12-10-21: Supreme Court: Alien on Pale Blue Dot vs RFCP Draft

No. ____________________________________

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Alien on Pale Blue Dot Petitioner v.

Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press (RCFP), et al Respondents ________________ On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces ________________ PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI ________________

Lara Johnstone, Pro Se P O Box 5042 George East, 6539 Tel: +27-44 870 7239 Cel: +27-71 170 1954 Email: habeusmentem@mweb.co.za

October __, 2012

Draft: Final Edit to be finalized by 28 October 2012.

QUESTIONS PRESENTED: 1. Whether the USCAAF Judges instruction to the Clerk, that they ‘decided not to grant’ Petitioner’s Ecocentric Amicus application, was a failure of substantive and procedural due process: effectively a ‘covert’ (from the court record) ‘order, decision or opinion of the Court’?

2. If Petitioner’s Amicus met restrictive ‘search for truth’ (Jaffee v.

Redmond1), avoid argument duplication (Craig v. Harney2), ‘presents new ideas, arguments, theories, insights, facts and data’, ‘speaks on behalf of an unrepresented party’ and ‘presents a unique perspective and specific information’ (The Voices for Choices v. Illinois Bell Telephone Company3) Supreme Court and Seventh Circuit Court Standards; did USCAAF procedurally err in refusing Petitioners Amicus?

3. If the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press and 31 media organisations Amicus, only met broad Appellate Court standards, but was approved; was the courts rejection of Petitioner’s Amicus a procedural due process failure; and/or Anthropocentric ‘viewpoint discrimination’?

4. Whether the PostPeak Oil denial of Ecocentric Sustainable Security arguments in a national security related dispute, is civilian ‘Falling Man Syndrome’ Anthropocentric jurisprudence?

5. Whether the courts decision is an example of how the Press and Anthropocentric

civilian

‘corporate

personhood’

jurisprudence

have

enacted a ‘long train of abuses and usurpations’ upon Pale Blue Dot? 518 U.S. 1 (1996).

331 U.S. 367 (1947) 3 339 F.3d 542 (7th Cir. 2003).

1 2

2

Draft: Final Edit to be finalized by 28 October 2012.

PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING: A list of all parties to the proceeding in the court whose decision is the subject of this petition is as follows: Petitioner was an Amicus Curiae Applicant, in the USCAAF matter.

Respondents who were approved 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; by and through Mr. Gregg P Leslie.

Respondents, who were Appellants are: Center for Constitutional Rights, Glenn Greenwald, Jeremy Scahill, The Nation, Amy Goodman, Democracy Now!, Chase Madar, Kevin Gostola, Julian Assange, and Wikileaks; by and through Mr. Shayana D. Kadidal. Respondents who were Appellees are: United States of America and Chief Judge Colonel Denise Lind, by and through Capt. Chad M. Fisher.

3

Draft: Final Edit to be finalized by 28 October 2012.

TABLE OF CONTENTS: Opinions Below .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..

Jurisdiction .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..

Constitutional and Statutory Provisions Involved .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..

Statement of the Case .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..

Reasons for Granting the Writ .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..

1. USCAAF decision departure from Supreme Court & Appellate Court Standards 2. Amici are important contribution to judicial decision making 3. Court’s transparency and accountability failure to impartially consider Ecocentric Amici’s expose of Appellants and RFCP Amici’s fraudulent support for ‘transparency’.

4. USCAAF decision an example of ‘Falling Man Syndrome’ Anthropocentric Jurisprudence: Corporate Personhood’s long train of abuses’ on ‘the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God’.

A. Falling Man Anthropocentric Jurisprudence must Confront Sustainable Security’s Laws of Nature: National Security, Peak Oil and Climate Change B. Ecocentric Sustainable Security Jurisprudence: Citizens unwilling to voluntarily Pay the Price for Peace requires either (1) a Military coup d'état to force Falling Man to pull the Wild Law Sustainable Security ripcord?; or (2) the weaponization of an Eden Proposition Massive Population Reduction biological agent: 1. Will Anthropocentric Falling Man implement Wild Law Sustainable Security Jurisprudence? (i) State of the Media: Transparently promoting goal of sustainable security stability? (ii) Confronting Society’s Denial or Ignorance of its Ecological Overshoot problems: State of the System: 2. The Eden Perfect Genocide Proposition: The weaponization of a Massive Population Reduction biological agent: C. A Sustainable Security Peak NNR reality re-consideration of Corporate Personhood: Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company: D. A Sustainable Security Peak NNR Reality Preferred Freedoms Doctrine Mineral King v. Morton re-consideration of Locus Standi for Pale Blue Dot:

4

Draft: Final Edit to be finalized by 28 October 2012.

E. Fraudulent Peaceniks - ‘Control of Reproduction’ Human Farming War Economy Racket: Norway & Sweden’s ‘War is Peace Whores’ Committee and SA’s TRC Fraud ‘War is Peace Whores’ and their mindfucked minions - consume the very energy required to change the things that would make societies head toward peace: Conclusion .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..

INDEX TO APPENDICES: Appendix A: 09 Oct 2012: USCAAF Ecocentric Rejection Order .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..

Appendix B: 16 Oct 2012: USCAAF Petition for Reconsideration Order.. .. .. .. ..

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CITED Cases

Page No.

International Court of Justice: Opinion of Weeramantry J in the Case Concerning the GabcikovoNagymaros Project4 (Hungary v Slovakia) (1998) 37 International Legal Materials 162 206. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..

Supreme Court: Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company, 118 U.S. 394 (1886) .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .

Craig v. Harney 331 U.S. 367 (1947) .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... ...

In re Oliver, 333 U.S. 257 (1948) .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... ..

Sweatt v. Painter, 339 U.S. 629 (1950) .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..

Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 646 (1961) .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..

Sierra Club v. Morton 405 U.S. 727 (1972) .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..

Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973) .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..

Oregon ex. rel State Land Bd. v. Corvallis Sand & Gravel Co., 429 U.S. (1977) .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..

Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978) .. .. ..

Del Costello v. International Bhd. of Teamsters, 462 U.S. 151 (1983) .. .. .. ....

Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288, 300 (1989) .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..

Jaffee v. Redmond 518 U.S. 1 (1996) .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..

Eldred v. Ashcroft, 537 U.S. 186 (2003) .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..

Grutter v. Bollinger 539 U.S. 306 (2003) .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..

4

issuu.com/js-ror/docs/970925_icj-weeramantry_husl

5

Draft: Final Edit to be finalized by 28 October 2012.

Appellate Court American College of Obstetricians v. Thornburgh, 699 F.2d 644 (3d Cir. 1983) (Higginbotham, J., dissenting) .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..

Resident Council of Allen Parkway Vill. v. HUD, 980 F.2d 1043, 1049 (5th Cir. 1993) .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..

Ryan v. Commodity Futures Trading Commission 125 F.3d 1062 (7th Cir. 1997) .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..

National Organization for Women, Inc. v. Scheidler 223 F.3d 615 (7th Cir. 2000) .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..

Eldred v. Reno, 239 F.3d 372 (CADC 2001) .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..

In re Paschen, 296 F.3d 1203, 1209 (11th Cir. 2002) .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..

Koote-nai Tribe of Idaho v. Veneman, 313 F.3d 1094, 1116 n.19 (9th Cir. 2002) .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..

Thompson v. County of Franklin, 314 F.3d 79, 98 (2d Cir. 2002) .. .. .. .. .. .. ..

Neonatology Associates v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue 293 F.3d 128 (3d Cir. 2002) .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..

The Voices for Choices v. Illinois Bell Telephone Company 339 F.3d 542 (7th Cir. 2003) .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..

Al-Marri v. Pucciarelli, 534 F.3d 213, (4th Cir. 2008) .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..

Statutes and Rules: US Constitution: 1st Amendment .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..

US Constitution: 14th Amendment .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..

04 July 1776: United States Declaration of Independence .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..

Other: Buxton, Nick: The Law of Mother Earth: Behind Bolivia's Historic Bill5 (Rights of Nature) .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..

Clugston, C (2012): Scarcity: Humanity’s Final Chapter6 (Booklocker.com Inc) .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..

Davis, Jack: Improving CIA Analytic Performance: Analysts and the Policymaking Process7; Sherman Kent Center for Intelligence Analysis Occasional Papers: Volume 1, Number 2, Sherman Kent Center .. .. .. .. .. ..

Hardin, Garrett (1996): Stalking the Wild Taboo: Chapter 21: The Cybernetics of Competition, pg 201-205 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. therightsofnature.org/bolivia-law-of-mother-earth/ www.nnrscarcity.com | issuu.com/js-ror/docs/clugston_scarcity_pg31-55 7 www.cia.gov/library/kent-center-occasional-papers/pdf/OPNo2.pdf 5 6

6

Draft: Final Edit to be finalized by 28 October 2012.

Klare, Michael T (07-03-2006): The Coming Resources Wars8 , Tom Paine .. .. ..

Koppel, T (2000): CIA and Pentagon on Overpopulation and Resource Wars9, Nightline .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..

Johnstone, L (2012/09/13): Founding Affidavit of Lara Johnstone in support of Notice of Motion to Proceed as Amicus Curiae10, in Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces Case USCA: 12-8027/AR: CCR v USA .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..

Johnstone, L (2012/09/24): Brief in Propria Persona by Amici Curiae Lara Johnstone In Support of an Ecocentric Wild Law Sustainable Security Perspective11, in Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces Case USCA: 128027/AR: CCR v USA .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..

Johnstone, L (12/10/15): Petition for Reconsideration12, in Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces Case USCA: 12-8027/AR: CCR v USA .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..

McVeagh, Russell: Crown and Whanganui River iwi reach framework agreement13 (Lexology) .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..

Morales Evo (April 22, 2010): World People's Conference on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth14, Cochabamba, Bolivia .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..

Military Advisory Board (MAB)(April 2007): National Security and Climate Change15, CAN .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..

Murphy, R (2006/10/24): US Army Strategy of the Environment16, Office of the Dep. Asst. Sec. of the Army, Environment, Safety & Occup. Health: Assistant for Sustainability.

Parthemore, C & Nagl, J (2010/09/27): Fueling the Future Force: Preparing the Department of Defense for a Post-Petroleum Environment17, Center for a New American Security (CNAS) Peters, R (1996): The Culture of Future Conflict, US Army War College: Parameters: Winter 1995-96, pp. 18-27 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..

Postel, Sandra (4 Sept 2012): A River in New Zealand gets a Legal Voice18 (National Geographic) .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..

Rickover, H (1957/05/14): Energy Resources and our Future19, speech to the Minnesota State Medical Association .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..

www.tompaine.com/articles/2006/03/07/the_coming_resource_wars.php [1/2] youtu.be/7OJeUAx0y-g [2/2] youtu.be/s22yr-Fvl5Q 10 issuu.com/js-ror/docs/120914_ccrvusa-rhamicus 11 issuu.com/js-ror/docs/120924_ccrvusa-amicus 12 issuu.com/js-ror/docs/121015_caaf-pet 13 www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=d4bd2178-5a74-4cf1-bed1-77a6921e735c 14 therightsofnature.org/universal-declaration/ 15 www.cna.org/reports/climate 16 www.cecer.army.mil/techreports/ERDC-CERL_TR-07-9/Session%20I/RichardMurphy.pdf 17 www.cnas.org/files/documents/publications/ CNAS_Fueling%20the%20Future%20Force_NaglParthemore.pdf 18 newswatch.nationalgeographic.com/2012/09/04/a-river-in-new-zealand-gets-a-legal-voice/ 19 www.theoildrum.com/node/4394 8 9

7

Draft: Final Edit to be finalized by 28 October 2012.

Schultz, S (2010/09/01): [German] Military Study Warns of Potentially Drastic Oil Crisis20, Der Spiegel .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..

Shuttleworth, Kate (30 Aug 2012): Agreement entitles Whanganui River to legal identity21 (New Zealand Herald) .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..

Stone, Christopher D. (1972): Should Trees Have Standing--Toward Legal Rights for Natural Objects22,. Southern California Law Review 45: 450–87. .. .. .. .. ..

United States Joint Forces Command (15 March 2010): Command releases report23 examining the future, FJCOM24 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..

United States Army & TRADOC (2012): US Army Unified Quest 2012 Fact Sheet25, Unified Quest 2012 is the Army Chief of Staff's annual Title 10 Future Study Plan (FSP)

www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,715138,00.html www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10830586 22 isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic498371.files/Stone.Trees_Standing.pdf 23 http://www.jfcom.mil/newslink/storyarchive/2010/JOE_2010_o.pdf 24 http://www.jfcom.mil/newslink/storyarchive/2010/pa031510.html 25 www.army.mil/article/68379/Unified_Quest_2012___Fact_Sheet/ 20 21

8

Draft: Final Edit to be finalized by 28 October 2012.

OPINIONS BELOW The 09 October 2012 opinion of the United States Court of Appeals for Armed Forces refusing Petitioner’s Application to ‘Appear Pro Se, with leniency on procedure and Radical Honesty English, to appear pro hac vice for the limited purpose

of

filing

written

Ecocentric

Amicus

submissions

in

these

Anthropocentric proceedings’ ; appears at Appendix A, to the petition and is unpublished.

JURISDICTION The date on which the United States Court of Appeals for Armed Forces decided my case was 09 October 2012.

A Petition for Reconsideration in terms of Rule 31, was timely filed on 15 October 2012. The timely petition for Reconsideration was denied by the United States Court of Appeals for Armed Forces on 16 October 2012, and a copy of the order denying Reconsideration appears at Appendix B. The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 U. S. C. § 1254(1).

CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States provides, in pertinent part, that “Congress shall make no law .. . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States provides, in pertinent part, that “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor

9

Draft: Final Edit to be finalized by 28 October 2012. shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.�

The Declaration of Independence of July 4, 1776 provides, in pertinent part, that “When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. .. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.�

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

10

Draft: Final Edit to be finalized by 28 October 2012.

United States vs. Private Bradley Manning court martial26 relates to the alleged leak of the largest amount of classified information in U.S. history to Wikileaks; the (i) July 12, 2007 US Army AH-64 Apache helicopters air-toground attacks in Al-Amin al-Thaniyah, Baghdad (“Collateral Murder”27); (ii) 250,000 United States diplomatic cables (Cablegate28); and (iii) 500,000 army reports from Iraq (Iraq War logs29) and Afghanistan (Afghan War logs30).

Center of Constitutional Rights, et al vs. USA and Military Judge Denise Lind31, is a Petition for Extraordinary Relief seeking public access to documents in the court-martial proceedings against Pfc. Bradley Manning, “including papers filed by the parties, court orders, and transcripts of the proceedings”.

The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press Amicus32 argues in support of Appellants, that "open judicial proceedings provide accountability and oversight", opposing "the public policy implications of secrecy" in cases where profound issues are at stake. As documented on this 12 October 2012 USCAAF order33, the RCFP have been approved as Amici by the court.

On 14 and 24 September 2012, Petitioner filed an Application to Proceed as an Amicus34, to provide the court with a Radical Honoursty Transparency culture Wild Law Sustainable Security - Alien on Pale Blue Dot - perspective to parties Anthropocentric dispute35.

www.alexaobrien.com/secondsight/wikileaks/bradley_manning/ appellate_exhib/list_of_appellate_exhibits_us_v_pfc_manning.html 27 www.collateralmurder.com 28 wikileaks.org/cablegate.html 29 wikileaks.org/irq/ 30 wikileaks.org/afg/ 31 ccrjustice.org/ourcases/current-cases/ccr-et-al-v-usa-and-lind-chief-judge 32 ccrjustice.org/files/RCFP%20amicus%20brief.pdf 33 ccrjustice.org/files/supplemental%20briefing%20order.pdf 34 Johnstone, L (2012/09/13) 35 Johnstone, L (2012/09/24) 26

11

Draft: Final Edit to be finalized by 28 October 2012.

In support of Petitioner request for leniency on procedure and Radical Honesty English, as practiced in the Radical Honesty culture, Petitioner cited The Opinion of Weeramantry J, which advises against “attitudes of formalism which see such [alternative culture’s] approaches as not being entirely de rigueur; a court “cannot afford to be monocultural, especially where it is entering newly developing areas of law”. Radical Honesty culture practices 100% transparency, based upon a social contract focussed on brutal honesty problem solving. Radical Honesty has no rapists, no murderers and no lawyers, members learn simple clear 100% transparency communication skills to enable social relations based upon fully informed consenting agreements. In terms of Radical Honesty culture’s root cause problem solving transparency standards, Appellants and RFCP Amici’s ‘transparency’ motives were disingenuous, if not fraudulent.

Petitioner argued Manning deserved a free and fair trial focussed on truthseeking, as opposed to being coerced into becoming a martyr in the Left vs.

Right wing Propaganda War. It would be impossible for Pfc Manning to receive a free and fair trial if the media abused their publicity power (In re Oliver36).

Petitioner provided numerous examples of the media abusing their publicity power in National/Sustainable Security related matters and court disputes, on behalf of the Anthropocentric Human Factory Farming War Economy racket.

Petitioner’s Ecocentric criticism of Anthropocentric legal doctrine argues that Anthropocentric 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 36

333 U.S. [at] 270-271

12

Draft: Final Edit to be finalized by 28 October 2012.

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 global population”. However, from a “broader Ecocentric Wild Law Finite Resource Scarcity perspective, however, beyond Peak NNR, there is no hope for a brighter future, because the fundamental assumption of ever-increasing NNR‘s, underlying our limited anthropocentric perspective is inaccurate.”37 From a Sustainable Security perspective: “There is no security without sustainability”: In the absence of a new moral order where Ecocentric laws are implemented to regulate and reduce human procreation and resource utilization behaviour,

towards

a

sustainable,

pre-industrial

lifestyle

paradigm;

“overpopulation” and resource scarcity will result in conflict and war (perhaps nuclear) confronting regions at an accelerated pace, and “collapse of the global economic system and every market-oriented national economy‘ by 2050.

Petitioner argued that the only credible critics or true ‘innocent victims’ of the brutal consequences military resource wars, were individuals who lived a procreation and consumption lifestyle below their nation’s carrying capacity.

Every individual who lived a life of consumption and/or procreation above their nation’s carrying capacity was a direct and indirect ‘breeding war’ and/or ‘consumption war’ participant to local, national and international resource war conflicts. Yet Anthropocentric legal doctrine makes no such ‘breeding war’ / ‘consumption war’ guilty or innocent lifestyle conspirator distinction, or in terms of evaluating an expert witness Ecocentric ‘practice what they preach’ credibility!

37

Clugston, C (2012)

13

Draft: Final Edit to be finalized by 28 October 2012.

Military doctrine – according to military science strategist Homer Lea, simply explained by Dr. Jack Alpert in Human Predicament: Better Common Sense Required and Rapid Population Decline or Civilization Collapse – argues that the origin of war occurs in the self delusional belief of everyone who believes they can self-righteously pretend to oppose war, genocide and soldiers and Generals so-called war crimes, while endorsing the inalienable right of everyone to breed, consume as much as they like, whenever they like, wherever they like; and vote for more of the same.

On 09 October 2012, Petitioner was informed by the Clerk of the Court “the Judges have decided not to grant your request to proceed as an amicus curiae in the subject case. This means that said brief and documents will not be made part of the record and will not be considered by the Judges in the disposition of the case”.

On 15 October 2012, Petitioner filed a Petition for Reconsideration38 arguing that the court (A) failed in its responsibility to “prominently-indeed, primarily-in mind” “search for the truth”; and (B) denied Petitioner’s Ecocentric Amicus, which meets not only Supreme Court narrow ‘search for truth’ standards, but also narrow Federal Appellate Court Standards, standards which were not met by Amicus approved by the court from RCFP and 31 media organisations.

Petitioners’ Ecocentric Amicus meets not only Supreme Court and the Third Circuit’s Judge Alito’s broad interpretation test, to provide the court with input, which does not repeat parties arguments, and enhances judicial decision-making.39 It also meets Seventh Circuit Judge Posner’s, Johnstone, L (12/10/15) Tobias, Carl: Resolving Amicus Curiae Motions in the Third Circuit and Beyond, Drexel Law Review, Vol.1:125, pg.125-142 38 39

14

Draft: Final Edit to be finalized by 28 October 2012. and other more stringent tests: (a) it “assists the judges by presenting ideas, arguments, theories, insights, facts, or data that are not to be found in the parties’ briefs;” (b) it argues on behalf of a party that is so inadequately represented - Planet Earth - as to be deemed by Anthropocentric legal doctrine as unworthy of legal personhood, although thankfully, Government Counsel: Captain Chad M. Fisher admitted in Oral Argument against the wasting of resources “which are finite”40; (c) it is impartial, in terms of – from an Alien perspective - not endorsing either party, but being focused on a search for the truth, and (d) it provides the court with a “unique perspective or specific information that can assist the court beyond what the parties can provide.”

Finally, Petitioners Ecocentric Amicus also meets Justice Scalia’s Preferred Freedoms common sense perspective, in Jaffee v. Redmond. It is an Ecocentric Amicus devoted to pursuit of the truth, not profit. Not Flat Earth Anthropocentric truth, but Planet Earth Ecocentric truth, is its “interest prominently-indeed, primarily-in mind.”

It concluded with a Radical Honoursty truthseeking dispute resolution social science experiment: the “Finite Resources & Control of Reproduction Breeding War Acts of War: Maria Bochkareva Leaver Peacenik One Child Oath”. The Oath argues in appreciation of the government’s oral argument that ‘resources are finite’, the Central Intelligence Agency’s focus on “unvarnished truth’41 to “Follow the Truth, Wherever it Leads”42; acknowledging Pfc Manning’s Anthropocentric and Ecocentric Military Necessity Motivations for his Actions43; it proceeded to challenge Pfc Manning’, the Peacenik Appellants and their ‘Anti-War’ and ‘Peace’ community friends to determine if they were willing to Pay the One Child Per Family Price for Peace. Petitioner signed and submitted her Leaver Peacenik One Child Oath to USCAAF Judges 10 October 2012: Oral Argument at 44:06: “The type of transcript that is required, depends on the verdict and the sentence. I would think it would make sense, not to waste allot of resources which are finite, on producing a transcript that may never be required.” www.armfor.uscourts.gov/newcaaf/CourtAudio3/20121010c.wma 41 Davis, Jack: Improving CIA Analytic Performance: Analysts and the Policymaking Process; Sherman Kent Center for Intelligence Analysis Occasional Papers: Volume 1, Number 2, Sherman Kent Center www.cia.gov/library/kent-center-occasional-papers/pdf/OPNo2.pdf 42 www.cia.gov/offices-of-cia/inspector-general/index.html 43 Johnstone (12-09-24): pg. 04-07 40

15

Draft: Final Edit to be finalized by 28 October 2012. and Director General of the Central Intelligence Agency, authorising the Central Intelligence Agency to assassinate Petitioner in the event that she violates her declaration that she is a sincere peacenik, committed to addressing the root causes of conflict, and her oath that she is willing to pay the one child per family procreation price for peace.

Petitioner further requested, that if Pfc Bradley Manning was willing to sign up to the Leaver Peacenik One Child Oath, that the Director General of the Central Intelligence Agency, make an official request to the relevant authority, for all charges against Pfc. Manning in this matter to be withdrawn and the matter to be considered amicably resolved, forthwith. Secondly, to awaken Pale Blue Dot’s ‘humans’ to the reality of the Norway & Sweden’s ‘War is Peace Whores’ Committee ‘Control of Reproduction’ Human Farming War Economy Racket; that the Central Intelligence Agency’s Kent Center44 establish a fund for contributions in honour of Pfc Manning, to establish a bi-annual ‘Maria Bochkareva Leaver Peacenik Honor Medal’, to be awarded on the 23rd of April, of every year, for the individual who has done the most to educate their community, or nation on the role of overpopulation and overconsumption as factors pushing society to conflict and war.

On 16 October 2012, the Clerk informed Petitioner, that the Judges denied the Petition stating that “the rejection of your brief was not done by order, decision or opinion of the Court, and therefore is not subject to reconsideration under Rule 31. Accordingly, and with the agreement of the Judges, your petition for reconsideration likewise will not be considered or be made part of the record.”

44

www.cia.gov/library/kent-center-occasional-papers/index.html

16

Draft: Final Edit to be finalized by 28 October 2012.

There has been no response from the Clerk or Justices to Petitioner’s 16 October 2012 response45: “No disrespect intended, but that’s a Humpty Dumpty message .. If the Judges rejection of my brief was “not done by order, decision or opinion of the Court”; by what exact legal due process ‘thought/decision making’ procedure was the rejection done? .. what exactly do I need to file to get you Judges to change whatever you call your thought process/decision making order to the Clerk to refuse me access to the court for my Amicus?”

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION 1. USCAAF decision departure from Supreme Court & Appellate Court Standards: The USCAAF decision to covertly reject Petitioner’s Amicus is in direct conflict with Supreme Court decisions -- Jaffee v. Redmond46 and Craig v. Harney47 -- and all other court of appeals decisions -- The Voices for Choices v. Illinois Bell Telephone Company48 -- on this matter; and the violation of Petitioner’s due process rights, is a galactic departure from the accepted and usual course of judicial due process proceedings regarding the submission of Amicus Curiae’s, which requires the Supreme Court to exercise its Supervisory Powers.

2. Amici are important contribution to judicial decision making Amicus filings have substantially affected the development of considerable Supreme Court substantive jurisprudence, figuring prominently in such

sqswans.weebly.com/1/post/2012/10/121016_uscaaf-res.html 518 U.S. 1 (1996).

47 331 U.S. 367 (1947) 48 339 F.3d 542 (7th Cir. 2003).

45 46

17

Draft: Final Edit to be finalized by 28 October 2012. landmark opinions as Sweatt v. Painter, Regents of Cal. v. Bakke, and Roe v.

Wade.

Several empirical studies have ascertained that Amicus briefs have significantly influenced the Justices’ determinations to grant petitions for writs of certiorari and the underlying Supreme Court decisions on the merits.

Most judges and lawyers are moderately supportive of Amicus briefs, saying that it can provide valuable assistance to the Court in its deliberations; such as presenting an argument or citing authorities not found in the briefs of the parties, and these materials can occasionally play a critical role in the Court's rationale for a decision.

Alternatively, Amicus briefs can provide

important technical or background information which the parties have not supplied.

Those sharing this perspective point to the frequent citation of amicus briefs in the Justices' opinions in support of the supposition that the Court often finds such briefs helpful. The idea that amicus participation can improve judicial decision-making by, for example, introducing new legal theories or contentions or different statutory interpretations, supplying additional factual information, or affording novel, convincing public policy arguments, is critical. Amicus involvement may also enhance court transparency, judicial accountability, and the legitimacy and public acceptability of appellate substantive determinations regarding controversial questions. Promoting Amicus access to courts as well may foster important first amendment values, such as freedom of speech and the right to petition.

18

Draft: Final Edit to be finalized by 28 October 2012.

3. Court’s transparency and accountability failure to impartially consider Ecocentric Amici’s expose of Appellants and RFCP Amici’s fraudulent support for ‘transparency’.

Firstly: If the media were sincere about transparency, they would not be acting as the primary agents to indoctrinate citizens into the PR Jonestown Duhmockery Consumptionist Mindprison: the political correct mind-prison beliefs, manufactured by these “intellectual prostitutes” on behalf of the Human Factory Farming War Economy Racket Bankster elite, to enable social control of their Human Farming slaughterhouse sheeple. They would encourage brutal honest problem solving, not political correct victim pity parties ‘victimhood politics’ and left vs right wing blame game political parasitism. For example: These publications and the Appellants allege they support ‘transparency’.

Congressman Ron Paul supports transparency and was vocal supporter of both Bradley Manning and Wikileaks; who refuses to participate in the Left vs. Right wing propaganda war; but what did the Appellants and RFCP Amici do to endorse and enable the election to the Presidency of Ron Paul? What did the RFCP Amici do, to expose the massive vote fraud corruption of the Republican Party to rob Ron Paul of the Presidential Republican Party nomination? 49 The RFCP Amici are currently campaigning for President Obama’s secondary term presidency, who has silenced and prosecuted more whistleblowers than all previous presidents combined!50 When they are given the opportunity to support

Daily Paul: 06/06/2012: Compilation Detailing the Voting Inconsistencies (not to say blatant fraud) www.dailypaul.com/238098/great-compilation-detailing-the-voting-inconsistencies-not-tosay-blatant-fraud 50 Washingtonsblog (22 April 2012): Obama has Prosecuted More Whistleblowers than All Other Presidents COMBINED www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/04/obama-has-prosecuted-morewhistleblowers-than-all-other-presidents-combined.html 49

19

Draft: Final Edit to be finalized by 28 October 2012.

Beyond Left and Right Wing bipartisan root cause problem solving transparency, they refuse to do so.

Secondly: If they were sincere about transparency, they would not be deliberately censoring the ecological finite resource realities underlying most social, political and economic problems. Their ‘transparency’ motivations are simply a ‘Bullshit the Public’ Relations cover story for, their yellow journalism “focussed on enabling the endless escalation of the divide and conquer polarisation of their respective Anthropocentric Left vs. Right wing reader bases’.51 Thirdly: How can you credibly inform a court you are a publisher who supports transparency, but you never bother to interview anyone from the most transparent culture on the planet? Would your statements about your support for transparency not be more credible, if you endorsed political candidates who practice what they preach in terms of transparency, such as Brad Blanton’s campaign for Congress52? If ESPN censored or ignored reporting on the Olympics; would a court believe their statements about their commitment to providing their readers with information about top sports events? Of course not; they would be laughed out of court. Yet when the political media inform the court they support transparency, while censoring from their readers information about the most transparent culture and brutally honest politician on earth; and the radical honesty methods that such a culture practices, to enable it to live without lawyers, the court does not question their lack of credibility?

Maher, MT (1997/03): How and Why Journalists Avoid the Population-Environment Connection, Univ of Southwestern Louisiana, Population and Environment, Volume 18, Number 4, March 1977; Reprinted in 1997 by the Carrying Capacity Network, Focus, 18 (2), 21-37 issuu.com/js-ror/docs/mahertm_journo-env-pop-connection 52 www.youtu.be/Gx-OVdTkwvA 51

20

Draft: Final Edit to be finalized by 28 October 2012.

4. USCAAF decision an example of ‘Falling Man Syndrome’ Anthropocentric Jurisprudence: Corporate Personhood’s long train of abuses’ on ‘the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God’.

A. Falling Man Anthropocentric Jurisprudence must Confront Sustainable Security’s Laws of Nature: National Security, Peak Oil and Climate Change The reality of Peak Non Renewable Resources, including, but not primarily Oil, Climate Change and Overpopulation, or their consequences upon National Security doctrine, can be ascertained, in among others: May 1957: Admiral Hyman Rickover Speech: Energy Resources and Our Future53: “Fossil fuels resemble capital in the bank. A prudent and responsible parent will use his capital sparingly in order to pass on to his children as much as possible of his inheritance. A selfish and irresponsible parent will squander it in riotous living and care not one whit how his offspring will fare. .. I suggest that this is a good time to think soberly about our responsibilities to our descendants--those who will ring out the Fossil Fuel Age.” 1995-96: US Army War College, Parameters, The Culture of Future Conflict by Major Ralph Peters: “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. Today, the notion of resource wars leads the Westerner to think immediately of oil, but water will be the fundamental need of some states, anti-states, and peoples. We envision a need to preserve rainforests, but expanding populations will increasingly create regional 53

www.theoildrum.com/node/4394

21

Draft: Final Edit to be finalized by 28 October 2012. shortages of food--especially when nature turns fickle. We are entering the century of "not enough," and we will bleed for things we previously could buy....

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.”

2006: British Defense Secretary John Reid: The Coming Resources Wars54, Michael T. Klare, Tom Paine, 07-03-2006: “It's official: the era of resource wars is upon us. In a major London address, British Defense Secretary John Reid warned that global climate change and dwindling natural resources are combining to increase the likelihood of violent conflict over land, water and energy. Climate change, he indicated, “will make scarce resources, clean water, viable agricultural land even scarcer”—and this will ―make the emergence of violent conflict more rather than less likely.” Although not unprecedented, Reid‘s prediction of an upsurge in resource conflict is significant both because of his senior rank and the vehemence of his remarks. “The blunt truth is that the lack of water and agricultural land is a significant contributory factor to the tragic conflict we see unfolding in Darfur,” he declared. “We should see this as a warning sign.””2007: Military Advisory Board (MAB): National Security and Climate Change55, was produced by the MAB - eleven retired three-star and four-star admirals and generals56 - to assess the impact of global climate change www.tompaine.com/articles/2006/03/07/the_coming_resource_wars.php www.cna.org/reports/climate 56 General Gordon R. Sullivan, USA (Ret.) | Admiral Frank “Skip” Bowman, USN (Ret.) | Lieutenant General Lawrence P. Farrell Jr., USAF (Ret.) | Vice Admiral Paul G. Gaffney II, USN (Ret.) | General Paul J. Kern, USA (Ret.) | Admiral T. Joseph Lopez, USN (Ret.) | Admiral Donald L. “Don” Pilling, USN (Ret.) | Admiral Joseph W. Prueher, USN (Ret.) | Vice Admiral Richard H. Truly, USN (Ret.) | General Charles F. “Chuck” Wald, USAF (Ret.) | General 54 55

22

Draft: Final Edit to be finalized by 28 October 2012. on key matters of national security, and to lay the groundwork for mounting responses to the threats found”; who released the MAB’s landmark report, in April 2007, which “articulates the concept of climate change acting as a “threat multiplier” for instability in some of the most volatile regions of the world and identifies key challenges that must be planned for now if they are to be met effectively in the future”.

Feb 2010: United States Joint Forces Command’s: Joint Operating Environment – 2010 states: “The implications for future conflict are ominous, if energy supplies cannot keep up with demand and should states see the need to militarily secure dwindling energy resources. (p.26)…. By 2012, surplus oil production capacity could entirely disappear, and as early as 2015, the shortfall in output could reach nearly 10 MBD.” September 2010: Bundeswehr Military Study Warns of Peak Oil: “The socio-political and economic consequences of Peak Oil will be severe, as detailed in [German] Military Study Warns of Potentially Drastic Oil Crisis, by Stefan Schultz, Der Spiegel57: “ A study by a German military think tank has analyzed how "peak oil" might change the global economy. The internal draft document -- leaked on the Internet -- shows for the first time how carefully the German government has considered a potential energy crisis. .. The issue is so politically explosive that it's remarkable when an institution like the Bundeswehr, the German military, uses the term "peak oil" at all. The study is a product of the Future Analysis department of the Bundeswehr Transformation Center, a think tank tasked with fixing a direction for the German military. The Anthony C. “Tony” Zinni, USMC (Ret.) 57 www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,715138,00.html

23

Draft: Final Edit to be finalized by 28 October 2012. team of authors, led by Lieutenant Colonel Thomas Will, uses sometimesdramatic language to depict the consequences of an irreversible depletion of raw materials. It warns of shifts in the global balance of power, of the formation of new relationships based on interdependency, of a decline in importance of the western industrial nations, of the "total collapse of the markets" and of serious political and economic crises.�

Peak Oil’s consequences on Financial Fiat Currency Debt Based Economic Growth System: "Is the financial system entirely dependent on ever-increasing amounts of cheap oil?" Yes58.

In short, the global financial system is entirely dependent on a constantly increasing supply of oil and natural gas. To illustrate, if home and business loans are issued with interest rates in the 7% range, the assumption underlying the loans is that the monetary supply will increase (on average) by 7% per year. But if that 7% yearly increase in the monetary supply is not matched by a 7% yearly increase in the amount of economic activity (goods and services), the result is hyper-inflation. The key is this: in order for there to be an increase in the amount of economic activity taking place, there must be an increase in the amount of net-energy (i.e. the net-number of BTUs) available to fuel those activities. As no alternative source or combination of sources comes even remotely close to the energy density of oil (125,000 BTUs per gallon, the equivalent of 150-500 hours of human labor), a decline or even plateau in the supply of oil carries such overwhelming consequences for the financial system.

Savinar, Matt: Peak Oil F.A.Q. (Films For Action) www.filmsforaction.org/External/?oid=24676 58

24

Draft: Final Edit to be finalized by 28 October 2012.

Dr. Colin Campbell presents an understandable model of this complete relationship as follows: “It is becoming evident that the financial community begins to accept the reality of Peak Oil. They accept that banks created capital during this epoch by lending more than they had on deposit, being confident that tomorrow’s expansion, fuelled by cheap oil-based energy, was adequate collateral for today’s debt. The decline of oil, the principal driver of economic growth, undermines the validity of that collateral which in turn erodes the valuation of most entities quoted on Stock Exchanges.”59 Commentator Robert Wise explains the connection between energy and money as follows: “It's not physics, but it's true: money equals energy. Real, liquid wealth represents usable energy. It can be exchanged for fuel, for work, or for something built by the work of humans or fuel-powered machines. Real cost reflects the energy cost of doing something; real value reflects the energy expended to build something. Nearly all the work done in the world economy, all the manufacturing, construction, and transportation, is done with energy derived from fuel. The actual work done by human muscle power is miniscule by comparison. And, the lion's share of that fuel comes from oil and natural gas, the primary sources of the world's wealth.”60 Author Dmitry Orlov offers the following explanation of how the debtbased financial currency used in a modern economy is actually dependent on an increasing supply of energy. Emphasis added: “Although it is often thought that a [modern] economy produces value, as an empirical matter it can be observed that what it produces is debt. One borrows money in order to provide and to receive goods and services.

Loans are extended based on the expectation that, in the future, demand for these services will be even higher, driving further economic growth.

However, this economy is not a closed system: the delivery of these goods Campbell, Colin (2 May 2005): The Second Great Depression : Causes & Responses: Financial Consequences of Peak Oil, (ASPO) www.energybulletin.net/stories/2005-05-04/second-great-depression-causes-responses 60 Wise, Robert: Connecting the Dots: Energy and the Economy (Democrats.US) www.democrats.us/editorial/wise041105.shtml 59

25

Draft: Final Edit to be finalized by 28 October 2012. and services is linked to external energy flows. Greater flows of energy, in the form of increased oil and natural gas imports, increased coal production and so forth are failing to occur, for a variety of geological and geopolitical reasons. There is every reason to expect that the ability to deliver goods and services will suffer as a result of energy shortages, collapsing the debt pyramid.”

B.

Ecocentric

Sustainable

Security

Jurisprudence:

Citizens

unwilling to voluntarily Pay the Price for Peace requires either (1) a Military coup d'état to force Falling Man to pull the Wild Law Sustainable Security ripcord?; or (2) the weaponization of an Eden Proposition Massive Population Reduction biological agent: 1. Will Anthropocentric Falling Man implement Wild Law Sustainable Security Jurisprudence?

Prior to the arrival of Peak NNR/Oil, anthropocentric legal doctrine’s endorsement of the assumption of short-term exponential resource availability was accurate (Note: in the short term); however the arrival of Peak NNR requires anthropocentric legal doctrine to confront Peak NNR resource realities, with the same urgency the Falling Man ‘I’ve fallen 90 stories in the past 5 seconds and nothing bad has happened yet” must confront his fast-approaching impending collision with ecological reality.

Anthropocentric legal doctrine’s mantra of “In 200 years, our endorsement of the Inalienable Right to Breed, consume and vote has resulted in the exponential consumption of over half of the Earth's resources, and nothing bad has happened yet...”, must confront its impending collision with reality: that one of the greatest legal documents ever written, will be reduced to “a rotting, gutted corpse -- roadkill on the oil-paved highway of infinite growth”.

26

Draft: Final Edit to be finalized by 28 October 2012.

At what point do Generals, Admirals or military intelligence officers who study resource scarcity realities, and are charged with the national security protection of the US and other Constitution’s around the world, confront the reality that the primary exponentially aggravating factor contributing to an overpopulation and overconsumption unsustainable anarchic future with fuck all security for anyone, anywhere, is the reality of ‘Falling Man Syndrome’ Anthropocentric Inalienable Right to Breed and Consume Jurisprudence and Corporate Personhood’s long train of abuses’ on ‘the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God’?61 Is ‘Falling Man Syndrome’ Anthropocentric Inalienable Right to Breed and Consume Jurisprudence and Corporate Personhood’s long train of abuses’ on ‘the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God’ the primary exponentially aggravating factor contributing to an overpopulation and overconsumption unsustainable anarchic future with fuck all security for anyone, anywhere?

How long is it going to take for ‘Falling Man Syndrome’ Anthropocentric Inalienable Right to Breed and Consume Jurisprudence and Corporate Personhood’s long train of abuses’ on ‘the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God’ to pull the ripchord, and implement Ecocentric laws to regulate and reduce human procreation and resource utilization behaviour; towards a sustainable security geopolitical reality?

From a Sustainable Security perspective: “There is no security without sustainability”: In the absence of a new moral order where Ecocentric laws are implemented to regulate and reduce human procreation and resource utilization behaviour, towards a sustainable, pre-industrial lifestyle paradigm; “overpopulation” and resource scarcity will result in conflict and war (perhaps nuclear) confronting regions at an accelerated pace, and “collapse of the global economic system and every market-oriented national economy‘ by 2050.

61

27

Draft: Final Edit to be finalized by 28 October 2012.

If Politicians and lawyers and Judges don’t confront the ‘Sustainability Security’ reality, and pull their heads out of their arses and implement sustainable security legislation, how long should Generals and Admirals wait, before they determine that it is a military necessity national security emergency to enact a coup d’etat to bring some sustainable security reality to the consciousness of ‘Falling Man Syndrome’ Anthropocentric Inalienable Right to Breed and Consume and Corporate Personhood’s long train of abuses’ on ‘the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God’ Jurisprudence?

As demonstrated by ecologist Garrett Hardin, in the Cybernetics of Competition62, 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 of its limits”, and vice versa. To promote the goal of 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.63 (i)

State

of

the

Media:

Transparently

promoting

goal

of

sustainable security stability?

If the State of the System is ‘Brink of Ecological Overshoot into Anarchy and Collapse’; and the media’s ‘act’ is (a) censorship of root cause problem solving, while (b) encouraging the factors (population growth, resource consumption) towards Anarchy and Collapse; pretending to the court about its so-called ‘support for transparency’ then there is no other description for such behaviour, but FRAUD. Additionally, if the media could enable an orderly collapse, but censor all root cause problem solving in favour of a horrifically Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, 7:58-84 (1963) Hardin, Garrett (1996): Stalking the Wild Taboo: Chapter 21: The Cybernetics of Competition, pg 201-205 62 63

28

Draft: Final Edit to be finalized by 28 October 2012. disorderly collapse, which shall be the end of the entity known as the United States of America, not to mention the very bloody, very violent destruction of civilisation; then these fraudsters are greater enemies of the Constitution, than Al’Qaeda could ever be.

Where is Society in the Act of Understanding Exponential Population Growth colliding with Exponentially Declining Resources? What is the role of the Media in Society’s Ignorance? What is the role of the media in deliberately keeping Society Ignorant, by means of Environment Population Connection censorship? Where is the Ecological Societal System, in terms of Exponential Population Growth colliding with Exponentially Declining Resources? Is the Media Aggravating Instability by encouraging Population Growth and Increased Resource Consumption? Is the Media Encouraging Stability in favour of Population Stabilisation & Reduced Resource Exploitation? (ii) Confronting Society’s Denial or Ignorance of its Ecological Overshoot problems: State of the System: The State of the System in 2000: Ted Koppel’s Nightline: CIA & Pentagon on Overpopulation and Resources Wars64.

In Dr. Alpert’s ‘Falling Man Syndrome’ series: Human Predicament: Better Common Sense Required65 he clearly and simply explains how our thought process limitations have resulted in our failure to understand the Conflict – Resources Scarcity Death Spiral, which previously pressured surplus populations to colonize new territories, which are now all colonized; which means

64 65

sqswans.weebly.com/overpopulation-means-murder.html sqswans.weebly.com/human-predicament.html

29

Draft: Final Edit to be finalized by 28 October 2012. our civilization is heading to a crisis of conflict, which will dwarf all the wars of the past 200 years.

In Dr. Jack Alpert’s Rapid Population Decline or Civilization Collapse66 lesson, he shows how and why humanity must reduce global population to less than 100 million, by means of humanity choosing to adopt a one child per family only procreation policy: (1) The Scarcity - Conflict death spiral; (2) The system trips the death spiral; (3) Human behavior trips the death spiral; (4) How Much Population Decline Saves Civilization?; (5) Are you sure we have to reduce population below 100 million? (a) What if the initial rich-poor spread is bigger?, (b) What if soil re-generation times are shorter?, (c) What if people have undying desires for self improvement?, (d) What if the richest keep getting richer?, (e) What if technology advances faster then we expect?; (6) It’s Rapid Population Decline or Civilization collapse.

2. The Eden Perfect Genocide Proposition: The weaponization of a Massive Population Reduction biological agent: In Half Truths of Overpopulation -- More aggressive solutions depend on a view of a bigger problem67 and The whole truth is too painful to talk about68, Dr. Alpert clarifies why: Partial truths about overpopulation will kill: us, our civilization and our environment, because the truths lead to an 1) underestimation of our problems, and 2) an overestimate of our solutions.

sqswans.weebly.com/rapid-population-decline.html www.skil.org/position_papers_folder/halftruth1.html 68 www.skil.org/position_papers_folder/halftruth4.html 66 67

30

Draft: Final Edit to be finalized by 28 October 2012.

For example: partial truths tell us overpopulation causes congestion, pollution, loss of natural beauty, species extinction, and increases in the separation between the rich and poor.

Partial truths tell us stopping population growth, living smaller as individuals, redistributing wealth, and stronger environmental protection, are solutions.

Missing truths tell us: scarcity is created when human footprint exceeds declining supplies of supporting resources and natural waste recycling services.

Increasing scarcity trips a scarcity-conflict death spiral, results in civilization collapse, and implements a die off.

Missing truths tell us: that in a civilization's death throes a one time gift of fossil resources will be consumed to exhaustion and the ecosystem's system's balance will be destroyed. This will leave the human experiment both impoverished and potentially impossible to rebuild.

Missing truths tell us overshoot: already exists, is rapidly increasing, and is not addressed by our proposed solutions. Missing truths tell us resolution of overshoot requires rapid population decline. Missing truths tell us the world's population must decrease 99% in 70 years.

This view of the human predicament and view of its resolution is so extreme, most of our -- fragile ego friends -- cringe when they hear it presented.

As long as "half truth" is accepted as whole truth Overpopulation will not be addressed. Overshoot will continue to increase, and Civilization will remain on a course of self-destruction.

31

Draft: Final Edit to be finalized by 28 October 2012.

No fragile ego civilian or political parasite Bullshit the Public Relations leader wants to tell a friend a truth like, 1) he or she already has blood on his or her hands? 2) that blood will become more personal and the conflict more intense? 3) conflict will cause chaos and civilization collapse? 4) most nations will fail? 5) most survivors (5-10% of the present population)

will be reduced to

primitive lives?

No fragile ego civilian or political parasite Bullshit the Public Relations leader wants to tell their listener a truth that: calls the listener's reality (faith and hope) pure fantasy.

No fragile ego civilian or political parasite Bullshit the Public Relations leader wants to call the listener's attention to the unthinkable: “your system can survive if you kill your resource competitors”, that a perfect genocide is one that leaves most of the resources untapped and most infrastructure undamaged.

For a fictional presentation of the perfect genocide, consider AIDS: Africa’s

Iatrogenic

Depopulation

Solution69; or Kurt

Dahl’s

Eden

Proposition70: “Duval Dixon, a septuagenarian of immense wealth who is committed to solving what he thinks is the primary scourge dragging the world down an apocalyptic path-unsustainable consumption due to overpopulationbelieves he has the solution. Atrocious as it may seem, he becomes an impassioned proponent of MPR - Massive Population Reduction. Over a decade, Dixon spends billions creating the ultimate biological agent that could reduce the world's population down to a handful. Then, he must answer a final question should he do it? Unsure, Dixon calls together eleven great minds and then cuts 69 70

Johnstone, L (2012/09/24): Pg 22-26 www.theedenproposition.com/query.aspx

32

Draft: Final Edit to be finalized by 28 October 2012. them off from all contact with the outside world. What happens next will change the course of history.”

