The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Hi,

A very warm welcome to The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™ forum.

Please log in, or register to view all the forums, then settle in and start chatting with us!

Enjoy your day,

Jill Havern
Forum owner

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 3 of 17 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4 ... 10 ... 17  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

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'?

Post by Eddie on 26.01.13 9:56

candyfloss wrote:ed1976, I am getting rather annoyed now, so if I were you I would give it a rest. You are talking nonsense. If the McCanns wanted to impose anything then all they had to do is go ahead with the trial, win, go past go, collect 1.2million, and impose anything they wanted as winners.........doh!!

Quote from letter by TB on first page of this thread.



“…I understand that the trial, which had been due to take place in January 2013, has been postponed at the request of the Claimants’ lawyer, to allow the parties to explore whether a settlement may be reached which gives the Claimants sufficient vindication and protection in the future”.

Which part of the sentence in red do you not understand? The McCanns will be asking for conditions from Amaral as part of the settlement.

____________________


Eddie

Posts : 107
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-01-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

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'?

Post by Eddie on 26.01.13 10:01

candyfloss wrote:ed1976, I am getting rather annoyed now, so if I were you I would give it a rest. You are talking nonsense. If the McCanns wanted to impose anything then all they had to do is go ahead with the trial, win, go past go, collect 1.2million, and impose anything they wanted as winners.........doh!!



It shows how little you really understand. Even if the McCanns won the case they would collect nothing. Amaral would simply appeal. His lawyers would be repeatedly ill and the trial repeatedly postponed. It would drag on for years. Don't take my word for it. This is what CLAUDIA said . she understands the portuguese legal system.

____________________


Eddie

Posts : 107
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-01-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

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'?

Post by Me on 26.01.13 10:10

ed1976 wrote:
candyfloss wrote:ed1976, I am getting rather annoyed now, so if I were you I would give it a rest. You are talking nonsense. If the McCanns wanted to impose anything then all they had to do is go ahead with the trial, win, go past go, collect 1.2million, and impose anything they wanted as winners.........doh!!

Quote from letter by TB on first page of this thread.



“…I understand that the trial, which had been due to take place in January 2013, has been postponed at the request of the Claimants’ lawyer, to allow the parties to explore whether a settlement may be reached which gives the Claimants sufficient vindication and protection in the future”.

Which part of the sentence in red do you not understand? The McCanns will be asking for conditions from Amaral as part of the settlement.

Are you thick?

Tony is not stating that as his fact, that is what Carter Ruck stated in the avadavit they served upon him.

As the McCann's lawyers they are going to spin it that way. They are not going to say "to allow our client to crumble and give the defendent everything he wants".

Can you confirm that now it is stated by Carter Ruck that the trial "HAS BEEN POSTPONED AT THE REQUEST OF THE CLAIMANTS' LAWYER" that you now accept you have lost our bet as to who requested the postponement and that as such you will be donating £250 to charity as you agreed?

**EDIT** Tony, would it be possible, and i can understand if you didn't want to, to scan and upload the letter from Carter Ruck which states the above so we can end this debate once and for all about who has caved in and asked for a postponement

____________________
What is certain is that since the start of the investigation there were  incongruent and even contradictory situations concerning the witness statements; the telephone records of calls that were made and received on mobile phones that belonged to the couple and to the group of friends that were on holidays with them; the movements of people right after the disappearance of the little girl was noticed, concerning the state in which the bedroom from where the child disappeared from was found (closed window? open window? partially open window?) etc., and the mystery would only become even thicker due to the clues that were left by the already mentioned sniffer dogs. - The Words of a JUDGE in relation to the McCanns

Me

Posts : 683
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2011-05-22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

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'?

Post by Dr What on 26.01.13 10:14

Ed

What you are suggesting then is that the Mcs and legal team had no intention of ever going to court, because they must have known the appeals and the delays that would arise.

Dr What

Posts : 241
Reputation : 17
Join date : 2012-10-26

View user profile

Back to top Go down

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'?

Post by Me on 26.01.13 10:15

@Dr What wrote:Ed

What you are suggesting then is that the Mcs and legal team had no intention of ever going to court, because they must have known the appeals and the delays that would arise.

If it is then isn't that termed "vexatious litigiation", and don't courts frown upon it?

____________________
What is certain is that since the start of the investigation there were  incongruent and even contradictory situations concerning the witness statements; the telephone records of calls that were made and received on mobile phones that belonged to the couple and to the group of friends that were on holidays with them; the movements of people right after the disappearance of the little girl was noticed, concerning the state in which the bedroom from where the child disappeared from was found (closed window? open window? partially open window?) etc., and the mystery would only become even thicker due to the clues that were left by the already mentioned sniffer dogs. - The Words of a JUDGE in relation to the McCanns

Me

Posts : 683
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2011-05-22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

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'?

Post by Eddie on 26.01.13 10:16

@Me wrote:
ed1976 wrote:
candyfloss wrote:ed1976, I am getting rather annoyed now, so if I were you I would give it a rest. You are talking nonsense. If the McCanns wanted to impose anything then all they had to do is go ahead with the trial, win, go past go, collect 1.2million, and impose anything they wanted as winners.........doh!!

Quote from letter by TB on first page of this thread.



“…I understand that the trial, which had been due to take place in January 2013, has been postponed at the request of the Claimants’ lawyer, to allow the parties to explore whether a settlement may be reached which gives the Claimants sufficient vindication and protection in the future”.

Which part of the sentence in red do you not understand? The McCanns will be asking for conditions from Amaral as part of the settlement.

Are you thick?

Tony is not stating that as his fact, that is what Carter Ruck stated in the avadavit they served upon him.

As the McCann's lawyers they are going to spin it that way. They are not going to say "to allow our client to crumble and give the defendent everything he wants".

Can you confirm that now it is stated by Carter Ruck that the trial "HAS BEEN POSTPONED AT THE REQUEST OF THE CLAIMANTS' LAWYER" that you now accept you have lost our bet as to who requested the postponement and that as such you will be donating £250 to charity?

You are the thick one. the bet was that the McCanns had not caved in. This letter confirms their true intentions. they will still seek conditions from Amareal.

____________________


Eddie

Posts : 107
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-01-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

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'?

Post by Eddie on 26.01.13 10:20

@Dr What wrote:Ed

What you are suggesting then is that the Mcs and legal team had no intention of ever going to court, because they must have known the appeals and the delays that would arise.

I am giving you my opinion, isn't that what we are all doing.

By going to court the McCanns

Had the book banned ...albeit temporarily

Had Amarals assets frozen...still inplace

Stopped Amaral from repeating his claims

So the libel wriy has been to a large extent a success. They haven't achieved all their aims but they haven't finished yet.

____________________


Eddie

Posts : 107
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-01-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

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'?

Post by Me on 26.01.13 10:26

I find it hugely amusing that the mental patients over on JATYK seem to think they have been vindicated becuase of the above mentioned line from Carter Ruck.

Nurse, stronger medicine is required!

How can they be vindicated when they claimed (amongst other things)

"So, the Fat Defective has folded, without any Ace-playing. No wonder his face was tripping him"

How they can claim they were right when CR's letter clearly states:

has been postponed at the request of the Claimants’ lawyer

How can Amaral have "folded" when CR have CONFIRMED that it was the McCann's that requested the postponement.

Anyone with anything approaching normal intelliegence can see it is the McCann's who have folded.

They have now moved on to use the line:

whether a settlement may be reached which gives the Claimants sufficient vindication and protection in the future

As some kind of vindiciation. Er hello!

Of course they are going to try and get a fasvourable settlement but by caving in as the claimant they have no power, they have no bargaining chips and they are acknowleding by requesting the postponement that they want to get out of the case.

____________________
What is certain is that since the start of the investigation there were  incongruent and even contradictory situations concerning the witness statements; the telephone records of calls that were made and received on mobile phones that belonged to the couple and to the group of friends that were on holidays with them; the movements of people right after the disappearance of the little girl was noticed, concerning the state in which the bedroom from where the child disappeared from was found (closed window? open window? partially open window?) etc., and the mystery would only become even thicker due to the clues that were left by the already mentioned sniffer dogs. - The Words of a JUDGE in relation to the McCanns

Me

Posts : 683
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2011-05-22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

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'?

Post by Me on 26.01.13 10:27

ed1976 wrote:I am giving you my opinion, isn't that what we are all doing.

By going to court the McCanns

Had the book banned ...albeit temporarily

Had Amarals assets frozen...still inplace

Stopped Amaral from repeating his claims

So the libel wriy has been to a large extent a success. They haven't achieved all their aims but they haven't finished yet.

Seeing as you are on the forum, please answer my question about the bet we had. Please confirm whether you intend to honour it or not.

____________________
What is certain is that since the start of the investigation there were  incongruent and even contradictory situations concerning the witness statements; the telephone records of calls that were made and received on mobile phones that belonged to the couple and to the group of friends that were on holidays with them; the movements of people right after the disappearance of the little girl was noticed, concerning the state in which the bedroom from where the child disappeared from was found (closed window? open window? partially open window?) etc., and the mystery would only become even thicker due to the clues that were left by the already mentioned sniffer dogs. - The Words of a JUDGE in relation to the McCanns

Me

Posts : 683
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2011-05-22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

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'?

Post by Guest on 26.01.13 10:29

Which part of this from your own post do you not understand......

“…I understand that the trial, which had been due to take place in January 2013, has been postponed at the request of the Claimants’ lawyer, to allow the parties to explore whether a settlement may be reached which gives the Claimants sufficient vindication and protection in the future”.


Read carefully, from CR... postponed at the request of the claimants. Why would you try and reach a settlement if you had brought the case, and were obviously certain of winning. It's almost unheard of, it is normally the defendent who seeks a settlement, usually early on to avoid a costly trial and fees.

I think you have lost your bet with 'Me'

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

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'?

Post by Dr What on 26.01.13 10:30

Ed

I wonder when they will be finished?

Dr What

Posts : 241
Reputation : 17
Join date : 2012-10-26

View user profile

Back to top Go down

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'?

Post by Guest on 26.01.13 10:32

Just a reminder ed of what you posted re the bet....



@Me wrote:
ed1976 wrote:
@Me wrote:
ed1976 wrote:I do not know how the law works in portugal but certainly in the UK the court will encourage both parties to reach a settlement without going to court. Amaral has a new lawyer. If the new lawyer has advised Amaral to reach a settlement then the McCannns may have no choice other than agree to try. They would of course be given the option to continue the action if a settlement isn't reached.

Ok, money where your mouth is time. Do you want to put a wager on as to who has conceded here.

Say £250 to charity from whomever is wrong. I'm going with the Mccann's caving, you're going with Amaral.

You taking the bet?

Yes.

Ok, we have a bet. Winner nominates the charity (note must be a real charity and not a limited liability company purporting to be a charity or fund).

Candy, as a mod here please make a note of this little bet, and we will resureect this post when the truth comes out.



Ooops!!! Cough up like a good chap/chapess

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

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'?

Post by Me on 26.01.13 10:37

Thanks Candy, i was just looking for that!

I'd like the money to go to Cancer Research please Ed.

____________________
What is certain is that since the start of the investigation there were  incongruent and even contradictory situations concerning the witness statements; the telephone records of calls that were made and received on mobile phones that belonged to the couple and to the group of friends that were on holidays with them; the movements of people right after the disappearance of the little girl was noticed, concerning the state in which the bedroom from where the child disappeared from was found (closed window? open window? partially open window?) etc., and the mystery would only become even thicker due to the clues that were left by the already mentioned sniffer dogs. - The Words of a JUDGE in relation to the McCanns

Me

Posts : 683
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2011-05-22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

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'?

Post by Eddie on 26.01.13 10:42

Are you thick?

Tony is not stating that as his fact, that is what Carter Ruck stated in the avadavit they served upon him.

As the McCann's lawyers they are going to spin it that way. They are not going to say "to allow our client to crumble and give the defendent everything he wants".

Can you confirm that now it is stated by Carter Ruck that the trial "HAS BEEN POSTPONED AT THE REQUEST OF THE CLAIMANTS' LAWYER" that you now accept you have lost our bet as to who requested the postponement and that as such you will be donating £250 to charity as you agreed?

**EDIT** Tony, would it be possible, and i can understand if you didn't want to, to scan and upload the letter from Carter Ruck which states the above so we can end this debate once and for all about who has caved in and asked for a postponement



Above is your first post where you state the terms of the bet , highlighted in red.

First this was not the terms of the bet, you have lied. The term of the bet was who was"caving", a massive difference. this is your problem, you have no attention to detail.At present no one is caving, we dont know the terms of any settlement or whether the libel case will be reinstated. You are the thick one.

____________________


Eddie

Posts : 107
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-01-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

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'?

Post by listener on 26.01.13 10:52

As an independent observer, Ed - pay up !

listener

Posts : 565
Reputation : 5
Join date : 2010-01-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

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'?

Post by Eddie on 26.01.13 10:53

@listener wrote:As an independent observer, Ed - pay up !

you are not independent

____________________


Eddie

Posts : 107
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-01-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

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'?

Post by Guest on 26.01.13 10:57

Perhaps we can have a separate topic - with bets taken - as to the likelihood of any charity benefitting from the original bet.


Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

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'?

Post by listener on 26.01.13 10:58

ed1976 wrote:
@listener wrote:As an independent observer, Ed - pay up !

you are not independent

Maybe not yet - but I pay my dues

listener

Posts : 565
Reputation : 5
Join date : 2010-01-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

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'?

Post by Smokeandmirrors on 26.01.13 10:59

Jean wrote:Perhaps we can have a separate topic - with bets taken - as to the likelihood of any charity benefitting from the original bet.


Excellent idea Jean. Perhaps it could be titled "One Trick Pony". Or Pony and Trap for the Cockney minded. big grin

____________________
The truth will out.

Smokeandmirrors
Moderator

Posts : 2428
Reputation : 5
Join date : 2011-07-31

View user profile

Back to top Go down

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'?

Post by Eddie on 26.01.13 11:09

candyfloss wrote:Just a reminder ed of what you posted re the bet....



@Me wrote:
ed1976 wrote:
@Me wrote:
ed1976 wrote:I do not know how the law works in portugal but certainly in the UK the court will encourage both parties to reach a settlement without going to court. Amaral has a new lawyer. If the new lawyer has advised Amaral to reach a settlement then the McCannns may have no choice other than agree to try. They would of course be given the option to continue the action if a settlement isn't reached.

Ok, money where your mouth is time. Do you want to put a wager on as to who has conceded here.

Say £250 to charity from whomever is wrong. I'm going with the Mccann's caving, you're going with Amaral.

You taking the bet?

Yes.





Ok, we have a bet. Winner nominates the charity (note must be a real charity and not a limited liability company purporting to be a charity or fund).

Candy, as a mod here please make a note of this little bet, and we will resureect this post when the truth comes out.



Ooops!!! Cough up like a good chap/chapess





Just areminder of the original bet

____________________


Eddie

Posts : 107
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-01-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

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'?

Post by Inspectorfrost on 26.01.13 11:10

First this was not the terms of the bet, you have lied. The term of the bet was who was"caving", a massive difference. this is your problem, you have no attention to detail.At present no one is caving, we dont know the terms of any settlement or whether the libel case will be reinstated. You are the thick one


*******

Ed, the bet was not about the specifics of any settlement or whether a libel trial will go ahead. It arose out of the discussion on WHO requested the trial to be suspended so that negotiations could take place. Me bet it was the Mccanns, he was right, therefore you lost. No amount of backtracking and twisting can change that. Its all there in black and white.

End of.
titter

Inspectorfrost

Posts : 841
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2012-12-09

View user profile

Back to top Go down

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'?

Post by bobbin on 26.01.13 11:12

@listener wrote:
ed1976 wrote:
@listener wrote:As an independent observer, Ed - pay up !

you are not independent

Maybe not yet - but I pay my dues

You show yourself as dishonourable Ed. When you take a bet you have to pay up if you lose.
You have lost, not just the bet, but now your credibility.
You say you have three small children. You are very lucky. You say you work, so, as it's Saturday, its a good time to be playing with them, and looking after their interests and development.
Time to get back to looking after them properly, as opposed to the McCanns who clearly admitted to not doing that when they neglected their three little children night after night, leaving them in an unlocked apartment in a foreign country.

bobbin

Posts : 2030
Reputation : 119
Join date : 2011-12-05

View user profile

Back to top Go down

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'?

Post by Montclair on 26.01.13 11:15

ed1976 wrote:
@Dr What wrote:Ed

What you are suggesting then is that the Mcs and legal team had no intention of ever going to court, because they must have known the appeals and the delays that would arise.

I am giving you my opinion, isn't that what we are all doing.

By going to court the McCanns

Had the book banned ...albeit temporarily

Had Amarals assets frozen...still inplace

Stopped Amaral from repeating his claims

So the libel wriy has been to a large extent a success. They haven't achieved all their aims but they haven't finished yet.

According to the ruling of 19 October 2010 by the Tribunal de Relação de Lisboa and confirmed by the Portuguese Supreme Court, Gonçalo Amaral recovered his right to freedom of speech and can speak about the case all he wants. BTW, those claims were the conclusions of the investigation and not just GA's personal claims. You do remember that ruling which was incredibly scathing in regards to the previous rulings?

Furthermore, GA's assets were only frozen until the outcome of the libel trial, nothing special there, although the McCanns intention was to strangle him financially in order to force him to settle out of court. Ironic, isn't it that it is now the couple who want to settle out of court. They are in no position to make demands on GA. They can only now make their proposals and he is in no way obliged to accept them. If he says no, after 6 months the case goes to trial. He loses nothing by refusing their offers.

Montclair

Posts : 156
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2013-01-26
Age : 70
Location : Algarve

View user profile

Back to top Go down

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'?

Post by Eddie on 26.01.13 11:18

@Inspectorfrost wrote:First this was not the terms of the bet, you have lied. The term of the bet was who was"caving", a massive difference. this is your problem, you have no attention to detail.At present no one is caving, we dont know the terms of any settlement or whether the libel case will be reinstated. You are the thick one


*******

Ed, the bet was not about the specifics of any settlement or whether a libel trial will go ahead. It arose out of the discussion on WHO requested the trial to be suspended so that negotiations could take place. Me bet it was the Mccanns, he was right, therefore you lost. No amount of backtracking and twisting can change that. Its all there in black and white.

End of.


The whole problem with your arguments and many posters on here is that it is about specifics.

Me was very specific in his post and the word he used was caving. you want to make things up as you go along.

____________________


Eddie

Posts : 107
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-01-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

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'?

Post by Inspectorfrost on 26.01.13 11:36

Just so laughable and extremely predictable. It would be good if you werent such a sore loser.
never mind
rotfl




Inspectorfrost

Posts : 841
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2012-12-09

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Page 3 of 17 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4 ... 10 ... 17  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum