The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Hi,

A very warm welcome to The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™ forum.

Please log in, or register to view all the forums, then settle in and start chatting with us!

Enjoy your day,

Jill Havern
Forum owner

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

Page 2 of 17 Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 9 ... 17  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

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'?

Post by Woofer on Fri Jan 25, 2013 10:44 pm

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.

Woofer

Posts : 3390
Reputation : 12
Join date : 2012-02-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

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'?

Post by Inspectorfrost on Fri Jan 25, 2013 10:49 pm

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

Inspectorfrost

Posts : 841
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2012-12-09

View user profile

Back to top Go down

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'?

Post by Widows Son on Fri Jan 25, 2013 10:59 pm

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

Widows Son

Posts : 21
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2010-11-15

View user profile

Back to top Go down

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'?

Post by Guest on Fri Jan 25, 2013 11:04 pm

@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

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

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'?

Post by Tony Bennett on Fri Jan 25, 2013 11:04 pm

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...

____________________

                            "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?" - Amelie, May 2007 -  "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?"


Tony Bennett
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 13975
Reputation : 2148
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 69
Location : Harlow, Essex

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Victory for Wayne Rooney

Post by Tony Bennett on Fri Jan 25, 2013 11:11 pm

@Woofer wrote: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 !
No, I haven't. But out of respect for Court rules, today I had to deliver a fresh bundle to Carter-Ruck and to the Court in which I had to set out, inter alia, any case law and legal arguments that I intend to rely on.

I've not discussed them here at all, but Carter-Ruck and the barrister will probably be working on them over the weekend.

Just a clue: one of the cases I refer to involves a legal case brought against Wayne Rooney. Rooney won!

____________________

                            "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?" - Amelie, May 2007 -  "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?"


Tony Bennett
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 13975
Reputation : 2148
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 69
Location : Harlow, Essex

View user profile

Back to top Go down

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'?

Post by Guest on Fri Jan 25, 2013 11:13 pm

I don't blame you, Tony, but you signed the agreement 3 years ago. I know you were under distress at the time but that's a matter for the Court to consider and hopefully rectify - but you can't just ignore the court order in the meantime. The Judge said so.

Until the Court has sorted out that agreement, you're in contempt of court repeating those allegations. That's the truth of it. I advised weeks ago you'd be better off saying nothing in public until Feb 5th. Letters to the Court or CR or anybody are perfectly fine, but it's what you say in public that is the problem - until the Court has ruled.

Stay calm.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

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'?

Post by Inspectorfrost on Fri Jan 25, 2013 11:21 pm

@Tony Bennett wrote:
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...

posting kate mccanns refusal to answer 48 questions is fact and truth, end of, its in the police files and in the public arena, there cant be any legal argument preventing anyone from doing so, they may as well sue tvstations and papers, for mentioning them,PATHETIC, you cant sue anyone for posting truths, carter ruck are too big for their boots here, awful people at best and Im sure the judge knows it

Inspectorfrost

Posts : 841
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2012-12-09

View user profile

Back to top Go down

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'?

Post by HiDeHo on Fri Jan 25, 2013 11:38 pm

I do not know the legalities of the process.

What I DO know is that Tony has the courage, not only to fight n court but also to take the risk of giving the TRUTH a voice!

Tony knows the McCanns want to see him destroyed.

Whether they manage to achieve their aim or not (and I don't believe they will) we don't know, but by taking his correspondence public he is contributing to the worst possible scenario the McCanns could face.

The opportunity for the UK public to learn the truth!

Thank you Tony for your courage...

One day the WORLD will know the truth (although some may never admit it) but the McCanns will have to face the furor of those that they have lied to and the Tapas 7 will have to face their families and hope they will be forgiven for the choices they made when finding themselves in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Just my opinion.

HiDeHo
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 2310
Reputation : 502
Join date : 2010-05-07

View user profile

Back to top Go down

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'?

Post by Guest on Fri Jan 25, 2013 11:45 pm

Tony has bucketloads of bottle I agree. That can't be disputed.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

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'?

Post by Olive_Boyle on Fri Jan 25, 2013 11:47 pm

Don't get angry Tony - get even.

Don't take even the smallest of risks of ruining it when you are this close.

You need to focus your attention on making sure you get a libel trial.

Olive_Boyle

Posts : 122
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2012-05-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

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'?

Post by monkey mind on Fri Jan 25, 2013 11:59 pm

@HiDeHo wrote:I do not know the legalities of the process.

What I DO know is that Tony has the courage, not only to fight n court but also to take the risk of giving the TRUTH a voice!

Tony knows the McCanns want to see him destroyed.

Whether they manage to achieve their aim or not (and I don't believe they will) we don't know, but by taking his correspondence public he is contributing to the worst possible scenario the McCanns could face.

The opportunity for the UK public to learn the truth!

Thank you Tony for your courage...

One day the WORLD will know the truth (although some may never admit it) but the McCanns will have to face the furor of those that they have lied to and the Tapas 7 will have to face their families and hope they will be forgiven for the choices they made when finding themselves in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Just my opinion.
That’s a very good post HiDeHo.

I’m sure Tony has his reasons for what he does but there is nodoubt he is giving voice to the truth that others would have buried.

And it’s a good point you make on the T7. If in any way shape or form they are aware that events were not as they have stated on the night of 3 May 2007 then the trauma caused to GA and Tony and their families are on their hands too. It may have seemed like helping friends at the time if that’s what it was, only they will know. It may have seemed okay not attending the reconstruction proposed by the PJ. But we are talking of lives being systematically destroyed here, over a period of years.

If things were not as they have stated, I would surely hate to have that on my conscience along with everyting else. I surely would. And it’s not just Tony and GA, others.

There is a way out.

The madness can be stopped, should be stopped.

monkey mind

Posts : 616
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2011-12-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

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'?

Post by roy rovers on Sat Jan 26, 2013 12:09 am

tcat wrote:I don't blame you, Tony, but you signed the agreement 3 years ago. I know you were under distress at the time but that's a matter for the Court to consider and hopefully rectify - but you can't just ignore the court order in the meantime. The Judge said so.

Until the Court has sorted out that agreement, you're in contempt of court repeating those allegations. That's the truth of it. I advised weeks ago you'd be better off saying nothing in public until Feb 5th. Letters to the Court or CR or anybody are perfectly fine, but it's what you say in public that is the problem - until the Court has ruled.

Stay calm.

tcat why so tiresome and pedandic? Do you always live only by the rules? Boring......................................

Also I think Tony is dead right to publish every part of his case online. It is a form of protection for him.

roy rovers

Posts : 465
Reputation : 39
Join date : 2012-03-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

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'?

Post by Woofer on Sat Jan 26, 2013 12:21 am

Tony - I couldn`t begin to understand the `clue` being WR, but trust you know what you`re doing. I sometimes wonder if a lot of the flack you get is from other cases you have fought for justice.

One thing`s for sure, C-R have got themselves an awful reputation over the years, and Judges are well aware of it. The scientologists are their clients - say no more!

Woofer

Posts : 3390
Reputation : 12
Join date : 2012-02-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

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'?

Post by jd on Sat Jan 26, 2013 1:00 am

The source spoke personally to Snr Santos e Oliveira earlier this week. He confirmed that your 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 have never ventured beyond Dr Amaral’s own main conclusions on what really happened to your clients’ daughter.

This is the crux of it...surely carter ruck cannot continue with their hounding of Tony. They would prove beyond any doubt that their pursuit is just personal and nothing to do with what he says if they do. This would only show the whole world exactly what carter ruck are really about

____________________
Who pulled the strings?...THE SYMINGTONS..And the Scottish connections...Look no further if you dare

jd

Posts : 4152
Reputation : 11
Join date : 2011-07-22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

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'?

Post by HiDeHo on Sat Jan 26, 2013 1:14 am

Tony....I would like to let you know that I have spoken to several people that, in the past, were not particularly supportive, but are now right behind you and, recognising the effort you have made, now wish you the very best.

I felt it was important to let you know that.

HiDeHo
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 2310
Reputation : 502
Join date : 2010-05-07

View user profile

Back to top Go down

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'?

