12-07-18: SCA 815-11: Permission to Appeal to Concourt

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL BLOEMFONTEIN Case: SCA 815/11 (07-2010 EQ JHB) Application for Permission to Appeal Amicus Curiae Denial: In the matter between: JULIUS MALEMA

1st Plaintiff (Primary Party)

AFRICAN NATIONAL CONGRESS

2nd Plaintiff (Primary Party)

And AFRIFORUM

1st Respondent (Primary Party)

TRANSVAAL AGRICULTURAL UNION (TAU)

2nd Respondent (Primary Party)

FILING SHEET

Presented for Filing: 

Notice of Motion: Application for Permission to file an application to the Constitutional Court to Review the Honourable Supreme Court of Appeal’s 22 May 2012 decision to Refuse the Applicants Application to Proceed as an Amicus Curiae.



Founding Affidavit of Lara Johnstone & Affidavit: Proof of Service

Dated at George, Western Cape, this 18th day of July, 2012.

___________________________ LARA JOHNSTONE, Pro Se 16 Taaibos Ave, Heatherpark George, 6529 Tel/Fax: (044) 870 7239 Email: jmcswan@mweb.co.za.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL BLOEMFONTEIN Case: SCA 815/11 (07-2010 EQ JHB) Application for Permission to Appeal Amicus Curiae Denial: In the matter between: JULIUS MALEMA

1st Plaintiff (Primary Party)

AFRICAN NATIONAL CONGRESS

2nd Plaintiff (Primary Party)

And AFRIFORUM

1st Respondent (Primary Party)

TRANSVAAL AGRICULTURAL UNION (TAU)

2nd Respondent (Primary Party)

NOTICE OF MOTION

Take Notice that Lara Johnstone, of the Radical Honesty culture and religion, herewith applies to the above Honourable Court, for the following orders: [1]

Permission to invoke1 cultural law2 in S. 15(3), 30, 31, and 18; to enable the Applicant to honour the duty and responsibility to uphold the principles upon which the Radical Honesty culture is based; and Psychological Integrity in Section 123; the former which may require the application of choice of law rules.

[2]

Permission to file an application to the Constitutional Court to Review the Honourable Supreme Court of Appeal’s 22 May 2012 decision to Refuse the Applicants Application to Proceed as an Amicus Curiae.

1

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.

2 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.’

3 12. Freedom and security of the person: (2) Everyone has the right to bodily and psychological integrity, which includes the right - (a) to make decisions concerning reproduction; (b) to security in and control over their body; and (c) not to be subjected to medical or scientific experiments without their informed consent.

KINDLY TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that the accompanying affidavit of Lara Johnstone will be used in support of this application.

TAKE NOTICE FURTHER that the Applicant appoints the following address and contact details to accept any notice or service of process in these proceedings: 16 Taaibos Ave, Heatherpark, George, 6529. Tel and Fax (call first): (044) 870 7239; Cell: (071) 170 1954; or per Email to: jmcswan@mweb.co.za.

KINDLY place this matter before the Court for their consideration, at their earliest convenience.

Dated at George, Western Cape, this 18th day of July, 2012.

___________________________ LARA JOHNSTONE, Pro Se 16 Taaibos Ave, Heatherpark George, 6529 Tel/Fax: (044) 870 7239 Email: jmcswan@mweb.co.za.

TO: Registrar of the Supreme Court of Appeal: Bloemfontein (Per Email & Reg. Mail) Cnr Elizabeth & President Brand Streets, Bloemfontein, Free State, 9301 PO Box 258, Bloemfontein, Free State, 9300 Tel: +27 51 412 7400, Fax: +27 51 412 7449 Email: Pule Zachia (PZachia@justice.gov.za); Aletta Street (AStreet@justice.gov.za) AND TO:

JULIUS MALEMA & AFRICAN NATIONAL CONGRESS (Per Email) (1st & 2nd Applicants Attorneys) Mr. Mkhabela Huntley Adekeye Inc. Tel: (011) 786 7303 Ref: Mr. Makebela or Byron Morris Byron Morris (morris@mhalaw.co.za) (1st & 2nd Applicants Advocate) Vincent Maleka SC Doma Nokwe Group Tel: (011) 282 3700 / 3772 | Fax: (011) 884 6453 Cell: (083) 260 0790 Adv. Maleka (ivmaleka@mweb.co.za)

AND TO:

AFRIFORUM (Per Email)

(First Respondents Representatives) Mr. Kallie Kriel & Ms. Alana Bailey Posbus 17216, Lyttelton, 0140 Tel: 012 664 8923 | Fax: 012 664 1281 CEO: Kallie Kriel: (kallie@solidariteit.co.za) CEO: Alana Bailey: (alana@solidariteit.co.za) Youth: Ernsts Roets: (ernst@afriforum.co.za) (First Respondents Attorneys) Mr. Willie Spies Hurter Spies Attorneys Eendrachtstraat 1, Kloofsig, Centurion Tel: 012-664-0708 | Fax: 012-644-1997 Willie Spies: (admin@hurterspies.co.za) (First Respondents Advocate) Adv. Martin Brassey, SC Private Bag x41, Benmore, 2010 Tel: 011-290 4103 | Cel: 082-789 3971 Adv. Martin Brassey (brassey@counsel.co.za) AND TO:

TRANSVAAL AGRICULTURAL UNION (TAU) (Per Email) (Second Respondents Representative) CEO: Mr. Bennie van Zyl Posbus 912-51, Silverton, 0127 Tel. (012) 804-8031 | Faks. (012) 804-2014 Comm: Henk van de Graaf (koms@tlu.co.za) (Second Respondents Attorneys) Mr. Riaan van der Walt P O Box 1935, Brooklyn Square, 0075 Tel: (012) 460 1915/6 | Fax: (012) 460 1919 Cel: (082) 778 1720 Riaan van der Walt (riaan@louwalt.co.za), (mail@attorneys.co.za) (Second Respondents Advocate) Adv. Roelof du Plessis SC 60, Brooklyn Advocates Chambers Tel: 012 452 8760 | Fax: 012 452 8821 Cel: 083 225 7134 Adv. Roelof du Plessis (advr@mweb.co.za)

COPY TO:

VERENIGING VIR AFRIKAANS REGSLUI (Per Email) (SGHC: 1st Amicus Representative) Prof. Koos Malan Vereniging vir Afrikaanse Regslui Posbus 16464, Lyttelton, 0140 Tel: (012) 644-1909 | Faks: 012 664 6966 Prof. Koos Malan (admin@vra.co.za)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL BLOEMFONTEIN Case: SCA 815/11 (07-2010 EQ JHB) Application for Permission to Appeal Amicus Curiae Denial: In the matter between: JULIUS MALEMA

1st Plaintiff (Primary Party)

AFRICAN NATIONAL CONGRESS

2nd Plaintiff (Primary Party)

And AFRIFORUM

1st Respondent (Primary Party)

TRANSVAAL AGRICULTURAL UNION (TAU)

2nd Respondent (Primary Party)

FOUNDING AFFIDAVIT

I the undersigned, LARA JOHNSTONE do hereby make oath and say: 1.

I am the only member – to my knowledge – of the Radical Honesty1 culture and religion currently living in South Africa. The Radical Honesty culture and religion2 is open to anyone from any culture or religion, nationality or ideology; the only pre-requisite being a commitment to Radical Honesty: Being Specific About Anger and Forgiveness processes, i.e. the Truth and Forgiveness Social Contract, as excerpted from Dr. Brad Blanton‘s book, Practicing Radical Honesty: How to Complete the Past, Stay in the Present and Build a Future with a Little Help from Your Friends.

