Populist Lee

Shall I tell the others how much money you've accepted from the BWMA on behalf of ARM?
We even contributed £500 to your unsaleable book.

__________________
ENGLISH POPULISM
Stands as the only obstacle in the path of the Plutocrats
who seek to reduce all the Peoples of the World
to Economic and Political Slavery under Globalism


POPULISM MEANS WHAT YOU WANT IS WHAT YOU GET


Coming soon to your computer . . . DISSIDENT CONGRESS UK

Populist Lee

And finally . . .
This is not what the original sender of the email wrote.
Why is it now different?

I can state quite categorically that no strong complaint has ever been made to the Committee about Mr Mote.

__________________
ENGLISH POPULISM
Stands as the only obstacle in the path of the Plutocrats
who seek to reduce all the Peoples of the World
to Economic and Political Slavery under Globalism


POPULISM MEANS WHAT YOU WANT IS WHAT YOU GET


Coming soon to your computer . . . DISSIDENT CONGRESS UK

Tony Bennett

This thread has come to the attention of Mr Ashley Mote M.E.P. and these are his verbatim thoughts on the matter, which he has circulated widely:

QUOTE

I have known Tony Bennett for years and we have had our disagreements. He is now - sadly - active on a website which spends much of its time trying to undermine me, driven by a former member of my staff who was sacked for very good reason.

One of their latest postings about me is based on wild gossip published in the Guardian diary! Strange that...euro-sceptics reading the Guardian...!

If I may say so, one of the worst characteristics of the 'Get Britain Out' brigade is its obsession with in-fighting. I was warned when I first got involved many years ago, and I simply couldn't believe it. But, appallingly, it is true to this day.

Those involved forget that all great battles are won by coalitions who put their differences aside for the greater good. We forget what unites us at our peril.

As for me and my case, I take great comfort from that fact that most who know me share my anger at the way the state used excessive force and excessive amounts of public money to stop my political activities. Fortunately they failed.

I apologise to no-one for what happened.

I will clear my name, but it's taking time.

Meanwhile, the government's attempts to destroy me have had the opposite effect – I am greatly honoured by the huge increase in support I have received since these ghastly events swamped my family, who have been utterly steadfast throughout.

And I am even more resolved to continue the fight to free the British from Brussels and restore our right to govern ourselves.

For the record, over a million pounds of public money was spent over several years investigating me back to 1990. This was eventually followed by a five-week trial led for the prosecution by a QC who is Head of Chambers, no less. The trial took place in one of the poorest districts in southern England [Portsmouth...but the offences were committed in the District of Chichester, Sussex - T.B.] in front of a jury of mostly young people - judging a former businessman and an elected politician!

The benefits claims were for £45,000* (get your figures right Tony) over seven years. That is less than the official poverty line for a then otherwise homeless family of four.

Those are the facts.

UNQUOTE

* Note from T.B. - Ashley splits hairs by claiming his fraudulent benefit claims amounted to £45,000. He dishonestly claimed exemption from Council tax as well and this took his total fraudulent claims to nearly £70,000

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Aardvark

Aaaah. Ashley gets his facts wrong again.

Oh well, we shall see if he followed the rules on dismissing people on 10th November at 10.30am in Aldershot and Farnham County Court. I have issued proceedings in the Small Claims Court as many of you will know. There were 2 elements to the claim.

The first was unpaid expenses, which AM now says were never disputed despite his refusal to answer my e-mails. That element of the claim will be partially withdrawn as the expenses theselves have, as of this week, been paid. No interest has been paid and so I will continue to claim that as the expenses are acknowledged. The cost of issuing proceedings and attending court will also be claimed as the payment is, I believe, an acknowledgment that the claim was properly issued.

The second element of the claim is based on AM not following the procedures for dismissing me. Any sub-contractor, according to my contract, can be dismissed without cause with 6 weeks notice. This process was not followed. Mote has never directly given me a reason for dismissal, although he has stated grounds in his statement to the court.

AM's spurious grounds for dismissing me were based on inaccuracies in a Tony Bennett e-mail (which TB now acknowledges as his recall of certain events was flawed). AM did not, of course, let me properly explain the truth of what had happened but yelled and blustered as he does. I dispute the alleged basis of the dismissal and have evidence to support my position as AM should know - I served 700 or so pages of documents on him.

The matter is a small claim - less than £5000, of which some £1164.80 has now been paid into my bank account. Mote has already, when I originally issued a statutory demand believing there was no arguable defence, spent £6700 on a case in Guildford Bankruptcy Court resisting me. As he didn't read some e-mails I sent offering to withdraw that demand unconditionally (his negligence) he was not awarded costs. He has since spent a further £5000 or so resisting my small claim, yet, as stated, the claim was issued reasonably and so he cannot recover those costs even were he to win on the 10th November (he can't stop me recovering claimed interest so will lose on that point alone and costs will lie with him). In any event the largest amount ever awarded in costs in a small claim is £1000 - the purpose of small claims is to avoid using expensive solicitors and litigants are expected to represent themselves. This means prior to 10th November Mote has spent nearly £12000 not paying me money that the EU would have paid in any event had he authorised them to do so (they have just paid my expenses).

Mote will never represent himself in court as he isn't really up to the job despite his claims to be some sort of expert on the law. We are booked for a full day hearing on the 10th November and Mote will be represented by counsel (possibly Mr Meredith-Hardy). Mote's costs of preparing for the hearing, and I have yet to issue fresh paperwork and a changed statement following disclosure to me of certain EU documents that prove Mote has been misleading the court and has wilfully disobeyed a court order, will be up to £10k more. Mote could be ordered to pay me the £3700 or so outstanding together with £1000 costs as he has been unreasonable, initially claiming not to owe me any money whatsoever and then paying me some of it! The original pay I am claiming has now incurred interest and court costs. Mote is now personally liable as he has been told by Mr Barroso. He could end up with a bill, from both cases, of nearly £27000 as he resists paying me money that the EU would have paid on his authorisation at no cost to himself had he bothered to think through what he is doing.

__________________
When in Woking do as the Wokes do.

"I do not wish to form my opinions by thoughtlessly quoting others; I wish others to support their opinions by sensibly quoting me." Paul Wesson (Aardvark) 13th April 2008

Aardvark

Mote doesn't understand who his peers are. A trial by your peers is just that. You are either a noble or a commoner. Mote is a commoner and was tried by commoners. The age of the jurors (other than over 18), their dress, their job etc is irrelevant. That is the point that is lost on Mote. He is not special because he is an elected member. He was elected on a UKIP ticket, but did we get the seat back when he joined the same political grouping as le Pen and Mussolini? Elected members are supposed to be representative of the society in which they live, not aloof and set apart as Mote believes. They have no special immunity, despite the hundreds of thousands of pounds in costs that Mote forced on the taxpayer by claiming an immunity that he did not have.

Mote makes much of the money expended bringing him to justice, but had he pleaded guilty to the 20 charges that he remains convicted on that would have saved us a fortune.

Mote claims he is trying to clear his name, but still there is no mention of him in the lists for the House of Lords. He will be making that claim until he dies.

Mote makes no apology for being a convicted thief and fraudster. He is almost proud of the fact. He might think that people believe that the case was brought to stop him carrying out his political work, but he could have resigned his seat the moment he was charged and, as he was elected on a party list and not as an individual, another UKIP MEP, probably David Lott, could have taken on the mantle. Mote was happy to embarrass the whole Eurosceptic movement.

Mote doesn't point out that he knew he was about to be charged when he stood as a candidate and, had he not been elected, he would have been tried a lot earlier as he wouldn't have been able to play the immunity card. He lied on his forms when he forgot to tell UKIP about the criminal investigation into his activities.

Mote has now gone running to the BNP looking to represent them and has spoken on BNPTV. He has spoken at AmRen, a white supremacist conference. He joined the ITS group with European extremists - he made it quorate.

Ashle Mote convict and crypto-fascist supporter heading for unemployment and possibly bankruptcy. A paragon of virtue and exemplar to us all.

__________________
When in Woking do as the Wokes do.

"I do not wish to form my opinions by thoughtlessly quoting others; I wish others to support their opinions by sensibly quoting me." Paul Wesson (Aardvark) 13th April 2008

Tony Bennett

Aardvark, given that you are a Moderator here, I am in a weak positon in terns of responding to the above statement. All I will say is that you and I both know a lot more about events subsequent to your dismissal that I have never gone public about and which you may prefer me to keep quiet about.

Suffice it to say that you should not seek to shift any of the blame for your dismissal away from Ashley Mote, who, as we both know, was incandescdent that news had leaked out about his desperate attempts to prevent anyone knowing that he was using one of the very institutions he professed to detest - namely the European Parliament - to try and get out of facing British justice.

I hope you will agree that this is a fair summary as I do not wish to get into a dispute with you about a matter in which you suffered, as many others have done, from the disreputable and dishonest activities of this man

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

chikrodah

Correct me if I'm wrong, Tony, but a statement that Mote's "spurious grounds" for dismissing his researcher "were based on inaccuracies" in your posts on the eurofaq discussion group hardly seems like an attempt to shift the blame onto you. It's a statement about Mote's behaviour, not about yours. Why do you feel so defensive? Is it possible you had an ulterior motive for those posts at the time? What could that motive have been?

I refer those who still subscribe to eurofaq to your posts numbered 64225 and 64582, as well as those responding to your original input - 64226 and 64468. Your unique style, extremely similar to that complained about by Populist Lee, is very evident.

Tony Bennett

Chikrodah, I've forgotten what I said in those e-mails, but since you have them, please publish them now on this forum so all can see for themselves and make up their minds.

I recall exactly what my motives were for publishing details of Ashley Mote's attempts to evade British justice. I might add that Mark Croucher had briefed me some weeks before about developments in Ashley's case, a briefing that turned out to be highly accurate except that MC thought the amount defrauded was neaer £100,000. But MC did not tell me about the legal arguments Mote was going to use in the High Court hearing.

Given that Mote professed to loathe institutions such as the European Parliament, I considered the fact that he was now using those same institutions to get out of facing up to a British court deserved a wider audience. He was attempting to suppress all knowledge of the legal arguments he was using.

I've no idea what you mean by 'an ulterior motive'.

By the way, I was working as Robert KIlroy-Silk's Researcher at the time. Mote complained vigorously to him about my eurofaq e-mail. At that time the two MEPs were sharing a Secretary, Genevieve, in Brussels. KIlroy-Silk ordered me in no uncertain terms to cease making any more comments about Mote, adding: "Ashley Mote is my friend"

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Petrina

I don`t know anything about the dispute between Aardvark and Mote but the quote from Samuel -Camps review of the trial speak volumes to me ,the Judge in question is known at the Bar to be a firm but fair judge ,certainly not a Govt.stooge .

"You did not help yourself in your evidence to the jury. You gave every impression of being a thoroughly dishonest man and as cross-examination continued it became clear that there was a great deal that you had not disclosed including the existence of two more bank accounts. You also went to a great deal of trouble to cover up your tracks to make it difficult for the authorities to find out anything about you."

Although Mote portrays himself as a victim and martyr for the cause somehow I think that he was simply someone who was caught out and he cannot face the consequences .

Aardvark

Tony, I blame Mote for his interpretation of what you wrote, but we did agree that there were some inaccuracies and you have since been kind enough to clarify and correct them. Mote was not prepared to listen to reason, that was the problem. I wonder if RKS still considers Mote to be his friend.

Petrina, thanks for that reminder. I will be taking David Samuel-Camps' summary to court lest Mote, when I get to question him, pretends to be an honest man. I'm looking forward to asking him quite a few probing questions. The hearing is in public so anybody can attend on 10th November in Aldershot. PM me if you're in the area.

__________________
When in Woking do as the Wokes do.

"I do not wish to form my opinions by thoughtlessly quoting others; I wish others to support their opinions by sensibly quoting me." Paul Wesson (Aardvark) 13th April 2008