15 May 2012 at 2:30 pm - Secma vs Safe Hermanus

Richard Reck 

Let's agree to disagree.

This will give you more quality time with your sensible guru and I can spend time with my cronies.

14 May 2012 at 7:42 pm - Secma vs Safe Hermanus

Well, Mr Wreck, you make it quite obvious that you are trying to avoid answering to relevant issues, even though you've raised them yourself....do not think that it goes by unbeknownst to the public.

Your security of cost application should be an interesting one, since (at least) R 470 000.00 of Secma's money is at the very heart of these court matters.

You really think you can just unlawfully take money and then plead for more??

You are quite right that the name Secma seems new to a lot of people, although the name as well as the company exists since 1999.

You should hear the comments when your new clients are told and shown that they are contracting to Beckazaku (trading since 2002 or 2009 - not sure anymore) ........ can you imagine the surprise?

Unwitting clients lured into the abyss........

I really think it's time to stop being reck-less and to realise that you've overplayed your hand.

As a wise guru once told me : "Never test the water with both feet ...."

Secma vs Safe Security Hermanus

13 May 2012 at 6:12 pm - Secma vs Safe Hermanus

Richard Reck ‎ 

1. IF you pay then no delay, and I think you really want a delay.

2. If you had provided the documents you agreed to provide, the 1st matter will have already been concluded. (We now all know why we didn't get the documents).

3. Most of the clients we speak to have never heard of secma before March 2012.

4. I am not sure who you are referring to in respect of "cronies" but I can assure you they number more than two.

5. I hope you're letting your "callers" know that on your version(s) the money was collected on secma's behalf, for the amount owing to Safe by secma!

Secma vs Safe Security Hermanus

13 May 2012 at 10:47 am - Secma vs Safe Hermanus

Your last comment, however, is quite an interesting one and opens up a host of relevant issues.

Firstly, I already smell that very first delay tactic I mentioned less than 24 hours ago...... well done!!

Secondly, why don't you just pay back the R 155 000.00 (plus costs) as ordered by the court?

Appealing it constantly will not make it go away.

Thirdly, even Secma's clients understand that they are duly contracted to Secma.

You and your two local cronies are the only ones claiming fraud........interesting, don't you think?

Fourthly, since you mentioned "fraudulently obtained monies", why don't you provide a breakdown of license fees collected each year, detailing the clients who actually authorised such debit?

Had a couple of interesting calls the past week regarding this very issue, so it should become public knowledge soon anyway.

Secma vs Safe Security Hermanus

13 May 2012 at 9:52 am - Secma vs Safe Hermanus

What was that you wrote about drivel?

I'll leave it up to you to remove your second last comment.

Not one of your better efforts....

Secma vs Safe Security Hermanus

13 May 2012 at 9:27 am - Secma vs Safe Hermanus

Richard Reck ‎  

Why not help matters along by paying the security of costs from some of the fraudulently obtained monies collected from clients?

Secma vs Safe Security Hermanus

13 May 2012 at 9:25 am - Secma vs Safe Hermanus

Richard Reck

"You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time"

Secma vs Safe Security Hermanus

12 May 2012 at 2:47 pm - Secma vs Safe Hermanus

Richard, I do not believe for one second that you actually want your various versions put to the test.

I dare you to actually stick to our court date, but I suspect you will more than likely employ one of your now infamous delay tactics not to have the matter heard.

Please spite me and prove me wrong....

Secma vs Safe Security Hermanus

12 May 2012 at 11:07 am - Secma vs Safe Hermanus

Richard Reck

Eben, those close to you HAVE to believe your drivel.

These issues will be debated in the appropriate forum(s) in due course and our respective allegations will be put to the test.

Secma vs Safe Security Hermanus

10 May 2012 at 10:18 am - Secma vs Safe Hermanus

Strange how someone, who is supposedly confident about the outcome of civil proceedings, is doing his utmost to intimidate Secma's clients into signing new contracts, while on the other hand claiming Secma's clients to be his anyway.

I just hope all the new partners in this scheme manage to open their eyes before it's too late for them as well. Creating side-issues to deflect the focus from fraudulent activities will only fool a handful of people, as should be quite apparent by now.

Why don't you provide a full list of Safe Security's contraventions of the PSIRA Act so we can compare notes, Mr Transparent.

Secma vs Safe Security Hermanus

10 May 2012 at 8:16 am - Secma vs Safe Hermanus

Richard Reck 

No not at all. I am confident that the issue of who is misleading who will soon be settled in the criminal and civil courts. Perhaps SAPS and PSIRA will also establish whether they have been misled.

Have a good hard look at the PSIRA Act (Table of Offences Schedule).

Secma vs Safe Security Hermanus

09 May 2012 at 10:01 pm - Secma vs Safe Hermanus

Are you referring to the 2 cancellations we received from Safe Hermanus and reversed back to Secma International because they were mislead?

Secma vs Safe Security Hermanus

09 May 2012 at 7:58 am - Secma vs Safe Hermanus

Richard Reck

Tell us about your incredibly successful day yesterday!

Secma vs Safe Security Hermanus

01 April 2012 - 3 - Secma vs Safe Hermanus

Some more interesting reading :

On 5 December 2008, Safe Hermanus effectively stole more than R 215 000.00 of our money that was due to us by our clients.

Reck contended that we repudiated the agreement between us and cancelled our agreement.

Safe Hermanus further shut us off from our clients by not alerting us of alarm signals received at their control room and sent their own vehicles and unqualified personnel to Gansbaai to compete with us and to attend to our clients' alarm signals (sound like De ja vu?).

We rejected this ridiculous claim of repudiation and AGAIN launched an urgent application under High Court case number 20361/2008 to resolve this issue.

FACT : Safe Hermanus (tellingly) did not even oppose this application. On 10 December 2008 an order was granted in which, among others, it was ordered that :

1. Safe Hermanus pay us the full amount as stated.

2. Safe Hermanus refrain from interfering in our business

3. Safe Hermanus refrain from contacting our personnel with job offers.

Does this sound like a case, as Reck now contends, that was abandoned?

What on earth MORE would there be to go to court for apart from a cost order?

We got everything we asked for.

AGAIN, why would Reck's version differ so drastically from the truth?

ANOTHER honest mistake?

You be the judge ...... (This is also public record and easily verifiable)

Secma vs Safe Security Hermanus

01 April 2012 - 2 - Secma vs Safe Hermanus

It might be time to present you with a few FACTS regarding our legal disputes with Safe Security Hermanus over the last few years. July 2008 :

We launched an urgent application under High Court case number 11537/2008 to prevent Safe Hermanus from further debiting our clients' bank accounts as Secma International CC is duly contracted to each of our clients.

The case was postponed to the semi-urgent roll and was heard on 10 November 2008. FACT : On 21 December 2008 this case was dismissed as it was regarded as not urgent enough (which is the obvious reason why urgent applications are dismissed).

Richard Reck of Safe Hermanus now contends that it was regarded as an abuse of process, when the actual wording on the court order reads :

 It is ordered : That the application is dismissed with costs.

Nothing more.

Which beckons one to ask WHY would Reck's strongly worded version then be incorrect?

Honest mistake?

 You be the judge...... (This is public record, so it will be easy to confirm my version of events)

Secma vs Safe Security Hermanus

01 April 2012 - 1 - Secma vs Safe Hermanus

Safe Hermanus is doing its utmost to confuse our clients into signing new contracts with them.

They now even threaten some clients with debiting their bank accounts while cutting off their monitoring.

This is a clear indication of Safe Hermanus's malicious intent to destroy the business relationship between us and our clients. How could anyone act in this manner and still claim that clients are actually "theirs"

Secma vs Safe Security Hermanus