Joined: 11 Nov 2007
Posts: 562
Location: UK
 Posted: Sun Nov 11, 2007 8:47 pm    Post subject:   

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Update:

Re e-mail from Solicitors

Dear Madam

Further to your email of 29 October, we hope to be able to respond to your email in the next couple of weeks.

Yours faithfully

Bates Wells & Braithwaite London LLP

Please could you keep bumped awaiting for e-mail.
_________________
The truth is out there, and maybe one day somebody will speak the truth, if they have any respect for Madeleine.
 
Back to top      

---

 
 
bjr
Site Admin

Joined: 11 Nov 2007
Posts: 562
Location: UK
 Posted: Sun Nov 11, 2007 8:48 pm    Post subject:   

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
The domain registrations were on the 10th and 11th May�?.

Domain Name: FINDMADELEINE.COM
Created on: 10-May-07
Expires on: 10-May-08

Domain Name: BRINGMADELEINEHOME.COM
Creation Date: 11-may-2007
Expiration Date: 11-may-2008
�?.just days after she went missing.
In addition, they patented her name etc on 18th May, only a week later (see filing date below).
Trade Mark Details as at 02 July 2007
Case details for Trade Mark 2456061
Case history
Mark
Mark Text :
Madeleine's Fund: Leaving No Stone Unturned
Status:
New Application
Classes:
09 16 36 41
List of goods and/or services
Class 09:
Downloadable internet publications
Class 16:
Printed matter
Class 36:
Charitable fundraising; charitable and non-charitable services relating to the provision of assistance to families and others affected by missing children.
Class 41:
Non-downloadable internet publications
Relevant Dates
Filing Date:
18 May 2007
Names and Addresses
Proprietor:
Madeleine's Fund: Leaving No Stone Unturned Limited
2-6 Cannon Street,London,EC4M 6YH
Residence Country:
United Kingdom
Customer's Ref:
RJO/EC/203727/0001
ADP Number:
0910987001
Service:
Bates Wells & Braithwaite
Scandinavia House,2-6 Cannon Street,London,EC4M 6YH
ADP Number:
0710671001

Presumably, it must have taken a few days to get the paperwork ready to send into the patent office.

The corporation which was set up, Madeleine's Fund: Leaving No Stone Unturned Ltd probably took a week or so to be processed, which further May 8.
This would mean that barely two weeks after their child went missing, in the most distressing of circumstances, they had already set up a web site and a business (note: �non charitable services�?, using her disappearance as the basis for it.
_________________
The truth is out there, and maybe one day somebody will speak the truth, if they have any respect for Madeleine.
 
Back to top      
 
 

---

bjr
Site Admin

Joined: 11 Nov 2007
Posts: 562
Location: UK
 Posted: Sun Nov 11, 2007 8:49 pm    Post subject:   

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Nbrado has made his telephone call to Esther McVey re the Fund and information of call is posted below. Thanks Nbrado.

**RESULT**

I have spoken with esther this morning.

The original number she gave me kept going through to an answerphone I went through to the switchboard and waited on hold... this time we spoke.

There is no recording of the call as esther could not agree to this and personally I do not blame her.

I raised my initial question regarding why there was an omission of the fact that the mortgage payments had been stopped when their status changed.

Esther did not comment on why it was omitted but went through the fund guideline information and basically pointed out that it was ok up to the point they changed status to use the fund money to pay such things.

nothing we didnt already know just the legal stance stance that in the guideline under supporting the family it was ok to use the money up until the point that their legal status changed.

she told me that at no point did gerry and kate ask for money.

I raised the point that gerry found it frustrating not to be able to use the money for legal defence and therefore would suggest that HE or someone asked.

esthers response was he must have been taken out of context by the reporter.

make of that what you will.

Next I raised the question how do we get a refund.

Esthers answer was

" I do not want to give anyone false hope but I honestly dont know "

She does not know at this time the standing for people to get a refund however she is having a board meeting on the 14th of november and has promised to raise the question and formulate a response to those wishing to obtain one.

She did point out obviously that anyone seeking a refund would have to provide proof they donated but at this time she again stated she does not know yet but will on the 14th how the public can make a request of a refund.

Esther actually asked me a question!

why do people feel they need a refund what have they been saying.

I told her that its a moral issue and that people expected the money to fund a search not a mortgage and the hiring of companies that do not specialise in missing persons has people upset.

her answer to this was that brian kennedy and richard branson are footing the bill for the investigators at the spanish phone company and current campaign actions in process.

so officially people brian and richard are paying ALL bills at the moment not the fund.

I thanked her for her time and she will contact me after the 14th to advise what the fund board situation is on refunds.

until then as esther said no false hope people...
_________________
The truth is out there, and maybe one day somebody will speak the truth, if they have any respect for Madeleine.
 
Back to top      

---

 
 
bjr
Site Admin

Joined: 11 Nov 2007
Posts: 562
Location: UK
 Posted: Sun Nov 11, 2007 8:50 pm    Post subject:   

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
From nbrado

No problemo guys and gals.

lets see what the 14th brings in terms of how people are entitled to a refund from the board.

I did point out to esther that legally i'm not implying that they did anything wrong but the whole thing stinks on a moral issue and that is why people are upset.

it was nice of her to take the time finally to answer my questions and she was nice enough on the phone.

though it is official brian and richard are paying the bill for everyting at the moment and that includes the call center and phone lines in spain.

interesting I thought...

why the freeze on spending the fund money and having them foot the bill..

obviously the 14th is when the issue will be raised and discussed till then I suspect they dont want to touch the cash till a bulletproof plan is formulated and a reponse to those seeking refunds.

best not spend anything donated until then eh
_________________
The truth is out there, and maybe one day somebody will speak the truth, if they have any respect for Madeleine.
 
Back to top      
 
 

---

doobyscoo
Bar Regular

Joined: 11 Nov 2007
Posts: 178

 Posted: Mon Nov 12, 2007 4:06 pm    Post subject:   

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
excellent work you two
_________________
In the absence of Fact : Read Fiction.

The Diary of a Naive Woman (aged 39 & 3/4) is a work of fiction. However 1 of the characters is real. I'll never tell!
 
Back to top      
 

---

 
Display posts from previous: All Posts1 Day7 Days2 Weeks1 Month3 Months6 Months1 Year Oldest FirstNewest First 
 
       bararguido.forum2u.org Forum Index -> Justice For Maddy.. So Many Questions Unanswered All times are GMT
Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next 
Page 1 of 3 

The FUND - enquries made by nbrado and bjr - UPDATE 6/11
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
  
      
Author Message
bjr
Site Admin

Joined: 11 Nov 2007
Posts: 562
Location: UK
 Posted: Mon Nov 12, 2007 4:44 pm    Post subject:   

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
I bet they don't think that, they must dread my e-mails and nbrados telephone calls.
_________________
The truth is out there, and maybe one day somebody will speak the truth, if they have any respect for Madeleine.
 
Back to top      
 

---

 
Blamhappy
Social Drinker

Joined: 11 Nov 2007
Posts: 93
Location: North London
 Posted: Tue Nov 13, 2007 3:35 pm    Post subject:   

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Six hours, 26 minutes to the 14th...
_________________
Always be kind.
 
Back to top      
 
 

---

bjr
Site Admin

Joined: 11 Nov 2007
Posts: 562
Location: UK
 Posted: Tue Nov 13, 2007 4:37 pm    Post subject:   

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Blamhappy wrote:
Six hours, 26 minutes to the 14th...

    I hope they have ordered enought Kleenex or should it have been andrex 
_________________
The truth is out there, and maybe one day somebody will speak the truth, if they have any respect for Madeleine.
 
Back to top      
 
 

---

Snip
Social Drinker

Joined: 13 Nov 2007
Posts: 61

 Posted: Tue Nov 13, 2007 9:13 pm    Post subject:   

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Hi, and my thanks for the work you're doing on this. Could I add something in case it helps?

Brian Kennedy, k's uncle, a retired headmaster and a leading light with his wife in the local RC church, would have been involved in charities over the years, possibly as a trustee or in setting them up. He would know, as anyone involved in the voluntary and community sector knows, that the objects of a charity must include something about benfitting the greater population. eg the people of Rothely, all children under 5, etc etc.

I strongly feel the directors drew up the objects with a view to the Fund being a PLC and not for a second ever considerd charitable status.
 
Back to top      
 

---

 
HAPPYDOG
New in town

Joined: 14 Nov 2007
Posts: 23

 Posted: Wed Nov 14, 2007 6:07 pm    Post subject:   

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
I do have to say that I believe the public was mislead.
Remember the 'collection box' at the MW Resort - was that marked thatit was a private company I doubt it.
This fund is very worrying and imo was set up giving the impression that it was a charity.

Thanks so much for all your work in doing this.
_________________
HAPPYDOG
XXXXXX
 
Back to top      
 

---

 
bjr
Site Admin

Joined: 11 Nov 2007
Posts: 562
Location: UK
 Posted: Wed Nov 14, 2007 6:16 pm    Post subject:   

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
HAPPYDOG wrote:
I do have to say that I believe the public was mislead.
Remember the 'collection box' at the MW Resort - was that marked thatit was a private company I doubt it.
This fund is very worrying and imo was set up giving the impression that it was a charity.

Thanks so much for all your work in doing this.

Thats OK Happydog, please do come and visit us in jail  
_________________
The truth is out there, and maybe one day somebody will speak the truth, if they have any respect for Madeleine.
 
Back to top      
 

---

 
thentherewere4
Social Drinker

Joined: 11 Nov 2007
Posts: 82

 Posted: Thu Nov 15, 2007 11:12 am    Post subject:   

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Snip

Why was it reported that they had made appliction to the Charities Commission?
_________________
Nora Paul said,"They were six medical professionals..if there'd been an accidental..I mean a. If it were accidental and they were doing something bad they'd covered it ..they could of covered it up,if it was accidental they'd of taken care of it"
 
Back to top      
 

---

 
Snip
Social Drinker

Joined: 13 Nov 2007
Posts: 61

 Posted: Thu Nov 15, 2007 11:29 am    Post subject:   

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
thentherewere4 wrote:
Snip

Why was it reported that they had made appliction to the Charities Commission?

Because journos are idle sods. The CC put out a note that it hadn't even been approached by Team McCann, and I beleive that because the CC had nothing to lose or gain by it's statement.
 
Back to top      
 
 

---

thentherewere4
Social Drinker

Joined: 11 Nov 2007
Posts: 82

 Posted: Thu Nov 15, 2007 11:42 am    Post subject:   

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Yes I remember now they did issue a statement that no application had formally been made but I recall it also said that there had beeen informal discussions with the lawyers from Team Mccann, the case had beeen outlined and the CC said it would only be acceptable on broader grounds as a charity,its aims were too restricting for charitable status.
 
Back to top      
 

---

 
Snip
Social Drinker

Joined: 13 Nov 2007
Posts: 61

 Posted: Thu Nov 15, 2007 12:33 pm    Post subject:   

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
thentherewere4 wrote:
Yes I remember now they did issue a statement that no application had formally been made but I recall it also said that there had beeen informal discussions with the lawyers from Team Mccann, the case had beeen outlined and the CC said it would only be acceptable on broader grounds as a charity,its aims were too restricting for charitable status.

===========

As I've said, I believe Brian Kennedy at least would be very aware of charity law. Two seconds search on the Charity Commission webiste throws up the faq that a single child cannot be the beneficiary of a charity.
If, and I stress if, TM lawyers contacted the CC then their aim could only have been to try to wriggle around the rule about single beneficiaries. I see no other reason why contact should have been made.
 
Back to top      
 
 

---

notdeadfred
Social Drinker

Joined: 11 Nov 2007
Posts: 56
Location: Dining in my back garden
 Posted: Thu Nov 15, 2007 2:14 pm    Post subject:   

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
It's now the 15th have any of you heard anything more??
_________________
It was our holiday too
 
Back to top      
 
 

---

Wiseman
Social Drinker

Joined: 14 Nov 2007
Posts: 35

 Posted: Thu Nov 15, 2007 2:41 pm    Post subject:   

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Regarding payments from Ltd company funds. For a Ltd company to disperse funds it is normally done in one of the following ways:
Salaries
Dividends
Payment of third party invoices
Re-imbursement of legitimate expenses incurred whilst carrying out company business
Benefits in kind
Inland Revenue taxes

Now if the company were to pay to somebody, as in non-employee and non-shareholder say £2000 (as for use in a mortgage payment), then that would most likely be considered as BiK by the Inland Revenue and as such, the receiver would have to declare this sum and pay tax. Should the receiver be taxed at 40%, then to receive a nett sum of £2000, a payment of £3333 would be required.

Incidentally, as a SME company, at the financial year end the company would be required to pay Corporation Tax on its yearly "profits". Corporation tax on profits of £330k to £1.5M is currently 32.5%.

Not a very efficient way of using the funds I would suggest. Unless of course the accountants have found a way around this.

Only my opinion of course!
 
Back to top      
 
 

---

thentherewere4
Social Drinker

Joined: 11 Nov 2007
Posts: 82

 Posted: Thu Nov 15, 2007 4:44 pm    Post subject:   

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
It will be interesting to see what they do at the financial year end.There aren't many tax efficent ways of losing the "profits".it will only be a one hit though the Company is not attracting funds in sufficent quantity now to warrant alot of structual intervention.
It is possible that the Company might be dissolved and a proper charity formed by the year end to take care of the liabilities.
Once Kate and Gerry think a decent enough time has passed they can announce that the fund has served its purpose Madeleine isn't going to be found,they could become ambassadors for the new charity thus fulfilling Kates long held ambition " to help all children everywhere."
 
Back to top      
 

---

 
Snip
Social Drinker

Joined: 13 Nov 2007
Posts: 61

 Posted: Thu Nov 15, 2007 7:35 pm    Post subject:   

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
It could be even more comples. The Paypal account belongs to Cameron McRae, so presumably he'll have to pay tax on the money donated into the account - which he then sends on to the Fund - which is also liable for tax.

