McCanns v Bennett: 153 alleged breaches reduced to 25
The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™ :: Legal Issues :: Carter-Ruck: McCanns v Bennett Contempt of Court
Page 6 of 11 • Share
Page 6 of 11 • 1, 2, 3 ... 5, 6, 7 ... 9, 10, 11
McCanns in Court
rainbow-fairy wrote:I find it ever-so-telling how Kate says she feels she will never be able to laugh again - in public. If anything happened to either of my boys, my reaction would be the same - if you drop the two bolded words! 'In public' - those two words alone show Kate for the narcissist she is. Cares more about the public perception of her than anything else.
Of course, we can't say for certain how we'd react in that situation, but I'm damned sure I would never want to laugh again, anywhere. But the McCanns are different, aren't they? We know that. We have the 'true colours' video, and then there are the witness statements saying Kate was walking through PdL with a friend, 'laughing like a drain' within days of the 'abduction'. Gerry on the patio, laughing and playing the clown. And NOW, for her bewk its 'I'll never laugh in public' and for the compo writs she goes as far as 'steeped in a serious depression'. Er, yeh, ok...
As far as appearance in court, absolutely they should go. They'll be happy to take the £££'s should they win (and I'll be amazed if they do) so the least they can do is have the guts to stand in front of the man who's life they have set out to systematically destroy. They truly make me sick.
Somehow I wouldn't be surprised if they did NOT turn up in court in Lisbon (where they stand a fair chance of being arrested on the spot based on the results of the review shared between PJ and SY by now) The risk of them being arrested and then trotted out to a reconstruction is real. Why? Because by getting rid of the books belonging to GA, which they by rights should have (had) returned, they are in contempt of Court themselves, punishable by law, and liable for indemnifying dr Amaral.
Which means: they CANNOT and will not come to the Lisboa Courtroom
So: Kate will do another Lady Diana/Martin Bashir act; the media will lap it up; and Dr. Amaral will win in Court.
Kudos for our man!
PS: I do so love the shark!!
Guest- Guest
Re: McCanns v Bennett: 153 alleged breaches reduced to 25
This has just been put up on MM site - hope this is ok? Mods please remove if not allowed.
http://mccannexposure.wordpress.com/
"Update on McCann & McCann v Bennett
25Feb
I can report that negotiations are currently in progress between Tony and Carter-Ruck to see if there is any way that the contempt of court matter can be settled without the need for a 2-day trial. In the meantime, and pending any agreement if there is to be one, Tony, on 22 February, made a cross-application within the contempt proceedings to be released from one of his undertakings. No date has yet been fixed for the trial. I will provide more information when available."
http://mccannexposure.wordpress.com/
"Update on McCann & McCann v Bennett
25Feb
I can report that negotiations are currently in progress between Tony and Carter-Ruck to see if there is any way that the contempt of court matter can be settled without the need for a 2-day trial. In the meantime, and pending any agreement if there is to be one, Tony, on 22 February, made a cross-application within the contempt proceedings to be released from one of his undertakings. No date has yet been fixed for the trial. I will provide more information when available."
____________________
Things aren't always what they seem
Angelique- Posts : 1396
Activity : 1460
Likes received : 42
Join date : 2010-10-19
Re: McCanns v Bennett: 153 alleged breaches reduced to 25
Angelique wrote:This has just been put up on MM site - hope this is ok? Mods please remove if not allowed.
http://mccannexposure.wordpress.com/
"Update on McCann & McCann v Bennett
25Feb
I can report that negotiations are currently in progress between Tony and Carter-Ruck to see if there is any way that the contempt of court matter can be settled without the need for a 2-day trial. In the meantime, and pending any agreement if there is to be one, Tony, on 22 February, made a cross-application within the contempt proceedings to be released from one of his undertakings. No date has yet been fixed for the trial. I will provide more information when available."
Since CR have been on a retainer for all this time (2 + years?) and have made the most of it by citing 153 complaints (so much more reading for the staff) they're not going to lose out. 153 complaints in court would have made the trial last for weeks!
What do you call two hundred lawyers at the bottom of the sea?
Don't know.
A good start.
____________________
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.
Carter Ruck caving in?
Angelique wrote:This has just been put up on MM site - hope this is ok? Mods please remove if not allowed.
http://mccannexposure.wordpress.com/
"Update on McCann & McCann v Bennett
25Feb
I can report that negotiations are currently in progress between Tony and Carter-Ruck to see if there is any way that the contempt of court matter can be settled without the need for a 2-day trial. In the meantime, and pending any agreement if there is to be one, Tony, on 22 February, made a cross-application within the contempt proceedings to be released from one of his undertakings. No date has yet been fixed for the trial. I will provide more information when available."
If true, this can mean only two things:
1. Cruck are no longer getting paid;
2. Cruck's masters are caving in, aware of things to come.
It's well neigh inconceivable to have TB approaching Cruck begging for a reprieve.
Well well. Interesting times indeed.
Guest- Guest
White flag
tigger wrote:Angelique wrote:This has just been put up on MM site - hope this is ok? Mods please remove if not allowed.
http://mccannexposure.wordpress.com/
"Update on McCann & McCann v Bennett
25Feb
I can report that negotiations are currently in progress between Tony and Carter-Ruck to see if there is any way that the contempt of court matter can be settled without the need for a 2-day trial. In the meantime, and pending any agreement if there is to be one, Tony, on 22 February, made a cross-application within the contempt proceedings to be released from one of his undertakings. No date has yet been fixed for the trial. I will provide more information when available."
Since CR have been on a retainer for all this time (2 + years?) and have made the most of it by citing 153 complaints (so much more reading for the staff) they're not going to lose out. 153 complaints in court would have made the trial last for weeks!
What do you call two hundred lawyers at the bottom of the sea?
Don't know.
A good start.
If true, McC et company probably have taken the measure of Judge Deed-Tugendhat; and calculated the risks of proceeding against 153-25-10 'breaches' (windmills) to outweigh the damage of pacifying TB.
Remember, their Funds' means have been proven to be finite, shaky by a certified accountant; they will need every penny at their disposal to fully satisfy the indomitable Isobel Duarte.
Guest- Guest
Re: McCanns v Bennett: 153 alleged breaches reduced to 25
Hi,
I used to work in Lincoln's Inn and very nice it was too. Beautiful (real) tudor buildings with black beams everywhere and newish oak staircases, quite wonderful, but probably haunted as well, as there were very cold corners that would not heat up even in summer.
Anyway, with my limited legal background, I am sure that the Contempt of Court case has gone beyond the point of no return. Once the pre-trial is sorted, it is up to a Judge to decide whether any of Tony's undertakings have been breached. Perhaps Tony would like to comment and put us all out of our misery.
Ta, Mushy
I used to work in Lincoln's Inn and very nice it was too. Beautiful (real) tudor buildings with black beams everywhere and newish oak staircases, quite wonderful, but probably haunted as well, as there were very cold corners that would not heat up even in summer.
Anyway, with my limited legal background, I am sure that the Contempt of Court case has gone beyond the point of no return. Once the pre-trial is sorted, it is up to a Judge to decide whether any of Tony's undertakings have been breached. Perhaps Tony would like to comment and put us all out of our misery.
Ta, Mushy
____________________
MushyPeas- Posts : 1
Activity : 1
Likes received : 0
Join date : 2012-02-26
Re: McCanns v Bennett: 153 alleged breaches reduced to 25
I am pretty certain that Tony will be the one who has asked for the out of court settlement. Despite what we believe about what happened to Madeleine, Tony is facing financial ruin. At the end of the day he needs to put himself and his family first.
Good luck Tony.
Good luck Tony.
uppatoffee- Posts : 626
Activity : 645
Likes received : 3
Join date : 2011-09-14
Re: McCanns v Bennett: 153 alleged breaches reduced to 25
What betting the mccanns getting cold feet over this one.
What with the bad start where the Judge hinted they were wasting time with their 153 frivolous charges, then allowing MG to be called as witness, this does not bode well for the mccanns.
Does anyone think CR is dying to hear TB presents to the Judge Portugal Court's papers on Amaral's book injunction overturn, and much more about the non-evidence to the support their abduction theory, and AG's final words that the mccanns fail to clear them by their refusing to do the reconstruction etc etc.?
What with the bad start where the Judge hinted they were wasting time with their 153 frivolous charges, then allowing MG to be called as witness, this does not bode well for the mccanns.
Does anyone think CR is dying to hear TB presents to the Judge Portugal Court's papers on Amaral's book injunction overturn, and much more about the non-evidence to the support their abduction theory, and AG's final words that the mccanns fail to clear them by their refusing to do the reconstruction etc etc.?
aiyoyo- Posts : 9610
Activity : 10084
Likes received : 326
Join date : 2009-11-28
Re: McCanns v Bennett: 153 alleged breaches reduced to 25
uppatoffee wrote:I am pretty certain that Tony will be the one who has asked for the out of court settlement. Despite what we believe about what happened to Madeleine, Tony is facing financial ruin. At the end of the day he needs to put himself and his family first.
Good luck Tony.
I agree with this 100%. I know there is a matter of principle involved and Tony has certainly researched everything he has said. However this outfit against him seem to be after two things, first silence anybody who doesn't 100% drop to their knee's, worship them as a vision of medical and parent perfection and believe what they say without question.
Second fill the coffers of their fund which remains largely unaccounted for and solely for any purpose they see fit.
I think there should be a point were Tony just takes care of himself and family.
Pershing36- Posts : 674
Activity : 721
Likes received : 13
Join date : 2011-12-03
Re: McCanns v Bennett: 153 alleged breaches reduced to 25
Pershing36 wrote:uppatoffee wrote:I am pretty certain that Tony will be the one who has asked for the out of court settlement. Despite what we believe about what happened to Madeleine, Tony is facing financial ruin. At the end of the day he needs to put himself and his family first.
Good luck Tony.
I agree with this 100%. I know there is a matter of principle involved and Tony has certainly researched everything he has said. However this outfit against him seem to be after two things, first silence anybody who doesn't 100% drop to their knee's, worship them as a vision of medical and parent perfection and believe what they say without question.
Second fill the coffers of their fund which remains largely unaccounted for and solely for any purpose they see fit.
I think there should be a point were Tony just takes care of himself and family.
Without saying TB priority must be to protect himself and his family. However, there is something more important than that that needs to be put right once and for all in this whole farcical, and that is, for TB to get the Court to rescind the undertaking. Else simply caving in or settling out of court wont solve the root of the problem. The mccanns will use the general undertaking to sue him again. The undertaking must be narrowed down to specifics at the very least.
So IMO it must be the mccanns who sought the back down due to the implication for them of the MG debacle.
This did not start well for them and looks unlikely to end well for them. As it stood they have already initiated the back down by their withdrawal of their paramount allegation ie the sale of the book, which was the backbone to this bundle of allegations.
aiyoyo- Posts : 9610
Activity : 10084
Likes received : 326
Join date : 2009-11-28
Very good analysis
aiyoyo wrote:Pershing36 wrote:uppatoffee wrote:I am pretty certain that Tony will be the one who has asked for the out of court settlement. Despite what we believe about what happened to Madeleine, Tony is facing financial ruin. At the end of the day he needs to put himself and his family first.
Good luck Tony.
I agree with this 100%. I know there is a matter of principle involved and Tony has certainly researched everything he has said. However this outfit against him seem to be after two things, first silence anybody who doesn't 100% drop to their knee's, worship them as a vision of medical and parent perfection and believe what they say without question.
Second fill the coffers of their fund which remains largely unaccounted for and solely for any purpose they see fit.
I think there should be a point were Tony just takes care of himself and family.
Without saying TB priority must be to protect himself and his family. However, there is something more important than that that needs to be put right once and for all in this whole farcical, and that is, for TB to get the Court to rescind the undertaking. Else simply caving in or settling out of court wont solve the root of the problem. The mccanns will use the general undertaking to sue him again. The undertaking must be narrowed down to specifics at the very least.
So IMO it must be the mccanns who sought the back down due to the implication for them of the MG debacle.
This did not start well for them and looks unlikely to end well for them. As it stood they have already initiated the back down by their withdrawal of their paramount allegation ie the sale of the book, which was the backbone to this bundle of allegations.
Yes!
Guest- Guest
Re: McCanns v Bennett: 153 alleged breaches reduced to 25
My father, now 93 and approaching 94 in May is a Dunkirk veteran. He tells me that as the soldiers disembarked there were people jeering them in Britain as if they were cowards. Not everyone of course.
What I am saying is there is a very good reason why in any battle there should be a retreat. In fact, not to retreat in some circumstances would be the height of ridiculous.
What I am saying is there is a very good reason why in any battle there should be a retreat. In fact, not to retreat in some circumstances would be the height of ridiculous.
jmac- Posts : 121
Activity : 123
Likes received : 0
Join date : 2011-09-29
Respect
jmac wrote:My father, now 93 and approaching 94 in May is a Dunkirk veteran. He tells me that as the soldiers disembarked there were people jeering them in Britain as if they were cowards. Not everyone of course.
What I am saying is there is a very good reason why in any battle there should be a retreat. In fact, not to retreat in some circumstances would be the height of ridiculous.
Please convey my sincere and full respects to your father.
He is quite right.
mr Antony Bennett and dr Amaral are staking their everything, dr Amaral even losing his wife, home, position in life and what not.
We, Forumeers are just hanging on for the ride.
There is no doubt in my mind however, that both the British and Poftuguese legal systems are up to scratch, and will sort out the mess left by a bunch of miscreants needing a little money on the back of a horrible accident/crime.
Guest- Guest
Re: McCanns v Bennett: 153 alleged breaches reduced to 25
What I am saying is there is a very good reason why in any battle there
should be a retreat. In fact, not to retreat in some circumstances
would be the height of ridiculous.
I am not sure who you expect to beat the retreat here. Do you think Tony should back down? It would be understandable if he did, but it would be a pity. Or are you saying that the McCanns have decided that a retreat is in order (which it might be, but would be something of a first for them)?
Miraflores- Posts : 845
Activity : 856
Likes received : 4
Join date : 2011-06-20
Re: McCanns v Bennett: 153 alleged breaches reduced to 25
You do not understand what `beating the retreat` means in these circumstances because you do not see the situation as the same as other forum members.
jmac- Posts : 121
Activity : 123
Likes received : 0
Join date : 2011-09-29
Re: McCanns v Bennett: 153 alleged breaches reduced to 25
A retreat can be a stategy to advance...
Quite honestly I do not understand why you to not understand ....
Quite honestly I do not understand why you to not understand ....
jmac- Posts : 121
Activity : 123
Likes received : 0
Join date : 2011-09-29
Re: McCanns v Bennett: 153 alleged breaches reduced to 25
jmac wrote:You do not understand what `beating the retreat` means in these circumstances because you do not see the situation as the same as other forum members.
Que?
listener- Posts : 643
Activity : 681
Likes received : 18
Join date : 2010-01-10
Re: McCanns v Bennett: 153 alleged breaches reduced to 25
Not speaking English does not help. ? ? ?
Instead of saying `Que` how about making a point that we all recognise and can address?
Instead of saying `Que` how about making a point that we all recognise and can address?
jmac- Posts : 121
Activity : 123
Likes received : 0
Join date : 2011-09-29
Re: McCanns v Bennett: 153 alleged breaches reduced to 25
listener wrote:jmac wrote:You do not understand what `beating the retreat` means in these circumstances because you do not see the situation as the same as other forum members.
Que?
"how about making a point that we all recognise and can address?"
OK - "You do not understand what `beating the retreat` means in these circumstances" - Why would the poster not understand that phrase?
"because you do not see the situation as the same as other forum members" -Why would you make that presumtion?
listener- Posts : 643
Activity : 681
Likes received : 18
Join date : 2010-01-10
Re: McCanns v Bennett: 153 alleged breaches reduced to 25
You have made your position clear.
You will argue and make a `muddle guddle`...
You will argue and make a `muddle guddle`...
jmac- Posts : 121
Activity : 123
Likes received : 0
Join date : 2011-09-29
Re: McCanns v Bennett: 153 alleged breaches reduced to 25
Miraflores wrote:What I am saying is there is a very good reason why in any battle there
should be a retreat. In fact, not to retreat in some circumstances
would be the height of ridiculous.
I am not sure who you expect to beat the retreat here. Do you think Tony should back down? It would be understandable if he did, but it would be a pity. Or are you saying that the McCanns have decided that a retreat is in order (which it might be, but would be something of a first for them)?
In every battle to retreat in order to advance is a strategy which can turn out good for bad depending on outcome.
Team mccann is using precisely that method now - retreat from an adverse situation yet advancing with the same charge under a different context. They hope to shun from the MG debacle because of the implications for them; but if it wasn't for MG debacle there will be no case against TB.
aiyoyo- Posts : 9610
Activity : 10084
Likes received : 326
Join date : 2009-11-28
Re: McCanns v Bennett: 153 alleged breaches reduced to 25
jmac wrote:You do not understand what `beating the retreat` means in these circumstances because you do not see the situation as the same as other forum members.
It seems to me you are the one arguing and making a muddle guddle here because not only you didn't answer Miraflores' question, you made assumption.
I have no problem understanding Listener.
aiyoyo- Posts : 9610
Activity : 10084
Likes received : 326
Join date : 2009-11-28
Re: McCanns v Bennett: 153 alleged breaches reduced to 25
aiyoyo wrote:jmac wrote:You do not understand what `beating the retreat` means in these circumstances because you do not see the situation as the same as other forum members.
It seems to me you are the one arguing and making a muddle guddle here because not only you didn't answer Miraflores' question, you made assumption.
I have no problem understanding Listener.
Hear hear
____________________
There is a taint of death, a flavour of mortality in lies... Heart of Darkness by Joseph Conrad
Ribisl- Posts : 807
Activity : 858
Likes received : 1
Join date : 2012-02-04
Re: McCanns v Bennett: 153 alleged breaches reduced to 25
Ribisl wrote:aiyoyo wrote:jmac wrote:You do not understand what `beating the retreat` means in these circumstances because you do not see the situation as the same as other forum members.
It seems to me you are the one arguing and making a muddle guddle here because not only you didn't answer Miraflores' question, you made assumption.
I have no problem understanding Listener.
Hear hear
oh well....! err...and your point being...............?
aiyoyo- Posts : 9610
Activity : 10084
Likes received : 326
Join date : 2009-11-28
Re: McCanns v Bennett: 153 alleged breaches reduced to 25
aiyoyo wrote:jmac wrote:You do not understand what `beating the retreat` means in these circumstances because you do not see the situation as the same as other forum members.
It seems to me you are the one arguing and making a muddle guddle here because not only you didn't answer Miraflores' question, you made assumption.
I have no problem understanding Listener.
Quite so - I was just asking to clarify your original post jmac - it's not clear which side you were suggesting should retreat - it could have been any of the parties involved.
Miraflores- Posts : 845
Activity : 856
Likes received : 4
Join date : 2011-06-20
Page 6 of 11 • 1, 2, 3 ... 5, 6, 7 ... 9, 10, 11
Similar topics
» "Flagrant" breaches of your undertakings, say Carter-Ruck in their letter of 4 January in the case of McCanns v Bennett. Here's my reply sent to them today
» McCanns v Bennett: 22 August 2012 - The Legal Services Commission change their minds again, it's CIVIL Legal Aid which applies in my case, not Criminal Legal Aid [was: LSC change their minds after 8 months]...Chances of gettting Legal Aid REDUCED
» THE 17-PAGE LIST OF OF POLICE OFFICERS, PUBLIC OFFICIALS, AUTHORS, WEBSITES, BLOGGERS ETC given to the High Court by Tony Bennett in the contempt of court case of McCanns v Bennett
» Tweet this link please to transcript of new, dynamite CMTV Madeleine reconstruction documentary
» The full reasons McCanns v. Bennett was adjourned
» McCanns v Bennett: 22 August 2012 - The Legal Services Commission change their minds again, it's CIVIL Legal Aid which applies in my case, not Criminal Legal Aid [was: LSC change their minds after 8 months]...Chances of gettting Legal Aid REDUCED
» THE 17-PAGE LIST OF OF POLICE OFFICERS, PUBLIC OFFICIALS, AUTHORS, WEBSITES, BLOGGERS ETC given to the High Court by Tony Bennett in the contempt of court case of McCanns v Bennett
» Tweet this link please to transcript of new, dynamite CMTV Madeleine reconstruction documentary
» The full reasons McCanns v. Bennett was adjourned
The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™ :: Legal Issues :: Carter-Ruck: McCanns v Bennett Contempt of Court
Page 6 of 11
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum