HALF WAY THERE. Yesterday I made my 60th montly payment to Carter-Ruck; there are 60 more to be made

by **Tony Bennett** 26.04.18 7:57

Yesterday was the 60th month in a row that my current account was removed of £125, in respect of a Standing Order for £125 a month, payable to Carter-Ruck in respect of the costs of the McCanns in bringing, in December 2011, a High Court action against me for 'Contempt of Court.

The case was heard in February 2013 by Mr Justice Tugendhat, father of the current Conservative MP, Tom Tugendhat.

He sentenced me to three months in prison, suspended for one year, and ordered me to pay all of the McCanns' legal costs, to be agreed between the parties, or otherwise 'taxed' (i.e. assessed by a High Court Taxing Master.

Days before the final Court hearing, Carter-Ruck sent me their Schedule of Costs. It amounted to over £330,000. They had used a number of senior Partners and hired three barristers including a Q.C. in order to make sure I was defeated.

These were very difficult times.

I decided however to press on with two further legal actions.

The first was to renew my application to the Court to discharge the 16 undertakings I had been forced to give in November 2009, which banned the sale of my book: 'What Really Happened to Madeleine McCann? 60 Reasons which Suggest she was not Abducted'. It also banned me from making certain allegations against the McCanns. Mr Justice Tugendhat ruled that I had breached these undertakings on several occasions in 2010 and 2011. I apologised at the end of the High Court proceedings to the McCanns for these breaches.

However, when I was summonsed by the McCanns for alleged Contempt of Court, I made what is called a 'cross-application' for the undertakings to be withdrawn. This was on the basis of evidence in the public domain about Madeleine's disappearance. However, Mr Justice Tugendhat in his wisdom decided that he would not hear my cross-application during the same proceedings as the Contempt proceedings. He said I must wait until the Court had first decided whether I had committed Contempt of the High Court. Only then could I bring my cross-application to be relieved of the undertakings.

So, as soon as the Court case was over, I renewed that application.

Furthermore, I made another application, namely an appeal to the Court of Appeal against Mr Jutice Tugendhat' decision.

By March 2013, these applications were already underway through the Courts.

At this point a Solicitor, Robin Tilbrook, and a friend who owned a Wills Consultancy, made approaches to Carter-Ruck to see if my enormous costs bill, then over £330,000 - and more, to cover the final hearings, could be reduced.

The eventual offer I accepted was that if I withdrew BOTH of my applications, the McCanns would reduce my costs bill to £27,500, with a proviso that I would become liable to pay Carter-Ruck a further £47,500 should the High Court find me guilty of further breaches of the undertakings.

I paid them £12,500 immediately and the rest, £15,000, was to be paid by Standing Order of £125 on the 25th of every month until 25 April 2023.

So I am half-way there.

The main purpose of this post is for me to record once again my grateful thanks to all those who supported me through those very difficult days of 2012 & 2013, including those who were kind enough to support me in Court, and those who were kind enough to help me financially with the costs. I shall be eternally grateful to you all.

The other purpose is to record, once again, the true account of the 'deal' that was reached between myself and the McCanns, which as you can see amounted to this:

"You withdraw those two applications you've made, and we will substantially reduce your costs bill".

Republishing this account will not, I know, deter a small handful of very nasty trolls on the #McCann hashtag who have claimed for years that I am either a government 'shill' or working for the McCanns, and that that is why the McCanns substantially reduced my costs bill. I have long since given up trying to understand what motivates these people.

And there have always been some who miss no opportunity to repeat these claims.

This was Isabelle McFadden, only yesterday, on Twitter:

HALF WAY THERE. Yesterday I made my 60th montly payment to Carter-Ruck; there are 60 more to be made Mcfadd11

Madeleine CaseTweets ‏ @ McCannCaseTweet 13h13 hours ago

Follow @ McCannCaseTweet

@ zampos Are you still writing Kate and Gerry #McCann a check every month?

They must love you

.

by Rogue-a-Tory 26.04.18 9:26

I really hope that you don’t have to justify yourself to anyone on the CMOMM forum Tony. What you went through was horrendous and if you don’t mind me saying, the bargain struck by them demonstrates just how keen the McCanns are to avoid any court appearance in the UK that actually examines any part of the case.

by **Jill Havern** 26.04.18 11:33

A valid question posted on CMOMM facebook:

HALF WAY THERE. Yesterday I made my 60th montly payment to Carter-Ruck; there are 60 more to be made Caro10

by willowthewisp 26.04.18 17:51

Hi Mr Bennett,so Carter Ruck still have a loaded weapon to your head!

That if you impinge on the "Agreement" you pay £47,500 for Breaches of the agreement to Carter Ruck?
Therebye silencing your "Freedom of speech" by UK Courts Justice system?

The same justice system being used to defer any guilty persons to any acts of Criminal activity in regard to the missing minor Madeleine McCann,having spent over at least £12 million pounds on Operation Grange,remit Abduction?

The UK Police have strung out and used flannel answers by the same "Establishment" figure heads during these Police procedures and still No Political person's prepared to stick their proverbial Heads above the Den of Inequity called the House of Common's and its Laws enshrined by the King or Queen of England?

What a Laughing stock of Hypocrisy the United Kingdom really is,held to Order by Finally Woven outfits of Woolen Headed bigots after Hundreds of years of abuse to its descendants,Order,Order I say, put the Mace down,its a violation of the house!?

by **Jill Havern** 26.04.18 19:42

Rogue-a-Tory wrote:I really hope that you don’t have to justify yourself to anyone on the CMOMM forum Tony. What you went through was horrendous and if you don’t mind me saying, the bargain struck by them demonstrates just how keen the McCanns are to avoid any court appearance in the UK that actually examines any part of the case.

It not only demonstrates just how keen the McCanns were to avoid any court appearance in the UK that actually examined any part of the case... but also, in my humble opinion, demonstrates that the "Fees" quoted at him by C-R were a form of 'Threats and intimidation', and had no bearing on the reality of quantum of work they had actually done.

Especially as Kate McCann wrote in her bewk that C-R "continued to work behind the scenes for no fee". So just how did they arrive at that fee then?

Carter-Ruck spent literally dozens and dozens of hours on this forum monitoring Tony's posts - were they charging him for that?

by willowthewisp 28.04.18 16:13

Jill Havern wrote:
Rogue-a-Tory wrote:I really hope that you don’t have to justify yourself to anyone on the CMOMM forum Tony. What you went through was horrendous and if you don’t mind me saying, the bargain struck by them demonstrates just how keen the McCanns are to avoid any court appearance in the UK that actually examines any part of the case.

It not only demonstrates just how keen the McCanns were to avoid any court appearance in the UK that actually examined any part of the case... but also, in my humble opinion, demonstrates that the "Fees" quoted at him by C-R were a form of 'Threats and intimidation', and had no bearing on the reality of quantum of work they had actually done.

Especially as Kate McCann wrote in her bewk that C-R "continued to work behind the scenes for no fee". So just how did they arrive at that fee then?

Carter-Ruck spent literally dozens and dozens of hours on this forum monitoring Tony's posts - were they charging him for that?

Hi Jill Haven,but it still doesn't account for over three hundred Thousand Pounds to be expunged from the bill,as that can be seen by various person's casting aspersions to CMMoM members if you get my drift?

You know who there target is and when they cast aspersions towards Honesty,integrity,take a look at how this person has conducted themselves over Mr Lee Balkwell's,Mr Stuart Lubbock's Murders of how that person has conducted themselves.

by **Hobs** 28.04.18 19:24

Hi Tony.
Since the Portuguese courts officially and legally declared the mccanns had not been cleared of involvement in the disappearance , read, homicide, concealment of a corpse and filing a false police report, would this have any affect on your payments since this is what you said.

Also should the mccanns be charged and found guilty of said crimes in the future, would you be able to sue for the return of the money plus interest and costs?

If they are prosecuted and jailed, there must be a fair few folk who would and should be able to sue fir return of any money since it was gained under false pretenses, imagine all those who donated to the fund in the belief that Maddie was abducted by a stranger and the money was to be used for the search, then all the media awards out of court, then possibly the interviews etc.

This would also likely involve the tapas 7 as well.

As an aside, i wonder how their friendships are today?

by **Tony Bennett** 28.04.18 21:49

Hobs wrote:Hi Tony.

Since the Portuguese courts officially and legally declared the mccanns had not been cleared of involvement in the disappearance , read, homicide, concealment of a corpse and filing a false police report, would this have any affect on your payments since this is what you said.

REPLY: Thank you @ Hobs for your comments (and also @ willowthewisp).

The way I saw the situation was that the McCanns had made a public claim - and asked us to 'look for Madeleine'. When I began seriously looking at the case - when the McCanns were made suspects on my 60th birthday - I began to doubt their claim. I didn't know what internet forums were, in those days, but by googling 'Madeleine McCann', I came across the Anorak forum and realised that hundreds, thousands even, shared my doubts. I began publicly voicing my doubts, attempted a public prosecution of the McCanns, and then set up a website for the Madeleine Foundation group and wrote a book. All that time I thought to myself: "Surely if someone has made a very, extremely public claim, and there are good reasons to doubt that claim, one is entitled to question that claim?"

Sadly the High Court thought otherwise. What I considered to be 'doubting a claim', the courts interpreted as 'a serious allegation, a libel'.

The Portuguese Supreme Court decision does not therefore really help me at all. The fact that the Court has ruled (correctly) that the McCanns have not been cleared is nowhere near the same as saying they are guilty of anything illegal concerning Madeleine.

Also should the mccanns be charged and found guilty of said crimes in the future, would you be able to sue for the return of the money plus interest and costs? If they are prosecuted and jailed, there must be a fair few folk who would and should be able to sue for return of any money since it was gained under false pretenses, imagine all those who donated to the fund in the belief that Maddie was abducted by a stranger and the money was to be used for the search, then all the media awards out of court, then possibly the interviews etc. This would also likely involve the tapas 7 as well.

REPLY: Well that would be totally different. Yes, I would most certainly be able to sue for all my money back, and a huge award for the suffering and anxiety caused by having challenged a deliberate lie (or maybe a whole host of lies).   Er, and quite a lot of interest. If that were to happen while I was alive, I would probably do it - but first I would probably contact Experian to see if the McCanns had any money. And I probably wouldn't be first in the queue, either. What about the suffering and financial humiliation heaped on Goncalo Amaral? The lies and smears against so many others?

In fact, when you pause for a few minutes to take stock of the consequences of the McCanns being found guilty of offences concerning Madeleine McCann's disappearance, they would surely be unimaginably huge. The role of the police. The role of the media. Our draconian libel laws. The actions of politicians and the security services. In fact, I doubt if the world would ever be the same afterwards.

As an aside, I wonder how their friendships are today?

REPLY: I keep seeing rumours about these things on social media. But even if their friendships may be a lot more fragile than before, or even fractured, they are of course forever bound, forever together, so to speak.

By - as David Payne blurted out - their infamous 'Pact of Silence'.

by **Jill Havern** 28.04.18 22:07

Tony Bennett wrote:In fact, when you pause for a few minutes to take stock of the consequences of the McCanns being found guilty of offences concerning Madeleine McCann's disappearance, they would surely be unimaginably huge. The role of the police. The role of the media. Our draconian libel laws. The actions of politicians and the security services. In fact, I doubt if the world would ever be the same afterwards.

I was going to make a post along those very lines!

So, thank you for putting it far better than me.

As an aside, what comment do you have in resposne to willow's post about the £300,000 reduction in fees - did you ever question how that sum was even arrived at?

by **Tony Bennett** 01.05.18 11:06

Jill Havern wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:In fact, when you pause for a few minutes to take stock of the consequences of the McCanns being found guilty of offences concerning Madeleine McCann's disappearance, they would surely be unimaginably huge. The role of the police. The role of the media. Our draconian libel laws. The actions of politicians and the security services. In fact, I doubt if the world would ever be the same afterwards.

I was going to make a post along those very lines!

So, thank you for putting it far better than me.

As an aside, what comment do you have in resposne to willow's post about the £300,000 reduction in fees - did you ever question how that sum was even arrived at?

The short answer to that question is that from time to time Carter-Ruck sent me what are called 'Schedules of Costs' which set out exactly how their costs were calculated.

The main items were solicitors' fees and barristers' fees (see below).

In the case of work done by the Senior Partner of Carter-Ruck, Adam Tudor, his work was charged to me at £1,000 oer hour plus VAT i.e. £1,200 per hour.

In the case of Partner Isobel Hudson (who married during the proceedings and became Isobel Martorell), her costs were charged to me at £500 per hour plus VAT, i.e. £600 per hour.

The Carter-Ruck team hired three barristers against me to make absolutely sure they won. The third barrister was a Q.C. who charged (I can't remember now for sure) £10,000 plus VAT for one day's appearance in court.

By the time the High Court had met to pass sentence on me and hear my apology to the McCanns, the total costs had risen to over £370,000, If I had to pay them, my house would have had to be sold and I would probably have had to go bankrupt.

It has been suggested by some that the costs against me included time spent by Carter-Ruck researching my posts on CMOMM and on the Madeleine Foundation website etc. No, that is entirely incorrect. Generally speaking, claimants cannot claim for their costs incurred before bringing proceedings - what you might call 'research' costs or 'pre-action' costs e.g. writing me warning letters. How this was funded I have no idea, unless of course we believe Kate McCann's statement in her book 'madeleine', pp. 289-290, that :"Adam Tudor and his colleague Isabel Hudson continue to do a vast amount of work for us, without payment, most of it quietly, behind the scenes..."  Those words were published six months before I received my summons.

There is more information about all this in a member's post on CMOMM:

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t4459-carter-ruck-in-numbers

Also this from a report I did at the time.

Recent Events

On 5 & 6 February Mr Justice Tugendhat heard evidence in relation to an application by the McCanns to commit me to prison, restricted to the very narrow issue of: ‘Has Mr Bennett broken any of his undertakings?’. No other matters whatsoever could be taken into consideration during this trial.

Shortly afterwards, Carter-Ruck told me that their total costs in the matter had now risen to over £300,000, including fees for barristers Adrienne Page Q.C. and Jacob Dean of £69,270 (inc. VAT) and their own fees which then totalled £233,299.20 (inc. VAT but excluding witness expenses and various Court fees and other ‘disbursements’ which amounted to several thousand pounds on top of that.

And this is an extract from the final Court Order in the case which was signed by myself and Carter-Ruck, for the MCanns, on 8 April 2013. It shows what I had to do in order to get my costs bill substantially reduced:

AND UPON the Defendant [Anthony Bennett]:

1.         Acknowledging that he continues to be bound by the Undertakings which he gave to the Court (“the Undertakings”) contained in the Order herein of 25 November 2009 (“the Order”), to which is attached a penal notice;

2.         Agreeing to the dismissal of his application by way of Application Notice of 20 February 2012 (“the Defendant’s Application”) to lift the stay of these libel proceedings imposed by paragraph 2 of the Order (“the Stay”) and/or to vary or discharge the Undertakings; and

3.         Undertaking forthwith to withdraw his appeal by Appellant’s Notice filed with the Court of Appeal on 13 March 2013 from the Order for Committal of Tugendhat J (“the Committal Order”) made on 21 February 2013 (“the Appeal”)

I regret very much that Isabelle McFadden decided to make open mockery of the costs I still have to pay to Carter-Ruck (see post upthread) and that a few other trolls who inhabit the #McCann hashtag every day insist that the costs reduction was because I sold my soul and am working for the McCanns and the government. These people act with very deliberate malice. I can't look into their souls and know why they do this, all I can see is 'hate', for whatever reason they harbor this hate, I do not know.

