In the Constitutional Court of South Africa
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
NOTICE OF MOTION (to Registrar and Respondent’s) IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA Case No. ………………… In the matter between: MICHAL JULIUS TELLINGER Applicant ~and~ THE STANDARD BANK OF SOUTH AFRICA LIMITED 1st Respondent THE SOUTH AFRICAN RESERVE BANK 2nd Respondent THE MINISTER OF FINANCE 3rd Respondent Take notice that MICHAL JULIUS TELLINGER (hereinafter called The Applicant) intends to make application to this Court for an order;- PART A (a) Declaring sections of the Bank Act, Act 94 of 1990 and subsequent rules so promulgated in terms of the empowering act to be inconsistent with the Constitution, 1996 in so far as the practices of commercial banks, that inter alia include securitisation, seignorage, fractional reserve system and/ or artificial money creation and/ or principles relating thereto, either by [1] simulation or alike are in conflict with Human Rights, bonus mores, public policy, financial hardship, arbetry deprivation of homes in terms of section 25 and prejudice caused in such financial dealings. (b) Declaring sections of the South African Reserve Bank Act, Act 90 of 1989 and subsequent rules so promulgated in terms of the empowering act to be inconsistent with the Constitution, 1996 in so far as the practices of the Central Bank, that inter alia include securitisation, seignorage, fractional reserve system and/ or artificial money creation and/ or principals relating thereto, either by simulation or alike are in conflict with Human Rights, bonus mores, public policy, financial hardship, indirect causation of arbetry deprivation of homes in terms of section 25 and prejudice caused in such financial dealings. (c) That such Government Policies, Economical Policies and/ or related policies and/ or legislation related thereto, inclusive of rules to be inconsistent with the Constitution, 1996 in so far as the practices of the Central Bank, that inter alia include securitisation, seignorage, fractional reserve system and/ or artificial money creation and/ or principals relating thereto, either by simulation or alike are in conflict with Human Rights, bonus mores, public policy, financial hardship, indirect causation of arbetry deprivation of homes in terms of section 25 and prejudice caused in such financial dealings. (d) That, if found, by this Honourable Court that neither statue, rule or policy specifically authorise the use of inter alia securitisation, seignorage, fractional reserve system and/ or artificial money creation and/ or principals relating thereto, either by simulation or alike, the 3rd Respondent institute such action deemed necessary and appropriate to stop the 1st and 2nd Respondent immediately from conducting such business and where appropriate declare by certification all monies so loaned to be inconsistence with the Constitution. [2] (e) If the Honourable Court finds such inconsistencies as per paragraph (a), (b) and/ or (c) the Applicant’s prayers are as follows; i. An amount equal to R15’000.000.00 (fifteen million) be paid to the Applicant for general, specific and reputational damages; ii. The 1st and 2nd Respondent to pay the cost of these proceedings, jointly and severally, the one to pay the other to be set free; iii. The Honourable Court to determine the extent and application of amendments, if any, or introduction of a bill, as the Honourable Court finds just and equitable; iv. Further and/ or alternative relieve. PART B (f) Setting aside the whole of the Judgment and order of the South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg under case number 13340/2011 [the Court below] that was heard by Honourable Judge M. M. Mabesele and replacing same with such order deemed just and equitable; or in the alternative, (g) The aforesaid Judgment, after the determination of the merits of this case, be referred back to the Court below for trial; or in the alternative, (h) The aforesaid Judgment, after determination of the merits of this case, be referred back to the Court below, allowing the 1st Respondent and Applicant to amend their filings so to bring same in line to the directions of the this Honourable Courts; or in the alternative, (i) That were this Honourable Court finds in terms of PART A the legislation, rules and policies herein to be inconsistent with the Constitution, find that the 1st Respondent’s notice [3] of motion in the Court below be dismissed with cost, or such appropriate order the Honourable Court finds just and equitable under the circumstances. (j) That failing the aforementioned prayers, the Applicant be allowed to petition the Supreme Court of Appeal with the leave of the Honourable Court, cost being reserved unto the finding of the Court aforesaid. (k) Further, that the 1st Respondent pay the cost of these proceeding’s; in the alternative, (l) The 1st Respondent together with the 2nd Respondent and 3rd Respondent pay the cost of these proceedings should the 2nd Respondent or 3rd Respondent oppose these proceedings; (m) An order the Honourable Court finds just and equitable; (n) Further and/ or alternative relieve. and that the accompanying affidavit of MICHAL JULIUS TELLINGER will be used in support thereof. Take notice further that the applicant has appointed BLAKES ATTORNEYS, 2ND OFFICE, 74 OXFORD ROAD, CORNER 8TH SAXONWOLD, JOHANNESBURG as the address at which he will accept notice and service of all process in these proceedings. Take notice further that if you intend opposing this application you are required;- (a) to notify applicant's attorney in writing on or before 27 MAY 2010; and (b) within 15 DAYS after you have so given notice of your intention to oppose the application to file your answering affidavit, if any; and further that you are required to appoint in such [4] notification an address at which you will accept notice and service of all documents in these proceedings. If no such notice of intention to oppose is given, the applicant will request the Registrar to place the matter before the Chief Justice to be dealt with in terms of Rule 11(4). DATE AT MIDRAND, THIS 19th DAY OF APRIL 2012 MICHAL JULIUS TELLINGER Applicant C/o BLAKES ATTORNEYS 2nd Office 74 Oxford Road, Corner 8th Avenue Saxonwold JOHANNESBURG Telephone: (011) 468 3225 Fax: (011) 486 3602 Email: [email protected] Reference: MJT/2012/787 SERVICE PER SHERIFF TO: (1) THE STANDARD BANK OF SOUTH AFRICA LIMITED 1st Respondent 9th Floor Standard Bank Centre 5 Simmonds Street JOHANNESBURG Telephone: (011) 636 9111 Fax: (011) 636 4207 [5] TO: (2) THE SOUTH AFRICAN RESERVE BANK 2nd Respondent 370 Church Street PRETORIA 0001 Telephone: (011) 240 0700 Fax: (011) 240 0735 TO: (3) THE MINISTER OF FINANCE 3rd Respondent C/o THE STATE ATTORNEY, JOHANNESBURG 10th Floor North State Building 95 Market Street JOHANNESBURG Telephone: (011) 330 7600 Fax: (011) 337 7180 AND TO: THE REGISTRAR Constitutional Court: Constitution Hill Braamfontein JOHANNESBURG [6] NOTICE OF MOTION (to Registrar and Respondent’s) IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA Case No. ………………… In the matter between: MICHAL JULIUS TELLINGER Applicant ~and~ THE STANDARD BANK OF SOUTH AFRICA LIMITED 1st Respondent THE SOUTH AFRICAN RESERVE BANK 2nd Respondent THE MINISTER OF FINANCE 3rd Respondent TABLE OF CONTENTS No. Subject Page Par 1 Notice of Motion … 1 – 6 - 2 Table of Contents (this document) … 7 – 5 - 3 Table of Statutes … 1 – 8 - 4 Founding Affidavit of Michal Julius Tellinger 1 – 100 - 4.1 The Parties 1 – 3 2 – 5 [1] 4.2 Nature of Application … 5 - -- 4 - -- 4.3 Contention for Direct Access … 5 – 14 5 - 11 4.4 Overview of Proceedings (The Court a Que) … 14 – 16 12 - -- 4.5 Chronology of Relevant Events … 16 – 34 13 - -- 4.6 Overview of Dispute … 34 – 56 14 - 36 4.7 Points Raised in the Court A Quo … 57 - -- 37 - -- 4.8 Introduction to Business of the Bank … 57 – 66 38 - 45 4.9 Bank Credit … 66 – 67 46 - -- 4.10 Securitisation … 68 – 74 47 - 64 4.11 Seignorage … 75 – 79 65 - 69 4.12 Fractional Reserve System … 79 – 82 70 - 71 4.13 Prejudice caused to me … 82 – 84 72 - 73 4.14 Artificial Money Creation … 84 – 89 74 - 87 4.15 Inference of Fiduciary … 89 – 82 88 - 94 4.16 Conclusion … 92 – 94 95 – 102 4.17 Prejudice … 94 – 94 103-108 4.18 Legislative Bill Introduced … 95 – 95 109 - -- 4.19 Errors in Legal Reasoning … 95 – 96 110-111 4.20 Conclusion and Remedies … 96 – 96 112-115 4.21 Leave to Appeal … 96 – 97 116 - -- 4.22 Declaration of Unconstitutionality … 97 – 98 117-121 4.23 Review of the 1st Respondent's Decision … 98 – 98 122-123 4.24 Cost … 98 – 99 124-126 4.25 Conclusion … 99 – 100 127-128 4.26 Signature … 100 - [2] 5 Annexure to the Founding Affidavit: 5.1 Written Reasons Rule 49(1)(C) “MT A1” 1 – 3 - 5.2 Application for Certified Copies of Court File “MT A1” 3 – 4 - 6. Main Annexures to the Founding Affidavit: 6.1 Court File (Copy) "MT 1” 1 – 384 - 6.2 Application for Leave to Appeal "MT 2” 385 – 392 - 6.3 Notes of Leave to Appeal "MT 3” 393 – 460 - 6.4 1st Respondent Advertisement (Photo) "MT 4” 461 - -- - 6.5 Securitisation EG Van Den Berg "MT 5” 462 – 471 - 6.6 Securitisation Rick Watson "MT 6” 472 – 486 - 6.7 Basel II - Deloitte "MT 7” 487 – 506 - 6.7 Bayport Pricing Supplement "MT 8” 507 – 513 - 6.8 Bayport Asset Backed Note Program "MT 9” 514 – 676 - 6.9 Bayport Annual Financials 2010 "MT 10” 677 – 714 - 6.10 SA Home Loans Advertisement "MT 11” 715 – 717 - 6.11 Seignorage and Monetary Policy "MT 12” 718 – 725 - 6.12 Fractional Reserve Banking "MT 13” 726 – 739 - 6.13 When Central Banks Fail "MT 14” 740 – 742 - 6.14 The Weimar Hyperinflation "MT 15” 743 – 751 - 6.15 Currency Substitution UoP "MT 16” 752 – 772