---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Quadratic Entropy <[email protected]>
Date: Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 3:05 AM
Subject: Court of Internet Jurisdiction - Yourself.
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Dear Col. Lourents,
In case you weren't normally going to read past this short, unusual, intro far enough to recognize just who is writing to you and why: we've spoken on the phone the day before yesterday.
This is the case of the brother(s) and sister(s) who probably wouldn't have hid some life insurance benefits unless: they had some doubt. Whether ...they could hang onto their brother's share of the family trust: if they left events to take their normal course.
Where: 'normal' = let the insurance co pay out.
Preamble
Peta, Zane, and I are operating this autopoietic online court as owners of Quadratic Entropy Design cc [QED]. It might grow to generically resemble High Courts of regional jurisdiction - in quite a few respects. The CIJ is not hereditary by patrilineal descent, like the courts of kings and queens in olden times.
The three of us each own a permanent one quarter interest in QED. Non-family members are meant to invest the other quarter share, temporarily (on a revolving door basis) until it pays out an agreed upon amount.
Since our original coming together, as a family (at the time of Zane's birth in '97) was ruptured and interfered with: we the parents recently - by majority vote - democratically decided to reunite this way (instead.)
It's presently a modest startup family business: just getting off the ground. In order for our choice (creation) of this option - to help our son regain his birth identity (physically, cognitively, and emotionally; while still a young man) to succeed: the CIJ must soon become a spontaneous ongoing profitable event.
For it to do this: we ask for and need your help to apprehend the person(s) whose bad intent concealed the Liberty Life insurance policy referred to in the scans attached [labelled "A" "B1" and "B2".]
As soon as we have a case number we will approach investors, and may then be able to provide additional funds to cover the costs of the investigation. Provided all these expenses are properly accounted for.
Text
This
· correspondence between Mr A. Addison of Webber Wentzel (acting for the executors of my late father Sydney's estate); plus
· the events that led to my sister Caroline telling me of this life insurance policy;
· the forwards of emails she sent to me in 2006 and 2008, I'll send you immediately; and
· my recollection herein of prima facie interrelated events
all put together; prove, already, beyond any doubt: there's NO room left to speculate Liberty Life would (or might) have got around to tracing me.
There was a criminal act [use of influence] to cause an exception to their normal payment procedure; that did occur; and did result in the non-payment (long delay until payment) of this policy.
At least one of the perpetrators, Caroline, also states this is exactly what happened.
Liberty Life never traced me. The only reason they eventually paid me was because I phoned them.
In our present dire straits I think this CIJ brainchild out as we go along. If it is legal to so do, I will set up the site to offer law enforcement personnel performance based incentives. Because... after seeing in Margin Call how traders are paid, like mercenaries, to wreck our way of life for profit, I think: bonuses for competing against white collar criminals, effectively - structured to reward both teamwork and risk - make sense.
For the public good: the law does [has to] protect beneficiaries of life insurance policies from family members/executors who conceal payouts. If the law did not: exploiting and harming intended recipients in OTHER ways (than by merely intercepting and stealing the money due to them) by weakening them (depriving us of financial support that is our due) would soon become rife.
What term, label, or designation, that best refers to a crime matching this description - occurs to you, right now?
- = -
My father's executors and Liberty Life did not merely fail (or take longer than usual) to trace me.
Caroline's admission doesn't reveal whom at Liberty Life assisted her and others to achieve the objective of halting this insurance payout [or delaying it indefinitely.] A loose analogy might be: Schabir Shaik's conviction not necessarily proving Jacob Zuma's guilt.
[1] Sydney named his eldest daughter Caroline (she's a year or two younger than me) and our older brother Roger two of the four executors of his will.
[2] Her email sent on October 24th 2008 that admits "Several people advised me not to give you the life insurance funds that you inherited from Sydney" [then makes a list of people who "knew about it" / gave her this advice] shuts the door to her ever claiming Liberty Life somehow failed to trace me, and she merely decided to keep her knowledge of this to herself.
By saying who else knew about it she evidently means to imply that their advice was equivalent to an instruction - in her own mind. She could also be lying (if it turns out she acted solely on her own initiative and has ulterior motives for wanting to implicate others.) Or by "advised" she may mean: they assisted her to convince the person (Joe Letshelela) at Liberty Life helping them do this, that, if this policy were "concealed" to prevent me being compensated, financially, for the loss of my father (instead of tracing me) this wouldn't result in his criminal prosecution, also.
An earlier email - July 11th 2006 - begins: "I enjoyed our constructive chat the other day.
"I do realize I left out an explanation of exactly how the Liberty Life insurance funds were concealed from you."
[3] These life insurance funds were payable to me in terms of the policy Sydney Press purchased from Liberty Life. Insurance policies are compensation, not inheritance. Nobody who "knew" Caroline "concealed" these funds - or helped her to - could have legitimately "advised" her to delay or prevent benefits of an insurance policy I "inherited": from reaching me. Neither could Caroline or them have performed these acts without knowing they would face prosecution if caught.
[4] Motive. After my father passed away I needed to be compensated for his loss because: Peta, my wife, was 5 months pregnant; my co-beneficiaries - brothers and sisters - all wanted to prevent me claiming my share of the trust, and; the founder of Liberty Life, and persons within his sphere of influence: saw me as a threat.
Insurance companies have a diverse portfolio of products. Some life insurance policies pay for a person's education upon the death of another party; or an annuity. This policy wasn't like this. The entire amount was payable to me upon Sydney's death. Although the executors, including Caroline, were correct to contact Liberty Life on July 31st, as shown on page 1 of "A", one of her co-executors, the late Mr Carveth Geech, instructed Mr Addison to
· Delay interactions with Liberty Life from the date of the first letter on July 31st 1997 (already two months after Sydney passed away) a further seven months, and then
· State, dishonestly, on 24 February 1998 "We do not have an address for G. Press at this stage."
While someone, somehow, communicated by phone or in a personal conversation with the personnel at Liberty Life, who normally trace beneficiaries of life insurance policies: to dissuade them from tracing THIS beneficiary.
This is what Caroline means when she says on her 2006 email: "I'm afraid I can't give you exact specifics of who said what when." She means: her confession doubles as an attempt to exonerate herself with an imaginary alibi that claims she was so completely dedicated to acting in my best interests it's therefore impossible her violation of the law constituted a crime. She deliberately doesn't admit these details.
In the face of her belated confession this ignorance about the specifics doesn't give her the deniability it takes to remain immune from prosecution. She confessed to try and make herself appear innocent in my eyes for as long as she could. She hoped her doing this would cause me to refrain from pressing charges permanently. At the time of her sending this email: this struck her as a better risk to take than giving me grounds to suspect she was covering something up.
Sub-Section 1(ix) of the Domestic VIolence Act, "Definitions" states:
(ix) "economic abuse" includes-
(a) the unreasonable deprivation of economic or financial resources to which a complainant is entitled under law or which the complainant requires out of necessity,
Caroline was a party to this unreasonable deprivation. Since I found out about it in May 1999, while she bought time: I gave her enough rope, as the saying goes, to hang herself. While hoping - through all this time - I could find a way (by tinkering with the alliances in our family) to instead make her repent. I.e. combine forces with her to regain lost integrity. If, she and I together: could switch our family over to taking decisions more humanely.
Now I know this entire effort was a waste. Peta has repeatedly been trying to tell me this, since 1999. During this whole time I repeatedly bought Caroline's story, that, she could help us get more support from other members of my family: if Peta and I made a greater effort to follow her advice. Instead of listening to (understanding) Peta: I sometimes literally attacked her, physically as well as verbally, out of sheer frustration.
I now see Caroline's advice was always a screen for her own jealousy, and never genuinely well intentioned.
She's enormously jealous of Peta because: I truly love her. Whereas; the boyfriend Caroline truly wanted to marry, Ted, elected not to propose to her. I know, or have insight, now (as I did not, then) the simple fact of her jealousy was Caroline's real, cold, heavily disguised, motive: for not helping - until it was too late. Her sibling rivalry with me worked itself out in this way.
In addition to being convinced she could get away with doing it, forever: Caroline coldly felt entitled to and wanted to hurt and injure Peta.
Since "economic abuse", "unreasonable deprivation" and "entitled under law" are not terms to describe a crime: please tell me what YOU think the correct description of Caroline's crime.
[5] The reason [element of this crime] it took Peta eleven years - instead of eleven weeks, days, or hours - to get through to me, with the stark reality of Caroline's bad intent, is: Caroline literally made her lose the power to express herself by waiting until AFTER the stroke damaged Peta's speech center, to tell me about this life insurance policy. There's no way Caroline could have delayed me from seeing through her for so long - if Peta would have still been able to talk...
This [injury to the victim] explains my further delay - from the date of Caroline's unforced confession in her 2008 email, until the present - before pressing criminal charges.
Stated another way: Caroline slyly found ways to drag this out (by getting me to provide further excuses to myself she might somehow deserve to be forgiven and exonerated) before I finally faced the fact that since she did wrong, I must prosecute her.
Otherwise she'll go on exploiting us (benefiting from the advantages she gained by injuring Peta) forever.
[6] Whether Roger accepts her confession implicates him too I cannot say. He may choose to claim she lies in her emails, stating he also "knew". He's changed the subject every single time I've tried to work this out, with him. His evasiveness is so thorough, total, and complete that laying a criminal charge is the ONLY way remaining to find out how he will 'play his cards'.
But to spell out here, by email, the exact intricate reason why you can unquestionably prosecute this crime: the co-operation or complicity between Caroline and Roger hasn't been sufficiently close for their joint defense to ever become watertight.
If he could have: Roger would have persuaded Caroline not to send the emails she eventually wrote. Thus he's been left with playing his next best option: pretending to her and me her admissions are of no consequence to him.
If he does choose to deny he knew about or helped conceal the benefits, or denies both: there's no way his mind is quick enough to dodge all the consequences of trying this approach. He will incriminate himself.
It's therefore inconsequential that Caroline fails to disclose the specific details of how someone persuaded an unidentified person at Liberty Life to deactivate the usual procedures to trace beneficiaries of policies. All that really matters is: she was aware of the concealment because by choosing to let it happen, or continue, she became party to it as well. Details of a different kind that Roger has been incapable to prevent the passage of time revealing to me, via other parties (including disgruntled ex-trustees) literally make it impossible for Caroline or him to raise a credible defense against the charge: they did do this. Whether or not they initiated it, they participated, and - by their inaction - prolonged it. And sought to benefit from it. This makes them accomplices.
These incriminating details can be used by police interrogating the parties who worked at Liberty Life at this time, as well as to cross-examine the accused when put on trial.
Some of these details are:
They have been entitled to act in their best interests. Because of Caroline's emails though, they've forfeited the right to claim they merely chose to do what they perceived as best for them. They resorted to criminal measures to give themselves an unfair advantage. They innovated and adapted or inverted the mechanism of paying a bribe. Instead of paying someone off to gain an unfair advantage: they subtracted money from me - to do the same thing.
They sabotaged my life and knowingly crossed the boundary between right and wrong to pull this off. Then they got away with it for a long time by acting as if they had done nothing wrong. There act was more complex than this though because it also claimed that even if they had: I could never prove it.
With all the evidence I have by now, I know: that with assistance from yourself - I surely can. Corruption dressed up to resemble legitimacy is always different from the real thing. One of the ways I know they bent the rules was in their failure to comply with FICA legislation.
[7] Caroline lies a lot. I'm ready to assist a prosecutor with the chore of pointing out just how many outright falsehoods, half-truths, and flat out contradictions these two confessional emails are peppered with. Evidently Caroline couldn't go on living her life as an expatriate in Manhattan, surrounded by honesty on all sides, while her role in these events still gnawed at her conscience. She must have decided the density of denial she's capable of was her best option to protect herself while bowing to the inevitable.
From her 2006 email:
"I can also state that I did not think of the Liberty Life insurance policy when Peta first went to the Gen Hospital. I did not realize it wasn't a good hospital and I didn't realize the urgency of the situation. What I do remember is that when she had a relapse and I saw that not everyone in the family supported the idea of paying for a private hospital, I immediately tried to think of how to help you/Peta and it was only then that I thought of the Liberty Life policy.... I remember that with your idea of "attaching" the furniture due to you, still nobody trusted you."
The "idea" she refers to here was when I pleaded with her, as Sydney's executor, to release an amount equivalent to (or even less than) the value of the furniture and paintings he bequeathed to me in his will - right away. So I could transfer Peta to a private hospital from the Gen. Even though his estate had not yet been wound up. She refused to. It's inconceivable she never "thought of the Liberty Life policy" when I begged her for money to get the best care for Peta then [two weeks before she told me about the policy.]
As an executor she had all the authority she needed to take this step. She didn't have to monitor the family consensus: yet she chose to.
While I pleaded I told her all about the drawbacks of the Gen, and urgency of the situation. Therefore it isn't credible she never thought of the concealed Liberty Life insurance policy sooner. She simply did not want to help.
Her 2008 email covers the same events like this:
"I remember talking it over with William on the phone, and possibly Clifford as well. It was at this time that I remembered about the life insurance policy and I decided very quickly to use this information as leverage to persuade everyone to support sending Peta to a private clinic. Once I mentioned that this money could be used I got agreement from the others who had been dragging their feet about the private clinic....
Against the background summary of family politics spelled out in my affidavit applying for protection in terms of the Domestic Violence Act: it's implausible this conversation with William and Clifford (longterm rivals of her and Roger) didn't consist of them trying to persuade her [by shouting and screaming] not to tell me of these life insurance benefits ever - then. Thus her claim, or pretense, she persuaded those 'dragging their feet': is a bold lie.
"...I'm not sure if I remember the details correctly but you did take Peta to a private clinic where she was treated. I do not know what the delay was, what time took place before I remembered about the life insurance policy. I think it was a matter of hours during the night. But I can state plainly that as soon as I realized there was not unanimous support for the private clinic, I tried hard to think of a way to help, and it was not long before I remembered about the insurance policy and used that as back up to pay for the private clinic."
How could she use MY life insurance policy "as back up [for her or them] to pay for the private clinic"? It's illogical. Her expressing herself this way is also incriminating. It reveals she thought of the life insurance compensating me for the loss of our parent as money that somehow belonged to her. Or: at her disposal to use as she saw fit.
What in fact happened (that she professes not to recall, but does) is that Clifford tried to compel me to use the life insurance benefits to pay for the hospital. I never fell for it. He eventually:
· Purchased the debt I owed the Linksfield Clinic hospital,
· Then he approached me the same way a collection agency does.
· At the time I couldn't afford a lawyer to argue the illegitimacy of a brother setting out to harm a brother with this approach. (He had no right or justification to do this instead of leaving the Hospital to demand payment from me itself.)
· For technical reasons he contracted with both our other brothers - Roger and William - to divide this debt among themselves...
· They then sued me jointly to attach our father's bequests, to me, as payment for this debt.
· One of the reasons Clifford did this was: by then he had shipped these bequests out of South Africa illegally before the estate was wound up. He thus sought to destroy my locus standi to make a case against him for this. Roger (and the other executors, including Caroline) originally protested Clifford doing this. Then lost their morality (or never had it to begin with) and switched sides.
Caroline's email continues:
I do not know what the delay was, what time took place before I remembered about the life insurance policy. I think it was a matter of hours during the night.
This is fabrication. A couple of years after she perpetrated the concealment: Peta's unpredicted or unanticipated stroke compelled her to deal with the consequences of it. Otherwise I might have never been the wiser and Liberty Life would have eventually sent these unpaid benefits to the fund where all the undistributed sums from life insurance policies are pooled to offset expenses of the insurance industry.
The actual time delay she cunningly tries to cover up with this fabrication was TWO YEARS, and not "a matter of hours during the night".
Like many other unlikely criminals; Caroline only outsmarts herself, here.
[8] While inventing her best excuses to insert into this email Caroline knew she had to disarm two potential criminal charges against her. Fraud... and criminal negligence. So far you and I have solely been discussing the fraud aspect, because: I deem this the best way to get on the same page.
The major seriousness of this crime though is that: the perpetrators went beyond their initial objective of embezzling my share of this trust - by hiding the insurance benefits - to increase the likelihood I would NOT be able to afford a civil case (to reclaim my share.)
[9] When they heard Peta was in the ICU at the Joburg Gen they have to have realized these changed circumstances could cause her death - if she did not immediately receive superior care at a private clinic - owing to their... selfishness. They could then have been charged with being accessories to murder. When faced with this exigency they chose to keep silent.
This vaulted the magnitude of their initial crime.
Conclusion
Please think over what you've read, so far, and if you get the chance: sound out your Senior Superintendent L Van Zyl Lucas for his insight and views. I did originally speak to him, before contacting you.
I wonder what he will think of my plan to set the CIJ up as a site for people to invest in fighting crime with money; time; ideas; and numerous other ways.
People who complain police - who risk their own lives - aren't doing enough: can now put their money where their mouth is.
I am still writing a further email that places the foregoing in a broader perspective, please wait until you receive and read this too.
Let's talk again then.
Regards,
Gregory Press
021 856 3824
From: Quadratic Entropy <[email protected]>
Date: Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 3:05 AM
Subject: Court of Internet Jurisdiction - Yourself.
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Dear Col. Lourents,
In case you weren't normally going to read past this short, unusual, intro far enough to recognize just who is writing to you and why: we've spoken on the phone the day before yesterday.
This is the case of the brother(s) and sister(s) who probably wouldn't have hid some life insurance benefits unless: they had some doubt. Whether ...they could hang onto their brother's share of the family trust: if they left events to take their normal course.
Where: 'normal' = let the insurance co pay out.
Preamble
Peta, Zane, and I are operating this autopoietic online court as owners of Quadratic Entropy Design cc [QED]. It might grow to generically resemble High Courts of regional jurisdiction - in quite a few respects. The CIJ is not hereditary by patrilineal descent, like the courts of kings and queens in olden times.
The three of us each own a permanent one quarter interest in QED. Non-family members are meant to invest the other quarter share, temporarily (on a revolving door basis) until it pays out an agreed upon amount.
Since our original coming together, as a family (at the time of Zane's birth in '97) was ruptured and interfered with: we the parents recently - by majority vote - democratically decided to reunite this way (instead.)
It's presently a modest startup family business: just getting off the ground. In order for our choice (creation) of this option - to help our son regain his birth identity (physically, cognitively, and emotionally; while still a young man) to succeed: the CIJ must soon become a spontaneous ongoing profitable event.
For it to do this: we ask for and need your help to apprehend the person(s) whose bad intent concealed the Liberty Life insurance policy referred to in the scans attached [labelled "A" "B1" and "B2".]
As soon as we have a case number we will approach investors, and may then be able to provide additional funds to cover the costs of the investigation. Provided all these expenses are properly accounted for.
Text
This
· correspondence between Mr A. Addison of Webber Wentzel (acting for the executors of my late father Sydney's estate); plus
· the events that led to my sister Caroline telling me of this life insurance policy;
· the forwards of emails she sent to me in 2006 and 2008, I'll send you immediately; and
· my recollection herein of prima facie interrelated events
all put together; prove, already, beyond any doubt: there's NO room left to speculate Liberty Life would (or might) have got around to tracing me.
There was a criminal act [use of influence] to cause an exception to their normal payment procedure; that did occur; and did result in the non-payment (long delay until payment) of this policy.
At least one of the perpetrators, Caroline, also states this is exactly what happened.
Liberty Life never traced me. The only reason they eventually paid me was because I phoned them.
In our present dire straits I think this CIJ brainchild out as we go along. If it is legal to so do, I will set up the site to offer law enforcement personnel performance based incentives. Because... after seeing in Margin Call how traders are paid, like mercenaries, to wreck our way of life for profit, I think: bonuses for competing against white collar criminals, effectively - structured to reward both teamwork and risk - make sense.
For the public good: the law does [has to] protect beneficiaries of life insurance policies from family members/executors who conceal payouts. If the law did not: exploiting and harming intended recipients in OTHER ways (than by merely intercepting and stealing the money due to them) by weakening them (depriving us of financial support that is our due) would soon become rife.
What term, label, or designation, that best refers to a crime matching this description - occurs to you, right now?
- = -
My father's executors and Liberty Life did not merely fail (or take longer than usual) to trace me.
Caroline's admission doesn't reveal whom at Liberty Life assisted her and others to achieve the objective of halting this insurance payout [or delaying it indefinitely.] A loose analogy might be: Schabir Shaik's conviction not necessarily proving Jacob Zuma's guilt.
[1] Sydney named his eldest daughter Caroline (she's a year or two younger than me) and our older brother Roger two of the four executors of his will.
[2] Her email sent on October 24th 2008 that admits "Several people advised me not to give you the life insurance funds that you inherited from Sydney" [then makes a list of people who "knew about it" / gave her this advice] shuts the door to her ever claiming Liberty Life somehow failed to trace me, and she merely decided to keep her knowledge of this to herself.
By saying who else knew about it she evidently means to imply that their advice was equivalent to an instruction - in her own mind. She could also be lying (if it turns out she acted solely on her own initiative and has ulterior motives for wanting to implicate others.) Or by "advised" she may mean: they assisted her to convince the person (Joe Letshelela) at Liberty Life helping them do this, that, if this policy were "concealed" to prevent me being compensated, financially, for the loss of my father (instead of tracing me) this wouldn't result in his criminal prosecution, also.
An earlier email - July 11th 2006 - begins: "I enjoyed our constructive chat the other day.
"I do realize I left out an explanation of exactly how the Liberty Life insurance funds were concealed from you."
[3] These life insurance funds were payable to me in terms of the policy Sydney Press purchased from Liberty Life. Insurance policies are compensation, not inheritance. Nobody who "knew" Caroline "concealed" these funds - or helped her to - could have legitimately "advised" her to delay or prevent benefits of an insurance policy I "inherited": from reaching me. Neither could Caroline or them have performed these acts without knowing they would face prosecution if caught.
[4] Motive. After my father passed away I needed to be compensated for his loss because: Peta, my wife, was 5 months pregnant; my co-beneficiaries - brothers and sisters - all wanted to prevent me claiming my share of the trust, and; the founder of Liberty Life, and persons within his sphere of influence: saw me as a threat.
Insurance companies have a diverse portfolio of products. Some life insurance policies pay for a person's education upon the death of another party; or an annuity. This policy wasn't like this. The entire amount was payable to me upon Sydney's death. Although the executors, including Caroline, were correct to contact Liberty Life on July 31st, as shown on page 1 of "A", one of her co-executors, the late Mr Carveth Geech, instructed Mr Addison to
· Delay interactions with Liberty Life from the date of the first letter on July 31st 1997 (already two months after Sydney passed away) a further seven months, and then
· State, dishonestly, on 24 February 1998 "We do not have an address for G. Press at this stage."
While someone, somehow, communicated by phone or in a personal conversation with the personnel at Liberty Life, who normally trace beneficiaries of life insurance policies: to dissuade them from tracing THIS beneficiary.
This is what Caroline means when she says on her 2006 email: "I'm afraid I can't give you exact specifics of who said what when." She means: her confession doubles as an attempt to exonerate herself with an imaginary alibi that claims she was so completely dedicated to acting in my best interests it's therefore impossible her violation of the law constituted a crime. She deliberately doesn't admit these details.
In the face of her belated confession this ignorance about the specifics doesn't give her the deniability it takes to remain immune from prosecution. She confessed to try and make herself appear innocent in my eyes for as long as she could. She hoped her doing this would cause me to refrain from pressing charges permanently. At the time of her sending this email: this struck her as a better risk to take than giving me grounds to suspect she was covering something up.
Sub-Section 1(ix) of the Domestic VIolence Act, "Definitions" states:
(ix) "economic abuse" includes-
(a) the unreasonable deprivation of economic or financial resources to which a complainant is entitled under law or which the complainant requires out of necessity,
Caroline was a party to this unreasonable deprivation. Since I found out about it in May 1999, while she bought time: I gave her enough rope, as the saying goes, to hang herself. While hoping - through all this time - I could find a way (by tinkering with the alliances in our family) to instead make her repent. I.e. combine forces with her to regain lost integrity. If, she and I together: could switch our family over to taking decisions more humanely.
Now I know this entire effort was a waste. Peta has repeatedly been trying to tell me this, since 1999. During this whole time I repeatedly bought Caroline's story, that, she could help us get more support from other members of my family: if Peta and I made a greater effort to follow her advice. Instead of listening to (understanding) Peta: I sometimes literally attacked her, physically as well as verbally, out of sheer frustration.
I now see Caroline's advice was always a screen for her own jealousy, and never genuinely well intentioned.
She's enormously jealous of Peta because: I truly love her. Whereas; the boyfriend Caroline truly wanted to marry, Ted, elected not to propose to her. I know, or have insight, now (as I did not, then) the simple fact of her jealousy was Caroline's real, cold, heavily disguised, motive: for not helping - until it was too late. Her sibling rivalry with me worked itself out in this way.
In addition to being convinced she could get away with doing it, forever: Caroline coldly felt entitled to and wanted to hurt and injure Peta.
Since "economic abuse", "unreasonable deprivation" and "entitled under law" are not terms to describe a crime: please tell me what YOU think the correct description of Caroline's crime.
[5] The reason [element of this crime] it took Peta eleven years - instead of eleven weeks, days, or hours - to get through to me, with the stark reality of Caroline's bad intent, is: Caroline literally made her lose the power to express herself by waiting until AFTER the stroke damaged Peta's speech center, to tell me about this life insurance policy. There's no way Caroline could have delayed me from seeing through her for so long - if Peta would have still been able to talk...
This [injury to the victim] explains my further delay - from the date of Caroline's unforced confession in her 2008 email, until the present - before pressing criminal charges.
Stated another way: Caroline slyly found ways to drag this out (by getting me to provide further excuses to myself she might somehow deserve to be forgiven and exonerated) before I finally faced the fact that since she did wrong, I must prosecute her.
Otherwise she'll go on exploiting us (benefiting from the advantages she gained by injuring Peta) forever.
[6] Whether Roger accepts her confession implicates him too I cannot say. He may choose to claim she lies in her emails, stating he also "knew". He's changed the subject every single time I've tried to work this out, with him. His evasiveness is so thorough, total, and complete that laying a criminal charge is the ONLY way remaining to find out how he will 'play his cards'.
But to spell out here, by email, the exact intricate reason why you can unquestionably prosecute this crime: the co-operation or complicity between Caroline and Roger hasn't been sufficiently close for their joint defense to ever become watertight.
If he could have: Roger would have persuaded Caroline not to send the emails she eventually wrote. Thus he's been left with playing his next best option: pretending to her and me her admissions are of no consequence to him.
If he does choose to deny he knew about or helped conceal the benefits, or denies both: there's no way his mind is quick enough to dodge all the consequences of trying this approach. He will incriminate himself.
It's therefore inconsequential that Caroline fails to disclose the specific details of how someone persuaded an unidentified person at Liberty Life to deactivate the usual procedures to trace beneficiaries of policies. All that really matters is: she was aware of the concealment because by choosing to let it happen, or continue, she became party to it as well. Details of a different kind that Roger has been incapable to prevent the passage of time revealing to me, via other parties (including disgruntled ex-trustees) literally make it impossible for Caroline or him to raise a credible defense against the charge: they did do this. Whether or not they initiated it, they participated, and - by their inaction - prolonged it. And sought to benefit from it. This makes them accomplices.
These incriminating details can be used by police interrogating the parties who worked at Liberty Life at this time, as well as to cross-examine the accused when put on trial.
Some of these details are:
- · In 1982 a nuptial agreement I signed with my first wife was held by the then trustees to have caused my right to receive payment of monies to cease and be forfeited. (Note: I still continued to be a beneficiary who can be reinvested with the right to be paid monies by duly appointed trustees at any time.)
