Letter 25 Jan 2013 to Carter-Ruck and the Court about THAT proposed settlement with Dr Amaral: is this now an 'Abuse of Process'?

by **Tony Bennett** 25.01.13 20:36

Below is a letter sent today to Carter-Ruck and to the High Court regarding the implications of the McCanns suddenly withdrawing from the final trial of their action against Dr Goncalo Amaral and, instead, seeiking a settlement with him.

COURT DETAILS 5th & 6th FEBRUARY

The trial is likley (but not absolutely certain) to be before Mr Justice Tugendhat, who adjudicatedat a Case Management hearing in February, and issued a ruling in the case (published on this forum) on 24 October 2012.

It is likely (but not absolutely certain) to start at 10.30am on Tuesday 5 February and is scheduled to last 1.5 days.

I have to check with the Queen's Bench Listing Clerks after 2pm on Monday 4 February to find out which court the hearing is in, and for confirmation of the name of the judge.

For anyone thinking of attending part or all of the trial:

* The hearing is at the Royal Court of Justice, The Strand

* To find out where the case is to be heard, report to reception (just after you've cleared security) or check the noticeboards just behind reception

* The case is in open court. Anyone can attend

* Mobile 'phones, blackberries, smartphones and laptops are all ALLOWED within the Court precincts. In the Court room itself, mobile 'phones and anything esle with a ringtone must be switched off. No audio or visual recording may be made of the proceedings. Laptops are normally allowed and may be used in Court although the judge has discretion to refuse that depending on the circumstances

* Lunch break is normally 1pm to 2pm, courts normally rise at 4.30pm

* There are various cafes around. I hope to meet with known supporters for breakfast at around 9am on the first day of the trial, for more details of the vensue please contact me by e-mail or 'phone below.

FINALLY, at the last hearing, the eight people who kindly came to support me behaved impeccably, which is as it should be. The only person who misbehaved in Court was McCann-supporter Justine Spencer who was reprimanded by Mr Justice Tugendhat for using her rmobile 'phone. The rule is: keep quiet, no talking or whispering, no tut-tutting of other audible gasps or sounds

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

TONY to CARTER-RUCK 25 January 2013

This letter was sent earlier today:

======================

From: Tony Bennett
Tel: 07835 716537
e-mail: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Mr Adam Tudor,
for Carter-Ruck,
Solicitors
6 St. Andrew Street
LONDON
EC4A 3AE

Your ref: Adam Tudor/Isabel Martorell, formerly Hudson
AT/IH/SVL/HMP/13837.5
For the attention of Adam Tudor & Isobel Martorell
At [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Copied to:

Mr James Tipp
Deputy Court Manager
Queen's Bench Division Listing Office
Strand
LONDON
WC2A 2LL

Claim No HQ 09 D 05196 Gerry McCann & Kate McCann v Tony Bennett
For the attention of Mr Green or Mr James Tipp

At: qbjudgeslistingoffice

Dear Mr Tudor

re: McCanns v Bennett: Committal Proceedings - YOUR CLIENTS' LETTER TO SNR SANTOS E OLIVEIRA, SOLICITOR FOR DR GONCALO AMARAL, early January 2013, offering Dr Amaral a settlement and asking for an adjournment

On this occasion, and for the first time in a four-year history of correspondence between your firm and myself, I am writing to you personally, on behalf of your firm, because of the significance of the issue concerned.

You are a Senior Partner of Carter-Ruck and have many times been publicly associated with your clients Dr Gerald and Dr Kate McCann, not least when you attended the DCMS Select Committee on press freedom and standards in March 2009, and more recently in the book, ‘madeleine’, written by Dr Kate McCann. On page 289 of her book, she paid personal tribute to you, explaining that you and your colleague Ms Martorell “continue to do a vast amount of work for us, without payment, most of it quietly behind the scenes”. She praises you there for your “invaluable advice”, whilst on page 382 she pays further tribute to you as someone who “has laboured faithfully out of the goodness of his heart…regardless of the day or the hour”. She adds how much she has appreciated your “priceless expertise and commitment”. These are rare words of tribute from a client to her lawyer.

The matter I wish to raise with you as a matter of some urgency arises from your clients’ conduct in withdrawing, at the last minute, from pursuing their libel claim at the final trial of their action against Dr Goncalo Amaral, which was due to have started in the Lisbon Civil Court yesterday.

After your clients have been pursuing him in the Portuguese civil courts for nearly four years, it has become clear in the past few days that your clients have requested a six-month adjournment of the case, in order to reach an out-of-court ‘settlement’ with Dr Amaral. This raises, in my judgment, significant questions in relation to their conduct, both against him - and now, in 11 days’ time, in continuing to press the High Court to impose a term of imprisonment on me for alleged contempt of court.

These are questions also for yourself, as your firm and you personally have been advising them throughout. No doubt your firm and Ms Isabel Duarte, your clients’ Portuguese lawyer, have been in very close contact with each other throughout the four years of your clients’ claim against Dr Amaral.

The history of the McCanns’ claim against Dr Goncalo Amaral

This has been the subject of much correspondence between us, but in the current situation I will briefly set out the key events:

· In July 2008, Dr Amaral published a book, the English title of which was ‘The Truth About A Lie’. In summary, the book gives a history of the investigation into Madeleine McCann’s reported disappearance, under his leadership, for the five months May to October 2007. The subsequent release on DVDsby the Portuguese Police of the vast majority of the huge amount of documentation in the case backed up the assertions of fact he made in his book. He reached three key main conclusions, and explains in the book precisely why:

a) That Madeleine McCann died in your clients’ holiday apartment in Praia da Luz

b) That your clients lied about what had happened to Madeleine, and

c) That your clients covered up her death and, with or without the help of others, hid her body.

Your clients maintain, as stated in one of your letters to me, that ‘there is not one scintilla of credible evidence’ to support his conclusions. As you know, many people disagree, contending that there is credible evidence to support Dr Goncalo Amaral’s claims. I am one of them, and that is why your clients are applying to the Court on 5 & 6 February to impose a term of imprisonment on me.

I consider that my publications do not go beyond Dr Amaral’s hypothesis as set out briefly above. For example, Dr Amaral suggests, in the absence of compelling evidence to the contrary, that it is likely that Madeleine died as the result of an accident, possibly when your clients were not present with her. The same conclusion was set out, as you know, in the interim report of Inspector Tavares de Almeida. As you know from your firm’s extensive perusal of my many lengthy articles and internet postings, I have never ventured beyond Dr Amaral’s own main conclusions on what really happened to your clients’ daughter.

· Your clients threatened at the time to sue Dr Amaral for libel, claiming the book was untrue, extremely hurtful and would ‘harm the search for Madeleine’. However, they did not do so until either June or July 2009, around one year later. By that time, Dr Amaral’s book had sold some 200,000 copies, an hour-long documentary based on his book had been seen by 2 million Portuguese people, and several editions of his book in different European languages were in print or being prepared.

· Your clients claimed 1.2 million euros damages (£1 million) against Dr Amaral, his publishers and the TV company which showed his documentary. They both claimed to have suffered emotionally and physically in a number of ways, adding that they were ‘irreparably damaged’.

· In September 2009, your clients obtained a draconian order against Dr Amaral, banning his book, and requiring him and his publishers to return all copies of it and physically hand them over to the custody of your clients’ Portuguese lawyer, Isabel Duarte. I believe some sort of financial order was also obtained against his assets.

· After four days of hearings in January and February 2010, the Lisbon High Court dismissed an appeal by Dr Amaral against the order made in September 2010.

· In October 2010, the Portuguese Appeal Court reversed that decision. It determined that in considering the delicate balance between freedom of speech and the right to preservation of one’s reputation, Dr Amaral’s right to free speech under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights had been violated. They ordered the immediate unbanning of his book. They also ordered your clients to pay Dr Amaral’s costs.

· Your clients appealed this decision to the Portuguese Supreme Court. They lost again, in March 2011. The court dismissed their appeal. Dr Amaral’s book remained unbanned. As I understand it, your clients were again required to pay his reasonable costs associated with the hearing.

· Your clients nevertheless continued with their claim that Dr Amaral’s book libelled them, continued to seek the banning of his book, and continued to seek 1.2 million euros damages. The final trial was scheduled to begin yesterday, 24 January. Both sides continued to prepare for this ‘final showdown’.

The letter sent by your clients’ Portuguese lawyer to Dr Amaral’s lawyer and the Portuguese Civil Court earlier this month

Just over a week ago, rumours circulated that your clients had asked the Court and Dr Amaral’s lawyer for an adjournment so that a settlement could be reached. In the Affidavit of your colleague Isabel Martorell sworn and served on me today (paragraph 13), she states the following:

“…I understand that the trial, which had been due to take place in January 2013, has been postponed at the request of the Claimants’ lawyer, to allow the parties to explore whether a settlement may be reached which gives the Claimants sufficient vindication and protection in the future”.

However, information I have now received this week, confirmed in writing, from a source who has been very close to Dr Amaral for many years, and to his solicitor, Snr Santos e Oliveira, gives a fuller - and more concerning - picture.

The source spoke personally to Snr Santos e Oliveira earlier this week. He confirmed thatyour clients’ Portuguese lawyer wrote to him and to the Civil Court, on or about 8 January, with these proposals:

1. To adjourn the trial for 6 months

2. To seek a settlement with Dr Amaral.

I am informed that after taking Dr Amaral’s instructions, Snr Santos e Oliveiraagreed. That letter is significant in relation to the parallel proceedings against me. I believe that this letter is relevant to your clients’ attempt to jail me for contempt and, as requested in a letter written by hand at your offices today, I should be grateful if you could forward me a copy of it without delay by return. If I do not receive a copy, I shall ask the judge if it ought to be produced.

The current position vis-à-vis Dr Amaral and myself

For five years your clients and their spokesman have regularly denigrated the Portuguese police and of course Dr Amaral in particular. Using their legal might, they have pursued Dr Amaral for four years, no doubt costing themselves and Dr Amaral tens if not hundreds of thousands of pounds in the process. Nor is there any doubt that the legal onslaught on him has been emotionally, as well as financially, very costly.

In addition, your clients have pursued Dr Amaral in the criminal courts, arranging via Metodo 3 for lawyer Marcos Aragao Correia to represent Ms Leonor Cipriano, the convicted murderess of her own child, 8-year-old Joana, in a claim of alleged torture against him and four other detectives.

For the past 2 years and 3 months, Dr Amaral’s book has been unbanned, based on the Portuguese Courts’ interpretation of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Your clients have maintained that Dr Amaral is a wicked man who has libelled them and done untold damage to themselves and the search for Madeleine. They have been claiming £1 million damages from him and his publishers.

Yet now, just two weeks away from the beginning of the final trial of the action, as Snr Santos e Oliveira and Dr Amaral were completing their extensive preparations for that trial, it now seems clear that your clients are unwilling or unable to prosecute their claim and are suing for peace.

A claimant seeking to settle a case is most unusual - and I suggest, with respect, that the prospects for your clients achieving any of their goals in this very expensive litigation have as a result, without doubt, receded significantly.

The prospect of your clients succeeding in banning Dr Amaral’s book must surely now be rated as negligible. As you know, in the Court Documents submitted in this action, I have pointed out that Dr Amarals’ book has been:

* read by many in Portugal, with over 200,000 copies sold,

* has been translated into 9 European languages,

* is available to read in over 30 countries, and

* has been translated into English (albeit without the publisher’s consent) and is available at several places on the internet (as you and your clients must be aware), and

* has been allowed by the top two courts in Portugal to go back on sale, consistent with Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The primary facts and arguments on which I rely for all my publications about the reported disappearance of Madeleine McCann are essentially derived from Dr Amaral’s 220-page book, ‘The Truth About A Lie’. His conclusions (as set out above) can be freely read and discussed in many countries and in England. Your clients have been powerless to stop its widespread distribution, yet you are pursuing one individual, myself, for doing no more than what thousands of others are also doing, namely, repeating Dr Amara’s central three allegations.

Your clients have tried to sue him for libel, but have failed after 4 years of litigation to do so, and their prospects of succeeding look increasingly remote.

Your clients have tried to ban Dr Amaral’s book (albeit that they left it a year before suing him), and failed - but not only failed, they have incurred large costs in doing so.

