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

AnnaEsse wrote:

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?

It rather looks as though they are being required to prove that they had the authorisation, rather than that they can get it. The way I'm reading this is that the McCanns must show that they had that authorisation before they took legal action in Madeleine's name.

It's ambigous. If the McCann were only required to give the authorisation they allready have , it wouldn't take 30 days. They have it or not in their possession, may be they told the juge they don't have it. If they are granted 30 days, it's perhaps because they are allowed to get the papers they don't have in their possession= the authorisation of J.Hog

I'm glad that we have had some news of the libel trial. But I'm not sure how people think this is significant. As does it not just mean that they can't sue for the whole amount but just a bit less. And I wondered if Justice Hogg if that's the right person can give her permission in retrospect or would it have to be proved that she gave permission when the trial started.

The whole thing is a total farce if you ask me and a total embarrassment.
After all this time and the Macs being allowed to give their evidence, someone in Portugal says they cannot even bring the case to court.
Did no one in PT see this before ?
Why has it been allowed to get this far ?
Should this not have been put before the judge before the trial started ?

duncanmac wrote:The whole thing is a total farce if you ask me and a total embarrassment.
After all this time and the Macs being allowed to give their evidence, someone in Portugal says they cannot even bring the case to court.
Did no one in PT see this before ?
Why has it been allowed to get this far ?
Should this not have been put before the judge before the trial started ?

I asked the very same question at the start of the trial because if you remember during the book trial it was established that Madeleine's name could not be part of proceedings and was removed from the list of plaintiffs at that time. It was not so significant for that trial in so far as the issue was ban the book or not.

This trial is different as they had sought a percentage of the money specifically for her.

I cannot understand why their lawyer went ahead. Did she also act for them in the book trial ? If so she knew the earlier ruling and it seems logical to me that an earlier ruling not allowing them act on her behalf would be valid in any other proceedings.

Did Amaral keep this up his sleeve until this point on purpose as I don't believe his team were not aware of the issue. Snr Amaral has a very sharp mind. This would not have escaped him.

Did Amaral keep this up his sleeve until this point on purpose as I don't believe his team were not aware of the issue. Snr Amaral has a very sharp mind. This would not have escaped him.

Would the judge not ask GA why he had not raised this issue earlier in proceedings, or did it just come to him mid trial

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.

So soon, thought they might have tried to delay even longer than this  

duncanmac wrote:

Did Amaral keep this up his sleeve until this point on purpose as I don't believe his team were not aware of the issue. Snr Amaral has a very sharp mind. This would not have escaped him.

Would the judge not ask GA why he had not raised this issue earlier in proceedings, or did it just come to him mid trial

Maybe it was included in the legal submissions made by GA's team from the outsset yet required a direction from the judge when she decided it was appropriate to consider it.

Chris wrote:

duncanmac wrote:

Did Amaral keep this up his sleeve until this point on purpose as I don't believe his team were not aware of the issue. Snr Amaral has a very sharp mind. This would not have escaped him.

Would the judge not ask GA why he had not raised this issue earlier in proceedings, or did it just come to him mid trial

Maybe it was included in the legal submissions made by GA's team from the outsset yet required a direction from the judge when she decided it was appropriate to consider it.

Yes, I am sure this would be about right.

Not sure I believe its good news though. Don't know why I think this. Perhaps I'm thinking that if the Judge had it in mind to find in favour of Mr Amaral it would not matter whether the Court was in possession of this documentation from the British Court or not but if the Judge is minded to find in favour of the McCanns and award the McCanns a sum of money then the names of who can be awarded have to be validated. Or am I miles off course here?

"Snr Amaral has a very sharp mind".

you bet he has, what a guy      

LJC wrote:

Chris wrote:

duncanmac wrote:

Did Amaral keep this up his sleeve until this point on purpose as I don't believe his team were not aware of the issue. Snr Amaral has a very sharp mind. This would not have escaped him.

Would the judge not ask GA why he had not raised this issue earlier in proceedings, or did it just come to him mid trial

Maybe it was included in the legal submissions made by GA's team from the outsset yet required a direction from the judge when she decided it was appropriate to consider it.

Yes, I am sure this would be about right.  

Not sure I believe its good news though.   Don't know why I think this. Perhaps I'm thinking that if the Judge had it in mind to find in favour of Mr Amaral it would not matter whether the Court was in possession of this documentation from the British Court or not but if the Judge is minded to find in favour of the McCanns and award the McCanns a sum of money then the names of who can be awarded have to  be validated.  Or am I miles off course here?  

The judge would have to do everything correctly, it cannot be otherwise.

fuzeta wrote:

LJC wrote:

Chris wrote:

duncanmac wrote:

Did Amaral keep this up his sleeve until this point on purpose as I don't believe his team were not aware of the issue. Snr Amaral has a very sharp mind. This would not have escaped him.

Would the judge not ask GA why he had not raised this issue earlier in proceedings, or did it just come to him mid trial

Maybe it was included in the legal submissions made by GA's team from the outsset yet required a direction from the judge when she decided it was appropriate to consider it.

Yes, I am sure this would be about right.  

Not sure I believe its good news though.   Don't know why I think this. Perhaps I'm thinking that if the Judge had it in mind to find in favour of Mr Amaral it would not matter whether the Court was in possession of this documentation from the British Court or not but if the Judge is minded to find in favour of the McCanns and award the McCanns a sum of money then the names of who can be awarded have to  be validated.  Or am I miles off course here?  

The judge would have to do everything correctly, it cannot be otherwise.

Exactly. I wouldn't read anything else regarding this decision, one way or another.

I agree with fuzeta and Claudia79. regardless of the outcome all the legal aspects have to examined and appropriate evidence submitted.

Claudia79 wrote:

fuzeta wrote:

LJC wrote:

Chris wrote:

duncanmac wrote:

Would the judge not ask GA why he had not raised this issue earlier in proceedings, or did it just come to him mid trial

Maybe it was included in the legal submissions made by GA's team from the outsset yet required a direction from the judge when she decided it was appropriate to consider it.

Yes, I am sure this would be about right.  

Not sure I believe its good news though.   Don't know why I think this. Perhaps I'm thinking that if the Judge had it in mind to find in favour of Mr Amaral it would not matter whether the Court was in possession of this documentation from the British Court or not but if the Judge is minded to find in favour of the McCanns and award the McCanns a sum of money then the names of who can be awarded have to  be validated.  Or am I miles off course here?  

The judge would have to do everything correctly, it cannot be otherwise.

Exactly. I wouldn't read anything else regarding this decision, one way or another.

Thank you both. So, is Chris correct in what he is thinking?

I think we are all interpreting it differently.

"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"
------------------------------------------------

Oh, i'm sure the 30 days will 'lapse' without 'action'

Just like the 20/40 days 'lapsed' when the McCanns could have demanded that the 'case' of their 'missing' daughter be kept 'opened' and not 'shelved'.

"we WERE going to ask, honest, but ran out of time, and 'stamps'"

Yeah, right!

LJC wrote:

Claudia79 wrote:

fuzeta wrote:

LJC wrote:

Chris wrote:

Maybe it was included in the legal submissions made by GA's team from the outsset yet required a direction from the judge when she decided it was appropriate to consider it.

Yes, I am sure this would be about right.  

Not sure I believe its good news though.   Don't know why I think this. Perhaps I'm thinking that if the Judge had it in mind to find in favour of Mr Amaral it would not matter whether the Court was in possession of this documentation from the British Court or not but if the Judge is minded to find in favour of the McCanns and award the McCanns a sum of money then the names of who can be awarded have to  be validated.  Or am I miles off course here?  

The judge would have to do everything correctly, it cannot be otherwise.

Exactly. I wouldn't read anything else regarding this decision, one way or another.

Thank you both.  So, is Chris correct in what he is thinking?  

I think we are all interpreting it differently.

The comments aren't mutually exclusive.

Jerry Lawton tweets this:

Jerry Lawton ‏@JerryLawton 19m
Portuguese judge performs u-turn and allows Gerry #McCann to give evidence at libel trial of cop Goncalo Amaral

And this:

Jerry Lawton ‏@JerryLawton 18m
#McCann lawyers now expected to make new request for Kate to give evidence too. She has previously been denied

And this:

Jerry Lawton ‏@JerryLawton 18m
#McCann libel case against ex-Portuguese cop Goncalo Amaral is due to resume in a fortnight but expected to be adjourned until September



You won't need three guesses as to what he DIDN'T tweet ......
Yep, he didn't tweet anything about the ward of court ruling.

UK hacks are a bunch of cowardly turds.
Is it any wonder that anyone with an IQ higher than a blancmange doesn't buy their scummy rags anymore?

So they can go to Portugal when it concerns money but they can't when it concerns Madeleine.



What a bloody disgrace the pair off money grabbing b.....ds are.


Poor child ....

Well said, kitti!

  

kitti wrote:So they can go to Portugal when it concerns money but they can't when it concerns Madeleine.

What a bloody disgrace the pair off money grabbing b.....ds are.

Poor child ....

That for me is the best quote I have heard this year, someone should put that on the front page of the red tops

Remember the sighting in belgium which a women said she was 100% sure was Madeleine....the Mccanns went where....Germany

I can't fathom them out at all.


You are a mother and your child went missing in PDL and they bring in digging equipment which isn't for digging up evidence but obviously a body , why bring in excavation equipment and radar, not for 'evidence ' that's for sure, your dearly beloved daughter that could be lying on a piece off wasteland for the past 7 years and what do you do...ring your lawyer to insist you get to speak at your libel trial to make sure you get 1.2m euros .....sorry 1m euros but that doesn't matter, Madeleine doesn't need her share anyway.


What a cold...heartless pair they are.


Were they born this way or did they learn it and how coincidental that two people who thought the same could meet like this.

she hasnt always been cold, dont forget she was once known as " Hot Lips Healy "

kitti wrote:I can't fathom them out at all.


You are a mother and your child went missing in PDL and they bring in digging equipment which isn't for digging up evidence but obviously a body , why bring in excavation equipment and radar, not for 'evidence ' that's for sure, your dearly beloved daughter that could be lying on a piece off wasteland for the past 7 years and what do you do...ring your lawyer to insist you get to speak at  your libel trial to make sure you get 1.2m euros .....sorry 1m euros but that doesn't matter, Madeleine doesn't need her share anyway.


What a cold...heartless pair they are.


Were they born this way or did they learn it and how coincidental that two people who thought the same could meet like this.

Well said Kitti    

http://portugalresident.com/mccanns-suffer-setback-in-million-euro-libel-suit-against-maddie-cop
 
As Praia da Luz is once more dragged into the media spotlight, Kate and Gerry McCann have suffered a legal setback in their long running campaign to sue the former police chief Gonçalo Amaral who originally led investigations into their daughter’s disappearance.
 
Kate and Gerry McCann instituted legal proceedings for €1.2 million worth of damages after Amaral wrote the book “The Truth of the Lie”, in which he set out all his reasons for believing that Madeleine was dead.
 
It is a belief that now seems to be shared by the police teams painstakingly searching scrubland outside the village from which Madeleine went missing seven years ago.
 
But at the time they began their legal fight, the McCanns were adamant that there was no proof that their daughter was dead.
 
They claimed they suffered “permanent anxiety, insomnia, lack of appetite, irritability and an indefinable fear” as a result of Amaral’s book.
 
They further described themselves as “irreparably damaged and totally destroyed from a moral, social, ethical, emotional and family point of view” and thus the lawsuit, which finally came to court in September last year after endless delays.
 
Now, a tactical attempt by Amaral to query the McCanns’ power to represent their daughter in the court action has been upheld by a Lisbon judge.
 
It now means that the McCanns effectively have to get permission from the British High Court to represent their daughter in any legal action.
 
Nonetheless, the Lisbon court has said that a final session can go ahead on June 16 - although all the lawyers involved have been given notice that they can “suggest alternative dates”.
 
The final court session will include a statement from Madeleine’s father and “the presentation of closing arguments from all sides”.
 
As Amaral’s defence lawyer has told the press on numerous occasions, information that formed the basis of “The Truth of the Lie” can be found in police records of the original investigation."
 

frencheuropean wrote:http://portugalresident.com/mccanns-suffer-setback-in-million-euro-libel-suit-against-maddie-cop
 
As Praia da Luz is once more dragged into the media spotlight, Kate and Gerry McCann have suffered a legal setback in their long running campaign to sue the former police chief Gonçalo Amaral who originally led investigations into their daughter’s disappearance.
 
Kate and Gerry McCann instituted legal proceedings for €1.2 million worth of damages after Amaral wrote the book “The Truth of the Lie”, in which he set out all his reasons for believing that Madeleine was dead.
 
It is a belief that now seems to be shared by the police teams painstakingly searching scrubland outside the village from which Madeleine went missing seven years ago.
 
But at the time they began their legal fight, the McCanns were adamant that there was no proof that their daughter was dead.
 
They claimed they suffered “permanent anxiety, insomnia, lack of appetite, irritability and an indefinable fear” as a result of Amaral’s book.
 
They further described themselves as “irreparably damaged and totally destroyed from a moral, social, ethical, emotional and family point of view” and thus the lawsuit, which finally came to court in September last year after endless delays.
 
Now, a tactical attempt by Amaral to query the McCanns’ power to represent their daughter in the court action has been upheld by a Lisbon judge.
 
It now means that the McCanns effectively have to get permission from the British High Court to represent their daughter in any legal action.
 
Nonetheless, the Lisbon court has said that a final session can go ahead on June 16 - although all the lawyers involved have been given notice that they can “suggest alternative dates”.
 
The final court session will include a statement from Madeleine’s father and “the presentation of closing arguments from all sides”.
 
As Amaral’s defence lawyer has told the press on numerous occasions, information that formed the basis of “The Truth of the Lie” can be found in police records of the original investigation."