11 November 2012 Clerk of the Court Supreme Court of the United States Washington, D.C. 20543 Per United States Mail Ref: Alien on Pale Blue Dot vs. Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press (RCFP), et al Letter Brief: Notice of ‘No Interest’ from Dr. Brad Blanton and ‘Unknown Interest’ from the Radical Honesty Community. Petitioner’s Consent: Petitioner has consented to the filing of this letter brief. Petitioner‟s consent letter is attached hereto. Respondents are requested to inform the Court of their consent or objection to the filing of this Notice of Interest. ‘No Interest’ from Dr. Brad Blanton and ‘Unknown Interest’ from the Radical Honesty Community. On 24 October 2012, Petitioner emailed Dr. Blanton to inform him of the application for Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court, and to ask him if there were any lawyers in Radical Honesty. He responded “I am as uninterested as I can be. Whether you win or lose it won't convince a single soul of a single thing. Seems like a complete waste of time to me.” He gave Petitioner the details of the one lawyer there is in Radical Honesty, Maggie Doyle, who initially expressed interest, until Petitioner asked her whether she practiced radical honesty in her legal work: “..would you be afraid to express your „radical honesty opinions‟ in a brief filed with the court; fear of being cited for contempt or being barred or such like? If you knew Radical Honesty religious speech was protected by the first amendment including in legal briefs, would you consider adding a „caveat‟ on your briefs, that they are prepared by a lawyer, who is a member of radical honesty religion, and practices radical honesty religious speech?” On 09 November Petitioner emailed Dr. Blanton, Business Assistant, Anne Alexander, to ask him to answer the following two questions: YES, or NO: Is Brad going to inform the Supreme Court of his interest or lack of interest that Practicing Radical Honesty‟ should be considered First Amendment Religious speech? If YES: By when? YES or NO: Is Brad going to inform the Radical Honesty community, or delegate someone to do it for him; of the opportunity to inform the United
States Supreme Court of their „interest‟ whether „Practicing Radical Honesty‟ should be considered First Amendment Religious speech? If YES, whom, and BY WHEN? On 09 November 2012, Dr. Blanton responded: “the answer is NO to everything Lara. Brad” Working Hypothesis Conclusion: Dr. Blanton’s Interest: Petitioner is the only member of the Radical Honesty community who has practiced brutal honesty in court proceedings, and been imprisoned for expressing her brutal honest opinions in a court of law (1 Year Prison Sentence for Contempt of Court by Magistrate ADS Meyer: George, South Africa) and to a politician (1 Month Prison & 3 Year Suspended Sentence: Capetown). I imagine, Dr. Blanton‟s alleged lack of interest in the matter, is that if the Justices do decide to hear the matter, he fears he will be cited for contempt of court, if he expresses his brutally honest opinions to the Justices. It is easier for Dr. Blanton to keep his beliefs about how superior he is to mindfucked Supreme Court Justices stuck in stare decisis „I think, therefore I am‟ la la land, without being forced into Colonel Jessop‟s „eyeball-to-eyeball‟ position of choosing whether to (a) decide to practice „You can‟t handle the truth‟ radical honesty in the court, and risk the Justices contempt; or (b) exposing his lack of courage to practice what he preaches when he finds himself in a court room. Conclusion: Radical Honesty Community’s Interest: In the absence of the Respondents, or Dr. Blanton informing the Radical Honesty community of this application, they shall remain unaware of it, and uninformed about it, and it is unknown what their interest, if any, would be. Certificate of Service: By copy of this letter, all counsel of record in Alien on Pale Blue Dot vs. Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, have been served. The names and addresses of those served per Electronic Mail are as follows: Gregg P. Leslie The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press 1101 Wilson Blvd., Suite 1100 Arlington, VA 22209-2100 (703) 807-2100 Email: gleslie@rcfp.org
Shayana Kadidal Center for Constitutional Rights 666 Broadway, 7th Floor New York, New York 10012 Tel: (212) 614-6464 Fax: (212) 614-6499 Email: shanek@ccrjustice.org
