TRIAL DATE McCanns v Bennett 9 & 10 May 2012

by **Tony Bennett** 27.02.12 13:10

I informed Carter-Ruck on 23 February that I would be making no further comment of any kind about the reported disappearance of Madeleine McCann until after the conclusion of the committal-to-prison trial.

I am able however to report that today the Royal Courts of Justice have written to me to say that the trial is scheduled to last TWO DAYS and will take place on

WEDNESDAY 9TH and THURSDAY 10TH MAY 2012

at the Royal Courts of Justuice, the Strand.

Unless there is a settlement between the parties prior to that date, two applications will be considered by the Court:

1. By the McCanns to have me imprisoned, fined, or my assets seized (or any combination) for allegedly breaching Part C of the undertakings I gave them and the High Court on 25 November 2009

and

2. By me to be released from Part C of the undertakings I gave to the McCanns and the Court.

I can add one other matter, namely that the McCanns have withdrawn the claim that the sale of one book to Michael Gunnill breached Part A of my undertakings (not to sell or distribute '60 Reasons'). However, the act of sending this book to Michael Gunnill is still retained by the McCanns as alleged breach of undertaking No. 1 on a list of 25 alleged breaches of Part C.

I understand it may be regarded as a breach of my undertaking if I were to re-state what Part C of my undertakings required me not to do.

I'm sorry, I won't be able to make any further comment nor answer any further questions about this matter on here unless it is simply to convey any details about the forthcoming trial.

by ShuBob 27.02.12 13:15

Good luck Tony.

Hopefully, with the MAIN claim withdrawn, they will abandon the entire case against you TRIAL DATE McCanns v Bennett 9 & 10 May 2012 725573

TRIAL DATE McCanns v Bennett 9 & 10 May 2012 725573

by david_uk 27.02.12 13:16

can you tell us who bought up the idea of a settlement first?. yourself or The McCanns?

by Kololi 27.02.12 13:23

I may be off the mark here but I seem to recall that it is part of the process with civil law that the parties involved are encouraged to sort out their problem before reaching the actual court session. It is something to do with mitigating costs I believe but then it is a long time ago that I studied law and it wasn't a full degree so I may be wrong totally.

by ShuBob 27.02.12 13:25

Well, assuming the couple's case against Amaral isn't postponed again, that case will hopefully be concluded before TB's trial.

May be a good thing.

by aiyoyo 27.02.12 15:02

@ TB
I can add one other matter, namely that the McCanns have withdrawn the claim that the sale of one book to Michael Gunnill breached Part A of my undertakings (not to sell or distribute '60 Reasons'). However, the act of sending this book to Michael Gunnill is still retained by the McCanns as alleged breach of undertaking No. 1 on a list of 25 alleged breaches of Part C.

Just as I thought that CR probably wont come out unscratched when MG takes the witness stand, so how come I am not surprised they withdrew their main claim. They have effectively contradict themselves - how can the act of sending the booklet constitute a breach when the sale of it isn't? I know they are now not saying that it isn't a breach of Part A, just that they are not pursuing it anymore in view of the development not to their favour. So that being the case, no sale = no sending. Furthermore, in this instance it wasn't even a sending per se; rather it was a courier company despatched by MG or third party who came to collect from TB's doorstep.
I hope TB can find out who dispatched the courier company to pick up from him, who foot the bill for that?

Not sure how that is going to play out in Court, but surely this case hinges on CR being able to prove their no. 1 charge on their list is a breach.

CR is using manipulative strategy to circumvent the flaw in their prime charge. If TB can prove that their charges, as offshoots of their prime charge which incidentally is flawed on fundamentals, then maybe the case can be thrown out as vexatious.

by Guest 27.02.12 15:06

aiyoyo wrote:
@ TB
I can add one other matter, namely that the McCanns have withdrawn the claim that the sale of one book to Michael Gunnill breached Part A of my undertakings (not to sell or distribute '60 Reasons'). However, the act of sending this book to Michael Gunnill is still retained by the McCanns as alleged breach of undertaking No. 1 on a list of 25 alleged breaches of Part C.

Just as I thought that CR probably wont come out unscratched when MG takes the witness stand, so how come I am not surprised they withdrew their main claim. They have effectively contradict themselves - how can the act of sending the booklet constitute a breach when the sale of it isn't? I know they are now not saying that it isn't a breach of Part A, just that they are not pursuing it anymore in view of the development not to their favour. So that being the case, no sale = no sending. Furthermore, in this instance it wasn't even a sending per se; rather it was a courier company despatched by MG or third party who came to collect from TB's doorstep.
I hope TB can find out who dispatched the courier company to pick up from him, who foot the bill for that?

Not sure how that is going to play out in Court, but surely this case hinges on CR being able to prove their no. 1 charge on their list is a breach.

CR is using manipulative strategy to circumvent the flaw in their prime charge. If TB can prove that their charges, as offshoots of their prime charge which incidentally is flawed on fundamentals, then maybe the case can be thrown out as vexatious.

Clearly, they don't want TB to interrogate MG as a witness to the 'sale' of the booklet. TB would have grilled him and uncovered the traces back to MG's handler(s). These handlers then would have taken the rap.

Now, they will remain unknown/unseen/safe

by Spaniel 27.02.12 15:19

aiyoyo wrote:
@ TB
I can add one other matter, namely that the McCanns have withdrawn the claim that the sale of one book to Michael Gunnill breached Part A of my undertakings (not to sell or distribute '60 Reasons'). However, the act of sending this book to Michael Gunnill is still retained by the McCanns as alleged breach of undertaking No. 1 on a list of 25 alleged breaches of Part C.

Just as I thought that CR probably wont come out unscratched when MG takes the witness stand, so how come I am not surprised they withdrew their main claim. They have effectively contradict themselves - how can the act of sending the booklet constitute a breach when the sale of it isn't? I know they are now not saying that it isn't a breach of Part A, just that they are not pursuing it anymore in view of the development not to their favour. So that being the case, no sale = no sending. Furthermore, in this instance it wasn't even a sending per se; rather it was a courier company despatched by MG or third party who came to collect from TB's doorstep.
I hope TB can find out who dispatched the courier company to pick up from him, who foot the bill for that?

Not sure how that is going to play out in Court, but surely this case hinges on CR being able to prove their no. 1 charge on their list is a breach.

CR is using manipulative strategy to circumvent the flaw in their prime charge. If TB can prove that their charges, as offshoots of their prime charge which incidentally is flawed on fundamentals, then maybe the case can be thrown out as vexatious.

Not as I understood it. Tony sent the booklet to MG by post. The courier was despatched to MG's home to collect it and deliver same to wherever MG had arranged.

by aiyoyo 27.02.12 15:25

Portia wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:
@ TB
I can add one other matter, namely that the McCanns have withdrawn the claim that the sale of one book to Michael Gunnill breached Part A of my undertakings (not to sell or distribute '60 Reasons'). However, the act of sending this book to Michael Gunnill is still retained by the McCanns as alleged breach of undertaking No. 1 on a list of 25 alleged breaches of Part C.

Just as I thought that CR probably wont come out unscratched when MG takes the witness stand, so how come I am not surprised they withdrew their main claim. They have effectively contradict themselves - how can the act of sending the booklet constitute a breach when the sale of it isn't? I know they are now not saying that it isn't a breach of Part A, just that they are not pursuing it anymore in view of the development not to their favour. So that being the case, no sale = no sending. Furthermore, in this instance it wasn't even a sending per se; rather it was a courier company despatched by MG or third party who came to collect from TB's doorstep.
I hope TB can find out who dispatched the courier company to pick up from him, who foot the bill for that?

