Mr. Charles Pieterse,
Attorneys
Dear Sir,
RE YOUR CLIENT (Mr. DJ DAWID BOSCH) AND MYSELF
Thank you very much to the open invitation to communicate to you regarding the mentioned incident.
I am writing to you in English as Afrikaans is my second language and I find it degrading to always be forced in using a language I am not very comfortable in.
I express regret on behave of my wife. She accepted the post not realizing it was not addressed to me. It should have been returned as ‘address unknown’ but got opened by mistake
My name is “George Ernest Neuhoff Bessinger. My ID documents bear witness to this. I am addressed most often to as ‘Ernest’ by my family, friends and close acquaintances. Your client (Mr. DJ Bosch) no longer, and for many years, falls in either of the mentioned categories. It is very indignant of your client (Mr. DJ Bosch) to be so familiar with me. I am sometimes also known as ‘Mr. Bessinger’. On any official documentation I prefer my names in full and if abbreviated, my full initials in front. I also respond to ‘George’ by certain officials, not knowing my preferred name, have only my full names in front of them. A little more respect from your client (Mr. DJ Bosch) regarding my name and title will go a long way to mend fences.
- Your client (Mr. DJ Bosch) and I have in common with each other only the fact that we both are equal right shareholders in a share block scheme. In the past we were had close connections. Contact between your client (Mr. DJ Bosch) and I broke down to averting and self imposed restraining order on my side. It had been so for at least the last two years. I bear no ill feeling towards your client (Mr. DJ Bosch) but prefer people that share my experience in life. Your client (Mr. DJ Bosch) does not qualify and to me it is indignant to even suggest qualification. The only forced contact with your client (Mr. DJ Bosch) is:
a. When your client (Mr. DJ Bosch) may pass my house, (or I his).
b. At meetings of common interest due to your client (Mr. DJ Bosch) and my association.
c. Accidental passing by your client (Mr. DJ Bosch) and me on common or public property.
- To lower the possible contact between your client (Mr. DJ Bosch) and me even further,
- My wife volunteered to attend all common interest meetings.
- My wife pay our levy and electricity account in person.
- Neither my wife nor I attend any share block scheme common interest functions (other than the meetings).
- I greet your client (Mr. DJ Bosch) [in case we meet] with the hope he may reciprocate and not feel browbeaten by me.
- My wife and I are married in community of property sharing equal partnership in my interest in the share block scheme. To my wife and I this means:
- My wife:
· Is a first generation German citizen (with permanent resident’s status) with German as first and Swiss German as second language!
· Has no formal education in either English or Afrikaans.
· A non linguistic retired senior citizen.
· Had no need for contact with Afrikaans as language (until we settled on the share block scheme).
· The responsible member of the finances of the maintenance, levy and electricity to our shares in the share block scheme.
· Is a non- practising German Evangelism religion that detests others forcing their religion on her!
· Is a believer in freedom of speech and detest any form of suppression.
· Is a non socialising teetotaller that doesn’t mind the very rare occasional get together!
· Prefers her own company shared with her spouse
· An apolitical figure and treat everyone equal and believe deceit, misrepresentation and treachery serve no porpoise in life
· Is moderate of thoughts, culture, politics and religion and detest anyone that would try and force there traditional views on her.
· Appear to have very little sense of humour because of her little understanding of the local languages.
· Attend share block meetings and compile her own minutes (initially on paper and at the present on a voice recorder) of the meetings for verification to her understanding because:
1. Afrikaans is artificial to her.
2. Her understanding and use of English is limited but not near as appalling as her Afrikaans.
3. Not all points in the meeting are fully acknowledged in the minutes.
- I am:
· Named as owner of the shares in the share block scheme. At the time of signing for the contract to purchase of the share of the share block scheme, the directors at the time force me to have only one name on the contract. Many years later I found their ruling not in stroke with the law.
· Born and bred South African with English as first language.
· A non linguistic retired senior citizen.
· The responsible member of the maintenance to our (my wife and I) shares in the share block scheme.
· A religious Agnostic that detests others forcing their religious conviction on me.
· A strait speaker that believe that pretence, perversion and deceitfulness serve no porpoise in life and speak my mind.
· Supporting with very clear likes and dislikes.
· Passionate and never give up.
· A non socialising teetotaller (for health reasons) that don’t mind the very rare occasional get together.
· A very private person that prefers my own company shared with my spouse.
· A believer in freedom of speech and detest any form of control.
· A believer that nobody must force their politics on to me (local or country wide) but treat everyone equal.
· Broad-minded in thoughts, culture, politics and religion and detest anyone that would try and force there conventional views on me.
· A person with a very dry sense of humour that is often misunderstood by middle-of-the-road members of the public.
- The share block scheme (proof to be found with company registration):
· It is very difficult to get specialist legal advisors that know the ramifications of the company versus usage rights. The share block scheme is often confused with a company with profit in mind or, a sectional title complex.
· Is a Share block scheme to provide common interest to non-movable property with permanent resident’s status on a farm!
· Is not a holiday resort, productive farm (registered only for grazing rights), club (social or other) or old age village.
· Was developed out of a private company in 1990.
· Is situated on a farm and all shareholders have equal rights to access of the farm. My usage right does not restrict any of my access to the farm. I also uphold my right to next time your client (Mr. DJ Bosch) threatens my life by hunting on the farm, to have it investigated for a possible criminal act. Especially seen in the light that no shooting (by any method) is allowed on the farm.
· Have 50 equal rights shareholders.
· Have interviewed me and accepted our (my wife and I) offer and registered our shares in 1995.
· Have very little restrictions in the usage rights to shareholders.
· Have voluntary unpaid directors that also act as the management to the scheme. Rotating on an annual cycle. Given no more rights than to manage the share block scheme.
- My usage rights do not (proof to found at the share block office):
· Restrict me attending any meeting of the scheme (management and/ or general).
· Restrict my spouse attending the meeting (with or without my proxy). Without the proxy my wife and I understand that she may not vote, make suggestions or start a new topic.
· Restrict me reporting concerns or inconveniences to the management.
· Restrict me using shareholders names that may be involved in my concerns or the problems of the share block scheme.
· Restrict me (when attending) to keep my own private minutes to refer to.
· Restrict me to keep private minutes in a specific format and media.
· Restrict me access to any common property but a decision in an AGM meeting made access to common property for private use, taboo (other than as described in the various usage rights). Thus making it “unauthorized use of private property, and/or theft”
· Restrict me (in accordance with article 16 of the Share Blocks Control Act 59 of 1980 and my usage right has never been updated since purchase of the shares in the share of the block scheme) to any other rule the management may have contemplated. Nor have I signed to any agreements, amendments or cessions. Something your client (Mr. DJ Bosch in his private, director or management role) refuses to respect an honour.
- The directors are:
· Appointed by Shareholders on a yearly cycle.
· Not remunerated
· Normally appointed from shareholders but not restricted to them.
· Do not feed back any decision made at management meetings and do not feed back any minutes of the mentioned meetings.
· When decisions are made to inform a shareholder (or shareholders) that feedback rarely happens.
· Restricted to maintenance of the share block scheme, tasks appointed by an act, and tasks allocated at AGM by shareholders.
- Am I correct to understand (from your letter) that:
- Working documents at a management meeting (with explicit instructions not to distribute by anyone other then the recipient) was removed and handed in to you as evidence?
- That the recipient (Mr. Frik Birkenstock – the chairman) of those documents gave your client (Mr. DJ Bosch) the written permission to use management documents in his private capacity?
- You checked the permission status with Mr. Birkenstock?
- Is your client (Mr. DJ Bosch) acting in his personal capacity and not as management of the share block scheme?
- I intentionally want to disrepute your client’s (Mr. DJ Bosch) reputation?
- Just one small correction:
a. I did not pay the admission of guilt fine. I find it an insult and onslaught to my dignity that anyone may even make that suggestion.
b. I have no income, bank or saving account and therefore unable to pay such a fine. Please ask your client (Mr. DJ Bosch) to refrain his spreading of false rumours. I reserve the right to have these rumours investigated for slander should it happen again.
c. I may have handed over the money on behalf of my wife but paid, no!
d. In the relationship with my wife and me, my wife has full responsibly of all financial transactions.
- As to the “crimen injura” charge by your client (Mr. DJ Bosch) (and for what I am now persecuted for by your client (Mr. DJ Bosch):
a. Stems from an confrontation where I, as property manager and director having full authority to all legal and related matters regarding common property, stopped your client (Mr. DJ Bosch) from an alleged unlawful use of private property (and according to senior inspector Mr. Samual Tshiultuia – Waterpoort police tel. 0155751503) possibly even theft because your client (Mr. DJ Bosch) claimed that he owns 2% of the private property and nobody is going to tell him what he can do with his property (his words and not mine). I had thus full authority to lay the charges without referring it to a board. My gut feel was to lay criminal charges against your client (Mr. DJ Bosch) and have it investigated. But my logic claimed I must give your client (Mr. DJ Bosch) a third break. After all he is a shareholder with a sick wife.
b. The property belongs to the share block scheme and your client (Mr. DJ Bosch) is a 2% shareholder of the scheme (not the property).
c. Your client (Mr. DJ Bosch) then threatened me to the point where I feared for my life with very insulting statements and threatening gestures. I didn’t lay an official charge against your client (Mr. DJ Bosch) because I respect his right to freedom of speech. At least it allows your client (Mr. DJ Bosch) to let off steam. Unfortunately I can’t ask my wife to bear witness, because your client’s (Mr. DJ Bosch) outburst was in Afrikaans and my wife’s knowledge of Afrikaans is extremely limited.
d. Most shareholders were absent from the share block scheme and my wife tried to get the attention of anyone that might stop the physical assault that was eminent.
e. The two incidents of alleged unlawful and/ or theft allegations (together with the warnings your client [Mr. DJ Bosch] received) is well documented in my daily written report, as property manager to the share block scheme, to the chairman.
f. To defuse the thread, and out of frustration with child like attitude of your client (Mr. DJ Bosch), I told your Mr. DJ Bosch to “fokof”. I used the words because:
i) I felt very threatened and intimidated by the physical size of your client (Mr. DJ Bosch). So it was an involuntary reaction to the provocation by your client (Mr. DJ Bosch).
ii) I believe in freedom of speech and the right to use it.
iii) I did not think it was derogatory as it is a word in common use.
iv) The South African Afrikaans speaking community don’t seem to find the uttered word offensive because one of their idol rock bands is called “Fokofpolisiekar”. Combining the uttered word with law and order. Do a search on the internet for the idols mentioned and at least 460,000 hits will be found. Only 466, 000 less then if you did a search for ‘Julius Malema’. Web sites dealing with the band are thus only 50% less often used then one of
v) This word is regularly in a newspaper/ general publication (either in English or Afrikaans) as a written word. It is even used by the police. In an article (see the attached web page article). The irony is that the lawyer mentioned in the article has not even laid a charge of “crimen injura”. And that in the North that is supposedly very conventional.
vi) The recommended age restriction for such words on National TV in
g. My wife claims she is not sure if she heard me because she was just worried I will get assaulted and was trying to find someone to stop this verbal assault from your client (Mr. DJ Bosch) that is developing in a full physical assault. But according to my wife she wouldn’t have found it improper if it was uttered. Other then the circumstances, my wife feel it a common used word anyway.
h. Your client (Mr. DJ Bosch) then took offense and laid a charge of “crimen injura”. I had good intentions and I am not upset with your client (Mr. DJ Bosch). I am rather annoyed with myself because no matter how streetwise I am there is always someone cleverer then me. While writing this I remembered something that appeals to my sense of humour “If you want to make God laugh, tell him your plans”. The lesson I have learned is ‘go with your gut feel’. I should have laid a charge against your client (Mr. DJ Bosch). The other lesion I have learnt is ‘never give your client (Mr. DJ Bosch) the benefit of the doubt. Your client (Mr. DJ Bosch) will take advantage of your kindness and hospitality’
i. Your client (Mr. DJ Bosch) stated in the affidavit to the police my wife to be his witness to the uttered word incident. Insulting her dignity by not even asking if she would be his witness. What makes it worse, if she heard what I said, at the time my wife didn’t even understood what the words meant (or could have meant). She has since been informed and finds it insulting to her gravity that your client (Mr. DJ Bosch) can be so petty. Then to claim that she should give evidence against her spouse? The pure egotism of your client (Mr. DJ Bosch) to insult my spouse’s intelligence and feel he has the right to insult her?
j. My wife:
i) Is convinced that your client (Mr. DJ Bosch) may have used her for laying the “crimen injura” charge. She is convinced that your client (Mr. DJ Bosch) wrote in his statement to the police that your client (Mr. DJ Bosch) is “ashamed because I (GEN Bessinger) used vulgar words in front of my spouse”. This allegation is in the process of exploration.
ii) This grieves and offends my wife no end. She does not abode on the share block scheme to be insulted and treated as a minor or child. My wife claims she has given no-one consent to act on her behalf. Nor has she given anyone permission to protect her morals or culture. Nor even signed over power of attorney. If this action by your client (Mr. DJ Bosch) is found to be true, my wife has no alternative but to open a case of “crimen injura” against your client (Mr. DJ Bosch) and ask for an investigation of possible ‘invasion of privacy’, and ‘harassment’ to her. She would also try and get a restrictive order against your client (Mr. DJ Bosch). My wife (just thinking about the possibility of being used by your client (Mr. DJ Bosch)) feels violated, abused and enslaved because she has a right to dignity and right to have that dignity protected. Rights your client (Mr. DJ Bosch) may have infringed by misrepresentation.
k. The decision to pay the fine was based on financial concerns because just to drive to Louis Trichardt and back would have cost the price of the fine and a lawyer has not even been paid yet.
l. The irony is that your client (Mr. DJ Bosch) forced his conformist views onto us, and my wife paid for protecting the honour of your client, for words she doesn’t really find offensive and in common use (and at the time didn’t even understood them) by a self appointed keeper of morality that offended her further by looking down upon her culture, age and sex, purely for self interest.
- After two to three hours of consideration with the senior inspector (Mr. Samual Tshiultuia – Waterpoort police tel. 0155751503), Mr. Tshiultuia and I agreement to the following :
a. The police assured us (my wife and I) that there will be no persecution or further prosecution should we pay an admission of guilt fine (an item I deducted from your letter is not agreed to by your client (Mr. DJ Bosch, because the persecution continues?).
b. I will not have a criminal record.
c. The police will reduce the fine.
d. The senior inspector (Mr. Samual Tshiultuia) will assist me to get a restrictive order against your client (Mr. DJ Bosch), if I so desire (I reserve the right to ask the senior inspector [Mr. Samual Tshiultuia] to assist me if I find it necessary).
e. The case will be closed and the file archived.
f. The police will assist me to lay charges against your client (Mr. DJ Bosch) should the next management meeting give their concurrence. After an hour of deliberation at the management meeting, the meeting agreed that the property was unlawfully used but that charges against your client (Mr. DJ Bosch) are dropped. The meeting also concluded the property did not leave the farm and therefore could not be considered “stolen” (contradicting the senior inspector (Mr. Samual Tshiultuia). As shareholder I do not have copies of the minutes of the mentioned management meeting but it should be available at the share block office. If the incident is not reported as I described then negligence occurred in creating and ratifying the minutes. Your client (Mr. DJ Bosch) was part of the ratifying process. This decision of the meeting had a very big negative influence on my dignity. I am the property manager and director and your client (Mr. DJ Bosch) gets protected and allowed to break the law without even a warning. But me as the whistle blower gets ostracized.
g. I will bring under control myself from having any contact with your client (Mr. DJ Bosch) in his private, director and/or management to the share block scheme position. A task I have taken serious and other than the rare ‘hello’ I have had nought contact with your client (Mr. DJ Bosch) in the last two years. I have basically become a recluse to achieve the stated goal.
h. My wife and I then agreed to further avoid the conflict (because it has become obvious to us that your client (Mr. DJ Bosch) and I have juxtaposed personality clashes) by me resigning as director and manager of the complex.
i. Your client (Mr. DJ Bosch) then immediately steps into the vacant post as seconded manager to the complex.
- After the management to the share block scheme meeting:
a. Unconnected to your client (Mr. DJ Bosch), other attacks were raised against my wife and me.
b. Much discussion ensued between my wife and me. She even left for
c. I convinced her to come back and on her return we concluded {right or wrong} (although we can’t prove it yet – but working on it) that :
i) The attacks are because we have exposed some irregularities with management of the share block scheme in general and your client (Mr. DJ Bosch) as member to the management team specific.
ii) The attacks are of terroristic of nature designed for us to sell our share and move out.
d. We then concluded that:
i) My wife and I will endeavour to expose what is actually going on
ii) We will not sell our shares (at great capital loss) and move off. I am happy living here and anticipate dying here. As this is our only accommodation.
iii) Within the boundaries of the law I will be dutifully and protect my capital investment in the share block scheme; the occupation; and usage rights, I have purchased. With my life if I have to.
iv) We have given management to the share block scheme the option to raise the issue of our alleged disorderly nature at a special general meeting and suggest the shareholders buy back our shares and usage right at market related prices for unmoveable property.
- The dilemma - how do I take responsibly and protect my interest in the share block scheme? I have previously consulted with Mr. Zubair Moosa of Hamman Attorneys (at that stage he was not a partner yet):
a. He provide me with advice on how to achieve my stated goal.
b. At the time I could not remember if my usage right restricts me on taking responsibly and protecting my share block scheme rights.
c. Not having a verified copy of my usage rights Mr. Moosa requested a copy from management of the share block scheme and never received it.
d. Nor an apology or even an explanation why it is late. That is now more than three years ago and we are still waiting.
e. My legal advisor also recommended I include peoples names, as far as possible, to help management to the share block scheme to clear the problem/ concern and not speculate on who may be involved to my query.
f. My culture, my usage rights and the constitution of the
- My legal consultant (Mr. Zubair Moosa) recommended that:
a. I put my concerns (in writing) forward to the person responsible. In the absence of person or knowledge of person responsible, address it to the chairman of the share block scheme.
b. For legal verification send a copy to the secretary for filing.
c. If he/she does not responds to my satisfaction I then consult a lawyer.
d. This then led to the correspondence I assume you refer to in your letter? To this the chairman to the share block scheme in his latest management to the share block scheme report remark how little correspondence he received from all shareholders in general?
- My concerns:
a. My problems/ concerns are only a management to the share block scheme concern and are never of a personal nature. Management of the share block scheme also never give me feedback to the responsible person. Thus all communication goes to the chairman of the share block scheme and never to management of the share block scheme in general.
b. Although my intentions are good it may be seen as a personal attack because of the use of names and end up with unintended slander.
c. I am obliged to use a second language and not my primary language of choice and I find it undignified.
d. My significance may not become clear
e. Not knowing the responsible person, the chairman does not address the problem with the person concerned.
- Resolving my concerns:
a. All my communication goes to the chairman with a copy to the secretary for filing. I put my trust in the chairman then to address the issue directly or notifying the responsible person.
b. I gave the chairman the right to distribute my written document to the person concerned without further permission and reserve the right that it is to be as a working copy only. I reserve the right to investigate any prohibited distributions.
c. Management of the share block scheme resolved my concerns flawlessly in Nov 2006 (verified minutes of the meeting are available from the office of the share block scheme). It was unanimous decision and your client (Mr. DJ Bosch) assisted with the decision process at the management of the share block scheme meeting of the mentioned date:
i) By making a resolution that “any official correspondence received from shareholder 13 (GEN Bessinger), and/or spouse, be scrutinised by a legal adviser”.
ii) By the legal advisor to be appointed by management of the share block scheme and kept covert from me.
iii) For I find no documentation that this decision is no longer appropriate.
iv) Because this being a special case, updating my usage right for that reason. I am thus waiting for management of the share block scheme to provide the paper work for update my usage right. Four years after their resolution. A complete onslaught to my dignity because in hindsight I think it may have been a fraudulent transaction. But at least solves the concerns I may have had (as mentioned in the main topic 11. My concerns).
