bennett's latest whinings!

Tony Bennett Oct 25 2009
Apologies to 'arachnidae' if you are a subscribed MF member and to any other subscribed members who haven't heard from us lately. And, equally, apologies if any e-mail has gne unanswered. I try to answer them all; I was away for a holiday from 19 to 30 September, then took my mother to see her relatives in what effectively is her 'home' country of Austria from 7 to 16 October. If your e-mail arrived during one of those periods, it could be among a handful not yet answered. If you are reading this and waiting for an answer, just e-mail again, and I'll try and reply promptly.

The repercussions of the Carter-Ruck letters about the McCanns (27 August) and Brian Kennedy (28 August) are still very much having an impact on us.

The concessions made in correspondence to Carter-Ruck re Brian and Patrick Kennedy appear to be enough to prevent any Court action, as I've not heard any response from them since our reply on 17 September, over 5 weeks ago.

But the McCanns have threatened Court action in a further letter I received from carter-Ruck on Friday night.

We made four concessions: to close our website (or 'permanently to suspend it'), to cease publishing and distributing '60 Reasons'. to cease publishing and distributing '10 Reasons', and not to repeat the main allegation against the McCanns that they know what happened to Madeleine and are covering it up.

Their main 'beef' is that they maintain we have the ability to close our former website, when in fact we do not, as Stevo has assumed total ownership and control and we can no longer direct what goes on that site for the simple reason that it is no longer ours.

There is also a demand for costs in the light of what they say is our refusal to comply with our undertakings. Answering that letter point by point will take further time and effort and we can't afford any more lawyers to advise us. All of that will take time away from answering e-mails etc.

Our website was hitherto the main method of informing members, supporters and the wider world of our activities. That route is now closed to us. We will be sending out a newsletter to members and supporters very soon.

I would like to emphasise that I am in effect bound by my undertaking not to libel the McCanns and thus my personal opportunity to comment and write is restricted.

The Madeleine Foundation's Constitution states that our aims include the following:

a) to pursue - in conjunction with others - the truth about Madeleine McCann’s disappearance on 3 May 2007
b) to investigate the facts behind the extent of British government involvement in this case and the reasons for it
c) to ensure that the media, in particular the British media, report this case accurately and give due weight to all viewpoints on Madeleine’s disappearance.

My understanding is that none of those activities is banned by the undertakings we have given to Carter-Ruck, although clearly the way we go about this may have to change in the light of our undertaking not to libel the McCanns.

For example, the aim "to pursue - in conjunction with others - the truth about Madeleine McCann’s disappearance on 3 May 2007" is one that can presumably be shared by those with any viewpoint on what really happened to Madeleine McCann, a mystery that remains to be solved. The whole world wants 'closure' over what happened to Madeleine and from what we were advised by lawyers we can continue to ask questions without, as it were, 'pointing the finger' at the McCanns. These are matters we will talk about at our next meeting.

There is no restriction on meetings of The Madeleine Foundation, and our next one is, as planned, in the Manchester area on Saturday 14 November, further details from me.

We also plan an Annual General Meeting, probably in January, for members.

Finally, let us all spare a thought at this time for Goncalo Amaral who...
* investigated the murder of Joana Cipriano
* charged her mother and uncle and successfully prosecuted the case, putting them behind bars for 20 years
* led the Madeleine McCann investigation until removed from the investigation on 3 October 2007, his birthday, and only after Gordon Brown had been personally informed that he was to be removed
* resigned in order to be able to write 'The Truth About A Lie'
* was smeared hundreds of times in the British press as 'lazy', 'boozy', 'incompetent' and, of course, 'disgraced'
* wrote 'The Truth About A Lie' and produced a documentary about it, and as a consequence...
* had his dog killed
* was subject to trumped-up charges by the Portuguese establishment accusing him of covering up the the alleged torture of Joana Cipriano's mother
* had his trial unaccountably delayed for over 5 months, with 5 separate adjournments
* was convicted on the say-so of 3 judges and 4 jurors on, to put it at its highest, the slenderest of evidence
* has had his appeal against that unjust conviction denied for months because for some reason this particular jury has not yet been paid
* was the subject of an 'ex parte' court application before a judge with questionable connections who purported to ban his book from being sold in Portugal and abroad, purported to remove hos copyright i.e. his intrellectual property in 'The Truth About A Lie', demanded the return of all unsold copies of 'The Truth About A Lie', and warned him that he could face a fine of 1,000 Euros a day if he did not comply in full
* has now seen his company car and one-third of his company's income being seized by the court, again it appears on an ex parte application.

If anyone would like to send him personal good wishes I have his e-mail, which for obvious reasons I won't post here.

I'm not ill, but have been busy on other work. Last week, on the Balkwell case, I met with senior Crown Prosecution Service lawyer Nick Staite in Chelmsford on Monday, the Chief Executive of the Independent Police Complaints Commission, Jane Furniss, and her assistant in London on Thursday, and Heather Bryant, boss of the Health and Safety Executive and her senior colleage Simon Longbottom in Ashford, Kent, on Friday. We make progress in uncovering what may well be a truly scandalous cover-up of what really happened to Les Balkwell's son Lee on 17 July 2002, but it takes time, effort and patience - and the undying commitment of a grieving father who will not rest until he knows what happened. One vital piece of evidence was unearthed only this week; it may take us nearer our goal.

Tony Bennett
ajsbennett@btinternet.com

Jeez........he won't be happy until he is in the dock

Finally, let us all spare a thought at this time for Goncalo Amaral who...

Lied, libeled and failed abjectly a family in the greatest of distress.

If anyone would like to send him personal good wishes I have his e-mail, which for obvious reasons I won't post here.

yeah, let me have it tony, I would like to send the fat t*sser a message.

QUIT YOUR BELLYACHING, YOU MADE YOUR BED, NOW LIE IN IT, FAT BAST*RD.

But the McCanns have threatened Court action in a further letter I received from carter-Ruck on Friday night.

Just what did he expect. This is not high school, and pathetic excuses that 'I dont own the website anymore' are a joke, and not a legal defense. Has Bennett been taking his own advice, or has he emailed Viv for a bit more pretendy lawyer advice?

I wonder what and how deep (thorough?) he's discussed his 'strategy' with Kirwan?

Even I with little or no knowledge of English libel laws could have told him his sorry excuses wouldn't work.

Imo that man is stubborn, arrogant and stupid.

Of course he can do something. The website is his/Butler's intellectual property. He can demand Stevo remove the content and threaten legal action if he refuses. However, since it IS Bennett/Butler's intellectual property then Stevo is in breach of copyright if he is using it without their permission and there is a free route to deal with that which is perfectly simple and applicable in the US.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_Act

All Bennett & Butler have to do is complete a DCMA form and Stevo's server will bow to it by law (I have witnessed this happen quite gloriously in the past).

Here is more info:-

http://www.google.com/dmca.html

It really works, but the person(s) completing the forum would be in trouble if it transpired that the form had been used maliciously.

Jayelles

Well spotted. So it would appear that this little ploy of theirs (website is outside our control ploy) is a non starter as well.

I've seen the DCMA procedure in operation. A well established website was taken down by the host for several weeks until the complaint was dealt with! The owner of the site then ranted about it for years later!