The Chairman (Mr. Frik Birkenstock),
Dear Frik,
On the 10th June 2010 I have send the letter as described below. At least seven weeks have past without receiving any feedback and/ or my request to defend your actions or the actions of the chairman of the share block scheme. In my opinion the standard thirty days is sufficient time to have responded. What is in abundance is your sound of brutal silence and relatively acceptance. This can be construed in one of two ways:
a) I am not significant enough to warrant a reply and denigrating is the norm of the day or,
b) The chairman (Mr. Frik Birkenstock) agrees that he has digressed and stepped over the line by ignoring a South African criminal law. Any ‘theoretical logical thinking man’ would come to this conclusion. I have also have come to this conclusion. It may be wrong, but in the absence of feedback of other evidence I have no choice but to come to this conclusion.
The ‘Holier than though’ attitude of the management of the share block scheme (as referred to in a) above) is not a new phenomenon. The directors / managers (and specific the chairmen) of the share block scheme have taken me and my family for granted long enough. These indignant activities escalated over the years and have now more personal overtones then just and onslaught on my family and I. I think this onslaughts was started to make us feel unwelcome on the share block scheme and to make us feel so bad about ourselves, our religion, culture and other differences we may have the share holders in general that we may have left in dishonour and sadness for what we are. Resentfulness towards my family and me include (but do not exclusive apply) to:
a) The insults started with the current chairman calling me a despot because I dared asking why the terrain budget has gone up from an average of R350 per year to R10, 000.
b) The slander started when management claimed I accused them of nepotism. A word I so seldom use that for the life of me can’t find a document in my possession where I have used it in the last 20 years.
c) The Threats started when a chairman promised me that he will buy me out at share price only. Six months after becoming a shareholder because I queried his boundary overbuilding policies.
These points mentioned above, escalates annually and by various members of the directors/ management team. In my opinion more and more reasons to start ‘crimen injuria’ investigations against individual members of the directors / managers of the share block scheme. As the attachment highlights, it is difficult to prove but, because it is criminal it is not my duty to prove the facts but the investigators. I have dealt with it in the past by laughing it off. Therefore, although insults, ignoring of official letters and condescending by the directors / management is the norm of the day, it now stops. I reserve the right, should it not stop, to have all previous instances (mentioned in this letter or not) investigated. The question may be asked why now? Why not 13 years ago, when it all started? The line is now drawn as Mr. Dawid Bosch, a member of director / management of the share block scheme, (by devious means) tried to start a civil action against me. The directors/ management of the share block scheme wholly supports this devious actions because nowhere can an official document be found any of any members officially putting their objections forward. Not even was the management put off supporting Mr. Dawid Bosch when he (Mr. Dawid Bosch) ‘begged’ to be excused from further duties.
Why do I come to the conclusion that by ignoring the answers to my previous letter is not about slander and character assignation? Because the chairman admitted to have instigated the illegal distribution!
Many a member of the directors of the share block team specific or, the management of the share block scheme in general have ask me how to stop me writing any official letters to chairman specific and/ or the management in general. My answer has always been very consistent in meaning “don’t ignore me and do your job you have volunteered for and accepted”. Many a member of the directorship have put ‘thorns’ in my way or, insulted me or my family or, even threaten us. Now, I have to now write another letter again.
To start, another similar digression (as admitted to by the chairman in his letter below) occurred that I serve the right to have a criminal investigation lodged. Mr. Steve Launspach replied to a letter that was addressed to the chairman (with a copy to the secretary for filing). For him to reply to the letter before the next management meeting meant an illegal copy of my letter must have been given to him. Three people received a copy of this letter:
1) myself (and I definitely didn’t give out the copy)
2) The chairman
3) The secretary.
Can you confirm to me that you may or may not have given out a copy to Mr. Steve Launspach?
Another possible incident occurred (as admitted to by the chairman in his letter below) during the fiasco meeting. Mr. Dawid Bosch reported before the meeting was officially opened that he was just informed about me slandering him. The wording he used indicate that he may have been informed (either by having an illegal copy or, shown a copy or, being informed of confidential information) about the contents before the formal meeting (as the chairman indicated in his letter below) that I reserve the right to have investigated for criminal liability.
Can you confirm to me that you may or may not have given out a copy to Mr. Dawid Bosch?
The reasons for this letter are:
1) To notify the chairman that a ‘theoretical logical thinking man’ would consider 30 days more than enough time to respond to the questions posed in my previous letter.
2) To notify the chairman that he should notify the other members of the director /management team of the share block scheme that any onslaught to my dignity, of me and my family (which may include {but not exclusively so} inviting us to a meeting to insult us, ignoring my official post, threatening behaviour, ignoring our official home language, invading our space, ignoring a request for explanations, ignoring a legal Act. Ignoring decisions made at official meetings, forcing factitious rules on us, ignoring usage rights, performing unauthorised tasks, not making available means to pay our levies and electricity use, ignoring our expertise, making us responsible for the management endangering our lives, etc), in future will start legal litigation.
3) To notify the chairman of my unequivocal conclusions.
4) To notify the chairman I request (nay I demand due to a previous statement made by the chairman – a voice recording of this statement attached) that all meetings where these dishonest activities was present, be cancelled and made null-and-void and all decisions made at these unlawful meetings reversed. All finances reversed and all expenses made returned to the share block scheme coffers (I think here specific about copies made and distributed).
5) To notify the chairman that it should be easy to identify these meetings as the minutes must (by law) indicate the activities of the meeting and actions taken.
6) To notify the chairman that there should be enough time (nearly 3 months) to the next management meeting to prepare all steps needed to perform such preparations to reverse all decisions made at these meetings.
7) To notify the chairman that should this request not be adhered to by the next management meeting, I reserve the right to request the authorities (at the cost of the participants of these illicit activities) to investigate the participants of these prohibited activities.
Should you have any legal reason for not being able to comply with my request or, why I should not start these investigations please let me know before the next management meeting?
Sincerely,
GEN (Ernest) Bessinger
PO Box 106,
Waterpoort, 0905
+27 73 073 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.
The Disclaimer forms part of the content of this email in terms of section 11 of the Electronic Communications and Transactions Act, 25 of 2002.
From: Ernest Bessinger [mailto:ernestbes@gmail.com]
Sent: 10 June 2010 12:32
To: 'Frik Birkenstock'
Cc: Launspach, Elize
Subject: RE: Probleem
The Chairman (Frik Birkenstock),
Frik,
On the 16th March 2010 I have replied to you in respect to your reply below. After further consultation I can now provide you with proof of my reply. Please find attached a copy of the law applicable.
Please peruse the law in general but study the following points:
1) Definitions:
a. Addressee
b. Data
c. Data controller
d. Data message
e. E-mail
f. Intermediary
g. Personal information
h. Private body
2) (section 11) Legal recognition of data messages
3) Chapter VIII (protection of personal information) especially 51 (1) and 51 (6)
4) Chapter XIII (especially 86 (1) and 88 and 89
Should you not agree that you may have:
1) distributed e-mail not intended by the originator to receive it, and/or
2) aided and abetted in distributing e-mail to a third party, and/or
3) not protected personal information, and/or
4) allowed the data controller (i.e the secretary) to distribute unintended e-mail
By all means let me know your reasons.
Regards,
GEN (Ernest) Bessinger
PO Box 106,
Waterpoort, 0905
+27 73 073 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.
The Disclaimer forms part of the content of this email in terms of section 11 of the Electronic Communications and Transactions Act, 25 of 2002.
From: Frik Birkenstock [mailto:frik@sterkinekor.com]
Sent: 16 March 2010 09:25
To: Ernest Bessinger
Cc: launspach.elize@gmail.com
Subject: RE: Probleem
Elke dokument wat jy aan die Voorsitter gerig het, met 'n afskrif aan die Sekretaresse, is in gedrukte vorm by 'n Bestuurvergadering voorgehou as korrespondensie ontvang en daar behandel.
Ek het van geen wet geweet wat ons weerhou het om dit te doen nie, aangesien dit aanvaarbare proseduris is vir Besigheidsvergaderings om alle Direkteure by besluitneming in te sluit en ook te voorsien van die dokumente wat bespreek gaan word. Die klaarblyklikke persoonlikke opmerkings, direk of indirek wat daarin vervat was, is volgens my afleiding blykbaar die vlieg in die salf en ek aanvaar dit was deur jou toedoen daarin gestel.
From: Ernest Bessinger [mailto:ernestbes@gmail.com]
Sent: Tue 2010/03/16 07:48 AM
To: Frik Birkenstock
Subject: FW: Probleem
Frik,
Ek het die onderstaande dokument aan jou gerig. Nou vind ek dit werk nie soos ek gedog het nie. So, net ingeval, stuur ek dit weer. Die keer sonder beperkings.
Groete.
From: Ernest Bessinger [mailto:ernestbes@gmail.com]
Sent: 16 March 2010 05:29
To: Birkenstock, Frik (Work)
Subject: Probleem
Frik,
Hierdie is ‘n persoonlike e-pos aan jou gerig.
Ek het eers die saak geïgnoreer maar ons vriendskap (as daar ooit so iets was?) is op die spel.
Ek, jy, of ons albei, het ‘n probleem. Ondanks alle waarskuwings dat ek nie toestemming gee dat my e-pos vrylik versprei mag word nie is dit gedoen. Net om te bevestig lees weer my waarskuwing onder aan die e-pos. En alhoewel ek dit nie altyd onderaan gehad het nie het ek aanvaar dat mense die land se wette sal eerbiedig.
My gewete laat my nie toe om te glo dat jy dit gedoen het nie. Tot nou toe het ek te veel respek vir jou gehad. Maar nou begin ek twyfel en met die klein bietjie kennis van die lewe wat ek het kan ek sien dat daar ‘n persoonlike probleem tussen ons aan die broei is. Of dit eg en werklik is weet ek nie. Net jy persoonlik kan daarop antwoord. Ek sou die twyfel dan so gou as moontlik (soos van gister) in een of ander bevestiging wil laat ontaard. En jy hou oplossing.
Kan jy, vandag nog, positief of negatief antwoord op die volgende vraag “het jy my dokumente versprei?” As dit per toeval was kan ek daarmee saamleef.
Die twyfeling ontstaan uit die volgende uittreksel gemaak van ‘n dokument onlangs ontvang:
Ons wens om te bevestig dat ons ageer namens Mnr Dawid Bosch en per sy instruksies.
Ons kliënt het sekere skrywes ontvang vanaf Mnr Frik Birkenstock, welke skrywes is wat u aan die bestuur van die Soja Aandele Blok Skema van tyd tot rig.”
Ek sal verstaan as jy nie op my vraag antwoord nie en sal aanvaar dat jy die verspreiding wel gedoen het. Maar as jy dit wel gedoen het, dat jy man genoeg sal wees om dit te erken. Maar sal tog nog steeds hoop dat jy wel in die negatief antwoord.
Groete
Ernest Bessinger
PO Box 106,
Waterpoort, 0905
073 073 3505
Blog: http://ernestbessinger.blogspot.com/
Google profile: http://www.google.com/profiles/ernestbes/
This message/ e-mail contains confidential information and is intended only for the message recipient. If you are not the message recipient you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. 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. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. Ernest Bessinger therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message, which arise as a result of e-mail transmission. If verification is required please request a hard-copy version.
