A message to Missing Madeleine forum from Tony

[marxman]

To members of the Missing Madeleine forum,

A quick note to those of you who've been kind enough to show messages of public support for me on your site.

I usually check in to MM at least once a day and still find it useful for info; every bit of info is like another piece of the jigsaw puzzle, which I say with feeling as I've been relaxing by doing my first-ever 1,000-piece jigsaw the past 4 weeks. A difficult one. Ironically it was a picture of 5 dogs!

At this moment in time I truly wish that someone else was first in the line of fire; at the moment I am wounded by Carter-Ruck's firepower plus two basristers, but still alive and fighting.

I hope that I can at least give a good account of our viewpoint at the trial; good wishes to you all (someone please cross-post to MM for me).

Tony

[cass]

for anyone that has read this im sure you will agree that there is a man here that has had his world turned upside down -- i dont think there is anyone here that wouldnt be feared by the long list of hot shot lawyers the mcanns have -- they are sending out a strong message they want to crush tony -- i have a lot of respect for anyone thinking of taking on the mcanns -- god works in many ways and hope and pray to god that tony is going to be ok

[HiDeHo]

Thank you Tony! I'm thinking of you and wishing you all the best.

McCANNS v BENNETT - UPDATE: Committal to PRISON Hearing Feb 5th & 6th 2013!

[Guest]

I don't think this link has been posted already.

http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t6411-carter-ruck-explain-why-they-ve-appointed-adrienne-page-qc-to-beef-up-their-legal-firepower

[cass]

ive already posted over there -- id send it back saying thanks but no thanks ---


who the hell do they think they are -- mind games being played here

[Guest]

You really couldn't make this up, could you?

No wonder the McCanns chose Barter-Muck as their solicitors - they both have a history of doing things which couldn't be made up.

[Guest]

Bu**er me.

I'm speechless - a rare condition indeed.

[dazedandconfused]

Good luck Mr Bennett. I admire your courage and wish you well.

[malena stool]

It's almost as if they are denying everyone and his dog other than their clients and their buddies the right to freedom of speech, because to do so would transcend the concepts of freedom of speech. A freedom which should be held dearly by our elected leaders. A freedom which has held true for centuries, through a myriad of conflicts, two world wars and countless corrupt devious parliaments.

A poxy bunch of overpaid plummy voiced misrepresentations of human beings should not be allowed to violate the freedoms of this nation. A real Parliament led by real Parliamentarians with principles would bring this shameful abuse of our legal system to an end.

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

This Right can be found in early human rights documents.[3] England’s Bill of Rights 1689 granted 'freedom of speech in Parliament' and the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, adopted during the French Revolution in 1789, specifically affirmed freedom of speech as an inalienable right.[4] The Declaration provides for freedom of expression in Article 11, which states that:
"The free communication of ideas and opinions is one of the most precious of the rights of man. Every citizen may, accordingly, speak, write, and print with freedom, but shall be responsible for such abuses of this freedom as shall be defined by law."[5]
Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted in 1948, states that:
"Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."[6]

Today freedom of speech, or the freedom of expression, is recognized in international and regional human rights law. The right is enshrined in Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, Article 13 of the American Convention on Human Rights and Article 9 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights.[7] Based on John Milton's arguments, freedom of speech is understood as a multi-faceted right that includes not only the right to express, or disseminate, information and ideas, but three further distinct aspects:

the right to seek information and ideas;
the right to receive information and ideas;
the right to impart information and ideas.[7]

International, regional and national standards also recognize that freedom of speech, as the freedom of expression, includes any medium, be it orally, in written, in print, through the Internet or through art forms. This means that the protection of freedom of speech as a right includes not only the content, but also the means of expression.[7]

[almostgothic]

Q: What can a goose do, a duck can't, and a libel lawyer should?



A: Stick his bill up his arse.

[chrissie]

[Guest]

http://www.stromer.com/jokes/185jokes.html

A whole collection of lawyer jokes which I dedicate to Barter-Muck.

[chrissie]

http://www.stromer.com/jokes/185jokes.html

A whole collection of lawyer jokes which I dedicate to Barter-Muck.

[comperedna]

Any information in Tony's booklet '60 Reasons...' (I got a copy when it first came out) is available elsewhere, much of it from the online translations of the PJ records, but also he has assembled facts and details which are not disputed... I wouldn't have thought it was libellous, but what do I know of the ins and outs of Carter-Ruckville. He does not make accusations about the McCanns and what they did or didn't do... other than that they left their three small children unsupervised in a holiday flat and one of them came to harm... even 'abduction' is surely that! Why the booklet is so devastating is that he has collected the lot: all the oddities, and inconsistences, all the stuff that doesn't add up, and the bonkers statements regularly revised by the parents... all brilliantly collated and clearly presented together! He has let masses of carefully sequenced details speak for themselves... and invites his readers to ponder on them... to think the case through for themselves... No wonder KM nd GM want it banned! If I understand it correctly, they don't want him 'done' for libel, but for breaking an undertaking not to further distribute copies... a kind of technical knock out. The law is indeed an ass.

[fred]

Any information in Tony's booklet '60 Reasons...' (I got a copy when it first came out) is available elsewhere, much of it from the online translations of the PJ records, but also he has assembled facts and details which are not disputed... I wouldn't have thought it was libellous, but what do I know of the ins and outs of Carter-Ruckville. He does not make accusations about the McCanns and what they did or didn't do... other than that they left their three small children unsupervised in a holiday flat and one of them came to harm... even 'abduction' is surely that! Why the booklet is so devastating is that he has collected the lot: all the oddities, and inconsistences, all the stuff that doesn't add up, and the bonkers statements regularly revised by the parents... all brilliantly collated and clearly presented together! He has let masses of carefully sequenced details speak for themselves... and invites his readers to ponder on them... to think the case through for themselves... No wonder KM nd GM want it banned! If I understand it correctly, they don't want him 'done' for libel, but for breaking an undertaking not to further distribute copies... a kind of technical knock out. The law is indeed an ass.

Exactly!! That is why I'm not hopeful of a successful outcome.

[Guest]

But there was clear Entrapment - a fact which, taken along with the wholly disproportionate firepower and prolix documentation served on Tony, will not exactly endear the Judge to the Plaintiffs.


I still think that it would be hard to avoid a technical "win" by the Plaintiffs, but that an appropriate outcome would be for an Absolute Discharge to be awarded and purely notional (possibly derisory) costs.

The Plaintiffs would be hard pushed to explain publicly how they came to allow the matter to be treated in such an OTT way (Look what happened to the RSPCA recently in a Case relating to Wildlife Murderers).

[tanszi]

well a bit of reverse psychology going on here from me to Tony. You must be elated that the McCs see you as such a formidable opponent that his additional QC is needed. dont be off put see it as an accreditation to what you are capable of, one thing is for sure, they arent certain that their existing council are up to the job! jimo.

[jeanmonroe]

Thank you Tony! I'm thinking of you and wishing you all the best.

McCANNS v BENNETT - UPDATE: Committal to PRISON Hearing Feb 5th & 6th 2013!

Why have Carter Ruck used the word ALLEGEDLY as in " allegedly defamatory statements about the McCanns"
and "allegedly defamatory postings"?

Either the "postings or statements" are defamatory or not.

No ambiguity here.

Do CR have a small doubt that the statements MAY contain some "truth" in them?
There can be no "allegedly" it's either 100% defamatory or 100% not!
You can't have a 51% or 99% defamation statement.
100% or NOTHING!
You can't be " a little bit defamed "

So why are CR using "allegedly" in their 'demands' to TB?

[fred]

Will the outcome of the court hearing be announced on the same day?

[Panda]

Had Carter Ruck said that Tony could hire a QC at their expense to represent him I would have applauded them. They are using a sledgehammer to crack a nut, I think it can be proved that Tony breached an undertaking, NOT wrote anything Libellous. Whether this calls for a jail sentence would be up to the Judge who I hope would see reason .

With hindsight Tony should not have closed his Blog down and agreed not to campaign for the truth. The McCanns would have been forced to take him to Court where he would have been able to defend himself.

[matthew]

Had Carter Ruck said that Tony could hire a QC at their expense to represent him I would have applauded them. They are using a sledgehammer to crack a nut, I think it can be proved that Tony breached an undertaking, NOT wrote anything Libellous. Whether this calls for a jail sentence would be up to the Judge who I hope would see reason .

With hindsight Tony should not have closed his Blog down and agreed not to campaign for the truth. The McCanns would have been forced to take him to Court where he would have been able to defend himself.

Hi Panda...just wanted to say that TB had little choice with signing these undertakings...just think how much it would cost to take this previous matter to court,he has been bullied but not into submission as they would have expected
If he has to pay costs...we could all help pay costs...All for one etc

[Panda]

Had Carter Ruck said that Tony could hire a QC at their expense to represent him I would have applauded them. They are using a sledgehammer to crack a nut, I think it can be proved that Tony breached an undertaking, NOT wrote anything Libellous. Whether this calls for a jail sentence would be up to the Judge who I hope would see reason .

With hindsight Tony should not have closed his Blog down and agreed not to campaign for the truth. The McCanns would have been forced to take him to Court where he would have been able to defend himself.

Hi Panda...just wanted to say that TB had little choice with signing these undertakings...just think how much it would cost to take this previous matter to court,he has been bullied but not into submission as they would have expected
If he has to pay costs...we could all help pay costs...All for one etc

Hi matthew. I.m sorry, but I disagree. Had he argued freedom of speech and the PJ report included the theory that Madeleine died in 5a, the McCanns would have had to take him to Court and he could have appealed to the Court of Human Rights. This way, the accumulated fees are astronomical, before the Trial starts. Like many others, I donated to buy his Booklet and enough to pay for two to be sent to MPs. and that was enough to make the McCanns furious but basically they could do nothing about it if Tony's Booklet was the truth. Some things he did I did not agree with and as a Lawyer he should have seen the danger especially selling a booklet when he had agreed the undertaking.

[ELI]

But there was clear Entrapment - a fact which, taken along with the wholly disproportionate firepower and prolix documentation served on Tony, will not exactly endear the Judge to the Plaintiffs.


I still think that it would be hard to avoid a technical "win" by the Plaintiffs, but that an appropriate outcome would be for an Absolute Discharge to be awarded and purely notional (possibly derisory) costs.

The Plaintiffs would be hard pushed to explain publicly how they came to allow the matter to be treated in such an OTT way (Look what happened to the RSPCA recently in a Case relating to Wildlife Murderers).

Not so much entrapment I don't think as a ' dishonest agreement ' by a person or persons to defraud TB by deceiving him into acting contrary to his or
her duty/ responsibility, which is actually an offence in itself. Should Tony be able to prove this and win over this one point then the rest of their case against him would be in question.

[Angelique]

jeanmonroe

I think the "allegedly" is because even though Tony signed the undertaking, under duress, there has been no Libel trial.

N.B.

One thing which has been mooted is that the Judge may put a "stay" on the outcome of this action because of the fact that there has been no Libel trial.

[Guest]

Thanks Angelique - that makes sense as at present the Case seems to be based upon hypothesis, not testable fact.

[Sponsored content]