13 Comments

Talk about jump the gun

jumpthegun

Seriously, can these people ever get anything right.  Now they are thinking that these proceedings issued against Tony Bennett by the McCanns are nothing other than a full defamation and libel trial.  And the McCanns will have to answer questions and be put on the stand.

Wrong, taking Tony Bennett to Court for Libel and Defamation is one avenue still left open to Kate and Gerry McCann.  What they are taking him to Court for this time is Contempt of Court.

Late 2009 Tony Bennett took an undertaking of the Court that he will not continue his claims, part of the undertaking was this:

“not to repeat allegations that the Claimants are guilty of, or are to be suspected of, causing the death of their daughter Madeleine McCann; and/or disposing of her body; and/or lying about what happened and/or of seeking to cover up what they had done”

The McCanns, through Carter Ruck are taking him to Court because he breached the undertaking.  This is not a libel and defamation trial.  As I said that option is left open to the McCanns.

All Carter Ruck have to do is show the Judge via the numerous postings that he has breached that Court Order.  They only have to prove it once and he is in breach of that order.

The Judge will then hold him in Contempt of a Court Order and will sentence as he sees fit.

The McCann’s do not have to prove anything.  When Tony Bennett agreed to that initial order he knew what he could and what he could not say, he has continued in his quest to elude to the fact that the McCanns have not spoken the whole truth and are seeking to cover up some crime by not speaking the truth.  That is the breach and Contempt of Court.

Even the letter that Tony Bennett sent to the Prime Minister is in clear breach of that Order as they state in their letter:

“By contrast, a, great many people consider that there is more than adequate evidence that Madeleine McCann died in the McCann’s holiday apartment and that her parents and others have covered up this fact, and to hold a hoax ‘abduction’ of Madeleine on the evening of 3 May 2007, Madeline having already died before that evening’s events. That, as you will know, is the settled view of the former senior investigator in the case, Dr Goncalo Amaral, and most of! his investigation team, along with other senior figures in Portugal. Dr Amaral does not say how Madeleine died, as he does not-know, but in the absence of any other specific indications, he advances the view that she may have died as the result of an accident whitest her parents and friends were dining 11/2 minutes,walk away. Another view of what night have caused Madeleine’s death is the possibility that she was over-sedated by the McCann’s”.

We do not wish to review in this letter all the evidence that suggests that Madeleine did die in the McCann’s apartment, but clearly the alerts of two of the world’s top sniffer dogs, trained by an internationally recognised British police dog handler, to no fewer than ten sites in the McCann’s apartment, on their clothes, and in their hired car are significant, and remain so, even in the absence of the kind of corroborative forensic evidence that would lead to the dogs, alerts being admissible evidence in a court of law, There is also I very large amount of circumstantial evidence suggesting that the McCann’s and their friends have not told the truth, consisting of a number of changes of story and significant contradictions between their statements that go well beyond the kind of minor inconsistencies that often occur when witness are supplying statements based on their recollections.

The 48 members of the Madeleine Foundation, our many supporters, and a huge number of others subscribe to the view that the balance of evidence points in the direction of Madeleine having died in the McCann’s holiday apartment. lf that hypothesis is correct, then the McCann’s motive for wanting a ‘Review’, which would now open up the many files that the Portuguese Police have up to now withheld would be clear not to find Madeleine, but rather to trawl the files for any other evidence there may be against them, so that they can defend themselves and deal with any such evidence.

And in my opinion writing that letter to the Prime Minister was the straw that broke the camels back.

It is the other case where the most concern should be, with Ed Smethurst because that is the case that could result in a full libel and defamation trial or again Ed Smethurst could ask for a Court Order against him.

Advertisements

13 comments on “Talk about jump the gun

  1. The Blacksmith Bureau

    Friday, 19 August 2011

    Dancing on graves

    The Bureau is
    no friend of Mr Tony Bennett, for reasons that go a great deal deeper
    than personality clashes: in fact we strongly disagree with just about
    every action  he has ever taken in the Madeleine McCann affair.
    But
    a quick tour yesterday through the low-lying blog and forum marshland
    which the few dozen professional McCann believers so noisily inhabit was
    a saddening experience. The news that Mr Bennett is now being pursued
    for libel by Ed the Expunger and for contempt of court by the McCanns
    has been welcomed not with satisfaction so much as intense pleasure. The
    excited interchanges, indeed,  about the time this old man might spend
    in prison – years, we hope! – or the prospect of him and his wife living rough for the rest of their days – wonderful! – remind one of the collective drooling of an S&M webporn ring.
    Don’t any of them have even a moment of doubt at what they are writing? It seems not.

