-
Join the MyBroadband community
South Africa’s biggest forum. Discuss, discover, and connect with thousands of members.
-
Question of the Day: What is the ultimate French toast topping?
Telkom scandal -- Help needed
- Thread starter danielm
- Start date
mmmm......
Interesting post this, i am, as a Afrikaner, getting a bit fed up though with all the terms being used to describe or even mention the Afrikaans people, funny thing though is that we were the ones who built this country today to what it has been taken over for and no reference is being made or even thanks given to the ones who also died trying to protect who once believed what was right and being lied to even though yes I agree that the old school went about it the wrong way, but all of a sudden nobody wants to admit that they even enjoyed the fruits favour and richness these people gave into your pockets.
I never had the opportunity to enjoy these and had to fight for everything I have whether it be by cunning or knowledge I still kept head above water but still we are the evil ones because our forefather made some ridiculous decisions - after all our white Afrikaner nation were the only one to bring Her Mighty Majesty the Queen to her knees and even kept a majority population under rule as the minority albeit in the wrong manner so now we are hated ??? In my opinion we should be respected for being able to have done this.
En nou nou is ons bang om Afrikaans te praat en onsself in ons eie taal te verdedig want jy sal gesien word as 'n Afrikaanse Boertjie met "motiewe"
Ja raak ontslae van die "Old School" Regters en "Nail" Telkom maar komaan erken tog net jy is 'n slapgat as jy een is en moenie agter apartheid, die konstitusie of velkleur of taal skuil nie.
Persoonlik wil ek dankie se aan al die Afrikaanse mense daar wat erken hulle is doodeenvoudig net Gatvol vir Telkom Gatvol vir die "korrupte" Regering en Gatvol vir "Massiewe korporasies" se nonsens.
Dalk moes ek hierdie erens anders gesit het maar toe ek begin flame kon ek nie ophou nie HEHE ah well dit gebeur.
Interesting post this, i am, as a Afrikaner, getting a bit fed up though with all the terms being used to describe or even mention the Afrikaans people, funny thing though is that we were the ones who built this country today to what it has been taken over for and no reference is being made or even thanks given to the ones who also died trying to protect who once believed what was right and being lied to even though yes I agree that the old school went about it the wrong way, but all of a sudden nobody wants to admit that they even enjoyed the fruits favour and richness these people gave into your pockets.
I never had the opportunity to enjoy these and had to fight for everything I have whether it be by cunning or knowledge I still kept head above water but still we are the evil ones because our forefather made some ridiculous decisions - after all our white Afrikaner nation were the only one to bring Her Mighty Majesty the Queen to her knees and even kept a majority population under rule as the minority albeit in the wrong manner so now we are hated ??? In my opinion we should be respected for being able to have done this.
En nou nou is ons bang om Afrikaans te praat en onsself in ons eie taal te verdedig want jy sal gesien word as 'n Afrikaanse Boertjie met "motiewe"
Ja raak ontslae van die "Old School" Regters en "Nail" Telkom maar komaan erken tog net jy is 'n slapgat as jy een is en moenie agter apartheid, die konstitusie of velkleur of taal skuil nie.
Persoonlik wil ek dankie se aan al die Afrikaanse mense daar wat erken hulle is doodeenvoudig net Gatvol vir Telkom Gatvol vir die "korrupte" Regering en Gatvol vir "Massiewe korporasies" se nonsens.
Dalk moes ek hierdie erens anders gesit het maar toe ek begin flame kon ek nie ophou nie HEHE ah well dit gebeur.
I'm going to have to jump in here...the matter referred to in the initial post on this thread is very delicate. It is critical that what was referred to does not become watered down (and I mean absolutely no disrespect here at all to anybody) and become diluted in vitriol and ranting and perhaps be seen as nothing more than activists frothing at the mouth over a trivialty because it is certainly NOT trivial and has to be handled with extreme caution and care. (phew long sentence).
What I can tell you is that 2 forumees (and only 2) are working on this on the rock face and will not be disclosing any information until such time as we have a clear direction on it.
The guts of it is that by posting any information on this forum by any person associated with this issue will prejudice the matter.
As far as accusations, ranting and generalised racial slurring is concerned, I personally dont think that the initial post intended to harm any language/racial group and perhaps the initial post has been misinterpreted. We are all in the same canoe here, no matter what language we speak, so lets all just paddle it okay?
Kisses/Soene
le Pod
What I can tell you is that 2 forumees (and only 2) are working on this on the rock face and will not be disclosing any information until such time as we have a clear direction on it.
The guts of it is that by posting any information on this forum by any person associated with this issue will prejudice the matter.
As far as accusations, ranting and generalised racial slurring is concerned, I personally dont think that the initial post intended to harm any language/racial group and perhaps the initial post has been misinterpreted. We are all in the same canoe here, no matter what language we speak, so lets all just paddle it okay?
Kisses/Soene
le Pod
Affidavit + Transcript
I have obtained from Debbie2 a PDF copy of the affidavit which Judge Smit (on 16 May) refused to read, or claimed he couldn't read, because it was in single-spaced typewriting. This was sent to Debbie2 as a PDF by SAMSRA's attorneys in Pretoria, and is evidently an exact duplicate of the PDF which was sent to them by SAMSRA's counsel Adv. Alachouzos on 16 May (and which they then printed out and placed before the judge for consideration). This was an application in urgent court, which is presumably why the affidavit was transmitted in this way.
The PDF of the affidavit has now been posted on the Internet and can be downloaded from here: http://www.samsra.org/16May05_MMKomane_aff.pdf [2.50 MB]
If you print it out (or print a page or two of it), you'll see that it's perfectly legible. [Don't try to read it on-screen: the print-out will be clearer. + If using Adobe reader, set "zoom" at 100% for printing -- i.e. no "Page Scaling"].
The transript of the hearing is also available on the Internet and can now be downloaded from http://www.samsra.org/16May05_Smit_hearing.pdf [1.52 MB]. If you read it, you'll see that Alachouzos offered the judge a clearer copy of the affidavit in case the one which he had wasn't clear enough -- but the judge refused to read it anyway! [Page 2 of transcript (= p 3 of the PDF), lines 5-7: (Alachouzos) "I have a copy of it for your lordship, if you would like, it is clearer"; (Judge) "I couldn't care what document you have"]
Anyone thinking of commenting on this affidavit business really ought (imho) to read the transcript before doing so, because it is actually quite shocking. Peapod has sent me a message saying that she read it with her "jaw hanging open", and I'm really not surprised. Apart from anything else, the sheer rudeness of the judge is astounding.
Debbie2 said:
I have obtained from Debbie2 a PDF copy of the affidavit which Judge Smit (on 16 May) refused to read, or claimed he couldn't read, because it was in single-spaced typewriting. This was sent to Debbie2 as a PDF by SAMSRA's attorneys in Pretoria, and is evidently an exact duplicate of the PDF which was sent to them by SAMSRA's counsel Adv. Alachouzos on 16 May (and which they then printed out and placed before the judge for consideration). This was an application in urgent court, which is presumably why the affidavit was transmitted in this way.
The PDF of the affidavit has now been posted on the Internet and can be downloaded from here: http://www.samsra.org/16May05_MMKomane_aff.pdf [2.50 MB]
If you print it out (or print a page or two of it), you'll see that it's perfectly legible. [Don't try to read it on-screen: the print-out will be clearer. + If using Adobe reader, set "zoom" at 100% for printing -- i.e. no "Page Scaling"].
The transript of the hearing is also available on the Internet and can now be downloaded from http://www.samsra.org/16May05_Smit_hearing.pdf [1.52 MB]. If you read it, you'll see that Alachouzos offered the judge a clearer copy of the affidavit in case the one which he had wasn't clear enough -- but the judge refused to read it anyway! [Page 2 of transcript (= p 3 of the PDF), lines 5-7: (Alachouzos) "I have a copy of it for your lordship, if you would like, it is clearer"; (Judge) "I couldn't care what document you have"]
Anyone thinking of commenting on this affidavit business really ought (imho) to read the transcript before doing so, because it is actually quite shocking. Peapod has sent me a message saying that she read it with her "jaw hanging open", and I'm really not surprised. Apart from anything else, the sheer rudeness of the judge is astounding.
Last edited:
lilgindauk
Senior Member
Wait , a mo
theres big news in here
they says on bbc, telkom is the worst isp in the world!
and has the most rates in any developing countries.
No wonder sa.'s economy is going down the drain!
theres big news in here
they says on bbc, telkom is the worst isp in the world!
and has the most rates in any developing countries.
No wonder sa.'s economy is going down the drain!
It is? Last I checked, we are in the middle of a record period of economic growth. GDP growth right now is at 3.5% ("The South African economy grew by 2,2% during 2001, 3% during 2002 and 1,9% in 2003. The Government expects it to grow by 2,9% during 2004, 3,6% in 2005 and 4% in 2006."), our economy is currently creating between 14,000 and 20,000 new jobs a month, and is increasingly diversifying. The macro-economic and political stability we have right now is arguably better than at any point in the country's history. Inflation is stable, and the country's foreign debt situation has improved greatly since 1994 ("The national debt dropped from 48% of GDP in March 1997 to 36,8% for 2003/2004"). Foreign agencies like Fitch and Standard & Poor continue to improve their ratings of South Africa's economy and credit situation, while foreign investors are more confident than ever in our economy.lilgindauk said:
But hey, why let a few facts get in the way of a popular meme; let's rather blindly repeat over and over amongst one another that the economy is "going down the drain".
(Sorry OT)
Last edited:
Well siad. I think the SA economy is booming and can only get stronger. Even the odd political gaffe can't stop what is inevitable here. SAfricans are incredibly resilient and enterprising. I thnk SA at the moment and for a while to come is an entrepreneurs paradise. Opportunity is there for all who are brave and bold enough to see it and DO something with it. Carpe Diem has never been more appropriate than now.Turtle said:
Darth Garth
Executive Member
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2004
- Messages
- 6,207
- Reaction score
- 268
futron said:
Sorry I know it it is off topic but I must address this wacky statement made above.
Firstly since when did the Afrikaners bring the British to their knees ???.
Last time I checked my history it was the boer generals who surrended when the Brits occupied most of the boer republics and burned all the farms and sent all the women and children to the concentration camps in order to stop the guerrilla tactics.
Secondly you want me and others to respect Afrikaners and their culture because of Apartheid ???.
You must have bloody ****ing rocks in your head !!!!.
could a mod who can please merge this thread/lift up the OT bit and add it to the relevant thread in Active campaigns please?jabu said:MaD said: "Derail deshamil, we will keep this thread on track" (#84).
Turtle (at the end of #88) said: "(Sorry OT)".
Then Peapod repeated Turtle's message and added to it!
Thanks
P
crbuys
Legal Expert: Internet
This Makes Sense
Hi all,
Business Day, 27 June 2005 (http://www.businessday.co.za/articles/topstories.aspx?ID=BD4A61008):
I WOULD hazard a guess that Judge Doug Scott, of the Supreme Court of Appeal, is feeling irritated. Handing down judgment in NK vs the safety and security minister last November, he said that the argument of NK’s counsel, Wim Trengove, was not only “without merit” but “borders on the absurd”.
NK appealed and last month Trengove presented precisely the same argument to the Constitutional Court. Judge Kate O’Regan, writing for a unanimous court, endorsed Trengove’s argument and set aside Scott’s ruling. What the appeals court dismissed as “without merit” and “absurd”, the Constitutional Court has just made law. What is going on when two courts, hearing the same case, appear to inhabit different planets?
In March 1999, NK, a 20-year-old woman, found herself stranded about 15km from home in the early hours of the morning. Three on-duty policemen offered to take her home. She got into their car. Instead of taking her home, they gang-raped her and dumped her in the veld.
All three were convicted of rape and kidnapping, and sentenced to life imprisonment.
The case concerns whether the safety and security minister is vicariously liable for the crimes of his employees, and thus ought to pay NK damages. The problem is that two rival variations of the common law test to determine vicarious liability have developed over time. Scott chose one, O’Regan the other.
The test Scott chose asks whether the actions of the minister’s employees deviated so far from their assigned duties that they were no longer carrying out the functions to which they were appointed. For Scott, it was an open-and-shut case. Since it cannot be part of the minister’s employees’ jobs to kidnap and rape young women in the early hours of the morning, the minister is not liable.
O’Regan applied a rival test. She asked whether there was a sufficiently close link between the cops’ criminal acts and the purposes and business of their employer. She said that there was, and that the minister was therefore liable. The most interesting aspect of her argument was her interpretation of the words “sufficiently close”. She argued that what “sufficiently close” meant was not just a question of fact, but also of values, specifically the values embodied in the constitution.
Among NK’s constitutional rights was the right “to be free from all forms of violence”. And, as cops, her rapists had a constitutional duty to protect her. That was the normative context of their encounter. “One of the purposes of wearing uniforms,” O’Regan pointed out, “is to make police officers more identifiable to members of the public who find themselves in need of assistance.” NK had “placed her trust in the policemen although she did not know them personally”.
That is why raping her was “sufficiently close” to the business of their employer. In the very act of raping NK, the policemen failed to protect her, which was a constitutionally charged purpose of their work.
But why did Scott choose one test, and O’Regan the other? What is the nature of their disagreement ?
In essence, O’Regan was telling Scott that he cannot keep interpreting the common law as if the constitution does not exist. What NK is entitled to, and what is expected of the police in relation to her, changed when the constitution came into force in 1996. These changes are changes in values and therefore must, if they are to mean anything, reshape interpretations of delict.
Three weeks before its judgment in the NK case, the Constitutional Court overturned another appeal court ruling, this one by Judge Louis Harms. The case was the famous one between Justin Nurse and South African Breweries. It concerned whether Nurse’s T-shirt parodying the Carling Black Label logo was permissible.
Harms dealt with the matter by asking whether Nurse had committed a statutory trademark infringement. His answer was yes. He then asked whether Nurse’s constitutional right to freedom of expression justified the infringement. His answer was no.
When it overturned his ruling, the Constitutional Court argued that Harms got the relationship between statutory and constitutional law wrong. The existence of the right to freedom of expression, it argued, should have shaped his evaluation of trademark infringement in the first place. Constitutional law is not a discrete layer piled on top of statutory law. It gets inside statutory law. Its values reshape the interpretation of statutory law.
As with its disagreement with Scott, the Constitutional Court was telling Harms that he cannot treat the relationship between constitutional and other law as a relationship between oil and water.
‖Steinberg is a freelance writer.
Hi all,
Business Day, 27 June 2005 (http://www.businessday.co.za/articles/topstories.aspx?ID=BD4A61008):
I WOULD hazard a guess that Judge Doug Scott, of the Supreme Court of Appeal, is feeling irritated. Handing down judgment in NK vs the safety and security minister last November, he said that the argument of NK’s counsel, Wim Trengove, was not only “without merit” but “borders on the absurd”.
NK appealed and last month Trengove presented precisely the same argument to the Constitutional Court. Judge Kate O’Regan, writing for a unanimous court, endorsed Trengove’s argument and set aside Scott’s ruling. What the appeals court dismissed as “without merit” and “absurd”, the Constitutional Court has just made law. What is going on when two courts, hearing the same case, appear to inhabit different planets?
In March 1999, NK, a 20-year-old woman, found herself stranded about 15km from home in the early hours of the morning. Three on-duty policemen offered to take her home. She got into their car. Instead of taking her home, they gang-raped her and dumped her in the veld.
All three were convicted of rape and kidnapping, and sentenced to life imprisonment.
The case concerns whether the safety and security minister is vicariously liable for the crimes of his employees, and thus ought to pay NK damages. The problem is that two rival variations of the common law test to determine vicarious liability have developed over time. Scott chose one, O’Regan the other.
The test Scott chose asks whether the actions of the minister’s employees deviated so far from their assigned duties that they were no longer carrying out the functions to which they were appointed. For Scott, it was an open-and-shut case. Since it cannot be part of the minister’s employees’ jobs to kidnap and rape young women in the early hours of the morning, the minister is not liable.
O’Regan applied a rival test. She asked whether there was a sufficiently close link between the cops’ criminal acts and the purposes and business of their employer. She said that there was, and that the minister was therefore liable. The most interesting aspect of her argument was her interpretation of the words “sufficiently close”. She argued that what “sufficiently close” meant was not just a question of fact, but also of values, specifically the values embodied in the constitution.
Among NK’s constitutional rights was the right “to be free from all forms of violence”. And, as cops, her rapists had a constitutional duty to protect her. That was the normative context of their encounter. “One of the purposes of wearing uniforms,” O’Regan pointed out, “is to make police officers more identifiable to members of the public who find themselves in need of assistance.” NK had “placed her trust in the policemen although she did not know them personally”.
That is why raping her was “sufficiently close” to the business of their employer. In the very act of raping NK, the policemen failed to protect her, which was a constitutionally charged purpose of their work.
But why did Scott choose one test, and O’Regan the other? What is the nature of their disagreement ?
In essence, O’Regan was telling Scott that he cannot keep interpreting the common law as if the constitution does not exist. What NK is entitled to, and what is expected of the police in relation to her, changed when the constitution came into force in 1996. These changes are changes in values and therefore must, if they are to mean anything, reshape interpretations of delict.
Three weeks before its judgment in the NK case, the Constitutional Court overturned another appeal court ruling, this one by Judge Louis Harms. The case was the famous one between Justin Nurse and South African Breweries. It concerned whether Nurse’s T-shirt parodying the Carling Black Label logo was permissible.
Harms dealt with the matter by asking whether Nurse had committed a statutory trademark infringement. His answer was yes. He then asked whether Nurse’s constitutional right to freedom of expression justified the infringement. His answer was no.
When it overturned his ruling, the Constitutional Court argued that Harms got the relationship between statutory and constitutional law wrong. The existence of the right to freedom of expression, it argued, should have shaped his evaluation of trademark infringement in the first place. Constitutional law is not a discrete layer piled on top of statutory law. It gets inside statutory law. Its values reshape the interpretation of statutory law.
As with its disagreement with Scott, the Constitutional Court was telling Harms that he cannot treat the relationship between constitutional and other law as a relationship between oil and water.
‖Steinberg is a freelance writer.
crbuys: prehaps you could indicate to me as to what your post has to do with the telkom scandal? Im a little confused here.
I went to the pretoria courts to day, and had a look at the affidavit that was thrown out of court for been 'illegigble'. It was clear as day. All those around me agreed it was clearly legibile. I dont get it?
I went to the pretoria courts to day, and had a look at the affidavit that was thrown out of court for been 'illegigble'. It was clear as day. All those around me agreed it was clearly legibile. I dont get it?
crbuys
Legal Expert: Internet
Hi
My post deals with how some judges struggle to accept the supremacy of the constitution - read debate further up. I myself are a little confused about what all of this has to do with Telkom.... seems the issue is more about judges, double spacing and the constitution.
Later,
My post deals with how some judges struggle to accept the supremacy of the constitution - read debate further up. I myself are a little confused about what all of this has to do with Telkom.... seems the issue is more about judges, double spacing and the constitution.
Later,
DragonLogos
Expert Member
Danny Crane
w1z4rd said:
Just out of curiosity I looked in the court file of case 05/9938 (Alachouzos v The Chief Justice and Judge Preller, see post #74) in the court in Pritchard Street about a week ago. It contains various documents including a very long letter which Advocate Alachouzos aka 'alacos' wrote last year to the Chief Justice (which I tried to read some of but it's full of technical stuff about constitutional law and legal theory). I noticed that right at the end he gave his new email address and said something about it being a literary reference to 'Michael Kohlhaas' by Kleist. So i telephoned him to ask about this 'Michael Kohlhaas' and he said it was a relevant story in German literature and gave me a site link where the text can be downloaded: http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/12060
Here's a quote from a conversation, in the story, between the title character and Martin Luther:
"I call that man cast out," answered Kohlhaas, clenching his fist, "who
is denied the protection of the laws. For I need this protection, if
my peaceable business is to prosper. Yes, it is for this that, with
all my possessions, I take refuge in this community, and he who denies
me this protection casts me out among the savages of the desert; he
places in my hand--how can you try to deny it?--the club with which to
protect myself."
If you have a case which has merit, but it keeps getting blocked for odd and suspicious and silly reasons, then I'd say you are 'cast out' in this sense.
Last edited:
LoneGunman
Expert Member
technically, if you are submitting legal documentation via a legimate counsel, the onus is on the counsel concerned, surely to - take further steps should the Judge refuse/find fault/repeatedly fail to accept the submission. I doubt the buck stops with the lawyer saying in effect 'gee, the judge just keeps finding faults', and shrugging off any further technical steps that can be done.
Surely there are legal frameworks in place, in circumstances like this, for that counsel to approach a higher legal authority, and bring this odd behaviour of the judge to their attention?
If there are:
I would suggest that perhaps a lawyer/legal representatives reacting to this apparently odd behaviour by a Judge by effectively shrugging, and not immediately taking further steps to approach higher learned authorities, bypassing the Judge briefly, in order to call attention to his behaviour by submission of evidence to that Higher court dealing with judicial misconduct - is itself is somewhat peculiar.
Ask your lawyer what steps they have taken, to communicate to other higher judicial authorities, this apparently unjustified behaviour of the Judge? If they say 'there arent any other steps we can take'
perhaps consider spending money, and go to another law firm for a second opinion, initial consult and quote (you're always entitled, when dealing with lawyers, to ask 'how much will each step you propose cost me - and choose to ask the lawyers to do step One and Two - or whichever of the steps, your budget allows for')
If a second law firm points towards a higher authority that can take the Judge to task for their behaviour in this case, then report your first counsel to the Law Society - and get the Judge in question put under review, and submit your evidence to an alternative Judge and repeat process..
To my limited knowledge of the structure of the judicial process - there are always checks and balances and 'reviewing' mechanisms in place, to prevent this exact sort of judicial abuse from occurring. You might have to sidestep into this process for a while, but the end result will be, that those who are exceeding the bounds of their authority (such as consistently blocking submissions for no good visible reason) - are just as vulnerable as any other grubby little corporate workers, when abusing their authority - and more importantly, in the eyes of the Law, bringing the judicial system into disrepute by their actions.
Justice is blind.
I'd imagine this Judge is hoping that no one has the knowledge to approach one or another of the judicial review boards above them, and report this strange behaviour.
(my 2 cents worth)
Surely there are legal frameworks in place, in circumstances like this, for that counsel to approach a higher legal authority, and bring this odd behaviour of the judge to their attention?
If there are:
I would suggest that perhaps a lawyer/legal representatives reacting to this apparently odd behaviour by a Judge by effectively shrugging, and not immediately taking further steps to approach higher learned authorities, bypassing the Judge briefly, in order to call attention to his behaviour by submission of evidence to that Higher court dealing with judicial misconduct - is itself is somewhat peculiar.
Ask your lawyer what steps they have taken, to communicate to other higher judicial authorities, this apparently unjustified behaviour of the Judge? If they say 'there arent any other steps we can take'
perhaps consider spending money, and go to another law firm for a second opinion, initial consult and quote (you're always entitled, when dealing with lawyers, to ask 'how much will each step you propose cost me - and choose to ask the lawyers to do step One and Two - or whichever of the steps, your budget allows for')
If a second law firm points towards a higher authority that can take the Judge to task for their behaviour in this case, then report your first counsel to the Law Society - and get the Judge in question put under review, and submit your evidence to an alternative Judge and repeat process..
To my limited knowledge of the structure of the judicial process - there are always checks and balances and 'reviewing' mechanisms in place, to prevent this exact sort of judicial abuse from occurring. You might have to sidestep into this process for a while, but the end result will be, that those who are exceeding the bounds of their authority (such as consistently blocking submissions for no good visible reason) - are just as vulnerable as any other grubby little corporate workers, when abusing their authority - and more importantly, in the eyes of the Law, bringing the judicial system into disrepute by their actions.
Justice is blind.
I'd imagine this Judge is hoping that no one has the knowledge to approach one or another of the judicial review boards above them, and report this strange behaviour.
(my 2 cents worth)
Last edited: