Your article “The Judge and the stripper” (nose148) refers. Why should border officials let any “stripper” into our country? So that Gary Eisenberg and his buddies can get their rocks off while watching her strut her stuff at his client’s bar?
“Mukhamdieva failed to convince border officers that she met all the criteria to qualify for entry. She did not have the required letter from Eisenberg’s client confirming her employment by them”.
In fact, according to your article, Eisenberg’s client was not even her “employer”.
That should have been the end of the story. What followed was a farce. The “joke” is on Eisenberg for trying to screw the border control system.
• Re Your report on the Mavericks application before Judge Davis (nose148): it is of course human trafficking.
Who are the proprietors of Mavericks? Surely they need naming and shaming?
• It has become quite fashionable of late to take a dig at the country’s judiciary; however, I believe that the dignity of the person or the institution he/she represents should not be impugned.
Unfortunately, in your latest article regarding “The Judge and the stripper” (nose148) the line was crossed: you were not fair to Judge Davis in seeking to portray his conduct as misinformed and amateurish.
We have generally held Judge Davis in extremely high regard. But our report suggests not that the judge was misinformed and amateurish but rather that – regrettably, on this occasion – he may have crossed the line by being opinionated, condescending and careless of proper procedure. And that he might have been persuaded to enter the arena to favour a lawyer he was eager to please. – Ed.
I did not know your magazine at all before a friend brought me a copy of issue 131 (September 2010) with the article, “What are they hiding?”
In it you state I was involved in arrangements for a meeting in Washington to ship huge amounts of money out of South Africa, or which is in banks in the US, Panama and other countries.
I would like to know who has given you this information, where the proof is that I was involved in these arrangements and what my role is/was in this whole ridiculous fantasy.
I have consulted my attorney in South Africa and my attorney in the United States to file a law suit against Noseweek for “Deformation [sic] of Character and Publishing Unproven Statements” in the amount of US$20 000 000-00.
You have until February 10 to respond and clarify in detail your article’s statement about my name and company, Seal Bureau of Investigation, from September 2010.
Klaus Otto Weber
Intelligence, Law Enforcement & Military Consultant
Ciprointernational Ltd, UK Regional Office for Africa,
South America & Middle East: Constantia Intelligence Consultants Johannesburg
Reading your article about Allen Jones who took moneys illegally from the UIF, “High-flier takes the low road” (nose147) shocked me.
Fraudulently drawing R39 000 when you have everything in life is just criminal.
I sincerely hope that he does not get away with it – and that the Noseweek article will discourage similar acts of fraud. A man like this worked for 40 years for top financial institutions?
Noseweek reported in nose148 how accountant Asim Qaiser, once rated the star employee of Cape-based financial services group, Oasis, was denigrated in a six-page rant by his Oasis bosses when he left their employ – and was refused his provident fund payout. This was despite the fact that Qaiser left with a folder of glowing testimonials, including one from Oasis’s auditors, PriceWaterhouseCoopers.
Noseweek’s story prompted the following extraordinary letter from PWC:
I refer to my [testimonial] letter of 30 March 2011 in respect of Asim Qaiser (Mr Qaiser).
This letter was requested by Mr Qaiser for the purposes of applying for employment opportunities in Pakistan following our professional interaction with him during an audit of the Oasis Crescent Property Fund in May 2010.
The letter was not intended for use in any pending or threatened litigation nor for any purpose other than seeking employment outside of South Africa.
I request that Mr Qaiser informs all parties who may have received my letter of 30 March 2011 accordingly.
In our most recent issue, Noseweek had occasion to describe a former Netcare executive as a “rat”; by comparison, Mr Burger warrants only the designation “wee mousie”.
Anyone need a tame accountant? – Ed.
Copyright © 2013 www.noseweek.co.za