Not in my back pocket

When I opened this blog to submit the below, I was reminded of the days when it was hyper-important for me to have a comb in my back pocket. You see, the hair had to be perfect as I thought that that would be a good impression on the ladies.

I never realized, of course, that the state of my hair had nothing to do with the potentiality of a good time but nevertheless, the comb served me well. Of course more important was the state of the hair of the lady - but when young, one tends to be vain.

Today, I realized that I haven't needed a comb for many years now. Yes, so now and then a brush for the above-ear fluff. More important: I have realized that the state of the top of one's head has little influence on the appeal. At least not for me, while I wipe my gleaming patch.

Unlike my comb, I had not forgotten about you, and meant to write a few times already but family crises prevented frivolities. However, today arrived an E-mail from a person that looks like this:

Please could you send an email to all Edwafin Investors asking them the following as I think it will be better if the email comes from you.


If any of you did your investment in 2004 to 2006 I need to know if any of you have the document that indicated insurance cover from Lloyds of London or the 2 or 3 page document that indicated insurance cover from Investec which was provided when Patrick advised the cover had moved from Lloyds of London to Investec.
Investors were told the capital was covered by Lloyds of London and then later Investec.
If you have these documents in your possession please can you let me know as soon as possible?


They can email you and if you do not mind you could let me know if you have any positive response.

Kind Regards

For those who would like to participate, my E-mail address is mkoppers@chromatique.com.

Goody-goody

Don't break out the bubbly yet

Many thanks to all the anonymousses who have worked so hard at trying to get information about the insurers of Edwafin. I need to quote one person, as she left her info as a personal message, but I don't want to divulge her name. Before i do that, however, I have a comment to make, but I do so under correction.

When we received our cheques that went unpaid in December, those cheques were not made out to "cash", and I remember that a note with the cheque stated that we should not try and cash it over the counter, but that it needed to be deposited. I speak under correction, but I seem to remember from some time ago that only cheques that bounce which have been made out to "cash" are considered fraud if they bounce. Patrick covered his tracks very well by issuing the cheques and then cancelling them himself. The cheques therefore did not bounce either, but were cancelled. According to me this is a matter for the civil court - and that is where we are now - and not one for any criminal pursuance such as fraud. I'm not saying that they aren't fraudsters, perhaps they are, but I don't think that in this instance you will have such a claim. However, I stand to be corrected.

The liquidator whom I spoke about recently is Mr Eugene Nel of Berringer Inc, in Natal somewhere. He was going to keep the investors in the loop but he was waiting for court documents, and I suppose he is not ready yet. His company is NOT on the Internet so you will search in vain and discover all sorts of interesting things, except Berringer Inc. Here is there phone number if you have important matters to share: 033 3455331.

Now for that quote:

Hi Mario,

I have some information!!!!

Ian Coleman of Coleman insurance is indeed the man who did the Fidelity Cover for Edwafin.

According to him the policy belongs to Edwafin and so only they can place a claim.

However I'm sure the liquidators are now able to process that claim, at least for the RD cheques that were issues.

The policy is with Etana Insurance Brokers (http://www.etana.co.za)

All correspondence needs to be addressed to florence@colemaninsurance.co.za

A lovely young man Matthew at Coleman Insurance who is equally as horrified as us by the actions of the Edwafin Directors (whom he knew through their insurance dealings) has asked for your blog link to forward to other investors who he has had contact with, which I have done, so perhaps we can increase the Class Action List.

Yesterday I had a lot to say, but now I have to go an teach. Should urgent things arise, I will nevertheless report back.

At last we arrive at Sanctus

I didn't think this would ever happen. For weeks now I have been wanting to address the "I told you so" phenomena. Today is the day.

First I need to make some announcements

Edwafin Insurance
Yesterday I quoted Patrick Stapleton as saying that the insurance policy they had had been allowed to lapse. A person, interested in joining the Class Action wrote me an email this morning which I partially quote below. I suspect she wants to remain anonymous, and therefore respect that:

I can confirm that Edwafin does have PL/Fidelity cover with Coleman Gold Brokers based in Hillcrest, Durban.
It is an annual policy that falls due for renewal in July.
So from what I can see, we can definitely lay claim.
Please lets also go this route.

Class Action
I think we have now gathered a good number of individuals who have shown an interest in participating in a possible Class Action against the (past)Directors of Edwafin. I have communicated with my Attorney, and asked her to consider the matter - the feasibility and timing, etc., so I am awaiting her response. Somehow I have a feeling that we may have to delay taking positive action, if any, until the liquidators have finished their job. However, suggestions are welcome. This is an urgent matter for most of us but whatever happens, it is not going to happen overnight so we have to let things happen according to the professionals.

Again, if you would like to participate in any possible Class Action, please send your details to edwafinclass@chromatique.com. It is confidential and at this stage and places you under no obligation. Once matters have progressed, you may have to reconsider your participation, but you will always be kept fully appraised through various media and a private website.

WARNING: Those who have their feet firmly on mother Earth, you may want to stop reading.
Yesterday we spoke about the comments of anonymous, who instructed us to suspend our own thought processes, and to place all our confidence in the findings and decision of the liquidators, courts, police and other similar social constructs. My argument was to do so would be to deny our own experience of reality and essentially submit to the limitations and restriction imposed on us by groups of collective conciousness. (I tried to make that in one sentence, biut alas: no.) Anonymous's supposition is that the liquidators necessarily have the investors interest at heart. In a way yes - according to the description of the structure. First of all, though, they have their own interests at heart - money for them., it is their way of earning money. Thereafter we get the salaries that still need to be paid (including those of the directors I suspect), other primary and preferred creditors, court costs etc. not necessarily in that order. Then, and only after all those beuaties have been paid, it is the debenture holder's turn. About the legal issues I have my doubts as well, as they will have to make a appraisal whether any legal action instituted by them would be successful. Even if they decided to do so, and they win a case in court, it appears to me it will most probably be a criminal case. If so, and found guilty, those charged may go to jail or be fined, but that money does not go to the investors, it goes to.... I can not imagine a criminal court ordering any directors to pay damages to investors- a civil court action would be required for that.

Anonymous obviously meant well, as those are the values imprinted on us by those who want us to conform to their concept or idea of what reality should be. Imagine a sea of souls, all standing flat-feet on planet earth - they are the planet. Here and there, though, you have a few who stand on their toes because they regard it important to stand out above others. Now, keep in mind, excellence is a characteristic that needs to be admired but usually that results in souls with imposing statures. However, standing on your toes to achieve the same leads to cramps in one's legs and butt pains in others.

This phenomena is commonly "sanctimony", and is derived from the word sanctus or holy. (Of course that is a clue - didn't you get it?) As such it is also a quality or archetype most of us have to some degree, that is unless you are truly holy, and then you would probably not be around much. How does one recognize this archetype? They usually display the following qualities:

• They utter expressions such as: "I told you so", "when will we ever learn?", "this should never haven been allowed to happen", etc.
• Frequently they utter their profound statements after some or other calamity, but not necessarily always.
  
• Frequently they make wildly loose and vague statements that sound profound and learned, but actually bridges two different - often contradicting - realities. Yesterday's comment was about this phenomenon.
• There is the expectation that the receiver will suspend all his own thought processes and substitute them his by those of the sanctimoner.
• The sanctimoner earnestly believes that his statement is a reflection of reality, and that all other realities should therefore be incorrect and changed.

As a classically trained musician and academic I have encountered countless sanctimoners in my current sojourn on this planet. Not so much the practical musicians - either you can play an instrument well or you can't - but amongst the academics of our culture sanctimony is rampant. I have often found it most humorous that those who have the least to offer, suffer from the greatest degree of sanctimoniousness (oops!).

Here is an example. Personally, I can't stand male operatic singers, neither most females either. Their exaggerated bleating and bellowing just does not please my sensibilities (there is/was one exception and that is the late SA Deon van der Walt, a most sensible singer). Now, the fact that I don't like these huffers and puffers of noisy wind does not make them bad musicians, and does not give me the right to pronounce them as worthless to the music world. It is just my taste. It has no further implications to creation.

Yet in academia, a sanctomonier will inflate himself by merely stating that such and such a composition is "bad", or that it was a bad performance or musician. keep in mind the points I mentioned above. This person immediately assumes control over total reality by expressing his personal taste as a universal truth. Done! I'm that important. Society has become so gullible that these folks often rise to the top in their sphere of activity.

We have encountered a few of said archetypes on our blog as well. Most irritating are the "I told you so'ers". Can you see the imagination at work here. The perpetrator may be a journalist, and since most of humankind have lost the ability to communicate telepathically, we have to do so via the phone, or in person or in newspapers. Perhaps this person did, through his limited communication medium, tell or warn some about the possible dangers of investing with Edwafin. This does not imply that the message was disseminated universally in the first place. It also does not imply that his message has universal truth. By its very nature, this kind of statement is very apt following a misfortune of some kind. Imagine that Edwafin had not folded and after five year you have received your money back with interest. How many I told you so's would you have received then as opposed the ones that are uttered now. That is called benefiting from the opportunity. Of course, they miss the point of investing completely. Investing is about making money from money often with a risk factor involved. It is not an exact science, and nobody has all the answers. It is done daily on the stock exchange, and in a variety of other methods. our debentures were merely an option that we followed. As I have stated in the past, where would the cutoff point be as far as interest rates are concerned. Currently 5% would be a lot in the UK. Again they miss the point totally, and have you noticed how little concern these folk really have about those that have lost in the process. Of course not, because it is about the ego - sanctimoniousness.

Recently, we received a very nice comment from an anonymous. It said something like "Some would describe you investors as foolish, but you did nothing wrong, you were the victims..." Something along that line. Can you spot it? This is called "borrowed" reality, or transference of sanctimony.

Then there is the other famous one: "Will we ever learn?" In the absence of a particular person to direct the question to, it is made as wide as possible: "we". Obviously, although stated as a question it is in reality a statement that is secretly combined with a shake of the head. Any bets that this person did not include himself in the "we". This soul unquestionably had a field day telling all those millions of people who lost over $24 trillion on the recent stock market crash: "Will we ever learn?"

To all the investors who have now lost money to Edwafin, at least we have provided the sanctimonious with additional status. Without us, where would they be?