Anonymous email

by **Jill Havern** 25.08.11 14:21

I've just received this anonymous email

I don�t know why you are encouraging Bennett to continue posting libellous and
inaccurate comments about the McCanns. The Portuguese Prosecutor concluded that
the McCanns were not guilty of any crime and so lifted the Arguido status.

Arguido DOES NOT mean prime suspect. It means �person of interest� to be
interviewed at length and committed to trial or released from Arguido status.

Bennett is continuing to lie to you. He states that there has been an EX-PARTE
Order made by another party against Bennett. Bennett states this is ominous but
does not spell out what it really means in legal terms.

An Ex-Parte Order takes immediate effect until the court case date, which
could be many months away. The other party has applied to the Court for an
immediate Ex-Parte Order to be heard within the next few days.

An Ex-Parte Order is usually some kind of restraining order and can come in many
different forms, depending on the request and the documents supporting the
request. Mr. Bennet does not have any right to be present at the ex-parte hearing,
but as a matter of courtesy the Judge will let him
know about the outcome as he will need to adhere to the terms once the Judge has
granted the Ex-Parte Order.

Under the terms of the Ex-Parte Order, once granted, Bennett may be placed under
curfew. He may be unable to leave his house until the Defamation Court Case
date. For example, he may be told to stay 50 miles away from various areas
permanently.

He may be barred from using the Internet for any purpose if that is what has
been requested. This could be temporary or permanent until an appeal by
Bennett.

You must hate Bennett more than life itself. He is continuing his
self-destruction and you are helping him, just as a person who helps a person
commit suicide.

by Guest 25.08.11 14:45

Gerry's bored or Clarrie's had a few G&T's.

by happychick 25.08.11 15:08

More likely to be the nutjobs from PFA.
I think both members are a bit bored over there with no one to talk to. Anonymous email 670379

by Guest 25.08.11 15:09

This should shut him up

Definition for arguido:

Arguido (male, ) or arguida (female, ), normally translated "named suspect" or "formal suspect", is a status in Portuguese language legal systems, including the legal systems of Portugal and Mozambique. It is given to a person whom the authorities suspect may have committed an offence. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arguido

by Guest 25.08.11 15:38

happychick wrote:

More likely to be the nutjobs from PFA.
I think both members are a bit bored over there with no one to talk to.

strange times - just as even Libya gets free speech, it seems to be getting eroded in this country. What's the charge - "Encouraging a questioning mind and making people think? "

by Gillyspot 25.08.11 16:05

Well said Stewie! Anonymous email 259100

by aiyoyo 25.08.11 16:36

Get 'em Gonçalo wrote:I've just received this anonymous email

I don�t know why you are encouraging Bennett to continue posting libellous and
inaccurate comments about the McCanns. The Portuguese Prosecutor concluded that
the McCanns were not guilty of any crime and so lifted the Arguido status.

Arguido DOES NOT mean prime suspect. It means �person of interest� to be
interviewed at length and committed to trial or released from Arguido status.

Bennett is continuing to lie to you. He states that there has been an EX-PARTE
Order made by another party against Bennett. Bennett states this is ominous but
does not spell out what it really means in legal terms.

An Ex-Parte Order takes immediate effect until the court case date, which
could be many months away. The other party has applied to the Court for an
immediate Ex-Parte Order to be heard within the next few days.

An Ex-Parte Order is usually some kind of restraining order and can come in many
different forms, depending on the request and the documents supporting the
request. Mr. Bennet does not have any right to be present at the ex-parte hearing,
but as a matter of courtesy the Judge will let him
know about the outcome as he will need to adhere to the terms once the Judge has
granted the Ex-Parte Order.

Under the terms of the Ex-Parte Order, once granted, Bennett may be placed under
curfew. He may be unable to leave his house until the Defamation Court Case
date. For example, he may be told to stay 50 miles away from various areas
permanently.

He may be barred from using the Internet for any purpose if that is what has
been requested. This could be temporary or permanent until an appeal by
Bennett.

You must hate Bennett more than life itself. He is continuing his
self-destruction and you are helping him, just as a person who helps a person
commit suicide.

Well, if I am not wrong the mccanns used that {ex parte order) on Amaral.
And, we know the outcome of that don't we? It backfired and caused the mccanns more money.

An ex parte order is almost like a unilateral agreement with a judge but I cant see how that can apply to freedom of expression.

Generally it is used against spouse battler or child abuser to stop the person going near the partner or child.

by **sharonl** 25.08.11 18:10

Why does everything McCann have to be mysterious, anonymous or unknown or if their feeling partculary brave, a source close to the McCanns.

Mysterious benefactors

A source that cannot be named

Anonymous witnesses

A Mystery PI who delivered a letter from a dead paedophile

Unidentified bloggers and Twitter chimps

Always the secrecy - why?

If a child was missing and these people were genuinely doing everything that they possibly could to find her, and we were nothing more than a hindrance to them, why on earth don`t they stand up for what they believe in, give their names and don`t be afraid to identify themselves, come forward and stand up to us. Why do they choose anonimity, it almost looks as if they have something to hide. Don`t the McCanns want us to know who are supporting them? If not, why not?

Having said that, I suppose it would have been much better for the McCanns if they had kept the identity of some of the team to themselves.

Antonio Jiminez

Metodo 3

Kevin Halligen

Brian Kennedy

Freemason - who cannot be named at present

Leonor Cipriano

Marco Aragao Correia

Ian West

by HotlipsHealy 25.08.11 18:25

Even what they spend their fund money on is mysterious.
Apart from the obvious that is, Carter Ruck.
But what do we really know about what they've done to search for Madeleine, even that is a mystery.
What have their supporters done to find out what happened to Madeleine?

by aiyoyo 25.08.11 21:53

Well it's also a mystery why none of their supporter ever asked about the PIs work : what they'd been doing, what leads were found, and generally ask for an update. None of them seems interested to know about the search for Maddie.

All they have to show for the money spent on PIs is a few dodgy sightings with the latest Leh one even disputed by Leh Police. We have mc-spin been wheeled out of his hibernation place with some fairy tale story and it seems their cult supporters were satisfied with that - no questions asked about the controversy.

They are more worried about what people in blogosphere have to say about them that they monitor it like hawks - and this is behavior of people who have nothing to hide or fear. Why care what people say then?

Anyone who doesn't understand the meaning of 'exoneration' by dictionary definition is either intellectually challenged or blind to a cause. Nowhere in the files was it stated they are 'exonerated'

Far as I understand their arguidos status wasn't lifted but shelved along with the case. Parallelly should the case be reopened so will they be re-conferred. It's a case of so long as the case is open and remains open so will their status that explains why they didn't ask for the case to remain open. In fact they were desperate for it to be shelved yet they moan no police force is looking for her. How hypocrite is that?

So long as the case is unsolved suspects can never be exonerated until a court of law closes the case.
Until that happens mccanns and followers can preach till the cow comes home ...but they cant control people's belief. Dogs are more trust worthy - they dont lie - no need to - dogs have no motive or agenda to do that.

by Guest 26.08.11 10:27

HotlipsHealy wrote:Even what they spend their fund money on is mysterious.
Apart from the obvious that is, Carter Ruck.
But what do we really know about what they've done to search for Madeleine, even that is a mystery.
What have their supporters done to find out what happened to Madeleine?

I've been thinking (if that's allowed). Are the McCann's using the same person at CR, or different people, or even a whole team of people ?? Does anyone know who they are ?

by Gillyspot 26.08.11 11:23

[quote="Stella"]

HotlipsHealy wrote:Even what they spend their fund money on is mysterious.
Apart from the obvious that is, Carter Ruck.
But what do we really know about what they've done to search for Madeleine, even that is a mystery.
What have their supporters done to find out what happened to Madeleine?

I've been thinking (if that's allowed). Are the McCann's using the same person at CR, or different people, or even a whole team of people ?? Does anyone know who they are ?[/quote]

Well considering no one in the media and even the CR website don't say they are doing anything re the McCanns it is impossible to know this time. Interesting that CR are keeping this quiet at this time isn't it (whilst the "review" is going on I mean).

by pauline 26.08.11 14:01

i would imagine the people at Carter Ruck are Adam Tudor and Isobel Hudson. These are the CR lawyers Kate praises in the book. There would also possibly be less senior staff working on the Mccann's case as well.

See p 289 where she says this pair '.continue to do a vast amount of work for us, without payment, most of it quietly behind the scenes.'

by Gillyspot 26.08.11 14:28

pauline wrote:i would imagine the people at Carter Ruck are Adam Tudor and Isobel Hudson. These are the CR lawyers Kate praises in the book. There would also possibly be less senior staff working on the Mccann's case as well.

See p 289 where she says this pair '.continue to do a vast amount of work for us, without payment, most of it quietly behind the scenes.'

Why would CR work "without payment" and do it "quietly behind the scenes". Are they not a business and aren't businesses about MAKING MONEY or if they were doing it Pro Bono at the very least they would want the publicity about it.

Perhaps Kate means "without payment" from the fund. I.E. Payment may be made from somewhere else - question is where.

