RSS

ATTORNEY ANDRIES GEYSER’S CRIMES

UNDER CONSTRUCTION!

This page is under construction but what follows is also to be found on my website at www.coenvanwyk.blogspot.com by clicking on the link, “THE CRIMINAL CONVICTION OF ATTORNEY ANDRIES GEYSER”.

http://thecriminalcareer-of-andriesgeyser.blogspot.com/

Since the this page is under construction and may contain some errors of a cosmetic nature but already does contain some rather interesting and bizarre facts about the criminal activities of the learned Andries Geyser

Introduction

The following is quoted from the article, “Pensioners take aim at Porritt”, that appeared in The Witness of 29 July 2006:

“Others who could be targeted by investors and liquidators include Grant Ramsay, Tigon’s auditor who was sentenced to 10 years for contravening the Income Tax Act, and Andries Geyser, a former chairman of Tigon who pleaded guilty to reckless trading and was fined R50000.”

But do click on the following link, because more would be revealed about Andries Geyser’s criminal activities:

http://www.witness.co.za/index.php?showcontent&global[_id]=19129

The following is a brief extract from the article depicted on the link:

“PSCGG head Jack Milne, who was found guilty and jailed for his role; Grant Ramsay, Tigon’s auditor, who was sentenced to 10 years for contravening the Income Tax Act; and Andries Geyser, a former chairman of Tigon, who pleaded guilty to reckless trading, turned state witnesses in plea bargains.”

But I also had some profound exposure to Andries Geyser’s criminal shenanigans. I actually shudder to think that we could have been partners.

But fortunately I escaped unscathed!

Later in this discussion I will deal, under the heading, “My later history with Andries Geyser”, with his deplorable conduct in (as a council member of the Natal Law Society) harassing me, with meaningless and baseless complaints. Insofar as the impression may be created that Geyser succeeded with his endeavours and that that may be the reason why I am no longer in law practice, I mention that the only court that ever adjudicated on whether I am a fit and proper person to practice as an attorney, is the court that admitted me as such, being the Natal Provincial Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa (as it was known at the time.

My early history with Andries Geyser

Before I started my own law firm, C.H van Wyk & Co in Durban I was employed as a candidate attorney, and later, as an attorney in Geyser’s law firm. At the time he was a council member of the Natal Law Society but he has since earned the status of a convicted criminal.

It was during my tenure as employee of Geyser’s firm, Raulstone and Geyser, that I became aware of Geyser’s profound arrogance and propensity to engage in criminal conduct, and other unprofessional conduct (albeit not necessarily criminal). In that regard I inter alia observed some rather bizarre conduct of the partners in an estate matter that they were winding up and Geysers propensity to commit perjury in matters. Geyser’s perjurious antics inter alia consisted of the following: There was a time when attorneys would sign discovery affidavits in defended matter that they handled for their clients. The rationale behind that was that the client would in any event hand to his attorney all the documents that need to be discovered in the matter and that the attorney would then discover the documents in his possession. Be it as it may, while I was still doing my articles at Raulstone and Geyser I was actually in control of all the defended matters in the magistrates court since I had right of appearance in the court.

But then there came a time when Geyser was going to appear in one of my magistrates’ court matters since a party in the matter was one of his friends. He instructed me to prepare the discovery affidavit in the matter and that he would sign it. When I took the draft affidavit to him with the case file he delete from the schedule that is annexed to the affidavit, certain items that he did not wish the opponents to be aware of. The reason that he advanced for his actions were that he was not going to use the documents at the trial. I protested (albeit to no avail) by pointing out to him that the court rule states that all documents that may prove or disapprove either parties case need to be discovered.

But that is not where it ended because after I had altered the schedule to meet with Geyser’s approval, he signed the document and then send it across to Oliver Hart, his friend and Natal Law Society co-councillor who fraudulently attested the “affidavit” in Geyser’s absence inter alia by confirming that Geyser signed the document in his presence.

But there were similar affidavit shenanigans in the collections department of Raustone and Geyser. At that time notices that were required for instituting section 65 proceeding against judgement debtors had to be supported by an affidavit by the attorney of the judgement creditor. In that regard the collection clerk at the law firm regularly handed to Geyser a plethora of affidavits for signature that were then dealt with in the manner that I had already mentioned.

Having previously been employed by other law firms I gained a profound insight into what difference it makes if a law firm has as a partner a council member of the Law Society. The upshot of what I observed was that as soon as I was able to leave, I resigned, left, and established my own law firm, C.H. van Wyk and Co, in Durban. When I was informed by the firm’s senior bookkeeper that the partners were going to inform me that I had “made partner” (to use the US vernacular often heard on TV) my wife and I decided that it was time for us to move on, albeit that, at that juncture, we were not yet quite ready for that. I was not going to become an accessory to Geyser’s criminal conduct by becoming his partner in crime.

Be it as it may, I bit the bullet and, in effect, rejected the offer of a partnership by announcing, during the meeting that Geyser and his partner convened to inform me of the joyous partnership tidings, of my intention to leave Geyser’s firm.

But in the process of ridding myself of Geyser, I created an enemy by announcing my intention to leave Geyser’s firm during the very meeting that Geyser and his partner convened to inform me of the partnership offer. I knew from observing his demeanour, at the time, that I have made a dangerous enemy of Andries Geyser. But since I got to know Geyser well in the time that I was in his employ, I knew him truly to be a fourth division player – effective only against the weak or disadvantaged; and since I never regarded myself as weak or disadvantaged, I was not particularly bothered about Geyser’s simmering anger and hostility.

So, after I had left Raulstone and Geyser, I was not rid of Geyser, because in due course he re-entered my life and presided as chairman of a kangaroo-court that was referred to as a disciplinary committee. Nogal!. Now the particulars of the abuse that I suffered at the hands of this ruthless and callous convicted criminal, and his cronies and fellow hoods of the brotherhood (I am referring to the former council of the Law Society), is bizarre in the extreme, and is the topic of a number of futile complaint that I lodgedf with the Law Society. The mentioned shenanigans are dealt with in a book that I will in due course submit to publishers.

My later history with Andries Geyser

As I have already mentioned, after I had left Raulstone and Geyser, I was not rid of Geyser, because in due course he re-entered my life and presided as chairman of a kangaroo-court.

The examples that I will present here below gives perspective, not only concerning Geyser’s lack of morals, but also that of his fellow members of the Brotherhood (the erstwhile councillors of the Natal Law Society). But there is much, much more, because what happened during the proceedings of the “disciplinary committee” reminds one of the French Revolution, and the Spanish Inquisition.

It all happened when, in due course, Geyser orchestrated, and presided, as Head-Honcho, over “proceedings” that concerned my alleged unprofessional conduct. In that regard I mention the following examples:

 

1. Fees in a collection matter

The following happened:

  • Geyser’s law firm legitimately charged certain fees (as sanctioned by a written directive of the Natal Law Society), in collection matters.

  • When I charged exactly the same fees in a collection matter, Geyser and his cronies ruthlessly, relentlessly, and illegally persecuted me.

____________________________________

When I established my law firm, C H van Wyk and Co, in Durban I used Raulstone and Geyser as Pietermaritzburg correspondents for collection and conveyancing matters, the reason being that the people in those departments were erstwhile colleagues and friends that I knew.

In due course I instructed Geyser’s firm as my Pietermaritzburg correspondents in collection matters and received an account regarding money that the firm collected in terms of my instructions. The fees that Geyser’s firm raised in accounting to me were fees;

  • that Geyser’s firm was entitled to charge in terms of a written directive of the Natal Law Society;

  • that were charged when I was still a member of Geyser’s law firm;

  • that Geyser’s firm charged while I was being persecuted by Geyser with “disciplinary proceedings”;

  • that were charged (with impunity) in every law firm that employed me since I started my articles;

  • that Geyser’s firm charged in accounting to me for money that it collected, as my Pietermaritzburg correpondent’s, in a collection matter; and

  • it was therefore the fees with which Geyser’s firm charged me for collection services that it was rendering to me.

    And lo, and behold, in due course I was dragged before Geyser’s tribunal because I committed the horrible misdemeanour of charging the debtor in a collection matter exactly the same fees;

  • that Geyser’s firm was entitled to charge in terms of a written directive of the Natal Law Society;

  • that were charged when I was still a member of Geyser’s law firm;

  • that Geyser’s firm charged while I was being persecuted by Geyser with “disciplinary proceedings”;

  • that were charged (with impunity) in every law firm that employed me since I started my articles;

  • that the Geyser’s firm charged in accounting to me for money that it collected, as my Pietermaritzburg correspondents, in a collection matter; and

  • was indeed the fees with which Geyser’s firm charged me for collection services that it was rendering to me.

 

So it was clear that sauce for the goose was not sauce for the gander.

But when I in due course testified at Geyser’s tribunal, things took a turn for the worse when I attempted to submit as evidence the account of Geyser’s firm, concerning the collection matter that the firm did on my instructions. Geyser simply would not allow the “incriminating” account of his firm to be admitted as evidence. He shamelessly came up with a particularly lame reason for his refusal to allow the account of his law firm to be admitted as evidence. His reason for the refusal was that the one page account (that incriminates Geyser’s law firm) would burden the record.

When I remonstrated with him about the cogency of his reason, given the fact that the exhibit that I wanted to hand in is a mere one page document, his response was as follows:

“En as Raulstone en Geyser verkeerd opgetree het hoe affekteer dit u?
(And if Raulstone en Geyser acted incorrectly, how does that affect you?)

2. Testifying in court

The following is what happened:

  • A certain Cox gave evidence in a matter in which he was the attorney of record for the plaintiff, and the Supreme Court ruled that;

    The fact that the witness is the attorney of record for one of the litigants does of course not affect his competence as a witness in any way.”

  • When I also gave evidence in a matter in which I was the attorney of record for the plaintiff, Natal Law Society council members, Cox and Geyser, and their other Law Society council cronies ruthlessly, relentlessly, and illegally persecuted me, despite the fact that the law on the point was embodied in the supreme court decision in the case in which Cox testified, and despite the fact that the decision was binding on Geyser, Cox and their cronies.

_____________________________________________________

The germane facts concerning the charge are the following:

  • I did indeed give evidence in a matter in the Durban magistrates’ court, and at the time I was indeed the attorney of record of the defendant.

  • In doing so I relied on a decision of the Durban and Coast Local Division of the Supreme Court (as the High Court was known at the time) in the matter of ELGIN ENGINEERING CO. (PTY.) LTD. V. HILLVIEW MOTOR TRANSPORT 1961(4) 450.

    In the particular case the attorney of record of the plaintiff testified for the plaintiff, and in that regard the court made the following comment:

    “The fact that the witness is the attorney of record for one of the litigants does of course not affect his competence as a witness in any way.”

  • The name of that attorney was Cox.

  • It should be noted that the court made no mention of any unprofessional conduct on the part of Cox in giving evidence in a matter in which he is the attorney of record for the plaintiff.

  • One of the Hoods of the Natal Law Society Brotherhood that participated in passing a resolution that I should be keel-hauled for giving evidence in my client’s case was (wait for it!), COX!

It is clear that Cox, Geyer, and their cronies did not allow the law to interfere with their endeavours in persecuting a hapless attorney who is not a member of the Brotherhood. Fortunately for them, they were also not restricted in their goings-on by morals or a sense of fair play, because they lacked those particular qualities.

And whilst Cox gave evidence with impunity in the superior court in Durban, I was persecuted during Geyser’s witch-hunt for doing the same thing.

I may mention that the fact that an attorney is a competent witness in a matter in which he is acting, has already been confirmed in court decisions that date as far back as 1929, 1947, and 1955.

Now is that not corruption of the highest order?

I have no doubt about the fact that, at the time, the rascals that participated in the mentioned Machiavellian conduct of bringing baseless disciplinary proceedings against me, did not act, in the manner that they did, out of ignorance. They knew exactly what they were doing and it was indeed a deliberate act aimed at keeping me out of my office, and ensuring that my one-man law firm grinds to a standstill while I was being harassed with baseless proceedings. The mentioned baddies had law firms that continued to produce income while they were harassing me with their hideous baseless high jinks.

I also have no doubt about the fact that they were not at all concerned about the prospect of not succeeding against me. They simply could not lose. I would lose, even if I should emerge victoriously.

The proceedings before Geyser were fraught with irregularities and all types of unconscionable illegalities and dishonesty. One incident (of man, many, many) that I cannot resist mentioning at this juncture is the dishonesty of Berhmann (the one member of the disciplinary committee) and the gleeful participation of the other members of the committee in the particular fraud. The following is what happened:

On a particular day that the disciplinary hearing was to continue, my senior advocate and I arrived at the venue for the hearing, only to be told that the matter needs to be adjourned since Berhmann had fallen ill. After the matter was adjourned I phoned Berhmann’s office and was told that he was on holiday on his honeymoon. I succeeded in charming out of his secretary the name of the hotel at which he was staying, and when I phoned the hotel I was informed that he is still at the beach. When I thereafter reported what I had learned to Geyser and his cronies they did not even attempt to feign surprise, and in a jocular fashion actually conceded that they are aware of the true facts. Geyser actually quipped that Berhmann, being on honeymoon, is obviously lovesick.

Now, had the proceedings against me not been conducted behind closed doors, and the public and the media had access to the Law Society’s proceedings and could witness the fraudulent shenanigans, then Geyser and his partners in grime would have been concerned about launching proceedings that are bound to fail. And since the plethora of irregularities (including Berhmann’s fraud) perpetrated by Geyser and his fellow mudslingers would have been fully exposed to the public and the media, it probably would never have occurred.
3. Geyser’s “evidence concealment” caper

On a particular occasion a file that was of profound importance to me in a disciplinary matter brought against me on a perjurious affidavit, the file disappeared.

The matter that I am referring to is the matter of Johan Cronje. Geyser presided as head-honcho in the proceedings and in due course it transpired that Geyser had been in possession of the “missing” file all along, and that it contained evidence that seriously incriminated Geyser’s witch hunt against me, and supported my “defence” in the matter. The “missing file” scenario endured for an extended period of time and it was only when I informed the Law Society that I would not participate in any further disciplinary proceedings concerning the matter until I have access to the file, that the file was ever so miraculously, discovered. And where has it been all the time? In Geyser’s possession!

But let me start at the beginning.

The file was that of Attorney Friedman, my opponent in the magistrates’ court case to which the complaint pertained. Apart from the fact that Friedman gleefully and blatantly committed perjury in his testimony during the disciplinary proceedings (with the obvious approval of Geyser and his cronies), I also discovered a note in Friedman’s file, in his own handwriting, that confirmed my version of what transpired during a telephone conversation that I had with him. It contradicted his version as stated during his evidence under oath.

At the time I had numerous communications with the late Frans van der Merwe (the secretary of the Natal Law Society) and he told me that Adv. Eugene van Zuydam (the evidence leader of the disiplinary committee) said that he gave the file to Geyser and Geyser alleged that he gave it back to Van Zuydam. It is therefore quite possible that the mentioned two individuals read Friedaman’s note that effectively demolished the disciplinary proceedings against me and I verily believe that Geyser decided to make the file disappear to prevent me from discovering the note that incriminates Geyser’s with-hunt against me in the particular matter. And I believe that he did so by telling Van der Merwe that he does not have the file, when he was indeed in possession of the file.

Things came to a head when I informed Van der Merwe that he must inform his council that I would not participate further in the proceedings and that I suggest that the Law Society brings an application to court to strike me of the roll. I made it clear that I would oppose the application most strenuously on the grounds of the “missing file” shenanigans.

Out of sheer desperation Van der Merwe therefore contacted Geyser’s office and since Geyser was not in his office at the time: Surprise! Surprise! His secretary sent the file to Van der Merwe.

I suspect that what happened was that Geyser’s secretary was not aware of Geyser’s shenanigans in denying that he has the file and when she discovered the file she sent it across to the Law Society. It could also evidence a collaborative effort of Geyser and Van Zuydam to conceal from me the incriminating note of Friedman. But by the time that Geyser became aware of the fact that he no longer has the file. I had already had sight of it.
Eish! And then Geyser’s persecution tomfoolery failed dismally!

What I have mentioned so far is truly the tip of the iceberg because Geyser’s maliciousness knew no limits. The full story of his malicious conduct aimed at me reads like a bizarre thriller.

 

However, after all the trouble that Geyser went to, sadly so for the poor man, I eventually left law practice with my reputation intact in that (as I have previously mentioned) the only court that ever adjudicated on whether I am a fit and proper person to practice as an attorney, is the court that admitted me as such, being the Natal Provincial Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa (as it was known at the time.

But what made matters worse for Geyser is that the reason for my decision to leave was not the fact that he harassed me with baseless complaints, but the fact that, as I put it elsewhere (http://illegaljustice.blogspot.com/), the;

“unique illegal approach (to put it kindly) of the judges in the Botha case was also perpetrated in other Natal High Court cases in which I acted as an attorney, I decided that it would border on unprofessional conduct to continue practising as a litigating attorney, whilst judges of the Natal Court failed to respect and adhere to even the most basic rules of natural justice.”

Advertisements
 

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: