NORMAL SIGNAL BLOCKED - PREPARE FOR A TOTAL BLACKOUT
My friend is of the view that we should prepare for a total blackout. Hehehehe!! Grappie!
Thursday 19 February 2015
Wednesday 18 February 2015
ZUMA IS NOT AN HONOURABLE MAN ACCORDING TO MMUSI MAIMANE
Zuma got a bloody nose from Mmusi Maimane in Parliament
It is shocking but worth every moment. I urge you to listen to this carefully constructed speech by a very brave man.
You can look at the video clip at:
http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/Politics/Maimane-lambasts-Zuma-20150217
Is Mmusi Maimane perhaps the personification of the little girl shouting that the Emperor is naked? I think so. Have a look at Wikipedia about this wonderful satire - maybe a case for our beloved Zuma: I don't think that this man will ever understand this story - he might just break out laughing again. There is a delightful video on YouTube. Have a look: http://youtu.be/wng-eSUk9I0
Yes - I agree with you that parliament was in a mess on Thursday 12 February 2015 during this man's State of the Nation Address. Yes, I agree that the SAPS should never have been allowed access to sacred floor of Parliament. But Zuma let it happen in his honourable presence. Then this man got up and laughed - just as he sat laughing while Maimane is delivering the most scathing attack on this man in his personal capacity - to say to him for the world to hear: Mr President I respect your office, but you are not an honorable man.
What is even more disturbing is that the minutes of that fiasco were not reflecting the truth of what happened in Parliament. This is downright fraud committed.
Not even this man's party the ANC tried to protect this guy. I think that he should resign his high office as President to go down in infamy. Well - the previous beloved John Vorster did not resign his high office.
Thursday 12 February 2015
PUZZLING LEGISLATION SCRAP OR RE-WRITE THE OLDER PERSONS ACT
I published an article in our Attorneys Magazine DE REBUS during October 2013 with the Title: PUZZLING LEGISLATION SCRAP OR RE-WRITE THE OLDER PERSONS ACT. This relates to the abortion of a statute OLDER PERSONS ACT 13 OF 2006 [“the Act”], Regulations [“Regulations”], Forms [“Forms”] and National Norms & Standards [“NN&S”] commenced on 1 April 2010 replacing the Aged Persons Act 81 of 1967 as amended.
It is not a joke that the Act commenced on 1 April 2010 - the entire statute is a joke! It is the worst piece of legislation that I have ever seen in my entire career. When I first wrote the article I stated that it is an abortion - to my shame I toned it down considerably. The Department is still struggling to get this statute working - they should listen to me and scrap the entire statute and re-write from scratch! There is no other way. I ask you to use the link below and read my article in our official magazine.
http://www.myvirtualpaper.com/doc/derebus/de_rebus_october_2013/2013091801/#0
Monday 26 January 2015
I SMELL A RAT!
This a really a matter of grave importance and serious concern. I suggest to you that it is not only corrupt funeral undertakers that has a finger in this pie [ouch!!] but also the officials at the respective graveyards and I venture to say that hospitals should also be investigated too.
Here is a link to the SOWETAN to enable you to read this unbelievable story: http://www.pressdisplay.com/pressdisplay/viewer.aspx#
If you are interested in your family history and if you do as the genealogists do, you go hunting graveyards in search of loved ones to complete your research, you may encounter unexpected hick-ups. This might be a clue in some direction.
I suggest to you that it is not a new idea to "fudge" a funeral or to "hide" a body, so to speak. We read every now and again in the newspapers about how people are buried in unmarked graves to prevent all sorts of mischief happening.
Thursday 22 January 2015
A JUDGE UNJUSTIFIABLY AND WITHOUT A PUBLIC HEARING FOUND THAT AN ATTORNEY COMMITTED FRAUD
Oh no!! Not a judge?
Can you believe that a judge
in the South Gauteng High Court found that an attorney committed fraud – that is
without a proper trial in open court and without hearing the attorney’s version?
I wonder whether the attorney and the other people that were at the receiving
end of her findings have an action in law for damages against her. It seems as
if she stepped outside “… the
parameters prescribed by law.” [see paragraph 59 of the judgment]. It
would be interesting to follow.
Judge Kathy Satchwell did
exactly that in the matter of MUSEJIE VENNON MOTSWAI versus THE ROAD ACCIDENT
FUND (766/13) [2014] ZASCA 104 (29 August 2014).
Five
appeal court judges took her to task and set out the proper way of how a judge
should conduct - herself/himself especially when an adverse finding against a
person is on the cards.
The
unanimous judgement of these five appeal court judges can be summarised as
follows [you will find it at paragraphs 57 – 59 of the SCA’s judgment]:
“[57] For all these reasons I conclude
that a grave injustice was done to
Mr Krynauw by the finding of fraud against him. The judge’s criticism of Mr
Krynauw’s colleagues, including Mr Pottinger who dealt with this claim, was
also unwarranted. There is thus no proper basis to deprive the plaintiff’s
attorneys of their costs.
[58] The critical remarks directed at
the Fund’s attorneys and counsel in the first judgment – though partially
ameliorated in the second – were also not warranted, nor was the censure of the
orthopaedic surgeons, occupational therapists and industrial psychologists who
were engaged by the parties. The purpose
of this judgment is to correct this injustice to Mr Krynauw and to provide
succour to the other persons who were prejudiced by the findings of the high
court.
[59] Through the
authority vested in the courts by s 165(1) of the Constitution, judges wield
tremendous power. Their findings often have serious repercussions for the
persons affected by them. They may vindicate those who have been wronged but
they may condemn others. Their judgments may destroy the livelihoods and
reputations of those against whom they are directed. It is therefore a power
that must be exercised judicially and within the parameters prescribed by law.
In this case it required the judge to hold a public hearing so that the
interested parties were given an opportunity to deal with the issues fully,
including allowing them to make all the relevant facts available to the court
before the impugned findings were made against them. The judge failed to do so and in the process, did serious harm to
several parties.” [My emphasis].
Monday 18 August 2014
ILLEGAL CIGARETTE SMUGGLING
BEELD 18 AUGUST 2014 AT PAGE 6
Crime is expensive! It costs millions of rand [or US dollars if you prefer] to fund and the criminals want to be recompensed for their effort and the risks they are facing. This is only the money component to criminal activities. You should always remember that it is driven by people. Criminals are motivated by a myriad of different issues in their lives. And they do go to any extremes to execute their criminal actions. Killing of people is obviously the ultimate. In this report the police says that in many instances tobacco smuggling can be linked to international crime syndicates. It might even be linked to modern day slavery or servitude and human trafficking. These international criminal syndicates operate their "businesses" on sound business and financial principles - besides the illegal activities.
I have recently delivered a speech at the West Gauteng Branch of the Genealogical Society of South Africa on traditional slavery and modern day slavery. I am of the considered view that modern day slavery is far bigger than traditional slavery ever was. It is estimated that there are more or less 35 000 children in South Africa subject to slavery, servitude or bonded labour.
It is a matter of great concern that the convicted drug trafficker, Glen Agliotti's name is mentioned in respect of tobacco smuggling. If you google his name you will find a host of references to this man and alleged activities he might be linked to.
Friday 8 August 2014
JACOB ZUMA RAPE VERDICT QUESTIONED
JUDGE ZAK YACOOB
CONSTITUTIONAL COURT
Judge Yacoob [the only blind judge as far as I am aware of in South Africa] from the highest court in our country, the Constitutional Court, made a staggering statement: he is of the view that our beloved President who have just dined with President Barack Obama, should have been found guilty of rape way back in 2006. Very dapper of the man to disclose this sentiment!
I agree with the judge.
I do have some problems with this statement, if it is quoted correctly and not out of context that is, why now? Judge, since 2006 you kept quiet, why? What prompted you to make it now? Why did you only see it now, may I ask?
I wonder what is your viewpoint on the verdict of that judge in Natal who quashed the criminal charges against our beloved president? What is that judge's name again? Nicholson?
I agree with the judge.
I do have some problems with this statement, if it is quoted correctly and not out of context that is, why now? Judge, since 2006 you kept quiet, why? What prompted you to make it now? Why did you only see it now, may I ask?
I wonder what is your viewpoint on the verdict of that judge in Natal who quashed the criminal charges against our beloved president? What is that judge's name again? Nicholson?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
