13-04-04: YGL-RH: Questions for Tutu & Templeton Prize Judges: Re: SA's TRC Fraud by Andrea Muhrrteyn

Radical Honoursty Culture Yshmael Guerrylla Law Party CommonSism: Common Sense Guerrylla Laws for a Sustainable Commons AEquilibriaex: balanced Eco/Anthropocentric law www.guerrylla -law.co.nr

04 April 2013 Desmond Tutu c/o: Nomfundo Walaza Desmond Tutu Peace Center 42 Hans Strijdom Ave, Capetown, 8001 Tel: (21) 443 6760 | Fax: (21) 443 6768 E: info@tutu.org, vivian@tutu.org.za

CC: Templeton Prize Judges c/o: Ms. Judith Marchand, Director John Templeton Foundation 300 Conshohocken State Road, Suite 500 West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania 19428 Tel: 610.941.2828 | Fax: 610.825.1730 info@templetonprize.org

Transparency CC: SA Political Parties

Transparency CC: SA Media Editors

Archbishop Desmond Tutu, RE: Questions to Archbishop Tutu; or if unanswered by Tutu and Prize Upheld by Templeton Prize Judges; (ii) Congratulations on Receipt of the Multinational Corporate Resource and Cultural Imperialists Templeton Prize for excellence in House Nigger subservience to getting rid of Boer Anti-Imperialists, and making SA safe for „Compulsive Developmentism‟ Imperialists (i) cultural colonization of indigenous cultures, and (ii) resource plundering. I am constantly amazed at the Liberal Supremacy establishment‟s ability to totally and utterly ignore reality by imposing their Bullshit the Public Relations „Perception Management‟ as their own subjective substitute for reality. As you are aware, from my past correspondence over the past ten years, which you have and continue to ignore, as if I do not exist: 1. I am not a Liberal Supremacy house nigger, and most certainly psychologically, spiritually, emotionally prefer to side with Nat Turner, and physically I side with Harriett Tubman.

PO Box 5042 * George East, 6539 * Tel: (044) 870 7239 * Cel: (071) 170 1954

2. I do not practice or endorse Bullshit the Public Relations Image Management, but 100% transparency and radical honesty, to everyone, friend and enemy. 3. I give everyone – as I did you – the benefit of the doubt, and provide them with my honest criticism of their actions, to their face, to enable them to make an impartial transparent enquiry into the criticisms (which you refused to do, insisting on ignoring the TRC Fraud evidence I repeatedly sent you). 4. Finally, I have a Radical Honoursty communication values, which manifests as: (i) I have never ever ignored any individual contacting me with criticism of my actions; I always, and I mean always, provide every critic of mine with a brutal honest response to their criticism, and engage them in dialogue, of the evidence. (ii) I always provide every person whom I do criticize with an honourable copy of such criticism to their faces, for their response, should they have the honour or integrity to respond. It is the absolute minimum of what I consider „honourable communications‟. Questions to Archbishop Desmond Tutu: 1. Please clarify in writing whether you believe the Templeton Judges are aware of the following Radical Honoursty TRC Fraud Fact Censored by Mandela, Tutu, ANC and Anti-Apartheid Movement? 2. If the Templeton Judges are not aware of the following Radical Honoursty TRC Fraud Fact Censored by Mandela, Tutu, ANC and AntiApartheid Movement, why are they ignorant of them? 3. If you (a) continue your policy of endorsing the censorship of the Radical Honoursty TRC Fraud Fact Censored by Mandela, Tutu, ANC and Anti-Apartheid Movement, by refusing to transparently inform the Templeton Judges why you endorse the Anti-Apartheid movement and Constitutional Courts censorship of Radical Honoursty culture allegations of TRC Fraud; and (b) the Templeton Judges endorse your lack of honour and actions of censorship of your involvement in TRC Fraud; we could fairly conclude that (c) You have been awarded the Multinational Corporate Resource and Cultural Imperialists Templeton Prize for excellence in House Nigger subservience to getting rid of Boer Anti-Imperialists, and making SA safe for „Compulsive Developmentism‟ Imperialists (i) cultural colonization of indigenous cultures, and (ii) resource plundering? Radical Honoursty TRC Fraud Fact Censored by Mandela, Tutu, ANC and Anti-Apartheid Movement: Corrupt Censorship by SA Constitutional

Court of Radical Honoursty culture‟s Application for Review of South Africa‟s TRC Fraud: Mandela, Tutu, the ANC & Anti-Apartheid movement have censored and silenced the only South African who – for the past 12 years – has exposed South Africa‟s Anthropocentric and Ideologically biased TRC Fraud, and advocated on behalf of a brutally honest sincere and ecologically and scientifically credible Truth and Reconciliation Commission, focussed on exposing the underlying psychological, cultural, racial, Compulsive Development and Scarcity induced factors contributing to Apartheid‟s Political violence.