Solicitor General of the United States United States Government Room 5614, Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., Washington, D. C. 20530–0001 (202) 514-2217 Email: SupremeCtBriefs@usdoj.gov
Capt. Judge Advocate Chad M. Fisher Office of the Judge Advocate General U.S. Army Legal Services Agency 9275 Gunston Rd. Ft. Belvoir, VA 22060 Tel: (703) 693-0783 Email: Chad.m.fisher.mil@mail.mil
2
Transparency Courtesy Copies: William A. DeCicco Clerk of the Court United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces 450 E Street, NW Washington, DC 20442-0001 Tel: (202) 761-1448 | Fax (202) 761-4672 Email: bill.decicco@armfor.uscourts.gov
Chief Judge Col. Denise Lind U.S. Army Trial Judiciary, 1st Jud Cir. U.S. Army Military District of Washington Office of the Staff Judge Advocate 103 Third Ave., SW, Ste 100. Ft. McNair, DC 20319 Email: dlind@law.gwu.edu
David E. Coombs Counsel for Pfc. Manning Law Office of David E. Coombs 11 South Angell Street, #317 Providence, RI 02906 Tel: (508) 689-4616 coombs@armycourtmartialdefense.com
Dr. Brad Blanton Radical Honesty Enterprises 646 Sparrowhawk Lane, Stanley, VA 22851 Tel: 540-778-1336 Email: brad@radicalhonesty.com, support@radicalhonesty.com
Maggie Doyle Doyle Law LLC c/o Radical Honesty Enterprises 646 Sparrowhawk Lane Stanley, VA 22851 Tel: 540-778 1336 Email: maggie@multiversity.net
Anne Alexander Authentic Alternatives Inc 60 Holly Ridge Rd. Pisgah Forest, NC 28768 USA Email: annebizcoach@gmail.com
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on: 11 November, 2012
________________________________ Lara Johnstone, In Forma Pauperis, Pro Se P O Box 5042 George East, 6539, South Africa Tel: +27-44 870 7239 Cel: +27-71 170 1954 Email: habeusmentem@mweb.co.za Encl: [A] Transcript of Email Correspondence to Radical Honesty [B] 04 Nov 2012: Petitioner’s Consent to all Amicus Curiae Arguments
3
ANNEX: A: TRANSCRIPT OF RADICAL HONESTY ‘INTEREST’ CORRESPONDENCE: From: Lara [mailto:jmcswan@mweb.co.za] Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2012 4:24 PM To: 'Brad Blanton'; jmcswan@mweb.co.za Cc: 'Anne Alexander'; 'Brandon Enget' Subject: Brad - Are there any lawyers in Radical Honesty??? Hey Brad, Is there any lawyer who has taken your radical honesty course in honesty workshop? If there is one who understands radical honesty, I want to ask them a few questions; about an application I am preparing to file in the Supreme Court. Very briefly, the US Court of Appeals for Armed Forces rejected my Amicus (which meets all other Appellate court and Supreme Court restrictive standards), because I used some words they considered to be ‘indecent language’. Specifically I used the words ‘Bullshit the Public Relations’, as part of description of what radical honesty does not practice. One of the questions, I am asking the Supreme Court to clarify (if they accept it, of course) is: 1. Whether the court had sufficient compelling justifications (Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet / Everson v. Board of Education / Sherbert v. Verner / Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) / Gonzales v. O Centro Espírita Beneficente União do Vegetal) for their ‘indecent language‘ discrimination against Petitioner’s Futilitarian religion of Practicing Radical Honesty; which unlike almost all other religions, does not practice ‘Public Relations Image Management’, i.e. ‘Practicing Radical Honesty’ verbally or in writing is the foundation of the Radical Honesty (Futilitarian) religion’s social contract, the essence of a Futilitarian’s existential religious/spiritual identity: total honest transparency. Info for you: In the 1994 case Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet, Supreme Court Justice David Souter wrote in the opinion for the Court that: "government should not prefer one religion to another, or religion to irreligion". Everson v. Board of Education established that "neither a state nor the Federal Government can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another". The Religious Freedom Restoration act, restored the Sherbert Test for federal government acts, as did Gonzales v. O Centro Espírita Beneficente União do Vegetal. My argument is that Practicing Radical Honesty is to a Futilitarian, what wearing a turban is to a Sikh, or riding around in a buggy and not using electricity is to an Hamish, or wearing a hijab is to a Muslim, or Prosletyzing door-to-door is for a Jehovah’s Witness. So demanding that a Futilitarian not be radically honest, without providing the required ‘compelling justifications’ (the Sherbert Test, requires the Government to demonstrate that their denial of a right to practice a religion, has a compelling interest), is religious discrimination, giving aid to religions
4
who practice PR, and discriminating against those who don't practice 'PR'. If there is such a lawyer, who understands Radical Honesty, I want to ask them if they can give me feedback, if they are interested. Luv Lara From: Brad Blanton [mailto:brad@radicalhonesty.com] Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2012 5:23 PM To: jmcswan@mweb.co.za Cc: Anne Alexander; Brandon Enget; Maggie Doyle Subject: Re: Brad - Are there any lawyers in Radical Honesty??? hi Lara. Maybe Maggie would be interested. She is a lawyer. I am as uninterested as I can be.Whether you win or lose it won't convince a single soul of a single thing. Seems like a complete waste of time to me. brad From: Lara [mailto:jmcswan@mweb.co.za] Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2012 6:06 PM To: 'Brad Blanton'; jmcswan@mweb.co.za Cc: 'Anne Alexander'; 'Brandon Enget'; 'Maggie Doyle' Subject: RE: Brad - Are there any lawyers in Radical Honesty??? Brad and Maggie: LOL. I appreciate you for saying "I am as uninterested as I can be. Whether you win or lose it won't convince a single soul of a single thing. Seems like a complete waste of time to me." My belly enjoyed a great guffaw belly laugh! Still is. It is my Sysiphys rock. ;-) I think getting a court to confirm Radical Honesty Religious speech as protected by the constitution, would be a great win. Why did you spend thousands of hours walking for civil rights for blacks? Only the bravest of the brave who attend your workshops have the courage to express their resentments, face to face, to their bosses. Only those with openminded bosses are not fired on the spot. How many more would be enabled in small steps of courage, if they know their Practicing Radical Honesty Resentment speech is protected as religious speech by the constitution, and they cannot be fired for it, or can sue, if they are? Don't think it will be easy... but back to my Sisyphis rock! ;-) Maggine: Any thoughts if you are interested, would be appreciated. Luv and thanks Lara
5
From: Lara [mailto:jmcswan@mweb.co.za] Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2012 9:56 PM To: 'Maggie Doyle' Subject: RE: Brad - Are there any lawyers in Radical Honesty??? Hi Maggie, Yes, I filed the original Application to proceed as an Amicus Curiae in the US Court of Appeals for Armed Forces (CCR/Wikileaks vs USA: its related to transparency about Bradley Manning‟s court martial). Wonders of Electronic Filing! ;-) So, the cert application is to the Supreme Court, US; but I will have to file that by registered mail. Lara From: Maggie Doyle [mailto:maggie@multiversity.net] Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2012 10:02 PM To: jmcswan@mweb.co.za Subject: RE: Brad - Are there any lawyers in Radical Honesty??? Will you send me the filings to review? From: Lara [mailto:jmcswan@mweb.co.za] Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2012 10:59 PM To: 'Maggie Doyle' Subject: RE: Brad - Are there any lawyers in Radical Honesty??? Sure! I would most appreciate it! Please feel free to provide your radical honesty criticism! ;-) Still busy with drafting, but should be finished within next day or two, then will send to you, as the edit process starts. Or as you suggest? Don’t want to waste your time. Lara From: Maggie Doyle [mailto:maggie@multiversity.net] Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2012 11:01 PM To: jmcswan@mweb.co.za Subject: RE: Brad - Are there any lawyers in Radical Honesty??? I’d be interested in reading whatever you’ve got, including previous filings from which you’re appealing. From: Lara [mailto:jmcswan@mweb.co.za] Sent: Friday, October 26, 2012 12:55 AM To: 'Maggie Doyle' Subject: RE: Brad - Are there any lawyers in Radical Honesty??? Hi Maggie… Okay! ;-) I ain‟t got no objections to sending you those. Attached is (A) Notice of Motion for Leave to Proceed as an Amicus Curiae, including request for leniency on procedure and Radical Honesty English; with (B) Founding Affidavit, and (C) the Ecocentric Amicus Brief. When my Amicus application was refused (see below), I filed a Petition for Reconsideration (D). Below follows a brief overview „statement of the case‟.
6
United States vs. Private Bradley Manning court martial 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-to-ground attacks in Al-Amin al-Thaniyah, Baghdad (“Collateral Murder”); (ii) 250,000 United States diplomatic cables (Cablegate); and (iii) 500,000 army reports from Iraq (Iraq War logs) and Afghanistan (Afghan War logs). Center of Constitutional Rights, et al vs. USA and Military Judge Denise Lind, 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 Amicus 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 order, the RCFP have been approved as Amici by the court. On 14 and 24 September 2012, Petitioner filed an Application to Proceed as an Amicus, to provide the court with a Radical Honoursty Transparency culture Wild Law Sustainable Security Alien on Pale Blue Dot - perspective to parties Anthropocentric dispute. The Amicus addressed (i) alternative Ecocentric Wild Law Sustainable Security legal arguments deemed too far reaching for emphasis by parties intent on winning their particular Anthropocentric cases; and (ii) argued that it would be impossible for Pfc Manning to get a free and fair trial, if the media abused their publicity power, and thereby abuse the credibility of the court. 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 Reconsideration 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. 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.” Petitioner responded on 16 October 2012: “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?” On 22 October 2012, the Clerk responded providing additional information, that “After reviewing it, and exercising their discretion, the Judges noted you are not a party to the case and therefore cannot appear “pro se” and that you are not an attorney who would be able to file an amicus brief. Additionally, the Court noted your use of indecent language and the lack in your brief of any coherent argument to be allowed to file. Accordingly, they instructed me not to file it with the record and to return it to you. A court order was not issued.” ;-) Lara From: Lara [mailto:jmcswan@mweb.co.za] Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2012 6:11 PM To: 'Maggie Doyle' Subject: RE: Brad - Are there any lawyers in Radical Honesty??? Hey Maggie,
7
I hope you are not anywhere near that Sandy storm!! I have a few questions, I wanted to ask you, to ponder, and am considering how to include in the Amicus. 1. Do you consider yourself as a „member of the Radical Honesty culture/religion‟; or would you say you are considering becoming a member; not yet a „convert‟! ;-) 2. If you do consider yourself a member, would you be afraid to express your „radical honesty opinions‟ in a brief filed with the court; fear of being cited for contempt or being barred or such like? 3. If you knew Radical Honesty religious speech was protected by the first amendment including in legal briefs, would you consider adding a „caveat‟ on your briefs, that they are prepared by a lawyer, who is a member of radical honesty religion, and practices radical honesty religious speech? Here is what I have written so far: Petitioner is not the only member of the Radical Honesty culture and religion (Futilitarianism), however Petitioner is the only member of the Radical Honesty religion who transparently expresses her „Radical Honesty‟ religious speech opinions honestly in legal documents. Petitioner was recently made aware of a lawyer who is, or is considering becoming a member of Radical Honesty culture - - Maggie Doyle – who does not currently practice „radical honesty religious speech‟ in her briefs, for fear of either being cited for contempt or being disbarred. I have finally finished the draft of the Cert application. I still intend to do lots of editing, got to bring it down to 40 pages, but I think the argument is coherent… just needs to be made much sharper. However, I am of course biased. It is attached in word: two parts, the Index and authorities in one section; and the argument/case in the other. Please don’t feel obliged, especially if you are affected by that storm. Regards, Lara From: Lara [mailto:jmcswan@mweb.co.za] Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2012 12:50 AM To: 'Maggie Doyle' Subject: FW: USC-Cert: Alien on Pale Blue Dot vs. RFCP et al - per Electronic Service Hi Maggie, I filed the petition for writ of certiorari. I imagine you been busy, or maybe you ain't interested. Anyway, documents been filed and mailed by airmail. ETA of arrival at Supreme court is 16 December. Feel free to share your thoughts! ;-) Lara From: Lara [mailto:jmcswan@mweb.co.za] Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2012 11:43 AM
8
To: 'Maggie Doyle' Cc: 'Brad Blanton' Subject: Maggie Doyle -- Resentments Hi Maggie, I resent you for your silence. I resent you for not responding to my email. I resent you for not answering my query about whether you are busy or not interested. I imagine you are not interested, and too goddamn gutless to say so. I imagine you have opinions, you are too goddamn gutless to express. I imagine you are just another gutless goddamn coward lawyer. I am sitting upright infront of my computer, drinking coffee and laughing. I imagine my laughter is a coping mechanism. If I don't laugh at the reality of living on a planet of gutless fucking cowards, I'd fucking cry, and I've spent my tears on gutless fucking cowards. So these days its laughter. I should get some of Pila's laughter gas and move on to the next dimension, find that fucking bitch who left without saying goodbye, and hear what the fuck she's listening to now, on to the next dimension, surely there has to be some dimension which is populated by beings with a goddamn fucking backbone. Good god, imagine if not! What a fucking thought! All dimensions are populated by gutless fucking cowards! Ugh.. only option is to become a neo-nazi... at least they ain't afraid to express their honest opinions! LOL! I can join them in drawing up plans for gaschambers for all the planets gutless fucking cowards. Reminds me why I love making compost!! Fucking gutless coward humans are a fucking waste of time.... they should exterminate themselves from the planet, sooner the better. Ahh... well... should go back to talking to myself. Conversation is way more interesting, at least I don't give my alter ego's the passive aggressive silent treatment! LOL... Hoohah.... off to make compost... From: Lara [mailto:jmcswan@mweb.co.za] Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2012 9:48 PM To: 'Brad Blanton' Cc: 'Anne Alexander'; 'Brandon Enget'; 'Maggie Doyle' Subject: Radical Honesty Petition filed to Supreme Court..... Request to Brad Hey Brad, The Petition has been filed with the Supreme Court. I want you to please consider the following: 1. I want you to file a very short, amicus to the court (one page); saying what you think about the Petition (vis a vis: Radical Honesty: whether 'Practicing Radical Honesty' should be considered as 'Religious Speech' in terms of the First Amendment). 2. To inform Radical Honesty community members of the Petition, and whether any of them are interested in informing the court about their 'Practicing Radical Honesty' expert opinions.
9
3. If you, or any other RH'er is interested in informing the court of your PRH opinions. Then you need to email the respondents, to ask them for consent for you/members of Radical Honesty to inform the court of your thoughts. ========= 1. Your Amicus: If you are still uninterested, to say so, one page, short and sweet, if you want: "I am Brad Blanton, founder of Radical Honesty Culture. [Brief bio] I am as uninterested as I can be. Whether Lara wins or loses it won't convince a single soul of a single thing. Seems like a complete waste of time to me." I want you to do so to let them know that you, and Radical Honesty community are aware of the Petition, and the Petition's contents that 'Practicing Radical Honesty' be considered as 'Religious Speech' in terms of the First Amendment, and what your brutally honest thoughts are about it. Whether you give a fuck or not, and why you give a fuck or not; and how you give a fuck or not, or whatever the fuck you want to say! ;-) ======== Let me know if 2 & 3 are relevant in pursuing. Luv Lara From: Lara [mailto:jmcswan@mweb.co.za] Sent: Friday, November 09, 2012 9:54 AM To: 'Brad Blanton' Cc: 'Anne Alexander'; 'Brandon Enget'; 'Maggie Doyle' Subject: RE: Radical Honesty Petition filed to Supreme Court..... Request to Brad Brad, Do you intend responding? Lara From: Anne Alexander [mailto:annebizcoach@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, November 09, 2012 2:33 PM To: Lara Cc: Brad Blanton; Brandon Enget; Maggie Doyle Subject: Re: Radical Honesty Petition filed to Supreme Court..... Request to Brad Lara - Brad is leaving for Europe tomorrow and is super busy. He gets 100+ emails every day so he may not be able to respond soon. thanks for understanding, anne
10
From: Lara [mailto:jmcswan@mweb.co.za] Sent: Friday, November 09, 2012 3:58 PM To: 'Anne Alexander' Cc: 'Brad Blanton'; 'Brandon Enget'; 'Maggie Doyle' Subject: 2 Short 'Yes' or 'No' questions for Brad Hi Anne, Thanks for response. I doubt he receives a hundred emails, informing him of the opportunity to inform the United States Supreme Court of his ‘interest’ whether ‘Practicing Radical Honesty’ should be considered First Amendment Religious speech. By when can he answer the following questions, or delegate the question to someone who can answer them: 1. YES, or NO: Is Brad going to inform the Supreme Court of his interest or lack of interest that Practicing Radical Honesty’ should be considered First Amendment Religious speech? 2. If YES: By when? 3. YES or NO: Is Brad going to inform the Radical Honesty community, or delegate someone to do it for him; of the opportunity to inform the United States Supreme Court of their ‘interest’ whether ‘Practicing Radical Honesty’ should be considered First Amendment Religious speech? 4. If YES, whom, and BY WHEN? If interested: Attached is an even more simplified ‘Notice of Interest’ Brief letter. One for Brad, and one for whomever is delegated to inform any other members of Radical Honesty, who may wish to inform the court of their interest. It takes less than 3 minutes to fill out. And will take less than 5 minutes for Brad’s assistant to print, copy and stick in envelopes. Thanks, Lara From: Brad Blanton [mailto:brad@radicalhonesty.com] Sent: Friday, November 09, 2012 4:23 PM To: Lara Cc: 'Anne Alexander'; 'Brandon Enget'; 'Maggie Doyle' Subject: Re: 2 Short 'Yes' or 'No' questions for Brad the answer is NO to everything Lara. brad From: Lara [mailto:jmcswan@mweb.co.za] Sent: Friday, November 09, 2012 11:39 PM To: 'Brad Blanton' Cc: 'Anne Alexander'; 'Brandon Enget'; 'Maggie Doyle' Subject: RE: 2 Short 'Yes' or 'No' questions for Brad Thanks Brad. I appreciate you for your response. I appreciate you for saying no. Thanks. Enjoy Europe Lara
11
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 ________________________________________________________________ PETITIONER’S CONSENT TO ALL AMICUS CURIAE ARGUMENTS ________________________________________________________________
Petitioner herewith consents to any party who wishes to file an Amicus Curiae Brief to the court, in this matter, irrespective of the content of their argument.
Lara Johnstone, In Forma Pauperis, Pro Se P O Box 5042 George East, 6539, South Africa Tel: +27-44 870 7239 | Cel: +27-71 170 1954 Email: habeusmentem@mweb.co.za 04 November 2012
~1
· REGISTERED LETTER GEREGISTREERDE BRIEF
Postage paid
Post Office
R
I Versekering
R
Total/ Totaal
R
Insurance
(with an insurance option/met 'n versekeringsopsie)
R
Service fee I Diensgeld
Insured value of contents R Initial of accepting.. officer
"1
The value of the contents of this letter is as indicated and compensation is not payable for a letter received unconditionally. Compensation is limited to R1DO.OO. No compensation is payable without documentary letters only.
proof.
Optional
insurance
up to R2 000.00
is available
and applies
to domestic
registered
INTERNATIONA~ REGISTERED ~ETTER
.
ShaR<;}>/Im'(J fP1 wMnaq;~.za
Die waarde van die inhoud van hierdie brief is soos aangedui en vergoeding sal nie betaal word vir 'n briefwat sondervoorbehoud ontvang word nie. Vergoeding is beperk tot R100.00. Geenvergoeding is sonder dokumentere bewys betaalbaar nie. Opsionele versekering tot R2 000.00 is beskikbaar en is sJegsop binnelandse geregisteerde briewe van toepassing.
Paraaf van CUSTOMER
COpy J\TTvnn.n .••.•~.~
TAX
aaneem-
CONI00063
beampte
._
INVOICE
----------------------------------------Refund
terms
and
conditions
apply
KNYSNA RD ----------------------------------------South
African
Post
GEORGE
Office
Limited
OOS
11 : 08 : 41
10-NOV-2012
TXN
vm684020 20755
NO.
Teller
40002670
Id
TAX
INVOICE
ALL PRICES
VAT #4650101142 VAT
INCLUSIVE
VAT DOES NOT APPLY TO ITEMS MARKED ----------------------------------------Receipt
for SA Post
Products -------------3.95 0.30 2.00 R160.00 AMOUNT PRODUCT --------------------------14 % VAT TOTALBAG@ ML MISER-------------4 SUBTOTAL STMP R20 R2 8TH DEF 30C STP
-----~--
*
Office
or Services
-------
1 QTY8
------------R166.25 R20.43
----------------------------------------TRANSACTION
TOTAL
R166.25 -----------------------
-----
.....
R166.25
CASH
--------------------------VAT TOTAL
@
14 %
R20.43 ---------------------------
------------------------------------------
D~Stamp
I
--'"
~ I ~
-
\
\i \
\
1 ~atun1stempel