Re: Letter 25 Jan 2013 to Carter-Ruck and the Court about THAT proposed settlement with Dr Amaral: is this now an 'Abuse of Process'?

by david_uk 28.01.13 10:28

PeterMac wrote:
david_uk wrote:The judge will surely concentrate on purely on whether he has broken his undertakings or not, regardless of any new developments on different fronts. . . .
Indeed. That is his duty.
One can however be technically "guilty" of an offence, but receive an absolute discharge, even, in one case, after being found guilty of manslaughter.
In civil cases it is possible and normal for the case to be proven but then for "Contemptuous or derisory damages" to be awarded. This is usually confined to defamation actions, where the Plaintiff has suffered no loss.
I make no comparison with any current case.

http://www.irwinlaw.com/cold/term/624
wiki,
et al.

Thank you PeterMac, do you think CR could use TB's recent letter against him?.

I just want to confirm after ready the first post after mine!, I am not Tony Bashing!. While I have notagreed with all the methods TB has used in the past, my comments are more concern than anything else.

by Guest 28.01.13 10:50

bobbin wrote:Just to support Tony in all this recent tony-bashing, I might ask the question 'who the *..k is Blacksmith?
Is he a long term plant, put in place to appear to support a true search for the truth about Madeleine's disappearance but when time gets fraught he steps in to muddy the waters a bit.

Err, no.

bobbin wrote:His work is, to say the least, inconsistent, and for that I have never given him any more than a glance of curiosity over his writings.

How can you say he's a 'plant' then, if you haven't even been reading what he's been writing? Letter 25 Jan 2013 to Carter-Ruck and the Court about THAT proposed settlement with Dr Amaral: is this now an 'Abuse of Process'? - Page 9 110921

Letter 25 Jan 2013 to Carter-Ruck and the Court about THAT proposed settlement with Dr Amaral: is this now an 'Abuse of Process'? - Page 9 110921

I wasn't attacking Tony, I'm trying to help him. Problem is just as you don't see that, neither does he.

by russiandoll 28.01.13 10:53

I think we should all take a step back, a deep breath and hopefully decide not to become embroiled in the twitter and forum battle which is now starting to damage credibility on both sides imo.
Please can we avoid words I have seen the McCann fans use like cave, fold, show the white flag, surrender [ re GA] ?
We simlply do not KNOW what has happened and it is tempting to guess. I do not know the law, but I would think, especially in the type of case being pursued in Portugal, that there is an awful lot of discussion re- strategy, trying to second guess things, trying to reassess the situation in the light of new developments, as in a chess game anticipating the next likely move of your opponent and what in the case of that happening your next move should be.
Just because the first move for talks appears to have been made by the McCanns, does that necessarily mean that they have yielded to pressure because they have been persuaded by their lawyers that their case is weak ? It could just be a change in tactics, I have never known the couple to act other than in a way that would be to their advantage.
If the couple have been given a hint that the review is nearing conclusion and that the conclusion favours their allegations of abduction, knowing this is on the horizon but not yet official means a delay would put them in a strong position re GA. [I doubt that during the review the McCanns have been told of anything operational, while being updated...surely they have just been assigned a liaison officer?]
They might therefore have been given a hint of what the outcome is looking like. All the speculation over this development where we can write 50 pages of guesswork has taken us away from other topics where there might be facts we have overlooked.
I am sure it will be discussed for a long time, but I think we should try to keep away from the language that makes it look like a battle of egos about the McCanns and Amaral. What we know for sure is that SY has been to Portugal and this has coincided with the change in the Amaral case. Interesting times, let's hope that in both cases the direction is towards and not away from the truth.

by Guest 28.01.13 11:06

by Angelique 28.01.13 11:09

Agree on the Review decision affecting the outcome of the GA libel trial. Absolutely.

Yes I do believe they have a liaison officer.

I do think these are delaying tactics and hoping time is going to resolve certain issues.

This is most definitely politics - SY Review was and is still politics.

It is similar to chess - except they (TM Minders) are far more than six moves ahead!

There never was an issue of funding. IMO The Fund is and always has been petty cash.

by Me 28.01.13 12:04

bobbin wrote:Just to support Tony in all this recent tony-bashing, I might ask the question 'who the *..k is Blacksmith?

As far as i can see there hasn't been any "Tony bashing".

I can only speak for myself in saying that i have always tried to give Tony what i believe is the honest truth. The time he has spent working on this case is commendable BUT he has made mistakes which is why he is in the predicament he is.

I'm not going to tell him everything he has done is fine and dandy when clearly i don't think it is, and my honesty is there to try and help him rather than "bash him".

Which is why i wish he would remove certain parts of the letter from the first page of this very thread and why i think he should get an understanding from BS's post about the angles behind Amaral's libel defence in Portugal and see if any of those arguments can be used to help him now.

If he doesn't want to do that then that is his choice, it's only advice and Tony is obviously free to buld his defence how he likes.

by ShuBob 28.01.13 12:06

So the McCanns will be negotiating with at least FOUR different sets of lawyers- counsel for Amaral, TVI, Valentim de Carvalho and Guerra e Paz. One has to assume that these lawyers will be looking after the interests of their clients and so will have their own terms and not necessarily agree on a collective settlement. When I look at it from that angle, I'm more inclined to believe this out-of-court settlement is a delaying tactic by the McCanns. The to-ing and fro-ing with four separate sets of lawyers can go on for years. Unless the couple no longer care about being "sufficiently vindicated" and have decided to throw in the towel in every sense of the word, I can't see a settlement being agreed in six months Letter 25 Jan 2013 to Carter-Ruck and the Court about THAT proposed settlement with Dr Amaral: is this now an 'Abuse of Process'? - Page 9 172348

Letter 25 Jan 2013 to Carter-Ruck and the Court about THAT proposed settlement with Dr Amaral: is this now an 'Abuse of Process'? - Page 9 172348

by ShuBob 28.01.13 12:13

Me wrote:
bobbin wrote:Just to support Tony in all this recent tony-bashing, I might ask the question 'who the *..k is Blacksmith?

As far as i can see there hasn't been any "Tony bashing".

I can only speak for myself in saying that i have always tried to give Tony what i believe is the honest truth. The time he has spent working on this case is commendable BUT he has made mistakes which is why he is in the predicament he is.

I'm not going to tell him everything he has done is fine and dandy when clearly i don't think it is, and my honesty is there to try and help him rather than "bash him".

Which is why i wish he would remove certain parts of the letter from the first page of this very thread and why i think he should get an understanding from BS's post about the angles behind Amaral's libel defence in Portugal and see if any of those arguments can be used to help him now.

If he doesn't want to do that then that is his choice, it's only advice and Tony is obviously free to buld his defence how he likes.

IIRC, when the court gave it's verdict in the Amaral v MAC libel case. we discussed the implication of the ruling on this forum much the same as Blacksmith has done. For that reason, it's not necessary for TB to use Blacksmith's reasoning as I believe he already knows them. If my recollection is correct, "Dr Martin Roberts" also wrote about the issue on McCannfiles.

by Woofer 28.01.13 12:19

Thinking - what would be the benefits of delaying the libel case?

1) Wrong-footing GA and his lawyers just when they`re geared up to go

2) Costing GA more money

3) Keeping GA`s assets frozen even longer

4) Waiting for developments/progress in Hacked-Off campaign that may stifle the press

5) Wanting the outcome of TB`s case known first.

6) Waiting to see what Pat and GA`s book says.

There are others, but my brain is still fuzzy !

by Me 28.01.13 12:45

tcat wrote:I wasn't attacking Tony, I'm trying to help him. Problem is just as you don't see that, neither does he.

That's my sentiments entirely.

by **Tony Bennett** 28.01.13 13:58

Tony Bennett wrote:

[NOTE: Every time the value of the euro goes up against the pound by one-hundredth of a cent, the value of the McCanns' claim against Dr Amaral goes up by £120. Or down by £120 for every one-hundredth of a cent the euro falls against the pound.

The McCanns have done really well in the past few months because the euro has recovered from a low point of 77.82 pence to the euro to 84.23 pence to the euro.

If...

1. the case does go to trial, and

If...

2. the McCanns win, and

If...

3. the Court agrees that the McCanns are entitled to what they claim, viz. 1,200,000 euros damages, THEN the McCanns will have gained a handome £76,920 during the past few months, due to the euro's recovery.

That could give the Find Madeleine Fund a much-needed boost

The euro's value against the pound has risen sharply again today (from 84.32 pence to the euro) and now stands at 85.50 pence to the euro.

This means that the value of the McCanns' claim of 1.2 million euros against Dr Goncalo Amaral, Guerra e Paz and TVI has risen today to £1,026,000.

That means that the value of their claim has leapt by £15,240 since Friday.

Without them having to do anything at all!

by **PeterMac** 28.01.13 14:05

But if they have to pay the costs, and compensation to Dr Amaral for malicious prosecution it will cost proportionately more to transfer Sterling into Euros.

by Guest 28.01.13 14:33

Tony Bennett wrote:The euro's value against the pound has risen sharply again today (from 84.32 pence to the euro) and now stands at 85.50 pence to the euro.

This means that the value of the McCanns' claim of 1.2 million euros against Dr Goncalo Amaral, Guerra e Paz and TVI has risen today to £1,026,000.

That means that the value of their claim has leapt by £15,240 since Friday.

Without them having to do anything at all!

Was this the real reason for Cameron's bonkers EU referendum speech last week then? Letter 25 Jan 2013 to Carter-Ruck and the Court about THAT proposed settlement with Dr Amaral: is this now an 'Abuse of Process'? - Page 9 181154

Letter 25 Jan 2013 to Carter-Ruck and the Court about THAT proposed settlement with Dr Amaral: is this now an 'Abuse of Process'? - Page 9 181154

(Like the markets, I'll vote for the UK to stay in btw. Just saying!)

by roy rovers 28.01.13 14:35

Woofer wrote:Thinking - what would be the benefits of delaying the libel case?

1) Wrong-footing GA and his lawyers just when they`re geared up to go

2) Costing GA more money

3) Keeping GA`s assets frozen even longer

4) Waiting for developments/progress in Hacked-Off campaign that may stifle the press

5) Wanting the outcome of TB`s case known first.

6) Waiting to see what Pat and GA`s book says.

There are others, but my brain is still fuzzy !

Just 'kicking the can down the road' for another 6 months. Pure delaying tactics.

by **Tony Bennett** 28.01.13 14:44

PeterMac wrote:But if they have to pay the costs, and compensation to Dr Amaral for malicious prosecution it will cost proportionately more to transfer Sterling into Euros.

Now there's a thought

by david_uk 28.01.13 16:11

roy rovers wrote:
Woofer wrote:Thinking - what would be the benefits of delaying the libel case?

1) Wrong-footing GA and his lawyers just when they`re geared up to go

2) Costing GA more money

3) Keeping GA`s assets frozen even longer

4) Waiting for developments/progress in Hacked-Off campaign that may stifle the press

5) Wanting the outcome of TB`s case known first.

6) Waiting to see what Pat and GA`s book says.

There are others, but my brain is still fuzzy !

Just 'kicking the can down the road' for another 6 months. Pure delaying tactics.

Id go for all of the above, mostly delaying tactics!. They can concentrate on the battle on the home-front first!. They need a decent result in case Amaral/Brown book gets a UK publisher?

by Guest 28.01.13 16:26

Letter 25 Jan 2013 to Carter-Ruck and the Court about THAT proposed settlement with Dr Amaral: is this now an 'Abuse of Process'? - Page 9 876653

That would be the mother and father of libel cases.

But they don't really need a UK publisher. If they have been working together. I hope so.

by Ribisl 28.01.13 16:28

ShuBob wrote:So the McCanns will be negotiating with at least FOUR different sets of lawyers- counsel for Amaral, TVI, Valentim de Carvalho and Guerra e Paz. One has to assume that these lawyers will be looking after the interests of their clients and so will have their own terms and not necessarily agree on a collective settlement. When I look at it from that angle, I'm more inclined to believe this out-of-court settlement is a delaying tactic by the McCanns. The to-ing and fro-ing with four separate sets of lawyers can go on for years. Unless the couple no longer care about being "sufficiently vindicated" and have decided to throw in the towel in every sense of the word, I can't see a settlement being agreed in six months

The defendants are Gonçalo Amaral, his publishers Guerra & Paz, Valentim de Carvalho who produced a documentary based on the book, and TVI who broadcast it. My understanding is that the four are co-defendants and therefore negotiations will be conducted jointly, though as you say each counsel would no doubt put his client's interest foremost.

I don't see this adjournment as a delaying tactic. To me it's more likely that the McCanns and C-R realised that there is no way they would get the full compensation for defamation even if they win the case outright; secondly, their chances of winning outright have diminished as more and more information has become available in the public domain. Lastly, and possibly more importantly, they fear their lies being exposed in the constant media glare, which would certainly have an adverse effect on the future of their Fund.

by david_uk 28.01.13 16:34

tcat wrote: That would be the mother and father of libel cases.

But they don't really need a UK publisher. If they have been working together. I hope so.

I would argue that they do need a UK publisher and they need a proper marketing support if its to be worth while!. I don't know a single person other than those I have met online that have an idea of the existences of Amaral or his book!. Publishing online or via Amazon download just will not cut it.

by Guest 28.01.13 16:44

david_uk wrote:
tcat wrote: That would be the mother and father of libel cases.

But they don't really need a UK publisher. If they have been working together. I hope so.

I would argue that they do need a UK publisher and they need a proper marketing support if its to be worth while!. I don't know a single person other than those I have met online that have an idea of the existences of Amaral or his book!. Publishing online or via Amazon download just will not cut it.

According to K&G's lawyer the whole world read Amaral's book. Letter 25 Jan 2013 to Carter-Ruck and the Court about THAT proposed settlement with Dr Amaral: is this now an 'Abuse of Process'? - Page 9 742129

Letter 25 Jan 2013 to Carter-Ruck and the Court about THAT proposed settlement with Dr Amaral: is this now an 'Abuse of Process'? - Page 9 742129

Just kidding. I can see your point but I think it would depend on how good the book is (assuming there is one). I don't know the figures but ebooks (kindle and the like) must be a big proportion of sales these days?

by **Tony Bennett** 28.01.13 16:47

Tony Bennett wrote:The euro's value against the pound has risen sharply again today (from 84.32 pence to the euro) and now stands at 85.50 pence to the euro.

This means that the value of the McCanns' claim of 1.2 million euros against Dr Goncalo Amaral, Guerra e Paz and TVI has risen today to £1,026,000.

That means that the value of their claim has leapt by £15,240 since Friday.

Without them having to do anything at all!

Goodness, there are now 85.77 pence to the euro.

That's another £3,240 the McCanns will be better off since lunchtime!...

...A gain of £18,480 since Friday...

...(if they win every euro and cent of the 1,200,000 euros damages they are claiming, that is)

by Nina 28.01.13 16:47

tcat wrote: That would be the mother and father of libel cases.

But they don't really need a UK publisher. If they have been working together. I hope so.

No because it could be written in english and published in America and available on-line clapping

by Nina 28.01.13 16:49

Tony Bennett wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:The euro's value against the pound has risen sharply again today (from 84.32 euros to the pound) and now stands at 85.50 euros to the pound.

This means that the value of the McCanns' claim of 1.2 million euros against Dr Goncalo Amaral, Guerra e Paz and TVI has risen today to £1,026,000.

That means that the value of their claim has leapt by £15,240 since Friday.

Without them having to do anything at all!
Goodness, there are now 85.77 euros to the pound.

That's another £3,240 the McCanns will be better off since lunchtime!...

...A gain of £18,480 since Friday...

...(if they win every euro and cent of the 1,200,000 euros damages they are claiming, that is)

Mmmmm, it looks like bread and scrape for us folk with UK pensions but living over the channel.

by saltnpepper 28.01.13 16:52

Goodness, there are now 85.77 euros to the pound.

That's another £3,240 the McCanns will be better off since lunchtime!...

...A gain of £18,480 since Friday...

Who said money doesn't grow on trees ?...nice work if you can get it Letter 25 Jan 2013 to Carter-Ruck and the Court about THAT proposed settlement with Dr Amaral: is this now an 'Abuse of Process'? - Page 9 94409

Letter 25 Jan 2013 to Carter-Ruck and the Court about THAT proposed settlement with Dr Amaral: is this now an 'Abuse of Process'? - Page 9 94409

by monkey mind 28.01.13 17:13

Someone commented earlier it’s like a game of chess where one side is several moves ahead of the other, but it is far more than that. In reality, there is no game.

The pieces are all still on the table but one player, the PJ, has left both table and auditorium. The audience remains and some competent players would like to play but being unsanctioned can only point at the pieces, not move them.

On the other side, the opponents are stuck in a nightmarish paradox. There is no game yet they remain shackled to the table, unable to leave save by a victory yet desperately trying to stop the opponent from resuming his seat, worried that one of the unsanctioned may shout so loud he is forced to return.

So, stuck at the table for eternity they are left to battle the unsanctioned in fear of the sanctioned.

Only thing for it, force the opponent back to play a different game, one without end and one you cannot lose for no other reason than it no longer involves you.

In this game your opponent has had all of his pieces replaced with an imaginary one. You on the other hand still have all pieces in tact but no need to move them. You are then free to leave the table whilst your opponent looks for his imaginary piece.

It doesn’t matter how loud the audience shout, how much the unsanctioned point, you don’t have to return to the table once your original opponent says he is looking for his imaginary piece.

To this end, all efforts must be directed, preventing the resumption of the original game in favour of the new one. You are several moves ahead, because many people are still watching the old game.

Letter 25 Jan 2013 to Carter-Ruck and the Court about THAT proposed settlement with Dr Amaral: is this now an 'Abuse of Process'?