Quick links to the documents below:

 

Simon Prophet has done all in his power to stop the unlawful forfeiture of his home, his land, his businesses, his cars and all of his personal belongings.

His appeals to the civil courts landed on deaf ears. His appeals to the South African Police, the Public Protector, the South African Human Rights Commission and the Judicial Service Commission all to no effect.

Now documents and supporting evidence regarding several International criminal allegations and allegations of crimes against humanity have been submitted to the International Criminal Court in the Hague.

Simon Prophet has the right to dignity and he has the right to be protected from violent aggression and harm regardless of from whence comes the harm and especially even more so when that harm originates from people employed by government and state organizations.

Absolutely no one is allowed to engage Constitutional law violations and violations of International Law and no one is allowed to engage crimes against humanity and it is Simon Prophet's opinion that it is a National Disgrace and an International Disgrace that so many Judges in high positions are refusing to recognize the miscarriage of justice that has befallen Simon Prophet.

You would need an IQ of below room temperature not to be able to see the crimes here being committed.

Simon Prophet does interpret this as judicial corruption and criminality on a massive scale and at the highest levels and he has been given no alternative but to do what he has done.

When your civil rights are violated then you contact a lawyer.

When you are attacked by criminals then you contact the police.

When South Africa gives you the cold shoulder then the gloves are off and it's the International Criminal Court in the Hague.

What follows below are Simon Prophet's engagement with the South African Police and with the Judicial Service Commission regarding criminal charges of torture.

 

 

Judge Nathan Erasmus.

Simon Prophet has the right to dignity and no judge may derogate non derogable laws.

Below is Simon Prophet's affidavit called the "Sentence of Seven Lies" which accuses Judge Nathan Erasmus of criminal conduct and was submitted to the South African Police in March 2023.

The police refused to look at the allegations. The document was then presented to the Public Protector who considered the contents thereof and suggested that it be forwarded to the Judicial Service Commission which was duly done which is confirmed by the emails below.

 

 

The Judicial Service Commission

Above is the email correspondence between Simon Prophet and the Judicial Service Commission who acknowledged receivership thereof on 26th April 2023 informing Simon Prophet that the documents were to be forwarded to Ms Ndivhuwo Tshubwana and Ms Kutlwano Moretlwe.

Through the delivery services of Post Net, 2 chemical sample exhibits and several documents were couriered to the Judicial Service Commission's office including Simon Prophet's signed affidavit called the "Sentence of Seven Lies." 

What follows below is Simon Prophet's affidavit, the "Sentence of Seven Lies", that was submitted to the South African Police and to the Judicial Service Commission.

 

 

 

"He who answers a matter before he hears it, It is folly and shame to him."

King James Bible; Proverbs Chapter 18, Verse 13.

On what legal ground can it be reasonable or justifiable for the Constitutional Court Judges to comment and arrive at a far reaching conclusion about the findings of the second criminal trial after the Constitutional Court Judges themselves had rejected, as evidence, the transcripts of that same criminal trial?

 

 

 

Below is the email that Simon Prophet received from the Judicial Service Commission in December 2023 notifying him that his complaint above was "frivolous and lacking in substance".

 

 

 

Simon Prophet accepted the opportunity given to appeal and his appeal was published below on this website on the 8th of January 2024.

Presenting the appeal in the format of a questionnaire provides a means to ensure that from all sides the appeal is being properly considered.

13 complete volumes have been delivered to the Judicial Service Commission members allowing one volume for each member so that each member can give his or her take on the matter.

The Yes or No answers displayed in the questionnaires, on completion, will be the answers from everyone individually and will represent a real response providing 13 transparent conclusions visible to all as to how Prophet's appeal is perceived.

Simon Prophet's appeal to the Judicial Service Commission

 

 

On Wednesday 17th January 2024, the day after Simon Prophet's questionnaire book had been delivered to the Judicial Service Commission he received an SMS notification on his phone from the police to tell him that his case regarding Venter had been closed. 

The Senior Public Prosecutor had decided to withdraw the case.

Simon Prophet responded immediately by appealing to the Director of Public Prosecutions to bring Venter to justice.

Simon Prophet also contacted the Public Protector and the Human Rights Commission and called upon them for help.

On Monday 22nd of January 2024 Simon Prophet sent by hand courier to the Judicial Service Commission 2 pages of supplementary notes to be added to his appeal which is published below.

 

 

On the 5th March 2024 Simon Prophet received another email from the Judicial Service Commission containing a letter attached giving him until 19th March to submit any written submissions.

This letter is published below.

 

 

At first glance the letter is just a letter giving some information but a closer inspection brings one to something that is unfathomable and vociferous.

Under Simon Prophet's name is his old home address which came to him as a distressing emotional shock to read his old address being typed out underneath his name where it always used to be found.

Certainly disturbing in one sense but reassuring in another.

The entire address is there and even the postal code is included.

In all of Simon Prophet's communication with the Judicial Service Commission no inclusion of this code has ever been presented anywhere but here under his name the whole address is typed out including this postal code.

Is this the work of an unseen hand, the handiwork of God maybe operating from within the office of the Judicial Service Commission to say what should be heard and that is that Simon Prophet is the rightful owner of 54 Balfour Street.

This may not be brushed aside as an office mistake. It's more than that.

Comment from Simon Prophet:

"Subsequent to having been told that my appeal has been turned down I interpret this letter with my old address under my name as a psychological attack on my person to destabilize me.

Since no other contact information of mine appears on the letter then it is reasonable for me to conclude that this letter was a deliberate act to further add to my suffering by giving me false hope.

At the time, by finding my old address under my name, my impression was that this was a subtle indication from the Judicial Service Commission that there was an acknowledgement as to the wrongs that have befallen me but, at the end of the day, this did not prove to be the case and my appeal was thrown to the wind.

This letter with my old address was a vicious and cruel trick but I will not be stopped.

As it was made abundantly clear to the National Director of Public Prosecutions and to the Judicial Service Commission and to the South African Human Rights Commission that failing to admit my allegations at home then the matter is now in the hands of the International Criminal Court.

Depending on what transpires at the International Criminal Court we in all likely hood will be revisiting what has happened here. "

 

 

Not to loose any opportunity to make his case heard and understood, Simon Prophet, immediately, embarked on compiling a booklet containing the petition signatures which he had collected after he had been evicted from his home so that it could be submitted as a submission into his appeal.

TEN THOUSAND signatures cover 39 pages of the booklet and at the bottom of each of those page is included one of the many Constitutional violations commissioned by Erasmus and attention is drawn to the violations that are defined as NON DEROGABLE which gives us a count of 25 NON DEROGABLE Supreme Constitutional Law violations commissioned by Erasmus.

Below is Simon Prophet's letter which accompanied the booklet which was sent to the Judicial Service Commission and below that is an internet version of the same booklet containing the petition signatures.

 

 

 

On the 14th August Simon Prophet received an email from the Judicial Service Commission to inform him that his complaints about Erasmus and the National Director of Public Prosecutions had been turned down with an attached 3 page "Ruling" of the Judicial Conduct Committee which follows below.

 

 

 

 

The ruling above is both embarrassing and a disgrace.

If there is any such thing as criminal incompetence then here it is.

In paragraph 3 the judges tell us that they "could not make head or tail of it."

On Tuesday the 5th March 2024 in an email to the Judicial Service Commission, Simon Prophet requested to be present and available to the judges on the 24th of April 2024 and his request was denied.

Now Simon Prophet is being told by the judges that they "could not make head or tail" of his complaints.

Any one of those seemingly dumbfounded judges could have picked up the phone and Simon Prophet could have explained whatever to them.

While Simon Prophet was under the control of the National Director of Public Prosecutions and in Erasmus's court, on the 22nd of May 2003, Erasmus punished Simon Prophet for an act that Simon Prophet was suspected of having committed and by so doing commissioned an offence that is defined as torture according to Article 1(1) of Part 1 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment by General Assembly resolution 39/46 of 10 December 1984 entry into force 26 June 1987, in accordance with article 27(1) that states and we quote: "For the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as punishing him for an act he is suspected of having committed.”

Maybe this is all just too much to have to comprehend for these judges so their brains go into overdrive and their ability to think and comprehend just goes poof and that's why they "can't make head or tail of it."

Simon Prophet has no criminal record.

Erasmus punished Simon Prophet for being a criminal suspect in a crime that does not exist.

What is it that these judges do not understand?

Are these judges imbeciles?

You take your car to a mechanic. You tell him the engine is overheating. You show him the hole in the radiator where the steam is escaping and then the mechanic tells you he "can't make head or tail of it."

You go to a doctor after you have been attacked and stabbed. You show him your arm that is covered in blood and you show him where you have been stabbed and then the doctor tells you that he "can't make head or tail of it."

The level of stupidity and incompetence of these judges is difficult to fathom.

These judges have admitted, in their own writing, in their own ruling that they don't understand the law.

This is synonymous with the Monty Python "dead parrot sketch" with John Cleese's frustration with the salesman's stupidity as he refuses to admit what is obvious.

Unbelievable! But there you have it. In black and white.

Simon Prophet's appeals to the Judicial Service Commission was a last chance for South Africa and a much more than a fair chance for South Africa to put right the wrongs that it has committed against Simon Prophet and Simon Prophet has been bending over backwards and doing everything humanly possible to end this in an amicable way but alas his hand has been forced and now the last option for South Africa has expired and on the 24th of September 2004, Simon Prophet's allegations have been handed over to the International Criminal Court.

Section 10 of the South African Constitution Act 108 of 1998, is the right to dignity which is an absolute law and under no circumstances and even during a state of emergency may this law be derogated which is to say, what should be perceivably obvious to any and every judge, that no judge may dangle an innocent man's dignity on a balance of probabilities when that man is a law abiding citizen.

It is not acceptable in a constitutional democracy for a judge to tell lies in his judgment about someone and then make a ruling to punish the man about whom he has lied.

It goes beyond the boundaries of legal restraints and rational thinking to punish a man for having been implicated in an alleged crime that has never existed in real life.

For a judge to punish an innocent law abiding citizen for an act which the citizen is suspected of having committed is defined by international law as an act of torture and according to Article 7(1)(f) of the Rome Statute is a crime against humanity.

The Torture Chamber of the National Director of Public Prosecution.

Case Number 5926/01 in the High Court of South Africa (Cape of Good Hope Provincial Division) was a torture chamber wherein Simon Prophet was being tortured and forced to confess to the alleged crimes of which he was being accused in the Cape Town Magistrate's Court Case Number 16/79/01.

Case Number 5926/01 in the High Court of South Africa (Cape of Good Hope Provincial Division) was a torture chamber wherein Simon Prophet was being tortured and forced to confess to the alleged crimes of which he was being accused in the Cape Town Magistrate's Court Case 16/236/03.

The Rome Statute

PART 2.
JURISDICTION, ADMISSIBILITY AND APPLICABLE LAW
Article 5

Crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court
The jurisdiction of the Court shall be limited to the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole. The Court has jurisdiction in accordance with this Statute with respect to the following crimes:

(b) Crimes against humanity;

PART 7.
PENALTIES
Article 77
Applicable penalties

1. Subject to article 110, the Court may impose one of the following penalties on a person convicted of a crime referred to in article 5 of this Statute:

(a) Imprisonment for a specified number of years, which may not exceed a maximum of 30 years; or
(b) A term of life imprisonment when justified by the extreme gravity of the crime and the individual circumstances of the convicted person.

2. In addition to imprisonment, the Court may order:

(a) A fine under the criteria provided for in the Rules of Procedure and Evidence;
(b) A forfeiture of proceeds, property and assets derived directly or indirectly from that crime, without prejudice to the rights of bona fide third parties.