- Result of management of the share block scheme decision:
a. Any or all of my official correspondence with the chairman has a legal report attached that may be scrutinised. And thus resolves the concerns your client (Mr. DJ Bosch) may have raised with you.
b. Any correspondence generated by me and submitted as legal evidence, has been cleared by a legal advisor before any general management of the share block scheme discussion. And thus resolves the concerns your client (Mr. DJ Bosch) may have raised with you.
c. Any discrepancy in correspondence generated by me should be addressed to the legal advisor and not to me, as he cleared it. Please suggest to your client (Mr. DJ Bosch) accordingly.
d. Any accusations or discredits should be addressed with the legal advisor and not to me, as he cleared it. Please counsel your client accordingly.
e. Only the management of the share block scheme will know who the advisor may be and what his return report contains. Please advice your client (Mr. DJ Bosch) to contact the chairman to supply the legal advisor’s details to you.
f. Having received no complaints of negligence or defamation from such an advisor I am obligated to feel innocent of what you are accusing me of. As this time I reserve the right to have these accusations further investigated.
g. No request was received that I supply the legal advisor with more details of confirmation. Whatever I put forward seems to have been acknowledged without prejudice. I am thus compelled to presuppose that your client (Mr. DJ Bosch) is deliberating trying to defame me and your client may even be part of a possible fraudulent transaction.
h. In ratified management of the share block scheme minutes of last year the chairman (Mr. Frik Birkenstock) warns your client (Mr. DJ Bosch) that in my communication I was unbiased.
i. But, assuming that this legal adviser (I mentioned) was purely deceitful techniques, by management of the share block in general and your client (Mr. DJ Bosch) specific, to terrorise us (my wife and me)? I am thus compelled to presuppose that your client is not only trying to defame me but may have got himself involved in a deceptive transaction. Too horrifying to even contemplate and therefore I give your client the benefit of the doubt and ask that you just request from your client (Mr. DJ Bosch) the details of the legal advisor and start your debate there.
- There is only one complaints I have been made aware of (between your client [Mr. DJ Bosch] and me):
a. My wife informed me (and it was verified from her private minutes of the share block management of the share block scheme meeting known as the fiasco meeting).
b. Attached is an extract of a sound recording of your client (Mr. DJ Bosch) making the announcement?
c. This complaint, if private, should not have been for discussion in the management of the share block scheme meeting.
d. Cause of the objection:
i) Objection stems from an e-mail I sent regarding the gate standing open. I will not burden you with another copy of this e-mail because your letter states that you most likely have it and have read it but hold it my right to investigate the authenticity of such documents as legal evidence.
ii) Attached find an extract from my wife’s private minutes of the meeting of your client (Mr. DJ Bosch) putting his claim forward at the management of the share block scheme meeting.
e. Sequence of events (from the outburst of your client (Mr. DJ Bosch) and your letter):
i) Your client (Mr. DJ Bosch) makes an appointment with a lawyer and submits his proof of the accusations. Only later does your client (Mr. DJ Bosch) receive the credentials.
ii) In the meeting known as the fiasco meeting (some time after seeing the lawyer) your client (Mr. DJ Bosch) is informed about the accusations made by me.
iii) In the fiasco meeting your client (Mr. DJ Bosch) makes his intentions aggressively and insulting known. He even stands up to address the meeting.
iv) Three months later Mr. Frik Birkenstock hands out the work documents that were already submitted to his lawyer but only now received.
v) The lawyer analyses the documents and makes his conclusions known in a letter addressed to some fabricated person known as “Ernst Bessinger”.
vi) Mr.
f. Seriousness of the complaint:
i) My usage right (the one I signed for) states that the gate must be kept closed at all times.
ii) Although I don’t see the need for it to be closed as we are not a registered active farm but a share block scheme on a farm (designed for accommodation)
iii) But all shareholders take it serious enough that in about 2002 your client (Mr. DJ Bosch) took a 74 year old to court because (directly or indirectly) the gate was left open under the 74 years control. This case was well documented in the local newspaper – ‘Zoutpansberger’.
g. Why and how was it reported?
i) For healthiness reasons, and because my usage rights allows me full access to the farm 365 days of the year, my wife and I walk through the farm lands on the farm.
ii) One morning I find the gate open.
iii) Not knowing if management of the share block scheme introduced new rules or new precedents I wrote the letter to the chairman why it may be open? Shareholders are never informed by management of the share block scheme decisions creating an insult to my dignity.
iv) I also remembered that your client (Mr. DJ Bosch) made an official suggestion that we take the fences down and chase the game out due to an overstock problem that continues to plague share block scheme (I have a similar voice recording of my wife’s private minutes of the general meeting with your client (Mr. DJ Bosch) making the suggestion).
v) I then added his suggestion to my writing and inquired if that me be the reason?
h. I do not understand your client’s (Mr. DJ Bosch) objection to my letter. I do not imply that it was negligent of duties. Nor do I say (or suggest) that your client (Mr. DJ Bosch) left the gate open. But in the attached voice recording he claims I did. I may be guilty of many things but this is not one of them. The suggestion from your client (Mr. DJ Bosch) that I may be trying to defame him is insulting and not reasonable.
i. Up to now I have not received any formal notice of what his duties for the year is or was, and within days we have the next AGM. So, it is impossible for to me to even suggest that your client (Mr. DJ Bosch) is responsible. Is he? I heard a rumour that another member of the management of the share block scheme team may have the responsibility (nl. Mr. Hendrik Veldman?). As far as I am aware your client (Mr. DJ Bosch) is not even registered as a director/ manager. At the last AGM he was co-opted to the post and not appointed. If the records now indicate that your client (Mr. DJ Bosch) may be registered it may indicate a possible fraud incident. On my wife’s private minutes the chairman can clearly be heard suggesting your client get co-opted and the meeting agreeing.
j. Actions taken since receiving your letter:
i) I have revoked Mr. Frik Birkenstocks privileges to distribute, print or copy any documentation he receives from me.
ii) I will no longer send a copy for filing to the secretary.
iii) I have compiled this document
iv) I have undertaken to never communicate to any management of the share block scheme team members in any language but my home language.
k. What else can I do or ask:
i) I can’t stop taking responsibility and protect my share in the share block scheme. Nor can I ignore my legal advisor’s (Mr. Zubair Moosa) advice. So, if your client (Mr. DJ Bosch) does not want his name mentioned in any official documentation, you should recommend to your client (Mr. DJ Bosch) to resign as director and manager and stop considering common share block property his private property.
ii) Ask for your client (Mr. DJ Bosch) to explain the inconsistencies.
a) From the sequence of events, the outburst from your client (Mr. DJ Bosch), and possibility that your client (Mr. DJ Bosch) is/ was in possession of documents not addressed to him in person, it is clear that your client (Mr. DJ Bosch) does not play by the rules and it is clear to me that he is trying to defame me.
b) I am assuming, at this time, that it was an honest mistake.
c) I reserve the right to have this incident investigated.
d) And without prejudice will do anything legally necessary to have it resolved to my satisfaction.
iii) Due to the outburst of your client (Mr. DJ Bosch) and the disrespect and dishonour shown to my wife by (all on the extraction of her private minutes I am supplying to you), my wife requests that:
1. Your client (Mr. DJ Bosch) stops using my wife for his own self interest.
2. Not addressing her in a language she may understand.
3. Not giving her the opportunity to explain herself.
4. Not protecting her against the onslaught of the other management of the share block scheme members on doing the same.
For the above stated reasons I want your client (Mr. DJ Bosch) to publicly (where all Waterpoort residences may see it) apologise in writing for your client (Mr. DJ Bosch) dishonouring my spouse. The apology must contain a description to the above mentioned event, date and time and people concerned. We (my wife and I) reserve our rights to further investigations but, it does not exclude any investigations already started.
I confirm that the purpose of this writing is:
A) To introduce myself and my wife to you.
B) To put our (my wife and I) viewpoint across regarding your mentioned incident (even though your writing was not addressed to either of us).
C) To request that in future you address your correspondence to a legal entity.
D) To put the biased view of your client (Mr. DJ Bosch) in perspective.
E) To confirm that I do not communicate to chairman of the share block scheme regarding personal issues. The once I tried (only because at least two directors had to sign a document I thought it a director of the share block scheme issue) I was severely reprimanded to keep my private life private.
F) To confirm that the directors of the share block scheme is not consistent with their rulings because your client’s (Mr. DJ Bosch) personal life is without restraint discussed in share block scheme management meetings.
G) To confirm that I have never purposely used your client (Mr. DJ Bosch)’s name where he did not represent the management of the share block scheme and the query or concern was a management of the share block scheme issue. Or, where it may have related to his dealing with common property.
H) To confirm that under no circumstances was it the sole purpose of any communication to the chairman was to defame your client (Mr. DJ Bosch). If any, it was rather an honest mistake due to provocation. I bear no ill feeling towards your client and most likely never will because my culture frowns upon grudges.
I) To confirm to you that in many instances your client (Mr. DJ Bosch) was protected from not following the legal route so as to resolve the conflicts amicably. And never personal.
J) To confirm that we (my wife and I) have taken all possible steps (other than legal action against your client (Mr. DJ Bosch)) to get these conflicts between your client (Mr. DJ Bosch) and me resolved.
K) To confirm that you ask your client (Mr. DJ Bosch) to explain the irregularities in the documents he hand over as evidence. From your client’s (Mr. DJ Bosch) outburst at the fiasco meeting it appears that your client (Mr. DJ Bosch) was in possession of documents before he received it from Mr. Frik Birkenstock. It also appears that management of the share block scheme working documents were submitted for a private matter. I reserve the right to have these investigated and take any legal action to have it resolved to my satisfaction.
L) To confirm that the correspondence your client (Mr. DJ Bosch) refers to has been cleared by a legal advisor and your client (Mr. DJ Bosch), as member of the manager team to the share block scheme, is involved with the clearance.
M) To confirm that the lines between management of the share block scheme , directors of the share block scheme and shareholders of the share block scheme are often blurred. It makes it difficult to understand the concept of ‘private’ and ‘company’ use. As my legal consultant (Mr. Zubair Moosa ) stated that the usage right as used by the share block scheme may not be legal because it does not define the responsibilities and duties of the directors of the share block scheme and management of the share block scheme . This to me is an undesirable condition.
N) To confirm that any documents distributed by neither the recipient nor owner is possibly being distributed illegally (thus a document not directly handed to you from Mr. Frik Birkenstock could be considered illegal).
O) To conform that just because your client (Mr. DJ Bosch) does not have documented proof it does not imply that it does not exist.
P) To confirm that you address the legal concerns to the legal advisor of the management of the share block scheme especially seen that the two legal advisors your client consult obtain such dissimilar results.
Q) To confirm to you that in my and my spouse’s view your client (Mr. DJ Bosch) has gone out of his way to defame and humiliate us (my wife and I), by making everything personal. Even though we tried very hard to keep composure under your client’s (Mr. DJ Bosch) onslaught.
R) To confirm that we (my wife and I) will not hesitate (without prejudice) to take any legal means to have the defaming and slander resolved to our satisfaction, should your client (Mr. DJ Bosch) continue his attitude.
S) Reserve the right to have all my documents and/ or writings published in a national/ local newspaper or even the Internet. Inclusive of this writing or other that was addressed to the chairman.
T) To confirm that we (my wife and I) have tried everything we are aware of to keep the conflict between your client (Mr. DJ Bosch) and me out of the court and try and solve it amicably. Something we (my wife and I) have miserably failed in and is now forced to (by your client) to defend in court, but now at your clients cost. We (my wife and I) beg of you to once more reason with your client to drop his unfounded accusasions.
Feel free to verify any (or all) of my statements made. Also feel free to verify your client’s (Mr. DJ Bosch) private affairs versus management of the share block tasks.
Feel free to contact me anytime (via e-mail) should you have any concerns or enquiry regarding the matter mentioned in the subject line.
GEN (
Waterpoort, 0905
073 073 3505
Google profile: http://www.google.com/profiles/ernestbes/
Confidentiality Warning
This message/ e-mail contain confidential information and is intended only for the message recipient. Any disclosure, retransmission, dissemination, misuse or other use of this information is strictly prohibited and will lead to prosecution. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. If verification is required please request a hard-copy version
No comments:
Post a Comment