State v. Johnstone: Charge: Crimen Inuria SAPS: CT: CAS 1340/7/07 SAPS: George: CAS 572/02 HC-CPDAppeal A 696-04
crimeninuria.blogspot.com Recipient: I Company:
I
Fax Numbl!r:
Press Ombudsman Mr. Thloloe
Sent By:
The Press Council of SA
Company:
011-484 3619
SQWorms
Fax Number:
011-484 3618/2
Time:
Subject:
Lara Johnstone
044-870 7239
Voice Number:
02:35:40 PM
071-1701954
Total No. Pages:
9
IOfficial Complaint to the Press Council of South Africa: The Press Ombudsman
CO M Compla t Brief Overview: SAP A alleged guilty of: (i) Erroneous Reporti & Refusal to Impartially Enquire into Errors, or Correct its Erroneo s Reporting; (ii) Reporting & 'Credible News' selection, that is Predisp sed to Extreme Bias and Prejudice; and (iii) fraudulent represe tation, of "If SAP A knows ... South Africa Knows ... "
Lara Johnstone 16 Taaibos Ave, George, Heatherpark,
6529
Tell Fax: (044) 870 7239 crimeninuria. blogspot.com in-gods-name. blogspot.com
Anniversary
2 S T E
of 11 June 2001 'John Brown' Freedom Forgiveness Day
d Floor, 7 St. Davids's Park Davids Place, Parktown, 2193 l: 011 4843618/2 11 Fax: 0114843619 Press Council of South Africa: Press Ombudsman ail: ombudsman速presscouncil.org.za (Per Fax & Email)
TO:
Tte
AND TO:
Rtspondent: Editor: Mr. Mark van der Velden 11 Fax: (27) 011 782 1591; Email: news速sapa.org.za T~l: (27) 011 SAPA: 782 1600
(Per Fax & Email)
CC: Michael Sthmidt The (TheCape Star);Party); Chris Burgess (Editor, Farmers Weekly); Martin Weltz (Editor, Noseweek); Jack Miller (Ltader,
Official Cdmplaint to the Press Council of South Africa: The Press Ombudsman:
to Imparti ly Enquire into Errors, or Correct its Erroneous Reporting; (ii) Reporting & 'Credibl News' selection, that is Predisposed to Extreme Bias and Prejudice; and comPlaintfrief Overview: SAPAalleged guilty of: (i)South Erroneous (iii) fraudu ent representation, of "If SAPAknows... Africa Reporting Knows..." & Refusal Please Take flbtice of the Details of this Complaint:
lainant and Respondent Details: Complainant: Lara Johnstone Respondent: South African Press Association: Editor: Mr. Mark van der Velden
D te: 19 July 2007 P blished Title:
Woman Defies Court over Rude De Lille SMS's (Annex A: PDF copy available in Annex F: Transparency RSA Media Enquiry)
2. PUbltation News Article Details: h to:/ /mvbroadband.co.za/news/Cellular/698.html; ourable
SfPA Details: Title: Alleged Text Pest Sent for Observation (Annex B: PDF Copy available a : http://crimeninuria. blogspot.com/2009 1061disclosure-email-i-request-to-sapa-news. html)
3. Ove,view of Substance of Complaint, in terms of Complaints Procedures 1.3: aJ The Complainant
alleges that the Respondents' Report:
1. Contains erroneous information, if.
iii.
which the Respondent Refuses to Correct;
Is extremely biased and one sided, on behalf of the State (Prosecution), matter reported on;
in the
Lacks any thorough impartial enquiry into alternative interpretations and perspectives of events from the Defendant; and is accordingly not balanced and fair reporting.
1
Furthermore: iv.
it appears plausible the Respondent is either negligently, or worse, intentionally, involved in deliberately withholding from the South African people (their readers and subscribers) the information provided to them, of: 1.
v.
SAPSInspector Christians' illegal arrest of Complainant, without any valid and legal Arrest Warrant, or Outstanding Warrants, signed by a Magistrate.
Court Officials intentional and malicious distribution of fraudulently false information to the Respondents Journalist, impugning the Defendants Psychological Integrity, by implying that evidence existed in accordance with Criminal Procedure Act § 77 - 79; namely alleging that the Accused lacked the Capacity to Understand Proceedings as a result of Mental Illness; when they were fully cognisant of the fact that they were not in possession of any such written evidentiary reports.
Additionally; vi.
