‘TRC was a fraudulent PR publicity stunt’ & ‘Human Consciousness Rule-of-Law Freedom Charter’, to be heard in Constitutional Court!?

Overview NewsArticles:
» » ConCourt: ‘Was SA's TRC a falsification of History’?
» » SA Media Conspiratorial ‘What Bleads, Leads’ role in SA’s Race War

Amicus Curiae to Constitutional Court Details:

TO:

Registrar of the Constitutional Court:
Tel: (011) 359-7400 || Fax: (011) 339-5098
Email: [Email Notice (Read)]

AND TO:

Appellant: The Citizen Newspaper
Willem de Klerk Attorneys
Tel: (011) 717 8562 || Fax: (011) 486 4506
Email: [Email Notice (Read)]

AND TO:

Respondent: Robert McBride
Mashiane, Moodley & Monama Incorporated
Tel: (011) 303-7900 || Fax: (011) 303 7999 / 303 7902
Email: [Email Notice (Read)]

ConCourt Amicus Curiae Argument: TRC was a PR publicity stunt, because, among others:

[a] Only a sincere and serious specific, clear and unambiguous Truth and Forgiveness Social Contract (PDF), unequivocally understood and practiced by the common man can ever contribute to sincere and serious reconciliation and the reconstruction of South Africa’s violent ridden society; and

[b] Any legislation or jurisprudence which professes to advocate on behalf of human rights, peace and social justice, while ignoring their ecological basis – a stable human population at slightly less than the eco-systems carrying capacity – is endorsing and practicing legal dishonesty and hypocrisy; i.e fraud. It is legislation and jurisprudence that is deliberately indifferent to the laws of sustainability (PDF). It is legislation written by politicians and lawyers who ‘know the truth about the irresponsible planting of semen seeds in women’s wombs, and the resource war consequences of overpopulation colliding with scarce resources; but who cover up such information’, in their legislation.

NOTICE OF MOTION

Take Notice that Lara Johnstone, of the Radical Honesty culture and religion, intends to apply to the Chief Justice of this Court for the following orders:

(a) For an Order to approve the Applicant as an Amici Curiae in the above proceedings in terms of Rule 10 (4) of the Rules of this Constitutional Court;

(b) To approve the Applicants Request for In Forma Pauperis Amici Curiae proceedings;

(c) To instruct the Constitutional Court Registrar to issue such In Forma Pauperis Proceedings Referral on behalf of the Applicant, in terms of the provisions of Sub-Rule 1(a) of Rule 40 of the High Court;

and that the accompanying affidavit of Lara Johnstone will be used in support of this application.

Please Take Further Notice that Appelant and Respondent are requested to submit their consent or objection to this Application, to the Applicant and Registrar, by no later than noon on Wednesday, 31 March 2010; to enable their consent/objection to be submitted by the Registrar, as an attachment to this application to the Chief Justice for his consideration, on 01 April 2010.

Dated at George, this 25th day of March, 2010.

FOUNDING AFFIDAVIT

I the undersigned,

LARA JOHNSTONE

do hereby make oath and say:

[1.] I am the only member – to my knowledge – of the Radical Honesty culture and religion currently living in South Africa. The Radical Honesty culture and religion is open to anyone from any culture or religion, nationality or ideology; the only pre-requisite being a commitment to Radical Honesty: Being Specific About Anger and Forgiveness processes, i.e. the Truth and Forgiveness Social Contract (PDF), as excerpted from Dr. Brad Blanton’s book, Practicing Radical Honesty: How to Complete the Past, Stay in the Present and Build a Future with a Little Help from Your Friends (PDF).

[2.] I am a former employee of Dr. Brad Blanton: (1) President and CEO of Radical Honesty Enterprises Sparrowhawk Book Publishing and The Center for Radical Honesty, both dedicated to promoting honesty in the world; (2) former candidate for Congress in 2004 and 2006, on the platform of ‘Honesty in Politics’; (3) Pope of the Radical Honesty Futilitarian Church; i.e. “Dr. Truth” ; and (4) author of (i) Radical Honesty: How To Transform your Life by Telling the Truth; (ii) Practicing Radical Honesty: How to Complete the Past, Stay in the Present and Build a Future with a Little Help from Your Friends (PDF), (iii) Honest to God: A Change of Heart that Can Change the World, with Neale Donald Walsh, author of the Conversations with God books; (iv) Radical Parenting: Seven Steps to a Functional Family in a Dysfunctional World; (v) The Truthtellers: Stories of Success by Radically Honest People and (vi) Beyond Good and Evil: The Eternal Split-Second-Sound-Light-Being; (vii) Some New Kind of Trailer Trash.

[3.] I am 43 years old. With the help of an IUD, inserted at age 19, Common Sense and a love for children, I have never been pregnant, nor had an abortion; nor brought any unwanted children onto the planet; nor contributed to local, national or international overpopulation or resource wars; nor advocated on behalf of population or economic growth; or materialist consumerism.

[4.] I am the Defendant / Applicant in an In Forma Pauperis Application for Review with the High Court, Western Cape, on a conviction and sentence of ‘crimen injuria’; where the Magistrate effectively ruled that a falsification of history was to be allowed against the me, in that in the New ‘Truth and Reconciliation’ South Africa, only one interpretation for the word ‘Kaffir’ was allowed. Irrespective of whether the Plaintiffs behavior fit my Radical Honesty Cultural and Religious definition of ‘Kaffir’, it was against the law to use the word ‘Kaffir’ to describe her behavior and punishable with a six month suspended prison sentence. That the Kaffir definition accurately described her behavior, and was consequently a truthful opinion about reality, was irrelevant.

[[Kaffir]: The Individuals Radical Honesty Cultural & Religious Definition for ‘Kaffir’ in this instance was the original etymological meaning for the word ‘Kaffir’ namely: The word Kaafir comes from the root verb Kafara, which means ‘cover’. It was originally used before Islam, in the Arabic language, to describe farmers, when they bury a seed in the ground and cover it with soil in their planting process. Kafir subsequently came to mean ‘a person who hides or covers the truth’. Muslims subsequently altered it to mean ‘a person who hides or covers the truth about Islam’. In this Radical Honesty context it was used to accuse SA politicians of ‘knowing the truth about the irresponsible planting of semen seeds in women’s wombs, and the resource war consequences of overpopulation colliding with scarce resources; but who covers up such information’]

Furthermore the Police, Prosecutor and Plaintiffs response to me for using the term ‘Kaffir’ was to proceed to illegally arrest me without an arrest warrant, deny me the right to appear in court within 24 hours of arrest, and to illegally detain me for 33 days in Pollsmoor, before providing me with a Bail Hearing. The Magistrate deliberately and indifferently ignored the expert witness Affidavits of Dr. Brad Blanton (PDF), and Dr. Leonard Horowitz (PDF), on my behalf; where Dr. Blanton clearly clarified his allegations that in his expert opinion as one of the worlds experts on anger and forgiveness; South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation politicians were not seriously or sincerely committed to sincere forgiveness; and were conducting a legal and political persecution and prosecution of me. I subsequently proceeded to contact 140 of SA Political, Academic and Media elite, including the Appellant (Editor), to enquire whether they endorsed the Rule-of-Law to be applied on my behalf. The Appellant’s comments was as follows:

“Deliberate Indifference: Martin Williams (Editor, The Citizen) is deliberately indifferent to certain people of certain ethnicities and/or ideologies and/or cultures and/or religions being politically and legally persecuted and prosecuted; and you fit one or more of those particular ethnic, ideological, cultural or religious categories, towards whom, The Citizen is deliberately indifferent.” – Martin Williams, Editor, The Citizen, 26 February 2010 (PDF)

I would however like to state for the record, that irrespective of the fact that the Appellant is deliberately indifferent to the Rule-of-Law being applied, on behalf of my persecution; I would like to herewith confirm herewith under oath, that I support the Rule-of-Law be applied to both Appellant and Respondent; since I endorse the Rule-of-Law for everyone, of whatever culture, ethnicity, religion, socio-economic status, ideology, political affiliation, or culture; including for Two-Faced Hypocrite elites, who it appears selectively endorse the Rule-of-Law for commoners, whose Honesty and commitment to sincere forgiveness, they may find offensive.

[5.] 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.

[6.] When dealing with legal questions, I rely on:

[A] A Paralegal Certificate, and Paralegal Diploma, both with Distinction, from the South African Institute of Legal Training and Damelin Correspondence Career Development College.

[B] My Radical Honesty culture and religion’s Truth and Forgiveness Social Contract (PDF) practices of resolving disagreements as adults, namely face-to-face in person, with a commitment to remaining in such conversation until sincere sensate forgiveness occurs.

[C] My experience of other cultures preference for resolving disagreements through passive-aggressive revenge tête-à-tête’s via parasitic lawyers and judicial systems, whose parasitic lawyers frequently negligently or intentionally refuse parties to a dispute to resolve such dispute face-to-face in person with a commitment to attaining sincere sensate forgiveness; preferring to demand of parties their participation in fake and two-faced intellectual forgiveness.

[Parasitic Lawyers] Howard Law School Professor Charlie Houston, the primary legal mentor of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall, taught that: ‘Lawyers are either social engineers, or they are parasites. Social Engineer lawyers aim to eliminate the difference between what the laws say and mean, and how they are applied; whereas legal parasites aim to entrench their parasitism from the difference between what the laws say and mean, and the application of such differences to their parasitic benefit.’

[7.] The Applicant:

[8.] The Applicants original commitment to the Truth and Reconciliation process may be found in her Submission to ‘Register of Reconciliation’ and donation to Presidents Fund for Reparations to assist victims of gross violations of human rights (PDF) dated 18 January 1999 ; which details her willingness to donate her entire Inheritance (1/4 of her parents farm) to facilitate sincere Truth and Forgiveness.

[9.] In an 11 June 2004, Essay on Proudly South African Parasite Hypocrisy: Fraudulent Rehabilitation Boomerang , submission to the South African Government, the applicant detailed how its Criminal Justice and Penological (Prison) Policies were a Major Intentional Source of New South Africa’s ‘Kaffirs’ AKA ‘Criminals’; and how denying any prisoners who may wish to sincerely rehabilitate, the opportunity to express their anger, frustration and hopelessness nonviolently, resulted in their expression of such anger in subsequent acts of recidivist violence.

[10.] The Applicant is the author of The Educate to Liberate: Human Consciousness Rule-of-Law Freedom Charter: White Refugee Guerrilla Law Social Science Enquiry Report: 140 of SA Political, Academic & Media Elite, Say ‘No Thanks’ to the ‘Rule-of-Law’ ; wherein she contacted among others, 30 media editors, including the Appellant; 7 Political Party Leaders; 2 Gov. Protection Bodies, including the Public Protector; 12 Human Rights Org's, incl. the F.W. de Klerk and Nelson Mandela Foundations; 9 University Vice Chancellor’s; and 76 Academics who signed a Petition to the Canadian Charge D'Affaires in Pretoria, objecting to the granting of ‘White Refugee’ status to Brandon Huntley; to determine their official representation related to the Human Consciousness Rule-of-Law Freedom Charter. More specifically they were informed that it was assumed that they (a) are Proudly TRC SA leaders who agree that if SA does not value non-violent civil disobedience free speech dissent, it is not a democratic country and (b) if informed of evidence the SA government is legally and politically persecuting a SA citizen; they would wish to express their democratic objections thereto, with at the very least a public comment, that they object. All 140 declined to object by providing a comment in support of the Rule of Law.


[11.] The Present Application

[12.] This application arises out of the application launched by the Appellant, The Citizen Newspaper, seeking Leave to Appeal the SCA Judgement which ruled on behalf of the Respondent, Mr. Robert McBride. The Appellants argument being that the SCA erred in its interpretation that the Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act, which states that amnesty expunges the conviction and sentence from all official records, and also that “the conviction shall for all purposes… be deemed not to have taken place.” Consequently reference to the Respondents ‘murder’ was considered as ‘defamation’, because it was false. The Appellant believes such a ruling shall require that a falsification of history be required, and deny the Media the right to freedom of expression of the truth.

[13.] The Applicant seeks to be admitted as an amicus curiae in respect of the main application in terms of Rule 10(4) of the rules of this Court. The purpose of this affidavit is to set out the basis of the application in terms of Rules 10(6) (a)(b) and (c) of the Rules of this Court.

[14.] I will herewith deal with the five main issues:

[A] The Financial State of Indigence of the Applicant

[B] The interest of the Applicant in the main application;

[C] Submissions which will be advanced by the Applicant if admitted as an amicus curiae;

[D] Attitude of the parties in the main application to the Applicants admission; and

[E] The relief that ought to be granted to the Applicant in this application.

[15.] The Financial State of Indigence of the Applicant:

[16.] I herewith confirm that I am indigent, in that, except for household goods, wearing apparel and tools of trade, I do not possess of property to the amount of R10 000 and will not be able within a reasonable time to provide such sum from my earnings, which are currently below R500 per month.


[17.] The Interest of the Applicant in the Main Application:

[18.] The Applicant is of the view that the main application raises novel questions which are crucial for the rule of law and the principle of legality.

[19.] Furthermore the applicants submissions are founded on a matter of principle: (a) that only a sincere and serious specific, clear and unambiguous Truth and Forgiveness Social Contract (PDF), unequivocally understood and practiced by the common man can ever contribute to sincere and serious reconciliation and the reconstruction of any violent and conflict ridden society; and (b) any legislation or jurisprudence which professes to advocate on behalf of human rights, peace and social justice, while ignoring their ecological basis – a stable human population at slightly less than the eco-systems carrying capacity – is endorsing and practicing legal dishonesty and hypocrisy; i.e. fraud. It is legislation and jurisprudence that is deliberately indifferent to the laws of sustainability.

[20.] Allegedly the Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act (“the Act”), was setup to among others: (a) provide for the investigation and establishment of as complete a picture as possible of the nature, causes and extent of gross violations of human rights committed… emanating from the conflicts of the past, granting of amnesty to persons who made full disclosure…, affording victims opportunity to relate violations suffered; ….. rehabilitation and the restoration of the human and civil dignity of victims of violations of human rights; reporting to the Nation about such violations; the making of recommendations aimed at the prevention of future gross violations of human rights; (b) establish the truth in relation to past events as well as motives for and circumstances in which gross violations of human rights have occurred, to prevent a repetition of such acts in future; and because the Constitution stated that (c) the pursuit of national unity and the well-being of all South African citizens and peace required reconciliation between the people of South Africa and the reconstruction of society; and (d) there was a need for understanding but not for vengeance, a need for reparation not retaliation, a need for ubuntu not victimization.

[21.] All of the original Appellants, the Respondent, and all the Supreme Court of Appeal Justices, including those dissenting, all appear to assume that the Act meant what it said, and that those entrusted to implement the law applied the law in the Act, as if the law meant what it said.

[22.] The Applicant does not share their assumption that the Act meant what it said, nor that those entrusted to implement the Act even applied the law to the extent that the Acts law meant what it said. For example:

[A] Did those implementing the Act sincerely and seriously apply the Act’s mandate, as if the law seriously meant what it said; that for example ‘the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth’ be investigated, or did they apply the law to mean, ‘the ANC truth, the whole ANC truth, and nothing but the ANC truth’ be propagated to the world? For example: If it is true that poor blacks, of all black tribes under Apartheid rule had the highest living standards of all poor blacks on the African continent; how is it that ‘Apartheid’ is considered ‘evil’; and all the other Black African states whose poor blacks lived in horrific conditions were not ‘evil’ for suppressing their poor blacks, worse than ‘evil Apartheid’? Is there a different standard of behaviour required for ‘white’ governments, than from black governments? If so, why?

[B] Did the Act seriously and sincerely mean that the TRC were provided with a mandate to seriously and impartially investigate “the truth in relation to past events as well as motives for and circumstances in which gross violations of human rights have occurred, to prevent a repetition of such acts in future”? For example: If so, did the Act expressly demand that population growth and demographic factors that contribute to violence, not be enquired into; and if not; and the Act law, meant what it said; why were these factors not enquired into?

[C] Did the Act seriously and sincerely mean that the “pursuit of national unity and the well-being of all South African citizens and peace required reconciliation between the people of South Africa and the reconstruction of society? How did the Act define ‘reconciliation’ and ‘reconstruction’? It didn’t. Does interpreting ‘reconciliation’ in accordance with the principles of ‘ubuntu’ (PDF), mean that ‘reconciliation’ is achieved when individuals pretend to like each other, pretend to care about each other, and that in essence the only individuals who can achieve ‘ubuntu reconciliation’ will be those willing to sell their souls, for a fake Rainbow ‘Ubuntu Reconciliation’ Illusion to become ‘Ubuntu Reconciliation’ ‘Gatkruiping Experts’?

[D] Did the TRC provide for the ‘rehabilitation and the restoration of the human and civil dignity of victims of violations of human rights’; as if the Act seriously meant what it said? If so, why did neither the Act, nor the alleged ‘Truth’ and ‘Reconciliation’ religious and psychology experts provide for any facilitation for victims and victimizers to meet face-to-face in private, to non-violently express their anger, by getting mad and getting over being mad; until sincere forgiveness (i.e. closure) had been achieved? How are the victims and victimizers supposed to achieve ‘closure’ while they are denied the opportunity to release their anger non-violently?

[E] Did the TRC make recommendations aimed at the prevention of future gross violations of human rights; as if the Act seriously meant what it said? If so, why did those implementing the Act make no enquiry whatsoever into population policy factors of demographics factors such as rapid population growth’s contribution to the Apartheid hostilities?

[F] How did the Act’s law interpret the word ‘closure’; a fundamental process required, as an alleged stepping stone to ‘reconciliation’. The Act doesn’t define ‘closure’ or ‘reconciliation’. In the Radical Honesty community ‘closure’ of a painful issue means the individual has been provided the opportunity to be specific about their anger, fear, hate, fury and pain to the person whom they believe to be responsible therefore, face-to-face non-violently, and to remain committed to such conversation until sincere forgiveness occurs, for both parties. Only once sincere forgiveness has occurred, would any Radical Honesty observer state that ‘closure’ had occurred. Anyone stating that closure had occurred while either or both parties were still furious with each other; would be in a state of very serious denial, about what the word ‘closure’ meant.

[23.] Consequently the Applicants In Forma Pauperis Amicus Curiae submission shall argue that:

[24.] The TRC was a fraudulent PR publicity stunt negligently conducted by SA’s political, academic, media and legal elite: Both Appellants and Respondents legal arguments are negligently or intentionally furthering the politically correct -- and financially and public relations convenient -– political, psychological and legal fraud conducted by South Africa’s political, academic and media elite, upon South African citizens.

[25.] TRC’s fraudulent representation to victimizers and citizens: TRC would provide ‘closure’: The TRC implied that alleged sincere and serious ‘closure’ was possible, and would occur, via the legal processes of what I shall refer to as the “TRC’s Religious Circus” of using victims and victimizers as a form of ‘Circus Monkeys’ on the world stage; to promote their fake two-faced hypocrisy Intellectual Forgiveness Rainbow Nation.

[26.] TRC’s fraudulent representation to victimizers, victims and citizens: TRC would make impartial enquiry to “establish the truth in relation to past events, as well as the motives for, and circumstances in which gross violations of human rights occurred, and to make the findings known, in order to prevent a repetition of such acts in the future.” The TRC’s enquiry can only be considered a ‘Flat Earth’ enquiry, which totally and perhaps intentionally and deliberately ignored population policy factors which contributed to the motives for implementing apartheid.

Imagine if blacks had chosen to adopt a cultural trait of personal responsibility and concern for their children, whereby they refrained from procreation until they could provide for a stable and loving environment for their offspring in a small committed family environment. If so, South Africa would currently be populated by 10 million predominantly educated citizens, 50% white & 50% black and coloured, most of whom had grown up in loving small family homes, with responsible parents.

For example: According to National Security Memorandum 200: Implications
of Worldwide Population Growth:

“... population factors are indeed critical in, and often determinants of, violent conflict in developing areas. Segmental (religious, social, racial) differences, migration, rapid population growth, differential levels of knowledge and skills, rural/urban differences, population pressure and the spatial location of population in relation to resources -- in this rough order of importance -- all appear to be important contributions to conflict and violence... Clearly, conflicts which are regarded in primarily political terms often have demographic roots. Recognition of these relationships appears crucial to any understanding or prevention of such hostilities.”

What role did population growth factors play in South Africa’s Apartheid violence?

If understanding demographic roots is a prerequisite for understanding their subsequent symptomatic political violence, and hence preventing their future re-occurrence, why was this not a priority for the TRC to enquire into?

What role did the ANC play in contributing to the Population Explosion of Cannon Fodder and Resource War Violence? Why was the ANC not required to take responsibility for their population production of poverty stricken cannon fodder? According to Witchcraft and the State in South Africa, by Johannes Harnischfeger:

Especially evening assemblies girls had to attend as well: “They would come into the house and tell us we should go. They didn't ask your mother they just said ‘come let's go.’ You would just have to go with them. They would threaten you with their belts and ultimately you would think that if you refused, they would beat you. Our parents were afraid of them” (quoted by Delius 1996:189).

All those opposing the wishes of the young men were reminded, that it was every woman’s obligation to give birth to new “soldiers”, in order to replace those warriors killed in the liberation struggle. The idiom of the adolescents referred to these patriotic efforts as “operation production”. Because of exactly this reason it was forbidden for the girls to use contraceptives. (Delius 1996:189; Niehaus 1999:250)

Why was the media silent about the role population growth demographic factors played in South Africa’s Apartheid violence? If the Media are serious about their commitment to ‘Reconciliation’ and prevention of future hostilities, why were they silent about how the TRC, and subsequently the ANC are deliberately indifferent to abiding by the laws of sustainability (PDF)? How are the ignorant masses suffering from the resource war consequences of overpopulation colliding with scarce resources ever going to wake up, if their media and political leaders are too gutless to start telling these truths, and educating people on these issues?

Is Martin Luther King Jnr. the only black leader to have ever expressed a sincere concern for the plague of overpopulation, and the need to Educated to Liberate the poor from their cultural prison of ignorant poverty production procreation?

“Unlike plagues of the dark ages or contemporary diseases we do not understand, the modern plague of overpopulation is soluble by means we have discovered and with resources we possess. What is lacking is not sufficient knowledge of the solution but universal consciousness of the gravity of the problem and education of the billions who are its victim.” – Martin Luther King Jnr.

Why are South African black leaders participating in a population explosion of moral degeneration and social disintegration, while blaming all their problems on evil apartheid?

“That South Africa has the highest Aids infection and death rates is neither altogether Mbeki's doing, nor coincidental. Legislation and other government-driven policies and programmes have engendered an environment that has escalated the pandemic. For example, the permissive pregnancy rules and social grants (especially for children) introduced by the Constitution and government have encouraged teenagers and unmarried women to have children on a large scale. The spread of Aids has been a consequence; the evidence is there for all to see. And so too there is a high correlation between this abnormal government-sponsored population explosion, on the one hand, and the deepening of the Aids crisis, of Malthusian poverty aggravation, moral degeneration and social disintegration on the other.” -- Meshack Mabogoane, the Secretary General of the Forum of Black Journalists

[27.] Respondent is a primary victim of TRC fraud; and appellant a secondary victim: The TRC Religious Circus fraud was, and continues to be, committed against (a) Apartheid and ‘liberation’ foot soldiers, whether Eugene de Kock, the Respondent, those tortured at Camp Quatro, etc. and their victims; and (b) South African citizens.

The Appellant and Respondent have allowed the TRC fraud to rape them of their psychological integrity, by requiring them to participate and perpetuate the TRC fraud, pretending that sincere Truth Telling and Forgiveness occurred; when any sincere honest enquiry would inform them that they were and are perpetuating a lie. When exactly did the Appellant and Respondent ever forgive each other? Did they ever want to forgive each other? What does the word ‘forgiveness’ mean to them?

It remains to be seen whether Respondent and Appellant suffer from Battered TRC Fraud Syndrome, a cousin of Battered Wives and Battered Voters Syndrome; of people addicted to the Politics of Codependency Abuse?

[28.] Explosion of Crime, racially motivated violence & corruption is a symptom of, among others TRC fraud: The consequences of this TRC Religious Circus fraud can best be described as a process of psychological thought control, or psychological warfare brainwashing, by our ANC-TRC Ministry of Truth political, media, legal and academic elite; who -– for their own politically correct public relations ‘Rainbow Nation illusion’ benefit -- require that the victims and victimizers and all South African citizens, partake in this Religious Circus charade of fake two-faced hypocrisy Intellectual Forgiveness. The folly and stupidity of such hypocrisy is available for anyone with eyes to see, ears to hear, and a brain to think; to observe the truth that 2 + 2 in South Africa does not equal 4. A country winning the crime and rape Olympics is not a country that has experienced Truth and Forgiveness; and a country that pretends it has, certainly cannot be said to have a sincere commitment to truth or forgiveness, considering their willingness to psychologically emotionally and politically gang-rape the meaning of such concepts into total oblivion.

[29.] Explosion of Fragile-Ego Hyper-Sensitivity to any constructive criticism of the Fake Rainbow Nation, is labeled as ‘Racism’ or ‘right wing’: The consequences of this fake intellectual forgiveness is that sincere closure and forgiveness is never reached by any parties, but all parties are required to pretend that they have reached closure; and this pretence not only denies them the opportunity of a sincere conversation about their anger, so as to attain sincere closure and forgiveness; but all parties knowledge of the fact that their intellectual forgiveness is fake, adds to their anger and hostility about the alleged fakeness of the other parties. Imagine a husband and wife whose lovemaking requires them to pretend that they have achieved orgasm? Individuals who spend a great deal of time in a psychological state of pretence experience a significant increase in their psychological and spiritual insecurity. As their psychological insecurity increases they become more easily insulted; because their sense of self is no longer rooted in their values of being true to themselves, by expressing their sincere honest opinions, thoughts and feelings; but in an obsessive paranoia perception of what others think of them.

[30.] What would a sincere and serious Truth and Forgiveness Social Contract have looked and felt like: It is submitted that a truly impartial serious and sincere Truth and Reconciliation process would have:

(a) provided all Human Rights violators with the opportunity to submit a brief confidential application Invitation via a legal representative, as a John Doe, via the ‘TFSC’ (Truth & Forgiveness Social Contract) to their victims, of their request to participate in face-to-face private meetings with experienced impartial facilitators to provide them with the opportunity to share the truths about their crimes, and listening to the resulting sincere anger in response thereto, nonviolently; until sincere sensate forgiveness was reached. Details of the victimizers crimes and their names would only be released to the public, once the victim and victimizer had achieved sincere forgiveness (a new Truth and Forgiveness Social Contract);

(b) Victims could make the same invitation to their Unknown Victimizers, to the TFSC, which would be a published invitation in the media;

(c) The co-creation of victims and victimizers of such a new ‘Truth and Forgiveness Social Contract’ process would only be legitimate if monitored and facilitated by a truly politically, ideologically, legally and psychologically impartial Truth and Sincere Forgiveness expert, such as Dr. Brad Blanton, with procedures – that have been proven to work -- as described in his book Practicing Radical Honesty (PDF), on the chapters on Being Specific About Anger and Forgiveness (PDF);

(d) Prior to both victim and victimizers final commitment to participate in such a process; they would be required to take part in an eight day Course in Honesty and Forgiveness workshop, so as to be fully informed of what the process of specific truth-telling about past secrets and skeletons and anger entails; so that both parties are psychologically, emotionally, politically and legally fully-informed prior to their final decision to commit to the ‘Truth and Forgiveness Social Contract’ process with one another; only once they had completed the workshop, would they be required to make their final commitment;

(e) For example: Both parties acceptance of the invitation require their serious and sincere commitment to refuse to pretend any fake intellectual forgiveness, and secondly to remain in the facilitated conversation, sharing their anger and the true details about their crimes with qualified impartial Anger and Forgiveness facilitators; until both parties are 100% sensate certain, they have unequivocally forgiven each other (For example, they could eyeball-to-eyeball their victim/victimizer, and experience no physical sensate signs of discomfort, no sweaty palms, no blinking and avoiding eye contact, no tight shoulders, no tight jaw, no negative thoughts, etc; totally and sincerely seeing the other person in a new context);

(f) Once true sincere forgiveness had occurred between victims and victimizers, the victims could legally endorse Amnesty and expungement of the victimizers criminal act, and join the victimizer, by supporting them to reveal the truth of their acts to South African citizens and requesting any citizens angry with the victimizer, to approach them via the TFSC process;

(g) Where a victim declined to accept the invitation to participate in exploring a new Truth and Forgiveness Social Contract, they could proceed in their attempts for legal justice via the courts; and if successful; a significant factor in mitigation of sentence (not conviction) would be the victimizers original Offer to the victim to explore a Truth and Forgiveness Social Contract;

(h) Conversely, where a victimizer had declined to accept a victims invitation; should they be found guilty in subsequent legal proceedings, their refusal to accept the victims invitation would be considered in aggravation of sentence.

[31.] It is the Applicants submission that if the South African elite remain attached to enforcing their shallow and two-faced Rainbow ‘Ubuntu Reconciliation’ Illusion upon South African citizens, victims and victimizers, demanding we commoners join the SA elite in becoming ‘Ubuntu Reconciliation’ Gatkruiping Experts; the end result of how this Act was legislated, implemented, and subsequently politically and legally interpreted shall have disastrous consequences, like the ‘Peace’ Treaty of Versailles.

[32.] If there are any members of the South African elite seriously and sincerely concerned and committed to the principles of Truth and Reconciliation, closure and forgiveness; they better start asking themselves what those words mean, not just intellectually, but in the guts of the everyday common citizens beings.

[33.] In the circumstances, I submit that the Applicant – as an individual dedicated to advancing the understanding and respect for the practice of accomplishing sincere and specific truth telling about anger, sincere forgiveness and closure, non-violently – has an interest in the main application sufficient to qualify her as an amicus curiae.

[34.] The Submissions which will be Advanced by the Applicant if she is admitted as an Amicus Curiae

[35.] The Applicant seeks admission as amicus curiae for the purpose of advancing certain legal and factual submissions and interpretations, as a commoner citizen, from the Radical Honesty culture and religion, whose values are founded upon the Truth and Forgiveness Social Contract (PDF), which provides its members with an incredibly powerful process of getting mad and getting over being mad, in the presence and face-to-face with the person they are mad with; to a state of sincere sensate forgiveness.

[36.] The Appellant, Respondent and Supreme Court of Appeal Parties Legal Arguments are founded upon inaccurate presumptions and interpretations of the Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act 34, 1995 that presume (a) the TRC was sincerely and seriously impartially committed to accomplishing its mandate to expose the historical truth about Apartheid reality; and (b) sincere in its representation that the TRC’s Truth and Amnesty process would provide the opportunity for closure, and sincere reconciliation and reconstruction of society.

[37.] Further submissions by the Applicant shall provide evidentiary material that implies a lack of credibility of the Appellant’s (a) alleged commitment to the Rule of Law for all citizens; and (b) objection to the alleged falsification of history. The Applicant shares the Appellants vehemence to any falsification of history; but unlike the Appellant the Applicant is not selective about which falsifications she endorses and which she objects to. The evidence that indicates a particular case where the Appellant declined to endorse the Rule-of-Law Constitutional rights on behalf of the Applicant, when she was illegally arrested and detained and shunted through a Kangaroo court trial. Furthermore the aforementioned Kangaroo Court trial, endorsed by the Appellant, dealt specifically with a Magistrate, Prosecutor and Plaintiff who demanded the falsification of History in regards to the individuals definition and interpretation of the word ‘kaffir’ .

[38.] The applicant will rely on among others the following comparative foreign jurisprudence, expert opinions and evidentiary documentation, to substantiate her ‘citizens privilege’ argument and interpretation in regards to her allegations of ‘TRC Religious Circus Fraud’ and the Appellants lack of credibility.

[A] Affidavit of Brad Blanton, Ph.D, evidencing the legal, psychological, and socio-political ‘citizens privilege’, Nuremberg skills and competencies of Individual Responsibility, required for acts of civil disobedience to perceived illegitimate authority; and their application to the common law ‘reasonableness test’

[B] Civil Disobedience and the Necessity Defence, by John Alan Cohan, Pierce Law Review (PDF)

[C] The Nuremberg Defence in the Pentagon Papers Case, by Richard A. Falk

[D] Article 6 of the London Charter: Agreement for the Prosecution and Punishment of Major War Criminals of the European Axis, Charter of the International Tribunal

[E] Article by poet Mphutlane wa Bofelo, Racist, sexist, violent-peddling, Malema hate-talk dangerous for the future re-titled by the Applicant Forsaking Gandhian Non-violence, Honour and Character… the ANC Fanonstein Struggle spawned a Gov. of Comrade Tsotsis, Gangsters and Kleptomaniacs

[F] The Educate to Liberate: Human Consciousness Rule-of-Law Freedom Charter White Refugee Guerrilla Law Social Science Enquiry Report: 140 of SA Political, Academic & Media Elite, Say ‘No Thanks’ to the ‘Rule-of-Law’;

[G] How and Why Journalists Avoid the Population-Environment Connection, Report by Univ. of SW Louisiana ;

[H] National Security Study Memorandum 200: Implications of Worldwide Population Growth;

[I] Population Policy Common Sense: Exponential Functions and the Laws of Sustainability (PDF)

[J] Population Policy Common Sense: Truth and Forgiveness Social Contract (PDF)

[K] The Truth about the Truth Commission, by Anthea Jeffery (PDF)

[L] Battle of the Youth Bulge: Social Unrest and Violence from Idle Young Men, by Population Action International

[M] Witchcraft and the State in South Africa, by Johannes Harnischfeger

[N] The Unforgiven, excerpt from Robert McBride – A Coloured Life, by Dr Gomolemo Mokae (PDF)

[39.] For these reasons, I submit that the Applicants submissions will assist the court in determining the main application between the Appellant and Respondent and will be different from those of the parties to the main application.

[40.] Furthermore the applicants submissions are founded on a matter of principle: (a) that only a sincere and serious specific, clear and unambiguous Truth and Forgiveness Social Contract, unequivocally understood and practiced by the common man can ever contribute to sincere and serious reconciliation and the reconstruction of any violent ridden society; and (b) any legislation or jurisprudence which professes to advocate on behalf of human rights, peace and social justice, while ignoring their ecological basis – a stable human population at slightly less than the eco-systems carrying capacity – is endorsing and practicing legal dishonesty and hypocrisy. It is legislation and jurisprudence that is deliberately indifferent to the laws of sustainability.


[41.] The Attitude of the Parties to the Main Application:

[42.] On 25 March 2010, the Applicant telephoned the Appellant and Respondents Attorneys to determine their contact details, and informed them of her intention to seek their consent to be admitted as amicus curiae in the main application.

[43.] The applicant apologizes to all parties for her lack of legal expertise regarding correct legal procedure; and did not want to waste either the Appellant, Respondent or Courts time, by contacting them separately, waiting for their response, and if approved, only then applying for In Forma Pauperis Council; so herewith attempts a multi-tasking effort to accomplish all goals with one application.

[44.] Accordingly the Applicant requests that if the Appellant and/or Respondent objects to the Applicant being admitted as Amicus Curiae in the main application; they provide such objection no later than noon on Wednesday, 31 March 2010.

[45.] Subsequent thereto, the applicant requests that this Application to Chief Justice for Approval of In Forma Pauperis Representation, to be admitted as an Amicus Curiae, in terms of Rule 10(4); be submitted, along with any letters of objection or consent from the Appellant or Respondent to the Applicant being admitted as an Amicus Curiae; to the Chief Justice, on Thursday, 1st of April 2010; for the Chief Justice’s ruling on the Applicants admissibility as an Amicus Curiae and if so decided, for In Forma Pauperis Representation.


[46.] The Relief that Ought to Be Granted to Lara Johnstone in the Present Application

[47.] In view of the considerable importance that should the Applicants averments be proven to be based on sound evidence, it would behove South Africa’s elite to seriously confront the reality that (a) that only a sincere and serious specific, clear and unambiguous Truth and Forgiveness Social Contract (PDF), unequivocally understood and practiced by the common man can ever contribute to sincere and serious reconciliation and the reconstruction of South Africa’s violent ridden society; and (b) any legislation or jurisprudence which professes to advocate on behalf of human rights, peace and social justice, while ignoring their ecological basis – a stable human population at slightly less than the eco-systems carrying capacity – is endorsing and practicing legal dishonesty and hypocrisy. It is legislation and jurisprudence that is deliberately indifferent to the laws of sustainability (PDF). It is legislation written by politicians and lawyers who ‘know the truth about the irresponsible planting of semen seeds in women’s wombs, and the resource war consequences of overpopulation colliding with scarce resources; but who cover up such information’, in their legislation.

[48.] I consequently submit that it is plainly in the interests of justice, sanity and the Human Consciousness Rule-of-Law Freedom Charter, and the opportunity this application presents for the Constitutional Court, Appellant and Respondent, to participate in a process of Educate to Liberate; that this application be dealt with on its merits.

[49.] 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 25th day of March, 2010.

Signed and Sworn to at George on this the 26th day of March 2010, 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

» » » » [PDF: CCT 23-10: App. to Ch. Justice to proceed In Forma Pauperis Amicus Curiae]
» » [10-05-03: CC 23-10: Concourt Order: Amicus Directions: Lara Johnstone, Radical Honesty]

Cover Page: Concourt 23-10: Ubuntu Brief of Amicus Curiae: Lara Johnstone, Bushido Dischordian Futilitarian In Support Of: Radical Honesty Common Sense Population Policy Social Contract Interpretations of Promotion of National Unity & Reconciliation Act, 34 of 1995 [PDF FILE]

I. 1st Amicus Curiaes: Note: Re: Declaratory Order for Ubuntu Brief of Amicus Curiae (PDF)

1. Nature of the Proceedings
   
2. Clarification of Petition for Declaratory Order
   
3. Written Relief Requested to the Court
   
4. Portions of record necessary for determination of matter
   
5. Estimate of duration of oral argument
   
6. List of authorities

II. Ubuntu Brief of Amicus Curiae: (I) Summary Overview & Petition for Declaratory Order (PDF)

1. Futilitarian Contract Interest of Amici Curiae
   
2. Petition for Declaratory Order
   » Petition for Declaratory Order; Alternatively an Advisory Opinion
   » Lysistrata Tsedeq Invitation to Radical Ubuntu
   » Petition for Declaratory Order Approved: Audi Alteram Partem RSVP
   
3. Summary of Argument
   
4. List of Authorities
   
5. Argument: Culture of Secrecy: Social Trap

A: NECESSITY: I AM NOT SURE OF MY EXISTENCE, BUT I AM SURE OF MY INTENTIONS (PDF)

1. Critical Literacy’s role in Purposive Legal Interpretation
   
2. Secrecy and Deception as Strategic & Tactical Meme’s of Conquer & Multiply Memeplexes
   
3. Political Necessity of Freedom of Speech: ‘TRC was a fraudulent PR publicity stunt’
   
4. Civil Disobedience Free Speech Necessity Defence
   
5. ‘I am, therefore I think’ Common Law Reasonableness Test Skills & Competencies
   
6. ‘I am, therefore I think’ Common Law Radical Hon(our)sty Reasonableness Test Skills
   
7. Dr. Blanton vs. SA’s Political & Media Elite: ‘TRC was a fraudulent PR publicity stunt’
   
8. Population Policy Common Sense: Exponential Functions, Eco-Laws & Eco-Literacy: Limited World, Limited Rights
   
9. Lysistrata Tsedeq: Ecolaw 101: Laws of Sustainability
   
10. Radical Honesty Law of Limited Competition Code: ‘I am not sure of my existence, but I am sure of my intentions’
    
11. Practicing Radical Honesty: Being Specific about Anger & Methodology of Forgiveness
    
12. Judicial Enquiry: Simple Justice Tribal Consciousness

B: DIGNITY: RIGHT TO PSYCHO-INFANCY DECEPTION (PDF)

1. Dignity: Abstract conceptual belief in a Existential Self
   
2. Philosophical Concepts of Self: ‘I think, therefore I am’ et al
   
3. Sui Generis: Word Stays the Same, Meaning Changes?
   
4. Sui Generis (I think, I am Unique) Meme Dream
   
5. Respondents ‘Dignity’ Meme not Sui Generis,

C: RIGHT TO ‘FREE SPEECH’ PROPAGANDA PROFITS DECEPTION (PDF)

1. Corporations Intentions: Power and Profit
   
2. How Corporations Became Cogito Ergo Sum People!
   
3. Corporate News as Discourse
   
4. News Reports & the Reproduction of Memeplexes
   
5. Engineering of Consent: Adult Citizens to Infant Consumers & Cultural Commodification
   
6. ‘If it Bleads, It Leads,’ Editorial Maxim
   
7. How and Why Journalists Avoid Population-Environment Connection
   
8. Freedom of the Press vs. Intellectual Prostitutes

D: GREAT TRIBAL FORGETTING: SALVATION FROM LAW OF LIMITED COMPETITION (PDF)

1. The Truth About All Cultures & Their Mythologies
   
2. Judaism X Manifesto Mythology: Divine Law of Melchizedek – Ecological War
   
3. Eve’s Mission Impossible: Cracking the Lebensraum Right-to-Breed Code
   
4. An ABC’s of Ecology Systems Approach to a Sui Generis Agriculture Mythology When did We become We?
   
5. Identity and Dignity in Ubuntu Mythology
   
6. Black Liberation Mythology and Black Power
   
7. Liberating Black Victim Theology
   
8. Black Liberation Theology: Kairos & Reconciliation

E: SOCIO-LEGAL-POLITICAL ILLEGITIMACY OF TRC SOCIAL CONTRACT (PDF)

1. Cultures of Secrecy: Unconscious and Conscious Secrets
   
2. Definitions : Fundamental Concepts Not Defined
   
3. Did Amnesty mean Amnesty, or was legal meaning changed?
   
4. Was Truth and Reconciliation Seen to be Done?
   
5. Rainbow Truths: Were all Contextual Struggle Violence Truths Told?
   
6. Cold War Ethno-Cultural Psychological Warfare

F: TRC SECRET: APARTHEID: A JUST WAR FOR DEMOGRAPHIC SURVIVAL FROM ‘MARXIST’ ‘SWART GEVAAR’ (PDF)

1. Population Explosion Concerns During Apartheid
   
2. Population Pressures & Apartheid Political Fears
   
3. Does Africa have an Overpopulation Problem?
   
4. Apartheid, the Struggle, Just War Doctrine & Competitive Exclusion Principle
   
5. Radical Honesty Analysis: TRC ACT written by People who can’t, or don’t know how to handle their anger, forced SA’s to make Politically Correct Agreements, while still angry