Page 1

IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA In the matter between:

Case No. CCT 06/11

RADICAL HONESTY – SA

First Applicant

LARA JOHNSTONE

Second Applicant

And SOUTH AFRICAN NATIONAL EDITORS FORUM (SANEF)

First Respondent

MONDLI MAKHANYA

Second Respondent

SA PRESS OMBUDSMAN: JOE THLOLOE

Third Respondent

SA PRESS APPEALS PANEL: JUDGE RALPH ZULMAN

Fourth Respondent

SA DEP. PRESS OMBUDSMAN: JOHAN RETIEF

Fifth Respondent

SOUTH AFRICAN PRESS ASSOCIATION (SAPA)

Sixth Respondent

MARK VAN DER VELDEN

Seventh Respondent

BUSINESS DAY

Eighth Respondent

PETER BRUCE

Ninth Respondent

BUSINESS REPORT

Tenth Respondent

JABULANI SIKHAKHANE

Eleventh Respondent

CAPE ARGUS

Twelfth Respondent

CHRIS WITFIELD

Thirteenth Respondent

CAPE TIMES

Fourteenth Respondent

ALIDE DASNOIS

Fifteenth Respondent

CITY PRESS

Sixteenth Respondent

FERIAL HAFFAJEE

Seventeenth Respondent

THE CITIZEN

Eighteenth Respondent

MARTIN WILLIAMS

Nineteenth Respondent

DAILY DISPATCH

Twentieth Respondent

ANDREW TRENCH

Twenty-First Respondent

DAILY MAVERICK

Twenty-Second Respondent

BRKIC BRANKO

Twenty-Third Respondent

DAILY NEWS

Twenty-Fourth Respondent

ALAN DUNN

Twenty-Fifth Respondent

EAST COAST RADIO

Twenty-Sixth Respondent

DIANE MACPHERSON

Twenty-Seventh Respondent

EYEWITNESS NEWS

Twenty-Eighth Respondent

KATY KATAPODIS

Twenty-Ninth Respondent

INDEPENDENT ONLINE

Thirtieth Respondent 1


ADRIAN EPHRAM

Thirty-First Respondent

MAIL AND GUARDIAN

Thirty-Second Respondent

NIC DAWES

Thirty-Third Respondent

THE MERCURY

Thirty-Fourth Respondent

ANGELA QUINTAL

Thirty-Fifth Respondent

NEWS 24

Thirty-Sixth Respondent

JANNIE MOMBERG

Thirty-Seventh Respondent

PRETORIA NEWS

Thirty-Eighth Respondent

ZINGISA MKHUMA

Thirty-Ninth Respondent

SA STAR

Fortieth Respondent

MOEGSIEN WILLIAMS

Forty-First Respondent

SUNDAY INDEPENDENT

Forty-Second Respondent

MAKHUDU SEFARA

Forty-Third Respondent

SUNDAY TRIBUNE

Forty-Fourth Respondent

PHILANI MGWABA

Forty-Fifth Respondent

TIMES LIVE

Forty-Sixth Respondent

RAY HARTLEY

Forty-Seventh Respondent

3rd DEGREE

Forty-Eighth Respondent

DEBORA PATTA

Forty-Ninth Respondent

BEELD

Fiftieth Respondent

TIM DU PLESSIS

Fifty-First Respondent

DAILY SUN

Fifty-Second Respondent

THEMBA KHUMALO

Fifty-Third Respondent

DIE BURGER

Fifty-Fourth Respondent

HENRY JEFFERY

Fifty-Fifth Respondent

BUN BOOYSEN

Fifty-Sixth Respondent

E-NEWS

Fifty-Seventh Respondent

PATRICK CONROY

Fifty-Eighth Respondent

FINANCIAL MAIL

Fifty-Ninth Respondent

BARNEY MTHOMBOTHI

Sixtieth Respondent

FINWEEK

Sixty-Fist Respondent

COLLEEN NAUDE

Sixty-Second Respondent

THE GEORGE HERALD

Sixty-Third Respondent

MANDI BOTHA

Sixty-Fourth Respondent

INDEPENDENT ON SATURDAY

Sixty-Fifth Respondent

TREVOR BRUCE

Sixty-Sixth Respondent

702 RADIO

Sixty-Seventh Respondent 2


PHELADI GWANGWA

Sixty-Eighth Respondent

RAPPORT

Sixty-Ninth Respondent

LISA ALBRECHT

Seventieth Respondent

THE SATURDAY STAR

Seventy-First Respondent

BRENDAN SEERY

Seventy-Second Respondent

SOWETAN

Seventy-Third Respondent

BONGANI KESWA

Seventy-Fourth Respondent

THE HERALD

Seventy-Fifth Respondent

JEREMY MCCABE

Seventy-Sixth Respondent

VOLKSBLAD

Seventy-Seventh Respondent

AINSLEY MOOS

Seventy-Eighth Respondent

ROD AMNER

Seventy-Ninth Respondent

ROBERT BRAND

Eightieth Respondent

GUY BERGER

Eighty-First Respondent

HARRY DUGMORE

Eighty-Second Respondent

HAROLD GESS

Eighty-Third Respondent

JANE DUNCAN

Eighty-Fourth Respondent

ANTON HARBER

Eighty-Fifth Respondent

FRANZ KRUGER

Eighty-Sixth Respondent

WILLIAM BIRD

Eighty-Seventh Respondent

PROJOURN STEERING COMMITTEE

Eighty-Eighth Respondent

FOUNDING AFFIDAVIT OF LARA JOHNSTONE, MEMBER OF RADICAL HONESTY CULTURE & RELIGION INDEX:

A:

B.

C.

The Parties ………………………………………………………………………………………………………

004-052

The Applicants …………………………………………………………………………………………………

004-009

Respondents ………………………………………………………………………………………………………

009-052

Issue: Ecological Footprint of Corrupt Corporate Personhood …………………………

052-057

Issue: Ecological Footprint of Transparent Scientific Journalism ……………………

057-066

Issue: Deliberate Indifference to Media Corruption …………………………………………

066-069

Chronology of Facts …………………………………………………………………………………………

069-103 3


D.

SAPA LIES: 19 July 2007: Woman Defies Court Over Rude De Lille SMS’s ……….

069-073

Radical Honesty White Refugee ‘Deliberate Indifference’ Disclosure …………….

073-077

Obstruction of Ecolaw Justice ………………………………………………………………………….

077-097

City Press Propaganda ………………………………………………………………………………………

097-105

Condonation: If, or where so Required ……………………………………………………………

105-105

I, the undersigned, LARA JOHNSTONE do hereby make oath and say: [1]

I am the only member – to my knowledge – of the Radical Honesty1 culture and religion currently living in South Africa.

[2]

I am a former employee, current friend of Dr. Brad Blanton, the founder of the Radical Honesty culture and religion (Futilitarianism); and as detailed under The Applicants: Radical Honesty SA and Lara Johnstone, duly authorized by the founder of the Radical Honesty culture and religion to make this application and this affidavit on behalf of member of the Radical Honesty culture and/or religion in South Africa (Radical Honesty – SA).

[3]

The facts stated in this affidavit are, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true and correct. Save where I state otherwise, or the context so indicates, they are within my personal knowledge, from the record of Radical Honesty SA documentation filed in SA courts, by myself.

[A] THE PARTIES: The Applicants: Radical Honesty SA & Lara Johnstone [4]

The First Applicant is RADICAL HONESTY SA, which is a culture and religion founded on the practice of Radical Honesty, i.e. Being Specific About Anger and Forgiveness processes, i.e. the Truth and Forgiveness Social Contract2, as excerpted from Dr. Brad

1 2

www.radicalhonesty.com founded by Dr. Brad Blanton, author, psychologist and ‘Honesty in Politics’ Congressional Candidate. PDF: http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/090611_sqworms_prh-social-contract?mode=a_p

4


Blanton’s book, Practicing Radical Honesty: How to Complete the Past, Stay in the Present and Build a Future with a Little Help from Your Friends3. [5]

Dr. Blanton: Founder of Radical Honesty culture and Religion (Futilitarianism), is: 1.

President and CEO of Radical Honesty Enterprises Sparrowhawk Book Publishing and The Center for Radical Honesty, both dedicated to promoting honesty in the world;

2.

Former candidate for Congress (Green Independent & Democratic Party) in 2004 and 2006, on the platform of ‘Honesty in Politics’4;

3.

Pope of the Radical Honesty Futilitarian Church; i.e. “Dr. Truth”5;

4.

Author of (a) Radical Honesty: How To Transform your Life by Telling the Truth; (b) Practicing Radical Honesty: How to Complete the Past, Stay in the Present and Build a Future with a Little Help from Your Friends, (c) Honest to God: A Change of Heart that Can Change the World, with Neale Donald Walsh (Conversations with God series); (d) Radical Parenting: Seven Steps to a Functional Family in a Dysfunctional World; (e) The Truthtellers: Stories of Success by Radically Honest People and (f) Beyond Good and Evil: The Eternal Split-Second-Sound-Light-Being; (g) Some New Kind of Trailer Trash.

[6]

International recognition of Dr. Blanton as the founder of Radical Honesty culture and religion: 1.

Dr. Blanton’s Radical Honesty press package (www.radicalhonesty.com), clarifies that he is the “leader of more than 175,000 followers who have joined his revolutionary movement to tell the truth”, which has been reported on by: CNN Talk Back Live, Dateline-NBC, 20/20 with John Stossel, Montel Williams (three appearances), Iyanla, the Roseanne show, Sally Jesse Raphael, Mars and Venus, Esquire, New York Post, and London Times.

2.

The Radical Honesty culture and religion has been acknowledged as a culture and religion dedicated to truth-telling, by Neale Donald Walsch6, the bestselling author of the Conversations with God series: Conversations With God (books 13), Friendship with God, Communion with God, The New Revelations, Tomorrow's God, What God Wants, Home with God: In a Life That Never Ends, Happier than

3

PDF: http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/blantonb__prh?mode=a_p See Video Documentaries at: www.why-we-are-white-refugees.blogspot.com/p/honesty-in-politics.html See Center for Radical Honesty at: www.radicalhonesty.com 6 http://www.nealedonaldwalsch.com/ 4 5

5


God, and his newest book When Everything Changes, Change Everything. Mr. Walsch is the co-author/producer with Dr. Blanton of the book and DVD: Honest to God. 3.

The Radical Honesty culture and religion has been acknowledged as such by Tikkun Magazine, in Radical Hope: Futilitarianism7, by Brad Blanton. Rabbi Michael Lerner, author of The Left Hand of God: Taking Our Country Back from the Religious Right (Harper San Francisco, 2006) is not only rabbi of Beyt Tikkun but is also the editor of TIKKUN magazine: A Bimonthly Jewish Critique of Politics, Culture and Society. TIKKUN is one of the most respected intellectual/cultural magazines in the Jewish world, but also one of the most controversial.

[7]

Dr. Blanton’s Acknowledgement of Lara Johnstone as Member of the Radical Honesty culture8 and religion: Dr. Blanton, in his capacity as Radical Honesty Author and Pope of the Futilitarian church9 has filed the following affidavits and written statements in SA Legal court records, confirming that I am a member of the Radical Honesty culture and religion, including his EXPERT WITNESS OPINION, AS A WORLD LEADER

IN

SINCERE

FORGIVENESS

THAT

SOUTH

AFRICANS

TRUTH

AND

RECONCILIATION (TRC) WAS NOT ABOUT SINCERE FORGIVENESS, BUT WAS FAKE: 1.

Magistrates Court - George: Court Record Letter by Brad Blanton, Ph.D, SAP Case: 572/02 (subsequently HC-CPD A 696-04): Re: Iatrogenic Origins of AIDS Disclosure Trial: Lara Johnstone Psychological Integrity Reference

2.

Magistrates Court – Capetown: 14/1198/08, subsequently 17/1384/07: Affidavit of Brad Blanton, Ph.D, evidencing the legal, psychological, and socio-political ‘citizens privilege’, Nuremberg Principles skills and competencies of Individual Responsibility, required for acts of civil disobedience to perceived illegitimate

authority;

and

their

application

to

the

common

law

10

‘reasonableness test ’; in terms of Criminal Procedure Act 51, of 1977: § 213: Proof of Written Statement by Consent; & § 171 & 172: Evidence on Commission11.

7

Blanton, Brad. 2004. Futilitarianism, Tikkun 19(6):43: http://www.tikkun.org/article.php/Blanton-futilitarianism In Ex Parte Minister of Native Affairs in re: Yako v Beyi 1948 (1) SA 388 (A) Schreiner J.A. said lifestyle of is a choice of law factor. “Aside from an express choice of laws all connecting factors with conflict of personal laws are designed to determine, in an objective manner, the cultural orientation of the parties. Because the laws involved are conceived in terms of culture .... the connecting factors must be conceived in like terms. The most direct access to a person’s cultural leanings would clearly be his or her lifestyle.” 9 Written Statement of Consent by Brad Blanton, Ph.D, to testify as expert witness to: Practicing Radical Honesty, Futilitarianism; i.e. Radical Honesty about Anger & Forgiveness; Paradigms & Contexts: Revolution of Consciousness http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100518_cc2310_affid-bblanton?mode=a_p 10 http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/091202_affid-bblanton-reasonablenesstest?mode=a_p 11 Another expert witness who filed a supporting Expert Witness Affidavit was: Affidavit of Leonard George Horowitz evidencing the Origin of AIDS sourcing from Hepatitus B Vaccine experiments conducted by Agents and Agencies of the Federal Government of the United States of America and the Merck Pharmaceutical Company, in terms of Criminal Procedure Act 51, of 1977: § 213: Proof of Written Statement by Consent; & § 171 & 172: Evidence on Commission. 8

6


3.

High Court, Western Cape: # 19963-09: Affidavit of Brad Blanton, Ph.D, evidencing the legal, psychological, and socio-political ‘citizens privilege’, Nuremberg Principles skills and competencies of Individual Responsibility, required for acts of civil disobedience to perceived illegitimate authority; and their application to the common law ‘reasonableness test’; in terms of Criminal Procedure Act 51, of 1977: § 213: Proof of Written Statement by Consent; & § 171 & 172: Evidence on Commission.

4.

Constitutional Court # 23-10: Written Statement of Consent by Brad Blanton, Ph.D, to testify as expert witness to: Practicing Radical Honesty, Futilitarianism; i.e. Radical Honesty about Anger & Forgiveness; Paradigms & Contexts: Revolution of Consciousness.

Radical Honesty - SA Ecological Legal Standing: [8]

Radical Honesty’s person to person, and tribe to nature tribal code of conduct relationships incorporate two fundamental sine qua non precepts. Radical Honesty culture has ascertained what the laws of human nature, and natural laws say and mean12; clarified, simplified and applied such knowledge in a clear code of conduct13 for their tribe to live in accordance to: (a) a sincere and serious specific, clear and unambiguous Truth and Forgiveness Social Contract, unequivocally understood and practiced by all its cultural members to resolve disagreements and misunderstandings, which works, perhaps as a result of its inclusion of ‘I am, therefore I think’14 human nature scientific realities; (b) any advocacy on behalf of peace, human rights and social justice, must take full recognition of sine qua non carrying capacity requirements for such to occur; i.e.: a laissez-faire birth control policy + No Social Welfare policies or practices provides for an equilibrium carrying capacity; whereas laissez-faire birth control within a welfare state, results in Runaway Growth, and ultimately greater misery, poverty and war. Legislators can have either, but not both; if welfare policies are too precious to be abandoned; they must introduce limits to the right to breed15.

12 ‘Lawyers are either social engineers, or they are parasites. Social Engineer Lawyers aim to eliminate the difference between what the laws say and mean, and how they are applied; whereas legal parasites aim to entrench their parasitism from the difference between what the laws say and mean, and the application of such differences to their parasitic benefit.’ – Prof. Charlie Houston, Howard Law School mentor of Justice Thurgood Marshall, Simple Justice: The History of Brown v. Board of Education, the epochal Supreme Court decision that outlawed segregation, and of black America’s century-long struggle for equality under law, by Richard Kluger; Random House (1975) (pp126-129) 13 Radical Honesty Population Policy Common Sense Social Contract http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/090611_sqworms_prh-social-contract?mode=a_p 14 See also: Non-Descartian/Radical Honesty (I am, therefore I think) Worldview: UA: [B.4] Sui Generis (I think, I am Unique) Meme Dream; Practicing Radical Honesty : Chapter 2: what is a Mind and How Does It Work?, Chapter 3. Dysfunctional Family University, The World-Famous School Within Which We Grew Our Minds; Chapter 8. Community and Compassion Waking from the Meme Dream: Who Am I? Do I Exist?; by Susan Blackmore; Paper presented: The Psychology of Awakening: International Conference on Buddhism, Science & Psychotherapy Dartington 7-10 November 1996; also The Psychology of Awakening: Buddhism, Science & Our Day-to-day Lives. Ed. G.Watson, S.Batchelor and G.Claxton; London, Rider, 2000, 112-122; The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind, by Julian Jaynes (1976); The Computational Brain, Churchland, P.S. & Sejnowski,T.J. (1992); MIT Press; To Have or to Be, by Erich Fromm, World Perspective Series, by Harper & Row; et al 15 From Shortage to Longage: Forty Years in the Population Vineyards, by Garrett Hardin, Population and Environment, Vol. 12, No. 3. Spring 1991

7


[9]

Radical Honesty SA’s perspective as to corporate legal standing is that the national and international statute’s granting corporations automatic and unqualified legal rights equivalent to those of persons is ecologically unconstitutional; i.e in violation of mother earth’s ecological carrying capacity laws of sustainability, a social trap. An individual or entity’s honourable legal standing, comes not from their corporate charter to rape and destroy the planet, consuming resources as if future generations and other species are irrelevant and worthy of extermination purely for the corporations short term profits; but from an individual or entity’s practice what they preach ecological footprint conduct. In this Radical Honesty context, an individual or culture or corporation’s quality of legal standing is determined not from the amount of resources they have raped, pillaged and plundered to purchase lying, deceiving legal prostitutes to perform ecological trickery and deception legal gymnastics; but from their practice what they preach ecological footprint.

[10]

Consequently, in a Radical Honesty world, a culture or religion that lives transparently and in harmony with nature, in accordance to the laws of ecological sustainability, would have far greater honourable legal standing, in any honourable court of law, than a massive corporation that has raped the resources for dozens of future generations, such as for example: Anglo-American; with the capability of hiring an army of legal deception poverty pimping ecological parasites.

[11]

The Second Applicant is LARA JOHNSTONE, an ecological sustainability rule-of-law political activist, she endorses the rule-of-law for all, rich, poor, white, black, left and right, religious or atheist. She filed her submission to the TRC16 on 18 January 1999, wherein she detailed her willingness to donate her entire inheritance to facilitate sincere Truth and Forgiveness. She is separated (filed for divorce) from Demian Emile Johnson, who is, and has been, incarcerated in California Dept. of Corrections, for the entire duration of their marriage17. In addition to Radical Honesty she has been involved in non-violent civil disobedience actions on behalf of her former husband18, Greenpeace19, Amnesty Int’l, Pacific Inst. for Criminal Justice20, Jericho 9821, Crack the CIA22, The Disclosure Project23, New Abolitionist24, Justice for Timothy McVeigh25,

16

Submission to ‘Register of Reconciliation’ and donation to Presidents Fund for Reparations to assist victims of gross violations of human rights dated 18 January 199916 98-05-31: Sun Times: US convict wins love and support in SA town; 98-09-24: YOU & Huisgenoot: Volkrust FarmGirl Doomed Love for Black Convict, by Frans Kemp 18 RSA OVERSEAS: South African on hunger strike in California, by Ilda Jacobs 19 In Easter 1993, she was arrested with a few dozen Greenpeace activists in a Save Our Seas anti-nuclear demonstration at Sellafield, Nuclear Power station, in Scotland, for trespassing. She was neither charged nor prosecuted. See: Greenpeace’s Campaign Against Ocean Dumping of Radio-Active Waste, 1978 – 1998 (www.greenpeace.org). 20 98-07-04 Miami Herald: Police action harms image as protectors 21 Jericho 98 is the movement to Free America’s Political Prisoners. She participated in Jericho 98, wrote to President Mandela to request his support for the many Anti-Apartheid Activists whom the ANC conveniently forgot, rotting away in America’s prisons: Marilyn Buck, Jaan Laaman, Tom Manning, etc. She visited Marilyn Buck in prison a few times, helped where she could. 22 99-03-16: San Francisco Chronicle: CIA Class Action Suit For Not Reporting Drug Trade 23 Presidential UFO: George W. Bush’s UFO Mail: Are You Ready for the Revolution? 24 New Abolitionist: Race Traitor: Zero Tolerance 17

8


Alliance for Democracy26, Boycott 2010 World Cup27, Right of Return for African White Refugees28, et al29. She is 43 years old, has never been on welfare, has used an IUD as contraception since the age of 19, and hence has never been pregnant, nor had an abortion. She has lived an ecological small footprint life; to avoid aggravating overpopulation, resource wars; materialist consumerism and resource depletion.30 [12]

Of the three complaints filed to the SA Press Council, herewith under review, the first was by Lara Johnstone, and the second and third were by Radical Honesty White Refugee.

The Respondents: SANEF, SA Press Council & SANEF Publications/Editors: [13]

The First and Second Respondents respectively are the SOUTH AFRICAN NATIONAL EDITORS FORUM (“SANEF”), and its CHAIRMAN: MR. MONDLI MAKHANYA. Mr. Makhanya is cited in his capacity as the Chairman of the SA National Editors Forum, the corporate body whom established the SA Press Council, and whose editors lobby the SA public in their editorials and news articles against any reform thereof. 1.

In regards the “SANEF SECRECY” and “ECOLAW OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE” and “SA MEDIA ‘DELIBERATE INDIFFERENCE’ TO MEDIA CORRUPTION” reviews Mr. Makhanya, as Chairman of SANEF was the recipient of: A.

[Questions for SANEF Chairperson: Mr. Makhanya: Re: Ind. Media Tribunal, media corruption and media censorship, sent Monday, July 26, 2010 1:09 PM]31, and the individual whom I interviewed on 27 July on the issue of SANEF’s censorship of media corruption.

B.

Mr. Makhanya is also one of the 22 accused SANEF editors in the complaint to the Green Scorpions/SAPS/PCLU: CAS 823-08-2010: Criminal Charges: Bribery Conspiracy to Censor Ecolaw TRC fraud evidence before Concourt from Public’s Right to Know, to (a) enable TRC elite to retain TRC-PR benefits & (b) obstruct administration of Ecolaw Concourt

25

April 2001: New Abolitionist: Tim McVeigh and Me In 2000, she was arrested & detained for 3 hours, with Brad Blanton, Ronny Dugger (founding editor of Texas Observer and Alliance for Democracy), & others in the Wash, DC, Capital of the Rotunda. Issue: Campaign Finance Reform. District Attorney declined to Prosecute. 27 09-12-17: IOL Tech.: Anti-SA Smear Campaign on Facebook 28 10-04-23: Algemene Dagblad: Zuid Afrikanen Smeken Om Wilders Hulp ; 10-04-25: Sunday Argus: SA family seeks repatriation to Netherlands; 10-04-30: Mail & Guardian: Persecuted Afrikaners Talk of Returning Home; 10-05-17: Christian Science Monitor: White South Africans use Facebook in Campaign to Return to Holland 29 On 17 Dec 1998, she was arrested at Oakland Federal Building, with anti-war protestors, who shut down the Federal Building for two hours. She was detained by Oakland Police for an hour, before being released. Alameda Co. District Attorney declined to prosecute. 1998-12-19 Beeld: SA `plaasmeisie' vas in VSA oor Golf-protes 30 The ecological footprint is a measure of human demand on the Earth's ecosystems. It compares human demand with planet Earth's ecological capacity to regenerate. It represents the amount of biologically productive land and sea area needed to regenerate the resources a human population consumes and to absorb and render harmless the corresponding waste. Using this assessment, it is possible to estimate how much of the Earth (or # of Earths) it would take to support humanity if everybody lived a given lifestyle. All we do, buy and breed has ecological consequences. Ecological Footprint, excluding ‘Child-Free’ factor (www.myfootprint.org/en/) is 13.16 gha. 31 http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100820_0826_iv_amicus-corr?mode=a_p 26

9


justice32. Complaint CAS 823-08-2010 to the SAPS was subsequently suspended, in good faith by Johnstone, so as to honourably provide the SA Press Council Ombudsman with the opportunity to conduct an impartial enquiry in the “ECOLAW OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE” complaint, declined by the Ombudsman. [14]

The Third Respondent is SA PRESS COUNCIL: OMBUDSMAN: MR. JOE THLOLOE. He is cited in his capacity as the Ombudsman who issued the 24 June 2009 ruling, denying Johnstone’s complaint against SAPA: [SAPA alleged guilty of: (I) Erroneous Reporting and Refusal to Impartially Enquiry into Errors, or Correct Erroneous Reporting: (II) Reporting & ‘Credible News’ selection, that is Predisposed to Extreme Bias and Prejudice; and (III) fraudulent representation, of ‘If SAPA knows… South Africa knows…”33 sent/dated 11 June 2009] and [Additional Evidentiary Relevant Documentation34, sent/dated 17 June 2009], in the “SAPA LIES’ review issue.

[15]

The Fourth Respondent is SA PRESS APPEALS PANEL: JUDGE RALPH ZULMAN. He is cited in his capacity as the Chairman of the Press Appeals Panel who issued the 17 and 24 November 2010 rulings, denying respectively Radical Honesty SA’s application for appeal, and review; of the 11 October, 3 and 4 November 2010 rulings of Deputy Ombudsman: Johan Retief, in the “ECOLAW OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE” and “CITY PRESS PROPAGANDA” review issues.

[16]

The Fifth Respondent is SA PRESS COUNCIL: DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN: JOHAN RETIEF. He is cited in his capacity as the Ombudsman who 1.

was responsible for the administrative 11 October, 3 and 4 November 2010 rulings in the “ECOLAW OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE” and “CITY PRESS PROPAGANDA” review issues.

2.

was also “deliberately indifferent” as the recipient of [Att: Press Ombudsman, SA Press Council; RE: For Your Records & Information: For the Record Memo: ‘Beyond Milgram Belief’: 140 SA Editors, Politicians, Academics et al confirm they are Deliberately Indifferent to the Rule-of-Law; have No Objections to SA Governments persecution of ‘Radical Honesty White Refugee’ (“RHWR”); sent March 16, 2010 @ 14:46 AM35]

[17]

The Sixth and Seventh Respondents respectively are SA PRESS ASSOCIATION (“SAPA”) and its EDITOR: MR. MARK VAN DER VELDEN. SAPA and Mr. van der Velden are cited in

32 33 34 35

http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100823_greenscorpions-saps-823-8-2010?mode=a_p http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/090611_complaint-sa-press-ombud_sapa?mode=a_p http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/090617_press-ombuds-sapa-2?mode=a_p http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100222_rh-wr_sapa_van-der-velden?mode=a_p

10


their capacity as the corporate news publication, and the editor in charge of SAPA news publications, who: 1.

Published the article in dispute in “SAPA LIES” [19 July 2007: Woman Defies Court over Rude De Lille SMS’s36], and was the recipient of Johnstone’s request for corrections of errors [Request to SAPA: News Article: 19 July 2007: (II) and Honourable Transparency RSA Media Enquiry; sent 05 June 200937]

2.

Published the articles in dispute, republished by numerous other publications, in the “ECOLAW OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE” issue [Articles #001-027; & #034-035]

36 37

A.

[001] 10-09-29: SAPA-Times Live: Citizen fights McBride in Concourt

B.

[002] 10-09-29: SAPA-N24: Court to hear McBride ruling appeal

C.

[003] 10-09-29: SAPA-Times Live: Citizen takes McBride appeal to Concourt

D.

[004] 10-09-30: SAPA-Business Report: McBride murder accusation ‘unfair’

E.

[005] 20-09-30: SAPA-IOL: McBride ‘murderer’ label unfair: lawyer

F.

[006] 10-09-30: SAPA-Pretoria News: McBride ‘murderer’ label unfair: lawyer

G.

[007] 10-09-30: SAPA-Cape Argus: McBride ‘murderer’ label unfair: lawyer

H.

[008] 10-09-30: SAPA-SA Star: McBride ‘murderer’ label unfair: lawyer

I.

[009] 10-09-30: SAPA-Sunday Ind.: McBride ‘murderer’ label unfair: lawyer

J.

[010] 10-09-30: SAPA-Daily News: McBride ‘murderer’ label unfair: lawyer

K.

[011] 10-09-30: SAPA-Cape Times: McBride ‘murderer’ label unfair: lawyer

L.

[012] 10-09-30: SAPA-Mercury: McBride ‘murderer’ label unfair: lawyer

M.

[013] 10-09-30: SAPA-N24: McBride murder accusation ‘unfair’

N.

[014] 10-09-30: SAPA-Times Live: McBride murder accusation unfair

O.

[015] 10-10-03: SAPA-Daily Dispatch: McBride murder accusation ‘unfair’

P.

[016] 10-09-30: SAPA-Times Live: ‘Skeletons’ can be raised in public interest

Q.

[017] 10-09-30: SAPA-N24: ‘Skeletons’ can be raised in public interest

R.

[018] 10-10-01: SAPA-IOL: Court weighs validity of TRC past

S.

[019] 10-09-30: SAPA-Times Live: Citizen argues validity of TRC past

T.

[020] 10-10-01: SAPA-Cape Times: Court weighs validity of TRC past

U.

[021] 10-10-01: SAPA-Cape Argus: Court weighs validity of TRC past

V.

[022] 10-10-01: SAPA-Pretoria news: Court weighs validity of TRC past

W.

[023] 10-10-01: SAPA-The Mercury: Court weighs validity of TRC past

X.

[024] 10-10-01: SAPA-Sunday Tribune: Court weighs validity of TRC past

Y.

[025] 10-10-01: SAPA-SA Star: Court weighs validity of TRC past

Z.

[026] 10-10-01: SAPA-ECR-Mobile: McBride Concourt case continues

AA.

[027] 10-10-01: SAPA-ECR-Newswatch: McBride Concourt case continues

BB.

[034] 10-09-30: SAPA-City Press: McBride murderer accusation ‘unfair’

CC.

[035] 10-09-30: SAPA-SunInd-IOL: Court weighs validity of TRC past

http://mybroadband.co.za/news/Cellular/698.html http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/090605__complaint-2-sapa?mode=a_p

11


3.

Confirmed SAPA’s representation of “deliberate indifference” to the persecution of Radical Honesty White Refugees [“Deliberate Indifference: Mark van der Velden (Editor, SA Press Association) is deliberately indifferent to certain people of certain ethnicities and/or ideologies and/or cultures and/or religions being politically and legally persecuted and prosecuted; and you fit one or more of those particular ethnic, ideological, cultural or religious categories,

towards

whom,

SAPA

is

deliberately

indifferent”38];

as

subsequently detailed in Radical Honesty SA Ecolaw Amicus to Concourt Chapter [V] Radical Honesty: Culture and Religion, or Refugee Status [B] 40 SA Media: Endorse Legal and Political Persecution of RH White Refugee, paragraphs 8698] and deliberate indifference to media corruption and media censorship, in response to the following communications of relevance to the “ECOLAW OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE” and “SANEF SECRECY” review issues: A.

[Request SAPA Official Comment on Free Speech Legal Issue: Non-violent civil disobedience Radical Honesty expression of Dissent to Politically Correct Tyrannical Insanity. American politician and author Dr. Brad Blanton accuses SA Government of conducting a legal prosecution and persecution campaign against non-violent civil disobedience Free Speech dissenter; sent 23 February, 2010, at 11:54 AM39];

B.

[Confirmation of SAPA Negligent and/or Deliberate Indifference to Radical Honesty Legal Issue; sent 26 February, 2010 @ 03:40 AM40];

C.

[SAPA: Ed: Mr. M vd Velden; RE: Final Report: 140 of SA Elite; say ‘No Thanks’ to the Rule-of-Law; sent March 17, 2010 @ 18:33 PM41] [Confirmation of delivery received on 17 March, 2010 6:34 PM];

D.

[Att: Mr. van der Velden, Editor; Req. SA Press. Assoc. Position on media corruption and media censorship, sent Monday, July 26, 2010 at 07:35 PM42] [Confirmation of delivery: 26 July, 2010 07:36 PM].

[18]

The Eighth and Ninth Respondent respectively are BUSINESS DAY and its EDITOR: MR. PETER BRUCE. Business Day and Mr. Bruce are cited in their capacity as the corporate news publication and the editor in charge, who:

38 39 40 41 42

http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100222_rh-wr_sapa_van-der-velden?mode=a_p http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100222_rh-wr_sapa_van-der-velden?mode=a_p http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100222_rh-wr_sapa_van-der-velden?mode=a_p http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100222_rh-wr_sapa_van-der-velden?mode=a_p http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100222_rh-wr_sapa_van-der-velden?mode=a_p

12


1.

Published the article in dispute [#032: 10-10-01: Court reserves McBride judgement43], in the “ECOLAW OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE” issue.

2.

Confirmed Business Day’s representation of “deliberate indifference” to the persecution of Radical Honesty White Refugees [“I didn't read all of it, because it was so long and so demented. So, I don't have any reply or any comment. I don't want to have anything to do with it. Sorry”44]; as subsequently detailed in Radical Honesty SA Ecolaw Amicus to Concourt Chapter [V] Radical Honesty: Culture and Religion, or Refugee Status [B] 40 SA Media: Endorse Legal and Political Persecution of RH White Refugee, paragraphs 86-98] and deliberate indifference to media corruption and media censorship, in response to the following communications of relevance to the “ECOLAW OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE” and “SANEF SECRECY” review issues: A.

[Request Business Day’s Official Comment on Free Speech Legal Issue: Non-violent civil disobedience Radical Honesty expression of Dissent to Politically Correct Tyrannical Insanity. American politician and author Dr. Brad Blanton accuses SA Government of conducting a legal prosecution

and

persecution

campaign

against

non-violent

civil

disobedience Free Speech dissenter; sent 23 February, 2010, at 11:54 AM45] [Read by Peter Bruce: 20 February, 2010 07:44 PM]; B.

[Confirmation of Business Day Representation to Radical Honesty Free sent 25 February 2010 @ 12:39 PM46; and [RE: [2]

Speech Issue;

Confirmation of Business Day Representation to Radical Honesty Free Speech

Issue;

sent

26 February,

2010

@ 14:16

PM47

subsequent

correspondence]; C.

[Mr. P. Bruce, Ed. Bus. Day; RE: Final Report: 140 of SA Elite; say ‘No Thanks’ to the Rule-of-Law; sent March 17, 2010 @ 16:09 PM48];

D.

[Att: Mr. Peter Bruce, Editor: Bus Day: Req Bus. Day Position on media corruption and media censorship; sent 26 July, 2010, @ 14:45 PM 49].

E.

He is also one of the 22 accused SANEF editors in the complaint to the Green Scorpions/SAPS/PCLU: CAS 823-08-2010: Criminal Charges: Bribery

43 44 45 46 47 48 49

http://www.businessday.co.za/Articles/Content.aspx?id=122504 http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100222_busday_p-bruce?mode=a_p http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100222_busday_p-bruce?mode=a_p http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100222_busday_p-bruce?mode=a_p http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100222_busday_p-bruce?mode=a_p http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100222_busday_p-bruce?mode=a_p http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100222_busday_p-bruce?mode=a_p

13


Conspiracy to Censor Ecolaw TRC fraud evidence before Concourt from Public’s Right to Know, to (a) enable TRC elite to retain TRC-PR benefits & (b) obstruct administration of Ecolaw Concourt justice50. [19]

The Tenth and Eleventh Respondents respectively are BUSINESS REPORT and its EDITOR: JABULANI SIKHAKHANE. They are cited as respectively the news publication and its editor in charge, who: 1.

Published the SAPA wire article in dispute [# 004: 10-09-30: McBride murder accusation ‘unfair’51], in the “ECOLAW OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE” review issue.

[20]

The Twelfth and Thirteenth Respondents respectively are CAPE ARGUS and its EDITOR: CHRIS WITFIELD. They are cited as respectively the corporate news publication and its editor in charge, who: 1.

Published the SAPA wire articles in dispute [#007: 10-09-30: McBride ‘murderer’ label unfair: lawyer52] [#021: 10-10-01: Court weighs validity of TRC past53], in the “ECOLAW OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE” issue.

2.

Confirmed CAPE ARGUS representation of “deliberate indifference” to the persecution of Radical Honesty White Refugees [“Deliberate Indifference: Chris Witfield (Editor, Cape Argus) is deliberately indifferent to certain people of certain ethnicities and/or ideologies and/or cultures and/or religions being politically and legally persecuted and prosecuted; and your fit one or more of those particular ethnic, ideological, cultural or religious categories, towards whom, Cape Argus is deliberately indifferent”54]; as subsequently detailed in Radical Honesty SA Ecolaw Amicus to Concourt Chapter [V] Radical Honesty: Culture and Religion, or Refugee Status [B] 40 SA Media: Endorse Legal and Political Persecution of RH White Refugee, paragraphs 86-98] and deliberate indifference to media corruption and media censorship, in response to the following communications of relevance to the “ECOLAW OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE” and “SANEF SECRECY” review issues: A.

[Request Cape Argus & Weekend Argus Official Comment on Free Speech Legal Issue: Non-violent civil disobedience Radical Honesty expression of Dissent to Politically Correct Tyrannical Insanity. American politician and author Dr. Brad Blanton accuses SA Government of

50 51 52 53 54

http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100823_greenscorpions-saps-823-8-2010?mode=a_p http://www.busrep.co.za/index.php?fSectionId=566&fArticleId=5668895 http://www.capeargus.co.za/?fSectionId=3571&fArticleId=1.682680&fFeed=sanews http://www.capeargus.co.za/?fSectionId=3571&fArticleId=1.682742&fFeed=sanews http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100222_rhwr_capeargus-ed-cwitfield?mode=a_p

14


conducting a legal prosecution and persecution campaign against nonviolent civil disobedience Free Speech dissenter; sent 23 February, 2010, at 11:11 AM55]; B.

[Confirmation of Cape & Weekend Argus Negligent and/or Deliberate Indifference to Radical Honesty Free Speech Legal Issue; sent 26 February, 2010 @ 03:16 AM56];

C.

[Cape Argus: Ed: Mr. C. Whitfield; RE: Final Report: 140 of SA Elite; say ‘No Thanks’ to the Rule-of-Law; sent March 17, 2010 @ 16:15 PM57];

D.

[Att: Cape Argus Editor: Mr. C. Whitfield, Req: Cape & Weekend Argus Position on media corruption and media censorship, sent Tuesday, July 27, 2010 at 12:22 AM58].

E.

He is also one of the 22 accused SANEF editors in the complaint to the Green Scorpions/SAPS/PCLU: CAS 823-08-2010: Criminal Charges: Bribery Conspiracy to Censor Ecolaw TRC fraud evidence before Concourt from Public’s Right to Know, to (a) enable TRC elite to retain TRC-PR benefits & (b) obstruct administration of Ecolaw Concourt justice59.

[21]

The Fourteenth and Fifteenth Respondents respectively are CAPE TIMES and its EDITOR: ALIDE DASNOIS. They are cited in their capacities as the corporate news publication and its editor in charge, who: 1.

Published the SAPA wire articles in dispute [#011: McBride ‘murderer’ label unfair: lawyer60] and [#20: 10-10-01: Court weighs validity of TRC past61], in the “ECOLAW OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE” issue.

2.

Confirmed Cape Times representation of “deliberate indifference” to the persecution of Radical Honesty White Refugees [“Deliberate Indifference: Alide Dasnois (Editor, Cape Times) is deliberately indifferent to certain people of certain ethnicities and/or ideologies and/or cultures and/or religions being politically and legally persecuted and prosecuted; and you fit one or more of those particular ethnic, ideological, cultural or religious categories, towards whom, Cape Times is deliberately indifferent” 62]; as subsequently detailed in

55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62

http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100222_rhwr_capeargus-ed-cwitfield?mode=a_p http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100222_rhwr_capeargus-ed-cwitfield?mode=a_p http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100222_rhwr_capeargus-ed-cwitfield?mode=a_p http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100222_rhwr_capeargus-ed-cwitfield?mode=a_p http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100823_greenscorpions-saps-823-8-2010?mode=a_p http://www.capetimes.co.za/?fSectionId=3531&fArticleId=1.682680&fFeed=sanews http://www.capetimes.co.za/?fSectionId=3531&fArticleId=1.682742&fFeed=sanews http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100222_rhwr_capetimes-adasnois?mode=a_p

15


Radical Honesty SA Ecolaw Amicus to Concourt Chapter [V] Radical Honesty: Culture and Religion, or Refugee Status [B] 40 SA Media: Endorse Legal and Political Persecution of RH White Refugee, paragraphs 86-98] and deliberate indifference to media corruption and media censorship, in response to the following communications of relevance to the “ECOLAW OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE” and “SANEF SECRECY” review issues: A.

[Request Cape Times Official Comment on Free Speech Legal Issue: Nonviolent civil disobedience Radical Honesty expression of Dissent to Politically Correct Tyrannical Insanity. American politician and author Dr. Brad Blanton accuses SA Government of conducting a legal prosecution

and

persecution

campaign

against

non-violent

civil

disobedience Free Speech dissenter; sent 24 February, 2010, at 12:04 PM63]; B.

[Confirmation of Cape Times Negligent and/or Deliberate Indifference to Radical Honesty Free Speech Legal Issue; sent 26 February, 2010 @03:18 AM64];

C.

[IOL: Cape Times, Ed: Ms. Alide Dasnois; RE: Final Report: 140 of SA Elite; say ‘No Thanks’ to the Rule-of-Law; sent March 17, 2010 @ 16:24 PM65];

D.

[Att: Cape Times Ed: Ms. Alide Dasnois; Req: Cape Times Position on media corruption and media censorship, sent Monday, July 27, 2010 at 12:22 AM66].

E.

She is also one of the 22 accused SANEF editors in the complaint to the Green Scorpions/SAPS/PCLU: CAS 823-08-2010: Criminal Charges: Bribery Conspiracy to Censor Ecolaw TRC fraud evidence before Concourt from Public’s Right to Know, to (a) enable TRC elite to retain TRC-PR benefits & (b) obstruct administration of Ecolaw Concourt justice67.

[22]

The Sixteenth and Seventeenth Respondents respectively are CITY PRESS and its EDITOR: FERIAL HAFFAJEE. They are cited in their capacities as the corporate news publication, and its editor in charge, who:

63 64 65 66 67

http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100222_rhwr_capetimes-adasnois?mode=a_p http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100222_rhwr_capetimes-adasnois?mode=a_p http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100222_rhwr_capetimes-adasnois?mode=a_p http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100222_rhwr_capetimes-adasnois?mode=a_p http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100823_greenscorpions-saps-823-8-2010?mode=a_p

16


1.

Published the article in dispute [10-07-30: Rightwing group tries to scupper Reitz trial68], in the “CITY PRESS PROPAGANDA” review issue.

2.

Was an accused charged with Defamation, in the Radical Honesty Complaint filed with the SAPS: (CAS 180-08-201069), which the NPA/SAPS referred to the Press Ombudsman for resolution.

3.

Published the articles in dispute [#034: 10-09-30: McBride murderer accusation ‘unfair’70], in the “ECOLAW OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE” issue.

4.

Confirmed City Press’s representation of “deliberate indifference” to the persecution of Radical Honesty White Refugees [“Deliberate Indifference: Ferial Haffajee (Editor, City Press) is deliberately indifferent to certain people of certain ethnicities and/or ideologies and/or cultures and/or religions being politically and legally persecuted and prosecuted; and you fit one or more of those particular ethnic, ideological, cultural or religious categories, towards whom, City Press is deliberately indifferent”71]; as subsequently detailed in Radical Honesty SA Ecolaw Amicus to Concourt Chapter [V] Radical Honesty: Culture and Religion, or Refugee Status [B] 40 SA Media: Endorse Legal and Political Persecution of RH White Refugee, paragraphs 86-98] and deliberate indifference to media corruption and media censorship, in response to the following communications of relevance to the “ECOLAW OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE” and “SANEF SECRECY” review issues: A.

[Request City Press Official Comment on Free Speech Legal Issue: Nonviolent civil disobedience Radical Honesty expression of Dissent to Politically Correct Tyrannical Insanity. American politician and author Dr. Brad Blanton accuses SA Government of conducting a legal prosecution

and

persecution

campaign

against

non-violent

civil

disobedience Free Speech dissenter; sent 23 February, 2010, at 11:17 AM72]; B.

[Confirmation of City Press Negligent and/or Deliberate Indifference to Radical Honesty Free Speech Legal Issue; sent 26 February, 2010 @ 03:22 AM73];

68 69 70 71 72 73

http://www.citypress.co.za/SouthAfrica/News/Rightwing-group-tries-to-scupper-Reitz-trial-20100730 http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100805_saps_citypress_fraud-defamation?mode=a_p http://www.citypress.co.za/SouthAfrica/News/McBride-murder-accusation-unfair-20100930-2 http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100222_rhwr_citypress_fhaffajee?mode=a_p http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100222_rhwr_citypress_fhaffajee?mode=a_p http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100222_rhwr_citypress_fhaffajee?mode=a_p

17


C.

[City Press, Ed: Ms. Haffajee; RE: Final Report: 140 of SA Elite; say ‘No Thanks’ to the Rule-of-Law; sent March 17, 2010 @ 16:28 PM74];

D.

[Att: City Press Ed: Ms. Ferial Haffajee; Req: City Press Position on media corruption and media censorship, sent Monday, July 26, 2010 at 15:42 PM75].

E.

She is also one of the 22 accused SANEF editors in the complaint to the Green Scorpions/SAPS/PCLU: CAS 823-08-2010: Criminal Charges: Bribery Conspiracy to Censor Ecolaw TRC fraud evidence before Concourt from Public’s Right to Know, to (a) enable TRC elite to retain TRC-PR benefits & (b) obstruct administration of Ecolaw Concourt justice76.

[23]

The Eighteenth and Nineteenth Respondents respectively are THE CITIZEN and its EDITOR: MARTIN WILLIAMS. They are cited respectively as the corporate news publication, and its editor in charge, who: 1.

Published the articles in dispute [#028: 10-10-01: Concourt: truth versus law77], in the “ECOLAW OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE” review issue.

2.

Confirmed The Citizen’s representation of “deliberate indifference” to the persecution of Radical Honesty White Refugees [“Deliberate Indifference: Martin Williams (Editor, The Citizen) is deliberately indifferent to certain people of certain ethnicities and/or ideologies and/or cultures and/or religions being politically and legally persecuted and prosecuted; and your fit one or more of those particular ethnic, ideological, cultural or religious categories, towards whom, The Citizen is deliberately indifferent”78]; as subsequently detailed in Radical Honesty SA Ecolaw Amicus to Concourt Chapter [V] Radical Honesty: Culture and Religion, or Refugee Status [B] 40 SA Media: Endorse Legal and Political Persecution of RH White Refugee, paragraphs 86-98] and deliberate indifference to media corruption and media censorship, in response to the following communications of relevance to the “ECOLAW OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE” and “SANEF SECRECY” review issues: A.

[Request The Citizen Official Comment on Free Speech Legal Issue: Nonviolent civil disobedience Radical Honesty expression of Dissent to Politically Correct Tyrannical Insanity. American politician and author

74 75 76 77 78

http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100222_rhwr_citypress_fhaffajee?mode=a_p http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100222_rhwr_citypress_fhaffajee?mode=a_p http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100823_greenscorpions-saps-823-8-2010?mode=a_p http://www.thecitizen.co.za/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=128517&catid=80:breaking-news&Itemid=132 http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100222_rhwr_citizen-mwilliams?mode=a_p

18


Dr. Brad Blanton accuses SA Government of conducting a legal prosecution

and

persecution

campaign

against

non-violent

civil

disobedience Free Speech dissenter; sent 23 February, 2010, at 12:07 PM79]; B.

[Confirmation of The Citizen Negligent and/or Deliberate Indifference to Radical Honesty Free Speech Legal Issue; sent 26 February, 2010 @ 03:20 AM80];

C.

[Citizen, Ed: Mr. Williams; RE: Final Report: 140 of SA Elite; say ‘No Thanks’ to the Rule-of-Law; sent March 17, 2010 @16:26 PM81];

D.

He is also one of the 22 accused SANEF editors in the complaint to the Green Scorpions/SAPS/PCLU: CAS 823-08-2010: Criminal Charges: Bribery Conspiracy to Censor Ecolaw TRC fraud evidence before Concourt from Public’s Right to Know, to (a) enable TRC elite to retain TRC-PR benefits & (b) obstruct administration of Ecolaw Concourt justice82.

