Newspapers published the above statement after Jacob Zuma was found not guilty of raping a woman.
Simon Prophet has always been innocent but civil forfeiture took his home.
Simon Prophet has no criminal drug record and there is no verifiable record of any drug crime ever having been committed at 54 Balfour Street yet in 2003 the Asset and Forfeiture Unit sold Simon's home as an instrumentality of a non existent drug crime.
In violation of non derogable Constitutional law the Asset and Forfeiture Unit presumed Simon's criminal guilt and to satisfy an Act of Parliament that is inconsistent with the Constitution, Simon's "innocent owner" status was ignored by both the Supreme Court of Appeal and the Constitutional Court.
Why was it expedient for the Supreme Court of Appeal and the Constitutional Court to sacrifice South Africa's Bill of Rights in order to respect, protect, promote and fulfil civil asset forfeiture?
In a lawful society it would happen the other way around and civil asset forfeiture would have been sacrificed to respect, protect, promote and fulfil the rights in the Bill of Rights because any law that is inconsistent with the Constitution is invalid.
Civil asset forfeiture is a scam and a serious crime against humanity.
Its real purpose, which is hidden, is not to prevent crime. It is a master mind control game to dupe you and the entire world into quietly accepting to relinquish any individual's right to own land.
Where fairness reigns supreme, in a world that is free, who owns what is as a consequence of a willing buyer and a willing seller and a fundamental function of government is to vociferously protect people's property.
When government meddles into which individuals can own land and which individuals can't own land then we are degraded into a dictatorship that concerns itself with neither the Constitution nor the will of people who want to own land.
From a different angle but by following an equally treacherous agenda, Julius Malema's proposal in 2011 and in 2016 to deprive white South African's of their property without compensation has already happened to Simon Prophet in 2003 and the action was sanctioned by the Supreme Court of Appeal in 2005 and was also sanctioned by the Constitutional Court in 2006.
A forfeiture farce.
54 Balfour Street has never been presented as an exhibit in any criminal trial and in the absence of a crime it was condemned as an instrumentality of a suspected crime by a judge who has been shown to have lied and Simon Prophet who has no criminal drug record, was, together with his family, evicted from his home under the pretence of fighting drug crime.
To add insult to injury, Prophet has been ordered to continue to pay the bank mortgage bond for the same house from which he has since been evicted and that court order was signed by a judge who committed adultery and was accused of raping a woman.
Fraud and corruption.
In 2001, to protect and promote the scam called the Prevention of Organized Crime Act, in its attack against Simon Prophet, Willie Hofmeyr told the people of South Africa that civil asset forfeiture would prevent the country from being run by criminals and then all the way up to and after 2009, Willie Hofmeyr, as acting head of the Asset and Forfeiture Unit, watched, seemingly paralyzed, as a man directly connected to an eighty billion Rand corruption, fraud and racketeering disgrace, namely Jacob Zuma, who accepted a bribe from a convicted felon, was elected to run the country as the president of South Africa.
Makes you think doesn't it?
Everyone knows, including Willie Hofmeyr, that in the world of speculation and on a balance of probabilities that Jacob Zuma, with 783 charges of corruption, racketeering and fraud, is toast. Schabir Shaik was sentenced to 15 years jail and his assets were forfeited because he was found guilty of bribing Jacob Zuma but as far as forfeiting Jacob Zuma's assets for accepting the bribe then Willie Hofmeyr stirred not.
Simon Prophet agrees with Jacob Zuma that "a person who is charged remains innocent until proven otherwise" but does not agree with Willie Hofmeyr who maintains that civil asset forfeiture can circumvent criminal justice and forfeit assets from a person who has been found not guilty of crime.
Do not be fooled. Civil asset forfeiture is not preventing crime and it does not prevent our country from being run by criminals. It is destroying property rights and attacking our fundamental freedoms.
Civil forfeiture is an insidious Act of Parliament and it is an international cancer.
In 2011 Matt Lee was pulled over by drug interdiction police in Nevada while on the last leg of a cross-country move from Michigan to California. In an ensuing K-9 search, police discovered $2 400 in cash, loaned to Lee by his father. Despite the fact that officers had no proof of any connection to a crime -- Lee had never even been arrested before -- they seized the cash and left the 31-year-old to complete the trip with only $151. Lee later tried to reclaim his cash. He hired a lawyer, and the county eventually agreed to return his money. By then, the legal fees had totaled $1,269.44, leaving Lee with less than half of the money that had been taken from him.
After more than two years, Matt Lee won back his $2,400 taken from him through civil forfeiture. As part of the agreement, he had to sign a form releasing Humboldt County Sheriff department of any liability.
Civil forfeiture must be seen for what it is.
It must be done away with or it will lead us to our ruin.
In order to succeed, tyranny must present itself to a free nation in increments so that by the time you realize what is happening then itís already too late.
We must see the Prevention of Organized Crime Act for what it really is.
Civil asset forfeiture is not preventing crime and is covertly the beginning part of an elaborate mind control plot to end private ownership of land.
This website uses the case history of Simon Prophet to reveal the extent to which the South African Justice Department has been seduced into openly violating International Law, Constitutional Law, Common Law, Natural Law and the Ten Commandments in order to uphold civil asset forfeiture.
It is not a function of government to deprive people of their property.