Stainbank: Submission to Constitutional Court 13/07/2015

Details
Parent Category: Articles and papers
Category: Stainbank: Apartheid Museum
  • IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
  • (REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA)
    • CASE NO: 65/2015
    • SCA CASE NO.: 20758/14
  • GLD, JHB CASE NO.’s: 31005/2007
    • & 31054/2011
  • In the matter between:
  • ARNOLD MICHAEL STAINBANK APPLICANT
  • and
  • THE SOUTH AFRICAN APARTHEID MUSEUM AT
  • FREEDOM PARK FIRST RESPONDENT
  • AKANI EGOLI (PTY) t/a GOLD REEF CITY CASINO SECOND RESPONDENT
  • GOLD REEF RESORTS LTD THIRD RESPONDENT
  • COMPANIES INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY COMMISSION
  • (REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES) FOURTH RESPONDENT
  • APPLICATION TO ADDUCE NEW EVIDENCE
  • SUPPLEMENTARY AFFIDAVIT
  • I, the undersigned
  • ARNOLD MICHAEL STAINBANK
  • do hereby make oath and state:
  • I am the Applicant in this application.I presently reside in Rivonia in the Province of Gauteng. Save where otherwise expressly stated, the facts deposed to in this affidavit are all within my personal knowledge and belief, and are to the best of my knowledge and belief both true and correct.
  • Our Reply Affidavit, the last of the three permitted affidavits, concerning our Application for Leave to Appeal the judgment of Keightley AJ, (SCA Case Number: 379/2015) was filed on 30 June 2015. This is one of the cases mentioned that will be affected by the outcome of this Case No. CC65/2015. A matter of material importance, especially, but not exclusively, related to the fraud as alleged in our founding affidavit, arises in the development and answer to that application for leave to appeal to the SCA.
  • In the said case, currently before the SCA, it is I and my two companies who are the applicants: The Apartheid Museum (Pty) Ltd Registration Number: 2009/007114/07 and The Apartheid Museum Foundation,Registration No. 2009/00703/08. I am responsible for both companies, which were registered in terms of the provisions of the Companies Act of 1973. In 2009, I was the owner of the registered trade mark The Apartheid Museum® in Class 35, registration number: 98/1337
  • We were uncertain about whether this application should be headed “Application to Adduce New Evidence” OR “Supplementary Affidavit”. We knew that, in the interest of justice, we ought to inform the court of new developments in the SCA matter that would impact on this case before the constitutional court. In development of this affidavit, we realised that it would be necessary to cast the new evidence in a fuller context.
  • We sought the advice of the Registrar of the Constitutional Court on or about Tuesday 07th July and he advised that we should head the submission “Application to Adduce New Evidence”.(The two headings are an added precaution of my own against any technicality that may fall outside of our knowledge.)
  • This court is aware of the fact that the 1st to 3rd Respondents, The South African Apartheid Museum at Freedom Park, Akani Egoli (Pty) Ltd and Gold Reef Resorts Limited, of their own volition, included the judgment of Keightley AJ, in their Answering Affidavit filed with this court. They did so notwithstanding the fact that it was the judgment of Pretorius AJ that was before court. The further evidence in this supplementary affidavit, related to the judgment of Keightley AJ is relevant to the court.
  • This application is self-contained. We refer to content that is in our founding affidavit, but, for ease of reference, we have included the relevant attachment(s) in this application as well. Our founding affidavit includes our Report to the Auditor General and draws on documents of South African Revenue Services (SARS).
  • Our Report to the Auditor General addresses fraud at the National Lotteries Board (NLB) in relation to an entity that in a statutory declaration lays claims to Registration Number 2001/019108/08. The declaration is signed by Christopher Till with John Kani in attendance. Richard Moloko, George Bizos and Reuel Khoza (Chairman of Akani Egoli (Pty) Ltd) are listed as independent referees. The relevance of this is clearly outlined in our founding affidavit. From personal experience with the NLB since inception, I know that their guidelines insist that applicants follow rules:
  • “Please note that the three (3) referees (Section D of FORM 2010/1) must be independent of the organisation and not related to each other i.e. they should not be employees or members of the management committee or independent auditors or accountants who provide services to the organisation.”(Source: www.nlb.org.za – accessible at all times)
  • We concentrate now on one particular page of the SARS documentation which we filed in our application for leave to appeal in the SCA. We apologise in advance for repetition. This occurs not only because we want to be certain in our own articulation, but also because of our effort to develop a self-contained document for the court and, in terms of our work, continued student/community engagement on this case.
  • COMPANY INCORPORATION PRECEEDS REGISTRATION WITH SARS
  • The South African Revenue Services (SARS) collection of various taxes is specific to the unique identity and detail of the juristic person. The juristic person comes into existence, through incorporation undertaken by The Registrar of Companies.
  • Detail under a statutory declaration, supplied by the applicant, is first checked and then recorded by the Registrar of Companies in the process of incorporating the juristic person. The unique identity, with detail, in its entirety, is passed on to SARS. It is with definite purpose that SARS records this as: Particulars of LEGAL PERSON
  • Strict particulars, e.g. “full forenames” and “shortened form of name” and “the power to act”, as but three examples, are intended for statutory control; to ensure reconciliation of the unique detail of every juristic person. In the quest for unique details of every director, the requirement is “full forenames” and not simply “forenames”
  • In this instance, the CM29 is a statutory declaration in which the Applicant, on 22 June 2001, confirms that he has obtained the written consent of the directors or officers of the company on a duly completed CM27 form. At first glance, nothing seems irregular in the “full forenames” of the applicant; Sydney Abramowitch. (See “NEW100”)
  • We draw the attention of the court to one more element that, among many others, is most conclusive evidence of fraud in respect of The South African Apartheid Museum at Freedom Park. According to Akani Egoli (Pty) Ltd, the 2nd Respondent, this was the company “initiated by Messrs Abraham and Solomon Krok.” (My emphasis is important for the contentions we make in our conclusion of this application.)
  • We are now focused on just one page of the SARS record which reveals the “Particulars of the most Senior Directors”. This single page in respect of the most Senior Directors, in the absence of fraud, is a mirror of the CM27, which in turn is a mirror of the CM29. Company incorporation precedes SARS registration and the Registrar of Companies transmits company registration details to SARS, for the collection of taxes.
  • The full forenames of the Senior Directors that SARS records for SA Apartheid Museum (3 words) originate first in the CM27 and later in the CM29 incorporation documents as:
  • CHN KROESE – ID Number: 530311 51780 82
  • SA ABROMOWITCH – ID Number: 231130 50190 84
  • S KROK – ID Number: 290528 50760 04
    • (See “NEW101”)
  • The print out from the Registrar of Companies – the source - attached hereto–expands on the abbreviation and reveals those full forenames as:
  • CHN = CHRISTIAN HENDRIK NICHOLAAS
  • SA = SIDNEY ARNOLD
  • S = SOLOMON
  • (See “NEW102”)
  • These official records reveal that the CM27& CM29 for the incorporation of SA Apartheid Museum (3 words) correctly captured content as per the statutory declaration of Sydney Arnold Abramowitch dated 22 June 2001.
  • It follows therefore that had the Abramowitch CM27 and CM29 been the one declared for The South African Apartheid Museum at Freedom Park (8 words), the names could not possibly have been recorded as CHRISTOPHER KROESE.
  • Similarly SIDNEY without ARNOLD on his CM29 is clearly a fraud intended to be reconciled with the untrustworthyand discredited two separate pages of the Power of Attorney (POA). (The court, we respectfully advise,ought to be mindful of the fact that nothing connects the 1ST page of the POA, bearing the name of the company with the 2ND page. Only the second page is signed by those purporting to be Directors.)
  • The court will absorb the fact that the only page where there is an attempt to forge a Saturday date stamp to a Sunday date Stamp is this particular page, where the name Sidney Abramowitch appears, without ARNOLD. It is common cause between the parties that the office of the Registrar of Companies is closed on weekends.
  • In my interview with Christian Hendrik Nicholaas Kroese, clearly his full forenames, it was he who, in his denials, confusion and fear pointed out to me that his name was not Christopher as per the records of The South African Apartheid Museum at Freedom Park. The respondents and the Registrar of Companies are aware of this.
  • The CM27 statutory declaration signed by Christopher Till, on 05 July 2006, FIVE YEARS after the Abramowitch declaration on 22 June 2001, could not possibly have altered the real full forenames of CHRISTIAN HENDRIK NICHOLAAS Kroese and SIDNEY ARNOLD Abramowitch, captured as such by the Registrar of Companies and passed on to SARS. These two actual full forenames ALREADY EXISTED on the database of The Registrar of Companies. Nothing, other than fraud, could possibly have changed these true full forenames to false full forenames.
  • For the sake of context, it important to repeat the fact that the letter of 16 September 2002, from Attorney MacRobert, acting on behalf of the 1st Respondent Akani Egoli (Pty) Ltd, made no mention of The South African Apartheid Museum at Freedom Park, even though, the court is now asked to believe that it was incorporated 13 months earlier on 14 August 2001.
  • The greater part of the information outlined above, in our SCA founding affidavit, from about Paragraph 68 to 76, formed one part of our submissions on The South African Apartheid Museum at Freedom Park. Against this compelling further evidence of fraud as alleged, it is the Answering Affidavit of MacRobert, which brings the rules of Plascon Evans, to the forefront of the issues before this Constitutional Court. His response is curt, unintelligible and especially unresponsive to these serious allegations of fraud. The relevant page in the Answering Affidavit is attached as “NEW103”.
    • “How SARS refers to the Respondent has nothing to do with the Respondent, nor with this case.”AND“ There was no fraud whether demonstrated by Mr Stainbank’s incoherent allegations or at all. ID Numbers are used at all times and differences in spelling (such as they may be) reveal just differences in spelling. As I have posited before, who was trying to defraud who and for what purpose?
  • The evidence is as it is. We are not discussing spelling errors. In fact there are no spelling errors. These revelations are now far more serious than that.
  • Below is “Paragraph 1”, the introduction to our founding affidavit in the SCA. Deliberately situated as an introduction, this page contributes in material ways to criminal conduct. Our thrust, evident from the wording, is clearly directed also at The South African Judiciary and our 15 years of trying to secure justice.
  • GOLD REEF CITY CASINO; FREEDOM PARK and THE APARTHEID MUSEUM
    • The entirety of this case can be summed up by a judicious assessment of two averments made under oath. Ten years apart and, and yet, corrupt as they are, they remain unresolved by any court. Their significance is central to this application for leave to appeal. No court has ever granted leave to appeal and, notwithstanding countless material contradictions such as these, no court has chosen the efficacy of evidence under cross examination. To date, three judges have recused themselves from this case. Submitted also in the interest of the judiciary - post 1994.
    • AVERMENT NUMBER ONE: 01 NOVEMBER 2002
  • Sworn Affidavit of Gold Reef City Casino (AKANI EGOLI): Chairman Reuel Khoza
  • The instructing attorney: Donald Lindsay MacRobert
  • “The initiators of The Apartheid Museum project were Messrs Solomon and Abraham Krok, who, apart from being the founders of my company, Akani Egoli (Pty) Ltd, which trades as Gold Reef City and Casino, were also the initiators of the Section 21 Company known as The South African Apartheid Museum at Freedom Park.” (Deponent:Richard Moloko)
      • AVERMENT NUMBER TWO: 01 FEBRUARY 2012
  • The South African Apartheid Museum at Freedom Park
  • Sworn Affidavit: Attorney Donald Lindsay MacRobert
  • “I point out that according to what he instructed me, Advocate Bizos who is a director of The South African Apartheid Museum at Freedom Park has never had any dealings with the Kroks and neither they nor any of their companies are involved with The South African Apartheid Museum at Freedom Park.” (Deponent: Donald Lindsay MacRobert)
  • Again, evidenced on the averments above, the respondent clearly has different versions for different courts. The response from MacRobert is as follows: Ad paragraph 1
  • “This case has no relation to the extracts from the said affidavits. What is pertinent is the Applicants continued contempt for the Tshabalala J Order. It is also not true “three judges have recused themselves from this case” I have been involved in all the litigation and not a single judge has recused him/herself.”
  • A judicious interpretation of constitutionalism will determine whether MacRobert is correct on that score. I, and my loved ones, will hold the hope that the“importance to the community” a principle of law established in Beckenstrater v Rottcher and Theunissen may dictate that the person who commits fraud upon the court gets to prison before the one who uncovers the fraud upon the court and shares it with one’s community. Indeed, one who uncovers malfeasance on the part of the court, is obliged to share same with the community.In our discussion groups we find resonance for this interpretation of law. But that is a matter for this court to decide.
  • From those two averments, 10 years apart, many unresolved issues around George Bizos, the director, have material impact on the matter before this court. Also, the other person who has been involved in “ALL the litigation” is Advocate Owen Salmon, on the instructions of attorney Don MacRobert.
  • Advocate Salmon, secured the interim court order on nothing other than the perceived public image of George Bizos. In a theatrical display, like Pretorius AJ in the court a quo, Advocate Salmon prevailed on the notion that nothing about George Bizos is open to question by our courts.
  • We have difficulty with this, especially since, extensive media coverage speaks glowingly of the unrelenting (and courageous) effort that George Bizos of Freedom Under Law, invests in having Western Cape Judge President John Hlophe impeached.
  • I have never met Hlophe JP. I should add though that; to the extent that I understand the case against Hlophe JP, it seems to me rather strange that nobody has seen fit to assess ALL my evidence around White judges, Southwood J and Claassen J, coming into court on FRIDAY 20th June 2003 and FRIDAY 21st November 2003, when Fridays in the Pretoria High Court are reserved for divorces and urgent matters.
  • Nevertheless, I was surprised when I learnt that it was George Bizos, who, in a bid to have Hlophe JP impeached, insisted that the enquiry into the conduct of Hlophe JP, be referred to oral evidence. Bizos and others responsibile for The South African Apartheid Museum at Freedom Park, have flatly refused to have their evidence subjected to cross examination. I am of the view that a reasonable person’s opinion, given without fear, favour or prejudice, would be that it is the conduct of a bigot
  • Advocate Salmon, instructed by Attorney MacRobert addresses Justice Tshabalala:
  • “Again, M’Lord, that is the (Stainbank) reference to Bizo’s in his capacity as the director, and M’Lord, George Bizos was not involved anywhere near that case in 2002, I can assure your lordship on that.” (See“NEW104”a&b)
  • The judgment of Pretorius AJ, now on appeal before this court, without the tale that George Bizos told about “that case in 2002” must, on the version of attorney and counsel, be struck down in its entirety. The evidence of George Bizos, this court is aware, was argued before Pretorius AJ by Advocate Owen Salmon. These facts may also shed light on why Pretorius AJ, at the request of Salmon, rejected my application to adduce new evidence. This is not the only time that serious question about George Bizos, as a director of The South African Apartheid Museum at Freedom Park arises. That familiar stratagem emerges again: different versions for different courts.
  • Because the omissions in the SCA answering affidavit pervert the course of justice, in our Reply Affidavit, we filled in the spaces that MacRobert chose to ignore. We did this because we have, in the past, unlawfully so, been denied the benefit of the Plascon Evans rule. We repeat and further submit as follows.
    • The South African Apartheid Museum at Freedom Park does not exist, has never existed and is nothing more than a cut, paste, forge and photocopy fraud, with the assistance of whomsoever the initiators, Abraham and Solomon Krok colluded. The South African Apartheid Museum at Freedom Park, we contend is a fictitious non-existent deception that, against all the evidence and statutory incorporation requirements exists, without evidentiary and statutory support, in the minds of malfeasant courts. And contrary to law, The South African Apartheid Museum at Freedom Park, has been afforded locus standi.
  • Against the MacRobert omissions, we mention Akani Egoli’s Gold Reef City Casino (2nd Respondent) as but one, among other casino assets, listed in the Annual Reports of Gold Reef Resorts Limited (the JSE listed company) The Chief Executive Officer of Gold Reef Resorts Limited, (3rd Respondent) at all relevant times, is one Steven Joffe. The educational qualifications for Steven Joffe are noted thus: H.Dip (Company Law) CA (South Africa) B.Com (Hons Taxation)
  • The Power of Attorney Form, and indeed the inception documents of The South African Apartheid Museum at Freedom Park, lists the same Steven Joffe as one of the Directors who gave three law firms the power to incorporate a company by the name The South African Apartheid Museum at Freedom Park (8 words).
  • Consecutive Annual Reports of Gold Reef Resorts Ltd, signed off by the CEO, Steven Joffe since 2002/2003, record the name of Akani Egoli’s Section 21 company thus:.
  • “The South African Apartheid Museum (5 Words) is a Section 21 company which operates the museum adjacent to the Theme Park. The South African Apartheid Mus