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

Deluded hounder:


If TB just wanted some money and fame im sure there are thousand other cases he could have picked and got a better result.
If he just is a nasty man who likes to pick on people going through the hardest time of their life, im surprised he has not done that with someon else before, or after the Mccanns.

Oh what, like when he shoved his beak into the Michael Barrymore business? So camera-shy was Bennett, he tried to serve papers on Barrymore - WHEN HE WAS IN THE CELEBRITY BIG BROTHER HOUSE.

http://diaryofamadperson.blogspot.com/2011/03/another-failed-bennett-private.html

Quote:

CELEBRITY Big Brother bosses yesterday refused to accept legal papers which could see Michael Barrymore back in court.

Lawyer Tony Bennett is attempting to bring a private prosecution against the housemate for assaulting Stuart Lubbock who died at the star's Essex mansion in March 2001.

When Mr Bennett arrived at the studios in Elstree, Herts, with Mr Lubbock's parents - Terry and Dorothy - he was refused entry. Security guards and a dog handler kept the party waiting in the rain. Eventually, they spoke to BB producer Phil Edgar-Jones, who would not accept the papers.

Mr Bennett said: "He just refused point-blank. They will not even give me the name of Barrymore's lawyers so I can serve the paperwork on them." (Said he, full of surprise and moral indignation.)

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

That ended with the late Stuart Lubbock's family cutting ties with Bennett the day of his book launch.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Bennett_(politician)

Quote:

On 13 July 2007, during the launch of Not Awight, Terry Lubbock made a speech, in which he announced that Bennett would no longer be representing him and that The Lubbock Trust was being wound up as most of its original purposes had been achieved.[27] It was further claimed that Lubbock and Bennett had split following the police investigation into Bennett.[25]

Police investigation, you ask?

That was when Bennett was reported to the Hate Crime Unit at Harlow police station for his vile remarks about gays.

He was also kicked out of UKIP for his vile remarks about the followers of Islam.

Then there was his more recent sick behaviour, shoving his nose into Lee Balkwell's death.

He was so sadistic, vicious and cruel, that Lee's widow, the mother of his child, had to beg him - on the internet - to leave her and her family alone.

And many of us saw what Bennett did then.

He mocked the poor woman. He sneered at her, and made it perfectly clear he thought he was entitled to do exactly as he pleased.

No wonder his legal career was less than stellar!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Bennett_(politician)

On 9 September 2003 the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found him "guilty of conduct unbefitting a solicitor ..."[5][3][6] On 15 October 2009 he voluntarily removed himself from the Roll.

So Head Hounder has plenty of previous for meddling and spreading misery in his wake.

No doubt all his previous past bad acts will be featuring in the media when he finally answers to the law.

Oh, this is a good bit:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Bennett_(politician)

One of the actions for which Tony Bennett and the Foundation were criticized by the British press was the leafletting of the village of Rothley where the McCanns live.[33] He referred the articles in the UK media, which called him and others in the Madeleine Foundation "sickos" and "stalkers", to the PCC[34] The PCC replied that the newspapers had been justified in referring to him and other members of the Foundation in those terms. [35] After receiving letter from libel lawyers Carter-Ruck dated 27 August 2009, Bennett gave an undertaking "Not to repeat allegations that the McCanns are guilty of, or are to be suspected of, causing the death of their daughter Madeleine McCann, and/or of disposing of her body, and/or lying about what happened and/or seeking to cover up what they had done".[36]

So Head Hounder has plenty of previous for meddling and spreading misery in his wake.

No doubt all his previous past bad acts will be featuring in the media when he finally answers to the law

He most definitely does and what a nasty, vicious piece of work he is.

Oh yes, there could be serialisation of his previous bad acts when the media er......speculate about him.

lily wrote:bobbin Today at 8:03 pm
Tony, thank God you stand strong and don't let them wipe the floor with you.
What despicable creatures these people entities are.

It's all a black comedy when you think about it, as the Gonc propaganda machine did work.

Among the gullible fools who bought into it, is one who created GASP and GAAD and helped set up a defense fund for him. The same person who used his book of fiction as though it were the officially translated police files.

Bennett is whinging in the wrong places. His whinge should be at Gonc. He has made an utter fool of Bennett and the hounders.

I wonder do the IDIOTS and FOOLS, who are on that Havern's forum, realise that every word they are now posting in favour of Bennett and other DISCIPLES of the none-too SAINTLY AMARAL are in fact BURYING their ex-cop hero?

As you point out they are PROVING every single day that the LIES and LIBEL from that ex-cop DID influence people, has damaged the search and STILL damages the search for missing Madeleine.

By re-iterating and republishing Amaral's lies they are simply making the life of Isabel Duarte so much more simple.

By their own hands they are condemming him.

PUPPET ON WHOSE STRING?

Perhaps even more disturbing than Nigel Farage’s influence over Jeffrey Titford is the svengali-like power Tony Bennett (the person Mr Titford employs as a political assistant) seems to hold over him. Tony Bennett is responsible for the most vicious, and by far the most relentless, attacks on party members. Particularly nasty were his attacks on the last Party Leader, which continue despite an NEC request for him to refrain. Even now Mr Titford seems to do nothing about him. We believe that Jeffrey Titford, as UKIP leader, will be only a marionette dancing to the tune of his political puppet-masters.

http://juniusonukip.blogspot.co.uk/2011/08/ukip-one-mans-sabotage-of-noble-cause.html

Tony Bennett is responsible for the most vicious, and by far the most relentless, attacks on party members.

Some things never change, do they?

Like the hounders demonstrating their total, staggering ignorance of the way the real world works.

Yoyo whines:


I am gobsmacked that they sent a 45-page itemised invoice. So much time went into coming up with such a massive bill!

That is actually a demonstration of openness and professionalism - clearly concepts the hounders know nothing about. What did they expect - a hand-scribbled note?

Dear Tone,

U owe uz loads n loads of dosh, pleez sned us a check 4 fifty grand.

Ur frendz,

the Carter posse.

Under the SRA rules, a bill for costs which is not itemised is not enforcable. (this is because bills are frequently adjusted or "taxed" by an official of the high court. (called the taxing master).

These notes may be helpful: http://www.courts.ie/offices.nsf/lookuppagelink/8AFDD6975A6F081380256E7B004D9971

This will make you chuckle, J-P. Far from grasping that itemised bills are a legal necessity, the hounders are convinced CR have done this to intimidate poor old Tone:

It's all done to intimidate someone who is causing them and their clients a 'very serious concern'.
The idea being that to swamp a person with paper-work that they have to go through, to check each word, each line, each legal implication, each nuance, knowing that if they miss something important it will leap out at them and hit them in the back of the neck at some later date.
From a professional point of view, the CR bunch and their clients are behaving in a despicable way.
Equality of arms isn't even in the picture.
But I do think that Judge Tugendhat is above all of this sort of behaviour.
He has shown himself to be a one-off pretty amazing judge so far, so I hope more than anything that he will stay the judge and not be ousted by some skull-duggery on the part of CR and clients, at the last minute.
He will see the Smethurst, McCann, CR stuff for what it is. We can see it too. It's as clear as daylight.

-----

Clear as daylight? Might be an idea for them to clean their windows, then.

Carter Ruck are conducting this exactly as required, while they are showing staggering ignorance of both the law and reality.

And I do believe Judge Tugenhat is due to issue a formal statement today. It will be very interesting to see if his words tally with Bennett's 'verbatim' report.

Or not.

I hope more than anything that he will stay the judge and not be ousted by some skull-duggery on the part of CR and clients

He is far more likely to be removed because of Bennett's antics, and his being used as part of the hounders' banner, to make it look as if he is on their 'side', instead of neutral.

Jean-Pierre.t50 wrote:Under the SRA rules, a bill for costs which is not itemised is not enforcable. (this is because bills are frequently adjusted or "taxed" by an official of the high court. (called the taxing master).

These notes may be helpful: http://www.courts.ie/offices.nsf/lookuppagelink/8AFDD6975A6F081380256E7B004D9971

If, Bennett was indeed a lawyer, he would know the rules, would he not?

One would have thought so, Tony, but he doesn't seem keen on enlightening his cult about little things like truth and reality.

Following that unpleasant incident where a couple of clients complained to the sra I don't think TB is too keen on itemised bills.

Oh yes....J4 has a lot of archived material; I must take time to go through it and refresh my memory.

There was this incident, of course:

http://justice4mccannfam.5forum.biz/t1289-mr-bennett-guilty-of-conduct-unbefitting-a-solicitor

MR BENNETT - GUILTY OF CONDUCT UNBEFITTING A SOLICITOR

PART ONE

Findings of the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal Constituted under the Solicitors Act 1974

The allegations against the respondent (Mr Bennett) were that he had been guilty of conduct unbefitting a solicitor namely:

(i) that he failed to comply with a finding of inadequate professional service dated 20 July 2001, confirmed on appeal on 30 August 2001

(ii) that he failed to act in the best interests of clients in that he acted for them in a private capacity thereby outside the scope of the Solicitors Indemnity Fund Rules 1995

(iii) that he acted in breach of principle 17.01 in that he accounted to clients in a personal capacity and not as an employee of his firm thereby failing to act with frankness and good faith towards his employers
(iv) by virtue of the aforementioned the Respondent had brought the profession into disrepute and is guilty of conduct unbefitting a solicitor

The application was heard on 9 September 2003.

At the conclusion of the hearing the Tribunal made the following order:

The Tribunal Order that the Respondent, Anthony John Stuart Bennett of 22 Lxxxxx Road, Leverton, Boston, Lincs, PE2x xBG (formerly of 66 Chippingfield, Harlow, Essex, CM17 0DG) solicitor, be Reprimanded and they further order that he do pay the costs of and incidental to this application and enquiry fixed in the sum of £3000.

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


(iv) by virtue of the aforementioned the Respondent had brought the profession into disrepute and is guilty of conduct unbefitting a solicitor

Good job he removed himself from the rolls first, isn't it?

Rereading our Tony's find:

http://juniusonukip.blogspot.co.uk/2011/08/ukip-one-mans-sabotage-of-noble-cause.html

Tony Bennett is responsible for the most vicious, and by far the most relentless, attacks on party members. Particularly nasty were his attacks on the last Party Leader, which continue despite an NEC request for him to refrain.

You have to wonder if Bennett has been a success at ANYTHING.

Every single cause he chooses to meddle in turns into a disaster.

It does prove that Bennett is a vindictive anus!

He seems to betray, and eventually destroy, every single cause he decides to meddle in.

His entire life is an endless saga of vindictive behaviour and ultimate failure - he makes enemies wherever he goes.

Seriously, what is wrong with these people? Hounder:


I think it only right that the McCanns should declare fully how they are paying for their legal representation. No ordinary family could afford CR. If the Fund is transparent and the McCanns are innocent as they claim to be what's the problem with declaring how they are paying for their legal representation?

They've been told. And told. And told again.

As recorded on:

http://regretsandramblings.com/2011/08/07/the-find-madeleine-fund-and-carter-ruck/

Carter Ruck told Bennett in plain language:

You have speculated as to the financial basis on which our clients instruct us. This is, of course, no concern of yours, but suffice it to say that your speculation about our clients’ funding arrangements is entirely misplaced. In particular, we have never been paid a penny by the Find Madeleine Fund.

http://regretsandramblings.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Carter-Ruck-Aug-3-2010.pdf

And;

http://regretsandramblings.com/2011/11/02/bennett-does-it-every-time/

If the Fund is transparent and the McCanns are innocent as they claim to be what's the problem with declaring how they are paying for their legal representation?

Do keep up the malicious remarks, they are doing absolutely NOTHING to help Bennett.

PS - as the situation was made very clear to Bennett himself, why isn't he putting a stop to this?

And just in case it STILL hasn't sunk in -

Ultimately, it will be BENNETT who foots CRs bill.

For future reference, the following link regarding conditional fee agreements may be helpful.

http://www.legalcentre.co.uk/personal-injury/guide/what-are-conditional-fee-agreements/

Basically, no win no fee - if Bennett loses he pays the lot. If the McCanns lose, they pay nothing.

NB - only offered by firms who are confident they have a good case.

His best bet is to make an offer to settle out of court. Make an agreement and stick to it this time.

Jean-Pierre.t50 wrote:For future reference, the following link regarding conditional fee agreements may be helpful.

http://www.legalcentre.co.uk/personal-injury/guide/what-are-conditional-fee-agreements/

Basically, no win no fee - if Bennett loses he pays the lot. If the McCanns lose, they pay nothing.

NB - only offered by firms who are confident they have a good case.

His best bet is to make an offer to settle out of court. Make an agreement and stick to it this time.

He had his chance and refused it.

Anyone fancy a small wager he tries to settle again? I seem to recall his last offer was refused, but maybe he will feel more like admitting his wrong-doing now?

bb1 wrote:Anyone fancy a small wager he tries to settle again? I seem to recall his last offer was refused, but maybe he will feel more like admitting his wrong-doing now?

Bonny, the man wants his day in court.

I want him to have his day in court. LL

Oh, me too.

And me three.