Adv. Henno Viljoen, Advocates Group 21 ‘One-Meaning-Only-for-Kaffir’ Dictatorship’ Complaint

From: Lara Johnstone
Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2011 4:25 PM
To: Jhb. Bar Soc.; General Council of the Bar of SA; MWeb Abuse & Security Team;
Adv. Henno Viljoen, c/o: Adv. Robbie Stockwell, SC, Advocates Group 21
CC: Afriforum v. Malema Parties; Steve Hofmeyr
Subject: Jhb. Bar Soc.: Complaint: Req. for Info: RE: Adv. Henno Viljoen, Advocates Group 21, Mweb K****r Complaint

TO: The Johannesburg Society of Advocates
Administrative Officer &/or Maria Ferreira

TO: General Council of the Bar of SA (GCB)

TO: Adv. Henno Viljoen
c/o: Adv. Robbie Stockwell, SC
Advocates Group 21

TO: Ashley Anthony & Quinton Davids (Case CAS-862066-11T1FP)]
MWEB Operations: E-mail Centre
Technical Support Team
MWEB Abuse & Security Team

BCC: Afriforum v. Malema Parties; Steve Hofmeyr
BCC: RWF MacWilliam, Cape Bar: Pro Bono Committee; & Anton Katz, Cape Bar: Human Rights Committee (Reference: Footnote 29):

Please find attached PDF’s:

• Radical Honesty SA Complaint to Jhb Bar Assoc: Request for Information: Re: Adv. Henno Viljoen, Advocates Group 21, ‘Kaffir’ Complaint to MWeb, including Annexures (A) to (C)
  
• Cape Bar Annexure, referred to in Footnote 29: 13 August 2009: Request for Impartial Record Keeping of Documentation: State v. Johnstone: Legal Argument, dated 11 August 2009; submitted to RWF MacWilliam, Cape Bar: Pro Bono Committee; c/o Anton Katz, Cape Bar: Human Rights Committee: Re: ‘Kaffir’ Crimen Inuria Trial documents.

Lara Johnstone
Radical Honesty SA
Tel: (044) 870 7239
Cel: (071) 170 1954

Radical Honesty SA to Johannesburg Bar Association:

Req. for Info; Re: Adv. Viljoen ‘Kaffir’ Complaint to MWEB

CC: Afriforum v. Malema; Steve Hofmeyr

18 May 2011

Dear Johannesburg Bar Association Complaints Committee:

Plausible Irregular Complaint from Adv. Henno Viljoen to MWeb: Request for Information:

• Adv. Viljoen’s Intentions for Withholding Evidence of Innocence to his Allegations
  
• Does Advocate Viljoen Insist that his Definition for ‘Kaffir’ is Sui-Generis (Unique)?
  
• If Advocate Viljoen’s ‘kaffir’ definition is racial; ie refers to black people; can he confirm his knowledge that Radical Honesty’s definitions for ‘kaffir’ are not racial; but behavioural?
  
• If Advocate Viljoen was offended by one of Radical Honesty definitions for ‘Kaffir’ (Cultural, Etymological or Legislative); which definition/s does he find offensive and why?
  
• Is Advocate Viljoen Asserting that his Legal Definition of ‘Dignity’ is Sui Generis (Unique)?

I received a complaint filed by Adv. Henno Viljoen, from Advocates Group 21, to MWeb Abuse (Annex A); in response to one of the Jus Sanguinis Audi Alteram Partem Notice Emails sent to SA TRC Fraud Political, Corporate, Religious, Media etc elite: Johannesburg Society of Advocates.

The Audi Alteram Partem notices have been provided to these organisations and their members on the assumption they would wish to be informed of the TRC fraud allegations made against the SA TRC legal, political, religious and media elite, to various foreign government’s, including the International Criminal Court; the details of which are being censored from the SA public’s right to know, by the SA media.

I could not find any record of Advocate Viljoen requesting not to receive the notifications. If my records are in error; could he please notify me when he did send me such a request.

If Advocate Viljoen has read the previous updates, then he would be aware of the SA media’s censorship of Radical Honesty SA’s TRC Fraud arguments and their genocide consequences from the SA public’s right to know. He would then be aware that the SA Justice System, and SA media have and continue to endorse the legal and political persecution of the Radical Honesty culture.

Considering the seriousness of the TRC FRAUD information being censored from the SA public’s right to know; he would be aware of its stunting effect on SA citizens decision-making and SA’s race-relations; which renders the word ‘democracy’ nothing but verbal diarrhoea. I would imagine that he and any other Advocate’s who publicly identify themselves on the Bar Association website as ‘identifying themselves fully with the ideals, aspirations and challenges presented by a new democratic South Africa’ would be extremely concerned. If I am extremely concerned about a particular issue; I want more information on the issue, so as to make a fully-informed enquiry; not less; or none!

Adv. Viljoen alleges that the Jus Sanguinis Audi Alteram Partem Updates email sent to: JC Uys; S van Aswegen-Bar-JSC; PJ van der Berg-Bar-JSC; BCC to Adv. Viljoen (and others); Subject: Jhb. Bar Soc: Ons Sal Dit Oorleef: To Be; or Not to Be A Kaffir; Do Kaffirs Exist; is the Question!; is in violation of MWeb’s Terms of Service:

13.1.3. use any service to post or transmit anything which is defamatory, discriminatory, obscene, offensive, threatening, abusive, harassing, harmful, hateful or which carries child pornography, religious or racial slurs or threatens or encourages bodily harm or the like or which may violate any person's personality rights;

Advocate Viljoen’s complaint to MWeb does not include the full body of my email and its attachments; and hence the evidence for my innocence of his allegations of ‘defamatory, discriminatory,…..’

Adv. Viljoen’s Intentions for Withholding Evidence of Innocence to his Allegations:

I am unaware if Advocate Viljoen deliberately withheld the contents of my email to him, including its attachments from MWeb authorities. Could he clarify whether he did so intentionally or negligently.

Unlike other Bar Associations, the SA Bar Council’s Code of Ethical Conduct (S 3.2 Duty to Court) does not include the following strict requirement, so I am unclear what exactly the Bar Councils position is on this principle of Ethical conduct. I have previously requested SA Legal Officials to uphold it; but simply been ignored (See: (i) SAPS Complaint CAS 180-08-2010: CC: SA Bar Council: Ref: City Press Anonymous Source: 'Senior Legal Figure Present in Court; (ii) Letter to Senior Prosecutor Jacobs: For the Record: State v Johnstone: 'Crimen Inuria': Incomplete Further Particulars); which I must admit is simply one of many factors contributing to my Martin Luther perception of SA’s legal establishment as a TRC ‘Innocence’ Indulgences for Sale Circus who consider themselves above the law.

"Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example." – US Justice Louis Brandeis, 1928

DC Bar: Opinion No 119:

"A lawyer shall not suppress any evidence that he or his client has a legal obligation to reveal or produce."

EC 7-27; DR 7-102(A)(7) (a lawyer may not conceal or assist illegal conduct).

Wisconsin Bar Formal Ethics Opinions:

SCR 20.34(3)(i) (1982) says in material part:

‘‘Because it interferes with the proper administration of justice, a lawyer should not suppress evidence which he or she or his or her client has a legal obligation to reveal or produce.’’

SCR 20.36(1)(c) provides: ‘‘. . . A lawyer may not: conceal or knowingly fail to disclose that which the lawyer is required by law to reveal.’’

SCR 20.43(1) provides: ‘‘A lawyer may not suppress any evidence that the lawyer or the lawyer’s client has a legal obligation to reveal or produce.’’

"A public prosecutor or other goverment lawyer in criminal litigation shall make timely disclosure to counsel for the defendant, or to the defendant if he has no counsel, of the existence of evidence, known to the prosecutor or other goverment lawyer, that tends to negate the guilt of the accused, mitigate the degree of the offense, or reduce the punishment."

New York State Bar Association: Committee on Standards of Attorney Conduct: Rule 3.4: Fairness to Opposing Party and Counsel:

A lawyer shall not: (a) unlawfully obstruct another party's access to evidence or unlawfully alter, destroy or conceal a document or other material having potential evidentiary value. A lawyer shall not counsel or assist another person to do any such act;

Did Advocate Viljoen hope that like many citizens MWeb ‘spam mail’ staff suffer from a Dunning and Kruger Effect Cognitive Bias, such as Status-Quo Bias (the tendency to like things to stay relatively the same), Anchoring (the common human tendency to rely too heavily, or "anchor," on one trait or piece of information when making decisions); Bandwagon Effect (the tendency to do (or believe) things because many other people do (or believe) the same); Primacy Effect (the tendency to weigh initial events more than subsequent events); and would summarily act on his allegation without providing me with the opportunity of reply?

Dunning and Kruger Effect:

A Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which unskilled people make poor decisions and reach erroneous conclusions, but their incompetence denies them the metacognitive ability to appreciate their mistakes.

Cognitive Bias:

A cognitive bias is a pattern of deviation in judgment that occurs in particular situations. Implicit in the concept of a "pattern of deviation" is a standard of comparison; this may be the judgment of people outside those particular situations, or may be a set of independently verifiable facts. The existence of some of these cognitive biases has been verified empirically in the field of psychology.

Practical Significance of Cognitive Bias:

Many social institutions rely on individuals to make rational judgments. A fair jury trial, for example, requires that the jury ignore irrelevant features of the case, weigh the relevant features appropriately, consider different possibilities open-mindedly and resist fallacies such as appeal to emotion. The various biases demonstrated in these psychological experiments suggest that people will frequently fail to do all these things. However, they fail to do so in systematic, directional ways that are predictable. Cognitive biases are also related to the persistence of superstition, to large social issues such as prejudice, and they also work as a hindrance in the acceptance of scientific non-intuitive knowledge by the public.

Request for Offensive ‘Kaffir’ Definition Information from Advocate Viljoen:

I am confused about what exactly Advocate Viljoen found offensive about the word ‘Kaffir’. In fact the title of the email states:

Ons Sal Dit Oorleef: To Be; or Not to Be A Kaffir; Do Kaffirs Exist; is the Question!

Is he alleging that it is ‘offensive’ to even ask the question ‘Do Kaffirs exist’? Put differently that any theoretical discussion of the word ‘kaffir’ is considered ‘hate speech’?

If none of the black people to whom I emailed the same email were offended; and Advocate Viljoen is not black; why is he choosing to be offended about a word that does not describe him, and which according to his definition (not mine); does not even offend the black people whom received it?

Could Advocate Viljoen please clarify what his personal definition is for the word ‘kaffir’?

Or is Advocate Viljoen offended by one or more of the Radical Honesty SA definitions for ‘Kaffir’; and if so, which definition/s does he find offensive and why?

[i] ‘Kaffir Behaviour’: Cultural Beliefs and Procreation Behaviour Definition:

Individuals who either independently or as a result of their cultural value systems, are incapable of, or unwilling to, practice sexual restraint and procreation responsibility; who consequently breed cockroach-prolifically without personal financial or psychological responsibility to, or emotional concern for, their offspring; and/or who abuse women and children as sexual or economic slaves procreated for such purpose; and/or whose cultural ideal of manhood endorses non-consensual sex (rape) as their sexual slavery entitlement, etc.

[ii] ‘Kaffir Etymology’: Original Etymological Definition for ‘Kaffir’:

The word kāfir is the active participle of the Semitic root K-F-R “to cover”. As a pre-Islamic term it described farmers burying seeds in the ground, covering them with soil while planting; as they till the earth and “cover up” the seeds; which is why earth tillers are referred to as “Kuffar.” Thus, the word kāfir implies the meaning “a person who hides or covers”; To conceal, deny, hide or cover the truth.

[iii] ‘Kaffir Legislation’ = Inalienable Right to Breed’ Poverty, Misery and War legislation; pretending it advocates for ‘peace’ and ‘human rights’.

Kaffir Law/Legislation provides citizens with the Inalienable ‘Right to Breed’, but demands that Citizens need a Licence to Own a Gun, a Licence to Drive a Car, a Licence to Practice Law, a television licence, a credit licence, a licence to earn a living, a university exemption licence, a licence to fish, a licence to hunt, a liquor licence, a business licence, a marriage licence, etc, etc. Kaffir Legislation covers up that an ‘Inalienable Right to Breed/laissez-faire birth control policy + No Social Welfare policies or practices provides for an equilibrium carrying capacity; whereas Inalienable Right to Breed/laissez-faire birth control within a welfare state, results in Runaway Growth, and ultimately greater misery, poverty and war.

Is Advocate Viljoen Asserting that his Legal Definition of ‘Dignity’ is Sui Generis?

Additionally I am also curious as to the cognitive process of Advocate Viljoen’s decision-making. Was his choice to be offended, a conscious or unconscious decision-making process? If he alleges ‘conscious’; which factors did he enquire into; prior to deciding to be offended?

Does Advocate Viljoen consider his mind to be who he is; and to be the final arbiter as to his decision making regarding ‘offense to his dignity’?

In the Radical Honesty culture, our source of ‘dignity’ is an inner process. Our dignity is not a result of how others treat us. Our dignity is a measure of the quality of our commitment to honourable conduct towards others: i.e. the level of our honesty, firstly with ourselves, and secondly to others; no matter how brutal. The greatest respect we can give another is to be 100% honest and transparent (naked) to them about who we are; and think of them in that particular moment. The greatest disservice we can do to our own sense of dignity; is to lack the courage to be honest and honourable; and to resort to sycophancy, two-faced politeness. Hence in Radical Honesty there is no such thing as another person ‘insulting our dignity’; for we are the only one who can insult our dignity, by making a decision to lie to another, in order to manipulate them for our own personal psychological, emotional, political or socio-economic profit.

“Love your neighbor as yourself” doesn't mean that you are supposed to lie about anger; it means to tell the petty, unreasonable, unjustifiable truth—good and loud and direct so you can authentically get over it so you can love that neighbor for real again, not phony it up and talk about how nice they are while lying through your teeth. Try treating other people as poorly as you treat yourself. At times, being honest about your anger is the only way you have of sharing who you are. Love is sharing what you have, even if you're having a fit. Telling the truth is loving your neighbor.” – Brad Blanton, Practicing Radical Honesty

The Radical Honesty perspective of the ‘right to psychological infancy’ concept of ‘dignity’ was submitted to the Constitutional Court (The Citizen v. McBride) in [B] Sui Generis Me-ism Sycophancy Deception, as part of: 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; which the Justices subsequently demanded be shortened to 50 pages:

The meme is a unit of information (or instruction for behaviour) stored in a brain and passed on by imitation from one brain to another. Dawkins gave as examples; ideas, tunes, scientific theories, religious beliefs, clothes fashions… The most obvious (and scary) conclusion from modern neuroscience is that there is simply no one inside the brain. The more we learn about the way the brain functions the less it seems to need a central controller, a little person inside, a decider of decisions or an experiencer of experiences. These are just fictions - part of the story the brain tells itself about a self within (Churchland and Sejnowski, 1992; Dennett, 1991). We seem to live in a muddle that we think matters to a self that doesn’t exist. I want to find out why.

Mr. McBride seems to think that his mind is who he is; does he? But he forgets that it is his mind whom he has put in charge of making that decision? That means there is a conflict of interest, his mind has to make a decision as to whether his mind is who he – Mr. McBride – is? So surely his mind should clarify the decision-making process of how his mind came to that conclusion, based upon what psychological and philosophical and neuro-science evidence? Cause minds just like politicians don’t always tell the truth!

So, is Mr. McBride’s mind, who he is?

Or does Mr. McBride consider his being, the little baby of head, arms and legs, who grew up to be a being of a man, while growing a mind, a being whose eyes see, whose ears hear, and whose skin touches, a being that effortlessly provides this seeing, hearing, touching feedback information to the mind that he grew in his brain, to analyse and then provide his being with a final report about the feedback provided to it?

[..] The self is a key construct in several schools of psychology, referring to either the cognitive and affective representation of one's identity or the subject of experience. The earliest formulation of the self in modern psychology from the distinction between the self as I, the subjective knower, and the self as Me, the object that is known.

The concept of Self is hardly an Absolute Factual Reality: There are many concepts of Self and there are even psychologists who denounce the concept of self, such as Nikolas Rose: He sees the concept of self as necessary for the mechanisms of advanced capitalism to function. In Inventing our selves: Psychology, power, and personhood , he proposes that psychology is now employed as a technology that allows humans to buy into an invented and arguably false sense of self. His book, Governing the Soul: the shaping of the private self, is widely recognised as one of the founding texts in a new way of understanding and analysing the links between expertise, subjectivity and political power. He argues that the proliferation of the 'psy' disciplines has been intrinsically linked with transformations in governmentality, in the rationalities and technologies of political power in 'advanced and liberal democracies'.

So, unless Mr. McBride is a human parrot, or a psychological infant, where did he get his concept of self, and which concept of self is it, because there is not only one Sui Generis concept of psychological infant self, there are many adult versions? Or is he asserting that when it comes to his concept of his own sense of self worth, he is a psychological infant?

[..] Another perspective to the evolution of how we believe our minds to be who we are, and hence believe our minds instructions; and how our minds came to believe many beliefs, such as for example that we were created in the image of God; can be found in bicameralism.

In psychology, bicameralism is a hypothesis which argues that the human brain once assumed a state known as a bicameral mind in which cognitive functions are divided between one part of the brain which appears to be "speaking" (thought’s as instructions), and a second part which listens and obeys. The second part thinks that the (thought) instruction from a ‘god’.

The term was coined by psychologist Julian Jaynes, who presented the idea in his 1976 book The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind, in which he argued that ancient peoples did not access consciousness (did not possess an introspective mind-space), but instead had their behavior directed by auditory hallucinations, which they interpreted as the voice of their chief, king, or the gods. Jaynes argued that the change from this mode of thinking (which he called the bicameral mind) to consciousness (construed as self-identification of interior mental states) occurred over a period of centuries about three thousand years ago and was based on the development of metaphorical (abstract) language and the emergence of writing.

The idea that language is a necessary component of subjective consciousness and more abstract forms of thinking has been gaining acceptance in recent years, with proponents such as Daniel Dennett, William H. Calvin, Merlin Donald, John Limber, Howard Margolis, Peter Carruthers, and Jose Luis Bermudez.

The implications of this new scientific paradigm extend into virtually every aspect of our psychology, our history and culture, our religion - and indeed, our future. In the words of one reviewer, it is "a humbling text, the kind that reminds most of us who make our living through thinking, how much thinking there is left to do."

[..] As previously stated, Descartes philosophical statement of the conscious self, was Cogito ergo sum (French: Je pense donc je suis; English: "I think, therefore I am"), often mistakenly stated as Dubito ergo cogito ergo sum (English: "I doubt, therefore I think, therefore I am"), is a philosophical statement in Latin used by René Descartes, which became a fundamental element of Western philosophy. The simple meaning of the phrase is that if someone is wondering whether or not they exist, that is in and of itself proof that they do exist (because, at the very least, there is an "I" who is doing the thinking.

The simplistic difference between a conscious and unconscious being would be (a) a mind wondering whether or not any ‘self’ actually does exist; and (b) a mind told that it does exist, petrified of finding out it does not exist, who insists everyone else must treat it as if its existence is an absolute infallible fact . Clearly a physical being – Mr. McBride -- does exist; but what is Mr. McBride’s conceptual conscious or unconscious understanding of ‘self’; and hence his dignity?

The concept of Dignity he appears to be applying is a psychological concept of Dignity for that of an unconscious child, someone whose sense of self worth, is that of an unconscious psychological infant. Someone who says ‘I Think I am Unique’ and I demand that everyone believes me and treats as if that is true, even if they don’t think it is. Hence a definition of Dignity: Right-to-Sycophancy, or Psychological Infancy.

[..] If we are a conscious being, then our being uses our mind – an analytical tool -- to evaluate information, from numerous sources, analyse it and come to a conclusion. What is Mr. McBride’s mind’s concept of self, the foundations for his belief in his dignity, etc? It is a fragile-ego autocratic dictatorial mind that chooses ‘I think, I am Unique’, and the right to psychological infancy (sycophancy), as its definition for dignity; but if that is what Mr McBride’s mind wishes to be, it has such a right, but it should practice transparency and disclose that information, and take responsibility: I am a psychological infant, and I demand the right to psychological infancy and sycophancy, based on whatever evidence he wishes to put forth.

The world is littered with psychological infants addicted to sycophancy. Autocratic legal systems and psychological infant lawyers love psychological infant clients, to manipulate and exploit. It is their psychological equivalent to politicians baby kissing (Baby kissing is a practice where politicians kiss babies in order to garner public support.) Hence lawyers addiction to ‘Right to Breed’ and ‘Dignity: Right-to-sycophancy’, laws that deliberately keep citizens in a state of psychological-infancy, because psychological infants are extremely easy to brainwash, to manipulate, as conquer and multiply cannon fodder.

[..] If you are a being with a mind (I am, therefore I think) rather than a mind with a being (I think, therefore I am) as your culture has taught you all your life, a whole new world of possibility opens up. We humans in the West made a slightly aberrant turn back there when Descartes said, "I think, therefore I am." Unfortunately, that is a mistake. "I am, therefore I think" is a better premise. It makes all the difference in the world. To learn from being is more fruitful than to be from learning.

Once we have ceased to identify ourselves with our stories and consider ourselves to be only the being who notices in the moment, who has stories but is not attached to them, we need a community of other people who have achieved the same psychological accomplishment. Without the support of other people who have rediscovered their true identities as beings who think rather than thinkers who be, we will easily fall back into our old acculturated identity and thought patterns. As we engage in noticing and sharing what we notice, we find ourselves reaching out more to each other and creating a community. Then, we find ourselves creating together as a community. Out of this experience of community, we then become a force that can reform the institutions of our society. We learn from experience that service to others is enlightened self-interest. We don't live in isolation; we live in community, and we begin to see that unless we support the development of a new paradigm that allows for a shift in primary values from "I think, therefore I am" to "I am, therefore I think," this lemming rat race of psychological infants is headed for the cliff; led by their pied piper psychological infant lawyers.

[..] First Amici submits that the Respondents Dignity submission is founded on the erroneous belief that his concept of his existential self, is Unique, i.e. the erroneous “I think, I am Unique“ meme that assumes its existence as an absolute truth, and to be Dignity Sui Generis (Unique). However, it is not sui generis, because other members of the existential self meme are known, do exist, even if generally ignored, particularly by a legal establishment who use the ‘Dignity: Right-to-Sycophancy’ as a form of social control and manipulation brainwashing tool, for socio-pol-legal and financial benefit.

Furthermore the Amici argues that the ‘I Think, I am Unique’ meme, is (a) not founded on beyond reasonable doubt scientific evidence; (b) should not be considered legally as Sui Generis (unique) considering the contradictory memetic and neuroscience evidence, which at the very least means its concept of existential self is not unique, only one of many.

Consequently I am curious as to whether Advocate Viljoen considers his legal perspective to ‘dignity’ to be Sui Generis (Unique; i.e. the one and only perspective)? If so; what psychological, neurological, etc science is this Sui Generis conclusion about ‘dignity’ founded upon? If none, should we simply conclude it’s a ‘flat earth’ legal assumption; which refuses to recognize evidence to the contrary?

Interesting French Riddle of the Lily Pond K***r Moonwalk Belly Laugh Synchronicities:

As a psychotronic conscious psychological adult; I noticed the following synchronicities; and was curious about whether Adv. Viljoen’s decision to file his complaint to MWeb was founded on psychotronic instructions from ‘Angels Don’t Play this HAARP’ observers; his own psychological infant bicameral mind ego; or consciously on behalf of an unnamed party’s instructions.

• Adv. Viljoen’s bio states he studied at the Vrije University in Holland and “regularly acts for freight forwarders in matters relating to shipping law.”
  
  
• I also received some very strange possible ‘Miragestorum/1+5=6’ ‘spam’ email from an Urgent Cargo Handling Company with an interest in resolving my alleged ‘delivery dispute’ to a gentleman named James.; for $150 000 (1+5=6?) (Annex B)
  
  
• The Complaint to ICC on 09 May 2011, a copy of which was provided to Jhb. Bar Assoc, including Adv. Henno; refers to my prior employment with former Committee 300 Members ; including my employment as First Mate to Dutch Skipper Harry Molenaar on S.Y. Spirit of Knysna:
  

  “[10] In addition to Brad Blanton, Ph.D; founder of the Radical Honesty culture; I am also a former employee of (1) Ms. Peggy Noonan, former Speechwriter for President Reagan and G.W. Bush, Snr; at her home in New York City, NY; (2) HRH Princess Gloria Von Thurn & Taxis Family on their Private Yacht: S.Y. Aiglon; (3) Lord and Lady Glenapp, now Earl and Countess Inchcape, at their home in Swindon, Wiltshire. (PDF References)”

  
  

Zhirinovsky Threatens to Destroy the World Using Secret "Tsunami-WMD" (03:10)

Vladimir Volfovich Zhirinovsky is a Russian politician, colonel of the Russian Army, founder and the leader of the Liberal Democratic Party of Russia (LDPR), Vice-Chairman of the State Duma, and a member of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, who is a Jewish Russian vocal in his support for "the preservation of the white race". He has also confirmed Manmade Earthquake Weapons to Georgian News:

‘We only need four parties to agree: Washington, Moscow, Brussels and China. There are only these 4 ruling capitals in the world. Thats it. No one else matters. The rest of the countries are not real players in the international scene. The 4 capitals of the world will always agree... In this case the Chinese, Europeans and Americans will come to Moscow and will agree with the position of Moscow. No problems.... Now add to this, that Russia is in possession of orbital launch capability and space power.. and new weapons, which nobody knows anything about.. not yet. With these weapons we will destroy any part of the planet within 15 minutes. No explosion, no ray burst. Not some kind of a laser, not lightning. It is a calm and quite weapon instead, with which whole continents will be put to sleep, forever.... There was that Tsunami in Japan, right? … Everybody should start thinking about their own future. And the future of everybody else.... [If not] Then there will be another Tsunami on the other side of the planet, in the caucasus, that will be the end of you!”

14 May Manmade Earthquake Tremor in Knysna?: S. Cape quake 'sounded like plane'

16 May: Manmade Earthquake Tremor on Jhb?: Tremor shakes East Rand
Respectfully,

Lara Johnstone
Radical Honesty SA
Annex A: Complaint Received from Advocate Henno Viljoen; via MWeb:
Annex B: Email from ‘Cargo Handling Company’ to Resolve Dispute
Annex C: Jus Sanguinis Email to Adv. Viljoen

See Original for Footnotes

» » » » [PDF Complaint: Jhb Bar Assoc] :: [Cape Bar 'Kaffir' Crimen Inuria Annexure]