Birch Addresses the Hounders

This has appeared:

Mr Tony Benett's trial

Stephen Birch Today

To the Forum

For those of you that are not familiar with being involved in High court trials, it will be difficult for you to understand what the individual is going through. It's a case of, if you have not actually been involved in a high court matters, either as the plaintiff or as the defendant, you will not have experienced the tremendous negative energy that surrounds litigation. It is destructive to body mind and soul.

I personally am an experienced litigator, having been involved in 4 high court matters against my partners for 4 years. During those four years, you eat sleep and dream pleadings. You relive each and every moment and action that you took in the past over and over and over, as you prepare for trial. The hours are irregular, with you sometimes having to leave chambers after trial preparation when the sun is coming up. You don't eat properly, and sleep is not a peaceful experience.It's like a living nightmare that won't end.

You always under pressure. You see the judicial system has certain rules, that require you to respond to the other sides pleadings by certain dates in writing. These pleadings and the ongoing responses to the pleadings occur under massive pressure. Each word in the pleadings needs to be checked and analysed to see what implication it has on the matter. In actual fact, the entire trial is run outside the court, with pleadings being finally bound and presented as a bundle to the judge.Then each side argues what's in the bundle, and the judge makes a decision. And you hope that he makes the right decision !!! His only human, god forbid he had a fight with his wife the night before your matter starts. I am not even going to breach the topic of postponements for a number of reasons, normally smack bang in the middle of your trial, when you getting the upper hand on your opponent. An example, the judge is suddenly called to another matter. So you come back 3 months later and pick up the pieces. You have to get your legal team to prepare again each time before you walk into court, more waisted costs. And you hope you get the same judge...........

The costs are enormous, not only are you paying your attorney or advocate on an hourly rate, but you also pay them an attendance fee, for appearing in court. Then there's the cost of printing coping and binding. These can literally run into thousands of pounds. Coping documents at attorney rates is enormous. Don't forget the other sides attorney's are also coping at attorney rates, which you will pay if you lose the case.

Coupled with this, is the fact that everything needs be copied and bound 4 times. One copy for the judge, one copy for the other side, one copy for your attorney, one copy for you, and if there are expert witnesses, then a copy for them. It's expensive , very expensive.

What makes it even more expensive, is your inability to work on anything else except the trial. So your legal practice or property company, and the income that you would normally generate ceases. You now begin to draw on your savings. In South Africa, I tell people, if you do not have R6 million rand spare in your bank account, don't litigate. That's about 500 000 pounds.

You see like Mr Bennett, I walked into the court with high morals and believing I was doing the right thing, but quickly learned that 90% of the time, the side with the most money wins.

Well why is that? Well just when you think you winning the case, the other side either dumps more paper/ pleadings on you, or brings side actions against you.Eventually you cannot cope.Without money and assistance, you collapse under the load.You cannot meet the time restrictions to deliver the pleadings and counter arguments.

I am not familiar with the entire merit of Mr Tony Benetts case, but I can assure you, his at a disadvantage to the Mc Cann's.They will out gun him in both money and evidence. Why, because all they need to prove, is that he bad mouthed them, and that's easy, they discover one phamplet he distributed, and the judge makes a ruling in their favour. Mr Benett on the other hand has a much harder case to prove against them. He one has to prove that they are guilty. Not an easy task, even for a seasoned litigator like myself. Mr Bennett will probably be referring to certain precident cases, to argue for freedom of speech etc etc. But unfortunately it's an uphill battle.

Like I said, I am not in a position to analyse the merits of the case, but my gut feeling tells me it's going to be very very tough for Mr Benett.

I really really hope he wins his matter. The reality is the system wins, not the plaintiff or defendant. The system was designed to look after the judges attorneys barristers, clerk of the courts, and legal secretary's etc etc. We that litigate are outsiders. When you like me become a seasoned litigator, you,ll learn that quickly. You go from standing for ideals and virtues, to becoming bankrupt and hating yourself from getting involved in the mess. It's reality. I have many friends who have lost their wives and family as a result of litigation.

And don't forget, if you lose, you pay all the other sides costs, that my friends, normally runs into millions.

The fact that Mr Benett is an attorney does not mean his at an advantage. In actual fact, although his represented people litigating, he might not be experienced at litigating himself. There's a difference. A person like myself, who is not an attorney, might have significantly more litigation experience than Mr Bennett. Secondly representing yourself, is also not always a good thing. You lack the abilty to be objective in the matter. You always need fresh eyes to look at your case, and look at all the angles. That costs money, serious money.

Why I am telling you this, well the next time you ask me a question and I do not answer it, you,ll understand why. I am not going through what Tony Bennet is going through in a million years. Been there, done that, have the "T" shirt. It cost me 4 years of my life and a lot more.

No I,ll fight this battle strategically, and when the time is right, then I,ll go in for the kill. So please give me the benefit of the doubt, and don't make assumptions at this present moment because I don't come out guns blazing. When the Boers fought the English, they wore camouflage clothing and waited for the English to be in range. They had secretly put markers on the battle field, so the knew at what range the English were from them. Their rifles sights were set according to the distance the English were from them, shown by the markers on the ground. They did not go guns blazing from the top of the hill when they saw the English on the horizon, but waited patiently from the hill tops for the English to come into range. And that's what I am doing.

Tony I sincerely wish you well with your matter. The nightmare does come to an end, and you do grow as a person.

Regards

Stephen Birch

There are so many blatant errors in that waffle that it is hard to know where to start. Birch is just as much a total fool as is Bennett.

Just one example of the lousy research done by Birch. A simple matter of fact. Bennett, of course is not an attorney as Birch for some warped reason seems to believe. If Birch can't get simple facts like that even vaguely right what hope is there for him with complex matters?

And then this paragraph.

I am not familiar with the entire merit of Mr Tony Benetts case, but I can assure you, his at a disadvantage to the Mc Cann's.They will out gun him in both money and evidence. Why, because all they need to prove, is that he bad mouthed them, and that's easy, they discover one phamplet he distributed, and the judge makes a ruling in their favour. Mr Benett on the other hand has a much harder case to prove against them. He one has to prove that they are guilty. Not an easy task, even for a seasoned litigator like myself. Mr Bennett will probably be referring to certain precident cases, to argue for freedom of speech etc etc. But unfortunately it's an uphill battle.

Sounds like a typical hater to me. Starts with admitting he does not really know what he is talking about but then proceeds to spout forth.

His reasoning is completely flawed though. Benett's (sic) basic disadvantage is NOT that has no money. It is that he does not have evidence which of course CR has by the bucket load. And CR will use that bucket load of evidence to prove Benett (sic) both broke his undertaking to the High Court and made claims about the McCanns which are not based on true fact. Yes that will be easy as Birch states correctly.

But Mr. Benett (sic) does not have to prove anyone is guilty. What a load of utter garbage that is. All Mr. Benett (sic) has to show is that he has never lied or made claims that he cannot show are based on true facts. The problem is that he has made such claims without any basis in fact and has lied about the activities of the McCanns.

And when Birch describes himself as a seasoned-litigator really takes the biscuit. A far more accurate description would be "failed litigator whose one case was a disaster".

But I suppose advice even from this failure in litigation is better than some of the rubbish spewed by the Haverns mob. At least Birch is telling Benett (sic) that he is up the creek and will feel sick as a dog about it all. That bit is true.

I was awe-struck, I really was. I didn't think it was even remotely possible to drag the Boer War into this.

bb1 wrote:I was awe-struck, I really was. I didn't think it was even remotely possible to drag the Boer War into this.

I have many ancestors who were involved in the Boer War (unusually from BOTH sides of the war).

Something I have been learning about and which seems to be being confirmed more and more is that there is and has been an unexpectedly large interest in the McCann case from South Africa. It will be interesting if time permits to delve into that aspect of the McCann case history. But I doubt I will go back as far as the Boer War.

Things must be really bleak for Bennett, if International Man of Mystery Birch is feeling sorry for him.

Seconded.

Aw, they've banned him. And after that insight into Boer guerilla tactics, too.

Odd the way the hounders are going off that Free Speach stuff they're always banging on about, isn't it?

Three people banned in one day. They must be absolutely TERRIFIED of something over on that forum.

Seems there is nothing even approaching free speech where that forum is concerned.

When you get people like Bobbin posting "yes but the angle being put forward is that it could have been Gerry's blood on the fob etc." you can see that they are SIMPLY IGNORANT of the FACTS of the case. But when anyone so much as questions such mis-begotten beliefs they are told that asking questions is perfectly OK and summarily banned without even an announcement being made.

That is not free speech. Its not even fascist behaviour. Its unmitigated STUPIDITY and is the reason that the very foolish man called Bennett is in the DEEP DOO DOO that he is in right now. Others from among their number will follow him into that pit of DOO DOO as time goes on.

If they spent as much time reading the forensic reports as they do making up rubbish about duplicate cars, then they would KNOW it was Gerry McCann's blood on the keyfob.

I actually don't think they have read a word of the forensic reports, or they wouldn't still be coming out with garbage about non-existent 'blood spatter'.

I don't know what you can actually call it. Those in charge seem terrified at the thought of the shrooms actually thinking for themselves, and God forbid they should read anything which challenges the nonsense that passes for 'fact' there.

No wonder Bennett is in such a mess.

bb1 wrote:If they spent as much time reading the forensic reports as they do making up rubbish about duplicate cars, then they would KNOW it was Gerry McCann's blood on the keyfob.

I actually don't think they have read a word of the forensic reports, or they wouldn't still be coming out with garbage about non-existent 'blood spatter'.

I don't know what you can actually call it. Those in charge seem terrified at the thought of the shrooms actually thinking for themselves, and God forbid they should read anything which challenges the nonsense that passes for 'fact' there.

No wonder Bennett is in such a mess.

I think "those in charge" are in fact just as ignorant of the facts as the "shrooms". That is one of the biggest problems. No matter how hard candyfloss tried she could not cover up the fact that she hadn't even realised that the dog was barking at the DRIVER'S door of that car.

Yes, that was rather a stunner. It had never occurred to me that there were people who didn't grasp that it was a left hand drive, because Portugal drives on the right.