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!

Letter 25 Jan 2013 to Carter-Ruck and the Court about THAT proposed settlement with Dr Amaral: is this now an 'Abuse of Process'? - Page 10 Mm11

Letter 25 Jan 2013 to Carter-Ruck and the Court about THAT proposed settlement with Dr Amaral: is this now an 'Abuse of Process'? - Page 10 Regist10

Letter 25 Jan 2013 to Carter-Ruck and the Court about THAT proposed settlement with Dr Amaral: is this now an 'Abuse of Process'?

Page 10 of 17 Previous  1 ... 6 ... 9, 10, 11 ... 13 ... 17  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Letter 25 Jan 2013 to Carter-Ruck and the Court about THAT proposed settlement with Dr Amaral: is this now an 'Abuse of Process'? - Page 10 Empty Re: Letter 25 Jan 2013 to Carter-Ruck and the Court about THAT proposed settlement with Dr Amaral: is this now an 'Abuse of Process'?

Post by monkey mind on 28.01.13 17:18

It’s my opinion from what I have seen that the TM don’t do anything unless it serves them well, and despite bleats to the contrary with exceedingly wealthy backers, pro bono lawyering, revenue from book sales, media work, libel damages and lord knows how much money in donations from the generous public, money never was, is not now, and likely will not be for some considerable time a problem.

With that in mind, I can only conclude that if the McCanns did call for negotiations it wasn’t for money worries. No sir.
monkey mind
monkey mind

Posts : 616
Activity : 629
Likes received : 4
Join date : 2011-12-19

Back to top Go down

Letter 25 Jan 2013 to Carter-Ruck and the Court about THAT proposed settlement with Dr Amaral: is this now an 'Abuse of Process'? - Page 10 Empty Re: Letter 25 Jan 2013 to Carter-Ruck and the Court about THAT proposed settlement with Dr Amaral: is this now an 'Abuse of Process'?

Post by Me on 28.01.13 17:23

@monkey mind wrote:It’s my opinion from what I have seen that the TM don’t do anything unless it serves them well, and despite bleats to the contrary with exceedingly wealthy backers, pro bono lawyering, revenue from book sales, media work, libel damages and lord knows how much money in donations from the generous public, money never was, is not now, and likely will not be for some considerable time a problem.

With that in mind, I can only conclude that if the McCanns did call for negotiations it wasn’t for money worries. No sir.

Nope, it was because they could not win and possibly becuase they may soon have more pressing legal issues to worry about in the not too distant future.

____________________
What is certain is that since the start of the investigation there were  incongruent and even contradictory situations concerning the witness statements; the telephone records of calls that were made and received on mobile phones that belonged to the couple and to the group of friends that were on holidays with them; the movements of people right after the disappearance of the little girl was noticed, concerning the state in which the bedroom from where the child disappeared from was found (closed window? open window? partially open window?) etc., and the mystery would only become even thicker due to the clues that were left by the already mentioned sniffer dogs. - The Words of a JUDGE in relation to the McCanns
avatar
Me

Posts : 683
Activity : 698
Likes received : 3
Join date : 2011-05-22

Back to top Go down

Letter 25 Jan 2013 to Carter-Ruck and the Court about THAT proposed settlement with Dr Amaral: is this now an 'Abuse of Process'? - Page 10 Empty Re: Letter 25 Jan 2013 to Carter-Ruck and the Court about THAT proposed settlement with Dr Amaral: is this now an 'Abuse of Process'?

Post by monkey mind on 28.01.13 17:28

@Me wrote:
@monkey mind wrote:It’s my opinion from what I have seen that the TM don’t do anything unless it serves them well, and despite bleats to the contrary with exceedingly wealthy backers, pro bono lawyering, revenue from book sales, media work, libel damages and lord knows how much money in donations from the generous public, money never was, is not now, and likely will not be for some considerable time a problem.

With that in mind, I can only conclude that if the McCanns did call for negotiations it wasn’t for money worries. No sir.

Nope, it was because they could not win and possibly becuase they may soon have more pressing legal issues to worry about in the not too distant future.
Both assertions may prove to be true, I hope you are right, but at this moment, neither is a fact.
monkey mind
monkey mind

Posts : 616
Activity : 629
Likes received : 4
Join date : 2011-12-19

Back to top Go down

Letter 25 Jan 2013 to Carter-Ruck and the Court about THAT proposed settlement with Dr Amaral: is this now an 'Abuse of Process'? - Page 10 Empty Re: Letter 25 Jan 2013 to Carter-Ruck and the Court about THAT proposed settlement with Dr Amaral: is this now an 'Abuse of Process'?

Post by ShuBob on 28.01.13 17:49

@Ribisl wrote:
@ShuBob wrote:So the McCanns will be negotiating with at least FOUR different sets of lawyers- counsel for Amaral, TVI, Valentim de Carvalho and Guerra e Paz. One has to assume that these lawyers will be looking after the interests of their clients and so will have their own terms and not necessarily agree on a collective settlement. When I look at it from that angle, I'm more inclined to believe this out-of-court settlement is a delaying tactic by the McCanns. The to-ing and fro-ing with four separate sets of lawyers can go on for years. Unless the couple no longer care about being "sufficiently vindicated" and have decided to throw in the towel in every sense of the word, I can't see a settlement being agreed in six months Letter 25 Jan 2013 to Carter-Ruck and the Court about THAT proposed settlement with Dr Amaral: is this now an 'Abuse of Process'? - Page 10 172348
The defendants are Gonçalo Amaral, his publishers Guerra & Paz, Valentim de Carvalho who produced a documentary based on the book, and TVI who broadcast it. My understanding is that the four are co-defendants and therefore negotiations will be conducted jointly, though as you say each counsel would no doubt put his client's interest foremost.

I don't see this adjournment as a delaying tactic. To me it's more likely that the McCanns and C-R realised that there is no way they would get the full compensation for defamation even if they win the case outright; secondly, their chances of winning outright have diminished as more and more information has become available in the public domain. Lastly, and possibly more importantly, they fear their lies being exposed in the constant media glare, which would certainly have an adverse effect on the future of their Fund.

I don't think compensation was ever the issue. They've had Amaral's assets frozen for the best part of four years so they have known for some time the amount they were likely to recover from him. What's changed? If anything, since his book has been back on the shelves following the Appeals' court decision, they may recalculate the amount sought and decide he should pay MORE. IMO, the couple were/are after the complete destruction of Amaral and not just financially. When the Supreme Court delivered it's judgement, the McCanns lost their argument which they relied on in the libel case filing. Even if they won somehow, their lies would still have been exposed in court like it was when they sought the temporary ban. Surely, that reality didn't suddenly dawn on them when they've been through exactly that previously?

Putting all that aside, I hope I'm wrong and it's not a delaying tactic.

PS: With Isabel Duarte illegally hanging on to Amaral's book long after the Appeals' court decision, if the McCanns are to compensate him I suspect they'll have to pay big!
avatar
ShuBob

Posts : 1896
Activity : 1983
Likes received : 67
Join date : 2012-02-07

Back to top Go down

Letter 25 Jan 2013 to Carter-Ruck and the Court about THAT proposed settlement with Dr Amaral: is this now an 'Abuse of Process'? - Page 10 Empty Re: Letter 25 Jan 2013 to Carter-Ruck and the Court about THAT proposed settlement with Dr Amaral: is this now an 'Abuse of Process'?

Post by ShuBob on 28.01.13 17:52

@monkey mind wrote:It’s my opinion from what I have seen that the TM don’t do anything unless it serves them well, and despite bleats to the contrary with exceedingly wealthy backers, pro bono lawyering, revenue from book sales, media work, libel damages and lord knows how much money in donations from the generous public, money never was, is not now, and likely will not be for some considerable time a problem.

With that in mind, I can only conclude that if the McCanns did call for negotiations it wasn’t for money worries. No sir.

That's my view as well.
avatar
ShuBob

Posts : 1896
Activity : 1983
Likes received : 67
Join date : 2012-02-07

Back to top Go down

Letter 25 Jan 2013 to Carter-Ruck and the Court about THAT proposed settlement with Dr Amaral: is this now an 'Abuse of Process'? - Page 10 Empty Re: Letter 25 Jan 2013 to Carter-Ruck and the Court about THAT proposed settlement with Dr Amaral: is this now an 'Abuse of Process'?

Post by Guest on 28.01.13 18:08

IMO They're playing for time, the way they've been doing for quite a number of years now. And - again IMO - they're much more concentrated on silencing, publicly, TB, because that's the only thing their fellow citizens will ever be informed on.
Anonymous
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Letter 25 Jan 2013 to Carter-Ruck and the Court about THAT proposed settlement with Dr Amaral: is this now an 'Abuse of Process'? - Page 10 Empty Re: Letter 25 Jan 2013 to Carter-Ruck and the Court about THAT proposed settlement with Dr Amaral: is this now an 'Abuse of Process'?

Post by Tony Bennett on 28.01.13 18:10

@ShuBob wrote:...I don't think compensation was ever the issue. They've had Amaral's assets frozen for the best part of four years so they have known for some time the amount they were likely to recover from him. What's changed? If anything, since his book has been back on the shelves following the Appeals Court's decision, they may recalculate the amount sought and decide he should pay MORE. IMO, the couple were/are after the complete destruction of Amaral and not just financially...
ShuBob, strong support for your contention is to be found in this report:


In 2010 the McCanns' lawyer Isabel Duarte made a complaint that Gonçalo Amaral had been 'giving false statements about his financial affairs (assets and income) to the Social Security Department in order to obtain legal support. On 15 April the Public Ministry in Portimão rejected her complaint on behalf of the McCanns. The Public Ministry said there was no evidence that Gonçalo Amaral had commited any crime.

Afterwards [in Correio da Manhã, April 16, 2011, page 14, paper edition], Gonçalo Amaral was quoted as saying:

“This is another defeat for the McCann couple. It is another setback in their attempts to destroy me by legal action”

http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2011/04/maddie-case-mccanns-lose-another-legal.html



This is how it feels like for me at the moment

____________________

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

Tony Bennett
Tony Bennett
Researcher

Posts : 16166
Activity : 23820
Likes received : 3583
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 73
Location : Shropshire

Back to top Go down

Letter 25 Jan 2013 to Carter-Ruck and the Court about THAT proposed settlement with Dr Amaral: is this now an 'Abuse of Process'? - Page 10 Empty Re: Letter 25 Jan 2013 to Carter-Ruck and the Court about THAT proposed settlement with Dr Amaral: is this now an 'Abuse of Process'?

Post by ShuBob on 28.01.13 18:17

Thanks Tony.

Not sure anything I say can make you feel better but rest assured, the truth will out.
avatar
ShuBob

Posts : 1896
Activity : 1983
Likes received : 67
Join date : 2012-02-07

Back to top Go down

Letter 25 Jan 2013 to Carter-Ruck and the Court about THAT proposed settlement with Dr Amaral: is this now an 'Abuse of Process'? - Page 10 Empty Re: Letter 25 Jan 2013 to Carter-Ruck and the Court about THAT proposed settlement with Dr Amaral: is this now an 'Abuse of Process'?

Post by monkey mind on 28.01.13 19:55

Châtelaine wrote:IMO They're playing for time, the way they've been doing for quite a number of years now. And - again IMO - they're much more concentrated on silencing, publicly, TB, because that's the only thing their fellow citizens will ever be informed on.
I wouldn’t argue with that.

That in itself could be enough reason for what we see happening in Pt. Even if they don’t believe they can win against GA - and I’m only speculating here - I’m sure they would prefer to pursue Tony’s case with the Amaral case still live, and it is still live, nothing has been decided as yet. On the other hand if it had gone ahead they may well have been on the losing end with a fortnight to go to Tony’s case, and as Tony has said, he has never gone beyond what GA has said or the PJ files. If I were in their position I would have deferred Portugal to deal with Tony.

Hypothetically could a victory against Tony in this country be used some way to add weight to their case in Pt? I’m sure I’m not qualified to say, but the law is indeed an ass so I’m off to ask a donkey.
monkey mind
monkey mind

Posts : 616
Activity : 629
Likes received : 4
Join date : 2011-12-19

Back to top Go down

Letter 25 Jan 2013 to Carter-Ruck and the Court about THAT proposed settlement with Dr Amaral: is this now an 'Abuse of Process'? - Page 10 Empty Re: Letter 25 Jan 2013 to Carter-Ruck and the Court about THAT proposed settlement with Dr Amaral: is this now an 'Abuse of Process'?

Post by Me on 28.01.13 21:59

@monkey mind wrote:
@Me wrote:
@monkey mind wrote:It’s my opinion from what I have seen that the TM don’t do anything unless it serves them well, and despite bleats to the contrary with exceedingly wealthy backers, pro bono lawyering, revenue from book sales, media work, libel damages and lord knows how much money in donations from the generous public, money never was, is not now, and likely will not be for some considerable time a problem.

With that in mind, I can only conclude that if the McCanns did call for negotiations it wasn’t for money worries. No sir.

Nope, it was because they could not win and possibly becuase they may soon have more pressing legal issues to worry about in the not too distant future.
Both assertions may prove to be true, I hope you are right, but at this moment, neither is a fact.

If you look at the details of their case and study the legal precedents and evidence from a number of sources, you will see that it is a fact they couldn't win.

As i said about the their other pressing legal issues that is a posiblity and hypothesis of mine so no not fact.

____________________
What is certain is that since the start of the investigation there were  incongruent and even contradictory situations concerning the witness statements; the telephone records of calls that were made and received on mobile phones that belonged to the couple and to the group of friends that were on holidays with them; the movements of people right after the disappearance of the little girl was noticed, concerning the state in which the bedroom from where the child disappeared from was found (closed window? open window? partially open window?) etc., and the mystery would only become even thicker due to the clues that were left by the already mentioned sniffer dogs. - The Words of a JUDGE in relation to the McCanns
avatar
Me

Posts : 683
Activity : 698
Likes received : 3
Join date : 2011-05-22

Back to top Go down

Letter 25 Jan 2013 to Carter-Ruck and the Court about THAT proposed settlement with Dr Amaral: is this now an 'Abuse of Process'? - Page 10 Empty Re: Letter 25 Jan 2013 to Carter-Ruck and the Court about THAT proposed settlement with Dr Amaral: is this now an 'Abuse of Process'?

Post by Me on 28.01.13 22:05

@monkey mind wrote:Hypothetically could a victory against Tony in this country be used some way to add weight to their case in Pt? I’m sure I’m not qualified to say, but the law is indeed an ass so I’m off to ask a donkey.

No it couldn't because the issues surrounding both cases are so fundamentally different.

Amaral's was a simple case of libel, Tony Bennett's is one of breaking legally binding undertakings he signed.

If Tony can get past those successfully and then force a libel trial then he's on an equal footing to Amaral legally but then again Britian is now the libel tourism capital of the world with both the judge in Tony's case (Tugendhat)and his colleague Judge Eady being world renowned for being fearsome enemies of free speech.

See Private Eye for more details on the pair.

____________________
What is certain is that since the start of the investigation there were  incongruent and even contradictory situations concerning the witness statements; the telephone records of calls that were made and received on mobile phones that belonged to the couple and to the group of friends that were on holidays with them; the movements of people right after the disappearance of the little girl was noticed, concerning the state in which the bedroom from where the child disappeared from was found (closed window? open window? partially open window?) etc., and the mystery would only become even thicker due to the clues that were left by the already mentioned sniffer dogs. - The Words of a JUDGE in relation to the McCanns
avatar
Me

Posts : 683
Activity : 698
Likes received : 3
Join date : 2011-05-22

Back to top Go down

Letter 25 Jan 2013 to Carter-Ruck and the Court about THAT proposed settlement with Dr Amaral: is this now an 'Abuse of Process'? - Page 10 Empty Re: Letter 25 Jan 2013 to Carter-Ruck and the Court about THAT proposed settlement with Dr Amaral: is this now an 'Abuse of Process'?

Post by PeterMac on 28.01.13 22:30

@Me wrote:
Amaral's was a simple case of libel, Tony Bennett's is one of breaking legally binding undertakings he signed.
If Tony can get past those successfully and then force a libel trial then he's on an equal footing to Amaral legally but then again Britian is now the libel tourism capital of the world with both the judge in Tony's case (Tugendhat)and his colleague Judge Eady being world renowned for being fearsome enemies of free speech.
See Private Eye for more details on the pair.
I think you may be right.
Carter-Ruck are skilled in keeping their cases OUT of the court.
They will rarely permit their clients to give evidence under oath. That might be fatal embarrassing to all concerned.
So if you read many of their 'successes' you will realise that they are actually decided on tight procedural issues, and the truth or otherwise is never tested.
Their clients are spared the problem of having to tell the truth. At huge expense, of course. Justice demands a fee.
So shall it be with Caesar.
They have manoeuvred TB into a position where the issue is whether he breached a promise or not.
Like Galileo - did he breach a promise not to teach that the sun was at the centre.
The facts are completely irrelevant.
Truth, honesty and facts do not concern Carter-Ruck.
They are concerned with the Law.
PeterMac
PeterMac
Investigator

Posts : 12014
Activity : 14835
Likes received : 1893
Join date : 2010-12-06

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

Back to top Go down

Letter 25 Jan 2013 to Carter-Ruck and the Court about THAT proposed settlement with Dr Amaral: is this now an 'Abuse of Process'? - Page 10 Empty Re: Letter 25 Jan 2013 to Carter-Ruck and the Court about THAT proposed settlement with Dr Amaral: is this now an 'Abuse of Process'?

Post by aiyoyo on 28.01.13 22:32

@monkey mind wrote:Hypothetically could a victory against Tony in this country be used some way to add weight to their case in Pt? I’m sure I’m not qualified to say, but the law is indeed an ass so I’m off to ask a donkey.


NOPE. The other way round then YES.
aiyoyo
aiyoyo

Posts : 9610
Activity : 10084
Likes received : 326
Join date : 2009-11-28

Back to top Go down

Letter 25 Jan 2013 to Carter-Ruck and the Court about THAT proposed settlement with Dr Amaral: is this now an 'Abuse of Process'? - Page 10 Empty Re: Letter 25 Jan 2013 to Carter-Ruck and the Court about THAT proposed settlement with Dr Amaral: is this now an 'Abuse of Process'?

Post by aiyoyo on 28.01.13 22:36

Châtelaine wrote:IMO They're playing for time, the way they've been doing for quite a number of years now. And - again IMO - they're much more concentrated on silencing, publicly, TB, because that's the only thing their fellow citizens will ever be informed on.

This time around I believe it is not an instance of playing for time as a strategy.

They are facing reality they simply can't win hence trying to minimize their damages through negotiation and perhaps hoping to claw back some face by concessions (f they are audacious enough to suggest any).
With four parties involved I doubt this "negotiation" will go well. It will ultimately goes back to Court JMO>
aiyoyo
aiyoyo

Posts : 9610
Activity : 10084
Likes received : 326
Join date : 2009-11-28

Back to top Go down

Letter 25 Jan 2013 to Carter-Ruck and the Court about THAT proposed settlement with Dr Amaral: is this now an 'Abuse of Process'? - Page 10 Empty Re: Letter 25 Jan 2013 to Carter-Ruck and the Court about THAT proposed settlement with Dr Amaral: is this now an 'Abuse of Process'?

Post by brilynn on 28.01.13 22:46

Tony,you will know ,I hope from my e-mails to you in the past, how much I truly admire your great personal "fight" in getting justice for a little girl called Madeleine MaCaan,I can NEVER thank you enough for still being here,"they" should look in the mirror every day and "feel their guilt consume their very beings"!!!! I,if it is at all possible would give anything to be there with you next week,still trying to make it happen!!!We need more men,women ,whoever with your great strenght of character,whatever the outcome Tony,you CAN ALWAYS look in the mirror,and know,you more than the likes of me ,DID do what your heart told you to do.Sincere thanks for that Tony!
avatar
brilynn

Posts : 19
Activity : 19
Likes received : 0
Join date : 2011-04-27

Back to top Go down

Letter 25 Jan 2013 to Carter-Ruck and the Court about THAT proposed settlement with Dr Amaral: is this now an 'Abuse of Process'? - Page 10 Empty Re: Letter 25 Jan 2013 to Carter-Ruck and the Court about THAT proposed settlement with Dr Amaral: is this now an 'Abuse of Process'?

Post by marxman on 28.01.13 23:27

Please correct me if i'm sorely wrong, but if Tony has

agreed with certain undertakings. then these undertakings

to the court must be realistic, relevant and attainable.

If they are shown to be 'not' as the above, then abiding

by such orders must be erronious. The court must have

reasonable expectation that an order maybe kept, if it

issues orders that are unrealistic, and shown to be as

such, then these orders must be void, or unattainable.



Am I correct?
avatar
marxman

Posts : 81
Activity : 91
Likes received : 0
Join date : 2012-07-11

Back to top Go down

Letter 25 Jan 2013 to Carter-Ruck and the Court about THAT proposed settlement with Dr Amaral: is this now an 'Abuse of Process'? - Page 10 Empty Re: Letter 25 Jan 2013 to Carter-Ruck and the Court about THAT proposed settlement with Dr Amaral: is this now an 'Abuse of Process'?

Post by Tony Bennett on 28.01.13 23:36

@Me wrote:No it couldn't because the issues surrounding both cases are so fundamentally different.

Amaral's was a simple case of libel, Tony Bennett's is one of breaking legally binding undertakings he signed.

If Tony can get past those successfully and then force a libel trial then he's on an equal footing to Amaral legally but then again Britian is now the libel tourism capital of the world with both the judge in Tony's case (Tugendhat) and his colleague Judge Eady being world renowned for being fearsome enemies of free speech.

See Private Eye for more details on the pair.
Yet another unhelpful comment on this forum from 'Me' but especially so his remarks about Mr Justice Tugendhat and Mr Justice Eady.

STATEMENT

I hereby publicly dissociate myself from the remarks 'Me' has made about both Mr Justice Tugendhat and Mr Justice Eady. No such comments should be made by any member here. From what I know about Mr Justice Tugendhat by reputation and having appeared before him in person twice in this highly stressful set of proceedngs, he is a judge who is known for making fair decisions and taking time and trouble to evaluate the evidence and the law and reach the right decision. 'Me' is simply wrong about Mr Justice Tugendhat - just as, to give just one example, he has not allowed celebrities to get away with shutting up the press just to try to keep secret their often disreputable private lives. I think I am right in saying that he was the judge in the Ryan Giggs case. He also made an excellent ruling in the case of David Clark, the honest Essex Police Officer who many years ago was hounded out of his job by a group of dishonest, corrupt senior officers. Mr Justice Tugendhat spoke up strongly against the police corruption he encountered in that cse.

I know much less about Mr Justice Eady but it is still possible that he may be adjudicating on my case so 'Me's comment about him is equally unwelcome:-

Tony Bennett

____________________

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

Tony Bennett
Tony Bennett
Researcher

Posts : 16166
Activity : 23820
Likes received : 3583
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 73
Location : Shropshire

Back to top Go down

Letter 25 Jan 2013 to Carter-Ruck and the Court about THAT proposed settlement with Dr Amaral: is this now an 'Abuse of Process'? - Page 10 Empty Alive

Post by Tony Bennett on 29.01.13 0:11

@brilynn wrote:Tony...[SNIPPED], you did what your heart told you to do...
Thank you for your very supportive comments, brilynn. There are many who perhaps wish I had listened more to my head than my heart. But no matter, what is done is done, it is all in the hands of one judge now, and I must have faith in him to deliver a just and fair verdict on what he reads and hears.

I have a postcard on my office wall here which reads:

"Only dead fish go with the flow"

____________________

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

Tony Bennett
Tony Bennett
Researcher

Posts : 16166
Activity : 23820
Likes received : 3583
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 73
Location : Shropshire

Back to top Go down

Letter 25 Jan 2013 to Carter-Ruck and the Court about THAT proposed settlement with Dr Amaral: is this now an 'Abuse of Process'? - Page 10 Empty Re: Letter 25 Jan 2013 to Carter-Ruck and the Court about THAT proposed settlement with Dr Amaral: is this now an 'Abuse of Process'?

Post by Guest on 29.01.13 0:13

@Tony Bennett wrote:
@Me wrote:No it couldn't because the issues surrounding both cases are so fundamentally different.

Amaral's was a simple case of libel, Tony Bennett's is one of breaking legally binding undertakings he signed.

If Tony can get past those successfully and then force a libel trial then he's on an equal footing to Amaral legally but then again Britian is now the libel tourism capital of the world with both the judge in Tony's case (Tugendhat) and his colleague Judge Eady being world renowned for being fearsome enemies of free speech.

See Private Eye for more details on the pair.
Yet another unhelpful comment on this forum from 'Me' but especially so his remarks about Mr Justice Tugendhat and Mr Justice Eady.

STATEMENT

I hereby publicly dissociate myself from the remarks 'Me' has made about both Mr Justice Tugendhat and Mr Justice Eady. No such comments should be made by any member here. From what I know about Mr Justice Tugendhat by reputation and having appeared before him in person twice in this highly stressful set of proceedngs, he is a judge who is known for making fair decisions and taking time and trouble to evaluate the evidence and the law and reach the right decision. 'Me' is simply wrong about Mr Justice Tugendhat - just as, to give just one example, he has not allowed celebrities to get away with shutting up the press just to try to keep secret their often disreputable private lives. I think I am right in saying that he was the judge in the Ryan Giggs case. He also made an excellent ruling in the case of David Clark, the honest Essex Police Officer who many years ago was hounded out of his job by a group of dishonest, corrupt senior officers. Mr Justice Tugendhat spoke up strongly against the police corruption he encountered in that cse.

I know much less about Mr Justice Eady but it is still possible that he may be adjudicating on my case so 'Me's comment about him is equally unwelcome:-

Tony Bennett
I'm 100% in agreement with you here Tony Letter 25 Jan 2013 to Carter-Ruck and the Court about THAT proposed settlement with Dr Amaral: is this now an 'Abuse of Process'? - Page 10 160807
Anonymous
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Letter 25 Jan 2013 to Carter-Ruck and the Court about THAT proposed settlement with Dr Amaral: is this now an 'Abuse of Process'? - Page 10 Empty Re: Letter 25 Jan 2013 to Carter-Ruck and the Court about THAT proposed settlement with Dr Amaral: is this now an 'Abuse of Process'?

Post by Tony Bennett on 29.01.13 0:13

tcat wrote:I'm in 100% agreement with you there, Tony
Well, that's a rarity

____________________

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

Tony Bennett
Tony Bennett
Researcher

Posts : 16166
Activity : 23820
Likes received : 3583
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 73
Location : Shropshire

Back to top Go down

Letter 25 Jan 2013 to Carter-Ruck and the Court about THAT proposed settlement with Dr Amaral: is this now an 'Abuse of Process'? - Page 10 Empty Re: Letter 25 Jan 2013 to Carter-Ruck and the Court about THAT proposed settlement with Dr Amaral: is this now an 'Abuse of Process'?

Post by Tony Bennett on 29.01.13 0:14

Just a quick 'add':

Thank you also to everyone else on this thread who's kindly expressed their support publicly for me

____________________

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

Tony Bennett
Tony Bennett
Researcher

Posts : 16166
Activity : 23820
Likes received : 3583
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 73
Location : Shropshire

Back to top Go down

Letter 25 Jan 2013 to Carter-Ruck and the Court about THAT proposed settlement with Dr Amaral: is this now an 'Abuse of Process'? - Page 10 Empty Re: Letter 25 Jan 2013 to Carter-Ruck and the Court about THAT proposed settlement with Dr Amaral: is this now an 'Abuse of Process'?

Post by Guest on 29.01.13 0:19

@Tony Bennett wrote:
@brilynn wrote:Tony...[SNIPPED], you did what your heart told you to do...
Thank you for your very supportive comments, brilynn. There are many who perhaps wish I had listened more to my head than my heart. But no matter, what is done is done, it is all in the hands of one judge now, and I must have faith in him to deliver a just and fair verdict on what he reads and hears.

I have a postcard on my office wall here which reads:

"Only dead fish go with the flow"
I too have faith, but I think you'll help yourself if the Court recognises you fully appreciate what the October judgement meant (publicising your letter on page one of this thread seems to suggest you didn't fully. Doing it just on your own site is not a big breach as breaches go but it's still a breach. At least that's how I interpret it. But I am not a lawyer)
Anonymous
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Back to top Go down

Letter 25 Jan 2013 to Carter-Ruck and the Court about THAT proposed settlement with Dr Amaral: is this now an 'Abuse of Process'? - Page 10 Empty Re: Letter 25 Jan 2013 to Carter-Ruck and the Court about THAT proposed settlement with Dr Amaral: is this now an 'Abuse of Process'?

Post by Woofer on 29.01.13 0:55

I must say, Me`s assertion that Justice Tugendhat might be against freedom of speech, made me do a biography check and, from what`s available, this assertion seems doubtful.
Woofer
Woofer

Posts : 3390
Activity : 3508
Likes received : 14
Join date : 2012-02-06

Back to top Go down

Letter 25 Jan 2013 to Carter-Ruck and the Court about THAT proposed settlement with Dr Amaral: is this now an 'Abuse of Process'? - Page 10 Empty Re: Letter 25 Jan 2013 to Carter-Ruck and the Court about THAT proposed settlement with Dr Amaral: is this now an 'Abuse of Process'?

Post by aiyoyo on 29.01.13 1:53

tcat wrote:
@bobbin wrote:Just to support Tony in all this recent tony-bashing, I might ask the question 'who the *..k is Blacksmith?
Is he a long term plant, put in place to appear to support a true search for the truth about Madeleine's disappearance but when time gets fraught he steps in to muddy the waters a bit.
Err, no.

@bobbin wrote:His work is, to say the least, inconsistent, and for that I have never given him any more than a glance of curiosity over his writings.
How can you say he's a 'plant' then, if you haven't even been reading what he's been writing? Letter 25 Jan 2013 to Carter-Ruck and the Court about THAT proposed settlement with Dr Amaral: is this now an 'Abuse of Process'? - Page 10 110921

I wasn't attacking Tony, I'm trying to help him. Problem is just as you don't see that, neither does he.


Those who criticized TB (you know who you are) and excused it under *helping him* or *concern for him* is doing him more harm than good when they persist with their constant destructive criticism. If critics are truly concerned for his welfare why not take it to PM? Would it not be more constructive that way?

When one is stressed out, as TB would be in the circumstances, it is extremely demoralizing and hurtful to receive uncalled for and unjustified criticism. Sometimes it is nice to respect people's choice, especially for a person who put his head above the parapet for Justice, and to credit them with intelligence and wisdom that they know what they are doing.

Constructive comments help, destructive ones hinder as well as destroy the spirit, and ideally should be avoided, especially when hurled at someone who is preparing hard against a legal suit.
aiyoyo
aiyoyo

Posts : 9610
Activity : 10084
Likes received : 326
Join date : 2009-11-28

Back to top Go down

Page 10 of 17 Previous  1 ... 6 ... 9, 10, 11 ... 13 ... 17  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


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