The Temporary Injunction: Granted on September 9, 2009

The Temporary Injunction: Granted on September 9, 2009

English translation... http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2010/02/temporary-injunction-granted-on.html

Jailhouselawyer wrote:The Temporary Injunction: Granted on September 9, 2009

English translation... http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2010/02/temporary-injunction-granted-on.html

Article 92 – Proved that the Defendants intend to disseminate the book and the DVD all over the world, earning financial, commercial and social profit, deepening the suffering of the two first Applicants [4] and rendering the search for the third Applicant [5] more difficult.

Jaysus !!! For a moment I tought they were referring to the McCann's

It concerned me to read that the judge stated Madeleine had a right over Mr Amaral in conflicting rights. My problem is that there is no evidence that Madeleine is alive. A dead person has no rights. Mr Amaral is alive and in my view the judge has erred and Mr Amaral's right must prevail over a theory that she is alive and well.

I wonder who their witnesses were. With the CEOP supporting the abduction (a thesis that has no evidence therefore in McC's words is meaningless) thesis I cannot help but wonder if someone from that organisation was a witness. Hmm!

Jailhouselawyer wrote:It concerned me to read that the judge stated Madeleine had a right over Mr Amaral in conflicting rights. My problem is that there is no evidence that Madeleine is alive. A dead person has no rights. Mr Amaral is alive and in my view the judge has erred and Mr Amaral's right must prevail over a theory that she is alive and well.

The judge's decision was based solely on the arguments presented by the McCann's. Amaral wasn't even aware of the injunction, or the arguments presented.
Technically the judge who decided in favour of the temporary injunction had no knowledge or access to the case files. She had to decide on what the McCann's told her.
But I did find interesting that remark about Amaral trying to make money and climb the social ladder at the expense of Madeleine parents.
Too bad the accounting of the 'Madeleine fighting fund' cannot be presented in court to show who is making real money out of this tragedy.
Personally I believe the decision was highly biased. Let’s see what the other judge thinks of all this.

If you want to have a glimpse about what some judges ‘think’ read below.
Last week a judge came out with a decision that left quite a lot of people very apprehensive ( Including the former McCann’s layer Rogério Alves)
A group of four criminals stole a vehicle, went to a gas station filled the tank and fled without paying the 50 Euros.
Then they went into a robbery spree but were captured.
The owner of the gas station filled a criminal complaint against the driver, but the case was archived.
According to this judge, this theft of fuel was not a criminal action, just a commercial transaction that went bad.
This judge then recommended filling a civil complaint against the driver.
By doing this the economical burden of the judicial case was passed on to the person who got robbed, releasing the state from its responsibility.
It’s very unlikely that this person will pursue a civil case against the thief. The costs are outrageous and there are good chances that the case die of old age in the bottom drawer of some public prosecutor.
If this decision sets a legal precedent then we can expect more of the same.

So, now you know were to get free fuel for your car.
While you’re at it, why not add a pack of cigarettes and a couple of you favourite newspapers.
You can always claim that the fuel had a bad smell, the newspapers had some typos and the cigarretes were poorly packed.

Judges come up with the most abhorrent decisions and apparently do so in the most absolute impunity.