See you in Court Mr and Mrs McCann

“One phone call.
One email can end one family’s nightmare”.

Your wish is my command, but be careful what you wish for…

I have made one phone call to my solicitor’s. And, so far, sent one email to his address…

I remember a gangster once saying to me: “I could bust your head, break both your arms and legs and I would still have to keep looking over my shoulder because you don’t give up”.

I chuckled because he was showing me respect. The McCanns did not show Madeleine respect for her right to life. I have no respect for Gerry and Kate McCann, this is why I am bringing court actions.

Update:

It is not one action but a combination. However, as always the devil is in the detail.

IN THE MATTER OF MADELEINE BETH MCCANN

Judgment of Mrs Justice Hogg at the High Court, Family Division, RCJ, London,
7th July 2008, in open court

Madeleine went missing on 3 May 2007 just a few days before her 4th birthday, while she was holidaying with her family in the Algarve in Portugal.

On 17 May 2007 Madeleine’s parents invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under the Inherent Jurisdiction of the Court, and The Child Abduction and Custody Act, and the Hague Convention. They sought various orders and directions aimed at ascertaining the whereabouts and recovery of Madeleine. I became involved with the proceedings shortly afterwards.

On 2 April 2008 Madeleine became a Ward of this Court, and since that date has remained a Ward.

At all times jurisdiction was assumed by the Court because, there being no evidence to the contrary, it is presumed Madeleine is alive”.

When I first heard that the McCanns intended to apply to make Madeleine a Ward of Court I suspected that what was behind it was trying to protect the McCanns copyright to profit from the sale of Madeleine wristbands etc. In any event, I wondered how a dead child could be made a Ward of Court. As you can see from Mrs Justice Hogg’s partial judgment above her reasoning is based upon an assumption. Having studied critical criminology, the aim being to knock down the assumptions of the positivist’s approach to criminology, I attack the assumption. Ironically, with another assumption.

“In law, death in absentia is the status of a person who has been declared presumed dead when the person disappears but no identifiable remains can be located or recovered”. As I understand it, we are talking about the civil standard of on the balance of probabilities as opposed to the criminal beyond all reasonable doubt.

Mrs Justice Hogg has erred in law. Neither the The Child Abduction and Custody Act 1985, nor the Hague Convention apply in this case.

The correct legal position, in my view, is that Madeleine can be declared dead and a death certificate issued. Therefore, I am applying for this. There are two ways the authorities can respond, simply issue the death certificate and be done with it, or order an inquest with a coroner and jury. Obviously, I would prefer the latter.

Advertisements

Tags: ,

58 Responses to “See you in Court Mr and Mrs McCann”

  1. Beattie Says:

    I hope you succeed but maybe youv”e left it too late. If
    Amaral wins at the Hearing next month I doubt that the
    McCanns will go to Trial, pleading too painful etc. The Fund
    will be wound up, case closed.

    If they win, they will be invincible and untouchable.

    Good Luck anyway.

  2. John Hirst Says:

    Beattie: I haven’t lost a case yet. And, I have no intention of letting Madeleine down or at least her memory down. It is to our nation’s shame that an ex-criminal had to assume the responsibility of getting justice for Madeleine.

    I too hope that Mr Amaral is successful in overturning the injunction on his book.

  3. Gunning for the McCanns (not literally) « Exposing myth, distortion, corruption and the TRUTH Says:

    […] See you in Court Mr and Mrs McCann […]

  4. hardlinemarxist Says:

    Good luck to you John…that’s said with sincerity

    • John Hirst Says:

      HLM: Thanks. I wouldn’t for one minute think it was not said with sincerity. What has caught them out is that this has come from the left field, their blind side…

  5. IRONSIDE Says:

    John you cannot leave us in the air like this..Give us at least a hint.

  6. IRONSIDE Says:

    http://www.bigbrotherwatch.org.uk/home/2010/01/web-cop-to-patrol-internet-for-antipolice-comments.html

    In case you missed this.

  7. John Hirst Says:

    It is not one action but a combination. However, as always the devil is in the detail.

    “IN THE MATTER OF MADELEINE BETH MCCANN

    Judgment of Mrs Justice Hogg at the High Court, Family Division, RCJ, London,
    7th July 2008, in open court

    Madeleine went missing on 3 May 2007 just a few days before her 4th birthday, while she was holidaying with her family in the Algarve in Portugal.

    On 17 May 2007 Madeleine’s parents invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under the Inherent Jurisdiction of the Court, and The Child Abduction and Custody Act, and the Hague Convention. They sought various orders and directions aimed at ascertaining the whereabouts and recovery of Madeleine. I became involved with the proceedings shortly afterwards.

    On 2 April 2008 Madeleine became a Ward of this Court, and since that date has remained a Ward.

    At all times jurisdiction was assumed by the Court because, there being no evidence to the contrary, it is presumed Madeleine is alive”.

    When I first heard that the McCanns intended to apply to make Madeleine a Ward of Court I suspected that what was behind it was trying to protect the McCanns copyright to profit from the sale of Madeleine wristbands etc. In any event, I wondered how a dead child could be made a Ward of Court. As you can see from Mrs Justice Hogg’s partial judgment above her reasoning is based upon an assumption. Having studied critical criminology, the aim being to knock down the assumptions of the positivist’s approach to criminology, I attack the assumption. Ironically, with another assumption.

    “In law, death in absentia is the status of a person who has been declared presumed dead when the person disappears but no identifiable remains can be located or recovered”. As I understand it, we are talking about the civil standard of on the balance of probabilities as opposed to the criminal beyond all reasonable doubt.

    Mrs Justice Hogg has erred in law. Neither the The Child Abduction and Custody Act 1985, nor the Hague Convention apply in this case.

    The correct legal position, in my view, is that Madeleine can be declared dead and a death certificate issued. Therefore, I am applying for this. There are two ways the authorities can respond, simply issue the death certificate and be done with it, or order an inquest with a coroner and jury. Obviously, I would prefer the latter.

  8. IRONSIDE Says:

    http://goodqualitywristbands.blogspot.com/

    A.Miller and ‘Himself’…on Fiona Payne.

  9. IRONSIDE Says:

    Is there a time limit John when a person can be presumed dead…I know when for instance a husband or wife disappears there is a certain time when the spouse can be declared dead..Is it a matter of years?

  10. John Hirst Says:

    Hi Ironside I wondered where the hell you have been.

    Generally, speaking it is 7 years. However, that is not hard and fast. In this instance, because of suspicious circumstance, it only has to be shown she is dead on the balance of probabilities. Gerry McCann has made the mistake of assuming no body, no case. My case is based on there being no body, LOL. I have waited nearly 3 years for this!

  11. Lilyofthevalley Says:

    Good luck with this John, as yousay you have waited 3 years for this, they say good things happen for those who wait
    OMG the Mccanns will be sick to the back teeth, what with Amaral now this, wahooooo.

    • John Hirst Says:

      Lilyofthevalley: That’s why I thought I would now announce what I have been working on. They were certainly hurting and a bit more preesure and Kate may crack and admit what happened just to ease the pressure.

  12. Beattie Says:

    Hi John,

    If Madeleine is still a Ward of Court, how can the McCanns
    include her in their action against Amaral since they are no
    longer her Guardians?

    Actually, i don”t know how they can include her anyway and
    suspect it is to have the Legal Fees paid by the Fund. How
    can they say Madeleine has suffered as they have whebn she hasn”t been seen for over two years., LUDICROUS!!!!

    • John Hirst Says:

      Hi Beattie: I would be interested to learn the thinking behind making Madeleine a Ward of Court. May be the reasoning was ‘look she is alive, the court said so’? Of course it is all nonsense claiming that The Truth of the Lie harms any search for Madeleine. What it does do is mean that some people will no longer contribute to their fund. Any search which does not include investigating the McCanns is pointless. The prime suspects must be the starting point. Only when they can be safely eliminated is the search extended to outide. I am sorry, I cannot answer your question save for the view ‘it’s not about us, it’s about Madeleine’.

      • mark Says:

        Any search which does not include investigating the McCanns is pointless. The prime suspects must be the starting point. Only when they can be safely eliminated is the search extended to outide

        you wrote this and It shows an obvious mistake. surely the police have to look at ALL possibilities not just tehprime suspects . if they wait until the prime subjects have been cleared then if they are wrong the real subject gets clean away . This appears to be what the pj have done.

      • John Hirst Says:

        Mark: It is a reference to the McCanns own private investigation which does not include looking at the McCanns themselves. Therefore, the McCanns are not really interested in finding Madeleine at all as it will incriminate them in her death and disposal of her body.

  13. IRONSIDE Says:

    Hi John ,a very belated happy New Year to you and Rocky.I tried to cut down on blogging for a while as I had other things that neded doing.

    • John Hirst Says:

      Ironside: And a belated Happy New Year to you. Here’s not wishing the McCanns a Happy New Year! In fact, this is going to be a very unhappy new year for the McCanns.

      There action against Amaral has backfired terribly for them. I suspect that Gerry’s arrogance led to his ignoring PR advice to leave it alone. People tend to want to read things when an attempt is made to censor. I noticed that Clarrie was absent.

  14. jkh Says:

    I hope you succeed in getting the Inquest.

  15. Beattie Says:

    It”s me again……

    Just to say that it was a QC who in the early days suggested
    making Madeleine a Ward of Court to ensure the British
    Police were enjoined with the Portugese Police in searching
    for Madeleine because she is a British Citizen. Also, in the
    event that the McCanns were unable to search (perhaps at
    that time they could have been charged with “Neglect causing Harm) the British Police would carry on searching.

    • John Hirst Says:

      I do like it when QC’s make mistakes, it means I collect a better quality of scalp! I have a surprise coming for the Leicestershire police. I notice that the McCanns thank them for their support. When I was involved in crime, I wish I had the support of the police…

  16. IRONSIDE Says:

    http://goodqualitywristbands.blogspot.com/

    Part 2 From A.Miller…

    the FUND…

  17. IRONSIDE Says:

    http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2010/01/sandra-felgueiras-for-rtp-moita-flores.html

    Translation witness testimony..Moita Frlores.

    Right John lets start getting this information out there.

    By the way how is my ‘Devonshire Dumpling?’

    • John Hirst Says:

      DD got cut up by a road rager…made her angry…

      I need an English translation of the injunction against Amaral. The one Carter Ruck attached to a threat of libel to someone only had the Portugese language.

  18. Lilyofthevalley Says:

    Jailhouselawyer, I was only thinking just befor Christmas that you dont post anylonger, I used to really enjoy your post, thinking that you nolonger posted on any of the Maddy Forums (well the ones I go on), then annabel put a link of the MM site, and I found you, how long have you had your own site? which is a very good site easy to use

    A belated Happy New Year to you.

    • John Hirst Says:

      I need to have something to sink my teeth into and nothing new was happening on the McCann front and rather than rehash for the sake of it I took a break waiting for a development. The McCanns should have left Mr Amaral alone. Big mistake trying to censor. Also when they enter an arena I am an expert on I can go after them on my own turf. I have had this one for about 2 years. But, it laid dormant for awhile. I set it up because I did not want my Jailhouselawyer’s Blog to be dominated by McCann stuff. It’s a specialised area and deserves its own space.

      A belated Happy New Year to you too.

  19. pamalam Says:

    Hi John
    It was me that was carter rucked.
    Here is Analysis of the Court Document in English of Dr Amarals court injunction.

    http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/court_docs.htm

    pamalam

    • John Hirst Says:

      Hi Pamalam: Congratulations. Boo! They don’t scare me either, having no money I am not worth suing. Unfortunately, an analysis is insufficient for the purpose of a legal attack. For example, see the full judgment of IN THE MATTER OF MADELEINE BETH MCCANN. The full text allows for spotting flaws which can be exploited. Not only has Mrs Justice Hogg erred in law by allowing the McCanns to invoke the Act and Convention, her stated opinions expose her bias towards the McCanns. She has allowed her emotions to blind her to the possibility that the disappearance might not be down to an abductor but caused by the mcCanns themselves. There is no way I will allow her to reserve the case to herself. In this case she is now toast!

  20. IRONSIDE Says:

    Hi John..is that two seperate questions.?.Pamalam was threatened by Carter Ruck..She stood her ground and got advice plus her host is in the states…the letter from RC is on her forum..

    http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/

    Hi Pamalam just seen your post and was in the middle of a reply..

    Thanks for all the great work you are doing and we are all right behind you.

    • John Hirst Says:

      I have read the letter and agree that the threats were empty. Because of our shit libel laws many, like me, are hosted in the States. One reason why they don’t scare me. The letter was in English but the Court injunction is in Portuguese. I will have to get a Portuguese lawyer who speaks English to translate it for me. It wasn’t really 2 questions, but it had slipped my mind for a moment who had been threatened. Thanks anyway.

  21. IRONSIDE Says:

    Have you asked Joana Morais ? John she has an e.mail on her profile..or maybe astro can help.

  22. Jo Says:

    At long last!

    Go for it, John. The dam is bursting and I believe things will go smoothly in Portugal. So this is the right time to start the ball rolling and finish them up….legally, of course and in court,their very favourite place.

    “Mrs Justice Hogg has erred in law. Neither the The Child Abduction and Custody Act 1985, nor the Hague Convention apply in this case”

    What are you thinking to do about the One With The Wig On? (I cant be nor so I want to be as polite as you are) because she is “playing” foul. I will gag myself now……

    • John Hirst Says:

      Hi Jo: I think so too.

      If she tries to sit on the case, it will be made plain to her why she needs to excuse herself. If she refuses to stand down, this can be appealed and it would question her suitability to remain on the bench.

  23. aacg Says:

    Hi, Please can you explain why making Madeleine a ward of Court was “protecting the McCanns copyright to profit from the sale of Madeleine wristbands etc.” ?

    • John Hirst Says:

      aacg: Hi, I cannot, it was just a thought as I could not see the logic of it. But, with the money rolling in the McCanns know they are onto a good thing and feel that only they should profit from Madeleine’s disappearance or death. Without seeing their paperwork I don’t know what was behind their thinking. Beattie at 4.28 offers an explanation.

      • aacg Says:

        Thank you !
        It seems they were advised by the International Family Law Group’s lawyers who arrived to PDL ten days after M’s disappearance.
        Does someone know something about this Group ?

      • John Hirst Says:

        aacg: Yes, ambulance chasers!

  24. Macy Says:

    Hi John
    I remember joining the forum you kindly hosted for us when 3 a`s first went down.
    I wish you a very happy and successful New Year !!
    Its amazing how many people are working on various projects in the name of one day getting justice for Madeleine, from translating police files to saving everything thats ever been printed for future use !

    I can`t think of any other time or occasion when so many people of so many different nationalities have worked so hard together.
    I have no doubt justice WILL prevail and the McCanns get everything they deserve.

    • John Hirst Says:

      Hi Macy: They should not have stirred up the hornets nest because attempts at censorship really get people going.

  25. Jo Says:

    Morning John

    I was wondering how comes Hoggy is NOT representing Madeleine in Court in this pathetic injunction?
    Hasnt she the obligation to do it? Isnt she her guardian?
    What about M”s human rights?
    It is beyond my understanding that a judge and the legal guardian of a child can be sitting under her wig without moving one single finger.

    She has not shown any concern nor interest for her woc nor defended her for her marketing,her “peirents” ongoing and shameful “project”
    I doubt very very much Hogg is not aware of what has been going on since almost 3 years. Unbelievable….

    Thank you for your work and committement, John. You will win,I do not doubt it.

    J.

  26. weissnicht Says:

    I also think the book banning opened a Pandoras Box. Their international bann for it (to sell the copyright) is breaking the law in my country (constitutional right for freedom of speech) and I made an official complaint about it to EU.
    They are working on it (they have to) it will take a while, and then they will make a decision if it will a EU matter, in witch case it will be openly discussed. We will see, this way atlest some have to have a look and make a decision about it.
    And now with the whole circus in Lissabon, people are rather are aware of the issue, and that could help my case.

    • aacg Says:

      Has the book been banned in Germany ?
      Amazon.fr stopped selling the French version, but was curiously yet selling the German one last week.

  27. Loz Says:

    I echo the respect the gangster showed you.

    I’ll be following with interest and I wish you success.

  28. Lilyofthevalley Says:

    John wouldn’t worry to much about Carter Ruck they have other things on their minds, OH as just shown me this snippet

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/jan/19/libel-success-fees-cut

  29. Jo Says:

    Out of interest and well spotted by Pat Brown

    http://patbrownprofiling.blogspot.com/search/label/Maddie%20McCann

  30. Jo Says:

    Tavares de Almeida and his damning report….may be the Wiggy Wiggly One would like to read it?

    For the attention of the
    Criminal Investigation Coordinator

    From everything that is exposed, the process files result in the following:

    A) the minor Madeleine McCann died in apartment 5A at the Ocean Club resort in Praia da Luz, on the night of the 3rd of May 2007;

    B) a simulation of an abduction took place;

    C) in order to render the child’s death impossible before 22H00, a situation of checking of the McCann couple’s children while they slept was made up;

    D) Kate McCann and Gerald McCann are involved in the concealment of the cadaver of their daughter, Madeleine McCann;

    E) at this moment, there seem to be no strong indications that the child’s death was not the result of a tragic accident, yet;

    F) from what has been established up to now, everything indicates that the McCann couple, in self-defence, doesn’t want to deliver the cadaver immediately and voluntarily, and there is a strong possibility that it was moved from the initial place of deposition. This situation may raise questions concerning the circumstances in which the death of the child took place.”

    I simply cannot understand how the git is going to speak at the CEOP conference…nor do I understand Madeleine”s “legal guardian”s actuation.And the git denies this report. I think he should sue Mr. Tavares Almeida really…..also Moita Flores,GA”s trump card…ah! and while I am at it: why dont they sue the Portugal state directly????

    Further reading: response to an email sent to the CEOP

    “The current position regarding the McCanns is that they are the parents of a missing child who is presumed to have been abducted: that being the case anything that Gerry McCann has to say will be of interest to those who work in this area and will attend the conference.”

    What has the CEOP in mind? Or do they have something in mind? “a child who is PRESUMED to be abducted”.
    All based on presumption and assumption…..mmmmm…even though we are all more or less indignant with the mccann man speaking at this conference,the outcome could be interesting,yes.May be the CEOP after all does not believe in the abduction?
    The participants questions IF any will be interesting to hear and his answers even more……or is he going to storm out before answering?

    http://goodqualitywristbands.blogspot.com/2010/01/ceop-contrary-to-your-email-madeleine.html

    Good luck John (sorry for the long post)

  31. Jo Says:

    http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2010/01/euro-weekly-news-gaspars-on-david-payne.html

  32. LATEST NEWS ON MADELEINE: Sky News reports see you in court story « Justice For Madeleine Says:

    […] news story you read here […]

  33. chris Says:

    hi,any udate on this yet john

  34. John Hirst Says:

    Chris: I have an update on the fraud case, however, no news on this front yet. Save to say, my solicitor advises that the Leicestershire Coroner will not want to have an inquest. But, that was to be expected.

  35. chris Says:

    thanks john,im sure a lot of people are following you on this,good luck

  36. chris Says:

    hi ,just checking in to see if there are any updates

  37. honestbroker Says:

    “15
    Inquest where body destroyed or irrecoverable .(1)
    Where a coroner has reason to believe— .
    (a)
    that a death has occurred in or near his district in such circumstances that an inquest ought to be held; and .
    (b)
    that owing to the destruction of the body by fire or otherwise, or to the fact that the body is lying in a place from which it cannot be recovered, an inquest cannot be held except in pursuance of this section, .
    he may report the facts to the Secretary of State.
    (2)
    Where a report is made under subsection (1) above, the Secretary of State may, if he considers it desirable to do so, direct a coroner (whether the coroner making the report or another) to hold an inquest into the death. .
    (3)
    Where a coroner is directed under this section to hold an inquest, the provisions of this Act and the law relating to coroners and coroners’ inquests shall apply with such modifications as may be necessary in consequence of the inquest being one into the death of a person whose body does not lie within the coroner’s district.”

    So far as I can make it out, this is the relevant legislation. The prerogative seems to be that of a coroner living in a district local to where a person is believed to have died to make the request to the Secretary of State for an inquest. The Secretary of State will then have to decide, whether or not to order an enquiry.

    I can’t see where there is provision for an uninvolved third party to make an application for an inquest, nor why there would be an onus on any coroner in Britain to order an inquest in to an absent (and possibly dead) British citizen known, only, to be missing abroad. If Madeleine is dead, obviously she doesn’t have an estate that needs to be wound up. And the prosecutor’s report makes plain that it is impossible to reach any sensible or lucid conclusion about Madeleine’s fate.

    So I really think you’re on a wrong tack here, Mr Hirst.

  38. Sabot Says:

    I agree, HB. But it would be interesting to know what is happening.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: