Pat Brown update

NoStone wrote:

Lillyofthevalley wrote:

NoStone wrote:Will Pat testify in Amaral's defence!!!???? If so - WOW! - that really would give him a great chance of defending the Mc's claim against him.

So, the Mc's are left with a choice, go ahead with the case against Amaral and possibly loose and then face Pat's actions, or withdraw from suing Amaral and save all the fund's resources (money) to defend against Pat!?

In a way the case against Amaral now becomes a 'must win' case as it would give them the money and something of a legal argument to use to defend themselves aganst Pat's case. All-in-all the cosy world the Mc's have enjoyed behind the cloak of secrecy is rapidly becoming more a case of the emporor's clothes!!

Arh remember though NS Kate did informs us a while back that Adam Tudor at Carter Ruck are still working hard behind the scenes for no extra fee, so possible they could work for free helping them fight Pat, who knows

From Kate McCann's book, pages 289-290:

“Adam Tudor and his colleagues [at Carter-Ruck] continue to do a vast amount of work for us, without payment, most of it quietly, behind the scenes…”

Perhaps Lillyofthevalley - but I think there is a difference between working quietly behind the scenes for free - and putting your reputation on the line by taking on a Criminal Profiler of Pat Brown's reputation on a much more straight forward argument!!!

Yes very good point NS

Morning LilyoftheValley

Actually, Kate is wrong there, Carter Ruck IS getting paid. They have ever since they worked on the Libel claim against the Express. At the PCC
meeting where Gerry and Max Mosely complained about Press reporting one of the Members asked Carter Ruck if they were paid for the Daily Express
case. Adam Tudor was taken aback by the question said his Firm was paid a retainer initially then paid on a no win no fee basis. Just look at the Funds
Legal Fees when the next accounts are due.

Panda wrote:Morning LilyoftheValley

Actually, Kate is wrong there, Carter Ruck IS getting paid. They have ever since they worked on the Libel claim against the Express. At the PCC
meeting where Gerry and Max Mosely complained about Press reporting one of the Members asked Carter Ruck if they were paid for the Daily Express
case. Adam Tudor was taken aback by the question said his Firm was paid a retainer initially then paid on a no win no fee basis. Just look at the Funds
Legal Fees when the next accounts are due.

This brings me to another point in terms of working for free - quietly behind the scenes Panda. Knowing how mercenary these firms can be - what a nice little loss leader it would be to send out CRucking letters like confetti to all and sundry knowing that one day you might get a bite and someone decides to sue in a big earning case!!!

In my view its a bit like Primark putting a leaflet through my door except in this case its printed by CR and says - by the way, if you dont like what you read, then please sue G&K Mc's, we will be happy to represent them (for a fee!)

NoStone wrote:

Panda wrote:Morning LilyoftheValley

Actually, Kate is wrong there, Carter Ruck IS getting paid. They have ever since they worked on the Libel claim against the Express. At the PCC
meeting where Gerry and Max Mosely complained about Press reporting one of the Members asked Carter Ruck if they were paid for the Daily Express
case. Adam Tudor was taken aback by the question said his Firm was paid a retainer initially then paid on a no win no fee basis. Just look at the Funds
Legal Fees when the next accounts are due.

This brings me to another point in terms of working for free - quietly behind the scenes Panda. Knowing how mercenary these firms can be - what a nice little loss leader it would be to send out CRucking letters like confetti to all and sundry knowing that one day you might get a bite and someone decides to sue in a big earning case!!!

In my view its a bit like Primark putting a leaflet through my door except in this case its printed by CR and says - by the way, if you dont like what you read, then please sue G&K Mc's, we will be happy to represent them (for a fee!)

Morning NoStone,

There are several Legal Firms working on a no win no fee basis, usually they handle cases where they a pretty certain they will iwn. Carter Ruck charges
£600 an hour, does Kate think we were born yesterday to believe her. Within 6 months the Fund was worth over £1 million, and Esther McVey made a
public announcement saying the Directors of the Fund have agreed that the money would not be used for Legal fees , this is why CR said they worked
on a no win no fee basis. Also, there was a rumour that the reason the Express did not contest the claim was a nudge nudge wink wink deal the Paper
was making which Tony Blair supposedly said he would give the go-ahead

I am sorry Panda - I do not understand this----

Also, there was a rumour that the reason the Express did not contest the claim was a nudge nudge wink wink deal the Paper
was making which Tony Blair supposedly said he would give the go-ahead

NoStone wrote:I am sorry Panda - I do not understand this----

Also, there was a rumour that the reason the Express did not contest the claim was a nudge nudge wink wink deal the Paper
was making which Tony Blair supposedly said he would give the go-ahead

Hi NoStone

Desmond, the owner of the Express was apparently interested in a purchase which may not have been possible, so it was rumoured that Tony Blair told
him if he did not contest the McCanns claim for Libel, his application would be passed

The Tapas group turned up in court but it was only a formality, they received £375.000 and the McCanns £550,000.

sorry if I confused you, does it make sense now?

It seems to me that the mccann machine is determined to stifle professional wisdom
and influence. They have sought to silence the former case co-ordinator and a expert
criminal profiler, not to mention, a host of press editers and internet bloggers.
It must then be obvious that they intend to 'cut the head of the snake' rather than
deal with popular opinion. If professional and respected opinion is dead then public
opinion will meet a similiar natural demise?
Therefore, it is without doubt, that the most important torch for freedom of speech
and justice is heard from ALL the professional minds that have endured this ridiculous
assault on their integrity and professions.
Furthermore, the mccanns are playing the libel card. Not just expressing concern for
what is being said, but WHO is saying it!! Hence, the onslaught on the professional
mind.
However, it will be from the minds of professionals, in a court at Lisbon, that justice
will prevail, and the truth will be known once and for all.
Go Pat Brown! Go GA!! Go the true professionals!!

Just checked in my Dictionary and based on the excuse Amazon made for removing Pat Brown"s book they said it was defamatory.

"defamatory".......to attack the good reputation of, to speak ill of.

"libel"....................published a false
statement which is damaging to a person"s reputation.

There is a subtle difference, the Libel claim against Amaral was his assertion that Madeleine died in 5a, what words did Pat Brown use which the McCanns
considered defamatory?

Panda wrote:Just checked in my Dictionary and based on the excuse Amazon made for removing Pat Brown"s book they said it was defamatory.

"defamatory".......to attack the good reputation of, to speak ill of.

"libel"....................published a false
statement which is damaging to a person"s reputation.

There is a subtle difference, the Libel claim against Amaral was his assertion that Madeleine died in 5a, what words did Pat Brown use which the McCanns
considered defamatory?

Hi Panda
I think its NOT so much what is 'defaming or libelous' but WHO is asserting such charges.
We have been making such assertions based on the files, but we go unnoticed, but
when someone of a professional standing and influence makes these, they are silenced
and threatened by unreasonalble and firm legal force.

marxman wrote:

Panda wrote:Just checked in my Dictionary and based on the excuse Amazon made for removing Pat Brown"s book they said it was defamatory.

"defamatory".......to attack the good reputation of, to speak ill of.

"libel"....................published a false
statement which is damaging to a person"s reputation.

There is a subtle difference, the Libel claim against Amaral was his assertion that Madeleine died in 5a, what words did Pat Brown use which the McCanns
considered defamatory?

Hi Panda
I think its NOT so much what is 'defaming or libelous' but WHO is asserting such charges.
We have been making such assertions based on the files, but we go unnoticed, but
when someone of a professional standing and influence makes these, they are silenced
and threatened by unreasonalble and firm legal force.

Hi Marxman, did you read the Book? I must admit I didn"t read it all so just wondered which part would have been considered defamatory . The very
fact that Pat Brown is a "Criminal Profiler" suggests she thinks a crime has been committed. It"s O.K., I"m playing Devils Advocate here and trying to guess what the McCann Lawyers advised. There was no complaint to Pat Brown herself by Carter Ruck , it was a direct approach to Amazon.

Stevo wrote a book called "The Faked Abduction " but ensured his book was published and sold in the U.S.to avoid litigation , presume Pat Brown since
she lives in the U.S. would have taken that precaution , so what"s the difference between these two Books?