Ubuntufied Legal Lynching: The Reitz 4 TRC Fraud Prostitution Circus

Ubuntufied Legal Lynching in Rainbow Hypocrisy SA

The Reitz 4 TRC Fraud Prostitution Circus

27 February 2011
Andrea Muhrrteyn
Why We Are White Refugees

“The commission also said that there could be no healing without truth, that half-truths and denial were no basis for building the new South Africa, that reconciliation based on falsehood would not last, and that selective recollection of past violence would easily provide the mobilisation for further conflict in the future. If these are its criteria for the role of truth in promoting reconciliation, it has failed to meet them.”
-- John Kane Berman, the Head of the SA Institute of Race Relations (SAIRR), The Truth about the Truth Commission, by Anthea Jeffery

This series shall consist of:

1. Introduction: Politicians, Editors & Lawyers: Kangaroo Court Actors
   
2. Media Timeline of Events - Ignoring Anti-Lynching Voices
   
3. Ubuntu Kangaroo Court Justice – Evidence is Irrelevant
   
4. The Reasonable Initiation Legal Fraud – Who cares about the Evidence?
   
5. The Cultural Satire Legal Fraud – The Multiculti Boiling Frog
   
6. The Reconciliation Religious Fraud – Censoring TRC Fraud
   
7. UFS Black Liberation Theology's 'Reconciliation' successfuly destroyed Reitz-4's ‘Whiteness’, by cultivating their ‘White Guilt’?

Introduction:

A lynching is the practice of killing people by extrajudicial mob action, where a mob is generally considered to be more than five persons. The mob generally act under the pretext of service to justice, their race or tradition. They use lynching and other terror tactics to intimidate a particular racial, religious or cultural group into political, social or economic submission. A legal lynching has other names such as Stalin's Political Show trials, or Kangaroo Court Justice, etc.

The term show trial is a pejorative description of a type of highly public trial. The term was first recorded in the 1930s. There is a strong connotation that the judicial authorities have already determined the guilt of the defendant and that the actual trial has as its only goal to present the accusation and the verdict to the public as an impressive example and as a warning. Show trials exhibit scant regard for the principles of jurisprudence and even for the letter of the law. Defendants have little real opportunity to justify themselves.


Politicians, Editors & Lawyers: Kangaroo Court Actors

Video: Reitz cleaners 'laughed', Volksblad; 2009-11-18 09:49:

Reitz-4 Satire Anti-Integration Video

The University of the Free State (UFS) cleaners who appear in the controversial Reitz video were not offended when the video was being made, and had laughed when they saw the end product.

This is according to the supplementary submission by the four former Reitz residents, which they've directed to the director of public prosecutions as an appeal for the dismissal of a crimen injuria charge against them.

In the submission, the so-called Reitz four give their side of the story for the first time.

They state that while the video was being made, it never seemed as if the cleaners were being offended by what was happening. They participated voluntarily and could have stopped at any time, had they wanted to.

According to the submission, the day after the video was made, the cleaners were informed that the video had won the residence's cultural competition. It was shown to them on more than one occasion and they had not reacted negatively in any way whatsoever when they saw the footage.

Laughed

Other witnesses can testify that the cleaners had laughed about it.

Furthermore, the submission states it was only once others had falsely convinced them that the concoction they'd had to pretend to drink contained urine, that they raised their objections.

This was six months later, when the video inexplicably found its way onto the UFS network, and was distributed by two students from the Khayalami men's residence.

RC Malherbe, one of the four, made several attempts to speak to the cleaners, with a certain Mita in particular, to settle the matter. However, he was obstructed each time by Nehawu, the cleaners' union.

According to the submission, the four young men responsible for the filming of the video had not acted wrongfully at any stage, and they also did not intend to humiliate the cleaners.

It appears in the video that one of the women had told one of the students, with regard to drinking the concoction: "Like hell, man, I'm not going to do it."

Acting

The submission states that the women were not forced to drink the concoction. They were acting in the video, and what happened took place with the cleaners' permission.

The Reitz four deny that there had been urine in the concoction. They say that as part of tactics aimed at scaring first-year students ahead of their initiation, where similar concoctions are really consumed, they had pretended to urinate in the mixture in the video, "to strengthen the mythical fear".

A careful study of the video confirms this. There are no dangerous or "unclean" ingredients in the concoction.

The word sefebe (slut) which is used in the video, should also been understood in context, they stated. One of the four students and one of the cleaners had been calling each other by that word for years as part of ongoing teasing between the two of them. It was never meant to humiliate, and was also never interpreted that way.

UFS Reports One Sided, Volksblad: 2008-02-29 08:03:

If R3NDI3R can figure out the ‘facts’; then any white South African can!

Gert Malherbe, a farmer from Hertzogville and father of RC Malherbe, who appears on the video, says he is disappointed. "These are one-sided reports. You should?ve spoken to the children and contacted their parents. No one has tried to find out what the truth is."

James Roberts, father of Johnny Roberts, another of the four students, is a maize farmer, also from Hertzogville. "Everybody is stopping me to ask what's going on. But neither we nor my son have been contacted by the UFS or the media. We have no details and don't know exactly what it's all about," he said.

Roberts believes that if that had been done, everyone could have heard the real story. "It's unbelievable how people judge and are judged. They don't have all the facts, but just look at the negative comments being made and how people are being judged," Roberts said.

"I regard the whole thing as student fun," he said. "The thing about student fun is that it is sometimes approved of and sometimes disapproved of and politicised. And that is what really happened.

Whoever was responsible for releasing the video had released it as a "cover-up" for the UFS's failed attempt at integrating residences. "I believe the UFS failed badly in its attempt to integrate the residences. Why don't they leave the people (students) alone?"

[..] He said he was not opposed to integration, but if one looks at history, it's a process that's been coming for as long as 30 to 40 years. "It's a storm in a teacup. If someone can't see the humour behind it all, I suppose it's just the difference in cultures. All that this thing has done is to upset relationships - good relationships - between the students and the cleaners.

"I want the real story to come out - the damage this thing has caused must be put right. There's been so much damage," said Roberts, "and all of it unnecessary. How does one rectify something like this? Especially after the video has caused an international outcry."

Reitz-4 Legal Team's Strange Behaviour, Volksblad: 2010-08-09 22:05:

Hennie Vermaak (a lawyer) asks “Can you be blamed for getting the impression that the legal team (Adv. Kemp J. Kemp and Co) were apathetic: Just in a hurry to get it all over in, in one day.”

The answer is an unequivical yes, my status as judge and former student is in total agreement with the writer.

To be found guilty of crimen injuria the state must prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that the accused had the deliberate intention of insulting the victims.

A person cannot insult his “victims” if they voluntarily participate in the “malicious act”.

The above fact is an obvious one. No force or coercion was placed upon the “victims”. It was “student fun” that they all enjoyed. After the event, not one of them went to complain to the then Rector: Prof. Frederick Fourie. Only when the whole event became a media sensation and the Rector, in his own words, came “praying, begging, and crying” to them for forgiveness, did the bomb burst, as it was indeed planned to do.

Why then plead guilty? Why not dare the state to prove them guilty? The Reitz-4 are not required to prove their innocence; to the contrary, they are supposed to be considered innocent until proven guilty.

The relevant advocate, with his relevant experience, must know this. With this knowledge he advises his clients to plead guilty, and to do so, before the Chief Magistrate.

Any experienced advocate of the Free State Bar Assocation could have approached this case from a total different perspective.

As far as I am aware, Adv. Kemp J. Kemp, SC primarily works for the goverment and their lackeys.

Mr. Vermaak hits the nail on its head: The advocate has, in spite of his clients best interests, acted very strangely by allowing them to plead guilty.

His behaviour in this matter, is not too dissimilar form that of the behaviour of the named Rector.

Former Judge Arrie Hattingh

Legal Documents Requesting Court to Confirm Clash of Cultures

Bloemfontein Magistrates Court: Chief Magistrate Hinxa

Radical Honesty SA Application to Bloemfontein Magistrates Court (PDF), to proceed as an Amicus Curiae (Friend of the Court). Radical Honesty requested the court to confirm whether the plaintiffs and defendants belong to different cultures, and whether their lawyers had informed their clients of their constitutional rights to invoking cultural law; before they made any plea agreements. If their lawyers had not informed them of their rights to invoke cultural law, then the Magistrate should inform both Defendants and Plaintiffs of their rights to withdraw from the plea agreement made with the Prosecution; and that the trial should start anew before another Magistrate. .

Please Take Notice that Lara Johnstone, of the Radical Honesty culture and religion, hereby make application to the above honourable court of Chief Magistrate Mziwonke Hinxa, for an order in the following terms .... [..]

(5) For an Order from the court clarifying whether the Defendants and Plaintiffs belong to different culture’s and whether they were informed by their counsel of their constitutional rights to invoking cultural law in S. 15 (3), 30, 31, and 185, and which require the application of choice of law rules, and if not their Criminal Procedure Act, 51 of 1977: S. 105A. Plea and sentence agreements: (9) (d). rights

Press Appeals Panel: Judge Ralph Zulman

04 November 2010: Application for Review (PDF) to Set Aside 03 November 2010 ruling (PDF) & Retraction (PDF), by Dep. Press Ombudsman Johan Retief; RE: 30-07-2010: Rightwing group tries to scupper Reitz trial, Khadija Bradlow, City Press, referral from SAPS/NPA:

[B] Facts Not in Dispute, by Default:

Facts Not In Dispute herewith refer to Factual Statements submitted as evidentiary argument, by Johnstone/Radical Honesty, which were never directly challenged as untrue by City Press, by evidence to the contrary; and are consequently – by default of no opposing argument – considered as Facts Not In Dispute:

[..]

(5) Radical Honesty a Rainbow Rule-of-Law Group, for all Political wings, including ‘Right Wing’:

[a] City Press did not dispute Johnstone’s assertion that Radical Honesty is a rule-of-law group, which supports the rule of law for everyone, from the far left, to the far right, by proving that any of Johnstone’s assertions of her support for the rule-of-law for left wing individuals or groups was false. Details of Johnstone’s many activism efforts on behalf of the rule of law for a Rainbow of different extreme-left to centrist to extreme-right groups, were available in the Affidavit filed to the Reitz Four Magistrates Court Amicus Curiae , provided to City Press ‘journalist’ Ms. Bradlow, by Johnstone, as per Ms. Bradlow’s telephone and email request.

[..]

(7) Shocking Decision by Reits Four to Plead Guilty to Dolus Eventualis, Impetus for Timing of Radical Honesty SA Amicus:

[a] City Press did not provide any evidence negating Johnstone’s assertion that the final straw that broke Johnstone’s back as an impetus for the ‘timing’ of the Amicus was the “the shocking news of the Reitz Four’s decision to plead guilty, based on the unheard of guilty intention of dolus eventualis, including the unheard of conviction on a guilty plea of dolus eventualis. From the information available in the Afrikaans media – Volksblad in particular – it did not make any sense to Johnstone for the Reits Four to plead guilty, on the dubious notion of ‘dolus eventualis’ and when the fundamental legal requirements of ‘crimen injuria’ had not been met, by their conduct, as per the information in Afrikaans news media.” Nor did the Reitz Four’s guilty plea make any sense, considering their decision to hire one of the most expensive advocates in the country! You do not need one of the most expensive advocates in the country to plead guilty! It is impossible to plead guilty to a Magistrate or Judge, who is informed by the Defendant of his belief that a ‘jury of his peers would find him innocent’, and it is unheard of for a Judge or Magistrate to accept a plea of guilty from an accused pleading to dolus eventualis. They would refuse such a plea, and demand the accused go to trial.

[b] For example: City Press provided no evidence that City Press, or any English media publication, or any English speaking attorney’s or Justice’s had any legal or rule-of-law concerns about a Judge or Magistrate accepting an accused’s plea of guilty to dolus eventualis, as Afrikaans jurists and journalists did (as detailed in para 15).

Reitz-4 vra om verskoning, Mike van Rooyen reports that ‘legal history was made yesterday when the Reits four (a) plead guilty to crimen-injuria, on dolus eventualis, and (b) were convicted upon a guilty plea of dolus eventualis. The Reitz four did not plead guilty on Dolus Directus (Direct Intent: where the consequences of an action were both foreseen and desired by the accused); nor on Dolus Indirectus (Indirect Intent: where secondary consequences in addition to those desired by a perpetrator of an act were foreseen by the perpetrator as a certain result), but on Dolus Eventualis, i.e. where the accused did not “mean” for the unlawful act to happen, but foresees the possibility that it could happen, and proceeds with his conduct anyway. Both their action of pleading guilty to dolus eventualis, and for a Magistrate to convict someone based on a guilty plea of dolus eventualis, were unheard of, and made legal history. The Reitz four denied that they made the video with the intention of insulting the dignity of the plaintiffs, consequently stating that they considered themselves to be innocent. Why did they plead ‘guilty’?

Vrae oor Reitz 4 se saak, Hennie Vermaak, a retired attorney asks why the Reits 4 spent so much money to hire one of the most expensive advocates in the country: surely not to plead ‘guilty’? Why did such expensive advocate advise them to plead ‘guilty’? Pleading guilty does not require an expensive advocate!. Why did the expensive advocate not advise them to plead ‘not guilty’, since their only intention had been to make a stupid student SATIRE VIDEO? Why were the plaintiffs not cross-examined about their knowledge and voluntary consent to be ‘actors’ and to role-play, for the satire video, about their good relationships with the Reits Four, that the plaintiffs knew from working for years in Student hostels, that students get up to incredibly stupid pranks, and whether the Reits 4 Attorneys were just trying to get the matter dealt with by a Quick Fix Guilty plea.

In Reitz-4-regspan se vreemde optrede, Former Judge Arrie Hattingh, agrees with Attorney Hennie Vermaak, that in order to be found guilty of ‘crimen injuria’ the state must prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that the accused had the intention to ‘insult the dignity’ of the defendants. It is not possible to insult the dignity of another person, if they voluntarily participate in the alleged ‘criminal act’. There was no coercion, the entire student prank was enjoyed by all. None of the defendants complained about the ‘student prank’, they voluntarily participated in, to anyone for months, until months later when the media bomb bubble burst. He accuses Advocate Kemp J Kemp of behaving very strangely, in regards to his accused clients.

Constitutional Court: Radical Honesty SA v. SANEF & 87 others

Notice of Motion: Application for Direct Access (PDF):

[5] [“CITY PRESS PROPAGANDA” REVIEW] Review of Press Appeals Panel: Judge Ralph Zulman’s ruling dated 24 November 2010, denying Lara Johnstone/Radical Honesty SA’s application for review: ....

(7) Issuing an Order to Set Aside Deputy Ombudsman Johan Retief’s Initial and Revised Ruling publicized by email to Press Ombudsman website on Nov 03 2010 at 08:43 hrs, publicized by email to Complainant on 03 Nov at 10:49; substituting his finding as follows:

1. Headline: Rightwing group tries to scupper Reitz trial were misrepresentations; an accurate representation could be: ‘Transparency / Radical Honesty group promotes rule of law in Reitz trial’.
   
2. City Press’s headline misrepresentation significantly altered the context of article.
   
3. Correct City Press’s “spitting on culture’s” statement to include deliberate qualifying omission as follows: Radical Honesty accused the media of “spitting on cultures who practice sincere forgiveness and root cause problem solving.”

Founding Affidavit in Support (PDF):

[203] When I lived in San Francisco, and mentored under criminologist and psychologist Dr. Richard Korn, one of the lawyers I met, was Paul Harris. In his book, Black Rage Confronts the Law, on pages 42-43, Paul Harris, describes how an honest, impartial judge, committed to giving any and every accused coming before his court a free and fair trial, responds to a ‘guilty’ plea where it is clear the accused is of the subjective belief in his innocence; i.e. does not believe himself to be guilty, but is being coerced to plead guilty, for some or other reason:

The judge began to take Steven’s guilty plea: “You know you have a right to remain silent and not incriminate yourself,” he said. Do you waive that right?”

“Yes, I do,” answered Steven.

“You have a right to call witnesses in your behalf. Do you waive that right?”

“Yes, I do.”

“You have a right to a jury trial, a jury of your peers. Do you understand that right?”

“If I had a jury of my peers, I would be found not guilty,” replied Steven.

There was a pause as the judge stared at the defendant. “What do you mean?” he asked.

“If I had twelve people who were really my peers they would understand my action,” Steven answered.

The Judge leaned forward, his eyes piercing into mine. “This is not a guilty plea. Counsel, I thought you told the court this was a guilty plea?”

I had been taken completely off guard by Steven’s statements. .. The judge motioned to the U.S. marshals. “Take the defendant and his lawyer, and put them in the holding cell until they straighten things out.”

For half an hour Steven and I sat in the cell behind the courtroom as once again I explained my idea of a political, psychiatric defence. Once again he refused, feeling it was hopeless. He said he would plead guilty and answer all the judges questions the way the judge expected.

We returned to court and went through the litany of rights one waives when one pleads guilty. But when the judge got to the part about a jury of peers, there was only silence.

Then Steven spoke out clearly and strongly. “If I had a jury made up of people from Ellis and Fillmore Streets I would be found not guilty!”

Judge Weigel was seconds from exploding. “This is not a guilty plea. I refuse to accept the plea. You are going to trial!”

[204] The three essential requirements for someone to be convicted of crimen injuria are: Intention, Unlawful and Serious. If one of them is missing, if the statement was NOT INTENTIONAL, the person CANNOT BE FOUND GUILTY OF CRIMEN INJURIA.

[205] I watched the trial of the Reitz Four with interest. It was clear they had NO INTENTION to insult the Hostel workers who knew they were participating in a satire, (‘Werkers het geweet hulle speel toneel’/Workers knew they were role playing). If Volksblad knew this, surely so did all the other English media? Why were the English media not reporting this crucial fact, regarding the essential ingredient required for crimen injuria guilt? Were they deliberately withholding the information, to scapegoat the Reits Four?

[206] When the Reits Four pled – dolus eventualis - guilty to crimen injuria, after hiring one of the most expensive advocates in the country (surely not to plead guilty?), and even worse, the Magistrate’s response was to accept their guilty plea – unlike Judge Weigel’s “This is not a guilty plea. I refuse to accept the plea. You are going to trial!”; I suspected the magistrate did so, as a result of either legal crimen injuria and/or conflict of laws ignorance, and/or media pressure.

[207] I filed an Application to Proceed as an Amicus Curiae , submitted it to the Prosecution, Magistrate, Clerk and Accused.... It requested the court and parties to take notice of the following information:

(3) To confirm that the Court, Plaintiffs and Defendants have taken notice of the Radical Honesty – RSA Amicus Curiae filed before the Constitutional Court, in the matter of The Citizen v. McBride, the contents of which may have been relevant to the decision making of the Plaintiffs and/or Defendants, if either party had been aware of their contents, but which are being massively censored by the corrupt South African media. Among others the Radical Honesty RSA Amicus Curiae before the Constitutional Court alleges:

[a] That the ‘TRC social contract’ is founded on Truth and Reconciliation Commission fraud, as a result of, among others:

[i] Negligent or Intentional Avoidance of Key Concepts Cultural Definitions: Conflict of Law Definitions, Fundamental Concepts were not defined.

[ii] Truth and Reconciliation was not Seen to Be Done, but was selective, biased, and discriminated against, among others, the SADF, the IFP and ANC members who had been detained, tortured, raped and executed in ANC prison camps such as Camp Quatro, in Angola.

[iii] How the Liberation Struggle could not have been considered a ‘just war’, within Just War Legal principles, when Apartheid had raised poor black living standards to the highest in Africa;

[iv] That Apartheid was not a Crime Against Humanity, but a Just War for Afrikaner Demographic Survival; and that the ANC-TRC deliberately covered up this information and censored it, in favour of declaring Apartheid a ‘crime against humanity’.

[v] That Farm Murders provide the evidence that South Africans – Afrikaners in particular -- do not live under a ‘Rainbow TRC Peace’ social contract, but under a Racial Hatred War Reality.

[b] Media Corruption: Massive ‘If It Bleads, it Leads’ Media stoking of South Africa’s Race War, including the evidence for how 40 of SA’s Media Editors endorse Legal and Political Persecution of White Refugees, i.e. they admit that they are “deliberate indifferent to certain people of certain ethnicities and/or ideologies and/or cultures and/or religions being politically and legally persecuted and prosecuted…”;

[5] For an Order from the court clarifying whether the Defendants and Plaintiffs belong to different culture’s and whether they were informed by their counsel of their constitutional rights to invoking cultural law in S. 15 (3), 30, 31, and 185, and which require the application of choice of law rules, and if not their Criminal Procedure Act, 51 of 1977: S. 105A. Plea and sentence agreements: (9) (d). rights

“This is not a guilty plea. I refuse to accept the plea. You are going to trial!”

Simply speaking: Whenever any citizen invokes cultural law, then this means that the court has to follow choice of law rules. Invoking cultural law, only exists in societies which the law considers multi-cultural. Monocultural societies do not require the need for a right to invoking cultural law, because the entire society has the same legal cultural principles. So 'choice of law' is a legal term for what Justices are required to do when two people come before the court, and they come from different cultures. The Justice is then required to make an impartial enquiry into the two different cultures and to make a ruling as to which culture's laws are going to be applied to the particular case; and more importantly why he is choosing this cultural law body of principles; rather than that cultural law body of principles.

§ 105A of the Criminal Procedure Act lays down the ethical principles to be adhered to by the Prosecutor and or court in regard to procedures involving Plea and Sentence Agreements; i.e. when the accused makes an agreement to plead guilty. To my knowledge the principles therein apply to any Agreement, or negotiations for a potential Agreement related to any conditional Plea (Formal Admission) Negotiations, made between an Accused and the Prosecution. In the Reitz-4 case there were lengthy negotiations; prior to the Dolus Eventualis 'guilty' plea'. Furthermore, both the Prosecution and the Accused are free to negotiate, commit to, or withdraw from any Formal Admission / Plea agreement made, at any time.

Furthermore if the Prosecutor or the Accused withdraw from the agreement, the trial shall start de novo (a new trial) before another Magistrate. Where a trial starts de novo the former agreement, shall be null and void and no regard or reference made to any negotiations, the agreement or any record of the agreement in any proceedings related thereto, unless the accused consents to the recording of all or certain admissions made by them in the agreement or during any proceedings relating thereto and any admission so recorded shall stand as proof of such admission.

Lawyers have an obligation to inform their clients of all their rights, particularly rights which are, or could be, relevant for the invoking of any defence. Where a client is a member of one culture, and the complainant of another, and the complaint is about a conflict of cultures; any lawyer who ignores his clients cultural law rights, is not doing his client any favours; to the contrary.

The Reitz-4 were found guilty; by a Magistrate who applied Ubuntufied jurisprudence. If he had applied Western concepts of Rule of Law Jurisprudence; he would have responded like Judge Weigel, when he was told that the accused did not believe himself to be guilty; i.e. believed that a jury of his peers would find him innocent.

If the Reitz-4 Magistrate had applied Western concepts of Jurisprudence, he would have responded with: “This is not a guilty plea. I refuse to accept the plea. You are going to trial!”

Last time I looked the Reitz 4 were members of European culture; and as such, they have a right to invoking cultural law, and to demand that they be found guilty in accordance to their Western rule of law principles of evidence.

[Part II: Media Timeline of Events - Ignoring Anti-Lynching Voices]