King of Corporate Governance dethroned

Mervyn King – ex-High Court Judge, King of Corp Gov, Chairman of Brait & AASA

Abuses in High Court emulated from Constitutional Court

Update on PSC Guaranteed Growth & Service Provider GTKF

Approach to Constitutional Court i.t.o. S38 of the Constitution

S38 (a) & (d)Goldstein J, Mervyn King concerning WLD 4531/04 Addington/King
S38 (b) (c ) & (d) concerning Group Pension schemes – liquidation, surplus fund apportionment, etc.

To Constitutional Court:

Chief Justice Chaskalson & Justices.

Goldstein j., Mervyn King, & Feinstein attorneys

Cc state president, minister of justice & global

I, the undersigned

CHRISTOPHR DAVID ADINGTON

Do hereby make oath and say that:

I am the Applicant herein

It is noted that in Approaching a competent court i.t.o. S38 that is only necessary that a person alleges a rights violation or threat hereof, it is not necessary for a person to formulate an order or declaration of rights – that flows from an open hearing on the matter.

Concerning 1^st Approach

The 1^st Respondent is Goldstein J, 2^nd Respondent is Mervyn King in his capacities as Chairman of Brait, AASA, King Committee

Urgency

The underlying issue is a just & rightful matter concerning massive losses from employee pension funds. The matter was taken to the Joburg High Court and further abuses were encountered, all of which were purposeful, so as to continue covering up the massive fraudulent losses to employee pensions.

Goldstein J – High Court Judge Johannesburg, Court GC May 4, 2004 – abuses of power & dereliction of duty. I contend that he is a party to the covering up of massive frauds as is 2^nd Respondent, Mervyn King
Mervyn King Chairman of Brait, AASA, & King Committee – he is consciously covering up massive losses to employee pension funds, Brait & AASA. He is Chairman of Brait that actively seeks investor funds; his failure to address employee pension fund losses shows his non-suitability for managing directly or indirectly other peoples monies. Brait operates out of Luxembourg one of, if not the, most tightest & secretive tax havens – this in violation of his Corp Gov principles.

S38 (Enforcement of Rights – “Anyone listed in this section has the right to approach a competent court, alleging that a right in the Bill of rights has been infringed or threatened, and the court may grant appropriate relief, including a declaration of rights. ….”

It is only necessary that I allege an infringement, but I have gone further – I have submitted concrete proofs (summaries of previous proofs sent to CC is appended below) of the infringements

Addendum to previous S38 Approach, which was accepted as an urgent matter by the Chief Justice – and grounds for new Approach on an urgent basis

This approach is an addendum to the previous S38 approach which was accepted as an urgent matter (see Ch J letter below) but unconstitutionally dealt with. In the interim further rights abuses have occurred as set out herein.

The underlying issues (loss of pension monies) is not limited to Mervyn King, other well known business persons have also ignored/covered up the issues (e.g. Richard Branson – Virgin, Raymond Ackerman, Sean Summers – Pick n Pay, Peter Watt – Comparex & many others)

The losses amount to billions of Rands in SA alone.

The nature of this matter is urgent for reasons as set out herein, and also as processes utilised by the CC & HC are denying people access to courts and fair hearings as required under S34 (Access to Courts). Consequently abuses are ongoing.

The matter warrants the complete relaxing of the Rules of Court because if they are applied, even partially, then the Constitutions will be defeated and the matter will never be heard – this would result in a gross miscarriage of justice and the covering up of ongoing global fraud.

Background

This matter concerns the consequent abuses out of both the High Court and then the Constitutional Court against myself when I was attempting to bring a reasonable & proper application to the High Court against Mervyn King in his official capacities.

The High Court matter concerns Mervyn King is his official capacity of Brait, Automobile Association of SA & King Committee (Corporate Governance) – and the fact that he is covering up massive losses of employee pension funds whilst operating his Brait company out of the tightest & most secretive tax haven in the world, this in breach of his own King Report II, Corporate Governance principles. Further King had breached/reneged on certain promises made to me.

Mervyn King, in response to the founding application by myself, brought a Rule 30 (Irregular Proceedings) application to the HC. There were many collusive irregularities between King, his attorney Feinsteins, his advocate Subel, and the HC judiciary which are canvassed below.

An approach to the CC i.t.o. S38 was made and a reply from Chief Justice Chaskalson received on April 30 (see below).

In this letter the Ch J accepted the matter as an urgent one despite the shortness & non-compliance with the Rules of Court, which the Ch J is allowed to do in urgent matters. However thereafter he took an unconstitutional autocratic stance by summarily dismissing the matter, which is in violation of the Constitution S167(2) that requires a matter before the court to be heard by at least 8 judges.

In my replying letter I objected to this & other breaches. (However the HC Rule 30 matter was unconstitutionally dealt with by Goldstein J whilst a reply was being awaited from the CC.)

The reply from the CC on May 12, 2004 summarily dismisses, unconstitutionally, the matter without hearing as required of S167(2) once a matter is before the court, which it was once the Ch J accepted it as an urgent matter.

This application is to draw to public attention the abuses out of the Constitutional Court & High Courts that cause the Intellectual Doors to be closed to people and allow for massive fraud such as is happening in Mervyn King’s companies group schemes, and throughout the business world, locally & globally. (e.g. Enron, Parmalat, Macmed, PSCGG, pension funds etc.). It is also to highlight the fact the Mervyn King violates his own Corporate Governance principles and relies the collusion within the courts & justice system to escape responsibility.

THE KING OF CORPORATE GOVERNANCE IS DETHRONED

Legislation currently before Parliament seeks to close the doors further, thus permitting greater frauds

I record that on Thursday May 20, 2004 that I orally approached the Constitutional Court i.t.o. S38 of the constitution (Enforcement of Rights) on an urgent basis. I pointed out that subsequent to my letters to the CC (requesting an impartial HC judge) and the replies (see attached), firstly from the Chief Justice, secondly from the Justices:- that in between the two letters that there had been further abuses in the HC on May 4, 2004.

I also point out that the Chief Justice has still not fulfilled his promise to provide “reasons” for his unconstitutionally autocratic decision as set out in his April 30 letter. Nor have the Justices fulfilled their Constitutional obligations to hear the matter before making their decision, nor have they provided reasons.

High Court abuses – May 4, 2004

(concerning Counter Application by Mervyn King i.t.o. Rule 30 – Irregular Step)

I was initially harassed by the Deputy Judge President’s clerk just prior to the DJP entering the court. The clerk asked me to move because I was incorrectly dressed, I pointed out that my dress (collar & tie, trousers) was acceptable.

The DJP entered. He did not acknowledge my letter request to him. He dealt with some matters then left the court.

Goldstein J entered. After a while it became clear that the judge was manipulating the roll; my matter was B70 (the last on the roll).

I raised the issue of setting a hearing time – Goldstein J stated that another judge was going to hear the matter (Eston?) and asked me to wait. The judge dealt with a couple of matters and then cleared the court, barring myself and King’s legal team (Subel & Feinstein) and a Sunday Times reporter (Shanthini Naidoo).

The Court Recording will reflect the truth, assuming it is not tampered with, but a reasonable recollection follows; sufficient for a prima facie allegation of Rights abuse – failure by Goldstein J to give effect to S34 “fair hearing”, S33(1&2) Just Administrative Acton.

I raised objections that

Constitution, S33 Just Administrative Action read with S173 Inherent Power (of High Courts), had been ignored by the JP & DJP
That a reply letter to the Chief Justices letter (of April 30, 2004) was still being dealt with by the CC, and that his letter (which had been handed to Goldstein J) was of no force or effect because of its unconstitutional nature.

Goldstein J ignored these issues.

I raised the issue of recusal of himself & that a judge from another jurisdiction should be appointed. Nevertheless Goldstein J refused to recuse himself (see later re CC abuses as to why the HC is emulating the CC).

Goldstein then asked me what “order” I sought in the Founding application. I made numerous attempts to explain, but was unable to fully do so because Goldstein purposefully & abusively kept interrupting:- that in light of “Corporate Governance”, which was now a JSE listings requirement, an explicit contract existed between company’s and their stakeholders, and also that contractual inter-relationships existed between stakeholders.

Goldstein J continually interrupted me & harassed me, after some minutes he simply stated he had heard enough and gave his judgement order that the matter was dismissed as an Irregular Steps and ordered costs. I then left the court after stating that I objected.

Clearly Goldstein J lied when he stated that another judge was to hear the matter, it was clear that he was unlawfully siding/colluding with Feinsteins, Subel & King, it was clear that he was purposefully harassing me and had no intention of applying his mind.

The letter (below) from the Justices was received by email on May 12.

Abuses in Constitutional Court – May 20, 2004

After the Justices entered the Court I remained standing. Various procedural issues were dealt with before the Chief Justice acknowledged me.

I stated that I was approaching the court i.t.o. S38 concerning the abuses out of the High Court (Goldstein J) and the underlying issue that Mervyn King was covering up massive losses of employee pension funds (AASA & Brait) whilst operating Brait out of a secretive tax haven; further that he had dishonoured agreements.

Ch J raised the issue of the Rules of Court and that they had to be followed. I explained that people do this but are abused by the matters being summarily rejected without a fair hearing & determination.

Much wrangling followed, with myself being harassed by a security guard at the same time. The Chief Justice finally ordered me to sit down or he would have me forcibly removed. I stated that I objected to the abuses and sat down.

I am therefore submitting this urgent approach to the CC as directed by the Ch Justice.

1^st Approach to the Constitutional Court i.t.o. S38 of the Constitution.

This matter concerns the abuses meted out both in the Constitutional Court & High Court as set out above & further herein.

I request that a prompt hearing date be set to deal with this matter fully & properly, and for the CC to order a transcription of the HC court GC proceedings of that morning (May 4), and to obtain an independent affidavit from Sunday Times Reporter Shanthini Naidoo.

Abuse of Power/Dereliction by CC Justices

The Justices were obliged to hear the matter as per Constitutional requirement S167(2) - the Rules of Court (designed & developed by the Ch. Justice, previously President of CC) that allows the Constitution to be defeated is a violation in itself of the Constitution..

The Justices were grossly in error, abusive of their powers by summarily rejecting the matter and violated S167(2).

Recusation:

The issue of Recusation abuses out of the CC has been dealt with in the S v Basson CCT30/03 matter (see articles: Dr Death – State vs Wouter Basson) – whether one views this judgement as a gross error of judgement or an abuse of power is immaterial – it reflects that the CC Justices are not consciously applying their minds to impartiality – consequently the HC judges are simply continuing in their old-order ways. Even the new judges, attorneys & advocates have learnt their law from the Apartheid judges & lecturers – so mindsets are still entrenched in the abusive ways of the past.

Goldstein lied when he stated another judge was to hear the matter. Goldstein, King & his legal team, all colluded prior & during the unlawful, unconstitutional, proceedings on May 4.

Emulation of errors/abuses out of CC by HC’s & other courts.

The matter of CCT 74/03 Jaftha & Van Rooyen was a direct consequence of a Magistrate, a sheriff, and others disregarding the Constitution. The Magistrate in the first instance, the sheriff in the second instance, should have applied a balance, proportionality to the matter before the two R15000 government subsidized houses were sold in execution of trivial debts. But they didn’t because they see no application of moral, ethical, values by the superior courts; they thus conclude that they need not either. Mindless, crass, stupidity.

Had the systems & processes been installed into the justice system as set out in “Constitutional Law” Chaskalson M & others – commentary under S38 – then either Jaftha & van Rooyen, and all others, would have by now known that they could freely approach the courts i.t.o. S38 for immediate protections. But the systems & processes, 10 years down the road of democracy, are still not in place, and judges continue to abuse their power-positions – hence it took a local attorney (all credit to him) to address the issue. But it took Marcus to consume massive time on just one tiny aspect of the matter, thus leaving room for much more time wasting & revenue generation from state coffers on other tiny issues – thus, it will take an eternity for basic rights to be upheld properly. This because the Chief Justice refused to open the Intellectual Doors of our courts and allow for matters to be fully & properly dealt with.

Letter from Feinsteins (Mervyn King’s Attorneys)

The letter (below) from Feinsteins alleges that “wild allegations”, “defamation”, were made by myself – it appears reasonable to assume that they are referring to the events, truthfully set out herein (as can be verified from the court recordings/transcript & also from Shanthini Naidoo Sunday Times reporter). Feinsteins are asked to itemise & clearly explain each of the alleged “wild statements” and “defamation” – please note, however, that one cannot defame anyone by telling the truth. And all my statements are entirely truthful.

Attorneys & advocates do not have the right to aid & abet their clients in perpetuating or covering up fraud under the guise of providing them with legal services.

Update on PSC Guaranteed Growth - Service Provider, Grant Thornton (Kessel Feinstein)

The purpose of recalling this issue is to provide further proofs of the existence of fraudulent collusion, that it includes HC judges, advocates & attorneys, & other professionals.

Recall: Grant Thornton Kessel Feinstein undertook an irrevocable contractual obligation to audit the performance of the PSCGG fund. GTKF – now renamed Grant Thornton – breached their undertaking at the outset.

This fact was highlighted by myself when I opposed the unlawfully engineered liquidation of PSCGG – the liquidation was a collusive scam, the particular persons involved were judges Joffe & Stegmann, Mervyn Taback Attorneys, Grant Thornton Kessel Feinstein; (Blumenthal & Slotow attorneys also “resigned”).

What is very interesting is that Alec Hogg of Classicfm & Moneyweb remained silent about Grant Thornton Kessel Feinsteins breach of contract re PSCGG. Hogg is now in bed with Grant Thornton Kessel Feinstein – Grant Thornton Kessel Feinstein now audit’s Hogg’s business books. Other media also remained silent.

The entire saga is bringing out the crookery in the business world – Hogg has regularly derided Milne for succumbing to a scam in which he (Milne) found himself out of his depth and trying to lie his way out – but Hogg is quite comfortable in deceiving/lying to listeners/readers by not informing them of the truth re Grant Thornton (Kessel Feinstein) and then getting into bed with them.

The Chief Justice & Justices of the CC were fully aware of Grant Thornton Kessel Feinstein's criminal & professional negligence, also of Joffe’s & Stegmann’s involvement, but they were all unlawfully protected by the Justices of the Constitutional Court.

It is also important to note that the R200 Million that was lost in PSCGG is a tiny fraction of the BILLIONS that Financial Institutions/Asset Managers/Financial Advisors are plundering from group schemes. Assume: Group Scheme Fund value of R1 Billion average each for the top 40 listed JSE co.’s = R40 Billion Rand. Losses = 27% MINIMUM = R10.8 Billion loss, theft.

Also, when one reads the Basson judgement – it becomes clearer that there is serious bias by the Justices of the Constitutional Court.

Prompt Hearing Date

In the circumstances: the underlying issue is that Mervyn King is covering up massive fraud and is being protected by the judiciary & legal community so that these massive frauds can continue. It is clear from the truthful facts herein that the fraud extends far beyond the losses to pension funds from AASA & Brait and that it is global in nature. The major Financial Institutions are behind it – Old Mutual, Liberty Life etc. – who use secretive tax havens to assist in these scams.

This Constitutional Court is duty bound to hear this matter fully, not only regarding the failure to recuse by Goldstein J, but also, because of the urgency, the underlying fraud issues.

It is therefore requested that a prompt hearing date be set.

2^nd Approach i.t.o. S38 of the Constitution

The aforegoing sets out the issues and describes the background pertaining to AASA & Brait/Mervyn King and, subsequently Goldstein J who was purposefully colluding in covering up the issues all of which directly/indirectly impact upon the Rights violations/abuses.

These issues (retirement annuities/pension funds) are of a global nature.

The Sunday Times (June 6, 2004) have carried a number of notices concerning pension funds – liquidation, surplus fund apportionment & other issues. The problems within the FinServInd is so widespread that it directly effects ALL pension funds.

The nature of the losses that has been brought out by my research affects all pension/retirement funds, individual & group, defined benefit & defined contribution etc.

The various Acts that govern the FinServInd has not taken account of the losses that have been uncovered through this research.

The media in general have kept this issue covered up – in particular it should be noted that so-called Financial/Advisory experts/publications such as Bruce Cameron, Financial Mail, Alec Hogg, Classic Business & many others are aware of the issues but have remained silent because of the damaging effect such revelation would have on their status & businesses. It shows them up as being ignorant/dishonest in their own fields.

Consequently the public-at-large are not aware of these issues – and even if they were they are not suitably qualified, experienced, or able, to act in their own best interests.

It has been stated by the Finance Minister that once a contract, regarding changes to any old style group scheme, is signed that the matter is then closed, it cannot be undone.

The fact that employees are purposefully being kept in the dark about the serious problems with regard group schemes (defined benefit AND defined contribution & others) it means that the employees are not making, are not able to make, decisions in their best interests.

Further, the fact that the, now dethroned, King of Corporate Governance, Mervyn King, is covering up the losses from his own employees, and that other top business leaders such as Richard Branson, Raymond Ackerman, Sean Summers, Peter Watt, Bill Venter, Bobby Godsell are also covering up, then it is further proof that employees are being kept in the dark. This is unconstitutional.

It is also interesting to note that the companies of these business leaders have made great strides in “growing” – where did the funds come from? We know that employee pension funds are disappearing in massive quantities – it is still to be established how they have been siphoned off and where to.

In light of the Enron’s, Parmalat’s and the collusive relationships with major auditing firms such as PWC, Grant Thornton, Deloittes, Arthur Anderson, Ernst & Young etc. it is clear that the trails can be uncovered – it just requires this Constitutional Court to uphold the right to transparency to do so.

In the circumstances I am approaching this Constitutional Court i.t.o. S38 to firstly stake claims on behalf of all employees (S38(c) – class – for any particular fund, and (d) – public interest – for ALL funds) who are or were members of pension funds and to stake on their behalf their rightful claim to declare any & all changes to existing pension funds (or such like) as unconstitutional.

In light of this it is also sought that this Constitutional court order that all pension funds (and such like) be investigated so as to protect the property rights of its members.

It should be noted that this matter is not being brought to the CC as the court of 1^st instance, it has previously been raised in the Mervyn King High Court matter, it is simply an extension upon that matter – therefore the CC is the court of 2nd instance. But the abuses/collusion/negligence by Goldstein J has allowed the fraud to continue.

In the circumstances it is clear that ALL investors need urgent & immediate protections against their property rights.

It is requested that this matter also be dealt with in an open court hearing so that an appropriate order, and where necessary, an appropriate declaration of rights, concerning this matter can be made. To do this matter justice it is necessary that there is open debate in the Constitutional Court.

It should be noted that the Chief Justice & Justices of this Constitutional Court are key accountable persons for frustrations & anger. The Justices of this Constitutional Court are fully responsible for failing to address the clear collusion & corruption within the justice/legal system, to which the world is taking notice & direction for seeking solutions to the global multi-cultural problems.

The Justices are once again urged to do their duties correctly & hear these matters fully.

Signed

Christopher David Addington (Applicant) by email –

Thus signed & sworn to before me at __________________ on this ___________________, the Deponent having acknowledged that he knows and understands the contents of this affidavit, that it is true & correct and binding on his conscience, and that he has no objection to taking the prescribed oath.

________________________

Commissioner of Oaths

Attachments:

Concrete Proofs of Fraud Losses from Annuities

Annuities in Retirement 5

Actual Data

On June 6, 2003 Old Mutual gave the annuity incomes as shown in table below – similar from other institutions.

65 year old male, voluntary, with life cover

this gives R934.01 – R248.74 = R685.27 per month income per R100K Capital

AND

55 year old female, voluntary, with life cover

this gives R751.39 – 131.5 = R610.89 per month income per R100K Capital

A GLB pays capital back, therefore it is effectively a “life cover” instrument

On June 6, 2003 the R153 GLB netted an effective R875.29 per month, ignoring interest accumulation in bank account of bi-annual payouts.

Therefore losses

For 65 year old male: 875.29 – 685.27 = 190.02 and 190.02/685.27 = 0.277

 27.7% income loss

For 55 year old female: 875.29 – 610.89 = 264.4 and 264.4/610.89 = 0.4328

 43.3% income loss

These income losses convert to real & immediate capital losses
These losses stem directly from the incorrect use of “Mortality Tables” in calculating annuity income streams
High Transparent & Non-Transparent Costs, Defective & Deceptive investments schemes, account for other losses.

Second Set of quotes as of Jan 21, 2004

Annuity Quote from Momentum on 21/1/04, Gerhard Tel: 671 8111

Age 55 - R100,000 cash

	Male (55 yrs)		Female (55 yrs)		Capital Back
	0 Guarantee	10 yr Guar	0 Guarantee	10 yr Guar	Male	Female
Voluntary	823.45	794.86	767.64	785.60
Compulsory	837.93	805.34	798.12	777.97	622.96	613.08

Quote from Thebe Securities

Carlo Tel: 375 1120

Hi Chris,

R157 - @ 9.15 % (current trading price) R 99 707 buys a nominal of R 73 500 with a coupon of 13.5%.

R153 - @ 9.08 % (current trading price) R99 536 buys a nominal of R80 000 with a coupon of 13%

Regards

Carlo

Note: Not stated above by Carlo but the trading cost quoted by him orally is R300 for trades under R 1 Million

R157	73500 x 13.5% = 9922.50 p.a. or 826.87 p.m. But coupon pays every 6 months therefore interest accrues on the residual balance of each 6 monthly payout – i.e. 826.87 x 5 months at say 8%p.a. (0.007% p.m.) gives approx. R5.7 for each R827 per month held. Therefore in 1^st month 5 x R5.70 = R28.50, 2^nd month 4 x R57 = R22.80 etc.
R153	80000 x 13% = 10400 p.a. or 866.67. Plus add interest of say R6.00 for each R866 per month.

The R157 runs to 2015, the R153 to 2010. Therefore better to buy the longer bond (R157)??

The comparison is on a Capital Back basis

Therefore comparing R157 at R826.87 versus R622.96 (male)/613.08 (female)

This gives a loss of:

Male	Female
(826.87 – 622.96)/622.96 = 32.7%	(826.87 – 613.08)/613.08 = 34.8%

Also important to note:

The GLB is a far more secure instrument than an Momentum annuity
The “guarantee” runs for R157 to Sept 2015, whereas the Momentum annuity runs to 21/1/2014
The R157 pays out at least 32.7% more per month than Momentum (interest accrual on 6 month coupon payout is ignored here)

Quote from LibLife

Bruce Thornton - Tel: 408 7033

R100,000 Rands @ age 55 on 21/1/04 for Male & Female
Please fill in blocks with monthly incomes - thanx

	Male		Female
	0 guarantee	10 yr Guarantee	0 Guarantee	10 yr Guarantee
Voluntary	857.39	824.8	785.99	772.24
Compulsory	857.39	824.8	785.99	772.24

	Capital Protected		Capital Protected
Voluntary	603.55		582.47

LeTTER from chief justice

Mr. C D Addington 1/4/18

P O Box 724 30 April 2004

LANSERIA

1748

Dear Mr Addington

The Chief Justice has directed me to respond to your e-mail to him concerning your application in the High Court against Mervy King NO.

Applications to the Constitutional Court must be lodged with the Registrar and not with the Chief Justice. In future please communicate with me concerning all matters dealing with court proceedings and not directly with the Chief Justice.

The Chief Justice has considered the allegations made by you in your e-mail and although it is not in the form prescribed by the rules, he has treated it as an urgent application under rule 12. The Chief Justice is empowered by rule 12 to dispense with the normal forms and service. Having considered the e-mail he is of the opinion that there is no merit in the proposed application to the Constitutional Court and he accordingly declines to exercise the power vested in him by rule 12.

He will give his reasons for this decision later. As the matter is due to be heard in the High Court next week he has instructed me to communicate his ruling to you and to bring the ruling to the attention of the attorneys acting for the respondent.

M S STANDER

SNR REGISTRAR

CONSTITUTIONAL COURT

Letter FROM CONSTITUTIONAL COURT

1/4/18

12 May 2004

Mr CD Addington

PO Box 724

LANSERIA

1748

E-mail:

Dear Mr Addington

The Chief Justice has directed me to respond to your letter dated 30 April 2004 as follows:

Your communication dated 30 April 2004 concerning the proceedings pending in the High Court in Case No 4631/04 has been brought to the attention of and considered by the Justices of the Constitutional Court. The request that they “act as an impartial forum to hear the rule 30 application” is refused. So too the request that they direct the Judge President and / or the Deputy Judge President to assign a judge from another Provincial jurisdiction to hear the matter, or appoint an independent impartial forum to do so.

SB MADONSELA

ppREGISTRAR: CONSTITUTIONAL COURT

Letter from Feinsteins, 26 – 5 – 2004 (“cut paste”)

Dear Sir,

re: VAVARIOUS PROCEEDINGS BETWEEN CHRISTOPHER ADDINGTON AND MR MERVYN KING N.O. IN HIS CAPACITY AS CHAIRMAN OF THE AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION OF SOUTH AFRICA, BRAIT AND THE KING COMMITTEE (KING REPORT II – CORPORATE GOVERNANCE) / APPLICATION IN THE WITWATERSRAND LOCAL DIVISION OF THE HIGH COURT UNDER CASE NO. 4531/04 / “URGENT APPLICATION TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT IN TERMS OF SECTION 38 OF THE CONSTITUTION”

The various documents which have emanated from you have made wild allegations of and concerning this professional corporation and its alleged collusion with others to facilitate the appointment of a particular Judge and alleged irregularities in so doing. The writer has been given to understand that the aforesaid allegations were repeated in open court.

At the outset we place on record that there is not the slightest degree of substance to any of your allegations either on the basis as articulated by you or at all, that we take the strongest possible exception thereto and finally that we reserve to ourselves the right to take whatever action against you we may deem apposite in the circumstances, including a claim for substantial damages for defamation.

Entirely without prejudice to the aforegoing and in no way derogating from the rights which now vest in us, we invite you to retract the said allegations and to tender an unequivocal apology therefor. The receipt of same may mitigate the claim for damages against you, however, in the absence thereof will only exacerbate the same.

1Yours faithfully

FEINSTEINS

Per: