Bennett playing stupid games with Carter Ruck

What hypocrisy! Bennett sez:

The trial will be automatically unfair under both English law, and the law which proceeds from the European Court of Human Rights, on at least two grounds, before it even gets under way.

And since when has Bennett cared about European law - or indeed, respected the law of England and Wales?

He's treated the High Court with contempt, and actively attacked European law.

Still, what else can you expect from someone who takes money from NI on the sly, while attacking NI?

As for his deluded cult....

Im with roy rovers on this one ,this case will not get to court,the mccanns cant chance a full libel trial.so tony if they do try to settle before hand,tell them to stick it up thier jackseyonly joking


It's already AT court; the only person desperate to settle is Bennett. The only person whining and trying desperately to stall proceedings is Bennett.

Does that tell them nothing?

Tut tut! Putting words in the judge's mouth again, are we? And telling porkies about what Carter Ruck said to him?

That's not going to help his cause one bit. It may impress the hounders, but that won't make lies turn into truth in the real world, where it counts.

Bennett tries to convince himself new libel laws will save his worthless hide:

In defamation proceedings, a defence can be brought by the defendant that the comments made were ‘fair comment’, by which the defendant is protected if he can prove the truth of the facts on which the comment was based.

That's him screwed then, isn't it? He wouldn't know a fact if he fell over one.

It'll be fun watching him try.

He's throwing every bit of irrelevant garbage he can dredge up into this - no doubt guessing, correctly, that his fan club are too stupid to know what bolleaux he is spouting.

Whilst I back Tony whole heartedly I do think that it is not good to air on a public forum the ins and outs of what he will do and say, CR et al will be reading feverishly and amending and altering anything that could remotely put them in the wrong, they are being given a preview of what Tony will be saying on the day, thus watering down any impact Tony could have on the day.

Deluded or what? CR have been ready and willing to go to court for a YEAR. No need for them to do anything 'feverishly'.

The only person who keeps stalling and spinning is Bennett. Does that not tell them anything at all?

What good is it going to do him when he loses? His sychophants can't help him just by believing him. And all the shrieking in the world won't change the end result.
A handful of morons on an Internet Cess Pit can't change the Law.

They just aren't getting it, Sabot. They have clearly managed to wipe this from their memories:


TRIAL DATE McCanns v Bennett 9 & 10 May 2012
Tony Bennett on Mon Feb 27, 2012 1:10 pm

I informed Carter-Ruck on 23 February that I would be making no further comment of any kind about the reported disappearance of Madeleine McCann until after the conclusion of the committal-to-prison trial.

But they think Bennett is trustworthy? Deluded lemmings.

Mr. Bennett is hoping that Amaral will win, and then Mr. Bennett can quote his source of Fair Comment as The Lead Detective in Portugal.
But in the unlikely event of Amaral actually winning it will only be the opinion of The Judiciary of a foreign country, and therefor not applicable in The UK.
But Mr. Bennett could try it on in The Court of Human Rights sometime in the next century.

Re: COURT DATE NOW CONFIRMED: Tues 5th and Weds 6th February 2013

Post Tony Bennett Today at 7:56 am

IKNOWWHATHAPPENED wrote:Good luck Tony. I just hope you are under no illusions about receiving a fair trial.

The trial will be automatically unfair under both English law, and the law which proceeds from the European Court of Human Rights, on at least two grounds, before it even gets under way. Because:

1. The courts have ruled that a defendant facing a possible prison term should ALWAYS be legally represented (Hammerton v Hammerton). I won't be. I can't afford a lawyer, not being able to match the McCanns' massive legal resources, and being denied Legal Aid on the simple ground that my savings exceed £8,000

That only applies to a criminal trial. The threat of imprisonment in the context of contempt of court proceedings is an enforcement measure and a last resort. The court merely wish the defendant to comply with the terms of the injunction or undertaking and will do whatever is necessary to enforce compliance.

Because the defendant can cease the proceedings at any time (by complying) it is said that "the prisoner holds the keys to his won cell".

If Bennett wishes to be seen as a martyr but wilfully ignoring the undertaking he gave follwoing professional legal advice, then that is his own affair, and noting to do with the McCanns.

2. The courts have decreed that it is a violation of human rights for there to be an imbalance of legal resources in any court battle, what they call an 'inequality of arms' (Alkan v Turkey). Clearly that exists in this case.

Inequality of arms? Bennett is denied legal aid because he has too much money. He therefore COULD have appropriate legal resources butchooses not to. If he put a few of his many thousands into engaging a good lawyer he would save himself a lot of grief. Mind you, he might not like the lawyers advice, but that is another matter.

Unless he fondly imagines that he is entitled to a taxpayer funded defence of his right to continue to persecute an innocent grieving family?

There is a third legal point which, with great respect to him, I think Mr Justice Tugendhat has hinted at more than once. And it's this. The court is being asked to rule that I have committed a contempt of the court when, in these particular and unusual proceedings, the court has not yet established that I have committed any libel in the first place. That is why Mr Justice Tugendhat said that a full libel trial needs to take place, to estabish whether I have EVER libelled the McCanns, or whether all comments I have ever made on the case come within the defence of 'fair comment'.

Rubbish - he gave an undertaking to stay the libel action - because he was advised that he was likely to lose.

He seems to have forgotten that he GOT legal advice, from Kirwans, J-P.

Also, he likes to boast that he is a retired solicitor - is he admitting that he was so bad at that, that he himself cannot grasp the law?

His knowledge of the law is on a par with the Tazzy Devil's - absolute zilch! LL

bb1 wrote:Bennett tries to convince himself new libel laws will save his worthless hide:

In defamation proceedings, a defence can be brought by the defendant that the comments made were ‘fair comment’, by which the defendant is protected if he can prove the truth of the facts on which the comment was based.

That's him screwed then, isn't it? He wouldn't know a fact if he fell over one.

The McCanns have suffered a number of human right breaches and they can bring those rights into play against Bennett if he wishes to go down that path. He will lose if he does.

Maggs wrote:

bb1 wrote:The problem is, I'm already up to page 'D454', so it'll have to go at the back of the bundle and (it's 9 pages long) be added as 'D455 to D463'. (That's not as many pages as Carter-Ruck have sent me, I have about 6,000 pages of documents to contend with starting with Bundles A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I and J so far, plus Bundle 1 ('Inter-Partes Correspondence). I need a pick-up truck to take them all down to The Strand, they weigh about half a hundredweight (4 stone / 25kg) already. I don't know how I can do it, actually.

Then he shouldn't have written so much long-winded, tedious sh*te and libel to begin with.

Oh, don't tell me he's going to ask for a postponement because he can't carry his own trash?

No problem, I'll help him out

Read up to this post only, so far but brilliant, Maggs.

Membership fees

7. (a) The initial membership fee shall be £____ , which shall entitle the member to membership of The Madeleine Foundation until further notice.
(b) membership fees shall be determined from time to time by the Board of Directors

8. The Board of Directors reserves the right, however, to call on members for further membership fees should that prove necessary.

I seem to recall that we discussed this on our old forum and sans gave us his opinion.

Well I guess Bennett must be grateful for his staunch fellow members?

http://thehoundingofthemccans.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/bah-bah-bah-said-mutton-mouth-bennett.html

Funny how Bennett never cares about his victims' human rights, isn't it?

lily wrote:Membership fees

7. (a) The initial membership fee shall be £____ , which shall entitle the member to membership of The Madeleine Foundation until further notice.
(b) membership fees shall be determined from time to time by the Board of Directors

8. The Board of Directors reserves the right, however, to call on members for further membership fees should that prove necessary.

I seem to recall that we discussed this on our old forum and sans gave us his opinion.

Well I guess Bennett must be grateful for his staunch fellow members?

Wasn't it something to do with being held responsible for Mr. Bennett's Cost and or Damages?

Be fair, Bonny. What worth are the victims rights against Bennetts right to freedom of speech, uninhibited by any substance or fact.

Surely you woudn't deny an old man that.......?

Sabot wrote:

lily wrote:Membership fees

7. (a) The initial membership fee shall be £____ , which shall entitle the member to membership of The Madeleine Foundation until further notice.
(b) membership fees shall be determined from time to time by the Board of Directors

8. The Board of Directors reserves the right, however, to call on members for further membership fees should that prove necessary.

I seem to recall that we discussed this on our old forum and sans gave us his opinion.

Well I guess Bennett must be grateful for his staunch fellow members?

Wasn't it something to do with being held responsible for Mr. Bennett's Cost and or Damages?

Wasn't it both, Sabot?

Discussion on Myths:

http://stopthemyths.prophpbb.com/topic3196-875.html?sid=4a834c40ae47c7f9893cd98d072c972a

If the McCanns revive the harrassment charges, which they have been holding back on till now, then could the rest of the Hounders be dragged into the dock?

All those petitions, etc - even delivered to No 10!



Those four certainly can't deny they were part of a joint action.

Unusually, an interesting point from someone on the hounders:

I fail to see how you can possibly win the initial case against you right now as it appears to be a simple matter of you, no matter how much you regret giving those undertakings at the time, simply choosing to ignore those undertakings - it does appear to be very clear cut. Whereas I can see the logic behind Justice Tugendhat's stance on "hey, maybe there wasn't a libel after all" I cannot see in a month of Sundays that any judge is going to say it's ok for anyone to ignore an undertaking just because *they* felt it was given under duress or had changed their mind - that's a unilateral act and cannot be supported in law.

No, I don't see any judge taking action that will, in effect, tear up every single legally-binding agreement in England and Wales.

Bennett had the cure in his own hands; this is no-one's fault but his.

http://thehoundingofthemccans.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/bennett-even-implied-that-witches.html

Oh yes....Bennett thinks J. K. Rowling is a witch.

If she is, maybe she could turn him into something suitable? Like a slug....

Bennett drops himself in it yet again....in reply to someone or other:

Someone takes a libel action against another in a civil court, but before any evidence of the alleged libel is put before the court, the person accused agrees to sign an undertaking that he will not do certain things. This agreement is effective for the rest of the accused's natural life.

More or less. The undertaking was given without time limit, which I understand is relativley unusual. It means the undertakings continue in force until the defendant [pursuer]*** successfully challenges the undertakings or the claimant deems that they are no longer necessary

SO WHY DIDN'T BENNETT 'SUCCESSFULLY CHALLENGE' THE UNDERTAKING?

He's just admitted Contempt.

***ignorant as ever.

I wonder, is yoyo actually some kind of sleepertroll? No-one can possibly be this stupid, can they?


If they can get away with it they probably wont even show up.
Reporting of court proceedings isnt libelous, so I wonder whether the Press will splash on mc-can-litigate-news when the time comes.

Welll, that depends on how much of a t*t Bennett makes of himself...

As for the McCanns ' getting away' with not turning up in February - why on earth would they attend? It's Bennett who is in the dock for contempt of court.

Can they really not grasp that?

Okay. The McCanns do not have to be there. This is a Case of Contempt of Court. Mr. Bennett will not get an opportunity to cross examine The McCanns even if they are there. He is on Trial, and not them.
I am not even sure that Mr. Bennett will get an opportunity to cross examine Mike Gunnell. Mr. Bennett sold a booklet to Mike Gunnell, or someone. Who Mr. Bennett sold it to is not actually important. He sold it. End of.

Wonder if he will work out the difference between a pursuer and a defendant before he's in the dock? I do hope not.