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 4 Mm11

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

McCanns v Bennett: LATEST - 4 June 2012

Page 4 of 4 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4

View previous topic View next topic Go down

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

Post by Guest on 12.06.12 8:42

I certainly agree with your last paragraph Aquila. It is only thanks to Carter-Ruck that I heard of the non-singing Tony Bennett in the first place!

I can only conclude that the reason Team McCann ignores the mad ramblings of the likes of David Icke while pursuing Tony is because they know that he is close to the unsavoury truth.

Attack is thus the only form of defence.
Anonymous
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

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

Post by tigger on 12.06.12 9:09

Jean wrote:I certainly agree with your last paragraph Aquila. It is only thanks to Carter-Ruck that I heard of the non-singing Tony Bennett in the first place!

I can only conclude that the reason Team McCann ignores the mad ramblings of the likes of David Icke while pursuing Tony is because they know that he is close to the unsavoury truth.

Attack is thus the only form of defence.

Although Kate has said something on the lines of 'you need to pick your fights'. I think she was badly advised in this case, I think they wanted to make an example of TB - discrediting the website at the same time. Picking on one who is methodical in his campaign and thus more likely to be a danger than the mad ramblings of 'trolls' may have seemed a good idea at the time.
We're much further down the line now and judging from the many anti comments in newspapers, it would not be a good idea to bring such a court case to the public's attention.

Icke comes under 'controlled opposition' i.e. he can easily be discredited and is allowed to say what he wants. He can then be held up as proof of Freedom of Speech. Alex Jones is another example, a perfectly genuine whistle blower, but the presentation is sufficiently ott to let him say what he likes.

It's reasoned argument backed up by proof that needs to be stepped on with big hob-nailed boots....

____________________
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 4 Empty Re: McCanns v Bennett: LATEST - 4 June 2012

Post by Liz Eagles on 12.06.12 9:53

@tigger wrote:
Jean wrote:I certainly agree with your last paragraph Aquila. It is only thanks to Carter-Ruck that I heard of the non-singing Tony Bennett in the first place!

I can only conclude that the reason Team McCann ignores the mad ramblings of the likes of David Icke while pursuing Tony is because they know that he is close to the unsavoury truth.

Attack is thus the only form of defence.

Although Kate has said something on the lines of 'you need to pick your fights'. I think she was badly advised in this case, I think they wanted to make an example of TB - discrediting the website at the same time. Picking on one who is methodical in his campaign and thus more likely to be a danger than the mad ramblings of 'trolls' may have seemed a good idea at the time.
We're much further down the line now and judging from the many anti comments in newspapers, it would not be a good idea to bring such a court case to the public's attention.

Icke comes under 'controlled opposition' i.e. he can easily be discredited and is allowed to say what he wants. He can then be held up as proof of Freedom of Speech. Alex Jones is another example, a perfectly genuine whistle blower, but the presentation is sufficiently ott to let him say what he likes.

It's reasoned argument backed up by proof that needs to be stepped on with big hob-nailed boots....

Let's imagine that TB and Amaral were not being sued and their viewpoints/books were freely available. What difference would that actually make to the search for Madeleine from the McCann stance? What damage would they (TB and Amaral)actually be capable of? The general public have lives to lead and skim newspapers on the whole. I think the problem is that the media/legal/pr folk who have been so 'supportive' to the McCann's may just find a bit of mileage in the opposition when they are in need of their next story/shilling. It would be then that they (TB and Amaral) would become powerful. It would be then that TM would not be running the show as they seem to believe they are doing. Just my humble opinion here.
Liz Eagles
Liz Eagles

Posts : 9575
Join date : 2011-09-03

Back to top Go down

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

Post by Angelique on 12.06.12 18:12

tigger wrote:

Although Kate has said something on the lines of 'you need to pick your fights'. I think she was badly advised in this case, I think they wanted to make an example of TB - discrediting the website at the same time. Picking on one who is methodical in his campaign and thus more likely to be a danger than the mad ramblings of 'trolls' may have seemed a good idea at the time. 

