12-11-16: USSC: Clerk: William K Suter: Alien v. RCFP

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES OFFICE OF THE CLERK WASHINGTON, DC 20543-0001 November 16,2012

Lara Johnstone P.O. Box 5042 George East, 6539 South Africa, RE: Alien on a Pale Blue Dot v. Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, et al.

Dear Ms. Johnstone: In reply to your letter or submission, received November 16,2012, I regret to inform you that the Court is unable to assist you in the matter you present.

Under Article III of the Constitution, the jurisdiction of this Court extends only to the consideration of cases or controversies properly brought before it trom lower courts in accordance with federal law and filed pursuant to the Rules of this Court. The Court does not give advice or assistance or answer legal questions on the basis of correspondence.

The correspondence with the Clerk of the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces does not appear to constitute a court order for the purposes of invoking this Court's jurisdiction.

Your papers are herewith returned.

The Rules of this Court are enclosed.

Sincerely,

By:

//

C/~ -L/~

Jacob / illi~. . Travers W Suter, Clerk ;(202) 479-3039

C/

Enclosures

J

No.

3Jn tbe

_

~upreme

QCourtof tbe mniteb

~tates

Alien on Pale Blue Dot

v.

Reporters

Committee

for Freedom of the Press (RCFP), et al

Respondents

PROOF OF SERVICE

I, Lara Johnstone, do swear and declare that on this date, 01 November, 2012, as required by Supreme Court Rule 29 I have the enclosed MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS and PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI on each party to the above proceeding or that party's counsel, and on every other person required to be served, by either (a) with parties consent!; served them per em ail, the documents attached in PDF format; or (b) by depositing an envelope containing the above documents in International Mail properly addressed ii-"--- __• to each of them and with Airmail postage prepaid. "f4~ ->.

J1

I The names and addresses

<-c

{"i"

of those served are as follows:

C1

t '-" •

,.

OF;

f~1!""

~.

,<:.: .. ~'

-~....

,~

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

f

.~,,...

!;;':i;~~

I Email service stated: "PLEASE NOTE: CONSENT TO EMAIL SERVICE: In consideration of (a) my In Forma Pauperis Status; and (b) costs ofInternational Airmail Postage to USA from South Africa; and (c) saving paper and transportation energy: If you require a copy of this brief in hardcopy, sent by International Airmail Postage, please notify me of such request. In the absence of such request, I shall conclude that you consent to being served by email."

Solicitor General of the United States

Capt. Judge Advocate Chad M. Fisher

Room 5614, Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., Washington, D. C. 20530â&#x20AC;&#x201C;0001 (202) 514-2217 Email: SupremeCtBriefs@usdoj.gov

U.S. Army Legal Services Agency 9275 Gunston Rd. Ft. Belvoir, VA 22060 Tel: (703) 693-0783 Email: Chad.m.fisher.mil@mail.mil

United States Government

Office of the Judge Advocate General

Transparency Courtesy Copies: William A. DeCicco

Chief Judge Col. Denise Lind

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

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

Clerk of the Court

U.S. Army Trial Judiciary, 1st Judicial Cir.

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 I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed on: 01 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

ii

No.

_

3Jutbt ~Upttmt ~ourt of tbt mutttb ~tatts Alien on Pale Blue Dotl Petjtionel' v.

Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press (RCFP), et al Respondents

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

The Petitioner asks leave to file the attached petition for a writ of certiorari without prepayment of costs and to proceed in forma paupel1s.

Petitioner has previously been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis in the following South Mrican court(s): (i)

Cape Town High Court: 22/09/2009 Clerk: Ms. VP Fassie Divorce proceedings from husband in prison in America: The appointed Attorney withdrew

from representing

Petitioner,

when Petitioner

refused to sign documentation that was inaccurate and deceptive, and Attorney refused to allow Petitioner to submit her own radical honesty affidavit.

Petitioner has not previously been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis in any United States Court.

Petitioner's hereto.

affidavit or declaration in support of this motion is attached

-. v:-.u f 7:iÂŁCF:ii~

I

I

I

fnv

I

G 2012

See: (1) ICJ: Opinion ofWeeramantfy J; (2)" 1S~Amendmeht, Sherbert v. Verner, Wisconsin v. Yoder, Gonzales v. 0 Centro Espirit~ BeneficehfelU~do Vegetal, RFRA (3) Annex E: Radical Honesty Religion; (4) Johnstone, L (2012/09/24), Pg.1 "alien on Pale Blue Dot perspective"; (5) Johnstone, L (12/10/15): Petition for Reconsideration, para 65-68: Radical Honesty religion concept of 'I'.

1

I

AFFIDAVIT OR DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS I, Lara Johnstone, am the petitioner in the above-entitled case, cited as Alien on Pale Blue Dot. In support of my motion to proceed in forma pauperis, I state that because of my voluntary poverty I am unable to pay the costs of this case or to give security therefore, and I believe I am entitled to redress.

1. My husband, Demian Emile Johnson, has been in prison in California, since October 1982, for felony murder. We married in Folsom Prison on 11 October 1997, whereupon I processed the paperwork to become a legal resident (INS # A77 177 281; CA Drivers Licence #: CA: B9644585). I was arrested by San Francisco INS on 31 January 2002, and deported to South Africa on 03 March 2002, denied the right to return for 10 years. Attempts to resolve the matter with Pretoria Embassy and Johannesburg Homeland Security Department have been unsuccessful, as they state that the INS have lost my file.

Considering the reality that I probably shall never see my husband again, I considered filing for divorce. However I refused to lie on various affidavits, and the appointed Attorney refused to represent me, if I insisted on telling the truth. Consequently, I am still married, considered amicably separated, but have received no financial support from my husband at any time during our marriage.

As a result of my Ecocentric worldview (simplified by Dmitry Orlov as “being poor on purpose is much easier than being poor as a result of suddenly having less than you are accustomed to having. Voluntary poverty is a hell of a lot easier than involuntary poverty”), I live a subsistence lifestyle wherein I grow food for me and my parents, barter (vermicompost and guano fertilizer which I receive from cleaning a pigeon racer’s Aviary) for rent, internet access and food, and have as little contact with the financial Fiat currency Debt Based Economic Growth (exponential use of finite resources for short term profits) Consumptionist grid as possible. I run a small Vermicompost worm farm, all deliveries and transport is done by pedal power: bicycle and bicycle trailer.

Consequently, my income source’s, do not include any income from my husband, and my own are as follows: Self Employment: Average of approximately R500 ($50.00), or less per month.

Income from Real Property: $0.

Interests and Dividends: $0.

Gifts: $0 Alimony: $0.

Child Support: $0.

Retirement: $0.

Disability: $0.

Unemployment: $0.

Public Assistance: $0.

Other: $0.

Total Monthly Income: Approximately R500.00 ($50.00) 2. Employment history for past two years. As above. Self Employed: Gross Monthly Income: Average: R500.00 3. Spouse Employment History: California Prison, since 1982. Gross Monthly Pay: $0.

4. Money in Bank Account: Standard Bank: Savings Account: R6,000 ($600).

Spouse: $0 (as far as I am aware).

5. Assets: Home: Zero/None.

Motor Vehicle: Zero/None Other Assets: Zero/None.

Other Real Estate: Zero/None Bicycle & Trailer: 1

6. Every person or business owing me money. None .

7. Persons who rely on me for support: None.

8. Average Monthly Expenses: I live with my parents, whereby I pay rent by barter. In exchange for looking after the house, when they go away, growing food, and providing compost and fertilizer, I receive free rent, electricity, toiletries and internet. Consequently: Rent or Mortgage Payment: $0.

Cellphone: Approx $10/year.

Home Maintenance: $0.

Food: $0.

Clothing: Secondhand: $20/year.

Laundry: $0.

Medical/Dental: $0 (Eat and live healthy & embrace death: be fully alive) Transportation: $0 (Pedal power) Recreation: $0 (Internet) Insurance: $0 Taxes: $0.

Installment Payments: $0.

Alimony: $0 / Other: $0.

Regular Expenses: Bicycle service, broken bucket, etc): Approx: $20/year.

Total: Approx: $50 per year; about $4. per month.

9. I expect no major changes in my monthly income or expenses, or in my assets or liabilities for the next 12 months.

10. I will not be paying an attorney any money for services in connection with this case, including the completion of this form.

11. I will not be paying anyone other than an attorney any money for services in connection with this case, including the completion of this form.

12. As stated above: See Ecocentric Worldview.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed on: 31 October , 2012

________________________________ Lara Johnstone

No. ____________________________________

In the Supreme Court of the United States Alien on Pale Blue Dot1

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, 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 October 31, 2012

See: (1) ICJ: Opinion of Weeramantry J; (2) 1 ST Amendment, Sherbert v. Verner, Wisconsin v.

Yoder, Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal, RFRA, AIRFA, and RLUIPA (3) Annex C: Radical Honesty Religion; (4) Johnstone, L (2012/09/24), Pg.1 “alien on Pale Blue Dot perspective”; (5) Johnstone, L (12/10/15): Petition for Reconsideration, para 65-68: Radical Honesty religion concept of ‘I’.

1

QUESTIONS PRESENTED: 1. Whether the CAAF decision -- in conflict with other Circuit Court Standards -- that Petitioner’s Pro Se Ecocentric Amicus, which met restrictive ‘search for truth’2, ‘avoid argument duplication’3, ‘presents new ideas, arguments, theories, insights, facts and data’, ‘speaks on behalf of an unrepresented party4 and ‘presents a unique perspective’5 should be rejected -- whereas RCFP Amicus which only met broad standards, but was approved -- was (i) a

procedural

due

process

failure;

(ii)

Anthropocentric

‘viewpoint

discrimination’, (iii) a violation of Petitioner’s “Religious Free speech’ rights.

2. Unlike most religions, Futilitarians Practicing Radical Honesty (PRH) religious speech do not practice ‘Public Relations Image Management’: If PRH ‘religious speech’ is to a Futilitarian, what wearing a turban/hijab is to a Sikh/Muslim, Proselytizing door-to-door is for a Jehovah’s Witness; does the courts ‘indecent language’ rule of general applicability rejection of Petitioner’s PRH religious speech Amicus pass the ‘Sherbert Test’6?

3. If Laws of Nature dictate that Sustainable Security is the Sine Qua Non7 for All Manmade Rights: Does Peak NNR/Oil require an equal protection clause reconsideration of Santa Clara County8 Corporate Personhood to include Mineral King9 Locus Standi for Nature’s Resources?

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

Craig v. Harney 331 U.S. 367 (1947) 4 Sierra Club v. Morton 405 U.S. 727 (1972): Justice William O’Douglas dissenting 5 The Voices for Choices v. Illinois Bell Telephone Company 339 F.3d 542 (7th Cir. 2003).

6 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 7 ICJ: Opinion of Weeramantry J in the Case Concerning the Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Project 8 Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company, 118 U.S. 394 (1886) 9 Sierra Club v. Morton 405 U.S. 727 (1972): Justice William O’Douglas dissenting 2 3

ii

PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING: The parties to the proceeding in the court whose decision is the subject of this petition is as follows: Petitioner was a Pro Se Amicus Curiae Applicant.

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 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 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.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS: Petition for Writ of Certiorari .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... 01 Opinions Below .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... 02 Jurisdiction .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. … .. 02 Constitutional and Statutory Provisions Involved .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 02-03 Statement of the Case .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .03-06 Reasons for Granting the Writ .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..06-40 1. Amici are important contributors to judicial decision making, all viewpoints which pass relevant broad or restrictive tests arguments should be considered .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..06-08 2. USCAAF decision is a departure from Supreme Court & Appellate Court Standards .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 08-11 3. Courts Reasons for ‘discretionally’ rejecting Petitioner’s Amicus: (i) Judicial Discretion, (ii) Pro Se Non-Party, (iii) Not an Attorney, (iv) Indecent Language, and (v) lack of coherent argument; are not justified. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..11-25 3a. Courts ‘Pro Se Non-Party’ and ‘not an attorney’ Reasons for rejecting Petitioner’s Amicus are not justified. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..11-14 3b. Expert Laypersons frequently file Pro Se Amici Briefs where their expertise information is relevant and is, or may be helpful to the court, to resolve the dispute in question. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . 14-20 3b.i.

Petitioner as Expert: What is an Expert? .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 17-19

3b.ii. Petitioner as Expert: Ecocentric Sustainable Security critic of Falling Man Syndrome Anthropocentric jurisprudence .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 19-20 3b.iii. Petitioner as Expert: Practicing Radical Honesty Culture’s Religious Speech .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 20-20 3c. Courts ‘Indecent Language’ Reasons for rejecting Petitioner’s Practicing Radical Honesty SansPR Religious Speech Amicus are not justified .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 20-24 3d. Courts ‘Judicial Discretion’ Reasons for rejecting Petitioner’s Radical Honesty SansPR Religious Speech Amicus are not justified .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .24-24 3e. Courts ‘Lack of Coherent argument’ (Read: lack of Politically Correct Anthropocentric’ argument) Reasons for rejecting Petitioner’s Amicus are not justified .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..24-25 iv

4. Petitioner’s Coherent Pro Se Expert Layperson Amicus provides Court with Ecocentric Sustainable Security ‘Laws of Nature’ are Sine Qua Non of all other Rights and Radical Honesty Religious Speech Information Beyond its Notice or Expertise to assist Bigger Picture ‘Rule of Law’ Judicial Decision making.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 25-40 4a. Inform Court of Correction: The Laws of Nature determine that Sustainability is the Sine Qua Non for All Manmade Rights: If Anthropocentric ‘Rule of Law’ Courts exists to enable Law and Order, i.e. social conditions to reduce conflict; it must confront Laws of Nature Peak NNR/Oil Ecological Tipping Point reality’s demand for appropriate reduction of all Manmade Rights .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .26-29 4b. Inform Court of Information: Role of Mainstream Media to aggravate and profit from conflict, by abusing their publicity power in censoring information about procreation and consumption carrying capacity laws of nature, which reduce conflict. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..29-30 4c. State of the System: Peak NNR’s impending Crisis of Conflict, require Anthropocentric Jurisprudence and Media’s Abuse of Publicity Power, to amend their aggravating resource scarcity conduct. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..30-34 4d. State of the System: Impending Ecological Peak NNR Crisis of Conflict places a higher burden upon the court to (a) confront Anthropocentric Jurisprudence Errors, and (b) hold Media accountable for its abuse of publicity power aggravation of, and profit from, conflict. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . 34-35 4e. Peak NNR’s impending Crisis of Conflict justify a reconsideration of Corporate Personhood: Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company and Locus Standi for Pale Blue Dot: Sierra Club v. Morton? .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 35-38 4f. Is Pfc. Manning, sincerely Ecocentrically motivated, or being coerced to being a martyr in the Anthropocentric Media’s Abuse of Publicity Power Left vs. Right wing Propaganda War? .. .. .. .. .. ..38-39 4g. A Post Peak NNR/Oil, Laws of Nature Sustainable Security World requires the limitation of rights, to ‘Breeding/Consumption War Combatants’ and/or those who refuse to practice Scientific Journalism .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .39-40 Conclusion .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 40-40 INDEX TO APPENDICES: A: 09 Oct 2012: Decision of Court of Appeals for Armed Forces. .. .. .. …. .. .. 41

v

B: 16 Oct 2012: USCAAF Decision Denying Reconsideration .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 42 C: 22 Oct 2012: USCAAF Further Information .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 43 D: The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 44 E: SA Constitutional Court Order: Radical Honesty Culture .. .. .. .. .. .. . 45-46 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CITED Cases

Pg No.

International Court of Justice: Opinion of Weeramantry J in the Case Concerning the GabcikovoNagymaros Project10 (Hungary v Slovakia) (1998) 37 International Legal Materials 162 206. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..18, 26 ICTY: International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia The Prosecutor v. Stanislav Galić11, IT-98-29-T (5 Dec 2003) .. ... ... … .. .. .. .. 38 Nuremberg: United States Military Tribunal Rendulic Rule12: The Hostages Trial: Trial of Wilhelm List and Others, 8th July, 1947, to 19 February, 1948; Law Reports of Trials of War Criminals, Selected and Prepared by The United Nations War Crimes Commission, Vol VIII, pg.34, 43-45,67-69 .. ... ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... ... .. .. .. .. .. .. 38 Supreme Court: Craig v. Harney 331 U.S. 367 (1947) .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 01, 08-09, 24 Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal, 546 U.S. 418 (2006) .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... 11, 18, 20, 22-25 Grutter v. Bollinger 539 U.S. 306 (2003) .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . 36 In re Oliver, 333 U.S. 257 (1948) .. .... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .04, 14, 27-29 , 34, 38 ,40 Jaffee v. Redmond 518 U.S. 1 (1996) .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. 01, 06, 08-09 Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 646 (1961) .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 06 Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973) .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... . 06 Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978) .. .. .. .. 06 Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company, 118 U.S. 394 (1886) .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... ... .. .. .. ….. . .. .. .. .. .. 35-37 Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963) .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .... 11, 18, 20, 22-25 Sierra Club v. Morton 405 U.S. 727 (1972) .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 01, 09, 35 Sweatt v. Painter, 339 U.S. 629 (1950) .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 06

issuu.com/js-ror/docs/970925_icj-weeramantry_husl www.icty.org/case/galic/4 12 www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/Law-Reports_Vol-8.pdf 10 11

vi

Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288, 300 (1989) .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 06 Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U.S. 1 (1949) .. .. .. .. .. .. .. … .. .. .. . .11, 18, 20, 22-25 United States v. Carolene Products Company, 304 U.S. 144 (1938) .. …..

35-37

Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972) .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 11, 18, 20, 22-25 Appellate Court American College of Obstetricians v. Thornburgh, 699 F.2d 644 (3d Cir. 1983) (Higginbotham, J., dissenting) .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 06 Eldred v. Reno, 239 F.3d 372 (CADC 2001) .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 06 In re Paschen, 296 F.3d 1203, 1209 (11th Cir. 2002) .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. …. .. .. 06 Neonatology Associates v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue 293 F.3d 128 (3d Cir. 2002). .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..08, 10-11 The Voices for Choices v. Illinois Bell Telephone Company 339 F.3d 542 (7th Cir. 2003) .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .. 01, 08-09 Thompson v. County of Franklin, 314 F.3d 79, 98 (2d Cir. 2002) .. …. .. .. .. .. . 06 Statutes and Rules: US Constitution: 1st Amendment .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .... 02, 18, 20, 22-25 US Constitution: 14th Amendment .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. …. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 02, 36 United States Declaration of Independence .. .. .. .. 03, 18-19, 21, 25-26, 29, 37-38 The Religious Freedom Restoration Act .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 02-03, 18, 20, 22-25 Briefs: Johnstone, L (2012/09/13): Founding Affidavit of Lara Johnstone in support of Notice of Motion to Proceed as Amicus Curiae13, USCA: 12-8027/AR: CCR v USA .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. … .. .. .. 04, 12 Johnstone, L (2012/09/24): Brief in Propria Persona by Amici Curiae

Lara Johnstone In Support of an Ecocentric Wild Law Sustainable Security Perspective14, in CAAF Case USCA: 12-8027/AR .. .. .. .. .. .. .29-31, 33

Johnstone, L (12/10/15): Petition for Reconsideration15, in CAAF Case USCA: 12-8027/AR: CCR v USA .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. ..05, 07-08, 31, 38 Other: Alpert, Jack (04/01/04): Footprint vs. Freedom16 (skil.org) .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .... .. 39 Alpert, Jack (04/07/24): Peace seekers have no plan for enduring peace17 (skil.org) .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .... .. .. 39 issuu.com/js-ror/docs/120914_ccrvusa-rhamicus issuu.com/js-ror/docs/120924_ccrvusa-amicus 15 issuu.com/js-ror/docs/121015_caaf-pet 16 www.skil.org/position_papers_folder/Footprint_vs_freedom.html 17 www.skil.org/position_papers_folder/Peaceniks_Wake_up.html 13 14

vii

Alpert, Jack (Aug 2011): Rapid Population Decline; or Civilisation Collapse18 (skil.org) .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . . 27, 29, 34, 40 Alpert, Jack (Feb 2012): Falling Man Syndrome: Human Predicament: Better Common Sense Required19 (skil.org) .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... 29, 34-36, 40 Bartlett, A (2004/07): Thoughts on Long-Term Energy Supplies: Scientists and the Silent Lie20, Physics Today .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. 19, 30 Bartlett, A (2008): Why have scientists succumbed to political correctness?21, Teachers Clearinghouse for Science and Society Education Newsletter, Vol. 27, No. 2, Spring 2008, Pg. 21 .. …. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . 19, 30 Campbell, Colin (2 May 2005): The Second Great Depression: Causes & Responses: Financial Consequences of Peak Oil22, (ASPO) .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .32 Clugston, C (2012): Scarcity: Humanity’s Final Chapter23 (Booklocker.com Inc) .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 18, 26, 33 Davis, Jack: Improving CIA Analytic Performance: Analysts and the Policymaking Process24; Sherman Kent Center for Intelligence Analysis Occasional Papers: Volume 1, Number 2, Sherman Kent Center .. .. .. .. .. .. .38 Hansen, E (2011/07/13): Manning-Lamo Chat Logs Revealed25, Wired .. .. . 21, 30 Hardin, G (1968/12/13): Tragedy of the Commons26, Science .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. 26 Hardin, G (1980): Limited World, Limited Rights, Biological Sciences, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA Commentaries: Rights and Liberties, Society, 17 (4):5-8. May/June 1980 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 28, 40 Hardin, Garrett (1996): Stalking the Wild Taboo: Chapter 21: The Cybernetics of Competition, pg 201-205 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ….. .. 27 Klare, MT (07.03.2006): The Coming Resources Wars27 , Tom Paine ... .. .. .. .. 31 Koppel, T (2000): CIA and Pentagon on Overpopulation and Resource Wars28, Nightline .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 31 Maher, MT (1997/03): How and Why Journalists Avoid the PopulationEnvironment Connection29, 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 .. .. .. .. .. .... 19, 30

sqswans.weebly.com/rapid-population-decline.html sqswans.weebly.com/human-predicament.html 20 www.albartlett.org/articles/art2004july.html 21 www.albartlett.org/articles/art2008spring.html 22 www.energybulletin.net/stories/2005-05-04/second-great-depression-causes-responses 23 www.nnrscarcity.com | issuu.com/js-ror/docs/clugston_scarcity_pg31-55 24 www.cia.gov/library/kent-center-occasional-papers/pdf/OPNo2.pdf 25 www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/07/manning-lamo-logs/ 18 19

26

www.garretthardinsociety.org/articles/art_tragedy_of_the_commons.html

www.tompaine.com/articles/2006/03/07/the_coming_resource_wars.php [1/2] youtu.be/7OJeUAx0y-g [2/2] youtu.be/s22yr-Fvl5Q 29 issuu.com/js-ror/docs/mahertm_journo-env-pop-connection 27 28

viii

Military Advisory Board (MAB)(April 2007): National Security and Climate Change30, CAN .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 19 Miller, Greg (19 October 2012): CIA seeks to expand drone fleet, officials say31 (Wash Post) .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .37 Murphy, R (2006/10/24): US Army Strategy of the Environment32, Office of the Dep. Asst. Sec. of the Army, Environment, Safety & Occup.

Health: Assistant for Sustainability. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 04, 19, 31 Parthemore, C & Nagl, J (2010/09/27): Fueling the Future Force:

Preparing the Department of Defense for a Post-Petroleum Environment33, Center for a New American Security (CNAS) .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. 31

Peters, R (1996): The Culture of Future Conflict, US Army War College: Parameters: Winter 1995-96, pp. 18-27 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 31, 33 Rickover, H (1957/05/14): Energy Resources and our Future34, speech to the Minnesota State Medical Association .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .31 Ruppert, MC (2004): Crossing the Rubicon: The Decline of the American Empire at the End of the Age of Oil (NSP) .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . 31 Schultz, S (2010/09/01): [German] Military Study Warns of Potentially Drastic Oil Crisis35, Der Spiegel .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. …. . 31 Simmons, M (2000/09/30): Revisiting the Limits to Growth: Could the Club of Rome Have Been Correct, After All? .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ….. .. 31 Stone, Christopher D. (1972): Should Trees Have Standing--Toward Legal Rights for Natural Objects36,. Southern. California Law Review 45: 450–87. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. 36 United States Army & TRADOC (2012): US Army Unified Quest 2012 Fact Sheet37, Unified Quest 2012 is the Army Chief of Staff's annual Title 10 Future Study Plan (FSP) .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 31 United States Joint Forces Command (15 March 2010): Command releases report38 examining the future, FJCOM39 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ….. 31

www.cna.org/reports/climate www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/cia-seeks-to-expand-drone-fleet-officialssay/2012/10/18/01149a8c-1949-11e2-bd10-5ff056538b7c_story.html 32 www.cecer.army.mil/techreports/ERDC-CERL_TR-07-9/Session%20I/RichardMurphy.pdf 33 www.cnas.org/files/documents/publications/ CNAS_Fueling%20the%20Future%20Force_NaglParthemore.pdf 34 www.theoildrum.com/node/4394 35 www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,715138,00.html 36 isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic498371.files/Stone.Trees_Standing.pdf 37 www.army.mil/article/68379/Unified_Quest_2012___Fact_Sheet/ 38 www.jfcom.mil/newslink/storyarchive/2010/JOE_2010_o.pdf 39 www.jfcom.mil/newslink/storyarchive/2010/pa031510.html 30 31

ix

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI As per her Radical Honesty – I am, therefore I Think1 - religious practice Petitioner Lara Johnstone is herein referred to as Alien2 on Pale Blue Dot3, and respectfully prays that a writ of certiorari be issued to review the ruling of the Court of Appeal for Armed Forces in this case. Petitioner’s Pro Se Alien on Pale

Blue Dot Ecocentric Amicus was denied although it met all restrictive ‘search for truth’ (Jaffee v. Redmond4), avoid argument duplication (Craig v. Harney5), ‘presents new ideas, arguments, theories, insights, facts and data’, ‘speaks on behalf of an unrepresented party’ (Sierra Club v. Morton6) and ‘presents a unique perspective and specific information’ (The Voices for Choices v. Illinois Bell

Telephone Company7) Supreme Court and Seventh Circuit Court Standards, indicating possible viewpoint discrimination or lack of transparency by the court8.

In the Western worldview self-identity is based upon Descartes ‘I think, therefore I am’, where having, including ‘having a name’ is considered part of ‘I’, and ‘my’ individual identity. In Radical Honesty’s self-identity concepts are based partially on an Eastern Existential Being (as opposed to Possession Having) worldview, where the physical being is the primary source of identity, ‘I am, therefore I think’, perspectives. The beings existence in the moment and particular circumstance and the relationship of the being to other beings and events, is ‘I’, as opposed to the minds ‘having’ socio-political status ego of an officially recognized name for posterity, as ‘I’.

2 Johnstone, L (2012/09/24): Footnote 3: Hardin (1980) .. “Man from Mars”, that thoroughly rational, inquisitive being, who asks earthlings to explain what they do in terms that can be understood by an intelligence completely free of all traditional terrestrial beliefs, assumptions, and prejudices.”

3 Johnstone, L (2012/09/24): Footnote 4: Sagan C: Pale Blue Dot: “Consider again that dot .. a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam. .. .. Think of the rivers of blood spilled by generals and emperors so that, they could become the momentary masters of a fraction of a dot. Our posturing, our imagined self-importance, the delusion that we have some privileged position in the Universe, are challenged by this point of pale light….. The significance of our lives and our fragile planet is determined only by our own wisdom and courage. We are the custodians of life's meaning… knowledge is preferable to ignorance. Better to embrace hard truth than a reassuring fable. If we crave some cosmic purpose, then let us find ourselves a worthy goal…. Once we overcome our fear of being tiny, we find ourselves on the threshold of a vast Universe that utterly dwarfs — in time, space, and potential — the tidy anthropocentric proscenium of our ancestors.”

4 518 U.S. 1 (1996).

5 331 U.S. 367 (1947) 6 405 U.S. 727 (1972): Justice William O’Douglas dissenting 7 339 F.3d 542 (7th Cir. 2003).

8 Neonatology Assocs. at 133 “A restrictive policy with respect to granting leave to file may also create at least the perception of viewpoint discrimination. Unless a court follows a policy of either granting or denying motions for leave to file in virtually all cases, instances of seemingly disparate 1

1

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 this 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 respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or 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 treatment are predictable. A restrictive policy may also convey an unfortunate message about the openness of the court.”

2

shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor 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 .. 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. ..”

Pursuant to this Court’s Rule 14.1(f), freedom of religion legislation, The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, Pub. L. No. 103-141, 107 Stat. 1488 (November 16, 1993), codified at 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb through 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-4 (RFRA), are set forth in the Appendix.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

United States vs. Private Bradley Manning court martial9 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”10); (ii) 250,000 United States diplomatic cables (Cablegate11); and (iii) 500,000 army reports from Iraq (Iraq War logs12) and Afghanistan (Afghan War logs13).

www.alexaobrien.com/secondsight/wikileaks/bradley_manning/ appellate_exhib/list_of_appellate_exhibits_us_v_pfc_manning.html 10 www.collateralmurder.com 11 wikileaks.org/cablegate.html 12 wikileaks.org/irq/ 13 wikileaks.org/afg/ 9

3

Center of Constitutional Rights, et al vs. USA and Military Judge Denise Lind14, 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 Amicus15 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 order16, the RCFP have been approved as Amici by the court.

On 14 and 24 September 2012, Petitioner filed an Application to Proceed as an Amicus17, to provide the court with a Radical Honoursty Transparency culture Wild Law Sustainable Security18 - Alien on Pale Blue Dot - perspective to parties Anthropocentric dispute19. The Pro Se 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 power20, thereby abusing the credibility of the court. Petitioner urged the Court to “support Pfc Manning to receive a Truthseeker trial, by providing primary access to controversial court submissions or transcripts to journalists or publications who practice scientific journalism, who are not preferential about publicly exposing any and all abuse of power”.

ccrjustice.org/ourcases/current-cases/ccr-et-al-v-usa-and-lind-chief-judge ccrjustice.org/files/RCFP%20amicus%20brief.pdf 16 ccrjustice.org/files/supplemental%20briefing%20order.pdf 17 Johnstone, L (2012/09/13) 18 Murphy, R (2006/10/24): 19 Johnstone, L (2012/09/24) 20 In re Oliver, 333 U.S. 257 (1948) 14 15

4

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 21 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 responded22 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

21 22

Johnstone, L (12/10/15) sqswans.weebly.com/1/post/2012/10/121016_uscaaf-res.html

5

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.”

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION 1. Amici are important contributors to judicial decision making, all viewpoints which pass relevant broad or restrictive tests arguments should be considered: Amicus filings have substantially affected the development of considerable Supreme Court substantive jurisprudence, figuring prominently in such landmark opinions as Sweatt v. Painter, Regents of Cal. v. Bakke, and Roe v. Wade

23

and

contributed to judicial decision making in Lawrence v. Texas24, Republican Party of

Minnesota v. White25, Jaffee v. Redmond26, U.S. Bancorp Mortgage Co. v. Bonner Mall Partnership27, Winthrow v. Williams28, Mapp v. Ohio29, Teague v. Lane30, Gregg v. Georgia31, and Sullivan v. Zebley32.

Thornburgh, 699 F.2d at 647 (Higginbotham, J., dissenting) (citing Sweatt v. Painter, 340 U.S. 846 (1950), Regents of Cal. v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978), and Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973); Joseph D. Kearney & Thomas W. Merrill, The Influence of Amicus Curiae Briefs on the Supreme Court, 148 U. PA. L. REV. 767-74 (2000); John Harrington, Amici Curiae in the Federal Courts of Appeals: How Friendly Are They?, 55 CASE W. RES. L. REV. 675-76 (2005); see Gregory A. Caldeira & John R. Wright, Organized Interests and Agenda Setting in the U.S. Supreme Court , 82 AM. POL. SCI. REV. 1109, 1122 (1988). In Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 646 n.3 (1961), the Court adopted a rule that only an amicus espoused, and in Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288, 300 (1989), it ruled on an issue “raised only in an amicus brief,” but the Justices generally do not address issues that only amici raise. See, e.g., N.J. v. N.Y., 523 U.S. 767, 781 n.3 (1998); Del Costello v. Int‘l Bhd. Of Teamsters, 462 U.S. 151, 154 n.2 (1983); see also Joseph D. Kearney & Thomas W. Merrill, The Influence of Amicus Curiae Briefs on the Supreme Court, 148 U. PA. L. REV. 745 (2000); See Resident Council of Allen Parkway Vill. v. HUD, 980 F.2d 1043, 1049 (5th Cir. 1993). The rarefied nature of this debate is illuminated by the majority and dissenting opinions in Eldred v. Reno, 239 F.3d 372, 378, 383-84 (D.C. Cir. 2001), aff‘d on other grounds sub nom. Eldred v. Ashcroft, 537 U.S. 186 (2003); See, e.g., Al-Marri v. Pucciarelli, 534 F.3d 213, 221 n.3 (4th Cir. 2008) (Motz, J., concurring in the judgment); Thompson v. County of Franklin, 314 F.3d 79, 98 (2d Cir. 2002); Kootenai Tribe of Idaho v. Veneman, 313 F.3d 1094, 1116 n.19 (9th Cir. 2002); In re Paschen, 296 F.3d 1203, 1209 (11th Cir. 2002) 24 123 S. Ct. 2472, 2478-79, 2481-82 (2003).

25 536 U.S. 765, 776, 773, 788 n.15 (2002).

26 518 U.S. 1 (1996) 27 513 U.S. 18, 24 n.2 (1994) 28 507 U.S. 680, 690 n.6 (1993).

23

6

Federal Appeals Court rulings affected by Amicus brief arguments include:

Krzalic v. Republic Title Co33; Friedman v. Salomon/Smith Barney, Inc34, White v.

Ford Motor Co35, Community Health Center v. Wilson-Coker36, In re Volpert37, Federal Election Commission v. Christian Action Network38, Independent Petroleum Association v. Babbitt39, Bridges v. City of Bossier40, and United States ex rel. Fine v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc41.

Several empirical studies have ascertained that Amicus briefs have significantly influenced the Justicesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; determinations to grant petitions for writs of certiorari and the underlying Supreme Court decisions on the merits.42 Most judges and lawyers think Amicus briefs 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.43 Amicus briefs can provide important technical or

367 U.S. 643 (1961).

489 U.S. 288 (1989) 31 428 U.S. 153, 233-36 (Marshall, J., dissenting) 32 493 U.S. 521, 531, n.9, 534 n.13, 536 n.17 (1990) 33 314 F.3d 875, 877 881-82 (7th Cir. 2002).

34 313 F.3d 796, 799 (2d Cir. 2002).

35 312 F.3d 998, 1030 (9th Cir. 2002) (Graver, J., concurring in part, dissenting in part) 36 311 F.3d 132, 137 n.8, 139 (2d Cir. 2002).

37 110 F.3d 494, 499-500 (7th Cir. 1997) 38 110 F.3d 1049, 1061 (9th Cir. 1997) 39 92 F.3d 1248, 1258 (D.C. Cir 1996).

40 110 F.3d 1049, 1061 (9th Cir. 1997) 41 72 F.3d 740, 745 (9th Cir. 1995).

42 Johnstone, L (12/10/15): Pg.02-12,15-26 43 The Court will on occasion base its decision on a point or argument raised only in an amicus brief.

See, e.g., Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288, 300 (1989) (plurality opinion of O'Connor, J.) (ruling against petitioner on question of retroactivity even though the issue "has been raised only in an amicus brief"); Oregon ex. rel State Land Bd. v. Corvallis Sand & Gravel Co., 429 U.S. 363, 368 n.3, 382 (1977) (overruling an earlier case even though this action was urged only by amici); Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 646 n.3 (1961) (overruling Wolf v. Colorado, 338 U.S. 25 (1949), and adopting exclusionary rule in cases of Fourth Amendment violations by state officials, even though that course of action had been urged only by amicus ACLU). As a general rule, however, the Court will not address issues raised only by an amicus. See, e.g., DelCostello v. International Bhd. of Teamsters, 462 U.S. 151, 154 (1983) (citing United Parcel Sent., Inc. v. Mitchell, 451 U.S. 56, 60 (1981), and noting the Court's hesitation to address an issue raised only by an amicus).

29 30

7

background information which the parties have not supplied44; consequently Amicus participation can critically improve judicial decision-making.

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 also fosters important first amendment values, such as freedom of speech and the right to petition. 45 2. USCAAF decision is a departure from Supreme Court & Appellate Court Standards The USCAAF decision to reject Petitioner’s Amicus is in direct conflict with restrictive Supreme Court opinions -- Jaffee v. Redmond46 and Craig v. Harney47 -and all other restrictive 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 Appellate proceedings “to grant motions for leave to file amicus briefs unless it is obvious that the proposed briefs do not meet Rule 29's criteria as broadly interpreted”49, which requires the Supreme Court to exercise its Supervisory Powers. 50 Petitioner’s Amicus fulfils the criteria enunciated by Justice Scalia’s dissenting opinion in Jaffee v. Redmond51 in support of an ‘an amicus from an interested organisation devoted to pursuit of the truth, keeping the interest of truth Johnstone, L (12/10/15): Pg.02-12,15-26 Johnstone, L (12/10/15): Pg.02-12,15-26 46 518 U.S. 1 (1996) 47 331 U.S. 367 (1947) 48 339 F.3d 542 (7th Cir. 2003).

44 45

49

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

50

Johnstone, L (12/10/15): Pg.02-12,15-26 518 U.S. 1 (1996).

51

8

prominently-indeed primarily-in mind’52’. It also avoids repetition of parties arguments, as advocated53 by Justice Robert Jackson in Craig v. Harney54.

Petitioner’s Amicus fulfils the following restrictive requirements articulated

by Seventh Circuit Judge Posner in The Voices for Choices v. Illinois Bell

Telephone Company55 which incorporates National Organization for Women, Inc. v.

Scheidler56 and Ryan v. Commodity Futures Trading Commission by not essentially duplicating another parties brief57, fulfilling the criterion to “assist the judges by presenting ideas, arguments, theories, insights, facts, or data that are not to be found in the parties’ briefs”58; representing a party -- nature’s rights -- whom is inadequately represented (Sierra Club v. Morton59); having a direct interest in the matter; and having a “unique perspective or specific information that can assist the court beyond what the parties can provide.”60

“In its consideration of this case, the Court was the beneficiary of no fewer than 14 amicus briefs supporting respondents, most of which came from such organizations as the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychoanalytic Association, the American Association of State Social Work Boards, the Employee Assistance Professionals Association, Inc., the American Counseling Association, and the National Association of Social Workers. Not a single amicus brief was filed in support of petitioner. That is no surprise. There is no self-interested organization out there devoted to pursuit of the truth in the federal courts. The expectation is, however, that this Court will have that interest prominently-indeed, primarily-in mind. Today we have failed that expectation, and that responsibility.”

53 Craig v. Harney, 331 U.S. 367 (1947), at 397: “[I]t does not cite a single authority that was not available to counsel for the publisher involved, and does not tell us a single new fact except this one: "[The Association's] membership embraces more than 700 newspaper publishers whose publications represent in excess of eighty per cent of the total daily and Sunday circulation of newspapers published in this country.”

54 331 U.S. 367 (1947) 55 339 F.3d 542 (7th Cir. 2003).

56 223 F.3d 615 (7th Cir. 2000).

57 Voices for Choices, 339 F.3d at 544 (citing Scheidler, 223 F.3d at 617) 58 Voices for Choices, 339 F.3d at 545; see also Paul M. Collins, Jr., Friends of the Court: Examining the Influence of Amicus Curiae Participation in U.S. Supreme Court Litigation , 38 LAW & SOC’Y REV. 807, 815-16 (2004); Michael Rustad & Thomas Koenig, The Supreme Court and Junk Social Science: Selective Distortion in Amicus Briefs, 72 N.C. L. REV. 91, 94 (1993).

59 405 U.S. 727 (1972): Justice William O’Douglas dissenting 60 Voices for Choices, 339 F.3d at 545 (citing Scheidler, 223 F.3d at 616-17; Ryan, 125 F.3d at 1063); accord Am. Coll. of Obstetricians & Gynecologists v. Thornburgh, 699 F.2d 644, 645 (3d Cir. 1983) (regarding inadequate representation).

52

9

The Third Circuit opinion in Neonatology Associates v. Commissioner of

Internal Revenue61 sharply contrasts with, and essentially rejects, the line of Seventh

Circuit

precedent

that

restrictively

treats

amicus

participation.

Petitioner’s Amicus brief also meets all these broad and restrictive standards.

Judge Alito described the desirability criterion in Rule 29 as open-ended and argued that “a broad reading is prudent”62; because the judges who must resolve an amicus motion at an appeal’s rather nascent stage experience difficulty ascertaining the value of a brief and may not ultimately decide the case, the jurist found it “preferable to err on the side of granting leave.”63 Judge Alito’s arguments against a restrictive standard for accepting amici motions, include that (i) a restrictive approach might “create at least the perception of viewpoint discrimination”64; (ii) “may also convey an unfortunate message about” the court’s openness65; and (iii) is an “unpromising strategy for lightening a court’s work load” because skeptical scrutiny in the motions phase may be as timeconsuming as evaluation at the merits stage, and “unhelpful amicus briefs surely do not claim more than a very small part of a court’s time.” 66 Therefore he advised that the Third Circuit “would be well advised to grant motions for leave to file amicus briefs unless it is obvious that the proposed briefs do not meet Rule 29’s criteria as broadly interpreted,”67 and that he thought this approach comported

293 F.3d 128 (3d Cir. 2002).

Neonatology Assocs., 293 F.3d at 132.

63 See id. at 132-33. Judge Alito added that a merits panel can easily detect an unhelpful brief and simply disregard it but admonished that a good brief’s rejection means the panel “will be deprived of a resource.” Id. at 133.

64 Id. at 133 (“Unless a court follows a policy of either granting or denying motions for leave to file in virtually all cases, instances of seemingly disparate treatment are predictable.”).

65 Id. For views that agree with this idea and those cited supra in note 46 and accompanying text, see Boumediene v. Bush, 476 F.3d 934, 936 (D.C. Cir. 2006) 66 Neonatology Assocs., 293 F.3d at 133 67 See Neonatology Assocs., 293 F.3d at 133 61 62

10

“with the predominant practice in the courts of appeals” 68; to determined if the Amicus satisfies the interest, relevance, and desirability standards in the rule.69 3. Courts Reasons for rejecting Petitioner’s Amicus: (i) Judicial Discretion, (ii) Pro Se Non-Party, (iii) Not an Attorney, (iv) Indecent Language, and (v) lack of coherent argument are not justified.

The Clerk’s 22 October 2012 email, states: “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.”

Does the Court’s interest in enforcing Public Relations Image Management in its courts, outweigh Petitioner’s right to religious freedom. 70 3a. Courts ‘Pro Se Non-Party’ and ‘not an attorney’ Reasons for rejecting Petitioner’s Amicus are not justified: Appellants Interested Party: The Appellants in general profess to be acting on behalf of transparency for the benefit of “the public”71. Petitioner is an alien member of ‘the public’. Media who do not practice the transparency they preach, do See Neonatology Assocs., 293 F.3d at 133 (citing MICHAEL E. TIGAR AND JANE B. TIGAR, FEDERAL APPEALS-JURISDICTION AND PRACTICE 181 (3d ed. 1999); ROBERT L. STERN, APPELLATE PRACTICE IN THE UNITED STATES 307-08 (2d ed. 1989)); accord Am. Coll. of Obstetricians & Gynecologists v. Thornburgh, 699 F.2d 644, 646-47 (3d Cir. 1983) (Higginbotham, J., dissenting).

69 See Neonatology Assocs., 293 F.3d at 133; see also supra notes 9-11 and accompanying text. For additional analysis of the Third Circuit jurisprudence, see Garcia, Ruben J. (2008); Harrington, John (2005) 70 Sherbert v. Verner; Wisconsin v. Yoder; Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal, The Religious Freedom Restoration Act, Terminiello v. Chicago 71 “The public” is references 32 times in Appellants Petition for Extraordinary Relief Review. For example: Pg 4: "the public has been largely denied access" and "outside the public view" and "no transcripts of these proceedings have been made available to the public"; Pg 5: "public access to documents has been inexplicably denied"; Pg. 6: "any further restrictions on public access to the proceedings or documents therein only occur following notice to the public of any contemplated restrictions" 68

11

not represent her views: Honourable Sincere Peacenik scientific journalism.

Honourable means you Practice what you Preach. Sincere Peacenik is someone with Pay the Price for Peace Credibility: i.e. Pay the procreation and consumption price for peace. Scientific Journalism means you provide readers with direct access to original documents72. None of the Appellant parties arguments represent Petitioner’s “alien on Pale Blue Dot” public worldview:

Honourable Sincere

Peacenik scientific journalism.

Wikileaks Interested Party: An Appellant party to the case is Wikileaks.

Petitioner is a member of Friend of Wikileaks73 (FoWL: XF597374), and has been a vocal supporter of Wikileaks. Friends of WikiLeaks Manifesto75 suggests Friends of Wikileaks aim to do the following: “To defend WikiLeaks against attacks by, becoming informed and informing each other, promoting public awareness in the wider population, counteracting misinformation, online and offline .. addressing new and unforeseeable threats to WikiLeaks' continued functioning. .. by, .. keeping WikiLeaks strong so that it is able to defend its sources .. To defend the alleged sources of WikiLeaks, by .. defending the motives of whistleblowers.”

In terms of Honourable Sincere Peacenik scientific journalism, Wikileaks passes the scientific journalism test, but not the Honourable Sincere Peacenik test.

Johnstone, L (2012/09/13) : Para 37: “The applicant fully supports the Appellant and Supreme Court‘s arguments that “openness promotes not just public confidence in the criminal process but also accuracy in fact-finding and ultimate outcomes,” but disputes the alleged motives of (1) the Appellant‘s (except for the scientific journalism practiced by Wikileaks and Julian Assange) being “to cover the proceedings consistent with their journalistic standards and obligations;” and (2) the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press‘s being that of “meaningful reporting in the public interest‘”. Put simply: The schizophrenic Pied Piper churnalist cheerleaders for War; wish to bullshit the Court, they are principled anti-war protestors.”

73 wlfriends.org: Friends of WikiLeaks is a network of people from across the globe who defend WikiLeaks, its people, its alleged sources and its mission. We publicly and privately promote WikiLeaks and individuals and organisations aligned with the mission of WikiLeaks. This site will help you to join with people like you in your area and across the world. You will make new friends and new allies, care for treasured values and fight in common cause.

74 Screenshot: sqswans.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/8/7/13878165/421993_orig.png 75 wlfriends.org/about 72

12

If Wikileaks ‘Transparency Peacenik’ policy is not seriously committed to paying the Procreation and Consumption Price for Peace, and wants to hypocritically engage the Pentagon and other Nation’s Military Intelligence Organisations in a ‘Play Dirty’ Propaganda War, they invite attacks against Wikileaks and Wikileaks whistleblowers, and Wikileaks continued functioning. To engage honourable ethical Military Officials to protect Wikileaks continued functioning, Wikileaks should seriously consider passing the Honourable Sincere Peacenik tests; or have ‘Breeding/Consumption War combatant’ added to their locus standing status.

RFCP Amici/Media’s Public Interested Party: The RFCP Amici parties to the case argue they are representing ‘the public’76. Petitioner is an alien member of ‘the public’. Media who do not practice the transparency they preach, do not represent her views: Honourable Sincere Peacenik scientific journalism. Petitioner is unaware of any of the RFCP Amici who pass any of the Honourable Sincere Peacenik scientific journalism tests.

Petitioner’s Interest as Radical Honesty and Ecocentric Expert to expose Misrepresentations before the court.

Petitioner’s Motion for Leave to proceed as an Amicus, was not opposed, was filed as a Radical Honesty and Ecocentric lifestyle expert, which contained

The RFCP Amicus refers to “the public” 24 times, such as for example: Pg. vi: "disseminate news and information to the public"; Pg 2: "the overwhelming majority of records filed in Manning’s courtmartial have remained shielded from public view, even though the actual proceedings are largely open to the public." Pg 4: "If the public is to have any faith in its government generally and the justice administered by military tribunals specifically, it needs to have confidence that the system is operating in the open, where potential misconduct may be exposed." Pg 5: "Additionally, open access reassures the public that its government systems are working properly and correctly and enhances public scrutiny into and understanding of the judicial process." and "a right that “permits the public to participate in and serve as a check upon the judicial process “an essential component in our structure of self-government.” (“The knowledge that every criminal trial is subject to contemporaneous review in the forum of public opinion is an effective restraint on possible abuse of judicial power[.]”). Allowing such access “enhances both the basic fairness of the criminal trial and the appearance of fairness so essential to public confidence in the system.” Press-Enterprise Co. v.

Superior Court, 464 U.S. 501, 508 (1984). ccrjustice.org/files/RCFP%20amicus%20brief.pdf 76

13

information which had direct applicability to the case and the public interest.

Petitioner was an interested party in questions about the Appellee and RFCP Amici’s documented history of censoring abuse of publicity power77 in controversial court disputes and on environment – population policy issues, who filed to have important public interest issues fairly adjudicated. Petitioner argued that Appellants and RFCP Amici’s made misrepresentations in their court filings, when presenting themselves as guardians of transparency. When courts make decisions based

on

misrepresentations,

the

Court

could

legitimate

those

false

representations.

Pro Se Amicus, not Pro-Se Party: Petitioner applied to proceed as an Amicus, not a party, to “bring relevant matter to the attention of the Court that has not already been brought to its attention by the parties”, which Petitioner believes will be “of considerable help to a Court”, to a ‘search for the truth’ court that holds truth “prominently-indeed, primarily-in mind”.

Petitioner is a Pro Se Paralegal, representing only herself, which includes her Radical Honesty cultural and religious views, her Ecocentric procreation and consumption lifestyle worldview.

3b. Expert Laypersons frequently file Pro Se Amici Briefs where their expertise information is relevant and is, or may be helpful to the court, to resolve the dispute in question.

In the Ninth Circuit Appeals court matter78 of William Slone and Michael

Merrithew, vs. Taxi Commission, City & County of San Francisco et al 79, taxi driver

In re Oliver, 333 U.S. 257 (1948) No.C 07-03335 JSW 79 Slone et al v. Taxi Commission, City & County of San Francisco et al, California Northern District Court, Case No. 3:07-cv-03335-JSW 77 78

14

Carl Macmurdo, filed a “layperson with no legal credentials’ Pro Se Amicus brief80, representing himself as an interested party, whose brief argued that “just as named appellants Slone and Merrithew are disabled, I, too, as a Proposition K medallion holder may one day become similarly situated.”

In the US District Court for the District of Columbia, in United States of

America vs. Microsoft Corporation, author and inventor Carl Lundgren filed a Pro Se Amicus, arguing how and why his ‘new economic method for preventing collusion’ invention, had application to the Microsoft dispute. In September 2001 Judge Kollar-Kotelly issued an official court order81 denying Lundgren’s application, in that an Amicus “participates only for the benefit of the Court, it is solely within the discretion of the court to determine the fact, extent, and manner of participation by the amicus.

In the instant case, both parties are well

represented and numerous amici have already been permitted to participate in the proceedings. As a result, the Court concludes that the proposed participation would be unhelpful to the Court and would likely impose an unacceptable burden on the Court.” Lundgren was subsequently approved to proceed as a Pro Se Amicus in the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, in his own personal

In the matter of William Slone and Michael Merrithew, vs. Taxi Commission, City & County of San Francisco et al, in the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit the case dealt with whether whether the City and County of San Francisco and its Taxi Commission are required by the ADA to accommodate taxi permit holders who become disabled whether their disability prevents their return to “full-time driving” as required by the taxi permit ordinance’s disability policy. Taxi Driver Carl Macmurdo, filed a “layperson with no legal credentials’ Pro Se Amicus brief , representing himself as an interested party, whose brief argued that “just as named appellants Slone and Merrithew are disabled, I, too, as a Proposition K medallion holder may one day become similarly situated.” www.medallionholders.com/Appellants-opening-brief-for-ADA-case-appeal---filed-Nov-2008.pdf 81 docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/district-ofcolumbia/dcdce/1:1998cv01232/103/630/0.pdf?1204612375 80

15

capacity, but was required to appoint an attorney, if he filed his amicus on behalf of his corporation82.

In the District Court of Columbia Court of Appeals, case of Steven J. Rosen v.

AIPAC83, Grant F. Smith filed a Motion for Leave to File84 a Pro Se Amicus85, which was verbally opposed by both Rosen and AIPAC, and AIPAC subsequently filed objections86 , yet the Court granted87 Smith’s Pro Se Amicus Application.

Rosen, AIPAC's former foreign policy chief, filed suit in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia accusing his former employer, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, of libel and slander, related to the 2005 criminal indictment of AIPAC officials Steven Rosen and Keith Weissman and Department of Defense employee Colonel Lawrence Franklin under the Espionage Act. Smith’s Motion for Leave to proceed as an Amicus, which both parties opposed, stated that he was a publicly recognized expert on activities of some US nonprofits working to fortify the US-Israel "special relationship", whose Amicus contained information which had direct applicability to the case and the public interest. He was an interested party “in questions about the Appellee's documented history of soliciting, obtaining and utilizing US goverment classified information”, who filed “to have important public interest issues fairly adjudicated”. Smith argued AIPAC made misrepresentations in its court filings, and “if the Appeals Court issues a decision based on misrepresentations of this evidence, the Court could legitimate AIPAC's false representations”, and that “a judgement issued on the basis of misrepresentation may also negatively impact future civil actions and www.justice.gov/atr/cases/f223500/223523a.htm Case No. 2009 CA 001256 B 84 www.irmep.org/ila/rosen/02032012motion.pdf 85 www.irmep.org/ila/rosen/02032012brief.pdf 86 www.irmep.org/ila/rosen/01192011_defendant_motion_strike_amicus.pdf 87 www.irmep.org/ila/rosen/02152012motion_grantedc.pdf 82 83

16

criminal prosecutions in an area of increasing national concern: the private acquisition, circulation and illicit use of classified US goverment and confidential business information submitted to the US government”.

AIPAC objected in that Smith “has not stated any cognizable interest in Mr. Rosen's defamation claim, and because his proposed brief does not offer any unique relevant information to assist the Court. .. Simply put, Mr. Smith does not present the Court with any information that would be even remotely useful to the Court in resolving this defamation action.”

DC Court of Appeals ordered that “on consideration of the motion of Grant F. Smith for leave to file the lodged amicus brief, and Appellees opposition thereto, it is ORDERED that the motion is granted and lodged amicus brief is filed.”

Conclusion: Pro Se Amicus Curiae’s are frequently approved by Courts, even when opposed by one or both parties, if the Pro Se Amicus “brings relevant matter to the attention of the Court that has not already been brought to its attention by the parties” meeting relevant restrictive or broad standards required by the court.

3b.i. Petitioner as Expert: What is an Expert?: In the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king. Similarly, on a planet where everyone believes the earth is flat, the one man with a vague theory that it is not flat, is – by default of being the lone proponent of such theory – the expert on that theory, or argument.

In a church where all priests, bishops and cardinals argue on behalf of the sale of forgiveness indulgences and the Church’s right to sell forgiveness; the one man who argues that forgiveness is God's alone to grant, that priests who claimed that indulgences granted buyers thereof salvation were in error; is – by default of being the lone proponent of such theory – the expert on that theory, or argument.

17

In a court where Jurists and lawyers ignore the finite resources laws of nature that ecological reality is the sine qua non88 foundation for all other rights89, and that there are different social conflict – reduction of individual rights consequences in a Post Peak Resources ecosystem, than in a Pre Peak Resource system, the paralegal who asserts such an argument is – by default of being the lone proponent of such theory – the expert on that theory, or argument.90 In a court where legal scholars argue on behalf of the religious speech practices of political correctness, sycophancy and public relations image management dispute resolution, the paralegal who argues on behalf of the religious speech practices of brutal honesty and transparency without regard for any left or right, rich or poor, black or white political correctness, sycophancy or public relations image management, is the -- recognized or not -- expert on that argument.

Any sole proponent of any theory recognizes that a theory requires testing and verification to strengthen it, by exposing it to its weaknesses and errors. A theory founded on verifiable laws of nature ecological reality truths, does not require political correctness or public relations image management to protect it.

Only scientific or political theories which attempt to hide their errors or flaws, (a) require a coercive political correct propaganda war to psychologically force beings to adopt such a theory; and (b) are petrified of any theory that may expose the flaws of their erroneous theory.91 3b.ii. Petitioner as Expert: Ecocentric Sustainable Security critic of Falling Man Syndrome Anthropocentric jurisprudence: ICJ: Weeramantry J in Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Project Bartlett (2000/09); Clugston (2009) Hardin (1980) 91 Sherbert v. Verner; Wisconsin v. Yoder; Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal, The Religious Freedom Restoration Act, Terminiello v. Chicago 88 89 90

18

Petitioner’s Ecocentric Sustainable Security critic of Falling Man Syndrome Anthropocentric jurisprudence argument is a rainbow amalgamation of many different experts theories, some of whom include military experts. Petitioner is unaware of any other individual worldwide, who has, or is, combining these different experts opinions into this Laws of Nature determine that Sustainability is the Sine Qua Non for All Manmade Rights: Peak NNR/Oil Ecological Tipping Point reality demands a reduction of ‘Free Press’ Rights to Journalists or Citizens who do not practice Problem Solving Honourable Sincere Peacenik scientific journalism argument.

Petitioner’s Masculine Insecurity theory history of Anthropocentric culture and Jurisprudence is based upon among others the ‘Eve’s Seed’ work of Robert McElvaine, Elizabeth Chisholm Professor of Arts and Letters and Chair of the Department of History at Millsaps College in Jackson, Mississippi.

Petitioner’s Sustainable Security92 theories are based upon the work of Dr. Garrett Hardin, Dr. Albert Bartlett, Dr. Stephen Mumford, Dr. Michael Maher, Robert Murphy, Former Office of the Dep. Asst. Sec. of the Army,; Colonel Ralph Peters, Admiral Hyman Rickover, Carl Sagan, Mathew Simmons, Former Judge Jason Brent, USMC General Smedley Butler, Chris Clugston, Kenneth Defffeyes, 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

92

Murphy, R (2006/10/24)

19

Charles F. “Chuck” Wald, USAF (Ret.), General Anthony C. “Tony” Zinni, USMC (Ret.), Dr. Jack Alpert, and many others.

3b.iii. Petitioner as Expert: Practicing Radical Honesty Culture’s Religious Speech: 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. 93 Petitioner is not aware of any other only individual legally fighting for the religious free speech rights of individuals from religions who do not practice Public Relations Image Management.

Petitioner’s Radical Honesty Religious Speech is founded on the expertise of Dr. Brad Blanton’s work. Her criticism of Pharma Psychiatry’s coercive ‘threats of mental disorder labels for unpopular opinions’ role in the enforcement of Political Correctness, as enunciated by Dr. John Breeding, Dr. Thomas Szasz, Dr. Margaret Hagen, Dr. Paula Caplan, Adam Curtis, Edward Bernays, Erich Fromm, Aldous Huxley, George Orwell, Lucy Johnstone, Stephan Molyneux, etc.

3c. Courts ‘Indecent Language’ Reasons for rejecting Petitioner’s Practicing Radical Honesty SansPR Religious Speech Amicus are not justified: Specifically Petitioner imagines, the Court is referring to “fucking screwed”, “bullshit-the-public relations” and “MicroPhallophobiaMindfuck”: ‘fucking screwed’ was quoting Pfc Manning perspective of Ecological Tipping Point Post Peak NNR/Oil reality: Pg.06.Footnote 10: “im hoping for the former.. it

Sherbert v. Verner; Wisconsin v. Yoder; Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal, The Religious Freedom Restoration Act, Terminiello v. Chicago 93

20

cant be the latter.. because if it is… were fucking screwed … (as a society) … and i dont want to believe that we‘re screwed”94; ‘Bullshit-the-public relations’ was used to describe the Father of ‘Public Relations’ practices of treating citizens as children unworthy of the honest criticism or factual reality: Pg.07: “if Pfc Manning prefers Pretend Transparency Martyrdom; it will be just another Propaganda Warfare / Bullshit-the-Public Relations Trial,” Pg.11: “Conclusion: 80% of “news” is Jonestown Duhmockery Political and/or Corporate Bullshit-the-Public Relations Propaganda Warfare Coolaid”; ‘MycroPhallophobiaMindfuck‘ was used to describe the cultural consequences for societies when their culture, religion and jurisprudence is dominated by the psychological masculine insecurity’s of men who lack honourable transparent problem solving skills to establish cultures and tribes founded upon the laws of nature, but instead consider women and nature’s resources as nothing but objects to accumulate and plunder, to impress other fragile ego men, while hiding these violent realities behind a façade of alleged ‘civilized’ public relations image management; when there are clear examples of cultures who have achieved the ability to live happily in harmony with nature by refusing to practice public relations image management dispute resolution.

Pg.36-37: “Permission to speak

Mad Col. Jessop from Kyishodruk – “You can‘t handle the - Thunderbolt of Flaming Wisdom - Truth‘: If you free yourself from the Anthropocentric Masculine Insecurity / Control of Reproduction MycroPhallophobiaMindfuck prison leading humanity over the ecocide cliff, to confront Homer Lea he would declare: The origin of war occurs in the self delusional bullshit belief of everyone who believes they can self-righteously pretend to oppose war, genocide and soldiers and Generals so-called 94

Hansen, E (2011/07/13)

21

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.”

Notice of Motion Specifically Informed Court of, and requested permission for, ‘Radical Honesty English’ Religious speech: Petitioner’s Notice of Motion clearly informed the Justices that her Application to ‘Appear Pro Se, requested leniency on procedure and Radical Honesty English.95 In Petitioner’s Affidavit, she informed the court she was a member of the Radical Honesty culture, as founded by Dr. Blanton, author of Radical Honesty: How To Transform Your Life By Telling the

Truth. The Radical Honesty culture is, founded on 100% transparency and opposes all secrecy, including Anthropocentric Bernaysian Bullshit-the-Public Relations Pretend Transparency Image Management. Radical Honesty believes that a significant psychosocial factor contributing to Patriarchal Anthropocentric cultures reliance on war as a general social psychosocial release function, “for the release and redistribution of undifferentiated tensions” and the “dissipation of general boredom”, is a result of its preference for PR image management, as championed by the

Bernaysian

Public

Relations

addicted

churnalists

media.

PR

Image

Management dispute resolution has a preference for a sliding scale of sycophantic intellectual fairness above public Gunnery-Sgt-like face-to-face expression of anger”; whereas cultures who have little or no preference for PR image management and a preference for transparent public airing of dirty linen dispute resolution, such as Radical Honesty and the Matriarchal Mosuo (Mósuō also spelled Moso or Musuo) culture in S.W. China, release their tensions verbally in the

Sherbert v. Verner; Wisconsin v. Yoder; Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal, The Religious Freedom Restoration Act, Terminiello v. Chicago 95

22

moment, without regard to intellectual propriety, are seldom bored and have very little or no violence”.

The courts requirement that a Futilitarian refrain from practicing her religious speech, when she specifically notified the court of her religion, and her request to practice such speech, which was additionally relevant to her argument; is somewhat equivalent to demanding that a Sikh lawyer not stand up in court and give oral argument wearing his turban. 96 According to the Sherbert Test, the court must provide ‘compelling justifications’ to demonstrate their denial to Futilitarians to practice their religious speech, especially when Petitioner specifically notified the court of her religion, and her request to practice her religious speech, which was additionally relevant to her argument. Furthermore, the court has not shown any compelling interest for its religious discrimination of giving aid to religions who practice PR, and discriminating against those who don't practice PR.97 The court has not provided any Terminiello v. Chicago98 compelling justifications for stifling discussion and free debate a diversity of ideas and perspectives submitted to the court in this dispute. Indeed Petitioner’s argument could be considered provocative and challenging, may have invited dispute, and induced a condition of discomfort, or maybe even stirred a few to anger, struck at a few prejudices and preconceptions, but the censorship of Petitioner’s argument to the court contained no evidence that it would be a clear and present danger. To the

Sherbert v. Verner; Wisconsin v. Yoder; Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal, The Religious Freedom Restoration Act, Terminiello v. Chicago 97 Sherbert v. Verner; Wisconsin v. Yoder; Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal, The Religious Freedom Restoration Act, Terminiello v. Chicago 98337 U.S. 1 (1949) 96

23

contrary, its exclusion would endorse a “standardization of ideas: by the court of “dominant political or community groups”.99 3d. Courts ‘Judicial Discretion’ Reasons for rejecting Petitioner’s Radical Honesty SansPR Religious Speech Amicus are not justified: Specifically: “After reviewing it, and exercising their discretion, .. [the Judges] instructed me not to file it with the record ...”

If any Amicus meets the required Supreme Court and Appellate Court Amicus standards for acceptance, the Court has no justification for hiding behind ‘discretion’ to reject an Amicus, because they object to the religious speech of individual who filed it, whether that religious speech be in the form of wearing a turban or a hijab, writing it under candle-light, or sincere ‘Practicing Radical Honesty’ transparency expressed within the content of the Amicus. 100 3e. Courts ‘Lack of Coherent argument’ (Read: lack of Politically Correct Anthropocentric’ argument) Reasons for rejecting Petitioner’s Amicus are not justified: Specifically: “Additionally, the Court noted .. the lack in your brief of any coherent argument to be allowed to file”.

The vitality of civil and political institutions in our society depends on free discussion. As Chief Justice Hughes wrote in De Jonge v. Oregon, 299 U. S. 353, 299 U. S. 365, it is only through free debate and free exchange of ideas that government remains responsive to the will of the people and peaceful change is effected. The right to speak freely and to promote diversity of ideas and programs is therefore one of the chief distinctions that sets us apart from totalitarian regimes. Accordingly, a function of free speech under our system of government is to invite dispute. It may indeed best serve its high purpose when it induces a condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with conditions as they are, or even stirs people to anger. Speech is often provocative and challenging. It may strike at prejudices and preconceptions and have profound unsettling effects as it presses for acceptance of an idea. That is why freedom of speech, though not absolute, Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, supra, pp.

315 U. S. 571-572, is nevertheless protected against censorship or punishment, unless shown likely to produce a clear and present danger of a serious substantive evil that rises far above public inconvenience, annoyance, or unrest. See Bridges v. California, 314 U. S. 252, 314 U. S. 262; Craig v.

Harney, 331 U. S. 367, 331 U. S. 373. There is no room under our Constitution for a more restrictive view. For the alternative would lead to standardization of ideas either by legislatures, courts, or dominant political or community groups. supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/337/1/case.html 100 Sherbert v. Verner; Wisconsin v. Yoder; Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal, The Religious Freedom Restoration Act, Terminiello v. Chicago 99

24

Petitioner is unable to specifically address the allegation of ‘lack of coherent argument’, in that the court did not clarify what exactly was allegedly incoherent.

Petitioner submits the possibility that what the court means by ‘lack of coherent argument’ is ‘lack of politically correct anthropocentric argument’.

Petitioner agrees that in terms of Anthropocentric Public Relations Image Management Jurisprudence, Petitioner’s Ecocentric Radical Honesty religious speech arguments are ‘politically incorrect’,

but disputes that they are

incoherent.101 It is understandable that an individual immersed in a public relations image management culture may find the practice what you preach cultural practices of an individual from a different culture to be – at first – incoherent, in terms of his own cultural practices. If however, the same individual is capable of stepping out of his or her own ‘public relations image management’ culture to impartially investigate, and experiment with understanding the perspectives of a culture that does not practice ‘public relations image management’, s/he may soon find that ‘incoherence’ turns to ‘understanding’, maybe even ‘enlightenment’. Understanding may not equate to agreement or endorsement, and may result in disagreement and debate, but they are big steps up from ‘incoherence’.

4. Petitioner’s Coherent Pro Se Expert Layperson Amicus provides Court with Ecocentric Sustainable Security ‘Laws of Nature’ are Sine Qua Non of all other Rights and Radical Honesty Religious Speech Information Beyond its Notice or Expertise to assist Bigger Picture ‘Rule of Law’ Judicial Decision making: 4a. Inform Court of Correction: The Laws of Nature determine that Sustainability is the Sine Qua Non for All Manmade Rights: If Anthropocentric Sherbert v. Verner; Wisconsin v. Yoder; Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal, The Religious Freedom Restoration Act, Terminiello v. Chicago 101

25

‘Rule of Law’ Courts exists to enable Law and Order, i.e. social conditions to reduce conflict; it must confront Laws of Nature Peak NNR/Oil Ecological Tipping Point reality’s demand for appropriate reduction of all Manmade Rights: Assumption 1: Anthropocentric ‘Rule of Law’ courts exist to enable law and order, where ‘law and order’ are considered to be a state of community relations that contribute to social conditions which reduce conflict.

Assumption 2: If Anthropocentric ‘Rule of Law’ endorses laws which contribute to social conditions of resource scarcity that increase conflict; then Anthropocentric jurisprudence cannot claim it exists to enable law and order or contribute to conditions which reduce conflict.

Ecocentric reality -- Environmental or ecological rights and responsibilities or put differently, resource scarcity or abundance, resulting from the respect or abuse of the laws of nature, or nature’s rights -- are the sine qua non102 foundation for all other rights103.

Laws of Nature Jurisprudence recognizes that a nations resources are a form of ‘commons’ and that increased population and/or consumption of resources can only occur up to the point of ‘carrying capacity’ tipping points. Once ‘carrying capacity’ laws of nature tipping points are breached -- Peak of Production, referred to as Peak Oil, or Peak NNR, etc – exponential resource scarcity occurs which – in the absence of voluntary population and consumption reduction - triggers resource war violence, exponentially aggravating ‘national security’ problems.104 There is a fundamental difference between the resource war violence from regional temporary resource scarcity that results on the upward side of the Peak Oil/NNR resource curve, and the resource war violence on the downslope of the ICJ: Weeramantry J in Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Project Bartlett (2000/09); Clugston (2009) 104 Hardin, G (1968/12/13) 102 103

26

curve of a globalized world. Using the analogy of a car ‘collision’, as the ‘resource war violence’: On the upward curve, the car has access to brakes (bring in resources from elsewhere, or migrate to areas where resources have not peaked) which reduce the force of the collision (violence); on the downhill slope the car has no brakes (no surplus resources elsewhere), all of which acts as a resource scarcity threat multiplier; a nascar boot on the car’s gaspedal, driving it faster to collision, the crisis of conflict.105 As demonstrated by Garret Hardin in Cybernetics of Competition106, the effect of any act, depends on the state of the system at the time it is applied. An “act which is harmless when the system is well within its homeostatic boundaries may be quite destructive when the system is already stressed near one 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.107 Similarly, prior to Peak Oil, the political advocacy of Breeding/Consumption War Combatants and the media’s abuse of publicity power108 in highly complex and/or politically sensitive trials are reasonably harmless, whereas subsequent to Peak Oil, their abuse of publicity power act as resource scarcity threat multipliers; the nascar boot on the gaspedal, no brakes, driving it faster to crisis of conflict collision.

Post PeakNNR/Oil Ecological Tipping point, the greater the population of any nation/planet, the greater the exponentially declining per capita supply of goods; the exponentially growing resource scarcity and potential for race/class war, Alpert, Jack (Aug 2011): Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, 7:58-84 (1963) 107 Hardin Garrett: Stalking the Wild Taboo: Chapter 21, pg 201-205 (Social Contract Press (1996)) 108 In re Oliver, 333 U.S. 257 (1948) 105 106

27

and hence the greater the need for the limitation on individual rights, including the limitation of the right for ‘breeding/consumption war combatants’ to abuse their publicity power, in highly controversial resource scarcity national security trials.109 In

Human Predicament:

Better Common Sense Required110: Social

Conflict111, Dr. Jack Alpert provides proof to answer the question Post Peak NNR/Oil Anthropocentric Jurists need to ask themselves: How many children per family leads to peace; or conversely how many children per family, add weight to the gas pedal, greater resource scarcity, and exponential increase in conflict?

Like Homer Lea, Dr. Alpert defines Peace and conflict not as descriptions of behaviour between nations, but as trends describing social conditions. Thus the question, how many children per family leads to peace, establishes what number of children, will establish a trend that will lead to peace, and away from conflict.

Put differently: Conflict is not defined as the violence between neighbours and nations, but as the unwanted intrusion of one person’s existence upon another person. There are two kinds of conflict: Direct: he took my car, he enslaved me, he beat me, he raped me, he killed me; and Indirect. Indirect intrusions are the byproduct of other people's behaviour. ‘All the trees on our island were consumed by our grandparents,’ is an indirect intrusion of a past generation on a present one.

‘The rich people raised the price of gasoline and we can't afford it,’ and ‘The

Hardin, G (1980): “Every right must be evaluated in the network of all rights claimed and the environment in which these rights are exercised. If we hold that every right, ―natural" or not, must be evaluated in the total system of rights operating in a world that is limited, we must inevitably conclude that no right can be presumed to be absolute, that the effect of each right on the suppliers as well as on the demanders must be determined before we can ascertain the quantity of right that is admissible. From here on out, ours is a limited world. Rights must also be limited. The greater the population, the more limited the per capita supply of all goods; hence the greater must be the limitation on individual rights, including the right to breed. At its heart, this is the political meaning of the population problem.‘ – Garrett Hardin, Limited World, Limited Rights 110 Full youtube series at sqswans.weebly.com/human-predicament.html 111 youtu.be/sK8WxeGxkPk Full Series: sqswans.weebly.com/human-predicament.html 109

28

government is offering people welfare to breed more children’ is a current economic and demographic intrusion by one present group on another present group.

System conflict is the sum of intrusions experienced by each constituent, summed over all the constituents. A measure of the existing global conflict is the sum of six billion sets of intrusions. Using this definition of conflict, he establishes whether a social system is moving towards peace or towards conflict; based upon the question of how many children per family move a social system towards peace.

In Non-Linearity and Social Conflict112, Dr. Alpert provides proof how humanity has as much chance of muddling through the coming ‘Falling Man Syndrome’ Crisis of Conflict, as an individual sitting in an unbelted car crash. 113 4b. Inform Court of Information: Role of Mainstream Media to aggravate and profit from conflict, by abusing their publicity power in

censoring information

about procreation and consumption carrying capacity laws of nature, which reduce conflict.

Petitioners Amicus provides court with detailed information of the media’s censorship of ecological tipping point reality, as Bradly Manning put it “and god knows what happens now … hopefully worldwide discussion, debates, and reforms … if not… than we‘re doomed … as a species … im hoping for the former.. it cant be the latter.. because if it is… were fucking screwed … (as a society) … and i dont want to believe that we‘re screwed”.114 It included Dr. Michael Maher’s - How and Why Journalists Avoid the Population-Environment Connection - research about the media‘s censorship abuse of publicity of ecological realities as the causal factor for Political and Social

youtu.be/W5capqGod9A Full Series: sqswans.weebly.com/human-predicament.html Alpert, Jack (Aug 2011); Alpert, Jack (Feb 2012) 114 Johnstone, L (2012/09/24): Pg.6, Footnote 31; Hansen, E (2011/07/13) 112 113

29

problems in their daily reporting. Dr. Albert Bartlett also examined how political correctness – censorship of ecological root causes of social problems - affects scientists with blowback to journalism.115 The Media’s Agenda to censor Problem Solving to create pressure cooker for their If it Bleads, it Leads profit from violence,116 is also covered.

Further examples of abuse of publicity power in “cases where profound issues are at stake”, such as: The evidence for media’s role as Propaganda War Whores117, censoring a debate about overpopulation in Population, Nixon and the Catholic

Church118,

censoring

a

debate

about

over-consumption’s

Peak

Resource

consequences contributing to 9/11 and Afghanistan119, censoring the population issues contributing to AIDS: Africa’s Iatrogenic Depopulation Solution120, and their censorship abuse of publicity power in court disputes of US vs. Lakin121, The

Citizen v. McBride122, Afriforum vs. Malema123 and Norway vs. Breivik124.

4c. State of the System: Peak NNR’s impending Crisis of Conflict, require Anthropocentric Jurisprudence and Media’s Abuse of Publicity Power, to amend their aggravating resource scarcity conduct.

Peak Oil: Petitioner’s Amicus clarifies that peak oil is “the end of cheap oil, it is the point where every barrel of oil is harder to find, more expensive to extract, and more valuable to whoever owns or controls it.”125 The reality of Peak Oil has been known since the 1950’s. In 1957 Admiral Hyman Rickover’s speech: Energy Johnstone, L (2012/09/24): Pg.14; Bartlett, A (2004/07) Bartlett, A (2008); Johnstone, L (2012/09/24): Pg.11-13 117 Johnstone, L (2012/09/24): Pg.13-14 118 Johnstone, L (2012/09/24): Pg.14-18 119 Johnstone, L (2012/09/24): Pg.18-20 120 Johnstone, L (2012/09/24): Pg.22-26 121 Johnstone, L (2012/09/24): Pg.20-22 122 Johnstone, L (2012/09/24): Pg.27-27 123 Johnstone, L (2012/09/24): Pg.27-28 124 Johnstone, L (2012/09/24): Pg.28-28 125 Johnstone, L (2012/09/24): Pg.18-19 115 116

30

Resources and Our Future was focussed on preparing for Peak Oil126. Vice Pres.

Cheney’s NEPDG advisor, Mathew Simmons had been outspoken about Peak Oil and overpopulation and consumption’s contribution to Peak Oil127. In 2000 the CIA and Pentagon128 warned about Overpopulation’s contribution to Oil and Water Resources Wars.129 Mike Ruppert’s book, Crossing the Rubicon, argues 9/11 was a consequence of Oil/NNR scarcity130. US Joint Forces Command’s 2010 report131 warns that by 2012, “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.”132 A Bundeswehr Military Study, warns “the socio-political and economic consequences of Peak Oil will be severe,” depicting the “consequences of an irreversible depletion of raw materials”, causing the "total collapse of the markets" and of serious political and economic crises.” 133 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?" Yes134. 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 Rickover, H (1957/05/14) ; Johnstone, L (2012/09/24): Pg-29 Simmons, M (2000/09/30) 128 Koppel, T (2000) 129 Johnstone, L (12/10/15): Pg.36-37 130 Ruppert, MC (2004); Johnstone, L (2012/09/24): Pg-19 131 United States Joint Forces Command (2010/02/18) 132 Johnstone, L (2012/09/24): Pg-19,30; Klare, Michael T (07.03.2006); Parthemore, C & Nagl, J (2010/09/27); Murphy, R (2006/10/24); Peters, R (1996); United States Army & TRADOC (2012): 133 Schultz, S (2010/09/01); Johnstone, L (2012/09/24): Pg-30 134 Savinar, Matt: Peak Oil F.A.Q. www.filmsforaction.org/External/?oid=24676 126 127

31

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 150500 hours of human labor), a decline or even plateau in the supply of oil carries such overwhelming consequences for the financial system.

Dr. Colin Campbell: “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.”135 Robert Wise: “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.”136 In 1995, Major Ralph Peters warned how ‘Resource scarcity of oil, water and other non-renewable resources will be a direct cause of confrontation, conflict, and war’, as a result of overpopulation and overconsumption, and their effect on climate change, that “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.” 137

Campbell, Colin (2 May 2005) Wise, Robert: Connecting the Dots: Energy and the Economy (Democrats.US) www.democrats.us/editorial/wise041105.shtml 137 Peters, R (1996) 135 136

32

In 2007, the Military Advisory Board (MAB) - eleven retired three-star and four-star admirals and generals138 - published National Security and Climate Change139,

to assess the impact of global climate change – a consequence of

population growth and carbon footprints - on key matters of national security, and to lay the groundwork for mounting responses to the threats found”. Their report “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”.140 Domestic (US) & Global NNR Scarcity Analysis is based upon Mr. Clugston‘s141 analysis of the criticality and scarcity associated with each of the 89 analyzed NNRs, using data from USGS, EIA, BEA, BLS, Fed, CBO, FBI, IEA, UN, World Bank, etc. The Global NNR Scarcity Analysis150 confirms that: (a) 63 of the 89 analyzed NNRs, were considered “scarce” globally in 2008; (b) 28 have peaked: are “almost certain” to remain scarce permanently going forward.

Peak Non-Renewable Resources Consequences: Global Collapse by 2050: Scarcity concludes “Our Next Normal is Catastrophe”: Our Anthropocentric worldview does not recognize that our national economies are not “broken” requiring economic stimulus; they are “dying of slow starvation” for lack of sufficient economically viable NNR inputs, which requires confronting ecological

Gen Gordon R. Sullivan, USA (Ret.) | Adm Frank “Skip” Bowman, USN (Ret.) | Lt Gen Lawrence P. Farrell Jr., USAF (Ret.) | Vice Adm Paul G. Gaffney II, USN (Ret.) | Gen Paul J. Kern, USA (Ret.) | Adm T. Joseph Lopez, USN (Ret.) | Adm Donald L. “Don” Pilling, USN (Ret.) | Adm Joseph W. Prueher, USN (Ret.) | Vice Adm Richard H. Truly, USN (Ret.) | Gen Charles F. “Chuck” Wald, USAF (Ret.) | Gen Anthony C. “Tony” Zinni, USMC (Ret.) 139 Military Advisory Board (MAB)(April 2007) 140 Johnstone, L (2012/09/24): Pg-29-32 141 Clugston, C (2012): Scarcity: Humanity’s Final Chapter (Booklocker.com Inc) 138

33

reality, that our industrial lifestyle paradigm is unsustainable, and will culminate in self-inflicted global societal collapse, almost certainly by the year 2050. We can voluntarily reduce population and consumption, or NNR scarcity depletion will violently force it upon us, in our inevitable transition to a sustainable, preindustrial lifestyle paradigm. Arguing about capitalism vs communism, central planning or free markets, democracy to autocracy are irrelevant, because all “industrialized and industrializing nations, irrespective of their economic and political orientations, are unsustainable and will collapse as a consequence of their dependence upon increasingly scarce NNRs”.

4d. State of the System: Impending Ecological Peak NNR Crisis of Conflict places a higher burden upon the court to (a) confront Anthropocentric Jurisprudence Errors, and (b) hold Media accountable for its abuse of publicity power aggravation of, and profit from, conflict.

If the State of the System is in Ecological Overshoot; the media’s Abuse of Publicity Power ‘acts’ of (a) censorship of root cause problem solving, while (b) encouraging the factors of population growth and resource consumption towards Anarchy and Collapse; and (c) pretending to the court about its so-called ‘support for transparency’, add fuel/speed to the cars crisis of conflict collision142; whereas Responsible Scientific Journalism honest reporting addressing the root causes of scarcity, encouraging voluntary population decline and responsible resource use, acts as a foot on the break pedal prior to a cars collision, or pulling a parachutes ripcord to soften Falling Man Anthropocentric Jurisprudence’ landing. 143 In our Post Peak Oil World: What do citizens understand about how and why Exponential Population Growth 142 143

is colliding with Exponentially Declining

Alpert, Jack (Aug 2011); Alpert, Jack (Feb 2012) Maher, MT (1997/03)

34

Resources?

144

Are the Media encouraging population growth, economic growth

aggravation of resource consumption; or advocating voluntary population reduction and responsible resource use? Is the media putting their foot on the break, or stepping on the gas?145 4e. Peak NNR’s impending Crisis of Conflict justify a reconsideration of Corporate Personhood: Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company and Locus Standi for Pale Blue Dot: Sierra Club v. Morton?

In a Post Peak NNR/Oil world, it is imperative to reconsider the courts profoundly defective undemocratic Anthropocentric majoritarian decision. The courts disregard for the perspective of an Ecocentric minority - whose procreation and consumption lifestyle’s prove their Ecocentric credibility, who are deprived of their fair share of political influence, similarly to other ‘persons’ of past Anthropocentric jurisprudence146 - arguing on behalf of the Pale Blue Dot’s finite and exponentially depleting 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; aggravates civilization speeding to a very violent ‘crisis of conflict’ global collapse. 147 Majoritarian Anthropocentric legal doctrine should reconsider the advice of Justice William O’Douglas in Sierra Club v. Morton148 and confer standing upon nature’s species to demand their voices on behalf of their preservation are heard.149 Nature would argue the headnotes ‘Corporate Personhood’ ruling in Santa

Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company150 and subsequent Maher, MT (1997/03) Alpert, Jack (Feb 2012) 146 Stone, Christopher D. (1972) 147 Alpert, Jack (Aug 2011); Alpert, Jack (Feb 2012) 148 405 U.S. 727 (1972) 149 Stone, Christopher D. (1972): 144 145

35

interpretations are unconstitutional as they do 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: What is ‘crucial’ or ‘compelling’ in any given circumstance can be contradictory. Corporations cannot exist without natural resources to exploit or plunder, or to financially speculate about how they are being, or should be, plundered. The government should clarify what compelling interests allows corporation to determine ‘crucial’ use of nature’s resources, while refusing nature’s her opinion on the ‘cruciality’ use of her plundered resources.151 In a Post Peak NNR/Oil World, where nature’s resources have been plundered by corporations, it is time to restore balance to ask: 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? Can an oil well demand her precious black gold not be used to produce shitty products, or only be used by carpools or individuals who live below their regions carrying capacity? Can nature demand that any world leader calling for ‘economic growth’ or ‘population growth’ is the equivalent of appointing consumption and breeding war combatants to declare war on nature’s depleted finite resources? Can CEO’s who commit financial and corporate ecological terrorism of nature’s resources, be put on kill lists and assassinated by General Petraeus’ new drones152 or Seal Team Six? 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?

118 U.S. 394 (1886) Grutter v. Bollinger 539 U.S. 306 (2003) 152 Miller, Greg (19 October 2012) 150 151

36

It is in the sustainable security interest of countries and their citizens that drunk sailor politicians, bankers and CEO’S in Bangkok, who abuse natures finite resources, for short term political status or profits, are sobered up with freezing – Seal Team Six or Petraeus Drones - doses of resource scarcity consequences reality!

In a Post Peak NNR/Oil World, the government should be required to establish that there is a compelling state interest to grant corporations personhood, the equal protection clause demands that nature is given reasons why her voice has not been heard, why her evidence related to what she considers ‘crucial’ use of her resources is irrelevant, and whether the means employed by the government to grant corporations personhood, is the least restrictive means, with regard to nature’s rights and liberties.

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 by appealing to the

hypothetical

Judgement

of

an

ideally

democratic

legislature,

whose

consciousness includes Post Peak NNR/Oil World Laws of Nature Sustainable Security aware, ‘pay the price for peace’ peaceniks, trees, rivers, mountains, polar bears, dandelions, crickets, whales, tigers, dolphins, etc.

4f. Is Pfc. Manning, sincerely Ecocentrically motivated, or being coerced to being a martyr in the Anthropocentric Media’s Abuse of Publicity Power Left vs.

Right wing Propaganda War? Petitioner submitted her Radical Honoursty truthseeking dispute resolution social science judicial decision making “Maria Bochkareva Leaver Peacenik One Child Oath”, to USCAAF Judges and Central Intelligence Agency, Director General Petreaus and Pfc. Manning. The Oath endorses the government’s argument that 37

‘resources are finite’, the Central Intelligence Agency’s focus on “unvarnished truth’153 to “Follow the Truth, Wherever it Leads”154; acknowledging Pfc Manning’s Anthropocentric and Ecocentric Military Necessity Motivations155 for his Actions156; and challenges Pfc Manning’, Peacenik Appellants and their ‘Anti-War’ and ‘Peace’ fans to declare their ‘Sincere Peacenik’ status by signing the Oath, to authorise the CIA to assassinate them, if they violate their oath to pay the one child per family price for peace. 157 If Pfc Manning signs the Oath, it requests CIA Director General, to support all charges against Pfc. Manning to be withdrawn. Finally it suggests the CIA establish a Sincere Peacenik alternative to the Norwegian ‘War is Peace Whores’ prize, the ‘Maria Bochkareva Leaver Peacenik Honor Medal’, awarded to individual/s who educate on the role of overpopulation and overconsumption factors pushing society to conflict and war.158 4g. A Post Peak NNR/Oil, Laws of Nature Sustainable Security World requires the limitation of rights, to ‘Breeding/Consumption War Combatants’ and/or those who refuse to practice Scientific Journalism: In Peace seekers have no plan for enduring peace159, 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”160: Davis, Jack www.cia.gov/offices-of-cia/inspector-general/index.html 155 Rendulic Rule: Nuremberg: The Hostages Trial; ICTY: The Prosecutor v. Stanislav Galić 156 Johnstone (12-09-24): pg. 04-07 157 Johnstone, L (12/10/15): Pg.36-37 158 Johnstone, L (12/10/15): Pg.36-37 159 Alpert, Jack (04/07/24) 160 Alpert, Jack (04/01/04) 153 154

38

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 change in the cognitive processes which assign value to a never experienced abstraction [the rights of nature].

Put simply: In a Post Peak NNR/Oil World it is imperative to publicly recognize that any citizen who supports the Inalienable Right to Breed, Consume and/or Vote; and/or whose procreation and/or consumption lifestyle is above the nation’s carrying capacity are contributing towards resource scarcity, and are consequently PRO-WAR (class/race civil war, and/or national resource war) irrespective of their verbal diarrhoea ‘anti-war’ or ‘civil rights’ rhetoric.

In the reality of our Post PeakNNR/Oil globalized world, the political advocacy of Breeding/Consumption War Combatants and the media’s Ecocentric censorship abuse of publicity power in highly complex and/or politically sensitive trials act as resource scarcity threat multipliers; a nascar boot on the car’s gaspedal, and no brakes, speeding it to collision, the crisis of conflict. 161 In our Post PeakNNR/Oil globalized world of 7 billion citizens and exponentially declining per capita supply of all goods; aggravating resource scarcity potential for race/class civil and international resource wars; the greater the 161

Alpert, Jack (Aug 2011); Alpert, Jack (Feb 2012)

39

necessity for the limitation of the right for ‘breeding/consumption war combatants’ – who insist on abusing their publicity power, and refuse to practice honourable sincere peacenik scientific journalism -- in highly controversial resource scarcity national security trials.162 CONCLUSION The petition for a writ of certiorari should be granted.

Respectfully submitted,

LARA JOHNSTONE, Pro Se 31 October 2012

162

Hardin, G (1980):

40

ANNEX A: 09 Oct 2012: Decision of Court of Appeals for Armed Forces From: DeCicco, William, CIV, USCAAF [mailto:bill.decicco@armfor.uscourts.gov] Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2012 5:55 PM To: habeusmentem@mweb.co.za Cc: Harris, Jackie, CIV, USCAAF Subject: CCR v. U.S., # 12-8027/AR Dear Lara Johnstone, After reviewing the amicus brief and other documents you sent to 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.

Sincerely, William DeCicco Clerk of the Court U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces

41

ANNEX B: 16 Oct 2012: USCAAF Decision Denying Reconsideration From: DeCicco, William, CIV, USCAAF [mailto:bill.decicco@armfor.uscourts.gov] Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2012 7:16 PM To: habeusmentem@mweb.co.za Subject: Dear Lara Johnstone, The Judges of the Court have asked me to respond to you regarding the Petition for Reconsideration you sent to the Court on October 15. On October 9, I informed you that the Court would not consider your amicus brief and that it would not be made part of the record. 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.

Sincerely, William DeCicco Clerk of the Court U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (202) 761-1448

42

ANNEX C 22 Oct 2012: USCAAF Further Information From: DeCicco, William, CIV, USCAAF [mailto:bill.decicco@armfor.uscourts.gov] Sent: Monday, October 22, 2012 9:39 PM To: habeusmentem@mweb.co.za Subject: Center for Constitutional Rights, et al. v. United States and Colonel Denise Lind Dear Lara Johnstone, To recap, in late September, I forwarded your request to file a pro se amicus brief in the case of Center for Constitutional Rights, et al. v. United States and Colonel Denise Lind, to the Judges of the Court. 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. Because you filed electronically, there was no point in returning it to you, but I did inform you by email that the Judges decided not to grant your request to file the pro se amicus brief.

On October 15, you filed a petition for reconsideration, which I also forwarded to the Judges. They directed me to inform you that because there was no order issued in the first instance, there was no basis for a petition for reconsideration under Rule 31 (“A petition for reconsideration may be filed no later than 10 days after the date of any order, decision or opinion by the Court”). I informed you of this on October 16. Later the same day you replied, attached a letter to the Judges, and asked me to submit it to the Judges. Due to the profanity and intemperate language you used in the letter, I have not forwarded it to them and I will not do so.

You may now do what you feel is appropriate, but at this time the Court considers the matter closed.

Sincerely, William DeCicco Clerk of the Court U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces

43

ANNEX D The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 Pub. L. No. 103-141, 107 Stat. 1488 (November 16, 1993), codified at 42 U.S.C. ยง 2000bb through 42 U.S.C. ยง 2000bb-4 (also known as RFRA) SEC. 2. CONGRESSIONAL FINDINGS AND DECLARATION OF PURPOSES. (a) FINDINGS.--The Congress finds(1) the framers of the American Constitution, recognizing free exercise of religion as an unalienable right, secured its protection in the First Amendment to the Constitution; (2) laws "neutral" toward religion may substantially burden religious exercise as surely as laws intended to interfere with religious exercise; (3) governments should not substantially burden religious exercise without compelling justification; (4) in Employment Division of Oregon v. Smith the Supreme Court virtually eliminated the requirement that the government justify burdens on religious exercise imposed by laws naeutral toward religion; and (5) the compelling interest test as set forth in Sherbert v. Verner and Wisconsin v.

Yoder is a workable test for striking sensible balances between religious liberty and competing governmental interests. (b) PURPOSES. -- The purposes of this Act are -(1) to restore the compelling interest test as set forth in Federal court cases before Employment Division of Oregon v. Smith and to guarantee its application in all cases where free exercise of religion is substantially burdened; and (2) to provide a claim or defense to persons whose religious exercise is substantially burdened by government.

SEC. 3. FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION PROTECTED. (a) IN GENERAL. -- Government shall not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, except as provided in subsection (b). (b) EXCEPTION. -- Government may burden a person's exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person -(1) furthers a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest. (c) JUDICIAL RELIEF. -- A person whose religious exercise has been substantially burdened in violation of this section may assert that violation as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding and obtain appropriate relief against a government.

Standing to assert a claim or defense under this section shall be governed by the general rules of standing under article III of the Constitution.

44

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES OFFICE OF THE CLERK WASHINGTON, DC 20543-0001 November 21,2012

Lara Johnstone P.O. Box 5042 George East, 6539 South Africa, RE: Alien on a Pale Blue Dot v. Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, et al.

Dear Ms. Johnstone: In reply to your letter or submission, received November 21,2012, I regret to inform

you that the Court is unable to assist you in the matter you present.

Under Article III of the Constitution, the jurisdiction of this Court extends only to the consideration of cases or controversies properly brought before it from lower courts in accordance with federal law and filed pursuant to the Rules of this Court. The Court does not give advice or assistance or answer legal questions on the basis of correspondence.

Your papers are herewith returned.

Sincerely, William K. Suter, Clerk

/'~V~ /J/~

By:U

Jfac~JC. Travers ~ 479-3039

Enclosures

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 Press (RCFP), et al

Committee for Freedom of the

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: Petitionerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;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