Birch is being sued by Robert Murat

https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1262019408

All five pages have now been displayed. Pretty please, Claudia, could you assist with a translation?

fred wrote:Well, well well!!!  It is all kicking off now!!  I think all this 'new' stuff might well mean we are coming for a conclusion!!

Hi fred, the question must be asked.....why now???

Kate would have paid Birch from the Fund, shouldn't the Board of Directors be asking for a refund.  

Not Born Yesterday wrote:https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1262019408

All five pages have now been displayed. Pretty please, Claudia, could you assist with a translation?

Sorry, NBY, I'm about to leave but I clicked the link and since I'm not a friend of the loony, the last posting I see is from September 2013.

Message deleted as no longer applicable.

5 mei
NOTICE : This morning at 10am, Stephen D. Birch received a registered letter containing papers from Portugals Ministerio da Justica in which both the state and Robert James Queriol Eveleigh Murat and Jenifer Na Murat are suing Stephen for tresspassing and the state is suing Stephen for unlawfully conducting an investigation under article 57 & 58 section 2,3 and 4 of the penal act... (In July 2012, Stephen entered Robert Murats property and discovered what he believes to be Madeleine McCann remains buried beneath Roberts Murats rear gravel driveway)













NOTICE: English translation

Legal proceedings Robert Murat versus Stephen D. Birch

Trespassing - MADELEINE MCCANN

PUBLIC MINISTRY SERVICES IN LAGOS
SUPPORT UNIT
Av. dos Descobrimentos – 8601-852 Lagos
Telef: 282092170 Fax: 282092198 Mail: mp.lagos.tc@tribunais.org.pt
Exmo Senhor
Stephen Birch
8 Tierberg Rd, Oostersee, Parow, 7500
P O Box 21317
África do Sul
Case: 5/13/1TALGS Dispute Our Ref: 3155854
Date: 21-03-2014

Subject: Notification by Registered Letter with Acknowledgement of Receipt

Hereby notified as Accused, as provided in and for the purposes:
That, in accordance with Articles 57º and 58º, no.2, 3 and 4 of the Penal
Code, assumes the quality of Accused, the accusation being leveled is
according to the rights and duties as expounded in Article 61º and subject to
the referred rule.
That the above mentioned Dispute, extracted in accordance with the terms
contained in Article 283º of the Penal Code, is granted a limit of TWENTY
DAYS, as explained in Article 287º of the same rule, and opens a formal
PROGRAMME OF PROCEEDINGS:
The request must be addressed to the Examining Judge, not subject to
formalities, containing a summary of reasons, of fact and law, of disagreement
regarding the dispute, as well as, in every such event, produce compelling
evidence, not hitherto considered in the Dispute, and of the facts, based on
the evidence submitted, that are expected to be proved.
There being no legal nor defence representative on record, but given that one
is compulsory under Article 64º, No.3 of the Penal Code, Dr Mónica Viegas, at
Rua Infante de Sagres, 11-2º, 8600, Lagos, has been appointed as the
Accused’s Defence.
Furthermore, the Accused is informed, that should the Accused be found
guilty, the Accused, shall be held liable for the Public Defender’s legal fees,
unless, in the interim, the Accused be granted legal support, at which time,
the appointed Public Defender may be substituted by another legal counsel,
as per that stipulated in – Article 64º, No.4, of the referred rule.
The application for legal representation, will not impede the conduct of
proceedings (Article 39º, No. 10 of Act 34/2004 of 29 July) and must be
tendered at any Social Security Customer Service Office.
(Article 22, No.1 of the same Act).
Attached photocopy of Charge Sheet.
We request that the response bear the document reference and Case number.
*Legal holidays span 22 December to 3 January; Palm Sunday to Easter
Monday and 16 July to 31 August.
The abovementioned periods are uninterrupted, suspended by the Legal
Holidays and recommence as from the third business day after postal register
(Article 113, No.2, Penal Code).*
In the case of an urgent process, the periods referred to above, shall not apply.
Should the period expire while court is closed, the period will be transferred to
the very next first business day.
Signed by the Assistant Officer of the Court, Vera Gabriel.
PUBLIC SERVICE MINISTRY IN LAGOS
SUPPORT UNIT
Av. dos Descobrimentos – 8601-852 Lagos
Telef: 282092170 Fax: 282092198 Mail: mp.lagos.tc@triubnais.org.pt
Case No: 5-13.1TALGS
3139733
CONCLUSION: -11-03-2014 (Sheets. 108).-
(Electronic document drawn by Assistant Officer of the Court, Vera Gabriel)
=CLS=
Sheets.108 and ss: Contents acknowledged
*
Hereby declare the investigation closed.
*
***
As provided from analysis of case files, all efforts made in the course of the present dispute to access to Stephen Donald Birch to notify same of the quality of Accused and of a subsequent investigation, proved fruitless.
Therefore, and there being no foreseeable beneficial endeavours, under that contained in Article 272º, No.1, of the Penal Code, the interrogation of the Accused is ultimately dispensed with.

According to that defined in Article 57º, No.1 of the Penal Code, the denounced thus accepts the charge order and assumes the quality of Accused. Be notified.
***
Under provisions of Article 64º, No.3 of the Penal Code, editorial brought about by Act No.48/2007, of 29 August, Public Defender, Dr Mónica Viegas, is appointed to Stephen Birch, as indicated by CDOA, and as per sheets 109.
The Accused and the Defence appointed are notified according to Article 66º, No.1 of the Penal Code.

***
The Public Ministry accuses, in common procedure, with the intervention of First Instance Court:
Stephen Donald Birch, born in South Africa, born on
20 April 1965, holder of Passport Number, A00571114 and
residing at 8 Tierberg Road, Oostersee, Parow, PO Box 21317,
South Africa.

1.On an unestablished date, but during the month of June and prior to 5 July
2012, the Accused, transgressed the residential gates of Jenifer Ann Murat,
Casa Liliana, Rua do Ramalhete, Vila Luz, Lagos, within this Council, entering
the property.

2.The land in question is self-contained, bordered by a 1.50m high boundary
wall, 2m high hedges and also by a wire fence, inaccessible to any outsider.

3.The Accused penetrated this area of land without prior consent and against
the will of the owner of the residence, the now ‘injured party’.

4.The Accused acted voluntarily and deliberately

5.knowing full well that this conduct was and is punishable by law.
In the light of the above, the Accused,Stephen Donald Birch, acted as sole and actualperpetrator, constituting a crime of trespassing on private property, governed by and punishable under Article 191º
of the Penal Code.
*
Indication by means of proof:
A. According to Witnesses
a) Jenifer Na Murat, id. sheet. 108;
b) Robert James Queriol Eveleigh Murat, id. sheet. 31.
B. According to Documents
a) Photographs, sheets. 7 to 11;
b) Newspaper Clippings, sheets. 12 to 14.
*
In accordance with Article 277º, No.3 ex vi of Article 283º, No.5, both under the Penal Code, as reflected and in accordance with Article 287º, No.1, paragraph a) of the same law, wording in force under DL No. 320-C/00, of 15
December, notifying the Accused as well as the Public Defender (a) appointed
(a), Complainant and their Legal Representative of the preceding charge.
*
Procedural Position of the Accused:
Not occurring in casu of the situations to which Article 204º of the Penal Code,
it is declared that the Accused, when located, be subjected to verifying identity and residence and await proceedings post case, subject to enforced measures of constraint.

***
Processed and Reviewed.
Lagos, 18 March 2014
Assistant Prosecutor
Maria Pinto de Almeida

Many thanks, Annabel.

How strange this is when Robert Murat has said previously that he does not believe Stephen Birch was ever on his mother's property.

Not Born Yesterday wrote:Many thanks, Annabel.

How strange this is when Robert Murat has said previously that he does not believe Stephen Birch was ever on his mother's property.

Good on Robert Murat for taking legal action against Stephen Birch. He may well still believe that Birch never entered his mother's property, but the fact is, Birch has said he has entered Mrs Murat's property, therefore Robert Murat has the right to take legal action against him.

Birch's claims have distressed Mrs Murat and no doubt brought stress to her son, his partner, his ex wife in the UK and their 11yr old daughter. The daughter he has with his present partner, is too young to suffer stress, but if Birch is not stopped in his tracks, whatever is happening now, will cause stress to her, when she is older.

It will be interesting to see, if Birch fights this legal action, my guess is he won't. In fact I'll hazard a guess and say Birch won't set foot in Portugal, which can only mean one thing, he was lying when he made those claims.

If I am wrong and Birch fights this legal action, I wonder how he will explain getting past Mrs Murat's two guard dogs. Will he give the two explanations he gave previously, which was the dogs were asleep and he waited until Robert Murat took the dogs out. Or will he come up with a new explanation.

Also if Birch is believed by the court, the PJ, Andy Redwood and the McCanns, may be questioned as to why they didn't want to pursue Birch's supposed findings.

It's obvious that they still don't believe Birch, because if they did, the latest dig, would include Mrs Murat's drive.

Well, if he insists on saying he went there, then I think it's a great idea to sue him. Good luck, Robert.

Claudia79 wrote:Well, if he insists on saying he went there, then I think it's a great idea to sue him. Good luck, Robert.

Yep! He says he went there and took his equipment without permission. Trespassing and undertaking an illegal investigation.

AnnaEsse wrote:

Claudia79 wrote:Well, if he insists on saying he went there, then I think it's a great idea to sue him. Good luck, Robert.

Yep! He says he went there and took his equipment without permission. Trespassing and undertaking an illegal investigation.

He has nothing to complain about, then, He confirms he broke the law so he now has to deal with it.

Claudia79 wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

Claudia79 wrote:Well, if he insists on saying he went there, then I think it's a great idea to sue him. Good luck, Robert.

Yep! He says he went there and took his equipment without permission. Trespassing and undertaking an illegal investigation.

He has nothing to complain about, then, He confirms he broke the law so he now has to deal with it.

  

AnnaEsse wrote:

Claudia79 wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

Claudia79 wrote:Well, if he insists on saying he went there, then I think it's a great idea to sue him. Good luck, Robert.

Yep! He says he went there and took his equipment without permission. Trespassing and undertaking an illegal investigation.

He has nothing to complain about, then, He confirms he broke the law so he now has to deal with it.

  

  

love it.

Well said Claudia and AnnaEsse.   

ok i will be the 1st to post here that im still on the fence regarding murrat , he said many moons ago that he was gonna sue tanner it never happened , or at least it was said on a forum , now years ago someone posted on the sun and i think 3as too find tapas 10 and you have nailed this case , those words wont leave me , and i think then as i do today that help was needed , im not saying 1oo percent it was murrat , but if not him who , maybe hes innocent only in the fact he was nieve as everyone in the early days , but it isnt going away is it anytime soon so imo all this now in portugal is because of someone coming forward to what part they had in madeleine going missing , could be something as simple as a lift in their car who knows

Cass,you are not the only one to have doubts about Murat.However,unlike the mccanns', i do not know of the slightest bit of evidence against him other than some coincidences and possible odd behaviour.

As for Birch maybe he is just a fantasist and liar who never went anywhere ! Might be difficult to sue him if he just turns round and denies he was ever there !

Or did he have pictures i cant remember ?

Stephen Birch has published photos supposedly taken there but they could be from anywhere.

I think that he was never there but may feel that he has gone too far with the lie to be able to retract it.

Hmmm - that sounds familiar, doesn't it?

Well  i  never  understand as  recently as  kates  book  mrs murat  said  km  said   nasty  things  about  him  which  i  may add  not  as  many people  know  about  birch  and  his  digging...more  have  read  the book i recon  so  why  sue  birch and  not km and the others...off  course  it  could be  to  do  with   opening  up  old wounds etc and  he  was  just getting  on with his  life and then  birch came along.

But  not  many  people  believe  birch and his  idea  anyway.

cass wrote:ok i will be the 1st to post here that im still on the fence regarding murrat , he said many moons ago that he was gonna sue tanner it never happened , or at least it was said on a forum , now years ago someone posted on the sun and i think 3as too find tapas 10 and you have nailed this case , those words wont leave me , and i think then as i do today that help was needed , im not saying 1oo percent it was murrat , but if not him who , maybe hes innocent only in the fact he was nieve as everyone in the early days , but it isnt going away is it anytime soon so imo all this now in portugal is because of someone coming forward to what part they had in madeleine going missing , could be something as simple as a lift in their car who knows

Hi Cass

Robert Murat, took legal action against Jane Tanner, her partner Russell O'Brien, Fiona Payne and Rachel Oldfield. I don't know what the outcome of his legal action was.

http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2010/02/robert-murat-criminal-complaint-against.html

http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2010/02/mccann-case-expat-is-to-sue-tapas-bar.html

The sad thing about this scenario is, although Robert Murat has been cleared, unlike the McCanns, without a stain on his character, some people still believe without a shred of evidence, that he played a part in Madeleine's disappearance. They resent the fact that he successfully sued the newspapers. Even though he sued them on behalf of his mother and other members of his family, because they'd all suffered harassment, due to the newspapers printing lies about him.

If that British journalist hadn't made a malicious allegation to the GNR, regarding Robert Murat hanging about, when he was helping the GNR with translation issues, no one apart from his family, friends and acquaintances would have ever heard of him.