Nowy Czas 26.8.10
|Letter from the Chairman of Fawley Court Old Boys
August 26, 2010
The Charity Commission
9 July 2010
Dear Mr Hind
THE RAPE OF FAWLEY COURT; ITS TRUST, SCHOOL, MUSEUM, CHURCH, CHAPELS AND BURIAL GROUND – AND THE VIOLATION OF THE CY-PRES DOCTRINE
(Meanwhile, the two ‘new’ non-owners squabble in the High Court over a bogus valuation, a £5m. ‘fee’, having ‘bought’ property without good title).
At long last! A belated reply. Six months
(half a year!) after writing and warning the Chief Executive (cf. letter “A Beautiful part of England that is forever Poland” 2 December 2009), about the unlawful and needless sale
of Fawley Court, we now have your tardy, troublesome and lamentable response of 3 June 2010!
Please note, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, our constitutional Sovereign, graciously responded to our concerns (4 January 2010), taking “careful note” over the “sale and sanctuary” thus the worshipful status of
St Anne’s Church, Fawley Court – within a fortnight!
Similarly the then Prime Minister, The Rt. Hon Gordon Brown MP also responded (11 December 2009) to our concerns – within
Your tardy response is troublesome because the Chief Executive, and the Charity Commission have hitherto chosen to ignore totally for over two years (!), all the pleas and representations made in respect of the Plight of Fawley Court; be it from MPs, Barristers, Solicitors, press, institutions, donors, or equitable beneficiaries.
It has further, swept under the carpet, and discarded, FCOB’s timely three interrogatories to the Marians’ solicitors Pothecary Witham Weld, together with our searching four page letter to the Land Registry, dealing inter alia with; bad title, proper valuation, missing funds, and DISPOSALS REQUIRING SUBSTANTIVE COMPLIANCE WITH S 36 OF THE 1993 (CHARITY) ACT.
It is lamentable because the Chief Executive’s tardy reply of 3 June is conveniently timed one day after (2 June), when the defective new registration of Fawley Court, in essence Divine Mercy College, is lodged at the Land Registry.
We know that the Trustees of Trust 1075608 (particularly A Gowkielewicz and W Jasinski), for two years, systematically mislead beneficiaries, worshippers and donors/investors alike, announcing publicly that Fawley Court had been sold when quite evidently it had not been. Is this not a breach of the Charity Commission’s own regulations of the highest order?
All this, amidst growing proof that vital documentary evidence (trust and title deeds, conveyances and correspondence), forwarded on 14 July 2009 to your office by Pothecary Witham Weld, Marian’s Solicitors, has been deliberately suppressed, or perhaps wilfully shunned by some of the caseworkers at the Charity Commission – all in systematic defiance of FCOB’s comprehensively researched, legally sound, and compellingly argued case against the sale of Fawley Court, which we now know from the above priests did not take place until 13 April 2010!
This attempted sale and curious registration of Fawley Court by new owners, and five novice trustees (Marian priests) with dubious title, none of whom carry British passports (two if not three live permanently abroad), are not a Charitable Company, hence are not exempt from the Charity Act domicility rules, ‘sell’ to Cherrillow Ltd., a wholly anonymous offshore Jersey registered company, over the heads of legally interested UK beneficiaries, donors and parallel trusts, whilst the Charity Commission idly stands by and naively escorts this Alice in Wonderland ‘transaction’ – simply beggars belief!
So much for the transparency and the Charity Commission being an “enabler and policeman”.
However one name, that of Aida Hersham, jumps out of this morass, and “pantomime”, as the Daily Mail (5 July) describes the current High Court freud over a £5m. fee over the Fawley Court ‘sale’ between land agent and developer Richard Butler-Creagh, and Aida Hersham herself, the “benefit by contract” owner of Fawley Court.
Her name is of course well known to the Chief Executive. Aida Hersham is a Philanthropist and one-time, a non-catholic board trustee, resigned her post in 2008 at the famous Catholic St. John and St. Elizabeth Hospital after her offer of concern to relocate the St John’s Wood Medical Practice for £1m was rejected by the then Archbishop of Westminster, Cardinal Cormac Murphy O’Connor.
It was Andrew Hind, Chief Executive of the Charity Commission, who declared proudly (after a Section 8 Inquiry into the running of St. John and St. Elizabeth, North London, founded by the Sisters of Mercy in 1856), that when;
“a serious problem arises and we have a regulatory role, we act to ensure charity assets are protected and charities are put on a proper footing to continue their work.” And further;
“As a result of the Charity Commission’s intervention and the work done by the board of the Ss John and Elizabeth Charity, the charity is better positioned to secure a viable future. “
No such luck it would seem for Fawley Court or its beneficiaries, donors, worshippers or fund and charity workers. No section 8 Enquiry. Nothing. The Charity Commission held out the prospect, and by implication a promise to start a Section 8 Enquiry for half a year. We are still waiting.
We now see this prevarication for what it was. Meanwhile, all along the butchering of Fawley Court continued apace, and the sale was it would seem being cobbled together with the Commission’s misguided blessing.
A Section 8 Inquiry, given all the other breaches associated with Trust 107508, should be opened forthwith, as a matter of urgency and natural justice.
Again, as if we need reminding. Fawley Court, Divine Mercy College, was bought specifically to be a school for Polish Boys; a point clearly and legally enshrined in emerging documentation.
It was purchased largely, if not entirely thanks to the funds from the Poles in exile; Polish, fighter pilots (Battle of Britain…), soldiers (Monte Cassino…), combatants, civilians, Anglo-Polish well wishers, and many others. Through earnest fund raising and an indomitable spirit, the majority shareholders, the civilian folk, sustained Fawley Court financially, and otherwise throughout its lean years, preserving the school, museum, church and chapels.
Clearly this gigantic effort, vast sums and energy was not expended to house two of three (Marian) priests in isolated splendour in a vast historic mansion, surrounded by 50 acres of resplendent parkland and gardens.
No, Fawley Court was set up with the one specific charitable objective in mind; to house Divine Mercy College, a school, and its sister charity the Fr. Jarzembowski Museum, under the CY-PRES Doctrine. In 1986 everything woefully and wilfully crashed.
In the mid 1980s Marians, Gerhard Domanski and Czeslaw Pisiak instructed Richard Parkes, a solicitor to “tidy up” and formally register Fawley Court – it had remained ‘ownerless’ for over thirty years – with the Marians as proprietor. Curiously no one from the Polish Community or its institutions, was alerted or invited (!)
The school, conveniently, for a future sale, is abruptly and bizarrely shut down in 1986. However, it is Divine Mercy College, (school and land) that is registered with the Land Registry as the formal owner, but through trust deeds varied self-servingly over the years the Marians become bogus proprietors.
Many, well documented attempts were made by various parties, to revive the school. But to no avail. Indeed as one ex-Teacher says “our efforts to bring back Divine Mercy College was met with a hostile reception from the Marians in the 1980s”.
A new school/college with a re-instated museum, at Fawley Court would have every chance of success today. There is support!
And herein we get to the crux of the matter. The CY-PRES Doctrine (French: Cy, here; Pres, near) lies at the heart, soul and governance of all charities and trusts. It is about preserving the integrity and original aim of its founders as CLOSELY as possible. In this case as a school.
The Cy-Press credo is enshrined in the Statute of Charitable Uses 1601 (often called the statute of Elizabeth), (1601 Act). Whilst repealed in 1888 its legal force and concept is intact. Its opening preamble is worth noting; “the relief of aged, impotent and poor people; the maintenance of sick and maimed soldiers and mariners (today we would add “pilots”), schools of learning, free schools and scholars in Universities”. Marians and Charity Commission pay heed.
How the Chief Executive in his reply of 3 June last, accepts Trust’s 1075608’s migration from the concept of a school at Fawley Court, England to ; “advance the Roman Catholic Religion anywhere in the world”, is baffling.
Moreover, given the needless, erroneous deconsecration of St Anne’s Church, wrong both in common and ecclesiastical law, the defiling and wrecking of a blessed grotto, the forced (unlicenced) exhumation of Fr.Joseph, the removal of catholic urns and human remains without licence, to which W Jasinski publicly admits, the prevention of Catholic worshippers to attend and pray at St Anne’s, congregations insulted by a “Catholic” Marian priest at Ealing, does not inspire one. Hardly the exemplary, satisfactory advancement of the catholic Religion on our own UK shores, let alone in the world!
Today, Fawley Court represents both a battleground and a gulag; a ransacked museum, Auschwitz/Belsen style gates, barbed and electric wires, sensors and security guards. Desecrated graves, a “deconsecrated” Church and mutilated grotto. Police and Alsatian guard dogs now greet visitors to the half-century old Whitsun (Zielone Swiatki) Festival. The numerous Public Rights of Way through Fawley Court’s resplendent land, and to the river are blocked – a feature of freedom that the Polish Community insisted on for over half a century.
The good people of Henley and in London must be wondering what the hell is going on?
Meanwhile, Aida Hersham, an unlikely victim, complains to the Henley Standard of being vexed by planes flying overhead, in the skies of Fawley Court. Maybe these are the ghosts of those brave Polish pilots who helped buy Fawley Court, having first helped save England in the Battle of Britain.
Winston Churchill famously commented; Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few”.
Near two thousand Polish pilots perished in the battle of Britain and other sorties.
This heroic sacrifice is best grasped in the words of Wing Commander Thomas Gleave, RAF Pilot, and Commander of Northolt, who said of the Poles; “I wonder if mankind is yet aware of the credit that is their due. They fought for English soil with an abandon, tempered with skill and backed by an indomitable courage such that it could never have been surpassed had it been in defence of their own native land”.
Fawley Court, a (tiny) beautiful part of England that is forever Poland.
It is hoped to hear from the Chief Executive at his earliest convenience, hopefully not another six months. Meanwhile an eye must be kept on the vulture-trusts hovering in the wings eyeing the spoils…
Chairman, Fawley Court Old Boys
PS. This letter is dedicated to Kazimierz Fedorowicz, RAF Pilot, whose love for Fawley Court and inspired letter to our Sovereign, her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, and her gracious response, gave added succour to Fawley Court Old Boys.
Kategoria Fawley Court · Skomentuj
Henley Standard pisze
August 26, 2010
Kobieta, która przej??a Fawley Court zosta?a podana do s?du przez dewelopera. Chodzi o pi?? milionów funtów
Richard Butler-Craegh twierdzi, ?e obiecano mu pieni?dze za przeprowadzenie kupna nieruchomo?ci w imieniu Aidy Hersham. Pani Hersham, bogata rozwódka, która zajmuje si? renowacj? historycznego pa?acu i okolicznego parku uwa?a, ?e nie zawar?a takiej umowy.
W dokumentach, z?o?onych w londy?skim s?dzie (High Court) pan Butler-Craegh stwierdza, ?e posiada? wy??czne prawo do kupna Fawley Court za kwot? 22,5 mln funtów. J
W pa?dzierniku 2008 roku, tu? przed dokonaniem transakcji, skontaktowa?a si? z nim przedstawicielka pani Hersham, która poprosi?a o mo?liwo?? obejrzenia nieruchomo?ci.
Po jej wizycie pani Hersham i Richard Butler-Craegh udali si? do le??cego przy New Street Hotel du Vin, gdzie pani Hersham wyrazi?a ch?? zakupu nieruchomo?ci.
Richard Butler-Craegh twierdzi, ?e po tym spotkaniu pani Hersham zadzwoni?a do niego i zgodzi?a si? zap?aci? 5 mln funtów w razie dokonania transakcji.
Uzgodniono, ?e nieruchomo?? zostanie zakupiona przez zarejestrowan? na wyspie Jersey spó?k? o nazwie Cherrilow.
Butler-Creagh chcia? w kwietniu bie??cego roku przekszta?ci? Fawley Court w hotel i mieszkania, jednak?e nie mia? na ten cel pieni?dzy.
Wed?ug niego nieruchomo?? by?a warta znacznie wi?cej ni? cena, jak? zgodzono si?
zap?aci?. Wed?ug jego kalkulacji po renowacji obiekt móg?by osi?gn?? warto?? 32 mln
Pani Hersham twierdzi, ?e Richard Butler-Craegh móg? liczy? na zap?at? 5 mln funtów, po osi?gni?ciu planowanego zysku. Jednak?e wed?ug jej s?ów nieruchomo?? nigdy nie by?a warta takiej sumy, któr? on proponowa? i ?e Fawley Court mo?e jedynie pozosta? domem dla jednej rodziny.
Aida Hersham uwa?a, ?e prawa pana Butler-Creagh wygas?y, gdy? nie posiada? pieni?dzy na przeprowadzenie przebudowy i za?atwienia spraw administracyjnych, a tak?e, ?e jego kalendarz prac by? „beznadziejnie optymistyczny”.
Twierdzi równie?, ?e projekt wymaga?by dalszych, sporych nak?adów i zaprzecza, jakoby to od niej wysz?a inicjatywa, jej zdaniem to z ni? skontaktowa?a si? druga strona.
W listopadzie 2008 roku oferta pani Hersham wynosz?ca 16.5 miliona funtów zosta?a przyj?ta przez marianów. Ostatecznie nieruchomo?? zmieni?a w?a?ciciela w maju 2010, jednak?e w skutek negocjacji, cen? obni?ono o kolejne 3,5 mln funtów.
Sprzeda? posiad?o?ci spowodowa?a protesty polskiej spo?eczno?ci emigracyjnej i stowarzyszenia Fawley Court Old Boys.
Rzecznik pani Hersham powiedzia?, ?e „zarzuty Richarda Butler-Craegha s? pozbawione podstaw. Z kolei Richard Butler-Craegh o?wiadczy?, ?e „prawnicy doradzili mu nie udziela? komentarzy dopóki s?dzia nie wyda wyroku”.
Pani Hersham, przedstawiana jako filantropka, rozpocz??a szeroko zakrojon? przebudow? zespo?u pa?acowo-parkowego, który zacz?? popada? w ruin? w czasie ponad pi??dziesi?ciu lat, gdy piecz? sprwowali nad nim marianie. W ubieg?ym miesi?cu powiedzia?a ona gazecie „Henley Standard”, ?e podczas trwania prac nadal b?dzie mieszka?a w Londynie, jednak?e pó?niej chcia?aby przeprowadzi? si? do Fawley Court ze swymi dzie?mi i partnerem, Patrikiem Sieffem.
Aida Hersham stwierdzi?a, ?e „czuje si? wyj?tkowo szcz??liwa, mog?c odrestaurowa? Fawley, nawet je?li nie do jego oryginalnego wygl?du, to przynajmniej do pi?kna, na jakie zas?uguje. Czujemy wielk? odpowiedzialno?? za ten dom”.
Prze?o?y? Alex S?awi?ski
|| Komitet Obrony Dziedzictwa Narodowego Fawley Court, , e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org