It’s damn hard being the good guy when the bad guys have most of the money. I empathize with NewEra. They’ve worked damn hard under extreme conditions to get truth into court. Here’s the latest attempt to squash them:

A view from the small guy.

The bewildering events surrounding the NewERA court case continue.

The Directors of the non-profit organization have been ordered to appear in Court this Tuesday to explain why they should not pay the opposition’s legal costs in their personal capacity. A copy of this order is available on request.

Investec Bank obtained the order on May 3rd, demanding that the NewERA directors appear in the Johannesburg High Court this Tuesday, May 14th, at 10am. The order was granted by Judge Spilg who, by coincidence, was the very same Judge that heard the original interdict.

The order was only served on NewERA this afternoon (May 8th) by Investec’s attorneys, Blakes Maphanga. This gives us just hours to prepare a response.

NewERA hereby makes the following further statement:

“It seems clear by their actions that Investec bank is deeply concerned about NewERA exposing the following facts:

• Potentially tens of thousands of homes and other assets have been repossessed illegally due to the bank’s lack of legal standing in securitisation transactions.
• The full effect of the multi-billion rand securitisation industry on the South African economy is being hidden from the people and our government.
• By acting as an agent between the customer and a plethora of secretive securitisation corporations, the banks are in clear breach of the Banks Act that specifically requires the written permission of the customer.
• The banks are refusing to disclose to a customer whether their loan has been securitised.
• The audited reports of the banks may be misrepresenting their true financial position.
• They have not disclosed to the National Credit Regulator any change of ownership in a securitisation transaction, as required by s69(4) of the National Credit Act.
• Debt counsellors are unable to perform their role effectively because they do not know who the true owner of their client’s loan is.
• Is a special purpose vehicle used for securitisation a registered credit provider? And are they legally allowed to charge interest on such “loans?” The entire process of securitisation is deeply questionable.

NewERA recently withdrew both our cases in the High Court. We did this not because we have given up, but for very specific reasons that we are willing to explain only in a one-on-one interview. A letter to the Judge President has already been submitted regarding the manner in which the matter has been conducted.

One final point: please confirm this with your legal advisor, but it is our opinion that because the case has been withdrawn, sub judice rule does not apply. You may now report freely about the case.

Taken from the NewEra newsletter dated May 8 2013.