Post by jd on Sat Jan 26, 2013 1:18 am

@PeterMac wrote:The TRUTH should always be in the public domain.

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

No Stone Unturned Directors Report

The risk facing the Fund were assessed into Four categories
* reputational
* financial
* information and communications technology
* human resources

"information and communications technology" i.e. the internet, forums, twitter, newspapers......This is what they are desperate to control and stop. In the light of there not ever being one single shred of evidence of their 'abduction' claim (even after 6 years) and all the evidence pointing very strongly to their implication in Maddies disappearance, then in a country that has freedom of speech & expression then it is more than reasonable to express opinions and doubts against the mccanns version. And from the known facts to express the most likely conclusions. This country is not a dictatorship...or it is?

____________________
Who pulled the strings?...THE SYMINGTONS..And the Scottish connections...Look no further if you dare

jd

Posts : 4152
Reputation : 11
Join date : 2011-07-22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

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'?

Post by Guest on Sat Jan 26, 2013 1:27 am

ed1976 wrote:
@jd wrote:
The source spoke personally to Snr Santos e Oliveira earlier this week. He confirmed that your 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 have never ventured beyond Dr Amaral’s own main conclusions on what really happened to your clients’ daughter.

This is the crux of it...surely carter ruck cannot continue with their hounding of Tony. They would prove beyond any doubt that their pursuit is just personal and nothing to do with what he says if they do. This would only show the whole world exactly what carter ruck are really about

Unfortunately what TB says and what he does are two different things. Don't take my word for it, this is what Blacksmith thinks of TBs claims....

The issue was quite simple. The questions which Bennett appeared to think would challenge the McCanns' position with the British public were simply riddled with grotesque errors of fact, misunderstandings and distortion of evidence, demonstrating not only that he had plucked his findings from newspapers without any mastery of the case but that he was accusing the McCanns of things they manifestly hadn't done. The prospect of this unadulterated trash being submitted to MPs as representative of the McCann critics' case gave everyone except vulnerable disciples the cold shivers.
Ed, Blacksmith has the right to say all that because he's consistently been a great writer on the case, for years. But I think you're just stirring for the sake of it. That booklet was history over 3 years ago and Tony isn't asking the Court to reconsider that particular undertaking.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

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'?

Post by aiyoyo on Sat Jan 26, 2013 3:24 am

ed1976 wrote:
@jd wrote:
The source spoke personally to Snr Santos e Oliveira earlier this week. He confirmed that your 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 have never ventured beyond Dr Amaral’s own main conclusions on what really happened to your clients’ daughter.

This is the crux of it...surely carter ruck cannot continue with their hounding of Tony. They would prove beyond any doubt that their pursuit is just personal and nothing to do with what he says if they do. This would only show the whole world exactly what carter ruck are really about

Unfortunately what TB says and what he does are two different things. Don't take my word for it, this is what Blacksmith thinks of TBs claims....

The issue was quite simple. The questions which Bennett appeared to think would challenge the McCanns' position with the British public were simply riddled with grotesque errors of fact, misunderstandings and distortion of evidence, demonstrating not only that he had plucked his findings from newspapers without any mastery of the case but that he was accusing the McCanns of things they manifestly hadn't done. The prospect of this unadulterated trash being submitted to MPs as representative of the McCann critics' case gave everyone except vulnerable disciples the cold shivers.

ednumbered, make up your mind - do you or do you not believe BS? Cant have it both ways to suit your convenience!
You are as transparent as their Fund is obscured.

What have you got to say now that we have confirmation from Mccanns' lawyer that they *caved in*?
You were blue in the face arguing over that!

Truth cannot be silenced.

Which bits dont you understand that it is rare for Claimant to seek settlement; and that in itself has hugh significance, not to your heros advantage at all (oh dearie me).
Jmo, the writing about the verdict of their trial-vs Dr Amaral is pretty much cast in stone.
TB must take strength that the Mccanns are about to be crashed at their own hands, and it will come at a Hugh Price in more than monetary terms.

aiyoyo

Posts : 9611
Reputation : 318
Join date : 2009-11-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

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'?

