Re: McCanns v Amaral trial is NOT LIBEL!

by **Jill Havern** 23.05.15 7:12

BlueBag wrote:
aquila wrote:
OxfordBloo wrote:
BlueBag wrote:
OxfordBloo wrote:The judge outlines this clearly:

Functionaries of the judicial system including police officers are forbidden under the quoted statutes to misuse privileged information gained in their employment or to state or imply that persons not found guilty are guilty. The references to these specific laws is posted above. 498/72 is quoted as it specifies tat the rights and duties of state employees continues during their post service pensionable time.
Now I understand your purpose here.
My only purpose is understanding the judgement.
I was under the impression that you are claiming yourself and your unnamed Portuguese legal source understand the judgment.

So strictly speaking it seems you want everyone else to see things your way. Over 40 posts from before 9am to past 6pm is quite an effort.

Oh well, I'm happy to leave it to the real legals and if it means chipping in a few more pounds to the Fund to assist Goncalo Amaral in his appeal - and there will be an appeal - probably won't be a problem for people.
It has been quite an effort.

To convince us that the appeal is hopeless, the judge got it right and the best Amaral can hope for is reduction of the award.

Meanwhile we're all wasting our money (so why give?).

Yes.. quite an effort.

I've been reliably informed by OxfordBloo's 'unnamed Portuguese legal source' that he is actually the well-known McCann supporter, 'Debunker' who has already been here several times before posting misinformation on other threads.

No doubt he will be back with yet another new username in due course.

by Guest 23.05.15 8:05

Is he paid for his efforts? Yesterday was quite a commitment.

by **PeterMac** 23.05.15 8:52

Ladyinred wrote:Is he paid for his efforts? Yesterday was quite a commitment.

I certainly hope so.
That amount of time and effort should not go unrewarded by the McCanns. I hope their Fund has enough to pay for all their shills and disruptors

by Joss 23.05.15 9:57

Get'emGonçalo wrote:
BlueBag wrote:
aquila wrote:
OxfordBloo wrote:
BlueBag wrote:
OxfordBloo wrote:The judge outlines this clearly:

Functionaries of the judicial system including police officers are forbidden under the quoted statutes to misuse privileged information gained in their employment or to state or imply that persons not found guilty are guilty. The references to these specific laws is posted above. 498/72 is quoted as it specifies tat the rights and duties of state employees continues during their post service pensionable time.
Now I understand your purpose here.
My only purpose is understanding the judgement.
I was under the impression that you are claiming yourself and your unnamed Portuguese legal source understand the judgment.

So strictly speaking it seems you want everyone else to see things your way. Over 40 posts from before 9am to past 6pm is quite an effort.

Oh well, I'm happy to leave it to the real legals and if it means chipping in a few more pounds to the Fund to assist Goncalo Amaral in his appeal - and there will be an appeal - probably won't be a problem for people.
It has been quite an effort.

To convince us that the appeal is hopeless, the judge got it right and the best Amaral can hope for is reduction of the award.

Meanwhile we're all wasting our money (so why give?).

Yes.. quite an effort.
I've been reliably informed by OxfordBloo's 'unnamed Portuguese legal source' that he is actually the well-known McCann supporter, 'Debunker' who has already been here several times before posting misinformation on other threads.

No doubt he will be back with yet another new username in due course.

Thanks for posting the info. Get'emGoncalo. Thought there was something not quite right smilie

by Liz Eagles 23.05.15 10:25

It's not always easy to identify disruptors but OxfordBloo was a cinch. It was fascinating to see his/her efforts go on for so long.

Here's some good news, it's 9.25am and the donations to GA's Fund have begun to roll in.

by sallypelt 23.05.15 10:45

I read this thread, yesterday, intermittently throughout the day, and I thought to myself why keep the thread going by responding to him/her. I would have said my piece and after that, I would have said "refer to my early post" because from what I was reading, the thread was just going round in circles.

Rant over spin

by plebgate 24.05.15 19:47

sallypelt wrote:I read this thread, yesterday, intermittently throughout the day, and I thought to myself why keep the thread going by responding to him/her. I would have said my piece and after that, I would have said "refer to my early post" because from what I was reading, the thread was just going round in circles.

Rant over

Yes it was pretty clear what was going on and I think it was a response to onehand's post giving their take on the legal position.

As aquila posted earlier on in the thread, no point trying to argue with a poster like Oxfordbloo - leave it the real lawyers who understand Portugese law.

Anyway as the money is still coming in, it clearly didn't work.

Oxfordbloo blew it.

by **PeterMac** 24.05.15 22:16

Why do they do it ?
Who is paying them to do it ?

They only pick the most sensitive issues
Dogs
Curtains, shutters, window of opportunity
Last Photo
First Photo
Judgment

The ones that really hurt.
And attack and try to disrupt those.
Do we see a pattern emerging ?

by Out of the woods 26.05.15 9:29

I was surprised when OxfordBloo accused me of talking rubbish after I had agreed with one of the main points that he or she was making. However, while I realise that I am in a minority on this, I thought OB made some fair observations re the fact that the judgment was made on the basis of Portuguese law. A Portuguese judge is more likely to be an expert in that than we are. Therefore, a successful appeal is a long way from being a formality

by plebgate 26.05.15 9:38

One Portugese judge ( more likely to be an expert on Pt. law) has already had her original decision overturned by the appeal court judges (banning the book). Whose to say that it wont happen again?

Question is, who was feeding Oxfordbloo, the so called expert analysis on Pt. law? Oxfordbloo would not reveal his sources, therefore I take no notice of posters who are not up front about things.

by Liz Eagles 26.05.15 9:39

Out of the woods wrote:I was surprised when OxfordBloo accused me of talking rubbish after I had agreed with one of the main points that he or she was making. However, while I realise that I am in a minority on this, I thought OB made some fair observations re the fact that the judgment was made on the basis of Portuguese law. A Portuguese judge is more likely to be an expert in that than we are. Therefore, a successful appeal is a long way from being a formality

I think you're in need of explaining the above but somehow I think OxfordBloo is alive and kicking on the forum with a few little 'helpers' to keep things on simmer.

I apologise in advance for my forthright challenge to your post but no-one other than Portuguese lawyers understand Portuguese law and I do feel that there is an undercurrent of being told supporting Goncalo Amaral is pitching one's ladder against the wrong wall, which I find disturbing.

by Out of the woods 26.05.15 9:56

aquila wrote:I apologise in advance for my forthright challenge to your post but no-one other than Portuguese lawyers understand Portuguese law

And that is exactly my point

by Guest 26.05.15 10:01

Out of the woods wrote:I was surprised when OxfordBloo accused me of talking rubbish after I had agreed with one of the main points that he or she was making. However, while I realise that I am in a minority on this, I thought OB made some fair observations re the fact that the judgment was made on the basis of Portuguese law. A Portuguese judge is more likely to be an expert in that than we are. Therefore, a successful appeal is a long way from being a formality

A new member!

With a minority point of view.

by Out of the woods 26.05.15 10:13

Yes, casual readers of the forum may decide to join because they read something that makes them feel they can contribute to the discussion by offering an alternative point of view. Just as I did. As Aquila said, the only people who truly understand Portuguese law are Portuguese lawyers, but there appear to be several posters explaining why the judge got it wrong

by Liz Eagles 26.05.15 10:19

Out of the woods wrote:
aquila wrote:I apologise in advance for my forthright challenge to your post but no-one other than Portuguese lawyers understand Portuguese law
And that is exactly my point

There are obviously grounds for appeal. How can anyone appeal without the financial means to enable it?

Whether you agree with GA or not, he deserves better than to be gagged by highly paid lawyers in UK/Portugal paid for by a Fund made up of public donations thinking it was to assist the search for Madeleine/income from suing the UK Press/perhaps other means. It's an attempt to cut off his tongue. The UK media (the whores) have done nothing but denigrate the man. In the last few weeks he was described as a monster in a UK tabloid headline. £500k was paid from Madeleine's Fund to keep Madeleine on the front pages for a year. Clarence Mitchell has been paid something like half a million to become the McCann spokesman.

It's all about fair play.

by Guest 26.05.15 10:20

Out of the woods wrote:Yes, casual readers of the forum may decide to join because they read something that makes them feel they can contribute to the discussion by offering an alternative point of view.

Whatever.

by Guest 26.05.15 10:26

Out of the woodwork.

by Out of the woods 26.05.15 10:53

aquila wrote:
Out of the woods wrote:
aquila wrote:I apologise in advance for my forthright challenge to your post but no-one other than Portuguese lawyers understand Portuguese law
And that is exactly my point
There are obviously grounds for appeal.

First you say the only people who understand Portuguese law are Portuguese lawyers, now you say there are "obviously" grounds for appeal. Are you a Portuguese lawyer, Aquila? If not, I think we had better both withdraw from the discussion, because I'm not either

by Liz Eagles 26.05.15 11:00

Out of the woods wrote:
aquila wrote:
Out of the woods wrote:
aquila wrote:I apologise in advance for my forthright challenge to your post but no-one other than Portuguese lawyers understand Portuguese law
And that is exactly my point
There are obviously grounds for appeal.
First you say the only people who truly understand Portuguese law are Portuguese lawyers, now you say there are "obviously" grounds for appeal. Are you a Portuguese lawyer, Aquila? If not, I think we had better both withdraw from the discussion, because I'm not either

I've tried being diplomatic.

I have absolutely no desire to enter into a pointless debate with you. It's obvious why you are here.

PS. There are obviously grounds for an appeal as Goncalo Amaral has stated he will appeal.

Not another word from me to you.

by Out of the woods 26.05.15 11:01

Nor me to you, I've made my point

by plebgate 26.05.15 12:31

Out of the woods wrote:Yes, casual readers of the forum may decide to join because they read something that makes them feel they can contribute to the discussion by offering an alternative point of view. Just as I did. As Aquila said, the only people who truly understand Portuguese law are Portuguese lawyers, but there appear to be several posters explaining why the judge got it wrong

Red highlighting - the difference being that onehand stated that they did not know Pt. law thoroughly and posted the possibility on what grounds an appeal could be made and I believe this is the view of a couple of other posters too although they did not afaik state it for sure.

Whereas Oxfordbloo seemed to be stating that he was being advised by somebody who knew Pt. law and that what he was posting was fact therefore could be interpreted by posters (and some did) that an appeal was pointless which, as has been said, clearly isn't as Rocky would not have announced that he was going to appeal.

by Joss 26.05.15 12:58

plebgate wrote:
Out of the woods wrote:Yes, casual readers of the forum may decide to join because they read something that makes them feel they can contribute to the discussion by offering an alternative point of view. Just as I did. As Aquila said, the only people who truly understand Portuguese law are Portuguese lawyers, but there appear to be several posters explaining why the judge got it wrong
Red highlighting - the difference being that onehand stated that they did not know Pt. law thoroughly and posted the possibility on what grounds an appeal could be made and I believe this is the view of a couple of other posters too although they did not afaik state it for sure.

Whereas Oxfordbloo seemed to be stating that he was being advised by somebody who knew Pt. law and that what he was posting was fact therefore could be interpreted by posters (and some did) that an appeal was pointless which, as has been said, clearly isn't as Rocky would not have announced that he was going to appeal.

If you read back on the thread i don't think OxfordBloo stated that it was pointless for GA to appeal, but that he should only make his appeal about the damages amount that was determined by the judge that should be paid to the McC's. But that anything else to be appealed was probably pointless. Thats what i understood anyway.

by plebgate 26.05.15 13:14

Joss wrote:
plebgate wrote:
Out of the woods wrote:Yes, casual readers of the forum may decide to join because they read something that makes them feel they can contribute to the discussion by offering an alternative point of view. Just as I did. As Aquila said, the only people who truly understand Portuguese law are Portuguese lawyers, but there appear to be several posters explaining why the judge got it wrong
Red highlighting - the difference being that onehand stated that they did not know Pt. law thoroughly and posted the possibility on what grounds an appeal could be made and I believe this is the view of a couple of other posters too although they did not afaik state it for sure.

Whereas Oxfordbloo seemed to be stating that he was being advised by somebody who knew Pt. law and that what he was posting was fact therefore could be interpreted by posters (and some did) that an appeal was pointless which, as has been said, clearly isn't as Rocky would not have announced that he was going to appeal.
If you read back on the thread i don't think OxfordBloo stated that it was pointless for GA to appeal, but that he should only make his appeal about the damages amount that was determined by the judge that should be paid to the McC's. But that anything else to be appealed was probably pointless. Thats what i understood anyway.

I agree Joss, I don't think he said it outright - that is why I said it could be interpreted by posters as he was apparently being advised by someone who knew Pt. law but would not say who.

GGEG did post that it was probably Debunker - say no more afaiac.

by Joss 26.05.15 13:20

plebgate wrote:
Joss wrote:
plebgate wrote:
Out of the woods wrote:Yes, casual readers of the forum may decide to join because they read something that makes them feel they can contribute to the discussion by offering an alternative point of view. Just as I did. As Aquila said, the only people who truly understand Portuguese law are Portuguese lawyers, but there appear to be several posters explaining why the judge got it wrong
Red highlighting - the difference being that onehand stated that they did not know Pt. law thoroughly and posted the possibility on what grounds an appeal could be made and I believe this is the view of a couple of other posters too although they did not afaik state it for sure.

Whereas Oxfordbloo seemed to be stating that he was being advised by somebody who knew Pt. law and that what he was posting was fact therefore could be interpreted by posters (and some did) that an appeal was pointless which, as has been said, clearly isn't as Rocky would not have announced that he was going to appeal.
If you read back on the thread i don't think OxfordBloo stated that it was pointless for GA to appeal, but that he should only make his appeal about the damages amount that was determined by the judge that should be paid to the McC's. But that anything else to be appealed was probably pointless. Thats what i understood anyway.
I agree Joss, I don't think he said it outright - that is why I said it could be interpreted by posters as he was apparently being advised by someone who knew Pt. law but would not say who.

GGEG did post that it was probably Debunker - say no more afaiac.

Yeah, for someone that had a Pt. legal advisory service at their fingertips, OB sure was trying hard to reinforce their POV, smilie

Have no idea who Debunker is, but i believe people sooner or later show their true colors.