2.

The facts set out herein fall within the Applicants personal knowledge, unless otherwise indicated by the context, and are to the best of my belief true and correct.

1

As founded by Dr. Brad Blanton, bestselling author, psychologist and ‗Honesty in Politics‘ Congressional Candidate. See: www.radicalhonesty.com 2 RADICAL HONESTY: LJ Founding Affidavit: Para: 1, 15, 18, 20, 22, 24, 25, 26, 39, 49,54, 67, 69, 71, 77, 81; LJ Heads of Argument: Para: 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16-18, 19, 31-33, 34, 35, 36-38

Amicus Curiae Application 3.

The ‗Primary Parties‘ dispute arises out of the action launched by the Plaintiffs: Afriforum and Transvaal Agricultural Union (TAU) against Respondents: Mr. Julius Malema, leader of the African National Congress Youth League (ANCYL), for publicly singing ‗Kill the Boer‘.

The African National Congress subsequently applied to intervene on behalf of Malema.

4.

The Plaintiffs argue among others, that the words communicated are constitutionally prohibited for inciting harm and hatred against whites and farmers; that a reasonable person would consider the words to be intended to hurt, harm or incite hatred; and that Mr. Malema is an influential public figure whose utterances are widely reported.

5.

The Defendants argue among others that there are many meanings for the words ‗Kill the Boer‘, that the Plaintiffs are inaccurately interpreting the words including misinterpreting Mr. Malema‘s intentions when he sings the words ‗Kill the Boer‘. The words do not encourage farm murders, or hatred towards farmers; that their freedom of speech to sing ‗Kill the Boer‘ should not be infringed and that there should be a national dialogue about the song "awudubhule ibhunu" or "shoot the boer", given that some people had been offended by it.3 This was a legitimate ‗struggle song‘ in their war against Apartheid.

6.

On 30 December 2011, I filed an Application (PDF4) with the Supreme Court of Appeal for Permission to Proceed as Amicus Curiae in respect of the Primary Parties main application in terms of Rule 16 A5 of Uniform Rules of the High Court; the Constitutional Entitlement to invoking6 cultural law7 in S. 158, 309, 3110, and 18511; and Psychological Integrity in

3

http://www.timeslive.co.za/local/article1024068.ece/Lets-talk-about-shoot-the-boer--Hanekom http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/111230_sca81511?mode=window&viewMode=doublePage 5 16A Submissions by an amicus curiae: (1) (a) Any person raising a constitutional issue in an application or action shall give notice thereof to the registrar at the time of filing the relevant affidavit or pleading.; (b) Such notice shall contain a clear and succinct description of the constitutional issue concerned.; (c) The registrar shall, upon receipt of such notice, forthwith place it on a notice board designated for that purpose; (d) The notice shall be stamped by the registrar to indicate the date upon; which it was placed on the notice board and shall remain on the notice board for a period of 20 days; (2) Subject to the provisions of national legislation enacted in accordance with section 171 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 (Act 108 of 1996), and these Rules, any interested party in a constitutional issue raised in proceedings before a court may, with the written consent of all the parties to the proceedings, given not later than 20 days after the filing of the affidavit or pleading in which the constitutional issue was first raised, be admitted therein as amicus curiae upon such terms and conditions as may be agreed upon in writing by the parties.

6 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.

7 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.‘ 8 15. Freedom of religion, belief and opinion: (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of conscience, religion, thought, belief and opinion.; (3) This section does not prevent legislation recognising - (a) marriages concluded under any tradition, or a system of religious, personal or family law; or (b) systems of personal and family law under any tradition, or adhered to by persons professing a particular religion.

4

Section 1212; the former which may require the application of choice of law rules. The application included a draft copy of the Applicants Heads of Arguments (PDF13), to provide the court with an overview of the arguments to be submitted, should I be approved to proceed as Amicus Curiae.

7.

On 22 May 2012 the Supreme Court of Appeal: Mr. BJ Mashinini responded as follows on behalf of Honourable President Lex Mpati: Application to be admitted as Amicus Curiae in the matter of Julius Malema and Another vs Afriforum and Another Case Number 815/2011.

The abovementioned application was referred to the President of this court during February 2012, before the record was lodged with this office. He requested that the application be placed before him once the record was lodged.

The record has now been lodged and the application has once again been placed before him. He has requested me to inform you as follows.

1. It does not appear, from the reading of the documents forming part of your application, that any value will be added to the arguments to be made by the parties legal representatives and thus will not be useful to the court.

2. The application is accordingly refused.

Possible Errors in Supreme Court of Appeal Ruling: 8.

The Supreme Court of Appeal President refused my application to proceed as Amicus Curiae on the grounds that ―it does not appear… that any value will be added to the arguments to be made by the parties legal representatives and thus will not be useful to the court.‖

ARGUMENT: IF: Supreme Court of Appeals Values endorse EcoFeminist Sustainable Democracy Transparency TruthSeeking Problem Solving: Applicant Should be Approved as an Amicus Curiae:

9

30. Language and culture: Everyone has the right to use the language and to participate in the cultural life of their choice, but no one exercising these rights may do so in a manner inconsistent with any provision of the Bill of Rights.

10 31. Cultural, religious and linguistic communities: (1) Persons belonging to a cultural, religious or linguistic community may not be denied the right, with other members of that community - (a) to enjoy their culture, practise their religion and use their language; and (b) to form, join and maintain cultural, religious and linguistic associations and other organs of civil society.

11 185. Functions of Commission: (1) The primary objects of the Commission for the Promotion and Protection of the Rights of Cultural, Religious and Linguistic Communities are - (a) to promote respect for the rights of cultural, religious and linguistic communities; (b) to promote and develop peace, friendship, humanity, tolerance and national unity among cultural, religious and linguistic communities, on the basis of equality, non-discrimination and free association; and (c) to recommend the establishment or recognition, in accordance with national legislation, of a cultural or other council or councils for a community or communities in South Africa.

12 12. Freedom and security of the person: Everyone has the right to bodily and psychological integrity, which includes the right (a) to make decisions concerning reproduction; (b) to security in and control over their body; and (c) not to be subjected to medical or scientific experiments without their informed consent.

13 http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/111230_sca81511_hoa?mode=window&viewMode=doublePage

9.

If the Supreme Court of Appeal values Sustainable Democracy Transparency Truthseeking Problem Solving, then it would be crystal clear to the court that the President should grant my application to proceed as an Amicus Curiae on the ground that ―it does appear… that much value will be added to the arguments to be made by the parties legal representatives and thus will be most useful to the court.‖ A

Sustainable Democracy: confronting the ecological root causes of Political and Economic problems and recognizing citizens ecological Sustainable Democracy Ethics and Honour for refusing to rob other citizens or species by means of Tragedy of the Commons Breeding and Consumption Warfare practices;

B

Transparency: Total Disregard for Bullshit-the-Public-Relations Image Management

C

Problem Solving: Root cause problem solving where ideas and evidence are judged on their merit, not the individuals social standing or size of their parasite leeching fanclub

IF: Supreme Court of Appeal Values Endorse Masculine Insecurity War/Conflict Economy Tyranny Public Relations Deception Management Parasite Leeching Pretend Problem Solving; Applicant Should be Refused to Proceed as an Amicus Curiae.

10.

If the Supreme Court of Appeal values Masculine Insecurity War/Conflict Economy Tyranny Public Relations Deception Management Parasite Leeching Pretend Problem Solving, then it would be crystal clear to the court that the President should refuse my application to proceed as an Amicus Curiae on the grounds that ―it does not appear… that any value will be added to the arguments to be made by the parties legal representatives and thus will not be useful to [this Masculine Insecurity War/Conflict Economy Tyranny Public Relations Deception Management Parasite Leeching Pretend Problem Solving] court.‖

1. Subject Matter of Dispute Attracts Interested Parties in form of Amicus Curiae 11.

In Afriforum and Another v Malema (18172/2010) [2010] ZAGPPHC 39 (1 April 2010), Judge Bertelsmann‘s judgement14 finds that parties agree that: The competing interests surrounding the subject matter of the dispute is likely to attract other interested parties in the form of amicus curae.

2. No Primary Party Represents Radical Honesty EcoFeminist Problem Solving Values

14

http://www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZAGPPHC/2010/39.html

12.

In Afri-Forum and Another v Malema and Others (20968/2010) [2011] ZAEQC 2; 2011 (6) SA 240 (EqC); [2011] 4 All SA 293 (EqC); 2011 (12) BCLR 1289 (EqC) (12 September 2011)15; Judge Lamont confirms that: [48] Lara Johnstone, the sole member of an entity known as the Radical Honesty Culture and Religion delivered a number of documents by electronic transmission. I tabled the documents at the hearing and they form part of the record.

13.

No party has submitted any proof whatsoever to claim that Applicant is not a member of the Radical Honesty culture, or any dispute to contradict Applicants Radical Honesty or EcoFeminist Problem Solving values, or any arguments to dispute any of the Applicants Arguments.

14.

No party has submitted any evidence to contradict the evidence that Applicant is a descendant of Boers/Settlers, and that the relevant ‗Kill Boer‘ dispute statements are perceived – rightly or wrongly – by other citizens as including the Applicant.

15.

Hence no primary party in this matter represents the interests or values of the Applicant, whatsoever. To the contrary, the Primary Parties Patriarchal Masculine Insecurity War/Conflict Economy Tyranny Public Relations Deception Management Parasite Leeching Pretend Problem Solving values are the direct opposite of the Applicants EcoFeminist Sustainable Democracy Transparency TruthSeeking Problem Solving values.

16.

In the absence of the Applicants participation as Amicus Curiae in this dispute, there is no party in this matter representing the Applicants EcoFeminist Sustainable Democracy Transparency TruthSeeking Problem Solving values.

3. Primary Parties Conspiracy of Silence Endorsement of Patriarchal Parasite Leeching 17.

The arguments submitted by the applicant to both Judge Lamont16 and subsequently to the Supreme Court of Appeal are so controversial17 and raise cultural values of ecological feminism18 and radical honesty19 transparency20 focused problem solving21, so divergent from culturally ecologically destructive patriarchal resource war materialism and

15

http://www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZAEQC/2011/2.html JUDGE LAMONT: Lara Johnstone Founding Affidavit: Para 4-6, 9 17 KAFFIR LEGAL MATRIX: LJ Founding Affidavit: Para: 20, 22, 35, 36, 44, 45, 46, 47, 51, 54, 67, 79; LJ Heads of Argument: Para: 9, 16, 34, 37-40, 39-62, 80-90, 91-114, 120, 146-147, 153-165, 182 18 ECOFEMINIST: LJ Founding Affidavit: Para: 16, 20, 26, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 49, 79, 81; LJ Heads of Argument: Para: 6-9, 10, 19, 23-29, 30, 39-62, 202-206 19 RADICAL HONESTY: LJ Founding Affidavit: Para: 1, 15, 18, 20, 22, 24, 25, 26, 39, 49,54, 67, 69, 71, 77, 81; LJ Heads of Argument: Para: 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16-18, 19, 31-33, 34, 35, 36-38 20 TRC FRAUD: LJ Founding Affidavit: Para: 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 67, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76-83, 84; LJ Heads of Argument: Para: 2, 9, 14-15, 31-33, 35, 36-38, 63-114, 115-152, 153-165, 189-190, 191-199 21 PROBLEM SOLVING: LJ Founding Affidavit: Para: 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 70, 75, 86; LJ Heads of Argument: Para: 69, 10, 39-62, 63-114, 115-152, 153-165, 189-190, 191-199, 200-201, 202-206, 207-209, 211-212 16

masculine insecurity fragile ego bullshit-the-public parasite leeching image management pretend problem solving22, as practiced to varying degrees by all primary parties, that those primary parties engaged in a paranoid conspiracy of silence23 to pretend that Applicants submission was never submitted to the court and hence does not exist.

18.

Consequently while the primary parties disagree on the issue described by Judge Lamont as ―social conflict arising out of alleged hate speech‖; their dispute is a symptomatic consequence of (A) cultural conflict exacerbated by population pressures colliding with finite resources (restrictions of freedom of speech are proportional to population pressures viz a viz available resources), combined by (B) the absence of brutal honesty transparency problem solving skills that are vilified in Patriarchal cultures dominated by Masculine Insecurity24 (Reason and Logic) Fragile Ego‘s whose primary focus is not sincere root cause problem solving but Bullshit-the-Public Relations Image Management pretend problem solving to enlarge their victimhood host that enables their parasite leeching.25

19.

Put differently Fragile Ego Parasite Leeching Strategy of Tension bullshit-the-publicrelations dynamics requires that … If Malema did not exist, it would benefit Afriforum social and financial standing as the White Legal Knight acting on behalf of Victimhood Afrikaners, to create a Malema; and vice versa: If Evil Boere did not, or do not exist, it would benefit Malema‘s social and political Victimhood Demagoguery Populism to generate Evil Boers and an Afrikaner Legal Advocacy Organisations to defend them in a Patriarchal Masculine Insecurity Who-Wins—Macho-Victim contest. It is all about Fragile Ego Masculine Insecurity Blame Game Victimhood Propaganda and sweet fuck all about sincere confront reality and take personal responsibility for our own shit problem solving.

Problem solving leadership only acts towards solving any problem to enable the problem to be clearly and succinctly defined. Fanclubs and followers are eschewed, advice and suggestions towards clearly defining the problem are accepted based purely on merit of the suggestions, irrespective of individuals social-standing or lack of following.

Parasitical Leeching Leadership generally choose some kind of ideology whereby they vaguely and ambiguously pretend to solve vague and abstract problems; while the predominant motive is to grow themselves a fan club/following, for their own sociopolitical or economic benefit. Their Parasite Leadership ‗problem solving‘ deliberately avoids any focus on clearly defining any problem, or any investigation of the root cause of the problem. Their primary focus is to divert their fan clubs attention towards the symptoms of the problem, using emotional blame game language focussed on another Parasitical Leeching Leaders fan club. Such Parasitical Leeching leaders – like WWF Wrestlers – thereby entrench the Parasitical Leeching Leadership paradigm (Fake Left Wing

