The Reitz 4 TRC Fraud Prostitution Circus [IV] The Reasonable Initiation Legal Fraud – Who cares about the Evidence?

Ubuntufied Legal Lynching in Rainbow Hypocrisy SA

The Reitz 4 TRC Fraud Prostitution Circus

02 March 2011
Andrea Muhrrteyn
Why We Are White Refugees

“All law is interpretation. A lawyer uses words, which are inherently imprecise, and when a law is applied to the fact of a new situation what lawyers do is interpret the code words to deem them appropriately or inappropriately applied to the case at hand. To view the law means to understand interpretation. Law has more to do with critical literacy studies than it probably has to do with anything else.” -- Professor David Skover, Professor of Law at Seattle University.

‘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.’ -- Howard Law School, Professor Charlie Houston, the primary legal mentor of U.S. Supreme Court Justice
Thurgood Marshall; as quoted in Simple Justice: The History of Brown v. Board of Education, by Richard Kluger

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 Satire Legal Fraud – Who cares about Evidence?
   

5. The Dolus Eventualis Legal Fraud – The Multiculti Boiling Frog
   

6. The Reconciliation Religious Fraud – Censoring TRC Fraud

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.

[IV] The Reasonable Initiation Satire Legal Fraud

Who cares about Evidence?

Decoding Social Engineers: Defining & Understanding the Meaning of Words

Decoding Crimen Injuria

Crimen injuria is a crime under South African common law, defined as the act of “unlawfully, intentionally and seriously impairing the dignity of another.” The law of crimen injuria does not exist in any other country in the world, only in South Africa. Africa is renowned for its “insult” laws.

The crime of crimen injuria rests on proving guilt for three different code words: The alleged insult must be UNLAWFUL, INTENTIONAL and SERIOUS.

All three have to be proven. If one of the three code words cannot be proven beyond reasonable doubt, then the person CANNOT BE FOUND GUILTY OF CRIMEN INJURIA.

In my personal opinion, based upon the information available to myself; the Reitz Four would have been found NOT GUILTY, by a jury of their peers; or an impartial competent Magistrate; on ALL of the legal code words.

UNLAWFUL: NOT GUILTY
SERIOUS: NOT GUILTY
INTENTIONAL: NOT GUILTY

If found NOT GUILTY on just ONE legal code word then the Magistrate must make a finding of NOT GUILTY.

Hence if they are NOT GUILTY on all THREE code words, only a Kangaroo court can find an accused GUILTY.


Decoding UNLAWFUL Crimen Injuria

Most legal code words have different tests which need to be passed, before the relevant criminal act is considered proven in accordance to that particular legal code word. In the same way you need to pass all your different subjects, to get your final University or School Certificate. In a court of law, to be found guilty of any crime, you must be found guilty of ALL THE CODEWORDS, in accordance to every single codewords LEGAL TEST.

Guilt on one code word, does not mean guilt for the alleged criminal act. Most criminal acts have a few different legal code words, which frequently all must be proven as guilty.

So, each code word has different legal tests which it has to pass, before anyone can be found guilty for that code word.

The UNLAWFUL crimen injuria code word has two tests: a SUBJECTIVE test and an OBJECTIVE test. Why?

The UNLAWFUL code word is important, because many people are insulted by many actions and statements made by others. For example if you live in a ghetto in America, and you look any gang member in the eye, then they can consider that as you insulting them; by 'dissing' them. So, according to their gang culture, it is an insult, but it is not considered a legal insult in a court of law; i.e. UNLAWFUL. There are many examples. Some people consider the use of any swear word to be an insult, others do not. So, there are many insults experienced daily by millions of people; only certain insults are UNLAWFUL: those that pass the legal UNLAWFUL tests.

So, to determine whether a crimen injuria insult is UNLAWFUL, the insult must pass two UNLAWFUL tests: the SUBJECTIVE and OJBECTIVE tests.


Decoding UNLAWFUL: SUBJECTIVE TEST

The SUBJECTIVE test examines in court testimony under oath the thinking and feelings of the 'victim', at the time of the insult, or shortly thereafter.

It is a test whether the victim really and sincerely felt 'insulted'; and how? Did they feel ashamed, did they cry, or faint, storm out of the room, scream in outrage; or what was their reaction upon receiving the insulting words or actions?

Note: Its important that their action of outrage occur AT THE TIME OF THE ALLEGED INSULT!

Now take a look at the Reitz 4 'Crimen Inujuria' video, and ask yourself: Were the victims SUBJECTIVELY insulted/humiliated? What is the result of the SUBJECTIVE test for UNLAWFUL CRIMEN INJURIA:



Did any of the victims (workers) respond in tears, or outraged anger and fury, or in any other way in which any impartial observer would conclude the individuals were objecting to being 'insulted'?

Example of Possible Witness Testimony Q&A:

REITZ 4 LAWYER: Were you upset or angry when the video was made?

WORKER: No.

REITZ 4 LAWYER: Is it correct that you were laughing and joking and had fun while the video was made?

WORKER: Yes.

REITZ 4 LAWYER: Did you feel insulted the next day, or the following week, about allegedly being humiliated in this video?

WORKER: No.

REITZ 4 LAWYER: When did you feel insulted about allegedly being humiliated in this video?

WORKER: Five months later, when it was published on Youtube by some other Khayalami students as well as the media, and our neighbours and friends and the SAHRC told us that we had been humiliated in the video.

REITZ 4 LAWYER: Did the Reitz Four publish the video on the internet, or send it to the media; or tell you their intentions were to insult you?

WORKER: No

Were the workers SUBJECTIVELY Insulted AT THE TIME OF MAKING THE VIDEO?

The workers did NOT FEEL INSULTED (HUMILIATED) at the time of making the video, nor soon afterwards. They only ALLEGEDLY felt insulted/humiliated when the video was posted to Youtube and in the media, and their friends and community made fun of them for taking part in the video.

The Reitz 4's alleged crimen injuria insult, does NOT pass the SUBJECTIVELY UNLAWFUL test; because the victims were NOT SUBJECTIVELY INSULTED AT THE TIME OF THE ALLEGED INSULT/HUMILIATION during the making of the Satire video.

If the SUBJECTIVE test cannot be proven beyond reasonable doubt; then the OBJECTIVE test for UNLAWFULNESS is irrelevant. In other words if the victim of the crimen injuria crime, cannot prove beyond reasonable doubt that -- at the time of the 'insult' -- they were sincerely seriously upset and their dignity was seriously insulted; and that they objected to this insult, then the alleged 'insult' FAILS THE SUBJECTIVE TEST.



Decoding UNLAWFUL: OBJECTIVE 'REASONABLENESS' TEST


Once the SUBJECTIVE TEST has been PROVEN, then the court enquires into the OBJECTIVE test. If the SUBJECTIVE TEST cannot be proven: i.e. the victims cannot prove they felt seriously insulted at the time of the alleged crime; as demonstrated above to any critically thinking capable policeman or prosecutor; then the act is NOT UNLAWFUL.

Hence any policeman taking a look at the Reitz 4 video, who knows the legal standards required for the SUBJECTIVE TEST for CRIMEN INJURIA, would have his evidence in the video. The victims show no evidence to pass the subjective unlawfulness test.

Now imagine the SUBJECTIVE TEST had passed: i.e. the victims in the Reitz 4 video, had responded in fear, or tears, and any other response showing their outrage that they felt insulted and humiliated during the making of the video; then the next test to pass BEFORE THE ACT CAN BE CONSIDERED UNLAWFUL is the OBJECTIVE test.

As described in Dendy v University of Witwatersrand and Others 2007 (5) SA 382 (SCA) Farlam JA at 387J – 388B:

‘Prior to Delange there was judicial controversy as to whether injury to dignity must be tested subjectively or objectively. Compare Walker v Van Wezel [1940 WLD 66 at 71] and Jackson v SA National Institute for Crime Prevention and Rehabilitation of Offenders [1976 (3) SA 1 (A) at 12].

In Delange the Court recognized the need for objective limits to be placed on the action for injury to dignity in order to keep it within manageable proportions. It accepted that an entirely subjective test of dignity had the potential for opening the floodgates to successful actions by hypersensitive persons who felt insulted by statements or conduct which would not insult a person of ordinary sensibilities. And so it fashioned what is in effect a hybrid test, one that is both subjective and objective in nature. To be considered a wrongful infringement of dignity, the objectionable behaviour must be insulting from both a subjective and objective point of view, that is, not only must the plaintiff feel subjectively insulted but the behaviour, seen objectively, must also be of an insulting nature. In the assessment of the latter, the legal convictions of the community (boni mores) or the notional understanding and reaction of a person of ordinary intelligence and sensibilities are of importance [Neethling’s Law of Personality at 194-5]. In Delange Smalberger JA summarized the position as follows [at 862A-G]:

“(B)ecause proof that the subjective feelings of an individual have been wounded, and his dignitas thereby impaired, is necessary before an action for damages for injuria can succeed, the concept of dignitas is a subjective one. But before that stage is reached it is necessary to establish that there was a wrongful act. Unless there was such an act intention becomes irrelevant as does the question whether subjectively the aggrieved person’s dignity was impaired.

The OBJECTIVE test is based upon another test known as the COMMON LAW REASONABLENESS test.

In determining whether or not the act complained of is wrongful the Court applies the criterion of reasonableness – the “algemene redelikheidsmaatstaf” (Marais v Richard en ‘n Ander 1981 (1) SA 1157 (A) at 1168C). This is an objective test. It requires the conduct complained of to be tested against the prevailing norms of society (ie the current values and thinking of the community) in order to determine whether such conduct can be classified as wrongful. To address the words to another which might wound his self-esteem but which are not, objectively determined, insulting (and therefore wrongful) cannot give rise to an action for injuria. (Walker v Van Wezel (supra) at 68.)’

Reasonableness Test: Professional Standard of Care/Negligence

The reasonableness test is generally used in legal actions, where one individual claims another was negligent: they did not follow a particular standard of care; whether for building a bridge, arresting a criminal, performing an operation, driving an ambulance; etc. etc. Their actions were below the standard of reasonableness, for that particular required act.

This reasonableness test can be used for anything from a patient accusing a doctor of malpractice; a person hit by an ambulance accusing it of dangerous driving; a taxpayer accusing an engineer of bad building practices for a bridge, or whatever. Any act where the complainant basically says that the accused person did not act according to a certain required reasonable standard for that particular act, in those particular circumstances.

If the matter is that of a neurosurgeon doctor, then the court must ask OTHER NEUROSURGEON DOCTORS, whether the neurosurgeon actions were REASONABLE or not. The court cannot ask WITCHDOCTORS, or DENTISTS or any other doctor not skilled in neurosurgery, or PLUMBERS or RUGBY-PLAYERS whether the act of the NEUROSURGEON DOCTOR was reasonable or not, under those particular circumstances.

According to Bolam -v- Friern Hospital Management Committee [1957] 1 WLR 582; [1957] 2 All ER 118, the common law reasonableness test for negligence or professional negligence is:

“Where you get a situation which involves the use of some special skill or competence, then the test for negligence is not the test of the man on the Clapham omnibus, because he has not got this special skill. The test is the standard of the ordinary skilled man exercising or professing to have that special skill.”

‘The man on the Clapham omnibus’, is in legal speak, 'the reasonable person'. This is a phrase that was first used by Sir Charles Bowen, QC (later Lord Bowen). (Brewer's Dictionary of Phrase & Fable, 16th Edition, 1995) The man on the Clapham omnibus/the man in the street means the average ordinary English person (Oxford Guide to British & American Culture, 1999)

So for a court to determine whether the Reitz 4 were negligent in their professional skill of student initiation rites and rituals of making an initiation video; it is not for the court to ask people who have never been to a university and are clueless about iniation procedures at universities, because they do not have the special skill to know whether the Reitz 4's initaition actions were negligent (below a particular standard) or not. Nor should the court ask students at the University of California, or Oxford, or Calcutta, for they may have different initiation rites and rituals. The reasonableness test would require that the court ask other South AFrican, preferably UFS students who are skilled in exercising or professing to have that special initiation rites skill, whether the Reitz 4 were 'reasonably' negligent, or not, in making the video. Was their satire video reasonable in comparison to other student initiation rites and rituals?

The court would ask students such as those in this article: Another UFS initiation video surfaces:

A second initiation video has surfaced at the University of the Free State, this time with white students as the "victims".

It shows four white students at the predominantly black Villa Bravado men's residence having water thrown at them. They are made to stand on one leg and say something inaudible, and later crawl around in the water on the floor in front of other students.

NOTE: Anyone who has never been initiated at a University, has every right to think the behaviour of initiation is stupid, dumb, or whatever they wish to label it; BUT when it comes to legally pronouncing judgement, they do NOT POSSESS THE RELEVANT REASONABLENESS TEST SKILLS AND PROFICIENCIES TO MAKE A LEGAL JUDGEMENT OF 'UNREASONABLE', AND HENCE OBJECTIVELY UNLAWFUL IN THE PARTICULAR MATTER.

Put differently, legally; they are the man on the Clapham Omnibus when it comes to prounouncing 'unreasonableness' and hence 'unlawfulness' on the Reitz 4's actions, in terms of the Reasonableness test. They do NOT HAVE THE RELEVANT SKILLS.

A COMPETENT MAGISTRATE SHOULD LISTEN TO ONLY THOSE WHO HAVE THE RELEVANT SKILLS AND COMPETENCIES IN UNIVERSITY INTIATION PRACTICES, AS PRACTICED AT THE UNIVERSITY OF THE ORANGE FREE STATE, TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE ACTIONS OF THE REITZ 4 WERE UNREASONABLE AND HENCE UNLAWFUL.

Here is Renaldo Gouws, a former student from another University from South Africa, who explains his perspective on the Reitz 4 students Initiation Satire video. Consider whether his answer to a Magistrate would be that the Reitz 4's INITIATION actions were REASONABLE, or NOT REASONABLE.



Consider what these students might say on the Witness Stand: Race video 'just play acting', News 24 (2008-02-27 23:02):

A political football

At the time, the UFS integration policy featured prominently in the media.

Former UFS students told the newspaper it appeared that the video had become a political football.

Others felt it strange that the video should surface at this stage, almost as if it was intended to distract attention from the R3m damage caused last week at the campus by students.

Decoding INTENTIONAL Crimen Injuria


According to Maithufi v Minister of Safety & Security of the Rep. of South Africa (20382/05) [2007] ZAGPHC 163 (4 July 2007):

The learned Boshoff AJ on page 260B-E stated that “In the actio injuriarum the injuria consists of a wrongful act designedly done in contempt of another, which infringes his dignity, his person or his reputation.

[29] In the case of Rex v Umfaan, 1908 TS 62 at p66 Innes, CJ referred to the three essentials of injuria as follows:

“The act complained of must be wrongful, it must be intentional, it must violate one or other of those real rights, those rights in rem, related to personality, which every free man is entitled to enjoy. Chief Justice de Villiers Laws of Injuries, says (p27): “With these ingredients to hand it will be found that there are three essential requisites to establish an action of injury. They are as follows “(1) an intention on the part of the offender to produce the effect of his act; (2) an overt act which the person doing it is not legally competent to do; and which at the same time
is (3) an aggression upon the right of another, by which aggression the other is aggrieved and which constitutes an impairment of the person, dignity or reputation of the other.

Consider the courts ruling in: Paper 'didn't intend to offend' (2008-04-11 20:35):

Use of the word "boesman" by the newspaper Die Burger was not derogatory hate speech, the Equality Court ruled in Cape Town on Friday.

Kobus Faasen, an academic who says he is a descendant of the Khoisan people, had claimed the newspaper's use of the word in several articles was "contaminated with racism and more derogatory than the 'k' word".

Magistrate James Lekhuleni said there was no evidence to show Die Burger had intended to "offend, demoralise or cause harm" to anyone, and had adhered to its code of conduct.

Lekhuleni said the San Council had testified that the use of the word was still a subject of debate, but that it had no objections to its use.

The council had said it was "at peace" with its use on condition it was in the right context.

Lekhuleni said the meaning of words could fluctuate with time.

"In the future the San people might agree that the word is degrading, however that is not the case now." he said.

I repeat: “Magistrate James Lekhuleni said there was no evidence to show Die Burger had intended to "offend, demoralise or cause harm" to anyone, and had adhered to its code of conduct.”

The court made an enquiry into the intentions of the Burger when they published the article, namely the context wherein the words were used to demonstrate their contextual intentions.

Additionally, the court made a reasonableness test enquiry, by asking the relevant experts -- the San Council -- their opinion on whether the word 'boesman' was reasonable, or insulting. The court did not ask the man on the Clapham Omnibus, cause he does not have the knowledge and skills to know whether it is 'reasonable', or insulting, or not.


What were the intentions (Dolus) of the Reitz 4? What did they wish to produce with their Act?

According to Race video 'just play acting', News 24 (2008-02-27 23:02):

The two students and two former ones at the hostel can easily be recognised on the video in which one male and four female staff are "initiated" into the residence.

The staffers are seen drinking with the students, among other things.

Volksblad newspaper heard that the video, which was an attempt to produce a Leon Schuster-type movie, had been made in September last year. It was apparently intended for a "cultural evening" at the hostel.

What is a Leon Schuster-type movie?

Leon Schuster and Alfred Ntombela Make Fun of Being Homeless & Begging in the New South Africa [Other Leon Schuster clips: Tshabalala Msimang; Rainbow Yoghurt; The Fake Toll Road; etc.]

Decoding Intention (Dolus): Intention can be Direct (Directus) or Indirect (Eventualis)

Did the Reitz 4 have Dolus Directus (Direct Intention) to Insult the workers?

NO: Not at all, in my opinion.

Legal City describes Dolus (Wrongful Intention) as follows:

The motives of an accused person: This is the term describing the intention of an accused person at the time an alleged crime is committed. It has two forms:

• Dolus directus (direct intention) is present when a certain act or result is intended. For example, if A points and fires his revolver at B, his arch enemy, he is said to have dolus directus in respect of B's death.
  
• Dolus eventualis (indirect intention) exists when the possibility of a particular consequence or circumstance is foreseen, but there is a reckless disregard as to whether it ensues or not. For example, if A drives on the wrong side of the road in a busy street knowing that he might collide with other traffic, but not caring whether he does or not. Or, if B fires a revolver into the dark at night just for fun, it may well be that he does not intend killing anyone. If, however, he foresees that somebody may be killed if he pulls the trigger, he may have dolus eventualis if someone does die.

In both forms of intention the person knows that the action - or the consequen-ces of the action - are wrong.

[Next: The Dolus Eventualis Legal Fraud – The Multiculti Boiling Frog]