Fraudulent ABSA/Barclays Share Deal

 

CONSTITUTIONAL COURT (SA) CASE NO.: CCT 35/05

 

(Scroll to END for list of, some of, Corporate Criminals involved in this matter)

 

UPDATE 2008:

 

The history of the fraudulent ABSA/Barclays share deal has long shown that zero benefit has materialised for SA, the reason for this is simple, there was no benefit for SA intended – it was solely a manipulation to allow those in financial control to round-trip monies for personal gain.

 

This issue is linked into the UK’s cash-for-honours scam which was covered up by the UK’s prosecuting authority & judiciary.

However the clear evidence of this matter and concerning frauds by Donald Gordon, Richard Branson, John Varley (Barclays) has had the impact of forcing the dismissal (politically put: resignation) of the Lord Chief Justice Phillips, the Crown Prosecuting Service Director & The Met Police Commissioner Ian Blair.

 

Despite a change-of-faces there has been no change.

 

The new incumbents of these offices have also refused to engage the justice process against those implicated in the cash-for-honours. The Met Police Acting-Commissioner still refuses to issue a case docket no. against Donald Gordon, thus investigation has been obstructed.

 

It has subsequently been shown that the masses of pension/investment monies defrauded by Donald Gordon has in all probability been partly used to fund Israel’s never-ending wars in the Middle East. See also at this site: Mastermind of Organised Crime, Twin Towers collapse -> IMPLOSION,

__________________

 

2005-09-27 - Barclays/Absa – where’s the R33 Billion???

Well, where has it gone; and where did it come from before it went and “gone’d” itself????

 

Can John Varley, or David Roberts, or Dominic Bruynseels, or Steven Booysen tell us?

 

What about Honest Trevor, he must know, surely?

 

Information about this money is unavailable, it raises speculation as to whether it came from a tax haven.

 

How does all this duplicity assist State President Thabo Mbeki in trying to convince 1^st Worlds that they should help impoverished African states.

 

How does it help the SP without 1^st World help?

 

Boer War Commando turning in his grave? Discussions with Barclays’ attorneys give cause for serious concerns.

In telecon with Barclays’ Attorneys this week (Deneys Reitz Attorneys – Clinton van Loggerenberg) I raised the question about the R33B. He referred me to Barclays. It’s been reported in this week’s Finance Week that Barclays have kept quiet about it.

I then pressed Clinton van Loggerenberg for his standpoint concerning the moral aspects of a leading (supposedly) firm of attorneys being involved in immoral business dealings.

 

I pointed out that at some point one must take responsibility as to with whom one does business with.

 

Van Loggerenberg, who had been in court when Judge Jajbhay abusively dealt with the matter, argued that I had had my “day in court” and that the matter had been decided in open court. I pointed out that I hadn’t had a “day in court” because the judge had abused his power by arresting me with the sole intent of preventing a valid opposing application being raised so as to force the Absa/Barclays deal through. It had not been an open court.

 

I pressed further & enquired that now there was duplicity, non-transparency, over the source of the R33B, and to where it had gone, what his firms position was concerning their future relationship with Barclays. I asked whether Deneys Reitz Attorneys considered moral issues in regard to their client base.

 

Van Loggerenberg became angry and refused to discuss the matter, and promptly hung-up.

 

Corporate Governance, to which Deneys Reitz Attorneys have affirmed to, compels honesty, transparency & integrity -

Deneys Reitz, along with Barclays, Absa, & Webber Wentzel Bowens attorneys, have all come into our lives & homes with lies & deception about the Absa/Barclays deal; they’ve hidden behind dishonest, abusive, closed, justice & court processes.

 

Deneys Reitz Attorneys are clearly afraid of open debate, they prefer to hide behind closed courts.

 

Similarly with the people behind Absa & Barclays: John Varley, David Roberts, Dominic Bruynseels, Steve Booysens etc.

 

Transparency compels the following: I have previously had bad experiences with Deneys Reitz Attorneys in the late ‘80’s on two matters, both of which were negligently handled by Deneys Reitz. It was what prompted me to do my own litigation – if one is going to lose one might as well lose & keep hold of the fees that the attorneys would have pilfered.

 

Deneys Reitz was, as a teenager, a Boer War Commando. He later became an attorney, then a Minister in Jan Smut’s government, and (if memory is correct) Deputy Prime Minister.

 

Reading of Deneys Reitz’s autobiographies gives clear insight to the commitment he had of integrity and desire to see South Africa on a constructive path of development.

Deneys Reitz must surely be turning in his grave to see his name being trashed by dishonesty & duplicity in issues destructive to South Africa.

 

In light of the scams surrounding the use of Nelson Mandela’s name surely family members, descendants, can seek protection from continued abusive use of family names?

______________

 

On July 19, 2005 the Constitutional Court summarily dismissed the application. This is standard procedure by the CC and effectively blocks people from accessing our courts for a fair hearing. The physical doors of the Constitutional Court are open but the intellectual doors are bolted shut, & welded.

The summary dismissal by the CC effectively sanctioned Barclays & Absa banks “buying” a High Court judge.

______________________

 

Absa/Barclays deal (UPDATE) – this deal is just a small one of many stemming from Global Corporate Bully-boy tactics – this is the underlying cause of reactionary terrorism activities – Barclays investment into SA is welcomed BUT it must be beneficial to SA - the appeal to SA’s Constitutional Court aims to put a stop to these abuses so as to create a more stable economy environment

 

SA’s Classicfm received confirmation from the Constitutional Court last Tuesday that this matter is on appeal in the Constitutional Court.

 

Whether Absa/Barclays have placed the matter on hold as required by law under the Rules of Court is not known.

A letter from Judge Jajbhay, in response to the Constitutional Court papers being filed & served on him, was sent to the CC and circulated to Webber Wentzel Bowens. A request to the General Office at the CC for a copy of this letter has not been fulfilled as yet.

 

A letter was sent to Barclays Board proposing discussion & further thought – it stressed that investment by Barclays into SA is most welcomed but that it must be optimally beneficial to all, that the proposed majority holding within Absa was destructive to SA - but no reply from Barclays to date.

 

On a global scale this US$ 5 B is a small, crumb-sized, deal. BUT, to a predominantly 3^rd World nation it is a veritable feast, it has a significant impact upon SA’s economy. This is why it needs to be correctly considered.

 

Absa/Barclays have relied on bully-boy tactics to ram this deal through – the consequences as shown, prima facie, in High Court papers are highly destructive to SA’s medium & long term positions.

 

Bully-boy tactics, as used in this deal, accounts for the reactionary terrorism events such as Twin-towers, Madrid & London bombings etc.

 

It needs a rethink on how deals are structured into 3^rd World countries. Currently, no one in the world knows how to solve the poverty problem – this is intuitive, simply because 85% of the population remain impoverished.

CDADD has put ground-breaking research onto the table to address these issues but it is being wrongly used/pirated by authorities & corporates – hence solutions are not being implemented correctly or at all.

_______________

 

Absa/Barclays deal – lies & deception by both Absa & Barclays, abuse of power & thuggery in High Court, application to Constitutional Court

 

The abuses in the High Court explains, partly, how major corporate frauds can be covered up so easily.

 

This entire deal is based upon lies & deception by both Absa & Barclays – it is simply a matter of minority high powered financial players who have manipulated majority control, and who abuse their financial power – to the extent of manipulating judges.

 

The matter was heard on Thursday July 7, 2005 in Johannesburg High Court 6E (Urgent Court) before Judge Jajbhay.

 

I filed an application (see below) setting out prima facie evidence of a negative impact upon SA that justified an intervention & Approach in terms of Section 38(v) of the Constitution, but also requesting protection from an adverse costs order.

 

Judge Jajbhay rejected this application without bothering to read the papers on the grounds that “protection” could not be assured, this is contrary to majority Constitutional Court judgements.

 

Consideration was given to points made by J Jajbhay and during a pause I stood up to make application to intervene on an “ammended” basis.

 

Immediately after requesting this J Jajbhay ordered me to sit down. A polite objection and request to be heard resulted in J Jajbhay abusing his power and ordering a police inspector to arrest me. The matter was therefore able to be heard under the false pretence of a “fair justice process”, with myself unlawfully removed from the court by means of armed thuggery.

 

About 45 minutes later a phone-call from J Jajbhay caused an inspector to release me. By that time the matter in court 6E had been finalised - unlawfully unopposed.

 

An urgent application to the Constitutional Court has been filed - (see below)

 

email from General Office, Constitutional Court

----- Original Message -----

From:Pamela Maseko

To: Chris Addington

Sent: Friday, July 08, 2005 11:55 AM

Subject: RE: More information for new case [Scanned]

Dear Sir

I tried calling you, but your cell phone was off.

I have distributed your case documents to all the judges. You no longer have to make 24 photocopies that I had earlier requested.

Regards

Pamela

 

CCT35/05 Addington vs. Absa/1000

Addendum to S38 Approach by Chris Addington

July 9, 2005

By email to Constitutional Court, Webber Wentzel Bowens, Jubilee SA, Prof Brutus

(Please note that the email address given by Prof Brutus appears to be incorrect, Jubilee SA is requested to provide the correct address.)

It should be noted that the terrorism wave over the past years stems from High-Power Financials abusing their power with political assistance and impoverishing the majority - I plead that the Constitutional Court give consideration to the impact that this collusive Absa/1000 deal will have upon SA and note the prima facie points in the HC papers

1. This application to the Constitutional Court has been submitted without the judgement because of the very urgency and that waiting for transcription would cause severe prejudice to the majority of SA’s.

   1. It is clear however from reports that the deal was sanctioned, i.e. that the judge granted the order.

   2. It is clear from the HC papers attached to the founding papers that intervention was sought & lawfully so and served, and that there is prima facie, an alleged threat to a rights violation – it is respectfully pointed out that it needs only be a statement of an alleged, or even threatened, not yet actual, violation for a S38 Approach to be valid.

   3. I therefore request condonation for not attaching the judgements concerning both the deal approval as well as that concerning Opposing Parties.

2. Legal Representatives of Absa & 1000 are urged to caution their clients that acting upon a court order, whose execution is stayed whilst an appeal is pending as provided for under Rule 49(10), would in the Applicants view be construed as reckless, and hence criminal. Regardless of this it is clear that it would be immoral – which would be contrary to the stated intent that Barclays was seeking to develop an ethical relationship with SA & Africa.

3. It was argued, and accepted in judgement by Judge Jajbhay, that should the “deal” not be concluded by a specific date (around end July, 2005) that severe penalties would befall Absa in terms of the “deal” agreement. And that therefore this was a further ground for the matter to be dealt with on an urgent basis in the High Court. This point was emphasised to extreme degree by Judge Jajbhay, with clear pause for water as an extra emphasis on the enormous penalties that would apply under default.

4. In response to this “penalties argument” the Applicant, herein, counter-argues that this is entirely incorrect and that Judge Jajbhay erred/overlooked the entirely baseless argument on this point by both Absa & 1000 who are clearly acting in concert.

   1. Since it was clearly reported up until the “11^th hour” that the deal had NOT achieved the required minimum shareholding for the “deal” to go ahead then the deal, and underlying “scheme”, had no legal force.

   2. Therefore had 1000 not taken up the deal there would, could, not have been any penalties applying, within a legally justifiable framework.

5. Alternatively stated:

   1. Had the agreement been worded in such a way that a penalty DID accrue if the deal was NOT taken up then it could only have been an agreement that was purposefully constructed to create a false impression.

      1. i.e. Absa being “compelled” to pay a penalty for default, regardless.

   2. If the agreement was worded such that in the event that the deal was taken up and then not fulfilled (because of HC refusing – but obviously unstated in agreement) and then in that event that a penalty would apply; again it would have been an agreement that was carefully worded (from a fail-safe perspective) with false intent.

   3. The test for either of these two penalty scenario’s would be for Barclays to submit to Absa an invoice for the penalty. But this scenario, as it existed in court, was that 1000 took up the deal, but that the High Court refused permission; and therefore that a penalty would come into force.

      1. If this were done on what valid legal basis would Absa be obliged to fulfil payment of this invoice?

      2. If Absa failed to pay the invoice Barclays would have to issue a civil summons. On that basis, which High Court would order the invoice to be paid on such a defective (duplicitous) underlying agreement? Clearly, No Court would!

      3. But, it is argued, Absa WOULD have paid the penalty. Why? Because the entire deal was with false intent, regardless of final outcome. Absa & 1000 were hedging their options every which way! But, it was on this basis (i.e. a falsely stated/constructed premise that penalties would apply) that Judge Jajbhay was swayed to view this as an urgent matter by both Absa & 1000.

   4. Therefore what was the true (ideal, best outcome) nature of Absa/1000 arguing that the penalty created an urgent matter?

   5. Clearly it was to create a false illusion of an urgent matter and with the abuse of justice process by pre-filing of High Court papers creating a false illusion of a fair justice process – so that at the “11^th Hour” 1000 could appear to be a “friend” of SA and “magnanimously accept the deal”, albeit not ideally favourable, along with a whole bunch of glossy, but false, media punting.

   6. Therefore it is clear that the “penalties” issue was a falsely constructed issue and had no legally sound possibility of ever being enforceable – unless “willingly”, but wrongly, paid by Absa in the event of a negative outcome (i.e. if High Court overturned the deal)

   7. If the aforegoing is rejected by Absa/1000 then they are requested to explain the TRUE nature of the “penalties”, how the penalties would function and under various what-if scenario’s; and specifically how a negative court outcome or court delay would, could, have invoked a penalty lawfully enforceable.

   8. And, more importantly, why such an obviously unfair condition was agreed to.

   9. In the circumstance it is clear that no legally enforceable penalty could have been applied to the deal.

   10. In the circumstances Judge Jajbhay erred in viewing this false “penalties” issue as grounds for the matter being an urgent matter; which had the negative impact of denying all opposing parties the right to present full & proper argument in the normal Motion Court processes, and myself from presenting full & proper S38 intervention.

6. I have had cursory insight to the arguments put forward by Jubilee SA & Prof Brutus – it is clear that insufficient time was granted for them to submit proper argument.

   1. Further, there was no time afforded for opposing Parties to confer – there is a clear overlap; even though it is a small degree the overlap has relevance to the matter in toto.

   2. In erring to put the matter on normal Motion Court processes the Opposing Parties were severely prejudiced in presenting full & proper argument.

   3. Judge Jajbhay’s judgement explicitly stressed the failure on the part of opposing Parties in showing prejudice – they didn’t have the time to do so properly.

7. In the circumstances there has been a gross miscarriage of justice.

8. It is also reiterated that Absa/1000 have the onus to prove WHY the deal should be allowed, and not for opposing parties to prove WHY NOT.

Chris Addington Pr.Eng.

Hand ammendments on original ammended herein

 

IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA

CASE NO.: CCT 35/05

In the matter between:

ADDINGTON CHRISTOPHER DAVID – NO

APPLICANT i.t.o. S38 of the Constitution

AND

ABSA Bank Limited 1000	JOINT RESPONDENTS
Interested Parties: Prof Brutus Jubilee SA

___________________________________________________________________

Approach to the Constitutional Court in terms of Section 38 of the Constitution – alleged infringement, or threat thereof, of a right under the Bill of Rights

A Direct Approach as a matter of Urgency as per Rule 11(1)

_____________________________________________________________________

Be Pleased to take Notice that The Applicant hereby makes an Urgent Approach to the Constitutional Court i.t.o. S38 of the Constitution for an order in the following terms:

1. That the Order granted by Judge Jajbhay under WLC Case No. 05/10107 be overturned

2. That the matter be referred back to the Johannesburg High under normal Motion Rules

The accompanying affidavit of Christopher David Addington will be used in support thereof

SERVICE ADDRESS: Message on cell 083-962-7098 AND email stating that papers are ready for collection from Respondents offices AND email of papers.

Dated at Johannesburg July 7, 2005

C.D.Addington Pr.Eng.

APPLICANT

SERVICE ADDRESS: message that papers are ready on 083 962 7098 &

TO: The Director of the Constitutional Court

AND

Respondents attorney Webber Wentzel Bowens This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Interested Parties Jubilee SA This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.; Prof Dennis Brutus This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

_____________________________________________________

 

AFFIDAVIT

_______________________________________

I, the undersigned

CHRISTOPHER DAVID ADDINGTON

Do hereby make oath and say that

4. I am the Applicant under this matter.

5. I am an adult male Professional Engineer

6. All the facts contained herein are within my personal knowledge and are both true and correct unless the context indicates to the contrary.

7. I am acting in the public interest in terms of S38(v)

8. This is a matter of urgency as the effect of Judge Jajbhay’s order creates a situation where the Respondents will be able to proceed with a share sale of such magnitude that it will be impossible to unravel if this matter is left to normal Motion proceedings in this Constitutional Court.

9. Judge Jajbhay grossly erred in his decision to refuse an oral approach on Wednesday July 6, papers were urgently drawn and filed on Thursday July 7, 2005 prior to the hearing time of 09h30 (attached) and which set out the issues.

10. I therefore request condonation for shorting the Rules & Processes in bringing this Urgent Application to the Constitutional Court.

11. I am opposing at my own expense to date and consequently cannot afford the numerous copies of papers required for filing to this Honourable Court –

12. CONSTITUTIONAL GROUNDS

    1. The right to a fair hearing has been denied as required under S34 (Access to Courts) because the right to intervene was wrongly denied and the right to approach under S38(v) was also wrongly denied.

    2. The purpose of the Approach to the High Court was to seek permission to intervene i.t.o. S38(v) and to have the matter placed on normal motion roll.

    3. Judge Jajbhay erred in not allowing this.

    4. prima facie substance concerning the Constitutional nature of the matter is set out in the High Court papers attached

    5. It is reiterated that reasonable time was sought to prepare a proper & full argument

    6. It was understood up until the evening of Monday July 4, 2005 that the Respondent 1000 had given information to the effect that effectively the “deal was off”. They chose at the last minute to make the matter “active” and thus sought wrongly to bring a matter to court on an urgent basis.

    7. The interested parties also requested additional time to prepare but were unreasonably denied this by Judge Jajbhay. Consequently he erred in this too.

13. REASONS FOR URGENCY

    1. The reasons for urgency are clear. If the Respondents are allowed to proceed whilst this matter before the CC is being dealt with it will create an impossible task to unravel

    2. It therefore requires the matter to be dealt with, and with the utmost urgency.

    3. The underlying matter (share sale) clearly had no urgency to it and thus Judge Jajbhay should have granted the request for the matter to be placed on normal Motion processes

    4. Therefore it is requested that the order by Judge Jajbhay be set aside and that the matter be referred back to the High Court on the normal Motion processes and that Applicant be permitted to intervene with protection from costs orders against him.

HAND WRITTEN AMMENDMENT TO ORIGINAL

Addendum 7/6/05 @ 12h20

I record that I attempted to make an intervention application with ammendments to the attached affidavit. Judge Jajbhay refused to listen to a lawful application, I objected. Judge Jajbhay had me arrested until the matter was finalised. This was an abuse of power and rejection of S34 Access to Courts.

_________________________________________

CHRISTOPHER DAVID ADDINGTON Pr.Eng.

083 962 7098,

DEPONENT

THUS SIGNED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME AT JOHANNESBURG ON THIS THE DAY OF 2003, THE DEPONENT HAVING ACKNOLEDGED THAT HE KNOWS AND UNDERSTANDS THE CONTENTS OF THIS AFFIDAVIT

_______________________________________

COMMISSIONER OF OATHS

Hand ammendments on original ammended herein

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA

(WITWATERSRAND LOCAL DIVISION)

CASE NO.: 05/10107

In the matter of:

ABSA Bank	APPLICANT
1000	RESPONDENT

____________________________________________________________________

EX PARTE APPLICATION BY

CHRISTOPHER DAVID ADDINGTON Pr.Eng.

FOR PERMISSION TO INTERVENE IN THIS MATTER BY MEANS OF AN APPROACH TO THE HIGH COURT i.t.o S38(v) OF THE CONSTITUTION - BUT ONLY IF THE HIGH COURT GIVES ITS ASSURANCE THAT NO COSTS ORDER IS GIVEN AGAINST THE EX PARTE APPLICANT

_____________________________________________________________________

TAKE NOTICE that the EX PARTE APPLICANT intends to make application to this court as follows:

That the EX PARTE APPLICANT be granted permission to intervene in this matter but on the assurance by the High Court that no costs order is given against the EX PARTE APPLICANT

FURTHER, that if so granted that the Matter be placed upon the normal Motion Roll thus allowing EX PARTE APPLICANT sufficient time to compile & serve papers

TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that the Applicant has appointed the address hereunder for purpose of service of all process in these proceedings

Dated at Johannesburg this 6^th Day of July 2005

C. D. Addington Pr.Eng.

APPLICANT

083-962-7098

email: SERVICE ADDRESS

Take notice further that the ex parte applicant has appointed BOTH EMAIL ADDRESS AND CELL PHONE VOICEMAIL above, for notice of papers being ready for collection at the service address appointed by Interested Party(ies) in terms of Rule 6(5)(b), as the address at which applicant will accept notice and service of all process in these proceedings. AND for papers to be emailed to the ex parte applicant.

To:

The Registrar of the above Honourable Court

AND TO:

ABSA BANK

1000

Jubilee SA

Professor Brutus

 

 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA

(WITWATERSRAND LOCAL DIVISION)

CASE NO.: 05/10107

In the matter of:

ABSA Bank	APPLICANT
1000	RESPONDENT

____________________________________________________________________

 

AFFIDAVIT

By EX PARTE APPLICANT, CHRISTOPHER DAVID ADDINGTON Pr.Eng.

___________________________________________________________________

I, the undersigned, CHRISTOPHER DAVID ADDINGTON, do hereby make oath and say that

1. I am the applicant in this matter. I am an adult male Professional Engineer. All the facts contained herein are within my personal knowledge and are both true and correct unless the context indicates to the contrary.

2. I, by this Application, request permission to intervene in this matter by means of an Approach to the Court i.t.o. Section 38(v) (Enforcement – acting in public interest) BUT ONLY ON THE CONDITION THAT ASSURANCE IS GIVEN THAT NO COSTS ORDER IS GIVEN AGAINST MYSELF, THE EX PARTE APLICANT.

   1. This request complies with the spirit of the Constitution and also with rulings given by the Constitutional Court in majority decision under Ferreira v Levin vs. NO & Others (2) 1996 (2) SA 621 (CC) and (Constitutional Law Ch 32 – written by Judge Dennis Davis, see para’s 32.1 & 32.2 et al., concerning both:-

   2. allowing a wide ambit for standing in such matters of Constitutional matters

   3. the adverse threat that a costs order has for acting as a substantial deterrent to many potential litigants in Constitutional matters.

3. Condonation is sought for relaxation of the Rules of Court since this EX PARTE APPLICATION is, in itself and by necessity from the violation of the Rules of Court by both ABSA and 1000 who act collectively & in concert, an urgent application.

4. The underlying matter ABSA vs. 1000, has been brought at short notice, i.e. effectively on an urgent basis to the High Court. There is no urgency in this matter – the wrongful urgency has been created in error by Judge Jajbhay

   1. The “deal” between ABSA and 1000 was not, according to reported information, going to go ahead because 1000 had not achieved a minimum shareholding level in ABSA

   2. It was only the night before hearing the matter (evening of Monday 5 July 2005) that 1000 decided to go ahead

   3. It is common knowledge by news reports that 1000 is in fact Barclays Bank plc of UK – the use of the name 1000 rather than Barclays creates deception in itself. So much so that on the morning of the hearing Tuesday July 6, 2005 no reporters nor myself could establish where the “Absa/Barclays” matter was to be held. This deception hides other more serious deceptions that are contrary to the public interest of SA

   4. By holding their decision until the last minute, 1000, created in effect a false illusion of an urgent matter before this court when in fact no urgent matter exists – it is purely as the result of deceptive manipulations by 1000 that they chose to go ahead at the last minute (the “11^th hour”)

   5. It is a Constitutional violation of S34 (Access to Courts and a fair hearing) to expect potential Opposition Parties to wait endlessly for a decision by an Applicant for a matter to proceed. The matter should have been brought to court only when the Parties had agreed to a final outcome, AND NOT BEFORE.

      1. A matter before a High Court has no expiry date – therefore it is grossly unfair to expect Opposition Parties to be kept in waiting

   6. It is therefore incorrect that this ABSA/1000 matter is heard on an urgent basis; but it is as a consequence of this error that this ex parte application is brought as a matter of urgency & as it is brought on constitutional grounds.

5. Both Opposing Parties (Prof Brutus and Jubilee SA) argued for more time to prepare papers & argument. Judge Jajbhay refused to grant reasonable court process time.

   1. I argued that it was solely “urgent” because the Opposing were forced to act urgently, THE FOUNDING MATTER WAS NOT URGENT.

   2. Judge Jajbhay erred by not granting appropriate normal Motion Court time to Opposing Parties.

   3. Judge Jajbhay had pre-judged the “urgency” issue by stating in court that he was going to decide the matter this week. This despite the fact that he had had the matter in his hands for less than ½ an hour.

   4. Judge Jajbhay requested adjournment until 11h30 so that he could read the papers. At 11h25 he was still busy in court and had not read the papers. When he left for tea break the court file was still on the clerks bench.

   5. Judge Jajbhay had erred in that he pre-judged the urgency as well as the underlying issues without reading the papers.

6. The matter is both a Constitutional issue and of public interest.

   1. HOWEVER IT IS STRESSED THAT FOR THE SAKE OF THIS EX PARTE APPLICATION (seeking permission to intervene but with protection from adverse costs order) THAT IT IS ONLY NECESSARY TO SHOW THAT THERE IS ON THE FACE OF IT (PRIMA FACIE) SUBSTANCE TO THE INTENT OF INTERVENING. (i.e. the purpose of this application is to seek permission to intervene, and appropriate time for normal court processes & documents – it is not to argue the underlying issues fully)

7. The Constitution provides for a spirit within itself & of the people to collectively rectify the wrongs of the old-order past - the oppression of one group by another, the disenfranchisement of groups, the economic disempowerment of groups etc.

   1. To achieve this requires sound solutions NOT emotive responses

   2. To achieve this requires economic empowerment NOT disempowerment

8. The ABSA/1000 deal

   1. goes counter to the Spirit of the Constitution and is hence a Constitutional matter,

   2. it is a matter that is of significant value (R33Bn) and hence impacts upon the economy & society of SA, and all its citizens

   3. rebundles (reduce economic empowerment) rather than unbundles (increase economic empowerment) old-order financial structures

   4. it is incorrect to argue that 1000 (Barclays) is not old-order – it is in fact very old-order and historically can be linked back to Anglo-Boer, Anglo-African, War manipulations, and the stripping of SA’s wealth (much as occurred globally)

   5. the wealth of both ABSA & 1000 are derived, partly, from a grossly unfair economy “control” device vis: interest rate mechanism, which sucks money from the masses into the coffers of the minority, wealthy, few (Banks & their narrow shareholders).

   6. Both ABSA & 1000 have substantial ownership by Financial Institutions such as Liberty Life, Old Mutual, Sanlam etc.

      1. These institutions have achieved their ownership, on behalf of their shareholders, by defrauding the masses of their rightful savings – the pensions adjudicator issues are proof positive of this.

      2. http//www.savingsinstitute.co.za (“Research” button, bottom left hand side; 2003, Award winning research by Chris Addington, adjudicated by ex Reserve Bank Governor Chris Stals, Prof Biekpe, Dr Porteous) – gives concrete proofs of these Financial Institutions defrauding their client pension investors “annuity income” of between 27% up to 41% of income that client investors should receive over-and-above their actual income. http://www.savingsinstitute.co.za/Research%20Awards/2003/Chris%20Addington.pdf,

      3. this plundering of investors savings is partly the source of the purchasing power behind the shareholdings of both ABSA and 1000 (Barclays Bank)

      4. It is simply a case of Organised Crime (Legal) that has allowed a powerful few to manipulate the markets/economy at the expense of the majority.

      5. It is this Organised Crime that has accounted for the economic impoverishment throughout SA, and Africa, NOT the political dispensation per se. (People who are economically happy generally are disinterested in the political machinations)

   7. the deal seeks to undermine, abuse, a “free market” system through collusive manipulations by a minority “financially powerful few” that own a majority stake in both ABSA & Barclays.

      1. Admittedly SA’s “free market” system, the JSE, is going through another destructive phase by listing itself. The problems were serious before they will be far worse if this should happen

   8. If Barclays were sincere in investing in SA then it would have done so in a constructive manner by negotiating with the majority citizens rather than a few financially powerful. Barclays intents are not sincere.

   9. The nature of the deal is one between various minority parties that have collusive offshore interests that potentially contain ulterior motives.

   10. the matter is one of motivation of WHY rather that WHY NOT that it should be allowed – the onus of proof rests with ABSA & Barclays – therefore a “rubber stamp” process is a Constitutional violation.

9. The aforegoing points are an overview of just some of the issues that amply show “prima facie” substance of a Constitutional & Public Interest nature.

10. The applications by both

    1. Professor Brutus, a victim of abuse because of standing up to the realities of political oppression driven by the financial greed of a “financially powerful few”, AND

    2. Jubilee SA, who argue a collective abuse position, ….

    1. are applications that are symptoms of the underlying financial-power abuses that caused the suffering that led to their applications.

    2. This application seeks permission to address the underlying causes of those symptoms.

11. An article in SA’s “The Star” July 6, 2005, Pg 13 – a letter by the brother of State President Thabo Mbeki’s brother, Moeletsi Mbeki – entitled “Dear Bob … your soft heart will not cure a hard situation” is appended. This article highlights the need for real solutions to real problems.

12. Steam-rolling this matter, any matter, through the High Court, any court, is a Constitutional violation.

13. The underlying issues are clearly of a Constitutional nature and sufficient grounds for granting permission to intervene and with Court protection from a costs-order against the ex parte applicant.

14. The issue is of such Constitutional importance that the matter be placed on normal Motion Roll.

15. In the event that the order sought is granted the ex parte applicant will briefly address the court further.

16. The ex parte applicant therefore requests that the order sought be granted.

HAND WRITTEN AMMENDMENT TO ORIGINAL:

An Economic Impact Assessment has not been conducted (cf Environment Impact Assessments); in light of State President’s instruction for economic policy reform.

__________________________________________

CHRISTOPHER DAVID ADDINGTON - DEPONENT

THUS SIGNED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME AT JOHANNESBURG ON THIS THE DAY OF 2005, THE DEPONENT HAVING ACKNOLEDGED THAT HE KNOWS AND UNDERSTANDS THE CONTENTS OF THIS AFFIDAVIT

_______________________________________

COMMISSIONER OF OATHS

Chris Addington Pr.Eng.

+27 (0)83 962 7098, http://www.cdadd.com

URGENT UPDATE: SA’s ABSA/BARCLAYS deal – High Court abuses by Judge Jajbhay during respectful approach in terms of S32 of the Constitution (Enforcement of Bill of Rights).

This is an update on SA’s Absa/Barclays deal – these are brief notes – I am having to address this issue on an urgent basis to oppose what is a blatant abuse of Judicial authority by High Court Judge Jajbhay and blatantly false misrepresentations by Absa & Barclays.

Classicfm announced this morning on radio that this deal was being placed before the Johannesburg High Court today for judicial approval.

Reading SA’s Business Day newspaper, which is in alliance with Classicfm, confirmed this.

I was near 4 Ways, Johannesburg, when I heard the news at 08h00 this morning on Classicfm - I made an entire change to my day’s activities to attend the court hearing & oppose the application.

The Johannesburg High Court was in its usual disarray, no Court Roll record. I & reporters & Legals hunted for nearly an hour to establish where the matter was to be heard. It eventually turned out to be Court 8B, but then it was changed to court GC, the judge in court GC sent it to Court 6E (Judge Jajbhay – Urgent Applications??? – But this wasn’t an urgent application, was it??? No it wasn’t! – it was just devious scheming by Absa & Barclays to purposefully create a false illusion to get a judicial “rubber stamp”)

I opposed the application in terms of S32 of the Constitution (in the heat of the moment I misquoted S38). The matter was stood down to 11h30

At 11h30 I tried to make respectful representations but Judge Jajbhay (who has had previous wranglings with myself) obstructed repeatedly, and eventually threatened with “appropriate action” (which means unleashing state armed force to silence respectful representations)

A professor Brutus (ex Robben Island political prisoner) also made representations, J Jajbhay observed appropriate politically correct decorum, similarly with Jubilee SA’s representative lady.

J Jajbhay created a duplicitous illusion that on the basis that Prof Brutus was opposing the application on an urgent basis (because Barclays announced only last night it was going ahead) that the underlying matter (Absa/Barclays) was also an urgent matter. I pointed out to J Jajbhay his duplicity but was cut short with threats - numerous. I repeatedly raised lawfully correct objections but was repeatedly cut short with unlawful threats.

We need to wait until tomorrow to see whether J Jajbhay will uphold the Constitution or not

Reiterate: These are brief notes, urgently drafted – apologies for any lack of clarity.

Chris Addington Pr.Eng.

+27 (0)83 962 7098, http://www.cdadd.com;

_______________

 

SA’s Absa/Barclays deal – this is another scam, as demutualisation was.

Just as we were conned into accepting demutualisation so the scene is set for a scam in this deal.

Just as the Arms Deal smelt and took some five years to uncover, so too is this deal smelling. Badly!

The crooked players are lined up. Just how the scam is to be worked/ is working remains to be uncovered; but scam there definitely is!

 

Grey Area of Immorality/Line of Criminality - Judge Squires clearly stressed the difference between good business & corrupt business in the Shaik trial.

There is a clear Line of Criminality.

But well before this line there is a wide band, a Grey Area of Immorality – any deal that is even remotely into this area should be disallowed.

 

Some facts:

Unbundling/Rebundling – a major initiative of the political change in SA was to unbundle the narrow ownership of the JSE securities exchange.

The Absa/Barclays deal will exactly counter this.

The correct approach would be to disempower, by further unbundling, the major FinServInd companies that currently own Absa.

These companies are in fact collusively manipulating to rebundle on an international platform.

 

Mervyn King is Chairing the meetings concerning this deal.

King, an ex-High Court judge, is deeply immersed in fraud (see Fraudulent sale of AA Kyalami Racetrack, King of Corp Gov dethroned).

Mervyn King operates Brait out of a secretive tax haven, Luxembourg, in purposeful violation of his own Corp Gov principles.

King is also involved with Professional Provident Society which “fronts” for Sanlam into the Professionally qualified field. Sanlam holds 22.44% of Absa.

PPS also has High Court Judges sitting on their board to create a false sense of respectability, and who provide their judicial/legal colleague, King, with protection; so too Long Term Ombud Nienaber.

King is “in” with all of the FinServInd owners of Absa.

 

Financial Service Industry Companies – own collectively 65.35% of Absa.

The upheaval in the FinServInd results from CDADD’s exposure of Gordon’s fraudulent masterminding. This deal is likely a reactionary event.

If SA is such an attractive opportunity as a springboard into SA & Africa why would these FinServInd players bail out of Absa when it is on the cusp of, and after years of waiting for, the benefits to materialise?

SA is being bamboozled with sales blurb whilst underhanded deals take place.

It is important to note that these FinServInd players are controlled by people who have gained their power through manipulating monies belonging to the majority – i.e. they are not playing with their own money. They are playing with yours.

 

Finance Minister Trevor Manuel – why would he recommend to the President to approve this deal?

He and/or Alec Irwin were also instrumental in getting the President to engage with Singapore. Of what value is a tiny Asian island, a secretive Tax Haven & Sweat-shop broking joint, to SA? None!!!

But to someone setting up a scam it is of immense value – secretive bank accounts for siphoned funds!

The spotlight has shone on Manuel simply because he has held the government purse to give handouts – a sure popularity winner. But now the purse is dry he has to rely on his integrity & ability. The strains are showing.

His call for an “ethics think” does not carry credibility when he is not acting honestly himself.

 

What value? – In what way does this deal benefit shareholders, or SA?

As mentioned, SA is at the cusp of benefits materialising, so why is a small percentage gain offered on the sale price, which gain is driven solely by the bid.

Also bear in mind that small-scale sales can result in huge share price movements (see Articles: Instability of World Markets (Bourses)) – this means that a group of FinServInd players can choose to collectively manipulate prices to achieve a desired result.

Someone, such as Mervyn King, operating out of a tax haven is in a prime position to fraudulently engineer such a scam.

The run-on-the-Rand showed that a national currency can easily be manipulated, a company’s share price is much easier

 

Auditors playing musical-chairs!!!

Ernst & Young, KPMG, Price Waterhouse Coopers (previously separate as Price Waterhouse and Coopers Lybrandt) - are the auditing firms involved with all the underlying entities of this deal, both locally & internationally

How is this possible? Except for collusion!

All these auditing firms have been exposed for involvement in many & various international scams similar to Enron, Parmalat etc.

Price Waterhouse and Coopers Lybrandt were both appointed to audit Rembrandt (now Remgro) – the reason being that two independent firms would give added protection for shareholders. Exactly the opposite occurred – they colluded and joined together, and now collude with other auditing firms on this deal.

KPMG have reportedly accepted liability in the US for advice on fraudulent tax scams. They claim to have separated from those partners responsible for the scams. But that is for those scams; what of this Absa/Barclays scam?

Ernst & Young have been awarded substantial fines.

Barclays are also audited by PWC. Both their UK & US operations are audited by the same firm. Where then is the protection that independency should provide for investors? There is none!

Similarly:

Ernst & Young and KPMG both audit Absa

Ernst & Young, KPMG & PWC, jointly or separately, audit all the major players in both Absa & Barclays.

(These are Absa, Barclays, Sanlam, Investec, Remgro, Allan Gray, RMB, Old Mutual, Coronation. The auditors for PIC is unknown at present)

PWC have slid into the Grant Thornton (Kessel Feinstein) position as LibLife’s auditors – Grant Thornton has a long-term involvement with Donald Gordon, and collectively were instrumental in international scams.

Shortly after the Enron (& other collapses) these auditing firms, in many cases, simply rotated their positions to create an illusion of independence.

These auditing firms are engaged in musical chairs.

With Price Waterhouse Coopers advising on both sides of the deal what duplicitous scams have they concocted?

There is no justification for these auditing firms to have international connections, nor for their collusive connections amongst tiered companies – these auditing firms should be dismantled.

Absa’s communication (on its website) creates the false illusion of legal processes being correctly taken.

 

Prime Minster Tony Blair & State President Thabo Mbeki

- should continue the positive step taken by the President and disallow both the Absa/Barclays deal, as well as the undeserved knighthood of Gordon.

Although Gordon’s knighthood is reportedly gazetted, a knighthood can be revoked once dubbed.

It would also be correct for Gordon to refuse the knighthood; bearing in mind the embarrassment he knowingly is causing.

This deal, with Mervyn King’s fraudulent activities, is already into the Grey Area of Immorality.

The other FinServInd players & Auditors connected to Absa are also into numerous scams.

Consequently, this deal is beyond the Grey Area of Immorality and across the Line of Criminality.

This Absa/Barclays deal should be disallowed by Government Executive and, failing them collectively, by the State President. And, independently of the Executive, by the courts.

 

The deal smells bad because it is bad!

 

The revoking of Gordon’s intended knighthood would send a clear message round the world that even a slight step into the Grey Area of Immorality is unacceptable.

 

NOTICE:

If anyone has even the remotest suspicions concerning SA’s Absa/Barclays deal then please contact via Contact on menu above and send a brief outline & contact details.

ALL COMMUNICATIONS STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL!