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'?

by **Tony Bennett** 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!

by **Tony Bennett** 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']

by Guest 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?

by tiny 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.

by Inspectorfrost 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

by ShuBob 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.

by Guest 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.

by Guest 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?

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

by **Jill Havern** 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.

by Inspectorfrost 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

by **Jill Havern** 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.

by **Tony Bennett** 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

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

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).

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

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.

by Inspectorfrost 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.

by **Tony Bennett** 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. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

No, the 11 January hearing was to have been in the Smethurst case

by Guest 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

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

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.

by **Jill Havern** 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.

by marxman 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

by statsman 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"

by roy rovers 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!

by Inspectorfrost 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

by **Jill Havern** 29.01.13 21:16

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

by Inspectorfrost 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

by Inspectorfrost 29.01.13 21:22

Get 'em Gonçalo wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Bloody hell, what a mottley crew hey?

by Spaniel 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.

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

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.

by Spaniel 29.01.13 21:35

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?

The Abuse of Process is emphatic as to fairness. CR must know it's not fair and as for those two, they make me sick.

As it says, a fair trial is impossible.

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

by **Tony Bennett** 29.01.13 21:41

NEWS UPDATE:

I have just finished reading the McCanns' lawyers' 'Skeleton Argument', which runs to 15 pages.

Up until now, I thought I was just up against:

Isabel Martorell, Partner of Carter-Ruck and her support staff, including an Assistant Solicitor

PLUS

Adam Tudor, Senior Partner of Carter-Ruck

PLUS

Jacob Dean, barister.

Apparently these already mighty legal resources are not considered strong enough to overwhelm me.

So, at the hearing on Tuesday 5 February, Jacob Dean will merely be the Junior barrister in the proceedings.

The McCanns have also appointed a Senior barrister to lead their case to impriosn me...

Adrienne Page, Queens Counsel

by Guest 29.01.13 21:48

Good gracious me ...

by Inspectorfrost 29.01.13 21:49

The mccanns are kamikaze pilots, stupid stupid people

by ShuBob 29.01.13 21:50

Tony Bennett wrote:NEWS UPDATE:

I have just finished reading the McCanns' lawyers' 'Skeleton Argument', which runs to 15 pages.

Up until now, I thought I was just up against:

Isabel Martorell, Partner of Carter-Ruck and her support staff, including an Assistant Solicitor

PLUS

Adam Tudor, Senior Partner of Carter-Ruck

PLUS

Jacob Dean, barister.

Apparently these already mighty legal resources are not considered strong enough to overwhelm me.

So, at the hearing on Tuesday 5 February, Jacob Dean will merely be the Junior barrister in the proceedings.

The McCanns have also appointed a Senior barrister to lead their case to impriosn me...

Adrienne Page, Queens Counsel

Oh dear!

No wonder the Frank Warren v Random House case is cited. She represented Warren in that case! She also advised the McCanns in their action against the Express Group.

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