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

by russiandoll 01.06.14 18:10

JUST BROKEN ON TWITTER, COPIED FROM THE GA PROJECT SITE :

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
1 Jun 2014

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Judge rules that Kate and Gerry McCann do not possess the authority to sue Gonçalo Amaral in their daughter’s name.

The judge at the Civil Court of Lisbon who is trying the ‘libel’ case which Kate and Gerry McCann have filed against Gonçalo Amaral and 3 other parties has issued a decision concerning the matter of Madeleine McCann being a Ward of Court.

On the 3rd of January 2014, Gonçalo Amaral had argued before the Lisbon Court that Madeleine’s parents do not possess the necessary power to represent their daughter in this action, since the child had been made a Ward of Court in the United Kingdom.

The judge decided that Mr Amaral should present a certificate of the relevant British judicial ruling. That certificate was delivered to the Court on the 2nd of May, after a lengthy, expensive process.

The judge then had to decide whether or not Madeleine’s parents were entitled to represent their daughter in this lawsuit. In the judge’s recent ruling, it is mentioned that “within the 'Wardship', the High Court holds ultimate responsibility over the child, but it does not suppress or annul the exercise of the parental responsibilities”. The High Court takes control over “the most important decisions for the life” of the child. The judge further considers that “the decision to file a judicial action in the name of the child” is a decision “of the magnitude that is demanded for the agreement or consent of the court”.

The judge’s ruling further notes that the matters that have been brought before the High Court that holds the Wardship have been matters of an “eminently judiciary nature, like the revelation of confidential information and documents, that are related to the child’s disappearance and were in the possession of the local police”.

The text continues with the consideration that because Madeleine was made a Ward of the Court on the 2nd of April of 2008, her parents did not possess, in 2009, “the necessary capacity of representation of their daughter to file the present action without the authorization from the British court”.

Nevertheless, the judge has decided that the final court session, which will include a statement from Gerald McCann and the presentation of closing arguments from all sides, should take place regardless of the matter of the Wardship.

After that hearing is completed, the proceedings will be suspended for 30 days. During that period, Madeleine’s parents “shall arrange for the collection and documentation in the records of the British Court’s authorization for the bringing of this action on behalf of the minor Madeleine McCann”. If they fail to do so, the defendants will be “acquitted of the proceedings concerning the requests that have been formulated on behalf of the latter”.

The judge has proposed the date of 16th June for the final session, but each of the lawyers involved have the possibility of declining said date and suggesting alternative dates.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.][url=http://digg.com/submit?url=http://pjga.blogspot.com/2014/06/ward-of-court-decision-issued-by-judge.html&title=Ward of Court: Decision issued by Judge in Libel Trial][/url][url=http://del.icio.us/post?url=http://pjga.blogspot.com/2014/06/ward-of-court-decision-issued-by-judge.html&title=Ward of Court: Decision issued by Judge in Libel Trial][/url][url=http://www.stumbleupon.com/submit?url=http://pjga.blogspot.com/2014/06/ward-of-court-decision-issued-by-judge.html&title=Ward of Court: Decision issued by Judge in Libel Trial][/url][url=http://technorati.com/faves?add=http://pjga.blogspot.com/2014/06/ward-of-court-decision-issued-by-judge.html&title=Ward of Court: Decision issued by Judge in Libel Trial][/url][url=http://twitter.com/?status=Ward of Court: Decision issued by Judge in Libel Trial ~ [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by **Tony Bennett** 01.06.14 18:18

Bang goes about one-fifth of their claim, I think.

Down to a mere 950,000 euros or so now (about £800,000)

by maebee 01.06.14 18:18

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

. wrote:The judge at the Civil Court of Lisbon who is trying the ‘libel’ case which Kate and Gerry McCann have filed against Gonçalo Amaral and 3 other parties has issued a decision concerning the matter of Madeleine McCann being a Ward of Court.

On the 3rd of January 2014, Gonçalo Amaral had argued before the Lisbon Court that Madeleine’s parents do not possess the necessary power to represent their daughter in this action, since the child had been made a Ward of Court in the United Kingdom.

The judge decided that Mr Amaral should present a certificate of the relevant British judicial ruling. That certificate was delivered to the Court on the 2nd of May, after a lengthy, expensive process.

The judge then had to decide whether or not Madeleine’s parents were entitled to represent their daughter in this lawsuit. In the judge’s recent ruling, it is mentioned that “within the 'Wardship', the High Court holds ultimate responsibility over the child, but it does not suppress or annul the exercise of the parental responsibilities”. The High Court takes control over “the most important decisions for the life” of the child. The judge further considers that “the decision to file a judicial action in the name of the child” is a decision “of the magnitude that is demanded for the agreement or consent of the court”.

The judge’s ruling further notes that the matters that have been brought before the High Court that holds the Wardship have been matters of an “eminently judiciary nature, like the revelation of confidential information and documents, that are related to the child’s disappearance and were in the possession of the local police”.

The text continues with the consideration that because Madeleine was made a Ward of the Court on the 2nd of April of 2008, her parents did not possess, in 2009, “the necessary capacity of representation of their daughter to file the present action without the authorization from the British court”.

Nevertheless, the judge has decided that the final court session, which will include a statement from Gerald McCann and the presentation of closing arguments from all sides, should take place regardless of the matter of the Wardship.

After that hearing is completed, the proceedings will be suspended for 30 days. During that period, Madeleine’s parents “shall arrange for the collection and documentation in the records of the British Court’s authorization for the bringing of this action on behalf of the minor Madeleine McCann”. If they fail to do so, the defendants will be “acquitted of the proceedings concerning the requests that have been formulated on behalf of the latter”.

The judge has proposed the date of 16th June for the final session, but each of the lawyers involved have the possibility of declining said date and suggesting alternative dates.

by Guest 01.06.14 18:23

Have merged the two threads started in different sections

by bobbin 01.06.14 18:45

maebee wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

. wrote:The judge at the Civil Court of Lisbon who is trying the ‘libel’ case which Kate and Gerry McCann have filed against Gonçalo Amaral and 3 other parties has issued a decision concerning the matter of Madeleine McCann being a Ward of Court.

On the 3rd of January 2014, Gonçalo Amaral had argued before the Lisbon Court that Madeleine’s parents do not possess the necessary power to represent their daughter in this action, since the child had been made a Ward of Court in the United Kingdom.

The judge decided that Mr Amaral should present a certificate of the relevant British judicial ruling. That certificate was delivered to the Court on the 2nd of May, after a lengthy, expensive process.

The judge then had to decide whether or not Madeleine’s parents were entitled to represent their daughter in this lawsuit. In the judge’s recent ruling, it is mentioned that “within the 'Wardship', the High Court holds ultimate responsibility over the child, but it does not suppress or annul the exercise of the parental responsibilities”. The High Court takes control over “the most important decisions for the life” of the child. The judge further considers that “the decision to file a judicial action in the name of the child” is a decision “of the magnitude that is demanded for the agreement or consent of the court”.

The judge’s ruling further notes that the matters that have been brought before the High Court that holds the Wardship have been matters of an “eminently judiciary nature, like the revelation of confidential information and documents, that are related to the child’s disappearance and were in the possession of the local police”.

The text continues with the consideration that because Madeleine was made a Ward of the Court on the 2nd of April of 2008, her parents did not possess, in 2009, “the necessary capacity of representation of their daughter to file the present action without the authorization from the British court”.

Nevertheless, the judge has decided that the final court session, which will include a statement from Gerald McCann and the presentation of closing arguments from all sides, should take place regardless of the matter of the Wardship.

After that hearing is completed, the proceedings will be suspended for 30 days. During that period, Madeleine’s parents “shall arrange for the collection and documentation in the records of the British Court’s authorization for the bringing of this action on behalf of the minor Madeleine McCann”. If they fail to do so, the defendants will be “acquitted of the proceedings concerning the requests that have been formulated on behalf of the latter".

The judge has proposed the date of 16th June for the final session, but each of the lawyers involved have the possibility of declining said date and suggesting alternative dates.
Can anyone explain what exactly this means. Are the McCs being invited to get court permission for Maddie to be represented during a 30 day period, i.e. is it supposed that such would over-ride the Portuguese judge's decision to say Maddie cannot be represented... am having a slightly 'thick' moment here...

by Guest 01.06.14 18:50

What a shambles. Poor Madeleine.

by stillsloppingout 01.06.14 18:53

Tony Bennett wrote:Bang goes about one-fifth of their claim, I think.

Down to a mere 950,000 euros or so now (about £800,000)

Question : Possibly TB could answer .

Is it usual practice for a request of this type of document to be .

1 ; difficult to obtain for an overseas court ?

2 ; an expensive undertaking ?

I will reserve my judgement until i receive responses to this request .

by russiandoll 01.06.14 19:04

Clay Regazzoni wrote:What a shambles. Poor Madeleine.

Hi Clay,
Sober enough to post, hey! Could you expand a little on your comment above, please?

by NickE 01.06.14 19:12

russiandoll wrote:JUST BROKEN ON TWITTER, COPIED FROM THE GA PROJECT SITE :

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
1 Jun 2014

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Judge rules that Kate and Gerry McCann do not possess the authority to sue Gonçalo Amaral in their daughter’s name.

The judge at the Civil Court of Lisbon who is trying the ‘libel’ case which Kate and Gerry McCann have filed against Gonçalo Amaral and 3 other parties has issued a decision concerning the matter of Madeleine McCann being a Ward of Court.

On the 3rd of January 2014, Gonçalo Amaral had argued before the Lisbon Court that Madeleine’s parents do not possess the necessary power to represent their daughter in this action, since the child had been made a Ward of Court in the United Kingdom.

The judge decided that Mr Amaral should present a certificate of the relevant British judicial ruling. That certificate was delivered to the Court on the 2nd of May, after a lengthy, expensive process.

The judge then had to decide whether or not Madeleine’s parents were entitled to represent their daughter in this lawsuit. In the judge’s recent ruling, it is mentioned that “within the 'Wardship', the High Court holds ultimate responsibility over the child, but it does not suppress or annul the exercise of the parental responsibilities”. The High Court takes control over “the most important decisions for the life” of the child. The judge further considers that “the decision to file a judicial action in the name of the child” is a decision “of the magnitude that is demanded for the agreement or consent of the court”.

The judge’s ruling further notes that the matters that have been brought before the High Court that holds the Wardship have been matters of an “eminently judiciary nature, like the revelation of confidential information and documents, that are related to the child’s disappearance and were in the possession of the local police”.

The text continues with the consideration that because Madeleine was made a Ward of the Court on the 2nd of April of 2008, her parents did not possess, in 2009, “the necessary capacity of representation of their daughter to file the present action without the authorization from the British court”.

Nevertheless, the judge has decided that the final court session, which will include a statement from Gerald McCann and the presentation of closing arguments from all sides, should take place regardless of the matter of the Wardship.

After that hearing is completed, the proceedings will be suspended for 30 days. During that period, Madeleine’s parents “shall arrange for the collection and documentation in the records of the British Court’s authorization for the bringing of this action on behalf of the minor Madeleine McCann”. If they fail to do so, the defendants will be “acquitted of the proceedings concerning the requests that have been formulated on behalf of the latter”.

The judge has proposed the date of 16th June for the final session, but each of the lawyers involved have the possibility of declining said date and suggesting alternative dates.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.][url=http://digg.com/submit?url=http://pjga.blogspot.com/2014/06/ward-of-court-decision-issued-by-judge.html&title=Ward of Court: Decision issued by Judge in Libel Trial][/url][url=http://del.icio.us/post?url=http://pjga.blogspot.com/2014/06/ward-of-court-decision-issued-by-judge.html&title=Ward of Court: Decision issued by Judge in Libel Trial][/url][url=http://www.stumbleupon.com/submit?url=http://pjga.blogspot.com/2014/06/ward-of-court-decision-issued-by-judge.html&title=Ward of Court: Decision issued by Judge in Libel Trial][/url][url=http://technorati.com/faves?add=http://pjga.blogspot.com/2014/06/ward-of-court-decision-issued-by-judge.html&title=Ward of Court: Decision issued by Judge in Libel Trial][/url][url=http://twitter.com/?status=Ward of Court: Decision issued by Judge in Libel Trial ~ [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Wonder if Gerry Will show up in Lisbon!?!?
Anybody else had the thought that the searches and excavations and potential evidence that PJ may have allready ,come during the same period as this?
Coincidence or .....

by Guest 01.06.14 19:15

russiandoll wrote:
Clay Regazzoni wrote:What a shambles. Poor Madeleine.

Hi Clay,
Sober enough to post, hey! Could you expand a little on your comment above, please?

Hi, yes. It's just that nothing about this poor child's life (or, indeed, probable death) ever seems to be unequivocal.

by stargazer59 01.06.14 19:17

bobbin wrote:
maebee wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

. wrote:The judge at the Civil Court of Lisbon who is trying the ‘libel’ case which Kate and Gerry McCann have filed against Gonçalo Amaral and 3 other parties has issued a decision concerning the matter of Madeleine McCann being a Ward of Court.

On the 3rd of January 2014, Gonçalo Amaral had argued before the Lisbon Court that Madeleine’s parents do not possess the necessary power to represent their daughter in this action, since the child had been made a Ward of Court in the United Kingdom.

The judge decided that Mr Amaral should present a certificate of the relevant British judicial ruling. That certificate was delivered to the Court on the 2nd of May, after a lengthy, expensive process.

The judge then had to decide whether or not Madeleine’s parents were entitled to represent their daughter in this lawsuit. In the judge’s recent ruling, it is mentioned that “within the 'Wardship', the High Court holds ultimate responsibility over the child, but it does not suppress or annul the exercise of the parental responsibilities”. The High Court takes control over “the most important decisions for the life” of the child. The judge further considers that “the decision to file a judicial action in the name of the child” is a decision “of the magnitude that is demanded for the agreement or consent of the court”.

The judge’s ruling further notes that the matters that have been brought before the High Court that holds the Wardship have been matters of an “eminently judiciary nature, like the revelation of confidential information and documents, that are related to the child’s disappearance and were in the possession of the local police”.

The text continues with the consideration that because Madeleine was made a Ward of the Court on the 2nd of April of 2008, her parents did not possess, in 2009, “the necessary capacity of representation of their daughter to file the present action without the authorization from the British court”.

Nevertheless, the judge has decided that the final court session, which will include a statement from Gerald McCann and the presentation of closing arguments from all sides, should take place regardless of the matter of the Wardship.

After that hearing is completed, the proceedings will be suspended for 30 days. During that period, Madeleine’s parents “shall arrange for the collection and documentation in the records of the British Court’s authorization for the bringing of this action on behalf of the minor Madeleine McCann”. If they fail to do so, the defendants will be “acquitted of the proceedings concerning the requests that have been formulated on behalf of the latter".

The judge has proposed the date of 16th June for the final session, but each of the lawyers involved have the possibility of declining said date and suggesting alternative dates.
Can anyone explain what exactly this means. Are the McCs being invited to get court permission for Maddie to be represented during a 30 day period, i.e. is it supposed that such would over-ride the Portuguese judge's decision to say Maddie cannot be represented... am having a slightly 'thick' moment here...

It reads to me as the Judge saying they did not have authorization when they brought the action, to do so on Madeleines behalf. They will have 30 days to produce said documentary proof of authorization from the court.

I am probably wrong though, just the way it reads to me

by russiandoll 01.06.14 19:23

How I read it, too.... the word standing out is authorisation. The wardship issue seems clear and if this judge does not see how the Mcs can legitimately sue on Maddie's behalf due to the dates, then I imagine a British judge would hold the same opinion.
This judge is maybe wondering if the Mcs even bothered to take advice on the legal issues surrounding their status re the wardship before trying to sue on behalf of Maddie. If it proves to be the case that either no authorisation was sought, or they asked advice but ignored it, this judge's words on her final summing up and recorded judgment should be interesting.

by Guest 01.06.14 19:24

russiandoll wrote:
The judge’s ruling further notes that the matters that have been brought before the High Court that holds the Wardship have been matters of an “eminently judiciary nature, like the revelation of confidential information and documents, that are related to the child’s disappearance and were in the possession of the local police”.

It would be highly ironic if it is something discovered among these documents that has led to the current activity.

by Watching 01.06.14 19:25

stargazer59 wrote:
bobbin wrote:

The text continue

After that hearing is completed, the proceedings will be suspended for 30 days. During that period, Madeleine’s parents “shall arrange for the collection and documentation in the records of the British Court’s authorization for the bringing of this action on behalf of the minor Madeleine McCann”. If they fail to do so, the defendants will be “acquitted of the proceedings concerning the requests that have been formulated on behalf of the latter".

The judge has proposed the date of 16th June for the final session, but each of the lawyers involved have the possibility of declining said date and suggesting alternative dates.
Can anyone explain what exactly this means. Are the McCs being invited to get court permission for Maddie to be represented during a 30 day period, i.e. is it supposed that such would over-ride the Portuguese judge's decision to say Maddie cannot be represented... am having a slightly 'thick' moment here...
It reads to me as the Judge saying they did not have authorization when they brought the action, to do so on Madeleines behalf. They will have 30 days to produce said documentary proof of authorization from the court.

I am probably wrong though, just the way it reads to me

In complete agreement Stargazer59 that is my understanding also.

Whether the UK Courts will allow this action on Madeleine's behalf under the conditions of her Wardship?

by russiandoll 01.06.14 19:25

Clay Regazzoni wrote:
russiandoll wrote:
Clay Regazzoni wrote:What a shambles. Poor Madeleine.

Hi Clay,
Sober enough to post, hey! Could you expand a little on your comment above, please?

Hi, yes. It's just that nothing about this poor child's life (or, indeed, probable death) ever seems to be unequivocal.

I agree. However, this is about the parents v Amaral and others, and as far as this part of the case is concerned, Amaral has been vindicated in asking for the wardship issue to be clarified.

Watching : I note the word RECORDS used by this judge, so I am not interpreting this as giving the Mcs 30 days to seek permission from the UK to allow the Mcs to sue on Maddie's behalf, because she seems to be clear that this can't happen due to the wardship date.

By wanting to see an authorisation in the records, that says the past to me.... were the McCanns given the go-ahead by the UK before bringing the action on behalf of their daughter?

by canada12 01.06.14 19:27

Seems to me what the judge is saying is that Gerry and Kate didn't have authorization to bring this action on Madeleine's behalf. She wants to see the authorization from the British court which would have allowed them to bring the action on Madeleine's behalf. If there was no authorization, then GA will be acquitted of the part of the court case that has to do with Madeleine. I don't think the judge is saying that Gerry and Kate can get the authorization after the fact. I think the judge is demanding to see proof that the court authorized them to take action on Madeleine's behalf when they started this libel action.

by stargazer59 01.06.14 19:27

russiandoll wrote:How I read it, too.... the word standing out is authorisation. The wardship issue seems clear and if this judge does not see how the Mcs can legitimately sue on Maddie's behalf due to the dates, then I imagine a British judge would hold the same opinion.
This judge is maybe wondering if the Mcs even bothered to take advice on the legal issues surrounding their status re the wardship before trying to sue on behalf of Maddie. If it proves to be the case that either no authorisation was sought, or they asked advice but ignored it, this judge's words on her final summing up and recorded judgment should be interesting.

Phew! Thank you, i thought i was reading it wrong.

smilie

by Guest 01.06.14 19:27

russiandoll wrote:

I agree. However, this is about the parents v Amaral and others, and as far as this part of the case is concerned, Amaral has been vindicated in asking for the wardship issue to be clarified.

I really hope so. I wonder if it was a flash of inspiration or if his team had it up their sleeves from a long way out?

by Watching 01.06.14 19:28

'Nevertheless, the judge has decided that the final court session, which will include a statement from Gerald McCann and the presentation of closing arguments from all sides, should take place regardless of the matter of the Wardship.'

A written statement to be read out in Court or is Mr going to make an appearance?

by canada12 01.06.14 19:33

Clay Regazzoni wrote:
russiandoll wrote:
The judge’s ruling further notes that the matters that have been brought before the High Court that holds the Wardship have been matters of an “eminently judiciary nature, like the revelation of confidential information and documents, that are related to the child’s disappearance and were in the possession of the local police”.

It would be highly ironic if it is something discovered among these documents that has led to the current activity.

I was thinking along those lines too. Perhaps in his obtaining of information concerning the WOC, GA came across some other interesting details...? Is that possible?

by canada12 01.06.14 19:34

Watching wrote:'Nevertheless, the judge has decided that the final court session, which will include a statement from Gerald McCann and the presentation of closing arguments from all sides, should take place regardless of the matter of the Wardship.'

A written statement to be read out in Court or is Mr going to make an appearance?

They've vowed not to return unless Madeleine's DNA is discovered. Will be interesting if Gerry does appear to read a statement. He can't ever be sure now that whatever he states won't come back to slap him in the face at some point.

by nglfi 01.06.14 19:36

I also read it as that the judge is saying the McCanns have 30 days in which to get the High Court in the UK to act on their behalf in this matter? Although I may have read it wrong, is it simply the case that they have to get some documents together or do they actually have to request that the High Court also files an action? Can they even do that? So confused!

by russiandoll 01.06.14 19:38

oh dear the pros are not happy...

Kate and Gerry are the rightful guardians and the jusge is talking bollocks. As has been said, I would think this is a delaying tactic, probably not just to knobble the libel triali, but also to give certain people more time to cover their tracks

so annoyed, look at those typos.. is this a suggestion that the judge is corrupt?

laughable.
big grin

by Watching 01.06.14 19:38

canada12 wrote:Seems to me what the judge is saying is that Gerry and Kate didn't have authorization to bring this action on Madeleine's behalf. She wants to see the authorization from the British court which would have allowed them to bring the action on Madeleine's behalf. If there was no authorization, then GA will be acquitted of the part of the court case that has to do with Madeleine. I don't think the judge is saying that Gerry and Kate can get the authorization after the fact. I think the judge is demanding to see proof that the court authorized them to take action on Madeleine's behalf when they started this libel action.

Ah Canada12 I see where you are coming from, and I believe you are right, so I take back my original post. I think this part clarifies what you have said:

During that period, Madeleine’s parents “shall arrange for the collection and documentation IN THE RECORDS of the British Court’s authorization for the bringing of this action on behalf of the minor Madeleine McCann”

The Judge is indeed it would seem giving them 30 days to collect the authorisation which requires to already be in existence for Mr & Mrs to proceed with this action on Maddie's behalf.

Did they get authorisation before taking this action, is the big question?

by sallypelt 01.06.14 19:47

russiandoll wrote:oh dear the pros are not happy...

Kate and Gerry are the rightful guardians and the jusge is talking bollocks. As has been said, I would think this is a delaying tactic, probably not just to knobble the libel triali, but also to give certain people more time to cover their tracks

so annoyed, look at those typos.. is this a suggestion that the judge is corrupt?

laughable.

And here's another one to add to it:

@alfibab3 Jasmine
@WAWinter1 With this bunch of anti #mccann loons I wouldn't be at all surprised if that document was fraudulent. We will see. #McCann

violin

by Guest 01.06.14 19:47

Watching wrote:
canada12 wrote:Seems to me what the judge is saying is that Gerry and Kate didn't have authorization to bring this action on Madeleine's behalf. She wants to see the authorization from the British court which would have allowed them to bring the action on Madeleine's behalf. If there was no authorization, then GA will be acquitted of the part of the court case that has to do with Madeleine. I don't think the judge is saying that Gerry and Kate can get the authorization after the fact. I think the judge is demanding to see proof that the court authorized them to take action on Madeleine's behalf when they started this libel action.

Ah Canada12 I see where you are coming from, and I believe you are right, so I take back my original post. I think this part clarifies what you have said:

During that period, Madeleine’s parents “shall arrange for the collection and documentation IN THE RECORDS of the British Court’s authorization for the bringing of this action on behalf of the minor Madeleine McCann”

The Judge is indeed it would seem giving them 30 days to collect the authorisation which requires to already be in existence for Mr & Mrs to proceed with this action on Maddie's behalf.

My interpretation of the text, just my opinion.
First all parties have to agree on a date.
Judge proposed June 16th.
It'll be delayed, I bet. Those 30 days to produce the 'papers' only start after that 'closing hearing with GMC's statement (in person?)

by russiandoll 01.06.14 19:48

Yes Canada12, that's my take on it, given the words AUTHORISATION and RECORDS. The judge seems to me to be saying this to the Mcs :

I have seen enough to convince me that you do not have the right to sue on behalf of Madeleine, however in fairness I am asking you to present me something from the court records in the UK to do with the wardship issue which shows me that a judge advised you , when you sought advice in this matter before bringing your libel action, that you had the right to do so. if you do not present me with this, then...

Probably quite interested to see why a UK judge would read the matter differently, that is if a UK court was even consulted on the matter.

She has batted the ball into court McCann [ well they like a bit of tennis]

by NickE 01.06.14 19:48

Watching wrote:
canada12 wrote:Seems to me what the judge is saying is that Gerry and Kate didn't have authorization to bring this action on Madeleine's behalf. She wants to see the authorization from the British court which would have allowed them to bring the action on Madeleine's behalf. If there was no authorization, then GA will be acquitted of the part of the court case that has to do with Madeleine. I don't think the judge is saying that Gerry and Kate can get the authorization after the fact. I think the judge is demanding to see proof that the court authorized them to take action on Madeleine's behalf when they started this libel action.

Ah Canada12 I see where you are coming from, and I believe you are right, so I take back my original post. I think this part clarifies what you have said:

During that period, Madeleine’s parents “shall arrange for the collection and documentation IN THE RECORDS of the British Court’s authorization for the bringing of this action on behalf of the minor Madeleine McCann”

The Judge is indeed it would seem giving them 30 days to collect the authorisation which requires to already be in existence for Mr & Mrs to proceed with this action on Maddie's behalf.

Did they get authorisation before taking this action, is the big question?

30 days from when? 16 June??