking to do?

Ah yes. Sorry. To continue.

... which seek to pursue the rule of law whereby lying about people without just cause is deemed wrong, which seek to highlight that breaking undertakings freely given in a court of law is wrong and deserving of punishment up to imprisonment and which seek to align responsibility with rights?

It can't be a dream to think that such an individual will come riding to the rescue as Batman or Superman always do for the righteous, can it?.

Please step forward that person for the little man called Bennett is in need.

(Oh and another reason to spend your money on him is that we would all like Bennett to get his day in court. Because we know he would use all his legal skills and experience and expertise to make mincemeat of those amateurs at Carter Ruck don't we? The legal profession would be spell bound. The media would be riveted. The nation would be at a standstill.)

e: McCANNS v BENNETT Hearing before Mr Justice Tugendhat, today, 11 October 2012
HiDeHo Today
Tony Bennett faces PRISON at the Request of the McCanns!

No, he doesn't, and never did. Stop telling lies.

bb1 wrote:MOM OF TWO ‏@GILLYSPOT
@JillyCL @michaelalves07 Jilly is correct. Amaral's documentary fits evidence from released Police files in #McCann case very closely.



That's a good 'un

Don't laugh. I mean, seriously.

Right on cue Amoral is going to march into court and with a flourish pull that ACE out. It will wipe the smiles to the other side of our faces as the sound of wailing is heard around the court.

Bennett and Gonc have secretly been planning this for ages. You will see.

I think Bennett might have a bit of a problem here. Following in the footsteps of Groucho Marx, he wouldn't want to employ a Barrister who would want to take his Case.

And from what I have understood of what he wrote, if he loses a Libel Trial he can still be pursued for breaking the Undertaking. He has just talked himself into a Double Whammy of breath taking proportions. And he was warned about this for free by one of the best legal minds that Britain has to offer.

But...but.....but, Sabot. That won't matter when Gonc produces that thing from up his sleeve. It will all be over then. Gonc will be happy coz he won't have to pay up either.

On a serious note, having read the hounders site, there is also something about this libel case that they overlook.

Yes, it is about harming the search for Madeleine and it is also about something else. Harming the reputation of Mr. & Mrs. McCann which in turn might impinge upon the search for Madeleine.

That is what Bennett has done in his campaign.

Furthermore, the onus is on Bennett to prove his allegations are true and not for the McCanns to prove that they are false. That is why they do not need to be present in court.

He is still hoping to get them in The Dock, Lily. And then floor them with his rapier legal mind.
He might be able to argue that he hasn't damaged the search for Madeleine, but so long as there are people out there who believe his vicious and distorted rambling then he cannot argue that he hasn't damaged the reputation of The McCanns. Unless he can prove that what he has said is true. Which he can't, of course.
But The Nasties are loving this, so they obviously don't understand what is going on.

No they don't understand, Sabot. They prefer to believe Bennett's libel because if they didn't they would understand why he cannot find a lawyer to take him on on a pro bono basis.

If he dreams that he can get the McCanns in the dock to be cross examined by himself, he would be better off believing in the tooth fairy.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if he has found possible legal representation, Lily. There are hundreds of Barristers out there who need to work. But Bennett will want things run his way which could not possible be in his best interests. And no Barrister is going to lay himself open to a charge of incompetence, which is what it would be if they did as Bennett wants.
Didn't someone famous once say that a man who is his own Lawyer has a fool for a client? The same applies to anyone who tries to tell a Lawyer how to handle a Case, and to a Lawyer who allows his client to do this.
I can almost imagine a Lawyer saying to Judge Tugendhat, "But, Your Honour, it's his fault because he wouldn't let me do it my way."

Nope, I don't think that Bennett is going to find a Lawyer, unless he drastically changes his attitude. And he does not have any right to say precisely what he pleases. It really is as simple as that.

Didn't someone famous once say that a man who is his own Lawyer has a fool for a client?

This proverb is based on the opinion, probably first expressed by a lawyer, that self-representation in court is likely to end badly. As with many proverbs, it is difficult to determine a precise origin but this expression first began appearing in print in the early 19th century. An early example comes in The flowers of wit, or a choice collection of bon mots, by Henry Kett, 1814:

...observed the eminent lawyer, "I hesitate not to pronounce, that every man who is his own lawyer, has a fool for a client."

LL

Thanks, LL.

I just do not believe that Bennett can't find a Lawyer. Only that he doesn't like the advice he has been given. But he is hardly likely to admit that.

The other part to it may be that he doesn't want to pay?

Nick Bennett ‏@njbennett
@zampos Great news about comments + decisions by Tugendhat Team #McCann will try to avoid glare of full libel trial. Please don't settle.

Goebells was right about idiots falling for the Big Lie.

He's getting his excuses in early:

McCANN v BENNETT: Barrister's opinion: 'The poor devil is on his own'.
Tony Bennett Today
Last night, a friend of mine, who is on good terms with a London barrister, texted the barrister with some details about my impending libel trial, and asking if he might be able to help in some way, pro bono, or perhaps: 'No win, no fee'.

Here is the barrister's (no names, no pack drill) reply, texted to my friend a few minutes ago:

"Tricky one D____. The enormous amount of work and court time would make this impossible for pro bono. No win no fee can only work if a lawyer believes that there is a really good chance of success. Clearly nobody is prepared to come to this conclusion. I fear the poor devil is on his own unless funds can be raised. I wish I could be more optimistic".

Never mind.

David felled Goliath.

Just with one well-aimed blow
===========

Something tells me that telling porkies about what judges say in court isn't really a good way to start a campaign to save your skin, but hey ho.

And despite Bennett's spinning and twisting, it is pretty obvious that NO-ONE is going to back him.