Post by Tony Bennett on Sat Jan 26, 2013 7:43 am

ed1976 quoted a statement, allegedly by John Blacksmith = Antony Sharples:

The issue was quite simple. The questions which Bennett appeared to think would challenge the McCanns' position with the British public were simply riddled with grotesque errors of fact, misunderstandings and distortion of evidence, demonstrating not only that he had plucked his findings from newspapers without any mastery of the case but that he was accusing the McCanns of things they manifestly hadn't done. The prospect of this unadulterated trash being submitted to MPs as representative of the McCann critics' case gave everyone except vulnerable disciples the cold shivers.

Are you sure that was Blacksmith speaking, ed?

I thought that the quote came frorm Clarence Mitchell...

____________________

                            "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?" - Amelie, May 2007 -  "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?"


Tony Bennett
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 13975
Reputation : 2148
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 69
Location : Harlow, Essex

View user profile

Back to top Go down

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'?

Post by aiyoyo on Sat Jan 26, 2013 7:48 am

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”.




Just how the mccanns hope to get sufficient vindication and protection in the future when it is them who asked for the settlement is a $64M question.

Any one any idea how to interpret this ludicrous statement from IM, not doubt informed to her by her clients.

Therein lies mccanns reasons for caving in - believable?

Just how will an OoC settlement vindicate (never mind their hope for "sufficient" quality of it) them?

Protection - against what? They were the aggressors all along.

They just don't get it do they?

aiyoyo

Posts : 9611
Reputation : 318
Join date : 2009-11-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

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'?

Post by Smokeandmirrors on Sat Jan 26, 2013 7:54 am

@Tony Bennett wrote:ed1976 quoted a statement, allegedly by John Blacksmith = Antony Sharples:

The issue was quite simple. The questions which Bennett appeared to think would challenge the McCanns' position with the British public were simply riddled with grotesque errors of fact, misunderstandings and distortion of evidence, demonstrating not only that he had plucked his findings from newspapers without any mastery of the case but that he was accusing the McCanns of things they manifestly hadn't done. The prospect of this unadulterated trash being submitted to MPs as representative of the McCann critics' case gave everyone except vulnerable disciples the cold shivers.

Are you sure that was Blacksmith speaking, ed?

I thought that the quote came frorm Clarence Mitchell...

96 posts, 7 days, 1 theme and a single purpose. nah Most glad it didn't have the desired effect on you Tony thumbup

____________________
The truth will out.

Smokeandmirrors
Moderator

Posts : 2428
Reputation : 5
Join date : 2011-07-31

View user profile

Back to top Go down

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'?

Post by roy rovers on Sat Jan 26, 2013 9:17 am

TB your letter is a real blow to the head of CR. Reninds me of Muhammad Ali versus George Foreman 'The Rumble in the Jungle' . Foreman was big, strong much younger and supposedly invincible. Ali was 33 and getting on in boxing terms. After hanging on and absorbing 7 rounds of brutal punishment Ali came alive in round 8 to knock out Foreman with a glorious flurry of punches to the head. A tactical counterattacking masterpiece. You are now entering round 8.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ln7EhBij2uA

roy rovers

Posts : 465
Reputation : 39
Join date : 2012-03-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

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'?

Post by Eddie on Sat Jan 26, 2013 9:39 am

First... the quote re Tony was cut and pasted from Blacksmiths blog.

Second. based on what TB has posted the upcoming court case is for contempt of court, nothing else. That means nothing in TBs letter is in the slightest relavent to the case.

Why doesn't TB understand this. If he is found in contempt then the judge has suggested a full libel trial to determine the punishment. TB can then use these facts to defend himself.

Third. THE mCCanns have not caved in. from TBs letter it is clear that they expect some conditions imposed on Amaral as part of the settlement.

Fourth. It appears TB is caving in.

____________________


Eddie

Posts : 107
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-01-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

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'?

Post by Guest on Sat Jan 26, 2013 9:48 am

ed1976, I am getting rather annoyed now, so if I were you I would give it a rest. You are talking nonsense. If the McCanns wanted to impose anything then all they had to do is go ahead with the trial, win, go past go, collect 1.2million, and impose anything they wanted as winners.........doh!!

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Page 2 of 17 Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 9 ... 17  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


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