The who, why and when of the Amaral book injunction.

[Mr Moderator]

A bit confused on the subject of the first injunction to have the book banned.  From the injunction itself it can be seen that both the plaintiffs and the defendants submitted depositions and several witnesses were heard in court.  What is secret about that?   8-)(--)

Lets have a look at the injunction and how it came to be.

[Montclair]

A bit confused on the subject of the first injunction to have the book banned.  From the injunction itself it can be seen that both the plaintiffs and the defendants submitted depositions and several witnesses were heard in court.  What is secret about that?   8-)(--)

The first time the injunction was put in place was in September 2009, during a night court session by the judge Puna Lupo (sic), as an emergency, so that it would be secret. It was found later that the McCanns had tried twice previously to impose an injunction but their demand was rejected by the courts. Gonçalo Amaral, as were many others, was only informed of this ban through the Portuguese newspaper Expresso which came out on that Thursday.

The defendents then appealed the injunction and the first public hearings took place in January 2010 and on 18 February 2010, the judge upheld the ban. Later that year, on 19 October 2010, the ban was lifted and the "acordão" of the Lisbon Appeals Court was scathing in their appreciation of the previous rulings.

[John]

The first time the injunction was put in place was in September 2009, during a night court session by the judge Puna Lupo (sic), as an emergency, so that it would be secret. It was found later that the McCanns had tried twice previously to impose an injunction but their demand was rejected by the courts. Gonçalo Amaral, as were many others, was only informed of this ban through the Portuguese newspaper Expresso which came out on that Thursday.

The defendents then appealed the injunction and the first public hearings took place in January 2010 and on 18 February 2010, the judge upheld the ban. Later that year, on 19 October 2010, the ban was lifted and the "acordão" of the Lisbon Appeals Court was scathing in their appreciation of the previous rulings.

It all sounds very iffy to me Montclair.  Why would any judge agree to a night session in a case which merely related to a book ban?  It wasn't as if they couldn't have waiting until the next business day or was there some other clandestine reason?

[Brietta]

The first time the injunction was put in place was in September 2009, during a night court session by the judge Puna Lupo (sic), as an emergency, so that it would be secret. It was found later that the McCanns had tried twice previously to impose an injunction but their demand was rejected by the courts. Gonçalo Amaral, as were many others, was only informed of this ban through the Portuguese newspaper Expresso which came out on that Thursday.

The defendents then appealed the injunction and the first public hearings took place in January 2010 and on 18 February 2010, the judge upheld the ban. Later that year, on 19 October 2010, the ban was lifted and the "acordão" of the Lisbon Appeals Court was scathing in their appreciation of the previous rulings.

Where does it say the injunction was put in place at a night court session? Do you have a source, please.

[DCI]

Where does it say the injunction was put in place at a night court session? Do you have a source, please.

How does Montclair keep getting away with these lies?

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id286.html#injdec

[Jean-Pierre]

It all sounds very iffy to me Montclair.  Why would any judge agree to a night session in a case which merely related to a book ban?  It wasn't as if they couldn't have waiting until the next business day or was there some other clandestine reason?

Montclair seems to a little confused.

It was an ex parte judgement follwoing normal procedures.  Especially where there is a danger of deprivation of assets. 

[Montclair]

How does Montclair keep getting away with these lies?

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id286.html#injdec

I don't understand why you think that the link you gave here disproves what I said. AFAIK, it was a night session. If anybody can prove that it wasn't than I stand corrected. Furthermore, you will note that the injunction was granted without the presence of the defendents who were unable to defend themselves. They were only able to appeal once the injunction was in place.

[Brietta]

I don't understand why you think that the link you gave here disproves what I said. AFAIK, it was a night session. If anybody can prove that it wasn't than I stand corrected. Furthermore, you will note that the injunction was granted without the presence of the defendents who were unable to defend themselves. They were only able to appeal once the injunction was in place.

Actually, Montclair, since you have made the claim it is your responsibility to verify it with an independent source.  Since you are unable to do so ... one must suppose your claim is false.

[faithlilly]

Montclair seems to a little confused.

It was an ex parte judgement follwoing normal procedures.  Especially where there is a danger of deprivation of assets.

Brietta seemed to think that the judgement being ex parte was a forum myth.

[Jean-Pierre]

I don't understand why you think that the link you gave here disproves what I said. AFAIK, it was a night session. If anybody can prove that it wasn't than I stand corrected. Furthermore, you will note that the injunction was granted without the presence of the defendents who were unable to defend themselves. They were only able to appeal once the injunction was in place.

THat is how ex parte works - the clue is in the name.  It is used where there is a risk of flight or hiding of assets.  (pretty high in this case)

[Alice Purjorick]

I would presume that the only thing of relevance today is that the book may be published and sold in many countries and the authors assets, at least in part, remain sequestered by the court.
How it came to be would seem to be largely irrelevant now except as a discussion point that will not alter the present facts.