So the £5 donated by someone gets a chunk bitten out of it by Paypal, another chunk bitten out of it for Cameron's tax, another chunk bitten out of it for the Fund's tax....................and ends up as a donation of .........not very much at all !
 
Back to top      
 

---

 
cazzacazza
New in town

Joined: 14 Nov 2007
Posts: 6

 Posted: Thu Nov 15, 2007 10:26 pm    Post subject:   

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Every time I saw CC in this thread I struggled to get Cuddle Cat out of my head 

Re BiK.... as far as I know those are non-financial reimbursements.... not that it matters a great deal.. just sticking me nose in.

Oh and am sure I recall from somewhere that getting charitable status was going to take much longer than setting up a company and was one of the reasons for not going down that road (among others).
_________________
 
 
Back to top      
 
 

---

Page 2 of 3

Joined: 14 Nov 2007
Posts: 35

 Posted: Thu Nov 15, 2007 11:27 pm    Post subject:   

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cazzacazza wrote:
..........Re BiK.... as far as I know those are non-financial reimbursements.... not that it matters a great deal.. just sticking me nose in.

Oh and am sure I recall from somewhere that getting charitable status was going to take much longer than setting up a company and was one of the reasons for not going down that road (among others).

Wait until your employer gives you a £1000 (in one form or another) christmas box. You'll find you have to declare it and will be charged for BiK.
_________________
The man who thinks himself wise believes nothing until it is proven to him, but the wise man considers everything possible until it is disproved.
 
Back to top      
 

---

 
cazzacazza
New in town

Joined: 14 Nov 2007
Posts: 6

 Posted: Fri Nov 16, 2007 1:32 pm    Post subject:   

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
What is Benefit-in-Kind?
Benefits in kind are benefits, which are received from an employer that cannot be converted into money but which nevertheless confer a benefit on an employee. Most benefits are taxable if total remuneration (including benefits in kind) is �?,905 or more in any tax year.

If a director of a company receives benefits they are taxable regardless of the level of remuneration. An employee is chargeable to tax on any benefits provided for himself or herself or for any member of his or her family or household.

Examples Private use of a company car, free or subsidised accommodation, preferential loans etc.
_________________
 
 
Back to top      
 

---

 
RufusA
New in town

Joined: 13 Nov 2007
Posts: 4

 Posted: Fri Nov 16, 2007 2:36 pm    Post subject:   

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Wiseman wrote:

Wait until your employer gives you a £1000 (in one form or another) christmas box. You'll find you have to declare it and will be charged for BiK.

Employer -> Employee gifts have strick rules, and you would be taxed on a gift from your employer (above a token level).
However a not for profit organisation is a different kettle of fish.

The beneficiaries are probably nor directors or employees, so no nasty employment tax rules kick in. Ever wonderer why the McCanns aren't directors?

There are no shareholders - so no dividends, "profit" or corporation tax!

AFAIK if a NFPO gives Mr M £50,000 then Mr M doesn't have to pay tax on it. It's not income, it's not a dividend, it's a gift. The only tax that could kick in is capital gains, and the thresholds are quite high!

Its the same as if a local business donates an adapted car to disable Mr Jones, or Help the Aged grants someone some money to help with a specific need.

VAT is another issue!

Rufus.
 
Back to top      

---

 
 
Snip
Social Drinker

Joined: 13 Nov 2007
Posts: 61

 Posted: Fri Nov 16, 2007 3:45 pm    Post subject:   

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
An example:

A person does voluntary work in a hospital, their duties are controlled by a charity
Charity reimburses the volunteer in cash/cheque for their travel costs - bus/train fares, petrol
The inland revenue counts the reimbursement as the volunteer's income, they should declare it to the IR and pay tax on it if appropriate
 
Back to top      
 

---

 
Betty
New in town

Joined: 13 Nov 2007
Posts: 1

 Posted: Fri Nov 16, 2007 5:51 pm    Post subject: The Madeleine Fund and the charity Common Purpose  

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
"Why is Madeleine’s Fund not registered as a charity?

In England & Wales, registered charities are required to demonstrate public benefit. Because Madeleine’s Fund is currently focussed on searching for one child, Madeleine McCann, it cannot register as a charity. However, it may be able to register as a charity in the future.

At the point the Fund starts to focus on abductions generally, public benefit may be demonstrable and the Fund may be able to register as a charity."

Gerry is already back to work.
How long do you think before the McCanns fund is registered as a charity?
A charity like Common Purpose, I mean?
 
Back to top      
 
 
thentherewere4
Social Drinker

Joined: 11 Nov 2007
Posts: 82

 Posted: Fri Nov 16, 2007 10:35 pm    Post subject:   

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
That's a charity.
I reckon within the financial year end or just after.
 
Back to top      
 

---