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

by canada12 01.06.14 19:57

Do we think GA already knows whether or not Kate and Gerry had received authorization from the British Courts to proceed on Madeleine's behalf? If he got the documents which pertained to Madeleine's WOCship, then perhaps he was also able to ascertain at the same time whether the court had given authorization for Kate and Gerry to represent Madeleine in the libel action? Is that possible? And if so - highly improbable the court would issue such a document retro actively, knowing that GA might already know it doesn't exist? All supposition on my part.

by sallypelt 01.06.14 19:58

I am a little confused, myself, as to what the McCann's can now bring to the court. It states that "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".
So what else can the McCann's come up with if the British judicial ruling have already found in Dr Amaral's favour?

by stargazer59 01.06.14 19:58

canada12 wrote:Do we think GA would already know whether or not Kate and Gerry had received authorization from the British Courts to proceed on Madeleine's behalf? If he got the documents which pertained to Madeleine's WOCship, then perhaps he was also able to ascertain at the same time whether the court had given authorization for Kate and Gerry to represent Madeleine in the libel action? Is that possible?

Just what i was thinking !

by sallypelt 01.06.14 19:59

canada12 wrote:Do we think GA would already know whether or not Kate and Gerry had received authorization from the British Courts to proceed on Madeleine's behalf? If he got the documents which pertained to Madeleine's WOCship, then perhaps he was also able to ascertain at the same time whether the court had given authorization for Kate and Gerry to represent Madeleine in the libel action? Is that possible?

Opps, canada, we appear to be on the same wave-length music

by SixMillionQuid 01.06.14 20:00

canada12 wrote:Do we think GA would already know whether or not Kate and Gerry had received authorization from the British Courts to proceed on Madeleine's behalf? If he got the documents which pertained to Madeleine's WOCship, then perhaps he was also able to ascertain at the same time whether the court had given authorization for Kate and Gerry to represent Madeleine in the libel action? Is that possible?

After LJ Hogg (?) made Madeleine Ward of Court things went quiet. So I'd be curious to see what Court documents they come up with from 2008 - 2009.

by Guest 01.06.14 20:02

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

Yep, this is it exactly.

So Justice Hogg will not be able to retrospectively authorize the representation. The Portuguese judge will only accept records dated from before the libel case was launched. I'm betting on them not being able produce such a record. I also bet that the 16 June date will be delayed as long as possible for them to a) scramble together their next move and b) to delay any necessity of Gerry having to set foot on Portuguese soil.

by Miraflores 01.06.14 20:07

Kate and Gerry should have known this: wasn't there a previous case where they tried to act in Madeleine's name and couldn't because they had made her a Ward of Court? I can't remember what it was, was it the Accounts? Can someone help me out here?

Who was it who had her made a Ward of Court? None other than Kate and Gerry - whoops!

But re the Portuguese judges ruling - no doubt the McCanns will cry foul and say that they would have won if it hadn't been for a perverse decision by the said judge. Which goes along with the sardine munching police force.

Interesting times!

by ShuBob 01.06.14 20:09

canada12 wrote:Do we think GA already knows whether or not Kate and Gerry had received authorization from the British Courts to proceed on Madeleine's behalf? If he got the documents which pertained to Madeleine's WOCship, then perhaps he was also able to ascertain at the same time whether the court had given authorization for Kate and Gerry to represent Madeleine in the libel action? Is that possible? And if so - highly improbable the court would issue such a document retro actively, knowing that GA might already know it doesn't exist? All supposition on my part.

Well, once Amaral raised the Wardship issue in court, that was the point the McCanns should have produced any evidence if they had it. I believe that tells it's own story.

by sami 01.06.14 20:10

Miraflores wrote:Kate and Gerry should have known this: wasn't there a previous case where they tried to act in Madeleine's name and couldn't because they had made her a Ward of Court? I can't remember what it was, was it the Accounts? Can someone help me out here?

Who was it who had her made a Ward of Court? None other than Kate and Gerry - whoops!

I believe it occurred during the book banning trial. That is why I was surprised when they continued with it during this trial. Would ID not have advised them ?

by Miraflores 01.06.14 20:14

Absolutely no excuse then for trying to act in Madeleine's name if a Portuguese court had already said that it wasn't permissible.

I could understand if it had been a court case in the UK, where the rules may be different.

by TheTruthWillOut 01.06.14 20:26

If it is the case the ward of court issue has bitten them on the bum before suggests the UK courts/judges aren't helping the Mcs....

I have to say though that I'm a little fed up of the semantics/technicalities. I really wish the UK/PT governments would put a stop to all this crap.

by Mirage 01.06.14 20:26

I am wondering if this libel suit could now be adjudged vexatious.

by Guest 01.06.14 20:28

Mirage wrote:I am wondering if this libel suit could now be adjudged vexatious.

Well quite. Seeing as they have 'previous'...

by missmar1 01.06.14 20:29

Miraflores wrote:Kate and Gerry should have known this: wasn't there a previous case where they tried to act in Madeleine's name and couldn't because they had made her a Ward of Court? I can't remember what it was, was it the Accounts? Can someone help me out here?

Who was it who had her made a Ward of Court? None other than Kate and Gerry - whoops!

But re the Portuguese judges ruling - no doubt the McCanns will cry foul and say that they would have won if it hadn't been for a perverse decision by the said judge. Which goes along with the sardine munching police force.

Interesting times!

I think it might be the right time for Clarence Mitchel to surface and earn any money ( donated by the public ) he may still be drawing from the search for Madeleine fund. No doubt, imo, he will find a way to make this ruling look like another unfair blow for the poor Mccann's who were only trying to stop Mr Amaral from hindering the search for their daughter.

Eta, or possibly, this latest ruling may be buried out of sight of the UK public ? I should also add that I dont know if CM is being paid out of the funds money so please remove admin if I'm wrong.

by TheTruthWillOut 01.06.14 20:29

Mirage wrote:I am wondering if this libel suit could now be adjudged vexatious.

It is the very definition! big grin

denoting an action or the bringer of an action that is brought without sufficient grounds for winning, purely to cause annoyance to the defendant.

by Miraflores 01.06.14 20:30

Do they have the concept of vexatious litigation in Portugal?

by russiandoll 01.06.14 20:31

Why did ID not produce the relevant /required documentation when Amaral raised this issue with the court?

There is a lively debate on twitter now about whether that judgment implies that the PT court will allow this authorisation in retrospect.. my reading of it is NO... the judge wants to see if UK authorisation was in existence when the case was brought to court, if not...

The judge might throw the entire case out as vexatious for timewasting and the Mcs not going through the necessary process. Why has ID allowed them to do this ?

by noddy100 01.06.14 20:34

Why was she made a ward of court?

by Watching 01.06.14 20:36

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

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

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

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

Did they get authorisation before taking this action, is the big question?
30 days from when? 16 June??

The Judge is proposing the 16th June for closing arguments, but does state that the lawyers on either side can discuss/decide/come to agreement on this. So within 30 days from whenever the date of the closing arguments for current proceedings, Mr & Mr will have to produce the documentation requested of them.

by Mirage 01.06.14 20:38

TheTruthWillOut wrote:
Mirage wrote:I am wondering if this libel suit could now be adjudged vexatious.

It is the very definition!

denoting an action or the bringer of an action that is brought without sufficient grounds for winning, purely to cause annoyance to the defendant.

Especially when this quote comes back to haunt Kate McCann:
"He deserves to be miserable and feel fear"

by Watching 01.06.14 20:43

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!

by sami 01.06.14 20:45

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!

I don't believe they were given all of the files or anything significant. Didn't Kate complain the information they were allowed was already in their possession from the PJ files.

by Watching 01.06.14 20:50

Mirage wrote:
TheTruthWillOut wrote:
Mirage wrote:I am wondering if this libel suit could now be adjudged vexatious.

It is the very definition!

denoting an action or the bringer of an action that is brought without sufficient grounds for winning, purely to cause annoyance to the defendant.

Especially when this quote comes back to haunt Kate McCann:
"He deserves to be miserable and feel fear"

Vexatious doesn't cover it then! They intended much more than 'annoyance?' more malicious intent, done to cause the greatest harm, and hardship, in the hope they caused GA as Mrs said misery and fear. What kind of sicko b-tch is Mrs?

by tasprin 01.06.14 20:51

It's no secret that the McCanns sued Amaral naming Madeleine as a plaintiff. The libel trial has been front page news since 2010 and can't have escaped the attention of the family court. Madeleine is a Ward of Court and it's confirmed that the McCanns didn't obtain the necessary authorisation to bring an action in her name but for some reason the court has ignored it. The British Family Court is renowned for its ruthlessness so why has this situation been allowed to continue for 5 years without anyone from the court stepping in?

by ShuBob 01.06.14 20:51

russiandoll wrote:Why did ID not produce the relevant /required documentation when Amaral raised this issue with the court?

There is a lively debate on twitter now about whether that judgment implies that the PT court will allow this authorisation in retrospect.. my reading of it is NO... the judge wants to see if UK authorisation was in existence when the case was brought to court, if not...

The judge might throw the entire case out as vexatious for timewasting and the Mcs not going through the necessary process. Why has ID allowed them to do this ?

I am sure Amaral and the various lawyers representing the other defendants will vehemently oppose any such ruling. Like you, I think it's a non-started.

by sami 01.06.14 20:52

russiandoll wrote:Why did ID not produce the relevant /required documentation when Amaral raised this issue with the court?

There is a lively debate on twitter now about whether that judgment implies that the PT court will allow this authorisation in retrospect.. my reading of it is NO... the judge wants to see if UK authorisation was in existence when the case was brought to court, if not...

The judge might throw the entire case out as vexatious for timewasting and the Mcs not going through the necessary process. Why has ID allowed them to do this ?

Was ID not confident they could bring a case, without the inclusion of Madeleine ? What is the exact nature of the suit ? They have no right to seek compensation on Madeleine's behalf and have now been told so for a second time.

Are they entitled to compensation for themselves and the twins, on the basis the search has been harmed (allegedly) by Amaral's book. Perhaps not, given they have no rights to act on her behalf, should they be compensated at all as she is legally not in their charge.

T

by Watching 01.06.14 20:52

sami wrote:
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!

I don't believe they were given all of the files or anything significant. Didn't Kate complain the information they were allowed was already in their possession from the PJ files.

No they weren't you are correct, but as suspects at that time in the case of their missing daughter they should not have been given anything IMHO. Never heard the likes, suspects getting access.

by missmar1 01.06.14 20:57

Watching wrote:
sami wrote:
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!

I don't believe they were given all of the files or anything significant. Didn't Kate complain the information they were allowed was already in their possession from the PJ files.
No they weren't you are correct, but as suspects at that time in the case of their missing daughter they should not have been given anything IMHO. Never heard the likes, suspects getting access.

I may be wrong , but I believe they were only given their own files back ...ie, the files their own solicitors had handed in to Leic police

by ShuBob 01.06.14 20:57

tasprin wrote:It's no secret that the McCanns sued Amaral naming Madeleine as a plaintiff. The libel trial has been front page news since 2010 and can't have escaped the attention of the family court. Madeleine is a Ward of Court and it's confirmed that the McCanns didn't obtain the necessary authorisation to bring an action in her name but for some reason the court has ignored it. The British Family Court is renowned for its ruthlessness so why has this situation been allowed to continue for 5 years without anyone from the court stepping in?

Had Amaral not brought the issue up, there's the possibility the couple would have got away with it and then the British courts would have remained silent like they've been since 2010, even before!

I have to say that huge credit goes to Amaral for obtaining the documentation. It couldn't have been easy especially given how difficult the PJ found it trying to obtain documents before the case was archived. Perhaps, Tessy May really wants this case solved.

by Mirage 01.06.14 21:03

sami wrote:
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!

I don't believe they were given all of the files or anything significant. Didn't Kate complain the information they were allowed was already in their possession from the PJ files.

From memory, what the pair argued to the court (in absentia) once they realised they were on a losing wicket was that info had been passed to Leics police of calls had come in from people with information that had not been followed up. Having given up on a more ambitious claim of looking at all files they settled for requesting these people's contact details from the files for their own investigation.

As I say, this is from memory only. I believe they were given very limited info in the end because the Leics Chief Constable objected in court to allowing them open season on police files.

I was never too sure why this volte-face occurred, considering how they were allowed to steer the rogs and see to it that the tapas lot could look at each others' statements and generally get all their ducks in a row. Not that this stopped them sounding incoherent.

Latest topics