Suite 605(11), 331 West Street,

 P O Box 3966, Durban, 4000,

 Tel (031) 3071434





Izak Labuschagne


       NSW Dealers Representative No S.I.25015 (ACIP) (IAFP)



Thursday, 09 November 2000


The Honourable Judge Shabalala

Judge President

High Court of South Africa

Durban and Coast Local Division




Mr Malcolm Hartwell

Deneys Reitz Attorneys (Attorneys for the defendant)

The Marine, Gardiner Street,



Dear Sir,




Rule 376(e) – the question of transference of the matter to another court


The purpose of this correspondence is to determine whether an application should be made in terms of Rule 37 6(e) for the matter to be transferred to another court, since this issue was raised at a Rule 37 conference held on 25 October 2000 in the chambers of adv. Gordon SC.


Your lordship is no doubt aware that sometimes controversy develops around litigation which can make it difficult and sometimes even impossible for certain presiding officers in a jurisdiction to act in such matters. When care is not taken in such instances, review proceedings might ensue[1] which serves little to manage the controversy. Whilst this is unfortunate, it is perhaps in this case not a bad thing in itself because it could serve only to bolster the idea that old practises and ancient formulae must be modified in order to keep touch with the expansion of legal ideas, and to keep pace with the requirements of changing conditions[2]. I say this because this particular case is interlaced with two basic controversies. The one centres around Secret Societies such as Freemasonry and the other around the current world wide reformation[3] against undue legalism, technicalities and formalism and unethical conduct in proceedings. As we all know the aim of this reform is to bring systems of justice in line with the populis’ fundamental rights to equitable access to court and fair legal proceedings once the courts are seized of a matter.


Secret Societies and organizations Freemasonry.


Durban has for many years been well known among Freemasons as a friendly Masonic Port, to the point that this is reflected in law, in that under  clause 18 of  P.N 92/81 for the Durban City Police which falls under section 57 of the Criminal Procedure Act we read  that Members of the force shall belong to no political or secret society, except those of Freemasons, Good Templars and other recognised friendly societies. Whilst my father was the head of the Freemasons in 1977, I refused to join when I was told by Port Authorities in Durban that it would be all but impossible for me to operate yacht charters in the harbour without being a member. 

I have attached a summary of the Masonic and related oaths hereto under annexure “A”  (and on ) in order for your lordship to gauge the obvious problems with regard to them presiding in matters where their members are represented.


Following a letter of concern to the Judge President of the time his lordship Judge Howard In 1995 he allocated Judge Mall to my matter, before whom I then proceeded to place an application in which I proved on a balance of possibilities that there was a conspiracy and wherein I was subsequently granted leave to take steps to set up a Commission of Inquiry into the conspiracy. This commission was stifled by members of Masonic related organizations[4] and now exists as an actio popularis commission as described in annexure “C” attached hereto and on .

In line with those oaths and with a deadly accuracy in respect of Stephen Knights summary in annexure ”A”, this action which I have before this honourable court at this time was subjected to a stifling campaign that has involved no less than six supreme court cases backed by some 10 litigants, 9 of whom were Freemasons or had strong links with that society.


It took me six years of acting for myself (simply because lawyers were being coerced away from me – see annexure “D”) under very difficult circumstance, to overcome each of these six cases by having the orders set aside and rescinded as the case may be, the last of which was finalised in the first half of this year. I could then turn my attention to the original case, which is now set down for trial on the 20th to 21st of November 2000.


Reports regarding this issue were made to the Senate, and the Judicial Services Commission (JSC). Overseas, several Commissions adopted the same stance and the issue has been well aired in the media. These reports eventually convinced the JSC’s (especially the 13 new members appointed in 1998-98) to questioning of Judges about their affiliations to secret societies, especially Masonry.


Nevertheless, I have experience extreme reactions from Judges when just mentioning the Masons in court. A Judge of this division went so far as to call the senate insane in open court whilst another had the integrity to apologise for his behaviour toward me.


In the month leading up to the elections of the Judge President of this division I was subjected to a vicious campaign designed to discredit me in order that the objections against Masonic jurists which I had raised, loose their impetus, as should clearly emerge from annexure “D”[5] attached hereto.


Unethical conduct by officers of court


During the course of the last six years I have been repeatedly subjected to techniques in litigation and conduct in proceedings, which have been considered highly unethical by many authorities, officers of court, jurists, attorneys, advocates, members of Parliament, Senators and other dignitaries. So serious were these developments that a Senator who was also a member of the Judicial Services Commission, the late Senator, Prof Ernst Mchunu went so far as to write to the Minister of Justice, Mr Dulla Omar stating that I had produced irrefutable evidence that goes to the very root of the integrity of the system of justice in Natal.


I attach hereto a copy of a letter under annexure “B” which will serve to illustrate some of the problems I had with just one legal firm and their counsel.


In this respect, I must point out that I have noted Review proceedings against the judgment of Judge Patel as it relates to the incident described in that letter. Judge Patel did not deal with any of the precedent raised. Moreover, having regard to the fact that the judgment was handed down one month to the day before the hearing of this matter, in the final month of the election for the Judge president of this division, a whole year after the hearing from which it arises, and as such, at the height of the campaign related in annexure “D”, one can only assume that he was influenced by the campaign in his judgment. More so because of the fact that it is well known that only well connected advocates get work from the larger firms of insurance underwriters, with mandates to stretch the litigation out and thereby stifle any opposition. The actuarial calculations employed in this are now legend in the industry – hence the need for reform. The select few advocates that do this type of work make between 3 to 5 million a year in fees. No doubt an enormous amount of money is involved in reductions in fees for this type of litigation, should it become outlawed. It stands to reason that these advocates will strenuously lobby support from the Judges (as they often do), either directly or indirectly. In this case, I have proof, which I shall present at the review proceedings, since that application will contain an application that it proceed by way of trial, given the fact that I will need to present evidence provided viva voca by officers of court, in camera, in order to protect their interests.


Furthermore, it is well known among lawyers that I have been very involved in the movement to reform the system of justice in that respect, in that I have had contact with several organizations such as the Danish Transitional Council in South Africa and others listed in the footnote on the first page. It is also known that I head up the Justice 2000 initiative of SADC Development Fund Trust, the details of which appears on the Web Page .


Reports are with the Judicial Services Commission relating how Judges have refused me the record of proceedings and one even caused the record to be destroyed. I have been subjected to contradictory rulings and gross irregularities and even grossly defamatory statements made by Judges in their judgments. In one case 204 pages of evidence was removed by my opposing attorneys from a court file in an application for my sequestration (which was eventually set aside). In that application it turned out that the presiding Judge, Judge P C Combrinck was actually on a sub committee of a yacht club making up the mooring organisation, which was one of the parties before court in one the cases used in the conspiracy related to Judge Mall. Judge Combrinck was taken on review, but since the sequestration was set aside under section 54(5) of the Insolvency act,  it is no longer necessary for me to peruse that avenue.


Judge Hurt shared chambers with adv. John Pammenter and handed down a Judgement in Case A175/93 in which Pammenter acted against me and which judgment was severely criticised by various prominent authorities in South Africa. This judgment has all the earmarks of a judgment wherein the Judge went out of his way to look for every technical reasons to justify a particular outcome. It also contained statements which I consider grossly defamatory. My rights against him in respect of defamation are reserved and I intend to bring him to book for his statements, once I have finished with the current case.


Judge Squires acted as if papers were missing off my court file in a matter wherein John Pammenter was the counsel when he realised that Pammenter was not in court. He sent me off to the Registrar to find the supposedly missing papers and to return after the tea break. After the tea break Pammenter arrived in court apologising for being late and stating that he was only just then briefed to appear. The papers had in the mean time miraculously appeared on the court file. This incident forms part of a report to the Judicial Services Commission.


Judge Mc Larren, refused to let me have the record of proceedings which lasted four days and in which he contradicted himself in his rulings on no less than 3 occasions. The proceedings for review against his judgment are still held up due to the fact that I still cannot get hold of the record of proceedings. It has all along been my intention to also seek leave to sue him for the grossly unfounded, false and defamatory statements he made in his judgment. Adv. Pammenter was also involved in this case. Incidentally adv John Pammenter is a prominent Mason who also became the chairman for the society of advocates in Durban.


Acting Judge Puckrin of the TPD actually caused the record of proceedings to be destroyed in a matter wherein I intervened to place evidence before court that NI had infiltrated the St. John’s Apostolic Faith Mission church. Puckrin JA was also a Freemason.


Rhetoric is strenuously propagated that I am satisfied with no Judge that rules against me. This is not so, as I have appeared before many Judges in seven years as may well be appreciated. Over the last seven years I have appeared in court all over South Africa, as I needed to intervene in the public interest in terms of section 38 of Act 108/96. Some of those Judges and magistrates ruled against me and some ruled for me. In some cases, I was openly complemented by Judges for my actions, in one case, even when I lost the application[6]. These Judges are not all mentioned in this because they behaved as Judges should and deserve the respect that such Judges deserve. Just because I do my duty[7] in exposing corruption, misbehaviour and such actions as would bring the system into disrepute, does not deserve the factious comments that make up the rhetoric I referred to earlier.




Accordingly, I hereby respectfully request that your lordship:-


1.      will be pleased to make every endeavour to ensure that the Judge allocated this case is not a Freemason, or one that controls, or sympathises with Freemasonry, or one that is a member of any other secret society. A list of related organizations appears at the foot of annexure “A”. A more comprehensive report regarding this issue appears under volume 9 on the file of Case No A175/93.


2.      Will be pleased to allocate this case to a Judge that is not a sympathiser of the  type of formalistic, legalistic and technical proceedings that is now generally becoming outlawed world wide, since it infringes on the right to equitable access to court and fair treatment in the system of justice.


Judges available on 20 – 21 November 2000


I understand that the flowing Judges will be presiding around the 20th to the 21st of November.


Judge Hurt, Judge Pillay, Judge Squires, Judge P C Combrinck., Judge Booysens


In this respect, Judges Hurt, Squires and Combrick are discussed above.


I have never appeared before Judge Pillay and have no idea what his connections may or may not be, neither do I have any inkling as to whether he subscribes to the type of formalism that is now being outlawed world wide.


Judge Booysens is well known as having been a member of the Afrikaner Broederbond. Many members of the Broederbond were also members of the Freemasons in latter years. I have no idea where his sympathies lie either.


I am sure your lordship will appreciate why I wish to bring my matters before this division to finality more than anything else. It has been a very long and difficult 7 years fraught with frustration and deep disappointment in some respects as well as the relief of finally having overcome all the cases against me. Should the campaign against me related in annexure “D” have developed to the point where I am considered by every jurist in this division in negative terms, then I am clearly on partisan territory because then these jurists are saying the they alone are right in my character assessment and the rest of the world (see list under annexure ”D”) are all wrong, and this just cannot be. In that case, I must apply to have this matter heard elsewhere. However, I would dearly want to avoid all that your lordship. I sincerely pray, sir, that with the advent of your appointment, the strongholds that have beset this division can be broken and that steps can be taken to remove the stain that those strongholds have left in this division’s record of conduct. I pray too sir, that bold steps are taken to embrace the moves to reform the system to a more accessible and fair system. I pray that my matters will now reach finality.


As your lordship will note, this letter has been copied to my opponents.


Yours faithfully,




Izak Labuschagne

















annexure “A”




The Fellowcraft Freemason[8] swears at his “raising” to Master Mason Status:


"I will obey all regular signs, summonses, or tokens, given, handed, sent, or thrown to me from the hand of a brother Master Mason" [9]


"a Master Mason's secrets, given to me in charge as such, and I knowing them to be such, shall remain as secure and invioble in my breast as in his own, when communicated to me, murder and treason excepted, and they left to my own election."


In the Royal Arch Degree[10] the candidate swears that


"I furthermore Promise and Swear that I will keep all secrets of a companion Royal Arch Mason when communicated to me as such, or I knowing them to be such, without exceptions. I will aid and assist a companion Royal Arch Mason when engaged in any difficulty; and espouse his cause so far as to extricate him from same, if in my power, whether he be  right or wrong"                               


In the current handbooks for Freemasons[11]  the oaths are even more explicit in that the Master Mason is tasked to:


'travel through dangers and difficulties to unite with his in forming a column of mutual defense and support.' and 'I solemnly swear to observe without evasion, equivocation, or  mental reservation of any kind under no less a penalty that of having my body severed in twain, my bowels taken from thence and burned to ashes, the ashes scattered to the four winds of heaven, so that no more trace or remembrance may be had of so vile and perjured a wretch as I, should I ever knowingly or willingly violate this my solemn obligation as a master mason. So help me God, and keep me steadfast in the due performance of same."            


In the Masonic Handbook page 183 to 184 we read that:


 "Whenever you see the grand hailing sign... be sure not to bring  the  Mason  guilty....if  you cheat  or  wrong  any  other..  the government even, Masonry cannot and will not  touch you... Conceal the crimes of your brother  Masons..  shield  him.  Prevaricate, don't tell the whole truth in this case,  keep his secrets, forget the most important points. It may be perjury to do this, it is true, but you're keeping your obligations, and remember if  you  live  up  to   your obligation strictly, you'll be free from sin"


Masons are sworn to persecute unto death anyone who violates Masonic obligation. In the oath of the THRICE ILLUSTRIOUS OF THE CROSS[12], the candidate swears, as follows,:


"you further swear, that should you know another to violate any essential point of this obligation, you will use your most decided endeavors, by the blessing of God, to bring such person to the strictest and most condign punishment, agreeable to the rules and usages of our ancient fraternity; and this, by the pointing him out to the world as an unworthy vagabond, by opposing his interests, by deranging his business, by transferring his character after him wherever he may go, and by exposing him to the contempt of the whole fraternity and of the world, during his whole natural life."


The late Stephen Knight, a famous British journalist, wrote a book entitled “the Brotherhood” in which he clearly set out the way in which unscrupulous Masons destroy someone’s life. Following a comprehensive information gathering campaign conducted through the formidable Masonic Network we read on page 147 how a Masonic Target is taken out.:-


Solicitors are very good at it, said Christopher. ‘Get your man involved in something legal – it need not be serious – and you have him’. ‘Solicitors’, I was told, are “pastmasters” at causing endless delays, generating useless paperwork, ignoring instructions, running up immense bills, misleading clients into taking decisions damaging to themselves.

    Masonic police can harass, arrest on false charges, and plant evidence. ‘A businessman in a small community or a person in public office arrested for dealing in child pornography, for indecent exposure, or for trafficking in drugs is at the end of the line’ said Christopher , ‘he will never work again. Some people have committed suicide after experiences of that kind’.

   ‘Masons can bring about a situation where credit companies and banks withdraw credit facilities from individual clients and tradesman, said my informant. Banks can foreclose. People who rely on the telephone for their work can be cut off for long periods. Masonic employees of local authorities can arrange for a person’s drains to be inspected and extensive damage reported, thus burdening the person with huge repair bills; workmen carrying out the job can ‘find’ – in reality ‘cause’ – further damage. Again with regard to legal matters, a fair hearing is hard to get when a man in ordinary circumstances is in financial difficulties. If he is trying to fight a group of unprincipled Freemasons skilled in using the “network” it will be impossible because Masonic Department of Health and Social Security and Law Society officials (see pp 189-90) can delay applications for Legal Aid endlessly. ‘Employers, if they are Freemasons or not, can be given private information about a man who has made himself an enemy of Freemasonry. At worst he will be dismissed (if the information is true) or consistently passed over for promotion’….

    ‘Only the fighters have any hope of beating the system once it is at work against them,’ he told me. ‘Most people, fighters or not, are beaten in the end, though. It’s…you see, I …  you finish up not knowing who you can trust. You can get no help because your story sounds so paranoid that you are thought a crank, one of those nuts who thinks the whole world is conspiring against  them. It is a strange phenomenon. By setting up a situation that most people will think a fantasy, these people can poison every part of a person’s life. If they give in they go under. If they don’t give in it’s only putting off the day because if they fight, so much unhappiness will be brought to the people around them that there will likely come a time when even their families turn against them out of desperation. When that happens and they are without friends wherever they look, they become easy meat. The newspapers will not touch them’.

   ‘There is no defense against an evil which only the victims and the perpetrators know exists.’


Related organizations to masons


Scottish, Irish, English, Oriental, African, Dutch, French, esoteric and European constitutions of Freemasonry

Ancient Arabic Nobles of the Mystic Shrine - Islamic Masons – Petro Dollar Sheiks

Order of David - Jewish Masons – Cabalistic Jews Mainly

Knights of Da Gama – Catholic Masons in USA Knights of Columbus

The Order of the Eastern Star – Female Freemasons, also known as the Co-Frees

Order of De Molay – for you Masonic Boys

Job’s daughters / Daughters of the Nile, - for young Masonic Girls

GROTTE MOVPER – Germainic Masonry

Ordo Templi Orientis – Eatsren Esoteric Masonry

The Palladium – Also known as Triangle lodges for aspiring politicians

The Trapezoid – for experienced politicians and statesmen

The 33rd degree council – as above

The Jesuits – founders of Freemasonry under Ignatius De Loyola.

The Round Table / Rhodes club – same routes as above

The Hermetic Order of the Golden dawn

Gnomes of Zurich

The Theosophical Society

The Merovingians

The Bilderbergers

The Illuminati

The Prieure de Sion - / current version of the discredited Learned Elders of Zion

The Knights Templar

The Hospitallers

Cabbalistic organisations

The order of Memphis and Misraim – intimately connected to Freemasonry


Tiil Society

Vril Society

The Satanic Church  - Anton La Vey

The Club of Rome

The Tavistock Institute



These are some of the main ones – the myriad of New Age organisations supportive of the Freemasons are too many to mention.



annexure “B”



I H Labuschagne

Yacht Sweet Waters

A 63 Durban Marina


Tel (088) 127 5589



Mr. J Pammenter

Suite 803, Salmon Grove Chambers



Mr. M Hartwell

Deneys Reitz attorneys

Level 4 The Marine

Gardner Street



Mr. R Askew

Askew Grindlay and Partners

447 Smith Street



Judge Patel

Judges Chambers

High Court of South Africa





1.                    Following the hearing presided over by his lordship Judge Patel on 24 November 1999, I hereby place the following on record:-

2.                    I intend to sue the lawyers that have been involved in the following cases that were brought before the High Court in Durban:-

2.1.                          Case No A 175/93

2.2.                          Case No 5447/96

3.                    To this end I shall be forwarding a Demand in due course that will set out the full basis for such an action and the relief sought.

4.                    Please take notice that other persons that have had complaints about the lawyers in question, will not only be used as witnesses but may also sue simultaneously on the basis of similar complaints.

5.                    Please take notice further that various commissions, foundations and other entities may also become engaged to the ends of ensuring a proper prosecution of the impending claims.

6.                    Please take notice further that I herewith propose to the lawyers involved that we first investigate the possibilities of pursuing resolve to this problem by way of employing Alternative Dispute Resolution procedures in a forum which is independent of the High Court so as to minimize the inherent appearance of bias created by the fact that any adjudicating officer of the High Court has himself risen from the ranks of advocates.

7.                    For now, I shall place certain matters on record. The parties against whom these matters are directed are welcome to respond should they wish to do so:-

7.1.                          Mr. Pammenter was involved in drafting the summons in Case no A 175/93 (the Salvage claim).

7.1.1.                                      On the 14th of August 1997 the fact that the summons comprised an extremely deviceive manipulation of facts to make it appear as a claim upon which arrest in rem against the yacht in question could be founded, was recognized by Judge Mc Larren of this division, who was absolutely outraged by how that matter had got out of control also indicating that the claim appeared vastly inflated.                                                    Having regard to the fact that the claim for salvage (which is no less than a third of the yacht's value), revolves around the ridiculous notion that a privately owned rubber duck could tow a 20 ton yacht off a sandbank, it is not surprising that most experts opinions indicate that it has virtually no chance of succeeding and that a counterclaim for damages based on an excessive claim is sure to succeed.                                                    Now I hear rumours that the plaintiff in that matter claims that he has been terribly misled. Plaintiff is now in a position where he cannot afford counsel any more and has to rely on pro amico representation.

7.2.                          It was Mr. Pammenter who was instrumental in raising the point in limine, which led to the judgment on locus standi that was reported in the above-mentioned case.[13]

7.2.1.                                      This judgment was severely criticized by the legal fraternity, as was the comment by Judge Hurt (Pammenter's senior colleague of earlier years) that it was unscrupulous to form a CC for tax purposes.                                                    It should be clear to anyone that the attempts at frustrating a defense of the claim were laid way back then, as were the attempts to discredit me. These attempts tally 100% with the modus operandi employed by Freemasons conspiring against someone[14], as was exposed in this case and the findings of several commissions here and abroad. These tactics have been meticulously maintained and eventually honed to a razor sharp instrument.[15]

7.3.                          Mr. Pammenter was also instrumental in drafting the plea in the Case no 5447/94. This plea relied on 3 points in limine, one of which was based the fact that my estate was sequestrated in Case No 1883/94.

7.3.1.                                      Case 1883/94 is riddled with irregularities and was subjected to review proceedings[16] based on the fact that the proceedings stemmed out of a Masonic conspiracy, was based on an abuse of the process[17], was vexatious and being conducted through highly unethical and collusive tactics employed by the attorneys[18].

7.4.                          Following the setting aside of the order of sequestration[19] I arrived in court on the 24th of this month ready and keen to argue the two points in lime[20] raised by Mr. Pammenter in Case No 5447/94, such being one on prescription and another on insurable interest.

7.4.1.                                      This is a case against the insurance broker of the vessel concerned in case No A 175/93 who had failed to notify underwriters to extend cover on a policy. Their defense is that I did not mention a charter to Mozambique when I gave them a bank cheque for R 3,600.00, some 10 days prior to the charter, obviously to get the insurance of the vessel in order before going. Each and every lawyer I briefed said that this is a weak defense, especially in the light of the fact that there is a letter of undertaking by the broker to the Port authorities stating that the vessel was insured and that all salvage charges will be covered.

7.4.2.                                      The alleged salvor in Case No A 175/93 was put up to his claim by a friend of the broker, both Freemasons. They then got a Masonic advocate (Pammenter) to do the case. Pammenter has conducted the matter in unmistakably Masonic style since then. Most of the Admiralty firms are Masonic in Durban and the port is affectionately known among Masons as a friendly Masonic port.                                                    This is compounded by the fact that my father left Masonry when he was their leader and subsequently died from a brain tumour which was found 12 years later to have been caused by a piece of radio activated material that was introduced to his telephone's ear piece. Moreover, I was told to join the fraternity or stop chartering the yacht in Durban or face ruin.

7.4.3.                                      To the ends of arguing these points in limine, I had obtained pro deo advice[21], which indicated that the points raised by my opponent held little or no prospect of success. This was reinforced by the fact that Pammenter admitted as much to a colleague.

7.4.4.                                      At first I consented to try and get in forma pauperis representation, as the litigation had destroyed me financially over six long years.                                                    Pammenter quickly positioned himself and found me an advocate[22]. Despite the fact that there were no attorneys on record for me yet, he then had meetings with him and somehow changed the court dates of a consent order I had obtained. I was still trying to find a firm to represent me and was also talking to other prospective advocates to ascertain if they were not involved in the conspiracy. I was given no chance to do this properly and Pammenter barged ahead causing a huge fracas in the process for which they had the audacity to try and shift the blame on me!                                                          In the course of this one attorney was influenced in providing as his reasons why he could not act, the most scurrilous and untrue rendition of my wife's meeting with him regarding an issue which arose in my absence. This was clearly done to discredit her before she could give testimony in the matter. Testimony which would quite obviously have easily defeated the points raised. 

7.4.5.                                      The attempts at obtaining in forma pauperis representation were ruthlessly foiled by the attorneys closing ranks, bullying any potential legal representative away and by spreading vicious rumours about me to discredit me generally with the fraternity so that any approaches I would make would be rejected. Some attorneys were even threatened by referring to complaints about them that were made to the law society

7.4.6.                                      I went so far as to put the cases out on contingency. Several firms took it and all agreed that I have excellent prospects of success and a very good claim for damages.                                                    However they pulled out because of the damage the handling of this case could do to their firm. The reasons they proffered however, were not that to the point but entailed lame unconvincing reasons. Their file notes relating off the record conversations tell a different story. And these are the really nice lawyers around! The level of coercion amongst lawyers in Durban is evidently unduly high.                                                    Some of these firms represented me to just before trial and then pulled out leaving me high and dry. One advocate jacked up his fees by 125% just before trial.

7.5.                          In the light of the information in paragraph 7.4.3 I was somewhat surprised to hear my opponent's client making a call from the courtroom in which he loudly bragged to the recipient of the call that his counsel told him that he was guaranteed success.

7.6.                          On the evening before I was to argue the two points in limine I was served a bundle of papers which had more to do with the merits outside these points in limine than the points themselves. Moreover the documentation supplied seemed to indicate that there was a tactic afoot to try and discredit me before I could give testimony and to thereby avoid dealing with the points at issue.

7.6.1.                                      On the 24th I asked the opposing attorney why this was so and was assured that these were included to show that there were prior dealings only.

7.6.2.                                      Nevertheless, when Pammenter rose to argue the points he embarked on a grossly factious[23], scurrilous and defamatory assault against my character, instead of dealing with the points in question.

7.6.3.                                      Moreover the judge having asked them to get the papers in order, the index to the papers was secretly done and I was never served a copy, which meant that I had no idea which pages they were referring to.

7.6.4.                                      In the course of this he said that he had heard I wanted to sue him[24] and that I should say whether I wanted to do so before or after this matter is heard.

7.6.5.                                      It was then that it became clear to me that he was resorting to this base tactic because he knew that he had no defense to the short heads of arguments I had raised against his points in limine.[25]

7.6.6.                                      I also realised that he was using this tactic to engineer a situation where the matter will again need to be postponed, raising the costs even higher and wearing me out some more in the hope that I will abandon the claim[26].

7.6.7.                                      I realized that all he could do was to revert to the despicable tactic of trying to influence the judge against me before I could even lead any evidence or give testimony.

7.6.8.                                      More importantly I also realized that more serious damage in that respect was done[27] and the only way to counter the tactic he used was to have a proper inquiry into the allegations. Such an inquiry would almost certainly take up all the time allocated to the points in limine and in any event would be more properly arrived at in action proceedings against him so that I could cross examine him and call other witnesses and proffer the evidence underlying this despicable scenario he had spawned.

7.6.9.                                      Pammenter then had the audacity to ask for costs.                                                    I told the judge that I shall prove in such an action that the wastage of time occasioned by his conduct and indeed his conduct throughout the proceedings were all due to his choice of tactics in litigation, which I averred was not only highly unethical but gave rise to an action for damages and other relief.                                                    Moreover, I pointed out that the tactic he was engaging in constituted a wastage of time in any event                                                    I asked the judge to defer or stay any order of costs until after such an action was properly dispensed with.                                                    What I did not think of to raise was the fact that it was his decision that he leave the arena and not mine.

7.7.                          All of the above stemmed from an application I had launched in the salvage, wherein I had asked for an order that I be joined to the proceedings on the basis that I, as the person to whom the CC that owns the vessel (my wife is the sole member) owes the purchase price of the vessel and since I was under a contractual commitment to insure the vessel for the CC. We live on board and the charters conducted on the yacht serves as our only source of income.

7.7.1.                                      In the salvage case Pammenter had drafted proceedings whereby the yacht was the defendant, and whereby it was immediately arrested in rem.  The mooring, which could have been arrested, was left out of the picture and so was the CC that owned it. The vessel was also confined to moorings under the arrest, which meant that we could earn no income, could not afford counsel to represent the vessel or the CC and therefore the judgement obtained in paragraph 7.2.1effectively left the case undefended through a technicality. 

7.8.                          In the application for my joinder I had also asked that the case against the insurance broker (Case 5447/96) be joined / consolidated to the salvage case (case A175/93) because he had failed to properly renew a policy of insurance in terms of which the a claim for salvage was indemnified by the policy.

7.8.1.                                      Pammenter then wanted the points in limine in Case No 5447/96 dispensed with before proceeding with joinder consolidation, knowing full well that, consolidation was inevitable.

7.9.                          In 1997 however I also tried to effect consolidation, except at this time I issued a Third Party Notice.

7.9.1.                                      Pammenter took the technical point that it was issued after pleadings had closed and that I should have obtained condonation to do so first. Secondly he claimed that I had no locus standi to do so on behalf the yacht or as an interested party[28] since such interested party had to do so before the close of plead. At that time, I had no idea then that pleadings did not include interlocutory procedure such as an application for security for costs.

7.9.2.                                      The judge was easily drawn into the technical nature of the argument completely overlooking the fact that a court has the discretion to mero motu order joinder or consolidation if it appears to it that this should be so. That same judge eventually contradicted two of his rulings in an application following straight after that, when he tried to move to trial in the salvage matter with no one defending it before court. Moreover, when I took him on Appeal and Review he refused to supply the record of proceedings at state expense since I could not afford to purchase it from the transcribers.[29]

7.10.                      Pammenter's ridiculously technical defenses in the latest joinder application included a plea that I first pay the outstanding costs in the Third Party application (he dropped this when he realised that I would just relish to have such a gross infringement of the right to access banned.

7.11.                      Pammenter also pleaded issue estoppel and that the existence of Case 5447/96 was lis the application for joinder / consolidation and he would have to fight on two fronts - obviously ridiculous, as the whole doctrine of consolidation is to remedy that very objection.

7.12.                      Pammenter also drafted the reply and heads of argument on behalf of the Sheriff who had resolutely refused to maintain the vessel in his custody despite two judgments[30] that clearly explain his duty to him. Pammenter relied on an extremely suspicious precedent[31] from the Cape that seemed to completely contradict the binding precedent in existence.

7.13.                      Moreover, he did not hesitate to threaten that the vessel will be sold to refund the sheriff his maintenance costs if the should the plaintiff be unable to pay.[32] The whole point was that the sheriff has the right to ask that the matter be struck if the plaintiff does not put up security for maintenance as well. But they are all in cahoots, so on the day the plaintiff's (in the salvage case) counsel loudly proclaimed that he was acting pro amico.

7.13.1.                                  The yacht is now in a grossly un-maintained state and in need of very expensive remedial maintenance after six years of being confined to moorings. The Sheriff's affidavit stated that he could see no need for maintenance of the vessel. So ludicrous is that statement that the entire yachting fraternity laughed him to scorn.

8.                   Having regard to the Wolf Report, the various articles in the advocates fraternity's Consultus Magazines, the vast volume of complaints made to the press, and various other commissions and entities here in South Africa, the prevailing volume of precedent, the fact that several foundations are involved in trying to remedy the problems arising out of the use of similar tactics, the time has now fully come to remedy the problem once and for all.

8.1.                          The problem is that the public has for too long allowed lawyers to unnecessarily complicate and protract proceedings, in so doing running up immense costs. Lawyers have been allowed to engage in a frenzy of technicalities, imputing notions which never were in the contemplation of their clients and which are foreign and unintelligible to them, all at the cost of their clients, in the process producing purely academic judgments that serve no purpose whatsoever in resolving the real issues the litigants wanted judicial resolve on.

8.2.                          Many cases are thrown out on procedural points leaving the merits that gave actual rise to the dispute unresolved. On page 241 of the standard handbook for advocates, Eric Morris's Technique in Litigation he quotes the famous Judge Heimstra in a reported judgment[33] on a case between two insurance companies wherein he said:-

I am not prepared to allow the rules of procedure to tyrannize the court where an important issue needs has to be thrashed out fully and all the facts have to be put before the court.  

8.3.                          On page 10 Morris unequivocally states:-

Errors of a technical nature, however, are on a substantially different basis, and you should hesitate to gain an unconscionable advantage.

8.4.                          It is not surprising therefore that Alternative Dispute Resolution is fast becoming the global trend.[34]

9.                    This is perhaps the best example of a case that is being protracted by completely inappropriate and unethical tactics, not only to chase up the costs, but to destroy someone through litigation because of some strange religious beliefs that were born in the oaths of the Masonic fraternity.[35] This is a pure manifestation of discrimination powered by legalistic mania spawned by religious fanaticism. It also smacks of the crime of extortion.

9.1.                          The above is but the briefest of outline of what is actually involved. The sordid backroom tactics have not been explored or exposed, as that evidence obviously should only surface in the right time and in the right way.

10.                I am fed up with lawyers avoiding the issues and sidetracking the system with technicalities. So is everyone else!

10.1.                      So was Jesus Christ when he accused them of

straining at gnats and swallowing camels.

10.2.                      He also said that they are

forever studying law and never coming to an understanding of the truth.

10.3.                      His words have survived 2000 years and today there are several foundations around the world assisting judiciaries to transform in order to remedy the problem Christ complained about,  - problems that have caused my ruin.

11.                Way back in the 1800's  Vergillius,s famous Protocols stated:-

The practice of advocacy produces men cold, cruel, persistent, unprincipled, who in all cases take up an impersonal, purely legal standpoint. Their inveterate habit is to refer everything to the defensive value of it's properties and not to the public welfare of its results. They do not usually decline to undertake any defense whatsoever, they strive for acquittal at all costs, caviling over every petty crux of jurisprudence and thereby they demoralize justice.

12.                So serious are the findings of the Wolf Report and so endemic is the complaint that the Chairman for the General Counsel of the Bar in South Africa (Malcolm Wallis SC) found it necessary to quote David Pannick QC in the Consultus magazine of 2 November 1996 as follows:-

The professional function of the advocates is essentially one of supreme, even sublime, indifference to much of what happens in real life. He must advance one point of view, irrespective of its inadequacies. He must belittle other interests, whatever their merits. Politely though the task is performed, many barristers spend much of their working day accusing respectable members of the community of being liars. It is not for counsel appearing in court to express equivocation, to recognize ambiguity or to doubt instructions. His client is right and his opponent is wrong. The wider consequences can be left to the judge or the jury to consider.

13.                Wallis SC says further:-

Around the world, wherever one goes the cost and delays of civil litigation have become a byword. The accusation of indifference extends not only to our view of the real world but more specifically to the question of cost and delay.

14.                On page 110 of the same issue Hans Fabricius SC says:

In England the exploitation of rules is endemic in the system; the complexity of civil procedure itself enables the financially stronger or more experienced party to spin out proceedings and escalate costs by litigating on technical procedural points or peripheral issues, instead of focussing on the real substance of the case. All too often such tactics are used to intimidate the weaker party and produce a resolution of a case which is either unfair or achieved at a grossly disproportional cost or after unreasonable delay.

14.1.1.                                  Pammenter was wanting to erroneously rely on English case law dating back to 1925 when binding South Africa precedent set in 1985[36] clearly established Roman Dutch law as the norm and condemned (in Afrikaans)

The unfair results of relying on technical replication that was raised on behalf of totally non-suspecting parties. (Translated and abbreviated)

15.                Professor Lawrens Du Plesis in his handbook on law that forms part of every law student's library repeatedly condemns a technical approach and he also said that it serves merely as an obstacle and destroys confidence in the system. Lewis in his book Legal Ethics goes so far as to condemn it as unethical.[37] In fact, a study of the last mentioned work next to what has occurred in this matter will produce such a voluminous condemnation[38] backed by so much reference to existing precedent that it would take as many pages as make up this letter. That, I shall reserve for the trial or at the forum for ADR. 

16.             The parties in these matters are being ruthlessly ripped off by the legal fraternity. Some have clearly begun to realize this now. Others are seriously considering using Alternative Dispute Resolution[39]. What we have here is a serious manifestation of extortion[40] and that is a crime that must be stopped Stopping a crime upon which the legal fraternity is more prevalently beginning to rely on for income, may prove difficult.

16.1.                  However, when these tactics spill over into the crimes of defamation, falsity, conspiracy, oppression and stifling of facts they have gone far too far and must be stopped!

16.2.                      In the cases related above Pammenter has quite obviously and blatantly built his career upon a grossly false doctrine. However, that doctrine destroyed all I had, leaving my wife and I in abject poverty with the added hell of six years of litigation chronically diseased with the tactics condemned above. The quantum of damages done to foregone income etc. come to R 2,500,000.00.

17.             The fact that international foundations are involved in this drive gives me courage. It should encourage everyone else who has been the victim of oppression and exploitation by the vultures that pollute our[41] legal corridors. Vultures which destroy the credibility of good lawyers, but more importantly, subdues them into condonation and conformity. The rest of the country has also had enough of this disease that has besotted the legal fraternity. The Commissions and foundations involved are sickened by it.

18.                I tried to caution the lawyers concerned, but they just interpreted this as arrogance. Now they will be sued, en masse, ab classe.  Perhaps it is long overdue -"Ordo Ab Chao"  - God still stands behind the righteous. It seems several foundations, commissions, pressure groups and a vast mass of people also do.  All of these would like to see a new order in this sphere. But before that we need to stop the crimes committed by the very people that should amicus curiae be exposing crime.



Yours faithfully,





I H Labuschagne





















annexure “C”







a.     This Commission was condoned by His Lordship Justice Mall of the Durban and Coast Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa (the Truth and Reconciliation Commission) on the 24th day of May 1995 as per pages 11 at 20-30, 12 at 5 and 14 of the transcript of case No A 175/93).


b.     The Commission manifests as an Actio Popularis Commission.


c.     It operates under Sections 8(1) 9, 15, 18, 32, 33, 34, 38, 198, 231 (5), 232, 233, and Schedule 6 (22)  of Constitution of the Republic of South Africa and as such is independent of any organ of state).


d.     It’s Terms of Reference covers inter alia any other related matters into the topic of it’s description.


e.     This Commission does not fall under the Commission's Statute, and is therefore appropriately able to independently and without encumbrances to investigate organs of state in line with the official state doctrine of Openness and Transparency.


f.      None of it’s investigating officers are Officers of Court in order that it may similarly appropriately investigate the activities of Officers of Court (i.e. attorneys, Advocates , Public Prosecutors, Magistrates and Judges.


g.     This Commission has, at this stage, no quasi judicial powers of itself, but it may provide evidence to any other personam, instance or agency, in any litigation before the Courts or any other recognised forum, or to bodies fulfilling similar roles such as the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.


h.     This Commission or any of it’s members, agents  and employees may  litigate in personam, or under section 38 of the Constitution, or on any other legal grounds as are disposable to any person at law in any tribunal or forum as provided for under Section 34 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, having regard to such international instruments as the Helsinki Accord in line with the provisions encapsulated in sections 321, 232 and 39 of the Constitution .


i.      This Commission has found it necessary (due to a host of death threats against it’s investigating officers) that the findings of this Commission be published on the Internet from time to time in order to secure the safety of the investigating officers. Access to the web sight concerned is secured under the auspices of International Agencies engaged in similar investigations and are therefore not as yet accessible to the public at large.


j.      Members of the public are invited to supply any information that may assist this Commission in it’s investigations.


k.     This commission is assisted by local and International Agencies involved in similar work.


l.      This Commission   is not state funded but independently funded from the populous at large.


Address P O Box 3966, Suite 605 Office 11, Sanlam Building  331 West Street, Durban, 4000

Tel/fax (031) 3071434 E-mail Web Page

Annexure  ‘D’ 






To make disclosure of evidence, information, apologies, and restitution.


Any person who, or organization which, has any knowledge or, that can shed any light on, or that has been involved in, or part of any of the allegations set out in the complaint detailed below, is hereby notified that;- (a) disclosures of evidence, information, apologies and offers of restitution may be made via the contact details set out at the foot hereof within the next 21 days; (b) failing which civil and criminal proceedings may be instituted against any person failing to do so, which proceedings may result in the issuing of subpoenas and any such processes and/or other remedies as are at the disposal of the aggrieved persons and organizations listed below and; (c) where appropriate, action will be taken against any and all persons who may have obstructed or may be considered as at any time obstructing the process of justice, either by the withholding evidence and information or by the frustration of the process set in motion by this notice or in the High Court of South Africa, in any way.




Evidence has become available that details a campaign driven by defamatory, libelous, injurious and damaging statements made by persons and/or organizations, in particular certain members of the legal fraternity in Durban, against the person and/or position of Mr. IZAK LABUSCHAGNE who acts as;- (a) the CEO of the actio popularis* Commission of Inquiry into Administrative Irregularities in the Judicial System and Activities by Members of Secret Societies in terms of Section 38 Act 200/1993, (b) CEO for the SADC Development Fund Trust (SADC DFT) (No. IT 996/00); (c) CEO for John’s Walk Cross Border Project (JWCBP); (d) member of the International Financial Planning Association (31-3-88) and; (c) Dealers Representative registered under the New South Whales (Australia) Securities Industry Code (License No. S.I. 25015, 1988). The campaign seems to be centered on denuding Mr. Labuschagne and/or the Commission of any legal assistance required for the exposure of irregularities in the legal system and also to prevent him from obtaining damages against litigants comprising members of the legal profession and/or members of certain secret societies (which society has published it’s intentions to discredit anyone that exposes their modus operandi). Legal firms and practitioners have been told that any association with Mr. Labuschagne or the activities of the commission will result in sever monetary losses being sustained by persons assisting the investigative and or legal processes engaged by Mr. Labuschagne. International Donor agencies may have been discouraged from assisting the initiatives of SADC DFT and JWCBP.




This notice is made in the national interest, the public interest and the interest of justice in that order:- When the behaviour of members of the legal fraternity results in this type of reaction when they are subjected to scrutinization by the public, then it sends a message to the world of international investors that would not be in the interest of orderly economic growth in South Africa.


References and Contact details


A list of the many prominent persons, officials and dignitaries that have in the past and those that will in future attest to the impeccable character and integrity of Mr. Labuschagne is available for inspection.


Postal address:                  P O Box 3966, Durban, 4000

Tel/fax                                    (031) 3071434

E-mail;                          ;

NB :-               

The Notices of the abovementioned Commission and the activities of the abovementioned organizations appears on the Internet at and * Details of the publicized intent of the secret society appears at






List of attesters

Religious leaders




Dr. Rev Archbishop Bishop Sopbopha (St John’s Apostolic Faith Mission Church of Southern Africa)




Dr. Rev. Jack Stagman (Ex  ACDP NEC member and co-founder of the party, present President and founder SADC DFT, FAI, USA-RSA Heritage Foundation, CEO Coalition Project Holdings)




Archbishop Dennis Maherry (St John’s Apostolic Faith Mission Church of Southern Africa)

Bishop Tjitjombo (St John’s Apostolic Faith Mission Church of Southern Africa Namibia)

Bishop Sono (St John’s Apostolic Faith Mission Church of Southern Africa)

Bishop Govuzela  (St John’s Apostolic Faith Mission Church of Southern Africa)

Dr. Rev Robbie Cairncross (Trustee SADC DFT, FAI)

Rev. Abel David (Trustee SADC DFT, FAI)

Rev. John Moses (Trustee SADC DFT FAI)

Rev. Chin Reddy, (NEC member ACDP)

Rev. Tinus Botha, (ex NEC member ACDP) and President  of a new political pressure group in Gauteng

Pastor Johannes Ncube (Trustee SADC DFT, FAI)

Pastor Dennis Pillay (Newhaven Assemblies of churches, Durban)

Pastor Pierre Du Plessis (Roodepoort JHB)

Pastor Ferdie   (Amanzimtoti)

Mr. Ashley Robinson (Trustee ACDP)

Mr. Anton Muller ACDP

Mr. Erwin Schroeder Christians For Truth






Mr. Craig Williams ( Director:- Mildon and Company; Charter Bridge Australia)

Mr. Eastcorp Investment Management Pty Ltd)

President of the International Financial Planners Association Australia (31-3-88)

Accredited Investment Advisor for Bank of New Zealand Cashlink 14/6 1988

Certified Investment Planner with Bondmark Investment Services Pty Ltd. Under Australian Investment Planners Association 

Mr. David Mc Cleod (Executive Associate Mildon and Company)

Mr. Phil Scanlan Amatil Ltd. Australia

Mr. Tim Clucas Channel Seven Television, Australia, Producer Beyond 2000

Mr. Niel Mayger (Alpenhorn Lodge Australia)

Mr. John Berry (Persiher Valley Hotel Australia)




Mr. Davie Jacobs Haven Marine Yacht Chandlers

Mr. Thys Le Roux Betel Publishers

Mr. Erick Hatting Sanlam Insurance

Mr. Isaac Potgieter Assegai Tourist office

Mr. Chris Bester Sita Sive Garage Nhlangano

Mr. Gareth Bouden Bouden group of trusts

Mr. Andrew Shulze Rich Group Marketing

Mz. Meme Glover

Mr. Jeff Sanwith Tuneserve BMW

Mr. Tim Munsen

Mr. Charles Dargie

Mr. Mike Randall Randall Plumbers

Mr. Phil Joubert Nolangeni Safaris

Dr. Rama Naidu DDP

Mssrs. Piet, Hendrik, Jan and Bennie Cloete Dirs. Bergkamp Boerdery Goodhouse





Countess Violetta De Frey Tangl (Bulgaria)


Government officials




The honorable late Senator Prof Ernst Mchunu (letter to Minister of Justice dated 7 November 1994)

The Hon. Members of Parliament  ACDP

Col. Nel OC 1 Military Area SWA

Cmdt. Blignaut 1 Mil. Area SWA




Retired Regional Secretary of Southern Swaziland and Ambassador to the USA  Mr. Peter Mtetwa

The Hon. Ex Member of Parliament of Southern Swaziland Mr Antoon Roberst

The hon. Member of Parliament Mr. Jackson Msweli Mdluli

The Regional Secretary Mr. Sipho Shongwe


Legal profession


The many attorneys lawyers, advocates, authorities, legal consultants and government officials and judges that can attest will be presented in camera if they appear as witnesses or if their character references are in written form, these too will only be disclosed in camera. The reasons for this should be clear from the notice that these attestations relate to.






















Rule 376(e) – the question of transference of the matter to another court  1

Secret Societies and organizations Freemasonry. 2

Unethical conduct by officers of court. 3

Requests. 5

Judges available on 20 – 21 November 2000. 5

annexure “A”. 7


Related organizations to masons. 9

annexure “B”. 10

annexure “C”. 23


Annexure  ‘D’ 24



Context. 24

References and Contact details. 24

List of attesters. 25

Religious leaders. 25

Business. 25

Others. 26

Government officials. 26

Legal profession.. 26



[1] See address of Chief Justice Ogilvie at the centenary celebrations of the Northern Cape Division of the Supreme Court wherein he stated that that Judges must avoid creating an impression that may be construed as evidence of some sort of prejudice, however unintentional that may be. See also the UN - Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary; as adopted by the Seventh United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders, held at Milan from 26 August to 6 September 1985 and endorsed by General Assembly resolutions 40/32 of 29 November 1985 and 40/146 of 13 December  1985

[2] Per Innes J in Blower v Van Noorden, 1909 TS 890 at 9p905

[3] Wolf Commission (UK) Danish Transitional Council (RSA), Irish department of Justice and legal reform.  The Century Foundations International task force “Making Justice Work”; The Law Commission of England and Whales, Australian law reform Commission to name but a few.

[4] Minister Dulla Omar was a member of the ANNMS, Chief Justice Corbett  was a member of the Order of David. Shortly after Senator Mchunu’s death these two, as the leading members of the JSC quickly stifled any investigation by the JSC into the issue.

[5] See also UN - Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers as adopted by the Eighth United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders, Havana, Cuba, 27 August to 7 September 1990.


[6] Judge Golstein, WLD in Labuschagne v SABC 1996

[7] SALJ May 1994 page 268 centre per R Goldstone; Froneman J in Matiso v Commanding Officer, Port Elizabeth Prison and another 1994 SA (4) SA 592 (SECLD) 594 at F; Corbett CJ in Argus Printing & Publishing v Esselen’s Estate 1994 (2) 1 (A) at 25 -8

[8] 2nd degree, the first being “the Entered Apprentice” the third being the Master Mason. Most Masons take the first 3 degrees (called “the Blue Lodge)

[9] quoted from ”'Freemasonry" By Rev C. Finney page 44

[10] Side degree to Master (18th) possessed by Most senior Masons ibid.  Finney Page 142 to 145

[11]'The Scottish  Workings of Craft Masonry" 1982 edition and 'The Complete Workings of and Craft Freemasonry' published by A Lewis (Masonic Publishers) Ltd., Surrey, Available through 'Masonic Suppliers' in Durban

[12] "Light on" eighth edition, page 199: as quoted in "The Character, and Practical Workings of Freemasonry” by Rev. C.G. Finney pages 102, 103 and 106


[13] Hallowes v Sweet Waters 1994

[14] One day when I appeared before court and there was no appearance for the plaintiff the judge stood the matter down to after tea. Pammenter came in after tea stating that he was not ready because he had just been briefed. My opponents were obviously told to get there. When a layman does not appear in a mater default judgment is just entered against him - he is not called and told to get there!

[15] Attorneys Askew Grindlay, exploited this ruling by repeatedly trying to set the matter down for trial without there being representation. All the time all attempts for me to defend the vessel were continuously frustrated by the narrow application of some rule or technicality.

[16] 206 pages of the index were removed from the court file.

[17] Was based on a judgment suspended by an application for rescission. They tried to prove on a blank power of attorney. A counterclaim exceeded the claim in convention by far and even this was stifled.

[18] Index was tampered with. First meeting of creditors was subjected to Review proceedings. The bank manager and my attorney were both Freemasons and colluding. One attorney was disbarred.

[19] The majority in value and number of creditors voted that no trustee be appointed and the sequestration be set aside.

[20] I had two witnesses, one being an attorney that would give indisputable evidence that would defeat both points in limine, in addition to which the technical arguments raised by Pammenter were clearly contradicted by the latest binding authority and precedent. 

[21] Pro deo advice can be obtained easily but representation is something completely different as this exposes the lawyer to severe coercion by his peers.

[22] Here we have the situation where my opponent arranges his own opponent. And they want me to believe this is normal?

[23] From the word faction connoting spurious, false or male fide motives

[24] I had told an attorney that if Pammenter persists with his tactics he may end up being sued.

[25] The testimony stood to show beyond any doubt that the action was commenced before prescription and that there obviously was an insurable interest.

[26] Particularly because I had told him myself that I was dead tired from six years of constant litigation and that I now wanted an end to it.

[27] Pammenter exploited the fact that his comments would in all probability be taken more seriously than the replication of a layman who was being subjected to a slandering campaign by other lawyers, particularly because he was a prominent member of the bar and the adjudicating officer having been a fellow advocate previously.

[28] Rule 8(2) Admiralty Jurisdiction Rules

[29] Case No 1111/99 is an application for the record of proceedings. I never thought such a thing would ever be even necessary

[30] Judgments of King J CLD and Thirion J in Avalon…. DCLD.

[31] Donen AJ CLD in an obviously heavily flawed and unsupported application erroneously argued. Pammenter even admitted to me that precedent for the application I had before court had not yet been set.

[32] This only relates to when the plaintiff wins and not in this type of situation at all.

[33] Registrar of Insurance v Johannesburg Insurance Co LTD 1962 (4) 546 (W) at 547

[34] See Confidence Magazine November 1999 page 27, Consultus November 1996 page 124 AFSA; November 1997 page 112;

[35] The Masonic oaths and their handbook goes so far as to bind Masons to commit perjury and produce unfair judgments in order to protect one another.

[36] Steyn v Onderlinge Assuransie Associasie 1985 (4) 10 at E - J

[37] Page 136-137

[38] Page 12 “Overeaching”, Page 80 - 89 “Negligence”, page 103-104 para 27 and 30, page 106 page 33, page 112 para 4, page 113 para 5, page 114 para 6 & 9, page 115 para 10, page 116 para 13, page 117, page 128 para 4, page 129 para 6, page 132 para 13, page 133 para 15 and 16, page 134 para 18, page 135 para 21, page 136 para 32 & 24, page 137 para 25, page 141 para 36, page 215 para 14,  page 226 para 2-4, page 231 para 13, page 234-235 , page 254 para 6page 16,  Page 299 para 18,

[39] AFSA is an option but better still, are the relevant controlling bodies related directly to the industries in question.

[40] Lawyers of this bent are saying to their clients; - "you need my protection in this alley because it is very tricky and dangerous here" and then they enhance the danger themselves, charging an even greater fee for their protection.

[41] Consider that we pay for these corridors, they do not belong to the lawyers, they are there for the public to get adjudication on the public's disputes - not disputes concocted and fueled on by lawyers.