SCA: Malema v. Afriforum: Could ANC have won Anti-Apartheid struggle non-violently if Afrikaners were Honourable?

SCA: Malema v. Afriforum: Could ANC have won Anti-Apartheid struggle non-violently if Afrikaners were Honourable?

30 December 2011 | Andrea Muhrrteyn | White Refugees

From: Lara Johnstone
Sent: Friday, December 30, 2011 2:23 PM
To: 'Byron Morris'; 'Adv. Maleka'
Subject: [SCA 815/11] Malema v. Afriforum: Amicus Applic: Notice of Motion, FAffidavit & Heads of Argument

JULIUS MALEMA & AFRICAN NATIONAL CONGRESS

(1st & 2nd Applicants Attorneys)
Mr. Mkhabela Huntley
Adekeye Inc.
Tel: (011) 786 7303
Ref: Mr. Makebela or Byron Morris

(1st & 2nd Applicants Advocate)
Vincent Maleka SC
Doma Nokwe Group
Tel: (011) 282 3700 / 3772 | Fax: (011) 884 6453
Cell: (083) 260 0790

Dear Sirs,

Please find attached PDF’s:

* Notice of Motion: Application of Lara Johnstone, Radical Honesty Culture & Religion, to Proceed as an Amicus Curiae
* Founding Affidavit of Lara Johnstone
* Heads of Argument: Written Submissions of Lara Johnstone (Radical Honesty – SA)

Kindly Notice the following 'Possible Error' Argument to the Submission made to Judge Colin Lamont:

Possible Error in Argument: Could the ANC have won their struggle against Apartheid non-violently, by demonstrating their honourable Just War Just Cause Population Policy Intentions to end their Breeding War?

KINDLY TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that –- Applicants observations of the lack of honour and ethical legal conduct from Afriforum and TAU-SA’s towards the Radical Honesty SA Application -- it is possible Applicant’s presumptions in the Heads of Argument, detailed in the Affidavit as: Could the ANC have won their struggle against Apartheid non-violently, by demonstrating their honourable Just War Just Cause Population Policy Intentions to end their Breeding War? (Affidavit paragraphs 44-48) may be incorrect. Put differently, if Afrikaner males from Afriforum and TAU-SA endorse the denial of due process and legal procedures to a white Boer woman, from the Radical Honesty culture, who chooses to live in accordance to ecological carrying capacity principles by refraining from participating in violent breeding war and ecological resource war consumption behaviours; the chances that these self same Afrikaners Apartheid predecessors, with the similar lack of honour and integrity, would honourably recognize the due process and legal procedural rights of black Africans, who choose to abide by ecological carrying capacity laws, would be almost zero. If Afriforum and TAU-SA Afrikaners refuse to recognize the due process and legal procedural rights of a white Boer woman refusing to participate in the violence of breeding wars and corporate resource consumption wars; then they also wouldn’t recognize black Africans who chose to refuse to participate in the violence of breeding wars and corporate resource consumption wars.

It accordingly remains to be seen whether Afriforum and TAU-SA, and/or any other ‘human rights’ groups in South Africa, do in fact consider it important to recognize the due process and legal procedural rights of any man or woman refusing to participate in the violence of breeding wars and corporate resource consumption wars.

Kindly Notice the following CHRONOLOGY of Submission made to Judge Colin Lamont:

The Applicant’s Application to Judge Colin Lamont:

1. The Applicant filed this application to the Court of Judge Colin Lamont on Tuesday 4/19/2011 11:12 AM. On Tue 4/26/2011 1:03 PM, I telephoned the registrar to confirm receipt and then sent her an email confirming the contents of our conversation:

Confirmation of details discussed in our telephone conversation a few minutes ago: The Registrar received the Radical Honesty SA application to proceed as an Amicus Curiae, served on 19 April 2011. The Registrar submitted the application to Judge Colin Lamont on 19 April 2011. Judge Colin Lamont noted as part of public court proceedings on 20 April 2011, that he had received the Radical Honesty SA Application to proceed as an Amicus Curiae. The application is still before Judge Lamont, who shall issue his ruling in due course.

Additional Info: For the record: As of date, I have not received any objections from any parties to the Radical Honesty SA Amicus application.

2. Further correspondence between myself and the Registrar: [Afriforum v. Malema]; HC-SG: Judge C. Lamont 28 April 2011 Order via Registrar van Dewenter.

