Supreme Court of Appeal Values: EcoFeminist Sustainable Democracy Transparency TruthSeeking, or Masculine Insecurity War/Conflict Economy Parasite Leeching Tyranny?

Supreme Court of Appeal Values: EcoFeminist Sustainable Democracy Transparency TruthSeeking, or Masculine Insecurity War/Conflict Economy Parasite Leeching Tyranny?

Primary Parties are all Patriarchal: Patriarchal cultures suffer from different degrees of Masculine Insecurity, which is a direct and indirect root cause and aggravating factor for most of the worlds problems, due to (A) obstructing Radical Transparency communication problem solving, (B) is the cognitive foundation of the anti-Meritocratic Parasite Leeching Leadership (sic) Paradigm; (C) hence propagandizes an exponential growth of Parasite Leeching -- ‘walking penis procreation’ overpopulation and ‘consume to demonstrate the size of my consumption penis’ overconsumption -- worldview.

Andrea Muhrrteyn | Radical Honoursty | 18 July 2012

On 22 May 2012, the Supreme Court of Appeal responded to my Application to Proceed as Amicus Curiae in the Afriforum v. Malema: Kill Boer matter. The SCA President refused my application to proceed as Amicus Curiae on the grounds that “it does not appear… that any value will be added to the arguments to be made by the parties legal representatives and thus will not be useful to the court.”

Today I filed an application for Permission to Appeal his decision to the Constitutional Court. Here follows excerpts of the application.

Radical Honesty culture herewith applies to the above Honourable Court, for the following orders:

[1] Permission to invoke cultural law in S. 15(3), 30, 31, and 18; to enable the Applicant to honour the duty and responsibility to uphold the principles upon which the Radical Honesty culture is based; and Psychological Integrity in Section 12 ; the former which may require the application of choice of law rules.

[2] Permission to file an application to the Constitutional Court to Review the Honourable Supreme Court of Appeal’s 22 May 2012 decision to Refuse the Applicants Application to Proceed as an Amicus Curiae.

Conclusion:

IF: Supreme Court of Appeals Values endorse EcoFeminist Sustainable Democracy Transparency TruthSeeking Problem Solving: Applicant Should be Approved as an Amicus Curiae

IF: Supreme Court of Appeal Values Endorse Masculine Insecurity War/Conflict Economy Tyranny Public Relations Deception Management Parasite Leeching Pretend Problem Solving; Applicant Should be Refused to Proceed as an Amicus Curiae.

Supreme Court of Appeal Values: EcoFeminist Sustainable Democracy Transparency TruthSeeking Problem Solving, or Masculine Insecurity War/Conflict Economy Tyranny Public Relations Deception Management Parasite Leeching Pretend Problem Solving

Supreme Court of Appeal: President: Lex Mpati

Amicus Curiae Application

3. The ‘Primary Parties’ dispute arises out of the action launched by the Plaintiffs: Afriforum and Transvaal Agricultural Union (TAU) against Respondents: Mr. Julius Malema, leader of the African National Congress Youth League (ANCYL), for publicly singing ‘Kill the Boer’. The African National Congress subsequently applied to intervene on behalf of Malema.

4. The Plaintiffs argue among others, that the words communicated are constitutionally prohibited for inciting harm and hatred against whites and farmers; that a reasonable person would consider the words to be intended to hurt, harm or incite hatred; and that Mr. Malema is an influential public figure whose utterances are widely reported.

5. The Defendants argue among others that there are many meanings for the words ‘Kill the Boer’, that the Plaintiffs are inaccurately interpreting the words including misinterpreting Mr. Malema’s intentions when he sings the words ‘Kill the Boer’. The words do not encourage farm murders, or hatred towards farmers; that their freedom of speech to sing ‘Kill the Boer’ should not be infringed and that there should be a national dialogue about the song "awudubhule ibhunu" or "shoot the boer", given that some people had been offended by it. This was a legitimate ‘struggle song’ in their war against Apartheid.

6. On 30 December 2011, I filed an Application (PDF) with the Supreme Court of Appeal for Permission to Proceed as Amicus Curiae in respect of the Primary Parties main application in terms of Rule 16 A of Uniform Rules of the High Court; the Constitutional Entitlement to invoking cultural law in S. 15 , 30 , 31 , and 185 ; and Psychological Integrity in Section 12 ; the former which may require the application of choice of law rules. The application included a draft copy of the Applicants Heads of Arguments (PDF), to provide the court with an overview of the arguments to be submitted, should I be approved to proceed as Amicus Curiae.

7. On 22 May 2012 the Supreme Court of Appeal: Mr. BJ Mashinini responded as follows on behalf of Honourable President Lex Mpati:

Application to be admitted as Amicus Curiae in the matter of Julius Malema and Another vs Afriforum and Another Case Number 815/2011.

The abovementioned application was referred to the President of this court during February 2012, before the record was lodged with this office. He requested that the application be placed before him once the record was lodged.

The record has now been lodged and the application has once again been placed before him. He has requested me to inform you as follows.

1. It does not appear, from the reading of the documents forming part of your application, that any value will be added to the arguments to be made by the parties legal representatives and thus will not be useful to the court.

2. The application is accordingly refused.

Possible Errors in Supreme Court of Appeal Ruling:

8. The Supreme Court of Appeal President refused my application to proceed as Amicus Curiae on the grounds that “it does not appear… that any value will be added to the arguments to be made by the parties legal representatives and thus will not be useful to the court.”


ARGUMENT:

IF: Supreme Court of Appeals Values endorse EcoFeminist Sustainable Democracy Transparency TruthSeeking Problem Solving: Applicant Should be Approved as an Amicus Curiae:

9. If the Supreme Court of Appeal values Sustainable Democracy Transparency Truthseeking Problem Solving, then it would be crystal clear to the court that the President should grant my application to proceed as an Amicus Curiae on the ground that “it does appear… that much value will be added to the arguments to be made by the parties legal representatives and thus will be most useful to the court.”

A Sustainable Democracy: confronting the ecological root causes of Political and Economic problems and recognizing citizens ecological Sustainable Democracy Ethics and Honour for refusing to rob other citizens or species by means of Tragedy of the Commons Breeding and Consumption Warfare practices;

B Transparency: Total Disregard for Bullshit-the-Public-Relations Image Management

C Problem Solving: Root cause problem solving where ideas and evidence are judged on their merit, not the individuals social standing or size of their parasite leeching fanclub

IF: Supreme Court of Appeal Values Endorse Masculine Insecurity War/Conflict Economy Tyranny Public Relations Deception Management Parasite Leeching Pretend Problem Solving; Applicant Should be Refused to Proceed as an Amicus Curiae.

10. If the Supreme Court of Appeal values Masculine Insecurity War/Conflict Economy Tyranny Public Relations Deception Management Parasite Leeching Pretend Problem Solving, then it would be crystal clear to the court that the President should refuse my application to proceed as an Amicus Curiae on the grounds that “it does not appear… that any value will be added to the arguments to be made by the parties legal representatives and thus will not be useful to [this Masculine Insecurity War/Conflict Economy Tyranny Public Relations Deception Management Parasite Leeching Pretend Problem Solving] court.”

1. Subject Matter of Dispute Attracts Interested Parties in form of Amicus Curiae

11. In Afriforum and Another v Malema (18172/2010) [2010] ZAGPPHC 39 (1 April 2010), Judge Bertelsmann’s judgement finds that parties agree that:

The competing interests surrounding the subject matter of the dispute is likely to attract other interested parties in the form of amicus curae.

2. No Primary Party Represents Radical Honesty EcoFeminist Problem Solving Values

12. In Afri-Forum and Another v Malema and Others (20968/2010) [2011] ZAEQC 2; 2011 (6) SA 240 (EqC); [2011] 4 All SA 293 (EqC); 2011 (12) BCLR 1289 (EqC) (12 September 2011); Judge Lamont confirms that:

[48] Lara Johnstone, the sole member of an entity known as the Radical Honesty Culture and Religion delivered a number of documents by electronic transmission. I tabled the documents at the hearing and they form part of the record.

13. No party has submitted any proof whatsoever to claim that Applicant is not a member of the Radical Honesty culture, or any dispute to contradict Applicants Radical Honesty or EcoFeminist Problem Solving values, or any arguments to dispute any of the Applicants Arguments.

14. No party has submitted any evidence to contradict the evidence that Applicant is a descendant of Boers/Settlers, and that the relevant ‘Kill Boer’ dispute statements are perceived – rightly or wrongly – by other citizens as including the Applicant.

15. Hence no primary party in this matter represents the interests or values of the Applicant, whatsoever. To the contrary, the Primary Parties Patriarchal Masculine Insecurity War/Conflict Economy Tyranny Public Relations Deception Management Parasite Leeching Pretend Problem Solving values are the direct opposite of the Applicants EcoFeminist Sustainable Democracy Transparency TruthSeeking Problem Solving values.

16. In the absence of the Applicants participation as Amicus Curiae in this dispute, there is no party in this matter representing the Applicants EcoFeminist Sustainable Democracy Transparency TruthSeeking Problem Solving values.


3. Primary Parties Conspiracy of Silence Endorsement of Patriarchal Parasite Leeching

17. The arguments submitted by the applicant to both Judge Lamont and subsequently to the Supreme Court of Appeal are so controversial and raise cultural values of ecological feminism and radical honesty transparency focused problem solving , so divergent from culturally ecologically destructive patriarchal resource war materialism and masculine insecurity fragile ego bullshit-the-public parasite leeching image management pretend problem solving , as practiced to varying degrees by all primary parties, that those primary parties engaged in a paranoid conspiracy of silence to pretend that Applicants submission was never submitted to the court and hence does not exist.

18. Consequently while the primary parties disagree on the issue described by Judge Lamont as “social conflict arising out of alleged hate speech”; their dispute is a symptomatic consequence of (A) cultural conflict exacerbated by population pressures colliding with finite resources (restrictions of freedom of speech are proportional to population pressures viz a viz available resources), combined by (B) the absence of brutal honesty transparency problem solving skills that are vilified in Patriarchal cultures dominated by Masculine Insecurity (Reason and Logic) Fragile Ego’s whose primary focus is not sincere root cause problem solving but Bullshit-the-Public Relations Image Management pretend problem solving to enlarge their victimhood host that enables their parasite leeching.

19. Put differently Fragile Ego Parasite Leeching Strategy of Tension bullshit-the-public-relations dynamics requires that … If Malema did not exist, it would benefit Afriforum social and financial standing as the White Legal Knight acting on behalf of Victimhood Afrikaners, to create a Malema; and vice versa: If Evil Boere did not, or do not exist, it would benefit Malema’s social and political Victimhood Demagoguery Populism to generate Evil Boers and an Afrikaner Legal Advocacy Organisations to defend them in a Patriarchal Masculine Insecurity Who-Wins—Macho-Victim contest. It is all about Fragile Ego Masculine Insecurity Blame Game Victimhood Propaganda and sweet fuck all about sincere confront reality and take personal responsibility for our own shit problem solving.

Problem solving leadership only acts towards solving any problem to enable the problem to be clearly and succinctly defined. Fanclubs and followers are eschewed, advice and suggestions towards clearly defining the problem are accepted based purely on merit of the suggestions, irrespective of individuals social-standing or lack of following.

Parasitical Leeching Leadership generally choose some kind of ideology whereby they vaguely and ambiguously pretend to solve vague and abstract problems; while the predominant motive is to grow themselves a fan club/following, for their own socio-political or economic benefit. Their Parasite Leadership ‘problem solving’ deliberately avoids any focus on clearly defining any problem, or any investigation of the root cause of the problem. Their primary focus is to divert their fan clubs attention towards the symptoms of the problem, using emotional blame game language focussed on another Parasitical Leeching Leaders fan club. Such Parasitical Leeching leaders – like WWF Wrestlers – thereby entrench the Parasitical Leeching Leadership paradigm (Fake Left Wing v Right Wing Political Paradigm Explained). Put differently: The bath is overflowing, Parasitical Leeching Leaders focus their fan club on endlessly mopping up the floor; who is mopping, who isn’t, etc. All attention towards defining the problem as the running tap is strictly avoided, including vilifying anyone who even mentions the possibility of a tap leaking being the source of the problem. The focus is to perpetuate the problem indefinitely while socio-politically exploiting the problem for personal gain, by means of manipulating the emotions of ‘followers’, related to the symptoms of the problem. Ninety-Nine percent of the worlds so-called ‘leadership’ is PARASITE LEECHING LEADERSHIP.

20. As Johan Galtung writes in Rational Conflict Resolution: What Stands in the Way?

Conflict is a relation of incompatibility between parties; not an attribute of one party. It spells danger of violence and opportunity to create new realities…. Thus, to understand the shoa the narratives of X atrocity and Y suffering are indispensable. But so are the narratives of X-Y relations, X’s to others, Y’s to others. Failure to do so blocks rationality: if conflict is in the relation, then the solution is in a new relation. This is not blaming the victim. What matters most is changing the relation. Are we able?

21. Or put differently by Brad Blanton in Practicing Radical Honesty: Ch.9: Radical Honesty About Anger:

If cultural transcendence is necessary to contact reality, and culture resides in the minds of individuals, and other participants in the culture disagree with any change because of attachment to the cultural values they have learned, both internal and external conflict are inevitable. This means anger is inevitable. Anger cannot be avoided; it has to be gone through and gotten over. Getting over being mad, or finding the capacity for forgiveness, is absolutely necessary for both individual personal growth and cultural change. So one of the most critical questions to be answered for any person willing to grow beyond their cultural provincialism is: How do you get over being mad?

22. It is imperative for both Primary Parties Victimhood Blame Game Parasite Leeching Propaganda to maintain the Strategy of Tension ‘Us’ Victims – ‘Them’ Persecutors Narrative to escalate Polarization to emotionally manipulate their respective fan clubs/host for their continued pretend problem solving parasite leeching.

23. In any dispute or conflict where one or both or all parties are seriously and sincerely concerned with problem solving , such parties welcome all possible ideas or practices for further impartial enquiry.

24. Judge Lamont provided all primary parties with an opportunity to demonstrate their sincerity towards sincere problem solving by voicing their support for hearing and experimenting with the evidence Radical Honesty culture had to submit to the court and dispute , namely (A) a perspective towards Apartheid history from the Radical Honesty culture that is focused on the evidentiary factual reality without any regard for left and right wing propaganda, since problems of the past, present and future can only be resolved by (1) finding out the truth and (2) a process of releasing and getting over our anger regarding issues the truth generates in our psyche; and (B) an ecological root causes problem solving culture focused on ecological root cause realities of political and economic conflict, which are simply symptoms of ecological overconsumption and procreation resource war realities .

EVIDENCE
[58] During the hearing I allowed much evidence to be led which would not normally be permitted in a Court of law as it appeared to me that it was proper to allow the parties to the dispute to fully and completely ventilate the issues between them even if such ventilation involved the admission of evidence in the form of speeches which were made during the course of the trial; in the form of documents which contained hearsay matters and in the form of witnesses who gave evidence, the ambit of which, was far beyond the issues. It appeared to me that in the course of the trial the parties should, as it were, be allowed to scratch the wound open, re-experience the pain and search for a solution. Hopefully they would be able to find a way forward, thus enabling society, on its own to set the appropriate standard to be followed. I was also conscious of the fact that in the course of this process the public would be able to participate as the events were being screened live on TV and also on the big screen outside the Court.

25. All primary parties united in a conspiracy of silence to endorse Patriarchal Parasite Leeching pretend Problem Solving to sustain their respective Victimhood Blame Game Contest Narrative.

26. This conspiracy of silence by all primary parties resulted in the Radical Honesty evidence not being tested or even discussed or enquired into, thereby resulting in Judge Lamont’s Judgement ruling endorsing the primary parties strategy of tension Victimhood Blame Game polarization narrative, by endorsing both parties victimhood pity parties; Malema and the ANC’s ‘victimhood pity party’ in terms of the judgements ‘historical facts’ narrative; and Afriforum and TAU SA’s victimhood pity party in terms of the ‘Hate Speech’ order.


3. Radical Honesty ‘Values’ added to Dispute Problem Solving, Ignored by Primary Parties:

(A) Radical Honesty culture: Transparent Root Cause Problem Solving

27. Focus on Problem Solving: Honestly addressing the root causes of a Problem, irrespective of left or right wing ideological bullshit political correctness and without regard to Bullshit-the-Public Relations Image Management.

(A) Primary Parties: Parasite Leeching PR Image Management

28. Respondent Parties Focus: Maintaining their Social and/or Political Status and/or using the dispute and its polarization aspects to emotionally manipulate a greater number of followers, to thereby enlarge their host/following.


(B) Radical Honesty: EcoFeminism TruthSeeking:

29. Focus on feminist ecological carrying capacity values: a society’s relationship with nature is directly proportional to its treatment of women. Problem Solving Feminism and Deep Green Ecology perspectives are inter-reliant. The liberation of Eco-humans (men & women) is impossible, without the liberation of the natural world. Objectification of wo/men is a result of objectification of nature.

(B) Primary Parties: Patriarchal Masculine Insecurity PR Image Management:

30. Primary Parties are all Patriarchal: Patriarchal cultures suffer from different degrees of Masculine Insecurity, which is a direct and indirect root cause and aggravating factor for most of the worlds problems, due to (A) obstructing Radical Transparency communication problem solving , (B) is the cognitive foundation of the anti-Meritocratic Parasite Leeching Leadership (sic) Paradigm; (C) hence propagandizes an exponential growth of Parasite Leeching -- ‘walking penis procreation’ overpopulation and ‘consume to demonstrate the size of my consumption penis’ overconsumption -- worldview.

(C) Radical Honesty Culture: Brutally Honest, Sincere Race Relations:

31. Treats Blacks and Whites as equals, all individuals irrespective of race, gender, religion or culture are treated as an equal: as an adult who is capable of hearing constructive criticism and that the highest form of love is to provide another with honest face to face constructive criticism. Honest sharing of constructive criticism enables trust and spontaneous freedom, since both parties know where they really stand with each other, and that any issue of concern they have with the other can be easily resolved by honest constructive criticism of the relevant issues.

(C) Primary Parties: Race Relations: Politically Correct Sycophantic Race Relations

32. Respondent Parties: Blacks or Afrikaners are respectively psychologically inferior and hence incapable of hearing honourable honest constructive criticism, hence it is better to practice political correct sycophancy, whereby race relations are founded not on brutal honest transparency that enables growth of trust, but on fakeness, two faced sycophancy that enables distrust, contempt and resentment.

(D) Radical Honesty: Transparency: Disregard for Bullshit-the-Public Relations

33. In Radical Honesty we have no regard for ‘Bullshit-the-Public’ Relations Image management, since we are well aware, Ego attachment to Bullshit the Public Relations Image Management is frequently the obstacle to problem solving.

(D) Primary Parties: Ambiguity & Secrecy: Obsession for Bullshit-the-Public Relations

34. All Primary Parties consider ‘Public Relations’ to be more important to their own social and financial parasitic leeching status in regards to their following hosts; hence if or where their Public Relations Image Management and/or Ego’s attached thereto are an obstacle to problem solving any dispute, their Public Relations Image Management status supersedes all problem solving.

(E) Radical Honesty: Exposing Patriarchal War/Conflict Economy Kaffir Legal Matrix:

35. Radical Honesty works to expose the Masculine (Reason and Logic) Insecurity Human Farming Kaffir Legal Matrix: Radical Transparency Problem Solving is to the Masculine Insecurity Kaffir Legal Matrix Court; what Martin Luther or Galileo Galilei were to the Catholic Church. The Kaffir Legal Matrix Court system is founded on ‘Kaffir Legislation’: Inalienable Right to Breed and Vote: Kaffir Law/Legislation provides citizens with the Inalienable ‘Right to Breed’ and ‘Right to Vote’, 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. Q: Why does the Masculine Insecurity Human Farming Kaffir Legal Matrix avoid implementing voting or breeding licences???

A The Iron Mountain ‘War is a Racket’ Reality: Masculine Insecurity Socio-Legal-Political Profiteering from Conflict and War.

B Kaffir Legislation covers up that the Inalienable Right to Vote, or Universal Suffrage for the Ignorant is the road to centralisation of power and tyranny.

C Kaffir Legislation covers up that ‘Sustainable Democracy’ requires that only citizens whose voluntary procreation and consumption lifestyle’s are below the Carrying Capacity of the Nation are ecologically capable of being granted the ‘Licence to Vote’ to maintain the ‘Sustainable Democracy’.

D Any Democracy that grants individuals who live above the carrying capacity of their region, either through procreation and/or consumption is effectively robbing resources from other sustainable citizens and other sustainable species, and from future citizens and other species. Granting Procreation and Consumption Resources Thieves the right to vote, is synonymous to giving Bank Robbers the codes to all the Bank Safes, and expecting them not to use it.

E 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.

(E) Primary Parties: Profiting from Patriarchal War/Conflict Economy Kaffir Legal Matrix:

* Observing the reality of the Patriarchal Kaffir Legislation: War/Conflict Economy Legal Matrix does not require a Ph.D degree in neuroscience; simply basic observation and critical thinking skills.

* Some people speak out to expose various aspects of the Patriarchal War/Conflict Economy Kaffir Legal Matrix, while others choose to focus on how they can perpetuate it, and profit from it socio-economically, politically or legally.

(F) Radical Honesty: Exposes SA’s Truth and Reconciliation Fraud:

36. Individuals sincerely committed to exposing the source of conflict that contributed to Apartheid Civil and Political Violence must be committed to exposing the ecological root causes of the conflict that contribute to the Overpopulation-colliding-with-Finite-Resources War/Conflict Equation.

37. It was population pressures that contributed to Europeans being persecuted in Europe and migrating to South Africa. It was population pressures that contributed to Africans leaving West Africa and migrating first to Central Africa and as a result of further population pressures to Southern Africa. It was population pressures that contributed to the Mfecane that resulted in large areas of land in central South Africa being uninhabited and the Boers falsely believing that the land had been uninhabited. It was population pressures – and the ANC’s ‘Operation Production’ exponential aggravation of such population pressures – that contributed to Apartheid Political Violence and the youth bulge pool of angry young men, desperate to prove their manhood to gain more ‘pussy’ than the next man, to satisfy their inner masculine insecurity demons.

38. The ANC could have won their struggle against Apartheid non-violently, by demonstrating their honourable Just War Just Cause Population Policy Intentions to terminate their exponential ‘Population Production’ of ‘Swart Gevaar’ Breeding War.


(F) Primary Parties: Covering Up & Profiting from SA’s Truth and Reconciliation Fraud:

39. Masculine Insecurity Individuals who would prefer to grow the size of their host they are parasite leeching upon, naturally prefer unresolved conflicts to remain unresolved, so as to use such unresolved conflicts for greater polarization of the society for their own parasitic leeching benefits.

40. According to the Primary Parties Population Pressures have absolutely nothing to do as causal effects for the reasons various people migrated to South Africa; or as contributory causes for Apartheid violence or the implementation of Apartheid by Paranoid – Anglo-Boer War Memories - Boers petrified about the Swart Gevaar and their extermination by such a Black Power regime. According to the Primary Parties Masculine Insecurity ‘walking penis procreation’ overpopulation and ‘consume to demonstrate the size of my consumption penis’ overconsumption – worldview; masculine insecurity has absolutely nothing to do with their ‘Bang my Chest Machismo Size of My Penis’ and ‘Consume to demonstrate the size of my penis’ ‘conflict for pussy’ behaviors.

41. Their own Masculine Insecurity Fragile Ego issues, and those surrounding the Massive Parasite Leeching Masculine Insecurity of Saint Mandela and Saint Tutu Bullshit the Public Relations Propaganda is far more important than Black Consciousness Courage to take personal responsibility for their Breeding War and Fanonstein Masculine Insecurity desires for ‘violent liberation of their colonized masculine insecurity minds on the rotting corpse of the settlers’ contributions to Apartheid Violence.

(G) Radical Honesty: Freedom Definition: Personal Responsibility:

42. The Radical Honesty definition for Freedom is to enable a culture where individual Freedom is the result of all citizens desire to take personal responsibility for their thoughts, actions and statements.

Primary Parties: Freedom Definition: ‘Freedom from Responsibility’:

43. The Primary Parties definition of Freedom is varying degrees of ‘freedom from responsibility’; or put differently: victimhood pity party addiction. To avoid taking personal responsibility for their masculine insecurity obsession with parasite leeching as the source of their existential meaning. To avoid taking personal responsibility for their addiction to left or right wing propaganda as the source of their ‘history’, as opposed to a sincere enquiry into the root causes of historical events and consequences of such events and relationships.

(H--) Additional Other Cultural and Religious Value Not Referred to:

44. (A)- (G) are just some of the Radical Honesty values contributed towards resolving this dispute; which none of the Primary Parties have the courage or integrity to touch with a bargepole.

Conclusion:

IF: Supreme Court of Appeals Values endorse EcoFeminist Sustainable Democracy Transparency TruthSeeking Problem Solving: Applicant Should be Approved as an Amicus Curiae:

45. If the Supreme Court of Appeal values Sustainable Democracy Transparency Truthseeking Problem Solving, then it would be crystal clear to the court that the President should grant my application to proceed as an Amicus Curiae on the ground that “it does appear… that much value will be added to the arguments to be made by the parties legal representatives and thus will be most useful to the court.”

A Sustainable Democracy: confronting the ecological root causes of Political and Economic problems and recognizing citizens ecological Sustainable Democracy Ethics and Honour for refusing to rob other citizens or species by means of Tragedy of the Commons Breeding and Consumption Warfare practices;

B Transparency: Total Disregard for Bullshit-the-Public-Relations Image Management

C Problem Solving: Root cause problem solving where ideas and evidence are judged on their merit, not the individuals social standing or size of their parasite leeching fanclub

IF: Supreme Court of Appeal Values Endorse Masculine Insecurity War/Conflict Economy Tyranny Public Relations Deception Management Parasite Leeching Pretend Problem Solving; Applicant Should be Refused to Proceed as an Amicus Curiae.

46. If the Supreme Court of Appeal values Masculine Insecurity War/Conflict Economy Tyranny Public Relations Deception Management Parasite Leeching Pretend Problem Solving, then it would be crystal clear to the court that the President should refuse my application to proceed as an Amicus Curiae on the grounds that “it does not appear… that any value will be added to the arguments to be made by the parties legal representatives and thus will not be useful to [this Masculine Insecurity War/Conflict Economy Tyranny Public Relations Deception Management Parasite Leeching Pretend Problem Solving] court.”


Relief Requested in the Present Application:

47. The Above Honourable Court to grant the following Orders:

A Permission to invoke cultural law in S. 15(3), 30, 31, and 18; to enable the Applicant to honour the duty and responsibility to uphold the principles upon which the Radical Honesty culture is based; and Psychological Integrity in Section 12 ; the former which may require the application of choice of law rules.

B Permission to file an application to the Constitutional Court to Review the Honourable Supreme Court of Appeal’s 22 May 2012 decision to Refuse the Applicants Application to Proceed as an Amicus Curiae.

» » » » [PDF]