Re: COURT DATE NOW CONFIRMED: Tues 5th and Weds 6th February 2013

by womandotcom 08.01.13 15:05

neeley111 wrote:
saltnpepper wrote:

You come in with nothing...you go out with nothing...what you lost?...Nothing

Hope you win though
Mr. Bennett ,
What do you mean "I don't think there as never been a case like this" ? Your part in this case is quite trivial in the scheme of things. It probably won't even make the red tops.
Do you get it yet Mr. Bennett ?
No one on here cares about you and what you are going through at all. Your posts are mostly ignored.
You have persecuted the McCann's for years and now you will reap what you have sowed.
Amen to that.x.

I would be grateful if you did not attempt to speak for everyone on this forum...you certainly don't speak for me/ I support Tony fully and I believe him to be a brave, decent and honest man who has had the guts to stand and be counted for the sake of a little girl whom he did not, and will never, know personally. I wish I were as brave. Good luck Tony and may the best man win x

by tiny 08.01.13 15:14

neeley111 wrote:
saltnpepper wrote:

You come in with nothing...you go out with nothing...what you lost?...Nothing

Hope you win though
Mr. Bennett ,
What do you mean "I don't think there as never been a case like this" ? Your part in this case is quite trivial in the scheme of things. It probably won't even make the red tops.
Do you get it yet Mr. Bennett ?
No one on here cares about you and what you are going through at all. Your posts are mostly ignored.
You have persecuted the McCann's for years and now you will reap what you have sowed.
Amen to that.x.

Oh i think you do care neeley111 ,thats why your here having your say,shame you couldnt thank tony after all he is the one trying to find out what happend to Madeleine,just a shame her parents dont want to know only to sue.

by roy rovers 08.01.13 18:14

tigger wrote:Isn't it likely that this court case, which has dragged on for years now, so far has only served to keep the interest in the case going?

I would estimate that quite a large percentage of guests visit this site regularly to see how this case is progressing. Over the years, that's quite a lot of information disseminated to the 'general public'.

Yes but the threat to Tony is serving to silence one and all including the press. Once the libel versus fair comment issue is clarified it could allow the floodgates to open and theories to be widely debated without the fear of hefty libel damages etc. This is why so many are visiting this site to follow progress. I agree with Tiny - the McCs won't let this come to court and will try to settle beforehand.

by **PeterMac** 08.01.13 18:25

roy rovers wrote:- the McCs won't let this come to court and will try to settle beforehand.

Which is code for will try to bully him sufficiently beforehand.

by McCant 08.01.13 19:06

I thought that Internet libel laws were quite lax; especially in relation to a bit of a chat on a forum, which can hardly do the reputation of the McCanns much damage. In contrast, the McCanns give their version of events to millions around the world on TV chat shows; a version that isn't supported by the official findings of the police investigation.

by **tigger** 08.01.13 19:27

roy rovers wrote:
tigger wrote:Isn't it likely that this court case, which has dragged on for years now, so far has only served to keep the interest in the case going?

I would estimate that quite a large percentage of guests visit this site regularly to see how this case is progressing. Over the years, that's quite a lot of information disseminated to the 'general public'.

Yes but the threat to Tony is serving to silence one and all including the press. Once the libel versus fair comment issue is clarified it could allow the floodgates to open and theories to be widely debated without the fear of hefty libel damages etc. This is why so many are visiting this site to follow progress. I agree with Tiny - the McCs won't let this come to court and will try to settle beforehand.

I meant to point out that it's an own goal imo. It has just meant more 'negative' publicity over the years, not less.

by IKNOWWHATHAPPENED 08.01.13 23:54

It's going to court and be prepared for legal history to be made. Precedents will be set.

Good luck Tony. I just hope you are under no illusions about receiving a fair trial.

by Inspectorfrost 09.01.13 1:04

Not really followed all this mccann cr ap suing people but its a bit rich of them attempting to when they have never been cleared of any involvement in their kids disappearance, the portuguese judicial authorities stated iirc they have no idea what happened and who was responsible

Fair and honest and informed comment shouldbe allowed, im sure the judge will uphold that

The mccanns and their lawyers have no right to gag people, they just dont, it makes them look like nazis and desperate which begs more questions, ooops

and something i read up there that whtever happens mr tb will not FOR LIFE be able to say certain things whatever happens, LOL LOL that is toooo funny
I hope mr carter fuckersand mccanns lose inthis evil endeavour x
lol!

by **Tony Bennett** 09.01.13 7:56

IKNOWWHATHAPPENED wrote:Good luck Tony. I just hope you are under no illusions about receiving a fair trial.

The trial will be automatically unfair under both English law, and the law which proceeds from the European Court of Human Rights, on at least two grounds, before it even gets under way. Because:

1. The courts have ruled that a defendant facing a possible prison term should ALWAYS be legally represented (Hammerton v Hammerton). I won't be. I can't afford a lawyer, not being able to match the McCanns' massive legal resources, and being denied Legal Aid on the simple ground that my savings exceed £8,000

2. The courts have decreed that it is a violation of human rights for there to be an imbalance of legal resources in any court battle, what they call an 'inequality of arms' (Alkan v Turkey). Clearly that exists in this case.

There is a third legal point which, with great respect to him, I think Mr Justice Tugendhat has hinted at more than once. And it's this. The court is being asked to rule that I have committed a contempt of the court when, in these particular and unusual proceedings, the court has not yet established that I have committed any libel in the first place. That is why Mr Justice Tugendhat said that a full libel trial needs to take place, to estabish whether I have EVER libelled the McCanns, or whether all comments I have ever made on the case come within the defence of 'fair comment'.

by tiny 09.01.13 8:20

Im with roy rovers on this one ,this case will not get to court,the mccanns cant chance a full libel trial.so tony if they do try to settle before hand,tell them to stick it up thier jacksey COURT DATE NOW CONFIRMED: Tues 5th and Weds 6th February 2013 - Page 2 110921

COURT DATE NOW CONFIRMED: Tues 5th and Weds 6th February 2013 - Page 2 110921

only joking

by IKNOWWHATHAPPENED 09.01.13 8:34

Good morning Tony, There is no doubt that you are up against it. I also suspect that you are well aware of what is going to happen at court.

I wish you well and admire your work.

You are well and truly 'in it' as they say, you have sacrificed so much I hope that you find some sort of value in your quest for the truth.

by david_uk 09.01.13 9:30

Tony -Is it possible to transfer your savings to someone else that you trust? or this not legal?

by **Tony Bennett** 09.01.13 9:38

david_uk wrote:Tony - Is it possible to transfer your savings to someone else that you trust? or this not legal?

This is always possible, and not illegal in itself, BUT should the worst happen and any costs and damages awards against me force me into bankruptcy, the Bankruptcy Court could look at any such transactions and have the power to set them aside and recover any such monies transferred.

So it would be nice to win!

by saltnpepper 09.01.13 9:41

I always thought Carter Ruck were unbeatable but lately im seeing they have advised their clients to go all the way in a case,then not getting the result they want(the client) but of course this still leaves Carter Ruck laughing all the way to the bank-Win Win

you come in with nothing...you go out with nothing...what you lost?...Nothing COURT DATE NOW CONFIRMED: Tues 5th and Weds 6th February 2013 - Page 2 110921

by aiyoyo 09.01.13 9:49

tiny wrote:Im with roy rovers on this one ,this case will not get to court,the mccanns cant chance a full libel trial.so tony if they do try to settle before hand,tell them to stick it up thier jackseyonly joking

I don't think the pair of lairs would want to retreat because they're too cocky. Besides to do so now at this stage means they would lose face and look stupid.

Anyway, they can't - it's too late now. They are stuck between a rock and a very hard place.
To retreat at this stage before going to Court would prove they filed in bad faith and their charges rendered vexatious.

If they proceed to go ahead with this "breach of undertaking" case only for the Judge to order a lift on the stay of their libel case then more so they cannot retreat for obvious reason.

by roy rovers 09.01.13 10:08

aiyoyo wrote:
tiny wrote:Im with roy rovers on this one ,this case will not get to court,the mccanns cant chance a full libel trial.so tony if they do try to settle before hand,tell them to stick it up thier jackseyonly joking

I don't think the pair of lairs would want to retreat because they're too cocky. Besides to do so now at this stage means they would lose face and look stupid.

Anyway, they can't - it's too late now. They are stuck between a rock and a very hard place.
To retreat at this stage before going to Court would prove they filed in bad faith and their charges rendered vexatious.

If they proceed to go ahead with this "breach of undertaking" case only for the Judge to order a lift on the stay of their libel case then more so they cannot retreat for obvious reason.

They could offer Tony a cost free exit with some watered down undertaking that would leave everyone as confused as previously which has to be their aim.

by tiny 09.01.13 10:10

aiyoyo wrote:
tiny wrote:Im with roy rovers on this one ,this case will not get to court,the mccanns cant chance a full libel trial.so tony if they do try to settle before hand,tell them to stick it up thier jackseyonly joking

I don't think the pair of lairs would want to retreat because they're too cocky. Besides to do so now at this stage means they would lose face and look stupid.

Anyway, they can't - it's too late now. They are stuck between a rock and a very hard place.
To retreat at this stage before going to Court would prove they filed in bad faith and their charges rendered vexatious.

If they proceed to go ahead with this "breach of undertaking" case only for the Judge to order a lift on the stay of their libel case then more so they cannot retreat for obvious reason.

Sorry but i think this case will not get to court,they thought Tony would cave in but he didnt,now there is the chance of a libel trial and now they are bricking it, thats why theres all this changing of dates, i think they hope Tony will be worn down by it all.

by **Tony Bennett** 09.01.13 10:19

tiny wrote:Sorry but I think this case will not get to court, they thought Tony would cave in but he didn't, now there is the chance of a libel trial and now they are bricking it, that's why there's all this changing of dates, I think they hope Tony will be worn down by it all.

FOR INFORMATION:

Back in January, I notified Carter-Ruck of my intention, within the contermpt proceedings, to make application for 3 of the 16 undertakings I signed to be revoked or varied.

I received a swift response from Carter-Ruck.

They described this in their letter as 'a threat'.

I duly made the application on 22 February last year.

Mr Justice Tugendhat, if I have understood his rulings aright, said that the only way my application (to remove three of the undetakins) could properly be dealt with was in the context of a full libel trial, where I would be able to plead my defence of 'fair' or 'honest' comment.

In recent correspondence, Carter-Ruck have stated the McCanns' strong opposition to this matter going to a libel trial.

At the hearing on 5 and 6 February, they will formally oppose the application for the 'stay' to be lifted on the libel proceedings (which of course they began in the first place).

by **Tony Bennett** 09.01.13 10:29

If there is to be a libel trial, it would be based on the new principlies of the Spiller v Joseph case [2010], which, in a unanimous Supreme Court judgment with 5 Supreme Court judges all agreeing, redefined the law of 'honest comment', as set out below, e.g., by Solicitors Matthew Arnold and Baldwin:

Libel law must be reformed – Joseph v Spiller, Supreme Court

10 December 2010 Paul Gershlick

Filed under: Commercial/IP/IT

The Supreme Court has taken the first step in what it hopes will be a reform of the libel law. Lord Phillips and Lord Walker gave a critique of the current law of ‘fair comment’, which they have renamed ‘honest comment’. In defamation proceedings, a defence can be brought by the defendant that the comments made were ‘fair comment’, by which the defendant is protected if he can prove the truth of the facts on which the comment was based.

http://www.mablaw.com/2010/12/libel-lawjoseph-spiller/

by aiyoyo 09.01.13 10:29

tiny wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:
tiny wrote:Im with roy rovers on this one ,this case will not get to court,the mccanns cant chance a full libel trial.so tony if they do try to settle before hand,tell them to stick it up thier jackseyonly joking

I don't think the pair of lairs would want to retreat because they're too cocky. Besides to do so now at this stage means they would lose face and look stupid.

