The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Hi,

A very warm welcome to The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™ forum.

Please log in, or register to view all the forums, then settle in and start chatting with us!

Enjoy your day,

Jill Havern
Forum owner

Tony Bennett not a 'Vexatious Litigant' - OFFICIAL

Page 3 of 3 Previous  1, 2, 3

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Tony Bennett not a 'Vexatious Litigant' - OFFICIAL

Post by vaguely on 30.12.09 10:11

Just trying to catch up and find out who Team McCann, quoted in OP are.

Tony?

vaguely

Posts : 440
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2009-12-16

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Tony Bennett not a 'Vexatious Litigant' - OFFICIAL

Post by Guest on 30.12.09 15:03

What The Papers Never Say wrote:
PearlB wrote:
@Old Nick wrote:
What The Papers Never Say wrote:

Personally on reading this through, I cannot understand why the attorney general did not declare you a vexatious litigant!
I have read through the criteria and you actually fit it perfectly. Apparently you do not have to bring actual court actions, the way I understand it your actions like continually wasting the Essex police force time with various complaints about various people can be construed as "vexatious".

You cannot attack Nigel Nessling for simply quoting the facts, did you or did you not try to bring the McCanns to court even though you knew perfectly well you would be unsuccessful, no matter which court door you went knocking on?

Did you or did you not go to the Big Brother House and try to serve a writ on Michael Barrymore who was appearing on the show at the time?

Are you or are you not still trying to bring an action against the Essex police about how they handled the Stuart Lubbock investigation?

Are you or are you not trying to bring an action against the Essex police about Lee Balkwell?

Have you or have you not accused the Essex police of being corrupt and turning a blind eye to people smuggling drugs into the country?

Have you or have you not complained to the Essex police about Nigel Nessling on numerous occasions?

Have you of have you not complained to the Essex police about Debbie Butler?

Have you or have you not complained to the Press Complaints Commission on at least 6 different occasions?

Have you or have you not just had your complaints about the Daily Star and the Daily Express refused?

Did you or did you not preside over your old website the Madeleine Foundation, when it it defamed an innocent photographer?

Did you or did you not help Debbie Butler writ to the General Medical Council trying to have Gerry McCann and Kate Healy removed from the medical register as unfit to practice because they were depressed about their child's abduction?

Did you or did you not try to get the McCanns in court on charges of child neglect?

Did you or did you not complain to Social Services about the twins being left with their parents?

Did you or did you not spearhead many complaints about metric road signs?

Now there is probably much that I have left out, but on the above, I honestly cannot understand how Baroness Scotland has come to this conclusion that you are not a vexatious person? (Perhaps she has had another of her lapses?)

Was that letter you have published verbatim? Or has it been subject to you snipping bits and adding bits?

Gosh, if Tony is only able to answer affirmatively to half these questions that's still a mighty impressive list! Well done again Tony - you should get a medal for the amount of complaining you do, but I do fear that the amount of it may be taking its toll.

I think he can probably answer YES to all.


If one person was informed in June, why have they only just informed Tony Bennett now? This doesn't make sense, also how come he got a letter now this week? Aren't they all on holiday until next week?

Something is as usual wrong here and what was omitted from the letter? It appears snipped. I wouldn't ask, only Tony has made it public property again.
Maybe I should chase them up for my reply then! I mean whats so special about Mr.Bennett?

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Tony Bennett not a 'Vexatious Litigant' - OFFICIAL

Post by Tony Bennett on 02.01.10 17:38

Raffle wrote:
What The Papers Never Say wrote:

Was that letter you have published verbatim? Or has it been subject to you snipping bits and adding bits?

Maybe I should chase them up for my reply then! I mean whats so special about Mr. Bennett?
The letter I published from the Treasury Solicitor's (TSol) Department wasn't snipped. The writer had apologised to me over the 'phone for the delayed reply.

This came in today's post and, yes, I quote it verbatim and in full, as I usually do:

30th December 2009

Ref: LTB/3025J/CAM/1E

Dear Mr Bennett

INVESTIGATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 42 SENIOR COURTS ACT 1981 (as amended)

Further to my letter of 22nd December, I write to confirm that I have written to all complainants today to confirm that the Section 42 investigation in to your litigious activity has been discontinued due to insufficient evidence to support such an application.

