---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Quadratic Entropy <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 12:11 PM
Subject: Re: Revised email: FRAUD Attn: Det Capt Seekoei; From: Peta and Gregory Press [Part Two]
To: somersetwestcid <[email protected]>


Hi Capt Seekoei;

Below this note is the note I sent you previously explaining " The main difference in the more recent version is that (see contents) it now has seven relevant factors (instead of six.)"

For your convenience I have re-attached the full text of this email in a file labelled "Press - Grotius" (already attached to Part One) to this email again.

I see that the message of Part One has also been clipped.  Maybe I should have sent it as three emails instead of two.  It doesn't really matter though since the best way to read this is to look at or print the full text (attached.)

Gregory Press


On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 10:53 AM, Quadratic Entropy <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi,

As just explained on the phone:  I am RESENDING a slightly revised better version of this email in 5 minutes. 

Hope this doesn't lead to confusion!

The main difference in the more recent version is that (see contents) it now has seven relevant factors (instead of six.)

I will also send the same text that's in the email in an attachment as well.

Kind Regards,

Gregory Press


Here's the second half of the email:


MR VAN DER MERWE'S NON-COOPERATION WITH PETA AND ME TO SUSPEND THIS DISTRIBUTION PENDING THE OUTCOME OF OUR APPLICATION FOR A PROTECTION ORDER APPEARS TO BE MAKING HIM ANOTHER ACCOMPLICE, ALONG WITH MS DONELLE VAN BREDA - THE OTHER LOCAL TRUSTEE and Mr and Mrs Grotius.  His work contact number at his office nearby Pretoria is 0860 7836 2355; cel 083 303 9770 and email: [email protected].  Her cel is 079 152 7997.  She works and resides in Roodepoort; email:  [email protected].  The Grotius couple reside at 2 New Street, Somerset West and have tel: 021 851 8858; cel 083 227 8367 and emails:  [email protected] / [email protected]

Both local trustees have confirmed this distribution was approved, and stated these funds were placed in what they term "a special account".  But they are consistently vague (in my opinion, dishonest) about who controls this account; which account it is; the sum approved for distribution; what part of it has been sent offshore already; and on what date. 

When I spelled this out to the Grotius couple in emails and at a meeting in front of witnesses they can't deny:  they asked for the phone numbers of Dirk (whom is also the trust's auditor) and his colleague AMC Greyling (the trust's book keeper) I had just then finally obtained.  As if:  now the penny had finally dropped.  If I were being done in - they would help stick up for my rights.  We never asked them for help, but they put themselves forward as friends willing to do this [pseudo-friends.]

To this day they are still refusing to find out this information for us, and denying very smugly (pleased with themselves) they aren't cutting back the sum we receive to make it more difficult (and take us longer) to interdict this unlawful distribution.  Meanwhile AMC Greyling's delaying tactic is pretending he doesn't know if I'm a beneficiary according to the trust deed because:  he doesn't know which copy of the deed I have.  While promising to send me the money to scan my copy so I can send it to him (but never doing this) he's refusing to send me a scan of his copy.  As if this is all some kind of joke, or game...

When our parents divorced in 1984 they appointed fresh trustees.  Until Sydney passed away the trustees were always sufficiently upstanding, honest, senior professional figureheads who would have at least been accurate - not vague - in response to the same questions these trustees are adamantly evasive about.  I think my brother Roger has deceived and confused these people whom are now younger than him, and appointed by him, into accepting his pretense that dissembling, behaving aloof, and sneaking money out the country:  constitutes high class professional behavior.  It does not.  But reverse psychology as practiced by him is extremely effective.  His lies have properties that resemble those of an addictive substance.  As his underlings these trustees have lost all sense of accountability to the trust deed and operate solely on instructions from him.  In their eyes he is quite simply:  God.

Obliging these trustees' predecessors - in 1981 - by taking responsibility for the potential impact of my mistake (on the trust's ability to vote its controlling block) did not mean or even imply I consented to be seen as a spendthrift.  The term "spendthrift" applies to persons who waste money, spend too much, or generally make foolish financial decisions. 

By this standard, the trustees who sold the LT's entire Edcon block on our father's advice in 1982 - and Sydney himself - were also pretty foolish.  Hymie Reuven Levin is a highly esteemed tax lawyer today.  Owen Sherry became a senior partner at the Ernst & Whinney accounting firm.  Sydney grew Edcon into a retail clothing chain with the same one third market share in 1982, it still has today.  Since none of these three were spendthrifts I deduce the shock tactic raid on the same DAY as Sydney's triple-bypass surgery:  was also a crime.  Mr Levin may even have cut side deals with the raiders behind the scenes.  Neither of these trustees tried to counsel Sydney holding onto the trust's stake in Edcon, as a long term investment, was preferable to selling out to the raiders - for short-term gain.  Shocking a victim to trick them into making sudden emotional decisions - is a criminal tactic.

Many trusts have a clause to prevent a beneficiary whom is a spendthrift from depleting their assets, and the legal term for it, in them all, is:  "a spendthrift clause".   In all of them - to be effective - the clause makes the share of any beneficiary a third party tries to enforce a claim against:  disappear.  Teaming up with my birth family (especially our father) in 1981 to use this clause to prevent my ex-wife unjustly claiming half my assets, after our four year relationship (including one year of marriage) did NOT give my brothers and sisters the excuse, or right, to claim:  the use of this clause for this purpose branded me a spendthrift - for life. 

A more likely explanation for their behavior is:  they became criminals after our father - and the rest of us - were victims of a pugnacious crime that intelligently disguised itself as a legitimate business exercise.  After this raid by a bunch of businessmen in South Africa whom did not want Edcon to be controlled by a family with liberal minds:  my siblings, as rich kids, let their propensity to take the easy way out - lead them into crime.  They began to think of themselves as patricians who would inherit money, they could do with as they please; with no regard for how it had been earned, and even no respect - for the person who had earned it.  Instead of as heirs with the responsibility to manage our father's enterprise intelligently, and resourcefully; inspired by his enlightened example.

