Are there records of their work available for public scrutiny ?
I can say for a fact that WLD records are disasterous.
Also from my limited experience, the records that get into the
public domain, i.e. before they’re lost at WLD are sanatised.
Refute this and I’ll provide simple evidence !
Meanwhile lets see if *THIS* shows that your incompetent
and corrupt SA judicial system is fixable:———–

Email header to: “reform@justice.gov.za”

Date: Sun Jun 21 04:32:29 SAST 2009

Subject: Law Reform Commission submission.

South African Law Reform Commission, June 2009

your document:
http://salawreform.justice.gov.za/docs_gen/objects.htm
states:
> …
> * the removal of anomalies;
> …
> In short, the Commission is an advisory body whose aim is the
> renewal and improvement of the law of
> South Africa on a continuous basis.
> …

Accordingly, I report this observation which is clearly against the
spirit of the law and the intention of the legislators:-

At a Sheriff’s sale properties were bid up to multiples of the
market value; thereby driving away the genuine buyer/s.

After the bidding, and when the genuine buyer/s had left,
the sheriff/auctioneer announced that ‘there had been error/s
in the bidding for properties X and Y and that the sales would
consequently be “rectified”, and that re-bidding for the said
properties would take place after the other business had been
completed’.

Since the genuine competitive bidders had been removed by the
‘trick’, the statutory intention of an open pre-advertised
auction had been by-passed.
Clearly I must assume that the Sheriff is/was party to the scam.

Since this is the only such auction which I’ve ever attended,
a sample of one, gives a 100% indication, that such scams occur
regularly at South African Sheriff auctions.

This conclusion is strengthened by the fact that the rule/s
which allowed the scam which was disclosed in case: CCT74.03
has also been in place for decades.

In fact, while I was at the Sheriff’s office I heard one of
the Sheriff’s ‘staff’ mention “op pas” in connection with
“die neuwe reel” [be careful about the new rule].

http://www.ghostdigest.co.za/code/../code/../code/A_525.html
> Having found section 66(1)(a) of the Magistrates’ Courts
> Act 32 of 1944 to be unconstitutional, the court orders
> that the section is to be read as though the words “a court,
> after consideration of all relevant circumstances, may order
> execution” appear before the words “against the immovable
> property of the party”.

It seem that only after sufficient pressure is applied,
preferably by someone wearing a black-cloak, can absurd
legislation, which has allowed injustice for decades, finally
be fixed. I have further, well documented, example/s of SA justice system’s inability to correct amply recorded serious errors.

To discourage the ‘sweeping under the carpet’ of this – my report,
this post is going to Patricia de Lille [a confirmed fighter of SA's
corruption & injustice] and to the [international internet]
law-newsgroups circuit.

== Chris Glur. June 2009 ******@gmail.com
PS. this blog has problems with embedded email text ?

I think that the bad rep is unfortunate but they got it by their own doing. In the eyes of society and the world it is not the little cases that show that one is doing a good job but the ases where you are REALLY tested. The PP was tested, a few times, and has failed. What should be done about it?

On the issue of political appointees I think we are safe to say MOST of the positions in govt (or related spheres) are held by those who pander to the ANC’s wishes OR are part of the ANC. It only becomes a problem when people fail to do their jobs, as is often the case.

The answer is yes if we look at the act section 34 of the Prevention and Combating of Corrupt Activities Act 12 of 2004

1) Any person who holds a position of authority and who knows or ought
reasonably to have known or suspected that any other person has committed- 25
(a) an offence under Part 1, 2,3 or 4, or section 20 or 21 (in so far as it relates to
(6) the offence of theft, fraud, extortion, forgery or uttering a forged document,
involving an amount of RlOO 000 or more, must report such knowledge or suspicion or
cause such knowledge or suspicion to be reported to any police official. 30

any body, whether thats you, me or a company or a poltical party has information that holds authority, and who has evidence on corruption that has taken place has a duty to report the matter to the police. So yes the DA is legally bound to lay charges of this nature.

And yes can report or lay charges at any police station

however the problem with a political party brinigng evidence like this or laying charges like this against another political party gets scuffed off all to easily as being “political” utter rubbish actually

All ye legal gurus I need to know
• Can the DA lay charges against the alleged corruption within the ANCYL with regards to its finances?
• Can they lay these charges at any police station?
• Isn’t this a matter for the NPA and/or Scorpions (whatever they are called these days) to handle?
http://www.politicsweb.co.za/politicsweb/view/politicsweb/en/page71654?oid=138559&sn=Detail

Of course, given alliances etc etc, this is still dicey, but one would also hope that the people sitting on those independent bodies would have qualifications (real ones) that indicate they are also competent to perform their tasks.

However, given the fact that the ANC already feels like it is losing control of the country, and with COASTU and the SACP eagerly waiting like the vultures they are to jump in and start formulating and promulgating policy (only in SA do non-polictical parties have that much potential clout), I doubt we’d see something like this. The Scorpions were truly independent, and we all know what happened to them when the ANC suddenly didn’t like them anymore.

Political and bureaucratic corruption is spawned, indeed it is encouraged via patronage. Its not just money which is obtained through corruption, more importantly it is undeserved power, as it is this latter which harms us most.

Dictionary of American History
“PATRONAGE, POLITICAL, is often defined as public office awarded in payment for political support.”