McCanns v Bennett: 153 alleged breaches reduced to 25

Page 24 of 26 Previous  1 ... 13 ... 23, 24, 25, 26  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: McCanns v Bennett: 153 alleged breaches reduced to 25

Post  aquila on Mon Mar 12, 2012 7:54 am

Gillyspot wrote:Were they stalling for time to get their "honeytrap" on Paiva finished or is it simply they are scared now to go back to Portugal because of the Scotland Yard and PJ work? I would imagine that if they go back to PT they could well be easily kept there if things are going as I hope.

and what affect does this have on the timing on the 'new-improved bewk' launch? they may well need to delay that.

aquila

Posts: 3799
Join date: 2011-09-03

Back to top Go down

McCanns v Bennett: UPDATE 12.3.12

Post  Tony Bennett on Mon Mar 12, 2012 9:09 am

I post this update in the McCanns -v- Bennett committal-to-prison application for information - but will be unable to take questions on it.

Following the Case Management hearing before Mr Justice Tugendhat in the High Court on 8 February, I wrote on 13 February making proposals to Carter-Ruck for this matter to be settled without the need for what would undoubtedly be a stressful, and costly, High Court trial, now fixed for 9 and 10 May.

My proposals were not accepted.

Instead, Carter-Ruck replied on 20 February setting out the McCanns' terms for settling this matter before 9 May:

1. I admit that I have breached the undertakings given by me to the High Court on 25 November 2009

2. I formally acknowledge that these undertakings are binding on me

3. I agree to be bound by a Court injunction (instead of undertakings) in exactly the same terms as those I agreed to in 2009

4. That I 'use my best endeavours' to remove all publications, articles and postings by myself, wherever they are, to which the McCanns object, and specifically all of the 153 publications which they claimed in the original committal bundle on 1 December were breaches of one or more of my undertakings. That would include their demand that I cease to sell the book 'The Madeleine McCann Case Files: Vol 1'

5. I pay the McCanns' 'reasonable costs' of bringing the application, those costs to be assessed by the court if they cannot be agreed between me and the McCanns.

If all of that is agreed by me, they will, in return, agree not to press the court for me to be sent to prison, fined, or have my assets seized, although they point out (correctly) that despite any agreement between me and the McCanns, the court would have the right, if it saw fit, to impose any sanction that the judge saw fit to do so under the circumstances.

Carter-Ruck's letter (which by the way is not marked 'Private & Confidential' nor is it 'Without Prejudice') concludes:

"If you are not willing to agree to such terms, then our clients will be left with no choice but to pursue their application against you and to seek a final determination from the court".

HELP WANTED

I now have until Friday 23 March to submit to the Court and to Carter-Ruck a sworn Affidavit setting out in full my reasons for the application I issued at Court on 22 February to be released from Part C of my undertakings, namely that part which in effect required me not to libel the McCanns any further.

I have now completed a first draft of that.

I have one or two people advising me on the contents. If any of you here have some time during the next 5 days to look over the Affidavit (or a part of it, it's quite long), and offer comments and suggestions, please 'pm' me ASAP or e-mail me at: ajsbennett@btinternet.com

Once again, I'm sorry, but this posting is for information only, I won't be joining any discussion about it.

____________________


Tony Bennett

Posts: 8046
Join date: 2009-11-25
Age: 66
Location: Harlow, Essex

Back to top Go down

Re: McCanns v Bennett: 153 alleged breaches reduced to 25

Post  Spaniel on Mon Mar 12, 2012 2:29 pm

How ruddy dare they!!

"Applications for an interim injunction are great fun (if you win), exhilarating, and the nearest legal equivalent to accident and emergency surgery" Quoted from the CR website.

There is no comparison in securing an interim injunction, to A&E theatre where the team is striving to save a life.

So they think working long hours on NHS pay, seeing things no one should have to, is fun?

Interesting? Yes. Rewarding? Of course. Fun it ain't!

For anyone able to stomach the overall feeling of "glee" in the piece, it makes for interesting reading.

http://www.carter-ruck.com/Media%20Law/publicationDetails.asp?ID=1

Spaniel

Posts: 743
Join date: 2012-01-24

Back to top Go down

Contempt of the portuguese Court

Post  Portia on Mon Mar 12, 2012 3:31 pm

Gillyspot wrote:Were they stalling for time to get their "honeytrap" on Paiva finished or is it simply they are scared now to go back to Portugal because of the Scotland Yard and PJ work? I would imagine that if they go back to PT they could well be easily kept there if things are going as I hope.

Quite. After all, where are the 7500 books belonging to dr Amaral which they so far have failed to return?

Portia

Posts: 2098
Join date: 2012-02-06

Back to top Go down

Re: McCanns v Bennett: 153 alleged breaches reduced to 25

Post  david_uk on Mon Mar 12, 2012 3:44 pm

Dear Tony

Out of interest, what was the best you where expecting as a response from TM/CR ?.

Good luck whatever you decide. I personally hope you take it to court.

____________________
“Oh, what a tangled web we weave...when first we practice to deceive.”
Walter Scott, Marmion

david_uk

Posts: 320
Join date: 2012-01-20

Back to top Go down

Re: McCanns v Bennett: 153 alleged breaches reduced to 25

Post  tiny on Mon Mar 12, 2012 4:30 pm

i personally hope you take them to court too, they are just trying to frighten you so THEY dont have to go to court,but you have to do whats right by you and your family.

tiny

Posts: 1620
Join date: 2010-02-03

Back to top Go down

Re: McCanns v Bennett: 153 alleged breaches reduced to 25

Post  rainbow-fairy on Mon Mar 12, 2012 6:20 pm

I find the sheer cheek of this absolutely maddening;

Just my opinion of course, but if this is how the land lies then Tony has absolutely NOTHING to lose by fighting this but MUCH to gain. Don't let them intimidate you Tony. Seems to me they are running scared. The death throes are always the most violent.
Instead, Carter-Ruck replied on 20 February setting out the McCanns' terms for settling this matter before 9 May:

1. I admit that I have breached the undertakings given by me to the High Court on 25 November 2009

2. I formally acknowledge that these undertakings are binding on me

3. I agree to be bound by a Court injunction (instead of undertakings) in exactly the same terms as those I agreed to in 2009

4. That I 'use my best endeavours' to remove all publications, articles and postings by myself, wherever they are, to which the McCanns object, and specifically all of the 153 publications which they claimed in the original committal bundle on 1 December were breaches of one or more of my undertakings. That would include their demand that I cease to sell the book 'The Madeleine McCann Case Files: Vol 1'

5. I pay the McCanns' 'reasonable costs' of bringing the application, those costs to be assessed by the court if they cannot be agreed between me and the McCanns.


If all of that is agreed by me, they will, in return, agree not to press the court for me to be sent to prison, fined, or have my assets seized, although they point out (correctly) that despite any agreement between me and the McCanns, the court would have the right, if it saw fit, to impose any sanction that the judge saw fit to do so under the circumstances.

This sickens me beyond belief.
So what that says in a nutshell is that Tony MUST agree to be bound by court injunction to NEVER repeat, for example, the 48 questions Kate refused to answer - freely available on the BBC website, no less. He cannot say what you, I, or Uncle Tom Cobbley can freely repeat. He will be completely bound and gagged by the McCanns, and maybe be ordered to kiss their boots and crumple to their every demand and whim YET he can still be imprisoned anyway?

My God, please somebody stop these people. They are sick in the head!

____________________
"Ask the dogs, Sandra" - Gerry McCann to Sandra Felgueiras



Truth is artless and innocent - like the eloquence of nature, it is clothed with simplicity and easy persuasion; always open to investigation and analysis, it seeks exposure because it fears not detection.

NORMAN MACDONALD, Maxims and Moral Reflections.

rainbow-fairy

Posts: 1791
Join date: 2011-05-26
Age: 39
Location: going round in circles

Back to top Go down

Re: McCanns v Bennett: 153 alleged breaches reduced to 25

Post  Portia on Mon Mar 12, 2012 7:06 pm

rainbow-fairy wrote:I find the sheer cheek of this absolutely maddening;

Just my opinion of course, but if this is how the land lies then Tony has absolutely NOTHING to lose by fighting this but MUCH to gain. Don't let them intimidate you Tony. Seems to me they are running scared. The death throes are always the most violent.
Instead, Carter-Ruck replied on 20 February setting out the McCanns' terms for settling this matter before 9 May:

1. I admit that I have breached the undertakings given by me to the High Court on 25 November 2009

2. I formally acknowledge that these undertakings are binding on me

3. I agree to be bound by a Court injunction (instead of undertakings) in exactly the same terms as those I agreed to in 2009

4. That I 'use my best endeavours' to remove all publications, articles and postings by myself, wherever they are, to which the McCanns object, and specifically all of the 153 publications which they claimed in the original committal bundle on 1 December were breaches of one or more of my undertakings. That would include their demand that I cease to sell the book 'The Madeleine McCann Case Files: Vol 1'

5. I pay the McCanns' 'reasonable costs' of bringing the application, those costs to be assessed by the court if they cannot be agreed between me and the McCanns.


If all of that is agreed by me, they will, in return, agree not to press the court for me to be sent to prison, fined, or have my assets seized, although they point out (correctly) that despite any agreement between me and the McCanns, the court would have the right, if it saw fit, to impose any sanction that the judge saw fit to do so under the circumstances.

This sickens me beyond belief.
So what that says in a nutshell is that Tony MUST agree to be bound by court injunction to NEVER repeat, for example, the 48 questions Kate refused to answer - freely available on the BBC website, no less. He cannot say what you, I, or Uncle Tom Cobbley can freely repeat. He will be completely bound and gagged by the McCanns, and maybe be ordered to kiss their boots and crumple to their every demand and whim YET he can still be imprisoned anyway?

My God, please somebody stop these people. They are sick in the head!

Caution: even if TB agrees to eat shit, he'll not be let off the hook.
He has to agree to pay CR too.

CR, they of the 153 minus 143 plus 15 charges against TB.
Of the 'fun' of dragging pople through the courts .

Makes one wonder why Great Britain never joined the European Union fully; Here, TB would be allowed a pro bono lawyer in civilibus at least.

Portia

Posts: 2098
Join date: 2012-02-06

Back to top Go down

Re: McCanns v Bennett: 153 alleged breaches reduced to 25

Post  aiyoyo on Tue Mar 13, 2012 9:51 am

Instead, Carter-Ruck replied on 20 February setting out the McCanns' terms for settling this matter before 9 May:

Given that CR's letter is before all the latest news about the Yard's development and announcement of Oporto team as joint reviewers, is it too much to hope that the mccanns had since changed their stance? They are indeed arrogant and presumptions so who knows. Maybe they cant or wont get off the tiger no matter what .....

aiyoyo

Posts: 7294
Join date: 2009-11-28

Back to top Go down

New Libel Reform Bill may be announced on 9 May this year

Post  Tony Bennett on Thu Mar 15, 2012 11:47 pm

Tonight I attended a packed meeting of the Libel Reform Campaign, held at The Great Hall, Inner Temple, London.

It was very informative; I'll try and post up a report on the meeting later.

Many comments were made about the individuals and corporations who, armed with wealth and power, acted as 'playground bullies', getting their way with intimidating writs; these, said many speakers, had a 'chilling effect' on the recipients.

One of the speakers was renowned judge Sir Stephen Sedley, who has made some good judgments in the past; he has been chairing an advisory group on the reform of Britain's libel laws. Another was Nick Cohen, Observer and Spectator journalist.

Also present was Minister of State at the Ministry of Justice, Lord McNally, who said he was working hard at getting the Defamation Bill, or the Libel Reform Bill as it may be called, through in the next Parliamentary session.

If he is successful, an announcement will be made in the Queen's Speech.

Which is already fixed for Wednesday 9 May.

The day my committal-to-prison trial begins...

____________________


Tony Bennett

Posts: 8046
Join date: 2009-11-25
Age: 66
Location: Harlow, Essex

Back to top Go down

Page 24 of 26 Previous  1 ... 13 ... 23, 24, 25, 26  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

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