MR DON MACROBERT

NEDBANK/OLD MUTUAL: Edward Nathan & Friedland (Pty) Ltd.

Law Consultants and Advisors
Sandton - Johannesburg
03 October 2014

Mr MacRobert
The Constitution is the supreme law of the Republic. You appear to suffer the
erroneous view that the South African Judiciary is the supreme law of this Republic.
Some judges have a similar delusion, which leads them to believe that statute is
subject to their racial bias. The Constitution is the supreme law and the judiciary is
under obligation to uphold that law. Judgments based on the delusion of power,
rather than the oath-of-office are null and void.

You must stop parading the abuse of judicial power to us while we are struggling to
secure justice that is ideologically distinct from that of our heritage as a
dispossessed people. Ours is a search for justice through the rule of constitutional
law. Equality for all remains explicit in the promise of that 1996 Constitution of the
Republic.

The conduct of the Krok brothers, Gold Reef City Casino (GRCC) - while enjoying
the privilege of a public licence, is both fraudulent and a racist act of dispossession.

Private Bag X63, Rivonia, 2128 - Tel 011 807 2042 - Fax 011 807 0766 - Email public@apartheidmuseum.org.za - www.apartheidmuseum.org.za
Mike Stainbank: Founder - The Apartheid Museum | Registration no: 2009/007114/07

My answering affidavit in Case Number: 14590/2013 clearly articulates among

other things my refusal to retract one single word of that overarching charge. And
that, you will recall, includes constitutional concerns related to the collaborative effort
of the Krok brothers, their instructing attorney Owen Salmon and Advocate
Southwood in the Hollywood Curl vs TWINS matter in the Appellate Division.
(Hollywood Curl (Pty) Ltd. and Another v Twins Products (282/87) [1988]
ZASCA 133 (30 Sept.1988)
Our demand is equality before the law. Simply put; if the law that was applied in the
Appellate Division in 1988 protected the (White) Kroks HOLLYWOOD trademark.
Some or other judge, mindful of the oath of office, must explain why THE
APARTHEID MUSEUM trademark belonging to the (Black) Stainbank, was not
entitled to protection from the Kroks GRCC. Our approach to your correspondent
attorneys, Knowles Husain Inc. and Friedland Hart & Partners, was based on
their obligation in this regard as Officers of the Court. The Power of Attorney form
tells us that they were involved in the incorporation of a company that was using my
registered trademark: The Apartheid Museum. The illegal company is: The South
African Apartheid Museum at Freedom Park, initiated by Solomon and Abraham
Krok.

Signs of Lonmins Massacre at Marikana loom large in the statutory declaration that
you (Don MacRobert) sent to Lazurus Morebodi of the Registrar of Companies on 27
October 2010:
. . . our clients enjoy substantial common law rights to the name Apartheid
Museum which name was agreed upon with the ANC. Originally our client

wished to use the name FREEDOM PARK but the ANC requested them not
to use that name (which is now used in Pretoria as you know) and so our
clients, with the blessing of the ANC adopted and used the name The
Apartheid Museum

While this belated confession demonstrates that there is no honour among thieves,
our greater concern is that it occurs within the context of a constitutional state,
exercising the provisions of The Gambling Act. Was this the arrangement that
induced a corrupt Registrar of Companies to ignore the legal precedent set by the
success of Krok/Salmon/Southwood in 1988?

Mr MacRobert: you have not explained your personal oath dated 01 February
2012:
I point out that according to what he instructed me, Advocate Bizos (who is a
Director of The South African Apartheid Museum at Freedom Park) has never
had any dealings with the Kroks and neither them nor any of their companies
are involved with The South African Apartheid Museum at Freedom Park.

Mr MacRobert, in 2002, you were the instructing attorney, working for

NEDBANK/OLD MUTUAL plc Law Consultants and Advisors when GRCC (Reuel
Khoza as Chairman) averred under oath.
. . . the initiators of the project were Messrs Solomon & Abraham Krok, who,
apart from being the founders of my company, which trades as Gold Reef City
and Casino were also the initiators of the Section 21 Company known as The

South African Apartheid Museum at Freedom Park.

and in the same

affidavit:
At the outset however, I wish to confirm that the organization that actually
trades as The Apartheid Museum is an entirely separate entity (from GRCC)
namely, a company registered in terms of Section 21 of the Act, with effect
from 14 August 2001 under number 2001/019108 under the name of The
South African Apartheid Museum at Freedom Park.

Have you shared all of this with your correspondent attorneys? Have you shared the
inception documents that the Registrar of Companies stubbornly refused to release
until the Public Protector intervened? Knowles Husain Inc. will have us believe that
their records have been destroyed. Please share with them the full file in your
possession. This is material information.

GEORGE BIZOS:
George Bizos is one of the Founding Directors of Freedom Under Law (FUL). This
group of women and men tell us that FUL exists to promote democracy under law
and to advance understanding of and respect for the rule of law and the
principle of legality. FUL was lauded in the media when they went after Western
Cape Judge President John Hlophe. Constitutional Court Justice Kate O Reagan got
the ball rolling and the impeachment of the first South African Judge in 100 years
became the flagship project of George Bizos and FUL. Some say it is coincidence
that the target of their constitutional consciousness is a Black Judge.

After 13 years in litigation, fighting racist fraud, I find Andiswa Ndoni very persuasive;
. . . Hlophe is the first judge to speak openly about racism in the judiciary. . . . we
cannot divorce the call to impeach him from the remarks he made about racism in
the judiciary (2012) Charles Pillai, an advocate of law, in 2000, was among the first
to warn of this threat to judicial integrity. Hlophe JP, Langa CJ, and Moegoeng CJ
followed.

Once Hlophe JP, decides to take on the Constitutional Court Judges who allege
gross misconduct, the disputes in the facts arise. George Bizos, in the interests of
justice, makes a most astonishing contribution:
Isnt the solution which suggests itself to this Commission, that in order to do
justice to both parties the way to go forward is to adopt an equivalent of Rule
6, is it, in the Rules of Court, that there is a conflict of fact which this
Commission will have to hear viva voce evidence, in order to decide where
wrongdoing may be found.

In 13 years of litigation, George Bizos and the Kroks Gold Reef City Casino, with
Reuel Khoza as Chairman, has forcefully argued that they must never be subjected
to that penetrating principle of constitutional law; viva voce evidence and cross
examination. Judges have obliged.

Before anybody goes about calling George Bizos, a bigoted, duplicitous, racist liar,
they must first interrogate the MacRobert averment. Why would George Bizos tell
Attorney MacRobert such a thing? Bizos, under oath, speaks of Gold Reef City
Casino and decisions taken with his co-directors: Solomon Krok, Steven Joffe,

Christopher (or Christian) Kroese, Kim Feinberg, Sidney Abramowitch, John Kani,
Christopher Till, Richard Moloko, and (maybe) Lesego wa Lesego. George Bizos
and his co-directors are on record in the SCA and the Constitutional Court. Their
instructing attorney is Don MacRobert assisted by Advocate Owen Salmon.

The critical question is whether George Bizos ever was, in truth and in fact, a
Director of The South African Apartheid Museum at Freedom Park on 14 and/or
15 August 2001. Kroese, among others, has no such recollection.

(See attachment: LOOKING FOR GEORGE BIZOS)

The racist ethos that is the Krok brothers and their Gold Reef City Casino is now a
part of the George Bizos legacy, as it is that of Rueul Khoza, NEDBANK, OLD
MUTUAL plc, and, among others, South African media. Sunday Times 02
December 2001:
The Apartheid Museum as a concept was conceived by business tycoons
Solly and Abe

Krok. . . the project was conceived four years ago by

business tycoons twins Solly and Abe Krok, as a carrot to be dangled before
the Gambling Board in the hope of securing a gambling licence for the Gold
Reef City Casino Charlotte Bauer
The Gauteng Gambling Board (GGB) with Jacques Booysen as CEO, know full well
that the carrot was FREEDOM PARK. The judiciary, at the request of the Casino,
time and again, kindly agreed not to interrogate very many disputes in the facts.

DR REUEL KHOZA:
As a tactic, racists, in pursuit of the dispossession of black property, generally use to
good effect, the inherited pathology of the slave. Reuel Khoza is touted by all and
sundry (including himself) as the one Black who has more integrity than other Blacks.
The 2002 King Report on Corporate Governance has Khoza as Chairman of
Integrated Sustainability Reporting:
Governance in any context reflects the value system of the society in
which it operates. Accordingly, it would be pertinent to observe and to
take account of certain African Personality Fundamentals in this
context, (some of which include, among Africans) - a mentality of
inherent trust and belief in fairness of human beings. This manifests
itself in the predisposition towards universal brotherhood, even shared
by African-Americans.
As Chairman of the Kroks Gold Reef City Casino, these 15 years later, Khoza can
eventually account for the inherent trust that we depended on. I know Reuel Khoza.
As Chairman of ESKOM, he bought bronze sculptures out of my 48 page full colour
concept document.

While working on the King Report on Corporate Governance, Reuel was also
overseeing the theft of my philosophical content and concept under the trademark:
The Apartheid Museum.

(See attachment: DONT INTERRUPT - WERE STEALING)

The GGB, with Jacques Booysen as CEO, although cited in litigation kept this
material document hidden deep at the GGB. He too has since been rewarded. See
attached business interests as listed by CIPC.

Now, as Chairman of NEDBANK and a Director of OLD MUTUAL plc, Reuel can
confirm whether George Bizos was in truth and in fact a Director of The South
African Apartheid Museum at Freedom Park. Does NEDBANK/OLD MUTUAL plc
have a client by the exact name as the non-transferable cheque demands? It takes
a bank teller less than one minute to do that check. 60 Days have passed and Reuel
Khoza of NEDBANK and Patrick O Sullivan, Chairman of OLD MUTUAL plc cannot
answer this very simple question.

(See attachment: NON TRANSFERABLE - NEDBANK)

Notwithstanding the Financial Intelligence Centre Act (FICA) a total of R310,409.05,

remains unexplained by Dr Reuel Khoza of NEDBANK/OLD MUTUAL plc. In order to
overcome suspicions of aiding and abetting money laundering and/or terrorism,
NEDBANK must confirm or deny the bank tellers version: We do not have such an
account. And then comply with FICA. Threats are too typical see NEDBANK
attachment.

NEDBANK 2000 ANNUAL REPORT:

The acquisition of Edward Nathan &

Friedland at the end of 1999 contributed to enhanced dealflows in the corporate

finance area during 2000.

The rich pickings off Gold Reef City Casino business was one of those deals.
Chairman of NEDBANK, a lofty title, at first glance appears to be fair reward for the
GRCC business. Advanced students of racism will argue that it was, from the outset,
a poisoned chalice. We cover this temptation in our work on racism and the
inherited pathology of the slave. Racism mutates to accommodate change. The
illusion that flies under the banner of Black Economic Empowerment is one such
mutation. Life has come full circle for Khoza. He now stands in the eye of two storms.
As Chairman of Nedbank, he (and co-directors) must account for what they did at
Gold Reef City Casino. NEDBANK/OLD MUTUAL, firm of Law Consultants and
Advisors, in turn, must account for what they did on behalf of their clients: Gold Reef
City Casino. A perfect storm 13 years in the making will test the integrity of Reuel
Khoza.

GEORGE BIZOS; if he honestly wants to advance an understanding of and respect

for the rule of law and the principle of legality, could ask FUL to investigate how
Justice Brian Southwood got to hear a case involving his former clients, Abe and
Solly Krok. (They manufactured skin whitening creams that dehumanised Black
people under the racist, colour coding system of apartheid. This wealth funded
GRCC. (See: DR REUEL KHOZA GRCC & NEDBANK )

GEORGE BIZOS; if he honestly wants to advance an understanding of and respect

for the rule of law and the principle of legality, could have FUL investigate how
Southwood J, condoned the conduct of the Kroks on the exact same infringement
that he (Advocate Southwood) argued and won on their behalf in the Appellate

Division. The dirty hands principle is a well-established legal maxim which stipulates
that one can only approach the court with clean hands. This means that one has to
comply with the law first before seeking legal redress from the court.

GEORGE BIZOS; could have FUL factor in the relationship between Justice
Southwood and his former instructing attorney in the Hollywood Curl matter.
Southwood J, sat as a silent umpire as the Kroks GRCC, represented by Advocate
Owen Salmon declared: Furthermore I wish to confirm that there is the registered
Section 21 Company known as the South African Apartheid Museum at Freedom
Park and that entity is entitled to use its company name. In my view it would impair
the course of justice to even contemplate that suggestion. (Nugent JA)

GEORGE BIZOS; could ask how and why Southwood J, came to work on Friday 20
June 2003, when Fridays in the Pretoria High Court are reserved only for divorces
and urgent matters.

GEORGE BIZOS; could stop making the excuse that he does not understand
trademark law. Don MacRobert aside, he has hundreds of adoring legal experts at
his disposal. They can explain how Southwood J, notwithstanding the reversal of his
decision in MACDONALDS, repeated the exact same errors when adjudicating on
the use of my trademark. Thorough students of law; those who honestly want to
advance an understanding of and respect for the rule of law and the principle of
legality, will place the judgment alongside the entire file to check whether the
evidence substantiates the findings. (Mandlakhe Shinga vs State (Yacoob CJ)

ACTING JUDGE GERRIT PRETORIUS:

When far too many have a vested interest in killing the evidence and the litigation
case which we have endured for the past 13 years; there is one other abuse of the
legal system to end my search for justice, and, in the process defame me. On the
word of George Bizos of The South African Apartheid Museum at Freedom Park and
the Kroks GRCC, under the leadership of Khoza, Acting Judge Pretorius has obliged
and declared me a vexatious litigant.

On Tuesday 23 October 2012 at or about 15.55hrs Acting Judge Pretorius had made
up his mind and, in open court made the following statement: Thank you very much
Mr Salmon. I will give judgment tomorrow morning 09:30 subject to the
stenographer being here because it will not be a written judgment. If you could
just have someone to come and note because I will give an oral judgment.

On the morning of Wednesday 24 October 2012, my family and I were dressed

and ready to go to court when my attorney called to say that Acting Judge
Pretorius (or his office) contacted him. Pretorius AJ will deliver his judgment on
Friday 26th or Friday week one of the two I cannot recall. Acting Judge Gerrit
Pretorius, eventually had Justice Claassen hand down judgment on his behalf on
the 21st July 2014 23 months later

Jeremy Gauntlett (SC), like George Bizos (SC) is a founding Director of Freedom
Under Law. Applying for one of three posts in the Western Cape High Court in April
2010, he was interviewed at the Judicial Services Commission. When asked, he said

he was "enormously troubled" by the delays he had witnessed in the delivery of

reserved judgments. Judges should be held to account if they delayed rulings for
longer than a month.

Gauntlett is a former Chairperson of the General Council of the Bar. In this context,
the news report says that the panel discussed the fact that Acting Judges, drawn
from the ranks of the bar were among the worst offenders. He was then asked
whether repeatedly delaying judgments for years did not amount to impeachable
gross misconduct or incompetence. "I'm afraid it does," replied Gauntlett. "Ultimately
it's a betrayal of trust. You are there to give an answer."
In December 2007, Advocate Johan Trengove, writing for the ADVOCATE
addressed the same subject from another perspective:
Acting judges do not enjoy the same independence that permanent
appointees are required to cultivate. The latter must sever all professional
links, speedily recover all fees owing and organise their personal and
business affairs so as to minimise the potential for conflicts of interest arising
in their work as judges. Not so for acting judges
Advocate Johan Trengove continues:
This exposes them to the possibility of conflicts of interest at every turn,
conflicts of which the litigants appearing before them may not even be aware
in those instances in which the acting judge is a stranger to the litigants and
their legal representatives.
Southwood J and Advocate Salmon, for anybody observing, had never met until that
worrisome Friday 20 June 2003. And, believe it or not, there is no recording for the
proceedings of that day in court. After underlining the untruths written into his

judgment; inspired by Charles Pillai, I began deconstructing the Southwood

judgment. My research and investigation led me to Hollywood Curl vs TWINS where
I found Advocate Southwood and Attorney Salmon

working together to stop

Hollywood Curl (Pty) Ltd from infringing the Kroks trademark. Trengove is right, one
never really knows. I bet you knew Mr MacRobert. (Faulty pagination was a smart
move)

Trengove speaks of Principle 15 and 16 of the Judicial Ethics Guidelines for Judges
of South Africa which was endorsed by the JSC in 2000. Advocate Trengove and
constitutionally minded judges advise that it is better to err on the side of prudence,
for it is not only actual bias that is to be avoided but its mere appearance.

Now that the reader of this document has a fair idea of all the personalities
involved, allow me to give you an insight into the mind of Acting Judge Gerrit
Pretorius. These are the certified words of the court proceedings on 23 October
2012. Please take note that this statement is made in open court BEFORE my
legal representative has said one single word to support the affidavit which I
wrote and endorsed.
[Mr Carls] You make a very serious allegation against very influential
people and well respected people involved with Apartheid Museum
that has been involved right from the outset and the allegation that
you make in a Court is that fraud in operation. I take a very, very
dim view of this. This is not how officers of the Court deal with this.
Now you can deal with your application around this. I saw it in your

heads and I did not have the affidavits and I did not know what you
were talking about. So this is the affidavit, now deal with the
allegation of fraud. (my emphasis)
My attorney (Carls) has never made a single allegation of fraud against any
influential people. Mike Stainbank, the client, for 13 years has made and
substantiated allegations against people who, I am led to believe are all equal before
the law. (I cannot understand why Acting Judge Pretorius says that he did not have
the affidavits. Throughout the hearing, he and Advocate Salmon speak of him having
read the papers.)

Nevertheless, the 23 months that Acting Judge Pretorius, took to deliver his
judgment, gave George Bizos and his co-directors ample time to bring an urgent
application to the High Court. Case Number: 14590/2013 is constituted by a total of
567 pages. It includes lengthy transcripts of radio interviews. (They needed the time)
Bizos as SC for many political activists in the time of apartheid will no doubt have
first-hand knowledge of how financial asphyxiation, stands as one of the central
pillars of the racist stratagem. (These 567 pages will cost the Stainbank family a
gang load of money in legal fees) The Bizos and Khoza group were dominus litis. In
23 months they never once approached Pretorius AJ. Big rush now to get the
appeal heard !!!.

Led by Attorney Don Macrobert, assisted by Advocate Owen Salmon, under the
(brief) circumstances outlined above, they sought and secured an interim court order
against me. As I understand it, The South African Apartheid Museum at Freedom

Park, the entity, feels aggrieved by the suggestion that it is a liar, a thief, a fraudster
and a racist.

In our education programme on racism and the inherited pathology of the slave, we
discuss the matter of institutional and systemic racism. Racism exists for the sake
of dispossession. Skin whitening creams, as one example, dehumanises, first, the
individual. The person is dispossessed of her/his intrinsic godhead. I use the word, in
the sense of source of all human life. But, because the impairment (or attack)
affects only Black people, and, because it occurs within the context of White
Supremacist oppression, it dehumanises and dispossesses ALL Black people. The
Black Consciousness Movement worked hard to explain how this cultivates, among
Black people, the pathology of selflessness. The scale and scope of colonialism and
apartheid, the slave trade and genocide, the sheer brutality, adds to the racists
desired effect.

The most debilitating end of this selflessness will be the victim who sees assimilation
with, and support of, White Supremacist oppression as the only means of survival.
Systemic and institutionalised racism can run smoothly without management. And it
invariably does have Black people actively involved. If, for any reason, there is a
glitch; a threat to the smooth running of the status quo, the principals of
dispossession - the White Supremacist - will step in, identify the threat, and execute,
corrective measures.

We have ample history to show how effective this has been through successive
White legal systems, over the past 400 years; all of them insisting that theirs was a
cause for justice.
Historians will concur that in South Africa, the Broederbond, as a secret cluster,
identified threats to the status quo and implemented the (always brutal) corrective
measures. Invariably communicated as the Afrikaner Broederbond fosters two illconceived perceptions of racism. The first is that English speaking Whites are less
racist. Whatever that may mean? The second fallacy is that English speaking White
Supremacists do not have secret clusters through which they perpetuate their own
inhumanity.

Tentacles of the Broederbond and other secret clusters, with intent, cultivated very
deep roots in institutions and infected everything with their racist doctrine. Key points
were church, media, police, military, police and judiciary. The retention of the South
African Judiciary in the political arrangement of 1994, some argue was practical at
the time. In 20 years though, our current legal system, even as it concedes systemic
and institutionalised racism, has not developed a filtering tool. The assumption that
the oath of office will override the racist mind is fallacy. As but one example,
notwithstanding all these many King Reports on Corporate Governance, price fixing
in JSE listed companies is proof of unchecked racist dispossession; the racist mind
at work. The wanton killing of mineworkers is another.

These 13 years in litigation have been very helpful in the development of our thesis
on racism and the inherited pathology of the slave. Our case model on secret

clusters and racism in the South African Judiciary is founded primarily on the
conduct of all involved on the other side.
Far too brazen, they walked through every court with a supernatural perception of
the judicial discretion that will be exercised. If we had succumbed to Southwood J, in
2003, we would never have been able to draw on that past to question what we, in
our investigations, have unearthed in all these years leading up to this day in 2014.
Fraud is like that. Almost all the disputes in the facts can be answered by Reuel
Khoza and his co-directors at Gold Reef City Casino.

Everybody willing to listen, (that excludes an inherently racist South African media)
knows that The Apartheid Museum was a registered trademark of full force and
effect on the Register of Trademarks on 14 August 2001.

The law does not operate retrospectively. This being so, nothing other than fraud, or,
conduct ultra vires the statute could have secured the incorporation certificate for
The South African Apartheid Museum at Freedom Park on 14 August 2001. We
know this because the legal principles of stare decis, "maintain what has been
decided" is well established in our law. Only outside of these existing rules does a
judge have the power to exercise discretion.

This legal principle is emphasised by Corbett CJ in Catholic Bishops Publishing Co v

State President & another where the maxim of stare decis is stated in constitutional
terms as follows:
The reluctance of this Court to depart from a previous decision of its own is
well known. Where the decision represents part of the ratio decidendi and is a

considered one (as is the position in this case) then it should be followed
unless, at the very least, we are satisfied that it is clearly wrong. Today it is
recognised that the principle that finds application in the maxim of stare
decisis is a manifestation of the rule of law itself, which in turn is a founding
value of the Constitution.

Where an express statutory prohibition forbids incorporation, legal precedent

demands that an entity which relied on incorporation ultra vires to accumulate benefit,
to the detriment of another, should be given the appropriate legal treatment. A similar
situation occurred in Zimbabwe, in the matter of The Daily News. Chief Justice
Godfrey Chidyausiku denied the applicant the right of audience before the court on
the basis that it had not fully complied with the law by choosing not to register as a
media house notwithstanding the fact that the applicant was challenging the
constitutionality of that same requirement that it was now being compelled to fulfill
before it could properly come before the court. (my emphasis)

There is no juristic person created when there is no statute that allows incorporation
of a company, using another persons trademark without the written authority. Jon
Roland of The Constitution Society concurs with the decision of Chief Justice
Godfrey Chidyausiku:
All courts are creatures of statute law. Their jurisdictions are prescribed either
by the statutes creating them or other statues conferring upon them
jurisdiction in specific cases. For a court to exercise jurisdiction it does not
have is to arrogate to itself a statutory birth-right which it has not, and to which
it cannot lay claim. The essence of nomocracy, the rule of law, is limitation of
the discretion of officials, and providing a process by which errors or abuse of
discretion can be corrected.

Two extracts from the Louisana Law Journal succinctly make the same point:
A de jure corporation is one created in substantial compliance with all
mandatory conditions precedent to incorporation. Its existence is usually
immune from even direct attack by the state. AND The courts have no
freedom to protect the associates when the express requirements of a statute
are disobeyed and liability is expressly imposed.

Whenever I speak of racism in the South African Judiciary, I make the point that the
Trademarks Act, makes provision for any person (with an interest) to apply for the
expungment of a trademark at any time. Now, there are far too many versions on
how and when GRCC came upon the trademark, The Apartheid Museum. Let us,
for the sake of this conversation, concentrate on what they told Justice Brian
Southwood, under oath, in November 2002.
To make sure that the museum would be well received not only by
government, but the many communities that make up the South African
population, representatives of various bodies and communities were invited to
attend a meeting as long ago as late 1999. . . . It was in that process and
during meetings in late 1999 that the name Apartheid Museum was
generated. (3 participants have submitted sworn affidavits against this
version)
My concept brochure was placed in the public domain on 24 September 1998.
Khoza, as Chairman of ESKOM, received my brochure about November 1998, and,
after visiting our offices purchased bronze sculptures that appear on the front cover
of the brochure titled: New Landscape New Images. The ESKOM cheque payment
on the sculptures is dated 13th May 1999. The trademark The Apartheid Museum
is mentioned 75 times in the brochure.

Against this background, GRCC, under Reuel Khoza, brazenly states under oath:
In all the consultations which we have had with members of the community
and other organizations, referred to in paragraph 11 above, no party ever
referred to any other person or any organization using the expression
Apartheid Museum;
Thats Dr Reuel Khoza for you. But the second point I seek to make is that, even as
Gold Reef City Casino, as early as 1999, made the decision to thieve the copyright
content and the trademark The Apartheid Museum, they made no attempt to
expunge the trademark in the years they had available BEFORE their launch in
November 2001. They went ahead and, according to one estimate, spent
approximately R100M on their edifice. They took the risk notwithstanding the Kroks
personal knowledge of the law as it relates to the protection of trademarks. They
went ahead and named their offensive racist structure The Apartheid Museum.
Nobody in their right mind would take such risk unless there were guarantees in
place. Relying on the generational poverty of Black people; the financial inability to
sustain civil litigation, is not enough. Throughout, they were just too brazen and, by
far, too perceptive.
Mindful of the Friday matter, the entire case file, read with the judgment of
Southwood J, may explain what Pillai meant when he said:
Piercing the judicial veil to go beyond the paper rules that appear on
judgments is a complex task. However, one thing is clear and that is that no
executive minded judge from the previous order can be trusted to give a
judgment that would embrace the new order. It is not difficult for such judges
to give official grounds for judicial decisions to sanctify the true undisclosed
reasons. Legal language is often expressed in forms which too often obscure
the conservatism on which such decisions are based. The window dressing

that such judges often give to their decisions, hide insidious racism by
engaging in delightful word jousts, which conceal the true meaning of such
judgments.

No part of any judgment carries the slightest suggestion of deceit on the part of
GRCC; even as this brief account captures one inconsistency after another
uncovered in 13 years of litigation.

George Bizos (FUL) will be tested by the suggestions made in this document.
Among others, The Gauteng Gambling Board, The Department of Arts and Culture
FREEDOM PARK, The Registrar of Companies. It is however, the fiduciaries of
GRCC who will be best qualified to explain all that took place in respect of their
promise to build a structure named FREEDOM PARK. Pity the other applicants, who
spent millions on their bid for a casino licence. On the version that got my two
trademarks expunged and now has me as a vexatious litigant they never had a
hope in hell.

When Gold Reef City Casino came before the GGB, they came as two parts in one;
a privileged White group and a penniless Black group. The White group, (source
GGB) had Directors; MARTIN-ZANE KROK, MAXIM KROK, STEVEN JOFFE and
BAREND SCHUTTE. The Blacks had REUEL KHOZA; BRIAN TLHABI; ROBERT
WILLIAMS; RICHARD MOLOKO; M DILIZA; KGOMOTSO MATTHEWS; LOT
NDLOVU; (deceased) and DAN MZIZI (murdered 16 March 2001)

Knowles Husain Inc. and Friedland Hart & Partners have thrown in their lot with
MacRobert and NEDBANK/OLD MUTUAL and their firm of Law Consultants and

Advisors. With these many judgments secured, surely, the matter is all sewn up?
Vexatious litigant and the interim gag order: what more do we need, they reason? No
need to explain Bizos or anything else.

Also, the other leg of the racist stratagem, has worked well. They will be told that
Stainbank is now without financial resources. NEDBANK, must just sit tight; to hell
with FICA, money laundering and terrorism. If they drop the ball now and return the
R310,409.05 as claimed, Stainbank will feed his family, and return to the arena.

Hlophe JP, in 2005, speaking of racism in the judiciary is correct when he says that
those who fall prey to the legal system lose respect for the law. FUL expresses
similar sentiments; a deep concern that the very legitimacy of the institution is under
threat. No South African wants to see the judiciary reduced to a cesspool of racist
malfeasance.

George Bizos can bring balance to the scales of justice. This time it has nothing
whatsoever to do with his legal acumen or the iconic stature that he has garnered
through his lifelong contribution to, and respect for, the rule of law. It has everything
to do with his innermost personal integrity. It has everything to do with meeting the
exacting constitutional standard that he and Freedom Under Law, have claimed and
demanded that others follow.

____________________________
Mike Stainbank
Founder: The Apartheid Museum

. . . more/
P.S.
THE LEGAL PRINCIPLE OF ULTRA VIRES Mail and Guardian 02 OCTOBER
2014
(The legal principle of stare decis)
Mark Shuttleworth wins landmark case against Reserve Bank
The supreme court found that the imposition of the 10% levy was inconsistent with
sections 75 and 77 of the Constitution and invalid, and it was ultra vires in that it was
beyond the legal power of the treasury to impose such conditions on the export of
capital from South Africa. It therefore set aside the decision of the Reserve Bank to
impose the 10% levy.