    What? – you mean like Bennett didn’t have a moment of doubt at what he and his cronies were writing.
     

  2. Samantha, when the first letters went out to Bennett back in 2009, I could understand why he capitulated.  I wouldn’t want nobody to lose their home and understood his reasons.  But he has not capitulated, he has gone on and every action has been more and more rabid.

    The local kid that keeps throwing the brick through your window, who has a bad life and a hard luck story that makes a Saint cry, maybe at first you understand but when he keeps throwing the same brick through the same window, you get to realise that he has no intentions of stopping and want him severely dealt with by the law.

    Bennett, has a choice, he could have capitulated and not put his family at risk, but he didn’t, he carried on.  Sorry no sympathy, he knew what he was doing and he knew the consequences, so no-one is to blame other than himself.

  3. I quite agree Bren, he has had many chances to STFU, but made a deliberate choice not to.
    Now he will have to take the consequences of his actions.

  4. Samantha, it is like these cries of the Fund is paying for Carter Ruck, total rubbish, they have said so in a letter July/August 2010 that they have not received a penny from the Fund.

    And if they went onto Carter Rucks own site, they will see from their own Question and Answer Sections that they take cases on via a No Win-No Fee Arrangment

    http://www.carter-ruck.com/Media%20Law/Questions_And_Answers.asp

    Q: How expensive are libel and slander proceedings?

    A: Substantial proceedings can be extremely expensive. However, we may be able to assist using our Conditional Fee Agreement (no win, no fee) scheme and also by obtaining After the Event Insurance.

    If the McCanns used the After the Event Insurance it probably cost a couple of hundred and they would have probably paid for that themselves.  The truth is I think that Carter Ruck are instructing them on the No Win-No Fee basis.Just think of the costs that Carter Ruck will claim against Tony Bennett alone, that will be substantial.

  5. Understanding Conditional Fee Agreements

    Conditional Fee Arrangements are a relative newcomer on the British scene, though they have long been common in the United States. Since 1998 they have become widespread, allowing ordinary people a far greater access to the courts than previously, and allowing anyone to get compensation for an injury which was not their fault, where before it was significantly more difficult.

    A conditional fee agreement allows a solicitor to offer what is called a “no win, no fee” arrangement when taking on new cases. In other words, the solicitor can offer the client a fee structure which means that while they will receive a success fee if they win the case, if their case should be unsuccessful then no fee will be charged. The benefit to a client is obvious; it means that a legal claim for
    compensation is no longer the preserve of those who can afford the services of a good lawyer, and rather than basing your decision on cost, you can pursue a claim for compensation based on the extent of the injury you may have suffered.

    Solicitors make the decision on taking on such cases based on several factors. These can include their experience, either as an individual or as a firm, in dealing with similar cases. (This is always a good sign when choosing a lawyer; look for people and firms that have handled cases like yours in the past, as it will give them an invaluable advantage when claiming compensation.) Another factor which will influence a solicitor’s decision on whether or not to take on a case on a conditional fee agreement basis is the likely duration of the case.
    Obviously the longer a case drags on, the more expensive it is for all concerned in terms of both time and money. A solicitor will normally prefer that cases being paid for under a conditional fee agreement are less time-consuming, and this in turn will tend to hinge on the complexity of your particular claim.

    The other main factor that a solicitor will take on board when deciding on whether to offer a client a conditional fee agreement is the chance of winning the case. This is a difficult judgement for any solicitor to make; it is not necessarily a comment on the seriousness of your injury if they decide that yours is not a case that is likely to be won. In order to win compensation, you will need to demonstrate that the accident was not your fault, and this is not always straightforward to prove.

    If your case is successful, then your lawyer’s costs will normally be paid by the other side, and this will include a “success fee” for your solicitors. However, it’s important to understand that if you are not successful you may be required to pay part or all of the costs, not just of your lawyers, but potentially also of the
    other side’s legal team as well. When you are involved in a compensation claim against an employer or large company these associated legal costs may be quite high, and so normally you will be required to take out an insurance policy to cover any payouts that need to be made in this instance.

