Brief Overview:


 This story concerns the Trademark: The Apartheid Museum™

I registered the trademark The Apartheid Museum™ in 1990 in Services: Class 41 – Education. (Fuller explanations around trademarks and trademark law appear throughout this story.) I had been developing the concept of my vision since about 1978. By 1990, with very limited resources, I had drawings of the vision and a great deal of written material on the concept, working and reworking thoughts around a great many elements that would make this vision work. About 1995/6 I was invited by the Free State Provincial Government to make a presentation on the Apartheid Museum. Continuing toward the attainment of the primary goal, I was speaking to a wide range of people in my efforts to get this project off the ground. I must fast forward to 1998, when I published my document outlining all that one could around the importance of a vision like this under the trademark The Apartheid Museum. After distributing the publication across the length and breadth of South Africa, I resumed discussions in the Free State, but this time with the Bloemfontein Transitional Local Council. Contact with Gold Reef City Casino, Solly Krok and their BEE persons came in 1999, by way of a request from a friend to help him in a pitch for the Gold Reef City Casinoadvertising account. This led to my meeting Solly Krok – who after perusing my publication asked me why I had chosen such a negative title for my project. GOLD REEF CITY CASINO at the time had been granted the Casino license and was operating from a temporary facility while building their permanent site and a structure they presented to the Gauteng Gambling Board as FREEDOM PARK.

Nothing came of the advertising pitch and to my absolute surprise in December 2001 I opened my Sunday newspaper to find a story about Gold Reef City Casino opening THE APARTHEID MUSEUM and not FREEDOM PARK. I sued for infringement and they in a counter action, in the name of a company called The South African Apartheid Museum at Freedom Park, applied to expunge my trademark. They succeeded in the Court of The Honourable Judge Southwood. That judgment sealed the matter for Judge Claasen when I made an Application for Leave to Appeal as it did when I petitioned the Chief Justice. After years of investigation and research I found stuff which I now refer to as the Krok/Salmon/Southwood Troika.

I took this and other information to the Constitutional Court too late it seems. On what I have unearthed over my 3 years of investigation around Gold Reef City Casino, Abe and Solly Krok, Richard Moloko, Bongani Biyela, the BEE stuff, the Honourable Judges Southwood and Claasen and court administration, we must revise the worn out cliché ‘we respect the decision of the courts’. My alternative is that: “we respect the decision of the courts where it seems to us that on the evidence, the conclusion reached was based on law and on the impartial assessment of the evidence before court.” Blind and uncritical respect just will not do. When on the facts, the actions, events and evidence that support a judgement appear wrong, inconsistent and suspicious; we must keep challenging until truth and justice prevails.

In pursuit of my original vision under the trademark The Apartheid Museum – this is my task. Read, if you will, all that I have put together and you too may understand why I believe that the Gauteng Gambling Board must exercise its obligations in terms of the Gambling Act and especially as it relates to the provisions of the Constitution of the Republic. Also, read all this and you too may understand why I believe that there exists – in the fullness of this matter; the symbiotic nature of things – a prima facie case of Perjury and/or Corruption and/or Fraud and/or Defeating the ends of justice.

Mike Stainbank – 2007
Founder: The Apartheid Museum™

A condensed version of salient issues.

BEE - CONSIDER THIS

In my Founding Affidavit I tell the Court that a Mr. Bongani Biyela an employee of Gold Reef City and Casino met with me. Later I refer to him as a sheep in wolves clothing coming to me as he did expressing platitudes about a Black Brotherhood and so on while, as it later turns, out he was pursuing the interests of Abe and Solly Krok. He sucked information out of me and took it back to his principals.

 

Later Richard Moloko – BEE person – rather than have Abe and Solly Krok the self proclaimed “Founders of The Apartheid Museum” depose to the Affidavit – takes up the slack for Abe and Solly Krok and this is what he (Advocate admitted to the High Court) swears under oath:

“Mr. Biyela has nothing to do with The Apartheid Museum, its conception, planning, development, construction or opening. On the contrary Mr. Biyela is the Deputy General Manager of my company and has always been solely and exclusively involved with the casino side of the business side of my company.”

These two BEE persons, determined I assume to prove their value to Abe and Solly Krok, their White financiers, don’t quite know yet how to cover deceit. Biyela, in his undercover operation clearly forgot that he left a 53 page document with me. This is the front page.

AMDEV – Ampros Developments Limited.
GOLD REEF CITY AND CASINO & ENTERTAINMENT CENTRE
FREEDOM PARK PROJECT
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY REPORT NO.1
15 MARCH 1999.

Note: This report has been compiled with input from Mr. Biyela, Advocate R. Moloko and Mr. S. Krok from Akani; Ms. C Grundman from S. Grundman Ltd. Mr. B. Hoboyi from Amdev, at a meeting held on 12 March 1999 at Summerplace.

(Remember on Mr. Moloko’s account that the first name of their venture – presented to the Gauteng Gambling Board was FREEDOM PARK)

OMITTING EVIDENCE - CONSIDER THIS

OMMITING EVIDENCE – CONSIDER THIS

 

In the matter of Mandlakhe Shinga vs. State The Constitutional Court, is asked to address the constitutionality of considering an appeal on the judgment alone. The argument is that in the interest of justice the entire case record should, be made available for the appeal.

The Court agrees and writes thus: Those judges who do not read the record will have no means of knowing whether the evidence substantiated the findings made by the magistrate on the credibility of witnesses and other factual issues. They will not learn of any procedural irregularities that may have marred the trial. Nothing dispels their ignorance on those scores.

The Judgment of The Honourable Judge Southwood reads:
“All that has happened thus far is that steps have been taken by the first respondent and his company to obtain funds with which to set up the Apartheid Museum which the first respondent conceived.” AND “It is clear, as already mentioned, that the First Respondent has not yet fulfilled his dream of opening the Apartheid Museum.” The Honourable Judge Southwood does not find it in himself to tell the judgment a great many other factual andcritical issues that obtain unchallenged and must be considered in any examination of bona fide use of a trade mark.

CONSIDER THIS

TO: MS. WINKIE DIREKO. PREMIER: FREE STATE PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT
FROM: THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER BLOEMFONTEIN LOCAL TRANSITIONAL COUNCIL
13 MARCH 2000
The Bloemfontein Local Transitional Council resolved in its meeting held on February 24, 2000 to accept the challenge to turn the concept of an Apartheid Museum by Stainbank and Associates into a viable project. The Apartheid Museum is to be built in the greater Bloemfontein area. The economic benefits which could flow out of the success of this project could greatly enhance the quality of life and uplift the people of Free State. The council invites the Provincial Government to be a partner in securing the Apartheid Museum for The Free State Province. Council will provide land and other infrastructural needs at its disposal. The Provincial Government is expected to endorse the project at cabinet level, establish a committee of stakeholders (coordinated through the office of the MEC; Sport, Arts, Culture and Technology) and use its good office to secure the support of the National cabinet.

Please find enclosed a booklet explaining the project. Council would however appreciate if it could be afforded a chance to make a presentation to the Provincial cabinet about the envisaged project. Further enquiries can be directed to the City Secretary at:
Civic Centre Room 301 Tel 405 8113.

Signed: Webster Mfebe MEC; Sport, Arts, Culture and Technology

STRANGE - CONSIDER THIS

EXAMPLE ONE: ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
The Pretoria High Court tells us that, according to their rules, Fridays are reserved for Divorce actions and Urgent Matters only. Mine was neither. My matter was heard on Friday 20th June 2003before The Honourable Judge Brian Southwood. There is no tape recording of the hearing as is required by the rules. There is no record whatsoever to reflect that my matter was heard on that day. Nothing whatsoever appears on the Courts Motion Roll. No Public Record to show that the matter was allocated by the Judge President or someone authorised by him. COINCIDENCE – MISTAKE – LOST?

 OKAY THEN – CONSIDER THIS

EXAMPLE TWO: ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
The Pretoria High Court tells us that, according to their rules, Fridays are reserved for Divorce actions and Urgent Matters only. Mine was neither. My Application for Leave to Appeal matter was heard on Friday 21 November 2003 before The Honourable Judge Claasen. (Honourable Judge Southwood was away doing duty as an Acting Judge in the SCA) There is a tape recording as is required by the rules and it exposes some serious OTHER stuff. There is however no record whatsoever to reflect that my matter was heard on that day. Nothing whatsoever appears on the Motion Roll. No Public Record to show that the matter was allocated by the Judge President or someone authorised by him. COINCIDENCE – MISTAKE – LOST?

Fuller exposition – AMS Concourt; 13-16

SEE ALSO: TWIN PRODUCTS – CONSIDER THIS

MORE BEE STUFF - CONSIDER THIS

On 12 November 1997 the Gauteng Gambling Board heard the Gold Reef City application for a Casino License. Abe and Solly Krok’s venture looked resplendent surrounded as they were by an army of BLACK personalities parading Christianity, the BLACK experience, struggle credentials, morality, ethics, and much more. The most exemplary exposition of the BLACK position, though emphasized by Mr. Reuel Khoza and others, is most eloquently articulated by Mr. Lot Ndlovu of the Black Management Forum. The tone is strident, definite and confident.

“. . . in fact even more important (for BMF) is the area of values. We insist that not only must the broader environment be reflected in number but essentially in terms of the values and the belief system that prevails in the broader environment. Incidentally, we did pull out of another consortium where we were very uncomfortable about the people that are in it in terms of their values around issues of dignity for black people and the extent to which they can participate as full partners. “. . . We therefore are fairly comfortable with members of this group . . .” We focus on race relations in that company” “. . . We therefore finally bring a supervisory role. We bring to the table more than just expertise. We bring a role to supervise in terms of the ethics, in terms of the morality, in terms of the correctness of this organization in line with the needs of this country.

And still pressing the point at page 57 he continues, “. . . We bring a fairly no nonsense approach kind of an attitude, non-compromising. Incidentally, we have just come from the TRC right now where we have had to dispatch in a painful sense, the position adopted by beacon white business in this country around the role they played in violating the dignity of Black people” Mr. Ndlovu did not include Abe and Solly Krok among those who violated the dignity of Black people. And still, to this day, his BMF undertaking to “supervise in terms of the ethics, in terms of the morality, in terms of the correctness of this organization in line with the needs of this country” has not been heard.

TWIN PRODUCTS - CONSIDER THIS

TWIN PRODUCTS – CONSIDER THIS
In 1988 TWIN PRODUCTS – the manufacturers of 48% of Skin Whitening creams produced in this country defended their trade mark – “HOLLYWOOD” when a company called HOLLYWOOD CURL registered their company in South Africa.

 

TWIN PRODUCTS owned by Abe and Solly Krok had legal representation under Attorney Owen Salmon (now Advocate) assisted by Senior Counsel Brian Southwood (as he was then). Their argument prevailed in the Supreme Court of Appeal and the ruling of the court found that it was illegal to register a company using somebody else’s trademark.

In August 2001 Abe and Solly Krok registered the company The South African Apartheid Museum at Freedom Park. The trade mark The Apartheid Museum was at the time legally and in force on the register and it was registered in 1990 to one Arnold Michael Stainbank in Class 41. In 1998 the Trade Mark – The Apartheid Museum was registered in Class 35.

The matter between The South African Apartheid Museum at Freedom Park and Arnold Michael Stainbank came before The Honourable Judge Brian Southwood – now elevated to the bench. Abe and Solly Krok’s company, in a reversal of circumstances, was defended by . . . guess who? Answer: None other than Advocate Owen Salmon.

The Honourable Judge Brian Southwood never said a word about the ruling of the Court in the HOLLYWOOD trade mark matter. Abe and Solly Krok in the full knowledge of the law found nothing in conscience or Corporate Governance to dissuade them from their actions.

And it never struck Honourable Judge Brian Southwood that he should recuse himself.
“It is settled law that not only actual bias but also the appearance of bias disqualifies a judicial officer from presiding (or continuing to preside) over judicial proceedings. The disqualification is so complete that continuing to preside after recusal should have occurred renders the further ‘proceeding’ a nullity.”
HOWIE, JA in S v ROBERTS, 1999[4] SA 915 [SCA]

ABE AND SOLLY KROK

ABE AND SOLLY KROK – CONSIDER THIS
There is a litany of lies in the history of this country that has been held as truth all over the world because of the manipulations of the apartheid state. Whether it was media, judiciary, church, schools, universities, industry; every aspect of Black existence has been dehumanized and held in subjugation by the full effect of Colonialism and Apartheid. “There were no Black people when we got here” – for many historians is a classic mainly because it is such a bald lie – one that is then given shape and substance by media, judiciary, church, schools, universities, industry etc; even when the hard, glaring facts militate against the lie. The clever manipulation of the fraud – obvious as it is – nevertheless takes root and serves not only to secure wholesale theft and dispossession of native land but also because of political advantage. In the case of South Africa, broader political advantage is held by repeated dehumanization and the resulting effects of low self esteem among the majority Black populace. Abe and Solly Krok parading as Founders of The Apartheid Museum is a classic mainly because it is such a bald lie – one that is then given shape and substance by media and judiciary and an acquiescent BEE component enjoying White patronage. Abe and Solly Krok manufactured product while the Apartheid state was dehumanizing Black people.

 

This was the promise:
It lightens and brightens my skin. I find the vitamins improve my skin condition. It nourishes my skin. Keeps it soft and youthful. It moisturizes my skin to prevent it from drying out. It keeps improving my complexion the more I use it. It lightens dark patches. It’s all I use for complete beauty treatment.

This was the circumstance:

“… because I wanted domestic work and to look after my kids, my skin had to be bright, so that you do not scare the kids. If you were dark the kids were afraid because they said we looked like scary animals. No White woman would hire such a person to look after her children. That is when we resorted to ‘AVIVA” to brighten our complexions, so that we were acceptable to the Missus. Another advantage about being light, was that you got to go to family outings with them.”

ABEANDSOLLYKROK

 

THE JUDGEMENT - CONSIDER THIS

THE JUDGMENT – CONSIDER THIS

 Contrary to perception Trade Mark Law is not really complicated. Bona-fide use of a trade mark is perhaps the simplest part of Trade Mark Law. It requires only that you use the trade mark “HONESTLY” and/or “GENUINELY” in the Class in which it is registered, within a period of 5 years. And even this requirement is subject to the test that goes with the particular facts of the case. The law places emphasis on ownership of the trade mark. It is called intellectual PROPERTY because it is treated like property. Ownership of the trade mark registration certificate is much like the Title Deeds for your house. But unlike your house, because of the impact of globalisation, trade marks cross borders. Almost the entire world has therefore agreed on the need to HARMONISE trade mark law. As signatories to this agreement it is MANDATORY that South Africa follows the rules and direction set by the World Intellectual Property Organization – WIPO. In terms of the rules and guidelines set by WIPO – the owner of a trademark in Class 41- Education may – among other things – PUBLISH as a means of fulfilling the requirement of bona-fide use of a trade mark registered in Class 41 – EDUCATION.

After dumping critical evidence out of his judgment and creating a story that is far removedfrom the facts of the evidence before him His Lordship, The Honourable Judge Southwood bends to the absurd and on the basis of one single definition of Education reaches his conclusion: Neither meaning (of EDUCATION) includes the Publishing or Publication of Books. The entire civilised world should take cognisance of the absurdity which sits at the core of this judgment. The Honourable Judge Southwood is ably endorsed though by Judge Claasen, in the Application for Leave to Appeal. He wonders out aloud: What does one consume in a museum? Or in a book? Later he concludes: I can find no fault with the judgment of Southwood J or his reasoning. Now you – the entire “civilised” reading world – know that whatever you thought you were consuming in a book . . . on these judgments . . . it could never have been EDUCATION.

*Gold Reef City Casino operates under the privilege of a Casino Licence issued by the Gauteng Gambling Board.
Legislation, intended to protect the public compelled the Gambling Board, to undertake probity checks prior to the granting of a licence.
Probity: (n) complete and confirmed integrity; having strong moral principles.

Contact Details for the Gauteng Gambling Board: Telephone: +27 11 5814800; Email: info@ggb.org.za; Private Bag 15 Bramley 2018

YOU CAN REPORT CORPORATE CRIME AT YOUR LOCAL POLICE STATION

OR

Whistle-blowers with information specific to the edifice owned and situated at Gold Reef City Casino and operating under the name “The Apartheid Museum” may use the email public@fraud2001-019180-08.org.za