Author Topic: "the complaint of the claimants being rejected." What did that mean?  (Read 3966 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Robittybob1

Davel has highlighted this phrase.  Where did it come from and what does it mean?

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7275.msg497873#msg497873

In part "At the same hearing the undisputed facts were established and the instruction basis was structured, the complaint of the claimants being rejected."

Moderation
John has instructed all moderators to take a very strong line with posters who constantly breach the rules of this forum.  This sniping, goading, name calling and other various forms of disruption will cease.

Offline Mr Gray

Re: "the complaint of the claimants being rejected." What did that mean?
« Reply #1 on: October 22, 2018, 08:19:04 PM »
Davel has highlighted this phrase.  Where did it come from and what does it mean?

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7275.msg497873#msg497873

In part "At the same hearing the undisputed facts were established and the instruction basis was structured, the complaint of the claimants being rejected."

I think it means the mccanns objected to the claims re the dogs but their complaint was rejected

Offline Robittybob1

Re: "the complaint of the claimants being rejected." What did that mean?
« Reply #2 on: October 22, 2018, 08:20:39 PM »
Where did you get that text from for a starter?
Moderation
John has instructed all moderators to take a very strong line with posters who constantly breach the rules of this forum.  This sniping, goading, name calling and other various forms of disruption will cease.

Offline Mr Gray

Re: "the complaint of the claimants being rejected." What did that mean?
« Reply #3 on: October 22, 2018, 08:24:10 PM »
Where did you get that text from for a starter?
At the same hearing the undisputed facts were established and the instruction basis was structured, the complaint of the claimants being rejected.
Judgement dated 27th April 2007 page 6
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6307.0

Offline Robittybob1

Re: "the complaint of the claimants being rejected." What did that mean?
« Reply #4 on: October 22, 2018, 08:27:48 PM »
At the same hearing the undisputed facts were established and the instruction basis was structured, the complaint of the claimants being rejected.
Judgement dated 27th April 2007 page 6
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6307.0

OK I Googled it and found it also at Gerry McCann Blogs http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/v01.htm

I have a feeling "complaint of the claimants being rejected" means that Amaral does not accept the claim against him.  It would be like at the start of a case saying he pleads "not guilty".

Moderation
John has instructed all moderators to take a very strong line with posters who constantly breach the rules of this forum.  This sniping, goading, name calling and other various forms of disruption will cease.

Offline Mr Gray

Re: "the complaint of the claimants being rejected." What did that mean?
« Reply #5 on: October 22, 2018, 08:29:25 PM »
OK I Googled it and found it also at Gerry McCann Blogs http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/v01.htm

I have a feeling "complaint of the claimants being rejected" means that Amaral does not accept the claim against him.  It would be like at the start of a case saying he pleads "not guilty".

amaral is not the claimant...the mccanns are

Offline Robittybob1

Re: "the complaint of the claimants being rejected." What did that mean?
« Reply #6 on: October 22, 2018, 08:37:31 PM »
amaral is not the claimant...the mccanns are
I know that.  But what is their complaint?  It is a complaint against Amaral and Co? Amaral does not agree to their complaint.  It was rejected.  It is not the court rejecting their complaint but the Defendant Amaral and Co are, IMO.
« Last Edit: October 23, 2018, 12:55:42 AM by Robittybob1 »
Moderation
John has instructed all moderators to take a very strong line with posters who constantly breach the rules of this forum.  This sniping, goading, name calling and other various forms of disruption will cease.

Offline Mr Gray

Re: "the complaint of the claimants being rejected." What did that mean?
« Reply #7 on: October 22, 2018, 08:41:29 PM »
I know that.  But what is their complaint?  It is a complaint against Amaral and Co? Amaral does not agree to their complaint.  It was rejected.  It is not the court rejecting their complaint but the Defendant Amaral and Co are, IMO..

as its in the same sentence as the proven facts then their objection is too the proven facts
« Last Edit: October 23, 2018, 12:56:48 AM by Robittybob1 »

Offline Robittybob1

Re: "the complaint of the claimants being rejected." What did that mean?
« Reply #8 on: October 22, 2018, 08:43:35 PM »
as its in the same sentence as the proven facts then their objection is too the proven facts
You can't have an agreed fact that is not agreed to.
There can be a list of potentially agreed to facts and based on their responses if they both agree, it becomes a list a proven facts (as in "undisputed facts" rather than proven).
« Last Edit: October 22, 2018, 08:46:20 PM by Robittybob1 »
Moderation
John has instructed all moderators to take a very strong line with posters who constantly breach the rules of this forum.  This sniping, goading, name calling and other various forms of disruption will cease.

Offline Robittybob1

Re: "the complaint of the claimants being rejected." What did that mean?
« Reply #9 on: October 22, 2018, 09:00:33 PM »
the term "undisputed facts" is a term used in discussions regarding law.

https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Question+of+Fact
"Question of Fact
An issue that involves the resolution of a factual dispute or controversy and is within the sphere of the decisions to be made by a jury.

A question of fact is a factual dispute between litigants that must be resolved by the jury at trial. It is an issue that is material to the outcome of the case and requires an interpretation of conflicting views on the factual circumstances surrounding the case.

A question of fact is best understood by comparing it to a Question of Law. Whether a particular issue in a civil case is a question of fact or law is significant because it can determine whether a party wins the case on Summary Judgement. Summary judgement is a judgement on the merits of the case without a trial. A civil respondent may move for summary judgement at any time after the suit has been filed, but a plaintiff generally must wait a short period after filing the suit (for the defendant to respond) before moving for summary judgement. In determining whether to grant a motion for summary judgement, a court may consider admissions by the parties in their pleadings, answers to interrogatories and depositions, and affidavits of personal knowledge of facts.

A court will order summary judgement in a civil case if there is no genuine issue of fact and, based on the undisputed facts, the moving party is entitled to summary judgement as a Matter of Law. If a case does not involve any questions of fact, the only issues are questions of law, so the fact-finding process of a trial is not needed."

Moderation
John has instructed all moderators to take a very strong line with posters who constantly breach the rules of this forum.  This sniping, goading, name calling and other various forms of disruption will cease.

Offline G-Unit

Re: "the complaint of the claimants being rejected." What did that mean?
« Reply #10 on: October 22, 2018, 09:03:25 PM »
Davel has highlighted this phrase.  Where did it come from and what does it mean?

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7275.msg497873#msg497873

In part "At the same hearing the undisputed facts were established and the instruction basis was structured, the complaint of the claimants being rejected."

What was rejected was the McCann's request for an injunction against Amaral's book in my opinion.
Read and abide by the forum rules.
Result = happy posting.
Ignore and break the rules
Result = edits, deletions and unhappiness
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?board=2.0

Offline Robittybob1

Re: "the complaint of the claimants being rejected." What did that mean?
« Reply #11 on: October 22, 2018, 09:10:31 PM »
Here is another reference to how undisputed facts are handled

https://www.ilnd.uscourts.gov/judge-cmp-detail.aspx?cmpid=818
 "Parties are required to file a joint statement of undisputed material facts that the parties agree are not in dispute. The joint statement of undisputed material facts shall be filed separately from the memoranda of law. It shall include citations to admissible evidence supporting each undisputed fact (i.e. the line, paragraph, or page number where the supporting material may be found in the record). The supporting material must be attached to the joint statement. The parties may not file – and the Court will not consider – separate statements of undisputed facts."

Why the translator has called the "proven facts" is beyond me for I agree that no one can be certain a cadaver dog alerts to cadaver odour.

I wonder if legal discussions talk about "proven facts" pretrial?
Moderation
John has instructed all moderators to take a very strong line with posters who constantly breach the rules of this forum.  This sniping, goading, name calling and other various forms of disruption will cease.

Offline Robittybob1

Re: "the complaint of the claimants being rejected." What did that mean?
« Reply #12 on: October 22, 2018, 09:38:31 PM »
it appears that if the two sides agree to a substantial body of evidence in the form of proven facts or undisputed facts the judge or the jury could make a decision based on these, without a trial.

I think this is what is being said here, in that there are not sufficient proven facts to determine whether the complaint made by the claimants is proven, therefore it is rejected.  Not that the claim against Amaral and Co is dismissed.
It wasn't dismissed it was just not agreed to, i.e. it was rejected.  What is not clear in that statement is who is doing the rejection.  The point is being raised by the complainant, that is clear.

I propose it is the "defendant" who has rejected the complaint.

"defendant
noun
an individual, company, or institution sued or accused in a court of law.
"the defendant tried to claim that it was self-defence""
Moderation
John has instructed all moderators to take a very strong line with posters who constantly breach the rules of this forum.  This sniping, goading, name calling and other various forms of disruption will cease.

Offline Sunny

Re: "the complaint of the claimants being rejected." What did that mean?
« Reply #13 on: October 22, 2018, 09:45:26 PM »
it appears that if the two sides agree to a substantial body of evidence in the form of proven facts or undisputed facts the judge or the jury could make a decision based on these, without a trial.

I think this is what is being said here, in that there are not sufficient proven facts to determine whether the complaint made by the claimants is proven, therefore it is rejected.  Not that the claim against Amaral and Co is dismissed.
It wasn't dismissed it was just not agreed to, i.e. it was rejected.  What is not clear in that statement is who is doing the rejection.  The point is being raised by the complainant, that is clear.

I propose it is the "defendant" who has rejected the complaint.

"defendant
noun
an individual, company, or institution sued or accused in a court of law.
"the defendant tried to claim that it was self-defence""

How can the defendant reject the complaint surely that is up to the court.
Members are reminded that cites must be provided in accordance with the forum rules. On several occasions recently cites have been requested but never provided. Asking for a cite is not goading but compliance.

From this moment onward, posts making significant claims which are not backed up by a cite will be removed.

Moderators and Editors take note!

Offline Robittybob1

Re: "the complaint of the claimants being rejected." What did that mean?
« Reply #14 on: October 22, 2018, 09:49:08 PM »
How can the defendant reject the complaint surely that is up to the court.
I'm sure that happens most of the time.  "How do you plead?"  "Not guilty"  That means you reject the accusation/complaint made against you.
Moderation
John has instructed all moderators to take a very strong line with posters who constantly breach the rules of this forum.  This sniping, goading, name calling and other various forms of disruption will cease.