Bennett is DONE

The Comb wrote:Just a few points about The Madeleine Foundation.

Obviously
this forum isn't the place to discuss internal matters, however, a few
things can be said in the hope of making things a little clearer.

Undoubtedly
for Debbie, myself and The Madeleine Foundation the landscape has
changed since Carter-Ruck wrote their letters to us on 27 and 28
August. Just to make a couple of points clear, first, in answer I think
to Bren, yes, Debbie and I received separate letters, making similar
but slightly different points against each of us. Second, it was only I
that received a letter from Carter-Ruck on behalf of Brian and Patrick
Kennedy. That I dealt with in a letter dated 17 September, and as I've
not heard back from Carter-Ruck on that point, I may reasonably assume
by now, six week later, that the Kennedys are reasonably content with
my response.

The meeting at Kirwans added additional pressures
given the very forceful advice that even if one sentence was found to
be libelous, each of us could face financial ruin. Normally I don't
lack courage in the face of adversity, but the serious prospect of
losing my half of our home and some savings accumulated for old age
clearly concentrated the mind as that is not a threat I've ever faced
on some of my other campaigns.

A further letter from Carter-Ruck
arrived in my inbox by e-mail at 5.45m on Friday although it's now
Tuesday and I've not seen the hard copy version.

It appears
that, inter alia, the McCanns believe that not only should our website
be permanently suspended and all copies of '60 Reasons' and '10
Reasons' in our possession destroyed, but they take exception to the
continued existence of The Madeleine Foundation and our holding
meetings.

A passage of their 4-page letter, on page 3, reads as follows:
"As
further proof that your campaign against our clients is ongoing, we are
aware that you issued a statement on behalf of yourself and Ms Butler
at 23.35 on 2 October 2009 (that is, only a few hours after you
purported to 'accede' to our clients' demands):

'Well, the
Madeleine Foundation website is no more, but The Madeleine Foundation
itself is unaffected by the McCanns' demands made via their libel
Solicitors Carter-Ruck. Our programe of meetings continues, starting
with tomorrow's meeting in Cardiff and our meeting in Manchester on 14
November'.

We understand that you did indeed proceed to hold a
meeting of the so-called 'Madeleine Foundation' in Cardiff on 3 October
2009".
Carter-Ruck require a response to their letter by Friday,
even though the hard copy version of their letter has not yet arrived.
It'll take up a bit more time replying to that.

Two points about our future plans.

The
Madeleine Foundation will be meeting in Manchester on 14 November. Some
lovely, caring, sharp and bright people will be there, as they were at
our Harlow meeting in August, and I look forward to meeting them again
and to some new faces who will be joining us from places such as North
Wales, Liverpool and Yorkshire. I'm looking forward to a good, friendly
and positive meeting, just as the Harlow one was.

Second, we
shall be calling a meeting of our subscribing members shortly and at
that more formal meeting we will take decisions about precisely where
we go from here.

I should also make it crystal clear for the record here that the website now running on www.madeleinefoundation.org
is no longer in any way shape or form owned or controlled by The
Madeleine Foundation, but has been taken over by Stevo, as must be
clear from anyone who's been over to that site recently. Thus we have
no website at present.

I can't speak for Debbie, as I don't
know, but I have already provided Carter-Ruck, i.e. the McCanns, with a
signed written undertaking that:

“Not to publish in any medium
whatsoever the allegation that the McCanns know that their duaghter
Madeleine is dead, and either caused or allowed her death, and that the
McCanns have knowingly covered up this fact”.

This was the wording required in Carter-Ruck's letter of 27 August.

That
clearly restricts very much what I am able to publish, for example on
this forum, about the mystery of how Madeleine McCann disappeared, and
partly for that reason, I have decided to withdraw from this forum
until further notice. Much of the notes and analysis I have accumulated
on the case simply cannot be drawn on and discussed here in the light
of my undertaking above.

I have said what I have said about why
Madeleine disappeared and that has brought me almost to the door of the
High Court - indeed it might very well do so despute the undertaking,
for one reason or another. I cannot go on sayng the same things.

Perhaps
paradoxically, despite the banning of '60 Reasons', it is now appearing
elsewhere. For example, on 13 October, Wikileaks published not ony the
whole of '60 Reasons' but also the whole of '10 Reasons' as well. So
the content is being brought to a still wider audience. I should add
for the benefit of any Carter-Ruck staff reading this that I had
nothing whatsoever to do with this, neither did anyone else I know, in
fact I never knew before what the Wikileaks site was all about.

Another
reason for departing is that inevitably various questions arise and
one's motives are questioned and it becomes tiresome to answer them all.

Just
to give one example, Debbie raised an issue about 4 cheques yesterday
and then 'Laffin' asked what they were for. O.K., just this once for
the record, all cheques issued by The Madeleine Foundation must be
signed by both Debbie and I. As we are about 60 miles apart, Debbie has
sometimes signed two or three blank cheques in advance as is common in
such situations. The basis of that is mutual trust and no cheque has
gone out unless we both know precisely what it is for. At Liverpool we
had our chequebook and on this occasion Debbie signed four in advance.
Just for the record, none of those have yet been used and signed yet,
as under normal circumstances I would speak to her before issuing a
cheque for any reason. I hope that's cleared that one up.

I'd
like to thank Ambersuz here for inviting me to join the forum which on
he whole I've much enjoyed, except for that awful period in the month
after 3As shut down when most of the most insidious trolls encamped
here en masse until booted out by Ambersuz.

Finally, Debbie, as
you started this thread, thank you for all you have done so far within
The Madeleine Foundation and elsewhere to help find out the truth about
Madeleine; if you feel I've let you and the cause down by giving in to
Cater-Ruck's demands - and perhaps I have - then I'm sorry.

All the best too to all the very good friends on this forum

Catkins wrote:

vee8 wrote:If bennett thinks it's over, I suggest he think again. The fat lady hasn't sung yet, in fact she hasn't even set foot on the stage, but she IS in the dressing room, and she is warming up her voice.

Tinkerbell43 wrote:I note he keeps making a point of the fact he hasn't received his hard copies. Does he not know that there is a postal strike!

Good job C-R did and emailed him as a precaution! I trust he provided them with a read receipt.

1. Who is supplying the booklets?
   
2. Who is receiving the money for them?
   

I assume that I was one such "insidious troll" when I was on MM and asked him much the same questions and pointed out much the same as Carter-Ruck have done, because he had no answer to me and because the Ambersewer knew he had no answers she banned me!

dianeh wrote:

Tinkerbell43 wrote:I note he keeps making a point of the fact he hasn't received his hard copies. Does he not know that there is a postal strike!

Good job C-R did and emailed him as a precaution! I trust he provided them with a read receipt.

Even I know that there is Postal Strike over there. But couldnt they have used a courier instead.

Is an email considered legal, or does it have to be in hardcopy? Or is it simply enough that the hardcopy is supplied at a later date? I know that other legal documents can be sent via email. Such as invoices. I have also received scanned letters in place of paper ones, and I presume these to have been official and legal. Of course, I have never been sued, which is why I am asking the questions.

Bennett, do the right thing.

Here is a list of what you could try, that might actually help you and let you keep your house and retirement savings.

1. Take action against Stevo to remove your intellectual property from his site.
2. Wind up the Madeleine Foundation, and ask the host of the site to remove it as it will then be a fraudulent site, if the MF no longer exists.
3. Take action against any other website publishing or selling the 10/60 reasons booklets, again under the rights of intellectual property infringement.
4. Refrain from posting in public about Madeleine again (as you have stated you would do in your posts)
5. Actively encourage those that are still making libellous posts from doing so. This will show good faith, and would go along way to stopping any legal proceedings, and would also help to show remorse for what you have done.
6. Publicly withdraw your support for Amaral and his libellous theories.

There are probably other things you could do, but try doing all this, and make sure CR knows. And then stand by your actions, instead of trying to find some backhanded way of getting around CR's demands.

calcite51 wrote:Yes, Diane your post is very good - I don't know but I'm hoping he just does as he normally does - ignore any good advice and continue with his nonsense - then we can watch the fireworks and eat popcorn....