The judge began to take Steven’s guilty plea: “You know you have a right to remain silent and not incriminate yourself,” he said. Do you waive that right?” “Yes, I do,” answered Steven. “You have a right to call witnesses in your behalf. Do you waive that right?” “Yes, I do.” “You have a right to a jury trial, a jury of your peers. Do you understand that right?” “If I had a jury of my peers, I would be found not guilty,” replied Steven. There was a pause as the judge stared at the defendant. “What do you mean?” he asked. “If I had twelve people who were really my peers they would understand my action,” Steven answered. The Judge leaned forward, his eyes piercing into mine. “This is not a guilty plea. Counsel, I thought you told the court this was a guilty plea?” I had been taken completely off guard by Steven’s statements. .. The judge motioned to the U.S. marshals. “Take the defendant and his lawyer, and put them in the holding cell until they straighten things out.” For half an hour Steven and I sat in the cell behind the courtroom as once again I explained my idea of a political, psychiatric defence. Once again he refused, feeling it was hopeless. He said he would plead guilty and answer all the judges questions the way the judge expected. We returned to court and went through the litany of rights one waives when one pleads guilty. But when the judge got to the part about a jury of peers, there was only silence. Then Steven spoke out clearly and strongly. “If I had a jury made up of people from Ellis and Fillmore Streets I would be found not guilty!” Judge Weigel was seconds from exploding. “This is not a guilty plea. I refuse to accept the plea. You are going to trial!” -- Black Rage Confronts the Law, by Paul Harris, pg 42-43
The issues dealt with in this Application for Review are as follows: [A] Relief Requested [B] Facts NOT in Dispute, by Default [C] Propositions of Law with Reference to Authorities: [D] Application of Facts to Propositions of Law [E] Record of Related Relevant Evidentiary Documents: Radical Honesty SA Amicus Curiae’s to (i) Constitutional Court: Citizen v. McBride & (ii) Reits Four Magistrates Court. Annexure: [*] Record of Correspondence between Radical Honesty White Refugee & Press Council/Ombudsman, et al PLEASE NOTE: Not every example of plausible bias or other gross irregularity in Ombudsman’s Rulings are herein addressed, for brevity purposes. The decision not to address them does not imply that the issues raised in this application are the only examples of gross irregularities on behalf of the Ombudsman.
[A] Relief Requested: [I]
No offence meant, but if Judge Zulman -– like City Press, SA Media journalists, Dep. Ombudsman Johan Retief, Magistrate ADS Meyer (George), Magistrate Louw (Capetown: 17/1384/07), etc -- lacks the intellectual, cultural, political, ideological, and/or legal cognitive capability to apply your mind to make an impartial enquiry into intellectual perspectives held by culture’s, intellectual schools of thought and religions other than the Judge’s own (i.e. such as the Radical Honesty culture); Your Honour is respectfully requested to please recuse yourself from accepting this Application for Review; and to refer Johnstone to file this Application for Review either to the SA Appeals Court, SA Constitutional Court, or if – in the Judge’s honest opinion – no current Judicial body in SA possesses Jurists capable of making an impartial enquiry into intellectual perspectives held by culture’s and religions other than such Justice’s own, to refer this matter to the UN Human Rights Committee, pursuant to Article 27, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the SA governments denial of the right of minority members to practice their culture.
[II]
Review and Set Aside Dep. Ombudsman Johan Retief’s Revised Ruling publicized by email to media on 03 November at 16:09 hrs (uploaded to Press Ombudsman’s website on Nov 04 2010 at 7:34 AM); by issuing an order to reinstate the Finding and Sanction made in the Initial Ruling, under ‘Not Asked for Comment’, namely: The newspaper made no attempt to ask Johnstone, the subject of the story, for comment. This is in breach of Art. 1.5 of the Press Code that states: “A publication should usually seek the views of serious critical reportage in advance of publication…” Sanction: City Press is reprimanded for not asking Johnstone for comment……
[II]
Review and Set Aside Ombudsman’s Initial and Revised Ruling publicized by email to Press Ombudsman website on Nov 03 2010 at 08:43 hrs, publicized by email to Complainant on 03 Nov at 10:49; substituting his finding as follows: were [a] Headline: Rightwing group tries to scupper Reitz trial misrepresentations; Accurate representation would be: ‘Transparency/Radical Honesty group promotes rule of law in Reitz trial’. [b] City Press and the Dep. Ombudsman are either intellectually corrupt i.e. biased or legally incompetent, i.e. cognitively incapable of understanding the practice of the principle of supporting Voltarian Constitutional rule of law for everyone -particularly for those you disagree with, since it is easy to support the rule of law for those you agree with, i.e. as epitomized by Voltaire’s “I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” Whereas Judge Weigel (introductory excerpt on Cover Page, from Black Rage Confronts the Law) responds to an accused objective sense of innocence, and assumption that he shall be found NOT GUILTY BY A JURY OF HIS PEERS, with a REFUSAL TO ACCEPT SUCH A GUILTY PLEA, City Press and the Ombudsman, would happily accept such a guilty plea, with total disregard to the rights of the accused to a free and fair trial, either by a Jury of their Peers, or by an Impartial Magistrate or Judge with the COGNITIVE CAPABILITY OF SETTING ASIDE THEIR OWN BIAS, so as to MAKE AN IMPARTIAL ENQUIRY TO DETERMINE WHETHER A JURY OF THE ACCUSED’S PEERS MAY HAVE FOUND THEM INNOCENT, in ACCORDANCE TO THE REQUIREMENTS – IE RELEVANT TESTS -- OF THE RULE OF LAW. The misunderstanding is epitomized in the Ombudsman’s statement: “Johnstone denies that the organization is “rightwing”, saying that RH supports the rule of law for everyone. She says that even if the organisation happens to support rightwingers it does not necessarily mean that the RH itself is rightwing.” Nowhere has Radical Honesty/Johnstone said that she ‘supports right-wingers’, or ‘left wingers’, for that matter. What she did say is that she supports the RULE OF LAW for everyone. Put differently everyone has the RIGHT to be innocent until PROVEN GUILTY. Not proven guilty by an uninformed person of bias, but by an impartial arbiter, in accordance to the legal rules and test requirements for the alleged criminal act. There is a massive difference in endorsing the rule of law, as a value system, as opposed to endorsing particular individuals or groups. As stated in the Radical Honesty complaint: “A Jew who speaks up and requests justice for a Christian, is not a Christian.”1 Nor are they speaking up for Christianity, but FOR JUSTICE. Put differently, a Jew who speaks up for Justice for a Christian, speaks up for the principle of JUSTICE, on behalf of anyone, whether they are Christian, Buddhist, Atheist; their action is on behalf of JUSTICE, not the particular religion or group. As stated in the Radical Honesty Response2: “When any group speaks up for justice for members of another group – they are speaking up for CONSTITUTIONAL JUSTICE; I.E. THE RULE OF LAW. Radical Honesty supports the RULE OF LAW for EVERYONE, irrespective of whether we agree with them or not, they deserve to be found guilty by the rule of law, not the media.”
1 2
10-10-13: Complaint Ombudsman: City Press: Rightwing Group Tries to Scupper Reits Trial (para [C][1]) 10-10-20: Response by Radical Honesty to City Press Reply to Press Ombudsman (para.4)
Radical Honesty does endorse and support, everyone’ from any extreme, far right, centrist, or extreme left wing group’s – right to equality under the rule of law, even though Radical Honesty has little agreement with the majority of ideologically fundamentalist dogmatic left or right wing ideology. Anyone from any ideology, culture, religion, race must be GIVEN A FREE AND FAIR TRIAL, AND FOUND GUILTY BY THE LAW, not based on anyone’s hate for their ideology. Radical Honesty supports any ideology THAT WORKS IN ANY GIVEN CIRCUMSTANCE, FOR THOSE PERSONS. If collectivist communism works for Delancey Street residents, Johnstone/Radical Honesty supports WHAT WORKS IN THAT CIRCUMSTANCE. It is about WHAT WORKS ON THE GROUND, WITH PROVEN SCIENTIFIC RESULTS, FOR THE RELEVANT INDIVIDUALS. OBEDIENCE TO IMPLEMENTING ANY LEFT OR RIGHT WING DOGMATIC IDEOLOGY SIMPLY FOR THE SAKE OF OBEDIENCE TO IDEOLOGY, IS NOT ENDORSED BY RADICAL HONESTY. As stated by Dr. Blanton in Practicing Radical Honesty: All the major scientific discoveries of the twentieth century have been based on shifts in perspective. Einstein invented the theory of relativity, tried it out in space and with subatomic particles, and it worked. He looked at the world differently than had Newton, whose model also works. If you want to build a dog house, use Newton's theory. If you want to build a bomb, use Einstein's (but use Newton's again to actually build it). We have discovered that perspective is a matter of invention and that different perspectives yield different information, and that all the information is to be judged with regard to its usefulness rather that whether it is "right" or "wrong." In physics, psychology, linguistics, economics, sociology, theology, philosophy—the list goes on—all the advances are in the direction of the relativity of models. Models of all kinds are subsumed under what I call the Kleenex™ model; you use one and throw it away. When the full implications of this are finally integrated into religion, education, family life, government, organizational development, group psychotherapy, and individual psychotherapy, the world will be quite a different kind of place; and very suddenly. All beliefs are relative. All models are just functional or dysfunctional toward certain ends. All models are dysfunctional when we attempt to use them where they don't serve. Supporting the rule of law for any individual or group from any right or left wing group, no matter how objectionable Radical Honesty may consider their ideological beliefs, does not mean Radical Honesty supports that left or right wing group, but means Radical Honesty supports the PRINCIPLE that EVERYONE HAS A RIGHT TO EQUALITY UNDER THE RULE OF LAW. Put differently, it is the difference between adherence to the RULE OF LAW, vs. City Press’s advocacy for adherence to the RULE OF MAN, i.e. MOBJUSTICE. To be a citizen of a constitutional republic is to adhere to the axiom that our government is a government of laws, not of men. This means citizens should follow the requirements of the Constitution and statutes even when those rules yield results that citizens find unpleasant – such as freeing a person who appears guilty, but for which there is insufficient evidence to convict them beyond reasonable doubt, in accordance to the rule of law. Adherence to the rule of law, requires that the RULE OF LAW, is used to find someone guilty, not the RULE OF MAN’s MOBJUSTICE petty hates, prejudices and greed.
[c] City Press’s headline misrepresentation significantly altered the context of article. [d] Correct City Press’s “spitting on culture’s” statement to include deliberate qualifying omission as follows: Radical Honesty accused the media of “spitting on cultures who practice sincere forgiveness and root cause problem solving.” [e] Radical Honesty did not ‘attack’ the Truth Commission, but in fact honoured3, and continues to honour the Truth Commission, in line with the highest principles of Natural Justice, Audi Alteram Partem, Transparency, and the Radical Honesty Principles of Honourable Honest Feedback Participatory Problem Solving principles: namely that only sincere forgiveness, leads to real reconciliation; and only root cause problem solving is capable of fixing any problem. Put differently fake forgiveness aggravates relationship problems, destroying trust and sincerity and relationship spontaneity with poison walking on eggshells toxicity; and fixing symptoms, instead of root causes of problems, is analogous to giving a patient bandaids and painkillers for their braintumour. [f] That the following publications which published either the Ombudsman’s initial and/or revised ruling be ordered to publish the new ruling: 10-11-03: M&G: City Press reprimanded by ombudsman4 (subsequently deleted, without explanation) 10-11-03: M&G: Ombudsman: City Press did nothing wrong5 10-11-03: News24: Reitz 4: Ombudsman reprimands City Press6 (subsequently deleted, without explanation) 10-11-03: New24: Ombudsman dismisses Reitz complaint7 10-11-03: NewsTime: Press Ombudsman Raps City Press On The Knuckles8 10-11-03: BusReport: City Press reprimanded by the Press Ombudsman9 10-11-03: City Press: Ombudsman clears City Press10 10-11-03: Cape Argus: City Press did nothing wrong: Ombudsman 11 10-11-03: Cape Times: City Press did nothing wrong: Ombudsman12 10-11-03: Daily News: City Press did nothing wrong: Ombudsman13 10-11-03: SAPA/I-Africa: 'No excuse for k-word'14 10-11-03: IOL: Ombudsman: City Press did nothing wrong15 10-11-03: Isolezwe: City Press did nothing wrong: Ombudsman16 10-11-03: Pretoria News: City Press did nothing wrong: Ombudsman17 10-11-03: Sunday Independent: City Press did nothing wrong: Ombudsman18 10-11-03: Sunday Tribune: City Press did nothing wrong: Ombudsman19 3
Submission to ‘Register of Reconciliation’ and donation to Presidents Fund for Reparations to assist victims of gross violations of human rights dated 18 January 19993 [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/16224046] http://www.mg.co.za/article/2010-11-03-emcity-pressem-reprimanded-by-ombudsman 5 http://www.mg.co.za/article/2010-11-03-ombudsman-city-press-did-nothing-wrong 6 http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/Reitz-4-Ombudsman-reprimands-City-Press-20101103 7 http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/Ombudsman-dismisses-Reitz-complaint-20101103 8 http://www.newstime.co.za/SouthAfrica/Press_Ombudsman_Raps_City_Press_On_The_Knuckles/14243/ 9 http://www.busrep.co.za/index.php?fSectionId=561&fArticleId=5715074 10 http://www.citypress.co.za/SouthAfrica/News/Ombudsman-clears-City-Press-20101103 11 http://www.capeargus.co.za/?fSectionId=3571&fArticleId=1.708370&fFeed=breakingnews 12 http://www.capetimes.co.za/?fSectionId=3531&fArticleId=1.708370&fFeed=breakingnews 13 http://www.dailynews.co.za/?fSectionId=3532&fArticleId=1.708370&fFeed=breakingnews 14 http://news.iafrica.com/sa/684348.html 15 http://www.iol.co.za/news/south-africa/gauteng/city-press-did-nothing-wrong-ombudsman-1.708370 16 http://www.isolezwe.co.za/?fSectionId=4051&fArticleId=1.708370&fFeed=breakingnews 17 http://www.pretorianews.co.za/?fSectionId=3534&fArticleId=1.708370&fFeed=region_51 18 http://www.sundayindependent.co.za/?fSectionId=3536&fArticleId=1.708370&fFeed=breakingnews 19 http://www.sundaytribune.co.za/?fSectionId=3537&fArticleId=1.708370&fFeed=breakingnews 4
10-11-03: The Mercury: City Press did nothing wrong: Ombudsman20 10-11-03: The Post: City Press did nothing wrong: Ombudsman21 10-11-03: SAPA/The Star: City Press did nothing wrong: Ombudsman22
[B] Facts Not in Dispute, by Default: Facts Not In Dispute herewith refer to Factual Statements submitted as evidentiary argument, by Johnstone/Radical Honesty, which were never directly challenged as untrue by City Press, by evidence to the contrary; and are consequently – by default of no opposing argument – considered as Facts Not In Dispute:
1.
‘Right wing’ not a neutral term for City Press: [a] City Press submissions did not state that their use of the term ‘right wing’ was not pejorative, by providing an innocent/neutral descriptive definition for what City Press mean by the term ‘right wing’. If City Press provides a neutral definition for Right Wing, Johnstone/Radical Honesty has no objection to the term being used, with such qualification.
2.
Right wing a pejorative term for City Press: [a] To the contrary, City Press submissions, and their selective choice of words and phrases spoken by Johnstone, taken completely out of context, and sensationalizing those words and phrases, as if those words and phrases had one meaning only – the meaning, not of Johnstone, as writer or speaker, but as decided by City Press, without making any impartial enquiry -- to justify City Press’s argument for using the term ‘right wing’ as a pejorative term to describe Radical Honesty.23
3.
SA Media Spit on Cultures who practice Sincere Forgiveness & Root Cause Problem Solving: [a] City Press did not oppose Johnstone’s allegation in point [C][4]24, that Radical Honesty accused the media of “spitting on cultures who practice sincere forgiveness and root cause problem solving”; the omission is significant (para.14)25.
4.
City Press Anonymous Source Uninformed, Biased & Unethical: [a] City Press did not oppose Johnstone’s allegation in point [C][6]26, that Ms. Bradlow’s anonymous source was not only uninformed (had not read the documentation he was commenting on), prejudiced towards minority groups, but was acting in violation of the Bar Code’s Uniform Rules of Professional Conduct (4.12, 4.18.3 & 4.21.1), hence possibly biased, unprofessional, and/or unethical (para.1822)27. As stated in Radical Honesty Reply, para 328: City Press’s “choice not to oppose the anonymous source as biased, unprofessional and/or unethical [6] further aggravates, City Press’s failure to contact Johnstone for comment [7], considering the pejorative remarks made by the anonymous source.”
20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
http://www.themercury.co.za/?fSectionId=3535&fArticleId=1.708370&fFeed=breakingnews http://www.thepost.co.za/?fSectionId=3533&fArticleId=1.708370&fFeed=breakingnews http://www.thestar.co.za/?fSectionId=3268&fArticleId=1.708370&fFeed=region_51 10-10-18: Reply by City Press to Radical Honesty White Refugee Complaint to Ombudsman 10-10-13: Complaint Ombudsman: City Press: Rightwing Group Tries to Scupper Reits Trial 10-08-05: Complaint to SAPS: City Press: Defamation & Fraud 10-10-13: Complaint Ombudsman: City Press: Rightwing Group Tries to Scupper Reits Trial 10-08-05: Complaint to SAPS: City Press: Defamation & Fraud 10-10-20: Response by Radical Honesty to City Press Reply to Press Ombudsman
5.
Radical Honesty a Rainbow Rule-of-Law Group, for all Political wings, including ‘Right Wing’: [a] City Press did not dispute Johnstone’s assertion that Radical Honesty is a rule-oflaw group, which supports the rule of law for everyone, from the far left, to the far right, by proving that any of Johnstone’s assertions of her support for the rule-of-law for left wing individuals or groups was false. Details of Johnstone’s many activism efforts on behalf of the rule of law for a Rainbow of different extreme-left to centrist to extreme-right groups, were available in the Affidavit filed to the Reitz Four Magistrates Court Amicus Curiae29, provided to City Press ‘journalist’ Ms. Bradlow, by Johnstone, as per Ms. Bradlow’s telephone and email request30: “Applicants Rainbow Rule-of-Law Freedom of Speech Search for Truth Culture31 Credibility: I support the maxim of the non-violent anti-slavery publication the North Starh, whose Republican editor, Frederick Douglass was fond of saying: “I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong.” As a rule-of-law political activist, I endorsed the rule-of-law for all, rich, poor, white, black, left and right, religious or atheist. I filed my submission to the TRC32 on 18 January 1999, wherein I detailed my willingness to donate my entire inheritance to facilitate sincere Truth and Forgiveness. I am separated (filed for divorce) from Demian Emile Johnson, who is, and has been, incarcerated in California Dept. of Corrections, for the entire duration of our marriage33. In addition to Radical Honesty I have been involved in non-violent civil disobedience actions on behalf of my former husband34, Greenpeace35, Amnesty Int’l, Pacific Inst. for Criminal Justice 36, Jericho 9837, Crack the CIA38, The Disclosure Project39, New Abolitionist40, Justice for Timothy McVeigh41, Alliance for Democracy42, Boycott 2010 World Cup43, Right of Return to Europe for African White Refugees44, et al45. I am 43 years old, have never been on welfare, have used an IUD as contraception since the age of 19, and hence have never been pregnant, nor had an abortion. I have lived an ecological small footprint life; to avoid aggravating overpopulation, resource wars; materialist consumerism and resource depletion.46
29
10-07-27: Radical Honesty SA Amicus Curiae in Reitz Four Matter (para.5) 10-08-05: Complaint to SAPS: City Press: Defamation & Fraud: City Press: Ms. Khadija Bradlow Representation (para.04-07) In Ex Parte Minister of Native Affairs in re: Yako v Beyi 1948 (1) SA 388 (A) Schreiner J.A. said lifestyle of is a choice of law factor. “Aside from an express choice of laws all connecting factors with conflict of personal laws are designed to determine, in an objective manner, the cultural orientation of the parties. Because the laws involved are conceived in terms of culture .... the connecting factors must be conceived in like terms. The most direct access to a person’s cultural leanings would clearly be his or her lifestyle.” 32 Submission to ‘Register of Reconciliation’ and donation to Presidents Fund for Reparations to assist victims of gross violations of human rights dated 18 January 199932 [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/16224046] 33 98-05-31: Sun Times: US convict wins love and support in SA town, [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/5503257]; 98-09-24: YOU & Huisgenoot: Volkrust FarmGirl Doomed Love for Black Convict, by Frans Kemp [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/13270097] 34 RSA OVERSEAS: South African on hunger strike in California, by Ilda Jacobs 35 In Easter 1993, she was arrested with a few dozen Greenpeace activists in a Save Our Seas anti-nuclear demonstration at Sellafield, Nuclear Power station, in Scotland, for trespassing. She was neither charged nor prosecuted. See: Greenpeace’s Campaign Against Ocean Dumping of Radio-Active Waste, 1978 – 1998 (www.greenpeace.org). 36 98-07-04 Miami Herald: Police action harms image as protectors [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/5503636] 37 Jericho 98 is the movement to Free America’s Political Prisoners. She participated in Jericho 98, wrote to President Mandela to request his support for the many Anti-Apartheid Activists whom the ANC conveniently forgot, rotting away in America’s prisons: Marilyn Buck, Jaan Laaman, Tom Manning, etc. She visited Marilyn Buck in prison a few times, helped where she could. 38 99-03-16: San Francisco Chronicle: CIA Class Action Suit For Not Reporting Drug Trade [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/28391760] 39 Presidential UFO: George W. Bush’s UFO Mail: Are You Ready for the Revolution? [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/33838621] 40 New Abolitionist: Race Traitor: Zero Tolerance [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/5503955] 41 April 2001: New Abolitionist: Tim McVeigh and Me [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/5508338] 42 In 2000, she was arrested & detained for 3 hours, with Brad Blanton, Ronny Dugger (founding editor of Texas Observer and Alliance for Democracy), & others in the Wash, DC, Capital of the Rotunda. Issue: Campaign Finance Reform. District Attorney declined to Prosecute. 43 09-12-17: IOL Tech.: Anti-SA Smear Campaign on Facebook [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/24312359] 44 10-04-23: Algemene Dagblad: Zuid Afrikanen Smeken Om Wilders Hulp [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/31036819] ; 10-04-25: Sunday Argus: SA family seeks repatriation to Netherlands [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/31036819]; 10-04-30: Mail & Guardian: Persecuted Afrikaners Talk of Returning Home [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/31036798]; 10-05-17: Christian Science Monitor: White South Africans use Facebook in Campaign to Return to Holland [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/33839485] 45 On 17 Dec 1998, she was arrested at Oakland Federal Building, with anti-war protestors, who shut down the Federal Building for two hours. She was detained by Oakland Police for an hour, before being released. Alameda Co. District Attorney declined to prosecute. 1998-12-19 Beeld: SA `plaasmeisie' vas in VSA oor Golf-protes [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/5504269] 46 The ecological footprint is a measure of human demand on the Earth's ecosystems. It compares human demand with planet Earth's ecological capacity to regenerate. It represents the amount of biologically productive land and sea area needed to regenerate the resources a human population consumes and to absorb and render harmless the corresponding waste. Using this assessment, it is possible to estimate how much 30 31
[b] A few examples may suffice: Since when is Greenpeace ‘right wing’?, or Amnesty International? Jericho 98 is a support movement for US Political Anti-Apartheid prisoners, such as Jaan Laaman, Marilyn Buck, Tom Manning, who are left-wing communists! How is endorsing Amnesty for left wing communists, ‘right wing’? The New Abolitionist, publication Race Traitor’s mantra is ‘Treason to whiteness is loyalty to humanity’. Right wing? Its so far left wing, its almost falling off the ‘wing’! Alliance for Democracy, founded by Ronny Dugger, editor of the socialist Texas Observer, brings people together to build a progressive populist movement to end the corporate domination of our economy, our government, our culture, our media and the environment, and end corporate rule. Right-wing? How exactly is making a submission to the TRC offering to donate your entire inheritance to sincere Truth and Forgiveness ‘right wing’? [c] What City Press did do, was to select the few times Johnstone has supported the rule-of-law for someone who City Press hates and deems to be ‘right wing’, i.e. according to City Press as undeserving of rule-of-law justice. By ignoring Johnstone’s support for the equality of the rule of law, on behalf of an ideological and political rainbow of groups and individuals, as if her support for the rule-of-law actions do not exist; and only focusing narrowly on the ‘right wing’ individuals or groups, City Press draws a conclusion that Johnstone/Radical Honesty is ‘right wing’. By the same token, any ‘right wing’ person can select all the times Johnstone has supported the rule of law for the left’ and/or a communist, and label her a ‘communist’ or ‘left wing’. Radical Honesty/Johnstone endorses Voltarian Rule of Law; i.e. including for those whose ideas we hate or find despicable. If a Judge ignores all evidence of innocence, only focusing on select information implying possible guilt, and convicts an accused, we call such a trial, a kangaroo court trial. Similarly if a journalist or news publication wants to be considered a professional impartial publication of news, then it must make an impartial enquiry, and consider all the evidentiary facts, not just the few select snippets the journalist can use to twist the story, for their malevolent sensationalizing financial or political propaganda dissemination benefit.
6.
English Media’s Scapegoating of Reitz Four: [a] City Press did not dispute Johnstone’s assertion that as an English person who read both the Afrikaans and English media’s reportage of the Reits Four pre-trial arguments, she noticed a huge chasm of difference in reportage, with regards to the Reits Four. As an impartial observer it was not difficult to formulate a working hypothesis that the English media were not supporting a free and fair trial for the Reits Four, but were negligently or intentionally biased in their reportage, and consequently endorsing a media scapegoat orgy generated kangaroo court trial ([C][2]47, para 1348, and Point 549). [b] For example: City Press provided no evidence that City Press, or any English media publication informed their English readers of the following information: In Werkers het geweet hulle speel toneel50, Mike van Rooyen writes that the plaintiffs were asked to role-play as actors, and voluntarily gave their consent to be ‘actors’ for the student satire movie, to be made for the residence’s culture evening; and that they could have ended their voluntary participation at any time. The plaintiffs knew they were acting, for a movie. The atmosphere was funny and jovial.
of the Earth (or # of Earths) it would take to support humanity if everybody lived a given lifestyle. All we do, buy and breed has ecological consequences. Ecological Footprint, excluding ‘Child-Free’ factor (www.myfootprint.org/en/) is 13.16 gha. 47 10-10-13: Complaint Ombudsman: City Press: Rightwing Group Tries to Scupper Reits Trial 48 10-08-05: Complaint to SAPS: City Press: Defamation & Fraud 49 10-10-20: Response by Radical Honesty to City Press Reply to Press Ombudsman 50 http://www.volksblad.com/Suid-Afrika/Nuus/Werkers-het-geweet-hulle-speel-toneel-20100728
After the movie was completed, the plaintiffs were given a bottle of whiskey as agreed upon. For the following four months after the make of the movie, the relationship between accused and plaintiffs continued to be very good, if not better than before, until five months later in February 2008, when the video became a media sensation, and their fellow community members humiliated them for the ‘urine act’. Subsequent to the video being played on the culture evening, others requested it to be shared with other students, which the accused objected to, since it was a hostel function event. The accused did not place the video on the UFS intranent, nor share it otherwise. They agreed that people who are not familiar with student prank initiations and satire could misinterpret the video, particularly the fake ‘urine scene’. They did not foresee that the video would become a media race war sensation.
[c] Perhaps because the only English media report, Johnstone recently found was a SAPA report about a Volksblad report: ‘Werkers lag oor video’ (Workers laugh about video)51, and the only English publications who published the SAPA English translation, appear to be the Mail and Guardian: Reitz workers ‘laughed at video’ claims report52, and Politicsweb: Hostel workers did not take offence at video Volksblad53, which accuses the media and politicians of sensationalizing the video, to deny the students the chance to receive a fair trial. University of the Free State workers in the "Reitz video" did not take offence when the video was made and laughed when they saw it, the Volksblad newspaper reported on Wednesday. [..] It never appeared, while the video was made, that the workers took offence at what was happening. They took part willingly and could have stopped at any time if they had wanted to, according to the students' statement. [..] The representations indicate the workers were told the video had won a prize at the hostel's cultural evening. The video was shown to the workers more than once, during which they never reacted negatively. Witnesses would testify they laughed about it. Only when they were "falsely convinced" that the brew, which they had to drink while on their hands and knees, had been urinated into, did they raise objections. The students deny urinating into the broth. According to the report, the objections came six months after the video surfaced on the university's internal student computer network. [..] The students' lawyer Christo Dippenaar was quoted by the Volksblad as saying [..] statements in the media and political comment had placed pressure on the director of public prosecutions and the magistrate to find the students guilty, which had affected their chance of receiving a fair trial.
7.
Shocking Decision by Reits Four to Plead Guilty to Dolus Eventualis, Impetus for Timing of Radical Honesty SA Amicus: [a] City Press did not provide any evidence negating Johnstone’s assertion that the final straw that broke Johnstone’s back as an impetus for the ‘timing’ of the Amicus was the “the shocking news of the Reitz Four’s decision to plead guilty, based on the unheard of guilty intention of dolus eventualis, including the unheard of conviction on a guilty plea of dolus eventualis. From the information available in the Afrikaans media – Volksblad in particular – it did not make any sense to Johnstone for the Reits Four to plead guilty, on the dubious notion of ‘dolus eventualis’ and when the fundamental legal requirements of ‘crimen injuria’ had not been met, by their
51 52 53
http://www.volksblad.com/Suid-Afrika/Nuus/Werkers-lag-oor-video-20091118 http://www.mg.co.za/article/2009-11-18-reitz-workers-laughed-at-video-claims-report http://www.politicsweb.co.za/politicsweb/view/politicsweb/en/page71619?oid=151460&sn=Marketingweb+detail
conduct, as per the information in Afrikaans news media.”54 Nor did the Reitz Four’s guilty plea make any sense, considering their decision to hire one of the most expensive advocates in the country! You do not need one of the most expensive advocates in the country to plead guilty! It is impossible to plead guilty to a Magistrate or Judge, who is informed by the Defendant of his belief that a ‘jury of his peers would find him innocent’, and it is unheard of for a Judge or Magistrate to accept a plea of guilty from an accused pleading to dolus eventualis. They would refuse such a plea, and demand the accused go to trial. [b] For example: City Press provided no evidence that City Press, or any English media publication, or any English speaking attorney’s or Justice’s had any legal or rule-of-law concerns about a Judge or Magistrate accepting an accused’s plea of guilty to dolus eventualis, as Afrikaans jurists and journalists did (as detailed in para 1555). Reitz-4 vra om verskoning56, Mike van Rooyen reports that ‘legal history was made yesterday when the Reits four (a) plead guilty to crimen-injuria, on dolus eventualis, and (b) were convicted upon a guilty plea of dolus eventualis. The Reitz four did not plead guilty on Dolus Directus (Direct Intent: where the consequences of an action were both foreseen and desired by the accused); nor on Dolus Indirectus (Indirect Intent: where secondary consequences in addition to those desired by a perpetrator of an act were foreseen by the perpetrator as a certain result), but on Dolus Eventualis, i.e. where the accused did not “mean” for the unlawful act to happen, but foresees the possibility that it could happen, and proceeds with his conduct anyway. Both their action of pleading guilty to dolus eventualis, and for a Magistrate to convict someone based on a guilty plea of dolus eventualis, were unheard of, and made legal history. The Reitz four denied that they made the video with the intention of insulting the dignity of the plaintiffs, consequently stating that they considered themselves to be innocent. Why did they plead ‘guilty’? Vrae oor Reitz 4 se saak57, Hennie Vermaak, a retired attorney asks why the Reits 4 spent so much money to hire one of the most expensive advocates in the country: surely not to plead ‘guilty’? Why did such expensive advocate advise them to plead ‘guilty’? Pleading guilty does not require an expensive advocate!. Why did the expensive advocate not advise them to plead ‘not guilty’, since their only intention had been to make a stupid student SATIRE VIDEO? Why were the plaintiffs not crossexamined about their knowledge and voluntary consent to be ‘actors’ and to roleplay, for the satire video, about their good relationships with the Reits Four, that the plaintiffs knew from working for years in Student hostels, that students get up to incredibly stupid pranks, and whether the Reits 4 Attorneys were just trying to get the matter dealt with by a Quick Fix Guilty plea. In Reitz-4-regspan se vreemde optrede58, Former Judge Arrie Hattingh, agrees with Attorney Hennie Vermaak, that in order to be found guilty of ‘crimen injuria’ the state must prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that the accused had the intention to ‘insult the dignity’ of the defendants. It is not possible to insult the dignity of another person, if they voluntarily participate in the alleged ‘criminal act’. There was no coercion, the entire student prank was enjoyed by all. None of the defendants complained about the ‘student prank’, they voluntarily participated in, to anyone for months, until months later when the media bomb bubble burst. He accuses Advocate Kemp J Kemp of behaving very strangely, in regards to his accused clients.
54 55 56 57 58
10-10-20: Response by Radical Honesty to City Press Reply to Press Ombudsman, para 15 10-10-20: Response by Radical Honesty to City Press Reply to Press Ombudsman http://www.volksblad.com/Suid-Afrika/Nuus/Ons-is-jammer-Reitz-vier-20100727-2 http://www.volksblad.com/MyVolksblad/Briewe/Vrae-oor-Reitz-4-se-saak-20100804 http://m.news24.com/volksblad/MyVolksblad/Briewe/Reitz-4-regspan-se-vreemde-optrede-20100809
8.
Radical Honesty’s Honourable Actions of Dissent to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, does not equate to an ‘Attack’ of the TRC, or it’s goals, but an honourable endorsement: [a] City Press did not provide any evidence that any of Johnstone/Radical Honesty allegations of TRC bias, conflicts of interest, censorship were untrue59. City Press did not provide any evidence that Johnstone/Radical Honesty did not at all times share Johnstone/Radical Honesty’s dissenting feedback honourably, transparently in line with the highest principles of Natural Justice, Audi Alteram Partem, Transparency and Radical Honesty Principles of Honourable Honest Feedback Participatory Problem Solving Principles. [b] City Press did not provide any evidence contradicting Johnstone/Radical Honesty’s assertions that “the growth of humanity, individuals, or organizations is from hearing honest feedback about errors made, so that they can be fixed.” 60 [c] City Press did not provide any evidence that “Johnstone’s conduct towards the TRC has been of honesty and honour since, Johnstone’s 19 January 1999 submission to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, wherein she offered to donate her ENTIRE INHERITANCE TO FACILIATATE SINCERE FORGIVENESS; right up to believing that if the TRC was committed and sincere about facilitating SINCERE FORGIVENESS BETWEEN SA ‘ENEMIES’, that TRC officials would welcome honourable dissent, and particularly notification of root cause problem solving information, to facilitate real and sincere forgiveness, as per her transparent notification to TRC officials of the Radical Honesty SA Amicus Curiae to the Concourt, on 20 July 2010, and all correspondence to TRC officials in between.”61 [d] City Press did not provide any evidentiary argument to contradict that such “honourable conduct can only be interpreted by honourable and sincere officials sincerely committed to sincere forgiveness, as the highest affirmation and support for the honourable good faith assumption that the TRC that was committed to sincere forgiveness.” 62
9.
City Press’s Truth and Forgiveness Credibility: [a] City Press did not provide any evidentiary argument to assert that City Press, or any SA media editors or journalists were seriously committed to sincere forgiveness amongst SA citizens. [b] Nor did City Press provide any evidentiary argument to explain why – IF City Press was committed to sincere forgiveness – it was not ‘enthusiastically encouraging the TRC to grab the opportunity to avail itself of Practicing Radical Honesty information that has been proven to create a culture of sincere forgiveness amongst individuals of different races, ideologies, cultures etc.’63 [c] It is consequently doubtful whether City Press are committed to sincere forgiveness between SA citizens. At the very least it raises the possibility, that City Press’s objections to Johnstone/Radical Honesty’s feedback to the TRC on behalf of facilitating sincere forgiveness race and political relations; are motivated by an attempt to maintain the fake, two-faced hypocrisy status-quo. [d] In the Complaint to the SAPS64, in Radical Honesty Culture: Resolution of Disagreements: Conflict of Law: (para 32-34), Johnstone shared her preference for
59
10-10-13: Complaint Ombudsman: City Press: Rightwing Group Tries to Scupper Reits Trial (para [C][5]) 10-10-13: Complaint Ombudsman: City Press: Rightwing Group Tries to Scupper Reits Trial (para [C][5]) 10-08-05: Complaint to SAPS: City Press: Defamation & Fraud (para.15) 61 10-10-20: Response by Radical Honesty to City Press Reply to Press Ombudsman (para 7) 62 10-10-20: Response by Radical Honesty to City Press Reply to Press Ombudsman (para 7) 63 10-10-20: Response by Radical Honesty to City Press Reply to Press Ombudsman (para 10) 64 10-08-05: Complaint to SAPS: City Press: Defamation & Fraud 60
resolving this misunderstanding with City Press by means of the Radical Honesty Social Contract, and requested the matter be so resolved, out of court. Johnstone’s offer to resolve the matter by Being Specific about Anger, until sincere forgiveness was reached, was never accepted by City Press.
[C] Propositions of Law with Reference to Authorities: 10. SA Constitution on Review: [a] S 173 of the SA Constitution grants Supreme Courts the inherent power to protect & regulate their own process and to develop the common law, taking into account the Interests of Justice (within the context of the values of the Constitution).
11. SA Constitution on Invoking Choice of Cultural Law [a] The Constitution provides an entitlement for invoking cultural law in S. 15 (3), 30, 31, and 185, which require the application of choice of law rules. [b] Ex parte Minister of Native Affairs: In re Yako v Beyi 1948 (1) SA 388 (A) at 397: Appellate Division held that neither common nor customary law was prima facie applicable. Courts had to consider all the circumstances of a case, and, without any preconceived view about the applicability of one or other legal system, select the appropriate law on the basis of its inquiry. [c] SALC, Sept 1999: Report on Conflicts of law: P.22: ‘1.58. The Constitution now provides an entitlement for invoking customary law in legal suits. Because ss 30 and 31 specifically guarantee an individual and a group's right to pursue a culture of choice, it could be argued that application of customary law has become a constitutional right. Previously, the state had assumed complete discretion in deciding whether and to what extent customary law should be recognized, an attitude typical of colonial thinking, for Africans were subject to whatever policies the conquering state chose to impose on them. Now, however, the state has a duty to allow people to participate in the culture they choose, implicit in this duty is a responsibility to uphold the institutions on which that culture is based.’ [d] In Smit NO and Others v King Goodwill Zwelithini Kabhekuzulu and Others (10237/2009) [2009] ZAKZPHC 75 (4 December 2009) Judge Nic van Reyden of the Kwa-Zulu Natal High Court, ruled in favour of the revived Zulu cultural practice of barehanded killing of a bull at the Ukweshwama festival, satisfied with the evidence of cultural expert Professor Jabulani Mapalala65, who said that the animal’s death was quick, unpainful and that no blood was shed. (Others disagreed66: Mapalala’s expert witness testimony contradicts Chief Mlaba (not submitted to the court), as quoted in an ANC newsletter of December 1995, that: “We must use our bare hands, It’s cruelty, we agree, but it’s our culture. We cannot change our culture.”67). 65 Mkhize: Bull-killing ruling promotes cultural tolerance, Mail and Guardian, 04 December 2009; Court Clears Ritual, Bare Handed Killing of a Bull – Does the Judgement Threaten Wider Environmental Problems?, by Dave Harcourt, Eco-Localizer, 6 Dec 2009; S. African Judge Compares Zulu Bull-Killing to Holy Communion, by C Szabo, 2 Dec 2009, Digital Journal; 66 Culture no excuse for cruelty: How soon before we start burning witches again?; Justice Malala, Sunday Times, 6 Dec 2009: “The argument put forward was that this bull must suffer because my ancestors made animals suffer. The argument is, with all due respect, stupid: my ancestors had not read the work of JM Coetzee and were not on Facebook. I know that I know more than they did, and that my practices must of necessity differ with theirs.” 67 ANC Daily News Briefing, Monday 11 December 1995: Zulu King revives ceremonies to build support, Sapa-AP, 10 December 1995; Court Clears Ritual, Bare Handed Killing of a Bull – Does the Judgement Threaten Wider Environmental Problems?, by Dave Harcourt, Eco-Localizer, 6 December 2009
12. International Law on Cultural Rights: UN Human Rights Committee: [a] In Sandra Lovelace v. Canada, Communication No. R.6/24 (29 December 1977), U.N. Doc. Supp. No. 40 (A/36/40) at 166 (1981), Lovelace petitioned the United Nations Human Rights Committee pursuant to the Optional Protocol of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights on December 29, 1977. On July 30, 1981 the United Nations Human Rights Committee reached its decision on the communication which 'inter alia' found Canada to be in breach of Article 27, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the right of minority members to practice their culture.
13. International Law on Interpretation and Harmonization of Cultural Rights: International Court of Justice: [a] The Opinion of Weeramantry J in Case Concerning the Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary v Slovakia) 68, clarifies his legal perspectives towards multi-culti lawmaking, namely that multi-cultural law must (a) avoid Mono-cultural legal hegemony and (b) draw on legal cultural diversity: The need for International law to draw upon Worlds Diversity of Cultures in Harmonizing Development and Environmental Protection. In drawing into international law the benefits of the insights available from other cultures, and in looking to the past for inspiration, international environmental law would not be departing from traditional methods of international law, but would, in fact, be following in the path charted out by Grotius. Rather than laying down a set of principles a priori for the new discipline of international law, he sought them also a posteriori from the experience of the past, searching through a whole range of cultures available to him for this purpose 69. From them he drew the durable principles which had weathered the ages, on which to build the new international order of the future. Environmental law is now in a formative stage, not unlike international law in its early stages. A wealth of past experience from a variety of cultures is available to it. It would be pity indeed if it were left untapped merely because of attitudes of formalism which see such approaches as not being entirely de rigueur.
14.
Lifestyle as Evidence for Enquiry into Choice of Cultural Law: [a] In Ex Parte Minister of Native Affairs in re: Yako v Beyi 1948 (1) SA 388 (A) Schreiner J.A. said lifestyle of is a choice of law factor. “Aside from an express choice of laws all connecting factors with conflict of personal laws are designed to determine, in an objective manner, the cultural orientation of the parties. Because the laws involved are conceived in terms of culture .... the connecting factors must be conceived in like terms. The most direct access to a person’s cultural leanings would clearly be his or her lifestyle.”
15.
True and Correct Interpretation of Proceedings: [a] In S v Ndala 1996 (1) 218 (C) 224 d-g, the court held that if the right of an Accused to a true and correct interpretation of the proceedings has, prima facie, been irrevocably infringed and such an infringement is brought to the attention of the Supreme Court, the court must intervene.
68 Opinion of Weeramantry J in the Case Concerning the Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary v Slovakia) (1998) 37 International Legal Materials 162 206. 69 Julius Stone, Human Law and Human Justice, 1965, p.66: “It was for this reason that Grotius added to his theoretical deductions such a mass of concrete examples from history.”
16.
Judicially Uninvestigated Facts: [a] In S v Roux 1974 (2) SA 452 (N) 455 A, the court held that the power of a Court of Appeal to hear further evidence stems from the fact that it is neither in the interests of the administration of justice nor in the interests of legal certainty that questions of fact which have already been judicially investigated and pronounced upon should be re-opened and amplified or supplemented, and vice versa.
17.
Waiver of Court A Quo’s Advantage: [a] In R v Tusini and another 1953 (4) SA 406 (A) 412 C-F, the court held that if the hearing/trial magistrate does not take advantage of the favourable position in which he finds himself, as far as considering the witnesses and the evidence is concerned, the court of appeal will be free to come to its own findings instead of those of the trial court. Then the entire hearing/case is retried in the sense that the Court of Appeal will attempt to establish whether the appellant is actually guilty beyond reasonable doubt, particularly in the light of the record of evidence and the impression, which the witnesses made upon the hearing/trial magistrate.
18.
Grounds for Review: [a] In Johannesburg Consolidated Investment Co. v Johannesburg Town Council 1903 TS 111 114 – 117, the court held that there are three distinct categories of judicial review, of relevance here are: (A) Irregularities & Illegalities in the Proceedings before lower courts, as contemplated by S 24 of the Supreme Court Act; and (C) Reviews provided for by other legislation, explained as: ‘The legislature has from time to time conferred upon this court or a Judge a power of review which in my opinion was meant to be far wider than the powers which it possesses under either of the review procedures to which I have alluded’ [(A) and (B) above] (116).
It was further 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 (At 310j-311a). 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 (At 312a-c).
19. Review: Irregularities & Illegalities in the Proceedings: [a] S 24(1) of the Supreme Court Act provides the grounds upon which proceedings of any inferior court may be brought under review, of relevance here are:-- (a) Absence of Jurisdiction on the part of the court; (c) Gross Irregularity in the Proceedings, & (d) the Admission of Inadmissible or Incompetent Evidence or the Rejection of Admissible or Competent evidence.
20. Irregularity of Proceedings: [a] Irregularity: Where a Mistake of Law is fundamental in the sense that a lower court has declined to exercise the function entrusted to it by statute and, as a result
of such conduct, a party has been denied the right to a fair hearing, such error may constitute an irregularity.
21. Application of Mind: [a] A mistake of law per se is not an irregularity, but its consequences amount to a gross irregularity where a judicial officer, although perfectly well intentioned and bona fide, does not direct his mind to the issue before him and so prevents the aggrieved party from having his case fully and fairly determined (Goldfields Investment, Ltd. V City Council of Johannesburg, 1938 T.P.D. 551; Local Road Transportation Board v Durban City Council 1965 (1) S.A. 586 (A.D.) at 598A-C).
22. Application of Mind: Bias / Nemo Iudex in Propria Causa – Absence of Bias [a] The ideal of Nemo Iudex in Propria Causa – Absence of Bias applies to administrative process, as well as to courts of law, for fairness is concerned not only with objectivity but also with the public interest and public confidence70. Roman law first prescribed the ultimate penalty for a judge/administrator who allowed himself to be bribed, and later it furnished an action against him. The courts are required to set aside any administrative action which is tainted by bias. [b] R v Sussex Justices, Ex parte McCarthy71 established the principle that the mere appearance of bias -- in that case a conflict of interest, on the part of the judicial officer -- is sufficient to overturn a judicial decision. A person who makes a decision should be unbiased and act in good faith, cannot be a party in the case, nor an interest in the outcome: "no man is permitted to be judge in his own cause". In the Kings Bench Judicial Review case, Lord Chief Justice Hewart found that: “.... a long line of cases shows that it is not merely of some importance but is of fundamental importance that justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done. .... Nothing is to be done which creates even a suspicion that there has been an improper interference with the course of justice.
[c] Other cases confirming the importance of the principle of impartiality, include Metropolitan Properties (FCG) Ltd v Lannon72, in which Lord Denning MR placed the rule against bias in its true perspective by explaining its primary rationale73: ‘Suffice it that reasonable people might think that he [was biased]. The reason is plain enough. Justice must be rooted in confidence: and confidence is destroyed when right-minded people go away thinking: “the judge was biased.”
[d] In Liebenberg v Brakpan Liquor Licensing Board 1944 WLD 52, 54-5, Solomon J, found that: ‘Every person who undertakes to administer justice, whether he is a legal official or is only for the occasion engaged in the work of deciding the rights of others, is disqualified if he has a bias which interferes with his impartiality; or if there are circumstances affecting him that might reasonably create a suspicion that he is not impartial… The impartiality after which the Courts strain may often in practice be unrealized without detection, but the ideal cannot be abandoned without irreparable injury to the standards hitherto applied in the administration of justice.”
70 71 72 73
On public confidence, see Metropolitan Properties Co (FGC) Ltd v Lannon [1969] ! QB 577, 599; S v Radebe 1973 (1) SA 796 (A), 812 H. R v Sussex Justices, Ex parte McCarthy ([1924] 1 KB 256, [1923] All ER 233) [PDF: http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/1924_rvsussexjustices] [1969] 1 QB 577 At 599
23. Test for Bias: [a] In The Test for Bias in the Administrative and Judicial Process, (1982-3), 3 Natal U L Rev. 24, Greenberg J concluded (at 106), that: “The test appears to be whether the person challenged has so associated himself with one of the two opposing views that there is a real likelihood of bias or that a reasonable person would believe that he would be biased.”
24. Bolam Test: Common Law Reasonableness Test: Skills & Competencies [a] As stated in the Radical Honesty SA Amicus Curiae to the Constitutional Court74 (massively censored by SA media publications): [13] According to the Common law Reasonable Man Test, if the defendants actions served a socially useful purpose then he may be justified in taking greater risks; and if she acted in accordance with the common practice of others, this is considered strong evidence, with special standards being appropriate to professionals75. In Bolam v. Friern Hospital Management Committee76, Judge McNair’s judgement dealt with the application of the common law reasonableness test in regards to negligence, where the ‘reasonableness test’ circumstance involved a special skill or competence. But, where you get a situation which involves the use of some special skill or competence, then the test whether there has been negligence or not is not the test of the man on the top of a Clapham omnibus, because he has not got this special skill. The test is the standard of the ordinary skilled man exercising and professing to have that special skill. A man need not possess the highest skill at the risk of being found negligent. It is well established law that it is sufficient if he exercises the ordinary skill of an ordinary competent man exercising that particular art. [14] Similarly, the common law reasonableness test has cultural applications, similar to that of a professional skill application. Where the ‘reasonableness’ of an act is questioned that involves the skills or common practices within a particular culture/tribe, then the skills and practices of that particular tribe needs to be applied to determine the cultural/tribal ‘reasonableness’ of the individual’s circumstances77.
25. Stanley Milgram Studies on obedience: Legal, Socio-Political Implications [a] Skills and competencies required for individuals to object to mobjustice; i.e. groups within a society, who are blindly ideologically obedient to their left-wing or right-wing politically correct ideology. As stated in the Radical Honesty SA Amicus Curiae to the Constitutional Court78 (massively censored by SA media publications): [29] In 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 74
Heads of Argument for Lara Johnstone, in Support of Radical Honesty Population Policy Common Sense Interpretation of Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act, 34 of 1995 PDF at http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100718_rhwr-concourt-amicus 75 Daborn v. Bath Tramways [1946] 2 All ER 333; and Watt v Hertfordshire County Council [1954] 2 All ER 368; Gray v Stead [1999] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 559; Philips v William Whiteley [1938] 1 All ER 566 76 Bolam v. Friern Hospital Management Committee [1957] 1 WLR 582; [1957] 2 All ER 118 [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/33092633] 77 Smit NO and Others v King Goodwill Zwelithini Kabhekuzulu and Others (10237/2009) [2009] ZAKZPHC 75 (4 December 2009); S v Zuma (JPV325/05, JPV325/05) [2006] ZAGPHC 45; 2006 (2) SACR 191 (W); 2006 (7) BCLR 790 (W) (8 May 2006), at: p.98; Sandra Lovelace v. Canada, Communication No. R.6/24 (29 December 1977), U.N. Doc. Supp. No. 40 (A/36/40) at 166 (1981). 78 Heads of Argument for Lara Johnstone, in Support of Radical Honesty Population Policy Common Sense Interpretation of Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act, 34 of 1995 PDF at http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100718_rhwr-concourt-amicus
common law ‘reasonableness test’79 filed as Expert Witness Affidavit in High Court, W.C. # 19963-09; Dr. Blanton explains what happens in cultures of obedience; how and why studies show that 92% of citizens lack the psychological and emotional skills for non-violent disobedience. Brief Description of the Milgram Experiment: [19.] The Milgram experiment was a series of social psychology experiments conducted by Yale University psychologist Stanley Milgram, which measured the willingness of study participants to obey an authority figure who instructed them to perform acts that conflicted with their personal conscience. [20.] Milgram devised the experiments in response to the question raised by Hannah Arendt, in her coverage of the war crimes trial of Adolf Eichmann. Eichmanns defence was that he should not be held personally responsible for a crime against mankind because he was doing his duty in the social system of which he was a part. His lawyers said a court might judge the social system as criminal, but not the person doing their duty within that social system. This argument was rejected. Eichmann’s adjudicators concluded that he was individually responsible for the crimes he committed, regardless of the social system of which he was a part, and he was executed. [21.] Arendt then raised the question which fascinated Milgram: Was Adolf Eichmann some unusual deviant, some sadistic exception to common humanity, or was he just a bureaucrat? What he actually did was shuffle papers in an office and make phone calls and give orders. Was he normal? [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. [23.] Furthermore, when individuals could share the responsibility or blame, with just one other person, 92% of individuals would, like Eichmann, cooperate with authority; and refrain from civil disobedience; and only 8% possessed the skills and competencies for civil disobedience. [25.] The relevant questions then become, what are the resources: the emotional, psychological, and socio-political skills and competencies, that: A. the 37% possess, when individually confronting perceived illegal authority; and B. the 8% possess, refusing the given opportunity, from an ideological or social peer, to share the blame, with them; and individually confront perceived illegal authority. [27] The results of the Stanley Milgram Tests on Obedience (which have since been replicated by other social-scientists with the same results) clearly show that acts of civil disobedience are acts that the man on the Clapham omnibus are emotionally, psychologically and socio-politically incapable of. Put differently they are acts that require the use of special emotional, psychological and socio-political skills and competencies. [28] To apply the man on the Clapham omnibus reasonableness test, to someone consciously and deliberately committing an act of civil disobedience to perceived illegal authority; would be the same as applying the man on the Clapham omnibus reasonableness test, to determine whether a heart surgeon’s decisions and actions made during open-heart surgery, were negligent or unreasonable; or asking a clown, whether an astronauts decisions during lift-off, were ‘reasonable’ or not. 79
Blanton, Brad Ph.D: Reasonableness Test Radical Honesty Skills & Competencies Affidavit [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/33790671]
[29]. Consequently, the reasonableness test that should be applied to cases of civil disobedience, are not those of the man on the Clapham omnibus; because he does not have these special skills and competencies. The reasonableness test that should be applied, is the standard of the ordinary skilled person, exercising and professing to have that special skill.
26. Common Law Reasonableness Test: Skills and Competencies [a] As stated in the Radical Honesty SA Amicus Curiae to the Constitutional Court80 (massively censored by SA media publications): [30] In Dr. Blanton’s Radical Honesty skills and capabilities forgiveness expert witness affidavit81 he confirms that “[Johnstone] 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.� [D] There is a difference between posed, fake intellectual forgiveness, and sincere, sensate being forgiveness: Forgiveness occurs through telling the truth and then staying there to experience the sensations in the body and the emotional response of the person speaking the truth. Staying present to the experience requires a broadening of attention, a widening of focus from the narrower focus on right and wrong, admitting lies, admitting crimes, reporting what really happened in the past. The shift from primary attention to the intellectual domain of judging right and wrong, to giving primary attention to the bodily experience that comes with telling the truth, is so that the person can feel their way through, rather than think their way around, the experience triggered by the report about the past. Forgiveness is required for reconciliation. And the process of reconciliation is forgiveness squared. Because, as the one who initiates telling the truth, whether it is confessing what you have done or reporting on what others have done, you have to stay present to the persons who responds to your words, and to your feeling response and verbal response to them, and they must do the same in response to you...and this must go on for however long it takes for all the parties to be moved in their emotions, in their bodies and at the level of sensations experienced in the body, so that the sensations can increase, persist for a while, decrease, and then recede and go away. It is this bodily sensation of a change of heart that is the criterion for forgiveness that creates the possibility of reconciliation. If this process goes on honestly and is supported by those who give the invitation to reconciliation, sometimes former enemies become allies and friends out of mutual respect for each other's willingness to go through the process of telling the truth and experiencing and sharing their honest heartfelt, bodyfelt response. Sometimes, many times, the truth never gets told. Sometimes, many times, even if the truth is told, reconciliation does not occur. Sometimes truth and reconciliation happens. When it does, new people make a new beginning."
27. Rule of Law and Forgiveness: Individuality, Independence, Integrity
80
Heads of Argument for Lara Johnstone, in Support of Radical Honesty Population Policy Common Sense Interpretation of Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act, 34 of 1995 PDF at http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100718_rhwr-concourt-amicus 81 Blanton, Brad Ph.D: Reasonableness Test Radical Honesty Skills & Competencies Affidavit [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/33790671]
[a] As stated in the Radical Honesty SA Amicus Curiae to the Constitutional Court82 (massively censored by SA media publications): [31] In Practicing Radical Honesty, Dr. Blanton describes the importance of sincere forgiveness to changing the statistics of the Stanley Milgram studies of Obedience, which proved that 92% of humans are as culturally, racially, ideologically or religiously obedient, and unquestioning to their beliefs as Adolf Eichmann was to Nazism: The key to individuality, integrity, and individual freedom has something to do with forgiveness, which involves getting over anger. That is done in the public domain, in community, and it is the pathway to freedom for individuals and the key to free societies. It is the way the statistics from Stanley Milgram's experiments get changed. Learning forgiveness, as an individual skill, by practice in getting over anger in the context of a community of friends, is an absolutely necessary prerequisite to creating a world that works for everyone. To be an individual who operates independently of authority and according to compassion, you need to learn the fundamental skills of getting mad and getting over it. Once you gain experience of getting mad and sincere forgiveness, you learn skills of noticing. You learn to notice even your mind. You notice that ‘I think, therefore I am’ is erroneous; and you begin to know “I am, therefore I think”. You notice yourself thinking. Your thoughts are just thoughts, not ‘me’. You become a being with a mind (I am, therefore I think) rather than a mind with a being (I think, therefore I am) as your culture has taught you all your life. [32] In Obedience to Authority, Stanley Milgram describes the perils of blind obedience to authority, as described in An Essay on Proudly South African Hypocrisy83: Nothing unites a community or builds national-unity easier than a common enemy, where the 'unity' is often of superiority. Usually systematic intense devaluation of the enemy prior to action against him provides a measure of psychological justification for his brutal treatment. Once having acted against the enemy, these individuals often find it necessary to view the enemy as an unworthy individual, whose punishment was made inevitable by his own deficiencies of intellect and character. Building national unity by drawing people together in a common unified posture of anger and indignation (at the 'criminal' enemy), is the use of political policy to redefine the meaning of the situation. …. Control the manner in which a man -- in South Africa, America or wherever -- interprets his world, and you go a long way toward controlling his behaviour, because there is a propensity for people to accept definitions and interpretations of action, situations and behaviour provided to them by individuals whom they consider to be legitimate authority. That is why governments invest heavily in ideological propaganda, which constitutes the official manner of interpreting events. Additionally every situation also possesses a kind of ideology, which is called the "definition of the situation," and which is the interpretation of the meaning of the particular social occasion. It provides the perspective through which the elements of a situation gain coherence and clarity. An act viewed in one perspective may seem heinous; the same action viewed in another perspective seems fully warranted. When people accept definitions of action provided by legitimate authority, although the individual performs the action, he allows authority to define its meaning. It is this ideological abrogation to the authority that constitutes the principal cognitive basis of obedience. If, after all, the world, event, job, or the particular situation is as the authority defines and describes it, a certain set of actions follows logically. Because the individual conforms and without critical analysis accepts the authority's definition of the situation, obedient action follows willingly, often enthusiastically. [33] In Perils of Obedience, Dr. Stanley Milgram summarised ‘Eichmann’ Obedience as:
82
Heads of Argument for Lara Johnstone, in Support of Radical Honesty Population Policy Common Sense Interpretation of Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act, 34 of 1995 PDF at http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100718_rhwr-concourt-amicus 83 04-06-11: Proudly SA Parasite Hypocrisy: Fraudulent Rehabilitation Boomerang [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/34104187]
The legal and philosophic aspects of obedience are of enormous importance, but they say very little about how most people behave in concrete situations. I set up a simple experiment at Yale University to test how much pain an ordinary citizen would inflict on another person simply because he was ordered to by an experimental scientist. Stark authority was pitted against the subjects [participants] strongest moral imperatives against hurting others, and, with the subjects [participants] ears ringing with the screams of the victims, authority won more often than not. The extreme willingness of adults to go to almost any lengths on the command of an authority constitutes the chief finding of the study and the fact most urgently demanding explanation. Ordinary people, simply doing their jobs, and without any particular hostility on their part, can become agents in a terrible destructive process. Moreover, even when the destructive effects of their work become patently clear and they are asked to carry out actions incompatible with fundamental standards of morality, relatively few people have the resources needed to resist authority.
28. Application of Mind: Dunning & Kruger Effect: Intellectual Competence: “If Wheeler was too stupid to be a bank robber, perhaps he was also too stupid to know that he was too stupid to be a bank robber — that is, his stupidity protected him from an awareness of his own stupidity.”
[a] The Dunning–Kruger effect is the name for the research by Justin Kruger and David Dunning, then from Cornell University. Kruger and Dunning noted earlier studies suggesting that ignorance of standards of performance is behind a great deal of incompetence. This pattern was seen in studies of skills as diverse as reading comprehension, operating a motor vehicle, and playing chess or tennis. They proposed that, for a given skill, incompetent people will: o o o o
tend to overestimate their own level of skill; fail to recognize genuine skill in others; fail to recognize the extremity of their inadequacy; recognize and acknowledge their own previous lack of skill, if they can be trained to substantially improve.
[b] Put simply the Dunning & Kruger effect “is a cognitive bias in which an unskilled person makes poor decisions and reaches erroneous conclusions, but their incompetence denies them the metacognitive ability to realize their mistakes.” [c] Note for the Record: Naturally, of course, anyone can be unskilled in millions of tasks, being unskilled in any given task is not the problem; denial thereof to one-self and deception of others about your lack of skill in any given task, is the problem. For example, Johnstone is highly unskilled, if not retarded-like when it comes to the skill/competency of manipulative hypocrisy or fake arse-kissing. Fakeness, hypocrisy, being two-faced, diplomacy etc.. are not skills Johnstone/Radical honesty culture members consider worthy of acquiring; to the contrary. The Radical Honesty culture highly value brutally honest face-to-face feedback. We don’t do drive-by-verbal attacks. We provide the person with our honest feedback to their face, and remain committed in the conversation with them, to hear their feedback, until we have both incorporated each others feedback into our guts and bones, and sincerely forgiven each other.
o
Kruger, Justin; David Dunning (1999). "Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated SelfAssessments"84/85. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 77 (6): 1121–34.
o
Ehrlinger, Joyce; Johnson, Kerri; Banner, Matthew; Dunning, David; Kruger, Justin (2008). "Why the unskilled are unaware: Further explorations of (absent) selfinsight among the incompetent"86 . Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 105 (105): 98–121
o
Goode, Erica (2000-01-18). "Among the Inept, Researchers Discover, Ignorance Is Bliss"87. New York Times (New York).
o
Dunning, David; Kerri Johnson, Joyce Ehrlinger and Justin Kruger (2003). "Why people fail to recognize their own incompetence"88. Current Directions in Psychological Science 12 (3): 83–87
o
DeAngelis, Tori (feb 2003). "Why we overestimate our competence"89. Monitor on Psychology. American Psychological Association. p. 60.
o
Morris, Errol, 20 June 2010, The Anosognosic’s Dilemma: Something’s Wrong but You’ll Never Know What It Is90, New York Times: The Opinionator
29. Radical Honesty Culture: Foundational Principle: The Importance of Honest Feedback, for growth of cultural, intellectual, emotional, psychological, etc competence. In Practicing Radical Honesty, Dr. Blanton explains: To grow, and to continue growing throughout life, and to contribute to the personal and collective growth of humankind in the great conversation about what it is to be human, we need two things: ·
the ability to have a transcendent perspective, and
·
the ability to transcend.
A transcendent perspective comes from thinking and from processing a lot of information (which has to be accurate information, not lies). Transcending is done by noticing and experiencing–particularly, resistance within (the individual self) and without (other people and other social structures) to new transcendent perspectives. [..] Another example, most people will tell you that they are not in favor of war, while war persists. Defense budgets deplete a gigantic proportion of the world's resources, and warfare is still frequently used as an attempt to settle disputes. War and preparation for war remain a completely acceptable exception to collective personal preferences against violence. Other examples are abundant. All point to the same dilemma. We can go places with our minds that our psyches can't yet reach. We don't have the heart to grow on up to what we know is possible. Those of us who have decided that growing is worth the trouble need an ongoing supply of two things. We need information about new perspectives and we need to process the information personally with friends to really be able to apply it. This is why I write books, lead workshops, trainings, and consultations: 84 85 86 87 88 89 90
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.64.2655&rep=rep1&type=pdf http://www.scirp.org/Journal/PaperDownload.aspx?fileName=Psych.20090100004_39584049.pdf&paperID=883 http://www.psy.fsu.edu/~ehrlinger/Self_&_Social_Judgment/Ehrlinger_et_al_2008.pdf http://www.nytimes.com/2000/01/18/health/among-the-inept-researchers-discover-ignorance-is-bliss.html?pagewanted=1 http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118890796/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0 http://www.apa.org/monitor/feb03/overestimate.aspx http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/20/the-anosognosics-dilemma-1/
We human beings do not revise perspectives without a fight. The experiments in personal growth, and the working through of our resistance to giving up old perspectives, provide us with more information, but they are hard work. This then helps us to revise the old perspectives or come up with entirely new ones—and so the process continues. Ideas are useful only when modified in the guts of the living. This book is about a few new perspectives:
the need for honest and accurate information—how to give it and how to get it,
the work needed to bring about "the getting" of new perspectives into our bones and into the world,
how to support each other in the process of shedding old perspectives and building new ones, and
creating a larger context politically and economically for the growth of human knowledge, thus expanding our ability to survive and thrive.
Beyond those perspectives, this book is about a perspective on perspectives. The perspective I am advocating in this book is to view perspectives themselves from a transcendent standpoint. That standpoint is that all perspectives are relative. No perspective is absolute except this one. One first gets the relativity of perspectives intellectually. After a long time and a lot of work, one gets the perspective on the relativity of perspectives practically, "feelingly," usefully, psychologically, structurally, interpersonally, and whatever other "lys" pertain to the actual bringing into being of the perspective of detachment from perspectives itself. How many Zen Buddhists does it take to change a light bulb? Three. One to change the bulb. One to not change the bulb. One to neither change the bulb or not change the bulb. The ultimate detachment includes detachment even from the ideal of attachment. This is the kind of thing that can make you lose your mind and come to your senses.
30. International Standard Journalistic Court Reporting Practice, regarding Headlines, reporting statements made in court proceedings, etc? The Australian Press Council article, Reporting the Courts91, emphasize that reporting what is ‘said in the court-room’ is protected: When proceedings are held in public, reports of them usually are protected. That is, the media may report proceedings without fear of being sued for defamation. In defamation the media has to prove that its statements are true but, in court proceedings, finding the truth is a matter for the courts. [..] To be protected, reports of proceedings must be fair and accurate. As well as each day's account, the reporting of a case in its entirety must also be fair and accurate. [..] But as long as fairness and accuracy in relation to the proceedings themselves is maintained the report will still be protected. Editing out parts of the evidence should not give rise to inaccuracy or unfairness.
In Australian Press Council Adjudication No. 190 (March 1984) [1984] APC 992, the Brisbane Sun is reprimanded for headlining a report "Wife in $10,000 'Kill Pact"'. The Press Council found the headline inaccurate, because nobody –- no witness, nor the Crown prosecutor -- during the relevant court proceedings ever mentioned the words “kill pact”, nor was any evidence led during the court proceedings which would justify the words “kill pact”.
91 92
http://www.presscouncil.org.au/pcsite/apcnews/may99/courts.html http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/apc/1984/9.html
The News Manual93, by David Ingram and the Peter Henshall; “was first published as a three-volume book with assistance from the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) and was aimed initially at journalists working in developing countries. It was designed to be a straightforward, no-nonsense guide and for many years it became a standard text in newsrooms across the Asia-Pacific region.”94 Chapters 56 to 73 – Ethics and law, of which Chapter 64: The rules of court reporting95, makes the following relevant points, which I imagine can be considered ‘standard journalistic practice’ for honourable, ethical journalists, concerned about a Justice System that delivers free and fair trials, where citizens have confidence in the law and the justice system, and where journalists report fairly and accurately on trials. The justice system It is vital that all people should have a fair trial, if they are accused of doing something wrong or injuring another person in some way. People who have done nothing wrong should not be afraid that they will be punished if they are charged, perhaps by mistake, or if someone takes legal action against them in a civil case. They should be able to be confident that they will be cleared of the accusation. Otherwise, all people will live in fear of the law, instead of feeling that it is there to protect them. A court is the place where society employs specially trained people to decide whether or not a person really did something wrong. [..]A fair trial Because it is so important that everybody should have a fair trial, nothing which would be likely to interfere with a fair trial is allowed to happen. This means that journalists working in many legal systems – especially those of the Commonwealth are not normally allowed to publish or broadcast certain things during court proceedings, from the moment that somebody is about to be charged with an offence up to the moment that the court finishes dealing with it. Sub judice From the time that somebody is about to be charged with an offence, up to the moment when the court finishes dealing with it, the case is said to be sub judice. In practice, sub judice normally starts when a person is arrested, charged or a warrant is issued for their arrest and ends when the judge or jury gives a verdict. In civil cases, sub judice normally starts when legal papers are lodged with the court and ends with the court's decision. Sub judice is a Latin phrase meaning "under judgment". It is pronounced “sub JOOda-see”. While a case is sub judice, journalists are strictly limited as to what they can write. This is to make sure that they do not interfere with the job of the court in giving the defendant a fair trial. [..] Why report court cases? The courts are there to act on behalf of ordinary people, so it is important that they carry out their business in public, for all to see. It is a vital principle that Justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done. In other words, courts have to do the right thing, and the public have to see and understand that they do so. [..] There are three main reasons why journalists report court cases: to encourage public confidence in the law, to help the law deter future crime, and to get strong news stories. Public confidence in the law 93 94 95
http://www.thenewsmanual.net/the_manuals.htm http://www.thenewsmanual.net/about.htm http://www.thenewsmanual.net/Manuals%20Volume%203/volume3_64.htm#fair
If ordinary law-abiding people are to feel that their society is strong enough to protect them from criminals, then they have to have a system of law enforcement which they feel confident about. That means that they have to trust the police to catch criminals; and they have to trust the courts to punish people who break the law, to release people who obey the law, and to know the difference between the two. In other words, society has to believe that the police and the courts are effective, fair and consistent. [..] If the courts are not consistent, then it is unlikely that society can feel confident about the courts' ability to protect it properly. Deterrence and publicity Society needs journalists to attend court cases and to report exactly what happens there - who is accused of what, what evidence is brought for the prosecution and for the defence, what the court's decision is, and so on. Society's confidence in the legal system depends upon people being informed about what is going on. That is part of the journalist's job, and it is a vital one. It is a job which needs to be done responsibly. [..] If people believe that they can break the law and get away with it, they are more likely to break the law. If people believe that the police and courts are so arbitrary that innocent people are as likely to be punished as guilty people, then they are more likely to break the law. After all, if you are going to be punished anyway, you might as well enjoy the benefits of the crime. Only if people believe that law-abiding people are defended by the law, and lawbreakers punished, will they be encouraged to live by the law. So the smooth running of society depends partly on people being informed about what happens in courts. Defamation & privilege We have seen that it is in the interests of society that everything which goes on in court is reported - the charges, the name of the defendant and all the evidence, as well as the verdict and sentence. However, as we shall see in Chapter 69, there is an offence called defamation (or libel in some countries), which stops people saying untrue things about other people which will damage their reputations. Is this not a worry to the court reporter? [..] The good news for court reporters, though, is that privilege protects more than the lawyers and witnesses. It also protects a news report of court proceedings, as long as it is fair, accurate and not malicious. In many legal systems, this special protection for reporting cases is called qualified privilege, because it has some conditions or qualifications. We shall deal in a moment with what each of these means. It is interesting to note that privilege is the court reporter's best friend. The limitations placed on what we can report by a case being sub judice may seem like a difficulty; the risk of defamation may seem frightening; but privilege puts everything back into balance. The court reporter may have to wait to tell the full story, but when the time comes it can all be reported fully, without any fear of defamation. Let us look now at the three conditions a report must meet in order to be protected by qualified privilege. It must be fair If evidence has been given by both prosecution and defence, the report must contain both sides. It is not necessary to report every word that was said, but the overall
balance of the court case must be retained in the report. For example, if the prosecution case took twice as long as the defence case, you could fairly devote twothirds of your report to the prosecution evidence and only one-third to the defence evidence. It is essential that a newspaper or broadcasting station which starts to report a court case, continues to do so every day until it is finished. Otherwise the report of the case as a whole cannot be fair, and it will then lose the protection of privilege. It must be accurate It is essential that court reporters do not make mistakes. What the witness says may be quoted, but it must be an accurate quote. Court reporters need good shorthand. Any significant inaccuracy will leave the whole of a report unprotected by privilege. It must not be actuated by malice If the reason you publish or broadcast a court report is to do harm to the defendant that is, you are being malicious - then you can lose the protection of privilege. [..] TO SUMMARISE: Courts are usually open to the public; journalists are free to report what goes on there. Reports are protected against defamation, as long as they are: •
Fair
•
Accurate
•
Without malice
[D] Application of Facts to Propositions of Law [I]
31.
Review and Set Aside Ombudsman Revised Ruling: Not Asked for Comment According to City Press, Ombudsman clears City Press96: The press ombudsman has retracted his finding that City Press breached the press code for allegedly failing to give the subject of a story the right of reply. [..] Deputy press ombudsman Johan Retief dismissed two of the complaints but initially upheld the complaint by RH representative Lara Johnstone that she was not approached for comment relating to its legal bid to be added as a friend of the court. “The newspaper made no attempt to ask Johnstone, the subject of the story, for comment. This is in breach of Art. 1.5 of the press code that states: “A publication should usually seek the views of serious critical reportage in advance of publication…” Retief found initially. However, after queries by City Press yesterday Retief acknowledged that he had erred in his original finding and dismissed the complaint as well. “The newspaper reported on a court case and was under no obligation to ask Johnstone for comment. This is standard journalistic practice,” said Retief. He also apologised for the error.
96
http://www.citypress.co.za/SouthAfrica/News/Ombudsman-clears-City-Press-20101103
32.
The Due Process Documentation filed in the matter, were as follows: o
10-10-13: Complaint Ombudsman: City Press: Rightwing Group Tries to Scupper Reits Trial97
o
10-10-18: Reply by City Press to Radical Honesty White Refugee Complaint to Ombudsman 98
o
10-10-20: Response by Radical Honesty to City Press Reply to Press Ombudsman99
o
10-11-03: Press Ombudsman Ruling # 1: Radical Honesty White Refugee vs City Press100
33. Grossly Irregular Due Process Proceedings: [a] From City Press’s report, it appears that subsequent to the Deputy Ombudsman’s ruling, City Press objected to the ruling, by means of ‘queries’ (whatever that means). Based upon these secret ‘queries’, which are not only highly irregular in regard to due process procedures in such matters, but of which copies were never provided to the complainant for response, the Ombudsman decided to retract his original ruling, and issue a new ruling. If City Press had objections to the Ombudsman’s ruling, the correct due process procedure should have been to file an Application for Review or Appeal.
34. Absence of Jurisdiction: Ombudsman lacks Jurisdiction to Issue a ‘Retraction’ of his own ruling: Grossly Irregular Administrative DecisionMaking: [a] Even if the Ombudsman was of the sincere realization that he had erred in his original finding, it is grossly irregular for him to simply issue a fiat order, retract his own ruling, and issuing another, and then deleting the original order, as if it was never made. The correct procedure would have been to file an affidavit, justifying his reasoning for his alleged errors, on behalf of City Press’s Application to Appeal or Review.
35. Grossly Unsubstantiated Written Reasons for such Grossly Irregular Administrative Decision-Making: [a] According to SAPA editor, Ms. Jenny O’Grady, the Ombudsman’s decision to retract his original ruling, was unheard of. If, such irregular decision-making was justified, detailed written reasons justification should be provided therefore. Instead this is the Ombudsman’s ‘written reasons’: “The newspaper reported on a court case and was under no obligation to ask Johnstone for comment. This is standard journalistic practice,” said Retief.
[b] The Ombudsman provided no details where his perspective of ‘standard journalistic practice’ is encoded. Nor did he provide any evidence that any of the statements made in the City Press were made by any official or witness during open court proceedings, to justify the statement that the City Press report was about the court proceedings. [c] It is submitted that City Press’s report, was not focused upon statements made by officials or witnesses during open court proceedings, regarding their opinions about the 97
http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/101013_sapc-ombudsman_citypress http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/101018_sapc_citypressreply_rh http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/101020_sapc_rh-reply-2-citypress 100 http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/101103_sapc-ruling_rhwr-v-citypress 98 99
Radical Honesty SA Amicus. No witness, nor court official described the Radical Honesty Amicus as anything close to ‘right wing’, or as ‘scuppering’ the trial. To the contrary. It is consequently submitted that City Press wrote an extremely baised and prejudiced critical report focused upon a few select statements by Johnstone/Radical Honesty, taken hugely out of context by City Press, who further recruited an anonymous source to support City Press’s bias and prejudice towards Radical Honesty. Consequently surely, such a biased report, required – at minimum – the journalist/publication to seek the views of the subject (Radical Honesty/Johnstone), for the purposes of providing their readers, and society with news reporting focused towards fairness and balance?
36. Uninvestigated Facts, Admission of Inadmissible or Incompetent Evidence and the Rejection of Admissible or Competent evidence: [a] City Press’s Incompetent Evidence argument in their Response101, was: [5] Ms Johnstone also complains that she was not approached for comment. But her abortive attempt at intervention in the Reitz matter was in itself a public event, on which City Press simply reported.
[b] Radical Honesty’s Competent Evidence argument response102 was detailed in para 12-13, which provides four reports (2 SAPA, 1 IOL, & 1 Volksblad), which simply reported upon Magistrate Hinxa, Prosecutor and Reitz Four Legal Representatives statements made in public court proceedings with reference to the Radical Honesty Amicus. Those reports detailed the exact quotes made by officials during court proceedings. Mag. Hinxa noted that the ‘court took note’ of the Radical Honesty Amicus (i.e. that it was successfully accepted it into the court record), and provided his legal interpretation of its content. Ms. Bradlow’s City Press report, focused, not on the statements made in public court proceedings, but proceeded to select particular Radical Honesty Amicus quotes, to justify her ideological discriminatory allegation of ‘right wing group’, by means of distortion, and deliberate material omissions of contradictory evidence and facts. The other news reports were balanced and fair about events which occurred in the court room; Ms. Bradlow’s article was in the realm of yellow tabloid parasitism, considering her decisions to omit any and all context and evidentiary facts which contradicted her ‘right wing’ and ‘scuppering’ smear campaign, none of which were the statements of any witness or court official during open court proceedings.
[II] Review and Set Aside Ombudsman Initial & Revised ‘Frivolity’ Ruling: Ombudsman: “The parts of the complaint stating that the story omits an accusation against the media, the reference to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) and the statement that the journalist’s source was uninformed and prejudiced towards minority groups are all frivolous and cannot be entertained.” 37.
101 102
Gross Irregularity: Absence of Jurisdiction, Uninvestigated Facts, Admission of Inadmissible or Incompetent Evidence and the Rejection of Admissible or Competent evidence:
http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/101018_sapc_citypressreply_rh http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/101020_sapc_rh-reply-2-citypress
[a] As proven under Facts Not In Dispute, by Default, the following are Facts Not In Dispute, as per the default resulting from City Press’s failure to dispute the arguments: [3] SA Media Spit on Cultures who practice Sincere Forgiveness & Root Cause Problem Solving: City Press deliberately omitted a key contextual qualifying phrase, in favour of their prejudiced sensationalist reporting. [4] City Press Anonymous Source Uninformed, Biased and Unethical: City Press made no argument whatsoever on the issue, to contradict the assertions regarding their anonymous source. [8] Radical Honesty’s Honourable Actions of Dissent to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, does not equate to an ‘Attack’ of the TRC or it’s goals, but an honourable endorsement.
38. Gross Irregularity: Absence of Jurisdiction: [a] A Press Council Ombudsman does not have the Jurisdiction to appoint himself as Counsel for the Publication, with a ruling of alleged ‘frivolity’ on any argument where the publication’s counsel negligently failed to provide an argument on behalf of the Publication, regarding allegations made in a complaint.
39. Gross Irregularity: Admission of Inadmissible or Incompetent Evidence and the Rejection of Admissible or Competent evidence: [a] If the publication considered the arguments frivolous, their legal counsel had every opportunity to make such argument, and provide any alleged evidence for such argument. No such argument of frivolity was submitted by the publication, nor any evidence therefore. The Ombudsman has consequently made a grossly irregular ruling, by ruling on behalf of incompetent evidence that was never even submitted by the Publication; and rejecting admissible and competent evidence which was submitted in great detail, by the complainant.
[III] Review and Set Aside Ombudsman Initial and Revised Ruling: Headline: A Misrepresentation 40.
As proven under Facts Not In Dispute, by Default, the following are Facts Not In Dispute, as per the default resulting from City Press’s failure to dispute the arguments: 1. ‘Right wing’ not a neutral term for City Press 2. Right wing a pejorative term for City Press
3. Radical Honesty a Rainbow Rule-of-Law Group, for all Political wings, including ‘Right Wing’ 4. English Media’s Scapegoating of Reitz Four 5. Shocking Decision by Reits Four to Plead Guilty to Dolus Eventualis, Impetus for Timing of Radical Honesty SA Amicus
41. Gross Irregularity: Ombudsman’s ‘Right Wing’ Ruling Infringed Johnstone’s Radical Honesty Constitutional Cultural Rights
[a] As stated in Johannesburg Consolidated Investment Co. v. Johannesburg, where a court reviews a decision of an inferior court in which an alleged constitutional right has been infringed or threatened, the review is of the ‘far wider’ “examine” or “take into consideration” variety, with unlimited powers, including the power to entertain the matter de novo. [b] Johnstone asserts that the Constitution entitlements to invoking cultural law (S. 15(3), 30, 31, and 185) entitle citizens to participate in the culture of their choice, and implicit in such duty is a responsibility, by such citizen to uphold the institutions on which their particular culture is based103. Additionally the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, asserts the right of minority citizens right to practice their culture.104 Furthermore in the International Court of Justice Opinion of Weeramantry J in Case Concerning the Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary v Slovakia)105, he clarifies his legal perspectives towards multi-culti lawmaking, namely that multi-cultural law must (a) avoid Mono-cultural legal hegemony and (b) draw on legal cultural diversity. [c] Johnstone has a right to uphold the institutions of her culture, which include nonviolently and legally supporting the rule of law, for all rainbow political, cultural, racial ideologies. Johnstone/Radical Honesty have a right to expect journalists and news publications to report about Radical Honesty truthfully, accurately and fairly, irrespective of the fact that many SA journalists and editors cannot stand Johnstone or the little that they know of the Radical Honesty culture. Journalists and publications do not have the right to ignore expert witness statements and legal affidavits filed by individuals who are acknowledged cultural experts on Radical Honesty culture, simply because the journalist has a malicious intent to depart from the facts, by censoring the information from the cultural expert, and to malign Radical Honesty culture/religion. [d] Similarly the Ombudsman does not have the right to simply ignore Radical Honesty cultural expert witness testimony, simply because he is intellectually, culturally, politically, ideologically, legally and/or spiritually incapable of making an impartial enquiry into intellectual perspectives held by culture’s and religions other than his own, and objects to alternative cultural interpretations and definitions of words or events, which are different to his own. The Ombudsman totally and utterly ignored the extensive expert witness evidentiary information from Dr. Brad Blanton, and instead the Ombudsman, with absolutely no knowledge or experience whatsoever about Radical Honesty decided to make himself an EXPERT about Radical Honesty, and to ignore the expert witness testimony of the FOUNDER EXPERT WITNESS OF RADICAL HONESTY. The Ombudsmans cultural arrogance defies comprehension, and is a GROSS IRREGULARITY. The Ombudsman admitted his own total ignorance incompetent knowledge of Radical Honesty as evidence, and rejected the admissible and competent evidence of Dr. Brad Blanton, the founder of Radical Honesty:
103
o
Origin and Founding of Radical Honesty Religion and Culture106
o
Dr. Blanton’s Forgiveness107
Radical
Honesty
About
the
Importance
of
Sincere
SALC, Sept 1999: Report on Conflicts of law: P.22: ‘1.58. Sandra Lovelace v. Canada, Communication No. R.6/24 (29 December 1977), U.N. Doc. Supp. No. 40 (A/36/40) 105 Opinion of Weeramantry J in the Case Concerning the Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary v Slovakia) (1998) 37 International Legal Materials 162 206. 106 10-10-20: Response by Radical Honesty to City Press Reply to Press Ombudsman (para.26) 107 10-10-20: Response by Radical Honesty to City Press Reply to Press Ombudsman (para.27) 104
o
Lara Johnstone – Member of Radical Honesty Culture and Religion108, which includes all the expert witness legal documents filed by Dr. Blanton in SA courts, including to the Constitutional Court.
o
Radical Honesty Personal Responsibility Culture v. Slave and Cannon Fodder Breeding Denial of Ecological Responsibility Cultures109
o
Interpreting ‘Kaffir’ in the Radical Honesty Culture110
o
Radical Honesty Worldview Concept: Honest Observation v. Political Correct Fundamentalism’s Race Obsessed Blame Game111
[e] The Radical Honesty culture, like every single other culture in South Africa deserves to be reported on critically, but in context and in a balanced manner, without any malicious intentional or negligent departure of the facts by: distortion, exaggeration or misrepresentation; material omissions or summarization. [f] That level of impartial professionalism did not occur in this City Press news article, starting with its malicious misrepresentation headline; to the contrary. [g] Furthermore, where journalists/publications deliberately and intentionally refuse to make impartial enquiries into a minority culture, and deliberately departs from the facts, to deliberately misrepresent the true reality about a culture or group, that is cultural and religious discrimination.
42. Ombudsman Uninvestigated definition Facts:
Cultural/Political
Ideology
‘Right
Wing’
[a] As stated in Radical Honesty SA response, City Press did not declare Radical Honesty as a ‘right wing’ culture/group, where ‘right wing’ had an innocent neutral meaning.112 City Press have yet to define what they mean by ‘right wing’, and subsequent to providing their particular definition/meaning wherein they used the term ‘right wing’, to provide evidence that supports their definition of the term ‘right wing’. [b] For example, if City Press’s meaning is focused on the term ‘reactionary’ as ‘right wing’, where reactionary is defined as ‘opposition to progress’, and if sincere forgiveness between SA’s political and racial groups, would be considered ‘progress’, then City Press’s reactionary opposition to supporting the TRC to encourage SA citizens to consider a serious commitment to practicing radical honesty, so as to attain a society founded on sincere forgiveness, could be narrowly interpreted as ‘extremist right wing’. [c] But it is suspected that City Press don’t use the word ‘right wing’, based upon any clearly articulated political definition, but as a pejorative word, to denote an individual or group whom City Press suggests its readers should not take seriously, or should not be concerned about such groups, not being treated fairly within the rule of law. It is used as a term to describe individuals or groups, whom are less worthy of serious consideration of their complaints or concerns by readers. It appears City Press’s use of ‘right wing’ is meant as an insult, to describe an individual or group who refuse to blindly obey City Press orthodoxy, rather than referring to a concrete set of ‘right wing’ political beliefs. [d] So, unless City Press publish a clear definition for what they mean by ‘right wing’ and how their definition is applicable to Johnstone/Radical Honesty’s Amicus; the conclusion
108 109 110 111 112
10-10-20: 10-10-20: 10-10-20: 10-10-20: 10-10-20:
Response Response Response Response Response
by by by by by
Radical Radical Radical Radical Radical
Honesty Honesty Honesty Honesty Honesty
to to to to to
City City City City City
Press Press Press Press Press
Reply Reply Reply Reply Reply
to to to to to
Press Press Press Press Press
Ombudsman Ombudsman Ombudsman Ombudsman Ombudsman
(para.28-29) (para.30-33) (para.63-79) (para.84-92) (para.11 & 17)
should be drawn that City Press meant ‘right wing’ as a coded pejorative term to readers.
43. Ombudsman Uninvestigated Cultural/Political Ideology ‘scupper’ definition Facts: [a] As proven in great detail under Facts Not In Dispute, by Default, the following are Facts Not In Dispute, as per the default resulting from City Press’s failure to dispute the arguments: [7] Shocking Decision by Reits Four to Plead Guilty to Dolus Eventualis, Impetus for Timing of Radical Honesty SA Amicus
44. Judicially Uninvestigated Facts: Lifestyle as Evidence of Choice of Adherence to Radical Honesty Rainbow Rule of law Cultural Law: [a] An impartial enquiry into Johnstone’s lifestyle113 provides direct access to her commitment to her Radical Honesty Rainbow Rule of Law culture and religion, as detailed under Facts Not In Dispute, by Default: [5] Radical Honesty a Rainbow Rule-of-Law Group, for all Political wings, including ‘right wing’.
45. Culturally Judicially Uninvestigated Facts: Fundamental Attribution Error & African Presumptions of Malice [a] If all Afrikaner or English and African cultures in South Africa insist on only having one definition and meaning for the word ‘kaffir’, i.e. as a racial insult to black people; that is fair enough, and totally their prerogative. As far as Radical Honesty is concerned, each and every culture is entitled to choose how they wish to define words, and what meaning they wish to attach to any and every word, and it is their responsibility to be clear about their cultural definitions so that other cultures can regulate their affairs in such a manner as to minimize misunderstandings. [b] The Radical Honesty culture has no intention of forcing other cultures to adopt definitions and meanings for words, that they don’t find useful to enable clear communication between their cultural members. Similarly, the Radical Honesty culture objects to any other culture that wishes to force their definition and meaning of a particular word, as the only definition and meaning on the face of the earth, down the throats of members of the Radical Honesty culture. If other cultures want to ban the word ‘kaffir’, or any other word, some of their culture find offensive, that is their choice, based upon their MOTIVATIONS, and THEIR CULTURAL DEFINTION. However not all cultures or religions have the same definition and meaning for the word ‘kaffir’ as City Press’s or the Ombudsman’s cultures. If City Press or the Ombudsman’s cultures, like Apartheid, wish to support ‘insult laws’, that is their choice. Radical Honesty does not support left or right wing politically correct insult laws, but does support Freedom of Speech as recognized by the US First Amendment. [c] We, in the Radical Honesty community, being avid rule of law fans for extreme left-winger Lenny Bruce’s, satire skit: Are there Any Niggers Here tonight?114, have long ago discussed the word ‘kaffir’, ‘nigger’, ‘wog’, ‘kike’, ‘spic’, ‘whitey’ 113 114
Ex Parte Minister of Native Affairs in re: Yako v Beyi 1948 (1) SA 388 (A) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SOnkv76rNL4
‘cracker’; with our psychiatrists and witch-doctors, we quite agree with the following perspective’s of Sandile Memela in Unlike a Rose, ‘kaffir’ does NOT smell the same to black and white, for which any of Lenny Bruce’s ‘nigger’, ‘wog’, ‘cracker’ ‘whitey’ ‘spick’ ‘kike’ terms can easily be substituted: o
the meaning of any word is not in the word itself, but in people’s heads
o
Kaffirs/Niggers/Wogs/Kikes/Spics/Whitey/Crackers, etc do exist! The biggest sin will always be: Who says it!
o
The use of the K-N-W-K-S-W-C--word is something that most white guilt whites/blacks/Hispanics/jews/blacks still need to discuss with their psychiatrists.
o
The time may be right for a society that has been undergoing transition for the past 13 years to appreciate new methods of defining the meaning of words and understanding their use in blunt, intense and provocative public speech.
o
Once 'kaffir' (etc) is out of the closet, pseudo-liberal forces both within the white community and their black imitators demand the person apologize, and put 'kaffir' back in the closet, to hush up any use of the word lest it raise the spectre of the apartheid past that haunts us.
o
But the panic and hysteria that has been caused in the white social and cultural circles is a sad farce of good intentions. The conclusion that should be drawn on this matter is that it is a combination of white guilt and political correctness.
o
This is part of our self-redefinition and expanding the meaning of words to fit into a new socio-cultural vocabulary that will help ultimately to break with white guilt, political correctness and a deep-seated inferiority complex.
[d] The majority of scientifically ignorant people found Galileo’s Galilei’s pronouncements that the earth was not flat, but round, religiously offensive. The majority of the Catholic Church found Martin Luther’s 95 Theses on Religious Indulgences as posted on the door of the church of All Saints on 31 October 1517, as religiously offensive. The question is whether there exists in South Africa a ‘Frederick III, Elector of Saxony’ type of intellectually culturally competent jurist, who can provide Johnstone with safe conduct to receive a free and fair trial/hearing. It appears that the Ombudsman is implying that adjudicators and journalists should cater to the illusions and intellectual incompetence of the culturally, legally and intellectually ignorant, in this matter? [e] In Why we overestimate our competence: Social psychologists are examining people's pattern of overlooking their own weaknesses115, DeAngelis reports that cultures who are less susceptible to over-inflating their incompetence, are those who encourage self-criticism, and brutally honest feedback; and how important good, honest feedback is, to enable an individual, organization or culture to grow intellectually, legally, psychologically or culturally. [f] Should an Ombudsman, Journalist, or Editor who wishes to practice their profession in an alleged multi-cultural or democratic society, who cannot make impartial Administrative Decisions -- or Journalism or Editorial Research enquiries -into perspectives held by other people of other cultures, religions, intellectual Schools of Thought, etc; be allowed to continue practicing their job, remaining ignorant of their intellectual cognitive incompetence, for the sake of societal 115
DeAngelis, Tori (feb 2003). "Why we overestimate our competence". Monitor on Psychology. American Psychological Association. p. 60. http://www.apa.org/monitor/feb03/overestimate.aspx.
obedience to politically correct ideology; or should they be provided the feedback about their incompetence? [g] That is assuming it was only Dunning-Kruger Effect incompetence - intellectual incompetence, which masked their ability to recognize their incompetence, - and not deliberate intellectual corruption; i.e. deliberate prejudice/bias, founded on malice?
[E] Evidentiary Documentation Filed by Parties, including evidentiary Radical Honesty SA Amicus Curiae’s to (i) Citizen v. McBride Concourt matter & (ii) Reits Four Magistrates Court matter. 10-07-18: Radical Honesty SA Amicus Curiae to Concourt116 10-07-27: Radical Honesty SA Amicus Curiae in Reitz Four Matter117 10-08-05: Complaint to SAPS: City Press: Defamation & Fraud118 10-10-13: Complaint Ombudsman: City Press: Rightwing Group Tries to Scupper Reits Trial119 10-10-18: Reply by City Press to Radical Honesty White Refugee Complaint to Ombudsman120 10-10-20: Response by Radical Honesty to City Press Reply to Press Ombudsman121 10-11-03: Press Ombudsman Ruling # 1: Radical Honesty White Refugee vs City Press122 10-11-03: City Press object to ruling, objection is not made public as part of Evidentiary documentation filed, but was reported on by City Press in City Press: Ombudsman clears City Press123: “However, after queries by City Press yesterday Retief acknowledged that he had erred in his original finding and dismissed the complaint as well.” Complainant has not been provided copy of City Press’s objection (‘quiery’) to ruling. 10-11-04: Press Ombudsman Ruling #2: Radical Honesty White Refugee vs City Press
Respectfully Submitted,
Lara Johnstone Member Radical Honesty Culture and Religion Annexure: [A]
116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123
Record of Correspondence Council/Ombudsman, et al
between
Radical
Honesty
http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100718_rhwr-concourt-amicus http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100729__rh-reits4-amicus http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100805_saps_citypress_fraud-defamation http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/101013_sapc-ombudsman_citypress http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/101018_sapc_citypressreply_rh http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/101020_sapc_rh-reply-2-citypress http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/101103_sapc-ruling_rhwr-v-citypress http://www.citypress.co.za/SouthAfrica/News/Ombudsman-clears-City-Press-20101103
White
Refugee
&
Press