PM Mark Rutte, c/o NL Amb de Vos; RE: (1) ICC TRC Fraud Charges filed with Amsterdam Politie, (2) Request for Written Reasons from Min. Rosenthal
Andrea Muhrrteyn | White Refugee | 29 November 2011

From: JusSanguinis
Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2011 1:33 PM
To: Job Cohen; Job Cohen - PvdA; Geert Wilders - Tweedekamer; Geert Wilders - PVV; NL SGP - Kees van der Staaij; Kees van der Staaij (SGP); Mark Rutte (VVD); Mark Rutte (VVD) Tweedekamer
Cc: Netherlands Consul Capetown; Netherlands Embassy Pretoria; Jurgens, Wouter; SPJ: Scott Leadingham; Casper Naber; Algemene Dagblad: Buitenland; Algemene Dagblad: Lezers; Sadhia Rafi - Vluchtelingenwerk; Prof. Gerard-René de Groot; Elona Bokshi: ECRE Exec & Proj Off; Martin Watson - ECRE Advocacy; Adv. M Wladimiroff.
Subject: PM Mark Rutte, c/o NL Amb de Vos; RE: (1) Charges filed with Amsterdam Politie, (2) Request for Written Reasons from Min. Rosenthal
Prime Minister Mark Rutte
CC: HE Ambassador Rob de Vos
Koninkrijk der Nederlanden Ambassadeur
Netherlands Embassy
South Africa
Prime Minister Rutte,
On 23 November 2011 I filed a complaint to Politie Amsterdam-Amstelland of charges of fraud against Algemene Dagblad Editor: Casper Naber; C/O & VIA: Ambassador de Vos, Netherlands Embassy, Pretoria.CHARGES:
Fraud: the unlawful and intentional misrepresentation or perversion of the truth, which can lead to actual or potential disadvantage or prejudice to another individual or group.
Corruption: Relevant Dutch Anti-Corruption law, in accordance to Article 5, 12, 13, 18, 19 & 20 of United Nations Convention Against Corruption
Complaint:
On 09 May 2011, I, Lara Johnstone, as a member of the Radical Honesty culture, filed charges (ICC complaint attached) against aforementioned individuals with the International Criminal Court (ICC) requesting the Office of Prosecutor (OTP): Luis Moreno – Ocampo, of the International Criminal Court (ICC), the Hague to investigate the alleged Defendants and Accessories on charges of Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity, in terms of Art 5(1)(a) & (b), 6(c) and 7(1)(h) of the Rome Statute.
The Complainants Requested 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”)[1] 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 African ANC regime.
All aforementioned newspaper publications whom charges have been filed against continue to refuse their duty to report this information in the public interest, by censoring this information from South African and International citizens.
On 24 November and 25 November I requested Ambassador de Vos to confirm receipt, and to honourably inform me that he had forwarded my complaint to the Amsterdam Politie, to provide me with the relevant contact details, so that I could get a reference number.Could you please confirm that you have honourably and professionally forwarded the complaint to the Amsterdam-Amstelland Politie, as requested; so that I can be issued a Complaint Reference Number for the matter; to report it to the ICC Prosecutor’s office, et al.
I also have not yet received the reply from Minister Rosenthal in response to: Request for (A) Written Reasons; or (B) Parliamentary Hearing: Request Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs (I) Provide Full Written Reasons clarifying the alleged errors of fact or of law made in the Jus Sanguinis Petition and Briefing Paper submitted to Netherlands (& EU Progenitor) Governments; or (II) Recommend Dutch or EU Parliament to hold a hearing on the Jus Sanguinis Petition issues to EU Stamvader nations to hear the available International and South African Expert Witness testimony, to determine (a) the factual and legal accuracy and if so seriousness of the issues raised in the Jus Sanguinis petition; and (b) consider all relevant options for resolving the issues; such as amending relevant (i) Foreign Policy laws by politically endorsing a Boer Volkstaat in South Africa; and/or (ii) Nationality laws by enacting Jus Sanguinis Right-of-Return legislation for their African White Refugee 'settler' descendants, to return to their progenitors motherland/s. (PDF)
Does Minister Rosenthal ever intend providing any written reasons or a response; or how do Netherlands politicians conduct their political problem solving relationships? Do you just ignore any complaint that contradicts your political correct ideologies? If not, when may I expect a response from Minister Rosenthal?
Ambassador de Vos and Netherlands Embassy staff do not consider me worthy of honourable professional response.
Could you please clarify whether the Dutch Government ever intends to provide any honourable response to these matters; or whether you are just going to ignore these requests, as if they do not exist, and you never received them?
Are charges of FRAUD and CORRUPTION irrelevant in the Netherlands when such charges are made against Newspaper editors and journalists?
Are journalists and editors ABOVE THE LAW in the Netherlands?
Respectfully Submitted,
Lara Johnstone
African White Refugees
www.african-white-refugees.co.nr
Lara (Clann/Tribe Name: Johnstone)
I (Sovereign or alleged Corporate identity) do not endorse any contract which does not fulfill the four requirements of a lawful, binding contract, namely: (1) Full Disclosure; (2) Equal Consideration; (3) Lawful Clear and Concise Terms and Conditions simply explained; and (4) Signatures of both/all Parties (In accordance to Common Law, I also consider corporations to be without legal standing, as they have no mind, body, legs, eyes, emotions; and hence are legal fictions). As a member of Radical Honesty culture I always endorse the resolution of all disagreements and/or misunderstandings in accordance to Radical Honesty cultural practices (See: Practicing Radical Honesty, by Brad Blanton), or via independent arbitration that does not involve bloodsucking parasite lawyers; and am willing to consider the practices of other cultures, who seriously and sincerely consider mine.