The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Welcome to 'The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann' forum 🌹

Please log in, or register to view all the forums as some of them are 'members only', then settle in and help us get to the truth about what really happened to Madeleine Beth McCann.

When you register please do NOT use your email address for a username because everyone will be able to see it!

McCanns v Bennett: LATEST - 4 June 2012 - Page 2 Mm11

McCanns v Bennett: LATEST - 4 June 2012 - Page 2 Regist10

McCanns v Bennett: LATEST - 4 June 2012

Page 2 of 4 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

McCanns v Bennett: LATEST - 4 June 2012 - Page 2 Empty Re: McCanns v Bennett: LATEST - 4 June 2012

Post by aiyoyo on 08.06.12 2:13

@Spaniel wrote:
@ShuBob wrote:Context.

I was responding to the post stating Tony needs to spend money. Even if he did, he is not guaranteed success. That's my point!
That was my post ShuBob. Tony stands to lose upwards of £120,000 so he needs to buy some professional advice and having used both solicitors and a barrister, the latter who's workplace is a court is the best bet. Direct access barristers are barristers with extra training to deal direct with us the public. You said if he spends money there is no guarantee of success, but there never is in a court case, you just have to prepare the best you can.

Where does one find the money? Well from their own savings, loans, remortgage etc. Very few people qualify for public funding anymore. My suggestion was to invest very little to outline his case to get an opinion. He may very well be advised that his situation is hopeless. Then he would change his tactics away from a fight to deep contrition. That may also result in a one day hearing rather than two, reducing costs. Unless he knows the likely outcome, how can he possibly adopt the correct tactics?

I don't believe he will be commited, at the worst maybe a suspended sentence but if he loses he will be liable for costs and compensation for various reasons. I believe people are helping him so he may have charitable legal minded people among them.

To aiyoyo, of course CR want this over. All businesses rely on cashflow, they'll want the case over and archived to get on with the next. That's nothing though compared with their costs increasing by 100% if they win. You can read straight from the horses mouth here. http://www.thelawyer.com/ready-willing-and-libel/107318.article

To Portia. Quote "Any judge would be dutibound to protect the weaker party, observing a balanced approach." I agree and the Judge will ask whether he has recieved legal advice before proceeding. The sooner Tony does so the better, as the strain on him and his family must be enormous. The sooner it's over, the better for them all.

I am out of UK for so long I no longer know whether one can approach the citizen advice to seek information about where to get public assisted legal aid.

Spaniel, to be fair,l I don't think this is a black and white case where a barrister can safely advise about TB chances just by cursory look or just by preliminary discussion of the case. It's a complex case that needs time to get in-depth into the details then work the defend from there. There is no short cut way to know what one chances are. Not even CR can advise or guarantee Mccanns chances. It could swing either way.

Oh, btw CR is a service not a business - professional firms are after all not trading companies.
They don't depend on finished transaction or dealing to earn their silvers. They get paid anyway for work already done; doesn't matter if this case progresses no further, they would still bill their clients for service already rendered. It is not a question of cash flow to buy more goods to continue the business. Their cash flow depends on the number of cases they have - in short its about quantity in cases and of course having financially rich clients to mug. Surely if this case is pending, their time is then free and can work on other cases if cash flow is their main concern. It's not as if they have to push this case through to collect their fees.

The merits of the case weight heavily on the evidence than anything else. Of course if TB is disadvantaged by being up against a financial heavy weight opposite party who brought this against him, and he has no avenue or mean for a level playing field in terms of legal representation, then a wise Judge will have to take this disparity into consideration when deliberating and deciding on his verdict.


aiyoyo
aiyoyo

Posts : 9610
Join date : 2009-11-28

Back to top Go down

McCanns v Bennett: LATEST - 4 June 2012 - Page 2 Empty Re: McCanns v Bennett: LATEST - 4 June 2012

Post by Spaniel on 08.06.12 13:41

@aiyoyo wrote:
@Spaniel wrote:
@ShuBob wrote:Context.

I was responding to the post stating Tony needs to spend money. Even if he did, he is not guaranteed success. That's my point!
That was my post ShuBob. Tony stands to lose upwards of £120,000 so he needs to buy some professional advice and having used both solicitors and a barrister, the latter who's workplace is a court is the best bet. Direct access barristers are barristers with extra training to deal direct with us the public. You said if he spends money there is no guarantee of success, but there never is in a court case, you just have to prepare the best you can.

Where does one find the money? Well from their own savings, loans, remortgage etc. Very few people qualify for public funding anymore. My suggestion was to invest very little to outline his case to get an opinion. He may very well be advised that his situation is hopeless. Then he would change his tactics away from a fight to deep contrition. That may also result in a one day hearing rather than two, reducing costs. Unless he knows the likely outcome, how can he possibly adopt the correct tactics?

I don't believe he will be commited, at the worst maybe a suspended sentence but if he loses he will be liable for costs and compensation for various reasons. I believe people are helping him so he may have charitable legal minded people among them.

To aiyoyo, of course CR want this over. All businesses rely on cashflow, they'll want the case over and archived to get on with the next. That's nothing though compared with their costs increasing by 100% if they win. You can read straight from the horses mouth here. http://www.thelawyer.com/ready-willing-and-libel/107318.article

To Portia. Quote "Any judge would be dutibound to protect the weaker party, observing a balanced approach." I agree and the Judge will ask whether he has recieved legal advice before proceeding. The sooner Tony does so the better, as the strain on him and his family must be enormous. The sooner it's over, the better for them all.

I am out of UK for so long I no longer know whether one can approach the citizen advice to seek information about where to get public assisted legal aid.

Spaniel, to be fair,l I don't think this is a black and white case where a barrister can safely advise about TB chances just by cursory look or just by preliminary discussion of the case. It's a complex case that needs time to get in-depth into the details then work the defend from there. There is no short cut way to know what one chances are. Not even CR can advise or guarantee Mccanns chances. It could swing either way.

Oh, btw CR is a service not a business - professional firms are after all not trading companies.
They don't depend on finished transaction or dealing to earn their silvers. They get paid anyway for work already done; doesn't matter if this case progresses no further, they would still bill their clients for service already rendered. It is not a question of cash flow to buy more goods to continue the business. Their cash flow depends on the number of cases they have - in short its about quantity in cases and of course having financially rich clients to mug. Surely if this case is pending, their time is then free and can work on other cases if cash flow is their main concern. It's not as if they have to push this case through to collect their fees.

The merits of the case weight heavily on the evidence than anything else. Of course if TB is disadvantaged by being up against a financial heavy weight opposite party who brought this against him, and he has no avenue or mean for a level playing field in terms of legal representation, then a wise Judge will have to take this disparity into consideration when deliberating and deciding on his verdict.


aiyoyo, anyone working for profit is a business, whether it's a one man band or a multi million pound company. CAB is a service, though I doubt that they hold lists of legal aid lawyers specialising in libel!

This is not a complicated libel case. This is contempt of court resulting from a breach of undertaking and carries a penal notice. Libel will be shown to support the breach though.

It is black and white. You make a promise voluntarily to court then intentionally break that promise, that is contempt. Even if the respondent can show on a technicality, say the undertaking wasn't served on him for instance, it would be back to the beginning for libel.

I don't understand the reluctance of putting one's own money on the line even if simply to obtain damage limitation. If he forks out 15k to save 100k, I'd say it was worth it wouldn't you? Costs and recompense can be reduced by the Judge via a clever advocate.

I simply don't understand the thinking here.

One thing I have found is that it's a myth that a lawyer's success fee can be 100% of costs as it is most unlikely.

ETA. A point on the judge asking CR to reduce the many examples of libel supporting the breach is not one in the eye for them, it was simply unnecessary for so many to be submitted as a small number would suffice.
Spaniel
Spaniel

Posts : 742
Join date : 2012-01-24

Back to top Go down

McCanns v Bennett: LATEST - 4 June 2012 - Page 2 Empty Re: McCanns v Bennett: LATEST - 4 June 2012

Post by Guest on 08.06.12 17:45

@Spaniel wrote: [...]

ETA. A point on the judge asking CR to reduce the many examples of libel supporting the breach is not one in the eye for them, it was simply unnecessary for so many to be submitted as a small number would suffice.
***
I am just a very simple soul, but ... IF CR thus has been proven to have been doing quite a lot of unnecessary work, wouldn't that be a reason to reduce their bill substantially ?
McCanns v Bennett: LATEST - 4 June 2012 - Page 2 110921
Anonymous
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

McCanns v Bennett: LATEST - 4 June 2012 - Page 2 Empty Equality of arms in legal proceedings - a human right

Post by Tony Bennett on 08.06.12 18:15

@aiyoyo wrote: Spaniel, to be fair,l I don't think this is a black and white case where a barrister can safely advise about TB chances just by cursory look or just by preliminary discussion of the case. It's a complex case that needs time to get in-depth into the details then work the defend from there.
I agree very much with this assessment. Right from the start, any solicitor would have to have looked at all the documents in the case - those submitted by C-R when they delivered a large cardboard box of papers to my door - before advising. And because of the complexities, s/he would have to have gone to a barrister for a written opinion. The issues in the case include:

* were any undertakings broken?

* were the undertakings reasonable ones to give in the first place?

* were the undertakings given only because of an oppressive inequality of arms in the first place?

* were any of the undertakings a breach of the European Convention rights to freedom of expression and freedom of speech?

* were any of the statements made in the original '60 Reasons' booklet and '10 Reasons' leaflet libellous in the first place?

* should any of the undertakings now be revoked? - and, last but not least, perhaps the most fundamental question of all in this complex case:

* is there credible evidence that something other than abduction is the reason Madeleine was reported missing in the first place?

Or not?

These are complex questions on which Drs Gerald and Kate McCann have been able to engage the country's finest, and most expensive lawyers - AND a barrister.

I need to be able to match that level of expertise and legal firepower.

The case has been adjourned sine die to give me a fighting chance of being able to do so.

____________________

Dr Martin Roberts: "The evidence is that these are the pjyamas Madeleine wore on holiday in Praia da Luz. They were photographed and the photo handed to a press agency, who released it on 8 May, as the search for Madeleine continued. The McCanns held up these same pyjamas at two press conferences on 5 & 7June 2007. How could Madeleine have been abducted?"

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

Tony Bennett
Tony Bennett
Researcher

Posts : 15615
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 72
Location : Shropshire

Back to top Go down

McCanns v Bennett: LATEST - 4 June 2012 - Page 2 Empty Re: McCanns v Bennett: LATEST - 4 June 2012

Post by Smokeandmirrors on 08.06.12 18:40

This case could very well become a landmark case. In essence, if one falls foul of the law for doubting, discussing or challenging a story that has be pushed and pushed for five years into the public domain without credible evidence to support it, then we are living in no more than a dictatorship. If those with financial means can bully those without into submission, it is a very sorry state for our judiciary to be in.

Every penny and every minute spent by the McCanns persuing this is detracting from the search, and it is their choice to waste time and resources in this way. This alone should speak volumes to the presiding judge. As should the fact that the profits from the book never made it into the fund accounts. And the fact so little of the fund has been spent on the search. If they are accusing Tony for thwarting the search, he could well counter that with "what search"? The only thing they seem to be searching for is fame and fortune.

____________________
The truth will out.
Smokeandmirrors
Smokeandmirrors
Moderator

Posts : 2427
Join date : 2011-07-31

Back to top Go down

McCanns v Bennett: LATEST - 4 June 2012 - Page 2 Empty Re: McCanns v Bennett: LATEST - 4 June 2012

Post by PeterMac on 08.06.12 18:44

If TB has thwarted the search, then Edgar will no doubt be happy to give evidence under oath of exactly how.

____________________

PeterMac
PeterMac
Investigator

Posts : 10876
Join date : 2010-12-06

http://whatreallyhappenedtomadeleinemccann.blogspot.co.uk/

Back to top Go down

McCanns v Bennett: LATEST - 4 June 2012 - Page 2 Empty Re: McCanns v Bennett: LATEST - 4 June 2012

Post by Smokeandmirrors on 08.06.12 18:50

@PeterMac wrote:If TB has thwarted the search, then Edgar will no doubt be happy to give evidence under oath of exactly how.

AH yes, Edgar. Remind me exactly what he has contributed to the search? Oh yes, I remember now - it could be a man, a woman, a hellish lair or a luxury yacht bound for Australia or some such twaddle. All in all about as much use as a chocolate teapot. Mind you, Clarence thought he was a Big Gun - more like a broken pea shooter!

____________________
The truth will out.
Smokeandmirrors
Smokeandmirrors
Moderator

Posts : 2427
Join date : 2011-07-31

Back to top Go down

McCanns v Bennett: LATEST - 4 June 2012 - Page 2 Empty Re: McCanns v Bennett: LATEST - 4 June 2012

Post by Spaniel on 08.06.12 21:41

Châtelaine wrote:
@Spaniel wrote: [...]

ETA. A point on the judge asking CR to reduce the many examples of libel supporting the breach is not one in the eye for them, it was simply unnecessary for so many to be submitted as a small number would suffice.
***
I am just a very simple soul, but ... IF CR thus has been proven to have been doing quite a lot of unnecessary work, wouldn't that be a reason to reduce their bill substantially ?
McCanns v Bennett: LATEST - 4 June 2012 - Page 2 110921
We are on the same wavelength Chatelaine.McCanns v Bennett: LATEST - 4 June 2012 - Page 2 160807 Tugendhat J doesn't like solicitors taking liberties with their costs. http://www.anthonygold.co.uk/site/ang_articles/ang_articles_family/ang_articles_accurate_costs_estimates.html

Tony should be on damage control now and concentrating on what you have pointed out. I have no legal training but have been researching contempt and costs for over three years, though from the opposing side. In fact I intend to quote Tugendhat J in an upcoming case where I was quoted £1,000, paid £3,000 but am being sued for a further £2,000, all without any updates. We shall see.
Spaniel
Spaniel

Posts : 742
Join date : 2012-01-24

Back to top Go down

McCanns v Bennett: LATEST - 4 June 2012 - Page 2 Empty Re: McCanns v Bennett: LATEST - 4 June 2012

Post by Spaniel on 08.06.12 23:02

@Tony Bennett wrote:
@aiyoyo wrote: Spaniel, to be fair,l I don't think this is a black and white case where a barrister can safely advise about TB chances just by cursory look or just by preliminary discussion of the case. It's a complex case that needs time to get in-depth into the details then work the defend from there.
I agree very much with this assessment. Right from the start, any solicitor would have to have looked at all the documents in the case - those submitted by C-R when they delivered a large cardboard box of papers to my door - before advising. And because of the complexities, s/he would have to have gone to a barrister for a written opinion. The issues in the case include:

* were any undertakings broken?

* were the undertakings reasonable ones to give in the first place?

* were the undertakings given only because of an oppressive inequality of arms in the first place?

* were any of the undertakings a breach of the European Convention rights to freedom of expression and freedom of speech?

* were any of the statements made in the original '60 Reasons' booklet and '10 Reasons' leaflet libellous in the first place?

* should any of the undertakings now be revoked? - and, last but not least, perhaps the most fundamental question of all in this complex case:

* is there credible evidence that something other than abduction is the reason Madeleine was reported missing in the first place?

Or not?

"These are complex questions on which Drs Gerald and Kate McCann have been able to engage the country's finest, and most expensive lawyers - AND a barrister.

I need to be able to match that level of expertise and legal firepower."

The case has been adjourned sine die to give me a fighting chance of being able to do so.
"These are complex questions on which Drs Gerald and Kate McCann have been able to engage the country's finest, and most expensive lawyers - AND a barrister."

"I need to be able to match that level of expertise and legal firepower." You sound so envious Tony, then put your hand in your pocket now and get legal advice, not from well wishers on the internet. The claiments no doubt have insurance. The Law is simple in most cases apart from financial.

You seem to be stuck in the past Tony in more ways than one.

You mention solictors reading it but passing on to a barrister. Then dispense of solicitors and go direct, it's the new way. Solicitors have their place in drawing up contracts etc but how many can hold their own against a barrister in court?

Your points may have been valid before you signed the undertaking, but you signed it and I've said over and over, you now have to concentrate on damage limitation, costs to be precise, as nowhere have I found commital to prison for contempt in a libel case in the UK.

The only defense I can think of is you weren't told how serious making an undertaking could be. It does after all have a penal notice attached and I can see a suspended sentence looming.

Our posters here should realise that this is not a libel case so presenting evidence for such is futile, and I wish Tony would confirm that. I even misread the situation myself due to being distracted as a plaintiff in one court case and defendant in another. My mind was otherwise occupied. Damn divorce.

Thre are heads in the sand here and Tony's is not the only one.
Spaniel
Spaniel

Posts : 742
Join date : 2012-01-24

Back to top Go down

McCanns v Bennett: LATEST - 4 June 2012 - Page 2 Empty Re: McCanns v Bennett: LATEST - 4 June 2012

Post by aiyoyo on 09.06.12 7:22

@Spaniel wrote: aiyoyo, anyone working for profit is a business, whether it's a one man band or a multi million pound company. CAB is a service, though I doubt that they hold lists of legal aid lawyers specialising in libel!

Anyone working for profit is a business is correct only to a certain extent. In the same way it is not wrong to state the Fund is a business. Legal practice, Medical surgery, and other professional firms are service-based business for fees. So do you seriously think they have a need to be pushy about the mccanns' case at all to maximize profit in the same manner as trading company promotes and markets their product for example?



This is not a complicated libel case. This is contempt of court resulting from a breach of undertaking and carries a penal notice. Libel will be shown to support the breach though.

It is black and white. You make a promise voluntarily to court then intentionally break that promise, that is contempt. Even if the respondent can show on a technicality, say the undertaking wasn't served on him for instance, it would be back to the beginning for libel.

Unless you are a barrister and have seen the 5-mile -long charges and the tons of documents that resulted from them,you cant realistically say it is black and white. What should have been a simple case of breach of undertaking has been turned into a farcical complex case by the mccanns and CR in trying to break TB financially and in spirits. Their paramount concern is to asphyxiate TB's and from the way they go about it, it is patently obvious they think by bankrupting him and/or imprisoning him that will help them obtain their objective.

This is not a straight forward case of a breach of undertaking, which in the first place shouldn't have been imposed on TB, because it is a blanket breach of TB's human right. Only a blind person can see that.

The wise judge saw through their evil intention in the first place when he ordered them to downsize their charges. Meanwhile irrespective of the judge's order, CR's fees for work already done in the past pertaining to this case to produce that proverbial lot of documents still have to be paid and who do you think the mccanns hope will foot the bill for CR's fees?

It is not a case of damage limitation as you put it, it is a case of fighting to stop bullies from taking away his basic human right.


I don't understand the reluctance of putting one's own money on the line even if simply to obtain damage limitation. If he forks out 15k to save 100k, I'd say it was worth it wouldn't you? Costs and recompense can be reduced by the Judge via a clever advocate.

I simply don't understand the thinking here.

One thing I have found is that it's a myth that a lawyer's success fee can be 100% of costs as it is most unlikely.

ETA. A point on the judge asking CR to reduce the many examples of libel supporting the breach is not one in the eye for them, it was simply unnecessary for so many to be submitted as a small number would suffice.

Err...surely you cant tell me you think CR is so incompetent that they're not aware that a small number of charges would suffice for their purpose? Seriously, why do you think they compiled so many unnecessary ones churning out boxes and boxes of documents that were likely sub-divisions of the main ones if not to chuck up their fees? Would it be about scaring TB with paper works volume and their intimidating fee to surrender without putting up a fight?

I think you are being naive if you think this is a simple case of a breach of undertaking, and not mccanns' vendetta to break hence stop TB's voice in the same manner they want to break Amaral.

aiyoyo
aiyoyo

Posts : 9610
Join date : 2009-11-28

Back to top Go down

McCanns v Bennett: LATEST - 4 June 2012 - Page 2 Empty Re: McCanns v Bennett: LATEST - 4 June 2012

Post by aiyoyo on 09.06.12 8:00

@Spaniel wrote:

"I need to be able to match that level of expertise and legal firepower." You sound so envious Tony, then put your hand in your pocket now and get legal advice, not from well wishers on the internet. The claiments no doubt have insurance. The Law is simple in most cases apart from financial.

You seem to be stuck in the past Tony in more ways than one.

You mention solictors reading it but passing on to a barrister. Then dispense of solicitors and go direct, it's the new way. Solicitors have their place in drawing up contracts etc but how many can hold their own against a barrister in court?

Your points may have been valid before you signed the undertaking, but you signed it and I've said over and over, you now have to concentrate on damage limitation, costs to be precise, as nowhere have I found commital to prison for contempt in a libel case in the UK.

The only defense I can think of is you weren't told how serious making an undertaking could be. It does after all have a penal notice attached and I can see a suspended sentence looming.

Our posters here should realise that this is not a libel case so presenting evidence for such is futile, and I wish Tony would confirm that. I even misread the situation myself due to being distracted as a plaintiff in one court case and defendant in another. My mind was otherwise occupied. Damn divorce.

Thre are heads in the sand here and Tony's is not the only one.

How is it I get the impression 'your on the surface seemingly constructive comments' are actually criticism loaded?

What do you think is there for TB to envy? FAIAC,TB is merely highlighting some irrefutable facts.

May I ask you -- in TB's shoes, would you be envious of some bastards or cowards using public donated money and/or other people money to take away your basic human right to freedom of expression?

BTW, in case you haven't noticed - did the mccanns put their hands in their pocket for this?Or for that matter for anything to do with their search of the mystery of their "disappeared" daughter? What do you think of them using the bulk of the Fund suing people when they claimed the Fund was for the search? Do you think Maddie can be found in the courtroom?

May I be so bold to suggest your "damn divorce (your words)" and whatever you experienced with the law in that respect cannot be used as benchmark of your legal knowledge for anything else. Your divorce (a domestic case) is not parallel with Mccanns vs Tony Bennett (a human right infringement) case. The mccanns' objective is evil and has far greater significance than your "damn divorce"!
aiyoyo
aiyoyo

Posts : 9610
Join date : 2009-11-28

Back to top Go down

McCanns v Bennett: LATEST - 4 June 2012 - Page 2 Empty Re: McCanns v Bennett: LATEST - 4 June 2012

Post by Guest on 09.06.12 10:26

[quote aiyoyo]

This is not a straight forward case of a breach of undertaking, which in the first place shouldn't have been imposed on TB, because it is a blanket breach of TB's human right. Only a blind person can see that.

That just about sums it up McCanns v Bennett: LATEST - 4 June 2012 - Page 2 259100 There is a whole lot worse on the www, why pick on Tony. People are discussing this case openly on hundreds of forums and blogs. Tony has only written on here and the MF, not a very big audience that's for sure. It's not as if it was on the front pages of a newspaper.......... Why are they are going after him, after all the police files and statements are available to all a first as far as I know, and it is only natural that people discuss and question them. Surely people have a right to say if they think Madeleine was not abducted, there is no proof she was, and even the media and papers are now calling it a "disappearance", the word abducted is no longer being used. Are we to believe something because someone says we have to?McCanns v Bennett: LATEST - 4 June 2012 - Page 2 172348

Anonymous
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

McCanns v Bennett: LATEST - 4 June 2012 - Page 2 Empty Re: McCanns v Bennett: LATEST - 4 June 2012

Post by Guest on 09.06.12 11:16

I think it possible that the leaflet distribution in Rothley tipped the scale and raised a "lust" for blood and revenge. IMO, of course.
Anonymous
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

McCanns v Bennett: LATEST - 4 June 2012 - Page 2 Empty Re: McCanns v Bennett: LATEST - 4 June 2012

Post by Guest on 09.06.12 11:39

Yes I'm inclined to think so too. On reflection perhaps it would have been better not to do that but I don't think we then knew to what extent the McCanns would go to ruin people who hadn't fallen for their fairy tales.
Anonymous
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

McCanns v Bennett: LATEST - 4 June 2012 - Page 2 Empty Re: McCanns v Bennett: LATEST - 4 June 2012

Post by Spaniel on 09.06.12 12:09

@aiyoyo wrote:
@Spaniel wrote:

"I need to be able to match that level of expertise and legal firepower." You sound so envious Tony, then put your hand in your pocket now and get legal advice, not from well wishers on the internet. The claiments no doubt have insurance. The Law is simple in most cases apart from financial.

You seem to be stuck in the past Tony in more ways than one.

You mention solictors reading it but passing on to a barrister. Then dispense of solicitors and go direct, it's the new way. Solicitors have their place in drawing up contracts etc but how many can hold their own against a barrister in court?

Your points may have been valid before you signed the undertaking, but you signed it and I've said over and over, you now have to concentrate on damage limitation, costs to be precise, as nowhere have I found commital to prison for contempt in a libel case in the UK.

The only defense I can think of is you weren't told how serious making an undertaking could be. It does after all have a penal notice attached and I can see a suspended sentence looming.

Our posters here should realise that this is not a libel case so presenting evidence for such is futile, and I wish Tony would confirm that. I even misread the situation myself due to being distracted as a plaintiff in one court case and defendant in another. My mind was otherwise occupied. Damn divorce.

Thre are heads in the sand here and Tony's is not the only one.

How is it I get the impression 'your on the surface seemingly constructive comments' are actually criticism loaded?

What do you think is there for TB to envy? FAIAC,TB is merely highlighting some irrefutable facts.

May I ask you -- in TB's shoes, would you be envious of some bastards or cowards using public donated money and/or other people money to take away your basic human right to freedom of expression?

BTW, in case you haven't noticed - did the mccanns put their hands in their pocket for this?Or for that matter for anything to do with their search of the mystery of their "disappeared" daughter? What do you think of them using the bulk of the Fund suing people when they claimed the Fund was for the search? Do you think Maddie can be found in the courtroom?

May I be so bold to suggest your "damn divorce (your words)" and whatever you experienced with the law in that respect cannot be used as benchmark of your legal knowledge for anything else. Your divorce (a domestic case) is not parallel with Mccanns vs Tony Bennett (a human right infringement) case. The mccanns' objective is evil and has far greater significance than your "damn divorce"!
Easy to urge Tony on to financial ruin aiyoyo as it won't be your money lost.
Spaniel
Spaniel

Posts : 742
Join date : 2012-01-24

Back to top Go down

McCanns v Bennett: LATEST - 4 June 2012 - Page 2 Empty Re: McCanns v Bennett: LATEST - 4 June 2012

Post by Guest on 09.06.12 12:17

@aiyoyo wrote:
@Spaniel wrote:

"I need to be able to match that level of expertise and legal firepower." You sound so envious Tony, then put your hand in your pocket now and get legal advice, not from well wishers on the internet. The claiments no doubt have insurance. The Law is simple in most cases apart from financial.

You seem to be stuck in the past Tony in more ways than one.

You mention solictors reading it but passing on to a barrister. Then dispense of solicitors and go direct, it's the new way. Solicitors have their place in drawing up contracts etc but how many can hold their own against a barrister in court?

Your points may have been valid before you signed the undertaking, but you signed it and I've said over and over, you now have to concentrate on damage limitation, costs to be precise, as nowhere have I found commital to prison for contempt in a libel case in the UK.

The only defense I can think of is you weren't told how serious making an undertaking could be. It does after all have a penal notice attached and I can see a suspended sentence looming.

Our posters here should realise that this is not a libel case so presenting evidence for such is futile, and I wish Tony would confirm that. I even misread the situation myself due to being distracted as a plaintiff in one court case and defendant in another. My mind was otherwise occupied. Damn divorce.

Thre are heads in the sand here and Tony's is not the only one.

How is it I get the impression 'your on the surface seemingly constructive comments' are actually criticism loaded?

What do you think is there for TB to envy? FAIAC,TB is merely highlighting some irrefutable facts.

May I ask you -- in TB's shoes, would you be envious of some bastards or cowards using public donated money and/or other people money to take away your basic human right to freedom of expression?

BTW, in case you haven't noticed - did the mccanns put their hands in their pocket for this?Or for that matter for anything to do with their search of the mystery of their "disappeared" daughter? What do you think of them using the bulk of the Fund suing people when they claimed the Fund was for the search? Do you think Maddie can be found in the courtroom?

May I be so bold to suggest your "damn divorce (your words)" and whatever you experienced with the law in that respect cannot be used as benchmark of your legal knowledge for anything else. Your divorce (a domestic case) is not parallel with Mccanns vs Tony Bennett (a human right infringement) case. The mccanns' objective is evil and has far greater significance than your "damn divorce"!

Spaniel is right, you know, from a professional legal point of view.
In plain english: you give your word, you break it: you pay for it.

Barring exceptional circumstances legally excusing the transgression.
Anonymous
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

McCanns v Bennett: LATEST - 4 June 2012 - Page 2 Empty Re: McCanns v Bennett: LATEST - 4 June 2012

Post by Spaniel on 09.06.12 12:46

candyfloss wrote:[quote aiyoyo]

This is not a straight forward case of a breach of undertaking, which in the first place shouldn't have been imposed on TB, because it is a blanket breach of TB's human right. Only a blind person can see that.

That just about sums it up McCanns v Bennett: LATEST - 4 June 2012 - Page 2 259100 There is a whole lot worse on the www, why pick on Tony. People are discussing this case openly on hundreds of forums and blogs. Tony has only written on here and the MF, not a very big audience that's for sure. It's not as if it was on the front pages of a newspaper.......... Why are they are going after him, after all the police files and statements are available to all a first as far as I know, and it is only natural that people discuss and question them. Surely people have a right to say if they think Madeleine was not abducted, there is no proof she was, and even the media and papers are now calling it a "disappearance", the word abducted is no longer being used. Are we to believe something because someone says we have to?McCanns v Bennett: LATEST - 4 June 2012 - Page 2 172348

I agree that Tony was used as an example but that is history, any defence regarding freedom of speech or libel should have been used then. However he signed an undertaking, quite understandably as most would have done. Once signed though it had to be adhered to, it wasn't, hence the next date in court. I can't persuade him to eat humble pie in court so I won't try to again.

I hope Tony gets his funding for representation and Tony, I have a checklist for LIP in case you've not seen it. I'll PM it, NRN.
Spaniel
Spaniel

Posts : 742
Join date : 2012-01-24

Back to top Go down

McCanns v Bennett: LATEST - 4 June 2012 - Page 2 Empty Re: McCanns v Bennett: LATEST - 4 June 2012

Post by Guest on 09.06.12 12:52

@Spaniel wrote:
candyfloss wrote:[quote aiyoyo]

This is not a straight forward case of a breach of undertaking, which in the first place shouldn't have been imposed on TB, because it is a blanket breach of TB's human right. Only a blind person can see that.

That just about sums it up McCanns v Bennett: LATEST - 4 June 2012 - Page 2 259100 There is a whole lot worse on the www, why pick on Tony. People are discussing this case openly on hundreds of forums and blogs. Tony has only written on here and the MF, not a very big audience that's for sure. It's not as if it was on the front pages of a newspaper.......... Why are they are going after him, after all the police files and statements are available to all a first as far as I know, and it is only natural that people discuss and question them. Surely people have a right to say if they think Madeleine was not abducted, there is no proof she was, and even the media and papers are now calling it a "disappearance", the word abducted is no longer being used. Are we to believe something because someone says we have to?McCanns v Bennett: LATEST - 4 June 2012 - Page 2 172348

I agree that Tony was used as an example but that is history, any defence regarding freedom of speech or libel should have been used then. However he signed an undertaking, quite understandably as most would have done. Once signed though it had to be adhered to, it wasn't, hence the next date in court. I can't persuade him to eat humble pie in court so I won't try to again.

I hope Tony gets his funding for representation and Tony, I have a checklist for LIP in case you've not seen it. I'll PM it, NRN.

As you say, quite understandably as most would have done. That is the whole point, there was no choice really when faced with such big guns. In a country of free speech, why should the poor man have to buckle to such pressure when they don't have the means to fight back?
Anonymous
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

McCanns v Bennett: LATEST - 4 June 2012 - Page 2 Empty Re: McCanns v Bennett: LATEST - 4 June 2012

Post by Meagain on 09.06.12 13:19

candyfloss wrote:
@Spaniel wrote:
candyfloss wrote:[quote aiyoyo]

This is not a straight forward case of a breach of undertaking, which in the first place shouldn't have been imposed on TB, because it is a blanket breach of TB's human right. Only a blind person can see that.

That just about sums it up McCanns v Bennett: LATEST - 4 June 2012 - Page 2 259100 There is a whole lot worse on the www, why pick on Tony. People are discussing this case openly on hundreds of forums and blogs. Tony has only written on here and the MF, not a very big audience that's for sure. It's not as if it was on the front pages of a newspaper.......... Why are they are going after him, after all the police files and statements are available to all a first as far as I know, and it is only natural that people discuss and question them. Surely people have a right to say if they think Madeleine was not abducted, there is no proof she was, and even the media and papers are now calling it a "disappearance", the word abducted is no longer being used. Are we to believe something because someone says we have to?McCanns v Bennett: LATEST - 4 June 2012 - Page 2 172348

I agree that Tony was used as an example but that is history, any defence regarding freedom of speech or libel should have been used then. However he signed an undertaking, quite understandably as most would have done. Once signed though it had to be adhered to, it wasn't, hence the next date in court. I can't persuade him to eat humble pie in court so I won't try to again.

I hope Tony gets his funding for representation and Tony, I have a checklist for LIP in case you've not seen it. I'll PM it, NRN.

As you say, quite understandably as most would have done. That is the whole point, there was no choice really when faced with such big guns. In a country of free speech, why should the poor man have to buckle to such pressure when they don't have the means to fight back?



Absoloutely, but that is the way of things until the law changes and Mr Bennett is not a poor pensioner as some would have us believe. Didn't he once mention he had £80,000 in savings?

Spaniel and Portia have nailed it.

Whilst it may seem morally unfair that they have access to greater amounts of money than him and so can afford to take action that most of us would only be able to dream about if faced with similar, a legal undertaking was made and not challenged at the time and should therefore, have been upheld by those taking it.

We may not like the truth or the facts but the truth and the fact in this case is very simple. Two people gave a legal undertaking to the courts and one of them decided after the event that he would ignore his committment. I would tend to agree with Spaniel's observation too - if the undertaking is shown in court to have been too wide and thus unreasonable, then the roundabout may continue spinning back to the libel aspect if the McCanns so choose.

For us ordinary souls, the law does indeed need changing to make the playing field level, but Mr Bennett having been a solicitor was more than aware of the potential consequences of his action in breaching his undertaking. He should have stopped after the leaflet drop, or even after giving leaflets to Sym to sell but most certainly before his disgusting re-writing of a Xmas carol as if Madeleine had written it from the grave.

avatar
Meagain

Posts : 28
Join date : 2012-06-09

Back to top Go down

McCanns v Bennett: LATEST - 4 June 2012 - Page 2 Empty Re: McCanns v Bennett: LATEST - 4 June 2012

Post by Guest on 09.06.12 13:23

@Meagain wrote:
candyfloss wrote:
@Spaniel wrote:
candyfloss wrote:[quote aiyoyo]

This is not a straight forward case of a breach of undertaking, which in the first place shouldn't have been imposed on TB, because it is a blanket breach of TB's human right. Only a blind person can see that.

That just about sums it up McCanns v Bennett: LATEST - 4 June 2012 - Page 2 259100 There is a whole lot worse on the www, why pick on Tony. People are discussing this case openly on hundreds of forums and blogs. Tony has only written on here and the MF, not a very big audience that's for sure. It's not as if it was on the front pages of a newspaper.......... Why are they are going after him, after all the police files and statements are available to all a first as far as I know, and it is only natural that people discuss and question them. Surely people have a right to say if they think Madeleine was not abducted, there is no proof she was, and even the media and papers are now calling it a "disappearance", the word abducted is no longer being used. Are we to believe something because someone says we have to?McCanns v Bennett: LATEST - 4 June 2012 - Page 2 172348

I agree that Tony was used as an example but that is history, any defence regarding freedom of speech or libel should have been used then. However he signed an undertaking, quite understandably as most would have done. Once signed though it had to be adhered to, it wasn't, hence the next date in court. I can't persuade him to eat humble pie in court so I won't try to again.

I hope Tony gets his funding for representation and Tony, I have a checklist for LIP in case you've not seen it. I'll PM it, NRN.

As you say, quite understandably as most would have done. That is the whole point, there was no choice really when faced with such big guns. In a country of free speech, why should the poor man have to buckle to such pressure when they don't have the means to fight back?



Absoloutely, but that is the way of things until the law changes and Mr Bennett is not a poor pensioner as some would have us believe. Didn't he once mention he had £80,000 in savings?

Spaniel and Portia have nailed it.

Whilst it may seem morally unfair that they have access to greater amounts of money than him and so can afford to take action that most of us would only be able to dream about if faced with similar, a legal undertaking was made and not challenged at the time and should therefore, have been upheld by those taking it.

We may not like the truth or the facts but the truth and the fact in this case is very simple. Two people gave a legal undertaking to the courts and one of them decided after the event that he would ignore his committment. I would tend to agree with Spaniel's observation too - if the undertaking is shown in court to have been too wide and thus unreasonable, then the roundabout may continue spinning back to the libel aspect if the McCanns so choose.

For us ordinary souls, the law does indeed need changing to make the playing field level, but Mr Bennett having been a solicitor was more than aware of the potential consequences of his action in breaching his undertaking. He should have stopped after the leaflet drop, or even after giving leaflets to Sym to sell but most certainly before his disgusting re-writing of a Xmas carol as if Madeleine had written it from the grave.




Hi Meagain, from the last paragraph in bold, you sound awfully like Kololi?
Anonymous
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

McCanns v Bennett: LATEST - 4 June 2012 - Page 2 Empty Re: McCanns v Bennett: LATEST - 4 June 2012

Post by tigger on 09.06.12 13:27

This case is mostly about an undertaking which was breached by way of entrapment as I understand it.
Even so, the evidence submitted concerns information which was already in the public domain and also deals with the interpretation such information by the general public.

There are various precedents in law where this was not allowed as evidence in court. (No, I'm not going to give examples so please don't ask).

Why should the law be changed for ordinary people but not for 'experts'? That would seem a novel interpretation of any law.

____________________
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.
tigger
tigger

Posts : 8114
Join date : 2011-07-20

http://fytton.blogspot.nl/

Back to top Go down

McCanns v Bennett: LATEST - 4 June 2012 - Page 2 Empty Re: McCanns v Bennett: LATEST - 4 June 2012

Post by Guest on 09.06.12 13:57

I do hope that nasty piece of work Kololi hasn't been reincarnated! I've heard of the rewritten carol - but only from a troll on another site - so didn't know whether it really exists. I can't really comment as I haven't read it but it does sound like an error of judgement.

That of course does not mean that everything else that Tony does is wrong. I have encountered a few people in my time who write others off on the strength of one mistake and quite honestly they are pains in the rear.
Anonymous
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

McCanns v Bennett: LATEST - 4 June 2012 - Page 2 Empty Re: McCanns v Bennett: LATEST - 4 June 2012

Post by Spaniel on 09.06.12 13:58

candyfloss wrote:
@Spaniel wrote:
candyfloss wrote:[quote aiyoyo]

This is not a straight forward case of a breach of undertaking, which in the first place shouldn't have been imposed on TB, because it is a blanket breach of TB's human right. Only a blind person can see that.

That just about sums it up McCanns v Bennett: LATEST - 4 June 2012 - Page 2 259100 There is a whole lot worse on the www, why pick on Tony. People are discussing this case openly on hundreds of forums and blogs. Tony has only written on here and the MF, not a very big audience that's for sure. It's not as if it was on the front pages of a newspaper.......... Why are they are going after him, after all the police files and statements are available to all a first as far as I know, and it is only natural that people discuss and question them. Surely people have a right to say if they think Madeleine was not abducted, there is no proof she was, and even the media and papers are now calling it a "disappearance", the word abducted is no longer being used. Are we to believe something because someone says we have to?McCanns v Bennett: LATEST - 4 June 2012 - Page 2 172348

I agree that Tony was used as an example but that is history, any defence regarding freedom of speech or libel should have been used then. However he signed an undertaking, quite understandably as most would have done. Once signed though it had to be adhered to, it wasn't, hence the next date in court. I can't persuade him to eat humble pie in court so I won't try to again.

I hope Tony gets his funding for representation and Tony, I have a checklist for LIP in case you've not seen it. I'll PM it, NRN.

As you say, quite understandably as most would have done. That is the whole point, there was no choice really when faced with such big guns. In a country of free speech, why should the poor man have to buckle to such pressure when they don't have the means to fight back?
Free speech in this country died long ago, that's why firms such as CR do so well. Tony has said in the past that he is in contact with a freedom of speech organisation so perhaps they are advising.

Until this morning I hadn't realised that Tony received legal advice on signing. Presumably they would have pointed out the serious consequences of breaching the undertaking and I'm sure would have tried to avoid signing it if at all possible. If he can find a way around that, saying it was disproportionate to his publishings for example, I dare say libel will rear its head again and the whole cycle will resume and at what cost to his health.

____________________

Spaniel
Spaniel

Posts : 742
Join date : 2012-01-24

Back to top Go down

McCanns v Bennett: LATEST - 4 June 2012 - Page 2 Empty Re: McCanns v Bennett: LATEST - 4 June 2012

Post by Tony Bennett on 09.06.12 14:36

@Spaniel wrote:You seem to be stuck in the past Tony in more ways than one...Our posters here should realise that this is not a libel case so presenting evidence for such is futile, and I wish Tony would confirm that...
Spaniel, you have clearly misunderstood the legal position, though I have spelt it out previously in the forum.

Let's review the history of this in stages.

On 27 August 2009, the McCanns claimed that '60 Reasons' and '10 Reasons' were libellous.

PRIOR TO 25 November 2009, the McCanns issued a LIBEL CLAIM (what used to be called a 'libel writ') against me in the High Court, claiming damages for defamation.

On 25 November 2009, that libel claim was 'STAYED'. That means, in terms, suspended, or postponed. Certainl;y not abandoned.

The McCanns agreed not to proceed with their libel claim subject to two conditions:

1. I paid their court fees of £400, and

2. I signed and agreed to a number of penal undertakings.

On 1 December 2011 the McCanns served me with committal-to-prison proceedingss.

On 8 February before Mr Justice Tugendhat I applied for permission to cross-apply within these proceedings for an order that I be released from three specific parts of the undertakings I gave.

Mr Justice Tugendhat, in granting me permission to make such an application, said, and I quote: "Mr Bennett, you do realise that by making such an application, you will bring into play the Claimants' original libel claim against you, which has merely been stayed, not abandoned?"

I said that I fully understood this.

Thus, Spaniel, you are incorrect. The issue of libel is very much live in this case and comes into play particularly in relation to the application I have made to be released from three of my undertakings. My application was made in February and my Affidavit in support of that application was filed and served on 23 March 2012.

I must make one other comment on those who attempt to insist that this is more or less a straight matter of: "Did Tony break his undertaking or not - Yes or No".

As both the European Court of Human Rights and the British courts have ruled (see Hammerton v Hammerton), a court decision arrived at when there has not been equality of arms is a violation of human rights under Article 6(1) and is therefore, effectively, invalid. The High Court decided to accept an undertaking in a situation where the defendant did not have equality of arms - indeed, nothing like it. Under Article 6(1), that decision was invalid.

____________________

Dr Martin Roberts: "The evidence is that these are the pjyamas Madeleine wore on holiday in Praia da Luz. They were photographed and the photo handed to a press agency, who released it on 8 May, as the search for Madeleine continued. The McCanns held up these same pyjamas at two press conferences on 5 & 7June 2007. How could Madeleine have been abducted?"

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

Tony Bennett
Tony Bennett
Researcher

Posts : 15615
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 72
Location : Shropshire

Back to top Go down

McCanns v Bennett: LATEST - 4 June 2012 - Page 2 Empty Re: McCanns v Bennett: LATEST - 4 June 2012

Post by Spaniel on 09.06.12 14:55

I understand it perfectly Tony in that the libel is evidence and in one of my posts I said that.

I wish you good luck I don't like to see anyone slaughtered by the big boys.
Spaniel
Spaniel

Posts : 742
Join date : 2012-01-24

Back to top Go down

Page 2 of 4 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum