09-09-22: HC-WC 19963-09: Notice Of Motion: Application for Review

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE WESTERN CAPE Court File No:

Lara Johnstone

Applicant

And Magistrate Louw Nat. » » » » » »

First Respondent 1

Dir. Of Public Prosecutions Hon. Patricia de Lille, MP, ID Mr. Thabo Mbeki, Former President Mr. Bulelani Ngcuka, Former NPA Nat. Dir. Mr. J.S. Selebi, Former SAPS Comm.

Mr. BM Skosana, Former Min. Corrections Mr. Nelson Mandela, Former President

Second Respondent Third Respondent Fourth Respondent Fifth Respondent Sixth Respondent Seventh Respondent Eighth Respondent

Minister of Citizenship & Immigration, Canada Ninth Respondent Per: Deputy Attorney General of Canada See [10], [11], [12] & [13] Per: United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees Per: Consulate General of Switzerland, Capetown The Nobel Institute: Norwegian Nobel Committee Per: Royal Norwegian Consulate, Capetown

Tenth Respondent See [10], [11], [12] & [13]

NOTICE OF INTENTION: APPLICATION FOR LEAVE & FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW: ITO § 309B (1)) & 304A of Criminal Procedure Act (“CPA”); with § 24(1) of the Supreme Court Act:

Please Take Notice That: [1]

An Application for Leave to Commence an Application for Judicial Review under § 309B (1)) & 304A of Criminal Procedure Act (“CPA”); and § 24(1) of the Supreme Court Act has been commenced by the Applicant.

[2]

In terms of § 304A of the Criminal Procedure Act, Review of Proceedings Before Sentence, if a magistrate after conviction but before sentence is of the opinion that the proceedings in respect of which he brought in a conviction are not in accordance with justice, he shall, without sentencing the accused, record the reasons for his opinion and transmit them, together with the record of proceedings to the registrar of the provincial division having jurisdiction, inform the accused accordingly, and postpone the case to some future date pending the outcome of the review proceedings. Such registrar shall, as soon as is practicable, lay the same for review in chambers before a judge, who has the same powers as under § 303.

[3]

In terms of § 309 B, when in any application for Leave to Review, it is shown by affidavit, that further evidence which would presumably be accepted as true, is available; that if accepted the evidence could reasonably lead to a different decision or order; and save in exceptional

1

See: State v. Johnstone: Legal Argument, 11 August 2009: Legal Argument: Facts Not In Dispute: (I) At 15:23; 15:32 and 18:32 hrs, on 10 July 2007, the Defendant sent three SMS’s to the Plaintiff; for the attention of: (i) Mr. Thabo Mbeki, (ii) Mr. Bulelani Ngcuka, (iii) Mr. J.S. Selebi, (iv) Mr. B.M. Skosana, (v) Mr. Nelson Mandela, and (vi) Mrs. Patricia de Lille; all c/o Plaintiff1, in her capacity as Non Sub Judice Executive, Opposition Party; (II) At 10:23 and 11:32 hrs on 16 July 2007, the Defendant sent two SMS’s to the Plaintiff; for the attention of (i) RSA Legislature; (ii) RSA Judiciary; (iii) RSA Executive Officials; all c/o Plaintiff1, in her capacity as Non Sub Judice Executive, Opposition Party

State v. Johnstone: Crimen Injuria: Notice of Intention

Page 1 of 12

cases, that there is a reasonably acceptable explanation for the failure to produce the evidence before the close of the trial, the court hearing the application may receive that evidence and further evidence rendered necessary thereby, including evidence in rebuttal called by the prosecutor and evidence called by the court. Any evidence received in pursuance of an application, for leave to review, must for purposes of the review, be deemed to be evidence taken or admitted at the trial.

[4]

Should Respondents, wish to oppose the application, please notify the Applicant, of Your Intentions, in writing; during court proceedings on 23 September 2009 (Respondents Two to Eight); or serve it on the Applicant, and file it, with proof of service, at the Registrar, within 21 days (Respondents Two to Ten), of receipt of this application for Leave.

[5]

If you fail to do so, the Court may nevertheless dispose of this application for leave and, if leave is granted, the subsequent application for Judicial Review without further notice to you.

[6]

The application seeks leave of the Court to commence an application for judicial review of: The decision of Court A Quo/Magistrate Louw in the Capetown Magistrates Court, dated 12 August 2009, in Magistrates Court File 14/1198/08 (previously # 17/1384/07), also known as SAPS File: CAS: 1340/7/07 (previously George: 572/02), and received by the Applicant on 12 August 2009, during court proceedings, wherein the Magistrate found the Defendant/Applicant Guilty on three charges of Crimen Injuria.

[7]

In the event that leave is granted, the Applicant seeks the following relief by judicial review:

[7a] An order for a writ of Mandamus, or relief in the nature of Mandamus, which remedies the court a quo’s irregular Findings of Guilt, by requiring Magistrate Louw to comply with his statutory duties to allow for:

(I)

An Order of Special Entry of Irregularities & Illegality (§ 317, CPA): (a)

Irregularity: Courts Irregular Conclusions: that the Defendant: (i) ‘Insisted on conducting her own Defence, refusing all legal representation’; (ii) ‘would not use the crimen injuria words ‘kaffir’ et al; towards another person again’;

(b)

Illegality: State’s Unlawful Arrest of Defendant on 18 July 2007: in that the Arresting Officer intentionally and wilfully Arrested Defendant without any legal valid Arrest Warrant documentation;

(c)

Illegality: State’s Unlawful Detention of Defendant from 18 July 2007, to 22 August 2007; in that the Arresting Officer intentionally and wilfully knew that the Defendant was arrested, and consequently being detained, without any legal valid Arrest Warrant documentation;

(d)

Irregularity: State’s Irregular Pre-Trial Obstruction of Justice, by Allegations of Defendants ‘Mental Defects’, in that the State violated the Criminal Matters Amendment Act 68 of 1998, Due Process Referral Procedures by (i) coercing Defendant to see a State Psychologist on 19 July 2007; (ii) Insinuations to Defendants Legal Representatives as to Defendants alleged ‘Mental Defects’; & (iii) releasing a deceptive report to the Media on 19 July 2007, that (a) the Defendant had been referred for Psychological Observation; (b) the Report of such Psychological Observation, was to be submitted to the court on September 22, 2009.

(II) Order for the Reinstatement and Enforcement of Political Necessity Defence Formal Admission Agreement Obligations (§ 140 & 219A; 220; CPA), with related orders for: (a)

Clarification of Disputed Facts in Issue (§ 212B, CPA);

(b)

Adducement of Further Evidence to Disputed Facts (§ 309B (4), CPA); and

(c)

Securing Attendance of Witnesses to Disputed Facts (§ 179, CPA).

(III) [If (II) Refused, an] An Order to Correct the Record: Withdrawal of Defendants Political Necessity Defence Formal Admissions (§ 140 & 219A; 220; CPA); and

State v. Johnstone: Crimen Injuria: Notice of Intention

Page 2 of 12

(IV) Leave to Apply to the High Court: Western Cape, for an Appeal of Conviction.

[7b] Alternatively, an Order for a writ of Certiorari, or relief in the nature of Certiorari, quashing the Guilt Finding of Magistrate Louw, and referring the matter back for re-determination in accordance with the law, by a different Magistrate; in accordance with § 313, Institution of proceedings de novo when conviction set aside on appeal or review.

[7c] An order for a writ of Mandamus/Certiorari, or relief in the nature of Mandamus/Certiorari, that should any Magistrate, High Court Judge, or State Official, dealing with this matter, on Review, or De Novo, fail to understand the Applicant’s (Defendant’s) Radical Hon(our)sty Religious Cultural language; that in terms of § 6(2) of the Magistrates Courts Act 32 of 1944, and/or Rule 61(1) of the Uniform Rules of Court; read in conjunction with the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, Act 108 of 1996, § 15 (Religion, Belief and Opinion), § 16 (Expression), § 30 (Language and Culture), § 31 (Cultural, Religious and Linguistic Communities); and Article 6 of the London Charter2; a Radical Hon(our)sty interpreter is provided for such

Magistrate, Judge, or Prosecutor; at State Expense.

[8]

In the event that leave is granted, the application for Judicial Review is to be based on, and in accordance with, the following Grounds for Review: (a)

§ 24(1) Supreme Court Act 59, of 1959: i. Absence of Jurisdiction; read with § 117 CPA, Special Case. ii. Interest in the cause; or the commission of an offence referred to in Part 1 to 4, or section 17, 20, 21.. of Chapter 2 of the Prevention and Combatting of Corrupt Activities Act, 2004, on the part of the presiding judicial officer; iii. Gross Irregularity in the Proceedings3; iv. The Admission of Inadmissible or Incompetent Evidence, or the Rejection of Admissible or Competent Evidence

(b)

§ 8 and 39 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, Act 108 of 1996 read with § 24 (2) of the Supreme Court Act 59 of 19594, and Civil Disobedience and the Necessity Defence5: among others: (*) the Nuremberg Principles of individual accountability, i.e. Article 6 of the London Charter6; (*) The Zykon B Case7; (*) the Nuremberg Defence in Pentagon Papers Case 8, * Chicago v Streeter, No. 85-108644 (Cir. Ct., Cook County, Ill. May 17, 1985)9; (*) Civil Disobedience: Conscience, Tactics & The

2 Agreement for the Prosecution and Punishment of the Major War Criminals of the European Axis, Charter of the International Tribunal, Aug. 8, 1945, 59 Stat. 1544, 82 U.N.T.S. 279 (known as the London Charter). Article: 6(a)–(c). Article 6(b). Crimes against humanity are defined as: [M]urder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other inhuman acts committed against any civilian population, before or during war; or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds in execution of or in connection with any crime within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, whether or not in violation of the domestic law of the country where perpetrated . . . .

3 See also: Goldfields Investment Ltd and Another v City Council of Johannesburg and Another 1938 TPD 551, at 560: “it is not merely highhanded or arbitrary conduct which is described as a gross irregularity; behaviour which is perfectly well-intentioned and bona fide, though mistaken, may come under that description. The crucial question is whether it prevented a fair trial of the issues.”

4 S. 24(1) of the Supreme Court Act sets out the grounds upon which the proceedings of an inferior court may be reviewed before a High Court and S. 24(2) stipulates that nothing in subsection 24(1) shall affect the provision of any other law relating to the review of proceedings of inferior courts.

5 Annexure: Civil Disobedience and the Necessity Defence, by John Alan Cohan, Pierce Law Review 6 Agreement for the Prosecution and Punishment of the Major War Criminals of the European Axis, Charter of the International Tribunal, Aug. 8, 1945, 59 Stat. 1544, 82 U.N.T.S. 279 (known as the London Charter). Article: 6(a)–(c). Article 6(b). Crimes against humanity are defined as: [M]urder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other inhuman acts committed against any civilian population, before or during war; or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds in execution of or in connection with any crime within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, whether or not in violation of the domestic law of the country where perpetrated . . . .

7 Reprinted in The Law of War: A Documentary History 1487 (L. Friedman ed., 1972): (in which civilians were charged with providing Zykon B (prussic acid) used to kill prisoners in concentration camps). “[T]he provisions of the laws and customs of war are addressed not only to combatants and to members of state and other public authorities, but to anybody who is in a position to assist their violation.”

8 Individual responsibility depends “on the extent of complicity as reflected in actions and knowledge. Richard A. Falk, The Nuremberg Defense in the Pentagon Papers Case, 13 COLUM. J. TRANSNAT’L L. 208, 231 (1974).

9 In Chicago v. Streeter, eight demonstrators were charged with trespass in connection with a protest at the Chicago office of the South African Consulate. The court allowed the jury to hear evidence that the actions of the defendants were necessary to prevent violations of international law under the Nuremberg Principles. The accused argued that the government of South Africa had been committing crimes by its policies of racial segregation and that the defendants acted reasonably in their efforts to prevent the continuation of these crimes. All defendants were acquitted.

State v. Johnstone: Crimen Injuria: Notice of Intention

Page 3 of 12

Law & Blacks Law Dictionary: Civil Disobedience10; (*) Everett v. United States, 336 F.2d 979, 985–86 (D.C. Cir. 1964) (Wright, J., dissenting)11. i. Application and Interpretation of the Bill of Rights, in terms of the Common Law, International Law and Foreign Law; & spirit, purport and object of Bill of Rights. ii. Due Process Irregularity: Denial of Nuremberg Principles Skills and Competencies in interpretation and application of common law ‘reasonableness test’ (c)

§ 15, 16, 30 & 31 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, Act 108 of 1996 read with: § 24 (2) of the Supreme Court Act 59 of 195912; i. Due Process Irregularity: Denial of Freedom of Religion, Belief, Opinion and Expression, Language, and Linguistic Culture, Admissible and Competent Evidence.

(d)

§ 32 and 33 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, Act 108 of 1996 read with: § 24 (2) of the Supreme Court Act 59 of 195913; i. Due Process Irregularity: Denial of Access to Information and Just Administrative Action Principles, and Admissible and Competent Evidence.

(e)

Johannesburg Consolidated Investment Co. v Johannesburg Town Council 1903 TS 111, at 310h 14 and 310i15, 310j-311a16; 311h17; 312a-c18; 313d19 i. Principles of Review: Wider Review, Courts authority to intervene, not limited to 24(1) of the Supreme Court Act 59 of 1959, etc.

[9]

The Applicant has received the informal written reasons from the Court A Quo [Annexure BB]; but has not yet received the Formal Written Reasons, or the Transcript of the Record.

[10] For the Record: State of Effective Emergency: South Africa’s Unrepresented White Refugees: The Tyranny, Disorder, Crime and Corruption of the State, has effectively resulted in a state of anarchy, where fundamental rights of due process, natural law, administrative law, safety and security, etc have been effectively intentionally, deliberately and maliciously suspended, as a result of corruption, incompetence and indifference. South Africa is heading towards a socio-economic, political and military failed state of Zimbabwefication. For example, South African Law Commission Issue Paper Six, alleged the Criminal Justice System to have a severe Legitimacy and Inefficiency Crisis, in that: 1.

2.

3.

Communities are intimidated by the legal system, and ignorant of how it works.

Legal representation is inadequate and discriminatory.

Legal aid has not been able to serve its intended purpose.

10 Civil Disobedience: Conscience, Tactics and the Law 39–40 (1971); see Blacks Law Dictionary 223 (5th ed. 1979) (defining civil disobedience as “a form of lawbreaking employed to demonstrate the injustice or unfairness of a particular law and indulged in deliberately to focus attention on the allegedly undesirable law”). See also: Steven M. Bauer & Peter J. Eckerstrom, The State Made Me Do It: The Applicability of the Necessity Defense to Civil Disobedience, 39 STAN. L. REV. 1173, 1176 (1987).

11 On the other hand, if the [political necessity] defense is allowed, the jury is called upon to weigh controversial political issues and to function as the “conscience of the community.” “Reflected in the jury’s decision is a judgment of whether, under all the circumstances of the event and in the light of all known about the defendant, the prohibited act, if committed, deserves condemnation by the law.”

12 S. 24(1) of the Supreme Court Act sets out the grounds upon which the proceedings of an inferior court may be reviewed before a High Court and S. 24(2) stipulates that nothing in subsection 24(1) shall affect the provision of any other law relating to the review of proceedings of inferior courts.

13 S. 24(1) of the Supreme Court Act sets out the grounds upon which the proceedings of an inferior court may be reviewed before a High Court and S. 24(2) stipulates that nothing in subsection 24(1) shall affect the provision of any other law relating to the review of proceedings of inferior courts.

14 “The first, which is envisaged by s 24 of the Supreme Court Act, involves the process by which the proceedings of an inferior court are brought before the High Court in respect of grave irregularities or illegalities.”

15 The second arises where the “Legislature has from time to time conferred upon this Court or a Judge a power of review which . . . is meant to be far wide than the powers which it possesses under” the normal review processes.

16 In Johannesburg Consolidated Investment Company it was held that the second form of review means to “examine” or “take into consideration” and that the powers of the court in considering a matter already dealt with by the inferior court are unlimited – in other words, the reviewing court is empowered to entertain the matter de novo.

17 According to the Magano court, the language of the Constitution, which vests courts with the power to grant relief where there is “an infringement of or threat to any to any right” in the Bill of Rights (now contained in s 38 of the Constitution) is such that the power of the courts to intervene are not limited to those situations that arise in s 24(1) of the Supreme Court Act. [Magano and Another v District Magistrate, JHB and Others (2) 1994 (2) SACR 307 (W)] 18 Thus where a court reviews a decision of an inferior court in which it is alleged that a constitutional right has been infringed or threatened, the review is of the second variety described above and the court is therefore not limited to the grounds set out in s 24(1) of the Supreme Court Act 19 On the facts of the case, the court held that where the defence disputes the basis for the postponement advanced by the state, it is incumbent on the state to adduce evidence to support its version.

State v. Johnstone: Crimen Injuria: Notice of Intention

Page 4 of 12

4.

The justice system's inaccessibility means it is perceived as illegitimate, ineffective, unfriendly, resulting in alternative dispute resolution whether legal or illegal.

Unnecessary complexities brought into access to justice and the mystifying language used.

5.

[10a] Since 18 June 2002, the Applicant has accused Official Legislative, Judicial and Executive Officers of the State that their actions of commission and omission have, and continue to, demonstrate an intentional, deliberate, malicious and hostile indifference and unwillingness to provide for judicial and administrative due process and safety and security protections to the Applicant, and law-abiding, taxpaying ‘White Refugee’ citizens constitutional interests; by implementing policies which negligently, intentionally and deliberately foster and support criminal activity, ethnic and social conflict, tyranny and anarchy20.

[10b] The repeated response from these State authorities, to these allegations was simply more actions of commission and omission unwillingness and indifference to its constitutional social contract duties and responsibilities; including repeatedly, by Respondents Two to Eight. For example: A.

The total indifference of Respondents Three to Eight, to respond to legal documentation submitted to their Offices, by Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Tony Leon, dated 20 August 2003, and 14 January 2004.

B.

On 16 February 2004, Magistrate VA Botha, granted the Applicants Application for Leave, and Judicial Review, in SAPS Case 572/02; HC-CPD Appeal A 696-04. As of June 2006, the Second Respondent, Director of Public Prosecutions (Adv. Tarentaal) indifferently refused to place HC-CPD Appeal A696-04, on the High Court Roll for hearing.

D.

The Second Respondent [Director of Public Prosecutions (Adv. Tarentaal)] aforementioned repeated indifference and refusal was the direct cause of the Applicant contacting Respondents Three to Eight, on 07 July 2007; to request their action in accordance with their social contract duties and responsibilities;

E.

Respondents Three to Eight’s deliberate, intentional and malicious indifference and refusal, to act in response to the 07 July 2007 Legal and Political Request to them, was the direct cause of Applicants ‘civil disobedience’ actions, on 10 July and 16 July 2007, resulting in the five charges of this Crimen Injuria matter.

[10c] Foreign Law – the United States Declaration of Independence -- provides for the remedy, that when a government intentionally and repeatedly demonstrates a deliberate, malicious and hostile indifference and unwillingness to act in accordance with its social contract duties and responsibilities, towards its citizens; then such a government is accurately described as tyrannical and corrupt.

[10d] Citizens committed to a healthy social contract with their Government have a duty and a right, when any government becomes tyrannical and corrupt, and acts in destructive breach of the social contract; to alter or abolish such government, and to institute new government.

[10e] In contrast to Respondents Three to Eight’s strategies endorsing and inciting violence, mob justice and ungovernability, in their alleged ‘Anti-Apartheid’ (sic) struggle for a non-racial (sic) South Africa; the Applicant is a citizen committed to non-violent civil-disobedience, and the rule of law. Accordingly the only means the Applicant has of altering and abolishing a corrupt and tyrannical government, and instituting a new healthy social contract government, is to deny such a corrupt and tyrannical government, any respect as a legitimate authority, until it demonstrates that it is committed to upholding its social contract duties and responsibilities, as an impartial, legitimate and procedurally fair authority.

[10f] As of 07 June 2007, the Applicant does not recognize the legitimacy of any South African Official or Office, which is not willing to demonstrate its sincere and serious commitment to upholding its duties and responsibilities to the constitutional Social Contract.

20

See An Essay on Proudly South African Parasite Hypocrisy: Fraudulent Rehabilitation Boomerang: Correctional Services Prison Policies as a Major Intentional Source of New South Africa’s ‘Kaffirs’ AKA ‘Criminals’ : http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B4TzWFmSUmx9NWZmZDEzZDItMmFlYi00ZGJjLWI2NjItNjNjZjY4OTkzNzAy&hl=en

State v. Johnstone: Crimen Injuria: Notice of Intention

Page 5 of 12

[10g] While South African Legislative, Judicial and Executive authorities have, and continue to, refuse to confront, enquire into, or acknowledge the reality of the tyrannical Disorder, Crime and Corruption of the Failed State, and its effective nullification of the Truth and Reconciliation Social Contract, which has effectively resulted in a state of anarchy, where fundamental rights of due process, natural law, administrative law, safety and security, etc have been effectively intentionally, deliberately and maliciously suspended; a foreign court/tribunal has finally had the courage to impartially enquire into, and courageously confront, the reality of this evidence.

In the State of Ontario, Canada, on 27 August 2009, Board Member William Davis of the Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board (“RPD�), in file number MA8-04910, found white South African, Brandon Carl Huntley to be a Convention Refugee, as a result of: (a)

South Africa's serious human rights problems, including police use of excessive force against suspects and detainees, which resulted in death and injuries, vigilante violence and mob justice: violence resulting from social, racial and ethnic tensions;

(b)

Affirmative Action (AA) and Black Economic Empowerment (BEE) law requires employers with 50 or more employees to ensure that previously disadvantaged groups, collectively constituting more than 90 percent of the country's population are represented adequately at all levels of the workplace;

(c)

Affirmative Action that has stripped the country of 75 percent of its skilled population and is responsible for the deprivation of the constitutional and social rights of white South Africans;

(d)

As reported by the SAIRR, over a fifth of white South Africans have emigrated over the past ten years, their main reasons being crime and affirmative action;

(e)

White Poverty is growing, as a result of AA & BEE legislation which reserves 80 percent of new jobs for blacks and favour black-owned companies for tenders;

(f)

Killings and other violent crimes against farmers and their families continue in rural areas; and farmers are concerned that they are being targeted for racial and political reasons;

(g)

Farm Murders: There are 40,000 white farmers in South Africa. Since 1994, over 2,000 farmers have been murdered in thousands of farm attacks, many brutally tortured and slashed or raped. Some victims have been burnt with irons and had boiling water poured over them, or down their throats.

(h)

The Mandela "rainbow" revolution has become a cloud of gloom; where 40 percent of South Africans live below the poverty line, and unemployment is between 23 - 40 percent; violence runs unchecked throughout the country, and a woman is raped approximately every 26 seconds, where less than 1 percent of rape convictions lead to a conviction.

Murderers also run free, without about 19,000 murders in 2006, more than 50 per day;

(i)

A report documenting that most of ANC members are racist: this report states that it is time for the ANC to face up to the fact that most of them are racist and marginalized nonsupporters and that it is the policy of the ANC and its endemic corruption that has brought South Africa to the brink of civil war;

(j)

Police Corruption: Police Corruption is endemic and the chances of reporting corruption, ever seeing daylight are slim indeed.

(k)

DA Leader, Mr. Tony Leon's accuses the ANC goverment of indifference to the lot of minorities, and hostility to whites;

(l)

All of the above and more, shows a picture of indifference and inability or unwillingness of the goverment and the security forces to protect White South Africans from persecution by African South Africans.

(m)

The objective evidence of living as a white person in South Africa, is that crime and violence resulting from social, racial and ethnic tensions contribute to a socio-political culture with a very significant possibility for white South Africans to be repeat and persistent, and systemic victims of excessive violence during any criminal acts, perpetrated against them by African South Africans; as a result of a socio-political cultural

State v. Johnstone: Crimen Injuria: Notice of Intention

Page 6 of 12

climate where the State is deliberately and intentionally unwilling to protect white South Africans; because they are white South Africans.

[10h] The SA Government (& Respondents Two to Eight)’s Commitment to the Social Contract with White South Africans, ranges from Negligent Indifference to Malicious Contempt to Endorsement of Rape and ‘Kill the Farmer, Kill the Boer’ Torture and Boer Genocide: Former Minister of Safety and Security, Charles Nqakula is by far not the only person who is blatantly indifferent and contemptuous towards whites concern about crime, as he stated in Parliament; that ‘whites who keep complaining about crime, should either just go blue in the face, or leave the country’21. In 1998, then President Nelson Mandela (Respondent Eight) said the same thing. He claimed that fear of crime was mainly a white preoccupation fomented by a mainly white-owned press. Of people who left the country because of crime, the then President (Respondent Eight) said, “Good Riddance”22.

Some years later the then Minister of Justice, Penuell Maduna, and the then Minister of Safety and Security, Steve Tshwete, scoffed at rape statistics when they said on American television, ‘We’ve been standing here for 26 seconds and nobody has been raped’23.

[10i] The SA Government (& Respondents Two to Eight)’s Commitment to the Social Contract with Black South Africans, ranges from Negligent Indifference to Malicious Contempt, to endorsement of Culling the Overpopulating Useless Eaters: RSA Government Know the Truth About the Iatrogenic Origins of AIDS, but are covering it up. 

1988: An article in Sechaba, the Official Journal of the ANC in exile, published in London in November 1988, under the title ‘AIDS and the Imperialist Connection’ questioned the African origin of the AIDS virus, and suggested that the AIDS virus may have been developed for genocidal purposes ‘in the secrecy of the laboratories of many imperialist countries.’ [South Africa's Brave New World: The Beloved Country since the End of Apartheid, R. W. Johnson]



2000: In Sept. 2000, Minister of Health, Mrs Tshabalala-Msimang circulated to Provincial Premiers and Health Ministers a chapter of William Cooper’s, Behold a Pale Horse; which alleges that HIV was specifically devised by the worlds ruling elite to reverse population growth. [South Africa's Brave New World: The Beloved Country since the End of Apartheid, R. W. Johnson]



2002: “We [The Nelson Mandela Foundation] are aware of the [20,000 US Government Scientific] documents [documenting that AIDS is manmade as a Biological Warfare Depopulation Agent]. They Mean Nothing To Us, our World is Not Ruled by the United States. We Have Our Own Scientific Ways of Doing Things in South Africa.” -- Official Statement by Nelson Mandela & Nelson Mandela Foundation Spokesperson, Ms. Zelda Le Grange, 11 October 2002 (in response to ‘Are the NM Foundation aware of the 20,000 US Special Virus Cancer Program Scientific documentation, documenting that AIDS is a manmade Biological Warfare Depopulation Virus) [14 Jan 2004: Notice of Legal and Political Delivery: Elimination of Executive Authorities Plausible Deniability: Iatrogenic Origins of AIDS Theory (PDF:3493K24)]



2003: The Dept. of Defence: Surgeon General conducted an investigation of the Iatrogenic Origins of AIDS Theory: (a) The Surgeon General was in the Service of the State, employed by the Dept. of Defence, who in such capacity conducted an investigation into the Iatrogenic Origins of AIDS Theory, at the request of Lara Johnstone. The record of this Investigation is currently Top Secret/Restricted, including: (i) Names of witnesses interviewed, transcripts of their witness testimony; (ii) the evidentiary documentation submitted; (iii) the written reasons for any conclusions, justifying the entire investigation as ‘Top Secret’. [Restricted: 29 August 2003: Dept of Defence: Office of Surgeon General, Iatrogenic AIDS Origins Theory SA National Defence Force: Receipt Form for Top Secret/Restricted Doc’s (PDF:937K25)]

21

SA Institute of Race Relations: Governments Disdainful Indifference towards Concern About Crime SA Institute of Race Relations: Governments Disdainful Indifference towards Concern About Crime SA Institute of Race Relations: Governments Disdainful Indifference towards Concern About Crime 24 http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B4TzWFmSUmx9MjM5ODBlZDItY2Y2NC00NjRjLTkxOTctNTlhZDg2YzQwNWRl&hl=en 25 http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B4TzWFmSUmx9N2YzNDdiZjctNjJiMS00ODZjLThkZDgtYjUwNTJiZWQ3NWNi&hl=en 22 23

State v. Johnstone: Crimen Injuria: Notice of Intention

Page 7 of 12



2009: The SA Legislature have never conducted any Public Enquiry of the Iatrogenic Origins of AIDS Theory; nor made any efforts to declassify the Top Secret/Restricted Record of the Dept of Defence: Surgeon General’s Iatrogenic Origins of AIDS Theory Investigation.

[10j] The ZimbabweFication Future for Whites in South Africa: Since the Zimbabwe land seizures began a decade ago, some 4,000 owners (virtually all white) of Zimbabwe’s most productive farms have been forced out, along with their 320,000 workers (almost all black) and their families, amounting to 1m-2m people. Although around two-thirds of the land has been allocated to 140,000 poor black families, the rest has gone to Mr Mugabe’s relatives and comrades, most of whom have little or no interest in farming. Vast tracts of fertile farmland now lie fallow; agricultural output has slumped. One of Africa’s biggest food exporters is now one of its main recipients of food aid. Of 6,500 white commercial farmers in 1980, when Mr Mugabe came to power, only about 500 remain.

Last November, in a case brought by Mr Mike Campbell on behalf of 77 other white farmers, a tribunal of the Southern African Development Community (SADC), a 15-member regional group that includes Zimbabwe, ruled that all land seizures since 2000 were discriminatory and violated both domestic and SADC treaty law. Mr Mugabe and his ZANU-PF ministers claim that the tribunal has no legal standing. In a further violation of the tribunal’s ruling, around 170 white farmers are now being prosecuted in Zimbabwe’s courts for refusing to leave their land.

In June the tribunal held Zimbabwe to be in contempt of court for failing to enforce its earlier ruling and asked SADC to take up the matter urgently. But at the group’s summit earlier this month, no mention was made of this or any of the other matters bedevilling Mr Mugabe’s seven-month-old power-sharing arrangement with Mr Tsvangirai. It was a stunning victory for the 85-year-old president. In a speech this week, Mr. Tsvangirai promised to stand by the farmers. Yet he has blown hot and cold on the issue since he became prime minister. At first he said that not a single crime against white farmers would go unpunished, though no prosecutions have ever been brought.

According to exiled Zimbabwean businessman, Mr. Mutumwa Mawere, former CEO of Shabanie Mashaba Mine Holdings (SMMH), Mugabe does not believe that a white person can own land in Zimbabwe. Furthermore, many leaders within the SADC, share Mugabes views that white persons cannot be African and do not have a right to African land. Of legal matters, before Mugabe Judge’s, which involve a white person or farmer: he says “the outcome would be known before trial.” Mr. Mawere states that the biggest mistake that African governments made at independence was the failure to resolve the citizenship issue regarding whites. Finally, Mr. Mawere states that African leaders who fought alongside Mugabe in the 1960s, such as President Jacob Zuma, are no different from Mugabe; “President Jacob Zuma you see today is not different from Zuma the freedom fighter you saw during the liberation struggle and therefore, you should not expect him to support [white farmers] cases at the SADC summit.” For a white person to “trust someone [in Africa], with state power to be good to [them], then you must be living in another world.”26

[11] Nuremberg Principles & Citizens Privilege: Accordingly the Applicant herewith informs the Tyrannical and Corrupt State Officials of South Africa (c/o and via Respondents Two to Eight, witnessed by Respondents Nine & Ten), the Applicant has signed the Why We Are White Refugees Petition (why-we-are-white-refugees.co.nr), herewith requested to be submitted by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, on behalf of all White Refugee Petitioners, to the Minister of Citizenship & Immigration for Canada, to be submitted to the Federal Court of Canada, for their due process consideration, in the matter of Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and Brandon Carl Huntley; Court File No. IMA-4423-09.

[11a] The Applicant, as a Why We Are White Refugees Petitioner herewith requests the Federal Court of Canada, to take notice of the repeated intentional, deliberate, malicious and hostile indifference and unwillingness of the South African (and African) Government(s), to provide for judicial and administrative due process and safety and security protections to the Applicant, and law-abiding, taxpaying ‘White Refugee’ citizens constitutional interests. If Canada, and other countries do not grant White Refugees convention status, then they will be condemning African White Refugees, to an intolerable situation in Africa, where their basic rights, security and lives, are in danger.

26

Speech in Rivonia, Johannesburg addressing guests at a meeting organised by the African Heritage Human Rights Forum, September 2009.

State v. Johnstone: Crimen Injuria: Notice of Intention

Page 8 of 12

[12] The following, is a schedule of documents that are material and relevant to this application, and are submitted, for paper and financial saving purposes on the Attached DATA DVD: Notice of Intention: Application for Leave & For Judicial Review, dated 11 September 2009 A.

Annexure AA: Legal Argument: which consists of: [AA.01] State v. Johnstone: Legal Argument dated 11 August 2009 27, as per 13 August 2009, Request to Cape Bar Human Rights and Pro Bono Committees: Request for: Impartial Record Keeping of Documentation: State v. Johnstone: Legal Argument, dated 11 August 2009 (PDF:1154K28), and two DATA DVD’s: [AA.02a] DATA DVD: Alternative Perspectives: 'Crimen Inuria' Concepts29, and [AA.02b] DATA DVD: Legalizing Evil II: Disobedience to Authority: A Political Necessity: P-al'Qaeda + TARBush = Catch 2230

B.

Annexure BB: Conviction Unofficial Written Reasons: Paraphrased (99% accurate) of Decision of Court A Quo/First Respondents Finding of Guilt in Capetown Magistrates Court, on 12 August 2009 (PDF:4060K31); in Magistrate’s Court File 14/1198/08

(previously # 17/1384/07), also known as SAPS File: CAS: 1340/7/07 (previously George: 572/02); received by the Applicant on 12 August 2009, during court proceedings, wherein the Magistrate found the Defendant/Applicant Guilty on three charges of Crimen Injuria.

C.

Annexure CC: Necessity & ‘Citizens Privilege’ Defence: which consists of: [CC.01] SA Law Commission: Issue Paper 6: Simplification of Criminal Justice Procedure (PDF:58K32), 1997, documenting Legitimacy Crisis & Inefficiency of Criminal Justice System: Ch: 2, 3 & 5; [CC.02] Civil Disobedience and the Necessity Defence (PDF:281K33), by John Alan Cohan, Pierce Law Review, Vol 6, No 1; which includes ‘Citizens Privilege’ and Nuremberg Principles Defence, et al; [CC.03] The Right to a Meaningful and Informed Participation in the Criminal Process,

by Fawzia Cassim, Unisa, Doctorate of Law Thesis, 2003: [a] Ch.3 Meaningful Informed Participation (PDF:68K34); [b] Ch.5 Right to Information (PDF:967K35); [c]Ch 6 The Right to Understand (PDF:198K36); [d] Ch 10 Right to Present One’s Case (PDF:321K37), etc.

D.

Annexure DD: Jury Nullification Defence: which consists of: [DD.01] The International Development of the Jury: The Role of the British Empire (PDF:400K38), by Richard Vogler, Sussex University, UK; [DD.02] Lay Participation in South Africa: From Apartheid to Majority Rule (PDF:229K39), by Milton Seligson, S.C., Senior Counsel of the High Court of SA, Member of Cape Bar, Capetown, SA; [DD.03] A Juror’s Handbook: Citizens Guide to Jury Duty (PDF:96K40), by James Joseph Duane, Associate Professor at Regent Law School in Virginia Beach, Virginia; which includes Jury Nullification: The Top Secret Constitutional Right.

27

http://crimeninuria.blogspot.com/2009/08/court-proceedings-of-12-august-2009.html http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B4TzWFmSUmx9ZmI5NDBhMmUtOTY1Mi00NjgzLThiNjMtMjFmMzU4Y2IyY2U2&hl=en 29 http://crimeninuria.blogspot.com/2009/08/la-11-aug-data-dvd-12-alternative.html 30 http://crimeninuria.blogspot.com/2009/08/la-11-aug-data-dvd-22-07-05-23.html 31 http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B4TzWFmSUmx9OTlmOTljYTQtMmI5MS00ZGZkLWFiN2ItNzY0Y2RkZGQ0MTQ5&hl=en 32 http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B4TzWFmSUmx9ZTBmNDM2NTAtMGIzNi00ZjQ1LTgzNGEtYTU4YTE4OTVjN2Nk&hl=en 33 http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B4TzWFmSUmx9ZGMwMGVjOTctNjg4Mi00NmQ0LWFmOGItNzE3NjI1NTEyZmJl&hl=en 34 http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B4TzWFmSUmx9YTUwODMwYzktMDIyMi00ZTMwLTg1MTUtNmVmMDEyN2NhZDY1&hl=en 35 http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B4TzWFmSUmx9ZjdmYTBlYmMtMjY5Yi00N2U1LWFlZmQtMDJmNmFmMzFiMGE1&hl=en 36 http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B4TzWFmSUmx9NTYzOWFiNGQtNzhiNC00NDI2LTkzMDgtOTUxMWVkMTQ1Zjg0&hl=en 37 http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B4TzWFmSUmx9NDFmZDJmNzgtMjE5ZC00ZDdkLWFmZGYtN2E3NmY2MjEzM2Q4&hl=en 38 http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B4TzWFmSUmx9NDQzMjRlZTktOTNmMy00MDM5LWI0NTUtOTQ0OWRmZWI1ZTlj&hl=en 39 http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B4TzWFmSUmx9NmIyNzE0YWEtMWMyNi00NDBmLTkzOGMtMTQwZDhjMWNmODRm&hl=en 40 http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B4TzWFmSUmx9NDhmYTdjYjMtY2Y3MC00NmU2LTkxMjgtNjJiOTUzYTg0M2Ew&hl=en 28

State v. Johnstone: Crimen Injuria: Notice of Intention

Page 9 of 12

E.

Annexure EE: Canada IRB Ruling 27 Aug 2009: The decision of Board Member William Davis of the Canadian Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board (the “RPD”) dated August 27, 2009, in file number MA8-04910: Brandon Carl Huntley41 (PDF:21K42) (Pages 11-16).

F.

Annexure FF: Why We Are White Refugees: which includes: [FF.01a] Why We Are White Refugees, Afrikaner Genocide Report (PDF:110K43), includes (a) Alphabetical Listing of Farm Murders: A – Z; (b) 2008 Farm Murders in South Africa: Brief Summaries; (c) Genocide Watch 2002 Report on Boer Farm Murders; [FF.01b] FF.01a was submitted to Respondent Eight in June 2009; c/o Respondent Ten, as an attachment to: Nobel Institute: Nobel Peace Prize Committee: Notice of Legal and Political Delivery44 (PDF:123K45).

[FF.02a] Why We Are White Refugees Petition to: Canadian Federal Court46 PDF:111K47); in the matter of Minister of Citizenship and Immigration v Brandon Carl Huntley; [FF.02b] Murder in South Africa (PDF:159K48), by Robert McCafferty; [FF.02c] The South African Police Service: An Organisation on the Brink of Collapse49 (PDF:198K50), by SAPS Specialist Ivan Myers; [FF.02d] Dr. Gregory Stanton: The Eight Stages of Genocide51; [FF.02e] Carte Blanche: A Bloody Harvest, Boer Genocide, by Susan Puren52; [FF.02f] Minister of Safety & Security53: Charles Nqakula: White Complainants about Crime, can Leave the Country; [FF.02g] SA Institute of Race Relations: Governments Disdainful Indifference towards Concern About Crime (PDF:36K54); [FF.02h] Democratic Alliance: Auditor-General’s report reveals 79% of emergency [911/10111] calls are abandoned (PDF:36K55).

[FF.03a] Letter Mailed to Minister of Citizenship & Immigration, If Canada capitulates to RSA: I herewith request Contact Information: To File Documentation substantiating Huntley’s Refugee Application, of White Persecution Claims56 (PDF:26K57) [FF.04a] 142 SA Academics Get It Wrong on Crime (PDF:128K58); [FF.04b] Brandon Huntley: An Open Letter to Canada (PDF:121K59): 142 Academics Denounce Granting of Refugee Status to White South African; [FF.04c] Statistics SA: Victims of Crime Survey (PDF:3930K60), 1998; [FF.04d] Democracy SA: Public Opinion on National Priority Issues: Ch. 11: Crime (PDF:31K61); [FF.04e] Institute for Security Studies: National Victim of Crime Survey (PDF:57K62), SA, 2003; [FF.04f] Paralyzed by Fear: Perceptions of Crime and Violence in South Africa (PDF:89K63) [FF.05] The Great South African Land Scandal64, by Dr. Phillip du Toit, which documents the Zimbabwefication of South Africa’s Food Security, and includes Ch. 16: Slaughter -The Farm Murder Plague (PDF:124K65): the murder rate of South African commercial farmers, is highest for a specific group in the world – 313 per 100 000.

41

http://why-we-are-white-refugees.blogspot.com/2009/09/transcript-of-irb-william-davis-ruling.html http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B4TzWFmSUmx9OGRmZTNkZDMtMzVlOS00Y2RlLWIyZDYtNzFkZWZkMzUzZTJi&hl=en 43 http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B4TzWFmSUmx9MDRkOTJjNjItY2JhZi00YTEwLWFhNjEtY2RhMzViYjVmZmI3&hl=en 44 http://crimeninuria.blogspot.com/2009/06/nobel-institute-norwegian-nobel.html 45 http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B4TzWFmSUmx9MjcyNDFjMzAtNzJkOC00MmUyLWIwMTAtYjNmMzNhODAwMjZk&hl=en 46 http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/minister-of-citizenship-immigration-canada 47 http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B4TzWFmSUmx9OTRjMzM0Y2QtNzVlYi00OWJkLTkxYjEtZjI1ZjFlMzczYjRh&hl=en 48 http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B4TzWFmSUmx9M2ViZDRlOTMtYjI2MC00N2JmLTgwOTgtNDFmNzUzODI2M2Fk&hl=en 49 http://why-we-are-white-refugees.blogspot.com/2009/09/scorpions-saps-hostility-report-saps-on.html 50 http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B4TzWFmSUmx9MGI3NTQ4YTgtOTJkNC00ZDEzLTllODUtNDI5MzBjM2JhZjAw&hl=en 51 http://why-we-are-white-refugees.blogspot.com/2009/09/wwawr-petition-to-federal-court.html 52 http://why-we-are-white-refugees.blogspot.com/2009/09/wwawr-petition-to-federal-court.html 53 http://why-we-are-white-refugees.blogspot.com/2009/09/wwawr-petition-to-federal-court.html 54 http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B4TzWFmSUmx9MWEwMTM4ZWYtMWNkYS00YTE3LThmMjMtYjhjNGIwNjczMTVi&hl=en 55 http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B4TzWFmSUmx9YjllNWQyNmQtZTBkNy00ODYzLTkzNTMtN2I5Y2I5MGM0YTg4&hl=en 56 http://why-we-are-white-refugees.blogspot.com/2009/09/from-lara-johnstone-to-min-jason-kenney.html 57 http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B4TzWFmSUmx9NDY2NThlZWItNzk2ZS00NWFiLTg2YzYtODI1ODNiYmU3MzM5&hl=en 58 http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B4TzWFmSUmx9OWMyZWMzMjgtNGMzNC00NTBlLTk3ZDAtODVlYWRjMmJkNzRk&hl=en 59 http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B4TzWFmSUmx9MmJhN2FmODQtNGQxOC00OTQxLTkzNjctZjU4ZWUzYTg2ZGEz&hl=en 60 http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B4TzWFmSUmx9ZDM2NjM5ZmYtNjg0OC00ZmM4LWFjZDYtMDU3MzhmMDhmOGIz&hl=en 61 http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B4TzWFmSUmx9OGZlZTBhNmItYTQwYS00MjdiLWIzNGYtYmVhOWNhYTNhYjU4&hl=en 62 http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B4TzWFmSUmx9YjEwMzdjYmEtNmNkOS00M2FhLTkwZjAtMWFhZWVjODdhYTFk&hl=en 63 http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B4TzWFmSUmx9ODBlZjdmNWEtMGUwOS00ZGRlLTkyMDEtNmI2NDY3MTljNTlm&hl=en 64 http://why-we-are-white-refugees.blogspot.com/2009/09/huntley-victim-of-his-race-failure-of.html 65 http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B4TzWFmSUmx9ZmY3YmYxMDktMThiZi00YTM5LWI5MWItNTI0NGZlOGQyMTIy&hl=en 42

State v. Johnstone: Crimen Injuria: Notice of Intention

Page 10 of 12

[13] The following Affidavits attached hereto will be used in support of this application: G.

Annexure GG: Affidavit of Dr. Leonard George Horowitz, evidencing the Origin of AIDS, sourcing from Hepatitus B Vaccine Experiments by Agents and Agencies of the Federal Government of the United States of America, and the Merck Pharmaceutical Company (PDF:314K66)

H.

Annexure HH: Affidavit of Dr. Brad Blanton, evidencing the legal, psychological, and socio-political ‘citizens privilege’, Nuremberg Principles skills and competencies of Individual Responsibility, required for acts of civil disobedience to perceived illegitimate authority; and their application to the common law ‘reasonableness test’.

(PDF:128K67)

I.

Annexure JJ: Founding Affidavit of Lara Johnstone; in support of Notice of Intention: Application for Leave and for Judicial Review (PDF:370K68)

[14] The following Proof of Service Affidavit will be used in support of this Notice: Affidavit of Lara Johnstone in Support of Proof of Service of Notice of Intention: Application for Leave and for Judicial Review, marked Annexure KK.

Dated at George, Southern Cape, South Africa, on this day, the 22nd of September, 2009

Lara Johnstone, Pro Se Applicant Per: 16 Taaibos Avenue Heatherpark, George, 6529 Tel: (044) 870 7239 TO: REGISTRAR OF THE HIGH COURT High Court: Western Cape Division Capetown AND TO:

FIRST RESPONDENT: MAGISTRATE LOUW Capetown Magistrates Court

AND TO:

SECOND RESPONDENT (INCL. RESPONDENTS THREE TO EIGHT): DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS: Senior Prosecutor Mr. Jacobs Senior Prosecutor’s Office Capetown Magistrates Court Acting on Behalf of:

AND TO:

66 67 68

Hon. Patricia de Lille Mr. Thabo Mbeki Mr. Bulelani Ngcuka Mr. Jackie Selebi Mr. B.M. Skosana Mr. Nelson Mandela

Third Respondent Fourth Respondent Fifth Respondent Sixth Respondent Seventh Respondent Eighth Respondent

NINTH RESPONDENT: MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP & IMMIGRATION, CANADA The Honourable Jason Kenney, P.C., M.P. Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 1L1

http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B4TzWFmSUmx9NTJjODhkZjItNmE5MS00ZmVjLTllNmItMjZhZDIzZmRmMjcx&hl=en http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B4TzWFmSUmx9YzRlZTE5Y2EtOWQ0Mi00YTA0LTk2YmUtOGI1NTcwMjBiZTAw&hl=en http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B4TzWFmSUmx9OTY4ODQxMGQtZWM3ZC00NTM4LWExNjQtYTRkYWQ0Yjk3OGQx&hl=en

State v. Johnstone: Crimen Injuria: Notice of Intention

Page 11 of 12

Per: John H. Sims, Q.C. Deputy Attorney General of Canada Ontario Reg. Office, Exchange Tower 130 King St. West, Suite 3400 Toronto, Ontario, M5X 1K6 Tel: (416) 973 0965 | Fax: (416) 954 8982 Per:

UNHCR Mr. Antonio Guterres United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees Case Postale 2500, CH-1211 Geneve 2 Depot, Suisse Tel (41) 22 739 8111 Per:

AND TO:

Consul-General Irene Flückiger Consul General of Switzerland No. 1 Thibault Square 26th Floor (Cnr. Long Str./Strijdom) Capetown 8001 P O Box 563, Capetown 8000 Tel: +27 (21) 418 3665 | Fax: +27 (21) 418 3688

TENTH RESPONDENT: THE NOBEL INSTITUTE: NORWEGIAN NOBEL COMMITTEE Thorbjørn Jagland (Chair); Kaci Kullmann Five (Deputy Chair) Henrik Ibsens Gate 51, No-0255 Oslo, Norway Tel: (47) 22 12 93 00 | Fax: (47) 22 12 93 10 Per: H.E. Ambassador Mr Tor Christian Hildan Royal Norwegian Consulate, Cape Town 17th Floor, Southern Life Centre, 8 Riebeek Street P.O. Box 4446, Cape Town 8000 Tel: +27 21 418 1276 | Fax: +27 21 418 1275

AND TO:

[Impartial Record Keeping Purposes] Adv. Anton Katz Cape Bar: Human Rights Committee 56 Keerom St., Chambers, Capetown

State v. Johnstone: Crimen Injuria: Notice of Intention

Page 12 of 12