CR have even got their work for John Yates on their website. http://www.carter-ruck.com/Documents/Yates_Press_Release_210711.pdf

by pauline 26.08.11 15:08

Gillyspot wrote:
pauline wrote:i would imagine the people at Carter Ruck are Adam Tudor and Isobel Hudson. These are the CR lawyers Kate praises in the book. There would also possibly be less senior staff working on the Mccann's case as well.

See p 289 where she says this pair '.continue to do a vast amount of work for us, without payment, most of it quietly behind the scenes.'

Why would CR work "without payment" and do it "quietly behind the scenes". Are they not a business and aren't businesses about MAKING MONEY or if they were doing it Pro Bono at the very least they would want the publicity about it.

Perhaps Kate means "without payment" from the fund. I.E. Payment may be made from somewhere else - question is where.

CR have even got their work for John Yates on their website. http://www.carter-ruck.com/Documents/Yates_Press_Release_210711.pdf

'Without payment' should mean exactly that - they are not paid by anyone whether out of the Fund or by a wealthy benefactor or by the McCanns personally (joke!).

But as we know what the 'truthful' book says may not always be the entire truth. I can accept that with all the work they have got from the McCanns, its possible they might have written off a few billable hours, or undertaken a small task and not sent a bill.

I suspect Kate was trying to play down the enormous fees they have earned from the many hours they must have spent on their affairs, by implying that Carter Ruck did a lot of the work pro bono.

by Guest 26.08.11 16:13

Gillyspot wrote:
pauline wrote:i would imagine the people at Carter Ruck are Adam Tudor and Isobel Hudson. These are the CR lawyers Kate praises in the book. There would also possibly be less senior staff working on the Mccann's case as well.
See p 289 where she says this pair '.continue to do a vast amount of work for us, without payment, most of it quietly behind the scenes.'

Why would CR work "without payment" and do it "quietly behind the scenes". Are they not a business and aren't businesses about MAKING MONEY or if they were doing it Pro Bono at the very least they would want the publicity about it.

Perhaps Kate means "without payment" from the fund. I.E. Payment may be made from somewhere else - question is where.

CR have even got their work for John Yates on their website. [url=http://www.carter-ruck.com/Documents/Yates_Press_Release_210711.pdf

http://www.carter-ruck.com/Documents/Yates_Press_Release_210711.pdf[/quote[/url]]

Exactly Gillyspot. Anonymous email 259100

I think anyone who believes what Kate writes in her book, or that the likes of CR work for nothing, are a little shall we say, erm, mistaken.

by Guest 26.08.11 16:19

Gillyspot wrote:

Perhaps Kate means "without payment" from the fund. I.E. Payment may be made from somewhere else - question is where.

Exactly and that is a very good question Gillyspot. One that needs to be answered. Perhaps Tony could ask this question in his next letter to them, as surely, HE is entitled to find out who is paying for the legal action being taken against him !!!! Anonymous email 687583

by lj 26.08.11 17:37

Why did bring the money, that came in by publishing Kate's version of the truth, such a flurry of Carter-R's favorite "how to shut up everyone we don't like" activity?

If CR did everything for nor they did not have to wait.

First of all: CR has gotten a lot of free publicity, whatever Kate blabbers about "quietly behind the scenes", that often is the reasons for lawfirms to work for free: what they save in advertising is much more than the client could ever have paid.

Plus no doubt there will be a kind of "no cure no pay" or "expenses only" agreement. Their past has shown they don'yt care how the money comes in, or from who, so now we have to believe they protect 2 childneglectors out of the goodness of their hearts??

laugh

by HotlipsHealy 26.08.11 17:40

Carter Ruck went through Kate's manuscript and didn't take that bit so it must be true.

by lj 26.08.11 17:43

Kate should sue CR for exposing her so badly as a bad story teller, an awful liar and the nauseating narcissist we already knew she was. :iconbiggrin:

by pauline 26.08.11 17:56

HotlipsHealy wrote:Carter Ruck went through Kate's manuscript and didn't take that bit so it must be true.

Brilliant point!

Another thing. I know lots of legal people and they tell me you don't have to like or even believe your client - you just do the best you can within the law to get a result for them.

Whether Carter Ruck believes the Mccanns is another matter.

It is certainly good advertising for them - and law firms I believe are restricted by their professional body in how they advertise. They can't go into creative advertising.

So to get publicity for winning cases, settling before it goes into court, is good for them.

by greenwatch 05.09.11 1:19

sharonl wrote:Why does everything McCann have to be mysterious, anonymous or unknown or if their feeling partculary brave, a source close to the McCanns.

Mysterious benefactors

A source that cannot be named

Anonymous witnesses

A Mystery PI who delivered a letter from a dead paedophile

Unidentified bloggers and Twitter chimps

Always the secrecy - why?

If a child was missing and these people were genuinely doing everything that they possibly could to find her, and we were nothing more than a hindrance to them, why on earth don`t they stand up for what they believe in, give their names and don`t be afraid to identify themselves, come forward and stand up to us. Why do they choose anonimity, it almost looks as if they have something to hide. Don`t the McCanns want us to know who are supporting them? If not, why not?

Having said that, I suppose it would have been much better for the McCanns if they had kept the identity of some of the team to themselves.

Antonio Jiminez

Metodo 3

Kevin Halligen

Brian Kennedy

Freemason - who cannot be named at present

Leonor Cipriano

Marco Aragao Correia

Ian West

Well, to the outsider, the Madeleinefoundation appears to be an anonymous set-up. SharonL, you appear to have no role at all at MF, unless you include your secretive meetings at secretive places. Apart from Tony Bennett, no other member wanted to show their face on camera in Bristol. So you are a little hypocritical by judging others when you are anonymous yourself.

Your Contact Tab only has an email address and a mobile phone number, both of which cannot be verified as being attached to an organisation or company.

You have no Core Group of Leaders
(at least none are named on the Contact Tab)

You appear to have no organizational structure and no long term goals. There is a lot of criticism of personalities and companies which does not seem to fall into any slot for any purpose. What is the general public supposed to gain from the reports which have been posted. Unless you spell out your reasons the public is none the wiser and they will move on.

by Me 05.09.11 8:02

greenwatch wrote:
sharonl wrote:Why does everything McCann have to be mysterious, anonymous or unknown or if their feeling partculary brave, a source close to the McCanns.

Mysterious benefactors

A source that cannot be named

Anonymous witnesses

A Mystery PI who delivered a letter from a dead paedophile

Unidentified bloggers and Twitter chimps

Always the secrecy - why?

If a child was missing and these people were genuinely doing everything that they possibly could to find her, and we were nothing more than a hindrance to them, why on earth don`t they stand up for what they believe in, give their names and don`t be afraid to identify themselves, come forward and stand up to us. Why do they choose anonimity, it almost looks as if they have something to hide. Don`t the McCanns want us to know who are supporting them? If not, why not?

Having said that, I suppose it would have been much better for the McCanns if they had kept the identity of some of the team to themselves.

Antonio Jiminez

Metodo 3

Kevin Halligen

Brian Kennedy

Freemason - who cannot be named at present

Leonor Cipriano

Marco Aragao Correia

Ian West

Well, to the outsider, the Madeleinefoundation appears to be an anonymous set-up. SharonL, you appear to have no role at all at MF, unless you include your secretive meetings at secretive places. Apart from Tony Bennett, no other member wanted to show their face on camera in Bristol. So you are a little hypocritical by judging others when you are anonymous yourself.

Your Contact Tab only has an email address and a mobile phone number, both of which cannot be verified as being attached to an organisation or company.

You have no Core Group of Leaders
(at least none are named on the Contact Tab)

You appear to have no organizational structure and no long term goals. There is a lot of criticism of personalities and companies which does not seem to fall into any slot for any purpose. What is the general public supposed to gain from the reports which have been posted. Unless you spell out your reasons the public is none the wiser and they will move on.

But since when has the Madeleine Foundation actively sought and received hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of pounds of public donations?

The requirement for transparency is greater in an organisation that professes to be a “not for profit” company / pseudo charity, no?

There is a huge difference between the aims of either organisation and as a consequence the comparison you have made is grossly invalid.

Nice attempt though.

by **Tony Bennett** 05.09.11 9:05

greenwatch wrote:

Well, to the outsider, the Madeleine Foundation appears to be an anonymous set-up.

Hardly. There are several names of members on our website.

SharonL, you appear to have no role at all at MF, unless you include your secretive meetings at secretive places. Apart from Tony Bennett, no other member wanted to show their face on camera in Bristol. So you are a little hypocritical by judging others when you are anonymous yourself.

Your Contact Tab only has an email address and a mobile phone number, both of which cannot be verified as being attached to an organisation or company.

Unfortunately, given the conduct of several McCann-believers over the past 4 years, members are understandably reluctant to be publicly identified.

You have no Core Group of Leaders (at least none are named on the Contact Tab)

You appear to have no organizational structure and no long term goals.

Our long-term goals are clearly set out in our Constitution which is on our website.

There is a lot of criticism of personalities and companies which does not seem to fall into any slot for any purpose. What is the general public supposed to gain from the reports which have been posted.

A lot of (useful) knowledge.

Unless you spell out your reasons the public is none the wiser and they will move on.[/quote]