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

by Guest 03.06.14 9:28

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

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

by Guest 03.06.14 9:39

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

by Guest 03.06.14 9:47

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

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

by Mirage 03.06.14 9:54

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

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

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

by Guest 03.06.14 9:58

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

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

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

by Mirage 03.06.14 9:59

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

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

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

by Guest 03.06.14 11:19

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

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

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

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

by Guest 03.06.14 11:50

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

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

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

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

by lj 03.06.14 16:20

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

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

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

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

by sallypelt 03.06.14 19:36

I don't know if this has already been posted, but the wheels a definitely coming off the McCann's bandwagon
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by **sharonl** 03.06.14 19:52

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

by Guest 03.06.14 20:07

Have merged your thread here sharonl as same topic.

by NickE 03.06.14 20:18

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

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

by aiyoyo 03.06.14 20:27

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

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

by lj 03.06.14 20:32

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

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

by Guest 03.06.14 20:42

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

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

I dont think they had in May 2007.
Imo
parapono

by jhansigirl 03.06.14 20:48

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

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

Hi, apologies if this question has been asked before.

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

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

by **sharonl** 03.06.14 20:55

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

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

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

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

by Gillyspot 03.06.14 21:27

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

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

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

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

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

by aiyoyo 03.06.14 22:16

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

by Bishop Brennan 04.06.14 12:45

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

In fact as SY are now looking for a body, then it could be said that Amaral is actually a hero to the McCanns. He alone was telling the world to look for a body, way back in 2007. If only they had listened to him, then the worry and heartache of the past 7 years could have been avoided - and closure and grieving take their place. Perhaps Gerry will publicly thank GA on the stand on the 16th, and apologise for all the libel nonsense? big grin

by woodforthetrees 04.06.14 13:53

I'm wondering whether the closing session for the libel case has deliberately been scheduled for the 16th, just as the PDL digs will be coming to an end.

More importantly, the focus on the invite for Gerry to make a speach. My thoughts here are that this too is deliberate, to see if he will dare set foot in the country. If he declines to attend, then it adds more weight to his guilt and the threat of arrest upon arrival, or at least some harsh questions from both the PJ and SY on their findings over the next 10 days.

I suspect their silence at this point is due to them having lengthy talks with their legal defense team and extradition guy.

by bobbin 04.06.14 13:58

woodforthetrees wrote:I'm wondering whether the closing session for the libel case has deliberately been scheduled for the 16th, just as the PDL digs will be coming to an end.

More importantly, the focus on the invite for Gerry to make a speach. My thoughts here are that this too is deliberate, to see if he will dare set foot in the country. If he declines to attend, then it adds more weight to his guilt and the threat of arrest upon arrival, or at least some harsh questions from both the PJ and SY on their findings over the next 10 days.

I suspect their silence at this point is due to them having lengthy talks with their legal defense team and extradition guy.

Perhaps they are all concentrating on searching Google Earth, for a place to hide, where they won't be found.

by lj 04.06.14 15:38

woodforthetrees wrote:I'm wondering whether the closing session for the libel case has deliberately been scheduled for the 16th, just as the PDL digs will be coming to an end.

More importantly, the focus on the invite for Gerry to make a speach. My thoughts here are that this too is deliberate, to see if he will dare set foot in the country. If he declines to attend, then it adds more weight to his guilt and the threat of arrest upon arrival, or at least some harsh questions from both the PJ and SY on their findings over the next 10 days.

I suspect their silence at this point is due to them having lengthy talks with their legal defense team and extradition guy.

I wonder if Gerry's speech is not mainly for PR reasons. We know he was sent away when he all at the sudden decided he wanted to talk, that was with good legal reasons (he should have sent in a request much earlier). Maybe the judge wanted to make sure that nobody could say that this heartbroken, suffering couple had not all the chances they wanted to sluice all their complaints.

BTW I have no doubt his speech will be very spontaneous. He will have a ghostwriter who will put in all heartwrenching stuff up until the: cough here, sniff, dry eyes etc. He's used to that and as back up Kate will sit there in case he gets lost with: one cough is wipe eyes, 2 coughs is voice breaks, 1 cough with hand on my eyes is suicidal thoughts, 1 cough with hand for the mouth is loss of appetite etc

by j.rob 26.01.15 19:46

Watching wrote:
noddy100 wrote:Why was she made a ward of court?

So that Mr & Mrs could use it to their advantage and did so by obtaining files held by the Leicestershire police. Justice Hogg ruled against Leicestershire police, and granted Mr & Mrs be given access to a number of police files...all for Maddie's benefit!

All for the Mc's benefit so they could pass on vital information to help their private investigation find ~~cover up what happened to~~ Madeleine.

by ultimaThule 26.01.15 19:55

This thread may also be of interest to you, jrob: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by **Hobs** 26.01.15 21:16

Regarding the ward of court issue and Leicestershire police.
The mccanns wanted access to all the files held by the police in order to se what evidence there was.
They won technically.
They got access to the files.

However, the only files they got access to were the files sent to LE from their own attornies containing info sent to them by members of the public probably via their tip line.
Basically the only files they got access to were their own files, all 81 of them out of 11000, not a win at all.

They still don't know what is in the files that have not been released by the PJ which is a lot, nor do they know what Leceistershire police have in their files.

big grin

by j.rob 26.01.15 21:32

Guest wrote:
Markus 2 wrote:By Gordon Rayner, Chief Reporter
6:27PM BST 20 Jun 2008
The Telegraph can also disclose that Madeleine was made a ward of court last summer at the request of the McCanns, to empower judges to act in her best interests in any legal dispute such as the case which is about to be heard.
So she was made a ward in 2007

[color:5aa0=000000]During the Hearing it is revealed that Madeleine became a Ward of Court, on 02 April 2008, as the result of proceedings which started on 17 May 2007.

How ironic that the stated reason for making Madeleine a woc is the very one that has tripped them up at the libel trial.

Ha! Yes, they have tried to have it all ways. But they can't. They didn't, imo, make Madeleine a Ward of Court for the reasons stated above. It was for other reasons that were to do with their own interests. From this point onwards, I would think that the Mcs, on one level or another, were digging their own graves. Especially given the audacity of claiming that Detective Amaral's book hindered the search for Madeleine.

Oh dear. What twerps.

IMO

by j.rob 26.01.15 21:39

He said 11,000 pieces of information were being held as part of the investigation and just one could provide the clue to her whereabouts.

---------

Bet he (GM) wants to get his hands on that once piece of information that could provide the clue to Madeleine's whereabouts.

by woodforthetrees 27.01.15 9:24

Hobs wrote:Regarding the ward of court issue and Leicestershire police.
The mccanns wanted access to all the files held by the police in order to se what evidence there was.
They won technically.
They got access to the files.

However, the only files they got access to were the files sent to LE from their own attornies containing info sent to them by members of the public probably via their tip line.
Basically the only files they got access to were their own files, all 81 of them out of 11000, not a win at all.

They still don't know what is in the files that have not been released by the PJ which is a lot, nor do they know what Leceistershire police have in their files.

Relatives of the missing would never be allowed full access to any police files, only active police force employees would be allowed access.

However, based on their close friendship with people like Jim Gamble and others, i have no doubt they are getting 'detailed summaries' passed to them.

Latest topics