Portal
Home
Register
Log inMCCANNS v BENNETT - The committal to prison trial will take place for 1 or 2 days, sometime in April or later
The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™ :: Welcome :: Carter-Ruck / McCanns / Amaral / Bennett / Smethurst / Kennedy Libel Trials and Lawsuits
Page 1 of 9 • Share •
Page 1 of 9 • 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 
MCCANNS v BENNETT - The committal to prison trial will take place for 1 or 2 days, sometime in April or later
Tony Bennett on Sun Jan 22, 2012 11:20 pm
As a result of a letter from Carter-Ruck dated 13 January and received by me on Friday after I returned from a short holiday, I can now confirm that the ‘Committal Hearing’ where the McCanns are seeking to have me committed to prison, fined, or have my assets seized (and all three are possible in a serious contempt case) will not now take place on 8 February.
The McCanns asked for the date of 8 February to be used for a Directions/Procedure hearing called a ‘Case Management Hearing’, to which I agreed as I need a lot more time to prepare my defence.
Mr James Tipp, Deputy Court Manager and Court Co-ordinator, has agreed and in an e-mail to Carter-Ruck also dated 13 January, he wrote:
“The committal hearing on the 8th February 2012 will now be listed for a two hour directions hearing as requested [by Carter-Ruck]”.
THE DRAFT ORDER
Carter-Ruck have drafted the Order they would like the Court to grant. It provides as follows:
I am likely to seek to change those proposed directions, if only to seek a great deal more time to prepare my defence. The McCanns on their own admission began together with Carter-Ruck to prepare their Committal application back in June. They served it to me, unannounced, six months later, by two men in a limousine on 1 December, in a box containing five thick Lever Arch files and 2,000 pages of argument and evidence.
LEGAL ADVICE AND COSTS
For the record, I have taken the advice of a local Solicitor who advised that the terms of the undertaking I was forced to give in November 2009 were unusually wide and there were good grounds for them at least to be varied.
He did advise that I should be legally represented if at all possible, but after making enquiries via solicitors and the Legal Services Commission who run the Legal Aid scheme, no Legal Aid is possible to anyone who has savings over £8,000, which I have. He then quoted me figures for advising and said that in view of the many complexities and unusual features of this case, he would need to seek a written Opinion from an experienced barrister. Because of the sheer amount of material which the McCanns have placed before the court, and the need for both the solicitor and barrister to read and consider all the documentation, plus look up and apply all relevant law and case precedent, the cost of being advised alone would run to a 5-figure sum.
My solicitor is not one of the very few solicitors who has what are called ‘rights of audience’ in the Royal Courts of Justice, which means that if I wish to be represented in court, this would mean I would again have to hire a barrister. Again, I have been advised that if you include court attendance on say 3 days of both barrister and solicitor and possibly solicitor’s clerk myself, and dealing with all the preparation of the case, correspondence with the court and Carter-Ruck, preparing Witness Statements, Skeleton Arguments of the case and so on and so forth, the whole bill for legal representation alone would cost potentially tens of thousands of pounds, money I just haven’t got.
I therefore have to struggle on, on my own and unaided, on what feels like a very unequal contest indeed.
The main bone of contention for the McCanns is the opinions I have given on this very forum and on the Madeleine Foundation website.
They accept that I have adhered strictly to the undertakings I gave (1) to close our former website, (2) not to sell or distribute the ‘60 Reasons’ booklet and (3) not to sell or distribute the ‘10 Reasons’ leaflet, the only exception to that being the sale of a book to a photojournalist, Mike Gunnill, who under the name of Michael Sangerte insisted that he needed a physical copy of the book ‘for the purposes of historical research’ - after I had initially refused to sell him a book.
THE HEARING ON 8 FEBRUARY - WILL I BE ENTIRELY ON MY OWN?
I have asked via a unit called the Masters Support Unit at the High Court if the hearing on 8 February will be in open court or in chambers, and have also asked if I could bring a relative or a friend to take notes at the hearing. I got a very short note back saying that all the answers are in a book called ‘Civil Court Practice’, otherwise known as the ‘White Book’, which I could buy from a legal bookshop. Even to get that answer took four e-mails dated 23 and 30 December and 5 and 20 January. I am still trying to find out if anyone is allowed to accompany me to the hearing.
CARTER-RUCK's COSTS
I have raised the question of costs with Carter-Ruck, given the following statement by Dr Kate McCann in her book, ‘madeleine’. On page 287 of that book, she wrote: “Adam Tudor and his colleague Isabel Hudson continue to do a vast amount of work for us, without payment, most of it quietly, behind the scenes”.
Not so in my case, it seems. By way of response, Carter-Ruck have clarified the position so far as claiming costs against me is concerned. This is what they have said:
“In relation to your queries about our clients’ costs, we entered into as fee-paying retainer with our clients in relation to this Contempt of Court application. As previously indicated ,our clients intend (as they are entitled) to seek an Order for the repayment of their costs by you in the event that their application is successful”.
I think I have previously indicated that the McCanns claim I have breached the undertaking I gave the High Court in November 2009 in 149 instances, once by selling a book to Mike Gunnill, and on 148 other occasions by words I have used in postings, articles and leaflets published between January 2010 and August 2011.
SURPRISING CLAIMS OF LIBEL
There are not a few surprising claims of alleged libel.
Alleged breach of undertaking number 148 is described as ‘The 48 Questions video recording created by and featuring the Defendant”. When this was brought to our attention by Carter-Ruck in August, we decided to voluntarily remove that video from YouTube, despite the fact that we could not see how a mere recital of those 48 questions could possibly constitute libel when they consist of a list of questions made public by the Portuguese Police, and are still available to read on the BBC website, and have been published in numerous British and Portuguese newspapers and elsewhere on the internet.
Alleged breach of undertaking number 2 is described as “The Madeleine McCann Case Files, Volume 1, booklet published by the Defendant”. Once again, seeing that this is merely a compilation of a selection of documents made public three years ago by the Portuguese Police, it is hard to see where the libel lies in reproducing them. Furthermore, Carter-Ruck do not specify what parts of that book are said to be libellous. For example, is it possible to view Inspector Tavares de Almedia’s interim report containing the police team’s assessment of what may have happened to Madeleine McCann as ‘libellous’?
I should add here that “The Madeleine McCann Case Files, Volume 1”, was first published by us in late January 2010. The McCanns have made no objection to the publication of this booklet during their occasional correspondence with me during 2010 and 2011 and I confess I was hugely surprised to find that they regarded this as libellous. In their recent letter of 13 January 2012, they say:
“You are continuing to publish some of the publications complained of in our clients’ application against you for Contempt of Court - most notably, by continuing to offer the booklet “The Madeleine McCann Case Files Volume 1’ for sale via your website”.
We honestly cannot see on what grounds the reproduction of e.g. the 48 questions, the interim report of Inspector Tavares de Almeida, the evidence of Martin Grime, the Gaspar statements and excerpts from the lengthy ramblings of Jane Tanner can constitute either libel or a breach of my undertaking.
Therefore our 108-page book remains for sale on our website, price £4 including postage; now may be your last chance to get a copy to give to your relatives, friends an acquaintances before it is banned, like 60 Reasons and 10 Reasons.
A BATTLE - PICKED
On page 290 of ‘madeleine’, Dr Kate McCann writes this:
“We have taken action against one or two websites, but it has proved almost impossible to get this stuff removed from some of them, particularly those hosted in the USA. Friends flag up some of the worst offenders for us, but in the end it comes down to picking your battles”.
Well, I have been well and truly ‘picked’.
I don’t mean this in any way unkindly, but for those of you who can type away your opinions on what really happened to Madeleine McCann without fear of inviting a libel action, think yourselves fortunate. It’s a freedom that might be curtailed later, if I lose this battle and if Lord Leveson has anything to do with changing press freedoms and internet law.
Finally, thanks so much to all of you who say kind things about my stand. They may not stop me going to prison, paying a heavy fine, or losing all my savings and my home, but I assure you they are a solace and a comfort at a time of stress, and I appreciate each and every one of them.
The McCanns asked for the date of 8 February to be used for a Directions/Procedure hearing called a ‘Case Management Hearing’, to which I agreed as I need a lot more time to prepare my defence.
Mr James Tipp, Deputy Court Manager and Court Co-ordinator, has agreed and in an e-mail to Carter-Ruck also dated 13 January, he wrote:
“The committal hearing on the 8th February 2012 will now be listed for a two hour directions hearing as requested [by Carter-Ruck]”.
THE DRAFT ORDER
Carter-Ruck have drafted the Order they would like the Court to grant. It provides as follows:
- I must file my reply no later than 4pm on 22 February
- The McCanns to have a chance to reply by 21 March
- The McCanns’ committal-to-prison application be heard after 10 April
- The trial to be fixed for either 1 or 2 days
- ‘Costs in the case’.
I am likely to seek to change those proposed directions, if only to seek a great deal more time to prepare my defence. The McCanns on their own admission began together with Carter-Ruck to prepare their Committal application back in June. They served it to me, unannounced, six months later, by two men in a limousine on 1 December, in a box containing five thick Lever Arch files and 2,000 pages of argument and evidence.
LEGAL ADVICE AND COSTS
For the record, I have taken the advice of a local Solicitor who advised that the terms of the undertaking I was forced to give in November 2009 were unusually wide and there were good grounds for them at least to be varied.
He did advise that I should be legally represented if at all possible, but after making enquiries via solicitors and the Legal Services Commission who run the Legal Aid scheme, no Legal Aid is possible to anyone who has savings over £8,000, which I have. He then quoted me figures for advising and said that in view of the many complexities and unusual features of this case, he would need to seek a written Opinion from an experienced barrister. Because of the sheer amount of material which the McCanns have placed before the court, and the need for both the solicitor and barrister to read and consider all the documentation, plus look up and apply all relevant law and case precedent, the cost of being advised alone would run to a 5-figure sum.
My solicitor is not one of the very few solicitors who has what are called ‘rights of audience’ in the Royal Courts of Justice, which means that if I wish to be represented in court, this would mean I would again have to hire a barrister. Again, I have been advised that if you include court attendance on say 3 days of both barrister and solicitor and possibly solicitor’s clerk myself, and dealing with all the preparation of the case, correspondence with the court and Carter-Ruck, preparing Witness Statements, Skeleton Arguments of the case and so on and so forth, the whole bill for legal representation alone would cost potentially tens of thousands of pounds, money I just haven’t got.
I therefore have to struggle on, on my own and unaided, on what feels like a very unequal contest indeed.
The main bone of contention for the McCanns is the opinions I have given on this very forum and on the Madeleine Foundation website.
They accept that I have adhered strictly to the undertakings I gave (1) to close our former website, (2) not to sell or distribute the ‘60 Reasons’ booklet and (3) not to sell or distribute the ‘10 Reasons’ leaflet, the only exception to that being the sale of a book to a photojournalist, Mike Gunnill, who under the name of Michael Sangerte insisted that he needed a physical copy of the book ‘for the purposes of historical research’ - after I had initially refused to sell him a book.
THE HEARING ON 8 FEBRUARY - WILL I BE ENTIRELY ON MY OWN?
I have asked via a unit called the Masters Support Unit at the High Court if the hearing on 8 February will be in open court or in chambers, and have also asked if I could bring a relative or a friend to take notes at the hearing. I got a very short note back saying that all the answers are in a book called ‘Civil Court Practice’, otherwise known as the ‘White Book’, which I could buy from a legal bookshop. Even to get that answer took four e-mails dated 23 and 30 December and 5 and 20 January. I am still trying to find out if anyone is allowed to accompany me to the hearing.
CARTER-RUCK's COSTS
I have raised the question of costs with Carter-Ruck, given the following statement by Dr Kate McCann in her book, ‘madeleine’. On page 287 of that book, she wrote: “Adam Tudor and his colleague Isabel Hudson continue to do a vast amount of work for us, without payment, most of it quietly, behind the scenes”.
Not so in my case, it seems. By way of response, Carter-Ruck have clarified the position so far as claiming costs against me is concerned. This is what they have said:
“In relation to your queries about our clients’ costs, we entered into as fee-paying retainer with our clients in relation to this Contempt of Court application. As previously indicated ,our clients intend (as they are entitled) to seek an Order for the repayment of their costs by you in the event that their application is successful”.
I think I have previously indicated that the McCanns claim I have breached the undertaking I gave the High Court in November 2009 in 149 instances, once by selling a book to Mike Gunnill, and on 148 other occasions by words I have used in postings, articles and leaflets published between January 2010 and August 2011.
SURPRISING CLAIMS OF LIBEL
There are not a few surprising claims of alleged libel.
Alleged breach of undertaking number 148 is described as ‘The 48 Questions video recording created by and featuring the Defendant”. When this was brought to our attention by Carter-Ruck in August, we decided to voluntarily remove that video from YouTube, despite the fact that we could not see how a mere recital of those 48 questions could possibly constitute libel when they consist of a list of questions made public by the Portuguese Police, and are still available to read on the BBC website, and have been published in numerous British and Portuguese newspapers and elsewhere on the internet.
Alleged breach of undertaking number 2 is described as “The Madeleine McCann Case Files, Volume 1, booklet published by the Defendant”. Once again, seeing that this is merely a compilation of a selection of documents made public three years ago by the Portuguese Police, it is hard to see where the libel lies in reproducing them. Furthermore, Carter-Ruck do not specify what parts of that book are said to be libellous. For example, is it possible to view Inspector Tavares de Almedia’s interim report containing the police team’s assessment of what may have happened to Madeleine McCann as ‘libellous’?
I should add here that “The Madeleine McCann Case Files, Volume 1”, was first published by us in late January 2010. The McCanns have made no objection to the publication of this booklet during their occasional correspondence with me during 2010 and 2011 and I confess I was hugely surprised to find that they regarded this as libellous. In their recent letter of 13 January 2012, they say:
“You are continuing to publish some of the publications complained of in our clients’ application against you for Contempt of Court - most notably, by continuing to offer the booklet “The Madeleine McCann Case Files Volume 1’ for sale via your website”.
We honestly cannot see on what grounds the reproduction of e.g. the 48 questions, the interim report of Inspector Tavares de Almeida, the evidence of Martin Grime, the Gaspar statements and excerpts from the lengthy ramblings of Jane Tanner can constitute either libel or a breach of my undertaking.
Therefore our 108-page book remains for sale on our website, price £4 including postage; now may be your last chance to get a copy to give to your relatives, friends an acquaintances before it is banned, like 60 Reasons and 10 Reasons.
A BATTLE - PICKED
On page 290 of ‘madeleine’, Dr Kate McCann writes this:
“We have taken action against one or two websites, but it has proved almost impossible to get this stuff removed from some of them, particularly those hosted in the USA. Friends flag up some of the worst offenders for us, but in the end it comes down to picking your battles”.
Well, I have been well and truly ‘picked’.
I don’t mean this in any way unkindly, but for those of you who can type away your opinions on what really happened to Madeleine McCann without fear of inviting a libel action, think yourselves fortunate. It’s a freedom that might be curtailed later, if I lose this battle and if Lord Leveson has anything to do with changing press freedoms and internet law.
Finally, thanks so much to all of you who say kind things about my stand. They may not stop me going to prison, paying a heavy fine, or losing all my savings and my home, but I assure you they are a solace and a comfort at a time of stress, and I appreciate each and every one of them.
Last edited by Tony Bennett on Tue Jan 24, 2012 12:52 pm; edited 1 time in total
Tony Bennett- Posts: 5777
Join date: 2009-11-25
Age: 65
Location: Harlow, Essex
Re: MCCANNS v BENNETT - The committal to prison trial will take place for 1 or 2 days, sometime in April or later
frank zappa on Mon Jan 23, 2012 12:18 am
Tony, there is no chance in hell of you going to prison. Any Judge worth their salt will know the remains of MBM could be found at any time, with serious implications for the parents.
High court judges dont like to be made look stupid.
Have faith and all the best.
High court judges dont like to be made look stupid.
Have faith and all the best.
____________________
"A mind is like a parachute. It doesnt work if it's not open." Frank Vincent Zappa.
frank zappa- Posts: 61
Join date: 2011-07-23
Re: MCCANNS v BENNETT - The committal to prison trial will take place for 1 or 2 days, sometime in April or later
No Fate Worse Than De'Ath on Mon Jan 23, 2012 9:26 am
I really do hope you're right Frank Zappa but I have no faith left in the integrity of anyone in the Establishment.
____________________
The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd. Indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible.
Bertrand Russell
No Fate Worse Than De'Ath- Posts: 2887
Join date: 2011-03-27
Location: Over the hills and far away
Re: MCCANNS v BENNETT - The committal to prison trial will take place for 1 or 2 days, sometime in April or later
The Slave on Mon Jan 23, 2012 9:30 am
Dear Tony, I can only give you my admiration . You have been a thorn in their side, like Goncalo Amaral and in their eyes you must pay.
This is revenge. It has nothing to do with finding Madeleine. They are sick people.
Try to remain as dignified as you can in the circumstances. They cannot run forever.
I hope common sense prevails.
I feel your pain.
This is revenge. It has nothing to do with finding Madeleine. They are sick people.
Try to remain as dignified as you can in the circumstances. They cannot run forever.
I hope common sense prevails.
I feel your pain.
The Slave- Posts: 57
Join date: 2010-10-05
Re: MCCANNS v BENNETT - The committal to prison trial will take place for 1 or 2 days, sometime in April or later
Cristobell on Mon Jan 23, 2012 11:33 am
Absolute Madness. If this committal hearing succeeds, British justice will be shamed in the eyes of the world.
Cristobell- Posts: 385
Join date: 2011-10-12
Re: MCCANNS v BENNETT - The committal to prison trial will take place for 1 or 2 days, sometime in April or later
puzzled on Mon Jan 23, 2012 11:41 am
I'm sure we'll all do what we can to help Tony, just say the word.
puzzled- Posts: 137
Join date: 2011-06-21
Re: MCCANNS v BENNETT - The committal to prison trial will take place for 1 or 2 days, sometime in April or later
Nina on Mon Jan 23, 2012 11:45 am
Tony, you know as always that I support you. I am shocked to see that you cannot have legal support though when the people you are fighting are using such as they are, though financed by the money donated for the search of their daughter according to them.
Is anyone going to follow this story in the press? And I don't mean just local papers but national ones. Is there anything at all that I / we can do to help you?
Is anyone going to follow this story in the press? And I don't mean just local papers but national ones. Is there anything at all that I / we can do to help you?
____________________
Not one more cent from me.
Nina- Posts: 1528
Join date: 2011-06-16
Re: MCCANNS v BENNETT - The committal to prison trial will take place for 1 or 2 days, sometime in April or later
Kololi on Mon Jan 23, 2012 12:04 pm
Surely if your fees are likely to run to such a huge amount then the costs of their legal support is also likely to be massive too.
I understand a retainer agreement to be a sum of money placed up front with the solicitor. It is placed in a trust fund and drawn upon as work is completed. Where would the money that was required up front have come from? I am guessing from Madeleine's fund or from one of the people who it is said is sponsering their legal costs. Heck I am just working class so maybe that sort of money with no strings attached is a spit in the ocean for a wealthy sponser but it still seems odd to me when you start to see the potential amount in black and white.
With no offence meant to you Mr Bennett why would they spend all this money on attacking somebody that, in the great scheme of things, is potentially small fry. The newspapers makes more sense but your reach to Joe Public is not as big as a daily or weekly paper.
Good luck and no sneering from me if you are able to settle this without going to court. You have your family, your home and livelihood to think of so do what you need to do to look after yourself.
I understand a retainer agreement to be a sum of money placed up front with the solicitor. It is placed in a trust fund and drawn upon as work is completed. Where would the money that was required up front have come from? I am guessing from Madeleine's fund or from one of the people who it is said is sponsering their legal costs. Heck I am just working class so maybe that sort of money with no strings attached is a spit in the ocean for a wealthy sponser but it still seems odd to me when you start to see the potential amount in black and white.
With no offence meant to you Mr Bennett why would they spend all this money on attacking somebody that, in the great scheme of things, is potentially small fry. The newspapers makes more sense but your reach to Joe Public is not as big as a daily or weekly paper.
Good luck and no sneering from me if you are able to settle this without going to court. You have your family, your home and livelihood to think of so do what you need to do to look after yourself.
Kololi- Posts: 677
Join date: 2010-01-10
Re: MCCANNS v BENNETT - The committal to prison trial will take place for 1 or 2 days, sometime in April or later
Tony Bennett on Mon Jan 23, 2012 12:09 pm
Yes, much is made these days of achieving 'equality of arms' in legal contests in the U.K., but in libel cases this is rather a sick joke.Nina wrote:Tony, you know as always that I support you. I am shocked to see that you cannot have legal support though when the people you are fighting are using such as they are, though financed by the money donated for the search of their daughter according to them.
Is anyone going to follow this story in the press? And I don't mean just local papers but national ones. Is there anything at all that I / we can do to help you?
In terms of firepower and resources, it is a bit like a bloke with a sling or a bow and arrow up against a bloke with a nuclear arsenal at his disposal.
Mind you, the case histories of William Tell and David provide a measure of encouragement...ironically it was the death of King David's child by Bathsheba that got Dr Kate McCann reading one section of her Bible very avidly, in 2 Samuel Chap 12 vv 14-24, well worth a read if you've got a dust-laden Bible on your shelves. Shortly after, they had another child. Solomon. So it wasn't all bad news.
As for what you and others can do, Nina, thanks very much for asking, I would suggest:
* keep digging,
* publicise all relevant facts about the case,
* support Goncalo Amaral's support fund and, if possible,
* come and support me by being at the trial, it will be great to be among a few friends when I go down - or stay up.
Oh, and if you haven't already done so, please sign the petition calling for a full public enquiry into all aspects of the disappearance of Madeleine McCann; our support for this petition is listed as 'Breach of Undertaking No. 89' on the Carter-Ruck list of my 149 alleged breaches of my undertaking; to sign, click on the Care2 icon on our home page: www.madeleinefoundation.org.uk
As the petition itself is listed as a possible breach of my undertaking, there is a real risk that the court, after the trial, might order its removal.
Tony Bennett- Posts: 5777
Join date: 2009-11-25
Age: 65
Location: Harlow, Essex
A reply to Kololi
Tony Bennett on Mon Jan 23, 2012 12:46 pm
Kololi wrote:Surely if your fees are likely to run to such a huge amount then the costs of their legal support is also likely to be massive too.
REPLY: Someone at Carter-Ruck has had to take instructions from the McCanns, probably Senior Partner Adam Tudor, but it is usually Isabel Hudson's name that the letters go out from.
Someone at Carter-Ruck has had to read, select, photocopy many times and collate 2,000 pages of 149 alleged breaches of my undertaking.
Someone put Mike Gunnill up to trying to buy a book in the name of Michael Sangerte (Alleged Breach of Undertaking No. 1, by the way).
Carter-Ruck and the McCanns probably had to read every single one of my 3,700-odd posts on Jill's forum before deciding which 50 or so, in their terms, breached my undertaking (the other 3,650 or so presumably were not breaches of my undertaking) and they had to presumably read every single one of our articles on our website before deciding which 10 out of the 60 breached my undertaking). It looks like the McCanns think I crossed some 'line' in 50 postings here, but not the other 3,650. I have to say it is very hard to know where the line should be drawn.
Carter-Ruck have written three letters to me before August 2011 and they and the McCanns would have had to read and deal with my replies.
Then there are the hours every day they spend on this forum hunting for possibly libels - Jill has all the daily records from Peter carter-Ruck's I.P. address.
The question has certainly been asked before: exactly who is paying for all this?
According to Dr Kate McCann on page 289 of her book 'madeleine', all the work of Adam Tudor and Isabel Hudosn is being given 'without payment'. Until they decided to bring contempt proceedings against me, it seems.
I understand a retainer agreement to be a sum of money placed up front with the solicitor. It is placed in a trust fund and drawn upon as work is completed. Where would the money that was required up front have come from?
REPLY: As a matter of law, Solicitors and their clients cannot, except in truly exceptional cases, be forced to disclose their source(s) of funding. The McCanns could make a voluntary disclosure; if so, that would of course sit very well with their oft-repeated claim to be 'open and transparent' about all that they do (excepting of course Clarence Mitchell's oft-repeated dictum that nothing may be disclosed about all their private investigations 'for operational reasons').
I am guessing from Madeleine's fund or from one of the people who it is said is sponsoring their legal costs. Heck I am just working class so maybe that sort of money with no strings attached is a spit in the ocean for a wealthy sponser but it still seems odd to me when you start to see the potential amount in black and white.
With no offence meant to you Mr Bennett why would they spend all this money on attacking somebody that, in the great scheme of things, is potentially small fry. The newspapers makes more sense but your reach to Joe Public is not as big as a daily or weekly paper.
REPLY: I think there may be two elements as to why the McCanns have, in their words, picked me for their 'battle'. One is that they may have a perception that our 'reach' with our booklets, leaflets, website, petitions etc., is greater than it actually is. The second reason may be [withheld for legal reasons].
Good luck and no sneering from me if you are able to settle this without going to court.
REPLY: I doubt it this time, though I have made an offer to the McCanns which I am not at liberty to disclose.
You have your family, your home and livelihood to think of so do what you need to do to look after yourself.
Tony Bennett- Posts: 5777
Join date: 2009-11-25
Age: 65
Location: Harlow, Essex
Page 1 of 9 • 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
Similar topics» Life in prison ??
» 20% off Children's Place Coupon expires 8/31/08
» Where is the best place to find information and talk with other traders?
» Casey Anthony Murder Trial Set For 2011
» MCCANNS v BENNETT - The committal to prison trial will take place for 1 or 2 days, sometime in April or later
» 20% off Children's Place Coupon expires 8/31/08
» Where is the best place to find information and talk with other traders?
» Casey Anthony Murder Trial Set For 2011
» MCCANNS v BENNETT - The committal to prison trial will take place for 1 or 2 days, sometime in April or later
The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™ :: Welcome :: Carter-Ruck / McCanns / Amaral / Bennett / Smethurst / Kennedy Libel Trials and Lawsuits
Page 1 of 9
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum