fraud on the court

ANNEX 1

To punish a criminal suspect by depriving him of his legitimate second hand shop which is his only source of income together with and along with his home and his only place of residence, all at the same time and without compensation is an act of savagery.

To threaten a criminal suspect who is being presumed to be innocent, with such a barbaric and terrible punishment as outlined above, in order to extract information from the suspect regarding the criminal allegations against him during the proceedings of his criminal trial can only be construed as an act of torture.

To determine a crime, the state, is forbidden to abandon proof beyond a reasonable doubt and absolutely under no circumstances is the state allowed to tell lies in an arena where suspicion is called proof. For such to be tolerated is to collapse the structural integrity of the Constitution.

The National Director of Public Prosecutions frolicking in Superintendent Venter's lies is coming to an end.

Fraud on the Court transcripts:

(A frank discussion by Simon Prophet in the first person)

The National Director of Public Prosecutions submitted into the civil forfeiture trial 2 affidavits signed by Casper Henderik Venter which I call the “Impossible Volume Affidavit” and the “False Formula Affidavit” wherein both of the affidavits Venter has lied under oath.
The first time that I read the “Impossible Volume Affidavit” I knew that Venter had lied.
On page 4 in paragraph 6 Venter tells us that “with the amount of chemicals found on the property it would have been possible to synthesis 400 to 600 grams of methamphetamine.”
On the same page in paragraph 6.1, Venter tells us that you need phenyl acetic acid and acetic anhydride to make 1-phenyl-2-propanone and on page 5 in paragraph 6.2 Venter tells us that you need 1-phenyl-2-propanone to make methamphetamine.
When we go back to page 4 then in Table 1 Venter tells us in line 2 that no acetic anhydride was found on the property.
If you need phenyl acetic acid and acetic anhydride to make 1-phenyl-2-propanone and you've got phenylacetic acid but you don't have any acetic anhydride then you can't make 1-phenyl-2-propanone and if you need 1-phenyl-2-propanone to make methamphetamine but don't have any 1-phenyl-2-propanone then you can't make methamphetamine.
Without disputing Venter's claims, a careful analysis of the information indicates that no methamphetamine could have been manufactured from the chemicals found.
Venter wants us to believe that “400 to 600 grams” could be manufactured from a collection of chemicals, one of which is missing.
Venter may have been unconscious of his error but whether conscious or unconscious he has contradicted himself which is perjury.
This particular lie played a crucial role and was material in achieving the forfeiture of my properties.
In the civil forfeiture trial, the National Director of Public Prosecutions was sitting with a problem in that the illegal search did not uncover any illegal drugs or any incriminating evidence of any kind.
In order to circumvent the absence of a crime the National Director of Public Prosecutions desperately needed to invent a volume of methamphetamine and Venter's volume lie proved to be indispensable.
Johan Smit in paragraph 8 of his affidavit repeats Venter's “400 to 600 grams” lie as though it were a confirmed fact and then in paragraph 9 Smit values 500 grams of Venter's non-existent methamphetamine at “R250 000.”
Venter's volume lie appears in 6 affidavits and 2 submissions and were vital for the National Director of Public Prosecutions to build a case against me. Paragraph 6 of Venter's affidavit. Paragraph 8 of Smit's affidavit. Paragraph 7 of Adam's affidavit. Paragraph 57 of Mopp's affidavit. Paragraph 12.5 of Mrs Rabaji affidavit. Paragraph 13 to Annex MTK4 of Kagee's affidavit to the High Court to force my eviction after I refused to leave my home. Paragraph 50.2 of Trengrove's submissions. Paragraph 66.2 of Breitenbach's submissions.
Venter's volume lie appears in paragraph 38 of the Supreme Court of Appeal judgement, and in the judgement of the Constitutional Court, Venter's lie appears in paragraph 12 and in paragraph 23 with Smit's false value claim reappearing in paragraph 65.
Venter's lies found their way into mainstream media where visibility was ensured with front page articles which guaranteed readership in the tens of millions of people and my dignity was smashed to smithereens.
This massive publicity campaign was orchestrated by the National Director of Public Prosecutions to use me to promote its Prevention of Organized Crime Act but in its greed for visibility what happened is that “Tik” became a household name.
When I was arrested in 2001, no one on the Cape Flats knew what methamphetamine was. In paragraph 30, Erasmus favourably advertised methamphetamine to be a drug and let me quote that is “relatively easy to manufacture and thus is ideal for production in “clandestine laboratories” in residential areas.”
Talk about being irresponsible.
There's no other way to interpret the practical implications of this statement other than Erasmus has endorsed this crime and by so doing Erasmus has informed and invited the criminally inclined to engage.
From the newspaper we have Hendrik Westraat of the drug police informing us that since the start of the civil forfeiture trials in 2001, methamphetamine drug abuse exploded by over 7500% which confirms that contrary to having prevented this crime, the National Director of Public Prosecutions has been the single most influential factor for the escalation of methamphetamine the explosion of which coincided exactly in line with and in step with the advancement of the civil forfeiture trials from Erasmus all the way up to the Constitutional Court in 2006 when Westraat submitted these statistics.
If I had been working secretly from my garage to promote methamphetamine drug crimes then I could never have achieved what the National Director of Public Prosecutions has succeeded in doing.
Following my arrest I was imprisoned in the cells of the Woodstock police station and before the drug police had taken me to a court to be informed of the charge, the Cape Times newspaper published several lies about me.
Regarding the chemicals Riaan Redelinghuys states that “1 kilogram” of non existing methamphetamine could have been manufactured which contradicts Venter's “400 to 600 grams.”
Redelinghuys then values his non existent methamphetamine at “R700 000” which contradicts Smit's “R250 000.”
When we do the arithmetic then we discover that Redelinghuys values methamphetamine at “R700 per gram” which contradicts Smit who values methamphetamine at “R500 per gram.”
In paragraph 6.5(iii) of Venter's “False formula affidavit” he values the industrial chemicals found in my home at less than R3 000.
When we do the arithmetic with this number then it means that according to Redelinghuys, R3000 worth of industrial chemicals can be converted into an unbelievable R700 000 on the black market.
Who are we to believe? These lying drug police are not taking about something that exists in real life. They are talking about bogus made up stories and that is why we have the contradicting statements. The one liar never took the trouble to check on what the other liar was saying.
We can take it as a given that all 3 of these drug police are lying.
Johan Schronen published the Redelinghuys lies which guaranteed for me to be condemned by public opinion even before I had appeared in court to hear the criminal charges.
Redelinghuys was not in the civil court room to explain himself but then neither was Venter nor Smit for them to explain themselves.
The National Director of Public Prosecutions didn't bring any supposed to be witnesses into the civil court room and came armed only with pieces of paper which, in criminal matters, is deficient.
Whether or not these three lying drug police were present in the civil court room they all are representing the same drug police department that filed the criminal charges against me so the contradictions emanating from these 3 drug police deserve equal consideration.
The drug police department put Redelinghuys up to his mischief in order, at an early stage, for me to be seen in a bad light and even before the beginning of either my 2 criminal trials or the civil trial these false claims of Redelinghuys served to set the stage for me to be perceived as being a dangerous menace and to encourage for me to be treated harshly.
My bail hearing was the day after this article was published and it is my reasonable suspicion that the Redelinghuys lies did influence my bail being set at an unusual and exorbitant R20 000 which I think at that time back in 2001 was enough money to buy a house in the Cape Flats. My bail conditions also restricted my freedom and confined me to remain within the boundaries of the Cape Town municipality and I had to sign at the Woodstock police station between 5 and 7pm every day.
Bearing this in mind it is fair to keep Redelinghuys in this discussion and include his contradicting statements to support my charge of perjury against Venter and more so especially since Venter and Redelinghuys were both in the employ and under the control of the same drug police department.
We have Venter's unconscious conflicting submission regarding the absence of acetic anhydride which forces us into the only rational and logical conclusion that no methamphetamine could have been made from the chemicals that were seized.
Based on the available information, it is an indisputable fact that the exaggerated numbers being put forward by the drug police are not true.
The National Director of Public Prosecutions called upon Carl Mopp to use Venter's volume lie and to use Smit's made up value story of “R250 000” to fabricate a criminal case against me in order to get my house.
The National Director of Public Prosecutions has embroiled itself into a legal fraud by seizing upon these particular lies to convince the court that the forfeiture was not “disproportionate” to the crime because the value of Venter's non existent methamphetamine exceeded the value of my house.
Subsequent to Erasmus having deprived me of my home, in the second criminal trial, case number 16/236/03, the oral testimony of Johan Smit who was the arresting officer, confirmed to the criminal court that the illegal entry of the drug police into my home did not uncover a crime.
Magistrate le Roux asks Johan Smit a direct question: “You find all these substances in his garage it's in his home and he hasn't manufactured any illegal drugs can you charge him for anything?” and Johan Smit replies to say: “No. No way.”
When any action cannot qualify for an arrest then it follows and it is logical to conclude that the same action cannot qualify for a conviction.
The National Director of Public Prosecutions has lied to the Supreme Court of Appeal and has also lied to the Constitutional Court to say that I was acquitted on a technicality.
This disclosure came before the search warrant had been set aside so don't anybody try to tell me that I was acquitted on a “technicality.” Being found in possession of over the counter industrial chemicals does not constitute a crime under the Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act.
While non derogable law was firmly urging for the incontestable presumption of my innocence and before I had been found to be not guilty and in the absence of a crime, the National Director of Public Prosecutions needed a volume of methamphetamine to produce an apparent argument that would give some sort of credence and permission for the National Director of Public Prosecutions to dodge Constitutional law.
Carl Mopp's affidavit would not have had the same punch without Smit's “R250 000” derived from Venter's lies.
Both the volume and the value claims are nothing more than fictitious made up stories which have been submitted under oath which constitutes fraud.
The National Director of Public Prosecutions presented these lies into the civil court in a way that appeared to be factual and unfortunately for me, the civil courts were tricked into believing Venter's lies and as a result of these lies I was condemned.
I was waiting for the criminal trial where I was going to ask Venter to make methamphetamine from the chemicals and the equipment seized because I knew that it would not have been possible because not only were the required chemicals missing but, about something that Venter doesn't touch on, a lot of the laboratory apparatus that was essential in order to complete the chemical procedures was also missing.
It's easy to come into a place and say that something can be done but it's another thing entirely to actually do it.
Unfortunately for me and luckily for Venter, the criminal trial ended in a way that I did not expect and I lost an opportunity to be able to force Venter to basically testify against himself and provide the proof beyond a reasonable doubt that Venter has lied under oath to the civil courts.
When Venter broke into my home, he did not find me manufacturing methamphetamine. What he found is that I had been chained onto the burglar bars in my lounge by his colleagues, Grimmbacher and Smit.
Venter's ramblings about what I was supposed to be doing are unconfirmed assumptions but into his speculation and speculation is all that it is, he has lied about how I was supposed to have been making methamphetamine.
In paragraph 8.1 of Venter's “False Formula Affidavit” , according to Venter, one of the ways to make methamphetamine is by adding 1-phenyl-2-propanone to chilled methylamine and according to Venter this is what I was supposed to have been doing.
To reinforce the lie, in paragraph 8.5 Venter tells another lie to the court that combining 1-phenyl-2-propanone with chilled methylamine would “exclude the possibility of any other resultant substance but methamphetamine.”
This is a second contradiction which automatically opens Venter up to another charge of perjury.
On page 5 in paragraph 6.2 of the “Impossible Volume Affidavit” Venter gives us a different version of what happens with these chemicals when he tells us that 1-feniel-2-propanoon and metielamien gives us N-Formielmetamfetamien.
I am going to set aside Venter's guess work and I am going to do a real life demonstration and pursue Venter's speculation about what he says that I was supposed to have been doing which, according to Venter, is that I was going to combine what he says he found in the toilet with what he says he found in the fridge.
I am not agreeing with Venter that he found what he says he found but for the sake of not being argumentative let me put that issue to one side.
To avoid unresolvable arguments I am going to combine 1-phenyl-2-propanone with chilled methylamine in front of the camera so that we can find out whether or not we get N-Formielmetamfetamien or if we get methamphetamine.
I am well aware that people might be saying that the chemicals in this video are not what I say they are but if you don't believe me then go and purchase 1-phenyl-2-propanone and methylamine. Chill down the methylamine in a fridge as per Venter's instructions and then conduct the experiment for yourself.
You'll get the same result as is being demonstrated here.
No conversion to methamphetamine follows and neither is there any conversion to N-Formielmetamfetamien.
All that happens is that the 1-phenyl-2-propanone floats on top of the methylamine and the only reaction that occurs is that eventually the chilled methylamine warms up to room temperature.
1-phenyl-2-propanone is an oil based chemical and it's not going to combine with methylamine which is a gas at room temperature and is sold as a liquid with the methylamine suspended in a solution of water in the ratio of 40% methylamine and 60% water.
It is scientifically impossible to combine these chemicals as Venter tells us for a reaction to occur that causes any conversion into methamphetamine or into N-Formielmetafetamien. Adding formic acid to the solution will not resolve the oil can't mix with water problem.
Venter's lack of detail means that he doesn't properly understand what he is trying to present and he is talking rubbish in both of his claims as to what is supposed to happen when these chemicals are combined.
Venter has used the word “chilled” because it ties in with the “chilled methylamine” that he says was found in my fridge.
Again Venter is talking rubbish.
In the world of chemistry there is no reference to any chemical conversion that requires for methylamine to be chilled.
Contrary to what Venter is saying exactly the opposite is required for conversions to take place. Heat and not cold will be required.
Venter included this adjective “chilled” because he wants it to be believed that the chemical was in my fridge for nefarious purposes.
Venter found nothing illegal in my home and he has not any clue why any of these industrial chemicals were there.
Relying on guess work and grasping at straws Venter must use whatever he can to serve his malicious intentions to conjure me up as being a criminal.
Venter's wicked scheme performed well and his clever inclusion of the word “chilled” really caught Trengrove's eye and Trengrove couldn't help himself as he repeated Venter's gobbledygook where Trengrove repeats the word “chilled” no less than three times in one paragraph.
Erasmus also highlights the word “chilled” in paragraph 14 of his judgement where he says that Venter found a flask containing a small quantity of what he later established was chilled methylamine in the kitchen which apparently is combined with 1-phenyl-2-propanone to produce methamphetamine.
Erasmus has exposed himself with his employ of the adjective “apparently” which is injudicious because it carries with it the element of doubt.
Criminal convictions do not sit between something that might be or something that might not be. In violation of my right to a fair trial, Erasmus has clutched onto Venter's lies to characterize me as being a drug dealing criminal.
In the judgement of the Supreme Court of Appeal we see “chilled” appearing in paragraph 7, twice in paragraph 8 and and twice in paragraph 20.
In the Constitutional Court the word “chilled” appears in paragraph 10(g), paragraph 11 and again in paragraph 12.
Venter fooled everyone into falsely believing that the methylamine needs to be “chilled” when making methamphetamine or we would not see this word appear as many times as it does.
In paragraph 2 on page 3 of Trengrove's submissions Trengrove affirms to the reader that he and the National Director of Public Prosecutions are describing “the facts.” At the top of page 4, Trengrove kicks off with “THE FACTS” which is typed out with bold print in capital letters. Trengrove was paving the way to pull the wool over the eyes of his audience for them to accept without question and believe Venter's lies that Trengrove proceeded to spew forth.
Trengrove has absolutely nothing tangible to support his slanderous statements that I manufactured methamphetamine or even that I was able to have done that and his defamatory charges against Alan Hiebner were shown in the criminal trial to be baseless.
Trengrove's submissions are not what he calls “facts.” Trengrove's submissions are false and about the real “facts” that were brought forth in the second criminal trial, Trengrove says nothing. Without going into detail about just how many lies Trengrove presented that he referred to as the “facts” let me not deviate from my criminal charges against Venter.
In paragraph 50.2 of his submissions, weaving a web of lies, Trengrove harps on about Venter's “400 to 600 grams” and Smit's “R250 000” which we know are definitely not a “facts.”
The”400 to 600 grams” is an outright lie.
Trengrove has engaged a legal fraud on the court by repeating Venter's lies and other lies emanating from Venter's lies as though they are “facts.”
In Paragraph 15 of his submissions, Wim Trengrove relied heavily on Venter's fables.
By trailing behind Venter's lies, Trengrove lies to the court that I was interrupted by the arrival of the police while I was in the process of manufacturing methamphetamine by combining 1-phenyl-2-propanone with chilled methylamine and he goes on to say that the flask found in the fridge which Daniel's emptied into the kitchen sink contained methylamine which was being “chilled” for combination with 1-phenyl-2-propanone to produce methamphetamine then he goes on to say that the combination of 1-pheny-2-propanone and chilled methylamine could only have been used to produce methamphetamine
By espousing on Venter's made up stories as being true Trengrove has entered into the criminal domain where the law does not allow for him to tread. Making a meal of Venter's lies, Trengrove has plunged himself into the unlawful deprivation of my property and it is indeed true to say that liars and thieves work hand in hand.
After watching this video it is now known that key claims coming from Venter are malicious and dishonest.
Trengrove has repeated Venter's lies to wrongly convince the courts that I am a drug dealing criminal.
Venter's claims in paragraph 8.1 and paragraph 8.5 are not true.
As a supposed to be “expert”, Venter would know that what he was saying is not true but he was following an agenda and by hook or by crook he went out of his way and he told several critical lies about things that he said that he found to prepare an introduction about me to more easily fool the reader into perceiving me to be a criminal. Venter slyly manoeuvred his story of intrigue and his dirty scheme worked.
Erasmus believed Venter's lies. The Supreme Court of Appeal also believed Venter's lies, and the Constitutional Court went along with the lies.
I did expose Venter's lies to the Constitutional Court in an affidavit that had been prepared by Michael Alan Smith, a chemistry lecturer who had been lecturing on chemistry at a university level for more than 20 years and the chemistry lecturer exposes and explains where Venter has gone wrong.
The chemistry lecturer tells us that you can't synthesis methamphetamine simply by combining 1-phenyl-2-propanone and methylamine because the compounds do not produce methamphetamine in one step.
The chemistry lecturer challenges Venter's paragraph 8.5 in that according to the chemistry lecturer the compounds 1-phenyl-2-propanone and methylamine, can be combined, under appropriate conditions mind you, to produce the condensation product 1-pheny-2-methyliminopropanone.
Our real life chemistry experiment which has been performed in front of the camera has demonstrated that what the chemistry lecturer tells us is in fact true in that 1-phenyl-2-propanone and methylamine do not combine to produce any alternative chemical in one step. All that happens is that the oil based chemical floats on top of the water based chemical.
It might be possible, as the chemistry lecturer tells us, to introduce and to use other chemicals and engage certain chemical procedures to get these chemicals to perform but Venter's inclusion of “chilling” down the methylamine is nothing more than hocus pocus.
The chemistry lecturer provides us with a list of other chemicals that are required when following Venter's lead. These unfound chemicals included aluminium, mercury chloride, methanol, ethanol, diethyl ether, sodium borohydride, H2 gas on Palladium, H2 gas on Raney nickel and sodium in ethanol. So many unfound chemicals plays havoc with Venter's untrue volume concoction of “400 to 600” grams.
In his affidavit, the chemistry lecturer's inclusion of “(and apparatus)” also disposes of Venter's claim of being able to make methamphetamine since Venter, inside of my home, is lacking all of the sophisticated equipment required to work under “pressures as high as 1200 atmospheres.”
1-phenyl-2-propanone and methamphetamine boil at temperatures exceeding 200 degrees Celsius which calls for specialized apparatus to protect these chemicals to prevent them from degrading into toxic substances when being distilled.
None of this specialized equipment and apparatus was found at my home which would disqualify any attempt on my part to complete the complicated process of making either 1-phenyl-2-propanone or methamphetamine.
Unfortunately for me, the chemistry lecturer's affidavit did not protect me from Venter's humiliating libel and nor did it help to enforce or to protect my right to the presumption of my innocence because the Constitutional Court refused to allow me to submit this affidavit into the court.
Michael Smith's affidavit presents inescapable problematic issues regarding Venter's childlike hypothesis.
In a criminal trial Venter does not qualify as an expert.
In the civil trial Venter was allowed to qualify as an expert because, according to Erasmus, the rules of a civil trial differ from those of a criminal trial but buried into his remark sits the silent admission from Erasmus that under stricter rules then Venter does not qualify as an expert and consequently, on acceptance that civil forfeiture is quasi-criminal in nature, then even Erasmus has agreed that Venter does not qualify as an expert but expert or not, Venter, by falling over his own feet with all of his damning contradictions has done himself the dishonour and the disfavour of having disqualified himself from even being allowed to be in the court room much less to offer up his nonsense.
The National Director of Public Prosecutions can bring however many experts it wishes to try to cover up for Venter against what is revealed in Michael Smith's affidavit but however many they may be then let me say that none of them will convince me that Venter has not contradicted himself in one, two, three instances that I have brought to the attention of this court.
There is no need to consult with chemical engineers who will disagree with Venter because Venter's contradictions alone render Venter's testimony as being worthy of impeachment of credibility.
CONTRADICTION NUMBER ONE.
In paragraph 6 of Venter's “Volume Affidavit” Venter tells us that from the volume of chemicals found that it was possible to synthesis “400 to 600 grams” of methamphetamine which, to the diligent observer, contradicts what Venter unconsciously discloses in line 2 of Table 1 on the same page that it would not have been possible to synthesize any amount of methamphetamine which unequivocally means that the malignant exaggerations of hundreds of grams are obviously all false.
CONTRADICTION NUMBER TWO.
In paragraph 6.2 of his “Impossible Volume Affidavit”, Venter tells us that 1-phenyl-2-propanone and methylamine react to provide us with “N-Formielmetamfetamien” which contradicts what Venter tells us in paragraph 8.1 of his “False Formula Affidavit” where Venter changes his tune to tell us that the 2 starting chemicals perform to produce “methamphetamine”.
CONTRADICTION NUMBER THREE.
After telling us in 2 different affidavits that there are 2 different resultant substances Venter then contradicts himself to say in paragraph 8.5 of his “False Formula Affidavit” that there can be only one resultant substance.
Creating contradictory affidavits is a dangerous act that can result in criminal conviction, hefty fines and potential imprisonment.
Venter has never been a witness to any wrong doing on my part and the entirety of his false allegations against me are not only wild but also impossible speculations conjured up by Venter's imaginations to portray me as a criminal so as to provide the National Director of Public Prosecutions an opportunity to determine exactly to how far it can go to be able to unlawfully engage the Prevention of Organized Crime Act.
I have never been involved with any organized crime and I have never entertained any intention of such criminality.
Wim Trengrove in the employ of the National Director of Public Prosecutions has paraded himself before the judges wearing garments dripping with Venter's lies and after my acquittal Trengrove has unlawfully, in the Constitutional Court, slandered me in front of the whole world.
There is no escape for Venter with his contradictions and his impossible proposals point to and prove grave misunderstandings regarding Venter's speculation.
What has been presented in this video is undeniable and it proves “Fraud on the Court.”
Venter, with his multiple contradictions and his lies has disqualified himself as a witness against me.
Adding onto the lies coming forth from Venter we must not overlook other contradictions emanating from Johan Smit and Riaan Redelinghuys.
CONTRADICTION NUMBER FOUR.
The fourth contradiction is the Redelinghuys false volume claim of “one kilogram” which contradicts Venter's volume claim of “400 to 600 grams.”
CONTRADICTION NUMBER FIVE.
The fifth contradiction is the Redelinghuys's false value claim of “R700 000” which contradicts Johan Smit's false value claim of “R250 000.
CONTRADICTION NUMBER SIX.
The sixth contradiction, if you stop to think about it, is that the Redelinghuys claim of “1 kilogram” also contradicts Venter's unconscious revelation that no methamphetamine could have been manufactured.
It is against the law to punish innocent people and the National Director of Public Prosecutions has broken the law of section 10 and the law of section 35(3)(h) of the Constitution to proclaim to the world that I am a drug dealing criminal both before and after I've been found to be not guilty.
The National Director of Public Prosecutions has broken the law of section 12(1)(d) and the law of section 12(1)(e) of the Constitution and, by abusing its authority, the National Director of Public Prosecutions has unlawfully manipulated the Prevention of Organized Crime Act to torture me and to dehumanize me by treating me in a viciously cruel and barbaric way to engineer that I be cast out of my home to go live in the street.
Anyone who thinks that what has been done to me complies with Constitution law, they have lost not only their humanity but they have lost also their divinity and the next step for them if they're not already there will be Satanic ritual and human sacrifice.
By fooling the courts through a legal fraud the National Director of Public Prosecutions has achieved to violate the law of section 25 of the Constitution by improperly enriching itself by arbitrary depriving me, without compensation, of my property, my shop and the fruits of my life's labour.
After the presentation of this video to the proper authority there can be no other reasonable outcome but to rescind the Erasmus judgement.

FIN