bennett rebuttal to Carter Ruck

An answer to espeland
Tony Bennett Today at 12:57 pm

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


No, but if this case proceeds, then they will have to give evidence - for example, Carter-Ruck say in their letters that my activities 'harm the search for Madeleine'. That will entitle me or my lawyer to cross-examine them about the nature of their search e.g. why they chose two crooks as investiagtors who were both sent to prison as a result of crimes or alleged crimes - Antonio Jimenez and Kevin Halligen. The McCanns' alleged failure to follow up calls to their investigation hotline would come into it, as would their habit of giving stories about possible suspects to the media, thus giving suspects public notice that they were under suspicion - not to mention Brian Kennedy allegedly interfering with witnesses.

What absolute rubbish! All that is totally irrelevant!

Bennett made solemn undertakings to HM the Queen as represented by the High Court of England.

The only question a court is going to be interested in is whether not he broke those solemn undertakings.

And on the evidence of his conduct today alone, the answer is YES.

What some bloke in Spain did or not do is of no interest or relevance to the court. And if Bennett tries this on in court, then he is liable to be sent down on the spot for further contempt.

Does Havern want to join Bennett in the dock?

It is his actions after learning of his friends' conversations and interests that are under scrutiny. A separate issue is how much he knew of his friends' interests and conversations before 9 May 2011 - and that we don't know - Admin.

That is a statement of fact; in the real world, is it not strange that the only people who have seen all this filth are Bennett and HLM - the same HLM who is a fan of banned torture porn. Hmmm........

And these are the people who think they are entitled to put total strangers 'under scrutiny'? Boy, are they in for a few shocks.

HARLOW MAN DECIDES TO LIVE IN TENT!!!

Yes, folks, Bennett has decided to keep Carter Ruck right about the law.

His latest missive:

2ND REPLY TO CARTER-RUCK'S LETTER - 12noon 18 AUGUST 2011

Tony Bennett’s letter to Carter-Ruck re Dr Gerald and Dr Kate McCann dated 18 August 2011


Dear Mrs Hudson

I write as promised further to my e-mail sent just after 5pm yesterday.

I have now had a little time to review the contents of your letter and digest the 15 accompanying pages which list the articles, letters, forum postings and other material that your clients wish to be removed from public view.

In practical terms, the following has been agreed.

So far as The Madeleine Foundation is concerned, the Committee has decided forthwith to remove all of the 22 articles, letters, statements and newsletters etc. that your clients have objected to in part or whole.

So far as the forum 'Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann' is concerned, the forum-owner and her administration team have been notified of the 42 posts of mine (together with certain links) that your clients want removed. I must make it clear that whilst I have what is called 'Moderator status' on that blog and can intervene on the forum just as other Moderators can, I am not part of the administration team and therefore do not have a controlling say over the contents of that form. The forum owner has informed me that she is in the process of removing the posts to which your clients object and is I understand to go even further by removing all the threads where those posts appear.

In practical terms, therefore, the actions your clients requested being taken in your letter dated 12 August either have been or are being taken.

Turning now to the contents of your letter and addressing the question of whether a court is likely to find me in contempt of my undertaking, the following points are relevant.

1. In her book 'madeleine', Dr Kate McCann wrote that I had 'undertaken not to repeat allegations' but that I was 'going around insinuating that we were involved in Madeleine's disappearance'. I have mostly written about the case since November 2009 either on The Madeleine Foundation website or on Jill Havern's forum. I have made over 3,500 posts on that forum but I note that you only regard 42 of them as being in contempt of my undertaking.

2. As I have explained to you in correspondence, my undertaking was never an undertaking not to discuss the case; it was not a vow of silence. You are also aware from our correspondence that I regard some of the very obvious and flat contradictions between the accounts of your clients and their friends as material which deserves to be discussed. To take just one specific example, the clearly contradictory accounts of the occasion that Dr David Payne is said to have visited your clients' apartment at around 6.30pm on 3 May 2007. I find it hard to believe that a High Court Judge would find it 'contempt' to continue to raise questions about that contradiction. Dr Kate McCann's account of this encounter on page 67 of her book does not reconcile the many contradictions Dr McCann and Dr Payne at the time.

3. On examining the material on Jill Havern's forum that you seek to remove, the very first item asks me to remove the post made at 6.00pm on 11 February 2009 on the thread: 'Goncalo Amaral - A Biography'. On examining that post, it is simply a list of the 48 Questions asked by the Portuguese Police on 8 September which your client refused to answer. I note that elsewhere (point 52 in your 14-page schedule of alleged contempts of court), you claim that to circulate the 10-minute video on YouTube of my reading out those 48 questions is actionable contempt worthy of being punished by a High Court Judge. Should this matter proceed to a contempt hearing, I feel sure that a Judge would NOT regard this as contempt of court since that list of questions has been made public by the Portuguese Police. Not only that, it is currently viewable on the BBC's website and that of other national media e.g. the Daily Mail. It is available at hundreds of other places on the internet. Out of consideration for your clients' demands, the YouTube link which you give at Item 52 on page 14 has now been disabled so that it can no longer be viewed. However, unless you are able to specify in precise terms how publication of that list of unanswered questions constitutes libel of your client, and therefore becomes contempt of court in my case, I cannot see why either the 11 February 2010 post you referred to nor the YouTube video should not be restored to public view.

4. Twice in your letter you refer to 'flagrant breaches' of my undertaking. This is not quite how your client puts it. She says in page 312 of her book: "He is still going around insinuating that we were involved in Madeleine's disappearance, only now he is just being slightly more careful about how he says it".

5. The publications your clients required in pages 4 and 5 of your letter to be removed from public view either have been removed or are in the process of being removed.

6. You refer in your letter to letters sent to me by yourselves on 5 February, 15 July and 3 August 2010, the last one of these being over a year ago. These letters were answered in full at the time and obviously should your clients proceed with their application to have me held in contempt then those responses will be produced.

7. I undertook to refrain from suggesting that your clients should be 'suspected of causing the death of Madeleine'. You say again as you and your clients have said many times that there is 'no credible evidence' that Madeleine died in your clients’ apartment on that holiday. On that matter, as you know, I honestly and frankly beg to differ. Should this matter proceed to a contempt hearing, the Judge will need to have before him/her a whole range of evidence which does point in that direction. To give examples: Goncalo Amaral's book: 'The Truth About A Lie', the report of Tavares de Almeida dated 10 September 2007 which is in our book: 'The Madeleine McCann Case Files: Volume 1, the opinions of Lee Rainbow and Mark Harrison, the report of Martin Grime; a range of books published in Germany and the U.S. about the evidence, and not least the inferences that may reasonably drawn from a long list of contradictions and changes of story etc. which were conveniently summarised in the Madeleine McCann Research Group's '50 FACTS' leaflet.

8. In relation to the passages from the letter we sent to David Cameron on 18 May 2011 and from which you quote extensively on page 3 of your letter, you make the comment in paragraph 7 on page 4 that "...in a large number of instances - including the letter to David Cameron from which we quote above - you do not even put your allegations in question form but instead state as a fact that you believe that Madeleine died in the holiday apartment and that her parents conspired to cover up the death". This is simply not true. Kindly look again very carefully at the actual words I have used in the letter to David Cameron:

"A great many people consider that there is more than adequate evidence that Madeleine McCann died in the McCanns' holiday apartment..."

"This is the settled view of the former senior investigator in the case, Goncalo Amaral..."

"Dr Amaral advances the view that [Madeleine] may have died as a result of an accident..."

"Another view of what might have caused Madeleine's death is the possibility that she was over-sedated by the McCanns"

"...clearly the alerts of two of the world's top sniffer dogs...are significant..."

"...a very large amount of circumstantial evidence suggests that the McCanns and their friends have not told the truth...

"[Various people] subscribe to the view that the balance of evidence points in the direction of Madeleine having died in the McCanns' holiday apartment...if that hypothesis is correct..."

Nowhere in those three paragraphs do I, as you claim "state as a fact that you believe that Madeleine died in the holiday apartment and that her parents conspired to cover up the death".

Should contempt proceedings be brought I am minded to defend them and will in addition make an application to vary the terms of the undertaking".

Yours sincerely

Tony Bennett

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


HE'S DONE IT ALL OVER AGAIN IN THE REPLY

Sorry, I can't help it...

Lamplighter wrote:

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.

Mrs. Bennett might need to address this. I have been reliably informed that Mrs. Bennett does not own half of the house, although she would be entitled to such if push ever came to shove. However, the Law is a bit convoluted on this one.
But the house would be forcibly sold to pay Bennett's financial undertakings, and Mrs. Bennett would be given her half share.
Unfortunately, the house could go under the hammer, in which case it could well fetch less than it is worth.

Mr. Bennett could agree to pay The Damages from his own pocket, over and above his savings. In which case I would be worried about his Mother because he does have Power of Attorney over her financial affairs. Bennett blatantly used his mother's bank account to suggest he could pay the cheque from Mike Gunnell into her account for receipt of some such of his written garbage.
Bennett requested that the cheque be made out to Maria Bennett, who is his Mother.
His Mother just happens to be about 93, so I don't suppose that she has any idea of what is going on, although I have to say that I would if I was her.

Meanwhile, his Mother's house is purported to be worth at least one million pounds.

I genuinely cannot believe Bennett can lecture Carter Ruck thus:

Kindly look again very carefully at the actual words I have used in the letter to David Cameron:

and then state this:

"A great many people consider that there is more than adequate evidence that Madeleine McCann died in the McCanns' holiday apartment..."

"This is the settled view of the former senior investigator in the case, Goncalo Amaral..."

"Dr Amaral advances the view that [Madeleine] may have died as a result of an accident..."

"Another view of what might have caused Madeleine's death is the possibility that she was over-sedated by the McCanns"

"...clearly the alerts of two of the world's top sniffer dogs...are significant..."

"...a very large amount of circumstantial evidence suggests that the McCanns and their friends have not told the truth...



This has come up before - does he not actually comprehend simple English phrases? Remember, he didn't understand 'public interest', and he thought, the only assumption means the same as only an assumption when in fact the phrases are contradictory.

He did go to school in the UK, didn't he?

They are confusing two quite separate actions. Carter Ruck have been busy bringing an action for contempt of court in relation to Bennetts actions in breaking the undertaking he made to the High Court in 2009.

On this issue, the court will be concerned with taking whatever action is necessary to ensure that he actually complies with that undertaking, and no more - it is a matter of seeking compliance with an undertaking that he actually gave of his own free will, rather than a matter of damages or other form of punishment.

That is, at present, as far as it goes

The McCanns will, in my view, stop at that point. But they COULD bring an action for defamation and seek damages from him. Which I suspect they will if he does not stop playing silly buiggers with them.

_____________

The defamation action with regard to Edward Smethurst is quite unconnected and that has not even started yet. I suspect he will be less kind than the McCanns.

Jesus Bloody Christ. I do not believe that Bennett has said this.

Okay, Which one of you lot are trying to stitch him up?

Thanks, sans. As a layman, I am struggling to take in the sheer horror of what Bennett is doing; it's as if he can't or won't understand basic English, never mind the law.

He hasn't a legal leg to stand on, it seems to me - he is relying on the kindness of the very people he has been stalking, smearing, libelling and generally tormenting.

He must really hate the McCanns, be eaten up with jealousy of Smethurst, that he is prepared to throw everything away to carry on this insane, doomed hate campaign?

I like this bit:

This is good, too:

sans_souci wrote:They are confusing two quite separate actions. Carter Ruck have been busy bringing an action for contempt of court in relation to Bennetts actions in breaking the undertaking he made to the High Court in 2009.

On this issue, the court will be concerned with taking whatever action is necessary to ensure that he actually complies with that undertaking, and no more - it is a matter of seeking compliance with an undertaking that he actually gave of his own free will, rather than a matter of damages or other form of punishment.

That is, at present, as far as it goes

The McCanns will, in my view, stop at that point. But they COULD bring an action for defamation and seek damages from him. Which I suspect they will if he does not stop playing silly buiggers with them.

_____________

The defamation action with regard to Edward Smethurst is quite unconnected and that has not even started yet. I suspect he will be less kind than the McCanns.

Right. So The McCanns just want him to stop. And to abide by The Injunction that he signed. But they are now going for Contempt of Court in this matter because he didn't stop.
However, they could pursue him for damages if they wish, but this would be a separate matter. Not all that difficult to understand, is it. But surely Contempt of Court is punishable in some way or another?

Ed Smethurst? I don't even know if what Bennett has said is more or less actionable than what Bennett has said about The McCanns, or Brian Kennedy and his Family But be sure that they are all related.
Or are you saying that knowledge of a Conviction in one Case could prejudice another Case?
As it happens, I am perfectly capable of understanding that. And so it should be.
So, Do the Bast**rd on each and every Case. He hasn't got a hope in hell's chance anyway.
But if for some inexplicable reason he manages to talk his way out of this then I am finally going to given up on England.

Sorry, I am saying that if I don't like what The Justice System decides then I am out of there. But I have been out of there for nearly twenty years now. Nothing will surprise me anymore.

Back to Smethurst, and this ridiculous post:

: SOME FORUM POSTS MAY BE REMOVED DUE TO A CARTER-RUCK LETTER
aiyoyo Today

Oh btw, just want to add Ed Smethurst has yet to prove he isnt just distorting TB's post just to sue him because of hidden agenda. From a neutral bystander viewpoint I dont see TB defaming him in any of his posts. Neither did I see ES saying he's reported depraved posters to the authorities.

Power of scorn and spite is worst than power of money - One is hatred and the other is the enabler.
==========

Oh no, that is not the way it works.


Bennett has made disgusting allegations about a number of people.

So far, only he and HLM, the self-confessed fan of banned torture porn, appear to have seen all this filth.

It is hard not to think that Bennett has no proof whatsoever of any of his foul allegations, as he is making 'settlement' noises.

Why is he seemingly not prepared to produce screenshots of all this filth in court?

I am sure Facebook would co-operate and supply ISPs, under the circumstances.

So, why is Bennett doing the Chicken Dance?

Cos he's a chicken....coward....lily-livered and always has been by the looks of him

I see Stella has just hammered another nail into Haven's coffin:


e: Edward Smethurst's yearly holidays at the Ocean Club, Praia da Luz
Stella Today at 12:52 pm

margaret wrote:


Have to say this puts an interesting perspective on things. Is the Smethurst villa near where the Smith family spotted a man they claimed was Gerry with a 'sleeping child'?


The Smith sighting was off the OC complex. The place that Smethurst has been using is on the complex.


Has he now? Is it now? That's another one going off - when will they learn not to post OUTRIGHT LIES.

Sabot wrote:

sans_souci wrote:They are confusing two quite separate actions. Carter Ruck have been busy bringing an action for contempt of court in relation to Bennetts actions in breaking the undertaking he made to the High Court in 2009.

On this issue, the court will be concerned with taking whatever action is necessary to ensure that he actually complies with that undertaking, and no more - it is a matter of seeking compliance with an undertaking that he actually gave of his own free will, rather than a matter of damages or other form of punishment.

That is, at present, as far as it goes

The McCanns will, in my view, stop at that point. But they COULD bring an action for defamation and seek damages from him. Which I suspect they will if he does not stop playing silly buiggers with them.

_____________

The defamation action with regard to Edward Smethurst is quite unconnected and that has not even started yet. I suspect he will be less kind than the McCanns.

Right. So The McCanns just want him to stop. And to abide by The Injunction that he signed. But they are now going for Contempt of Court in this matter because he didn't stop.
However, they could pursue him for damages if they wish, but this would be a separate matter. Not all that difficult to understand, is it. But surely Contempt of Court is punishable in some way or another?

Ed Smethurst? I don't even know if what Bennett has said is more or less actionable than what Bennett has said about The McCanns, or Brian Kennedy and his Family But be sure that they are all related.
Or are you saying that knowledge of a Conviction in one Case could prejudice another Case?
As it happens, I am perfectly capable of understanding that. And so it should be.
So, Do the Bast**rd on each and every Case. He hasn't got a hope in hell's chance anyway.
But if for some inexplicable reason he manages to talk his way out of this then I am finally going to given up on England.

Sorry, I am saying that if I don't like what The Justice System decides then I am out of there. But I have been out of there for nearly twenty years now. Nothing will surprise me anymore.

Sabot - it is way out of my field but will have a go.

The McCanns think that he has not complied with the undertaking he gave in 2009. As it is a civil matter it is down to the complainant to bring proceedings. They have been nice to him in that they have given him plenty of warnings, but he has just got worse and worse. They are now bringing it back to court, as the only way of getitng him actually to keep his promise.

The court will take this very seriously - it does not like people who make a promise to the court and then break it. If the court considers that he has broken his undertakings then it will try to find a way of stopping him breaking his undertaking. It could be an injunction, it could be a fine sufficiently high that he will think twice about repeating the offence, or some other method. As soon as he stops breaking the injunction, the punishment will stop - but will be reimposed as soon as he breaks it again. For example, the court could impose a fine of, say, £1000 a day unti he deletes all offending material - when he does so the fine will stop.

This is not a matter of Bennett arguing with the court that he is merely exercising his rights of free speech - it is a metter of compying with his undertaking:

I confirm my undertaking to deliver up all hard copies in my possession or
control of my book: “What Really Happened to Madeleine McCann? - 60
Reasons which suggest that she was not abducted” and the leaflet: “What
Really Happened to Madeleine McCann? - 10 key reasons which suggest that
she was not abducted”. I did this by delivering in person a parcel containing
the remaining copies of those publications in my possession to your Shoe
Lane office on Saturday 31 October. All electronic versions of those
documents on my computer have been deleted.
I further undertake to use my best endeavours to delete or otherwise
prevent access to any previous defamatory allegations of mine concerning
your clients on the four websites you mention in your letter. Further, I
undertake not to repeat allegations that your clients are guilty of, or are to
be suspected of, causing the death of their daughter Madeleine McCann,
and/or of disposing of her body, and/or lying about what happened and/or
seeking to cover up what they had done, nor to repeat any similar
allegations, whether by myself or my servants or agents or otherwise
howsoever.

It has gone beyond the point of mediation or argument or putting up a defense. He has his opportunity to defend that in court. Instead he gave an undertaking in return for the McCanns ceasing action for defamation. He has clearly broken that undertaking, the McCanns are asking the court to help make him keep his promise - end of story.

_______________

It has nothing to do with libel - that is a further action that is open to them (as a consequence of his breaking their agreement - "you undertake not to repeat the lible - we cease action..).

__________________

Smethurst aint even started. yet.....

Sabot wrote:

sans_souci wrote:They are confusing two quite separate actions. Carter Ruck have been busy bringing an action for contempt of court in relation to Bennetts actions in breaking the undertaking he made to the High Court in 2009.

On this issue, the court will be concerned with taking whatever action is necessary to ensure that he actually complies with that undertaking, and no more - it is a matter of seeking compliance with an undertaking that he actually gave of his own free will, rather than a matter of damages or other form of punishment.

That is, at present, as far as it goes

The McCanns will, in my view, stop at that point. But they COULD bring an action for defamation and seek damages from him. Which I suspect they will if he does not stop playing silly buiggers with them.

_____________

The defamation action with regard to Edward Smethurst is quite unconnected and that has not even started yet. I suspect he will be less kind than the McCanns.

Right. So The McCanns just want him to stop. And to abide by The Injunction that he signed. But they are now going for Contempt of Court in this matter because he didn't stop.
However, they could pursue him for damages if they wish, but this would be a separate matter. Not all that difficult to understand, is it. But surely Contempt of Court is punishable in some way or another?

Ed Smethurst? I don't even know if what Bennett has said is more or less actionable than what Bennett has said about The McCanns, or Brian Kennedy and his Family But be sure that they are all related.
Or are you saying that knowledge of a Conviction in one Case could prejudice another Case?
As it happens, I am perfectly capable of understanding that. And so it should be.
So, Do the Bast**rd on each and every Case. He hasn't got a hope in hell's chance anyway.
But if for some inexplicable reason he manages to talk his way out of this then I am finally going to given up on England.

Sorry, I am saying that if I don't like what The Justice System decides then I am out of there. But I have been out of there for nearly twenty years now. Nothing will surprise me anymore.

Sabot - it is way out of my field but will have a go.

The McCanns think that he has not complied with the undertaking he gave in 2009. As it is a civil matter it is down to the complainant to bring proceedings. They have been nice to him in that they have given him plenty of warnings, but he has just got worse and worse. They are now bringing it back to court, as the only way of getitng him actually to keep his promise.

The court will take this very seriously - it does not like people who make a promise to the court and then break it. If the court considers that he has broken his undertakings then it will try to find a way of stopping him breaking his undertaking. It could be an injunction, it could be a fine sufficiently high that he will think twice about repeating the offence, or some other method. As soon as he stops breaking the injunction, the punishment will stop - but will be reimposed as soon as he breaks it again. For example, the court could impose a fine of, say, £1000 a day unti he deletes all offending material - when he does so the fine will stop.

This is not a matter of Bennett arguing with the court that he is merely exercising his rights of free speech - it is a metter of compying with his undertaking:

I confirm my undertaking to deliver up all hard copies in my possession or
control of my book: “What Really Happened to Madeleine McCann? - 60
Reasons which suggest that she was not abducted” and the leaflet: “What
Really Happened to Madeleine McCann? - 10 key reasons which suggest that
she was not abducted”. I did this by delivering in person a parcel containing
the remaining copies of those publications in my possession to your Shoe
Lane office on Saturday 31 October. All electronic versions of those
documents on my computer have been deleted.
I further undertake to use my best endeavours to delete or otherwise
prevent access to any previous defamatory allegations of mine concerning
your clients on the four websites you mention in your letter. Further, I
undertake not to repeat allegations that your clients are guilty of, or are to
be suspected of, causing the death of their daughter Madeleine McCann,
and/or of disposing of her body, and/or lying about what happened and/or
seeking to cover up what they had done, nor to repeat any similar
allegations, whether by myself or my servants or agents or otherwise
howsoever.

It has gone beyond the point of mediation or argument or putting up a defense. He has his opportunity to defend that in court. Instead he gave an undertaking in return for the McCanns ceasing action for defamation. He has clearly broken that undertaking, the McCanns are asking the court to help make him keep his promise - end of story.

_______________

It has nothing to do with libel - that is a further action that is open to them (as a consequence of his breaking their agreement - "you undertake not to repeat the lible - we cease action..).

__________________

Smethurst aint even started. yet.....

I understand all of that, Sans. Perfectly reasonable. He said whatever. They said Stop. He said he would stop. And then he didn't stop.

It is just the breaking of a Court accredited undertaking. Although this is quite serious in it's own way.

The fact remains that Bennett did break this undertaking. Or is he saying that he hasn't?
Personally, I would not like to go through every word that Bennett has said in recent months. Words are strange things, and often open to interpretation. But that is probably the crux of the matter. What exactly did Bennett mean to convey?

And I guess that we all know that. But will a Judge?

Hopefully a Judge will see the undertaking as a promise that Bennett would no longer discuss this issue, but I am not entirely sure that he will.

I bet his wife is urging him to stop. She is about to lose her home. However, she has had more than four years to do that. So, on their own heads be it.
I would kick him out if he was mine, but I think she already did that once before. Now might be a good time to do it again.
Sadly it is too late. Mrs. Bennett is only entitled to half of the house, and it will have to be sold for her to get that.

On reflection, the fact that the house is solely in the name of Anthony Bennett should tell us something about his contempt for his wife.

honestbroker wrote:I would kick him out if he was mine,

Could you ever envisage Bennett becoming yours?

It depends on what he wants to do with his £90,000. Once I got my hands on it, Carter Ruck could whistle.

From pfa:

y Hare » Thu Aug 18, 2011 6:05 pm

Tony seams to be handling himself quite well so far, but ultimately I dont think he has the bottle to go the full distance. You never know, if he could raise the 100K through public donations (and he probably could if he involved the right people) he might just go for it.

bb1 wrote:From pfa:

y Hare » Thu Aug 18, 2011 6:05 pm

Tony seams to be handling himself quite well so far, but ultimately I dont think he has the bottle to go the full distance. You never know, if he could raise the 100K through public donations (and he probably could if he involved the right people) he might just go for it.

I'll start his collection off, this is all I have in the world and Bennett I want it back if you win ok!


That should be a lot more than he can get in donations

Hysterically funny.

It dawned on me reading muratfan's blog:

http://tonybennettmfblog.blogspot.com/

I don't think the pitchforkers have grasped that there are TWO actions against Bennett in the pipeline.

And why on earth they think the McCanns have to even attend court for the contempt charge, I do not know.

Of course, they may choose to attend.

To sit behind Bennett.

And look over his shoulder.

To send him a message.

I think the head in the sand syndrome stops some people from realizing that there are currently 2 actions against Bennett. Neither of them require the McCanns to be present.

Bennett won't have a chance at pretending to be Perry Mason for the day either.