22

KAFFIR LEGAL MATRIX: LJ Founding Affidavit: Para: 20, 22, 35, 36, 44, 45, 46, 47, 51, 54, 67, 79; LJ Heads of Argument: Para: 9, 16, 34, 37-40, 39-62, 80-90, 91-114, 120, 146-147, 153-165, 182 23 CENSORSHIP: LJ Founding Affidavit: Para: 7, 8, 9, 50, 51, 52, 53; LJ Heads of Argument: Para: 22, 61-62, 95, 180, 189-190, 199 24 ANC MASCULINE INSECURITY: LJ Founding Affidavit: Para: 41-58, 67, 76-83, 84; LJ Heads of Argument: Para: 63-114, 153-165, 166-181, 189-190, 201, 211 25 KAFFIR LEGAL MATRIX: LJ Founding Affidavit: Para: 20, 22, 35, 36, 44, 45, 46, 47, 51, 54, 67, 79; LJ Heads of Argument: Para: 9, 16, 34, 37-40, 39-62, 80-90, 91-114, 120, 146-147, 153-165, 182

v Right Wing Political Paradigm Explained 26). Put differently: The bath is overflowing, Parasitical Leeching Leaders focus their fan club on endlessly mopping up the floor; who is mopping, who isn‘t, etc. All attention towards defining the problem as the running tap is strictly avoided, including vilifying anyone who even mentions the possibility of a tap leaking being the source of the problem. The focus is to perpetuate the problem indefinitely while socio-politically exploiting the problem for personal gain, by means of manipulating the emotions of ‗followers‘, related to the symptoms of the problem. NinetyNine percent of the worlds so-called ‗leadership‘ is PARASITE LEECHING LEADERSHIP.

20.

As Johan Galtung writes in Rational Conflict Resolution: What Stands in the Way?27 Conflict is a relation of incompatibility between parties; not an attribute of one party. It spells danger of violence and opportunity to create new realities…. Thus, to understand the shoa the narratives of X atrocity and Y suffering are indispensable. But so are the narratives of X-Y relations, X‘s to others, Y‘s to others. Failure to do so blocks rationality: if conflict is in the relation, then the solution is in a new relation. This is not blaming the victim. What matters most is changing the relation. Are we able?

21.

Or put differently by Brad Blanton in Practicing Radical Honesty: Ch.9: Radical Honesty About Anger: If cultural transcendence is necessary to contact reality, and culture resides in the minds of individuals, and other participants in the culture disagree with any change because of attachment to the cultural values they have learned, both internal and external conflict are inevitable. This means anger is inevitable. Anger cannot be avoided; it has to be gone through and gotten over. Getting over being mad, or finding the capacity for forgiveness, is absolutely necessary for both individual personal growth and cultural change. So one of the most critical questions to be answered for any person willing to grow beyond their cultural provincialism is: How do you get over being mad?

22.

It is imperative for both Primary Parties Victimhood Blame Game Parasite Leeching Propaganda to maintain the Strategy of Tension ‗Us‘ Victims – ‗Them‘ Persecutors Narrative to escalate Polarization to emotionally manipulate their respective fan clubs/host for their continued pretend problem solving parasite leeching.28

23.

In any dispute or conflict where one or both or all parties are seriously and sincerely concerned with problem solving29, such parties welcome30 all possible ideas or practices for further impartial enquiry.31

24.

Judge Lamont provided all primary parties with an opportunity to demonstrate their sincerity towards sincere problem solving by voicing their support for hearing and experimenting with the evidence Radical Honesty culture32 had to submit to the court and

26

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMPAfDHEFbQ https://www.transcend.org/tms/2012/05/rational-conflict-resolution-what-stands-in-the-way/ 28 KAFFIR LEGAL MATRIX: LJ Founding Affidavit: Para: 20, 22, 35, 36, 44, 45, 46, 47, 51, 54, 67, 79; LJ Heads of Argument: Para: 9, 16, 34, 37-40, 39-62, 80-90, 91-114, 120, 146-147, 153-165, 182 ANC MASCULINE INSECURITY: LJ Founding Affidavit: Para: 41-58, 67, 76-83, 84 29 PROBLEM SOLVING: Lara Johnstone Founding Affidavit: Para: 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 70, 75, 86 30 CENSORSHIP: Lara Johnstone Founding Affidavit: Para: 7, 8, 9, 50, 51, 52, 53 31 ANC MASCULINE INSECURITY: Lara Johnstone Founding Affidavit: Para: 41-58, 67, 76-83, 84; LJ Heads of Argument: Para: 63114, 153-165, 166-181, 189-190, 201, 211 32 RADICAL HONESTY: LJ Founding Affidavit: Para: 1, 15, 18, 20, 22, 24, 25, 26, 39, 49,54, 67, 69, 71, 77, 81; LJ Heads of Argument: Para: 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16-18, 19, 31-33, 34, 35, 36-38 27

dispute33, namely (A) a perspective towards Apartheid history34 from the Radical Honesty culture that is focused on the evidentiary factual reality without any regard for left and right wing propaganda, since problems of the past, present and future can only be resolved35 by (1) finding out the truth and (2) a process of releasing and getting over our anger regarding issues the truth generates in our psyche; and (B) an ecological root causes problem solving culture36 focused on ecological root cause realities of political and economic conflict, which are simply symptoms of ecological overconsumption and procreation resource war realities37.

EVIDENCE [58] During the hearing I allowed much evidence to be led which would not normally be permitted in a Court of law as it appeared to me that it was proper to allow the parties to the dispute to fully and completely ventilate the issues between them even if such ventilation involved the admission of evidence in the form of speeches which were made during the course of the trial; in the form of documents which contained hearsay matters and in the form of witnesses who gave evidence, the ambit of which, was far beyond the issues. It appeared to me that in the course of the trial the parties should, as it were, be allowed to scratch the wound open, re-experience the pain and search for a solution.

Hopefully they would be able to find a way forward, thus enabling society, on its own to set the appropriate standard to be followed. I was also conscious of the fact that in the course of this process the public would be able to participate as the events were being screened live on TV and also on the big screen outside the Court.

25.

All primary parties united in a conspiracy of silence to endorse Patriarchal Parasite Leeching pretend Problem Solving to sustain their respective Victimhood Blame Game Contest Narrative.38

33

JUDGE LAMONT: Lara Johnstone Founding Affidavit: Para 4-6, 9 APARTHEID HISTORY: LJ Founding Affidavit: Para: 25, 42, 43, 44, 45, 67, 76, 77, 79; LJ Heads of Argument: Para: 2, 3, 63-114, 115-152, 153-165 35 PROBLEM SOLVING: LJ Founding Affidavit: Para: 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 70, 75, 86; LJ Heads of Argument: Para: 69, 10, 39-62, 63-114, 115-152, 153-165, 189-190, 191-199, 200-201, 202-206, 207-209, 211-212 36 ECOFEMINIST: LJ Founding Affidavit: Para: 16, 20, 26, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 49, 79, 81; LJ Heads of Argument: Para: 6-9, 10, 19, 23-29, 30, 39-62, 202-206 37 KAFFIR LEGAL MATRIX: LJ Founding Affidavit: Para: 20, 22, 35, 36, 44, 45, 46, 47, 51, 54, 67, 79; LJ Heads of Argument: Para: 9, 16, 34, 37-40, 39-62, 80-90, 91-114, 120, 146-147, 153-165, 182 38 ECOFEMINIST: LJ Founding Affidavit: Para: 16, 20, 26, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 49, 79, 81; LJ Heads of Argument: Para: 6-9, 10, 19, 23-29, 30, 39-62, 202-206 KAFFIR LEGAL MATRIX: LJ Founding Affidavit: Para: 20, 22, 35, 36, 44, 45, 46, 47, 51, 54, 67, 79; LJ Heads of Argument: Para: 9, 16, 34, 37-40, 39-62, 80-90, 91-114, 120, 146-147, 153-165, 182 BOERE: LJ Founding Affidavit: Para: 24, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 67, 70; LJ Heads of Argument: Para: 3, 13, 22 , 70, 79, 80, 88, 147, 150, 152, 208-209 APARTHEID HISTORY: LJ Founding Affidavit: Para: 25, 42, 43, 44, 45, 67, 76, 77, 79; LJ Heads of Argument: Para: 2, 3, 63-114, 115-152, 153-165 PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY: LJ Founding Affidavit: Para: 25, 26, 39, 45, 46, 47, 77, 78, 79, 83-84, 86; LJ Heads of Argument: Para: 6-9, 67, 79, 161, 171-181, 182 34

26.