The Bigotry and Treason of the Liberal Supremacist Elite: “The white liberal differs from the white conservative only in one way: the liberal is more deceitful than the conservative. The liberal is more hypocritical than the conservative. Both want power, but the white liberal is the one who has perfected the art of posing as the Negro’s friend and benefactor; and by winning the friendship, allegiance, and support of the Negro, the white liberal is able to use the Negro as a pawn or tool in this political “football game” that is constantly raging between the white liberals and white conservatives…. Once the Negro learns to think for himself, he will no longer allow the white liberal to use him as a helpless football in the white man’s crooked game of “power politics.” The white conservatives aren’t friends of the Negro either, but they at least don’t try to hide it. They are like wolves; they show their teeth in a snarl that keeps the Negro always aware of where he stands with them. But the white liberals are foxes, who also show their teeth to the Negro but pretend that they are smiling. The white liberals are more dangerous than the conservatives; they lure the Negro, and as the Negro runs from the growling wolf, he flees into the open jaws of the “smiling” fox.” -- Excerpts from 1963 speech by Malcolm X: “God’s Judgement of White America.”

Excerpts from Chris Hedges, The Treason of the Intellectuals1: "The power elite, especially the liberal elite, has always been willing to sacrifice integrity and truth for power, personal advancement, foundation grants, awards, tenured professorships, columns, book contracts, television appearances, generous lecture fees and social status. They know what they need to say. They know which ideology they have to serve. They know what lies must be told—the biggest being that they take moral stances on issues 1

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/the_treason_of_the_intellectuals_20130331

that aren’t safe and anodyne. They have been at this game a long time. And they will, should their careers require it, happily sell us out again." “Nothing in my view is more reprehensible than those habits of mind in the intellectual that induce avoidance, that characteristic turning away from a difficult and principled position, which you know to be the right one, but which you decide not to take,” wrote the late Edward Said. “You do not want to appear too political; you are afraid of seeming controversial; you want to keep a reputation for being balanced, objective, moderate; your hope is to be asked back, to consult, to be on a board or prestigious committee, and so to remain within the responsible mainstream; someday you hope to get an honorary degree, a big prize, perhaps even an ambassadorship.” Julien Benda argued in his 1927 book “The Treason of Intellectuals”—“La Trahison des Clercs”—that it is only when we are not in pursuit of practical aims or material advantages that we can serve as a conscience and a corrective. Those who transfer their allegiance to the practical aims of power and material advantage emasculate themselves intellectually and morally. Benda wrote that intellectuals were once supposed to be indifferent to popular passions. They “set an example of attachment to the purely disinterested activity of the mind and created a belief in the supreme value of this form of existence.” “The desire to tell the truth,” wrote Paul Baran, the brilliant Marxist economist and author of “The Political Economy of Growth,” is “only one condition for being an intellectual. The other is courage, readiness to carry on rational inquiry to wherever it may lead … to withstand … comfortable and lucrative conformity.” Those who doggedly challenge the orthodoxy of belief, who question the reigning political passions, who refuse to sacrifice their integrity to serve the cult of power, are pushed to the margins. They are denounced by the very people who, years later, will often claim these moral battles as their own. It is only the outcasts and the rebels who keep truth and intellectual inquiry alive. They alone name the crimes of the state. They alone give a voice to the victims of oppression. They alone ask the difficult questions. Most important, they expose the powerful, along with their liberal apologists, for what they are.

Questions for Anthropocentric Liberal Supremacist Anti-Apartheid, Pro-Imperialist Bigots:

A. 1.

Human Rights: Deaths in Police Custody: Deaths in Police Custody: Apartheid 2.4 per year (1963-1994: 75) a.

Apartheid: 1963 – 1994: 75 Deaths in 31 Years = 2.4 Deaths per year

Throughout the entire apartheid-era up to 75 people died in policecustody throughout the period between 1963 and 1994. [The South African Police: Manager of Conflict or Party to the Conflict 2, Dr. Johan Olivier, Center for Study of Violence and Reconciliation; A Crime Against Humanity - Analysing the Repression of the Apartheid State3, Edited by Max Coleman, a publication of the Human Rights Committee in South Africa: The Detention Weapon.]

ANC 'Freedumb': 2010: 566 Deaths in 11 months: increase of 25,725% a.

"Political parties yesterday called for a swift investigation into the deaths of 566 people at the hands of police in the current year. The call comes after the Independent Complaints Directorate (ICD) revealed yesterday that out of this overall national figure, 16 of those killed by police were innocent people. Many of the policemen involved have not even been suspended, let alone charged!" [Parties urge probe into 566 deaths, Canaan Mdletshe, Mhlaba Memela & Sibongile Mashaba, The Sowetan, 23 November 2010]

ANC 'Freedumb': 2011: 932 Deaths: increase of 38,833% a.

Independent Police Investigative Directorate (IPID) has revealed a report that about 932 people died in police custody in South Africa in 2011/12. [City Press: Police Stations of Death, 04 March 2013; Al Jazeera: Who Polices the Police?4]

Boer Human Rights: Farm Murders:

Farm Murders rise 3,095% in ANC‟s “TRC Rainbow Democracy”:

Political Climate of Farm Murders: According to (2.5 per year x 52 weeks x 16 years)5 Eugene Ney Terreblanche was murdered farmer number 2080 since the April 1994 TRC social contract brought S. Africans “peace and human rights” (sic). By way of comparison:

http://www.csvr.org.za/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=671&Itemid=200 http://www.sahistory.org.za/pages/library-resources/online%20books/crime-humanity/detention%20weapon.htm 4 http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/south2north/2013/03/2013314105953174623.html 5 Anatomy of a farm murder, by Vuvu Vena, Mail and Guardian, Apr 08 2010: “AgriSA, the South African Agricultural Union, recorded 1 541 murders and 10 151 attacks in the period from 1994 to 2008 -- an average of 0,3 murders a day. The Transvaal Agricultural Union (TAU) recorded 1 266 murders and 2070 attacks in the period from 1991 to 2009 -- an average of 0.2 murders a day. The Institute for Security Studies of the University of Pretoria, using statistics provided by TAU in June last year, reported 1 073 murders and 1 813 attacks in the period from 1993 to 2009 -- an average of 0,2 murders a day.” 3

In the 1950„s Mau Mau War in Kenya, the official number of “European settlers” killed was 326, of which a dozen were said to be farmers.

During the 15 year Rhodesian war, 260 white farmers were murdered7.

Human Rights Questions for Anthropocentric Liberal Supremacist Bigots: 1.

If 2.4 deaths in custody per year by the Apartheid government, were „crimes against humanity‟; what type of „crimes against humanity‟ do you call an increase of 38,833 percent?

If the ANC was „at war‟ with Boers, when 2.5 Boer farmers were being killed per year; what Tutu Spiritual traditions considers the murder of 73 farmers per year, to be „reconciliation‟ and „peace‟?

If Liberal Supremacists care enough about Africans to be honest with them; instead of using them as your token vote fodder; wouldn‟t your policy be: “Take Note Dumb Kaffirs: Liberal Supremacists do not give a fuck about Africans „human rights‟ if you are killed by an ANC African cop. African ANC cops can kill as many of you African fucks as they wish… cause you are not human, unless you are killed by a white Boer”?

If Anthropocentric Liberal Supremacists cared enough about their spirituality to give a fuck about their enemies human rights, including Boer Farmers to be honest with them; wouldn‟t your policy be: “Take Note Dumb Boer Farmers: Liberal Supremacist Bigots do not give a fuck about Boer Farmers „human rights‟; we support Mandela‟s Frantz Fanon definition of „reconciliation‟, that the „African‟s colonized mind can only be liberated by violence on the rotting corpse of your boer settler bodies‟?

