SHARP PP4PP PO Box 5042 George East, 6539 Tel: (044) 870 7239 Cel: (071) 170 1954 12 December 2012 Executive Director: Mark Ellis Deputy Executive Director: Tim Hughes BIC Project Manager: Elaine Owen Head of Legal Projects: Gonzalo Guzmán Human Rights Inst Co-Dir: Fiona Wilson & Phillip Tahmindjis Head of Legal Practice Div: Ronnie Hart International Bar Association 4th Floor, 10 St Bride Street London, EC4A 4AD, United Kingdom Tel: +44 (0)20 7842 0090 | Fax: +44 (0)20 7842 0091 CC: SA Law Societies & Bar Associations: (A) Cape Law Society: Dir: Rampela William Mokoena, (B) Cape Bar Council: Exec Comm. Chair: I Jamie (SC), (C) Free State Law Society: Pres: Mr. J Fouche, (D) Free State Soc of Advocates: Admin Officer: Juanita Bezuidenhout, (E) General Counsel of Bar of SA: Exec Sec, (F) KwaZulu Natal Law Society: Mng Corp Svs: Mrs Riona Gunpath (G) Law Society of SA: Co-Chairs: Krish Govender & Jan Stemmett, (H) Pretoria Society of Advocates: Exec Comm: Chair, (I) Soc of Adv KZN-Dbn: Pro Bono Comm: LB Broster SC, (J) Soc of Adv KZN-Pmb: Chair: MG Roberts, (K) Jhb Bar Assoc: Pro Bono Comm: P F Louw SC (Chairman), (L) Legal Aid South Africa: Dir.: Ms Vidhu Vedalankar. CC: Alien on Pale Blue Dot v Afriforum et al Parties: (1) Afriforum, (2) Transvaal Agricultural Union, (3) Julius Malema, (4) African National Congress, (5) Desmond Tutu, (6) Nelson Mandela, (7) FW de Klerk, (8) CRL Rights Comm, (9) Norwegian Nobel Comm: Chair, (10) Central Intelligence Agency: Director, (11) David Petraeus. CC: SA Institute of Corporate Fraud Management, Transparency International CC: Radical Honesty: Brad Blanton & Maggie Doyle
Dear International Bar Association Officials, Request IBA provide Independent Observation and Written Confirmation that (I) the SA Concourt refuses to process -- or provide written reasons for their refusal -- a Pro Se application, from a member of the Radical Honesty culture, (II) who is unable to find a lawyer in South Africa, to represent her, as a member of the Radical Honesty culture; (III) South African media believe it is ‘not news’ that a member of the Radical Honesty culture is unable to find a lawyer in South Africa; for Radical Honesty Pro Se communication to UNHRC: Human Rights Committee, ITO violations of International Covenant on Civil & Political Rights (ICCPR).
Table of Contents: [1]
Multicultural South Africa’s Right to Invocation of Cultural Law:
[2]
Current Issue: Concourt: Alien on Pale Blue Dot v. Afriforum, et al: Afriforum v. Malema et al: Equality Court (07-2010 EQ JHB) to & Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA 815/11):
[3]
Relief Requested from IBA: Independent Confirmation
[4]
Transparency: Additional Background Information: SA Courts Ten Year History of Denying Invocation of Radical Honesty cultural law:
[5]
Transparency: Additional Background Information: Response from the International Radical Honesty culture:
I am a qualified paralegal, and the only member of the Radical Honesty culture in South Africa. The Constitutional Court1 in Citizen v. McBride and the Equality Court: Judge Lamont2 in Afriforum v. Malema have acknowledged my membership of the Radical Honesty culture, in prior Pro Se applications to their courts. In a current Pro Se application to the Constitutional Court (Alien on Pale Blue Dot v. Afriforum, et al), the Concourt registrar refuses to process my application, in terms of my application for invocation of cultural law, or to submit my appeal of her refusal to the Constitutional Court Justices, for their decision. In the past ten years I have been unable to find a lawyer in South Africa, to represent me, as a member of the Radical Honesty culture. Unlike most South Africans I am neither anthropocentrically liberal nor conservative, but Ecocentrically Libertarian. My view is that our rights do not originate from God, or Courts, but from our respect for nature and nature‟s resources: from living in accordance with the nature‟s carrying capacity, in terms of our procreation and consumption. Furthermore problems are not solved by addressing the symptoms, but on addressing the root causes, and problems cannot be solved in political correct environments where the root causes of problems are silenced and censored. Trust is a result of transparent honest relationships, not a result of political correct sycophancy or Bullshit the Public Relations Image management. Unlike most South Africans endorsement of mobjustice (support for access to the rule of law for those they agree with), I endorse access to courts and the rule of law for everyone. This does not make me popular with the welfare vote farm breeding war left or consumption war right.
Concourt Order by Chief Justice on 03 May 2012, in Citizen v. McBride (CCT 23-10): "Ms. Lara Johnstone, Member of Radical Honesty culture and religion, is admitted as an amicus curiae." 2 In Afri-Forum and Another v Malema and Others (20968/2010) [2011] ZAEQC 2; 2011 (6) SA 240 (EqC); [2011] 4 All SA 293 (EqC); 2011 (12) BCLR 1289 (EqC) (12 September 2011); Judge Lamont confirmed that: “[48] Lara Johnstone, the sole member of an entity known as the Radical Honesty Culture and Religion delivered a number of documents by electronic transmission. I tabled the documents at the hearing and they form part of the record.” http://www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZAEQC/2011/2.html 1
2
Public threats from the ANC Government towards the Judiciary have made it clear to any and all Judicial Officials who wish to keep their jobs that those who practice impartial independent thinking, will not last long. As Bart Henderson, founder of the South African Institute of Corporate Fraud Management3, wrote4 way back, in 2009: “I am 100% completely, utterly, totally gatvol. I do not under any circumstances wish to engage on the subject of fraud, bribery and corruption in this country. I have spent 20 years in this business and travelled the world. There is not a single man, woman or child, in this country, that has PRODUCED more work than me in the field of either research or study or handled as many pro bono cases! I don‟t have to listen to the horseshit being bandied about anymore, the never ending drivel that constitutes the never ending discourse on the subject of crime in this country. I am absolutely gatvol at the manner in which patently and blatantly vrot officials continue to enjoy the luxury of lying openly in my face and not even my face, sommer to the whole world with absolutely no shame! I am sick and tired of the waste, the greed, the arrogance and the self serving supercilious bullshit that is spewed on a daily basis. I am tired of the betrayal of our constitution, I am tired of the plunder of state resources, I am sick and tired of listening to people bitch about fraud and corruption and the state of government and society and this and that while they go home and sit at the tables of the very people who commit the acts against us! I am sick of watching the country disintegrate into a cesspool while people whinge about how THEY should be doing something about it and yet the masses do absolutely nothing.” Besides Mr. Henderson, who has his plate full, fighting South Africa‟s corrupt politicians and bureaucrats, I am unaware of any Non-Partisan Individual or Public Body in South Africa, that I am able to contact to provide me with Independent Observation and Written Confirmation that (I) the SA Concourt refuses to process -or provide written reasons for their refusal – of my Radical Honesty culture Pro Se application, (II) I am unable to find a lawyer in South Africa, to represent me, as a member of the Radical Honesty culture; (III) South African media believe it is „not news‟ that a member of the Radical Honesty culture is unable to find a lawyer in South Africa; for a Radical Honesty Pro Se communication I wish to file with UNHRC: Human Rights Committee, ITO violations of International Covenant on Civil & Political Rights (ICCPR). [1] Multicultural South Africa’s Right to Invocation of Cultural Law: The South African Constitution is founded on the Apartheid premise that South Africa is a multicultural country, hence neither common law, nor cultural customary law are prima facie applicable in any dispute before any court. The 3 4
http://www.fraudabc.com/ http://www.thoughtleader.co.za/llewellynkriel/2009/10/24/hey-zuma-you-cant-buy-your-way-out-of-this-one-old-chap/
3
Constitution provides for all citizens rights to invoke5 cultural law6 in S. 15(3)7, 308, 319, and 1810. When any party invokes cultural law, the court is required to proceed in terms of application of choice of law rules, to determine the applicability of one or other legal system, or combination thereof, on the basis of its inquiry into the relevant parties particular cultures, as determined from their lifestyles11. For example: In Smit NO and Others v King Goodwill Zwelithini Kabhekuzulu and Others12 Judge Nic van Reyden of the Kwa-Zulu Natal High Court, ruled in favour of the revived Zulu cultural practice of barehanded killing of a bull at the Ukweshwama festival, satisfied with the evidence of cultural expert Professor Jabulani Mapalala13, who said that the animal‟s death was quick, unpainful and that no blood was shed. (Others disagreed14: Mapalala‟s expert witness testimony contradicts Chief Mlaba (not submitted to the court), as quoted in an ANC newsletter of December 1995, that: “We must use our bare hands, It‟s cruelty, we agree, but it‟s our culture. We cannot change our culture.”15). Similarly, the common law reasonableness test has cultural applications, similar to that of a professional skill application. Where the „reasonableness‟ of an act is questioned that involves the skills or common practices within a particular culture/tribe, then the skills and practices of that particular tribe needs to be applied to determine the cultural/tribal „reasonableness‟ of the individual‟s circumstances16.
Ex parte Minister of Native Affairs: In re Yako v Beyi 1948 (1) SA 388 (A) at 397: Appellate Division held that neither common nor customary law was prima facie applicable. Courts had to consider all the circumstances of a case, and, without any preconceived view about the applicability of one or other legal system, select the appropriate law on the basis of its inquiry. 6 SALC, Sept 1999: Report on Conflicts of law: P.22: „1.58. The Constitution now provides an entitlement for invoking customary law in legal suits. Because ss 30 and 31 specifically guarantee an individual and a group's right to pursue a culture of choice, it could be argued that application of customary law has become a constitutional right. Previously, the state had assumed complete discretion in deciding whether and to what extent customary law should be recognized, an attitude typical of colonial thinking, for Africans were subject to whatever policies the conquering state chose to impose on them. Now, however, the state has a duty to allow people to participate in the culture they choose, implicit in this duty is a responsibility to uphold the institutions on which that culture is based.‟ 7 Freedom of Religion, Belief and Opinion http://www.info.gov.za/documents/constitution/1996/96cons2.htm#15 8 Language and Culture http://www.info.gov.za/documents/constitution/1996/96cons2.htm#30 9 Culture, Religious & Linguistic Comm: http://www.info.gov.za/documents/constitution/1996/96cons2.htm#31 10 Freedom of Association http://www.info.gov.za/documents/constitution/1996/96cons2.htm#18 11 In Ex Parte Minister of Native Affairs in re: Yako v Beyi 1948 (1) SA 388 (A) Schreiner J.A. said lifestyle of is a choice of law factor. “Aside from an express choice of laws all connecting factors with conflict of personal laws are designed to determine, in an objective manner, the cultural orientation of the parties. Because the laws involved are conceived in terms of culture .... the connecting factors must be conceived in like terms. The most direct access to a person‟s cultural leanings would clearly be his or her lifestyle.” 12 Smit NO and Others v King Goodwill Zwelithini Kabhekuzulu and Others (10237/2009) [2009] ZAKZPHC 75 (4 Dec 2009) 13 Mkhize: Bull-killing ruling promotes cultural tolerance, M&G, 04 Dec 2009; Court Clears Ritual, Bare Handed Killing of a Bull – Does the Judgement Threaten Wider Environmental Problems?, Dave Harcourt, Eco-Localizer, 6 Dec 2009; S.A. Judge Compares Zulu Bull-Killing to Holy Communion, by C Szabo, 2 Dec 2009, Digital Journal; [www.scribd.com/doc/34458079] 14 Culture no excuse for cruelty: How soon before we start burning witches again?; Justice Malala, Sunday Times, 6 Dec 2009: “The argument put forward was that this bull must suffer because my ancestors made animals suffer. The argument is, with all due respect, stupid: my ancestors had not read the work of JM Coetzee and were not on Facebook. I know that I know more than they did, and that my practices must of necessity differ with theirs.” [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/34458079] 15 ANC Daily News Briefing, Monday 11 December 1995: Zulu King revives ceremonies to build support, Sapa-AP, 10 December 1995; Court Clears Ritual, Bare Handed Killing of a Bull – Does the Judgement Threaten Wider Environmental Problems?, by Dave Harcourt, Eco-Localizer, 6 December 2009 [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/34458079] 16Smit NO and Others v King Goodwill Zwelithini Kabhekuzulu and Others (10237/2009) [2009] ZAKZPHC 75 (4 December 2009); S v Zuma (JPV325/05, JPV325/05) [2006] ZAGPHC 45; 2006 (2) SACR 191 (W); 2006 (7) BCLR 790 (W) (8 May 2006), 5
4
[2] Current Issue: Concourt: Alien on Pale Blue Dot v. Afriforum, et al: Afriforum v. Malema et al: Equality Court (07-2010 EQ JHB) to & Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA 815/11): The Afriforum, Malema, ANC and TAU-SA dispute aroses out of the action launched by Afriforum and Transvaal Agricultural Union (TAU) against Mr. Julius Malema, then leader of the African National Congress Youth League (ANCYL), in the South Gauteng Equality Court of Judge Colin Lamont, for publicly singing “Kill the Boer”. The African National Congress subsequently applied to intervene on behalf of Malema. Afriforum & TAU-SA argue among others, that the words communicated are constitutionally prohibited for inciting harm and hatred against whites and farmers; that a reasonable person would consider the words to be intended to hurt, harm or incite hatred; and that Mr. Malema is an influential public figure whose utterances are widely reported. Malema and the ANC argue among others that there are many meanings for the words “Kill the Boer”, that the Plaintiffs are inaccurately interpreting the words including misinterpreting Mr. Malema„s intentions when he sings the words “Kill the Boer”. The words do not encourage farm murders, or hatred towards farmers; that their freedom of speech to sing “Kill the Boer” should not be infringed and that there should be a national dialogue about the song "awudubhule ibhunu" or "shoot the boer", given that some people had been offended by it17. This was a legitimate “struggle song” in their war against Apartheid. I filed an application18 to proceed as Amicus Curiae on 19 April 2011. The Registrar submitted the application to Judge Colin Lamont on 19 April 2011. Judge Colin Lamont noted the application as part of public court proceedings on 20 April 2011. Briefly, I argued: (1) „Kill the Boer‟ vs. „Kaffir‟ Hypocrisy: the parties hypocritical representation that there are many meanings for the words “Kill the Boer”, but only one meaning for „Kaffir‟19, that Afriforum and TAU-SA were inaccurately to interpreting the words at: p.98; Sandra Lovelace v. Canada, Communication No. R.6/24 (29 December 1977), U.N. Doc. Supp. No. 40 (A/36/40) at 166 (1981). 17 http://www.timeslive.co.za/local/article1024068.ece/Lets-talk-about-shoot-the-boer--Hanekom 18 http://sqswans.weebly.com/sa-supreme-court-of-appeal.html 19 Radical Honesty definitions for „Kaffir‟: „Kaffir Behaviour‟: Cultural Beliefs and Procreation Behaviour Definition: Individuals who either independently or as a result of their cultural value systems, are incapable of, or unwilling to, practice sexual restraint and procreation responsibility; who consequently breed cockroach-prolifically without personal financial or psychological responsibility to, or emotional concern for, their offspring; and/or who abuse women and children as sexual or economic slaves procreated for such purpose; and/or whose cultural ideal of manhood endorses non-consensual sex (rape) as their sexual slavery entitlement, etc. „Kaffir Etymology‟: Original Etymological Definition for „Kaffir‟: The word kāfir is the active participle of the Semitic root K-FR “to cover”. As a pre-Islamic term it described farmers burying seeds in the ground, covering them with soil while planting; as they till the earth and “cover up” the seeds; which is why earth tillers are referred to as “Kuffar.” Thus, the word kāfir implies the meaning “a person who hides or covers”; To conceal, deny, hide or cover the truth. „Kaffir Legislation‟ = Inalienable Right to Breed‟ Poverty, Misery and War legislation; pretending it advocates for „peace‟ and „human rights‟: Kaffir Law/Legislation provides citizens with the Inalienable „Right to Breed‟ and Vote, but demands that
5
„Kill the Boer‟, but that no African has ever inaccurately interpreted the words „Kaffir‟, that South Africans should have a national dialogue about “Kill the Boer”; but no national dialogue about „Kaffir‟. If sincere problem solving Truth Telling and reconciliation had occurred, we would not be demanding that other people walk on eggshells to protect our own fragile ego‟s from constructive criticism. (2) Masculine Insecurity (reason and logic) Socio-Political Parasitic Profiteering off „Kill the Boer‟ vs. „Kaffir‟: Both parties deliberately encouraged their fragile ego members to be „hurt‟ and „outraged‟ respectively by „Kaffir‟ and „Kill the Boer‟, as part of the leaders manipulation of the emotions of their respective political base, for their own socio-political status benefits, in their Left vs. Right Wing Propaganda Wars, used as a cover for their breeding and consumption wars, to profiteer from the Human Factory Farming War Economy. (3) The dispute is a consequence of masculine insecurity (reason and logic) lack of psychological integrity to seek the truth by transparently confronting the evidence of South Africa‟s TRC Fraud. The TRC‟s failure to investigate demographic youth bulge and population production breeding war acts of war as contributory factors to Apartheid violence. On 12 September 2011, Judge Lamont ruled in Afri-Forum and Another v Malema and Others (20968/2010) [2011] ZAEQC 2; 2011 (6) SA 240 (EqC); [2011] 4 All SA 293 (EqC); 2011 (12) BCLR 1289 (EqC) (12 September 2011)20; that: “[48] Lara Johnstone, the sole member of an entity known as the Radical Honesty Culture and Religion delivered a number of documents by electronic transmission. I tabled the documents at the hearing and they form part of the record.” The ANC then proceeded to appeal the matter to the Supreme Court of Appeal. On 30 December 2011, I again submitted my application to the Court, in that the evidence submitted to the court of Judge Lamont had been ignored by the parties. On 22 May 2012 the Supreme Court of Appeal: Mr. BJ Mashinini responded (PDF21) on behalf of Honourable President Lex Mpati, that: “1. It does not appear, from the reading of the documents forming part of your application, that any value will be added to the arguments to be made by the parties legal representatives and thus will not be useful to the court. 2. The application is accordingly refused.” On 18 July 2012, I filed an Application (PDF22) for Permission to file an application to the Constitutional Court to Review the Honourable Supreme Court of Appeal‟s Citizens need a Licence to Own a Gun, a Licence to Drive a Car, a Licence to Practice Law, a television licence, a credit licence, a licence to earn a living, a university exemption licence, a licence to fish, a licence to hunt, a liquor licence, a business licence, a marriage licence, etc, etc. (Kaffir Legislation covers up that an „Inalienable Right to Breed/laissez-faire birth control policy + No Social Welfare policies or practices provides for an equilibrium carrying capacity; whereas laissezfaire birth control within a welfare state, results in Runaway Population Growth, and ultimately greater misery, poverty and war .) 20 http://www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZAEQC/2011/2.html 21 http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/120522_sca 22 http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/120718_sca_815-11
6
22 May 2012 decision to Refuse the Applicants Application to Proceed as an Amicus Curiae, in that: “(A) IF: Supreme Court of Appeals Values endorse EcoFeminist Sustainable Democracy Transparency TruthSeeking Problem Solving: Applicant Should be Approved as an Amicus Curiae; or (B) IF: Supreme Court of Appeal Values Endorse Masculine Insecurity War/Conflict Economy Tyranny Public Relations Deception Management Parasite Leeching Pretend Problem Solving; Applicant Should be Refused to Proceed as an Amicus Curiae. On 24 September I filed an Application to Proceed as Amicus Curiae - Brief in Propria Persona by Amici Curiae Lara Johnstone in Support of an Ecocentric Wild Law Sustainable Security Perspective23 - in the US Court of Appeals for Armed Forces, in the matter of CCR v USA. I argued, in pertinent part, that (I) it would be impossible for Pfc Manning to receive a free and fair trial in the sustainable security matter, if the media corruptly abuse their publicity power, misrepresenting or censoring Ecocentric or Non-PC arguments; effectively conducting a trial by media, thereby undermining the credibility of the court„s decisions, due to public ignorance of all arguments submitted to the court; as had occurred in other politically sensitive trials, such as Citizen vs. McBride (CCT 23-10), Afriforum vs. Malema (SCA 815/11), Norway vs Breivik (NO: ODC #11-188627MED-OTIR/05) and USA vs Lakin; and (II) if Pfc Manning‟s actions were indeed Ecocentrically motivated (“his Pale blue dot perspective is that humanity is destroying its home”), he deserved a free and fair truthseeker trial, but that “it is possible that those who prefer a Left/Right wing Propaganda trial, will use their Publicity Power to pressure the court and trial proceedings, and Pfc Manning, to such effect, which would not be in Pfc Manning„s truth seeking interest.” All Afriforum Parties, including the SCA Registrar (Zachia Pule) were provided with a transparency copy of the Ecocentric Amicus to the USCAAF. CCR v USA24 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”. It is petition based upon the proceedings in the United States vs. Private Bradley Manning court martial of the alleged leak of the largest amount of classified information in U.S. history to Wikileaks25; the (i) July 12, 2007 US Army AH-64 Apache helicopters air-to-ground attacks in Al-Amin al-Thaniyah, Baghdad (“Collateral Murder”26); (ii) 250,000 United States diplomatic cables (Cablegate27); http://sqswans.weebly.com/us-court-of-appeals-for-armed-forces.html ccrjustice.org/ourcases/current-cases/ccr-et-al-v-usa-and-lind-chief-judge 25 www.alexaobrien.com/secondsight/wikileaks/bradley_manning/ appellate_exhib/list_of_appellate_exhibits_us_v_pfc_manning.html 26 www.collateralmurder.com 27 wikileaks.org/cablegate.html 23 24
7
and (iii) 500,000 army reports from Iraq (Iraq War logs28) and Afghanistan (Afghan War logs29). On 27 September, the Appeals Court wrote to Respondents Afriforum, TAU-SA, Malema and the ANC, attempting to avoid confronting Applicant‟s Request for Permission to file an application to the Constitutional Court to Review the Honourable Supreme Court of Appeal‟s 22 May 2012 decision to Refuse the Applicants Application to Proceed as an Amicus Curiae; by asking the parties to explore the possibility of off the court record mediation, which was agreed to under the facilitation of Charles Nupen. On 01 October, I sent a transparent copy of the USCAAF Amicus dealing with Media‟s abuse of publicity power in politically sensitive trials, to the Judicial Service Commission, noting that “Three of the five examples of blatant media abuse of publicity power in these sustainable security court cases, are South African court cases, namely: * Concourt (CCT 23-10): Citizen v. McBride; and * Gauteng High Court/Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA 815/11): Afriforum / TAU v. Malema / ANC, and * SA / Patricia de Lille v. Lara Johnstone (CAS 572/02; GSH 20/2003; HC-WC Appeal A 696-04, CT-CAS 1340/7/07 & 17/1384/07 & 14/1198/08)”. USCAAF justices refused to grant the Amicus application. On 15 October I filed a Petition for Reconsideration30, wherein I provided Pfc Manning the opportunity, to prove to the court and to Central Intelligence Agency: Director David Petraeus, Manning‟s honourable Ecocentric motivations for his Wikileaks disclosure acts. The Petition challenges the court to determine whether Pfc Manning‟ is indeed Ecocentrically motivated, and to provide him the opportunity to unequivocally declare his Ecocentric motivations, by challenging Pfc Manning‟, the CCR Peaceniks and their „Anti-War‟ and „Peace‟ community friends, whether they are Willing to Pay the One Child Per Family Price for Peace, by taking the Maria Bochkareva Leaver Peacenik Oath? The Maria Bochkareva Leaver Peacenik Oath requests, that if Pfc Bradley Manning is willing to take the Oath, that the Director General of the Central Intelligence Agency, make an official request to the relevant authority, for all charges against Pfc. Manning in this matter to be withdrawn and the matter to be considered amicably resolved, forthwith. Secondly, that the Central Intelligence Agency‟s Kent Center31 establish a fund for contributions in honour of Pfc Manning, to establish a bi-annual „Maria Bochkareva Leaver Peacenik Honor Medal‟, to be awarded on the 23 rd of April, of every year, for the individual who has done the most to educate their community, or nation on the wikileaks.org/irq/ wikileaks.org/afg/ 30 http://sqswans.weebly.com/15-oct--petition.html 31 www.cia.gov/library/kent-center-occasional-papers/index.html 28 29
8
