Author Topic: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.  (Read 270301 times)

0 Members and 7 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline xtina

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #990 on: February 07, 2017, 08:33:45 AM »
It's rubbish to think the Portuguese libel judgement is valid in the uk
Total rubbish and shows how little the author understands

If the go bankrupt they resign as directors first

If the go bankrupt they resign as directors first


I cannot  see them doing that can you .......unless they are not expecting another penny/euro.... to go in it
Always listen to both sides of the story before you judge.

The first storyteller you will always find has modified the story, for there benefit BE WISE.

Offline xtina

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #991 on: February 07, 2017, 08:39:06 AM »
The written verdict.


Page 38
Point 75

em 17/10/2007, Clarence Mitchell, porta-voz doa AA. Kate Mccann e Gerald MacCann, afirmou que estes eran suficientemente realistas para admitireme que a sua filha estaria provavelmente morta


Or in English . . .

On 17/10/2007, Clarence Mitchell, a spokesman for AA [the appellants]. Kate McCann and Gerald McCann, stated that they were sufficiently realistic to admit that their daughter was probably dead

https://pjga.blogspot.co.uk/2017/02/apelacao_7.html
« Last Edit: February 07, 2017, 09:40:43 AM by ShiningInLuz »
Always listen to both sides of the story before you judge.

The first storyteller you will always find has modified the story, for there benefit BE WISE.

Offline carlymichelle

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #992 on: February 07, 2017, 08:45:03 AM »
The written verdict.


Page 38
Point 75

em 17/10/2007, Clarence Mitchell, porta-voz doa AA. Kate Mccann e Gerald MacCann, afirmou que estes eran suficientemente realistas para admitireme que a sua filha estaria provavelmente morta


Or in English . . .

On 17/10/2007, Clarence Mitchell, a spokesman for AA [the appellants]. Kate McCann and Gerald McCann, stated that they were sufficiently realistic to admit that their daughter was probably dead

https://pjga.blogspot.co.uk/2017/02/apelacao_7.html


so why the  8 year tantrum if they admit she  could be dead??
« Last Edit: February 07, 2017, 09:41:31 AM by ShiningInLuz »

Offline xtina

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #993 on: February 07, 2017, 08:56:47 AM »
so why the  8 year tantrum if they admit she  could be dead??

well C M .....also said it back in 2007 ..

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleines-probably-dead-514171



By Stewart Maclean 17/10/2007

Kate and Gerry McCann admitted for the first time yesterday that Madeleine is probably dead.

The couple have until now clung to the chance of finding their missing daughter alive. But their hopes have faded as it nears six months since the four-year-old vanished from a resort in Portugal.

Spokesman Clarence Mitchell said: "Gerry and Kate are realistic enough to know there's a probability she is dead." The couple, both 39, are nevertheless continuing their campaign to keep the hunt for Maddy in the public eye. Adverts will appear in European newspapers at the weekend.

Mr Mitchell added: "They need to know what has happened. This uncertainty cannot hang over them for the rest of their lives."
Always listen to both sides of the story before you judge.

The first storyteller you will always find has modified the story, for there benefit BE WISE.

Offline G-Unit

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #994 on: February 07, 2017, 08:59:55 AM »
Depends if they have the money

They're getting on a bit to learn the lesson that you shouldn't count your chickens. Litigation is a gamble and gambling is a risky game.
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 slartibartfast

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #995 on: February 07, 2017, 09:02:22 AM »
No different from any other debt
I've chased people for money for 40 yrs so I know all about it

http://www.channel5.com/show/cant-pay-well-take-it-away

I don't think G&K would like to star.
“Reasoning will never make a Man correct an ill Opinion, which by Reasoning he never acquired”.

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #996 on: February 07, 2017, 09:50:10 AM »
http://www.channel5.com/show/cant-pay-well-take-it-away

I don't think G&K would like to star.
You don't seem to understand how debt recovery works
The programme features those who have ignored the debt

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #997 on: February 07, 2017, 09:51:49 AM »
The written verdict.


Page 38
Point 75

em 17/10/2007, Clarence Mitchell, porta-voz doa AA. Kate Mccann e Gerald MacCann, afirmou que estes eran suficientemente realistas para admitireme que a sua filha estaria provavelmente morta


Or in English . . .

On 17/10/2007, Clarence Mitchell, a spokesman for AA [the appellants]. Kate McCann and Gerald McCann, stated that they were sufficiently realistic to admit that their daughter was probably dead

https://pjga.blogspot.co.uk/2017/02/apelacao_7.html

There is a difference between probably and is

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #998 on: February 07, 2017, 09:56:49 AM »
They're getting on a bit to learn the lesson that you shouldn't count your chickens. Litigation is a gamble and gambling is a risky game.

Makes no difference
Depends how much they are asked for
Depends on how much they have
Depends on whether they choose to use the fund
Depends on whether amaral suing is a reasonable possibility
Depends on how much equity they have in their house
We just have to wait and see

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #999 on: February 07, 2017, 09:59:34 AM »
If the go bankrupt they resign as directors first


I cannot  see them doing that can you .......unless they are not expecting another penny/euro.... to go in it

Simply find alternative directors

Offline xtina

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #1000 on: February 07, 2017, 10:09:13 AM »
Simply find alternative directors

so simply .they want to be in charge or not ....looking for maddie...

there again yes ..when it comes down to money .they do whats best ...

how else are they going to pay for top expensive lawyers..............
Always listen to both sides of the story before you judge.

The first storyteller you will always find has modified the story, for there benefit BE WISE.

Offline carlymichelle

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #1001 on: February 07, 2017, 10:14:28 AM »
so simply .they want to be in charge or not ....looking for maddie...

there again yes ..when it comes down to money .they do whats best ...

how else are they going to pay for top expensive lawyers..............

they have used maddies name    for the last 8 to  ten years havent they??  to get  donations

Offline slartibartfast

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #1002 on: February 07, 2017, 10:26:24 AM »
You don't seem to understand how debt recovery works
The programme features those who have ignored the debt

You appear to be under the misapprehension that those owed money have to agree to whatever payment plan is offered by the debtor.
“Reasoning will never make a Man correct an ill Opinion, which by Reasoning he never acquired”.

Offline carlymichelle

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #1003 on: February 07, 2017, 10:27:27 AM »
You appear to be under the misapprehension that those owed money have to agree to whatever payment plan is offered by the debtor.

they dont  do they??

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #1004 on: February 07, 2017, 10:29:49 AM »
You appear to be under the misapprehension that those owed money have to agree to whatever payment plan is offered by the debtor.


To a certain extent they do
Or they can issue bankruptcy proceedings
What do you think