Found Deceased Australia - Melissa Caddick, 49, Sydney, NSW, 12 Nov 2020 #7

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Just in case you know someone who would also appreciate the pro bono services offered by Baker Mckenzie... there is a 2008 document from probonocentre.org.au which gives a few details.

Types of Pro Bono Work Undertaken
Baker & McKenzie carries out pro bono work in the following ways:
• Free legal work for persons or groups who do not qualify for legal aid and cannot afford legal assistance;
• Free legal work for nonprofit organisations (e.g. charitable and community organisations);
• Non-fee work (regardless of whether a person can get legal aid) for matters which meet public interest criteria;
• Free legal work for the public good or in the public interest (e.g. community legal education or law reform);
• Through various projects (e.g. HPLS).

Eligibility Criteria
Baker & McKenzie acts for disadvantaged or marginalised individuals, charities and community organisations.

<snipped>

Sources of Referral
The majority of Baker & McKenzie’s pro bono work is referred from the Homeless Persons’ Legal Services, Cancer Patients’ Legal Service and Youth Fines Project. Other pro bono requests also come directly from community organisations.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...Vaw2LoMx2LtVyvi5P-mxGH3nP&cshid=1625873732225
 
Redrunner said:
Ah, the separation of truth from fiction, ot an asy job in this case.
Click to expand...
I am taking the position that Melissa lied about everything..

The affidavits from the parents re the arrangements about Edgecliff, for example. So far, the actual solicitors letters and legal agreements haven't been seen, but the email had all the elements of high grade persuasion mixed in with all the stuff the parents wanted to hear, and very little provable fact.

One of the things that rang a bell was the inclusion, in those emails re the purchasing arrangements, about Caddick Colorado Bear Invest. that she refers to , implying that she owned that apartment in the NorthWest Apartment building, in Aspen. Yet, without equivocation, the managers of that building say that Caddick rented it for $US 54,000.00 a month.

So someone there is fibbing, and I'm inclined to go along with the building management. That email was going to be read by the brother, who thought he was going to inherit that very apartment in Aspen, a nice little nest egg.

Then, she tells mum and dad, she will pay the outgoings on the apartment, rates, water, reno's, because, as she puts it, she is the owner and she can claim it on taxes.

Right, what taxes? this is where the ATO is going to be an interesting segment of this particular program. Is the ATO going to claim that every cent the 'investors' gave to Melissa is going to designated as INCOME>? or business profit?.. what taxes did she pay and what deductions did she claim.

Reading thru those heartrending statements of the victims, what stands out is, they all , I think without exception, begged Melissa to take their money. They would hear about her, and ask her to be their fiscal manager, and she would tell them she only did a quota, because she didn't need to do it, she was only helping a few people, the investors would wait a while and then Melissa would contact them and say, well.. ' there's a place vacant for you, if you want to be on my list of clients'.. and of course, the investor would instantly agree and claw all the money they had saved for years out of safe hands and put it into Melissa's even safer hands, as they saw it.

No one was forced, no one was made to, no one was shoved in it. They all voluntarily , and with great anticipation and pleasure , donated their money to Melissa.

The ATO is going to count that as personal income. Even though they thought they were handing over money to Maliver, they were , in fact and in reality, handing over money to Melissa, and it was Melissa, and not Maliver that spent that money on personal matters.

The investors might end up owing money to the ATO for years ,, years.. ditto, the Grimleys.
 
Last edited:
Via Marple said:
Just in case you know someone who would also appreciate the pro bono services offered by Baker Mckenzie... there is a 2008 document from probonocentre.org.au which gives a few details.

Types of Pro Bono Work Undertaken
Baker & McKenzie carries out pro bono work in the following ways:
• Free legal work for persons or groups who do not qualify for legal aid and cannot afford legal assistance;
• Free legal work for nonprofit organisations (e.g. charitable and community organisations);
• Non-fee work (regardless of whether a person can get legal aid) for matters which meet public interest criteria;
• Free legal work for the public good or in the public interest (e.g. community legal education or law reform);
• Through various projects (e.g. HPLS).

Eligibility Criteria
Baker & McKenzie acts for disadvantaged or marginalised individuals, charities and community organisations.

<snipped>

Sources of Referral
The majority of Baker & McKenzie’s pro bono work is referred from the Homeless Persons’ Legal Services, Cancer Patients’ Legal Service and Youth Fines Project. Other pro bono requests also come directly from community organisations.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...Vaw2LoMx2LtVyvi5P-mxGH3nP&cshid=1625873732225
Click to expand...


On the basis of this brochure, it's hard to see how the Grimley's qualify, .......
 
Something I don’t understand ....if the G’s intention was to put the $1m on the mortgage for the Edgecliffe property - WHY didn’t they put the payment directly in the bank? Instead they made the contribution to MC....why?
 
MsLilly said:
Something I don’t understand ....if the G’s intention was to put the $1m on the mortgage for the Edgecliffe property - WHY didn’t they put the payment directly in the bank? Instead they made the contribution to MC....why?
Click to expand...

From memory, when I did the timeline for when MC purchased Edgecliff, it appeared to me that MC bought it before her parents even sold their house as there seemed to be a few months gap in between.

In the emails, it appeared that the parents were looking for properties in other areas such as Bellevue Hill. I could not see that Edgecliff was ever mentioned.

It looked to me as if MC could have got impatient with her parents making up their minds or tricked them into Edgecliff as they had not sold their house. Therefore, they had to pay MC as she was already the owner. I think it was always her intention to not have her parents on the title. I also think that the extra money they gave her as a contribution for "safe keeping" was so that they could get a better pension which is illegal.

Check the Centrelink rules before gifting

2016: MC purchased Edgecliff penthouse apartment in her name for parents for $2.55m (SMH)

2017 Melissa Caddick’s parents fight to keep Edgecliff home from creditors | Daily Telegraph

Melissa's parents are trying to stake a claim on their own apartment to avoid becoming homeless if it is seized by her creditors. Barbara and Ted Grimley sold their home in Connells Point in Sydney’s south for $1.55m in 2017, and have been living in the penthouse apartment in Edgecliff. Melissa's parents believed they significantly contributed to the purchase of the $2.55m unit in Sydney’s east with the proceeds of the Connells Point sale. Between December and last month, Ms Caddick’s elderly parents placed three caveats over their apartment in Edgecliff to stop it being sold under their noses. Liquidators have also placed caveats on the Edgecliff apartment.
 
Via Marple said:
I suppose they are elderly suffering from "domestic abuse". Personally I think that is a stretch.

I hope BM does do many many other deserving elderly abuse cases pro bono, to have this one included in their projects.
Click to expand...
Agree the G’s are elderly.... so are some of the Investors. What defines “domestic abuse”.... the G’s haves lived in the apartment since April 2017 rent free...whilst receiving $4,000 per month allowance from MC...apparently at the Investors expense.

Some the investors (some elderly and some with serious medical issues) have been abused by MC as she stole their life savings and SMSF since 2012.

So how can the parents claim to be more entitled than the Investors?
 
Trooper said:
I am taking the position that Melissa lied about everything..

The affidavits from the parents re the arrangements about Edgecliff, for example. So far, the actual solicitors letters and legal agreements haven't been seen, but the email had all the elements of high grade persuasion mixed in with all the stuff the parents wanted to hear, and very little provable fact.

One of the things that rang a bell was the inclusion, in those emails re the purchasing arrangements, about Caddick Colorado Bear Invest. that she refers to , implying that she owned that apartment in the NorthWest Apartment building, in Aspen. Yet, without equivocation, the managers of that building say that Caddick rented it for $US 54,000.00 a month.

So someone there is fibbing, and I'm inclined to go along with the building management. That email was going to be read by the brother, who thought he was going to inherit that very apartment in Aspen, a nice little nest egg.

Then, she tells mum and dad, she will pay the outgoings on the apartment, rates, water, reno's, because, as she puts it, she is the owner and she can claim it on taxes.

Right, what taxes? this is where the ATO is going to be an interesting segment of this particular program. Is the ATO going to claim that every cent the 'investors' gave to Melissa is going to designated as INCOME>? or business profit?.. what taxes did she pay and what deductions did she claim.

Reading thru those heartrending statements of the victims, what stands out is, they all , I think without exception, begged Melissa to take their money. They would hear about her, and ask her to be their fiscal manager, and she would tell them she only did a quota, because she didn't need to do it, she was only helping a few people, the investors would wait a while and then Melissa would contact them and say, well.. ' there's a place vacant for you, if you want to be on my list of clients'.. and of course, the investor would instantly agree and claw all the money they had saved for years out of safe hands and put it into Melissa's even safer hands, as they saw it.

No one was forced, no one was made to, no one was shoved in it. They all voluntarily , and with great anticipation and pleasure , donated their money to Melissa.

The ATO is going to count that as personal income. Even though they thought they were handing over money to Maliver, they were , in fact and in reality, handing over money to Melissa, and it was Melissa, and not Maliver that spent that money on personal matters.

The investors might end up owing money to the ATO for years ,, years.. ditto, the Grimleys.
Click to expand...

I don't really understand the tax implications. However, if an investor gives money to be invested and it is not invested so they do not get any income from it, wouldn't it be treated as a loss for income tax purposes?
 
Via Marple said:
I suppose they are elderly suffering from "domestic abuse". Personally I think that is a stretch.

I hope BM does do many many other deserving elderly abuse cases pro bono, to have this one included in their projects.
Click to expand...

I guess the parents had to claim that they could not afford legal assistance by supplying bank statements and so on. I don't think you necessarily have to claim "abuse".

Free legal work for persons or groups who do not qualify for legal aid and cannot afford legal assistance;
 
Estelle said:
I don't really understand the tax implications. However, if an investor gives money to be invested and it is not invested so they do not get any income from it, wouldn't it be treated as a loss for income tax purposes?
Click to expand...
....that now needs to be unravelled be each Investor....as MC had the end of year tax returns completed by the Accountant and audited by a SMSF Auditor and submitted to the ATO.
 
MsLilly said:
In AG’s December 2020 Affidavit his Budget stated that only $32 per month was paid in child support....where the amount of $71,393 was paid in child support!! mmmmm......
Click to expand...

For how many years was this paid to MC?

Did her ex-husband pay it? Surely he was the one responsible - not the Government.

Is AK receiving the child support now?
 
Estelle said:
For how many years was this paid to MC?

Did her ex-husband pay it? Surely he was the one responsible - not the Government.

Is AK receiving the child support now?
Click to expand...
Assume the child support was paid by her ex-husband from their Agreement! And it shouldn’t be paid to AK as the ex-husband would now be the child’s legal guardian.
 
MsLilly said:
Assume the child support was paid by her ex-husband from their Agreement! And it shouldn’t be paid to AK as the ex-husband would now be the child’s legal guardian.
Click to expand...

So why was the $32 from the Government mentioned? You are not entitled to both or are you? Maybe you are as it is like the old Child Endowment?

So you are questioning how MC received $32 per month since OC was born in 2005 and it amounted to over $70,000? That's 16 years x $32 x 12. How much does that work out to?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 168 more.
Total: 3,692 (members: 169, guests: 3,523)

Online statistics

Members online
169
Guests online
3,523
Total visitors
3,692
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
591,849
Messages
17,959,979
Members
228,623
Latest member
Robbi708
Back
Top