April 17, 2021

A Fictitious Business Name Filing... 8 Years late?

In this post, I am going to discuss the recent Fictitious Business Filing that occurred this past December (2020) and what the likely significance of this means with regards to grantLOVE's business operations up until that point and going forward. In order to do this, I need to first explain the type of charitable business structure she has chosen for grantLOVE Project - Limited Liability Company -  and what rules this structure must follow when established as a charitable entity in the State of California.

 
Legal Charitable Forms in the State of California
 
There are various legal forms of charitable organizations in the State of California that are required to register with the California Attorney General's Registry of Charitable Trusts. These are:
 
- Public Benefit Corporations (this is the most common one)
- Mutual Benefit Corporations
- Trusts
- Charitable Trustees
- Unincorporated Associations
- Limited Liability Companies
- Social Purpose Corporations 
- Benefit Corporations (not to be confused with Public Benefit Corporations listed earlier)

I am not going to cover every one of these as they are not all pertinent to grantLOVE Project. My main focus will be on charitable Limited Liability Companies (LLC) since this is what grantLOVE Project is operating under, according to the Fictitious Business Name Filing from December 16, 2020.
 
 
 



 Alexandra Grant LLC = grantLOVE Project
 
 
The first thing that stands out to me is the date she says she started to transact business as grantLOVE Project. The Alexandra Grant LLC registration date is December 3, 2012. In her Fictitious Business Name filing, she states, under oath, that Alexandra Grant LLC started doing business as grantLOVE Project in January 2013.
 
Based on this, you can assume that she registered Alexandra Grant LLC in December 2012 and then started to do business as grantLOVE project one month later, January 2013. 
 
Except that, we also know that her LOVE trademark is the brand/symbol for grantLOVE Project. According to her trademark registration, the first use of the mark in commerce was December 8, 2012.
 

 
If this is true, then she filed Alexandra Grant LLC and 5 days later, started to use it for grantLOVE Project commercial purposes. Given this date, she started to transact business as grantLOVE Project almost immediately after filing Alexandra Grant LLC, not a month later.
 
So, either she lied when she filled out her fictitious business name filing by stating she started to do business as grantLOVE and/or grantLOVE Project in January 2013; or she lied when she stated that she first used the trademark in commerce on December 8, 2012.
 
I really don’t understand the purpose in being deceptive here, but there’s no denying there's a discrepancy, on official documents. They can’t both be true.
 
 
The second thing that stands out to me is the name of her LLC. Why would she create the LLC in her own name? 
 
Based on the fact that she immediately started to use it for grantLOVE Project, you would think she would have named the LLC after grantLOVE, wouldn't you? If this had been her intention all along, then grantLOVE LLC would have made more sense.
 
Unless, her intention was to use it for both grantLOVE Project and for her personal art business (separate from grantLOVE Project)? 


I have a strong suspicion that this is the case, that she has been using Alexandra Grant LLC for both her personal business as an artist (for-profit) and grantLOVE business (charity). I suspect this was her intent from the start and that’s why she set up the LLC with her name. This way she could use it for both.
 

There is one big problem with this. In California, LLCs that hold charitable assets are NOT ALLOWED to function as for-profit entities. 

 

This is from the Attorney General's Guide to Charities under "Legal Forms of Charitable Organizations"...
 
 




The way I interpret this is that there are only 2 legal forms of for-profit entities with charitable causes allowed in the state of California (also referred to as Hybrid Corporations):

 

- Social Purpose Corporations and 

- Benefit Corporations.

 
That's how I interpret the "additionally, there are two for-profit corporate forms in California..."(see red arrow)

They are not saying there are two ADDITIONAL for-profit charitable corporate forms

They are saying these are THE ONLY TWO for-profit charitable corporate forms.
 

Because her charitable entity is under an LLC, she cannot legally have a for-profit aspect to her enterprise. 

 

In other words, if she wanted to have a for-profit business and a charitable business, then she would have needed 2 separate LLCs to do this. One for grantLOVE Project and one in another name for any for-profit business she wants to do. To the best of my understanding, she cannot do both with one entity when that entity is an LLC - not in California.


As soon as she came into possession of charitable funds or assets, she would have had to cease all for-profit aspects of her business with the use of Alexandra Grant, LLC. 
 