This conspiracy of silence by all primary parties resulted in the Radical Honesty evidence not being tested or even discussed or enquired into, thereby resulting in Judge Lamont‘s Judgement ruling endorsing the primary parties strategy of tension Victimhood Blame Game polarization narrative, by endorsing both parties victimhood pity parties; Malema and the ANC‘s ‗victimhood pity party‘ in terms of the judgements ‗historical facts‘ narrative; and Afriforum and TAU SA‘s victimhood pity party in terms of the ‗Hate Speech‘ order.

3. Radical Honesty ‘Values’ added to Dispute Problem Solving, Ignored by Primary Parties: (A) Radical Honesty culture: Transparent Root Cause Problem Solving 27.

Focus on Problem Solving: Honestly addressing the root causes of a Problem, irrespective of left or right wing ideological bullshit political correctness and without regard to Bullshit-the-Public Relations Image Management.

(A) Primary Parties: Parasite Leeching PR Image Management 28.

Respondent Parties Focus: Maintaining their Social and/or Political Status and/or using the dispute and its polarization aspects to emotionally manipulate a greater number of followers, to thereby enlarge their host/following.39

(B) Radical Honesty: EcoFeminism TruthSeeking: 29.

Focus on feminist ecological carrying capacity values: a society‘s relationship with nature is directly proportional to its treatment of women. Problem Solving Feminism and Deep Green Ecology perspectives are inter-reliant. The liberation of Eco-humans (men & women) is impossible, without the liberation of the natural world. Objectification of wo/men is a result of objectification of nature.40

(B) Primary Parties: Patriarchal Masculine Insecurity PR Image Management:

TRC FRAUD: LJ Founding Affidavit: Para: 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 67, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76-83, 84; LJ Heads of Argument: Para: 2, 9, 14-15, 31-33, 35, 36-38, 63-114, 115-152, 153-165, 189-190, 191-199 PROBLEM SOLVING: LJ Founding Affidavit: Para: 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 70, 75, 86; LJ Heads of Argument: Para: 6-9, 10, 39-62, 63-114, 115-152, 153-165, 189-190, 191-199, 200-201, 202-206, 207-209, 211-212 CENSORSHIP: LJ Founding Affidavit: Para: 51, 52, 53; LJ Heads of Argument: Para: 22, 61-62, 95, 180, 189-190, 199 ANC MASCULINE INSECURITY: LJ Founding Affidavit: Para: 41-58, 67, 76-83, 84; LJ Heads of Argument: Para: 63-114, 153-165, 166-181, 189-190, 201, 211 39 KAFFIR LEGAL MATRIX: LJ Founding Affidavit: Para: 20, 22, 35, 36, 44, 45, 46, 47, 51, 54, 67, 79; LJ Heads of Argument: Para: 9, 16, 34, 37-40, 39-62, 80-90, 91-114, 120, 146-147, 153-165, 182 40 ECOFEMINIST: LJ Founding Affidavit: Para: 16, 20, 26, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 49, 79, 81; LJ Heads of Argument: Para: 6-9, 10, 19, 23-29, 30, 39-62, 202-206 RADICAL HONESTY: LJ Founding Affidavit: Para: 1, 15, 18, 20, 22, 24, 25, 26, 39, 49,54, 67, 69, 71, 77, 81; LJ Heads of Argument: Para: 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16-18, 19, 31-33, 34, 35, 36-38 PROBLEM SOLVING: LJ Founding Affidavit: Para: 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 70, 75, 86; LJ Heads of Argument: Para: 6-9, 10, 39-62, 63-114, 115-152, 153-165, 189-190, 191-199, 200-201, 202-206, 207-209, 211-212

30.

Primary Parties are all Patriarchal: Patriarchal cultures suffer from different degrees of Masculine Insecurity, which is a direct and indirect root cause and aggravating factor for most of the worlds problems, due to (A) obstructing Radical Transparency communication problem solving , (B) is the cognitive foundation of the anti-Meritocratic Parasite Leeching Leadership (sic) Paradigm; (C) hence propagandizes an exponential growth of Parasite Leeching -- ‗walking penis procreation‘ overpopulation and ‗consume to demonstrate the size of my consumption penis‘ overconsumption -- worldview.41

(C) Radical Honesty Culture: Brutally Honest, Sincere Race Relations: 31.

Treats Blacks and Whites as equals, all individuals irrespective of race, gender, religion or culture are treated as an equal: as an adult who is capable of hearing constructive criticism and that the highest form of love is to provide another with honest face to face constructive criticism. Honest sharing of constructive criticism enables trust and spontaneous freedom, since both parties know where they really stand with each other,

41

ANC MASCULINE INSECURITY: LJ Founding Affidavit: Para: 41-58, 67, 76-83, 84; LJ Heads of Argument: Para: 63-114, 153-165, 166-181, 189-190, 201, 211 PROBLEM SOLVING: LJ Founding Affidavit: Para: 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 70, 75, 86; LJ Heads of Argument: Para: 6-9, 10, 39-62, 63-114, 115-152, 153-165, 189-190, 191-199, 200-201, 202-206, 207-209, 211-212 CENSORSHIP: LJ Founding Affidavit: Para: 51, 52, 53; LJ Heads of Argument: Para: 22, 61-62, 95, 180, 189-190, 199 ECOFEMINIST: LJ Founding Affidavit: Para: 16, 20, 26, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 49, 79, 81; LJ Heads of Argument: Para: 6-9, 10, 19, 23-29, 30, 39-62, 202-206

and that any issue of concern they have with the other can be easily resolved by honest constructive criticism of the relevant issues.42 (C) Primary Parties: Race Relations: Politically Correct Sycophantic Race Relations 32.

Respondent Parties: Blacks or Afrikaners are respectively psychologically inferior and hence incapable of hearing honourable honest constructive criticism, hence it is better to practice political correct sycophancy, whereby race relations are founded not on brutal honest transparency that enables growth of trust, but on fakeness, two faced sycophancy that enables distrust, contempt and resentment.

(D) Radical Honesty: Transparency: Disregard for Bullshit-the-Public Relations 33.

In Radical Honesty we have no regard for ‗Bullshit-the-Public‘ Relations Image management, since we are well aware, Ego attachment to Bullshit the Public Relations Image Management is frequently the obstacle to problem solving.43

(D) Primary Parties: Ambiguity & Secrecy: Obsession for Bullshit-the-Public Relations 34.

All Primary Parties consider ‗Public Relations‘ to be more important to their own social and financial parasitic leeching status in regards to their following hosts; hence if or where their Public Relations Image Management and/or Ego‘s attached thereto are an obstacle to problem solving any dispute, their Public Relations Image Management status supersedes all problem solving.44

(E) Radical Honesty: Exposing Patriarchal War/Conflict Economy Kaffir Legal Matrix: 35.

