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 13 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 13 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 13 of 17 Previous  1 ... 8 ... 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 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 13 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 20:25

@Spaniel wrote:I was one of about three posters who tried to make Tony see sense and back down last year...
...along with the entire McCann Team and Carter-Ruck!

____________________

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 : 16167
Activity : 23822
Likes received : 3584
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 13 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 20:27

@Spaniel wrote:Tony knows, and if he has asked for an adjournment, it will be for a good reason, a hopeful one.
[ 'Sigh! Yet another muratfan-believer']

____________________

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 : 16167
Activity : 23822
Likes received : 3584
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 13 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 20:32

@Tony Bennett wrote:Carter-Ruck are similarly beavering away. An hour-and-a-half ago a courier, da Silva by name, knocked at my door with another two bundles for the hearing: one, a fat bundle with about 250 pages of case law they are throwing at me at the last minute, and another one with their 'Skeleton Argument' of their legal submission to the Court.

Seriously... is it allowed that you are presented with such huge bundles of documents at such a late stage? How on earth are you supposed to deal with all that in time?
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 13 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 tiny on 29.01.13 20:34

Good luck tony ,but i dont think you will need the toothbrush,i for one cant see any judge sending you to prison. the mccanns thought you would crumble at the first hurdle but like Mr Amaral you didnt,and now i think they wish they hadnt started this,dont forget you have truth on your side and l truth should win through.
tiny
tiny

Posts : 2274
Activity : 2311
Likes received : 4
Join date : 2010-02-03

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 13 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 Inspectorfrost on 29.01.13 20:38

@admin wrote:
@Tony Bennett wrote:Carter-Ruck are similarly beavering away. An hour-and-a-half ago a courier, da Silva by name, knocked at my door with another two bundles for the hearing: one, a fat bundle with about 250 pages of case law they are throwing at me at the last minute, and another one with their 'Skeleton Argument' of their legal submission to the Court.

Seriously... is it allowed that you are presented with such huge bundles of documents at such a late stage? How on earth are you supposed to deal with all that in time?

Its called evil, peurile, and dirty at the very best

ETA that goesfor BOTH the Mccanns and their dirty lawyers and also anyone else who might be bankrolling them
avatar
Inspectorfrost

Posts : 841
Activity : 878
Likes received : 3
Join date : 2012-12-09

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 13 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 29.01.13 20:38

@admin wrote:
@Tony Bennett wrote:Carter-Ruck are similarly beavering away. An hour-and-a-half ago a courier, da Silva by name, knocked at my door with another two bundles for the hearing: one, a fat bundle with about 250 pages of case law they are throwing at me at the last minute, and another one with their 'Skeleton Argument' of their legal submission to the Court.

Seriously... is it allowed that you are presented with such huge bundles of documents at such a late stage? How on earth are you supposed to deal with all that in time?

All part of the dirty tricks campaign we've come to expect from certain quarters. I feel certain that they will eventually get their comeuppance.
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 13 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 20:39

@admin wrote:
@Tony Bennett wrote:Carter-Ruck are similarly beavering away. An hour-and-a-half ago a courier, da Silva by name, knocked at my door with another two bundles for the hearing: one, a fat bundle with about 250 pages of case law they are throwing at me at the last minute, and another one with their 'Skeleton Argument' of their legal submission to the Court.

Seriously... is it allowed that you are presented with such huge bundles of documents at such a late stage? How on earth are you supposed to deal with all that in time?

That cannot be right and fair surely. They know for a fact you are repesenting yourself and haven't got an army of solicitors and clerks, secretaries etc., working for you. You are on your own, and they know it, how are you expected to defend yourself with tactics like this. Considering the trial was delayed, how come they have suddenly managed to pile more on you when it should have all been ready before.
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 13 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 20:39

@admin wrote:
@Tony Bennett wrote:Carter-Ruck are similarly beavering away. An hour-and-a-half ago a courier, da Silva by name, knocked at my door with another two bundles for the hearing: one, a fat bundle with about 250 pages of case law they are throwing at me at the last minute, and another one with their 'Skeleton Argument' of their legal submission to the Court.

Seriously... is it allowed that you are presented with such huge bundles of documents at such a late stage? How on earth are you supposed to deal with all that in time?
***
It's "putting weight in" IMO. In the sense of "crushing" ...

I don't "do" Twitter and Facebook. But isn't this something, which should widely be published by those, who do?
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 13 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 20:45

This is your post from another thread Tony.....



Tony Bennett wrote:



On 31 December (Monday) I replied to a letter from Carter-Ruck in the Smethurst v Bennett case. Carter-Ruck had asked for my consent to adjourn the costs hearing listed for 11 January. The grounds were that their partner with conduct of the case would be absent at this time. They also asked for a list of dates to avoid between now and mid-March.

I consented, and in doing so gave them a short list of a few dates that would not be convenient. These dates included 29 and 30 January


So CR asked for the case to be adjouned which was supposed to be 11th Jan, and then moved to 29 and 30th, which were not convenient to you so had to be changed. Now if the case was originally supposed to be heard on 11th January, then all the paperwork should have been completed by then. How can they now justify sending another pile, so close to the new date, when when all is said and done it should have already been heard with their original case load. 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 13 911419Letter 25 Jan 2013 to Carter-Ruck and the Court about THAT proposed settlement with Dr Amaral: is this now an 'Abuse of Process'? - Page 13 181230

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 13 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 Jill Havern on 29.01.13 20:49

They're like the bleedin' mafia these people, turning up in limousines to deliver paperwork. They want to win by wearing Tony down or make him have a heart attack. Doctors are supposed to save lives not wreck them.

____________________
PeterMac's FREE e-book
Gonçalo Amaral: The truth of the lie
NEW CMOMM & MMRG Blog
George Orwell, '1984': "If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - forever."
Jill Havern
Jill Havern
Chief Faffer
Chief Faffer

Posts : 19348
Activity : 31319
Likes received : 7243
Join date : 2009-11-25
Location : parallel universe

http://gerrymccan-abuseofpower-humanrights.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 13 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 Inspectorfrost on 29.01.13 20:52

Get 'em Gonçalo wrote:They're like the bleedin' mafia these people, turning up in limousines to deliver paperwork. They want to win by wearing Tony down or make him have a heart attack. Doctors are supposed to save lives not wreck them.

i would imagine Kate Mccann would like forMr Bennett to feel fear and be miserable too. Such an awful excuse for a human being and a mother.

She left her kids in danger in the first place at the very least, who knows if she was reaponsible for madeleines death too, and wants to imprison or bankrupt others for giving their opinion or doing their job, she is having a laugh but she wont be the last one laughing here thats for sure
avatar
Inspectorfrost

Posts : 841
Activity : 878
Likes received : 3
Join date : 2012-12-09

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 13 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 Jill Havern on 29.01.13 20:56

@Inspectorfrost wrote:
Get 'em Gonçalo wrote:They're like the bleedin' mafia these people, turning up in limousines to deliver paperwork. They want to win by wearing Tony down or make him have a heart attack. Doctors are supposed to save lives not wreck them.

i would imagine Kate Mccann would like forMr Bennett to feel fear and be miserable too. Such an awful excuse for a human being and a mother.

Yep.

Maddie
Amaral
Amaral's dog
Tony

not to mention the other people in the PJ who are being targetted.

____________________
PeterMac's FREE e-book
Gonçalo Amaral: The truth of the lie
NEW CMOMM & MMRG Blog
George Orwell, '1984': "If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - forever."
Jill Havern
Jill Havern
Chief Faffer
Chief Faffer

Posts : 19348
Activity : 31319
Likes received : 7243
Join date : 2009-11-25
Location : parallel universe

http://gerrymccan-abuseofpower-humanrights.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 13 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 20:57

@admin wrote:
@Tony Bennett wrote:Carter-Ruck are similarly beavering away. An hour-and-a-half ago a courier, da Silva by name, knocked at my door with another two bundles for the hearing: one, a fat bundle with about 250 pages of case law they are throwing at me at the last minute, and another one with their 'Skeleton Argument' of their legal submission to the Court.

Seriously... is it allowed that you are presented with such huge bundles of documents at such a late stage? How on earth are you supposed to deal with all that in time?
On the last occasion, the hearing was on 11 October. The day before, in the late afternoon, they delivered their legal argument, suddenly introducing, after 10 months, the case that they thought would win it for them. A tad unfair that, having to go into court the next day and argue the point, not even having had time to read the judgment, never mind digest and respond to it. Here's the case that they thought - and think - will prove I am in contempt:

Frank Warren v Random House Group Ltd [2008] EWCA Civ p. 844

http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2007/2856.html&query=warren+and+random+and+House&method=boolean

OK, so they brought Frank Warren into it.

I have hit back with:

Proactive Sports Management v Wayne Rooney, Coleen Rooney (formelry McLaughlin), Stomeygate 48 Limited and Speed 9849 Limited [2010] EWHC 1807 (QB).

http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2010/1807.html&query=proactive+and+wayne+and+rooney&method=boolean

Both Frank Warren and Wayne Rooney won their cases.

The question (or to be more accurate, a question) is whether Carter-Ruck's arguments in Frank Warren will trump mine in Wayne Rooney.

____________________

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 : 16167
Activity : 23822
Likes received : 3584
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 13 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 Inspectorfrost on 29.01.13 21:01

Get 'em Gonçalo wrote:
@Inspectorfrost wrote:
Get 'em Gonçalo wrote:They're like the bleedin' mafia these people, turning up in limousines to deliver paperwork. They want to win by wearing Tony down or make him have a heart attack. Doctors are supposed to save lives not wreck them.

i would imagine Kate Mccann would like forMr Bennett to feel fear and be miserable too. Such an awful excuse for a human being and a mother.

Yep.

Maddie
Amaral
Amaral's dog
Tony

not to mention the other people in the PJ who are being targetted.
I

OMG Amarals dog? Do you think she did that? What an evil cow.
avatar
Inspectorfrost

Posts : 841
Activity : 878
Likes received : 3
Join date : 2012-12-09

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 13 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 21:03

candyfloss wrote:This is your post from another thread Tony.....

Tony Bennett wrote:

On 31 December (Monday) I replied to a letter from Carter-Ruck in the Smethurst v Bennett case. Carter-Ruck had asked for my consent to adjourn the costs hearing listed for 11 January. The grounds were that their partner with conduct of the case would be absent at this time. They also asked for a list of dates to avoid between now and mid-March.

I consented, and in doing so gave them a short list of a few dates that would not be convenient. These dates included 29 and 30 January


So CR asked for the case to be adjouned which was supposed to be 11th Jan, and then moved to 29 and 30th, which were not convenient to you so had to be changed. Now if the case was originally supposed to be heard on 11th January, then all the paperwork should have been completed by then. How can they now justify sending another pile, so close to the new date, when when all is said and done it should have already been heard with their original case load. 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 13 911419Letter 25 Jan 2013 to Carter-Ruck and the Court about THAT proposed settlement with Dr Amaral: is this now an 'Abuse of Process'? - Page 13 181230
No, the 11 January hearing was to have been in the Smethurst case

____________________

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 : 16167
Activity : 23822
Likes received : 3584
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 13 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 21:03

@Tony Bennett wrote:
@admin wrote:
@Tony Bennett wrote:Carter-Ruck are similarly beavering away. An hour-and-a-half ago a courier, da Silva by name, knocked at my door with another two bundles for the hearing: one, a fat bundle with about 250 pages of case law they are throwing at me at the last minute, and another one with their 'Skeleton Argument' of their legal submission to the Court.

Seriously... is it allowed that you are presented with such huge bundles of documents at such a late stage? How on earth are you supposed to deal with all that in time?
On the last occasion, the hearing was on 11 October. The day before, in the late afternoon, they delivered their legal argument, suddenly introducing, after 10 months, the case that they thought would win it for them. A tad unfair that, having to go into court the next day and argue the point, not even having had time to read the judgment, never mind digest and respond to it. Here's the case that they thought - and think - will prove I am in contempt:

Frank Warren v Random House Group Ltd [2008] EWCA Civ p. 844

http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2007/2856.html&query=warren+and+random+and+House&method=boolean

OK, so they brought Frank Warren into it.

I have hit back with:

Proactive Sports Management v Wayne Rooney, Coleen Rooney (formelry McLaughlin), Stomeygate 48 Limited and Speed 9849 Limited [2010] EWHC 1807 (QB).

Both Frank Warren and Wayne Rooney won their cases.

The question (or to be more accurate, a question) is whether Carter-Ruck's arguments in Frank Warren will trump mine in Wayne Rooney.



Would they dare do that if you had your own lawyers, I think not. They would immediately argue that they had not time to look at the files and it would be unfair advantage.
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 13 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 Jill Havern on 29.01.13 21:04

@Inspectorfrost wrote:OMG Amarals dog? Do you think she did that? What an evil cow.

No I don't think she did it, but someone connected to this case did.

____________________
PeterMac's FREE e-book
Gonçalo Amaral: The truth of the lie
NEW CMOMM & MMRG Blog
George Orwell, '1984': "If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - forever."
Jill Havern
Jill Havern
Chief Faffer
Chief Faffer

Posts : 19348
Activity : 31319
Likes received : 7243
Join date : 2009-11-25
Location : parallel universe

http://gerrymccan-abuseofpower-humanrights.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 13 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 29.01.13 21:05

Tony, I wish you well, great strength and courage,

and a clear head to meet whatever, come-what-may.

“If you’re going through hell, keep going.” – Winston Churchill
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 13 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 statsman on 29.01.13 21:10

I'm up to my ears in so many things at the moment but I couldn't live with myself if I didn't take the time here to wish Tony all the best for next week and I would urge everyone on this forum who hasn't done so already, to do likewise.

Whatever happens, he must be aware that he is not alone. I want him to know that he is speaking for all of us decent, rational people who only want to know the truth about what happened to Madeleine.

And remember Buddha's words. "Three things cannot be long hidden: the Sun, the Moon and the Truth"

statsman
statsman

Posts : 118
Activity : 129
Likes received : 1
Join date : 2012-02-29

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 13 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 roy rovers on 29.01.13 21:10

The question (or to be more accurate, a question) is whether Carter-Ruck's arguments in Frank Warren will trump mine in Wayne Rooney.

The boxing analogy again. Warren is a boxing promoter and Rooney's family were boxers with Wayne having to choose between football and boxing as a teenager. Go for the knock-out TB!
roy rovers
roy rovers

Posts : 473
Activity : 538
Likes received : 51
Join date : 2012-03-04

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 13 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 Inspectorfrost on 29.01.13 21:14

Get 'em Gonçalo wrote:
@Inspectorfrost wrote:OMG Amarals dog? Do you think she did that? What an evil cow.

No I don't think she did it, but someone connected to this case did.

Well whoever it was on the mccanns side need to hung drawn and quartered themselves, sometime soon hopefully, utter contemptable EVIL bast ards
avatar
Inspectorfrost

Posts : 841
Activity : 878
Likes received : 3
Join date : 2012-12-09

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 13 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 Jill Havern on 29.01.13 21:16

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 13 Death_10

____________________
PeterMac's FREE e-book
Gonçalo Amaral: The truth of the lie
NEW CMOMM & MMRG Blog
George Orwell, '1984': "If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - forever."
Jill Havern
Jill Havern
Chief Faffer
Chief Faffer

Posts : 19348
Activity : 31319
Likes received : 7243
Join date : 2009-11-25
Location : parallel universe

http://gerrymccan-abuseofpower-humanrights.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 13 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 Inspectorfrost on 29.01.13 21:21

@statsman wrote:I'm up to my ears in so many things at the moment but I couldn't live with myself if I didn't take the time here to wish Tony all the best for next week and I would urge everyone on this forum who hasn't done so already, to do likewise.

Whatever happens, he must be aware that he is not alone. I want him to know that he is speaking for all of us decent, rational people who only want to know the truth about what happened to Madeleine.

And remember Buddha's words. "Three things cannot be long hidden: the Sun, the Moon and the Truth"


Excellent quote

avatar
Inspectorfrost

Posts : 841
Activity : 878
Likes received : 3
Join date : 2012-12-09

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 13 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 Inspectorfrost on 29.01.13 21:22

Get 'em Gonçalo wrote: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 13 Death_10

Bloody hell, what a mottley crew hey?
avatar
Inspectorfrost

Posts : 841
Activity : 878
Likes received : 3
Join date : 2012-12-09

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 13 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 Spaniel on 29.01.13 21:24

@Tony Bennett wrote:
@Spaniel wrote:Tony knows, and if he has asked for an adjournment, it will be for a good reason, a hopeful one.
[ 'Sigh! Yet another muratfan-believer']

I was hoping the name I PM'd you this morning had given advice, hence an adjournment. I can hope!

Tony and anyone else here. I made my first post, last year I think, to support Tony re McKensie friends. Would I have done so if I wished him harm? Of course not.

Unsure if this what I sent, but usefull.

http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/courts/queens-bench/queen-bench-guide.pdf

It pains me to think of Tony alone in the court, and I thought I read somewhere that where a penal notice was attached, a solicitor must be present with the defendant. It does say in the above guide that a duty solicitor will be present.

____________________

Spaniel
Spaniel

Posts : 742
Activity : 769
Likes received : 1
Join date : 2012-01-24

Back to top Go down

Page 13 of 17 Previous  1 ... 8 ... 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


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