The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Hi,

A very warm welcome to The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™ forum.

Please log in, or register to view all the forums, then settle in and start chatting with us!

Enjoy your day,

Jill Havern
Forum owner

ACCOUNTS 2013

Page 2 of 2 Previous  1, 2

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: ACCOUNTS 2013

Post by Guest on 11.01.14 13:48

@jeanmonroe wrote:(The Fund)
covered expenses for witnesses giving evidence in a libel trial against Goncalo Amaral (former coordinator of the Portugues investigation to fine Madeleine)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, wouldn't the 'fund' paying the 'expenses' of rather 'well heeled' witnesses be considered a slap in the face of the rather 'poorer' people, even a group of handicapped children, that donated to the 'fund'?

HOW much was the 'Find Madeleine Fund' depleted by to pay these expenses?

Would the McCann 'witnesses' not have given evidence, or even travelled to Portugal, IF the 'fund' had not paid their 'expenses'?

Did the McCanns, and the 'fund' HAVE to agree to pay 'expenses' for their witnesses to actually appear in court on their behalf?

What a state of affairs it is when you have to pay for your witnesses to appear in a courtroom for you.

How much did the 'search fund for Madeleine' pay for the return air fare from Canada to Portugal, for witness Mrs Hubbard?

With 'friends' like that, who needs 'enemies'?

Friends, who would 'do anything' to get Madeleine back, as long as it dosen't actually cost them anything personally, as long as the 'Find Madeleine Fund' is paying!

Actually, the Fund Limited buying providing for the witnesses may be a blessing in disguise: IF the Fund really did this, then the Mecs are not in a position to reclaim these witness awards/ freebees from the plaintiffs, as they haven't made any of these payments themselves but the Fund is the paymaster

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: ACCOUNTS 2013

Post by aiyoyo on 11.01.14 14:25

@Portia wrote:

Actually, the Fund Limited buying providing for the witnesses may be a blessing in disguise: IF the Fund really did this, then the Mecs are not in a position to reclaim these witness awards/ freebees from the plaintiffs, as they haven't made any of these payments themselves but the Fund is the paymaster

You lost me there ?

aiyoyo

Posts : 9611
Reputation : 318
Join date : 2009-11-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: ACCOUNTS 2013

Post by Smokeandmirrors on 11.01.14 14:38

@aiyoyo wrote:
@Portia wrote:

Actually, the Fund Limited buying providing for the witnesses may be a blessing in disguise: IF the Fund really did this, then the Mecs are not in a position to reclaim these witness awards/ freebees from the plaintiffs, as they haven't made any of these payments themselves but the Fund is the paymaster

You lost me there ?

I think it means that the McCanns can not claim any of the costs relating to witness expenses as they were paid for by the Fund. The Fund is not who is making this legal case by the family.

However, the terms of the fund state that it is there to support the family financially, so the fund would cough up anyway regardless.

____________________
The truth will out.

Smokeandmirrors
Moderator

Posts : 2428
Reputation : 5
Join date : 2011-07-31

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: ACCOUNTS 2013

Post by Guest on 11.01.14 15:05

@Smokeandmirrors wrote:
@aiyoyo wrote:
@Portia wrote:

Actually, the Fund Limited buying providing for the witnesses may be a blessing in disguise: IF the Fund really did this, then the Mecs are not in a position to reclaim these witness awards/ freebees from the plaintiffs, as they haven't made any of these payments themselves but the Fund is the paymaster

You lost me there ?

I think it means that the McCanns can not claim any of the costs relating to witness expenses as they were paid for by the Fund. The Fund is not who is making this legal case by the family.

However, the terms of the fund state that it is there to support the family financially, so the fund would cough up anyway regardless.

 what 

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: ACCOUNTS 2013

Post by Smokeandmirrors on 11.01.14 15:28

@Portia wrote:
@Smokeandmirrors wrote:
@aiyoyo wrote:
@Portia wrote:

Actually, the Fund Limited buying providing for the witnesses may be a blessing in disguise: IF the Fund really did this, then the Mecs are not in a position to reclaim these witness awards/ freebees from the plaintiffs, as they haven't made any of these payments themselves but the Fund is the paymaster

You lost me there ?

I think it means that the McCanns can not claim any of the costs relating to witness expenses as they were paid for by the Fund. The Fund is not who is making this legal case by the family.

However, the terms of the fund state that it is there to support the family financially, so the fund would cough up anyway regardless.

 what 

Well, I think that is the case Portia. Please don't panic, it could be wrong. But I think that is why the Company was set up in this way, so the McCanns can cash in whatever circumstances arise. The weasels.

____________________
The truth will out.

Smokeandmirrors
Moderator

Posts : 2428
Reputation : 5
Join date : 2011-07-31

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: ACCOUNTS 2013

Post by jeanmonroe on 11.01.14 15:31

Just thought i'd pop this one into the microwave and see what pings.

Would any Met police officer from the 'elite' team be able to claim the £2.5 million 'celebrity pledged' reward and £20,000 Met police 'reward'  IF Madeleine were to be 'found' by him?

We all know the list of celebrity names that 'pledged' money (for reward) but did not, actually pay a penny piece into the 'poor' peoples 'findMadeleinefund'

As John McCann said: "rich people 'pledge' but do not pay cash to the reward, poor people can and should continue donating cash to the 'fund', NOT the 'reward', set up by 'board member and director' John McCann and 'others'

Could a copper, or even an ex-copper,(tipped the wink) who worked on Operation Grange demand, from the celebs, the amount of money they 'pledged' to the 'finder' of Madeleine McCann?

Some £2.5 million+ £20,000 'incentive' right there for Andy or 'others', if allowed, to 'solve' the mysterious disappearance of a child, i would have thought!

jeanmonroe

Posts : 5132
Reputation : 884
Join date : 2013-02-07

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: ACCOUNTS 2013

Post by aiyoyo on 11.01.14 15:42

@Smokeandmirrors wrote:
@aiyoyo wrote:
@Portia wrote:

Actually, the Fund Limited buying providing for the witnesses may be a blessing in disguise: IF the Fund really did this, then the Mecs are not in a position to reclaim these witness awards/ freebees from the plaintiffs, as they haven't made any of these payments themselves but the Fund is the paymaster

You lost me there ?

I think it means that the McCanns can not claim any of the costs relating to witness expenses as they were paid for by the Fund. The Fund is not who is making this legal case by the family.

However, the terms of the fund state that it is there to support the family financially, so the fund would cough up anyway regardless.

But she said from the plaintiffs ? I'm still not an inch clearer.......

BTW, my tool bar in the reply page has disappeared ? What happened ? Had admin changed format ?

aiyoyo

Posts : 9611
Reputation : 318
Join date : 2009-11-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: ACCOUNTS 2013

Post by gbwales on 16.01.14 18:31

@Portia wrote:
@jeanmonroe wrote:(The Fund)
covered expenses for witnesses giving evidence in a libel trial against Goncalo Amaral (former coordinator of the Portugues investigation to fine Madeleine)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, wouldn't the 'fund' paying the 'expenses' of rather 'well heeled' witnesses be considered a slap in the face of the rather 'poorer' people, even a group of handicapped children, that donated to the 'fund'?

HOW much was the 'Find Madeleine Fund' depleted by to pay these expenses?

Would the McCann 'witnesses' not have given evidence, or even travelled to Portugal, IF the 'fund' had not paid their 'expenses'?

Did the McCanns, and the 'fund' HAVE to agree to pay 'expenses' for their witnesses to actually appear in court on their behalf?

What a state of affairs it is when you have to pay for your witnesses to appear in a courtroom for you.

How much did the 'search fund for Madeleine' pay for the return air fare from Canada to Portugal, for witness Mrs Hubbard?

With 'friends' like that, who needs 'enemies'?

Friends, who would 'do anything' to get Madeleine back, as long as it dosen't actually cost them anything personally, as long as the 'Find Madeleine Fund' is paying!

Actually, the Fund Limited buying providing for the witnesses may be a blessing in disguise: IF the Fund really did this, then the Mecs are not in a position to reclaim these witness awards/ freebees from the plaintiffs, as they haven't made any of these payments themselves but the Fund is the paymaster


Do we know who these witnesses are? As I am sure I saw noted somewhere (I thought it was this thread but now can't find it) certainly the trial of autumn 2013 would fall outside the financial year for these accounts.
So who are they referring to and at what sessions?

____________________
"You can't stop the signal, Mal. Everything goes somewhere and I go everywhere."

Mr Universe to Malcolm Reynolds, "Serenity" (2005)

gbwales

Posts : 297
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-08-07

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Page 2 of 2 Previous  1, 2

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum