Simon Prophet has no criminal drug record and there is no verifiable record of any drug crime ever having been committed at 54 Balfour Street yet in 2003 the Asset and Forfeiture Unit sold Simon's home as an instrumentality of a non existent drug crime.

In violation of non derogable Constitutional law the Asset and Forfeiture Unit presumed Simon's criminal guilt and to satisfy an Act of Parliament that is inconsistent with the Constitution, Simon's "innocent owner" status was ignored by both the Supreme Court of Appeal and the Constitutional Court.

Why was it expedient for the Supreme Court of Appeal and the Constitutional Court to sacrifice South Africa's Bill of Rights in order to respect, protect, promote and fulfil civil asset forfeiture?

In a lawful society it would happen the other way around and civil asset forfeiture would have been sacrificed to respect, protect, promote and fulfil the rights in the Bill of Rights because any law that is inconsistent with the Constitution is invalid.

Civil asset forfeiture is a scam because it is not being used in the direction of where it was intended and the way in which it has been used to forfeit Simon Prophet's properties has played out, at the end of the day, to have facilitated various criminal acts which are defined as a crimes against humanity.

It takes effort to get past the veneer of civil asset forfeiture to be able to see what this Act of Parliament really is.

Its real purpose, which is hidden, is not to prevent crime. It is a master mind control game to dupe you and the entire world into quietly accepting to relinquish any individual's right to own land.

Where fairness reigns supreme, in a world that is free, who owns what is as a consequence of a willing buyer and a willing seller and a fundamental function of government is to vociferously protect people's property and this is legally enforceable through Section 25 of the Constitution.

When government meddles into which individuals can own land and which individuals can't own land then South Africa is degraded into an anti-constitutional plight that rages war against the will of people who want to own land.

 

 

Julius Malema's proposal to deprive white South African's of their property without compensation has already happened to Simon Prophet in 2003 and the action was sanctioned by the Supreme Court of Appeal in 2005 and was also sanctioned by the Constitutional Court in 2006.

In the recent 2019 elections it has been economically reassuring that 90% of South Africa did not vote for Malema which is an indication that South African people as a whole support Section 25 of the Constitution which is a compelling factor for the civil courts to reconsider their decision to have derogated Prophet's right to Section 25.

Even when the race card was played by the EFF and the BLF then they did not gain the political confidence they were expecting.

For what it is worth, the voting poles have spoken; the right to private property is intrinsic to the people of South Africa.

"No one may be deprived of property, and no law may permit arbitrary deprivation of property."

 

 

 

Equality, constitutionality and the rule of law.

The following extract is taken from an article written by Leon Louw published by the Free Market Foundation 29th March 2005 relating to powers that are in conflict with the rule of law.

"One of the most extreme is the Prevention of Organised Crime Act (POCA), known popularly as the asset forfeiture law. As always, the law was defended with persuasive rhetoric to the effect that abnormal powers are necessary to fight international organised crime. When rule of law protagonists queried the extraordinary powers in the act, they were told that the government needs to be tough on crime, a sentiment shared by almost everyone, which is why there is widespread support for the law. We were reminded during the debate that similar powers exit in the USA, which supposedly legitimises all dubious laws on the basis that the United States is our benchmark for what ought to be done during our transition towards being a mature democracy. This is nearly as bizarre as an attempt to justify dubious things done now on the grounds that they were done under apartheid.

Advocates of the rule of law warned that power corrupts and that powers intended to protect us from large, sophisticated and dangerous crime syndicates would be used against ordinary civilians, which is precisely what is happening. The legislation has to my knowledge never been used to seize the assets of international crime syndicates. Instead it is used to take the assets of ordinary civilians. The Act purports to give officialdom virtually unbridled arbitrary power to take all or any of any citizen's assets whether or not the person has committed an offence. All your wealth could be seized without your ever having committed an offence, or ever being charged, making it impossible for you to hire lawyers for your defence."

 

 

 

54 Balfour Street. A forfeiture farce.

54 Balfour Street has never been presented as an exhibit in any criminal trial and in the absence of a crime it was condemned as an instrumentality of a suspected crime by a judge who has been shown to have lied and Simon Prophet who has no criminal drug record, was, together with his family, evicted from his home under the pretence of fighting drug crime. 

To add insult to injury, Prophet has been ordered to continue to pay the bank mortgage bond for the same house from which he has since been evicted and that court order was signed by a judge who committed adultery and was accused of raping a woman.

 

 

 

Willie Hofmeyr and his buddy Jacob.

In 2001, to protect and promote the scam called the Prevention of Organized Crime Act, in its attack against Simon Prophet, Willie Hofmeyr told the people of South Africa that civil asset forfeiture would prevent the country from being run by criminals and then all the way up to and after 2009, Willie Hofmeyr, as acting head of the Asset and Forfeiture Unit, watched, seemingly paralyzed, as a man directly connected to an eighty billion Rand corruption, fraud and racketeering disgrace, namely Jacob Zuma, who accepted a bribe from a convicted felon, was elected to run the country as the president of South Africa.

Makes you think doesn't it?

Everyone knows, including Willie Hofmeyr, that in the world of speculation and on a balance of probabilities that Jacob Zuma, with 783 charges of corruption, racketeering and fraud, is toast. Schabir Shaik was sentenced to 15 years jail and his assets were forfeited because he was found guilty of bribing Jacob Zuma but as far as forfeiting Jacob Zuma's assets for accepting the bribe then Willie Hofmeyr stirred not.

Simon Prophet agrees with Jacob Zuma that "a person who is charged remains innocent until proven otherwise" but does not agree with Willie Hofmeyr who maintains that civil asset forfeiture can circumvent criminal justice and forfeit assets from a person who has been found to be not guilty of crime.

Do not be fooled. Civil asset forfeiture is not preventing crime and it does not prevent our country from being run by criminals. It is destroying property rights and attacking our fundamental freedoms.

 

 

 

 

 

 

In order to succeed, tyranny must present itself to a free nation in increments so that by the time you realize what is happening then itís already too late.

We must see the Prevention of Organized Crime Act for what it really is.

Civil asset forfeiture is not preventing crime and is covertly the beginning part of an elaborate mind control plot to end  private ownership of land.

 

 

This website uses the case history of Simon Prophet to reveal the extent to which the South African Justice Department has been seduced into openly violating International Law, Constitutional Law, Common Law, Natural Law and the Ten Commandments in order to uphold civil asset forfeiture.

It is not a function of government to deprive people of their property.

 

 

Calling Simon Prophet a drug dealer does not entitle the government to violate God's law of "Thou shalt not steal!" and 10 000 people have signed a petition in agreement.