STATEMENT BY JUDGE IN THE LIBEL TRIAL! READ NOW!!!

Judge rules that Kate and Gerry McCann do not possess the authority to sue Gonçalo Amaral in their daughter’s name.


The judge at the Civil Court of Lisbon who is trying the ‘libel’ case which Kate and Gerry McCann have filed against Gonçalo Amaral and 3 other parties has issued a decision concerning the matter of Madeleine McCann being a Ward of Court.

On the 3rd of January 2014, Gonçalo Amaral had argued before the Lisbon Court that Madeleine’s parents do not possess the necessary power to represent their daughter in this action, since the child had been made a Ward of Court in the United Kingdom.

The judge decided that Mr Amaral should present a certificate of the relevant British judicial ruling. That certificate was delivered to the Court on the 2nd of May, after a lengthy, expensive process.

The judge then had to decide whether or not Madeleine’s parents were entitled to represent their daughter in this lawsuit. In the judge’s recent ruling, it is mentioned that “within the 'Wardship', the High Court holds ultimate responsibility over the child, but it does not suppress or annul the exercise of the parental responsibilities”. The High Court takes control over “the most important decisions for the life” of the child. The judge further considers that “the decision to file a judicial action in the name of the child” is a decision “of the magnitude that is demanded for the agreement or consent of the court”.

The judge’s ruling further notes that the matters that have been brought before the High Court that holds the Wardship have been matters of an “eminently judiciary nature, like the revelation of confidential information and documents, that are related to the child’s disappearance and were in the possession of the local police”.

The text continues with the consideration that because Madeleine was made a Ward of the Court on the 2nd of April of 2008, her parents did not possess, in 2009, “the necessary capacity of representation of their daughter to file the present action without the authorization from the British court”.

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

After that hearing is completed, the proceedings will be suspended for 30 days. During that period, Madeleine’s parents “shall arrange for the collection and documentation in the records of the British Court’s authorization for the bringing of this action on behalf of the minor Madeleine McCann”. If they fail to do so, the defendants will be “acquitted of the proceedings concerning the requests that have been formulated on behalf of the latter”.

The judge has proposed the date of 16th June for the final session, but each of the lawyers involved have the possibility of declining said date and suggesting alternative dates.

Claudia79 wrote:Not surprising, really. A matter of common sense.

Iris wrote:

Claudia79 wrote:Not surprising, really. A matter of common sense.

But it knocks quite firmly on the head, all the speculation that the trial has been "dropped", "abandoned" or "settled out of court".
Some of which was posted AS FACT even by some of the members on here, sadly.

And it's kinda nice to actually see it in black and white.   

interested wrote:Now that I've re-read the ruling I'm left with a question.  Does this mean that the other members of the McCann family can proceed with the lawsuit?  I'll leave it to other more intelligent posters to discuss just "exactly" where this leaves Mr. Amaral now.

Claudia79 wrote:

Iris wrote:

Claudia79 wrote:Not surprising, really. A matter of common sense.

But it knocks quite firmly on the head, all the speculation that the trial has been "dropped", "abandoned" or "settled out of court".
Some of which was posted AS FACT even by some of the members on here, sadly.

And it's kinda nice to actually see it in black and white.   

It certainly does but I've been saying that all along although some chose not to believe it.
As for the decision, it seems obvious to me. Always great to see good sense prevail, though.    

frencheuropean wrote:I don't understand very well the last paragraph:  


"After that hearing is completed, the proceedings will be suspended for 30 days. During that period, Madeleine’s parents “shall arrange for the collection and documentation in the records of the British Court’s authorization for the bringing of this action on behalf of the minor Madeleine McCann”. If they fail to do so, the defendants will be “acquitted of the proceedings concerning the requests that have been formulated on behalf of the latter"

Does the juge ask the Mccanns to prove they asked the British court before putting an action on her behalf?
As it was not probably the case, what are the consequences? That all the claims made in her name are void?

wantthetruth wrote:

Claudia79 wrote:

Iris wrote:

Claudia79 wrote:Not surprising, really. A matter of common sense.

But it knocks quite firmly on the head, all the speculation that the trial has been "dropped", "abandoned" or "settled out of court".
Some of which was posted AS FACT even by some of the members on here, sadly.

And it's kinda nice to actually see it in black and white.   

It certainly does but I've been saying that all along although some chose not to believe it.
As for the decision, it seems obvious to me. Always great to see good sense prevail, though.    

^^^This.

frencheuropean wrote:I don't understand very well the last paragraph:  


"After that hearing is completed, the proceedings will be suspended for 30 days. During that period, Madeleine’s parents “shall arrange for the collection and documentation in the records of the British Court’s authorization for the bringing of this action on behalf of the minor Madeleine McCann”. If they fail to do so, the defendants will be “acquitted of the proceedings concerning the requests that have been formulated on behalf of the latter"

Does the juge ask the Mccanns to prove they asked the British court before putting an action on her behalf?
As it was not probably the case, what are the consequences? That all the claims made in her name are void?

almostgothic wrote:That's the way I read it too, Anna.

They have to prove that they already had documentary authorisation allowing them to instigate proceedings re Madeleine.

And I assume that a similar proof of authorisation would also apply re their application for Assistente Status in the re-opened investigation.

AnnaEsse wrote:

almostgothic wrote:That's the way I read it too, Anna.

They have to prove that they already had documentary authorisation allowing them to instigate proceedings re Madeleine.

And I assume that a similar proof of authorisation would also apply re their application for Assistente Status in the re-opened investigation.

Yes, the text states that they must produce the documentation "in the records," of the British courts, something that already exists, rather than something they will now apply for.

malena stool wrote:Quote
The judge has proposed the date of 16th June for the final session, but each of the lawyers involved have the possibility of declining said date and suggesting alternative dates.
Unquote.

I wonder which date in the future the McCanns will opt for?...  

almostgothic wrote:

malena stool wrote:Quote
The judge has proposed the date of 16th June for the final session, but each of the lawyers involved have the possibility of declining said date and suggesting alternative dates.
Unquote.

I wonder which date in the future the McCanns will opt for?...  

February 31st 2053.

whatsupdoc wrote:

almostgothic wrote:

malena stool wrote:Quote
The judge has proposed the date of 16th June for the final session, but each of the lawyers involved have the possibility of declining said date and suggesting alternative dates.
Unquote.

I wonder which date in the future the McCanns will opt for?...  

February 31st 2053.

Snigger, lol......yep , that would be about right for the #mccanns.