I think it's this "you need to pick your fights". 

Easy to find TB, know he has property, some savings. Similar to GA insofar as possible success as they would have difficulty defending against CR.

What could turn it are the latter points TB has made in his post. Times change and so does the law.

____________________
Things aren't always what they seem
Angelique
Angelique

Posts : 1396
Join date : 2010-10-19

Back to top Go down

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

Post by markus1976 on 16.06.12 10:29

Any news from your solicitors yet Tony?
avatar
markus1976

Posts : 7
Join date : 2012-06-05

Back to top Go down

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

Post by T4two on 16.06.12 11:04

@tigger wrote:
Jean wrote:I certainly agree with your last paragraph Aquila. It is only thanks to Carter-Ruck that I heard of the non-singing Tony Bennett in the first place!

I can only conclude that the reason Team McCann ignores the mad ramblings of the likes of David Icke while pursuing Tony is because they know that he is close to the unsavoury truth.

Attack is thus the only form of defence.

Although Kate has said something on the lines of 'you need to pick your fights'. I think she was badly advised in this case, I think they wanted to make an example of TB - discrediting the website at the same time. Picking on one who is methodical in his campaign and thus more likely to be a danger than the mad ramblings of 'trolls' may have seemed a good idea at the time.
We're much further down the line now and judging from the many anti comments in newspapers, it would not be a good idea to bring such a court case to the public's attention.

Icke comes under 'controlled opposition' i.e. he can easily be discredited and is allowed to say what he wants. He can then be held up as proof of Freedom of Speech. Alex Jones is another example, a perfectly genuine whistle blower, but the presentation is sufficiently ott to let him say what he likes.

It's reasoned argument backed up by proof that needs to be stepped on with big hob-nailed boots....

But of course it's the only alternative if you are guilty of something and unable to put facts on the table to counter reasoned argument or such proof as is put forward to support it. The McCanns do not appear to be concerned about proving their innocence, which of course they are not obliged to do in any case, but rather with altering the perception of some kind of involvement which is held by a significant number of people and to do this by attempting to quash all credible legitimate discussion and opinion.
T4two
T4two

Posts : 166
Join date : 2012-01-22
Age : 71
Location : Germany

Back to top Go down

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

Post by Tony Bennett on 08.08.12 18:06

UPDATE:

My efforts to see if I qualify for Legal Aid have now reached the upper echelons of the Legal Services Commission (LSC), who adjudicate on such matters.

The matter is now in the hands of Michael Forrester of the Central Complaints Handling Team at LSC HQ on th 8th floor, 102 Petty France.

One of the problems I have had in getting a Legal Aid Solicitor even to apply for Legal Aid for me is the fact that Solicitors seem to be unsure whether or not I come under the Civil Legal Aid Scheme, or the Criminal Legal Aid Scheme.

As there are different financial criteria for the two schemes, this is actually a matter of potentially critical importance for me.

The Civil Legal Aid Scheme covers all civil proceedings in the County Court, High Court and higher courts.

The Criminal Legal Aid Scheme covers all criminal charges dealt with in the Magistrates Court, Crown Court and higher courts.

The problem with these contempt of court proceedings is that they originate in a civil court, in this case the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court, but if found 'guilty' of contempt, the proceedings could end up in various criminal penalties for the defendant: prison, fines, seizure of assets - and of course, payment of the opponent's costs if you lose. As mentioned before, these were - according to Carter-Ruck - 'well over £120,000' by April, and no doubt quite a bit higher by now.

There is no way I can match fees like that from my resources.

And the European Court of Human Rights has many times insisted that if any defendant is faced with a jail term, he MUST be legally represented [see, e.g., Alkan v. Turkey, 2012]

Anyway, Mr Forrester in his letter of 3 August, writes:

QUOTES (IN BLUE)

"In the light of the problems that you have encountered with the Community Legal Advice Service and given that I still do not know for certain which category your case falls within, I think the best thing I can do is pass on your telephone number and request a senior CLA adviser to 'phone you [it's 8 August, and that hasn't happened yet].

"Regarding your question about the category of law in which your case belongs, I am reluctant to give out too much information on this issue because I do not know the particulars of your case. However, having carried out some brief research, it seems that Contempt of Court is a matter that fits our criminal funding criteria with Section 12(2)(f) of the Access to Justice Act 1999. With this in mind, it might be appropriate for you to bring your case to the attention of a provider with a criminal contract in the first instance..." [Ever since 1 December 2011, when I was served with a large, 16-lb box of committal-to-prison proceedings, the LSC has told me that I should apply for Civil Legal Aid! The wheels of the CLA may grind very slowly, but after 8 months, it is certainly progress for them to be getting ever closer to telling me which of their two Legal Aid schemes may appy to me].

There is also an admission that for the past 8 months the LSC has misinformed me about their own financial eligibilty criteria:

"Turning to our conversation on 6 July 2012, I take your point about Regulation 35 and I acknowledge that it did not occur to me during our conversation to mention the exception to our usual rules relating to capital". [that's the little-known rule that - for those aged 60 or over - the maximum capital you can have to qualify for Civil Legal Aid is £108,000, not £8,000 - depending also on your income]. Again, it is pleasing that after 8 months I have helped them to rediscover this almost unknown rule - and to be told that they now agree (at last!) that it could apply to me.

UNQUOTE

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

ETA: I should just add here that the most likley date for the trial, at present slated for two days, is in the months of November or December this year. At present, the final trial of the McCanns' long-running [3 years] libel action in the Lisbon High Court against the original Portuguese Police invesigation co-ordinator, Dr Goncalo Amaral, is slated to start on Thursday 13 September - and that case is, I think, set down for 4 days of trial - T.B.

____________________

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 : 15592
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 72
Location : Shropshire

Back to top Go down

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

Post by tigger on 08.08.12 18:38

Oof!

Nice to know that you are improving general knowledge about the British legal system wherever you go!

gm

____________________
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 4 Empty Re: McCanns v Bennett: LATEST - 4 June 2012

Post by Guest on 08.08.12 18:48

@tigger wrote:Oof!

Nice to know that you are improving general knowledge about the British legal system wherever you go!

McCanns v Bennett: LATEST - 4 June 2012 - Page 4 3843413540



Yes, perhaps they should take you on as an adviser TonyMcCanns v Bennett: LATEST - 4 June 2012 - Page 4 110921
Anonymous
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

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

Post by justathought on 08.08.12 20:54

@Tony Bennett wrote:UPDATE:

My efforts to see if I qualify for Legal Aid have now reached the upper echelons of the Legal Services Commission (LSC), who adjudicate on such matters.

The matter is now in the hands of Michael Forrester of the Central Complaints Handling Team at LSC HQ on th 8th floor, 102 Petty France.

One of the problems I have had in getting a Legal Aid Solicitor even to apply for Legal Aid for me is the fact that Solicitors seem to be unsure whether or not I come under the Civil Legal Aid Scheme, or the Criminal Legal Aid Scheme.

As there are different financial criteria for the two schemes, this is actually a matter of potentially critical importance for me.

The Civil Legal Aid Scheme covers all civil proceedings in the County Court, High Court and higher courts.

The Criminal Legal Aid Scheme covers all criminal charges dealt with in the Magistrates Court, Crown Court and higher courts.

The problem with these contempt of court proceedings is that they originate in a civil court, in this case the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court, but if found 'guilty' of contempt, the proceedings could end up in various criminal penalties for the defendant: prison, fines, seizure of assets - and of course, payment of the opponent's costs if you lose. As mentioned before, these were - according to Carter-Ruck - 'well over £120,000' by April, and no doubt quite a bit higher by now.

There is no way I can match fees like that from my resources.

And the European Court of Human Rights has many times insisted that if any defendant is faced with a jail term, he MUST be legally represented [see, e.g., Alkan v. Turkey, 2012]

Anyway, Mr Forrester in his letter of 3 August, writes:

QUOTES (IN BLUE)

"In the light of the problems that you have encountered with the Community Legal Advice Service and given that I still do not know for certain which category your case falls within, I think the best thing I can do is pass on your telephone number and request a senior CLA adviser to 'phone you [it's 8 August, and that hasn't happened yet].

"Regarding your question about the category of law in which your case belongs, I am reluctant to give out too much information on this issue because I do not know the particulars of your case. However, having carried out some brief research, it seems that Contempt of Court is a matter that fits our criminal funding criteria with Section 12(2)(f) of the Access to Justice Act 1999. With this in mind, it might be appropriate for you to bring your case to the attention of a provider with a criminal contract in the first instance..." [Ever since 1 December 2011, when I was served with a large, 16-lb box of committal-to-prison proceedings, the LSC has told me that I should apply for Civil Legal Aid! The wheels of the CLA may grind very slowly, but after 8 months, it is certainly progress for them to be getting ever closer to telling me which of their two Legal Aid schemes may appy to me].

There is also an admission that for the past 8 months the LSC has misinformed me about their own financial eligibilty criteria:

"Turning to our conversation on 6 July 2012, I take your point about Regulation 35 and I acknowledge that it did not occur to me during our conversation to mention the exception to our usual rules relating to capital". [that's the little-known rule that - for those aged 60 or over - the maximum capital you can have to qualify for Civil Legal Aid is £108,000, not £8,000 - depending also on your income]. Again, it is pleasing that after 8 months I have helped them to rediscover this almost unknown rule - and to be told that they now agree (at last!) that it could apply to me.

UNQUOTE

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

ETA: I should just add here that the most likley date for the trial, at present slated for two days, is in the months of November or December this year. At present, the final trial of the McCanns' long-running [3 years] libel action in the Lisbon High Court against the original Portuguese Police invesigation co-ordinator, Dr Goncalo Amaral, is slated to start on Thursday 13 September - and that case is, I think, set down for 4 days of trial - T.B.


Mr Bennett

You seem to know what you are doing, documenting everything relating to your application. the LSC will have to tread very carefully. especially if it comes to light subsequently that they were wrong in their decision or deliberately tardy in responding to your application to obstruct you. then serious consequences. i can not see a position arising whereby a UK citizen is deprived of his basic rights of representation in the High Court.
avatar
justathought

Posts : 141
Join date : 2012-07-06

Back to top Go down

McCanns v Bennett: LATEST - 4 June 2012 - Page 4 Empty LSC mistakes

Post by Tony Bennett on 08.08.12 22:09

@justathought wrote:Mr Bennett

You seem to know what you are doing, documenting everything relating to your application. The LSC will have to tread very carefully, especially if it comes to light subsequently that they were wrong in their decision...
Thank you. They were clearly wrong to tell me, as they did back in early Decemebr, that there was an 'absolute bar' to getting Legal Aid if you had more than £8,000 in savings. They ignored their own carefully-deisgned and clear regulations, which increase this limit to a maximum of £108,000 savings in the case of those over 60 who have been able to put something by for their old age. Michael Forrester of LSC HQ has now conceded that.

If the Legal Services Commission has also misled me into thinking that I needed to apply for Civil Legal Aid when all the time I may have been entitled to apply for Criminal Legal Aid, that would be a second very bad mistake. And that advice was given to me by a senior adviser at the Nottingham office of the Legal Services Commission.

____________________

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 : 15592
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 72
Location : Shropshire

Back to top Go down

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

Post by justathought on 08.08.12 22:31

@Tony Bennett wrote:
@justathought wrote:Mr Bennett

You seem to know what you are doing, documenting everything relating to your application. The LSC will have to tread very carefully, especially if it comes to light subsequently that they were wrong in their decision...
Thank you. They were clearly wrong to tell me, as they did back in early Decemebr, that there was an 'absolute bar' to getting Legal Aid if you had more than £8,000 in savings. They ignored their own carefully-deisgned and clear regulations, which increase this limit to a maximum of £108,000 savings in the case of those over 60 who have been able to put something by for their old age. Michael Forrester of LSC HQ has now conceded that.

If the Legal Services Commission has also misled me into thinking that I needed to apply for Civil Legal Aid when all the time I may have been entitled to apply for Criminal Legal Aid, that would be a second very bad mistake. And that advice was given to me by a senior adviser at the Nottingham office of the Legal Services Commission.

Mr Bennett
You appear in a good position? there is obvious uncertainty and an unwillingness on the part of the LSC to make a decision. . those having to make the decision shortly will be conscious of the fact that they could have handled the matter better. and may tend to grant you what you wish rather than risking exposing themselves to criticism.
my only concern is that there seems almost to be a news black-out as to your case. so the LSC might feel they can risk not giving you L.A. as there will be little public outcry?

avatar
justathought

Posts : 141
Join date : 2012-07-06

Back to top Go down

McCanns v Bennett: LATEST - 4 June 2012 - Page 4 Empty In a bad place

Post by Tony Bennett on 08.08.12 23:08

'justathought' wrote: Mr Bennett...You appear in a good position?

REPLY: 'justathought', I have no idea who you are, but I can perceive that you are a careful and interested observer on this matter. However, no, I am not in a good position. I face jail, I face a fine, I face seizure of assets, I face the possibility of having to pay crippling costs to Carter-Ruck/The McCanns which would certainly financially ruin me. No way is that a 'good place' to be in. Furthermore, though I have spent some money on taking legal advice from a litigation expert, I cannot afford to be actually represented, with all that being represented would mean...paying fees to match those of Carter-Ruck, up to £1,000 per hour (not forgetting VAT), paying solicitors for every 'phone call, for every letter sent out and received, for having to study 2,000 pages of documents filed by Carter-Ruck at the start of these proceedings, for attending court (case management hearings and the trial), for drafting witness statements, for preparing skeleton arguments, for instructing a barrister to advise and to act as an advocate in court, etc. I am having to act on my own unless I can get Legal Aid (with or without my having to make a financial contribution, which of course I may have to make).

'justathought' wrote: ...there is obvious uncertainty and an unwillingness on the part of the LSC to make a decision.

REPLY: I am not sure that you are correct here. So far, IMO it has been a case of (a) incompetence, combined with (b) an arrogant refusal to listen to what I've said about the highly unusual aspects of this case, (c) a blindness to the European Court of Human Rights rulings on the absolute necessity of 'equality of arms' as between claimant and defendant where the defendant faces the prospect of prison, and (4) the unwillingness of people right at the top of the LSC (until now) to read, accept and respond to the representations I have been making. PLUS of course that they don't know their own regulations on the capital limits for Legal Aid for those aged 60 and over.

'justathought' wrote: Those having to make the decision shortly will be conscious of the fact that they could have handled the matter better

REPLY: MUCH better

'justathought' wrote: ...and may tend to grant you what you wish rather than risking exposing themselves to criticism.

REPLY: I wish! They are not 'fairy godmothers'. To be fair, they have a responsibility to the taxpayer to pay out towards legal representation only when it is needed on financial grounds.

The point that the LSC and the government haven't grasped here is that successive governments have allowed a situation to build up in Britain - over the decades and centuries - where the wealthy and powerful can go running to the most expensive lawyers in the country (i.e. libel lawyers) and spend vast amounts of money browbeating those who oppose them into submission.

The McCanns and Carter-Ruck said they'd spent 'well over £125,000' in costs by April,and may end up spending 2 or 3 times that to shut me up, at a time when the internet is awash with the views and YouTube videos who share my scepticism about the McCanns' account of events - and when the book on which I base most of my opinions on the case is freely sold around Europe despite the McCanns spending hundreds of thousands of pounds in an effort (unsuccessful so far) to suppress it.

