13-02-28: SAHRC: Concourt & SA Media Discrimination

SHARP PP4PP PO Box 5042 George East, 6539 Tel: (044) 870 7239 Cel: (071) 170 1954 28 February 2013 Ms Melanie Dugmore Provincial Manager SA Human Rights Commission 7th Floor ABSA Building, 132 Adderley Street, Cape Town Tel: 021 426 2277 | Fax: 021 426 2875 Contact:Shafeeqah Salie E-mail: ssalie@sahrc.org.za Complaints of AnthroCorpocentric Patriarchal Dominant culture/s Cultural and Gender discrimination, by: (1) SA Concourt Registrar & Director; (2) SAPA & SA Media Editors; (3) CRL Rights Commission: Chair, against Ecocentric Gender Balanced Radical Honoursty culture member.

Overview of Complaint: [1] On 27 November 2012, I filed a Pro Se application1 (Annex AA) with the Constitutional Court Registrar, for an EcoFeminist Radical Honesty culture Review of the ‗Kill Boer‘ Hate Speech Negotiated Agreement between Afriforum/TAU-SA and Julius Malema/ANC, wherein I specifically requested an order from the court, for the ―Permission to invoke2 cultural law3 in S. 15(3), 30, 31, and 18; to enable the Applicant to honour the duty and responsibility to uphold the principles upon which her Radical Honesty culture is based; and Psychological Integrity in Section 124; the former which may require the application of choice of law rules.‖

http://sqswans.weebly.com/cct-alien-v-afriforum.html 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.

3 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.‘ 4 12. Freedom and security of the person: (2) Everyone has the right to bodily and psychological integrity..

1 2

[2] 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 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.

[3] The invocation of Cultural Law automatically invokes a Conflict between Common/Dominant & Cultural/Minority Law; requiring the court to enquire into the appropriate balancing of ‗dominant‘ law vs ‗minority law‘, through an investigation of the relevant cultural law and cultural lifestyle of the minority culture applicant vs the dominant cultural law and cultural lifestyle of the dominant legal culture.

[4] The Registrar refused to process my application, demanding that I get legal representation, and demanding various ‗dominant‘ cultural rules of court. I filed an appeal of her decision to the Concourt Justices, in that I had invoked cultural law, and that various Dominant Culture ‗Rules of Court‘ violated my Ecocentric cultural values. Additionally I had been unable to find any lawyer in South Africa, willing to represent the Radical Honoursty culture. The Registrar refused to submit my appeal to the Concourt Justices, again citing obedience to the dominant culture‘s ‗Rules of Court‘, as being the Supreme Law of the land.

[5] I filed two complaints to the Commission for the Protection of the Rights of Cultural, Religious and Linguistic Communities (Annex DD & EE): one against the 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.‖ 5

2

Concourt Registrar, and the other against SAPA and 11 mainstream media editors (for refusing to publish a Radical Honoursty culture press release to find out if any SA lawyers were willing to represent the Radical Honoursty culture).

[5.1] The CRL Rights Commission denied both complaints (Annex FF & HH), endorsing : [5.2] the denial of cultural legal representation, and access to courts, to members of the Radical Honesty culture, and (b) the South African Media‘s discrimination against Members of the Radical Honesty culture, by refusing to report the fact that a South African citizen member of the Radical Honesty culture, has been unable to find a lawyer to represent her, as a member of the Radical Honesty culture, for the past ten years, and in a current case before the Constitutional Court. (Ref: 9/1/1/1/46) [5.3] the Constitutional Court Registrar‘s position that: South African AnthroCorpocentric Dominant Cultures ‗Rules of Court‘ are the Supreme Law of the Land; If or when the AnthroCorpocentric Dominant Cultures ‗Rules of Court‘ violate a Minority cultures right to practice their Ecocentric cultural practices, as enshrined in the Constitution Bill of Rights clauses granting citizens from minority cultures, access to courts (S 34), and rights to practice their culture (S. 15(3), 30, 31, and 18). (Ref: 9/1/1/1/49) [6] I filed appeals of both decisions to the CRL Rights Commission Chairperson: Reverent Mabuza (Annex GG & II), who has not acknowledged receipt, nor responded to the appeals.

Complainant: [7] I am an adult Radical Honoursty Ecofeminist Guerrylla Law Sustainable Security practicing paralegal EcoFeminist, member of Friend of Wikileaks (FoWL) and the Radical Honourty culture12; resident in George, Southern Cape, South Africa; where I run a small EcoFeminist pedal-powered wormery business.

[8] I am married to African American prisoner Demian Emile Johnson, who has been incarcerated in the California Dept. of Corrections, on a sentence of 15-to-life for felony murder, since 1982. They met while she was working on providing educational information on rehabilitation issues to prisoners. (Sacramento County: Licence & Certificate of Marriage: Demian Emile Johnson and Lara Johnstone (PDF13); 31 May 1998: Sunday Times: US convict wins love and support in SA town SA Constitutional Court ruling of 03 May 2012 in CCT 23-10, reads as follows: ―Ms. Lara Johnstone, Member of Radical Honesty Culture and Religion, is admitted as an amicus curiae‖ 13 http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/090922_hc-ifp 12

3

(PDF14); 24 Sep 1998: YOU: Volksrust Farmgirl Doomed for Love of Black Convict)(PDF15).

[9] Radical Honoursty Culture: I am a member of the Radical Honoursty culture, based upon Radical Honesty16 dispute resolution principles, which is (a) a minority culture, (b) an Ecocentric culture, (c) practices Brutal Honesty Authentic Multiculturalism endorsing authentic diversity of cultures, and (d) does not endorse the homogenizing AnthroCorpocentric Egotist Consumptionism effects of Multinational GlobalCorp induced Globalization of cultures.

[10] Mosuo EcoFeminist: The Mosuo are a small Gender Balanced culture who live in South West China, and have no murder, rape, war, suicide, jails or unemployment. I endorse the Mosuo cultural worldview on (a) gender balance, (b) family/tribal living and entrepreneurial arrangements and co-responsibility for all family members, (c) root cause transparency problem solving, (d) familial responsibility for population procreation and resource utilization issues, etc.

[10.1] The Mosuo language is rendered not in writing, but in Dongba, the only pictographic language used in the world today. The Mosuo language has no words for murder, war, rape, or jealousy, and the Mosuo have no jails and no unemployment.17 [10.2] Although the Mosuo culture is most frequently described as a matriarchal culture; in fact, its more accurate to refer to it as ―matrilineal‖, but still doesn't reflect the full truth. Accurately speaking have aspects of matriarchal culture, in that women are the head of the house, property is passed through the female line, and women tend to make the business decisions. Political power, however, remains in the hands of males, creating a gender-balanced society.

[10.3] Mosuo women carry on the family name and run the households, which are usually made up of several families, with one woman elected as the head. The head matriarchs of each village govern the region by committee.

[10.4] The Mosuo generally live in large extended families, with many generations (great grandparents, grandparents, parents, children, grandchildren, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, etc.) all living together within the same house. For the most part, everyone lives within communal quarters, without private bedrooms or living areas. However, women between certain ages, after ―coming of age‖, can have their own private bedrooms. http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/980513_stimes http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/980924_you 16 www.radicalhonesty.com 17 Tami Blumenfield (May 2009): The Na of Southwest China: Debunking the Myths; Washington Univ http://web.pdx.edu/~tblu2/Na/myths.pdf 14 15

4

[10.5] The result – as different as it may be from other systems – is a family structure which is, in fact, extremely stable. Divorce does not exist …there are no questions over child custody (the child belongs to the mother's family), splitting of property (property is never shared), etc. If a parent dies, there is still a large extended family to provide care.

[10.6] According to patriarchal macho Argentinean writer Ricardo Coler18, who decided to find out and spent two months with the Mosuo in southern China: ―Men live better where women are in charge‖ and ―Women have a different way of dominating.‖ Coler asserts that while he expected an inverse patriarchy, he experienced something totally different, because women have a different way of dominating: ―When women rule, it's part of their work. They like it when everything functions and the family is doing well. Amassing wealth or earning lots of money doesn't cross their minds. Capital accumulation seems to be a male thing.

It's not for nothing that popular wisdom says that the difference between a man and a boy is the price of his toys.‖ [11] I am neither anthropocentrically liberal nor conservative, nor an endorser of AnthroCorpocentric Legislative or Juristic Jurisprudence which only grants Humans and Corporations legal personhood, while denying legal personhood to all other animal and plant species and ecological rights to nature.

[12] I am the founder of CommonSism19 ideology -- Common Sense Guerrylla Laws for a Sustainable Commons -- and the unregistered Yshmael Guerrylla Law Political Party, the aim of which is to establish a Green License to Vote, to elect a Green President, to transition South Africa into a Sustainable Voluntaryist (Honourable Free Society of Men and Women capable of ruling themselves) Green Republic.

[13] The Yshmael Guerrylla Law (YGL) Political Party‘s platform is based upon Guerrylla Law -- or CommonSism (Common Sense Laws for a Sustainable Commons) -- inspired by -- among others -- the Taker vs. Leaver ideas of the gorilla Ishmael, in Daniel Quinn's books: Ishmael and My Ishmael; and the Tragedy of the Commons ideas, as expressed by Garrett Hardin.

[14] CommonSism Guerrylla Laws regulate human procreation and resource utilization behaviour, by means of legally defining the procreation and consumption difference, and consequent related Sustainable Rights/Penalties, between a Leaver and a Taker, to ensure sustainability.

Ricardo Coler (28 May 2009): The Mosuo Matriarchy: 'Men Live Better Where Women Are In Charge'; Der Spiegel http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/the-mosuo-matriarchy-men-live-better-where-women-arein-charge-a-627363.html 19 http://sqswans.weebly.com/guerrylla-law.html 18

5

[15] CommonSism asserts that a majority of society's problems - crime, violence, unemployment, poverty, inflation, food shortages, political instability, vanishing species, garbage and pollution urban sprawl, traffic jams, toxic waste, energy and non-renewable resources (NNR) depletion and scarcity are symptoms of Ecological Overshoot, resulting from the AnthroCorpoCentric Consumptionist Left and Right Wing's war against nature, and the failures of AnthroCorpocentric Jurisprudence.

[16] Ecological Overshoot is a consequence of all other ideologies and their adherents failure to legally (a) define the difference between sustainable and unsustainable procreation and consumption behaviour; and (b) provide legal rights to sustainable practices, and legal penalties to unsustainable individuals, corporations and organisations.

[17] Guerrylla Laws (A) simply and very specifically clarify the difference between the consumption and procreation behaviour of an Unsustainable Taker (Scarcity Combatant) vs a Sustainable Leaver (Eco-Innocent); and are (B) used in courts to (a) provide legal rights and socio-political rewards of recognition to Sustainable Leaver's for their Heroic lifestyle choices and practices; (b) confront Taker Scarcity Combatants of their Breeding / Consumption combatant behaviours aggravation of Scarcity induced socio-economic problems, by means of aggravated legal penalties, in accordance to their 'Taker Scarcity Combatant' status.

[18] Guerrylla Laws define the Eco/Ego Footprint20 procreation and consumption behaviour of an individual as a Sustainable Leaver (aka Eco-Innocent) or Unsustainable Taker (aka Scarcity-Combatant), based upon a sustainable consumption bio-capacity of 1 global hectare (gha)21 (60 % of 1.8 gha)22 in accordance with the proactive conservation policies of Bhutan23; multiplied by an individuals Breeding footprint factor of 20 per child.

EcoFootprint: The difference between the biocapacity and Ecological Footprint of a region or country. A biocapacity deficit occurs when the Footprint of a population exceeds the biocapacity of the area available to that population. If there is a regional or national biocapacity deficit, it means that the region is importing biocapacity through trade or liquidating regional ecological assets. Global biocapacity deficit cannot be compensated through trade, and is overshoot.

21 Sustainable Footprint Biocapacity: A biocapacity of 1 gha assumes that 40% of land is set aside for other species. 1 gha is 60 % of 1.8 gha, therefore .8 hectares is set aside for other species.

22 International Biocapacity: In 2006, the average biologically productive area (biocapacity) per person worldwide was approximately 1.8 global hectares (gha) per capita. In 2008, there were ~ 12 billion hectares of biologically productive land and water on Earth. Dividing by the number of people alive in that year (6.7 billion) gives 1.79 global hectares per person. This assumes that no land is set aside for other species that consume the same biological material as humans. If for example, there were only 3.5 billion people alive that year, that would have provided everyone with 3.5 gha. If there were only 1 billion people, their would be 12gha biocapacity for each persons needs.

23 Bhutan Proactive Conservation: Bhutan is seen as a model for proactive conservation initiatives. The Kingdom has received international acclaim for its commitment to the maintenance of its biodiversity. This is reflected in the decision to maintain at least sixty percent of the land area under forest cover, to designate more than 40% of its territory as national parks, reserves and other protected areas, and most recently to identify a further nine percent of land area as biodiversity corridors linking the protected areas. Environmental conservation has been placed at the core of the nation's development strategy, the middle path. It is not treated 20

6

[19] Sustainable Leaver / Eco-Innocent: 0 children, consumption < 20 gha (Intn'l Biocapacity (1 gha) x 20); or 1 child, consumption < 1 gha.

[20] Unsustainable Taker / Scarcity-Combatant: 0 children, consumption > 20 gha; or 1 child, consumption > 1 gha.

[21] For example: Complainant‘s Consumption Footprint24 using Sustainable Economy's Myfootprint.org quiz, is 12.75 global hectares (gha). South Africa's average consumption footprint is 38.59 gha. Amici has no children, consequently my procreation factor is 0 x 20* = 0. [(Each Child increases a parents footprint by factor of 2025)]. My Consumption (12.75) x Procreation (0) = Eco Footprint of 12.75/0 gha. If accurate, if everyone consumed and procreated like me, we would need 0.81 earths.26 Conversely, if everyone consumed and procreated like President Jacob Zuma, we would need 2090 earths27.

[22] Sustainable Security: Sustainability is Security: ―There is no security without sustainability‖28: In the absence of an international new moral order29 where Ecocentric laws are implemented to regulate and reduce human procreation and resource utilization behaviour, towards a sustainable, pre-industrial lifestyle paradigm; ―overpopulation‖30 and resource scarcity31 will result in conflict and as a sector but rather as a set of concerns that must be mainstreamed in Bhutan's overall approach to development planning and to be buttressed by the force of law. - "Parks of Bhutan". Bhutan Trust Fund for Environmental Conservation online. Bhutan Trust Fund.

24 http://myfootprint.org/en/your_results/?id=2559685 25 Paul Murtaugh (7-31-09): Family Planning: A Major Environmental Emphasis, Oregon University http://sqswans.weebly.com/child--ecofootprint-x-20.html 26 http://sqworms.weebly.com/lara-johnstone-eco-081.html 27 President Zuma‘s consumption footprint using Sustainable Economy's Myfootprint.org quiz, is 65.66 global hectares (gha). President Zuma‘s Procreation Factor is 500 [President Zuma has 25 children. His procreation footprint factor is 25 x 20* = 500. (Each Child increases a parents footprint by factor of 20 )]. President Zuma‘s Net Consumption & Procreation Footprint is 33280 gha [Consumption (65.66) x Procreation (500) = Net Footprint of 33280 gha]. If accurate, if everyone consumed and procreated like President Zuma, we would need 2,090 earths. http://sqworms.weebly.com/jacob-zuma-ego-2090.html 28 Murphy, R (2006/10/24): US Army Strategy of the Environment, Office of the Dep. Asst. Sec. of the Army, Environment, Safety & Occup. Health: Assistant for Sustainability; Linkola, P (2009): Can Life Prevail? A Radical Approach to the Environmental Crisis (Integral Tradition Publishing) 29 Hardin (1968/12/13); 1996: US Army War College: Parameters: The Culture of Future Conflict: Overpopulation & Resource Scarcity will be the Direct Cause of Confrontation, Conflict, and War: Major Ralph Peters | US Army War College: Parameters | Winter 1995-96, pp. 18-27.: ―Resource scarcity will be a direct cause of confrontation, conflict, and war. The struggle to maintain access to critical resources will spark local and regional conflicts that will evolve into the most frequent conventional wars of the next century. Gross overpopulation will destroy fragile possibilities for progress in much of the non-Western world, and much of this problem is the West's fault. .. Basic resources will prove inadequate for populations exploding beyond natural limits, and we may discover truths about ourselves that we do not wish to know. In the end, the greatest challenge may be to our moral order.‖ 30 Hardin G (1991): Carrying Capacity and Quality of Life, Environmental Science: Sustaining the Earth; Simmons, M (2000/09/30): Revisiting the Limits to Growth: Could the Club of Rome Have Been Correct, After All? 31 Koppel, T (2000): CIA and Pentagon on Overpopulation and Resource Wars, Nightline; United States Joint Forces Command (2010/02/18): The Joint Operating Environment - 2010 (The JOE – 2010); Parthemore, C & Nagl, J (2010/09/27): Fueling the Future Force: Preparing the Department of Defense for a Post-Petroleum Environment, Center for a New American Security (CNAS); United States Army & TRADOC (2012): US Army Unified Quest 2012 Fact Sheet, Unified Quest 2012 is the Army Chief of Staff's annual Title 10 Future Study

7

war32 (perhaps nuclear33) confronting regions at an accelerated pace34, and ―collapse of the global economic system and every market-oriented national economy‖35 by 205036.

Respondent: Concourt Registrar & Director: [23] Constitutional Court Registrar: Ms. Martie Stander and Director: Vic Misser, are refusing (Annex BB) to process my (A) invocation of minority ecocentric cultural law application for Radical Honesty culture Review of the ‗Kill Boer‘ Hate Speech Negotiated Agreement between Afriforum/TAU-SA and Julius Malema/ANC, stating that the South African AnthroCorpocentric Dominant Cultures ‗Rules of Court‘ are the Supreme Law of the Land; If or when the AnthroCorpocentric Dominant Cultures ‗Rules of Court‘ violate a Minority cultures right to practice their Ecocentric cultural practices, as enshrined in the Constitution Bill of Rights clauses granting citizens from minority cultures, access to courts (S 34), and rights to practice their culture (S. 15(3), 30, 31, and 18). (Ref: 9/1/1/1/49).

Registrar Ms. Martie Stander Director: Vic Misser Constitutional Court, 1 Hospital Street, Constitutional Court, 1 Hospital Street, Braamfontein, Johannesburg Braamfontein, Johannesburg Tel: (011) 359 7400 Tel: (011) 359 7400 Fax: (011) 339 5098 Fax: (011) 339 5098

Respondent: SAPA & SA Media: [24] (A) SA Press Association: Editor: Mark van der Velden, (B) 702 Radio: Producer: Pheladi Gwangwa, (C) Business Day: Editor: Peter Bruce, (D) Beeld: Editor: Tim du Plessis, (E) Die Burger: Editor: Bun Booyens, (F) Cape Argus: Editor: Chris Witfield, (G) The Citizen: Editor: Martin Williams, (H) City Press: Editor: Ferial Haffajee, (I) Mail and Guardian: Editor: Nic Dawes, (J) ENews: Producer: Patrick Conroy, (K) Cape Times: Editor: Alide Dasnois, (L) Rapport: Editor: Bokkie Gerber; (M) Sunday Times: Editor: Ray Hartley, (N) Sunday Independent: Editor: Makhudu Sefara: editors discriminate against the EcoCentric Gender Balanced Radical

Plan (FSP); Brent, JG (2012): Humans: An Endangered Species Jason Brent; Heinberg, R (2006/04/30): Population, Resources, and Human Idealism, Energy Bulletin; Peters (1996) 32 Peters (1996); Bush, GW Snr (1986/02): Public Report of the Vice-President‘s Task Force on Combatting Terrorism; Homer-Dixon, T, & Boutwell, J, & Rathjens, G (1993): Environmental change and violent conflict: Growing scarcities of renewable resources can contribute to social instability and civil strife. Scientific American, 268(2), pp. 38-45 33 Hardin (1968/12/13) 34 United States Army & TRADOC (2012) 35 Schultz, S (2010/09/01): [German] Military Study Warns of Potentially Drastic Oil Crisis, Der Spiegel 36 Clugston, C (2012): Scarcity: Humanity‘s Final Chapter (Booklocker.com Inc): Preface, pg. ix

8

Honoursty culture, in that they believe that the fact that a South African citizen member of the Radical Honoursty culture, has been unable to find a lawyer to represent her, as a member of the Radical Honoursty culture, for the past ten years, and in a current case before the Constitutional Court, is ―not news‖?

Mr Mark van der Velden Editor: SA Press Association PO Box 7766, Johannesburg, 2000 Tel: (011) 782 1600 Fax: (011) 782 1587 / 1591

Ms Pheladi Gwangwa Station Manager: 702 Radio PO Box 5572, Rivonia, 2128 Tel: (011) 506 3702 Fax: (011) 506 3670

Peter Bruce Editors: Business Day PO Box 1746, Saxonwold, 2132 Tel: (011) 280 5548 Fax: (011) 280 5505

Mr Tim Du Plessis Editor: Beeld PO Box 333, Auckland Park, 2006 Tel: (011) 713 9000 Fax: (011) 713 9956 / 7

Bun Booyens Editor: Die Burger PO Box 692, Capetown, 8000 Tel: (021) 406 2121 Fax: (021) 406 3965

Mr. Chris Witfield Editor: Cape Argus PO Box 56, Capetown, 8000 Tel: (021) 488 4911 Fax: (021) 488 4156 / 4793

Mr. Martin Williams Editor: The Citizen PO Box 43069, Industria, Johannesburg, 2042 Tel: (011) 248 6000 Fax: (011) 248 6213/4

Ms. Ferial Haffajee Editor in Chief: City Press PO Box 3413, Johannesburg, 2000 Tel: (011) 713 9001 Fax: (011) 713 9966

Mr. Nic Dawes Editor: Mail & Guardian, P O Box 91667 Auckland Park, Jhb, 2006 Tel: (011) 250 7300 Fax: (011) 250 7503

Mr. Patrick Conroy ETV: Head of E-News PO Box 12124, Mill Street Gardens, CAPE TOWN, 8010 Tel: (021) 481 4500 Fax: (021) 481 4630

Ms Alida Dasnois Editor: Cape Times PO Box 56, Capetown, 8000 Tel: (021) 488 4701 Fax: (021) 488 4717 / 4744

Mr. Bokkie Gerber Editor: Rapport PO Box 8422, Johannesburg, 2000 Tel: (011) 713 9628 Fax: (011) 713 9977

Mr. Ray Hartley Managing Editor: Sunday Times Private Bagx 1742, Saxonwold, 2132 Tel: (011) 280 3000 Fax: (011) 280 5150 / 1

Mr. Makhaudu Sefara Editor: Sunday Independent PO Box 1014, Johannesburg, 2000 Tel: (011) 633 9111 Fax: (011) 834 7520

Respondent: CRL Rights Commission: Chairman: [25] CRL Rights Commission Legal Investigator: Mrs. K Makgoba, and Chairman: Reverend Rev Dr. Wesley Mabuza: Mrs. Makgoba‘s alleged investigation endorses the cultural discrimination of the Concourt Registrar and SA Media editors; and Rev. Mabuza has failed to respond to an appeal, of Mrs.

9

Mabuza‘s endorsement of the Concourt and SA Media‘s discrimination against the ecocentric gender balanced Radical Honoursty culture.

Rev Dr. Wesley Mabuza CRL Rights Commission Private Bag X 90 000 Houghton, 2041 Tel: (011) 537 7600 Fax: (011) 880 3495

Mrs. K Makgoba CRL Rights Commission Private Bag X 90 000 Houghton, 2041 Tel: (011) 537 7600 Fax: (011) 880 3495

CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS: [26] On 27 November 2012, I filed a Pro Se application37 (Annex AA) with the Constitutional Court Registrar, for Radical Honesty culture Review of the ‗Kill Boer‘ Hate Speech Negotiated Agreement between Afriforum/TAU-SA and Julius Malema/ANC, wherein I specifically an order from the court, for the ―Permission to invoke38 cultural law39 in S. 15(3), 30, 31, and 18; to enable the Applicant to honour the duty and responsibility to uphold the principles upon which her Radical Honesty culture is based; and Psychological Integrity in Section 1240; the former which may require the application of choice of law rules.‖ [27] The Respondents are: (1) Afriforum, (2) Transvaal Agricultural Union, (3) Julius Malema, (4) African National Congress, (5) Archbishop Desmond Tutu, (6) Former Presidents Nelson Mandela and (7) FW de Klerk, (8) CRL Rights Commission, (9) Norwegian Nobel Committee: Chair, (10) Central Intelligence Agency: Director, and (11) David Petraeus.

[28]

The application – and related evidence for orders requested -- argues that:

[28.1] The 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

http://sqswans.weebly.com/cct-alien-v-afriforum.html 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.

39 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.‘ 40 12. Freedom and security of the person: (2) Everyone has the right to bodily and psychological integrity..

37 38

10

Africa is one happy monoculture family. The Mediation Agreement does not specify which cultures it is referring to.

[28.2] The 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 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.‖ [28.3] Any ‘Peace’ Agreement that Ignores Scarcity as Cause of Violent Conflict is not a Credible Peace Agreement: Declaring that in our Post Peak 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.

[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 41

11

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.

[28.4] 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.

[29] On 29 November 2012, Concourt Registrar refused (Annex BB) to issue my application a case number, or process it, unless I met certain ‗Rules of the Court‘ (PDF44), which include filing 25 printed hard copies via land mail (I filed one hardcopy as a Pro Se, and in accordance to my Ecocentric anti-resource waste values), and finding legal representation.

[30] 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 (Annex CC); requesting a Constitutional Court declaratory order confirming that: (A) I am unable to find a lawyer to represent me as member of the Radical Honesty culture.

[31] Put simply my appeal can be stated as An Appeal of AnthroCorpocentric Patriarchal Dominant Cultures ‗Rules of Court‘, which violate the cultural practices of an Ecocentric Gender Balanced Minority culture.

[32] Therein I request leniency from the Justices for these ‗Rules of Court‘, in that I am a Pro Se Radical Honesty PP4PP culture applicant, and 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. As proof, I 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 http://sqswans.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/8/7/13878165/12-11-29_concourtregistrar_letter_to_lara_johnstone.pdf 45 sqswans.weebly.com/06-dec-app-reg.html 46 sqswans.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/8/7/13878165/12-11-29_legal_aid-vidhu_vedalankar.pdf 47 sqswans.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/8/7/13878165/12-12-06_concourt_justices_encl_g_jhb_bar_assoc__pf_louw.pdf 48 sqswans.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/8/7/13878165/12-11-30_cape_law_society.pdf 49 sqswans.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/8/7/13878165/_12-11-30_cape_bar_council.pdf 44

12

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).

[33] I also submitted a Press Release to the SAPA Press Wire (Annex GG:B), wherein I attempt to find a Radical Honesty lawyer. SAPA published the Press Release to their ‗wire‘, did not write a SAPA news story about it, which they generally do.

[34] The Press Release attempts to determine whether there are any South African lawyers who are willing to represent an individual from the Radical Honoursty culture. The lawyers do not read the ‗SAPA press wire‘, they read the newspapers.

The press release is pointless simply published to the Press Wire, if no media publications publish the information in the Press Release.

[35] I telephoned SAPA to find out why they did not write a story about it, whereupon the SAPA Journalist informed me that it was ‗not news‘. When I asked why other SA media publications did not publish it, she said she thought, they also probably think it is ‗not news‘.

[36] I then wrote an email to all of the Editors (Annex GG:B), asking them whether they ―believe that the fact that a South African citizen member of the Radical Honesty culture, has been unable to find a lawyer to represent her, as a member of the Radical Honesty culture, for the past ten years, and in a current case before the Constitutional Court, is ―not news‖?‖ [37] None of them responded and none of them published a story to inform SA lawyers that a South African citizen member of the Radical Honesty culture, has been unable to find a lawyer to represent her, as a member of the Radical Honesty culture, for the past ten years, and in a current case before the Constitutional Court.

[38] On 10 December, I enquired from Concourt Registrar: Ms Stander, when the Justices would be responding to my appeal.

sqswans.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/8/7/13878165/12-11-30_free_state_law_society.pdf sqswans.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/8/7/13878165/12-11-30_free_state_soc_of_advocates.pdf 52 sqswans.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/8/7/13878165/12-11-30_general_counsel_of_bar_of_sa_-_exec_sec.pdf 53 sqswans.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/8/7/13878165/12-12-06_concourt_justices_encl_h_kzn_law_society.pdf 54 sqswans.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/8/7/13878165/12-11-30_law_society_of_south_africa.pdf 55 sqswans.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/8/7/13878165/12-11-30_pretoria_society_of_advocates.pdf 56 sqswans.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/8/7/13878165/12-12-06_concourt_justices_encl_c_adv-soc-kzn-dbn.pdf 57 sqswans.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/8/7/13878165/12-12-06_concourt_justices_encl_b_adv-soc-kzn-pmb.pdf 58 sqswans.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/8/7/13878165/12-1206_concourt_justices_encl_i_law_soc_of_n_prov_m_van_niekerk.pdf 50 51

13

[39] 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.‖ [40] 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."?

[41] 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?‖ [42] There has been no response from the Constitutional Court Registrar, or the Justices to my Radical Honesty culture appeal of the Registrar‘s decisions.

[43] 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: Annex DD) and a dozen media Editors (PDF60: Annex EE) in that they discriminate against the – Tourette Syndrome like – Radical Honesty culture61.

[44] On 12 December 2012, I wrote a letter to Mark Ellis, the Executive Director of the International Bar Association; requesting the IBA to 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.

[45] On 04 February, I sent a reminder to the CRL Rights Commission authorities requesting a status report as to my aforementioned complaints, in terms of CRL Rights Commission's procedures for 'ensuring that the rights of a community are

http://sqswans.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/8/7/13878165/12-1211_crlrightscomm_complaint_concourt_registrar.pdf 60 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

14

protected', as detailed under: 4.1. Screening of Complaint, and 4.2 Complaints handling.

[46] I also telephoned the CRL Rights Commission, and was informed by the receptionist to speak to a lady named Baqlolile (spelling?). I called at least 5 times, and every time the receptionist put me through to Baqlolile, I would ask to confirm whether I was speaking to the right person, and she would refuse to confirm her name, and put down the phone.

[47] On 06 February 2013, I received an acknowledgement of receipt for my SAPA and SA Media Editors, discrimination complaint, from Mrs. Makgoba.

[48] On 07 February 2013, Ms Makgoba ruled (Annex FF / GG:C) that ―the commission has taken strive to analyse your complaint with regard to the above subject matter. Based on the fact that you have been unable to state cultural or religious or linguistic right that has been violated, except for quoting the constitutional provisions, the commission has concluded therefore that your matter falls outside the commission's mandate. Accordingly the commission has dismissed your matter and proceed to close the file.‖ [49] On 07 February 2013, I filed an appeal (Annex GG) of CRL Rights Commission, Mrs. Makgoba‘s ruling, to Rev. Dr. Wesley Mabuza, the CRL Rights Commission Chair: Ref: 9/1/1/1/46: Lara Johnstone, Radical Honesty culture v. SAPA & SA Media: Appeal of CRL Rights Comm: Mrs. Makgoba 07 February ruling (PDF62): ―Request Confirmation CRL Rights Commission Chairperson: Mr. Mabuza endorses Mrs. K. Makgoba‘s Ruling authorizing (a) the CRL Rights Commission‘s and SA Legal establishment‘s endorsement of the denial of cultural legal representation, and access to courts, to members of the Radical Honesty culture, and (b) the South African Media‘s discrimination against Members of the Radical Honesty culture, by refusing to report the fact that a South African citizen member of the Radical Honesty culture, has been unable to find a lawyer to represent her, as a member of the Radical Honesty culture, for the past ten years, and in a current case before the Constitutional Court. [There has, as yet, been no response to the Appeal from the CRL Rights Commissioner] [50] On 07 February 2013, I also filed requests to Amnesty International (PDF63) and Human Rights Watch (PDF64), to ―Take Notice & Provide Independent Observation of my Radical Honesty culture appeal of South African Commission for the Promotion and Protection of the Rights of Cultural, Religious and Linguistic Communities (CRL Rights Comm) Ruling to Endorse Denying me Access to Legal sqswans.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/8/7/13878165/13-02-07_crl-rights-comm_ref_9-1-1-1-46_rh-v-sapasamedia_enclabc.pdf 63 sqswans.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/8/7/13878165/13-02-07_amnesty-international_ind-monitor-observ_crlrcomp_encl.pdf 64 sqswans.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/8/7/13878165/13-02-07_human-rights-watch_ind-monitorobserv_crlrc_enc.pdf 62

15

Representation & Courts, as a member of the Radical Honesty culture, for the past ten years, and in current Concourt case: Alien v. Afriforum et al (CRL Ref: 9/1/1/1/46: RH v SAPA & SA Editors)‖.

[51] On 18 February 2013, CRL Rights Commission, Mrs. Makgoba issued her ruling (Annex HH / II:B): Ref: 9/1/1/1/49: Lara Johnstone, Radical Honesty culture v Constitutional Court Registrar: Refusal by the Constitutional Court Registrar to process your application for Review, stating: ―The Commission would like to advise you that your complaint does not fall under the mandate of the Commission. Be advised further that, following our investigation on the above matter, the Commission found that the Constitutional Court registrar's refusal to process your application for review was based on your non-adherence to the rules of the constitutional court. The refusal has no affliction on any cultural, religious or linguistic rights of communities which fall under the mandate of the commission.‖ [52] On 19 February 2013, I filed an Appeal (Annex II) of CRL Rights Commission: Mrs. Makgoba‘s Ruling: Ref: 9/1/1/1/49: Lara Johnstone, Radical Honesty culture v. SA Concourt Registrar: Appeal of CRL Rights Comm: Mrs. Makgoba 18 February ruling: Appeal of Mrs. K. Makgoba‘s Ruling endorsing the Constitutional Court Registrar‘s position that: South African AnthroCorpocentric Dominant Cultures ‗Rules of Court‘ are the Supreme Law of the Land; If or when the AnthroCorpocentric Dominant Cultures ‗Rules of Court‘ violate a Minority cultures right to practice their Ecocentric cultural practices, as enshrined in the Constitution Bill of Rights clauses granting citizens from minority cultures, access to courts (S 34), and rights to practice their culture (S. 15(3), 30, 31, and 18).

[53] On 19 February 2013, I also filed requests65 to the International Network for Cultural Diversity (INCD) International Secretariat: Garry Neil, Executive Director & Philosopher Mr. Slavoj Zizek, as well as International Society for Reform of Criminal Law (ISRCL) President: The Hon. Chief Justice Lance S. G. Finch: Request INCD/ISRCL Take Notice & Provide Independent Observation and monitoring of Ref: 9/1/1/1/49: Lara Johnstone, Radical Honesty culture v. SA Concourt Registrar.

[54] There has been no response from the CRL Rights Commission: Chairman: Reverend Mabuza, to my appeals, nor from the Constitutional Court Registrar or the SA Media editors.

RELEVANT CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS: [55] S 9. Equality: Everyone is equal before the law and has the right to equal protection and benefit of the law. … (3) The state may not unfairly discriminate directly or indirectly against anyone on one or more grounds, including race, 65

http://sqswans.weebly.com/1/post/2013/02/130219_incd-crl1.html

16

gender, sex, pregnancy, marital status, ethnic or social origin, colour, sexual orientation, age, disability, religion, conscience, belief, culture, language and birth.

(4) *1 No person may unfairly discriminate directly or indirectly against anyone on one or more grounds in terms of subsection (3). National legislation must be enacted to prevent or prohibit unfair discrimination. (5) Discrimination on one or more of the grounds listed in subsection (3) is unfair unless it is established that the discrimination is fair.

[56] S 15: Freedom of religion, belief and opinion: Everyone has the right to freedom of conscience, religion, thought, belief and opinion.

[57] S 19: Political rights: Every citizen is free to make political choices, which includes the right - to form a political party; to participate in the activities of, or recruit members for, a political party; and ..

[58] S 30. Language and culture: Everyone has the right to use the language and to participate in the cultural life of their choice, but no one exercising these rights may do so in a manner inconsistent with any provision of the Bill of Rights.

[59] 31. Cultural, religious and linguistic communities: Persons belonging to a cultural, religious or linguistic community may not be denied the right, .. - to enjoy their culture, practise their religion and use their language; and to form, join and maintain cultural, religious and linguistic associations and other organs of civil society.

[60] S 34. Access to courts: Everyone has the right to have any dispute that can be resolved by the application of law decided in a fair public hearing before a court or, where appropriate, another independent and impartial tribunal or forum.

[61] 32. Access to information: Everyone has the right of access to - any information held by the state; and any information that is held by another person and that is required for the exercise or protection of any rights…

[62] Plain Language: The National Credit Act and the Consumer Protection Act66, 68 of 2008: Right to Information in Plain and Understandable Language: ―A ―Section 22. Right to information in plain and understandable language (1) The producer of a notice, document or visual representation that is required, in terms of this Act or any other law, to be produced, provided or displayed to a consumer must produce, provide or display that notice, document or visual representation— (a) in the form prescribed in terms of this Act or any other legislation, if any, for that notice, document or visual representation; or (b) in plain language, if no form has been prescribed for that notice, document or visual representation.

(2) For the purposes of this Act, a notice, document or visual representation is in plain language if it is reasonable to conclude that an ordinary consumer of the class of persons for whom the notice, document or visual representation is intended, with average literacy skills and minimal experience as a consumer of the relevant goods or services, could be expected to understand the content, significance, and import of the notice, document or visual representation without undue effort, having regard to— (a) the context, comprehensiveness and consistency of the notice, document or visual representation; (b) the organisation, form and style of the notice, document or visual representation; (c) the vocabulary, usage and sentence structure of the notice, document or visual representation; and (d) the use of any illustrations, examples, headings, or other aids to reading and understanding‖.

66

17

notice, document or visual representation is in plain language if it is reasonable to conclude that an ordinary consumer of the class of persons for whom the notice, document or visual representation is intended, with average literacy skills and minimal experience as a consumer of the relevant goods or services, could be expected to understand the content, significance, and import of the document without undue effort..‖ COMPLAINT: CONCOURT REGISTRAR & DIRECTOR: [63]

The Concourt Registrar's 29 November 2012 and 10 December 2012 letters: [63.1]

Negligently or Intentionally failed to acknowledge that:

A.

my application invoked cultural law between Common: Dominant AnthroCorpocentric Patriarchal & Cultural: Minority Ecocentric Gender Balanced Law;

B.

the AnthroCorpoCentric Patriarchal dominant cultures ‗Rules of Court‘, violate various Ecocentric Gender balanced cultural practices of my Minority Radical Honoursty culture (as described in my appeal of her decision).

[63.2] The Registrar refuses to process my Application for Review; or my Appeal of her Refusal, unless I violate my Radical Honesty Ecocentric cultural legal practices, in blind obedience to her AnthroCorpoCentric ‗Rules of Court‘ Dominant cultural practices.

[63.3] The Registrar refuses to admit that when an individual from a minority culture invokes cultural law before any court, neither common law (AnthroCorpocentric Dominant cultures ‗Rules of Court‘) nor customary law (minority cultures laws) are prima facie applicable. The court has to consider all the circumstances of the 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. The enquiry is required to determine, in an objective manner, the cultural orientation of the parties.67 The most direct access to a person‘s cultural leanings are their lifestyle.68

In Ex parte Minister of Native Affairs: In re Yako v Beyi 1948 (1) SA 388 (A) at 397; the Appellate Division held that when any individual before any court, invokes cultural law, neither common nor customary law is prima facie applicable. Courts have 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.

68 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.‖ 67

18

[63.4] The Registrar‘s covert justification – appears to be – that South African AnthroCorpocentric Dominant Cultures ‗Rules of Court‘ are the Supreme Law of the Land; If or when the AnthroCorpocentric Dominant Cultures ‗Rules of Court‘ violate a Minority cultures right to practice their Ecocentric cultural practices, as enshrined in the Constitution Bill of Rights clauses granting citizens from minority cultures, access to courts (S 34), and rights to practice their culture (S. 15(3), 30, 31, and 18).

[63.5] The Dominant AnthroCorpocentric Patriarchal & Cultural ‗Rules of Court‘ may in fact be the Supreme ‗Rules of Court‘ Law for all applicants to the court, who are members of cultures who share the Dominant AnthroCorpocentric Patriarchal & Cultural ‗Rules of Court‘ values, and do not invoke minority cultural law to clarify their dispute with Dominant AnthroCorpocentric Patriarchal Common Law. [63.6] However, the Dominant AnthroCorpocentric Patriarchal & Cultural ‗Rules of Court‘ are not the Supreme ‗Rules of Court‘ Law, in a matter where an applicant from a minority culture, has invoked cultural law, requiring the relevant court to consider both the Common (Dominant AnthroCorpocentric Patriarchal & Cultural ‗Rules of Court‘) law; as well as the Cultural (Minority Ecocentric Gender Balanced Cultural ‗Rules of Court‘) law.

[64] The Registrar and Director‘s – both of whom are members of Dominant AnthroCorpocentric Patriarchal culture‘s refused to submit the appeal from a member of a Minority EcoCentric Gender Balanced culture‘s -- to the Concourt Justices, justifying their actions based upon – at least publicly in their written statements -- totally and utterly ignoring the (a) applicants invocation of cultural law, (b) the applicants membership of a minority Ecocentric Gender balanced culture, (c) that the dominant culture‘s ‗rules of court‘ are not the ‗supreme ‗rules of court‘ law, in any dispute between dominant/common and cultural/minority law.

[65] The Concourt Registrar‘s decision violates my right to equal protection from the arbitrary administrative decision of the Concourt Registrar to attempt to use lower law – in this case the AnthroCorpoCentric ‗Rules of Court‘ of the dominant patriarchal culture – to deny me authentic cultural, religious, gender and political access to the court. More specifically, my right to practice my cultural, political, language, religious and linguistic rights, by approaching the court, as a member of, and in accordance to, the values of my specific culture, religion, gender, language and political points of view.

[66] The Concourt Registrar‘s decision informs me that I am denied access to the court – as a member of my ecocentric gender, culture, religion and politics – unless I repudiate my ecocentric gender, culture, religion and politics values and adopt

19

AnthroCorpocentric Patriarchal gender, culture, religion and political values of the dominant culture‘s ‗Rules of Court‘.

[67] The Concourt Registrar‘s decision violates me access to information in plain and understandable language, that she (a) does not recognize my culture, (b) does not recognize my invocation of cultural rights, right to approach the court, as a member of my culture, in accordance of my minority, gender balanced, ecocentric cultural values; (c) that I am denied access to the court, because I am not a member of her culture, and do not blindly and subserviently follow her dominant AnthroCorpocentric Patriarchal cultural values.

[68] Even though Concourt‘s Registrar‘s says her actions are motivated by her justifications in support of the Dominant Culture‘s ‗Rules of Court‘, this is not the true motive for her refusal to process my application.

[69] In the Registrar‘s 29 November Letter (Annex BB / II:C) her AnthroCorpocentric Dominant Cultures ‗Rules of Court‘ reasons for refusal to process my Ecocentric Minority culture application are: [69.1] ―Like any other court, this Court may only respond to an application properly lodge in terms of the Rules of this Court .. A case number will be allocated to your as soon as the application adheres to the Rules of this Court‖.

A.

Not true. On 28 January 2011 I filed an application for direct access, against the discrimination by various South African media against the Radical Honesty culture. Registrar Delano Louw accepted my application, which was only filed electronically (not one hardcopy was filed), and all respondents were served electronically; based upon Radical Honesty Ecocentric lifestyle justifications. He issued a Case Number: CCT 06-11, and the application was submitted to the Justices for consideration for direct access. On 02 February 2013, the Justices issued their order, refusing to enquire into the merits of the application. (Annex II:D: 02 Feb 2011 Concourt Ruling: CCT 06-11: Radical Honesty v SANEF et al)

[69.2] Her required ―lodging of 25 copies of all relevant documents .. with the Registrar.‖ A.

Not true. On 28 January 2011 I filed an application for direct access, against the discrimination by various South African media against the Radical Honesty culture. Registrar Delano Louw accepted my application, which was only filed electronically (not one hardcopy was filed), and all respondents were served electronically; based upon Radical Honesty Ecocentric lifestyle justifications. He issued a Case Number: CCT 06-11, and the application was submitted to the Justices for consideration for 20

direct access. On 02 February 2013, the Justices issued their order, refusing to enquire into the merits of the application. (Annex II:D: 02 February 2011 Concourt Ruling: CCT 06-11) [69.3] Her required ―Notices, directions or other communications in terms of these rules may be given or made by registered post or by facsimile or other electronic copy: Provided that, if a notice or other communication is given by electronic copy, the party giving such notice or communication shall forthwith lodge with the Registrar a hard copy of the notice or communication, with a certificate signed by such a party verifying the date of such communication or notice.‖ A.

Not True. In the Constitutional Court matter of The Citizen v. Robert McBride (CCT 23-10), I was admitted to the proceedings as an Amicus Curiae. The Concourt Registrar did not require me to submit all correspondence or notices or communications in hard copy; only in electronic copy. (Annex II:E: 03 May 2010: Concourt Ruling: CCT 23-10: Citizen v. Robert McBride)

COMPLAINT: SAPA & SA MEDIA: [70] In the United States Supreme Court Case: In re Oliver, 333 U.S. [at] 270-271, the Justices argue that ―the knowledge that every .. trial is subject to contemporaneous review in the forum of public opinion is an effective restraint on possible abuse of .. power .. without publicity, all other checks are insufficient: in comparison of publicity, all other checks are of small account.‖ [71] I am unable to get access to the court, because (a) the Concourt Registrar and Director discriminate against my culture, and (b) I cannot find a lawyer, because no lawyer in South Africa, that I am aware of, is willing to represent an individual from the Radical Honoursty culture; yet the media deny me access to the publicity to find such a possible lawyer; or at least to unequivocally confirm that such a lawyer does not exist.

[72] Media editors hate the Radical Honesty culture, because we don't practice 'Bullshit the Public Relations'. We practice 100% transparency (so they are unable to threaten or frighten us with exposing any of our secrets, cause we ain't got no secrets).

[73] The Media Editors are all members of a, or different, AnthroCorpocentric Patriarchal Dominant culture/s, who have no right to discriminate – in terms of blanket censorship -- against a minority ecocentric gender balanced minority culture, by refusing to report the fact that a South African citizen member of the ecocentric Radical Honoursty gender balanced minority culture, has been unable to

21

find a lawyer to represent her, as a member of the Radical Honoursty culture, for the past ten years, and in a current case before the Constitutional Court.

[74] These Media Editors have not denied that their actions of refusing to report the fact that a South African citizen member of the ecocentric Radical Honoursty gender balanced minority culture are discrimination, by themselves as member of AnthroCorpocentric Patriarchal Dominant cultures, against a member of an Ecocentric Gender Balanced minority culture.

[75] These Media Editors have not provided any evidence that their actions of cultural discrimination by members of an AnthroCorpocentric Patriarchal Dominant culture are justified.

[76] SAPA and SA Media editor members of the AnthroCorpocentric Patriarchal Dominant culture, deemed all of these press releases, from a member of an Ecocentric Gender Balanced Minority culture, about gender balanced ecocentric issues to be ‗not news‘.

[77] Complainant‘s culture is the only culture, in South Africa, that requires its members to practice Sustainable procreation and consumption practices. All other AnthroCorpocentric Patriarchal dominant cultures do not require their members to practice Sustainable procreation and consumption practices. Radical Honesty culture members therefore make no lifestyle contribution towards crime, violence, unemployment, poverty, food shortages, inflation, political instability, loss of civil rights, conformism, political correctness, vanishing species, pollution, urban sprawl, toxic waste, energy depletion; whereas AnthroCorpocentric Patriarchal cultures do, to the extent that they violate sustainable procreation and consumption practices.

AnthroCorpoCentric Socio-Political Motives for Discrimination: [78] Concourt Registrar‘s, Justice‘s and SAPA and SA Media Editors are well aware that complainant is the only person in South Africa who has – repeatedly, in hundreds of letters, various legal applications (CCT 23-10; CCT 06-11) -- exposed how both Apartheid political and cultural violence and current socio-political and cultural violence are a consequence of South Africa‘s AnthroCorpocentric Patriarchal culture‘s fundamentalist adherence to the failures and fraud of AnthroCorpocentric Jurisprudence.

[79]

See for example complainant‘s three SAPA Wire Press Releases: A.

69

15 August 2010: Ref 45569: Concourt: Population Policy Common Sense Interpretation of TRC Act

http://www.link2media.co.za/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=9316&Itemid=12

22

B.

May 11 2012: Ref: 116470: Ecofeminists Indigenous Rights Norway v.

Breivik Supreme Court Application

C.

08 December 2012: Ref: 149871: A Constitutional Court Application for Review of the Supreme Court of Appeal "Kill Boer" Hate Speech Negotiated Agreement between Afriforum, TAU-SA, Julius Malema and the ANC, is seeking a 'Radical Honesty lawyer'.

[80] Concourt Justice‘s, SAPA and SA Media editors do not wish to confront the reality that Apartheid political and cultural violence and current socio-political and cultural violence are a consequence of South Africa‘s AnthroCorpocentric Patriarchal culture‘s fundamentalist adherence to the failures and fraud of AnthroCorpocentric Jurisprudence; because the AnthroCorpocentric Patriarchal Media Elite, financially and politically benefit from this state of affairs, and also lack the honour and integrity to admit that they have benefited, and that they are not honest about one of the primary roots of South Africa‘s political violence.

[81] Specifically, Patriarchal AnthroCorpocentric Justices and Media Editors do not want to confront the issues raised in Complainants Ecocentric Radical Honoursty application that: [81.1] The ‘Kill Boere’ Agreement is Unconstitutional due to being culturally vague: 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 its agreement is referring to.

[81.2] The 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‘, and the TRC‘s ―failure to investigate demographic youth bulge and ‗population production‘ breeding war 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.‖ [81.3] 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 70 71

http://www.link2media.co.za/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=15903&Itemid=12 http://www.link2media.co.za/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=18635&Itemid=12

23

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.

[82] 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.

[83] Concourt Justice‘s do not wish to confront that their AnthroCorpoCentric Patriarchal Flat Earth jurisprudence is not credible, in as much as it: [83.1] Ignores the laws of nature/ecology reality that the Earth is NOT FLAT, and that resources are not infinite. Although a majority of South Africa‘s problems crime, violence, unemployment, poverty, inflation, food shortages, political instability, vanishing species, garbage and pollution urban sprawl, traffic jams, toxic waste, energy and non-renewable resources (NNR) depletion are a consequence of overpopulation and overconsumption inducing scarcity, South African jurisprudence fails to legally (a) define the difference between sustainable and unsustainable procreation and consumption behaviour; and (b) provide legal rights to sustainable practices, and legal penalties to unsustainable individuals, corporations and organisations.

[83.2] Ignores the laws of human nature; by discriminating against South African culture‘s72 and sub-cultures73 whose members practice brutal honesty, self sufficiency, personal responsibility, transparency and commitment to root cause problem solving, whose lifestyle‘s do not contribute to overpopulation and overconsumption; whereas it legally rewards cultures and subcultures whose members practice political correctness, sycophancy, hypocrisy, parasitism, denial of responsibility, self deception masquerading as ‗privacy‘ and ‗dignity‘, and a focus on Public Relations Image Management parasitism.

[84] SA Media endorse AnthroCorpoCentric Patriarchal Flat Earth jurisprudence and its intellectual corruption failure to confront evidence of its fraud. The longer they continue to silence, censor and suppress a debate (How and Why Journalists Avoid Population – Environment connection74, by Dr. T. Michael Maher; See: Dr. T. Michael Maher‘s Expert Witness Affidavit: Media and Population75, submitted to the SA Constitutional Court, in Citizen v. McBride, on role of scarcity induced political violence during apartheid) about the role of Mosuo culture in SW China Delancey Street Foundation 74 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 75 http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100522_cct2310_affid-dr-t-m-maher 72 73

24

overpopulation and overconsumption induced scarcity and conflict, the longer they can continue to profit from the ‗If it Bleeds, it Leads‘ consequences of crime and violence consequences that result from scarcity induced unemployment, poverty, food shortages, inflation, political instability, loss of civil rights, conformism, political correctness, vanishing species, pollution, urban sprawl, toxic waste and energy depletion.

RELIEF REQUESTED: [85] Please investigate the following complaints of discrimination by the dominant AnthroCorpocentric patriarchal cultures against the Ecocentric gender balanced Radical Honoursty culture: [85.1] Constitutional Court Registrar: Ms. Martie Stander and Director: Vic Misser, for refusing to process my (A) invocation of minority ecocentric cultural law application for Radical Honesty culture Review of the ‗Kill Boer‘ Hate Speech Negotiated Agreement between Afriforum/TAU-SA and Julius Malema/ANC, stating that the South African AnthroCorpocentric Dominant Cultures ‗Rules of Court‘ are the Supreme Law of the Land; If or when the AnthroCorpocentric Dominant Cultures ‗Rules of Court‘ violate a Minority cultures right to practice their Ecocentric cultural practices, as enshrined in the Constitution Bill of Rights clauses granting citizens from minority cultures, access to courts (S 34), and rights to practice their culture (S. 15(3), 30, 31, and 18). (Ref: 9/1/1/1/49) [85.2] (A) SA Press Association: Editor: Mark van der Velden, (B) 702 Radio: Producer: Pheladi Gwangwa, (C) Business Day: Editor: Peter Bruce, (D) Beeld: Editor: Tim du Plessis, (E) Die Burger: Editor: Bun Booyens, (F) Cape Argus: Editor: Chris Witfield, (G) The Citizen: Editor: Martin Williams, (H) City Press: Editor: Ferial Haffajee, (I) Mail and Guardian: Editor: Nic Dawes, (J) ENews: Producer: Patrick Conroy, (K) Cape Times: Editor: Alide Dasnois, (L) Rapport: Editor: Bokkie Gerber; (M) Sunday Times: Editor: Ray Hartley, (N) Sunday Independent: Editor: Makhudu Sefara: editors for discrimination against the EcoCentric Gender Balanced Radical Honoursty culture, in that they believe that the fact that a South African citizen member of the Radical Honoursty culture, has been unable to find a lawyer to represent her, as a member of the Radical Honoursty culture, for the past ten years, and in a current case before the Constitutional Court, is ―not news‖?

[86] Alternatively, please confirm whether the SA Human Rights Commission endorse the CRL Rights Commission Rulings – as endorsed by the failure of CRL Rights Commission Chairman Mabuza‘s failure to address my appeal and overturn them – authorizing:

25

A.

the SA Legal establishment‘s endorsement of the denial of cultural legal representation, and access to courts, to members of the Radical Honesty culture, and (b) the South African Media‘s discrimination against Members of the Radical Honesty culture, by refusing to report the fact that a South African citizen member of the Radical Honesty culture, has been unable to find a lawyer to represent her, as a member of the Radical Honesty culture, for the past ten years, and in a current case before the Constitutional Court.

B.

South African AnthroCorpocentric Dominant Cultures ‗Rules of Court‘ as the Supreme Law of the Land; If or when the AnthroCorpocentric Dominant Cultures ‗Rules of Court‘ violate a Minority cultures right to practice their Ecocentric cultural practices, as enshrined in the Constitution Bill of Rights clauses granting citizens from minority cultures, access to courts (S 34), and rights to practice their culture (S. 15(3), 30, 31, and 18).

Respectfully,

Lara Johnstone, Pro Se Encl: AA: 27 Nov 2012: Radical Honoursty Application to Concourt [Annexures here76] BB: 29 Nov 2012: Alien v. Afriforum: Concourt Registrar Letter (See II: C) CC: 06 Dec 2012: Appeal to Concourt Justices: Appeal Only [Annexures here77] DD: 11 Dec 2012: CRL Rights Complaint: Concourt Registrar (See II:A) EE: 11 Dec 2012: CRL Rights Comm Complaint: SAPA & SA Media (See GG:B)

FF: 07 Feb 2013: CRL Rights Comm Ruling: SAPA & SA Media (See GG:C) GG: 07 February 2013: CRL Rights Appeal: Ref: 9/1/1/1/46: Lara Johnstone, Radical Honesty culture v. SAPA & SA Media: Appeal of CRL Rights Comm: Mrs. Makgoba 07 February ruling Includes annexures:

A: 03 May 2010: Concourt Ruling: Lara Johnstone, member of Radical Honesty culture. [Note: Even though I was admitted as a Pro Se Amicus Curiae, the court and all other parties, and media totally ignored my Amicus submissions, whereas other Amicus parties were recognized by

76 77

http://sqswans.weebly.com/cct-alien-v-afriforum.html http://sqswans.weebly.com/cct-alien-v-afriforum.html

26

both the court, other parties, and the media. Effectively my argument did not exist, as if I had never been admitted.]

B: 11 December 2012: CRL Rights Comm Complaint: SAPA & SA Media Editors Discrimination Against member of Radical Honesty culture C: 07 February 2013: CRL Rights Commission Ruling by Mrs. Makgoba: RE: Alleged Refusal by SAPA and Other Media Editors to Treat Your Inability to find Legal Representation as News.

HH: 18 Feb 2013: CRL Rights Ruling: Concourt Registrar (See II:B) II:

18 February 2013: CRL Rights Appeal: Ref: 9/1/1/1/49: Lara Johnstone, Radical Honesty culture v. SA Concourt Registrar: Appeal of CRL Rights Comm: Mrs. Makgoba 18 February ruling.

Includes Annexures: A: 11 December 2012: CRL Rights Comm Complaint: Lara Johnstone v.

Constitutional Court Registrar B: 18 February 2013: CRL Rights Commission: Mrs. K Makgoba: Ref: 9/1/1/1/49: Lara Johnstone, Radical Honesty culture v Constitutional Court Registrar: Refusal by the Constitutional Court Registrar to process your application for Review C: 29 Nov 2011: Alien v. Afriforum: Concourt Registrar Letter D: 02 Feb 2011 Concourt Ruling: CCT 06-11: Radical Honesty v SANEF et al E: 03 May 2010: Concourt Ruling: CCT 23-10: Citizen v. Robert McBride

27

Annexure “AA” 27 Nov 2012: Radical Honoursty Application to Concourt [Annexures here1]

1

http://sqswans.weebly.com/cct-alien-v-afriforum.html

IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT Case:_________________ 815-11 SCA & 07-2010 EQ JHB In the matter between: ALIEN ON PALE BLUE DOT

Applicant

And AFRIFORUM

First Respondent

TRANSVAAL AGRICULTURAL UNION (TAU)

Second Respondent

JULIUS MALEMA

Third Respondent

AFRICAN NATIONAL CONGRESS

Fourth Respondent

DESMOND TUTU

Fifth Respondent

NELSON MANDELA

Sixth Respondent

FW DE KLERK

Seventh Respondent

CRL RIGHTS COMMISSION1

Eighth Respondent

NORWEGIAN NOBEL COMMITTEE: CHAIR

Ninth Respondent

CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY: DIRECTOR

Tenth Respondent

DAVID PETRAEUS

Eleventh Respondent

NOTICE OF MOTION

Take notice that LARA JOHNSTONE, herein referred to as Alien on Pale Blue Dot, Member of the Radical Honesty culture and religion, (hereinafter called The Applicant) intends to make application to this Court for the following orders in terms of Rule 11, of the Rules of Court;- (1) Radical Honesty culture; (2) Review SCA

Commission for the Promotion and Protection of the Rights of Cultural, Religious and Linguistic Communities 1

1

Afriforum v. Malema Mediation Agreement; (3) EcoFeminist Evidence Censored: TRC‘s-War is Peace-Fraud (A) TRC‘s Legal Tyranny ‗Reconciliation‘ Definition; (B) TRC‘s Erroneous ‗ANC‘ Just War Definition; (C) TRC‘s Anthropocentric Flat Earth Worldview; (D) TRC‘s Tragedy of Constitutional Commons Suicide Pact; (4) Credible Proactive Peace Plan requires confronting Peak NNR & Sustainable Security: Scarcity as Cause of Violent Conflict; (5) Alternatively; to order all South African‘s to prepare for SA‘s Race War in the impending Peak NNR Crisis of Conflict.

I: RADICAL HONESTY CULTURE [1]

Permission to invoke2 cultural law3 in S. 15(3), 30, 31, and 18; to enable the

Applicant to honour the duty and responsibility to uphold the principles upon which her Radical Honesty culture is based; and Psychological Integrity in Section 12 4; the former which may require the application of choice of law rules.

II: REVIEW SCA AFRIFORUM V MALEMA MEDIATION AGREEMENT: [2]

Setting aside the whole, or relevant parts of the Mediation Agreement order of

the Supreme Court of Appeal, Bloemfontein under case number 815/2011 that was Entered into by and between: ANC, Mr. Malema, Afriforum and TAU-SA., as unconstitutionally vague and ambiguous, for failing to clearly clarify: 1. To whom, and to which cultures do the "the words - awudubula ibhunu and dubula amabhunu baya raypha - ("the words") constitute hate speech..‖; and the relevant cultures particular definition of ‗hate speech‘?

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.

3 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.‘ 4 12. Freedom and security of the person: (2) Everyone has the right to bodily and psychological integrity..

2

2

2. Which cultures require the interdiction and restraint of first and second respondents from singing ―Dubula lbhunu at any public or private meeting held by or conducted by them ("the song")‖?

3. Which cultures determine the words and song to constitute hate speech, according to which culture‘s definition of hate speech?

4. Which culture‘s ‗morality of society‘ dictates that persons should refrain from using the words, and singing the words; according to which cultures definition of ‗morality of society‘?

5. In the interests of promoting which culture‘s definition of ‗reconciliation‘, and that cultures particular definition of ‗reconciliation‘; 6. Considering that the parties all participated in a conspiracy of silence and censorship to refuse any dialogue into the respective cultural heritage of members of the Radical Honesty culture, and displayed zero commitment to any formal dialogue with leaders of the Radical Honesty culture, and refused dialogue on all EcoFeminist issues, of concern to EcoFeminists and Sustainable Security Environmentalists, whom are the parties referring to as ‗other role players‘ with whom they are committed to ‗continued formal dialogue‘, to ‗promote understanding of their respective cultural heritages‘?

Only patriarchal consumption war and breeding war combatants need apply?

Individuals with Pay the Price for Peace Credibility are not welcome, not considered worthy of being heard?

7. How and why this agreement order should be applicable to other cultures, whom

were

excluded

from

negotiations

and

whose

definitions

of

‗reconciliation‘ ‗hate speech‘ and ‗morality of society‘ were censored and/or ignored as irrelevant?

8. That the members of Radical Honesty culture are not bound by this Mediation Agreement order, considering that the parties refused to address the Radical Honesty culture‘s evidence and arguments.

3

[3]

Furthermore, that the Agreement is in violation of Section 95 of the Bill of

Rights; in that it discriminates against women and nature, in that it deliberately censors and discriminates against the Radical Honesty EcoFeminist TRC Fraud evidence submitted into the record by Applicant as approved by Judge Colin Lamont: 1. 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)6; Judge Lamont confirmed that: â&#x20AC;&#x2022;[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.â&#x20AC;&#x2013; [4]

Specifically the SCA Mediation Agreement discriminates7, in terms of

censoring8 and excluding for impartial investigation the EcoFeminist9 Sustainable Democracy Transparency TruthSeeking10 TRC Fraud11 Problem Solving12 arguments submitted into the court record by Applicant with consent of Judge Colin Lamont.

The Mediation Agreement: 9. Equality: (1) Everyone is equal before the law and has the right to equal protection and benefit of the law. (2) Equality includes the full and equal enjoyment of all rights and freedoms. To promote the achievement of equality, legislative and other measures designed to protect or advance persons, or categories of persons, disadvantaged by unfair discrimination may be taken. (3) The state may not unfairly discriminate directly or indirectly against anyone on one or more grounds, including race, gender, sex, pregnancy, marital status, ethnic or social origin, colour, sexual orientation, age, disability, religion, conscience, belief, culture, language and birth. (4) *1 No person may unfairly discriminate directly or indirectly against anyone on one or more grounds in terms of subsection (3).

National legislation must be enacted to prevent or prohibit unfair discrimination. (5) Discrimination on one or more of the grounds listed in subsection (3) is unfair unless it is established that the discrimination is fair.

6 http://www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZAEQC/2011/2.html 7 MASCULINE INSECURITY: LJ Founding Affidavit: Para: 41-58, 67, 76-83, 84; LJ Heads of Argument: Para: 63-114, 153-165, 166-181, 189-190, 201, 211 8 CENSORSHIP: LJ Founding Affidavit: Para: 7, 8, 9, 50, 51, 52, 53; LJ Heads of Argument: Para: 22, 61-62, 95, 180, 189-190, 199 9 EcoFeminis: LJ Founding Affidavit: Para: 16, 20, 26, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 49, 79, 81; LJ Heads of Argument: Para: 6-9, 10, 19, 23-29, 30, 39-62, 202-206 10 Radical Honesty: LJ Founding Affidavit: Para: 1, 15, 18, 20, 22, 24, 25, 26, 39, 49,54, 67, 69, 71, 77, 81; LJ Heads of Argument: Para: 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16-18, 19, 31-33, 34, 35, 36-38 11 TRC Fraud: LJ Founding Affidavit: Para: 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 67, 72, 73, 74, 75, 7683, 84; LJ Heads of Argument: Para: 2, 9, 14-15, 31-33, 35, 36-38, 63-114, 115-152, 153-165, 189-190, 191-199 12 Problem Solving: LJ Founding Affidavit: Para: 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 70, 75, 86; LJ Heads of Argument: Para: 6-9, 10, 39-62, 63-114, 115-152, 153-165, 189-190, 191-199, 200-201, 202-206, 207209, 211-212 5

4

1. Ignores

the

EcoFeminist

Sustainable

Democracy

Transparency

TruthSeeking Problem Solving evidence and arguments exposing how Afriforum, Malema, TAU-SA and the ANC‘ refuse to impartially examine SA‘s Truth and Reconciliation Fraud – (a) no reconciliation definition, (b) erroneous ANC ‗just war‘ definition‘, (c) Anthropocentric Flat Earth Infinite Resources Worldview -- because all participating Patriarchal parties wish to cover up and profit from SA‘s Truth and Reconciliation Breeding and Consumption War Fraud.

2. Provides no justifications for how or why its discrimination against the Ecofeminist TRC Fraud evidence and arguments presented, of its Patriarchal discrimination against women and nature, is ‗fair‘.

3. Furthermore, that the Mediation Agreement is a consequence of masculine insecurity lack of psychological integrity to seek the truth by transparently confronting Applicants allegations and evidence of South Africa‘s Patriarchal TRC War is Peace Whores Legal Tyranny.

III: ECOFEMINIST EVIDENCE CENSORED: TRC’S-WAR IS PEACE-FRAUD: III A: TRC’S LEGAL TYRANNY RECONCILIATION DEFINITION: [5]

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‘

5

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.

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.

[6]

To amend the Truth and Reconciliation Report‘s failure to provide clear and

concise cultural/religious definition of ‗reconciliation‘; South Africa‘s ‗Truth and Reconciliation‘ Nobel Peace Prize Laureate‘s be required to provide the court with their clear and concise cultural/religious definitions for ‗reconciliation‘, and the CRL 6

Commission be required to consult all South Africa‘s cultures and religions, and to provide the court with the definitions for ‗reconciliation‘ of all of South Africa‘s cultures and religions.

III B: TRC’S ERRONEOUS ‘ANC’ JUST WAR DEFINITION: [7]

Declaring the Truth and Reconciliation Report‘s endorsement of the ANC‘s

alleged ‗Just War‘ against Apartheid to be an erroneous conclusion in that it fails to consider that the just war tradition–a set of mutually agreed rules of combat—is only relevant between two culturally similar enemies13; which is not the case between Boers and Africans, since none of the African or liberal ANC leaders believed that Africans and Boers were culturally similar in terms of their cultural breeding values, in that Boers breeding values are: K-selected reproductive strategy: a small number of offspring and invest heavily in each; and Africans ‗breeding‘ cultural values are: r-selected reproductive strategy: large number of offspring with minimal investments in offspring; [8]

Alternatively, if the TRC Respondents assert that Africans and Boers are

‗culturally similar enemies‘; declaring the Truth and Reconciliation Report‘s endorsement of the ANC‘s alleged ‗Just War‘ against Apartheid to be an erroneous conclusion in that -- If (1) Boers ‗breeding‘ cultural values are: K-selected reproductive strategy: a small number of offspring and invest heavily in each; whereas African ‗breeding‘ cultural values are: r-selected reproductive strategy: large number of offspring with minimal investments in offspring; (2) it was abundantly clear that the major fundamental motive for perpetuating Apartheid was fear of the ‗swart gevaar‘, i.e. the political consequences of Africans breeding war: r-selected reproductive cultural behaviour; (3) Apartheid Officials and citizens ‗swart gevaar‗ population policy fears14 are legally and ecologically justifiable (ecological

Moseley, Alexander (2009, 10 February): Just War Theory; Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy http://www.iep.utm.edu/justwar/ 14 Verwoerd described the motives, practices and policies for apartheid, aka separate development, or Harmonious Multi-Community Development (Dr. Eiselen, W.W.M., ―Harmonious Multi-Community Development‖, in Optima, Mar. 1959, p.1. Dr. Eiselen was at that time Secretary for Bantu Administration and Development.), and Live and Let Live (Address by the South African Prime Minister, Dr. H.F. Verwoerd, address to the SA Club, London, in Fact Paper 91, Apr. 1961, p.14) in depth, in the submissions to the ICJ on S.W. Africa, about the ―superiority of numbers of the Natives‖ 13

7

competitive exclusion principle); (4) the ANC and Anti-Apartheid movement were culturally honourably concerned with Just War practices; (5) the ANC should have – according to Just War mutually agreed rules of combat -- launched a non-violent cultural and political campaign to stop their African ‗swart gevaar‗ breeding-war population explosion15, to adopt the K-selected reproductive strategy, to demonstrate their honourable Just War Just Cause Intentions to ‗swart gevaar‗ Apartheid Officials and citizens; prior to the ANC‗s M-Plan declaration of War against Apartheid -- and a failure of the requirements of the Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act, 34 of 1995, Chapter 2: 1. Section 3(1)(a) ―.. establishing as complete a picture as possible of the causes, nature and extent of the gross violations of human rights … including the antecedents, circumstances, factors and context of such violations, as well as the perspectives of the victims and the motives and perspectives of the persons responsible for the commission of the violations, by conducting investigations and holding hearings; and 2. Section 4(a)(i)(ii)(iv)(v): ―The Commission shall (a) facilitate, and where necessary initiate or coordinate, inquiries into- (i) gross violations of human rights, including violations which were part of a systematic pattern of abuse; (ii) the nature, causes and extent of gross violations of human rights, including the antecedents, circumstances, factors, context, motives and (1964-01-10: ICJ: Ibid (www.icj-cij.org): Counter-Memorial filed by Gov. of the Rep. of S. Africa (Books I-IV), p.463).

15 SAIRR Surveys, repeatedly document Apartheid authorities concerns with rapid black population growth as causal factors for socio-economic and political realities: In the 1989 SAIRR Race Relations Report, we are informed that the Chairman of the Council for Population Development, Professor JP de Lange, claimed that population growth was South Africa‗s ―ticking time bomb‖, and South Africa within two decades South Africa would find itself in a dilemma where its resources and socio-economic capabilities would be insufficient for its population, which would give rise to total social disintegration, unemployment, poverty, and misery which would become unmanageable, even in the best of constitutional dispensations. He urgently urged a birth rate of 2.1 or less children per woman per year. The Population Development Program recognized that a direct relationship existed between standard of living, an effective family planning and population growth.

In a 1992/93 Race Relations Survey by the South African Institute of Race Relations (SAIRR), we are told that the high population growth is the cause of growth in poverty, unemployment and squatter camps, and most of the serious problems in South Africa; Population pressures are destroying the environment; the IFP and FRD call for ethics of 2 children per family as urgent population control priority; Population Growth outstrips Economic Growth for many years, and blacks avoid participation in family planning programs.

- Cooper C, et.al, Race Relations Survey 1989/90, (Jhb: SAIRR) 1990. www.scribd.com/doc/33820505 - Cooper, C et. al., Race Relations Survey 1992/93, (Jhb: SAIRR) 1993. [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/33820596 8

perspectives which led to such violations; … (iv) the question whether such violations were the result of deliberate planning on the part of the State or a former state or any of their organs, or of any political organisation, liberation movement or other group or individual; and (v) accountability, political or otherwise, for any such violation.. ‖ [9]

To amend the Truth and Reconciliation Report‘s erroneous endorsement of the

ANC‘s alleged ‗Just War‘ against Apartheid and allegation of the ‗Crime of Apartheid, by ordering that: 1. In terms of Military Honour: Rules of Just War; there was no ‗crime of apartheid‘; objectively speaking both Apartheid and the Anti-Apartheid struggle were – subjectively speaking, in terms of their different respective Boer and African cultural worldviews – just wars: 2. Put differently, the TRC, Anti-Apartheid movement and Apartheid supporters should ―accept 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,‖16 and that ―no single side in the conflict of the past has a monopoly of virtue or should bear responsibility for all the abuses that occurred‖17.

III C: TRC’S ANTHROPOCENTRIC FLAT EARTH WORLDVIEW: [10]

Declaring the Truth and Reconciliation Report‘s failure to investigate

demographic youth bulge18 and ‗population production‘ breeding war19 acts of war as contributory factors to Apartheid violence, to be a failure of the requirements of the Submission to the TRC, by General M.A. de Malan [ www.scribd.com/doc/34462172] Submission to the TRC by Mr. F.W de Klerk, National Party [ www.scribd.com/doc/34462184] 18 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.

19 ―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 16 17

9

Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act, 34 of 1995, Chapter 2: Section 3(1)(a) and Section 4(a)(i)(ii)(iv)(v).

III D: TRC’S TRAGEDY OF CONSTITUTIONAL COMMONS SUICIDE PACT: [11]

Declaring the Truth and Reconciliation Report‘s Tragedy of the Commons

failure to include Sustainable Security recommendations for South Africans to abide by the carrying capacity laws of nature in terms of procreation and consumption, the absence of which, contribute to local, regional or national resource scarcity, which contributes to violence and resource wars, to be a failure of the requirements of the Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act, 34 of 1995, Chapter 2: Section 3(1) (d) ―compiling a report providing as comprehensive an account as possible of the activities and findings of the Commission contemplated in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c), and which contains recommendations of measures to prevent the future violations of human rights‖.

IV: CREDIBLE PROACTIVE PEACE PLAN REQUIRES CONFRONTING PEAK NNR & SUSTAINABLE SECURITY: SCARCITY AS CAUSE OF VIOLENT CONFLICT: [12]

Declaring the Norwegian Nobel Committee‘s ‗Peace‘ paradigm to be lacking in

credibility, for any nation whose leaders are sincerely committed to implementing peaceful coexistent relations between races, cultures and religions; in terms of its failure to interpret its mandate to "work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses,"

to

include

consideration

of

the

role

of

overpopulation

and

overconsumption as root cause factors of resource scarcity pushing society to conflict and war, where surplus populations are used as standing armies, and those profiteering from overconsumption use their profits to promote pretend peace congresses and pretend Nobel Peace Prizes, awarding War is Peace Whore Prizes to perpetuate the ‗Control of Reproduction‘ Human Farming War Economy Racket paradigm.

10

[13]

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 support the United States Government‘s Leadership to implement an Internationally recognized ‗Pay the Price for Peace‘ Sincere Peacenik Politico-Legal Status, granted to any individual who is willing to sign the Maria Bochkareva One Child Per Family Oath, submitted to the Intelligence Agency of their choice (copy provided to either the CIA or the Kremlin), wherein they confirm that they: 1. have

watched

Ted

Koppel‘s

Nightline:

CIA

&

Pentagon

on

Overpopulation and Resources Wars20 videos; Dr. Jack Alpert‘s very simple explanation video: Human Predicament: Better Common Sense Required21 and Rapid Population Decline or Civilization Collapse22; 2. declare that they are a sincere peacenik, who is willing to pay the price of peace, by addressing the root causes of conflict, and helping to move the humans on Planet Earth onto a procreation trend towards peace; 3. are a leaver, who is willing to pay the one child, or less, per family price of peace; who understands that if they violate their Leaver Peacenik One Child Oath, they thereby authorize the Central Intelligence Agency (or any alternative intelligence agency of their choice, copies provided to both the CIA and Kremlin) to remove them and their children from the Leaver genepool, by assassination; 4. if Pfc Bradley Manning is willing to take the Leaver Peacenik One Child Oath, that the Director General of the Central Intelligence Agency, make an official request for all charges against Pfc. Manning to be withdrawn;

sqswans.weebly.com/overpopulation-means-murder.html sqswans.weebly.com/human-predicament.html 22 sqswans.weebly.com/rapid-population-decline.html 20 21

11

5. that the Central Intelligence Agency‘s Kent Center23 establish a fund for contributions in honour of Pfc Manning, to establish a bi-annual ‗Maria Bochkareva Leaver Peacenik Honor Medal‘, to be awarded for educating of the role of overpopulation and overconsumption as factors contributing to resource scarcity pushing society to conflict and war.

[14]

Declaring that a Credible Proactive Peace Plan for South Africa requires (a)

confronting geopolitical reality of Peak Non-Renewable Resources (NNR) and implementing (b) Sustainable Environmental Security plan in accordance with the Scarcity as cause of Violent Conflict principle, by (c) Determining the answers to the questions: 1. If Peace and conflict are defined not as descriptions of behaviour between nations, but as trends describing social conditions. Put differently: Conflict is not defined as the violence between neighbours and nations, but as the unwanted intrusion of one person‘s existence and consumption behaviour upon another person.

2. 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 by-product 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 government is offering people welfare to breed more children‘ are current economic and demographic intrusions by one present group on another present group.

3. 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. A measure of South Africa‘s conflict is the sum of 50 million sets of intrusions.

4. Using this definition of conflict, to establish whether South Africa‘s socioeconomic and political system is moving towards peace or towards conflict; based upon the questions:

23

www.cia.gov/library/kent-center-occasional-papers/index.html 12

A.

How many children per family leads to peace; or conversely how many children per family, contributes to greater resource scarcity, and exponential increase in conflict, i.e. an individuals‘ ‗breeding war combatant‘ status? [According to the research of Dr. Jack Alpert 24, the answer is one child per family]

B.

How much consumption relative to the nation‘s footprint carrying capacity leads to peace; or conversely how much consumption relative to the nations bio-capacity per person, contributes to greater resource scarcity, and exponential increase in conflict, i.e. an individuals ‗consumption combatant status‘?

ALTERNATIVE: IF SA’S TRC FRAUD FRAGILE EGO’S ARE MORE IMPORTANT THAN CONFRONTING THE ‘SCARCITY AS CAUSE OF VIOLENT

CONFLICT’

THEMSELVES

FOR

FACTOR;

THE

ALL

IMPENDING

SA’S

SHOULD

RACE

AND

PREPARE

CLASS

WAR

CONSEQUENCES OF THE PEAK NNR CRISIS OF CONFLICT: [15]

Alternatively, the Court should decline to hear the application if it is of the

belief that: (1) citizens from the Radical Honesty culture are less worthy of an impartial hearing before a court of law, than Africans were under Apartheid; and (2) Ambiguous terminology in SCA Afriforum v. Malema Mediation Agreement should be upheld in support of legal tyranny; and (3) EcoFeminist‘s TRC‘s-War is PeaceFraud evidence should be censored to protect the fragile ego‘s of Nelson Mandela, Desmond Tutu et al; since the court fully endorses the TRC‘s (A) Legal Tyranny ‗Reconciliation‘

Definition;

(B)

Erroneous

‗ANC‘

Just

War

Definition;

(C)

Anthropocentric Flat Earth Worldview; and (D) Tragedy of South Africa‘s Constitutional Commons Suicide Pact; as well as the Norwegian Nobel Committee‘s Flat Earth Resources are Infinite ‗War is Peace‘ worldview, and ignoring ‗Peace Leaders‘ failure to implement a credible Proactive Peace Plan for South Africa that confronts the geopolitical reality of Peak Non-Renewable Resources (NNR) and implements a Sustainable Environmental Security plan in accordance with the Scarcity as cause of Violent Conflict factor.

24

http://sqswans.weebly.com/human-predicament.html 13

TAKE NOTICE FURTHER that the founding affidavit of Lara Johnstone, Member of the Radical Honesty Culture and Religion, filed herewith will be used in support of this application.

TAKE NOTICE FURTHER that the Applicant is (a) indigent, and (b) not aware of any public legal aid authority, with the intellectual, cultural, political, ideological, and/or legal cognitive capability to apply their minds to make an impartial enquiry into intellectual perspectives held by cultureâ&#x20AC;&#x2DC;s, intellectual schools of thought and religions other than their own (i.e. such as the Radical Honesty culture); however if such public interest legal authority does exist, Applicant has no objection to accepting their public interest litigation support as assistance of counsel. In the absence thereof, Applicant shall be representing herself and her culture/religion (Radical Honesty), as an effective In Forma Pauperis Pro Se / Propria Persona / Litigant in Person Applicant.

TAKE NOTICE FURTHER that 16 Taaibos Ave, Heatherpark, George, 6539, and/or Email: habeusmentem@mweb.co.za, is appointed as the address/email address at which the applicants will accept notice and service of all process in these proceedings.

TAKE NOTICE FURTHER that in accordance of Rule 1125 of the Rules of Court: 1.

Any person opposing the granting of an order sought in the notice of motion shallA.

within the time stated in the said notice (10 court days), notify the applicant and the Registrar in writing of his or her intention to oppose the application and shall in such notice â&#x20AC;&#x201C; unless indigent and/or representing themselves Pro Se -- appoint an address within 25 kilometres of the office of the Registrar at which he or she will accept notice and service of all documents in the proceedings.

B.

within 15 days of notifying the applicant of his or her intention to oppose the application lodge his or her answering affidavit, if any,

25

http://www.constitutionalcourt.org.za/site/thecourt/rulesofthecourt.htm#11 14

together with any relevant documents, which may include supporting affidavits.

2.

The applicant may lodge a replying affidavit within 10 days of the service upon him or her of the affidavit and documents referred to in paragraph (a) (ii).

A.

Where no notice of opposition is given or where no answering affidavit in terms of paragraph (a) (ii) is lodged within the time referred to in paragraph (a) (ii), the Registrar shall within five days of the expiry thereof place the application before the Chief Justice.

B.

Where an answering affidavit is lodged, the Registrar shall place the application before the Chief Justice within five days of the lodging of the replying affidavit.

3.

The Chief Justice may, when giving directions under subrule (4) 26, permit the lodging of further affidavits.

4.

When an application is placed before the Chief Justice in terms of subrule (3) (c)27, he or she shall give directions as to how the application shall be dealt with and, in particular, as to whether it shall be set down for hearing or whether it shall be dealt with on the basis of written argument or summarily on the basis of the information contained in the affidavits.

The registrar is requested to kindly place the matter before the Concourt Justices, for their appropriate consideration and response, in terms of Rule 11.

Dated at George, on this the 23 day of November 2012.

Lara Johnstone, Pro Se P O Box 5042 George East, 6539 26 27

http://www.constitutionalcourt.org.za/site/thecourt/rulesofthecourt.htm#11 http://www.constitutionalcourt.org.za/site/thecourt/rulesofthecourt.htm#11 15

South Africa T: +27-44 870 7239 | C: +27-71 170 1954 Email: habeusmentem@mweb.co.za CONCOURT REGISTRAR Registrar of the Constitutional Court: 1 Hospital Street, Braamfontein, Johannesburg Tel: (011) 359-7400 || Fax: (011) 339-5098 Email: registrar@concourt.org.za Registrar: High Court: South Gauteng: Private Bag X7 Johannesburg, 2000 Tel: (011) 332 8278 | Fax: (011) 332 8214 Registrar: Alida van Deventer (AVanDeventer@justice.gov.za)

Registrar: Supreme Court of Appeal: Cnr Elizabeth & President Brand Streets, Bloemfontein, Free State, 9301 PO Box 258, Bloemfontein, Free State, 9300 Tel: +27 51 412 7400, Fax: +27 51 412 7449 Email: Pule Zachia (PZachia@justice.gov.za); Aletta Street (AStreet@justice.gov.za)

RESPONDENTS: AFRIFORUM (Representatives) Mr. Kallie Kriel & Ms. Alana Bailey Posbus 17216, Lyttelton, 0140 Tel: 012 664 8923 | Fax: 012 664 1281 Kallie Kriel: (kallie@solidariteit.co.za) Alana Bailey: (alana@solidariteit.co.za) Ernsts Roets: (ernst@afriforum.co.za)

TVL AGRICULTURAL UNION (TAU) (Representative) CEO: Mr. Bennie van Zyl Posbus 912-51, Silverton, 0127 Tel. (012) 804-8031 | Faks. (012) 804-2014 CEO: Mnr. Bennie van Zyl (hb@tlu.co.za ) Comm: Henk van de Graaf (koms@tlu.co.za)

(Attorneys) Mr. Willie Spies Hurter Spies Attorneys Eendrachtstraat 1, Kloofsig, Centurion Tel: 012-664-0708 | Fax: 012-644-1997 Willie Spies: (admin@hurterspies.co.za)

(Attorneys) Mr. Riaan van der Walt P O Box 1935, Brooklyn Square, 0075 Tel: (012) 460 1915/6 | Fax: (012) 460 1919 Riaan van der Walt (riaan@louwalt.co.za), (mail@attorneys.co.za)

(Advocate) Adv. Martin Brassey, SC Private Bag x41, Benmore, 2010 Tel: 011-290 4103 | Cel: 082-789 3971 Adv Brassey (brassey@counsel.co.za)

(Advocate) Adv. Roelof du Plessis SC 60, Brooklyn Advocates Chambers Tel: 012 452 8760 | Fax: 012 452 8821 Adv. Roelof du Plessis (advr@mweb.co.za)

JULIUS MALEMA & ANC (Attorneys) Mr. Mkhabela Huntley Adekeye Inc. Tel: (011) 786 7303 Ref: Mr. Makebela or Byron Morris Byron Morris (morris@mhalaw.co.za)

(Advocate) Vincent Maleka SC Doma Nokwe Group Tel: (011) 282 3700 / 3772 Fax: (011) 884 6453 | Cell: (083) 260 0790 Adv. Maleka (ivmaleka@mweb.co.za)

DESMOND TUTU Desmond Tutu (tutudm@mweb.co.za) c/o: Nomfundo Walaza

NELSON MANDELA c/o Chairperson: Jakes Gerwel Nelson Mandela Foundation 16

Desmond Tutu Peace Center 42 Hans Strijdom Ave, Capetown, 8001 Tel: +27(21) 443 6760 | Fax: +27(21) 443 6768 Email: info@tutu.org,; Tutu - Assist: Vivian (vivian@tutu.org.za); Nomfundo Walaza - Tutu Ctr (toni@tutu.org)

107 Central Street, Houghton, 2198 T: +27(11) 547 5600 | F: +27(11) 728 1111 Email: nmf@nelsonmandela.org NMF (nmf@nelsonmandela.org); Verne Sheldon Harris (Verne@nelsonmandela.org)

FW DE KLERK c/o D. Steward & N de Havilland FW de Klerk Foundation P O Box 15785, Panorama, 7506 T: +27(21) 930 3622 | F: +27(21) 930 3898 Dave Steward - FWF (dave@fwdeklerk.org); Adv. Nikki de Havilland (nikki@cfcr.org.za); Piet Le Roux - FWF (piet@fwdeklerk.org)

CRL RIGHTS COMMISSION CEO: Adv. Pheagane Moreroa Private Bag X 90 000 Houghton, 2041 Tel: (011) 537 7600 | Fax: (011) 880 3495 Chairperson@crlcommission.org.za, ceo@crlcommission.org.za, info@crlcommission.org.za

NORWEGIAN NOBEL COMMITTEE: CHAIR Chair: Thorbjørn Jagland Amb. Kari Maren Bjørnsgaard Norwegian Nobel Committee Norwegian Embassy in Pretoria Henrik Ibsens gate 51 P.O. Box 11612 NO-0255 Oslo, Norway 0181 Brooklyn, South Africa Tel: (47) 22 12 93 00 | Fax: (47) 94 76 11 17 Tel: +27 12 364 3700 | Fax: +27 12 342 6099 postmaster@nobel.no emb.pretoria@mfa.no, embctn@telkomsa.net CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY: DIRECTOR Lisa Monaco Ambassador Donald Gips Asst Att. General for National Security U.S. Embassy in Pretoria National Security Division PO Box 9536, Pretoria 0001 Department of Justice 877 Pretorius St, Arcadia, Pretoria 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Tel: (27-12) 431-4000 Washington, D.C. 20530 Fax: (27-12) 342-2299 Tel: (202) 514-2007 | Fax: (202) 514-5331 embassypretoria@state.gov nsd.public@usdoj.gov DAVID PETRAEUS Robert Barnett Williams & Connolly LLP 725 Twelfth Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005 Tel: 202-434-5034 | Fax: 202-434-5029 rbarnett@wc.com

17

IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT Case:_________________ 815-11 SCA & 07-2010 EQ JHB In the matter between: ALIEN ON PALE BLUE DOT

Applicant

And AFRIFORUM

First Respondent

TRANSVAAL AGRICULTURAL UNION (TAU)

Second Respondent

JULIUS MALEMA

Third Respondent

AFRICAN NATIONAL CONGRESS

Fourth Respondent

DESMOND TUTU

Fifth Respondent

NELSON MANDELA

Sixth Respondent

FW DE KLERK

Seventh Respondent

CRL RIGHTS COMMISSION1

Eighth Respondent

NORWEGIAN NOBEL COMMITTEE: CHAIR

Ninth Respondent

CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY: DIRECTOR

Tenth Respondent

DAVID PETRAEUS

Eleventh Respondent

FOUNDING AFFIDAVIT

I the undersigned, LARA JOHNSTONE do hereby make oath and say:

1

Commission for the Promotion and Protection of the Rights of Cultural, Religious and Linguistic Communities 1

[1]

I am an adult Radical Honoursty Ecofeminist Wild Law Sustainable Security

practicing paralegal (subsequently referred to as ―applicant‖), member of Friend of Wikileaks (FoWL) and the Radical Honesty culture2; resident in George, Southern Cape, RSA; where I run a small EcoFeminist pedal-powered wormery business.

[2]

Sustainable Security Wild Law3 regulates human procreation and/or resource

utilization behaviour, to ensure sustainability4. A Sustainable society practices Sustainable Procreation and Natural Resource Utilization Behaviour5. Laws of Nature determine that Environmental or ecological rights and responsibilities are the sine qua non6 foundation for all other Rights7. Sustainable Security: ―There is no security without sustainability‗8: In the absence of a new moral order9 where Wild Laws are implemented to regulate and reduce human procreation and resource utilization behaviour, towards a sustainable, pre- industrial lifestyle paradigm; ―overpopulation10 and resource scarcity11 will result in conflict and war12 (perhaps

SA Constitutional Court ruling of 03 May 2012 in CCT 23-10, reads as follows: ―Ms. Lara Johnstone, Member of Radical Honesty Culture and Religion, is admitted as an amicus curiae‖ 3 Wild Law is a new legal theory and growing social movement. It proposes that we rethink our legal, political, economic and governance systems so that they support, rather than undermine, the integrity and health of the Earth. www.wildlaw.org.au 4 Sustainability requires living within the regenerative capacity of the biosphere. The human economy depends on the planet‘s natural capital, which provides all ecological services and natural resources. Drawing on natural capital beyond its regenerative capacity results in depletion of the capital stock.

5 Bartlett (1994/09): Reflections on Sustainability, Population Growth, and the Environment, Population & Environment, Vol. 16, No. 1, Sep 1994, pp. 5-35; Clugston, C (2009): Sustainability Defined (WakeUpAmerika) 6 Opinion of Weeramantry J in the Case Concerning the Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary v Slovakia) (1998) 37 International Legal Materials 162 206.

7 Bartlett (2000/09): Democracy Cannot Survive Overpopulation, Population & Environment, Vol. 22, No. 1, pgs.

63-71 8 Murphy, R (2006/10/24): US Army Strategy of the Environment, Office of the Dep. Asst. Sec. of the Army, Environment, Safety & Occup. Health: Assistant for Sustainability; Linkola, P (2009): Can Life Prevail? A Radical Approach to the Environmental Crisis (Integral Tradition Publishing) 9 Hardin, G (1968/12/13): Tragedy of the Commons, Science; Peters, R (1996): The Culture of Future Conflict, US Army War College: Parameters: Winter 1995-96, pp. 18-27.

10 Hardin G (1991): Carrying Capacity and Quality of Life, Environmental Science: Sustaining the Earth 11 Koppel, T (2000): CIA and Pentagon on Overpopulation and Resource Wars, Nightline; United States Joint Forces Command (2010/02/18): The Joint Operating Environment - 2010 (The JOE – 2010); United States Army & TRADOC (2012): US Army Unified Quest 2012 Fact Sheet, Unified Quest 2012 is the Army Chief of Staff's annual Title 10 Future Study Plan (FSP); Peters, R (1996); ; Parthemore, C & Nagl, J (2010/09/27): Fueling the Future Force: Preparing the Department of Defense for a Post-Petroleum Environment, Center for a New American Security (CNAS) 12 Peters (1996); Bush, GW Snr (1986/02): Public Report of the Vice-President‘s Task Force on Combatting Terrorism; Homer-Dixon, T, & Boutwell, J, & Rathjens, G (1993): Environmental change and violent conflict: Growing scarcities of renewable resources can contribute to social instability and civil strife. Scientific American, 268(2), pp. 38-45.

2

2

nuclear13) confronting regions at an accelerated pace‘14, and ―collapse of the global economic system and every market-oriented national economy‖15 by 205016.

[3]

The facts set out herein fall within the Applicants personal knowledge, unless

otherwise indicated by the context, and are to the best of my belief true and correct.

THE ALIEN ON PALE BLUE DOT APPLICANT: [4]

Applicant‘s reference to herself as Alien on Pale Blue Dot refers to: 1. ALIEN: Hardin (1980): Religious historian, Ernest Renan invented the ―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.‖ 2. PALE BLUE DOT: Sagan C: Pale Blue Dot: ―Consider again that dot .. home where everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives.., every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there - on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam. The Earth is a very small stage in a vast cosmic arena. 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.

Hardin (1968/12/13) United States Army & TRADOC (2012) 15 Schultz, S (2010/09/01): [German] Military Study Warns of Potentially Drastic Oil Crisis, Der Spiegel 16 Clugston, C (2012): Scarcity: Humanity‘s Final Chapter (Booklocker.com Inc): Preface, pg. ix 13 14

3

[5]

Descartian vs. Radical Honesty Thinking: In cultures who have adopted

western ‗I‘ conceptual thinking, based upon Descartes ―I think, therefore I am‖ principles, they consider their ‗thoughts‘ to be ‗I‘. Any thought that enters their consciousness, they think ‗I think/thought .. .. ‘.

[6]

Radical Honesty Thinking is based upon Eastern ‗observation of the mind‘

principle‘s, which consider the being to be ‗I‘, not the mind: ‗I am, therefore I think‘.

Hence our sensate being: legs, bodies, sensations (sweaty palms, aches, tight chest, etc) are ‗I‘ (our identity), whereas the thoughts that pass through our consciousness are not ‗I‘. We notice the thoughts entering into our consciousness, in the same way, you may listen to a radio discussion or debate, where different, frequently contradictory ideas are expressed. You listen, and don‘t think ‗I think that‘ simply because the thought entered your consciousness. They are just sounds, that are converted into thoughts by your conscious mind; you can agree, disagree, but they are not ‗I‘.

[7]

Ideas are simply ideas, not personal identity. Our being is our identity, and

ideas, including ideology, are only useful, in terms of their practical ability to solve any particular problem. An Alien/Radical Honesty Mind can easily apply communist, capitalist, cannibal ideology, from their Ideology toolbox to fix any particular social problem, without any identity attachment to the particular ideology as ‗I‘.

A

Descartian – who lacks a ‗don‘t know‘ mind - considers ideology to be her/his identity; insisting that all problems, need to be fixed by applying their ideology. An Alien mind uses a hammer for a nail, and a screwdriver for a screw; whereas for example a Right wing Descartian believes every problem to be a nail and a Left Wing Descartian believes every problem to be a screw.

[8]

As Susan Blackmore explains in her article about how Memeplexes hijack our

minds, by acting no different to Selfish Genes17, in Waking from the Meme Dream18: ―The most obvious (and scary) conclusion from modern neuroscience is that there is simply no one inside the brain. The more we learn about the way the brain functions the less it seems to need a central controller, a little person inside, a decider of decisions or an experiencer of experiences. These are just fictions - part of

17 18

Dawkins,R. (1976) The Selfish Gene, Oxford University Press.

Blackmore, Susan (1996/11/10) 4

the story the brain tells itself about a self within (Churchland and Sejnowski, 1992 19; Dennett, 199120).â&#x20AC;&#x2013; THE PARTIES: [9]

Afriforum and Transvaal Agricultural Union were the Plaintiffs in the

original application to the Equality Court (South Gauteng High Court) of Judge Colin Lamont; and the Respondents in the matter to the Supreme Court of Appeal.

[10]

Julius Malema and the African National Congress were the respondents

in the original Equality Court application, who appealed the ruling of Judge Colin Lamont to the Supreme Court of Appeal.

[11]

Desmond Tutu was appointed Chairman of the Truth and Reconciliation

Commission (TRC) by Nelson Mandela. The TRC was set up in terms of the Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act, No. 34 of 1995, and was based in Cape Town. Other members of the TRC (none of whom represented the former Apartheid regime) were Dr. Alex Boraine (Deputy Chairman), Mary Burton, Advocate Chris de Jager, Bongani Finca, Pumla Gobodo-Madikizela, Sisi Khampepe, Richard Lyster, Wynand Malan, Reverend Khoza Mgojo, Hlengiwe Mkhize, Dumisa Ntsebeza (head of the Investigative Unit), Dr. Wendy Orr, Advocate Denzil Potgieter, Mapule Ramashala, Dr. Fazel Randera, Yasmin Sooka and Glenda Wildschut.

[12]

Archbishop Tutuâ&#x20AC;&#x2DC;s theology falls under, or is related to Kairos doctrine, as

enunciated in the 1985 Kairos document; which is founded on liberation theology.

According to James. H. Cone and others, black liberation theology was the theological arm of black power seeking to relate the black struggle for freedom to the biblical claim regarding the justice of God. Black power itself was the political challenge to the non-violence preached by Martin Luther King. Decision making in favour of violence, was provided for within the tenets of black liberation theology.

[13]

Black Liberation Theology believes that whites can only be forgiven once they

have given up their belief in their whiteness and whiteness cultural values of merit, small family procreation values, property rights, etc; and helped to violently overthrow whiteness to establish a Marxist Leninist communist utopia.

19 20

Churchland,P.S. and Sejnowski,T.J. (1992) The Computational Brain. Cambridge, Mass. MIT Press Dennett,D.C. (1991) Consciousness Explained. London, Little, Brown & Co. 5

[14]

In Complaints to Public Protector of TRC Handling of SADF21, and Assessment

of the Probable Results of Activities of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) as Perceived by Former Chiefs of the SADF IRO the SADF22, submitted by Gen. J.J. Geldenhuys, SSA, SD, SOE, SM; Genl A.J. Liebenberg, SSA, SD, SOE, MMM; Genl M.A. de M. Malan, SSA, OMSG, SD, SM; and Gen C.L. Viljoen, SSA, SD, SOE, SM; respectively to the Public Protector and TRC; the Generals have numerous complaints about the bias from the ANC-TRC, on numerous issues, that the TRC methodology for finding the truth was pre-judgemental and biased, refusing to consider perspectives that contradicted those of the ANC-TRC, that it appeared to be deliberately and intentionally biased, by selectively searching for the truth, and acting with a ―political vendetta‖ towards the SADF, and that its lack of impartial enquiry into the truth about different parties motives, actions and justifications in the past were seriously prejudicing the overall aim of the TRC to allegedly pursue and promote Reconciliation and National Unity.

[15]

The composite of the complaint reads: ―The TRC and some of its members

have displayed continuous prejudice, bias and lack of impartiality towards the former South African Defence Force and its members. .. The disregard which resultantly developed in the minds of members of the former SADF undermines the overall mission of the TRC to promote reconciliation and national unity.‖ [16]

The Generals proceed to refer to Dr. Boraine and the TRC‗s ideological

perspective founded on among others Black Liberation Theology23; whereby the whole of society is comprised into only two categories: Oppressors and Oppressed, ―oppressed and oppressors together, were imprisoned by the chains with which one group sought to bind the other for many generations.‖

21

Complaints to Public Protector of TRC Handling of SADF, submitted by Generals J.J. Geldenhuys, SSA, SD, SOE, SM; A.J. Liebenberg, SSA, SD, SOE, MMM; M.A. de M. Malan, SSA, OMSG, SD, SM; and C.L. Viljoen, SSA, SD, SOE, SM; January 1998 22 Assessment of the Probable Results of Activities of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) as Perceived by Former Chiefs of the SADF IRO the SADF, submitted to the Chairman of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, by Generals J.J. Geldenhuys, SSA, SD, SOE, SM; A.J. Liebenberg, SSA, SD, SOE, MMM; M.A. de M. Malan, SSA, OMSG, SD, SM; and C.L. Viljoen, SSA, SD, SOE, SM; February 1998 23 (I) South African Christianity: The Kairos Document, 25 September 1985; A Challenge to the Church, allegedly

by Frank Chicane and Beyers Naude; (ii) Violence: The New Kairos: Challenge to the Churches, 1990, An Institute for Contextual Theology Publication; and (iii) Theologies: Liberation vs. Submission, by Jean-Pierre Cloutier (Initially published in the Spring of 1987 in the Haiti Times) 6

Although we stand sympathetic towards the objectives of the TRC….. we have serious reservations as to whether the TRC can make an optimum contribution towards reconciliation and national unity.

Our reservations are shared, amongst others, by the historian Hermann Giliomee in the Leader Page article in the Cape Times of 9 October 1997. ―Writing as a historian, I have always felt that the greatest problem with the commission was not so much what it has set out to do, but its hopelessly skewed composition. Unlike Chile, where half the commissioners appointed to a similar body was roughly associated with the old regime and the other half with the new, the score in our case is roughly nine to one in favour of the anti - regime side‖.

The entire focus of this ―Oppressor vs Oppressed‖ Black Liberation Theology argument was one side is ―right‖ and the other ―wrong‖; the aim was not a commitment to a conversation to attempt to understand and sincerely forgive, but to prove to the other side, ―We are right‖: ―The struggle became the new measure for determining the nature of violence, for right and wrong. In the name of the struggle, throwing stones, burning cars and killing people were somehow less horrible, more humane, perhaps even more in line with human rights.

The question arises as to whether Dr Boraine and the TRC can really expect to build a future South African society with this kind of intellectual gymnastics? The danger lies in their conceptual application of an untruth.

In the case of South Africa if this supposition of the TRC is accepted, an analysis of the past becomes irrelevant. If society is perceived as an interaction between oppressor and oppressed, as a clear cut distinction between evil and good, the TRC's investigation is not really necessary even before the start of the hearings. The outcome would have been predetermined.

The TRC has omitted to recognise, admit to or even investigate another reality which existed at the time. A reality created by the perceptions of people. [..] Questions that beg to be answered by the TRC process are the following: What were the intentions of the Soviet Union with regard to southern and more particularly South Africa at the time they decided to actually assist, train, fund and arm the SA Communist Party / ANC in their attempt to overthrow the then SA Government by violent revolution? What did the Soviet Union wish to achieve? What was the quid pro quo demanded from the SACP/ANC in exchange for such massive support? Does the TRC know that Castro favoured violence and terrorism over politics in his approach to revolution and that the Cubans have been the principal instigators of armed conflict in Africa since 1960?

The TRC has not looked to the intelligence and security services of the United States, the United Kingdom, France and Germany in order to provide the proper perspective. (Op. cit. p.7).

7

[17]

If the Archbishop Tutu and the TRC did honestly reveal their Black

Liberation Theology violent Marxist ―reconcilication‖ doctrine definitions; it would result in Conservative, particularly Calvinist Christians being fully aware that ―forgiveness‖ and ―reconciliation‖ do not mean the same things to Boer/Afrikaners as they do to ANC Black Liberation theology Marxists. Because they are opposing ideas about ―reconciliation‖, Calvinist ―reconciliation‖ is as impossible as Marxist ―reconciliation‖. The TRC Political and Religious elite have exploited the African and European masses by avoiding clarifying these huge differences in meaning between the two camps, so as to benefit from the masses ignorance, and confusion, and scapegoat the Calvinist Christian community, whose ―reconciliation‖ perspectives are an impediment to ANC‗s Black Liberation Theology ―reconciliation‖ aims to overthrow ―whiteness‖ and establish their communist utopia.

[18]

Succinctly, Archbishop Tutu‘s ‗Crime of Apartheid‘ TRC Commissioners lacked

cultural equivalent code of military honour24 or philosophical courage25, to impartially enquire into demographic motives of Apartheid; unable to ―accept 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,‖ 26 that ―no single side in the conflict of the past has a monopoly of virtue or should bear responsibility for all the abuses that occurred‖27.

[19]

Archbishop Tutu failed to follow his own advice and criticism he gave to the

Apartheid regime, stating that Apartheids vague legal definitions amounted to Legal

Rain Liivoja. 2010. Chivalry without a Horse: Military Honour & Modern Law of Armed Conflict The Role of Philosophical Courage in Philosophical Counseling, by Hakam Al-Shawi: ―I ..l suggest that this transformational process requires at least one necessary ingredient without which philosophical counseling would not be possible. Whether implicitly or explicitly, both counselor and client need the virtue of courage in its form as ―philosophical courage‖ in order for the counseling to be successful. Moreover, the degree of such courage in both client and counselor will determine the extent to which issues are brought into question…… there is another form of courage—philosophical courage—required of individuals in dealing with their most fundamental beliefs and values. ….. I believe the best way to demarcate roughly the different forms of courage, is through an analysis of the cost involved with each form of the virtue…. First, with physical courage, the possible cost involved, at the extreme, is the physical loss of life…. Second, with moral courage, the possible cost is social rejection and isolation and/or a loss of ―ethical integrity or authenticity. Third, with ―psychological courage,‖ the possible cost perceived by the individual is ―psychic death.‖ …. And fourth, with ―philosophical courage‖ the possible cost is philosophical instability where one‘s most fundamental beliefs and values are brought into doubt. … it demands of the individual a confrontation with fundamental beliefs and values‖ [www.scribd.com/doc/34457982] 26 Submission to the TRC, by General M.A. de Malan [ www.scribd.com/doc/34462172] 27 Submission to the TRC by Mr. F.W de Klerk, National Party [ www.scribd.com/doc/34462184] 24 25

8

Tyranny.28 If Apartheid provided vague definitions, and Mandela and Tutu‘s TRC Social contract provide no legal definitions for the concept of ‗reconciliation‘; does that mean Tutu and Mandela‘s South Africa is a greater tyranny than Apartheid?

[20]

Nelson Mandela is the former president of South Africa from 1994 to 1999,

who appointed Archbishop Desmond Tutu to be the Chairman of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, subsequent to negotiations with Former President FW de Klerk.

[21]

Nelson Mandela was the co-founder of Umkhonto we Sizwe, the armed wing of

the African National Congress (ANC), who either (a) did not believe that Africans and Boers were culturally similar in terms of their capacity for similar cultural breeding values, since he did not believe that Africans were capable of amending their procreation behaviour from an r-selected reproductive strategy (large number of offspring with minimal investments in offspring); to the Boers K-selected reproductive strategy (a small number of offspring and invest heavily in each; or (b) if he did believe Africans were capable of adopting the Boer K-selected reproductive strategy, he was not culturally honourably concerned with Just War practices; since he declined to launch a non-violent cultural and political campaign to stop the African ‗swart gevaar‗ breeding-war population explosion, to adopt the Boers Kselected reproductive strategy; to thereby demonstrate to Boers, his honourable Just War Just Cause Intentions to Apartheid Officials and citizens; prior to Mandela‘s MPlan declaration of War against Apartheid.

[22]

Mandela‘s military attempts to overthrow the Apartheid government resulted

in his arrest on charges of treason in 1962. He was convicted of sabotage and other charges, and sentenced to life imprisonment. The Prosecutor showed that Mandela‘s militant actions against Apartheid consisted of among others his planning and implementation of ―campaigns of sabotage, intimidation, torture, guerrilla warfare, violence, disruption of transportation and communications, insurrection and revolution against the government‖. The treason plotters ―planned to manufacture or purchase explosives such as 48,000 land mines each containing 5 pounds of dynamite, 210,000 hand grenades each containing 1/4 pd of dynamite as well as Truth and Reconciliation Report: Vol I. page 30; para 26; 27 ; page 32 para 32; page 38, para 59; Vol II; page 274, para 453 28

9

petrol bombs, syringe bombs, thermite bombs, 1,500 timing devices for bombs, as well as molotov cocktails‖.

[23]

Their planning ―requirements included 144 tons of ammonium nitrate,21.6

tons of aluminum powder and 15 tons of black powder, as they ―prepared for a nucleus army of 7,000 soldiers,‖ most to ―be trained abroad in Communist countries‖.

The campaign was based on the model of successes previously achieved in Algeria and Cuba. More than ten documents written in Nelson Mandella's handwriting were submitted as evidence. They contained notes on basic and advanced military training and warfare as well as Communist doctrine. Although Mandella denied being a Communist he admitted that the aims and objectives of the ANC and Communist Party were identical. He even spoke of retaliation against non supportive blacks such as murder and cutting off their noses.

[24]

The Rand Daily Mail, the most outspoken liberal newspaper at the time in

South Africa, and in many ways a supporter of Mandela and the ANC, wrote about the sentences passed by the judge, ―The sentences pronounced by Judge De Wet at the close of the Rivonia trial are both wise and just. The law is best served when there is firmness tinged with mercy, and this was the case yesterday. The sentences could not have been less severe than those imposed. The men found guilty had planned sabotage on a wide scale and had conspired for armed revolution. As the judge pointed out yesterday, the crime of which they were found guilty was really high treason. The death penalty would have been justified.‖ [25]

Mandela was released from prison on 11 February 1990, on the orders of

President F.W. de Klerk.

[26]

Following the 7 September 1992 Bisho massacre, on September 8, at the

memorial service for the 28 massacred protesters, Nelson Mandela and the freedom fighters are recorded on video singing a song in Xhosa whose lyrics include: "Go safely Mkhonto, Mkhonto we Sizwe, we the members of the MK have pledged ourselves to kill them, the amaBhulu (Boers)29"30

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKiePbTcAfY Independent Newspapers Online (2007-07-24). "'We have pledged ourselves to kill whites' - South Africa | IOL News". IOL.co.za. Retrieved 2012-10-27.

29 30

10

[27]

Mandela‘s 10 December 1993, Nobel Laureate acceptance speech31 made direct

reference to ‗Wretched of the Earth‘, Frantz Fanon's Famous Handbook for Black Liberation by Cleansing Violent Revolution on the rotting corpses of the settlers: ―Moved by that appeal and inspired by the eminence you have thrust upon us, we undertake that we too will do what we can to contribute to the renewal of our world so that none should, in future, be described as the ―wretched of the earth‖.‖ [28]

FW de Klerk was the last Apartheid President of South Africa. He lifted the

ban on the African National Congress (ANC) and released Nelson Mandela. He brought apartheid to an end and opened the way for the drafting of a new constitution for the country based on the principle of one person, one vote.

[29]

In 1992 de Klerk called a referendum for a mandate to negotiate with the

African National Congress. The referendum question was ‗negotiation‘ not ‗surrender‘. De Klerk promised that if he was given a mandate for negotiation, a second referendum would be held, upon completion of the negotiations. A majority of 68.73% of the voters granted De Klerk a mandate to negotiate. Negotiate, not surrender.

[30]

During the negotiations with the ANC, a proposal was also placed before De

Klerk and the ANC to turn South Africa into a federal state similar to the Swiss canton-system: i.e. one language and one culture per canton. This successful recipe has been used since 1 August 1291 in Switzerland.

[31]

For reasons unknown, the Swiss canton system of governance option was

ignored. No second referendum was ever held. South Africa was handed over to the African National Congress without any mandate from the white electorate, their Swiss Canton option for multicultural self-rule governance, ignored.

[32]

According to a us Consulate in Capetown State Department Cable (Reference

ID: 90CAPETOWN9732 | Date: 1990-01-17 15:03), the South African Government had made the ANC and Nelson Mandela aware that the South African Government was ―concerned over … over the working definition of ―One Man One Vote‖, among other ―White Fears‖ issues‖. Additionally the ANC were concerned about the 31 32

http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1993/mandela-lecture.html http://wikileaks.org/cable/1990/01/90CAPETOWN97.html 11

reduction of violence and confrontation, since the ―absence of direct confrontation is demobilizing for the masses‖; i.e. the ANC need direct confrontation to mobilize their followers.

[33]

F.W. de Klerk‘s submission to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission

confirms, among others Boers fears of the ‗swart gevaar‘: ―As far as relations with the other peoples of SA the National Party believed that its interests could be best served by following a policy of "separateness" - or apartheid. Only in this manner, would the whites in general - and Afrikaners in particular - avoid being overwhelmed by the numerical superiority of the black peoples of our country. Only in this manner would they be able to maintain their own identity and their right to rule themselves [..], because any other course would inevitably lead to inter-racial conflict.‖33 [34]

A statement34 by the FW de Klerk Foundation on 21 March 2003, states that

―Mr De Klerk deeply regrets that the TRC process did not achieve its objective of establishing the full truth related to the conflict of the past and that it has not promoted reconciliation in South Africa as intended.‖ [35]

According to an article in the Citizen, by Steven Motale, HNP leader Willie

Marais claimed that Former Prime Minister PW Botha had told a Dutch newspaper, that De Klerk had received between three and four million US dollars, honorary doctorates and the Nobel Peace Prize ―in exchange for handing over the country to the ANC‖.35 [36]

Mike Smith36, reports that PM PW Botha made the same allegations to the

editor of African Crisis: Jan Lamprecht. De Klerk threatened to sue for libel, but never did; and the NPA never bothered to investigate the matter.

[37]

CRL Rights Commission: The Commission for the Promotion and Protection

of the Rights of Cultural, Religious and Linguistic Communities was established in terms of section 181(1)(c) of the Constitution and the subsequent : Commission for Submission to Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) by National Party Leader, President F.W. de Klerk Statement by the FW de Klerk Foundation regarding the court case between former President FW de Klerk and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. http://www.fwdeklerk.org/cgibin/giga.cgi?cmd=cause_dir_news_item&cause_id=2137&news_id=71386&cat_id=1594#.ULOoY-S-q7k 35 The Citizen (): De Klerk threatens legal action over ‗sell-out‘ allegations http://www.legalbrief.co.za/article.php?story=20061127090052909 36 Opening Pandora‘s Apartheid Box – Part 31- De Klerk‘s liberal conversion and the mindset of treason 33 34

12

the Promotion and Protection of the Rights of Cultural, Religious and Linguistic Communities Act, 19 of 2002.

[38]

The objects of the Commission are - (a) to promote respect for and further the

protection of the rights of cultural, religious and linguistic communities; (b) to promote and develop peace, friendship, humanity, tolerance and national unity among and within cultural, religious and linguistic communities, on the basis of equality, non-discrimination and free association; (c) to foster mutual respect among cultural, religious and linguistic communities; (d) to promote the right of communities to develop their historically diminished heritage; and (e) to recommend the establishment or recognition of community councils in accordance with section 36 or 37.

[39]

Norwegian Nobel Committee selects the recipients of the Nobel Peace

Prize each year on behalf of Swedish industrialist Alfred Nobel's estate, based on instructions of Nobel's will, which requires the Nobel Peace Prize to be awarded ―to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.‖ [40]

According to Conservapedia37: ―As an unwritten rule, the [Nobel Peace Prize]

is not given to a conservative (such as Ronald Reagan or Pope John Paul II) or scientists advocating intelligent design, and it is not given to anyone who challenges the scientific establishment on the issues of the theory of evolution or theory of relativity, such as standouts Raymond Damadian, Fred Hoyle and Robert Dicke. The Nobel Prize is not given to any scientist who criticizes, publicly or privately, a liberal icon; the renowned physicist Edward Teller was denied the prize for criticizing the liberal J. Robert Oppenheimer, and the eminent physicist John Wheeler was denied the prize for privately supporting Teller. The award is sometimes given to a liberal politician or diplomat, such as Al Gore and Barack Obama, which can be seen as boosting his agenda. Most recently the award has been the subject of an investigation for corruption.‖

37

http://www.conservapedia.com/Nobel_Prize 13

[41]

Not one of the Norwegian Nobel Peace Prizes has ever been awarded to any

individual who addresses the root causes of war, by educating and advocating on behalf of Sustainable Security: living in harmony with nature‘s carrying capacity, by reducing overpopulation and overconsumption, which are the primary causes of resource scarcity.

[42]

The Norwegian Nobel Peace Prize Committee has refused to consider the role

of overpopulation and overconsumption as root cause factors of resource scarcity pushing society to conflict and war, where surplus populations are used as standing armies, and how those profiteering from overconsumption use their profits to promote pretend peace congresses and pretend Peace Prizes, awarding War is Peace Whore Prizes to perpetuate the ‗Control of Reproduction‘ Human Farming War Economy Racket paradigm.

Nobel Peace Prizes Awarded for Reducing Scarcity: 0 Nobel Peace Prizes Awarded for Reducing Overpopulation: 0 Nobel Peace Prizes Awarded for Reducing Overconsumption: 0 900 Vietnam38, 40 Iraq and Afghanistan39 Veterans returned their ‗bullshit‘ medals to U.S. Congress and NATO. Nobel Peace Laureates returned their War is Peace Whore Medals: 0 [43]

Central Intelligence Agency: Director and David Petraeus: The Central

Intelligence Agency (CIA) is an independent civilian intelligence agency of the United States government. It is an executive agency and reports directly to the Director of National Intelligence, with responsibility for providing national security intelligence assessment to senior United States policymakers.

[44]

David Petraeus served as Director of the Central Intelligence Agency from

September 6, 2011, until his forced resignation on November 9, 2012. Prior to his assuming the directorship of the CIA, Petraeus was a highly decorated four-star general, serving over 37 years in the United States Army. His last assignments in the Army were as commander of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) and Commander, U.S. Forces Afghanistan (USFOR-A) from July 4, 2010, to July 18, 2011. His other four-star assignments include serving as the 10th Commander, U.S. Central Command (USCENTCOM) from October 13, 2008, to June 30, 2010, and as 38 39

Vietnam Veterans Throw their Medals at Washington www.youtu.be/j7jhs-bGyFQ Iraq and Afghanistan veterans return medals at NATO Summit www.youtu.be/YX9PVC0phhI 14

Commanding General, Multi-National Force - Iraq (MNF-I) from February 10, 2007, to September 16, 2008.

[45]

The Central Intelligence Agency motto is "And ye shall know the truth and

the truth shall make you free." (John 8:32); its intelligence mantra advises to follow the ―unvarnished truth‘40, and its Inspector General motto is to ―Follow the Truth, Wherever it Leads‖41.

[46]

In 2000, Ted Koppel reported upon the CIA and Pentagon‘s national security

concerns related to overpopulation‘s effect upon resource scarcity and resource wars: CIA & Pentagon on Overpopulation and Resources Wars42; and the lack of political will of politicians to honestly confront the issue.

[47]

David Petraeus, as Director of the Central Intelligence Agency was the

recipient of Applicants Maria Bochkareva Leaver Peacenik One Child Oath, as part of court proceedings in CCR v USA, in the United States Court of Appeals for Armed Forces (USCAAF), and subsequent thereto in the Supreme Court: Alien on Pale Blue Dot vs. Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press43.

[48]

On 09 November 2012, Director General Petraeus was suddenly fired (forced

to resign).

[49]

On 16 November 2012, Applicant filed a request to Washington DC, FBI

Director: James McJunkin: 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 CIAPetraeus‘ 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?

Davis, Jack: Improving CIA Analytic Performance: Analysts and the Policymaking Process; Sherman Kent Center for Intelligence Analysis Occasional Papers: Volume 1, Number 2, Sherman Kent Center www.cia.gov/library/kent-center-occasional-papers/pdf/OPNo2.pdf 41 www.cia.gov/offices-of-cia/inspector-general/index.html 42 sqswans.weebly.com/overpopulation-means-murder.html 43 http://sqswans.weebly.com/us-supreme-court.html 40

15

[50]

On 22 November 2012, Applicant filed a request for comment to White House:

National Security Advisor: Thomas Donilon44: Request for White House Comment: CNN I-Report: Was the FBI's Petraeus-Broadwell investigation used as a convenient excuse to fire Petraeus, to prevent Petraeus from implementing a Sustainable 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?

[51]

On 24 November 2012, Applicant filed a request for information to General

Petraeus45: 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?

OVERVIEW AND CHRONOLOGY OF FACTS: [52]

Respondents Afriforum, Malema, ANC and TAU-SA dispute arises 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.

[53]

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.

[54]

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 44 45

http://sqswans.weebly.com/1/post/2012/11/121122_wh-natsec-donilon.html http://sqswans.weebly.com/1/post/2012/11/121123_genpetraeus1.html 16

should be a national dialogue about the song "awudubhule ibhunu" or "shoot the boer", given that some people had been offended by it46. This was a legitimate ―struggle song‖ in their war against Apartheid.

[55]

The applicant filed an application47 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.

[56]

Briefly, applicants Amicus Curiae evidence addressed: 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‘48, that Afriforum and TAU-SA were inaccurately to interpreting the words ‗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‘.

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

http://www.timeslive.co.za/local/article1024068.ece/Lets-talk-about-shoot-the-boer--Hanekom http://sqswans.weebly.com/sa-supreme-court-of-appeal.html 48 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 nonconsensual 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-F-R ―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 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 laissez-faire birth control within a welfare state, results in Runaway Population Growth, and ultimately greater misery, poverty and war .)

46 47

17

respective political basis, 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.

[57]

The parties masculine insecurity and lack of commitment to transparency to

seek the truth, wherever the truth may lead, resulted in their conspiracy to ignore Applicants evidence, and proceed as if it had never been submitted to the court.

[58]

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)49; 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.‖ [59]

The ANC then proceeded to appeal the matter to the Supreme Court of

Appeal. On 30 December 2011, Applicant again submitted her application to the Court, in that the evidence submitted to the court of Judge Lamont had been ignored by the parties.

[60]

On 22 May 2012 the Supreme Court of Appeal: Mr. BJ Mashinini responded

(PDF50) as follows on behalf of Honourable President Lex Mpati: Application to be admitted as Amicus Curiae in the matter of Julius Malema and Another vs Afriforum and Another Case Number 815/2011.

The abovementioned application was referred to the President of this court during February 2012, before the record was lodged with this office.

49 50

http://www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZAEQC/2011/2.html http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/120522_sca 18

He requested that the application be placed before him once the record was lodged.

The record has now been lodged and the application has once again been placed before him. He has requested me to inform you as follows.

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.

[61]

On 18 July 2012, Applicant filed an Application (PDF51) for Permission to file

an application to the Constitutional Court to Review the Honourable Supreme Court of Appealâ&#x20AC;&#x2DC;s 22 May 2012 decision to Refuse the Applicants Application to Proceed as an Amicus Curiae. Applicants Arguments: 1. IF: Supreme Court of Appeals Values endorse EcoFeminist Sustainable Democracy Transparency TruthSeeking Problem Solving: Applicant Should be Approved as an Amicus Curiae: 2. 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.

[62]

On 24 September Applicant 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 Perspective52 - in the US Court of Appeals for Armed Forces, in the matter of CCR v USA. [63]

Applicants 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 courtâ&#x20AC;&#x2014;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 51 52

http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/120718_sca_815-11 http://sqswans.weebly.com/us-court-of-appeals-for-armed-forces.html 19

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.‖ [64]

All Afriforum Parties, including the SCA Registrar (Zachia Pule) were

provided with a transparency copy of the Ecocentric Amicus to the USCAAF. [65]

CCR v USA53 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 Wikileaks54; the (i) July 12, 2007 US Army AH-64 Apache helicopters air-to-ground attacks in Al-Amin al-Thaniyah, Baghdad (―Collateral Murder‖55); (ii) 250,000 United States diplomatic cables (Cablegate56); and (iii) 500,000 army reports from Iraq (Iraq War logs 57) and Afghanistan (Afghan War logs58).

[66]

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.

ccrjustice.org/ourcases/current-cases/ccr-et-al-v-usa-and-lind-chief-judge www.alexaobrien.com/secondsight/wikileaks/bradley_manning/ appellate_exhib/list_of_appellate_exhibits_us_v_pfc_manning.html 55 www.collateralmurder.com 56 wikileaks.org/cablegate.html 57 wikileaks.org/irq/ 58 wikileaks.org/afg/ 53 54

20

[67]

On 01 October, Applicant 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)‖ [68]

USCAAF justices refused to grant the Amicus application. On 15 October

Applicant filed a Petition for Reconsideration59, wherein applicant 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.

[69]

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?

[70]

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.

[71]

Secondly, that the Central Intelligence Agency‘s Kent Center60 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

59 60

http://sqswans.weebly.com/15-oct--petition.html www.cia.gov/library/kent-center-occasional-papers/index.html 21

nation on the role of overpopulation and overconsumption as factors pushing society to conflict and war.

[72]

On 31 October, Respondents Afriforum, TAU-SA, Malema and ANC concluded

their mediation agreement (PDF61), wherein they initially agree in (g) and (h) that the ― … Mediation Agreement will be made an Order of Court substituting the Equality Court Order. In this regard the parties agree to jointly approach the Honourable Judge Lamont for this purpose soon upon the signing of this Mediation Agreement. In the event the Honourable Judge Lamont were to decline the substitution of the Equality Court Order, Afriforum and TAU-SA irrevocably undertake to abandon the Equality Court Order and simultaneously the parties will apply to have this Mediation Agreement made an Order of Court.‖ These two paragraphs were subsequently deleted from the agreement.

[73]

On 02 November, Applicant filed Alien on Pale Blue Dot vs. Reporters

Committee for Freedom of the Press62, 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.

[74]

On 09 November 2012, Director General Petraeus was suddenly and very

strangely fired (forced to resign).

[75]

On 14 November, three Nobel Laureates – one being Desmond Tutu -- publish

an Open Letter in CCR Appellant publications: The Nation63, The Guardian64 & Salon65, saluting Pfc Manning as a fellow War is Peace Whore.

[76]

On 16 November 2012, Applicant filed a request to Washington DC, FBI

Director: James McJunkin66: to enquire whether the FBI‘s Petraeus-Broadwell investigation was used as convenient excuse to fire Petraeus to Protect the ‗War is http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/121131_sca_851-11-order http://sqswans.weebly.com/us-supreme-court.html 63 http://www.thenation.com/article/171272/nobel-laureates-salute-bradley-manning?page=full 64 http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/nov/16/bradley-manning-americans-support 65 www.salon.com/2012/11/15/nobel_peace_laureates_condemn_prosecution_of_bradley_manning/ 66 http://sqswans.weebly.com/16-nov-fbi-mcjunkin.html 61 62

22

Peace Whores‘ Human Factory Farming War Economy, from the threat of CIAPetraeus‘ 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?

[77]

On 22 November 2012, Applicant filed a request for comment to White House:

National Security Advisor: Thomas Donilon67: Request for White House Comment: CNN I-Report: Was the FBI's Petraeus-Broadwell investigation used as a convenient excuse to fire Petraeus, to prevent Petraeus from implementing a Sustainable 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?

[78]

On 24 November 2012, Applicant filed a request for information to General

Petraeus68: 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?

[79]

Applicants Pay-the-Price-4-Peace-Peacenik (PP4PP) Credibility:

[80]

Pay-the-Price-4-Peace One Child Per Family Procreation Credibility:

[81]

Please find attached Petitioner‘s Maria Bochkareva Leaver Peacenik One Child Oath:, submitted to the Judges of the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CCR v USA: USCA Misc. Dkt. No. 12-8027/AR69) and Director General of the Central Intelligence Agency: David Petraeus70, on 15 October 2012, and to FBI: Washington DC Director McJunkin on 16 November 2012 (FBI-DC: Dir McJunkin: RE: FBI's Petraeus Broadwell Investigation71).

[82]

Pay-the-Price-4-Peace Consumption and Carbon Footprint Credibility:

http://sqswans.weebly.com/1/post/2012/11/121122_wh-natsec-donilon.html http://sqswans.weebly.com/1/post/2012/11/121123_genpetraeus1.html 69 http://sqswans.weebly.com/us-court-of-appeals-for-armed-forces.html 70 http://sqswans.weebly.com/15-oct-price4peaceoath.html 71 http://sqswans.weebly.com/16-nov-fbi-mcjunkin.html 67 68

23

24

[83]

According to Ecological Footprint (myfootprint.org), Petitionerâ&#x20AC;&#x2DC;s ecological

consumption footprint is 10.83. [Fig.01] [84]

According to Earth Conservation Plan (earthlab.com) my Carbon Outpout is

0.8 tons (South Africa: 13.1; World: 17.2) and my Earth Conservation Plan score is 171 (South Africa 324; World 384). [Fig.02] [85]

Relief Requested:

[86]

I consequently submit that it is plainly in the interests of justice, gender equality, sincere

reconciliation, honest race relations, and sustainable security of South African citizens that this application be dealt with on its merits.

[87]

In the circumstances, I humbly request the relief as set out in the Notice of Motion to

which this Affidavit is attached.

Dated at George, this 23rd of November, 2012.

Signed and Sworn to at George on this the 23rd day of November 2012, the Deponent acknowledging that she knows and understands the contents of this Affidavit, and that she has no objection to taking the prescribed oath and that the oath is binding on her conscience.

Lara Johnstone, Pro Se Encl: Annex A: 08/11/2012: Judicial Service Commission Ack. Rec. of Complaint Annex B: 15/10/2012: Maria Bochkareva Leaver Peacenik Oath to CIA

25

Annexure “BB” 29 Nov 2012: Alien v. Afriforum: Concourt Registrar Letter (See II: D)

Annexure “CC” 06 Dec 2012: Appeal to Concourt Justices: Appeal Only [Appeal Annexures (A-K) here1]

1

http://sqswans.weebly.com/cct-alien-v-afriforum.html

SHARP PP4PP PO Box 5042 George East, 6539 Tel: (044) 870 7239 Cel: (071) 170 1954 06 December 2012 Concourt Justices c/o Registrar of the Constitutional Court: 1 Hospital Street, Braamfontein, Johannesburg Tel: (011) 359-7400 || Fax: (011) 339-5098 Email: registrar@concourt.org.za

CC: Deputy Minister: Andries Nel, MP Private Bag X395, Pretoria, 0001 Tel: 012 - 406 4854 Fax: 012 - 406 4878 E-mail: deputyminister@justice.gov.za Priv. Sec: Ms. Joshna Govind (jgovind@justice.gov.za) RE: Appeal of Concourt Registrar‟s Refusal to Process My Concourt Application: Alien on Pale Blue Dot v Afriforum et al.

At the 21st International Congress of the International Union of Judicial Officers (Sheriffs/Bailiffs)1, on 02 May 2012, the Deputy Minister of Justice stated that the justice system should aim to: (a) be just in the results it delivers; (b) be fair in the way it treats litigants; (c) offer appropriate procedures at a reasonable cost; (d) deal with cases with reasonable speed; (e) be understandable to those who use it; (f) be responsive to the needs of those who use it; (g) provide as much certainty as the nature of particular cases allows; and (h) be effective: adequately resourced and organised… and that the primary objective of the Civil Justice Reform Project (CJRP) is the simplification and harmonization of laws and rules to make justice easily and equally accessible to all, including and not limited to the following: (a) The effectiveness of the courts, their jurisdiction and capacity to deal with civil disputes; (b) Affordability and cost effectiveness; (d) Simplification of court procedures and processes; (e) Modernisation; the implementation of information technology initiatives for the civil justice system. Such initiatives to include the electronic filing of court documents, and electronic service of court processes (by fax, email, etc).

Bearing those ‗justice system‘ principles in mind:

Address by Deputy Minister Andries Nel, MP on the occasion of the 21st International Congress of the International Union of Judicial Officers (Sheriffs/Bailiffs): 2 May 2012, Cape Town: ICC http://www.justice.gov.za/m_speeches/2012/20120502_dmin_uihj.html 1

On 27 November I filed a Pro Se (Radical Honesty invocation of cultural law) Application for Review to the Constitutional Court Registrar per electronic filing (per email), as well as one printed hardcopy per registered mail.

On 28 November I telephoned the Registrar Ms. Stander with a request to provide me with a Case number for my application.

She responded: Like any other court, this Court may only respond to an application properly lodged in terms of the Rules of this Court.

The Rules require of you to lodge 25 hard copies at the Court. Lodging happens after the documents are properly served on all the Respondents.

Email notification is not proper service. Respondent may confirmed receipt of documents.

No Judgment from the other Courts are attached.

I responded by providing her with a copy of the SCA Judgement, and requested that she provide me with written reasons for her refusal to process my complaint on court letterhead. She provided such, subsequent to a request that was submitted to Concourt Director: Mr. Misser. (Annex A)

ORDERS REQUESTED: 1. Legal Aid: SA Lawyers decline to represent Radical Honesty culture 2. Registered Documents: 25 Copies: Request Environmental Justification for such Abuse of Resources 3. Radical Honesty Ecocentric ‗Normal‘ Electronic Service Filing to Respondents 4. Electronic Service Filing to Respondents Acknowledged as Received: Respondents 01, 02, 03, 04, 05, 06, 07, 09, 10.

5. Request Orders for Respondents 08: CRL Rights Commission and 11: David Petraeus 6. Registrar‘s Refusal of Case Number indicates a Registrar‘s Office that discriminates at Pro Se and/or Radical Honesty culture Applicants.

[1] Legal Aid: SA Lawyers decline to represent Radical Honesty culture.

2

In accordance with the Registrar‘s suggestion on the issue of Legal Aid, I filed a request for Info2: Do you have any Advocates willing to serve as Legal Aid/Pro Bono Assistance of Counsel to a member of the Radical Honesty culture?, to the following Law Societies and Bar Associations: (a) Legal Aid: South Africa Ms. Vidhu Vedalankar (PDF3), (b) Jhb Bar Association: Pro Bono Committee: Chair: P F Louw SC (PDF4), (c) Pretoria Society of Advocates: Executive Secretary (PDF5) | KwaZulu-Natal: Pietermaritzburg Bar Council: Exec. Secretary (PDF6) | Society of Advocates KwaZulu-Natal (Durban) (PDF7) | Free State Soc. of Advocates: Executive Secretary (PDF8) | Cape Law Society: Director: Rampela William Mokoena (PDF9) | Free State Law Society: President: Mr. J Fouche (PDF 10) | Kwa Zulu Natal Law Society: Director: Gavin John (PDF11) | Law Society of South Africa: Co-Chairs: K. Govender & J Stemmett (PDF12) I also submitted the following request for info to Ms. Stander: ―Ms. Stander: Could you find out for me the answer: What if there are no lawyers in South Africa (as there have not been for the past 10 years), who are willing to represent someone from the Radical Honesty culture?‖ Pretoria Soc of Advocates: Adv. Francois Botes from the Pretoria Society of Advocates telephoned me on Sunday to state that he was not aware of any such Advocates, and agreed that an Attorney or Advocate was required to represent a client in accordance to their culture, but that he considered the matter to be more relevant to Johannesburg Society of Advocates.

Soc of Advocates of Kwazulu Natal (PMB): M G Roberts SC, Chairman of the Society of Advocates of KwaZulu-Natal: Pietermaritzburg Bar, responded that he had placed the request up on the notice board. (Annex B).

Soc of Advocates of Kwazulu Natal (Dbn): Adv LB Broster SC, responded on behalf of the Pro Bono Committee, stating it if the matter was approved for hearing by the Chief Justice, in terms of Rule 11, ―we can reconsider your application in the light of the directive. At this stage it would be premature to make any decision as to whether we can appoint an advocate to act on your behalf pro bono.‖ (Annex C)

http://sqswans.weebly.com/1/post/2012/11/121130_barlaw1.html http://sqswans.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/8/7/13878165/12-11-29_legal_aid-vidhu_vedalankar.pdf 4 http://sqswans.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/8/7/13878165/12-11-29_jhb_bar_assoc_-_pro_bono_comm.pdf 5 http://sqswans.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/8/7/13878165/12-11-30_pretoria_society_of_advocates.pdf 6 http://sqswans.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/8/7/13878165/12-11-30_soc_of_adv_kwazulu_natal_-_pmb.pdf 7 http://sqswans.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/8/7/13878165/12-11-30_soc_of_adv_kwazulu_natal_-_dbn.pdf 8 http://sqswans.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/8/7/13878165/12-11-30_free_state_soc_of_advocates.pdf 9 http://sqswans.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/8/7/13878165/12-11-30_cape_law_society.pdf 10 http://sqswans.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/8/7/13878165/12-11-30_free_state_law_society.pdf 11 http://sqswans.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/8/7/13878165/12-11-30_kwazulu_natal_law_society.pdf 12 http://sqswans.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/8/7/13878165/12-11-30_law_society_of_south_africa.pdf 2 3

3

[2] Registered Documents: 25 Copies: Request Environmental Justification for such abuse of Resources?

ORDER REQUESTED: The specific number of hardcopies required to be submitted to the Registrar, from a Pro Se applicant, and if more than one, the environmental justification therefore.

United States, including US Supreme Court Rules of Court provide different – less burdensome – rules for individuals who file their applications Pro Se. My application is filed Pro Se, but Ms. Stander appears to consider that there are no less burdensome rules in South African courts for individuals who file Pro Se. For example: The United States Supreme Court requires 40 hardcopies of applications, printed within specific ‗booklet‘ specifications for normal applications, whereas individuals filing In Forma Pauperis/Pro Se are only required to submit 10 hardcopies, which can be done in normal A4 printed style; and prisoners are only expected to submit one hard copy, which can even be written in pencil.

Secondly, as my application clearly states, I requested ―permission to invoke13 cultural law14 in S. 15(3), 30, 31, and 18; to enable the Applicant to honour the duty and responsibility to uphold the -- Pay-Price-4-Peace Peacenik (PP4PP) consumption and procreation15 cultural values -- principles upon which her Radical Honoursty culture is based.‖ As detailed in the application, I am a PP4PP (Pay the Price for Peace Peacenik) member of the Radical Honesty culture, who strives to live my consumption and procreation lifestyle in accordance to a carrying capacity consumption footprint that is below the nation‘s carrying capacity.

There is a significant aggravating and cultural footprint burdensome cost to (i) the Environment and resource scarcity, (ii) resource war violence from resource scarcity, and (iii) consumption behaviour for a PP4P Consumption Peacenik; where 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.

14 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.‘ 15 Application for Review Founding Affidavit Pay-the-Price-4-Peace One Child Per Family Procreation Credibility (para 80-81) and Pay-the-Price-4-Peace Consumption and Carbon Footprint Credibility (para 82-83) 13

4

any Organisation insists – without any Ecocentric Reasonable Justification therefore -- on a Printed as opposed to Electronic Complaints Policy.

Does the Department of Justice have any Ecocentric Reasonable Justifications for your Printed as opposed to Electronic Filing of Court Service Documents Policy; that justifies your policies significant aggravating and cultural footprint burdensome costs to (i) the Environment and resource scarcity, (ii) resource war violence from resource scarcity, and (iii) denial to a PP4P Consumption Peacenik to live in accordance to her PP4PP consumption behaviour.

Are 25 copies really necessary? Can they be environmentally justified? If the registrar, or court, is capable of informing me of the justifications for these abuse of environmental resources requirements, I shall print 25 copies, or a lesser number of copies, however in the absence of such justifications, I consider one hardcopy to be sufficient.

Environmental Perspectives on Printing vs. Electronic Policies: Lexis Nexis reports in Saving Trees One Page at a Time16, that ―between January 2008 and May 2012, by choosing to use File & Serve as opposed to traditional paper service, our customers have saved over 220,596 trees! That is equal to over 315 acres of trees or 612,769 feet of paper!‖ It also reported that ―a 2008 survey conducted by Arnold & Porter reported that a single attorney uses an average of between 20,000-100,000 pages of paper per year.

This is equal to approximately ½ of a tree and 2 ½ trees per attorney per year in 2008.‖ In 2009 there were approximately 18 000 attorneys practicing in South Africa. On an average of 1 tree per attorney, that amounts to using 18,000 trees, per year; because of court policies that demand Printed as opposed to Electronic Filing and Service Policies.

18,000 trees at an average of 10 trees per acre17, that would be 1,800 acres, / 740 ha / 5.5 miles Long and 1.5 to 2.5 miles Wide ~ 8.25 sq. miles of trees.

In ten years, that amounts to 180,000 trees, at an average of 10 trees per acre 18, 18,000 acres / 7,400 ha / 28,125 sq miles of trees.

ThinkBeforePrinting19 advocate: “We're not against printing. We're against wasting resources. We don't want to stop people printing. We simply think that sometimes, people, and not everyone, need reminding that wasting paper, ink and toner doesn't make economic or environmental sense. http://www.lexisnexis.com/community/fileandserve/blogs/industrynews/archive/2012/07/30/saving-trees-onepage-at-a-time.aspx 17 http://warnell.forestry.uga.edu/service/library/for96-054/index.html 18 http://warnell.forestry.uga.edu/service/library/for96-054/index.html 19 http://thinkbeforeprinting.org/ 16

5

Reduce.org provides the following factual statistics20 on Paper Usage: Over 40% of wood pulp goes toward the production of paper. The costs of using paper in the office can run 13 to 31 times the cost of purchasing the paper in the first place! Saving Paper Saves Money: For each sheet of paper used, a company incurs not only purchasing costs, but also storage, copying, printing, postage, disposal, and recycling. A recent Minnesota study estimates that associated paper costs could be as much as 31 times the purchasing costs (not including labor). So, that ream of paper you paid $5 for really could cost up to $155!

Citigroup, a large financial services company, determined that if each employee used double-sided copying to conserve just one sheet of paper each week, the firm would save $700,000 each year. Bank of America cut its paper consumption by 25% in two years by increasing the use of on-line forms and reports, e-mail, double-sided copying, and lighter-weight paper.

Paper is an office necessity for some essential tasks, but it has an environmental cost. Creating paper from trees requires a lot of natural resources: trees, water, and energy.

It takes more than 1½ cups of water to make one sheet of paper. (Picture a typical soda can.) Reducing paper use reduces greenhouse gases: 40 reams of paper is like 1.5 acres of pine forest absorbing carbon for a year.

Conservatree‟s calculations21 on Printing‘s cost to Environment: 1 ton of uncoated virgin (non-recycled) printing and office paper uses 24 trees.

1 ton of 100% virgin (non-recycled) newsprint uses 12 trees.

A pallet of copier paper (20-lb., or 20#) has 40 cartons and weighs 1 ton.

1 carton (10 reams) of 100% virgin copier paper uses .6 trees.

1 tree makes 16.67 reams of copy paper or 8,333.3 sheets 1 ream (500 sheets) uses 6% of a tree (and those add up quickly!).

1 ton of coated, higher-end virgin magazine paper uses a little more than 15 trees (15.36). 1 ton of coated, lower-end virgin magazine paper uses nearly 8 trees (7.68).

In American Bar Association and American Law Institute‘s The Practical Lawyer: James Martin writes in: ―Don‘t Print That Email‖22 (April 2009); ―Going Paperless…Or Not‖ (October 2007), and ―A Model Electronic File Policy for the Law Office‖ (April 2007).

http://156.98.19.245/paper/index.html http://conservatree.org/learn/EnviroIssues/TreeStats.shtml 22 http://jamesmartinpa.com/blog/?p=344 20 21

6

I don‘t know about your law office, but in mine email carries 90% of what comes in and 90% of what goes out. Paper in and paper out is just 10%. That means we no longer need to print out email onto paper and then file it in a paper file folder. Email has made us paperless. Nowadays, it actually takes more time to ―go paper‖.

5. Make It a Policy: You want your emails to be your business records, your office file, your client file, your evidence. To avoid any dispute about this, you need to make it your standard practice by putting in writing, as an office policy, that your email folder is your official file. ..

Conclusion: A wonderful side benefit to this email filing approach is that it is good for the planet, it saves trees, it‘s green, and it comports with the adage ―If it ain‘t broke, don‘t fix it‖. If it ain‘t paper, don‘t print it. That‘s good old, simple, money-saving advice. Just what we need in the world today. Just don‘t forget to make those backup copies.

[3] Radical Honesty Ecocentric „Normal‟ Electronic Service Filing to Respondents ORDER REQUESTED: Declare that ‗traditional/normal‘ service of process -- as described by Farlam et al in Erasmus Superior Court Practice23 as ―Substituted service is ordered when the defendant is believed to be in the Republic but one of the normal forms of service set out in the rules cannot be effected‖ -- for a PayPrice-4-Peace Peacenik, refers to service by means of email, i.e. responsible conservationist use of resources is to be considered ―traditional/normal‖ use of resources; whereas any unnecessary printing of documents, and its abuse of trees and energy transportation resources is not ‗normal‘ for a PP4PP, and that what is ‗normal/traditional‘ abuse of resources for ‗War is Peace Whores‘ (individuals who live above the nations carrying capacity in terms of procreation and/or consumption) is not normal use of resources for a PP4PP (Annex D).

Applicant appreciates the Registrar‘s concession to allow Applicant to file her Application per electronic filing. Applicant however would like to make the following point, as a matter of principle, on the issue.

Service issue 37, (2011). Also see Herbstein and Van Winsen ‗Civil Practice of the High Courts and the Supreme Court of Appeal of South Africa‘ Vol 1, 5 th edition (2009) at 360 where the authors state that substituted service has been generally effected by allowing for notices to be sent by registered mail or by sending a registered letter 23

7

Electronic Service is ‗normal‘ for a Pay the Price for Peace Peacenik; whereas ‗printed‘ service is ‗abnormal‘ or ‗substituted service‘ for a PP4PP. Applicant hence requests suspension of Rule 4(1)(a) of the Uniform Rules of Court to permit Applicant to initiate proceedings and serve Respondents in accordance with her PP4PP Cultural Footprint consumption practices; to allow for service of all notices – including the initiation of proceedings -- as provided for in 4A(1) of Chapter Ill, Part 2 of the Electronic Communications and Transactions Act. 2002 (Act No. 25 of 2002), whereby service of all documents and notices in these proceedings on any party to the litigation, may be effected to the personal or professional email address of the person, or their counsel, by electronic mail to the respective address/es, and if or where such a respondent is a foreign national, employed with such foreign national goverment, that such service of initiation of proceedings be copied to the respondents local Embassy email address.

Ecocentric „Normal‟ Electronic Service is founded on Global NNR Scarcity & Scarcity as Cause of Violent Conflict Principles/Worldview: Applicants aforementioned Environmental Perspectives on Printing vs.

Electronic Policies, are a subset of her working hypothesis Radical Honoursty cultural belief in Global NNR Scarcity: Global Collapse by 2050 and Scarcity as Cause of Violent Conflict: 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.

As early as 2000, geological experts warned Peak Oil would occur sometime between 2000 and 200724. Cheap oil is the oxygen of the ―economic growth‖25 global economic system and industrial food production26.

Domestic (US) & Global NNR Scarcity Analysis is based upon Mr. Clugston‗s 27 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; and concludes in general that ―absent some combination of immediate and drastic reductions in our global NNR utilization levels, ... we will experience escalating international and intranational conflicts during the coming decades over increasingly scarce NNR‗s, which will devolve into global societal collapse, almost certainly by the year 2050.‖

On February 11, 2006, geologist Kenneth Deffeyes claimed world oil production peaked on December 16, 2005 Deffeyes (2006): "The economists all think that if you show up at the cashier's cage with enough currency, God will put more oil in ground."

26 ―We eat oil. It is a little known fact that for every 1 calorie of food energy produced, 10 calories of hydrocarbons are consumed.‖ - Ruppert, MC (2004): Crossing the Rubicon: The Decline of the American Empire at the End of the Age of Oil, New Society, p.24.

27 Clugston, Chris: Scarcity (Booklocker.com Inc 2012) 24 25

8

Scarcity Global NNR Scarcity Analysis (pg.51-59) (pg 41-4928) summarizes global criticality and scarcity associated with each of the 89 analyzed NNRs: (a) An overwhelming majority, 63 of the 89 analyzed NNRs, were considered ―scarce‖ globally in 2008, immediately prior to the Great Recession; (b) A significant number, 28 of the 89 analyzed NNRs have peaked: are ―almost certain‖ to remain scarce permanently going forward; and a sizeable number, 16 of the 89 analyzed NNRs, will ―likely‖ remain scarce permanently; and (c) Global extraction/production levels associated with 39 of the 89 analyzed NNRs, are considered ―at risk‖29.

Scarcity as a cause of Violent Conflict and a matter of National Security, is based upon the research and conclusions of: ICJ: Opinion of Weeramantry30, Senator Sam Nunn (D-GA), Senate, June 28, 199031; Deputy Under Secretary of Defense, (Environmental Security32)33; White House National Security Strategy, 199134; White House National Security Strategy, 199335; White House National Security Strategy, 199536; White House National Security Strategy, 199637; White House National Security Strategy, 201038; NSSM 200: National Security Study http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/clugston_scarcity_pg31-55 At risk are: (a) Antimony: 8 yrs to Global Reserves exhaustion (used for starter lights ignition batteries in cars and trucks; (b) Bauxite: 40 years (only economically viable feedstock for aluminium); (c) Bismuth: 17 years (non-toxic substitute for lead in solder and plumbing fixtures); (d) Cadmium: 25 years; (e) Chromium: 26 years (stainless steel, jet engines and gas turbines); (f) Coal: 40 years (electricity generation); (g) Cobalt: 26 years (gas turbine blades, jet aircraft engines, batteries); (h) Copper: 27 years; (i) Fluorspar: 23 years (feedstock for fluorine bearing chemicals, aluminium and uranium processing); (j) Graphite (Natural): 23 years; (k) Iron Ore: 15 years (only feedstock for iron and steel); (l) Lead: 17 years; (m) Lithium: 8 years (aircraft parts, mobile phones, batteries for electrical vehicles); (n) Manganese: 17 years (stainless steel, gasoline additive, dry cell batteries) ; (o) Molybdenum: 20 years (aircraft parts, electrical contacts, industrial motors, tool steels); (p) Natural Gas: 34 years; (q) Nickel: 30 years; (r) Niobium: 15 years (jet and rocket engines, turbines, superconducting magnets); (s) Oil: 39 years; (t) Rhenium: 22 years (petroleum refining, jet engines, gas turbine blades); (u) Silver: 11 years; (v) Thalium: 38 years; (w) Tin: 18 years; (x) Tungsten: 32 years; (y) Uranium: 34 years (primary energy source, weapons); (z) Zinc: 13 years; (aa) Zirconium: 19 years (nuclear power plants, jet engines, gas turbine blades).

30 Opinion of Weeramantry J in the Case Concerning the Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary v Slovakia) (1998) 37 International Legal Materials 162 206. http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/92/7383.pdf & http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/95/7521.pdf http://www.unep.org/padelia/publications/Jud.dec.%20pre(Int%20.pdf 31 ―There is also a new and different threat to our national security emerging—the destruction of our environment. The defense establishment has a clear stake in this growing threat... one of our key national security objectives must be to reverse the accelerating pace of environmental destruction.‖ 32 ―By participating on a preventive basis in the resolutions of environmental issues that could lead to such conflict, DOD can forestall future Somalia-like involvements before they occur--an action that is extremely cost effective.

Recognizing this phenomenon, the Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Environmental Security has defined DOD's role in environmental security to include, "mitigating the impacts of adverse environmental actions leading to international instability.‖ - Butts, Kent Hughes (25 April 1994): Environmental Security: A DoD Partnership for Peace 33 Sherri Wasserman Goodman, Deputy Under Secretary of Defense, (Environmental Security), Statement Before the Subcommittee on Installation and Facilities, May 13, 1993 34 National Security Strategy of the United States, Washington, DC, US Gov Printing Office, 1991.

35 National Security Strategy of the United States, Washington, DC, US Gov Printing Office, 1993 36 National Security Strategy of the United States. February 1995, Washington, D. C: Government Printing Office, 1995, p. 18 http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/nss/nss-95.pdf 37 A National Security Strategy of Engagement and Enlargement, Washington, DC, US Government Printing Office, February 1996.

38 May 2010: National Security Strategy http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/national_security_strategy.pdf 28 29

9

Memorandum: Implications of Worldwide Population Growth For U.S. Security and Overseas Interests (The Kissinger Report)39; National Security Council: National Security Decision Memorandum 314: Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for U.S. Security and Overseas Interests40; Rockefeller Commission Report: Population and the American Future: The Report of the Commission on Population Growth and the American Future41; United Nations: 1974 World Population Plan of Action42; Department of Defense: Sustaining U.S. Global Leadership: Priorities for the 21st Century Defense43; United States Army & TRADOC (2012): US Army Unified Quest 2012 Fact Sheet44; United States Joint Forces Command: The Joint Operating Environment - 2010 (The JOE â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 2010)45; Department of the Army, Field Manual 100-23, Peace Operations46; Butts, Kent: Environmental Security: A DOD Partnership for Peace47; US Army War College; Murphy, Richard: US Army Strategy of the Environment, Office of the Dep. Asst. Sec. of the Army, Environment, Safety & Occup. Health: Assistant for Sustainability48; Council on Environmental Quality49; James M. Waddell, Chief, Office of Strategic Initiatives, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Working Paper: Environment as an Element of National Security50; Michael Renner, World Watch Inst: National Security: The Economic and Environmental Dimensions51; World Bank,

http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PCAAB500.pdf National Security Council (1975/11/26): National Security Decision Memorandum 314: Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for U.S. Security and Overseas Interests4, Washington, DC. 4 pp.; made public policy by Pres. Gerald Ford www.population-security.org/12-CH4.html 41 Rockefeller Commission Report (1972/03/27): Population and the American Future: The Report of the Commission on Population Growth and the American Future; a Signet Special Edition, W5219, The New American Library, Inc., 1301 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY, March, 1972 issuu.com/jsror/docs/720327_rock-pop www.population-security.org/rockefeller/001_population_growth_and_the_american_future.htm 42 UN (1974/08): World Population Plan of Action; Adopted by consensus of the 137 countries represented at the UN World Population Conference at Bucharest, August 1974 www.population-security.org/27-APP1.html and issuu.com/js-ror/docs/74_un-pop-actionplan 43 http://www.defense.gov/news/Defense_Strategic_Guidance.pdf 44 United States Army & TRADOC (2012): US Army Unified Quest 2012 Fact Sheet9, Unified Quest 2012 is the Army Chief of Staff's annual Title 10 Future Study Plan (FSP) www.army.mil/article/68379/Unified_Quest_2012___Fact_Sheet/ 45 United States Joint Forces Command (2010/02/18): The Joint Operating Environment - 201010 (The JOE â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 2010) www.jfcom.mil/newslink/storyarchive/2010/JOE_2010_o.pdf 46 Department of the Army, Field Manual 100-23, Peace Operations. Washington, DC: Headquarters, Department of the Army, December 1994, p. 28. http://www.bits.de/NRANEU/others/amd-us-archive/fm100-23(94).pdf 47 Butts, Kent Hughes (25 April 1994): Environmental Security: A DoD Partnership for Peace http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/PUB339.pdf 48 Murphy, R (2006/10/24): US Army Strategy of the Environment, Office of the Dep. Asst. Sec. of the Army, Environment, Safety & Occup. Health: Assistant for Sustainability http://www.cecer.army.mil/techreports/ERDC-CERL_TR-07-9/Session%20I/RichardMurphy.pdf 49 Environmental Quality. 1978 Annual Report on the Environment Washington: Council on Environmental Quality, Washington, DC, US Government Printing Office, 1978.

50 James M. Waddell, Chief, Office of Strategic Initiatives, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Working Paper: Environment as an Element of National Security, February 1992, p. 4.

51 Michael Renner, National Security: The Economic and Environmental Dimensions, Washington, DC: Worldwatch Institute, May 1989.

39 40

10

World Development Report 1992: Development and the Environment52; U.S. Department of State, Problems of Environmental Contamination in the Former Soviet Union53; US Army Inst. of Water Resources: Water in the Sand: A Survey of Middle East Water Issues54; Peter Gleick: "Water and Conflict: Freshwater Resources and International Security"55; Peter Gleick, "Water and Conflict," Occasional Paper Series on Environmental Change and Acute Conflict56; U.S. European Command, Environmental Security In U.S. EUCOM In the Year 200357; William J. Carson, Environmental Security in the USEUCOM Area of Responsibility, (Background Paper)58; Wendy Grieder, U.S. National CCMS Coordinator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Memorandum: Status of the NATO/ CCMS Program"59; and "NATO Works with Cooperation Partners on Environmental Problems"60; Peters, Ralph: The Culture of Future Conflict, US Army War College61; MAJ William E David, US Military Intelligence: Environmental Scarcity as a Cause of Violent Conflict62; LTC Kurt F. Ubbelohde: US Army War College: Freshwater Scarcity in the Nile River Basin63; Colonel Brian Bush, US Army War College: Promoting Environmental Security during Contingency Operations64; and many others.

There is a significant difference between the irresponsible and abuse of natural resources of a Printed Complaints/Service Policy and the responsible and conservationist respect for natural resources of an Electronic Complaints/Service policy; and that abuse of resources contributes to resource scarcity, which World Bank, World Development Report 1992: Development and the Environment, New York, Oxford University Press, 1992, pp. 30.

53 U.S. Department of State, Problems of Environmental Contamination in the Former Soviet Union, July 14, 1993, pp. 2-3.

54 Water in the Sand: A Survey of Middle East Water Issues, Washington: U.S. Army Institute for Water Resources, 1991, p. 4.

55 Peter Gleick, "Water and Conflict: Freshwater Resources and International Security," International Security, Summer 1993, p. 81.

56 Peter Gleick, "Water and Conflict," Occasional Paper Series on Environmental Change and Acute Conflict, Cambridge, Massachusetts: International Security Studies Program, American Academy of Arts and Sciences, September 1992, p. 8.

57 U.S. European Command, Environmental Security In U.S. EUCOM In the Year 2003, Draft Vision Statement, 1993.

58 William J. Carson, Environmental Security in the USEUCOM Area of Responsibility, (Background Paper), March 9, 1994.

59 Wendy Grieder, U.S. National CCMS Coordinator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Memorandum: Status of the NATO/ CCMS Program," May 10, 1993 60 Wendy Grieder, U.S. National CCMS Coordinator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "NATO Works with Cooperation Partners on Environmental Problems," NATO Review, April 1993, p. 34.

61 Peters, R (1996): The Culture of Future Conflict, US Army War College: Parameters: Winter 1995-96, pp. 1827 http://www.carlisle.army.mil/USAWC/parameters/Articles/1995/peters.htm 62 MAJ William E David, USA Military Intelligence: Environmental Scarcity as a Cause of Violent Conflict, School of Advanced Military Studies; United States Army Command and General Staff College, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA314878 63 LTC Kurt F. Ubbelohde (10 April 2000): Freshwater Scarcity in the Nile River Basin, US Army War College http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA378148 64 Colonel Brian X. Bush (13 March 1997): Promoting Environmental Security during Contingency Operations; US Army War College http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA326869 52

11

contributes to resource wars; and should be avoided at all costs, where possible, by anyone who considers themselves a sincere Peacenik and whose procreation and consumption lifestyle proves her Practice What She Preaches, PP4PP status.

Consequently, ‗traditional/normal‘ service of process -- as described by Farlam et al in Erasmus Superior Court Practice65 as ―Substituted service is ordered when the defendant is believed to be in the Republic but one of the normal forms of service set out in the rules cannot be effected‖ -- for a Pay-Price-4-Peace Peacenik, refers to service by means of email, i.e. responsible conservationist use of resources is to be considered ―traditional/normal‖ use of resources; whereas any unnecessary printing of documents, and its abuse of trees and energy transportation resources is not ‗normal‘ for a PP4PP, and that what is ‗normal/traditional‘ abuse of resources for ‗War is Peace Whores‘ (individuals who live above the nations carrying capacity in terms of procreation and/or consumption) is not normal use of resources for a PP4PP.

[4] Electronic Service Filing to Respondents Acknowledged as Received: Respondents 01, 02, 03, 04, 05, 06, 07, 09, 10.

Respondent 1: Afriforum: Afriforum acknowledged receipt of service subsequent to the 27 November Electronic Service Notice. A confirmation notice was sent to Afriforum on 29 November: From: Ernst Roets [mailto:ernst@afriforum.co.za] Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2012 4:17 PM To: Habeus Mentem Subject: Read: Respondent: 1. Afriforum; 2. TAU-SA; Notice of Intention - Per Electronic Service

Respondent 2: Transvaal Agricultural Union: TAU-SA acknowledged receipt of service subsequent to the 27 November Electronic Service Notice. A confirmation notice was sent to TLU on 29 November: From: Hoofbestuurder [mailto:hb@tlu.co.za] Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2012 2:59 PM To: 'Habeus Mentem'

Service issue 37, (2011). Also see Herbstein and Van Winsen ‗Civil Practice of the High Courts and the Supreme Court of Appeal of South Africa‘ Vol 1, 5 th edition (2009) at 360 where the authors state that substituted service has been generally effected by allowing for notices to be sent by registered mail or by sending a registered letter 65

12

Subject: Read: Respondent: 1. Afriforum; 2. TAU-SA; Notice of Intention - Per Electronic Service

Respondent 3 & 4: Julius Malema and African National Congress Mr. Malema and the ANC‘s counsel in the Supreme Court of Appeal in this matter, acknowledged receipt of service, subsequent to a ‗Final Notice‘ (PDF66): From: Jim Matemane [mailto:matemane@mhalaw.co.za] Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2012 3:23 PM To: 'Habeus Mentem' Subject: Read: Mkhabela Huntley Adekeye Inc: Mr. Leslie Mkhabela: RE: Julius Malema & ANC (Review of SCA 815-11: Afriforum v.

Malema) From: Jackie Huntley [mailto:huntleyj@mhalaw.co.za] Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2012 2:36 PM To: 'Habeus Mentem' Subject: Read: Mkhabela Huntley Adekeye Inc: Mr. Leslie Mkhabela: RE: Julius Malema & ANC (Review of SCA 815-11: Afriforum v.

Malema) From: Byron Anthony Morris [mailto:morris@mhalaw.co.za] Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2012 2:26 PM To: Habeus Mentem Subject: Read: Mkhabela Huntley Adekeye Inc: Mr. Leslie Mkhabela: RE: Julius Malema & ANC (Review of SCA 815-11: Afriforum v.

Malema)

Respondent 5: Desmond Tutu: Desmond Tutu acknowledge receipt of service subsequent to the 27 November Electronic Service Notice. A confirmation notice was sent on 29 November: From: Toni Doman [mailto:Toni@tutu.org] Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2012 1:07 PM To: Habeus Mentem Subject: Read: Respondent: 5:D.Tutu, 6: Intention - Per Electronic Service

N.Mandela;

From: Vivian Ford [mailto:Vivian@tutu.org.za] Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2012 4:00 PM To: Habeus Mentem Subject: Read: Respondent: 5:D.Tutu, 6: N.Mandela; Intention - Per Electronic Service

Notice

of

Notice

of

Respondent 6: Nelson Mandela: The Nelson Mandela Foundation acknowledged receipt of service subsequent the 27, 29 November and 03 December Electronic Service Notices: 66

http://sqswans.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/8/7/13878165/12-12-04_leslie_mkhabela_anc_malema.pdf

13

From: Ethel Arends [mailto:Ethel@nelsonmandela.org] Sent: Monday, December 03, 2012 1:03 PM To: Andrea Subject: Read: Concourt Respondent: 6: N.Mandela; Intention - Per Electronic Service

Notice

of

Respondent 7: FW de Klerk: The FW de Klerk Foundation have acknowledged receipt subsequent to the 27 November Electronic Service Notice. A confirmation notice was sent on 29 November: From: Shan Wolsky [mailto:shan@fwdeklerk.org] Sent: Friday, November 30, 2012 9:12 PM To: Habeus Mentem Subject: Read: RE: Respondent: 7: FW de Klerk; 8: CRL Rights Comm; Notice of Intention - Per Electronic Service

Respondent 9: Norwegian Nobel Committee: Chairman: The Norwegian Nobel Committee acknowledged receipt of service subsequent to original notices on 27 and 29 November, and a ‗Final Notice‘ (PDF67) sent on 04 December 2012: From: Lars Heikensten [mailto:Lars.Heikensten@nobel.se] Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2012 8:48 AM To: Habeus Mentem Subject: Läst: Nobel Comm: Chair: Thorbjorn Jagland; CC: Nobel Inst, Nobel Fnd & Council of Europe From: Barbro Jonsson [mailto:Barbro.Jonsson@nobel.se] Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2012 12:49 AM To: Habeus Mentem Subject: Läst: Nobel Comm: Chair: Thorbjorn Jagland; CC: Nobel Inst, Nobel Fnd & Council of Europe From: HOLTGEN Daniel [mailto:Daniel.HOLTGEN@coe.int] Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2012 1:01 AM To: Habeus Mentem Subject: Read: Nobel Comm: Chair: Thorbjorn Jagland; CC: Nobel Inst, Nobel Fnd & Council of Europe

Respondent 10: Central Intelligence Agency: Director General The Office of the Assistant Attorney General for National Security, National Security Division, Department of Justice, acknowledged receipt on behalf of the Central Intelligence Agency: Director General; subsequent to the 27 November Electronic Service Notice. A confirmation notice was sent on 29 November: From: NSD Public (NSD) [mailto:NSD.Public@usdoj.gov] 67

http://sqswans.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/8/7/13878165/12-12-04_nobel-comm_chair_thorbjorn-jagland_encl.pdf

14

Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2012 3:27 PM To: Habeus Mentem Subject: Read: Respondent: 10: CIA: Dir.Gen; 11: David Petraeus; Notice of Intention - Per Electronic Service From: NSD Public (NSD) [mailto:NSD.Public@usdoj.gov] Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2012 7:19 PM To: Habeus Mentem Subject: Read: RE: Respondent: 10: CIA: Dir.Gen; Petraeus; Notice of Intention - Per Electronic Service

11:

David

[5] Request Orders for Respondents 08: CRL Rights Commission and 11: David Petraeus Respondent 8: CRL Rights Commission: The CRL Rights Commission have not acknowledged receipt to initial 27 November and 29 November notices.

On 04 December 2012, CRL Rights Commission were given a ‗Final Notice‘ (Annex E), which informed them that: From: Habeus Mentem [mailto:habeusmentem@mweb.co.za] Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2012 2:35 PM To: CRL Rights: Chair (Chairperson@crlcommission.org.za); CRL Rights: CEO Adv Moreroa (ceo@crlcommission.org.za); CRL Rights: Office (info@crlcommission.org.za) Cc: 'Edward Mafadza'; 'Nobandile Nkosi'; 'Reitumetse Lemeke'; 'PS Moreroa' Subject: CRL Rights Commission: Rev Mabuza & Adv Moreroa; RE: Concourt Review of SCA 815-11 (Afriforum v Malema) Chair: Rev. Dr Wesley Madonda Mabuza Dep. Chair: Mrs Julia Mabale CEO: Adv. Pheagane Moreroa CRL RIGHTS COMMISSION Private Bag X 90 000 Houghton, 2041 Tel: (011) 537 7600 | Fax: (011) 880 3495 Rev Mabuza & Adv Moreroa, Please find attached PDF: RE: Alien on Pale Blue Dot v Afriforum, et al (Review of SCA 815/11: Afriforum v. Malema) Notice of Intention served upon CRL Rights Commission on 27 Nov and 29 Nov. CRL Rights Commission have not yet acknowledged receipt of the Notice of Intention electronically served upon your offices on 27 and 29 November 2012.

In the absence of acknowledgement of receipt, from any CRL Rights Commission Official; by 17:00hrs on Wednesday 05 December 2012.

An application shall be filed with the registrar / court for an order:

15

Authorizing Applicant’s service per email to Respondents 08 (CRL Rights Commission, per electronic service to the CRL website Official Contact email addresses for the CRL Rights Commission: (i) Chairperson: Dr. Wesley Mabuza (Chairperson@crlcommission.org.za), (ii) CEO: Adv. Pheagane Solomon Moreroa (ceo@crlcommission.org.za); (iii) Office: (info@crlcommission.org.za), to initiate proceedings and the service of process in this matter; in accordance to Applicants PP4PP consumption and cultural footprint values interpretation of S. 15(3), 30, 31, and 18 of the Bill of Rights, read in conjunction with the Electronic Communications and Transactions Act. 2002 (Act No. 25 of 2002).

ORDER REQUESTED: CRL RIGHTS COMMISSION: Authorizing Applicant‘s service per email to Respondents 08 (CRL Rights Commission, per electronic service to the CRL website Official Contact68 email addresses for the CRL Rights Commission: (i) Chairperson: Dr. Wesley Mabuza (Chairperson@crlcommission.org.za), (ii) CEO: Adv. Pheagane Solomon Moreroa (ceo@crlcommission.org.za); (iii) Office: (info@crlcommission.org.za), on 27 November, 29 November and 04 December 2012; to have initiated proceedings and the service of process in this matter; in accordance to Applicants PP4PP consumption and cultural footprint values interpretation of S. 15(3), 30, 31, and 18 of the Bill of Rights, read in conjunction with the Electronic Communications and Transactions Act. 2002 (Act No. 25 of 2002).

Respondent 11: David Petraeus: Robert Barnett, the counsel of Mr. David Petraeus, did not acknowledged receipt to 27, 29 November and 03 December notices.

On 04 December 2012, Mr. Barnett and the firm of Williams & Connolly LLP were given a ‗Final Notice‘ (Annex F), which informed them that: From: Habeus Mentem [mailto:habeusmentem@mweb.co.za] Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2012 4:01 PM To: CIA-PB: David Petraeus: c/o Robert Barnett (rbarnett@wc.com); 'Williams Connolly: Office'; 'Executive Director: Jennifer Scott'; 'Chief Information Officer: Nicole G. Minnick' Cc: CIA-PB: DNI: James Clapper (james.clapper@dni.gov); CIA-PB: WH: NSA: Thomas Donilon (thomas.donilon@whitehouse.gov); CIA-PB: Gen Allen: c/o NATO Pub Info Office (moc.web@hq.nato.int); CIA-PB: FBI-DC: James McJunkin (washington.field@ic.fbi.gov); CIA-PB: Gen Allen: c/o ISAF Pub Aff Off (ijc.media.operations@afghan.swa.army.mil) Subject: Williams & Connolly LLP: Robert Barnett: Re: David Petraeus SA Concourt Notice DAVID PETRAEUS C/O Robert Barnett Williams & Connolly LLP 725 Twelfth Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005

68

http://www.crlcommission.org.za/contact.php

16

Tel: 202-434-5034 | Fax: 202-434-5029 rbarnett@wc.com CC: Williams Connolly: Office (info@wc.com) CC: Executive Director: Jennifer Scott (jscott@wc.com) CC: Chief Information Officer: Nicole G. Minnick (nminnick@wc.com) Mr. Petraeus & Mr. Barnett, Please find attached PDF: RE: Alien on Pale Blue Dot v Afriforum, et al (Review of SCA 815/11: Afriforum v. Malema) Notice of Intention served upon Mr. David Petraeus on 27 Nov and 29 Nov. [Reference to Mr. Petraeus being in regard to Declaratory Order that “Credible Proactive Peace Plan require confronting Peak NNR & Sustainable Security: Scarcity as Cause of Violent Conflict”.]

Mr. Petraeus has not yet acknowledged receipt of the Notice of Intention electronically served upon him, via the offices of Mr. William Barnett, Williams & Connolly LLP, on 27 and 29 November 2012.

In the absence of acknowledgement of receipt, from Mr. William Barnett, Williams & Connolly LLP; by 17:00hrs (GMT + 2) on Wednesday 05 December 2012; an application shall be filed with the registrar / court for an order: Authorizing Applicant’s service per email to United States citizen, Respondent 11 (David Howell Petraeus ), per electronic service to Mr. Petraeus, via Mr. Petraeus appointed counsel: Robert Barnett, of Williams Connolly’s official email addresses of: Robert Barnett (rbarnett@wc.com); carbon copied to Williams Connolly’s Official Email addresses for: Office (info@wc.com), Executive Director: Jennifer Scott (jscott@wc.com) and Chief Information Officer: Nicole G. Minnick (nminnick@wc.com); in accordance to (I) Applicants PP4PP consumption and cultural footprint values interpretation of S. 15(3), 30, 31, and 18 of the Bill of Rights, read in conjunction with the Electronic Communications and Transactions Act. 2002 (Act No. 25 of 2002) and (II) Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 4(f) which allows for service “by other means not prohibited by international agreement as directed by the court,” as implemented in Rio Properties, Inc. v. Rio Intern.

Interlink, 284 F.3d 1007 (9th Cir. 2002) which established that e-mail was an effective means of communication between parties, and that messages sent to the respondents would serve the purposes of notifying them of the pending litigation. Moreover, there is no indication that service in this manner would contravene any international agreement.

Finally courts “have upheld service via e-mail, [in] cases involving email addresses undisputedly connected to the defendants and that the defendants used for business purposes.” (Ehrenfeld v. Bin Mufouz, 2005 WL 696769 (S.D.N.Y., March 23, 2005))

ORDER REQUESTED: DAVID PETRAEUS: Authorizing Applicant‘s service per email to United States citizen, Respondent 11 (David Howell Petraeus69), per electronic service to Mr. Petraeus, via Mr. Petraeus David Howell Petraeus, born November 7, 1952, a retired American military officer and public official, who served as Director of the Central Intelligence Agency from September 6, 2011, until his resignation on November 9, 2012. Prior to his assuming the directorship of the CIA, Petraeus was a highly decorated four-star general, serving over 37 years in the United States Army. His last assignments in the Army were as commander of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) and Commander, U.S. Forces Afghanistan (USFOR-A) from July 4, 2010, to July 18, 2011. His other four-star assignments include serving as the 10th Commander, U.S. Central Command (USCENTCOM) from October 13, 2008, to June 30, 2010, and as 69

17

appointed70 counsel: Robert Barnett, of Williams Connolly‘s official email addresses of: Robert Barnett71 (rbarnett@wc.com) [on 27 November 2012,, 29 November, 03 December 2012]; carbon copied to Williams Connolly‘s Official Email addresses for: Office72 (info@wc.com), Executive Director: Jennifer Scott73 (jscott@wc.com) and Chief Information Officer: Nicole G. Minnick74 (nminnick@wc.com) [on 04 December 2012]; in accordance to (I) Applicants PP4PP consumption and cultural footprint values interpretation of S. 15(3), 30, 31, and 18 of the Bill of Rights, read in conjunction with the Electronic Communications and Transactions Act. 2002 (Act No. 25 of 2002) and (II) Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 75 4(f) which allows76 for service ―by other means not prohibited by international agreement as directed by the court,‖ as implemented in Rio Properties, Inc. v. Rio Intern. Interlink, 284 F.3d 1007 (9th Cir. 2002) which established that e-mail was an effective means of communication between parties, and that messages sent to the respondents would serve the purposes of notifying them of the pending litigation. Moreover, there is no indication that service in this manner would contravene any international agreement.77 Finally courts ―have upheld service via e-mail, [in] cases involving email addresses undisputedly connected to the defendants and that the defendants used for business purposes.‖ (Ehrenfeld v. Bin Mufouz, 2005 WL 696769 (S.D.N.Y., March 23, 2005))

[6] Registrar‟s Refusal of Case Number indicates a Registrar‟s Office that discriminates at Pro Se and/or Radical Honesty culture Applicants.

ORDER REQUESTED: Declare that Clerk: Martie Stander‘s refusal to issue the Applicant with (A) a case number for her Alien on Pale Blue Dot v. Afriforum, et al application is insufficiently justified, (B) in the absence of sufficient justification provided

by Director of the Constitutional Court: Vic Misser for his refusal to issue a case number and process application, such refusal should be interpreted to be a result of court officials discrimination against Pro Se and/or Radical Honesty culture applicant/s, (C) that discrimination is unlawful, including discrimination by Court Officials against a Pro Se or Radical Honesty Commanding General, Multi-National Force – Iraq (MNF-I) from February 10, 2007, to September 16, 2008. As commander of MNF-I, Petraeus oversaw all coalition forces in Iraq.

70 Jessica Dye (2012, Nov 18): Petraeus retains Robert Barnett, lawyer to political elite; Reuters http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/18/us-usa-generals-lawyer-idUSBRE8AH0EW20121118 71 http://www.wc.com/attorney-RobertBarnett.html 72 http://www.wc.com/contact.html 73 http://www.wc.com/contact-leadership-jscott.html 74 http://www.wc.com/contact-leadership-nminnick.html 75 http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_4 76 http://blog.internetcases.com/2007/05/14/service-of-process-by-e-mail-allowed-for-foreign-defendants/ 77 See also: Clint Pharmaceuticals v. Northfield Urgent Care, LLC, 2012 WL 3792546 (Minn. App., September 4, 2012), and Williams-Sonoma Inc. v. Friendfinder Inc., No. 06-6572, 2007 WL 1140639 (N.D.Cal. April 17, 2007)

18

applicant; (D) that Clerks/Registrars, like U.S. courts are required to treat the applications of Pro Se applicants liberally (Foreign Law: Haines v Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972); Hall v Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991); and (E) consequently that the Registrar is ordered to issue the Applicant a case number, including – if relevant – clear and specific requirements the Registrar Respondent requires from the Applicant, for the processing of her Pro Se application.

Liberal Treatment of Pro Se or Controversial Applicants: Impartial hearings for arguments about enlarged penises and vagina‟s blocking oil wells, to discharged mice, and women who are not „persons‟; but none for a Radical Honesty PP4PP Pro Se exposing South Africa‟s TRC Fraud: Case Study of United States of America Courts Clerks/Registrars Liberal Response to Pro Se Applicant: Jonathan Lee Richards: Clerks/Registrars, like U.S. courts are required to treat the applications of Pro Se applicants liberally (Foreign Law: Haines v Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972); Hall v Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991) Jonathan Lee Riches is a former prisoner (inmate #40948-018) known for the many lawsuits he has filed in various United States district courts78.

Since January 8, 2006, he has filed over twenty-six hundred79 lawsuits in federal district courts across America,80 some of which have received considerable press attention.81 Among the more famous defendants of his lawsuits are Dallas area lawyer Treyson Brooks, New England Patriots coach Bill Belichick, former President of the United States George W. Bush,82 Martha Stewart,83 NASCAR driver Jeff Gordon,84 former Atlanta Falcons quarterback Michael Vick,85 entrepreneur Steve Jobs,86 celebrity blogger Perez Hilton,87 Somali pirates, and pop

78

South Carolina inmate hits Michael Vick with '$63,000,000,000 Billion Dollar' lawsuit alleging Al Qaeda ties Fox News. (August 15, 2007) Accessed October 2, 2007.

79 Wikipedia Ref: http://www.pacer.gov 80 Wikipedia Ref: US Pacer US Party/Case Index Website maintained by the federal courts; search for Jonathan Riches prisoner cases on March 3, 2008 returned 1017 cases.

81 "Man of Many Suits", Emil Steiner, The Washington Post 82 Howard, Brian. (April 13–19, 2006). Trial of the century. Philadelphia City Paper. Accessed October 3, 2007.

83 Prisoner known for suing celebrities takes on Martha Stewart Boston.com, in connection with The Boston Globe.

(September 19, 2007). Accessed October 3, 2007.

84 Saxon, Eric. (2007). Inmate files federal complaint against NASCAR star Jeff Gordon wsoctv.com. Accessed October 3, 2007.

85 Rankin, Bill. (August 17, 2007). Inmate's bizarre lawsuit against Vick thrown out of court The Atlanta JournalConstitution; and Transcript: 'Countdown with Keith Olbermann' for August 15 MSNBC. Accessed October 3, 2007.

86 Jade, Kasper. (September 25, 2007).Inmate's suit claims O.J. Simpson is "hitman" for Steve Jobs. Apple Insider.

Accessed October 3, 2007.

87 "An Embarrassment Of Riches". thesmokinggun.com. Retrieved October 19, 2007.

19

star Britney Spears.88 He also sued the late Benazir Bhutto, Pervez Musharraf, and the Immigration and Naturalization Service on November 7, 2007, to prevent him from being deported to Pakistan upon his release from prison in March 2012 so that he will not be tortured. In May 2009, Riches filed for an injunction against the Guinness Book of World Records, seeking to stop them from naming him as the most litigious individual in the history of mankind.89 Some of Riches' defendants are not even people or potentially sueable. These include "Adolf Hitler's National Socialist Party" and the "13 tribes of Israel." 90 One lawsuit, which includes George Bush, also includes another 783 defendants that cover 57 pages. They include Plato, Nostradamus, Che Guevara, James Hoffa, "Various Buddhist Monks," all survivors of the Holocaust, the Lincoln Memorial, the Eiffel Tower, the USS Cole, the book Mein Kampf, the Garden of Eden, the Roman Empire, the Dark Ages, the Appalachian Trail, Plymouth Rock, the Holy Grail, Nordic gods, the dwarf planet Pluto, and the entire Three Mile Island.91 In August 2010 he filed suit against Julian Assange of Wikileaks (CASE #: 1:10-cv-02096-BNB),92 which Assange publicly acknowledged as received, as reported in the Wall Street Journal93: ―"Today I also had a case filed against me in the United States on a wholly unrelated manner," he added, without elaborating.‖ Every case filed by Mr. Riches, received a case number, and can be retrieved at Pacer.gov. Just between August 20 and 23 of 2010, Mr. Riches initiated 25 cases, one of them against Assange.

Mr. Riches Pro Se application94 accuses Mr. Assange of among others: ―I had a sexual affair with Barack Obama. I used George W. Bush's stolen credit card to get Obama a penis enlargement which is posted on wikileaks and wikileaks posted the bribe Blagojevish extorted one $50,000 from stolen identities for me to fill Baracks Senate seat. Julian Assange plans to hack into my experian credit report and steal my citibank card to use at Wal-mart to get Just For Men black hair dye to dye for his hair. .. Wikileaks posted secret documents regarding contracts BP oil has with Dr. Amanda Hughes, aka Dr. Amanda Leigh Hughes, Dts, at the Rdap in FMC Lexington. Dr. Hughes was paid 5 million dollars to use her vagina and squat and sit on the BP Lea King oil well to stop the leak in the gulf of Mexico. Dr.

88

"Contactmusic.com". Prison Inmate Seeks Spears Restraining Order. Retrieved October 12, 2007.

Clouse, Thomas (May 23, 2009). "Man sues book over most-litigious crown". The Spokesman-Review. Retrieved 25 May 2009.

90 Emil Steiner, Man of Many Suits, Jonathan Lee Riches Sues Everyone and Everything, Washington Post, August 23, 2007 91 Case #: 2:06-cv-01055-LP 92 http://cryptome.org/0002/riches/riches-v-assange.htm 93 Wall Street Journal (03 Sep 2010): Assange Calls Rape Probe 'Legal Circus' http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704206804575467540444512012.html 94 http://cryptome.org/0002/riches/riches-002.pdf 89

20

Hughes vagina received a Congressional Medal of Honour. I demand all Jonathan Lee Riches copyright material be deleted from the Defendants site....‖ On 30 August 2010, Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland issued the following in Jonathan Lee Riches v. Julian Assange, Wikileaks et al: ORDER Directing Clerk to Commence Civil Action and Directing Plaintiff to Cure Deficiency and to Show Cause. Plaintiff is directed to submit a 1915 Motion, Prisoner Complaint, and show cause why filing restrictions should not be imposed against him within 30 days. order95

Case Study of another USA Clerks/Registrars Liberal Response to Pro Se Applicant: United Kingdom: Morabito v. Cyrta: “To a Mouse”: As documented by Christopher Stone in his seminal work: Should Trees have Standing? -- Toward Legal Rights for Natural Objects, A group of prison inmates in Suffolk country tamed a mouse that they discovered, giving him the name of Morris. Discovering Morris, a jailer flushed him down the toilet. The prisoners brought a proceeding against the Warden complaining, inter alia, that Morris was subjected to discriminatory discharge and was otherwise unequally treated. The action was unsuccessful, on grounds that the inmates themselves were "guilty of imprisoning Morris without a charge, without a trial, and without bail," and that other mice athte prison were not treated more favourably. "As to the truth victim the Court can only offer again the sympathy first proffered to his ancestors by Robert Burns...." The Judge proceeded to quote from Burns. "To a Mouse" - Morabito v. Cyrta, 9 CRIM. L. REP. 2472 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Suffolk Co. Aug. 26, 1971)

In re Goddell: Even Patriarchal Bigots Granted Women the Right to a Hearing: The first woman in Wisconsin who thought she might have a right to practice law was not denied the right to file her application, or denied the right to be heard, she was given the opportunity to be heard, and honourably – to her face – given a verdict to her application, in the following terms: "The law of nature destines and qualifies the female sex for the bearing and nurture of children of our race and for the custody of the homes of the world .... [A]ll life-long callings of women, inconsistent with these radical and sacred duties of their sex, as is the profession of the law, are departures from the order of nature; and when voluntary, treason against it.... The And when counsel was arguing for this lady that the word person, in sec. 32, ch.

119 [respecting those qualified to practice law], necessarily includes females, her presence made it impossible to suggest to him as reductio ad absurdum of his position, that the same construction of the same word... would subject woman to prosecution for the paternity of a bastard, and... prosecution for rape.‖ -- In re Goddell, 39 Wisc. 232, 245 (1875), at 246 95

http://cryptome.org/0002/riches/riches-v-assange.htm

21

Radical Honesty Culture‟s Perspective of SA‟s TRC Fraud, Registrar Denies Applicant a Case Number, let alone the Right to be Heard: Meanwhile in Mandelatopia South Africa, with the ‗greatest constitution in the world‘ (sic), a member of the Radical Honesty culture (the applicant) has for ten years been unable to find an attorney to represent her, in accordance to her cultural practices, and been denied a fair and impartial hearing of the Radical Honesty culture‘s evidence and perspective of South Africa‘s Truth and Reconciliation Fraud.

Are Pro Se Applications only worthy of ‗liberal treatment to Pro Se‘ Applicants, given Case Numbers and a fair impartial hearing before impartial justices, when the applications are filed by men, from War is Peace Whore cultures, dealing with enlarged penises, vagina‘s blocking leaking oil wells, and discharged mice?

RELIEF REQUESTED: Consequently, I request the Justices to issue the orders as aforementioned, succinctly as: -

Number of Hard copies required by Pro Se Applicants

-

Traditiona/Normal service of process for PP4PP is per electronic service.

-

Orders of Electronic Initiated Service for Respondents 8 and 11

-

Issuance of Case Number, Liberal Treatment of Pro Se Applicants and Registrars discrimination not allowed.

Respectfully Submitted,

Lara Johnstone, Pro Se Encl: A: 29 Nov: Concourt Registrar Letter to Applicant B: 05 Dec: Soc of Advocates of Kwazulu Natal (PMB) C: 06 Dec: Soc of Advocates of Kwazulu Natal (Dbn) D: Applicants Pay-Price-4-Peace-Peacenik Credibility E: 04 Dec: Final Notice to CRL Rights Commission F: 04 Dec: Final Notice to David Petraeus

22

Annexure “DD” 11 Dec 2012: CRL Rights Complaint: Concourt Registrar (See II:A)

Annexure “EE” 11 Dec 2012: CRL Rights Comm Complaint: SAPA & SA Media (See GG:B)

Annexure “FF” 07 Feb 2013: CRL Rights Comm Ruling: SAPA & SA Media (See GG:C)

Annexure “GG” 07 Feb 2013: CRL Rights Appeal: Ref: 9/1/1/1/46: Lara Johnstone, Radical Honesty culture v.

SAPA & SA Media: Appeal of CRL Rights Comm: Mrs. Makgoba 07 February ruling Includes annexures: A: 03 May 2010: Concourt Ruling: Lara Johnstone, member of Radical Honesty culture.

B: 11 December 2012: CRL Rights Comm Complaint: SAPA & SA Media Editors Discrimination Against member of Radical Honesty culture C: 07 February 2013: CRL Rights Commission Ruling

by Mrs. Makgoba: RE: Alleged Refusal by SAPA and Other Media Editors to Treat Your Inability to find Legal Representation as News.

SHARP PP4PP PO Box 5042 George East, 6539 Tel: (044) 870 7239 Cel: (071) 170 1954 07 February 2013 Rev Dr. Wesley Mabuza CRL Rights Commission Private Bag X 90 000 Houghton, 2041 Tel: (011) 537 7600 Fax: (011) 880 3495

CC: Mrs. K Makgoba CRL Rights Commission Private Bag X 90 000 Houghton, 2041 Tel: (011) 537 7600 Fax: (011) 880 3495

CC: Concourt „Kill Boere‟ Review App.: Alien v. Afriforum Respondent Parties CC: Transparency: SAPA & SA Media Editors CC: Independent Observation & Monitoring Parties Rev Mabuza, Ref: 9/1/1/1/46: Lara Johnstone, Radical Honesty culture v. SAPA & SA Media: Appeal of CRL Rights Comm: Mrs. Makgoba 07 February ruling.

Request Confirmation CRL Rights Commission Chairperson: Mr. Mabuza endorses Mrs. K. Makgoba’s Ruling authorizing (a) the CRL Rights Commission’s and SA Legal establishment’s endorsement of the denial of cultural legal representation, and access to courts, to members of the Radical Honesty culture, and (b) the South African Media’s discrimination against Members of the Radical Honesty culture, by refusing to report the fact that a South African citizen member of the Radical Honesty culture, has been unable to find a lawyer to represent her, as a member of the Radical Honesty culture, for the past ten years, and in a current case before the Constitutional Court.

FACTS NOT IN DISPUTE: [1] The South African Constitution is founded on the 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 Constitution provides for all citizens rights to invoke1 cultural law2 in S. 15(3)3, 304, 315, and 186. When

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 1

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 lifestyles7.

[2] For example: In Smit NO and Others v King Goodwill Zwelithini Kabhekuzulu and Others8 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 Mapalala9, who said that the animal‟s death was quick, unpainful and that no blood was shed. (Others disagreed10: 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.”11).

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.

2 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.‟ 3 Freedom of Religion, Belief and Opinion http://www.info.gov.za/documents/constitution/1996/96cons2.htm#15 4 Language and Culture http://www.info.gov.za/documents/constitution/1996/96cons2.htm#30 5 Culture, Religious & Linguistic Comm: http://www.info.gov.za/documents/constitution/1996/96cons2.htm#31 6 Freedom of Association http://www.info.gov.za/documents/constitution/1996/96cons2.htm#18 7 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.”

8 Smit NO and Others v King Goodwill Zwelithini Kabhekuzulu and Others (10237/2009) [2009] ZAKZPHC 75 (4 Dec 2009) 9 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] 10 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] 11 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]

2

[3]

I am a member of the Radical Honesty (Honoursty) culture. (Annex A)12

[4] I have been unable to find a lawyer, or Legal Civil Rights NGO, in South Africa, for the past ten years, willing to represent me, as a member of the Radical Honesty culture; in any of the following cases: [4.1]

Criminal: 18 June 2002 Political Necessity Trial in George (CAS 572/02; GSH 20/2003; HC-WC Appeal A 696-04)13

[4.2]

Criminal: Political Necessity Tragedy of the Commons Kaffir-Lilly-Pond Trial in Capetown (CT-CAS 1340/7/07 & 17/1384/07 & 14/1198/08)14

[4.3]

Civil: SA Concourt: Robert McBride vs. The Citizen (CCT 23-10)15

[4.4]

Civil: SA Concourt: Johnstone v. SANEF, et al (CCT 06-11)16

[4.5]

Afriforum v. Malema et al: Equality Court (07-2010 EQ JHB) to & Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA 815/11).

[4.6]

Afriforum v. Malema et al: Constitutional Court Review Application: Alien on Pale Blue Dot v. Afriforum et al.

03 May 2010: Concourt Ruling: Lara Johnstone, member of Radical Honesty culture. [Note: Even though I was admitted as a Pro Se Amicus Curiae, the court and all other parties, and media totally ignored my Amicus submissions, whereas other Amicus parties were recognized by both the court, other parties, and the media. Effectively my argument did not exist, as if I had never been admitted.]

13 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 resource warfare consequences. Sentenced to a year in prison, and 3 years correctional supervision.

14 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 resource warfare consequences. Sentenced to a year in prison, and 3 years correctional supervision.

15 I was admitted as an Amicus to the Constitutional Court proceedings between former ANC Umkhonto we Sizwe Terrorist Robert McBride and The Citizen newspaper , 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 and Michael Maher 16 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 journalism : censorship of root cause “the most potent weapons of war are the penis and the womb 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 connection ; and Dr. Brad Blanton‟s Radical Honesty About Anger and Forgiveness 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.

12

3

[4.7]

As stated in my complaint to the CRL Rights Commission (Annex B):

A.

I am unable to get access to a court, because I don‟t have a lawyer. I don‟t have a lawyer, because no lawyer in South Africa, that I am aware of, is willing to represent an individual from the Radical Honesty culture; yet the media deny me access to the publicity to find such a possible lawyer; or at least to unequivocally confirm that such a lawyer does not exist.

B.

Media editors hate the Radical Honesty culture, because we practice 100% transparency (so they are unable to threaten or frighten us with exposing any of our secrets, cause we ain't got no secrets) and because we don't practice “Public Relations”. The media don‟t believe it is their professional job to report on all cultures and all news with impartiality and fairness.

CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS: Registrar in Afriforum v. Malema et al: Constitutional Court Review Application: Alien on Pale Blue Dot v. Afriforum et al, Refuses my Review Application, based upon the fact that I do not have Legal Representation.

On 27 November 2012, I filed a Pro Se application17 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‟18, and the TRC‟s “failure to investigate demographic http://sqswans.weebly.com/cct-alien-v-afriforum.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 17 18

4

youth bulge19 and „population production‟ breeding war20 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. (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.

[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.

19 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.

20 “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

5

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 21), 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” (PDF22), to the Concourt Justices, via the Registrar, requesting a Constitutional Court declaratory order confirming that: (A) I am unable to find a lawyer to represent me as member of the Radical Honesty culture..

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 (PDF23) | Jhb Bar Ass: Pro Bono Chair: (PDF24) | Cape Law Society (PDF25) | Cape Bar Council (PDF26) | Free State Law Society (PDF27) | Free State Soc of Advocates (PDF28) | General Counsel of Bar of SA (PDF29) | KwaZulu Natal Law Society (PDF30) | Law Society of South Africa (PDF31) | Pretoria Society of Advocates (PDF32) | Soc of Adv KwaZulu Natal http://sqswans.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/8/7/13878165/12-11-29_concourtregistrar_letter_to_lara_johnstone.pdf 22 http://sqswans.weebly.com/06-dec-app-reg.html 23 http://sqswans.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/8/7/13878165/12-11-29_legal_aid-vidhu_vedalankar.pdf 24 http://sqswans.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/8/7/13878165/12-1206_concourt_justices_encl_g_jhb_bar_assoc_-_pf_louw.pdf 25 http://sqswans.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/8/7/13878165/12-11-30_cape_law_society.pdf 26 http://sqswans.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/8/7/13878165/_12-11-30_cape_bar_council.pdf 27 http://sqswans.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/8/7/13878165/12-11-30_free_state_law_society.pdf 28 http://sqswans.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/8/7/13878165/12-11-30_free_state_soc_of_advocates.pdf 29 http://sqswans.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/8/7/13878165/12-11-30_general_counsel_of_bar_of_sa__exec_sec.pdf 30 http://sqswans.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/8/7/13878165/12-1206_concourt_justices_encl_h_kzn_law_society.pdf 31 http://sqswans.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/8/7/13878165/12-11-30_law_society_of_south_africa.pdf 21

6

- Dbn (PDF33) | Soc of Adv KwaZulu Natal - Pmb (PDF34) | Northern Province Law Society: M van Niekerk (PDF35).

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).

SAPA published the Press Release to their „news wire‟, but did not write a SAPA news story about it, which they generally do. Lawyers do not read the „news wire‟, they read the newspapers. I telephoned SAPA to find out why they did not write a story about it, whereupon the SAPA Journalist informed me that it was “not news”, that a member of the Radical Honesty culture cannot find a lawyer and is denied access to SA court‟s. When I asked why other SA media publications did not publish it, she said she thought, they also probably think it is “not news”.

I then wrote an email to all of the Editors, asking them whether they “believe that the fact that a South African citizen member of the Radical Honesty culture, has been unable to find a lawyer to represent her, as a member of the Radical Honesty culture, for the past ten years, and in a current case before the Constitutional Court, is “not news”?”

None of them responded and none of them published a story to inform SA lawyers that a South African citizen member of the Radical Honesty culture, has been unable to find a lawyer to represent her, as a member of the Radical Honesty culture, for the past ten years, and in a current case before the Constitutional Court.

There has been no response from the Constitutional Court Registrar, or the Concourt 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: 

Complaint: Discrimination and Denial of Access to Courts for member of Radical Honesty culture, by Constitutional Court Registrar (PDF36).



CRL Rights Comm Complaint: SAPA & SA Media Editors Discrimination Against member of Radical Honesty culture (PDF37)

http://sqswans.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/8/7/13878165/12-11-30_pretoria_society_of_advocates.pdf http://sqswans.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/8/7/13878165/12-12-06_concourt_justices_encl_c_adv-sockzn-dbn.pdf 34 http://sqswans.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/8/7/13878165/12-12-06_concourt_justices_encl_b_adv-sockzn-pmb.pdf 35 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 36 http://sqswans.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/8/7/13878165/12-1211_crlrightscomm_complaint_concourt_registrar.pdf 37 http://sqswans.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/8/7/13878165/12-12-11_crlrightscomm_complaint_sapa__sa_media_encla.pdf 32 33

7

On 04 February, I sent a reminder to the CRL Rights Commission authorities (including yourself) requesting a status report as to my aforementioned complaints, in terms of CRL Rights Commission's procedures for 'ensuring that the rights of a community are protected', as detailed under: 4.1. Screening of Complaint, and 4.2 Complaints handling.

I also telephoned the CRL Rights Commission, and was informed by the receptionist to speak to a lady named Baqlolile (spelling?). I called at least 5 times, and every time the receptionist put me through to Baqlolile, I would ask to confirm whether I was speaking to the right person, and she would refuse to confirm her name, and put down the phone.

On 06 February 2013, I received an acknowledgement of receipt for my SAPA and SA Media Editors, discrimination complaint, from Mrs. Makgoba.

There has been no response from the CRL Rights Commission to my Discrimination and Denial of Access to Courts for member of Radical Honesty culture, by Constitutional Court Registrar (PDF38).

Her letter requested that I “Kindly explain to the Commission on how you would like the commission to assist you in relation to the above matter.”

I responded that: I imagine the best way to proceed in handling the complaint would be to contact the offending party editors, in writing (including providing a copy of my complaint to them), to ask them to provide their official editorial response and reasons for their opinions and decisions on the matter.

The person to whom I spoke to on the telephone was a journalist, and did not want to give me her name. Since the editors refused to respond to me personally, on the matter, regarding the letters I wrote to them; perhaps they shall respond to the Commission.

Once they have responded, or if they refuse to respond to the Commission, I/the Commission can be more fully informed on the Editor‟s thinking and reasons.

Unless you have other suggestions for resolving the matter. If so, I am happy to hear them.

Mrs. Makgoba responded “Would you please explain in detail what cultural, religious or linguistic right of yours, was violated by SAPA and other media editors.” Note: She did not indicate that she needed more information as to ‘how’ my cultural, religious or linguistic rights had been violated; so I concluded she had enough information on how my rights had been violated, she only required information on what specific rights had been violated.

I responded: http://sqswans.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/8/7/13878165/12-1211_crlrightscomm_complaint_concourt_registrar.pdf 38

8

Article 9 Equality: Everyone is equal before the law and has the right to equal protection and benefit of the law. â&#x20AC;Ś (3) The state may not unfairly discriminate directly or indirectly against anyone on one or more grounds, including race, gender, sex, pregnancy, marital status, ethnic or social origin, colour, sexual orientation, age, disability, religion, conscience, belief, culture, language and birth.

30. Language and culture: Everyone has the right to use the language and to participate in the cultural life of their choice, but no one exercising these rights may do so in a manner inconsistent with any provision of the Bill of Rights.

34. Access to courts: Everyone has the right to have any dispute that can be resolved by the application of law decided in a fair public hearing before a court or, where appropriate, another independent and impartial tribunal or forum.

On 07 February 2013, Ms Makgoba ruled that â&#x20AC;&#x153;the commission has taken strive to analyse your complaint with regard to the above subject matter. Based on the fact that you have been unable to state cultural or religious or linguistic right that has been violated, except for quoting the constitutional provisions, the commission has concluded therefore that your matter falls outside the commission's mandate.

Accordingly the commision has dismissed your matter and proceed to close the file.â&#x20AC;?

Respectfully,

Lara Johnstone Encl:

A: 03 May 2010: Concourt Ruling: Lara Johnstone, member of Radical Honesty culture. [Note: Even though I was admitted as a Pro Se Amicus Curiae, the court and all other parties, and media totally ignored my Amicus submissions, whereas other Amicus parties were recognized by both the court, other parties, and the media. Effectively my argument did not exist, as if I had never been admitted.]

B: 11 December 2012: CRL Rights Comm Complaint: SAPA & SA Media Editors Discrimination Against member of Radical Honesty culture C: 07 February 2013: CRL Rights Commission Ruling by Mrs. Makgoba: RE: Alleged Refusal by SAPA and Other Media Editors to Treat Your Inability to find Legal Representation as News.

9

Annexure “A”

Annexure “B”

1/6

Tel: +27 11 537 7600

Private Bag X 90 000, HOUGHTON, 2041 No. 158 Jan Smuts Avenue, 1st Floor, West Wing, Rosebank, Johannesburg Fax: +27 11 880 3495 ________________________________

Private Bag X 90 000, HOUGHTON, 2041 No. 158 Jan Smuts Avenue, 1st Floor, West Wing, Rosebank, Johannesburg Tel: +27 11 537 7600 Fax: +27 11 880 3495 ________________________________________________________________________________

COMPLAINT FORM Please read this complaint form and note at the back of this form before filling in this form. Please write clearly and use Capital letters and your own language of choice. If there is not enough space on this form for your response, please use a separate piece of paper and send it to us together with this form.

1.

Your Details (1-6 to be filled by everyone completing this form) First Name(s): Lara Surname: Johnstone E-mail: habeusmentem@mweb.co.za From which community: Radical Honesty culture and religion (Futilitarians)

2.

Your ID Number: 661204 012 086

(If you do not have an ID Number, what is your date of birth? If you do not know their birth, or how old are you?)

3.

Your address and contact details

Address where you live: 16 Taaibos Ave, Heatherpark, George, 6530 Address where we can send you letters to: P O Box 5042, George East, 6539 Telephone number at home: (044) 870 7239 Telephone number at work: (071) 170 1954 Cellular number/Any number where you can be contacted: (071) 170 1954 Fax number: (044) 870 7239

4.

If this is a complaint for an organization, please tell us about it

The name of the organization: (A) SA Press Association, (B) 702 Radio, (C) Business Day, (D) Die Beeld, (E) Die Burger, (F) Cape Argus, (G) The Citizen, (H) City Press, (I) Mail and Guardian, (J) ETV News, (K) Cape Times, (L) Rapport; (M) Sunday Times, (N) Sunday Independent.

What is its relation to Culture, Religion or Language Rights?: These editors discriminate against the Radical Honesty culture, in that they believe that the fact that a South African citizen member of the Radical Honesty culture, has been unable to find a lawyer to represent her, as a member of the Radical Honesty culture, for the past ten years, and in a current case before the Constitutional Court, is â&#x20AC;&#x153;not newsâ&#x20AC;??

CRL Rights Commission - COMPLAINT FORM (English Version)

2/6 Who should we talk to? (A) SA Press Association: Editor: Mark van der Velden, (B) 702 Radio: Producer: Pheladi Gwangwa, (C) Business Day: Editor: Peter Bruce, (D) Beeld: Editor: Tim du Plessis, (E) Die Burger: Editor: Bun Booyens, (F) Cape Argus: Editor: Chris Witfield, (G) The Citizen: Editor: Martin Williams, (H) City Press: Editor: Ferial Haffajee, (I) Mail and Guardian: Editor: Nic Dawes, (J) ENews: Producer: Patrick Conroy, (K) Cape Times: Editor: Alide Dasnois, (L) Rapport: Editor: Bokkie Gerber; (M) Sunday Times: Editor: Ray Hartley, (N) Sunday Independent: Editor: Makhudu Sefara.

What is their position? As above (colleague, chairperson, director, secretary) The address where we can send letters to: Mr Mark van der Velden Editor: SA Press Association PO Box 7766, Johannesburg, 2000 Tel: (011) 782 1600 Fax: (011) 782 1587 / 1591

Ms Pheladi Gwangwa Station Manager: 702 Radio PO Box 5572, Rivonia, 2128 Tel: (011) 506 3702 Fax: (011) 506 3670

Peter Bruce Editors: Business Day PO Box 1746, Saxonwold, 2132 Tel: (011) 280 5548 Fax: (011) 280 5505

Mr Tim Du Plessis Editor: Beeld PO Box 333, Auckland Park, 2006 Tel: (011) 713 9000 Fax: (011) 713 9956 / 7

Bun Booyens Editor: Die Burger PO Box 692, Capetown, 8000 Tel: (021) 406 2121 Fax: (021) 406 3965

Mr. Chris Witfield Editor: Cape Argus PO Box 56, Capetown, 8000 Tel: (021) 488 4911 Fax: (021) 488 4156 / 4793

Mr. Martin Williams Editor: The Citizen PO Box 43069, Industria, Johannesburg, 2042 Tel: (011) 248 6000 Fax: (011) 248 6213/4

Ms. Ferial Haffajee Editor in Chief: City Press PO Box 3413, Johannesburg, 2000 Tel: (011) 713 9001 Fax: (011) 713 9966

Mr. Nic Dawes Editor: Mail & Guardian, P O Box 91667 Auckland Park, Jhb, 2006 Tel: (011) 250 7300 Fax: (011) 250 7503

Mr. Patrick Conroy ETV: Head of E-News PO Box 12124, Mill Street Gardens, CAPE TOWN, 8010 Tel: (021) 481 4500 Fax: (021) 481 4630

Ms Alida Dasnois Editor: Cape Times PO Box 56, Capetown, 8000 Tel: (021) 488 4701 Fax: (021) 488 4717 / 4744

Mr. Bokkie Gerber Editor: Rapport PO Box 8422, Johannesburg, 2000 Tel: (011) 713 9628 Fax: (011) 713 9977

Mr. Ray Hartley Managing Editor: Sunday Times Private Bagx 1742, Saxonwold, 2132 Tel: (011) 280 3000 Fax: (011) 280 5150 / 1

Mr. Makhaudu Sefara Editor: Sunday Independent PO Box 1014, Johannesburg, 2000 Tel: (011) 633 9111 Fax: (011) 834 7520

5. Violation of CRL Rights Tell us which right(s) has/have been violated: 9. Equality: Everyone is equal before the law and has the right to equal protection and benefit of the law. â&#x20AC;Ś (3) The state may not unfairly discriminate directly or indirectly against anyone on one or more grounds, including race, gender, sex, pregnancy, marital status, ethnic or social origin, colour, sexual orientation, age, disability, religion, conscience, belief, culture, language and birth. (4) *1 No person may unfairly discriminate directly or indirectly against anyone on one or more grounds in terms of subsection (3). National legislation must be enacted to prevent or prohibit unfair discrimination. (5) Discrimination on one or more of the grounds listed in subsection (3) is unfair unless it is established that the discrimination is fair.

CRL Rights Commission - COMPLAINT FORM (English Version)

3/6 30. Language and culture: Everyone has the right to use the language and to participate in the cultural life of their choice, but no one exercising these rights may do so in a manner inconsistent with any provision of the Bill of Rights.

34. Access to courts: Everyone has the right to have any dispute that can be resolved by the application of law decided in a fair public hearing before a court or, where appropriate, another independent and impartial tribunal or forum.

Tell us what happened in relation to the violation: 1

On 27 November 2012, I filed a Pro Se application with the Constitutional Court Registrar, for Radical Honesty culture Review of the „Kill Boer‟ Hate Speech Negotiated Agreement between Afriforum/TAU-SA and Julius Malema/ANC, 2

3

wherein I specifically requested an order from the court, for the “Permission to invoke cultural law in S. 15(3), 30, 31, and 18; to enable the Applicant to honour the duty and responsibility to uphold the principles upon which her Radical 4

Honesty culture is based; and Psychological Integrity in Section 12 ; the former which may require the application of choice of law rules.”

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‟, which included 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”, to the Concourt Justices, via the Registrar; wherein I informed the Registrar that 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. The registrar did not appear to believe me, so I wrote a Press Release, which I submitted (for R275.00) to SAPA, wherein I attempt to find a lawyer who is willing to represent someone from the Radical Honesty culture.

SAPA published the Press Release to their „wire‟, did not write a SAPA news story about it, which they generally do. I telephoned SAPA to find out why they did not write a story about it, whereupon the SAPA Journalist informed me that it was „not news‟. When I asked why other SA media publications did not publish it, she said she thought, they also probably think it is „not news‟.

I then wrote an email to all of the Editors (Annex A), asking them whether they “believe that the fact that a South African citizen member of the Radical Honesty culture, has been unable to find a lawyer to represent her, as a member of the Radical Honesty culture, for the past ten years, and in a current case before the Constitutional Court, is “not news”?”

None of them responded and none of them published a story to inform SA lawyers that a South African citizen member of the Radical Honesty culture, has been unable to find a lawyer to represent her, as a member of the Radical Honesty culture, for the past ten years, and in a current case before the Constitutional Court.

In the United States Supreme Court Case: In re Oliver, 333 U.S. [at] 270-271, the Justices argue that “the knowledge that every criminal trial is subject to contemporaneous review in the forum of public opinion is an effective restraint on

1

http://sqswans.weebly.com/cct-alien-v-afriforum.html 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.

3 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.‟ 4 12. Freedom and security of the person: (2) Everyone has the right to bodily and psychological integrity..

2

CRL Rights Commission - COMPLAINT FORM (English Version)

4/6 possible abuse of .. power .. without publicity, all other checks are insufficient: in comparison of publicity, all other checks are of small account.”

I am unable to get access to a court, because I don‟t have a lawyer. I don‟t have a lawyer, because no lawyer in South Africa, that I am aware of, is willing to represent an individual from the Radical Honesty culture; yet the media deny me access to the publicity to find such a possible lawyer; or at least to unequivocally confirm that such a lawyer does not exist.

Media editors hate the Radical Honesty culture, because we practice 100% transparency (so they are unable to threaten or frighten us with exposing any of our secrets, cause we ain't got no secrets) and because we don't practice 'Public Relations'. The media don‟t believe it is their professional job to report on all cultures and all news with impartiality and fairness.

6. Is this problem still happening?

X

(mark appropriate box)

Yes

No

7. If NO, when did it happen?

DAY

MONTH

YEAR

WHAT TIME

(For example)

8. Where did it happen?

TOWN

PROVINCE

Johannesburg

Gauteng

Capetown

Western Cape

Durban

KwaZulu Natal

9. Please tell us the name or names of the people who violated these rights (if you know) See Pt. 4

10. Where can we contact them?

See Pt. 4

11. If you do not know their names, please tell us anything you know about them Names provided above in Pt. 4

CRL Rights Commission - COMPLAINT FORM (English Version)

5/6

12. In your own words, tell us exactly what happened. Include all the information you think is important (Please be as brief as possible) See Pt. 5 ______________________________________________________________________________ 13. Have you reported this case to anyone else?

Yes

No

If so, who?

(For example, - Police, Lawyers, Public Protector, Human Rights Commission, Commission on Gender Equality, Land Claims, South African Heritage Resources Agency, Provincial Heritage Resources) No. Not yet

14.

Can we use your name in news reports or letters we write for you?

Yes

No

15. Did anyone see what happened?

Its mostly documented in writing. _____________________________________________________________________________ (Their name(s) and how we can get in touch with them? Please only tell us about people who actually saw what happened. Do not tell us about people who heard about what happened from someone else)

16. Please tell us how you heard about the CRL Rights Commission (from a friend, from an ngo or cbo, radio advert, newspaper or poster)

Read about it in Constitution. ______________________________________________________________________________ 17. Nationality/Citizen status (Please specify) South African ______________________________________________________________________________ 18. Impairment (IF YES, please specify) Yes, sort of, depending on your perspective. People in „normal culture‟ are easily offended by individuals from the Radical Honesty culture, because we do not practice „politeness‟ or „manners‟ or „public relations‟, and if we are angry, we don‟t pretend we are not angry, so we sometimes swear, if that is our honest opinion at that moment. A friend of mine, who is not a member of the Radical Honesty culture, says having a Radical Honesty friend, is similar to having a friend with „Tourettes Syndrome‟.

CRL Rights Commission - COMPLAINT FORM (English Version)

6/6

______________________________________________________________________________ 19. Literacy level (please specify) University & College: Paralegal Diploma, and a few University courses. Did not finish. ______________________________________________________________________________ What to do once you have filled in the form. Once you have filled in this form please post or fax it to us at:

OFFICE OF THE CHAIRPERSON CRL RIGHTS COMMISSION JOHANNESBURG- PRIVATE BAG X 90 000, HOUGHTON 2041 TEL: 011 -537 7600 FAX; 011 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 880 3495 If you fax this form, please post it to us as well.

Thank you for filling in this form. We will get back to you as soon as possible. If you have any queries, please call us and ask to speak to someone in the Unit FOR OFFICIAL USE Complaint Number: ______________________________________________________________________________ Date received: __________________________________________________________________________________ Received by: ___________________________________________________________________________________ Acknowledgement date: __________________________________________________________________________ Acknowledged by: _______________________________________________________________________________ COMMISSIONERS Rev/Dr W M Mabuza(Chairperson) ,Mama J Mabale (Deputy Chairperson) Comm. M Bethlehem, Comm M Jobson, Comm M Le Roux, Comm. M JMokgathle, Comm. S O Gabier, Comm D Moodley, Comm. A W Knoetze, Comm. C N Kok, Comm. G Martin, Comm . M D Mathebula, Comm . B P Mkhize, Comm. N S Zulu, Comm. M Tyatyeka, Kom. M C Neluvhnalani, Comm. P Ngove, Chief Exectuive Officer P S Moreroa.

CRL Rights Commission - COMPLAINT FORM (English Version)

Annexure “A”

SAPA PR # 1498: CONCOURT CASE SEEKS RADICAL HONESTY LAWYER From: Lara [mailto:jmcswan@mweb.co.za] Sent: Saturday, December 08, 2012 9:29 PM To: 'comms@sapa.org.za' Subject: Payment: R275 for # 1498: CONCOURT CASE SEEKS RADICAL HONESTY LAWYER Id:

1498

Client:

STARH

Contact details:

Lara Johnstone Cell: (071) 170 1954 Tel: (044) 870 7239 Email: jmcswan@mweb.co.za Case info: www.sqswans.co.nr Brad Blanton: www.youtu.be/Gx-OVdTkwvA Radical Honesty: www.radicalhonesty.com

Attention:

Legal/Political/News Editors

PR status:

Ready

Release date:

2012-12-08 00:00:00

PR category:

Advisory

Subject:

CONCOURT - RADICAL HONESTY CULTURE LAWYER

Headline:

CONCOURT CASE SEEKS RADICAL HONESTY LAWYER

Body:

A Constitutional Court Application for Review of the Supreme Court of Appeal "Kill Boer" Hate Speech Negotiated Agreement between Afriforum, TAU-SA, Julius Malema and the ANC, is seeking a 'Radical Honesty lawyer'.

The Pro Se application was filed with the Constitutional Court Registrar on 27 November, by an EcoFeminist paralegal and South Africa's only member of the Radical Honesty culture. 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.

The application requests the Court to issue orders: (1) allowing the applicant to invoke cultural law on behalf of her Radical Honesty culture; (2) to review the ambiguity and lack of clarity of the Afriforum-Malema SCA Negotiated Agreement, which censored the „TRC Fraud‟ evidence submitted to the Equality and Supreme Court of Appeal by the Applicant; (4) that a credible proactive peace plan requires confronting Peak Non-renewable Natural Resources (NNR) and Overpopulation & Consumption driven Scarcity as a Cause of Violent Conflict; (5) Alternatively; to warn all South African‟s to prepare for SA‟s Race and Class War in the impending Crisis of Conflict.

The Concourt Registrar suggested the Applicant get legal representation.

She unsuccessfully contacted Legal Aid, Law Societies and Bar Associations to find a lawyer to represent her, as a member of the Radical Honesty culture.

The Radical Honesty culture was founded by Dr. Brad Blanton, CEO of the Center for Radical Honesty, dedicated to promoting honesty in the world; a former candidate for US Congress in 2004 and 2006, on the platform of “Honesty in Politics” and a bestselling author of the „Radical Honesty‟ series of books.

Futilitarians commitment to transparency makes Wikileaks look like secrecy addicts. They believe trust and strong relationships are a result of vulnerable transparency and clear communication: “being specific about anger and forgiveness”, and all „diplomacy‟, „etiquette‟, „manners‟ and „public relations‟ are considered lying and manipulative deception.

A radical honesty lawyer would be required to place transparency, truth telling and truth seeking as a higher priority than „winning‟ the case. In radical honesty a „true win-win‟ in any dispute occurs when the dispute resolution process does not censor politically incorrect or controversial information, or emotions as „irrelevant‟. Finding the Truth is what matters, wherever that search leads.

Futilitarians believe Enlightenment and Personal (or Social) Transformation can only occur in a being willing to be her DUH village idiot self: willing to give up her Bullshit the Public Relations image management; in exchange for total transparency, exposing her strengths and weaknesses: her naked psychological, emotional, intellectual DUUUUHHHHH self in the moment.

As Blanton argues in Practicing Radical Honesty: “Your neuroses, your limiting beliefs, your defenses, your paranoia, and your hypersensitivity can all become useful tools once your perspective on them changes.”

Interested 'Radical Honesty' lawyers may contact the applicant on (071) 170 1954.

Word count:

492

Cost:

275.00

Inserted by:

STARH

Attached file:

Payment status:

Pending

From: Habeus Mentem [mailto:habeusmentem@mweb.co.za] Sent: Monday, December 10, 2012 8:46 AM To: Mark van der Velden - SAPA (mark@sapa.org.za) Cc: 'comms@sapa.org.za'; Andre Grobler - SAPA (andre@sapa.org.za); Russell Norton - SAPA (russell@sapa.org.za); Jenni O'Grady - SAPA (jenni@sapa.org.za); Fienie Grobler - SAPA (fienie@sapa.org.za); CapeNews - SAPA (capenews@sapa.org.za); News - SAPA (news@sapa.org.za) Subject: SAPA PR # 1498: CONCOURT CASE SEEKS RADICAL HONESTY LAWYER Mark van der Velden SAPA Editor Mr. van der Velden, RE: SAPA-PR # 1498: CONCOURT CASE SEEKS RADICAL HONESTY LAWYER I spoke to a SAPA reporter yesterday, regarding SAPA and SA media‟s decision not to publish information about the press release to SAPA. She said SAPA does not publish press releases which are „not news‟.

Would you confirm that SAPA editor believes that the fact that a South African citizen member of the Radical Honesty culture, has been unable to find a lawyer to represent her, as a member of the Radical Honesty culture, for the past ten years, and in a current case before the Constitutional Court, is “not news”.

If that is an inaccurate quote regarding SAPA‟s position: could you kindly clarify the reason for SAPA‟s decision not to publish the press release about a South African citizen member of the Radical Honesty culture‟s inability to find a lawyer to represent her as a member of the radical honesty culture, for the past ten years, and in a current Constitutional Court case?

Lara Johnstone

[INCL. DEC 08: SAPA PR # 1498: CONCOURT CASE SEEKS RADICAL HONESTY LAWYER EMAIL] From: Habeus Mentem [mailto:habeusmentem@mweb.co.za] Sent: Monday, December 10, 2012 9:15 AM To: Pheladi Gwangwa - 702 Radio(pheladi@702.co.za) Cc: Chris Gibbons - 702 Radio (Chrisgib@capetalk.co.za); Kieno Kammies - 702 Radio (Kieno@capetalk.co.za); News - 702 Radio (news@702.co.za); Pheladi Gwangwa - 702 (pheladi@primedia.co.za); Stephen Groottes - 702 Radio (StephenG@702.co.za); Bruce Whitfield 702 Radio (brucew@702.co.za); John Robbie - 702 Radio (johnr@702.co.za); David O’Sullivan - 702 Radio (David@702.co.za); Lynne O’Connor - 702 Radio (Lynne@702.co.za) Subject: 702 Radio Re: SAPA PR # 1498: CONCOURT CASE SEEKS RADICAL HONESTY LAWYER Ms. Pheladi Gwangwa 702 Radio RE: SAPA-PR # 1498: CONCOURT CASE SEEKS RADICAL HONESTY LAWYER I spoke to a SAPA reporter yesterday, regarding SAPA and SA media‟s decision not to publish or report on, the information about the press release to SAPA. She said SAPA does not publish SAPA news item stories on press releases which are „not news‟. She confirmed that the press release had been published on the SAPA wire, and hence that all SA media editors would be aware of it. She said, they probably did not publish it, because they also think it is „not news‟.

