The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Welcome to 'The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann' forum 🌹

Please log in, or register to view all the forums as many of them are 'members only', then settle in and help us get to the truth about what really happened to Madeleine Beth McCann.

Please note that when you register your username must be different from your email address!

McCanns: "The Supreme Court decision was INVALID" - Madeleine McCann's parents 'plan to fight Portuguese court ruling that they haven't been cleared of involvement in their daughter's disappearance' (Daily Mail, 18 Feb 2017)

Post new topic   Reply to topic

Page 4 of 4 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: McCanns: "The Supreme Court decision was INVALID" - Madeleine McCann's parents 'plan to fight Portuguese court ruling that they haven't been cleared of involvement in their daughter's disappearance' (Daily Mail, 18 Feb 2017)

Post by Yvie Han on 21.02.17 22:31

I feel something has happened today somewhere. 

So This Morning adverts yesterday were lording it up to watch the show blah blah blah.

Then the slot is pushed right to the end of the show, and lasted a couple of minutes, the presenters were like rabbits in headlights, and MWT was a jibbering pathetic broken record from 2008. 

Is something going down RIGHT NOW? 

Because the CM reports the free speech bit in one of the newspapers!

Now that has gone against a couple of days ago when he threatened Lawyers were watching everything. And gone again anything that has happened in the last 10 yrs. Free Speech, why has he switched and gone on a totally different path than what he has preached for years!!!!!

This Morning - That was not planned out to happen like that today, they were in shock, if they were to be silenced and they knew they were heavily restricted they wouldn't have even bthered to air it, this has come from outside I don't believe it was silenced from GB side. 

Strange I feel something rumbling, some intelligence come in from somewhere, something a foot in PT . 

Time will tell.
avatar
Yvie Han

Posts : 37
Reputation : 12
Join date : 2017-02-16

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: McCanns: "The Supreme Court decision was INVALID" - Madeleine McCann's parents 'plan to fight Portuguese court ruling that they haven't been cleared of involvement in their daughter's disappearance' (Daily Mail, 18 Feb 2017)

Post by Lands_end on 22.02.17 10:13

@Portia wrote:The Independent nailed it: the Fund will be drained to pay legal costs and fees. 

But how could that be? Surely the parents will not be so dastardly as to scupper their eldest born chances of being found by means of the heartwarming donations from pensioners and schoolchildren? The Independent is slandering McCann? Beware Indy, before you know you'll find Carter Ruck rucking on your doorstep!

Remember: the participants in the litigation so far were:

Side McCann: Gerry, Kate, Sean, Amelie AND Maddie. 5 litigants in all. 
Side Dr. Amaral: Dr. Amaral, Guerra y Paz and Broadcaster. 3 litigants. 

This means, in a grown-up world: that all five McCann are liable to reimburse all 3 parties in the Amaral side. 

My conservative guess is, that poor Sean and Amelie will be forced to work for donkeys years to make up for their parents mistakes. Oh, and poor Maddie, of course. Lets not forget HER!
Portia please remember that twins sean and amelie are now hitting their teenage years and will be made aware of posts like this. Also please note for teachers and social workers with duty of care to these vulnerable young people.

Lands_end

Posts : 164
Reputation : 86
Join date : 2015-03-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: McCanns: "The Supreme Court decision was INVALID" - Madeleine McCann's parents 'plan to fight Portuguese court ruling that they haven't been cleared of involvement in their daughter's disappearance' (Daily Mail, 18 Feb 2017)

Post by whatsupdoc on 22.02.17 11:42

What concerned me was "Were the 3 children actually listed in the Original Court Action?". It seems to me that they were.

Was it accepted or were the children's names removed?

If the action were to lose, as it did, one couldn't expect young children to grow up and become liable for huge debts incurred by their parents.

I would have hoped the Judges would have noticed this and asked for amendments to the wording.

If not, then further action to the Court of Human Rights should reject any claims brought by the parents involving their children.
avatar
whatsupdoc

Posts : 601
Reputation : 320
Join date : 2011-08-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: McCanns: "The Supreme Court decision was INVALID" - Madeleine McCann's parents 'plan to fight Portuguese court ruling that they haven't been cleared of involvement in their daughter's disappearance' (Daily Mail, 18 Feb 2017)

Post by Verdi on 22.02.17 12:01

@whatsupdoc wrote:What concerned me was "Were the 3 children actually listed in the Original Court Action?". It seems to me that they were.
At some earlier stage of the proceedings, I recall a questions was raised, by Goncalo Amaral's lawyer I think, about Madeleine's position as a ward of court.  I don't know if anything ever came out of it. 

In my opinion they were wrong to use their children as a lever, makes me wonder who advised them or agreed to the proposal in the first place.

____________________
The secret of life is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake that, you've got it made" - Groucho Marx
avatar
Verdi
Moderator/Researcher

Posts : 7080
Reputation : 3625
Join date : 2015-02-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: McCanns: "The Supreme Court decision was INVALID" - Madeleine McCann's parents 'plan to fight Portuguese court ruling that they haven't been cleared of involvement in their daughter's disappearance' (Daily Mail, 18 Feb 2017)

Post by RosieandSam on 22.02.17 12:14

@Verdi wrote:
@whatsupdoc wrote:What concerned me was "Were the 3 children actually listed in the Original Court Action?". It seems to me that they were.
At some earlier stage of the proceedings, I recall a questions was raised, by Goncalo Amaral's lawyer I think, about Madeleine's position as a ward of court.  I don't know if anything ever came out of it. 

In my opinion they were wrong to use their children as a lever, makes me wonder who advised them or agreed to the proposal in the first place.

Yes @Verdi

Madeleine's wardship was the subject of a ruling by the original civil court.



The judge at the Civil Court of Lisbon who is trying the civil 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.


http://pjga.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/ward-of-court-decision-issued-by-judge.html
avatar
RosieandSam

Posts : 172
Reputation : 86
Join date : 2016-12-26

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: McCanns: "The Supreme Court decision was INVALID" - Madeleine McCann's parents 'plan to fight Portuguese court ruling that they haven't been cleared of involvement in their daughter's disappearance' (Daily Mail, 18 Feb 2017)

Post by Verdi on 22.02.17 12:30

@RosieandSam #80

Just as I thought - thanks for taking time out to locate the detail howdy .

____________________
The secret of life is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake that, you've got it made" - Groucho Marx
avatar
Verdi
Moderator/Researcher

Posts : 7080
Reputation : 3625
Join date : 2015-02-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: McCanns: "The Supreme Court decision was INVALID" - Madeleine McCann's parents 'plan to fight Portuguese court ruling that they haven't been cleared of involvement in their daughter's disappearance' (Daily Mail, 18 Feb 2017)

Post by MayMuse on 22.02.17 12:43

@RosieandSam wrote:
@Verdi wrote:
@whatsupdoc wrote:What concerned me was "Were the 3 children actually listed in the Original Court Action?". It seems to me that they were.
At some earlier stage of the proceedings, I recall a questions was raised, by Goncalo Amaral's lawyer I think, about Madeleine's position as a ward of court.  I don't know if anything ever came out of it. 

In my opinion they were wrong to use their children as a lever, makes me wonder who advised them or agreed to the proposal in the first place.

Yes @Verdi

Madeleine's wardship was the subject of a ruling by the original civil court.



The judge at the Civil Court of Lisbon who is trying the civil 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.


 http://pjga.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/ward-of-court-decision-issued-by-judge.html
Now why would the judge rule that way when the McCanns did not have wardship?

____________________
“Basically, I’m just an ordinary, straightforward guy who’s the victim of the biggest f***-up on this planet – if you’ll excuse the language.” bingo

Robert Murat talking to David Jones, Daily Mail, 02 June 2007

MayMuse

Posts : 1830
Reputation : 1283
Join date : 2016-04-15

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: McCanns: "The Supreme Court decision was INVALID" - Madeleine McCann's parents 'plan to fight Portuguese court ruling that they haven't been cleared of involvement in their daughter's disappearance' (Daily Mail, 18 Feb 2017)

Post by whatsupdoc on 22.02.17 12:52

@Verdi wrote:@RosieandSam #80

Just as I thought - thanks for taking time out to locate the detail howdy .

Agreed , Verdi.

Thanks to RosieandSam for retrieving the info so quickly. I do now remember about GA having to apply to the UK Court for the paperwork re Madeleine's Wardship.

All a bit odd, if you ask me...adding your young children into a high-stakes court case...obviously to gain sympathy.
.
avatar
whatsupdoc

Posts : 601
Reputation : 320
Join date : 2011-08-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: McCanns: "The Supreme Court decision was INVALID" - Madeleine McCann's parents 'plan to fight Portuguese court ruling that they haven't been cleared of involvement in their daughter's disappearance' (Daily Mail, 18 Feb 2017)

Post by shabba on 22.02.17 20:38

At what point can a court say no more appeals of appeals and make them pay the costs?

shabba

Posts : 19
Reputation : 5
Join date : 2014-01-31
Age : 56
Location : Doncaster uk

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: McCanns: "The Supreme Court decision was INVALID" - Madeleine McCann's parents 'plan to fight Portuguese court ruling that they haven't been cleared of involvement in their daughter's disappearance' (Daily Mail, 18 Feb 2017)

Post by Hobs on 22.02.17 23:05

Bear in mind it could not be made retrospectively. The mccans had to prove they had the power and authority to include Maddie in their suit.

As far as i am aware they failed and it was quietly dropped

____________________
The little unremembered acts of kindness and love are the best parts of a person's life.
avatar
Hobs
Researcher/Analyst

Posts : 856
Reputation : 517
Join date : 2012-10-20
Age : 53
Location : uk

View user profile http://tania-cadogan.blogspot.co.uk/

Back to top Go down

Re: McCanns: "The Supreme Court decision was INVALID" - Madeleine McCann's parents 'plan to fight Portuguese court ruling that they haven't been cleared of involvement in their daughter's disappearance' (Daily Mail, 18 Feb 2017)

Post by MayMuse on 22.02.17 23:09

@Hobs wrote:Bear in mind it could not be made retrospectively. The mccans had to prove they had the power and authority to include Maddie in their suit.

As far as i am aware they failed and it was quietly dropped
The obviously didn't @ Hobs 

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.

____________________
“Basically, I’m just an ordinary, straightforward guy who’s the victim of the biggest f***-up on this planet – if you’ll excuse the language.” bingo

Robert Murat talking to David Jones, Daily Mail, 02 June 2007

MayMuse

Posts : 1830
Reputation : 1283
Join date : 2016-04-15

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: McCanns: "The Supreme Court decision was INVALID" - Madeleine McCann's parents 'plan to fight Portuguese court ruling that they haven't been cleared of involvement in their daughter's disappearance' (Daily Mail, 18 Feb 2017)

Post by Hobs on 23.02.17 4:59

@MayMuse wrote:
@Hobs wrote:Bear in mind it could not be made retrospectively. The mccans had to prove they had the power and authority to include Maddie in their suit.

As far as i am aware they failed and it was quietly dropped
The obviously didn't @ Hobs 

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.


Page 19
Both claimants (here appellants) lodged an appeal for reviewing that acórdão (note : to avoid confusion, this word always designates the decision of the Appeal Court).
Provided allegations and gathered the legal visas, it's up to deciding.
2 – Fundamental principles
1.2. In the appealed acórdão the following facts are considered proven :
1. The applicants Gerald McCann and Kate (sic) are married to each other.
2. The applicant Madeleine McCann was born on 12.5.2003 , daughter of Kate McCann and Gerald McCann.
3. The applicant Sean McCann was born on 1/2/2005, son of  Kate McCann and Gerald McCann.
4. The applicant Amelie McCann was born on 1/2/2005 , daughter of Kate McCann and Gerald McCann. (11)
5. The applicant Madeleine McCann has been missing since 3/5/2007 , resulting in the criminal investigation n° 201/07.0 GALGS, opened by the prosecutor of Portimão.
6. The dogs Eddie and Keela, from the British police, have detected human blood and cadaver scent in the apartment 5A of the Ocean Club.
7. The dogs Eddie and Keela, from the British police, have detected human blood and cadaver scent in the vehicle rented by the applicants Kate McCann and Gerald McCann after Madeleine's disappearance.
8. The applicants Kate McCann and Gerald McCann were constituted (by lawyer) assisted witnesses (arguidos) in the criminal investigation.
9.  On 10/9/2007 (pp. 2587-2602 of the criminal investigation), Chief-Inspector Tavares de Almeida wrote a report and particularly the following :
"Given what we could establish, the facts point towards the death of Madeleine McCann during the evening of May 3 2007, in the apartment 5A of Praia da Luz Ocean Club resort, occupied by the McCann couple and their three children (p. 2599) (... )
Taking into account all that was presented in the autos, it results that :
A) The minor Madeleine McCann died in apartment 5A of the Ocean Club in Praia da Luz in the evening of May 3, 2007 ;
B) A simulation of abduction took place ;
 
Note 11These proven facts were established in the first instance lawsuit where the five members of the McCann family were claimants. In this instance's sentence the requests of the three McCann children were dismissed. Their parents could have lodged an appeal on their behalf, but they chose not to. Hence in the  judgement by the Appeal Court Kate and Gerald McCann were the only respondents.

____________________
The little unremembered acts of kindness and love are the best parts of a person's life.
avatar
Hobs
Researcher/Analyst

Posts : 856
Reputation : 517
Join date : 2012-10-20
Age : 53
Location : uk

View user profile http://tania-cadogan.blogspot.co.uk/

Back to top Go down

Re: McCanns: "The Supreme Court decision was INVALID" - Madeleine McCann's parents 'plan to fight Portuguese court ruling that they haven't been cleared of involvement in their daughter's disappearance' (Daily Mail, 18 Feb 2017)

Post by whatsupdoc on 23.02.17 6:22

@Hobs wrote:
@MayMuse wrote:
@Hobs wrote:Bear in mind it could not be made retrospectively. The mccans had to prove they had the power and authority to include Maddie in their suit.

As far as i am aware they failed and it was quietly dropped
The obviously didn't @ Hobs 

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.


Page 19
Both claimants (here appellants) lodged an appeal for reviewing that acórdão   (note : to avoid confusion, this word always designates the decision of the Appeal Court).
Provided allegations and gathered the legal visas, it's up to deciding.
2 – Fundamental principles
1.2. In the appealed acórdão the following facts are considered proven :
1. The applicants Gerald McCann and Kate (sic) are married to each other.
2. The applicant Madeleine McCann was born on 12.5.2003 , daughter of Kate McCann and Gerald McCann.
3. The applicant Sean McCann was born on 1/2/2005, son of  Kate McCann and Gerald McCann.
4. The applicant Amelie McCann was born on 1/2/2005 , daughter of Kate McCann and Gerald McCann. (11)
5. The applicant Madeleine McCann has been missing since 3/5/2007 , resulting in the criminal investigation n° 201/07.0 GALGS, opened by the prosecutor of Portimão.
6. The dogs Eddie and Keela, from the British police, have detected human blood and cadaver scent in the apartment 5A of the Ocean Club.
7. The dogs Eddie and Keela, from the British police, have detected human blood and cadaver scent in the vehicle rented by the applicants Kate McCann and Gerald McCann after Madeleine's disappearance.
8. The applicants Kate McCann and Gerald McCann were constituted (by lawyer) assisted witnesses (arguidos) in the criminal investigation.
9.  On 10/9/2007 (pp. 2587-2602 of the criminal investigation), Chief-Inspector Tavares de Almeida wrote a report and particularly the following :
"Given what we could establish, the facts point towards the death of Madeleine McCann during the evening of May 3 2007, in the apartment 5A of Praia da Luz Ocean Club resort, occupied by the McCann couple and their three children (p. 2599) (... )
Taking into account all that was presented in the autos, it results that :
A) The minor Madeleine McCann died in apartment 5A of the Ocean Club in Praia da Luz in the evening of May 3, 2007 ;
B) A simulation of abduction took place ;
 
Note 11These proven facts were established in the first instance lawsuit where the five members of the McCann family were claimants. In this instance's sentence the requests of the three McCann children were dismissed. Their parents could have lodged an appeal on their behalf, but they chose not to. Hence in the  judgement by the Appeal Court Kate and Gerald McCann were the only respondents.

Many thanks, Hobs for the information regarding the children not being included (Note 11). So the parents were the only respondents.

Re Note 9,  the report by Chief Inspector Tavares Almeida, I have mentioned this quite a few times over the years as the McCanns picked on Dr. Amaral as though he was the only one claiming that Madeleine died in 5A and a staged abduction took place when this conclusion was reached by the Portuguese police team in September 2007. The MSM have made out Dr. Amaral to be the only one with a theory that Madeleine died in 5A. The time of death could have been on an earlier day, as I think, but the overall conclusions stand.
avatar
whatsupdoc

Posts : 601
Reputation : 320
Join date : 2011-08-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: McCanns: "The Supreme Court decision was INVALID" - Madeleine McCann's parents 'plan to fight Portuguese court ruling that they haven't been cleared of involvement in their daughter's disappearance' (Daily Mail, 18 Feb 2017)

Post by MayMuse on 23.02.17 12:30

@MayMuse wrote:
@Hobs wrote:Bear in mind it could not be made retrospectively. The mccans had to prove they had the power and authority to include Maddie in their suit.

As far as i am aware they failed and it was quietly dropped
The obviously didn't @ Hobs 

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.
@Hobs I am speaking of wardship here, that the McCanns did not have wardship yet the judge still allowed presentation of. It follows on from a previous post. 


The fact that the children were dropped from the lawsuit is a different matter.

____________________
“Basically, I’m just an ordinary, straightforward guy who’s the victim of the biggest f***-up on this planet – if you’ll excuse the language.” bingo

Robert Murat talking to David Jones, Daily Mail, 02 June 2007

MayMuse

Posts : 1830
Reputation : 1283
Join date : 2016-04-15

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: McCanns: "The Supreme Court decision was INVALID" - Madeleine McCann's parents 'plan to fight Portuguese court ruling that they haven't been cleared of involvement in their daughter's disappearance' (Daily Mail, 18 Feb 2017)

Post by Philip Anders on 23.02.17 13:20

Unfortunately for the McCanns it's not just the Portuguese Supreme Court who regard them as 'not cleared'.

Neither do Leicestershire Police.

“While one or both of them may be innocent, there is no clear evidence that eliminates them from involvement in Madeleine's disappearance.” - Said by the Assistant Chief Constable of Leicestershire, in an official submission of Leicester Police to the Family Division of the High Court.
avatar
Philip Anders

Posts : 121
Reputation : 105
Join date : 2017-02-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: McCanns: "The Supreme Court decision was INVALID" - Madeleine McCann's parents 'plan to fight Portuguese court ruling that they haven't been cleared of involvement in their daughter's disappearance' (Daily Mail, 18 Feb 2017)

Post by MayMuse on 23.02.17 13:38

@Philip Anders wrote:Unfortunately for the McCanns it's not just the Portuguese Supreme Court who regard them as 'not cleared'.

Neither do Leicestershire Police.

“While one or both of them may be innocent, there is no clear evidence that eliminates them from involvement in Madeleine's disappearance.” - Said by the Assistant Chief Constable of Leicestershire, in an official submission of Leicester Police to the Family Division of the High Court.
Ta dah Boom!

____________________
“Basically, I’m just an ordinary, straightforward guy who’s the victim of the biggest f***-up on this planet – if you’ll excuse the language.” bingo

Robert Murat talking to David Jones, Daily Mail, 02 June 2007

MayMuse

Posts : 1830
Reputation : 1283
Join date : 2016-04-15

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: McCanns: "The Supreme Court decision was INVALID" - Madeleine McCann's parents 'plan to fight Portuguese court ruling that they haven't been cleared of involvement in their daughter's disappearance' (Daily Mail, 18 Feb 2017)

Post by Doug D on 23.02.17 14:32

Not sure this is correct based on the last three judgements:
 
First verdict:
 
Kate Marie Healy MCCANN, GERALD PATRICK MCCANN, married , doctors, for them and in representation of their children MADELEINE BETH MCCANN , SEAN MICHAEL MCCANN and AMELIE EVE MCCANN , residents in xxx have instituted the following declarative action , under the form of process , against GONCALO DE SOUSA AMARAL, resident in xxx. The claimants have requested that, based on the proceeding action the accused is convicted to the following: 
 
Given the above, on balance of fact and law, the decision is to :
 
I. judge remedied the representation irregularity of the claimant MADELEINE BETH McCann in accordance with article 29, paragraph 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure and, therefore, to dismiss the objection raised by the defendant GONCALO AMARAL . 
 
X. Condemn the claimants KATE MARIE HEALY MCCANN, GERALD PATRICK MCCANN, MADELEINE BETH MCCANN, SEAN MICHAEL MCCANN e AMELIE EVE MCCANN and the defendant GONCALO AMARAL to pay the expenses of the main action in the proportion of 58.30% for the former and 41.70% for the second, in accordance with paragraph 1 of the article 527 of the Civil Procedure Code.
 
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/v01.htm
 
GA’s appeal verdict
 
Judgement of Lisbon Court of Appeal on request 1454/09 - 19/04/2016
 
PAGE ONE
Kate, Gerald, Madeleine, Sean and Amelie McCann ― the last three minors represented by the first claimants, their parents ― filed, against Gonçalo Amaral, the publisher Guerra e Paz, the audiovisual company Valentim de Carvalho and TVI, legal actions in the ordinary form, subsequently attached to Lisbon 1st Civil Chamber, demanding the condemnation of the first defendant to pay the claimants the total amount of €1.200.000, plus interest at the legal rate since the summons, as compensation for moral damages arising from the publication by the first defendant, in book and DVD, of his version of the facts related to the disappearance of the minor MMC, third claimant, and the prohibition for sale, publication or disclosure by all defendants, book and DVD in question.
 
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Decision_19_04_2016.htm
 
Supreme Court Appeal Verdict
 
Page 01
Kate, Gerald, Madeleine, Sean and Amelie McCann ― the last three minors represented by the first claimants, their parents ― filed, against Gonçalo Amaral, the publisher Guerra & Paz, Editores SA, the audiovisual production company Valentim de Carvalho-Filmes e Audiovisuais SA and the TV Channel TVI-Televisão Independente, legal actions in the ordinary form, subsequently attached to Lisbon 1st Civil Chamber, demanding the condemnation of the first defendant to pay the claimants the total amount of €1.200.000, plus interest at the legal rate since the summons, as compensation for moral damages arising from the publication by the first defendant, in book and DVD, of his version of the facts related to the disappearance of the minor MMC, third claimant, and the prohibition for sale, publication or disclosure by all defendants, book and DVD in question.
 
3 - Decision.
Given what has been said, the request of review is denied and the appealed judgement confirmed.
Costs for the appellants.
 
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Supreme_Court_31_01_2017.htm
 
   
Based on (I) above (in red) I don’t think GA’s objection to MM being part of the proceedings was upheld and the twins seem to be there for the duration.

I remember the Mc's being given 30 days to prove they were entitled to act and can only assume they did this, otherwise the latest decision wouldn't name all five of them.

eta

Anne Guedes has added 'Note 11' saying the Supreme Court appeal was made in just the parents names, but I think the previous award of costs falls to them all. Need to go back to the beginning of the first judgement and plough through it al again.

Doug D

Posts : 2485
Reputation : 867
Join date : 2013-12-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: McCanns: "The Supreme Court decision was INVALID" - Madeleine McCann's parents 'plan to fight Portuguese court ruling that they haven't been cleared of involvement in their daughter's disappearance' (Daily Mail, 18 Feb 2017)

Post by G-Unit on 23.02.17 14:39

I thought the children's claims were dismissed by the first judge;

IV. fully dismiss the requests, made in the same action, by the claimants  MADELEINE MCCANN, SEAN MICHAEL MCCANN and  AMELIE EVE MCCANN against the defendant  GONCALO AMARAL and of those claims acquit the defendant.
avatar
G-Unit

Posts : 339
Reputation : 84
Join date : 2014-12-29
Location : UK

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: McCanns: "The Supreme Court decision was INVALID" - Madeleine McCann's parents 'plan to fight Portuguese court ruling that they haven't been cleared of involvement in their daughter's disappearance' (Daily Mail, 18 Feb 2017)

Post by MayMuse on 23.02.17 14:41

@Doug D wrote:Not sure this is correct based on the last three judgements:
 
First verdict:
 
Kate Marie Healy MCCANN, GERALD PATRICK MCCANN, married , doctors, for them and in representation of their children MADELEINE BETH MCCANN , SEAN MICHAEL MCCANN and AMELIE EVE MCCANN , residents in xxx have instituted the following declarative action , under the form of process , against GONCALO DE SOUSA AMARAL, resident in xxx. The claimants have requested that, based on the proceeding action the accused is convicted to the following: 
 
Given the above, on balance of fact and law, the decision is to :
 
I. judge remedied the representation irregularity of the claimant MADELEINE BETH McCann in accordance with article 29, paragraph 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure and, therefore, to dismiss the objection raised by the defendant GONCALO AMARAL . 
 
X. Condemn the claimants KATE MARIE HEALY MCCANN, GERALD PATRICK MCCANN, MADELEINE BETH MCCANN, SEAN MICHAEL MCCANN e AMELIE EVE MCCANN and the defendant GONCALO AMARAL to pay the expenses of the main action in the proportion of 58.30% for the former and 41.70% for the second, in accordance with paragraph 1 of the article 527 of the Civil Procedure Code.
 
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/v01.htm
 
GA’s appeal verdict
 
Judgement of Lisbon Court of Appeal on request 1454/09 - 19/04/2016
 
PAGE ONE
Kate, Gerald, Madeleine, Sean and Amelie McCann ― the last three minors represented by the first claimants, their parents ― filed, against Gonçalo Amaral, the publisher Guerra e Paz, the audiovisual company Valentim de Carvalho and TVI, legal actions in the ordinary form, subsequently attached to Lisbon 1st Civil Chamber, demanding the condemnation of the first defendant to pay the claimants the total amount of €1.200.000, plus interest at the legal rate since the summons, as compensation for moral damages arising from the publication by the first defendant, in book and DVD, of his version of the facts related to the disappearance of the minor MMC, third claimant, and the prohibition for sale, publication or disclosure by all defendants, book and DVD in question.
 
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Decision_19_04_2016.htm
 
Supreme Court Appeal Verdict
 
Page 01
Kate, Gerald, Madeleine, Sean and Amelie McCann ― the last three minors represented by the first claimants, their parents ― filed, against Gonçalo Amaral, the publisher Guerra & Paz, Editores SA, the audiovisual production company Valentim de Carvalho-Filmes e Audiovisuais SA and the TV Channel TVI-Televisão Independente, legal actions in the ordinary form, subsequently attached to Lisbon 1st Civil Chamber, demanding the condemnation of the first defendant to pay the claimants the total amount of €1.200.000, plus interest at the legal rate since the summons, as compensation for moral damages arising from the publication by the first defendant, in book and DVD, of his version of the facts related to the disappearance of the minor MMC, third claimant, and the prohibition for sale, publication or disclosure by all defendants, book and DVD in question.
 
3 - Decision.
Given what has been said, the request of review is denied and the appealed judgement confirmed.
Costs for the appellants.
 
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Supreme_Court_31_01_2017.htm
 
   
Based on (I) above (in red) I don’t think GA’s objection to MM being part of the proceedings was upheld and the twins seem to be there for the duration.

I remember the Mc's being given 30 days to prove they were entitled to act and can only assume they did this, otherwise the latest decision wouldn't name all five of them.
The red quote is, I think, to do with the wardship of Madeleine, it is all very confusing. How I understand it, is that all of them were included, the initial judge allowed Madeleine ( even though a ward of court) to be included and for Gerry to make his statement ( the parents i assume made pleas on the children's behalf). Then later in the appeal, the children were dismissed from the claim, and it proceeded with just GM & KM ?

____________________
“Basically, I’m just an ordinary, straightforward guy who’s the victim of the biggest f***-up on this planet – if you’ll excuse the language.” bingo

Robert Murat talking to David Jones, Daily Mail, 02 June 2007

MayMuse

Posts : 1830
Reputation : 1283
Join date : 2016-04-15

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: McCanns: "The Supreme Court decision was INVALID" - Madeleine McCann's parents 'plan to fight Portuguese court ruling that they haven't been cleared of involvement in their daughter's disappearance' (Daily Mail, 18 Feb 2017)

Post by Doug D on 23.02.17 14:56

Sorry, added to my post above. Claims dismissed, but costs still incurred, I think against all of them. 

Anne Guedes has added 'Note 11' saying the Supreme Court appeal was made in just the parents names, but I think the previous award of costs falls to them all. Need to go back to the beginning of the first judgement and plough through it all again.

Doug D

Posts : 2485
Reputation : 867
Join date : 2013-12-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: McCanns: "The Supreme Court decision was INVALID" - Madeleine McCann's parents 'plan to fight Portuguese court ruling that they haven't been cleared of involvement in their daughter's disappearance' (Daily Mail, 18 Feb 2017)

Post by MayMuse on 23.02.17 15:00

@Doug D wrote:Sorry, added to my post above. Claims dismissed, but costs still incurred, I think against all of them. 

Anne Guedes has added 'Note 11' saying the Supreme Court appeal was made in just the parents names, but I think the previous award of costs falls to them all. Need to go back to the beginning of the first judgement and plough through it all again.
Yes, I read about that. 
You could be right that costs still apply as previously, but not up on PJ Law, thank goodness for Anne Guedes. 

Admire your tenacity winkwink

____________________
“Basically, I’m just an ordinary, straightforward guy who’s the victim of the biggest f***-up on this planet – if you’ll excuse the language.” bingo

Robert Murat talking to David Jones, Daily Mail, 02 June 2007

MayMuse

Posts : 1830
Reputation : 1283
Join date : 2016-04-15

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: McCanns: "The Supreme Court decision was INVALID" - Madeleine McCann's parents 'plan to fight Portuguese court ruling that they haven't been cleared of involvement in their daughter's disappearance' (Daily Mail, 18 Feb 2017)

Post by Doug D on 23.02.17 17:01

The Ward of Court argument was from June 2014 and presumably the Mc’s were able to provide the necessary documentation within the 30 day time limit given to satisfy the Court that they were entitled to act for MM.
 
This would be supported by the kicking out of GA’s representation in the judgement that came out in April 2015
 
I. judge remedied the representation irregularity of the claimant MADELEINE BETH McCann in accordance with article 29, paragraph 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure and, therefore, to dismiss the objection raised by the defendant GONCALO AMARAL .
 
Whilst the youngsters claims were kicked out, GA’s successful appeal does appear to be against all five, with costs awarded against them all.
 
 The Supreme Court appeal seems to have been brought by just GM & KM.
 
   
Next argument will be whether any liability can actually fall on any of the kids. In the UK I believe the parents would be fully liable, as the kids are not old enough to be contractually liable for anything and (I don’t know), but feel it unlikely that Portuguese law is going to be any different in that respect. Istbc.

Doug D

Posts : 2485
Reputation : 867
Join date : 2013-12-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: McCanns: "The Supreme Court decision was INVALID" - Madeleine McCann's parents 'plan to fight Portuguese court ruling that they haven't been cleared of involvement in their daughter's disappearance' (Daily Mail, 18 Feb 2017)

Post by sharonl on 23.09.17 17:23

Bumping for all those junior journalist who haven't done their homework and are still trying to tell us that the McCanns have been cleared

____________________
"WE ARE ALL IN THIS TOGETHER" - Rebekah Brooks to David Cameron
avatar
sharonl


Posts : 4432
Reputation : 792
Join date : 2009-12-29

View user profile http://www.cold2012.org.uk

Back to top Go down

Page 4 of 4 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum