7 Feb 2017

Recurso de Revista

Translations will be added in the coming days.


  1. Anonymous6:13 pm

    Thank you! Wow! This has to be savoured over a few sessions...

    Surely wannabe OA president Isabel Duarte - a fine wine connoisseur; soccer fan Rogerio Alves - not to mention armchair politico Marinho Pinto - will find it instructive.

    I can almost imagine them scratching their heads and wondering how their privileged IQs fell so short. Well maybe it was all a calculated risk that paid generously either way. Amen!

    Carter & Ruck (lawyers to the very rich and the McCanns') ought to read - and study - this masterpiece in Jurisprudence. If only they understood Latin!

    The truth is quintessential English gentlemen - besides the pose and their Saville's Row attire - do not seem to understand much about Human Rights except perhaps in terms of how much money their clients have and/or how high-up in the Ideological State Apparatus they are. Ask Tony Bennett! A solicitor himself.

    Would it help the McCanns' to stage another legal stunt, this time in at the European Court in Strasbourg? Probably not.

    Soon the UKGB will no longer be part the EU ("America First!") and have ditched its Human Rights charter - not that were able to make good use of it in the interim. Again, ask Tony Bennett, Pat Brown and others that have been "carter-rucked" by the McCanns ...


  2. No, sorry, a mere "thank you" doesn't do it. We wish to know if GA will get his assets back with decent compensation for having been frozen for so many years. We wish to know whether he will be financially able to restart the firm that he had planned to set up after leaving the PJ. We wish to know whether he will choose magnanimity, limiting himself to receiving what was always his.
    We wish to stop wondering. Is it too much asking ?

  3. I too would like answers to the same questions as you Anne Guedes but by now it will be as obvious to you,as it is to me,that because we're witnessing that even a Supreme Court Judgement leaves a door open to make a complaint/request, answers to those questions are suspended for the time being.

    Im just hoping I live long enough to see a FINAL 'finale'
    where every single legal door is firmly shut on this vendetta instigated by the McCann's against Gonçalo Amaral.

    Meanwhile Amaral seems to be keeping his own council or should I say trying too,I wouldn't have the same willpower as he so obviously has, I would have wanted to track down that sneaky shallow UK journalist with his telescopic lens and tip the rest of my pint of beer right over his head.

    1. No, Sandra, a Supreme Court wouldn't be called "supreme" if a person, unsatisfied with a ruling, could lodge an appeal against it. The only doubt that could affect a STJ's ruling concerns the constitutionality of some point. But this is not the case here.
      Anyone unsatisfied with a STJ's ruling has no other resource than the ECHR. Requests have to be considered acceptable and they rarely are. Anyhow no court, national or european, will overturn the reply of the judges to Dra Duarte's cornerstone allegation because she misunderstood the 2008 filing order.

  4. Anonymous11:02 pm

    Further to Anne's comment, I appreciate that it's a bit early to talk about future plans, but it would be nice to know whether the Supreme Court ruling means that Goncalo's costs have been met in full, and if so, whether it has been decided which children's charity/ies will benefit from the unused or refunded appeal funds, which would be of no little interest to donors.

  5. My last comment was posted on February the 17th. I've some reasons to believe that the questions weren't only mine. We certainly don't have our assets frozen and our lives blocked, but it is a mistake not to imagine that GA's fate is haunting our minds.
    The day after, the 18th, according to the Daily Mail which got the scoop ("why" is another topic), the MCs lodged a complaint of nullity against the STJ's ruling, seemingly based on a "frivolous" (shallow minded) interpretation by the STJ judges of the so-called AG report's conclusion concerning the MCs. Associate "frivolity" with the highest Portuguese Court of Justice is at least frivolous. All those who read the so-called AG Report know that it doesn't, it can't, clear the MCs, as well as it could not determine what crime MMC was victim of. Dra Duarte read it, hence she is likely just attempting to gain time ("why" is another topic).
    A crucial detail was omitted in the scoop ("why" is another topic), the kind of detail worshipped by the devil : if the absolution issue was alluded to by the 3 judges of the STJ, it is thanks to Dra Duarte who assumed ("why" is another topic) that the AG report had cleared the MCs. The STJ judges fortunately don't think according to the rules of post-truth, and when a falsehood is uttered, they call it "falsehood" and not "alternative fact".
    Anyhow Dra Duarte seemingly developped her arguments in 9 pages. What are those arguments ? Is she foreseeing the fight as Pyrrhus weighting the irreparable costs of the Ausculum battle ? Surely the respondents, if the res judicata is suspended, have the right to know why and how and for how long ? We'd like to be informed. Is it too much asking ?


  6. Pray do inform me/us about this complaint. Is the STJ ruling in jeopardy? Is it annulment the McCann's are seeking?
    Can I, can we help in any way?
    I'd like to know what's happening to Gonçalo Amaral, are his assets already returned to him? Is he finally enjoying his full pension?
    Or has this complaint, once more, halted all procedures?
    Please inform me, us about what's going on.
    You've got a copy of that nine pages complaint, why not publish it or at least explain on what points the McCanns base their request.
    Now the only news we have is Duarte spin. Spin to UK tabloids, not to the Portuguese press. I'd like to be informed by the side I've been backing, supporting throughout the years.
    Not too much to ask for now, is it?

    Kindest regards
    Ima van den Hoek

  7. As time passes without any Portuguese quality newspaper alluding to what is presented by the red tops as a "formal complaint against the ruling" (News Australia March 15), "a challenge accusing the judges of contradictions" (Sun March 14), "papers lodged with the appeal court" (Mirror March 11), one can't but be amazed that the author of the complaint didn't contact the press agency of her country (Lusa) while she in the past was so prompt to inform the media when MC vs GA et al. was at stake, even though the other parties had not yet been notified by the court.
    Besides, people aren't condemned to accept the decision of a Supreme Court and if they think that a judgement confirmed by the highest national entity of justice is erroneous, they may request the expertise of the ECHR. Doesn't it sound paradoxical to lodge a complaint with the same entity that confirmed the judgement you consider erroneous ? Apart from a request for clarification on some eventually ambiguous sentence of the ruling, I can't figure out what kind of complaint Dra Duarte deposited that didn't prevent the ruling to be henceforth part of the jurisprudence database but could deprive GA from recovering immediately his assets and, furthermore, could force to silence those who have been sharing on this site the intentions and needs of GA during all those years.