42

Radical Honesty works to expose the Masculine (Reason and Logic) Insecurity Human Farming45 Kaffir46 Legal Matrix: Radical Transparency Problem Solving is to the Masculine

RACE RELATIONS: LJ Founding Affidavit: Para: 14, 17, 18, 22, 24, 26, 39, 40, 41, 67; LJ Heads of Argument: Para: 6, 200-201 RADICAL HONESTY: LJ Founding Affidavit: Para: 1, 15, 18, 20, 22, 24, 25, 26, 39, 49,54, 67, 69, 71, 77, 81; LJ Heads of Argument: Para: 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16-18, 19, 31-33, 34, 35, 36-38 PROBLEM SOLVING: LJ Founding Affidavit: Para: 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 70, 75, 86; LJ Heads of Argument: Para: 6-9, 10, 39-62, 63-114, 115-152, 153-165, 189-190, 191-199, 200-201, 202-206, 207-209, 211-212 PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY: LJ Founding Affidavit: Para: 25, 26, 39, 45, 46, 47, 77, 78, 79, 83-84, 86; LJ Heads of Argument: Para: 6-9, 67, 79, 161, 171-181, 182 44 KAFFIR LEGAL MATRIX: LJ Founding Affidavit: Para: 20, 22, 35, 36, 44, 45, 46, 47, 51, 54, 67, 79; LJ Heads of Argument: Para: 9, 16, 34, 37-40, 39-62, 80-90, 91-114, 120, 146-147, 153-165, 182 CENSORSHIP: LJ Founding Affidavit: Para: 7, 8, 9, 50, 51, 52, 53; LJ Heads of Argument: Para: 22, 61-62, 95, 180, 189-190, 199 ANC MASCULINE INSECURITY: LJ Founding Affidavit: Para: 41-58, 67, 76-83, 84; LJ Heads of Argument: Para: 63-114, 153-165, 166-181, 189-190, 201, 211 45 Human Farming: Story of Your Enslavement: http://youtu.be/gHAnrXCvavc 46 Radical Honoursty Definitions of Kaffir are not Racial, but Behavioural: For Example: * ‘Kaffir Behaviour’: Cultural Beliefs and Procreation Behaviour Definition: Individuals who either independently or as a result of their cultural value systems, are incapable of, or unwilling to, practice sexual restraint and procreation responsibility; who consequently breed cockroach-prolifically without personal financial or psychological responsibility to, or emotional concern for, their offspring; and/or who abuse women and children as sexual or economic slaves procreated for such purpose; and/or whose cultural ideal of manhood endorses non-consensual sex (rape) as their sexual slavery entitlement, etc. * ‘Kaffir Etymology’: Original Etymological Definition for ‗Kaffir‘: The word kāfir is the active participle of the Semitic root K-F43

Insecurity Kaffir Legal Matrix Court; what Martin Luther or Galileo Galilei were to the Catholic Church. The Kaffir Legal Matrix Court system47 is founded on ‗Kaffir Legislation‘: Inalienable Right to Breed and Vote: Kaffir Law/Legislation provides citizens with the Inalienable ‗Right to Breed‘ and ‗Right to Vote‘, but demands that Citizens need a Licence to Own a Gun, a Licence to Drive a Car, a Licence to Practice Law, a television licence, a credit licence, a licence to earn a living, a university exemption licence, a licence to fish, a licence to hunt, a liquor licence, a business licence, a marriage licence, etc, etc. Q: Why does the Masculine Insecurity Human Farming Kaffir Legal Matrix avoid implementing voting48 or breeding licences???

A

The Iron Mountain49 ‗War is a Racket50 Reality: Masculine Insecurity Socio-LegalPolitical Profiteering from Conflict and War.

B

Kaffir Legislation covers up that the Inalienable Right to Vote, or Universal Suffrage for the Ignorant is the road to centralisation of power and tyranny.51

C

Kaffir Legislation covers up that ‗Sustainable Democracy‘ requires that only citizens whose voluntary procreation and consumption lifestyle‘s are below the Carrying Capacity of the Nation are ecologically capable of being granted the ‗Licence to Vote‘ to maintain the ‗Sustainable Democracy‘.

D

Any Democracy that grants individuals who live above the carrying capacity of their region, either through procreation and/or consumption is effectively robbing resources from other sustainable citizens and other sustainable species, and from future citizens and other species. Granting Procreation and Consumption Resources Thieves the right to vote, is synonymous to giving Bank Robbers the codes to all the Bank Safes, and expecting them not to use it.

E

Kaffir Legislation covers up that an ‗Inalienable Right to Breed/laissez-faire birth control policy + No Social Welfare policies or practices provides for an equilibrium carrying capacity; whereas Inalienable Right to Breed/laissez-faire birth control

R ―to cover‖. As a pre-Islamic term it described farmers burying seeds in the ground, covering them with soil while planting; as they till the earth and ―cover up‖ the seeds; which is why earth tillers are referred to as ―Kuffar.‖ Thus, the word kāfir implies the meaning ―a person who hides or covers‖; To conceal, deny, hide or cover the truth.

47 KAFFIR LEGAL MATRIX: Lara Johnstone Founding Affidavit: Para: 20, 22, 35, 36, 44, 45, 46, 47, 51, 54, 67, 79 48 ―In order to achieve this goal [of world domination], we must introduce [the right to vote] universal suffrage beforehand, without distinctions of class and wealth. Then the masses of people will decide everything; and since it [universal suffrage] is controlled by us we will achieve through it the absolute majority, which we could never achieve if only the educated and possessing classes had the vote.‖ -- Protocols of the Elders of Zion, 10th Sitting, Wallstein Pub. House, ISBN 3-89244-191-x, p. 60 49 Report from Iron Mountain: On the Possibility and Desirability of Peace http://www.teachpeace.com/Report_from_Iron_Mountain.pdf 50 War is a Racket, by USMC General Smedley Bulter http://warisaracket.org/dedication.html 51 ―In order to achieve this goal [of world domination], we must introduce [the right to vote] universal suffrage beforehand, without distinctions of class and wealth. Then the masses of people will decide everything; and since it [universal suffrage] is controlled by us we will achieve through it the absolute majority, which we could never achieve if only the educated and possessing classes had the vote.‖ -- Protocols of the Elders of Zion, 10th Sitting, Wallstein Pub. House, ISBN 3-89244-191-x, p. 60

within a welfare state, results in Runaway Growth, and ultimately greater misery, poverty and war52.

(E) Primary Parties: Profiting from Patriarchal War/Conflict Economy Kaffir Legal Matrix: F

Observing the reality of the Patriarchal Kaffir Legislation: War/Conflict Economy Legal Matrix does not require a Ph.D degree in neuroscience; simply basic observation and critical thinking skills.

G

Some people speak out to expose various aspects of the Patriarchal War/Conflict Economy Kaffir Legal Matrix, while others choose to focus on how they can perpetuate it, and profit from it socio-economically, politically or legally.53

(F) Radical Honesty: Exposes SA’s Truth and Reconciliation Fraud: 36.

Individuals sincerely committed to exposing the source of conflict that contributed to Apartheid Civil and Political Violence must be committed to exposing the ecological root causes of the conflict that contribute to the Overpopulation-colliding-with-FiniteResources War/Conflict Equation.

37.

It was population pressures that contributed to Europeans being persecuted in Europe and migrating to South Africa. It was population pressures that contributed to Africans leaving West Africa and migrating first to Central Africa and as a result of further population pressures to Southern Africa. It was population pressures that contributed to the Mfecane that resulted in large areas of land in central South Africa being uninhabited and the Boers falsely believing that the land had been uninhabited. It was population pressures – and the ANC‘s ‗Operation Production‘ exponential aggravation of such population pressures – that contributed to Apartheid Political Violence and the youth bulge pool of angry young men, desperate to prove their manhood to gain more ‗pussy‘ than the next man, to satisfy their inner masculine insecurity demons.

38.

The ANC could have won their struggle against Apartheid non-violently, by demonstrating their honourable Just War Just Cause Population Policy Intentions to terminate their exponential ‗Population Production‘ of ‗Swart Gevaar‘ Breeding War.54

52

From Shortage to Longage: Forty Years in the Population Vineyards, by Garrett Hardin, Population and Environment, Vol. 12, No. 3. Spring 1991 http://www.garretthardinsociety.org/articles/art_from_shortage_to_longage.html 53 ANC MASCULINE INSECURITY: LJ Founding Affidavit: Para: 41-58, 67, 76-83, 84; LJ Heads of Argument: Para: 63-114, 153-165, 166-181, 189-190, 201, 211 TRC FRAUD: LJ Founding Affidavit: Para: 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 67, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76-83, 84; LJ Heads of Argument: Para: 2, 9, 14-15, 31-33, 35, 36-38, 63-114, 115-152, 153-165, 189-190, 191-199 CENSORSHIP: LJ Founding Affidavit: Para: 7, 8, 9, 50, 51, 52, 53; LJ Heads of Argument: Para: 22, 61-62, 95, 180, 189-190, 199 54 TRC FRAUD: LJ Founding Affidavit: Para: 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 67, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76-83, 84; LJ Heads of Argument: Para: 2, 9, 14-15, 31-33, 35, 36-38, 63-114, 115-152, 153-165, 189-190, 191-199

(F) Primary Parties: Covering Up & Profiting from SA’s Truth and Reconciliation Fraud: 39.

Masculine Insecurity Individuals who would prefer to grow the size of their host they are parasite leeching upon, naturally prefer unresolved conflicts to remain unresolved, so as to use such unresolved conflicts for greater polarization of the society for their own parasitic leeching benefits.55

40.

According to the Primary Parties Population Pressures have absolutely nothing to do as causal effects for the reasons various people migrated to South Africa; or as contributory causes for Apartheid violence or the implementation of Apartheid by Paranoid – AngloBoer War Memories - Boers petrified about the Swart Gevaar and their extermination by such a Black Power regime. According to the Primary Parties Masculine Insecurity ‗walking penis procreation‘ overpopulation and ‗consume to demonstrate the size of my consumption penis‘ overconsumption – worldview; masculine insecurity has absolutely nothing to do with their ‗Bang my Chest Machismo Size of My Penis‘ and ‗Consume to demonstrate the size of my penis‘ ‗conflict for pussy‘ behaviors.

41.

Their own Masculine Insecurity Fragile Ego issues, and those surrounding the Massive Parasite Leeching Masculine Insecurity of Saint Mandela and Saint Tutu Bullshit the Public Relations Propaganda is far more important than Black Consciousness Courage to take personal responsibility for their Breeding War and Fanonstein Masculine Insecurity desires for ‗violent liberation of their colonized masculine insecurity minds on the rotting corpse of the settlers‘ contributions to Apartheid Violence.56

Radical Honesty: Freedom Definition: Personal Responsibility: 42.

The Radical Honesty definition for Freedom is to enable a culture where individual Freedom is the result of all citizens desire to take personal responsibility for their thoughts, actions and statements.57

Radical Honesty: Freedom Definition: ‘Freedom from Responsibility’: 43.

The Primary Parties definition of Freedom is varying degrees of ‗freedom from responsibility‘; or put differently: victimhood pity party addiction. To avoid taking personal responsibility for their masculine insecurity obsession with parasite leeching as

55

TRC FRAUD: LJ Founding Affidavit: Para: 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 67, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76-83, 84; LJ Heads of Argument: Para: 2, 9, 14-15, 31-33, 35, 36-38, 63-114, 115-152, 153-165, 189-190, 191-199 56 ANC MASCULINE INSECURITY: LJ Founding Affidavit: Para: 41-58, 67, 76-83, 84; LJ Heads of Argument: Para: 63-114, 153-165, 166-181, 189-190, 201, 211 TRC FRAUD: LJ Founding Affidavit: Para: 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 67, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76-83, 84; LJ Heads of Argument: Para: 2, 9, 14-15, 31-33, 35, 36-38, 63-114, 115-152, 153-165, 189-190, 191-199 57 RADICAL HONESTY: LJ Founding Affidavit: Para: 1, 15, 18, 20, 22, 24, 25, 26, 39, 49,54, 67, 69, 71, 77, 81; LJ Heads of Argument: Para: 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16-18, 19, 31-33, 34, 35, 36-38

the source of their existential meaning. To avoid taking personal responsibility for their addiction to left or right wing propaganda as the source of their ‗history‘, as opposed to a sincere enquiry into the root causes of historical events and consequences of such events and relationships.

(H--) Additional Other Cultural and Religious Value Not Referred to: 44.

(A)- (G) are just some of the Radical Honesty values contributed towards resolving this dispute; which none of the Primary Parties have the courage or integrity to touch with a bargepole.

Conclusion: IF: Supreme Court of Appeals Values endorse EcoFeminist Sustainable Democracy Transparency TruthSeeking Problem Solving: Applicant Should be Approved as an Amicus Curiae: 45.

If the Supreme Court of Appeal values Sustainable Democracy Transparency Truthseeking Problem Solving, then it would be crystal clear to the court that the President should grant my application to proceed as an Amicus Curiae on the ground that ―it does appear… that much value will be added to the arguments to be made by the parties legal representatives and thus will be most useful to the court.‖ A

Sustainable Democracy: confronting the ecological root causes of Political and Economic problems and recognizing citizens ecological Sustainable Democracy Ethics and Honour for refusing to rob other citizens or species by means of Tragedy of the Commons Breeding and Consumption Warfare practices;

B

Transparency: Total Disregard for Bullshit-the-Public-Relations Image Management

C

Problem Solving: Root cause problem solving where ideas and evidence are judged on their merit, not the individuals social standing or size of their parasite leeching fanclub

IF: Supreme Court of Appeal Values Endorse Masculine Insecurity War/Conflict Economy Tyranny Public Relations Deception Management Parasite Leeching Pretend Problem Solving; Applicant Should be Refused to Proceed as an Amicus Curiae.

46.

If the Supreme Court of Appeal values Masculine Insecurity War/Conflict Economy Tyranny Public Relations Deception Management Parasite Leeching Pretend Problem Solving, then it would be crystal clear to the court that the President should refuse my application to

proceed as an Amicus Curiae on the grounds that ―it does not appear… that any value will be added to the arguments to be made by the parties legal representatives and thus will not be useful to [this Masculine Insecurity War/Conflict Economy Tyranny Public Relations Deception Management Parasite Leeching Pretend Problem Solving] court.‖ Relief Requested in the Present Application:

47.

The Above Honourable Court to grant the following Orders: A

Permission to invoke58 cultural law59 in S. 15(3), 30, 31, and 18; to enable the Applicant to honour the duty and responsibility to uphold the principles upon which the Radical Honesty culture is based; and Psychological Integrity in Section 1260; the former which may require the application of choice of law rules.

B

Permission to file an application to the Constitutional Court to Review the Honourable Supreme Court of Appeal‘s 22 May 2012 decision to Refuse the Applicants Application to Proceed as an Amicus Curiae.

Signed and Sworn to at George on this the 18th day of July 2012, the Deponent acknowledging that she knows and understands the contents of this Affidavit, and that she has no objection to taking the prescribed oath and that the oath is binding on her conscience.

___________________________ LARA JOHNSTONE, Pro Se 16 Taaibos Ave, Heatherpark George, 6529 Tel/Fax: (044) 870 7239 Email: jmcswan@mweb.co.za

58

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.

59 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.‘ 60 12. Freedom and security of the person: (2) Everyone has the right to bodily and psychological integrity, which includes the right - (a) to make decisions concerning reproduction; (b) to security in and control over their body; and (c) not to be subjected to medical or scientific experiments without their informed consent.

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE DEPARTEMENT VAN JUSTISIE

POBOX 258 POSBUS 258

SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL HOOGSTE HOF VAN APPel

TEL: (051) 412 7400 TEL: (051) 412 7400

BLOEMFONTEIN 9300

FAX/FAKS: (051) 412 7449 REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA REPUBLIEK VAN SUID AFRICA

ENQ/NAVRAE

BJ MASHININI

OUR REF; 815/11

22 May 2012

'-----

REGISTRAR, SUPREME

Ms Lara Johnstone 16 Taaibos Avenue Heatherpark George

COUF<T

OF

..."' ..

APPEAL

2012 -05- Z Z

6529 ._Dear Ms Johnstone

~_._-~ BLOEMFONTEIN

•...•

GHIFFIER, HOOGTSTE HOF VAN APPEL

RE: APPLICANT/ON TO BE ADMITTED AS AMICUS CURIAE IN THE MA TTER OF JULIUS MALEMA AND ANOTHER VIS AFRIFORUM & ANOTHER-CASE NUMBER: 81512011

The abovementioned

application was referred to the President of this court during February 2012,

before the record was lodged with this office. He requested that the application be placed before him Once the record was lodged.

The record has now been lodged and the application has once again been placed before him. He has requested me to inform you as follows:

1 It does not appear, from the reading of the documents forming part of your application, that any value will be added to the arguments to be made by the parties' legal representatives not be useful to the court.

2. The application is accordingly refused.

and thus will

Yours Faithfully,

/

//~ ,/'A _,~ t~J MASHININI REGISTRAR

(MR)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL BLOEMFONTEIN Case: SCA 815/11 (07-2010 EQ JHB) Application for Permission to Appeal Amicus Curiae Denial: In the matter between: JULIUS MALEMA

1st Plaintiff (Primary Party)

AFRICAN NATIONAL CONGRESS

2nd Plaintiff (Primary Party)

And AFRIFORUM

1st Respondent (Primary Party)

TRANSVAAL AGRICULTURAL UNION (TAU)

2nd Respondent (Primary Party)

PROOF OF SERVICE AFFIDAVIT

I the undersigned, LARA JOHNSTONE do hereby make oath and say:

I served the: Notice of Motion and Founding Affidavit to: FIRST (MALEMA) AND SECOND (ANC) PLAINTIFFS ATTORNEYS, by personal email delivery, to their principal place of business: at Adekeye Inc., by emailing it to: Byron Morris (morris@mhalaw.co.za); on Wed 7/18/2012 2:52 PM: Subject: [Malema & ANC] SCA 815/11: Applic to SCA: Permission to Appeal 22-05-2012 Radical Honesty Amicus Curiae Ruling.

The email addresses to which I delivered the documents are the correct email addresses for the first and second respondents attorneys.

FIRST (MALEMA) AND SECOND (ANC) APPLICANTS COUNSEL, by personal email delivery, to their principal place of business: at Vincent Maleka SC, Doma Nokwe Group, by emailing it to: Adv. Maleka (ivmaleka@mweb.co.za); on Wed 7/18/2012 2:52 PM: Subject: [Malema & ANC] SCA 815/11: Applic to SCA: Permission to Appeal 22-05-2012 Radical Honesty Amicus Curiae Ruling. The email addresses to which I delivered the documents are the correct email addresses for the first and second respondents attorneys.

FIRST RESPONDENT (AFRIFORUM) REPRESENTATIVES, by personal email delivery, to their principal place of business: at AFRIFORUM; by emailing it to: CEO: Kallie Kriel: (kallie@solidariteit.co.za), CEO: Alana Bailey: (alana@solidariteit.co.za), Youth: Ernsts Roets: (ernst@afriforum.co.za); on Wed 7/18/2012 2:54 PM: Subject: [Afriforum] SCA 815/11: Applic to SCA: Permission to Appeal 22-05-2012 Radical Honesty Amicus Curiae Ruling.

The email addresses to which I delivered the documents are the correct email addresses for the first complaints representatives.

FIRST RESPONDENT (AFRIFORUM) ATTORNEYS, by personal email delivery, to their principal place of business: at Hurter and Spies Attorneys, by emailing it to: Willie Spies: (admin@hurterspies.co.za) on Wed 7/18/2012 2:54 PM: Subject: [Afriforum] SCA 815/11: Applic to SCA: Permission to Appeal 22-05-2012 Radical Honesty Amicus Curiae Ruling.

The email addresses to which I delivered the documents are the correct email addresses for the first complaints attorneys.

FIRST RESPONDENT (AFRIFORUM) COUNSEL, by personal email delivery, to their principal place of business: Adv. Martin Brassey, by emailing it to: Adv. Martin Brassey (brassey@counsel.co.za) on Wed 7/18/2012 2:54 PM: Subject: [Afriforum] SCA 815/11: Applic to SCA: Permission to Appeal 22-05-2012 Radical Honesty Amicus Curiae Ruling.

The email addresses to which I delivered the documents are the correct email addresses for the first complaints counsel.

SECOND RESPONDENT (TAU) REPRESENTATIVES, by personal email delivery, to their principal place of business: at Transvaal Agricultural Union (TAU), by emailing it to: Comm: Henk van de Graaf (koms@tlu.co.za); on Wed 7/18/2012 2:56 PM; Subject: [TLU-SA] SCA 815/11: Applic to SCA: Permission to Appeal 22-05-2012 Radical Honesty Amicus Curiae Ruling.

The email addresses to which I delivered the documents are the correct email addresses for the second complaints representatives.

SECOND RESPONDENT (TAU) ATTORNEYS, by personal email delivery, to their principal place of business: at Riaan van der Walt Attorneys, by emailing it to: Riaan van der Walt (riaan@louwalt.co.za), (mail@attorneys.co.za); on Wed 7/18/2012 2:56 PM; Subject: [TLUSA] SCA 815/11: Applic to SCA: Permission to Appeal 22-05-2012 Radical Honesty Amicus Curiae Ruling. The email addresses to which I delivered the documents are the correct email addresses for the second complaints representatives.

SECOND RESPONDENT (TAU) COUNSEL, by personal email delivery, to their principal place of business: at Adv. Roelof du Plessis, by emailing it to: Adv. Roelof du Plessis (advr@mweb.co.za); on Wed 7/18/2012 2:56 PM; Subject: [TLU-SA] SCA 815/11: Applic to SCA: Permission to Appeal 22-05-2012 Radical Honesty Amicus Curiae Ruling. The email addresses to which I delivered the documents are the correct email addresses for the second complaints representatives.

Dated at George, Western Cape, this 18th day of July, 2012.

___________________________ LARA JOHNSTONE, Pro Se 16 Taaibos Ave, Heatherpark George, 6529 Tel/Fax: (044) 870 7239 Email: jmcswan@mweb.co.za.