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

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?

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

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"

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 [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

tcat wrote:I'm in 100% agreement with you there, Tony

Well, that's a rarity

Just a quick 'add':

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

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)

Tony Bennett wrote:That's a rarity!

Yep [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

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.

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? [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

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.

My thoughts exactly, aiyoyo. I had already expressed my views on this and don't intend to repeat myself, but this is no time for redundant criticisms and if you have a valid legal advice, then PM him.

Yup..what they said ^^^^^^^^

Tony has a few days left to prepare, best let him get on with it. I'm sure if he wants/needs advice from anyone on the net he'll ask. Keeping a clear head is crucial, distractions or negativity won't help.

aiyoyo wrote: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.

Thank you very much, aiyoyo, for this post.

I couldn't have said it better myself.

This Tony-bashing really has to stop. As forum owner I fully support Tony in his endeavours to find the truth about what really happened to Maddie. Having met him in person a few times to discuss this case, I can honestly say he hasn't got a malicious bone in his body and is of the old school in that he is a perfect gentleman who cares deeply about injustice, especially when it concerns a three year old girl.

Tony's trial is just a few days away and it is necessary for him to remain positive. If the worst happens and he is 'sent down' then he will have done as much as he could for Maddie until he is released.

Can anyone else in this country say the same? Even Maddie's own parents? I don't think so.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] to most of the last few posts.

I feel that words of encouragement are in order at this late stage, rather than endless debate about things which may or may not have been done wrong in the past.

I'm sure that Tony will ask for advice if he wants to.

As for Judge Tugendhat, I am pleasantly surprised by what I have seen of him so far.

Good morning Monkeymind.. it was yours truly who made the chess analogy.
I compliment you for your really interesting and sophisticated description of what you see unfolding currently. I did not mean to belittle what has been happening by referring to it as a game- it might not be as significant as it appears when taken at face value.. although I suspect Gerry McCann is not averse to a few mind games.

I guess what I was trying to explain without taking the time to elaborate in the way you did so well, was that the request for negotiations might be less to do with a belief that the case is weak,[ with odds that it will be lost ] , but a tactic to ensure the outcome the McCanns would like, whatever that might be. Perhaps the intention was never to go as far as court, but to grind GA down in a war of attrition.


CHESS
Chess is a two-player [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] . Pieces are used to attack and capture the opponent's pieces, with the objective to '[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]'
the opponent's king by placing it under an inescapable threat of
capture. In addition to checkmate, the game can be won by the voluntary [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] of the opponent, which typically occurs when too much [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] is lost, or if checkmate appears unavoidable. A game may also result in a [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] in several ways, where neither player wins. The course of the game is divided into three phases: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], and [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.].

Although the objective of the game is to checkmate the opponent chess games do not have to end in checkmate—either player may [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] which is a win for the other player. It is considered bad etiquette to continue playing when in a truly hopeless position.^{[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]} If it is a game with [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], a player may run out of time and lose, even with a much superior position. Games also may end in a [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] (tie). A draw can occur in several situations, including [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], or a draw by impossibility of checkmate (usually because of [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] to checkmate).

Needless to say I don't think etiquette is involved, but the above is a brief summary of what I meant. I am going to re -read yours again as to how it differs from chess because it was even more complex than the above!

This is my first post here but I've been following this case for most of the time since Madeleine's disappearance.

Tony appears to be a good man and I believe from what I've read of him, what I have read of his research into this case and from his record of trying to remedy other injustices that he does not pursue what is he sees as an injustice maliciously or without foundation. I have never met Mr Bennett, I do not know him personally but I support his fortitude under extreme pressure from those who seek to break him.

And it is this attempt by the McCanns - and I am fairly certain there are others who seek to influence and strengthen their decision in doing this, in my opinion which further disheartens my faith in how this case, in fact everything to do with the mystery of Madeleine's disappearance moved out of the realms of a police investigation into something murkier.

That's enough from me for now - I can't type angry. Nothing original to say but I feel I must say something.

Best wishes to Tony.

Hello mahlersghost and welcome to the forum. What a supportive first post.

I would also like to send my best wishes to Tony.

The thing is, Tony is the only one who has dared to dig for the truth about this case. When I say the only one, I don't mean to trivialise the efforts of anyone on forums and blogs etc, but Tony has investigated this case using his real name and address etc.

He has dared to go where no British journalist has dared to go, not even crime correspondents. No one has any balls in this country to seek justice for Madeleine. Shame on people like Martin Brunt, for example, is all I can say. Presumably Brunt gets paid a lot of money to do his job, but he's not even doing his job properly. How can he be if he won't report both sides of this case?

Shame also on the British police and British government.

If TB goes to jail because the British justice system wants to make an example of him then he will be a hero to many people and I'm sure he won't let a jail term stop him.

This case stinks just as much as other case like Haut de la Garenne where many children were abused or even murdered. I think paedophilia is at the bottom of both of these cases. Why else do children have to 'go missing'?

Somebody has to speak up for children and take real action.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]- and an appropriately "spirited" one - from Mahlersghost. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Yes, IANMS, I agree with your conclusion as to what is at the root of this case and we have seen to what extent people in high places will go to cover up their activities.

I remember seeing Tony at a Commons Select Committee meeting, sitting behind Gerald McCann. I was saddened to see the doctor contemptuously turn to look at Tony and pretend to brush something off his shoulder - it was a petulant, nasty and arrogant act in front of the committee and cameras. I do not think my memory serves me incorrectly but if I am wrong I apologise to the doctor. However, I'm pretty well certain and it saddened me to see it happen.

Get 'em Gonçalo wrote:

aiyoyo wrote: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.

Thank you very much, aiyoyo, for this post.

I couldn't have said it better myself.

This Tony-bashing really has to stop. As forum owner I fully support Tony in his endeavours to find the truth about what really happened to Maddie. Having met him in person a few times to discuss this case, I can honestly say he hasn't got a malicious bone in his body and is of the old school in that he is a perfect gentleman who cares deeply about injustice, especially when it concerns a three year old girl.

Tony's trial is just a few days away and it is necessary for him to remain positive. If the worst happens and he is 'sent down' then he will have done as much as he could for Maddie until he is released.

Can anyone else in this country say the same? Even Maddie's own parents? I don't think so.

Well said above. Aiyoyo and Get 'em [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] Thank you[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

I was saddened but not surprised by what I saw. Unless, possibly, Tony had told him that he had a chip on his shoulder about something and it was taken literally.

Nice pun Jean - "spirited" - I wish in fact I did feel in great spirits about this case. It seems to be the case which dares not speak it names unless it has the McCann/Mitchell say so. Never seen anything quite like it in all my 60 odd years.

welcome and well said mahlersghost......

mahlersghost wrote:This is my first post here but I've been following this case for most of the time since Madeleine's disappearance.

Tony appears to be a good man and I believe from what I've read of him, what I have read of his research into this case and from his record of trying to remedy other injustices that he does not pursue what is he sees as an injustice maliciously or without foundation. I have never met Mr Bennett, I do not know him personally but I support his fortitude under extreme pressure from those who seek to break him.

And it is this attempt by the McCanns - and I am fairly certain there are others who seek to influence and strengthen their decision in doing this, in my opinion which further disheartens my faith in how this case, in fact everything to do with the mystery of Madeleine's disappearance moved out of the realms of a police investigation into something murkier.

That's enough from me for now - I can't type angry. Nothing original to say but I feel I must say something.

Best wishes to Tony.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]mahlersghost, [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Tony you have my complete admiration and support! You are a hero, and your hard work and courageous battle is truly amazing. I wish there were more people in the world like yourself and Goncalo Amaral and Pat Brown, who are willing to stand up for truth and justice. I doubt the parents would have gained the enormous wealth, and thus the power to spin away their culpability and chop and change their dodgy version of events, if there were more people willing to speak out and expose their true colours. I am in awe of your brave stance, and I hang my head in shame at being one of those people who hides behind a user name, and who often lacks the courage of my convictions. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Once again thank you for everything you have done, and for your enduring stamina and ability to stand up for what is right in the face of adversity. I feel very honored to know you. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

May God bless you and guide you through the shark infested waters, and lead you to victory. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Hello mahlersghost. A warm welcome to TCMOMM. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Fantastic first posts btw. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Probably not the correct thread on which to write this but:-

