The Reitz 4 TRC Fraud Prostitution Circus [III] Ubuntu Kangaroo Court Justice – Evidence is Irrelevant

Ubuntufied Legal Lynching in Rainbow Hypocrisy SA

The Reitz 4 TRC Fraud Prostitution Circus

28 February 2011
Andrea Muhrrteyn
Why We Are White Refugees

“...freedom of expression is an essential process for advancing knowledge and discovering truth. An individual who seeks knowledge and truth must hear all sides of the question, consider all alternatives, test his judgment by exposing it to opposition, and make full use of different minds. Discussion must be kept open no matter how certainly true an accepted opinion may seem to be; many of the most widely acknowledged truths have turned out to be erroneous. Conversely, the same principles applies no matter how false or pernicious the new opinion appears to be; for the unaccepted opinion may be true or partially true and, even if wholly false, its presentation and open discussion compel a re-thinking and re-testing of the accepted opinion. The reasons which make open discussion essential for an intelligent individual judgment likewise make it imperative for rational social judgment.”
T Emerson, The System of Freedom of Expression at 6-7 (1970)

“In determining whether or not the [crimen injuria] act complained of is wrongful the Court applies the criterion of reasonableness “the algemene redelikheidsmaatstaf”. This is an objective test. It requires the conduct complained of to be tested against the prevailing norms of society. (i.e. the current values and thinking of the community) in order to determine whether such conduct can be classified as wrongful. To address the words to another which might wound his self-esteem but which are not, objectively determined, insulting (and therefore wrongful) cannot give rise to an action for injuria.” -- Maithufi v Minister of Safety & Security of the Rep. of South Africa (20382/05) [2007] ZAGPHC 163

This series shall consist of:

1. Introduction: Politicians, Editors & Lawyers: Kangaroo Court Actors
   

2. Media Timeline of Events - Ignoring Anti-Lynching Voices
   

3. Ubuntu Kangaroo Court Justice – Evidence is Irrelevant
   

4. The Reasonable Initiation Legal Fraud – Who cares about the Evidence?
   

5. The Cultural Satire Legal Fraud – The Multiculti Boiling Frog
   

6. The Reconciliation Religious Fraud – Censoring TRC Fraud

A lynching is the practice of killing people by extrajudicial mob action, where a mob is generally considered to be more than five persons. The mob generally act under the pretext of service to justice, their race or tradition. They use lynching and other terror tactics to intimidate a particular racial, religious or cultural group into political, social or economic submission. A legal lynching has other names such as Stalin's Political Show trials, or Kangaroo Court Justice, etc.

The term show trial is a pejorative description of a type of highly public trial. The term was first recorded in the 1930s. There is a strong connotation that the judicial authorities have already determined the guilt of the defendant and that the actual trial has as its only goal to present the accusation and the verdict to the public as an impressive example and as a warning. Show trials exhibit scant regard for the principles of jurisprudence and even for the letter of the law. Defendants have little real opportunity to justify themselves.

The Reitz 4 TRC Fraud Prostitution Circus: [II] Ignoring Anti-Lynching Voices

Ubuntufied Legal Lynching in Rainbow Hypocrisy SA

The Reitz 4 TRC Fraud Prostitution Circus

27 February 2011
Andrea Muhrrteyn
Why We Are White Refugees

“There is no such thing, at this date of the world's history..., as an independent press. You know it and I know it. There is not one of you who dares to write your honest opinions, and if you did, you know beforehand that it would never appear in print. I am paid weekly for keeping my honest opinion out of the paper I am connected with. Others of you are paid similar salaries for similar things, and any of you who would be so foolish as to write honest opinions would be out on the streets looking for another job. If I allowed my honest opinions to appear in one issue of my paper, before twenty-four hours my occupation would be gone.

“The business of the journalists is to destroy the truth, to lie outright, to pervert, to vilify, to fawn at the feet of mammon, and to sell his country and his race for his daily bread. You know it and I know it, and what folly is this toasting an independent press? We are the tools and vassals of rich men behind the scenes. We are the jumping jacks, they pull the strings and we dance. Our talents, our possibilities and our lives are all the property of other men.

“We are intellectual prostitutes.”

-- John Swinton (1829-1901), editor at New York Times, New York Sun and John Swinton's Paper, remarks at a banquet in his honour in response to a toast to the independent press. (Labor's Untold Story, Richard O. Boyer & Herbert M. Morais. Published: United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America, NY, 1955/1979.)

This series (shall) consist of:

1. Introduction: Politicians, Editors & Lawyers: Kangaroo Court Actors
   

2. Media Timeline of Events - Ignoring Anti-Lynching Voices
   

3. Ubuntu Kangaroo Court Justice – Evidence is Irrelevant
   

4. The Reasonable Initiation Legal Fraud – Who cares about the Evidence?
   

5. The Cultural Satire Legal Fraud – The Multiculti Boiling Frog
   

6. The Reconciliation Religious Fraud – Censoring TRC Fraud

A lynching is the practice of killing people by extrajudicial mob action, where a mob is generally considered to be more than five persons. The mob generally act under the pretext of service to justice, their race or tradition. They use lynching and other terror tactics to intimidate a particular racial, religious or cultural group into political, social or economic submission. A legal lynching has other names such as Stalin's Political Show trials, or Kangaroo Court Justice, etc.

The term show trial is a pejorative description of a type of highly public trial. The term was first recorded in the 1930s. There is a strong connotation that the judicial authorities have already determined the guilt of the defendant and that the actual trial has as its only goal to present the accusation and the verdict to the public as an impressive example and as a warning. Show trials exhibit scant regard for the principles of jurisprudence and even for the letter of the law. Defendants have little real opportunity to justify themselves.

Ubuntufied Legal Lynching: The Reitz 4 TRC Fraud Prostitution Circus

Ubuntufied Legal Lynching in Rainbow Hypocrisy SA

The Reitz 4 TRC Fraud Prostitution Circus

27 February 2011
Andrea Muhrrteyn
Why We Are White Refugees

“The commission also said that there could be no healing without truth, that half-truths and denial were no basis for building the new South Africa, that reconciliation based on falsehood would not last, and that selective recollection of past violence would easily provide the mobilisation for further conflict in the future. If these are its criteria for the role of truth in promoting reconciliation, it has failed to meet them.”
-- John Kane Berman, the Head of the SA Institute of Race Relations (SAIRR), The Truth about the Truth Commission, by Anthea Jeffery

This series shall consist of:

1. Introduction: Politicians, Editors & Lawyers: Kangaroo Court Actors
   
2. Media Timeline of Events - Ignoring Anti-Lynching Voices
   
3. Ubuntu Kangaroo Court Justice – Evidence is Irrelevant
   
4. The Reasonable Initiation Legal Fraud – Who cares about the Evidence?
   
5. The Cultural Satire Legal Fraud – The Multiculti Boiling Frog
   
6. The Reconciliation Religious Fraud – Censoring TRC Fraud
   
7. UFS Black Liberation Theology's 'Reconciliation' successfuly destroyed Reitz-4's ‘Whiteness’, by cultivating their ‘White Guilt’?

Introduction:

A lynching is the practice of killing people by extrajudicial mob action, where a mob is generally considered to be more than five persons. The mob generally act under the pretext of service to justice, their race or tradition. They use lynching and other terror tactics to intimidate a particular racial, religious or cultural group into political, social or economic submission. A legal lynching has other names such as Stalin's Political Show trials, or Kangaroo Court Justice, etc.

The term show trial is a pejorative description of a type of highly public trial. The term was first recorded in the 1930s. There is a strong connotation that the judicial authorities have already determined the guilt of the defendant and that the actual trial has as its only goal to present the accusation and the verdict to the public as an impressive example and as a warning. Show trials exhibit scant regard for the principles of jurisprudence and even for the letter of the law. Defendants have little real opportunity to justify themselves.

CCT # 06-11: Concourt to review SANEF censorship of TRC Fraud & Ecolaw Media Corruption

Andrea Muhrrteyn
Why We Are White Refugees

Constitutional Court, Johannesburg (21-Jan-2011): On 19 January 2011 the Concourt Registrar Mr. Delano Louw issued the Concourt Reference Number CCT 06-11, in the matter of Radical Honesty SA and others vs. SANEF and others. The Concourt had been submitted with Proof of Service documentation proving that Radical Honesty SA had provided all the respondents with their Notice of Motion and Founding Affidavit documentation.

The Applicants in the matter are Lara Johnstone and Radical Honesty SA, who filed an Application with the Constitutional Court for direct access, as a Pauperis Propria Persona / Litigant in Person; for a [I] writ of Habeus Mentem and [II] writ of Certiorari/Review.

The Application was filed against 88 respondents: (a) three administrators of the SA Press Council; (v) SANEF and its chairman: Mr. Makhanya, (c) 36 SANEF and related media publications and their respective editors, managerial officials; (d) eight Media Professors from Univ. of Rhodes and Wits Journalism faculty departments; (e) Media Monitoring Africa: Mr. William Bird; and finally (f) Projourn Steering Committee.

Radical Honesty SA v. SANEF Press Council, et al: Radical Honesty takes 88 SA Media Elite to Concourt for Censorship of Media Corruption

Andrea Muhrrteyn
Why We Are White Refugees

On 03 January 2011, Lara Johnstone and Radical Honesty SA filed an Application with the Constitutional Court for direct access, as a Pauperis Propria Persona / Litigant in Person; for a [I] writ of Habeus Mentem and [II] writ of Certiorari/Review.

The Application was filed against 88 respondents: (a) three administrators of the SA Press Council; (v) SANEF and its chairman: Mr. Makhanya, (c) 36 SANEF and related media publications and their respective editors, managerial officials; (d) eight Media Professors from Univ. of Rhodes and Wits Journalism faculty departments; (e) Media Monitoring Africa: Mr. William Bird; and finally (f) Projourn Steering Committee.

Ms. Martie Stander, registrar of the Constitutional Court tentatively accepted the documentation, requesting that the Proof of Service documentation be filed with the Court, prior to any Reference Number could be issued.

On 14 January 2011, Ms. Stander and the Director of the Concourt were provided with the Proof of Service documentation proving that Radical Honesty SA had provided all the respondents with their Notice of Motion and Founding Affidavit documentation.

Radical Honesty - SA Appeals to Judge Zulman, Press Appeals Panel; for Review of Press Ombudsman City Press/Reitz Four Ruling

Press Appeals Panel: Judge Ralph Zulman
Notice of Application for Review
04 November 2010

Review and Set Aside 03 November 2010 Ruling & Retraction, by Dep. Press Ombudsman Johan Retief: RE: 30-07-2010: Rightwing group tries to scupper Reitz trial, Khadija Bradlow, City Press: referral from SAPS/NPA.

The judge began to take Steven’s guilty plea: “You know you have a right to remain silent and not incriminate yourself,” he said. Do you waive that right?”

“Yes, I do,” answered Steven.

“You have a right to call witnesses in your behalf. Do you waive that right?”

“Yes, I do.”

“You have a right to a jury trial, a jury of your peers. Do you understand that right?”

“If I had a jury of my peers, I would be found not guilty,” replied Steven.

There was a pause as the judge stared at the defendant. “What do you mean?” he asked.

“If I had twelve people who were really my peers they would understand my action,” Steven answered.

The Judge leaned forward, his eyes piercing into mine. “This is not a guilty plea. Counsel, I thought you told the court this was a guilty plea?”

I had been taken completely off guard by Steven’s statements. .. The judge motioned to the U.S. marshals. “Take the defendant and his lawyer, and put them in the holding cell until they straighten things out.”

For half an hour Steven and I sat in the cell behind the courtroom as once again I explained my idea of a political, psychiatric defence. Once again he refused, feeling it was hopeless. He said he would plead guilty and answer all the judges questions the way the judge expected. We returned to court and went through the litany of rights one waives when one pleads guilty. But when the judge got to the part about a jury of peers, there was only silence. Then Steven spoke out clearly and strongly. “If I had a jury made up of people from Ellis and Fillmore Streets I would be found not guilty!”

Judge Weigel was seconds from exploding. “This is not a guilty plea. I refuse to accept the plea. You are going to trial!”

-- Black Rage Confronts the Law, by Paul Harris, pg 42-43

10-11-03: Press Ombudsman Ruling: Radical Honesty White Refugee vs City Press; RE: CityPress article: “Rightwing Group Tries to Scupper Reits Trial”

City Press knuckles rapped on Reitz Four

Nov 3, 2010 12:14 PM
Sapa & TimesLive

City Press newspaper has been reprimanded by the Press Ombudsman for not giving the subject of a story relating to the "Reitz Four" the chance to comment.

The Radical Honesty White Refugee (RH) group had complained about an article published in July headlined "Right-wing group tries to scupper Reitz trial".

RH lodged a complaint against the newspaper saying the headline was misleading and that it had made no attempt to contact Lara Johnstone, who was representing the group, for comment, deputy press ombudsman Johan Retief explained in his findings.

Johnstone at the time had applied to intervene as a friend of the court in the Reitz Four trial.

RH was unhappy about the phrase "right-wing group" and the word "scupper".

The newspaper had argued that Johnstone's "abortive attempt at intervention in the Reitz matter was in itself a public event, on which City Press merely reported".

But Retief found that the newspaper should have approached her "precisely for this reason" as she was the subject of the story and should have been asked for comment.

"There was no acceptable reason for the newspaper to not ask her for comment," he said.