State capture inquiry begins

ToxicBunny said:
I don't ever hold my breathe for responses from him... When they get too technical he can't respond because it would expose his veldskoen just a little bit too much.
Click to expand...
Los my vellies uit! :P

If only he had. It's more like the emperor has no clothes ... ;)
 
ToxicBunny said:
Ahhh cute.

Its entirely technical since you used a military term for a grouping of men that has a defined number of men and structure. In the SA Military its slightly below 50 men, of which around 30 are active soldiers the rest are support/leadership.
Click to expand...

We were talking about Zuma's military men here and that's what my response was about, not Zuma's supporters in general. Take your noddy badge for your "Technical" knowledge about what a "platoon" is and move on.

1616748774286.png
 
Excalibur said:
We were talking about Zuma's military men here and that's what my response was about, not Zuma's supporters in general. Take your noddy badge for your "Technical" knowledge about what a "platoon" is and move on.

View attachment 1042245
Click to expand...

You like digging that hole deeper for yourself don't you?
 
They asked for costs again in this round. Comedy show.

In the previous case the ConCourt ordered Zuma to pay costs of court action that he didn't oppose. In this latest one the ConCourt will have to send him to prison and also make him pay the costs. Image you kill someone and the court sends you to prison and also makes you pay the state for the costs of prosecuting you. Dangerous case law being created at the highest court.
 
Seems to me everyone wants to just dodge so
Concourt - you can go 2 year jail with 5 yr suspended sentence.
Arms deal case - just find one to stick
 
/dev/null said:
They asked for costs again in this round. Comedy show.

In the previous case the ConCourt ordered Zuma to pay costs of court action that he didn't oppose. In this latest one the ConCourt will have to send him to prison and also make him pay the costs. Image you kill someone and the court sends you to prison and also makes you pay the state for the costs of prosecuting you. Dangerous case law being created at the highest court.
Click to expand...
Nothing dangerous. Zuma thinks he is above the law and has been frustrating it at every turn. He is the architect of all of these orders against him.

What do you think must happen when you ignore a court order? Do you think the taxpayer must pay for your actions??
 
Vrotappel said:
Nothing dangerous. Zuma thinks he is above the law and has been frustrating it at every turn. He is the architect of all of these orders against him.

What do you think must happen when you ignore a court order? Do you think the taxpayer must pay for your actions??
Click to expand...

I agree. The costs orders are for abuse of the legal process, not for the original offence. Unfortunately the two have become hopelessly entangled and politicised
 
Vrotappel said:
Nothing dangerous. Zuma thinks he is above the law and has been frustrating it at every turn. He is the architect of all of these orders against him.

What do you think must happen when you ignore a court order? Do you think the taxpayer must pay for your actions??
Click to expand...
This is not about Zuma, it's about ConCourt being asked to set a wrong precedent. Why do you think it's okay for a person to be sent to prison and also be made to pay for the legal process that determined that they should be sent to prison?

Isn't being sent to prison the punishment? And what happens if the person refuses to pay the costs again? There must now be another contempt hearing of which a cost order will be asked for a third time. Then a fourth time and a fifth time, etc. I hope the ConCourt does not make this mistake.
 
/dev/null said:
This is not about Zuma, it's about ConCourt being asked to set a wrong precedent. Why do you think it's okay for a person to be sent to prison and also be made to pay for the legal process that determined that they should be sent to prison?

Isn't being sent to prison the punishment? And what happens if the person refuses to pay the costs again? There must now be another contempt hearing of which a cost order will be asked for a third time. Then a fourth time and a fifth time, etc. I hope the ConCourt does not make this mistake.
Click to expand...
It's no mistake. Do you think the individual should be allowed to frustrate the process indefinitely?
 
/dev/null said:
This is not about Zuma, it's about ConCourt being asked to set a wrong precedent. Why do you think it's okay for a person to be sent to prison and also be made to pay for the legal process that determined that they should be sent to prison?

Isn't being sent to prison the punishment? And what happens if the person refuses to pay the costs again? There must now be another contempt hearing of which a cost order will be asked for a third time. Then a fourth time and a fifth time, etc. I hope the ConCourt does not make this mistake.
Click to expand...

Its not a wrong precedent at all.

He has frustrated the judicial process at every step of the way (even if you just look at this specific instance in isolation). A costs order is a very valid thing to be dishing out as well as finding him guilty. The prison sentence, if they deem it a valid sentence, is a totally separate thing.
 
/dev/null said:
This is not about Zuma, it's about ConCourt being asked to set a wrong precedent. Why do you think it's okay for a person to be sent to prison and also be made to pay for the legal process that determined that they should be sent to prison?

Isn't being sent to prison the punishment? And what happens if the person refuses to pay the costs again? There must now be another contempt hearing of which a cost order will be asked for a third time. Then a fourth time and a fifth time, etc. I hope the ConCourt does not make this mistake.
Click to expand...
Also note that the precedent for this has been set previously. Why should an applicant be out of pocket because someone else refuses to follow a court order? How fair will that be? You fail to pay maintenance a court has ordered and your ex must approach the court to force you to pay, why should she be out of pocket to pay for the application? This is fair for all involved. The constitutional delinquent must pay for his delinquency not the applicant.
 
Last edited:
Ok. I'll wait for the ConCourt judgement. If they make the mistake again of giving cost order against someone who's not opposing the litigation, then Zuma should ignore that order like the first one so that they can institute second contempt of court hearing just so that we can have another comedy show.
 
/dev/null said:
Ok. I'll wait for the ConCourt judgement. If they make the mistake again of giving cost order against someone who's not opposing the litigation, then Zuma should ignore that order like the first one so that they can institute second contempt of court hearing just so that we can have another comedy show.
Click to expand...
It seems you struggle to comprehend legal principles. I suggest you go google this and read up on it.
 
Vrotappel said:
It seems you struggle to comprehend legal principles. I suggest you go google this and read up on it.
Click to expand...
My googling is not that good. Maybe you can help me by telling me more about these "legal principles", perhaps refer to some case law even.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X