---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Quadratic Entropy <[email protected]>
Date: Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 9:55 AM
Subject: CAS 677/4/2012 # 3
To: semango forensic <[email protected]>, [email protected]
Here is the attachment, plus the complaint
Subject: Complaint: centered on Station to Station transfer of docket - Gordon's Bay CAS 94/02/2012
that lead to Lieut Col Mpemele investigating Greef on Fri Apr 13th. He helped me write the attachment.
None of this relates directly to the case. READING IT MAY HELP YOU DEAL WITH WHATEVER OBJECTIONS / INTERFERENCE AWAIT YOU AT LIBERTY.
The next emails are the forwards referred to in this email (which I already asked Col Buthelezi to print for you or forward to you - maybe she did?) Here's the list (of the emails I will forward now.) The main ones to help you at the outset are #3 and #4
Background emails, or documents, forwarded:
1) Court of Internet Jurisdiction - Yourself (1) Recipient: Lieut Col Lourens Date: 11/18/11
2) Court of Internet Jurisdiction - Yourself (2) Recipient: Lieut Col Lourens Date: 11/22/113) Email from Col Lourens Recipient: Self Date: 11/28/11
4) Attn: Col Lourens, etc... Recipient: Lieut Col Lourens Date: 12/2/11
5) Statement for the Investigating Officer Recipient: W/O Greef; intended Recipient: Hillbrow CID I.O. Approximate date this was placed in the docket: 2/21/12
6) Response (email from Caroline Press - truncated) Recipient: Self Date: 10/24/08
Greg
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Quadratic Entropy <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 3:31 PM
Subject: Fwd of complaint sent to the attention of: Rodney De Kock DPP Western Cape NOT BEING DEALT WITH.
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected], Lindsay A Louther <[email protected]>
Caught in the act.
Down here at the local level inexperienced prosecution officials procrastinating over simple matters owing to their confused political outlooks are falling behind their counterparts in the police service investigating their side of this flagrant example of collusion between the Strand prosecutor and the head of the Gordon's Bay detectives.
Whom appear to believe they can use personal influence with their immediate supervisors to talk their way out of being held accountable for their own actions.
Please assist.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Quadratic Entropy <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 10:44 AM
Subject: Complaint by Mr Press. Attn: Rodney De Kock DPP Western Cape.
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], somersetwestcid <[email protected]>, [email protected]
Dear Adv De Kock,
A scan of the formal statement I gave to Lieutenant Col Mpumela at the Khayelitsh Cluster on Friday is attached.
The previous emails with Mr Louther in connection with the parallel complaint about the improper withdrawal by Prosecutor Behardien (relief prosecutor) of the prior decision by Prosecutor Van Heerden (Chief Prosecutor, Strand) are forwarded below.
Pertinent excerpts from the original complaint at the base of this thread follow this email.
Mr Louther told me on the phone this morning he has so many matters to deal with he can't differentiate this one as needing priority attention.
Sumi, your PA, says she doesn't guarantee you will find the time to raise this matter with Mr Louther after or during the periodic management meeting he is attending at your office, this morning.
Therefore I have requested her to advise you of this email to give you the opportunity to decide this is important and Mr Louther deserves your oversight intervention to help him take the tough decisions Prosecutor Van Heerden has told me plainly she thinks he is incapable to take.
Regards,
Gregory Press
10. As we happened to be in Strand a week ago I stopped in to meet Prosecutor Behardin with Peta my wife. She was in a very cheerful, happy mood - which we do not hold against her. She smiled straight into my face while two pleasant and exciting celphone calls interrupted our conversation. While letting me know she doubted a person with no formal legal training could understand her reasons, Prosecutor Behardin told me she had decided this is a civil matter. I made an attempt to express a small measure of doubt, by pointing out Peta sat there in front of her in a wheelchair owing to brain damage caused by a stroke she suffered because - in my opinion - Caroline viciously and deliberately delayed the payment of these insurance benefits (until the day after this stroke.) Prosecutor Behardin was amused by my shallow knowledge of the law and explained...
· She had determined Caroline was at some stage an executor of my late father's will. Although this information isn't included in the statement taken by Sgt Ruiters, nor mentioned in W/O Mostert's investigation diary: I suppose it can be inferred from Caroline's emails, included in the docket.
· She also determined that this matter concerned the payment of insurance benefits.
· And she determined the payment of these insurance benefits constituted part of my inheritance that was bequeathed to me by my father in terms of his will. (She hasn't seen his will, which makes no mention of insurance benefits.)
· I had received these insurance benefits from my sister in terms of her duty as an executor to pay out bequests by the deceased to his next of kin. (This statement is an outright lie, or prima facie falsehood.)
· It made no difference that my father had contracted with Liberty Life to make payment to them over a period of time to purchase a policy THEY would pay out to me upon his death in terms of the contract signed between Liberty Life and him.
· It made no difference that the docket had been presented to her before it was ever sent to Hillbrow and investigated.
· It made no differenc her supervisor Mrs Van Heerden had advised W/O Van der Merwe to open the case in Gordon's Bay and then transfer it to Hillbrow.
· It's not contrary to the public interest if siblings can influence Life Insurance Companies to delay payment of life insurance benefits to a co-beneficiary of a trust so that their co-beneficiary is unable to afford an attorney to require the trustees to follow the procedure spelled out in the trust deed, to be followed when the trust's donor passes away.
· Her decision not to prosecute is based on the premise my sister was an executor and - in law - any action taken by an executor can only lead to a civil dispute and may never be construed as a criminal act.
Then Prosecutor Behardin seemed quite pleased to think she had caused us some distress. She let us know she had stayed until 16H15 to enlighten us as to her reasoning, and - commenting she found it humorous I had sometimes raised my voice during our discussion - left the building.
We weren't really distressed and also felt pleased. Her demeanour struck Peta and me as incontrovertible proof of collusion between W/O Greef and Mrs Van Heerden. The 'proof' referred to is: our own terms of reference for gauging the content/context of events we get involved in. Usually for our own reasons, but sometimes to please others.
Immediately after Ms Behardin entered a decision not to prosecute into the docket she disappeared when her two week period as relief prosecutor conveniently ended - right then.
.......
B. Re: Prosecutors Van Heerden and Behardin
I think Prosecutor Behardin tritely studied the clever though shallow and dishonest excuses Caroline gave for her behavior in her email - admitting what she did - and then: dishonestly, disengenuously, and following her example (duplicating the thought processes of the alleged criminal fraudster) showed utter contempt for due process of law by retelling these exact same fabrications as a legitimate legal pretext for holding this is a civil matter. She made less than no attempt, to serve the cause of justice.
Prosecutor Van Heerden's profession is to argue the best possible case in view of the established facts. Accordingly she makes herself out to be my victim because she places great stock in the high esteem in which she's held by you, her supervisor: Mr Louther. I'm complaining she's playacting to be above reproach instead of doing her job.
Her and I should have been able to discuss Prosecutor Behardin's decision rationally, calmly, and intelligently. I had in mind to ask her why she wasn't standing by the original (good) instruction she gave to W/O Van der Merwe: to send the case to be investigated by the SAPS branch where Liberty Life keeps its archives (Hillbrow.)
She gave me no chance to say anything at all. She may be attempting to frame me as an aggressive, hostile, unbalanced individual with whom she would have engaged in a normal conversation urging her to overrule Prosecutor Behardin's assessment of the merits of the case - if only... my absurd behavior would have made this feasible. My behavior was not absurd.
It remains to be seen whether she's successful using this ruse to make me out to be a threat to her and a danger to society. I only tried to gently talk to her. It's extremely unlikely she didn't know exactly what I wished to discuss.
After hearing her side of the conversation, which was: she had nothing to say and refuses to discuss the case with me (what am I going to do about it?) Prosecutor Behardin's decision must stand - I requested the name and phone number of the person she reports to, which she provided.
She owes Mr Louther (if not me) an explanation why she never recognized the case is a civil matter when W/O Van der Merwe originally discussed it with her. And: why she permitted a junior prosecutor to make this wildly inappropriate decision without at least checking back with Col Lourens on a specific issue. He is the Group Commander : Statutes for the DPCI.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Quadratic Entropy <[email protected]>
Date: Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 5:20 AM
Subject: Re: Complaint: centered on Station to Station transfer of docket - Gordon's Bay CAS 94/02/2012
To: Lindsay A Louther <[email protected]>
Thank you.
I chose to wait until February 6th until I opened a case. This is true.
Logically, there's no reason why I shouldn't have opened it right after receiving the email from Col Lourens. I then chose to proceed gingerly and carefully because I sensed an undercurrent of opposition (and for other reasons - Peta and I had to face and deconstruct a lot of intimidation carefully dressed up as something different.)
Therefore I feel my wife and I laid the groundwork to help create an opportunity for you to set an example of the conduct you will and will not accept - should you so choose.
This morning Mrs De Jager told me the docket was already reopened and sent back up to Hillbrow SAPS on Thursday already.
I await to hear the result of your investigation with great interest.
Mr. G. Press
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 10:05 AM, Lindsay A Louther <[email protected]> wrote:
Good morning,
Receipt of your several e-mails are acknowledged.
The outcome of your complaint will be communicated to you in due course.
Lindsey A Louther
Chief Prosecutor: Mitchell's Plain, Cape
082 466 1556 [Cell]
021 370 4292 [Landline]
021 392 8474 [Fax]
[email protected]
cc. [email protected]
From: Quadratic Entropy [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thu 2012/04/05 01:36 PM
To: [email protected]; [email protected]; Lindsay A Louther; [email protected]
Cc: somersetwestcid; Benita Jacobs
Subject: Complaint: centered on Station to Station transfer of docket - Gordon's Bay CAS 94/02/2012
reference # 101620120404155403
To: Col Wiese, CID Commander, Khayelitsha Cluster; Col Buthelezi, Hillbrow MIC; Senior Prosecutor L. Louther, Mitchell's plain
CC: Capt Seekoei, Somerset West CID.
From: Mr G. Press
Date: 4 / 4 / 12
Subject:
Station to Station transfer of docket (Gordon's Bay - Hillbrow)
W/O Greef; Cst Hendricks - Gordon's Bay CAS 94/02/2012 - GB CAS 94/03/2012 - GB CAS 153/03/2012
Other parties involved:
Gordon's Bay - Mrs Chantal De Jager; W/O Mostert; Cst Solwandle. Hillbrow - Mr Esau Bojozi
Background emails, or documents, forwarded:
1) Court of Internet Jurisdiction - Yourself (1) Recipient: Lieut Col Lourens Date: 11/18/11
2) Court of Internet Jurisdiction - Yourself (2) Recipient: Lieut Col Lourens Date: 11/22/113) Email from Col Lourens Recipient: Self Date: 11/28/11
4) Attn: Col Lourens, etc... Recipient: Lieut Col Lourens Date: 12/2/11
5) Statement for the Investigating Officer Recipient: W/O Greef; intended Recipient: Hillbrow CID I.O. Approximate date this was placed in the docket: 2/21/12
6) Response (email from Caroline Press - truncated) Recipient: Self Date: 10/24/08
FORMAL COMPLAINT
Background:
After an exchange of emails Lieut Col Lourens, Group Commander: Statutes, DPCI : Commercial Crime; Cape Town : Tel 021 918 3101 concluded at end November 2011 "You are welcome to continue to register a criminal case with your nearest police station for their investigation."
During two months that elapsed from then until the docket was opened on February 8th various parties were consulted locally including Det W/O Van der Merwe; W/O Mostert (Gordon's Bay) and Det Capt Seekoei (Somerset West - because accomplices reside there) until a consensus appeared to have been reached.
One of these accomplices could be seen as having been paid to give some police in Gordon's Bay the impression I am making unfounded claims and allegations during part of this time. Thus contributing to the delay in opening this case. We have not yet charged her with obstructing the course of justice, and as an accomplice after the fact.
W/O Van der Merwe discussed the case with Mrs Van Heerden (chief prosecutor Strand) who instructed him to send the docket to be investigated by the CID of whatever branch of the SAPS is active where the offices of the insurance company concerned are located -after a docket is opened by Gordon's Bay SAPS.
It is interesting that from a purely technical perspective the complainant, myself, could have opened the docket at end 2008 when the accused sent an email admitting to concealing (delaying payment of) the life insurance benefits. A year ago the suffering of my wife (disabled by a stroke) and our son (lost from his parents in foster care) convinced me to seek relief via the domestic violence act from emotional, sexual, and economic abuse. I then searched my mind how to convince a Magistrate this is not a civil matter.
This was when it dawned on me I need to prosecute my sister. I realized that I - a victim - have been turned into a perpetrator. By allowing my sister to play on my sympathies (using the type of emotional manipulation revealed in her 2008 admission) to make me forego prosecuting her. Even when this meant inflicting suffering on my wife and our son.
During the time period before I became aware of Caroline's crime (1997 - 1999) I unknowingly got steered into the habit of inflicting this suffering on my own family. Once she got me into this habit, or rut, Caroline knew exactly how to keep me here: for the next 12 years. It did not "just happen" by itself.
She's still "broadcasting" loudly and clearly she is my best friend right now (as her own way of protesting her innocence.) I'm not trying to "blow your mind" when I inform you that millions of people tuned in on her [or on "this"] wavelength will continue letting themselves be deceived by every person duplicating her version of pretending to be sincere. Until she's prosecuted. Please take this bold claim with a pinch of salt (while you try to follow this possibly unusual logic.)
It is the same wavelength our - prominent - father [and many of his "businessman of the year" peers] was on, during apartheid. Sydney was (more or less) sincere. But he is dead now, times have changed, and Caroline Nakagawa is only one woman in Manhattan (whom has completely lost touch with what is happening in post-Apartheid South Africa) for whom it continues to be extremely important (to her, personally) to impress her narrow circle with how important, influential, caring, kind, "compassionate" and concerned for other peoples' welfare (i.e. mine) she is.
Her "concern for other people" is very selfish. [A bit like Wendy Applebaum's - a rich heiress who claims the public's sympathy for standing up against a corrupt auctioneer who pushed her into paying an extra R5million for a property already knocked down to less than half what it was worth - by the tax collector. In a country where millions cannot afford enough to eat.]
Her fraud to delay the payout of insurance benefits was the external, visible portion of a much larger personal fraud: pretending to be someone she is not.
Without a proper police investigation: this fraud will never end.
This leads me to some important concluding comments. I am compos mentis and well aware the decision to prosecute depends on persons outside myself including a prosecutor, investigating officer, and other parties. This said, I'm pointing out Caroline is not only pretending to be a better version of herself than she actually is, while also attempting to resemble our father by any and every means at her disposal. She's also pretending to be me. (Bent on getting me to resemble and emulate her.)
I began allowing her to do this without realizing it was happening [or without realizing - fully - how it was happening] because Sydney died, and Zane (our son) was born - then removed very suddenly and without grounds - all at the same time. I.e. several life-changing and identity defining events took place all at the same time. This was when she hid the insurance benefits; stole my place in the family; got away with it for two years; then blamed it on our other siblings (and I believed her!) for over a decade.
She stole my identity (pretended to be me) for so long... it became difficult for me to reassert my true identity and individuality - even after I saw through her. Separately from the false part I had to act (and in a sense become) during all the time I simply didn't have the evidence [her confessional emails] to open a docket. I still get points for persevering! So do my wife, and son - now 14.
Allowing another person to assume such a huge and dominating role in my life was like being forced to wear a mask with her face and personality on it. Except a mask can be removed. This has been like receiving a mind implant(!) Now that I have discovered the extraordinary depth of her deception the main effects of it already genuinely wore off.
In this sense it seems inevitable - from my perspective - she will be prosecuted. Yes, it is up to other parties external to myself to follow through and make this happen. No, I'm not powerless to obtain redress by any and all means at the disposal of every citizen.
My sister did perpetrate a real crime, not an imaginary one. For a long time (2008 - 'til now) I was so convinced the means at my disposal were determined by what I could afford...
...and Caroline controlled my purse-strings...
...that I overlooked resources and remedies available to Peta and I which we're utilizing now. The police; and: the complaints procedures available when an investigation goes wrong.
Facts
1. In December 2011 or January 2012 I provided Det W/O Van der Merwe with the same evidence that was sent to Lieut Col Lourens in November 2011. W/O VdM eventually discussed it with Prosecutor Van Heerden, who advised him to open a case in Gordon's Bay and then transfer the docket to whatever SAPS branch in Joburg has CID who can investigate the evidence available at the head office of the insurance company concerned. As it happens this is Hillbrow, which has jurisdiction over Braamfontein. This was a good, practical, common-sense suggestion.
By "eventually" I mean: over a period of several weeks our paths used to cross occasionally (I phoned him or we met somewhere) and each time W/O VdM updated me about the petty incidents contributing to his delay in consulting Prosecutor Van Heerden. Neither of us saw this as a delay per se but as allowing events to take their course. At some point he informed me what is retold above. Over this period I also discussed the case with W/O Mostert a few times.
If W/O Greef or Prosecutor Van Heerden wishes to contradict this summary there's no need to hear them out. They have an open opportunity to try and dispute these facts with me directly, with a tape-recorder playing. Neither of them will want to. (Both of them have a palpable aversion to dealing with me.) If I'm mistaken - let it happen; without delay.
2. This occurred before W/O Greef was ever formally involved. To his credit: very little happens in his office without his knowledge. Therefore he was involved from the outset.
See paragraph 13 below.
3. I opened the case on February 6, 2012; Sgt Ruiters took my statement; he had been briefed by W/O Mostert. On Feb 8 2012 W/O Mostert discussed the case with me further; then inserted his investigation diary in the docket, providing the benefit of his experience (clarity.) I asked him to allow me time to write a statement to include in the docket. On Tuesday Feb 13th someone in his office (possibly Chantal De Jager) informed me it had already been sent to Hillbrow.
4. On Feb 20th I received an SMS Cst Hendricks is the IO. About Feb 21st I phoned the GB CID, W/O Greef answered and informed me Hillbrow had sent it back. He made himself out to be battling to find out why and specifically mentioned being in contact with "Col Louw"; who must be contacted for his version - if he exists. At this point I suspect he is a fictional person. On or about February 29th I stopped by the GB CID, and gave W/O Greef my statement - I had written by then - which he undertook to insert in the docket. This document is item 5 in the list 'Background emails, or documents, forwarded' above. He informed me Hillbrow had sent the docket back because it needed an affidavit from me stating the location where the crime occurred. I supplied this to Cst Hendricks on Monday or Tuesday of the following week.
5. On March 13th I spoke to the I.O. Cst Hendricks in person. He informed me (Cst Solwandle is a witness) he had taken the case to the Station to be sent back to Hillbrow the previous Thursday or Wednesday (March 8th or 7th.)
6. On March 21st or 22nd I phoned the GB CID and when W/O Greef answered instead of referring me to the IO (for news of the case) he told me the docket had been sent back to Hillbrow again; Hillbrow had not acknowledged it yet; when they did he would tell me. It struck me:
· He had been hands-on with this case all along instead of leaving the IO to perform the simple tasks of sending it to Hillbrow and obtaining a further statement from me about the location of the crime scene. (And: why hadn't W/O Mostert, with all his experience, thought to include this info in the docket originally?) and
· Hillbrow was taking a long time (ten days from March 9th or 12th until March 22nd) to acknowledge the docket!
· Why did Hillbrow have to send the docket back in order to request information about the location of the crime scene? Wasn't this information already available from documents included in the docket? [The emails from my sister; the email from Col Lourens, and my reply to him; the letter from Webber Wentzel to Liberty Life.]
7. On Friday March 23rd I phoned Col Wiese asking her (you) to look into the delay in transferring this docket to Hillbrow. On Monday March 26th W/O Greef informed me it had been faxed through on Thursday or Friday. By this time I was experiencing multiple confusions since I expected him to be stating a reason why it had taken Hillbrow so long (since March 9th or 12th) to acknowledge the docket. I half got the impression he had sent it through an extra time as a favor to me because it was problems on the Hillbrow side causing the delays.
8. Since Wednesday March 28th 'til now I've been phoning Hillbrow, making notes of interactions with diverse parties there - too detailed to replicate in full, here. I initially spoke to Shirley (PA to the Station C.O.) then Capt Lebeta. Thereafter primarily with Mr Esau Bojozi who works under Col Thuli Buthelezi (you) in the Hillbrow MIC. I resent the email I had sent to the Hillbrow Cluster email address on [March 29th] to the MIC email address.
During this time W/O Greef mentioned the docket had been sent to Brakpan at some point and sent to Hillbrow on 23 March and again on 28 March (the correct dates are March 26 and 28.)
I was reassured to learn "everything is monitored on the system" and Hillbrow will shortly "acknowledge the docket, phone back on Monday (April 2nd)". It was explained to me all "footprints" are recorded - the docket couldn't go astray.
Then I was initially told Hillbrow "received it... [but the] "computers are giving us trouble" and then that Hillbrow "could not acknowledge" because the docket wasn't "allocated on the station to station". Col Buthelezi subsequently explained the procedure for acknowledging a docket on the system involves checking the details of the docket; comparing the details of the docket that was emailed with those of the docket on the system [computer] checking the complainant [and other details] are the same [for each detail], confirming the correct docket is received - "an apple is not a banana" - and THEN allocating the docket to a suitable detective to take on the case as Hillbrow I.O.
At this later juncture Mr Bojozi clarified that although the docket was transferred (faxed through) Gordon's Bay SAPS "did not transfer it on the system" and then... when he checked to see what docket they HAD transferred on the system [they had] "removed it from the system". He has notes "his emails" he will eventually check when he gets the chance. This detail is recorded somewhere among them.
If the system truly keeps track of all footprints Gordon's Bay should have a record of what Docket they did erroneously transfer - "on the system" - and then remove.
I discussed the case with W/O Mostert and Mrs De Jager (Gordon's Bay data typist, or MIC - I'm not sure which) on April 3rd. Following this discussion (details below) on the morning of April 4th I phoned Mr Bojozi and asked him to fax a copy of the wrong docket he had told me (on April 3rd) Hillbrow received from Gordon's Bay - in place of the right one.
On April 3rd Mr Bojozi explained it was when the correct docket had originally been faxed through [Mon March 26th] that Gordon's Bay SAPS "did not transfer it on the system". Evidently Gordon's Bay SAPS didn't correct this by transferring the right docket on the system. It now seems likely - or possible - Gordon's Bay SAPS deliberately derailed the station to station transfer by faxing through the wrong docket [on Wednesday March 28th.]
During our April 3rd discussion W/O Mostert went onto the system and looked up which docket corresponded with CAS 94/3/2012 (as distinct from CAS 94/2/2012.) It did involve a case of theft - as I had been told by Mr Bojozi, by then. At the conclusion of this same discussion W/O Mostert told me it would help him [take steps to investigate this wrongful act - if any wrongful act had taken place] if he got specific details of the wrong docket.
When I was unable to get through to W/O Mostert by phone yesterday [April 4th] morning (because he was busy) I asked Cst Peti for the Gordon's Bay fax #, which he provided - 021 856 3484.
I phoned Mr Bojozi back with this information and assume he faxed through the "wrong" 7 page docket (CAS 94/03/2012 or CAS153/3/2012 sent to him on March 28th to the attention of W/O Mostert at some point after this. I was unsuccessful to contact W/O Mostert during the course of April 4th to confirm he received this fax. I made four or five attempts. Mr Bojozi mentioned the complainant on this wrong docket was DJ Pieterse.
9. At 15H30 on Thursday afternoon April 29th W/O Greef told me over the phone the docket had been sent back by Hillbrow once again (in fact Hillbrow never received it) he had discussed the case with Col Lourens at the DPCI, sent the docket to a relief prosecutor at the Strand Magistrate's Court, Prosecutor Behardin, whom had decided not to prosecute.
When I phoned Col Lourens on March 30th he told me W/O Greef had phoned him the previous day. They had "no specific discussion on any point" it was only "a general inquiry on his part." He refuses to endorse W/O Greef's decision to take the docket to a prosecutor prematurely.
10. As we happened to be in Strand a week ago I stopped in to meet Prosecutor Behardin with Peta my wife. She was in a very cheerful, happy mood - which we do not hold against her. She smiled straight into my face while two pleasant and exciting celphone calls interrupted our conversation. While letting me know she doubted a person with no formal legal training could understand her reasons, Prosecutor Behardin told me she had decided this is a civil matter. I made an attempt to express a small measure of doubt, by pointing out Peta sat there in front of her in a wheelchair owing to brain damage caused by a stroke she suffered because - in my opinion - Caroline viciously and deliberately delayed the payment of these insurance benefits (until the day after this stroke.) Prosecutor Behardin was amused by my shallow knowledge of the law and explained...
· She had determined Caroline was at some stage an executor of my late father's will. Although this information isn't included in the statement taken by Sgt Ruiters, nor mentioned in W/O Mostert's investigation diary: I suppose it can be inferred from Caroline's emails, included in the docket.
· She also determined that this matter concerned the payment of insurance benefits.
· And she determined the payment of these insurance benefits constituted part of my inheritance that was bequeathed to me by my father in terms of his will. (She hasn't seen his will, which makes no mention of insurance benefits.)
· I had received these insurance benefits from my sister in terms of her duty as an executor to pay out bequests by the deceased to his next of kin. (This statement is an outright lie, or prima facie falsehood.)
· It made no difference that my father had contracted with Liberty Life to make payment to them over a period of time to purchase a policy THEY would pay out to me upon his death in terms of the contract signed between Liberty Life and him.
· It made no difference that the docket had been presented to her before it was ever sent to Hillbrow and investigated.
· It made no differenc her supervisor Mrs Van Heerden had advised W/O Van der Merwe to open the case in Gordon's Bay and then transfer it to Hillbrow.
· It's not contrary to the public interest if siblings can influence Life Insurance Companies to delay payment of life insurance benefits to a co-beneficiary of a trust so that their co-beneficiary is unable to afford an attorney to require the trustees to follow the procedure spelled out in the trust deed, to be followed when the trust's donor passes away.
· Her decision not to prosecute is based on the premise my sister was an executor and - in law - any action taken by an executor can only lead to a civil dispute and may never be construed as a criminal act.
Then Prosecutor Behardin seemed quite pleased to think she had caused us some distress. She let us know she had stayed until 16H15 to enlighten us as to her reasoning, and - commenting she found it humorous I had sometimes raised my voice during our discussion - left the building.
We weren't really distressed and also felt pleased. Her demeanour struck Peta and me as incontrovertible proof of collusion between W/O Greef and Mrs Van Heerden. The 'proof' referred to is: our own terms of reference for gauging the content/context of events we get involved in. Usually for our own reasons, but sometimes to please others.
Immediately after Ms Behardin entered a decision not to prosecute into the docket she disappeared when her two week period as relief prosecutor conveniently ended - right then.
11. We went to the office of Ms De Jager on Tuesday morning April 3rd to look at the book in which she records station to station faxes of dockets. The entry with serial # 57 shows a 28 page fax of CAS 94/02/2012 was sent to 011 488 6798 (Hillbrow) at 15H30 on Monday March 26th 2012. The entry with serial # 65 is irregular. It shows a 30 page fax was sent to 011 488 6798 at 10H38 on Wednesday March 28th of CAS 153/03/2012 and CAS 94/03/2012
Evidently these two wrong cases were sent to create a single fax with approximately the same number of pages as the previous fax of the "same docket" two days before. Mrs De Jager claimed she had written CAS 94/03/2012 in error but assured me the docket she had actualy faxed was definitely CAS 94/02/2012. She never explained why - if she knows this - she doesn't correct her own handwriting by replacing the 2 with a 3. Presumably she thinks this protects her from getting fired for falsifying information.
The entry beneath this, serial # 66 also for March 28th for a fax sent eleven minutes later at 10H47 includes blank spaces and my general impression is that serial numbers 65 and 66, combined, together with an as yet unheard excuse: comprise Mrs De Jager's best hope of explaining "what happened" when she faxed the docket in this case to Hillbrow a second time in such a way that neither she - nor the person or persons who gave these documents to her to fax - appears in any bad light whatsoever.
She has refused more than twice to answer a direct question from me about who gave these dockets to her six days ago.
12. After meeting with her I met with the person she works under, W/O Mostert by appointment, at 15H00 the same day. When he asked her the date she sent these dockets to Hillbrow over the phone she said it had been on the 19th and 28th of March. Then she came to his office bringing the book with her. He allowed her to correct the date of the first fax (from the 19th to the 26th) without questioning her why she had given him false information over the phone a short while before. He went along with her version that the entry CAS 94/03/2012 was an error and even suggested she correct it in the book. At this juncture I told him the docket faxed to Hillbrow really had been the wrong one - according to what Hillbrow had told me. He then looked up CAS 94/03/2012 on the system (as told in 8 above.) According to the system: it was never sent to Hillbrow. Which begs the question: if it WAS sent to Hillbrow - why is it not on the system?
13. This morning Col Buthelezi briefed Col Smit the acting Hillbrow Station Commander (transferred in from Jeppe) and handed the only copy of the wrong docket - that was sent to Hillbrow on February 28th - over to him: to study, and for safe-keeping. I've been unable to reach Mr Bojozi today. W/O Mostert has moved to the night shift and will start work at 18H00.
14. During the time when it still appeared as if Gordon's Bay SAPS were genuinely attempting to send the docket to Hillbrow and Hillbrow were making their best efforts todetect iton the system and process it, Mr Bojoli and Col Buthelezi each referred more than once to "CAS 03". On April 4th Mr Bojoli said this was Gordon's Bay CAS 03/01/2012 that was sent up to Hillbrow on the 26th of January 2012 and has puzzled them ever since. It has nothing to do with any crime in Hillbrow.
Complaints
A. Re: the Gordon's Bay detectives and police.
It presently appears to me that the docket of CAS 94/02/2012 was never sent to Hillbrow, returned by them, and then sent back again as recounted in paragraphs 3, 4, 5, and 6 above. Instead it seems an effort was made as early as January to premeditate a strategy to never send the docket to Hillbrow so that if this case would never be investigated by them the outcome could ultimately be determined by W/O Greef - and any relief prosecutor conveniently brought in by Prosecutor Van Heerden.
My copy of the docket cover shows the info in the top line (stating which police station the case was opened in and the CAS #) as "Braamfontein" CAS 94/02/2012. It is written with a different pen -and possibly different handwriting as well - to the rest of the information on the docket cover. On the first page of the docket "Preamble to Statement" the entry after "Station" is left blank, and it has the same CAS # (implying a Gordon's Bay CAS.)
When W/O Mostert filled out the front cover of the docket he already knew there is no police station in Braamfontein, it had to be sent to Hillbrow. W/O Greef's very brief and unexplained comment to me the docket was sent to Brakpan at some point - on the phone before quickly changing the subject (see second paragraph of 8 above) suggests the docket was deiberately sent to Brakpan as a substitute for Braamfontein.
The story Hillbrow sent it back was part of a scam. The objective from the outset was to waste a certain amount of time and then use a relief prosecutor to present me with a nolle prosequi as a fait accompli.
B. Re: Prosecutors Van Heerden and Behardin
I think Prosecutor Behardin tritely studied the clever though shallow and dishonest excuses Caroline gave for her behavior in her email - admitting what she did - and then: dishonestly, disengenuously, and following her example (duplicating the thought processes of the alleged criminal fraudster) showed utter contempt for due process of law by retelling these exact same fabrications as a legitimate legal pretext for holding this is a civil matter. She made less than no attempt, to serve the cause of justice.
Prosecutor Van Heerden's profession is to argue the best possible case in view of the established facts. Accordingly she makes herself out to be my victim because she places great stock in the high esteem in which she's held by you, her supervisor: Mr Louther. I'm complaining she's playacting to be above reproach instead of doing her job.
Her and I should have been able to discuss Prosecutor Behardin's decision rationally, calmly, and intelligently. I had in mind to ask her why she wasn't standing by the original (good) instruction she gave to W/O Van der Merwe: to send the case to be investigated by the SAPS branch where Liberty Life keeps its archives (Hillbrow.)
She gave me no chance to say anything at all. She may be attempting to frame me as an aggressive, hostile, unbalanced individual with whom she would have engaged in a normal conversation urging her to overrule Prosecutor Behardin's assessment of the merits of the case - if only... my absurd behavior would have made this feasible. My behavior was not absurd.
It remains to be seen whether she's successful using this ruse to make me out to be a threat to her and a danger to society. I only tried to gently talk to her. It's extremely unlikely she didn't know exactly what I wished to discuss.
After hearing her side of the conversation, which was: she had nothing to say and refuses to discuss the case with me (what am I going to do about it?) Prosecutor Behardin's decision must stand - I requested the name and phone number of the person she reports to, which she provided.
She owes Mr Louther (if not me) an explanation why she never recognized the case is a civil matter when W/O Van der Merwe originally discussed it with her. And: why she permitted a junior prosecutor to make this wildly inappropriate decision without at least checking back with Col Lourens on a specific issue. He is the Group Commander : Statutes for the DPCI.
Actions taken by complainant
I have written this complaint on my own initiative in the knowledge Col Wiese promised to take it seriously, and with the objective of persuading Col Buthelezi to keep a copy of the "wrong docket" (referred to in paragraph 13 above, and elsewhere) in a secure place under her own personal control.
I also contacted the Public Service Corruption Hotline owing to concern over my ability to communicate with either W/O Mostert or Mr Bojozi to confirm Gordon's Bay SAPS is now in a position (as they should be) to take appropriate disciplinary measures - if these are called for - based on retaining possession of evidence that proves
· a wrong docket was deliberately sent to Hillbrow on March 28th, and
· Mrs De Jager is dishonestly claiming she sent the right docket and only failed to write the correct CAS # in her entry with Serial # 65.
In my opinion if it turns out she has been dishonest the Col Wiese should personally interview her to determine who placed her under duress to violate the trust placed in her.
All parties are accountable.
Mr Louther's secretary, Ms Jacobs, is copied at his request.
Regards to all,
Gregory and Peta Press
Disclaimer:
This communication is not marked private and confidential. Every request from any recipient to keep this communication private will be respected. From the date and time any such request is received other recipients will be notified to treat the contents hereof as confidential. Twenty four hours after the original transmission its contents may be included in legal papers, sent to other parties, published on the web, or in other media. This is simultaneously an invitation to convert this into a high quality private thread of a close-knit productive working group free of outside interference and also a straightforward explanation, which does NOT imply the objective of this complaint is to generate publicity. Any request to extend the 24 hours to 48 or longer - will also be respected. Deadlines and ultimatums aren't desirable in this forum. We stand by the example of patience and forbearance we ourselves have set, so far. Our chief criterion is fairness to all parties - including us.