click here to go HOME if you have one
judge lies drug propaganda Prophet's reply petitions
Presumption of innocence.
I do not acknowledge that any of these chemicals were found in my home. I discuss the chemicals at length to show that they are not illegal. What I am bringing to the attention of the general public is that even if these chemicals had been uncovered in my home that the mere presence of them being there does not make me a drug dealer.
There may have been hundreds chemicals in my home and some of those chemicals may have had applications to produce bombs but having chemicals that could produce bombs does not make me a terrorist. Similarly having chemicals that can produce drugs does not make a person a drug dealer.
If some people live in fear of their lives then that is their right but if I choose to engage in the freedom of my personal expression which includes scientific research then that is also my supreme right (section 16(1) (d)) and I will not be intimidated by a state or an invisible force that would have me limit the potential of my life through an unfounded fear that I might be doing something wrong.
I have a right to life and that includes the exploration of life and being stuck to a television screen does not constitute value in my life and if I choose to pursue scientific exploits then that is my supreme right.
If in those endeavors I have violated a law then there is a criminal justice system whereby any such allegations can be considered. The police did violate my privacy in their search for drugs but the forensic investigation did not produce drugs and that is where the investigation should have ended.
The Prevention of Organized Crime Act does not have authority to establish the validity of criminal allegations. The Prevention of Organized Crime Act uses methods of enquiry that are inconsistent with criminal law, common law and Constitutional law. The Prevention of Organized Crime Act is a disgraceful law and it is not a valid law because it violates the Constitutional through and through.
I am not a danger to society any more than the next person and I have the full right to the protection of my dignity and so here is my response to the unjust judgement of Erasmus and I start with the first part of paragraph 12 of his judgment:
Erasmus says:
The applicant’s case. The applicant in this matter seeks a forfeiture order against the respondent owner of a property, which the applicant contends has been used in several drug-related offences. The applicants allege that the respondent “was using the property in an attempt to manufacture a Schedule 2 drug under the Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act, as well as for the possession of and dealing in prohibited substances.” The applicant argues that the property was “instrumental in the commission of the following offences.”
MY REPLY:
In the first criminal trial the state admitted that no illegal drugs or traces of illegal drugs were uncovered in my home. During the second criminal trial the investigating officer testified under oral oath that, under the Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act of 1992, he did not have the authority to arrest me for being in possession of the chemicals that are claimed to have been uncovered in the unlawful search. The chemicals that are claimed to have been found at my home are not prohibited substances. It is legal to possess them and it is legal to experiment with them. This was established as a fact “beyond all reasonable doubt” in my criminal trial.
“Scheduled substances” are not illegal. To try to suggest that a chemical like acetone is illegal is just downright ridiculous.
During cross examination the testifying officer tried to imply that my being in possession of the chemicals was contravening laws relating to "gesondheidswetgewing en toksiesunder hazardous substances" whatever that is supposed to be, but I was never charged for violating any such other laws although the state did along with charging me under the Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act of 1992 also take the trouble to charge me for violating the Riotous Assemblies Act of 1956.
Erasmus forfeited my home in 2003. My criminal trial was not concluded until 2005.
Since when does the criminal justice system allow civil courts to dispose of evidence before that evidence has been submitted in the relevant criminal trials? Is it a criminal offence to willfully and knowingly dispose of relevant evidence during the proceedings of a criminal trial? Could we say that Willie Hofmeyr and Erasmus deliberately tampered with evidence and if so then what is the prescribed penalty for so doing?
Are you a law student, a lawyer, an advocate, a magistrate or a judge or just some guy out there who knows a little about the law? Are you in knowledge of the above and can you assist me in by notifying me what if any laws were violated? Please send me the relevant information to simon@simonprophet.com. You can remain anonymous by communicating with me via an internet cafe.
