McCanns friends obstruct justice and the MSM sleeps
Joana Morais is blogging a report from the Portuguese newspaper 24 Hours. It is being claimed, that those friends of the McCanns who have refused to take part in a police reconstruction would have been arrested if they had been in Portugal or Portuguese.
Why is the Mainstream Media in this country failing to question this obstruction of justice?
A mixture of law, politics, autobiography and humour. Once described as "The Devilish Advocate" (Guardian), I do have the ability to provoke a response. Sometimes it comes from someone who uses a thought process, and sometimes from jerks usually associated with the knee.
JOANA MORAIS IS A BLOGGER WHO HAS NO ACCESS TO ANY SOURCES. SOMEBODY DOES HAVE ACCESS TO HER POSTING SOURCE AND SHE CANNOT PROVE ANYTHING BEYOND LIBEL, ONCE AGAIN,A REMINDER OF LIBEL AND LIES
ReplyDeleteYOU SAID ON THE3ARGUIDOS.NET:
"It is not a libel to call the McCanns both hypocrites and liars (posted by anonymous members in the anonymity of the 3A forum)"
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=tKGXrbaBWEAC&pg=PA99&lpg=PA99&dq=USA+-+%22libel+per+se%22+&source=web&ots=5HLvxTIxZI&sig=J-cChn4ukDFWf09mps4F7H_f9uI&hl=en
.
.
http://tinyurl.com/4vblz3
.
"Examples of defamation that have generally been recognized as LIBEL PER SE in the USA include allegations of wrongdoing, of gross incompetence in one’s chosen career (plenty examples of that on the 3A forum) of such serious moral failings as being a chronic liar (plenty examples of that on 3A forum) and of having a loathsome and contagious disease. (Plenty of examples of the loathsome disease allegation on 3A)"
CONTINUE POSTING ALONG THESE LINES IN A FORUM THAT IS HOSTED IN THE USA AND YOU WILL UNDERSTAND THE HOLE THAT YOU ARE DIGGING FOR YOURSELVES. THE ABOVE "LIBEL PER SE" IS EXTRACTED FROM THE LEGISLATION THAT STANDS IN AMERICA.
AS REGARDS THE LEAFLETS, WHICH YOU ARE DISTRIBUTING, LEAFLETS NEED NOT BE LIBELLOUS. THEY ONLY NEED TO BE INSULTING BY INNUENDO IN ORDER TO CONTRAVENE THE BYE-LAWS OF EVERY LOCAL AUTHORITY, FROM WHOM THE PERMISSION MUST BE GRANTED TO DISTRIBUTE SUCH ITEMS
Nessie (3a) said:
Hi jjp, This morning I made a trip to the supermarket and found a poster in my trolly, I took a look around and saw quiet a few people had also got one for free, my right hand to God it wasn't me so does it look like it is a bit late to stop them.
GOOD – THE DAMAGE HAS ALREADY BEEN DONE BY VIRTUE OF CONTINUOUS PUBLICATION OF THESE LEAFLETS, WHICH HAVE THE ENDORSEMENT OF 3a CLEARLY EMBLAZONED ON THEM. NOW THERE ARE LEGAL RECRIMINATIONS TO THINK ABOUT.
REGARDING THE LEAFLETS, ALL OF THE ABOVE LEGISLATION WILL APPLY. 3A DON’T EVEN HAVE THE SENSE TO MAKE THE LEAFLET ANONYMOUS. MAKING IT CLEAR THAT THIS IS A COMMERCIAL VENTURE. ENLIST A FEW MORE TO POST AT 3A. ACCUMULATE A FEW MORE CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE PAYPAL BUTTON.
A lie is an untruth and untruth is not necessarily a lie.
An example of a perceived lie is that of hearsay. Somebody’s mother reported that the door was locked. Which door? The front door or the back door? The front door was locked, to which another/several other parties had a duplicate key. Therefore, nobody could declare there was no break in. Conversely, nobody could state categorically that there was no break out (a means of escape)
anonymous: If you intend to quote me, it pays to quote me accurately and not add your own words to my quote because it only means that your supposed quote is inaccurate. Just like the McCans version of events.
ReplyDeleteClarence Mitchell doesn't get any better with his postings!
ReplyDeleteThanks to Anonymous for the interesting info on libel. Very helpful, though my union will know all that already...the union that is willing to support me to sue the pants off a person using an aol proxy to post libellous comments on my blog. You appear to be a regular visitor to the 3A forum and your writing style looks somewhat familiar..it'll come to me, I know, where I have seen it before! Anyway, I don't think there is anything very libellous on 3A, though it would appear that you are getting those underpants in a bit of a twist about it. Calm down, dear. Try a trip to the coast to refresh your mind.
ReplyDeleteAnnaEsse
ReplyDeleteI have never replied to your blog.I do not bother to post replies on insignificant little blogs (YOURS) that have a google ranking of 0/10. Jailhouse already has a following...5/10 Google rank. It makes no difference if you have 1000 replies, it is all re-hashed nonsense, much the same as Jailhouse Blog. But the difference with Jailhouse's blog, he does at least make things interesting enough to warrant the effort of a reply.
3A isnt really worth a response at 2/10, but they are trying hard enough, as evidenced by the latest publicity stunt with the leaflets and the hilarious Murat/Blondie2 fiasco.
Jailhouse,
ReplyDeleteSorry about the mix-up with the quotes. They both came from 3A which makes the context source correct.
I gave you two quotes for the price of one. I was going on memory and failed to split them up in my draft. See??? Memory is a fallible thing.
JAILHOUSE’s quote
An untruth is a lie.
JAILHOUSE’S REPETITION OF SOMEBODY ELSE’S QUOTE, WHICH IS A QUOTE IN ITSELF.
A lie is an untruth and untruth is not necessarily a lie.
JAILHOSE’S QUOTE
I am not a troll.
If you think there is some confusion, I think you need to cut your hair.
http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=1zdsnra&s=3
FOR WHAT IT IS WORTH, I AM NOT A TROLL EITHER. I DEAL IN FACTS, NOTHING MORE NOTHING LESS. I DO NOT INVOLVE MYSELF ON AN EMOTIONAL OR EMOTIVE BASIS, WHICH IS THE FOUNDATION UPON WHICH YOU ARE POSTING YOUR REPLIES AT 3A.
ReplyDeletePlease see Jailhouse quote:
Madeleine wrote the leaflets! Madeleine wrote them!!!
My goodness, one could not find a more emotional/flippant/weak-willed response if one tried.
Nobody is talking about this case in real life. Only the Mods, Admins and their hundreds of aliases at 3A.
People only get involved in causes that directly affect their lives. Madeleine and her parents do not come anywhere near an average person's personal radar.
The pj 'asked' for a reconstruction in every mannner possible that is neither constructive or use to man nor beast, except when they asked for one in a time and way that would psychologically destruct any parent who had lost a child.
ReplyDeleteI dont get this JHL - you write so in touch with justice and humanity on some counts - where they pertain to self - yet on other counts, you leave humanity behind altogether?!
What use is a reconstruction untelevised?
What harm a reconstruction asking parents to re-enact a scene on the very anniversary [almost] of when they lost the child!!!
Only a barbarian would request that!!!
The PJ have REFUSED a reconstruction when it was requested for ALL the RIGHT reasons!
I imagine in the USA as in England, libel has to be proved, ie, it must be shown that the allegations are not in fact perfectly true. Which means that the defendant has legal privilege to expound his/her case to the full, in a very public way, with no comebacks given that a witness or defendant cannot legally libel someone from the dock as far as I know.
ReplyDeleteOut of court settlements are all very easy, but never reveal whether the plaintif is really willing to go all the way and air the matter in court with all that entails.
Still not quite sure where US law comes into it by the way. And, by the way, anonymnous, you seem to have your caps lock stuck on. Not a big deal I know but it does tend to infer a certain impairment of intellect/literacy which I am sure you would rather avoid. Just hit the third key up on the left side of your keyboard, a little light at the top of the keyboard will be extinguished, and you can then type to your heart's content without giving the (false I am convinced) impression of being severely educationally challenged.
OH, RICHARD, YOU SHOULD STICK TO SPINNING DISCS, AS PER YOUR AD.
ReplyDeleteTHE PERSON LIBELLED DOES NOT EVEN NEED TO ATTEND COURT, ONLY THEIR LEGAL REPS. THE ONLY EVIDENCE REQUIRED IS THE LIBELLER'S MESSAGE.
IT IS UP TO THE LIBELLER TO PROVE THE MESSAGE IS TRUE (A VERY TIME CONSUMING AND COSTLY OPERATION) AND TO PROVIDE THE EXACT SOURCE - HE CANNOT JUST SAY, WELL, SO AND SO SAID IT, SO IT MUST BE TRUE. A REPETITION OF A LIBEL IS STILL LIBEL, BOTH/ALL SOURCES THAT ARE GUILTY OF PROPAGATING LIBEL ARE CULPABLE
http://www.urban75.org/info/libel.html
ReplyDeletePROVING LIBEL
In the UK, if someone thinks that what you wrote about them is either defamatory or damaging, the onus will be entirely on you to prove that your comments are true in court. In other words, if you make the claim, you've got to prove it!
After John Major sued Scallywag and New Statesman in 1989 he also sued all their distributors at the time.
http://www.dba-oracle.com/internet_linking_libel_lawsuit.htm
LINKING LIBEL
Hyperlinking to libel is republishing a libel
It is obvious that the PJ wish to put their official suspects to the test.
ReplyDeleteIt is also obvious that the official suspects do not want to be put to the test.
THE MCCANNS HAVE NEVER BEEN ASKED TO RETURN TO PORTUGAL. HAD THIS BEEN THE CASE, THEN THEY COULD NOT REFUSE, DUE TO THEIR ARGUIDO STATUS.
ReplyDeleteBY THE WAY, "ARGUIDO" MEANS PERSON TO BE ELIMINATED. IT IS A UNIQUE PORTUGUESE EXPRESSION WHICH DOES NOT EXIST IN THE UK OR THE USA. THE NEAREST STATUS WE HAVE IS THE WORD "WITNESS". IN PORTUGAL, THE WITNESSES MUST BE ELIMINATED IN THE FIRST INSTANCE.
IN THE UK, THE SAME STATUS APPLIES BUT THERE IS NO LABEL ATTACHED. IF YOUR CHILD DISAPPEARS, THE POLICE WILL TRY TO ELIMINATE THE FAMILY MEMBERS IN THE FIRST INSTANCE, WITHOUT GIVING THEM THE EQUIVALENT "ARGUIDO" OR "WITNESS" STATUS. FOR THIS, SEE KAREN MATTHEWS AND HER FAMILY.
LOL fancy whining about cap locks.
ReplyDeleteTHE MCCANNS HAVE NEVER BEEN ASKED TO RETURN TO PORTUGAL. HAD THIS BEEN THE CASE, THEN THEY COULD NOT REFUSE, DUE TO THEIR ARGUIDO STATUS.'
ReplyDelete.
John, thank you for the fun.
Not very often I see anyone with such a poor grasp of fact or Law on the Net.
I reckon this anonymous person is using this blog as a project for graduation.
So, let's be definitive.
The McCanns have been caught out in a number of lies and should be called to answer for that.
It looks more and more likely that they were intimately involved in the death of their daughter.
Bring them to trial as soon as possible, in whatever country has the guts to do it.
Won't be the UK as Clarence is running point for Gordon in an attempt to push through ID cards.
Libel?
Sue me, Anonymous Asshole.
Anonymous...sue or bugger off.
ReplyDelete