SO BENNETT TOLD CARTER RUCK AN OUTRIGHT LIE

BENNETT IF YOU REMEMBER TOLD CARTER RUCK THAT HE COULD NOT DELETE POSTS AS HE WAS NOT ADMIN OVER ON HAVERN'S SITE.......

....HOWEVER HE HAS JUST PROVED THAT IT WAS A LOAD OF BOLLOCKS AS HE CLEARLY STATES ADMIN......

...OH AND THE ONLY PERSON ON AT THE TIME OTHER THAN HAPPYLARRY WAS BENNETT

SO THEN ANTI MADELEINE McCANNS (or the haters as they like to be called)

EXPLAIN WHY THE McCANNS WOULD ONCE AGAIN THROW THEMSELVES INTO THE LIMELIGHT, THROW THEMSELVES AT THE MERCY OF THE MEDIA AGAIN AND RISK SOMEONE SAYING

"YES WE HACKED INTO YOUR PHONE AND WE KNOW WHAT REALLY HAPPENED"

YOU SEE, WHAT YOU, THE ANTI'S ARE SAYING AND CLAIMING HAS NEVER MADE SENSE. WHY WOULD THE MCCANNS KEEP THE NAME MADELEINE McCANN IN THE LIMELIGHT, IF THEY HAD KILLED HER, AND GOT RID OF HER BODY SO WELL THAT IT WILL NEVER BE DISCOVERED.

WOULD IT NOT BE EASIER FOR THEM JUST TO SLIP AWAY FROM THE MEDIA GLARE, FROM THE LIMELIGHT AND JUST VANISH AWAY, KNOWING THAT THEY HAD COMMITTED THE PERFECT CRIME?

WOULD THEY NOT RISK JOGGING SOMEONE'S MEMORY THAT SAW THE MCCANN'S DUMPING MADELEINE'S BODY AND THEN THAT PERSON REPORTING IT TO THE POLICE?

DO NOT PEDDLE THE SAME BULLSHIT ABOUT THE FUND AND HOW THEY ARE LIVING OFF IT, THEY ARE NOT. TWO PAYMENTS IS ALL THEY HAVE HAD TO COVER THE MORTGAGE AT THE TIME.

THREE PEOPLE HAVE TRIED TO MAKE MONEY OFF MADELEINE MCCANN GOING MISSING...THEY ARE PAT BROWN, AMARAL AND TONY BENNETT. EACH OF THEM HAVE LINED THEIR OWN POCKETS OUT OF THIS, SO WHO IS MORE IMMORAL THERE?

SO THINK FOR YOURSELVES, WHY WOULD THE MCCANNS RISK EVERYTHING JUST TO APPEAR ON THE TV, APPEALING FOR INFORMATION? IS IT BECAUSE THEY WANT TO FIND THEIR DAUGHTER? YOU CAN GUARANTEE THAT IT IS NOT BECAUSE THEY ARE GUILTY AND WANT HIDE SOMETHING, PEOPLE WHO COMMITTED CRIMES LIKE THAT DO NOT DO THAT DO THEY.

IT IS ABOUT TIME EACH ANTI LOOKED THEMSELVES IN THE MIRROR AND SAY TO THEMSELVES..

"IF I KILLED SOMEONE AND HID THEIR BODY, WOULD I KEEP APPEARING ON TV AND IN THE MEDIA, OR JUST FADE AWAY INTO THE BACKGROUND?"

SO BENNETT STALKS A MAN WHO WAS ON HOLIDAY THE SAME TIME AS THE McCANNS AND THE PROOF ANTHONY JS BENNETT IS A KNOWN PERVERT

DOES THAT MEAN BENNETT YOU WILL STALK EVERYONE THAT SENT PHOTOS INTO THE POLICE ENQUIRY? ASK YOURSELF THIS, ARE YOU HAPPY BEING LABELLED A PERVERTED STALKER? DOES IT MAKE YOU FEEL HAPPY THAT YOU ARE CONTINUOUSLY RIDICULED?


 THE PRESS ARE JUST AWAITING YOUR BIG FALL. THEY ARE AWARE OF YOUR COURT DATES, THEY ARE AWARE OF WHAT IS HAPPENING.


THE POLICE ARE AWARE OF WHAT IS HAPPENING, THEY ARE AWARE OF YOUR HARASSMENT OF TOO MANY PEOPLE, BUT THEY WILL NOT PURSUE MATTERS WHILST ANOTHER COURT CASE IS PROCEEDING.


YOU ARE ABOUT TO LOSE EVERYTHING . EDWARD SMETHURST IS SUING YOU FOR £100,000...THE MCCANNS ARE GOING TO SUE YOU FOR THE SAME AMOUNT.. THEN THERE IS THE SMALL MATTER OF A CERTAIN BRIAN KENNEDY WHO HAS INSTRUCTED SOLICITORS TO PROCEED WITH A LIBEL ACTION. 
OH AND MR COWLEY HAS MADE A STATEMENT TO THE POLICE OVER YOUR HARASSMENT OF HIMSELF , AS HAS MR SMETHURST.


BENNETT YOU ARE IN DEEP SHIT NOW AND IT IS PLAIN TO SEE NOW THAT YOUR OLD MENTAL ILLNESS IS RETURNING TO YOU AGAIN.


YES THE SAME MENTAL ILLNESS THAT FORCED YOU TO GO INTO A MENTAL WARD OF A HOSPITAL. THE SAME MENTAL ILLNESS THAT FORCED YOUR FAMILY TO DISOWN YOU AND HAVE NOT CONTACTED YOU SINCE THEN.


YOU ARE A LIAR, A FANTASIST , A SICK AND PERVERTED OLD MAN, WHO IS JUST PLAIN JEALOUS OF ANYONE WHO HAS MADE THEMSELVES SUCCESSFUL. THAT IS WHAT THIS COMES DOWN TO, YOU WERE SHUNNED FROM HELPING THE McCANNS, THEY WERE WARNED OFF YOU, AFTER INITIALLY THINKING IT WAS A GOOD IDEA. IT WAS YOU WHO APPROACHED THEM WITHIN 3 DAYS SUGGESTING THEY CAMPAIGN FOR BETTER COOPERATION BETWEEN COUNTRIES.


DO YOU NOT SEE THAT YOUR SICK IDEAS ARE JUST , WELL SICK? YOU SUGGESTED THAT MADELEINE SAT UPON A MALES LAP (WHO WAS NAKED AS YOU SAY) AND THAT MALE THEN TOOK A PHOTO OF HER. YOU SUGGESTED THAT THE MAKE UP MADELEINE HAD ON MADE HER LOOK LIKE " SHE WAS ASKING FOR IT" THE ONLY PEOPLE WHO THINK OF THESE SICK FANTASISES ARE THOSE WHO HAVE THESE SICK FANTASIES AND THAT IS YOU BENNETT.
IT JUST PROVES THAT YOU HAVE ONE VERY SICK PERVERTED MIND, AND REMEMBER YOU ADMITTED TO HAVING ONE...NOW WHY WOULD YOU HAVE SAID THAT? BECAUSE YOU ARE ONE.


I CHALLENGE YOU BENNETT TO HAVE A PROPER DEBATE ON MY FORUM 


http://davidbretisagod.forumotion.co.uk/


WE ALL KNOW THAT YOU CANNOT BECAUSE YOU ARE JUST A COWARD, A COWARD THAT HIDES BEHIND PEOPLE AND GETS THEM TO DO YOUR DIRTY WORK FOR YOU.
REMEMBER HOW YOU COWERED BEHIND THE BUSHES WHEN THE LEAFLETS WERE DELIVERED AROUND ROTHLEY? REMEMBER HOW YOU GOT OTHER PEOPLE TO PUT POSTERS UP, WHILST YOU HID. ONLY TWICE  DID YOU APPEAR AND THAT WAS ONCE AT OXFORD, BECAUSE YOU WERE KNOWN, AND THE SECOND FOR THE BBC CAMERAS BECAUSE YOU THOUGHT THAT THE BBC WERE DOING A PROGRAMME ON YOU AND HOW GREAT YOU WERE DOING, WELL THAT WAS TOTALLY COCKED UP WASN'T IT.


SO ONCE AGAIN WE HAVE BENNETT PRETENDING TO KNOW THINGS, YET HE KNOWS NOTHING WHATSOEVER. HIS WHOLE LIFE IS FULL OF LIES.


HIS LIES ABOUT BEING A SOLICITOR WHEN IN FACT HE DIDN'T EVEN TAKE ONE EXAM TO QUALIFY....


HIS LIES ABOUT HIS FATHER BEING THE ONE WHO WALKED ACROSS NO MANS LAND TO GET THE SURRENDER DOCUMENTS OF THE GERMANS, WHEN IN FACT THEY HAD BEEN IN TALKS FOR ABOUT TWO WEEKS BEFORE AND WAS AGREED THAT THEY WOULD COME AND LAY DOWN THEIR ARMS ON THAT DATE.


HIS LIES ABOUT HIS WIFE EVEN, SHE DOESN'T APPROVE OF WHAT HE IS DOING. HE EVEN GOT A MEMBER OF HIS CULT TO PRETEND SHE WAS HIS WIFE WHEN SIMON HARE TURNED UP.


HIS LIES ABOUT THE CREDIT UNION.YES HE SET IT UP, BUT HE HAS LIED ABOUT WHY HE LEFT IT.ASK HIM ABOUT THE ACCOUNTS.


BENNETT'S LIFE IS JUST ONE BIG LIE AND I CHALLENGE HIM TO GET DEBATING ON MY FORUM WITH ME http://davidbretisagod.forumotion.co.uk/  LETS SEE WHAT GUTS YOU HAVE BENNETT, LETS SEE IF YOU REALLY ARE A MAN, OR JUST A WIMPISH COWARD WHO HIDES BEHIND OTHER PEOPLE.

CHUCKY MISSPELL IS GETTING UPSET.

CARLY DUNHAM'S BEST SIDE

APPARENTLY SHE HATES BEING A HATER, BUT DOESN'T MIND BEING CALLED EVIL. STRANGE WIERDO ....

ANYWAY CHUCKY...YOU ARE JUST A HATER.

A MADELEINE HATER WHO DOESN'T WANT THE POOR CHILD TO BE FOUND ALIVE.

DEAR MR ANTHONY BENNETT... EXERCISING MY RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH

YOU KNOW, THE FREE SPEECH YOU KEEP GOING ON ABOUT. WELL LET ME PT ON HERE THE THINGS I HAVE BEEN TOLD ABOUT YOU AND SAID BEFORE . AND AS YOU HAVE NEVER SAID THEY WERE INCORRECT, THEY MUST BE TRUE.




1.............  YOU WERE DETAINED UNDER SECTION 10 MENTAL HEALTH ACT .


2.............. YOU MOVED TO LEVERTON BECAUSE YOU WERE FORCED TO MOVE AWAY DUE TO AN INJUNCTION AGAINST YOU CONTACTING YOUR FAMILY


3............ WHILST IN LEVERTON, YOU WERE CAUGHT COTTAGING IN THE LOCAL TOILETS.


4..........  YOUR OWN DAUGHTER AND SON DO NOT EVEN TALK TO YOU OR EVEN EXCHANGE BIRTHDAY OR CHRISTMAS CARDS, DUE TO YOUR BEHAVIOUR.


5............ YOU LEFT THE CREDIT UNION IN HARLOW, JUST AS A AUDIT UNCOVERED FINANCIAL IRREGULARITIES 


6......... YOU HAVE LIED ABOUT YOUR FATHER BEING A WAR HERO, WHEN IN FACT HE WAS NOWHERE NEAR THE FRONT LINE IN ITALY AND CERTAINLY NEVER CROSSED INTO NO MANS LAND....AND WE ARE STILL AWAITING YOU TO POST THE EVIDENCE UP THAT YOU HAVE THE ORIGINAL COPY OF THE SURRENDER THAT WAS SIGNED.




7............ YOU HAD A HOMOSEXUAL RELATIONSHIP AT BOARDING SCHOOL, OR WAS YOU BUGGERED...I CAN'T REMEMBER


8.......... YOUR WIFE HATES YOU.


9..............YOU ARE A PATHETIC LITTLE WEASEL WHO GETS SOME SORT OF SICK AND PERVERTED PLEASURE FROM PEOPLES MISERY...IN FACT YOU PROBABLY GET AN ERECTION FROM READING PEOPLES MISERY.

SO WHICH PART OF "THE McCANNS ARE GOING TO TAKE YOU TO COURT FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT DOESN'T BENNETT UNDERSTAND

IT IS IN THE LETTER THAT BENNETT GOT FROM CARTER RUCK


12 August 2011

By post and email: ajebennett@btinternet,com

Private and Confidential

Mr Tony Bennett
66 Chippingfield
Harlow
Essex
CM17 ODJ

MOST URGENT

Dear Sir

Kate and Gerry McCann

As you are aware, we represent Kate and Gerry McCann.

We write to inform you that, given your flagrant and numerous breaches of the undertakings which you gave to the Court by way of a consent Order dated 25 November 2009 ("the order), our clients have been left with no alternative but to now instruct us to instigate contempt of court proceedings against you.

We enclose a further copy of the Order, with which you are already familiar, and which sets out the sanctions which are available to the Court if the Order is breached and a contempt of Court thereby committed.

As such, it is vital that you appreciate the gravity of the position in which you have placed yourself, and we must urge you to seek legal advice as soon as possible.

Proceeding for contempt of court

We must begin by making clear that the decision to apply to the Court to commit you for contempt has not been taken lightly by our clients, As with your conduct which formed the subject of our clients' original complaint against you in August 2009, our clients have tried to turn a blind eye to the campaign which you have relentlessly pursued against them, on the basis that their overriding priority has always been the ongoing search for their daughter.

However, our clients have once again become increasingly concerned about the very serious damage which may be caused to the search for their daughter by your persistent attempts to promulgate the assertion that Madeleine died (or that it is to be suspected that she died) in their holiday apartment and that they conspired (or are to be suspected of having conspired) to pervert the course of justice by disposing of her body and lying about her death. Despite your attempts to suggest otherwise, such assertions are completely without foundation and there is no credible evidence to support them.

This is not, of course, the first time that we have written to you to point out that you are in contempt of Court; we refer in particular to our letters to you of 5 February, 15 July and 3 August 2010. While it is the case that you confirmed you would cease to publish rnaterial which formed the subject of those complaints, you have subsequently gone on to publish a large volume of very similar material on your own website and elsewhere.
Our clients have given you every opportunity to comply with the undertakings which you gave, and we have in the past gone to some lengths to explain to you why _ contrary to your purported position - publications you have made or procured have constituted both actionable libels and placed you in contempt of Court. However, despite our efforts to explain the position to you, and despite our clients giving you a number of opportunities to desist from this behavior it is clear that you have no intention whatsoever of complying with your undertakings, and therefore our clients have resolved now to seek your committal for contempt of Court.
We rust also make clear that while our clients reject as absurd the "theories" which you advance about Madeleine's disappearance, neither our clients nor we seek (and have never sought) to prevent you from raising those "concerns" with the appropriate authorities - whether it be the law enforcement agencies, elected representatives such as your Member of Parliament, the Home Secretary or even (as you have also done) the Prime Minister. Nothing in this letter should be interpreted as an attempt to fetter your rights in this regard.
However, what our clients do object to - and where your conduct is clearly indefensible - is your publication of false and defamatory allegations about them publicly, and in particular on your own website and on the websites of others, as well as through the publication and distribution of hard copy material such as the "60 reasons" leaflet and the leaflet concerning Goncalo Amaral.
Such conduct not only seriously and unjustifiably defames our clients, it can only serve to damage the search for Madeleine.
lt is for these reasons that our .clients were forced to take action leading to the court order of 25 November 2009 and in respect of which you are in contempt.


Breach of the undertaking which you gave
Given the gravity of the position and of your approach to this matter to date, we seek below to spell out the position clearly.
We refer you to the terms of the Order which enshrined the undertakings which you gave to the High Court' These undertakings include (at paragraph c and Schedule A) the undertaking:
"not to repeat allegations that the Claimants are guilty of, or are to be suspected of, causing the. death of their daughter Madeleine McCann; and/or disposing of her body; and/or lying about what happened and/or of seeking to cover up what they had done"
The consequences of giving the undertakings contained in the Order mean that the publication by you of any such further allegations constitutes a contempt of Court, as well as being actionable in libel.
We have advised our clients that on a number of occasions you have published allegations which clearly and flagrantly breach this undertaking.
You will recall from our correspondence in 2009 that one of our clients' principal complaints against you. concerned the publication by you of defamatory material on the website www,madeleinefoudation,forumotion.org. You were at great pains to stress repeatedly that control of the ".org" website had effectively been seized by its webmaster, that the webmaster had refused your requests for the site to be *suspended and that you therefore were unable to secure the site's suspension.
Notwithstanding this, you subsequently went on to produce another "Madeleine Foundation" website, with a ".org.uk" extension -namely www.madeleinefoundation.org.uk - upon which you have published a large number of allegations about our clients suggest (and/or would have been understood by an ordinary reader to suggest) that they are suspected of causing the death of their daughter; and/or disposing of her body; and/or lying about what happened and/or seeking to cover up what they had done,
Merely by way of example, we refer to allegations published on your website which are contained in an "open letter to David Cameron" of 18 May 201 1, and which include the following:


"By contrast, a, great many people consider that there is more than adequate evidence that Madeleine McCann died in the McCann's holiday apartment and that her parents and others have covered up this fact, and to hold a hoax 'abduction' of Madeleine on the evening of 3 May 2007, Madeline having already died before that evening's events. That, as you will know, is the settled view of the former senior investigator in the case, Dr Goncalo Amaral, and most of! his investigation team, along with other senior figures in Portugal. Dr Amaral does not say how Madeleine died, as he does not-know, but in the absence of any other specific indications, he advances the view that she may have died as the result of an accident whitest her parents and friends were dining 11/2 minutes,walk away. Another view of what night have caused Madeleine's death is the possibility that she was over-sedated by the McCann's".
We do not wish to review in this letter all the evidence that suggests that Madeleine did die in the McCann's apartment, but clearly the alerts of two of the world's top sniffer dogs, trained by an internationally recognised British police dog handler, to no fewer than ten sites in the McCann's apartment, on their clothes, and in their hired car are significant, and remain so, even in the absence of the kind of corroborative forensic evidence that would lead to the dogs, alerts being admissible evidence in a court of law, There is also I very large amount of circumstantial evidence suggesting that the McCann's and their friends have not told the truth, consisting of a number of changes of story and significant contradictions between their statements that go well beyond the kind of minor inconsistencies that often occur when witness are supplying statements based on their recollections.
The 48 members of the Madeleine Foundation, our many supporters, and a huge number of others subscribe to the view that the balance of evidence points in the direction of Madeleine having died in the McCann's holiday apartment. lf that hypothesis is correct, then the McCann's motive for wanting a 'Review', which would now open up the many files that the Portuguese Police have up to now withheld would be clear not to find Madeleine, but rather to trawl the files for any other evidence there may be against them, so that they can defend themselves and deal with any such evidence.


(For the avoidance of any doubt, we must once again make clear that our clients do not challenge your entitlement to write in these terms to the Prime Minister, instead their complaint relates to the publication of the letter on your website and elsewhere).
It ls beyond doubt that readers of this letter would have understood it to allege that our clients (to adopt the wording of the Order) "are to be suspected of, causing the death of their daughter Madeleine McCann; and/or disposing of her body; and/or-lying about what happened and/or of seeking to cover up what they had done". As such, it is equally beyond doubt that you have breached the undertakings contained in the Order, thereby placing yourself in contempt of Court.
The letter to the Prime Minister is but one example of a large number of publications by you of material which constitutes a breach of our undertakings, not only on your own website but on other websites, and in hard copy. in this regard we refer to the enclosed schedule and bundles of material published by you since November 2009 (i.e..e. since you gave your undertakings) upon which our client will rely as evidence of the contempt of Court committed by you and which our clients now require you to remove in full from the internet and otherwise to refrain from further publishing. Due to the very large volume of materlal published by you generally, we must reserve our clients' rights to add to this schedule should any further offending publications be drawn to their attention,
Your response to complaints contained in our letter to Automsttic lnc of 3 June 2011
ln your letter to us of 8 June 2011 you have sought pre-emptively to "defend" your actions, by way of a letter to us which responded to a libel complaint made on our client:s' behalf to Automattic lnc, the lSP of the "McCann Exposure" website, and which appears to have then been passed to you. Our letter to Automattic included complaints about postings of yours, on the basis that these postings constituted both actionable libels and a breach of the undertakings which you gave to the Court.
As previously, the arguments you put forward range from being (at best) legally irrelevant to completely spurious and as such we have no intention of addressing them in any detail here.
However, we must make clear that your purported belief (as stated in your letter of 8 June 2011) that you have "so far as [you] are aware, avoided, in line with [your] Court undertaking, direct accusations" against our clients, is entirely misplaced.
Equally rnisplaced is your attempted reliance on statements made by our clients' spokesman Clarence Mitchell that Madeleine's disappearance rernains a "complete rnystery," or that the suggestion that Madeleine had been abducted was merely "an assumption" or a "hypothesis." For you to suggest, as you apparently do, that such statements somehow justify you publishing allegations such as those contaied in the material to which this letter refers is completely misconceived,
You heve also purported to suggest that you can evade liability under the law of libel and circumvent the terms of your undertakings to the Court by positing allegations as questions. That is singly not correct. A number of your
publications which raise such "questions" - including "163 Questions that the McCann's should answer in their forthcoming "very truthful" book'- would clearly be understood (and we have no doubt that you intended them to be understood) to mean that there are grounds to suspect our clients of having lied to the police about their daughters death.
Of course, in a large number of other instances - including the letter to David Cameron from which we quote above - you do not even put your allegations in question form but instead state as a fact that you believe that Madeleine died in the holiday apartment and that her parents conspired to cover up the death.
You should also be aware that neither the apparent rulings of the Portuguese Courts nor the fact that you claim to have issued an application in the European Court of Human Rights challenging UK libel laws (to which you refer in your letter to us of 8 June 2011) has any bearing whatsoever on our clients' claim against you.
Conclusion
Our clients' overriding purpose in bringing complaints against you has always been to prevent your dissemination of false and defamatory allegations about them which risk causing damage to the ongoing search for their daughter, in addition to unjustifiable darnage to their reputatione. For this reason, they did not (as they were clearly entitled to do) insist that you pay them libel damages after they complained to you in 2009, and were content to accept undertakings from you that you would desist from
the behaviour complained of, narnely the publication of allegations "that the claimants are guilty of, or are to be suspected of, causing the death of their daughter Madeleine McCann; and/or disposing of her body; and/or lying about what happened and/or seeking to cover up what they had done.
Despite our clients exercising such restraint, you have persisted with this course of conduct' even abler our clients had 'written to you on no fewer than three further occasions since you gave the undertakings in an attempt to secure your compliance.
As such' our clients..have concluded with considerable regret that there is no realistic prospect of you abiding by the undertakings which you gave unless you are committed for contempt of Court.

Accordingly, we hereby put you on notice that we will now be preparing an application to Court to commit you for contempt. When issuing this application we will also seek directions from the Court for you to serve evidence in-response and for a court hearing to be convened thereafter to consider the application.
As we note above, you have previously had a practice of removing or ammending specific publications following the receipt of a complaint from our clients, only then, after a short pause, to go on to publish the allegations which are the subject of the Court Order in another form or in another way. As such, while we would naturally urge you to remove the publications now complained of (as set out in the attached schedule, to the extent that these continue to be published), and to desist from publishing any similar material, we must make it clear that our clients have resolved that in any event it will be necessary to commence contempt of Court proceeding against you.
We would once again strongly urge you to obtain specialist legal advice as a matter of urgency.
Yours faithfulty
Carter-Ruck
Encs: Order of 25 November 2009
Two bundres of publications in contempt of court (by hard copy onry)


DO YOU UNDERSTAND NOW BENNETT, AND BENNETT  SUPPORTERS ???YOU ARE GOING DOWN I TAKE IT YOU NOTICED THE BOLD BITS WITHIN THE LETTERS? YOU ARE FUCKED 

BENNETT TELLS ANOTHER OUTRAGES LIE

Answers to Dr_Evil
Tony Bennett Today at 9:57 am
Dr_Evil wrote:
A couple of questions which I hope Tony can clear up please. I noticed some people on here have said that Edward Smethirst should have reported the inappropiate comments made by his alleged friends. Did anyone report these posts to either the Police or to Facebook if as everyone says there are as bad as it reads? If not then why not?

REPLY: I did not report these matters to the police when I became aware of them. Others are aware of these comments but no-one to my knowledge has reported them to the police.

Also is it possible that these were false accounts set up, set up to trap you?

REPLY: No. These are conversations and declared interests back in 2009 amongst a group of friends at a time when no-one was taking much interest in Edward Smethurst.






SO WHY IS THIS A LIE YOU ASK, WELL LETS START WITH FACEBOOK SHALL WE? THE FACEBOOK ACCOUNT YOU WERE ON ABOUT BENNETT WAS NOT CREATED UNTIL 2010, YOU SHOULD HAVE REALLY LOOKED AT THE JOINED DATE.

ALSO BENNETT, THERE IS NO CONVERSATIONS TO REPORT BECAUSE NONE HAPPENED. REMEMBER YOU ARE THE SICK AND PERVERTED ONE (YOUR OWN WORDS), YOU ARE THE ONE WHO, REMEMBER BENNETT, ENJOYED WATCHING YOUNG GIRLS DRESS UP AS SCHOOLGIRLS.
IT IS NOBODY ELSE WHO HAD TO BE BANNED FROM GOING NEAR A SCHOOL, IT WAS NOBODY ELSE WHO ABUSED A MEMBER OF THEIR FAMILY LIKE YOU DID BENNETT

RIGHT THEN BENNETT, ANSWER THIS SIMPLE QUESTION

IF, AS YOU SAY THE COMMENTS ON MR SMETHURST'S FACEBOOK WERE DISGUISING, INVOLVED BESTIALITY AND THAT THEY MAY HAVE BEEN PAEDOPHILES ON THERE, 

WHY THE FUCK DID YOU NOT REPORT IT TO THE POLICE THEN 




SO LOOKING AT IT NOW IT IS BECOMING VERY VERY CLEARER NOW, THE MADELEINE FOUNDATION WAS INVOLVED IN CREATING FAKE ACCOUNTS TO POSE AS FRIENDS ON MR SMETHURTS.






OH AND BY THE WAY....FACEBOOK HAVE VERY NICELY PROVIDED IP ADDRESSES FOR THOSE ACCOUNTS. IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE ME,YOU WILL HAVE A VERY BIG SHOCK COMING

SO THIS SHOULD PUT THE TELEPHONE RECORDS DEBATE TO BED

I SUGGEST EVERYONE READS IT FULLY IF NOT ONCE THEN TWICE AND DECIDE WHAT IT REALLY SAYS.

Judge: Ribeiro Cardoso

1. In the case files pending in the Public Prosecution Services in which they are investigating the disappearance of M.M. and the eventual carrying out of the crimes of abduction, homicide, exposure or abandonment of a child and concealment of a corpse, the prosecutor in charge of the case under investigation

The Penal Procedural Code, promoted, amongst other operations, a request of the 3 national mobile telephone operators (TMN, Vodafone and Optimus) for digital support (CD or DVD) of the complete listings of telephone traffic to calls received and made in the period of time between April 28 2007 until September 9 2007, including cellular location and trace-back, as well as all calls on roaming and SMS and MMS messages and their respective content, for the following telephone numbers: (Ten telephone numbers follow)

- Telephone number as yet unidentified which during May 2 2007 sent 14 written SMS messages to G.M. and another 4 on the day following M.M.’s disappearance.

- The request from mobile telephone operator TMN, the dispatch on digital support (CD or DVD), the complete listing of telephone traffic referring to the calls received and carried out in the period of time between 20H00M of May 3 2007 and 12H00M of May 4 2007, including cellular location and trace-back, as also all calls on roaming and SMS and MMS messages and their respective content, of the following mobile numbers:

2. However, the Instructional Judge, by ruling of 24.09.2007, did not authorise the dispatch on digital support (CD or DVD) of the content of any message sent or received by SMS or MMS pertinent to all the above referred telephone numbers, as he concluded, such would mean attaining knowledge of the content of telephone conversation or communication already carried out, without the previous judicial authorization ruling, and because there is no legal support for such a request.

3. Refusing to accept this ruling, the prosecutor interposed the present appeal:

“i) – We present our dissent to Criminal Instructional Judge’s ruling - namely the part in which he did not authorise “the dispatch on digital support (CD or DVD) of the content of any message sent or received by SMS or MMS.

ii) – There is no reason to distinguish, as the judge did, between the two types of communication – content of SMS and MMS messages and listings of telephone traffic pertinent to the calls received and carried out. Where the law does not distinguish, nobody else may.

iii) – The right to protection against the invasion of privacy or intimacy runs no bigger risk or being violated by the access to the content of SMS and MMS messages than the knowledge of the precise circumstances of time, place, method and frequency of the calls received and made.

iv) – If the procedural law makes reference to the use of communications already carried out, it is to expressly authorize those, as defined linear and unequivocally in number 1 of article 189th of the Penal Procedural Code.

v) - In order to preserve the right to protection against the invasion of the privacy or intimacy of the communicants of the SMS or MMS messages in the case under appraisal, protecting, via judicial surveillance, any abusive invasion to that intimacy

vi) – In not authorizing the access to the content of the SMS and MMS messages, the ruling violated the dispositions of articles 179th, 187th and 189th of the Penal Procedural Code.

In these terms, revoking the appealed ruling and ordering its substitution with another which requests of the three national mobile telephone operators the dispatch on digital support (cd or dvd) of the content of any message sent or received by SMS or MMS and their respective content of all telephone numbers.”

5. The judge maintained the ruling, stating, essentially, the following:

“To attain knowledge of the content of communications carried out by SMS or MMS, because they are communications carried out by telephone, one must necessarily obtain a previous judicial authorization and it must result from interception carried out and authorized by that ruling, pertinent to the ongoing communication.

In my point of view and with due respect one cannot compare detail of traffic (those pertinent to listings of numbers dialed and received) with detail of content (pertinent to the content of the communication made – the words exchanged) with intent to treat them in the same way, due to their nature. It is not the same to know that on day X, at a certain hour, a communication was established between numbers Z and K, in a specific locale (traffic detail) and knowing what was said, arranged or discussed.

As there is no mobile phone legally apprehended, I also think it is not legal to use the rules pertinent to the apprehension of correspondence, running the risk of, in such a way, relegating the demands placed upon the interception of undergoing correspondence, which is what would happen if one was to order the operator to dispatch the content of those communications carried out via telephone, even if technically possible.

Finally, the statement “recorded on digital support” refers to the communications carried out by a different technical means than that of the telephone, ie. E-mail, in real time, via information network, etc, therefore, with due respect, such has no application herein”

8. Matter to be examined

In view of the motivations presented by the appealer, the matter to be decided is simply establishing whether it is permissible or not to request of the three national mobile telephone operators to dispatch on digital support (cd or dvd) the content of any message sent or received by SMS or MMS and their respective content pertinent to all the telephone numbers with reference to the period of time therein indicated.

9. In view of that exposed, we rule the appeal interposed by the public prosecutor, unfounded, consequently maintaining the appealed ruling.

Évora, 2008.04.29

Fernando Ribeiro Cardoso

OH DEAR MORE LIBEL FROM THE ANTI'S OVR ON HAVERN'S....DO THEY NEVER LEARN?

Re: We've Been Cart Rucked!

  HotlipsHealy Today at 9:15 pm

Judging from the crime scene in 5A Madeleine suffered violence and or death. Whilst this was reported to the police no police force is now investigating it. Why? Because Madeleine's parent don't want it investigated. They allowed the shelving of the case. What innocent parents would do that? 

I think that what actually happened to Madeleine is far more imporant that what you are saying could have happened, after all where is your proof and why bring it here if this forum is not the place where the threats were issued? Whilst it is wrong to threaten anyone who cares about the McCanns? They have done nothing to help the police find their daughter so I don't know why you're trying to convince people that we should be sympathetic towards them.

Re: We've Been Cart Rucked!

  Dr_Evil Today at 9:32 pm

Sorry what pictures show Madeleine suffered violenence or death?

Re: We've Been Cart Rucked!

  HotlipsHealy Today at 9:38 pm

Dr_Evil wrote:Sorry what pictures show Madeleine suffered violenence or death?

Did I say pictures? 

The crime scene: blood on the walls, under the floor tiles, hem of curtains, back of sofa. Eddie and Keela alerting to blood and death scent.

Re: We've Been Cart Rucked!

  crispyroll Today at 9:40 pm

No pictures that Madeleine suffered but the McCanns have told that she suffered. Not directly but they have told their daughter was abducted by paedophiles. So she suffered or do you think that is not the case? Maybe nice and friendly pedophiles, reading some stories and giving her some sweets.

 Re: We've Been Cart Rucked!

  crispyroll Today at 9:47 pm

I have always thought that Carter-Ruck must dance with joy daily with all the sueing and threatening going on. CR does not need other clients than the McCanns. That will do for the rest of CRs life. Maybe they have been praying every minute that this case will go on and on.

SO BENNETT SAYS THIS IS A PLACE WHERE DIRTY THINGS HAPPEN?

NOW I AM NOT A BRILLIANT DETECTIVE BUT IS THAT NOT A GARAGE??

ONLY SUGGESTING BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY BENNETT IS TO THICK TO NOTICE.

ALSO HAS NOBODY NOTICED THAT OVER ON JILL HAVERN'S THE NEW PEOPLE COMMENTING ON THIS ARE BENNETT'S SOCKS? ALL THE TIME IT IS THE SAME ROUTINE, HE THINKS USING THEM WILL STOP HIM BEING SUED.

QUESTIONS BENNETT MUST ANSWER TO HAVE ANY CREDIBILITY

WE ALL KNOW HOW HE LIKES TO ASK OTHER PEOPLE QUESTIONS, LETS SEE IF HE IS ANY GOOD AT ANSWERING ANY.




1........ YOU CLAIMED THAT THE POSTS ON MR SMETHURST'S FACEBOOK PAGE WERE OBSCENE AND DISGUSTING, SO DID YOU REPORT THEM TO FACEBOOK OR THE POLICE ?


2......... YOU CLAIMED THAT THOSE REMARKS WERE MADE BY FRIENDS OF MR SMETHURST'S. HOW DID YOU SEE THOSE POSTS WHEN MR SMETHURSTS WHEN ALL HIS POSTS ARE SET TO FRIENDS ONLY? DOES THAT MEAN YOU REGISTERED A FAKE ACCOUNT, OR DID YOU CLONE SOMEONES DETAILS ?




3........... YOU CLAIMED YOU WERE ON HOLIDAY, HOW DID YOU MANAGE TO SIGN FOR A LETTER FROM CARTER RUCK, ON YOUR DOORSTEP, AND READ ONE THAT CAME THROUGH THE POST? 




4..........  WHY DID YOU NOT BOTHER TO INFORM JILL HAVERN OF THE SECOND LETTER DEMANDING THAT THE THREAD BE REMOVED IN IT'S ENTIRETY?




5.......... DO YOU ACCEPT THAT WHAT YOU DID WAS WRONG?

THIS JUST SHOWS HOW MUCH OF A COWARD BENNETT REALLY IS.

Re: We've Been Cart Rucked!
Admin Today at 7:02 pm

Today I was made aware of a 2nd letter from Carter Ruck that was sent to Tony on 4th August. I didn't know anything about this letter until I saw it on someone's blog.

Part of the letter states:


Enlarge this image 



Recently we have seen Carter Ruck have Pat Brown's book banned on Amazon without any notice whatsoever to her, so the thread will not be back on the forum. 






JUST SHOWS THAT BENNETT IS THE COWARD WE ALL KNEW HE WAS BY LEAVING THE OTHERS TO PICK UP THE PIECES WHILST HE GOES ON HIS JOLLIES.




SO JUST ASK YOURSELF THIS HAVERN.........IS BENNETT WORTH LOSING YOUR HOUSE AND LIVELIHOOD OVER?