Gerhardus Mills is most aggrieved
News with intent!
Your advertising is only as good as the people who see it – repeatedly! You want to do business with OO readers – people with money and control of corporate budgets. Click here
Follow OO on twitter: oudtshoorno and facebook: Drewan Baird
Drewam Baird. Oudtshoorn. 18 March 2012. 08h05. Gerhardus (Hardy) Mills, attorney at law with ex clients such as Bitou and current ones such as Oudtshoorn and some grade sixer from Dysselsdorp whose name escapes me for the moment, is threatening to sue me for R1.5m.
So, here’s my reply.
March 16, 2012
Mr. B. Botes
RE: MR GERHARDUS PHILIPPUS MILLS / DREWIN (sic) BAIRD t/a OUDTSHOORN ONLINE (sic)
I am in receipt of your most agreeable letter (B BOTES/L BOOYSEN/js/M7171) of the 9th instant.
I deny liability.
Not often have I the privilege of perusing a missive with such arresting citations! And some twelve pages of wit, mot, and topper no less!
I believe congratulations are in order.
Your source is superbly authored, obviously by some xyresic individual with a ready turn for import.
However, and I do apologise that this nasty little word has to be put into play, I detect, and it might be chalked up to an unduly sensitive bearing on my part, a veleity of dissent in your closing remarks, leading me to a narking suspicion that your Gerhardus has somehow taken exception to my factual remarks.
In order to set the record straight I humbly request that you confirm the following for my benefit:
1. Did Mr. Justice Peter Combrinck, retired, in fact utter the exact words I quoted in an article of December 30?
2. Did Mr. Lloyd Fortuin, attorney at law, berate Gerhardus for late submissions in the High Court and absent instructions to Advocate Johan de Waal in a letter of January 20, as I reported in an article of even date?
3. Do you question the veracity of an observation by a Bitou Councillor, in my article of January 21?
4. Do you dispute the fact that failure to honour notices of motion is indicative of impropriety, as I adumbrate in a separate article of January 21?
5. Do you object to a ratepayer questioning the appointment of an attorney some 160km distant from the municipality engaging the attorney, as I argue on January 23 and 26?
6. Do you deny that Gerhardus disobliged the Bitou Municipality as I reported on February 1?
7. Do you deny that Gerhardus, at least through JEF, attempts to undo the current government of Bitou, as I allege in an article of February 27? I refer you, for example, to his letter to Premier Zille on February 21 as a functionary of the said JEF, and confirm that I regard this as Gerhardus’s democratic right!
I conclude, my dear sir, that if the reputation of your Gerhardus has been impugned – which I challenge him to prove – he has no one but himself to blame. It is the conduct of your Gerhardus and not my reporting of same, that, according to you, compromises his reputation.
Gerhardus also appears to have a sui generis and rather soi-disant take on reporting…
In a letter to a Bitou Councillor on November 29 last year, Gerhardus refers to “bad and false derogatory media articles published regarding myself” (my emphasis) and continues,” these articles also state that complaints are lodged against me at the Cape Law Society”.
It is abundantly clear that Gerhardus regards the reports of complaints to be “false”.
Yet, Gerhardus continues and requests the Councillor’s character evidence in the “anticipated hearing” – the “false” report is of a sudden true!?
Perhaps Gerhardus needs be schooled in media literacy in order to distinguish between false and factual so he will desist from wasting time with frivolous threats of outrageous relief for fallacious damage. Some helpful links to relevant academic programs and articles may be found on my website, for Gerhardus’s convenience.
I submit that my coverage is a mere function of Gerhardus’s own acts and that I have not injured Gerhardus – I have merely reported what Gerhardus appears to interpret as injury to Gerhardus by Gerhardus.
Your statement that it was my intention “to mean that (your) client is dishonest, unprofessional, unethical, unreliable, incompetent and unintelligent”, horrifies me. Nothing could be further from the truth!
I have keen reverence for Gerhardus! Only a professional of singular ability could, for instance, as a mere consultant, prodigious as such designation is, effect to have a law firm bear his name (as in Mills & Lombard). I know that if I am ever in need of legal advice, someone of the ability of Gerhardus Philippus Mills will be on my calling list!
No sir! You are wrong! I do not think, as you say, that Gerhardus is “dishonest, unprofessional, unethical, unreliable, incompetent and unintelligent”.
As you must be a busy man, looking out for Gerhardus and all, and as I, in my own small way, have also a good many calls upon me, I trust that we can dispense with the beguiling banter expeditiously and return to those duties we each believe we are obliged to fulfill.
Should you stoop to billing me for a reply to the above questions, pray determine a more propitious rate than that employed by Gerhardus for the Bitou account.