'justathought' wrote: My only concern is that there seems almost to be a news black-out as to your case. So the LSC might feel they can risk not giving you L.A. as there will be little public outcry?

REPLY: Once they decide whether my case comes under Civil or Criminal Legal Aid, I can then approach Solicitors and tell them which category the LSC has decided my case comes into. Then it is down to an assessment by LSC officials of (a) my precise financial circumstances and (b) the merits of my case. Point (b) shouldn't be an issue at all since the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has frequently ruled that defendants facing prison MUST be legally represented. If the government allows the wealthy and powerful to run to expensive lawyers to try to silence opposition, then it must - says the ECHR - also provide the means to defend themselves if those same wealthy and powerful people try to get their opponents sent to prison.

But you are right in this: the media, politicans, opinion-formers etc. universally accept that the McCanns are telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth about what happened to Madeleine. It follows, therefroe, that anyone who questions that account, especially publicly, is likely to be treated with disdain, contempt, opprobrium and abuse.

So I am not in a good place at all.

____________________

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 : 15592
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 72
Location : Shropshire

Back to top Go down

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

Post by justathought on 09.08.12 0:04

@Tony Bennett wrote:'justathought' wrote: Mr Bennett...You appear in a good position?

REPLY: 'justathought', I have no idea who you are, but I can perceive that you are a careful and interested observer on this matter. However, no, I am not in a good position. I face jail, I face a fine, I face seizure of assets, I face the possibility of having to pay crippling costs to Carter-Ruck/The McCanns which would certainly financially ruin me. No way is that a 'good place' to be in. Furthermore, though I have spent some money on taking legal advice from a litigation expert, I cannot afford to be actually represented, with all that being represented would mean...paying fees to match those of Carter-Ruck, up to £1,000 per hour (not forgetting VAT), paying solicitors for every 'phone call, for every letter sent out and received, for having to study 2,000 pages of documents filed by Carter-Ruck at the start of these proceedings, for attending court (case management hearings and the trial), for drafting witness statements, for preparing skeleton arguments, for instructing a barrister to advise and to act as an advocate in court, etc. I am having to act on my own unless I can get Legal Aid (with or without my having to make a financial contribution, which of course I may have to make).

'justathought' wrote: ...there is obvious uncertainty and an unwillingness on the part of the LSC to make a decision.

REPLY: I am not sure that you are correct here. So far, IMO it has been a case of (a) incompetence, combined with (b) an arrogant refusal to listen to what I've said about the highly unusual aspects of this case, (c) a blindness to the European Court of Human Rights rulings on the absolute necessity of 'equality of arms' as between claimant and defendant where the defendant faces the prospect of prison, and (4) the unwillingness of people right at the top of the LSC (until now) to read, accept and respond to the representations I have been making. PLUS of course that they don't know their own regulations on the capital limits for Legal Aid for those aged 60 and over.

'justathought' wrote: Those having to make the decision shortly will be conscious of the fact that they could have handled the matter better

REPLY: MUCH better

'justathought' wrote: ...and may tend to grant you what you wish rather than risking exposing themselves to criticism.

REPLY: I wish! They are not 'fairy godmothers'. To be fair, they have a responsibility to the taxpayer to pay out towards legal representation only when it is needed on financial grounds.

The point that the LSC and the government haven't grasped here is that successive governments have allowed a situation to build up in Britain - over the decades and centuries - where the wealthy and powerful can go running to the most expensive lawyers in the country (i.e. libel lawyers) and spend vast amounts of money browbeating those who oppose them into submission.

The McCanns and Carter-Ruck said they'd spent 'well over £125,000' in costs by April,and may end up spending 2 or 3 times that to shut me up, at a time when the internet is awash with the views and YouTube videos who share my scepticism about the McCanns' account of events - and when the book on which I base most of my opinions on the case is freely sold around Europe despite the McCanns spending hundreds of thousands of pounds in an effort (unsuccessful so far) to suppress it.

'justathought' wrote: My only concern is that there seems almost to be a news black-out as to your case. So the LSC might feel they can risk not giving you L.A. as there will be little public outcry?

REPLY: Once they decide whether my case comes under Civil or Criminal Legal Aid, I can then approach Solicitors and tell them which category the LSC has decided my case comes into. Then it is down to an assessment by LSC officials of (a) my precise financial circumstances and (b) the merits of my case. Point (b) shouldn't be an issue at all since the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has frequently ruled that defendants facing prison MUST be legally represented. If the government allows the wealthy and powerful to run to expensive lawyers to try to silence opposition, then it must - says the ECHR - also provide the means to defend themselves if those same wealthy and powerful people try to get their opponents sent to prison.

But you are right in this: the media, politicans, opinion-formers etc. universally accept that the McCanns are telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth about what happened to Madeleine. It follows, therefroe, that anyone who questions that account, especially publicly, is likely to be treated with disdain, contempt, opprobrium and abuse.

So I am not in a good place at all.

Mr Bennett
please re read my post again, but on the following basis. that my comment of you being in a good position, was a specific reference to the probability of you being granted L.A. not an observation as to your overall standing re the case. .
avatar
justathought

Posts : 141
Join date : 2012-07-06

Back to top Go down

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

Post by Spaniel on 09.08.12 7:09

The problem with these contempt of court proceedings is that they originate in a civil court, in this case the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court, but if found 'guilty' of contempt, the proceedings could end up in various criminal penalties for the defendant: prison, fines, seizure of assets - and of course, payment of the opponent's costs if you lose. As mentioned before, these were - according to Carter-Ruck - 'well over £120,000' by April, and no doubt quite a bit higher by now.

"but if found 'guilty' of contempt" Is that not the answer then ? Might you need legal aid for a civil case at present, as I believe if "in contempt" it would be referred to an appropriate court where you would then need LA for a criminal case? High court doesn't hear criminal cases only appeals.

To apply for criminal funding now would be pre-empting the outcome somewhat, wouldn't it?

I can't really see how the disregard will help anyway, as the disposable income on the sliding scale is so tight.

http://www.asauk.org.uk/fileLibrary/pdf/econ52.pdf

One strange thing about it is that a maximum disposable income of £272 pm, bars any legal aid even without capital. However, own a home outright, have £15,000 savings, receive £600 pm guaranteed pension credit and it is passported. Most odd.

ETA, If this is a contempt case Tony, why is it being heard in the High Court?
Spaniel
Spaniel

Posts : 742
Join date : 2012-01-24

Back to top Go down

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

Post by aiyoyo on 11.08.12 7:26

Since this is an exceptional case where a civil filing can end up with criminal punishment, and since even the LSC displayed (so far) inept knowledge about their own legal-aid structure and system, and having advised TB wrongly, not once but twice, what are the chances that their next advice would at best be inaccurate and at worst be downright negligence and derelict of fiduciary duty.

Either way it seems to me that they (LSC) haven't a clue how to handle TB's application and the LSC personnel is just passing this ball (so to speak) from one person to another hoping the buck stops at someone else's to avoid accountability.

Since elements in this case are so grey that they can or inevitably will spill over to the next category it would mean that it cannot be neatly classified as "this" or "that" meaning strictly "civil" or strictly "criminal" then logically speaking shouldn't TB be accorded a complete and total legal financial aid for defence regardless how LSC want to define/classify the case.

The mccanns filed it under civil defamation yet hoped for criminal punishment so logically either they shouldn't be allowed to take full advantage of the stupid legal system or TB should be granted unequivocal advantage as them ie be granted legal aid for both categories - simple as.

Ultimately if LSC's advice to TB is wrong they will have to answer for it.
aiyoyo
aiyoyo

Posts : 9610
Join date : 2009-11-28

Back to top Go down

Page 4 of 4 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


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