Re: Libel Trial 7th Jan Postponed - confirmed

by aiyoyo 08.04.14 20:29

plebgate wrote:I believe, given what I have read about Mrs. apparently wanting Mr. Amaral to feel fear, that these proceedings were brought about for that purpose. I also believe that it was thought that Mr. A. would settle out of court and the press reports would show that if anybody dared to question or put forward a theory which did not agree with what was said to have happened on that holiday would also end up in court facing bankruptcy.

I still believe that a decision will be made in Rocky's favour. In fact I would like to see a decision made that the proceedings were vexacious, given what Mrs. apparently wrote in her book.

I was shocked to read such a thing had been written, to want someone to feel fear, I am very shocked that it was put into print. Very shocked indeed.

Shocked is an understatement when you take into account she was able to forgive the paedophile monster who took her daughter.

by ultimaThule 08.04.14 20:36

Exhibit KH1 is a most enlightening document, isn't it? And what shocks us is equally likely to shock a judge and jury into sitting up and taking particular notice of all of the various discrepancies and anomalies it contains. yes

by ultimaThule 08.04.14 21:33

Poe wrote:Could the McCanns have used Madeleine in their libel claim in an attempt to save face by getting the case delayed and/or thrown out of court?

The defence lawyers must have known that Madeleine was a woc before the trial started but they didn't raise the issue immediately. They allowed the trial to go ahead and let witnesses destroy any credibility the McCanns had before almost casually twisting the knife by pointing out the McCanns cannot sue on behalf of Madeleine.

Theoretically they could, Poe, but I can't see how it would profit them to commence legal proceedings with such intent in mind because of the costs involved and, of course, it's the other side who has asked for the Wardship to be evaluated by the Court.

If you recall, the fact that Madeleine was made a Ward of Court in April 2008 didn't come to the public's attention until some months after the event and, as it wasn't overly publicised in the UK. it's unlikely it attracted much attention in Portgugal.

In additon, as there would appear to be no similar provision for the care of minors in Portuguese law, it's unlikely that many Portuguese lawyers would be aware that no important steps can be taken in a Ward's life without the consent of the High Court.

Lawyers can only work with, and advise on, what their clients tell them and many's the time when the reticence of clients on, shall we say, certain matters has blindsided their legal counsel at most inopportune moments. Whereas I would have expected the McCanns' to have appraised Isabel Duarte that their eldest daughter is a Ward of Court by providing a copy of the Order so that she could advise them accordingly, we can't be sure this was done.

It's my understanding that assistente status cannot be granted in investigations into criminal acts against minors where the child's, or childrens', parents do not have sole parental responsibility, as in not shared with any other parties/agencies. While this is pure speculation on my part, it may be that one or more lawyers for the defence only became aware of the implications of the Wardship on the civil trial when the McCanns' Portuguese solicitor failed to follow through on his announcement that they 'may' apply for assistente status when the PJ officially re-opened their shelved criminal investigation into their eldest daughter's disappearance after the libel trial was underway in the civil courts.

In any event, if the Court is indeed evaluating the Wardship issue, we may be in for a long wait before the trial resumes or we may find that a speedy conclusion is brought to the proceedings without closing arguments being heard.

by lj 09.04.14 3:01

Doug D wrote:‘Gonçalo 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’.

Not being a legal person, so I may be completely off track, but I would have thought that of everything being considered in the trial, the WOC situation was one of the few things that was actually black & white.
I have no idea how long and detailed a WOC document is, but it must surely be readily available and once submitted (within the 15 day deadline given) should not take three months to evaluate.

Would it be possible that a request is being made to justice Hog if she on behalf of Madeleine would enter the trial, if that is at all possible. I can see judge Hog taking a nice long time to decide.

by Guest 09.04.14 9:19

ultimaThule wrote:
Poe wrote:Could the McCanns have used Madeleine in their libel claim in an attempt to save face by getting the case delayed and/or thrown out of court?

The defence lawyers must have known that Madeleine was a woc before the trial started but they didn't raise the issue immediately. They allowed the trial to go ahead and let witnesses destroy any credibility the McCanns had before almost casually twisting the knife by pointing out the McCanns cannot sue on behalf of Madeleine.

Theoretically they could, Poe, but I can't see how it would profit them to commence legal proceedings with such intent in mind because of the costs involved and, of course, it's the other side who has asked for the Wardship to be evaluated by the Court.

If you recall, the fact that Madeleine was made a Ward of Court in April 2008 didn't come to the public's attention until some months after the event and, as it wasn't overly publicised in the UK. it's unlikely it attracted much attention in Portgugal.

In additon, as there would appear to be no similar provision for the care of minors in Portuguese law, it's unlikely that many Portuguese lawyers would be aware that no important steps can be taken in a Ward's life without the consent of the High Court.

Lawyers can only work with, and advise on, what their clients tell them and many's the time when the reticence of clients on, shall we say, certain matters has blindsided their legal counsel at most inopportune moments. Whereas I would have expected the McCanns' to have appraised Isabel Duarte that their eldest daughter is a Ward of Court by providing a copy of the Order so that she could advise them accordingly, we can't be sure this was done.

It's my understanding that assistente status cannot be granted in investigations into criminal acts against minors where the child's, or childrens', parents do not have sole parental responsibility, as in not shared with any other parties/agencies. While this is pure speculation on my part, it may be that one or more lawyers for the defence only became aware of the implications of the Wardship on the civil trial when the McCanns' Portuguese solicitor failed to follow through on his announcement that they 'may' apply for assistente status when the PJ officially re-opened their shelved criminal investigation into their eldest daughter's disappearance after the libel trial was underway in the civil courts.

In any event, if the Court is indeed evaluating the Wardship issue, we may be in for a long wait before the trial resumes or we may find that a speedy conclusion is brought to the proceedings without closing arguments being heard.

It shows the sheer arrogance of the McCanns that they would use Madeleine in this way. Even if Ms Duarte was unaware of the Ward of Court order, the McCanns would have been advised of the full implications of the order when they first applied for it.

I have a feeling that Sr Amaral and his legal team knew about the order prior to the libel trial but waited until the last possible moment to bring it to the attention of the judge to cause maximum damage.

Would the combination of the weakness of the McCanns' case and claiming on behalf of Madeleine when they had no legal right be classed as vexatious? I mean, from a non-legal point of view the case has always been vexatious and spiteful and fuelled by greed but, from a legal standpoint, could the McCanns find themselves in hot water?

by Liz Eagles 09.04.14 17:59

ultimaThule wrote:
aquila wrote:
ultimaThule wrote:Sorry to disappoint, tigger, but Section 118 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 has it otherwise and the case of R v Athwal and another (Court of Appeal Criminal Divsion 2009) does not automatically exclude hearsay evidence of the 'he said/she said' variety being used in criminal proceedings.
What does quoting UK law (copy and paste) have to do with Portuguese law and Portuguese courts?
Do get over yourself, aquila, otherwise I shall have no recourse but to '(copy and paste)' our brief pm exchanges of November last year which should leave other members in no doubt as to why you continually seek to snipe at me and denigrate my responses whenever it pleases you to do so.

As I have already expended valuable time addressing your professed ignorance of the law here https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t4334p60-matthew-oldfield-s-rogatory-interview-snippets#233542 which fact you have yet to acknowledge, I suggest you apply your mind to finding the answer to your latest question, together with any further ones you have in mind to ask me, elsewhere.

I see you've taken the spirit of the forum and the meaning of Private Messaging to a new low.

Be my guest. Publish my PM's. Publish and be damned old chap (or is that lass because at some point as I recall you referred to yourself as female).

I don't like threats. I'm sure others on the forum don't like threats either so well done for rocking the boat as to whether people ought to feel worried if they'd pm'd you.

by Guest 09.04.14 18:03

If anyone posts private pm's they have received without a members permission then they will be banned.......simples!

by Liz Eagles 09.04.14 18:07

candyfloss wrote:If anyone posts private pm's they have received without a members permission then they will be banned.......simples!

Candyfloss, please take a look at uT's post and tell me why this member was allowed to threaten to publish my PM's without moderation. I'm sure it will reassure a lot of members on here.

by Guest 09.04.14 18:10

aquila wrote:
candyfloss wrote:If anyone posts private pm's they have received without a members permission then they will be banned.......simples!
Candyfloss, please take a look at uT's post and tell me why this member was allowed to threaten to publish my PM's without moderation. I'm sure it will reassure a lot of members on here.

I didn't see it Aquila, but have made it clear in the post of mine you just quoted. UT please take note and do not issue any further threats like this...thank you

by Liz Eagles 09.04.14 18:18

candyfloss wrote:
aquila wrote:
candyfloss wrote:If anyone posts private pm's they have received without a members permission then they will be banned.......simples!
Candyfloss, please take a look at uT's post and tell me why this member was allowed to threaten to publish my PM's without moderation. I'm sure it will reassure a lot of members on here.

I didn't see it Aquila, but have made it clear in the post of mine you just quoted. UT please take note and do not issue any further threats like this...thank you

Thanks Candyfloss. I hate bullies.

by ultimaThule 09.04.14 18:55

Poe wrote:
ultimaThule wrote:
Poe wrote:Could the McCanns have used Madeleine in their libel claim in an attempt to save face by getting the case delayed and/or thrown out of court?

The defence lawyers must have known that Madeleine was a woc before the trial started but they didn't raise the issue immediately. They allowed the trial to go ahead and let witnesses destroy any credibility the McCanns had before almost casually twisting the knife by pointing out the McCanns cannot sue on behalf of Madeleine.

Theoretically they could, Poe, but I can't see how it would profit them to commence legal proceedings with such intent in mind because of the costs involved and, of course, it's the other side who has asked for the Wardship to be evaluated by the Court.

If you recall, the fact that Madeleine was made a Ward of Court in April 2008 didn't come to the public's attention until some months after the event and, as it wasn't overly publicised in the UK. it's unlikely it attracted much attention in Portgugal.

In additon, as there would appear to be no similar provision for the care of minors in Portuguese law, it's unlikely that many Portuguese lawyers would be aware that no important steps can be taken in a Ward's life without the consent of the High Court.

Lawyers can only work with, and advise on, what their clients tell them and many's the time when the reticence of clients on, shall we say, certain matters has blindsided their legal counsel at most inopportune moments. Whereas I would have expected the McCanns' to have appraised Isabel Duarte that their eldest daughter is a Ward of Court by providing a copy of the Order so that she could advise them accordingly, we can't be sure this was done.

It's my understanding that assistente status cannot be granted in investigations into criminal acts against minors where the child's, or childrens', parents do not have sole parental responsibility, as in not shared with any other parties/agencies. While this is pure speculation on my part, it may be that one or more lawyers for the defence only became aware of the implications of the Wardship on the civil trial when the McCanns' Portuguese solicitor failed to follow through on his announcement that they 'may' apply for assistente status when the PJ officially re-opened their shelved criminal investigation into their eldest daughter's disappearance after the libel trial was underway in the civil courts.

In any event, if the Court is indeed evaluating the Wardship issue, we may be in for a long wait before the trial resumes or we may find that a speedy conclusion is brought to the proceedings without closing arguments being heard.

It shows the sheer arrogance of the McCanns that they would use Madeleine in this way. Even if Ms Duarte was unaware of the Ward of Court order, the McCanns would have been advised of the full implications of the order when they first applied for it.

I have a feeling that Sr Amaral and his legal team knew about the order prior to the libel trial but waited until the last possible moment to bring it to the attention of the judge to cause maximum damage.

Would the combination of the weakness of the McCanns' case and claiming on behalf of Madeleine when they had no legal right be classed as vexatious? I mean, from a non-legal point of view the case has always been vexatious and spiteful and fuelled by greed but, from a legal standpoint, could the McCanns find themselves in hot water?

The arrogance of the McCanns' was made abundantly clear when they used the Wardship in an attempt to otbain all of the documents held by Leicestershire Police in relation to the disappearance of their eldest daughter, and then had to rapidly wind their necks in when the AG got on the case, Poe.

From my limited understanding of the Portuguese Civil Code, it would appear that compensatory damages fall within two categories, namely, material damages being the monetary damages the plaintiff(s) sustained through loss of profits or similar as a consequence of the damaging fact or event, and moral damages being the pain, suffering, injury, death, etc, caused by the fact or event.

It's also my understanding that any sums awarded as compensatory damages are considerably lower than what may be expected in the UK and other countries.

As far as I can ascertain, Portuguese law does not recognise or make provision for punitive damages of the type the McCanns' may have hoped to extract from the defendants when they began this action and, as yet, I haven't found reference to any penalties which may be incurred by litigants who are deemed to be vexatious - hopefully, aiyoyo may be able to provide an answer to your question in respect of this particular matter.

by lj 09.04.14 19:45

Jeez, uT, I have tried to avoid disagreements with you. However you are taking it to a new low. That from someone who is so concerned about how the forum is being perceived by the outside world.

by Cristobell 10.04.14 0:59

Absolutely appalled at the threats on here, one of the nastiest things I have seen on a social network site, and cannot believe it is happening on this forum.

by ultimaThule 10.04.14 5:41

At c12.25 am on page 15 of the 'Comment on Cristobell's blog' thread Cristobell wrote:

"My blog is in fact very well known in McCann circles, including among the big anti mccann facebook pages, Joana's site and of course on Twitter. So not quite as obscure as UT would have people believe."

It seems you are offended by my being unaware of your blog's fame in social networking circles which I don't belong to, Cristobell, as this is only forum on the world wide web which I participate in and, from assorted forays elsewhere occasioned by various other threads, I see your blog as being obscure in comparison with this site which would appear to be extensively known around the globe to McCannites of every persuasion.

In coming here to seize an opportunity to repay me for having unwittingly ruffled your feathers, this isn't the first time you've chosen to take an oblique swipe at me but, as I take the view that life's too short to engage in such puerile pursuits, I've ignored many of your other attempts to portray me in a bad light.

Your 'Deranged Stalker' thread in the Members' Lounge makes it clear that you've not only seen 'nastier things', you've written and posted far 'nastier things' than I said in my attempt to stop a member who has been dogging my footsteps on this forum for some considerable time in her tracks.

As for the 'threats' you claim to have seen on here, I adapted your own 'come out, come out, gunfight at the OK Corral approach' and fired a warning shot above her head in the hope that she would desist as I have grown exceedingly weary of being a target for her angst. If I could have taken it to pms I would have done but, for obvious reasons, this was not an option open to me.

It seems that in trying to put an end to the bullying and hectoring I've endured without involving the overworked mods, I am guilty of infringing a rule I didn't know existed. As ignorance is no defence I've taken the ensuing warning on board, albeit it has become moot by reason of my detractor having given her consent to publication of our brief correspondence.

In conclusion, I am using your words to say that "Some of us are targeted by trolls and stalkers. Today I have hit back at one of mine" who appears to believe I am a troll because I jealously guard my privacy.

by ultimaThule 10.04.14 8:31

lj wrote:Jeez, uT, I have tried to avoid disagreements with you. However you are taking it to a new low. That from someone who is so concerned about how the forum is being perceived by the outside world.

As anyone who has spent any time studying the 'mystery' knows, things aren't always what they seem and it seems to me that you may not be aware of the bigger picture in which virtually every time I have contributed information pertaining to the law, my responses are either derided or the threads are disrupted, lj - this thread being a case in point.

If you scroll down here https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t9259p50-the-latest-news-there-is-no-news#231951 you may see the underlying reason why I've been targeted by one another member and if you look at posts I've made you'll see that, wherever possible, I endeavour to raise awareness on this forum as I am mindful of how it is perceived by others.

Having established some time last year we hold opposing views on the subject of Operation Grange, it's my recollection that we cordially agreed to differ and, were we to find ourselves disagreeing on another topic, I have no doubt we'd agree to differ in a civilised manner again - and more especially as the last time we failed to reach an accord, we agreed that the loser buys the drinks smilie

by plebgate 10.04.14 8:52

Cristobell wrote:Absolutely appalled at the threats on here, one of the nastiest things I have seen on a social network site, and cannot believe it is happening on this forum.

One of the nastiest threats seen on a social network site. Really.

Whilst I do not agree with PMs ever being posted for all to see, I really would not see it as one of the nastiest threats seen.

by AndyB 10.04.14 9:45

ultimaThule wrote:As anyone who has spent any time studying the 'mystery' knows, things aren't always what they seem and it seems to me that you may not be aware of the bigger picture in which virtually every time I have contributed information pertaining to the law, my responses are either derided or the threads are disrupted, lj - this thread being a case in point.

Do you have any professional qualification from which you derive your legal knowledge? I only ask because you seem offended that others challenge your legal view. If you are, say, a solicitor, perhaps others would be more circumspect about deriding your legal views if that were known

by Guest 10.04.14 9:57

This is all way off topic. UT you have taken a piece from another thread and quoted it here, just to have a pop at Cristobell, yet you are always one of the first to moan when threads go off topic.

Enough of this sniping, and keep to the subject of this thread, which we are all watching for an update on this trial!!

ontopic

by ultimaThule 10.04.14 11:03

May I ask where you have been when Cristobell has been having one of her numerous pops at me, Candyfloss, and why this thread has been allowed to go off topic for page after page until relevant information on the trial has become a distant memory?

If what I suspect is taking place behind the courtroom doors, we may be in for a long wait before there's an update and I had hoped the time could be put to some productive use by exploring the possible implications of the Wardship, which would appear to be the 'ace' which Dr Amaral was reputed to have up his sleeve.

by ultimaThule 10.04.14 11:06

AndyB wrote:
ultimaThule wrote:As anyone who has spent any time studying the 'mystery' knows, things aren't always what they seem and it seems to me that you may not be aware of the bigger picture in which virtually every time I have contributed information pertaining to the law, my responses are either derided or the threads are disrupted, lj - this thread being a case in point.
Do you have any professional qualification from which you derive your legal knowledge? I only ask because you seem offended that others challenge your legal view. If you are, say, a solicitor, perhaps others would be more circumspect about deriding your legal views if that were known

As I am accustomed to debate and not at all offended by having my opinions challenged, that is not the issue, Andy,

On an anonymous forum such as this, were I to state that I hold certain qualfications I would, understandably, be asked to provide proof of my asssertion(s) which may then lead to my being outed in real life.

There are those whose real life personas are known to all here but as I am not in a position to 'go public' in such a manner, I must take advantage of the anonymity provided by this forum and, indeed, I would/could not have joined had it been otherwise.

by AndyB 10.04.14 11:30

ultimaThule wrote:
AndyB wrote:
ultimaThule wrote:As anyone who has spent any time studying the 'mystery' knows, things aren't always what they seem and it seems to me that you may not be aware of the bigger picture in which virtually every time I have contributed information pertaining to the law, my responses are either derided or the threads are disrupted, lj - this thread being a case in point.
Do you have any professional qualification from which you derive your legal knowledge? I only ask because you seem offended that others challenge your legal view. If you are, say, a solicitor, perhaps others would be more circumspect about deriding your legal views if that were known
As I am accustomed to debate and not at all offended by having my opinions challenged, that is not the issue, Andy,

On an anonymous forum such as this, were I to state that I hold certain qualfications I would, understandably, be asked to provide proof of my asssertion(s) which may then lead to my being outed in real life.

There are those whose real life personas are known to all here but as I am not in a position to 'go public' in such a manner, I must take advantage of the anonymity provided by this forum and, indeed, I would/could not have joined had it been otherwise.

I'm not asking for your name or life story. All I'm asking you to do is justify your complaint that "virtually every time I have contributed information pertaining to the law, my responses are either derided or the threads are disrupted".

by ultimaThule 10.04.14 12:27

The only way I can justify my claim is for you to go through my posting history, see which posts I've made on various legal matters, and visit the thread to see what responses were made, AndyB.

by Cristobell 10.04.14 12:43

AndyB wrote:
ultimaThule wrote:
AndyB wrote:
ultimaThule wrote:As anyone who has spent any time studying the 'mystery' knows, things aren't always what they seem and it seems to me that you may not be aware of the bigger picture in which virtually every time I have contributed information pertaining to the law, my responses are either derided or the threads are disrupted, lj - this thread being a case in point.
Do you have any professional qualification from which you derive your legal knowledge? I only ask because you seem offended that others challenge your legal view. If you are, say, a solicitor, perhaps others would be more circumspect about deriding your legal views if that were known
As I am accustomed to debate and not at all offended by having my opinions challenged, that is not the issue, Andy,

On an anonymous forum such as this, were I to state that I hold certain qualfications I would, understandably, be asked to provide proof of my asssertion(s) which may then lead to my being outed in real life.

There are those whose real life personas are known to all here but as I am not in a position to 'go public' in such a manner, I must take advantage of the anonymity provided by this forum and, indeed, I would/could not have joined had it been otherwise.
I'm not asking for your name or life story. All I'm asking you to do is justify your complaint that "virtually every time I have contributed information pertaining to the law, my responses are either derided or the threads are disrupted".

Stating you have a Law Degree gives nothing away, thousands have them. I don't btw, I prefer the arts, but I did spend 20+ years as a legal secretary working in and around the Royal Courts of Justice in Central London, and in all that time I never once heard a Writ referred to as a Plaint.

by AndyB 10.04.14 12:43

ultimaThule wrote:The only way I can justify my claim is for you to go through my posting history, see which posts I've made on various legal matters, and visit the thread to see what responses were made, AndyB.

You misunderstand. I'm not asking you to justify your assertion that whenever you post legal opinion it is derided. For the purposes of this discussion I'm quite happy to accept that its true. What I'm asking you to do is explain why you feel justified to complain about it. Everyone is entitled to an opinion and, unless you have some sort of legal qualification, what you post is precisely that; an opinion.

by diatribe 10.04.14 12:52

ultimaThule wrote:

On an anonymous forum such as this, were I to state that I hold certain qualfications I would, understandably, be asked to provide proof of my asssertion(s) which may then lead to my being outed in real life.

DELETED. Diatribe please refrain from making personal remarks about members. Thanks

Log in for more topics