- · The trust was operated with the wrong deed from 1987 until 2005.
- · Roger's motive for concealing the Liberty Life payment (R82 000) was to prevent me hiring a lawyer and thus finding out the earlier version of the deed was still valid.
- · Our eldest brother Clifford convinced Roger and our other sibling/co-beneficiaries to partner him in blocking my reinvestment (with the right to be paid monies) by secretly paying all of them (except me) and himself: a million dollars each in 1997.
- · In order to prevent me being reinvested with the right to be paid monies retroactively in 2005: the procedure for appointing trustees after Sydney died in 1997 - spelled out in the valid version of the deed, amended in 1984 - weren't followed.
- · Instead (in Sept 2005) Marina De Bruin, an assistant or deputy master; wrongfully used physical force - Intimidation - to prevent me from attending a meeting in the Pretoria Master's Office. She called security to eject me even though I was present and ready to state my case. I then complained to the Master Mrs Sigcau, who called the Deputy Master who was chairing this meeting into her office, fooling me into thinking the meeting had been halted. It was only a ruse. Ms De Bruin took over chairing the meeting - then I was presented with a fait accompli.
- · Instead of two family and two non-family members being appointed trustees (at this meeting) three family members and one non-family member were appointed.
- · At this juncture, 2005, I did not have Caroline's email confessions (dated 2006 and 2008.)
- · Until today I've never proceeded with a charge of Intimidation against Ms De Bruin. I've constantly been haunted by a feeling (which may not be correct) that so doing wouldn't be enough, in and of itself, to repair this situation.
- · In about February this year, SARB required one of these family trustees to resign and a second non-family trustee to be appointed. But I only learned of this development two months ago.
- · FYI the current Director of Public Prosecutions, Menzi Simelane, faces a conflict of interest in that while he was the Acting Chief Master (in his capacity as Director General of the Department of Justice) he blocked me from raising (correcting) the matter of Ms De Bruin's interference.
- · This won't remain a serious obstacle (if it even is one) when my pending application in terms of the Domestic Violence Act provides me with sufficient funds to approach a competent court of jurisdiction to use the Arbitration Act (the procedure to follow spelled out in the trust deed) to settle the key matters of interpretation.
- · The combined shocks of (a) The removal of our infant, without good grounds in 1997, and (b) Peta's stroke in 1999: caused me to overlook how straightforward it is going to be to use this procedure to obtain a ruling, that, even if my share of this trust isn't given back to me it must be given to our son. Instead of remaining redistributed to my brothers and sisters. This interpretation is consistent with both the wording in the trust deed and the public good. Concerning (a): if we had these insurance benefits the outcome of the Hearing in the Children's COurt in George would definitely have been different. Our infant would havebeen returned to us instead of placed in foster care. [I can explain more on the phone.]
They have been entitled to act in their best interests. Because of Caroline's emails though, they've forfeited the right to claim they merely chose to do what they perceived as best for them. They resorted to criminal measures to give themselves an unfair advantage. They innovated and adapted or inverted the mechanism of paying a bribe. Instead of paying someone off to gain an unfair advantage: they subtracted money from me - to do the same thing.
They sabotaged my life and knowingly crossed the boundary between right and wrong to pull this off. Then they got away with it for a long time by acting as if they had done nothing wrong. There act was more complex than this though because it also claimed that even if they had: I could never prove it.
With all the evidence I have by now, I know: that with assistance from yourself - I surely can. Corruption dressed up to resemble legitimacy is always different from the real thing. One of the ways I know they bent the rules was in their failure to comply with FICA legislation.
[7] Caroline lies a lot. I'm ready to assist a prosecutor with the chore of pointing out just how many outright falsehoods, half-truths, and flat out contradictions these two confessional emails are peppered with. Evidently Caroline couldn't go on living her life as an expatriate in Manhattan, surrounded by honesty on all sides, while her role in these events still gnawed at her conscience. She must have decided the density of denial she's capable of was her best option to protect herself while bowing to the inevitable.
From her 2006 email:
"I can also state that I did not think of the Liberty Life insurance policy when Peta first went to the Gen Hospital. I did not realize it wasn't a good hospital and I didn't realize the urgency of the situation. What I do remember is that when she had a relapse and I saw that not everyone in the family supported the idea of paying for a private hospital, I immediately tried to think of how to help you/Peta and it was only then that I thought of the Liberty Life policy.... I remember that with your idea of "attaching" the furniture due to you, still nobody trusted you."
The "idea" she refers to here was when I pleaded with her, as Sydney's executor, to release an amount equivalent to (or even less than) the value of the furniture and paintings he bequeathed to me in his will - right away. So I could transfer Peta to a private hospital from the Gen. Even though his estate had not yet been wound up. She refused to. It's inconceivable she never "thought of the Liberty Life policy" when I begged her for money to get the best care for Peta then [two weeks before she told me about the policy.]
As an executor she had all the authority she needed to take this step. She didn't have to monitor the family consensus: yet she chose to.
While I pleaded I told her all about the drawbacks of the Gen, and urgency of the situation. Therefore it isn't credible she never thought of the concealed Liberty Life insurance policy sooner. She simply did not want to help.
Her 2008 email covers the same events like this:
"I remember talking it over with William on the phone, and possibly Clifford as well. It was at this time that I remembered about the life insurance policy and I decided very quickly to use this information as leverage to persuade everyone to support sending Peta to a private clinic. Once I mentioned that this money could be used I got agreement from the others who had been dragging their feet about the private clinic....
Against the background summary of family politics spelled out in my affidavit applying for protection in terms of the Domestic Violence Act: it's implausible this conversation with William and Clifford (longterm rivals of her and Roger) didn't consist of them trying to persuade her [by shouting and screaming] not to tell me of these life insurance benefits ever - then. Thus her claim, or pretense, she persuaded those 'dragging their feet': is a bold lie.
"...I'm not sure if I remember the details correctly but you did take Peta to a private clinic where she was treated. I do not know what the delay was, what time took place before I remembered about the life insurance policy. I think it was a matter of hours during the night. But I can state plainly that as soon as I realized there was not unanimous support for the private clinic, I tried hard to think of a way to help, and it was not long before I remembered about the insurance policy and used that as back up to pay for the private clinic."
How could she use MY life insurance policy "as back up [for her or them] to pay for the private clinic"? It's illogical. Her expressing herself this way is also incriminating. It reveals she thought of the life insurance compensating me for the loss of our parent as money that somehow belonged to her. Or: at her disposal to use as she saw fit.
What in fact happened (that she professes not to recall, but does) is that Clifford tried to compel me to use the life insurance benefits to pay for the hospital. I never fell for it. He eventually:
· Purchased the debt I owed the Linksfield Clinic hospital,
· Then he approached me the same way a collection agency does.
· At the time I couldn't afford a lawyer to argue the illegitimacy of a brother setting out to harm a brother with this approach. (He had no right or justification to do this instead of leaving the Hospital to demand payment from me itself.)
· For technical reasons he contracted with both our other brothers - Roger and William - to divide this debt among themselves...
· They then sued me jointly to attach our father's bequests, to me, as payment for this debt.
· One of the reasons Clifford did this was: by then he had shipped these bequests out of South Africa illegally before the estate was wound up. He thus sought to destroy my locus standi to make a case against him for this. Roger (and the other executors, including Caroline) originally protested Clifford doing this. Then lost their morality (or never had it to begin with) and switched sides.
Caroline's email continues:
I do not know what the delay was, what time took place before I remembered about the life insurance policy. I think it was a matter of hours during the night.
This is fabrication. A couple of years after she perpetrated the concealment: Peta's unpredicted or unanticipated stroke compelled her to deal with the consequences of it. Otherwise I might have never been the wiser and Liberty Life would have eventually sent these unpaid benefits to the fund where all the undistributed sums from life insurance policies are pooled to offset expenses of the insurance industry.
The actual time delay she cunningly tries to cover up with this fabrication was TWO YEARS, and not "a matter of hours during the night".
Like many other unlikely criminals; Caroline only outsmarts herself, here.
[8] While inventing her best excuses to insert into this email Caroline knew she had to disarm two potential criminal charges against her. Fraud... and criminal negligence. So far you and I have solely been discussing the fraud aspect, because: I deem this the best way to get on the same page.
The major seriousness of this crime though is that: the perpetrators went beyond their initial objective of embezzling my share of this trust - by hiding the insurance benefits - to increase the likelihood I would NOT be able to afford a civil case (to reclaim my share.)
[9] When they heard Peta was in the ICU at the Joburg Gen they have to have realized these changed circumstances could cause her death - if she did not immediately receive superior care at a private clinic - owing to their... selfishness. They could then have been charged with being accessories to murder. When faced with this exigency they chose to keep silent.
This vaulted the magnitude of their initial crime.
Conclusion
Please think over what you've read, so far, and if you get the chance: sound out your Senior Superintendent L Van Zyl Lucas for his insight and views. I did originally speak to him, before contacting you.
I wonder what he will think of my plan to set the CIJ up as a site for people to invest in fighting crime with money; time; ideas; and numerous other ways.
People who complain police - who risk their own lives - aren't doing enough: can now put their money where their mouth is.
I am still writing a further email that places the foregoing in a broader perspective, please wait until you receive and read this too.
Let's talk again then.
Regards,
Gregory Press
021 856 3824