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.

MCCANNS, SMETHURST COMMENCE LEGAL ACTION AGAINST BENNETT

View previous topic View next topic Go down

MCCANNS, SMETHURST COMMENCE LEGAL ACTION AGAINST BENNETT

Post by Pedro Silva on Sun Dec 04, 2011 8:56 am

My friends, this was taken from JATYK:

Libel latest
Tony Bennett Today at 9:37 pm

THE MADELEINE FOUNDATION and 3 LIBEL ACTIONS

Statement by Tony Bennett, Secretary, 7pm, 3 December 2011


BRIAN KENNEDY


Brian Kennedy’s concerns that I had libelled him have now been settled on terms acceptable to both parties. No court order or undertaking is involved and I did not pay any of Mr Kennedy’s costs.


EDWARD SMETHURST


In Thursday’s post (1 December), I received a costs estimate (as per High Court procedures) of the likely costs incurred by Edward Smethurst if he pursues his libel claim against me, assuming I continue to defend his claim. I would be liable to pay all those costs if I lose (i.e. if the court holds that any one of my statements about him on Jill's forum libelled him).


In their letter, Carter-Ruck say that Smethurst's costs to date are £28,390 and that his future costs, assuming a three-day libel trial, will be £143,086.50, making the total £171,476.50.


This is based, as set out in a 10-page document, on much of the legal work being done by a Senior Partner at Carter-Ruck who charges £562.50 an hour for his time (inclusive of VAT).


Faced with such huge costs, I clearly must think carefully about my options in advance of a Case Management and Costs Management hearing in the High Court next Wednesday.


MCCANNS


Application for committtal to prison


At 6.20pm the same day (Thursday), a process server employed by Carter-Ruck came up to Chippingfield in a ‘Godfather’-style limousine, driven by another person, and handed me a large and heavy cardboard box, measuring 16" x 14" x 12" (40cm x 35cm x 30cm for those who do metric), containing 5 huge ring binders of statements on behalf of the McCanns, and accompanying evidence. These contained over 3,000 pages in total, mostly photocopies of my articles on the Madeleine Foundation website and several dozen postings on Jill Havern’s site. The cardboard box was of exceptional quality, while these were no ordinary lever arch files. They were beautifully finished in the attractive Oxford blue livery of Carter-Ruck, complete with their logo and full contact details.


There was also a summons to attend the Royal Courts of Justice to be committed to prison for contempt of court (alternative remedies being a suspended prison sentence, a fine, or seizure of assets, or any combination of these). The case has been listed for a hearing before a judge on Wednesday 8 February. The summons alleges a wholesale breach of one of the four undertakings I gave to the High Court on 25 November 2009, namely not to libel the McCanns.


I intend to defend the McCanns’ application. Arguably, as I have already been advised by one local lawyer, the undertaking I gave in 2009 was too ‘sweeping’ and should either be modified or even withdrawn, given that it amounts virtually to an undertaking to say nothing about the case ever again. The lawyer also suggested it was given under oppressive circumstances, a matter I have already raised under Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights with the European Commission on Human Rights, which is currently looking into my claim that the way British laws allows wealthy libel litigants to get their way over defendants who cannot hope to match their financial and legal resources amounts to a breach of human rights. The government has promised to rectify this manifestly unjust situation as a result of a successful campaign by the Libel Reform Campaign.


Included amongst the papers is an 84-paragraph, 27-page affidavit sworn by Senior Partner at Carter-Ruck, Isabel Hudson. I can reproduce parts of that affidavit, but not those parts that include extracts of my disputed articles and postings. We’ll therefore display a redacted version of it on our website.


In Paragraph 58 of her affidavit, Ms Hudson states that a letter sent by myself to Carter-Ruck on 8 June 2011 prompted the McCanns to say “enough is enough”. The McCanns and Carter-Ruck then began what Ms Hudson says in Paragraph 65 was “a painstaking and time-consuming process” of analysing as many postings of mine as they could find on Jillhavern’s forum, to see how many might be construed as libellous. They think that around 50-60 of my 3,700 posts on the forum might breach my undertaking, while the other 3,640-3,650 apparently do not. That explains why, as the forum-owner will confirm, Carter-Ruck have spent literally hundreds of hours on this forum in the past few months, searching for potentially libellous comments, in order to bolster their application to commit me to prison. The forum-owner’s logs record the precise time and length of each visit by Carter-Ruck.


There is a reference to all of this in Dr Kate McCann’s book: ‘madeleine’. She wrote (pp. 289-290):


“Adam Tudor and his colleague Isabel Hudson continue to do a vast amount of work for us, without payment, most of it quietly, behind the scenes”.


To have spent hundreds of hours on Jill Havern’s forum for the past few months ‘painstakingly and time-consumingly’searching, and searching, for possible libels, without any payment whatsoever, would indeed be regarded by many people as an act of very great generosity.


I cannot conclude this statement without giving an honourable mention to Mr Mike Gunnill of Kent, a past member of Jill Havern’s forum, and, for all I know, a present one, under one of his many personas, aliases, and ‘socks’. Mike Gunnill, it may be recalled, was the photojournalist who took the photograph of Debbie Butler (near whom he lives), used by the Sunday Express alongside their front-page headline: ‘The McCanns’ Stalker’ on 16 August 2009. His website at the time was remarkable for including over 100 photos he took at the gruesome ‘House of Horror’, Haut de la Garenne children’s home in Jersey, scene of decades of child abuse and possibly even child murders by depraved paedophiles. Some on this forum may recall how Gunnill e-mailed me in January 2010 under one of his many pseudonyms, ‘Michael Sangerte’, claiming he lived in ‘Berkshire’, asking to buy a copy of ‘60 Reasons’ (other names used by Gunnill in previous correspondence with me (before I knew his real identity) were Jason Peters and Peter Tarwin).


I refused. He then wrote me a further begging letter stating that he really wanted an original copy of ‘60 Reasons’ because of his ‘historical research’, adding that he was ‘willing to pay a high price’ for a copy. I then offered to obtain a copy belonging to a close relative and asked him to send £5 including postage, which he did. He asked me to send the book to Michael Sangerte - not in Berkshire, but at an address in Kent. Subsequent enquiries showed that this was Mike Gunnill’s home near Maidstone, Kent. The very day after the book was sent to him, he bragged on a McCann-believer forum that he had obtained a copy of ‘60 Reasons’ and had already sent it to Carter-Ruck, who were apparently ‘delighted’ to receive it. He later openly stated on that same forum that he was being employed ‘on a mission’.


This, however, is how this incident is reported in Isabel Hudson’s affidavit, paragraph 37:


“We continued to monitor the situation, and in early February 2010 we received evidence (again from a well-wisher) which suggested that the Defendant had sold at least one further copy of the ‘60 Reasons’ booklet (one of the publications specifically complained about in the libel claim form which had been issued for the purpose of obtaining undertakings to the court)…I exhibit a copy of the e-mail thread between this well-wisher and the defendant (which should be read from top to bottom) at page 26 of Exhibit IJH5”.

---------------------------------------------

To deal with these two separate court actions will require a great deal of time and attention. For that reason, and for other reasons, I have decided not to contribute any further postings to the publicly-viewable part this forum until at least these two sets of court proceedings are concluded. Depending on the outcome of those two court cases, I will then consider my position in relation to whether or not to rejoin in any public discussions in the future (or even whether the court will allow me to). In the meantime, and subject as always to the consent of the forum-owner, I shall continue to remain a member of the forum and to contribute where I can to those parts of the forum which are not publicly-viewable.

This withdrawal, whether temporary or permanent, comes at a time when Jill Havern’s forum has remained the most visited Madeleine McCann discussion forum on the internet for the past four months, and its membership has grown to nearly 1,500 members. Very informative discussions are taking place on the forum, to which many contribute.


As Clarence Mitchell himself said nearly a year ago, even the McCanns admit that Madeleine’s abduction is but ‘an assumption’ or a ‘working hypothesis’. Moreover, despite over four years of searching, using private investigators that have cost the McCann Team millions of pounds, the McCann Team are still unable to give us one single usable piece of information about who is supposed to have abducted her, and, if she was abducted, where she was taken. Nor do we really know which of 18 suspects, ‘persons of interest’ and ‘people we wish to eliminate from our enquiries’ (two of whom are women) we are supposed to still be looking out for.

In those circumstances I wish all of you on here committed to discussing what happened to Madeleine every success in getting ever closer to the truth.



Pedro Silva
Grand Member
Grand Member

Number of posts : 5571
Location : Portugal
Registration date : 2008-10-20

Back to top Go down

Re: MCCANNS, SMETHURST COMMENCE LEGAL ACTION AGAINST BENNETT

Post by jean on Sun Dec 04, 2011 11:46 am

The cardboard box was of exceptional quality, while these were no ordinary lever arch files. They were beautifully finished in the attractive Oxford blue livery of Carter-Ruck, complete with their logo and full contact details.

What an idiot!!!!!!!!!!!!
He will of course want to keep them as a souvenier of his demise!

jean
Master
Master

Number of posts : 474
Location : knutsford cheshire
Registration date : 2008-12-11

Back to top Go down

Re: MCCANNS, SMETHURST COMMENCE LEGAL ACTION AGAINST BENNETT

Post by Pedro Silva on Sun Dec 04, 2011 7:52 pm

I agree with you jean.

Pedro Silva
Grand Member
Grand Member

Number of posts : 5571
Location : Portugal
Registration date : 2008-10-20

Back to top Go down

Re: MCCANNS, SMETHURST COMMENCE LEGAL ACTION AGAINST BENNETT

Post by christabel on Sun Dec 04, 2011 10:38 pm

Christmas in prison, I hope waveshi

----Original Message----
From: ajsbennett@btinternet.com
Date: 03/12/2011 21:35
To:
Subj: MF News:McCanns' High Court Application to have Tony
Bennett committed to prison

Please find below a statement The Madeleine Foundation has issued tonight about the McCanns' forthcoming application to the High Court to have me committed to prison for allegedly breaching the High Court undertaking I gave on 25 November 209 not to libel them.

The McCanns' application to commit is supported by a 27-page affidavit
prepared by Senior Partner at Carter-Ruck, Isabel Hudson. Those parts of the affidavit that we are able to show without being accused of further libelling the McCanns can be found on our website www.madeleinefoundation.org.uk or via this short link:

bit.ly vhSm29

Tony Bennett, Secretary


THE MADELEINE FOUNDATION and 3 LIBEL ACTIONS

Statement by Tony Bennett, Secretary, 9pm, 3 December 2011

BRIAN KENNEDY

Brian Kennedy’s concerns that I had libelled him have now been settled on terms acceptable to both parties. No court order or undertaking is involved and I did not pay any of Mr Kennedy’s costs.

EDWARD SMETHURST

In Thursday’s post (1 December), I received a costs estimate (as per High Court procedures) of the likely costs incurred by Edward Smethurst if he pursues his libel claim against me, assuming I continue to defend his claim. I would be liable to pay all those costs if I lose (i.e. if the court holds that any one of my statements about him on Jill's forum libelled him).

In their letter, Carter-Ruck say that Smethurst's costs to date are £28,390 and that his future costs, assuming a three-day libel trial, will be £143,086.50, making the total £171,476.50.

This is based, as set out in a 10-page document, on much of the legal work being done by a Senior Partner at Carter-Ruck who charges £562.50 an hour for his time (inclusive of VAT).

Faced with such huge costs, I clearly must think carefully about my options in advance of a Case Management and Costs Management hearing in the High Court next Wednesday.

MCCANNS

At 6.20pm the same day (Thursday), a process server employed by Carter-Ruck came up to Chippingfield in a ‘Godfather’-style limousine, driven by another person, and handed me a large and heavy cardboard box, measuring 16" x 14" x 12" (40cm x 35cm x 30cm for those who do metric), containing 5 huge ring binders of statements on behalf of the McCanns,and accompanying evidence. These contained over 3,000 pages in total, mostly photocopies of my articles on the Madeleine Foundation website and several dozen postings on Jill Havern’s site. The cardboard box was of exceptional quality, while these were no ordinary lever arch files.
They were beautifully finished in the attractive Oxford blue livery of Carter-Ruck, complete with their logo and full contact details.

There was also a summons to attend the Royal Courts of Justice to be committed to prison for contempt of court (alternative remedies being a suspended prison sentence, a fine, or seizure of assets, or any combination of these). The case has been listed for a hearing before a judge on Wednesday 8 February. The summons alleges a wholesale breach of one of the four undertakings I gave to the High Court on 25 November 2009, namely not to libel the McCanns.

I intend to defend the McCanns’ application. Arguably, as I have already been advised by one local lawyer, the undertaking I gave in 2009 was too ‘sweeping’ and should either be modified or even withdrawn, given that it amounts virtually to an undertaking to say
nothing about the case ever again. The lawyer also suggested it was given under oppressive circumstances, a matter I have already raised under Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights with the European Commission on Human Rights, which is currently looking into my claim that the way British laws allows wealthy libel litigants to get their way over defendants who cannot hope to match their financial and legal resources amounts to a breach of human rights. The government has promised to rectify this manifestly unjust situation as a result of a successful campaign by the Libel Reform Campaign.

Included amongst the papers is an 84-paragraph, 27-page affidavit sworn by Senior Partner at Carter-Ruck, Isabel Hudson. I can reproduce parts of that affidavit, but not those parts that include extracts of my disputed articles and postings. We’ll therefore display a redacted version of it on our website.

In Paragraph 58 of her affidavit, Ms Hudson states that a letter sent by myself to Carter-Ruck on 8 June 2011 prompted the McCanns to say “enough is enough”. The McCanns and Carter-Ruck then began what Ms Hudson says in Paragraph 65 was “a painstaking and time-consuming process” of analysing as many postings of mine as they could find on Jillhavern’s forum, to see how many might be construed as libellous.
They think that around 50-60 of my 3,700 posts on the forum might breach my undertaking, while the other 3,640-3,650 apparently do not.
That explains why, as the forum-owner will confirm, Carter-Ruck have spent literally hundreds of hours on this forum in the past few months, searching for potentially libellous comments, in order to bolster their application to commit me to prison. The forum-owner’s logs record the precise time and length of each visit by Carter-Ruck.

There is a reference to all of this in Dr Kate McCann’s book: ‘madeleine’. She wrote (pp. 289-290):
“Adam Tudor and his colleague Isabel Hudson continue to do a vast amount of work for us, without payment, most of it quietly, behind the scenes”.

To have spent hundreds of hours on Jill Havern’s forum for the past few
months ‘painstakingly and time-consumingly’searching, and searching, for possible libels, without any payment whatsoever, would indeed be regarded by many people as an act of very great generosity.

I cannot conclude this statement without giving an honourable mention to Mr Mike Gunnill of Kent, a past member of Jill Havern’s forum, and, for all I know, a present one, under one of his many personas, aliases, and ‘socks’. Mike Gunnill, it may be recalled, was the photojournalist who took the photograph of Debbie Butler (near whom he lives), used by
the Sunday Express alongside their front-page headline: ‘The McCanns’ Stalker’ on 16 August 2009. His website at the time was remarkable for including over 100 photos he took at the gruesome ‘House of Horror’, Haut de la Garenne children’s home in Jersey, scene of decades of child abuse and possibly even child murders by depraved paedophiles. Some on
this forum may recall how Gunnill e-mailed me in January 2010 under one of his many pseudonyms, ‘Michael Sangerte’, claiming he lived in ‘Berkshire’, asking to buy a copy of ‘60 Reasons’ (other names used by Gunnill in previous correspondence with me (before I knew his real identity) were Jason Peters and Peter Tarwin).

I refused. He then wrote me a further begging letter stating that he really wanted an original copy of ‘60 Reasons’ because of his ‘historical research’, adding that he was ‘willing to pay a high price’ for a copy. I then offered to obtain a copy belonging to a close
relative and asked him to send £5 including postage, which he did. He asked me to send the book to Michael Sangerte - not in Berkshire, but at an address in Kent. Subsequent enquiries showed that this was Mike Gunnill’s home near Maidstone, Kent. The very day after the book was sent to him, he bragged on a McCann-believer forum that he had obtained a copy of ‘60 Reasons’ and had already sent it to Carter-Ruck, who were apparently ‘delighted’ to receive it. He later openly stated on that same forum that he was being employed ‘on a mission’.

This, however, is how this incident is reported in Isabel Hudson’s affidavit, paragraph 37:

“We continued to monitor the situation, and in early February 2010 we received evidence (again from a well-wisher) which suggested that the Defendant had sold at least one further copy of the ‘60 Reasons’ booklet (one of the publications specifically complained about in the libel claim form which had been issued for the purpose of obtaining
undertakings to the court)…I exhibit a copy of the e-mail thread between this well-wisher and the defendant (which should be read from top to bottom) at page 26 of Exhibit IJH5”.

To deal with these two separate court actions will require a great deal of time and attention. For that reason, and for other reasons, I have decided not to contribute any further postings to the publicly-viewable part this forum until at least these two sets of court proceedings are concluded. Depending on the outcome of those two court cases, I will then consider my position in relation to whether or not to rejoin in any public discussions in the future (or even whether the court will allow me to). In the meantime, and subject as always to the consent of the forum-owner, I shall continue to remain a member of the forum and to contribute where I can to those parts of the forum which
are not publicly-viewable.

This withdrawal, whether temporary or permanent, comes at a time when Jill Havern’s forum has remained the most visited Madeleine McCann discussion forum on the internet for the past four months, and its membership has grown to nearly 1,500 members. Very informative discussions are taking place on the forum, to which many contribute.

As Clarence Mitchell himself said nearly a year ago, even the McCanns admit that Madeleine’s abduction is but ‘an assumption’ or a ‘working hypothesis’. Moreover, despite over four years of searching, using private investigators that have cost the McCann Team millions of pounds, the McCann Team are still unable to give us one single usable piece of information about who is supposed to have abducted her, and, if she was abducted, where she was taken. Nor do we really know which of 18 suspects, ‘persons of interest’ and ‘people we wish to eliminate from our enquiries’ (two of whom are women) we are supposed to still be looking out for.

In those circumstances I wish all of you on here committed to discussing what happened to Madeleine every success in getting ever closer to the truth.

avatar
christabel
Admin
Admin

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

Back to top Go down

Re: MCCANNS, SMETHURST COMMENCE LEGAL ACTION AGAINST BENNETT

Post by Pedro Silva on Sun Dec 04, 2011 11:43 pm

I agree with you christabel, because, that´s what TB truly deserves.

Pedro Silva
Grand Member
Grand Member

Number of posts : 5571
Location : Portugal
Registration date : 2008-10-20

Back to top Go down

Re: MCCANNS, SMETHURST COMMENCE LEGAL ACTION AGAINST BENNETT

Post by dianeh on Tue Dec 06, 2011 1:25 pm

1. His 'Human' Rights have not been violated. Funny that he thinks being accused of libel is a breach of his human rights. Now if he was found to be innocent of the libel charges, and he suffers damages, he might have a case. But .......

2.

In Paragraph 58 of her affidavit, Ms Hudson states that a letter sent by myself to Carter-Ruck on 8 June 2011 prompted the McCanns to say “enough is enough”. The McCanns and Carter-Ruck then began what Ms Hudson says in Paragraph 65 was “a painstaking and time-consuming process” of analysing as many postings of mine as they could find on Jillhavern’s forum, to see how many might be construed as libellous.
They think that around 50-60 of my 3,700 posts on the forum might breach my undertaking, while the other 3,640-3,650 apparently do not.
That explains why, as the forum-owner will confirm, Carter-Ruck have spent literally hundreds of hours on this forum in the past few months, searching for potentially libellous comments, in order to bolster their application to commit me to prison. The forum-owner’s logs record the precise time and length of each visit by Carter-Ruck.

There is a reference to all of this in Dr Kate McCann’s book: ‘madeleine’. She wrote (pp. 289-290):
“Adam Tudor and his colleague Isabel Hudson continue to do a vast amount of work for us, without payment, most of it quietly, behind the scenes”.

What the hell does this prove? Clearly if someone is a prolific poster, and they are accused of libel, then it is necessary to trawl through the lot, no matter how tedious (and whoever did it deserves a damn medal). ANd he writes that 50-60 are considered potentially libelous (in breach of his undertaking). Just because it is out of 3700 or more posts, doesnt make it a lesser offence. 50-60 - that is astounding considering he had an undertaking to have none.

Why would anyone bring this on themselves.

3. The McCanns have spent a lot of time and money, and as Bennett says, they have not proved Madeleine was abducted. True I suppose. But the PJ spent a lot of time and money and never proved anything conclusive. They never found a body. They never determined a motive. They never found proof that Madeleine had died in the apartment. They never had evidence of how she 'met her end'. And more to the point, they never ruled out that Madeleine was abducted.



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: MCCANNS, SMETHURST COMMENCE LEGAL ACTION AGAINST BENNETT

Post by Pedro Silva on Tue Dec 06, 2011 8:07 pm

Scotland Yard have proved (with concrete evidences) that an truly abduction happened.

I agree with you dianeh.

Pedro Silva
Grand Member
Grand Member

Number of posts : 5571
Location : Portugal
Registration date : 2008-10-20

Back to top Go down

Re: MCCANNS, SMETHURST COMMENCE LEGAL ACTION AGAINST BENNETT

Post by Tinkerbell43 on Wed Dec 07, 2011 7:14 am

Exactly Di, one breach is too much, 50-60 is suicide!

_________________
'The motives of those who have tried to convince the world that Madeleine is dead, and who've disgracefully and falsely tried to implicate us in her disappearance, need to be seriously questioned.'
avatar
Tinkerbell43
Admin
Admin

Number of posts : 1473
Age : 53
Registration date : 2008-04-18

Back to top Go down

Re: MCCANNS, SMETHURST COMMENCE LEGAL ACTION AGAINST BENNETT

Post by dianeh on Thu Dec 08, 2011 8:15 am

Pedro

Bennett's point was that the McCanns did not prove it. Which I suppose is sort of true. REally the only way to prove beyond any doubt (and that seems to be the benchmark which Bennett uses for the McCann's innocence, although he has a much lower benchmark when it comes to proof of their guilt) that an abduction took place is to find Madeleine or whoever took her.

But long ago, it became obvious to all but the most blind McCann haters that the most likely explanation for Madeleine's disappearance was an abduction. There was simply no evidence to suggest anything else. But strictly speaking, what Bennett says is true, and that there is no 'evidence' that Madeleine was abducted, especially if you exclude what evidence that there is. Remember that he rejects Jane Tanner's eyewitness statement, no evidence of accident or murder in the apartment, a lack of opportuniy or motive on the part of the parents etc.
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: MCCANNS, SMETHURST COMMENCE LEGAL ACTION AGAINST BENNETT

Post by Pedro Silva on Thu Dec 08, 2011 9:53 am

dianeh, with all do respect, I just tell you this:

TB´s disgusting behaviour with smears, lies, defamation, threats even, proves that TB is a liar, whose only disgusting purpose is we know to well what is.

I repeat again: an abduction truly happened, all true evidences points to that direction.

Pedro Silva
Grand Member
Grand Member

Number of posts : 5571
Location : Portugal
Registration date : 2008-10-20

Back to top Go down

Re: MCCANNS, SMETHURST COMMENCE LEGAL ACTION AGAINST BENNETT

Post by dianeh on Thu Dec 08, 2011 3:12 pm

Pedro

Im not arguing for Bennett, or that there was no abduction. I am arguing that Bennett wants 100% proof from the McCanns that an abduction occurred, and about 10% proof from Amoral that it didnt. He is deluded. And it is one of the reasons why he keeps on about the McCanns. The evidence (Or lack of it) would lead a REASONABLE person to the conclusion that Madeleine was abducted.

Of course, it doesnt lead Bennett to that conclusion, for obvious reasons.
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: MCCANNS, SMETHURST COMMENCE LEGAL ACTION AGAINST BENNETT

Post by Pedro Silva on Fri Dec 09, 2011 4:10 am

Yes dianeh.

Pedro Silva
Grand Member
Grand Member

Number of posts : 5571
Location : Portugal
Registration date : 2008-10-20

Back to top Go down

Re: MCCANNS, SMETHURST COMMENCE LEGAL ACTION AGAINST 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