10-02-22: Ctr Constitutional Rights: Adv. de Havilland: One Meaning Only for Kaffir Dictatorship

FW de Klerk Foundation & Center for Constitutional Rights Endorsement of ‘Liberal White Guilt One Meaning Only for Kaffir’ Dictatorship: No ‘Kaffir’ Freedom of Speech The Affidavit of Brad Blanton, Ph.D, 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[9]), states among others, that: 

Hon. Mrs. De Lille, and the NPA Senior Prosecutor conducted a political and legal prosecution and persecution campaign against Johnstone.



If South Africa does not value non-violent civil disobedience free speech dissent, as one of its hallmarks, where ‘civil disobedience’ is defined as: “a public, non-violent, conscientious yet political act contrary to law usually done with the aim of bringing about a change in the law or policies of the government”; then it is not a democratic country.



The law of crimen injuria is a law so ridiculous, it appears to date back to a belief in curses from witchdoctors.



Confirms Johnstone’s culture and religion as that of Radical Honesty; namely to non-violently tell another the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help me God; with a commitment to remaining in the conversation until sincere forgiveness has occurred.



Johnstone’s defence of non-violent civil disobedience political necessity defence was justified and accurate.



Johnstone’s opinion that there is a significant difference between posed forgiveness and real forgiveness and that this difference is almost always avoided by politicians, such as South Africa’s alleged Truth and Reconciliation politicians is entirely accurate.

F.W. de Klerk Foundation & Center for Constitutional Rights: Adv. N. de Havilland: 05 March 2010 “The goals of the Centre for Constitutional Rights (the Centre) are to promote the values, rights and principles in the Constitution; to monitor developments, including draft legislation that might affect the Constitution; to inform people and organisations of their constitutional rights; and to assist people and organisations to claim their rights. The Centre is a unit of the F W de Klerk Foundation, which is a registered nonprofit organisation.

[9]

http://www.scribd.com/doc/20888675/HH-09-09-18-Affidavit-of-Brad-Blanton-Nuremberg-Principles-citizens-privilege-BradNotarySigned

“If freedom of speech is taken away, then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.”

-- George Washington

South Africa is a constitutional democracy which observes and protects the full spectrum of human rights, including the rights to freedom of expression and dissent.

Its record, in this regard, is recognized nationally and internationally, inter alia by the respected human rights organization Freedom House in New York.

We support both Ms de Lille’s right not to be harassed and not have her dignity impaired and Dr Blanton’s right to freedom of expression, provided that it does not amount to propaganda for war, incitement of imminent violence, or advocacy of hatred that is based on race, ethnicity, gender or religion, and that constitutes incitement to cause harm.

We do not agree with the original decision of the Canadian Immigration and Refugee Board to grant Mr Brandon Huntley refugee status on the grounds that he “was a victim [of persecution] because of his race rather than a victim of criminality, who presented clear & convincing proof of state & security forces’ inability or unwillingness to protect him.” Neither do we agree with the views expressed in the affidavit by Dr Brad Blanton Ph.D that is quoted in your letter.

Accordingly, we regret that we cannot assist you with this matter.”

[Response to questions requesting clarification of comment; has been ‘Deliberate Indifference’] http://www.scribd.com/doc/28224667/10-02-22-Ctr-Const-Rights-Adv-N-de-Havilland

Table of Contents: 22 February 2010: Radical Honesty SA Letter to FW de Klerk Foundation: Request F.W. de Klerk Foundation & Center for Constitutional Rights: Adv. N. de Havilland Official Comment on Free Speech Legal Issue: American politician and author Dr. Brad Blanton accuses SA Gov. of conducting a legal prosecution and persecution campaign against non-violent civil disobedience Radical Honesty White Refugee Free Speech dissenter.

05 March 2010: Response from FW de Klerk Fnd/Ctr for Constitutional Rights Adv. de Havilland, Center for Constitutional Rights; RE: Request Comment on Free Speech Legal Issue

06 March 2010: Response to Adv. De Havillands ‘Liberal White Guilt One Meaning Only for Kaffir Dictatorship’: Note: No Response was received from FW de Klerk Foundation / Center for Constitutional Rights to amend their endorsement for ‘One Meaning Only for Kaffir Dictatorship’; or to deny that they enjoyed being stuck in their “Kaffiresque Paranoid Liberal Politically Correct Straight-jacket.”

17 March 2010 (St. Patricks Day): Notice to FW de Klerk Foundation of Final ‘Liberal White Guilt One Meaning Only for Kaffir’ Dictatorship Elite Report: No Thanks to Kaffir Free Speech Rule of Law. 31 Editors, TV News Producers & Radio Station Manager, etc; 09 Political Parties & Government Bodies; 12 Non-Profit Human Rights Related Org’s, including Mandela & De Klerk Foundations; 09 University Rectors & Vice Chancellors; 79 TRC Academics who Petitioned Canadian Charge D’Affaires objecting to IRB granting Brandon Huntley ‘White Refugee’ status.

“If freedom of speech is taken away, then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.”

-- George Washington

22 February 2010 Adv. Nikki de Havilland, Director Center for Constitutional Rights Tygerberk Office Park 163 Hendrik Verwoerd Drive Plattekloof, Capetown, 7500 Tel: (021) 930 3622 Fax: (021) 930 3898 Email: info@cfcr.org.za CC: Canadian High Commissioner: Ref: IRB RULING: MA8-04910: Brandon C. Huntley[1] CC: UNHCR: White Refugee Memo to UNHCR[2] CC: Mr. Brandon Huntley; c/o & via: Attorney Russell Kaplan Adv. De Havilland,

Request Center for Constitutional Rights’ Official Comment on Free Speech Legal Issue: Non-violent civil disobedience Radical Honesty expression of Dissent to Politically Correct Tyrannical Insanity.

American politician and author Dr. Brad Blanton accuses SA Government of conducting a legal prosecution and persecution campaign against non-violent civil disobedience Free Speech dissenter.

It is assumed that your organisation’s support for democratic values, would agree that: If South Africa does not value non-violent civil disobedience free speech dissent, as one of its hallmarks, where ‘civil disobedience’ is defined as: “a public, non-violent, conscientious yet political act contrary to law usually done with the aim of bringing about a change in the law or policies of the government”; then it is not a democratic country.

It is further assumed, that if you were informed of the South African government’s legal prosecution and persecution of any non-violent truth-telling civil-disobedient Free Speech South African citizen; you would wish to express your democratic objections thereto.

As you are no doubt aware, on 27 August 2009, the Canadian Immigration & Refugee Board (IRB) granted white South African, Brandon Huntley, Official Canadian Refugee Status[3]: The IRB ruling found Huntley “was a victim [of persecution] because of his race rather than a victim of criminality, who presented clear & convincing proof of state & security forces’ inability or unwillingness to protect him.”

The ANC SA political elite demanded the Canadian government overturn the IRB’ ruling; and Jason Kenney, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, was politically pressured with the dreaded ‘r’ word to launch an Application of Review of the IRB’s decision[4]. The liberal South African academic[5] and media elite far and wide condemned Huntley alleging that persecution of whites in

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5]

http://why-we-are-white-refugees.blogspot.com/p/white-refugee-petition.html http://why-we-are-white-refugees.blogspot.com/p/memo-to-unhcr.html http://why-we-are-white-refugees.blogspot.com/2009/09/transcript-of-irb-william-davis-ruling.html http://why-we-are-white-refugees.blogspot.com/2009/09/federal-court-review-application-min-of.html http://why-we-are-white-refugees.blogspot.com/2009/09/criminal-victimization-of-whites-heres.html

“If freedom of speech is taken away, then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.”

-- George Washington

South Africa, does not exist; and complaints filed with the SAPS are always professionally investigated.

On 22 September 2009 an Application for Review in the High Court, Western Cape # 19963-09 (PDF[6]) [Proof of Service (PDF[7])]; was filed protesting against political and legal prosecution and persecution by SA politicians and State officials. On 12 October 2009, complaint WC-2009-O455BS (PDF[8]) was also filed with the SA Human Rights Commission, with the same allegations.

Dr. Brad Blanton, psychologist, best selling author, activist, President and CEO of Radical Honesty Enterprises, founder of the Center for Radical Honesty, Candidate for U.S. Congress of the United States from Virginia in 2004 and 2006; filed an expert witness affidavit, on behalf of the ‘White Refugee’, in both aforementioned applications.

The Affidavit of Brad Blanton, Ph.D, 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[9]), states among others, that:  Hon. Mrs. De Lille, and the NPA Senior Prosecutor conducted a political and legal prosecution and persecution campaign against the defendant, myself.  If South Africa does not value non-violent civil disobedience free speech dissent, as one of its hallmarks, where ‘civil disobedience’ is defined as: “a public, non-violent, conscientious yet political act contrary to law usually done with the aim of bringing about a change in the law or policies of the government”; then it is not a democratic country.  The law of crimen injuria is a law so ridiculous, it appears to date back to a belief in curses from witchdoctors.  Confirms my culture and religion as that of Radical Honesty; namely to non-violently tell another the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help me God; with a commitment to remaining in the conversation until sincere forgiveness has occurred.  My defence of non-violent civil disobedience political necessity defence was justified and accurate.  My opinion that there is a significant difference between posed forgiveness and real forgiveness and that this difference is almost always avoided by politicians, such as South Africa’s alleged Truth and Reconciliation politicians is entirely accurate.

Brief excerpts from Dr. Blanton’s affidavit: [2] I have a Ph.D degree in Psychology; I have been a clinical psychologist in Washington DC for 25 years.

[3] I am the author of 1) Radical Honesty: How to Transform Your Life by Telling The Truth; 2) Practicing Radical Honesty: How to Complete the Past, Stay in the Present and Build a Future with a Little Help From Your Friends, 3) Honest to God: A Change of Heart that can Change the World with Neil Donald Walsh, author of the Conversations with Good books; 4) Radical Parenting: Seven Steps to a Functional Family in a Dysfunctional World; 5) The Truthtellers: Stories of Success by Radically Honest People and 6) my biography, A New Kind of Trailer Trash.

[4] I am the founder and currently the President and CEO of Radical Honesty Enterprises SparrowHawk Book Publishing, the founder and board member of the Center for Radical Honesty, a non-profit corporation.

[6] I was a Candidate for Congress of the United States from Virginia in 2004 and 2006. I am the Pope of the Radical Honesty Futilitarian Church.

[6] [7] [8] [9]

http://www.scribd.com/doc/20878486/HC-WC-19963-09-Notice-of-Intention-Application-for-Leave-Judicial-Review-p12-Court-Stamped http://www.scribd.com/doc/20878135/KK-09-09-23-Affidavit-of-Lara-Johnstone-Proof-of-Service-of-Notice-of-Intention-P5-HCStamped http://www.scribd.com/doc/20923652/SAHRC-Complaint-Indictment-Crimes-Against-Humanity-Crime-of-Apartheid http://www.scribd.com/doc/20888675/HH-09-09-18-Affidavit-of-Brad-Blanton-Nuremberg-Principles-citizens-privilege-BradNotarySigned

“If freedom of speech is taken away, then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.”

-- George Washington

[7] Lara read one of my books, contacted me in 1999, attended some of my programs, worked for me briefly and has corresponded with me via email since then.

[8] Lara and I were arrested together while protesting campaign finance corruption in the Rotunda of the Capital Building in Washington DC in January of 2000. It was a nonviolent protest and we were jailed for less than six hours. If you are interested, the story and purpose of that action, is in my report for the second time I was arrested for the same cause a month later. It is in my book co-authored with Neil Donald Walsch, Honest to God: A Change of Heart that can Change the World.

[9] Lara is pissed off about abusive lying and withholding authorities who get by, by withholding, secrecy and hiding what they do in the name of national security and so am I. I don't know if Lara would ever be violent or not, but she hasn't been so far as I've known her, about ten years.

[10] She has worked hard to demand fairness and to oppose inequality among people.

[11] Lara has told me that she is the Defendant in criminal court proceedings, regarding Political Necessity/Civil Disobedience ‘crimen injuria[14]’ text messages[15], she sent to some politicians[16], at 15:23; 15:32 and 18:32 hrs, on 10 July; and at 10:23 and 11:32 hrs on 16 July 2007; which are alleged to be ‘insults to the dignity’ of the Politicians.

[16] The ‘social contract’ is a socio-political and legal agreement between citizens and government. For the purpose of this matter, a healthy social-contract exists, when men and women in government respect the rights of its people, by guaranteeing and, in fact, encouraging their right to speak out, to criticize irresponsible leadership, and to hold their government accountable for its failures and actions.

[17] The State’s argument is that the Defendants civil disobedience acts, should be judged in terms of whether the man on the Clapham omnibus considers the defendants actions of civil disobedience ‘reasonable’ or not; and if unreasonable, accordingly ‘unlawful’.

[18] The Defendant argues that Stanley Milgram’s studies on Obedience, demonstrate that actions of civil disobedience, to perceived illegitimate authority, require certain emotional, psychological, legal and political skills and competencies that the man on the Clapham omnibus lack; and accordingly the reasonableness test to be applied is not that of the man on the Clapham omnibus, but the test of the ordinary skilled person exercising and professing to have that particular special skill.

[22] The Milgram experiment was designed to simulate the conditions in which Eichmann operated, and to determine how many individuals would – like Eichmann – follow orders and be obedient to the system in which they operated; and how many would practice civil disobedience and refuse to be obedient to perceived illegal authority. Milgram’s experiment revealed that a significant majority of the population – 65%, like Eichmanns millions of accomplices – merely follow orders, irrespective whether the orders violate their deepest moral beliefs; only 35 % possessed the skills and competencies for civil disobedience.

[30] Lara submits that any reasonable person, with 37% or 8% (Milgram speak) skills and competencies, would have asked themselves some of the following questions, in evaluating her Political Necessity and Radical Hon(our)sty ‘criminal acts’. I agree.

[14]

Crimen Injuria & Reasonableness: a fundamental prong of determining the unlawfulness of Crimen Injuria, is what is called ‘the criterion of reasonableness’. This is an objective test; and it requires the conduct complained of to be tested against the prevailing norms of society, in order to determine whether such conduct can be classified as wrongful.

[15] SMS @ 15:23 hrs, on 10 July 2007: [Be My Guest Kaffir! Quote SAP George Case 572-02, U Kaffir Moron Imbecile] SMS @ 15:32 hrs on 10 July 2007: [U r 1 stupid dumb kaffir bitch. Don’t u fucking dare say I didn’t warn u, u goddamn kaffir hypocrite! Lara Johnstone] SMS @ 18:32 hrs on 10 July 2007: [As usual u gutless 2faced hypocrite coloured kaffir imbecile, U r all talk & no action. SAP # 572/02 U rotting excuse 4 a brain!] SMS @ 10:23 hrs on 16 July 2007: [So Your Message to JAG is: “FUCK U, FUCK STARH, & AIDS IS A 5* SMS @ 11:32 hrs on 16 July KAFFIR DIE B/W DEPOP’N PROGRAM. BEST INVENTION SINCE ‘MANHATTEN’, USURY, RAPE & TORTURE”?]

2007: [Press Release: PDLille 2 LJohnstone: “FUCK U, FUCK STARH, & AIDS IS A 5* KAFFIR DIE B/W DEPOP’N PROGRAM. BEST INVENTION SINCE ‘MANHATTEN, USURY, RAPE & TORTURE”] [16] Lara Johnstone: “The factual truth:. I sent the SMS’s to six tough South African politicians, c/o the Primary Plaintiff, who: (i) I had been dealing with on this issue, since 2002; spoken to, written dozens of documents, including documents wherein I defined what I mean, when I use the word “Kaffir”, (ii) I had spoken to 15 minutes before I sent her the ‘crimen injuria’ SMS’s, for her forwarding, where we had a heated discussion, which was finally terminated by her with the words “Fuck Your [Legal Military] Document. Fuck Your Racist Conspiracy Theories about the [Manmade Biological Warfare] Origins of AIDS; and Fuck You!”

“If freedom of speech is taken away, then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.”

-- George Washington

[31] To determine the reasonableness of Lara’s alleged criminal ‘civil disobedient’ act, individuals with the legal, political, etc. skills and competencies, would need to determine the reasonableness, or not, of Lara’s political necessity ‘Offer of Proof’ allegations, which motivated her ‘civil disobedient’ criminal act.

[33] As a ‘reasonable’ Radical Honesty Politician, Psychologist, Activist and Pope, I think that: I)

The law Lara is being prosecuted for is ridiculous and dates back to a belief in curses from witch doctors.

II)

Even though Lara is, like me, crazy and always asking for trouble, she is being ridiculously prosecuted, and her defence is justified and accurate and her opinion that there is a significant difference between posed forgiveness and real forgiveness is entirely accurate and, so far, almost always avoided by politicians.

Dr. Blanton’s affidavit was filed as an expert witness affidavit in support of the High Court, Western Cape Application for Review: Case Number 19963-09 (PDF[10]) [Proof of Service (PDF[11])]; which states among others: [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.

[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 anarchy (PDF[12]).

[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.

[10]

http://www.scribd.com/doc/20878486/HC-WC-19963-09-Notice-of-Intention-Application-for-Leave-Judicial-Review-p12-Court-Stamped http://www.scribd.com/doc/20878135/KK-09-09-23-Affidavit-of-Lara-Johnstone-Proof-of-Service-of-Notice-of-Intention-P5-HCStamped 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://www.scribd.com/doc/16788940/ & http://www.scribd.com/doc/20520264/ & http://www.scribd.com/doc/16789736/ [11] [12]

“If freedom of speech is taken away, then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.”

-- George Washington

[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.

Background Information: On 10 July 2007, I telephoned Mrs. Patricia De Lille on her cellphone, to request her help on a legal matter. I had phoned to confirm that she had received legal document, Official Notice to RSA Goverment (PDF[13]) I had sent to her office; to make sure she understood it was time-sensitive and required a response by 18 July 2007, and to make sure she understood the request that she foreword the legal document on my behalf to various SA politicians and the South African government. She got angry, and ended the telephone discussion with: “Fuck Your [Legal Military] Document. Fuck Your Racist Conspiracy Theories about the [Manmade Biological Warfare] Origins of AIDS; and Fuck You!” I subsequently sent her five civil disobedience SMS responses, three on 10 July and two on 16 July, with among others, my cryptic K-word. As described in a legal document sent to the South African government; c/o & via Judge J.J. Fagan, dated 11 June 2004, 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’ (PDF[14]); when I use the word ‘Kaffir’, I generally use it in its original etymological meaning; someone who ‘knows the truth, and deliberately conceals it’ (PDF[15]).

On 18 July 2007, I was arrested (without an arrest warrant) by Insp. Christian, and detained for 33 days in Pollsmoor, before I finally saw a Magistrate on 22 August 2007, for a bail hearing. I filed a request to the Senior Prosecutor for a copy of the alleged original arrest warrant, but to this day the request has been denied, by being deliberately ignored (PDF[16]). The case dragged on for over two years, with never-ending postponements, which cost my parents over R20,000. When we could no longer afford an attorney, I was approved for Legal Aid financially, being indigent; but denied for politically, for reasons of ‘conflict of interest’. The Police refused to provide forensic evidence proving my cellphone conversation with Ms. De Lille, prior to me sending her the SMS’. Mrs. de Lille lied on the witness stand and perjured herself: she denied knowing me, or having had a telephone conversation with me, or having received any legal letters or documents from me, prior to her receiving my five SMS’.

Even though ‘crimen injuria’ can only be considered ‘unlawful’ in accordance with the legal principles of the ‘reasonableness’ test; the Magistrate ignored the fact that I had sent the SMS’ to Mrs. De Lille, as well as the five other SA politicians, and only Mrs. De Lille filed any charges; whereas all other five did not consider the matter a ‘serious insult to their dignity’. The Magistrate also ignored the expert witness affidavit of American politician, psychologist and best selling author, Dr. Brad Blanton, who ran for Congress in 2004 and 2006, who filed an expert witness affidavit (PDF[17]) on my behalf, accusing Mrs. De Lille and the NPA, on behalf of the South African government of conducting a political and legal prosecution and persecution witch-hunt of myself.

The Magistrate also ignored the expert witness affidavit (PDF[18]) of Dr. Leonard Horowitz, author of the bestselling Emerging Viruses: AIDS and Ebola: Nature, Accident or Intentional?[19].

[13]

http://www.scribd.com/doc/20520382/ and http://www.scribd.com/doc/4870062/ http://www.scribd.com/doc/20520264/AA-01-c-04-06-11-Proudly-SA-Parasite-Hypocrisy-Fraudulent-Rehabilitation-Boomerang http://www.scribd.com/doc/21768956/09-08-11-State-v-Johnstone-Legal-Argument-Political-Necessity-dated-11-August-2009-1-2-3-5-5 [16] http://www.scribd.com/doc/20520262/AA-01-b-08-12-28-State-v-Johnstone-Incomplete-Further-Particulars-to-Senior-Prosecutor-Jacobs [17] http://www.scribd.com/doc/20888675/HH-09-09-18-Affidavit-of-Brad-Blanton-Nuremberg-Principles-citizens-privilege-BradNotarySigned [18] http://www.scribd.com/doc/20889550/GG-09-09-11-Affidavit-of-Len-Horowitz-evidencing-Iatrogenic-AIDS-Origins-OrigSigned [19] http://astore.amazon.com/whitrefu-20/detail/0923550127 [14] [15]

“If freedom of speech is taken away, then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.”

-- George Washington

I was found guilty and sentenced to six months prison, suspended for 3 years. I have filed an application for In Forma Pauperis Council with the High Court, Western Cape, which was approved, and I was referred to Braam Swart and Partners (PDF[20]), who declined to accept the referral, for reasons of lack of legal experience in freedom of speech cases, and complexity of legal issues (PDF[21]). I filed a request to the Registrar to appoint me new In Forma Pauperis council & for Condonation (PDF[22]), and filed a request with the Cape Bar Pro Bono Committee, and various well known legal experts in Capetown requesting their help to assist the Registrar to recommend an appropriate legal firm for my representation (PDF[23]). The Cape Bar Pro Bono Committee have so far declined to provide such assistance, and I am still waiting for the Registrar to refer me to new In Forma Pauperis Legal Representation.

I also submitted the following Affidavits to the SAP in George last year, to file charges against Hon. Patricia de Lille and Senior Pros. Jacobs, but the SAPS refused to accept the Affidavits, to open a file for an investigation into the allegations:  Affidavit of Complaint to SAPS against Hon. Patricia de Lille for Perjury, Fraud and Persecution (PDF[24])  Affidavit of Complaint to SAPS against NPA: Senior Pros. Jacobs for Obstruction of Justice, Persecution and Corruption (PDF[25]) For the ‘White Refugee’ Court Record: American politician and author Dr. Brad Blanton, accuses SA Government of conducting a legal prosecution and persecution campaign against non-violent civil disobedience Free Speech dissenter.

Please clarify your Organisation’s official response to the Dr. Blantons allegations that:  If South Africa does not value non-violent civil disobedience free speech dissent, as one of its hallmarks, where ‘civil disobedience’ is defined as: “a public, non-violent, conscientious yet political act contrary to law usually done with the aim of bringing about a change in the law or policies of the government”; then it is not a democratic country.  Hon. Mrs. De Lille, and the NPA Senior Prosecutor conducted a political and legal prosecution and persecution campaign against the defendant, myself.  The law of crimen injuria is a law so ridiculous, it appears to date back to a belief in curses from witchdoctors.  The South African government are deliberately and intentionally punishing me for practicing my culture and religion of Radical Honesty: non-violently telling another the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help me God; with a commitment to remaining in the conversation until sincere forgiveness has occurred.  The South African government are deliberately and intentionally denying me my right to a defence; and ignoring the justification and accuracy of my non-violent civil disobedience political necessity defence.  That there is a significant difference between posed forgiveness and real forgiveness and that this difference is almost always avoided by politicians, including South Africa’s alleged Truth and Reconciliation politicians.

Respectfully Submitted,

Lara Johnstone Cell: (071) 170 1954.

[20]

http://www.scribd.com/doc/21801180/Registrar-In-Forma-Pauperis-Proceedings-Referral-of-S-v-J-Review-to-Braam-Swart-Partners http://www.scribd.com/doc/26795413/10-02-10-Braam-Swart-Partners-to-High-Court-In-FormaPauperis-Proceedings-L-Johnstone http://www.scribd.com/doc/21801317/09-10-28-Request-to-HC-WC-Registar-RE-In-Forma-Pauperis-Proceedings-Condonation [23] http://www.scribd.com/doc/23722325/09-10-28-Pro-Bono-Committees-HC-WC-In-Forma-Pauperis-Crimen-Injuria-Review [24] http://www.scribd.com/doc/20890746/EE-SAPS-Complaint-DeLille-Perjury-Fraud-Persecution-Affidavit-Signed [25] http://www.scribd.com/doc/20890741/FF-SAPS-Complaint-Pros-Jacobs-Obstruction-of-Justice-Persecution-Corruption-Signed [21] [22]

“If freedom of speech is taken away, then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.”

-- George Washington

05 March 2010: Response from FW de Klerk Foundation/Center for Constitutional Rights From: Nichola de Havilland Sent: Friday, March 05, 2010 5:02 PM To: jmcswan@mweb.co.za Subject: RE: Adv. de Havilland, Center for Constitutional Rights; RE: Request Comment on Free Speech Legal Issue Dear Ms Johnstone The goals of the Centre for Constitutional Rights (the Centre) are to promote the values, rights and principles in the Constitution; to monitor developments, including draft legislation that might affect the Constitution; to inform people and organisations of their constitutional rights; and to assist people and organisations to claim their rights. The Centre is a unit of the F W de Klerk Foundation, which is a registered non-profit organisation.

South Africa is a constitutional democracy which observes and protects the full spectrum of human rights, including the rights to freedom of expression and dissent. Its record, in this regard, is recognized nationally and internationally, inter alia by the respected human rights organization Freedom House in New York.

We support both Ms de Lille’s right not to be harassed and not have her dignity impaired and Dr Blanton’s right to freedom of expression, provided that it does not amount to propaganda for war, incitement of imminent violence, or advocacy of hatred that is based on race, ethnicity, gender or religion, and that constitutes incitement to cause harm.

We do not agree with the original decision of the Canadian Immigration and Refugee Board to grant Mr Brandon Huntley refugee status on the grounds that he “was a victim [of persecution] because of his race rather than a victim of criminality, who presented clear & convincing proof of state & security forces’ inability or unwillingness to protect him.”

Neither do we agree with the views expressed in the affidavit by Dr Brad Blanton Ph.D that is quoted in your letter.

Accordingly, we regret that we cannot assist you with this matter.

Yours faithfully Nichola de Havilland Adv N de Havilland Director Centre for Constitutional Rights

“If freedom of speech is taken away, then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.”

-- George Washington

06 March 2010: Response to Adv. De Havillands ‘Liberal White Guilt One Meaning Only for Kaffir Dicatorship’ Note: No Response was received from FW de Klerk Foundation / Center for Constitutional Rights to amend their endorsement for ‘One Meaning Only for Kaffir Dictatorship’; or to deny that they enjoyed being stuck in their “Kaffiresque Paranoid Liberal Politically Correct Straightjacket.”

From: Lara Johnstone Sent: Saturday, March 06, 2010 9:50 PM To: 'Nichola de Havilland'; 'info@cfcr.org.za' Subject: RE: Adv. de Havilland, Center for Constitutional Rights; RE: Confirmation Radical Honesty White Refugee Free Speech Legal Issue Adv. Nikki de Havilland, Director Center for Constitutional Rights Tygerberk Office Park 163 Hendrik Verwoerd Drive Plattekloof, Capetown, 7500 Tel: (021) 930 3622 Fax: (021) 930 3898 CC: Freedom House: McGuire, Barnes & K Beck Democracy and the Rule of Law: J Paulus Heritage Foundation: Elizabeth Lincicome & Matt Streit Adv. De Havilland, RE: Confirmation of Center for Constitutional Rights & F.W de Klerk Foundation Representation: RE: Radical Honesty White Refugee Free Speech Legal Issue Thank you for your response from the Center for Constitutional Rights to my request for comment RE: Liberal American politician, psychologist and author, Dr. Brad Blanton accuses SA Government of conducting a legal prosecution and persecution campaign against non-violent civil disobedience Free Speech dissenter.

Would you kindly be able to confirm whether your Comment serves as the Official comment for the F.W de Klerk Foundation: Mr. Dave Steward, whom I also contacted with a request for comment, but who has not yet acknowledged receipt or consequently responded.

Clarification of Interpretation Center for Constitutional Law statement: Specifically, you were provided with links to the original and all legal related documentation; and requested to please clarify the Center for Constitutional Rights official response to Dr. Blanton’s (an internationally recognized expert in among others ‘honesty in politics’, and ‘anger and sincere forgiveness’) allegations that:  If South Africa does not value non-violent civil disobedience free speech dissent, as one of its hallmarks, where ‘civil disobedience’ is defined as: “a public, non-

violent, conscientious yet political act contrary to law usually done with the aim of bringing about a change in the law or policies of the government”; then it is not a democratic country.  Hon. Mrs. De Lille, and the NPA Senior Prosecutor conducted a political and legal prosecution and persecution campaign against the defendant, Lara Johnstone.  The law of crimen injuria is a law so ridiculous, it appears to date back to a belief in curses from witchdoctors. Put differently, any society that values the principle of ‘crimen injuria; is one that values protecting the right of people with fragile ego’s to not be offended as more important, than protecting the right of Galileo's and Voltaire's to offend.  The South African government are deliberately and intentionally punishing Lara Johnstone for practicing her culture and religion of Radical Honesty: non-violently telling another the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth; with a commitment to remaining in the conversation until sincere forgiveness has occurred.  The South African government are deliberately and intentionally denying Lara Johnstone’s right to a defence; and ignoring the justification and accuracy of her non-violent civil disobedience political necessity defence.  That there is a significant difference between posed forgiveness and real forgiveness and that this difference is almost always avoided by politicians, including South Africa’s alleged Truth and Reconciliation politicians.

For example: I once asked Dr. Blanton that if sincere forgiveness ever occurred in South Africa; what would it look like? Dr. Blanton said something to the effect of: ‘The day South Africans can have a huge belly laugh and giggle like kids about the word ‘Kaffir’, about apartheid and the stupid shit both sides did, cause they couldn’t just sit down and have a fucking honest conversation like adults; is the day you know real sincere forgiveness has occurred. It may occur for those who have the emotional and psychological courage to experientially – in the guts of the living -- attain that transcendent perspective, by being honest about, and nonviolently sharing their anger, face to face, until sincere forgiveness occurs. Till then, the Truth and Reconciliation South Africans are just bullshitting themselves, but that’s what Fragile Ego cowards, who have no inner sense of dignity, and who rely on exterior arsekreeping for their sense of dignity do: bullshit themselves.’

South Africa’s Commitment to Ideological and Racial MobJustice vs. Impartial Rule of Law It is and remains a fascinating Serpico Milgramesque social science experiment to determine the percentage of organisations and individuals in South Africa who would happily find some excuse to blindly and obediently follow Politically Correct Eichmann, and who would practice what they preach about their alleged commitment to the rule of law for all, namely constitutional right to due process of law, free and fair trials, right not to be falsely arrested and detained, right to an internationally recognized legal defence, the right to an impartial adjudicating officer, and so on. But in South Africa, all you need to do is sprinkle any conversation with the word ‘Kaffir’, and it is virtually 99% guaranteed that Politically Correct Little Eichmanns critical thinking skills, rational thought processes, support for your legal constitutional rights, scatter down Orwellian black memory holes.

Who do you think are the only people in South Africa who do not become emotionally, psychologically, intellectually and legally retarded in their critical thinking faculties, when the word ‘Kaffir’ is sprinkled into the conversation? Perhaps those not living in an intellectual, Politically Correct Straight-jacket??

Interpretation of Center for Constitutional Rights comment: Request clarification where accurate and inaccurate: This is a little difficult for me to understand; South Africa/the Center do not value the Free Speech fundamental hallmark for a ‘democracy’ or ‘constitutional republic’ and irrespective of South Africa’s denial to its citizens of this fundamental hallmark of ‘democracy’; South Africa still wants to insist that it is a ‘democracy’?

Put differently: If you are legally required to have a legal marriage certificate to be considered legally married; how many courts of law, will consider you legally married without one? Yet the Center wants us to believe that South Africa is legally married to ‘democracy’, but when any citizen tries to find out where the hallmark ‘free speech’ marriage certificate is, then they find out that it does not exist?

Not only does South Africa not value or protect this fundamental hallmark of a true free speech democracy; but South Africa in fact has been legally persecuting and prosecuting someone for attempting to non-violently assert this right to freedom of speech as a fundamental hallmark. South Africa are legally and politically persecuting and prosecuting someone for pointing out that South Africa’s marriage certificate to ‘democracy’ does not exist! Instead of the state and civil society rushing to fix the problem, to make their commitments to a ‘rule-of-law’ constitutional republic, which respects all citizens rights to freedom of speech, and to thereby sign their commitment to the constitutional republic marriage; they are condoning the legal and political persecution, of the whistleblower pointing out the corruption that no marriage certificate exists! That Free Speech democracy in South Africa is a hoax!

The legal prosecution and persecution has consisted of a long train of abuses against my human rights; here are just a few, which were documented in the documents provided to you, but which your comment totally ignores; i.e your are either negligently or deliberately indifferent to:  I was illegal Arrest on 18 July 2007, subsequent to a charge of crimen injuria laid against me by Hon. Patricia de Lille, Leader for the Independent Democrats [08-1228: S v Johnstone: Incomplete Further Particulars: Letter to Senior Pros. Jacobs1]. I was arrested without an arrest warrant by Insp. Christian, who alleged that there were two outstanding warrants for me, but refused to provide the evidence for these alleged outstanding warrants. Subsequently my brother hired a lawyers, whose private investigator attempted to obtain these alleged ‘arrest warrants’. He was informed by his SAPS contact that the policeman did not have the relevant security clearance, because these alleged arrest warrants were ‘classified’.  Illegal Detention from 18 July to 22 August 2007 [08-12-28: S v Johnstone: Incomplete Further Particulars: Letter to Senior Pros. Jacobs2]  Denied Right to Bail Hearing within 24 Hours, and only provided a bail hearing 33 days after I was illegally arrested [08-12-28: S v Johnstone: Incomplete Further Particulars: Letter to Senior Pros. Jacobs3]

1 2 3

http://www.scribd.com/doc/20520262/ http://www.scribd.com/doc/20520262/ http://www.scribd.com/doc/20520262/

 Irregular and Illegal attempts by Plaintiff and Prosecutor to have me Certified [0812-28: S v Johnstone: Incomplete Further Particulars: Letter to Senior Pros.

Jacobs4] In an attempt to avoid me appearing in court on 19 July, the Prosecutor attempted to have me certified for ‘psychological observation’ by a State Psychologist. When I refused to answer the Psychologists questions, unless he provided me with a copy of the arrest warrant and alleged referral documents; he got nervous and sent me back to the Magistrates court. There I requested my telephone call to arrange for an attorney, was denied my telephone call, and the court orderly lied to the Magistrate that I refused to go to the courtroom.  Notice to Prosecutor and Police of Evidence for their Investigation that the Plaintiff committed Perjury in her ‘Charge Complaint’ [08-12-28: S v Johnstone: Incomplete Further Particulars: Letter to Senior Pros. Jacobs5] I provided the Investigating Police Officer and Senior Prosecutor with evidence that the Plaintiff had committed perjury in her original charge affidavit, by stating that I was unknown to her, when I had sent her dozens of documents, over a 5 year period, one of those a legal document delivered to her office, on my behalf by Mr. Tony Leon, Leader of the DA (PDF6). I had also spoken to the Plaintiff on the telephone 10 minutes before, I sent her and her fellow politician recipients; the five alleged ‘insulting’ SMS’s which included the word ‘kaffir’. I had called to confirm that she had received a document I had sent to her office: Official Notice to RSA Goverment (PDF7) I had sent to her office; to make sure she understood it was time-sensitive and required a response by 18 July 2007, and to make sure she understood the request that she foreword the legal document on my behalf to various SA politicians and the South African government. She got angry, and ended the telephone discussion with: “Fuck Your [Legal Military] Document. Fuck Your Racist Conspiracy Theories about the [Manmade Biological Warfare] Origins of AIDS; and Fuck You!”  Offer of Proof Hearing, to Plead to Political Necessity (PDF8): Neither the Prosecutor nor the Magistrate had any idea of ‘Offer of Proof’ hearing procedures.

Irrespective they did not say so, but simply pretended that they either knew, or that they couldn’t care. [Offer of Proof Hearing: Statement of Defendant9 | Documentation submitted as ‘Offer of Proof’ to plead to Political Necessity10]  Legal Argument submitted to Court, but Prosecutor objected and Magistrate Refused to Accept into Record. Consequently submitted for Safe Record Keeping to Cape Bar: Human Rights Committee. In order for ‘crimen injuria’ to be ‘unlawful’ the prongs of the ‘reasonableness test’ need to be applied. The exact same ‘Kaffir’ SMS’s were sent to 6 African/black politicians, but only one (the woman) found them an ‘insult to her dignity’; accordingly 83 % (5) of those in receipt of the ‘offensive SMS’s’ did not find them as justified to be unlawful; only 17% (1) did. In terms of the application of the reasonableness test, this would indicate that the majority of politicians who received the SMS’s may have found them offensive, but certainly not ‘unlawful’. Put differently those politicians perhaps support the Voltarian Free Speech. Hence according to the reasonableness test application, the SMS’s were not unlawful, and hence how could I be found

4

http://www.scribd.com/doc/20520262/ http://www.scribd.com/doc/20520262/ http://www.scribd.com/doc/19061104/090708-S-v-J-A-19-040129-Tony-Leon-Legal-Political-Del-Iatrogenic-AIDS-Origins 7 http://www.scribd.com/my_document_collections/2329981 8 http://www.scribd.com/doc/20520106/CC-02-Civil-Disobedience-and-Necessity-Defense-by-Pierce-Law-Review 9 http://www.scribd.com/doc/19056277/090708-S-v-Johnstone-A-19-Statement-of-Defendant-Justification-Defence-Political-Necessity 10 http://www.scribd.com/my_document_collections/2329209 5 6

guilty of any criminal act, that was not considered to be ‘unlawful’? [Legal Argument & Appeal documents11]  Guilty of a crime that is not unlawful: The Kangaroo court proceedings of legal prosecution and persecution continued, and I was found guilty of a crime that is not to be considered unlawful unless certain ‘reasonableness’ tests are met; which were not met in my case. I consequently filed an Application for Review of Conviction, and noted the fact that I appeared to be an ‘Unrepresented White Refugee’ (namely that not one alleged ‘rule of law’ organization in South Africa, appeared remotely perturbed that I had been arrested without an arrest warrant, detained without a bail hearing, convicted of an act that was legally not even an unlawful act, etc. [Notice of Intention: Application for Leave, and for Review documentation12]  Magistrate Approved Political Necessity Defence as Valid, but ignores application of its fundamental Tenet: Expert Witness Testimony, thereby breaching the ‘Political Necessity’ Formal Admissions Agreement: The Magistrate had approved me to plead to Political Necessity, but then denied me all the fundamental tenets of pleading to Political Necessity: expert witnesses, etc; thereby denying my defence and breaching the Defence Agreement. I accordingly filed a Formal Notice of Withdrawal of my Formal Admissions; and requested that the charges either be dropped, or that I be provided with a New Trial De Novo, under a New Magistrate; in accordance with Section 105 A, of the Criminal Procedure Act; which in any Formal Admission / Plea Agreement, allows for both the Prosecution and the Defendant to be free to negotiate, commit to, or withdraw from any Formal Admission / Plea Agreement made, at any time. Furthermore if the Prosecutor or the Accused withdraw from the agreement, the trial shall start de novo before another presiding officer. I included Affidavits providing the evidence for my allegations against the Plaintiff of Perjury, Fraud and Persecution; and against the Senior Prosecutor for Obstruction of Justice, Persecution and Corruption. The Kangaroo Court denied my application and I was sentenced to Six months prison, suspended for three years. [Notice of Intention: Correct the Record: Withdraw Formal Admissions documents13]  In Forma Pauperis Application for Review: I applied to the High Court Registrar for In Forma Pauperis Council, which was approved and I was referred to Braam Swart and Partners, who stated they had no freedom of speech legal expertise and the matter was to legally complex for them, and referred it back to the High Court Registrar. I informed the High Court, the matter was time sensitive, and that I wanted to state my application for Condonation, should the matter surpass the due date. I filed an application to the Cape Bar: Pro Bono Committee and Human Rights Committee to request they assist the Registrar with suggestions to whom my case could be referred to, with the relevant free speech expertise. Four months later, I am still waiting. [Request to High Court Registrar for In Forma Pauperis Council documents14] Conclusions of Rights Violated, to which Center for Constitutional Rights are Deliberately Indifferent: I have been illegally arrested and detained. I have been denied council (Legal Aid said the matter was a ‘conflict of interest’; plausibly another version of those who use the word ‘kaffir’ aren’t entitled to legal aid), denied my political necessity defence, denied a fair 11 12 13 14

http://www.scribd.com/my_document_collections/2328315 http://www.scribd.com/my_document_collections/2333061 http://www.scribd.com/my_document_collections/2335600 http://www.scribd.com/my_document_collections/2335903

impartial competent investigative police officer, prosecutor and magistrate. I was denied the right to be ‘innocent until proven guilty’; I was never found guilty of any crime in accordance with the legal requirements of the particular crime; but irrespective I have been found guilty of a crime that in a sense does not exist. I might as well have been found guilty for breathing, or being born. Not only have I been found guilty, I have been sentenced to 6 months prison, for a ‘crime’ that is not unlawful! But not to worry, slip in the word ‘kaffir’, and it is virtually guaranteed that all South African mob-justice organizations are lobotomized of their critical thinking skills and rational thought processes, and their support for the rule of law and guaranteed legal constitutional rights, scatter down Orwellian black memory holes.

Center for Constitutional Rights Deliberately Indifferent to Racially Motivated Crime in South Africa: You do not agree with the decision of the Canadian Immigration Refugee Board, but unlike the IRB who provided a comprehensive legal argument for the evidence it considered to come to its final conclusion15, the Center for Constitutional Rights ‘disagrees’ but provides no grounds for its disagreement?

Question 1: Is your disagreement based on your denial of ‘racially motivated’ crime in South Africa; in favour of ‘Poverty motivated’ crime, because radically motivated crime would indicate the ‘TRC’ to have failed?

Mr. Huntley was represented at the IRB by Attorney Mr. Russel Kaplan, a liberal, who himself had fled to Canada, during apartheid. Lara Kaplan testified about the ‘racially motivated’ attack on her brother, Robert; yet another liberal who had started a computer training academy dedicated to providing computer education for blacks.

According to Salon Magazine, in What Happened to Rob Kaplan[1] (PDF[2]), written in June 1997: Irnest Kaplan found his elder brother Rob, 34, near death in his Johannesburg home on May 1. Rob, who ran a computer training center for blacks, had been shot twice in the chest, stabbed, beaten, pistol-whipped and tortured for hours with a household heating iron by three Zulu-speaking robbers seeking the keys to a nonexistent safe.

The Kaplan incident was typical of the horrendous street crime that has enveloped South Africa. Carjackings, shootings, knifings and rapes have become so common that many newspapers have simply stopped reporting them unless the details are particularly grotesque -- a burning, for example, or a machete maiming. But Kaplan's Web site immediately attracted attention. In its first week it racked up 120,000 hits; in its second week, 1 million hits.

So far President Mandela's office has remained silent, no doubt aware of the racial dimension of the issue. The Kaplans are white and those complaining most vocally about violent crime are white. And the alleged perpetrators are mostly black. They almost always involve a high degree of gratuitous violence. Gang rape is a growing phenomenon.

Are these merely post-apartheid expressions of white racism? No, says former New York Police Commissioner William Bratton, who was asked to come up with a crime reduction proposal for South Africa's minister of police. “The situation seems to be getting worse ... The climate of fear has meant so many guns and people tend to 15 [1] [2]

http://why-we-are-white-refugees.blogspot.com/2009/09/transcript-of-irb-william-davis-ruling.html http://www.salon.com/june97/news/news2970604.html http://www.scribd.com/doc/25781841/97-06-04-Salon-Rob-Kaplan-Robbed-Tortured-Shot-3-Times-by-3-Zulu-Armed-Robbers-Linksfield-Jhb

shoot first. We did not meet a single person who did not know a victim of serious crime.” The former Lebanese ambassador, who fled the country after his house was broken into once too often, was quoted as saying that Beirut, even in its worst days, was safer than Johannesburg today.

The exodus of whites has grown since the advent of black majority rule, and crime is usually cited as the most compelling reason. As you read through Kaplan's site you get the feeling that for the average white South African, the guerrilla war of the apartheid era is not over -- it simply moved to their backyards, to their roads, stoplights, parking lots and to any place where they or their families are a target.

Has the situation in South African gotten much worse, as Commissioner Bratton predicted it would, unless South Africa showed some leadership, and gave up its ideological insanity attachment to the Poverty is the Root Cause of Criminality Illusion?[3] At the start of the recession, the two police chiefs who confidently announced that their cities' crime rates would remain recession-proof were Los Angeles Police Chief William Bratton and New York Police Commissioner Ray Kelly.

As New York Police Commissioner in the mid-1990s, Mr. Bratton pioneered the intensive use of crime data to determine policing strategies and to hold precinct commanders accountable—a process known as Compstat. Commissioner Kelly has continued Mr. Bratton's revolutionary policies, leading to New York's stunning 16year 77% crime drop.

The two police leaders were true to their word. In 2009, the city of L.A. saw a 17% drop in homicides, an 8% drop in property crimes, and a 10% drop in violent crimes.

In New York, homicides fell 19%, to their lowest level since reliable records were first kept in 1963.

The Compstat mentality is the opposite of root causes excuse-making; it holds that policing can and must control crime for the sake of urban economic viability.

According to the Committee of Enquiry into Farm Attacks Report[4], of July 2003: “The Committee also interviewed 15 prosecutors – all of them state advocates – in Bloemfontein, Cape Town, Kimberley, Pretoria and Pietermaritzburg. They were unanimously of the view that .. the degree of violence and cruelty exhibited during farm attacks was exceedingly high. Most state advocates attributed this extreme violence to racial hatred.”

According to Henri Boshoff, a military analyst with the Institute for Security Studies, in a January 2006 front page Saturday Star article, sophisticated urban criminals were exploiting the same “military precision” tactics used in farm attacks to hit homes in residential suburbs in South Africa’s major cities. Such military tactics include: (i) reconnaissance of the target beforehand; (ii) Secret signals left outside the house for other members of the gang; (iii) Heavily armed gangs; (iv) Use of violence including rape.

Is the Center for Constitutional Rights and the F.W de Klerk Foundation unaware, or if not, deliberately indifferent to the fact that criminals in South Africa, and those who yearn for ‘street cred’ amongst their fellow criminal gangsters, have a racial hierarchy of victims. It is only the naïve who don’t know that the murder, torture or rape of an Afrikaner farmer, or farmers wife or family, receives higher ‘street cred’ than the murder, rape or torture of a poor black man or woman. Are you totally oblivious to this racial hierarchy of victims, and [3] [4]

http://why-we-are-white-refugees.blogspot.com/2010/01/crime-theory-demolished-poverty-is-not.html http://why-we-are-white-refugees.blogspot.com/2009/09/why-we-are-white-refugees-afrikaner.html

its corresponding violence hierarchy of gangster ‘street cred’? If so, perhaps it is time you educate yourself on these matters. May I suggest you start at: “I like blood & hurting people; I like fu**ing up peoples lives” - SA prison gang member[5], which is an excerpt from correspondence titled, Who in South Africa’s political, media & academic hierarchy are serious and sincere, and who are simply being paid to pretend they are serious and sincere; about crime and rehabilitation?

If the Center for Constitutional Rights are sincerely serious about your belief that there is no ‘racially motivated’ crime in South Africa, are you willing to put your money where your mouths are, and go undercover into any of South Africas prisons’ and spend a few months listening to criminals express honest intentions, experiences and feelings about racially motivated crime in South Africa?

If not, on what grounds are you justifying your denial of racially motivated crime in South Africa?

Question Two: Is your disagreement with the IRB, founded upon any allegation that it did not meet the UNHCR Refugee criteria?

If so, I’d be interested what your response would be to: 74% of White SA’s Agree with Huntley; ANC & Liberals Deliberate Malicious Indifference Legitimize Huntley’s ‘White Refugee’ status[6] (excerpt follows): Brief Overview: Is IRB's Huntley Ruling justified in terms of UNHCR Refugee criteria?

Brandon Huntley was granted Refugee Status by the Canadian Immigration and Refugee Board, in accordance with UNHCR refugee criteria (PDF), whereby “a person who owing to a well founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who is, … owing to such fear, … unwilling to return to it.”

It can accordingly be inferred that Huntley was granted refugee status because the evidence Huntley submitted to the IRB, was sufficient to prove to the IRB that Brandon Carl Huntley subjectively and objectively felt that: (a) he was being persecuted in South Africa for reasons of race/membership of a particular ethnic group; (b) the South African government were deliberately and/or maliciously indifferent to his safety and security and/or unable or unwilling to protect him.

Was the IRB’s Ruling Justified? 

Do other white South Africans feel that they are being persecuted in South Africa for reasons of their race/membership of a particular ethnic group?



Is the South African Government unwilling or unable to acknowledge that this group of South Africans feel the way that they do?

White South African’s Feelings of Persecution: Media Surveys: 74% Agree with Huntley

[5] [6]

http://why-we-are-white-refugees.blogspot.com/2010/02/i-like-blood-hurting-people-i-like.html http://why-we-are-white-refugees.blogspot.com/2010/01/74-of-white-sas-agree-with-huntley-anc.html

Beeld Newspaper (1 September 2009): “Is Canada correct in granting a White South African refugee status?”

1. Yes (83%) (5869 votes) 2. No (4%) (261 votes) 3. All races suffer under crime (13%) (924 votes) Die Burger Newspaper (1 September 2009): “A White South African was granted refugee status after Canada’s immigration board found that the South African government could not properly protect White South Africans from persecution. What do you think?”

1. Preposterous - Everyone is a victim of crime, poor people in townships even more so (15%) (515 votes) 2. It is true that the government cannot control crime, but unnecessary to stereotype Black people. (23%) (789 votes) 3. Kanada here I come! (62%) (2131 votes) Independent Online Survey (02 September 2009): A South African man has been granted refugee status in Canada, where an immigration board found “clear and convincing proof” he was persecuted for being white. IOL asked its readers: Is applying for foreign citizenship on racial grounds justified?

Most IOL readers thought there was nothing wrong with applying for foreign citizenship on racial grounds.

1. Yes (65%) (691 votes) 2. No (35%) (373 votes) Rapport Newspaper (2 September 2009): “Are there grounds to grant White South Africans asylum in foreign countries (due to crime)?”

1. It is hogwash-White and Blacks are equally affected by crime (13%)(761 votes) 2. Whites are a preferred target (87%)(5266 votes) What percentage of white South Africans feel that they are being persecuted in South Africa for reasons of their race/membership of a particular ethnic group? 

IOL: 65%



Rapport: 87%



Beeld: 83%



Burger: 62%



Average: 74%

Conclusion: Seventy Four Percent of white South Africans feel --- exactly the same way Huntley does -- that they are being persecuted in South Africa for reasons of their race/membership of a particular ethnic group!

Is the South African Government unwilling or unable to acknowledge that Huntley and White South Africans feel persecuted?

So Brandon Huntley and 74% of his fellow white South Africans fit the UNHCR white refugee criteria, by their experience of subjective feelings of being persecuted for being white. What is the SA Goverments ability or willingness to respond to these feelings of persecution?.

How does the South African Government respond to this information?: 

Did the South African Government request Huntley provide them with the information about his persecution grievances, so they can make an impartial enquiry and if so required rectify the matter?



Did the South African Government express the ability to show sincere concern for the reality that 74% of one of its minority groups feels persecuted in South Africa for reasons of their race; by suggesting an Impartial Tribunal or Board of Enquiry be established to hear their grievances?

How does the Center for Constitutional Rights and F.W. de Klerk Foundation respond to this information?

Would it be fair to state that the Center for Constitutional Rights, and other civil society organisations disagreement with the Canadian IRB’s decision, and concomitant deliberate indifference or inability to respond to the subjective and objective reality and feelings of persecution as a result of their race, presents probable cause, or ‘beyond reasaonable doubt’ clear and convincing proof of South African civil societies inability and unwillingness to respond their feelings of persecution and grievances?

Center for Constitutional Rights Perspective to Dr. Blanton’s allegations of posed and fake vs sincere and real forgiveness: You state that the Center for Constitutional Rights does not agree with the views expressed by Dr. Blanton, but you don’t say which views you disagree with, and on what grounds. I imagine you are aware that Dr. Blanton is an internationally recognized expert in ‘sincere honesty in politics’, ‘anger and sincere forgiveness’, and I doubt anyone who appreciates brutal transparent honesty, as more valuable than fake two-faced pretend political honesty, would disagree that Dr. Blanton has to be the most honest and transparent politician to ever grace planet earth16.

Among others, Dr. Blanton alleges that South Africa does not value the fundamental constitutional principles of Freedom of Speech; and hence it is not to be considered a true democracy. You disagree with his interpretation, although you prove his allegations to be correct, when you demonstrate your deliberate indifference to my Free Speech rights, and concomitant lack of commitment to Freedom of Speech as a hallmark of a true constitutional democracy.

16

http://why-we-are-white-refugees.blogspot.com/p/honesty-in-politics.html

You disagree with Dr. Blanton’s conclusion that the South African Government have waged a legal and political persecution and prosecution campaign against me, where my denied rights include : (a) ilegally arrested and detaining for 33 days without a bail hearing; (b) denied legal aid council; (c) denied my political necessity defence, (d) denied a fair impartial competent investigative police officer, prosecutor and magistrate; (e) denied the right to be ‘innocent until proven guilty’; (f) denied due process and an appeal of a conviction for a crime that is not ‘unlawful’. Not only have I been found guilty, I have been sentenced to 6 months prison, for a crime that is not unlawful! But not to worry, slip in phrase that I called African politicians ‘kaffirs’, and it is virtually guaranteed that all South African mob-justice organizations, with little commitment to the equal application of the rule of law, to those they disagree with, or find offensive; are lobotomized of their critical thinking skills and rational thought processes, and their support for the rule of law and guaranteed legal constitutional rights, scatter down Orwellian black memory holes.

It appears plausible from these ‘Kaffiresque’ paranoid organisations think that there is only one meaning for the word ‘Kaffir’, and that that one meaning is their meaning, and is ‘offensive’ and ‘borders on hate speech’.

I do not share this perspective to the word Kaffir: For it is true, that I am unbeliever according to Islam; and hence according to Muslims, a ‘Kaffir’. For it is true, that if I am in a particular circumstance knowledgeable of a particular truth, and knowingly concealing that truth, I am accordingly behaving in accordance with one of the definitions for a Kaffir; and hence in that context a Kaffir. Quite possibly one particular persons culture views my culture, or a particular cultural act, or act of mine, as savage, or that of a savage, and if so, then I am indeed in their cultural perspective and mindset, a ‘kaffir’; according to their cultural definition. There are other definitions for Kaffir, which in particular circumstances may be applicable to an act of mine, or not. If I was a Politically Correct Kaffiresque Paranoid Liberal, should I demand that even though in any particular circumstance where I may in fact be a ‘Kaffir’ according to one of the recognized definitions of ‘Kaffir’ demand that nobody be allowed to use that word, because I can choose to be offended, for someone stating the obvious truth that I am, in that context, a “Kaffir”? Would I not be demanding that anyone lie to me, about their honest opinion, just so that I can pretend to myself that I am not in that context a ‘Kaffir’?

There are other definitions for ‘kaffir’, so hence, if or when someone has called me a Kaffir, before I make a complete asshole idiot of myself, and before I pretend to know another persons definition of a word, or cultural use thereof; I generally ask them to please clarify what they mean by the term ‘Kaffir’, could they please provide me with their particular definition. I also do so in many other cases, so that I am clear that I am interpreting what another person says, clearly in accordance to their meaning of the word, and the message they are attempting to convey. I do not assume that my definitions for abstract words are the same as other people’s, particularly from other cultures, religions or ideologies. Is anyone in the Politically Correct Kaffiresque Paranoid Liberal South African elite remotely interested in my meaning? Is anyone in the Afrikanerbond remotely interested in the message I am attempting to convey, in my definitions and my motives?

Furthermore the fact that alleged human rights organisations are behaving like mobjustice organisations, who appear emotionally, psychologically and legally incapable of acting with a commitment to the impartial application of the rule of law, by voicing their objection to my persecution and the denial of my rights; is quite plausibly a result of their fragile ego incomplete resentments, which fake and two-faced ‘reconciliation’ only coerced them to suppress, not to confront, share and continue sharing non-violently until sincere forgiveness had occurred!

To conclude, would it be accurate to conclude that “Accordingly, we regret that we cannot assist you with this matter,” demonstrates that your organisation is quite happy to ignore my legal and political persecution and prosecution; (a) my illegal arrest, (b) detention for 33 days without a bail hearing, (c) denial of due process, free and fair trial, competent court and investigative officials, (d) denial of right to be ‘innocent until proven guilty’ ‘beyond any reasonable doubt’; all demonstrates that your commitment to objecting to persecution is of the mobjustice variety: i.e. reserved for particular groups of people.

Succinctly; if you were remotely sincerely committed to brutal honest self-examination, would you at least be willing to impartially enquire into the working hypothesis that: “Adv. Nichola de Havilland, of the Center for Constitutional Rights, and the F.W de Klerk Foundation are deliberately indifferent to certain people of certain ethnicities and/or ideologies and/or cultures and/or religions being politically and legally persecuted and prosecuted; and Lara Johnstone, and perhaps Brandon Huntley, fits one or more of those particular ethnic, ideological, cultural or religious categories, towards whom, Adv. De Havilland, the Center for Constitutional Rights and F.W de Klerk are deliberately indifferent.”

Thought I’d end the email, and our dialogue with a reminder, some humour and satire…

Hope you are blessed with a sense of humour; and maybe one day the courage to attain a transcendent perspective: I once asked Brad Blanton that if South Africans truly really sincerely forgave each other, what might that look like? Dr. Blanton said something to the effect of: ‘The day South Africans can have a huge belly laugh and giggle like kids about the word ‘Kaffir’, about apartheid and the stupid shit both sides did, cause they couldn’t just sit down and have a fucking honest conversation like adults; is the day you know real sincere forgiveness has occurred. It may occur for those who have the emotional and psychological courage to experientially – in the guts of the living -- attain that transcendent perspective, by being honest about, and nonviolently sharing their anger, face to face, until sincere forgiveness occurs. Till then, the Truth and Reconciliation South Africans are just bullshitting themselves, but that’s what Fragile Ego cowards, who have no inner sense of dignity, and who rely on exterior arsekreeping for their sense of dignity do: bullshit themselves.’

Till then South Africans of all ethnicities appear to be stuck in among others, a Kaffiresque Paranoid Liberal Politically Correct Straight-jacket.

But if that’s what works for you, and you are happy with that state of affairs, then that’s okay.

Regards, Lara Houdini Johnstone, Persecuted Split-Second-Sound-Satire-Being Kaffir** ________________________________________________________ ** Persecuted SSSSB Kaffir** Email Interpretation-Guidance: This entire Email is in SSSSB Code.

Not one word in this email is to be believed as ‘the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth’, for anyone with a Human Consciousness Energy Level of less than 700. For paradoxes and ambiguities arise from confusing levels of consciousness; and all observations are reflections of specific levels of consciousness and are valid only on their level. Unfortunately Animal Farm ‘Truth’ and ‘Reconciliation’ Fragile-Ego South Africa, and our Gracious ‘Truth and

Reconciliation’ political, media and academic Fragile Ego Legal Insanity Circus are not about to approve legal cultural rights to anyone Practicing non-violent Radical Honesty. Practicing Radical Honesty is probably not culturally violent enough to be approved as legal, alongside ‘donating sperm to an unwilling woman wearing a mini-skirt’ cultural dating, or the quaint ‘torture an animal to death with your bear hands’ cultural festival. So Practicing Radical Hon(our)sty has been suspended, until Proudly New South Africa Culture of Violence, Rape, Murder & Hypocrisy legally announce that it will stop politically and legally prosecuting and persecuting the non-violent practice of Radical Honesty. Until then Practicing Radical Honesty is available to all who send a signed and notarized affidavit, as follows: ‘To Whom It May Concern: I herewith legally confirm that: (a) I am an emotional, psychological and political adult, and am capable of, and want to hear Practicing Radical Honesty White Refugee's ‘truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth’, (b) I am not easily insulted, because unlike most people fragile ego South Africans, who are easily insulted as a result of their flawed reasoning about the character, motivations and consciousness of others; I do not make erroneous attributions about the motivations of others, because (c) should I find any abstract word in any communication as plausibly ‘offensive’; I am intellectually, emotionally and psychologically capable of first asking questions to determine whether I am correctly interpreting the meaning of the word, as the author meant it: i.e. in accordance with the author’s cultural and consciousness definition, not mine as the reader, and (d) I am fully cognizant and believe beyond any reasonable doubt, that Proudly Practicing Radical Honesty White Refugee’s motivations are in accordance with the practice and intentions of Radical Honesty about Anger and Sincere Forgiveness. Signed Ms Ann” [** Definition of ‘Kaffir’: ‘to know the truth, and deliberately conceal the truth’] [SSSSB- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6fc0UdzmME] [Interpretation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2DB4WTgFQU] [Guidance: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=f8c_1233289089] [Practicing Radical Honesty 1: http://why-we-are-white-refugees.blogspot.com/p/honesty-inpolitics.html] [Practicing Radical Honesty 2: http://www.scribd.com/doc/20520279/Truth-Forgiveness-SocialContract] [Ms. Ann: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMwRM7LIVKo]

17 March 2010 (St. Patricks Day): Notice to FW de Klerk Foundation of Final ‘Liberal White Guilt One Meaning Only for Kaffir’ Dictatorship Elite Report: No Thanks to Kaffir Free Speech Rule of Law. From: Lara Johnstone [mailto:jmcswan@mweb.co.za] Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2010 9:43 PM To: 'info@cfcr.org.za'; 'ndehavilland@cfcr.org.za'; 'nikki@cfcr.org.za' Cc: 'phoffman@cfcr.org.za'; 'dkeet@cfcr.org.za'; 'fwdkfoun@mweb.co.za' Subject: FW de Klerk Fnd & Ctr for Const Rights: Adv. de Havilland; RE: Final Report: 140 of SA Elite; say ‘No Thanks’ to the Rule-of-Law Adv. Nikki de Havilland, Director Center for Constitutional Rights Tygerberk Office Park 163 Hendrik Verwoerd Drive Plattekloof, Capetown, 7500 Tel: (021) 930 3622 Fax: (021) 930 3898 Adv. De Havilland, RE: Thank you. Final Report: 140 of SA Elite; say ‘No Thanks’ to the Rule-of-Law Thank you for your comment. For Your Records, please herewith find the Final Report of all Comments.

Why We Are African White Refugees: 140 of SA Elite; say ‘No Thanks’ to the Rule-ofLaw Table of Contents: African White Refugee Memo to: Min. of Citizenship & Immigration, Canada, For the Record Memo: ‘Beyond Milgram Belief’: 140 SA Editors, Politicians, Academics et al confirm they are Deliberately Indifferent to the Rule-of-Law; have No Objections to SA Governments persecution of ‘Radical Honesty White Refugee’ (“RHWR”) For the White Refugee Record: 140 SA Elite on # 19963-09: » Radical Honesty Dr. Brad Blanton’s Allegations » [31] Editors, TV News Producers & Radio Station Manager, etc. » [09] Political Parties & Government Bodies » [12] Non-Profit Human Rights Related Org’s, including Mandela & De Klerk Foundations » [09] University Rectors & Vice Chancellors » [79] TRC Academics who Petitioned Canadian Charge D’Affaires objecting to IRB granting Brandon Huntley ‘White Refugee’ status.

Admin: Notices Sent and Acknowledgements of Receipt » Min of Citizenship & Immigration, Canada & IRB » Canadian High Commissioner, Pta & RSA Ambassador, Toronto » UNHCR, Amnesty Intn’l & EU Council for Refugees Google News article at Rant & Rave: 140 of RSA Elite Say ‘No Thanks’ to the Rule-ofLaw » http://www.rantrave.com/Rant/140-of-RSA-Elite-Say-No-Thanks-to-the-Rule-of-Law.aspx

White Refugees: 140 SA Elite Confirm their Deliberate Indifference to Rule-of-Law; No Objections to SA Gov. Persecution of ‘RH White Refugee’ » http://why-we-are-white-refugees.blogspot.com/2010/03/140-sa-elite-confirm-theirdeliberate.html

PDF Memo: 140 SA Elite Say No Thanks to the Rule-of-Law » http://www.scribd.com/doc/28430454/10-03-13-140-SA-Elite-say-No-Thanks-to-the-Rule-of-Law

PDF Report: Why We Are African White Refugees: The Rule of Law; or No Rules at All? » http://www.scribd.com/doc/28486699/10-03-17-Why-We-Are-African-White-Refugees-The-Ruleof-Law-or-No-Rules-at-All