Re: A FEW QUESTIONS ABOUT CMOMM – ANSWERED (24 March 2017)

by Guest 27.03.17 22:31

As I am unable to send pms and can't delete my account until it is 7 days old may I respectfully ask Jill to delete me. Thank you.

by **Jill Havern** 27.03.17 22:33

OK chirpy, will do.

by Guest 27.03.17 23:39

23 Librae wrote:Someone posted a link to youtube earlier in this thread and I clicked on it wondering what it was. I had no idea Tony had been through all that.

What I was wondering is how the recent court ruling will affect people writing books about the McCanns. If the information is based on the known facts and Gerry doesn't mind people 'purporting theories' then what can they sue for?

Libelous content!

In my opinion, Mr Bennett's personal position as regards the ruthless actions by the McCann campaign, have no place in the public arena - common knowledge or not. It's inviting negativity at a time when people should be most guarded against the ever watchful eye of the law.

beware

Can nobody see this is the most likely reason behind the current instigation and resultant onslaught of commentary on Mr Bennett's history?

by Justice will prevail 28.03.17 3:15

I registered few hours ago and in saying hello added a couple of thoughts . I can't find my post and in view of a couple of questions posed by the OP am now thinking.

Can someone connected to this site tell me where I can find my post. I made it under new thread.

-------------

Welcome. Your post is here - Admin

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t13835-hello

by Justice will prevail 28.03.17 8:45

Thanks, gonna look at the Smithman thread in more detail

-----------

Added by a Mod: Well, there are 9 'SMITHMAN' threads on the forum, all started by Tony Bennett, who says that the evidence does not support the idea that the Smiths are credible witnesses. His arguments are set out in the OPs.

Probably the three best ones to begin with are:

SMITHMAN 2 - where Tony analyses the 17 remarkable similarities between the descriptions of Tannerman and Smithman - AND a third description, that of Wojchiech Krokowslk by Nuno Lourenco:

2 https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t8297-smithman-2-what-can-account-for-the-17-remarkable-similarities-between-tannerman-and-smithman

SMITHMAN 5 - where Tony sets out, in a long post, 12 sets of inexplicable contradictions in the Smiths' purported account of events:

5 https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t11056-smithman-5-the-evidence-of-the-smith-family-from-drogheda-ireland-the-twelve-sets-of-contradictions

SMITHMAN 8 - where Tony argues that Martin Smith effectively became part of the McCann team from January 2008 onwards:

8 https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t11521-smithman-8-the-nine-phases-of-smithman-how-the-smiths-became-part-of-the-mccann-team-in-january-2008

It is right to add that not all on here by any means share Tony's analysis. However, if - as many on here suggest - Madeleine might have died on Sunday or Monday, then the Smith sighting (if there ever was one) becomes irrelevant - Mod

by Justice will prevail 28.03.17 17:21

Had a good read of the links and took part in the polls.

As I read more opinions I may have the confidence to post more but I will just leave it at the moment that I can understand why people believe that Madeleine was dead before that night and don't want to believe it might have been Gerry McCann trying to dispose of Madeleine's body in a panic after finding her dead shortly before.

That is something I think may have happened but again I need to look at much more opinion on when she might have died.

One thing I am convinced of is that the parents covered up Madeleine's death.

Thanks for restoring my hello link, dont know where it got to. As I said it was made as a show of support to the forum.

Thanks

by Mirage 28.03.17 17:33

Deleted. Put this on the wrong thread.

by **sandancer** 28.03.17 17:57

Then we have ex detective/ investigator big grin

. MWT who says Madeleine left the apartment to look for her parents .

So Burglar Bill is wandering down the street , sees Madeleine leaving the patio doors opening and shutting the gate down the steps , opening and shutting the gate and heading off to the Tapas bar in search of her negligent parents . Wearing her pink/white pyjamas .

So Bill quickly whips open his swag bag , conveniently over his shoulder bundles M into it without her making a sound and vanishes into the night . Never to be seen or heard from again !

Bingo ! Burglar , abductor and potential sex offender all in one .

Can I apply for the post of detective now please ? spin

Woops this was in reply to the post by Mirage that's now been moved I think , please could a mod move it on thanks .

by **Jill Havern** 30.03.17 7:39

chirpyinsekt wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2SBXdx1VoSk

In response to this fake ID 'chirpyinsekt', coincidentally our nemesis 'Andrew' - master of creating many fake ID's here - had posted, and kept bumping, this question on MMM from chirpyinsekt's video:

QUOTE Maybe Tony whilst he's at it can answer this question for me and everyone as well..... I did ask it a while ago but he failed to answer so I can only think that he accidentally missed it.

@1:28 on the vid below.

TB says:

"Erm.. and I hope that the way forward I've suggested to erm.. their solicitors will result in erm.. both of us drawing a line under the situation...."

Those very solicitors let you off paying an extortionate amount in the end.

So what you 'suggested' must've worked, Tony?

What did you suggest?

Your views on certain aspects of the case changed dramatically and immediately after that didn't it Tony? Can you explain why to all please?

Thanking you again in advance."

A FEW QUESTIONS ABOUT CMOMM – ANSWERED (24 March 2017) - Page 2 20-97

A FEW QUESTIONS ABOUT CMOMM – ANSWERED (24 March 2017) - Page 2 20-97

Andrew
UNQUOTE

Hopefully the real chirpyinsect, who registered here to tell us that chirpyinsekt was not her, will now know the answer to her question.

And hopefully this post from 2013 will answer Andrew's questions:

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t6951-tony-bennett-announcement-of-settlement-between-mccanns-and-edward-smethurst

And while Andrew is blowing a gasket over on MMM about this issue, a kind hearted member of CMOMM facebook posted this 3 hours ago, which prompted me to answer this question for him:

A FEW QUESTIONS ABOUT CMOMM – ANSWERED (24 March 2017) - Page 2 Dianne10

A FEW QUESTIONS ABOUT CMOMM – ANSWERED (24 March 2017) - Page 2 Commen12

https://www.facebook.com/groups/JillHavernCompleteMysteryofMadeleineMcCann/permalink/1904386356472515/

Here's Tony's message in full:

McCanns & Smethurst v Bennett: Both matters settled

Tony abandons all further legal action; McCanns reduce their costs claim by 93%

by Admin, 3 May 2013

Tony Bennett has given me the following details about a settlement he has recently reached with both the McCanns and Edward Smethurst. This includes a copy of a High Court Consent Order which sets out the precise terms of the settlement.

The main details are:

McCanns v Tony Bennett

1. Tony is required to formally withdraw his application, made on 20 February 2012, to vary three of the 16 Undertakings he gave to the Court and the McCanns in November 2009 - and he has already done so by a letter to the High Court.

2. Tony appealed to the Court of Appeal on 13 March 2013, as he had every right to, against the judgments of Mr Justice Tugendhat in the High Court made on 21 February 2013. His appeal was accepted and registered as appeal No. A2/2013/0684 and was due to be listed for a hearing - but Tony has been asked to withdraw that appeal and has now done so.

3. In return, the McCanns have agreed to reduce their overall costs claim against Tony by 93%. They have reduced their claim against Tony from a total of around £370,000 to £27,500.

4. Tony has now paid an initial £12,500 required by the McCanns and agreed to pay the remaining balance (of £15,000) by monthly payments of at least £125 per calendar month for the next 10 years, i.e. until he is 75½.

5. In addition, Tony must pay a further £47,500 to the McCanns, should either of the following occur:

a. he breaches any of the 16 undertakings, or

b. he fails to keep to his monthly payment agreement.

6. Mr Justice Tugendhat’s sentence of a 3-month prison term, suspended for one year, remains in place, so Tony can be immediately sent to Pentonville Prison if the High Court finds he has breached any of his 16 undertakings (before 21 February 2014).

Edward Smethurst v Tony Bennett

1. Tony had already paid the sum of £2,500 into the Find Madeleine Fund in early 2012 in full and final settlement of Edward Smethurst’s libel damages claim.

2. Edward Smethurst agreed that if a settlement were to be agreed in the McCanns v Bennett matter, he would reduce his costs claim from the original amount claimed, namely £52,713.26, to £7,500 - a reduction of 86%.

To summarise:

In exchange for the McCanns and Edward Smethurst reducing their combined costs claim against him from a total of around £420,000, to £35,000 - a 92% reduction overall - Tony has been required to:

* Withdraw his appeal against Mr Justice Tugendhat’s judgment,

* Withdraw his application to vary three of the 16 different undertakings he gave to the McCanns and the High Court in November 2009,

* Agree to be bound for life by the 16 undertakings he gave to the Court and the McCanns in November 2009, and

* Agree to make no further Application either to lift the stay on the McCanns’ original Libel Claim. or to vary or
discharge any of the undertakings he gave in November 2009.

The Court Order:

The Court Order embodying this settlement is not secret and I am able therefore to post its full terms, which
are as follows:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
Claim No. HQ 09 D 05196

QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION

The Honourable Mr Justice Tugendhat

BETWEEN:

GERRY MCCANN & KATE MCCANN Claimants

and

ANTHONY BENNETT Defendant

CONSENT ORDER

UPON the Court reading the following correspondence:

(a) Letter of Carter-Ruck to Tilbrooks Solicitors dated 18 March 2013

(b) Letter of Tilbrooks Solicitors to Carter-Ruck dated 26 March 2013

(c) Letter of Carter-Ruck to Tilbrooks Solicitors dated 27 March 2013

(d) Letter of Carter-Ruck to the Court dated 16 April 2013, copied to Tilbrooks Solicitors.

AND UPON the Defendant:

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”)

AND UPON the CLAIMANTS:

4. Agreeing to limit their total costs recovery pursuant to the Committal Order to £75,000 inclusive of interest (“the Claimants’ Costs”) in full and final settlement thereof, and so long as the Defendant complies with the following payments plan, namely:

(a) The Defendant to pay £12,500 on account of the Claimants’ Costs within 28 days of the date of this
Order, and

(b) The Defendant to pay a further £15,000 on account of the Claimants’ costs by way of monthly instalments of not less than £125 paid on or before the 25^th day of each calendar month (or if the 25^thof any given month is not a working day, the nearest working day thereafter) for a total period of 10 years, the first such payment being made on 25 May 2013 to the Claimants’ Solicitors’ client account, the final such payment to be made on 25 April 2023, unless by then the Defendant has fully discharged the balance of the £15,000.

5. Agreeing not to enforce payment of the balance of £47,500 of the Claimants’ Costs, save in the event of:

(a) Any future breach by the Defendant of the Undertakings;

(b) The whole or part of the payments provided for in 4(a) and 4(b) above remaining unpaid upon its due date;

(c) The initiating by the Defendant of a fresh application to lift the Stay;

(d) The initiating by the Defendant of a fresh application to vary or discharge the Undertakings;

(e) The failure of the Defendant to withdraw the Appeal [made to the Court of Appeal] or the initiating by the Defendant of a fresh appeal against the order for Committal of 21 February 2013

BY CONSENT IT IS ORDERED THAT:

The Claimant have permission to enter judgment for the whole of the balance of the Claimants’ Costs agreed at £75,000 then outstanding in the event of:

(a) A further finding by the Court or admission by the Defendant of any breach of the Undertaking committed by him after the date of this order;

(b) The whole or any part of the payment provided for in 4(a) and 4(b) above remaining unpaid upon its due date;

(c) The initiating by the Defendant of a fresh application to lift the Stay;

(d) The initiating by the Defendant of a fresh application to vary or discharge the Undertakings;

(e) The initiating by the Defendant of a fresh appeal against the Order for Committal of 21 February 2013.

7. The Defendant’s Application is hereby dismissed.

8. Each party has permission to apply.

9. Save as already set out above, there be no order as to costs.

Dated this seventeenth day of April 2013

SEALED by the High Court this eighteenth day of April 2013

STATEMENT NOTED BY THE COURT:

I, Anthony Bennett, the above-named Defendant, confirm that I have taken legal advice on the terms of this Order from Tilbrooks Solicitors and that I understand those terms and the consequences of any failure to comply with them.

Signed by: Anthony Bennett, 8 April 2013

Signed by: Carter-Ruck, Solicitors, 6 St. Andrew Street, LONDON, EC4A, Solicitors for the Claimants

Signed by: Tilbrooks Solicitors, Quires Green, Wilingale, ONGAR, Essex, CM5 0QP, Solicitors for the Defendant

Additional Statement from Tony, 3 May 2013

I start by thanking once again the forum-owner who originally set up ‘The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann’, largely to help me, and who has remained loyal and helpful throughout all the ups and downs of the last four years.

Today is exactly six years since the parents of Madeleine McCann reported her missing.

For the past 5½ years I have been intensely interested in this case and have made many public statements on it. The legal actions against me have however forced me to recognise that this activity must cease.

Here is a brief history of more recent events concerning the legal actions against me by the McCanns and Edward Smethurst:

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. Not even the question of whether all the undertakings were reasonable ones to have given in the first place.

Shortly afterwards, Carter-Ruck told me that their total costs in the matter had now risen to well 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).

On 18 February, on my own initiative, I told Carter-Ruck that I would be prepared to consider an overall settlement in which I abandoned any further legal action to vary or discharge three of my undertakings, in exchange for a very substantial reduction in the McCanns’ costs.

The McCanns responded swiftly by saying they were ‘interested’ in such a proposed settlement, but would wait for Mr Justice Tugendhat’s formal decision on 21 February.

On 21 February Mr Justice Tugendhat found that in 13 instances (and in those 13 instances only) I had breached one or more of my undertakings.

In passing, I should point out for the record that:

(1) The McCanns did not seek at the trial to prove that the publication of ‘The Madeleine McCann Case Files Volume 1’ was a breach of any of my undertakings. They withdrew that from an earlier list of 26 alleged breaches which they had set out to the Court back in March 2012

(2) Similarly, the McCanns also withdrew from that list of 26 alleged breaches the allegation that my public reading on a YouTube video of the ‘48 questions’ put by the Portuguese Police to Dr Kate McCann was a breach of any of my undertakings.

Thus Mr Justice Tugendhat made no ruling as to whether the book: ‘The Madeleine McCann Case Files Volume 1’, or the reading of the 48 questions, were breaches of any of my undertakings.

I should also point out in fairness that the McCanns’ position is that they only pursued 13 alleged breaches, for reasons of convenience and case management, and they maintain that all the other 140 alleged breaches were also breaches of my undertakings.

On 21 February Mr Justice Tugendhat sentenced me to a suspended 3-month jail sentence and ordered the court costs to be assessed if not agreed.

Following further correspondence, on 6 March Carter-Ruck wrote to me, without prejudice, saying that the McCanns would be prepared limit their claim against me to £75,000. That sum was to be paid by an initial lump-sum of £7,500 plus paying the remaining £67,500 over the next 37½ years at the rate of £150 a month.

This would have meant paying the court costs until I was 103 years old. In addition, they would take a charging order on the marital home, meaning that if I died before 103, they would be entitled to claim the balance owing, plus interest, from my estate.

On 13 March I lodged an appeal to the Court of Appeal against Mr Justice Tugendhat’s judgment. The normal fee on lodging such an appeal is £465, but I was exempted from paying the fee on grounds of low income. I have since agreed to withdraw that appeal as part of an overall settlement.

At this time, I also instructed Mr Robin Tilbrook of Tilbrooks Solicitors to conduct negotiations with the McCanns, as a result of which a new offer was put to me and I accepted.

The Settlement Oder above was approved by Mr Justice Tugendhat on 17 April, was sealed by the High Court on 18 April, and sent to me a few days ago.

I have now paid the amounts of £12,500 costs due to the McCanns and £7,500 costs to Edward Smethurst. In each case, by the way, these are payments direct into the bank accounts of Carter-Ruck. I have in addition instructed my bank to pay Carter-Ruck £125.00 per calendar month, starting on 25 May, and until 25 April 2023.

Observations

Above all else, these proceedings were conducted in a legal framework where those with sufficient funds are able to sue or threaten to sue for libel, and those with insufficient funds must choose whether to give in, or conduct their own defence - and if appropriate finance any counter-claims, as I elected to do by defending the contempt proceedings in person and applying to vary three undertakings.

I have agreed to withdraw my appeal to the Court of Appeal against Mr Tugendhat’s judgment. And this means that I am legally bound to accept its verdicts.

I will however make one brief comment. He implied in Paragraph 148 of his judgment that there was some element of choice in my deciding to represent myself. I can assure him that there was not. There was no way I could have sustained the cost of legal representation to oppose the fire-power of Carter-Ruck, their barristers, and, of course, whoever is funding them.

Legal Aid is simply not available to defendants in libel proceedings, despite rulings by the European Court of Human Rights stipulating that defendants who cannot afford the high costs of defending themselves in defamation cases should be entitled to state aid.

All High Court judges who rule on libel cases are aware of this situation.

The practicalities

Mr Justice Tugendhat made a number of comments in his judgment, none of which I can now appeal. For example, he said that my publications were ‘a flagrant breach’ of my undertakings.

However, he also said that my apologies both to the High Court and to the McCanns before him on 21 February were sincere. And so they are.

I did not intend to defy the High Court. I thought that I would have had valid defences for my publications, but I did not. I cannot now continue with any legal action in relation to my publications.

In his judgment (Paragraph 108), Mr Justice Tugendhat said that even for me to repeat facts in the case could be deemed libellous and a breach of my undertakings. He said in relation to the contents of a certain leaflet: “A list of factual statements can carry an inferential meaning additional to the literal meaning of each fact…”

In other words, he said: Facts can be libellous.

That statement by Mr Justice Tugendhat is one reason why I really cannot continue to make any more public statements about Madeleine’s reported disappearance. The impact of my actions on members of my family is another. Besides that, the process of defending yourself and pursuing legal claims on your own is both stressful and mentally exhausting. The possibility of being sent to prison, being made a bankrupt and losing my home were all factors which have weighed heavily on my mind. It is time for me to cease making any more statements on the case - not even repeating facts.

Very many people have helped and supported me, in all kinds of ways, great or small, particularly during the legal proceedings. I am truly grateful to each and every one of you who have helped me one way or another during this period.

Tony Bennett, 3 May 2013

A FEW QUESTIONS ABOUT CMOMM – ANSWERED (24 March 2017) - Page 2 Tl210

by **Jill Havern** 30.03.17 8:11

Another question from Andrew:

Andrew: Why is it so important to create 7100 plus members when you have no more than 10/20 that actually post...?

Maybe Andrew could research how many of MMM's 387 members actually post, or have ever logged on?

Meanwhile over on CMOMM facebook one of my admin posted this yesterday:

A FEW QUESTIONS ABOUT CMOMM – ANSWERED (24 March 2017) - Page 2 Joy10

4,000 CMOMM facebook members. At this rate CMOMM facebook will be overtaking the CMOMM forum by the end of this year! high5

Andrew, you seem to be very concerned about:

The Last Photo being photoshopped.

Madeleine Beth McCann not being alive on May 3rd.

The amount of members CMOMM has.

Tony's settlement with the McCanns.

And you, and other MMM forum members, insult Tony's, Richard Hall's and "Precious PeterMac's" research.

You, and other MMM forum members, have done everything in your power to break up and discredit this forum and our members.

And you reckon it's Tony, Sharon, PeterMac and myself who are all working for Team McCann?

A FEW QUESTIONS ABOUT CMOMM – ANSWERED (24 March 2017) - Page 2 Freedo11

Latest topics