I am now arranging for my files to be archived.

Yours sincerely,

Catherine Edwards
For the Treasury Solicitor
HM Attorney General's Team


So the New Year starts with a disappointing letter to a lot of fervent McCann-believers. All that letter writing wasted.

Where's that 'Never Mind' emoticon?

Tony Bennett
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 13953
Reputation : 2139
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 69
Location : Harlow, Essex

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Tony Bennett not a 'Vexatious Litigant' - OFFICIAL

Post by aiyoyo on 02.01.10 17:54

What The Papers Never Say wrote:
@Tony Bennett wrote:
@sunshine wrote:Please provide the list of McCann believers you feel should be emailed.
I think you have misunderstood, sunshine.

This is an extract from the Treasury Solicitor's letter of 22 December:

I can confirm that one of the complainants was informed on 29th June 2009 that we had found insufficient evidence at that time to support an Application for a Civil Proceedings Order. All complainants will be notified in the next week or so that this investigation has been discontinued.

It is for the Treasury Solicitor and her staff to write to all the McCann-believers who took it upon themselves to demand that I be deemed by the Courts of the U.K. to be a 'Vexatious Litigant'.

I think there's quite a lot of them.

I hope they won't be too grief-stricken that their efforts have come to naught and that they've wasted so much of the Treasury Solicitor's time.

Are you really having a pop at others for wasting the Treasury's time, when you alone are guilty of monopolising the Essex Police time? How hypocritical, I haven't written to the AG, but now I think I may write and ask Baroness Scotland to explain why you are not deemed as vexatious. You do seem to be a vexatious, like some kind of pensioner rebel without a cause!

Dont be shocked should the Baroness write back saying you'd in fact highlighted all of TB's good deeds and you're the vexatious one without a proper cause!

aiyoyo

Posts : 9611
Reputation : 318
Join date : 2009-11-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Tony Bennett not a 'Vexatious Litigant' - OFFICIAL

Post by sunshine on 02.01.10 17:56

Not found "not guilty" then just "archived" due to "insufficient evidence".Rather brings to mind the McCanns doesnt it?

sunshine

Posts : 42
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2009-11-30

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Tony Bennett not a 'Vexatious Litigant' - OFFICIAL

Post by vaguely on 02.01.10 18:15

@Tony Bennett wrote:

So the New Year starts with a disappointing letter to a lot of fervent McCann-believers. All that letter writing wasted.

Where's that 'Never Mind' emoticon?

(cough) never mind <------

____________________
and on day six God created the non-carbon triple duplicate complaint form.

vaguely

Posts : 440
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2009-12-16

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Who's responsible for the waste of police time?

Post by Tony Bennett on 02.01.10 18:31

What The Papers Never Say wrote:Are you really having a pop at others for wasting the Treasury's time, when you alone are guilty of monopolising the Essex Police time?
Um, on 4 November, Ms Debbie Butler made a wholly false claim against me suggesting there was some kind of fraud within the Madeleine Foundation. Essex Police unwisely chose to investigate her complaint afer getting a clear lead from Kent Police that she was fabricating this complaint maliciously.

Then on 12 November I complained to Essex Police about harassment from Ms Butler which began on 26 October and has now continued for 68 days now almost without stopping; the harassment has been of several other people as well.

Harassment/stalking is a crime under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 and sending malicious and false communications via e-mail is also a criminal offence.

Who under those circumstances is responsible for the waste of police time? And other people's time?

Tony Bennett
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 13953
Reputation : 2139
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 69
Location : Harlow, Essex

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Tony Bennett not a 'Vexatious Litigant' - OFFICIAL

Post by Guest on 02.01.10 22:51

"Two wrongs do not a right make"!

You both appear vexatious and you have both caused a great deal of unnecessary pain and distress to two innocent people and all the "he saids" and "she saids" in the world are not going to change that.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Page 3 of 3 Previous  1, 2, 3

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum