Is there any transparency with the Gonçalo Amaral fund?

[stephen25000]

One produces audited accounts and commentary.

t'other - nowt.

and full transparency from the McCann's.

Of money they would not have got, if they hadn't Neglected their children in the first place.

NICE.

[faithlilly]

Does that mean that you agree if X is considered to be not proven, that it doesn't equate to X being proven as false?

In the UK, and no doubt in several other countries, asserting that your child is dead without any proof and that you are perfectly aware of it and covered it up (i.e., engaging in criminal activity), is likely to be considered not only defamatory, but likely to impede the search for your child: why continue to be vigilant about a potentially living child who - you've been told by an authoratiive figure on umpteen occasions - died on the night of the disappearance?

In Portugal, you have to provide proof. What proof of damage to the search would you present if you were in that situation?

Bottom line is that in a court of law simply claiming one occurrence was a direct result of another occurrence is not enough, you need to prove it. The McCanns failed to do so.

[Brietta]

Yes, well It helps if you read it properly:

This mother was outraged about a fund being used to pay mortgages for McCanns while they were stressed about future financial hardship

Oh, so she was clairvoyant as well as being a woman very bitter and outraged about the fact that Goncalo Amaral had been passed over for promotion within the Policia Judiciaria.


**snip

The problem is that this dedication to the cause has earned him a non promotion in his career.

Indeed, I will explain this to you, even because this case happened when the searches for your daughter were under way.

My husband applied to the category of Superior Coordinator, and in between drug apprehensions, sequestrations and homicides, he somehow managed to produce a thesis about drug trafficking by sea, which he defended in Lisbon, in front of a Jury that congratulated him.

Full of hope, Gonçalo Amaral returns to the Algarve and awaits the result.

To his surprise, he was passed over by other colleagues (real coordinators, truth be told), because he had not been able to score points in the “professional formation” parameter.

That’s right, Mrs Kate, my husband spent his life working, involved in complex investigations, he was the man who apprehended the highest volumes of drugs in Portugal, but given the fact that he had no time to go to Lisbon to parade himself up and down the corridors of the PJ’s Institute, he was not promoted.

A disgrace, madam, a disgrace! -

See more at: http://madeleinemccann.org/blog/2014/04/20/the-expresso-interview/#sthash.s8K9uYp8.dpuf


Why on earth would Sofia Leal think it was in order to make such a complaint to the mother of a missing child? 

She was in the position to know where the money from the Find Madeleine Fund had gone (personally speaking, I think it was rather a good idea to keep a roof over their heads in the event of Madeleine's return) she was also in the position to know the two emergency mortgage repayments had been repaid to the fund.

No-one is in a comparable situation as far as the Goncalo Amaral fund is concerned ... unless you know differently.

[G-Unit]

Snr Amaral's wife wrote that letter because she saw what Kate McCann said about her husband in the interview the McCanns gave to Expresso;

Kate – All that I am going to say about this – because I’m not going to waste any time on Mr Amaral – is that as a professional and as a person his behaviour has been a disgrace. - See more at: http://madeleinemccann.org/blog/2014/04/20/the-expresso-interview/#sthash.s8K9uYp8.udZlBrxY.dpuf

[Brietta]

It isn't unusual for an embittered person to make ill informed decisions about what is acceptable behaviour ... it must be unheard of for the wife of a police chief to pen such an "ironic" letter to the mother of a missing child in a case in which the senior officer made just about every mistake in the book.

What a pity her 'modesty' didn't kick in before the addendum ...


**snip

Finally, I can only report to you that intimately, Gonçalo Amaral is precisely what the latinos are famed for: shameless, as my pudency does not allow me to write any further.

http://madeleinemccann.org/blog/2014/04/20/the-expresso-interview/#sthash.s8K9uYp8.dpuf


In my opinion her reference to setting up a fund to finance Goncalo Amaral because his expenses for doing his job were paid in arrears (presumably after he had submitted a claim for them) shows an envy of Madeleine's fund.

Maybe the thinking was that Mrs Kate preferred that to holding her precious daughter ... so now that Goncalo Amaral has his very own fund ... she really has achieved at least one goal in life.

I wonder if she knows how much is in it. 

[faithlilly]

An interesting snippet from Sol on the 4th of August 2007 :

"
The information that was collected with the English authorities contradicts the statements made by the McCanns' public relations to Sol, in our edition of July 7. Then, Justine McGuinness assured that the money that is received by Maddie's parents "is subject to very strict rules, that are imposed by British law on any charity fund". At that time, the spokesperson for Kate and Gerry even explained that the decision to establish a fund was born from the need to "ensure that everything is done in a transparent way".
 
Confronted with this inconsistency, Justine McGuiness corrects her initial statement: "The fund is not considered a charity, but it aims to comply with the high standards that are demanded by the Charity Commission".

The high standards that are demanded by the Charity Commission eh ? I wonder if the Charity Commission would consider using money donated to pursue reputational litigation within those standards ?

[Jean-Pierre]

Any legal person can bring proceedings for defamation.  There is nothing within the charity commission rules to prevent a charity from bringing such proceedings.

[faithlilly]

Any legal person can bring proceedings for defamation.  There is nothing within the charity commission rules to prevent a charity from bringing such proceedings.

I'm sure there's rules that prevent anyone within the charity from using it to salvage their already tarnished reputations.

Imagine the GEO of Oxfam Mark Goldring using money donated to the charity to sue an individual who had libelled him directly. Wouldn't happen, would it ?

[Jean-Pierre]

I'm sure there's rules that prevent anyone within the charity from using it to salvage their already tarnished reputations.

Imagine the GEO of Oxfam Mark Goldring using money donated to the charity to sue an individual who had libelled him directly. Wouldn't happen, would it ?

If someone had published a book accusing him of criminal activity, and that affected the reputation of the charity, then why would that be against some imaginary CC rule?

Which raises an interesting related point - could you specify where in law, the McCanns reputations are "tarnished"? 

[faithlilly]

If someone had published a book accusing him of criminal activity, and that affected the reputation of the charity, then why would that be against some imaginary CC rule?

Which raises an interesting related point - could you specify where in law, the McCanns reputations are "tarnished"?

I'm afraid you're just talking nonsense now JP and I suspect you know it. No charity would pay to defend the personal reputation of one of its employees.

As to the McCann's reputation, the court of public opinion was there target market.

[Alice Purjorick]

Any legal person can bring proceedings for defamation.  There is nothing within the charity commission rules to prevent a charity from bringing such proceedings.

Given said charity is a legal person and not an unincorporated association. Before you go off half cocked check the register, there are quite a few charities that are UAs
I would imagine there is something in Charity Commission regulations to prevent a trustee of a charity from using charity funds to pursue personal litigation. That would be the equivalent.
Document CC something or other will cover it

[Jean-Pierre]

Given said charity is a legal person and not an unincorporated association. Before you go off half cocked check the register, there are quite a few charities that are UAs
I would imagine there is something in Charity Commission regulations to prevent a trustee of a charity from using charity funds to pursue personal litigation. That would be the equivalent.
Document CC something or other will cover it

Which is why I mentioned legal person - a UI is not a legal person and would not therefore be able to pursue any form of litigation. 

The following Q/A may help: (apologies - it is a bit cut and paste but its late and i am tired)

1. What permission, if any, does a charity require from the Charity
Commission before taking individuals or organisations to court for
defamation, libel or slander?

(i) None - Charity trustees are free to bring any sort of legal action through the Courts without obtaining consent or authority from the Charity Commission, they only need to take and consider advice from their own solicitors. On the other hand, anyone else bringing a legal action against a charity may first need to obtain consent from the Charity Commission under section 115 of the Charities Act 2011 - I say 'may' only because that section of the 2011 Act does not apply in some cases.

2. What percentage of its budget is a charity permitted to spend on
taking individuals or organisations to court for defamation, libel
or slander?

(ii) As much as necessary - Trustees would only be expected to take and consider the advice of the charity's own solicitor on the likely level of risk, the likely cost involved and the level of 'damage' to the charity associated with bringing or not bringing such a matter to Court. It should be remembered that if sucessful a charity's legal costs could be awarded against the other side, in addition to any award of damages made by the Court.

3. What penalties or sanctions are imposed by the Charity
Commission on the trustees of a charity in the event of the charity
losing a defamation, libel or slander case and being required to
pay compensation?

iii) None - Provided the trustees act on the basis of legal advice from the charity's solicitor and consider the degree of risk/damage to the charity by taking such action. The Charity Commission can not impose 'penalties' where trustees act within their powers as charity trustees, it has no legal powers to do so.

Anyone involved in or considering Court action against or on behalf of a charity should begin by reading section 115 of the Charities Act 2011. This link leads directly to it on the legislation.gov website -

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2011....

[G-Unit]

As the Madeleine Fund isn't a charity and isn't involved in the case against Amaral I'm not sure where this is going? The Fund can be used for anything that the directors consider to be of help to Madeleine McCann's family.
http://www.findmadeleine.com/about_us/madeleines-fund.html
It was reported in September 2007 that the Fund directors had decided not to pay the McCann's legal costs from the Fund. Apparently their solicitors advised that paying for their defense would be permissible if subject to a repayment agreement if they were found guilty. It seems that they were expecting the McCann's to be charged with something at the time.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6992397.stm
Accordingly, another fund was supposedly set up to pay for their defense when the McCanns were made  arguidos in 2007. It is said that Richard Branson, Stephen Winyard and Brian Kennedy contributed to it.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6997429.stm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactions_to_the_disappearance_of_Madeleine_McCann
Of course bringing a libel action is not the same as paying for a defense if charged with a crime. It seems that Carter Ruck acted for the mcCanns on a no win no fee basis when they sued British newspapers; all of whom settled out of court anyway. I assume that Carter Ruck then got a fee from the payout. The results in Portugal may be a little different as Amaral, thanks to his fund, was able to insist on having his day in court.

[Brietta]

20 Nov 2009

Press Release – Defence Fund
For Immediate Release

The movement ‘Citizens in Defence of Rights and Freedoms – Project Justice Gonçalo Amaral’ formally announces the creation of a defence fund by means of a solidarity account to support citizen Gonçalo Amaral, who has been deprived of his civil right to free expression.

Freedom of expression is an inalienable constitutional right, for which the Portuguese people have fought hard, and that cannot be placed at stake, namely when it is exercised with responsibility and with civility.

Citizen Gonçalo Amaral presently finds himself in the front line of a struggle for freedom of expression. An unequal struggle, in which the parties have access to disparate financial resources – citizen Gonçalo Amaral is forced to exhaust all and any personal resources that he may possess, and which are manifestly insufficient to meet the expenses that are inherent to his defence.

His opponents, who are well aware of this limitation, and who are financed by third parties to place considerable resources at their disposal, risk little or nothing, and gamble everything to silence the former Judiciary Police coordinator.

Gonçalo Amaral desires nothing more than to see this matter duly clarified in a court of law, which is the only place where the material truth of facts can, and should, be established. And we, Portuguese citizens, will do anything to see that happen.

Both parties must have equal access to Justice, and to adequate legal representation. In this particular case, we see a need to create a legal defence fund, in order to ensure that citizen Gonçalo Amaral is given access to said equality.

Therefore, the citizens who wish to show their solidarity with this cause, may contribute with their support through a bank account at BPI – Banco Português de Investimento, Sete Rios branch, in Lisbon, with NIB: 0010 0000 438 0385 000 1 62; IBAN: PT 50 0010 0000 438 0385 000 1 62; Swift: BB PI PT PL.

The ‘Project Justice Gonçalo Amaral’ blog – www.pjga.blogspot.com – offers the possibility to donate using the PayPal system.

This action is subject to principles of full transparency and seriousness.

For equal Justice for all, in respect of civil rights and duties of Portuguese and European citizens.

For Truth and for Freedom.



For further information please contact Mr. Luís Arriaga on +351 92 501 19 69, or use the email projectojustica@gmail.com

http://pjga.blogspot.co.uk/2009/11/press-release-defence-fund.html



Has anyone contacted Mr Luis Arriaga to request information on what is advertised as being full of transparency and seriousness?

Or is everyone happy with the annual publication of the figures ... oh wait a minute ...

[Alice Purjorick]

Which is why I mentioned legal person - a UI is not a legal person and would not therefore be able to pursue any form of litigation. 

The following Q/A may help: (apologies - it is a bit cut and paste but its late and i am tired)

1. What permission, if any, does a charity require from the Charity
Commission before taking individuals or organisations to court for
defamation, libel or slander?

(i) None - Charity trustees are free to bring any sort of legal action through the Courts without obtaining consent or authority from the Charity Commission, they only need to take and consider advice from their own solicitors. On the other hand, anyone else bringing a legal action against a charity may first need to obtain consent from the Charity Commission under section 115 of the Charities Act 2011 - I say 'may' only because that section of the 2011 Act does not apply in some cases.

2. What percentage of its budget is a charity permitted to spend on
taking individuals or organisations to court for defamation, libel
or slander?

(ii) As much as necessary - Trustees would only be expected to take and consider the advice of the charity's own solicitor on the likely level of risk, the likely cost involved and the level of 'damage' to the charity associated with bringing or not bringing such a matter to Court. It should be remembered that if sucessful a charity's legal costs could be awarded against the other side, in addition to any award of damages made by the Court.

3. What penalties or sanctions are imposed by the Charity
Commission on the trustees of a charity in the event of the charity
losing a defamation, libel or slander case and being required to
pay compensation?

iii) None - Provided the trustees act on the basis of legal advice from the charity's solicitor and consider the degree of risk/damage to the charity by taking such action. The Charity Commission can not impose 'penalties' where trustees act within their powers as charity trustees, it has no legal powers to do so.

Anyone involved in or considering Court action against or on behalf of a charity should begin by reading section 115 of the Charities Act 2011. This link leads directly to it on the legislation.gov website -

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2011....

So far so good; this appears to be about the charity being defamed and defending itself, not about a trustee using charity funds to bring a private action for defamation on his/her own behalf.
No matter this is going nowhere.
The crux is "If you hand over money to a "begging bowl" what right do you really expect to have to dictate how the money is spent and accounted for after you have handed it over"?
Me ? None; that's why I don't give to begging bowls. Begging bowls are usually rifled one way or another by those with an eye to the main chance, that's life. Remember how East African port charges increased in the wake of Live Aid 30 years ago? Perhaps you don't but they did. No prizes for guessing why.