Where Is Amaral's Ace He Promised

[Carana]

In a libel case in Portugal, it is the one that accuses that has to prove that he/she/they/it have been harmed or damaged by the defendant.

Why do you think the McCann attempted an agreement out of Court?

They have no way to prove what they allege. And furthermore they fear the Courts as the Devil fears the Crux.

Could you clarify? Who's "they"? And what do "they" allege which has to be proven?

[muratfan]

Amaral's Ace is ready, as we say in Portugal "deixa-os pousar (let them land)...

So he has not given the so-called ace to the Police yet then

[Jean-Pierre]

Redblossom wrote:

Dunno, ask them, two possible reasons, they get a penalty from the PT courts for wasting time, and two, will look bad for them, perhaps stubborness too in the face of defeat, face saving, we shall see soon

This is a case brought under the Portuguese civil code.

As a general principle courts encourage litigants to settle "out of court", which frees up valuable court time.

Perhaps you could provide some background to this "penalty from the PT courts for wasting time"?  Is this your imagination, or do you have some reference.

[icabodcrane]

Redblossom wrote:

Dunno, ask them, two possible reasons, they get a penalty from the PT courts for wasting time, and two, will look bad for them, perhaps stubborness too in the face of defeat, face saving, we shall see soon

This is a case brought under the Portuguese civil code.

As a general principle courts encourage litigants to settle "out of court", which frees up valuable court time.

Perhaps you could provide some background to this "penalty from the PT courts for wasting time"?  Is this your imagination, or do you have some reference.

Are you saying that the McCanns are discussing terms with Amaral because the court intructed  (  or  'encouraged' )  them to ?

I find that an astonishing claim

[debunker]

Redblossom wrote:

Dunno, ask them, two possible reasons, they get a penalty from the PT courts for wasting time, and two, will look bad for them, perhaps stubborness too in the face of defeat, face saving, we shall see soon

This is a case brought under the Portuguese civil code.

As a general principle courts encourage litigants to settle "out of court", which frees up valuable court time.

Perhaps you could provide some background to this "penalty from the PT courts for wasting time"?  Is this your imagination, or do you have some reference.

Are you saying that the McCanns are discussing terms with Amaral because the court intructed  (  or  'encouraged' )  them to ?

I find that an astonishing claim

Courts, especially civil ones, have always encouraged such setlements. That is how the Express Group case was wound up.

[Jean-Pierre]

Redblossom wrote:

Dunno, ask them, two possible reasons, they get a penalty from the PT courts for wasting time, and two, will look bad for them, perhaps stubborness too in the face of defeat, face saving, we shall see soon

This is a case brought under the Portuguese civil code.

As a general principle courts encourage litigants to settle "out of court", which frees up valuable court time.

Perhaps you could provide some background to this "penalty from the PT courts for wasting time"?  Is this your imagination, or do you have some reference.

Are you saying that the McCanns are discussing terms with Amaral because the court intructed  (  or  'encouraged' )  them to ?

I find that an astonishing claim

Really?  At every step the court procedures are designed to encourage settlement and to avoid the case coming to court.  This starts with a "pre action protocol" or "letters before claim", to show that the parties have attempted to resolve the issue before going to law. 

Europewide, over 90% of cases are settled out of court - sometimes "on the steps of the court".

In this context, why would a court impose a penalty for wasting time, when by seeking to settle out of court the parties would be avoiding wasting the courts time?

In terms of the McCanns discussing terms with Amaral - only the plaintiff can stay proceedings.  Therefore if Amaral were seeking to come to terms, it would be the McCanns who would need to take action to stay proceedings while negotiations took place.  It seems in this agreement could not be reached, and therefore the case will be relisted.

 

[icabodcrane]

Redblossom wrote:

Dunno, ask them, two possible reasons, they get a penalty from the PT courts for wasting time, and two, will look bad for them, perhaps stubborness too in the face of defeat, face saving, we shall see soon

This is a case brought under the Portuguese civil code.

As a general principle courts encourage litigants to settle "out of court", which frees up valuable court time.

Perhaps you could provide some background to this "penalty from the PT courts for wasting time"?  Is this your imagination, or do you have some reference.

Are you saying that the McCanns are discussing terms with Amaral because the court intructed  (  or  'encouraged' )  them to ?