C. A Sustainable Security Peak NNR reality re-consideration of Corporate Personhood: Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company: The headnotes ‘Corporate Personhood’ ruling in Santa Clara County v.

Southern Pacific Railroad Company and subsequent stare decisis interpretation thereof should be considered unconstitutional by an Ecocentric legal doctrine, as it does not pass the strict scrutiny test: (a) is not justified by a compelling government interest; (b) is not narrowly tailored, and (c) is not the least restrictive means for achieving that interest.

Compelling governmental interest: The concept of what is ‘crucial’ or ‘compelling’ in any given circumstance can be contradictory, as a result of the particular individual’s religious, cultural or ideological worldview. The only truthseeking fair way to determine whether any act is ‘crucial’ for any being or entity, would be to hear evidence related to its ‘cruciality’ from itself and the party whom such cruciality affects. The law accurately reflects this fairness perspective in terms of the trial of an accused, where both accused and their victim are given equal protection due process legal standing to present their evidence. Corporations cannot exist without natural resources to exploit or plunder, or to financially speculate about how they are being, or should be, plundered. Simply consider how much ‘business’ is conducted during a blackout, or how much business is conducted involving natural animal or plant resources which have been driven extinct? Consequently, in considering whether to grant a

33

Draft: Final Edit to be finalized by 28 October 2012. corporation legal standing, it is only fair to grant the entity being exploited or plundered – nature – its right to argue its case: Does a river have a right to flow?

Does a species have a right to survival? Does a mountain have a right not to be guillotined? Does an oil well have a right to demand that its resources not be used to produce shitty products, or only be used by carpools or individuals who live below their regions carrying capacity? Does nature have a right to argue that any world leader calling for ‘economic growth’ or ‘population growth’ is the equivalent of such politician calling for the assassination of nature’s finite resources? Should every world leader who publicly calls for economic growth, be fined $20 billion to compensate nature for the loss of her resources by politicians deceiving the public about their alleged bullshit fantasies of infinite economic growth? If entities who terrorize humans can be put on kill lists and assassinated by drones; can CEO’s who commit financial and corporate ecological terrorism of nature’s resources, also be put on kill lists and assassinated by drones? Can Nature have Anton Piller court orders and Mareva injunctions served upon Monsanto and all corporations employing individuals who stole her ideas, laws and claimed them as their own patents, trademarks and copyrights?

In the absence of allowing Nature her right to present her case as to what she considers is ‘crucial’ or compelling use of her resources; granting a corporation the right to exploit and plunder her resources is the same as granting legal standing to a peadophile or rapist, while refusing his victim legal standing, simply because they are a woman or a child. It is in the sustainable security interest of countries and their citizens that they do not allow their

34

Draft: Final Edit to be finalized by 28 October 2012. leaders to exploit nature’s resources, by politicians and corporations who act like drunks pissing the families food money away in a casino.

Is not narrowly tailored: In Grutter v. Bollinger71, the United States Supreme Court upheld the affirmative action admissions policy of the University of Michigan Law School: "Even in the limited circumstance when drawing racial distinctions is permissible to further a compelling state interest, government is still constrained under equal protection clause in how it may pursue that end: the means chosen to accomplish the government's asserted purpose must be specifically and narrowly framed to accomplish that purpose."

Similarly, if the government or courts wanted to grant corporations legal standing; the equal protection clause would demand that the court is constrained in how it may pursue that goal. For example, it could argue that in any matter where any corporation argued for legal standing, such equivalent legal standing opportunity should be granted to any natural resources being used to provide such corporation with future profits.

Applicant cannot consider any compelling interest that would justify providing corporations with legal standing, but denying the natural resource entities which they exploit and plunder for their profits, equivalent legal standing to argue their point of view.

Least Restrictive Means: Granting corporations unqualified legal standing without granting their natural resources victims legal standing is anything but the ‘least restrictive means’. Applicant cannot think of a less restrictive means of granting corporations legal standing, than granting the natural and nonrenewable resources upon which the corporation derives its profits, equal legal 71

539 U.S. 306 (2003)

35

Draft: Final Edit to be finalized by 28 October 2012. standing, whereby nature is granted the right to argue how and why her resources should only be used for ‘compelling’ purposes, by humans whose procreation and consumption lifestyle’s are committed to maintaining nature’s sustainable security.

D. A Sustainable Security Peak NNR Reality Preferred Freedoms Doctrine Mineral King v. Morton re-consideration of Locus Standi for Pale Blue Dot: Petitioner asserts that the courts decision was produced by a profoundly defective process, a result of an undemocratic exclusive Anthropocentric majoritarian procedure, of disregard for the perspective of an Ecocentric minority arguing on behalf of the Pale Blue Dot’s finite resources, which have been, and are being raped and pillaged to produce many products for which no species has demonstrated or justified any compelling need interest.

An Ecocentric minority deprived of their share of political influence, due to their Ecocentric procreation and consumption lifestyle principles, whereby they refuse to actively participate in the majority’s Anthropocentric Left vs. Right Wing Human Factory Farming War Economy political and legal ‘Infinite Resources Propaganda War’ matrix.

If the court, is truly an impartial arbiter, as opposed to simply a façade for endorsing the Anthropocentric Left vs. Right Wing Human Factory Farming War Economy political and legal matrix, it should recognize its duty to accord special protection to Ecocentric minorities, whose procreation and consumption lifestyle’s prove their Ecocentric credibility, who are deprived of their fair share

36

Draft: Final Edit to be finalized by 28 October 2012. of political influence, similarly to other ‘persons’ of past Anthropocentric jurisprudence.

The objectification and possession of women and the environment are directly related: the environment to be used and abused for its resources, for the masculine insecure ego; and women to be used and abused as the brood sows for the man’s ‘large family/virile machismo penis’ ego and production of cannon fodder for masculine insecure cultural elite’s Human Factory Farming War Economy Racket. Simplistically, women and nature, have existed purely as objects for fragile ego men to impress other fragile ego men.

Curt Berger: “For, after all, land, like woman, was meant to be possessed .”

– Land Ownership and Use 139 (1968).

“The law of nature destines and qualifies the female sex for the bearing and nurture of the children of our race and for the custody of the homes of the world .. [A]ll life-long callings of women, inconsistent with these radical and sacred duties of their sex, as is the profession of the law, are departures from the order of nature; and when voluntary, treason against it .. And when counsel was arguing for this lady that the word, person, in sex. 32, ch. 119 [respecting those qualified to practice law], necessarily includes females, her presence made it impossible to suggest to him as reduction ad absurdum of his position, that the same construction of the same word .. would subject woman to prosecution for the paternity of a bastard, and .. prosecution for rape.72 The Swiss Constitution requires “account to be taken of the dignity of creation when handling animals, plants and other organisms”, and the Swiss government has conducted ethical studies pertaining to how the dignity of plants is to be protected73. Ecuador became the first country in the world to codify the Rights of Nature in its 2008 Constitution. Articles 10 and 71-74, recognizes the In re Goddell, 39 Wisc. 232, 245 (1875) Florianne Koechlin (2009 January), The dignity of plants, 4, Plant Signal Behav., pp. 78–79, PMC 2634081, PMID 19568336 72 73

37

Draft: Final Edit to be finalized by 28 October 2012. inalienable rights of ecosystems to exist and flourish, gives people the authority to petition on the behalf of ecosystems, and requires the government to remedy violations of these rights.

Bolivia has developed its own historic Mother Earth Law which gives nature “rights” and mandates a radical ecological transition of Bolivia‘s economy and society, requiring all existing and future laws to adapt to the Mother Earth law and accept the ecological limits set by nature.74 It calls for public policy to be guided by Sumaj Kawsay or Vivir Bien (an indigenous concept meaning “living well,” or living in harmony with nature and people), rather than the current focus on producing more goods and stimulating consumption.75 After the failure of Copenhagen COP 15 in December 2009 to make substantive progress, President Evo Morales declared that he would host the first People’s Conference on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth in Cochabamba, Bolivia. During the 3 day conference the Universal Declaration of the Rights of Mother Earth76 was crafted.

New Zealand recently recognized the rights of nature, by conferring legal personhood on the Whanganui River77. Yellow Springs Village Council recently made a Historic Vote, by being the first Municipality in Ohio to Ban Shale Gas Drilling, Fracking, and Injection Wells, Elevating the rights of residents to clean Keim, Brandon (18 April 2011): Nature to get Legal Rights in Bolivia (Wired) www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/04/legal-rights-nature-bolivia/ 75 Buxton, Nick: The Law of Mother Earth: Behind Bolivia's Historic Bill (Rights of Nature) therightsofnature.org/bolivia-law-of-mother-earth/ 76 April 22, 2010: World People's Conference on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth, Cochabamba, Bolivia therightsofnature.org/universal-declaration/ 77 Postel, Sandra (4 Sept 2012): A River in New Zealand gets a Legal Voice (National Geographic) newswatch.nationalgeographic.com/2012/09/04/a-river-in-new-zealand-gets-a-legal-voice/ Shuttleworth, Kate (30 Aug 2012): Agreement entitles Whanganui River to legal identity (New Zealand Herald) www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10830586 McVeagh, Russell: Crown and Whanganui River iwi reach framework agreement (Lexology) www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=d4bd2178-5a74-4cf1-bed1-77a6921e735c 74

38

Draft: Final Edit to be finalized by 28 October 2012. air and water, and to protect the rights of nature as more important than Corporate Rights.

Majoritarian Anthropocentric legal doctrine can no longer ignore the advice of Justice William O’Douglas in Sierra Club v. Morton78 to confer standing upon environmental objects to sue for their own preservation.

The critical question of "standing" would be simplified and also put neatly in focus if we fashioned a federal rule that allowed environmental issues to be litigated before federal agencies or federal courts in the name of the inanimate object about to be despoiled, defaced, or invaded by roads and bulldozers and where injury is the subject of public outrage. Contemporary public concern for protecting nature's ecological equilibrium should lead to the conferral of standing upon environmental objects to sue for their own preservation. This suit would therefore be more properly labeled as Mineral King v. Morton.

Inanimate objects are sometimes parties in litigation. A ship has a legal personality, a fiction found useful for maritime purposes. The corporation sole - a creature of ecclesiastical law - is an acceptable adversary and large fortunes ride on its cases. The ordinary corporation is a "person" for purposes of the adjudicatory processes, whether it represents proprietary, spiritual, aesthetic, or charitable causes.

So it should be as respects valleys, alpine meadows, rivers, lakes, estuaries, beaches, ridges, groves of trees, swampland, or even air that feels the destructive pressures of modern technology and modern life. The river, for example, is the living symbol of all the life it sustains or nourishes - fish, aquatic insects, water ouzels, otter, fisher, deer, elk, bear, and all other animals, including man, who are dependent on it or who enjoy it for its sight, its sound, or its life. The river as plaintiff speaks for the ecological unit of life that is part of it. Those people who have a meaningful relation to that body of water - whether it be a fisherman, a canoeist, a zoologist, or a logger - must be able to speak for the values which the river represents and which are threatened with destruction.....

The voice of the inanimate object, therefore, should not be stilled. That does not mean that the judiciary takes over the managerial functions from 78

405 U.S. 727 (1972)

39

Draft: Final Edit to be finalized by 28 October 2012. the federal agency. It merely means that before these priceless bits of Americana (such as a valley, an alpine meadow, a river, or a lake) are forever lost or are so transformed as to be reduced to the eventual rubble of our urban environment, the voice of the existing beneficiaries of these environmental wonders should be heard.

Perhaps they will not win. Perhaps the bulldozers of "progress" will plow under all the aesthetic wonders of this beautiful land. That is not the present question. The sole question is, who has standing to be heard?

Those who hike the Appalachian Trail into Sunfish Pond, New Jersey, and camp or sleep there, or run the Allagash in Maine, or climb the Guadalupes in West Texas, or who canoe and portage the Quetico Superior in Minnesota, certainly should have standing to defend those natural wonders before courts or agencies, though they live 3,000 miles away.

Those who merely are caught up in environmental news or propaganda and flock to defend these waters or areas may be treated differently. That is why these environmental issues should be tendered by the inanimate object itself. Then there will be assurances that all of the forms of life which it represents will stand before the court - the pileated woodpecker as well as the coyote and bear, the lemmings as well as the trout in the streams. Those inarticulate members of the ecological group cannot speak.

But those people who have so frequented the place as to know its values and wonders will be able to speak for the entire ecological community.....

That, as I see it, is the issue of "standing" in the present case and controversy.� – Justice William O. Douglas, Sierra Club v. Morton79 A Carolene court, does not have to challenge the substantive value judgments underlying the Anthropocentric legislation; instead, it simply trumps the statutory conclusions of the deeply flawed real-world legislature -- who are elected by a fraudulent corrupt process endorsed, implemented and maintained in power, by the RCFP Amici parties before this court -- by appealing to the hypothetical

Judgement

of

an

ideally

democratic

legislature,

whose

consciousness represents not only masculine insecurity dominated corporations,

79

405 U.S. 727 (1972)

40

Draft: Final Edit to be finalized by 28 October 2012. but trees, rivers, mountains, polar bears, dandelions, crickets, whales, tigers, dolphins, etc.

E. Fraudulent Peaceniks - ‘Control of Reproduction’ Human Farming War Economy Racket: Norway & Sweden’s ‘War is Peace Whores’ Committee and their Mindfucked minions - consume the very energy required to change the things that would make societies head toward peace: In Peace seekers have no plan for enduring peace80, Dr. Alpert argues that Peaceniks failure to move society from conflict to peace, their establishment of never ending or honoured “peace accords, moral codes, acts of economic justice, and environmental laws, are like traffic signals” which “cause people to relinquish freedoms” but, “do not stop (change) the behaviors that increase scarcity, conflict, and environmental destruction”81: result from a faulty perception of what increases or decreases conflict.

Where, peace seekers have acted as if conflict is caused by bad leadership maybe they should have acted as if trends in conflict are driven by trends in scarcity. Maybe they would have been more successful if they acted as if trends in scarcity are driven by the collective behaviors of 6 billion people.

That while each individual acts benignly to achieve personal objectives the unintentional result is an increase in scarcity and conflict.

Another reason for ignoring the above view of human conflict, is that peace seekers, even when successful at restraining the military or mediating hostilities, do not change our course toward conflict. They only delay it. In the process, peace seekers consume the very energy required to change the things that would make societies head toward peace.

Today we, as peace seekers, have to face reality. We have no plan for the peace of our great grandchildren or beyond. We will have no plan until we focus on changing the personal behaviors of 6 billion people. Those changes will require either, very unpleasant institutional actions, or a universal www.skil.org/position_papers_folder/Peaceniks_Wake_up.html Alpert, Jack (04/01/04): Footprint vs. Freedom: www.skil.org/position_papers_folder/Footprint_vs_freedom.html 80 81

41

Draft: Final Edit to be finalized by 28 October 2012. change in the cognitive processes which assign value to a never experienced abstraction, the lives of yet to be born progeny.

Put simply: Peaceniks are two faced hypocrites, they are not willing to pay the price of peace82: “If you were offered a peaceful nation based on one child per family would you pay this price to live there?” They are the conscious or useful idiot pawns of the Human Factory Farming War Economy, their fake ‘anti-war’ and Bullshit the Public Relations ‘peace’ activism, “consumes the very energy required to change the things that would make societies head toward peace”.

Given the opportunity, do these Peaceniks step forward and publicly declare they are sincere Peaceniks willing to pay the One Child per Family price for Peace ; or do they stick their heads in the sand? When Peaceniks refuse to pay the price for peace, they reduce the Military’s sustainable security options, two of which are: (1) a Military coup d'état to force Falling Man to pull the Wild Law Sustainable Security ripcord?; or (2) The Eden Perfect Genocide Proposition: The weaponization of a Massive Population Reduction biological agent.

CONCLUSION The petition for a writ of certiorari should be granted.

Respectfully submitted, /s/ Lara Johnstone LARA JOHNSTONE, Pro Se PO Box 4052, George, 6539 South Africa habeusmentem@mweb.co.za

Alpert, Jack (04/06/17): You Have to Pay the Price for Peace www.skil.org/position_papers_folder/You_have_to_pay_for_peace.html 82

42