r~~~'~L~~~i ul,I Dc I
.o~·_··~-'-~~:'".~~:.-:~:J.~::_.~~.·~:· ':S;)_ '," b'-',..•..,.,,) .•~=~ r"-V",;-0' 1-..,
U@ ') : 'S)t-JfS C
State v. Johnstone: crime~_~~ C)\PE TOV'.'i\I Plai ntiff.: HQA\/1p,attiii:a~1IeYCjl~r~~7., -----.-,. . _ ..~ Defendant: Lara Johnstone, HARTSSTA eT-CAS 1340/7/07
George-CAS 572/02 :::
HC-CPD Appeal A 696-04
in-gods-name. blogspot. com 13 August 2009 TO:
R.W.F. MacWilIiam, C/O: Anton CC: Senior
Cape Bar: Pro Bono Committee
Katz, Cape Bar: Human Rights Committee Prosecutor:
CC: Adv. R. de Kock, Dir. Of Public Prosecutions: Magistrate
Cape Town (c/o Adv. Ackerman;
Request: for Impartial Record Keeping of Documentation: State v. Johnstone: LegafArgument, dated 11 August 2009 The Pro Se Defendant: Lara Johnstone, in the matter State v. Johnstone (14/1198/08), hereby requests the Cape Bar: Pro Bono Committee, to act as an Impartial Record Keeper, of the attached documentation in this matter; should the State, at any stage during Sentencing, or subsequent High Court Appeal proceedings, allege that State v. Johnstone: Legal Argument, dated 11 August 2009, has been altered .. State v. Johnstdne:
11 August 2009, comprises the following
of Events (Pages: 35)
of Facts to Propositions
Facts Not In Dispute (Pages: 01) of Law with Reference
(Pages: 01 + 18 + 19 = 38)
of Law (Pages: 08)
Encl.: (*) 17 Feb '09: National Prosecuting Authority: Adv. A.Ackerman: Representations: S. v. Johnstone; Crimen Injuria: Incomplete Further Particulars (Pages: 01) (*) 28 Dec '08: For the Record, State v. Johnstone: Incomplete Further Particulars (Pages:16) (*) 11 June '04: Essay on Proudly South African Parasite Hypocrisy: Fraudulent Rehabilitation Boomerang; by White Kaffir Bitch (Page: 31) (*) Population Policy Comon Sense a Practicing Radical Honesty Truth and Forgiveness Social Contract (Pages: 38) (*) Kaffir: Prevailing Norms of Society (Pages: 12) (*) Engineering Consenting Psychological 'Kaffirs' (Pages: 08) (*) Is the African Ideal of Manhood a Kaffir Cultural Belief? (Pages: 12) (*) Trinity Love Eco-Family: Mothers Limbic Brain Love Connection a Fathers Love 4 Justice (Pages:05)
State v. Johnstone: Crimen Injuria:
Page 1 of 2
Written Reasons, in accordance
with SA Constitution,
Among others: 1.
Defendants Request for Submittal of Legal Argument Document into Record Denied; accordingly Defendant Denied Finding of Not Guilty on all counts During Legal Argument court proceedings, in this matter, on 12 August 2009, the Defendant requested that Legal Argument, dated 11 August 2009, be submitted into the court record, as follows: , [Subsequent to reading Legal Argument: Application record, the Plaintiff stated (paraphrased):
of Facts to Propositions of Law, into the court
The Defendant further submits her request to submit her full written Legal Argument, from which she had been reading the "Legal Argument: Application of Facts to Propositions of Law", out of her Draft Appeal, in this matter, should the Magistrate choose to find her Guilty. The Defendant would prefer to submit the document, into the record at this time, thereby avoiding the necessity of Appealing, any possible Guilt Findings. In the defendants opinion, should the Magistrate read the Draft Appeal, he would find the Defendant Not Guilty, on all counts. 2. Of the five charges of Crimen Injuria, Defendant was Found Guilty, on counts: #1, #2 Guilty on #4 and #5.
#3; and Not
Magistrates Reasons for Guilt Finding, include - in the Defendants subjective and Objective opinion -- factual and legal inacuracies, which may have been avoided, had he accepted Legal Argument: dated 11 August 2009, into the record for his attention. Put differently, he would have come to a finding of Not Guilty on all five counts, had he accepted the full written document and its evidence into the court record. The Magistrate accordingly made a decision about alleged 'irrelevance' of documentation, which he refused to inform himself of first, so as to determine its relevance or not.
Magistrate Louw's statements regarding Defendants Attempts to obtain Legal Counsel, in this matter, appear to indicate Magistrate Louw has no information whatsoever, about how much Defendant's family spent on Legal Counsel - mostly for 2 years of Attorney's appearing at huge cost, only for neverending postponements "for further investigation"; how Defendant was subsequently denied Legal Aid, for reasons of "conflict of interest", etc.; and finally how Defendant could not find any Attorney willing to represent her to "tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth." All attorneys stragegy, were in accordance with Legal Doctrine, as conventionally practiced and taught, that when convenient, encourages Defendants to lie, as a strategy not to be found guilty of what they have been charged with; which violates Defendants Religion, i.e. 'Radical Hon(our)sty Bushido Discordianism.'
It is not hereby submitted that the State will dispute the veracity of the documentation herewith submitted for Record Keeping Purposes. In the event that no such dispute occurs, the Cape Bar: Pro Bono and Human Rights Committee's shall not be required to do anything, except keep these documents in a safe Record Keeping file. If the State does dispute the veracity of these Records, it would be appreciated, if a member of the Cape Bar: Pro Bono or Human Rights Committee, would at such time, at my request, submit these originals into the Court Record, as the originals of 12 August; with myself and Magistrate Louw present
fJlly Requested and Submitted,
Di:(.S:~~~i;Y.T?R . ..
I, @ IJ-;)S Jf拢S
2009 -08- 1 3
L_.. c ;Y;6RPR6$I~..;=\lrOR
State v. Johnstone:
-j Page 2 of 2