    All of these details should be properly explained to you by your solicitor. If not, make sure that you ask about all associated costs, and take the time to read through a conditional fee agreement before you sign it. The advent of conditional fee agreements have made it possible for anyone to get the compensation they are due, but it is important to be aware of the risks and potential costs before signing up to any agreement.

    http://www.accidentconsult.com/NoWinNoFee/UnderstandingConditionalFeeAgreements-592.html

  6. On the 13th November 2009 Bennett gave the undertaking to Carter Ruck to stop and paid them £440, it is in his newsletter dated December 09  Page 5 of 7

    http://madeleinefoundation.org.uk/PDFs/Madeleine%20Foundation%20MEMBERS%20NEWSLETTER%203.pdf

  7. Remember even if Smethurst takes Bennett to a full libel trial there is not a cat in hells chance that Bennett will get either of the McCanns in the dock. Bennett’s alleged libel and stalking of Smethurst and his family  is a completely separate issue to the disappearance of  Madeleine McCann. No legal connection between the cases at all.

  8. Welcome Anon from the UK, very true, they are two separate cases and are not linked at all. 

    There is something else I am not sure about and a legal brain, is needed here.  When he gave that undertaking to the High Court part of it contained this:

    whether by myself or my servants or agents or otherwise

    Now I am no lawyer, but does that mean, he should stop people from making the same allegations as he did, or not to repeat what others write. 

    Personally I think it is the latter he is not to repeat what others write, so if someone says they are part of the Cover-Up then he must not repeat it.

    Oh dear if he has quoted some of the posts without stopping the defamatory allegations.

  9. CR

     

    No doubt you will show this letter to your fellow members of the “Madeleine
    Foundation”. Should they, or indeed anyone linked to them, disseminate serious
    falsehoods about our clients, we shall advise our clients to pursue those
    individuals directly for appropriate legal relief.

  10. Hi Samantha, yes I read that, he really should tell people the score now and what risk they are running.

    And let us be honest here, does anyone think Carter Ruck would take a case on, especially on a No-Win No-Fee basis in hope their clients are innocent?  Of course not.  Carter Ruck have probably had various communications with various other lawyers and know the score and therefore know their client is innocent and know full well they would win.

    I can’t see any lawyer taking on such a case without doing their homework.  Just think of the expenses incurred if they lost the case.

    And who the hell campaigns to the Prime Ministers, sets up petitions begging for a review of the case by the proper authorities in the UK and Portugal, if they are guilty?  No-one.

    And all this shouting about the McCanns trying to stem free speech, rubbish, what they are stopping is people saying they are complicit in what happened to their daughter.

    Everyone is entitled to free speech but when you libel someone that is when you step over the line of Free Speech and into the defamatory and libel territory and if you do that you must be prepared to face the consequences.

    And I bet you a pound to a penny if some of these people were in the same shoes as the McCann’s they would take the same action.

  11. Tony Bennett Today at 10:36 pmUPDATE on the three libel letters from Carter-Ruck:SMETHURSTLetters
    from Carter-Ruck sent by e-mail 4 August, Smethurst obtained secrecy
    order relating to Court documents in the case from Master Eyre and
    issued Libel Claim (= writ) 9 August, letter from Carter-Ruck making
    demands, I replied with counter-proposals which were not accepted,
    Smethurst issued Particulars of Claim 23 August but I didn’t receive
    them until 6 September, I have until 3 October to file either a defence
    or an Admission of liability.McCANNSLetter from
    Carter-Ruck re McCanns received 15 August claiming breach of one of four
    undertakings given to the McCanns, also asking for around 50 articles
    and posts on Madeleine Foundation website and this forum to be removed;
    they all have been removed; the McCanns warned that they would issue
    formal Contempt proceedings but no such proceedings have yet been served
    on me nor issued (so far as I am aware)KENNEDYLetter
    from Carter-Ruck dated 2 September making 5 key demands, including
    removal of 10 articles on our website concerning him; these were removed
    on the same day as his letter was received. The letter also claimed
    libel damages. I intend to reply by the end of the week.I was
    finally told by my home insurers on Friday that under my ‘Legal Expenses
    Cover’ they could neither provide me with representation nor advice on
    any of the above matters, as ‘libel law is very complex and you need to
    go to a specialist’. I have contacted a couple of specialists and they
    are quoting £5,000 to £10,000 upfront merely ‘to advise’, let alone
    prepare any defence and represent me. That’s all I can say for now.

  12. “I was finally told by my home insurers on Friday..”
    Tosh! We knew that, we’ve told him. And I’m sure they’ve told him immediately, as soon as he rang them, so probably he didn’t bother to call them until Friday. And what he’s left out is that they sure as hell are not going to pay for his defence or his specialist advice.

  13. Yes Cath I had a chuckle at that, can you imagine the conversation.

    TB: Hi, I have legal assistance on my home insurance and I need some help.

    Advisor: Has somebody been injured on your property?  Or are you being sued over boundries?

    TB: No, I have just stalked and libelled 3 people.

    Advisor: Bugger off, we don’t pay out for that, it costs thousands.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: