IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES ) CENTER FOR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, ) ET AL., ) ) Petitioners-Appellants, ) ) v. ) ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and COL. ) DENISE LIND, MILITARY JUDGE ) ) Respondents-Appellees. ) ) )
PLEASE
TAKE
NOTICE
that
the
NOTICE OF MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED AS AMICUS CURIAE Crim. App. Misc. Dkt. No. 20120514 USCA Misc. Dkt. No. 12-8027/AR
applicant,
a
Radical
Honoursty
EcoFeminist member of the Radical Honesty culture and religion; herewith applies to this Court for the Following orders: [1] For an Order to approve the Applicant, to Appear Pro Se (propria persona / pro per), pursuant to Section 35 of the Judiciary Act of 1789, 1 Stat. 73, 92 and Rules 13(a) and 33 (leniency on procedure and Radical Honesty English) of this Court’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, to appear pro hac vice for the limited purpose of being admitted as an Amicus Curiae. [2] For an Order to approve the Applicant as an Ecocentric Amici Curiae in the above Anthropocentric proceedings in
the form of written submissions in accordance with Rule 26(a)(3), of the Rules of Court. PLEASE
TAKE
NOTICE
that
the
accompanying
affidavit
of
Lara
Johnstone will be used in support of this application. PLEASE
TAKE
NOTICE
THAT
the
Applicant
requests
that
the
Respondents inform the Applicant and Court of their objection or consent to this Amicus Curiae application, within 5 days of receipt hereof, in terms of Rule 39(e)(b). Please
Take
Notice
that
should
Applicant
be
accepted
as
an
Amici, Applicant shall request the ACLU and/or US Law Schools for Pro Bono Assistance of Counsel for procedural purposes, so as not to burden the court or respondents on procedural matters, in terms of Rule 26(e). Please Take Notice that in the interim, Applicant shall accept notice and service of all process in these proceedings per email at
habeusmentem@mweb.co.za
or
in
person
at
16
Taaibos
Ave,
Heatherpark, George, 6529, South Africa. KINDLY place this matter before the Honourable Court’s Justices for their consideration at their earliest convenience, on or after 5 days, subsequent to receipt of this motion; including Respondents consent or opposing statements. Dated at George, Southern Cape, South Africa on this 13th day of September 2012
___________________________ LARA JOHNSTONE, Pro Se PO Box 4052, George, 6539 South Africa Tel/Fax: (044) 870 7239 habeusmentem@mweb.co.za
2
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES Clerk of the Court 450 E Street, Northwest, Washington, D.C. 20442-0001 Per Electronic Filing: efiling@armfor.uscourts.gov PETTIONER-APPELLANTS COUNSEL: Shayana D. Kadidal J. Wells Dixon Baher Azmy, Legal Director Michael Ratner, President Emeritus CENTER FOR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS 666 Broadway, 7th Floor New York, New York, 10012 Tel: (212) 614 6438 Fax: (212) 614 6499 Per Electronic Service: shanek@ccrjustice.org RESPONDENT-APPELLEE’S COUNSEL: CHAD M. FISHER Captain, JA Office of the Judge Advocate General, United States Army Appellate Goverment Counsel 9275 Gunston Road Fort Belvoir, VA 22060 (703) 693-0783 Per Electronic Service: Chad.m.fisher.mil@mail.mil Lead Counsel C.A.A.F. Bar Number 34883 FIRST AMICUS COUNSEL: Gregg P. Leslie Counsel for Amicus Curiae Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press 1101 Wilson Blvd., Suite 1100 Arlington, VA 22209-2100 Per Electronic Service: gleslie@rcfp.org (703) 807-2100
3
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES ) CENTER FOR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, ) ET AL., ) ) Petitioners-Appellants, ) ) v. ) ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and COL. ) DENISE LIND, MILITARY JUDGE ) ) Respondents-Appellees. ) ) ) ) )
FOUNDING AFFIDAVIT OF LARA JOHNSTONE in support of NOTICE OF MOTION TO PROCEED AS AMICUS CURIAE
Crim. App. Misc. Dkt. No. 20120514 USCA Misc. Dkt. No. 12-8027/AR
Declaration of Lara Johnstone I, Lara Johnstone, declare as follows: [1] I
am
an
adult
Radical
Honoursty
Ecofeminist
Wild
Law1
Sustainable Security practicing paralegal (subsequently referred to as ‗applicant‘), member of Friend of Wikileaks (FoWL) and the Radical South
Honesty
Africa;
culture2;
where
I
resident
run
a
small
in
George,
EcoFeminist
Southern
Cape,
pedal-powered
wormery business (www.sqworms.co.nr).
1
Wild Law is a new legal theory and growing social movement. It proposes that we rethink our legal, political, economic and governance systems so that they support, rather than undermine, the integrity and health of the Earth. www.wildlaw.org.au 2 SA Constitutional Court ruling of 03 May 2012 in CCT 23-10, reads as follows: ―Ms. Lara Johnstone, Member of Radical Honesty Culture and Religion, is admitted as an amicus curiae‖
[2] When dealing with legal questions, the applicant relies on an Anthropocentric
SA
Institute
of
Legal
Training
Paralegal
Certificate and Diploma3; and an EcoCentric Wild Law/Rights of Nature
Sustainable
Security
philosophical,
theoretical
and
existential worldview. [3] If
approved,
alternative arguments
the
Applicant‘s
Ecocentric deemed
Anthropocentric
Wild
too
Law
far
respondent
Amicus
brief
Sustainable
reaching
parties
intent
for on
shall
address
Security
legal
emphasis winning
by their
particular Anthropocentric cases4; thereby enabling the court‘s final
judgment
to
include
both
an
Anthropocentric
and
an
Ecocentric Wild Law Sustainable Security perspective.5 [4] Issues addressed in this Affidavit: [5] The Applicant [6] The Present Application [7] The main issues: 1. The
Ecocentric
Wild
Law
Sustainable
Security
Worldview
interest of the Applicant in the main application;
3
A Paralegal Certificate & Paralegal Diploma, both with Distinction, from the South African Institute of Legal Training and Damelin Correspondence Career Development College. 4 Luther T. Munford, When Does the Curiae Need an Amicus?, 1 J. App. Prac. & Process 279, 280 (1999). 5 Paul M. Smith, The Sometimes Troubled Relationship Between Courts and Their “Friends”, note 2, at 26 (1998). 2
2. Ecocentric Wild Law Sustainable Security Submissions which will be advanced by the Applicant if admitted as an amicus curiae; 3. Attitude of the parties in the main application to the Applicants admission; and 4. The relief that ought to be granted to the Applicant in this application. [8] The Applicant: [9] The applicant was a California legal resident (INS # A77 177 281; CA Drivers Licence #: CA: B9644585) subsequent to marrying African American prisoner, Demian Emile Johnson on 11 October 1997 in Folsom Prison, California; where he has been serving a sentence of 15 to life since 1982; currently amicably separated. [10] Applicant was arrested in San Francisco on 29 January 2002, subsequent sensitive
to
providing
information
the
related
SF to
City the
Attorney‘s Oklahoma
office
City
with
Bombing;
provided to her by a friend, a former United States Army Special Forces
assassin
pertaining
to
who
referred
Oklahoma
City
to
himself
Bombing
as
events.
‗John
Doe
#2‘
Applicant
was
detained at Yuba County Jail, and deported from San Francisco Airport, to South Africa on 02 March 2002. [11] Applicant joined the Radical Honesty culture in 1999, after reading Dr. Blanton‘s book Radical Honesty: How To Transform Your Life By Telling the Truth. The Radical Honesty culture is
3
founded on 100% transparency and opposes all secrecy, including Anthropocentric Bernaysian Bullshit-the-Public Relations Pretend Transparency Image Management. Radical Honesty believes that a significant
psychosocial
factor
contributing
to
Patriarchal
Anthropocentric cultures reliance on war as a general social psychosocial redistribution
release of
function,
―for
undifferentiated
the
release
tensions‖6
and
and the
―dissipation of general boredom‖, is a result of its preference for PR image management, as championed by the Bernaysian Public Relations addicted churnalist7 media. PR Image Management dispute 6
―War as a general social release. This is a psychosocial function, serving the same purpose for a society as do the holiday, the celebration, and the orgy for the individual---the release and redistribution of undifferentiated tensions. War provides for the periodic necessary readjustment of standards of social behaviour (the "moral climate") and for the dissipation of general boredom, one of the most consistently undervalued and unrecognized of social phenomena. War fills certain functions essential to the stability of our society; until other ways of filling them are developed, the war system must be maintained -and improved in effectiveness.‖ - Report from Iron Mountain: On the Possibility and Desirability for Peace (paragraphs found respectively on p45 & p4) 7 "I commissioned research from specialists at Cardiff University, who surveyed more than 2,000 UK news stories from the four quality dailies (Times, Telegraph, Guardian, Independent) and the Daily Mail. They found two striking things. First, when they tried to trace the origins of their "facts", they discovered that only 12% of the stories were wholly composed of material researched by reporters. With 8% of the stories, they just couldn't be sure. The remaining 80%, they found, were wholly, mainly or partially constructed from secondhand material, provided by news agencies and by the public relations industry. Second, when they looked for evidence that these "facts" had been thoroughly checked, they found this was happening in only 12% of the stories. The implication of those two findings is truly alarming. Where once journalists were active gatherers of news, now they have generally become mere passive processors of unchecked, second-hand material, much of it contrived by PR to serve some political or commercial 4
resolution has a preference for a sliding scale of sycophantic intellectual fairness above public Gunnery-Sgt-like face-to-face expression of anger8; whereas cultures who have little or no preference
for
PR
transparent
public
image
management
airing of
and
a
preference
for
dirty linen dispute resolution,
such as Radical Honesty9 and the Matriarchal Mosuo10 (Mósuō also
interest. Not journalists, but churnalists. An industry whose primary task is to filter out falsehood has become so vulnerable to manipulation that it is now involved in the mass production of falsehood, distortion and propaganda." - Nick Davies, Our media have become mass producers of distortion (Guardian, 04/02/2008) 8 ―Many of us are concerned about fairness and use the principle of fairness as our primary rationalization for withholding anger. Advanced instruction in this principle creates lawyers who are miserable people. Divorces handled by lawyers often result in children shot back and forth like missiles between hostile camps. If you force yourself to be fair while still angry, you are a fool, and any agreements you make in such a state won't work for you. Judges and lawyers ignore this fact. Judges and lawyers exist for people who can't handle their anger. A judge tells you what to do, based on what he or she thinks is fair, whether you like it or not, because you haven't been able to work things out on your own.‖ – Brad Blanton, Practicing Radical Honesty 9 Practicing Radical Honesty six minimal requirements to resolve conflict, none of which may be skipped, being: (1) You have to tell the truth about the specific behavior you resent, to the person, face-to-face; (2) You have to be verbally and vocally unrestrained with regard to volume and propriety; (3) You have to pay attention to the feelings and sensations in your body and to the other person as you speak; (4) You have to express any appreciations for the person that come up in the process, with the same attention to your feelings and to the other person as when you are expressing resentments; (5) You have to stay with any feelings that emerge in the process, like tears or laughter, regardless of any evaluations you may have about how it makes you look; and let the tears or laughter or pain or anger not be interrupted by your mind until they go naturally to completion; (6) You have to stay with the discussion until you no longer feel resentful of the other person. 10 ―Women have a different way of dominating. When women rule, it's part of their work. They like it when everything functions 5
spelled Moso or Musuo) culture in S.W. China, release their tensions verbally in the moment, without regard to intellectual propriety,
are
seldom
bored
and
have
very
little
or
no
violence11. [12] Radical Honesty is a powerful process by which members make corrections in their minds distorted and only partly conscious maps of the world, by overcoming societies demands for ‗bullshit the public relations image management‘ and learning to express their suppressed anger and resentments honourably in the moment, face to face, and resolving them. Our maps of the world are distorted by our repressed anger and resentment; the greater the amount
of
repressed
anger
and
resentment,
the
greater
the
distortion. Futilitarians (members of Radical Honesty) believe and the family is doing well. Amassing wealth or earning lots of money doesn't cross their minds. Capital accumulation seems to be a male thing…… [t]here is no violence in a matriarchal society…. it simply doesn't make sense to the Mosuo women to solve conflicts with violence. Because they are in charge, nobody fights. They don't know feelings of guilt or vengeance – [In a dispute] ... the women decide what happens. Some of them do it more strictly and others in a friendlier way. They are strong women who give clear orders. When a man hasn't finished a task he's been given, he is expected to admit it. He is not scolded or punished, but instead he is treated like a little boy who was not up to the task.‖ 'Men live better where women are in charge', 05/28/2009, Der Spiegel, Ricardo Coler 11 ―Their language has no words for ―rape‖ or even for ―jealousy.‖ Suicide is rare and murder unheard of. As relationships avoid entangling economic factors and love, finding and leaving a partner are simple affairs that leave little emotional scarring behind. Watching my own friends and family struggle through difficult marriages and painful divorces, I wonder how we‘ve deviated so far from these roots. And people like the American woman wonder how we can ever recapture the wholesomeness of life that the Na have not yet lost.‖ – The NA of Southwest China: Debunking the Myths, Tami Blumenfeld, May 2009 6
the
key to individuality, integrity, individual freedom, and
free societies, lies in providing people with the skills and capabilities to find the courage to give up their addiction for ‗bullshit the public relations image management‘ by learning to get
over
their
anger,
and
experience
sincere
sensate
forgiveness. It is the way the statistics from Stanley Milgram‘s experiments on blind obedience to authority get changed. [13] Radical Honesty culture and religion was founded by Dr. Brad Blanton, who is: (1) President and CEO of The Center for Radical Honesty, dedicated to promoting honesty and transparency in the world; (2) former Independent and Green candidate for Congress in 2004 and 2006, on the platform of ‗Honesty in Politics‘ ; (3) Pope
of
the
Radical
Honesty
Futilitarian
Church;
i.e.
―Dr.
Truth‖; and (4) author of (a) Radical Honesty: How To Transform your Life by Telling the Truth; (b) Practicing Radical Honesty: How to Complete the Past, Stay in the Present and Build a Future with a Little Help from Your Friends, (c) Honest to God: A Change of Heart that Can Change the World, with Neale Donald Walsh (Conversations with God series); (d) Radical Parenting: Seven Steps to a Functional Family in a Dysfunctional World; (e) The Truthtellers: Stories of Success by Radically Honest People (f) Beyond Good and Evil: The Eternal Split-Second-Sound-LightBeing; (g) Some New Kind of Trailer Trash and (h) The Korporate Kannibal Kookbook.
7
[14] Applicant is also a former employee of (1) Ms. Peggy Noonan, former Speechwriter for President Reagan and G.W. Bush, Snr; at her home in New York City, NY; (2) HRH Princess Gloria Von Thurn & Taxis Family on their Private Yacht: S.Y. Aiglon; (3) Lord and Lady Glenapp, now Earl and Countess Inchcape, at their home in Swindon, Wiltshire. (PDF References12) [15] As
an
Ecocentric
Beyond
Left
and
Right
Wing
Radical
Transparency Rule-of-law political activist, applicant has been involved in non-violent civil disobedience actions on behalf of her former husband13, Greenpeace14, Amnesty Int‘l, Pacific Inst. for
Criminal
Disclosure
Justice15,
Project18,
New
Jericho
9816,
Crack
Abolitionist19,
the
Justice
CIA17, for
The
Timothy
McVeigh20, Alliance for Democracy21, Boycott 2010 World Cup, Right
12
http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/jl-references RSA OVERSEAS: South African on hunger strike in California, by Ilda Jacobs 14 In Easter 1993, applicant 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. See: Greenpeace’s Campaign Against Ocean Dumping of Radio-Active Waste, 1978 – 1998 (www.greenpeace.org). 15 98-07-04 Miami Herald: Police action harms image as protectors 16 Jericho 98 is the movement to Free America‘s Political Prisoners. Applicant participated in Jericho 98, petitioned President Mandela on behalf of release of many Anti-Apartheid Activists in US prisons: Marilyn Buck, Jaan Laaman, Tom Manning, etc. Applicant was approved by the FBI to visit Marilyn Buck. 17 99-03-16: San Francisco Chronicle: CIA Class Action Suit For Not Reporting Drug Trade 18 Presidential UFO: George W. Bush‘s UFO Mail: Are You Ready for the Revolution? 19 New Abolitionist: Race Traitor: Zero Tolerance 20 April 2001: New Abolitionist: Tim McVeigh and Me 13
8
of
Return
for
African
White
Refugees22,
Mandelatopia‘s
TRC
Fraud23, EcoFeminist vs. Anders Breivik24, etc. [16] Applicant consumption
is
nations
local,
national and
years
lifestyle,
African
wars;
45
has
with
carrying or
old, a
has
footprint
capacity;
international
never
advocated
lived
to
a
procreation
below
avoid
US
behalf
of
South
contributing
overpopulation
on
and
or
and
to
resource
population
or
economic growth; or materialist consumerism. [17] The Applicant is an individual to whom Judge Lind‘s court order with respect to Amicus briefs applies (Transcript at page 11), who would be affected by the Court‘s decision that it ―will not grant leave for a non-party to file an Amicus brief. The government or the defense may attach such a filing by a nonparty as part of the brief filed within the suspense dates set by the Court.‖
21
In 2000, applicant 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. 22 10-04-23: Algemene Dagblad: Zuid Afrikanen Smeken Om Wilders Hulp ; 10-04-25: Sunday Argus: SA family seeks repatriation to Netherlands; 10-04-30: Mail & Guardian: Persecuted Afrikaners Talk of Returning Home; 10-05-17: Christian Science Monitor: White South Africans use Facebook in Campaign to Return to Holland 23 Mandelatopia‘s TRC Fraud: Jus Sanguinis Boer Volkstaat 10/31/16 Theses: Boer Volkstaat; or Jus Sanguinis EU Citizenship for African White Refugees Petition Justifications http://astore.amazon.com/jussanguinis-20/detail/1478230622 24 http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/ 9
[18] Absent publication of the order, or of the transcript of the session, as made available by the appellant25, applicant would have been unaware of the order
or its deadlines; and since
applicant‘s Ecocentric interests are not firmly aligned with either of the Anthropocentric interests of the government or Pfc. Manning, Applicant might ―end up investing huge amounts of effort in drafting briefs that end up yielding no benefit to the court or the public good;‖26 although, as is to be seen in subsequent argument, this is frequently the case, when media publications
have
totally
censored
Applicants
Ecocentric
arguments to South African High Court, Supreme Court of Appeal and
Constitutional
Courts
and
Norwegian
Oslo
District
and
Supreme courts. [19] Applicants intended Ecocentric Wild Law Sustainable Security application to Chief Judge Lind‘s court martial of Pfc. Manning would examine the court martial matter from a Radical Honoursty Ecocentric Wild Law Sustainable Security perspective. Whether Pfc. Manning should be executed for treason ‗for giving aid to the enemy‘ or awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor, for his ‗conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty while engaged in an action
25
http://ccrjustice.org/ourcases/current-cases/ccr-et-al-v-usaand-lind-chief-judge 26 Petitioner-Appellants Response pursuant to Interlocutory Order of 24 July 2012: Page 5 10
exposing the traitor27 enemies28 of the United States;‘ would depend on: 1. An
Ecocentric
objective
enquiry
into
the
military
necessity for Pfc. Manning‘s alleged criminal actions; 2. A subjective enquiry into the military necessity for Pfc. Manning‘s alleged criminal acts, in accordance with the Rendulic Rule29; and
27
Treason: A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and he carries his banners openly. But the traitor moves among those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the galleys, heard in the very hall of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor—he speaks in the accents familiar to his victims, and wears their face and their garment, and he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation—he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of a city—he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to be feared.......Cicero, 42 B.C.E. 28 In Valour of Ignorance, Homer Lea‘s perspective of a nations traitor enemies, are (I) those ‗high or low‘ who only regard [the Nation] in a parasitical sense, as a land to batten on and grow big in, whose resources are not to be developed and conserved for the furtherance of the Republic‘s greatness, but only to satisfy the larval greed of those who subsist upon it‘s fatness;‘ and (II) International Arbitrationists and Disarmamentists who advocate on behalf of disarmament and arbitration without understanding the true origins of war: ―Only when arbitration is able to unravel the tangled skein of crime & hypocrisy among individuals can it be extended to communities & nations. As nations are only man in the aggregate, they are the aggregate of his crimes and deception and depravity, and so long as these constitute the basis of individual impulse, so long will they control the acts of nations.‖ 29 The United States of America vs. Wilhelm List, et al; also known as ‗The Hostages Trial‘, which occurred as part of the "Subsequent Nuremberg Trials" or, more formally, as the "Trials of War Criminals before the Nuremberg Military Tribunals" (NMT). In the Trial of Wilhelm List and Others; United States Military Tribunal, Nuremberg, 8th July, 1947 to 19th February, 1948 (The 11
3. An
Ecocentric
objective enquiry
into the
Pfc Manning‘s
acts effect on the homeostatic plateau / stability of a Sustainable Ecocentric
Security
ecosystem,
in
accordance
to
the
arguments of ecologist Garret Hardin in
The
Cybernetics of Competition30 that the effect of any act, depends on the state of the system at the time it is applied. An ‗act which is harmless when the system is well within its homeostatic boundaries may be quite destructive when
the
system
is
already
stressed
near
one
limits‘, and vice versa. To promote the goal of
of
its
stability
[sustainable security]; a law must take cognisance not only of the act but also of the state of the system at the time the act is performed.31 [20] The Present Application: [21] Private First Class (PFC) Bradley Manning is charged with five specifications of violating a lawful general regulation, one specification of aiding the enemy, one specification of conduct
Hostages Trial), as reported in Law Reports of Trials of War Criminals, Selected and prepared by the United Nations War Crimes Commission, Volume VIII (Pg 68-69): Did Pfc Manning at the time of his military acts, act within the limits of honest judgement on the basis of the conditions prevailing at the time. Were the conditions, as they appeared to the defendant at the time, sufficient upon which he could honestly conclude that urgent military necessity warranted the decision he made. If this is true, the defendant may have erred in the exercise of his judgement but he was guilty of no criminal act. http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/Law-Reports_Vol-8.pdf 30 Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, 7:58-84 (1963) 31 Hardin Garrett: Stalking the Wild Taboo: Chapter 21, pg 201205 (Social Contract Press (1996)) 12
prejudicial
to
good
discrediting,
eight
information,
five
converting
order
and
specification specifications
goverment
property,
discipline
of
and
communicating
of and
stealing two
or
service
classified knowingly
specifications
of
knowingly exceeding authorized access to a goverment computer, in violation of Articles 92, 104, and 134, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). The convening authority referred the charges to a general court-martial on February 3, 2012, and PFC Manning was arraigned on February 23, 2012. The military judge held Article 39(a), UCMJ, sessions on March 15-16, April 24-26, and June 6-8, 2012.32 [22] On March 21, appellants, who are not parties to the courtmartial, sent a letter to Judge Lind requesting the Court to "make available to the public and the media for inspection and copying all documents and information filed in the Manning case, including the docket sheet, all motions and responses thereto, all
rulings
and
orders,
and
verbatim
transcripts
or
other
recordings of all conferences and hearings before the Court."
33
[23] At the 39(a) session on April 24, the military judge marked appellant‘s letter as Appellate Exhibit 66, treated it as a request to intervene, and denied the request.34
32
Appellee's Answer to Appellants Petition for Extraordinary Relief in the Nature of Writs of Mandamus and Prohibition, filed 05 July 2012: Page 2. 33 Appellee's Answer.., filed 05 July 2012: Page 2 34 Appellee's Answer.., filed 05 July 2012: Page 3 13
[24] On May 23, 2012, appellant filed a writ-petition at the Army Court seeking similar relief. Appellant asked the Army Court to compel
the
military
judge
to
grant
public
access
to
all
documents pertaining to the case and to require conferences held under Rule for Courts-Martial (R.C.M) 802 to be made part of the record
in
their
entirety.
On
May
30,
2012,
the
Army
Court
ordered the Goverment to respond to the Petition, and on June 21, 2012, the Army Court denied the Petition. Five days later, on
June
26,
2012,
appellant
timely
filed
this
writ-appeal
petition ("writ-appeal") at this Court.35 [25] The
Respondents
ask
the
Honourable
Court
to
deny
the
Appellants petition because they argue the appellant fails to meet the threshold criteria for extraordinary relief. They argue that
the
Army
Court
properly
denied
the
petition
for
extraordinary relief because the appellants failed to meet the first two conditions for extraordinary relief. First, a writ of mandamus
or
prohibition
is
appropriate
only
when
no
other
adequate remedy is available. Here, appellants have an adequate remedy under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to request access to these court-martial documents.36 [26] Secondly Respondents argue, the appellant failed to show that their right to the requested relief is clear and indisputable. They argue that 窶病t the very least, federal courts have divided
35 36
Appellee's Answer.., filed 05 July 2012: Page 3-4 Appellee's Answer .., filed 05 July 2012: Page 5 14
over
whether
the
press
is
constitutionally
entitled
to
contemporaneous access to judicial documents."37 [27] According to the petitioners38, CCR v. United States is a petition for extraordinary relief filed with the Army Court of Criminal Appeals, and a subsequent writ-appeal filed with the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, seeking an order to force Chief Judge Lind to grant the public and press access to the government‘s
motion
papers,
the
court‘s
own
orders,
and
transcripts of the court-martial proceedings of Private First Class Bradley Manning. [28] Additionally,
―the
petition
challenges
the
fact
that
substantive legal matters in the court martial – including a pre-trial publicity order – have been argued and decided in secret‖.
39
[29] The Petitioners argue that Judge Lind should comply with their requests
on
the
grounds
of
the
First
Amendment
and
the
application of the First Amendments ‗strict scrutiny‘ provisions in releasing these documents to the public.40 [30] Petitioners burdensome,
do
since
not
consider
court
their
document
requested
should
relief
ordinarily
be
to
be
made
37
Appellee's Answer .., filed 05 July 2012: Page 5 http://ccrjustice.org/ourcases/current-cases/ccr-et-al-v-usaand-lind-chief-judge 39 http://ccrjustice.org/ourcases/current-cases/ccr-et-al-v-usaand-lind-chief-judge 40 Petitioner-Appellants Response pursuant to Interlocutory Order of 24 July 2012: Page 5-7 38
15
accessible to the public in the normal course of events, just as 41
courtroom sessions are.
[31] Petitioners argue that should the government ―assert a need to alter the First Amendment‘s default presumption of openness, the press and public are entitled to advance notice, an opportunity to participate in the judicial decision-making, and an adequate record
of
decision
sufficient
to
facilitate
later
appellate
review;‖ this process requires the government to articulate with specificity a compelling interest for secrecy, and requires the trial court to engage in strict scrutiny analysis of each of the governments alleged ‗necessity‘ justifications for secrecy.
42
[32] Finally Petitioners argue that the governments secrecy ―serves no
one‘s
interests
government,
which
–
least
will
see
of
the
all
the
legitimacy
interests of
any
of
the
conviction
questioned if the current status quo prevails‖; and ―[d]oing so is vital if the military justice system is to be taken seriously as the equivalent of the civilian criminal justice system in terms of fairness, accuracy and transparency.‖43 [33] The petitioners include CCR itself and a diverse group of media figures: Glenn Greenwald, Amy Goodman of Democracy Now!, The
Nation
and
its
national
security
correspondent
Jeremy
Scahill, and Wikileaks and its publisher, Julian Assange. Also included 41 42 43
are
Kevin
Gosztola,
co-author
of
Truth
and
Petitioner-Appellants Response.., Page 5 Petitioner-Appellants Response.., Page 5-7 Petitioner-Appellants Response.., Page 7-8 16
Consequences: The U.S. vs. Bradley Manning and a civil liberties blogger covering the Manning court martial, and Chase Madar, author of The Passion of Bradley Manning and a contributing editor to The American Conservative. [34] The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press and 31 News Media Organisations44 Amicus filed in support of the PetitionerAppellants
states
organizations,
that
they
non-profit
are
national
associations
and
local
representing
news news
gatherers and their interests and trade groups whose journalists and
members
regularly
gather
and
disseminate
news
and
information to the public through their newspapers, magazines, television, radio stations and via the Internet, who have a strong interest in ensuring that journalists covering the courtmartial of Pfc. Bradley Manning (―Manning‖) are able to do so meaningfully
by
proceedings.
The
being
able
absence
of
to
view
a
court
documents
filed
transcript
and
in
the
secrecy
involving motions filed are a ―serious obstacle to effective
44
First Amici are The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, Allbritton Communications Company, American Society of News Editors, The Associated Press, Association of Alternative Newsweeklies, Atlantic Media, Inc., Cable News Network, Inc., Digital Media Law Project, Dow Jones & Company, Inc., The E.W. Scripps Company, First Amendment Coalition, Gannett Co., Inc., Hearst Corporation, Massachusetts Newspaper Publishers Association, The McClatchy Company, Military Reporters & Editors, The National Press Club, National Press Photographers Association, New England First Amendment Coalition, New York Daily News, The New York Times, Newspaper Association of America, The Newspaper Guild – CWA, North Jersey Media Group Inc., Online News Association, POLITICO LLC, Radio Television Digital News Association, Reuters, Society of Professional Journalists, Tribune Company, The Washington Post and WNET. 17
reporting
on
concern‖,
and
this
matter
that
the
of
significant
court
should
public
consider
interest this
and
secrecy
surrounding these proceedings unconstitutional; in accordance to the U.S. Supreme Court‘s recognition of a presumptive right of access to criminal proceedings (Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555, 573 (1980) (plurality opinion)). [35] The main issues: [36] The
Ecocentric
Wild
Law
Sustainable
Security
Worldview
interest of the Applicant in the main application: [37] The applicant fully supports the Appellant and Supreme Court‘s arguments that ―openness promotes not just public confidence in the
criminal
process
but
also
accuracy
in
fact-finding
and
ultimate outcomes,‖45 but disputes the alleged motives of (1) the Appellant‘s (except for the scientific journalism practiced by Wikileaks and Julian Assange) being ―to cover the proceedings consistent with their journalistic standards and obligations;‖46 and (2) the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press‘s being that of
‗meaningful reporting
in the public interest‘47.
Put
simply: The schizophrenic Pied Piper churnalist cheerleaders for
45
Appellants Writ-Appeal Petition for Review of Army Court of Criminal Appeals Decision on Application for Extraordinary Relief and Supporting Memorandum of Law Pg.10 46 Appellants Writ-Appeal Petition for Review of Army Court of Criminal Appeals Decision … Pg. 8 47 Brief on behalf of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press and 31 News Media Organisations as Amici Curiae in Support of Petitioners-Appellants; Pg.1 18
War; wish to bullshit the Court, they are principled anti-war protestors. [38] The appellants argue that ―The Supreme Court has long held that contemporaneous access to criminal proceedings is necessary to serve the various functions – public legitimation, diligent and upstanding official behavior, and error-correction – that public access has traditionally served. As early as 1948 the Court had announced that ―[t]he knowledge that every criminal trial
is
subject
to
contemporaneous
review
in
the
forum
of
public opinion is an effective restraint on possible abuse of judicial power.‖‖.48 [39] Applicant argues the court statement would be more accurate as follows: ―[t]he knowledge that every criminal trial is subject to contemporaneous review in the forum of public opinion [if the public
are
informed
of
the
court
proceedings
by
journalists
practicing scientific journalism] is an effective restraint on possible abuse of judicial power.‖ [40] The
Appellants
fail
to
clarify
what
happens
when
the
journalists reporting on any particular public interest criminal trial
deliberately
censor
one
or
more
parties
arguments
submitted to the court. Essentially, any court can practice 100% transparency, but if the media choose to censor one or more parties arguments, before that court, the media choose not only
48
Appellants Writ-Appeal Petition for Review of Army Court of Criminal Appeals Decision … Pg. 15 19
to limit the contemporaneous review of the court proceedings, in the forum of public opinion; but effectively, in terms of public opinion knowledge of the fairness of the proceedings, conduct a trial
by
media,
thereby
undermining
the
credibility
of
the
court‘s decisions, as a result of public ignorance of all the arguments and evidence submitted to the court. [41] In
the
Beyond
Applicants
Left
and
experience, Right
Wing
this
occurs
Ecocentric
frequently applications
with to
Anthropocentric court proceedings. Applicants working hypothesis conclusion is that the true motive of the majority of these media publications is not ―to cover the proceedings consistent with
their
provide
journalistic
meaningful
definitely Wikileaks
not
standards
reporting
the
standard
advocates;
but
in of
yellow
obligations,‖49
and the
public
scientific journalism
or
‗to
interest‘50;
and
journalism consciously
that or
unconsciously focussed on enabling the endless escalation of the divide
and
conquer
polarisation
of
their
respective
Anthropocentric ‗Left vs. Right wing‘ reader bases. [42] Left
and
Right
Wing
Anthropocentric
Media
censorship
has
occurred in the RH Ecofeminist Ecocentric Wild Law Sustainable Security focused applications, Applicant has submitted in the disputes between [A] ANC ‗Left Wing‘ Terrorist Robert McBride 49
Appellants Writ-Appeal Petition for Review of Army Court of Criminal Appeals Decision … Pg. 8 50 Brief on behalf of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press and 31 News Media Organisations as Amici Curiae in Support of Petitioners-Appellants; Pg.1 20
vs. ‗Right Wing‘ Citizen Newspaper (ZA: CCT 23-10); [B] ‗Right Wing‘
Afriforum
vs.
Settlers‘-Terrorist ‗Left
Wing‘
ANC
‗Left
Julius
Malema
Kingdom
of
Norway
Wing‘ (ZA: vs.
Political-‗Kill SCA
815/11);
Norwegian
the
and
‗Right
[C]
Wing‘
Terrorist Anders Breivik (NO: ODC #11-188627MED-OTIR/05) cases. [43] In Wing
all –
South
provided Left
aforementioned
endless
vs.
during
African,
Right
these
escalation
of
cases
Norwegian
reporting Wing
court the
the
of
legal
and
the
and
Left/Right
International
respective
arguments
proceeding
divide
Anthropocentric
conquer
media
Anthropocentric
submitted
disputes,
-
to
the
enabling
polarisation
court
endless of
their
respective ‗Left vs. Right wing‘ reader bases, while totally and utterly censoring even the reality that the court had received alternative ‗Beyond Left and Right Wing‘ Wild Law Sustainable Security whether
problem the
solving
courts:
focussed
[A]
approved
arguments; the
irrespective
applicants
of
Ecocentric
application, recognizing the applicant as an official Amicus respondent in proceedings (Concourt: McBride), [B] officially recognized applicants documentation into the court record and final
judgement
irregularly
(Equality/High
ignored
the
Court:
application
Malema); (Norway:
[C] Oslo
totally District
Court), resulting in complaints currently pending before the Parliamentary
Ombudsman
(Cases:
2012-1943
and
2012-1987)
and
Secretariat for the Supervisory Committee for Judges (NO: Cases: 12-071, 12-072, 12-073).
21
[44] Applicant‘s
working
hypothesis
conclusion
being
that
Anthropocentric media publications reporting on resource-war / scarcity-security court disputes have no regard for scientific journalism (providing readers full access to all original source documents) to report all relevant arguments submitted into the court record by all parties; but propagandize reporting of the respective Anthropocentric Left vs. Right Wing legal arguments their editorial bias endorses, to enable the exponential growth of the divide and conquer polarisation of their respective ‗Left vs. Right wing‘ reader base, while totally and utterly censoring their
readers
from
the
reality
that
the
court
has
received
alternative ‗Beyond Left and Right Wing‘ Ecocentric Wild Law Sustainable Security problem solving focussed arguments. [45] The applicant consequently recommends the court – as a social science experiment to determine the validity of the Applicants arguments about the alleged motives of First Amici‘s – keenly observe the Anthropocentric response, or lack thereof, by the Appellants
so-called
‗national
and
local
news
organizations…
news… whose journalists … regularly gather and disseminate news and
information
to
the
public
through
their
newspapers,
magazines, television, radio stations and via the Internet‘ to being
provided
with
this
Ecocentric
Wild
Law
Sustainable
Security application, to this court, in this matter. [46] Applicant recommend that if or when the court considers it necessary for the benefit of Pfc Manning‘s Free and Fair trial
22
interests
and/or
proceedings
are
journalists
who
the
courts
accurately don‘t
credibility reported
practice
interests
upon;
scientific
to
restrict
journalism
primary access to the relevant documentation,
only
that
from
providing
primary access to such documentation to publications/journalists who
agree
to
practice
scientific
journalism
in
their
news
reports, whereby they provide their readers with direct or link access
to
a
site
where
all
available
source
documents,
transcripts, in the particular proceedings are published. [47] Ecocentric
Wild
Law
Sustainable
Security
Submissions
which
will be advanced by the Applicant if admitted as an amicus curiae: [48] If approved as an Ecocentric Pro Se Amicus, the applicant‘s submissions will expound – from an Ecocentric perspective - on a more comprehensive analysis and overview of the Anthropocentric Left vs. Right Wing media‘s censorship of the applicants Beyond Left and Right Wing Ecocentric Wild Law Sustainable Security applications
to
South
African
and
Norwegian
courts,
the
International Criminal Court: Office of the Prosecutor (PDF51) and current complaints to five Press Complaints Commissions52 UK
– PCC (New Statesman: Ref: 123663) & The Guardian: Ref:
123691); Norway – PFU (News and Views from Norway: Case 239/12), Indonesia Press Council (Jakarta Post); Australia Press Council
51 52
http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/110509_icc_trcfraud_complaint http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/media-complaints.html 23
(Sydney Morning Herald); Federal Communications Commission (Fox News: Ref: 12-C00424455) - against Left vs. Right Wing Media Publications
deliberate
censorship
of
parties
submissions
to
court proceedings, in a public interest criminal trial, thereby avoiding providing an accurate impartial fair contemporaneous review
of
the
trial
in
the
forum
of
public
opinion,
as
an
effective restraint on the possible abuse of judicial power; and providing
the
unholistic
public
with
perspective
as
a
false,
to
the
inaccurate arguments
and
and
biased evidence
submitted to the relevant court. [49] Overview: Ecocentric Wild Law Sustainable Security Worldview: [50] Wild
Law:
A
wild
law
regulates
human
procreation
and/or
resource utilization behaviour, to ensure sustainability53. [51] Sustainability, i.e. environmental or ecological rights and responsibilities are the sine qua non54 foundation for all other rights55. However adding "sustainable" to our legal vocabulary, is
not
sufficient
sustainable,
unless
to the
ensure
that
our
definition
of
society
becomes
sustainable
is
sufficiently precise to enable sustainable living. 53
The term ―sustainable‖ pertains both to ―natural resource utilization behavior‖ and to ―a societal condition‖. Sustainable natural resource utilization behavior and sustainable human societies exist in perpetuity—indefinitely—in the absence of an aborting act of Nature. 54 Opinion of Weeramantry J in the Case Concerning the GabcikovoNagymaros Project (Hungary v Slovakia) (1998) 37 International Legal Materials 162 206. 55 Democracy Cannot Survive Overpopulation, Al Bartlett, Ph.D., Population & Environment, Vol. 22, No. 1, Sep 2000, pgs. 63-71 24
[52] Sustainability Sustainable Behaviour.57 society levels
Procreation Sustainable
utilizes less
Defined:
than
A and
Human
renewable or
Sustainable
equal
Natural
society56
Resource
Societies:
A
practices Utilization
sustainable
human
natural
resources
exclusively,
to
levels
which
the
at
they
at are
replenished by Nature. Sustainable Natural Resource Utilization Behaviour:
Sustainable
natural
resource
utilization
behaviour
involves the utilization of renewable natural resources—water, cropland, pastureland, forests, and wildlife—exclusively, which can be depleted only at levels less than or equal to the levels at which they are replenished by Nature. The utilization of nonrenewable natural resources—fossil fuels, metals, and minerals— at any level, is not sustainable.
56
Sustainable Human Societies: A sustainable human society utilizes renewable natural resources exclusively, at levels less than or equal to the levels at which they are replenished by Nature. Nonrenewable natural resources are not used at any level. A sustainable human society degrades natural habitats at levels less than or equal to the levels at which they are regenerated by Nature. A human society that engages in other natural habitat degradation is unsustainable—period. (Sustainability Defined, by Chris Clugston, author: Scarcity) 57 Sustainable Natural Resource Utilization Behavior: Sustainable natural resource utilization behavior involves the utilization of renewable natural resources—water, cropland, pastureland, forests, and wildlife—exclusively. Renewable natural resource reserves can be depleted only at levels less than or equal to the levels at which they are replenished by Nature. The utilization of nonrenewable natural resources—fossil fuels, metals, and minerals—at any level, is not sustainable. Aquatic, terrestrial, and atmospheric natural habitats can be degraded only at levels less than or equal to the levels at which they are regenerated by Nature. All other natural resource utilization behavior and all other natural habitat degradation are unsustainable—period. (Sustainability Defined, by Chris Clugston, author: Scarcity) 25
[53] Anthropocentric Law’s Inaccurate Assumption: NNR Abundance: [54] Anthropocentric58 law views the world from a firmly entrenched anthropocentric
(human-centred)
perspective,
where
there
is
always a brighter future, because the implicit assumption of our anthropocentric political, economic and legal worldview is that there will always be ―enough‖ Non Renewable Natural Resources (NNR‘s)
to
enable
a
brighter
future,
and
all
politics
and
economics needs to concern itself with, is how to use these NNR‘s to provide ever improving material living standards for ever-increasing numbers of our ever-expanding global population. From a broader Ecocentric59 Wild Law Finite Resource Scarcity perspective, however, beyond Peak NNR60, there is no hope for a
58
―The anthropocentric perspective considers the philosophy, processes, and activities by which natural resource inputs to a society‘s economy are converted into goods and services outputs (wealth creation). It also considers the philosophy, processes, and activities by which goods and services (wealth) are allocated among a society‘s population. The fundamental assumption underlying the prevailing anthropocentric perspective is that notwithstanding periodic temporary shortfalls, natural resource inputs and natural habitat waste absorption capacities will remain sufficient to perpetuate global industrialism indefinitely.‘ – Scarcity, Clugston Chris (pg. 127) 59 ―The ecological perspective considers natural resource inputs and natural habitat waste absorption capacities as the ultimate limiting factors governing a society‘s economic/political processes and activities, its attainable economic output (GDP) level, and its attainable level of societal wellbeing—i.e., the material living standards enjoyed by the society‘s population.‖ – Scarcity, Clugston C (127) 60 Peak NNR: ‗NNRs are finite; and as their name implies, NNR reserves are not replenished on a time scale that is relevant to humans. More unfortunately, economically viable supplies associated with the vast majority of NNRs that enable our industrialized way of life are becoming increasingly scarce, both domestically (US) and globally. While there will always be ―plenty of NNRs‖ in the ground, there will not always be ―plenty 26
brighter future, because the fundamental assumption of everincreasing
NNR‘s,
underlying
our
limited
anthropocentric
perspective is inaccurate.61 [55] Scarcity: Domestic (US) & Global NNR Scarcity Analysis: [56] Scarcity’s Domestic (US) & Global NNR Scarcity Analysis is based upon Mr. Chris Clugston‘s62 analysis of data from USGS, EIA, BEA, BLS, Fed, CBO, FBI, IEA, UN, World Bank, and countless NGOs and industry associations, and concludes in general that ‗absent some combination of immediate and drastic reductions in our
global
NNR
utilization
levels,
...
we
will
experience
escalating international and intranational conflicts during the coming
decades
over
increasingly
scarce
NNR‘s,
which
will
devolve into global societal collapse, almost certainly by the year 2050.‘63 [57] Scarcity Domestic (US) NNR Scarcity Analysis (pg.37-5064/pg 31-4165))
summarizes
domestic
(US)
criticality
and
scarcity
of economically viable NNRs‖ in the ground. In fact, there are ―no longer enough economically viable NNRs‖ in the ground to enable continuous improvement in human societal wellbeing at historical rates.‘ –Clugston, C: Scarcity 61 Clugston Chris: Scarcity: Humanity‘s Final Chapter: The realities, choices and likely outcomes associated with everincreasing non-renewable natural resource scarcity, page 4 62 Scarcity is a comprehensive, multidisciplinary assessment of the realities, choices, and likely outcomes associated with ever-increasing non-renewable natural resource (NNR) scarcity. NNRs are the fossil fuels, metals, and non-metallic minerals that enable our industrialized existence. 63 Clugston, C: Scarcity: Preface, pg. ix 64 Clugston, Chris: Scarcity (Booklocker.com Inc 2012) 65 http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/clugston_scarcity_pg31-55 27
associated overwhelming
with
each
of
the
majority,
68
of
89 the
analyzed 89
NNRs:
analyzed
(a)
NNRs,
An were
considered ―scarce‖ domestically (US) in 2008, immediately prior to the Great Recession; most (58) are almost certain to remain scarce permanently; (b) The US imported some quantity of 69 of the 89 analyzed NNRs in 2008; imports associated with 19 of the NNRs accounted for 100% of 2008 US supply; (c) Annual domestic (US)
extraction/production
levels
associated
with
a
sizeable
majority, 61 of the 89 analyzed NNRs, have almost certainly peaked permanently; and
(d)
Annual domestic (US) utilization
levels associated with a majority, 50 of the 89 analyzed NNRs, have likely peaked permanently. [58] Scarcity Global NNR Scarcity Analysis (pg.51-5966) (pg 41-4967) summarizes global criticality and scarcity associated with each of the 89 analyzed NNRs: (a) An overwhelming majority, 63 of the 89 analyzed NNRs, were considered ―scarce‖ globally in 2008, immediately
prior
to
the
Great
Recession;
(b)
A
significant
number, 28 of the 89 analyzed NNRs have peaked: are ―almost certain‖
to
remain
sizeable
number,
scarce
16
of
the
permanently 89
going
analyzed
forward;
NNRs,
will
and
a
―likely‖
remain scarce permanently; and (c) Global extraction/production levels
associated
with
39
of
the
89
analyzed
NNRs,
are
considered ‗at risk‘.
66 67
Clugston, Chris: Scarcity (Booklocker.com Inc 2012) http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/clugston_scarcity_pg31-55 28
[59] Scarcity’s Final Political and Economic Conclusion to Domestic (US) & Global NNR Scarcity Reality: [60] Mr. Clugston concludes that ‗Our Next Normal is Catastrophe‘, since
our
Anthropocentric
worldview
does
not
recognize
that
"from a broader ecological perspective, all human economics and politics
are
‗thrashing
irrelevant,"
at
the
to
economic
‗paraphrase
and
political
Thoreau,
we
are
branches
of
our
predicament, rather than hacking at the ecological root.‖68 [61] ―Because the underlying cause associated with our transition from prosperity to austerity is ecological (geological), not economic or political, our incessant barrage of economic and political
―fixes‖
–
fiscal
and
monetary
―stimulus‖
–
is
misguided and inconsequential. Our national economies are not ―broken‖;
they
are
―dying
of
slow
starvation‖
sufficient economically viable NNR inputs. [62] ―Our
industrial
lifestyle
paradigm,
for
lack
of
enabled
by
69
which
is
enormous quantities of finite, nonreplenishing, and increasingly scarce NNRs, is unsustainable – actually, physically impossible – going forward. [63] ―Global culminate
70
humanity‘s in
steadily
self-inflicted
deteriorating
global
societal
condition collapse,
will almost
certainly by the year 2050. We will not accept gracefully our
68 69 70
Clugston, C: Scarcity: Preface, pg. 103-104 Clugston, C: Scarcity: Preface, pg. 103-104 Clugston, C: Scarcity: Preface, pg. 103-104 29
new normal of ever-increasing, geologically-imposed austerity; nor
will
we
suffer
population
level
degradation
associated
voluntarily
reductions with
the
and our
horrifically
material inevitable
living
painful standard
transition
to
a
sustainable, pre-industrial lifestyle paradigm. [64] ―Ownership of the means of production—from private ownership to state ownership; the methods by which scarce resources are allocated—from free markets to central planning; and our forms of government—from democracy to autocracy—have no bearing on humanity‘s ultimate destiny. [65] ―All industrialized and industrializing nations, irrespective of their economic and political orientations, are unsustainable and will collapse in the not-too-distant future as a consequence of their dependence upon increasingly scarce NNRs. [66] Anthropocentric Law’s Denial of Masculine Insecurity’s Use of Penis/Womb as Weapons of War: [67] ―We must all understand that the most potent weapons of war are the penis and the womb. Therefore, if you cannot convince a group
to
control
its
population
by
discussion,
debate,
intelligent analysis etc., you must consider their action in using the penis and the womb to increase population an act of war.‖ - Former Municipal Court Judge Jason G. Brent [68] In Eve’s Seed: Masculine Insecurity, Metaphor, and the Shaping of History, and Eve’s Seed: Biology, the Sexes and the Course of History, Robert McElvaine described it thus: ―Karl Marx had it 30
wrong. Class has, to be sure, been a major factor in history; but class itself is a derivative concept that is based on the ultimate
causative
formulation existing
power
must
be
society
is
in
revised: the
history: The
history
sex.
history
of
Marx‘s
of
struggles
all
famous hitherto
based
on
the
division of our species into two sexes, jealousies emanating from this division, exaggerations of the differences between the sexes, misunderstandings about sexual reproductive power, and metaphors
derived
from
sex.
Together,
these
closely
related
matters constitute the most important, but largely neglected, set of motive forces in human history. Control -- or the claim of control -- over the means of reproduction has been even more fundamental
to
history
than
has
control
of
the
means
of
production... [69] In Humans: An Endangered Species71 Judge Brent challenges the world elite and his readers with two choices to: (1) Prove the author‘s facts, math, logic or conclusions wrong; (2) If unable to do so, implement his shocking birth control proposal to avoid destruction of civilization; as overpopulation and Peak Oil and NNR resource scarcity confronts regions at an accelerated pace of confrontation, conflict, and war. Judge Brent was forced to resign from the American Mensa Society, because of his views on reducing
overpopulation.
His
writings
have
so
irritated
the
Catholic Church that a Cardinal devoted an entire homily given
71
http://www.jgbrent.com/ 31
at St. Patrick's Cathedral in New York to attacking him and his ideas. [70] Judge Brent‘s Shocking Proposal: ―limit the right of any male to father only one live child and limit the right of every woman to one live birth. [..] Since survival of our species depends on the one child rule, under my proposal any attempt to evade the rule would result in death of the evader and of any second child. The rule to be fair must be absolute, without a single exception. [..] Population would continue to be reduced pursuant to the method [..] until it reached 300 million [or a number] based on the ability of the earth to provide resources for humanity to maintain an acceptable standard of living for a minimum of 25,000 years.‖ [71] Masculine Insecurity’s Greatest Weapon: Control of the Means of Reproduction: [72] 1. Houari Boumediene, President of Algeria, at the United Nations, 1974: ―The wombs of our women will give us victory.‖ [―One day, millions of men will leave the Southern Hemisphere to go to the Northern Hemisphere. And they will not go there as friends. Because they will go there to conquer it. And they will conquer it with their sons. The wombs of our women will give us victory.‖
(Boumediene was an ardent supporter of the ANC and
SWAPO)] [73] 2. Yasser Arafat: Palestinian Womb is his people‘s greatest asset [Arnon Soffer, a geography professor at Israel's Haifa
32
University Command
and
a
college,
lecturer first
at
the
warned
Israeli of
the
Army's
Staff
impending
and
Jewish
demographic minority in the 1980s, but was widely dismissed. He predicted Arabs would outnumber Jews in both Israel proper and the occupied territories by 2010. In February 2001, the night of his election, Sharon sent an aide to ask Soffer for a copy of his 1987 treatise about the demographic threat to Israel; it was the same study that had led Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat to declare in the late 1980s that the "Palestinian womb" was his people's greatest weapon.] [74] 3. Nelson Mandela‘s ANC: ANC ‗Operation Production‘ Policy: During the ANC‘s ‗liberation struggle‘ African women were forced (1) to have sex with ANC cadres, & (2) not allowed to use contraception. Any woman who refused sex from an ANC cadre or was caught using contraception was detained, accused of being an 'Apartheid agent', given a People‘s Court trial, the sentence was usually Necklacing, incl. broken bottles shoved up their vagina72. [Johannes Harnischfeger, Witchcraft and the State in South Africa (*German version of published in Anthropopos, 95/ 72
Maki Skosana was an ANC comrade who was accused – for no observable reasons – of being an apartheid spy, given a people‘s court trial and publicly executed by necklacing in July 1985. The TRC made no effort whatsoever to investigate the motives for shoving broken glass bottles up women‘s vagina‘s who were necklaced. TRC Report: ―Moloko said her sister was burned to death with a tyre around her neck while attending the funeral of one of the youths. Her body had been scorched by fire and some broken pieces of glass had been inserted into her vagina, Moloko told the committee. Moloko added that a big rock had been thrown on her face after she had been killed.‖ http://www.doj.gov.za/trc/hrvtrans/duduza/moloko.htm 33
2000, S. 99-112): ―Especially evening assemblies girls had to attend as well: ―They would come into the house and tell us we should go. They didn't ask your mother they just said ‗come let's go.‘ You would just have to go with them. They would threaten you with their belts and ultimately you would think that if you refused, they would beat you. Our
parents were
afraid of them‖ (quoted by Delius 1996:189). All those opposing the wishes of the young men were reminded, that it was every woman‘s obligation to give birth to new ―soldiers‖, in order to replace those warriors killed in the liberation struggle. The idiom of the adolescents referred to these patriotic efforts as ―operation production‖. Because of exactly this reason it was forbidden for the girls to use contraceptives. (Delius 1996:189; Niehaus 1999:250)‖] [75] 4. New Black Panther Party: Dr. Khalid Muhammad: Kill the White Woman as the White Man‘s Military Manufacturing Center rolling out reinforcement from between her legs: In Dr. Khalid Abdul
Muhammad‘s
1993
'Kill
the
White
Man'
speech,
at
Kean
College in Union Township, New Jersey, he stated among others: ―Kill the women cause the women are the military manufacturing center; cause every nine months they lay down on their backs and reinforcement rolls out from between their legs. So shut down the military manufacturing center, by killing the white woman.‖73
73
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalid_Abdul_Muhammad http://www.metacafe.com/watch/456363/khallid_muhammads_speech_ki ll_the_white_man/ 34
[76] 5.
Adolf
Hitler
and
the
Nazi
Party:
―The
selection
of
a
racially highly worthy wife in itself still does not necessarily mean an improvement of the race. That only comes when the right mate selection is followed by the breeding of an above-average number
of
hereditary
children. factors
For
from
what the
would
folk
the
help,
elimination if
of
bad
simultaneously
a
reproduction of the good hereditary factors was not preserved and expanded? ... The birth rate will determine the future of our folk. The number of cribs must be much larger than the number of coffins. Only then can we offer successful resistance against all arising dangers and turn into deed our right, which is due us on the basis of our leading position in Europe. … Two weapons are at the disposal of each folk in the struggle for survival: Its ability to fight and its fertility. Never forget that the ability to fight of a folk alone can never make it possible for a folk to survive into the far future, rather that the inexhaustible fountain of its fertility is also necessary."74 [77] Anthropocentric Law endorses the Absence of Procreation and Voting Licensing, to Profit from the ‘War Racket’: Human Farming of Economic & Military Cannon Fodder for the Profiteers (and their Media Pied Pipers) of the War Economy Racket. [78] ―In order to achieve this goal [of world domination], we must introduce universal suffrage beforehand, without distinctions of 74
SS Race Theory and Mate Selection Guidelines, translated from Original SS Publications by Libertarian National Socialist Green Party; original SS publication Glauben und Kampfen ("Faith and Struggle") 35
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 [79] ―We have seen more than once that the public welfare may call upon the best citizens for their lives. It would be strange if it could not call upon those who already sap the strength of the State for these lesser sacrifices, often not felt to be such by those concerned, in order to prevent our being swamped with incompetence. It is better for all the world if, instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes. Three generations of imbeciles are enough.‖ -- U.S. Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Buck v. Bell75 [80] The Human Factory Farm War Economy Matrix: ‗When you look at a map of the world, you are not looking at countries, but farms. Farm
Management
communism,
&
fascism,
Licensing: democracy
State –
capitalism,
these
are
all
socialism, livestock
management approaches. The most productive livestock are the 75
Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927) 1927 36
professionals, so the rulers fit them with an electronic dog collar called a ―license,‖ which only allows them to practice their trade on their own farm. Animal Farm Elections: To further create the illusion of freedom, the livestock are allowed to choose between a few farmers, who provide a few minor choices in how they are managed. They are never given the choice to shut down
the
farm,
and
be
truly
free.
Problem
of
modern
human
livestock ownership: challenge of ―enthusiasm.‖ Liberties are granted to the human livestock not with the goal of setting them free, but to increase their productivity. Government schools are indoctrination
pens
Anthropocentric
farm.
to
teach
Of
livestock
course,
to
intellectuals,
love
the
teachers,
artists and priests were – and are – well paid to conceal this reality. You do not have to be livestock. Take the red pill. Wake up.‘ – Stefan Molyneux: True News 13: Statism is Dead Part 3 - The Matrix76 [81] Aldous
Huxley‘s
A
Brave
New
World
Revisited,
eloquently
describes the insidious conspiracy to manipulate the masses by propaganda and lies, so as to make them controllable under the ―steadily increasing pressures of over-population and of the over-organization
imposed
by
growing
numbers
and
advancing
technology‖: ―It is perfectly possible for a man to be out of prison, and yet not free -- to be under no physical constraint and yet to be a psychological captive, compelled to think, feel 76
Stefan Molyneux: True News 13: Statism is Dead - Part 3 - The Matrix http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P772Eb63qIY 37
and act as the representatives of the national State, or of some private interest within the nation, want him to think, feel and act. There will never be such a thing as a writ of habeas mentem;
for
no
sheriff
or
jailer
can
bring
an
illegally
imprisoned mind into court, and no person whose mind had been made captive by the methods outlined in earlier articles would be in a position to complain of his captivity. The nature of psychological
compulsion
is
such
that
those
who
act
under
constraint remain under the impression that they are acting on their own initiative. The victim of mind-manipulation does not know that he is a victim. To him, the walls of his prison are invisible, and he believes himself to be free. That he is not free is apparent only to other people. His servitude is strictly objective.‖ [82] In
Why
Are
10/10/2010)
Wars
John
not
Pilger
being
Reported
describes
Honestly
journalists
(Guardian:
and
editors
confirming their role as censorship agents, along similar lines of reasoning as detailed in Dr. T. Michael Maher‘s report: How and
Why
Journalists
Avoid
the
Population
–
Environment
Connection, where PR News churnalists admit they are hoodwinked, but
omit
Pilger‘s
to
77
of
why
documentary
motivations father
say
for
the
public
they The
self-hoodwink/censor
War
hoodwinking
relations:
You self
Edward
Don’t
themselves.
See77
censorship Bernays,
traces back
the
to
nephew
the the of
http://johnpilger.com/dvds/the-war-you-dont-see-uk38
Sigmund Freud. In Bernays‘s 1928 book Propaganda, he described the conspiracy of manipulating the public with ‗public relations news‘
to
behave
automatonic culturally
as
politically induced
fairness)
instead
sufficient
psychologically correct
preference of
zombie for
educating
ecologically
insecure,
consumers
sycophantic
them
responsible
dumbed-down,
to
be
problem
(with
a
intellectual
rational solving
self-
citizens
(With the courage to practice transparent public airing of dirty linen dispute resolution). The PR image management / Political Correct induced suppression of their anger, creates a sterile, fake sycophantic environment, which ripens in time, when the Human Slaughterhouse Managers are ready to market their next war, marketed for great profit78 by the Churnalist Pied Pipers, as
the
citizens
PR/politically are
finally
correct given
obsessed
approval
cultural
―for
the
adherent
release
and
individuals
are
redistribution of their undifferentiated tensions‖. [83] Anthropocentric
Legal
doctrine
holds
that
issued licences - to own a gun, drive a car, practice Law, watch television,
obtain
credit,
earn
a
living
as
a
professional,
fish, hunt, sell liquor, operate a business, get married – once they
have
fulfilled
certain
skills
or
informed
consent
commitment requirements required for the particular licence. [84] If
Anthropocentric
internationally,
was
legal
theory
committed
to
within the
a
country,
or
perpetuation
of
78
The Military-Industrial-Media Complex, Norman Solomon, FAIR, July/August 2005 http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2627 39
sustainable republics and democracies; then application of its own Anthropocentric licensing principles, would require it to implement
‗Sustainable
Democracy/Republic
Licence
to
Vote‘
legislation where licences to vote are only issued to citizens whose lifestyle – in terms of procreation and consumption – is below the nations sustainable resource use carrying capacity footprint. [85] No
political
‗inalienable Military
party
right
Cannon
to
or
politician
breed‘
Fodder),
(Human
or
who
endorsed
Farming
(b)
of
corporate
(a)
the
Economic
and
or
military
unsustainable use of non-renewable natural resources; would ever be able to get elected to run a children‘s lemonade stand, let alone
the
capacity
to
implement
national
legislation
that
endorsed the long term extermination of the Democracy/Republic and its resources, for short-term corporate or socio-political status profits; in a ‗Sustainable Democracy/Republic‘ where the only citizens licensed to vote, were those whose lifestyle – in terms of procreation and consumption – was below the nations sustainable resource use carrying capacity footprint. [86] The
Anthropocentric
Legal
Matrix
-
Attorneys,
Prosecutors,
Academics and Judges - avoid implementing ‗Sustainable Democracy Licence to Vote
and Breed‘ legislation, as a result of its
endorsement of, and socio-eco-political profit from the Human
40
Farming79 of Economic and Military Cannon Fodder Racket - the breeding of surplus youth bulge80 populations, to be converted into ―dumb, stupid animal pawns‖81 cannon fodder soldier armies – ‗possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most
vicious‘
international
profiteering
racket;
where
their
‗profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in military families lives‘; by sending ―dumb, stupid animal pawns‖ cannon fodder soldier armies, as the ―high-class muscle men for Big Business, Wall Street and the bankers‖ (War is a Racket by USMC General
Smedley
D
Butler
(1881-1940));
frequently
to
fight
corporately profitable, but militarily un-winnable wars82, such as
in
Afghanistan
Afghanistan83
at
the
(General
Stanley
International
McChrystal
Institute
for
Speech
on
Strategic
Studies (IISS) in London, October 2009) and Vietnam (Col. David 79
Human Farming: Story of Your Enslavement http://youtu.be/Xbp6umQT58A 80 Demographics & Violence: Youth Bulges: Numerous reports provide details how population age structures have significant impacts on a countries stability, governance, economic development and social well-being. Put differently, countries with large populations of idle young men, known as youth bulges, account for 70 – 90 percent of all civil conflicts. Additionally a wealth of historical studies indicates that cycles of rebellion and military campaigns in the early modern and modern world tended to coincide with periods when young adults comprised an unusually large proportion of the population. Youth Bulge Reports: (1) The Shape of Things to Come: Why Age Structure Matters to a Safer More Equitable World, by Population Action International; (2) YouthQuake: Population, fertility and environment in the 21st Century, by Optimum Population Trust. 81 "Military men are just dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns" -- Henry Kissinger, August 9, 2005 82 Press TV, 26 May 2011: US military suicide rate exceeds combat fatalities http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J4SrziRCqyE 83 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1KGnacqfMc 41
Hackworth: About Face: The Odyssey of an American Warrior and the subsequent Brave Men.) [87] Sustainable Security: [88] Sustainable
Security
‗Sustainability
is
is
founded
Security‘
(US
on
the
ARMY
principle
STRATEGY
that
FOR
THE
ENVIRONMENT, 24 Oct 200684); which requires confronting the – ‗There is no resource scarcity security without sustainability‘ - reality that in the absence of a new moral order (1996: US Army War College: Parameters: The Culture of Future Conflict85) where
Ecocentric
procreation
and
laws
are
resource
implemented
utilization
to
regulate
behaviour,
to
human ensure
84
SCARCITY & SECURITY: ―Resource Scarcity contributes to Global Instability. There is No Security without Sustainability / Sustainability is Security‖ - US ARMY STRATEGY FOR THE ENVIRONMENT. Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army, Environment, Safety & Occupational Health: Richard Murphy, Assistant for Sustainability, 24 Oct 2006 http://www.cecer.army.mil/techreports/ERDC-CERL_TR-079/Session%20I/RichardMurphy.pdf 85 1996: US Army War College: Parameters: The Culture of Future Conflict: Overpopulation & Resource Scarcity will be the Direct Cause of Confrontation, Conflict, and War: Major Ralph Peters | US Army War College: Parameters | Winter 1995-96, pp. 18-27.: ―Resource scarcity will be a direct cause of confrontation, conflict, and war. The struggle to maintain access to critical resources will spark local and regional conflicts that will evolve into the most frequent conventional wars of the next century. Gross overpopulation will destroy fragile possibilities for progress in much of the non-Western world, and much of this problem is the West's fault. .. Basic resources will prove inadequate for populations exploding beyond natural limits, and we may discover truths about ourselves that we do not wish to know. In the end, the greatest challenge may be to our moral order.‖ 42
sustainability86; confront
‗overpopulation
regions
at
an
and
accelerated
resource
scarcity
pace
confrontation,
of
will
conflict, and war in this [2010-2020] decade‘ (US ARMY & TRADOC UNIFIED QUEST 2012: US Army Unified Quest 2012 Fact Sheet87) and (1996: US Army War College: Parameters: The Culture of Future Conflict88)
and
(2000:
CIA
&
Pentagon
on
Overpopulation
and
Resource Scarcity as Sources for Resource Wars89). [89] Media’s Self-Censorship of the Ecocentric Perspective: [90] Research perspective
about in
the
their
media‘s daily
self
censorship
reporting,
was
of
Ecocentric
conducted
by
T.
Michael Maher, Ph.D. (Journalism), Professor and Head of the Dept. of Communication at the University of Louisiana, in his (A)
Ph.D.
Population
dissertation: Issue,
Anthropocentrism (ii)
Population:
at
Media
Framing
which
includes
World
Population
The
Once
and
and
(i)
Salience The
Conferences
Future
of
the
Triumph
of
(1999),
and
Environmental
Crisis
(1995); and (B) his study: How and Why Journalists Avoid the
86
The term ―sustainable‖ pertains both to ―natural resource utilization behavior‖ and to ―a societal condition‖. Sustainable natural resource utilization behavior and sustainable human societies exist in perpetuity—indefinitely—in the absence of an aborting act of Nature. 87 www.army.mil/article/68379/Unified_Quest_2012___Fact_Sheet/ 88 1996: US Army War College: Parameters: The Culture of Future Conflict: Overpopulation & Resource Scarcity will be the Direct Cause of Confrontation, Conflict, and War: Major Ralph Peters | US Army War College: Parameters | Winter 1995-96, pp. 18-27. 89 2000: Nightline: Ted Koppel: (1) CIA & Pentagon on Overpopulation: www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OJeUAx0y-g; (2) CIA & Pentagon on Resource Wars: www.youtube.com/watch?v=s22yr-Fvl5Q 43
Population-Environment
(PDF90),
Connection
published
in
Population and Environment, Volume 18, Number 4, March 1977. [91] Case
Study
of
Media
Censorship
of
Ecocentric
Wild
Law
Sustainable Security Problem Solving Arguments in resource-war / scarcity-security court disputes: [92] SA Concourt: Robert McBride vs. The Citizen: [93] The
applicant
was
admitted
to
the
Constitutional
Court
proceedings as First Amicus, on 03 May 2012, as follows: ―Ms. Lara Johnstone, Member of Radical Honesty Culture and Religion, is admitted as an amicus curiae‖ (PDF91). The primary parties were appealing and cross-appealing a judgement of the Supreme Court
of
Appeal
(―SCA‖),
Case:
277/2008,
regarding,
among
others, the interpretation of the meaning of ‗amnesty‘ in the Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act, 34 of 1995 (―TRC Act‖). The SCA Judgement had ruled on behalf of McBride, that McBride‘s 1986 Umkhonto we Sizwe bombing of Magoo's Bar / "Why Not" Restaurant in Durban, car-bomb terrorism conviction and sentence was expunged from all official records, by his receipt of TRC amnesty, and also that ―the conviction shall for all purposes… be deemed not to have taken place.‖ Consequently reporting, by The Citizen, referring to McBride as a ‗murderer‘ was considered as ‗defamation‘, because it was false.
90 91
http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/mahertm_journo-env-pop-connection http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100718_rhwr-concourt-amicus 44
[94] Two expert witness affidavits were submitted in support of the Applicants (PDF93),
Amicus
Curiae
supporting
the
(PDF92): Radical
One
from
Honesty
Dr.
Brad
argument
Blanton
of
South
Africa‘s Truth and Reconciliation fraud; and the second one from Dr.
Michael
Maher
(PDF94),
population-environment
on
the
media‘s
connection95,
censorship
thereby
driving
of
the
public
ignorance of Ecocentric perspective to our social, political and economic problems, in this Concourt argument: South Africa‘s Truth and Reconciliation Fraud and its consequences. [95] Applicant‘s Ecocentric Wild Law Sustainable Security Amicus was
titled:
Radical
interpretation argued that
of
TRC
Honesty Social
Population Contract
Policy and
the
Common
Sense
Amicus
brief
South Africa‘s Truth and Reconciliation Hearings
were a fraud, as a result of their Anthropocentric Left vs. Right / white vs. black wing blame game focus, and absence of an Ecocentric root cause problem solving focus. Arguments included: (1) The TRC Social Contract avoids providing key definitions, is vague
and
ambiguous
on
fundamental
culturally
conflicting
concepts, such as ‗forgiveness‘, ‗closure‘, ‗national unity‘, ‗reconciliation‘ etc. (2) The definition and meaning of Amnesty was changed, subsequent to Interim Constitution, and prior to TRC Act, without due Process to all parties; (3) SA‘s TRC Fraud 92
http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100718_rhwr-concourt-amicus http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100518_cc2310_affid-bblanton 94 http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100522_concourt-expwitnesstmmaher 95 http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/mahertm_journo-env-pop-connection 93
45
analysis in accordance with Just War Principles: * having a just cause, * being a last resort, * declared by proper authority, * possessing right intention, * reasonable chance of success, and *
using
proportional
force.
The
Amicus
Analysis
of
Evidence
concludes: The ANC had no Proper Authority, No Right Intention, No Reasonable Prospects of Just War Success, its Desired End was not proportional to the Means Used; and its declaration of war was not a last resort. Finally, under Post Bellum principles, the ANC‘s Promises of Amnesty were reneged upon, destroying all trust in future multi-cultural political agreements for minority cultures. Consequently: Truth and Reconciliation was not seen to be done. The Commission was biased, skewed and not remotely interested in addressing root cause problems of ecological and overpopulation understanding perspectives,
/
resource
scarcity
for
a
better
holistic
of Apartheid violence, nor in rainbow struggle ignoring
blatantly
obvious
enquiries
into
population demographic causes of violence, etc. Consequently in the absence of a free and fair enquiry into Apartheid and AntiApartheid violence, ‗CRIME OF APARTHEID‘ WAS A FALSIFICATION OF HISTORY. [96] The media extensively reported upon all Left vs. Right wing arguments
lodged
before
the
court,
including
other
Amici
arguments made by Anthropocentric Left vs. Right Wing Second to Fifth
Amici
(2:
Freedom
of
Expression
Institute;
3:
The
SA
National Editors Forum; 4: Joyce Sibanyoni Mbizana; 5: Mbasa
46
Mxenge),
except
for
the
RH
Ecofeminist
Ecocentric
Wild
Law
Sustainable Security arguments of Applicant, which were totally censored and unreported. [97] SA HC & SCA: Afriforum vs. Julius Malema: [98] The Applicant filed an application to proceed as Amicus Curiae (PDF96) in the South Gauteng Equality Court (07-2010 EQ JHB). The dispute
was
between
Right
Wing
Afriforum
and
Transvaal
Agricultural Union (TAU) against Left Wing Mr. Julius Malema, leader of the African National Congress Youth League (ANCYL), for publicly singing ‗Kill the Boer‘.
Afriforum
/
TAU
argued
among others, that the ‗Kill the Boer‘ 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. Malema and the ANC argued 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.
96
http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/110419__eq-07-10 47
[99] The applicant argued that the dispute between the primary parties
was
a
direct
result
of
South
Africa‘s
Truth
and
Reconciliation Fraud. The TRC‘s Fraud failed to address the root ecological (population growth vs. resource depletion) and lack of
psychological
integrity
causes
of
South
Africa‘s
racial
animosity and violence. In the absence of truly transparent root cause problem solving Truth and Reconciliation Hearings, the left vs. right wing and black vs. white polarisation cultural friction war would escalate as resource depletion and the ANC‘s induced
welfare-brood-sow-vote-bribery
collided; minority
and
the
only
solutions
with
any
self
preservation
population
for
explosion
providing
security,
the
would
white be
to
either: (A) Implement the 23 April 1994 Accord on Afrikaner Self-Determination Sanguinis
for
a
Repatriation
of
Boer
Volkstaat;
‗Settlers‘
to
and/or
European
(B)
Jus
Progenitor
Nations. [100] One
of
the
applicant‘s
arguments
to
substantiate
South
Africa‘s Truth and Reconciliation Fraud was the TRC‘s failure to examine
ecological
and
demographic
breeding
war
sources
for
Apartheids violence. The TRC failed to ask the question whether the ANC could have won their struggle against Apartheid nonviolently, by demonstrating their honourable Just War Just Cause Population applicant
Policy
Intentions
submitted
International
numerous
Anti-Apartheid
to
end
their
requests
to
Organisations
Breeding
War?
The
South
African
and
for
evidence,
to
48
submit to the court, that the ANC‘s ‗liberation struggle‘ was honourably a Just War: Prior
to
the
ANC‘s
M-Plan
declaration
of
War
against
Apartheid: Did any EU Anti-Apartheid Organisation advise the
ANC
or
any
SA
Anti-Apartheid
Organisation
to
avoid/suspend the violent ‗liberation struggle ‘campaign against
the
Apartheid
violent
cultural
Goverment,
and
political
campaign
and
to
launch to
a
stop
nonthe
African ‗swart gevaar‘ breeding-war population explosion, to demonstrate the ANC‘s honourable Just War Just Cause Intentions? If (a) it was abundantly clear that the major fundamental motive for establishing Apartheid was fear of the ‗swart gevaar‘;
(2)
Apartheid
Officials
and
citizens
‗swart
gevaar‘ population policy fears are not only legally and ecologically justifiable, but common sense; (3) the ANC and
Anti-Apartheid
movement
were
culturally
honourably
concerned with Just War practices; (4) why did the ANC not consider launching a non-violent cultural and political campaign to stop their African ‗swart gevaar‘ breeding-war population explosion, to demonstrate their honourable Just War
Just
Cause
Intentions
to
‗swart
gevaar‘
Apartheid
Officials and citizens? [101] The Anthropocentric Left vs. Right Wing Blame Game Patriarchal Parasitism Arguments of the proceedings were televised live on South African E-News, and reported on, by all South African media, including International Media; in the context of the Left vs.
Right
Wing
Blame
Game
Information/Propaganda
War.
The
Applicants arguments and application were totally ignored and censored by all media.
49
[102] 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)97; Judge Lamont‘s judgement confirmed 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. [103] The matter was subsequently appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal by the primary parties: Afriforum, Malema and the ANC. Applicant again applied to the court to proceed as Amicus Curiae (PDF98), repeating the arguments submitted to the Equality Court. [104] On 22 May 2012 the Supreme Court of Appeal ruled (PDF99) that "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.
The
application
is
accordingly refused." [105] On 18 July 2012, applicant filed an application for leave to approach
97 98 99
the
Constitutional
Court,
for
review
of
the
SCA‘s
http://www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZAEQC/2011/2.html http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/111230_sca81511 http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/120522_sca 50
denial of applicants Amicus application ―IF:
Supreme
Court
of
Appeals
(PDF100)
Values
arguing that
endorse
EcoFeminist
Sustainable Democracy Transparency TruthSeeking Problem Solving: Applicant Should be Approved as an Amicus Curiae‖ since ―no Primary
Party
Represents
Radical
Honesty
EcoFeminist
Problem
Solving Values‖ [106] The
Supreme
Court
of
Appeal
have
not
yet
ruled
on
the
applicant‘s 18 July 2012 application for leave to approach the Constitutional Court, for review of SCA‘s denial of applicants Amicus application. [107] Once again South African media extensively reported upon all Left vs. Right wing Patriarchal Anthropocentric arguments lodged before the Equality court and later the Supreme Court of Appeal, while totally censoring the reality of an Ecocentric Wild Law Sustainable
Security
argument
having
been
made
in
the
proceedings, let alone the content of the Ecocentric Wild Law Sustainable Security arguments. [108] NO: Kingdom of Norway vs. Anders Breivik: [109] The Applicant has filed three RH Ecofeminist Ecocentric Wild Law Sustainable Security applications to Norwegian courts; and notified
over
journalists
and
1,000
Norwegian
editors
of
and
the
International
applications.
European
All
three
applications were ignored by the court authorities and presiding Judicial officials, and as a result were filed as complaints to 100
http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/120718_sca_815-11 51
the Parliamentary Ombudsman (Case 2012-1943) and the Secretariat for the Supervisory Committee for Judges (Judge Wenche Arntzen: 12-072; Chief Justice Tore Schei: 12-073). On 15 April 2012, applicant filed an application to Oslo District Court, for an order to (1) proceed as Amicus Curiae Breivik
(PDF101); and
and
(2)
Applicant
Amend
to
the
include
Charges Treason
Against in
Mr.
terms
of
Article 85 of Norwegian Constitution, and if found guilty, in a free and fair trial, equivalent to the trial given to Nelson Mandela by the Apartheid government; to be executed by firing squad. [As explained to Mr. Breivik: ―You are willing to die for your ideological beliefs, for saving your people and your culture; I am willing to risk death, to challenge your country to give you a free and fair trial,
so
that
we
can
examine
the
truth
about
your
evidence.‖102] [110] On 10 May 2012, applicant filed an application for review (PDF103)
of
the
Oslo
District
Courts
refusal
to
provide
a
101
http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/120414_amicus ―Finally to me honour means you don‘t ask someone to do something you are not willing to do yourself. If I ask you to put yourself forward to be charged with treason and the death penalty, then I demonstrate my integrity, seriousness and commitment to the request, by asking of myself the same consequences. You are willing to die for your ideological beliefs, for saving your people and your culture; I am willing to risk death, to challenge your country to give you a free and fair trial, so that we can examine the truth about your evidence. I don‘t doubt your sincere belief that the evidence you wish to bring before the court is as serious as you believe it to be. My worldview seriously doubts certain of your allegations and perspectives; but I am willing to put my perspectives to the serious test. I would be happy to risk death in support of seeking the truth and to encourage others to support the rule of law, particularly for those whom they consider their enemies.‖ – 13 Aug 2012 RH Letter to Mr. Breivik 103 http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/120510_nsc-rev 102
52
response
to
the
applicants
Amicus
application;
including
a
request for an Order that the Norwegian Ministry of Culture act in
accordance
to
European
Court
of
Human
Rights
ruling
in
Lithgow & others v. United Kingdom, and clarify in adequately accessible and sufficiently precise statement; whether Norway is (A)
a
‗Children
of
the
Rainbow‘
State
legally
committed
to
Multiculturalism, providing all cultures their right to invoke cultural law and hence granting the Applicant her rights to invoke Radical Honoursty cultural law; or (B) a Monocultural Indigenous European Supremacy Legal Hegemonic State, and that the Labour Party Immigration policy is a tactic to maintain their
grip
on
power,
by
importing
Non-Western
immigrants
as
Labour Party vote-fodder. [111] Both
the
Amicus
and
Review
applications
were
ignored
by
respectively the Oslo District Court (Judge Wenche Arntzen: Case 12-072104) and the Norway Supreme Court (Justice Tore Schei: Case 12-073105), Secretariat
and for
subsequent the
complaints
Supervisory
were
Committee
filed for
with
the
Judges,
for
violation of the applicants right of due process free and fair hearing
(receipt
of
case
number,
hearing
of
eligibility
of
argument) for her applications.
104
http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/12-072-judge-wenchearntzen.html 105 http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/12-073-justice-toreschei.html 53
[112] Subsequent to the Oslo District Court‘s 24 August Judgement, finding Mr. Breivik sane and guilty, the applicant filed a RH Ecofeminist Ecocentric Wild Law Sustainable Security application for
Review106
Judgement,
of
parts
specifically
of
the
for
Patriarchal
orders
to
Anthropocentric
[A.1]
Set
Aside
the
Judgements ‗Necessity (Nødrett) Ruling‘; and [A.2] Set Aside Defendant‘s District
Conviction
Court
for
(Finding
hearing
of
of
Guilt)
Further
and
Remit
Evidence
to
to
Oslo
conclude
Objective and Subjective Necessity Test Evidentiary Enquiry, and to ... [B] Set Aside the Judgements Failure to disclose the pending
Judicial
Ethics
violation
complaint
against
Rettens
Leder: Wenche Elizabeth Arntzen, filed on 06 June 2012 to the Secretariat
for
the
Supervisory
Committee
for
Judges,
as
a
violation of Aarhus Convention Article 3.(3)(4)(5) principles, and general ECHR public accountability Transparency (Lithgow & others v United Kingdom)
principles.
[113] The grounds for the application being that: [A.1.a] Necessity Judgement fails to provide any necessity criminal provisions that
prohibit
Necessity;
killing
[A.1.b]
of
Government
Necessity
Judgement
Officials Ignores
in that
case
of
Criminal
Necessity provisions do not prohibit the killing of Government Officials in case of objective and subjective Necessity; [A.1.c] Necessity related
Judgements
criminal
law
Erroneous provisions
interpretation and
of
Necessity
international
necessity
106
http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/27-aug-12-reviewapplic.html 54
related human rights law; [A.1.d] Necessity and Guilt Judgements Failure to conduct required Objective and Subjective Tests for Defendant‘s
Necessity
Defence;
[A.1.e]
Necessity
and
Guilt
Judgements Absence of Objective and Subjective Test Enquiry and Conclusions Renders it Inadequate; [A.1.f] Necessity and Guilt Judgements Absence of Clarification Upon which party the Onus of Proof lies in a Case of Necessity; and how or why their evidence was insufficient renders the Judgements Conclusions inadequate; [A.1.g] Necessity and Guilt Judgements Absence of Objective and Subjective
Test
Enquiry
and
Conclusions
Renders
it
a
Discriminatory Precedent; [A.1.i] Necessity Judgements ‗Extreme Political Objectives‘ conclusion is unsupported in the Absence of Objective and Subjective Necessity Test; and is a Masculine (Reason and Logic) Insecurity Left vs. Right Wing Blame Game Parasite Leeching Polarization – not a Matriarchal Ecological and
Psychological
Integrity
Root
Cause
Problem
Solving
–
conclusion. [114] The Ecocentric Sustainable Security Wild Law focused arguments being
that
the
Courts
Judgement
of
Breivik
-
like
most
Patriarchal Anthropocentric legalism - is about Left vs. Right Wing
Blame
transparent
Game
polarization
root
cause
and
problem
parasitism, solving,
which
not
about
requires
confronting the ecological and lack of psychological integrity (transparency) root causes of our disputes.
55
[115]
When the court denies Breivik his right to an objective and
subjective examination of his necessity defence, giving him a rubber
stamp
of
‗guilt‘;
this
reinforces
Breivik‘s
argument
about the so-called ‗Corrupt Multicultural Feminist State‘; and rewards his Ego Anthropocentric Patriarchal parasitic desire for greater Left vs. Right wing blame game polarization. [116] What Breivik fears more than an insanity ruling, is a free and fair trial where his Anti-Islam arguments are given an objective and subjective examination, not only from within the Left Wing vs.
Right
Wing
blame
game
Anthropocentric
worldview,
but
particularly from an Ecocentric Wild Law Sustainable Security worldview that examines both (1) the ecological and demographic resource
reality
foundations
of
the
Europe
Titanic
–
Islam
iceberg dispute; as well as (2) Masculine Insecurity and lack of psychological
integrity
Anthropocentric
use
of
avoidance
women
as
of
the
Patriarchal
human-factory-farming-cannon-
fodder-brood-sows for their Left vs. Right Wing profiteering from their Human Farming Tragedy of the Commons breeding war resource wars. [117] Finally, denying Breivik his ‗Necessity‘ Defence Right to an Objective
and
Subjective
Test
of
his
Evidence
sets
horrific
Precedent for denying other Activists, including future Decisive Ecological Warfare107 Deep Green Resistance Eco-Warrior Necessity Activists their Necessity Test Rights.
107
Decisive Ecological Warfare: deepgreenresistance.org/dew/ 56
[118] Further
argument
Disobedience
includes
Necessity
dozens
Defence
of
Cases
Common
which
Law
have
and
Civil
resulted
in
Innocence Verdicts or Severe Mitigation of Sentencing; as well as
Military
Command
Necessity‘s
Trial
and
cases
(2)
of
(1)
Generaloberst
Nuremberg Lothar
German
Rendulic,
High Armed
Forces Commander North, who commanded the Nazi Forces in Norway, and
who
because military
was
acquitted
the
Tribunal‘s
necessity
by
the
found
mandated
Tribunal
on
various
―reasonable
his
orders,‖
his for
charges,
belief ―the
that
complete
destruction of all shelter and means of existence in, and the total
evacuation
of
the
entire
civilian
population
of
the
northern Norwegian province of Finmark...‖, ―while still others were summarily shot for refusing to leave their homeland - in all, the thoroughness and brutality of this evacuation left some 61,000
men,
women,
and
children
homeless,
starving
and
destitute‖; whose case offers one of the few adjudicated views of
what
constitutes
military
necessity;
and
resulted
in
the
Rendulic Rule, which emphasizes the importance of the Subjective Test, which is still applied in current Military doctrine. [119] Initially the Supreme Court Registrar refused to respond to the application either with a case number, or clarify their reasons Applicant
for
failure
filed
a
to
provide
complaint
of
a
slow
case
number,
whereupon
case
processing
to
the
Parliamentary Ombudsman on 02 September 2012.
57
[120] On 10 September the Secretary General of the Supreme Court: Gunnar Bergby responded108 refusing to process my Application for Review, citing Section 306109 of the Norwegian Criminal Procedure Act110,
stating
that
―According
to
this
regulation,
1st
paragraph, the parties may appeal against a criminal judgment rendered by the district or appellate court. Persons or legal entities that are not parties to the case are not given the right of appeal. Mr. Anders Behring Breivik and the prosecution authority are the only parties in the specific case mentioned above, and the right of appeal is constricted to these.‖ [121] On
11
September
2012,
Applicant
responded111
to
Secretary
General Bergby that her Application was not an Appeal, but one of Review; and that Applicant had legal standing in accordance to-among
others-Criminal
Procedure
Act
Section
377:
―Interlocutory Appeal: An interlocutory appeal may be brought against a court order or decision by any person who is affected thereby …‖; read in conjunction with: (1) ECHR: ARTICLE 13: Right
to
Prohibition Standi
/
an
effective
of Legal
remedy;
discrimination. Standing
are
and
(2)
ECHR:
Furthermore, not
for
ARTICLE
matters
Court
of
14: Locus
Registrars
or
108
http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/11-sept-legalstanding.html 109 "Section 306: Appeals against judgements of the District Court or the Court of Appeal may be brought by the parties to the appellate court…." 110 http://www.ub.uio.no/ujur/ulovdata/lov-19810522-025-eng.pdf 111 http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/11-sept-legalstanding.html 58
Secretary Generals to decide upon, but for courts to enquire into, if the matter is raised by any respondents, as an issue in dispute. Applicant requested Secretary General Bergby provide Applicant with the relevant statutory authority that allowed the Secretary General to make a ruling on locus standi, to deny an applicant access to a court, for an impartial enquiry into the matter. Legal Standing: Legal Interest: I am an Ecofeminist Political Necessity Activist, who has an interest in ensuring that all political activists from all ideologies, religions, races, cultures who plead to political
or
military
necessity
have
their
‗necessity‘
evidence examined by the court, in terms of an objective and
subjective
test
of
such
‗necessity
evidence‘;
the
results of such an enquiry being used to make the final determination as to the accused‘s guilt or innocence, or mitigation or aggravation of sentencing. Mr. Breivik‘s trial was the most high profile necessity trial on the world stage, for decades. If Mr. Breivik wants to deny himself and other White Nationalists, their right to the court conducting a full impartial enquiry into their necessity evidence, by conducting a subjective and objective test thereof; then that is Mr. Breivik and White Nationalists right... [and] should not be allowed to set a precedent where environmental, immigrant, religious or other necessity activists are also denied their right to
an
objective
necessity
and
evidence,
subjective
just
because
examination one
white
of
their
nationalist
chooses to become a martyr, with the enthusiastic support of
the
Oslo
District
Court
and
Norwegian
Prosecutory
authorities.
59
.. it is my assertion that the ‗Nodrett/Necessity‘ ruling in
the
Oslo
currently
District
stands
Court:
Breivik
discriminates
judgement
against
as
other
it
future
necessity activists, by setting a precedent whereby they can be denied (or can due to ignorance deny themselves, by lacking the knowledge to assert their right thereto); an objective and subjective examination of their necessity evidence. My application for review is accordingly to demand the right to an effective remedy, to amend this discriminatory necessity
ruling
in
the
Oslo
District
Court‘s
Breivik
judgement, from affecting other necessity activists. [122] The following media have been informed112 of the Application for
Review
of
the
Breivik
Judgement:
Chicago
Sun-Times
and
Reason Magazine; The Globe and Mail; Christian Science Monitor; Pakistan: The News; National Post; Copenhagen Post; Bangladesh: The
Daily
Statesman,
Star; Sky
Foreign
News,
The
Policy;
IceNews;
Washington
The
Guardian;
ABC
News,
Post,
New
Jakarta
Post, Salt Lake Tribune, Sydney Morning Herald. [123] On the morning of 07 September the following Norwegian Foreign Press Association members113 were informed of the Application for Review
of
Presse,
Al
the
Breivik
Arabiya,
Al
Judgement: Jazeera,
Dawat
Media,
Associated
Agence
Press,
France
Bloomberg
News, Al-Baghdidia, Die Welt, Middle East News Agency (MENA), Itar
Tass,
Zeitung,
Politika, Swiss
BBC,
JB
Broadcasting
Ecologico,
Xinhua,
Company,
Financial
Aargauer Times
112
http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/edletters-errors.html 113 http://ecofeminist-vbreivik.weebly.com/1/post/2012/09/120907_nfpa-bj.html 60
Deutschland, Zweites Deutsches Fernsehen, Development Today, RUV Islands Radio, RTV 21, TV Azteca, GPD News Agency, Himalayan Times, News and Views from Norway, Gazeta Wyborcza, TSF Radio Noticias,
Polska
Times,
Reuters,
Radio
Nacional
de
Espana,
Sveriges Radio, Svenska Dagbladet, SVT Nyheter, Iraq National News Agency, etc.; who declined to report on the matter. [124] On the evening of 07 September, Associated published a story with a headline, published114 by among others Washington Post, ABC News, FoxNews, etc; as variations of ―Breivik Case Formally Over/Ended‖.
Associated Press and many of the publications who
published the Associated Press story were contacted to provide them with evidence of the (A) Application for Review; and (B) correspondence from Secretary General Bergby and the Applicants response thereto; requesting that they publish a correction115. There
has
been
no
response
from
Associated
Press,
to
the
application
to
the
request. [125] Attitude
of
the
parties
in
the
main
Applicants admission: [126] The applicant is unaware of the respondents attitude to the Applicants possible admission as an Amicus. [127] The relief that ought to be granted to the Applicant in this application:
114 115
http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/edletters-errors.html http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/edletters-errors.html 61
[128] The Applicant submits it is in the Courts interests to hear an Ecocentric perspective on these matters, hence to issue: 1. An
Order
to
approve
the
Applicant,
to
Appear
Pro
Se
(propria persona / pro per). 2. An Order to approve the Applicant as an Ecocentri Amici Curiae in the above proceedings in the form of written submissions in accordance with Rule 15.4: Amicus Curiae Briefs, of the Rules of Court. [129] Pursuant
to
28
U.S.C
ยง
1746,
I
declare
under
penalty
of
perjury that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. Executed this 13th day of September, 2012 George, South Africa
_____________________ Lara Johnstone
62
CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 24 (d)
I hereby certify that this Amicus Motion and Affidavit: 1. May not comply with the type-volume limitation for Motions for Leave to Proceed as an Amicus because the Applicant is unclear of the requirements for such motions (Does a Motion qualify as a Brief?); however the Applicant requests leniency in terms of Rule 33, in the event her Motion is over the required length. The Motion contains a total of 542 words and 137 lines; the Affidavit contains a total of 11,226 number of words / 1,316 number of lines of text. 2. Complies with typeface and type style requirements of Rule 37 because it was prepared in a monospace typeface using Microsoft Word Version 2007 with a 12-point Courier New font.
George, South Africa 14 September 2012
___________________________ LARA JOHNSTONE, Pro Se PO Box 4052, George, 6539 South Africa Tel/Fax: (044) 870 7239 habeusmentem@mweb.co.za
CERTIFICATE OF FILING AND SERVICE I certify that the original was electronically filed to efiling@armfor.uscourts.gov on 14 September 2012, and contemporaneously served electronically on Respondents: (i) Petitioner Appellant’s Counsel: Mr. Shayana D. Kadilal at shanek@ccrjustice.org, (ii) Respondent Appellee’s Counsel Captain Chad M. Fisher at Chad.m.fisher.mil@mail.mil and (iii) First Amicus Counsel: Mr. Gregg P. Leslie at gleslie@rcfp.org. George, South Africa 14 September 2012
___________________________ LARA JOHNSTONE, Pro Se PO Box 4052, George, 6539 South Africa Tel/Fax: (044) 870 7239 habeusmentem@mweb.co.za