Herein lies a true story of about 50 pages detailing my trials and tribulations.
|They murdered her|
For ordinary law abiding people it is hard to believe that what I present on this website is true.
What has happened to me does not ordinarily happen to ordinary people and this is why it may not be difficult for many readers to dismiss my claims as being untrue.
For most it is a natural reaction to adopt a stance that where there is smoke there is fire but whoever takes the trouble to study and apply their mind to what is uncovered in these pages it will become clear that, whether I be innocent or not, the state, the courts, the media have trampled the Constitution underfoot.
As I write my story it has not been without strain but I have endeavoured to present the events calmly in a straight forward manner.
Please bear with me awhile to ponder all and do not jump to conclusions without reading my story from beginning to end.
Fact after fact you will discover that my trials and tribulations confirm flagrant violations of law and I am of the opinion that only those who are motivated by something other than logic will disagree with me?
The story starts with a Cape Town company ordering an industrial chemical from another company in England.
The chemical is not illegal in South Africa and there are no restrictions on buying this chemical or being in possession of this chemical.
No legal action, neither criminal nor civil, has ever been brought against the Cape Town company for ordering the chemical or against the English company for selling the chemical but the drug police claimed that the chemical ended up in my home.
I have no criminal record relating to drugs and the drug police have admitted that no drugs have ever been found in my home and from the general public, there has never been a drug related complaint against me from anyone.
The unsubstantiated allegation from the drug police about the industrial chemical being in my home has resulted in the following:
These 15 court applications involved:
Looking back at all of this it seems incredible, unbelievable, fantastic.
I can't find an adverb that does justice to the absurdity of the colossal scale of action against someone who has no criminal record around an industrial chemical that is not illegal.
From any stand point there can be no reasonable justification found for wasting such resources on such nonsense?
Certainly the drug police will not agree but I have it as a fact beyond reasonable doubt that on the 31st of January 2001 the drug police entered unlawfully into my home and violated my right to privacy and falsely accused me of being a criminal.
In 2003 a kangaroo court paraded me as a drug dealer and destroyed my dignity and my life.
I refer to this court as a kangaroo court because the judge, on numerous counts, ignored the Constitution and the rule of law.
No evidence or oral testimony was presented before the judge in this civil trial. An affidavit without oral cross examination is not proof of anything.
It is a violation of non derogable Constitutional law to destroy my life by degrading my dignity through the use of something called a balance of probabilities that stems from hearsay.
My appeals against this kangaroo court fell on deaf ears and I reject the findings of the Supreme Court of Appeal and the Constitutional Court to whom I appealed.
For these judges to allow hearsay allegations to determine criminal guilt is to viciously violate my right to a fair trial.
In my favour and contrary to the findings of the judges, three magistrates in two criminal trials ruled in my favour.
To my disadvantage these three magistrates stand as not only far fewer in number but also lower in the rank of importance to the many in number and also higher ranking judges who ruled against me.
Considering these two points, both having value, let us not forget that all of the judges arrived at their decision from nothing more than a barrel of mist.
Judges are not psychic so it is within my civil rights to refute their opinions.
Although fewer in number and lower in rank, the three magistrates had at least something tangible with which to work.
Unlike as in the civil trials, none can deny that before the three magistrates in the two criminal trials witnesses were called and in the presence of physical evidence and under cross examination and a fair assessment of the facts, on the 8th of April 2005, the second criminal trial ended and I was acquitted of all charges.
My acquittal is a reality and a fact and my innocence is further enforced by section 35(3)(h) of the Constitution.
Negative statements coming from the Supreme Court of Appeal judges or the Constitutional judges that tarnish the criminal court findings or degrade the criminal court findings to being mere opinion are off the mark.
None of these judges participated in either of the criminal trials and none of them have ever studied or even glanced through the criminal trial transcripts.
To illustrate my point and prove my point, let us consider, on the same subject, the opinion of the National Prosecuting Authority.
Using two distinct and two different criminal trials that together spanned a time frame of four years and three months, the Director of Public Prosecutions, in a document addressed to its staff departments, on the 26th May 2005, admitted its failure to convict me by declining to appeal the criminal court findings.
This document together with the second criminal court transcripts were not allowed to be submitted into the Constitutional Court appeal against the forfeiture of my home.
My rights as an innocent individual were denied and discarded.
So now, based on the above being true, in a few sentences, you see emerging an entirely different picture to that presented by Media 24 who have relentlessly portrayed me as a drug dealer.
Can I consider a legal action to put this all straight?
Section 38(a) of the Constitution entitles me to act in my own interest and approach a competent court and herein lies my predicament.
The court to whom I must argue for my rights is the same court who has agreed that my home be forfeited.
How do I tell 5 Supreme Court judges that they were wrong?
How do I tell 10 Constitutional Court judges that they were wrong?
Now that is a challenge but I am duty bound to act in the public interest in the defence of the South African Constitution and the rule of law in that the state must respect, protect, promote and fulfil the rights in the Bill of Rights.
I am acting in the interests of 10 000 people who have signed a petition conducted in 2008.
I am acting in the interests of the
majority of people in South Africa and throughout the world who own property.
According to the South African Constitution, and also to the agreement of 10 000 people who have signed my petition, I am the victim of abundant and brutal civil right violations. On the basis that I am correct and on the basis of the testimony coming from the 10 000 people who signed my petition then this application brings an acute awareness that much is amiss in South Africa and I am compelled to take a stand for what is right and to do what can be done to protect the people of South Africa from those who threaten to destroy the greater quality of all human life in this country.
The task ahead of me is
daunting but I am not a coward and in the face of death and
defeat the drama of life has directed me to bring this application to the Constitutional
"...in the face of death..." is not being melodramatic. An attempt on my life was made in 2009. This was a paid hit to have me removed. I survived the attack and am of the opinion that the criminals behind this attack were in some way connected to these same matters.
I have no formal training in law so I ask the reader to bear with me, to forgive my legal errors that may arise and to concentrate on the main thrust of what is being presented. As is the state, so too are the Justice Department and the Constitutional Court bound to respect, protect, promote and fulfil the rights in the Bill of Rights.
Any claim that denies my right to be heard is a denial of the Constitution itself.
Allowing the state to escape the error of its ways will be to put in peril the civil safety of future
generations. This case must be heard and the issues that are shocking and
conclusive must find resolve.
2003 the Judge Erasmus of the Cape Town High Court colluded with the state
to subvert multiple sections of the Bill of Rights and to forfeit 54
Balfour Street and if left unchallenged these illegal actions will
contribute significantly in dismantling the bulk of section 35 of
the Constitution and key civil rights listed in the Constitution including
the right not to be tortured and the right to dignity.
This application presents fact upon fact and exposes the harsh reality that multiple normal civil rights and in many cases also multiple non derogable civil rights and in some instances common crimes have been commissioned by among others the South African Police, Media 24, the South African Broadcasting Corporation, Pollsmoor Prison, the National Prosecuting Authority, the Asset and Forfeiture Unit, the South African Justice Department right up to the Constitutional Court, First National Bank, the Human Rights Commission, the Public Protector, the Maitland Sheriff's Office and the Land Claims Court.
There is a limit as to how much hiding behind the abuse of power, legal technical jargon, obtuse denial, incompetence and even criminal acts can be tolerated and that threshold has been well exceeded as this application is proceeding to prove.
My website was created initially as part of a strategy to challenge the unconstitutional forfeiture of my home.
The forfeiture of my home was wrong and my study of our Constitution has helped me to show why it was wrong.
Learning more about civil rights and looking around as revealed in Chapters 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16 reveals an awareness that, from my perspective, little respect is afforded to the Constitutional laws that govern our land.
For me to tolerate these violations of law will be for me to accept that South Africa is a lawless society and I am not prepared to do that.
The right to privacy.
In the civil forfeiture trials, from the beginning, all of my civil rights as an accused person were considered to be irrelevant by both the state and the civil courts.
I contend that civil rights to privacy and all civil rights are as binding on the state in a civil trial as they are in a criminal trial.
This chapter focuses in part on my right to privacy.
The search warrant used by the drug police to enter into my home in the first criminal trial case number 16/79/2001 presided over by Magistrate Matthews was declared invalid. In the second criminal trial case number 16/236/03 presided over by Magistrate Le Roux then the same search warrant was also declared invalid and it was established as a fact beyond a reasonable doubt that the search at 54 Balfour Street and the seizure of property from 54 Balfour Street by the drug police was unlawful.
Throughout the civil trials to forfeit my home the civil trial judges ignored the criminal conduct of the drug police. The drug police were given the green light to assault me, point a gun at my head and threaten to murder me.
Would the same civil court judges also turn a blind eye for the drug police to kill me in cold blood?
In both of the criminal trials, scrutiny of the search warrant alone was sufficient to invalidate the searching and the seizing by the drug police at 54 Balfour Street and this was not an "opinion".
Three witnesses were called to testify and the drug police were given a "fair" chance to defend their actions but both magistrate's determined as a fact beyond reasonable doubt that the search warrant used by the drug police to search my home was "invalid".
Chapter One and Chapter Two of this that you are reading illustrate events from my arrest. What I am presenting to you is fact, most of which can be collaborated from the criminal court transcripts.
In the light of the exhibits of evidence the actions of drug police are contrary to what is permitted by law.
What happened to me at Pollsmor Prison was not presented to the criminal trials or to the Erasmus kangaroo court but it serves here to consolidate my case.
The drug police smashed four doors to force their way into my home.
As far as I am concerned this is malicious damage to property. The drug police have never been held accountable for this destruction of my things and have never entertained any repairs for what was broken through their violent behaviour.
Inside my home a drug policeman assaulted me, threw me down, climbed on top of me, pointed a gun to my head and uttered the words: "Ek gaan jou skiet!" ("I will shoot you"). A second drug policeman put hand cuffs on me and used another set of handcuffs to lock me onto the burglar bars of the windows in my lounge. I was left hanging there while the drug police then proceeded to search the house.
At no time did the drug police approach me in a civilized manner to inquire into my private life. No complaints to the drug police had been lodged against me. I am the owner of 54 Balfour Street and the purpose of the police is to serve and protect yet I was unlawfully arrested and handcuffed inside my home before a search of my home had been conducted. The drug police treated me like a dangerous criminal not worthy of human dignity.
found in my own home is not a punishable offense.
I have never involved myself with international smuggling and the repetitive media reports about me not having an "end user declaration" are just hype. There is no such thing as an "end user declaration" as the second criminal trial established.
Exhibit 1 below is an extract from the transcripts of the second criminal trial which, subsequent to evidence being led, determined as a fact beyond reasonable doubt that the drug police were illegally in my home.
Exhibit 1 above examines only certain aspects relating to unlawful activity of the drug police but there are yet several violations committed by the drug police that were never canvassed by the criminal trials.
Below is Exhibit 2 which is a copy of a till slip obtained illegally by the drug police. This was not presented in the criminal trials but it was presented in the Erasmus kangaroo court.
How the drug police obtained this till slip, Exhibit 2 above, has never been established but here it is relevant because it further reinforces the unlawful attitude and the unlawful behaviour of the drug police towards the right to privacy as laid down in Section 14(d) of the South African Constitution.
To say that there is nothing wrong with the till slip and that it is just an innocent till slip so why shouldn't the drug police be allowed to look at it is not the point. The Bill of Rights prohibits the drug police or anyone for that matter from poking their noses into the private affairs of citizens and according to Section 7(2) of the Constitution it is the duty of the state to respect these laws. It is a duty to protect these laws. It is a duty to promote these laws and it a duty to fulfil these laws.
The passion of the drug police in their search for information or the Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act does not take precedence over the Constitution.
The till slip is dated the 31st January 2001 and I was arrested at about 10H00 on the same day. The time restriction limits any possibility that the drug police had acquired a search warrant before my arrest but what I can say with certainty is that this till slip was obtained without my consent and therefore I can charge the drug police for violating Section 14(d) of the Constitution in that the privacy of my communication with this business was infringed.
It is not unreasonable for me to demand that the drug police acquire an official search warrant to get such a silly thing like a till slip.
My right to dignity is not a trivial matter.
I was a regular customer at this chemist shop and after this incident I was confused to notice that the staff were looking at me in a peculiar way. At first I put it down to silliness on my part and it was not until I saw a copy the till slip being presented against me that it dawned on me why the staff had been staring at me.
I shudder to think what the drug police told them to get their co operation.
Buying something from a chemist shop is a private matter. Confidentiality is intrinsic in any business transaction. The staff who gave into the unlawful inquiries of the drug police stepped over what basic business ethics expects but we don't know to what level of intimidation the drug police resorted to in order to trick the cashier to become complicit in the violation of my right to privacy.
The right to privacy is reinforced by Section 35(5) of the Bill of Rights which is a non derogable right.
The first unlawful arrest and the unlawful detention.
At one stage during the illegal search I was taken to the kitchen where I observed, on the opposite side of the road from my house, about five people with cameras, some on tripods, aimed at my home. The media were there in full force. They must all have been photojournalists and I noticed that one of the photojournalists had an extension shutter control attached to his camera. I was arrested in the morning of Wednesday and that same evening a film of me was illegally shown on prime time national television news broadcasts of the South African Broadcasting Corporation. I did not notify the press and since the drug police were the only other party in my home it follows therefore that it was the drug police who called the press.
Thursday, the day after my arrest, one of the drug police took me back to
my home to conduct further illegal searches. In the car, while taking me
from the cells to my home, I
heard him discussing my matter to someone on his cell phone. He then mentioned
to the driver with a tone of bragging that he was talking to the
newspaper. Radio news broadcasts from national radio networks also covered
the untrue story every hour on the hour and I was presented as
being guilty in newspaper articles.
Riaan Redelinghuys a drug policeman from Wynberg seems to have provided the newspaper with information and the newspaper went on to publish "The couple had evidently been running the clandestine drug laboratory for at least two years".
Common sense will tell you that it does not add up to say that the drug police knew that a clandestine drug laboratory was running for "at least two years" but the forensic drug police team did not find any illegal drugs.
Certainly the drug police did spread malicious gossip about me and on a platform of national media violated my right to dignity. From the beginning it was a case of "trial by media" and violating my right to presumption of innocence. Compare these media lies with facts being presented in the transcripts from the second criminal trial below marked Exhibit 4.
The above Exhibit 4 is an extraction from the second criminal trial transcripts.
in jail when the media article in Exhibit 3 was published and I had not yet appeared in court to
hear the formal charges. From whom did the newspapers, the television and
the radio stations get their information? Assuming that Redelinghuys of the drug police has made comments about
me to the media then he violated my right to dignity to make such false
claims. His claims have not been substantiated by due process as is
evident from Exhibit 4.
that the media were not falsely representing the drug police then it was
the drug police who violated my right to dignity by misleading the media
and that before I had even heard formal charges in a court.
my above assumptions being accurate then the drug police had laid the ground work
to have me convicted through social media. The media took a stance as to
my guilt from day one and chose to ignore my acquittal but subsequent to
my acquittal continued in full force to support the forfeiture of my home,
my business and my property. The media played a crucial role to sway
public consciousness to condemn me as being guilty and there, by way of
public acceptability, to assist and influence the forfeiture of my home,
my business and my property.
time did the media openly challenge the forfeiture of an innocent man's
property. Why not?
Several journalists approached me when I was gathering signatures for my petition against the forfeiture of my home. After listening to my tale first hand they all signed my petition and also wanted to write a story but nothing was printed. Why not? One journalist brought a photographer with her who took photos of me standing outside my home but nothing was published. Why not?
At no time did the media report on my court application to force the drug police to return my laboratory and my chemicals as explained in Chapter 10 on this page. No mention was made by the media that the drug police had violated my civil rights as defined by section 25(1) of the Constitution by depriving me of my equipment which to ordinary people is known commonly as theft or that the drug police had commissioned a criminal offense in terms of the Access to Information Act 2 of 2000 and admitted guilt as to having destroyed records and my laboratory. Why not? On conviction, the destruction of records carries a sentence of up to two years in jail.
The media have been one sided, consistently unlawfully degrading me by falsely portraying me as a criminal but have ignored the criminal behaviour of the drug police.
After I was arrested I was taken to the Woodstock police station and during my incarceration there I was summoned to sign the NOTICE OF RIGHTS IN TERMS OF THE CONSTITUTION. This document is presented below as Exhibit 5.
Examination of the document reveals that I signed as the arresting officer and the drug policeman signed as the detainee. The signatures are in the wrong places. This is indicative that, at the time, neither I, nor the policeman had much comprehension about what is contained in the Bill of Rights. There is no other way to interpret this blunder. As a legal document it would not hold water and would be thrown out of any competent court in the event of a dispute. Why then should it be excused because the blunder is coming from a government department?
The above Exhibit 5A is a copy of a document where the drug policeman signed as the detainee and where I, the detainee, signed as the person who informed the detainee.
Obviously this falls short of what is expected and the signatures in the wrong places renders this document null and void.
In compliance with the Constitution, the pre-printed form of the document Exhibit 5B is presented in English, a language that is understood by me, but in paragraph (1) of the document and in non compliance with the Constitution, the drug policeman uses the Afrikaans language to state the reason for my having been detained.
The document is further fatally flawed by the drug policeman's claim under the heading "CERTIFICATE OF DETAINEE" that I had been informed in "ENGLISH" which is written with capital letters by the drug policeman.
The sloppiness of how this form was completed is indicative of the drug policeman's overall attitude towards the Bill of Rights and non compliance with the Constitution must be condemned. The blunders in this document are not to be excused. The Bill of Rights is not a formality that can be taken lightly by government employees. Ignoring the Constitution is to be ignoring the highest law of South Africa. A few hours before the presentation of this document to me, the same drug policeman who signed as the detainee held a gun to my head and said "Ek gaan jou skiet". This translates to: "I'm going to shoot you". Does he think that getting me to sign this document somehow makes his behaviour excusable?
While the drug police were ransacking my home, the same drug policeman that handcuffed me to the burglar bars was assigned to guard me. By this time the drug police with their threats in getting information from me had led me to believe that I was in terrible trouble and my concern for my pets prompted me to ask him to take care of my budgies. I gave him R50 and he agreed to look after them until I was able to make other arrangements. After my release from Pollsmoor Prison when I returned to my home I found that my home had been left open and one of my birds was lying dead in her aviary. When I brought this issue up with the drug policeman who arrested me then he told me that the drug policeman who took my R50 had been transferred and he didn't know to where. I was upset about the cruel death of my bird but my own life had become so overturned that this issue like so many others was never resolved. To this day I wonder what the drug policeman did with my R50.
I was arrested at about 10 am on Wednesday morning. I was not brought to a magistrate until after 3 o'clock Friday afternoon. The magistrate ordered bail to be set at R27 500. After 3 the banks were closed. The court would not accept a cheque and insisted on cash. This resulted in me being taken to Pollsmoor Prison.
Attached to the walls of my cell at Pollsmoor Prison remained fragments of what once must have been 16 lockers presumably installed there for prisoners. From this I calculated that the cell was originally designed to hold 16 prisoners. The cell was fitted with one toilet and one shower. There were no beds in the cell. Prisoners were compelled to sleep on the floor on broken pieces of foam rubber and dirty blankets. I counted 64 prisoners in the cell.
During my incarceration in this facility I was indecently assaulted and was infected with the hepatitis B virus.
Exhibit 6 above is the pathology report of my sickness contracted in jail. An Aids awareness image has been super imposed over the report to highlight the seriousness of what is here being presented.
I was not infected with HIV but being indecently assaulted while in prison and being infected with hepatitis B virus is not detention consistent with human dignity and neither is it consistent with adequate medical treatment.
Shame and the turmoil of my arrest left this incident to pass without resolve.
A year or more went by before I became aware of section 35(1)(d)(1) of Act 108 of 1996. Had I been made to understand this right and had this right been afforded to me by the drug police who arrested me, then I would have been brought before a court not later than 48 hours after my arrest which would have been, at the latest, 10 o'clock on Friday morning and there would have been time to secure the cash bail requested by the court. Had I been before a court within the given dead line then I would not have been sent to Pollsmoor Prison. I would not have been indecently assaulted. I would not have been infected with hepatitis B virus and the life of my budgie may have been saved.
Since the drug police were, from day one, so certain in their communication with the media that I had been doing something wrong then they should have taken me to a court on the same Wednesday morning when they were feeding the press with false criminal claims against me.
The stipulation in the Constitution is that not that I be taken to a court within 48 hours but that, having been arrested, "I be taken to a court as soon as reasonably possible". The drug police deliberately delayed taking me before a magistrate immediately after my arrest. Taking me to a court 5 hours after the deadline is against the law. Being held in an underground cell below the magistrate's court is not the same thing as a court. There and then the criminal charges against me should have been dropped.
Section 35(1)(b)(i)(ii) is the non derogable right to be informed of the consequences of not remaining silent. Since the drug policeman did not know where to sign the document or what language to use as is evident from Exhibit 5A and Exhibit 5B then a defence here for the state is unlikely.
Section 35(1)(d) is the non derogable right not to be detained longer than 48 hours.
Section 35(2)(e) are non derogable civil laws relating to conditions of detention.
One arrest but three trials.
I was arrested once which resulted in two separate criminal trials in two different criminal courts and also a civil trial in a third different court.
All in all that reads three trials from one arrest. How was that possible in a country with the right not to be tried more than once? See Section 35(3)(m) of the Constitution.
Case number 5926/01 was not an appeal. Case number 16/231/03 was also not an appeal. These were two completely different court case attacks brought against me by the state stemming from the same and the identical charge.
These trials involved two different magistrates and one judge. I employed three different legal teams to deal each with the different legal attacks against me.
I have never heard of any such a thing ever happening in South Africa or anywhere in the world. This is unprecedented and is very different from what happened to Oscar Pistorius who was made to suffer a second court case ordeal after the state challenged his sentencing which I think is a violation of Section 35(3)(m).
In the Pistorius case if the state was unhappy about the sentencing then it is the judge who should have been taken to court and not Oscar but I don't have all the facts so I'm not qualified to comment but logic will dictate that Oscar cannot be held accountable for something that the judge did. Be that as it may, Oscar was not taken to a different criminal court and asked to put in a second plea of guilty or not guilty. His presence in the Supreme Court of Appeal was not required which is different from my scenario where I was required to make two pleas to two different magistrates in two different criminal court rooms and the "How do you plea" questions both stemmed from the same charge from 2001. When I try to explain this to people then they don't believe me because this is entirely illegal in South Africa and also it is illegal according to international law.
Also why did the Asset and Forfeiture Unit not seize Oscar's home as an instrumentality of a suspected offence even though he was eventually found to be guilty?
The state did not put Oscar through a criminal court and a civil court concurrently or at all but with me the state put me through two criminal trials with a civil trial running concurrently with the first criminal trial. Three trials interconnected with one arrest and one charge. This constitutes gross violations of supreme non derogable laws. The rule of law was ignored by the state and the civil courts.
Below is Exhibit 7 which is the Cape Town High Court condemning me to an illegal second criminal trial.
Section 35(3)(m) of the Bill of Rights ensures the right rule of no double jeopardy. I don't care if it was two High Court judges that made the ruling in paragraph two of Exhibit 7 that I be sent back to a court for a new trial before another magistrate. Who made the ruling doesn't change the facts. This is double jeopardy.
In South Africa the state is not allowed to try an accused person more than one time yet when we add the Erasmus kangaroo court I was tried three times from one allegation.
Section 35(3)(m) is a non derogable law. Do not try to tell me that this law can be limited.
I stand firm and I refuse to allow my non derogable civil rights to be limited because someone in the justice department takes money but refuses to work. Why should I be made to suffer because of the incompetence of court employees?
Section 35(3)(m) is absolutely enforceable yet it was ignored by these two judges and I was made to suffer unconstitutionally.
I have the receipts of payments to two different sets of lawyers who each at different times represented me in two different criminal trials with two different pleas to one charge from one arrest in two different court rooms before two different magistrates. No one is going to pull the wool over my eyes and try to tell me that this is not a violation of Section 35(3)(m).
Exhibit 8 above is the bank deposit slip of money paid out to lawyers to represent me in the first criminal trial. I spent in excess of R50 000 on legal fees in the first criminal trial and that money was unlawfully lost from where I had intended it to have been spent. When the High Court of Cape Town unlawfully forced me into a second criminal trial it forced me to pay twice to cover the same ground of the first criminal trial. This is one of the reasons why we have Section 35(3)(m) of Act 108. It is not only about having to endure the stress of criminal allegations. The high cost of legal help is also a stressful situation to have to contend with.
Exhibit 9 above is a letter from my lawyer notifying me of his attempt to recover my lost money in the first criminal trial.
Exhibit 10 above is another letter about my money lost in the first criminal trial. I had also paid another lawyer, Colin Muller, to try to recover my money lost in the first criminal trial but he also was unable to recover my money from the Department of Justice.
Two attempts from two different legal teams failed to recover my money wasted in the first aborted criminal trial. The Justice Department failed in its legal obligations and then placed the burden of payment on me; but I was the party who was not at fault.
Exhibit 11 above is my final reply from the Cape Town office of the Legal Aid Board. After being subjected to severe financial prejudice from the Department of Justice for not returning my money lost in the first criminal trial, and then subjecting me to two further trials, one civil and one criminal, on the same charge, I applied for help from the Legal Aid Board but my request was turned down and my subsequent appeal to the head office of the Legal Aid Board was also turned down.
What happened to their bold claim of "JUSTICE for all"?
My right to have a legal practitioner assigned to me by the state at state expense was denied.
After I had put in a plea of "not guilty" in the first criminal trial which started in 2001 then I was entitled to hear the final outcome of this plea and since this trial was "set aside" in April 2003 there is no other way to interpret that this trial through default absolved me of guilt.
Section 6(b) of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 states that "at any time after an accused has pleaded, but before conviction, stop the prosecution in respect of that charge, in which event the court trying the accused shall acquit the accused in respect of that charge."
In the second criminal trial
which started in 2003 then I put in a second not guilty plea stemming from the identical same
original charge and I was acquitted in 2005.
I have not been trained in legal matters so when the first criminal trial was set aside I did not realize the implications of that court order. I only became aware of the implications when I questioned my advocate at the time as to what "set aside" means. He explained to me that it meant that everything pertaining to the trial was made null and void. It dawned on me then that therefore my arrest, the charge and everything including the bail conditions had been cancelled and I remember him blushing. I was in year three of my ordeal and we had called a meeting to challenge and change my bail conditions. Bail conditions were that I had paid R27 500, I was not permitted to travel beyond the Cape Town municipal boundaries, and on top of that I had to sign at the Woodstock police station every day between 17h00 and 19h00.
Since I had undertaken to challenge the forfeiture of my home one would have thought it would be evident that there was no intention on my part to abscond.
Every time I needed to go out of the boundaries of Cape Town, it was necessary for me to pay my lawyer to adjust my bail conditions in order to travel. This, with the cost and the stress of the trials, contributed to me being compelled to sell at a loss my businesses and property in Bloemfontein. The restrictions on my right to travel was something like a dompass, but if the trial had been set aside then so too had all the bail conditions. The R27 500 that I had paid should have been returned to me immediately. The bail procedure demanded that I pay the full amount in cash. Had this money been left in my bank account it would have accrued interest. This interest was never paid to me. The two criminal trials dragged on for 4 years and 3 months.
What happened to my right to have the trial begin and conclude without unreasonable delay? The state had already sold my home before the second criminal trial had started.
I had been found not guilty in both of the criminal trials so why then did I loose the interest on my bail money? After the first trial had been set aside I was giving in to lawyers who were taking money from me to adjust bail conditions. I was being deprived of money to pay to adjust something that did not exist. I was furious when I found out.
At the cost to my health and my ability to function with a clear mind, the second criminal trial continued and eventually I was found again, now for the second time, to be not guilty. The finding of me being found not guilty found no reason to be mentioned by the media. Not one word. The reaction of the media at this stage was very different to the day when I was arrested and before I had appeared in court to hear the charges when the National Broadcasting Corporation, on national prime time television broadcast video images of me with comments that I had been arrested for dealing in drugs. Why then did the public hear not one word when I was, for the second time, acquitted?
Also newspapers and the radio stations played dumb and deaf. Silence prevailed and this after the initial radio news broadcasts every hour on the hour after I had been arrested.
After my second acquittal my new legal team was preparing to challenge the Erasmus kangaroo court in the Supreme Court of Appeal. Incorrectly I assumed that, after the unconditional acquittal, the appeal would be a formality. I was astounded when my newly appointed lawyers returned to Cape Town to tell me that the appeal to stop the forfeiture of my home was rejected.
It was many years before it dawned on me that the Erasmus kangaroo court was not about the state's endeavour to have me determined to be guilty and then to punish me. The whole agenda behind this trial was to set a new precedent whereby an innocent man could be singled out by the state and regardless of his criminal or alternatively his law abiding character he could be condemned.
My acquittals in the two criminal trials was not a setback for the state. It became a perverted opportunity for the state to set a new standard whereby the state can attack anyone, innocent or guilty. The failure of my appeals against the Erasmus kangaroo court was a landslide victory for the government to ignore the rule of law and to abuse the right to presumption of innocence and the right to a fair trial. No complaint, no evidence, no witnesses. The kangaroo court determined me to be guilty in the absence of physical evidence and in the absence of oral testimony and in the absence of cross examination.
After the Constitutional Court decision to uphold the forfeiture of my home, my business and the destruction of my dignity then national headline newspaper articles throughout the country were back in full swing now proclaiming the Erasmus kangaroo court to be a victory in the fight against crime.
In Exhibit 12 above, the headline leads the reader to believe that the war on drugs will be won but when you read on and apply your mind the fine print illustrates that civil asset forfeiture has exacerbated methamphetamine drug crime.
We learn that within less than 5 years, that is to say when I was arrested in 2001 and after the forfeiture process had commenced, that the methamphetamine drug crime of which I was accused had escalated by a staggering 7 500%. These statistics render civil asset forfeiture to be a totally useless crime preventing mechanism and the effective crime fighting claims made by the Erasmus kangaroo court are nonsense.
These are the facts.
There is only one way whereby the state can determine criminal guilt and that is on the grounds of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. To say that criminal guilt can be determined on such a flimsy thing as a balance of probabilities violates the right to a fair trial. There is no such a thing as proof on a balance of probabilities. Such a statement is a clever play with words but to say that guess work constitutes proof is false. The premise of the Prevention of Organized Crime Act that proof is a balance of probabilities is to disregard hundreds of years of criminal law evolution. It undermines the concept of the "right to a fair trial" as envisaged in section 35 of the Constitution and to pretend that two criminal trials and one civil trial covering the same ground from the same and the identical charge sheet is not exceeding double jeopardy and violating civil right protections is to be obtuse in the extreme.
The Erasmus kangaroo court was a violation of Section 35(3)(m). To say that it was somehow not double jeopardy because it was a trial that did not require proof of wrongdoing on my part but that the house was on trial is unbelievable and belongs in the fringe of the insane. The proponents of such a harebrained proposal should be laughed out into the gutter where they belong.
When we learn that Judge Erasmus entered false evidence against me and that he misinterpreted the Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act it becomes so astounding that we become bewildered.
Exhibit 13 above show three different court applications for three different trials of attack all stemming from one and the same arrest.
This goes beyond and exceeds double jeopardy and is illegal in South Africa and also is illegal according to international law.
Desai and his presumption of guilt.
Civil asset forfeiture is inconsistent with the Constitution. Prior to a potential conviction an accused individual is penalized on a presumption of guilt. Civil asset forfeiture does not follow the constitutional foundation of presumption of innocence. Civil asset forfeiture does not target criminals. Civil asset forfeiture targets assets. A man with no assets is left unmolested. This does not comply with the notion of equal before the law.
14 below is a copy of a newspaper advertisement of Desai’s court order.
Exhibit 14 below is a copy of a newspaper advertisement of Desai’s court order.
Desai's court order was in violation of Section 35(3)(h) of the Constitution which is a non derogable law. His order deprived me of property in the absence of a defence and in the absence of a conviction.
R v Oakes 1986 26 DLR (4th) 481 a Canadian judge had this to
presumption of innocence protects the fundamental liberty and human
dignity of any and every person accused by the state of criminal conduct.
An individual charged with a criminal offence faces grave social and
personal consequences, including potential loss of physical liberty,
subjection to social and ostracism from the community, as well as other
psychological and economic harms. In the light of the gravity of these
consequences, the presumption of innocence is crucial. It ensures that
until the State proves an accused’s guilt beyond
all reasonable doubt, he or she is innocent. This is essential in a
society committed to fairness and social justice. The presumption of
innocence confirms our faith in humankind; it reflects our believe that
individuals are decent and law abiding members of the community until
have the absolute right to have my dignity “respected
and protected” and this is a non-derogable
supreme law. If someone is going to say that I am a drug dealer then they
must prove that in a criminal court of law and that must be determined as
a fact beyond all reasonable doubt. Anything less than that is a violation
of my right to dignity.
Forfeiture presumes criminal guilt. This is inconsistent with the Bill of Rights. Civil asset forfeiture does not concern itself with civil guilt.
It is not honourable for a judge to grant an ex parte application in the absence of my defense. For the judge to hold me accountable to maintain the property while my ownership of the property has been denied is cruel in the extreme. To make me have to maintain the bond payments to First National Bank for a property of which I have been deprived is double jeopardy and this is also double punishment without conviction.
My home was seized in June 2001. I was evicted from my home in September 2007 and I was still paying the bond in January 2008. My payments were enriching a white foreigner from Australia. My land was eventually sold to his South African wife but they have been unlawfully enriched with my money. I refuse to refer to such a judge as being honourable. He deprived me of my civil rights. I do not honour him. And if you, Mr Desai, are reading this then let me remind you that you were accused of raping a woman at three o'clock in the morning in a Bombay hotel. After your trial I remember newspaper headlines with you smiling from ear to ear proclaiming your innocence. What would you be saying if Asset Forfeiture sold your home?
Civil asset forfeiture is against the law.
Erasmus and the kangaroo court.
One Act of Parliament, the Constitution, ensures the presumption of my innocence yet another Act of Parliament, the Prevention of Organized Crime Act, in the absence of evidence, presupposes that criminal allegations are true. These Acts are inconsistent with one another.
Exhibit 15 above is a collection of yearly calenders to illustrate the date of the one arrest and the dates when each of the three trials ended.
The trial case number 5926/01 was a charade of a trial. It was neither fair nor was it a trial in the true sense of the word. It can best be described as a kangaroo court. The judge was not impartial. He deliberately violated the Constitution on several points.
Erasmus ignored the warnings of the Honourable Judge Wilfred Thring, the first judge in this matter, who refused to proceed with the forfeiture application until after the criminal trial had been concluded. He likened it to putting the cart before the horse and his concern was what would happen in the event that lo and behold I be found to be innocent?
was aware of but showed no interest in the failure of the drug police to
comply with my rights in terms of the Constitution as is evident from
Exhibit 5A and Exhibit 5B.
Erasmus was aware of but showed no interest in the failure of the drug police to comply with my rights in terms of the Constitution as is evident from Exhibit 5A and Exhibit 5B.
Warning signs were put before Erasmus but in spite of potential consequences he preferred to ignore that the drug police may have not complied with the rule of law.
Erasmus did not apply his mind and to his demise it has subsequently become fact that the drug police did unlawfully enter into my home and also that the drug police did also unlawfully seize my laboratory, my chemicals and other items from my home as is evident from Exhibit 1.
This alone renders the forfeiture of my home unlawful as is also evident from one 1958 Plymouth Sedan v. Pennsylvania 380 U.S. 693 (1965) was a Supreme Court of the United States case handed down in 1965. The Court ruled that civil forfeiture could not apply where the evidence used to invoke the forfeiture was obtained illegally.
Exhibit 16 above reveals the unlawful legal advantage given to the criminal prosecution through the Erasmus violation of my right to presumption of innocence and the Erasmus crime against humanity of punishing me on a suspicion in the absence of a conviction.
By falsely and unlawfully proclaiming me to be guilty of dealing in drugs, Judge Erasmus set the ground work to also sabotage my criminal trial.
The text inside the dotted lines from Exhibit 16 above are the public prosecutor's statements from the transcripts of the second criminal trial and leave no doubt that the public prosecutor tried unlawfully to use the wrong judgement of Erasmus as leverage to get a criminal conviction against me.
The manipulation of the unlawful events did not achieve a conviction but what part of the above is not illegal?
Erasmus violated my right to silence.
He violated my right not to testify during the proceedings of the first criminal trial. Erasmus also violated my right to not testify prior to the start of the second criminal trial.
Exhibit 17 below is a fax sent to my lawyer from the State Attorney after my advocate had challenged the legality of expecting me to submit affidavits in the defence of my home during the proceedings of my criminal trial.
The date on this document is 11th January 2002.
My first criminal trial ended on 7th April 2003. The second criminal trial ended on 8th April 2005.
Erasmus forfeited my home on the 22nd May 2003.
Both Erasmus and the state violated my right not to testify during the proceedings of my first criminal trial and before the start of the second criminal trial the state had unlawfully obtained my civil trial affidavits.
Exhibit 17 above is a brag disregarding non derogable laws.
Threatening me to talk or loose my home is an act of torture.
Critical documents that were submitted by the drug police into the Erasmus trial were presented in Afrikaans which is a language not properly understood by me.
Language violations in trials involving accused people are non derogable laws within the Constitution and Erasmus showed no concern for these violations and obviously he violated my right to be tried in a language that I can understand.
Erasmus deprived me of my property.
Erasmus deprived me of my property without compensation.
Erasmus ignored the criminal conduct of the drug police who entered unlawfully into my home and showed zero concern for my Constitutional rights as defined in Section 14 of Act 108 of 1996.
In the absence of evidence, as has been established in Chapter 10 on this website, Erasmus violated an absolute law, a non derogable law, and violated my right to dignity by condemning me to be a drug dealer.
He destroyed the life of an innocent man.
The Erasmus kangaroo court determined me to be a common criminal based on hearsay allegations. No physical evidence was presented into the court room by the state. Through a perverted abuse of speculation I was degraded and condemned.
He did not apply his mind to see that state documents submitted into the civil trials are fraught with lies and deceit.
nefariously manipulated the Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act to convict me.
entered false information about me.
Depriving someone of their home is one step away from killing them.
Scores of civil rights were trampled on when Erasmus forfeited my home. It's as if the lady of justice had lost her balance and fell flat on her face in the dirt.
The below analysis of the judge’s wording within paragraph twelve expose grave errors. Erasmus has unsuccessfully tried to twist the facts to make me look guilty and in his eagerness to support an unlawful Act of Parliament and by following the state's determination to invent a crime, Erasmus has fallen into a grammatical trap.
In Exhibit 18A above, paragraph 12 of his kangaroo judgement, Erasmus identifies phenylacetic acid and 1-phenyl-2-propanone as chemicals that are useful for the manufacture of drugs...
...and then he identifies the same chemicals as drugs.
An innocent property has been condemned through lies coming from the drug police and the judge's misunderstanding of the Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act.
The graphic and glaring errors in the Erasmus kangaroo court does not constitute due process.
When the second criminal trial started I wanted to call Erasmus as a witness to question him regarding the errors in his judgement. I wanted to have him cross questioned. He would have had no alternative but to admit that he was wrong.
My lawyers were against me doing that saying that he would have been a hostile witness. I didn't agree with them because I knew that however he replied it would have been obvious that he had made a mistake.
His interpretation of the Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act was also wrong and a thorough cross examination with him in the witness box would have determined as a fact beyond a reasonable doubt that he was wrong.
I was disappointed when the second criminal trial ended the way that it did because, while I knew that the Erasmus kangaroo court was clearly wrong, millions of people who read newspaper articles about the forfeiture of my home were not aware of these errors and in that I feel cheated of my right to a fair trial.
Through a misunderstanding of the Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act and through a misinterpretation of the facts Erasmus and the civil courts presented me to the public as a drug dealer and my dignity was permanently destroyed.
When the Constitutional Court permitted the forfeiture I asked my lawyers to request a third criminal trial to establish my innocence for the third time but they laughed and told me they couldn't do that.
I know the facts so on the grounds of proof beyond a reasonable doubt I know with certainty that I am innocent.
In the absence of facts and in the realm of speculative assumptions and on a balance of probabilities anyone can say anything and that is why the Prevention of Organized Crime Act is unlawful.
I am innocent of the charges and the forfeiture of my home is illegal. There is no other way to interpret this.
Exhibit 18B above is the same paragraph 12 of the Erasmus Judgement where the judge accuses me of having been the importer of phenylacetic acid but a cash invoice submitted into the kangaroo court identified B & M Scientific as the importer of phenylacetic acid.
A careful study of the Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act reveals that it is not illegal to buy phenylacetic acid but it might be an offense to sell it.
I did not import or sell phenylacetic acid to anyone and since we know that B & M Scientific is an importer and a seller of phenyacetic acid why then is this company not facing the wrath of Erasmus?
Once again I must reiterate to the reader and to all the judges who are reading this that within the Drugs and Drug Trafficing Act there are some restrictions on selling phenylacetic acid but it must be pointed out that there is no law that places any restriction on buying phenylacetic acid and there are no restrictions on having this chemical in your possession. You don't believe me? Go check the Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act. You'll see I'm right.
The judge erred in that he did not demand to see and examine the physical evidence as claimed by the drug police. Had he looked at actual exhibits associated with the state allegations then he would have seen no methamphetamine and he would not have been so easily fooled into granting the application to forfeit.
Erasmus also accuses me of manufacturing 1phenyl 2 proponone but no exhibit of 1 phenyl 2 propone was presented into the Erasmus kangaroo court. All that was presented was speculation based on hearsay allegations in the form of affidavits and pieces of paper. This is why it was so easy for the state to mislead the judge who was fooled into condemning an innocent man.
Erasmus identifies me as the importer and the manufacturer of these chemicals.
He made a mistake or he is intentionally lying. However one interprets the Erasmus errors in the judgement, on mindful examination of the facts then it becomes clear that the destruction of my life is not justifiable.
Phenylacetic acid is lumped together in the Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act alongside chemicals like acetone and hydrochloric acid. These chemicals are not drugs. Not in the land of chemistry and not in the land of the Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act.
Erasmus is lying to say that phenylacetic acid is an "undesirable dependence producing drug".
If phenylacetic acid is a drug then it could not have been sold over the counter to a cash sale customer as is apparent from the invoice in the above text box. Phenylacetic acid is a harmless industrial chemical and there are no restrictions in buying or having this chemical.
Comments on the internet and from journalists who have published statements that traces of drugs were found in my home have lied.
The criminal court transcripts from the two criminal trials are there for those who want to establish the facts.
No illegal drugs or traces of illegal drugs were found in my home. No illegal thing of any kind was found by the drug police and this was with searching by two different drug detective teams (drug detective Swart and drug detective Smit) that spread over a time frame of four days which included a sniffer dog with trained drug detectives and forensic drug policemen with state of the art forensic technologies. The "drug" laboratory, see Exhibit 3 in Chapter 2, that Redelinghuys alleges was in full swing making illegal drugs for at least two years came up clean.
Exhibit 19 above is a cartoon depicting actual questions and answers from the second criminal trial. When questioned directly by the Magistrate on this subject then the investigating drug police officer admitted to the court that he did not find anything in my home that could warrant an arrest.
For the moment, let's forget about the fact that the drug police were in my home illegally and the drug police were illegally searching my home.
Let's just consider what the implications are when the investigating officer admits to the magistrate under oath in an open court that, under the Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act, he didn't have grounds to arrest me?
I was arrested because the investigating officer presumed that the forensic examination of my laboratory would produce traces of drugs but when this did not happen then the prosecution had no crime.
The criminal court transcripts are there to confirm the facts.
With such being true then it goes without saying that there is no chance for a conviction and this is the indubitable reason for the evidence displayed in Exhibit 27 of Chapter 6 as to why the Department of Public Prosecutions did not appeal the not guilty verdict.
Since this is the case with the two criminal trials, and the transcripts from both criminal trials are there to check, then why did the civil courts with so many judges right up to the Constitutional Court rule to forfeit my home? This is a reasonable question to ask but what the general public do not realize is that the investigating drug police officer who arrested me did not appear in the Erasmus kangaroo court or any of the civil appeals.
Not one witness appeared before the Judge Erasmus. Myself included. No witnesses appeared before the Supreme Court of Appeal or the Constitutional Court. All that was there were pieces of paper. How can such a trial be deemed to be fair?
In criminal trials, affidavits do not constitute proof of anything and quite rightly so. Witnesses must be called to the stand, to swear an oath to be honest and to face questioning and cross questioning. Without cross examination, an affidavit in a criminal trial is of little use in securing a conviction because affidavits are well known to be unreliable.
To put this into perspective what do you think the public reaction would have been if the Oscar Pistorius trial had been determined on affidavits alone with no witnesses and no exhibits in the court room? Just imagine public reaction if the police were not required to testify before Judge Masipa in the trial?
Such a scenario is inconceivable yet this is what happened to me.
Judgement or just an unjust guess?
Both the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court in their judgements against me made bold claims that I had been acquitted in the first and the second criminal trials on a technicality.
How did these two courts come to such a conclusion?
Supreme Court of Appeal judgement (Prophet v National Director of Public Prosecutions (502/2004)  ZASCA 94;  1 All SA 212 (SCA) (29 September 2005) http://www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZASCA/2005/94.html ) we read in paragraph 32: "But the acquittal of the appellant on a technicality indicates the difficulties the state has to contend with in its endeavours to combat drug-related crimes."
When the court published its judgement the transcripts from the second criminal trial had not yet been compiled. All that the Supreme Court had was a floppy statement from a state advocate and such is not ground to make a bold claim that violates my right to presumption of innocence and consequently my right to dignity.
Constitutional Court judgement (Prophet v National Director of Public Prosecutions (CCT56/05)  ZACC 17; 2007 (2) BCLR 140 (CC); 2006 (2) SACR 525 (CC) ; 2007 (6) SA 169 (CC) (29 September 2006) http://www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZACC/2006/17.html ) we read in paragraph 66: "The Supreme Court of Appeal dealt convincingly with that argument and said—“[T]he acquittal of the appellant on a technicality indicates the difficulties the State has to contend with in its endeavours to combat drug-related crimes."
The Constitutional Court would not allow me to submit the transcripts from the second criminal trial and so then on what grounds could the Constitutional Court reinforce the false statement presented by the Supreme Court of Appeal?
The Constitutional Court does not have my permission to arrive at incredible conclusions about something that they have refused to accept as evidence.
I was acquitted and that is the ultimate fact. In the first criminal trial one can argue that the trial collapsed on a technicality but in the second criminal trial I was acquitted because I am innocent of the charges. Please read Exhibit 4 in Chapter Two.
These are the facts. I have done nothing wrong and no drug crime has been committed at 54 Balfour Street.
And for a final death sentence to any claim that I was acquitted on a technicality then I have submitted as evidence in this trial a replication of all the laboratory equipment and all the chemicals that were claimed by the drug police to have been found in my home.
With all these things in my possession then can I be arrested? Can I be charged? Can I be convicted? Can my current home be taken from me if it can be shown that I am in possession of such things?
According to the Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act having such things in my possession does not constitute a crime so it follows that a conviction can never be so obtained. You can't be convicted of something that is not a crime.
In such circumstances, when there are not even grounds for an arrest, then how can a judge or still yet worse, how can a panel of judges degrade my dignity to say that I was acquitted on a technicality there by way of suggestion to imply that I am guilty?
I am an innocent man standing before a lot of legal mumbo jumbo that allowed my home to be stolen from me.
Let us not make a mistake here and for the benefit of future generations we must choose the path of simplicity and we are duty bound to reinforce what supreme law dictates: "No one may be deprived of property and no law may permit arbitrary deprivation of property."
Both the Supreme Court of Appeal judges and the Constitutional Court judges owe me an apology. I have the right to dignity.
Telling lies under oath is perjury.
In the Erasmus kangaroo court the drug police lied in their affidavits to support the false allegations against me. In the civil courts these drug police liars did not appear in person for oral cross examination for their lies to be exposed.
There is no defence here for the lying drug police or the lying state lawyers and the lying state advocates. Telling lies under oath is a criminal offence. In my replying affidavit to the Supreme Court of Appeal I did highlight the below false claims but to no avail.
Exhibit 20A above is an extract from an annex submitted with an affidavit into the civil court where the forensic drug policeman lists all the chemicals necessary to manufacture 1 phenyl 2 proponone.
Exhibit 20 B examines part of the annex that shows us that nowhere does the drug policeman tell us the volumes of the chemicals he claims to have found but he does tell us that no acetic anhydride was found in my home.
Exhibit 20C is another part of the annex where in his affidavit to the court, the drug policeman overwhelms the reader with complicated information and around this he makes up a story to trick the reader into accepting his speculation as fact.
The drug policeman is not contradicting himself or exaggerating. He is committing perjury.
Without acetic anhydride it would not have been possible to manufacture 1 phenyl 2 proponone. Without 1 phenyl 2 proponone it would not have been possible to manufacture methamphetamine.
It is a blatant lie to say that I could have produced 400 to 600 grams of methamphetamine from the chemicals that are claimed to have been found in my home.
To put this in layman's terms let's say that we find yeast, salt and water in a kitchen. Can we say that there was no flour in the kitchen but with the ingredients found in the kitchen it would be possible to bake 400 to 600 loaves of bread?
In a trial that is fair these lie filled documents would have been thrown out of the court room but to my demise the lies were embraced with open arms by the civil courts.
The civil forfeiture of my home in the Cape High Court was granted by Judge Erasmus before critical facts had surfaced in the criminal trials.
When I took the forfeiture on appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal the transcripts from the first criminal trial had not yet been made available until after the Supreme Court had rejected my appeal.
When I appealed to the Constitutional Court then I did submit the transcripts from the second criminal trial but these transcripts along with other documents were not allowed to be submitted into the consideration of the court.
The unconstitutional acts of the drug police were never considered by the civil courts. It was deemed that because the Erasmus kangaroo court was a civil trial that there was no compulsion for the drug police or the state to comply with any of the laws in the Constitution.
Few people know that the Constitutional Court denied me the opportunity to use the evidence of the criminal trial transcripts to defend my home.
My evidence was rejected and no physical evidence of any kind was submitted by the state into the civil courts. To forfeit my home the civil courts were guided by nothing more than assumptions and speculation presented on pieces of paper.
I do not deny the legal agility of the state advocates who were employed but none of them have ever touched or looked at the things that were illegally seized from my home by the drug police. None of them have ever been into my home at 54 Balfour Street and none of them have ever spoken to me or questioned me about anything.
These advocates do not qualify as witnesses against me and the entirety of their stories of intrigue were built upon statements of hearsay coming from the same drug police whose unlawful behaviour had been exposed in the criminal trials.
What made matters worse for me is that I could not openly challenge these lies in my affidavits because the Erasmus kangaroo court happened in a time frame during and before the conclusion of the first criminal trial. For me to challenge the lies would have been for me to entirely forfeit my right to silence and to give an unfair advantage to the state in the criminal trial. Section 35(3)(h) of the Constitution is supposed to guarantee my right to silence but the kangaroo court denied me this right. And let me remind the reader that this is a non derogable right.
paragraph 7 of her affidavit to the Supreme Court of Appeal when I
appealed the forfeiture of my home, a
representative of the state in its action against me stated that I had
converted one of the rooms of my home into a mini laboratory to
manufacture methamphetamine and that I had been "caught
the final stages of the process."
How did this woman come to make such a statement? I can only conclude that she was following false statements published by the media.
Exhibit 20 above, is the Cape Argus newspaper article that was published the day after my arrest and several years later the identical false claim, that I was "caught red handed" to my demise, gets quoted word for word by a state advocate in her affidavit to the Supreme Court of Appeal.
This takes "trial by media" to a new level.
Obviously she never looked critically at the photographs in Exhibit 21 below.
21 above are copies of the illegal photographs taken by the drug police when
they were unlawfully in my home. They depict the mini laboratory and
various items as claimed to have been found by the drug police.
Have a look at the photographs. You don't need to be a scientist to examine these photographs and conclude that the state advocate has lied to the court in her affidavit.
Had these photographs been presented by me then one could argue that I manipulated the images to make me look innocent but these images were presented by the drug police and lo and behold the images show no crime.
As of certainty these images do not show the final stages of the process of manufacturing methamphetamine. Only two chemicals are visible in the photographs; water and benzene. It is malicious intent to boldly claim that these images represent the final stages of manufacturing a drug.
Erasmus trampled on my right to silence and the state attorneys and advocates, third hand, endorsed and expanded on the lies coming from the drug police. In the Supreme Court of Appeal state advocates jumped on the band wagon of false media reports and I was unlawfully deprived of my home.
I have never consented to the loss of my home. The state departments and the courts who have engineered that I live in the street are wrong and the rightful realization of the facts concludes that I am the rightful owner of 54 Balfour Street.
This is jaw dropping information to have to learn but few members of the public know how civil forfeiture works. Even a majority of lawyers do not fully understand how civil forfeiture works. Most people do not know that civil forfeiture can seize and permanently deprive you of your land and possessions on grounds of suspicion.
We have the facts. Civil forfeiture does not make it safe for you to walk in the street day or night and it is not preventing crime. So what is it doing? I may have been slow on the uptake and it took me eight years to realize that there is a secret agenda behind civil forfeiture but finally the penny did drop.
Civil forfeiture must be seen for what it is. It is a devastating and a deadly threat against the principles of the right to own land. It must be challenged and done away with.
It has cost me millions of rand to fight against the civil forfeiture of my home. The state sold my home for R260 000. Do the arithmetic. Where is the justification?
I justify my losses because civil forfeiture is not attacking just me. Civil forfeiture attacks the civil right and the civil safety of all people who own property. I have a responsibility to my own well being but I also have a responsibility to those around me.
My home in itself may not amount to great value but in the wide world arena of millions upon millions of property owners then the value of my endeavours is extraordinary to all who value private property rights.
For 17 years I have put up a valiant fight to bring the civil court judges to respect, protect, promote and fulfil Section 25 of the Constitution and my ultimate success deserves reward.
A once off fee of $1 from each property title deed owner is not unreasonable and in that light I should receive many millions of rands.
Had I known at the outset how civil forfeiture works then, on reflection, I may not have challenged Willie Hofmeyr and his Asset Forfeiture gang. The selfish sensible thing to have done would have been for me to cut my losses and walk away but being who I am, that is not what I did but then we must consider that on the other hand, at the end of the day, I have done nothing wrong. Why should the state be allowed to get away with what has been done to me?
The wrong doing lies in an Act of Parliament that is inconsistent with the Constitution and at the feet of Erasmus and the civil courts that supported his wrong judgement.
Erasmus should have heeded the warning of Justice Wilfred Thring who questioned what will happen if I am found to be innocent?
The Supreme Court of Appeal and the Constitutional Court dodged the criminal court findings.
Without a conviction the Prevention of Organized Crime Act is wrong and the forfeiture of my home was wrong and it was an act of extreme cruelty and a gross violation of my right to dignity.
This may be a bitter pill to have to swallow but the black judges who have supported the civil forfeiture of my home are as wrong as the white judges who supported apartheid.
What has happened to me in the new South Africa with its highly acclaimed by all Bill of Rights is as bad as the worst things that happened during apartheid.
The Bill of Rights did not protect me. The Constitution did not protect me. The rule of law did not protect me.
My home stolen and me kicked into the street and degraded. Hey! And I'm innocent.
Even the "innocent owner" clause in the Prevention of Organized Crime Act did not protect me.
How bad can it get? And someone tried to kill me. Gosh! Am I making this all up?
Torture and the right to presumption of innocence.
It has been determined as a fact beyond a reasonable doubt in two criminal trials that the drug police while at 54 Balfour Street have violated the Constitution. Consequently it can be concluded that the drug police have committed common crimes at 54 Balfour Street but no drug crime has been committed there.
An allegation or a suspicion of illegal drug activity is not the same thing as a conviction.
My presumption of innocence was ignored by Erasmus and after I had been found to be not guilty of any criminal wrong doing then my innocent owner status was ignored by the Supreme Court of Appeal and by the Constitutional Court judges.
The Prevention of Organized Crime Act has allowed me to be punished through something called "the suspected commission of an offence."
Exhibit 23 above illustrates my point.
Through examination of the facts it can be determined through interpretation that the United Nations Convention Against Torture defines one section of the Prevention of Organized Crime Act as an "act of torture".
The Rome Statute (Document A/CONF.183/9 of 17 July 1998) in Article 7 Section 2(e) defines torture as a "crime against humanity" which falls under Article 5(1)(b) and the applicable penalty in Article 77 is (a) imprisonment for a specified number of years, or (b) a term of life imprisonment.
By what design and through what interpretation and by whose wish and against whom is civil forfeiture brought to bear?
Neither the National Prosecuting Authority nor Willie Hofmeyr can explain these discrepancies displayed in Exhibit 24 above.
Reason and logic have been thrown to the wind.
In terms of equality there is no hope to reconcile the glaring inequality from such case histories? I have been singled out by the authorities to be condemned and I have been denied my right to equality before the law and I have been denied the right to equal protection of the law and I have been denied the right to equal benefit of the law.
Exhibit 25 above is the official court document from the Cape Town Magistrate's Court signed 8th April 2005 by the magistrate who acquitted me on all counts and he also acquitted me on all alternative counts. What you are reading in Exhibit 25 is an unconditional acquittal.
Exhibit 26 again reveals historical peculiarities about civil asset forfeiture.
I am not nor have I ever been involved in organized crime yet I was attacked by the Prevention of Organized Crime Act and 54 Balfour Street is innocent.
Exhibit 27 above is a copy of a document distributed through government departments declaring that the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions will not apply for leave to appeal against the criminal court finding whereby I was found not guilty. This is a final admission of defeat.
Exhibit 27 is undeniable evidence that I am innocent of the drug allegations against me.
It is undeniable evidence that the forfeiture of my home is unconstitutional and it exposes the Erasmus kangaroo court for what it was.
I was astounded when the Constitutional Court did not allow this document to be submitted as evidence in the defence of my innocence.
The refusal of the Constitutional Court to allow me to submit this document in the defence of my home makes a mockery of the right to the presumption of innocence.
54 Balfour Street is innocent.
In an open and fair market I bought 54 Balfour Street in 1996. All the legal requirements of transfer were complied with.
Additionally I applied to the municipal authorities to rezone the property and my application was granted on the 12th of August 1997.
Exhibit 28 above is the City of Cape Town's approval for me to conduct a second hand business from the property.
After being granted the above I then applied to the South African police for a certificate under Section 4 of Act 23/1955 so as to be compliant with all government regulations.
Exhibit 29 above is the certificate under Section 4 of Act 23/1955 that was granted to me on the 25th August 1997 by the South African police for me to continue with my business and trade from my home.
Selling second hand goods that are listed in the above certificate requires that my finger prints be taken and checking to see if I have a criminal record before the certificate can be approved by the police.
Running a business such as this also means that the police appear unannounced at any time at the address to inspect the premises and the stock.
I would not go to the trouble of registering this business on a property and then engage illegal drug manufacturing on the same property while the police are doing sporadic and unannounced checkups on my books and stock on the same property.
Below is my Exhibit 30 which itself was submitted by the drug police into the Erasmus kangaroo court. The photograph taken by the drug police shows among other things a cardboard box of laboratory glass items that were for sale in the garage sale business.
The above things in Exhibit 30 were taken by the drug police and I have never seen them since. The drug police claimed to have destroyed the glassware but I suspect that it was sold illegally.
Exhibit 31 above is a photograph of the business in operation.
Over the years I built up good will from neighbours and customers. This endeavour considerably increased the value of my property but as an entity it was ignored by the state.
Regardless of how valuable the business was to me in my retirement years the state showed no concern for this business or any consideration for how much the business meant to me. It was as though it was of no consequence. My business was brushed aside as though it never existed and my retirement plan was stolen courtesy of civil asset forfeiture abuse.
I was deprived of my garage sale stock and the business. My planning and hard work were all for naught and my dreams were dashed and the Asset and Forfeiture Unit has swindled away my retirement income.
It is not a function of government to deprive me of my property and it is not a function of government to deprive me of my source of income.
Section 25 of the Constitution reinforces the government's function of specifically to not deprive people of their property and also to not deprive people of their retirement plans.
The eviction from 54 Balfour Street.
After the Constitutional Court had rejected my appeal against the forfeiture order then the Australian who had negotiated with the state to take my home appeared.
I refused to leave.
The curator bonis applied for an eviction order against me. Court case after court case had drained me financially.
Now another court case.
I was emotionally devastated and in dire straights. With little breath left I challenged the eviction application.
On the morning of the 28th of September 2007, armed with an eviction order Mr Seconds of the Maitland Sheriff's department came to my home to evict me.
In the absence of provocation on my part he had unlawfully persuaded the South African police to assist him with the eviction. His actions were unlawful and the actions of the police were also unlawful.
Mr Seconds was there on a civil matter and not a criminal matter. He had subverted the proper function of the police.
The police bullied their way into my home and within a few minutes they arrested me on a false charge of illegal possession of firearm and ammunition and intimidation. I was deprived of my gun and ammunition and handcuffed inside my home. A policeman was assigned to guard me while men of the sheriff's department proceeded to take my things.
Then I was paraded in the street with my hands in handcuffs behind my back like a criminal in front of my neighbours and scores of people who had gathered to watch the commotion.
All my protestations to the police that the gun legally belonged to me were to no avail.
This was unlawful police intimidation and I was taken from my home in handcuffs to the Woodstock police station and locked into a cell.
When you are arrested it is a legal requirement for the arresting officer to read you your rights and to present you with a NOTICE OF RIGHTS IN TERMS OF THE CONSTITUTION. For the sake of lip service such a document was filled in and was given to me with a pen and I was told to sign.
By this time I knew what the police were not allowed to do and on this day several law violations had been commissioned by the police and I proceeded to list them on the form.
When the policeman noticed that I was writing things onto the form he threw the cell door open and grabbed the book from me. He looked at what I had written and then tore out the pages that I had been writing on and crumpled them up. That book with the missing numbered pages should still be around somewhere.
A while later he returned with another form which is Exhibit 32 below. He threw this form through the bars of my cell. I picked it up and here it is being presented as evidence.
Exhibit 32 shows that in the place where I was supposed to sign it is written there that I had refused to sign. This claim is a lie. I was willing to sign but not before I had included information about how I had been unlawfully arrested.
The police had unlawfully entered into my home with Mr Seconds of the Maitland Sheriff's office.
The document states that I had been detained for "illegal possession of firearm and ammunition and intimidation".
The first two charges are easily exposed to be blatant lies on the presentation of Exhibit 33A below which is my old style license to possess the same gun which was authorized more than four years before this unlawful arrest.
The same gun is still in my possession and Exhibit 33B above is my updated license.
One phone call from the arresting officer or any policeman present would have confirmed the lawful ownership of my gun but the intention of the police with the Sheriff's department was the unlawful abuse of power to make me look like a criminal.
The right to dignity is a non derogable law. It is an absolute law yet when I was evicted from my home my right to dignity was not only not afforded to me but my dignity was deliberately defiled by the police.
The police knew with certainty that I was innocent but they proceeded anyway to unlawfully parade me in public to make me look like a criminal while Mr Seconds of the Mailtland Sheriff's department ransacked my home and unlawfully deprived me of my things including my cars, one of which was parked in the road.
These things that belong to me were then unlawfully auctioned off by the state.
Exhibit 32 above says it all. The arrest itself was entirely illegal. The manner of the arrest is just added aggravation.
The purpose of the arrest was for the general public who watched the spectacle to perceive me as being a criminal but after I had been unlawfully arrested at the eviction, the police had no alternative eventually but to release me so in the middle of the night my cell door was opened and I walked out into the street with just the clothes on my back.
My home was gone and I had no place to go.
The last of winter's snow lay on the mountains and the cold rain made me shiver.
way of a kangaroo court the state have been subverting the proper function
of the police to deprive me of property .
Exhibit 34 above is what my home looked like after the state allowed it to be gutted by vandals and thieves. At the end of the day this is the handiwork of the government.
Its signature is disgrace and total lack of respect. A naked denial to appreciate property.
My home was built in 1901 and many of the original fittings had survived. In the front room I was proud to show friends and visitors the hundred year old door with its original lock and handles but needless to say it was smashed out of the door frame and probably used for fire wood. The brass handle would have been sold for scrap. Other electrical brass fittings also sold for scrap. The old fire mantel stripped for scrap. Needless to say all electrical cables stolen at a replacement cost of tens of thousands.
Obviously the Asset and Forfeiture Unit have little respect for property and do not concern themselves with the value of olden day things including the right to presumption of innocence, the right to silence and the right not to be tortured.
I was forcefully evicted from my home in September 2007.
In October 2007 while the criminals were destroying my home, First National Bank sent me a letter demanding payment on my home loan account.
Exhibit 35 above is the letter of demand from the bank.
On the 12th November 2007 I replied.
Exhibit 36 above is my replying letter to First National Bank's demand for money.
EXHIBIT 37 above are two deposit slip payments that I made to First National Bank. These payments were made by me after I had been evicted from my home.
My home was seized on 28th June 2001 and more than six years later I was still paying the bond to the bank, the rates and taxes and I was also maintaining the property in good order because of Desai's court order.
The above Exhibit 37 is just one of hundreds of bills that I paid for a property after the time that it had been stolen from me and after it had been sold without my consent to someone unknown to me.
I continued to pay the bond into 2008.
On the 10th October 2008 I opened a criminal charge of fraud against First National Bank because the money in my Home Loan Account had disappeared.
Exhibit 38 above is the police email sent to me notifying me that a fraud case had been initiated against "FNB", First National Bank, with the relevant case number.
The police did listen to my story but never gave the matter consideration and the case was closed on the 17th of February 2009.
I should have taken the matter to the Public Protector if for the sake of record only but I was so exhausted and broken that to catch my breath I let the matter stand down but this does not mean that my money was not stolen by First National Bank.
Destruction of records.
Immediately after my second acquittal I asked the drug police to return the things that had been unlawfully seized in the illegal search of 2001. The drug police did not return my laboratory and my chemicals or my books including my personal diaries from the years 1996 to 2001.
Request after request to the drug police fell on deaf ears.
Frustrated eventually I brought an application through the Cape Town Magistrate's Court to force the drug police to return my things.
My application was not successful.
The drug police simply told the Magistrate that my things had been destroyed.
Magistrate Louw made the observation that he could not make an order for the drug police to return something that did not exist and I remember noticing the public prosecutor winking at the drug police officer with a sly smirk on his face.
A closer look at the Eric Louw Judgement
judgement, at the time, was for me a disappointment because I didn't get
what I asked for but it was not energy wasted because 8 conclusions have
emerged which are as follows:
drug police have admitted to having destroyed my things.
to Section 25(1) of the Constitution this is a civil rights violation.
drug police have breached the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 where we
read in Section 31(1)(c) with regard to my things that were seized that "...the
article shall be returned to the person from whom it was seized..."
things being held by the drug police were supposed to be evidence in three
different court cases and it
is a criminal offence to destroy records according to the Access
to Information Act 2 of 2000 Section 90(1)(a) where it states that "A
person who destroys, damages or alters a record commits an offence and is
liable on conviction to a fine or to imprisonment for a period not
exceeding two years."
it is known who the culprits are can we anticipate further investigation
and possible prosecution and possible conviction?
Judgement grants some relief with regard to compensation in that nothing
would prohibit me or stand in my way "to
bring a civil action against the police."
follows from Conclusion Number 4 that my laboratory is not an
instrumentality of a suspected commission of an offence and that it has
not been forfeited to the state.
the drug police to be forced to return my laboratory and chemicals would
have confirmed my lawful entitlement to everything that had been
unlawfully seized by the drug police. Also it would have been another
confirmation of my innocence and that no drug crime had been committed at
54 Balfour Street.
follows from Conclusion Number 5 that
since my laboratory was not an instrumentality of a crime then it follows
that neither was my home an instrumentality of an offence.
defies reasonable logic to say that the physical location of where a crime
was suspected becomes the instrumentality but the equipment that was
supposed to have been used somehow is not.
my laboratory would have been "game up" for the state and
the kangaroo court would have been exposed for what it was.
It follows from Conclusion Number 6 that since I can bring a civil action for my things that were seized in the illegal search that then I can also bring a civil action for compensation for the destruction of my dignity, the loss of my home, my business, business stock, my personal belongings, computers, cameras, TVs, furniture and my two cars seized when I was evicted.
conclusion from the Judgment is not apparent until you apply your mind.
Conclusion Number 8 stands invisible but once it reveals itself then there
is nowhere to run.
predominant consideration of Magistrate Louw's Judgment centres around the Criminal Procedure Act 51
of 1977 and comments in detail on Sections 31 to 35.
these comments combined with confessions coming from the drug police it is
determined that as far as my application is concerned that it is the drug
police who stand as the guilty party and it is they who are liable to compensate
me for the loss of my property.
Judgement confirms who is liable for the loss of my things leaving no
doubt, that in this regard, the hands of the court
show where I am going with this I need to digress to another judgement and
that is the Erasmus judgment where my home was forfeited.
Forfeiture is no small punishment. It took my life's labour to secure my home and establish my business and all of that was gone. My home is not nor ever was the "proceeds of crime." It could not have been so because there is no criminal conviction against me or against anyone else to support any such claim. There is no official record of any criminal act ever having occured at 54 Balfour Street.
When I was evicted the
sheriff brought the police who arrested me and everything of value was
seized. My furniture, fridges, computers, cameras, TVs, my two cars and
all the stock from my second hand business. What was not wanted was thrown
into the street. I was chained like a criminal, marched out of my home and
locked into the back of a police bakkie.
See Chapter Eight above.
See Chapter Eight above.
is a devastatingly cruel and harsh punishment. Forget about my dignity for
such a judgement to have been made the state must have put up a tremendous
...and now we come back to the Eric Louw Judgment which has established to
be a fact that "all" the articles or objects seized in
the illegal search "always
remained in the hands of the police and at no stage has any of these items
been transferred to the court for whatever reason."
consequence of Exhibit 39 above is gut-wrenching and it now follows as fact
beyond reasonable doubt that never did the state submit exhibits into the court of Judge Erasmus to support a charge that I am a
The Constitution guarantees my right to fair trial, criminal or civil, and it is the responsibility of the judge to weigh up claims of the prosecution versus claims of the defence and he achieves this by looking at the exhibits of evidence because without actual physical evidence it's all hearsay.
do not excuse Judge Erasmus for his failure to call for evidence.
in a simple case and my case is not simple then without exhibits of
evidence it would be impossible to fairly decide on anything.
heard of cases that are dismissed when the police docket disappears. So
what happens when the evidence disappears or when there is no evidence?
actual exhibits it's all guess work on unstable ground. A proper examination of the exhibits
would have protected Erasmus from the abundant and embarrassing blunders
in his judgement. See Chapter 5 above.
Number 8 of the Louw Judgement leaves no doubt that the Erasmus Judgement
was premeditated, slanted against me and is fatally flawed.
civil trial that took my home is a constitutional disgrace and must be set
there is no Bill of Rights in South Africa.
An attempt to silence me.
On the evening of 21st August 2009 I was attacked by Mr S Godloza and an unknown man. I was sitting at my computer when I turned to see the two men had crept up on me from behind and were at the window. The window was open and I saw a gun pointing at me. My reaction was instantaneous and I knocked the gun from his hand. One of the men grabbed my arm and I pulled away. The sleeve was torn from the garment. As I broke away from his grip a shot was fired hitting me in the arm and grazing across my shoulder.
As I escaped a second shot was fired that missed me. My plan was to climb out of the back window in an adjacent room. Through the closed curtain I could see a man standing outside. I moved and a third shot was fired which missed me.
The danger was extreme. I took a desperate chance and barged out through the front door and escaped into the darkness of the farm.
I found a safe place to hide but unfortunately one of the farm dogs followed me showing the attackers where I was hiding. The men moved in onto me from two sides. I saw the first man and he fired at me. The bullet ripped through my arm. On my left I saw the flame flash of a gun firing from the second attacker. The bullet tore through my shirt leaving a gash down my chest. I fired wildly to escape and ran.
Hearing the first round of gun shots an occupant on the farm had already phoned the police who by this time were speeding to the scene with sirens blazing and soon the farm was abuzz with the flashing lights of the police cars.
The police searched the area and found Mr Godloza's body lying face down on the dirt road. He had been shot in the chest. His gun, a stolen .38 Special, was lying by his side. He had covered his hands with glue; a common practice used by criminals to disguise prints.
The second attacker fled from the scene and the following day his tracks were found in the soft sand of the dirt road where it was apparent from splashes of blood that followed his footsteps that he had been hit. Samples of the blood were handed over to the Kraaifontein police.
The police case number is 800/801/8/2009 and the investigating officer is Detective van der Heever of the Kraaifontein police.
It was evident that the men had not been on the farm to steal and that their intentions that night were to murder me. I have it on hearsay that Mr Godloza had a significant criminal record with many offences relating to firearms. Mr Godloza was unknown to me and he had travelled from a far distant suburb to get to me on an isolated farm off the beaten track.
It is improbable that these criminals were there by accident and the plausible explanation is that this was a paid hit to do away with me. My conclusions are reinforced in that I had been fired upon in three different locations. Each time I fled an attack I was pursued leaving little doubt that the intention was to kill me.
I don't have all the facts but since, apart from this website, I had no enemies, then, on a balance of probabilities, this attack comes from someone somewhere on the side of the Asset Forfeiture Unit, the Department of Justice or some person or persons within or connected to the state.
At the scene when this happened the police took from me my firearm against my protestations. I was promised it would be returned to me in a few days. The few days turned into several months. This when I knew and the police knew that someone was out to kill me.
I was terrified alone and unarmed on the farm. With no alternative I made other arrangements to secure my safety and defence but this does not excuse the state from having deprived me of my means of defence.
I have the right to life and I also have the right to arm myself to protect my life.
Exhibit 40 above is a photograph of my injuries taken at the time that I had been attacked. I was still bleeding from the injuries to my chest and arms. The white tape with markings had been stuck onto my right arm for the forensic photographs.
Depriving me of my gun in the circumstances obviously endangered my life. Had the attackers returned that night I would have had no effective way to defend myself and I may have been killed.
After the Asset and Forfeiture Unit and the civil courts have forcefully taken away the safety of my home in Woodstock, I accuse the Asset and Forfeiture Unit and the civil court judges of having put my life in danger.It cannot be said that it was my choice to be on the farm. My choice was to be in my home in Woodstock and it is the Asset and Forfeiture Unit and the civil courts that deprived me of that choice.
Blame directly or indirectly lies at their feet.
It is not a function of government to deprive people of their property and depriving someone of their home is one step away from killing them.
The collapse of the Human Rights Commission.
In desperation I approached the Human Rights Commission. Armed with my petition of 10 000 signatures I appealed to the Human Rights Commission for their help in the matter.
My application was rejected and I was told that my petition was of no consequence.
I was given the opportunity to appeal to the CEO of the Human Rights Commission and I pursued this but my appeal was also rejected and the reason for final rejection, according to Mr Mushwana, was that I had been found guilty in the criminal trial.
Mushwana's incompetence infuriated me and I returned to the Cape Town
office with bitter complaints.
In my appeal to Mr Mushwana I sent him a certified copy of my acquittal (see Exhibit 25 in Chapter 6) and he was unable to interpret this document. There is no excuse here. This is lethal failure on his part. I provided comprehensive documents to support my complaint. To make the assessment yet more easy I included links on the internet but in the early communication with the Human Rights Commission, the staff in the Cape Town office had told me that they could not access the internet links because they had only limited access to the internet. Bearing this in mind, in my appeal to Mr Mushwana, I included a cash note of R100 so that Mr Mushwana, at my expense, could access the links via an internet cafe. Since his staff were complaining about limited access to the internet I did not want to be given that feeble excuse a second time so I sent the R100.
Exhibit 41 above is a letter from Mr Mushwana to me. The letter is signed by Mr Mushwana.
The letter sent through the Human Rights Commission where he states that I have been found guilty of dealing in drugs is verbal assault and crimen injuria and these are criminal offences.
Since Mr Mushwana is unable to see that his letter is a violation of my right to dignity then he is not qualified to be the CEO of the South African Human Rights Commission.
Obviously Mr Mushwana did not look at any of the internet links but can he please tell the Constitutional Court what he did with my R100? Did he buy a bus ticket, did he buy bread or did he give my R100 to his wife? What did he do with my money?
I go to the Human Rights Commission as a man homeless, injured and hurt. Two criminal trials and one civil trial from the identical charge and Mr Mushwana takes my money and 100% misinterprets the facts that have been graphically presented right in front of his face.
Exhibit 42 is my petition against the civil courts. The link takes you to the ten thousand signatures that I collected after having been kicked out of my home.
I would have thought that
such a petition would have been brought to the attention of the South
African Human Rights Commission without any assistance from me. I take the
petition of 10 000 signatures to the Human Rights Commission only for Mr Mushwana to get the facts back to front and to ignore the 10 000
signatures. Did he not stop to wonder why so many people signed and what
they were signing? 10 000 signatures! What
is wrong with the man and his colleagues?
research surveys draw national barometer conclusions from surveys that
draw information from pools of less than 2 000 people interviewed.
How then can Mr Mushwana and the South African Human Rights Commission ignore a survey
that presents 10 000 signatures? How can the South African Human Rights
Commission demean such a monumental survey?
can the South African Human Rights Commission not investigate a matter
where a man is acquitted of wrong doing but he gets deprived of his
property and his source of income without compensation because he was a
suspect? This is unbelievable. Obviously all those within this
organization who have so calmly brushed me to one side have not fairly
contemplated the purpose of their employment.
Even as I write this I am shocked and speechless.
After Mr Mushwana rejected my appeal I complained to the Cape Town branch of the South African Human Rights Commission bringing to their attention that Mr Mushwana had misinterpreted the facts.
Exhibit 43 above is the email sent from the Cape Town office notifying the Johannesburg head office that Mr Mushwana had made a mistake.
Exhibit 44 is a lily-livered reply to Bianca Valentine's email in Exhibit 43.
I sent Mushwana a certified copy of my acquittal and his inability to understand the document prompts me to accuse him of criminal negligence. His denial of Bianca Valentine's email confirms my allegation.
I want to know what Mr Mushwana did with my R100.
Failure of the Human Rights Commission to perform its duty enhances state complacency to commit crime.
Another illegal search for drugs and my gun unlawfully seized for the third time.
Exhibit 45 above is an extract from my personal diary.
After this illegal midnight search and seizure I lodged a formal complaint with the Public Protector but no remedial action was taken.
The Human Rights Commission didn't have even the common courtesy to reply to my email sent. I assume my email went direct to the trash bin.
The third government department that I complained to was the Provincial Inspectorate of the Western Cape and Exhibit 46 below is the outcome of my complaints.
???"NO DISCIPLINARY STEPS IS RECOMMENDED"???
In Exhibit 46 above, Colonel Verwant admits no fault and regards the matter as finalized. The policeman against whom I brought the complaint doesn't get even a slap on the wrist for something that is clearly illegal.
What would have happened if three unknown men had been trespassing on Colonel Verwant's property after midnight, pushed their way into his home, looked at his penis, looked at his wife's naked breasts, searched his house and left with some of his things?
It is suspicious that such a high ranking policeman should be so engaged.
Whatever the motive for the unlawful search may have been after this incident on the 7th September 2011 then I instructed my lawyer to bring a civil action against the Minister of Police. Now, in 2017, it is six years since my instruction and there has been no relief. The lawyer keeps telling me he'll contact me. Either the lawyer or the system is in breakdown.
In 2003 I paid Mr Snitcher to recover my R50 000 lost in the first criminal trial. Nothing came of those efforts. See Chapter 3.
In 2004 I paid Mr Muller to follow up on the R50 000 with no results. See Chapter 3.
In 2008 I initiated attempts to recover my about R100 000 lost from my First National Bank home loan account since Desai's preservation order. Nothing came of that. See Chapter 9.
In 2009 I put in an application to force the drug police to return my laboratory, chemicals and personal things seized unlawfully from 54 Balfour Street. Nothing came of that. See Chapter 10.
In 2013 the National Prosecuting Authority conceal records from me and the police do nothing. See Chapter 14.
In 2015 I go to court to defend my second home using the Bill of Rights and ESTA both of which are ignored by the judge who considers that the side of a public road is good enough for suitable alternative accommodation and I get kicked into the street. See Chapter 15.
Where in the world is justice?
It is clear from the Constitution what the objectives of the police are.
Depriving people of their property is not a function of the police.
Invading people's privacy is not a function of the police.
Much irregular, unlawful and criminal behaviour of the police is convincingly exposed within these chapters which is a far cry from how the police are to conduct themselves.
The Constitution lays down the foundation and the function of the police is "to protect and secure the inhabitants of the Republic and their property". Why then did the drug police enter illegally into my property and detain me under unlawful conditions. See Chapter 1 and Chapter 2.
Why did the drug police commit perjury in a kangaroo court to collude with the Asset and Forfeiture Unit to deprive me of my home and my business? See Chapter 5.
Why did the Woodstock police illegally arrest me on false charges of possession of an illegal firearm and deprive me of my firearm that was rightfully in my possession? See Chapter 8. Why then did the police intimidate me and restrain me in handcuffs so as not to be able to challenge the Maitland Sheriff from his intention to evict me? I am lawfully entitled to protect my property. Why did the police knowingly stand by and watch and permit the Sheriff to deprive me of my cars and other property at 54 Balfour Street when they knew that I had been found not guilty of dealing in drugs?
Why did the police not protect and secure the money in my First National Bank home account that was stolen from me and given away to the Hodge family? See Chapter 9.
Why then did the police deprive me of my
laboratory equipment and chemicals after my acquittal? Why did the police
destroy my laboratory equipment and chemicals? See Chapter 10.
When I complained why did the police do nothing to protect my home when it was being gutted by thieves and vandals. See Chapter 8, Exhibit 34.
Why do the police keep harassing me and searching me for drugs? See Chapter 13.
Why did the police, when presented with hard core facts and evidence, not investigate the criminal allegations against the Western Cape director of the National Prosecuting Authority? See Chapter 14.
The National Prosecuting Authority has violated the Constitution and has resorted to crime to cover up its own wrong doing.
The newspaper article below was published by City Press.
In the above Exhibit 47 of a newspaper article, Phillips complains that his properties now "look like a dumpsite" because the state did not maintain them.
How come the state maintained Phillip's properties at state expense and after he was found not guilty he gets everything back?
The state grabbed my things. My home, my business, my cars, my furniture and whatever it could get its hands on. Everything was sold or destroyed and after my eviction, while I was still being forced through Judge Desai's court order to keep paying the mortgage bond for the property, the state allowed my home to be gutted. See the photos in Exhibit 34 Chapter 8. When I reported the vandalization of my home to the police I was told in not so many words to buzz off.
For you as the reader doesn't this strike you as unfair? Where is equality before the law?
Obviously this new "latest twist" has bearing on my case.
I have been deprived of everything including my dignity but someone else, in almost mirror like circumstances, is planning a civil law suit to the tune of eight hundred million rand.
R800 000 000.
Gosh! That's a lot of money.
I needed more information so pursuant with Section 32(1)(a) of the Bill of Rights I approached the National Prosecuting Authority for the truth about the media rumours.
Several phone calls and personal appearances at their Cape Town office produced no information.
Frustrated I sent a registered letter to the director of the National Prosecuting Authority. The Post Office charged me R27.60.
Exhibit 48 is my letter to Rodney de Kock. I ask for four simple pieces of information; two of which only need a yes or no answer.
Mr de Kock has the answers at his fingertips but his letter, Exhibit 49, below is a middle finger to my request for information.
In Exhibit 49 above, Mr Rodney de Kock makes it look like he's helping me with valuable information but he answers not one of my questions.
To say that the Ranch was not an instrumentality of a suspected commission of an offence is poppycock.
I requested specific information all of which was concealed from me by Mr de Kock.
It's easy to see why the state wants to conceal such information from me but regardless of the reasons for the concealment it is a legal fact that concealing a record is defined as a crime in the Access to Information Act 2 of 2000.
As can be determined from Exhibit 49, Rodney de Kock denied me the answers to four questions so this constitutes four criminal charges under Act 2 of 2000.
Mr Rodney de Kock knows all about Chapter 5 and Chapter 6 of the Prevention of Organized Crime Act 121 of 1998 but does he know anything about the Access to Information Act 2 of 2000?
Does he know that his refusals to give me the information requested from him constitutes criminal offences?
With the identified alleged crimes and the exhibits of the evidence I went to the South African police with my allegations and opened a formal complaint of criminal activity.
Exhibit 50 below is the outline of what I submitted to the South African police.
The police refused to investigate my complaint.
Denying access to records is a civil right violation but according to the Access of Information Act 2 of 2000 it is also a criminal offence.
The police did not protect or secure me and they did not uphold the law and they did not enforce the law.
The police have failed in their duties as defined by the Constitution.
Consequently I approached the Public Protector with my complaint see Exhibit 51 below.
No relief was forthcoming from the Public Protector.
The Public Protector did not investigated the failure of the police to investigate my complaints.
The Public Protector has not investigated my complaints about the National Prosecuting Authority concealing records.
The Public Protector has not reported on the conduct of these two state departments.
The Public Protector has not taken appropriate remedial action against these two state departments.
The Public Protector has failed in its duty as defined by the Constitution.
2016 sees me being deprived twice of yet another home.
After I was evicted from my Woodstock home in 2007, I went to live on a farm in Joostenbergvlakte where a dwelling unit was given to me by a previous owner. In 2013 the farm was auctioned off by the bank as a property in possession and a trial pursued to evict me.
Land Claims Court case number LCC 29/2014 with Judge Meer.
It was common knowledge in the trial that my dwelling had been given to me as a gift and it was also common knowledge in the trial that the previous owner had told me that I could live there for the rest of my life for free.
Along with these prerequisites I challenged the eviction application with laws in the Constitution and the Extension of Security of Tenure Act.
The judge was adamant that I forgo my existing occupational agreements even though I could show the inclusion of these agreements in the Deed of Sale that had been signed for by the applicant. See Exhibit 52 below.
The judge was horrified that anyone could be living on a property for free. She told me that unless I could show her a law that says I don't have to pay rent that she would grant the eviction.
As it turned out I was able to give her what she asked for.
I presented the judge with the zoning laws of the property which prevent the owners from renting out dwelling units. See Exhibit 53 below.
Exhibit 53 above is as clear as daylight. It is unlawful to erect multiple dwelling units on a farm but the new owners, in their papers to the court, stated that it was their intention to upgrade various buildings on the farm for the purposes of renting them out as residential units. See Exhibit 54 below. This, according to the new owners, was a "significant" factor in having decided to purchase the farm.
Any property zoned "agriculture" unequivocally prohibits renting out dwelling units as a source of income but the judge turned a blind eye, sanctioned the zoning law crimes intended by the applicant and ordered my eviction along with other occupiers living on the same farm.
I am 63 years old and my only fixed income is a government pension of R1 400.
How in God's name does this judge expect me to live?
My current predicament is not a result of laziness on my part. I worked hard for what belongs to me at 54 Balfour Street and this was stolen from me by the government through the Prevention of Organized Crime Act.
This website exposes the Prevention of Organized Crime Act as legalized theft with a sinister agenda. POCA is clearly inconsistent with South Africa's Constitution and the rule of law yet it was vigorously enforced against me by the civil courts.
Judge Meer did not show any such enthusiasm to enforce the Bill of Rights or the Extension of Security of Tenure Act to protect my home in Joostenbergvlakte.
In order to evict me Judge Meer ignored Section 12(1)(e), Section 25(1), Section 25(2)(b), Section 25(3), Section 26(1) and Section 26(3) of the Constitution and she had to ignore Section 8.4, Section 10.2, Section 13 and Section 21 of the Extension of Security of Tenure Act.
Not only has the judge ignored the owner's unlawful attempt to extort rent out of me but she has taken it one step further to the point where she herself has colluded with them to violate the City of Cape Town zoning laws.
It would seem unlikely to me that Judge Meer or any judge for that matter has the weight to overturn municipal laws without first allowing the municipality to contest such action.
"Rent" as proposed by Judge Meer without the City of Cape Town's approval is a violation of the zoning laws.
Exhibit 55 highlights the dilemma. Is this not a paradox that my home in Woodstock was taken from me because I was accused of being a criminal suspect but now my home in Joostenbergvlakte is taken from me because I am refusing to participate in an illegal act?
I was dismayed to watch the judge waving the zoning laws in her hand while asking the occupiers how much rent they would be willing to pay to live in the horse stables with no electricity, no water and no toilets.
With her mother, Professor Fatima Meer, a human rights activist, standing behind her, it should have occurred to Judge Meer that a stable is not fit for human habitation much less be asking for rent.
The above photograph Exhibit 56 of Linda Steenkamp accepting a lift in a sheep's cage on the back of a bakkie produced public outrage.
The image is undignified and raises alarm bells but her inconvenience is short lived only until she arrives at her destination.
When it comes to long term degradation then Judge Meer, Judge President of the Land Claims Court, agrees for people to live in animal enclosures and if they don't pay rent then she kicks them into the street.
Oh dear! What have we come to?
Exhibit 57 above is a newspaper report about the eviction.
A wealthy white Afrikaans farmer did have this man kicked into the street but this is not something we are reading from the good old apartheid days. This happed in 2016. Has Judge Meer, President Judge of the Land Claims Court, ever taken the trouble to read Section 26(1) and Section 26(3) of the Constitution?
What happened to this man's right to have access to adequate housing? Does Judge Meer seriously think that her order to deprive this man of his home without compensation is consistent with the new South Africa or the Constitution? In terms of ESTA does she think that a pavement is "suitable alternative accommodation"?
Is this Judge Meer's idea of spatial planning and land use management? Is it an enviornmentally friendly policy to put a man to sleep on his bed in a road?
This website presents hard cold facts that a lot is badly amiss.
Exhibit 58 above is a headline article about the eviction. The headline reads:
Judge Meer has and is knowingly putting the lives of these people into extreme danger. Is the judge insane?
A speeding car or a truck can, at any moment, collide with this flimsy structure and this family will be killed. You pay a fine for not wearing a seat belt but Judge Meer has compelled these people to quite literally live on the street.
If the little toddler crawls under the canvas and is crushed by a truck then who is guilty? Is the life or death of these people inconsequential to Judge Meer?
Judge Meer deprived these people of their home and has shown no mercy.
In October 2016 a fire ripped through the settlement.
Exhibit 59 is a photograph taken after the fire. What you see are the fence support structures that held up the plastic roof covers. When you look at the picture it's hard to imagine that three families were living here without water or electricity and no toilets on a permanent basis on account of Judge Meer.
Without being informed, the trauma and despair of these people is not evident from the image.
For Judge Meer it's a job well done and there's nothing wrong but I would say and some may agree that what is being revealed here makes Mrs Steenkamp's degradation mild in comparison.
Ignoring the Extension of Security of Tenure Act, the Constitution and the rule of law, Judge Meer has ruled to protect the business interests of the rich so that they can make a little more money.
When we learn that the businesses being proposed and conducted are unlawful then we must admit that, in this case, the Prevention of Organized Crime Act has not protected me from the criminal depredations of those involved.
Many of the rights in the Bill of Rights are there in consideration of those who practically speaking have little.
Few and far between are they who rightfully qualify for protection under the Extension of Security of Tenure Act but judges know that such laws, while inconvenient to government departments and wealthy land lords, can cheerfully be ignored because the cost and complication of an appeal is an impossibility for those for whom the laws are designed.
Consequently the Extension of Tenure Act fails to provide the relief it seeks.
Little doubt Judge Meer is wrong but no sleep will she loose and proving my point is of no bother because she knows that the Supreme Court of Appeal is no sweat when you don't have money to buy a bus ticket to Bloemfontein.
In a country with a Constitution and a Bill of Rights this is not how things are supposed to work.
Shortly after I had been evicted from my home on the farm, I sent an invoice on the 21st January 2016 to the owners of the farm who applied to evict me. The invoice was for me to be compensated, as according to the Extension of Security of Tenure Act, for the structures and improvements that over eight years I had added to the farm.
The owners did not honour my invoice and nor did they allow me to remove my property.
In my papers to Judge Meer I complained that no meaningful engagement had taken place and I pleaded with the judge to appoint a mediator so that we could arrive at a meaningful engagement as is my entitlement according to law.
The judge ignored my request.
The invoice in Exhibit 60 above does not support the judge's decision to decline my plea to appoint a mediator.
Since this matter of money being owed to me has not been resolved then for Judge Meer to have evicted me from my home was a deviation from what the law expects.
Consequently when we follow the letter of the law then my occupational right to be in my home on the farm must be reinstated.
They murdered her.
Exhibit 61 above is a photograph of Nicola Daniels standing next to her caravan at 17 Perth Street, Walmer Estate adjacent to the old and notorious District Six. She came to live here after she had been evicted through the forfeiture of my home at 54 Balfour Street.
When I challenged the forfeiture order, in my papers to the Supreme Court of Appeal, her dilemma was brought to the attention of the judges.
The curator bonis, Mr Ross, had submitted an affidavit supporting the forfeiture of my home and in paragraph 19 he had this to say:
ROSS AFFIDAVIT Paragraph 19: "As the applicant still has not vacated the property I am in the process of instructing the Office of the State Attorney to institute eviction proceedings against the applicant and those living with him (Ms Nicola Daniels and Ms Sofia Petersen) to enable me to give vacant possession of the property to the purchaser."
I replied to his affidavit with the following:
PROPHET AFFIDAVIT Paragraph 19: "According to Mr Ross's annex IR1 he was made aware on the 15th of October 2003 that Ms. Daniels was a squatter at 54 Balfour Street. When Mr Hodge received my petition he was made aware of the presence of Ms. Daniels and if he negotiated to buy my house on the 15th of November 2003 then his negotiation included to accept Ms. Daniels as part of what he was intending to buy. If Mr Ross or any other person led him to believe that Ms. Daniels could be discarded like unwanted furniture then that is going to have to be addressed.
Ms. Daniels was a child she lived with her grandmother in District Six and
witnessed as a victim what is
Mr. Ross has publicly declared his desire to actively engage against a disadvantaged woman who has been a victim of apartheid for 20 years so that a white male foreigner can kick her into the street from one day to the next without any compensation to make it easier for the white male foreigner to take up residence where she has been living for seven years.
Mr. Ross is nothing new to Ms. Daniels but if he gets his way then the sickness of our past still lurks within our walls.Any attempt by Mr. Ross or anyone else to have Ms. Daniels evicted from my home is going to be met with extreme resistance and Mr. Ross is going to discover that the dictatorial suppression of people’s human dignity in the past has been replaced by a society that is based on social justice and fundamental human rights."
To my amazed dismay each and every one of the five Supreme Court of Appeal judges who were presented with my challenge regarding Nicola, they all ignored what I had to say.
In violation of non derogable constitutional laws, Mr Ross and the Asset and Forfeiture Unit got their way and now with my tail between my legs, I must take back my words because my prediction did not come to be and to the satisfaction of Mr Ross and The Asset and Forfeiture Unit, Nicola was thrown into the street "like unwanted furniture".
My call for "social justice and fundamental human rights" was trampled into the gutter and now historical evidence is here for all to see and into all eternity that "the sickness of our past still lurks within our walls".
After my appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal had been rejected I assured Nicola not to worry because I would appeal to the Constitutional Court.
Alas for Nicola, so too did the ten Constitutional Court judges each and all turn a blind eye to my pleas for her safety. It was as though she did not exist.
Losing my appeal to the Constitutional Court did not sway me.
Mr Hodge, the Australian man who bought my home for a steal and cared not to see Nicola being displaced was laughing all the way to the bank and when he finally showed at my front door I told him to go away.
Mr Ross then applied to the Cape Town High Court to evict me and Nicola. I fought the application and lost.
My lawyers had promised to appeal the eviction but that never happened because either through their lazy delay or the speed with which the eviction was carried out Nicola and I both found ourselves in the street.
I was aware of a property that had been abandoned near to our home and I made Nicola as comfortable as possible in the ruins of the old building.
For the next 5 years she lived there until she lost an application to have her evicted from the Perth Street property.
This application was brought against her by President Cyril Ramaphosa, who at that time was the Minister of Human Settlements.
Exhibit 62 is an Argus newspaper report about the application to evict Nicola.
Today, March 2018, the land from where she was evicted stands barren. So what prompted her urgent eviction?
I did not appeal Nicola's second order to be evicted from her home because the judge in the trial ordered also that the City of Cape Town provide a house for Nicola.
Nicola moved off the Perth Street property to reside with a friend in a nearby house and waited for the City of Cape Town to comply with the court order in her favour but the City of Cape Town ignored the court order with the attitude of when we can we will.
The waiting turned from days into weeks and into months and through the years 1, 2, 3 and 4 the City of Cape Town stirred not.
On the 1st July 2016 tragedy struck; the house where Nicola was residing caught fire burning to the ground.
Exhibit 63 above is how the house looks currently in March 2018
Nicola had been keeping her caravan on the farm where I lived and she spent time with me on the farm but this opportunity was lost when I was evicted from the farm. See Chapter 15 above.
In my papers to that court I pleaded with the judge to force the City of Cape Town to comply with the court order to provide a home for Nicola. Judge Meer seemed to busy to be bothered and my pleas to this judge were ignored.
Nicola and I found ourselves again in the street.
Nicola moved to live in the back yard of a council house in Bonteheuwel but was unhappy there.
I kept reassuring Nicola to not loose faith but the horror and the terror of her life was taking its toll. My words were loosing ground and the daily strain and hardships were bearing heavily on Nicola.
She could see nowhere to go.
She had suffered 3 evictions. 54 Balfour Street Cape Town High Court case number 5926/01 Judge Erasmus, 17 Perth Street Cape Town High Court case number 781/12 Judge Fourie and 80 Lucullus Street case number LCC 29/2014 Judge Meer.
Her other temporary home burnt to the ground and the City of Cape Town brazenly violating the court order.
It is as if she had been thrown away. Forgotten, kicked and degraded time and time again.
I told her to be strong, to keep her spirits up. I kept assuring her of our victory against those who had plotted to destroy us but as the years drifted by her life only deteriorated.
She was losing hope and my confidence in beating the enemy no longer consoled her.
In February of 2018 developments relating to my eviction from the farm had provided an opportunity for me to make use of a piece of ground in a squatter camp near Wallacedene.
I arranged to secure the ground with intention to provide for Nicola a place for her to hang on and cope until my return to the Constitutional Court or to an international court.
I am grieved to tears that this turned out to be too late.
Nicola was in terrible despair, her heart broken, rejected by the world she had given up.
Two days after I signed the agreement to make use of the land, Nicola died.
As I have said before; evicting someone from their home is one step away from murder.
Nicola is not coming back but to everyone who participated in her eviction from her home in 54 Balfour Street, all of you, one and all; Willie Hofmeyr, the Asset and Forfeiture Unit, the journalists, the lawyers, the advocates, the judges, Mr Sessions, the police, the estate agents, the Hodge family who bought her home, and the consequent courts and all who participated in those affairs to see her kicked into the street, including President Cyril Ramaphosa, you are all guilty, each and all you played a part for her to die before her time, and I tell you now, not as the judge but as a prophet, that in the hour of Final Judgement for this, the pain and suffering you have inflicted on her, you will be judged.
Is the Republic of South Africa founded on the supremacy of the Constitution and the rule of law? Do we have a Bill of Rights?
This website exposes 141 civil right violations against me and of these law violations 39 of them are defined as non derogable. We are not talking about a parking ticket here. We are talking about the destruction of my dignity, the destruction of my life and the theft of my life's labour.
Exhibit 65 above is the Table of Non Derogable civil rights and of these listed here we find that 39 of my rights have been violated?
Am I dreaming this up?
More than 60 exhibits support my claim. The court case transcripts, the documents, the witnesses, everything and more is there to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that my allegations are substantiated.
Even though I have no criminal record and also even though I was acquitted in both of the two criminal trials, I have been punished for having been accused of being a criminal suspect and the hardships of that punishment are ongoing as is evident from Chapter 15 above.
So when does my sentence for being a suspect end?
Also the number of violations above must be considered in broader perspective and that is that when, for example, we consider that two criminal trials ensued from the single arrest then each violation that we accept to have been committed by Erasmus relating to the first criminal trial then those violations apply equally to the second criminal trial.
As I list how many violations are committed in terms of one criminal trial then that number actually doubles as the numbers must be multiplied by two criminal trials.
For a man to rape a woman on Monday and to rape the same woman again on Tuesday then the state charge the man on two counts of rape.
Likewise when Erasmus commissions a violation of my right to silence before the first criminal trial then he also commissions a violation of my right to silence before the second criminal trial so this must be counted as the commissioning of two separate non derogable civil right violations.
When Erasmus is caught out commissioning the violation of my right to presumption of innocence in the first criminal trial and also the second criminal trial then this also becomes the commissioning of two separate non derogable civil right violations.
When Erasmus is caught out commissioning the violation of my right not to be tortured to get information out of me before the first criminal trial then this makes him guilty of also commissioning the same non derogable law in the second criminal trial.
It does not help to say that Erasmus could not predict that there were going to be two criminal trials. He was bound to follow Constitutional law and he did not.
Consequently when we examine 12 of the violations in Chapter 5 relating to the first criminal trial then because there are two criminal trials the actual number of violations in this regard committed by Erasmus jumps from 12 to 24 and the severity of the charge against Erasmus increases accordingly.
Similarly logic dictates the same reasoning in terms of my allegations against the state. Allegations against the state also jump from 12 to 24.
Now we put Erasmus and the state together and the number of violations becomes 24 plus 24 and the number of violations jump to 44.
This is all simple arithmetic.
Everything becomes further compounded when considering that the Supreme Court of Appeal and the Constitutional Court who ruled against my appeal involved 15 judges.
When it is alleged that each judge colluded with both Erasmus and the state then the number of alleged violations against me increases by the number of judges.
A woman who is raped by 10 different men is considered to have been raped 10 times.
Apply the same reasoning with the state and Erasmus and all the judges that subsequently allegedly participated in those alleged violations then the numbers jump from 44 to 44 times 15 = 660.
I have not sat down to accurately determine a final count of alleged violations against me but simple arithmetic can run the number of violations quickly into the hundreds.
On those numbers in the hundreds when we must now add the violations encountered in Chapter 16 we find ourselves in 4 digit figures and all these so many violations against only 2 people.
You can dismiss my arithmetic but let's say you stay with my one plus one calculation of 141 civil right violations against me alone and my one plus one calculation of 39 non derogable civil right violations also against me alone; makes no difference because the picture that looks you in the eye remains still appalling.
In the light of such prolonged atrocities against me, coupled with the atrocities against Nicola then can we, in earnest, proclaim to the world or to ourselves that the Republic of South Africa is founded on the supremacy of the Constitution and the rule of law?
What is the way forward from here?
We have to go back to the beginning of where we started and that is that the Constitution is the supreme law of the Republic.
I'm not saying it's going to be easy but we must muster our strength and do what is right. Freedom does not come for free. There is a price to be paid and, like it or not, it is the duty of the state, and silently also the duty of every South African citizen, to respect and to protect and to promote and to fulfil the rights in the Bill of Rights.
I have been fighting the theft of my first home for 17 years and since, essentially, the theft of my second home, now I am compelled, with an added sense of duty, to push forward to ensure that justice be done that both these matters be resolved according to what constitutional law expects.
With regard to what has happened to me then some people are going to have to admit that they were wrong or someone else is going to have to admit that on their behalf and the mess on this website has to be cleaned up...
My email address is email@example.com