Why The Madeleine Foundation - not Tony and Debbie personally - paid Kirwans £500 on 2 October 2009

the association’s office-bearers and other
members of the management committee (and in
exceptional circumstances the wider membership) are
likely to be personally liable for actions taken in the
association’s name.

Similarly, association members can be held liable for
damages claims from third parties.

scampi wrote:

sina wrote:

smith wrote:Little majic - who doesn't honour the real world with his real name -

Errrr just a quick question: where have YOU been the last 12 months or so????

Exactly. Everyone knows who Majic is...

Raffle wrote:Would Mr Bennett care to wade though all the fighting and answer my questions?


Is it true that you and Ms Butler were going to be being sued and NOT the MF as a group?

Raffle wrote:Would Mr Bennett care to wade though all the fighting and answer my questions?


Is it true that you and Ms Butler were going to be being sued and NOT the MF as a group?

smith wrote:I'm not interested in majic.

I'm not interested in whether I lose face, credibility or anything else on this forum - that is why I like and admire SYM, or Guest. My debate was with Tony Bennett and issues of truth and untruths.

I'm telling you Bennett, who has threatened people on forums in the past for dissing him - yes, he really did threaten them with legal action - will run away from my defamatory comments without taking any action against me, of any sort, for calling him a "fucking little crook".

Why?

Tara9 wrote:

Raffle wrote:Would Mr Bennett care to wade though all the fighting and answer my questions?


Is it true that you and Ms Butler were going to be being sued and NOT the MF as a group?

The MF, as such, can't be sued. See my last post

Raffle wrote:

Tara9 wrote:

Raffle wrote:Would Mr Bennett care to wade though all the fighting and answer my questions?


Is it true that you and Ms Butler were going to be being sued and NOT the MF as a group?

The MF, as such, can't be sued. See my last post

So then why use MF money to pay a legal bill?

Chinagirl wrote:While the language may be deplorable, the description is accurate.

smith wrote:

Chinagirl wrote:While the language may be deplorable, the description is accurate.

And I don't need any support from you, Chinagirl.

Raffle wrote:Everything is complicted in law isn't it? So what's new?

Is it morally right for Mr Bennett and Ms Butler to use MF money to pay a legal bill that was in effect paying for advice they had got PERSONALLY, not collectively as a MF group.

Tara9 wrote:
They were receiving advice as individual officers of the Madeleine Foundation, not personally.

"Where action is brought it is usually against the chairman and secretary in the first instance"
http://www.jeffsrowe.co.uk/faqCONST.html#203

The disadvantages of an unincorporated club are:

1. The club does not have limited liability, the officers and sometimes the members of the club may be held liable for the debts of the club and for the performance of the club’s contracts and other obligations – see section on the liability of members, officers and trustees.

2. It is not a body corporate and does not have a separate legal existence from its individual members, accordingly it can neither sue nor be sued other than through its officers and members.

LadyBear wrote:Let us look at this another way, the Madeleine Foundation members as far as i am aware have no problem with the way things have been managed by the committee/ chairpeople.

So if the membership are happy and understand the facts given, their is no problem. If the Police find a problem they will investigate.

scrimas wrote:

Tara9 wrote:
They were receiving advice as individual officers of the Madeleine Foundation, not personally.

"Where action is brought it is usually against the chairman and secretary in the first instance"
http://www.jeffsrowe.co.uk/faqCONST.html#203

Some additional points from your source that you chose not to copy:

The disadvantages of an unincorporated club are:

1. The club does not have limited liability, the officers and sometimes the members of the club may be held liable for the debts of the club and for the performance of the club’s contracts and other obligations – see section on the liability of members, officers and trustees.

2. It is not a body corporate and does not have a separate legal existence from its individual members, accordingly it can neither sue nor be sued other than through its officers and members.

murat_fan wrote:Tony when are you going to answer my question.

ARE YOU GOING TO REFUND OR PAY BACK YOUR PART OF THE £500 PAID TO KIRWANS BY THE FUND, AFTER ALL YOU STATED IT WAS WRONG TO DO THAT.
IT WOULD BE A GOOD AND NICE GESTURE.

SYM* wrote:

murat_fan wrote:Tony when are you going to answer my question.

ARE YOU GOING TO REFUND OR PAY BACK YOUR PART OF THE £500 PAID TO KIRWANS BY THE FUND, AFTER ALL YOU STATED IT WAS WRONG TO DO THAT.
IT WOULD BE A GOOD AND NICE GESTURE.

Fuck me you go on and on..Remind me are you or have you ever been a foundation member? Have you ever donated to them?...I already know the answer and mine to it woud be two words second one is off.

smith wrote:No reply from Mr Bennett yet.

However I have now found out a little more.

Mr Bennett has stated voluntarily and on the record that the Madeleine Foundation is not a company.

He states that the Madeleine Foundation was set up as “a simple membership association, like an allotments association.”

He stated also that the bank account for the Madeleine Association was in no sense a trading account but would be used only in the way that a membership account would be used – (that is for subscriptions, raffles etc) in accordance with its written aims provided to the bank when the account was opened.

However as we all know The Madeleine Association has also been a trading venture – an entity for the production and sale of leaflets with a profit mark-up, .i.e. money left over. Such a trading entity is not a membership association. Altering the constitution retrospectively to enable distribution and production with a profit margin cannot legitimise such activity, amongst other reasons because, as Tony Bennett well knows, a membership association is beyond the remit of the Inland Revenue whereas trading of any sort is very much not.

In short only by the Madeleine Foundation setting up a quite separate entity – a company – and registering it and bringing it within the remit of trading law would its activities in selling leaflets be regularized and incontrovertibly legal. Doing so would still not, of course, cover the associated problems of misleading the public with the use of a term like Madeleine Foundation.

And this has not been done. Mr Bennett has abstracted funds from a membership association to which he has no right. The money is not his to do anything with.[/quote]

So now that becomes THEFT

murat_fan wrote:BENNETT WILL YOU PAY BACK YOUR HALF OF THE £500 THE FOUNDATION PAID TO KIRWINS.

YES OR NO, SIMPLE QUESTION FOR YOU.