JUDGEMENT DAY FOR BENNETT

Not long to wait now......

Maybe we will hear what Judge Tugendhat really said, as opposed to what Bennett thinks he said.

Yes please.

I wonder if any of his hounders will be going to hold his hand?

He may not want witnesses, like last time.

This is a good piece:

http://madeleine-writingthewrongs.com/2012/10/23/the-forthcoming-libel-trial/

MWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

As we said all along, the good judge said NOTHING about dogs, etc. It was Carter Ruck

From Bennett's latest nonsense:


One final point. I made a mistake in relation to one of the two quotes from the 11 October hearing that I posted before, here:

http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t5738-mccanns-v-bennett-hearing-before-mr-justice-tugendhat-today-11-october-2012

These two quotes, which I attributed to Mr Justice Tugendhat, were:

1. "Suppose it's established that the Claimants had lied about what happened?” - and

2. “There will have to be full disclosure, witness statements, and expert evidence on the sniffer dogs…”

Both quotes were word-for-word correct.

However, in a letter to me today (23 October), Carter-Ruck have asked me to point out that it was not Mr Justice Tugendhat, but the McCanns’ own barrister, Jacob Dean, who said these words: “There will have to be full disclosure, witness statements, and expert evidence on the sniffer dogs…

You couldn't make it up. Oh, sorry, Bennett did

My counter-argument, which is no surprise to the McCanns and their advisers, is that there was such a gross inequality of arms (at the stage where the McCanns were threatening to bring a full-blown libel trial against me) that there was no valid ‘contract’.

What, so he didn't go all the way to Liverpool to get advice from Kirwans?

So, he wasn't in a panic to agree to terms as advised by Kirwans?

He didn't consider stiffing Kirwans for the bill?

None of that ever happened?

Tell it to the judge.

I appear to have misunderstood one element of what was a rather complex and convoluted set of points and rulings made at the last hearing.

Only one? He put words in the judge's mouth THAT HE SIMPLY DID NOT SAY

Isn't that lèse majesté or something?

Gi' O'er ‏@MrsMLouis
What's the likelihood of that piccy of JudgeTugendhat being removed from the masthead of Havern's Hellhole after tomorrow's ruling?

Seems to be gone already due to Bennett telling a pack of lies about what the judge said misremembering.

Bennett is so far under now that he can't even see the topsoil never mind the wood or the trees.

When he mis-remembers (LIES) about what a HIGH COURT JUDGE has said he really is being a complete PRAT.

And of course Havern's forum fell, hook line and sinker for his LIES and put up that banner which has now been shown by Bennett himself to be utter garbage.

I posted the other day that I was laughing my head off at this man. I still am because he didn't need any of this hassle. He could simply have kept his interfering nose out.

He made a fool of himself over Barrymore, he made a fool of himself over metrication, he made a fool of himself and had to self-destruct his career as a solicitor before he got pushed, he made a fool of himself as a politician getting booted from pillar to post for his neo-fascist outlook and now he is making a fool of himself over this. But this time, at last, it is Bennett himself who will be paying the costs of his folly.

Greenink, I was howling with laughter when I read that. We all knew no judge would say such a thing, but thought it was Bennett twisting and inventing, as usual.

But to find out it was actually one of the Carter Ruck people - priceless.

Oh, and the hounders and forkers might like to think about why CR will be delighted to have experts giving evidence on the wonderwoofs, and the implications of that for their hate campaign.

I wonder what Judge Tugendhat thought of Bennett when he:

1. Found out that Bennett had put words in his mouth that someone else had said.

2. Stuck his photo, with those words, on the banner of Bennett's home forum?

How much credibility does Bennett think he has, right this minute? Besides less than none?

My counter-argument, which is no surprise to the McCanns and their advisers, is that there was such a gross inequality of arms (at the stage where the McCanns were threatening to bring a full-blown libel trial against me) that there was no valid ‘contract’.

There was no valid contract.


He alleged that that was because there was a gross inequality of arms? Then he didn't have to sign the document and should have asked Kirwans for help.

Remember that they told him that they would take care of the matter for a payment of 5,000 GDP when he and Debs went up there?

That would have been cheap in comparison to what he already has/will be paying out.

Oh well, a fool and his money are soon parted.

ETA: Apologies, was laughing too hard. By signing the Undertaking(s) he knew that he was entering into a contract(s). That is the most basic of legal knowledge which he would have had to have studied about in order to qualify as a solicitor.

lily wrote:


My counter-argument, which is no surprise to the McCanns and their advisers, is that there was such a gross inequality of arms (at the stage where the McCanns were threatening to bring a full-blown libel trial against me) that there was no valid ‘contract’.

There was no valid contract.


He alleged that that was because there was a gross inequality of arms? Then he didn't have to sign the document and should have asked Kirwans for help.

Remember that they told him that they would take care of the matter for a payment of 5,000 GDP when he and Debs went up there?

That would have been cheap in comparison to what he already has/will be paying out.

Oh well, a fool and his money are soon parted.

Sorry, can that really be true? Is he really claiming that there was a gross inequality of arms while at the same time refusing reasonably priced EXPERT LEGAL ADVICE? That would mean that he CREATED the situation where there was a gross inequality of arms. It was not forced on him. Surely he wouldn't be that stupid?

Oh second thoughts, of course he would.

Greenink, on our old forum we had everything about this matter.

Bennett and Debs Butler went up to Kirwans in Liverpool for legal advice about this libel matter over one of his works of fiction. David Kirwan told him that even if one line was untruthful then that would be that. As in libel would be proved.

Kirwans suggested that B & B ante up 5000 GBP and they would write the response etc to CR on their behalf. B & B turned it down.

Yes, this was at the very start of this whole libel business so Bennett has, surprise, surprise, once more told a pack of lies.

Oh...... IMHO

Would it be this meeting with Kirwans, as referred to by 'Admin', presumably Stevo, of the original Hounder HQ?

bb1 wrote:Would it be this meeting with Kirwans, as referred to by 'Admin', presumably Stevo, of the original Hounder HQ?

That is the very one, Bonny. Am very impressed that you had that.

I didn't - compulsive cyber-hoarder HoHo did.

Which is where I also found:

http://forum2.aimoo.com/MadeleineMcCann/category/Tony-Bennett-Carter-Ruck-s-six-key-demands-1-1069397.html

THE DECISION TO ACCEDE TO CARTER-RUCK'S DEMANDS The Website Formerly Known as The Madeleine Foundation

By Tony Bennett
02 October 2009

Debbie and will explain this in full in due course.

Today began at 4.00 am for Debbie and 5.00 am for me as we had an appointment with Kirwans Solicitors, Liverpool at 11.00am.

The meeting was with Partners David Kirwan and Michael Sandys, Solicitor Julia Kirwan and Media Advisor Nick Mason and lasted four hours with three short interruptions.

Clear advice was given that because of the high degree of uncertainty in libel litigation, no guarantee could be given that if we defended a libel suit, we would win. It was emphasised in graphic terms by one of the Partners that on a worst-case scenario the outcome could mean complete financial ruin for both Debbie and myself, with all our savings raided and court orders made to recover the equity value each of us have in the homes we own. It was also emphasised that Carter-Ruck had immense resources both within their firm and beyond them, that they could sustain a case lasting many weeks, and that to defend the proceedings would require us to engage libel lawyers at huge fees which neither of us could remotely afford to pay.

We were further advised that correspondence between Kirwans Solicitors and Carter-Ruck on 24, 25 and 29 September and 1 October revealed a strong likelihood that Carter-Ruck had indeed already drafted a libel writ and would be ready to walk into the High Court on Monday (5th Oct) at 9.00am to issue a writ, unless we acceded to their demands in full by close of play on Friday (i.e. today).

Accordingly we telephoned Carter-Ruck at 3.14pm today and faxed them written notice of our accession to the McCanns' demands at 3.25pm. Attempts to speak to both Adam Tudor and Isabel Hudson, the two main Solicitors conducting the litigation for Carter-Ruck, failed as we were informed that 'the entire department' was tied up in a meeting this afternoon. That was still the case when we telephoned again at 4.47pm to make absolutely sure that our fax had been safely received. Julia on the switchboard confirmed that it had been.

Kirwans offered to assist us with concluding written terms of settlement with the McCanns, via Carter-Ruck, if we paid them a retainer of £5,000 plus VAT. After a short period of consideration, Debbie and I decided that neither of us could afford this. We offered the sum of £500.00 to Kirwans for their advice to date which was accepted and paid by us. I should explain that this was in respect of several hours of advice and assistance from Kirwans during the period 24 September until today, notably including a sentence-by-sentence analysis of the '60 Reasons' book by Partner Michael Sandys, for which we are grateful.

As we cannot afford further legal help, we shall have to deal with any further correspondence with Carter-Ruck ourselves.

That's all, and I have to be up again at 7.00am in order to make our Cardiff meeting tomorrow on time.

FINALLY...

I wish to make it clear to all readers of this forum, whoever they are, that as from today we gave notice to Carter-Ruck that we acceded to their demand that The Madeleine Foundation website be 'suspended permanently'. Stevo has exercised what he asserts are his rights associated with registration and ownership of the domain name etc. and is now in personal and sole control of this website which has been re-named.

THIS WEBSITE THEREFORE IS NO LONGER IN ANY SHAPE OR FORM UNDER THE CONTROL OR DIRECTION OF THE MADELEINE FOUNATION.

How can he pretend he didn't have first-class legal advice?

TONY BENNETT:
"Clear advice was given that because of the high degree of uncertainty in libel litigation, no guarantee could be given that if we defended a libel suit, we would win.

It was emphasised in graphic terms by one of the Partners that on a worst-case scenario the outcome could mean complete financial ruin for both Debbie and myself, with all our savings raided and court orders made to recover the equity value each of us have in the homes we own."

==============

Does he think Carter Ruck doesn't have copies of all this? Does he think the judge won't see copies of all this?

Does he think he helped his cause by libelling a judge? Does he actually know which court officer IS the judge?

He seems to think it's all a game, Bonny. Speaking of, do you remember the games that were played with this?


THIS WEBSITE THEREFORE IS NO LONGER IN ANY SHAPE OR FORM UNDER THE CONTROL OR DIRECTION OF THE MADELEINE FOUNATION.

It was at this time when they began harassing Mike Gunill.

Ah yes. They tried to ruin a man's business because it proved impossible to take a flattering photo of Tango.

And no doubt Carter Ruck are perfectly well aware that he told a pack of lies about him not owning Hounder HQ2.

Does he seriously think that judges approve of that sort of thing?

Bonny, I really don't know what goes through his head. However, how on earth can a judge approve of his behaviour?

One thing is for sure, the McCanns will have even more sympathy tomorrow although I am sure that they do not want that. They want him to stop.

Notice he says he isn't going to be in the court to hear the ruling?

Tomorrow, 24 October 2012, at 10.00am in the High Court, the Honourable Mr Justice Tugendhat will announce his decisions in McCanns v Bennett in response to a set of applications submitted prior to the last hearing in the case, which was on 11 October.

Carter-Ruck will be present to hear the announcement. I will not be present. I am not sure how these things work, but I think the judgment will be placed on the internet or given out to reporters e.g. from the Law Gazette, so I think others will see the ruling before I do.

His whole future depends on what happens tomorrow - and he isn't going to be there? That tells its own story, IMO.

Oh, he must know that the Judge knows what he's done?

I wonder what exactly will be the issue discussed at the court hearing tomorrow.

Don't we all, Pedro? One good thing - a statement from the judge, and the verdict, will be posted online at some point.