ETA:

I've just referred to two 'Isabels' in this case - Isabel Hudosn and Isabelle McFadden.

There was a third: Isobel Duarte, the McCanns' Portuguese lawyer, who eventually lost the case against Goncalo Amaral in the Portuguese Supreme Court.

As a matter of interest, 'Isabel' in its various forms are variations on the Hebrew name Jezebel, a wicked Queen of Israel, though not actually Hebrew-born herself. She is notorious for having whipped up dales charges against a God-fearing Israelite. Naboth, who happened to have a vineyard right up against King Ahab's place (Ahab being Jezebel's husband). Ahab coveted this vineyard like crazy. Jezebel coached some false witnesses and poor old Naboth was killed and his body throw in the courtyard, where the dogs licked his blood. A prophet foretold that the same would happen to her. It did: 2 Kings 9 v 30.

We all do bad things. I am glad that I have discovered that Jesus Christ is alive and well in Heaven and has forgiven my many past wrongdoings - by the act of believing and trusting in Him and His sacrifice on the cross. This amazing offer is open to everyone.


8 April 2013

.

by willowthewisp 01.05.18 12:35

Hi Mr Antony Bennett, just to let you know I wasn't questioning or passing judgement that you had sold your self as part of any"Deal" with Carter Ruck.

Perhaps the appeasers who have stated as such would now desist from passing spurious comments about Mr Bennett and CMMoM.

Hopefully Justice will prevail and that any Counter claims made against the named firm have costs awarded against them plus interest?

Perhaps Judge Tungendhat and Judge Hogg were part of a special clan of legal representatives with superior knowledge on child cases,you know when your judgement sends a child back to its Parents and One of the Parents murders the child,but the Judge who made the decision hasn't been questioned?
One rule for one class of people and a different set of rules apply to the elites in Society!

by sar 01.05.18 14:48

Thank you Tony.

HALF WAY THERE. Yesterday I made my 60th montly payment to Carter-Ruck; there are 60 more to be made

HALF WAY THERE. Yesterday I made my 60th montly payment to Carter-Ruck; there are 60 more to be made

Amelie McCann (aged 2): "Maddie's jammies!".

Re: HALF WAY THERE. Yesterday I made my 60th montly payment to Carter-Ruck; there are 60 more to be made

Re: HALF WAY THERE. Yesterday I made my 60th montly payment to Carter-Ruck; there are 60 more to be made

Re: HALF WAY THERE. Yesterday I made my 60th montly payment to Carter-Ruck; there are 60 more to be made

Re: HALF WAY THERE. Yesterday I made my 60th montly payment to Carter-Ruck; there are 60 more to be made

Half Way there?

Re: HALF WAY THERE. Yesterday I made my 60th montly payment to Carter-Ruck; there are 60 more to be made

Re: HALF WAY THERE. Yesterday I made my 60th montly payment to Carter-Ruck; there are 60 more to be made

Amelie McCann (aged 2): "Maddie's jammies!".

Re: HALF WAY THERE. Yesterday I made my 60th montly payment to Carter-Ruck; there are 60 more to be made

Re: HALF WAY THERE. Yesterday I made my 60th montly payment to Carter-Ruck; there are 60 more to be made

Amelie McCann (aged 2): "Maddie's jammies!".

Re: HALF WAY THERE. Yesterday I made my 60th montly payment to Carter-Ruck; there are 60 more to be made

Re: HALF WAY THERE. Yesterday I made my 60th montly payment to Carter-Ruck; there are 60 more to be made

Log in for more topics