Erasmus says:
Contravention of section 3 of the Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act: “Manufacture and supply of scheduled substances. No person shall manufacture any scheduled substance or supply it to any other person, knowing or suspecting that any such scheduled substance is to be used in or for the unlawful manufacture of any drug”. In that respondent manufactured 1-phenyl-2-propanone, a scheduled substance, (defined in schedule 1 of the Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act as one of the “substances useful for the manufacture of drugs.”) with the intention to use it in the manufacture of a drug, namely methamphetamine.
MY REPLY:
It has not been shown that I manufactured 1-phenyl-2-propanone but even in the event that someone did, it would not be an offence in terms of the Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act. Not one molecule of any drug exists to suggest that I or anyone that I know intended to use 1-phenyl-2-propanone to make methamphetamine. I have not contravened section 3 of the Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act.
Erasmus says:
Contravention
of 4(b) of the Drugs and Drug Trafficking
Act read with section
1(1)(xxvii), in that respondent was found in possession of phenyl acetic acid,
(defined in schedule 1 of the Drugs and Drug Trafficking
Act as one of the “substances useful
for the manufacture of drugs”), 1-phenyl-2-propanone and methylamine.
Section 4(b) prohibits the possession of any “undesirable dependence
producing substance.” Section 1(1)(xxvii) defines this as “any
substance from which a substance can be manufactured included in Part III of
schedule 2 of the DDT Act.”
MY REPLY:
The allegations of the state are contradictory. In one breath it says I manufactured a chemical with the intention to use it in the manufacture of a drug and in the next breath it tries to present an argument that the same chemical is already a drug.
Why walk down the garden path through a maze of definitions? If phenylacetic acid is a drug then why not just say that it is a drug? The state could not do that because none of these chemicals are drugs. Once you realize that these chemicals are not drugs then you can’t charge someone under section 4(b).
Why didn’t Erasmus see the contradiction? It is not an offence to possess phenylacetic acid, 1-phenyl-2-propanone and methylamine because these chemicals are not drugs. Methylamine is not listed in the Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act and phenylacetic acid and 1-phenyl-2-propanone are listed as scheduled substances. Nowhere in the Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act does it say that to possess these chemicals constitutes an offence. It is not illegal to buy them or to possess them or to experiment with them.
No drug exists to say that I made a drug from these substances. No unaccountable money exists and no customer exists to say that it was my intention to sell these chemicals in suspicious circumstances and there is not even any conclusive proof that such chemicals were even found in my home.
Affidavits are not proof of anything.
If they were then Judge Desai would be sitting in a
The heading of Section 4(b) is use and possession of drugs. No drugs were found in my home. No part of section 4 refers to scheduled substances or prohibits the possession of scheduled substances.
Section 1(1)(xxvii) does not apply because phenylacetic acid is not a substance from which a drug can be made. Likewise 1-phenyl-2-propanone is not a substance from which a drug can be made and also methylamine is not a substance from which a drug can be made.
These substances are useful for the manufacture of drugs and so are thousands of other substances but this would not make any of these chemicals illegal and there is nothing in the Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act that says any combination of chemicals is illegal. The chemicals in isolation are useless in making a drug. No part of section 4 of the Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act refers to combinations of industrial chemicals as being illegal.
Let’s go back to our example of bread. Water is a substance from which bread can be made but having a 44 gallon drum of water does not mean that you can make bread. To say that someone is guilty of making bread because he has water in his home is ridiculous.
The definition of an “undesirable
dependence producing substance” as found in the Drugs
and Drug Trafficking Act is a meaningless
definition that has been overlooked by the law makers, the state and Erasmus.
Section 1(1)(xxvii) defines this as “any substance from which a substance
can be manufactured included in Part III of schedule 2 of the Drugs
and Drug Trafficking Act.”
The substances listed in Schedule 1 must be different to the substances listed in Schedule 2. This definition is a serious language error because what it is saying is that Schedule 2 substances are not the substances themselves but only the substances that are used to make Schedule 2 substances. The definition is linguistically absurd.
It was for me some disappointment when the second criminal trial was concluded in the way that it was because although I was relieved that my ordeal had been terminated I felt a little cheated in that I was unable to summon Erasmus to testify on the issue of his improper use of definitions. I would have had a field day with him and under cross examination he would have had to admit that he was wrong. Making him squirm in the witness box would have been my day of revenge after he viciously degraded my dignity and after he stole my home from me.
I know that few people will take the trouble to actually study what I am presenting here but anyone who takes the trouble to study the Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act will see that I am correct and that Erasmus is way off the mark.
Erasmus says:
Contravention of section 5(b), read with sections 1(1)(xiii) and 1(1)(xxvii) of the Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act, in that respondent dealt in an undesirable dependence producing substance. “Deal in” is defined in section 1(1)(iii) as including “performing any act with the shipment, importation, manufacture, supply of the drug.” Section 1(1)(xiii) defines “drug” as “any dependence producing substance or any undesirable dependence producing substance.” As methamphetamine is listed in Part III of schedule 2, by virtue of section 1(1)(xxvii) phenylacetic acid and 1-phenyl-2-propanone are within the definition of “undesirable dependence producing substance.” Accordingly both the importation of phenylacetic acid and the manufacture of 1-phenyl-2-propanone puts respondent firmly within the definition of having dealt in an undesirable dependence producing drug.
MY REPLY:
The heading of section 5 is dealing
in drugs. The drug police and
their forensic department have admitted that no drugs were found in my
home. No part of section 5 refers to scheduled
substances or prohibits dealing in scheduled
substances.
Erasmus so little understands what he is presenting that in his papers he gets confused and incorrectly refers to section 1(1)(xiii) (see pink highlight) as being the definition of drug. The definition of drug is found in section 1(1)(viii). Section 1(1)(xiii) refers to the definition of manufacture. Erasmus presents the argument with force and certainty but a literal interpretation of his argument shows it to be nonsensical. It is truly pathetic that not only has Erasmus misinterpreted the facts but also he has been unable to present the definition by its correct number to illustrate the erroneous point he is trying to make.
Erasmus is a high court judge who has ordered that my home be forfeited. There is no room for excuses. Erasmus enjoys the benefits of a fantastic income and has clumsily misrepresented the facts whereby he forfeits my home to the state. I am an unemployed person without an income. Why should I have to improvise so that I can follow what Erasmus is trying to say? Erasmus should be ashamed of himself and he owes me a home and the recovery of my life as it once was.
This mistake was not made originally by Erasmus. He copied the mistake down from the affidavit submitted by Adrian Carl Mopp, the deputy director of Public Prosecutions. See extract below. I can’t prove this but if it is so then it means that Erasmus never even took the trouble to read the definitions and just blindly accepted what was presented to him by the state. Erasmus insults my testimony and concurs with nonsensical statements presented by the state.
Extract from Mopp’s affidavit. Misprint or stupid mistake?
The allegation that I dealt in a drug is not true. The state has made an allegation that I dealt in a scheduled substance i.e. 1-phenyl-2-propanone but this is far from being an established fact but even if I had made a scheduled substance then by law I am entitled to do this. There is no drug to support that the chemical was being used to make an illegal drug and there is no customer who is testifying about his having bought or was planning to buy such a chemical from me to make drugs. All that is known with certainty is that the state is sitting with no case. I have done no wrong.
It is embarrassing, to say the least, that a person such as I, untrained in legal matters, can run rings around a high court judge’s judgement but what follows should be a punishable offence.
Erasmus has more than just concurred with the false allegations of the state. In the final sentence of paragraph 12 Erasmus says and I quote: “Accordingly both the importation of phenylacetic acid and the manufacture of 1-phenyl-2-propanone puts respondent firmly within the definition of having dealt in an undesirable dependence producing drug.”
I did not import
phenylacetic acid. I obtained this chemical from Hiebner who obtained the
chemical from B & M Scientific. If Erasmus wants to fire section 5(b) at
someone then he must aim in the direction of B & M Scientific. Thousands of
chemicals are imported into
The state presents a story
of intrigue beginning with Hiebner submitting a false name and tries to imply
that international smuggling was involved with the chemical ending up secretly
in a residential house in
Hiebner’s name does not appear on the invoice but so what? The true facts surrounding this issue have never been established. All that we can surmise is that the chemical was sold over the counter. The invoice does not reflect anything unusual and does not reflect the purchase of a substance that is restricted. It is simply an invoice and isn’t even made out to anyone. It is made out to CASH CLIENT.
The invoices of restricted substances are never made out to CASH CLIENT. No import information exists on the invoice to indicate that the phenylacetic acid was imported. Erasmus is lying to say that the chemical is a drug but he is also lying to say that it was I who imported the chemical.
Invoices of restricted or dangerous substances must be authorized.
This invoice doesn’t even have a physical address much less proper identification. It is just an ordinary cash customer invoice. How can a chemical listed on this invoice be interpreted as something that is illegal?
How can Erasmus fabricate an explicitly dishonest inclusion of his own and present such to be factual to my demise? Even Smit, in his fraudulent affidavit to obtain a search warrant knew who the importer was. He referred to B & M Scientific as “die invoerder”. B & M Scientific obtained this chemical and as we are told has supplied it to Hiebner on at least two different occasions.
In section 1(1)(xxvii) of the Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act “ “undesirable dependence producing substance” means any substance or any plant from which a substance can be manufactured included in Part III of Schedule 2.”” Erasmus has used this together with section 1(1)(viii){I have improvised for Erasmus here because he mistakenly refers to 1(1)(xiii)} and section 1(1)(iii) as the foundation to forfeit my home. There is no other means available for Erasmus to even speculate that I fall within the context of section 13 of the Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act.
1-phenyl-2-propanone and phenylacetic acid are not “undesirable dependence producing substances” because the Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act identifies them as “scheduled substances” in section 1 (xxv) and I quote: ““scheduled substance” means any substance included in Part 1 or II of Schedule 1” 1-phenyl-2-propanone appears in Part I of Schedule 1 and phenylacetic acid appears in Part II of Schedule 1.
Erasmus defines these two chemicals as “undesirable dependence producing drugs” in the last sentence of his paragraph 12 and thereby concludes that I am “firmly within the definition of having dealt in a drug”.
Erasmus is
talking rubbish. He cannot even say that I am firmly within the
definition of having dealt in a scheduled substance but if he could then the importation
of phenylacetic acid and the manufacture of 1-phenyl-2-propanone might “put
me firmly” within the definition of having dealt in “scheduled
substances” but according to the Drugs
and Drug Trafficking Act “dealing in scheduled substances” is not per se a
crime. If it is a crime then the author of the above invoice should be sitting
in jail but B & M Scientific have not even been charged.
By no stretch of the imagination can Erasmus say that dealing in scheduled substances is the same as dealing in drugs.
There are 11 indications within the Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act to show that the Act recognizes that phenylacetic acid and 1-phenyl-2-propanone are not drugs:
1) In section 1(1)(xxv) we read that Scheduled substance means any substance included in Part I or II of Schedule 1. 1-phenyl-2-propanone is included in Part I and phenylacetic acid is included in Part II. These two chemicals appear and are identified in only schedule 1 of the Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act. They don’t appear and they are not identified in any other section of the Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act.
2) In section 1(1)(viii) we read that drug means any dependence producing substance, any dangerous dependence producing substance or any undesirable dependence-producing substance. Scheduled substances are excluded from the definition of drug.
3) The subheading under Schedule 1 is Scheduled substances. This is different to the 3 subheadings that appear under schedule 2.
4) The 2nd subheading under schedule 1 is Substances useful for the manufacture of drugs. By implication these substances cannot therefore be drugs.
5) The 2nd subheading under the start of Chapter II says Acts relating to scheduled substances and drugs. The Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act makes a distinction between the two chemicals.
6) The subheading under section 13 is Offences relating to scheduled substances and drugs. The Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act makes a distinction between the two chemicals.
7) Section 25(a) refers to schedule substances and also to drugs which implies a distinction.
8) The subheading under section 4 is Use and possession of drugs. There is no reference in section 4 to scheduled substances.
9) The subheading under section 5 is Dealing in drugs. There is no reference in section 5 to scheduled substances.
10) The subheadings under Scheduled 2 are Part I, Part II and Part III. The subheading under Part I is Dependence producing substance. The subheading under Part II is Dangerous dependence producing substance. The subheading under Part III is Undesirable dependence producing substance. Scheduled substances do not appear anywhere under Part I, Part II or Part III or anywhere under Schedule 2.
11) Subsection 2 of Part I of Schedule 2, subsection 2 of Part II of Schedule 2 and subsection 2 of Part III of Schedule 2 all commence with the same three words: Unless expressly excluded. The subsections 2 of Part I, Part II and Part III include almost every chemical known to man so an enquiring mind is compelled to ask what are the chemicals that have been expressly excluded? It must be concluded that the chemicals that are excluded from Schedule 2 are the chemicals that have been included in Schedule 1. 1-phenyl-2-propanone is included in Part I of Schedule 1 and phenylacetic acid is included in Part II of Schedule 1. This is conclusive proof that these two chemicals are not what Erasmus and the state are trying to say that they are. They are not drugs.
When we study the proper interpretation, then which allegation would be “firmer”? That I experimented with “scheduled substances” or that I dealt in “drugs”?
Erasmus has misunderstood the definitions in the Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act and has ignored 11 indications within the Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act that say that the state is claiming that I was in possession of scheduled substances and that I did not deal in drugs. In legal terms there is a massive difference in dealing in scheduled substances and dealing in drugs. It is not with certainty an offence to deal in scheduled substances but it is an offence to deal in drugs. Erasmus is nefariously motivated to presume my guilt so he ignores the truth and falsifies the facts.
Dealing in “undesirable dependence producing substances” is against the law. See section 5(b) of the Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act. Dealing in “scheduled substances” is not necessarily against the law according to section 3 of the Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act. If the chemicals are not being used to manufacture a schedule 2 drug then it is not against the law to be in possession of them or to deal in them. If it were so easily an offence then the company that sold a scheduled substance in the first place would be sitting in jail but the company was not even charged.
The state has put forward an argument that through the sequence of its own misguided interpretations of the definitions it tries to portray a picture that I dealt in drugs. Its reasoning is that section 1(1)(iii) says that “deal in” means to import or manufacture a drug and that section 1(1)(viii) says that a “drug” is methamphetamine which is any ”undesirable substance” and that section 1(1)(xxvii) says that phenylacetic acid and 1-phenyl-2-propanone are undesirable substances because they are substances from which methamphetamine can be manufactured.
The state’s argument is gibberish.
The definitions of the scientific terms used in the Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act are neither truthful nor accurate. Chemicals are lumped together and the mere relationship between one chemical, which is not a drug, and another chemical, which is a drug, can convert the associated non-narcotic chemical into becoming a drug.
If we take the definition of undesirable dependence producing substances in section 1(1)(xxvii) literally then we can say that methamphetamine is not an undesirable dependence producing substance because it cannot be a substance from which it can manufacture itself because it is already that.
Let us go back to our example of bread. Various substances are required to manufacture bread. Yeast, flour, salt and water are substances that are used to make bread but you cannot say that those substances are bread.
Also when you refer to the substances that are used to manufacture bread then you are not referring to the bread itself. You cannot make bread from itself because it is already that. If you were to write out a shopping list for things that you needed to make bread you would not include bread on that list.
In section 1(1)(xxvii) of the Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act the definition of an undesirable dependence producing substance ignores the substance to which it is referring and incorporates only those substances that can be related to the substance to which it is supposed to be referring. It is an ambiguous definition and is therefore inappropriate and ineffective.
As the Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act is written phenylacetic acid and 1-phenyl-2-propanone are not “undesirable dependence producing substances”. They are defined in the Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act as “scheduled substances”.
When spoken about or referred to they must be recognized for what they are in terms of the definitions and in terms of the schedules of the Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act. They must be seen in terms of what is intended by the Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act or at the least in terms of common sense as closely as possible as is intended and this must also conform to the world of chemistry.
The Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act defines scheduled substances as substances other than drugs. These substances are listed in a schedule that is extensive and also is divided into two parts. An ambiguous definition cannot be interpreted in a way that contradicts 11 other inclusions within the Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act.
Scientifically speaking these chemicals are not narcotic substances so from the common sense point of view cannot be spoken of as “drugs”. You cannot convince a literate person that acetone or hydrochloric acid are drugs.
In terms of
the definitions and the schedules of Drugs and Drug
Trafficking Act they are not “drugs”.
The definition of “drug” in section 1(1)(viii) does not include “scheduled
substances”. “Drug” according to the Drugs
and Drug Trafficking Act is and I quote: “any
dependence-producing substance, any dangerous dependence-producing substance or
any undesirable dependence-producing substance”.
“Scheduled
substances” does not appear under the definition of drug.
So long as “scheduled substances” are not being used to produce substances listed in schedule 2 of the Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act there is no penalty imposed by the Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act for engaging with such chemicals. Under the proper circumstances there is no penalty for manufacturing them or from selling them. It makes no difference if they are useful for the manufacture of drugs. They are legal. If these chemicals were illegal then the South African economy would grind to a halt. They are some of the most common chemicals known to man. Acetone (such as is Cutex nail varnish remover) is listed in the Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act next to phenylacetic acid and hydrochloric acid.
Erasmus cannot be permitted to deviate from the truth. The state has presented a distorted interpretation of the definitions found within the Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act. Erasmus has repeated what was presented to him by the state and in his laziness even included Mopp’s numbering error. Erasmus applied no reasoning.
Dagga is made by planting a pip into the ground and giving it water. If you follow what Erasmus is saying then he is saying that soil and water are drugs because they are substances from which dagga can be made and that therefore dealing in soil or water can put you in jail. Clearly the man has been misguided.
I have the Constitutional right to be tried in a language that I can understand but why should I as an unemployed and homeless person have to be the one who has to point out to a high court judge what the definitions of the Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act mean so that he can understand what is written therein?
The misinterpretation of what “organized” means in terms of the Prevention of Organized Crime Act and the misinterpretation of what “criminal” means allowed Erasmus to forfeit my home to the state.
Erasmus has misinterpreted making 1-phenyl-2-propanone as dealing in drugs (section 5(b) of the Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act). He has misinterpreted importing phenylacetic acid as dealing in drugs (section 5(b) of the DDT Act).
I have done not the wrong that the state has alleged. There is no foundation for the “balance of probabilities” that Erasmus has proposed.
If Erasmus can’t properly identify the legality of my actions and those actions being what I am alleged to have done then how can he be permitted to speculate about where we do not know about what I may or may not have been doing in a place and time that is not known?
Erasmus is unable to properly identify what is in front of him. We can safely conclude that any speculation that is made by him that is arrived at by a projection into the unknown can only add up to a flat nil. It’s like a multiplication table. Zero multiplied by any number is still zero.
Mr. Justice Wilfred Thring was cleverly cautious to have said, “Why not find him guilty first and then ask for the forfeiture?” The cart has been put before the horse!
The first time I read paragraph 12 of Erasmus’s judgment I really thought I was guilty of several offences in the Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act. The paragraph is damning. If what is being said is true then yes I would have violated section 13 of the Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act and proclaiming my innocence would be futile but that is not the case.
On closer examination it becomes apparent that what is being said in paragraph 12 is far removed from the truth. All of the allegations are cleverly presented but they are nevertheless nothing more than dishonest and unjust fabrications.
No illegal drugs were found in my home and nothing in my history can point to any such claim and there is not a single testifying witness or a molecule of any illegal drug to uphold the state’s claim that that is what I may have been doing or may have intended to do.
The media
have presented this quote again and again. Its authenticity has never been
verified but the quotation has always been presented out of its proper context.
When the drug police broke into my home they handcuffed me to the burglar bars
and left me hanging there while they searched the house. The drug police
continued to bully me and made me believe that I had been doing something wrong.
Under such circumstances people might say many things. At the time I had never
read the Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act and it was only after I had studied the
Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act that I came to
know that I had not committed any crime.
What we do have is evidence from 2 criminal trials and “beyond all reasonable doubt” that the state’s star witness has committed perjury in an affidavit. You could reasonably say that he is an unreliable witness to say the least. You could also say that he is a downright liar.
Section 13 of the Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act does not say that it is always an offence to deal in scheduled substances. The required conditions for illegal acts concerning scheduled substances are clearly defined in section 3 of the Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act.
It is not illegal to possess or deal in 1-phenyl-2-propanone. It is a scheduled substance but it is not illegal. It only becomes illegal when the substance is used to produce an illegal drug as defined in the Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act. No drug or witness exists to support any such allegation against me.
The practical implication of me having phenylacetic acid, and it is not a drug, is that the company that sold this chemical may have commissioned section 3 of the Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act and the state is fully aware that B & M Scientific sold the chemical.
The state has been aware from the beginning of all the commercial transactions that have taken place. If the chemical is illegal then we have to ask why B & M Scientific has not been charged for commissioning section 5(b) of the Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act.
The state cannot escape by saying that the company has been co-operating with the police in order to catch illegal drug dealers because although I am not a drug dealer Hiebner has, according to invoices supplied by the state, purchased this chemical from the same company on more than one occasion and numerous other people may have purchased the same chemical from numerous other companies on numerous other occasions.
It will be easy to show that phenylacetic acid is a much more commonly used chemical than most people realize. Records of all those transactions do exist so it will be a simple procedure to enforce the law and more than one chemical supply company is going to be closed down for commissioning section 5(b) of the Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act.
This,
however is not the case because no one can be charged under section 4(b) for
being in possession of phenylacetic acid and no one can be charged under section
5(b) for dealing in phenylacetic acid because the bottom line is that
phenylacetic acid is not a drug. It is as its name implies; an acid.
Section 4 refers to use and possession of drugs and section 5 refers to dealing
in drugs. These two sections in the drugs act do not refer to industrial
chemicals.
Section 5 does not say that no person shall deal in scheduled substances and it cannot therefore be construed that if someone does that he is commissioning section 5.
My replies to the allegations of the state are factual. Erasmus doesn’t at any point in his verdict question the allegations of the state. It is easy for me to demonstrate that he should have because the allegations of the state are all completely unfounded and unproven and with the conclusion of the criminal trial it is now an established fact that every allegation against me was arrived at via the multiple unlawful actions of the state.
For Erasmus to ignore the organized criminal actions of the state, to accept blindly all the state’s allegations, to concur with those allegations when it is easily possible for me to show that he should have rejected them and then to make derogatory statements about my testimony even though there is no way that he can discernibly justify doing that outside of reckless guesswork is a clear indication that his agenda towards me is wicked.
The state and Erasmus rely on one definition in the Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act for their case. They rely on the definition of an “undesirable dependence-producing substance”.
In section 1(1)(xxvii) of
the Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act “undesirable dependence producing substance” means “any
substance or any plant from which a substance can be manufactured included in
Part III of Schedule 2.”
For an English speaking person this definition is meaningless because it refers to every chemical known to man except the chemicals to which it is supposed to be referring.
Every person has the civil right to be tried in
a language that he or she can understand. So says section 35(3)(k) of the Bill
of Rights and I quote: “to be tried in a
language that the accused person understands”.
Erasmus has not realized that the definition is of little help in trying to convict me because the definition is absurd to a person who “understands” English.
Section 177(1)(a) of Act 108 of 1996 says “A judge may be removed from office only if the Judicial Service Commission finds that the judge suffers from an incapacity, is grossly incompetent or is guilty of gross misconduct.”
The Supreme Court of Appeal and the Constitutional Court upheld the Erasmus judgement but that does not excuse the fact that he lied about me. Both the Supreme Court of Appeal and the Constitutional Court have also made statements to incriminate me but it can easily be shown that these statements are also inaccurate. I have not committed any crime.
The civil courts have been determined to forfeit my home but in the absence of a crime the judges have had to talk around speculative issues and that is why there are so many inconsistencies in the civil court judgements. No crime has been committed at 54 Balfour Street.
In the light of South Africa’s Bill of Rights it is indeed disgraceful that the Supreme Court of Appeal has stooped so low to have had to hold up section 34 of schedule 1 of the Prevention of Organized Crime Act to make credible its action to forfeit my home.
Section 34 of schedule 1 of the Prevention of Organized Crime Act is a plagiarized extraction from the notorious Riotous Assemblies Act No. 17 of 1956 of the Apartheid government.
I have never imported a drug! Erasmus says in the last part of his paragraph 12 that I did. He is not concurring with the state. The state never made any such allegation.
Below is an extract from Smit’s fraudulent affidavit to obtain the search warrant.
If what Erasmus is saying in his judgement is correct then exactly the same reasoning can be applied to B & M Scientific and Hofmeyr can use the Prevention of Organized Crime Act to seize their assets.
A curious person would enquire as to why Willie Hofmeyr has not done that.
To say that B & M Scientific is not dealing in drugs is not a satisfactory answer because I am also not dealing in drugs.
Forensic scientists searched my home over a two day period and several months of forensic analysis of my laboratory equipment did not uncover so much as a molecule of any illegal drug.
In paragraph 4 above Smit refers to B & M Scientific as “die invoerder” (translates to “the importer”). Whether Smit was lying or not is not an issue because what other information did Erasmus have to identify me as the person who imported the chemical?
Erasmus is more interested in my demise than with weighing up the facts and giving me a fair hearing. Erasmus has ignored the facts and embraced with open arms every untruthful fabrication presented by the state. Still worse he has gone so far as to fabricate an explicitly dishonest inclusion of his own and then presented that as though it were a fact.
Case No.
5962/01 is a civil trial that falls under the banner of the Prevention of Organized
Crime Act where the
state alleges that I used or attempted to use my home as an instrumentality of
an offence in schedule 1 of the Prevention of Organized Crime Act. The listing of the alleged offence is
section 22 of schedule 1 of the Prevention of Organized Crime Act which says “any offence referred to
in section 13 of the Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act, 1992”.
Subsection (a) of section 13 of the Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act says “Any person who places any drug in the possession…of any other person with the intent that the latter person be charged with an offence under this Act; shall be guilty of an offence”.
Erasmus has declared specific false information against me. By introducing a statement that claims that I imported a drug, he is not concurring with the state so this statement is an entirely new fabrication made up by Erasmus. It can easily be shown that he is lying. If I can show that paragraph 12 of the Erasmus judgement against me is nothing more than a pack of lies and that he has added innovative lies of his own to that of the state then can we conclude that he "framed" me? The practical implications of what he has done are exactly the same as having planted a drug on my person. Can we therefore conclude that he commissioned section 13(a) of the Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act?
At the very least Erasmus is guilty of gross incompetence and seditious libel. Beyond that he’s guilty of perjury. Beyond that he is guilty of an “offence referred to in section 13 of the Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act, 1992 (Act No. 140 of 1992)”.
Click here to go HOME if you have one.
© 2008 Simon Prophet.
Sction 5 of the Code of Hammurabi: If a judge try a case, reach a decision, and present his judgment in
writing; if later error shall appear in his decision, and it be through his own fault, then he shall pay twelve times the fine set by him in the case, and he shall be publicly removed from the judge's bench, and never again shall he sit there to render judgement.