I really do not understand how so many people cannot, and this is perpetuated by the media in this case, contemplate how an accidental death may not want to be covered up by the discoverers. It is a possible motive for the utter and complete disappearance of Madeleine McCann - and as the stranger abduction theory is hard to believe by piecing together what is known - accidental death and hiding the body seems a relatively mild conclusion to come up with considering what the other possibilities may include - think page 129 without total strangers. We live in an age of endless CSI and other type TV series, films, crime documentaries, books etc and yet when it comes to real life there is a la la la, fingers in ears, eyes shut tight attitude to Madeleine's disappearance in some quarters. Also the Scenic findings (some sort of human remains - be it fluid form) - Lord help us -what is so incredible (awful but not impossible) about a body wrapped, possibly in something to try to keep the fluids from escaping but not totally successfully, possibly having been deep frozen (again not impossible with the use of a freezer (even Portugal has them nowadays LOL), being transported a few weeks later to another place in the back of a vehicle? If needs must people can do things they would not normally contemplate doing. If I was used to seeing and trained to touch and handling dead bodies in a morgue I would find it less harrowing to do it especially if it was to save my skin and perhaps cover for others. Dr Amaral and other experienced crime investigators are convinced that Madeleine is dead and that it happened in the apartment living room - it's fairly simple to understand, is corroborated by top-class cadaver and blood dogs - loads of dodgy interview replies, witholding of potentially useful information by the mother - other clues ad infinitum . Wool has been well and truly pulled over eyes - the messengers sent into exile, but why? It seems that it is dangerous to ask these questions in the UK without the dead-hand of CR being placed on your shoulder. And why hasn't Private Eye which hates CR with a vengeance not taken up Tony's story and offered some moral support?

I apologise if what I have written has been done to death in the past on this forum.

Dear Tony,

It's in times of strife when true friends and allies gather around us. These people we are blessed with offer encouragement and often work discreetly to protect us and help us. These people want the best for us and are mindful not to hinder us.

You are indeed blessed Tony. There are many people around you doing the right thing for you. As for those who seek to create chaos well they are noticeable - very noticeable in their postings on this forum.

Keep going.

aquila [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

If TB goes to jail because the British justice system wants to make an example of him then he will be a hero to many people and I'm sure he won't let a jail term stop him.

In fact, if that happens the public will hear of it, and the mccanns will become more notorious (if that is possible).
People would want to know how a man can be sent to jail over mccanns allegations of libel without it being tested in a Court of Law.

What impression that will give the public that mccanns say so is good enough to send a campaigner for Justice for their daughter to Prison.

That would look very bad for the Mccanns.

I still have faith in the UK systems despite all. And in spite of CR's cunningness to win their cases through torturous process instead of in Court, there is always a first time.

The abduction scenario and pleading for a search and vindication for doing so seems to appeal to persons perhaps with a Tinkerbell fantasy - cry enough and she will re-appear/live again. This is grist to the mill for redtops and is the lifeblood of the McCanns supporters. Dr Amaral is Captain Hook and Tony Bennett is Bosun in their minds - I suppose CR is the crocodile - the McCanns are Wendy and Peter. I stopped reading anything from the supporters a long time back (remember Sian etc on the Mirror forum) when I realised that it was badly affecting my synapses - there is an infantilism in their worldview which beggars belief. And it is fuelled by reporters and their editors who should not be let loose on a school newsletter.

But yet the Express former editor (I believe) made a telling but drowned out explanation to Leveson that the paper was reporting no more than what eventually came out in the released case files ( the unreleased stuff must give the McCanns nightmares). The editor looked rather bowed down by the experience - he stated that he felt that he was on trial -he was made to feel like a naughty boy when really he is the good guy. Bit of a show trial moment for me - perhaps the only time I felt very uncomfortable with the way Leveson and Jay treated a member of the press (or anyone) and tried to make him look both stupid and guilty of lese majeste (sorry about the lack of accents) towards the McCanns. I wanted the editor to have a robust riposte - he would in the movies - and this is not to be insensitive to Leveson who is a devout Jew but I was reminded in a small way of how Roland Friesler belittled defendants at Nazi trials - only in a small way but it was enough to catch my attention. The problem with Madeleine's case is that most people know very little about it above and beyond the headlines and the titbits carefully fed by Mitchell.

Looks like Tony is up against more than the McCanns - but then again he knows that has always been the case.