gonçalo amaral in trouble *UPDATE - LIBEL TRIAL POSTPONED*

With regard to Amaral not being able to afford legal representation, the following link may be helpful:

http://ec.europa.eu/justice_home/judicialatlascivil/html/pdf/national_law_la_por_en.pdf

http://ec.europa.eu/civiljustice/legal_aid/legal_aid_por_en.htm

(just in case they try to use "he can't afford it" ploy....)

And of course, he won't have a Lawyer in The Marcos Correia Case either.

Courtesy of Christabel. J4.


UPDATE

Oh dear,

It seems
"Amaral’s Lawyer expressly waived the power of attorney, refusing to represent him in the civil file", for the McCann's".


_________________

http://justice4mccannfam.5forum.biz/t3769-poor-old-gonc#42637

Oh yes, there it is.

It can't be long now till in public.

Can't wait to see how Morais tries to spinned this.

[quote="honestbroker"]

Sabot wrote:
Courtesy of Christabel. J4.


UPDATE

Oh dear,

It seems
"Amaral’s Lawyer expressly waived the power of attorney, refusing to represent him in the civil file", for the McCann's".

Hmmmmmmmmm!

Cabriata offered advice throw in the towel, old son, you haven't got a hope in hell

And Amaral got cross ...

Parting of the ways ...

Could that be it?

Almost indubitably, HB. Trying not to laugh. Failing miserably.

We are all really just guessing for now, HB. I am waiting for Morais to produce something about it, as she is bound to know about it.

But all she is doing is posting tedious stuff about the Fund accounts, and wittering about Halligen, of all people

No sign at all of her cutting to the chase.

It would seem that it was Cabrita who withdrew. Don't you think?

It certainly seems that way, Sabot.

Money? Unwinnable case? Sheer embarrassment, finally, at having Gonc for a client?

I am sure we will find out more in the coming days

You forgot, "Cabrita's IN IT" Bonny.

Not sure that the phrase "waived power of attorney" means much more than "he stopped being his lawyer". I don't think it explains why at all. It seems nobody as yet wants to deny it has happened though.

greenink211 wrote:Not sure that the phrase "waived power of attorney" means much more than "he stopped being his lawyer". I don't think it explains why at all. It seems nobody as yet wants to deny it has happened though.

That is all it means, Greenink. No one knows why. Just exercising our right to an Opinion and Free Speach. No one is accusing Amaral of killing anyone, except perhaps his daughter's dog, which was probably an accident.

No critisism meant of you.

http://thehoundingofthemccans.blogspot.com/2012/01/well-it-appears-to-be-true-ex.html

Tony's thoughts on who could replace Cabrita. I confess, I had forgotten that Gonc's daughter by his first wife was a lawyer...she seems to keep well out of the way, though, sensible girl.

BrenR1958 Bren
Talking of MM, sure Claudia could buy him a coffee or make a quick call and ask if he's been dropped by his lawyer #McCann
2 hours ago

That's a good idea.

Not that there is really any rush, the truth is going to come out sooner or later. Especially if the libel trial is cancelled/postponed.

Maybe Bennett could do a crash course in Portuguese law and step in?

bb1 wrote:http://thehoundingofthemccans.blogspot.com/2012/01/well-it-appears-to-be-true-ex.html

Tony's thoughts on who could replace Cabrita. I confess, I had forgotten that Gonc's daughter by his first wife was a lawyer...she seems to keep well out of the way, though, sensible girl.

Nice recent posts, Tony.

Bonny, maybe Bennett has been doing just that. You can just imagine the witness list.

bb1 wrote:BrenR1958 Bren
Talking of MM, sure Claudia could buy him a coffee or make a quick call and ask if he's been dropped by his lawyer #McCann
2 hours ago

That's a good idea.

Not that there is really any rush, the truth is going to come out sooner or later. Especially if the libel trial is cancelled/postponed.

Maybe Bennett could do a crash course in Portuguese law and step in?

I don't think Bennett needs any more crashes, does he?

Doesn't power of attorney just mean the ability to sign documents on behalf of someone who may not be able to?

Yes, Jay, it does.

Something may have got lost in translation there...it may have started out as, Empowered to act as his attorney, maybe?

Question: Why hasn't Morais denied this, instead of chuntering on endlessly about accounts and Halligen?

At this rate, we will get information from Carter Ruck before we get a word of truth out of her.

(lily - yes it does but in this case I think it is a mistranslation and should be instruction to act as attorney (legal representative))

I have to say that in the UK the Bar Standard Board would take a pretty dim view of a brief dropping a client without good reason. I understand that the position in Portugal is similar.

Not being paid? It would seem that Amaral would be eligible for legal aid in Portugal, so unlikely.

The case being unwinnable would emphatically not be seen as a good reason.

Disliking the client ditto (although he would usually arrange a replacement if things were too bad).

So we are left with client not accepting advice.

Now that could, in my view and by a process of elimination be a reason.

Cabrita would be under Amaral's instruction. If Amaral wants to settle out of court, then Cabrita would simply be instructed to negotiate terms - it happens all of the time.

So I suggest we are left with Amaral not accepting Cabritas advice.

I think it is reasonable to suggest that Cabrita may have advised Amaral to settle on teh best terms he can. And this is possibly because the other parties involved may want to do the same either for cost or commercial reasons. On balance the probably realise they are unlikely to win so they would take a pragmatic decision to limit costs and damage.

Which would leave Amaral holding the baby. And one which is in urgent need of a change of nappy, to boot.

End of rambling discourse....

Jayelles wrote:Doesn't power of attorney just mean the ability to sign documents on behalf of someone who may not be able to?

If it is true, then whether Carbtia has dropped Amaral is a good thing would very much depend on the reason. Regardless of what anyone might have done, I'd never wish bad things on them. Apart from Pat Brown upon whose nose I wish a giant plook, the size of a golfball - just in time for her next TV appearance....

(only kidding).

It does mean that. But any Attorney acting in a Court Case has to have the power to act on your behalf. However, he would be wise to ceed that power if you failed to take his advice.

sans_souci wrote:(lily - yes it does but in this case I think it is a mistranslation and should be instruction to act as attorney (legal representative))

I have to say that in the UK the Bar Standard Board would take a pretty dim view of a brief dropping a client without good reason. I understand that the position in Portugal is similar.

Not being paid? It would seem that Amaral would be eligible for legal aid in Portugal, so unlikely.

The case being unwinnable would emphatically not be seen as a good reason.

Disliking the client ditto (although he would usually arrange a replacement if things were too bad).

So we are left with client not accepting advice.

Now that could, in my view and by a process of elimination be a reason.

Cabrita would be under Amaral's instruction. If Amaral wants to settle out of court, then Cabrita would simply be instructed to negotiate terms - it happens all of the time.

So I suggest we are left with Amaral not accepting Cabritas advice.

I think it is reasonable to suggest that Cabrita may have advised Amaral to settle on teh best terms he can. And this is possibly because the other parties involved may want to do the same either for cost or commercial reasons. On balance the probably realise they are unlikely to win so they would take a pragmatic decision to limit costs and damage.

Which would leave Amaral holding the baby. And one which is in urgent need of a change of nappy, to boot.

End of rambling discourse....

Excellent post, sans, as always. I think you may have hit the nail on the head. We shall see, of course.

I think you are also correct in that it was a mistranslation of sorts.

Question: Why hasn't Morais denied this, instead of chuntering on endlessly about accounts and Halligen?

Deflection, Bonny?

The case against Halligen in the US will not factor in the McCann issue. Why some posters think it will is indicative of their bizarre thinking.

Bren's asked Morais directly:

BrenR1958 Bren
@xklamation Any confirmation or denial about Goncalo' Lawyer giving him the boot #McCann

And she's refused to answer Bren, just made a smart-ar@e remark:

xklamation Joana Morais
@
Dear @BrenR1958 wish you a Happy New Year. Oh yeah, ask the dogs, Brenda!
2 hours ago

There you go, folks, confirmation it's true - we will now await further details.

bb1 wrote:And she's refused to answer Bren, just made a smart-ar@e remark:

xklamation Joana Morais
@
Dear @BrenR1958 wish you a Happy New Year. Oh yeah, ask the dogs, Brenda!
2 hours ago

There you go, folks, confirmation it's true - we will now await further details.

Absolutely. IT IS TRUE. But we all knew that anyway. The sauce was impeccable.