PUBLIC NOTICE

Supersedeas Peremptory Writ of Mandamus

 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
KWA-ZULU NATAL LOCAL DIVISION, DURBAN
In the matter between: Case No: 76/08/2016
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA PTY (Ltd)                                                                   Plaintive

Including and or “All” Agents, Administrative Judges, All” Assigns, “All” Chief Clerks, “All” Clerks, “All” Officers, “All” Registrars, “All” Masters, “All” Sheriffs and “All” acting Agents of the REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA PTY (Ltd);

And

ANDRE MARTIN SLADE                                                                                               Defendant

PUBLICE NOTICE – Supersedeas Peremptory Writ of Mandamus

NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL IS NOTICE TO AGENT
NOTICE TO AGENT IS NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL

TAKE JUDICIAL RECOGNIZANCE THAT this Public Notice is issued by we, the people and represented by Unified Common Law Grand Jury of Southern Africa, hereinafter UZA in accordance with the spirit, purport or objects of the Bill of Rights 39(2) which states:
39. Interpretation of Bill of Rights.-
(2) When interpreting any legislation, and when developing the common law or customary law, every court, tribunal or forum must promote the spirit, purport and objects of the Bill of Rights.
(3) The Bill of Rights does not deny the existence of any other rights or freedoms that are recognised or conferred by common law, customary law or legislation, to the extent that they are consistent with the Bill.

Introduction
Sufficient cause is evident that Administrative Judges of the court system have and are making errors in judgment regarding subject matter jurisdiction as evident in this instance and case, including others.

When a Court makes a judgment and when the judge used his/her discretion he/she may exercise it. However, if he/ she have no jurisdiction, it is not allowed. When he/she makes a decision, he/she is outside the court and if the registrar or clerk accepts the judgment, it becomes an error in procedure.

Furthermore, it is the duty of all courts and all Respondents, subject to the Bill of Rights as the supreme law of the land, to develop the common law of the land in accordance with the spirit, purport or objects of the Bill of Rights rule. 39(2) and do not do so is procedurally unfair and in consequence renders any order or judgment null and void.

Common Law Precedent South Africa
Not all law is contained in Acts passed by Parliament. Much of South African law is based on common law, and there is a great reliance on Common Law in South Africa. The development of the Common Law of South Africa is made possible by the fact that the South African courts follow the system of legal precedent or stare decisis. This enables a higher court to develop the law in such a way that it becomes a precedent for lower courts to follow. As law is not an empirical science, it cannot be expected of Parliament or any other legislative body to be able to presuppose all possible scenarios of life and enact relevant laws to cater for them. This is why South African Law places a great emphasis on the Higher courts to develop the law through their decisions, which become precedents and as such become law which is also known as case law.

TAKE NOTICE THAT on the 10th Day of November 2013, this court of record was decreed into session on at Noordhoek, Cape Peninsula on the land of Southern Africa and formally recorded as common law grand jury of southern africa (uza) where the law of the case is universal common natural law and includes tribal, customary and oral law and tradition, simply put, the law of the land and represented as such by this superior jurisdiction court. refer to attached court of record 01.

Commission of Inquiry
As a people’s court developing the law of the land, we are receiving complaints daily from the people. Every court, tribunal or forum must promote the spirit, purport and objects of the Bill of Rights. See this as an invitation to observe your constitutional duty and participate to develop

Various complaints have been made by and filed onto record with the Applicants regarding various activities by various Respondents and as a result an investigation has been launched and the initial researched and presented evidence indicates the following:

(a) That the REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA PTY (Ltd) is a company registered in New York, governed by federal law and operating under international commercial law and the central banking system,
(b) That all birth certificates are managed under trust law, traded on stock-markets and ‘citizens’ are deemed ‘employees’ of this corporation and registered as assets.
(d) That each birth certificate has its own trust name, number and account and trades on the Luxemburg stock-market from registration.
(e) That every original invoice, remittance, warrants and order is a basic offer of contract to access a birth trust and are in fact cheques in disguise.
(f) In high level commercial terms these are called notes, bills of exchange, money of exchange, negotiable instruments, securities, equities etc., currency, but Respondents deceptively trade these on for profit.
(g) That People are being deceived by a corporate government, owned by global elite who own major shares in all the countries.
(h) Instead, people are unknowingly forced to use debt currency, yes the currency the public is coerced to use causes, debt, inflation, poverty, duress, threat, and loss of private property and dignity which infringes in every way on the rights of people as sovereign, above corporations and by authority of their Creator, each by his own belief.
(i) In the courts, administrative judges act as trustees and beneficiaries, in breach of trust law and the good faith of contract and when in fact a meeting of the minds did not occur.
(j) High level court officials, government agents and bankers know that people are being plundered by limited jurisdiction hegemonic acts, using deceptive language called legalese to coerce consent and then make claims on debts when other remedies are evident and their actions are causing serious evil (maioris malitatis). But additionally, any prima facie valid threat that is designed to achieve a manifestly unjust purpose is considered to be contra bonos mores. Three examples of this broader form of unlawfulness are:

(a) First, a Respondent who threatens to use his legal powers of enslavement to extort a payment of a sum of money from a victim would act unlawfully, since his powers were being used illegitimately for financial gain.
(b) Secondly, where a person apprehended another committing adultery, it would be unlawful to threaten to have that person prosecuted to induce (or blackmail) the adulterer into agreeing to pay an amount of money in return for silence.
(c) And thirdly, if someone made a threat which induced his debtor to pay a greater sum of money than the debtor in fact owed, this would be unlawful conduct.

It is noticed that agents of REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA PTY (Ltd)
are now unknowingly or knowingly engaging in, or are party to unlawful activities which are in violation of the Bill of Rights and which are by definition of Black’s Law Dictionary 4th Edition:
fraudulent or dishonest acts: One which involves bad faith, a breach of honesty, a want of integrity, or moral turpitude. Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co. v. Singer, 185 Va. 620, 39 S.E. 2d 505, 507, 508.

NOTICE:
Take notice that the aforementioned court and plaintiffs are hereby notified that the Defendant reserves the right to transfer this matter for cause to the Constitutional Court Case No: CCT 19/14 to be heard before a Tribunal Commission independent of the state. This court will be notified accordingly.

Furthermore, we may require this Court’s full co-operation as more evidence is adduced before and complaints heard by the Tribunal Commission, and information may be required and requested from this Court as to the promotion of just administrative action and in order to:
(a) Develop the common law of good faith contract, trusts, substantive rights and administrative justice in order to promote the spirit, purport and objects of the Bill of Rights and;
(b) Address any further evidence and complaints presented by any member of the public as people challenging the same rule of law and;
(c) Properly establish what the people’s public policy is by referendum of and by the people;
(d) Hold all and keep all equal before the law and;
(e) Properly hear, find and declare equitable remedies in all instances and cases as presented and in line with constitutional values;

ORDER:
You are hereby ordered to immediately cease and desist all further action from here on forth pending the hearing and outcome by the Tribunal Commission as per our wish.
.
This supersedeas writ is deemed a lawful order to stay further proceedings.
Definition of Supersedeas: In modern times the term is often used
synonymously with a “stay of proceedings,” and is employed to designate the effect of an act or proceeding which of itself suspends the enforcement of a judgment. Dulin v. Coal Co., 98 Cal. 306, 33 P. 123. – Black’s Law 4th Edition.

Conclusion
The writ of any court, when a people makes an objection and when substantive rights are involved, is issued beyond the jurisdiction of the court in question and consequently results in errors in procedure and in errors of fact.

It is of national importance and in the public interest to be given a proper forum by common law public hearing and with the involvement of all interested parties to hear, establish and settle any and all just debts, claims, costs and judgments as well as all issues incidental to and challenging the same rule of law in order to promote just administrative action and efficient administration.

To not do so is a travesty of justice and we the people will take further lawful action as to the peace and freedom of all people on the land.

Respondents have 10 Days to lodge objection to the below mentioned address and or via email as per the electronic communications act.
Failure to respond within 10 Days will be accepted as acquiescence by tacit procurement and we will proceed accordingly. Furthermore, all communications thus far are to be used as evidence in all cases referred to herein.

Falsa orthographia, sive falsa grammatica, non vitiate concessionem. Neither faulty spelling nor faulty grammar will vitiate a grant or a wish. Neither false Latin nor false English will make a deed void when the intent of the parties plainly appears as per the Plain Language Movement and the law of the land.
All Rights Reserved.

The deponents acknowledged that:
they know and comprehend the contents of this declaration by their own hand;
they have no objection to declaring his whole truth as far as they know it;
they consider their statement of truth as far as they know it to be binding on their conscience.
Dated at Mbazwana, this 7th day of November 2016.
Signature: __________________________
Initials and Surname: __________________________
2 Witnesses Initials and Surnames: Signature:

1. ___________________________ ________________________

2. ___________________________ ________________________
Address: P. O. Box 1596
Mbazwana, Kwa-Zulu Natal
Email: Andre@isdsa.co.za

TO: The Ubombo Court

KwaZulu Natal
City: Ubombo
Address: Lot 15 Main Road
Phone no: 035 595 1002
Fax no: 035 595 1165

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑

%d bloggers like this: