Re: The four top London libel lawyers now lined up to crush a pensioner from Harlow

by DIBarlow 31.01.13 15:15

Tony Bennett wrote:
C.Edwards wrote:I think the point is that these proceedings are for establishing whether there was contempt. It's nothing to do with the veracity or otherwise of anything the McCanns may or may not have said...
C.Edwards, I can truly say that that is one of the most incredible statements I have ever seen on any forum, certainly about this case, let alone just on this forum. Otherwise, I am just speechless...so will let others give voice...

Compare

It's nothing to do with the veracity or otherwise of anything the McCanns may or may not have said...

There is a wholly innocent explanation for any material the police may or may not have found

by nospinnaker 31.01.13 15:25

Surely C Edwards is perfectly correct - this rapidly approaching hearing is simply about the question of contempt of court. Whatever the McCanns or their friends ot their associates may or may not have done or said is completely irrelevant to this hearing.

It's later on - if libel features in a subsequent hearing - when the actions and statements of the infamous duo and their hangers-on will be crucial. One has to wonder at the number of counsel required to oppose Mr Bennett in those more onerous circumstances, given the battalions arrayed against him for this smaller matter.

I do tend to agree with those posters who are beginning to associate the size of the army thus fielded with the size of the perceived threat.

by Guest 31.01.13 15:32

Tony Bennett wrote:
C.Edwards wrote:I think the point is that these
proceedings are for establishing whether there was contempt. It's
nothing to do with the veracity or otherwise of anything the McCanns may
or may not have said...
C.Edwards, I can truly say that that is
one of the most incredible statements I have ever seen on any forum,
certainly about this case, let alone just on this forum. Otherwise, I am
just speechless...so will let others give voice...

Next Tuesday is a committal application hearing isn't it?

If that's the case, C.Edwards is right, except in saying CR want to treat your undertakings as a contract. That argument only applies if there are further proceedings after the committal application.

As it is next Tuesday CR have only to demonstrate you breached the High Court Order.

If I were you I would arguing your breaches had minimal consequences, not denying them.

by aiyoyo 31.01.13 15:42

Despite this is being brought about on basis of Contempt of Court, nothing is black and white.
Else the mccanns would not have to argue their case with tons and tons of documents (some delivered last minute) and with an array of heavy duty lawyers representing them in Court.

The fact that the Mccanns cant be arsed to attend court to stand by their claims, instead they will send a lawyer to stand in for them for cross examination purpose, will not look good for them, and the Judge insinuated as much when he said TB can qualify that in his closing statement. Also the fact that Isabel Hudson needs to attend Court on behalf of the mccanns ready to answer questions mean verification can be sought. And verification from her by extension means verification from her clients, that is to say, the mccanns may be required to verify what they had said, unlike a certain poster who believed it to be otherwise.

Who is suing TB? Mccanns or IH? Logically it should be Mccanns swearing on the Affidavit and not IH, even though IH was their lackey sent to spy on forum to find allegedly sueable material for the mccanns so that mccanns can sue.

I wonder how that is going to go down in Court that the Mccanns is relying on IH"s affidavit to send an old man to jail ie not their own claims but a third party's claims. How does that work?

Just that alone -- hiding behind the Country's most fear lawyers using other people's money is not going to go down well with the Judge I should think so!

by Guest 31.01.13 15:47

When will it be known, which judge will be presiding?

by aiyoyo 31.01.13 15:53

Châtelaine wrote:When will it be known, which judge will be presiding?

A few days before trial I suppose.

What interests me is why some continue to persist to propagand here for the Mccanns by asking TB to concede this and that ....

by ShuBob 31.01.13 15:59

aiyoyo wrote:
Châtelaine wrote:When will it be known, which judge will be presiding?

A few days before trial I suppose.

What interests me is why some continue to persist to propagand here for the Mccanns by asking TB to concede this and that ....

You need to ask Aiyoyo?

by weissnicht 31.01.13 16:03

AskTheDogsSandra wrote:What sort of people would go to these lengths to silence someone?

Rapists?
Bank robbers?
murderers?
Paedophiles?
NHS doctors who have done everything in their power to hinder the search for their own daughter and refuse to write a letter to the Portuguese Prosecutor to reopen the case?

mccanns... they seam to have a plenty to hide. More than all those criminals above.

by Guest 31.01.13 16:08

weissnicht wrote:
AskTheDogsSandra wrote:What sort of people would go to these lengths to silence someone?

Rapists?
Bank robbers?
murderers?
Paedophiles?
NHS doctors who have done everything in their power to hinder the search for their own daughter and refuse to write a letter to the Portuguese Prosecutor to reopen the case?
mccanns... they seam to have a plenty to hide. More than all those criminals above.

Welcom to the forum weissnicht The four top London libel lawyers now lined up to crush a pensioner from Harlow - Page 3 4239481642

by Guest 31.01.13 16:09

aiyoyo wrote:
Châtelaine wrote:When will it be known, which judge will be presiding?

A few days before trial I suppose.

What interests me is why some continue to persist to propagand here for the Mccanns by asking TB to concede this and that ....

I'm not asking him to do anything. he has free will. The other day I asked him if he understood the October judgment, which says "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."

Up to 2 days ago Tony was still disobeying his court order.

In a minimal way, that's true, it's not like he was on Newsnight or anything, but they're still breaches. Who knows if the Court takes into account the severity of the breach? A breach might simply be a breach. None of us know the law.

People should not be encouraging him to further disobey the Court.

by **PeterMac** 31.01.13 16:11

I think it likely that by now Tony has grasped what the proceedings will be about, so endlessly arguing about it is not going to help.
The fact that they have briefed a Silk shows that there is something which is clearly far beyond the intellectual capacity of Adam Tudor or Ms Matorell.
But Tony will know that.
Courts operate on a very "gentlemanly" basis, each side tells the other exactly what they are going to say, and on what points of law and precedent they are going to rely.
If they didn't every case would have to be adjourned for two days, every ten minutes, whilst the other side was given the chance to respond to a particular point.

by C.Edwards 31.01.13 16:12

Tony Bennett wrote:
C.Edwards wrote:I think the point is that these proceedings are for establishing whether there was contempt. It's nothing to do with the veracity or otherwise of anything the McCanns may or may not have said...
C.Edwards, I can truly say that that is one of the most incredible statements I have ever seen on any forum, certainly about this case, let alone just on this forum. Otherwise, I am just speechless...so will let others give voice...

I don't follow you on this Tony? Am I wrong? As far as I can discern from what's been posted, this hearing is PURELY concerned with your alleged breaches of undertakings made. In legal terms this is nothing to do with what happened to create the undertaking, it's simple matter of there being an undertaking and whether you can be proven to have breached it. For them to prove a breach they only have to refer to the points made in the underaking and then show what they feel is their evidence of breach, surely? You can then argue why you don't feel it's a breach and the judge makes a decision... is it any more complex than that?

by aiyoyo 31.01.13 16:21

tcat wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:
Châtelaine wrote:When will it be known, which judge will be presiding?

A few days before trial I suppose.

What interests me is why some continue to persist to propagand here for the Mccanns by asking TB to concede this and that ....

I'm not asking him to do anything. he has free will. The other day I asked him if he understood the October judgment, which says "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."

Up to 2 days ago Tony was still disobeying his court order.

In a minimal way, that's true, it's not like he was on Newsnight or anything, but they're still breaches. Who knows if the Court takes into account the severity of the breach? A breach might simply be a breach. None of us know the law.

People should not be encouraging him to further disobey the Court.

I think we have heard enough from you batting for the other side. Give it a rest.
Spinning is not going to change what will pan out in Court.

As PM pointed out wisely all points of law and case references are filed ready for the show down...no point urging this and that at this stage. Only the people involved know what they are facing. Going by the mccanns last minute *Silk* they anticipate it to be tough.

by C.Edwards 31.01.13 16:31

Aiyoyo, in what way is tcat "batting for the other side"? (a phrase which, round my way, is likely to get you thumped as it has an entirely different connotation!)

I have already stated that I give Tony my support for his upcoming hearing. It's well known on here that I don't agree with all he says and at times I've expressed those misgivings politely to him. I don't see that building up this trial as something it's plainly not is going to help him though. I'm not trying to rub his nose in it in any way, shape or form, but I am somewhat taken aback by his reaction to the post I made a page or so back. I don't see how I'm wrong though?

Look - on the McCannfiles (link) he says himself,

This hearing is ONLY about WHETHER I have been guilty of contempt of court by breaching any of the 16 undertakings I gave to the High Court on 25 November 2009, and IF SO, how I should be punished for any such contempt.

It is NOT a libel trial as such.

It will NOT determine my application to revoke or vary the three 'free speech' undertakings I gave, i.e. not to suggest that the McCanns have done certain things.

Where, in any of that, is there room (particularly in a two day trial!) for the McCanns to be cross-examined, even if they WERE present!? It's completely irrelevant to this hearing. Other hearings - well, this one has to be dealt with first. I simply don't understand how trying to ignore the elephant in the room is helping here. I mean no offence, but I do wish people would stop treating this upcoming hearing as though the judge is going to leap from his seat and crush the CR contingent beneath his mighty hammer of vengeance as a blow for the little man. Law doesn't work like that.

by david_uk 31.01.13 16:50

The Elephant in the room indeed.
Has Tony breached the undertakings?
I assume that Tony is going to attempt to show that he did not?
CR are going to try to prove that he did?

That's the only question that will be raised and answered, is that correct?

by weissnicht 31.01.13 17:00

candyfloss, thank you friends

What is that about Tony disobeying orders?

by aiyoyo 31.01.13 17:01

C.Edwards wrote:Aiyoyo, in what way is tcat "batting for the other side"? (a phrase which, round my way, is likely to get you thumped as it has an entirely different connotation!)

Well, let's just say that is my opinion - do you have a problem with that?

Thumped? By who? You? I dare say that will be quite expected, so no surprise there.
Let's just say I trust my intuition. There you go, again it is my opinion, and thank you I am entitled to it.

Let it drop now and wait patiently.....no point arguing over it ceaselessly, it wont change a thing.

by C.Edwards 31.01.13 17:06

aiyoyo wrote:
C.Edwards wrote:Aiyoyo, in what way is tcat "batting for the other side"? (a phrase which, round my way, is likely to get you thumped as it has an entirely different connotation!)

Well, let's just say that is my opinion - do you have a problem with that?

Thumped? By who? You? I dare say that will be quite expected, so no surprise there.
Let's just say I trust my intuition. There you go, again it is my opinion, and thank you I am entitled to it.

Let it drop now and wait patiently.....no point arguing over it ceaselessly, it wont change a thing.

eh? I'm lost now. Do you think I'm threatening you with violence or something? I suggest you google "batting for the other side" and maybe you'll see what I'm on about! Good grief... no, you're welcome to your opinion. I hope I am too? ;-)

by aiyoyo 31.01.13 17:28

C.Edwards wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:
C.Edwards wrote:Aiyoyo, in what way is tcat "batting for the other side"? (a phrase which, round my way, is likely to get you thumped as it has an entirely different connotation!)

Well, let's just say that is my opinion - do you have a problem with that?

Thumped? By who? You? I dare say that will be quite expected, so no surprise there.
Let's just say I trust my intuition. There you go, again it is my opinion, and thank you I am entitled to it.

Let it drop now and wait patiently.....no point arguing over it ceaselessly, it wont change a thing.

eh? I'm lost now. Do you think I'm threatening you with violence or something? I suggest you google "batting for the other side" and maybe you'll see what I'm on about! Good grief... no, you're welcome to your opinion. I hope I am too? ;-)

No wonder you are confused, I meant to say arguing for the other side.

by Bob Southgate 31.01.13 17:34

tcat wrote:I'm not asking him to do anything. he has free will. The other day I asked him if he understood the October judgment, which says "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."

Up to 2 days ago Tony was still disobeying his court order.

In a minimal way, that's true, it's not like he was on Newsnight or anything, but they're still breaches. Who knows if the Court takes into account the severity of the breach? A breach might simply be a breach. None of us know the law.

People should not be encouraging him to further disobey the Court.

Would the court have the power to impose an order that deprives a person of their rights under Article 10, especially if the undertaken was given under duress? Why should one person be effectively gagged from saying what hundreds of people are saying elsewhere, either on the internet or other publications?

by bobbin 31.01.13 17:38

aiyoyo wrote:
C.Edwards wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:
C.Edwards wrote:Aiyoyo, in what way is tcat "batting for the other side"? (a phrase which, round my way, is likely to get you thumped as it has an entirely different connotation!)

Well, let's just say that is my opinion - do you have a problem with that?

Thumped? By who? You? I dare say that will be quite expected, so no surprise there.
Let's just say I trust my intuition. There you go, again it is my opinion, and thank you I am entitled to it.

Let it drop now and wait patiently.....no point arguing over it ceaselessly, it wont change a thing.

eh? I'm lost now. Do you think I'm threatening you with violence or something? I suggest you google "batting for the other side" and maybe you'll see what I'm on about! Good grief... no, you're welcome to your opinion. I hope I am too? ;-)

No wonder you are confused, I meant to say arguing for the other side.

C.Edwards cannot plead being 'lost'. He/she even states that 'batting for the other side' has a different meaning, therefore must know the original.
Before the urban dictionary got hold of it, 'batting for the other side' has had its obvious meanings for ages. The four top London libel lawyers now lined up to crush a pensioner from Harlow - Page 3 110921

The four top London libel lawyers now lined up to crush a pensioner from Harlow - Page 3 110921

by C.Edwards 31.01.13 17:43

Bob Southgate wrote:

Would the court have the power to impose an order that deprives a person of their rights under Article 10, especially if the undertaken was given under duress? Why should one person be effectively gagged from saying what hundreds of people are saying elsewhere, either on the internet or other publications?

Er... yes. The point is that if the court allows anyone to breach an undertaking and then, when/if taken to court that person simply argues that the undertaking was unfair/given under duress/is in some other way rendered legally unenforceable then it's legal anarchy as it gives anybody the right to simply ignore a legal undertaking and then tie up the courts in endless arguments about the merits of the undertaking in the first place. If someone applies to have an undertaking removed/varied FIRST then that's a different matter. The arguments about whether the undertaking should have been given in the first place are highly unlikely to surface in a committal proceeding.

Still, as Justice Tugendhat said, it's a highly unusual case, so who knows.

by C.Edwards 31.01.13 17:44

bobbin wrote:

C.Edwards cannot plead being 'lost'. He/she even states that 'batting for the other side' has a different meaning, therefore must know the original.
Before the urban dictionary got hold of it, 'batting for the other side' has had its obvious meanings for ages.

I can plead what I like thanks! I'm not lost about the meaning of the phrase, merely the peculiar reaction of aiyoyo to my post.

by Bob Southgate 31.01.13 18:48

C.Edwards wrote:Er... yes. The point is that if the court allows anyone to breach an undertaking and then, when/if taken to court that person simply argues that the undertaking was unfair/given under duress/is in some other way rendered legally unenforceable then it's legal anarchy as it gives anybody the right to simply ignore a legal undertaking and then tie up the courts in endless arguments about the merits of the undertaking in the first place. If someone applies to have an undertaking removed/varied FIRST then that's a different matter. The arguments about whether the undertaking should have been given in the first place are highly unlikely to surface in a committal proceeding.

Still, as Justice Tugendhat said, it's a highly unusual case, so who knows.

It's legal anarchy that the McCanns are pursuing TB over matters that are being repeated time and time again on the internet. It is not legal anarchy to challenge court rulings that are clearly incorrect. The courts do get it wrong and they have to be held to account when they do get it wrong.

by marxman 31.01.13 20:02

I'm going to tell you a story!

Was a young man who lived in a small town just

outside Melbourne Australia, and this young man

was in the habit of whistling every morning, same

time, 5AM every morning at sun rise. He would do

his whistling as he walked to work.

Well, the neighbours of the homes he passed bye

didn't appreciate getting awakened by this constant

and predictable sound, so they clubbed together and

took this young fella to court.

Oh, them neighbours were successful, the Judge issued

an 'undertaking' that the young man blindly accepted,

NOT to whistle anymore... at any time... never again.

Aww well, needless to say, shortly after judgement and

in fact, the very next day, the young man whistled as he

would do and as spirited as ever.

Bang! he was arrested for disturbing the peace and

presented in front of the same judge. "Why did you young

man with purpose and intent totally disregard the solumn

undertaking you have made to this court"?

...."I'm truly sorry your honour, but when the birds awake

and sing their morning song, and they like me do not know

time or things as you do, I just have to join in and be a part

of a new day. And they are as loud as me! Am I wrong?"

"Case dismissed" says the judge

Log in for more topics