Many people doubt your clients’ version of what happened to Madeleine and openly say so on a regular basis. As is clear from the Exhibits in my Affidavits, books have been written by professionals in their field, such as criminologists, police officers and psychologists, echoing the views of Dr Amaral in one form or another. The list of websites, forums, blogs and videos, including those on the popular video-sharing website, YouTube (as per my Affidavit), which openly doubt your clients’ account of what happened to Madeleine is large, and growing all the time. Your clients are powerless to stop this amount of open dissent. You and your fellow-lawyers at Carter-Ruck must know this as well. Yet your firm persists in trying to convict me of contempt of court, knowing that if they succeed, quite apart from any term of imprisonment, payment of even a significant proportion of your costs to date will inevitably involve personal bankruptcy.

Your recorded costs in pursuing the committal application against me were already ‘well over £120,000’ by 19 April, and may well be reaching £200,000 by now.

I invite you to consider that given the circumstances outlined above, a judge might well consider that to continue to prosecute me for contempt, against the background I have set out above, when only a few days ago your clients have withdrawn from the final libel trial against the author of what your clients maintain is the source the original libels, might be considered an abuse of process. That is why I believe the Court should see the letter sent on or about 8 January 2013 to the Court and to Snr Santos e Oliveira.

Yours sincerely

Tony Bennett

by Guest 25.01.13 21:02

Wow, Tony, so you have it confirmed.........

However, information I have now received this week, confirmed in writing, from a source who has been very close to Dr Amaral for many years, and to his solicitor, Snr Santos e Oliveira, gives a fuller - and more concerning - picture.

The source spoke personally to Snr Santos e Oliveira earlier this week. He confirmed thatyour clients’ Portuguese lawyer wrote to him and to the Civil Court, on or about 8 January, with these proposals:

1. To adjourn the trial for 6 months

2. To seek a settlement with Dr Amaral.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by Guest 25.01.13 21:03

Privately, Tony. You shouldn't be doing this in public.

by bristow 25.01.13 21:09

Excellent letter but it worries me sick that you have made it public.

by **Tony Bennett** 25.01.13 21:12

candyfloss, yes, confirmed to me a couple of days ago - and the very important point is that Snr Santos e Oliveira told my contact that this letter from Isobel Duarte, dated around 8 to 10 January, came completely out of the blue - just as he was busy with last-minute preparations for Dr Amaral's trial of his life and then...suddenly...from the McCanns...can we please settle...can we please have an adjournment...

No wonder there's nothing about this dramatic move on the McCanns' 'Find Madeleine' website, nor any word from the McCanns' mouthpiece for the past five-and-a-half years, Clarence Mitchell.

I understand he is ill at the moment.

It is invariably DEFENDANTS who ask for a settlement.

It is almost never CLAIMANTS. It doesn't take an Einstein to work out that the McCanns' negotiating position and bargaining power has reduced measurably since the start of the month. And that's probably something of an understatement.

by bristow 25.01.13 21:16

Tony Bennett wrote:
I understand he is ill at the moment.
.

Hopefully not Snr Amaral or do you mean Clarence Mitchell?

by Guest 25.01.13 21:18

Tony Bennett wrote:candyfloss, yes, confirmed to me a couple of days ago - and the very important point is that Snr Santos e Oliveira told my contact that this letter from Isobel Duarte, dated around 8 to 10 January, came completely out of the blue - just as he was busy with last-minute preparations for Dr Amaral's trial of his life and then...suddenly...from the McCanns...can we please settle...can we please have an adjournment...

No wonder there's nothing about this dramatic move on the McCanns' 'Find Madeleine' website, nor any word from the McCanns' mouthpiece for the past five-and-a-half years, Clarence Mitchell.

I understand he is ill at the moment.

It is invariably DEFENDANTS who ask for a settlement.

It is almost never CLAIMANTS. It doesn't take an Einstein to work out that the McCanns' negotiating position and bargaining power has reduced measurably since the start of the month. And that's probably something of an understatement.

Who's ill Clarence Mitchell, he tweeted not long ago from Davos in Switzerland.

Clarence Mitchell‏@mitch_1uk

by **Tony Bennett** 25.01.13 21:23

candyfloss wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:candyfloss, yes, confirmed to me a couple of days ago - and the very important point is that Snr Santos e Oliveira told my contact that this letter from Isobel Duarte, dated around 8 to 10 January, came completely out of the blue - just as he was busy with last-minute preparations for Dr Amaral's trial of his life and then...suddenly...from the McCanns...can we please settle...can we please have an adjournment...

No wonder there's nothing about this dramatic move on the McCanns' 'Find Madeleine' website, nor any word from the McCanns' mouthpiece for the past five-and-a-half years, Clarence Mitchell.

I understand he is ill at the moment.

Who's ill Clarence Mitchell, he tweeted not long ago from Davos in Switzerland.

Clarence Mitchell‏@mitch_1uk

I read the other day that Clarence Mitchell was ill and unable to take calls, looks like he's recovered, then, to join his Bilderberger Group friends in Davos, and help plan the New Wolrd Order

by **Nina** 25.01.13 21:25

Please, please, please Tony, as much as I am pleased to hear from you don't make any more public posts like this, they are out to get you.

by margaret 25.01.13 21:31

Well done Tony. That ought to irritate the hell out of them all. Good for you.

I don't think you'll be going to court at this rate.

by **Tony Bennett** 25.01.13 21:33

Nina wrote:Please, please, please Tony, as much as I am pleased to hear from you don't make any more public posts like this, they are out to get you.

Nina, I am reminded of a comment made by Dr Goncalo Amaral, reported in Correia da Manha, 16 April 2011.

He made this comment just after he learnt that the Public Ministry had dropped its investigation into a criminal complaint made by the McCanns' Portuguese lawyer, Isobel Duarte, who had filed a complaint asking Dr Amaral to be prosecuted for allegedly filing a false statement of means in his attempt, with his legal costs rising all the time due to the libel action, to apply for Legal Aid.

Dr Amaral aid:

"This is another defeat for the McCann couple. It is another setback in their attempts to destroy me by legal action".

by Guest 25.01.13 21:39

You're destroying yourself.

"It is a rule of law of great importance that undertakings to the court (like injunctions) must be obeyed so long as they are in force. If a party restrained by such an order wishes to contend that the order ought not to have been made, or ought not to remain in force, it is not open to that party to ignore the order and then, if faced with a committal application, to ask for that committal application to be adjourned pending the determination of an application
to vary the undertaking or injunction. If that were permitted, the administration of justice would be seriously undermined: injunctions and undertakings would not be the effective remedies that they are required to be."

by Dr What 25.01.13 21:47

It may well be that the legal strategy now is to concentrate on stifling debate and opinion in the UK.European and American courts appear to support freedom of speech more readily than British courts and hence easier to protect clients who have something to conceal.Perhaps they can see that the legal action in Portugal is a waste of time and effort and expense, hence throw all the efforts into protecting the McCann image on the home front.After all, what media outlet will even report what is going on in Portugal.

It is only when issues like this arise that one realises just how backward and restrictive the English judicial system is.And how sad is that.

Take care Tony.

by Woofer 25.01.13 21:55

Great Tony and the best of luck.

To other worried posters - Tony hasn`t given anything away in that letter. And its good that he displays his correspondence with them on the internet, that way they can`t be underhanded. I`m sure Tony never shows all his cards !

by Guest 25.01.13 21:58

Well, just think, had this been a few years ago, noone would have heard of this case going to court, it would have all been done quietly and finished.

That is one good thing about the internet, things that were once hushed up and I'm talking about anything here, not this case, were in the old days between just a few people, and noone knew anything and we were none the wiser. Injuctions, D notices etc., but nowadays with twitter and forums and blogs, things get out and uncovered.......as we have seen in recent months, with hacking, child abuse etc.

There doesn't seem to be anything in Tony's letter that is a 'secret' or that isn't all over the internet, and what hasn't been said by him before, he was only quoting what has happened to Mr Amaral. The only thing is he has confirmed the story in the Portuguese Press, and Blacksmiths blog, that we knew anyway.

by kinell 25.01.13 21:58

Dr What wrote:It may well be that the legal strategy now is to concentrate on stifling debate and opinion in the UK.European and American courts appear to support freedom of speech more readily than British courts and hence easier to protect clients who have something to conceal.Perhaps they can see that the legal action in Portugal is a waste of time and effort and expense, hence throw all the efforts into protecting the McCann image on the home front.After all, what media outlet will even report what is going on in Portugal.

It is only when issues like this arise that one realises just how backward and restrictive the English judicial system is.And how sad is that.

Take care Tony.

Well said.

The word is spreading around the world, and in the UK, thanks to twitter, facebook, blogs, websites, forums and the internet in general. They may well be throwing all their efforts into Tony's case but whether they like it or not this case will eventually come out in the UK.

There is no hiding place for the perpetrators of the crime against Madeleine. People will not give up. More and more people are learning about this case and it will be discussed for many decades just like other mysterious crimes.

The McCanns have created a wildfire which will not go out, even if they get their wish and TB is sent to prison.

This is the legacy the McCanns have left for their children/grandchildren and it is the legacy the T9 have left for their children/grandchildren.

It's not something I would want to live with.

by Guest 25.01.13 22:06

candyfloss wrote:Well, just think, had this been a few years ago, noone would have heard of this case going to court, it would have all been done quietly and finished.

That is one good thing about the internet, things that were once hushed up and I'm talking about anything here, not this case, were in the old days between just a few people, and noone knew anything and we were none the wiser. Injuctions, D notices etc., but nowadays with twitter and forums and blogs, things get out and uncovered.......as we have seen in recent months, with hacking, child abuse etc.

There doesn't seem to be anything in Tony's letter that is a 'secret' or that isn't all over the internet, and what hasn't been said by him before, he was only quoting what has happened to Mr Amaral. The only thing is he has confirmed the story in the Portuguese Press, and Blacksmiths blog, that we knew anyway.

He breached his undertakings (again) by making it public, and Justice Tugendhat was quite clear that won't be tolerated by the Court. There's nothing wrong with sending letters privately, but there is in publishing them.

It's Tony's life and he has free will, but it's a brave man who ignores the High Court.

by Guest 25.01.13 22:09

I can't see how it can be wrong to publish a letter, that you have written, that is your property? After all you can send carbon copies or copies to as many people as you like, so what's the difference? Many letters received have cc and are copied to others, as are emails.

by Woofer 25.01.13 22:14

I`m wondering if the press can ignore this now - someone is bound to tweet this info about IDs letter of the 8th Jan.

by Guest 25.01.13 22:19

candyfloss wrote:I can't see how it can be wrong to publish a letter, that you have written, that is your property? After all you can send carbon copies or copies to as many people as you like, so what's the difference? Many letters received have cc and are copied to others, as are emails.

It's what's in the letter. Tony repeats all the allegations he's not allowed to do, by order of the Court.

"The Defendant undertakes not to repeat allegations that the Claimants are guilty of, or are to be suspected of, causing the death of their daughter Madeleine McCann; and/or of disposing of her body; and/or of lying about what had happened and/or of seeking to cover up what they had done."

Justice Tugendhat says he can't simply carry on making or repeating the allegations just because he's now told the Court he shouldn't have agreed the undertakings in the first place. That's contempt of court.

by Woofer 25.01.13 22:26

tcat - but Tony has only stated Amaral`s conclusions, not his own conclusions.

by Guest 25.01.13 22:29

tcat wrote:
candyfloss wrote:I can't see how it can be wrong to publish a letter, that you have written, that is your property? After all you can send carbon copies or copies to as many people as you like, so what's the difference? Many letters received have cc and are copied to others, as are emails.
It's what's in the letter. Tony repeats all the allegations he's not allowed to do, by order of the Court.

"The Defendant undertakes not to repeat allegations that the Claimants are guilty of, or are to be suspected of, causing the death of their daughter Madeleine McCann; and/or of disposing of her body; and/or of lying about what had happened and/or of seeking to cover up what they had done."

Justice Tugendhat says he can't simply carry on making or repeating the allegations just because he's now told the Court he shouldn't have agreed the undertakings in the first place. That's contempt of court.

I have just re-read the letter, and I can't see any allegations. Tony is quoting Mr Amaral as far as I can see. You seem a little rattled tcat.

by **PeterMac** 25.01.13 22:32

The TRUTH should always be in the public domain.

Innocence demands the right to speak.
Guilt demands the right to silence.

by Guest 25.01.13 22:36

Woofer wrote:tcat - but Tony has only stated Amaral`s conclusions, not his own conclusions.

He's not allowed to do that. Doesn't matter whose conclusions they are, if they match his undertakings he can't say it.

by Inspectorfrost 25.01.13 22:37

If the Mccanns or anyone else were trying to rob me of my house in any court case just for speaking my mind I would probably splash everything over the net too,shameful despicable duo, lower than a snakes belly, AT BEST

Having said that if others in the know are advising x y z legally perhaps Tony take it on board?

Touching wood that the bullies don't win.

by Woofer 25.01.13 22:44

tcat wrote:
Woofer wrote:tcat - but Tony has only stated Amaral`s conclusions, not his own conclusions.
He's not allowed to do that. Doesn't matter whose conclusions they are, if they match his undertakings he can't say it.

Well we all worry about it, but have to trust Tony knows what he`s doing even though many don`t agree with his methods. Some say its stupidity, but some say its courage. It`s done now anyway.

by Inspectorfrost 25.01.13 22:49

Aside from any technical legalities, The Judge, good one as it seems, might wonder why they are making such a big deal of it.....hmm

by Widows Son 25.01.13 22:59

tcat wrote:He's not allowed to do that.

Can one sign away Article 10 rights?

by Guest 25.01.13 23:04

Widows Son wrote:
tcat wrote:He's not allowed to do that.
Can one sign away Article 10 rights?

The High Court seems to think so.

I am not a lawyer [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by **Tony Bennett** 25.01.13 23:04

candyfloss wrote:
tcat wrote:
candyfloss wrote:I can't see how it can be wrong to publish a letter, that you have written, that is your property? After all you can send carbon copies or copies to as many people as you like, so what's the difference? Many letters received have cc and are copied to others, as are emails.
It's what's in the letter. Tony repeats all the allegations he's not allowed to do, by order of the Court.

"The Defendant undertakes not to repeat allegations that the Claimants are guilty of, or are to be suspected of, causing the death of their daughter Madeleine McCann; and/or of disposing of her body; and/or of lying about what had happened and/or of seeking to cover up what they had done."

Justice Tugendhat says he can't simply carry on making or repeating the allegations just because he's now told the Court he shouldn't have agreed the undertakings in the first place. That's contempt of court.

I have just re-read the letter, and I can't see any allegations. Tony is quoting Mr Amaral as far as I can see. You seem a little rattled tcat.

For that matter, Mr Justice Tugendhat repeated Dr Goncalo Amaral's central allegations in a court judgment that anyone, anywhere on the internet, can read for themselves on the interrnet! He read out on the public record the three specific undertakings that I seek to set aside.

This is getting really ridiculous.

A court can repeat them, and they can be mentioned in newspapers. Loads of news media have reported what Dr Amaral's conclusions are. And I can't?

Why, 'tcat' him/herself has just repeated them, loud and clear, on this very forum.

And I can't?

Then again, one of the things that might get me sent to prison [maximum term 2 years, by the way, reduced to 1 year for good behaviour] - and is specifically pleaded against me in these proceedings as one of the 'worst breaches of my undertakings' - is my repetition of the 48 questions Dr Kate McCann refused to answer on a YouTube video [which by the way I pulled over a year ago pending the trial].

I could be sent to prison for that.

Yet the BBC and the Daily Mail both have the list on their websites - yet no action is taken against them. The list is everywhere.

There's thousands expressing doubts about the McCanns' version of events on forums and websites like this every day, yet I am to be sent to prison for making remarks far more guarded than many.

Even quoting the full report and rogatory interview of Martin Grime, one of the world's top dog handlers, is denied me - that's another 'serious breach' that could see me in Wandsworth nick by a week on Wednesday.

I am starting to get pretty angry about this...

Letter 25 Jan 2013 to Carter-Ruck and the Court about THAT proposed settlement with Dr Amaral: is this now an 'Abuse of Process'?

Letter 25 Jan 2013 to Carter-Ruck and the Court about THAT proposed settlement with Dr Amaral: is this now an 'Abuse of Process'?

Amelie McCann (aged 2): "Maddie's jammies!".

Re: Letter 25 Jan 2013 to Carter-Ruck and the Court about THAT proposed settlement with Dr Amaral: is this now an 'Abuse of Process'?

Re: Letter 25 Jan 2013 to Carter-Ruck and the Court about THAT proposed settlement with Dr Amaral: is this now an 'Abuse of Process'?

Re: Letter 25 Jan 2013 to Carter-Ruck and the Court about THAT proposed settlement with Dr Amaral: is this now an 'Abuse of Process'?

Re: Letter 25 Jan 2013 to Carter-Ruck and the Court about THAT proposed settlement with Dr Amaral: is this now an 'Abuse of Process'?

Amelie McCann (aged 2): "Maddie's jammies!".

Re: Letter 25 Jan 2013 to Carter-Ruck and the Court about THAT proposed settlement with Dr Amaral: is this now an 'Abuse of Process'?

Re: Letter 25 Jan 2013 to Carter-Ruck and the Court about THAT proposed settlement with Dr Amaral: is this now an 'Abuse of Process'?

Re: Letter 25 Jan 2013 to Carter-Ruck and the Court about THAT proposed settlement with Dr Amaral: is this now an 'Abuse of Process'?

Amelie McCann (aged 2): "Maddie's jammies!".

Re: Letter 25 Jan 2013 to Carter-Ruck and the Court about THAT proposed settlement with Dr Amaral: is this now an 'Abuse of Process'?

Re: Letter 25 Jan 2013 to Carter-Ruck and the Court about THAT proposed settlement with Dr Amaral: is this now an 'Abuse of Process'?

Re: Letter 25 Jan 2013 to Carter-Ruck and the Court about THAT proposed settlement with Dr Amaral: is this now an 'Abuse of Process'?

Amelie McCann (aged 2): "Maddie's jammies!".

Re: Letter 25 Jan 2013 to Carter-Ruck and the Court about THAT proposed settlement with Dr Amaral: is this now an 'Abuse of Process'?

Re: Letter 25 Jan 2013 to Carter-Ruck and the Court about THAT proposed settlement with Dr Amaral: is this now an 'Abuse of Process'?

Re: Letter 25 Jan 2013 to Carter-Ruck and the Court about THAT proposed settlement with Dr Amaral: is this now an 'Abuse of Process'?

Re: Letter 25 Jan 2013 to Carter-Ruck and the Court about THAT proposed settlement with Dr Amaral: is this now an 'Abuse of Process'?

Re: Letter 25 Jan 2013 to Carter-Ruck and the Court about THAT proposed settlement with Dr Amaral: is this now an 'Abuse of Process'?

Re: Letter 25 Jan 2013 to Carter-Ruck and the Court about THAT proposed settlement with Dr Amaral: is this now an 'Abuse of Process'?

Re: Letter 25 Jan 2013 to Carter-Ruck and the Court about THAT proposed settlement with Dr Amaral: is this now an 'Abuse of Process'?

Re: Letter 25 Jan 2013 to Carter-Ruck and the Court about THAT proposed settlement with Dr Amaral: is this now an 'Abuse of Process'?

Re: Letter 25 Jan 2013 to Carter-Ruck and the Court about THAT proposed settlement with Dr Amaral: is this now an 'Abuse of Process'?

Re: Letter 25 Jan 2013 to Carter-Ruck and the Court about THAT proposed settlement with Dr Amaral: is this now an 'Abuse of Process'?

Re: Letter 25 Jan 2013 to Carter-Ruck and the Court about THAT proposed settlement with Dr Amaral: is this now an 'Abuse of Process'?

Re: Letter 25 Jan 2013 to Carter-Ruck and the Court about THAT proposed settlement with Dr Amaral: is this now an 'Abuse of Process'?

Re: Letter 25 Jan 2013 to Carter-Ruck and the Court about THAT proposed settlement with Dr Amaral: is this now an 'Abuse of Process'?

Re: Letter 25 Jan 2013 to Carter-Ruck and the Court about THAT proposed settlement with Dr Amaral: is this now an 'Abuse of Process'?

Re: Letter 25 Jan 2013 to Carter-Ruck and the Court about THAT proposed settlement with Dr Amaral: is this now an 'Abuse of Process'?

Re: Letter 25 Jan 2013 to Carter-Ruck and the Court about THAT proposed settlement with Dr Amaral: is this now an 'Abuse of Process'?

Re: Letter 25 Jan 2013 to Carter-Ruck and the Court about THAT proposed settlement with Dr Amaral: is this now an 'Abuse of Process'?

Re: Letter 25 Jan 2013 to Carter-Ruck and the Court about THAT proposed settlement with Dr Amaral: is this now an 'Abuse of Process'?

Re: Letter 25 Jan 2013 to Carter-Ruck and the Court about THAT proposed settlement with Dr Amaral: is this now an 'Abuse of Process'?

Amelie McCann (aged 2): "Maddie's jammies!".

Latest topics