Re: Libel Trial 7th Jan Postponed - confirmed

by aiyoyo 09.01.14 16:33

Only if the Board of Directors prevent them abusing Fund money, then the Mccanns might think twice about suing people if they've to fork out of their own pocket.
Can anyone see that happen ?
The Mccanns should not be on the Board, conflict of interest and all, but they ARE, so that speaks volumes.

by jeanmonroe 09.01.14 16:42

aiyoyo wrote:

The Fund will bear 100% of legal expenses.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
September 20th, 2007,
Clarence Mitchell: McCanns official spokesman.

...............so that anybody who has given money to the Find Madeleine Fund to help find Madeleine need have no fear that their money is being spent on lawyers fees or anything like that"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, has Mitchell lied to everyone, that 'donated/gave money' so generously?

by ultimaThule 09.01.14 16:49

I posted before seeing your detailed outline of the Appellate Court decision in respect of costs, jeanmonroe, and of course whatever sum the Appellants incurred can no doubt be doubled, or possibly trebled?, to reflect the judgement of the Supreme Court of Portugal which upheld that of the Appellate Court in the face of the McCanns' further appeal.

It would appear that, in addition to their own legal and other costs to date, the McCanns have already shelled out 3 lots of Defendants' costs to date and, based on my conservative estimate of some 600,000e which they've expended to date on these proceedings, no doubt they've billed Mrs Justice Hogg c/o the Royal Courts of Justice for c120,000e as reimbursement for their eldest daughter's liability in this ill-advised venture.

by magrat70 09.01.14 16:56

ultimaThule wrote:
Posted on twitter with kindom 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.

It would seem that the pros believe that Dr Amaral (when they can spell his name) has caused this postponement because he wanted to include statements by kitchen staff!! Is it possible for them to get anything right?

by aiyoyo 09.01.14 17:02

jeanmonroe wrote:aiyoyo wrote:

The Fund will bear 100% of legal expenses.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
September 20th, 2007,
Clarence Mitchell: McCanns official spokesman.

...............so that anybody who has given money to the Find Madeleine Fund to help find Madeleine need have no fear that their money is being spent on lawyers fees or anything like that"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, has Mitchell lied to everyone, that 'donated/gave money' so generously?

But Fund Objective explicitly states : " to help the family."

by ultimaThule 09.01.14 17:04

If you'd highlighted this is in red It is amazing on twitter they are blaming Dr Amaral (when they can spell his name right ) for postponing the trial and going on about statements from kitchen staff; the pros I mean obviously. It seems they have the ability to get nothing right it would be clear that this is your comment and not mine or any part of the item I copied from Deb Butler's twitter account, Magrat.

It's not surprising the pros are blaming Dr Amaral as they're not in the business of putting the blame where it truly lies, which is on the heads of their idols.

by **PeterMac** 09.01.14 17:06

aiyoyo wrote:
jeanmonroe wrote:aiyoyo wrote:
The Fund will bear 100% of legal expenses.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
September 20th, 2007,
Clarence Mitchell: McCanns official spokesman.
...............so that anybody who has given money to the Find Madeleine Fund to help find Madeleine need have no fear that their money is being spent on lawyers fees or anything like that"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, has Mitchell lied to everyone, that 'donated/gave money' so generously?
But Fund Objective explicitly states : " to help the family."

And uncle Brian Kennedy said on the record right at the start that the "Fund" would be used -" mainly for legal expenses".

So Yet again there is a complete contradiction
Shutters, curtains, doors, . . . and now legal fees.

by aiyoyo 09.01.14 17:06

ultimaThule wrote:I posted before seeing your detailed outline of the Appellate Court decision in respect of costs, jeanmonroe, and of course whatever sum the Appellants incurred can no doubt be doubled, or possibly trebled?, to reflect the judgement of the Supreme Court of Portugal which upheld that of the Appellate Court in the face of the McCanns' further appeal.

It would appear that, in addition to their own legal and other costs to date, the McCanns have already shelled out 3 lots of Defendants' costs to date and, based on my conservative estimate of some 600,000e which they've expended to date on these proceedings, no doubt they've billed Mrs Justice Hogg c/o the Royal Courts of Justice for c100,000e as reimbursement for their eldest daughter's liability in this ill-advised venture

by NickE 09.01.14 17:07

Is there any new date for the trial?

by Guest 09.01.14 17:29

aiyoyo wrote:
ultimaThule wrote:I posted before seeing your detailed outline of the Appellate Court decision in respect of costs, jeanmonroe, and of course whatever sum the Appellants incurred can no doubt be doubled, or possibly trebled?, to reflect the judgement of the Supreme Court of Portugal which upheld that of the Appellate Court in the face of the McCanns' further appeal.

It would appear that, in addition to their own legal and other costs to date, the McCanns have already shelled out 3 lots of Defendants' costs to date and, based on my conservative estimate of some 600,000e which they've expended to date on these proceedings, no doubt they've billed Mrs Justice Hogg c/o the Royal Courts of Justice for c100,000e as reimbursement for their eldest daughter's liability in this ill-advised venture

Presumably if she ordered them, or gave them permission, to represent her ward during the proceedings

If not, it seems to be an unauthorized action aimed ad raking in the 5th 'award' of euro 250.000 in Lisbon

BTW: isn't it very odd that this line of defense wasn't taken right at the outset of the proceedings? Isn't that the usual thing to do: to question who your opponents are, and to wield them away if possible, at the earliest possible moment?

Every lawyer knows this

But wait: IF there's any new groundbreaking information on the existence (= being alive) of little Maddie has recently surfaced, just in time for the Court to take it into account, as the Judge by her willingness to allow GAs 'new evidence' in court seems to have indicated: then a whole different ballgame could be on the cards!

Why, otherwise, at this ultimate stage, allow for additional new evidence on the existence of one of the plaintiffs?!

by aiyoyo 09.01.14 17:40

PeterMac wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:
jeanmonroe wrote:aiyoyo wrote:
The Fund will bear 100% of legal expenses.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
September 20th, 2007,
Clarence Mitchell: McCanns official spokesman.
...............so that anybody who has given money to the Find Madeleine Fund to help find Madeleine need have no fear that their money is being spent on lawyers fees or anything like that"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, has Mitchell lied to everyone, that 'donated/gave money' so generously?
But Fund Objective explicitly states : " to help the family."
And uncle Brian Kennedy said on the record right at the start that the "Fund" would be used -" mainly for legal expenses".

So Yet again there is a complete contradiction
Shutters, curtains, doors, . . . and now legal fees.

How Fund Board of Directors can approve for the names of the twins and a child without voice to demand for 250K euros on a lawsuit is mind boggling ?
It amounts to profiting from Madeleine misfortune.

Don't tell me the Mccanns did this behind the back of the rest of the Directors ?
Or,
Is the Fund truly just another of Mccanns' bank account to be used as they like, without the need to seek prior permission or obtain an unanimous decision from the Board of Directors for large sum to be spent ? It would be intriguing to see whether decision to use Fund for legal costs is minuted.

The Fund is not a partnership co. of Kate & Gerry, but a Pte Ltd co. under the governance of Companies House.

by aiyoyo 09.01.14 17:49

Portia wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:
ultimaThule wrote:I posted before seeing your detailed outline of the Appellate Court decision in respect of costs, jeanmonroe, and of course whatever sum the Appellants incurred can no doubt be doubled, or possibly trebled?, to reflect the judgement of the Supreme Court of Portugal which upheld that of the Appellate Court in the face of the McCanns' further appeal.

It would appear that, in addition to their own legal and other costs to date, the McCanns have already shelled out 3 lots of Defendants' costs to date and, based on my conservative estimate of some 600,000e which they've expended to date on these proceedings, no doubt they've billed Mrs Justice Hogg c/o the Royal Courts of Justice for c100,000e as reimbursement for their eldest daughter's liability in this ill-advised venture

Presumably if she ordered them, or gave them permission, to represent her ward during the proceedings

If not, it seems to be an unauthorized action aimed ad raking in the 5th 'award' of euro 250.000 in Lisbon

BTW: isn't it very odd that this line of defense wasn't taken right at the outset of the proceedings? Isn't that the usual thing to do: to question who your opponents are, and to wield them away if possible, at the earliest possible moment?

Every lawyer knows this

But wait: IF there's any new groundbreaking information on the existence (= being alive) of little Maddie has recently surfaced, just in time for the Court to take it into account, as the Judge by her willingness to allow GAs 'new evidence' in court seems to have indicated: then a whole different ballgame could be on the cards!

Why, otherwise, at this ultimate stage, allow for additional new evidence on the existence of one of the plaintiffs?!

The status of who is Madeleine legal guardian has to be established first.
Her parents filed her as WOC only for the purpose of using Court's power to force Police to give them information.

What is additional new evidence you're talking about ? I dont see any new evidence.

by Guest 09.01.14 17:59

Portia wrote:

BTW: isn't it very odd that this line of defense wasn't taken right at the outset of the proceedings? Isn't that the usual thing to do: to question who your opponents are, and to wield them away if possible, at the earliest possible moment?

Every lawyer knows this

But wait: IF there's any new groundbreaking information on the existence (= being alive) of little Maddie has recently surfaced, just in time for the Court to take it into account, as the Judge by her willingness to allow GAs 'new evidence' in court seems to have indicated: then a whole different ballgame could be on the cards!

Why, otherwise, at this ultimate stage, allow for additional new evidence on the existence of one of the plaintiffs?!

That's kind of the point I was trying to make. OK, so it was ID who officially asked for an adjournment, but GA was the first to stick his oar in on what was supposed to be a day of summing up and judge's deliberations. Maybe he's actively trying to bankrupt them.

by jeanmonroe 09.01.14 23:00

Maybe he's actively trying to bankrupt them.
===========================

WHY would he do that?

by suzyjohnson 09.01.14 23:47

Is the trial back on tomorrow? Or when?

by aiyoyo 10.01.14 0:00

No need for anyone to bankrupt them.

They did such a good job of bankrupting themselves.
Hired dodgy PIs, paid through their nose, ended up led by the nose.
One PI firm did some serious work - producing report and E-fits - they paid C-R to threaten this firm into silence; thus landing themselves in hot water - exposed for suppressing info.
Paid a bunch of nincompoops to go into the witness box and swear on their life to tell the truth. Ended up scoring own goals.

by aiyoyo 10.01.14 0:05

NickE wrote:Is there any new date for the trial?

Not just yet, ID is still desperately searching for missing evidence to support her Clients' mental state, else the Court can't take their claims seriously.

by marconi 10.01.14 2:12

They are doing everything to delay the trial. I hope it will not take centuries.

by lj 10.01.14 2:22

PeterMac wrote:Perhaps they have asked for time to Pray.

(Shamelessly borrowed from somewhere - Can't remember where, sorry, and then tidied up)

KATE AND GERRY'S PRAYER

Our Maddie, which art in heaven,
Hallowed be thy fund.
Thy money come.
White-wash be done
by the Met police,
As it is in the media
Give us this day our coffers filled with bread.
And do not blame us our trespasses,
As we Carter-Ruck them that dare to speak against us.
And lead us not into prison,
But deliver us from sniffers.
For ours is the government,
And May’s is Our power, and Cameron the Tory,
Cover up for ever and ever,
Our men.

More, more!!

by jeanmonroe 10.01.14 2:43

aiyoyo wrote:
NickE wrote:Is there any new date for the trial?

Not just yet, ID is still desperately searching for missing evidence to support her Clients' mental state, else the Court can't take their claims seriously.

ID: Found it 'm'lud. Here's the proof how 'mentally devastated' they are.
Libel Trial 7th Jan Postponed - confirmed - Page 6 Aab10

JANUARY 4TH 2014.
ID: "You can just see the indelible pain stamped on their faces"

Judge: "OH yeah. You win hands down.......................................NOOOT!

by bobbin 10.01.14 8:38

jeanmonroe wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:
NickE wrote:Is there any new date for the trial?

Not just yet, ID is still desperately searching for missing evidence to support her Clients' mental state, else the Court can't take their claims seriously.

ID: Found it 'm'lud. Here's the proof how 'mentally devastated' they are.

JANUARY 4TH 2014.
ID: "You can just see the indelible pain stamped on their faces"

Judge: "OH yeah. You win hands down.......................................NOOOT!

Seriously guys, is it just the camera angle or is his lordship's nose not getting longer as age goes by.

by russiandoll 10.01.14 8:44

It is normal for bereaved people to smile and laugh especially after a number of years when they have come to absorb the loss as a normal if very sad part of their lives.

I am not sure that any judge would regard this photo as strange, so long as the plaintiffs had not over-egged the pudding by claiming that even now they were so depressed that they were non-functioning. This photo and others clearly give the lie to that statement.

These are not people steeped in a severe and long- lasting depression, the occasional smiles they could muster would not be ear to ear grins.

eta I think speculation that the Mcs marriage is in trouble can be binned. This photo indicates all is well imo but similar to the photos of Cherie Booth looking adoringly at her husband whilst he looked elsewhere, it indicates where the power lies.

by Smokeandmirrors 10.01.14 9:07

bobbin wrote:
jeanmonroe wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:
NickE wrote:Is there any new date for the trial?

Not just yet, ID is still desperately searching for missing evidence to support her Clients' mental state, else the Court can't take their claims seriously.

ID: Found it 'm'lud. Here's the proof how 'mentally devastated' they are.

JANUARY 4TH 2014.
ID: "You can just see the indelible pain stamped on their faces"

Judge: "OH yeah. You win hands down.......................................NOOOT!
Seriously guys, is it just the camera angle or is his lordship's nose not getting longer as age goes by.

Pinnocchioitis has been rather prevalent in the Midlands in Wintertime since 2007, a nasty virus transferred more readily from one person to another if money and Pink Persons are in the vicinity. Sufferers are advised to set up a Limited Company and scratch their ears and nose a lot to help alleviate the symptoms. One is also advised to change ones verbal statements as often as possible and invest in a soothing couple to prevent this nasty disease spreading into the wider agenda. This virus can stay with the sufferer indefinitely or until the cash-flow stops completely. Unusually, the symptoms get much worse in front of a camera or in Portugal, but medical research has yet to find a vaccine.

by suzyjohnson 10.01.14 9:16

I think that if they knew what had happened to MM then their distress would be different to if they did not know

1) If they knew immediately that MM had died, then the impact would be immediate as grieving parents whose grief would slowly get better over time. However, if this grief was accompanied by the stress of trying to conceal the facts, then they would be suffering from stress which would resurface from time to time, particularly if something significant happened. I suppose if you had a lack of conscience or remorse, or if you had convinced yourself that you were in the right, then you might not be too stressed unless you felt as though you were on the verge of being caught out.

2) If they did not know what had happened, then you would expect shock to be an immediate reaction, but then the worry for your child which would be fairly consistent, perhaps getting worse over time, I wouldn't expect parents of a missing child never to be able to smile, but I do think there would be a sense of never being able to resolve what was wrong in their lives. I suppose you would also expect hopes to rise on hearing of a possible sighting, and the parents to seek as much publicity as possible in order to try and locate their missing child. You would also expect them to be very upset at being wrongly accused.

Which of these best fits the McCanns?

by russiandoll 10.01.14 9:20

SMOKE ANMD MIRRORS, YOU ARE AWFUL...........BUT I LIKE YOU ! big grin

Log in for more topics