This is why LAWYERS are so dangerous

by **PeterMac** 06.05.15 17:45

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3070174/Paedophile-s-lawyers-sent-threatening-letter-silence-victim-allowing-abuse-children.html

Paedophile's lawyers sent threatening letter to silence victim - allowing him to abuse more children
Paedophile Gary Rolph repeatedly raped young teenage girl over two years
Victim withdrew police complaint after she received letter from his lawyers
Warned her she would face legal action if she 'repeated false accusations'
Rolph, who went on to abuse four more girls, has now been convicted

They all try it. Well the Guilty ones anyway,
Savile, Smith, Janner, Clifford, Harris,
They do not merely defend themselves, which is of course perfectly permissible in our legal system
They ATTACK, and intimidate.

Any more examples we can think of, more recently ? Perhaps we could find one where the solicitor in question had admitted in court that he, or she, had NO EVIDENCE.

Wouldn't it be wonderful if the parents of the four girls could bring a class action against the solicitors.

by **Tony Bennett** 06.05.15 18:03

PeterMac wrote:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3070174/Paedophile-s-lawyers-sent-threatening-letter-silence-victim-allowing-abuse-children.html

Paedophile's lawyers sent threatening letter to silence victim - allowing him to abuse more children
Paedophile Gary Rolph repeatedly raped young teenage girl over two years
Victim withdrew police complaint after she received letter from his lawyers
Warned her she would face legal action if she 'repeated false accusations'
Rolph, who went on to abuse four more girls, has now been convicted
They all try it. Well the Guilty ones anyway,
Savile, Smith, Janner, Clifford, Harris,
They do not merely defend themselves, which is of course perfectly permissible in our legal system
They ATTACK, and intimidate.

Any more examples we can think of, more recently ? Perhaps we could find one where the solicitor in question had admitted in court that he, or she, had NO EVIDENCE.

Wouldn't it be wonderful if the parents of the four girls could bring a class action against the solicitors.

Once again we have a case that illustrates the sheer terror that a threat of a full-blown libel action can generate.

Even Britain's greatest mainstream newspapers dare not risk a libel trial when they had cast-iron evidence of Jimmy Savile abusing children back in the 1980s - because his lawyers threatened a libel writ.

The UK's libel laws are evil - because they cover up evil.

And which one individual did more than any other indivdual in the country to develop the draconoian libel laws we have today?

Step forward the late Peter Carter-Ruck >>>

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

THE CARTER-RUCK CHILL

The man who created the modern libel industry was a dedicated liar and a reactionary with a lust for cash

David Hooper - Tuesday 23 December 2003 07.36 GMT

The libel lawyer Peter Carter-Ruck, who died on Friday, had a chilling effect on the media. He was a chancer, out for the maximum fee. And he did for freedom of speech what the Boston Strangler did for door-to-door salesmen.

Until Carter-Ruck got his teeth into the libel law, actions were infrequent and inexpensive. But from the 1950s, Carter-Ruck became the leading libel lawyer and clients sought him out. He honed his menacing letters to encourage socialites to sue for imagined slights and fashion a weapon for politicians to suppress hostile stories.

He preferred the bludgeon of the writ to the rather more effective call to an editor preferred by Lord Goodman. He established the idea that libel law was complicated and merited very high fees. In the process he became very rich. "I like to bill the clients as the tears are flowing," he told me.

Libel was good to him: four homes, a Rolls-Royce and a string of yachts called Fair Judgement. But perniciously he built a libel factory, paid for by the media's legal and insurance bills. Carter-Ruck had some novel techniques. You could only settle a libel action by paying his exorbitant fees without any question of the bill being checked by the court. He hit upon the wheeze of Randolph Churchill retaining all the libel QCs to prevent them acting for Private Eye (a practice since banned) and of serial libel actions, as in the case of Princess Elizabeth of Toro (which brought us the term "Ugandan discussions").

His practice had rightwing connections. With Carter-Ruck at the helm, the firm of Oswald Hickson Collier acted for the Conservative party and the likes of Norman Tebbit and Cecil Parkinson.

In his memoirs he praised the rightwing financier Sir James Goldsmith for alleviating the injustice of the lack of legal aid with money from a foundation. He said it let solicitors assess cases in the same way as the Legal Aid Board would. However, the assessor was none other than Carter-Ruck, and his firm was paid, win or lose. The beneficiaries tended not to be widows and orphans but rightwing politicos such as Neil Hamilton, who trousered £20,000 from the BBC for a Panorama programme - Carter-Ruck's bill was £240,000.

The Goldsmith Foundation's other beneficiaries included Brian Crozier, a cold war enthusiast with intelligence links, and an official of the breakaway Union of Democratic Mineworkers who sued Arthur Scargill.

Once described as the Margaret Thatcher of defamation law, Carter-Ruck was a conviction libel lawyer. If he acted for the plaintiff, he thought it the most outrageous libel; if for the defendant, the case should never have been bought. The common thread was to extract the maximum.

Carter-Ruck had one row after another with his partners. In 1977 they tried to boot him out and after four years' litigation were successful when he decamped to another part of the same building to form Peter Carter-Ruck & Partners. Within four years all his founding partners had left, including his daughter.

I left his firm in pure Carter-Ruck circumstances. Heinemann, for whom we acted, was publishing a book about the Ford family, by Robert Lacey. I was told by Carter-Ruck that there was no conflict in our advising. Lacey sent part of the book to Henry Ford for comment. Later I found Carter-Ruck advising Ford that the book was full of libel. He proved unable to give a truthful explanation.

Cases brought by Tudor Roberts, a solicitor, and the journalist Derek Jameson illustrate the Carter-Ruck techniques. In 1985 Roberts was awarded £20,000 damages against Private Eye plus costs on the higher scale. I agreed before I left Carter-Ruck's firm that he would only pay the costs recoverable from Private Eye. Carter-Ruck, however, billed Roberts £60,000. The cost judge allowed only £18,567. My assurance was ignored. Carter Ruck wanted the lot. It was two years before Roberts was reimbursed his damages and the legal costs he had earlier paid.

Derek Jameson, as a tabloid editor, had been unwisely advised to sue the BBC over a satirical sketch. Carter-Ruck said Jameson would get £25,000-£50,000. David Eady QC advised Carter-Ruck in writing that Jameson accept the £10 that the BBC had offered in settlement plus his costs. Carter-Ruck concealed this opinion from Jameson. Jameson lost the case and was sent a bill by Carter Ruck for £41,342.50. When he learned by chance of the QC's pessimistic advice, Carter-Ruck told him a string of lies.

· David Hooper is a media lawyer and was a partner of Peter Carter-Ruck
dsh@rpc.co.uk

by Guest 06.05.15 18:17

Funny system you Brits have got out there!

by Carrry On Doctor 06.05.15 18:33

And possibly why Sonia Poulton (so we hear) is screening her documentary first in the USA.

by **PeterMac** 06.05.15 19:33

Carrry On Doctor wrote:And possibly why Sonia Poulton (so we hear) is screening her documentary first in the USA.

And why Dr Amaral's book will never be printed in England,
and why TB was sued to within an inch of his pension
And why Sonia will never be able to publish her stuff in England
And why the MSM are forbidden from telling the truth, or publishing facts.
~~And therefore why the McCanns are still free~~

They did not choose a good Criminal defence firm, nor a firm who specialise in missing children, nor . . .
They chose LIBEL lawyers. (Who apparently know nothing about the Crime of Abduction, and the elements which are required to prove it - Not their specialty, you understand)
Which must tell us something.

by Guest 06.05.15 23:14

Now now, PM, aren't we forgetting the extradition lawyers, you remember, the guys that put old Pinochet in a wheelchair and resurrected him on the tarmac in Chile upon his return!

by **PeterMac** 07.05.15 8:26

Portia wrote:Now now, PM, aren't we forgetting the extradition lawyers, you remember, the guys that put old Pinochet in a wheelchair and resurrected him on the tarmac in Chile upon his return!

I hadn't forgotten them, but the attack dogs they used were Carter-Ruck. The extradition people would be more of a line of defence,

by Guest 07.05.15 8:41

I beg to differ: it's not the lawyers which are dangerous: it's their clients

What would you say if you ever found yourself in a predicament needing a lawyer?
Bet you'd be glad to find a good one!

Same with Bailiffs: I'd hate to have one knocking at my door, but if a Court had awarded me some money, I'd be happy to charge one with recovering that from my opponent

Same with all of you, I guess

I'm surprised dr Amaral never hired a British lawyer to do something about the Media, on a no-win no-fee contract

Or he could have formed a Ltd company, transferred his claims against the Media to this company, and then sold its shares.
In this manner, the shareholders would reap the rewards, and dr Amaral would have been able to pocket the asking price of the shares

Everybody benefits

And yes, he could have put his shares into a foundation, so as to keep the money received for the shares out of 3rd parties eager hands

Any British lawyer might have explained this to him, and also a Portuguese one.

by plebgate 07.05.15 8:54

Yes, they are not all the same, but there are some nasty, greedy bastards out there.

by **PeterMac** 07.05.15 9:13

Portia wrote:I beg to differ: it's not the lawyers which are dangerous: it's their clients

What would you say if you ever found yourself in a predicament needing a lawyer?
Bet you'd be glad to find a good one!

And you stand in court facing the man who raped you, and are torn to pieces by a highly paid silk, are accused of lying, are accused of making a false accusation for financial gain .
When the lawyers acting for the defence KNOW full well the strength of evidence against their client
When the lawyers acting for the defence know perfectly well that their client has 5 previous convictions for identical offences, committed under identical circumstances and has been imprisoned 5 times - but the court is never allowed to hear that.
As you say, he needed a good lawyer, and got one.

Carter-Ruck KNEW there was no evidence of Abduction during the years they prepared the case against TB.
Which is why, by a brilliant piece of totally legal "blackmail' they threatened him with financial impoverishment and got him to sign an Undertaking.
THEN did him for breach of that undertaking.
Only his quick wittedness allowed him to put in the killer question which exposed their whole case as - in layman's terms - vindictive and based on a falsehood.

At which point the Costs very suddenly dropped from a third of a million, to a third of his State Pension. Funny that !

by jeanmonroe 07.05.15 10:05

Everybody here, knows my 'views' on this 'case'.

Whether that be 'faked abduction' OR 'a massive scam'.

I 'SHOULD' have been 'sued' to the hilt!

I have NOT been!

Nothing, Nada, Zilch, Zero, from ANY 'lawyer'.

Not that a 'letter/threat' would STOP me 'espousing', ok, 'mouthing off!', anyway!

I have (mainly winkwink

) stuck to the 'facts' (PJ files, TV 'interviews' by McCanns' ) about this 'case'

THEY have 'said' in print or 'interviews', mainly, all the things i have 'said'

eg: If i 'say', and i oft do, that.........'there's no evidence that Madeleine is dead and there's no evidence to implicate us in her death'

I'm just 'repeating'/saying', verbatim, what G McCann has 'said', on record, in the public 'domain'!

I 'think' the 'reason' why i haven't received a 'cease&desist' letter, or been threatened 'to be sued' is because i don't have 'a pot to pi** in'

I'm pretty 'sure' if i were 'loaded' (money wise) as opposed to my being 'loaded' (drink wise) which is quite often, i'd be top of the 'shop' to be 'sued'!

TB was NOT 'sued' for what he 'said' about this 'case' but sued for 'breaching an undertaking' he had 'given' not to 'repeat' what he had 'said'

istbc, of course.

jta: Would the McCanns' DARE to let me, and others, with almost 'encyclopedic' knowledge of this 'case', self 'taught', anywhere near a court witness 'box', ANY court witness 'box'?

by MumofTwo 07.05.15 14:53

I have stood in the dock, many many times as a Law Enformcement prosecution witness to the Crown. I could be staring right into the eyes of the defendant, knowing that I was speaking the entire truth, yet a good Defense Lawyer could still make me sweat from every pore and crevice....

by jeanmonroe 07.05.15 15:00

MumofTwo wrote:I have stood in the dock, many many times as a Law Enformcement prosecution witness to the Crown. I could be staring right into the eyes of the defendant, knowing that I was speaking the entire truth, yet a good Defense Lawyer could still make me sweat from every pore and crevice....

Scaredy Cat! laughat