Bennett playing stupid games with Carter Ruck

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

On 31 December (Monday) I replied to a letter from Carter-Ruck in the Smethurst v Bennett case. Carter-Ruck had asked for my consent to adjourn the costs hearing listed for 11 January. The grounds were that their partner with conduct of the case would be absent at this time. They also asked for a list of dates to avoid between now and mid-March.

I consented, and in doing so gave them a short list of a few dates that would not be convenient. These dates included 29 and 30 January.

Today (Wednesday) I received a short and rather curt note from Carter-Ruck which informed me:

“The Queens’ Bench Listing Office had at the end of November already listed the contempt hearing for one and a half days on 29 and 30 January 2013, having taken into account the dates to avoid which you previously provided to us and to the Court. The Listing Office has confirmed that a Notice of Hearing containing formal notification of these dates was sent to both parties on 4 December 2012. As such, we are surprised that you now suggest that the dates of 29 and 30 January are not convenient for you.

“If you now wish to adjourn this hearing it will be necessary for you to contact the Court formally to apply for an adjournment and to provide an explanation of your reasons for doing so. We must reserve our clients’ rights to seek payment from you of their costs in dealing with any adjournment application”.

]Why has this situation arisen?

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

You can't tell me he hasn't found the complaint button, on the The Queens’ Bench Page.
And why is he blaming Carter Ruck for this, when the formal notification was not sent from them?

I'm almost sure Bennett let these dates out himself, a while ago. Trying to find email he sent out

Hmm..now if i remember rightly, on the bigfooty forum he denied the court dates, and denied having to pay out over £50,000 to Edward Smethurst...now he is saying it is true.

Well it seems if his followers need to know what happens they know where to come.

Bennett would in fact been contacted via the courts and not the McCanns lawyers, as they do not have any need to ....since Bennett is representing himself..

Bennett trying to get out of this again, trying to delay the inevitable, loss of home, or prison.

Bentit would have known the date because the courts look for available dates, WHILST BOTH PARTIES ARE STILL IN COURT, SO ANYONE THERE CAN SAY YES OR NO THAT THEY ARE THERE, this happens in every case...so Bennett lying through his teeth again.

Anyway Carter Ruck will ask for it to proceed with or without Bennett there, as is there right

Exactly MF.

He seems to think his Court list is top secret.

Seems Bennett was able to receive this though...FROM THE COURT



http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t5824-mr-justice-tugendhat-s-judgment-in-mccanns-v-bennett-issued-1010-on-241012

Get 'em Gonçalo ‏@abuseofpower
@skymartinbrunt Have u seen all the info collated here about Maddie #McCann? Not bad for a bunch of amateurs eh? http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/forum

There's no 'information' there, just an endless cesspit of lies, obscene speculation and Gonc-worship. If there was any 'information' then Bennett wouldn't be running scared of the High Court.

So, Bennett is in really, really deep doo-doo with Carter Ruck now? Serves him right - some of us did point out that libel on an Aussie site was still libel.

And oddly enough, he doesn't seem to have posted what CR actually said, just cherrypicked bits - typical.

He can't say he wasn't warned.

A question is asked by a relatively new member of the forum, which now has 2,084 members, as follows:

No, it doesn't, real members are barely 10% of that figure, and active members barely 10% of that

OMG, he's libelled the McCanns all over again in his reply.

And he STILL cannot grasp that his witterings and twistings are irrelevant to the contempt of court charge.

I have these questions for him:

what is your real, nasty purpose behind the attacks against innocent people, who true desire is to find their daughter, which is somewhere alive waiting to be found.

why do you repeat the same despicable behaviour about other parents in the same situation.

why do you defend so eagerly p.a.e.d.o.philes, rapists.

why do you defend or create excuses about gonçalo amaral lies, despicable behaviour.

why do you show disrespect for these innocents parents, whose true purpose is to find their daughter.

what would you do if it was with a son or daughter of yours.

bb1 wrote:OMG, he's libelled the McCanns all over again in his reply.

And he STILL cannot grasp that his witterings and twistings are irrelevant to the contempt of court charge.

Oh for friar tuck sake!
Does Bennett really want me to trawl through my hoard of screenshots and prove yet again he is a liar?

I see he is demonstrating his usual care and attention to detail:



You know, I could swear this is 2013.

: “Finally, I have never suggested that the McCanns deliberately killed Madeleine”. Please do not suggest to the Court or to anyone else that I have suggested that your clients caused Madeleine’s alleged death unless you have solid evidence with which to back up that claim.


What, like several posts he made on MM before he was banned? He appears to be misremembering again.

No doubt screenshots of allegations like that will be provided to the High Court.

How's this for brown-nosing?


Re: "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
hentie Today at 3:35 pm

Excellent!!!!

Reading through it shows you have a highly analytical brain and concentration re detail. I believe this is what concerned them and why they tried to deter you from further research and speaking out.

Well done Tony! If I were them or CR I would squirm and/or be very anxious.

'Concentration re detail'? He can't even get the YEAR right - I swear I can hear gales of laughter coming from St Andrews Lane. They're certainly in stitches in the non-hounder parts of the internet.

Fantastic suggestion from a hounder:

Tony, just print a copy of that off and hand it to the judge on the day of the trial. That should be more than enough and will save a lot of time.

Yup, great idea! Repeating libel, telling demonstrable lies, showing utter contempt for the High Court - one read of that and the judge will have Bennett on the next bus to Belmarsh.

Re: McCann v Bennett 'commit-to-jail' case may (OR MAY NOT) be heard on Tues 29 and Weds 30 January
Tony Bennett Today at 2:45 pm

Yesterday, Deputy Court Manager of the Queen's Bench Listing Office, Mr James Tipp, replied to my letter of Wednesday and said he would be discussing the matters raised with his manager on Monday.

I should be able to say by the middle of next week whether or not the hearing of the McCanns' application to jail me will or will not go ahead on 29 & 30 January

Hounder:

I doubt that CR receive letters like that very often.

No, they aren't used to dealing with madmen who demonstrate complete contempt for the law of the land.

about: "Finally, I have never suggested that the McCanns deliberately killed Madeleine”., you did suggested several times, you have always told that in your despicable behaviour.

TB, you know that the McCanns are totally innocent,

you know that Madeleine McCann can be still found alive.

about: "Finally, I have never suggested that the McCanns deliberately killed Madeleine”., you did suggested several times, you have always told that in your despicable behaviour.

you can deny it TB, but, know this: your despicable, unaccepted behaviour contradicts you.

you´re insane TB.

He doesn't care, Pedro, he never has. IMO, he thought he could do to the McCanns what he thought he could do to Michael Barrymore, and make more dirty money by wrecking lives.

Sadly for him, he hasn't got away with it. He's showing himself in his true colors now - as a very nasty piece of work indeed.

you can deny it TB, but, know this: your despicable, unaccepted behaviour contradicts you.

Its crazy, Pedro, there are numerous posts by him doing that very thing. I am not putting them in public, as they are out and out libel, but he's deluding himself if he thinks there isn't ample evidence to show he is yet again not telling the truth.

bb1, I agree with you.

He's had chance after chance, but carried on with total contempt for the law - and now comes the reckoning. Which is no doubt why he is now getting his ugly on.

What is he going to be like if and when Barrymore moves against him, and his links to News International become widely known?

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?

Someone should tell Bennett that courts don't take very kindly to witness intimidation, and if he carries on like this, he is on course for a jail cell.

No doubt it's all being sent to the appropriate authorities.

TB deserves it: "he is on course for a jail cell".