Not sure how that is going to play out in Court, but surely this case hinges on CR being able to prove their no. 1 charge on their list is a breach.

CR is using manipulative strategy to circumvent the flaw in their prime charge. If TB can prove that their charges, as offshoots of their prime charge which incidentally is flawed on fundamentals, then maybe the case can be thrown out as vexatious.

Clearly, they don't want TB to interrogate MG as a witness to the 'sale' of the booklet. TB would have grilled him and uncovered the traces back to MG's handler(s). These handlers then would have taken the rap.

Now, they will remain unknown/unseen/safe

Oh I'm sure application for MG to take the witness stand is still going ahead. I dont see why not.
He could be asked who is the third party who advised him not to comment among other things. Since CR is claiming that the sending of it breaches Part C, then without deception method of purchase , how can there be "sending"... err.. collection in this case.

by aiyoyo 27.02.12 15:35

Spaniel wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:
@ TB
I can add one other matter, namely that the McCanns have withdrawn the claim that the sale of one book to Michael Gunnill breached Part A of my undertakings (not to sell or distribute '60 Reasons'). However, the act of sending this book to Michael Gunnill is still retained by the McCanns as alleged breach of undertaking No. 1 on a list of 25 alleged breaches of Part C.

Just as I thought that CR probably wont come out unscratched when MG takes the witness stand, so how come I am not surprised they withdrew their main claim. They have effectively contradict themselves - how can the act of sending the booklet constitute a breach when the sale of it isn't? I know they are now not saying that it isn't a breach of Part A, just that they are not pursuing it anymore in view of the development not to their favour. So that being the case, no sale = no sending. Furthermore, in this instance it wasn't even a sending per se; rather it was a courier company despatched by MG or third party who came to collect from TB's doorstep.
I hope TB can find out who dispatched the courier company to pick up from him, who foot the bill for that?

Not sure how that is going to play out in Court, but surely this case hinges on CR being able to prove their no. 1 charge on their list is a breach.

CR is using manipulative strategy to circumvent the flaw in their prime charge. If TB can prove that their charges, as offshoots of their prime charge which incidentally is flawed on fundamentals, then maybe the case can be thrown out as vexatious.

Not as I understood it. Tony sent the booklet to MG by post. The courier was despatched to MG's home to collect it and deliver same to wherever MG had arranged.

Oh OK, so I got that bit wrong. Nonetheless I am still of the opinion the sudden withdrawal made by CR of Breach of Part A, as a consequence of development of the process will make a significant negative impact for CR with the Judge. I don't think the Judge will be amazed to see underhanded tactics being used here. Either the sale is a breach or it isn't, the secondary action of posting it that comes with the sale is a secondary issue, so if the primary issue is not a breach, how can the secondary issue be a breach?

The sneaky reason behind CR's decision to drop that "prime"charge is not going to go unnoticed by the wise Judge.

by ShuBob 27.02.12 16:04

Aiyoyo, I agree the current CR situation is most bizarre. It would appear that the revised main claim against TB is HANDLING the booklet after he gave the undertaking. If this isn't vexatious litigation I don't know what is. If I didn't know better, I would have said CR are stringing this case out for as long as possible to make a mint out of Maddie. Her parents have made a career out of her disappearance so why shouldn't they get a cut of the spoils TRIAL DATE McCanns v Bennett 9 & 10 May 2012 619981

TRIAL DATE McCanns v Bennett 9 & 10 May 2012 619981

by Spaniel 27.02.12 16:35

aiyoyo wrote:
Spaniel wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:
@ TB
I can add one other matter, namely that the McCanns have withdrawn the claim that the sale of one book to Michael Gunnill breached Part A of my undertakings (not to sell or distribute '60 Reasons'). However, the act of sending this book to Michael Gunnill is still retained by the McCanns as alleged breach of undertaking No. 1 on a list of 25 alleged breaches of Part C.

Just as I thought that CR probably wont come out unscratched when MG takes the witness stand, so how come I am not surprised they withdrew their main claim. They have effectively contradict themselves - how can the act of sending the booklet constitute a breach when the sale of it isn't? I know they are now not saying that it isn't a breach of Part A, just that they are not pursuing it anymore in view of the development not to their favour. So that being the case, no sale = no sending. Furthermore, in this instance it wasn't even a sending per se; rather it was a courier company despatched by MG or third party who came to collect from TB's doorstep.
I hope TB can find out who dispatched the courier company to pick up from him, who foot the bill for that?

Not sure how that is going to play out in Court, but surely this case hinges on CR being able to prove their no. 1 charge on their list is a breach.

CR is using manipulative strategy to circumvent the flaw in their prime charge. If TB can prove that their charges, as offshoots of their prime charge which incidentally is flawed on fundamentals, then maybe the case can be thrown out as vexatious.

Not as I understood it. Tony sent the booklet to MG by post. The courier was despatched to MG's home to collect it and deliver same to wherever MG had arranged.

Oh OK, so I got that bit wrong. Nonetheless I am still of the opinion the sudden withdrawal made by CR of Breach of Part A, as a consequence of development of the process will make a significant negative impact for CR with the Judge. I don't think the Judge will be amazed to see underhanded tactics being used here. Either the sale is a breach or it isn't, the secondary action of posting it that comes with the sale is a secondary issue, so if the primary issue is not a breach, how can the secondary issue be a breach?

The sneaky reason behind CR's decision to drop that "prime"charge is not going to go unnoticed by the wise Judge.

Sneaky is a good description, even more sneaky knowing that a third stage was involved. TB - MG - 3rd party. I assume by not calling MG the 3rd party will remain unknown?

From his pureile postings and far too big a mouth to be of any use, MG was ecstatic at what he thought was a coup on his part. I bet he's not laughing now. Wet pants more like.

They do have an uncanny knack at picking losers.

by jay2001 27.02.12 17:00

Not being a legal beagle, can Tony still call Gunnill? How can they drop the charge, but still leave it as a breach? Their actions just mistify me.

If the Lisbon libel goes ahead before this hope the mcs are called. They can't keep sue-ing and hiding behind lawyers. Oh I suppose they can. If they have the courage of their convictions they would face up to their detractors, not act like cowards. All my own opinion.

If Dr A wins that surely will have a bearing on this trial. Or will it keep on being postponed.

by **tigger** 27.02.12 17:14

For a start, the judge isn't going to be pleased to still have two days for this trial.
Can you imagine the time it would have taken for 153? That would be considered unacceptable. Let's see: 25 claims take two days, so 153 about 2 to 3 weeks. For a complaint that could have been dealt with in one day.
CR seem to be milking TM.

by aiyoyo 27.02.12 17:16

Why do people get the impression MG wont be called? Why not?
After all CR top of the list of their 25 charges is that of "sending of the booklet" which they alleged breaches Part C of the Undertaking.

I deduce Part A is major, specific to not saying Maddie is dead and her parents involved.
While Part C is general, meaning anything under the sun to do or related to the mccanns TB cannot discuss or express his opinions at all.
I am guessing this since TB is applying for Part C to be lifted; so it has to be something as ridiculous as this that breaches his basic human rights, else the mccanns will always find an excuse to apply to commit him to HM Prison. In the General category, any pretext will suffice to sue TB to suit their vicious purpose - that cannot be legally correct or valid.

It's just ludicrous what the mccanns are capable of; and the madness of it all is that CR entertain their idiotic behavior.
If we didnt know better it would seem they encouraged the mccanns if we were to take into account they assigned a staff to watch this forum for mccanns' purpose. This isn't even ambulance chaser behavior, more like ambush.

by aiyoyo 27.02.12 17:26

tigger wrote:For a start, the judge isn't going to be pleased to still have two days for this trial.
Can you imagine the time it would have taken for 153? That would be considered unacceptable. Let's see: 25 claims take two days, so 153 about 2 to 3 weeks. For a complaint that could have been dealt with in one day.
CR seem to be milking TM.

No, not team mccanns, since according to Kate: CR support them by doing work quietly behind the scenes, mostly without payment.......

What it means by dragging this out to "two-day" is they expect TB to pick up their tab, counting on winning.
When they lose, I hope TB's cost is to be borne by them.

by **tigger** 27.02.12 18:35

aiyoyo wrote:
tigger wrote:For a start, the judge isn't going to be pleased to still have two days for this trial.
Can you imagine the time it would have taken for 153? That would be considered unacceptable. Let's see: 25 claims take two days, so 153 about 2 to 3 weeks. For a complaint that could have been dealt with in one day.
CR seem to be milking TM.

No, not team mccanns, since according to Kate: CR support them by doing work quietly behind the scenes, mostly without payment.......

What it means by dragging this out to "two-day" is they expect TB to pick up their tab, counting on winning.
When they lose, I hope TB's cost is to be borne by them.

TB posted us last week that CR are working on a retainer with this case. By the time the trial comes round, that's about two years on retainer. Making quite a dent in the Fund. I thought that was one of the reasons for the 153 counts. So much more work for the office boy in addition to checking the forum. So: Hello there Kevin, hope you're not doing too much overtime?

by **tigger** 27.02.12 18:42

Here is an article on libel law in the U.K. from Private Eye january 2010

''Scientists urge reform of 'lethal'libel laws''.thundered the headline over a Times report on how the libel law was endangering public health by stopping peer-reviewed research appearing in medical journals.

It quoted Dr.Fiona Godlee, editor of the British Medical Journal, describing how one of BMJ's satellite magazines, Archives of Disease in Childhood, had turned down a paper describing clinical signs associated with child abuse.''These cases were all from the U.K., and the information should have been readily available to doctors inthe U.K.'' she said. ''Science and medical discussion must be open and critical''.

But what was the paper that Dr.Godlee feared might bring her colleaguesthe unwelcome attention of Carter Fuck and Mr.Justice Eady? Perhaps fearing a writ of it's own, the 'Thunderer coyly refused to say. The Eye can reveal that in 2007 Professor Neil McIntosh from the Department of Child Life and Health at the University of Edinburgh, and his associates submitted an exhaustive review of 58,059 infants admitted to Scottish A&E departments.

They were looking for examples of nosebleeds and coughing up blood,and suggested they were so rare among children under two that they could be signs of child abuse. They recommended that in future a paediatrician should check out children with nosebleeds, but were careful to add: ''No children described in this report suffered injury from definite abuse that was sufficiently worrying to trigger child protection proceedings at the time of the injury''.

Though no individual was named or accused, the lawyers went into a tizzy fearing that parents could sue the journal claiming the doctors were indirectly suggesting they may be abusers. That was enough of a chilling effect for the Archives of Disease in Childhood lawyers to stop publication.
Although it turned the paper down, 'Pediatrics' decided that Professor McIntosh and his team had produced important work and published it. 'Pediatrics ' is an American journal. Thus American doctors can read the results of a study of British children in British hospitals that British publishers dare not run.''

by Angelique 27.02.12 23:34

Does anyone know that if the worst comes to the worst (I sincerely hope it doesn't) but should a fine be imposed would TB be able to ask for it be paid over time, so in effect they won't seize his house etc.

by littlepixie 28.02.12 0:43

I know little about the law but have had experience of a "Trier" A very wealthy lottery winner who tried to take me for thousands of pounds compensation on very shaky legal grounds in a made-up case to suit his agenda just because he could. He knew that financially he could crush me so I found out all I could regarding what could be taken from me in the event that I lost.
I am not saying this is the same as what TB is facing as it is not.
In my case he couldn't touch my house but he could touch my savings which could have had a knock on effect if I had relied on them to pay my mortgage. He couldn't touch money I earned that payed for essential living expenses much as in the same way that anyone who has ever had to take out an IVA or had a financial judgement against them has their essential living expenses calculated and protected by the Court. I was quite surprised at what are considered essential living expenses to be honest.

My case never went to Court as Mr Lottery bottled out.

I am thinking of you Tony as I know how worrying it can be to be in that position. The Truth will triumph as it did in my case. TRIAL DATE McCanns v Bennett 9 & 10 May 2012 725573

by Guest 28.02.12 10:24

tigger wrote:Here is an article on libel law in the U.K. from Private Eye january 2010

''Scientists urge reform of 'lethal'libel laws''.thundered the headline over a Times report on how the libel law was endangering public health by stopping peer-reviewed research appearing in medical journals.

It quoted Dr.Fiona Godlee, editor of the British Medical Journal, describing how one of BMJ's satellite magazines, Archives of Disease in Childhood, had turned down a paper describing clinical signs associated with child abuse.''These cases were all from the U.K., and the information should have been readily available to doctors inthe U.K.'' she said. ''Science and medical discussion must be open and critical''.

But what was the paper that Dr.Godlee feared might bring her colleaguesthe unwelcome attention of Carter Fuck and Mr.Justice Eady? Perhaps fearing a writ of it's own, the 'Thunderer coyly refused to say. The Eye can reveal that in 2007 Professor Neil McIntosh from the Department of Child Life and Health at the University of Edinburgh, and his associates submitted an exhaustive review of 58,059 infants admitted to Scottish A&E departments.

They were looking for examples of nosebleeds and coughing up blood,and suggested they were so rare among children under two that they could be signs of child abuse. They recommended that in future a paediatrician should check out children with nosebleeds, but were careful to add: ''No children described in this report suffered injury from definite abuse that was sufficiently worrying to trigger child protection proceedings at the time of the injury''.

Though no individual was named or accused, the lawyers went into a tizzy fearing that parents could sue the journal claiming the doctors were indirectly suggesting they may be abusers. That was enough of a chilling effect for the Archives of Disease in Childhood lawyers to stop publication.
Although it turned the paper down, 'Pediatrics' decided that Professor McIntosh and his team had produced important work and published it. 'Pediatrics ' is an American journal. Thus American doctors can read the results of a study of British children in British hospitals that British publishers dare not run.''

Morning Tigger!

Didn't the good doctors explain away any bloodflecks in the apartment as resulting from Maddie having frequent nosebleads?

Oh, and another thing. The dutch picture showed Maddie tennisball-girl in reverse: the strains on her a arms were therefor on her left arm, and her left knee sowed a bruise, which is compatible with her falling on the stairs to the plane.

by zodiac 28.02.12 11:17

aiyoyo wrote:Why do people get the impression MG wont be called? Why not?
After all CR top of the list of their 25 charges is that of "sending of the booklet" which they alleged breaches Part C of the Undertaking.

I deduce Part A is major, specific to not saying Maddie is dead and her parents involved.
While Part C is general, meaning anything under the sun to do or related to the mccanns TB cannot discuss or express his opinions at all.
I am guessing this since TB is applying for Part C to be lifted; so it has to be something as ridiculous as this that breaches his basic human rights, else the mccanns will always find an excuse to apply to commit him to HM Prison. In the General category, any pretext will suffice to sue TB to suit their vicious purpose - that cannot be legally correct or valid.

It's just ludicrous what the mccanns are capable of; and the madness of it all is that CR entertain their idiotic behavior.
If we didnt know better it would seem they encouraged the mccanns if we were to take into account they assigned a staff to watch this forum for mccanns' purpose. This isn't even ambulance chaser behavior, more like ambush.

