Was 'Uhuru Guru's' 'Arrest' Legal? Who Gives a Flying Rats Ass? Should You?

by Andrea Muhrrteyn

[Articles about Uhuru Guru's Arrest, added subsequent to this post, are in black]

Blogger and News Media Reports RE: The 'Arrest of Uhuru Guru':

“Judges and magistrates have little power outside of the courtroom to explain or defend their positions and are uniquely reliant on journalists to convey their decisions to the broader population … with this power comes responsibility, not to the courts, but to the public and to our young nation as a whole to report the work of the courts accurately and fairly but not uncritically.” -- Chief Justice Pius Langa Reporting the Courts -- Guide Books for Court Reporters

SA Sucks: Uhuru Guru Arrested on False Charges; Uhuru Guru Set Free; Beeld and Other Newspapers Today; An Incredible Tale of Betrayal

ILuv SA: ANC Gov. cracks down on bloggers; UG of South Africa Sucks Arrested; Black Swans, Misrepresentations and the Truth

State v. Johnstone: [Update 09-11-07] Notice of (i) Correction of Error/s & (ii) Retraction of Enclosure; re: Encl.Your Life is In Danger (www.zasucks.com/?p=6151)

Why We Are White Refugees: Why We Are White Refugees: Uhuru Guru of SA Sucks Arrested; [Update 09-11-07] Notice of (i) Correction of Error/s & (ii) Retraction of Enclosure; re: Encl.Your Life is In Danger (www.zasucks.com/?p=6151)

SA Rocks: 702 Takes on Bert Oosthuizen; SA Rocks and SA Sucks on 702: The Podcast

Jeremy Nell: SA Rocks vs SA Sucks

FTO: South African Goverment cracks down on Critical Bloggers; Crime Bloggers South Africa Arrested, Updated, Balanced View

CensorbugBear: Why was SA’s most vitriolic rage-blogger arrested?

African Crisis: ANC Cracking Down On Political Dissent?; S.Africa: Govt Crackdown on Afrikaners websites & blogs - Genocide suppression - Orania - The Springbok Club; The ANC Hammer Falls On More Dissident Bloggers

SKOOR: So much for Democracy en Vryheid van Spraak

Shut Up Whitey: ZA Sucks Poster Arrested

The Right Perspective: UG of South Africa Sucks Arrested

Marwinsing: Bert Oosthuizen a.k.a Uhuru Guru a.k.a Lone Wolf - arrested on charges of fraud; Bert Oosthuizen a.k.a Uhuru Guru a.k.a Lone Wolf: Computer Hacker, Violater of Personal Privacy and a Fraud; Blogger Bert Oosthuizen sit nou diep in die kak

AWB Nuus: Crackdown on the Right Wing

Islam in Europe: Police intimidates un-PC South African Blogger

Women 24: SA sucks. Really now?

SAmizdat: Wat is die ware feite oor ZA Sucks se webmeester?

PRAAG: Ystervuis teen webwerwe; Uhuru Guru vrygelaat; Die rede vir die Arres van UG; Dissidente moet uitgeroei word; Wat is die ware feite oor ZA Sucks se webmeester?; My onregmatige en onwettige arrestasie - Uhuru Guru; Waarheid oor Uhuru Guru gaan opspraak verwek - Fred Rundle; 'Hanteer' neo-Nazi's deesdae die polisie? - Dan Roodt; Uhuru Guru se gruwelfoto's

Beeld: Uhuru Guru vas oor Bedrog

IOL: Bloggers arrest sets blog rumour mill abuzz

Discussion Boards:

Mail & Guardian: ZA Sucks Busted for Hate Speech

My Broadband: Zasucks blogger arrested on false charges?;

Stormfront: Well-known South-African blogger arrested in crack of dawn raid!!

Above Top Secret: South Africa: Blogger Arrested

According to the alleged Bullshit Detectors: SA Sucks Exposed

Was Uhuru Guru's 'Arrest' Legal?

[Update 10-11-09:I have been informed the photo previously posted here was not that of Uhuru Guru, accordingly since it cannot be verified as true, I have removed it.] The photo originally posted here, was the one alleged by Marwinsing, a former SAS Blogger, who had an acrimonious fallout with Uhuru Guru, to be a photo of Uhuru Guru, aka Lone Wolf, aka Bert Oosthuizen.

The details surrounding Uhuru Guru's 'arrest' are far from clear, with no original SAPS documentation provided. None of the media agencies or blogs, or individuals whose reporting assume the arrest was 'legal', have for example provided a pdf copy of the original Arrest Warrant; which, if it exists, is a public document.

If the person arrested does not have the Arrest Warrant, which justified his Arrest; then the SAPS violated his right to be informed of the reasons for them arresting him, or seizing his property. If he was not legally arrested, on a valid Arrest Warrant, then the Police do not have sufficient evidence for whatever he has been accused of.

So, it is very, very unclear whether an Arrest Warrant was ever issued for Uhuru Guru, which Magistrate signed it, on what probable cause, for what charge.

Simplistically: When a policeman wants to make an arrest on a particular charge, or to seize particular evidentiary material, he generally has to write an Affidavit, wherein he lays forth the evidence for why he thinks a Magistrate should issue a Warrant for Arrest. If the Magistrate finds the policeman's evidence sufficient, then s/he issues the Warrant; if not, s/he denies the Warrant.

How the policeman proceeds subsequent to the denial of an Arrest Warrant; depends, in my view on his honourable work ethic (why he originally joined the police) and his oath to the Constitution; or lack thereof. (* Strange as it may seem not all people who join police forces are motivated by justice; a large number of former serial crime killers, who thrive upon domination, and the use of fear and intimidation to manipulate others to do what they want; applied to join police forces)

Often what then happens, is if the policeman is not very ethical, some may say 'corrupt'; and he really wants to arrest the individiual, then he can -- for example -- see if there are any outstanding arrest warrants for traffic fines, on that persons name; and then use that Arrest Warrant. He hopes the person being arrested is so shocked, that they don't read the Arrest Warrant, or don't ask for a copy of it. He then proceeds to ask questions about issues totally unrelated to the 'Traffic Fines' Arrest Warrant.

However, if the person has paid all their traffic fines, then he can pretend, that the computer does not register any one payment; and then he pretends there is an outstanding warrant, for a traffic fine that has been paid, for which there was never an arrest warrant issued. When the person being 'arrested' asks for the Arrest Warrant, as is his Constitutional Right; the policeman says, he will give it to him later. Often 'later' never arrives.

Who Gives a Flying Rats Ass if 'Arrests' are legal, or not?

“This means that recourse to this legal excuse to avoid public discussion of an issue – a favourite ploy of politicians – is no longer valid and those using it can be called to account.” The judge declared that the principle enunciated in the judgment would seem to apply whenever the exercise of press freedom is sought to be restricted in protection of another right. RSA Newspapers no longer bound by 'sub judice' law

When it comes to citizens, most are generally concerned with whether an arrest was legal or not, in terms of whether they like you or not. If they don't like you, or your ideas; then they don't particularly care if your rights are being infringed. If they do like you, or your ideas; then they may be concerned about whether your rights are being infringed.

There are exceptions to this herd mentality; but as Stanley Milgram proved in his Obedience experiments, only a small fraction -- less than 10% -- of society are capable of resisting the temptation for obedience to mob justice. In a true constitutional meritocracy, they would be the one's we appointed to our legislature, judiciary etc. But I digress.

In general, the media are expected to be the fourth estate. They are supposed to be impartial, and to report fairly, and impartially, without favour. Generally, in my experience, they could not give a flying rats ass, whether anyone who has been arrested has been arrested on a valid Arrest Warrant signed by a Magistrate, or whether there was sufficient probable cause for the arrest; unless the person is someone famous -- a member of the elite. When it comes to the proles; they couldn't care a rats ass.

Like reporters at a funeral; who never have anything bad to say about the dead person, they report exactly what the police tell them, and never ask for proof of the original Arrest Warrant documentation; or any other documentation for any statement made by any Police Officer or Court Official.

In my experience mainstream media almost always refuse to provide links to original documents in their possession, or to upload such original documents in pdf format, for their readers to read the original document, even when such original documents have been provided to them.

Do the South African police ever arrest anyone without a valid Arrest Warrant, and/or without sufficient probable cause?

Excerpt: For the Record: State v Johnstone; ‘Crimen Inuria’: Incomplete Further Particulars (PDF:8534K).

2. Outstanding Evidentiary Documentation: ‘Outstanding Warrants’: Two Alleged ‘Outstanding Warrants’, used by SAP INSP. Christian, to plausibly irregularly or illegally arrest and detain Defendant in this Crimin Inuria Matter, on 18 July 2007.

At the time of Inspector Christian’s arrest of Defendant, Inspector Christian stated his justification for the Arrest were two outstanding Warrants, one allegedly in Pietermaritzburg and one in Port Elizabeth.

Defendant requested proof and copies of these alleged Outstanding Warrants, as per the Constitutional Principle “to be informed of the charge with sufficient detail to answer it.” Inspector Christian refused to provide proof of these alleged outstanding warrants, and proceeded to arrest and detain Defendant.

The proof of these alleged Outstanding Warrants used to arrest and detain Defendant on 18 July 2007, have yet to be provided by Inspector Christian, the South African Police Services, or the National Prosecuting Authority; and were requested from the SAPS and the National Prosecuting Authority, by Lara Johnstone; from Attorney Mr. Malcolm Gezzler, by Lara and Andre Johnstone, and Attorney Mr. Milton de La Harpe, by Lara Johnstone.

17-02-09: Response from Adv. Ackerman, Priority Crimes Litigation Unit Head Office; REPRESENTATIONS: S v JOHNSTONE - CRIMEN INJURIA INCOMPLETE FURTHER PARTICULARS (PDF:457K)

The response from Adv. R de Kock, Director of Public Prosecutions, Capetown was in very blunt and simplistic terms: 'F**k You'; in that to this day, the NPA-WC and SAPS refuse to provide any of the documentation requested of them.

Do the media report on 'arrests', without making any effort to confirm the 'Arrests' were founded on a valid Arrest Warrant, or sufficient probable cause?

Excerpts: (I) Request to SAPA: News Article: 19 July 2007: (II) and Honourable Transparency RSA Media Enquiry: (I) Are the South African Media Predisposed to (i) Extreme Prejudice and Bias, or (ii) Fair and Balanced Reporting, towards The Cape Party?; and (II) Was the TRC a massive fraud upon South Africans, black and white? Is ‘TRC-RSA’ serious and committed to Truth Telling, Transparency and Forgiveness? If not, is the TRC-RSA ‘social contract’ null and void, as a result of fraud and betrayal?

RE: (I) Request to SAPA: News Article: 19 July 2007:(II) and Honourable Transparency RSA Media Enquiry

I request SAPA to provide me with the name and contact details (telephone number), of the journalist who wrote the SAPA News Article, of 19 July 2007, titled, Woman Defies Court Over Rude De Lille SMS’s.

I require the information, so that I can either (a) contact the journalist to find out whom the source/s of their erroneous information was; related to the allegations made in their news report; or (b) if I am unable to contact such journalist, to obtain such sources details for them to be subpoenaed to testify to the information published by SAPA; I require the journalists details, so that the journalist can be subpoenaed to provide the information, for the defence, on the witness stand.

Specifically, from the journalist, I require the source of the following information, as per the questions here following (I have provided further quoted information, should yourself, SAPA, or the journalist find the additional information useful in terms of making your decision in this matter):

1. The details of Johnstone (Defendant’s) arrest on Wednesday 18 July 2007, implying that the arrest was legal; i.e. conducted with the relevant required Arrest Warrant documentation, and not blatantly irregular, due to the absence (non-existence) of any Arrest Warrant.
   

   Outstanding Evidentiary Documentation: ‘Outstanding Warrants’: Two Alleged ‘Outstanding Warrants’, used by SAP INSP. Christian, to plausibly irregularly or illegally arrest and detain Defendant in this Crimin Inuria Matter, on 18 July 2007.
   
   At the time of Inspector Christian’s arrest of Defendant, Inspector Christian stated his justification for the Arrest were two outstanding Warrants, one allegedly in Pietermaritzburg and one in Port Elizabeth.
   
   Defendant requested proof and copies of these alleged Outstanding Warrants, as per the Constitutional Principle “to be informed of the charge with sufficient detail to answer it.” Inspector Christian refused to provide proof of these alleged outstanding warrants, and proceeded to arrest and detain Defendant.
   
   The proof of these alleged Outstanding Warrants used to arrest and detain Defendant on 18 July 2007, have yet to be provided by Inspector Christian, the South African Police Services, or the National Prosecuting Authority; and were requested from the SAPS and the National Prosecuting Authority, by Lara Johnstone; from Attorney Mr. Malcolm Gezzler, by Lara and Andre Johnstone, and Attorney Mr. Milton de La Harpe, by Lara Johnstone.
   -- Excerpt: For the Record: State v Johnstone; ‘Crimen Inuria’: Incomplete Further Particulars

   
   
2. The source of the following SAPA reported information: (i) the name of the court orderly who informed the court that “[Lara Johnstone] was violent, swearing and abusive, and refused to be brought into the courtroom”; (ii) the court record, where the Magistrate noted that “Accused refuses to be brought to court. She is abusive and hostile.”; (iii) the court record letter from Mr. Theo Dahms, from the Forensic Section of Community Health Services Organisation, wherein he stated, “[Lara Johnstone] is totally uncooperative, and refuses to answer any of my questions. She simply walked out of the room. I can therefore not comment on her mental condition, but would think if she persists in this way she needs to be sent for psychiatric observation”; and (iv) The Psychiatric Assessment allegedly handed in to the court on September 22, 2007.
   

   Outstanding Due Process Documentation: Referral to Forensic Psychologist, Forensic Psychologist’s Report; and subsequent State Psychological Report:
   
   At approximately 10 am, on 19 July 2007, while awaiting to appear in court, in the Magistrate Court cells, the SAPS informed the Defendant she was being taken to ‘the Doctor’. At no time did the Defendant request to see any Doctor. The Defendant requested the Police to provide written reasons, for why she was being required to see a Doctor, without her request for seeing any Doctor. The Police laughed and told her to ‘Shut Up and do as you are told’. The Defendant was taken by the SAPS to the Family Planning & Community Health Services to see Forensic Psychologist, Dr. Theo Dahms.
   
   The Defendant refused to answer any of Dr. Theo Dahms questions (Annex: Woman Defies Court Over Rude De Lille SMSs, SAPA); until she was provided with written documentation, proving (i) her arrest and detention to have been lawful, i.e. provided evidence of the alleged outstanding Warrants, and their relevant legal validity; and (ii) written documentation, including written reasons (South African Constitution § 32 & 33: Access to Information and Just Administrative Action; Criminal Procedure Act § 77 – 79: Accused: Capacity to Understand Proceedings: Mental Illness and Criminal Responsibility) by the alleged court official who alleged the Defendant was required to see a Forensic Psychologist, as a result of her being incapable of understanding Proceedings, due to Mental Illness.
   
   The Defendant was returned to Magistrate Court Holding Cells; and requested a telephone call to arrange for an Attorney. The SAPS refused to allow the Defendant a telephone call, to arrange for an Attorney. The Defendant accordingly refused to enter the Court Room, without having been provided with her right to a telephone call to arrange for an attorney to represent her in court to apply for bail on her behalf. The SAPS continued to refuse her the opportunity to make a telephone call, until the end of court day, and subsequently the Defendant was transferred to Pollsmoor Prison, by the SAPS; where she remained until 22 August, when Attorney Mr. Malcolm Gezzler, and Advocate Gary Beale, represented her in a bail hearing, where she was granted bail. The bail was granted upon the alleged legal validity, authenticity and existence of the still outstanding Warrants, used to arrest and detain Defendant; which to this date have yet to be provided by the SAPS.
   -- Excerpt: For the Record: State v Johnstone; ‘Crimen Inuria’: Incomplete Further Particulars

   
   For the Record: NPA-CT have so far refused to provide the aforementioned documentation requested of them and the SAPS [See court proceedings of 02 March 2009]. The NPA: Pretoria, Adv. Ackerman (Priority Crimes Litigation Unit) did kindly respond to my request, by forwarding my complaint to NPA:WC: Adv. De Kock. I have had no response from NPA:WC, Adv. De Kock, or anyone else in Western Cape, or Capetown NPA.
   
   Should you require any further information from me, in order to enable you to make a fully informed decision in this matter; please simply ask; and if the information is available to me, I have no problem whatsoever making it available to you. All – and I mean ALL – information available to me, is according to my Radical Honesty principles of Transparency and Disclosure, available to SAPA in this matter.

When the media are informed that they made an error, in reporting an 'arrest', for which there was no Arrest Warrant, and no probable cause for an Arrest; do they print an apology and/or correction?

From: Mark van der Velden [*****@sapa.org.za]
To: Lara Johnstone
CC: Mr. Ben Maclennan
Subject: Re: Query from Ms Lara Johnstone
Sent: Wed 2009/06/10 12:17

Dear Ms Johnstone,

Thank you for your enquiry, received yesterday via our Ben Maclennan in the Cape Town office.

We will not be providing you with the name of the journalist who wrote the report you refer to, because the reporter’s identity is irrelevant in this matter. A Sapa news report is just that, a Sapa news report; for which Sapa as a news agency stands accountable. We also do not make our reporters available for subpoenas.

With regard to the sources of the information contained in the news report, their identity and origins are clear in the report itself and available to you to follow up on should you deem it necessary. Furthermore, it’s evident to me from the report itself that the information was taken on good faith from court records and reputable court officials.

If you maintain there are substantive errors of fact in the July 19, 2007 news report, you would need to show this on a factual basis rather than demanding the identity of the reporter concerned, for you to use to other ends. Furthermore, even if errors were identified, you would also need to be realistic and accept that correcting details of a minor news item that is already two years old and in effect well out of the general public memory, is not going to achieve much at all.

Yours sincerely


Mark van der Velden
Editor

Ed Note: I am unaware how you prove to Mr. van der Velden that a non-existant Arrest Warrant DOES NOT EXIST. I thought it was simple: You inform him it does not exist; he asks the journalist to prove it exists; by getting a copy from the person who stated the arrest was legal. If so provided, I am proven to be a liar; if not; he prints a correction and apology; because that is what honourable honest and ethical people do.

If not, and you report their refusal to the Press Ombudsman; does the Press Ombudsman investigate your complaint; or do they find an excuse to avoid investigating your complaint?

Excerpt: 11 June 2009: Official Complaint to the Press Council of South Africa: The Press Ombudsman: Complaint Brief Overview: SAPA alleged guilty of: (i) Erroneous Reporting & Refusal to Impartially Enquire into Errors, or Correct its Erroneous Reporting; (ii) Reporting & ‘Credible News’ selection, that is Predisposed to Extreme Bias and Prejudice; and (iii) fraudulent representation, of “If SAPA knows… South Africa Knows…” (PDF)

1. Complainant and Respondent Details:
   

   Complainant: Lara Johnstone
   

   Respondent: South African Press Association: Editor: Mr. Mark van der Velden

   
   
   
2. Publication News Article Details:
   

   Date: 19 July 2007
   

   Published Title: Woman Defies Court over Rude De Lille SMS’s (Annex A: http://mybroadband.co.za/news/Cellular/698.html; PDF copy available in Annex F: Honourable Transparency RSA Media Enquiry)
   
   SAPA Details: Title: Alleged Text Pest Sent for Observation (Annex B: PDF Copy available at: http://crimeninuria.blogspot.com/2009/06/disclosure-email-i-request-to-sapa-news.html)

   
   
   
3. Overview of Substance of Complaint, in terms of Complaints Procedures 1.3:
   The Complainant alleges that the Respondents’ Report:
   

   i. Contains erroneous information, which the Respondent Refuses to Correct;
   

   ii. Is extremely biased and one sided, on behalf of the State (Prosecution), in the matter reported on;
   

   iii. Lacks any thorough impartial enquiry into alternative interpretations and perspectives of events from the Defendant; and is accordingly not balanced and fair reporting.

   
   Furthermore:
   

   iv. it appears plausible the Respondent is either negligently, or worse, intentionally, involved in deliberately withholding from the South African people (their readers and subscribers) the information provided to them, of:
   

   1. SAPS Inspector Christians’ illegal arrest of Complainant, without any valid and legal Arrest Warrant, or Outstanding Warrants, signed by a Magistrate.
   
   2. Court Officials intentional and malicious distribution of fraudulently false information to the Respondents Journalist, impugning the Defendants Psychological Integrity, by implying that evidence existed in accordance with Criminal Procedure Act § 77 – 79; namely alleging that the Accused lacked the Capacity to Understand Proceedings as a result of Mental Illness; when they were fully cognisant of the fact that they were not in possession of any such written evidentiary reports.

   
   Additionally;
   

   v. The Complainant alleges that the Respondent’s Legal Representation, as to their commitment to dispersal of any credible news, without any withholding, bias or prejudice on their part, by the implication conveyed in “If SAPA knows… South Africa knows…” represents fraud, in terms of the Respondents prejudiced and biased choices of which stories to report on, and which to intentionally pretend do not exist. SAPA’s choices on what to report on represents a decision by the Respondent to deliberately withhold certain information and credible news, from its subscribers; therefore ‘If SAPA knows… South Africa knows…” is not accurate or true. A more accurate and true representation would be “If SAPA prejudice decides South Africa should know.. South Africa knows; if SAPA’s prejudice decides South Africa should not know.. then South Africa does not know…; what South Africa knows.. is dependent on SAPA’s prejudiced choices.”
   

   1. The Respondents website (http://sapajhb7.sapa.org.za/), states among other things that: “If SAPA KNOWS… SOUTH AFRICA KNOWS… ) and that it provides its readers (via its subscribers) with “consistent, reliable and credible breaking news”

Do the South African Goverment (SAPS & NPA) and Media give a flying rats ass; if an 'Arrest' is Legal, or not?

Our Government and media are the potent, the omnipresent teachers. For good or for ill, they teach the whole people by their example.

-- US Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, dissenting in Olmstead



How do you get citizens to have respect for the rule of law?

How do you encourage a society founded on the rule of law?

When the Goverment and Media endorse, support and perpetuate the rule of men?

Are they not saying 'F**k the Rule of Law'!?

What has happened to the Social Contract, when the Goverment and Media say 'F**k You'! to the 'rule of law'?


If 'the rule of law' should only be applied to our friends, or those people we agree with; then that is not the rule of law; that is the rule of men; also known as Mob Rule!

The 'rule of law' means we demand that even those we disagree with, hate or despise, are accorded their due process Constitutional Rights.


“I do not agree with a word you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” -- Voltaire

Disclosure: Andrea Muhrrteyn is the nom de plume for Lara Johnstone

Share