'PROFILER' BROWN CLAIMS SHE IS TAKING LEGAL ACTION AGAINST MCCANNS

Her supposed attorney hasn't mentioned it:

http://twitter.com/#!/annembremner

I just can't see Ms Bremner taking this on, having read her work on the Knox case - Brown's pamphlet is everything she tore apart when she was working for the Knox family.

http://thehoundingofthemccans.blogspot.com/?zx=ad6a5ef3eb45c64

Odds on this sinking without a trace, Tony?

However, there is no denying that she does abuse people and for that she deserves everything else that is coming to her.

I didn't know much about her before this, beyond her Beltway Sniper/s debacle, Lily.
But I was horrified when other people posted about her - the young girl who was beaten up, etc.

And of course, Lamplighter had taken an interest in her for a while over the WM3.

She's a joke, but at the same time, she is so cruel she isn't at all funny to her victims. She is also very stupid.

bb1 wrote:Her supposed attorney hasn't mentioned it:

http://twitter.com/#!/annembremner

I just can't see Ms Bremner taking this on, having read her work on the Knox case - Brown's pamphlet is everything she tore apart when she was working for the Knox family.

http://thehoundingofthemccans.blogspot.com/?zx=ad6a5ef3eb45c64

Odds on this sinking without a trace, Tony?

100 to one.

I knew nothing of her before her involvement in McCann case. But I am appalled by her lack of professionalism more than anything. She is so self-centred its beyond belief.

My main goal here though is to watch how the #anti mob reacts to her and hopefully it will create at least a mini implosion in their ranks if (or more likely when) this libel action fails to materialise. I am interested in how they react. It seems that proving them wrong actually makes them more bloody-minded not less.

There are very similar reactions within mobs of football hooligans.

We'd noticed before that they always have to have someone to be their hero, some Pied Piper who is going to change the world the way they think it should be.

And every single time, their Pied Piper turns out to be a fraud with an entire torso of clay.

I've thought it like the Fascist longing for the Strong Man of Destiny who is going to make everything better; it always leads to disaster.

Bonny, I didn't know anything about her either. I must say that I have seen her attorney on TV a couple of times over here though.

I do know the type of person that she is in desperately wanting to be on TV. What she may not realize is that, as a -Z list person, she cannot afford the publicity of the type she appears to be courting concerning Madeleine. She is a nobody who is eclipsed by her. If she is indeed set on this path of suing her parents, she is finished.

I think her stupidity is of the bottle variety.

This theme of stupidity interests me.
I am becoming daily more convinced that one of the key factors in the makeup of the #anti abusers is lower intelligence than normal.
There are a few exceptions but they are few and don't include in my opinion any of the three current icons. But with those icons the majority are in fact fodder who are being prompted and prodded to do the bidding of others.
I am convinced there are some very intelligent people who rarely tweet or who have large numbers of ids which they use almost randomly to attempt to confuse and who actually are hiding behind either other tweeters or their many fake ids.
I know i am repeating but the same pattern existed in football hooliganism and still does but is now understood better.

This theme of stupidity interests me.

You have plenty to work with then, greenink. I think your assessment is good and we too have noted their similarity to hooligans before.

Some of them obviously drink too much and post when they shouldn't. They do seem to prefer to accept myths as facts and will repeat said myths ad nauseum. In all honesty, we have seen some crazy theories over this past 4 years.

Oh, a lot of them are conspiracy theorists. I think we may have lost track of just how many there are........

Much research and subsequent police interaction with football hooligans has in fact focused on the lower intelligence of a majority. These are in fact the ones who have largely been weeded out of the football situation. Those on low incomes and benefits have actually been priced out. LOL. Many now prefer the kudos of being with various right wing organisations for their fun. But many have moved to the "safer", cheaper and easier territory of online abuse.

A lot of action will be taken in the next couple of years to move them on from this arena too. Unhappily this might just co-incide with the next and probably more violent unrest on our streets.

What you have said makes perfect sense.

Of course people are beginning to realize that anonymous doesn't mean what it says on the tin any more. I know we realize that there will have to be more regulations put in place on the internet because of the online abuse.

I think that a lot of us would have preferred not to be countering these people online and to find other things to occupy ourselves with. However, while they are dealing with us, and vice versa, they are leaving the McCanns alone. We have discovered that not responding to them (well people like Bennett) only encourages them. Bizarre as that may sound.

crazytony wrote:

bb1 wrote:Her supposed attorney hasn't mentioned it:

http://twitter.com/#!/annembremner

I just can't see Ms Bremner taking this on, having read her work on the Knox case - Brown's pamphlet is everything she tore apart when she was working for the Knox family.

http://thehoundingofthemccans.blogspot.com/?zx=ad6a5ef3eb45c64

Odds on this sinking without a trace, Tony?

100 to one.

100 to one ON, surely, Tony.

Ridiculous woman.

greenink211 wrote:I knew nothing of her before her involvement in McCann case. But I am appalled by her lack of professionalism more than anything. She is so self-centred its beyond belief.

My main goal here though is to watch how the #anti mob reacts to her and hopefully it will create at least a mini implosion in their ranks if (or more likely when) this libel action fails to materialise. I am interested in how they react. It seems that proving them wrong actually makes them more bloody-minded not less.

There are very similar reactions within mobs of football hooligans.

Proving them wrong does make them more bloody minded, no matter what Case we may be talking about. They have to try harder to justify the appalling things they say or do. But ignoring them doesn't work. We have tried that.

Pat Brown, among others, makes them feel better about themselves, so the more angry they feel when one of their Heros falls flat on Its face.

One can only hope that they will go too far.

BeanonTi BeanonTi
Good morning @ProfilerPatB the good ppl on #mccann r going to get u trending & give whatever support they can. stay strong.

Oh, don't you worry, we are all doing the very best we can to make sure Ms Brown's pronouncements reach as wide an audience as possible.

I should think it is everywhere by now, isn't it? But I can't help feeling that Anne Bremner is getting more publicity than she wanted.

Still not a word about it from Ms Bremner:

http://twitter.com/#!/annembremner

Her embarrassing DUI aside, I just don't see her wanting to have anything to do with the author of the 'bushmeat theory'.

Her work in defence of Ms Knox seems to have been everything it should be - meticulous, fact and logic-based, and very much against pitchforking and miscarriages of justice.

I could quite see something like this happening:

Brown

Hey, would you be interested in representing me in a Free Speach Yuman Rites case?

Ms Bremner:

Sounds interesting; possibly, but I would have to know more.

Pretendy has a few glasses of the falling-down juice, has a look around the internet, decides she doesn't like Bennett getting all the attention, and the rest is history.

This, remember, is the woman who claimed the FBI were at her beck and call because some swine uploaded her leaflet......

Re: Pat Brown update for those who don't use Twitter
Stella Today

Xavier wrote:

Stella wrote:
I take it you are very familiar with the American legal system then?


Probably as well as any here. And the proof of the pudding will be in the eating. I have no doubt you may disagree, Stella.

A question for you. On what legal grounds could Ms Brown bring a case for libel against the McCanns?


I think that depends on what Carter Ruck communicated with Amazon. Only Pat would know what was claimed. But if she is pursuing Libel 'and' that other posh term that escapes me right now, I would think that she is in possession of the original communique from CR to Amazon and somewhere within it they have attacked her profession. Which led to loss of earnings and of course her credibility. So I think this must be quite serious, considering her close association with the FBI.


How funny! Do they really beleive all Brown's self- praise? She is about as associated with the FBI as I am.

Real FBI profilers like Dayle Hinman find Brown an embarrassment to their profession.

She has no credibility - she is famous for being wrong about everything she gossips about - sorry, 'profiles'.

And I think we worked her 'loss of earnings' to be about $250 and offered to have a whip-round?

Well, she must be strapped for cash if she is trying to get money out of a couple of NHS doctors.

Apart from anything else, The Bushmeat Theory is so yucky awful. That alone would be enough to put anyone off. Can you imagine trying to defend that in Court?

"But Your Honour, this is only a Theory, derived from information posted on The Internet, and the fact that some very strange people do this sort of thing with dead animals.
And they are Brits after all, so heaven knows what they might get up to."

My ribs won't stand any more of this; are they all being paid, as some kind of Internet Jesters? Legal expert yoyo reckons:


Going behind Pat's back to get her book banned by threatening Amazon is underhanded. Until a Court decides on the libel issue, it isnt down to mccanns to say one way or another about their subjective view of Pat's book. In other words, its not down to mccanns to decide that - they may think that , but that's a different issue altogether. If they have an issue with Pat they should take it up with her and not Amazon.

Just for argument sake, if people have an issue with kate's book and use the same tactics as the mccanns to have it banned, do you consider that correct or ethical?

Google 'tortious interference of business' or try wikipedia, and you will find Pat has a case against the mccanns and a strong one. She was obviously very well advised legally I believe.




They really are clueless, aren't they?

Posted by: ShuBob on November 5, 2011 1:22 PMPosted by: lizzibif.. on November 5, 2011

On what legal grounds could Ms Brown bring a case for libel against the McCanns....?
===========

Ask the McCanns, Liz. I'm sure they've received the paperwork by now ;-)

I think not, as well-known firms of lawyers are, according to Sauces, as baffled as everyone else about this. Baffled as in, What on earth is Brown talking about?

I have been thinking about the grounds upone which Pat Brown could bring any action against the McCanns.

They have, it seems, raised concerns with Amazon about potentially libellous content of her book. As the distributor of the book, they would be in the firing line if the McCanns decided to take action for libel. In effect, thjis was a "cease and desist" letter.

Amazon had the option of ignoring the letter, and continuing to distribute the book.

Or withdrawing the book pending clarification of the position.

Could she claim "defamation per se"?

libel per se n. broadcast or written publication of a false statement about another which accuses him/her of a crime, immoral acts, inability to perform his/her profession, having a loathsome disease (like syphilis), or dishonesty in business. Such claims are considered so obviously harmful that malice need not be proved to obtain a judgment for "general damages," and not just specific losses.

This would be her best chance of claiming any damages (General Damages) , because the loss of Amazon as a distributor is unlikely to have much effect on her ability to earn money, and therefore claim specific losses. In my view, this is a non starter.

Although of course we have not seen the letter from CR to Amazon, the statements she has made suggest that she is accusing the McCanns of committing a serious crime in her book And claiming this is "just a theory" will not help as a defence. Even if it is someone elses theory, repeating it will also be defamatory.

She could claim that it infringes her rights under the first amendment - but that does not give the right to defame.

If Anne Bremner, who is a real lawyer, and a good one, does act for her, then presumably she would think there is a reasonable case. But I think it is very unlikely that she will.

My conclusion - I hate to agree with David Bret but on this occasion I think he is correct.

Brown must be relieved to have read Stella and Yoyos posts today.

Thanks sans for your opinion.

Silly person on MM:

This latest Indian non sighting really showed them up when the Indian Deputy Chief of Police said would be honoured but there was no child (to photograph of get DNA from) Yet Kate McCann (and Clarrie) said had seen the photo and it sadly wasn't Madeleine.

Shame no UK media has the guts to share this important nugget of information with us mere mortals.

What, that an Indian police officer was economical with the truth? That isn't very good for international relations, is it?

Mind you, it's hilarious watching them all telling themselves that the Indian sighting was a 'hoax', and Scotland Yard should be looking into it.

I think they will find that Scotland Yard know far more about it than they do; that they have chosen not to share information with a load of pitchforkers, is neither here nor there.

The clock is ticking, and Brown still hasn't answered one simple question;

Does @annebremner know about this libel and commercial action of yours yet? Your answer will be very interesting.

How hard could it be to type four words - YES, JUST ASK HER.

It reminds me of nothing more than The Hindley Fan's 'joke' about hiring coaches to go to Lisbon back in September, to go to a non-existent court case.

Can all the people quietly watching ever forget her telling her 'friends' about her 'joke':

Linda Wrafter
Bit naughty i suppose ,but the chimps will be frantic .......Just tweeted this ..... justice4maddie Seeking justice
We on F/B have got a 54 seater coach up to go to court for #mccann appeal, there are 6 vacant seats if interested please message me

Beyond funny that it was all the pitchforkers who fell for it, and excellent cabaret to watch them all getting excited on every hate site known to man.

While all those the Hindley Fan referred to as 'chimps' knew it was a pack of lies


I suspect we may have a similar situation here.

I mean, how hard could it be for Brown to reply, YES, JUST ASK HER.

If there was any truth in it, of course...

I think it is time for truth and tell for Bushmeat Patty.
I know the truth, and she has to tell

Yes, something tells me Bushmeat Patty is on course for a very public egg-on-face event, Tony.

Questions being asked here too:

http://regretsandramblings.com/2011/11/06/i-await-your-replies-pat-brown/

quote:

Are you now putting 100% of the sales of the Book into the fund instead of the original 50% you had previously stated?

If you are only still going to use 50% of the proceeds from the book towards your search fund, what is the other 50% going to be used for?

Are you demanding that the McCann family give you access to their property in order for you to search?

Are you going to demand entrance to the homes of the relatives and friends of the McCann family?

And if they deny you access are you going to accuse them of hindering your search?

Are you planning on interviewing every witness of the case and have you applied and/or sought permission from the relevant authorities to do this, ie the Police Forces in Portugal and UK or any national Police Force where a witness may reside?

What are you actually searching for?

Is the search going to be to help find Madeleine?

If not, why not?

Brown doesn't seem any too keen on important little details, does she?