Re: Debbie Butler is posting up personal details on MM

by Guest 10.12.09 23:53

A reply to Ambersuz

Post Tony Bennett on Sun Oct 04, 2009 11:58 pm

Ambersuz wrote:This to me is not a money issue and now I see Tony asking for money to be sent! What for if he's backed down...I've sent him money in the past and although it has opened the public's eyes where has it got us all?

You cannot fight big money with pennies...so whats the point of sending postage stamps and £10 here and there? Is it going to cover David Kirwans fees?

Hardly! There has to be another way!

Ambersuz, I'll answer in two parts: (1) past donations and (2) the 'legal defence fund'.

PAST DONATIONS:

[snipped]

THE 'LEGAL DEFENCE FUND'

There is no 'legal defence fund' as yet but we did discuss that yesterday in Cardiff and we may be able to get something off the ground and make an announcement about it later.

In the meantime, I answered a post from someone who wished to donate £10.00 towards legal expenses and, yes, that will go towards the cost of the legal fees of Kirwans. Incidentally the trip up to Liverpool was a round trip of no less than 570 miles for Debbie - a huge amount for one day - and to date neither Debbie nor I have claimed a penny in travel expenses from the Foundation although we have had to make many trips for one reason or another. (I only suggested stamps by the way because one or two people are unable to use cheques - and, yes, we have postage expenses apart from sending out the booklets and the leaflets).

BACKING DOWN?

[snipped] .

by Guest 11.12.09 8:26

flytrap wrote:
I think you'll find this is all about a response I made to one poster on the 'Missing Madeleine' Forum who wanted to donate towards further possible legal or court costs and asked for information on how to do so. I gave a simple answer. Which has been much - and deliberately - misinterpreted.

Maybe Im confused but that post you are referring to was made AFTER you settled your bill with Kirwans. So why would you then ask for stamps etc for a fund when you knew there would be no further costs?

The floor is yours Tony Bennett

by Guest 11.12.09 11:56

Tony Bennett wrote:
flytrap wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:I think you'll find this is all about a response I made to one poster on the 'Missing Madeleine' Forum who wanted to donate towards further possible legal or court costs and asked for information on how to do so. I gave a simple answer. Which has been much - and deliberately - misinterpreted.

Maybe Im confused but that post you are referring to was made AFTER you settled your bill with Kirwans. So why would you then ask for stamps etc for a fund when you knew there would be no further costs?

Post for me here the ORIGINAL QUESTION I was asked on the 'MM' Forum and my ORIGINAL ANSWER and then I will respond.

Tony Bennett - we await your response. You suggest that you gave a simple answer which has been deliberately misinterpreted. Flytrap has identified a valid source of confusion. Only you can clarify this situation - so that the truth is known.

by baconbutty 11.12.09 12:02

Butler's latest Twitter entry --

IWILLNOTGOAWAY

Lawrence falsifies accounts
about 2 hours ago from web

http://twitter.com/IWILLNOTGOAWAY

by Pussycat 11.12.09 12:53

baconbutty wrote:Butler's latest Twitter entry --

IWILLNOTGOAWAY

Lawrence falsifies accounts
about 2 hours ago from web

She needs medical attention, immediately - accusing Sharon of falsifying accounts is a pretty serious allegation

http://twitter.com/IWILLNOTGOAWAY

by baconbutty 11.12.09 13:01

Pussycat wrote:
baconbutty wrote:Butler's latest Twitter entry --

IWILLNOTGOAWAY

Lawrence falsifies accounts
about 2 hours ago from web

She needs medical attention, immediately - accusing Sharon of falsifying accounts is a pretty serious allegation

http://twitter.com/IWILLNOTGOAWAY

She certainly does.
I think Ms Lawrence should be informed asap, by anyone who has her contact details.

by Guest 11.12.09 13:02

As serious as continuing to sell hate material in contrary to an agreement given under law?

by flytrap 11.12.09 13:15

Tony, you have the originals now. Care to respond?

by Guest 11.12.09 13:59

Tony Bennett wrote:Incidentally the trip up to Liverpool was a round trip of no less than 570 miles for Debbie - a huge amount for one day - and to date neither Debbie nor I have claimed a penny in travel expenses

According to RAC route planner, Maidstone is approximately 50 miles from Harlow; and Harlow is 219 miles from the outer limits of the city centre of Liverpool. Who did the majority of the driving - you, Butler or did you share it equally??

What amount of money would you, personally, claim from the Foundation accounts to recoup the cost of that return journey, Tony Bennett??

by baconbutty 11.12.09 14:24

And on and on Twitters Butler (note the Cichy link, still in cahoots) --

IWILLNOTGOAWAY

1. What is good for the goose is good for the gander
6 minutes ago from web
2. Harry Cichy Blog - http://harrysnews.blogspot.com/
21 minutes ago from web
3. Lawrence falsifies accounts
about 5 hours ago from web

by **Tony Bennett** 11.12.09 14:25

flytrap wrote:Tony, you have the originals now. Care to respond?

As my answer shows, and it is clear, this was in response to one poster on 'Missing Madeleine' who wanted to help with our legal costs. Not one donation to the Madeleine Foundation followed that posting, but four people did donate to me personally in November when they became aware that I'd paid £440.00 out of my own pocket to Carter-Ruck.

There is nothing more for me to answer.

I now look forward to you all answering this question:

Why did the McCanns spend £500,000 hiring hard-drinking Irish conman Kevin Halligen?

A question the McCann-believers on here have continued to avoid answering.

by Guest 11.12.09 14:37

Tony Bennett wrote:
flytrap wrote:
I think you'll find this is all about a response I made to one poster on the 'Missing Madeleine' Forum who wanted to donate towards further possible legal or court costs and asked for information on how to do so. I gave a simple answer. Which has been much - and deliberately - misinterpreted.

Maybe Im confused but that post you are referring to was made AFTER you settled your bill with Kirwans. So why would you then ask for stamps etc for a fund when you knew there would be no further costs?
Post for me here the ORIGINAL QUESTION I was asked on the 'MM' Forum and my ORIGINAL ANSWER and then I will respond.

I posted the originals, but you've still failed to answer Flytrap's questions. What you posted is no answer to the questions.
Recap :
02-10-2009 : Trip to Kirwan & payment of £500 from the MF account (as in opposite to earlier statements by Mr Bennett)
03-10-2009 : Alledgedly the members present at the meeting selected the members of the Committee and approved of paying the legal costs by the Foundation
04-10-2009 : someone posts "I would gladly send you 10.00 to help pay for your lawyers cost if I knew where to send it."
That's when you, Mr Bennett, start talking about setting up a legal defence fund telling people to send donations (cheques or stamps) to your address.

It was in November when you accidentally revealed the voluntary donation to Kirwan's was paid by the MF.

Now you're telling us that by that time it was known there would be a further bill from Carter-Ruck.
Those £400 (to which three other people donated £270 according to you) were the Court fees, NOT a bill by CR.
So what further bill from Carter Ruck are you talking about? When did they sent you bills? Or when did they tell you you had to pay a bill? When did they file the complaint at the Court?

by flytrap 11.12.09 14:40

Thank you for following up my posts and chasing Tony for some answers.

Tony, you are still not answering my posts!

This will not go away until you explain why you requested further donations for a legal fund when the bill had been paid, and there were no more bills expected.

I have to say, it doesn't look good but Im sure there is a reasonable explanation for this. Tony, its in your best interests to sort this out once and for all. The longer this goes on the more weight it is adding to Butlers accusations. If there is nothing underhand then explain....I dont understand why you are dancing around this issue.

by **Tony Bennett** 11.12.09 14:44

Molly wrote:It was in November when you accidentally revealed the voluntary donation to Kirwan's was paid by the MF. Now you're telling us that by that time it was known there would be a further bill from Carter-Ruck. Those £400 (to which three other people donated £270 according to you) were the Court fees, NOT a bill by CR. So what further bill from Carter Ruck are you talking about? When did they sent you bills? Or when did they tell you you had to pay a bill? When did they file the complaint at the Court?

There was 'nothing' accidental about disclosing that the Madeleine Foundation chequebook was used to pay Kirwans, we have always been open about all that we have been doing.

The 'Carter-Ruck bill' and the 'Court fee' are one and the same. Carter-Ruck billed me for the Court fee, I didn't pay the Court direct.

£500,000 to Kevin Halligen?

by Autumn 11.12.09 14:53

And as far as I know, the McCanns have not made a complaint about being defrauded by Halligen.

by **Tony Bennett** 11.12.09 14:54

baconbutty wrote:And on and on Twitters Butler (note the Cichy link, still in cahoots) --

IWILLNOTGOAWAY

1. What is good for the goose is good for the gander
6 minutes ago from web
2. Harry Cichy Blog - http://harrysnews.blogspot.com/
21 minutes ago from web
3. Lawrence falsifies accounts
about 5 hours ago from web

Mention is made on the Harry Cichy blog of matters relating to Terry Lubbock.

It is falsely claimed that I held myself out to be a Solicitor when I was not.

Here for the record is the wording of a letter Terry Lubbock himself signed on 18 October 2006 to the Chief Constable of Essex. A similar letter had alreday been sent to Terry's former Solicitors Steed & Steed, to the Coroner, to the I.P.C.C., to the pathologists I wrote to on his behalf, to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority, and to all others I wrote to on Terry's behalf:

“Tony Bennett is a Solicitor on the current Roll of Solicitors, No. 175086. I am aware that because he is now doing other work, he chooses not to hold a current practising certificate as he made clear to me from the outset. He makes no charge for his advice and assistance.

I understand that you have some kind of issue concerning his acting for me in the capacity of Solicitor.

I wish therefore to make the following absolutely clear:

1. No other Solicitor acts for me in connection with the death of my son
2. I have appointed Tony to assist me on all maters concerning my son’s death and all letters he sends to you have my full authority. I approve these letters before they are sent and Tony gives me copies
3. I want you to regard Tony as acting for me
4. I wish Tony to be notified in advance of any proposed meeting between any Police Officer and myself and I would wish him to be present at all meetings with any of your staff including those with any ‘Family Liaison Officer’.”

Just to clear one other matter up: Harry Cichy inspired Terry Lubbock to make two false allegations agaisnt me, in late 2007: (1) that I had pretended to be a Solicitor when I was not and (2) that I had charged him for helping him.

Both these allegations were rejected by the Law Society after being fully investgated.

by flytrap 11.12.09 14:57

[quote="Autumn"]And as far as I know, the McCanns have not made a complaint about being defrauded by Halligen.[/quote

But Butler has accused Tony of fraud and he still hasnt answered the question about why he was asking for donations to a legal fund when it was not required.

You say I am avoiding the Halligen question......Ill come to that when the questions concerning your legal fund have been answered if you dont mind as it looks as though you are avoiding answering those questions.

by preciousramotswe 11.12.09 15:12

Tony Bennett wrote:
flytrap wrote:Tony, you have the originals now. Care to respond?
As my answer shows, and it is clear, this was in response to one poster on 'Missing Madeleine' who wanted to help with our legal costs. Not one donation to the Madeleine Foundation followed that posting, but four people did donate to me personally in November when they became aware that I'd paid £440.00 out of my own pocket to Carter-Ruck.

There is nothing more for me to answer.

I now look forward to you all answering this question:

Why did the McCanns spend £500,000 hiring hard-drinking Irish conman Kevin Halligen?

A question the McCann-believers on here have continued to avoid answering.

(bold my empasis)

Well I'll answer it, and I have to say the answer is as simple as the 'top secret, classifed' CEOP documents that can be downloaded all over the web.

The truth is:

THEY GOT CONNED

Now, that is very sad and personally I hope Halligen rots in hell.

He managed to fool CEOs of international companies, intelligence experts in both the US and the UK, former defence top brass, several women, bankers, and lord only knows who else. So I think the Mccanns can be forgiven for having got conned by an expert and practiced CONMAN.

Why you think two people searching for a missing child should have seen what intelligence chiefs and defence experts didn't is a mystery to me, it really is.

by Autumn 11.12.09 15:28

Poor Kate and Gerry - when it comes to choosing private detectives they always seem to end up with people who could not even organize a trip to the toilet, let along search for a missing child.

by Guest 11.12.09 16:04

Looks like that first investigator has set a trend then.
Blunders and making money on the back of a missing child.

by twinkle 11.12.09 16:21

Molly wrote:Looks like that first investigator has set a trend then.
Blunders and making money on the back of a missing child.

Looks that way Cath.

by DCB1 11.12.09 16:25

Autumn wrote:Poor Kate and Gerry - when it comes to choosing private detectives they always seem to end up with people who could not even organize a trip to the toilet, let along search for a missing child.

Pointing Percy at the porcelain is something I stumble to - rather than organising!

by flytrap 11.12.09 16:56

Hold fire....Tony STILL hasn't answered about his post requesting stamps for his defense fund when all costs had been paid has he?

by Autumn 11.12.09 17:02

Tony Bennett wrote:
flytrap wrote:Tony, you have the originals now. Care to respond?
As my answer shows, and it is clear, this was in response to one poster on 'Missing Madeleine' who wanted to help with our legal costs. Not one donation to the Madeleine Foundation followed that posting, but four people did donate to me personally in November when they became aware that I'd paid £440.00 out of my own pocket to Carter-Ruck.

There is nothing more for me to answer.

I now look forward to you all answering this question:

Why did the McCanns spend £500,000 hiring hard-drinking Irish conman Kevin Halligen?

A question the McCann-believers on here have continued to avoid answering.

Strange how they are so fond of firing endless questions at Mr Bennett but avoid answering any of his.