Anyway, they can't - it's too late now. They are stuck between a rock and a very hard place.
To retreat at this stage before going to Court would prove they filed in bad faith and their charges rendered vexatious.

If they proceed to go ahead with this "breach of undertaking" case only for the Judge to order a lift on the stay of their libel case then more so they cannot retreat for obvious reason.

Sorry but i think this case will not get to court,they thought Tony would cave in but he didnt,now there is the chance of a libel trial and now they are bricking it, thats why theres all this changing of dates, i think they hope Tony will be worn down by it all.

Oh I think it definitely will. It has come to an impasse for them at this stage but not TB, hence not in TB's interest to cave in.

There is nothing for TB to lose if the case goes ahead or not. Think about it!
However, If they were to withdraw now, they are in a lose lose situation whereas TB will be in a win win situation.
Do you think the Mccanns can tolerate that? Withdraw before going to Court? Think about the implications for them if they withdraw now.

They simply can't withdraw - not when it has come to this stage. They'd taken it too far to retreat without repercussions.

by tiny 09.01.13 10:41

aiyoyo wrote:
tiny wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:
tiny wrote:Im with roy rovers on this one ,this case will not get to court,the mccanns cant chance a full libel trial.so tony if they do try to settle before hand,tell them to stick it up thier jackseyonly joking

I don't think the pair of lairs would want to retreat because they're too cocky. Besides to do so now at this stage means they would lose face and look stupid.

Anyway, they can't - it's too late now. They are stuck between a rock and a very hard place.
To retreat at this stage before going to Court would prove they filed in bad faith and their charges rendered vexatious.

If they proceed to go ahead with this "breach of undertaking" case only for the Judge to order a lift on the stay of their libel case then more so they cannot retreat for obvious reason.

Sorry but i think this case will not get to court,they thought Tony would cave in but he didnt,now there is the chance of a libel trial and now they are bricking it, thats why theres all this changing of dates, i think they hope Tony will be worn down by it all.

Oh I think it definitely will. It has come to an impasse for them at this stage but not TB, hence not in TB's interest to cave in.

There is nothing for TB to lose if the case goes ahead or not. Think about it!
However, If they were to withdraw now, they are in a lose lose situation whereas TB will be in a win win situation.
Do you think the Mccanns can tolerate that? Withdraw before going to Court? Think about the implications for them if they withdraw now.

They simply can't withdraw - not when it has come to this stage. They'd taken it too far to retreat without repercussions.

but what will happen then when they lose this case,surely the implications will be just the same as if they withdrew

by bristow 09.01.13 10:52

Whilst I back Tony whole heartedly I do think that it is not good to air on a public forum the ins and outs of what he will do and say, CR et al will be reading feverishly and amending and altering anything that could remotely put them in the wrong, they are being given a preview of what Tony will be saying on the day, thus watering down any impact Tony could have on the day.

by joyce1938 09.01.13 11:40

I totally agree with that statement you just made bristow,it doesnt seem sensible to let them all know in advance how he feels ,and forwarned ,can be for armed . joyce1938

by Nina 09.01.13 11:53

I agree too. I have the utmost respect for Tony and he knows this, and I hope he will not be offended when I say that sometimes I just want to shout and tell him to stop posting too much detail.

by **Tony Bennett** 09.01.13 12:40

bristow wrote:Whilst I back Tony whole heartedly I do think that it is not good to air on a public forum the ins and outs of what he will do and say, CR et al will be reading feverishly and amending and altering anything that could remotely put them in the wrong, they are being given a preview of what Tony will be saying on the day, thus watering down any impact Tony could have on the day.

FOR INFORMATION

What I've been saying on the forum about the case recently is all, one way or another, within my written submissions to the court which Carter-Ruck (and the court) have had for months e.g. they know all about the Spiller v Joseph case