Re: Letter 25 Jan 2013 to Carter-Ruck and the Court about THAT proposed settlement with Dr Amaral: is this now an 'Abuse of Process'?

by russiandoll 26.01.13 17:15

Having decided due to illness, sudden bereavement [and then reading strange things re Sandyhook which saddened me] not to post here any more and get into heated exchanges with members, I still read avidly and feel that because this thing with ed concerns going back on a bet which meant a charitable donation...
I should post this, ed pay up or shut up.
while neither party has either conceded or caved if you want to be pedantic......

this is the legal situation re seeking a settlement, the defendant is usually the one to decide not to continue to defend a case due for trial,

In civil lawsuits, settlement is an alternative to pursuing litigation
through trial. Typically, it occurs when the defendant agrees to some or
all of the plaintiff's claims and decides not to fight the matter in
court. Usually, a settlement requires the defendant to pay the plaintiff
some monetary amount. Popularly called settling out of court, a
settlement agreement ends the litigation. Settlement is a popular option
for several reasons, but a large number of cases are settled simply
because defendants want to avoid the high cost of litigation.
Civil lawsuits originate when a claimant decides that another party has
caused him or her injury and files suit. The plaintiff seeks to recover
damages from the defendant. The defendant's attorney will evaluate the
plaintiff's claim. If the plaintiff has a strong case and the attorney
believes defendant is likely to lose, the attorney may recommend that
the defendant settle the case.

Like litigation itself, settlement is a process. Generally, the easiest
time to settle a dispute is before litigation begins, but many
opportunities for settlement present themselves. As litigation advances
toward trial, attorneys for both sides communicate with each other and
with the court and gauge the relative strength of their cases. If either
of the parties believes he is unlikely to prevail, he is likely to
offer a settlement to the other party.

The cost of litigation is only one factor that encourages settlement.
Both plaintiffs and defendants are often motivated to settle for other
reasons. For one thing litigation is frequently unpleasant. The process
of discovery—in which both sides solicit information from each other—can
cause embarrassment because considerable personal and financial
information must be released. Litigation can also have a harmful impact
on the public reputation of the parties

The plaintiff typically agrees to forgo any future litigation against
the defendant, and the defendant agrees to pay the plaintiff some
monetary amount. Additionally, settlements can require the defendant to
change a policy or stop some form of behavior.

please note the facts ed and pay particular attention to what follows from the word typically.
If as is usual the defendant makes the offer to settle, he or she will pay money and maybe agree to stop certain behaviour.
This is an atypical case in that the move was made by the plaintiff.
The only logical inference is that the plaintiffs have decided or been advised that they cannot win their case.
In addition they might well not wish certain information to be divulged in a court.
And almost certainly do not want that information to become public knowledge.

p.s. you must accept based on the above that the McCanns have conceded that they cannot win their case. There is no other reason for them not to pursue it.

by **PeterMac** 26.01.13 17:18

B O R I N G

(Sorry russiandoll, didn't mean you !)

by Woofer 26.01.13 17:44

Maybe to you Peter !

or is it you`re bored with the divvi?

by russiandoll 26.01.13 17:48

Thank you Peter Mac and you have reminded me that I need to say sorry to a few members here including your good self. I am sincerely sorry if in the heat of the moment when I did what you lot call a flounce [ very Scarlett O 'Hara and not my style!] I caused offence. I also have MS and can be a real f*****g tosser when the going gets tough.

What I should have said is that I was going through a very tough time physically and emotionally and needed to distance myself as I was getting easily wound up [again not my style, honest guvnor] at reading about some Sandyhook parents' distress not being genuine. I thought it gave ammunition to those who say our stance re the Maddie affair does not come from a good place.
For what it's worth we are imo in interesting times. Please ignore ed now.....no amount of [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]can alter these simple FACTS.

1. Goncalo Amaral has NOT backed down from his position that the McCanns are NOT telling the truth.
2. The McCanns have decided NOT to pursue their claim in court that he has libelled them by stating the above.

GO FIGURE !

by bobbin 26.01.13 17:48

PeterMac wrote:B O R I N G

(Sorry russiandoll, didn't mean you !)

I'm sure russiandoll didn't think that otherwise very apt remark was for her, PeterMac.
Her post was very clear and and succinct.

To russiandoll, I'm sorry you've had a bad time and am glad that you still take an interest in the real pursuit to find out what happened to Madeleine, and where she might now be. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by Guest 26.01.13 17:57

I'm also glad to "see" you back, Russiandoll.

Please never call yourself an effing tosser - you don't deserve it I'm sure, unlike the person who put it in her famous work of fiction which she claims to have written for the benefit of her twins!

I'm wondering if our talking horse was previously here in the shape of a frayed feline - the refusal to shut up and move on is just the same.

by Woofer 26.01.13 17:58

Russian Doll - glad you`re still around - I miss your contributions.

by russiandoll 26.01.13 18:00

Thanks for your kind words bobbin. Since reading the book of the *cough* truth then taking up the files again my interest has only increased. As has my wish for justice for this little girl. [ I wish I could do a PhD thesis on a McCann related topic!]

by Eddie 26.01.13 18:02

russiandoll wrote:Thank you Peter Mac and you have reminded me that I need to say sorry to a few members here including your good self. I am sincerely sorry if in the heat of the moment when I did what you lot call a flounce [ very Scarlett O 'Hara and not my style!] I caused offence. I also have MS and can be a real f*****g tosser when the going gets tough.

What I should have said is that I was going through a very tough time physically and emotionally and needed to distance myself as I was getting easily wound up [again not my style, honest guvnor] at reading about some Sandyhook parents' distress not being genuine. I thought it gave ammunition to those who say our stance re the Maddie affair does not come from a good place.
For what it's worth we are imo in interesting times. Please ignore ed now.....no amount of [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]can alter these simple FACTS.

1. Goncalo Amaral has NOT backed down from his position that the McCanns are NOT telling the truth.
2. The McCanns have decided NOT to pursue their claim in court that he has libelled them by stating the above.

GO FIGURE !

The statement in red is incorrect. The McCanns reserve the right to continue with the court case if Amaral does not meet their demands.

the McCanns have not caved in.

I actually thought I was dealing with people who could actually read a sentence and understand what it means. Plainly I am not. It is impossible to have an intelligent conversation with someone who is not intelligent. It is no wonder that the vast majority on this forum have got most of the facts of this case back to front, led by TB who has been so stupid he will shortly be losing what little he has left once he has settled with Smethurst. Poor , deluded fools.

by bobbin 26.01.13 18:05

russiandoll wrote:Thanks for your kind words bobbin. Since reading the book of the *cough* truth then taking up the files again my interest has only increased. As has my wish for justice for this little girl. [ I wish I could do a PhD thesis on a McCann related topic!]

I think we'd all get a grade A +++, by the way we work together, if such an exam existed.
But what is the point of a PhD if it isn't to be useful ?
Well, I think the time is coming where our individual and corporate contributions will pay off and Madeleine will have the 'honour of justice' that she so sadly deserves.

by Dr What 26.01.13 18:07

russiandoll

I agree with your previous statement that litigation is brutal.It can lay bare habits or events in one's past that one would not want family or friends to know about.Whether these habits or events are social or sexual it does not matter.They must not see the light of day.They could be seen as repugnant or embarrassing.They could also ruin a career or lifestyle that has been worked hard for, that has required sacrifice by one's wider family.How could one allow all those hopes and sacrifices to be made worthless by the exposure of certain habits or events.Protect these at all costs.No matter who has to be targeted.

But that lid can only be screwed on for so long.

by Guest 26.01.13 18:15

Banned !
Pfew.
Thank you.
I was getting nauseous :-(

But Medusa may grow another head ...

by Guest 26.01.13 18:23

If he or she is the person I think they were before, they will soon be trumpeting on the Missing Madeleine forum again about there being no freedom of speech allowed here.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]for now.

by Guest 26.01.13 18:27

You think so, Jean?
Oh, well ...
If it isn't this one, there will be another ... pulled out of the closet from time to time ;-)

by Guest 26.01.13 18:30

Jean wrote:If he or she is the person I think they were before, they will soon be trumpeting on the Missing Madeleine forum again about there being no freedom of speech allowed here.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]for now.

I don't know Jean....admin will have to check. They certainly can't complain they weren't given the the right to speak here, can they. It was just a matter of time before the nastiness came out, and then of course they deserve what they get. Another one will now doubt descend on us very shortly. They're like pimples, get rid of one and another pops us[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by **PeterMac** 26.01.13 18:47

Châtelaine wrote:
But Medusa may grow another head ...

Or even Hydra !
Medusa lost hers and Perseus kept it in a bucket to flash at passing Kings to turn them to stone. And Pegasus sprang from her body as her head was cut off.

by Montclair 26.01.13 18:55

ed1976 wrote:
russiandoll wrote:Thank you Peter Mac and you have reminded me that I need to say sorry to a few members here including your good self. I am sincerely sorry if in the heat of the moment when I did what you lot call a flounce [ very Scarlett O 'Hara and not my style!] I caused offence. I also have MS and can be a real f*****g tosser when the going gets tough.

What I should have said is that I was going through a very tough time physically and emotionally and needed to distance myself as I was getting easily wound up [again not my style, honest guvnor] at reading about some Sandyhook parents' distress not being genuine. I thought it gave ammunition to those who say our stance re the Maddie affair does not come from a good place.
For what it's worth we are imo in interesting times. Please ignore ed now.....no amount of [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]can alter these simple FACTS.

1. Goncalo Amaral has NOT backed down from his position that the McCanns are NOT telling the truth.
2. The McCanns have decided NOT to pursue their claim in court that he has libelled them by stating the above.

GO FIGURE !

The statement in red is incorrect. The McCanns reserve the right to continue with the court case if Amaral does not meet their demands.

the McCanns have not caved in.

I actually thought I was dealing with people who could actually read a sentence and understand what it means. Plainly I am not. It is impossible to have an intelligent conversation with someone who is not intelligent. It is no wonder that the vast majority on this forum have got most of the facts of this case back to front, led by TB who has been so stupid he will shortly be losing what little he has left once he has settled with Smethurst. Poor , deluded fools.

The McCanns are certainly in no position to make any kind of "demands" on Gonçalo Amaral or any of the other defendents! If their proposals are not accepted, the case goes to court. So, if the McCanns had such a strong case in the first place why have they then asked for a suspension just a few days before the trial was to begin and not opted to go to court.Some people just don't understand or don't want to see the truth.

by **PeterMac** 26.01.13 18:58

The important thing is that it is useless arguing about an unknown fact. Argument will not change it.
EITHER
the McCanns have asked for a settlement, for whatever reason
OR
Amaral has asked for it, for whatever reason

Argument and speculation can be fun, but they do not change that central issue, which we shall discover in the fullness of time.
It may be that one of more people already know.

Clearly the truth is known by
McCanns
McCanns portuguese legal team
Carter-Ruck
Dr Amaral
Dr Amaral's legal team
Portuguese court
Court officials
Secretaries
and a whole host of others.

It may be that TB is in possession of facts which for obvious reasons he will not reveal here. And in my view he should not.
I cannot imagine that after four years of persecution from the McCanns and their egregious team he has not made some useful contacts,
perhaps even directly with Dr Amaral.

Wait and see.
Then discuss from a position of knowledge.

by Guest 26.01.13 18:59

Don't think I have had a chance to say welcome Montclair, [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by Guest 26.01.13 19:04

PeterMac wrote:The important thing is that it is useless arguing about an unknown fact. Argument will not change it.
EITHER
the McCanns have asked for a settlement, for whatever reason
OR
Amaral has asked for it, for whatever reason

Argument and speculation can be fun, but they do not change that central issue, which we shall discover in the fullness of time.
It may be that one of more people already know.

Clearly the truth is known by
McCanns
McCanns portuguese legal team
Carter-Ruck
Dr Amaral
Dr Amaral's legal team
Portuguese court
Court officials
Secretaries
and a whole host of others.

It may be that TB is in possession of facts which for obvious reasons he will not reveal here. And in my view he should not.
I cannot imagine that after four years of persecution from the McCanns and their egregious team he has not made some useful contacts,
perhaps even directly with Dr Amaral.

Wait and see.
Then discuss from a position of knowledge.

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

by Guest 26.01.13 19:12

PeterMac wrote:
Châtelaine wrote:
But Medusa may grow another head ...
Or even Hydra !
Medusa lost hers and Perseus kept it in a bucket to flash at passing Kings to turn them to stone. And Pegasus sprang from her body as her head was cut off.

***
Oh dear! I've been mixing all my life the Greek and the Roman. And all of the Myths. I loved them, still do and can read them over and over again, as if they were "new" .... because I just cannot remember them correctly.

ETA there's an advantage there. As I said: as if they were new to me ;-) so no boring tales, but an aha-erlebnis every time :-)

by Montclair 26.01.13 19:58

Portia wrote:
PeterMac wrote:The important thing is that it is useless arguing about an unknown fact. Argument will not change it.
EITHER
the McCanns have asked for a settlement, for whatever reason
OR
Amaral has asked for it, for whatever reason

Argument and speculation can be fun, but they do not change that central issue, which we shall discover in the fullness of time.
It may be that one of more people already know.

Clearly the truth is known by
McCanns
McCanns portuguese legal team
Carter-Ruck
Dr Amaral
Dr Amaral's legal team
Portuguese court
Court officials
Secretaries
and a whole host of others.

It may be that TB is in possession of facts which for obvious reasons he will not reveal here. And in my view he should not.
I cannot imagine that after four years of persecution from the McCanns and their egregious team he has not made some useful contacts,
perhaps even directly with Dr Amaral.

Wait and see.
Then discuss from a position of knowledge.

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

There is no either or. It is a FACT that the McCanns asked for the suspension and negotiation and Gonçalo Amaral and the other defendents were ready to go to court. I don't understand why there are still some people who are unable to face up to this FACT.

by Bob Southgate 26.01.13 20:12

Jean wrote:If he or she is the person I think they were before, they will soon be trumpeting on the Missing Madeleine forum again about there being no freedom of speech allowed here.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]for now.

Is that the same as the Stop the Myths forum J[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]ean?

by Guest 26.01.13 20:19

Heavens no, it's not a pro site but the person I'm thinking of is a member there. He or she didn't get any sympathy!

by **PeterMac** 26.01.13 21:24

Montclair wrote:There is no either or. It is a FACT that the McCanns asked for the suspension and negotiation and Gonçalo Amaral and the other defendents were ready to go to court. I don't understand why there are still some people who are unable to face up to this FACT.

You may be right. I don't know.
All I have seen here is a letter from TB to C-R. Not the other way round.
I can envisage a legal situation where only the Plaintiffs have the legal power to ask for a trial to be halted. That would make perfect sense.
So if Dr Amaral had indicated that he wanted to settle or to give in, that would be communicated to the Plaintiffs, who would then approach the court for permission to stay the process whilst they sought to finalise the terms.
It might look to an outsider that the Plaintiffs had taken the lead, but the reality would be entirely different.

As I say, I do not know.
I do not know enough ( or indeed anything) about the Portuguese legal system and procedures, and I do not have sufficient hard facts to decide at the moment.

by Inspectorfrost 26.01.13 22:42

LMFAO at Ed76 complaining he cant have an intelligent conversation with intelligent people, thats because you Ed are dense, obnoxious, biased, a troll,who threw their dummy out the pram when busted.Tatty Bye.

big grin

by Montclair 26.01.13 23:50

PeterMac wrote:
Montclair wrote:There is no either or. It is a FACT that the McCanns asked for the suspension and negotiation and Gonçalo Amaral and the other defendents were ready to go to court. I don't understand why there are still some people who are unable to face up to this FACT.
You may be right. I don't know.
All I have seen here is a letter from TB to C-R. Not the other way round.
I can envisage a legal situation where only the Plaintiffs have the legal power to ask for a trial to be halted. That would make perfect sense.
So if Dr Amaral had indicated that he wanted to settle or to give in, that would be communicated to the Plaintiffs, who would then approach the court for permission to stay the process whilst they sought to finalise the terms.
It might look to an outsider that the Plaintiffs had taken the lead, but the reality would be entirely different.

As I say, I do not know.
I do not know enough ( or indeed anything) about the Portuguese legal system and procedures, and I do not have sufficient hard facts to decide at the moment.

Why do you continue to say you don't know when I have just told you that the McCanns asked for the suspension. That is an indisputable FACT! BTW TB quoted a letter from CR to him which stated the FACT that the McCanns are trying to seek a settlement. It was also mentioned on Portuguese television by Hernâni Carvalho and in an article in TVMais. What more FACTS do you need?

by Bob Southgate 26.01.13 23:52

Jean wrote:Heavens no, it's not a pro site but the person I'm thinking of is a member there. He or she didn't get any sympathy!

I only mentioned StopThe Myths because I googled my name and came across a few posts there which were personal attacks on me. Is that their normal MO on there?

by Inspectorfrost 26.01.13 23:58

Bob Southgate wrote:
Jean wrote:Heavens no, it's not a pro site but the person I'm thinking of is a member there. He or she didn't get any sympathy!

I only mentioned StopThe Myths because I googled my name and came across a few posts there which were personal attacks on me. Is that their normal MO on there?

It is generally a grotty and very negative site which host 90 per cent of posts slagging people off, best avoided as most of the natives there have emotional problems which do not allow them to argue rationally about very much

by **Tony Bennett** 27.01.13 0:18

Me wrote:**EDIT** Tony, would it be possible, and I can understand if you didn't want to, to scan and upload the letter from Carter Ruck which states the above so we can end this debate once and for all about who has caved in and asked for a postponement

Almost impossible for me, as I don't have a scanner I can use at the moment. I have quoted from an AFFIDAVIT of Isabel Martorell, NOT from a letter.

[The letter in Portugal was sent by Isobel Duarte on or about 8 January 2013].

What I have quoted from the Affidavit is verbatim and leaves nothing important out regarding the propsed settlement].

* It is ADMITTED by Carter-Ruck that the McCanns, via Isabel Duarte, wrote to Dr Amaral and to the Lisbon Civil Court, two weeks ahead of the final trial, asking for an adjournment

* It is CLAIMED by Carter-Ruck that this is to enable the parties to try to reach a settlement

* It is ASSERTED by Carter-Ruck that the McCanns seek a settlement which "gives the [McCanns] sufficent vindication and protection in the future".

That's it.

No more than that.

EXCEPT THAT IT REMAINS TO BE SEEN whether or not, having themselves having sought an adjournment (as russiandoll has I think also pointed out, almost unprecedented for a claimant), the McCanns can now extract a settlement which gives the McCanns 'sufficient vindication and protection'.

The McCanns WERE asking for COMPLETE vindication, and 1,200,000 euros (I make that £1,010,760 at the current rate of exchange - see NOTE).

They have changed their position.

Thet are now merely seeking SUFFICIENT vindication.

I am not sure how they could be 'protected' from Dr Amaral's facts and his hypothesis, given that Amaral's book has been back on sale in Portugal for 2 years and 3 months, has been translated into nine European languages, is on sale in 32 countries, and is freely available in an English translation on the internet.

Unless, that is, Dr Amaral agrees that:

* his book be banned again

* his book be no longer sold in any of the 32 countries where it is now being sold, and

* he uses his best endeavours to remove all English translations of his book from the internet.

[NOTE: Every time the value of the euro goes up against the pound by one-hundredth of a cent, the value of the McCanns' claim against Dr Amaral goes up by £120. Or down by £120 for every one-hundredth of a cent the euro falls against the pound.

The McCanns have done really well in the past few months because the euro has recovered from a low point of 77.82 pence to the euro to 84.23 pence to the euro.

If...

1. the case does go to trial, and

If...

2. the McCanns win, and

If...

3. the Court agrees that the McCanns are entitled to what they claim, viz. 1,200,000 euros damages, THEN the McCanns will have gained a handome £76,920 during the past few months, due to the euro's recovery.

That could give the Find Madeleine Fund a much-needed boost

Letter 25 Jan 2013 to Carter-Ruck and the Court about THAT proposed settlement with Dr Amaral: is this now an 'Abuse of Process'?