Justice 4 ALL Madeleine McCann Family
You need to be a member of this forum in order to view its entire contents.
We welcome applications to join the forum from genuine caring compassionate people that wish to support Mr Mrs McCann in their never ending resolve to finding their daughter Madeleine and bringing her back home where she truly belongs.

All applicants are checked out so people with no sense, no moral compass, no rationality and only half a brain cell and even less grip on reality and who are devoid of all logic - need NOT apply!
This also applies to ex-members, who no longer want to be members, yet spend their lives viewing this forum and telling people they no longer want to be members.
This is said without prejudice with no one in particular in mind.

Court Order 25 November 2009 McCanns v Bennett

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Court Order 25 November 2009 McCanns v Bennett

Post by christabel on Fri Nov 27, 2009 5:30 am

http://jillhavernunleashed.forumotion.ne....bennett-t13.htm

Court Order 25 November 2009 McCanns v Bennett
Tony Bennett Today at 5:36 pm

This is just to report here that yesterday in the Queens Bench Division, Dr Gerald McCann and Dr Kate McCann made an application against me, Reference 5196 of 2009, for an unspecified amount of damages for libel, though limited to 'no more than £50,000', and for an injunction restraining me from making any further libellous allegations against them.

On the basis of previous correspondence conducted via Carter-Ruck since their first e-mailed letter sent on 27 August 2009, and on the basis of a signed undertaking by myself earlier this month, the following has been agreed BY CONSENT:

1. I have given a number of undertakings as required by Carter-Ruck on behalf of the McCanns

2. The McCanns have agreed that the proceedings be 'stayed' indefinitley, that is, suspended or held in abeyance

3. I have already paid what was said to have been the Court fee of £440.00
There was no personal appearance in Court by any of the parties.
4. The McCanns have made no other claim against me in respect of their costs.

NOTES:
1. I should like to publicly thank the following for generous contributions already received towards my costs of £440:

a) Peter MacLeod
b) Sharon Lawrence
c) Renee Neuville
d) 'Bomaris'.

2. Carter-Ruck told me today that they had got the Court fee wrong and that it was only £400. Their letter to me today (26 November) states:

"Please also find enclosed a cheque in the sum of £40.00; these funds are being returned to you because the Court fees incurred by our clients totalled only £400.00, rather than the £440.00 we had anticipated"..


He went on to say:

This is the end result of the Carter-Ruck letter to me on 27 August alleging harassment and libel. The harasssment issue against me was dropped.

I don't know what is happening re the Carter-Ruck letters to Debbie Butler.

The McCanns can apply to proceed with their action if they think I am in brecah of my undertakings, and the Court could consider me in contempt of court, remedies for which include fines, seizure of assets, a prison term, or all three.

Equally, should new information come to light, I could apply to have the Order lifted.

_________________
Madeleine [Hardcover] Book
Written by Kate (Author)
Pre Order your copy
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Madeleine-Kate-McCann-Gerry/dp/0593067916/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1289936443&sr=1-3


Sign the petition http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/madeleinemccann_case_review/signatures
avatar
christabel
Admin
Admin

Number of posts : 1637
Age : 68
Location : OK
Registration date : 2008-04-26

Back to top Go down

Re: Court Order 25 November 2009 McCanns v Bennett

Post by Rosie on Fri Nov 27, 2009 6:05 am



Yes and if Bennett carries on the way he is doing and keeps insisting on opening a website encouraging "other" people to commit libel he may find himself £50.000 lighter and the wrong side of a prison door.

People are watching Bennett, so he had better behave himself, his days of stalking, Harassing and libelling the McCanns are over, but more than that, much more, Bennett's days of frustrating the search for Madeleine are over too.

_________________
no way
Goncalo Amaral Your Time Is Nearly Up!


"RICARDO PAIVA SHOULD RESIGN, HIS POSITION IS UNTENABLE - IF HE DOES NOT RESIGN, THEN SACK HIM!
avatar
Rosie
Admin
Admin

Number of posts : 4358
Registration date : 2008-04-27

Back to top Go down

Re: Court Order 25 November 2009 McCanns v Bennett

Post by vee8 on Fri Nov 27, 2009 6:09 am

Personally I think he got of way too lightly. He belongs in prison, or a secure ward somewhere. Still, given the nature of the beast, I'm sure it won't be long before he steps over the line again, and next time there will be no escape.
avatar
vee8
Grand Member
Grand Member

Number of posts : 3113
Location : suffolk
Registration date : 2008-06-24

http://www.madeleine-adestinybegun.co.uk

Back to top Go down

Re: Court Order 25 November 2009 McCanns v Bennett

Post by Rosie on Fri Nov 27, 2009 6:23 am

Vee, it just shows how dignified the McCanns actually are and how they are not motivated by money, proving these vile creatures wrong, wrong and totally and utterly wrong. All they want to do is be allowed to search for their daughter in peace and not to have their precious time and energy taken up with keeping people like Bennett, Butler and convicted criminal, liar, perjurer and perverter of justice ex cop Goncalo Amaral, in check.

The McCanns could have easily gone for Bennett's money and won, hands down.

Vee I agree with you, I do not think Bennett will be able to resist defaming them, he has already been inciting others to do so and wrote that ridiculous piece under a pseudo, forgetting just before he sent around an email admitting to writing it.

We'll see him in court as sure as eggs is eggs, he lives for persecuting the McCanns, his pathetic dull little life would be empty without the venom.


Last edited by Rosiepops on Fri Nov 27, 2009 7:02 am; edited 1 time in total

_________________
no way
Goncalo Amaral Your Time Is Nearly Up!


"RICARDO PAIVA SHOULD RESIGN, HIS POSITION IS UNTENABLE - IF HE DOES NOT RESIGN, THEN SACK HIM!
avatar
Rosie
Admin
Admin

Number of posts : 4358
Registration date : 2008-04-27

Back to top Go down

Re: Court Order 25 November 2009 McCanns v Bennett

Post by Catkins on Fri Nov 27, 2009 6:39 am

He'll get some other fool to be his mouthpiece.............conniving little sh@T !!
avatar
Catkins
Grand Member
Grand Member

Number of posts : 1829
Location : UK
Registration date : 2009-02-11

Back to top Go down

Re: Court Order 25 November 2009 McCanns v Bennett

Post by Rosie on Fri Nov 27, 2009 7:08 am

Catkins wrote:He'll get some other fool to be his mouthpiece.............conniving little sh@T !!

Cat you are not wrong, but people like him who think they are clever, always, (but always) slip up, Bennett is a liar, he has been caught out lying repeatedly, pathological liars need good memories and Bennett certainly hasn't got a good memory.

_________________
no way
Goncalo Amaral Your Time Is Nearly Up!


"RICARDO PAIVA SHOULD RESIGN, HIS POSITION IS UNTENABLE - IF HE DOES NOT RESIGN, THEN SACK HIM!
avatar
Rosie
Admin
Admin

Number of posts : 4358
Registration date : 2008-04-27

Back to top Go down

Re: Court Order 25 November 2009 McCanns v Bennett

Post by vee8 on Fri Nov 27, 2009 7:25 am

You're quite right Rosie, the slimy little creep should thank his lucky stars he is dealing with two people as honest and decent as Kate and Gerry, because, by God, I would not have been so lenient. He remains a serious danger to the search as long as he is not dealt with properly, but yes, he will end up in court eventually, as sure as day follows night.
avatar
vee8
Grand Member
Grand Member

Number of posts : 3113
Location : suffolk
Registration date : 2008-06-24

http://www.madeleine-adestinybegun.co.uk

Back to top Go down

Re: Court Order 25 November 2009 McCanns v Bennett

Post by Pedro Silva on Fri Nov 27, 2009 7:56 am

This only shows how decent the couple truly is.

Pedro Silva
Grand Member
Grand Member

Number of posts : 5567
Location : Portugal
Registration date : 2008-10-20

Back to top Go down

Re: Court Order 25 November 2009 McCanns v Bennett

Post by Cath on Fri Nov 27, 2009 7:59 am

Rosiepops wrote:
Catkins wrote:He'll get some other fool to be his mouthpiece.............conniving little sh@T !!

Cat you are not wrong, but people like him who think they are clever, always, (but always) slip up, Bennett is a liar, he has been caught out lying repeatedly, pathological liars need good memories and Bennett certainly hasn't got a good memory.

He's been caught on lying on several occasions. In fact on so many occasions, I can't even remember them all.
But he's let it slip already when he's emailed that document, pretending it was someone else who wrote it.

Cath
Star Poster
Star Poster

Number of posts : 722
Location : Holland
Registration date : 2009-04-10

Back to top Go down

Re: Court Order 25 November 2009 McCanns v Bennett

Post by dianeh on Fri Nov 27, 2009 9:08 am

The McCanns really have been left with no choice as Bennett has made false undertakings in response to the earlier demands. He never intended to abide by those undertakings, and when it became obviouse what he was doing, Carter Ruck was informed, so it was obvious where this was heading.

Bennett will lose big time here. And I predicted (or at least suggested, cant remember if it was a prediction or not) that an injunction would be issued against him.

As Bennett is aware if that injunction is granted, and it will be, and if he breaks it, he will go to gaol. It doesnt matter that this is a civil suit, as breaking an injunction is a criminal act, and covered under a criminal statute. I have posted it somewhere on another thread. And one of the punishments is gaol.

As for seeking only 50,000 pounds, that could be something to do with jurisdiction. In Australia, we have limits for civil action placed on certain courts, which determines which court it is heard in. The higher the court, the more it costs, as for eg if it is the high court then the Barrister must be a QC, it think. But in the district court, the Barrister does not have to be a QC, and in the magistrate's court you dont need a Barrister at all. Perhaps you have something like this in Britain. Because it hardly seems logical to pursue him for much more than he had, incurring huge costs before the high court, if going for a smaller amount in a lesser court, will cost far less.

Does anyone know about the court hierarchy and civil cases?
avatar
dianeh
Grand Member
Grand Member

Number of posts : 3465
Age : 53
Location : Outback, Australia
Registration date : 2008-04-27

Back to top Go down

Re: Court Order 25 November 2009 McCanns v Bennett

Post by Peaceful1 on Fri Nov 27, 2009 1:28 pm

Yes Bennett always writes with 'I am the victim here' attached to his every words and 'please feel sorry for me-the McCanns are trying to silence me..' LOL
Slowly people ARE waking up to the fact that Bennett is nothing but a creature of habits, always looking for the next gold pot to make money from. He has NO interest in Madeleine at all or even finding her, if he put more energy in to help look for her instead of hounding K & G and hampering the search, maybe, just maybe, Madeleine could have been found by now.
The McCanns dont need this hassle. They just want Madeleine home safe and well.
Tony Bennett IMO is hoping she remains missing because whilst she is still missing, it gives his sad pathetic life some purpose!
That goes for the rest of the hounding,stalking, vile creatures who share his oxygen space!
avatar
Peaceful1
Grand Member
Grand Member

Number of posts : 1104
Location : Australia
Registration date : 2009-07-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Court Order 25 November 2009 McCanns v Bennett

Post by Pedro Silva on Fri Nov 27, 2009 10:08 pm

You, the victim? Since when? You really make me sick.

Pedro Silva
Grand Member
Grand Member

Number of posts : 5567
Location : Portugal
Registration date : 2008-10-20

Back to top Go down

Re: Court Order 25 November 2009 McCanns v Bennett

Post by Rosie on Fri Nov 27, 2009 11:44 pm

Peaceful1 wrote:Yes Bennett always writes with 'I am the victim here' attached to his every words and 'please feel sorry for me-the McCanns are trying to silence me..' LOL
Slowly people ARE waking up to the fact that Bennett is nothing but a creature of habits, always looking for the next gold pot to make money from. He has NO interest in Madeleine at all or even finding her, if he put more energy in to help look for her instead of hounding K & G and hampering the search, maybe, just maybe, Madeleine could have been found by now.
The McCanns dont need this hassle. They just want Madeleine home safe and well.
Tony Bennett IMO is hoping she remains missing because whilst she is still missing, it gives his sad pathetic life some purpose!
That goes for the rest of the hounding,stalking, vile creatures who share his oxygen space!

Spot on Peaceful! Bennett always tries to go for being the victim who is having his free speech curtailed, some idiot solicitor he must have been, no wonder he didn't last 5 minutes, he doesn't seem to know the difference between free speech and libel!

If he carries on the way he is going, he will find out soon enough though!

_________________
no way
Goncalo Amaral Your Time Is Nearly Up!


"RICARDO PAIVA SHOULD RESIGN, HIS POSITION IS UNTENABLE - IF HE DOES NOT RESIGN, THEN SACK HIM!
avatar
Rosie
Admin
Admin

Number of posts : 4358
Registration date : 2008-04-27

Back to top Go down

Re: Court Order 25 November 2009 McCanns v Bennett

Post by Rosie on Fri Nov 27, 2009 11:47 pm

Pedro, funny Bennett has that effect on me too, he does make me feel physically sick when I look at him. I cannot stand the man, I htink he is one awful excuse for a himan being. A liar, arrogant, ignorant, in fatct he has all the classic symptoms of being a narcissist and a pathological liar!
Strange thing is, in the anti-camp, there are many that can be termed as having a narcissistic personality dosorder- nutters the lot of them.

Place in the box marked "NUTTERS".

_________________
no way
Goncalo Amaral Your Time Is Nearly Up!


"RICARDO PAIVA SHOULD RESIGN, HIS POSITION IS UNTENABLE - IF HE DOES NOT RESIGN, THEN SACK HIM!
avatar
Rosie
Admin
Admin

Number of posts : 4358
Registration date : 2008-04-27

Back to top Go down

Re: Court Order 25 November 2009 McCanns v Bennett

Post by Sabot on Sat Nov 28, 2009 12:03 am

It has occured to me that The McCanns are limiting their claim to £50,000 because Mr. Bennett will need the other £40,000 of his £90,000 to pay the court costs without punishing his poor, long suffering wife by taking his house.

Sabot
Star Poster
Star Poster

Number of posts : 764
Location : France
Registration date : 2009-10-25

Back to top Go down

Re: Court Order 25 November 2009 McCanns v Bennett

Post by rosemary on Sat Nov 28, 2009 5:52 am

Impeccable behaviour as always from Kate and Gerry. Nothing less than I would have expected. If Bennett abuses them from now on..... well of course he will won“t he!

rosemary
Star Poster
Star Poster

Number of posts : 963
Location : spain
Registration date : 2009-05-13

Back to top Go down

Re: Court Order 25 November 2009 McCanns v Bennett

Post by Sabot on Sat Nov 28, 2009 6:03 am

rosemary wrote:Impeccable behaviour as always from Kate and Gerry. Nothing less than I would have expected. If Bennett abuses them from now on..... well of course he will won“t he!

One can but hope.

Sabot
Star Poster
Star Poster

Number of posts : 764
Location : France
Registration date : 2009-10-25

Back to top Go down

Re: Court Order 25 November 2009 McCanns v Bennett

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

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