Author Topic: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.  (Read 253428 times)

0 Members and 6 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline misty

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #420 on: February 02, 2017, 05:15:51 PM »
That's what I said if you read it properly.
I also posted on the topic at least twice previously since the Appeal Court Ruling drawing attention to the tax liablity.

What happens if the money was previously paid into the Fund by the McCanns (the book royalties) and kept as restricted funds?

Offline Alice Purjorick

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #421 on: February 02, 2017, 05:16:45 PM »
No doubt they will need to be consulting with more than just their lawyers.

Indeed. It will interesting to see how far it unravels.
"Navigating the difference between weird but normal grief and truly suspicious behaviour is the key for any detective worth his salt.". ….Sarah Bailey

stephen25000

  • Guest
Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #422 on: February 02, 2017, 05:29:43 PM »
As it will be the State of Portugal that the money would be owed to, do you think that an option they would wish to make?
Could non-payment  lead to them being refused entry to the country?

It would entail more than that.

Offline Alice Purjorick

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #423 on: February 02, 2017, 05:31:26 PM »
What happens if the money was previously paid into the Fund by the McCanns (the book royalties) and kept as restricted funds?

It then has to show up as a loan to the company. It does not appear to on the balance sheets nor is it mentioned in the directors annual reports as far as I can see. If it does the lender can call in the loan when the terms of the loan allow.
Once in the company's bank account it belongs to the company which as you know is a completely separate legal person from the McCanns.
The bottom line is whoever's names are on the writ as the plaintiffs now have to cough up. Where the money actually comes from is immaterial.
I was only pointing out what can happen. As the accounts are heralded by some as being so tranparent it should be easy to work out if one is really interested.... 8(0(*
"Navigating the difference between weird but normal grief and truly suspicious behaviour is the key for any detective worth his salt.". ….Sarah Bailey

Offline Eleanor

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #424 on: February 02, 2017, 05:46:04 PM »

Dead easy. Make a film.  Now is the time.  Don't even begin to imagine that the McCanns are done with the fate of their daughter.

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #425 on: February 02, 2017, 05:47:19 PM »
It would entail more than that.

No it couldn't
It is a civil debt

Tell us how it would entail more

Offline G-Unit

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #426 on: February 02, 2017, 05:47:41 PM »
What happens if the money was previously paid into the Fund by the McCanns (the book royalties) and kept as restricted funds?

Interesting. There were restricted funds 'for the direct costs of the search for and the investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine', but there is now a £480k sum under 'investments' and no restricted funds mentioned. It doesn't say if those funds are also restricted.

If restricted funds are used by a company for a purpose other than the specified one the person who donated them can ask for them to be repaid.

Of course the fund has previously paid legal and witness costs for this case because Amaral's book 'harmed the search'.

Read and abide by the forum rules.
Result = happy posting.
Ignore and break the rules
Result = edits, deletions and unhappiness
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?board=2.0

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #427 on: February 02, 2017, 05:50:12 PM »
It then has to show up as a loan to the company. It does not appear to on the balance sheets nor is it mentioned in the directors annual reports as far as I can see. If it does the lender can call in the loan when the terms of the loan allow.
Once in the company's bank account it belongs to the company which as you know is a completely separate legal person from the McCanns.
The bottom line is whoever's names are on the writ as the plaintiffs now have to cough up. Where the money actually comes from is immaterial.
I was only pointing out what can happen. As the accounts are heralded by some as being so tranparent it should be easy to work out if one is really interested.... 8(0(*

So just to clarify the fund is not liable for any costs but under the terms could pay the costs if the directors chooses

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #428 on: February 02, 2017, 05:58:08 PM »
Dead easy. Make a film.  Now is the time.  Don't even begin to imagine that the McCanns are done with the fate of their daughter.

a film yes....that would be worth several million and they could answer a lot of questions

stephen25000

  • Guest
Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #429 on: February 02, 2017, 06:01:51 PM »
a film yes....that would be worth several million and they could answer a lot of questions

Nah, it would be a big mistake.

Then again they have made a lot of those.

I hear they would take legal action if Amaral's book was published  in the UK.

Trouble is, it's already easily accessed and more people are doing so.

Offline jassi

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #430 on: February 02, 2017, 06:07:01 PM »
a film yes....that would be worth several million and they could answer a lot of questions

They could answer a lot of questions without the effort ofmaking a film.

 No doubt any film would be an alternative film, full of alternative facts. 8(0(*
I believe everything. And l believe nothing.
I suspect everyone. And l suspect no one.
I gather the facts, examine the clues... and before   you know it, the case is solved!"

Or maybe not -

OG have been pushed out by the Germans who have reserved all the deck chairs for the foreseeable future

Offline Eleanor

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #431 on: February 02, 2017, 06:15:45 PM »
a film yes....that would be worth several million and they could answer a lot of questions

There is always a way to do what one would most unashamedly wish for.   The McCanns do have several options.  They are far from done.  This is not over for Madeleine.

Offline jassi

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #432 on: February 02, 2017, 06:19:02 PM »
There is always a way to do what one would most unashamedly wish for.   The McCanns do have several options.  They are far from done. This is not over for Madeleine.

Whatever helps you get through the day.
I believe everything. And l believe nothing.
I suspect everyone. And l suspect no one.
I gather the facts, examine the clues... and before   you know it, the case is solved!"

Or maybe not -

OG have been pushed out by the Germans who have reserved all the deck chairs for the foreseeable future

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #433 on: February 02, 2017, 06:26:57 PM »
Nah, it would be a big mistake.

Then again they have made a lot of those.

I hear they would take legal action if Amaral's book was published  in the UK.

Trouble is, it's already easily accessed and more people are doing so.

A film would make several million for the...amaral cant publish his book in the uk
you have no evidence....as usual....that more poeple are accessing his book online

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #434 on: February 02, 2017, 06:27:56 PM »
They could answer a lot of questions without the effort ofmaking a film.

 No doubt any film would be an alternative film, full of alternative facts. 8(0(*


they need the money so they may as well get paid a fortune for doing so