Why not?

aiyoyo,

I have not posted on the blogs/fora for quite a while now, I just read when I can. However this has prompted me to post. I agree. Why not? Have I have understood this properly? TB has no legal representation and is representing himself against this mighty libel law firm. Yet thus far 153 has been reduced to 25. Now part A withdrawn etc. Also the judge granted permission that this witness be called therefore in my humble opinion it is imperative that this witness still be called to testify under oath. This witness has to clarify exactly whom the the third party is? Why the third party needed the said information? And, why did the third party not just ask for the information themselves? Perhaps when the third party is revealed. The third party should be called as a witness to establish/confirm why he/she/they needed this witness to act on their behalf and why they needed the said information? As a member of the public reading all of this (imo) it all seems rather underhand and seedy. Why are parents of a missing child engaging in so much litigation? When really all their efforts and funds at their disposal should be spent on searching for their child they claim is missing.

Good luck, Tony!

by rainbow-fairy 28.02.12 11:34

Whichever way I read this it seems to be very good news for Tony.
I'm sure the Judge will infer what we do from the McCanns withdrawing that charge. They seem to be running scared... scared of what will be revealed should they push ahead?
Greed and stubbornness is going to be their downfall, IMO.
As for the egregious Mr Gunnill, how I wouldve loved to have seen his face when he realised Tony had been given leave to apply to have him called as a witness!
I sincerely doubt that, whilst he was crowing over his 'victory' over Tony that it ever entered his head that it could end in the courtroom - he must be fuming - but what can he do? Nothing. Which is no more than the little weasel deserves IMO.
Have the McCanns and CR finally pushed their luck too far?

by ShuBob 28.02.12 11:50

Perhaps, like Lori Campbell and her then boyfriend (now husband) Ross Hall who set off on what appeared to be a hastily planned around-the-world trip just as investigators were preparing to question him about his involvement in phone-hacking, MG may be unavailable come trial date TRIAL DATE McCanns v Bennett 9 & 10 May 2012 3877000266

TRIAL DATE McCanns v Bennett 9 & 10 May 2012 3877000266

by Guest 28.02.12 11:51

zodiac wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:Why do people get the impression MG wont be called? Why not?
After all CR top of the list of their 25 charges is that of "sending of the booklet" which they alleged breaches Part C of the Undertaking.

I deduce Part A is major, specific to not saying Maddie is dead and her parents involved.
While Part C is general, meaning anything under the sun to do or related to the mccanns TB cannot discuss or express his opinions at all.
I am guessing this since TB is applying for Part C to be lifted; so it has to be something as ridiculous as this that breaches his basic human rights, else the mccanns will always find an excuse to apply to commit him to HM Prison. In the General category, any pretext will suffice to sue TB to suit their vicious purpose - that cannot be legally correct or valid.

It's just ludicrous what the mccanns are capable of; and the madness of it all is that CR entertain their idiotic behavior.
If we didnt know better it would seem they encouraged the mccanns if we were to take into account they assigned a staff to watch this forum for mccanns' purpose. This isn't even ambulance chaser behavior, more like ambush.

Why not?

aiyoyo,

I have not posted on the blogs/fora for quite a while now, I just read when I can. However this has prompted me to post. I agree. Why not? Have I have understood this properly? TB has no legal representation and is representing himself against this mighty libel law firm. Yet thus far 153 has been reduced to 25. Now part A withdrawn etc. Also the judge granted permission that this witness be called therefore in my humble opinion it is imperative that this witness still be called to testify under oath. This witness has to clarify exactly whom the the third party is? Why the third party needed the said information? And, why did the third party not just ask for the information themselves? Perhaps when the third party is revealed. The third party should be called as a witness to establish/confirm why he/she/they needed this witness to act on their behalf and why they needed the said information? As a member of the public reading all of this (imo) it all seems rather underhand and seedy. Why are parents of a missing child engaging in so much litigation? When really all their efforts and funds at their disposal should be spent on searching for their child they claim is missing.

Good luck, Tony!