3. On Wednesday, May 04, 2011 1:54 AM, I filed a complaint with the SA Press Ombudsman: Complaint to Press Ombudsman: [Press Ombudsman: Afriforum v. Malema] Mr. Joe Thloloe & Mondli Makhanya; SA Media Corruption: RE: NL-FR-DE-UK-CH 'Boer/Settler' Applic. filed in Afriforum v Malema.

Please would you be so kind as to inform me exactly what the SANEF editors reasons are; why the TRC FRAUD arguments of the Radical Honesty NL-FR-DE-UK-CH 'Boer/Settler' Applic. filed in Afriforum v Malema (PDF enclosed as per email sent on Thu, 21 Apr 2011 11:30:07 +0200); are determined not of interest to SA citizens.

The Registrar received the Radical Honesty SA application to proceed as an Amicus Curiae, served on 19 April 2011. The Registrar submitted the application to Judge Colin Lamont on 19 April 2011. Judge Colin Lamont noted as part of public court proceedings on 20 April 2011, that he had received the Radical Honesty SA Application to proceed as an Amicus Curiae. The application is still before Judge Lamont, who shall issue his ruling in due course.

4. The Press Ombudsman refused to accept the complaint, calling it ‘spam’; and refused to provide a definition for what he considered ‘spam’, or how my complaint allegedly fitted his definition of ‘spam’.

5. On Mon 11/21/2011 11:29 AM, I filed a complaint with the International Criminal Court (ICC) Prosecutors Office (PDF), against Mandela, de Klerk, Tutu, Nobel Committee, Concourt Justices, et al; 88 SA media editors and publications and the New York Times, Telegraph and Algemene Dagblad, for their news articles of the Afriforum v. Malema matter censoring the TRC fraud arguments submitted to the Court of Judge Colin Lamont.

The Complainants Request the ICC: Prosecutor’s Office to: Initiate an investigation into the allegations that the respondents are to be held criminally culpable for their endorsement and concealment of TRC FRAUD, the consequences of which are genocide and crimes against humanity against white South Africans, and ethno-cultural legal and political persecution of Afrikaner/Boer and Radical Honesty cultures.

Complainants allege the Defendants cover up and censorship of the ANC and Anti-Apartheid Movements (i) Frantz Fanon/Black Consciousness (‘liberation by violence on the rotting corpse of the settlers’) (ii) Black Liberation Theology (‘violent elimination of ‘whiteness’); and (iii) Houari Boumediene/Black Power Breeding War (“The wombs of our women will give us victory”) inspired TRUTH AND RECONCILIATION COMMISSION FRAUD (“TRC FRAUD”) perpetrated against citizens of South Africa, and predominantly against white Afrikaner/Boer/Settlers; is committed in the context of endorsing the ANC’s institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by Africans over other racial groups, particularly Boer/Afrikaners and committed with the intention of maintaining the ANC regime.

6. On Thursday, May 12, 2011 3:23 PM, I filed a request to Mr. Steve Hofmeyr, Mr. Hofmeyr: Request Clarification Context & Definitions of “kaffer”, asking him to clarify his definition of ‘kaffir’ as used in his song, Ons sal dit oorweeg. Subsequent correspondence with Mr. Hofmeyr regarding his definition of Kaffir, and his decision to publicize it, in relation to the Afriform v. Malema trial, and the Radical Honesty application . Subsequent correspondence with Mr. Hofmeyr: Afriforum v. Malema: 'Kaffir' Struggle Activism: RH Correspondence to, and from, Steve Hofmeyr.

7. On Sunday, May 15, 2011 5:36 PM I filed a submission ([Afriforum v. Malema] Radical Honesty SA to SAIRR: Frans Cronje: Who; or What is a Kaffir? Do Kaffirs Exist?) to SAIRR Mr. Frans Cronje in response to SAIRR Open Letter to Steve Hofmeyr; RE: ‘Afriforum v. Malema’ ‘Kaffir’; wherein I clarify Radical Honesty’s definitions and context for the use of ‘Kaffir’; in relation to sincere Radical Honesty forgiveness.

8. On Monday, May 23, 2011 2:53 PM, I filed a complaint with the FW de Klerk Foundation and their Center for Constitutional Rights: [Afriforum v. Malema] RH-2-FW de Klerk Fnd: Nobel-TRC-Fraud-Peace Elite's One Meaning Only for Kaffir Dictatorship.

Respectfully,

LARA JOHNSTONE, Pro Se
16 Taaibos Ave, Heatherpark
George, 6529
Tel/Fax: (044) 870 7239

From: Lara Johnstone
Sent: Friday, December 30, 2011 2:28 PM
To: Afriforum: CEO: Kallie Kriel; AFRIFORUM: CEO: CEO: Alana Bailey; AFRIFORUM: CEO: Youth: Ernsts Roets; Afriforum: Counsel: Martin Brassey; Afriforum: Attorney: Willie Spies
Cc: TAU: Tvl Agric. Union: Riaan van der Walt; TAU: Tvl Agric. Union: Adv. Roelof du Plessis; TAU: Tvl Agric. Union: Comm: Henk van de Graaf; TAU: Tvl Agric. Union: Riaan van der Walt; Vereniging vir Afrikaans Regslui: Prof Koos Malan
Subject: [SCA 815/11] Malema v. Afriforum: Amicus Applic: Notice of Motion, FAffidavit & Heads of Argument

AFRIFORUM & TAU-SA

Mr. Kallie Kriel & Ms. Alana Bailey
Youth: Ernsts Roets

Mr. Willie Spies, Hurter Spies Attorneys

Adv. Martin Brassey, SC

Comm: Henk van de Graaf (koms@tlu.co.za)

Mr. Riaan van der Walt

Adv. Roelof du Plessis SC

Dear Sirs,

Please find attached PDF’s:

* Notice of Motion: Application of Lara Johnstone, Radical Honesty Culture & Religion, to Proceed as an Amicus Curiae
* Founding Affidavit of Lara Johnstone
* Heads of Argument: Written Submissions of Lara Johnstone (Radical Honesty – SA)

Kindly Notice the following 'Possible Error' Argument to the Submission made to Judge Colin Lamont:

Possible Error in Argument: Could the ANC have won their struggle against Apartheid non-violently, by demonstrating their honourable Just War Just Cause Population Policy Intentions to end their Breeding War?

KINDLY TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that –- Applicants observations of the lack of honour and ethical legal conduct from Afriforum and TAU-SA’s towards the Radical Honesty SA Application -- it is possible Applicant’s presumptions in the Heads of Argument, detailed in the Affidavit as: Could the ANC have won their struggle against Apartheid non-violently, by demonstrating their honourable Just War Just Cause Population Policy Intentions to end their Breeding War? (Affidavit paragraphs 44-48) may be incorrect. Put differently, if Afrikaner males from Afriforum and TAU-SA endorse the denial of due process and legal procedures to a white Boer woman, from the Radical Honesty culture, who chooses to live in accordance to ecological carrying capacity principles by refraining from participating in violent breeding war and ecological resource war consumption behaviours; the chances that these self same Afrikaners Apartheid predecessors, with the similar lack of honour and integrity, would honourably recognize the due process and legal procedural rights of black Africans, who choose to abide by ecological carrying capacity laws, would be almost zero. If Afriforum and TAU-SA Afrikaners refuse to recognize the due process and legal procedural rights of a white Boer woman refusing to participate in the violence of breeding wars and corporate resource consumption wars; then they also wouldn’t recognize black Africans who chose to refuse to participate in the violence of breeding wars and corporate resource consumption wars.

It accordingly remains to be seen whether Afriforum and TAU-SA, and/or any other ‘human rights’ groups in South Africa, do in fact consider it important to recognize the due process and legal procedural rights of any man or woman refusing to participate in the violence of breeding wars and corporate resource consumption wars.

Kindly Notice the following CHRONOLOGY of Submission made to Judge Colin Lamont:

The Applicant’s Application to Judge Colin Lamont:

1. The Applicant filed this application to the Court of Judge Colin Lamont on Tuesday 4/19/2011 11:12 AM. On Tue 4/26/2011 1:03 PM, I telephoned the registrar to confirm receipt and then sent her an email confirming the contents of our conversation:

Confirmation of details discussed in our telephone conversation a few minutes ago: The Registrar received the Radical Honesty SA application to proceed as an Amicus Curiae, served on 19 April 2011. The Registrar submitted the application to Judge Colin Lamont on 19 April 2011. Judge Colin Lamont noted as part of public court proceedings on 20 April 2011, that he had received the Radical Honesty SA Application to proceed as an Amicus Curiae. The application is still before Judge Lamont, who shall issue his ruling in due course.

Additional Info: For the record: As of date, I have not received any objections from any parties to the Radical Honesty SA Amicus application.

2. Further correspondence between myself and the Registrar: [Afriforum v. Malema]; HC-SG: Judge C. Lamont 28 April 2011 Order via Registrar van Dewenter.

3. On Wednesday, May 04, 2011 1:54 AM, I filed a complaint with the SA Press Ombudsman: Complaint to Press Ombudsman: [Press Ombudsman: Afriforum v. Malema] Mr. Joe Thloloe & Mondli Makhanya; SA Media Corruption: RE: NL-FR-DE-UK-CH 'Boer/Settler' Applic. filed in Afriforum v Malema.

Please would you be so kind as to inform me exactly what the SANEF editors reasons are; why the TRC FRAUD arguments of the Radical Honesty NL-FR-DE-UK-CH 'Boer/Settler' Applic. filed in Afriforum v Malema (PDF enclosed as per email sent on Thu, 21 Apr 2011 11:30:07 +0200); are determined not of interest to SA citizens.

The Registrar received the Radical Honesty SA application to proceed as an Amicus Curiae, served on 19 April 2011. The Registrar submitted the application to Judge Colin Lamont on 19 April 2011. Judge Colin Lamont noted as part of public court proceedings on 20 April 2011, that he had received the Radical Honesty SA Application to proceed as an Amicus Curiae. The application is still before Judge Lamont, who shall issue his ruling in due course.

4. The Press Ombudsman refused to accept the complaint, calling it ‘spam’; and refused to provide a definition for what he considered ‘spam’, or how my complaint allegedly fitted his definition of ‘spam’.

5. On Mon 11/21/2011 11:29 AM, I filed a complaint with the International Criminal Court (ICC) Prosecutors Office (PDF), against Mandela, de Klerk, Tutu, Nobel Committee, Concourt Justices, et al; 88 SA media editors and publications and the New York Times, Telegraph and Algemene Dagblad, for their news articles of the Afriforum v. Malema matter censoring the TRC fraud arguments submitted to the Court of Judge Colin Lamont.

The Complainants Request the ICC: Prosecutor’s Office to: Initiate an investigation into the allegations that the respondents are to be held criminally culpable for their endorsement and concealment of TRC FRAUD, the consequences of which are genocide and crimes against humanity against white South Africans, and ethno-cultural legal and political persecution of Afrikaner/Boer and Radical Honesty cultures.

Complainants allege the Defendants cover up and censorship of the ANC and Anti-Apartheid Movements (i) Frantz Fanon/Black Consciousness (‘liberation by violence on the rotting corpse of the settlers’) (ii) Black Liberation Theology (‘violent elimination of ‘whiteness’); and (iii) Houari Boumediene/Black Power Breeding War (“The wombs of our women will give us victory”) inspired TRUTH AND RECONCILIATION COMMISSION FRAUD (“TRC FRAUD”) perpetrated against citizens of South Africa, and predominantly against white Afrikaner/Boer/Settlers; is committed in the context of endorsing the ANC’s institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by Africans over other racial groups, particularly Boer/Afrikaners and committed with the intention of maintaining the ANC regime.

6. On Thursday, May 12, 2011 3:23 PM, I filed a request to Mr. Steve Hofmeyr, Mr. Hofmeyr: Request Clarification Context & Definitions of “kaffer”, asking him to clarify his definition of ‘kaffir’ as used in his song, Ons sal dit oorweeg. Subsequent correspondence with Mr. Hofmeyr regarding his definition of Kaffir, and his decision to publicize it, in relation to the Afriform v. Malema trial, and the Radical Honesty application . Subsequent correspondence with Mr. Hofmeyr: Afriforum v. Malema: 'Kaffir' Struggle Activism: RH Correspondence to, and from, Steve Hofmeyr.

7. On Sunday, May 15, 2011 5:36 PM I filed a submission ([Afriforum v. Malema] Radical Honesty SA to SAIRR: Frans Cronje: Who; or What is a Kaffir? Do Kaffirs Exist?) to SAIRR Mr. Frans Cronje in response to SAIRR Open Letter to Steve Hofmeyr; RE: ‘Afriforum v. Malema’ ‘Kaffir’; wherein I clarify Radical Honesty’s definitions and context for the use of ‘Kaffir’; in relation to sincere Radical Honesty forgiveness.

8. On Monday, May 23, 2011 2:53 PM, I filed a complaint with the FW de Klerk Foundation and their Center for Constitutional Rights: [Afriforum v. Malema] RH-2-FW de Klerk Fnd: Nobel-TRC-Fraud-Peace Elite's One Meaning Only for Kaffir Dictatorship.

Respectfully,

LARA JOHNSTONE, Pro Se
16 Taaibos Ave, Heatherpark
George, 6529
Tel/Fax: (044) 870 7239