Bennett playing stupid games with Carter Ruck

It's very telling that the hounders and forkers cannot even grasp the law sufficiently to see how this is going to end.

Or maybe they are all so nasty they just don't care, they prefer their lynch-mob law?

bb1 wrote:It's very telling that the hounders and forkers cannot even grasp the law sufficiently to see how this is going to end.

Or maybe they are all so nasty they just don't care, they prefer their lynch-mob law?

Desperation, I suspect. Havern's will go, and that's a fact. So they will start another such Cess Pit, if they still have the bottle.
PeterMac is a pillock with no understanding of The Law. And Chatelaine would think twice if she was doing this on a French Forum about a French Family.

Not sure that some have really grasped how it works......
_________________

Roy Rovers - today

"I agree. TB should be ready for an offer to settle at the 'door of court' and know what his bottom line is. The MC's won't want to risk going through that door IMO."

http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t6211p90-flagrant-breaches-of-your-undertakings-say-carter-ruck-in-their-letter-of-4-january-in-the-case-of-mccanns-v-bennett-here-s-my-reply-sent-to-them-today

Simple thing for the Hounders to understand...The Judge in his remarks stated that if the defendant is subject to undertakings, to which he has agreed to in court, then he must stick to it.

If the Defendant wishes to challenge the undertaking in court, he is free to do so, BUT, because the Defendant has already agreed to a undertaking, the Defendant must adhere to the undertaking agreed until the outcome is agreed.

OTHERWISE THE DEFENDANT WILL BE SUBJECT TO CONTEMPT OF COURT PROCEEDINGS.


NOW HOUNDERS.....DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT BIT.

Jean-Pierre.t50 wrote:Not sure that some have really grasped how it works......
_________________

Roy Rovers - today

"I agree. TB should be ready for an offer to settle at the 'door of court' and know what his bottom line is. The MC's won't want to risk going through that door IMO."

http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t6211p90-flagrant-breaches-of-your-undertakings-say-carter-ruck-in-their-letter-of-4-january-in-the-case-of-mccanns-v-bennett-here-s-my-reply-sent-to-them-today

It's Mr. Bennett's Rapier Mind, you see. He will Cross Question them all, which is what he thinks he is going to do. He conveniently forgets that The McCanns are not on Trial.
Personally, I shudder at the mere thought, especially since The McCanns don't even have to be there. And Mr. Bennett wouldn't know how to cross question anyone anyway.
Look now, this is Mr. Bennett's one and only chance to shine in Court, and to be The Barrister he thinks he always should have been, despite never getting past being a qualified Solicitor.
And when he loses it will be a Cover Up. Win, win, for Mr. Bennett. I would laugh if it wasn't such delicious agony watching him.

It's a waste of time, muratfan. They have all convinced themselves that Bennett is not going to be in the dock for contempt of court.

No, they have convinced themselves he's going to be poncing around like some kind of ghastly cross between Perry Mason and Rumpole, fearlessly 'cross-examining' anyone who has ever spoken up for Madeleine McCann and her family.

I am sure most of them think that he's going to call a Surprise Witness at the very end. And Lo! Big Rock himself, the famous but creepy Goncalol, is going to stride in and pull out that Ace with a flourish.

It's all bolleaux, of course. In the real world, Bennett is little better than some crackhead mugger who plays the system and gloats when other people adhere to the law he so despises.

Pathetic - he's managed to get a stay of execution for a week, and he's still spinning and twisting to suit himself. Is this supposed to impress people?

Had his fingers rapped for pretending that a. It was a libel trial and b. Pretending that the McCanns were hell-bent on jailing him, has he?

Pathetic.

Still misremembering.


The McCanns, though having initiated a formal LIBEL CLAIM against in November 2009, and then asked for the proceedings to be STAYED (= adjourned), now OPPOSE even the formal hearing of my request for three of the undertakings to be varied. Their position appears to be (I hope I am not being unfair to them): "You voluntarily gave these solemn undertakings, you are bound by them FOR LIFE, whatever happens"

He seems to be omitting to mention that the reason the proceedings were stayed in 2009 was him making a solemn promise to stop committing libel.

Which he has repeatedly broken.

What a snivelling, twisting coward!

Oh, I do hope he hasn't done all this to get heard after Goncs in the dock, thinking that is going to save him? No-one would put it past Bennett.

Must be about time for Gonc's lawyer to fall ill again, so he needn't get his hopes up. Gonc's just as scared of appearing in court as he is.

Here we go round The Mulberry Bush. Who will crack first, Amaral or Bennett? Does it really matter?

There have been urgent communications between the High Court and Carter-Ruck both on Friday and today.

So, what was really said, that he's hiding?

2nd January:

McCann v Bennett 'commit-to-jail' case may (OR MAY NOT) be heard on Tues 29 and Weds 30 January
Tony Bennett on Wed Jan 02, 2013 5:14 pm

7th January:

In all fairness I would remind everyone that Isabel Martorell (formerly Hudson), partner of Carter-Ruck, did say in her original Affidavit to the Court that though the McCanns had applied for me to be sent to prison, because they said they had 'no option', they would be reluctant to see me actually jailed.

Someone's had there wrists slapped, looks like.

And as its going ahead, looks like CR were not amused by his pathetic offers to settle.

It looks to me as though The Judge has had enough of Mr. Bennett.
I suppose you all realize that those two January dates will now almost certainly go to waste in The Judge's Calendar as it will likely be too late to slot in someone else.

Thought Bennett liked posting letters in full

Quite; the hounders are too thick to smell that very obvious rat, so no-one there will challenge him and demand the truth.

Or is it a way to keep the Hounders from court

" I hope I am not being unfair to them"
What an appalling hypocrite he is.
He has spent the last five and more years doing exactly that!!

He clearly doesn't want the hounders to know the truth about one or two things, muratfan. And it's rather interesting that so few have said anything to support him.

He'll have to send out more mass emails to the cannon fodder, ordering them to post about how wonderful he is.

I will give him until tomorrow to post the letter up....or i can do it for him.

erngath wrote:" I hope I am not being unfair to them"
What an appalling hypocrite he is.
He has spent the last five and more years doing exactly that!!

Quite - and now he's crawling, and desperate not to offend? Don't believe this act.

muratfan wrote:I will give him until tomorrow to post the letter up....or i can do it for him.

Oh dear, he won't like this...

Mr. Bennett ,
What do you mean "I don't think there as never been a case like this" ? Your part in this case is quite trivial in the scheme of things. It probably won't even make the red tops.
Do you get it yet Mr. Bennett ?
No one on here cares about you and what you are going through at all. Your posts are mostly ignored.
You have persecuted the McCann's for years and now you will reap what you have sowed.
Amen to that.x.

e: New court date for McCanns v Bennett, 1.5 days EITHER 4 & 5 February OR 5 & 6 February
Jean Today

, what a waste of time and money it was sending you to charm school. You mentioned in your first post that you were not the person with a similar name on PFA2.

I presume that is a cesspit site - I'm sure you'll be welcomed there with open arms if so.

This case is a vital one for the preservation of free speech.

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

'Free speech'? That lot? They wouldn't know it if they fell over it - look at the way Bennett kept running crying to the mods on the aussie site.

And she's a fine one to talk about charm schools, she is incapable of hitting submit without being spiteful, whichever of her names she uses.

Ah, I get it now. Free Speach, that's what they are fighting and working for. But only for them. The rest of us plebs can doff our caps, shut up, and grovel to the masters. And heaven forbid if any of us should learn to read and write.
How frightfully silly of me not to have realised sooner. Think of the trouble we could have saved ourselves.