role of overpopulation and overconsumption as factors pushing society to conflict and war. On 31 October, Afriforum, TAU-SA, Malema and ANC concluded their mediation agreement (PDF32). On 02 November, I filed Alien on Pale Blue Dot vs. Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press33, an In Forma Pauperis Writ of Certiorari filed with the U.S. Supreme Court, to determine whether the CAAF decision to refuse the Ecocentric Amicus, was (i) a procedural due process failure; (ii) Anthropocentric „viewpoint discrimination‟, (iii) a violation of Petitioner‟s “Religious Free speech‟ rights. On 09 November 2012, Director General Petraeus was suddenly and very strangely fired (forced to resign). On 14 November, three Nobel Laureates – one being Desmond Tutu -- publish an Open Letter in CCR Appellant publications: The Nation34, The Guardian35 & Salon36, saluting Pfc Manning as a fellow War is Peace Whore. [Note: On 03 December, in the first and only ever presentation by Bradley Manning's attorney David Coombs37, he states that he will not be giving any further presentations, because (a) Bradley does not want a 'trial be media'; and (b) Mr. Coombs does not believe in 'trial by media', in manipulating the court process by pressuring the court, through media spin and bullshit; which confirms the argument of (c) the Ecocentric Amicus Curiae filed in the matter of CCR v. USA, which warned that "Pfc Manning cannot receive a free and fair trial, if Media Abuse their Publicity Power."] On 16 November 2012, I filed a request to Washington DC, FBI Director: James McJunkin38: to enquire whether the FBI‟s Petraeus-Broadwell investigation was used as convenient excuse to fire Petraeus to Protect the „War is Peace Whores‟ Human Factory Farming War Economy, from the threat of CIA-Petraeus‟ implementation of Ecocentric „Maria Bochkareva‟ Sustainable Security Proactive Peace Plan raised in USCAAF: CCR v. USA, and USSC: Alien on Pale Blue Dot vs. RCFP, et al? On 22 November 2012, I filed a request for comment to White House: National Security Advisor: Thomas Donilon39: Request for White House Comment: CNN IReport: Was the FBI's Petraeus-Broadwell investigation used as a convenient excuse to fire Petraeus, to prevent Petraeus from implementing a Sustainable
http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/121131_sca_851-11-order http://sqswans.weebly.com/us-supreme-court.html 34 http://www.thenation.com/article/171272/nobel-laureates-salute-bradley-manning?page=full 35 http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/nov/16/bradley-manning-americans-support 36 www.salon.com/2012/11/15/nobel_peace_laureates_condemn_prosecution_of_bradley_manning/ 37 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5VfdPHoWa4 38 http://sqswans.weebly.com/16-nov-fbi-mcjunkin.html 39 http://sqswans.weebly.com/1/post/2012/11/121122_wh-natsec-donilon.html 32 33
9
Security Peace Plan, submitted to the CIA, as part of court documents, filed in the United States Court of Appeals for Armed Forces, involving Wikileaks and Pfc Manning; on 15 October 2012? On 24 November 2012, I filed a request for information to General Petraeus40: Is LA Times „Petraeus - Comeback General‟ article a confirmation of Petraeus interest in unanswered question to (a) FBI-DC McJunkin & (b) National Security Advisor Mr. Donilon: i.e. Was Petraeus Fired to stop his support for (CCR v USA & Alien v RCFP) Sustainable Security, exposing Nobel's “War is Peace” Fraud? On 27 November 2012, I filed a Pro Se application for Review of the Supreme Court of Appeal „Kill Boere Hate Speech‟ Mediation Agreement entered into by and between: ANC, Mr. Malema, Afriforum and TAU-SA. The Respondents are: Afriforum, Transvaal Agricultural Union, Julius Malema, African National Congress, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Former Presidents Nelson Mandela and FW de Klerk, CRL Rights Commission, Norwegian Nobel Committee: Chair, Central Intelligence Agency: Director, and David Petraeus. 1: Agreement is Unconstitutional due to being culturally vague: My Review argument was that the Agreement is unconstitutionally vague and ambiguous, in that South Africa has many different cultures, with many perspectives on the „Kill Boere‟ issue, and the Mediation Agreement pretends South Africa is one happy monoculture family. The Mediation Agreement does not specify which cultures it is referring to. 2: Agreement ignores SA’s TRC Fraud Failure to Clearly Define ‘Reconciliation’ and address Ecocentric Scarcity as Cause of Violent Conflict Issues: Additionally, the Mediation Agreement had totally censored and ignored the evidence submitted to the Equality Court and the Supreme Court of Appeal, exposing South Africa‟s fraudulent Truth and Reconciliation Commission process and a country‟s legal establishment who refuse to clarify what their legal definition is for „Reconciliation‟41, and the TRC‟s “failure to investigate demographic
http://sqswans.weebly.com/1/post/2012/11/121123_genpetraeus1.html Declaring the Truth and Reconciliation Report‟s failure to provide clear and concise cultural/religious definition of „reconciliation‟ -- i.e. whether Lutheran Christian, African, Boer Afrikaner, Kairos Black Liberation Theology, Frantz Fanon Liberation, Radical Honesty, etc -- to be (a) a failure of the requirements of the Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act, 34 of 1995, Section 2 (3)(1) “The objectives of the Commission shall be to promote national unity and reconciliation in a spirit of understanding which transcends the conflicts and divisions of the past.. “; and (b) an example of Archbishop Tutu‟s description of how vague definitions (in this case not even a vague definition) enable legal tyranny. For example: [1] War is Peace Whores consider „reconciliation‟ to be a tool of pretend problem solving manipulation, which can be used as a great PR publicity stunt to colonize ignorant minds into blind subservient belief in the „reconciliation‟ moral supremacy narrative. Reconciliation is achieved for as long as the subservient followers are in a state of moral supremacy cognitive dissonance, where objective or subjective enquiry is suspended, but if applied would reveal their belief in their state of moral supremacy reconciliation to be false, but lack the integrity and courage to admit they are addicted to being „morally superior‟, due to censoring all evidence exposing their two faced hypocrisy. [2] Lutheran Christians consider „reconciliation‟ to be a voluntary inner spiritual process, whereby reconciliation is achieved via sincere dialogue and a change of heart and perspective. [3] Kairos / Black Liberation Theology Christians consider „reconciliation‟ to be a socialist economic process, whereby reconciliation is only achieved once socialism is forcefully implemented. 40 41
10
youth bulge42 and „population production‟ breeding war43 acts of war as contributory factors to Apartheid violence, to be a failure of the requirements of the Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act, 34 of 1995.” 3. Any ‘Peace’ Agreement that Ignores Scarcity as Cause of Violent Conflict is not a Credible Peace Agreement: Declaring that in our Post Peak NNR world, Sustainable Security requires seriously confronting Scarcity as a Cause of Violent Conflict, and to recommend that if the South African Government and its „Peace Leaders‟ are sincerely committed to implementing peaceful coexistent relations between races, cultures and religions; the SAG should include consideration of the role of overpopulation and overconsumption as root cause factors of resource scarcity pushing society to conflict and war. 4. Alternatively, to order all South African’s to prepare for SA’s Race War in the impending Peak NNR Crisis of Conflict: If South Africa‟s TRC Fraud Fragile Egos are more important than confronting the „Scarcity as Cause of Violent Conflict‟ factor; all South African‟s should prepare themselves for the impending Race and Class War Consequences of the Peak NNR Crisis of Conflict. On 29 November 2012, Concourt Registrar refused to issue my application a case number, or process it, unless I met certain „Rules of the Court‟ (PDF 44), which include filing 25 printed hard copies via land mail, and finding legal representation. On 06 December 2012, I filed “Appeal of Concourt Registrar’s Refusal to Process My Concourt Application: Alien on Pale Blue Dot v Afriforum et al” (PDF45), to the Concourt Justices, via the Registrar, with orders confirming that: (A) I am unable to find a lawyer to represent me as member of the Radical Honesty culture; (B) a Pro Se Ecocentric reduction of requirement for 25 hardcopies; (C) Abuse of Resources is not „normal‟ behaviour for an Ecocentric PP4PP, (D) Confirmation all parties as being served, except for David Petraeus; and (E) [4]
Frantz Fanon Liberation Theologists consider „reconciliation‟ to be a physically violent process of „liberating‟ the „colonized mind‟ by violence „on the rotting corpse of the settler‟. Reconciliation occurs once all the settlers corpses are dead and rotting. [5] Radical Honesty is a non-violent Fanon process, where reconciliation is a psychological and sensate physical experience of releasing of anger and resentments. It is the liberation of both the settler and the colonized minds, by release of both of their suppressed violence, not physically, but verbally: face to face, through expressions of their resentments and appreciations, until all suppressed sensate anger is released. Radical Honesty forgiveness occurs when two former enemies sit across from each other, and have verbally liberated their pent up sensate anger and rage, the body is in a state of released sensate tension, similar to the emotions released in a sexual orgasm, irrespective of however long it takes. Reconciliation occurs when the fragile ego mind is no longer colonized by the suppressed anger in the body. 42 Demographics & Violence: Youth Bulges: Numerous reports provide details how population age structures have significant impacts on a countries stability, governance, economic development and social well-being. Put differently, countries with large populations of idle young men, known as youth bulges, account for 70 – 90 percent of all civil conflicts. Additionally a wealth of historical studies indicates that cycles of rebellion and military campaigns in the early modern and modern world tended to coincide with periods when young adults comprised an unusually large proportion of the population. Youth Bulge Reports: (1) The Shape of Things to Come: Why Age Structure Matters to a Safer More Equitable World, by Population Action International; (2) YouthQuake: Population, fertility and environment in the 21st Century, by Optimum Population Trust. 43 “We must all understand that the most potent weapons of war are the penis and the womb. Therefore, if you cannot convince a group to control its population by discussion, debate, intelligent analysis etc., you must consider their action in using the penis and the womb to increase population an act of war.” - Former Municipal Court Judge Jason G. Brent 44 http://sqswans.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/8/7/13878165/12-11-29_concourt-registrar_letter_to_lara_johnstone.pdf 45 http://sqswans.weebly.com/06-dec-app-reg.html
11
Registrar‟s Discrimination against Pro Se Radical Honesty applicants to be overturned. Therein I request leniency from the Justices for these „Rules of Court‟, in that I am a Pro Se Radical Honesty PP4PP culture applicant, i.e: (A) I cannot find any lawyer to represent me, I have not been able to find any lawyer to represent me for the past ten years, because there are no lawyers or Advocates in South Africa who are willing to represent me, as a member of the Radical Honesty culture, and (B) all courts provide Pro Se applicants with more lenient rules, than those required of applicants who have legal representation; (C) my Ecocentric Pay the Price 4 Peace Peacenik (PP4PP) lifestyle means that I make sure that my consumption and procreation lifestyle does not exceed the carrying capacity of South Africa; (D) the Registrar appears to be discriminating against me, either because I am a Pro Se applicant, or because I am a member of the Radical Honesty culture, or both. I contacted the following Law Societies and Bar Associations to enquire whether they knew of any lawyer willing to represent a member of the Radical Honesty culture: Legal Aid: Chair Vidhu Vedalankar (PDF46) | Jhb Bar Ass: Pro Bono Chair: (PDF47) | Cape Law Society (PDF48) | Cape Bar Council (PDF49) | Free State Law Society (PDF50) | Free State Soc of Advocates (PDF51) | General Counsel of Bar of SA (PDF52) | KwaZulu Natal Law Society (PDF53) | Law Society of South Africa (PDF54) | Pretoria Society of Advocates (PDF55) | Soc of Adv KwaZulu Natal - Dbn (PDF56) | Soc of Adv KwaZulu Natal - Pmb (PDF57) | Northern Province Law Society: M van Niekerk (PDF58). I also submitted a Press Release to the SA Press Association (SAPA) Wire, to attempt to find a Radical Honesty lawyer (SAPA and SA Editors refused to publish it, saying it is „not news‟, that I am unable to find a lawyer to represent a member of the Radical Honesty culture). On 10 December, I enquired from Concourt Registrar: Ms Stander, when the Justices would be responding to my appeal of the Registrar‟s refusal to process my application. She responded “I shall place your matter before the Justices for their consideration when you adhere to the Rules of Court. Kindly find the Rules of court attached hereto. I have marked the most important issues for your convenience.” http://sqswans.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/8/7/13878165/12-11-29_legal_aid-vidhu_vedalankar.pdf http://sqswans.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/8/7/13878165/12-12-06_concourt_justices_encl_g_jhb_bar_assoc_-_pf_louw.pdf 48 http://sqswans.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/8/7/13878165/12-11-30_cape_law_society.pdf 49 http://sqswans.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/8/7/13878165/_12-11-30_cape_bar_council.pdf 50 http://sqswans.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/8/7/13878165/12-11-30_free_state_law_society.pdf 51 http://sqswans.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/8/7/13878165/12-11-30_free_state_soc_of_advocates.pdf 52 http://sqswans.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/8/7/13878165/12-11-30_general_counsel_of_bar_of_sa_-_exec_sec.pdf 53 http://sqswans.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/8/7/13878165/12-12-06_concourt_justices_encl_h_kzn_law_society.pdf 54 http://sqswans.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/8/7/13878165/12-11-30_law_society_of_south_africa.pdf 55 http://sqswans.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/8/7/13878165/12-11-30_pretoria_society_of_advocates.pdf 56 http://sqswans.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/8/7/13878165/12-12-06_concourt_justices_encl_c_adv-soc-kzn-dbn.pdf 57 http://sqswans.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/8/7/13878165/12-12-06_concourt_justices_encl_b_adv-soc-kzn-pmb.pdf 58 http://sqswans.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/8/7/13878165/12-1206_concourt_justices_encl_i_law_soc_of_n_prov_m_van_niekerk.pdf 46 47
12
I responded: “I shall be happy to adhere to the 'War is Peace Whore' Rules of Court, once the Justices provide me with such an order. Have you provided the "Appeal of Concourt Registrar's Refusal to Process My Concourt Application: Alien on Pale Blue Dot v Afriforum et al." to the Justices? If so: Do they intend responding? If not: When do you intend informing the Justices of the "Appeal of Concourt Registrar's Refusal to Process My Concourt Application: Alien on Pale Blue Dot v Afriforum et al."? She did not respond. So I submitted a request to the Concourt Director: Mr. Vic Misser: “On Thursday 06 November I filed an appeal of Ms. Stander's Refusal to process my application, to the Justices. … Can you please ask Ms. Stander if she is also refusing to provide the Justices with a copy of the appeal of her refusal to process the application? If so, to provide such refusal on court letterhead?” There has been no response from the Constitutional Court Registrar, or the Justices to my Radical Honesty culture appeal of the Registrar‟s decisions. On 11 December 2012, I filed two complaints with the CRL Rights Commission (Commission for the Promotion and Protection of the Rights of Cultural, Religious and Linguistic Communities) against the SA Constitutional Court Registrar (PDF59) and a dozen media Editors (PDF60) in that they discriminate against the – Tourette Syndrome like – Radical Honesty culture61. [3] Relief Requested from IBA: Independent Confirmation: Could the IBA provide me with Independent Enquiry, Observation and Written Confirmation that (I) the SA Concourt refuses to process -- or provide written reasons for their refusal – of my Radical Honesty culture Pro Se application, (II) I am unable to find a lawyer in South Africa, to represent me, as a member of the Radical Honesty culture; (II) South African media believe it is „not news‟ that a member of the Radical Honesty culture is unable to find a lawyer in South Africa; for a Radical Honesty Pro Se communication I wish to file with UNHRC: Human Rights Committee, ITO violations of International Covenant on Civil & Political Rights (ICCPR).
[4] Transparency: Additional Background Information: SA Courts Ten Year History of Denying Invocation of Radical Honesty cultural law:
http://sqswans.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/8/7/13878165/12-12-11_crlrightscomm_complaint_concourt_registrar.pdf http://sqswans.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/8/7/13878165/12-12-11_crlrightscomm_complaint_sapa_-_sa_media_encla.pdf 61 SA Media, Concourt & Lawyers Discriminate Against – Tourette Syndrome like -- Radical Honesty Culture http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-894174 59 60
13
For the past ten years, I have repeatedly informed courts that I invoke cultural law in accordance to my Radical Honesty culture. They have simply ignored me. I have repeatedly informed lawyers appointed to represent me, that I demand that they invoke cultural law on behalf of my membership as a member of the Radical Honesty culture. They have simply ignored me, and refused, and insist I am a member of „European culture‟, even though – for example -- I am married to an African American, and have spent my life dedicated to judging any individual based upon their character and honour, not their class, race, religion or appearance. I consider European culture‟s materialism and treatment of women as sex objects, and nature as objects worthy only of plunder and abuse, as despicable. I judge any individual, culture, or religion in accordance to Radical Honesty principles: does the ideology or religion, work for the relevant individuals, in a particular set of circumstances. If so, „it works‟ for those individuals, and whether it is „cannibalism‟ or „communism‟ that „works‟, in terms of fully informed consent, for those individuals, I support them to be cannibals or communists, or whatever. I have been denied the right to invoke cultural law in every single South African court I have appeared in, for the past 10 years: [A] Criminal: 18 June 2002 Political Necessity Trial in George (CAS 572/02; GSH 20/2003; HC-WC Appeal A 696-04) The issues were: (i) Political Necessity to urgently educate citizens on importance of voluntary population reduction by “Shock doctrine” disclosure that AIDS is a biological warfare depopulation virus; (ii) In the absence of voluntary population reduction, exponential Population Growth colliding with Peak Oil, Peak Arable Land, Peak Water, Peak Food indicate Exponential “French Lilly Pond Tipping Point” of humanity overshooting resource limitations, with potentially disastrous biological and nuclear resource warfare consequences. Sentenced to a year in prison, and 3 years correctional supervision. [B] Criminal: Political Necessity Kaffir-Lilly-Pond Trial in Capetown (CTCAS 1340/7/07 & 17/1384/07 & 14/1198/08): The issues were: (i) Political Necessity to urgently educate citizens on importance of voluntary population reduction by “Shock doctrine” disclosure that AIDS is a biological warfare depopulation virus; (ii) In the absence of voluntary population reduction, exponential Population Growth colliding with Peak Oil, Peak Arable Land, Peak Water, Peak Food indicate Exponential “French Lilly Pond Tipping Point” of humanity overshooting resource limitations, with potentially disastrous biological and nuclear resource warfare consequences. Sentenced to a year in prison, and 3 years correctional supervision. Brief Overview of AIDS: Africa’s Iatrogenic Depopulation Solution: 14
“Birth Rates Must Come Down More Quickly Or Current Death Rates Must Go Up. There Is No Other Way.” -- Robert McNamara, Worldbank President, 1970; previously Secretary of Defence from 1961 to 196862 In July 1969 Dr. MacArthur, Director of the U.S. Army Advanced Research Project Agency (ARPA) appeared before Congress, stating that “within a period of 5-10 years it would be possible to produce a synthetic biological agent, an agent that does not naturally exist and for which no natural immunity could have been acquired.”63 According to Dr. Leonard Horowitz and Dr. John Martin, a Professor of Pathology at the University of Southern California, & the Director of the Center for Complex Infectious Diseases, former director of the Viral Oncology Branch of the FDA's Bureau of Biologics, the government's principal human vaccines agency, this “synthetic biological agent” is AIDS, created with $10 million, as required64. Dr. MacArthur added that “it is a highly controversial issue and there are many who believe such research should not be undertaken lest it lead to another method of massive killing of large populations.”65 On October 2, 1970, 15 months after Dr. MacArthur requested an appropriation for AIDS development, Robert McNamara, now World Bank President, made a speech to international bankers in which he identified population growth as “the gravest issue that the world faces over the years ahead,” arguing that population growth was leading to instability, that a 10 billion world population would not be “controllable.”66 McNamara predicted that “it is not a world that any of us would want to live in. Is such a world inevitable? It is not sure but there are two possible ways by which a world of 10 billion people can be averted. Either the current birth rates must come down more quickly or the current death rates must go up. There is no other way.”67 Dr. Horowitz„s book “Emerging Viruses” explores the geopolitical background prior to the appearance of AIDS, and reviews the vaccines studies conducted in New York City and Central West Africa, by the Special Virus program68, under the auspices of the National Cancer Institute and the World Health Organisation. Experiments such as the Merck contract suggesting an Iatrogenic origin of AIDS, where Feline Sutton, AC (1993/12): Report on Abuse of Power: Biological Warfare against American Citizens93, Phoenix letter, Vol. 12, No.12 63 Department of Defense Appropriations for 1970 64 Horowitz, LG (1999): Emerging Viruses: AIDS and Ebola: Nature, Accident or Intentional? (Tetrahedron) 65 Department of Defense Appropriations for 1970 66 Sutton (1993/12) 67 Sutton (1993/12) 68 National Institutes of Health: Division of Cancer Cause and Prevention, National Cancer Institute; U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Office: U.S. Special Virus Program: --- Progress Report: # 9, August 1972 (431 pp); -- Progress Report # 9 (Fold In Chart): Coordination of Experiments; --- Progress Report: # 10, August 1973 (406 pp); --Progress Report: # 11, August 1974 (547 pp); --- Progress Report: # 13, August 1976 (461 pp); --- Progress Report: # 14, June 1977 (439 pp); --- Progress Report: # 15, June 1978 (417 pp) 62
15
Leukema/Sarcoma, Herpes virus, and Monkey cancer viruses were being combined, which led to the Pilot Hepatitus B Vaccines69 partially prepared in Chimpanzees, given to gay men in New York City and African Blacks by 197570. Special Virus Cancer Program documentation includes a flow chart, which links all the 20,000 scientific papers, proving a “candidate” virus was developed and mass produced,71 and the USUSSR agreement under which Biological Weapons including the most advanced cancer viruses were traded during the Cold War72, in terms of “A Memorandum of Understanding for cooperation in the study of microbiology, immunology, and molecular biology of cancer viruses was first signed on November 18, 1972,” which “established procedures for joint studies through the exchange of information, materials and scientists between the two countries.” A partial list of US and USSR researchers, including Dr. Robert Gallo (the discoverer of AIDS) of the NCI, traded the most advanced methods and materials in field of molecular biology, bacteriology & virology during the Cold War, including “large scale production of human virus”. In Merck vaccine scientist Dr. Maurice Hilleman admitted presence of SV40, AIDS and cancer viruses in vaccines73, Mike Adams writes that “One of the most prominent vaccine scientists in the history of the vaccine industry -- a Merck scientist -- made a recording where he openly admits that vaccines given to Americans were contaminated with leukemia and cancer viruses. In response, his colleagues (who are also recorded here) break out into laughter and seem to think it's hilarious. They then suggest that because these vaccines are first tested in Russia, they will help the U.S. win the Olympics because the Russian athletes will all be “loaded down with tumors.” (Thus, they knew these vaccines caused cancer in humans.) This isn't some conspiracy theory -- these are the words of a top Merck scientist who probably … thought this would remain a secret forever. When asked why this didn't get out to the press, he replied “Obviously you don't go out, this is a scientific affair within the scientific community.”” In Drug Money74, Counterpunch expose “the huge salaries pulled down by the heads of many non-profit AIDS organizations” while “pharmaceuticals comprise the most profitable legal industry in America, with profits four times above the average of the Fortune 500”, who are “pumping money into AIDS groups,” which has “effectively co-opted many”. [C] Civil: SA Concourt: Robert McBride vs. The Citizen (CCT 23-10): Horowitz (2001) Death in the Air: Globalism, Terrorism and Toxic Warfare (Tetrahedron) p.270: “Combine these two diseases – feline leukemia and hepatitis – and you have the immune deficiency” syndrome today called AIDS, said CDC hepatitis B chief Dr. Don Francis at the onset of the AIDS epidemic. 70 NIH Contract No: NIH-71-2059: Merck & Company, Inc. Project Director: Dr. Maurice Hilleman 71 National Inst. of Health: Progress Report # 9 (Fold In Chart) 72 Page 36-39; U.S. Special Virus Program, Progress Report # 15, June 1978, (417pp) 73 Adams, M (2011/09/15): Merck vaccine scientist Dr. Maurice Hilleman admitted presence of SV40, AIDS and cancer viruses in vaccines, Natural News www.naturalnews.com/033584_Dr_Maurice_Hilleman_SV40.html 74 Cockburn, A & St. Clair, J (1999/06/15): Drug Money, Counterpunch www.counterpunch.org/1999/06/15/drug-money/ 69
16
I was admitted as an Amicus (PDF75) to the Constitutional Court proceedings between former ANC Umkhonto we Sizwe Terrorist Robert McBride and The Citizen newspaper76, about the interpretation of “TRC amnesty”. My Ecocentric argument that the TRC was a fraud, was based on Sustainable Security Population Policy issues, and supported by expert witness affidavits from Dr. Brad Blanton (PDF77) and Michael Maher (PDF78). The Radical Honesty Population Policy Common Sense interpretation of TRC Social Contract Amicus brief argued that South Africa„s Truth and Reconciliation Hearings were a fraud, as a result of their Anthropocentric Left vs. Right / white vs. black wing blame game focus, and absence of an Ecocentric root cause problem solving focus. Arguments included: (1) The TRC Social Contract avoids providing key definitions, is vague and ambiguous on fundamental culturally conflicting concepts, such as “forgiveness”, “closure”, “national unity”, “reconciliation” etc. (2) The definition and meaning of Amnesty was changed, subsequent to Interim Constitution, and prior to TRC Act, without due Process to all parties; (3) SA„s TRC Fraud analysis in accordance with Just War Principles: * having a just cause, * being a last resort, * declared by proper authority, * possessing right intention, * reasonable chance of success, and * using proportional force. The Amicus Analysis of Evidence concludes: The ANC had no Proper Authority, No Right Intention, No Reasonable Prospects of Just War Success, its Desired End was not proportional to the Means Used; and its declaration of war was not a last resort. Finally, under Post Bellum principles, the ANC„s Promises of Amnesty were reneged upon, destroying all trust in future multi-cultural political agreements for minority cultures. Consequently: Truth and Reconciliation was not seen to be done. The Commission was biased, skewed and not remotely interested in addressing root cause problems of ecological and overpopulation / resource scarcity for a better holistic understanding of Apartheid violence, nor in rainbow struggle perspectives, ignoring blatantly obvious enquiries into population demographic causes of violence, etc. Consequently in the absence of a free and fair enquiry into Apartheid and Anti-Apartheid violence, “Crime of Apartheid” was a falsification of history. An impartial Ecocentric analysis of Anthropocentric Left vs. Right wing Apartheid violence and motives would conclude that “irrespective of the methods used, both sides performed their duties bona fide, in what they perceived to be service to their respective political masters,”79 and that “no single side in the conflict of the past
http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100718_rhwr-concourt-amicus Citizen 1978 (Pty) Ltd v McBride 77 http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100518_cc2310_affid-bblanton 78 http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100522_concourt-expwitness-tmmaher 79 Submission to the TRC, by General M.A. de Malan - www.scribd.com/doc/34462172 75 76
17
has a monopoly of virtue or should bear responsibility for all the abuses that occurred”80. [D] Civil: SA Concourt: Johnstone v. SANEF, et al (CCT 06-11): I filed a Radical Honesty invocation of cultural law application with the Constitutional Court for a writ of Habeus Mentem (right of a woman to their own culture) and Certiorari/Review of the South African Press Council and SA Press Appeals Panel (SAPAP) [1] lack of transparent administrative decision-making, and secrecy of complaints statistics; [2] 24 June 2009 ruling by Ombudsman: Joe Thloloe, [3] 11 October, 3 and 4 November 2010 rulings by Deputy Ombudsman: Johan Retief, and [4] 17 and 24 November 2010 rulings by SA Press Appeals Panel Judge Ralph Zulman; and [5] „SA Media‟s‟ Deliberate Indifference to Radical Honesty legal and political persecution; [6] „SA Media‟s‟ repudiation of scientific journalism81: censorship of root cause “the most potent weapons of war are the penis and the womb82 problem solving, as per their endorsement of censorship of issues raised in Dr. T. Michael Maher‟s study: How and Why Journalists Avoid Population – Environment connection83; and Dr. Brad Blanton‟s Radical Honesty About Anger and Forgiveness84 expert witness affidavit as to how sincere forgiveness enables impartiality and support for the rule of law, whereas fake forgiveness encourages bias towards parties you disagree with and obstruction of the rule of law on behalf of those parties. Within 24 hours of filing the application, the Concourt Justices had decided that it was „not in the interest of justice‟ to be heard. [5] Transparency: Additional Background Information: Response from the International Radical Honesty culture: The Radical Honesty culture and religion was founded by Dr. Brad Blanton, who is: (1) President and CEO of The Center for Radical Honesty, dedicated to promoting honesty in the world; (2) former candidate for Congress in 2004 and 2006, on the platform of „Honesty in Politics‟85; (3) Pope of the Radical Honesty Submission to the TRC by Mr. F.W de Klerk, National Party - www.scribd.com/doc/34462184 “WikiLeaks coined a new type of journalism: scientific journalism. We work with other media outlets to bring people the news, but also to prove it is true. Scientific journalism allows you to read a news story, then to click online to see the original document it is based on. That way you can judge for yourself: Is the story true? Did the journalist report it accurately?” -Don't shoot messenger for revealing uncomfortable truths , by Julian Assange, The Australian, December 08, 2010 http://www.theaustralian.com.au/in-depth/wikileaks/dont-shoot-messenger-for-revealing-uncomfortable-truths/storyfn775xjq-1225967241332 82 “We must all understand that the most potent weapons of war are the penis and the womb. Therefore, if you cannot convince a group to control its population by discussion, debate, intelligent analysis etc., you must consider their action in using the penis and the womb to increase population an act of war.” –-- Jason G. Brent, Attorney and author of Humans: An Endangered Species, as quoted in Boer Volkstaat for African White Refugees Briefing Paper 10/31/16 (www.african-whiterefugees.co.nr) 83 How and Why Journalists Avoid Population-Environment Connection, by T. Michael Maher, Ph.D. http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/mahertm_journo-env-pop-connection?mode=a_p 84 Being Specific About Anger and Forgiveness; excerpts from Practicing Radical Honesty, by Dr. Brad Blanton http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/090611_sqworms_prh-social-contract?mode=a_p 85 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gx-OVdTkwvA 80 81
18
Futilitarian Church; i.e. “Dr. Truth”86; and (4) author of (a) Radical Honesty: How To Transform your Life by Telling the Truth; (b) Practicing Radical Honesty: How to Complete the Past, Stay in the Present and Build a Future with a Little Help from Your Friends, (c) Honest to God: A Change of Heart that Can Change the World, with Neale Donald Walsh (Conversations with God series); (d) Radical Parenting: Seven Steps to a Functional Family in a Dysfunctional World; (e) The Truthtellers: Stories of Success by Radically Honest People and (f) Beyond Good and Evil: The Eternal Split-SecondSound-Light-Being; (g) Some New Kind of Trailer Trash. Worldwide, I am 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 politician Patricia de Lille (1 Month Prison & 3 Year Suspended Sentence: Capetown). Dr. Blanton filed an expert witness affidavit (PDF87) in support of the Amicus Curiae submitted to the Constitutional Court in The Citizen v. Robert McBride (CCT 23-10). On 31 October 2012, I filed an application with the U.S. Supreme Court for review of the decision by the United States Court of Appeals for Armed Forces in the CCR v USA matter88. One of the questions presented being “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‟89?” Dr. Brad Blanton put me in touch with the one member of the Radical Honesty culture who is a lawyer: Maggie Doyle, practicing as Doyle Law LLC in Denver, Colorado. Ms. Doyle, was initially interested in the matter, until she found out that I do not endorse bigotry and discrimination against Conservatives or „right wingers‟, and that I endorse access to the rule of law and courts for everyone. She appears to be a lukewarm or cowardly member of the Radical Honesty culture, in that she does not practice Radical Honesty in her legal practice. She also lacks the honour to resolve issues of disagreement with other members of the Radical Honesty culture. Her commitment to sincere forgiveness is also fake, in that she is extremely bigoted towards conservatives and people who are „right wing‟; whom she does not consider worthy of access to the rule of law, or justice. She is so bigoted towards right wing and conservatives, that she even discriminates against any See Center for Radical Honesty at: www.radicalhonesty.com http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100518_cc2310_affid-bblanton 88 http://sqswans.weebly.com/us-supreme-court.html 89 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 86 87
19
member of the Radical Honesty culture – such as myself – who actually stands up for the rights of everyone from the extreme left, to the extreme right90. Dr. Blanton stated that he was personally uninterested to support a court ruling that rules in favour of Practicing Radical Honesty being considered „religious speech‟, to be protected by the First Amendment. As I informed the U.S Supreme Court Justices: “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.” Sincerely,
Lara Johnstone SHARP: Problem Solving Radical Honoursty Accountability PP4PP: Pay the Price for Peace Peacenik Contact Details for Concourt and SA Law Societies and Bar Associations: Registrar: Martie Stander Constitutional Court Private Bag X1, Constitutional Hill, Braamfontein, Johannesburg, 2017 T: (011) 359-7400 | F: (011) 339-5098 Email: registrar@concourt.org.za
CEO: Adv. Pheagane Moreroa CRL Rights Commission Private Bag X 90 000, Houghton, 2041 Tel: (011) 537 7600 | Fax: (011) 880 3495 ceo@crlcommission.org.za, info@crlcommission.org.za
Dir: Rampela W. Mokoena Cape Law Society P O Box 4528, Cape Town, 8000 T: (021) 443 6700 | F: (021) 443 6751/2 Email: cls@capelawsoc.law.za
I Jamie (SC): Chair Exec. Comm. Cape Bar Council Huguenot Chambers 40 Queen Victoria Street, Cape Town, 8001 Tel: 021 424 2777 | Fax: 021 423 2692 Email: cbc@law.co.za
President: Mr. J Fouche Free State Law Society
Admin Officer: Juanita Bezuidenhout Free State Society of Advocates
Ref: Alien on Pale Blue Dot vs. Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press (RCFP), et al Letter Brief: Notice of „No Interest‟ from Dr. Brad Blanton and „Unknown Interest‟ from the Radical Honesty Community. http://sqswans.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/8/7/13878165/_12-11-06_alien-v-rcfp_noticeofinterest_-_radhoncomm_encl-crtssvc.pdf 90
20
P.O. Box 319 Bloemfontein, 9300 Tel : +27(0)51 447 3237 â „ 8 Email: prokorde@fs-law.co.za
Iustitia Building, Aliwal Street, Bloemfontein, 9301 Tel: 051 430 3567 | Fax: 051 447 4228 Email: fsbar@law.co.za
The Executive Secretary General Council of Bar of S. Africa P O Box 2260, Johannesburg, 2000 Tel: + 27 (0)11 337-4498 Fax: + 27 (0)11 336-8970 Email: gcb@mweb.co.za
Mrs. Riona Gunpath Mng Corporate Services Kwa Zulu Natal Law Society Box 1454, Pietermaritzburg 3200 T : (033)-345 1304 | Fax :(033)-394 9544 Email: info@lawsoc.co.za
Krish Govender, Co-Chair Jan Stemmett, Co-Chair Law Society of South Africa P O Box 36626, Menlo Park 0102 Tel: +27 (0)12 366 8800 Fax: +27 (0)12 362 0969 Email: LSSA@LSSA.org.za
Chair: Executive Committee Pretoria Society of Advocates High Court Chambers 220 Vermeulen Street Pretoria, 0002 Tel: (012) 303 7400 | Fax: (012) 303 7890 Email: advocates@mweb.co.za
Pro Bono Comm: LB Broster SC Soc of Adv KwaZulu-Natal (Durban) 3rd floor South Wing, 6 Durban Club Place, Durban, 4001 Tel: 031 301 3099 | Fax: 031 304 4415 Email: kznbar@law.co.za
Chairman: MG Roberts KwaZulu-Natal Pietermaritzburg Bar Council 17 Prince Edward Street, Pmb, 3201 Tel: 033 845 3547 | Fax: 033 845 3548 Email: pmbbar@pmblaw.co.za
P F Louw SC Jhb Bar Association Chair: Pro Bono Committee Maisels Group, Maisels Chambers Tel: 011 535 0800 | Fax: 011 883 2701 Email: gjkotze@mweb.co.za
Ms Vidhu Vedalankar Legal Aid South Africa 29 De Beer Street, Braamfontein, Johannesburg Telephone: (011) 877 2000 Email: communications2@legal-aid.co.za
Marissa van Niekerk Pro bono Coordinator Pro Bono: Law Soc of N. Provinces PO Box 1493, Pretoria, 0001 Tel: (012) 338 5800 | Fax: (012) 324 0484 Email: probono@lsnp.org.za
21