I find that an astonishing claim

Really?  At every step the court procedures are designed to encourage settlement and to avoid the case coming to court.  This starts with a "pre action protocol" or "letters before claim", to show that the parties have attempted to resolve the issue before going to law. 

Europewide, over 90% of cases are settled out of court - sometimes "on the steps of the court".

In this context, why would a court impose a penalty for wasting time, when by seeking to settle out of court the parties would be avoiding wasting the courts time?

In terms of the McCanns discussing terms with Amaral - only the plaintiff can stay proceedings.  Therefore if Amaral were seeking to come to terms, it would be the McCanns who would need to take action to stay proceedings while negotiations took place.  It seems in this agreement could not be reached, and therefore the case will be relisted.

...  and if the McCanns had no interest in  'settling'  with Amaral out of court,  then they  could not be compelled to to 'stay' proceedings

They could tell the court that they were resolute in their determination to prove, publicly,  that Amaral had defamed them

In which case,  no negotiations between the parties would ever take place

Is that correct ?

[debunker]

Correct. But the McCanns would probably be happy just to prevent any future printings and getting a promise from Amaral to shut up.

They may have tried to find a result that met their requirements without going totrial with the extra publicity it would generate.

[icabodcrane]

Correct. But the McCanns would probably be happy just to prevent any future printings and getting a promise from Amaral to shut up.

They may have tried to find a result that met their requirements without going totrial with the extra publicity it would generate.

You mean adverse publicity  ?   (  the McCanns have actively sought and welcomed good publicity and even hired PR people to facilitate it  ) 

What kind of  'adverse'  publicity might a libel trial bring then, do you think ?

[Jean-Pierre]

Ibodcrane wrote:  "...  and if the McCanns had no interest in  'settling'  with Amaral out of court,  then they  could not be compelled to to 'stay' proceedings

They could tell the court that they were resolute in their determination to prove, publicly,  that Amaral had defamed them

In which case,  no negotiations between the parties would ever take place

Is that correct ?"

_____________

Correct. 

However, there are a number of factors which need to be considered in the real world:


1: All litigation is a risk.  And expensive.  If there is a a viable alternative, then it would be explored

2: An out of court settlement, even for a lower amount, has attractions.  Immediate settlement and avoidance of a string of appeals, which could drag on for years. 

3: Finally, if one of the parties had indicated  a willingness to negotiate and the other party had turned this down, it may not play well with the court in the trial and may impact on the distribution of costs. 

[ferryman]

2: An out of court settlement, even for a lower amount, has attractions.  Immediate settlement and avoidance of a string of appeals, which could drag on for years.

For instance, if Amaral entered into negotiations to attempt an out-of-court settlement, or even agreed at the McCanns' invitation, would that not suggest that he sees very little prospect of winning?

And if he sees very little prospect of winning, would he indulge the expense of torturous appeals?

Is there a risk of another of these ex parte judgments on appeal?

[Jean-Pierre]

He could spin it out for years and years. 

[ferryman]

He claimed he cold produce the evidence that proved beyond any doubt that Kate and Gerry killed Madeleine...

Well 4 years later ...still waiting  8-)(--) 8-)(--) 8-)(--)

Did he  ? 

I thought he believed that Madeleine died as the result of an accident that occured when the McCanns were absent

Can you bring us the quote where he said the McCanns  'killed' their daughter, and he could prove it  ?

It's important to twig the distinction between killed and murdered.

Doesn't Amaral say, somewhere, about a possible overdose of medication?

There's your distinction ...

[Redblossom]

He claimed he cold produce the evidence that proved beyond any doubt that Kate and Gerry killed Madeleine...

Well 4 years later ...still waiting  8-)(--) 8-)(--) 8-)(--)

Did he  ? 

I thought he believed that Madeleine died as the result of an accident that occured when the McCanns were absent

Can you bring us the quote where he said the McCanns  'killed' their daughter, and he could prove it  ?

It's important to twig the distinction between killed and murdered.

Doesn't Amaral say, somewhere, about a possible overdose of medication?

There's your distinction ...

No he didnt ever mention overdosing, just accidental death and not killing or murder, fill your boots though

[amaraltheofficeboy]

you do realise that the link to the book is available on here?