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'?

by aiyoyo 30.01.13 4:23

marxman wrote:Tony, I wouldn't feel out gunned, or overawed by such

an inequality of arms. Big guns are too expensive, takes

too many to man, and very seldom hit their target.

You, be a Marxman, choose your shot, fire the truth,

and even if you miss first time, loads of time to reload

before the bigger gun reshapes it's position as its size

denotes its weakness. Tony, you can do it!

The more big gun they hired, the more ridiculous it would look for them. That they would need a whole battalion of expensive lawyers and counsel to intimidate an unrepresented man.
The bigger their scale of legal representation the more stark the contrast and that wont go unnoticed by the Judge.

One important point of note is that all this is done not from Mccanns own money, not from the fund (according to CR). It begs the question who finances Mccanns to such magnitude to sue TB. More pertinently what is in it for the person or persons who bankrolled the Mccanns? Any reasonable and discerning adult knows it is more normal for people who have mccanns interest at heart to advise them to ignore their critics (especially when they claimed there is no truth in their critics belief), when the priority concern should be spending the money on search for Madeleine, and not on suing disbeliever of their fairy tale.

Since a while back TB realised they have guns coming after him, so I believe quantity now is irrelevant - just a growing number but nonetheless just a number. When it gets to this ridiculous proportion, fear factor would be wasted energy so I believe TB is beyond fear now. Conversely Mccanns are terrified.

The mightier their representation the harder the fall when it comes to that in the end.

I believe there is no way any wise Judge would ignore the inequality of arms and not take that into consideration.
Just on that alone the case should have been thrown out as malicious vendetta against an old-age pensioner.

by **Tony Bennett** 30.01.13 5:23

This message has just come in overnight from a long-time supporter and follower of this forum in Canada:

I have been following the forum as usual Tony.

My strong wishes and prayers are that you will be using your toothbrush in the comfort of your home.

I would so like to be able to attend the proceedings. They will make legal history.

It is amazing that such big guns are being used against you.

As so many people have said - there has to be more to this than the tragic circumstances of a little child, at least for those who are providing those guns.

As I write this, my sweet six year old granddaughter is sitting playing across the room.

For us, it is all about the life and rights of Madeleine.

My thoughts are with you.

[Name withheld]

I know it's early in the morning, but I can't sleep well at the moment, so thought I would just check my e-mails etc.

by Smokeandmirrors 30.01.13 6:25

Tony Bennett wrote:NEWS UPDATE:

I have just finished reading the McCanns' lawyers' 'Skeleton Argument', which runs to 15 pages.

Up until now, I thought I was just up against:

Isabel Martorell, Partner of Carter-Ruck and her support staff, including an Assistant Solicitor

PLUS

Adam Tudor, Senior Partner of Carter-Ruck

PLUS

Jacob Dean, barister.

Apparently these already mighty legal resources are not considered strong enough to overwhelm me.

So, at the hearing on Tuesday 5 February, Jacob Dean will merely be the Junior barrister in the proceedings.

The McCanns have also appointed a Senior barrister to lead their case to impriosn me...

Adrienne Page, Queens Counsel

And yet the plaintiffs can't be bothered or are too afraid to appear in court themselves. Disgusting.

by Guest 30.01.13 6:26

Tony Bennett wrote:I know it's early in the morning, but I can't sleep well at the moment, so thought I would just check my e-mails etc.

I also have trouble sleeping because of all this, but as many others have said Tony this has become more than ludicrous now to the point of amusing. You have to think beyond fear now and just see the funny side of it. As the very wise aiyoyo has said, this inequality of arms won't go unnoticed by the Judge.

The McCanns don't want a full libel trial at any cost, no siree, and are doing everything in their power to reduce you to a quivering wreck. Don't let them do it to you Tony...this case will go down in history with you at the forefront.

It will be you who exposes this team of fraudsters in the UK.

high5

by Guest 30.01.13 6:28

Smokeandmirrors wrote:And yet the plaintiffs can't be bothered or are too afraid to appear in court themselves. Disgusting.

Yes, the McCanns are too cowardly to appear. Surely the lawyers, especially the senior barrister brought in at the 11th hour, can't be fully conversant with this case? There is 6 years of information to read. Tony, surely, has the upper hand here?

by Liz Eagles 30.01.13 6:30

I wonder how the McCanns slept last night. Probably well. They slept well in a foreign country days after their daughter went missing. Kate wrote it in her diary for all to see (afterwards the newspapers were sued and then paid for the rights to publish the diary and the content was used in her bewk).

by Smokeandmirrors 30.01.13 6:40

admin wrote:
Smokeandmirrors wrote:And yet the plaintiffs can't be bothered or are too afraid to appear in court themselves. Disgusting.

Yes, the McCanns are too cowardly to appear. Surely the lawyers, especially the senior barrister brought in at the 11th hour, can't be fully conversant with this case? There is 6 years of information to read. Tony, surely, has the upper hand here?

Problem is, they are not remotely interested in 6 yrs worth of information, they will be focussing exclusively on legal points of law and technicalities, will spend as long as possible listing as many alleged breaches as possible to deprive Tony of court time to say his bit. We have to be confident that the Judge will be fair and be familiar with CR bullying tactics and allow Tony a correct amount of airtime in the courtroom. Lets hope he has come up against these before in court and has "personal feelings" about 4 paid henchman sent in to clobber one, unrepresented man.

Let's hope the Judge is a good and fair man and rips apart the vipers nest.

by BrokenBritain 30.01.13 7:48

I would also like to extend my best wishes to Tony.

It hasn't gone unnoticed that there is no support from Portugal - not even from McCann sceptics. Unlike when there is a case going on in Portugal they get much support from people in the UK.

never mind

by Smokeandmirrors 30.01.13 7:55

BrokenBritain wrote:I would also like to extend my best wishes to Tony.

It hasn't gone unnoticed that there is no support from Portugal - not even from McCann sceptics. Unlike when there is a case going on in Portugal they get much support from people in the UK.

I think Portugal is fed up with being known as the stage where the most diabolical of deceptions was played out. The day David " I twiddle my nipples when talking about babies" Payne booked THAT holiday was one of Portugals darkest days IMO.

by onion 30.01.13 8:26

Can I just assumed that this is part of the McCanns tactic to use this lawsuit against Tony as part of their defending argument when they are 'prosecuted' IF they are ever charged with' whatever's happened in Portugal; in so to get a lower sentence or getting away with it? You see lawyers have a way to bring in all sorts of defending elements in court and putting them strategically in front of a judge before a 'bigger' case. That's how some criminals get away with their crime.

If we looked at all the court proceedings that the McCanns has made, it all seems like as if a sort of information gathering tactics in so to protect themselves 'when they're charged in court for something else and have a barrister making it look like 'victimization' on their part.
It somehow feels like some sort of red herring has been done here and there. I don't know just speculation.

Anyhow, its best to be calm and not emotional. A calm head can put things in perspective clearly. I pray for the good wind to you Mr Bennet.

by Smokeandmirrors 30.01.13 9:02

onion wrote:Can I just assumed that this is part of the McCanns tactic to use this lawsuit against Tony as part of their defending argument when they are 'prosecuted' IF they are ever charged with' whatever's happened in Portugal; in so to get a lower sentence or getting away with it? You see lawyers have a way to bring in all sorts of defending elements in court and putting them strategically in front of a judge before a 'bigger' case. That's how some criminals get away with their crime.

If we looked at all the court proceedings that the McCanns has made, it all seems like as if a sort of information gathering tactics in so to protect themselves 'when they're charged in court for something else and have a barrister making it look like 'victimization' on their part.
It somehow feels like some sort of red herring has been done here and there. I don't know just speculation.

Anyhow, its best to be calm and not emotional. A calm head can put things in perspective clearly. I pray for the good wind to you Mr Bennet.

That's a very interesting point. Knowing that the case has been analysed and dissected, what better way of knowing how to defend oneself if one already has the heads-up on Judges perceptions of lots of smaller points.

by tiny 30.01.13 9:16

This has made me beleive that the mccanns did have a hand in Madeleines death(eddie and keela+pj files) to bring in these people in to intimidate Tony, and you can bet your life that Tony will get more shit from them before the trial.stay strong Tony, any one can see that the mccanns have something to hide.

by aiyoyo 30.01.13 9:19

Yeap, you don't stop someone from sprouting nonsense that cannot get you into trouble, you stop them from exposing your lies that can get you in deep shit.

by russiandoll 30.01.13 10:18

Lord almighty. What an inequality of arms. They are for sure fearful of something. Or someone.

And not there in person? Wish I could say unbelievable but it isn't. If McCanns are not directing the battle, maybe they have been told to stay away.

Best wishes for good sense and justice prevailing over such a war of attrition.

what a nasty taste this leaves in the mouth.

btw it will be all over twitter because there are regular high profile tweeters who refer to this forum and journalists do follow this case with interest.

by aiyoyo 30.01.13 10:26

******** wrote this in another thread which I though it will be appropriate here.

deleted at posters request

I hope CR is taking note that it is his clients who are hindering the search.

by tiny 30.01.13 10:33

Oh dear,bet kate and gerry didnt want this little nugget to be found out,that THEY had Madeleine removed from the missing persons website.

by Cristobell 30.01.13 11:31

tiny wrote:Oh dear,bet kate and gerry didnt want this little nugget to be found out,that THEY had Madeleine removed from the missing persons website.

Which of course begs the question, why did Missing People want her as ambassador if she wasn't interested in the assistance they provided?

by tiny 30.01.13 11:39

Cristobell wrote:
tiny wrote:Oh dear,bet kate and gerry didnt want this little nugget to be found out,that THEY had Madeleine removed from the missing persons website.

Which of course begs the question, why did Missing People want her as ambassador if she wasn't interested in the assistance they provided?

perhaps they thought they could make some money out of Madeleine the same as her parents have,other than that i have know idea

by Guest 30.01.13 11:49

tiny wrote:
Cristobell wrote:
tiny wrote:Oh dear,bet kate and gerry didnt want this little nugget to be found out,that THEY had Madeleine removed from the missing persons website.

Which of course begs the question, why did Missing People want her as ambassador if she wasn't interested in the assistance they provided?

perhaps they thought they could make some money out of Madeleine the same as her parents have,other than that i have know idea

***
This is not about "Missing People" but "Missing Abroad". There are apparently quite a number of "Missing" organisations and/or charities ...

by tiny 30.01.13 11:56

Châtelaine wrote:
tiny wrote:
Cristobell wrote:
tiny wrote:Oh dear,bet kate and gerry didnt want this little nugget to be found out,that THEY had Madeleine removed from the missing persons website.

Which of course begs the question, why did Missing People want her as ambassador if she wasn't interested in the assistance they provided?

perhaps they thought they could make some money out of Madeleine the same as her parents have,other than that i have know idea
***
This is not about "Missing People" but "Missing Abroad". There are apparently quite a number of "Missing" organisations and/or charities ...

Thank you ,i stand corrected.

by Liz Eagles 30.01.13 12:25

aiyoyo wrote:Inspectorfrost wrote this in another thread which I though it will be appropriate here.

I hope CR is taking note that it is his clients who are hindering the search.

I don't know how Missing Abroad could have put Madeleine up on their website when she went missing in 2007. According to their 'about us' information the website didn't commence until 2008.

Email quoted deleted at request of poster

by Guest 30.01.13 12:28

Can posts on this email please go on the other thread please and keep this on topic. 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 16 1956175960

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 16 1956175960

I will try and split the posts.

by aiyoyo 30.01.13 14:38

aquila wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:Inspectorfrost wrote this in another thread which I though it will be appropriate here.

I hope CR is taking note that it is his clients who are hindering the search.

I don't know how Missing Abroad could have put Madeleine up on their website when she went missing in 2007. According to their 'about us' information the website didn't commence until 2008.

Email quoted deleted at request of poster

Why not, Maddie was still missing in 2008, and still is!
Would imagine any newly set up missing person organisation can include past cases...

by aiyoyo 30.01.13 14:48

tiny wrote:
Châtelaine wrote:
tiny wrote:
Cristobell wrote:
tiny wrote:Oh dear,bet kate and gerry didnt want this little nugget to be found out,that THEY had Madeleine removed from the missing persons website.

Which of course begs the question, why did Missing People want her as ambassador if she wasn't interested in the assistance they provided?

perhaps they thought they could make some money out of Madeleine the same as her parents have,other than that i have know idea
***
This is not about "Missing People" but "Missing Abroad". There are apparently quite a number of "Missing" organisations and/or charities ...

Thank you ,i stand corrected.

From what I know, Kate's name is missing from the Missing Charity Organisation.
Wonder whether they'd removed her as ambassador? Wont be surprised if they'd done that after exposure of the debacle of BBC over Savile.

by Liz Eagles 30.01.13 14:50

@aiyoyo. Check your inbox. 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 16 636506

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 16 636506

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