Radical Honoursty TRC Fraud Fact Censored by Mandela, Tutu, ANC and Anti-Apartheid Movement: Corrupt Censorship by SA Constitutional Court of Radical Honoursty culture‟s Application for Review of South Africa‟s TRC Fraud. Mandela, Tutu, the ANC & Anti-Apartheid movement have censored and silenced the only South African who – for the past 12 years – has exposed South Africa‟s Anthropocentric and Ideologically biased TRC Fraud, and advocated on behalf of a brutally honest sincere and ecologically and scientifically credible Truth and Reconciliation 6

Anderson, D. (2005). Histories of the Hanged: The Dirty War in Kenya & the End of Empire. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson. (p.4) 7 The Farmer At War, Trevor Grundy and Bernard Miller, Modern Farming Publ., Salisbury 1979

Commission, focussed on exposing the underlying psychological, cultural, racial, Compulsive Development and Scarcity induced factors contributing to Apartheid‟s Political violence. There are dozens of letters written to Mandela, Tutu, the ANC and Anti-Apartheid movement, providing them with evidence of the Anti-Apartheid movement/ANC‟s TRC Fraud, and requesting that they investigate the matter, and provide answers. I shall provide only one here, the final one, but am happy to provide copies of all the others, if requested. After ten years, of letters ignored, legal applications ignored, suppressed and silenced, I finally filed an application with the South African Constitutional Court, for a Radical Honoursty culture review of South Africa‟s TRC Fraud. The South African Constitutional Court Justices continue to refuse to process the application, for a hearing as to its admissibility, or to respond to an appeal of their refusal to process the application. Archbishop Tutu, Nelson Mandela, the ANC and Anti-Apartheid movement have, so far, endorsed the Concourt‟s corruption and denial of access to a court to investigate the matter of South Africa‟s TRC Fraud.

Overview of Radical Honoursty Constitutional Court Application: [1] On 27 November 2012, I filed a Pro Se application8 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 invoke9 cultural law10 in S. 15(3), 30, 31, and 18; to enable the Applicant to honour the duty and responsibility to uphold the principles upon

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. 10 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.‟ 8 9

which her Radical Honesty culture is based; and Psychological Integrity in Section 1211; the former which may require the application of choice of law rules.” [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 invoke12 cultural law13 in S. 15(3)14, 3015, 3116, and 1817. 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 lifestyles18. [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

12. Freedom and security of the person: (2) Everyone has the right to bodily and psychological integrity.. 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. 13 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.‟ 14 Freedom of Religion, Belief and Opinion http://www.info.gov.za/documents/constitution/1996/96cons2.htm#15 15 Language and Culture http://www.info.gov.za/documents/constitution/1996/96cons2.htm#30 16 Culture, Religious & Linguistic Comm: http://www.info.gov.za/documents/constitution/1996/96cons2.htm#31 17 Freedom of Association http://www.info.gov.za/documents/constitution/1996/96cons2.htm#18 18 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.” 11 12

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 Communities19: one against the 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). [6]

The CRL Rights Commission denied both complaints endorsing :

[6.1] 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) [6.2] 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) [7] I filed appeals of both decisions to the CRL Rights Commission Chairperson: Reverent Mabuza20, who has not acknowledged receipt, nor responded to the appeals. Radical Honoursty Ecocentric Cultural and Gender Values: [8] I am an adult Radical Honoursty Ecofeminist Guerrylla Law Sustainable Security practicing paralegal EcoFeminist, member of Friend of Wikileaks (FoWL) and the Radical Honourty culture21; resident in George, Southern Cape, South Africa; where I run a small EcoFeminist pedal-powered wormery business. [9] 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 19 20

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

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” 21

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 (PDF22); 31 May 1998: Sunday Times: US convict wins love and support in SA town (PDF23); 24 Sep 1998: YOU: Volksrust Farmgirl Doomed for Love of Black Convict)(PDF24). [10] Radical Honoursty Culture: I am a member of the Radical Honoursty culture, based upon Radical Honesty25 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. [11] 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. [11.1] 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.26 [11.2] Although the Mosuo culture is most frequently described as a matriarchal culture; in fact, its more accurate to refer to it as â&#x20AC;&#x153;matrilinealâ&#x20AC;?, 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. [11.3] 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.

http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/090922_hc-ifp http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/980513_stimes 24 http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/980924_you 25 www.radicalhonesty.com 26 Tami Blumenfield (May 2009): The Na of Southwest China: Debunking the Myths; Washington Univ http://web.pdx.edu/~tblu2/Na/myths.pdf 22 23

[11.4] 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. [11.5] 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. [11.6] According to patriarchal macho Argentinean writer Ricardo Coler27, 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.” [12] 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. [13] I am the founder of CommonSism28 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. [14] 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 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 28 http://sqswans.weebly.com/guerrylla-law.html 27

Ishmael, in Daniel Quinn's books: Ishmael and My Ishmael; and the Tragedy of the Commons ideas, as expressed by Garrett Hardin. [15] 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. [16] 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. [17] 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. [18] 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. [19] Guerrylla Laws define the Eco/Ego Footprint29 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)30 (60 % of 1.8 gha)31 in 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. 30 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. 31 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 29

accordance with the proactive conservation policies of Bhutan32; multiplied by an individuals Breeding footprint factor of 20 per child. [20] Sustainable Leaver / Eco-Innocent: 0 children, consumption < 20 gha (Intn'l Biocapacity (1 gha) x 20); or 1 child, consumption < 1 gha. [21] Unsustainable Taker / Scarcity-Combatant: 0 children, consumption > 20 gha; or 1 child, consumption > 1 gha. [22] For example: Complainant‟s Consumption Footprint33 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 2034)]. 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.35 Conversely, if everyone consumed and procreated like President Jacob Zuma, we would need 2090 earths36. [23] Sustainable Security: Sustainability is Security: “There is no security without sustainability”37: In the absence of an international new moral order38 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. 32 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 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. 33 http://myfootprint.org/en/your_results/?id=2559685 34 Paul Murtaugh (7-31-09): Family Planning: A Major Environmental Emphasis, Oregon University http://sqswans.weebly.com/child--ecofootprint-x-20.html 35 http://sqworms.weebly.com/lara-johnstone-eco-081.html 36 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 37 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) 38 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.”

where Ecocentric laws are implemented to regulate and reduce human procreation and resource utilization behaviour, towards a sustainable, pre-industrial lifestyle paradigm; “overpopulation”39 and resource scarcity40 will result in conflict and war41 (perhaps nuclear42) confronting regions at an accelerated pace43, and “collapse of the global economic system and every market-oriented national economy”44 by 205045.

CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS: [24] On 27 November 2012, I filed a Pro Se application46 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 invoke47 cultural law48 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 1249; the former which may require the application of choice of law rules.”

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? 40 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 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) 41 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 42 Hardin (1968/12/13) 43 United States Army & TRADOC (2012) 44 Schultz, S (2010/09/01): [German] Military Study Warns of Potentially Drastic Oil Crisis, Der Spiegel 45 Clugston, C (2012): Scarcity: Humanity‟s Final Chapter (Booklocker.com Inc): Preface, pg. ix 46 http://sqswans.weebly.com/cct-alien-v-afriforum.html 47 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. 48 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.‟ 49 12. Freedom and security of the person: (2) Everyone has the right to bodily and psychological integrity.. 39

[25] 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. [26]

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

[26.1] 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 Africa is one happy monoculture family. The Mediation Agreement does not specify which cultures it is referring to. [26.2] 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‟50, and the TRC‟s “failure to investigate demographic

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. 50

youth bulge51 and „population production‟ breeding war52 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.” [26.3] 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. [26.4] 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. [27] On 29 November 2012, Concourt Registrar refused53 to issue my application a case number, or process it, unless I met certain „Rules of the Court‟ (PDF 54), 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. [28] 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” (PDF55), to the Concourt Justices, via the Registrar56; 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.

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. 52 “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 51

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

http://sqswans.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/8/7/13878165/12-11-29_concourtregistrar_letter_to_lara_johnstone.pdf 55 sqswans.weebly.com/06-dec-app-reg.html 54

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

[29] 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. [30] 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 (PDF57) | Jhb Bar Ass: Pro Bono Chair: (PDF58) | Cape Law Society (PDF59) | Cape Bar Council (PDF60) | Free State Law Society (PDF61) | Free State Soc of Advocates (PDF62) | General Counsel of Bar of SA (PDF63) | KwaZulu Natal Law Society (PDF64) | Law Society of South Africa (PDF65) | Pretoria Society of Advocates (PDF66) | Soc of Adv KwaZulu Natal - Dbn (PDF67) | Soc of Adv KwaZulu Natal - Pmb (PDF68) | Northern Province Law Society: M van Niekerk (PDF69). [31] I also submitted a Press Release to the SAPA Press Wire70, 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. [32] 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. [33] 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‟. sqswans.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/8/7/13878165/12-11-29_legal_aid-vidhu_vedalankar.pdf sqswans.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/8/7/13878165/12-12-06_concourt_justices_encl_g_jhb_bar_assoc__pf_louw.pdf 59 sqswans.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/8/7/13878165/12-11-30_cape_law_society.pdf 60 sqswans.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/8/7/13878165/_12-11-30_cape_bar_council.pdf 61 sqswans.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/8/7/13878165/12-11-30_free_state_law_society.pdf 62 sqswans.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/8/7/13878165/12-11-30_free_state_soc_of_advocates.pdf 63 sqswans.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/8/7/13878165/12-11-30_general_counsel_of_bar_of_sa_-_exec_sec.pdf 64 sqswans.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/8/7/13878165/12-12-06_concourt_justices_encl_h_kzn_law_society.pdf 65 sqswans.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/8/7/13878165/12-11-30_law_society_of_south_africa.pdf 66 sqswans.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/8/7/13878165/12-11-30_pretoria_society_of_advocates.pdf 67 sqswans.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/8/7/13878165/12-12-06_concourt_justices_encl_c_adv-soc-kzn-dbn.pdf 68 sqswans.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/8/7/13878165/12-12-06_concourt_justices_encl_b_adv-soc-kzn-pmb.pdf 69 sqswans.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/8/7/13878165/12-1206_concourt_justices_encl_i_law_soc_of_n_prov_m_van_niekerk.pdf 57 58

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

[34] I then wrote an email to all of the Editors71, 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”?” [35] 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. [36] On 10 December, I enquired from Concourt Registrar: Ms Stander, when the Justices would be responding to my appeal. [37] 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.” [38] 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."? [39] 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?” [40] There has been no response from the Constitutional Court Registrar, or the Justices to my Radical Honesty culture appeal of the Registrar‟s decisions. [41] 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

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

(PDF72) and a dozen media Editors (PDF73) in that they discriminate against the – Tourette Syndrome like – Radical Honesty culture74. [42] 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. [43] 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. [44] 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. [45] On 06 February 2013, I received an acknowledgement of receipt for my SAPA and SA Media Editors, discrimination complaint, from Mrs. Makgoba. [46] On 07 February 2013, Ms Makgoba ruled75 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 commision has dismissed your matter and proceed to close the file.” [47] On 07 February 2013, I filed an appeal76 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 http://sqswans.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/8/7/13878165/12-1211_crlrightscomm_complaint_concourt_registrar.pdf 73 http://sqswans.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/8/7/13878165/12-12-11_crlrightscomm_complaint_sapa__sa_media_encla.pdf 74 SA Media, Concourt & Lawyers Discriminate Against – Tourette Syndrome like -- Radical Honesty Culture http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-894174 72

75 76

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

(PDF77): “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] [48] On 07 February 2013, I also filed requests to Amnesty International (PDF78) and Human Rights Watch (PDF79), 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)”. [49] On 18 February 2013, CRL Rights Commission, Mrs. Makgoba issued her ruling80: 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.” [50] On 19 February 2013, I filed an Appeal81 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 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 78 sqswans.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/8/7/13878165/13-02-07_amnesty-international_ind-monitor-observ_crlrcomp_encl.pdf 79 sqswans.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/8/7/13878165/13-02-07_human-rights-watch_ind-monitorobserv_crlrc_enc.pdf 77

80 81

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

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). [51] On 19 February 2013, I also filed requests82 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. [52] 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. [53] On 28 February 2013, complaints were submitted83 to (i) SA Gender Commission; (ii) SA Human Rights Council [WC/1213/0873] ; (iii) Public Protector [7/2-003999/13]: 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. Dated at George, South Africa: 04 April 2013

Free Former Field Nigger: Natalie Turner Lara Johnstone, aka Harriet Tubman Member: Radical Honesty Culture Founder: Radical Honoursty Culture Founder: Yshmael Guerrylla Law Party Founder: CommonSism: Common Sense Laws for a Sustainable Commons Founder: Æquilibriæx Jurisprudence: Equal & Balanced Eco/Anthropocentric Law

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

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