1.Everyone shall possess the right to freely express and publicise his thoughts in words, images or by any other means, as well as the right to inform others, inform himself and be informed without hindrance or discrimination 2.Exercise of the said rights shall not be hindered or limited by any type or form of censorship Constitution of the Portuguese Republic, Article 37.º

Maddie parents accuse Supreme Court (Updated)

Kate and Gerry ask for the ruling to be annulled


The McCann couple, the parents of Maddie, the English girl that went missing in the Algarve in 2007, called for the nullity of the judgement of the Supreme Court of Justice, calling it frivolous (rash, imprudent) "because it was not possible for the Public Prosecutor to obtain sufficient evidence of crimes by the appellants".

The Supreme Court confirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals to revoke the payment of a compensation of 500 thousand euros by the former PJ inspector Gonçalo Amaral.

in Correio da Manhã, February 18, 2017



Even though we don't know if this is a request to annul the Supreme Court ruling or if it is, as was published in the UK media, a formal complaint against the ruling or judges, a few thoughts:

An annulment can be requested of a ruling, even of a Supreme Court ruling. This must be done on a point of law. Since the ruling is extremely well structured, there are no technical points they can pick, the likely outcome is that this will be denied .

Fact of the matter is that the judges wrote several pages to come to the conclusion of the not cleared explanation and were explicit that it was not up to the Supreme Court to deliberate on their innocence or guilt.

There is a massive difference between being innocent and being cleared by an archival. The McCanns can always claim they are innocent but they cannot claim they have been declared innocent by the archival.

This issue was only addressed as a reply to the points in the appeal, points that were made by the McCanns  themselves.

An annulment can only be considered on points of law, which would never include frivolity as an allegation.

In no way do we believe that frivolity may be invoked regarding the explanation of what a shelving of an investigation process means, about three Supreme Court judges when writing a structured and impartial decision which is available to read in its entirety and due context.

Finally, it is possible the judges will consider the frivolity allegation as defamatory and take legal action against the couple.



25 comments:

  1. I hope they've been told already where they can stick their complaint or whatever they've "called " for !!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Agree totally with your assessment.

    This seems to be much more than just a protest, it's more like a provocation as if to get people angered up.

    Peoople should contain themselves about this issue.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The McCann's think they are above the law and have shown disrespect for the Supreme Court.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Karma is coming for this pair imo they are deluded

    ReplyDelete
  5. god that would make my day mccanns sued by judges

    ReplyDelete
  6. Blind to their own ignorance and self importance are these two. Everyone including the Supreme Court WILL listen and do as we demand. What a pair.!!

    ReplyDelete
  7. We have a set of parents that have had a court ruling overturned,have very little public support and for some reason think they are somewhat special.spent virtually all the "fund" that the people donated cos they thought it was gonna be spent searching for poor little Maddie. They also had millions of public spent on this case. Hmmm I think it's time they told the truth and at least let Maddie put to rest it's the least she deserves bless her

    ReplyDelete
  8. 1. To the question on http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t13603-joana-morais-maddie-parents-accuse-supreme-court#357140

    Which body would consider their complaint? Surely the judges of the Supreme Court (or any other court) could not be compelled to review their own, legally considered, decision and judgement, Surely their complaint would have to go to a higher body. Does the Portuguese system have the equivalent of the English law's Judicial Review?
    ------
    Reply: The Supreme Court is the higher court, there is no higher body. We still don't know if this is a formal complaint or a request to nullify the ruling, nor we know for sure what was alleged. Keeping this in mind, if the McCanns lodged a formal complaint (disciplinary measures) against a STJ judge(s) then it will be considered by the Superior Council of Magistrates. On the other hand, if they requested an annulment of the ruling, in principle, it will be evaluated by the STJ President or by a plenary of judges.

    Some information on this page that might interest you on the structure of the Portuguese judicial network http://www.dgpj.mj.pt/sections/english-version/strategic-planning/annexes/the-portuguese-judicial

    2. Contrary to what is alleged on twitter, by the usual purveyor of misinformation and alt-facts https://twitter.com/McCannCaseTweet/status/833050617161535488

    a) The McCanns do NOT have a recourse to the Constitutional Court. Period, Sad!

    "The main task of the court is to review the constitutionality of the newly approved laws, but it also has important powers related to the President of the Republic, the political parties and referenda. (...)

    "The Constitutional Court has several competences, defined in the Constitution, such as:

    Assure that the Constitution and regional autonomies are respected;
    Review and assure the constitutionality of the laws;
    Declare the President's death or inability to carry out his tasks;
    Manage the electoral processes;
    Assure that political parties fulfil the legal requirements to exist;
    Prohibit and dissolve Fascist parties and organizations;
    Assure the legality of the national and local referendums."

    in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_Court_(Portugal)

    b) And the logical fact: the request to annul the Supreme Court ruling or the alleged formal complaint was sent to the Supreme Court, not to the Constitutional Court.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Thanks for keeping us up to date Joana. Maybe the Judges expected this, it's just sad that a little girl comes AFTER her parents tarnished reputation. Their actions speak louder than words, always have & always will. This charade is sickening, the money donated was for the McCanns "search for Madeleine" not litigation to keep up appearances. Shameful.

    ReplyDelete
  10. As usual its ALL about them when was the last time they mentiined Madelines name when was the last time they made an appeal to.the alleged abductor or even offered a fresh reward they havnt as they know there is no point

    ReplyDelete
  11. Joana, all these years you have tirelessly pursued the truth in this sad case, and have shown us how nasty this couple is, and the length they are prepared to go in search of financial gain. Madeleine's tragic disappearance turned out to be the right lottery number for them. I know we cannot pay you for all the work you have done so that Madeleine's case is not forgotten, but at least let me express my deapest gratitude. You have been magnificent.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you Fernis, would just like to extend similar compliments to all those who have and are working with me on this blog, and all those others who since 2007 have courageously fought for the truth, sometimes at great personal cost, in other blogs, sites and forums.

      Delete
    2. You are absolutely right, Joana. My admiration also goes to all those who, anonymously or otherwise, have fought with you so hard for the truth.
      Todos nós, os fiéis leitores do teu blog, ficaremos com um enorme débito para contigo e os teus colaboradores. E se me permites, envio-te um abraço amigo.

      Delete
  12. Do you know how long this will take Joana? In the meantime will they have to pay the costs or will payment be suspended until the complaint is heard?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Could be about 30 days, unsure due to not knowing if it is a complaint or a request, but should be a quick decision if the latter. Suspended, which one could argue is yet another example of some people wishing to delay the rightful redress of someone they wish to "feel miserable".

      Delete
  13. Many thanks Joana. It probably is another delaying tactic but they must furious about the ruling. What possessed their lawyer to raise the point about being cleared when she must have known they were not. The Supreme Court only confirmed what we already knew.

    ReplyDelete
  14. People here have now finally realised that they are funding their endless litigation with money donated to help find Madeleine. This is not going down well.

    ReplyDelete
  15. It is extraordinary that this couple are treated like Royalty in this country. Yet the man who has lost so much in his long quest for the truth is reviled by the McCann-worshipping media. Well, the very brave Mr Amaral has right on his side and one day he will be vindicated. I hope that day comes soon.

    ReplyDelete
  16. "Yet another example of some people wishing to delay the rightful redress of someone they wish to "feel miserable"." (Joana Morais)

    I totally agree Joana! And not just to make G. Amaral "feel miserable" (assuming you were referring to him).

    Let us not forget that have character-assassinated him in the media with, strangled him financially, and effectively destroyed his life in the past decade or so - not to mention the lives of his ex-wife and daughters who, just because they are Portuguese, have exactly the same (if not more rights!) than those of the British couple - who have since left (or are about to leave) the European Union but, that is another story...

    The sole reason G. Amaral was able to defend himself (for even that they tried to prevent) was because of the immense public support, donations and of course people like you who, tirelessly, kept this case alive and the public informed.

    G. Amaral was a Portuguese public servant! Period.

    The McCanns were a "nouveau-riche" couple, a pair of careless holidaymakers - some say "boozers", "possibly swingers" - who left their children alone at "home" and worst, systematically left a back-door (balcony) open to the streets allegedly for "easy access" during the "checks" (if any) and/or in case the toddlers wished to escape in the event of a fire!

    Mamma mia! The late Mrs. Fenn should have dialled 112 for a couple of straight-jackets!

    Crime-scene details aside, it seems apparent to many analysts that the McCann-Team always go for relevant human targets with plenty of money to spare.

    An excellent strategy in terms of reputation which also helps to feed their "top-dog" legal team, PR experts, media consultants and reputation managers. Don't be fooled by the sale of the odd plastic bracelet! That's pocket money.

    Consider for example "Mickey Mouse" Mitchell - as he is affectionately known by his ex-colleagues in the Media since the days he was Head of Media Monitoring for Tony Blair and Gordon Brown! ; ) "Iraq has weapons of mass destruction". The original "Fake News"!

    Another thing ...

    One possible reason McCann-Team has forbidden Dr. Gonçalo Amaral's colleague Isabel to make any comments about the "appeal" (or the "rebuke") is because, I suspect, they no longer wish to suffer another "media set-back" when the appeal or complaint (or whatever it is the loosing move) is overthrown. In terms of "reputation management" that would be a "set-back" Ask "Mickey Mouse".

    To compensate for the "Real News" McCann Team team has been working really hard lately ... "Scotland Yard has a Breakthrough" ... "The Portuguese Police is now working on the case - under Scotland Yard's supervision" (least they come up with some "compromising evidence"?) "Kate McCann" hits the stage with a children's choir "at Britain's Got Talent 2017".

    The show must go on!

    Oh! They might still have a shot at the EU Strasbourg - money is not a problem for the McCanns! Uncle Kennedy pays and other tycoons like Richard Branson and/or J.K. Rolling (still reeling from her love affair with a Portuguese "macho" way back when) can help with the bill ...

    One thing is for sure! The McCanns' need not sell their posh house and rent a small flat in a social estate as Gonçalo Amaral had to, thanks (let's be frank) to some of his distinguished countrymen.

    Characters like Rogerio Alves (top lawyer and die-hard football fan), Isabel Duarte (wannabe president of the OA and a fine wine connoisseur at that); Marinho "Photoshop" Pinto (the armchair politico and legendary "investigative journalist")- not to mention the "no holds-barred writer" and and "fact-battering specialist" - Miguel Sousa Tavares.

    Aaaaaaaaaaamen!

    ReplyDelete
  17. arrogant mccans need to know their big wig mates can do nothing for them .so glad the portuguese judges dont bend to threats by crooked politicians .one day there will be an interpol arrest warrant for them.some of the uk public are so stupid .after dipping into maddie fund to pay off their mortgage .public still buys her book

    ReplyDelete
  18. How dare they be so disrespectful of a Supreme Court's judgement

    To have said they were "disappointed" would be acceptable and proper ... but to express 'fury' and insult the Court by accusing it of being "frivolous" is over-stepping the mark hugely

    Perhaps the Court could ask for an apology whilst dismissing this ridiculous complaint, giving the McCanns the opportunity of avoiding a fine for contempt

    ReplyDelete
  19. Do we know whether Mr Amaral's assets, frozen since the McCanns started their vindictive litigation, have yet been released back to him? It would be very nice if he could move out of his social housing and resume his normal life. What a good thing that the accumulation of wealth and luxury is not the prime driver in his life, as it is for some people.

    ReplyDelete
  20. COULD THE McCANNS' BE CHARGED FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT? OR RETROSPECTIVELY PUNISHED FOR ABANDONING THEIR CHILDREN TO THEIR FATE?

    Joana, I too wonder if the infamous couple could be charged for "contempt of court" - namely of a Supreme Court's decision - by contemptuously naming their decision "frivolous"?

    Or perhaps could the court punish them (retrospectively) for carelessly abandoning their children to their fate?
    Obstructing the course of justice?
    Systematically leaving very young children and toddlers unsupervised (Mrs. Fenn's testimony) with ...
    a door open to a public road (confirmed to private detectives but hidden from the PJ).
    And so on ...

    Another question occurs to me...

    Is the first a crime (if any) punishable with imprisonment? Or just a fine?
    I mean contempt of (a supreme) court decision.

    No doubt leaving one's toddlers at home, alone, unsupervised (even assuming on sedatives) should carry a prison sentence and indeed the Portuguese Social Services should have intervened and taken their children (twins) into custody - and perhaps give them for adoption! As the British authorities do to Portuguese couples living in England accused of such peccadilloes - or simply because forced adoption is "good business" there (allegedly)...

    Evidence below:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6PwqTDqb2uo

    ReplyDelete
  21. Hi Joana! I am sorry about the "headlines". I am a bit of a "show-off" don't I? I guess I must have picked it up from the McCanns'. Pass the sponge!

    "All is Quite on the Western Front" here except there was a headline about Honorary Professor Gerry McCann criticizing the NHS for wasting millions! As if to justify the other millions spent by the Yards to exonerate them by "downgrading" the earlier PJ's work in those "blockbuster productions" at Praia da Luz.

    Great reputation management one has to concede. "Mickey Mouse" Mitchell knows best!

    Indeed, a man with such IQ would be ideal to commit the perfect crime! Not that I believe he ever committed one! Except perhaps abandoning his children to their fate but that was not a crime - or if it was, they were allowed to get away with it Scot-free "on Her Majesty service" -as it were!

    As his distant Scottish cousin Donald "Duck" would say: "It was all fake news"!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh sorry! Just noticed! There are new developments from the "reputation management" front! Hoping perhaps to influence the Supreme Court via public opinion (?)

      Daily Star ... The Mirror ... The Sun (Rebekha Brooks and the Chipping Norton Set comes to mind). The Sun, who incidentally was behind Scotland Yard's "blockbuster productions" in PdL - to show the "savages" how Baudrillard's "Simulacra and Simulation" works in practice ?

      The subliminal itself probably reads:

      (1) Gonçalo Amaral's assumptions are nothing but *rap!

      (2) The Portuguese Supreme Court decision pathetic!

      (3) Poor parents - whose only peccadillo was to abandon their children to their fate - now having to go through such indignities to clear their names!

      (4) Good thing (with Brexit) we are distancing ourselves from these savages!

      (5) Amen!

      Delete

Powered by Blogger.