LATEST on the 3 libel actions - alleged contempt of court x 1, and alleged libels x 2

littlepixie wrote:Mr Kennedy disgusts me. Filming himself handing over a cheque for "charity" then claiming he will donate any damages received to the Madeleine "Fund" as if that is also a charitable act.

Donating money to a PLC is no charitable act.

This check is normal taxable income for the fund, so no deductions for him and tax for the fund.

UPDATE ON THE THREE LIBEL ACTIONS

I see it's two weeks and two days since I last provided forum members with an update on the situation with the three libel claims against me, so here goes:

SMETHURST


With the Smethurst libel action, I won a minor pre-battle skirmish over the date I have to reply to Smethurst's libel writ. I had two week-long holidays in August (in S. Wales and Shropshire respectively), both of which were notified in advance to Carter-Ruck. Smethurst's writ was served early on in my first holiday whilst I was away - and his Particualars of Claim were filed on 23 August in the High Court but did not reach me until 6 September because of my 2nd holiday.

You are supposed to have 28 days in which to reply, so I asked for 3 October as my last date for replying. Carter-Ruck insisted on 28 days from the date of filing (23 August), namely 20 September. After one letter from me, they 'graciously' extended the date for replying to 22 September. I then wrote another letter pointing out 4 very good reasons why I should have the full 28 days to reply. They wrote back a few days ago conceding my point and actually handing me an extra day! - so I have until 4 October to deliver my reply.

But in fact, following the arrival here of Carter-Ruck's very relevant letter to Automattic Inc. sent on 2 June 2011 in attempt to obliterate 'Hardlinemarxist' and 'McCannExposure' from the face of the earth, I was able to post my Defence by Recorded Delivery today, so I should be well within the time limit even if our postal service isn't what it once was.

One small matter concerned an additional libellous posting which Smethurst says I made about him a few months ago, which he hadn't been able to include in his Particulars of Claim. Smethurst asked my permission to amend his Claim to include that extra (alleged) libel. I graciously agreed that he be permitted to do so.

So I guess I'll just have to wait for a trial date now.

DR GERALD MCCANN AND DR KATE MCCANN/HEALY

On 12 August 2011, the McCanns asked for 50-plus articles on our website and postings on this forum to be withdrawn. Both the articles and postings were withdrawn within 2-3 days of receiving their letter. Their letter of 12 August said that they were 'actively preparing' contempt of court proceedings. Yet 47 days later, I've not yet been served with any. I told Carter-Ruck in my reply, giving detailed reasons, that I intended to defend any contempt proceedings.

BRIAN KENNEDY

On 2 September Carter-Ruck sent me a third letter complaining about libel, this time on behalf of Brian Kennedy, asking for 10 articles to be removed from our website, and threatening libel proceedings. The articles were removed within 48 hours of receiving Carter-Ruck's letter.

I replied in full to Carter-Ruck on 15 September and in that letter also indicated an intention to defend any libel action by Kennedy. As yet I have not been served with a libel writ by Brian Kennedy.

Tony Bennett wrote:UPDATE ON THE THREE LIBEL ACTIONS

I see it's two weeks and two days since I last provided forum members with an update on the situation with the three libel claims against me, so here goes:

SMETHURST

One small matter concerned an additional libellous posting which Smethurst says I made about him a few months ago, which he hadn't been able to include in his Particulars of Claim. Smethurst asked my permission to amend his Claim to include that extra (alleged) libel. I graciously agreed that he be permitted to do so.

So I guess I'll just have to wait for a trial date now.

DR GERALD MCCANN AND DR KATE MCCANN/HEALY

. Yet 47 days later, I've not yet been served with any. I told Carter-Ruck in my reply, giving detailed reasons, that I intended to defend any contempt proceedings.


I replied in full to Carter-Ruck on 15 September and in that letter also indicated an intention to defend any libel action by Kennedy. As yet I have not been served with a libel writ by Brian Kennedy.

Thank you for updates Tony

What does Smerthurst want to add? Why need your permission? If you refused what would happen?

dragonfly wrote:

Tony Bennett wrote:UPDATE ON THE THREE LIBEL ACTIONS

I see it's two weeks and two days since I last provided forum members with an update on the situation with the three libel claims against me, so here goes:

SMETHURST

One small matter concerned an additional libellous posting which Smethurst says I made about him a few months ago, which he hadn't been able to include in his Particulars of Claim. Smethurst asked my permission to amend his Claim to include that extra (alleged) libel. I graciously agreed that he be permitted to do so.

So I guess I'll just have to wait for a trial date now.

DR GERALD MCCANN AND DR KATE MCCANN/HEALY

. Yet 47 days later, I've not yet been served with any. I told Carter-Ruck in my reply, giving detailed reasons, that I intended to defend any contempt proceedings.


I replied in full to Carter-Ruck on 15 September and in that letter also indicated an intention to defend any libel action by Kennedy. As yet I have not been served with a libel writ by Brian Kennedy.

Thank you for updates Tony

What does Smerthurst want to add? Why need your permission? If you refused what would happen?

Yes, thank you Tony, I was going to ask the same question as dragonfly.

dragonfly wrote:

Tony Bennett wrote:UPDATE ON THE THREE LIBEL ACTIONS

I see it's two weeks and two days since I last provided forum members with an update on the situation with the three libel claims against me, so here goes:

SMETHURST

One small matter concerned an additional libellous posting which Smethurst says I made about him a few months ago, which he hadn't been able to include in his Particulars of Claim. Smethurst asked my permission to amend his Claim to include that extra (alleged) libel. I graciously agreed that he be permitted to do so.

So I guess I'll just have to wait for a trial date now.

DR GERALD MCCANN AND DR KATE MCCANN/HEALY

. Yet 47 days later, I've not yet been served with any. I told Carter-Ruck in my reply, giving detailed reasons, that I intended to defend any contempt proceedings.


I replied in full to Carter-Ruck on 15 September and in that letter also indicated an intention to defend any libel action by Kennedy. As yet I have not been served with a libel writ by Brian Kennedy.

Thank you for updates Tony

What does Smerthurst want to add? Why need your permission? If you refused what would happen?

I have to be careful about quoting from letters to and from Carter-Ruck, but on this occasion I think I can answer your question.

In a letter to me dated 23 August, Carter-Ruck wrote:

"Finally, you will note that the Particulars of Claim (at Paragraph 8) refer to a further thread on the 'Jill Havern' site which contains a posting made by you, at 2.39pm on 12 May 2011, which repeats the allegations complained of in this action:

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t2490-the-madeleine-foundation-in-dr-kate-s-book

This further thread/posting came to light in the process of drafting the Particulars of Claim. In the circumstances our client requires you to confirm:

1) that you will secure the removal of the posting in question; and

2) whether you consent to our client amending his claim form to refer to this posting also. If your consent is not forthcoming, our client will in due course apply for the Court's permission to amend the form".

On 16 September I replied as follows:

"In practical terms, I believe the Court would probably wish to allow Mr Smethurst every opportunity to amend his Claim Form if he thinks any particular posting of mine has libelled him, so I give my consent to his doing so. However, having regard to the fact (which I think will be established before the Court if disputed) that your client was aware of my postings about him in May but did not act until August, and took no action to bring his concerns to me before then, I would expect any costs associated with his amending his Claim Form to be borne by him".

Carter-Ruck replied on 20 September:

"We note the confirmation of your consent to our client amending his Claim Form to refer to the posting complained of, subject to our client bearing any costs associated with this amendment".

What a petty minded fellow smethurst proves himself to be in his action.
What is one thread posting that he's so set about including compared to the long list (presumably) of particular claims he was already preparing against TB. What is one more or less? Does he honestly think one more post is going to strengthen his case against TB - it beggars belief.

What is he hoping to prove is yet to be decided when he goes to Court. It will be interesting to see how he's going to explain why he didnt issue a public denial on his fb yet decided to have a go at cleaning TB out.

I wonder whether the question of his motive can be raised in court. Is he out to get TB b/c of personal agenda associated to mccanns (after all smethurst came to attention because of his association to mccanns case) or is it out to disadvantage TB financially ie asphxiate (sp) TB, just like the mccanns did to Amaral. That is , deliberately impeding those who are proactive in their campaign for the truth regarding Madeleine.

Gillyspot wrote:Mind the McCanns sued Express and even though Express would have won they caved in hence giving all "team mccann" a sense of security (which they do not deserve IMO).

Perhaps there was a backroom deal with the Express. You settle now, we look like we have won and when the time comes, you will get the exclusive scoop.

Tony Bennett wrote:UPDATE ON THE THREE LIBEL ACTIONS

I see it's two weeks and two days since I last provided forum members with an update on the situation with the three libel claims against me, so here goes:

SMETHURST

DR GERALD MCCANN AND DR KATE MCCANN/HEALY

BRIAN KENNEDY

I see it's another two weeks and two days since I last gave an update. The news to date is:

SMETHURST

The only real development is that today I received a Court Order, dated 7 October, in the following terms:

QUOTE

Upon the Court's own initiative, it is ordered that:-

1. There will be a Costs Budgeting and Case Management Conference list for 7th December at 2.30pm, time estimate 1 hour 30 minutes.

2. Correspondence with the Court is to be by 1st class post and not recorded delivery.

UNQUOTE

The order was made by Master McCloud (a lady, by the way) on Friday 7 October, was sealed (stamped with a High Court of Justice stamp) on Tuesday 11 October, and posted second class on Wednesday 12 October.

The only other development was that a kind supporter who had used something called a 'social networking search engine' (never come across one of those before) was able to supply me with details of the current Facebook pages of Edward Smethurst and some of his friends.

DR GERALD MCCANN AND DR KATE MCCANN/HEALY

There has been no further correspondence since I reported 16 days ago on page 6 of this thread. That means it is now 63 days since I first heard from the McCanns. They have not yet issued an application for me to be committed for contempt of court. But it could well be in tomorrow's post.

BRIAN KENNEDY

In short, and without reproducing any of the correspondence on either side, there has been a further exchange of letters regarding Mr Kennedy's demands, culminating in a letter I have sent today in which, in effect, I have agreed to the vast majority of Mr Kennedy's demands, but not quite all of them. I posted elsewhere on this forum a list of 12 links where Carter-Ruck said some of the articles in dispute were still available to read. Most of these can no longer be viewed - and, as per my correspondence with Carter-Ruck, I continue to try to get all these links removed.

Tony Bennett wrote:
2. Correspondence with the Court is to be by 1st class post and not recorded delivery.

Then how do you guarantee it gets there so they can't turn round and say they never received it? It's ridiculous.

I know. Get someone to film you putting it in a big red letterbox. Zoom in on the address first, then watch it going into the letterbox.

Better still, do it over a course of 3 different days, so that one not showing up, is a possibility !!! 3 not showing up, impossible.

Is it not the case that if you add

Without Prejudice

A reservation made on a statement or offer that it is not an admission or cannot otherwise be used against the issuing party in future dealings or litigation with any determinative legal effect.

A statement set onto a written document such as a letter, which qualifies the signatory as exempt from the content to the extent that it may be interpreted as containing admissions or other interpretations which could later be used against him or her; or as otherwise affecting any legal rights of the principal of, or the person signing.

The document cannot be used against you in court?

The mccanns are a fine ones to talk about contempt of court.
What about them? They refused to return Amaral's book even after the Court had overturned the injuction!

They are just hooligans...thinking they can bully everyone into silence.

Tony Bennett wrote:

Tony Bennett on 14 October 2011 wrote:UPDATE ON THE THREE LIBEL ACTIONS

I see it's two weeks and two days since I last provided forum members with an update on the situation with the three libel claims against me, so here goes:

SMETHURST

DR GERALD MCCANN AND DR KATE MCCANN/HEALY

BRIAN KENNEDY

I see it's another two weeks and two days since I last gave an update. The news to date is:

SMETHURST

The only real development is that today I received a Court Order, dated 7 October, in the following terms:

QUOTE

Upon the Court's own initiative, it is ordered that:-

1. There will be a Costs Budgeting and Case Management Conference list for 7th December at 2.30pm, time estimate 1 hour 30 minutes.

2. Correspondence with the Court is to be by 1st class post and not recorded delivery.

UNQUOTE

The order was made by Master McCloud (a lady, by the way) on Friday 7 October, was sealed (stamped with a High Court of Justice stamp) on Tuesday 11 October, and posted second class on Wednesday 12 October.

The only other development was that a kind supporter who had used something called a 'social networking search engine' (never come across one of those before) was able to supply me with details of the current Facebook pages of Edward Smethurst and some of his friends.

DR GERALD MCCANN AND DR KATE MCCANN/HEALY

There has been no further correspondence since I reported 16 days ago on page 6 of this thread. That means it is now 63 days since I first heard from the McCanns. They have not yet issued an application for me to be committed for contempt of court. But it could well be in tomorrow's post.

