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

by Guest 01.06.14 23:25

I can imagine a couple spitting feathers at the moment ...

by missmar1 01.06.14 23:27

PeterMac wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:There appears to be no barrier to the rest of their claim (for themselves, Sean and Amelie).
If Dr Amaral succeeds in showing that the McCanns do not have legal authority to claim for Madeleine - and if this were British law - Amaral would be entitled to recover his reasonable costs from the McCanns of having proved that the McCanns were wrong to make that particular claim

But what claim do the rest of the family have if there is no basis for a claim on behalf of Madeleine.
Surely the whole basis was that the book hindered the 'search' for Madeleine.
In what way are Amelie and Seanie involved in that ?
Ih what way are Katie and Gerry involved in that ?

The whole thing was about Madeleine (wasn't it . . .?) who it seems legally belongs to Her Honour Mrs Justice Hogg,
from the date the parents officially divested themselves of any further "responsibility " - using that term in its loosest and vaguest sense, of course.

Hi PeterMac,

I do not understand the legalities of why the parents of a missing child would ask for their child to become a woc ? what would be the benefit for the parents of doing that do you know ?

by **Tony Bennett** 01.06.14 23:33

PeterMac wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:There appears to be no barrier to the rest of their claim (for themselves, Sean and Amelie).
If Dr Amaral succeeds in showing that the McCanns do not have legal authority to claim for Madeleine - and if this were British law - Amaral would be entitled to recover his reasonable costs from the McCanns of having proved that the McCanns were wrong to make that particular claim

But what claim do the rest of the family have if there is no basis for a claim on behalf of Madeleine.
Surely the whole basis was that the book hindered the 'search' for Madeleine.
In what way are Amelie and Seanie involved in that ?
Ih what way are Katie and Gerry involved in that ?

The whole thing was about Madeleine (wasn't it . . .?) who it seems legally belongs to Her Honour Mrs Justice Hogg,
from the date the parents officially divested themselves of any further "responsibility " - using that term in its loosest and vaguest sense, of course.

Far be it from me to explain the McCanns' possible reasoning for claiming 100,000 euros each for Sean and Amelie, but I think it would go something like this.

"Not only did the book hinder the search for Madeleine, it also caused us immense and long-term emotional distress and suffering. Say about a quarter of a million euros' worth each. And of course our dear twins have suffered too; they feel the loss of Madeleine very keenly, they were very upset about Madeleine's abduction, and had it not been for what our reputation manager once referred to as 'that work' by Goncalo Amaral, very probably Madeleine would have been found alive - and therefore the twins' suffering could have been much reduced. Say one hundred grand euros for each of them"

by tasprin 01.06.14 23:36

Montclair wrote:
Mirage wrote:
Montclair wrote:
canada12 wrote:
Watching wrote:'Nevertheless, the judge has decided that the final court session, which will include a statement from Gerald McCann and the presentation of closing arguments from all sides, should take place regardless of the matter of the Wardship.'

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

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

Gerry McCann must appear in person and the statement must be as spontaneous as possible.
Is that as in, not a read-out statement, Montclair?

That is correct. Gerry cannot read out a written statement. It must come from the heart, which will be very difficult considering that Gerry does not have one.

Maybe that's why he's a cardiologist... he's fascinated by people that do.

by **Tony Bennett** 01.06.14 23:37

missmar1 wrote:
Hi PeterMac,

I do not understand the legalities of why the parents of a missing child would ask for their child to become a woc? What would be the benefit for the parents of doing that do you know ?

In this case, the Court could make orders.

It could, for example (if appropriate of course), order the parents to receive information from a source.

Or it could take powers to prevent publication of an article which would damage Madeleine or the search for her.

The parents would be acting on behalf of Madeleine and asking the Court to do things which they alone could not do.

by **PeterMac** 01.06.14 23:37

stillsloppingout wrote:So basically the WOC is now / or was , a vehicle to use to throw spanners in the works , to obtain documents that by other means were out of bounds , Did the McC's make her a WOC of there instigation or was that acted upon via the courts, without there (their) consent ? .

It is not a spanner in the works. It is fundamental to an understanding of how the McCanns have tried to manipulate the press, public sentiment, and even the law for many years,
and now seem to be failing .
You need to read back some years, but I am sure the relevant documents are on this site.
Try the search engine top right.
The simple answer is - The McCanns applied for WOC, and it was granted. In 2008.
They knew that.
Their Portuguese lawyer knew that
All their English lawyers knew that
The Trustees of the "Fund" knew that
The lawyers and accountants acting for the "Fund" knew that
Everyone in the Western world with half a brain cell and an interest in the fate of a little girl knew that.
But someone has nevertheless been prepared to fund this nonsense

Dr Amaral has had to go through a long legal process to PROVE that.
And now he has.

Courts are not allowed to assume things.
There is a very limited list in English law of things about which a Court my "Take Judicial Notice"
And that list includes the number of hours in a day, days in a week, direction of rising of the sun . . .tides. . but not weather conditions, which have to be spelled out = proved.
They cannot assume knowledge of very much more.

by 1soapy 01.06.14 23:41

Just seems unfairly weighted, regarding costs, but it’s probably my ignorance and I have no intention of anyone supplying time here on an explanation which could be better spent.

Children (who as of now are not of a mind to have, use, spend or understand funds or libel) can personally receive money, but if the case is found to be null and costs go to the defendant, children are not obliged to pay these costs?

Huge loss of incentive here and a motivation to abuse/bring claims of this sort because it’s a win/win or lose/lose situation (depending on which side you’re on).

Is this justified perhaps because the claim is that the children are affected NOW (by the libel) and therefore are claiming that they are justified in receiving money if found to be guilty of libel, but naturally, as children, if libel is not shown, costs are not realistic as kids don’t have money.

Seems open to abuse.

Maybe better to have the parents claim (and be wholly responsible) on their behalf. Win, put money in holding until of age or use to support the affects on their lives. Lose, cough up.

by Miraflores 01.06.14 23:44

I certainly feel that the twins are wholly innocent victims and have suffered, but not because of Amaral's book, or because they miss Madeleine. They would have been too young at the time to remember much of Madeleine.

Where they have suffered is from their parents constantly going on television to whine about how no one is looking for Madeleine (including said parents, but we will let that pass). They went off to Amsterdam and Sweden to promote the book, both times in term time as far as I recall, so who was looking after the twins then? Then there is filling up the twins heads with stories about monsters coming to snatch them.

by **PeterMac** 01.06.14 23:48

"Not only did the book hinder the search for Madeleine, it also caused us immense and long-term emotional distress and suffering. Say about a quarter of a million euros' worth each. And of course our dear twins have suffered too; they feel the loss of Madeleine very keenly, they were very upset about Madeleine's abduction, and had it not been for what our reputation manager once referred to as 'that work' by Goncalo Amaral, very probably Madeleine would have been found alive - and therefore the twins' suffering could have been much reduced. Say one hundred grand euros for each of them"

it also caused us immense and long-term emotional distress and suffering.

Like this

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

certainly not this

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

and definitely not this

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

by missmar1 01.06.14 23:49

Tony Bennett wrote:
missmar1 wrote:
Hi PeterMac,

I do not understand the legalities of why the parents of a missing child would ask for their child to become a woc? What would be the benefit for the parents of doing that do you know ?
In this case, the Court could make orders.

It could, for example (if appropriate of course), order the parents to receive information from a source.

Or it could take powers to prevent publication of an article which would damage Madeleine or the search for her.

The parents would be acting on behalf of Madeleine and asking the Court to do things which they alone could not do.

Ah, I see, thank you .

by Markus 2 02.06.14 0:09

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
7 July 2008 | Posted by [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

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

Court 20 Before [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Monday, 7 July, 2008

At 10:30 AM

IN OPEN COURT

FD07P01121 McCann

Applications/Summonses in Court as in Chambers

FD06P01276

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

Mrs Justice Hogg, who has effectively been Madeleine's legal guardian since her parents applied for her to be made a ward of court last year, said she had excused the McCanns from attending the hearing because "they have suffered enough and I wished to ease their burden".

"The McCanns will now pass on the information to Metodo 3, the Spanish-based detective agency which has been following up reported sightings independently of the police, for them to conduct their own inquiries."

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

Note: How biased and prejudiced is that the same Judge, who is Madeleine Beth McCann Ward of Court - that is, the guardian of Madeleine's interests - is the same one judging the McCanns parents accesses to the UK police files belonging to a Portuguese process where they, the parents are in fact the main suspects of crime?

VERY ODD MADE A WARD OF COURT WHEN THEY WERE SUSPECTS , WITH DOCUMENTS ? SO THAT CANT BE LEGAL CAN IT IS THIS THE HOLD UP.

by Mirage 02.06.14 0:25

Madeleine McCann parents drop court fight as police agree to share records
The Guardian
Monday 7 July 2008

Madeleine McCann's parents today withdrew their high court request for British police to release documents about the investigation into her disappearance.

The legal challenge was withdrawn after a hearing in which Leicestershire police said they would share 81 pieces of information with Kate and Gerry McCann relating to calls received from the public shortly after Madeleine disappeared on May 3 last year.

The McCanns' spokesman, Clarence Mitchell, described the decision by Leicestershire police to pass the information to Madeleine's parents as "very good news for the investigation". "Each of these is important information. We have potentially 81 new leads," he said.

Mitchell did not give details about the information being released, but said he hoped more would be forthcoming.

"The critical thing is that this is early information and potentially strong information," he said.

During today's hearing, the presiding judge made an usual appeal for the child's abductor to come forward. Mrs Justice Hogg said she believed "at least one person knows what has happened to Madeleine" and urged that person to contact the police.

"I ponder about that person: whether that person has a heart and can understand what it must be like for Madeleine to have been torn and secreted from her parents and siblings whom she loves and felt secure with, and whom she no doubt misses and grieves for," she said.

"I entreat that person, whoever and wherever you may be, to show mercy and compassion and come forward now to tell us where Madeleine is to be found."

Hogg praised the police in the UK, Portugal and elsewhere for their efforts in trying to find Madeleine and added that she would remain a ward of court until a further order.

The McCanns, both 40, were not at the hearing. Mitchell thanked Hogg on their behalf for pointing out that there was no evidence that Madeleine had been harmed or was dead. 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.

Madeleine, then three, vanished from the family's holiday apartment in the Portuguese resort of Praia da Luz while her parents were having dinner in a restaurant nearby. Last week it emerged that Portuguese police had handed their file to prosecutors recommending that the case against the McCanns be dropped due to lack of evidence.

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

------------------------------------------
Well, there you go.

by ultimaThule 02.06.14 0:29

PeterMac wrote:
stillsloppingout wrote:So basically the WOC is now / or was , a vehicle to use to throw spanners in the works , to obtain documents that by other means were out of bounds , Did the McC's make her a WOC of there instigation or was that acted upon via the courts, without there (their) consent ? .
It is not a spanner in the works. It is fundamental to an understanding of how the McCanns have tried to manipulate the press, public sentiment, and even the law for many years,
and now seem to be failing .
You need to read back some years, but I am sure the relevant documents are on this site.
Try the search engine top right.
The simple answer is - The McCanns applied for WOC, and it was granted. In 2008.
They knew that.
Their Portuguese lawyer knew that
All their English lawyers knew that
The Trustees of the "Fund" knew that
The lawyers and accountants acting for the "Fund" knew that
Everyone in the Western world with half a brain cell and an interest in the fate of a little girl knew that.
But someone has nevertheless been prepared to fund this nonsense

Dr Amaral has had to go through a long legal process to PROVE that.
And now he has.

Courts are not allowed to assume things.
There is a very limited list in English law of things about which a Court my "Take Judicial Notice"
And that list includes the number of hours in a day, days in a week, direction of rising of the sun . . .tides. . but not weather conditions, which have to be spelled out = proved.
They cannot assume knowledge of very much more.

I think I'm right in saying that the McCanns' application to have Madeleine warded in May 2007 was not given any publicity PeterM and that the fact that she had been made a Ward of Court only come to public attention cJuly 2008 when the McCanns' attempt to ~~abuse~~ extend certain provisions inherent in Wardship resulted in their having to back down in the face of the refusal of Leicestershire Police to give them copies of all of the documents/information which they held in respect of the case.

Imo it's also right to say that while the fact Madeleine McCann is a Ward of Court should not have escaped the attention of 'everyone in the Western world with half a brain cell and an interest in' her fate, few have any comprehension of what this means either in law or in everyday terms as evidenced by the profusion of erroneous assumptions on the libel trial postponed thread.

While this may be seen as a lamentable failure on the part of certain English-speaking UK residents to exercise what brain cells they may possess, such ignorance is understandable for those inhabitants of countries which do not have either the concept or the fact of Wardship as part of their family law proceedings and it seems to me that this goes to the heart of another matter which is: was Isabel Duarte made aware that Madeleine is a Ward of Court when she advised the McCanns and nstituted proceeding against Dr Amaral and his co-defendants and, if so, was she also made aware that it is necessary for prior consent to be obtained from the High Court before any legal proceedings can be instituted on behalf of Madeleine McCann?

by russiandoll 02.06.14 0:36

Oh don't tell me, the Mcs will say it was ID who should have done her research and ensured the correct procedures re Maddie's wardship were followed, and then they will sue their own lawyer ! big grin

by canada12 02.06.14 0:39

russiandoll wrote:Oh don't tell me, the Mcs will say it was ID who should have done her research and ensured the correct procedures re Maddie's wardship were followed, and then they will sue their own lawyer !

If that happened I think ID would have a pretty solid case to counter-sue for non-disclosure of vital information which would have profoundly affected the court case for which she was hired to represent them !

by russiandoll 02.06.14 0:43

yes canada12, so wake me up in 2024 when it's all over !

by Markus 2 02.06.14 0:48

russiandoll wrote:Oh don't tell me, the Mcs will say it was ID who should have done her research and ensured the correct procedures re Maddie's wardship were followed, and then they will sue their own lawyer !

Yep another documentary coming up soon, I expect, The McCann's and their Lawyer. roll

by ultimaThule 02.06.14 0:49

russiandoll wrote:Oh don't tell me, the Mcs will say it was ID who should have done her research and ensured the correct procedures re Maddie's wardship were followed, and then they will sue their own lawyer !

If ID was made aware that Madeleine is a Ward of Court at the time she advised the McCanns, it would have been remiss of her not to have taken into account all possible implications this could have on the proceedings including their legality, rd

If ID became aware of the Wardship subsequent to having instituted proceedings on behalf of her clients, it seems to me that she was duty bound to inform the Court in order that the enquiries which it has been necessary for Dr Amaral to undertake were more properly undertaken by herself/her clients or by the Court at the direction of the judge..

by jeanmonroe 02.06.14 0:59

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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
........and the presentation of closing arguments from ALL sides........
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
WHEN GA and the other defendants WILL 'cite' the following, from the 'lead investigator' of the UK's, Operation Grange

AR: "But on the other side of it, there is always the potential that she didn't leave the apartment alive and what is important for us to do in consider all the options."

AR: "While I completely accept that there are differences (between the break-ins and the McCann case), there is no abduction that we can see, but the assumption from that is that Madeleine McCann has been abducted. That may not necessarily follow with all our thinking about what may have become of Madeleine McCann".

Chief Inspector Andy Redwood had said the assumption that Madeleine had been alive when she left the apartment "may not follow with all our thinking" on the case

Detective Chief Inspector Andy Redwood, in charge of the hunt for Madeleine, accepted there were differences between these cases and that of Madeleine's disappearance but added that there was a possibility that she had not left her family's holiday apartment alive when she disappeared in May 2007.

eta: and, AND they will ALL be 'citing' the following

p. 316

In his statement to the Court, (WITH THE VERY SAME JUDGE WHO DID THE 'WARDSHIP' Mrs Justice Hogg) the Assistant Chief Constable of Leicestershire Police wrote: “While one or both of them may be innocent, there is no clear evidence that eliminates them from involvement in Madeleine’s disappearance”.

by ultimaThule 02.06.14 1:04

It seems to me that Dr Amaral played his ace in early January, jeanm, since when he's aquired another 4 and 12 court cards big grin

by canada12 02.06.14 1:07

Do we think there might be a significant "find" in Portugal prior to the final decision being reached in the court case?

by ultimaThule 02.06.14 1:13

It seems to me that, regardless of whether there is any significant 'find' in Portugal, the McCanns' case has been blown out of the water and in the unlikely event there is any 'finding' in their favour, there are more than sufficient grounds for a successful appeal to the Supreme Court of Portugal, canada

by listener 02.06.14 1:27

Good thread!
How will westminster respond?
Brown, with the pink one started it. Now, the pink one is standing for a tory seat.
Do they also own Hogg?

Time will tell, but I think the UK is on a near-vertical downslope sad1

Just look at the recent national debt charts - 1.5 Trillion !

So, as regards to Madeleine, I think the current coalition might not be considering the case as a priority. Or perhaps they might. Let's see if Hogg is owned!

by jeanmonroe 02.06.14 1:38

canada12 wrote:Do we think there might be a significant "find" in Portugal prior to the final decision being reached in the court case?

OF COURSE! 'that' is what the 'over eager' MET police 'dig' is all about!

I'm going for 'age regressed, replica pj's'

by notlongnow 02.06.14 1:41

jeanmonroe wrote:
canada12 wrote:Do we think there might be a significant "find" in Portugal prior to the final decision being reached in the court case?

OF COURSE! 'that' is what the 'over eager' MET police 'dig' is all about!

I'm going for 'age regressed, replica pj's'

How ridiculous would they look if that was the case.

by jeanmonroe 02.06.14 1:50

I have always asked in this forum: "HOW can a 'missing child' EVER bring a court claim?"

The last time the McCanns 'included' Madeleine in a court claim was the book 'ban' case,

THEY LOST! (again)

Costs were awarded AGAINST them ALL (which included wee Madeleine, Sean and Amelie)

They still haven't 'stumped up' those 'costs', btw, deferring them until after the ongoing libel case, thinking it was a shoe in for a 'win'

Don't know what plan 'B' was but plan 'A' appears to be 'kaput'

imo, obviously.

by jeanmonroe 02.06.14 1:57

notlongnow wrote:
jeanmonroe wrote:
canada12 wrote:Do we think there might be a significant "find" in Portugal prior to the final decision being reached in the court case?

OF COURSE! 'that' is what the 'over eager' MET police 'dig' is all about!

I'm going for 'age regressed, replica pj's'

How ridiculous would they look if that was the case.

I agree.

Anyway i think the PJ have, in the weeks the Met haven't been there, been over the Met's 'preferred/indentified' search areas with a fine toothed comb.

eta: (possibly a blue sports bag with 'stuff' in?)

by notlongnow 02.06.14 2:01

Yes,they are going to look very silly if they try,burglar - turns into kid killer - then thinks taking body is good move - then thinks dig in hardest surface i can find to hide pjs - then takes body some where else.

by canada12 02.06.14 2:08

I think perhaps SY and PJ have already got something, and this dig may be to locate supporting evidence.

For instance, suppose they've found a bag. Suppose the bag contains evidence of having been buried. Suppose the evidence is a type of soil or rock composition which is only found in one place in PDL.Suppose the dig is to locate a possible place where the bag had been temporarily hidden before it was moved to another location.

by lj 02.06.14 2:14

tiny wrote:Do they have to obtain this from justice hogg,shouldn't think she will say no somehow.

Thats what I think too, tiny. No wonder they did not want the dig to start too soon. Suppose something is found that proves Madeleine is dead. Than Madeleine's estate has to join the suit.

Doies anyone else also think they should ask their money back from Isabel. This issue has been brought up here from the start, did not she researched that?