bennett: Blind, stupid or ignorant?

Check out the emboldend phrases.

Ambersuz wrote:
Tony yes, I know most of this already excluding the discussions in yesterdays meeting so I have one question for you.

Was this forum or the 3A's mentioned in the Carter Ruck correspondence?

Tony wrote:
I have not yet published any part of the original Carter-Ruck letter of 27 August 2009 although I have given a summary of the McCanns' main demands in one or two places on the net.

To assist you, I will quote the relevant section of their letter verbatim and unedited from page 3 of their letter:

QUOTE

The purpose of this letter is to require you immediately to agree to desist from further pursuing this course of conduct [i.e. allegations that I had purused a campaign of harassment against the McCanns within the meaning of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997] and in particular

(1) ---

(2) ---

(3) To use your best endeavours to delete or otherwise prevent access to defamatory postings about our clients published by you on other websites including (but not limited to) postings on www.democracyforum.co.uk, www.truthformadeleine.com and the '3 Arguidos' discussion forum; and

(4) To undertake not to publish the same or any similar allegations about our clients [namely that the McCanns somehow caused the death of Madeleine and conspired to cover up her death], in any medium whatsoever.

UNQUOTE

Having agreed to their terms I have no choice but to comply with them.

That means I have actually already started the process of deleting or arranging to have deleted any posts on any forum where I have suggested that the parents know about Madeleine's death and have covered it up.

Furthermore I have over the weekend written a detailed letter to Carter-Ruck in which I have given a specific undertaking in the terms asked for in paragraph (4) above. Interpreting that strictly, as no doubt the McCanns and Carter-Ruck would do, it means I cannot repeat the allegations I have made against the McCanns in a book or booklet, in a leaflet, on the internet. in an e-mail, or even in a letter to family and friends.

As you can see, the Carter-Ruck did mention in their original letter by name three forums but NOT THIS ONE.

Neither did my reply to them over the weekend specifally mention any other forum to which I have contributed re Madeleine.

If I do not use my 'best endeavours' to remove all those postings which deal with the central claim that the McCanns know what really happened to Madeleine, I place myself at further risk.

amberslag is clearly worried that bennett has dragged her forum into the mud, (Oblivious to the fact that it has already been there for a long time,) and bennett is trying to weasel out of things, AGAIN, but failing to comprehend what the words, 'But not limited to' means. And poor old amberslag is no doubt too stupid to work it out either!

Way to go, bennett! You have already caused one vile cesspit to implode, and now you are helping to destroy another! The net will smell a whole lot cleaner when MM goes the same way as 3a's!

And this was in the letter on Aug 27???? Harrassment is MUCH BETTER than LIBEL!!! It is a criminal offence guys!

How can they still continue to give this man any credibility.

The CR letter names 3 websites but clearly states it is not limited to just them! He then assures Ambersuz that her forum was not mentioned, well technically it wasn't but it doesn't take a lot of working out.

Well I hope Ambersuz is feeling very assured now, wouldn't want her to have any sleepless nights, lol.

Any of these hate forums should be very concerned.

The obvious question here is how did Amberbuz know that websites had been named in the original letter? There can be very few people that know this, and one who knows, has said something to her. And whoever it was most likely does not have their own copy, so is unable to say exactly which websites were named. Seems someone cannot keep to the script.

And just for the record, it doesnt matter if MM site is named in the letter. The intent of the letter is clearly to prevent Bennett and Butler from repeating their defamation on any website, which is why it says 'including'. This means it is not a definite list, but is a list which includes the following. Therefore MM is as much in the firing line as the ones listed. And make no mistake, CR are well aware of MM, and the posts on there.

Amberbuz has a chance to clean up her website, but will she? Only a fool would ignore the chance she has been given.

Harassment refers to a wide spectrum of offensive behavior.The term
commonly refers to behavior intended to disturb or upset, and, when the
term is used in a legal sense, it refers to behaviours which are found
threatening or disturbing. ...

Sounds about right!!

And isnt it good to hear the term 'harrassment' used, and from Bennett's own post as well.

I suppose it is true, since he has quote the act that it is covered under. And just in case it is not understood just what is at stake here. If an injunction is granted to prevent certain conduct and that injunction is not abided by, then it is not a contempt of court charge under the act, it is a criminal offence, punishable with a gaol term.

3 Civil remedy

(1) An actual or apprehended breach of section 1 may be the subject of a claim in civil proceedings by the person who is or may be the victim of the course of conduct in question.

(2) On such a claim, damages may be awarded for (among other things) any anxiety caused by the harassment and any financial loss resulting from the harassment.

(3) Where—

(a) in such proceedings the High Court or a county court grants an injunction for the purpose of restraining the defendant from pursuing any conduct which amounts to harassment, and

(b) the plaintiff considers that the defendant has done anything which he is prohibited from doing by the injunction,

the plaintiff may apply for the issue of a warrant for the arrest of the defendant.

(4) An application under subsection (3) may be made—

(a) where the injunction was granted by the High Court, to a judge of that court, and

(b) where the injunction was granted by a county court, to a judge or district judge of that or any other county court.

(5) The judge or district judge to whom an application under subsection (3) is made may only issue a warrant if—

(a) the application is substantiated on oath, and

(b) the judge or district judge has reasonable grounds for believing that the defendant has done anything which he is prohibited from doing by the injunction.

(6) Where—

(a) the High Court or a county court grants an injunction for the purpose mentioned in subsection (3)(a), and

(b) without reasonable excuse the defendant does anything which he is prohibited from doing by the injunction,

he is guilty of an offence.

(7) Where a person is convicted of an offence under subsection (6) in respect of any conduct, that conduct is not punishable as a contempt of court.

(8) A person cannot be convicted of an offence under subsection (6) in respect of any conduct which has been punished as a contempt of court.

(9) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (6) is liable—

(a) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years, or a fine, or both, or

(b) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or both.

Here is the civil remedy sections from the act. Note the bold.



Now more of the lesson, from the Act, what is harrassment.

1 Prohibition of harassment

(1) A person must not pursue a course of conduct—

(a) which amounts to harassment of another, and

(b) which he knows or ought to know amounts to harassment of the other.

(2) For the purposes of this section, the person whose course of conduct is in question ought to know that it amounts to harassment of another if a reasonable person in possession of the same information would think the course of conduct amounted to harassment of the other.

(3) Subsection (1) does not apply to a course of conduct if the person who pursued it shows—

(a) that it was pursued for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime,

(b) that it was pursued under any enactment or rule of law or to comply with any condition or requirement imposed by any person under any enactment, or

(c) that in the particular circumstances the pursuit of the course of conduct was reasonable.

Note the bold again. Well, we all know it is harrassment, and judging by the reaction from my partner and my mum, they also think it is harrassment, and they dont even follow the case at all. It would appear to me, that it may be easy to prove harrassment in this case.



Anway, just for the record, I didnt go to wiki to get this. I used this site instead, and used the act itself. Of course, there is always the interpretation problem, but this act appears very easy to understand, the acts of harrassment appear to be blatant. So I would want to be Bennett and Butler and on the receiving end of this harrassment charge in court, even in a civil proceeding.



http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1997/ukpga_19970040_en_1

Note, that at the moment, this is simply an agreement between CR (for the McCanns and B&B). But if they continue to break that agreement, then court, and an injunction is the next step. And if they keep going, then there is a real possibility of a gaol term. And this is on top of the libel/defamation case.

I quite like the sound of bennet and butler in a cell with only a mattress for a bed, isnt that what he wished upon the McCanns.
Karmas a ***** and bennett and butler have a lot coming their way and not before time imo.

Yep - definitely not an exhaustive list of forums and websites

Is Ambersuz so stupid?
Perhaps TB should explain to her in plain english. After all, he is a ex lawyer.
'INCLUDE, BUT NOT LIMITED TO'
Care to explain to Amber Tony, I dont think she is quite grasping what that means.
Just because it did not list the MM forum does not mean it will be excluded.

Over the past few days I have understood why Bennett is a FAILED lawyer. He doesn't seem to have much of a grasp of the basic concepts of law. What a silly, silly man he is.

I have repeatedly said that this *CIVIL* action is the very least of Bennett and Butler's worries.

AmberAA is just well plain thick, but why is she taking all the flak for being thick? Isn't Debbie Butler running a very close second, if not overtaking her?

Butler has had a golden opportunity to walk away from this with her home, her children's inheritance and her business intact, but obviously putting her Jackboot in while innocent people are down and persecuting them to within an inch of their lives is far more important than her own family!

What hold does Tony Bennett have over Butler? Apparently she has been crying over flowers and sobbing in the car after visiting lawyers and we know this is true, yet the stupid cow is still insisting on taking this course of action?! She still thinks that the dolt Bennett and the village idiot Stevo can outsmart Carter-Ruck.

When is she going to wake up and smell the coffee? When she opens the door and a writ is handed to her?

When she opens the door and there are police officers there to arrest her?

And how many months (years) will it take for Bennett to remove all his foul assertions from all the sites????

Rosie,
I will never understand why these people continue despite seeing and now knowing what is ahead.
They must all be on a death wish!
Why does Butler want to hound a family at the cost of her own???
Her home, son, business, life...all of these are at stake.
We (as decent people) have tried to warn them what will happen.
Surely now they can see we meant every word??
Oh well...
Bennett will be the most hated man in their lives soon.
What else can we do to make them see sense before its too late and try to salvage what they have of their lives now?
Probably nothing.
Their families will be devastated when it all comes out, the innocent victims of their hate campaign.

I think it is way too late for Bennett or Butler to get out of a bad situation - Stevo may owned the Madeleine Foundation site but Butler is still up there as a Chairperson, Bennett is still there as Secretary. And Ironside is writing all kinds of garbage, "Elizabeth Smart claims she was raped three or four times a day, yet she was often seen walking the streets, blah, blah." Ironside has a serious problem.

Has anyone heard any news regarding Carter Ruck? Was there any response from them regarding their deadline of Monday? Everyone seemed to think that something would happen after Bennett's replies last week. What do they intend to do next? It all seems to have gone very quiet again.

I havent read or heard anything Jean.
But can well believe this is just the beginning for the likes of Bennett/Butler/Bren/Stevo/ etc etc etc...

I read on the blog "Just a Thought - You Know" (no not a member but enjoy reading the Guest section) - they're former 3A's that are not as vicious as the rest of them - that the lawyers working on Bennett's case were working all week-end but they would be away from the office Monday and Tuesday so that could explain the quiet before the storm breaking.

Hasnt Bennett supposedly gone to Austria with his mum though?
Hope he enjoys his holiday, it may be his last for a very very long time.