Does 702 Radio believe that the fact that a South African citizen member of the Radical Honesty culture, has been unable to find a lawyer to represent her, as a member of the Radical Honesty culture, for the past ten years, and in a current case before the Constitutional Court, is “not news”?

Lara Johnstone [INCL. DEC 08: SAPA PR # 1498: CONCOURT CASE SEEKS RADICAL HONESTY LAWYER EMAIL] From: Habeus Mentem [mailto:habeusmentem@mweb.co.za] Sent: Monday, December 10, 2012 9:18 AM To: Peter Bruce - BDay (brucep@bdfm.co.za) Cc: Meshack Magoboane - BDay (shacks1956@yahoo.com); Julius Baumann - BDay (baumannj@bdfm.co.za); Ernest Mabuza - BDay (mabuzae@bdfm.co.za); David Marrs - BDay (marrsd@bdfm.co.za); Priscilla Malinga - BDay Ed Sec. (malingap@bdfm.co.za); Business Day (lathamd@avusa.co.za); Rhoda Kadalie - BDay (rhoda@impumelelo.org.za); Sam Mkokelis - BDay (mkokelis@bdfm.co.za); Bus Day (busday@bdfm.co.za) Subject: BusDay: P.Bruce RE: SAPA PR # 1498: CONCOURT CASE SEEKS RADICAL HONESTY LAWYER Mr. Peter Bruce Editor: Business Day RE: SAPA-PR # 1498: CONCOURT CASE SEEKS RADICAL HONESTY LAWYER I spoke to a SAPA reporter yesterday, regarding SAPA and SA media‟s decision not to report on the aforementioned press release to SAPA. She said SAPA does not publish SAPA news item stories on press releases which are „not news‟. She confirmed that the press release had been published on the SAPA wire, and hence that all SA media editors would be aware of it. She said, they probably did not publish it, because they also think it is „not news‟.

Does Business Day believe that the fact that a South African citizen member of the Radical Honesty culture, has been unable to find a lawyer to represent her, as a member of the Radical Honesty

culture, for the past ten years, and in a current case before the Constitutional Court, is “not news”?

Lara Johnstone [INCL. DEC 08: SAPA PR # 1498: CONCOURT CASE SEEKS RADICAL HONESTY LAWYER EMAIL] From: Habeus Mentem [mailto:habeusmentem@mweb.co.za] Sent: Monday, December 10, 2012 9:19 AM To: Nuus - Beeld (nuus@beeld.com) Cc: Briewe - Beeld (briewe@beeld.com); Pieter du Toit - Beeld (pdutoit@beeld.com); Pretoria - Beeld (pretoria@beeld.com); Marietjie Louw - Beeld (mlouw1@beeld.com); J Prins - Beeld (jprins@beeld.com); Daniella du Plooy - Beeld (goggavlooi@gmail.com); Daniella du Plooy - Beeld (gogga_vlooi@hotmail.com); AA Pienaar - Beeld (aapienaar@beeld.com) Subject: Beeld: T du Plessis: SAPA PR # 1498: CONCOURT CASE SEEKS RADICAL HONESTY LAWYER Tim du Plessis Editor: Beeld RE: SAPA-PR # 1498: CONCOURT CASE SEEKS RADICAL HONESTY LAWYER I spoke to a SAPA reporter yesterday, regarding SAPA and SA media‟s decision not to report on the aforementioned press release to SAPA. She said SAPA does not publish SAPA news item stories on press releases which are „not news‟. She confirmed that the press release had been published on the SAPA wire, and hence that all SA media editors would be aware of it. She said, they probably did not publish it, because they also think it is „not news‟.

Does Beeld believe that the fact that a South African citizen member of the Radical Honesty culture, has been unable to find a lawyer to represent her, as a member of the Radical Honesty culture, for the past ten years, and in a current case before the Constitutional Court, is “not news”?

Lara Johnstone [INCL. DEC 08: SAPA PR # 1498: CONCOURT CASE SEEKS RADICAL HONESTY LAWYER EMAIL] From: Habeus Mentem [mailto:habeusmentem@mweb.co.za] Sent: Monday, December 10, 2012 9:20 AM To: Annemarie de Laura - Burger (adelaura@dieburger.com) Cc: Burger - Oos (oos@dieburger.com); Diens - Burger (diens@dieburger.com); Chantel Cox - Burger (chantel.cox@dieburger.com); De Waal Steyn - Burger (dsteyn1@dieburger.com); J Pienaar - Burger (jpienaar@dieburger.com); Nuus - Burger (nuus@dieburger.com); Willem Jordaan - Burger (wjordaan@dieburger.com); Mariska Spoormaker - Burger (mspoormaker@dieburger.com) Subject: Burger: Editor: SAPA PR # 1498: CONCOURT CASE SEEKS RADICAL HONESTY LAWYER Editor Die Burger RE: SAPA-PR # 1498: CONCOURT CASE SEEKS RADICAL HONESTY LAWYER I spoke to a SAPA reporter yesterday, regarding SAPA and SA media‟s decision not to report on the aforementioned press release to SAPA. She said SAPA does not publish SAPA news item stories on press releases which are „not news‟. She confirmed that the press release had been published on the SAPA wire, and hence that all SA media editors would be aware of it. She said, they probably did not publish it, because they also think it is „not news‟.

Does Die Burger believe that the fact that a South African citizen member of the Radical Honesty culture, has been unable to find a lawyer to represent her, as a member of the Radical Honesty culture, for the past ten years, and in a current case before the Constitutional Court, is “not news”?

Lara Johnstone [INCL. DEC 08: SAPA PR # 1498: CONCOURT CASE SEEKS RADICAL HONESTY LAWYER EMAIL] From: Habeus Mentem [mailto:habeusmentem@mweb.co.za] Sent: Monday, December 10, 2012 9:34 AM To: Chris Witfield - CArgus (chris.whitfield@inl.co.za) Cc: CArgus - Chris Witfield (lindiz.vanzilla@inl.co.za) Subject: Cape Argus: C Witfield: SAPA PR # 1498: CONCOURT CASE SEEKS RADICAL HONESTY LAWYER Chris Witfield Cape Argus RE: SAPA-PR # 1498: CONCOURT CASE SEEKS RADICAL HONESTY LAWYER I spoke to a SAPA reporter yesterday, regarding SAPA and SA media‟s decision not to report on the aforementioned press release to SAPA. She said SAPA does not publish SAPA news item stories on press releases which are „not news‟. She confirmed that the press release had been published on the SAPA wire, and hence that all SA media editors would be aware of it. She said, they probably did not publish it, because they also think it is „not news‟.

Does Cape Argus believe that the fact that a South African citizen member of the Radical Honesty culture, has been unable to find a lawyer to represent her, as a member of the Radical Honesty culture, for the past ten years, and in a current case before the Constitutional Court, is “not news”?

Lara Johnstone [INCL. DEC 08: SAPA PR # 1498: CONCOURT CASE SEEKS RADICAL HONESTY LAWYER EMAIL] From: Habeus Mentem [mailto:habeusmentem@mweb.co.za] Sent: Monday, December 10, 2012 9:34 AM To: Martin Williams - Citizen (martinw@citizen.co.za) Cc: News - Citizen (news@citizen.co.za); Yvonne Le Roux - Citizen (yvonnel@citizen.co.za); Puleng Mashabane - Citizen (pulengm@citizen.co.za) Subject: Citizen: M.Williams: SAPA PR # 1498: CONCOURT CASE SEEKS RADICAL HONESTY LAWYER Martin Williams The Citizen RE: SAPA-PR # 1498: CONCOURT CASE SEEKS RADICAL HONESTY LAWYER I spoke to a SAPA reporter yesterday, regarding SAPA and SA media‟s decision not to report on the aforementioned press release to SAPA. She said SAPA does not publish SAPA news item stories on press releases which are „not news‟. She confirmed that the press release had been published on the SAPA wire, and hence that all SA media editors would be aware of it. She said, they probably did not publish it, because they also think it is „not news‟.

Does The Citizen believe that the fact that a South African citizen member of the Radical Honesty culture, has been unable to find a lawyer to represent her, as a member of the Radical Honesty culture, for the past ten years, and in a current case before the Constitutional Court, is “not news”?

Lara Johnstone [INCL. DEC 08: SAPA PR # 1498: CONCOURT CASE SEEKS RADICAL HONESTY LAWYER EMAIL] From: Habeus Mentem [mailto:habeusmentem@mweb.co.za] Sent: Monday, December 10, 2012 9:34 AM To: Ferial Haffajee - City Press (ferial.haffajee@citypress.co.za) Cc: News - City Press (news@citypress.co.za); News - City Press (news@citypress.co.za); Liesl Pretorius - City Press (liesl.pretorius@citypress.co.za) Subject: City Press: F Haffajee: SAPA PR # 1498: CONCOURT CASE SEEKS RADICAL HONESTY LAWYER Ms. Ferial Haffajee City Press RE: SAPA-PR # 1498: CONCOURT CASE SEEKS RADICAL HONESTY LAWYER I spoke to a SAPA reporter yesterday, regarding SAPA and SA media‟s decision not to report on the aforementioned press release to SAPA. She said SAPA does not publish SAPA news item stories on press releases which are „not news‟. She confirmed that the press release had been published on the SAPA wire, and hence that all SA media editors would be aware of it. She said, they probably did not publish it, because they also think it is „not news‟.

Does City Press believe that the fact that a South African citizen member of the Radical Honesty culture, has been unable to find a lawyer to represent her, as a member of the Radical Honesty culture, for the past ten years, and in a current case before the Constitutional Court, is “not news”?

Lara Johnstone [INCL. DEC 08: SAPA PR # 1498: CONCOURT CASE SEEKS RADICAL HONESTY LAWYER EMAIL] From: Habeus Mentem [mailto:habeusmentem@mweb.co.za] Sent: Monday, December 10, 2012 9:34 AM To: Mathew_Burbridge (matthewb@mg.co.za); Keith Nichols - M&G Editor (keithn@mg.co.za); Editor - M&G (editor@mg.co.za) Cc: Stefaans Brummer - M&G (stefaansb@mg.co.za); Thoughtleader (thoughtleader@mg.co.za); Toby Shapshak - M&G (toby@mavenmedia.co.za); Verashni Pillay - M&G (verashnip@mg.co.za); News Desk - M&G (newsdesk@mg.co.za) Subject: M&G: Editors: SAPA PR # 1498: CONCOURT CASE SEEKS RADICAL HONESTY LAWYER Editors: Burbidge, Nichols & Daws Mail and Guardian RE: SAPA-PR # 1498: CONCOURT CASE SEEKS RADICAL HONESTY LAWYER I spoke to a SAPA reporter yesterday, regarding SAPA and SA media‟s decision not to report on the aforementioned press release to SAPA. She said SAPA does not publish SAPA news item stories on press releases which are „not news‟. She confirmed that the press release had been published on

the SAPA wire, and hence that all SA media editors would be aware of it. She said, they probably did not publish it, because they also think it is „not news‟.

Does Mail & Guardian believe that the fact that a South African citizen member of the Radical Honesty culture, has been unable to find a lawyer to represent her, as a member of the Radical Honesty culture, for the past ten years, and in a current case before the Constitutional Court, is “not news”?

Lara Johnstone [INCL. DEC 08: SAPA PR # 1498: CONCOURT CASE SEEKS RADICAL HONESTY LAWYER EMAIL] From: Habeus Mentem [mailto:habeusmentem@mweb.co.za] Sent: Monday, December 10, 2012 9:34 AM To: Patrick Conroy - ETV (Patrick.Conroy@etv.co.za) Cc: News Room - ETV (newsroom@etv.co.za); Gill Scholtz - ETV (Gill.Scholtz@etv.co.za); Newsroom - ETV (newsroom@etv.co.za); 3RD Degree - ETV (3rddegree@etv.co.za); Debora Patta - ETV (deborap@etv.co.za) Subject: ETV: P Conroy: SAPA PR # 1498: CONCOURT CASE SEEKS RADICAL HONESTY LAWYER Mr. Conroy ETV News: RE: SAPA-PR # 1498: CONCOURT CASE SEEKS RADICAL HONESTY LAWYER I spoke to a SAPA reporter yesterday, regarding SAPA and SA media‟s decision not to report on the aforementioned press release to SAPA. She said SAPA does not publish SAPA news item stories on press releases which are „not news‟. She confirmed that the press release had been published on the SAPA wire, and hence that all SA media editors would be aware of it. She said, they probably did not publish it, because they also think it is „not news‟.

Does ETV believe that the fact that a South African citizen member of the Radical Honesty culture, has been unable to find a lawyer to represent her, as a member of the Radical Honesty culture, for the past ten years, and in a current case before the Constitutional Court, is “not news”?

Lara Johnstone [INCL. DEC 08: SAPA PR # 1498: CONCOURT CASE SEEKS RADICAL HONESTY LAWYER EMAIL]

From: Habeus Mentem [mailto:habeusmentem@mweb.co.za] Sent: Monday, December 10, 2012 9:34 AM To: Alide Dasnois - CTimes (alide.dasnois@inl.co.za) Cc: CTimes - Alide Dasnois (ctnews@inl.co.za) Subject: Cape Times: Alide Dasnois: SAPA PR # 1498: CONCOURT CASE SEEKS RADICAL HONESTY LAWYER Alide Dasnois Cape Times RE: SAPA-PR # 1498: CONCOURT CASE SEEKS RADICAL HONESTY LAWYER I spoke to a SAPA reporter yesterday, regarding SAPA and SA media‟s decision not to report on the aforementioned press release to SAPA. She said SAPA does not publish SAPA news item stories on press releases which are „not news‟. She confirmed that the press release had been published on

the SAPA wire, and hence that all SA media editors would be aware of it. She said, they probably did not publish it, because they also think it is „not news‟.

Does the Cape Times believe that the fact that a South African citizen member of the Radical Honesty culture, has been unable to find a lawyer to represent her, as a member of the Radical Honesty culture, for the past ten years, and in a current case before the Constitutional Court, is “not news”?

Lara Johnstone [INCL. DEC 08: SAPA PR # 1498: CONCOURT CASE SEEKS RADICAL HONESTY LAWYER EMAIL] From: Habeus Mentem [mailto:habeusmentem@mweb.co.za] Sent: Monday, December 10, 2012 9:37 AM To: Rapport (rapport@rapport.co.za); Redakteur - Rapport (redakteur@rapport.co.za) Cc: Colin Hendricks - Rapport (colin.hendricks@rapport.co.za); Karen Burger - Rapport (kburger@rapport.co.za); Carryn-Ann Nel - Rapport (cnel@rapport.co.za) Subject: Rapport: Editor: SAPA PR # 1498: CONCOURT CASE SEEKS RADICAL HONESTY LAWYER Editor Rapport RE: SAPA-PR # 1498: CONCOURT CASE SEEKS RADICAL HONESTY LAWYER I spoke to a SAPA reporter yesterday, regarding SAPA and SA media‟s decision not to report on the aforementioned press release to SAPA. She said SAPA does not publish SAPA news item stories on press releases which are „not news‟. She confirmed that the press release had been published on the SAPA wire, and hence that all SA media editors would be aware of it. She said, they probably did not publish it, because they also think it is „not news‟.

Does Rapport believe that the fact that a South African citizen member of the Radical Honesty culture, has been unable to find a lawyer to represent her, as a member of the Radical Honesty culture, for the past ten years, and in a current case before the Constitutional Court, is “not news”?

Lara Johnstone [INCL. DEC 08: SAPA PR # 1498: CONCOURT CASE SEEKS RADICAL HONESTY LAWYER EMAIL]

From: Habeus Mentem [mailto:habeusmentem@mweb.co.za] Sent: Monday, December 10, 2012 9:39 AM To: Sunday Times (suntimes@sundaytimes.co.za) Cc: Heather Robertson - SunTimes (robertsonh@sundaytimes.co.za); R Rose - SunTimes (roser@sundaytimes.co.za); Buddy Naidu - SunTimes (NaiduB@sundaytimes.co.za); I Mzilikazi SunTimes (mzilikazi@sundaytimes.co.za) Subject: Sun Tiimes: Editor: SAPA PR # 1498: CONCOURT CASE SEEKS RADICAL HONESTY LAWYER Editor: Ray Hartley Sunday Times RE: SAPA-PR # 1498: CONCOURT CASE SEEKS RADICAL HONESTY LAWYER I spoke to a SAPA reporter yesterday, regarding SAPA and SA media‟s decision not to report on the aforementioned press release to SAPA. She said SAPA does not publish SAPA news item stories on press releases which are „not news‟. She confirmed that the press release had been published on

the SAPA wire, and hence that all SA media editors would be aware of it. She said, they probably did not publish it, because they also think it is „not news‟.

Does the Sunday Times believe that the fact that a South African citizen member of the Radical Honesty culture, has been unable to find a lawyer to represent her, as a member of the Radical Honesty culture, for the past ten years, and in a current case before the Constitutional Court, is “not news”?

Lara Johnstone [INCL. DEC 08: SAPA PR # 1498: CONCOURT CASE SEEKS RADICAL HONESTY LAWYER EMAIL]

Annexure “C”

Annexure “HH” 18 Feb 2013: CRL Rights Ruling: Concourt Registrar (See II:B)

Annexure â&#x20AC;&#x153;IIâ&#x20AC;?

18 Feb 2013: CRL Rights Appeal: Ref: 9/1/1/1/49: Lara Johnstone, Radical Honesty culture v.

SA Concourt Registrar: Appeal of CRL Rights Comm: Mrs. Makgoba 18 February ruling.

Includes Annexures: A: 11 Dec 2012: CRL Rights Comm Complaint: Lara Johnstone v. Constitutional Court Registrar B: 18 Feb 2013: CRL Rights Commission: Mrs. K Makgoba: Ref: 9/1/1/1/49: Lara Johnstone, Radical Honesty culture v Constitutional Court Registrar: Refusal by the Constitutional Court Registrar to process your application for Review C: 29 Nov 2011: Alien v. Afriforum: Concourt Registrar Letter D: 02 Feb 2011 Concourt Ruling: CCT 06-11: Radical Honesty v SANEF et al E: 03 May 2010: Concourt Ruling: CCT 23-10: Citizen v.

Robert McBride

SHARP PP4PP PO Box 5042 George East, 6539 Tel: (044) 870 7239 Cel: (071) 170 1954 18 February 2013 Rev Dr. Wesley Mabuza CRL Rights Commission Private Bag X 90 000 Houghton, 2041 Tel: (011) 537 7600 Fax: (011) 880 3495

CC: Mrs. K Makgoba CRL Rights Commission Private Bag X 90 000 Houghton, 2041 Tel: (011) 537 7600 Fax: (011) 880 3495

CC: Concourt „Kill Boere‟ Review App.: Alien v. Afriforum Respondent Parties CC: Transparency: Concourt Registrar CC: Independent Observation & Monitoring Parties Rev Mabuza, Ref: 9/1/1/1/49: Lara Johnstone, Radical Honesty culture v. SA Concourt Registrar: Appeal of CRL Rights Comm: Mrs. Makgoba 18 February ruling.

Appeal of Mrs. K. Makgoba’s Ruling endorsing the Constitutional Court Registrar’s position that: South African AnthroCorpocentric Dominant Cultures ‘Rules of Court’ are the Supreme Law of the Land; If or when the AnthroCorpocentric Dominant Cultures ‘Rules of Court’ violate a Minority cultures right to practice their Ecocentric cultural practices, as enshrined in the Constitution Bill of Rights clauses granting citizens from minority cultures, access to courts (S 34), and rights to practice their culture (S. 15(3), 30, 31, and 18).  Overview: Facts Not in Dispute?  Chronology of Events  CRL Rights Comm Ruling

 Fake v Authentic Multiculturalism  Invocation of Cultural Law  Relief Requested

OVERVIEW: FACTS NOT IN DISPUTE?: [1] I am a member of the Radical Honoursty culture, which is (a) a minority culture, (b) an Ecocentric culture, (c) practices Brutal Honesty Authentic Multiculturalism endorsing authentic diversity of cultures, and (d) does not endorse

the homogenizing AnthroCorpocentric Egotist Consumptionism Multinational GlobalCorp induced Globalization of cultures.

effects

of

[2] The „Rules of Court‟ are the „Rules of Court‟ of the dominant culture, which is (a) the Dominant culture, (b) an AnthroCorpocentric culture, and (c) which practices Fake Multiculturism endorsing the homogenizing of all cultures into PC Reverse Racism cultures; and (d) endorses the homogenizing AnthroCorpocentric Egotist Consumptionism effects of Multinational GlobalCorp induced Globalization of all cultures.

[3] The AnthroCorpoCentric „Rules of Court‟ from the Dominant culture, violates various Ecocentric cultural practices of my Minority Radical Honoursty culture.

[4] The Registrar refuses to process my Application for Review; or my Appeal of her Refusal, unless I violate my Radical Honesty Ecocentric cultural legal practices, in blind obedience to her AnthroCorpoCentric „Rules of Court‟ Dominant cultural practices.

[5] The Registrar‟s justification is that South African AnthroCorpocentric Dominant Cultures „Rules of Court‟ are the Supreme Law of the Land; If or when the AnthroCorpocentric Dominant Cultures „Rules of Court‟ violate a Minority cultures right to practice their Ecocentric cultural practices, as enshrined in the Constitution Bill of Rights clauses granting citizens from minority cultures, access to courts (S 34), and rights to practice their culture (S. 15(3), 30, 31, and 18).

[6] The CRL Rights Commission (Commission for the Promotion and Protection of the Rights of Cultural, Religious and Linguistic Communities) was enacted in S 185-186 of the South African Constitution, granting it the authority to protect the rights of cultural, religious and linguistic communities.

[7] In the matter of Lara Johnstone, Radical Honesty culture vs. Constitutional Court Registrar, AnthroCorpocentric Dominant culture; the CRL Rights Commission endorses the Registrar‟s decision to refuse to process the Radical Honesty culture application for Review, and Appeal thereof based on the justification that South African AnthroCorpocentric Dominant Cultures „Rules of Court‟ are the Supreme Law of the Land; If or when the AnthroCorpocentric Dominant Cultures „Rules of Court‟ violate a Minority cultures right to practice their Ecocentric cultural practices, as enshrined in the Constitution Bill of Rights clauses granting citizens from minority cultures, access to courts (S 34), and rights to practice their culture (S. 15(3), 30, 31, and 18).

CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS:

2

[8] On 27 November 2012, I filed a Pro Se application1 with the Constitutional Court Registrar, for Radical Honesty culture Review of the „Kill Boer‟ Hate Speech Negotiated Agreement between Afriforum/TAU-SA and Julius Malema/ANC, wherein I specifically requested an order from the court, for the “Permission to invoke2 cultural law3 in S. 15(3), 30, 31, and 18; to enable the Applicant to honour the duty and responsibility to uphold the principles upon which her Radical Honesty culture is based; and Psychological Integrity in Section 12 4; the former which may require the application of choice of law rules.”

[9] 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‟ (PDF5), which include filing 25 printed hard copies via land mail, and finding legal representation.

[10] 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” (PDF6), to the Concourt Justices, via the Registrar, requesting a Constitutional Court declaratory order confirming that: (A) I am unable to find a lawyer to represent me as member of the Radical Honesty culture.

[11] Put simply my appeal can be stated as An Appeal of AnthroCorpocentric Dominant Cultures Rules of Court, which violate the cultural practices of an Ecocentric Minority culture.

[12] Therein I request leniency from the Justices for these „Rules of Court‟, in that I am a Pro Se Radical Honesty PP4PP culture applicant, and 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. As proof, I 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 (PDF7) | Jhb Bar Ass: Pro Bono Chair: http://sqswans.weebly.com/cct-alien-v-afriforum.html 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.

3 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.‟ 4 12. Freedom and security of the person: (2) Everyone has the right to bodily and psychological integrity..

5 http://sqswans.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/8/7/13878165/12-11-29_concourtregistrar_letter_to_lara_johnstone.pdf 6 sqswans.weebly.com/06-dec-app-reg.html 7 sqswans.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/8/7/13878165/12-11-29_legal_aid-vidhu_vedalankar.pdf 1 2

3

(PDF8) | Cape Law Society (PDF9) | Cape Bar Council (PDF10) | Free State Law Society (PDF11) | Free State Soc of Advocates (PDF12) | General Counsel of Bar of SA (PDF13) | KwaZulu Natal Law Society (PDF14) | Law Society of South Africa (PDF15) | Pretoria Society of Advocates (PDF16) | Soc of Adv KwaZulu Natal - Dbn (PDF17) | Soc of Adv KwaZulu Natal - Pmb (PDF18) | Northern Province Law Society: M van Niekerk (PDF19).

[13] I also submitted a Press Release to the SAPA Press Wire, wherein I attempt to find a Radical Honesty lawyer (The media refused to print it, saying it is „not news‟, that I am unable to find a lawyer to represent a member of the Radical Honesty culture).

[14] On 10 December, I enquired from Concourt Registrar: Ms Stander, when the Justices would be responding to my appeal.

[15] 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.”

[16] 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."?

[17] 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?”

[18] There has been no response from the Constitutional Court Registrar, or the Justices to my Radical Honesty culture appeal of the Registrar‟s decisions. sqswans.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/8/7/13878165/12-12-06_concourt_justices_encl_g_jhb_bar_assoc__pf_louw.pdf 9 sqswans.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/8/7/13878165/12-11-30_cape_law_society.pdf 10 sqswans.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/8/7/13878165/_12-11-30_cape_bar_council.pdf 11 sqswans.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/8/7/13878165/12-11-30_free_state_law_society.pdf 12 sqswans.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/8/7/13878165/12-11-30_free_state_soc_of_advocates.pdf 13 sqswans.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/8/7/13878165/12-11-30_general_counsel_of_bar_of_sa_-_exec_sec.pdf 14 sqswans.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/8/7/13878165/12-12-06_concourt_justices_encl_h_kzn_law_society.pdf 15 sqswans.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/8/7/13878165/12-11-30_law_society_of_south_africa.pdf 16 sqswans.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/8/7/13878165/12-11-30_pretoria_society_of_advocates.pdf 17 sqswans.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/8/7/13878165/12-12-06_concourt_justices_encl_c_adv-soc-kzn-dbn.pdf 18 sqswans.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/8/7/13878165/12-12-06_concourt_justices_encl_b_adv-soc-kzn-pmb.pdf 19 sqswans.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/8/7/13878165/12-1206_concourt_justices_encl_i_law_soc_of_n_prov_m_van_niekerk.pdf 8

4

[19] 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 (PDF20: Annex A) and a dozen media Editors (PDF21) in that they discriminate against the – Tourette Syndrome like – Radical Honesty culture22.

[20] On 12 December 2012, I wrote a letter to Mark Ellis, the Executive Director of the International Bar Association; requesting the IBA to 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.

[21] On 04 February, I sent a reminder to the CRL Rights Commission authorities requesting a status report as to my aforementioned complaints, in terms of CRL Rights Commission's procedures for 'ensuring that the rights of a community are protected', as detailed under: 4.1. Screening of Complaint, and 4.2 Complaints handling.

[22] I also telephoned the CRL Rights Commission, and was informed by the receptionist to speak to a lady named Baqlolile (spelling?). I called at least 5 times, and every time the receptionist put me through to Baqlolile, I would ask to confirm whether I was speaking to the right person, and she would refuse to confirm her name, and put down the phone.

[23] On 06 February 2013, I received an acknowledgement of receipt for my SAPA and SA Media Editors, discrimination complaint, from Mrs. Makgoba.

[24] There has been no response from the CRL Rights Commission to my Discrimination and Denial of Access to Courts for member of Radical Honesty culture, by Constitutional Court Registrar (PDF23).

[25] On 07 February 2013, Ms Makgoba ruled that “the commission has taken strive to analyse your complaint with regard to the above subject matter. Based on the fact that you have been unable to state cultural or religious or linguistic right that has been violated, except for quoting the constitutional provisions, the commission has concluded therefore that your matter falls outside the commission's http://sqswans.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/8/7/13878165/12-1211_crlrightscomm_complaint_concourt_registrar.pdf 21 http://sqswans.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/8/7/13878165/12-12-11_crlrightscomm_complaint_sapa__sa_media_encla.pdf 22 SA Media, Concourt & Lawyers Discriminate Against – Tourette Syndrome like -- Radical Honesty Culture http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-894174 23 sqswans.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/8/7/13878165/12-1211_crlrightscomm_complaint_concourt_registrar.pdf 20

5

mandate. Accordingly the commision has dismissed your matter and proceed to close the file.”

[26] On 07 February 2013, I filed an appeal of CRL Rights Commission, Mrs. Makgoba‟s ruling, to Rev. Dr. Wesley Mabuza, the CRL Rights Commission Chair: Ref: 9/1/1/1/46: Lara Johnstone, Radical Honesty culture v. SAPA & SA Media: Appeal of CRL Rights Comm: Mrs. Makgoba 07 February ruling (PDF24): “Request Confirmation CRL Rights Commission Chairperson: Mr. Mabuza endorses Mrs. K. Makgoba‟s Ruling authorizing (a) the CRL Rights Commission‟s and SA Legal establishment‟s endorsement of the denial of cultural legal representation, and access to courts, to members of the Radical Honesty culture, and (b) the South African Media‟s discrimination against Members of the Radical Honesty culture, by refusing to report the fact that a South African citizen member of the Radical Honesty culture, has been unable to find a lawyer to represent her, as a member of the Radical Honesty culture, for the past ten years, and in a current case before the Constitutional Court. [There has, as yet, been no response to the Appeal from the CRL Rights Commissioner] [27] On 07 February 2013, I also filed requests to Amnesty International (PDF25) and Human Rights Watch (PDF26), to “Take Notice & Provide Independent Observation of my Radical Honesty culture appeal of South African Commission for the Promotion and Protection of the Rights of Cultural, Religious and Linguistic Communities (CRL Rights Comm) Ruling to Endorse Denying me Access to Legal Representation & Courts, as a member of the Radical Honesty culture, for the past ten years, and in current Concourt case: Alien v. Afriforum et al (CRL Ref: 9/1/1/1/46: RH v SAPA & SA Editors)”.

[28] On 11 February 2013, I filed a Radical Honoursty Culture Application for Review with the Supreme Court of Appeal, of Judge Willis Judgement in H v W (12/10142) [2013] ZAGPJHC 1 (30 January 2013), as (A) unconstitutionally vague and ambiguous, and (B) in violation of South African Consumer Protection Act, 68 of 2008, which provides for the “Right to information in plain and understandable language”.

[29]

The Application argues among others that: ―When a South African Judge is faced with a party before him, invoking cultural law; and the reality that s/he is incapable of ordering the Commission for the Promotion and Protection of the Rights of Cultural, Religious and Linguistic Communities (―CRL

sqswans.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/8/7/13878165/13-02-07_crl-rights-comm_ref_9-1-1-1-46_rh-v-sapasamedia_enclabc.pdf 25 sqswans.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/8/7/13878165/13-02-07_amnesty-international_ind-monitorobserv_crlr-comp_encl.pdf 26 sqswans.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/8/7/13878165/13-02-07_human-rights-watch_ind-monitorobserv_crlrc_enc.pdf 24

6

Rights Comm‖) to provide the Registrar with a list of South African Attorneys and Advocates, who are culturally qualified to legally represent a member of the Radical Honesty culture, ITO S 185: Function of the Commission27; for the Registrar to issue an In Forma Pauperis Proceedings Referral to such ‗Radical Honesty culture‘ qualified attorney, on behalf of the Applicant, in terms of the provisions of Sub-Rule 1(a) of Rule 40 of the High Court; because: ―None of the Law Societies or Bar Associations are capable of informing the party, of any attorney or advocate who is capable of, and willing to, accurately culturally represent that individual, in accordance to her cultural practices; and/or ―The South African Media‘s actively discriminates against the parties culture, by refusing to report the fact that a South African citizen member of the particular – in this matter Radical Honesty -- culture, has been unable to find a lawyer to represent her, as a member of the Radical Honesty culture, for the past ten years, including in a current case before the Constitutional Court; and/or ―The Commission for the Promotion and Protection of the Rights of Cultural, Religious and Linguistic Communities (―CRL Rights Comm‖) endorses the SA Legal establishment‘s denial of cultural legal representation, and access to courts, to the party, and (b) the South African Media‘s discrimination against Members of the Radical Honesty culture. ―s/he can choose to be a credible Justice and Truth Seeker, to restore South African Jurists and Jurisprudence credibility in the eyes of that culture, and other cultures observing this injustice by demonstrating their commitment to Police their own profession; or s/he can choose to follow the herd in their path of Greed, Manipulation, Corruption, lacking the integrity and backbone to police the South African legal profession.‖

CRL RIGHTS COMMISSION RULING: Functions of the Commission: (1) The primary objects of the Commission for the Promotion and Protection of the Rights of Cultural, Religious and Linguistic Communities are - (a) to promote respect for the rights of cultural, religious and linguistic communities; (b) to promote and develop peace, friendship, humanity, tolerance and national unity among cultural, religious and linguistic communities, on the basis of equality, non-discrimination and free association; and (c) to recommend the establishment or recognition, in accordance with national legislation, of a cultural or other council or councils for a community or communities in South Africa. (2) The Commission has the power, as regulated by national legislation, necessary to achieve its primary objects, including the power to monitor, investigate, research, educate, lobby, advise and report on issues concerning the rights of cultural, religious and linguistic communities.

27

7

[30]

On 18 February 2013, Mrs. Makgoba issued her ruling (Annex B), The Commission would like to advise you that your complaint does not fall under the mandate of the Commission.

Be advised further that, following our investigation on the above matter, the Commission found that the Constitutional Court registrar's refusal to process your application for review was based on your non-adherence to the rules of the constitutional court. The refusal has no affliction on any cultural, religious or linguistic rights of communities which fall under the mandate of the commission.

FAKE MULTICULTURALISM VS AUTHENTIC MULTICULTURALISM: [31] Communist Philosopher and Economist Slavoy Zizek argues in Multiculturalism: The Cultural Logic of Multinational Capitalism28, that fake Multiculturalism, is the ideal Egotist Consumptionism cultural logic of Multinational Capitalism, intent on colonizing all cultures into slaves to Egotist Consumptionism. Multinational Corporations wish to colonized all nations and their cultures, turning all culture‟s primary cultural value into that of an egotist consumer, for the profits of multinational corporations.

Multiculturalism: How, then, does the universe of Capital relate to the form of NationState in our era of global capitalism? Perhaps, this relationship is best designated as ‗auto-colonization‘: with the direct multinational functioning of Capital, we are no longer dealing with the standard opposition between metropolis and colonized countries; a global company as it were cuts its umbilical cord with its mother-nation and treats its country of origins as simply another territory to be colonized. This is what disturbs so much the patriotically oriented right-wing populists, from Le Pen to Buchanan: the fact that the new multinationals have towards the French or American local population exactly the same attitude as towards the population of Mexico, Brazil or Taiwan. Is there not a kind of poetic justice in this self-referential turn? Today‘s global capitalism is thus again a kind of ‗negation of negation‘, after national capitalism and its internationalist/colonialist phase. At the beginning (ideally, of course), there is capitalism within the confines of a Nation-State, with the accompanying international trade (exchange between sovereign Nation-States); what follows is the relationship of colonization in which the colonizing country subordinates and exploits (economically, politically, culturally) the colonized country; the final moment of Slavoj Žižek: Multiculturalism or the cultural logic of multinational capitalism, in: Razpol 10 - glasilo Freudovskega polja, Ljubljana 1997 http://www.soc.aau.dk/fileadmin/user_upload/kbm/VoF/ Kurser/2011/Multiculturalism/slavoj_zizek-multiculturalism-or-the-cultural-logic-of-multinationalcapitalism.pdf 28

8

this process is the paradox of colonization in which there are only colonies, no colonizing countries—the colonizing power is no longer a Nation-State but directly the global company. In the long term, we shall all not only wear Banana Republic shirts but also live in banana republics.

And, of course, the ideal form of ideology of this global capitalism is multiculturalism, the attitude which, from a kind of empty global position, treats each local culture the way the colonizer treats colonized people—as ‗natives‘ whose mores are to be carefully studied and ‗respected‘. That is to say, the relationship between traditional imperialist colonialism and global capitalist self-colonization is exactly the same as the relationship between Western cultural imperialism and multiculturalism: in the same way that global capitalism involves the paradox of colonization without the colonizing Nation-State metropole, multiculturalism involves patronizing Eurocentrist distance and/or respect for local cultures without roots in one‘s own particular culture. In other words, multiculturalism is a disavowed, inverted, self-referential form of racism, a ‗racism with a distance‘—it ‗respects‘ the Other‘s identity, conceiving the Other as a self-enclosed ‗authentic‘ community towards which he, the multiculturalist, maintains a distance rendered possible by his privileged universal position.

Multiculturalism is a racism which empties its own position of all positive content (the multiculturalist is not a direct racist, he doesn‘t oppose to the Other the particular values of his own culture), but nonetheless retains this position as the privileged empty point of universality from which one is able to appreciate (and depreciate) properly other particular cultures—the multiculturalist respect for the Other‘s specificity is the very form of asserting one‘s own superiority.

[32] The motive for the foundation of the International Network for Cultural Diversity (INCD) confirms Zizeks arguments related to fake Multiculturalism, being the ideal Egotist Consumptionism cultural logic of Multinational Capitalism, intent on colonizing all cultures into slaves to Egotist Consumptionism [33] The International Network for Cultural Diversity (INCD29) is a worldwide network of artists and cultural groups dedicated to countering the homogenizing effects of globalization on culture. The Proposed Convention on Cultural Diversity Prepared for the International Network for Cultural Diversity 2003, states, among others: There is the need to ensure that cultural diversity is preserved in the face of the unprecedented challenges posed by rapid technological change, the convergence of telecommunications and media corporations, 29

http://www.incd.net/incden.html

9

erosions of distinctions between content and carriage and the increasing global concentration of ownership over the production and distribution of cultural content. At the same time, efforts to dramatically expand the framework of international trade regimes to encompass services, investment, competition policy and government procurement, impose constraints on the capacity of governments to implement cultural policies in response to these pressures.

It is understandable then that all three proposals state the same fundamental purpose: to preserve the sovereign right of all nations to take such actions as they consider appropriate to preserve, promote and enhance cultural diversity.

All three drafts also state explicitly that cultural goods and services must not be treated as mere economic commodities as has been the case when trade dispute bodies have been called upon to adjudicate conflicts between trade liberalization policies and those necessary to achieve non-commercial cultural objectives.

There is also strong agreement about the need for the new international instrument2 on cultural diversity to be legally binding.

A purely declaratory instrument will not be an adequate buffer against the coercive forces that now threaten cultural diversity. For this reason, meaningful enforcement procedures are seen as an essential component of the new Convention.

[34] If Multinational Corporations PC Multiculturalism, focused on converting all cultures to the ideology of Egotist Consumptionism, to enable their colonization of all cultures into „PC Multicultural Egotist Consumptionists‟ is fake Multiculturalism, what is sincere and honest Multiculturalism, that is not motivated by Multinational Corporations desire to conquer and colonize all cultures into „consumptionist consumers‟?

[35] In 'The one measure of true love is: you can insult the other'; Slavoj Zizek writes that fake two faced tolerance, is the worst form of intolerance and cultural bigotry or racism, which treats other cultures as children, and unworthy of honesty and sincerity; whereas brutal honesty is the highest form of sincere multicultural tolerance: Another thing that bothers me about this multiculturalism is when people ask me: 'How can you be sure that you are not a racist?' My answer is that there is only one way. If I can exchange insults, brutal jokes, dirty jokes, with a member of a different race and we both know it's not meant in a racist way. If, on the other hand, we play this politically correct game - 'Oh, I respect you, how interesting your customs are' - this is inverted racism, and it is disgusting.

In the Yugoslav army where we were all of mixed nationalities, how did I become friends with Albanians? When we started to exchange

10

obscenities, sexual innuendo, jokes. This is why this politically correct respect is just, as Freud put it, 'zielgehemmt'. You still have the aggression towards the other.

You cannot do the game of erotic seduction in politically correct terms For me there is one measure of true love: you can insult the other.

Like in that horrible German comedy film from 1943 where Marika Röck treats her fiancé very brutally. This fiancé is a rich, important person, so her father asks her why are you treating him like that. And she gives the right answer. She says: 'But I love him, and since I love him, I can do with him whatever I want.' That's the truth of it.

If there is true love, you can say horrible things and anything goes.

When multiculturalists tell you to respect the others, I always have this uncanny association that this is dangerously close to how we treat our children: the idea that we should respect them, even when we know that what they believe is not true. We should not destroy their illusions. No, I think that others deserve better - not to be treated like children.

[36] I am not a child, and it is not necessary for Mrs. Makgoba to treat me like a child. I am capable of hearing her brutal honest criticism, if she has the integrity and courage to practice sincere brutal honest multiculturalism, which treats other cultures as worthy of brutal honesty.

INVOCATION OF CULTURAL LAW: [37] It is my understanding that an individuals invocation of Cultural Law automatically invokes a Conflict between Common/Dominant & Cultural/Minority Law; requiring the court to enquire into the appropriate balancing of ‘dominant’ law vs ‘minority law’, through an investigation of the relevant cultural law and cultural lifestyle of the minority culture applicant: [38]

Fribourg Declaration on Cultural Rights30:

[38.1] The launch of the Fribourg Declaration on Cultural Rights was held May 7, 2007 at the University of Fribourg and May 8, 2007 at the Palais des Nations in Geneva. The text was presented by the Observatory of Diversity and Cultural Rights (which headquarters are at the Interdisciplinary Institute of Ethnics and Human Rights at the Fribourg University) together with the Organisation Internationale de la Francophonie and UNESCO.

30

http://www.humanrights.ch/en/Standards/International/UN-Bodies/idart_5252-content.html

11

[38.2] The cultural rights as expressed in the Fribourg Declaration of Cultural Rights, brings together, in one document, the cultural rights, currently recognized in a dispersed manner in a large number of human rights instruments; such as: Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the two International Covenants on human rights of the United Nations, the UNESCO Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity and other relevant universal and regional instruments; because it is important to assemble these cultural rights together in order to ensure their visibility and coherence and to encourage their full realization.

[38.3] The Fribourg Declaration is convinced that violations of cultural rights give rise to identity related tensions and conflicts which are one of the principal cause of violence, wars and terrorism; and Equally convinced that cultural diversity cannot be truly protected without the effective implementation of cultural rights.

Among others it states: The term ―culture‖ covers those values, beliefs, convictions, languages, knowledge and the arts, traditions, institutions and ways of life through which a person or a group expresses their humanity and the meanings that they give to their existence and to their development; The expression ―cultural identity‖ is understood as the sum of all cultural references through which a person, alone or in community with others, defines or constitutes oneself, communicates and wishes to be recognised in one‘s dignity; ―Cultural community‖ connotes a group of persons who share references that constitute a common cultural identity that they intend to preserve and develop.

Everyone, alone or in community with others, has the right: a. To choose and to have one‘s cultural identity respected, in the variety of its different means of expression. This right is exercised in the inter-connection with, in particular, the freedoms of thought, conscience, religion, opinion and expression; Everyone is free to choose to identify or not to identify with one or several cultural communities, regardless of frontiers, and to modify such a choice; No one shall have a cultural identity imposed or be assimilated into a cultural community against one‘s will.

Everyone, alone or in community with others, has the right to access and participate freely in cultural life through the activities of one‘s choice, regardless of frontiers.

12

Everyone, alone or in community with others, has the right to participate, according to democratic procedures: • in the cultural development of the communities of which one is a member; • in the elaboration, implementation and evaluation of decisions that concern oneself and which have an impact on the exercise of one‘s cultural rights; • in the development of cultural cooperation at different levels.

[39] Cultural Defence and Culturally Motivated Crimes (Cultural Offences),

by Jeroen van Broeck31: [39.1] He defines a cultural offence as: “an act by a member of a minority group or culture, which is considered an offence by the legal system of the dominant culture. That same act is nevertheless, within the cultural group of the offender, condoned, accepted as normal behaviour and approved or even endorsed and promoted in the given situation.”

[39.2] He defines a cultural defense as: “„[A] cultural defense maintains that persons socialized in a minority or foreign culture, who regularly conduct themselves in accordance with their own culture‟s norms, should not be held fully accountable for conduct that violates official law, if that conduct conforms to the prescriptions of their own culture‟.32 Besides this broad definition, which is always implicitly present when dealing with the problem, a second definition of the cultural defence is used. The cultural defence is then referred to as a specific doctrine that recognises the cultural background of the defendant as an excuse or mitigating circumstance in a penal case. The first can be called a substantial definition of the cultural defence, while the second is a formal definition.”33 The invocation of cultural law, is therefore the invocation of cultural law by a member of a minority culture, which is not considered ‗law‘ by the legal system of the dominant culture. Within Cultural Defence and Culturally Motivated Crimes (Cultural Offences), Jeroen van Broeck, University of Antwerp, Belgium; European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, Vol. 9/1, 1-32, 2001 http://jthomasniu.org/class/781/Assigs/vanbroeck-cultdef.pdf 32 P.J. Magnarella, loc. cit., p. 67. Comp. C. Choi, loc. cit., p. 81 („A cultural defense, by definition, negates or mitigates criminal responsibility for acts committed under a reasonable, goodfaith belief in their propriety, based on the actor‟s cultural heritage or tradition‟), J.C. Lyman, loc. cit., p. 88 („A cultural defense will negate or mitigate criminal responsibility where acts are committed under a reasonable, good-faith belief in their property, based upon the actor‟s cultural heritage or tradition‟); M. Thompson, loc. cit., p. 26 („When a recent immigrant from a foreign country with a completely different set of values commits an illegal act that would have been perfectly acceptable in the homeland, defense lawyers argue the act was not necessarily a crime.‟); L. Volpp, loc. cit., p. 57 („The “cultural defense” is a legal strategy that defendants use in attempts to excuse criminal behaviour or to mitigate culpability based on a lack of requisite mens rea. […] The theory underlying the cultural defense is that the defendant […] acted according to the dictates of his or her culture‟) and M. Winkelman, loc. cit., p. 154 („Cultural factors motivating the defendants behaviour‟).

33 A similar distinction is used by S.M. Tomao. She uses the terms formal or informal defense. S.M. Tomao, „The Cultural Defense: Traditional or Formal?‟, 10 Georgetown Immigration Law Journal (1996) pp. 241–256.

31

13

the minority culture‘s lifestyle, the minority law actions are condoned, accepted as normal behaviour and approved or even endorsed and promoted in the given situation.

This distinction has nothing to do with a quantitative approach. Nor has it anything to do with the question ‗who was there first?‘. This distinction is closely related to what can be called the cultural and ideological background or basis of the ‗legal system‘.

A dominant culture is considered the culture which provides the ideological basis of the penal law or the penal rule on which the defendant is tried. The minority culture denotes the cultural background of the defendant‘s group that does not share the same cultural norms and values as the dominant culture with respect to certain issues. The cultural values that are incorporated in the ‗legal system‘, and more specifically in its penal law, determine which culture can be seen as dominant. .. These examples also show that, in order to reflect on the legal and moral norms of a member of a minority group, one does not have to look at the official law of the country of origin of this group. A study of the legal and moral rules of his of her group is needed. .. Thus, in order to decide whether or not someone is a member of a minority culture, one has to look at his or her cultural values and whether or not these clash with the norms of the legal system on the basis of which that person is tried.

In regards to a cultural offence, he writes: ―The offence, in order to be a cultural offence, has to be caused directly by the fact that the minority group, of which the offender is a member, uses a different set of moral norms when dealing with the situation in which the offender was placed when he committed the offence. The conflict of diverging legal cultures has to be the direct cause of the offence.‖ On a theoretical level, we will now illustrate the essence of a cultural offence. This essential aspect lies in the fact that a cultural offence is caused by the adherence to a differing legal or moral norm. A cultural offence can not be regarded as caused by one culture, but can only occur when there are different legal and moral concepts at hand and there is a clash with another legal culture34. The act of the offender has to be motivated by his cultural background.

The word ‗motivation‘ does not imply that it was actively caused, nor that this motivation is conscious. It means that there has to be a direct link with a moral norm. or value of the minority group. In

Terminology, cf. S. Sherman, „Legal Clash of Cultures‟, The National Law Journal 1985 (August 5) pp. 1, 26–27.

34

14

other words: the actions and behaviour of the offender have to be in accordance with his or her background.35

[40] In Ex parte Minister of Native Affairs: In re Yako v Beyi 1948 (1) SA 388 (A) at 397; the Appellate Division held that when any individual before any court, invokes cultural law, neither common nor customary law is prima facie applicable.

Courts have 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.

[41] 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.”

[42] In 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. [..] 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.‟ [43] According to The Cultural Defense in Criminal Law: South African Perspectives, by Prof. Pieter A Carstens36: [43.1] Pivotal to the invocation of cultural law in South African courts is the constitution as the supreme law of the land. Section 15 of the constitution entrenches the right of everyone to freedom of religion, belief and opinion. Section 9 (the equality clause) outlaws any discrimination inter alia on account of religion, conscience, belief and culture. Section 36 (the limitation clause) states that no right is absolute and may be limited if it is inter alia reasonable and justifiable in an open and democratic society based on human dignity, equality and freedom.

Again, this can mean two things: or the actions were meant in order to conform to this background, or they were performed according to these norms. This distinction is subtle and not very important because in both cases one can claim that there is a cultural offence at hand. In the first case, the actions are instrumental and aimed at a goal, which is dictated by one‟s cultural background. The second case implies that the actions themselves are shaped by the cultural background. The two may overlap.

36 The Cultural Defense in Criminal Law: South African Perspectives, by Prof. Pieter A Carstens, Professor of Criminal and Medical Law, Department of Public Law, Faculty of Law, Extraordinary Professor in the Department of Forensic Medicine, University of Pretoria Pretoria, 0002, South Africa, Associate Member of the Pretoria Bar. http://www.isrcl.org/Papers/Carstens.pdf 35

15

Constitutional interpretation by the country‟s Constitutional court also dictates that there is a duty on the courts in general to develop the South African common law with reference to the constitutional values37.

[43.2] It would therefore appear as though the constitution could be seen as a motivating force for the formal recognition of the invocation of cultural law albeit in context/and balance of the limitation clause.

[43.3] It is submitted that the South African legal system (through the constitution) in recognition of cultural pluralism, advances a strong argument for the formalisation of the invocation of cultural law for individuals from all South Africa‟s cultures. In accepting / recognizing / formalising the invocation of cultural law in South African law, universalism is ousted in favour of cultural specificity, cultural pluralism, equality and individualized justice. It is notably with regard to the element of intention, elements of unlawfulness, capacity, element of fault, etc, that cultural laws will in all probability find application.

[43.4] The invocation of cultural law no doubt offers new challenges to South African courts, to balance justice and cultural pluralism. Ultimately the effective application of the defence will be in the hands of the judiciary objectively and free from their own cultural preconceptions and prejudices.

LEGAL AND FACTUAL ERRORS IN CRL RIGHTS MAKGOBA RULING: [44] Mrs. K. Makgoba’s Ruling endorses the Constitutional Court Registrar’s position that: South African AnthroCorpocentric Dominant Cultures ‘Rules of Court’ are the Supreme Law of the Land; If or when the AnthroCorpocentric Dominant Cultures ‘Rules of Court’ violate a Minority cultures right to practice their Ecocentric cultural practices, as enshrined in the Constitution Bill of Rights clauses granting citizens from minority cultures, access to courts (S 34), and rights to practice their culture (S. 15(3), 30, 31, and 18).

[45] CRL Rights Commission does not dispute that I am a member of the Radical Honoursty culture, which is (a) a minority culture, (b) an Ecocentric culture, (c) practices Brutal Honesty Authentic Multiculturalism endorsing authentic diversity of cultures, and (d) does not endorse the homogenizing AnthroCorpocentric Egotist Consumptionism effects of Multinational GlobalCorp induced Globalization on cultures.

[46] CRL Rights Commission is aware, or should be aware that: The „Rules of Court‟ are the „Rules of Court‟ of the dominant culture, which is (a) the Dominant 37

See Carmichele v Minister of Safety and Security 2002 (1) SACR 79 (CC).

16

culture, (b) an AnthroCorpocentric culture, and (c) which practices Fake Multiculturism endorsing the homogenizing of all cultures into PC Reverse Racism cultures; and (d) endorses the homogenizing AnthroCorpocentric Egotist Consumptionism effects of Multinational GlobalCorp induced Globalization on cultures.

[47] Based upon my Application for Review, and Appeal thereof, and complaints to the CRL Rights Commision, it is clear that [47.1] the AnthroCorpoCentric „Rules of Court‟ from the Dominant culture, violates various Ecocentric cultural practices of my Minority Radical Honoursty culture.

[47.2] The Registrar refuses to process my Application for Review; or my Appeal of her Refusal, unless I violate my Radical Honesty Ecocentric cultural legal practices, in blind obedience to her AnthroCorpoCentric „Rules of Court‟ Dominant cultural practices.

[47.3] The Registrar refuses to admit that when an individual from a minority culture invokes cultural law before any court, neither common law (AnthroCorpocentric Dominant cultures „Rules of Court‟) nor customary law (minority cultures laws) are prima facie applicable. The court has to consider all the circumstances of the 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. The enquiry is required to determine, in an objective manner, the cultural orientation of the parties.38 The most direct access to a person‟s cultural leanings are their lifestyle.39 [47.4] The Registrar‟s justification is that South African AnthroCorpocentric Dominant Cultures „Rules of Court‟ are the Supreme Law of the Land; If or when the AnthroCorpocentric Dominant Cultures „Rules of Court‟ violate a Minority cultures right to practice their Ecocentric cultural practices, as enshrined in the Constitution Bill of Rights clauses granting citizens from minority cultures, access to courts (S 34), and rights to practice their culture (S. 15(3), 30, 31, and 18).

38

In Ex parte Minister of Native Affairs: In re Yako v Beyi 1948 (1) SA 388 (A) at 397; the Appellate Division held that when any individual before any court, invokes cultural law, neither common nor customary law is prima facie applicable. Courts have 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.

39 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.”

17

[48] It is not disputed that the CRL Rights Commission (Commission for the Promotion and Protection of the Rights of Cultural, Religious and Linguistic Communities) was enacted in S 185-186 of the South African Constitution, granting it the authority to protect the rights of cultural, religious and linguistic communities.

[49] In the matter of Lara Johnstone, Radical Honesty culture vs. Constitutional Court Registrar, AnthroCorpocentric Dominant culture; the CRL Rights Commission endorses the Registrar‟s decision to refuse to process the Radical Honesty culture application for Review, and Appeal thereof based on the justification that South African AnthroCorpocentric Dominant Cultures „Rules of Court‟ are the Supreme Law of the Land; If or when the AnthroCorpocentric Dominant Cultures „Rules of Court‟ violate a Minority cultures right to practice their Ecocentric cultural practices, as enshrined in the Constitution Bill of Rights clauses granting citizens from minority cultures, access to courts (S 34), and rights to practice their culture (S. 15(3), 30, 31, and 18).

[50] All of the Registrar‟s AnthroCorpoCentric Dominant Cultures „Rules of Court‟ are violations of my Ecocentric Minority Radical Honoursty culture practices.

[51] In the Registrar‟s 29 November Letter (Annex C: 29 Nov 2011: Concourt Registrar Letter) her AnthroCorpocentric Dominant Cultures „Rules of Court‟ reasons for refusal to process my Ecocentric Minority culture application are: [51.1] "It is important that you seek legal advice on your matter so that you can be legally informed of your prospects of success in this Court. If you cannot raise funds for that Legal Aid South Africa will be able to assist you."

A.

Not true. There are no lawyers that I am aware of – not even the Commission for the Protection of the Rights of Cultural, Religious and Linguistic Communities – who are willing to represent a member of the Radical Honesty culture, as a member of the Radical Honesty culture. Nor can the Constitutional Court provide evidence of any lawyer in South Africa, who is willing to represent me, in accordance to my culture, as a member of the Radical Honesty culture.

[51.2] “Like any other court, this Court may only respond to an application properly lodge in terms of the Rules of this Court .. A case number will be allocated to your as soon as the application adheres to the Rules of this Court”.

A.

Not true. On 28 January 2011 I filed an application for direct access, against the discrimination by various South African media against the Radical Honesty culture. Registrar Delano Louw accepted my application, 18

which was only filed electronically (not one hardcopy was filed), and all respondents were served electronically; based upon Radical Honesty Ecocentric lifestyle justifications. He issued a Case Number: CCT 06-11, and the application was submitted to the Justices for consideration for direct access. On 02 February 2013, the Justices issued their order, refusing to enquire into the merits of the application. (Annex D: 02 Feb 2011 Concourt Ruling: CCT 06-11: Radical Honesty v SANEF et al) [52] The Registrar‟s 10 December Reasons for Refusal to process my application for review, and to submit my appeal thereof to the Concourt Justices, are also based upon her justification that South African AnthroCorpocentric Dominant Cultures „Rules of Court‟ are the Supreme Law of the Land; If or when the AnthroCorpocentric Dominant Cultures „Rules of Court‟ violate a Minority cultures right to practice their Ecocentric cultural practices, as enshrined in the Constitution Bill of Rights clauses granting citizens from minority cultures, access to courts (S 34), and rights to practice their culture (S. 15(3), 30, 31, and 18).

[52.1] Her required “lodging of 25 copies of all relevant documents .. with the Registrar.”

A.

Not true. On 28 January 2011 I filed an application for direct access, against the discrimination by various South African media against the Radical Honesty culture. Registrar Delano Louw accepted my application, which was only filed electronically (not one hardcopy was filed), and all respondents were served electronically; based upon Radical Honesty Ecocentric lifestyle justifications. He issued a Case Number: CCT 06-11, and the application was submitted to the Justices for consideration for direct access. On 02 February 2013, the Justices issued their order, refusing to enquire into the merits of the application. (Annex B: 02 February 2011 Concourt Ruling: CCT 06-11)

B.

Secondly, this AnthroCorpoCentric Dominant culture – waste of resources -- Rule of Court, violates my Ecocentric – conserve resources – cultural practices; which is the argument made in the Appeal; which the Registrar refuses to submit to the Concourt Justices.

[53] Her required “Notices, directions or other communications in terms of these rules may be given or made by registered post or by facsimile or other electronic copy: Provided that, if a notice or other communication is given by electronic copy, the party giving such notice or communication shall forthwith lodge with the Registrar a hard copy of the notice or communication, with a certificate signed by such a party verifying the date of such communication or notice.”

19

[53.1] Not True. In the Constitutional Court matter of The Citizen v. Robert McBride (CCT 23-10), I was admitted to the proceedings as an Amicus Curiae. The Concourt Registrar did not require me to submit all correspondence or notices or communications in hard copy; only in electronic copy. (Annex E: 03 May 2010: Concourt Ruling: CCT 23-10: Citizen v. Robert McBride) [54] Conclusion: All of the justifications used by the Concourt Registrar to refuse to process (a) my application for Radical Honoursty Culture Review, and (b) my Ecocentric Minority culture Appeal of AnthroCorpoCentric Dominant Culture‟s „Rules of Court‟ are based upon her insistence that: South African AnthroCorpocentric Dominant Cultures „Rules of Court‟ are the Supreme Law of the Land; If or when the AnthroCorpocentric Dominant Cultures „Rules of Court‟ violate a Minority cultures right to practice their Ecocentric cultural practices, as enshrined in the Constitution Bill of Rights clauses granting citizens from minority cultures, access to courts (S 34), and rights to practice their culture (S. 15(3), 30, 31, and 18).

[55] The CRL Rights Commission ruling endorsing the Concourt Registrar‟s actions, as (a) not falling under the mandate of the Commission, and (b) endorsing the Constitutional Court Registrar‟s refusal to process my application for review are based upon my non-adherence to the rules of the constitutional court endorse the Concourt Registrars argument that: [55.1] South African AnthroCorpocentric Dominant Cultures „Rules of Court‟ are the Supreme Law of the Land; If or when the AnthroCorpocentric Dominant Cultures „Rules of Court‟ violate a Minority cultures right to practice their Ecocentric cultural practices, as enshrined in the Constitution Bill of Rights clauses granting citizens from minority cultures, access to courts (S 34), and rights to practice their culture (S. 15(3), 30, 31, and 18).

RELIEF REQUESTED: [56]

Please confirm whether it is the CRL Rights Commission‟s Official policy that:

[56.1] South African AnthroCorpocentric Dominant Cultures „Rules of Court‟ are the Supreme Law of the Land; If or when the AnthroCorpocentric Dominant Cultures „Rules of Court‟ violate a Minority cultures right to practice their Ecocentric cultural practices, as enshrined in the Constitution Bill of Rights clauses granting citizens from minority cultures, access to courts (S 34), and rights to practice their culture (S. 15(3), 30, 31, and 18).

[57]

If not, please provide the following relief:

20

[57.1] overturn Mrs Makgobaâ&#x20AC;&#x;s ruling as being in violation of a Minority cultures right to practice their Ecocentric cultural practices, as enshrined in the Constitution Bill of Rights clauses granting citizens from minority cultures, access to courts (S 34), and rights to practice their culture (S. 15(3), 30, 31, and 18).

[57.2] Order Mrs Makgoba or an appropriate CRL Rights Commission Commissioner to process my CRL Rights Commission Complaint of Cultural Discrimination against the Constitutional Court Registrar, in terms of ICR Complaints Handling Proceedings, as being a complaint which falls within the CRL Rights Commissionâ&#x20AC;&#x;s mandate: 4.2 Complaints handling If the complaint falls within its mandate, the Commission shall within two (2) days of receipt acknowledge such receipt in writing. An allegation letter or a letter outlining the complaint to and requesting the alleged perpetrator to respond to the complaint shall be sent to the alleged perpetrator within five working (5) days after acknowledgement.

Thereafter, the alleged perpetrator shall be given seven (7) days within which to respond to the allegations. Following the response, the complainant shall be notified of the response in writing within three (3) days of receipt of such response. The alleged perpetrator response shall be attached to the notice.

Should the alleged perpetrator fail to respond to the allegation within seven (7) days, a notice of reminder shall be sent within three (3) days after the expiry of seven days notifying the alleged perpetrator to respond within five (5) days of receipt of that notice.

In the event the alleged perpetrator fails to respond to the reminder within five (5) days, the Commission shall send a second reminder within three (3) days after the lapse of the five (5) days period. The said second reminder will be the last reminder which will contain, inter alia, the notice that, should the alleged perpetrator default to respond to the last reminder the Commission will invoke section 7(2) of the CRL Rights Commission Act 19 of 2002, to summon the defaulter to appear the Commission.

Respectfully,

Lara Johnstone Encl:

21

A: 11 December 2012: CRL Rights Comm Complaint: Lara Johnstone v. Constitutional Court Registrar B: 18 February 2013: CRL Rights Commission: Mrs. K Makgoba: Ref: 9/1/1/1/49: Lara Johnstone, Radical Honesty culture v Constitutional Court Registrar: Refusal by the Constitutional Court Registrar to process your application for Review C: 29 Nov 2011: Alien v. Afriforum: Concourt Registrar Letter D: 02 Feb 2011 Concourt Ruling: CCT 06-11: Radical Honesty v SANEF et al E: 03 May 2010: Concourt Ruling: CCT 23-10: Citizen v. Robert McBride

22

Annexure “A”

1/6

Tel: +27 11 537 7600

Private Bag X 90 000, HOUGHTON, 2041 No. 158 Jan Smuts Avenue, 1st Floor, West Wing, Rosebank, Johannesburg Fax: +27 11 880 3495 ________________________________

Private Bag X 90 000, HOUGHTON, 2041 No. 158 Jan Smuts Avenue, 1st Floor, West Wing, Rosebank, Johannesburg Tel: +27 11 537 7600 Fax: +27 11 880 3495 ________________________________________________________________________________

COMPLAINT FORM Please read this complaint form and note at the back of this form before filling in this form. Please write clearly and use Capital letters and your own language of choice. If there is not enough space on this form for your response, please use a separate piece of paper and send it to us together with this form.

1.

Your Details (1-6 to be filled by everyone completing this form) First Name(s): Lara Surname: Johnstone E-mail: habeusmentem@mweb.co.za From which community: Radical Honesty culture and religion (Futilitarians)

2.

Your ID Number: 661204 012 086

(If you do not have an ID Number, what is your date of birth? If you do not know their birth, or how old are you?)

3.

Your address and contact details

Address where you live: 16 Taaibos Ave, Heatherpark, George, 6530 Address where we can send you letters to: P O Box 5042, George East, 6539 Telephone number at home: (044) 870 7239 Telephone number at work: (071) 170 1954 Cellular number/Any number where you can be contacted: (071) 170 1954 Fax number: (044) 870 7239

4.

If this is a complaint for an organization, please tell us about it

The name of the organization: Constitutional Court Registrar What is its relation to Culture, Religion or Language Rights?: The Constitutional Court Registrar is refusing to process my (A) application for Radical Honesty culture Review of the „Kill Boer‟ Hate Speech Negotiated Agreement between Afriforum/TAU-SA and Julius Malema/ANC; and (B) she is also refusing to submit my „cultural rights‟ request for leniency of „Rules of Court‟ appeal of her refusal to process my application to the Concourt Justices.

CRL Rights Commission - COMPLAINT FORM (English Version)

2/6

Who should we talk to? (A) Constitutional Court Registrar: Martie Stander, (B) Constitutional Court Director: Vic Misser What is their position? Registrar and Director, respectively (colleague, chairperson, director, secretary) The address where we can send letters to: Constitutional Court, 1 Hospital Street, Braamfontein, Johannesburg Telephone number: (011) 359 7400 Fax number: (011) 339 5098

5. Violation of CRL Rights Tell us which right(s) has/have been violated: 9. Equality: Everyone is equal before the law and has the right to equal protection and benefit of the law. … (3) The state may not unfairly discriminate directly or indirectly against anyone on one or more grounds, including race, gender, sex, pregnancy, marital status, ethnic or social origin, colour, sexual orientation, age, disability, religion, conscience, belief, culture, language and birth. (4) *1 No person may unfairly discriminate directly or indirectly against anyone on one or more grounds in terms of subsection (3). National legislation must be enacted to prevent or prohibit unfair discrimination. (5) Discrimination on one or more of the grounds listed in subsection (3) is unfair unless it is established that the discrimination is fair.

34. Access to courts: Everyone has the right to have any dispute that can be resolved by the application of law decided in a fair public hearing before a court or, where appropriate, another independent and impartial tribunal or forum.

30. Language and culture: Everyone has the right to use the language and to participate in the cultural life of their choice, but no one exercising these rights may do so in a manner inconsistent with any provision of the Bill of Rights.

Tell us what happened in relation to the violation: 1

On 27 November 2012, I filed a Pro Se application with the Constitutional Court Registrar, for Radical Honesty culture Review of the „Kill Boer‟ Hate Speech Negotiated Agreement between Afriforum/TAU-SA and Julius Malema/ANC, 2

3

wherein I specifically requested an order from the court, for the “Permission to invoke cultural law in S. 15(3), 30, 31, and 18; to enable the Applicant to honour the duty and responsibility to uphold the principles upon which her Radical 4

Honesty culture is based; and Psychological Integrity in Section 12 ; the former which may require the application of choice of law rules.”

On 29 November 2012, Concourt Registrar refused to issue my application a case number, or process it, unless I met 5

certain „Rules of the Court‟ (PDF ), which include filing 25 printed hard copies via land mail, and finding legal representation.

1

http://sqswans.weebly.com/cct-alien-v-afriforum.html 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.

3 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.‟ 4 12. Freedom and security of the person: (2) Everyone has the right to bodily and psychological integrity..

5 http://sqswans.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/8/7/13878165/12-11-29_concourt-registrar_letter_to_lara_johnstone.pdf 2

CRL Rights Commission - COMPLAINT FORM (English Version)

3/6 On 06 December 2012, I filed “Appeal of Concourt Registrar‟s Refusal to Process My Concourt Application: Alien on 6

Pale Blue Dot v Afriforum et al” (PDF ), to the Concourt Justices, via the Registrar.

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.

My appeal includes evidence of the letters I wrote to all Law Societies and Bar Associations asking them for the names of any lawyers who are willing to represent a member of the Radical Honesty culture; including a Press Release I submitted to the SAPA Press Wire, wherein I attempt to find a Radical Honesty lawyer (The media refused to print 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.

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.”

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.

ORDERS REQUESTED RELATED TO: 1.

Legal Aid: SA Lawyers decline to represent Radical Honesty culture 2.

Registered Documents: 25 Copies: Request Environmental Justification for such Abuse of Resources 3.

Radical Honesty Ecocentric 'Normal' Electronic Service Filing to Respondents 4.

Electronic Service Filing to Respondents Acknowledged as Received: Respondents 01, 02, 03, 04, 05, 06, 07, 09, 10.

5.

Request Orders for Respondents 08: CRL Rights Commission and 11: David Petraeus 6.

Registrar's Refusal of Case Number indicates a Registrar's Office that discriminates at Pro Se and/or Radical Honesty culture Applicants.

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?

6

http://sqswans.weebly.com/06-dec-app-reg.html

CRL Rights Commission - COMPLAINT FORM (English Version)

4/6

6. Is this problem still happening?

X

(mark appropriate box)

Yes

No

7. If NO, when did it happen?

DAY

MONTH

YEAR

WHAT TIME

(For example)

8. Where did it happen?

TOWN

PROVINCE

Johannesburg

Gauteng

9. Please tell us the name or names of the people who violated these rights (if you know) Constitutional Court Registrar: Martie Stander Constitutional Court Director: Vic Misser

10. Where can we contact them?

1 Hospital Street, Braamfontein, Johannesburg Tel: (011) 359-7400 || Fax: (011) 339-5098

11. If you do not know their names, please tell us anything you know about them Names provided above 12. In your own words, tell us exactly what happened. Include all the information you think is important (Please be as brief as possible) See Pt. 5 ______________________________________________________________________________ 13. Have you reported this case to anyone else?

Yes

CRL Rights Commission - COMPLAINT FORM (English Version)

No

5/6 If so, who?

(For example, - Police, Lawyers, Public Protector, Human Rights Commission, Commission on Gender Equality, Land Claims, South African Heritage Resources Agency, Provincial Heritage Resources) No. Not yet

14.

Can we use your name in news reports or letters we write for you?

Yes

No

15. Did anyone see what happened?

Its all documented in writing. _____________________________________________________________________________ (Their name(s) and how we can get in touch with them? Please only tell us about people who actually saw what happened. Do not tell us about people who heard about what happened from someone else)

16. Please tell us how you heard about the CRL Rights Commission (from a friend, from an ngo or cbo, radio advert, newspaper or poster)

Read about it in Constitution. ______________________________________________________________________________ COMMISSIONERS Rev/Dr W M Mabuza(Chairperson) ,Mama J Mabale (Deputy Chairperson) Comm. M Bethlehem, Comm M Jobson, Comm M Le Roux, Comm. M JMokgathle, Comm. S O Gabier, Comm D Moodley, Comm. A W Knoetze, Comm. C N Kok, Comm. G Martin, Comm . M D Mathebula, Comm . B P Mkhize, Comm. N S Zulu, Comm. M Tyatyeka, Kom. M C Neluvhnalani, Comm. P Ngove, Chief Exectuive Officer P S Moreroa.

17. Nationality/Citizen status (Please specify) South African ______________________________________________________________________________ 18. Impairment (IF YES, please specify) Yes, sort of, depending on your perspective. People in „normal culture‟ are easily offended by individuals from the Radical Honesty culture, because we do not practice „politeness‟ or „manners‟ or „public relations‟, and if we are angry, we don‟t pretend we are not angry, so we sometimes swear, if that is our honest opinion at that moment. A friend of mine, who is not a member of the Radical Honesty culture, says having a Radical Honesty friend, is similar to having a friend with „Tourettes Syndrome‟. ______________________________________________________________________________ 19. Literacy level (please specify) University & College: Paralegal Diploma, and a few University courses. Did not finish. ______________________________________________________________________________ CRL Rights Commission - COMPLAINT FORM (English Version)

6/6

What to do once you have filled in the form. Once you have filled in this form please post or fax it to us at:

OFFICE OF THE CHAIRPERSON CRL RIGHTS COMMISSION JOHANNESBURG- PRIVATE BAG X 90 000, HOUGHTON 2041 TEL: 011 -537 7600 FAX; 011 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 880 3495 If you fax this form, please post it to us as well.

Thank you for filling in this form. We will get back to you as soon as possible. If you have any queries, please call us and ask to speak to someone in the Unit FOR OFFICIAL USE Complaint Number: ______________________________________________________________________________ Date received: __________________________________________________________________________________ Received by: ___________________________________________________________________________________ Acknowledgement date: __________________________________________________________________________ Acknowledged by: _______________________________________________________________________________ COMMISSIONERS Rev/Dr W M Mabuza(Chairperson) ,Mama J Mabale (Deputy Chairperson) Comm. M Bethlehem, Comm M Jobson, Comm M Le Roux, Comm. M JMokgathle, Comm. S O Gabier, Comm D Moodley, Comm. A W Knoetze, Comm. C N Kok, Comm. G Martin, Comm . M D Mathebula, Comm . B P Mkhize, Comm. N S Zulu, Comm. M Tyatyeka, Kom. M C Neluvhnalani, Comm. P Ngove, Chief Exectuive Officer P S Moreroa.

CRL Rights Commission - COMPLAINT FORM (English Version)

Annexure “B”

Annexure “C”

Annexure “D”

Annexure “E”