ED SMETHURST BEGINS PROCEEDINGS AGAINST BENNETT

http://www.madeleinefoundation.org.uk/EDWARD%20SMETHURST%20ISSUES%20A%20LIBEL%20SUMMONS%20.html#.Tkob7pjgvik.twitter

EDWARD SMETHURST ISSUES A LIBEL SUMMONS AGAINST TONY BENNETT
Article filed 16 August 2011



On 9 August 2011, Mr Edward Smethurst, the Co-ordinating Solicitor for Drs Gerald and Kate McCann, issued a libel summons against Madeleine Foundation Secretary Tony Bennett, a fact he found out on returning yesterday from a 10-day holiday. The claim is limited by Mr Smethurst to ‘a sum not exceeding £100,000’.

The summons, technically called a Defamation Claim, was accompanied by an ex parte Order also made on 9 August by Master Eyre in the High Court, which requires that “any non-party seeking access to, or copies of any documents before the court or on court records (including statements of case and witness evidence) must make an application for such access on notice to the parties. Documents filed at court in respect of this action are to be placed in a sealed envelope marked: ‘Not to be provided to any non-party without the leave of a Judge or the Senior Master of the Queen’s Bench Division and on prior notice to the parties’.”

The Claim relates to postings made by Tony Bennett about Mr Smethurst on the ‘Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann’ (CMOMM) forum between 9 and 12 May. The case has been assigned to Master McCloud.

Mr Smethurst’s concerns about one thread in particular were first brought to Mr Bennett’s attention on 4 August. Carter-Ruck, who act for Mr Smethurst, in the second of two letters sent that day, demanded: “Should you now fail to remove the defamatory postings…we will advise our client to issue proceedings for libel against you without further notice to you”. The allegedly defamatory postings were removed the following day, the day Mr Bennett began a 10-day holiday.

On his return from holiday yesterday, Mr Bennett discovered that Mr Smethurst had already issued libel proceedings, on Tuesday 9 August, in relation to two other threads on CMOMM which had not previously been brought to his attention by Mr Smethurst. These two threads about Mr Smethurst were removed from CMOMM as soon as Mr Smethursts’ libel summons was brought to the attention of CMOMM’s administrators.

Proposals to settle the dispute will shortly be put forward by Mr Bennett who has in the meantime agreed not to discuss the subject matter of his postings. We will publish further developments in the case as and when they happen.

Madeleine Foundation Committee, 16 August 2011

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

Oy, Bennett - you've stuffed up.


The allegedly defamatory postings were removed the following day, the day Mr Bennett began a 10-day holiday.


You carried on posting and twittering on the 5th; Havern removed the thread on the 6th.

Carter Ruck have all the screenshots recording this timeline.

By the shedload.

Have a nice day.

He's added to it on hellhole:

Additional note: In response to two letters from Carter-Ruck to me dated 4 August 2011, this forum's administrators decided the following day, as a precaution, to remove one of the Edward Smethurst threads from public view. On my return from holiday yesterday, I discovered that despite that thread having been removed at Smethurst's request, he had issued a libel writ on Tuesday 9 August, whilst I was away on holiday in Wales, citing two other threads on this forum that he claimed libelled him. Again, the administrators made a prompt decision to remove those two further Smethurst threads from public view - T.B.


He's Friar Tucked. He was only in Wales - as far as I know, they have the internet in Wales.

It wasn't the following day the threads were removed; it was the 6th.

He could have removed the thread himself on the 5th.

It's all been recorded.

Settle The Dispute? What dispute? Those postings were out and out Libel. There is no dispute.

Unless Ed Smethurst agrees to accept an out of Court settlement, I doubt that Bennett will have much say in the matter.

Pity really, I did so want to see Bennett in Court.

To comply, those threads should have been DELETED not removed to a private area, where they can still be seen and read by the members of the site; also by anyone joining the houndation. I think the ground bentit is on is so shaky he's going to be a very unhappy stalker very soon. LL

Initially, Bennett only edited and removed parts of his posts. And then had to be told to remove all of them. He didn't do this, Havern did, probably because she was shit bloody scared. And don't forget, she didn't know that Bennett had received a second letter because Bennett bogged off on holiday without telling her. Or so she says.
Personally, I don't believe her. I think it was a ploy to keep the thread up for another day.

I don't understand why that Forum isn't removed altogether.

Still the required result if Bennett settles out of court, Sabot - it means he has admitted the libel.

That post is amazing, it is chockablock with nonsense:

These two threads about Mr Smethurst were removed from CMOMM as soon as Mr Smethursts’ libel summons was brought to the attention of CMOMM’s administrators.

This post was made on the SIXTH of August:


Re: We've Been Cart Rucked!
Admin Today at 7:02 pm

Today I was made aware of a 2nd letter from Carter Ruck that was sent to Tony on 4th August. I didn't know anything about this letter until I saw it on someone's blog.

Part of the letter states:



Recently we have seen Carter Ruck have Pat Brown's book banned on Amazon without any notice whatsoever to her, so the thread will not be back on the forum.

Havern knew nothing about the second letter, so that one from Bennett won't wash.

And his twits of the 5th were screengrabbed.

He's made a real dog's breakfast of this, telling porkies in his reply is not going to help matters one bit.

If smethurst's lawyers decide to name her as implicit or complicit in this, in that she knew the posts were libellous, she knew there had been an order made that they were to be deleted, and she did not comply, as moving them to a private area is not compliance with the letters, havern will have her collar felt; she may also be sued and fined etc. Her site will be closed down, and if any connection is found to MM, and if there are postings of these smears on there, then MM is also for the high jump. LL

Proposals to settle the dispute will shortly be put forward by Mr Bennett

So, he is admitting the libel? Do Stinky J. Muckymac, ShuBob and the rest of the crew still feel inclined to repeat Bennett's filth?

Surely they are going to repeat it? Because if they don't, why, that means they know they haven't a leg to stand on in court and that they were libelling Mr Smethurst because they thought they would get away with it.

When all the time:

Not only are these grotesque allegations highly defamatory of our client, they are entirely untrue


Never mind, Stinkymac, Shubob and the rest have all helped Carter Ruck.

BY SHOWING THE SPREAD OF BENNETT'S FOUL LIES

Oh, what's this?



Why, it would appear to be Bennett twittering on the 5th, when he was supposed to be in Wales and unable to do anything about the libel.

Thing is, it only takes seconds to move a thread.

If Bennett had time to twitter on the 5th, he had time to move the thread, as CR know.

He was also posting on Havern's hours after he received the CR letter telling him to remove the thread NOW.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if Carter Ruck knew that, too.

Excellent, well done Mr. Smethurst.

I suppose Bennett does know that his being online AFTER the 4th, when he was supposedly on holiday, and the thread not being removed till the Saturday, will all have been automatically recorded in Havern's logs?

He isn't going to be able to bullsh*t his way out of this one; none of them are.

If I was one of the culprits who were gleefully repeating the libel, I would be rather worried.....

all together now

aaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh poor poor tone serves him writ

Does Bennett think that Carter Ruck don't have an IT Expert on board? Apart from interested parties sending all this information to CR.

However, I am not holding my breath. Bennett will try to talk his way out of this.

Sorry for being negative, but I have seen this all before.

However, I do expect Bennett to get lumped with some sort of Costs. Will his cohorts pay?

http://www.helpwithlawexams.co.uk/civilcases.html according to this he's only got 7 days left to do something because it was issued on the 9th


How to issue a claim

You need to complete a claim form, called a N1, the High Court or County Court office will give you a booklet explaining how to fill it in.

The various court forms, including the N1 can be seen on the Court Services website by clicking here. The site also contains guidance on starting cases in the civil courts.

Defending a claim

When a defendant receives the claim court from the court they may do one of the following things;

Admit the claim and pay the full amount
Dispute the claim by sending a N9 (Acknowledgment of Service) or a defence to the court within 14 days
Do nothing

If the defendant does nothing then the claimant can ask the court to make an order that the defendant pays the claim in full and the costs, this is known as an order in default.

If a case is defended then the court will allocate the case to the most suitable track.

I've no idea how it works, Sabot.

But, as Bennett is no doubt hanging around, this seems like a good time to make one or two things crystal clear.


Carter Ruck know he has told them a load of rubbish about what happened when.

Carter Ruck have the evidence of Bennett's libel being repeated on assorted sites, including the Brunty blog.

I don't see Sky having a problem handing over the culprits' ISPs if asked to do so by a court.

rhodes wrote:http://www.helpwithlawexams.co.uk/civilcases.html according to this he's only got 7 days left to do something because it was issued on the 9th


How to issue a claim

You need to complete a claim form, called a N1, the High Court or County Court office will give you a booklet explaining how to fill it in.

The various court forms, including the N1 can be seen on the Court Services website by clicking here. The site also contains guidance on starting cases in the civil courts.

Defending a claim

When a defendant receives the claim court from the court they may do one of the following things;

Admit the claim and pay the full amount
Dispute the claim by sending a N9 (Acknowledgment of Service) or a defence to the court within 14 days
Do nothing

If the defendant does nothing then the claimant can ask the court to make an order that the defendant pays the claim in full and the costs, this is known as an order in default.

If a case is defended then the court will allocate the case to the most suitable track.

Thanks, Rhodes

N1

http://hmctsformfinder.justice.gov.uk/courtfinder/forms/n1_0102.pdf

and this is the one tone has to fill in:
http://hmctsformfinder.justice.gov.uk/courtfinder/forms/n9_web_e.pdf

Bennett can't afford to do nothing, Rhodes. That would take all of his savings, and some.

Of course, he could always agree to making a donation to The Find Madeleine Fund.
That would leave me laughing half to death. And so appropriate, don't you think?

Sabot wrote:Bennett can't afford to do nothing, Rhodes. That would take all of his savings, and some.

Of course, he could always agree to making a donation to The Find Madeleine Fund.
That would leave me laughing half to death. And so appropriate, don't you think?

absolutely, making a donation to the fund would have us ALL laughing our heads off

rhodes wrote:

Sabot wrote:Bennett can't afford to do nothing, Rhodes. That would take all of his savings, and some.

Of course, he could always agree to making a donation to The Find Madeleine Fund.
That would leave me laughing half to death. And so appropriate, don't you think?

absolutely, making a donation to the fund would have us ALL laughing our heads off

Sheesh. He might even have apoplexy if forced to do this.

IMO, Bennett has hung himself. I am not repeating the libel, but look at the dates on these tweets:

zampos Anthony Bennett
jillhavern.forumotion.net/t2458p80******* 'jd' last nite made a ******** reply 2 ****************
5 Aug

zampos Anthony Bennett
My 2nd letter 2 C-Ruck 2day ****************
4 Aug

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

See what I mean? The second letter told him to remove the thread; not only did he not comply, the following day he was posting links to it.

I can see no way round that for Bennett.

**libel, etc., removed. Originals have all been screengrabbed**

Why have ShuBob, Stinkymuckyillumini, and the Cluedo troll suddenly gone quiet about this on the Brunty blog?

Those three were repeating Bennett's filth hour after hour.

If they have the courage of their convictions, they won't wait for Sky to hand over their ISPs, they will take themselves off to Carter Ruck and repeat the allegations they were insisting were The Truth.

If they don't, well then, they will have no grounds for complaint if, from now on, they are regarded as a shower of trolls with filthy minds who enjoy spreading lies about people.

Oh, and wasn't Stinkyminky repeating all this on MM, too?

Havern's members are repeating the libel all over again....this is taken from one post, by the famously stupid yoyo:

Also as to whether owner of FB was or was not aware of the postings surely the Police have a way of checking time and date of FB access from personal pc?


FB may well hand over relevant material to the police - like the ISPs of the people who, some are alleging, set this up to smear Smethurst.

Meanwhile, just you carry on libelling the man, you are doing a fantastic job. Of hanging Bennett

MM Members don't know about The Writ yet. Not a word of it has appeared on that Board.
Has absolutely no one informed them of this? I think they should be told.

Oh, they'll know; they will just be discussing it out of the public eye. And frantically trying to remember what they themselves said on the subject.