Although there is a hybrid form of LLC, called a Low Profit Charitable LLC (L3C), which permits an entity to have both a charitable purpose and make minimal profit that the owners can share (very much like the Hybrid Corporations mentioned earlier) these are not legal in the state of California. 

https://sdcorporatelaw.com/business-entity/hybrid-corporation/

 
 

To sum up, if I am interpreting all of this correctly, it would mean that she is not allowed to use Alexandra Grant LLC as a for-profit entity if she using it for charitable purposes (grantLOVE Project). Which would mean that grantLOVE Project cannot legally function as a hybrid entity. The entity must be one or the other, for-profit or charitable. It cannot be both.

 

I have highlighted numerous instances throughout the grantLOVE website where there are very strong indication that the items for sale are not benefiting charity in any way (See The Web of Lies Continues...). If this is actually the case, then this would imply that she is personally benefiting from the profits, activities or resources of the charitable entity. This would be a breach of the Charitable Trust Doctrine and her Duty of Loyalty as the manager of the charitable entity. (See post The Charitable Trust Doctrine)

Despite having stated on the grantLOVE website and in PR articles that the sale of any item bearing the LOVE symbol/trademark will benefit artists projects, arts non-profits and/or art education, that does not appear to be the case currently. There are still items listed on the grantLOVE website with no mention of any portion going to charity.

 

But even if that were the case, even if every item on the grantLOVE website benefited charity in some way, she would still not be allowed to use Alexandra Grant, LLC for any other for-profit enterprise; like her business as an artist (separate from grantLOVE Project), the sale of her Antigone 3000 collages, or to pay employees that do work for her personal business, because she is using it for grantLOVE Project. Unfortunately, I strongly suspect she has been doing this though… from the very beginning.

 

Why do I feel so strongly about this, especially now? Because of the Fictitious Business Filing.

 

Why did she file this now?

 

She’s been operating grantLOVE under Alexandra Grant LLC for 8 years now and she never bothered to do this until now. It’s a bit strange don’t you think? Something must have triggered this and I suspect it has something to do with the financials. Why? 


Because charitable funds must be kept separate from any other funds.

 



In order to do this, you need to open a bank account in the charity's name. If you need to set up a business account in a name that is different than what you've registered it as with the state, you would need some sort of legal document that proves that this is a legitimate business name. That is where the Fictitious Business Name filing comes in (also known as a DBA = Doing Business As). 


https://www.fundera.com/blog/what-do-i-need-to-open-a-business-bank-account

 





I believe that, sometime this past December, grantLOVE Project transferred all of its funds from an Alexandra Grant LLC bank account to a brand new grantLOVE bank account. That is my suspicion.

 

Further indication that this is the case can be found when you look at this blog https://grantvsparker-restrainingorder.blogspot.com/. More specifically, when you look at their latest post https://grantvsparker-restrainingorder.blogspot.com/2021/03/post-19-dangerous-precedent.html . The blog is about a recent restraining order filed by Alexandra Grant against Ms. Cathryn Parker. The hearing took place last November 2020. What is interesting is that Ms. Parker clearly took offense to Ms. Grant's lawyer calling grantLOVE a charitable organization and uttered these words in court...

 


 
So, clearly, this is the event that prompted Alexandra Grant into filing the Fictitious Business Name with the state. She filed it very shortly afterwards. My guess is, those words uttered by Ms. Parker during the hearing hit far too close to home, which likely forced Alexandra Grant to attempt to rectify her financial snafu regarding grantLOVE's charitable funds.
 
 

Unfortunately for her, even if the accounting has been corrected from December 2020 onward, it would not correct whatever transgressions may have been made in the past. 

 

If grantLOVE were ever to be investigated, ALL of the financial records going back 10 years would be looked at (that's the statue of limitations). If breaches of trust exist, they would to be found, and she would be liable for all of them. If any grantLOVE funds were ever deposited into an account that was not solely for the use of grantLOVE Project, this would be discovered and this would be deemed as embezzling. 


I hope for her sake that this is not the case... but I am not too optimistic about that at this point.


There is actually another way she could have easily rectified the banking situation years ago. She could have filed for a name change for her LLC and renamed it grantLOVE LLC. This would not have been a new notion to her since her mother did the very same thing with her LLC several years ago. She changed it from Orange Grove Investments LLC to Marcia Grant LLC.

 

I have no doubt that Alexandra Grant is familiar with this option. She could have chosen to change the name to grantLOVE LLC years ago. It would have solved many issues regarding her entity. It would have offered transparency to the public regarding her grantLOVE Project, which is ALWAYS seen as a positive thing when a business is charitable. It instills confidence in the consumer and they are more supportive to the endeavor. It would also have resolved any issues with setting up a proper bank account in grantLOVE's name. All in all, it would simply make far more business sense for her LLC to have been set up as grantLOVE from the very beginning.

 

In my opinion, the fact that she never considered/chose this option for her LLC is a strong indication that she is in fact using Alexandra Grant LLC for other business (separate from grantLOVE Project). Because, if she is using it for personal business, then she would definitely want the LLC to remain with her name. To me, this is further proof that the fictitious business name filing was done for the sole purpose of correcting the bank account situation. She would absolutely need this in order to get an appropriate account for grantLOVE. 



In Summary:

I am going to be upfront here, most of what I've written here in regards to the implications of the DBA and the use of her LLC for both charitable and for-profit business is deductive reasoning. They are my suspicions based on the facts at hand. 
 
I don't have proof of what she's doing financially with regards to the banking. 
 
I don't have proof that she is using the LLC for personal business. 
 
I don't have access to her records, obviously. 

But, here is what I do know and can prove for certain:
 
1- She would not have been able to open a bank account in grantLOVE's name until very recently because she had no official document proving that grantLOVE is a registered business (and it is a registered business even if it's not a registered charitable business).   
 
This implies that all the charitable funds were going into an account using Alexandra Grant's name. It would be entirely inappropriate to have grantLOVE funds going into an account that is named after her. Even if it were for the sole use of grantLOVE Project, it would look like she is misappropriating those funds for potential personal use. It looks like embezzling. Any way you look at this, the perception is not favorable. I have no doubt the appropriate authorities would agree.
 
 
2- The fact that "the lack of a Fictitious Business Filing" and "that grantLOVE funds were going into a personal account" were both mentioned at the Restraining Order hearing is undeniable. And the fact that she filed the Fictitious Business Name one month later is also undeniable. 
 
The connection between these events cannot be discounted. I do not believe it is a coincidence. 
 
 
3- People have been calling her out on social media for close to 2 years now. They have been calling her out on the lack of transparency with regards to grantLOVE Project as well as its lack of registration as a business (whether charitable or not). You could not find ANY registration for grantLOVE or grantLOVE Project until the December filing of the Fictitious Business Name.
 
She could have easily remedied this situation by simply changing the name of Alexandra Grant LLC to grantLOVE LLC, but chose not to. To me, this is further indication that she is still trying to obscure the truth about this "philanthropic enterprise".  Changing the name of the LLC would have given some of this transparency to the public. But this is not the solution she sought. Firstly, I believe the last thing she wants is transparency. And I think this is part of why she chose the Fictitious Business Filing as a solution. Secondly, she likes having things in her name. I've mentioned this before but, she treats grantLOVE Project like it's an extension of herself and not like its own entity. I believe that, in her mind, grantLOVE is her and therefore it should be in her name.

 
4- Technically, you are supposed to file a Fictitious Business Name within 40 days of starting the business in that name. 
 
 
 
She waited 8 years to do this. I believe she only did this now because it was mentioned in court, which means it is now mentioned in a legal document - the transcripts - which anyone can purchase and verify. I believe she was doing the minimum required based on this alone. The fact that she waited until she had no choice but to file this is just a further indication of her propensity for deceit. I don't believe anything else has changed with regards to how grantLOVE is now operating. 
 
 
5- Having both a non-profit and for-profit aspect to an LLC is illegal in the State of California.

Since the Fictitious Business Filing confirms that Alexandra Grant LLC is grantLOVE Project, she therefore cannot have ANY for-profit business with the use of Alexandra Grant LLC. There have been multiple indications on her website that this is happening. All of these have not been rectified. Therefore, I feel certain that she is still operating like a for-profit entity while still advertising as a non-profit.
 
 
I don't believe she has any intentions of registering her "charity" with the Attorney General or she would have done it by now. Obfuscating the truth is her primary MO and she is willing to go to extreme lengths to accomplish this. Don't believe me? Then you really should read this blog...


April 14, 2021

The Charitable Trust Doctrine

 What is the Charitable Trust Doctrine?

 

 From the Attorney General’s website...

 


From the Non Profit Law Blog by NEO Law Group, based in San Francisco. Their blog specializes in California Non Profit Law and is an excellent source of information. 


https://nonprofitlawblog.com/charitable_trus/

 


The Charitable Trust Doctrine maintains that charitable assets must be used for the expressed purpose for which they were attained. In other words, if a charitable entity tells you that your contribution will go for a certain cause, then your SPECIFIC contribution must be used ONLY for that specific cause. A TRUST is created when this happens. The entity becomes a TRUSTEE and must ensure that the charitable funds or assets donated are used for the sole purpose it was given to them. It was given to them in trust, and they must honor this by law.

 

grantLOVE Project says that every item for sale will benefit the arts. This means that all the funds earned from the sale of these items (not just the profits) can only be used towards arts related projects or charities and to pursue the grantLOVE mission.

 

From the above screen capture from the Non Profit Law blog (inside the green rectangle):

 

"...it may be impossible to separate out donations and contributions from other revenues, and such revenues may have only be derived from the "base capital" created by the donated assets."

 

What does this means? Well, because the revenues garnered by the sale of these charitable items are used by grantLOVE Project to acquire/fabricate more items, all of the items acquired/fabricated also become charitable items. As such all of the proceeds from these items become charitable funds. And on and on it goes. It becomes impossible to separate what may be deemed a charitable asset or fund versus what is not. Because of this, ALL items and funds are "irrevocably dedicated" to further the charitable cause and cannot be used for anything other than the pursuit of that cause.

 

Also from the Non Profit Blog link mentioned earlier regarding the Charitable Trust Doctrine...

 


Furthermore, for example, if it is stated that the profits will benefit OCMA, then those profits can only be used for OCMA. They CANNOT be diverted to another charity or cause (See What Kind of Trickery is This). They were raised for OCMA and to OCMA they must go. ** I will elaborate on this in a future post when I discuss what it means to be a Commercial Coventurer.

 

Another example: If grantLOVE Project were to change the types of charities they contribute to, lets say animal welfare, the profits that were collected prior to them making that change could only be used for arts related projects or charities because that's what they were collected for originally. Only the new funds collected could be used for animal welfare. 

 

Always, and without exception, the charity must honor the original purpose of the funds and assets at the time they were collected.

 
Alexandra Grant has openly declared on the grantLOVE website that each grantLOVE artwork or product benefits an artist project, arts education organization or arts non profits”. By stating this, she is openly declaring that grantLOVE Project is a charitable entity. As such, they must now follow the rules of the Charitable Trust Doctrine.
  
 
 
This statement also means that every item listed for sale on the grantLOVE website is a charitable asset. Because every item is a charitable asset, the funds raised by the sale of these items are charitable funds.  
 
 


Duty of Loyalty and Care:

 

From the Attorney General’s Guide for Charities

https://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/charities/publications/guide_for_charities.pdf

 

“The TRUSTEE, the person with the legal title to the property, has a fiduciary duty to always act in the best interests of the trust and its beneficiaries, who hold equitable title. California case law defines a fiduciary relationship wherein one party, such as a trustee, “is in duty bound to act with the utmost good faith for the benefit of the other party,” such as a trust’s beneficiaries.

 

Trustees are held to a high DUTY of LOYALTY and CARE in managing trust assets, and fulfilling the trust’s purposes; this includes reporting to beneficiaries.” 

 

Duty of Care:



"...director owes a duty of care to its nonprofit corporation and the corporation's charitable beneficiaries."


In other words, managers/directors must act responsibly in regards to both the charitable entity and the beneficiaries it raises funds for. This means ensuring that the entity and the beneficiaries are properly represented to the public and that all charitable assets are used appropriately. This also includes anyone representing the entity (employees, other businesses and charitable organizations using their name) and ensuring that they are representing them accurately and honorably. Furthermore, this extends to ensuring that all the beneficiaries that will be receiving any of the charitable funds raised fall under the purview of the charitable entity's mission statement and, if they are also charitable entities, that they be registered and in good standing with the Attorney General's Registry of Charitable Trusts before doing so. A charitable entity that is required to be registered but isn't, or is registered but is not in good standing, cannot receive or solicit any charitable funds.

 

From the Attorney General's Website

https://oag.ca.gov/charities/delinquency 

 



Duty of Loyalty:



"...obligated to act with undivided loyalty, be fair in his or her dealings with the nonprofit, and must NOT SEEK TO BENEFIT PERSONALLY from the ACTIVITIES OR RESOURCES OF THE NONPROFIT"

 

In other words, Alexandra Grant, as the owner and manager of grantLOVE Project cannot personally benefit from ANY of the grantLOVE funds, assets or resources. She must act in the best interest of the entity at all times and exclude her personal gain from any decision making. It doesn't matter that she is an artist and technically falls into the category of someone who can benefit from grantLOVE Project, as the owner and manager she is legally forbidden from doing so. Using grantLOVE to benefit herself in any way is strictly prohibited, entirely unethical and is considered a breach of charitable trust.


From the Non Profit Blog by NEO Law Group. 

https://nonprofitlawblog.com/duty_of_loyalty/


 "They key to meeting this duty is to place the interests of the corporation before the director's own interests or the interests of another person or entity."
 
What the above means is that this duty also extends to family, friends and other businesses or charities. In essence, she not only has to exclude herself from benefiting from grantLOVE in any way, but also cannot show favor to other people and businesses, with whom she has a personal relationship with, if it is not in the best interest of grantLOVE Project. If she stands to have more to gain from the exchange than grantLOVE Project does, it is considered a self-dealing transaction.
 
 



grantLOVE Project has an obligation to safeguard all charitable assets and funds from being misused in any way. The assets (items for sale) are for the sole purpose of raising funds for arts related charities. The funds raised MUST be deposited in a bank account that is for the sole use of grantLOVE Project and must only be used to further the purpose of their openly declared mission statement.

 

https://www.boardeffect.com/blog/rules-non-profit-organizations-boards-governance/




As the manager of grantLOVE project, Alexandra Grant has a fiduciary responsibility in ensuring that this TRUST is NEVER broken. If any of the funds or assets are misused or misappropriated in any way, she is the sole person accountable for this because she is the sole manager and owner. 


 From the Attorney General’s website and Guide for Charities...


 



 

 
Protecting the charitable assets and ensuring that they are used as intended is part of the Attorney General's role and duty. This is why the registry exists and why anyone who holds charitable assets or funds in the state of California must register with the Registry of charitable trust within the first 30 days of coming into possession of these assets and/or funds. 
 
 
 

What the section underlined in blue means is that if a Trustee (a charitable LLC is considered a Trustee) is soliciting for a charity or charitable cause, but no one gives them anything, they do not have to register. Only once they come into possession of charitable funds and assets (i.e.- someone gives them a dollar for their cause) do they need to register with the Attorney General; and they need to do so within 30 days of receiving the assets and/or funds. This is legislative law.


In Summary:

The Charitable Trust Doctrine is something that every charitable entity must follow. In order to do this, they must:

1) Ensure that all charitable assets or funds that come into their possession are used according to what they were given for.

2) Ensure that none of the charitable assets or funds are misused or misappropriated in any way.

3) They must keep the charitable funds in a bank account dedicated to and for the sole use of the charitable entity.
 
4) They must keep track of which funds were acquired for certain purposes versus others in order to ensure that funds or assets are used for their originally dedicated purposes only.
 
5) Manager and Directors have a DUTY OF CARE in their oversight of all operations and must act responsibly with regards to the charitable entity and their beneficiaries, ensure that both are honorably and accurately represented, and that all assets are use appropriately. 
 
6)  Managers and directors have a DUTY OF LOYALTY and must act in the best interest of the charitable entity and cannot personally benefit from the profits, activities or resources of the charitable entity in any way.
 
I ask you to keep all of this in mind as you read the posts in this blog. These points will be referred to again and again.