BRIAN KENNEDY

In short, and without reproducing any of the correspondence on either side, there has been a further exchange of letters regarding Mr Kennedy's demands, culminating in a letter I have sent today in which, in effect, I have agreed to the vast majority of Mr Kennedy's demands, but not quite all of them. I posted elsewhere on this forum a list of 12 links where Carter-Ruck said some of the articles in dispute were still available to read. Most of these can no longer be viewed - and, as per my correspondence with Carter-Ruck, I continue to try to get all these links removed.

FURTHER UPDATE

Another month has gone by.

SMETHURST

A preliminary proceedings hearing will take place on 7 December 2011. More information about James Halley, to whom Edward Smethurst is still linked on Facebook, has emerged, namely:

James Halley’s Facebook profile informs us that he is employed by ‘Television x’ and studies at ‘The University of Life’ and went to school at ‘The School of Hard Knocks’.

He also lives in Norden, Rochdale, within a mile of Edward Smethurst’s Norden home.

His Facebook Friends include Greg Bailey and Ben Murphy. He is also, like Edward Smethurst, a ‘Facebook Friend’ listed on the ‘Elephant and Castle’ Facebook Group.

On the internet dating site ‘Plenty Of Fish’, he describes himself ‘James Halley: Looking for a partner in crime!’, adding: “I am a 29 year old single lad from Norden in Rochdale, looking for a strong minded and sexy woman to share good times and new things with, i love my nights out and know how to make the most of them”. He is now aged 30.

MCCANNS

There have been no further developments. It is now over three months since the McCanns said they were actively considering contempt of court proceedings for an alleged breach of a High Court undertaking given in November 2009. The postings and articles that the McCanns asked to be withdrawn from this forum and the Madeleine Foundation website remain withdrawn.

BRIAN KENNEDY


There has been further correspondence - and a resolution now seems likley based on (a) the articles to which Mr Kennedy objects having been removed from the internet, so long as they are not republished, and (b) my apology to Brian Kennedy which has been published on this forum, on twitter, and elsewhere. The postings and articles that Mr Kennedy asked to be withdrawn from this forum and the Madeleine Foundation website remain withdrawn.

Tony Bennett wrote:SMETHURST

A preliminary proceedings hearing will take place on 7 December 2011. More information about James Halley, to whom Edward Smethurst is still linked on Facebook, has emerged, namely:

James Halley’s Facebook profile informs us that he is employed by ‘Television x’ and studies at ‘The University of Life’ and went to school at ‘The School of Hard Knocks’.

I just knew there was a connection somewhere here and I've just found it.

Television X is the name of a series of adult television channels in the UK, produced by Portland TV, a subsidiary of Northern & Shell owned by Richard Desmond, the proprietor of the Daily Express.

Stella wrote:

Tony Bennett wrote:SMETHURST

A preliminary proceedings hearing will take place on 7 December 2011. More information about James Halley, to whom Edward Smethurst is still linked on Facebook, has emerged, namely:

James Halley’s Facebook profile informs us that he is employed by ‘Television x’ and studies at ‘The University of Life’ and went to school at ‘The School of Hard Knocks’.

I just knew there was a connection somewhere here and I've just found it.

Television X is the name of a series of adult television channels in the UK, produced by Portland TV, a subsidiary of Northern & Shell owned by Richard Desmond, the proprietor of the Daily Express.

There's quite a bit more about 'Television x' here (Wikipedia):

Television X Girls

Girls contracted to Television X in 2008 include Suzie Best, Cathy Barry, Amber Leigh, Renee Richards, Keisha Kane, Cate Harrington, and Donna Marie.

In March 2008 glamour model Sammie Pennington was introduced as the new face and body of Television X.

In June 2008 the new glamour model Sophie Price was introduced as the new face and body of Television X.

In addition, Linsey Dawn McKenzie, who has not worked for a while, attended the UK Adult Film and Television Awards 2008 as a representative of Television X and Red Hot TV. This is indicative of her returning to the screen in 2009.

Censorship

In mid 2007 Television X launched TelevisionX WebTV. The BBC and Ofocm censorship rules not applying in this domain allowed Television X to show hardcore content to its viewers for the first time.

In October 2008 Television X launched TelevisionX.com. This change effectively split the Television X website into two. One, televisionxnow.co.uk, to be used for television subscriptions and the other, Televisionx.com, to be used for explicit content.


Now then, Stella, don't go telling me that Sammie Pennington is Charlotte Pennington's big sister!

Oh don't even go there.

I hate to say this, but I always knew that the Daily Express out of court contribution settlement, was a little far to convenient at that time.

It appears that there is much on the web about Sammie Pennington, just the few words put me off subjecting my computer to such sites .