Below Annex VLR1 is a copy extracted from the transcripts of the criminal trial case number 16/236/03 where Magistrate le Roux declares that the search and the seizure by the drug police at 54 Balfour Street was unlawful.

This ruling in the Cape Town Magistrate's Court renders the forfeiture of 54 Balfour Street as being also unlawful as is evident from one 1958 Plymouth Sedan v. Pennsylvania 380 U.S. 693 (1965) which 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 unlawfully.

In the case concerning 54 Balfour Street not only was the "supposed to be" evidence "obtained unlawfully" but this "supposed to be evidence" didn't amount to anything.

During testimony before the criminal trial the arresting officer admitted that nothing was found in the "unlawful" search that would warrant an arrest.

To forfeit 54 Balfour Street, Erasmus had to embrace the lies of Casper Henderik Venter, and Erasmus also had to ignore the facts of the case, and to ignore the South African Constitution, American Supreme Court case law, common law and the rule of law and on top of that he had to tell his own lies to make his judgement look somehow plausible.

Judge Erasmus punished Prophet for the same crime for which Prophet was found to be not guilty.

Everything and all of what is being presented above is verifiable and true.

There is no way around this but inconceivably the civil courts also ignored all of the above and 54 Balfour Street was forfeited to the state.

It's time to see this for what it is and it's time to return to Prophet what is rightfully his.