AN OPENLETTER TO

THE DIRECTOR, LAW SOCIETY OF THE NORTHERN PROVINCES

************

COEN VAN WYK
B.Sc., B.Sc. (Hons.), B.Iuris

___________________________________________________


Tel: 033 503 1296 P.O Box 620
076 594 8024 WARTBURG
3233
Email: scch@mweb.co.za
Website: http://www.coen-vanwyk.blogspot.com/

___________________________________________________
15 April 2009

By email.

The Director,
The Law Society of the Northern Provinces,
Pretoria.

Sir,

A

Complaint concerning SJ Botha Prokureurs’
Fraud concerning service of court documents

B

The fraud perpetrated on the public by the Law Societies

Introduction

I have, over a period of several years, been unable to get the Law Society to deal with several complaints that I lodged, inter alia against SJ Botha Prokureurs. In that regard, none of my phone conversations with Legal Officers, or even with you were anything else but futile endeavours. Out of desperation I therefore decided that I would address the Chairperson[CvW1] [CvW2] of your Law Society thinking that to report this matter to the Head-Honcho of your Society, the Commander in Chief, would produce results. I was, as they say, going to go straight to the top! But, horror! Just then I received a Google alert in my emails concerning your great leader, Charlie Mnisi, from which it appears that he was nearly imprisoned for contempt of court And also does not pay child support, and I realised that he has big problems of his own. So I am therefore compelled to write to you. Not that, in the past, to communicate with you did in any way help to solve a problem. Not only did I receive no help from you, but I actually received insults.

In order to obviate the possibility that I be accused of employing ambush tactics, I mention that apart, from being a legal adviser of a close corporation, I am also an investigative journalist and an activist and in that regard my experiences with the The Law Society of the Northern Provinces has made me realise the need to investigate why I experienced your disciplinary process as completely dysfunctional.

And in that regard I mention my dilemma. You told me during a telephone conversation that you have in the order of 7000 complaints that you are dealing with. I, on the other hand have referred several complaints to you and have yet to get a decision or ruling of some sorts. Although I have mulled over the reason for your recalcintrance (yours and that of the Law Society’s legal officials), one thing is claear and that is that it all point to corruption in one or other form. In the case of my complaint against Ross and Jacobs, I can see that the fact that the respondent was represented on the Law Society council may have been the cause of your failure to act. But bbb do not have that cosy advantage and I therefore contemplated the possible reason for your failure to act against them in the face of overwhelming evidence of unprofessional and criminal conduct. In a number of cases it was abundantly clear the the legal officer dealing with a particular matter was throwing demands back at the complainnts until the complainants eventually gave up and abandoned the complaint. And then it dawned on me that even a relatively unsophisticated law practice such as that of the Bothas may be protected by the underlying consideration that the public must be discouraged from lodging complaints such as those that I lodged against bbb because the real powers that be, the law practices that are represented on you council, your boss, are all guilty, on an ongoing basis, of the mischief of which I accuse bbb. And I realize that your salary is anything between R40 000 and R50 000 per month, with a 13th cheque once a year. That musch I dod know because when I appled for the position of the Director of the KwaZulu Natal Law Societ more than a year ago the salary was R35 000 with a 13th cheque one a year. So it does make financial sense not to encourage the type of complaints that I have lodged against bbb. And what better way to discourage a complaint can there be than for the august Director of The Law Society of the Northern Provinces to raise a defence on behalf of bbb (even before a complaint had been formally lodged) by uttering the following irrelevant and irresponsible words:


“Maar dis maar professionele nalatigheid op die beste van tye[CvW3] [CvW4] [CvW5] .”
(But that is mere professional negligence at the best of times.)

“Hulle sê hulle het dit beteken, hulle sê nie hy het dit ontvang nie.”
(They say that they served the document, they don’t say that he received it.)


I will have more to say, in what follows herein, about that dreadful conduct on your part,

The time has come to deal strenuously with the Law Society fraud to which the public is exposed and I will do so by exposing your personal breach of a duty of care that have caused profound harm to a victim of the criminal activities of an attorney, SJ (Sampie) Botha. This record of your atrocities will therefore be presented in the two parts depicted in the caption of this letter.

It is also decidedly appropriate to mention, at the outset, that I do not have any personal issues with Law Societies and attorneys in general. As a journalist I do however have a passion for exposing corruption wherever it occurs. And it just so happens that there is an abundance of that to be found in the attorney’s profession and the manner in which Law Societies often deal with complaints.

But I do not suggest for one moment that all attorneys are rotten to the core or that the endeavours of Law Societies are never aimed at exposing attorney’s mischief.

As regards attorneys, it is indeed true that a vast number of them are struck off every year, and although that does not paint a pretty picture, the figure appears to be is miniscule if viewed as a percentage of the total number of attorneys.

However, when it comes to the Law Societies, my personal experience (and that of people that I have interviewed) with the present regime of The Law Society of the Northern Provinces have left me with the indelible impression that you are reluctant to act against law practices that have representation on the The Law Society of the Northern Provinces council; or the investigators that handle (or mishandle) complaints, regularly attempt to shirk responsibilities by demanding from the complainants to dig up information that is not required to deal with a complaint, and that the complainant is in any event not obliged to dig up or furnish. I will revisit the shenanigans of the present regime of The Law Society of the Northern Provinces, later herein.

And last, but no the least, there is the question as to what extent council members of the law societies use their positions on the council to escape being held liable for their mischief and mischief perpetrated in their law practises and for harassing their colleagues who are not council members.

A.

Complaint concerning SJ Botha Prokureurs’
Fraud concerning service of court documents

To gain a proper perspective concerning the madness in this matter, it is necessary to delve into the melancholy history of this mess, an into some other Law Society monkey business that is particularly relevant.

I therefore record the following:

1. Although;

1.1 I practised, many years ago, as an attorney in Durban under the name and style of C.H. van Wyk and Co;

1.2 I am regularly retained as ad hoc lawyer; and

1.3 I am an in-house legal adviser for a corporation in Vereeniging (which position I have been holding for the past 15 years);

I am not an attorney. I am therefore not restricted by drivel such as the following stipulation of the International Code of Ethic:

“Lawyers shall treat their professional colleagues with the utmost courtesy and fairness.”

I ask you, why should I, if I happen to be an attorney, be compelled to treat a convicted criminal such as Andries Geyser (an erstwhile president of the KwaZulu Natal Law Society and the Law Society of South Africa) with “utmost courtesy and fairness”, just because the KwaZulu Natal Law Society approves of his criminal antics, or does not have the balls to strike him off the roll. I am talking about the Andries Geyser who sold his lay co-criminals at Tigon, who committed their crimes under his leadership, down the river by cutting a deal with the prosecution and escaping being sent to jail. The link, “THE CRIMINAL CONVICTION OF ANDRIES GEYSER” ( http://thecriminalcareer-of-andriesgeyser.blogspot.com/) contains some juicy particulars about the man and what happened to me when I refused his partnership offer.

But in that regard I may also mention that the only court that ever adjudicated on whether I am a fit and proper person to practice as an attorney, is the court that admitted me as such, being the Natal Provincial Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa (as it was known at the time.

2. Apart from my interest in this matter, as an investigative journalist and an activist, I have a further interest in that my son-in-law, Marius Maré is the defendant in the action that I would be discussing later herein and in which bbb obtained judgement by fraud against him. Although I have been assisting him with legal advice and have also prepared letters and document for him as his scribe, I am not acting on his instructions and he has no control over my actions.

What needs to be clearly understood is that none of my actions in this matter are, unless otherwise clearly stated, are in terms of instructions that I received from Marius Maré, albeit that he may benefit from my actions and albeit that it is my intention that he should derive a benefit from my endeavours in exposing and eradicating the criminal conduct that I will expose in this matter.

I am therefore not Maré’s agent and there is also no relationship of master and servant that would cause him to incur liabilities as (“principal” or “master”) for my actions in this matter, because he is not my principal or employer in this matter.

3. Before I move on to other matters I may mention that my personal experiences as a practicing attorney with the Natal Law Society (as it was known at the time) is also insightful regarding how Law Societies function and the lucrative abuse potential that council members have at their disposal. In that regard I will mention but two instances where I was illegally persecuted by Andries Geyser. You may have taken cognisance of it before but since I will publish this letter on my website on the Internet and your recalcitrance to comply with your duty of care in this matter on Hellopeter, I am referring briefly to the instance in this letter:

(a) Geyser’s law firm legitimately charged certain fees (as sanctioned by a written directive of the Natal Law Society), in collection matters that inter alia included a matter in which they were acting as Pietermaritzburg correspondents of my Durban based law firm, C. H. Van Wyk and Co.
When I charged exactly the same fees in a collection matter, Geyser and his cronies ruthlessly, relentlessly, and illegally persecuted me for while the persecution proceedings against me were in progress they were doing exactly what I was accused of, in their respective law firms.
(b) A certain Attorney Cox gave evidence in a matter in which he was the attorney of record for the plaintiff, and the Supreme Court ruled that;“The fact that the witness is the attorney of record for one of the litigants does of course not affect his competence as a witness in any way.”
When I also gave evidence in a matter in which I was the attorney of record for the plaintiff, Natal Law Society council members, Cox and Geyser, and their other Law Society council cronies ruthlessly, relentlessly, and illegally persecuted me, despite the fact that the law on the point was embodied in the mentioned supreme court decision in the case in which Cox testified, and despite the fact that the decision was binding on Geyser, Cox and their cronies.
I have more to say about the high jinks that I have just mentioned in the link, entitled, “THE CRIMINAL CONVICTION OF ANDRIES GEYSER” (http://thecriminalcareer-of-andriesgeyser.blogspot.com/), on my website.

4. Some of my previous futile complaints lodged with your Law Society

Many years ago I lodged complaints with your Law Society against an attorney , and I did so as legal adviser of a magazine publisher and magazine production company. Not only did nothing come of it but the arrogant manner in which the Legal Officer dealt with the enquiries of the editor and managing director of the company filled everyone with awe and in due I was informed that all attempts to get protection from you Law Society against the corruption activities of the attorney, must be stopped forthwith.

Nut also some years ago, did I personally lodge a complaint with your august institution regarding the bill of costs monkey business of the attorneys of the defendant in a my action for damages in excess than R1.3 million that I have against one of the largest companies in South Africa, that is still pending in the High Court, as I pen these words.

My complaint pertains to an attempt by the attorneys of the company to extort from me an amount in excess of R40000 that I was ordered to pay due to the fact that one of my pleadings were excipiable, a fact that I pointed out to my attorney at the outset, but he was however unable to get the advocate to concede his mistake. When the exception was launched I made it clear to my attorney that the exception should be conceded and that it is for him and the advocate “to resolve the issue of who pays”. In that regard I quote the following from the webpage, ATTORNEY-CHECK PROJECT (http://attorney-checkproject.blogspot.com/) on my website:
“In due course the opponents gave notice of the taxation of their bill of costs and the amount of their bill exceeded R40000. When my attorney sent it through to me for my instructions I informed him that I have no instruction on the matter and merely expect to be indemnified. I said that it is for him and Black to resolve the issue of who pays. It was only after a warrant of execution was authorised for the attachment of my assets that my attorney finally paid the amount.”

My complaint to the Law Society concerned what thereafter transpired when my attorney had the bill of costs taxed. In that regard I quote the following from my affidavit in support of the complaint:

“In due course the plaintiffs’ attorneys presented a bill of costs (“bill”) for taxation and from the information that was furnished to me by my attorneys, it appears that the total amount reflected on the bill of costs amounts to more than R40000and the taxing master taxed of an amount of more than R25000.”

The attorney conceded wrongdoing by not taking the taxation of the taxing master on review.

When I lodged a complaint with your Society the Legal Official who dealt with the matter expected me to function as an investigator in the matter by demanding that I procure information for her. As an example I mention that she demanded that I procure a taxed bill of costs that is certified by the registrar of the High Court. She refused to explain to me why she needed it and why I am obliged to furnish it to her. She informed me, ever to brusquely, that she refuses to do anything further concerning my complaint until I comply with her demands. My response was that she is acting at her own peril; that I will not succumb to her demands; and that I will in due course deal appropriately with hr insolence. Five and a half months latter I received a letter from another legal official of the Law society in which I was informed that my “complaint was addressed to the attorney”.

In due course the attorney responded and was allowed by the Law Society, ever so conveniently, to do say in a letter, whereas I was required to lodge the claim by way of an affidavit. And, lo, the attorney’s letter did nothing to refute the fact that a bill of costs of approximately R40 000 was taxed down to approximately R15 000. Some examples of the fate of unwarranted fees charged on the bills are the following:

R160 reduced to R80
R60 reduced by R30
R300 reduced to R180
R100 reduced to R40
R360 reduced to R180
R300 reduced to R100
R100 reduced to R0
R40 reduced to R0
R40 reduced to R0
R40 reduced to R0
R240 reduced to R90

But the fact that a bill of costs of approximately R40 000 was taxed down to approximately R15 000 and that a vast number of fee items were drastically reduced or completely disallowed by the taxing, did not cause the Law Society any concern.

And there the matter ended despite a clearly manifested attempt by attorneys to extort money to which they were not entitled, a fact that they ostensibly conceded by not taking the matter on review.

The facts concerning the matter that I have mentioned are only germane to the issue of the arrogance that I had to endure from the Law Society and do not constitute all the facts of the matter. I may in due course revive the issue.

Now the fact that an attorney’s bill of costs or approximately R40000 is slashed by approximately R25000 clearly points to the fact that there is something seriously wrong in the matter. And, as far as your Law Society was involved, the shysters got away with their attempted fraud, with the ostensible blessing of the Law Society.

5. Some of my more recent futile complaints lodged with your Law Society

I previously lodged futile complaints against Ross and Jacobs and a law practice that I would refer to as SJ Botha Prokureurs. The reason why I chose the words, “that I would refer to as SJ Botha Prokureurs”, is because it is impossible to get any clarity regarding the nature of their law practice from the information contained, inter alia on their letterhead and the court documents that Attorney SJ signed in the court matter that I refer to in paragraph, titled, “The complaint concerning SJ Botha Prokureurs’ fraud concerning service of court documents”.

The conflicting nature of the mentioned information constitutes unprofessional conduct in terms of the rules of their profession, and a criminal offence in term of the Companies Act, and at least one of my complaints to the Law society pertained to the last mentioned criminal offence.

I will deal, quite briefly, with some of the ill-fated complaints that I lodged with the The Law Society of the Northern Provinces, but hasten to add that my reference to “ill-fated” does not mean that the The Law Society of the Northern Provinces did not uphold my complaints. It means that, as was the case with the matters referred to in paragraph 3 supra, there was no proper investigation, regarding the matters.

(a) My complaint against Ross and Jacobs was ill-fated in that the The Law Society of the Northern Provinces had no problem with the involvement of Ross and Jacobs in drafting for, and procuring from ABSA a perjurious affidavit. The link, ATTORNEYS ROSS AND JACOBS AND ABSA’S PERJURY (http://perjury-by-rossandjacobs-client.blogspot.com/) contains the facts concerning rrr participation in ABSA’S crime, that met with the approval of the Law Society. The link contains the following introduction:

“What follows is my affidavit to the Director of the relevant law society regarding a clear case of perjury reported in Noseweek. True to character, the law society did not take action, which is hardly surprising, given the fact that Ross and Jacobs has representation on the council of the law society.“Now how convenient is that? Ladies and gentleman of the jury, I ask you with tears in my eyes!”

During a telephone conversation that I had with you on 16 May 2007 I referred to the complaint and said the following:

“Ek het ook ‘n klagte gelê teen Ross en Jacobs. Ek het ‘n brief gekry waarin hulle nou so woer-woer antwoord”

(I also lodged a complaint against Ross and Jacobs. I got a letter in which they replied “woer-woer”. )

My use of the words, “woer-woer” was intended to convey that the reply lacked cogency, but whether it was so understood by you is irrelevant because what is of importance is what I thereafter said is that the Law Society conveyed to me the threat of rrr, that rrr addressed to me regarding the complaint that I had lodged against the noble attorneys. In that regard I referred during the conversation to the;

“brief van rrr met ‘n dreigement nogal gerig aan my dat die wetsgenootslap moet nou vir my vertel hulle reserveer hulle regte teen my”.

(letter of rrr with a threat indeed addressed to me that the Law Society must now tell me they reserve their rights against me)

I thereafter continued by saying;

“ Daar moes julle al klaar stappe geneem het, want hulle probeer my nou intimideer”

(There you should already have taken steps because they are attempting to intimiodate me)(

Your reply was that if I should;

“reageer daarop gaan ‘n mens dalk daarna kyk..”

(react on that then maybe a person would look at that)

To that I replied that have already reacted and that you should look at that. But your attitude sent the clear message to me that, despite the fact that rrr may jeopardize an investigation that is (or should be) in progress, by threatening and intimidating the complainant, you say that maybe (“dalk”) you would look at that. And indeed you never did!

So there you have it. I lodged a complaint regarding a perjurious discovery affidavit that rrr prepared for ABSA and filed in court and the evidence is available, near to you, in the court file. The affidavit is clearly perjurious because the minute book of ABSA was not discovered and in any action concerning a contract in which a company is a party, the minute book needs to be discovered since the resolution regarding the conclusion of a contract needs to be recorded in the minute book. The minute book was not discovered, and it was only after a court order was obtained in that regard, that is was discovered. And when I lodged a complaint in that regard against rrr, they threatened me with an action for damages in a letter. And the The Law Society of the Northern Provinces acts as courier for rrr by conveying (on behalf of rrr) their threat addressed to me.

And as regards the act of intimidation perpetrated against me by rrr, with the blessing of the The Law Society of the Northern Provinces, when I raise the issue of intimidation with you, you indicated that one could “dalk daarna kyk.” (maybe look at that). You never did!

The complaint that I lodged is contained in An affidavit, copy of which can be viewed on my website by clicking on the link, “ATTORNEYS ROSS AND JACOBS AND ABSA’S PERJURY” (http://perjury-by-rossandjacobs-client.blogspot.com/)

(b) In my complaint titled, “LAW SOCIETY TOLERATES CRIMINAL CONDUCT - BOTHA MATTER”, I alerted you to transgressions by bbb that constitute unprofessional conduct and criminal offences in terms of the Companies Act. No action was taken on that complaint, a clear indication that you tolerate the criminal conduct of the attorneys.

I have posted an extract of my complaint to, the one that was, as was the case with all my other complaints, effectively ignored. The link for the posting is titled. “THE LAW SOCIETY (NORTH) TOLERATES CRIMINAL CONDUCT’ (http://lsnp-supports-criminal-conduct.blogspot.com/)

(c) When I exposed a plethora of criminal offences by SJ Botha Prokureurs in my complaint entitled, “Criminal Offences of Botha Attorneys and Mrs Paulina Hendrina Terblanche”, that caused you no concern. The fact that Mrs Terblanche, who hold no legal qualification whatsoever, inter alia enjoys the status of an attorney in the Botha entourage and is promoted as such, inter alia on the Internet, also does not bother you to the slightest extent.

The offences that I mentioned in that complaint included the following:
A - Count 1 – Contravention of section 23 of the Attorneys Act
B - Count 2 – Contravention of section 83(1) of the Attorneys Act
B - Count 2 – Contravention of section 83(6) of the Attorneys Act

The complaint that I lodged is also contained on my website where it can be viewed by clicking on the link, “THE LAW SOCIETY (NORTH) TOLERATES MORE CRIMINAL CONDUCT OF ATTORNEYS” (http://lsnpshenanigans-count1.blogspot.com/)

To illustrate the brazen manner in which you blatantly refused to act against Botha Prokureurs regarding their unprofessional and criminal conduct,, I refer you to the following “snapshot” of the letterhead of PROKUREURS C.D. TERBLANCHE ING:



The mentioned letterhead is annexed to my letter of 20 May 2007 titled, “Criminal Offences of Botha Attorneys and Mrs Paulina Hendrina Terblanche, that I addressed to you personally and that you and the Law Society, in effect, ignored.

In that regard I now mention that the rules of the The Law Society of the Northern Provinces contains, under the heading, “CONDUCT”, the words quoted here below in Comic Sans MS font:

89. Unprofessional or dishonourable or unworthy conduct on the part of a practitioner shall include, inter alia, the following acts and omissions:
…

89.20 disclosing in the letterheads of his or her practice-

…

89.20.3 the name of any person other than a person referred to in rules 89.19, 89.20.1 or 89.20.2 or a person who is employed by him or her in his or her practice as an office manager, internal accountant or bookkeeper; provided that the name of a person so employed is accompanied by the description of the capacity in which he or she is employed and is not placed in close conjunction with the name of any person referred to in rules 89.19, 89.20 or 89.20.2;

Now, since Paulina Hendrina Terblanche’s name is “placed in close conjunction with the name of any person referred to in rules 89.19, 89.20 or 89.20.2;” the letterhead constitutes a blatant transgression of the mentioned rule and the letterhead therefore evidences unprofessional conduct.

And what did you do about that? Nothing! And since I sent through copies to the Botha mischief-makers, of all my complaints against them, and you did nothing, their illegal , “The Law Society of the Northern Provinces” approved criminality escalated to the point where they have now obtained judgement by fraud against my son-in-law, with serious consequences for his personal and business reputation. And all of that happened because of your blatant and profound breach of your duty of care.

In that regard you need to bear the following stipulation of rule 94.2 in mind:

“The council may, of its own motion, exercise its powers under these rules notwithstanding the absence of any complaint, in which event the provisions of rule 95 shall mutatis mutandis apply.”

(c) But in due course things got much, much worse when your recalcitrance and refusal to do your job properly, or at all, and your defiance in refusing to act properly in protecting the public against corruption and criminal conduct of attorneys, caused a judgement to be fraudulently obtained by Botha Prokureurs against an innocent victim, who suffered profoundly as a result of the crime that was committed against him due to your deplorable breach of duty of care. In that regard I mention that since this entire letter is contained on my website, particulars of you misconduct and the horrible consequences of your defiance can be read on the link, “ LAW SOCIETY NORTH FACILITATES ATTORNEY FRAUD” (http://lsnp-condones-attorney-fraud.blogspot.com/). This issue will be revisited later herein under the heading, “The complaint concerning SJ Botha Prokureurs’ fraud concerning service of court documents”

6. Even my phone conversation did not mobilize you into action – On the contrary it stimulated you into bellyaching and launching a blame-shifting attack on me

On 16 May 2006 I phoned you regarding the fraudulent misrepresents that had been made by SJ Botha Prokureurs in the Germiston court regarding the service of documents in the matter that I refer to here below in, “The complaint concerning SJ Botha Prokureurs’ Fraud concerning service of court documents”

During the conversation I raised the issue of my futile complaints against Botha, and in that regard I said the following:

“Terwyl ek met jou praat, daar is al weer twee teleeurstellings wat ek gehad het met julle wetsgenootskap. Ek het klagtes teen Botha Prokureurs gelê en daar het niks daarvan gekom nie.”

(While I’m talking to, there are also two further disappointments that I have had with your Law Society. I lodged complaints against Botha Prokureurs and nothing came of it.)

I then started by saying the following:

“Kyk byvoorbeeld in die geval van Botha het hulle kriminele oortredings gepleeg in hulle briefhoof ”

(Look, for instance, in the case of Botha the had committed criminal offences in their letterhead)

Thereafter I continued by saying;

“hulle webwerf, die een bladsy is all klaar ‘n oortreding van die maatskappyereg”.

(their website, the one page is already a transgression of company law)

I then posed a rhetorical question and responded thereto by saying;

“Hoekom is daardie goed verorden deur die parlement? Vir ‘n rede! Nou as prokureurs dit nie eens gehoorsaam nie, en die Prokursreursorde is heeltemal gelukkig daarmee; Meneer, waar gaan ons dan heen? En dit diskrediteer julle!”

(Why have these things been enacted by parliament? For a reason! Now if not even attorneys obey it, and the Law Society is quite happy with that; Sir, where are we heading? And it discredits you!”

But instead of responding by saying that you are concerned about what I have told you and promising that you would look into the matter, you started to squealed like a wounded warthog, and then launched an attack me by uttering the following words:

“Ek wil vir you sê, wat my vreeslik pla van ons gesprekke is, jy weet, jy laat my baie keer dink, as ek met mense redeneer dan aanvaar hulle altyd net die slegste. Jy weet, ek kry net die gevoel dat, wat ‘n mens ookal doen, dit sal noot vir u tevrede stel nie.”

“I want to tell you, what bothers me immensely concerning our conversations is, you know you cause me to think, many times when I enter into debate with people then they always assume just the worst. You know, I get the feeling that, whatever a person does, it would never satisfy you.”

The quoted words creates the distinct impression that you, and/or your Society, had gone to great lengths to cause me to be satisfied, but am a particularly ungrateful person, that lacks the ability to appreciate the favours that you, ever so kindly, bestowed on me.

Now in that regard I would really, really, really, truly and sincerely like to know what exactly you, or your Society had ever done that should cause me satisfaction, unless you are of the opinion that your personal, actionable insults directed against me, should please me.

7. The complaint concerning SJ Botha Prokureurs’ Fraud regarding service of court documents

I record the following:

7.1 My son-in-law, Marius Maré, is the defendant in the matter between J Botha t/a JF Rebuilds (Plaintiff) and Marius Maré (Defendant) in the Magistrate's Court for the district of Germiston (Case No: 11730/06) and although I have been assisting him with legal advice and have also prepared letters and document for him as his scribe, I am not acting on his instructions and he has no control over my actions.

As I have previously mentioned, unless otherwise clearly so stated, none of my activities in this matter are in terms of instructions that I received from Marius Maré, albeit that it is my intention that he should benefit from my actions, and my endeavours in exposing and eradicating the criminal conduct that I refer to herein.

I am therefore not Maré’s agent and there is also no relationship of master and servant that would cause him to incur liabilities as (“principal” or “master”) for my actions in this matter, because he is not my principal or employer in this matter.

7.2 On 16 May 2006 I emailed to you my letter of even date titled, “Law Society North-Plea etc. of Marius re Botha fraud”.

7.3 I annexed to the letter the following two documents pertaining to the matter between J Botha t/a JF Rebuilds (Plaintiff) and Marius Maré[CvW6] (Defendant) in the Magistrate's Court for the district of Germiston (Case No: 11730/2006):

7.3.1 REPLY TO NOTICE IN TERMS OF RULE 12(1)(b)

7.3.2 DEFENDANT’S PLEA

7.4 In my letter I stated the following:

“You need to have had sight of the documents when we speak to one another.”

7.5 During our subsequently telephone conversation I told you that the plaintiff’s attorneys, SJ Botha Prokureurs, had persistently sent documents pertaining to the mentioned matter by registered post to the defendant at an address that is not his postal address given in his appearance to defend, and that they did so even after I had informed them by email that, in terms of the rules of court, they are obliged to serve by registered post by posting to the postal address.

I mentioned to you that SJ Botha Prokureurs fraudulently alleged the following on their documents that they filed in court:

“BETEKENING PER GEREGISTREERDE POS”

and

“AFSKRIF BETEKEN PER GEREGISTREEDE POS”

In that regard I pointed out to you that they did not even send the documents (that they alleged that they had “BETEKEN”) to the defendant’s postal address. I also told you that I had been informed by the postal authorities that items that were posted by SJ Botha Prokureurs (not to postal address of mmm) had been returned to them.

You were totally unconcerned about bbb’s fraud and even (ever so conveniently for bbb) conjured up a defence for SJ Botha Prokureurs by uttering the following words:

“Maar dis maar professionele nalatigheid op die beste van tye[CvW7] [CvW8] [CvW9] .”

(But that is mere professional negligence at the best of times.)

You persisted with that attitude despite the fact that I told you that I warned SJ Botha Prokureurs in an email that they can only serve by registered post by posting to the postal address given in the appearance to defend

7.6 Now despite the fact that I informed you, in no uncertain terms, that SJ Botha Prokureurs are making fraudulent misrepresentations concerning the service of documents, pointed to dire consequences and could lead to judgement being fraudulently obtained against Maré, you remained totally unconcerned about that disastrous possibility.

You made it abundantly clear that no action would be taken against the perpetrators and refused to act pursuant to your duty of care in this matter.

And now the inevitable did indeed happen! SJ Botha Prokureurs obtained judgement against Marius Maré! They managed to do so by fraudulently alleging to the court that they gave notice of an application in terms of rule 60(3) to Marius Maré.

7.7 I now refer you to the “REPLY TO NOTICE IN TERMS OF RULE12(1)(b)” annexed to my letter of 16 May 2007 that I addressed to you, from which I quote the following words:

‘4. The Plaintiff’s attorneys falsely alleged that the notice in terms of Rule 12(1)(b) has been served by registered post by endorsing the following words in Afrikaans on the mentioned notice: “AFSKRIF BETEKEN PER GEREGISTREERDE POS”.
‘The content, in itself, of the notice in terms of Rule 12(1)(b) already belies the statement of the Plaintiff’s attorneys, that the mentioned notice has been served (“BETEKEN”) on the Defendant. It belies the false statement of the Plaintiff’s attorneys in that it clearly shows that the notice had been addressed to 29 Walnut Road, Primrose, Germiston, and not to the Defendant’s postal address (90 Aster Street, Northmead Extension 4, Benoni) as reflected in the Defendant’s Notice of Intention to Defend. It is therefore impossible for the Notice in terms of Rule 12(1)(b), that was sent to 29 Walnut Road, Primrose, Germiston, to have been received by the Defendant at his postal address, being 90 Aster Street, Northmead Extension 4, Benoni. The same considerations apply to other documents that the Plaintiff’s attorneys addressed in this matter to 29 Walnut Road, Primrose.
‘5. Rule 9(11)(a) states the following:
“Service of any notice, request, statement or other document which is not process of the court may be effected by delivery by hand at the address for service given in the summons or appearance to defend (as the case may be) or by sending it by registered post to the postal address so given.”’

So, after I had warned bbb by email that he can only serve by registered post by posting to the postal address of the defendant he continued to fraudulently allege in his documents that he filed in court, that he served the document on the defendant by registered post, despite the fact that he did not even post it to the postal address.

And what is even worse is that, after his fraud concerning the service of documents on the defendant had been exposed in a document that was filed in court (being the document from which I had just quoted) he continued to post documents to an address that is not the defendant’s postal address, and continues to fraudulently allege that he served the documents on the defendant by registered post, despite the fact that he did not even post the documents to the defendant’s postal address.

And two of the documents that bbb fraudulently alleged that he served on the defendant are documents in terms of which notice was given to the ddd of applications, the one application being the application in terms of Rule 60(3) in which Magistrate Broeze granted judgement against the ddd, with devastating effects on the ddd’s personal and business reputation.

7.8 I mention, at this juncture that during our telephone conversation on the 16th instant you made a hell of a song and dance about the need for a prima facie case to be made out before the Law Society would spring into action against its members. The issue that was under discussion during our conversation was that of a document that bbb falsely alleged (in a written document filed in court) they had SERVED on a defendant, when all that they did was to SEND the documents by registered post to an address that is NOT the postal address that the defendant nominated in his appearance to defend.

So there is your precious prima facie proof in writing, being a document signed by the ddd that clearly evidences the fact that the document was not even SENT to the defendant, let alone served on him!

And in that regard I actually sent you a copy of the incriminating document. But what was your response? You said that it’s mere professional negligence. What is ever so convenient for the fraudsters, is the fact that it was not even necessary for them to advance the “negligence” defence. You had already done so. Very convenient, but very, very messy indeed. “Sies man!”

When I took great pains to tell you that the defendant would put up an affidavit in which he clearly states that he did not receive the document, you really came up with a gem of a defence for the fraudsters. Your contention was that they said that they served the document but that they don’t say that the defendant received it.


“Hulle sê hulle het dit beteken, hulle sê nie hy het dit ontvang nie.”

(They say that they served the document, they don’t say that he received it.)


Let me give you some important facts emotell you something about myself (and about the journalistic process in general). To blow me of l .


lvens die hofreels is dit beteken maar op watter gtonde moet ‘n mens dan daardie vermoede aanvat

iev vthat But was clear that it a
















Regards,


Regards,

Coen van Wyk


2.

The fraud perpetrated on the public by the Law Scoieties

Now in order put you tomfoolery in perspective I record the following:

(a) The defendant in the defended matter gave (in terms of the rules of court) an address for service of documents by registered post.

(b) That means that if Attorney SJ Botha wishes to serve document on the defendant by registered post then he must do so by posting the documents by registered post to the postal address that the defendant gave in the matter.

(c) bbb sent documents by registered post to an address that is NOT the postal address of the defendant, and falsely alleged on the originals of the documents that were so posted, that the documents were served on the defendant.

(d) As regards documents that were posted to the defendant and returned to bbb, the contrary to the presumption that the documents had been served by registered post had been proved and the presumption therefore stopped to exist. That would have been the legal position even if the documents were posted to the postal address of the defendant (and they were not!).

(e) But you come rushing toe the defence of bbb and you say, not to worry;

“Maar dis maar professionele nalatigheid op die beste van tye.”

(But that is mere professional negligence at the best of times.)

(f) And then you fortify bbb’s defence by entering the realm of semantics and playing words games with the following clever statement:


“Hulle sê hulle het dit beteken, hulle sê nie hy het dit ontvang nie.”

(They say that they served the document, they don’t say that he received it.)

(g) But despite your legal tap dance, the truth of the matter is that the documents cannot even be presumed to have been served by registered post on the defendant because they were not even sent to his postal address. And clearly manifested lack of service of the documents that bbb fraudulently alleged were served, cannot be cured by your following ruse:

“Maar dis maar professionele nalatigheid op die beste van tye.”
(But that is mere professional negligence at the best of times.)

“Hulle sê hulle het dit beteken, hulle sê nie hy het dit ontvang nie.”
(They say that they served the document, they don’t say that he received it.)

That hoax won’t even work in cloud-nine-la-la-cuckoo-land.
as SJ Botha Prokureurs. The reason why I chose the words, “that I would refer to as SJ Botha Prokureurs


But another more germane question is the following: What, dear Sir are you now going to do about it.