Re: Ward of Court: Decision issued by Judge in Libel Trial June 1st 2014

by Guest 02.06.14 18:20

stillsloppingout wrote:
haroldd2 wrote:
lj wrote: [...]

I wonder if the high cost and the trouble of getting these documents have played a role in that. Dr. Amaral was almost not able to get the documents because there was not enough money available.
How much does it cost to write to the High Court and ask them whether they are the guardian of this child, identified by name, date and place of birth, nationality and parents' names? There is the price of a stamp, piece of paper and envelope. Obtaining a stamped document acceptable to the Portuguese judge can't be that expensive. Or wouldn't be, were it not for "lawyer rates"!
Im no lawyer, Re this TB replied to myself outlining the procedure ,which he feels would have been required to obtain the information it is of my opinion that the cost would run into the tens of thousands . i would guess twenty odd thousand .

***
No kidding .. ??!!!!

by haroldd2 02.06.14 19:07

stillsloppingout wrote:

Im no lawyer, Re this TB replied to myself outlining the procedure ,which he feels would have been required to obtain the information it is of my opinion that the cost would run into the tens of thousands . i would guess twenty odd thousand .

The High Court will surely provide the information for free, so the costs are getting a lawyer to write the letter, getting a translator to translate it into English, and translating the document that comes back from the English court into Portuguese. I'm not sure whether the High Court would charge a stamp fee, but an apostille from the Foreign Office doesn't cost much.

Or maybe the honourable members of the
Society of Scrivener Notaries or similar will look up from their tallow-lit desks, straighten their fingerless gloves, and try to impose a closed shop somewhere along the line? "Fifteen thousand if you pay upfront"? Nice work if you can get it! laughat

With apologies to any decent lawyers reading this (in fact if you are, you'll probably appreciate the above humour!).

All the Portuguese court needs to know is that she is a ward of an English court. That bringing the libel case counts as an "important" step seems to have been a Portuguese decision, so it follows that if they don't get a communication from the English court saying "we back this claim" (whether asking to take it over or saying it's OK for the McCanns to act on their behalf), then they can assume that the child's guardian, i.e. the English court, doesn't back the claim, and so out it goes, because it's been shown that the McCanns do not have the authority to bring it.

Since the McCanns are legally represented, I hope the judge awards costs against them for bringing a case they should have known they didn't have the authority to bring. If they say they were as pure as the driven snow and honestly believed they had the authority, let them sue their lawyers for negligence.

by Guest 02.06.14 19:15

I'm not sure whether this has been asked already, but has there ever previously been a case of parents attempting to receive money on behalf of and in the name of a child who does not live with them and is in fact a ward of court? How is this viewed legally?

by lj 02.06.14 20:24

I dunno much about the law, so I don't know if it would be able to it that easy as haroldd2 says. I do know Dr Amaral is dr in Portuguese law. He is also very cash strapped and would have no doubt sought for the cheapest possible solution.
I also remember very well the highly unprofessional remarks of judge Hog, so it might very well be she did try to make to costs prohibitive.

So I guess the idea that this was something simple and cheap to do might not be correct.

by plebgate 03.06.14 8:34

Popcorn wrote:I'm not sure whether this has been asked already, but has there ever previously been a case of parents attempting to receive money on behalf of and in the name of a child who does not live with them and is in fact a ward of court? How is this viewed legally?

I believe that common sense alone should possibly have made them stop and think if they were able to do it.

Would have been one of the first questions I would ask a solicitor before proceeding with any action.

by Guest 03.06.14 9:28

Popcorn wrote:I'm not sure whether this has been asked already, but has there ever previously been a case of parents attempting to receive money on behalf of and in the name of a child who does not live with them and is in fact a ward of court? How is this viewed legally?

Is this attempted fraud?
Surely The McCann's knew the legalities of Madeleines wardship. And yet tried to extract money from parties when they had no legal right to do so.

by Guest 03.06.14 9:39

I wonder what the situation would be if the McCanns were claiming child benefit for Madeleine? They say they believe she is alive, but they do not currently have her and she is also a ward of court. I wonder how this claim for damages against G Amaral differs legally, if at all? Like so much in this case, it all seems rather odd.

by Guest 03.06.14 9:47

Not sure how it works in Portugal but if they had been allowed sue on her behalf and had actually won the case in the UK, they still wouldn't have allowed to get their hands on any monies awarded to Madeleine or the twins as the courts hold it in trust until they are 18. Where the money goes if that child is declared dead before they reach 18, is unclear.

My daughter has a small sum awarded after a car crash, which has been invested by the courts. She gets a statement each year, showing the current balance, which at miserly rate of 0.5 % interest has barely increased over the last 4 years. We have tried to extract the money on her behalf to place in a more profitable saving account but have been refused. My understanding is that the money is not released unless it is needed for something essential like adapting your home or to pay for care, treatment etc.

by Mirage 03.06.14 9:54

plebgate wrote:
Popcorn wrote:I'm not sure whether this has been asked already, but has there ever previously been a case of parents attempting to receive money on behalf of and in the name of a child who does not live with them and is in fact a ward of court? How is this viewed legally?
I believe that common sense alone should possibly have made them stop and think if they were able to do it.

Would have been one of the first questions I would ask a solicitor before proceeding with any action.

Exactly plebgate. When you think of the informed choices they made when setting up the fund you realise that these are people who look at all the angles before they make their next move. They knew all right. The question that springs to mind is: who else knew?

by Guest 03.06.14 9:58

chilli wrote:Not sure how it works in Portugal but if they had been allowed sue on her behalf and had actually won the case in the UK, they still wouldn't have allowed to get their hands on any monies awarded to Madeleine or the twins as the courts hold it in trust until they are 18. Where the money goes if that child is declared dead before they reach 18, is unclear.

My daughter has a small sum awarded after a car crash, which has been invested by the courts. She gets a statement each year, showing the current balance, which at miserly rate of 0.5 % interest has barely increased over the last 4 years. We have tried to extract the money on her behalf to place in a more profitable saving account but have been refused. My understanding is that the money is not released unless it is needed for something essential like adapting your home or to pay for care, treatment etc.

That's interesting, Chilli (though sorry to hear of your daughter's accident). I imagine as a British national, the same would apply to Madeleine, though as next of kin her parents would certainly benefit in the likely event of Madeleine being declared dead before she was able to spend it. But one thing that is different is that your daughter is demonstrably alive and available for examination/interview to ascertain the extent of her injury. Dead people can't win court cases (as far as I know!)

by Mirage 03.06.14 9:59

chilli wrote:Not sure how it works in Portugal but if they had been allowed sue on her behalf and had actually won the case in the UK, they still wouldn't have allowed to get their hands on any monies awarded to Madeleine or the twins as the courts hold it in trust until they are 18. Where the money goes if that child is declared dead before they reach 18, is unclear.

My daughter has a small sum awarded after a car crash, which has been invested by the courts. She gets a statement each year, showing the current balance, which at miserly rate of 0.5 % interest has barely increased over the last 4 years. We have tried to extract the money on her behalf to place in a more profitable saving account but have been refused. My understanding is that the money is not released unless it is needed for something essential like adapting your home or to pay for care, treatment etc.

I am sorry to hear of your daughter's accident, chilli. What a shame you cannot maximise the award as you describe. It is a reminder of how ordinary folk must dot every i and cross every t while others apparently skate over all the rule books.

by Guest 03.06.14 11:19

dantezebu wrote:
Popcorn wrote:I'm not sure whether this has been asked already, but has there ever previously been a case of parents attempting to receive money on behalf of and in the name of a child who does not live with them and is in fact a ward of court? How is this viewed legally?
Is this attempted fraud?
Surely The McCann's knew the legalities of Madeleines wardship. And yet tried to extract money from parties when they had no legal right to do so.

So it would seem. But then again: how odd this 'formal' issue wasn't addressed before the outset of the 'contentual' litigation as such!

If the claim about Maddie demanding EUR $$$$ had been settled at the start -and rejected- how much less publicity the whole case would have garnered.

And how much more rapacious the remaining claimants would have come cross.

by Guest 03.06.14 11:50

Thanks for the concern, it was only a minor injury and a token amount awarded, that no doubt won't even pay a weeks University fees or buy a tank of petrol by the time she gets her hands on it!

You've reminded me Popcorn, that she did have to present herself at Court and answer the judge's questions, presumably to check it wasn't a fraudulent claim. Can't remember why but I wasn't able to attend but my husband was really proud of her. She was 7 years old and talked to both her lawyer and the judge very confidently. It was also her 'best day out' for a while, although I suspect going to Nandos for lunch had a lot to with it. So why have the McCann twins been not called as witnesses? They are older than 7 and capable of speaking for themselves.

I'm not so sure the parents would benefit if a child was declared dead before they reached the age of 18 unless there was legal provision for this? Sort of OT but would be interesting to find out if anyone with legal knowledge knows. Do the courts keep the money or do surviving family inherit it?

In our not so hypothetical case, if they had been allowed to sue and had won, would it be to their financial dvantage to have Madeleine declared dead?

by lj 03.06.14 16:20

Popcorn wrote:
chilli wrote:Not sure how it works in Portugal but if they had been allowed sue on her behalf and had actually won the case in the UK, they still wouldn't have allowed to get their hands on any monies awarded to Madeleine or the twins as the courts hold it in trust until they are 18. Where the money goes if that child is declared dead before they reach 18, is unclear.

My daughter has a small sum awarded after a car crash, which has been invested by the courts. She gets a statement each year, showing the current balance, which at miserly rate of 0.5 % interest has barely increased over the last 4 years. We have tried to extract the money on her behalf to place in a more profitable saving account but have been refused. My understanding is that the money is not released unless it is needed for something essential like adapting your home or to pay for care, treatment etc.

That's interesting, Chilli (though sorry to hear of your daughter's accident). I imagine as a British national, the same would apply to Madeleine, though as next of kin her parents would certainly benefit in the likely event of Madeleine being declared dead before she was able to spend it. But one thing that is different is that your daughter is demonstrably alive and available for examination/interview to ascertain the extent of her injury. Dead people can't win court cases (as far as I know!)

It would mean though that they would not have been able to put it in the "fund" and use for search (as if that would have happened, the search part I mean).

by sallypelt 03.06.14 19:36

I don't know if this has already been posted, but the wheels a definitely coming off the McCann's bandwagon
http://portugalresident.com/mccanns-suffer-setback-in-million-euro-libel-suit-against-maddie-cop

by **sharonl** 03.06.14 19:52

McCanns suffer setback in million euro libel suit against Maddie cop As Praia da Luz is once more dragged into the media spotlight, Kate and Gerry McCann have suffered a legal setback in their long running campaign to sue the former police chief Gonçalo Amaral who originally led investigations into their daughter’s disappearance. Kate and Gerry McCann instituted legal proceedings for €1.2 million worth of damages after Amaral wrote the book “The Truth of the Lie”, in which he set out all his reasons for believing that Madeleine was dead. It is a belief that now seems to be shared by the police teams painstakingly searching scrubland outside the village from which Madeleine went missing seven years ago. But at the time they began their legal fight, the McCanns were adamant that there was no proof that their daughter was dead. They claimed they suffered “permanent anxiety, insomnia, lack of appetite, irritability and an indefinable fear” as a result of Amaral’s book. They further described themselves as “irreparably damaged and totally destroyed from a moral, social, ethical, emotional and family point of view” and thus the lawsuit, which finally came to court in September last year after endless delays. Now, a tactical attempt by Amaral to query the McCanns’ power to represent their daughter in the court action has been upheld by a Lisbon judge. It now means that the McCanns effectively have to get permission from the British High Court to represent their daughter in any legal action. Nonetheless, the Lisbon court has said that a final session can go ahead on June 16 - although all the lawyers involved have been given notice that they can “suggest alternative dates”. The final court session will include a statement from Madeleine’s father and “the presentation of closing arguments from all sides”. As Amaral’s defence lawyer has told the press on numerous occasions, information that formed the basis of “The Truth of the Lie” can be found in police records of the original investigation. - See more at: http://portugalresident.com/mccanns-suffer-setback-in-million-euro-libel-suit-against-maddie-cop#sthash.8yZ8vI9a.dpuf

by Guest 03.06.14 20:07

Have merged your thread here sharonl as same topic.

by NickE 03.06.14 20:18

sharonl wrote:McCanns suffer setback in million euro libel suit against Maddie cop As Praia da Luz is once more dragged into the media spotlight, Kate and Gerry McCann have suffered a legal setback in their long running campaign to sue the former police chief Gonçalo Amaral who originally led investigations into their daughter’s disappearance. Kate and Gerry McCann instituted legal proceedings for €1.2 million worth of damages after Amaral wrote the book “The Truth of the Lie”, in which he set out all his reasons for believing that Madeleine was dead. It is a belief that now seems to be shared by the police teams painstakingly searching scrubland outside the village from which Madeleine went missing seven years ago. But at the time they began their legal fight, the McCanns were adamant that there was no proof that their daughter was dead. They claimed they suffered “permanent anxiety, insomnia, lack of appetite, irritability and an indefinable fear” as a result of Amaral’s book. They further described themselves as “irreparably damaged and totally destroyed from a moral, social, ethical, emotional and family point of view” and thus the lawsuit, which finally came to court in September last year after endless delays. Now, a tactical attempt by Amaral to query the McCanns’ power to represent their daughter in the court action has been upheld by a Lisbon judge. It now means that the McCanns effectively have to get permission from the British High Court to represent their daughter in any legal action. Nonetheless, the Lisbon court has said that a final session can go ahead on June 16 - although all the lawyers involved have been given notice that they can “suggest alternative dates”. The final court session will include a statement from Madeleine’s father and “the presentation of closing arguments from all sides”. As Amaral’s defence lawyer has told the press on numerous occasions, information that formed the basis of “The Truth of the Lie” can be found in police records of the original investigation. - See more at: http://portugalresident.com/mccanns-suffer-setback-in-million-euro-libel-suit-against-maddie-cop#sthash.8yZ8vI9a.dpuf

June 16 is the final day and Gerry have to be in Portugal?

by aiyoyo 03.06.14 20:27

NickE wrote:
June 16 is the final day and Gerry have to be in Portugal?

If body is found before that date, it would be interesting to watch him squirming on the stand.
He may u-turn and not turn up just in case......

by lj 03.06.14 20:32

I would say the "totally destroyed from a moral, social, and ethical point of view” is rather correct.

That is assuming they ever had a normal moral, social, and ethical standard.

by Guest 03.06.14 20:42

lj wrote:I would say the "totally destroyed from a moral, social, and ethical point of view” is rather correct.

That is assuming they ever had a normal moral, social, and ethical standard.

I dont think they had in May 2007.
Imo
parapono

by jhansigirl 03.06.14 20:48

parapono wrote:
lj wrote:I would say the "totally destroyed from a moral, social, and ethical point of view” is rather correct.

That is assuming they ever had a normal moral, social, and ethical standard.
I dont think they had in May 2007.
Imo
parapono

Hi, apologies if this question has been asked before.

If the purpose of making MM a WoC was to obtain certain information:
What information were they so keen to get a hold of?
Were they acting on advice given to them and by whom?
Is this information more of value to someone else rather than the MCs?
Someone who has a lot to lose if any information in the files could lead
to uncovering the real reason for the McImmunity ?

A mysterious rich benefactor in exchange for £££s and McFraudsters
protection from prosecution, perhaps?

by **sharonl** 03.06.14 20:55

aiyoyo wrote:
NickE wrote:
June 16 is the final day and Gerry have to be in Portugal?

If body is found before that date, it would be interesting to watch him squirming on the stand.
He may u-turn and not turn up just in case......

The McCanns say that they are suing Goncalo Amaral because he is "hindering the search for Madeleine". If her body is found before June 16th they will no longer be able to use that as a reason to sue him.

Besides, with the police searching scrubland for their daughters remains you would think that suing him would be the last thing on their minds.

by Gillyspot 03.06.14 21:27

sharonl wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:
NickE wrote:
June 16 is the final day and Gerry have to be in Portugal?

If body is found before that date, it would be interesting to watch him squirming on the stand.
He may u-turn and not turn up just in case......

The McCanns say that they are suing Goncalo Amaral because he is "hindering the search for Madeleine". If her body is found before June 16th they will no longer be able to use that as a reason to sue him.

Besides, with the police searching scrubland for their daughters remains you would think that suing him would be the last thing on their minds.

How can Dr Amaral be "hindering the search for Madeleine" anyway as the police are searching scrubland?

by aiyoyo 03.06.14 22:16

Gillyspot wrote:
sharonl wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:
NickE wrote:
June 16 is the final day and Gerry have to be in Portugal?

If body is found before that date, it would be interesting to watch him squirming on the stand.
He may u-turn and not turn up just in case......

The McCanns say that they are suing Goncalo Amaral because he is "hindering the search for Madeleine". If her body is found before June 16th they will no longer be able to use that as a reason to sue him.

Besides, with the police searching scrubland for their daughters remains you would think that suing him would be the last thing on their minds.

How can Dr Amaral be "hindering the search for Madeleine" anyway as the police are searching scrubland?

The case trial proceedings is already in the process and can't be u-turned if they wished to now that they know they've dug themselves into a coffin.

It has to run its natural course. Gerry & Kate chances which are not much to start with, deteriorate when witnesses were not impressive, and deteriorate further with this dig. There is no way in a million year they are going to win this and they must have guessed it or told it by their lawyer, else Gerry won't be that desperate to take the stand to make his statement.

The dig is all over the Portugal press as well, so unless the Judge is a recluse, she is bound to have seen or heard about the dig. I rather Amaral wins by merits than the judge throws the case out on a technicality or basis of vexatious.

Log in for more topics