UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Disappeared and Abducted Children and Young Adults => Madeleine McCann (3) disappeared from her parent's holiday apartment at Ocean Club, Praia da Luz, Portugal on 3 May 2007. No trace of her has ever been found. => Topic started by: Montclair on July 10, 2014, 09:29:08 AM
-
Judge doesn't trust Amaral to give honest account of his affairs so has ordered Portuguese tax officials to investigate him and report back. Full details of Amaral's financial affairs required in order to establish just how much Amaral will be ordered to pay.
Do you live inn a parallel universe? By the way, everyone involved has already provided the information on the financial details of the earnings from the book.
-
Do you live inn a parallel universe? By the way, everyone involved has already provided the information on the financial details of the earnings from the book.
I don't think anyone is too bothered about the earnings from the book. It's the rest of Amaral's earnings that might be the problem. And how much there is left. Now that we don't know.
-
Do you live inn a parallel universe? By the way, everyone involved has already provided the information on the financial details of the earnings from the book.
You are mistaken, Montclair.
In January, Dr Amaral and the other defendants were instructed to provide details of the moneys made from the articles they had published about Madeleine.
Dr Amaral obviously has not complied with that instruction.
- SNIP -
The libel trial has adjourned, but the judge has ordered Mr Amaral to reveal how much money he has earned from the book.
.3news.co.nz/McCanns-parents-address-libel-hearing/tabid/417/articleID/351984/Default.aspx?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+co%2FMvia+(3News+-+International+News)
-
You are mistaken, Montclair.
In January, Dr Amaral and the other defendants were instructed to provide details of the moneys made from the articles they had published about Madeleine.
Dr Amaral obviously has not complied with that instruction.
- SNIP -
The libel trial has adjourned, but the judge has ordered Mr Amaral to reveal how much money he has earned from the book.
.3news.co.nz/McCanns-parents-address-libel-hearing/tabid/417/articleID/351984/Default.aspx?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+co%2FMvia+(3News+-+International+News)
You are wrong, he and the others have alll provided the information requested. Perhaps, you should read less biased, twisted and untruthful news reports.
-
From another source.....
' ''Judge - Do you recall when the book was first published and when you first heard about it?
Kate Healy - A few months after it was published.''
Really? A few months?
''Kate and Gerry McCann threaten legal action over Madeleine book
Kate and Gerry McCann have threatened legal action over the publication of an explosive account of the investigation into their daughter's disappearance by the former detective in charge of the case.
By Fiona Govan in Lisbon
8:59PM BST 23 Jul 2008''
The book was published on 24th July 2008. Prior to it's publication, the McCann press spokesman was briefing the media that:
"The libel lawyers who are representing Kate and Gerry and their friends are assessing every word of this book very closely, and they will not hesitate from taking legal action against Amaral if any passage requires it."
Yet Kate McCann said on oath that she first heard about it a few months after it was published. '
Nice.
Economical with the truth, yet again.
Seems they are hanging themselves with their own words Stephen.
-
You are wrong, he and the others have alll provided the information requested. Perhaps, you should read less biased, twisted and untruthful news reports.
The Judge continues instructing the scribe and states that the authors of the lawsuit - the McCann couple - have requested the court to solicit an official application to ATA [Autoridade Tributária Aduaneira] i.e. the Portuguese equivalent to the IRS, in order to obtain confidential fiscal information.
The Judge Maria Emília de Melo e Castro authorized and ordered for the dispatch to be prepared “since it is essential to know, within the scope of the case being analysed here at the court, what are the eventual earnings” of the defendant Gonçalo Amaral regarding the sales of the book ‘Maddie, A Verdade da Mentira’.
http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2014/07/palacio-de-justica-8th-of-july-2014.html
Is that an 'unbiased' enough source for you, Montclair?
There is absolutely no doubt at all that you are ... mistaken ... when you say that Dr Amaral had submitted to the court's instruction to submit a record of his earnings from Madeleine.
Quite patently ... he had not.
-
You are wrong, he and the others have alll provided the information requested. Perhaps, you should read less biased, twisted and untruthful news reports.
Ah, So The Judge is condoning a request for information that she already has?
-
You are wrong, he and the others have alll provided the information requested. Perhaps, you should read less biased, twisted and untruthful news reports.
Is this unbiased enough for you...from a forum run by some of amarals staunchest supporters....you don't want to accept the truth as to what is really happening in this trial.......
The judge finally clarifies what was her first point: the plaintiffs had asked for information about the financial situation of GA on the 6th of January but didn't obtain it, Dra Isabel Duarte having requested on the 26th of June a Court's order for the Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira (HM Revenue and Customs) to disclose confidential documents concerning GA.
The judge decides to grant this request, which was opposed only by the Guerra&Paz lawyer who finds it unnecessary and increasing the delay up to the end of this trial. The plaintiffs have ten days to obtain the documents and release them to the tribunal.
-
Is this unbiased enough for you...from a forum run by some of amarals staunchest supporters....you don't want to accept the truth as to what is really happening in this trial.......
The judge finally clarifies what was her first point: the plaintiffs had asked for information about the financial situation of GA on the 6th of January but didn't obtain it, Dra Isabel Duarte having requested on the 26th of June a Court's order for the Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira (HM Revenue and Customs) to disclose confidential documents concerning GA.
The judge decides to grant this request, which was opposed only by the Guerra&Paz lawyer who finds it unnecessary and increasing the delay up to the end of this trial. The plaintiffs have ten days to obtain the documents and release them to the tribunal.
What happens if they can't obtain the documents by that date?
-
What happens if they can't obtain the documents by that date?
I have no idea...as they asked for these documents in January someone seems to be delaying things...the point I was making was Montclair was wrong to think all this negative information was coming from biased reporting
-
It just seemed strange that it was the plaintiff that had to produce the document, (which they presumably don't have), rather than the defendant.
-
It just seemed strange that it was the plaintiff that had to produce the document, (which they presumably don't have), rather than the defendant.
yes I noticed that...perhaps its a mistake...doesn't make much sense
-
It just seemed strange that it was the plaintiff that had to produce the document, (which they presumably don't have), rather than the defendant.
The Plantiffs have been given permission to obtain the documents from The IRS. The Defendant has singularly failed to do so, despite being asked six months ago.
-
Is this unbiased enough for you...from a forum run by some of amarals staunchest supporters....you don't want to accept the truth as to what is really happening in this trial.......
The judge finally clarifies what was her first point: the plaintiffs had asked for information about the financial situation of GA on the 6th of January but didn't obtain it, Dra Isabel Duarte having requested on the 26th of June a Court's order for the Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira (HM Revenue and Customs) to disclose confidential documents concerning GA.
The judge decides to grant this request, which was opposed only by the Guerra&Paz lawyer who finds it unnecessary and increasing the delay up to the end of this trial. The plaintiffs have ten days to obtain the documents and release them to the tribunal.
If you read the second paragraph it states that Isabel Duarte requested a court order to obtain the information from the tax authorities. Therefore, it is not up to the defendents to obtain this information, it is done by a court order. The defendents have already provided their documents with regard to this question and now ID is asking for this court order in order to delay the trial even more.
-
If you read the second paragraph it states that Isabel Duarte requested a court order to obtain the information from the tax authorities. Therefore, it is not up to the defendents to obtain this information, it is done by a court order. The defendents have already provided their documents with regard to this question and now ID is asking for this court order in order to delay the trial even more.
This doesn't make sense. Why would The Judge make this order if she already has the information?
-
This doesn't make sense. Why would The Judge make this order if she already has the information?
Perhaps what the judge has are statements from the defendants regarding financial earnings, rather than an official statement from the Tax Office. It could be that the defence is questioning its accuracy.
-
Perhaps what the judge has are statements from the defendants regarding financial earnings, rather than an official statement from the Tax Office. It could be that the defence is questioning its accuracy.
Do you mean that The Plaintiffs are questioning the accuracy?
The Tax Office can't be questioned, but The Defendants can be questioned, as opposed to questioning.
-
Do you mean that The Plaintiffs are questioning the accuracy?
The Tax Office can't be questioned, but The Defendants can be questioned, as opposed to questioning.
Yes, sorry.
I'm assuming that the plaintiffs are suspicious of the accuracy of any financial statement, other than that of an official tax document.
-
Yes, sorry.
I'm assuming that the plaintiffs are suspicious of the accuracy of any financial statement, other than that of an official tax document.
That is what I thought you meant. Not a problem because we all make mistakes.
But I thought that Amaral had been asked to produce IRS Documents six months ago, which he obviously hasn't done. Otherwise the Judge would not have validated this request.
Any suspicion is by the by. In a Court of Law only official documents would be acceptable, even for The Judge.
-
That is what I thought you meant. Not a problem because we all make mistakes.
But I thought that Amaral had been asked to produce IRS Documents six months ago, which he obviously hasn't done. Otherwise the Judge would not have validated this request.
Any suspicion is by the by. In a Court of Law only official documents would be acceptable, even for The Judge.
Have you read any of the previous posts or do you just ignore the ones which don't do along with your prejudices? All of the defendents provided the court with the documents requested, now ID has asked for the same information from the tax department. So, please refrain from saying that Gonçalo Amaral did not hand over the documents.
-
It just seemed strange that it was the plaintiff that had to produce the document, (which they presumably don't have), rather than the defendant.
Not necessarily in a legal system in which the plaintiffs have to provide evidence.
-
Have you read any of the previous posts or do you just ignore the ones which don't do along with your prejudices? All of the defendents provided the court with the documents requested, now ID has asked for the same information from the tax department. So, please refrain from saying that Gonçalo Amaral did not hand over the documents.
Please can you tell me why The Judge has agreed to this request, if as you say, Goncalo Amaral has already handed them over.
-
The plaintiffs are obviously attempting to establish what Gonçalo Amaral's net earning were from the book. All very well assuming all tax returns have been made to date.
-
The plaintiffs are obviously attempting to establish what Gonçalo Amaral's net earning were from the book. All very well assuming all tax returns have been made to date.
The few documents I saw On Line from the publisher to Goncalo Amaral regarding sums paid over, had the tax deducted at source.
-
Why do you assume that this request is aimed at Gonçalo Amaral? As an independent worker with "recibos verdes" it is virtually impossible to con the tax man. You seem to forget that there are three other defendents and as companies they could more easily find tax loopholes and other ways to hide their income than an individual could, not that I am saying that they did.
IMO, this request, although legitimate, made by Isabel Duarte is only done in order to delay the trial even more, since she is aware of her poorly prepared case and the possible verdict against her clients. In her desperation, she is hoping, with the changes in the judiciary map, for the possibility of a new judge.
-
If you read the second paragraph it states that Isabel Duarte requested a court order to obtain the information from the tax authorities. Therefore, it is not up to the defendents to obtain this information, it is done by a court order. The defendents have already provided their documents with regard to this question and now ID is asking for this court order in order to delay the trial even more.
you are making very little sense and it shows how little you know about the case that someone from the UK has to correct you. The Mccanns have to apply for the records using the court order that the judge has granted them
-
I suspect the judge is interested in the full picture. Amarals earnings from the book and documentary may be only part of his earnings from this case - there are also TV shows, newspaper articles etc for which he may have been paid.
Wasn't he demanding eighty thousand euros for an interview, back in the days when he was cock of the walk.
All in all, the granting of this request does not bode well for Amaral.
-
It could be construed that Sra Duarte and Judge Maria Emília de Melo e Castro are both merely doing their jobs diligently.
It seems this forum adores quantum leaps based on little evidence.
-
I suspect the judge is interested in the full picture. Amarals earnings from the book and documentary may be only part of his earnings from this case - there are also TV shows, newspaper articles etc for which he may have been paid.
Wasn't he demanding eighty thousand euros for an interview, back in the days when he was cock of the walk.
All in all, the granting of this request does not bode well for Amaral.
I think the only accurate documentation that will be available to the court regarding Dr Amaral’s known income will be from the tax authorities. This information would be essential to establish the amount payable in damages should the court find in the Drs McCann’s favour.
It is a great pity that when a settlement had almost been reached last year the opportunity was not taken, in that way Dr Amaral’s present finances could have remained his own and the tax authorities affair.
I also find it interesting that the blame attributed to the Drs McCann for Dr Amaral’s parlous financial situation is nothing at all to do with them but is entirely of his own making.
- SNIP -
About this house there were pending asset freezings originated by the tax authorities, as the interviewee in question, despite being a civil servant, had tax problems, long before the publication of the book and of the documentary. Currently this house is owned by Banco Espirito Santo, one of the creditors, with visible credit problems with the referred interviewee, long before the publication of the book, and, therefore, the actions brought by the respondents.
- SNIP -
As for the pension that the former inspector receives, in the amount of € 2,039.16, it's being deducted from it a percentage of less than 0.1% of the known values received by the ex-inspector for the book and documentary, which he delivered finished to his publishers even before the criminal process, which was under judicial secrecy, had been archived, thus disrespecting the ex-inspector, in this as in other aspects, duties incumbent to him, even in the situation of retirement. Moreover, on this pension, there has previously been executed a seizure, originated in a process by the Finance Services of Olhao, for tax debts. http://www.mccannfiles.com/id408.html
-
I wonder how long it will take for the financial information provided to Isabel Duarte/McCanns by Amaral to enter the public domain via a few 'willing friends' ?
I'll give it a month before certain supporter forums are chewing over the private details like cows chewing the cud !
-
I wonder how long it will take for the financial information provided to Isabel Duarte/McCanns by Amaral to enter the public domain via a few 'willing friends' ?
I'll give it a month before certain supporter forums are chewing over the private details like cows chewing the cud !
lets see
-
lets see
History has a way of repeating itself.
-
History has a way of repeating itself.
its the Portuguese who have been leaking
-
its the Portuguese who have been leaking
Not Amaral's financial details it's not. They have no reason to.
-
Not Amaral's financial details it's not. They have no reason to.
whats that got to do with history repeating itself
-
I suspect the judge is interested in the full picture. Amarals earnings from the book and documentary may be only part of his earnings from this case - there are also TV shows, newspaper articles etc for which he may have been paid.
Wasn't he demanding eighty thousand euros for an interview, back in the days when he was cock of the walk.
All in all, the granting of this request does not bode well for Amaral.
The cost of a Madeleine interview Sky News
By Martin Brunt
May 06, 2009 1:27 PM
If you were wondering why there was no interview with former Algarve police chief Goncalo Amaral in our recent Madeleine coverage, here's why.
His agent emailed us: "Since he left Policia Judiciaria his main concern is to reveal to the general public the facts (which) occured during the investigation."
Then he wrote: "He will be available, but will charge a fee of 80.000 euros VAT."
Yeah, we wondered if he meant 80 euros, too.
We didn't wonder for long.
Nem pensar, Jose!
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id233.html
-
The cost of a Madeleine interview Sky News
By Martin Brunt
May 06, 2009 1:27 PM
If you were wondering why there was no interview with former Algarve police chief Goncalo Amaral in our recent Madeleine coverage, here's why.
His agent emailed us: "Since he left Policia Judiciaria his main concern is to reveal to the general public the facts (which) occured during the investigation."
Then he wrote: "He will be available, but will charge a fee of 80.000 euros VAT."
Yeah, we wondered if he meant 80 euros, too.
We didn't wonder for long.
Nem pensar, Jose!
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id233.html
The other side of that particular coin is "I would rather not be interviewed but if you insist I will charge 80k in euros"
Can you state categorically which option is correct rather than rumour? It would be interesting.
-
The other side of that particular coin is "I would rather not be interviewed but if you insist I will charge 80k in euros"
Can you state categorically which option is correct rather than rumour? It would be interesting.
He's not exactly a shrinking violet when it comes to being interviewed in Portugal is he?
-
He's not exactly a shrinking violet when it comes to being interviewed in Portugal is he?
Perhaps he is just aware how the UK press twist the truth.
-
He's not exactly a shrinking violet when it comes to being interviewed in Portugal is he?
This of course is true but does not really address the question does it?
Can any one state categorically that Sr Amaral receives 80k in euros per interview?
If not then the comments to that effect are are worthless so why make them?
-
This of course is true but does not really address the question does it?
Can any one state categorically that Sr Amaral receives 80k in euros per interview?
If not then the comments to that effect are are worthless so why make them?
Are you disputing that he asked for 80k per interview?
-
This of course is true but does not really address the question does it?
Can any one state categorically that Sr Amaral receives 80k in euros per interview?
If not then the comments to that effect are are worthless so why make them?
Because it plants the idea that he claimed that amount, which can then be elaborated on until it is represented as fact.
-
Are you disputing that he asked for 80k per interview?
If you had read my first post properly you would have understood that I offered an alternative motive for Sr Amaral asking for 80k in euros.
I asked if anyone had proof Sr Amaral was paid 80k in euros ? Do they? you included.
-
The other side of that particular coin is "I would rather not be interviewed but if you insist I will charge 80k in euros"
Can you state categorically which option is correct rather than rumour? It would be interesting.
He could just have declined the request...
-
The cost of a Madeleine interview Sky News
By Martin Brunt
May 06, 2009 1:27 PM
If you were wondering why there was no interview with former Algarve police chief Goncalo Amaral in our recent Madeleine coverage, here's why.
His agent emailed us: "Since he left Policia Judiciaria his main concern is to reveal to the general public the facts (which) occured during the investigation."
Then he wrote: "He will be available, but will charge a fee of 80.000 euros VAT."
Yeah, we wondered if he meant 80 euros, too.
We didn't wonder for long.
Nem pensar, Jose!
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id233.html
... Speaking exclusively to mccannfiles.com ... Gonçalo Amaral revealed the reasoning behind the decision...
"I want you to know that I made the decision to get paid for any interview given to any British media, but that doesn't apply to anywhere else in the world. Its quite simple. I have given so many "free" interviews to the British media that were never published. They were censored and thrown to the trash. Next time they do it, I'm sure they will think twice about the money they pay." ...
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id233.html (Gonçalo Amaral: The truth about the charges, 08 May 2009)
-
He could just have declined the request...
Of course he could; that is a self evident option I thought unworthy of statement.
-
Because it plants the idea that he claimed that amount, which can then be elaborated on until it is represented as fact.
From Jerry Lawton:
Goncalo Amaral, 48, has already cashed in on Maddie’s disappearance by writing a best-selling book.
He also acted as adviser to a controversial TV documentary based on his belief that Madeleine died in her parents’ holiday apartment.
Now Amaral is trying to rake in more money by selling interviews to TV firms across Europe.
According to his representative Luis Varela Marreiros, the disgraced detective is willing to spout his views about the mystery “for €80,000 plus VAT’’ – which works out at £75,000.
In an email Mr Marreiros said: “Since he left Policia Judiciaria his main concern is to reveal the facts that occurred during the investigation.
“If you prefer to interview Mr Goncalo Amaral at this moment he will be available but will charge a fee of €80,000 + VAT.’’
http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/79801/Axed-Maddie-cop-I-ll-talk-for-75K
-
If you had read my first post properly you would have understood that I offered an alternative motive for Sr Amaral asking for 80k in euros. I did not suggest nor do I have reason to believe Mr Brunt is a liar; you tried, unsuccessfully I might add, to put those words into my mouth.
I asked if anyone had proof Sr Amaral was paid 80k in euros ? Do they? you included.
You in effect put words into Amaral's mouth by suggesting a completely hypothetical scenario, for which there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever. Who knows if anyone was dumb enough to agree to his greedy terms, what we DO know is that he asked for 80k (unless you doubt the veracity of Brunt's report!)
-
Back on topic, Sky clearly didn't actually pay €80k for an interview.
It's not known whether he was paid, and if so how much, for all his media interviews on the case (of which there were many).
-
You in effect put words into Amaral's mouth by suggesting a completely hypothetical scenario, for which there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever. Who knows if anyone was dumb enough to agree to his greedy terms, what we DO know is that he asked for 80k (unless you doubt the veracity of Brunt's report!)
You would appear to be repeating yourself. I have qualified my opinion on this in two previous posts.
Ask as many times as you may wish sir but the response will be the same. See previous posts.
You seem to be agitated about Sr Amaral for some reason.
-
Mr Amaral was quoting E80K per interview to UK media only.
This is because of unacceptable behaviour by UK media.
It is because the UK mainstream media had been getting free interviews with him but then not publishing them.
So charging them prevented them from wasting his time by interveiwing him then censoring or not publishing the interview.
He was doing free interviews for all other media, because unlike the UK media, they behaved honorably.
-
Mr Amaral was quoting E80K per interview to UK media only.
He was doing free interviews for all other media except UK mainstream media.
This is because of unacceptable behaviour by UK media.
It is because the UK mainstream media had been getting free interviews with him but then not publishing them.
Erm... I'm not too sure about that, Pegasus. Where did you get that from?
He did give a brief interview to the BBC, so it wasn't all UK media.
Would his appearances on Júlia's couch have all been free? What about his interviews in the PT press, and his column in CdaM?
I can't recall offhand any interviews he may have given in other countries, so I'll leave that aside for the moment.
-
Erm... I'm not too sure about that, Pegasus. Where did you get that from?
He did give a brief interview to the BBC, so it wasn't all UK media.
Would his appearances on Júlia's couch have all been free? What about his interviews in the PT press, and his column in CdaM?
I can't recall offhand any interviews he may have given in other countries, so I'll leave that aside for the moment.
Where did I get this from?
From Mr Amaral's own words (translated) on 08 May 2009
"I want you to know that I made the decision to get paid for any interview given to any British media, but that doesn’t apply to anywhere else in the world. It's quite simple. I have given so many “free” interviews to the British media that were never published. They were censored and thrown to the trash. Next time they do it, I’m sure they will think twice about the money they pay."
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id233.html
It is quite simple - give free interviews to journalists of integrity - but quote the others 80K.
-
Where did I get this from?
From Mr Amaral's own words (translated) on 08 May 2009
"I want you to know that I made the decision to get paid for any interview given to any British media, but that doesn’t apply to anywhere else in the world. It's quite simple. I have given so many “free” interviews to the British media that were never published. They were censored and thrown to the trash. Next time they do it, I’m sure they will think twice about the money they pay."
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id233.html
It is quite simple - give free interviews to journalists of integrity - but quote the others 80K.
It seems hard to believe that any interview with Amaral himself would not be leapt upon by the UK media - considering what a massive money spinner this case was for them. I can only speculate that what he said was too libellous - even for the UK media to print? What other reason can there be?
-
Where did I get this from?
From Mr Amaral's own words (translated) on 08 May 2009
"I want you to know that I made the decision to get paid for any interview given to any British media, but that doesn’t apply to anywhere else in the world. It's quite simple. I have given so many “free” interviews to the British media that were never published. They were censored and thrown to the trash. Next time they do it, I’m sure they will think twice about the money they pay."
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id233.html
It is quite simple - give free interviews to journalists of integrity - but quote the others 80K.
Thanks, Pegasus.
I have my doubts about that... which other UK journalists interviewed him (aside from the BBC)? I find it odd that they had never mentioned even trying, as many could have used the fact of not being able to publish an interview as the subject of a piece.
And it still doesn't make sense to me that he just simply didn't decline requests. What would he have said differently for vast sums of money? Sorry... I find that a bit iffy.
-
Thanks, Pegasus.
I have my doubts about that... which other UK journalists interviewed him (aside from the BBC)? I find it odd that they had never mentioned even trying, as many could have used the fact of not being able to publish an interview as the subject of a piece.
And it still doesn't make sense to me that he just simply didn't decline requests. What would he have said differently for vast sums of money? Sorry... I find that a bit iffy.
The only reason for quoting mainstream UK media a large amount was to prevent them wasting Mr Amaral's time by getting free interviews from him and then failing to publish them.
For media not engaging in that time-wasting, Mr Amaral did give free interviews, for example on 8th May 2009 Mr Amaral gave an interview to Nigel Moore, who states clearly
"This interview with Gonçalo Amaral didn't cost one penny. Or euro."