Libel Trial 7th Jan Postponed - confirmed

candyfloss wrote:Interesting from Nigel of McCannfiles.....


Nigel Moore ‏@mccannfiles  9m  
GA lawyer on court delay: "There is a legal conflict in whether or not Kate and Gerry McCann can represent their daughter in court." #mccann

I brought this up a long time ago.

I asked HOW could a 'missing' person bring a court action or be included in one?

By definition, if the 'missing' person was personally to be represented in a claim, they wouldn't be 'missing'

Would they?

Otherwise, we'd all be claiming to represent 'missing' family members in court cases and claiming for all their 'compo' as well as our own!

Ok, my head 'urts!
     

An award would not be enough voor Madeleine. The McCanns would at least demand an Oscar.

Has anyone got an understandable reason why MM was made a ward of court? I read way back it was done so that the Mcs could get their hands on LP investigatory data but that makes no sense to me either.

When I was growing up, the notion of making someone a ward of court was usually a reference to troublesome teenage girls who had gone so far off the rails that the parents had used this as a last resort to get someone else to control them, ie. nominating the courts "in loco parentis". In many respects, the ultimate parental rejection. However, I am still in the dark as to how this situation can segue into the McCanns litigating on behalf of a child they have divested responsibility for, notwithstanding the fact that she has been missing for 6.5 yrs into the bargain.

Would a win for TM against GA see MM's tranche of money being haggled over in further court cases, on the basis that the "search fund" is a legitimate use of money designated as compensation for harm caused the child.

As she remains a ward of court does it raise the possibility of parental abandonment twice over being actionable in a civil case brought by any individual so minded?

Posted on twitter with kind permission from Astro:



"Goncalo Amaral's lawyer filed a request for the court to evaluate the McCann couple's legitimacy to file a lawsuit in their daughter's name as she is a Ward of Court in the UK. 



He did not ask for any postponement.  It was the judge that issued a 15-day deadline for him to submit the relevant documentation.



Afterwards, Dr Isabel Duarte filed a document that is related to Mr Alan Pike, and asked for a postponement of Tuesday's session.



This information is not covered by judicial secrecy and can be freely shared".




I was under the impression that the matter of Madeleine McCann being a Ward of Court was dealt with either at the commencement of these libel proceedings or earlier and that it had been determined that the McCanns could not sue on her behalf.  I was also under the impression that Madeleine McCann's name had been removed from the Plaint.

It's my understanding that in Wardship matters only the Court can issue legal proceedings on behalf of its Ward(s) and, further, the fact that Madeleine is a Ward of Court precludes the McCanns from being given assistente status in relation to the PJ's re-opened criminal investigation.

ultimaThule wrote:
Posted on twitter with kind permission from Astro:
"Goncalo Amaral's lawyer filed a request for the court to evaluate the McCann couple's legitimacy to file a lawsuit in their daughter's name as she is a Ward of Court in the UK. 

He did not ask for any postponement.  It was the judge that issued a 15-day deadline for him to submit the relevant documentation.

Afterwards, Dr Isabel Duarte filed a document that is related to Mr Alan Pike, and asked for a postponement of Tuesday's session.

This information is not covered by judicial secrecy and can be freely shared".

I was under the impression that the matter of Madeleine McCann being a Ward of Court was dealt with either at the commencement of these libel proceedings or earlier and that it had been determined that the McCanns could not sue on her behalf.  I was also under the impression that Madeleine McCann's name had been removed from the Plaint.

It's my understanding that in Wardship matters only the Court can issue legal proceedings on behalf of its Ward(s) and, further, the fact that Madeleine is a Ward of Court precludes the McCanns from being given assistente status in relation to the PJ's re-opened criminal investigation.

Well, this starts to address some of the questions floating in my mind with regard to the Ward of Court status. The only surprise is that it wasn't picked up at the start of these proceedings - even as far back as the first libel trial. It could have saved Goncalo a lot of grief.

I guess the reality is this forum is steeped in knowledge that perhaps others are not so conversant with. But a ward of court? I cannot believe this was not addressed at the outset.

But didn't Isabel Duarte state the total amount of damages sought, breaking them down into individual amounts for each of the family members on Day 1 of this latest trial?

Mirage wrote:But didn't Isabel Duarte state the total amount of damages sought, breaking them down into individual amounts for each of the family members on Day 1 of this latest trial?

Lets hope this isn't damage limitation.

Pershing36 wrote:

Mirage wrote:But didn't Isabel Duarte state the total amount of damages sought, breaking them down into individual amounts for each of the family members on Day 1 of this latest trial?

Lets hope this isn't damage limitation.

Amaral's lawyers wouldn't be doing their job properly if they didn't take all actions to limit potential damages. It doesn't mean that they think they're going to lose.

whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:

Pershing36 wrote:

Mirage wrote:But didn't Isabel Duarte state the total amount of damages sought, breaking them down into individual amounts for each of the family members on Day 1 of this latest trial?

Lets hope this isn't damage limitation.

Amaral's lawyers wouldn't be doing their job properly if they didn't take all actions to limit potential damages.  It doesn't mean that they think they're going to lose.

I don't think this is a priori damage limitation, although it is in the nature of combatants to secure this. I don't know what the possible reasons are for the ward of court issue blowing up now. Sometimes I wonder if some things slip through the legal net because of the dichotomy between two different legal systems. And let's face it, TM wouldn't be in any hurry to divulge any impediment to obtaining money, now would they?

He (GA) did not ask for any postponement.  It was the judge that issued a 15-day deadline for him to submit the relevant documentation.

Afterwards, Dr Isabel Duarte (McCanns lawyer) filed a document that is related to Mr Alan Pike, and (she) ASKED for a POSTPONEMENT of Tuesday's session.

As for the document related to Mr Alan Pike, perhaps it contains something that he stated under oath 'as true' which wasn't 'quite' so true.

Who knows?

But i don't think that the McCanns can afford to 'lose' another of their star witnesses testimony.

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

Oh dear, it would appear, then, that it was the McCanns own lawyer that brought about the postponement of the trial on Tuesday 7th January 2014.

HOW will Clarrie/TrulyAwful 'spin' THAT?

Mirage wrote:But didn't Isabel Duarte state the total amount of damages sought, breaking them down into individual amounts for each of the family members on Day 1 of this latest trial?

12th September 2013
Isabel Duarte [at Palácio de Justiça, in Lisbon]: The expectations are that the trial is done as fast as possible... what is in question are the personality rights of Kate.. of Gerry.. of Madeleine.. of Sean and of.. ah.. Amelie, breached by the book that we are going to judge here. It's an action for compensation and, and, other decisions surrounding the book... Aaaand as lawyers use to say, I hope that justice is done. [smiles and laughs]

Journalist in situ: In that action for compensation exactly what does the McCann couple ask?

Isabel Duarte: They ask for a compensation in money.

Journalist: How much?

Isabel Duarte: 250 thousand euros for each of the persons involved, they are FIVE

http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2013/09/a-sort-of-open-letter-to-mrs-duarte.html

whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:

Pershing36 wrote:

Mirage wrote:But didn't Isabel Duarte state the total amount of damages sought, breaking them down into individual amounts for each of the family members on Day 1 of this latest trial?

Lets hope this isn't damage limitation.

Amaral's lawyers wouldn't be doing their job properly if they didn't take all actions to limit potential damages.  It doesn't mean that they think they're going to lose.

Couldn't Amaral be stalling just because he can? I get the feeling that any delays in this process are likely to be far more damaging to the McCann side than to him.

Clay Regazzoni wrote:

whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:

Pershing36 wrote:

Mirage wrote:But didn't Isabel Duarte state the total amount of damages sought, breaking them down into individual amounts for each of the family members on Day 1 of this latest trial?

Lets hope this isn't damage limitation.

Amaral's lawyers wouldn't be doing their job properly if they didn't take all actions to limit potential damages.  It doesn't mean that they think they're going to lose.

Couldn't Amaral be stalling just because he can? I get the feeling that any delays in this process are likely to be far more damaging to the McCann side than to him.  

Dr Amaral has had life ruined and you think he would stall this case just because he can?

admin wrote:

Clay Regazzoni wrote:

whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:

Pershing36 wrote:

Mirage wrote:But didn't Isabel Duarte state the total amount of damages sought, breaking them down into individual amounts for each of the family members on Day 1 of this latest trial?

Lets hope this isn't damage limitation.

Amaral's lawyers wouldn't be doing their job properly if they didn't take all actions to limit potential damages.  It doesn't mean that they think they're going to lose.

Couldn't Amaral be stalling just because he can? I get the feeling that any delays in this process are likely to be far more damaging to the McCann side than to him.  

Dr Amaral has had life ruined and you think he would stall this case just because he can?

Things are delicately poised. A delay here and there isn't going to make much difference to his current situation, whereas I can imagine the McCanns being on tenterhooks over this ill advised crusade. If playing the long game, it is advantageous to make it as long as possible.

BUT GA hasn't stalled on anything, has he?

It was, in FACT, the McCanns own lawyer ID that asked for a postponement last Tuesday 7th January 2014.

"Afterwards, Dr Isabel Duarte (McCanns lawyer) filed a document that is related to Mr Alan Pike, and (she) ASKED for a POSTPONEMENT of Tuesday's session."

So ask yourselves, WHO is doing the 'stalling' if that is what is going on?

And it dosen't begin with G!

jeanmonroe wrote:

Mirage wrote:But didn't Isabel Duarte state the total amount of damages sought, breaking them down into individual amounts for each of the family members on Day 1 of this latest trial?

12th September 2013
Isabel Duarte [at Palácio de Justiça, in Lisbon]: The expectations are that the trial is done as fast as possible... what is in question are the personality rights of Kate.. of Gerry.. of Madeleine.. of Sean and of.. ah.. Amelie, breached by the book that we are going to judge here. It's an action for compensation and, and, other decisions surrounding the book... Aaaand as lawyers use to say, I hope that justice is done. [smiles and laughs]

Journalist in situ: In that action for compensation exactly what does the McCann couple ask?

Isabel Duarte: They ask for a compensation in money.

Journalist: How much?

Isabel Duarte: 250 thousand euros for each of the persons involved, they are FIVE

http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2013/09/a-sort-of-open-letter-to-mrs-duarte.html

Oh dear, maybe ID must cut down their demand by 1/4 million euro, that is if she does not get reprimanded for brass incompetency first.

Even if they downsize their $ demand, I doubt they will get anything at all.
Civil case award in Portugal is usually a nominal sum. Won't be anywhere enough for them to cover their own legal costs.
If they lose, even worst, their Fund will be bankrupt and the mccann couple might have to sell up.

jeanmonroe wrote:BUT GA hasn't stalled on anything, has he?

It was, in FACT, the McCanns own lawyer ID that asked for a potponement last Tuesday.

"Afterwards, Dr Isabel Duarte (McCanns lawyer) filed a document that is related to Mr Alan Pike, and (she) ASKED for a POSTPONEMENT of Tuesday's session."

So ask yourselves, WHO is doing the 'stalling' if that is what is going on?

And it dosen't begin with G!

Pertinent Q is : why did ID need more time ?
To prepare further ?
To gather more doc to substantiate witnesses claims ?
What?
It shows she's not ready, not a sign of someone confident with her case........

Ayoyo,

No, they are the parties in the proceedings, not the Fund. So they pay in person, Sean and Amelie liable for paying their equal shares as they have been drawn into this mess by their parents.

Small wonder GA now inquires if Maddy is correctly partaking in the proceedings: if she isn't, the Mecs and the twins each pay 1/4 of the expenses, otherwise they and little Maddie 1/5 each.

Remember: there are multiple defendants, so the expenses facing the twins may be vast

aiyoyo wrote:

jeanmonroe wrote:

Mirage wrote:But didn't Isabel Duarte state the total amount of damages sought, breaking them down into individual amounts for each of the family members on Day 1 of this latest trial?

12th September 2013
Isabel Duarte [at Palácio de Justiça, in Lisbon]: The expectations are that the trial is done as fast as possible... what is in question are the personality rights of Kate.. of Gerry.. of Madeleine.. of Sean and of.. ah.. Amelie, breached by the book that we are going to judge here. It's an action for compensation and, and, other decisions surrounding the book... Aaaand as lawyers use to say, I hope that justice is done. [smiles and laughs]

Journalist in situ: In that action for compensation exactly what does the McCann couple ask?

Isabel Duarte: They ask for a compensation in money.

Journalist: How much?

Isabel Duarte: 250 thousand euros for each of the persons involved, they are FIVE

http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2013/09/a-sort-of-open-letter-to-mrs-duarte.html

Oh dear, maybe ID must cut down their demand by 1/4 million euro, that is if she does not get reprimanded for brass incompetency first.

Even if they downsize their $ demand, I doubt they will get anything at all.
Civil case award in Portugal is usually a nominal sum. Won't be anywhere enough for them to cover their own legal costs.
If they lose, even worst, their Fund will be bankrupt and the mccann couple might have to sell up.

Nah .... can you imagine the headlines "Poor McCann Family Now Made Homeless" - the donations would come pouring in !!

aiyoyo:
Pertinent Q is : why did ID need more time ?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

To make sure the cheque she demanded, for her services to date, and got from the McS dosen't 'bounce'?

 

Mirage wrote:But didn't Isabel Duarte state the total amount of damages sought, breaking them down into individual amounts for each of the family members on Day 1 of this latest trial?

That fits with my understanding, Mirage, and I was under the impression it had been determined that the McCanns could not legally pursue a claim on behalf of one of their children who was made a Ward in April 2008.  

Given my belief that Madeleine died on or before 3 May 2007, IMO the only reason why the McCanns sought to have her made a Ward of Court was to foster the illusion that she was alive.  

In cases where a child or children are abducted by a parent who has taken them out of the UK, it's not uncommon for application to be made for Wardship as this enables the High Court to order their immediate return to its jurisdiction. 

Such orders can compel those having knowledge of where the child/ren may be to reveal their whereabouts, or to disclose any other information they may have pertaining to the Ward(s). 

It would appear that the McCanns used this aspect of Wardship in an attempt to compel Leicestershire Police to disclose all of the information they held about the case and insodoing bit off far more than they could chew as the case attracted the attention of the Attorney General and other agencies - hence their subsequent and somewhat rapid willingness to settle for a handful of non-confidential documents.  

For some time now I've been compiling what will inevitably be a very long post on the implications and ramifications of Madeleine McCann having been warded, together with the ways in which I believe this has been of particular benefit to her parents, and would ask you to be patient until such time as I can complete this mini-tome which I trust will answer all of the questions you've raised, albeit it may give rise to many more.

In the meantime, for reasons which I have no time to elaborate on at present, there's no 'possibility of parental abandonment twice over being actionable in a civil case brought by any individual so minded'.

However, in the event the McCanns are able to secure a financial award in favour of one of their children who is a Ward of Court it may give rise to some interesting legal argument as to where those monies should be invested pending the child attaining the age of majority  

Historically speaking, Wardship has rarely been sought by those parents who deem their children to be out of control but was applied for on occasion to require the child/ren to conform to what was considered to be a reasonable norm, such not running off to Gretna while underage in England/Wales to marry an 'undesirable' and suchlike.

In more recent times those parents who are unable to control the behaviour of their child(ren) may seek to place them in the care of their local authority who may, or may, not apply for full Care Orders in the Family Courts.

Btw, I'm very pleased to see you back and hope this means you'll soon feel well enough to 'drop in' daily as this forum is the poorer for your absence.

Portia wrote:Ayoyo,

No, they are the parties in the proceedings, not the Fund. So they pay in person, Sean and Amelie liable for paying their equal shares as they have been drawn into this mess by their parents.

Small wonder GA now inquires if Maddy is correctly partaking in the proceedings: if she isn't, the Mecs and the twins each pay 1/4 of the expenses, otherwise  they and little Maddie 1/5 each.

Remember: there are multiple defendants, so the expenses facing the twins may be vast

Compensation is apportioned, not expenses.
The Mccanns NEVER pay for anything out of their own pocket.
The Fund will borne 100% of legal expenses.
One of the listed Objectives of the Fund (in case you haven't noticed) IS: to help the family.
Meaning it can be used anyhow they like.

Portia wrote:Ayoyo,

No, they are the parties in the proceedings, not the Fund. So they pay in person, Sean and Amelie liable for paying their equal shares as they have been drawn into this mess by their parents.

Small wonder GA now inquires if Maddy is correctly partaking in the proceedings: if she isn't, the Mecs and the twins each pay 1/4 of the expenses, otherwise  they and little Maddie 1/5 each.

Remember: there are multiple defendants, so the expenses facing the twins may be vast

The twins and Madeleine have still got to pay for this 'loss'!

Unspecified Injunction
Process number 6000/09.8TVLSB-A.L 1
Lisbon Appellate Court Decision
Appeal Review

I – Report

At the judicial circuit of Lisbon

Kate Marie Healey McCann,
Gerald Patrick McCann,
Madeleine Beth McCann,
Sean Michael McCann and
Amelie Eve McCann

Have filed an unspecified injunction against:

Gonçalo de Sousa Amaral,
Guerra e Paz, Editores, SA
VC – Valentim de Carvalho – Filmes, Audiovisuais, SA and
TVI – Televisão Independente, SA
III – Decision

In harmony with what is written above, under the terms of the cited dispositions, the Judges at this Appeals Court declare the validity of the appeal filed by defendant Dr. Gonçalo Amaral, and the sentence of the Court a quo is revoked, its disposition replaced by the following:

The injunction is deemed not valid because it was not proved.

Furthermore we deliberate that we do not acknowledge the rest of the appeals.

Costs to be paid by the appellants................. [the McCann couple AND their three children].

Lisbon and Appeals Court, 14.10.2010

The Appellate Court Judges,

Francisco Bruto da Costa
Catarina Arelo Manso
António Valente

Poor little mites! Oh well, with parents like them that 'spread' the costs of a court case, even upon their kids, what chance have those kids really got?

Portia wrote:Ayoyo,

No, they are the parties in the proceedings, not the Fund. So they pay in person, Sean and Amelie liable for paying their equal shares as they have been drawn into this mess by their parents.

Small wonder GA now inquires if Maddy is correctly partaking in the proceedings: if she isn't, the Mecs and the twins each pay 1/4 of the expenses, otherwise  they and little Maddie 1/5 each.

Remember: there are multiple defendants, so the expenses facing the twins may be vast

As Sean and Amelie are minors they cannot institute proceedings in a Court of Law in matters of libel or anything else; it therefore follows that their parents are wholly and fully liable for any costs that may be awarded against them just as they will liable for ensuring that any monies awarded in compensation are properly invested until the twins attain their majorities. 

This raises the interesting question of whether the High Court of England/Wales, as the legal guardian of Madeleine McCann, will be liable to pay that part of the legal costs relating to her being named on the Plaint should judgement be awarded against her as they will surely be liable to receive and invest or, at the very least, generally oversee safekeeping of any monies she receives by way of compensation/damages. 

Yet again the McCanns claim they won't be going to Lisbon in order to avoid a 'media circus' but the only 'media circus' that occurs is when the wee one dons his ringmaster outfit in order to posture in the Big Top or on another stage along with his pink wigged clown and the obligatory smartly clad female sidekick.  

What we're witnessing isn't so much a circus as a farce of large and long running proportions which needs to close now.