Author Topic: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.  (Read 253376 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Robittybob1

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #1605 on: February 14, 2017, 06:00:54 PM »
..... snip ....

All in all, I feel this ruling is correct. Even if I didn't, who am I to go against the decision of the Supreme Court. they obviously know the law better than I do.
No they don't.  Just remember that an accused is innocent till proven guilty and you win.
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.

stephen25000

  • Guest
Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #1606 on: February 14, 2017, 06:03:02 PM »
No they don't.  Just remember that an accused is innocent till proven guilty and you win.

So when were the Mccann's charged Rob ?

Offline G-Unit

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #1607 on: February 14, 2017, 06:04:44 PM »
No they don't.  Just remember that an accused is innocent till proven guilty and you win.

Are you suggesting that the Portuguese judges gave an opinion about the guilt or innocence of the McCanns? They didn't.
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: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #1608 on: February 14, 2017, 06:06:50 PM »
So when were the Mccann's charged Rob ?
They were accused, they haven't been charged other than in the Court of Public Opinion.

Are you suggesting that the Portuguese judges gave an opinion about the guilt or innocence of the McCanns? They didn't.
Is besmirched the right word?
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.

stephen25000

  • Guest
Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #1609 on: February 14, 2017, 06:08:37 PM »
They were accused, they haven't been charged other than in the Court of Public Opinion.
Is besmirched the right word?


it is their actions which initiated the case.

No one else has be found to have been involved.

Offline Robittybob1

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #1610 on: February 14, 2017, 06:11:29 PM »

it is their actions which initiated the case.

No one else has be found to have been involved.
What came first the chicken or the egg?  If you don't look you won't find what you are (supposed to be) looking for.
U2 song  - I haven't found what I'm looking for.
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.

stephen25000

  • Guest
Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #1611 on: February 14, 2017, 06:13:52 PM »
What came first the chicken or the egg?  If you don't look you won't find what you are (supposed to be) looking for.
U2 song  - I haven't found what I'm looking for.

How about some common sense, rather than your blind devotion.
« Last Edit: February 14, 2017, 06:16:19 PM by stephen25000 »

Offline jassi

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #1612 on: February 14, 2017, 06:15:01 PM »
What came first the chicken or the egg?  If you don't look you won't find what you are (supposed to be) looking for.
U2 song  - I haven't found what I'm looking for.


Will you recognise it if you do ?
I believe everything. And l believe nothing.
I suspect everyone. And l suspect no one.
I gather the facts, examine the clues... and before   you know it, the case is solved!"

Or maybe not -

OG have been pushed out by the Germans who have reserved all the deck chairs for the foreseeable future

Offline Robittybob1

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #1613 on: February 14, 2017, 06:18:53 PM »

Will you recognise it if you do ?
You haven't joined me on Facebook yet. 
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 jassi

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #1614 on: February 14, 2017, 06:20:11 PM »
You haven't joined me on Facebook yet.

Not likely to, either. Not something I subscribe to.
I believe everything. And l believe nothing.
I suspect everyone. And l suspect no one.
I gather the facts, examine the clues... and before   you know it, the case is solved!"

Or maybe not -

OG have been pushed out by the Germans who have reserved all the deck chairs for the foreseeable future

Offline Robittybob1

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #1615 on: February 14, 2017, 06:22:55 PM »
Not likely to, either. Not something I subscribe to.
Are you a chicken or an egg?
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: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #1616 on: February 14, 2017, 06:27:40 PM »
They were accused, they haven't been charged other than in the Court of Public Opinion.
Is besmirched the right word?

I have no idea what the right word is. You alleged, you explain, not me.
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 Montclair

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #1617 on: February 14, 2017, 07:14:15 PM »
Please bear in mind that the McCanns had nothing to do with half Amaral's pension being arrested ... that was in relation to unpaid taxes to the Portuguese State.

His house was actually his brother's house as the Portuguese courts decided in a case brought against Amaral for fraud.

Neither does taking legal action for defamation comes cheap ... he did lose his case against the Cipriano lawyer.

Divorce actions don't come cheap either ... and there was a divorce prior to his second marriage.

The McCanns sued because of the book he wrote exploiting their missing daughter and which defamed them.

Please provide the proof for your affirmations in paragraphs 1 and 2. Marcos Aragão Correio won the libel case because the judge ruled that it was normal that he believe everything his client, Leonor Cipriano, told him, even though they were lies.

Offline Brietta

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #1618 on: February 14, 2017, 09:44:50 PM »
Please provide the proof for your affirmations in paragraphs 1 and 2. Marcos Aragão Correio won the libel case because the judge ruled that it was normal that he believe everything his client, Leonor Cipriano, told him, even though they were lies.

Court is with Jaguar de Gonçalo Amaral

28.10.2009 às 22h35

The Lisbon Civil Court, which this week ordered the arrest of the copyright of Gonçalo Amaral's book on the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, as well as the documentary that followed, considers that the sole proprietorship created by the former coordinator of the PJ may allow Receive and make disappear the proceeds that are personally intended for the sale of books and videos.

Therefore, following the McCann family's claim for compensation, he decided through a precautionary procedure to arrest Amaral's share in the company, one-third of his salary as a manager and even the Jaguar that the former police officer leads - but that belongs to To the firm.

The car, with a displacement of 2700cc and a price of around 70,000 euros, was bought in May and registered on behalf of the company Gonçalo Amaral Unipessoal Lda., With a share capital of 5000 euros. The company, established in November last year, offers consultancy, studies and analysis in the area of ​​criminal investigation and specializes in the dissemination, promotion and communication of technical works.

Notices to publishers who published the book "Maddie - The Truth of Lies" followed earlier in the week to several countries in Europe: Italy, Holland, Denmark, Germany, Spain and France. The publisher Guerra & Paz, (which published the book in Portugal), Presslivre (owner of "Correio da Manhã" where Amaral has a weekly chronicle), Valentim de Carvalho and TVI were also notified of the arrest of the copyright Are due to the former PJ coordinator until a final decision is reached in the ongoing process.

Contacted by Expresso, Gonçalo Amaral declined to comment on the decision of the Civil Court, referring his position to a press release issued on Wednesday. In that document, the man who investigated the disappearance of Madeleine McCann fears "being unable to defend his reasons in court" and admits to face "constraints on his own defense."

Kate and Gerry McCann, who were indicted in the course of the investigation, and the three youngest children, Sean and Amelie and Madeleine, are the plaintiffs in the ongoing civil court case. They demand the former PJ inspector compensation of € 1.2 million for defamation, due to "continuous and gross" statements about the investigation of the 2007 case.

However, according to the assessment made by the court, the estate of Gonçalo Amaral does not provide sufficient guarantees for payment in case of conviction. Olhão's house - which she bought with her wife in 2002 with a loan from the BIC but is registered only in her name - was arrested in 2005 due to a debt of around 130 thousand euros.

A year later, the National Treasury registered an attachment on the house as guarantee of payment of 16900 euros. Finally, two years ago, it was BES (to which BIC belongs now) to file an executive action against the couple to collect more than 300,000 euros - a new attachment.

The book "Maddie - The truth of the Lie" was released in July 2008 and in the following two months, until the end of September, it had 12 editions, or 120,000 copies. However, in September, also by court decision, its sale had already been banned.

Gonçalo Amaral retired from the Judicial Police in June last year, after 26 years of service. At the time, he said he was leaving to have "full freedom of expression" after being removed months earlier from the investigation into the disappearance of the English child due to statements made to the media. Currently, Amaral receives a pension for early retirement of 2039 euros. The investigation into the case was closed in June 2008, without any liability being cleared from the parents of the three-year-old English girl who disappeared on 3 May 2007 in Praia da Luz.

The McCann family requires Gonçalo Amaral to pay damages of 1.2 million euros due to the book
The Lisbon Civil Court banned in September the commercialization of "Maddie - The truth of the lie"
This week the publishers who published the book and the entities with whom the former PJ coordinator collaborated were notified of the seizure of the copyright allocations
Text published in the edition of the Express of October 24, 2009
http://expresso.sapo.pt/arquivo/tribunal-fica-com-jaguar-de-goncalo-amaral=f544234


The financial mess Amaral was in long predated Madeleine McCann's disappearance in 2007 ~ I can post up the court transcript if you would like for the case taken out against him.

The pension money was not sequestered for the McCann trial ... it was owed to the Portuguese State because of non payment of taxes.

In other words the myth that the McCanns are responsible for Amaral's financial predicament are absolutely wrong and misguided ... the person responsible is the man himself.
Unfortunately as easy as it is for some to think the worst of the McCanns it seems there is a blockage of denial for any critical truth providing evidence of an Amaral who they cannot perceive of as less than perfect.
"All I'm going to say is that we've conducted a very serious investigation and there's no indication that Madeleine McCann's parents are connected to her disappearance. On the other hand, we have a lot of evidence pointing out that Christian killed her," Wolter told the "Friday at 9"....

Offline G-Unit

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #1619 on: February 15, 2017, 12:46:11 AM »
Nowhere in that article does it say that the house was not seized, I think.

But the property, in millionaires’ development Cerro Azul, near the town of Olhao, has been seized as an asset by a Lisbon court which last week ruled that Amaral must pay the McCanns 500,000 euros (£357,000) compensation for allegations he made in his book.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/574547/Maddie-libel-detective-ruined-Retirement-retreat-seized-cover-McCann-payout
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