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

Woofer wrote:Great Tony and the best of luck.

To other worried posters - Tony hasn`t given anything away in that letter. And its good that he displays his correspondence with them on the internet, that way they can`t be underhanded. I`m sure Tony never shows all his cards !

Tony Bennett wrote:

candyfloss wrote:

tcat wrote:

candyfloss wrote:I can't see how it can be wrong to publish a letter, that you have written, that is your property? After all you can send carbon copies or copies to as many people as you like, so what's the difference? Many letters received have cc and are copied to others, as are emails.

It's what's in the letter. Tony repeats all the allegations he's not allowed to do, by order of the Court.

"The Defendant undertakes not to repeat allegations that the Claimants are guilty of, or are to be suspected of, causing the death of their daughter Madeleine McCann; and/or of disposing of her body; and/or of lying about what had happened and/or of seeking to cover up what they had done."

Justice Tugendhat says he can't simply carry on making or repeating the allegations just because he's now told the Court he shouldn't have agreed the undertakings in the first place. That's contempt of court.

I have just re-read the letter, and I can't see any allegations. Tony is quoting Mr Amaral as far as I can see. You seem a little rattled tcat.

For that matter, Mr Justice Tugendhat repeated Dr Goncalo Amaral's central allegations in a court judgment that anyone, anywhere on the internet, can read for themselves on the interrnet! He read out on the public record the three specific undertakings that I seek to set aside.

This is getting really ridiculous.

A court can repeat them, and they can be mentioned in newspapers. Loads of news media have reported what Dr Amaral's conclusions are. And I can't?

Why, 'tcat' him/herself has just repeated them, loud and clear, on this very forum.

And I can't?

Then again, one of the things that might get me sent to prison [maximum term 2 years, by the way, reduced to 1 year for good behaviour] - and is specifically pleaded against me in these proceedings as one of the 'worst breaches of my undertakings' - is my repetition of the 48 questions Dr Kate McCann refused to answer on a YouTube video [which by the way I pulled over a year ago pending the trial].

I could be sent to prison for that.

Yet the BBC and the Daily Mail both have the list on their websites - yet no action is taken against them. The list is everywhere.

There's thousands expressing doubts about the McCanns' version of events on forums and websites like this every day, yet I am to be sent to prison for making remarks far more guarded than many.

Even quoting the full report and rogatory interview of Martin Grime, one of the world's top dog handlers, is denied me - that's another 'serious breach' that could see me in Wandsworth nick by a week on Wednesday.

I am starting to get pretty angry about this...

HiDeHo wrote:I do not know the legalities of the process.

What I DO know is that Tony has the courage, not only to fight n court but also to take the risk of giving the TRUTH a voice!

Tony knows the McCanns want to see him destroyed.

Whether they manage to achieve their aim or not (and I don't believe they will) we don't know, but by taking his correspondence public he is contributing to the worst possible scenario the McCanns could face.

The opportunity for the UK public to learn the truth!

Thank you Tony for your courage...

One day the WORLD will know the truth (although some may never admit it) but the McCanns will have to face the furor of those that they have lied to and the Tapas 7 will have to face their families and hope they will be forgiven for the choices they made when finding themselves in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Just my opinion.

tcat wrote:I don't blame you, Tony, but you signed the agreement 3 years ago. I know you were under distress at the time but that's a matter for the Court to consider and hopefully rectify - but you can't just ignore the court order in the meantime. The Judge said so.

Until the Court has sorted out that agreement, you're in contempt of court repeating those allegations. That's the truth of it. I advised weeks ago you'd be better off saying nothing in public until Feb 5th. Letters to the Court or CR or anybody are perfectly fine, but it's what you say in public that is the problem - until the Court has ruled.

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

The source spoke personally to Snr Santos e Oliveira earlier this week. He confirmed that your clients’ Portuguese lawyer wrote to him and to the Civil Court, on or about 8 January, with these proposals:

1. To adjourn the trial for 6 months

2. To seek a settlement with Dr Amaral.

I have never ventured beyond Dr Amaral’s own main conclusions on what really happened to your clients’ daughter.

PeterMac wrote:The TRUTH should always be in the public domain.

Innocence demands the right to speak.
Guilt demands the right to silence.

ed1976 wrote:

jd wrote:

The source spoke personally to Snr Santos e Oliveira earlier this week. He confirmed that your clients’ Portuguese lawyer wrote to him and to the Civil Court, on or about 8 January, with these proposals:

1. To adjourn the trial for 6 months

2. To seek a settlement with Dr Amaral.

I have never ventured beyond Dr Amaral’s own main conclusions on what really happened to your clients’ daughter.

This is the crux of it...surely carter ruck cannot continue with their hounding of Tony. They would prove beyond any doubt that their pursuit is just personal and nothing to do with what he says if they do. This would only show the whole world exactly what carter ruck are really about

Unfortunately what TB says and what he does are two different things. Don't take my word for it, this is what Blacksmith thinks of TBs claims....

The issue was quite simple. The questions which Bennett appeared to think would challenge the McCanns' position with the British public were simply riddled with grotesque errors of fact, misunderstandings and distortion of evidence, demonstrating not only that he had plucked his findings from newspapers without any mastery of the case but that he was accusing the McCanns of things they manifestly hadn't done. The prospect of this unadulterated trash being submitted to MPs as representative of the McCann critics' case gave everyone except vulnerable disciples the cold shivers.

ed1976 wrote:

jd wrote:

The source spoke personally to Snr Santos e Oliveira earlier this week. He confirmed that your clients’ Portuguese lawyer wrote to him and to the Civil Court, on or about 8 January, with these proposals:

1. To adjourn the trial for 6 months

2. To seek a settlement with Dr Amaral.

I have never ventured beyond Dr Amaral’s own main conclusions on what really happened to your clients’ daughter.

This is the crux of it...surely carter ruck cannot continue with their hounding of Tony. They would prove beyond any doubt that their pursuit is just personal and nothing to do with what he says if they do. This would only show the whole world exactly what carter ruck are really about

Unfortunately what TB says and what he does are two different things. Don't take my word for it, this is what Blacksmith thinks of TBs claims....

The issue was quite simple. The questions which Bennett appeared to think would challenge the McCanns' position with the British public were simply riddled with grotesque errors of fact, misunderstandings and distortion of evidence, demonstrating not only that he had plucked his findings from newspapers without any mastery of the case but that he was accusing the McCanns of things they manifestly hadn't done. The prospect of this unadulterated trash being submitted to MPs as representative of the McCann critics' case gave everyone except vulnerable disciples the cold shivers.

Just
over a week ago, rumours circulated that your clients had asked the
Court and Dr Amaral’s lawyer for an adjournment so that a settlement
could be reached. In the Affidavit of your colleague Isabel Martorell
sworn and served on me today (paragraph 13), she states the following:

“…I
understand that the trial, which had been due to take place in January
2013, has been postponed at the request of the Claimants’ lawyer, to
allow the parties to explore whether a settlement may be reached which
gives the Claimants sufficient vindication and protection in the
future”.

Tony Bennett wrote:ed1976 quoted a statement, allegedly by John Blacksmith = Antony Sharples:

The issue was quite simple. The questions which Bennett appeared to think would challenge the McCanns' position with the British public were simply riddled with grotesque errors of fact, misunderstandings and distortion of evidence, demonstrating not only that he had plucked his findings from newspapers without any mastery of the case but that he was accusing the McCanns of things they manifestly hadn't done. The prospect of this unadulterated trash being submitted to MPs as representative of the McCann critics' case gave everyone except vulnerable disciples the cold shivers.

Are you sure that was Blacksmith speaking, ed?

I thought that the quote came frorm Clarence Mitchell...

candyfloss wrote:ed1976, I am getting rather annoyed now, so if I were you I would give it a rest. You are talking nonsense. If the McCanns wanted to impose anything then all they had to do is go ahead with the trial, win, go past go, collect 1.2million, and impose anything they wanted as winners.........doh!!

candyfloss wrote:ed1976, I am getting rather annoyed now, so if I were you I would give it a rest. You are talking nonsense. If the McCanns wanted to impose anything then all they had to do is go ahead with the trial, win, go past go, collect 1.2million, and impose anything they wanted as winners.........doh!!

ed1976 wrote:

candyfloss wrote:ed1976, I am getting rather annoyed now, so if I were you I would give it a rest. You are talking nonsense. If the McCanns wanted to impose anything then all they had to do is go ahead with the trial, win, go past go, collect 1.2million, and impose anything they wanted as winners.........doh!!

Quote from letter by TB on first page of this thread.



“…I understand that the trial, which had been due to take place in January 2013, has been postponed at the request of the Claimants’ lawyer, to allow the parties to explore whether a settlement may be reached which gives the Claimants sufficient vindication and protection in the future”.

Which part of the sentence in red do you not understand? The McCanns will be asking for conditions from Amaral as part of the settlement.

Dr What wrote:Ed

What you are suggesting then is that the Mcs and legal team had no intention of ever going to court, because they must have known the appeals and the delays that would arise.

Me wrote:

ed1976 wrote:

candyfloss wrote:ed1976, I am getting rather annoyed now, so if I were you I would give it a rest. You are talking nonsense. If the McCanns wanted to impose anything then all they had to do is go ahead with the trial, win, go past go, collect 1.2million, and impose anything they wanted as winners.........doh!!

Quote from letter by TB on first page of this thread.



“…I understand that the trial, which had been due to take place in January 2013, has been postponed at the request of the Claimants’ lawyer, to allow the parties to explore whether a settlement may be reached which gives the Claimants sufficient vindication and protection in the future”.

Which part of the sentence in red do you not understand? The McCanns will be asking for conditions from Amaral as part of the settlement.

Are you thick?

Tony is not stating that as his fact, that is what Carter Ruck stated in the avadavit they served upon him.

As the McCann's lawyers they are going to spin it that way. They are not going to say "to allow our client to crumble and give the defendent everything he wants".

Can you confirm that now it is stated by Carter Ruck that the trial "HAS BEEN POSTPONED AT THE REQUEST OF THE CLAIMANTS' LAWYER" that you now accept you have lost our bet as to who requested the postponement and that as such you will be donating £250 to charity?

Dr What wrote:Ed

What you are suggesting then is that the Mcs and legal team had no intention of ever going to court, because they must have known the appeals and the delays that would arise.

"So, the Fat Defective has folded, without any Ace-playing. No wonder his face was tripping him"

has been postponed at the request of the Claimants’ lawyer

whether a settlement may be reached which gives the Claimants sufficient vindication and protection in the future

ed1976 wrote:I am giving you my opinion, isn't that what we are all doing.

By going to court the McCanns

Had the book banned ...albeit temporarily

Had Amarals assets frozen...still inplace

Stopped Amaral from repeating his claims

So the libel wriy has been to a large extent a success. They haven't achieved all their aims but they haven't finished yet.