XPost: ch.soc.law, za.politcs   
      
   Is there an accepted order of 'trumping' of these principles,   
   related to this matter?   
      
   As a Swiss citizen [see passport exhibit] I have for several decades   
   been covered by the Soliswiss 'insurance for Swiss living abroad,   
   who for political reasons, not of their own cause, lose their lively-   
   hood, due to political reasons'. This is intended to cover events   
   like the [the Iranian revolution ?] and Zimbabawian white-farm   
   looting. [See Soliswiss certificate exhibit.]   
      
   Accordingly, my pending need to approach Soliswiss for a claim   
   against the loss of my life's savings and pension, and  income   
   rental, due to the, now well publicised and thus commonly   
   recognised South African municipal billing crisis, will need to   
   expose incompetence and injustice ALSO of the SA Courts.   
   Which would not be in the national interest.   
      
   From 1968, when I bought the property, until the 90's, when   
   it had become my rental income, I had no problems with   
   any municipal accounts, as indeed was the normal case, then.   
      
   In the 90's   
   when I challenged the municipal authorities about their repeated   
   false billing, they contrived a default judgment and confiscated my   
   property.  The record shows [below in more detail] that the SA   
   judicial system is equally incompetent [and perhaps corrupt] as the   
   already amply exposed municipal billing system is.   
      
   At the magistrate application to have the default judgment rescinded   
   it was found that I had no defence since   
   .   
   I.e. that events AFTER the default judgment justified such judgment.   
   I.e. that cause comes after effect.   
   I.e. that time moves backwards.   
      
   At the [pro se] appeal hearing the judges acknowledged the absurd   
   reasoning of the magistrate by discarding the magistrate's written   
   reasons and introducing their OWN [also wrong] NEW reason:   
   thereby denying me the constitutional, common law and existing   
   statutory right to have the arguments know before the hearing, in   
   order to prepare a rebuttal.   
      
   From my spreadsheet that I had delivered to the municipal   
   authorities [not knowing that they had already contrived a default   
   judgment], the appeal judges were able to see that at the summons   
   date [of which I had been unaware] the amount admitted as owing   
   and withheld had accumulated to exceed the claim/summons.   
      
   This is NOT a reason to assert that I had no defence against the claim   
   because:   
   1. the claim was for services up to a CERTAIN date, as specified by the   
   summons. Debts incurred after the claim belonged to a different matter.   
   2. Although I didn't know at the time: the ordinance which requires the   
   municipal authorities to send an arrears warning, mandates that the   
   amount litigated is FIXED by such warning; and all following accounts,   
   correctly showed, "balance handed over" as FIXED. Hence correctly   
   confirming the fixed amount litigated.  Hence making any comparison   
   of amounts owed at later dates irrelevant to the application for   
   setting-aside the default judgment.   
   3. If the sheriff fell-off-his-bicycle and was delayed for some days   
   in serving the summons, the resulting new billing period could well   
   make the admitted withheld amount exceed the [DATE FIXED] claim.   
   So the appeal judges decision would depend on the dog that chased   
   the sheriffs bicycle. That's not how, even SA law is intended to work.   
   4. By considering a simplified model where the correct billing is $10   
   per month and the false billing is $11 per month, it is seen that at   
   all times from when payment is with-held, the false bill exceeds   
   [increasingly] the amount withheld, and that it is absurd to claim   
   that since the admission of owing $30 after 3 months exceeds the   
   summons based on the $22, 2-month false claim, the debtor has no   
   defence, and that there is nothing to decide. I.e that the municipality   
   has made no mistake.   
      
   After this stage the matter becomes really complex, and interesting.   
      
   PS. the spreadsheet supplied to TLC, accompanied bank statements showing   
   the escrow account of the withheld debt. So how does that effect the   
   rule  to [not execute immovables when cash is clearly available]?   
      
   == Thanks for any feedback.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)