Complaint to Int Bar Assoc to Confirm SA Courts & lawyers Discriminate Against – Tourette Syndrome like -- Radical Honesty Culture
Request IBA provide Independent Observation and Written Confirmation that (I) the SA Concourt refuses to process -- or provide written reasons for their refusal -- a Pro Se application, from a member of the Radical Honesty culture, (II) who is unable to find a lawyer in South Africa, to represent her, as a member of the Radical Honesty culture; (III) South African media believe it is ‘not news’ that a member of the Radical Honesty culture is unable to find a lawyer in South Africa; for Radical Honesty Pro Se communication to UNHRC: Human Rights Committee, ITO violations of International Covenant on Civil & Political Rights (ICCPR).
Andrea Muhrrteyn | SQSwans | 12 December 2012
On 27 November 2012, I filed a Pro Se application for Review of the Supreme Court of Appeal ‘Kill Boere Hate Speech’ Mediation Agreement entered into by and between: ANC, Mr. Malema, Afriforum and TAU-SA. The Respondents are: Afriforum, Transvaal Agricultural Union, Julius Malema, African National Congress, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Former Presidents Nelson Mandela and FW de Klerk, CRL Rights Commission, Norwegian Nobel Committee: Chair, Central Intelligence Agency: Director, and David Petraeus.
1: Agreement is Unconstitutional due to being culturally vague: My Review argument was that the Agreement is unconstitutionally vague and ambiguous, in that South Africa has many different cultures, with many perspectives on the ‘Kill Boere’ issue, and the Mediation Agreement pretends South Africa is one happy monoculture family. The Mediation Agreement does not specify which cultures it is referring to.
2: Agreement ignores SA’s TRC Fraud Failure to Clearly Define ‘Reconciliation’ and address Ecocentric Scarcity as Cause of Violent Conflict Issues: Additionally, the Mediation Agreement had totally censored and ignored the evidence submitted to the Equality Court and the Supreme Court of Appeal, exposing South Africa’s fraudulent Truth and Reconciliation Commission process and a country’s legal establishment who refuse to clarify what their legal definition is for ‘Reconciliation’ , and the TRC’s “failure to investigate demographic youth bulge and ‘population production’ breeding war acts of war as contributory factors to Apartheid violence, to be a failure of the requirements of the Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act, 34 of 1995.”
3. Any ‘Peace’ Agreement that Ignores Scarcity as Cause of Violent Conflict is not a Credible Peace Agreement: Declaring that in our Post Peak NNR world, Sustainable Security requires seriously confronting Scarcity as a Cause of Violent Conflict, and to recommend that if the South African Government and its ‘Peace Leaders’ are sincerely committed to implementing peaceful coexistent relations between races, cultures and religions; the SAG should include consideration of the role of overpopulation and overconsumption as root cause factors of resource scarcity pushing society to conflict and war.
12 December 2012Executive Director: Mark Ellis
Deputy Executive Director: Tim Hughes
BIC Project Manager: Elaine Owen
Head of Legal Projects: Gonzalo Guzmán
Human Rights Inst Co-Dir: Fiona Wilson & Phillip Tahmindjis
Head of Legal Practice Div: Ronnie Hart
International Bar Association
4th Floor, 10 St Bride Street
London, EC4A 4AD, United Kingdom
Tel: +44 (0)20 7842 0090 | Fax: +44 (0)20 7842 0091
CC: SA Law Societies & Bar Associations: (A) Cape Law Society: Dir: Rampela William Mokoena, (B) Cape Bar Council: Exec Comm. Chair: I Jamie (SC), (C) Free State Law Society: Pres: Mr. J Fouche, (D) Free State Soc of Advocates: Admin Officer: Juanita Bezuidenhout, (E) General Counsel of Bar of SA: Exec Sec, (F) KwaZulu Natal Law Society: Mng Corp Svs: Mrs Riona Gunpath (G) Law Society of SA: Co-Chairs: Krish Govender & Jan Stemmett, (H) Pretoria Society of Advocates: Exec Comm: Chair, (I) Soc of Adv KZN-Dbn: Pro Bono Comm: LB Broster SC, (J) Soc of Adv KZN-Pmb: Chair: MG Roberts, (K) Jhb Bar Assoc: Pro Bono Comm: P F Louw SC (Chairman), (L) Legal Aid South Africa: Dir.: Ms Vidhu Vedalankar.
CC: Alien on Pale Blue Dot v Afriforum et al Parties: (1) Afriforum, (2) Transvaal Agricultural Union, (3) Julius Malema, (4) African National Congress, (5) Desmond Tutu, (6) Nelson Mandela, (7) FW de Klerk, (8) CRL Rights Comm, (9) Norwegian Nobel Comm: Chair, (10) Central Intelligence Agency: Director, (11) David Petraeus.
CC: SA Institute of Corporate Fraud Management, Transparency International
CC: Radical Honesty: Brad Blanton & Maggie Doyle
Dear International Bar Association Officials,
Request IBA provide Independent Observation and Written Confirmation that (I) the SA Concourt refuses to process -- or provide written reasons for their refusal -- a Pro Se application, from a member of the Radical Honesty culture, (II) who is unable to find a lawyer in South Africa, to represent her, as a member of the Radical Honesty culture; (III) South African media believe it is ‘not news’ that a member of the Radical Honesty culture is unable to find a lawyer in South Africa; for Radical Honesty Pro Se communication to UNHRC: Human Rights Committee, ITO violations of International Covenant on Civil & Political Rights (ICCPR).
Table of Contents:
[1] Multicultural South Africa’s Right to Invocation of Cultural Law:
[2] Current Issue: Concourt: Alien on Pale Blue Dot v. Afriforum, et al: Afriforum v. Malema et al: Equality Court (07-2010 EQ JHB) to & Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA 815/11):
[3] Relief Requested from IBA: Independent Confirmation
[4] Transparency: Additional Background Information: SA Courts Ten Year History of Denying Invocation of Radical Honesty cultural law:
[5] Transparency: Additional Background Information: Response from the International Radical Honesty culture:
I am a qualified paralegal, and the only member of the Radical Honesty culture in South Africa. The Constitutional Court in Citizen v. McBride and the Equality Court: Judge Lamont in Afriforum v. Malema have acknowledged my membership of the Radical Honesty culture, in prior Pro Se applications to their courts. In a current Pro Se application to the Constitutional Court (Alien on Pale Blue Dot v. Afriforum, et al), the Concourt registrar refuses to process my application, in terms of my application for invocation of cultural law, or to submit my appeal of her refusal to the Constitutional Court Justices, for their decision. In the past ten years I have been unable to find a lawyer in South Africa, to represent me, as a member of the Radical Honesty culture.
Unlike most South Africans I am neither anthropocentrically liberal nor conservative, but Ecocentrically Libertarian. My view is that our rights do not originate from God, or Courts, but from our respect for nature and nature’s resources: from living in accordance with the nature’s carrying capacity, in terms of our procreation and consumption. Furthermore problems are not solved by addressing the symptoms, but on addressing the root causes, and problems cannot be solved in political correct environments where the root causes of problems are silenced and censored. Trust is a result of transparent honest relationships, not a result of political correct sycophancy or Bullshit the Public Relations Image management. Unlike most South Africans endorsement of mobjustice (support for access to the rule of law for those they agree with), I endorse access to courts and the rule of law for everyone. This does not make me popular with the welfare vote farm breeding war left or consumption war right.
Public threats from the ANC Government towards the Judiciary have made it clear to any and all Judicial Officials who wish to keep their jobs that those who practice impartial independent thinking, will not last long.
As Bart Henderson, founder of the South African Institute of Corporate Fraud Management, wrote way back, in 2009: “I am 100% completely, utterly, totally gatvol. I do not under any circumstances wish to engage on the subject of fraud, bribery and corruption in this country. I have spent 20 years in this business and travelled the world. There is not a single man, woman or child, in this country, that has PRODUCED more work than me in the field of either research or study or handled as many pro bono cases! I don’t have to listen to the horseshit being bandied about anymore, the never ending drivel that constitutes the never ending discourse on the subject of crime in this country. I am absolutely gatvol at the manner in which patently and blatantly vrot officials continue to enjoy the luxury of lying openly in my face and not even my face, sommer to the whole world with absolutely no shame! I am sick and tired of the waste, the greed, the arrogance and the self serving supercilious bullshit that is spewed on a daily basis. I am tired of the betrayal of our constitution, I am tired of the plunder of state resources, I am sick and tired of listening to people bitch about fraud and corruption and the state of government and society and this and that while they go home and sit at the tables of the very people who commit the acts against us! I am sick of watching the country disintegrate into a cesspool while people whinge about how THEY should be doing something about it and yet the masses do absolutely nothing.”
Besides Mr. Henderson, who has his plate full, fighting South Africa’s corrupt politicians and bureaucrats, I am unaware of any Non-Partisan Individual or Public Body in South Africa, that I am able to contact to provide me with Independent Observation and Written Confirmation that (I) the SA Concourt refuses to process -- or provide written reasons for their refusal – of my Radical Honesty culture Pro Se application, (II) I am unable to find a lawyer in South Africa, to represent me, as a member of the Radical Honesty culture; (III) South African media believe it is ‘not news’ that a member of the Radical Honesty culture is unable to find a lawyer in South Africa; for a Radical Honesty Pro Se communication I wish to file with UNHRC: Human Rights Committee, ITO violations of International Covenant on Civil & Political Rights (ICCPR).
[1] Multicultural South Africa’s Right to Invocation of Cultural Law:
The South African Constitution is founded on the Apartheid premise that South Africa is a multicultural country, hence neither common law, nor cultural customary law are prima facie applicable in any dispute before any court. The Constitution provides for all citizens rights to invoke cultural law in S. 15(3), 30, 31, and 18. When any party invokes cultural law, the court is required to proceed in terms of application of choice of law rules, to determine the applicability of one or other legal system, or combination thereof, on the basis of its inquiry into the relevant parties particular cultures, as determined from their lifestyles .
For example: In Smit NO and Others v King Goodwill Zwelithini Kabhekuzulu and Others Judge Nic van Reyden of the Kwa-Zulu Natal High Court, ruled in favour of the revived Zulu cultural practice of barehanded killing of a bull at the Ukweshwama festival, satisfied with the evidence of cultural expert Professor Jabulani Mapalala , who said that the animal’s death was quick, unpainful and that no blood was shed. (Others disagreed : Mapalala’s expert witness testimony contradicts Chief Mlaba (not submitted to the court), as quoted in an ANC newsletter of December 1995, that: “We must use our bare hands, It’s cruelty, we agree, but it’s our culture. We cannot change our culture.” ).
Similarly, the common law reasonableness test has cultural applications, similar to that of a professional skill application. Where the ‘reasonableness’ of an act is questioned that involves the skills or common practices within a particular culture/tribe, then the skills and practices of that particular tribe needs to be applied to determine the cultural/tribal ‘reasonableness’ of the individual’s circumstances .
[2] Current Issue: Concourt: Alien on Pale Blue Dot v. Afriforum, et al:
On 27 November 2012, I filed a Pro Se application for Review of the Supreme Court of Appeal ‘Kill Boere Hate Speech’ Mediation Agreement entered into by and between: ANC, Mr. Malema, Afriforum and TAU-SA. The Respondents are: Afriforum, Transvaal Agricultural Union, Julius Malema, African National Congress, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Former Presidents Nelson Mandela and FW de Klerk, CRL Rights Commission, Norwegian Nobel Committee: Chair, Central Intelligence Agency: Director, and David Petraeus.
1: Agreement is Unconstitutional due to being culturally vague: My Review argument was that the Agreement is unconstitutionally vague and ambiguous, in that South Africa has many different cultures, with many perspectives on the ‘Kill Boere’ issue, and the Mediation Agreement pretends South Africa is one happy monoculture family. The Mediation Agreement does not specify which cultures it is referring to.
2: Agreement ignores SA’s TRC Fraud Failure to Clearly Define ‘Reconciliation’ and address Ecocentric Scarcity as Cause of Violent Conflict Issues: Additionally, the Mediation Agreement had totally censored and ignored the evidence submitted to the Equality Court and the Supreme Court of Appeal, exposing South Africa’s fraudulent Truth and Reconciliation Commission process and a country’s legal establishment who refuse to clarify what their legal definition is for ‘Reconciliation’ , and the TRC’s “failure to investigate demographic youth bulge and ‘population production’ breeding war acts of war as contributory factors to Apartheid violence, to be a failure of the requirements of the Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act, 34 of 1995.”
3. Any ‘Peace’ Agreement that Ignores Scarcity as Cause of Violent Conflict is not a Credible Peace Agreement: Declaring that in our Post Peak NNR world, Sustainable Security requires seriously confronting Scarcity as a Cause of Violent Conflict, and to recommend that if the South African Government and its ‘Peace Leaders’ are sincerely committed to implementing peaceful coexistent relations between races, cultures and religions; the SAG should include consideration of the role of overpopulation and overconsumption as root cause factors of resource scarcity pushing society to conflict and war.
4. Alternatively, to order all South African’s to prepare for SA’s Race War in the impending Peak NNR Crisis of Conflict: If South Africa’s TRC Fraud Fragile Egos are more important than confronting the ‘Scarcity as Cause of Violent Conflict’ factor; all South African’s should prepare themselves for the impending Race and Class War Consequences of the Peak NNR Crisis of Conflict.
On 29 November 2012, Concourt Registrar refused to issue my application a case number, or process it, unless I met certain ‘Rules of the Court’ (PDF), which include filing 25 printed hard copies via land mail, and finding legal representation.
On 06 December 2012, I filed “Appeal of Concourt Registrar’s Refusal to Process My Concourt Application: Alien on Pale Blue Dot v Afriforum et al” (PDF), to the Concourt Justices, via the Registrar, with orders confirming that: (A) I am unable to find a lawyer to represent me as member of the Radical Honesty culture; (B) a Pro Se Ecocentric reduction of requirement for 25 hardcopies; (C) Abuse of Resources is not ‘normal’ behaviour for an Ecocentric PP4PP, (D) Confirmation all parties as being served, except for David Petraeus; and (E) Registrar’s Discrimination against Pro Se Radical Honesty applicants to be overturned.
Therein I request leniency from the Justices for these ‘Rules of Court’, in that I am a Pro Se Radical Honesty PP4PP culture applicant, i.e: (A) I cannot find any lawyer to represent me, I have not been able to find any lawyer to represent me for the past ten years, because there are no lawyers or Advocates in South Africa who are willing to represent me, as a member of the Radical Honesty culture, and (B) all courts provide Pro Se applicants with more lenient rules, than those required of applicants who have legal representation; (C) my Ecocentric Pay the Price 4 Peace Peacenik (PP4PP) lifestyle means that I make sure that my consumption and procreation lifestyle does not exceed the carrying capacity of South Africa; (D) the Registrar appears to be discriminating against me, either because I am a Pro Se applicant, or because I am a member of the Radical Honesty culture, or both.
I contacted the following Law Societies and Bar Associations to enquire whether they knew of any lawyer willing to represent a member of the Radical Honesty culture: Legal Aid: Chair Vidhu Vedalankar (PDF) | Jhb Bar Ass: Pro Bono Chair: (PDF) | Cape Law Society (PDF) | Cape Bar Council (PDF) | Free State Law Society (PDF) | Free State Soc of Advocates (PDF) | General Counsel of Bar of SA (PDF) | KwaZulu Natal Law Society (PDF) | Law Society of South Africa (PDF) | Pretoria Society of Advocates (PDF) | Soc of Adv KwaZulu Natal - Dbn (PDF) | Soc of Adv KwaZulu Natal - Pmb (PDF) | Northern Province Law Society: M van Niekerk (PDF).
I also submitted a Press Release to the SA Press Association (SAPA) Wire, to attempt to find a Radical Honesty lawyer (SAPA and SA Editors refused to publish it, saying it is ‘not news’, that I am unable to find a lawyer to represent a member of the Radical Honesty culture).
On 10 December, I enquired from Concourt Registrar: Ms Stander, when the Justices would be responding to my appeal of the Registrar’s refusal to process my application. She responded “I shall place your matter before the Justices for their consideration when you adhere to the Rules of Court. Kindly find the Rules of court attached hereto. I have marked the most important issues for your convenience.”
I responded: “I shall be happy to adhere to the 'War is Peace Whore' Rules of Court, once the Justices provide me with such an order. Have you provided the "Appeal of Concourt Registrar's Refusal to Process My Concourt Application: Alien on Pale Blue Dot v Afriforum et al." to the Justices? If so: Do they intend responding? If not: When do you intend informing the Justices of the "Appeal of Concourt Registrar's Refusal to Process My Concourt Application: Alien on Pale Blue Dot v Afriforum et al."?
She did not respond. So I submitted a request to the Concourt Director: Mr. Vic Misser: “On Thursday 06 November I filed an appeal of Ms. Stander's Refusal to process my application, to the Justices. … Can you please ask Ms. Stander if she is also refusing to provide the Justices with a copy of the appeal of her refusal to process the application? If so, to provide such refusal on court letterhead?”
There has been no response from the Constitutional Court Registrar, or the Justices to my Radical Honesty culture appeal of the Registrar’s decisions.
On 11 December 2012, I filed two complaints with the CRL Rights Commission (Commission for the Promotion and Protection of the Rights of Cultural, Religious and Linguistic Communities) against the SA Constitutional Court Registrar (PDF) and a dozen media Editors (PDF) in that they discriminate against the – Tourette Syndrome like – Radical Honesty culture.
[3] Relief Requested from IBA: Independent Confirmation:
Could the IBA provide me with Independent Enquiry, Observation and Written Confirmation that (I) the SA Concourt refuses to process -- or provide written reasons for their refusal – of my Radical Honesty culture Pro Se application, (II) I am unable to find a lawyer in South Africa, to represent me, as a member of the Radical Honesty culture; (II) South African media believe it is ‘not news’ that a member of the Radical Honesty culture is unable to find a lawyer in South Africa; for a Radical Honesty Pro Se communication I wish to file with UNHRC: Human Rights Committee, ITO violations of International Covenant on Civil & Political Rights (ICCPR).
Background Info: Afriforum v. Malema et al: Equality Court (07-2010 EQ JHB) to & Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA 815/11):
The Afriforum, Malema, ANC and TAU-SA dispute aroses out of the action launched by Afriforum and Transvaal Agricultural Union (TAU) against Mr. Julius Malema, then leader of the African National Congress Youth League (ANCYL), in the South Gauteng Equality Court of Judge Colin Lamont, for publicly singing “Kill the Boer”. The African National Congress subsequently applied to intervene on behalf of Malema.
Afriforum & TAU-SA 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.
Malema and the ANC 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.
I filed an application to proceed as Amicus Curiae on 19 April 2011. The Registrar submitted the application to Judge Colin Lamont on 19 April 2011. Judge Colin Lamont noted the application as part of public court proceedings on 20 April 2011. Briefly, I argued:
(1) ‘Kill the Boer’ vs. ‘Kaffir’ Hypocrisy: the parties hypocritical representation that there are many meanings for the words “Kill the Boer”, but only one meaning for ‘Kaffir’ , that Afriforum and TAU-SA were inaccurately to interpreting the words ‘Kill the Boer’, but that no African has ever inaccurately interpreted the words ‘Kaffir’, that South Africans should have a national dialogue about “Kill the Boer”; but no national dialogue about ‘Kaffir’. If sincere problem solving Truth Telling and reconciliation had occurred, we would not be demanding that other people walk on eggshells to protect our own fragile ego’s from constructive criticism.On 12 September 2011, Judge Lamont ruled 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); 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.”
(2) Masculine Insecurity (reason and logic) Socio-Political Parasitic Profiteering off ‘Kill the Boer’ vs. ‘Kaffir’: Both parties deliberately encouraged their fragile ego members to be ‘hurt’ and ‘outraged’ respectively by ‘Kaffir’ and ‘Kill the Boer’, as part of the leaders manipulation of the emotions of their respective political base, for their own socio-political status benefits, in their Left vs. Right Wing Propaganda Wars, used as a cover for their breeding and consumption wars, to profiteer from the Human Factory Farming War Economy.
(3) The dispute is a consequence of masculine insecurity (reason and logic) lack of psychological integrity to seek the truth by transparently confronting the evidence of South Africa’s TRC Fraud. The TRC’s failure to investigate demographic youth bulge and population production breeding war acts of war as contributory factors to Apartheid violence.
The ANC then proceeded to appeal the matter to the Supreme Court of Appeal. On 30 December 2011, I again submitted my application to the Court, in that the evidence submitted to the court of Judge Lamont had been ignored by the parties.
On 22 May 2012 the Supreme Court of Appeal: Mr. BJ Mashinini responded (PDF) on behalf of Honourable President Lex Mpati, that: “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.”
On 18 July 2012, I filed an Application (PDF) for 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, in that: “(A) IF: Supreme Court of Appeals Values endorse EcoFeminist Sustainable Democracy Transparency TruthSeeking Problem Solving: Applicant Should be Approved as an Amicus Curiae; or (B) 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.
On 24 September I filed an Application to Proceed as Amicus Curiae - Brief in Propria Persona by Amici Curiae Lara Johnstone in Support of an Ecocentric Wild Law Sustainable Security Perspective - in the US Court of Appeals for Armed Forces, in the matter of CCR v USA.
I argued, in pertinent part, that (I) it would be impossible for Pfc Manning to receive a free and fair trial in the sustainable security matter, if the media corruptly abuse their publicity power, misrepresenting or censoring Ecocentric or Non-PC arguments; effectively conducting a trial by media, thereby undermining the credibility of the court‘s decisions, due to public ignorance of all arguments submitted to the court; as had occurred in other politically sensitive trials, such as Citizen vs. McBride (CCT 23-10), Afriforum vs. Malema (SCA 815/11), Norway vs Breivik (NO: ODC #11-188627MED-OTIR/05) and USA vs Lakin; and (II) if Pfc Manning’s actions were indeed Ecocentrically motivated (“his Pale blue dot perspective is that humanity is destroying its home”), he deserved a free and fair truthseeker trial, but that “it is possible that those who prefer a Left/Right wing Propaganda trial, will use their Publicity Power to pressure the court and trial proceedings, and Pfc Manning, to such effect, which would not be in Pfc Manning‘s truth seeking interest.” All Afriforum Parties, including the SCA Registrar (Zachia Pule) were provided with a transparency copy of the Ecocentric Amicus to the USCAAF.
CCR v USA is a Petition for Extraordinary Relief seeking public access to documents in the court-martial proceedings against Pfc. Bradley Manning, “including papers filed by the parties, court orders, and transcripts of the proceedings”. It is petition based upon the proceedings in the United States vs. Private Bradley Manning court martial of the alleged leak of the largest amount of classified information in U.S. history to Wikileaks; the (i) July 12, 2007 US Army AH-64 Apache helicopters air-to-ground attacks in Al-Amin al-Thaniyah, Baghdad (“Collateral Murder”); (ii) 250,000 United States diplomatic cables (Cablegate); and (iii) 500,000 army reports from Iraq (Iraq War logs) and Afghanistan (Afghan War logs).
On 27 September, the Appeals Court wrote to Respondents Afriforum, TAU-SA, Malema and the ANC, attempting to avoid confronting Applicant’s Request for 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; by asking the parties to explore the possibility of off the court record mediation, which was agreed to under the facilitation of Charles Nupen.
On 01 October, I sent a transparent copy of the USCAAF Amicus dealing with Media’s abuse of publicity power in politically sensitive trials, to the Judicial Service Commission, noting that “Three of the five examples of blatant media abuse of publicity power in these sustainable security court cases, are South African court cases, namely: * Concourt (CCT 23-10): Citizen v. McBride; and * Gauteng High Court/Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA 815/11): Afriforum / TAU v. Malema / ANC, and * SA / Patricia de Lille v. Lara Johnstone (CAS 572/02; GSH 20/2003; HC-WC Appeal A 696-04, CT-CAS 1340/7/07 & 17/1384/07 & 14/1198/08)”.
USCAAF justices refused to grant the Amicus application. On 15 October I filed a Petition for Reconsideration, wherein I provided Pfc Manning the opportunity, to prove to the court and to Central Intelligence Agency: Director David Petraeus, Manning’s honourable Ecocentric motivations for his Wikileaks disclosure acts.
The Petition challenges the court to determine whether Pfc Manning’ is indeed Ecocentrically motivated, and to provide him the opportunity to unequivocally declare his Ecocentric motivations, by challenging Pfc Manning’, the CCR Peaceniks and their ‘Anti-War’ and ‘Peace’ community friends, whether they are Willing to Pay the One Child Per Family Price for Peace, by taking the Maria Bochkareva Leaver Peacenik Oath?
The Maria Bochkareva Leaver Peacenik Oath requests, that if Pfc Bradley Manning is willing to take the Oath, that the Director General of the Central Intelligence Agency, make an official request to the relevant authority, for all charges against Pfc. Manning in this matter to be withdrawn and the matter to be considered amicably resolved, forthwith.
Secondly, that the Central Intelligence Agency’s Kent Center establish a fund for contributions in honour of Pfc Manning, to establish a bi-annual ‘Maria Bochkareva Leaver Peacenik Honor Medal’, to be awarded on the 23rd of April, of every year, for the individual who has done the most to educate their community, or nation on the role of overpopulation and overconsumption as factors pushing society to conflict and war.
On 31 October, Afriforum, TAU-SA, Malema and ANC concluded their mediation agreement (PDF).
On 02 November, I filed Alien on Pale Blue Dot vs. Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, an In Forma Pauperis Writ of Certiorari filed with the U.S. Supreme Court, to determine whether the CAAF decision to refuse the Ecocentric Amicus, was (i) a procedural due process failure; (ii) Anthropocentric ‘viewpoint discrimination’, (iii) a violation of Petitioner’s “Religious Free speech’ rights.
On 09 November 2012, Director General Petraeus was suddenly and very strangely fired (forced to resign).
On 14 November, three Nobel Laureates – one being Desmond Tutu -- publish an Open Letter in CCR Appellant publications: The Nation, The Guardian & Salon, saluting Pfc Manning as a fellow War is Peace Whore. [Note: On 03 December, in the first and only ever presentation by Bradley Manning's attorney - David Coombs, he states that he will not be giving any further presentations, because (a) Bradley does not want a 'trial be media'; and (b) Mr. Coombs does not believe in 'trial by media', in manipulating the court process by pressuring the court, through media spin and bullshit; which confirms the argument of (c) the Ecocentric Amicus Curiae filed in the matter of CCR v. USA, which warned that "Pfc Manning cannot receive a free and fair trial, if Media Abuse their Publicity Power."]
On 16 November 2012, I filed a request to Washington DC, FBI Director: James McJunkin: to enquire whether the FBI’s Petraeus-Broadwell investigation was used as convenient excuse to fire Petraeus to Protect the ‘War is Peace Whores’ Human Factory Farming War Economy, from the threat of CIA-Petraeus’ implementation of Ecocentric ‘Maria Bochkareva’ Sustainable Security Proactive Peace Plan raised in USCAAF: CCR v. USA, and USSC: Alien on Pale Blue Dot vs. RCFP, et al?
On 22 November 2012, I filed a request for comment to White House: National Security Advisor: Thomas Donilon: Request for White House Comment: CNN I-Report: Was the FBI's Petraeus-Broadwell investigation used as a convenient excuse to fire Petraeus, to prevent Petraeus from implementing a Sustainable Security Peace Plan, submitted to the CIA, as part of court documents, filed in the United States Court of Appeals for Armed Forces, involving Wikileaks and Pfc Manning; on 15 October 2012?
On 24 November 2012, I filed a request for information to General Petraeus : Is LA Times ‘Petraeus - Comeback General’ article a confirmation of Petraeus interest in unanswered question to (a) FBI-DC McJunkin & (b) National Security Advisor Mr. Donilon: i.e. Was Petraeus Fired to stop his support for (CCR v USA & Alien v RCFP) Sustainable Security, exposing Nobel's “War is Peace” Fraud?
» » » » [Excerpt: IBA Letter (PDF)]
No comments:
Post a Comment