Gonçalo Amaral confirms he will appeal the damages decision to higher Court.

[misty]

I meant a single mum beats all the expensive clever lawyers and accountants on the other side.
Because she manages to state clearly (so that Joe Public can understand) what the money will be solely used for.

First of all - she didn't write the script. There isn't even a definition of "legal expenses".
Secondly - the GBP have no clue as to what net amount is being paid into GA's legal defence fund.
Thirdly - you should study Stripe account set-up very carefully.
Finally - I really don't care if people are throwing their money down the drain. What I do care about is that they believe in doing so, they are somehow achieving justice for Madeleine. That is just plain wrong.

[pegasus]

First of all - she didn't write the script. There isn't even a definition of "legal expenses".
Secondly - the GBP have no clue as to what net amount is being paid into GA's legal defence fund.
Thirdly - you should study Stripe account set-up very carefully.
Finally - I really don't care if people are throwing their money down the drain. What I do care about is that they believe in doing so, they are somehow achieving justice for Madeleine. That is just plain wrong.

Yes she says exactly what the GFM appeal is for.
Yes PJGA do define legal expenses.
Yes the GFM site, and PJGA, both state how much they have recieved.
Yes the payment processing costs at GFM, and at PJGA, are clearly described.

The GFM and PJGA appeals both score 4 out of 4. How does your fund score?

[Mr Gray]

First of all - she didn't write the script. There isn't even a definition of "legal expenses".
Secondly - the GBP have no clue as to what net amount is being paid into GA's legal defence fund.
Thirdly - you should study Stripe account set-up very carefully.
Finally - I really don't care if people are throwing their money down the drain. What I do care about is that they believe in doing so, they are somehow achieving justice for Madeleine. That is just plain wrong.

not only wrong...but dishonest

[G-Unit]

All companies have to identify areas where there may be conflicts of interest. Below is the best explanation I can find and I would guess that the wording in the clause pertained mainly to the interests of Smethurst, Corner & Kennedy.

http://www.blueavocado.org/node/545
"Conflict of interest" or "benefit from interest"?

In practice, what makes something a conflict of interest can also end up being a benefit from interest, or a good arrangement for the nonprofit. For instance, the board member who owns a building may reduce the rent for the nonprofit. Or the nonprofit may benefit from working with the law firm of a board member, because that board member will ensure that the firm will do excellent work and will charge fairly or even at a discount.

Community organizations are based in their constituencies, and hold themselves accountable to their constituencies. Accordingly, we believe it's important to have parents on preschool boards, social service clients on the boards of providers, and artists on the boards of arts councils. But consider the potential conflicts that can arise: In a nonprofit preschool where many of the board members are also parents, these individuals might feel pulled in two directions about whether the preschool should raise tuition in order to replace the roof. And what about the board member/client who utilizes a service of the agency that isn't used by many other people, and as a result, has a personal stake in the service that the staff is recommending be discontinued?

Such situations are not infrequent in nonprofits. They are important reminders for nonprofit boards to recognize the twin aspects of benefit and detriment that can result from a potential conflict-of-interest situation.

No Director shall be regarded as having a conflict of interest solely because he or she is also eligible to receive the support of the Foundation."

As I understand it, that clause refers only to those eligible to receive support from the fund. Those eligible are the family of Madeleine Mccann. Unless there is another conflict of interest he clause allows family members to vote despite the fact that they may be voting on whether or not the fund should offer support to a family member (including financial support, and including themselves). As Corner, Linnet and Smethurst are not family members the clause doesn't refer to them.

[misty]

No Director shall be regarded as having a conflict of interest solely because he or she is also eligible to receive the support of the Foundation."

As I understand it, that clause refers only to those eligible to receive support from the fund. Those eligible are the family of Madeleine Mccann. Unless there is another conflict of interest he clause allows family members to vote despite the fact that they may be voting on whether or not the fund should offer support to a family member (including financial support, and including themselves). As Corner, Linnet and Smethurst are not family members the clause doesn't refer to them.

Jon Corner did Media work for the Foundation. That is a conflict of interest.

[misty]

Yes she says exactly what the GFM appeal is for.
Yes PJGA do define legal expenses.
Yes the GFM site, and PJGA, both state how much they have recieved.
Yes the payment processing costs at GFM, and at PJGA, are clearly described.

The GFM and PJGA appeals both score 4 out of 4. How does your fund score?

1. FMF is nothing to do with me.
2. The fund is registered in the UK at Companies House and is both accounted & audited.
So, 5/5  for FMF

How much was in the PJGA account @ 30/4/2015? Or 30/4/2014?

[G-Unit]

Jon Corner did Media work for the Foundation. That is a conflict of interest.

Not covered by that particular clause though. Maybe he did it as a friend also.

[misty]

Not covered by that particular clause though. Maybe he did it as a friend also.

I disagree. It is a conflict of interest if he was paid by the fund for the promotional video work he did for the Foundation & IMO falls within the clause.

[pegasus]

1. FMF is nothing to do with me.
2. The fund is registered in the UK at Companies House and is both accounted & audited.
So, 5/5  for GFM.

How much was in the PJGA account @ 30/4/2015? Or 30/4/2014?

Did you mean 5/5 for FMF? It's difficult to see how you could claim that when you are unable to post a screenshot where they actually mention in plain English whether they are paying for this civil case or not?

Also it is clear that there is not a single person on this forum who has any contact at all or is genuinely concerned for FMF - because no-one here passed on to them the useful helpful important suggestion made earlier.

[pegasus]

Good Governance Code
"open communications, informing people about the organisation and its work "
http://www.governancecode.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Code-of-Governance-Summary.pdf

[G-Unit]

I disagree. It is a conflict of interest if he was paid by the fund for the promotional video work he did for the Foundation & IMO falls within the clause.

He isn't a member of Madeleine McCanns family. The only people supported by the fund are her family. How can he be covered by that clause?

[pegasus]

Still looking for a straight answer - who pays the lawyers opposing Mr Amaral's appeal ?

[misty]

He isn't a member of Madeleine McCanns family. The only people supported by the fund are her family. How can he be covered by that clause?

Quote

 

"38. No Director shall be regarded as having a conflict of interest solely because he or she is also eligible to receive the support of the Foundation."

In what way would Kate & Gerry have a conflict of interest with the Foundation? What outside interest do that have which is in direct opposition to the purpose of the fund or by which means they could gain benefit?
Corner, on the other hand, was able to use the Foundation for the benefit of his Media company - but if work was done at a preferential rate it was also to the benefit of the Foundation.

[misty]

Still looking for a straight answer - who pays the lawyers opposing Mr Amaral's appeal ?

You first! Show us that GA's Legal Defence Fund is more transparent than the FMF.

[pegasus]

You first! Show us that GA's Legal Defence Fund is more transparent than the FMF.

This thread is about an appeal in a civil court case.
Only funds that pay for legal costs in this civil case are relevant here.

How did you find out FMF pays for this civil case? It doesn't say so anywhere on their website.

If you insist they do pay, then we can compare the initial cost of their website, with the total gross proceeds of the GFM appeal so far.