Sydney himself was not a criminal - or saint.  After the spendthrift clause automatically redistributed my share to my siblings, when I was unmarried and had no heir, Sydney remarried:  and found himself in need of funds.  Instead of being too stingy to allow this I granted him and my stepmother the leeway to live off my share of the trust because I "had a heart".  Letting our father help himself from my share of the trust while he still lived (and my stepmother to go on doing it, after he died) hardly rates me a spendthrift.

Now Peta and I are married, and have a child - Zane.  By the time he was born:  Sydney had been dead five months.  During this short time... the criminal intent and greed of Clifford (the eldest brother) who sort of became Sydney's nemesis in his (Clifford's) own thinking:  infected the rest of my co-beneficiaries with his selfish ways.  Or so I thought.  But I've recanted making this excuse on their behalf...

When, as the sole family trustee he then was, Clifford distributed a million US dollars each to himself and them, during these five months:  he may have led them into temptation.  This still makes each of them accountable for their part in what happened next.

[Clifford's theory of entitlement basically says:  skewed financial clout (the ethos of Apartheid - redistribution of wealth among the elite white few, instead of the indigenous many) is greater and more powerful than political control.  Rigged (ostensibly fair) markets:  are more powerful than votes.] 

When I co-operated with the then trustees in '81, I had no foreknowledge Edcon would be raided, like sharks attack a bather in the ocean, the same day as our father's heart surgery, the next year.  Meyer Kahn and Sydney's "friend" Donald Gordon took the decision to carry out their brainchild - this violent, illicit act of aggression - in secret.  Although this crime occurred 30 years ago; and was sanctioned by the predatory mores Apartheid society operated under; at the time:  these perpetrators failed to apply to the TRC for amnesty - while they still could.  Possibly because:  they felt their motives - and complicity - could never be exposed. 

But now that we have successfully created a reasonably open society here in the Rainbow Nation:  it's time for what they did then to be brought out into the light of day and shown for what it really was; even back in those times - attempted murder.  This crime too deserves police investigation.  In a published interview Donald Gordon gave in 2005: http://free.financialmail.co.za/report05/donald05/bdonald.htm  he ADMITTED it, like Caroline admits to hers - in her emails.

Firstly, he used his right to approve what was published to have the journalist describe the raid as having occurred "when [Sydney] was seriously ill".  This made it sound like any long term serious illness, possibly a heart condition.  But it was timing the raid to coincide with scheduled surgery, not Sydney's "illness", that made what they did wrong.  How different was this to timing an explosive device to detonate - when a person switches on their car?  No different.  It is crime - when mafia do this. 

Secondly, he actually admits (to try and get this scandal over with) HE KNEW Sydney could have died.  Here (again, like Caroline) he tries to state this while attributing a different, more justifiable motive to Meyer Kahn and himself, than their true ulterior motive.  They are self-confessed ruthless business for profit operators taking high risk decisions with huge sums at stake all the time.  But in the interview he merely says that since Sydney could have died he had a duty to his shareholders to sell his company, Liberty Life's stake in Edcon:  to South African Breweries, the raider.  In the carefully framed context of the interview:  their motive to make money and gain power for themselves personally, as the major shareholder (in Liberty Life) or with a huge bonus or promotion to gain - is concealed.  It's kept hidden from the reader that Kahn and him:  plotted the whole thing together!

The excuse he gave Sydney for selling (at the time of the raid) was different.  Back then he said an insurance company couldn't go on holding more than a ten percent interest in any one company; and also that Sydney couldn't go on running Edcon because his own management were disloyal to him. 

He - thirdly - leaves out of the interview that Meyer Kahn's complicity with him wasn't an arms length transaction.  Mr Gordon used his position as an Edcon board member to

·         Find out the date of Sydney's surgery 

·         Pass this on to his protégé of many years, Mr Kahn;

·         Coach him to convince the S A Breweries board to sanction the raid, and 

·         Worked out how he would provide them with deniability they knew the date of the surgery in advance, through him. 

Thus it's not difficult to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, Mr Kahn and Mr Gordon bet the actuarial odds Sydney would die on the operating table:  were pretty good.  Then their raid could not be blamed for this - he would be dead (from other causes) before he learned about it.

They then went ahead with it, knowing:  if Sydney DID survive this major surgery - he would be too weak to fight back. 

Essentially no different to my co-beneficiaries hiding the life insurance benefits just when our son was born; then encouraging the authorities to remove him; knowing our inability to afford a lawyer (because of this) would weaken us:  in the ensuing custody battle.

Mr Gordon and Mr Kahn turned the loyalty of Sydney's own management against him during the weeks and month leading up to the raid.   The guilt and self blame Sydney felt over the fact they could do this made him ashamed to press criminal charges, back in those Apartheid times.  It was an era when the judiciary routinely enforced laws that were unfair, including a constitution that made it LEGAL to discriminate (UNLIKE the present bill of rights.)  Therefore it wasn't feasible to prosecute these criminals while arguing the inequity of actually using a surgeon's scalpel to gain loyalty by telling Sydney's colleagues it was only a matter of time until he died - "and what then?"  In actual fact Sydney lived on for another 15 years; this raid shortened his lifespan; and no businessman or woman would consider it ethical or even feasible to carry out a takeover by these illicit means - today.  But back then Kahn and Gordon used the fact they DID do it to argue "the market" had somehow spoken to maintain they COULD do it because - it had already happened.

Sydney awoke from the anaesthetic to face this grisly waking nightmare - alone.  Since the media wasn't free and uncensored then, there was no public outcry - as there should have been - protesting the hideous brutality of thus robbing a man under the surgeon's knife.   It was those Apartheid times that left him feeling outraged, and "this can't - it should not be happening" all by himself.   Mr Gordon and Mr Kahn had the pugnacity to actually carry out this gruesome personal attack while being ready to maintain it would not be their fault:  if Sydney had died.  Owing to the collective brutality of SA's business elite the media ignored the ingratitude shown to Sydney by his disloyal senior staff (who had him to thank for their careers) as if he deserved this.  He most certainly did not. 

Some people are born to inherit wealth; Zane and I are two of them.  This is just the fact of it.   Although the use of trusts to transmit wealth acquired by colonial imperialism is unfair:  this does not apply to the capital Sydney amassed in the LT by dint of his own enterprise and hard work.  Inheritance does not carry a stigma in and of itself.  It is an age old universal custom in almost every culture.  Disrupting the process of succession in an important and powerful South African family with a miscarriage of justice such as this, is having serious consequences beyond us, the three people immediately concerned.  Our dearth of resources is now impacting the lives of many others too, everyday.  Therefore we seek help from the Police, urgently, to redress damage to the fabric of society - as well as us - flowing from the crime by my co-beneficiaries - and their henchwoman:  Mrs Grotius.  A crime that is aggravated by the knock on consequences of the misguided raid on Edcon - Meyer Kahn and Donald Gordon carried out - that crippled the Press Family. 

The welfare agency that intervened without our consent to take on supervising Zane's foster placement, Jewish Community Services:  is funded by the philanthropic Liberty Life Foundation Donald Gordon founded.

I surmise he or Meyer Kahn may have influenced or helped influence his company, Liberty Life, to not trace me to pay out the insurance benefits; or turned a blind eye when it did not.

I urge you to apply your mind with some humanity to prosecuting the people perpetrating the criminal acts prolonging this saga - still:  even today. 

Peta and I are not the complete nitwits, jerks, dangers to society and our son; or the feeble minded dropouts... my co-beneficiaries and their agents have wasted 14 years of our lives portraying us to be.  We're both well seasoned realists whom have truly paid our dues.  I was raised to become a future leader in South Africa, and sent abroad at a young age to grow a network of contacts for this future.  Peta sought depth of wisdom and became self-taught in survival at Sterkfontein, during apartheid.  Our son is meant to also be raised by us.  Right now our country's economy is seriously affected by decisions taken - primarily in the USA - that could wreck it:  much sooner than most people expect.  If Peta, Zane, and I fail to empower ourselves, pronto - our lives will collapse along with millions of others.

To not let this happen I'm calling for YOUR help.

Maybe - if Zane had not been born - my co-beneficiaries could have cheated us out of my share of this trust simply by waiting until our father died, and then:  outvoting the minority trustees - to block my reinvestment (with the right to be paid monies) forever. 

But I doubt it; Zane was born; and:  they miscalculated the risk the State could never prove they hid these insurance benefits beyond a reasonable doubt.  They did hide them.  The State can prove this.  They face being convicted of fraud.  The excuse they hid them to prevent me wasting money on a fruitless law case doesn't justify their crime.

Instead it pretty clearly establishes that:  after they committed this crime they set out to try and create circumstances after the fact that would make it appear more probable their doing this had been justified - in case they were ever caught:  and needed an alibi.

What a fool I've been to try and give them this alibi because I longed for the approval of our Mother.  And therefore tried as hard as I could to reform her other children:  so she could feel proud of herself - for giving birth to all of us.  Finally, all she truly wants:  is to feel proud of me.  This is a promise I feel confident I can deliver on, forever.

Because if her other sons and daughters hadn't interfered:  we could have used some of this insurance payout to consult an attorney.  He or she would have had to prove on a balance of probability I'm entitled to be reinvested with the right to be paid moneys.  Or:  could have argued Zane (our son) has a greater right to my share of the trust - than my co-beneficiaries.  By taking the risk this argument might not succeed:  my co-beneficiaries could have possibly kept my share of the trust.  Or might have had to give it back.  Their consciences would have been clear; they could have avoided prison; and - possibly - lived happy lives.  

They chose to commit fraud instead of taking this risk.  Now I can claim the billion rands my share of the trust should be worth today from them - and the raiders of Edcon - in civil lawsuits.  This is a very powerful tool to conveniently place at our Mother's disposal.  When she's getting ready - in her eighties - to finally wield enough power to help us put everyone in their Right Place.  An interesting concept friends of ours have written a fascinating book about:  Right Use of Will.  Setting up a Court of Internet Jurisdiction to manifest this concept is our whole family's idea.

I never would have thought of it if Zane had not been born and his and Peta's courage hadn't given me the example:  to endure suffering, and persevere.

Our immediate concern is fraud by Mrs. N. Grotius:  the most recent accomplice in my co-beneficiaries' scam to try and perpetually set me up to  fail.  A scam that EXACTLY REVERSES the normal relationship between siblings, which is:  to try and help one another succeed. This is what my siblings deliberately merely PRETEND to do. 

Fraud:

It's not illegal for them to treat me like a stranger.  But to deliberately break the law to cause a loss to any party (brother or stranger) by concealing money due to them:  is a criminal act.

Since my co-beneficiaries live overseas, for their pretense to work; they have to depend on third parties, locally.  They need these third parties to believe, or appear (pretend) to believe:  they too ...have our best interests at heart.  Mr and Mrs Grotius so clearly chose to do this, and to ignore warnings from Peta and me not to participate:  they are now accessories.  They weren't duped (do not truly believe my co-beneficiaries have my best interests at heart) because:  they repeatedly ignore earnest warnings.  Mrs Grotius dismisses them with the mannerism of a person who feigns ignorance.  She will go on, until prosecuted, pretending to be so stupid.  Her emails reveal her conscious inclination to ignore these warnings.  Some quotes: -

" from: nadena [email protected] to: Greg Zane Peta Press <[email protected]>
date: Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 12:33 PMsubject: RE: R500 every tues and friday

I am really not worried about any ‘legal action’ you might think you have against me – you do not scare me…’accomplice’ or not (I actually have no idea what you are ranting on about?!?)”

"then, I refer to the call I have just had from the police in G/bay - I'm not sure what charge you wanted to lay against me - please explain?...

"can you TRY to make plain sense?  and put your thoughts into coherent, clear and understandable words?...

"...what you DO do, is projection, and, as your insecurities do not apply to us, your ramblings don’t make any sense."

By feigning such stupidity - she commits fraud. 

In April 2009 she negotiated a lease with the LT.  With the trustees' permission we have resided here as their sub-tenants since then.  The LT signed a lease for the property with Martin Geldenhuys, husband of the owner:  Mrs Rene De Wet.  Until late August this year Mrs Grotius was only the rental agent Martin retained to manage 4 Aristea Crescent. 

When we moved in she offered to let us use her own maid, Portia.  But then tried to force us to go on hiring Portia, after we found someone else.  Although we asserted our right to hire whomever we want successfully, this drained a lot of energy; and wasted time.  If we could have afforded it, we would have instructed a lawyer to claim damages for this outrageously vexatious act.  Some time afterwards we voluntarily hired Portia's sister Chenai; who did a good job; working for us about a year.

Mrs. Grotius used her rental agent status to assert Martin had a right to inspect our house (which the lease does give him, provided it's arranged in advance.)  She arranged these inspections with us.  During an inspection in November last year we withdrew this courtesy and insisted they arrange future inspections via the tenant, the LT.  Martin and her agreed to this.

She now claims to have verbally negotiated a further condition of the lease that stipulates:  Martin has the right to specify which person will be our domestic worker(!) 

She can't back this claim up.   It wouldn't take away her accountability for fraud, if she could.  We plan to vacate the property at end January, and for the duration of the lease Martin has never tried to cancel it on the grounds we're not maintaining it to his satisfaction (e.g. by failing to hire the domestic worker he specifies.)

During one inspection Martin complained that unless we maintain the house better prospective purchasers will be put off.  We then took steps to so do.  At the next inspection he was satisfied.  He has never placed the property on the market.  Mrs Grotius has never shown the house to a prospective purchaser.

Some time in August of this year Nadena and Ferdinand Grotius conspired with my co-beneficiaries to compel us to let her enter

         the house (to inspect it, and to pay the domestic worker she deemed herself to have the right to hire, on our behalf), and

         our lives - as the person who pays us a stipend on their behalf.

 She and them then proceeded to

a.      inform us she was taking this function over because Ms C. Hollard (a private social worker) resigned; 

b.      arrange for Ms Donelle Van Breda, a local trustee in Joburg, to send Ms Grotius the monthly sum (she previously sent Ms Hollard, monthly), and;

c.       place us in the position where she controls our money supply. 

Since we were starving while in the process of applying to the Magistrate's Court in Strand for protection from economic abuse by my brothers and sisters (co-beneficiaries), we were in no position to refuse the weekly allotment we thus started to get from my co-beneficiaries - via her.  But this is not a civil matter, for reasons explained better under sub-headings above. 

[But basically:  to halt us from having recourse to the civil courts to claim relief equitably, my siblings deliberately kept us in a state of semi-permanent dependence on them for over fourteen years, in order to get away with an act of fraud (exacerbated by criminal negligence) - equally permanently.  A key feature of this dependence has been:  introducing third parties whom are coached to (i) never give us sufficient funds to retain an attorney, and (ii) make it appear they meet every reasonable need.]

Seven relevant factors:

During this clumsy process of installing herself as the administrator of money sent directly to her by my siblings (via Ms Donelle Van Breda in Joburg, one of the LT's local trustees) six relevant factors Mrs Grotius deliberately pushed out the way, were:

Firstly, that she was replacing a private social worker in this role, but she has no professional qualifications to justify her acting in this capacity.  How could she accept a fee for doing something she's not trained to do?  Or accept duties and responsibilities she lacks the innate ability to perform?  She modeled her methods for disciplining us on the apartheid techniques whites used to use to get non-whites to buckle under.  Did she really expect to get away with this?  No.  She simply assumed there was no downside to taking this risk.  She was wrong.  There is.

Secondly, Ms Hollard (her predecessor) followed the correct procedure for registered social workers by obtaining our consent.  Mrs Grotius skipped this step.  Why did she do this?  And if she claims her credential as a licensed realtor authorize her to intrude into the private personal lives of sub-tenants of a property she lets:  what section of the applicable statute (pertaining to realtors) does she rely on - to back up this bold claim?  Sorry, but the fact she was dealing with "a trust" and as a realtor she operates "a trust account" (into which she pays deposits received, when tenants rent a house) is not a sufficient justification to earn a fee for meddling in our private personal lives.  The fact she's being paid doesn't imply she's doing something right.  Justifying it by the ruse she contracted to perform a service she's even being paid for, therefore she's a professional simply does not add up.  The "service" she's offering in exchange for payment is to harass us on behalf of a third party.  She should have known that another private social worker would have refused to do what she contracted to do - in her secret emails - because it's unethical and unprofessional!  In her printout [Excel doc attached] of the "income and expenses IRO Gregory Press" showing the activity in the SA Property Market (their cc) trust account:  she refers to the money paid to her as a "stipend".  Why?  (Why isn't it a "fee"?)  And why does this schedule have a single column confusingly labeled "From/To" which includes payments to her husband he then paid to me.  Who or what is "Dee's Cleaning"?  These 'minor details' mask the mechanics of her fraud.

Thirdly:  When Ms Hollard became the intermediary between my co-beneficiaries and us (in about July 2009) she was initially going to provide them with an objective, professional assessment of our needs.  About seven months later my brother Roger switched her to being solely an administrator (of payments on behalf of her client, my siblings.)  At the time, we accepted this.  (For several reasons, not elaborated here.)  Over a two year period:  she administered the same sum as Mrs Grotius - consistently.  Our bank statements over this time period are proof of this.  Why did Mr and Mrs Grotius fail or refuse to administer it with equal or equivalent consistency - when she took over?  Did she agree or contract with my co-beneficiaries to continue administering this sum in the same way?  If not - what instructions did she receive:  different to the one's given Ms Hollard?

Fourthly, Ms Hollard did not simply resign.  She resigned after she tried to seize the papers of our car, illegally, on the instruction of my co-beneficiaries.  Mrs Grotius was aware of this, when she took over.  [Or:  does she deny being aware of it?]  If she knew her predecessor had resigned after attempting to hold onto the registration of our motor vehicle illegally:   did she check carefully (on some professional basis) that she was getting involved with people operating within the law - before she stepped into her predecessor's shoes?  If not, why not?  And:  why did she ignore our warnings!  And pretend she was too stupid to understand them!!

Fifthly:   From early 2007 (while we still lived in Westbrook, KZN) until May 2009:  Ms Van Breda - the local trustee in Roodepoort (just outside Joburg) handled the payment of our rent, insurance, and stipend on our behalf, by my co-beneficiaries.  Ms Hollard took over doing this after Ms Van Breda suddenly and unaccountably quit paying us any money for FIVE WEEKS in May/June 2009.  No explanation why - ever given.   When we told Mrs Grotius about it at the time; she was already aware of it.  Payment of the rent (to her) had also been delayed.  Does Mrs. Grotius remember this?  If not, how does she explain why she forgot?  If yes - why did she ignore our emails telling her my co-beneficiaries - and this local trustee - are unscrupulous, untrustworthy, unreliable, and dishonest?

Sixthly:  The long list of predecessors in the role the Grotius couple took over have all been discredited.  As we told Mr and Mrs Grotius, repeatedly, they will be the last ones.  The fact we never prosecuted any others doesn't make what they are doing legitimate.  These predecessors, in roughly chronological order, have been:  Ms Corrie Davidson - a private social worker in Cape Town.  She had a conflict of interest in that she was also employed by Jewish Community Services - at the time of her service rendering.  Mr Arthur Sweet, an accountant in Joburg, and mere figurehead trustee.  Peta's stroke and a number of other illicit factors were the Press family's pretext for introducing a psychologist Pieter Grobelaar into our lives - next.  Though we saw through him from day one - that his role was to keep us down, not help us - it took years to adapt to her stroke, then tell him to push off.  Dan Levin, a trustee who subsequently sued the trust for dismissing him, then took over.  He was followed by Cilla Geldenhuys, an attorney/trustee like her successor, Ms Van Breda.  Priscilla was technically the nominee of Fedtrust.  When she and her boss resigned after we emailed the Fedtrust CEO, we never expected to still have to deal with Ms Van Breda, Cindy Hollard, and now Mr and Mrs Grotius before getting this scam to finally end.  There's never been a husband and wife team before.  My co-beneficiaries know (but don't admit) that pushing this couple in has been their last ditch effort to fix a hoax that has completely unraveled.

Seventh:  I think Ms Hollard was paid R2000/month for her services, maybe more.  In any case, when Mr and Mrs Grotius negotiated a fee of R4000/month this meant they received an amount which - if it were paid to us directly - would have almost doubled the sum we live off.  Why does she term this fee a "stipend" (and place it in the wrong column, as a "credit") in her income and expenses statement?  Why did she insist on receiving this when we so clearly could do all the things she "did for us" ourselves?  The (D) emails are evidence:  how little she did for us - after we halted her furious attempts to meddle, at the outset.  How dare she refer to herself (a leach) as a "resource" we underutilize!  Since she isn't effectively helping us:  what are they paying her to do???

Peta and I hope the opportunity to question Mrs Grotius directly about why she ignored these seven factors (or how she justifies the last one) will make this an easy case for the police to investigate... after it has been made so difficult - for us - to endure all the hardship and suffering involved in bringing these issues out into the open.

We had to stand outside Spar and beg for food for four weeks in May 2009, and endure hunger for two or three days out of every week for the last four months of last year.  We also had to let ourselves be sent to Hottentot Holland hospital for 72 hours observation - as alleged mental patients - in the events that led to Mrs Hollard seizing the registration papers of our car.  Because:  we considered selling it, to pay an attorney.  To seek redress for the emotionally painful, humiliating, physically draining, and insulting damage from this experience.  When:  my own family refused to condemn it.  We also spent a week in Cape Town, sleeping in our car half the time, with the objective - not yet realized - of making our own case in the High Court.

Hardship:

After Mrs Grotius thus coerced us into the position of being dependent on her for money, she and my siblings (or only her, but evidently with their approval)

         Found pretexts to reduce our money supply, which included:  not paying us the full amount because she claimed Ms Van Breda hadn't paid her.  Deducting the sum for the gas bottle when we sold it (because she hadn't paid us.)  Buying food with part of the money she was supposed to give us.  (By giving us this low-class food, instead of money, she reduced our ability to make phone calls or use the Internet.)  Then she stopped paying us R375/week to pay our domestic worker, John.

         She had planned to control us by using John to spy on us.  Her attempt to do this led to him resigning/us firing him after he had worked for us about a year.  John and us had built up quite a close, friendly relationship over this time. Unlike Chenai (the sister of her maid) our hiring him had nothing to do with Mrs Grotius.  By scheming to smudge her responsibilities as rental agent into the right to poke her nose into all our affairs as the 'administrator' for my siblings - which she has tried to claim makes her MY administrator, who has taken charge of ALL my affairs - Mrs Grotius destroyed our relationship with John in the space of a few weeks.  Then had the nerve to turn around and act the part of his protector (alleging unfair dismissal.)

         In the (D) emails (referred to above) when she claims to have the right to compel us to rehire John, and then deducts R170 from money due to us to give it back to him (after he gave it back to us because she paid him for three days when he only worked two, and we caught him lying to us - claiming she only paid him for two) I ask her to state the DATE when she became his employer (with the right to dictate whether we can fire him or not.)  She fails to do so.

By positing her right, as a rental agent, to inspect the condition of a house occupied by family members (us) of my co-beneficiaries of the lawful tenant (the LT) also gave her the right to dictate terms and conditions to the family members (us) set by my co-beneficiaries instructing this tenant (the LT) to pay out funds to us on their behalf:  Mrs Grotius misrepresented the true facts that apply to the arrangement between my co-beneficiaries and us, whereby they pay us a stipend.  Since she knew (or ought to have known) she was misrepresenting these facts - this was fraud.

She reduced (over-simplified) the complex verbal and written arrangement between us and them to the narrow interpretation (they prefer) that they pay this monthly sum at their sole discretion on what is legally termed an ex gratia basis.  The losses we suffered through this action by her go far beyond the petty theft of R170 and other (comparatively) minor losses, which even so placed a considerable strain on Peta - who's disabled. 

Peta has already courageously survived years of being viciously dispossessed of her son, on slight grounds.  During this time she has sacrificed her right to receive proper rehabilitation from stroke damage, while my birth family have enjoyed scoffing and making fun of her as a person sticking up for her rights by characterizing her as a lame ex-mental patient, who doesn't stand a chance of ever succeeding.  (Our father would have helped her assert these same rights.)  My co-beneficiaries depict her as a manic, crazy person who's prone to start shouting for no reason.  Any person with knowledge of stroke damage (or who simply makes eye contact) should understand that inside, or behind Peta's appearance of frustration, there's a rich; deep; characterful; and very fascinating person.  With greater insight into the complexities of life and existence than most people possess!  My first wife was a mistake.  My second wife is the right one!  My co-beneficiaries go on and on refusing to understand this so they can posit - for their own financial gain - my first wife was a mistake.  My second wife:  an even GREATER mistake.

Why do they presume to know better than me, who my wife is?  Could it be they're still trying to use my mistaken marriage 30 YEARS AGO (which I learned from) to throw every obstacle they possibly can into the way of our success, as a couple, and family?

Even now:  when we're married FIFTEEN years?

It has been very VERY wrong, and extremely cruel for Mrs Grotius to place the further strain of the past four months on Peta - on top of all the debilitating, and downright merciless, and mindless abuse Peta already suffered, up 'til then:  in order to make a malicious and criminal attempt to dominate us for her own gain .  We will not accept her getting away with the rationalization Peta should be used to being randomly denigrated - by now.  Peta is NOT used to it.  This is WHY she keeps on - after all these long years - protesting about being wrongfully castigated as an unfit mother.  Even now, when she's exhausted and worn down.  Treating Peta like a nuisance woman who should have learned her place and shut up, by now, does NOT make what Mrs Grotius did right!

At this juncture, owing to Mrs Grotius's muddled thinking,

(A) As the administrator hired by my co-beneficiaries to pay us their money:  she's refusing to send us money to pay a domestic worker, and claiming this is because we have to either hire a cleaning service or re-hire John:  in order to maintain the house to the required standard.  And

(B) As the rental agent:  she's claiming or implying (on behalf of the landlord) that we aren't maintaining the house to the required standard.  Thus

(C) She's using the control she exercises over us (A) as THEIR administrator to prevent us (B) as their rental agent from fulfilling our obligations to them, as the sub-tenants of the trust they gained control of via crime.  

Her apparent justification for this is that as the person authorized by them to give us their money with strings (such as these ones) attached, she can make take it or leave it ultimatums.  Such as - in this case - that if we want money to clean the house:  we have to do it on her terms.  She - and them - are NOT justified to randomly dictate terms to us like this because:

         the only "right" she has as a rental agent is - to inspect the house.

         Ms Hollard paid us R360/week for two years to employ our own domestic worker, and during this time we passed all the inspections.  We didn't always use this entire sum to pay our help, and Ms Hollard knew this.

         therefore she is harassing us by withholding this same R360 (now R375)/week on the grounds we have to meet these new conditions,

         defrauding us out of this sum, and

         if she produces emails from my co-beneficiaries endorsing her to withhold this sum:  all of them are defrauding us.

The fact they specifically switched from Mrs Hollard to Mrs Grotius at the exact point in time when reducing the sum we receive - from R1375/week to R1000/week (and sometimes to less than this) halted us from taking steps (making phone calls; sending emails) to halt the distribution of funds from the LT to themselves abroad:  IS also material to a police investigation.

This self-created dilemma on her part mirrors (or reproduces) the predicament of my co-beneficiaries.  [A. Brothers and sisters who 'lovingly' want to help me, and receive 'love' back in return.  B. Co-beneficiaries who want me to permanently fail; never be in a position to claim back my share of the trust.]

But she thinks it's a win-win dilemma in that she's right on both counts.  Right to insist we use the cleaning service or domestic worker (John) she specifies.  And right not to pay us to hire a domestic worker of our choice.  In her view:  the only person who's wrong - is us.  Because:  if we would simply let the cleaning service come, she would pay them.  The landlord, her, and my co-beneficiaries would all be satisfied, and our house would be clean.  If we can't co-operate when things are made as simple for us as this:  it's not her problem. 

My co-beneficiaries are trying ever more desperately to attach conditions (colloquially "strings") to the money they give us, because, it is this act (hoax) of giving us - and getting us to accept - money from them on the one-sided principle (stemming from their side only) that they have our best interests at heart:  that constitutes their best defense against being convicted of fraud - for hiding money that was due to me.

To cut through all this pretense and confusion I'm simply going to state:  Mrs' Grotius' best defense would be to blame her crime on apartheid.  She could then say:  growing up as a white gave her a false understanding of the law because she thought it meant obeying authority, which in this instance is the Lincolnian trustees.  She got used to the idea that if the law says non-whites can't sit on the wrong bench, then if they sit on it:  they broke the law.  Case closed.  Therefore she thought that if my brothers and sisters have the right to dictate terms and conditions to us, via the trust:  it was her job to enforce these - and (once they passed some of their authority over to her) any other conditions that struck her as right.  And by the act of paying her a fee...  they did pass some authority on to her.  She... gained more authority than Mrs Hollard had, commensurate with the increase in the monthly fee they paid to her - over the fee they paid her predecessor (Mrs Hollard.)  She was hired "to get the job done" of making us buckle under, Mrs Hollard failed at.

Although this is her best defense, it's not a very good one.   NO employee is obliged to go outside the law, to satisfy their paymaster.  She could tell the difference between obeying the law and taking instructions from a warped employer.

The "authority" my co-beneficiaries are trying to enforce is not the apartheid of yesteryear but something reasonably similar.  The mentality of our parents, during the apartheid times when we, their children, came to them with our requests for money.  While we were still at school or university; before we started earning.

Therefore TO THEM the more they replicate the demeanor or attitude of Sydney (approving or denying these requests) the more they actually grow to resemble him, and the greater control they have over us.  This (to them) is also a win-win situation.  [Gaining the same authority our father had, and gaining more control over us.]  For over a decade now they've been  chortling to themselves about how great this win-win psychology works.  They have succeeded to convince one person after the next to (sort of) treat them the same way trustees, accountants, and lawyers:  used to treat our father.

They have perfected very subtle psychologies for convincing these third rate professionals (Sydney usually hired the best) they have immense love and concern for me, their wayward brother who has a very prickly temperament.

This has done wonders for their self-esteem.  They feel as if they have actually stepped into Sydney's shoes.  To own my own responsibility for all this, I must admit I encouraged it:  until I realized this was giving them ammunition - to shoot us back down.  But I encouraged it because I thought it was about time they all started to show more of the same qualities our father had, and quit being so juvenile.  [And then they would rectify their own character defects; apologize for concealing the insurance benefits; reinvest me with the right to be paid monies; and be glad we could all get on with our lives.]

But no matter how much they gain from comparing themselves to our father, very favorably (in their own eyes) it has come to this:  they WILL NOT face the fact our father would not have approved them hiding the insurance benefits he left to me.   Nothing less than prison will to get them to realize how disgusting what they did is.  Peta and I have to go this route now.  

I can't really speak for Sydney now that he's gone.  But if I have to guess how he (or his generation) would look upon their behavior, I think he would repudiate it and even find it repulsive.  Along the lines of "kicking a person when he is down."  I chose to marry a woman whose mother at least came from a good family.  Peta's father did not earn a lot - so what, he was a very characterful individual - her family were not well off:  but money isn't everything.  Her own family misguidedly sent Peta to mental asylums because in their world - during apartheid - her remarkable colorfulness and emotional strength could be misconstrued as signs of mental instability.   Neither of her parents went to university.

When Peta was five months pregnant Sydney suddenly died, unexpectedly.  Why did they have to on top of all this conceal the life insurance benefits he left us - just when our son was born?  Just to make our lot even more difficult - and worse?

Why did they have to pull strings to encourage the "authorities" in George to remove our child and send both of us to Valkenburg?

The answer is:  behind presentation faces, some rich people are vicious, ruthless, cold, unfeeling, merciless, devious - and full of guile.  Monsters.  Freaks.  What better excuse could there be to inflict cruelty on a newborn, his mother, and their own brother than:  "the best interests of a child" ?

In the imagery of the Crusades:  this was no different to murder, war, pillaging, and bloodshed in the name of baby Jesus.  This trick of gaining credibility by posturing as a protector of children happens all the time, and through time - in every century. Philanthropy in the name of children is the modern version of creating a mask for crafty rapacious business strategies justified by "the progress of technology" that prolong the suffering to millions - semi permanently.  Just like my co-beneficiaries prolonged ours.

Insofar as I allowed them to prolong it then (apart from not knowing any better how to make their persecution stop) this is because proceeding with a criminal case against six brothers and sisters who were at one stage members of a very close and powerful family is a big step.  I invested alot of myself in them.  During the past several years I've been taking [pulling] this essence I once gave to them BACK.  So that when (from their perspective) I finally "attack them" I don't also hurt or destroy (attack) myself.

Roger's email:

Roger's latest effort at present himself and the other beneficiaries in a positive light is this email he sent a month ago.  After thanking Mr Loots he gets started at once with huge lies stating his version of truth with disarming confidence.  Our father used the same approach to state the actual truth, and thus achieve remarkable results.

It claims "Greg's siblings have put [money] aside for his care and maintenance...  This is not related to a family Trust..." but fails to mention this trust's assets have plummeted from over R8million in 2008 to R400 000 today, or that my share of the trust has been re-distributed to them (temporarily) for almost 30 years.

All my co-beneficiaries received a payout of one million US Dollars each in 1997 they used to buy houses (obtain mortgages, and open lines of credit) while we've been forced to waste our income paying rent; have a low credit rating owing to their exploitation; and are hindered in our attempts to earn a living by (a) stroke damage, they helped cause, and (b) their refusal to ever let us have enough working capital to start an enterprise.  The reason for this is:  (c) they are terrified we would use it to pay a lawyer and claim our share.   Of the trust which (according to him) is "unrelated" to the money put aside for our maintenance.

Middle managers earning R350 000/year with access to credit, and owning their own house would not agree that two (actually three) people - getting by on R1000/week for food, phone, petrol, clothing and "everything else" - have "a good and comfortable life".

Undercurrently his brief says:  keep an eye on our brother.  Inform us at once if he makes a move in the direction of suing us. 

Above all it is important to keep a steady hand on the tiller, and deal with the multitude of perspectives Greg brings to his outlook on life. He is extremely smart, and comes up with some wonderful ideas, some less good. Whatever happens the administrator needs to ensure that he has steady support at all times.

"Steady support at all times" is a euphemism to get the administrator to commit to regulating our cash flow so that it's impossible for us to ever accumulate a surplus.  This cruel but clever regime limiting us from developing any of our productive talents and abilities for FOURTEEN YEARS has thwarted, damaged, hurt and disempowered us like house arrest for dissidents did during apartheid.

Mrs. Grotius accepted this brief (or something more odious in less sanitized secret emails we haven't read) and then behaved as if she also had instructions to force us to start getting by on even less.  Her income and expenses statement (excel spreadsheet attached) that shows a balance brought forward every month, together with her response and non-responses to emails; are evidence of this. 

By pressing this "support" on us my co-beneficiaries have consciously and deliberately invaded our privacy; made it necessary for us to expend huge amounts of our emotional reserves ON THEM; and made us play mind numbingly complicated games that deplete our intellectual resources, involving all of them:  simply to get approval for any tiny necessary expenditure - because their minders are told not to approve anything without checking with them first.  The slang for this is "they make us walk through hoops".  The number of hoops involved has grown to be immense.

In addition to filching our share of the trust all six of them have gained an immense amount of pleasure and satisfaction from forcing us to give them huge amounts of attention.  Which they love to receive:  it makes them feel important.  While wasting huge amounts of our time and energy they have developed a psychology that states the opposite.  Why can't I stick Peta in a home and go out and work hard - like them.  None of them work very hard.   They also have lovely homes and pleasant lives that make "work" a kind of extra pleasure.  We work hard living a tough life.

I admit that at the end of the day, on many levels, we gave in to all this voluntarily.  There is a side to all of this where it may have somehow been 'safer' to learn this lesson (of not allowing other people to drain off our energy) from them:  instead of with random members of the public.  They did get into the position though - where they could force us to learn how to cope with all their rubbish - by the deceitful trick of (1) hiding the insurance benefits, and (2) heavily destabillizing our family at the most vulnerable moment - birth - by cleverly arranging [deniably!!!] for us to lose our only son to a foster placement supervised by a welfare agency funded by my father's arch-rival.

From: Roger Press [mailto:HYPERLINK "mailto:[email protected]" \t "_blank" [email protected]] 
Sent: Monday, December 05, 2011 11:37 PM
To: Greg Zane Peta Press
Cc: Hein
Subject: Re: comfort

Dear Heinrich,

Many thanks for allowing Greg to put you forward to look after his affairs. The following is a summary of the role and responsibilities to look after the money which Greg's siblings have put aside for his care and maintenance. Excuse this for being in bullet point form but it is the most straightforward way of getting the detail to you. After you have had time to absorb this we can talk by phone and discuss your perspective and some next steps.

1. Greg's siblings (6 siblings) use their money to support Greg, and have done so for several decades. This is not related to a family Trust. 

2. The amount of support is determined by what a 'middle manager' would earn in a company after tax. It has been about R20,000 per month which is R240,000 per year. 

3. This is equivalent to a salary of say R350,000 before tax assuming a tax rate of say 30% and considerably more if the tax rate is higher.

4. The money is used for various insurances (car and health), housing, cleaning and maintenance, food and so on. The expenses from various suppliers make up a significant proportion of the money, and Greg himself receives R1,000 per week for spending money on food and 'lifestyle' after all the other living costs are taken care of.

5. The administrator who looks after this money on behalf of his siblings needs to show a solid career background, and a steady ability to make judgements about many things affecting Greg.

6. Historically Greg has tended to turn on the people who administer this money, and the role requires an ability to deal with this. It is important to make sure he does not overspend the money but lives a good and comfortable life.

7. Above all it is important to keep a steady hand on the tiller, and deal with the multitude of perspectives Greg brings to his outlook on life. He is extremely smart, and comes up with some wonderful ideas, some less good. Whatever happens the administratof needs to ensure that he has steady support at all times.

8. Greg's siblings keep track of expenditure, and will need regular reporting.

9. The administrator also needs to ensure that Greg's house is properly maintained. He has turned on the current administrator, and the house is unkempt, so there is a risk of eviction. The administrator must deal with this and make sure it is maintained.

10. The administrator must also make sure that Peta is cared for and report to us about Greg's general condition. We are far away, and need to have updates regularly.

I hope this goes some way to explaining the background, the responsibilities and objectives. Please let me know if you'd like to discuss your queries, and we can setup a time to talk as soon as you are ready.

Kind regards,

Roger



Judging from Mrs Grotius actions at the time - including emails sent by her and them - she appears to have promised my co-beneficiaries she knew us well enough to be confident she could get us to accept her as the next snoop they planted in our lives.  Based on her actions and on the copy of the excel statement she prepared for them (we have obtained, attached) she evidently also agreed to carry out a strategy of cutting back the sum we receive - at a time when the value of the rand is decreasing rapidly.

Conclusion:

As stated above:  I learned the South African Reserve Bank made the appointment of another local trustee a condition of approving a further distribution my co-beneficiaries are making to themselves, from the LT, on October 25th 2011.  This switch to having two local trustees (instead of one) is potentially very promising for us.  Instead of moving like lightening to get a court interdict to halt this distribution I reacted by finally facing the fact that to protect myself I have to first press criminal charges for the concealment of the insurance policy payout in 1997 - 98. 

I then corresponded with Capt Lourens concerning this.  After this stretch of time I've concluded - for reasons stated herein - it is right for me to also raise the issue of the criminality of the raid on Edcon.

I'm not trying to subvert the entire legal system of the planet, by exploiting the difficulties judges face when trying to find rich people - who choose to become criminals - guilty:  beyond a reasonable doubt.  I'm claiming my share of this trust on a balance of probability.

Whether there is a global plutocracy (people holding onto power by means of ownership, including hereditary ownership) is not for me alone to say.  I admit this.  We're not the only persons doing what we can to change the flagrant inequity on this planet:  between those whom are worthy, and, those whom are well off. 

At the end of the day the best way to help others will be to stick up for ourselves.  To this end:  we seek to lay charges against Mr and Mrs Grotius before we open a case against my brothers and sisters.  Peta and I hope you find, or agree, upon further investigation (obtaining emails and so forth) there are good grounds for this.  We also understand time will pass until they are convicted.

During this time we will proceed with our application for a protection order.  For your information:  we opened this Domestic Violence case in the Magistrate's Court in Strand, and have been adding to the file as time goes by.  We have agreed with Magistrate Faber - who has perused the documents it already includes - he will study the file one more time:  when we tell him it's complete.  Since we do not meet the test to qualify for Legal Aid we have to represent ourselves.  Owing to Peta's stroke damage:  it takes us longer to do the same things other people do.

For many years we tried very hard not to be the crime victims.  To this end we tried to be extremely positive about other areas of our life.  We didn't want to admit we're been reduced to living the lives of people struck down by crime.

But now we have to.

Thank you for showing an interest in helping us open this case.

Sincerely,

Peta and Gregory Press