Banksters

Brakspear Documents Disappear From Court File – Brakspear Vs Nedbank

By Pinky Khoabane

Rupert’s Farm Under Scrutiny In Jersey Royal Court

Dorothy Brakspear

HAVING lied and lied and lied  http://uncensoredopinion.co.za/how-nedbank-lied-and-lied-and-lied/             in both South Africa and now in the Royal Jersey courts in the case between Nedbank and the Brakspears, Nedbank is allegedly embroiled in yet another controversy relating to court records that have either mysteriously disappeared or have been manufactured for inclusion in the court file.

The Brakspear case stems from an alleged fraudulent liquidation of Dorothy Brakspear’s farm in Franschoek to enable the sale to neighbour billionaire businessman Johann Rupert.

Here in South Africa, in what can only be described as a sordid state of our justice system, a litany of evidence points to possible corruption in the Durban High Court where the trial took place. Not only was it claimed that the signature on the provisional liquidation order was forged, but it also emerged that the signature in question, belonging to Court Registrar Chetty, was not only forged for the Brakspear order but in other liquidation cases.

The Hawks found the documents provided by the bank were riddled with flaws, there was no record of the liquidation of the Brakspear’s farm having taken place and the judge who had allegedly presided over the liquidation couldnt remember if there ever was such a case,

There happens to be no paper trail that proved the R7million loan to the Brakspears ever took place. Neither by the Hawks nor by Bank.

This time, in the Royal Jersey Court it is allegations of the disappearance of Dorothy Brakspear’s “second affidavit and the exhibits that were delivered to the Court by courier on 6 April 2018.”

Here’s an email from Brakspear to Debbie Le Mottée – Bailiff’s Judicial Secretary. It was sent to UnCensored by an anonymous tip-off. 

“Dear Ms. Le Mottee and Ms Traisnet

Further to my previous email below, I would like to ask four very important questions and I request that you (or if you are not the proper person to answer these questions to please forward this email to the person who is) send me an urgent reply.

Firstly, in the package delivered to the Royal Court  on 6 April 2018 was the skeleton argument, second affidavit and the Bankers Book Evidence, and yet only theskeleton argument it seems was in the Court  file.

So I would like to know what happened to my original second affidavit and the exhibits that were delivered to the Court by courier on 6 April 2018 and how could they not be in the Court file with all the other originals I sent previously and which included my first affidavit and the Order of Justice?

Secondly,  Nedgroup Trust via Bedell Cristin filed an answering supplementary affidavit to my second affidavit on the 17 April 2018 confirming that they received thesecond affidavit  in good time and were able to file an answer.

Advocate Taylor then spoke for 2 days in the strike out hearing,  giving a verbal version of events which was completely different to what was sworn under oath in Nedgroup’s South African affidavits as particularized in my Order of Justice and therefore, in my humble opinion, proves that Nedgroup made false representations under oath.

Why are Nedgroup now allowed to file another answer, have they not forfeited any further opportunity given that they have already filed an answer on the 17 April 2018 and spoken for 2 solid days in Court giving their now differing version of events?

Thirdly,  if Nedgroup trust is allowed to file a further answer in addition to their answer on 17 April 2018, will an employee of Nedgroup give this answer under oath?

This leads to my last questions and my deep concern at the treatment of us by both amicus’ and  “the Jersey way”, which was exposed in 2017 and which I have been told protects powerful interests and big banks – before us the small person.

A quick example from our dealings with the first amicus – Advocate Sheedy – who wrote to us in an email dated 16 October 2017, said the following

The Trusts (Jersey) Law 1984 does not contain any duty upon the trustees of Jersey law trusts to act honestly

His statement was very disturbing to me as a layperson, because if a trustee does not have a duty to act honestly, then my understanding is that you can do the opposite,which is to act dishonesty and deceitfully and not be accountable in law.

As to the second amicus – Advocate Christie/Dickinson – despite being emailed my second affidavit,  my skeleton argument and the Bankers Book Evidence on 5 April 2018, Advocate Dickinson makes a number of statements in his “analysis for the court” which do not correlate at all with what was contained in the Bankers Book Evidence or with evidence we have supplied to the Court.

Advocate Dickinson went so far as to say that I was “untruthful” without giving any  evidence of my “untruthfulness”, never mind the fact that the Bankers Book Evidence proves conclusively that my statements which he says were not true, are in fact true.

In fact Advocate Dickinson has ignored nearly every bit of evidence from us and focused only – and I will repeat what I said in court on the third day– on what benefits Nedgroup.

More disturbing to me  – at the end of the final  day in court after the Commissioner and Jurats had left, – were the smiles and obviously congratulatory behavior between the amicus and Nedgroup legal representative, which made me feel very alone, unsafe and in a hostile place.

I understand that because Jersey is a small island, that close relationships form between lawyers who grow up together, attend the same schools and study law together, but this I believe, is not an excuse to allow such conduct and is not in the interest of justice

Fourthly my question is in two parts

1) How has Advocate Dickinson conveyed my submissions to the Court that is of the most benefit to me given that he has implied I am untruthful, but given no evidence of my untruthfulness and ignored the evidence from Nedbank Private Wealth that says I am not ?

2) How has Advocate Dickinson provided a safeguard to ensure that our arguments and points of law were presented in a manner that is most helpful to the Court and most advantageous for us?

(these points are taken from the answer by H.M. Attorney General explanation of the duties of an Amicus Curiae and still attached to this email)

I know I have said and asked questions here that will not go down well with some in the Jersey legal profession but there comes a time when you have to speak the truth to power

I raise these issues about the amicus duties and role, not only for the sake of my family legal fight for the truth and justice,  but also for the sake of other beneficiaries of trusts and their families who might at some point in time come up against powerful banks and their highly paid lawyers who might then take advantage of the beneficiaries foreign status, their complete lack of knowledge of trusts, trust law and civil court procedures and thereby use the amicus to assist these banks in cover ups rather than take the high road of truth and confrontation against them

Finally, I do not wish to infer by this letter any criticism of the Jersey Court staff who have always treated me with great kindness and courtesy.

Please know that I have blind copied in a number of media outlets for my own protection.

I look forward to your urgent response.

Yours sincerely

Dorothy Brakspear

And Here Is The Evidence To Question The Court Process in The Durban High Court http://uncensoredopinion.co.za/sa-judiciary-not-concerned-foreign-court-heard-matter-allegingtrial-fixing-sa-courts/

1. Provisional Liquidation

Did Judge Balton actually grant the provisional liquidation order in the Durban High Court on 23 December 2008. Here’s what the Hawks found:

Exhibit A: High Court stenographer and IT manager, Strinivasan Naidoo, claimed in an affidavit presented to the Hawks that there was no record of the Brakspear liquidation case ever taking place in the Durban High Court on 23 December 2008. This was the date that the provisional liquidation order was supposedly granted. This order was made final in February 2009, and there is a transcript available of this hearing. But what actually happened in court on the day of the provisional liquidation hearing is hotly disputed. Naidoo says Judge Balton presided on other matters on that day, but not the Brakspear case.

Attorney Leornard Katz of ENS says in his replying affidavit that the matter was heard in chambers by Judge Balton on 23 December, and the provisional liquidation order was granted that day. ENS typed up the order, as is common in such cases, and took it to the court registrar for signing, though he had no recollection of who signed.

Exhibit B: Court Registrar Chetty who supposedly signed the provisional liquidation court order for the Brakspear case on 23 December 2008 confirmed in an affidavit to the Hawks that the signature on the court order was not hers and had been forged.

Exhibit C: Forensic document examiner, Yossi Vissoker, confirmed the signature on the court order was not by the hand of Ms Chetty and, after comparing it to her actual signature, added: “the dissimilarities are shocking.” After examining several other court orders supposedly signed by Ms Chetty, he went on: “The need to forge Ms Chetty’s signature wasn’t a once off occasion, but an ongoing occurrence in the court. The purpose of which is unknown to me.”

This in itself should set the entire Durban court system alight. Of course, it may be that other people in the office are signing on behalf of the registrar, but forging Ms Chetty’s signature?

It begs the question: how many liquidation orders with forged signatures have been issued by rogue elements operating out of the Durban court?

Exhibit D: An affidavit by Lt Mbhele, the Hawks’ investigating officer, stated: “When the liquidation was eventually heard at the high court, it is clear that most of the documents have been created. The signatures on important documents are fraudulent and I base this on the statements of the responsible officials.”

The court officials interviewed by the Hawks found the documents riddled with flaws, while there was no record of the hearing ever having taken place.

While there’s enough evidence to question the court processes, what remained in dispute is the version by Brakspear’s attorney Fiona Scott who claimed she had advised her client from court on 23 December 2008, in a telephone conversation, that it would be to the Brakspear’s advantage to consent to the Order which would mean the farm would no longer go on auction for R18m but would be sold to Rupert-controlled company Applemint Properties 9 for R25,2 million. The attorney claims Brakspear consented but he disputes this version of events.

Judge Balton granted the provisional liquidation order…or so it seemed.

Exhibit E: Does Judge Balton remember the case perchance? Apparently not. In a letter to Brakspear, Deputy Judge President Jappie says he spoke to Judge Balton and the registrar for Judge Gorven (who gave the final liquidation order) and neither recall hearing the matter.

Exhibition F: There happens to be no paper trail that proved the R7million loan ever took place. Neither by the Hawks nor by Bank.

“I have found out that there is no copy of the request by West Dunes for a R7 million loan from Westley Trust in June 2008,” according to a statement from Lt Mbhele of the Hawks.

“There is no copy of proof of R7 million payment by Westley Trust Jersey to RMB in or about June 2008.

“There is no copy of receipt of R7 million by RMB in or about 2008.”

Further, the Hawks found no evidence that the Westley Trust had R7 million in the first place to lend to West Dunes, and – damningly – “there is no evidence that Nico Theo Botha was the chairman of BOE, no evidence that Nico Theo Botha had personal knowledge and could swear positively to the facts contained in the affidavit (presented in the liquidation hearings).”

Brakspear attempted to have his case heard by an alternative judge but the judge said his papers were missing in what is called a ‘dummy file’ – an old trick to delay the matter from being decided on.

The case is in the UK and there’s not much said about this here in this country where there’s now a massive anti-corruption campaign under-way.

Tags
Show More

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Close
Close
%d bloggers like this: