bennett rebuttal to Carter Ruck

Tony Bennett Today at 10:55 pm
The first part of the Carter-Ruck letter today demanded the removal of 21 articles, letters or other document from our website, partial removal of another article, and amendments to our Home Page.

The Madeleine Foundation Committee has tonight consulted and agreed to put out the following statement as soon as practicable on our website. The removal of the articles concerned will also take place as soon as practicable:

Statement:



IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT REGARDING
THE CONTENTS OF THIS WEBSITE

17 August 2011




Following receipt of a package by Secretary Tony Bennett from Carter-Ruck at 3.35pm on 17 August 2011, alleging that he is in breach of an undertaking he gave to the High Court on 25 November 2009 about the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, we are removing many items from our website.

Carter-Ruck’s letter complained about the contents of part of our Home Page, and parts of our article titled ‘The Madeleine McCann mystery and the strange role of Madeira lawyer, Marcos Aragao Correia.

[ NOTE: The letter from Carter-Ruck and Mr Bennett’s reply both dated 17 August 2011 are viewable here:

(These should both be viewable on our website shortly - T.B.). ]

As a result, but without any admission that any of the material is libellous of the McCanns nor that Mr Bennett has breached the terms of his undertaking, we are taking the following action a soon a practicable:




Amending our Home Page
Removing the entirety of all the other 21 articles about which Carter-Ruck complain ( in whole or part) until further notice, pending the outcome of further correspondence with Carter-Ruck.

A convenient list of the articles we have removed from view are listed below.

We are carefully reviewing each article to consider whether, in each case, it could be considered to contain either libellous material or material by Tony Bennett which could be held to breach his undertaking.

We are very sorry that it has not been possible for you to view some of our articles today. We will be reviewing the situation regularly and will make announcements on our Home Page concerning the removed articles as soon as we can.

- Committee of The Madeleine Foundation, 17 August 2011


Tony Bennett
Researcher

Posts: 3510
Join date: 2009-11-25
Age: 63
Location: Harlow, Essex

http://www.madeleinefoundation.org.uk/

Back to top

pending the outcome of further correspondence with Carter-Ruck.


Has he got a death wish? What is there to discuss? Talking time is long gone, he has pushed people way, way too far.

bb1 wrote: pending the outcome of further correspondence with Carter-Ruck.


Has he got a death wish? What is there to discuss? Talking time is long gone, he has pushed people way, way too far.

and yet he's about to disappear for another 4 days? As they say on Muriel's Wedding, WHAT a coincidence!

I think he's trying to appear to his cult members that he is somehow in control of what is happening?

Did I read that he was disappearing for a konference, or something, rhodes?

He would be better to spend the weekend in a prayer circle, frankly, as he hasn't one at present. I suspect the 'bestiality' is the last straw....

Yes Bonny, and can you blame them?

Seriously, if ever there was a time for Bennett to hire a proper lawyer, it is now.

Bennett is a proper lawyer....he told me so and i believe what he says ....

At least he's got more hair on top.

veniviedivici nobby-Lobby
@
@zampos I hope you are going to fight them this time , instead of rolling over like a tummy tickelled lap dog ! Where's my £400 ? #McCann

Bit of a problem there for Bennett, what with him having made it all up

Do you think Laffin is also worried about not getting his 400 GBP?

Oh goodie, LuzLady's back!

Re: Edward Smethurst's yearly holidays at the Ocean Club, Praia da Luz
LuzLady Yesterday at 11:58 pm

I can well understand your need to be cautious about me, I don't blame you in the least.

Admin has spoken, they know who I am and can vouch for me.

The main reason I posted was to let you know about the (until now!) well-kept secret that Ed Smethurst and his family regularly holiday at their friends apartment over here in Praia, still, as time goes on maybe someone else will confirm this, then perhaps you'll feel able to trust what I say a bit more than you do now.

btw no I don't know exactly where the apartment is, I'll try and find out.

Ed's still not been seen this time round btw, maybe he's too involved trying to get a hundred grand out of Mr Bennett right now.

Thanks for the pms, tbh I'm not going to reply to them, sorry, I had a message for you all which in time you'll find out was a 100percent correct.

If there's anything more I can find to help you, I will, otherwise you won't be hearing from me for a while.

ps. I knew Smethurst was important, but wow! THAT important, British Nuclear Fuels and a big Freemason, not someone to mess with I guess.

Keep sleuthing, Stella

Keep sleuthing Stella? You have got to be joking.

I had a message for you all which in time you'll find out was a 100percent correct

What was it - you are a bunch of conspiraloon nutjobs?

The main reason I posted was to let you know about the (until now!) well-kept secret that Ed Smethurst and his family regularly holiday at their friends apartment over here in Praia..............

btw no I don't know exactly where the apartment is, I'll try and find out.

Of course you don't.

Admin has spoken, they know who I am and can vouch for me.

Is this her?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IO3iUYnQeSE&playnext=1&list=PL92507EC90C6B3EE5

He's posted CRs original letters:

http://www.madeleinefoundation.org.uk/Carter%20Ruck%20-%20letter1.pdf

It's a very long letter, but I think, from a first read, that Bennett has had it.

I can't see anything to argue with in it. One or two phrases - it may come out odd, as it is currently in pdf form:

As previously, the arguments you put forward range from being (at best) legally
irrelevant to completely spurious and as such we have no intention of addressing them
in any detail here.
----------------------


You heve also purported to suggest that you can evade liability under the law of libel
and circumvent the terms of your undertakings to the Court by positing allegations as
questions. That is sirnply not correct.

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

The rest simply is not copying - it's a job for tomorrow, frankly, as it is too long to correct.

Suffice to say, no-one is interested in his stupid games, flim-flammery, and evasion; he is facing contempt of court proceedings.

Quote from Carter Ruck's Letter.

As we note above, you
h,ave previousry
[ad a pnactice of removing or amendingspecific pubrications iolrowing
'iu *IJipi or " *'ipl;.,ft;T our crients, onry then,after a short pause, to-go
"; t"_ouil*r; nu -rr"gri';"r'*n,"n are the subject of thecourt order in anotheif,;^;; ii in"Jtrr"r.
*ay: A;su"n, *'trit*
rye wgu]d naturary urgeyou to remove the pubrications-now-tgm-praineo-;t
t"; set out in the aftachedschedure, to the extent
tn"t 1rt""*-iontinue i;; prbji*n*o,
and to desist rrompublishing any
similar material, ** **t
mat<e clear tnliiour'cri*nts
have resorved that
ff:t
event it will be ne@ssary
to commence contempt
of court proceedings
against . End quote.


Sorry about the mess of this Copy and Paste. But Carter Ruck state that The McCanns WILL proceed even if Bennett does remove his garbage. But that it would be a good idea if he does.

I would say that Bennett has definitely had IT. There is no way out, no mediation, and no dispute to resolve.
It only remains now, for The Judge to decide if in fact Bennett has committed Libel, which he obviously has. Even if not on all counts, there is more than enough to point to Bennett's intentions.

he's had it!

they are taking him to court whether he takes the offending stuff down or not---and it serves him right, he's had enough chances---his day as a Vileda SuperMop is getting ever closer

It's not your fault, Sabot - pdf files always do that.
Remember the time when I copied one, laboriously corrected it - then folk thought it was a fake cos I'd missed a couple of the errors?

It is way too long to do that with again, anyway, but never mind.

I don't think there is any point in Bennett's mutters about there being some sort of settlement possible; he had that chance long, long ago.

He made solemn undertakings to the High Court - and broke his word.

End of.

He has repeatedly shown he cannot be trusted to behave honourably, so what else does he expect to happen?

If he was even remotely connected to the law he would know the following by heart. LL:

Contempt of Court

Courts have power to control courtroom behavior and to enforce court orders. Contempt of court occurs when someone disobeys a court order, shows disrespect for the judge, or disrupts judicial proceedings. There are two types of contempt--civil contempt and criminal contempt. In addition, contempt can be either direct (occurs in front of the judge and disrupts the court proceedings) or indirect (occurs outside the presence of the judge).

Civil Contempt
Civil contempt occurs when a person refuses to obey a court order. Civil contempt can be "purged" by following the court order. A fine, confinement in jail, or both can be imposed for civil contempt. The sanctions are meant to coerce compliance with the court's order rather than to punish the person. If jailed, the person will be released from jail when he/she complies with the court order. The failure to comply with an injunction (a court order directing a person to do or not do a certain act) can be civil contempt.

bb1 wrote:It's not your fault, Sabot - pdf files always do that.
Remember the time when I copied one, laboriously corrected it - then folk thought it was a fake cos I'd missed a couple of the errors?

It is way too long to do that with again, anyway, but never mind.

I don't think there is any point in Bennett's mutters about there being some sort of settlement possible; he had that chance long, long ago.

He made solemn undertakings to the High Court - and broke his word.

End of.

He has repeatedly shown he cannot be trusted to behave honourably, so what else does he expect to happen?

The garbled Copy and Paste is not important in itself, Bonny. The letter states quite categorically that Carter Ruck WILL proceed, regardless.

My only worry is that we might not see what happens to him, although I personally will derive no great pleasure from his downfall.

I do not think for a minute that this will stop him from attacking other Victims. The man is seriously ill, and his malady is escalating. That is the real worry.

Lamplighter wrote:If he was even remotely connected to the law he would know the following by heart. LL:

Contempt of Court

Courts have power to control courtroom behavior and to enforce court orders. Contempt of court occurs when someone disobeys a court order, shows disrespect for the judge, or disrupts judicial proceedings. There are two types of contempt--civil contempt and criminal contempt. In addition, contempt can be either direct (occurs in front of the judge and disrupts the court proceedings) or indirect (occurs outside the presence of the judge).

Civil Contempt
Civil contempt occurs when a person refuses to obey a court order. Civil contempt can be "purged" by following the court order. A fine, confinement in jail, or both can be imposed for civil contempt. The sanctions are meant to coerce compliance with the court's order rather than to punish the person. If jailed, the person will be released from jail when he/she complies with the court order. The failure to comply with an injunction (a court order directing a person to do or not do a certain act) can be civil contempt.

Bennett is Contemptible, LL.

I do not think for a minute that this will stop him from attacking other Victims. The man is seriously ill, and his malady is escalating. That is the real worry.



The way he is deteriorating, Sabot, I would not worry too much.

He is, IMO, on course to end up in jail, or more likely sectioned in Rampton or similar.

bb1 wrote:I do not think for a minute that this will stop him from attacking other Victims. The man is seriously ill, and his malady is escalating. That is the real worry.



The way he is deteriorating, Sabot, I would not worry too much.

He is, IMO, on course to end up in jail, or more likely sectioned in Rampton or similar.

As far as I know, he could be committed for psychiatric reports by the judge or magistrate if he should fall apart in court or seen to be mentally unwell. He could be sectioned by his family; I am not too sure if anyone outside his immediate family could get him committed, though maybe a social worker might be able to. 2 doctors are needed, plus the person applying for the sectioning; this was how things stood when I was still living in the UK LL.

Bennett's latest nonsense:

Next move
Tony Bennett Today at 12:01 pm

Big Vern wrote:
I know it's easy for me to say this Tony as I'm not in the direct line of fire but hasn't the time come to stand up to these people?

Big Vern, the analogy is quite a good one, I am in the direct line of fire and it remains to be seen whether my shield is good enough to withstand the bullets.

If you look carefully at page 5 of Carter-Ruck's letter of 12 August 2011 (link here: ), it states that "...while we would naturally urge you to remove the publications now complained of (as set out in the attached schedule), and to desist from publishing any similar material, we must make it clear that our clients have resolved that in any event it will be necessary to commence Contempt of Court proceedings against you".

Thus in spite of our having removed even more material from our website than the McCanns have asked for, and despite the forum-owner here removing my 42 allegedly libellous postings from public view on this forum, I am likely to get a Contempt of Court summons any day now and will in effect have two simple choices:

A. Accept that I'm in contempt. apologise, promise again not to criticise the McCanns, pay Carter-Ruck's reasonable costs, and take my punishment, whether fine, seizure of assets or a spell in one of HM's prisons - or

B. Defend each and every posting, letter, article, statement, MF newsletter etc. to which the McCanns object and claim to be defamatory of them, plus make a formal application for the terms of the undertaking to be varied, and settle down for what will probably be a long-drawn out trawl in front of a Judge through all the evidence and whether I can or cannot rely on the defences of e.g. 'justification 'and 'fair comment' for the comments I have made - and probably have to pay vastly increased costs at the end of all that if I lose i.e. if the Judge finds that any of my comments are contemptuous of an undertaking given to the High Court.

That's my choice now in a nutshell.

In chess terms, it's the McCanns' next move.

No it isn't - in chess terms, it is checkmate - to the McCanns.

And as for:

But if this is taken to court, won't you be able to call the McCanns to give evidence?

No - why on earth would Bennett?

Oh, he may well try it, like some rapist defending himself to further torment his victim, but any reasonable person would see such action as merely furthering his own obsessive hate campaign.

He really is ultra stupid, isn't he? The operative word is remove, which means, not removal to a secret place, but deletion in total, so none of the allegations can be seen by anyone, anywhere. If he is, as I suspect, attempting to get round this, he is on a hiding to nowhere, especially if Desmond Browne QC is involved in prosecuting the case. He has one hell of a reputation as a 'hard man' in the Courts. I can see much gnashing of teeth and wailing as various hate sites, where these allegations have been posted, are summarilly closed down. I hope so, that will definitely make my day, in fact my year!! LL