The Complainant alleges that the Respondent's Legal Representation, as to their commitment to dispersal of any credible news, without any withholding, bias or prejudice on their part, by the implication conveyed in "If SAPA knows ... South Africa knows ..." represents fraud, in terms of the Respondents prejudiced and biased choices of which stories to report on, and which to intentionally pretend do not exist. SAPA's choices on what to report on represents a decision by the Respondent to deliberately withhold certain information and credible news, from its subscribers; therefore 'If SAPA knows ... South Africa knows ••." is not accurate or true. A more accurate and true representation would be "If SAPA prejudice decides South Africa should know .. South Africa knows; if SAPA's prejudice decides South Africa should not know .. then South Africa does not know ...; what South Africa knows .. is dependent on SAPA's prejudiced choices." 1.
The Respondents website (http://sapaihb7.sapa.org.za/), states among other things that: "If SAPA KNOWS... SOUTH AFRICA KNOWS..• ) and that it provides its readers (via its subscribers) with "consistent, reliable and credible breaking news"
if sapa knows, .. South Africa knows ...
4.
Detafls
al
of Errors Alleged in Respondents Report, of 19 July 2007: Reports Erroneous Psychiatric Observation Allegation: The Defendant was not sent for Psychiatric Observation, on the day alleged, neither subsequent thereto, on any day, in this matter; and accordingly there is no 'Psychiatric Assessment' that has been handed into the court, on September 22, prior thereto, or subsequent thereto. Accordingly the following statements in the Report are erroneous: A woman who allegedly sent rude SMSmessages to politician was sent for psychiatric observation on Thursday.
Patricia de Litle .....
Johnstone was remanded in her absence to September 22, when her psychiatric assessment is to be handed to the court. The Respondent considers the alleged information from the Prosecution that the Complainant (Defendant) was sent for psychiatric observation worthy of being a 'credible news report'; yet the information from the Defendant that (i) no documentation exists in this matter regarding the required due process procedures as required in the Criminal Matters Amendment Act; (ii) the Defendant was never sent for psychological observation, and accordingly no such Psychiatric Assessment exists, nor could it be handed in to the
2
court; None of this is considered by the Respondent as worthy of being information 'credible news report'.
for a
b.l The 'SAPS Security Clearance' of the Complainants Arrest: The Defendant was illegally arrested on Wednesday, 18 July 2007, in that the SAPSInspector Christian, made an Arrest without a legal Arrest Warrant. Furthermore Inspector Christian did so by intentional fraudulent means, since when asked to provide the evidence of a legal Arrest Warrant to justify his Arrest; he stated the Arrest was based upon two Outstanding Warrants of Arrest, one in Pietermaritzburg and one in Port Elizabeth; and refused to provide such alleged Outstanding Warrants. The NPA and SAPScontinue to refuse to provide any evidence that any legal Arrest Warrant, or Outstanding Warrant exists. In response to Attorney Malcolm Gezzlers Investigators Enquiries to the SAPS, for copies of the Legal Arrest Warrant, or legal Outstanding Arrest Warrants; he was informed by SAPSOfficials, that the matter was 'above their security clearance', and they were unable to provide any further clarification on the matter. According to the charge sheet, Johnstone was arrested on Wednesday. That the SAPSare accused of arresting the Complainant illegally and without any legal Arrest Warrant, is not 'credible news'. It is only 'credible news' if the charge sheet says Complainant was arrested, and no Arrest Warrant exists to confirm the allegation in the Charge Sheet?
cJ
Complainants Alteged Violence: The Complainant has never raised her hand in anger at anyone in her entire 42 years on this planet. Even when the complainant has been physically assaulted by anyone, the Defendant has responded by enquiring whether the individual was going to physically assault her again; and notifying the individual that should such individual choose to physically assault her again; the defendant would in such case act in her physical defence. The complainant has never been physically assaulted twice by any individual, -- perhaps as a reason for her notice. This information is provided as context for whether there is any information available to anyone of the Complainants alleged 'violence'.
dl
Complainants 'Swearing' Principles: The complainant has used language which could be considered as 'swearing' or 'abusive' by civil servant officials; but only in response to: (i) the individual being spoken to indicating that he or she, does not listen to repeated polite verbal and written requests, to do his job, as a civil servant, working for 'the citizens' of South Africa; and/or (ii) where the individual's attitude, verbal or written language has indicated that they do not object to 'swearing' , as a means of communication. For example, in a telephonic conversation with Ms. De Lille, on 18 October 2002, at 19:56 hours, where Complainant requested Mrs. De Lille provide answers to various questions related to SAP Case 572/02, on the Iatrogenic (Manmade Biological Warfare Depopulation) Origins of AIDS, Mrs. De Lille's response was, "I've got no fucking comment. For the last time I've told you I'm not going to tolerate any conspiracy theories. I'm going to report you for harassment. For the last time I've told you, I'm not going to tolerate it. And fuck you. " The complainant's subsequent questions to Mrs. De Lille on the matter, were submitted to Mrs. De Lille in writing, care of and via, the Office of Mr. Tony Leon; who forwarded the documentation on the Complainants behalf. The final written communication, was submitted to the South African Government; c/o and via; Mrs. De Lille, on 07 July 2007,
Notice of HC-CPDAppeal A 696-04, being transferred to USNavy JAG, for accurate and honourable record keeping purposes; effective noon on 18 July 2007 (Annex C: http://crimeninuria.bloqspot .coml200910 1107-07-07-transfer-of-hc-cpd-696-04to.htmO with written reasons. Aforementioned Notice includes the verbatim telephone and SMSconversations between Complainant and Mrs. De Lille, and copies were submitted to the SAPS, NPA and HC-CPD; among others.
3
e.1 Compiainant 'Swearing' at the Court Orderiy: The complainant informed the court orderly that she was not going in to the court, untH she had been provided with her right in accordance with the South African Constitution, to make a teiephone call, to arrange for an attorney. The court orderly's response was 'Fuck You, I will inform the court, you refuse to go into court'. The compiainants response to the Court Orderly was, 'I hope you are honourable and ethical and inform the Magistrate of my reasons for why I am refusing to go into the Court, because the SAPS refuse me my right to a telephone call, to arrange for an attorney to represent me.' Both the Court orderly and the SAPScontinued to refuse the Complainant her right to make a telephone call, untH the end of the court day. When her case was called, a court orderly went to the court's holding cells to fetch her, but returned without her and explained that she was violent, swearing and abusive, and refused to be brought into the courtroom. Again, if a court orderly reports anything about the Compiainant, then that is considered 'credible news' in this matter; but if the Complainant provides the Respondent with any information related to the Context of the Court Orderlies statement, or contradicts the Court Orderly's statement, then that is not considered 'credible news'.
f.1 UnavaHabie or Non-Existant Court Record Documents: The Complainant has requested from the Prosecution, all relevant court records, in the matter; and in particular related to the statements in the Respondents Report; and has been provided no evidence of any court record, where any Magistrate noted that, "Accused refuses to be brought to court. She is abusive and hostHe;" nor any written report from Or. Theo Oahms stated anything whatsoever. Subsequent to Respondents sources (Capetown Court Officiais) faiiing to provide the existence of the Magistrate's Court Record, or Or. Theo Oahms Report, as alleged by the Respondent; the Complainant accordingly requested the Respondent for proof of these alleged 'court record' documents; which the are either being deliberately withheld from the Complainant by Court Officials', or do not exist. The magistrate noted on the court record: "Accused refuses to be brought to court. She is abusive and hostile." Also on the record was a letter from the forensic services section of the Community Health Services Organisation, in which Theo Dahms stated: "She is totally uncooperative, and refuses to answer any of my questions. She simply walked out of the room. "I can therefore not comment on her mental condition, but would think if she persists in this way she needs to be sent for psychiatric observation." Again, court officials are alleged to have made statements and created official court records related to the Complainant, which are considered 'credible news'. However, when the Complainant informs the Respondent, that Court Officials deny the evidence of the relevant alleged 'court records', then the non-existance and/ or refusal of court officials to provide the Complainant with the evidence of these 'court records'; this is not 'credible news'.
5. Reasbns for Delay of Complaint, in terms of Complaints Procedures 1.3: Corn Resp Repo Cour Error recei impa
ollows a chronology of events, detailing the reasons for the delay of the filing of the aint. The reasons being, (i) the delayed time the Complainant became aware of the ndents Report; (ii) the Complainants efforts to ascertain the validity of the Respondents t, from individuals whom could have been original sources (namely Capetown SAPSand NPA Officials); (iii) the Complainant's written notice informing the Respondent of the Reports , and request for resolution; and (iv) The Respondents response to the Complainants Notice; ed from Respondent, on 10 June 2009; denying the Complainant any recourse for a fair and ial enquiry and/or correction of errors.
4
Chro iogy of Events: 1.
Th Complainant only became aware of the Respondents report, after doing an internet search on related keywords, in November 2008, when the Respondent came across the Respondents R ort at http://mvbroadband.co.za/news/Cellular/698.html (Annex A)
2.
Complainant subsequently filed a written request to Court Officials referred to in the R pondents Report, -- including a copy of the Respondents Report, -- to provide the C plainant with proof that such court record documents actually existed. The Request was su mitted to Court Officials on 28 January 2009, For the Record: State v. Johnstone; 'C imen Inuria': Incomplete Further Particulars, (Annex D: ht :/ /crimeninuria.blo s ot.com/2009/01 /for-record-state-v路ohnstone-crimen.html)
3.
In in i R A al t C
4.
0
t
A h w N r
ourt proceedings on 02 March 2009, the State/Prosecution (Senior Prosecutor Jacobs) ormed the court, that he was confused about the request for these court record documents; plying that he had no knowledge of any of the alleged court record documents that the spondents Report states exist in the Court Record; whether that be the (i) non-existant est Warrant, or (ii) non-existant Outstanding Arrest Warrants, or (iii) the Magistrates eged statements in the court record on 19 July, (iv) Dr. Dahm's alleged Report, allegedly in court record; or (v) the alleged Psychiatric Assessment, to have been submitted into the urt Record on 22 September. received a letter of response to aforementioned For Record: State v. Johnstone; 'Crimen Injuria': Incomplete Further Particulars, from
17 February 2009, the Complainant
v. A. Ackerman, Priority Crimes Litigation Unit Head Office (Annex E: :/ /crimeninuria.blo s ot.com/2009/02/09-02-17-n a- riorit -crimes-liti ation.html) erein he informed Complainant he had forwarded the Request for this documentation to A-CT: Director of Public Prosecutions: Adv. R de Kock. As of date, there has been no ponse from Adv. De Kock.
5.
0 05 June 2009, Complainant contacted SAPA Jhb, to honourably notify SAPA of information rated to The Cape Party, related to their decision to withdraw their nominated candidate to t George By-Election to be held on 24 June 2009, namely the Complainant; as a result of T e Cape Party's fears that the South African Media would continue to display their prior p disposition to extreme prejudice and bias, as they had to The Cape Party and on Cape P rty issues. Complainant naively assumed that the South African media may be serious about r ceiving feedback related to how their critics perceive them; and that they value feedback, p rticularly feedback that includes details and evidentiary information. Any organisation or p ofession that is serious about maintaining its professional standards and avoiding herd ntality, and politically correct conformist behaviour, values constructive feedback. A yway, SAPA-Johannesburg did not answer their phones.
6.
A t f t C e a
cordingly, subsequent thereto, Complainant called SAPA-Capetown to attempt to contact e Respondents Journalist, so as to honourably provide the Journalist with the constructive edback to their original article; and ascertain whether the Journalist and SAPA were willing make a fully impartial enquiry into the information provided by the Complainant. mplainant spoke to SAPA Capetown Bureau News Editor, Mr. Ben MacLennan, who was remely helpful; however he said he was not authorised to provide the exact information out the Journalists name; for reasons that SAPA freelance journalists (stringers) may be rking for SAPA in violation of their primary employment contract with their primary News E ployer. He requested Complainant to put the request in writing. The written request to
SPA: (I) Request to SAPA:News Article: 19 July 2007; (11)and Honourable Transparency R A Media Enquiry (Annex F: http://crimeninuria.blogspot.com/2009/06/disclosure-email-ir
uest-to-sa
a-news.html),
was submitted
to Mr. Maclennon on 05 June 2009.
7.
09 June 2009, Mr. Ben MacLennan submitted Complainants written request to him, to R spondent: SAPA路Jhb: Editor: Mr. Mark van der Velden, and transparently copied C mplainant thereon; Query from Ms Lara Johnstone (Annex G: h t :/ /crimeninuria.blo s ot.com/2009/06/disclosure-email-i-re uest-to-sa a-news.html)
8.
10 June 2009, Mr. Mark van der Velden responded to Complainants request, in Re: Query " om Ms Lara Johnstone (Annex H: http://crimeninuria.blogspot.com/2009 /06/ disclosuree ail-i-re uest-to-sa a-news.html). Mr. van der Velden denied Complainants request to SAPA, f r (I) the information related to the SAPA News Article of 19 July 2007, and its relevance to
5
tri So pa de no ill ex
l issues, to occur on 08 July 2009; and (11) ignored the related issues to allegations of the th African media being perceived as being predisposed to extreme prejudice and bias; ticularly on controversial and alleged politically incorrect issues. It is unclear how Mr. van Veld en considers the issues raised in the Crimen Inuria issue to be 'a minor news item', of any interest to South Africans, when they involve, not only aforementioned issues about gal arrest, withheld court documents to prove the arrest was legal, withheld or nonstant court documents referred to in the Report, and that the issues are 'well out of the
ge eral public memory', when those issues are going to raised in the trial on 08 July 2002, and th 'minor news items' in that trial, to which Mrs de Lille shall be testifying related to the d umentation she received in this 'Crimen Inuria' matter, since 2002, involve the following es, which I doubt the average South African news reader, shall consider 'minor news ms'; namely that such relevant information related to their lives, has been intentionally perhaps with extreme prejudice withheld from them, by among others SAPA:
a.
28 April 2002: Documentation delivered to Mrs. De lille' and the RSAMedia, alleging that, among others, (i) it appeared that South Africa's Proudly South African 'Truth and Reconciliation' story was nothing more than a fantasy, an illusion, certainly not what 'Proudly South Africans' were seriously committed to; and (ii) significant documentation related to the Iatrogenic Origins of AIDS, for the South African media's full impartial enquiry; as to whether sufficient information existed for the theory, to inform South Africans of the theory, in the same manner as they inform South Africans of the other related AIDS origins theories, for South Africans to make up their own 12002-iminds on the matter. (Annex I: http://crimeninuria.blogspot.com/2009/01 harts-letters-to-media -rsa -gov. html)
b.
16 August 2003: Documentation delivered to the South African Government; c/o and via, then leader of the Opposition, Mr. Tony Leon (sub judice in this matter, as a witness for the Defence): Iatrogenic Origin of AIDS Theory 8: Evidentiary
Documentation [IJ Iatrogenic Aids Origins Questions; [IIJ Iatrogenic Theory: AIDSIHIV: Intro to Retrovirology; Foreign Plant Derived Substances as Stimulants; Immunosuppression: Entry 8: Control of Foreign DNA into Cell/s; Immunosuppression: Foreign DNA: Pathogenic Fungi/Bacteria: Mycoplasma; Means, Motive 6; Opportunity; Conclusion; [IIIJ Evidentiary Does•. This documentation provided yet more evidentiary documentation on the Iatrogenic Origins 104-01-14-noticeof AIDS theory (Annex J: http://crimeninuria.blogspot.com/2009/01 of-Legal-political. html) c.
14 January 2004: Documentation again delivered to the South African Government (Crimen Injuria Secondary Plaintiff) and Mrs. De Lille (Crimen Injuria Plaintiff), by the Office of then Leader of the Democratic Alliance (Opposition), Mr. Tony Leon, Notice
of Legal and Political Delivery: Elimination of Executive Authorities Plausible Deniability: Iatrogenic Origins of AIDS Theory (i) Documentation, (ii) Investigation, 8: (iii) Disclosure Case GSH20/2003. Further additional information
to the RSAGovernment on the Iatrogenic Origins of AIDS Theory (Annex K: http://crimeninuria.blogspot.com/2009 101104-01-14-notice-of-legal-political. html). This documentation appointed Mrs. De Lille' as the official representative, on behalf of the South African Government, in the matters related to SAP Case 572/02 aka GSH 2012003, and subsequently thereto, to HC-CPD Appeal A 696-04 (and subsequently to NPA Western Cape and Judge Hlope's refusal to place the matter on the roll for hearing in the High Court; transferred to US Navy JAG for accurate record keeping purposes)
d.
11 June 2004: Documentation provided to the South African Government, providing theoretical criminological, penological and psychological information and evidentiary examples, as to how South Africa's prisons are incubators and universities of crime; and not only universities of crime, but of hate -- for particularly Afrikaner whites. Document was submitted to various individuals in the South African Government, the only individual concerned about the issues raised, was again, Mr. Tony Leon and the DA. Document titled, An Essay on Proudly South African Hypocrisy: Fraudulent
'Rehabilitation' Boomerang: Correctional Services Prison Policies As a Major Intentional Source of New South Africa's 'Kaffirs' AKA 'Criminals'. (Annex L: http://crimeninuria.blor.?spot. south.html)
corn I 2009 101111- iune- 2004-essav-on-proudlv-
6
e.
18 July 2006: A 131 page report, drawn up by the Complainant and submitted to the South African Government, Media, Corporations and Non Profit Organisations, titled 18 July 2006 :: Pealc.OiCRSA :: Briefing Paper: Is Gross Mismanagement of the Nation's Energy Policy an Impeachable Offense? (Annex M: http://crimeninuria.blogspot.com/2009/01/06-07 -18-18-july-2006peak 27.html) The 18 July 2006 PeakOil_RSA Briefing Paper, addresses among others, the following issues, and warned 2 years ago, about the impending financial crisis (now being experienced, as a result of Peak Oll's depleted input of cheap energy into the financial system paradigm of 'economic growth' , fractional reserve and fiat currency banking; which would contribute to a financial crisis, such as now occurring, and which is going to get much worse, unless Peak Oil impending realities are seriously confronted and acted upon.) • • •
•
• • •
• f.
Introduction: Limits to Growth I. What is Peak Oil? 11. Who Knows What About Peak Oil? Ill. How Serious is the Threat of Peak Oil? 1. Peak Oil: Food Production and Population Issues 2. Peak Oil: Medicine, Water and National Defense 3. Peak Oil: Financial/Banking System 4. Conclusions: What Does All of This Mean? IV. What about Alternative Sources of Energy? V. Who is Serious About the Threat of Peak Oil? VI. What should the people of South Africa. be doing about Peak Oil? 1. Oil Depletion Protocol 2. a. Limit Population 3. b. Implement an Urgent New Deal Plan to Develop Alternative 4. c. Reinvent the Way Money Works 5. d. Save Energy 6. e. Foster Local Communities 7. f. Get out of Debt 8. g. Educate and Raise Awareness: Talk About the Issue VII. Why are so many people who have heard of Peak Oil. in denial?
Energies
078: 10 July 2007: Documentation delivered to the South African Government; clo and via Hon. Mrs. Patricia de Lille; HC-CPD Appeal A 696-04, transfer to us Navy JAG, effective noon 18 July 2007. This documentation was delivered to the South African Government, clo Mrs. De Lille, as the South African Goverments in the matter; in the context of the Notice of Spokesperson I Agent/Representative Legal and Political Delivery: Elimination of Executive Authorities Plausible Deniability documentation of 14 January 2004, upon the legal principle of: Political Liability related to the matter proceeding via court proceedings, should the Executive prefer to resolve the issue politically. Political Liability Undesirability of Sentence Execution: Approach Executive: If or where subsequent circumstances shed new light on facts which already existed during the trial, rendering the execution of a sentence undesirable, the executive should be approached for assistance. An Appeal would therefore not be the Appropriate Procedure [R v Verster 1952 (2) SA 231 (A) 236 A-C; Rv Hobson 1953 (4) SA 464 (A) 466 F-G] The alleged 'Crimen Injuria' SMS's sent to Mrs. De Lille, were not for her personally, but for those she was acting as spokesperson on behalf, in terms of the documentation sent to her, clo Mr. Tony Leon, which named her the Non Sub Judice 'Opposition' Party, representing the South African Government, and (i) President Thabo Mbeki, (ii) Mr. Bulelani Nguka, (Hi) Mr. Jackie Selebi; (iv) Mr. B.M. Skosana, and (v) Mr. Nelson Mandela.
6. Relilf Requested, in terms of Complaints Procedures 1.3: The Complainant would like clarification whether the Respondent's "consistent, and credible breaking news" is predisposed to:
reliable
7
i. ii. iii.
Extreme Prejudice and Bias; or Fair and Balanced Reporting? If (a.i), namely Extreme Prejudice and Bias, then the Complainant agrees with the Respondent, that their Journalists report, of 19 July 2007, in this matter, fits the description of consistent, reliable and credible extremely prejudiced and biased news"; and requests that: 1.
iv.
the Complainant be ordered to honourably inform their subscribers, of their true honourable representation, that reflects their real media dissemination intentions, namely that they provide 'consistent, reliable and credible extremely prejudiced and biased breaking news'; because surely 'If SAPA knows ••• of information relevant to South Africans, as 'credible news' and as a result of its extreme prejudice and bias, against the individual or issue; withholds such credible news from its subscribers; then surely SAPA knows that SAPA only provides highly credible extremely prejudiced and biased breaking news ..., and if SAPA knows this fact; then South Africa should also know ••••.?'
If (a.ii), namely Fair and Balanced Reporting, then, the Complainant would like to know, exactly by when, should the Complainant expect the Respondent to demonstrate (i) their fairness and balanced enquiry and reporting in this matter; their (ii) conscious, honourable and committed choice to refrain from withholding information from their subscribers and the South African people, that they personally are predisposed to extreme prejudice and bias against?
RespectfullylSubmitted
8