[24]

The Twentieth and Twenty-First Respondents respectively are THE DAILY DISPATCH and its EDITOR: ANDREW TRENCH. They are cited respectively in their capacities as the corporate news publication, and its editor in charge, who: 1.

Published the articles in dispute [#015: 10-10-03: McBride murder accusation ‘unfair’83], in the “ECOLAW OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE” review issue.

2.

Confirmed The Daily Dispatch’s representation of “deliberate indifference” to the persecution of Radical Honesty White Refugees [“Deliberate Indifference: Andrew Trench (Editor, Daily Dispatch) is deliberately indifferent to certain people of certain ethnicities and/or ideologies and/or cultures and/or religions being politically and legally persecuted and prosecuted; and you fit one or more of those particular ethnic, ideological, cultural or religious categories, towards whom, Daily Dispatch is deliberately indifferent”84]; as subsequently detailed in Radical Honesty SA Ecolaw Amicus to Concourt Chapter [V] Radical Honesty: Culture and Religion, or Refugee Status [B] 40 SA Media: Endorse Legal and Political Persecution of RH White Refugee, paragraphs 86-98] and deliberate indifference to media corruption and media censorship, in response to the

79 80 81 82 83 84

http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100222_rhwr_citizen-mwilliams?mode=a_p http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100222_rhwr_citizen-mwilliams?mode=a_p http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100222_rhwr_citizen-mwilliams?mode=a_p http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100823_greenscorpions-saps-823-8-2010?mode=a_p http://www.dispatch.co.za/article.aspx?id=437602 http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100222_rhwr_dailydespatch-atrench?mode=a_p

19


following communications of relevance to the “ECOLAW OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE” and “SANEF SECRECY” review issues: A.

[Request Daily Dispatch Official Comment on Free Speech Legal Issue: Non-violent civil disobedience Radical Honesty expression of Dissent to Politically Correct Tyrannical Insanity. American politician and author Dr. Brad Blanton accuses SA Government of conducting a legal prosecution

and

persecution

campaign

against

non-violent

civil

disobedience Free Speech dissenter; sent 23 February, 2010, at 11:19 AM85]; B.

[Confirmation

of

Daily

Dispatch

Negligent

and/or

Deliberate

Indifference to Radical Honesty Free Speech Legal Issue; sent 26 February, 2010 @ 03:27 AM86]; C.

[Daily Dispatch: Ed: Mr. A. Trench; RE: Final Report: 140 of SA Elite; say ‘No Thanks’ to the Rule-of-Law; sent March 17, 2010 @ 16:43 PM87];

D.

[Att: Daily Dispatch: Ed. Mr. Andrew Trench; Req: Daily Dispatch Position on media corruption and media censorship, sent Monday, July 26, 2010 at 15:59 PM88].

E.

He is also one of the 22 accused SANEF editors in the complaint to the Green Scorpions/SAPS/PCLU: CAS 823-08-2010: Criminal Charges: Bribery Conspiracy to Censor Ecolaw TRC fraud evidence before Concourt from Public’s Right to Know, to (a) enable TRC elite to retain TRC-PR benefits & (b) obstruct administration of Ecolaw Concourt justice.89

[25]

The Twenty-Second and Twenty-Third Respondents respectively are THE DAILY MAVERICK and its EDITOR: BRKIC BRANKO. They are cited in their respective capacities as the corporate online news publication, and its editor in charge, who: 1.

Published the articles in dispute [#033: 10-10-05: Analysis: Citizen vs McBride, to remember or not to remember90], in the “ECOLAW OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE” issue.

85 86 87 88 89 90

http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100222_rhwr_dailydespatch-atrench?mode=a_p http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100222_rhwr_dailydespatch-atrench?mode=a_p http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100222_rhwr_dailydespatch-atrench?mode=a_p http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100222_rhwr_dailydespatch-atrench?mode=a_p http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100823_greenscorpions-saps-823-8-2010?mode=a_p http://www.thedailymaverick.co.za/article/2010-10-04-analysis-citizen-vs-mcbride-to-remember-or-not-to-remember

20


2.

Confirmed The Daily Maverick’s representation of “deliberate indifference” to the persecution of Radical Honesty White Refugees [“Deliberate Indifference: Brkic Branco (Editor, Daily Maverick) is deliberately indifferent to certain people of certain ethnicities and/or ideologies and/or cultures and/or religions being politically and legally persecuted and prosecuted; and you fit one or more of those particular ethnic, ideological, cultural or religious categories, towards whom, Daily Maverick is deliberately indifferent”91]; as subsequently detailed in Radical Honesty SA Ecolaw Amicus to Concourt Chapter [V] Radical Honesty: Culture and Religion, or Refugee Status [B] 40 SA Media: Endorse Legal and Political Persecution of RH White Refugee, paragraphs 86-98] and deliberate indifference to media corruption and media censorship, in response to the following communications of relevance to the “ECOLAW OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE” and “SANEF SECRECY” review issues: A.

[Request Daily Maverick’s Official Comment on Free Speech Legal Issue: Non-violent civil disobedience Radical Honesty expression of Dissent to Politically Correct Tyrannical Insanity. American politician and author Dr. Brad Blanton accuses SA Government of conducting a legal prosecution

and

persecution

campaign

against

non-violent

civil

disobedience Free Speech dissenter; sent 23 February, 2010, at16:00 PM92]; B.

[Confirmation

of

Daily

Maverick

Negligent

and/or

Deliberate

Indifference to Radical Honesty Free Speech Legal Issue; sent 26 February, 2010 @ 03:23 AM93]; C.

[Daily Maverick, Ed: Mr. P Branko; RE: Final Report: 140 of SA Elite; say ‘No Thanks’ to the Rule-of-Law; sent March 17, 2010 @ 04:31 PM94];

D.

[Att: Daily Maverick: Ed: Mr. Brkic Branko; Req: Daily Maverick's Position on media corruption and media censorship, sent Monday, July 26, 2010 at 16:22 PM95].

[26]

The Twenty-Fourth and Twenty Fifth Respondents respectively are THE DAILY NEWS and its EDITOR: ALAN DUNN. They are cited in their respective capacities as the corporate news publication, and its editor in charge, who:

91 92 93 94 95

http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100222_rhwr_dailymaverick-bbranko?mode=a_p http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100222_rhwr_dailymaverick-bbranko?mode=a_p http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100222_rhwr_dailymaverick-bbranko?mode=a_p http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100222_rhwr_dailymaverick-bbranko?mode=a_p http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100222_rhwr_dailymaverick-bbranko?mode=a_p

21


1.

Published the article in dispute [#010: 10-09-30: McBride ‘murderer’ label unfair: lawyer96], in the “ECOLAW OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE” issue.

2.

Confirmed The Daily News’s representation of “deliberate indifference” to the persecution of Radical Honesty White Refugees [“Mr Alan Dunn, Editor, Daily News, will not be commenting on Free Speech Legal Issue. Any response on the Huntley case will be in our editorial column”97]; as subsequently detailed in Radical Honesty SA Ecolaw Amicus to Concourt Chapter [V] Radical Honesty: Culture and Religion, or Refugee Status [B] 40 SA Media: Endorse Legal and Political Persecution of RH White Refugee, paragraphs 86-98] and deliberate indifference to media corruption and media censorship, in response to the following communications of relevance to the “ECOLAW OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE” and “SANEF SECRECY” review issues: A.

[Request Daily News Official Comment on Free Speech Legal Issue: Nonviolent civil disobedience Radical Honesty expression of Dissent to Politically Correct Tyrannical Insanity. American politician and author Dr. Brad Blanton accuses SA Government of conducting a legal prosecution

and

persecution

campaign

against

non-violent

civil

disobedience Free Speech dissenter; sent 24 February, 2010, at 12:10 PM98]; B.

[Confirmation of Daily News Official Comment in Radical Honesty Culture & Religion Free Speech Legal Issue; sent 25 February, 2010 @ 18:51 PM99];

C.

[IOL: Daily News Ed: Mr. A. Dunn; RE: Final Report: 140 of SA Elite; say ‘No Thanks’ to the Rule-of-Law; sent March 17, 2010 @ 04:36 PM100];

D.

[Att: Daily News: Ed: Mr. Alan Dunn; Req: Daily News Position on media corruption and media censorship, sent July 27, 2010 at 12:22 AM101].

E.

He is also one of the 22 accused SANEF editors in the complaint to the Green Scorpions/SAPS/PCLU: CAS 823-08-2010: Criminal Charges: Bribery Conspiracy to Censor Ecolaw TRC fraud evidence before Concourt from

96

http://www.dailynews.co.za/?fSectionId=3532&fArticleId=1.682680&fFeed=sanews http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100222_rhwr_dailynews_adunn?mode=a_p http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100222_rhwr_dailynews_adunn?mode=a_p 99 http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100222_rhwr_dailynews_adunn?mode=a_p 100 http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100222_rhwr_dailynews_adunn?mode=a_p 101 http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100222_rhwr_dailynews_adunn?mode=a_p 97 98

22


Public’s Right to Know, to (a) enable TRC elite to retain TRC-PR benefits & (b) obstruct administration of Ecolaw Concourt justice.102 [27]

The Twenty Sixth and Twenty Seventh Respondents are respectively EAST COAST RADIO and its EDITOR: DIANE MACPHERSON. They are cited in their respective capacities as the corporate online news publication, and its editor in charge, who: 1.

Published the articles in dispute [#026: 10-10-01: ECR-Mobile: McBride Concourt case continues103] and [#027: 10-10-01: ECR-Newswatch: McBride Concourt case continues104], in the “ECOLAW OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE” issue.

[28]

The Twenty-Eighth and Twenty-Ninth Respondents respectively are EYEWITNESS NEWS and its EDITOR: KATY KATAPODIS. They are cited respectively as the corporate online news publication, and its editor in charge, who: 1.

Published the article in dispute [#030: 10-10-01: McBride lawyer are playing with semantics105], in the “ECOLAW OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE” review issue.

[29]

The Thirtieth and Thirty-First Respondents respectively are INDEPENDENT ONLINE and its NEWS EDITOR: ADRIAN EPHRAM. They are cited respectively as the corporate online news publication, and its editor in charge, who: 1.

Published the article in dispute [#005: 10-09-30: McBride ‘murderer’ label unfair: lawyer106] and [#018: 1010-01: Court weighs validity of TRC past107], in the “ECOLAW OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE” review issue.

[30]

The Thirty-Second and Thirty-Third Respondents respectively are THE MAIL AND GUARDIAN and its EDITOR: NIC DAWES. They are cited respectively as the corporate news publication, and its editor in charge, who: 1.

Published the article in dispute [#029: 10-10-01: ‘If I see someone stealing, can I call him a ‘thief’108], in the “ECOLAW OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE” review issue.

2.

Confirmed The Mail & Guardian’s representation of “deliberate indifference” to the persecution of Radical Honesty White Refugees [“No Comment”. Asked whether it would be fair to conclude that his statement of No Comment, reflected that he did not care about a South African citizen's being politically and

102

http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100823_greenscorpions-saps-823-8-2010?mode=a_p http://www.ecr.co.za/kagiso/content/en/east-coast-radio/east-coast-radio-mobile- news?oid=932049&sn=Mobile+news+detail&pid=171901 http://www.ecr.co.za/kagiso/content/en/east-coast-radio/east-coast-radio- news?oid=932049&sn=Detail&pid=490476&McBride-Concourt-casecontinues 105 http://www.eyewitnessnews.co.za/articleprog.aspx?id=49757 106 http://www.iol.co.za/news/crime-courts/mcbride-murderer-label-unfair-lawyer-1.682680 107 http://www.iol.co.za/news/crime-courts/court-weighs-validity-of-trc-past-1.682742 108 http://www.mg.co.za/article/2010-10-01-if-i-see-someone-stealing-can-call-him-a-thief 103 104

23


legally prosecuted and persecuted. He again responded that he was not going to comment, with “I am not going to comment on that, okay,” and put down the phone.”109]; as subsequently detailed in Radical Honesty SA Ecolaw Amicus to Concourt Chapter [V] Radical Honesty: Culture and Religion, or Refugee Status [B] 40 SA Media: Endorse Legal and Political Persecution of RH White Refugee, paragraphs 86-98; and deliberate indifference to media corruption and media censorship, in response to the following communications of relevance to the “ECOLAW OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE” and “SANEF SECRECY” review issues: A.

[Request M&G's Comment on Free Speech Legal Issue: Nonviolent civil disobedience expression of Dissent to Tyranny: Request Mail and Guardian’s Comment on American Politician & author, Dr. Brad Blanton’s allegations of State’s Political and Legal Prosecution and Persecution of non-violent civil disobedience Free Speech Dissenter in South Africa; sent 19 February, 2010, at 22:40 PM110];

B.

[Confirmation of M&G's Comment on Free Speech Legal Issue: Nonviolent Civil Disobedience Dissenter; sent 23 February, 2010 @ 14:12 PM111];

C.

[M&G: Ed's, et al; RE: Final Report: 140 of SA Elite; say ‘No Thanks’ to the Rule-of-Law; sent March 17, 2010 @ 18:19 PM112];

D.

[Att: Mail and Guardian Editors; Req: Mail and Guardian Position on media corruption and media censorship, sent Monday, July 26, 2010 at 18:36 PM113].

E.

He is also one of the 22 accused SANEF editors in the complaint to the Green Scorpions/SAPS/PCLU: CAS 823-08-2010: Criminal Charges: Bribery Conspiracy to Censor Ecolaw TRC fraud evidence before Concourt from Public’s Right to Know, to (a) enable TRC elite to retain TRC-PR benefits & (b) obstruct administration of Ecolaw Concourt justice.114

[31]

The Thirty-Fourth and Thirty-Fifth Respondents are respectively THE MERCURY and its EDITOR: ANGELA QUINTAL. They are cited in their capacity as the corporate news publication, and its editor in charge, who:

109 110 111 112 113 114

http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100222_rhwr_mg-nicholsburbidge?mode=a_p http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100222_rhwr_mg-nicholsburbidge?mode=a_p http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100222_rhwr_mg-nicholsburbidge?mode=a_p http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100222_rhwr_mg-nicholsburbidge?mode=a_p http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100222_rhwr_mg-nicholsburbidge?mode=a_p http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100823_greenscorpions-saps-823-8-2010?mode=a_p

24


1.

Published the articles in dispute [#012: 10-09-30: McBride ‘murderer’ label unfair: lawyer115] and [#023: 10-10-01: Court weighs validity of TRC past116], in the “ECOLAW OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE” review issue.

[32]

The Thirty-Sixth and Thirty-Seventh Respondents are respectively NEWS 24 and its EDITOR: JANNIE MOMBERG. They are cited in their capacity as the corporate news publication, and its editor in charge, who: 1.

Published the articles in dispute [#002: 10-09-29: Court to hear McBride ruling appeal117] and [#013: 10-09-30: McBride murder accusation ‘unfair’118] and [#017: 10-09-30: ‘Skeletons’ can be raised in public interest119], in the “ECOLAW OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE” issue.

[33]

The Thirty-Eighth and Thirty-Ninth Respondents respectively are THE PRETORIA NEWS and its EDITOR: ZINGISA MKHUMA. They are cited respectively as the online news publication, and its editor, who: 1.

Published the articles in dispute [#006 10-09-30: McBride ‘murderer’ label unfair: lawyer120] and [#022: 10-10-01: Court weighs validity of TRC past121], in the “ECOLAW OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE” issue.

2.

Confirmed The Pretoria News’ representation of “deliberate indifference” to the persecution of Radical Honesty White Refugees [“Deliberate Indifference: Zingisa Mkhuma (Editor, Pretoria News) is deliberately indifferent to certain people of certain ethnicities and/or ideologies and/or cultures and/or religions being politically and legally persecuted and prosecuted; and you fit one or more of those particular ethnic, ideological, cultural or religious categories, towards whom, Pretoria News is deliberately indifferent”122]; as subsequently detailed in Radical Honesty SA Ecolaw Amicus to Concourt Chapter [V] Radical Honesty: Culture and Religion, or Refugee Status [B] 40 SA Media: Endorse Legal and Political Persecution of RH White Refugee, paragraphs 86-98] and deliberate indifference to media corruption and media censorship, in response to the following communications of relevance to the “ECOLAW OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE” and “SANEF SECRECY” review issues:

115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122

http://www.themercury.co.za/?fSectionId=3535&fArticleId=1.682680&fFeed=sanews http://www.themercury.co.za/?fSectionId=3535&fArticleId=1.682742&fFeed=sanews http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/Court-to-hear-McBride-ruling-appeal-20100929 http://www.news24.com/printArticle.aspx?iframe&aid=88774e42-3cd1-4832-817b-053045239bb1&cid=1059 http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/Skeletons-can-be-raised-in-public-interest-20100930 http://www.pretorianews.co.za/?fSectionId=3534&fArticleId=1.682680&fFeed=sanews http://www.pretorianews.co.za/?fSectionId=3534&fArticleId=1.682742&fFeed=sanews http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100222_rhwr_ptanews-zmkhuma?mode=a_p

25


A.

[Request Pretoria News Official Comment on Free Speech Legal Issue: Non-violent civil disobedience Radical Honesty expression of Dissent to Politically Correct Tyrannical Insanity. American politician and author Dr. Brad Blanton accuses SA Government of conducting a legal prosecution

and

persecution

campaign

against

non-violent

civil

disobedience Free Speech dissenter; sent 24 February, 2010, at 12:15 PM123]; B.

[Confirmation

of

Pretoria

News

Negligent

and/or

Deliberate

Indifference to Radical Honesty Free Speech Legal Issue; sent 26 February, 2010 @ 03:37 AM124]; C.

[IOL: Pta News: Ed: Ms. Mkhuma; RE: Final Report: 140 of SA Elite; say ‘No Thanks’ to the Rule-of-Law; sent March 17, 2010 @ 18:24 PM125];

D.

[Att: Ms. Z. Mkhuma, Editor; Req: Pretoria News Position on media corruption and media censorship, sent Monday, July 27, 2010 at 12:21 AM126].

E.

He is also one of the 22 accused SANEF editors in the complaint to the Green Scorpions/SAPS/PCLU: CAS 823-08-2010: Criminal Charges: Bribery Conspiracy to Censor Ecolaw TRC fraud evidence before Concourt from Public’s Right to Know, to (a) enable TRC elite to retain TRC-PR benefits & (b) obstruct administration of Ecolaw Concourt justice.127

[34]

The Fortieth and Forty-First Respondents are respectively SA STAR and its EDITOR: MOEGSIEN WILLIAMS. They are cited in their respective capacity as the corporate news publication and its editor in charge, who: 1.

Published the articles in dispute [#008: 10-09-30: McBride ‘murderer’ label unfair: lawyer128] and [#025: 10-10-01: Court weighs validity of TRC past129], in the “ECOLAW OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE” review issue.

2.

Confirmed SA Star’s representation of “deliberate indifference” to the persecution of Radical Honesty White Refugees [“Deliberate Indifference: Moegsien Williams (Editor, SA Star) is deliberately indifferent to certain people of certain ethnicities and/or ideologies and/or cultures and/or

123 124 125 126 127 128 129

http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100222_rhwr_ptanews-zmkhuma?mode=a_p http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100222_rhwr_ptanews-zmkhuma?mode=a_p http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100222_rhwr_ptanews-zmkhuma?mode=a_p http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100222_rhwr_ptanews-zmkhuma?mode=a_p http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100823_greenscorpions-saps-823-8-2010?mode=a_p http://www.thestar.co.za/?fSectionId=3268&fArticleId=1.682680&fFeed=sanews http://www.thestar.co.za/?fSectionId=3268&fArticleId=1.682742&fFeed=sanews

26


religions being politically and legally persecuted and prosecuted; and you fit one or more of those particular ethnic, ideological, cultural or religious categories, towards whom, SA Star is deliberately indifferent.”130]; as subsequently detailed in Radical Honesty SA Ecolaw Amicus to Concourt Chapter [V] Radical Honesty: Culture and Religion, or Refugee Status [B] 40 SA Media: Endorse Legal and Political Persecution of RH White Refugee, paragraphs 86-98] and deliberate indifference to media corruption and media censorship, in response to the following communications of relevance to the “ECOLAW OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE” and “SANEF SECRECY” review issues: A.

[Request The Star’s Official Comment on Free Speech Legal Issue: Nonviolent civil disobedience Radical Honesty expression of Dissent to Politically Correct Tyrannical Insanity. American politician and author Dr. Brad Blanton accuses SA Government of conducting a legal prosecution

and

persecution

campaign

against

non-violent

civil

disobedience Free Speech dissenter; sent 23 February, 2010, at 12:38 PM131]; B.

[Confirmation of The Star Negligent and/or Deliberate Indifference to Radical Honesty Free Speech Legal Issue; sent 26 February, 2010 @ 03:46 AM132];

[35]

The Forty-Second and Forty-Third Respondents are THE SUNDAY INDEPENDENT and its EDITOR: MAKHUDU SEFARA. They are cited respectively in their capacities as the corporate news publication, and its editor in charge, who: 1.

Published the articles in dispute [#009: 10-09-30: McBride ‘murderer’ label unfair: lawyer133] and [#035: 10-09-30: Court weighs validity of TRC past134], in the “ECOLAW OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE” review issue.

2.

Confirmed The Sunday Independent’s representation of “deliberate indifference” to the persecution of Radical Honesty White Refugees [“Deliberate Indifference: Makhudu Sefara (Editor, Sunday Independent) is deliberately indifferent to certain people of certain ethnicities and/or ideologies and/or cultures and/or religions being politically and legally persecuted and prosecuted; and you fit one or more of those particular ethnic, ideological, cultural or religious categories,

130 131 132 133 134

towards

whom,

Sunday

Independent

is

deliberately

http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100222_satstar_bseery?mode=a_p http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100222_satstar_bseery?mode=a_p http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100222_satstar_bseery?mode=a_p http://www.sundayindependent.co.za/?fSectionId=3536&fArticleId=1.682680&fFeed=sanews http://www.sundayindependent.co.za/?fSectionId=3536&fArticleId=1.682742&fFeed=sanews

27


indifferent.”135]; as subsequently detailed in Radical Honesty SA Ecolaw Amicus to Concourt Chapter [V] Radical Honesty: Culture and Religion, or Refugee Status [B] 40 SA Media: Endorse Legal and Political Persecution of RH White Refugee, paragraphs 86-98] and deliberate indifference to media corruption and media censorship, in response to the following communications of relevance to the “ECOLAW OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE” and “SANEF SECRECY” review issues: A.

[Request Sunday Independent Official Comment on Free Speech Legal Issue: Non-violent civil disobedience Radical Honesty expression of Dissent to Politically Correct Tyrannical Insanity. American politician and author Dr. Brad Blanton accuses SA Government of conducting a legal prosecution and persecution campaign against non-violent civil disobedience Free Speech dissenter; sent 24 February, 2010, at 12:34 PM136];

B.

[Confirmation of Sunday Independent Negligent and/or Deliberate Indifference to Radical Honesty Free Speech Legal Issue; sent 26 February, 2010 @ 15:48 AM137];

C.

[Sun. Ind.: Ed: Mr. M. Sefara; RE: Final Report: 140 of SA Elite; say ‘No Thanks’ to the Rule-of-Law; sent March 17, 2010 @ 19:15 PM138];

D.

[Att: Editor: Mr. Makhudu Sefara; Req. Sunday Independent Position on media corruption and media censorship, sent Monday, July 27, 2010 at 12:03 AM139].

E.

He is also one of the 22 accused SANEF editors in the complaint to the Green Scorpions/SAPS/PCLU: CAS 823-08-2010: Criminal Charges: Bribery Conspiracy to Censor Ecolaw TRC fraud evidence before Concourt from Public’s Right to Know, to (a) enable TRC elite to retain TRC-PR benefits & (b) obstruct administration of Ecolaw Concourt justice140.

[36]

The Forty-Fourth and Forty-Fifth Respondents respectively are THE SUNDAY TRIBUNE and its EDITOR: PHILANI MGWABA. They are cited respectively in their capacities as the corporate news publication, and its editor in charge, who:

135 136 137 138 139 140

http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100222_rhwr_sunind-msefara?mode=a_p http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100222_rhwr_sunind-msefara?mode=a_p http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100222_rhwr_sunind-msefara?mode=a_p http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100222_rhwr_sunind-msefara?mode=a_p http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100222_rhwr_sunind-msefara?mode=a_p http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100823_greenscorpions-saps-823-8-2010?mode=a_p

28


1.

Published the articles in dispute [#024: 10-10-01: Court weighs validity of TRC past141], in the “ECOLAW OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE” issue.

2.

Confirmed The Sunday Tribune’s representation of “deliberate indifference” to the persecution of Radical Honesty White Refugees [“Deliberate Indifference: Philani Mgwaba (Editor, Sunday Tribune) is deliberately indifferent to certain people of certain ethnicities and/or ideologies and/or cultures and/or religions being politically and legally persecuted and prosecuted; and you fit one or more of those particular ethnic, ideological, cultural or religious categories, towards whom, Sunday Tribune is deliberately indifferent.”142]; as subsequently detailed in Radical Honesty SA Ecolaw Amicus to Concourt Chapter [V] Radical Honesty: Culture and Religion, or Refugee Status [B] 40 SA Media: Endorse Legal and Political Persecution of RH White Refugee, paragraphs 86-98] and deliberate indifference to media corruption and media censorship, in response to the following communications of relevance to the “ECOLAW OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE” and “SANEF SECRECY” review issues: A.

[Request Sunday Tribune Official Comment on Free Speech Legal Issue: Non-violent civil disobedience Radical Honesty expression of Dissent to Politically Correct Tyrannical Insanity. American politician and author Dr. Brad Blanton accuses SA Government of conducting a legal prosecution

and

persecution

campaign

against

non-violent

civil

disobedience Free Speech dissenter; sent 23 February, 2010, at 12:04 PM]143 B.

[Confirmation

of

Sunday

Tribune

Negligent

and/or

Deliberate

Indifference to Radical Honesty Free Speech Legal Issue; sent 26 February, 2010 @ 03:51 AM]144 C.

[IOL: Sun. Tribune: Ed: Mr. P Mgwaba; RE: Final Report: 140 of SA Elite; say ‘No Thanks’ to the Rule-of-Law; sent March 17, 2010 @ 19:34 PM]145

D.

[Att: Mr. Philani Mgwaba, Editor, Req. Sunday Tribune Position on media corruption and media censorship, sent Monday, July 27, 2010 at 12:21 AM]146.

141

http://www.sundaytribune.co.za/?fSectionId=3537&fArticleId=1.682742&fFeed=sanews http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100222_rhwr_stribune-pmgwaba?mode=a_p http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100222_rhwr_stribune-pmgwaba?mode=a_p 144 http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100222_rhwr_stribune-pmgwaba?mode=a_p 145 http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100222_rhwr_stribune-pmgwaba?mode=a_p 146 http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100222_rhwr_stribune-pmgwaba?mode=a_p 142 143

29


E.

He is also one of the 22 accused SANEF editors in the complaint to the Green Scorpions/SAPS/PCLU: CAS 823-08-2010: Criminal Charges: Bribery Conspiracy to Censor Ecolaw TRC fraud evidence before Concourt from Public’s Right to Know, to (a) enable TRC elite to retain TRC-PR benefits & (b) obstruct administration of Ecolaw Concourt justice147.

[37]

The Forty-Sixth and Forty-Seventh Respondents are respectively TIMES LIVE (SUNDAY TIMES) and its EDITOR: RAY HARTLEY. They are cited respectively in their capacities as the corporate news publication, and its editor in charge, who: 1.

Published the articles in dispute [#001 10-09-29: Citizen fights McBride in Concourt148], [#003: 10-09-29: Citizen takes McBride appeal to Concourt149], [#014: 10-09-30: McBride murder accusation unfair150], [#016: ‘Skeletons’ can be raised in public interest151], [#019: 10-09-30: Citizen argues validity of TRC past152], [#031: 10-09-30: When is a Killer not a Killer?153] in the “ECOLAW OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE” issue.

2.

Confirmed his “deliberate indifference” to the persecution of Radical Honesty White Refugees [“Deliberate Indifference: Ray Hartley (Editor, Sunday Times) is deliberately indifferent to certain people of certain ethnicities and/or ideologies and/or cultures and/or religions being politically and legally persecuted and prosecuted; and you fit one or more of those particular ethnic, ideological, cultural or religious categories, towards whom, Sunday Times is deliberately indifferent.”

154

]; as subsequently detailed in Radical

Honesty SA Ecolaw Amicus to Concourt Chapter [V] Radical Honesty: Culture and Religion, or Refugee Status [B] 40 SA Media: Endorse Legal and Political Persecution of RH White Refugee, paragraphs 86-98] and deliberate indifference to media corruption and media censorship, in response to the following communications of relevance to the “ECOLAW OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE” and “SANEF SECRECY” review issues: A.

[Request Sunday Times Official Comment on Free Speech Legal Issue: Non-violent civil disobedience Radical Honesty expression of Dissent to Politically Correct Tyrannical Insanity. American politician and author Dr. Brad Blanton accuses SA Government of conducting a legal

147

http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100823_greenscorpions-saps-823-8-2010?mode=a_p http://www.timeslive.co.za/local/article682703.ece/Citizen-fights-McBride-in-ConCourt http://www.timeslive.co.za/local/article682446.ece/Citizen-takes-McBride-appeal-to-Concourt 150 http://www.timeslive.co.za/local/article683813.ece/McBride-murder-accusation-unfair 151 http://www.timeslive.co.za/local/article684101.ece/Skeletons-can-be-raised-in-public-interest 152 http://www.timeslive.co.za/local/article684314.ece/Citizen-argues-validity-of-TRC-past 153 http://www.citypress.co.za/SouthAfrica/News/McBride-murder-accusation-unfair-20100930-2 154 http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100222_rhwr_suntimes-rhartley?mode=a_p 148 149

30


prosecution

and

persecution

campaign

against

non-violent

civil

disobedience Free Speech dissenter; sent 23 February, 2010, at11:58 AM]155 B.

[Confirmation of Sunday Times Negligent and/or Deliberate Indifference to Radical Honesty Free Speech Legal Issue; sent 26 February, 2010 @ 15:49 AM]156

C.

[Sun. Times: Ed: Mr. R. Hartley; RE: Final Report: 140 of SA Elite; say ‘No Thanks’ to the Rule-of-Law; sent March 17, 2010 @ 19:28 PM]157

D.

[Att: Mr. Ray Hartley, Editor, Req. Sunday Times Position on media corruption and media censorship, sent Monday, July 26, 2010 at 20;59 PM]158

E.

He is also one of the 22 accused SANEF editors in the complaint to the Green Scorpions/SAPS/PCLU: CAS 823-08-2010: Criminal Charges: Bribery Conspiracy to Censor Ecolaw TRC fraud evidence before Concourt from Public’s Right to Know, to (a) enable TRC elite to retain TRC-PR benefits & (b) obstruct administration of Ecolaw Concourt justice159.

[38]

The Forty-Eighth and Forty-Ninth Respondents are respectively 3RD DEGREE and its EXECUTIVE PRODUCER: MS. DEBORA PATTA. They are cited respectively in their capacities as the corporate news publication, and its executive producer in charge, who: 1.

Confirmed her “deliberate indifference” to the persecution of Radical Honesty White Refugees [“3rd degree is an investigative current affairs programme not a public elected body with a responsibility to comment on issues. All comment from e.news and current affairs falls under the head of news as pointed out in a previous e-mail.”

160

]; as subsequently detailed in Radical

Honesty SA Ecolaw Amicus to Concourt Chapter [V] Radical Honesty: Culture and Religion, or Refugee Status [B] 40 SA Media: Endorse Legal and Political Persecution of RH White Refugee, paragraphs 86-98] and deliberate indifference to media corruption and media censorship, in response to the following communications of relevance to the “RH/WR ‘DELIBERATE INDIFFERENCE’

155 156 157 158 159 160

http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100222_rhwr_suntimes-rhartley?mode=a_p http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100222_rhwr_suntimes-rhartley?mode=a_p http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100222_rhwr_suntimes-rhartley?mode=a_p http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100222_rhwr_suntimes-rhartley?mode=a_p http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100823_greenscorpions-saps-823-8-2010?mode=a_p http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100222_rhwr_3rddeg-dpatta?mode=a_p

31


DISCLOSURE”

and

“‘DELIBERATE

INDIFFERENCE’

TO

MEDIA

CORRUPTION

DISCLOSURE” review issues: A.

[Request 3RD Degree Official Comment on Free Speech Legal Issue: Nonviolent civil disobedience Radical Honesty expression of Dissent to Politically Correct Tyrannical Insanity. American politician and author Dr. Brad Blanton accuses SA Government of conducting a legal prosecution

and

persecution

campaign

against

non-violent

civil

disobedience Free Speech dissenter; sent February 23 02, 2010, at 11:33 AM]161 B.

[Confirmation of 3RD Degree’s Negligent and/or Deliberate Indifference to Radical Honesty Free Speech Legal Issue; sent 26 February, 2010 @ 19:49 PM]162

C.

[3rd Degree: Ex. Prod. Ms. D. Patta; RE: Final Report: 140 of SA Elite; say ‘No Thanks’ to the Rule-of-Law: Why We Are African White Refugees: 140 of SA Elite; say ‘No Thanks’ to the Rule-of-Law; sent March 17, 2010 @ _17:07 PM] 163

D.

[Att: Ms. Deborah Patta, Exec. Prod.: 3rd Degree: Req 3rd Degree Position on media corruption and media censorship, sent Monday, July 26, 2010 at 13:40 PM]164

[39]

The Fiftieth and Fifty-First Respondents are BEELD and its EDITOR: TIM DU PLESSIS. They are cited respectively in their capacities as the corporate news publication, and its editor in charge, who: 1.

Confirmed his “deliberate indifference” to the persecution of Radical Honesty White Refugees [“Kindly be informed that I am not going to comment on the questions/issues raised in you letter. There will be no further correspondence or liaison in this matter.”165]; as subsequently detailed in Radical Honesty SA Ecolaw Amicus to Concourt Chapter [V] Radical Honesty: Culture and Religion, or Refugee Status [B] 40 SA Media: Endorse Legal and Political Persecution of RH White Refugee, paragraphs 86-98] and deliberate indifference to media corruption and media censorship, in response to the following communications of

161 162 163 164 165

http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100222_rhwr_3rddeg-dpatta?mode=a_p http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100222_rhwr_3rddeg-dpatta?mode=a_p http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100222_rhwr_3rddeg-dpatta?mode=a_p http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100222_rhwr_3rddeg-dpatta?mode=a_p http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100222_rhwr_beeld-tduplessis?mode=a_p

32


relevance to the “RH/WR ‘DELIBERATE INDIFFERENCE’ DISCLOSURE” and “‘DELIBERATE INDIFFERENCE’ TO MEDIA CORRUPTION DISCLOSURE” review issues: A.

[Request Beeld’s Official Comment on Free Speech Legal Issue: Nonviolent civil disobedience Radical Honesty expression of Dissent to Politically Correct Tyrannical Insanity. American politician and author Dr. Brad Blanton accuses SA Government of conducting a legal prosecution

and

persecution

campaign

against

non-violent

civil

disobedience Free Speech dissenter; sent 23 February, 2010, at 11:03 AM]166 B.

[Confirmation of Beeld's Official comment in Radical Honesty Culture & Religion Free Speech Legal Issue; sent 25 February, 2010 @ 06:27 PM]167

C.

[Tim du Plessis, Ed, Beeld; RE: Final Report: 140 of SA Elite; say ‘No Thanks’ to the Rule-of-Law: Why We Are African White Refugees: 140 of SA Elite; say ‘No Thanks’ to the Rule-of-Law; sent March 17, 2010 @ 14:58 PM]168

D.

[Att: Tim du Plessis, Editor: Beeld: Req Beeld Position on media corruption and media censorship, sent Monday, July 26, 2010 at 13:53 PM]169

E.

He is also one of the 22 accused SANEF editors in the complaint to the Green Scorpions/SAPS/PCLU: CAS 823-08-2010: Criminal Charges: Bribery Conspiracy to Censor Ecolaw TRC fraud evidence before Concourt from Public’s Right to Know, to (a) enable TRC elite to retain TRC-PR benefits & (b) obstruct administration of Ecolaw Concourt justice170.

[40]

The Fifty-Second and Fifty-Third Respondents are respectively DAILY SUN and its EDITOR: THEMBA KHUMALO. They are cited respectively in their capacities as the corporate news publication, and its editor in charge, who: 1.

Confirmed his “deliberate indifference” to the persecution of Radical Honesty White Refugees [“Deliberate Indifference: Themba Khumalo (Editor, Daily Sun) is deliberately indifferent to certain people of certain ethnicities and/or ideologies and/or cultures and/or religions being politically and legally persecuted and prosecuted; and you fit one or more of those particular

166 167 168 169 170

http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100222_rhwr_beeld-tduplessis?mode=a_p http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100222_rhwr_beeld-tduplessis?mode=a_p http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100222_rhwr_beeld-tduplessis?mode=a_p http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100222_rhwr_beeld-tduplessis?mode=a_p http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100823_greenscorpions-saps-823-8-2010?mode=a_p

33


ethnic, ideological, cultural or religious categories, towards whom, Daily Sun is deliberately indifferent.”171]; as subsequently detailed in Radical Honesty SA Ecolaw Amicus to Concourt Chapter [V] Radical Honesty: Culture and Religion, or Refugee Status [B] 40 SA Media: Endorse Legal and Political Persecution of RH White Refugee, paragraphs 86-98] and deliberate indifference to media corruption and media censorship, in response to the following communications of relevance to the “RH/WR ‘DELIBERATE INDIFFERENCE’ DISCLOSURE” and “‘DELIBERATE INDIFFERENCE’ TO MEDIA CORRUPTION DISCLOSURE” review issues: A.

[Request Daily Sun Official Comment on Free Speech Legal Issue: Nonviolent civil disobedience Radical Honesty expression of Dissent to Politically Correct Tyrannical Insanity. American politician and author Dr. Brad Blanton accuses SA Government of conducting a legal prosecution

and

persecution

campaign

against

non-violent

civil

disobedience Free Speech dissenter; sent 23 February, 2010, at 11:32 AM]172 B.

[Confirmation of Daily & Sunday Sun Negligent and/or Deliberate Indifference to Radical Honesty Free Speech Legal Issue; sent 26 February, 2010 @ 03:25 AM]173

C.

[Daily Sun Ed: Mr. T. Khumalo; RE: Final Report: 140 of SA Elite; say ‘No Thanks’ to the Rule-of-Law; sent March 17, 2010 @ 16:41 PM] 174

D.

[Att: Daily Sun Editor: Mr. Themba Khumalo; Req: Daily Sun's Position on media corruption and media censorship, sent Monday, July 26, 2010 at 16:40 PM]175

E.

He is also one of the 22 accused SANEF editors in the complaint to the Green Scorpions/SAPS/PCLU: CAS 823-08-2010: Criminal Charges: Bribery Conspiracy to Censor Ecolaw TRC fraud evidence before Concourt from Public’s Right to Know, to (a) enable TRC elite to retain TRC-PR benefits & (b) obstruct administration of Ecolaw Concourt justice176.

[41]

The Fifty-Fourth, Fifty-Fifth and Fifty-Sixth Respondents are respectively DIE BURGER and its EDITORS: HENRY JEFFERY and BUN BOOYSEN. They are cited

171 172 173 174 175 176

http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100222_rhwr_dailysun-tkhumalo?mode=a_p http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100222_rhwr_dailysun-tkhumalo?mode=a_p http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100222_rhwr_dailysun-tkhumalo?mode=a_p http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100222_rhwr_dailysun-tkhumalo?mode=a_p http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100222_rhwr_dailysun-tkhumalo?mode=a_p http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100823_greenscorpions-saps-823-8-2010?mode=a_p

34


respectively in their capacities as the corporate news publication, and its editors in charge, who: 1.

Mr. Henry Jeffery’s confirmed Die Burgers “deliberate indifference” to the persecution of Radical Honesty White Refugees [“Deliberate Indifference: Henry Jeffreys (Editor, Die Burger) is deliberately indifferent to certain people of certain ethnicities and/or ideologies and/or cultures and/or religions being politically and legally persecuted and prosecuted; and you fit one or more of those particular ethnic, ideological, cultural or religious categories, towards whom, Die Burger is deliberately indifferent.”177]; as subsequently detailed in Radical Honesty SA Ecolaw Amicus to Concourt Chapter [V] Radical Honesty: Culture and Religion, or Refugee Status [B] 40 SA Media: Endorse Legal and Political Persecution of RH White Refugee, paragraphs 86-98] and Mr. Bun Booysen confirmed Die Burger’s deliberate indifference to media corruption and media censorship, respectively in response to the following communications of relevance to the “RH/WR ‘DELIBERATE INDIFFERENCE’ DISCLOSURE” and “‘DELIBERATE INDIFFERENCE’ TO MEDIA CORRUPTION DISCLOSURE” review issues: A.

[Request Die Burger Official Comment on Free Speech Legal Issue: Nonviolent civil disobedience Radical Honesty expression of Dissent to Politically Correct Tyrannical Insanity. American politician and author Dr. Brad Blanton accuses SA Government of conducting a legal prosecution

and

persecution

campaign

against

non-violent

civil

disobedience Free Speech dissenter; sent 23 February, 2010, at 11:05 AM]178 B.

[Confirmation of Die Burger Negligent and/or Deliberate Indifference to Radical Honesty Free Speech Legal Issue; sent 26 February, 2010 @ 03:09 AM]179

C.

[Mr. Henry Jeffreys, Ed, Die Burger; RE: Final Report: 140 of SA Elite; say ‘No Thanks’ to the Rule-of-Law: Why We Are African White Refugees: 140 of SA Elite; say ‘No Thanks’ to the Rule-of-Law; sent March 17, 2010 @ 16:04 PM]180

177 178 179 180

http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100222_rhwr_burger_jefferys-booysens?mode=a_p http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100222_rhwr_burger_jefferys-booysens?mode=a_p http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100222_rhwr_burger_jefferys-booysens?mode=a_p http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100222_rhwr_burger_jefferys-booysens?mode=a_p

35


D.

[Att: Die Burger Ed: Mr. Bun Booysens; Req: Die Burger comment on media corruption and media censorship, sent Monday, July 26, 2010 at 17:30 PM]181

E.

Mr. Booysen is also one of the 22 accused SANEF editors in the complaint to the Green Scorpions/SAPS/PCLU: CAS 823-08-2010: Criminal Charges: Bribery Conspiracy to Censor Ecolaw TRC fraud evidence before Concourt from Public’s Right to Know, to (a) enable TRC elite to retain TRC-PR benefits & (b) obstruct administration of Ecolaw Concourt justice182.

[42]

The Fifty-Seventh and Fifty-Eighth Respondents are respectively E-NEWS and its HEAD OF NEWS: PATRICK CONROY. They are cited respectively in their capacities as the corporate news publication, and its editor in charge, who: 1.

Confirmed E-News “deliberate indifference” to the persecution of Radical Honesty White Refugees [“Deliberate Indifference: Patrick Conroy (Head of ENews) is deliberately indifferent to certain people of certain ethnicities and/or ideologies and/or cultures and/or religions being politically and legally persecuted and prosecuted; and you fit one or more of those particular ethnic, ideological, cultural or religious categories, towards whom, E-News is deliberately indifferent.”183]; as subsequently detailed in Radical Honesty SA Ecolaw Amicus to Concourt Chapter [V] Radical Honesty: Culture and Religion, or Refugee Status [B] 40 SA Media: Endorse Legal and Political Persecution of RH White Refugee, paragraphs 86-98] and deliberate indifference to media corruption and media censorship, in response to the following

communications

INDIFFERENCE’

of

relevance

to

the

“RH/WR

‘DELIBERATE

DISCLOSURE” and “‘DELIBERATE INDIFFERENCE’ TO

MEDIA

CORRUPTION DISCLOSURE” review issues: A.

[Mr. Patrick Conroy, Head of E-News; Request E-News Official Comment on Free Speech Legal Issue: Non-violent civil disobedience Radical Honesty expression of Dissent to Politically Correct Tyrannical Insanity. American politician and author Dr. Brad Blanton accuses SA Government of conducting a legal prosecution and persecution campaign against

181 182 183

http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100222_rhwr_burger_jefferys-booysens?mode=a_p http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100823_greenscorpions-saps-823-8-2010?mode=a_p http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100222_rhwr_e-news-pconroy?mode=a_p

36


non-violent civil disobedience Free Speech dissenter; sent 02 March, 2010, at 02:19 AM]184 B.

[Confirmation of E-News’ Negligent and/or Deliberate Indifference to Radical Honesty Free Speech Legal Issue; sent 03 March, 2010 @ 07:49 PM]185

C.

[ETV: E-News: Mr. P. Conroy; RE: Final Report: 140 of SA Elite; say ‘No Thanks’ to the Rule-of-Law: Why We Are African White Refugees: 140 of SA Elite; say ‘No Thanks’ to the Rule-of-Law; sent March 17, 2010 @ 17:07 PM]186

D.

[Att: ETV: E-News: Mr. Patrick Conroy; Req: E-News Comment on media corruption and media censorship, sent Monday, July 26, 2010 at 17:36 PM]187

[43]

The Fifty-Ninth and Sixtieth Respondents are respectively FINANCIAL MAIL and its EDITOR: BARNEY MTHOMBOTHI. They are cited respectively in their capacities as the corporate news publication, and its editor in charge, who: 1.

Confirmed the Financial Mail’s “deliberate indifference” to the persecution of Radical Honesty White Refugees [“Deliberate Indifference: Barney Mthombothi (Editor, Financial Mail) is deliberately indifferent to certain people of certain ethnicities and/or ideologies and/or cultures and/or religions being politically and legally persecuted and prosecuted; and you fit one or more of those particular ethnic, ideological, cultural or religious categories, towards whom, Financial Mail is deliberately indifferent.”188]; as subsequently detailed in Radical Honesty SA Ecolaw Amicus to Concourt Chapter [V] Radical Honesty: Culture and Religion, or Refugee Status [B] 40 SA Media: Endorse Legal and Political Persecution of RH White Refugee, paragraphs 86-98] and deliberate indifference to media corruption and media censorship, in response to the following

communications

INDIFFERENCE’

of

relevance

to

the

“RH/WR

‘DELIBERATE

DISCLOSURE” and “‘DELIBERATE INDIFFERENCE’ TO

MEDIA

CORRUPTION DISCLOSURE” review issues: A.

[Request Financial Mail Official Comment on Free Speech Legal Issue: Non-violent civil disobedience Radical Honesty expression of Dissent to

184 185 186 187 188

http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100222_rhwr_e-news-pconroy?mode=a_p http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100222_rhwr_e-news-pconroy?mode=a_p http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100222_rhwr_e-news-pconroy?mode=a_p http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100222_rhwr_e-news-pconroy?mode=a_p http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100222_rhwr_finmail-bmthombothi?mode=a_p

37


Politically Correct Tyrannical Insanity. American politician and author Dr. Brad Blanton accuses SA Government of conducting a legal prosecution

and

persecution

campaign

against

non-violent

civil

disobedience Free Speech dissenter; sent 23 February, 2010, at 12:15 PM]189 B.

[Confirmation of Financial Mail Negligent and/or Deliberate Indifference to Radical Honesty Free Speech Legal Issue; sent 26 February, 2010 @ 03:30 AM]190

C.

[Fin. Mail: Ed: Mr. B. Mthombothi; RE: Final Report: 140 of SA Elite; say ‘No Thanks’ to the Rule-of-Law: Why We Are African White Refugees: 140 of SA Elite; say ‘No Thanks’ to the Rule-of-Law; sent March 17, 2010 @ 17:11 PM]191

D.

[Att: Financial Mail: Ed: Mr. B. Mthombothi; Req: Financial Mail's Comment on media corruption and media censorship, sent Monday, July 26, 2010 at 17:43 PM]192

E.

He is also one of the 22 accused SANEF editors in the complaint to the Green Scorpions/SAPS/PCLU: CAS 823-08-2010: Criminal Charges: Bribery Conspiracy to Censor Ecolaw TRC fraud evidence before Concourt from Public’s Right to Know, to (a) enable TRC elite to retain TRC-PR benefits & (b) obstruct administration of Ecolaw Concourt justice193.

[44]

The Sixty-First and Sixty-Second Respondents are respectively FINWEEK and its EDITOR: COLLEEN NAUDE. They are cited respectively in their capacities as the corporate news publication, and its editor in charge, who: 1.

Confirmed Finweek’s representation of “deliberate indifference” to the persecution of Radical Honesty White Refugees [“Deliberate Indifference: Colleen Naude (Editor, Finweek) is deliberately indifferent to certain people of certain ethnicities and/or ideologies and/or cultures and/or religions being politically and legally persecuted and prosecuted; and you fit one or more of those particular ethnic, ideological, cultural or religious categories, towards whom, Finweek is deliberately indifferent.”194]; as subsequently detailed in Radical Honesty SA Ecolaw Amicus to Concourt Chapter [V] Radical Honesty:

189 190 191 192 193 194

http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100222_rhwr_finmail-bmthombothi?mode=a_p http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100222_rhwr_finmail-bmthombothi?mode=a_p http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100222_rhwr_finmail-bmthombothi?mode=a_p http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100222_rhwr_finmail-bmthombothi?mode=a_p http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100823_greenscorpions-saps-823-8-2010?mode=a_p http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100222_rhwr_finweek-cnaude?mode=a_p

38


Culture and Religion, or Refugee Status [B] 40 SA Media: Endorse Legal and Political Persecution of RH White Refugee, paragraphs 86-98] and deliberate indifference to media corruption and media censorship, in response to the following

communications

INDIFFERENCE’

of

relevance

to

the

“RH/WR

‘DELIBERATE

DISCLOSURE” and “‘DELIBERATE INDIFFERENCE’ TO

MEDIA

CORRUPTION DISCLOSURE” review issues: A.

[Request Finweek Official Comment on Free Speech Legal Issue: Nonviolent civil disobedience Radical Honesty expression of Dissent to Politically Correct Tyrannical Insanity. American politician and author Dr. Brad Blanton accuses SA Government of conducting a legal prosecution

and

persecution

campaign

against

non-violent

civil

disobedience Free Speech dissenter; sent 24 February, 2010, at 12:36 PM]195 B.

[Confirmation of Finweek Negligent and/or Deliberate Indifference to Radical Honesty Free Speech Legal Issue; sent 26 February, 2010 @ 03:31 AM]196

C.

[Finweek: Ed: Ms. C. Naude; RE: Final Report: 140 of SA Elite; say ‘No Thanks’ to the Rule-of-Law: Why We Are African White Refugees: 140 of SA Elite; say ‘No Thanks’ to the Rule-of-Law; sent March 17, 2010 @ 17:14]197

D.

[Att: Ms. C. Naude, Editor; Req: Finweek's Position on media corruption and media censorship, sent Monday, July 26, 2010 at 06:06 PM]198

[45]

The Sixty-Third and Sixty-Fourth Respondents are respectively THE GEORGE HERALD and its EDITOR: MANDI BOTHA. They are cited respectively in their capacities as the corporate news publication, and its editor in charge, who: 1.

Confirmed his “deliberate indifference” to the persecution of Radical Honesty White Refugees [“Deliberate Indifference: Mandi Botha (Editor, George Herald) is deliberately indifferent to certain people of certain ethnicities and/or ideologies and/or cultures and/or religions being politically and legally persecuted and prosecuted; and you fit one or more of those particular ethnic, ideological, cultural or religious categories, towards whom, George

195 196 197 198

http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100222_rhwr_finweek-cnaude?mode=a_p http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100222_rhwr_finweek-cnaude?mode=a_p http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100222_rhwr_finweek-cnaude?mode=a_p http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100222_rhwr_finweek-cnaude?mode=a_p

39


Herald is deliberately indifferent.”199]; as subsequently detailed in Radical Honesty SA Ecolaw Amicus to Concourt Chapter [V] Radical Honesty: Culture and Religion, or Refugee Status [B] 40 SA Media: Endorse Legal and Political Persecution of RH White Refugee, paragraphs 86-98] and deliberate indifference to media corruption and media censorship, in response to the following communications of relevance to the “RH/WR ‘DELIBERATE INDIFFERENCE’ DISCLOSURE”

and

“‘DELIBERATE

INDIFFERENCE’

TO

MEDIA

CORRUPTION

DISCLOSURE” review issues: A.

[Request George Herald Official Comment on Free Speech Legal Issue: Non-violent civil disobedience Radical Honesty expression of Dissent to Politically Correct Tyrannical Insanity. American politician and author Dr. Brad Blanton accuses SA Government of conducting a legal prosecution

and

persecution

campaign

against

non-violent

civil

disobedience Free Speech dissenter; sent 23 February, 2010, at 13:44 PM]200 B.

[Confirmation

of

George

Herald

Negligent

and/or

Deliberate

Indifference to Radical Honesty Free Speech Legal Issue; sent 26 February, 2010 @ 03:33 AM]201 C.

[George Herald: Ed: Ms. Mandi Botha, RE: Final Report: 140 of SA Elite; say ‘No Thanks’ to the Rule-of-Law: Why We Are African White Refugees: 140 of SA Elite; say ‘No Thanks’ to the Rule-of-Law; sent March 17, 2010 @ 17:28 PM]202

[46]

The Sixty-Fifth and Sixty-Sixth Respondents are respectively INDEPENDENT ON SATURDAY and its EDITOR: TREVOR BRUCE. They are cited respectively in their capacities as the corporate news publication, and its editor in charge, who: 1.

Confirmed Independent on Saturday’s representation of “deliberate indifference” to the persecution of Radical Honesty White Refugees [“Deliberate Indifference: Trevor Bruce (Editor, Independent on Saturday) is deliberately indifferent to certain people of certain ethnicities and/or ideologies and/or cultures and/or religions being politically and legally persecuted and prosecuted; and you fit one or more of those particular ethnic, ideological, cultural or religious categories, towards whom, Independent on Saturday is deliberately

199 200 201 202

http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100222_rhwr_gherald-mbotha?mode=a_p http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100222_rhwr_gherald-mbotha?mode=a_p http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100222_rhwr_gherald-mbotha?mode=a_p http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100222_rhwr_gherald-mbotha?mode=a_p

40


indifferent.”203]; as subsequently detailed in Radical Honesty SA Ecolaw Amicus to Concourt Chapter [V] Radical Honesty: Culture and Religion, or Refugee Status [B] 40 SA Media: Endorse Legal and Political Persecution of RH White Refugee, paragraphs 86-98] and deliberate indifference to media corruption and media censorship, in response to the following communications of relevance to the “RH/WR

‘DELIBERATE

INDIFFERENCE’

DISCLOSURE”

and

“‘DELIBERATE

INDIFFERENCE’ TO MEDIA CORRUPTION DISCLOSURE” review issues: A.

[Request Independent on Saturday Official Comment on Free Speech Legal Issue: Non-violent civil disobedience Radical Honesty expression of Dissent to Politically Correct Tyrannical Insanity. American politician and author Dr. Brad Blanton accuses SA Government of conducting a legal prosecution and persecution campaign against nonviolent civil disobedience Free Speech dissenter; sent 23 February, 2010, at 11:37 AM]204

B.

[Confirmation of Independent on Saturday Negligent and/or Deliberate Indifference to Radical Honesty Free Speech Legal Issue; sent 26 February, 2010 @ 03:35 AM]205

C.

[Ind. on Sat: Ed: Mr. T. Bruce; RE: Final Report: 140 of SA Elite; say ‘No Thanks’ to the Rule-of-Law: Why We Are African White Refugees: 140 of SA Elite; say ‘No Thanks’ to the Rule-of-Law; sent March 17, 2010 @ 06:11 PM]206

D.

[Att: Ed: Trevor Bruce; Req. Ind. on Saturday's Position on media corruption and media censorship, sent Monday, July 26, 2010 at 12:22 AM]207

[47]

The Sixty-Seventh and Sixty-Eighth Respondents are respectively 702 RADIO and its STATION MANAGER: PHELADI GWANGWA. They are cited respectively in their capacities as the corporate news publication, and its station manager in charge, who: 1.

Confirmed 702 Radio’s representation of “deliberate indifference” to the persecution of Radical Honesty White Refugees [“Deliberate Indifference: Pheladi Gwangwa (Station Manager, Radio 702) is deliberately indifferent to certain people of certain ethnicities and/or ideologies and/or cultures and/or

203 204 205 206 207

http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100222_rhwr_indsat-tbruce?mode=a_p http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100222_rhwr_indsat-tbruce?mode=a_p http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100222_rhwr_indsat-tbruce?mode=a_p http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100222_rhwr_indsat-tbruce?mode=a_p http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100222_rhwr_indsat-tbruce?mode=a_p

41


religions being politically and legally persecuted and prosecuted; and you fit one or more of those particular ethnic, ideological, cultural or religious categories, towards whom, Radio 702 is deliberately indifferent.”208]; as subsequently detailed in Radical Honesty SA Ecolaw Amicus to Concourt Chapter [V] Radical Honesty: Culture and Religion, or Refugee Status [B] 40 SA Media: Endorse Legal and Political Persecution of RH White Refugee, paragraphs 86-98] and deliberate indifference to media corruption and media censorship, in response to the following communications of relevance to the “RH/WR ‘DELIBERATE INDIFFERENCE’ DISCLOSURE” and “‘DELIBERATE INDIFFERENCE’ TO MEDIA CORRUPTION DISCLOSURE” review issues: A.

[Request 702 Radio’s Official Comment on Free Speech Legal Issue: Nonviolent civil disobedience Radical Honesty expression of Dissent to Politically Correct Tyrannical Insanity. American politician and author Dr. Brad Blanton accuses SA Government of conducting a legal prosecution

and

persecution

campaign

against

non-violent

civil

disobedience Free Speech dissenter; sent 23 February, 2010, at 11:01 AM]209 B.

[Confirmation of 702 Radio’s Negligent and/or Deliberate Indifference to Radical Honesty Free Speech Legal Issue; sent 26 February, 2010 @ 03:03 AM]210

C.

[Ms. P. Gwangwa, 702 Radio: RE: Final Report: 140 of SA Elite; say ‘No Thanks’ to the Rule-of-Law: Why We Are African White Refugees: 140 of SA Elite; say ‘No Thanks’ to the Rule-of-Law; sent March 17, 2010 @ 14:54 PM]211

D.

[Att: Ms. Pheladi Gwangwa, Station Manager; Req: 702 Radio Position on media corruption and media censorship, sent Monday, July 26, 2010 at 18:50 PM]212

[48]

The Sixty-Ninth and Seventieth Respondents are respectively RAPPORT and its EDITOR: LISA ALBRECHT. They are cited respectively in their capacities as the corporate news publication, and its editor in charge, who:

208 209 210 211 212

http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100222_rhwr_r702-pgwangwa?mode=a_p http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100222_rhwr_r702-pgwangwa?mode=a_p http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100222_rhwr_r702-pgwangwa?mode=a_p http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100222_rhwr_r702-pgwangwa?mode=a_p http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100222_rhwr_r702-pgwangwa?mode=a_p

42


1.

Confirmed

Rapport’s representation of “deliberate indifference” to the

persecution of Radical Honesty White Refugees [“Deliberate Indifference: Lisa Albrecht (Editor, Rapport) is deliberately indifferent to certain people of certain ethnicities and/or ideologies and/or cultures and/or religions being politically and legally persecuted and prosecuted; and you fit one or more of those particular ethnic, ideological, cultural or religious categories, towards whom, Rapport is deliberately indifferent.”213]; as subsequently detailed in Radical Honesty SA Ecolaw Amicus to Concourt Chapter [V] Radical Honesty: Culture and Religion, or Refugee Status [B] 40 SA Media: Endorse Legal and Political Persecution of RH White Refugee, paragraphs 86-98] and deliberate indifference to media corruption and media censorship, in response to the following

communications

INDIFFERENCE’

of

relevance

to

the

“RH/WR

‘DELIBERATE

DISCLOSURE” and “‘DELIBERATE INDIFFERENCE’ TO

MEDIA

CORRUPTION DISCLOSURE” review issues: A.

[Request Rapport Official Comment on Free Speech Legal Issue: Nonviolent civil disobedience Radical Honesty expression of Dissent to Politically Correct Tyrannical Insanity. American politician and author Dr. Brad Blanton accuses SA Government of conducting a legal prosecution

and

persecution

campaign

against

non-violent

civil

disobedience Free Speech dissenter; sent 23 February, 2010, at 11:46 AM]214 B.

[Confirmation of Rapport Negligent and/or Deliberate Indifference to Radical Honesty Free Speech Legal Issue; sent 26 February, 2010 @ 03:38 AM]215

C.

[Rapport: Ed: Ms. L Albrecht; RE: Final Report: 140 of SA Elite; say ‘No Thanks’ to the Rule-of-Law: Why We Are African White Refugees: 140 of SA Elite; say ‘No Thanks’ to the Rule-of-Law; sent March 17, 2010 @ 18:28 PM]216

D.

[Att: Ms. Lisa Albrecht, Editor; Req. Rapport's Position on media corruption and media censorship, sent Monday, July 26, 2010 at 19:28 PM]217

213 214 215 216 217

http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100222_rhwr_rapport-lalbrecht?mode=a_p http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100222_rhwr_rapport-lalbrecht?mode=a_p http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100222_rhwr_rapport-lalbrecht?mode=a_p http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100222_rhwr_rapport-lalbrecht?mode=a_p http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100222_rhwr_rapport-lalbrecht?mode=a_p

43


E.

She is also one of the 22 accused SANEF editors in the complaint to the Green Scorpions/SAPS/PCLU: CAS 823-08-2010: Criminal Charges: Bribery Conspiracy to Censor Ecolaw TRC fraud evidence before Concourt from Public’s Right to Know, to (a) enable TRC elite to retain TRC-PR benefits & (b) obstruct administration of Ecolaw Concourt justice218.

[49]

The Seventy-First and Seventy-Second Respondents are respectively THE SATURDAY STAR and its EXECUTIVE EDITOR: BRENDAN SEERY. They are cited respectively in their capacities as the corporate news publication, and its editor in charge, who: 1.

Confirmed Saturday Star’s representation of “deliberate indifference” to the persecution of Radical Honesty White Refugees [“I would much prefer deliberate indifference.” (“Deliberate Indifference: Brendan Seery (Editor: Saturday Star) is deliberately indifferent to certain people of certain ethnicities and/or ideologies and/or cultures and/or religions being politically and legally persecuted and prosecuted; and you fit one or more of those particular ethnic, ideological, cultural or religious categories, towards whom, Saturday Star is deliberately indifferent.”)219]; as subsequently detailed in Radical Honesty SA Ecolaw Amicus to Concourt Chapter [V] Radical Honesty: Culture and Religion, or Refugee Status [B] 40 SA Media: Endorse Legal and Political Persecution of RH White Refugee, paragraphs 86-98] and deliberate indifference to media corruption and media censorship, in response to the following communications of relevance to the “RH/WR ‘DELIBERATE INDIFFERENCE’ DISCLOSURE”

and

“‘DELIBERATE

INDIFFERENCE’

TO

MEDIA

CORRUPTION

DISCLOSURE” review issues: A.

[Request Saturday Star Official Comment on Free Speech Legal Issue: Non-violent civil disobedience Radical Honesty expression of Dissent to Politically Correct Tyrannical Insanity. American politician and author Dr. Brad Blanton accuses SA Government of conducting a legal prosecution

and

persecution

campaign

against

non-violent

civil

disobedience Free Speech dissenter; sent 23 February, 2010, at 11:57 AM]220 B.

[Confirmation of Saturday Star Negligent and/or Deliberate Indifference to Radical Honesty Free Speech Legal Issue, sent 26 February 2010 @ 03:42 AM, and RE: Response to Saturday Star: Mr. Seery: "Deliberate

218 219 220

http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100823_greenscorpions-saps-823-8-2010?mode=a_p http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100222_satstar_bseery?mode=a_p http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100222_satstar_bseery?mode=a_p

44


Indifference" communication received. Thank you.; sent 26 February, 2010 @ 13:20 PM]221 C.

[IOL: Sat. Star: Ed: Mr. B Seery; RE: Final Report: 140 of SA Elite; say ‘No Thanks’ to the Rule-of-Law: Why We Are African White Refugees: 140 of SA Elite; say ‘No Thanks’ to the Rule-of-Law; sent March 17, 2010 @ 18:37 PM]222

D.

[Att: Mr. Brendan Seery, Editor; Req Saturday Star's Position on media corruption and media censorship, sent Monday, July 26, 2010 at 12:22 AM]223

[50]

The Seventy-Third and Seventy-Fourth Respondents are respectively SOWETAN and its EDITOR: BONGANI KESWA. They are cited respectively in their capacities as the corporate news publication, and its editor in charge, who: 1.

Confirmed the Sowetan’s representation of “deliberate indifference” to the persecution of Radical Honesty White Refugees [“Deliberate Indifference: Bongani Keswa (Editor, Sowetan) is deliberately indifferent to certain people of certain ethnicities and/or ideologies and/or cultures and/or religions being politically and legally persecuted and prosecuted; and you fit one or more of those particular ethnic, ideological, cultural or religious categories, towards whom, Sowetan is deliberately indifferent.”224]; as subsequently detailed in Radical Honesty SA Ecolaw Amicus to Concourt Chapter [V] Radical Honesty: Culture and Religion, or Refugee Status [B] 40 SA Media: Endorse Legal and Political Persecution of RH White Refugee, paragraphs 86-98] and deliberate indifference to media corruption and media censorship, in response to the following

communications

INDIFFERENCE’

of

relevance

to

the

“RH/WR

‘DELIBERATE

DISCLOSURE” and “‘DELIBERATE INDIFFERENCE’ TO

MEDIA

CORRUPTION DISCLOSURE” review issues: A.

[Request Sowetan (Mr. B. Keswa) Official Comment on Free Speech Legal Issue: Non-violent civil disobedience Radical Honesty expression of Dissent to Politically Correct Tyrannical Insanity. American politician and author Dr. Brad Blanton accuses SA Government of conducting a legal prosecution and persecution campaign against non-

221 222 223 224

http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100222_satstar_bseery?mode=a_p http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100222_satstar_bseery?mode=a_p http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100222_satstar_bseery?mode=a_p http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100222_rhwr_sowetan-bkeswa?mode=a_p

45


violent civil disobedience Free Speech dissenter; sent 24 & 26 February, 2010, at 12:29 PM @ 15:26 PM]225 B.

[Confirmation of Sowetan Negligent and/or Deliberate Indifference to Radical Honesty Free Speech Legal Issue; sent 26 February, 2010 @ 15:43 AM]226

C.

[Att: Mr. Bongani Keswa, Editor; Req. Sowetan Position on media corruption and media censorship, sent Monday, July 26, 2010 at 07:50 AM]227

D.

He is also one of the 22 accused SANEF editors in the complaint to the Green Scorpions/SAPS/PCLU: CAS 823-08-2010: Criminal Charges: Bribery Conspiracy to Censor Ecolaw TRC fraud evidence before Concourt from Public’s Right to Know, to (a) enable TRC elite to retain TRC-PR benefits & (b) obstruct administration of Ecolaw Concourt justice228.

[51]

The Seventy-Fifth and Seventy-Sixth Respondents are respectively THE HERALD and its EDITOR: JEREMY MCCABE. They are cited respectively in their capacities as the corporate news publication, and its editor in charge, who: 1.

Confirmed THE HERALD’s representation of “deliberate indifference” to the persecution of Radical Honesty White Refugees [“Deliberate Indifference: Jeremy McCabe (Editor, The Herald) is deliberately indifferent to certain people of certain ethnicities and/or ideologies and/or cultures and/or religions being politically and legally persecuted and prosecuted; and you fit one or more of those particular ethnic, ideological, cultural or religious categories, towards whom, The Herald is deliberately indifferent.”229]; as subsequently detailed in Radical Honesty SA Ecolaw Amicus to Concourt Chapter [V] Radical Honesty: Culture and Religion, or Refugee Status [B] 40 SA Media: Endorse Legal and Political Persecution of RH White Refugee, paragraphs 86-98] and deliberate indifference to media corruption and media censorship, in response to the following

communications

INDIFFERENCE’

of

relevance

to

the

“RH/WR

‘DELIBERATE

DISCLOSURE” and “‘DELIBERATE INDIFFERENCE’ TO

MEDIA

CORRUPTION DISCLOSURE” review issues:

225 226 227 228 229

http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100222_rhwr_sowetan-bkeswa?mode=a_p http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100222_rhwr_sowetan-bkeswa?mode=a_p http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100222_rhwr_sowetan-bkeswa?mode=a_p http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100823_greenscorpions-saps-823-8-2010?mode=a_p http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100222_rhwr_herald-jmccabe?mode=a_p

46


A.

[Request The Herald’s Official Comment on Free Speech Legal Issue: Non-violent civil disobedience Radical Honesty expression of Dissent to Politically Correct Tyrannical Insanity. American politician and author Dr. Brad Blanton accuses SA Government of conducting a legal prosecution

and

persecution

campaign

against

non-violent

civil

disobedience Free Speech dissenter; sent 23 February, 2010, at 12:21 PM]230 B.

[RE:

Confirmation

of

the

Herald's

Negligent

and/or

Deliberate

Indifference to Radical Honesty Free Speech Legal Issue; sent 03 March, 2010 @ 01:31 AM]231 C.

[Herald: Ed: Mr. J. McCabe; RE: Final Report: 140 of SA Elite; say ‘No Thanks’ to the Rule-of-Law: Why We Are African White Refugees: 140 of SA Elite; say ‘No Thanks’ to the Rule-of-Law; sent March 17, 2010 @ 18:08 PM]232

D.

[Att: Mr. Jeremy McCabe, Editor; Req. The Herald Position on media corruption and media censorship, sent Monday, July 26, 2010 at 21:06 PM]233

E.

He is also one of the 22 accused SANEF editors in the complaint to the Green Scorpions/SAPS/PCLU: CAS 823-08-2010: Criminal Charges: Bribery Conspiracy to Censor Ecolaw TRC fraud evidence before Concourt from Public’s Right to Know, to (a) enable TRC elite to retain TRC-PR benefits & (b) obstruct administration of Ecolaw Concourt justice234.

[52]

The Seventy-Seventh and Seventy-Eight Respondents are respectively VOLKSBLAD and its EDITOR: AINSLEY MOOS. They are cited respectively in their capacities as the corporate news publication, and its editor in charge, who: 1.

Confirmed Volksblad’s representation of “deliberate indifference” to the persecution of Radical Honesty White Refugees [“Deliberate Indifference: Ainsley Moos (Editor, Volksblad) is deliberately indifferent to certain people of certain ethnicities and/or ideologies and/or cultures and/or religions being politically and legally persecuted and prosecuted; and you fit one or more of those particular ethnic, ideological, cultural or religious categories, towards

230 231 232 233 234

http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100222_rhwr_herald-jmccabe?mode=a_p http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100222_rhwr_herald-jmccabe?mode=a_p http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100222_rhwr_herald-jmccabe?mode=a_p http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100222_rhwr_herald-jmccabe?mode=a_p http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100823_greenscorpions-saps-823-8-2010?mode=a_p

47


whom, Volksblad is deliberately indifferent.”235]; as subsequently detailed in Radical Honesty SA Ecolaw Amicus to Concourt Chapter [V] Radical Honesty: Culture and Religion, or Refugee Status [B] 40 SA Media: Endorse Legal and Political Persecution of RH White Refugee, paragraphs 86-98] and deliberate indifference to media corruption and media censorship, in response to the following

communications

INDIFFERENCE’

of

relevance

to

the

“RH/WR

‘DELIBERATE

DISCLOSURE” and “‘DELIBERATE INDIFFERENCE’ TO

MEDIA

CORRUPTION DISCLOSURE” review issues: A.

[Request Volksblad Official Comment on Free Speech Legal Issue: Nonviolent civil disobedience Radical Honesty expression of Dissent to Politically Correct Tyrannical Insanity. American politician and author Dr. Brad Blanton accuses SA Government of conducting a legal prosecution

and

persecution

campaign

against

non-violent

civil

disobedience Free Speech dissenter; sent 23 February, 2010, at 12:12 PM]236 B.

[Confirmation of Volksblad Negligent and/or Deliberate Indifference to Radical Honesty Free Speech Legal Issue; sent 26 February, 2010 @ 03:53 AM]237

C.

[Volksblad: Ed: Mr. A. Moos; RE: Final Report: 140 of SA Elite; say ‘No Thanks’ to the Rule-of-Law: Why We Are African White Refugees: 140 of SA Elite; say ‘No Thanks’ to the Rule-of-Law; sent March 17, 2010 @ 07:40 PM]238

D.

[Att: Mr. A. Moos, Redakteur; Req. Volksblad Position on media corruption and media censorship, sent Monday, July 26, 2010 at 21:16 PM]239

E.

He is also one of the 22 accused SANEF editors in the complaint to the Green Scorpions/SAPS/PCLU: CAS 823-08-2010: Criminal Charges: Bribery Conspiracy to Censor Ecolaw TRC fraud evidence before Concourt from Public’s Right to Know, to (a) enable TRC elite to retain TRC-PR benefits & (b) obstruct administration of Ecolaw Concourt justice240.

235 236 237 238 239 240

http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/10-02-22__volksblad__ed_ainsley_moos?mode=a_p http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/10-02-22__volksblad__ed_ainsley_moos?mode=a_p http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/10-02-22__volksblad__ed_ainsley_moos?mode=a_p http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/10-02-22__volksblad__ed_ainsley_moos?mode=a_p http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/10-02-22__volksblad__ed_ainsley_moos?mode=a_p http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100823_greenscorpions-saps-823-8-2010?mode=a_p

48


[53]

The Seventy-Ninth Respondent is ROD AMNER. He is cited in his capacity as Professor at the School of Journalism and Media Studies, Rhodes University, whose: 1.

Conduct Representation is that of deliberate indifference to being informed of media corruption and media censorship, in response to the following communications of relevance to the “‘DELIBERATE INDIFFERENCE’ TO MEDIA CORRUPTION DISCLOSURE” review issues: A.

[Att: Prof. Rod Amner; Update: Concourt 23-10: Media Censorship of Radical Honesty Ecolaw TRC Act Amicus, sent Thu 8/26/2010 12:37 AM]241

[54]

The Eightieth Respondent is ROBERT BRAND. He is cited in his capacity as Professor at the School of Journalism and Media Studies at Rhodes University, whose: 1.

Conduct Representation is that of deliberate indifference to being informed of media corruption and media censorship, in response to the following communications of relevance to the “‘DELIBERATE INDIFFERENCE’ TO MEDIA CORRUPTION DISCLOSURE” review issues: A.

[Att: Prof. R. Brand, Rhodes; Update: Concourt 23-10: Media Censorship of Radical Honesty Ecolaw TRC Act Amicus, sent Thu 8/26/2010 12:42 AM.]242

[55]

The Eighty-First Respondent is GUY BERGER. He is cited in his capacity as Head of the School of Journalism and Media Studies at Rhodes University, whose: 1.

Conduct Representation is that of deliberate indifference to being informed of media corruption and media censorship, in response to the following communications of relevance to the “‘DELIBERATE INDIFFERENCE’ TO MEDIA CORRUPTION DISCLOSURE” review issues: A.

[Att: Prof. G. Berger; Update: Concourt 23-10: Media Censorship of Radical Honesty Ecolaw TRC Act Amicus, sent Thu 8/26/2010 12:56 AM.]243

[56]

The Eighty-Second Respondent is HARRY DUGMORE. He is cited in his capacity as Professor at the School of Journalism and Media Studies, Rhodes University, whose: 1.

Conduct Representation is that of deliberate indifference to being informed of media corruption and media censorship, in response to the following

241 242 243

http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100820_0826_iv_amicus-corr?mode=a_p http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100820_0826_iv_amicus-corr?mode=a_p http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100820_0826_iv_amicus-corr?mode=a_p

49


communications of relevance to the “‘DELIBERATE INDIFFERENCE’ TO MEDIA CORRUPTION DISCLOSURE” review issues: A.

[Att: Prof. H. Dugmore, Rhodes; Update: Concourt 23-10: Media Censorship of Radical Honesty Ecolaw TRC Act Amicus, sent Thu 8/26/2010 12:43 AM.]244

[57]

The Eighty-Third Respondent is HAROLD GESS. He is cited in his capacity as Professor at the School of Journalism and Media Studies, Rhodes University, whose: 1.

Conduct Representation is that of deliberate indifference to being informed of media corruption and media censorship, in response to the following communications of relevance to the “‘DELIBERATE INDIFFERENCE’ TO MEDIA CORRUPTION DISCLOSURE” review issues: A.

[Att: Prof. H. Gess, Rhodes Univ.; Update: Concourt 23-10: Media Censorship of Radical Honesty Ecolaw TRC Act Amicus, sent Thu 8/26/2010 12:45 AM]245

[58]

The Eighty-Fourth Respondent is JANE DUNCAN. She is cited in her capacity as Professor and Chair of Media and Information Society at Rhodes University, whose: 1.

Conduct Representation is that of deliberate indifference to being informed of media corruption and media censorship, in response to the following communications of relevance to the “‘DELIBERATE INDIFFERENCE’ TO MEDIA CORRUPTION DISCLOSURE” review issues: A.

[Att: Prof. J. Duncan, Rhodes; Update: Concourt 23-10: Media Censorship of Radical Honesty Ecolaw TRC Act Amicus, sent Thu 8/26/2010 12:47 AM.]246

[59]

The Eighty-Fifth Respondent is ANTON HARBER. He is cited in his capacity as Professor of Journalism at University of Witwatersrand, whose: 1.

Conduct Representation is that of deliberate indifference to being informed of media corruption and media censorship, in response to the following communications of relevance to the “‘DELIBERATE INDIFFERENCE’ TO MEDIA CORRUPTION DISCLOSURE” review issues:

244 245 246

http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100820_0826_iv_amicus-corr?mode=a_p http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100820_0826_iv_amicus-corr?mode=a_p http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100820_0826_iv_amicus-corr?mode=a_p

50


A.

[Att: Prof. A. Harber, Wits Univ.; Update: Concourt 23-10: Media Censorship of Radical Honesty Ecolaw TRC Act Amicus, sent Thu 8/26/2010 12:50 AM]247

[60]

The Eighty-Sixth Respondent is FRANZ KRUGER. He is cited in his capacity as Professor of Journalism at University of Witwatersrand, whose: 1.

Conduct Representation is that of deliberate indifference to being informed of media corruption and media censorship, in response to the following communications of relevance to the “‘DELIBERATE INDIFFERENCE’ TO MEDIA CORRUPTION DISCLOSURE” review issues: A.

[Att: Prof. F. Kruger, Wits Univ.; Update: Concourt 23-10: Media Censorship of Radical Honesty Ecolaw TRC Act Amicus, sent Thu 8/26/2010 12:52 AM.]248

[61]

The Eightieth-Seventh Respondent is WILLIAM BIRD. He is cited in his capacity as Director of Media Monitoring Africa, whose: 1.

Conduct Representation is that of deliberate indifference to being informed of media corruption and media censorship, in response to the following communications of relevance to the “‘DELIBERATE INDIFFERENCE’ TO MEDIA CORRUPTION DISCLOSURE” review issues: A.

[Att: William Bird, MMA; Update: Concourt 23-10: Media Censorship of Radical Honesty Ecolaw TRC Act Amicus, sent Thu 8/26/2010 12:40 AM.]249

[62]

The Eighty-Eighth Respondent is PROJOURN STEERING COMMITTEE. The Projourn Steering Committee is cited in its capacity acting as an administrative decision-making body for PROJOURN, whose: 1.

Conduct Representation is that of deliberate indifference to being informed of media corruption and media censorship, in response to the following communications of relevance to the “‘DELIBERATE INDIFFERENCE’ TO MEDIA CORRUPTION DISCLOSURE” review issues:

247 248 249

http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100820_0826_iv_amicus-corr?mode=a_p http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100820_0826_iv_amicus-corr?mode=a_p http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100820_0826_iv_amicus-corr?mode=a_p

51


A.

[Att: Projourn Steering Committee; Update: Concourt 23-10: Media Censorship of Radical Honesty Ecolaw TRC Act Amicus, sent Thu 8/26/2010 1:14 PM]250

ISSUE: ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT OF CORRUPT CORPORATE PERSONHOOD [63]

The documentary, The Corporation251, based on The Corporation: The Pathological Pursuit of Profit and Power shows the development of the contemporary business corporation, from a legal entity that originated as a government-chartered institution meant to effect specific public functions, to the rise of the modern commercial institution entitled to most of the legal rights of a person. One theme is its assessment as a "personality", as a result of an 1886 case in the United States Supreme Court in which a statement by Chief Justice Morrison R. Waite252 led to corporations as "persons" having the same rights as human beings, based on the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The film's assessment is effected via the diagnostic criteria in

the

University

DSM-IV; of

Robert British

Hare,

a

Columbia

psychology professor and a consultant to the FBI, compares the profile of the contemporary

profitable

business

corporation to that of a clinicallydiagnosed psychopath. [64]

A critic of corporate personhood, Thom Hartmann253 argues in Unequal Protection: The Rise of Corporate Dominance and the Theft of Human Rights254, subsequent editions: Unequal Protection: How Corporations Became "People" - And How You Can Fight Back that there was an intentional misinterpretation of the Supreme Court case on behalf of Corporate Personhood inserted into the Court record by reporter J.C. Bancroft Davis. The Secret of Life: Corporate Personhood255 provides a brief description of Hartmann’s argument: Bancroft Davis had previously served as president of Newburgh and New York Railway

250

http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100820_0826_iv_amicus-corr?mode=a_p The Corporation (www.thecorporation.com) is a 2003 Canadian documentary by Joel Bakan, Mark Achbar & Jennifer Abbott. 252 "The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does." However, the Supreme Court decision did not itself address the matter of whether corporations were 'persons' with respect to the Fourteenth Amendment; in Chief Justice Waite's words, "we avoided meeting the question". (118 U.S. 394 (1886) - According to the official court Syllabus in the United States Reports) 253 Thom Hartmann (born May 7, 1951) is an American radio host, author, former psychotherapist and entrepreneur, and a progressive political commentator. His nationally-syndicated radio show, The Thom Hartmann Program, airs in the United States and has 2.75 million unique listeners a week. In 2008, 2009, and 2010, Talkers Magazine named Hartmann the tenth most important talk show host in America, defining him as the most important liberal host (the nine above Hartmann are conservatives). 254 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unequal_Protection:_The_Rise_of_Corporate_Dominance_and_the_Theft_of_Human_Rights 255 http://secret-of-life.org/corporate-personhood 251

52


Co. According to Hartmann in the May 10, 1886: Santa Clara County vs. the Southern Pacific Railroad Company - Supreme Court Case: The entire case was not even decided by the Supreme Court Justices, what happened was that the headnotes, which are not legally binding and which were written by a clerk of the court (not a Justice) said that the case had decided the issue of corporate personhood in the favor of the railroad company, even though it had not. This decision however, influenced future court cases for many years to come. Once it had been embedded in the US court system, there was no turning back. So what was the case about, that ended up being decided by headnotes from a clerk of the court? One, aspect of the concentration of wealth that worried Jefferson and most American legislatures in those decades was that with enough wealth, a corporation can keep trying in the courts for centuries (literally centuries, because they don't die), no matter how much it costs until they get what they want. And ultimately that's what happened... In the decade leading up to this May Day in 1886, the railroads had lost every Supreme Court case that they had brought seeking 14th amendment rights. To this day there has been no Supreme Court ruling that could explain why a corporation -- with its ability to continue operating forever -a legal agreement that can't be put in jail and doesn't need fresh water to drink or clean air to breathe -- should be granted the same constitutional rights American founders explicitly fought for, died for, and granted to the very mortal human beings who are citizens of the United States [and the world] to protect them against the perils of imprisonment and suppression they had experienced under a desperate king. See also documentary: Thom Hartman vs. Corporate Personhood256. [65]

In Green Candidates call for end of Corporate Personhood257, Greenchange report that over 110 Green Party Candidates have endorsed “stripping [corporations] of artificial ‘personhood’ and constitutional protections,” along with “revoking the charters of corporations that routinely violate safety, health, environmental protection or other laws.”

Among others, Democratic Congressional Representative Dennis

Kucinich258, former Candidate’s for U.S President Ralph Nader259 and Mike Gravel260, the non-partisan group Reclaim Democracy261 have all called for the abolishment of corporate personhood, due to corporate personhoods toxic effects on republican democracy.

256

Thom Hartman vs. Corporate Personhood: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hziy7WR9TQc Corporate Personhood and Money as Speech: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0FtSfUSy28w http://www.greenchange.org/article.php?id=6133 258 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6FY3YlxND4 259 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQ-k3eCcU0w and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DM585_htT-8 260 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wEwRR0eFuAQ 261 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0FtSfUSy28w 257

53


[66]

In When Corporations Rule the World, David Korten262 critiques current methods of economic development led by the Bretton Woods institutions and asserts his desire to rebalance the power of multinational corporations with concern for environment sustainability. Korten criticises consumerism, market deregulation, free trade, privatization and what he sees as the global consolidation of corporate power. Above all he rejects any focus on money as the purpose of economic life. His prescriptions include excluding corporations from political participation, increased state and global control of international corporations and finance, rendering financial speculation unprofitable and creating local economies that rely on local resources, rather than international trade.

[67]

In his award winning 2002 documentary for the BBC, The Century of the Self263, Adam Curtis264 describes how Sigmund Freud's family, exerted a surprising amount of influence on the way corporations and governments throughout the 20th century have used Freuds theories to psychologically engineer and manipulate citizens into the false illusionary belief that the power is finally in their hands, that they live in a ‘democracy’; that they are in charge, while their sense of identity has been subconsciously manipulated from that of citizen to consumer, fueling the massive growth of the mass-consumer society, and the corporatist Orwellian dictatorship.

[68]

In Michael Tsarion’s265 documentaries, The Age of Manipulation266, and Architects of Control Program267: he deals extensively with the evidentiary information on the role of media, advertising and public relations as a psychic dictatorship to manipulate the masses by psychological warfare brainwashing techniques to destroy citizens identity’s as patriotic rational citizens, and mould their identities into psychologically insecure, dumbed-down, consumerist mind-enslaved automatonic zombies. One of Tsarion’s conclusions being that the Soviet Union was a massive experiment in social control; and how many of the methods for social control perfected under the Soviet Union are used by the West in more subtle ways. Psywar – The real battlefield is your mind268, also provides background information on this phenomena.

[69]

Yuri Alexandrovich Bezmenov (also known as Tomas David Schuman; 1939 – 1997) was a journalist for RIA Novosti and a former KGB informant from the Soviet Union who

262

David C. Korten (1937– ) is an American economist, author, and former Professor of the Harvard University Graduate School of Business, political activist and prominent critic of corporate globalization, "by training and inclination a student of psychology and behavioral systems". 263 2002: The Century of the Self (BBC Four) documented how Freud's discoveries concerning the unconscious led to Edward Bernays' development of public relations, the use of desire over need and self-actualisation as a means of achieving economic growth and the political control of population. It received the Broadcast Award for Best Documentary Series and the Longman/History Today Awards for Historical Film of the Year. It was released in the US through art house cinemas and was picked as the fourth best movie of 2005 by Entertainment Weekly. 264 Adam Curtis (born 1955) is a British television documentary maker who has during the course of his television career worked as a writer, producer, director and narrator. He currently works for BBC Current Affairs. His programmes express a clear (and sometimes controversial) opinion about their subject, and he narrates the programmes himself. 265 http://michaeltsarion.com/ 266 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7l-T61gJoHs 267 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7MUGZ6JuRI 268 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7A2hVDdB10

54


defected to Canada. After being assigned to a station in India, Bezmenov eventually grew to love the people and culture of India, while, at the same time, he began to resent the KGB-sanctioned oppression of intellectuals who dissented from Moscow's policies. He is best known for his interview with Edward G. Griffin: Deception was my Job: Soviet Subversion of the Free World Press269, wherein he explained the psychological warfare methods used by the KGB to secretly subvert the democratic system of the United States. [70]

In The CIA and the Media270, Carl Bernstein, from the Washington Post, writes about how “Americas Most Powerful News Media Worked Hand in Glove with the Central Intelligence Agency and Why the Church Committee Covered It Up”.

[71]

In The Persuaders271 Douglass Rushkoff of PBS explore’s what’s going on in today’s marketers and advertising businesses; how the Public Relations industry has been given the responsibility to maintain the entire system of meaning, through which consumers get their sense of consumer identity and understanding of their role as a consumer in the world of consumerism identity. What are the new and surprising methods the PR industry is using to decipher who citizens are and what they want and how to manipulate them. How the study of cults was adapted to marketing brands, to manipulate a brand’s consumers into blind consumer obedience, in the same way cults manipulate their cult followers, and what the future holds.

[72]

In Douglass Rushkoff’s272 book Life, Inc: How the World became a Corporation and How to Take It Back273 Rushkoff takes a look at physical currency and the history of corporatism. Beginning with an overview of how money has been gradually centralized throughout time, and pondering the reasons and consequences of such a fact, he goes on to demonstrate how our society has become defined by and controlled by corporate culture. Douglas Rushkoff’s philosophy views everything except for intention as media, he frequently explores the themes of how to make media interactive, how to help people (especially children) effectively analyze and question the media they consume, as well as how to cultivate intention and agency.

[73]

Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media274 (1988), by Edward S. Herman275 and Noam Chomsky276, is an analysis of the news media as

269

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2307456730142665916 http://why-we-are-white-refugees.blogspot.com/2010/12/cia-and-media-fighting-cold.html http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/persuaders/ and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-hqWw3W5_bI 272 Douglas Rushkoff (born 18 February 1961) is an American media theorist, writer, columnist, lecturer, graphic novelist and documentarian. Rushkoff is most frequently regarded as a media theorist, and known for coining terms and concepts including viral media (or media virus), digital native, and social currency 273 2009. Life, Inc.: How the World Became A Corporation and How To Take It Back, by Douglass Rushkoff 274 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_model 275 Edward S. Herman (born 7 April 1925) is an economist and media analyst with a specialty in corporate and regulatory issues as well as political economy and the media. He is Professor Emeritus of Finance at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania. He also teaches at 270 271

55


business. The title derived from “the manufacture of consent” by essayist–editor Walter Lippmann (1889–1974) in his book Public Opinion (1922). [74]

Others include: The State of the Media277 a C-Span Town Hall Media and Democracy Congress Panel discussion, Corporate Bodies and Guilty Minds: The Failure of Corporate Criminal Liability, by William S. Laufer; Gangs of America: The Rise of Corporate Power and the Disabling of Democracy, by Ted Nace278; Capitalism's Achilles Heel: Dirty Money and How to Renew the Free-Market System, by Raymond W Baker, The Divine Right of Capital: Dethroning the Corporate Aristocracy, by Marjorie Kelly and William Greider, Manufacturing Consent in Democratic South Africa: Application of the Propaganda model, by Scott Lovaas; Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission - Jeffrey Tobin279, Colbert Report on Corporate Personhood; Letter to Justice Kennedy about Corporate Personhood280, Andrew Weinstein, Tikkun: Isn’t it abundantly clear to you that by ruling that corporations are citizens that you are violating both the spirit and the letter of our founding document, the Constitution of these United States? Not only is this a gross violation of original intent, it seems to me, it beggars common sense and rates as rank stupidity. Corporate personhood is the Big Foot of legal theory -- there have been many sightings but no one has been able to bring forth any reliable evidence. By elevating corporations to persons with the rights of citizens you have cheapened citizenship and debased the Supreme Court and our system of laws. In fact, not only did many of the Founders have a deep mistrust of corporations, they also promoted a social charter for these non-human, non-citizen legal shells, with the corporate license liable to revocation if the corporation were found to be detrimental to society and did not enhance the public welfare. I also imagine that you would vehemently oppose any form of social charters for corporations. [..] The Founders knew that the democratic government and society they hoped would endure are bound together by bonds deeper than commerce, values more fundamental than markets. The American Dream that has evolved from “the pursuit of happiness,” is not the relentless aggregation of wealth, property and power of the corporation in the hands of the few but is ever expanding opportunity for the many to express their full human potential. This is “the greater union,” the American promise.

Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Pennsylvania. He received his Bachelor of Arts from University of Pennsylvania in 1945 and PhD in 1953 from the University of California, Berkeley. 276 Avram Noam Chomsky (born December 7, 1928) is an American linguist, philosopher, cognitive scientist, and political activist. He is an Institute Professor and professor emeritus of linguistics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Chomsky is well known in the academic and scientific community as one of the fathers of modern linguistics, and a major figure of analytic philosophy. Since the 1960s, he has become known more widely as a political dissident and an anarchist, referring to himself as a libertarian socialist. Chomsky is the author of more than 150 books and has received worldwide attention for his views, despite being typically absent from the mainstream media. 277 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcqSB09xqIA & http://thefilmarchived.blogspot.com/2010/11/christopher-hitchens-bill-moyers-and.html 278 Ted Nace (born 1956) is an American writer, publisher, and environmentalist notable for his critique of corporate personhood and his anti-coal activism. 279 http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/249057/september-15-2009/citizens-united-v--federal-election-commission---jeffreytoobin 280 http://www.tikkun.org/article.php/20100219172647463

56


[75]

In Flat Earth News: An Award-Winning Reporter Exposes Falsehood, Distortion and Propaganda in the Global Media281, Nick Davies writes that “journalism without checking is like a body without an immune system”. He “uncovers an industry awash in corruption and bias”, where “commercial forces are the main obstacle to truth-telling journalism”. In Our media have become mass producers of distortion: An industry whose task should be to filter out falsehood has become a conduit for propaganda and second hand news,282 he writes: I commissioned research from specialists at Cardiff University, who surveyed more than 2,000 UK news stories from the four quality dailies (Times, Telegraph, Guardian, Independent) and the Daily Mail. They found two striking things. First, when they tried to trace the origins of their "facts", they discovered that only 12% of the stories were wholly composed of material researched by reporters. With 8% of the stories, they just couldn't be sure. The remaining 80%, they found, were wholly, mainly or partially constructed from second-hand material, provided by news agencies and by the public relations industry. Second, when they looked for evidence that these "facts" had been thoroughly checked, they found this was happening in only 12% of the stories. The implication of those two findings is truly alarming. Where once journalists were active gatherers of news, now they have generally become mere passive processors of unchecked, second-hand material, much of it contrived by PR to serve some political or commercial interest. Not journalists, but churnalists. An industry whose primary task is to filter out falsehood has become so vulnerable to manipulation that it is now involved in the mass production of falsehood, distortion and propaganda.

ISSUE: ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT OF TRANSPARENT SCIENTIFIC JOURNALISM: 283

“Once a culture becomes advertising friendly, it ceases to be a culture at all”

“Advertising and Propaganda are antithetical to real journalism. In a democracy people have to have access to unbiased factual information to make rational reasonable decisions”284 -- Mark Crispin Miller, Professor of Media Ecology285, Steinhardt School of Culture, Education and Human Development, New York Univ., author: Mad Scientists: The Secret History of Modern Propaganda286

[76]

In Don't shoot messenger for revealing uncomfortable truths287, The Australian, December 08, 2010, Mr. Julian Assange writes: “WikiLeaks coined a new type of journalism: scientific journalism. We work with other media outlets to bring people the news, but also to prove it is true. Scientific journalism allows you to read a news story, then to click online to see the original document it is based on. That way you can judge for yourself: Is the story true? Did the journalist report it accurately?”

281

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Flat-Earth-News-Award-winning-Distortion/dp/0701181451 http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/feb/04/comment.pressandpublishing The Persuaders, PBS http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/persuaders/ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-hqWw3W5_bI 284 Russia Today Interview http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFPmUVU6eYE 285 http://steinhardt.nyu.edu/faculty_bios/view/Mark_Crispin_Miller 286 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HImJbRrs9kY 287 http://www.theaustralian.com.au/in-depth/wikileaks/dont-shoot-messenger-for-revealing-uncomfortable-truths/story-fn775xjq1225967241332 282 283

57


[77]

In Andy Greenberg's Forbes Interview of Assange288, Greenberg asks Assange: What do you think WikiLeaks mean for business? How do businesses need to adjust to a world where WikiLeaks exists? Mr. Assange proceeds to describe how Wikileaks restricts corrupt corporations or governments from abusing a commons, what psychologists refer to as the social trap289, such as for example: overfishing. In this case the exploitation of the ‘corporate trust and responsibility citizenship commons’, the erosion of which leads to anarchy and a total breakdown of the rule of law: WikiLeaks means it’s easier to run a good business and harder to run a bad business, and all CEOs should be encouraged by this. I think about the case in China where milk powder companies started cutting the protein in milk powder with plastics. That happened at a number of separate manufacturers. Let’s say you want to run a good company. It’s nice to have an ethical workplace. Your employees are much less likely to screw you over if they’re not screwing other people over. Then one company starts cutting their milk powder with melamine, and becomes more profitable. You can follow suit, or slowly go bankrupt and the one that’s cutting its milk powder will take you over. That’s the worst of all possible outcomes. The other possibility is that the first one to cut its milk powder is exposed. Then you don’t have to cut your milk powder. There’s a threat of regulation that produces self-regulation. It just means that it’s easier for honest CEOs to run an honest business, if the dishonest businesses are more effected negatively by leaks than honest businesses. That’s the whole idea. In the struggle between open and honest companies and dishonest and closed companies, we’re creating a tremendous reputational tax on the unethical companies. No one wants to have their own things leaked. It pains us when we have internal leaks. But across any given industry, it is both good for the whole industry to have those leaks and it’s especially good for the good players.

[78]

In Stalking the Wild Taboo, by Garrett Hardin290: Part 4: Competition: (20) Competition, a Tabooed Idea in Sociology; (21) The Cybernetics of Competition; (22) Population, Biology and the Law; (23) Population Skeletons in the Environmental Closet; (24) The Survival of Nations and Civilisations, he deals with the concept of Competition, a process that is inescapable in societies living in a finite resource world. He proves that the end result of perfect laissez-faire, competition’s end result reduces all competitors until there is only one left. The monopolist will try

288

http://blogs.forbes.com/andygreenberg/2010/11/29/an-interview-with-wikileaks-julian-assange/5/ Social trap is a term used by psychologists to describe a situation in which a group of people act to obtain short-term individual gains, which in the long run leads to a loss for the group as a whole. Examples of social traps include overfishing, the near-extinction of the American bison, energy "brownout" and "blackout" power outages during periods of extreme temperatures, the overgrazing of cattle on the Sahelian Desert, and the destruction of the rainforest by logging interests and agriculture. The term social trap was first introduced to the scientific community by John Platt's 1973 paper in American Psychologist (Platt, J. (1973) Social Traps, American Psychologist, 28, 641-65) building upon the concept of the "tragedy of the commons" in Garrett Hardin's pivotal article in Science (Hardin, G. (1968) The Tragedy of the Commons, Science, 162, 1243-1248), Platt and others in the seminar applied behavioral psychology concepts to actions of people operating in social traps. By applying the findings of basic research on "schedules of operant reinforcement" (B.F. Skinner 1938, 1948, 1953, 1957; Keller and Schoenfeld, 1950), Platt recognized that individuals operating for short-term positive gain ("reinforcement") had a tendency to over-exploit a resource, which led to a long-term overall loss to society.

289

290 Garrett James Hardin (21 April 1915 – 14 September 2003) was a leading ecologist from Dallas, Texas, who warned of the dangers of overpopulation and whose concept of the tragedy of the commons brought attention to "the damage that innocent actions by individuals can inflict on the environment". He was most well known for his elaboration of this theme in his 1968 paper, The Tragedy of the Commons. He is also known for Hardin's First Law of Ecology: "You cannot do only one thing".

58


to manipulate the machinery of society in such a way as to extend his powers everywhere, without limit. The same applies to labour monopolies. Under these conditions it is important to seek the boundary conditions within which the rule of laissez-faire can produce stability. An Act that may be harmless when the system is healthy and strong may be quite destructive when the system is stressed near its limits. To promote the goal of stability, a law must take cognizance not only of the act but also of the state of the system at the time the act is performed. Ben Bagdikian291 described the systemic process of corporate media cannibalism in Media Monopoly292. In that legal context, corporations who do not promote the goal of ecological stability, but who abuse the planet, should be denied any legal standing, and the law should take cognisance of the actions of corporations who promote the destruction of ecologically stable systems, including the state of the ecological system at the time of such corporate actions. [79]

Derrick Jensen293 is the author of The EndGame294, wherein he alleges that western industrialized culture is the most destructive ecological footprint culture to ever exist, that it refuses to change; that it has effectively declared war on the planet and all other living species on behalf of profits: This Means War295. Cultures that live in ecological harmony with the earth, live in relationship to the natural environment; Corporate and/or industrial cultures consider the earth to be objects and resources to be exploited or used purely for profit.

[80]

In Jared Diamonds Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed296, he “employs the comparative method to understand societal collapses to which environmental problems contribute.” He lists 12 environmental problems facing mankind today. The first eight have historically contributed to the collapse of past societies: (1) Deforestation and habitat destruction; (2) Soil problems (erosion, salinization, and soil fertility losses); (3) Water management problems (4) Overhunting; (5) Overfishing; (6) Effects of introduced species on native species; (7) Overpopulation; (8) Increased percapita impact of people. The root problem in all but one of Diamond's factors leading to collapse is overpopulation relative to the practicable (as opposed to the ideal theoretical) carrying capacity of the environment. The one factor not related to overpopulation is the harmful effect of accidentally or intentionally introducing nonnative species to a region. Diamond uses a "framework" when considering the

291

In 1971, whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg gave Bagdikian — then an editor at the Washington Post — portions of the Pentagon Papers, a top-secret classified history of the Vietnam War. Bagdikian passed a copy of the documents to Senator Mike Gravel, who promptly read them into the Congressional Record. 292 The Media Monopoly, Boston: Beacon Press, 1983. 293 http://www.derrickjensen.org/ 294 Derrick Jensen: The EndGame: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8649250863235826256 295 Derrick Jensen: This Means War: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xUtCKNEqfL8 296 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bc4bXIg8JDk

59


collapse of a society, consisting of five "sets of factors" that may affect what happens to a society: environmental damage, climate change, hostile neighbors, loss of trading partners, and the society's own denial responses and refusal to confront its ecological overshoot problems, before it is too late. Denial about & Cover-up of Ecological Overshoot Encouraging Instability & Anarchy: To promote the goal of stability, a law must take cognizance not only of the act but also of the state of the system at the time the act is performed. [81]

If the State of the System is ‘Brink of Ecological Overshoot into Anarchy and Collapse’; and the media’s ‘act’ is (a) censorship of root cause problem solving, while (b) encouraging the factors (population growth, resource consumption) towards Anarchy and Collapse; then the conclusion is that the Media’s Actions are deliberate and intentional on behalf of Anarchy and Instability.

[82]

Where is Society in the Act of Understanding Exponential Population Growth colliding with Exponentially Declining Resources? What is the role of the Media in Society’s Ignorance? What is the role of the media in deliberately keeping Society Ignorant, by means of Environment Population Connection censorship? Where is Ecological Societal System, in terms of Exponential Population Growth colliding with Exponentially Declining Resources? Is the Media Aggravating Instability by encouraging Population Growth and Increased Resource Consumption? Is the Media Encouraging Stability in favour of Population Stabilisation & Reduced Resource Exploitation?

[83]

Understanding Exponential Growth: Confronting Society’s Denial or Ignorance of its Ecological Overshoot problems: State of the System: 1.

As detailed in Is Humanity Suicidal?297 By Edward O. Wilson, in New York Times Magazine, on May 30 1993, “Earth is finite in many resources that determine the quality of life – including arable soil, nutrients, fresh water and space for natural ecosystems. Doubling of consumption at constant time intervals can bring disaster with shocking suddenness. Even when a non-renewable resource has been only half used, it is still only one interval away from the end. Ecologists like to make this point with the French riddle of the lily pond. At first there is only one lily pad in the pond, but the next day there are two, and thereafter each of its descendants doubles. The pond completely fills with lily pads in 30 days. When is the pond exactly half full? Answer: on the 29th day.”

297

http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/features/print/1298/is-humanity-suicidal?page=0%2C2

60


2.

In Revisiting The Limits to Growth: Could The Club of Rome Have Been Correct, After All?298, by Matthew R. Simmons: “In the book's chapter defining the deceptive powers of exponential growth and the apparent suddenness with which it approaches a fixed limit, the authors describe the French Riddle of the Lily Pond. In this riddle, the lily pond has a potentially virulent lily that apparently will double in size each day. If the lily grows unchecked it will cover the entire pond in 30 days, choking off all other forms of life in the water by the time it covers the entire pond. If a skeptic waited until 50% of the pond was covered before taking any remedial action to save the pond, when would he act? The answer: on the 29th day of the month! But by then, would be too late. The world can debate when corrective action needs to begin, if exponential growth suddenly shows all the classic signs of pending overshoot. But everyone should agree that waiting until the proverbial 29th day is a classic and unrepentable blunder of the first order.”

3.

World Population Balance: Understanding Exponential Growth299: “When most people talk about "growth" in our country, they consider it a completely positive and necessary thing, essential for maintaining the vitality and health of our economy and society. Our society's most revered economic indicators are all based on this fundamental idea: that continuing growth is vital for the health and preservation of our economy and country. In fact, growth is pretty much the only thing they measure! However, natural scientists (such as biologists, chemists, and physicists) know that this assumption must be false. In order for growth to continue forever, we would need an infinite amount of space, energy, and other resources to keep the growth going... and those resources are not infinite. So what happens to steady growth in a limited space? To help explain, we're going to use a simple example of bacteria growing in a bottle.” It asks the questions: “If you were one of the bacteria, when do you suppose you'd start to worry about overcrowding? Would that leave you enough time to do anything about it?”

4.

Ecological Overshoot and the Importance of Waking Up to the Reality of Understanding Exponential Growth are dealt with in detail in Dr. Al Bartlett’s300 celebrated

298 299 300

one-hour

Lecture:

Arithmetic,

Population

and

Energy:

http://www.energybulletin.net/node/1512 http://www.worldpopulationbalance.org/exponential-growth-tutorial/bacteria-exponential-growth.html http://www.albartlett.org/presentations/arithmetic_population_energy.html

61


Sustainability 101301 and Dr. Chris Martinson’s Crash Course302: Chapter 3 focuses on Exponential Growth303. [84]

What shall be the Consequences of Refusing to Confront and Plan for Mitigating Ecological Overshoot?: Anarchy and Resource Wars:

[85]

Military Predictors: According to Major Ralph Peters, The Culture of Future Conflict, US Army War College, Parameters, Winter 1995-96, pp. 18-27. “Resource scarcity will be a direct cause of confrontation, conflict, and war. The struggle to maintain access to critical resources will spark local and regional conflicts that will evolve into the most frequent conventional wars of the next century. Today, the notion of resource wars leads the Westerner to think immediately of oil, but water will be the fundamental need of some states, anti-states, and peoples. We envision a need to preserve rainforests, but expanding populations will increasingly create regional shortages of food-especially when nature turns fickle. We are entering the century of "not enough," and we will bleed for things we previously could buy. [.. ] Gross overpopulation will destroy fragile possibilities for progress in much of the non-Western world, and much of this problem is the West's fault. Our well intentioned introduction of relatively crude concepts of sanitation and disease control, combined with our determination to respond generously to local famines, has allowed populations to explode. [..] Basic resources will prove inadequate for populations exploding beyond natural limits, and we may discover truths about ourselves that we do not wish to know. In the end, the greatest challenge may be to our moral order.”

[86]

According to the Central Intelligence Agency and Pentagon Officials in Nightline, 2000 documentary304 with Ted Koppel; politicians refusal to confront reality, and the lack of political will, to act on exponential population growth colliding with declining resources, are the root causes of current resource wars over oil; which shall soon be manifested as resource wars over water, soil, arable land, etc.

[87]

As detailed in Matt Savinar’s: Life After the Oil Crash305: Civilization as we know it is coming to an end soon. This is not the wacky proclamation of a doomsday cult, apocalypse bible prophecy sect, or conspiracy theory society. Rather, it is the scientific conclusion of the best paid, most widely-respected geologists306, physicists307, bankers308, and investors309 in the world. These are rational, professional, conservative individuals who are absolutely terrified by a phenomenon known as global "Peak Oil." Oil will not just "run out" because all oil production follows a bell curve. This is true whether we're talking about an individual field, a country, or on the planet as a whole. Oil is increasingly plentiful on the upslope of the bell curve, increasingly scarce and expensive on the down slope. The peak of the curve coincides with the point at which the

301

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9znsuCphHUU http://www.chrismartenson.com/crashcourse or http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XnXZzx9pAmQ http://www.chrismartenson.com/crashcourse/chapter-3-exponential-growth and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2rTQpdyCFQ 304 Nightline Documentary Embedded Video available at: Boer Volkstaat 10/31/16 Theses: Briefing Paper: Executive Summary: TRC Just War Fraud: Population Policy Common Sense: [1] Population Policy Common Sense: Eco-Numeracy, Exponential Functions & Carrying Capacity, Youth Bulges Population Pressure Conflicts and Competitive Exclusion Principle: http://www.jussanguinis.com/BP/exec-summ.htm 305 http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/ 306 http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/102302_campbell.html 307 http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/111704_end_oil.shtml 308 http://www.texasmonthly.com/2008-02-01/feature2.php 309 http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2005/12/26/8364646/ 302 303

62


endowment of oil has been 50 percent depleted. Once the peak is passed, oil production begins to go down while cost begins to go up. In practical and considerably oversimplified terms, this means that if 2005 was the year of global Peak Oil310, worldwide oil production in the year 2030 will be the same as it was in 1980. However, the world’s population in 2030 will be both much larger (approximately twice) and much more industrialized (oil-dependent) than it was in 1980. Consequently, worldwide demand for oil will outpace worldwide production311 of oil by a significant margin. As a result, the price will skyrocket, oil dependant economies will crumble, and resource wars will explode312.

[88]

Mr. Savinar’s site addresses Peak Oil’s consequences on food production, medicine, the illusions of alternative energy sources, most of which are totally reliant on cheap oil, etc. In regards to Peak Oil’s consequences on the financial system the following is stated: The relationship between the supply of oil and natural gas and the workings of the global financial system is arguably the key issue to dealing with Peak Oil as robost and smoothly function global capital markets must exist in order to power an orderly (or semi-orderly) transition process. In fact this relationship is far more important than alternative sources of energy, energy conservation, or the development of new energy technologies, all of which are discussed in detail on page two of this site313. In short, the global financial system is entirely dependent on a constantly increasing supply of oil and natural gas314. To illustrate, if home and business loans are issued with interest rates in the 7% range, the assumption underlying the loans is that the monetary supply will increase (on average) by 7% per year. But if that 7% yearly increase in the monetary supply is not matched by a 7% yearly increase in the amount of economic activity (goods and services), the result is hyper-inflation. The key is this: in order for there to be an increase in the amount of economic activity taking place, there must be an increase in the amount of net-energy (i.e. the net-number of BTUs) available to fuel those activities. As no alternative source or combination of sources comes even remotely close to the energy density of oil (125,000 BTUs per gallon, the equivalent of 150-500 hours of human labor), a decline or even plateau in the supply of oil carries such overwhelming consequences for the financial system. Dr. Colin Campbell presents an understandable model of this complete relationship as follows: It is becoming evident that the financial community begins to accept the reality of Peak Oil. They accept that banks created capital during this epoch by lending more than they had on deposit, being confident that tomorrow’s expansion, fuelled by cheap oil-based energy, was adequate collateral for today’s debt. The decline of oil, the principal driver of economic growth, undermines the validity of that collateral which in turn erodes the valuation of most entities quoted on Stock Exchanges.315 Commentator Robert Wise explains the connection between energy and money as follows: It's not physics, but it's true: money equals energy. Real, liquid wealth represents usable energy. It can be exchanged for fuel, for work, or for something built by the work of humans or fuel-powered machines. Real cost reflects the energy cost of doing something; real value reflects the energy expended to build something. Nearly all the work done in the world economy, all the manufacturing, construction, and transportation, is done with energy derived from fuel. The actual work done by human muscle power is miniscule by comparison. And, the

310 311 312 313 314 315

http://www.princeton.edu/hubbert/current-events.html http://money.cnn.com/2005/03/21/commentary/column_hays/hays/ http://www.tomdispatch.com/index.mhtml?pid=1888 http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/SecondPage.html http://www.museletter.com/archive/149.html http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/Archives2008/FinancialConsequences.html

63


lion's share of that fuel comes from oil and natural gas, the primary sources of the world's wealth.316 Author Dmitry Orlov offers the following explanation of how the debt-based financial currency used in a modern economy is actually dependent on an increasing supply of energy. Emphasis added: Although it is often thought that a [modern] economy produces value, as an empirical matter it can be observed that what it produces is debt. One borrows money in order to provide and to receive goods and services. Loans are extended based on the expectation that, in the future, demand for these services will be even higher, driving further economic growth. However, this economy is not a closed system: the delivery of these goods and services is linked to external energy flows. Greater flows of energy, in the form of increased oil and natural gas imports, increased coal production and so forth are failing to occur, for a variety of geological and geopolitical reasons. There is every reason to expect that the ability to deliver goods and services will suffer as a result of energy shortages, collapsing the debt pyramid.317 In October 2005, the normally conservative London Times acknowledged that the world's wealth may soon evaporate as we enter a technological and economic "Dark Age." In an article entitled "Waiting for the Lights to Go Out" Times columnist Bryan Appleyard reported: Oil is running out; the climate is changing at a potentially catastrophic rate; wars over scarce resources are brewing; finally, most shocking of all, we don't seem to be having enough ideas about how to fix any of these things. Almost daily, new evidence is emerging that progress can no longer be taken for granted, that a new Dark Age is lying in wait for ourselves and our children . . . growth may be coming to an end. Since our entire financial order from interest rates, pension funds, insurance, to stock markets is predicated on growth, the social and economic consequences may be cataclysmic. 318 [89]

The socio-political and economic consequences of Peak Oil will be severe, as detailed in [German] Military Study Warns of Potentially Drastic Oil Crisis, by Stefan Schultz, Der Spiegel319, 01 September 2010: A study by a German military think tank has analyzed how "peak oil" might change the global economy. The internal draft document -- leaked on the Internet -- shows for the first time how carefully the German government has considered a potential energy crisis. The term "peak oil" is used by energy experts to refer to a point in time when global oil reserves pass their zenith and production gradually begins to decline. This would result in a permanent supply crisis -- and fear of it can trigger turbulence in commodity markets and on stock exchanges. The issue is so politically explosive that it's remarkable when an institution like the Bundeswehr, the German military, uses the term "peak oil" at all. But a military study currently circulating on the German blogosphere goes even further. The study is a product of the Future Analysis department of the Bundeswehr Transformation Center, a think tank tasked with fixing a direction for the German military. The team of authors, led by Lieutenant Colonel Thomas Will, uses sometimesdramatic language to depict the consequences of an irreversible depletion of raw materials. It warns of shifts in the global balance of power, of the formation of new relationships based on interdependency, of a decline in importance of the western industrial nations, of the "total collapse of the markets" and of serious political and economic crises.

316 317 318 319

http://www.democrats.us/editorial/wise041105.shtml http://www.democrats.us/editorial/wise041105.shtml http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/article575370.ece http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,715138,00.html

64


[90]

In US Military warns oil output may dip causing massive shortages by 2015320, Terry MacAlister warns that the military report states that the “shortfall could reach 10 m barrels a day, and that the cost of crude oil is predicted to top $100 per barrel, which would have significant economic and political impacts.

[91]

In the third military Peak Oil report of 2010 Fueling the Future Force: Preparing the Department of Defense for a Post-Petroleum Environment321 was published on 27 September by the Washington, DC “national security and defence” think tank, Center for a New American Security (CNAS). It warns that the US Department of Defense’s “massive energy needs” are met by petroleum – and “given projected supply and demand, we cannot assume that oil will remain affordable or that supplies will be available to the United States reliably three decades hence.” To remain as an effective fighting force, the entire US military must transition from oil over the coming 30 years. Of the three, the German one is the most blunt, as detailed in German Military Report: Peak Oil Could Lead to Collapse of Democracy322: Peak oil has happened or will happen some time around this year, and its consequences could threaten the continued survival of democratic governments, says a secret Germany military report that was leaked online. According to Der Spiegel, the report from a think-tank inside the German military warns that shrinking global oil supplies will threaten the world's economic foundations and possibly lead to mass-scale upheaval within the next 15 to 30 years. International trade would suffer as the cost of transporting goods across oceans would soar, resulting in "shortages in the supply of vital goods," the report states, as translated by Der Spiegel. The result would be the collapse of the industrial supply chain. "In the medium term the global economic system and every market-oriented national economy would collapse," the report states.

[92]

On 18 July 2006, PeakOil_RSA filed a 136 page Peak Oil Briefing Paper323 to the South African Government, Media and Civic Society organisations, c/o and via the then Minister of Intelligence: Mr. Ronnie Kasrils, which asked: “Is Gross Mismanagement of the nation’s energy policy and impeachable offense?” The political secession and economic relocalisation suggestions for mitigating a Post Peak Oil world, included: (i) Limit Population, (ii) Develop Alternative Energies; (iii) Reinvent the Way Money Works, i.e. implement local currencies; (iv) Save Energy; (v) Foster local communities, (vi) Get Out of Debt and (vii) Educate and Raise

320 321 322 323

Guardian: 11 April 2010: http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/apr/11/peak-oil-production-supply http://www.cnas.org/files/documents/publications/CNAS_Fueling%20the%20Future%20Force_NaglParthemore.pdf http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/0901/german-report-peak-oil-collapse-democracy/ 18 July 2006: Peak Oil RSA Briefing Paper: PDF: http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/060718__peakoil-rsa-briefingpaper

65


Awareness. The Briefing Paper was ignored by SA political, media and corporate elite. [93]

According to Joint Operating Environment – 2010324, issued by United States Joint Forces Command, issued on 18 February 2010: “The implications for future conflict are ominous, if energy supplies cannot keep up with demand and should states see the need to militarily secure dwindling energy resources. (p.26)…. By 2012, surplus oil production capacity could entirely disappear, and as early as 2015, the shortfall in output could reach nearly 10 MBD”

ISSUE: ‘DELIBERATE INDIFFERENCE’ TO MEDIA CORRUPTION: [94]

The issue of Deliberate Indifference by journalists and media editors to their own media corruption (intellectual dishonesty, hypocrisy and deception and fraud) is found by all Respondents to varying degrees in this chronology. While the Nazi Party, ‘evil Apartheid’ and corruption on steroids ANC have individuals who are willing to risk their careers to expose ANC corruption, the only professional journalist who publicly spoken out about media corruption in South Africa is David Bullard (The Hollow Men of Journalism325, and A mosquito buzzing in the dark *326).

[95]

Mr. Bullard describes how Mondli Makhanya (Second Respondent) submitted forged documents into the court record during court proceedings; and how all SA media editors informed hereof refused to publish this information. If those allegations were made against General Beki Cele or Helen Zille, the same media editors would be acting like starving vultures; but when it is one of their own, in fact the Chairman of SANEF, they cover it up; and remain silent. When it comes to media corruption, SA media’s editors, professors and Ombudsman don’t think the public have a right to know; that SA’s self-righteous editors are as corrupt, if not more corrupt than the politicians and civil servants they publicly flagellate and condemn for their own financial profit.

[96]

Except for David Bullard, it appears that there are no journalists or editors with the Milgramesque327 skills and capabilities to either (a) resist the temptation from participating in the dominant media corruption paradigm, and (b) cross the yellow journalism line of silence to expose their fellow colleague’s corruption. The media editor and media elite respondents herein cited, are as ideologically obedient to their

324

http://www.jfcom.mil/newslink/storyarchive/2010/JOE_2010_o.pdf http://www.newstime.co.za/rs_articles_contributors.asp?conid=9&recid=2357 http://www.newstime.co.za/column/DavidBullard/A_mosquito_buzzing_in_the_dark*/9/2200/ 327 Radical Honesty SA Amicus Curiae: [II] Truth and Forgiveness Social Contract Principles: (B). Stanley Milgram Studies on Obedience: Legal, SocioPolitical Implications, para.29; (C). Common Law Reasonableness Test: Skills and Competencies, para.30; and (D). Rule of Law and Forgiveness: Individuality, Independent and Integrity, para.31-33 http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100718_rhwr-concourt-amicus?mode=a_p 325 326

66


code of silence about fellow media editors corruption, as Adolf Eichmann was to Nazism; they lack the capabilities to cross the yellow line and expose their own. [97]

According to John Pilger: “It is not enough for journalists to see themselves as mere messengers without understanding the hidden agendas of the message and myths that surround it.”

[98]

In a Guardian article: Why Are Wars not being Reported Honestly328; John Pilger describes journalists and editors confirming their role as censorship agents, along similar lines of reasoning as detailed in Dr. T. Michael Maher’s report: How and Why Journalists Avoid the Population – Environment Connection,329 Pilger writes: "I am perfectly open to the accusation that we were hoodwinked," said Jeremy Paxman, talking about Iraq's non-existent weapons of mass destruction to a group of students last year. "Clearly we were." As a highly paid professional broadcaster, he omitted to say why he was hoodwinked. Dan Rather, who was the CBS news anchor for 24 years, was less reticent. "There was a fear in every newsroom in America," he told me, "a fear of losing your job... the fear of being stuck with some label, unpatriotic or otherwise." Rather says war has made "stenographers out of us" and that had journalists questioned the deceptions that led to the Iraq war, instead of amplifying them, the invasion would not have happened. This is a view now shared by a number of senior journalists I interviewed in the US. "Does that make journalists accomplices?" I asked him. "Yes... unwitting perhaps, but yes." What is the value of journalists speaking like this? The answer is provided by the great reporter James Cameron, whose brave and revealing filmed report, made with Malcolm Aird, of the bombing of civilians in North Vietnam was banned by the BBC. "If we who are meant to find out what the bastards are up to, if we don't report what we find, if we don't speak up," he told me, "who's going to stop the whole bloody business happening again?"

[99]

John Pilgers The War You Don’t See330 Pilger traces the motivations for such censorship back to the father of public relations: Edward Bernays, the nephew of Sigmund Freud.

[100]

In Bernays’s 1928 book Propaganda331, he described the conspiracy of manipulating the public with ‘public relations news’ to behave as psychologically insecure, dumbeddown, automatonic zombie consumers, instead of educating them to be rational selfsufficient ecologically responsible citizens, as follows: The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the

328

http://johnpilger.com/articles/why-are-wars-not-being-reported-honestly http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/mahertm_journo-env-pop-connection?mode=a_p http://www.johnpilger.com/videos/the-war-you-dont-see-trailer http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=egcTynu6sBk 331 Propaganda, by Edward L Bernays (Horace Liveright, 1928) 329 330

67


true ruling power of our country. We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society.” Media Conspiracy to Manipulate the Habits & Opinions of in favour of Consumerist Society, for Profit: [101]

In How and Why Journalists Avoid Population-Environment Connection332, Dr. T. Michael Maher writes: As we have seen, both land development economists and environmental experts acknowledge population growth as a key source of environmental change. But journalists frame environmental causality differently. Why? Communication theory offers several possibilities. First is the hegemony-theory interpretation: reports omit any implication that population growth might produce negative effects, in order to purvey the ideology of elites who make money from population growth. As Molotch and Lester (1974) put it, media content can be viewed as reflecting "the practices of those having the power to determine the experience of others" (p. 120). Since real estate, construction and banking interests directly support the media through advertising purchases, this interpretation seems plausible. A number of media critics (e.g., Gandy, 1982; Altschull, 1984; Bennett, 1988) have suggested that media messages reflect the values of powerful political and commercial interests. Burd (1972), Kaniss (1991) and others have pointed out that newspapers have traditionally promoted population growth in their cities through civic boosterism. Molotch (1976) even suggested that cities can best be understood as entities competing for population growth, with the city newspaper as chief cheerleader. Certainly most reporters would be incensed at the suggestion that they shade their reporting to placate commercial interests. But Breed’s classic study of social control in the newsroom (1955) showed that news managers’ values are transmissible to journalists through a variety of pressures: salaries, story assignments, layout treatment, editing, and a variety of other strategies that effectively shape news stories in ways acceptable to management.

[102]

In Nicholas Partridge’s documentary ANC: VIP’s of Violence333: Rev. John Gogotya describes the media’s role in glorifying political violence: “The moderate blacks were not selling the papers. We were presenting a nonviolent strategy, that did not say ‘Burn, baby Burn’. A strategy that said people must come together and sit down around a negotiating table. And this is not sensational stuff; it does not sell the papers.” – Rev. John Gogotya, ANC: VIP’s of Violence

[103]

The Radical Honesty SA Amicus before the Constitutional Court, in The Citizen v. McBride334 – totally censored by all the SA media -- makes this point very clearly in paragraph 7: Equity will not allow a statute to be used as a cloak for fraud: Mainstream Access-toDiscourse-Gatekeeper Editors censorship335 of nonviolent political grievances and

332

http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/mahertm_journo-env-pop-connection?mode=a_p http://why-we-are-white-refugees.blogspot.com/p/anc-vips-of-violence.html http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100718_rhwr-concourt-amicus?mode=a_p 335 “The moderate blacks were not selling the papers. We were presenting a non-violent strategy, that did not say ‘Burn, baby Burn’. A strategy that said people must come together and sit down around a negotiating table. And this is not sensational stuff; it does not sell the papers.” – Rev. 333 334

68


problem solving activism facilitate a pressure cooker socio-political reality for their ‘If it Bleads, it Leads’ corporate propaganda profits, in knowledge application of: ‘As long as there is some possibility of getting results by political means, the chances that any political group or individual will turn violent are truly radically small, or maybe vanishingly small’ 336; ‘The exposure in the media is what gets people’s attention. People follow what is happening in the news, not what is happening in the courts’337; ‘[Editors] abuse of media power, by means of strategies whereby they abuse public discourse/free speech resources; by providing certain parties with preferential and special access to such public discourse, and severely restricting or denying others any access to such public discourse338; Mainstream media avoid addressing or enquiring into root causes of problems as reported in How and Why Journalists Avoid Population – Environment connection339; and censor non-violent root-cause problem solving activism340.

CHRONOLOGY OF FACTS: “SAPA LIES”: 19 July 2007: Woman Defies Court over Rude De Lille SMS’s341 [104]

In 2002, Johnstone was of the assumption that if Hon. Patricia de Lille was provided with evidentiary documentation on any controversial issue, she would make an impartial enquiry of such documentation, and adopt root cause problem solving methods to deal with any problem resulting from the evidentiary documentation. Ms. De Lille’s response to the volumes of evidentiary documentation documenting that AIDS is an Iatrogenic (manmade) depopulation virus, unfortunately did not rise the high levels of integrity and honour I hoped she was capable of.

[105]

Mrs. De Lille was provided with extensive documentation detailing the Iatrogenic Origins of AIDS; such as on 14 January 2004 in: Notice of Legal and Political Delivery: Elimination of Executive Authorities Plausible Deniability: Iatrogenic Origins of AIDS Theory

342

, submitted to Ms. De Lille; c/o and via the Office of Mr. Tony Leon. On 07 July 2007,

Ms. De Lille was provided with a copy of: Notice of Withdrawal of Application for Leave to Review with a View to Appeal # A 696/04 (Et Al): Republic of South Africa: Official Notice: Elimination of Plausible Deniability: “AIDS IS A ‘BLACK’ DEPOPULATION VIRUS”

John Gogotya, ANC: VIP’s of Violence, documentary; “For revolutionary groups, the more murderous the deed, the more certain the media coverage.” -- Nicholas Partridge, Presenter, ANC: VIP’s of Violence. See: Transcript of ANC: VIP’s of Violence at: http://why-we-are-white-refugees.blogspot.com/p/anc-vips-of-violence.html 336 Clark McCauley, Ph.D, Prof. of Psychology at Bryn Mawr College, in When Does Political Anger Turn to Violence?, by Benedict Carey, New York Times, March 26, 2010 http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/28/weekinreview/28carey.html 337 Jean Pierre Mean, Group General Counsel and Chief Compliance Officer, SGS Group, In Confronting Corruption: The Business Case for an Effective Anti-Corruption Programme, by PricewaterhouseCoopers Intnl [PDF: www.pwc.com/anti-corruption] 338 (I) Power and the news media, Teun A. van Dijk, Univ. of Amsterdam, D. Paletz (Ed.), Political Communication & Action. (pp. 9-36). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press, 1995: http://www.discourses.org/OldArticles/Power%20and%20the%20news%20media.pdf 339 CCT 23-10: Statement of Consent by Dr. T. Michael Maher: http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100522_cct2310_affid-dr-t-m-maher?mode=a_p How and Why Journalists Avoid Population-Environment Connection: http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/mahertm_journo-env-pop-connection?mode=a_p 340 HC-WC 19963-09: 140 SA Elite Deliberate Indifference to Rule of Law: http://www.docstoc.com/docs/56239025/ 341 http://mybroadband.co.za/news/Cellular/698.html 342 http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/040129_za-gov_t-leon_iatrogenicaids?mode=a_p

69


[106]

On 10 July 2007 at 15:00 hrs I telephoned Mrs. de Lille, on her cellphone, to inform her of 07 July 2007: Notice of Withdrawal of Application for Leave to Review with a View to Appeal # A 696-04, subtitled, Official Notice: Elimination of Plausible Deniability: “AIDS IS A ‘BLACK’ DEPOPULATION VIRUS”343 document for her attention. De Lille was at home, ill. I informed De Lille who I was, and that I was calling her; in her capacity as Non Sub Judice Executive: Opposition Party344 as per the documentary information sent to her, on my behalf, by Mr. Tony Leon, leader of the DA/Opposition, dated 14 January 2004, Notice of Legal and Political Delivery: Elimination of Executive Authorities Plausible Deniability345. She accused me of being crazy for asserting that AIDS was of Iatrogenic Manmade Origins. I asked her whether she was also alleging that the thousands of Special Cancer Virus Program (SVCP)346 experiments mixing animal viruses with herpes viruses, as part of military experiments to create a virus that attacks the immune system, were crazy. Were the articles in the ANC’s official magazine Sechaba, by Mzaba in October and November 1988: Aids – Misinformation and Racism347, and Aids and the Imperialist Connection348, also crazy. She ended the conversation with: “Fuck Your [Legal Military] Document. Fuck Your Racist Conspiracy Theories about the [Manmade Biological Warfare] Origins of AIDS; and Fuck You!”

[107]

As noted in subsequent court documents in Founding Affidavit of Lara Johnstone; in support of Notice of Intention: Application for Leave and Judicial Review349 (HC-WC: #19963-09 & CT. Mag. Crt # 14/1198/08): At 15:23; 15:32 and 18:32 hrs, on 10 July 2007, I sent Mrs. De Lille three SMS’s; for the attention of: (i) Mr. Thabo Mbeki, (ii) Mr. Bulelani Ngcuka, (iii) Mr. J.S. Selebi, (iv) Mr. B.M. Skosana, (v) Mr. Nelson Mandela, and (vi) Mrs. Patricia de Lille; in her capacity of, Non Sub Judice Executive, Opposition Party. Then, at 10:23 and 11:32 hrs on 16 July 2007, I sent Mrs. De Lille two SMS’s; for the attention of (i) RSA

343

Notice of Withdrawal of Application for Leave to Review with a View to Appeal # A 696/04 (Et Al): Republic of South Africa: Official Notice: Elimination of Plausible Deniability: “AIDS IS A ‘BLACK’ DEPOPULATION VIRUS” (Pages 24) Notice of Legal & Political Delivery: Elimination of Executive Authorities Plausible Deniability: Iatrogenic Origins of AIDS Theory (i) Documentation, (ii) Investigation, & (iii) Disclosure Case GSH 20/2003] and [HC-CPD Appeal A 696-04 transfer to US Navy JAG, effective noon 18 July 2007: Elimination of South Africa’s Plausible Deniability: AIDS is a ‘Black’ Depopulation Virus] 345 http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/040129_za-gov_t-leon_iatrogenicaids?mode=a_p 346 Dr. Gallo’s Special Virus Cancer Program: Excerpt from In Lies We Trust: HIV & AIDS, by Dr. Leonard Horowitz: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9129648761733675891 Horowitz LG: Emerging Viruses: AIDS & Ebola: Nature, Accident or Intentional? http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/horowitz-lg__emerging-viruses?mode=a_p Special Virus Cancer Program: AIDS Flow Chart: http://www.scribd.com/doc/3280929/ August 1972: Special Virus Cancer Program Progress Report # 9 (42 MB) : http://www.scribd.com/doc/35300793/ August 1973: Special Virus Cancer Program Progress Report # 10 (67 MB): http://www.scribd.com/doc/35306783/ August 1974: Special Virus Cancer Program Progress Report # 11 (61 MB): http://www.scribd.com/doc/35314408/ August 1976: Special Virus Cancer Program Progress Report # 13 (86 MB): http://www.scribd.com/doc/35327390/ July 1977: Special Virus Cancer Program Progress Report # 14 (46 MB): http://www.scribd.com/doc/35476059/ July 1978: Special Virus Cancer Program Progress Report # 15 (41 MB): http://www.scribd.com/doc/35478757/ 347 http://www.disa.ukzn.ac.za/index.php?option=com_displaytei&id=2908&title=Aids - misinformation and racism&creator=Mzala 348 http://www.disa.ukzn.ac.za/index.php?option=com_displaytei&id=2580&title=Aids and the imperialist connection&creator=Mzala 349 http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/090911_affid-ljohnstone?mode=a_p 344

70


Legislature; (ii) RSA Judiciary; (iii) RSA Executive Officials; in her capacity of, Non Sub Judice Executive, Opposition Party350. [108]

On 17 July 2007, a policeman phoned me and told me that Mrs. De Lille had filed ‘crimen injuria’ charges against me. I asked him if he was joking, he said he was not.

[109]

On 18 July 2007, I went to Parliament buildings security; to sort out the matter. I was interviewed by Supt. Claude Deon Christians. He enquired why I was bothering Mrs. De Lille with the manmade origins of AIDS evidence conspiracy theory information. I asked him if it was illegal to send a politician evidentiary information for their investigation; wasn’t that what government officials were for? Why wasn’t the politician being investigated for refusing to investigate thousands of scientific evidentiary documents, detailing how the United States of America were concerned with the prolific breeding practices of Africans, the consequences of overpopulation colliding with scarce resources; and how the US Government approved $10 million to research the creation of a virus that would attack people’s immune systems, and how that research was used to conduct thousands and thousands of laboratory experiments where animals (chicken, rats, horses, sheep, etc) viruses were mixed with herpes viruses; and cultured in black human tissue, to be able to jump species; and then added to vaccinations which were given to gay men in the USA, and Africans in the Central Africa. He responded that De Lille thinks that is crazy; nobody could be so crazy as to do such a thing. I responded that if De Lille thought I was crazy; i.e. lack mens rea and actus reus psychological social standing, how could it be, she got insulted by someone she thinks is crazy? Either de Lille thinks I am crazy, and she is clearly lying about being insulted; or she is using the allegation of crazy are her attempt to shut me up. If so, then surely a good honest investigator would ask Mrs. De Lille how she can ‘be insulted’ by someone she accuses of being ‘crazy’. How can you be insulted by someone you think is crazy, and lacks mens rea? Was he afraid of asking Mrs. De Lille some tough questions, about how her accusations against me did not amount to ‘crimen injuria’?

[110]

Supt. Christian proceeded to arrest me, based upon two allegedly outstanding warrants, one in Port Elizabeth and one in Pietermaritzburg, which he refused to provide me with.

[111]

At approximately 10 am, on 19 July 2007, while awaiting to appear in court, in the Magistrate Court cells, the SAPS informed me that I was being taken to 'the Doctor' . At no time did I request to see any Doctor. I asked for written reasons, why I was being required to see a doctor, and was told to 'Shut Up and do as you are told'. I was taken

350

See: Notice of Legal & Political Delivery: Elimination of Executive Authorities Plausible Deniability: Iatrogenic Origins of AIDS Theory (i) Documentation, (ii) Investigation, & (iii) Disclosure Case GSH 20/2003] and [HC-CPD Appeal A 696-04 transfer to US Navy JAG, effective noon 18 July 2007: Elimination of South Africa’s Plausible Deniability: AIDS is a ‘Black’ Depopulation Virus] http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/040129_za-gov_t-leon_iatrogenicaids?mode=a_p

71


to the Family Planning & Community Health Services to see Forensic Psychologist, Dr. Theo Dahms. I refused to answer any of Dr. Dahm’s questions, until he provided me with (a) a copy of the arrest warrant, by which I was being detained, proving my arrest to be lawful; and (b) written documentation, including written reasons, in accordance to Constitution § 32 & 33: Access to Information and Just Administrative Action; Criminal Procedure Act § 77 - 79: Accused: Capacity to Understand Proceedings: Mental Illness and Criminal Responsibility, by the alleged court official who alleged that I was crazy, and required to see a Forensic Psychologist. Once he provided the requested documentation, I’d be happy to answer any of his questions. [112]

I was returned to the Magistrate Court Holding Cells; where I requested a telephone call to ask my family to arrange for an Attorney. The SAPS refused to allow me a telephone call. I informed the court official that I was waiting for my telephone call to arrange an attorney and would not enter court, until I had representation. The SAPS continued to refuse me a telephone call, until the end of court day, and I was transferred to Pollsmoor Prison; where I remained until 22 August, when Attorney Malcolm Gezzler, and Advocate Gary Beale, represented me in a bail hearing, where I was granted bail.

[113]

On 19 July 2010, a SAPA stringer wrote an article, Alleged Text Pest sent for Observation (Story ID 2324828, BC-COURT-ID, CAPE TOWN July 19 Sapa), which states among others: When [Johnstone’s] case was called, a court orderly went to the court's holding cells to fetch her, but returned without her, and explained that she was violent, swearing and abusive, and refused to be brought to into the courtroom. The magistrate noted on the court record: "Accused refuses to be brought to court. She is abusive and hostile." Also on the record was a letter from the forensic services section of the Community Health Services Organisation, in which Theo Dahms stated: "She is totally uncooperative, and refuses to answer any of my questions. She simply walked out of the room. I can therefore not comment on her mental condition, but would think if she persists in this way she needs to be sent for psychiatric observation." Johnstone was remanded in her absence to September 22, when her psychiatric assessment is to be handed to the court..

[114]

On 02 June 2008 Magistrate Tyulu Struck the 1 charge of crimen injuria for five text SMS messages from the Court Roll.

[115]

ON 11 November 2008, the NPA refiled the charges, now alleging five charges of crimen injuria, 1 per SMS.

72


[116]

On 28 December 2008, I filed a complaint with Senior Prosecutor Jacobs: For the Record: State v. Johnstone; ‘Crimen Injuria’ Incomplete Further Particulars351, wherein I inform him that the following documentation is outstanding from the Further Particulars docket: (A) the two alleged ‘outstanding warrants’ used by SAP Insp. Christian to illegally arrest me on 18 July 2007, (B) Referral to Forensic Psychologist, Forensic Psychologists Report, and subsequent State Psychological Report.

[117]

During court proceedings on 02 March 2010, after Legal Aid withdrew due to an alleged ‘conflict of interest’; I requested the court to instruct the Prosecutor’s Office to provide me with the requested incomplete documentation – the outstanding warrants, and alleged psychological referral documents -- as per the written request. Senior Prosecutor Jacobs informed the court that he could not understand what the document was about. When asked which paragraphs he did not understand, or what he did not understand about the docket being incomplete, and missing the alleged outstanding warrant and alleged referral documentation, he declined to say what about that request was confusing. The Magistrate refused to order the NPA to provide the complete further particulars of documentation that was being withheld.

[118]

On 05 June 2009, I wrote a letter to SAPA Capetown editor, Mr. Ben McLennan, requesting corrections and information: (I) Request to: SAPA: News Article: 19 July 2007: Woman Defies Court over Rude De Lille SMS's352. I requested the name of the journalist who wrote the article, so that I could contact her to ask her for the evidence for her article; and if she had no such evidence, for her to print a retraction. Mr. McLennan forwarded my letter to Mr. Mark van der Velden, who denied my request for corrections and information.

[119]

On 11 June 2009, I filed a complaint with the Press Ombudsman: SAPA alleged guilty of: (i) Erroneous Reporting & Refusal to Impartially Enquire into Errors, or Correct its Erroneous Reporting; (ii) Reporting & 'Credible News' selection, that is Predisposed to Extreme Bias and Prejudice; and (iii) fraudulent representation, of "If SAPA knows ... South Africa Knows ... "353, and Additional Evidentiary Relevant Documentation354, dated 17 June 2009.

[120]

On 24 June Ombudsman Thloloe denied355 my complaint without a hearing, and did not provide me with the right to appeal.

351 352 353 354 355

http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/081228_svj_criminj_snr-pros-inc-parts?mode=a_p http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/090605__complaint-2-sapa?mode=a_p http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/090611_complaint-sa-press-ombud_sapa?mode=a_p http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/090617_press-ombuds-sapa-2?mode=a_p http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/090624_sapc-thloloe_sapa-ruling?mode=a_p

73


“RADICAL HONESTY WHITE REFUGEE ‘DELIBERATE INDIFFERENCE’ DISCLOSURE”: [121]

In February 2010, I contacted 40 SANEF media editors -– whom allegedly are opposed to ‘insult laws’ in Africa356 -- to provide them with a copy of Radical Honesty author, ‘Dr. Truth’ psychologist and ‘Honesty in Politics’ Candidate for US Congress in 2004 and 2006, Dr. Blanton’s Affidavit357 filed in the HC-WC -19963-09, with a summary of his findings:

[122]

1.

If South Africa does not value non-violent civil disobedience free speech dissent, as one of its hallmarks; then it is not a democratic country.

2.

Hon. Mrs. De Lille and the NPA Senior Prosecutor conducted a political and legal prosecution and persecution campaign against me.

3.

The law of crimen injuria is a law so ridiculous; it appears to date back to a belief in curses from witchdoctors. Put differently, any society that values the principle of 'crimen injuria' (I think, I am unique); is one that values protecting the right of people with fragile ego's to not be offended as more important, than protecting the right of Galileo's and Voltaire's to offend.

4.

The South African government are deliberately and intentionally punishing me for practicing my non-violent culture and religion of Radical Honesty. Radical Honesty is founded on a commitment of brutal honesty, with the commitment to remain in the conversation until sincere forgiveness has occurred; and consequently it is impossible for someone practicing radical honesty, to intentionally insult another; when the intention was to achieve sincere forgiveness. It was consequently impossible for me to be guilty of the crime of crimen injuria, which requires intention to insult.

5.

The South African government are deliberately and intentionally denying defendant her right to a defence; and ignoring the justification and accuracy of her non-violent civil disobedience political necessity defence.

6.

That there is a significant difference between posed forgiveness and real forgiveness and that this difference is almost always avoided by politicians, including South Africa’s alleged Truth and Reconciliation politicians. Put differently: S. Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation was not real & sincere; but fake & posed; a political fraud committed against SA citizens.

I requested a comment regarding among others whether these editors (a) objected to my legal and political persecution and prosecution358 by de Lille and the NPA, (b) endorsed or supported my right to practice my non-violent Radical Honesty culture Freedom of Speech and a fair trial. The comment responses were as follows:

[123]

Sowetan Sun: Editor: Charles Mogale: 26 February 2010: ‘I have taken the time to read Dr Blanton's offering and regret that I am not able to offer any opion on his views. I do not feel aptly qualified to proffer any opinion as, you will appreciate, ours is a tabloid publication which does not cover the subjects he raises.’359

356

Declaration of Table Mountain Abolishing ‘Insult Laws’ in Africa: http://www.declarationoftablemountain.org/ Affidavit of Brad Blanton, Ph.D, evidencing the legal, psychological, and socio-political ‘citizens privilege’, Nuremberg Principles skills and competencies of Individual Responsibility, required for acts of civil disobedience to perceived illegitimate authority; and their application to the common law ‘reasonableness test’ http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/091202_affid-bblanton-reasonablenesstest?mode=a_p 358 Immigration and Refugee (IRB) Ruling by Mr. William Davis: Case MA8-04910: Brandon Huntley 359 http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100222_rhwr_sowetansun-cmogale?mode=a_p 357

74


[124]

Beeld: Editor: Tim du Plessis: 25 February 2010: “Kindly be informed that I am not going to comment on the questions/issues raised in you letter. There will be no further correspondence or liaison in this matter.”360

[125]

3rd Degree: Exec. Producer: Deborah Patta: 03 March 2010: “3rd degree is an investigative current affairs programme not a public elected body with a responsibility to comment on issues. All comment from e.news and current affairs falls under the head of news as pointed out in a previous e-mail.”361

[126]

Business Day: Editor: Peter Bruce, 23 February 2010: “I didn't read all of it, because it was so long and so demented. So, I don't have any reply or any comment. I don't want to have anything to do with it. Sorry”362

[127]

Daily News: Editor: Alan Dunn: 25 February 2010: “Mr Alan Dunn, Editor, Daily News, will not be commenting on Free Speech Legal Issue. Any response on the Huntley case will be in our editorial column.”363

[128]

Mail and Guardian: Editors: Keith Nichols & Mathew Burbidge: 22 February 2010: Mr. Nichols stated that he had “No Comment” to the issues raised by American politician and author, Dr. Brad Blanton’s allegations of South African State’s Political and legal prosecution and persecution of non-violent civil disobedience Free Speech dissenter in South Africa. Asked whether it would be fair to say whether Mr. Nichols choice not to make any comment on the issue, demonstrated that he did not care about the Free Speech issues raised, he said he was not going to comment. Asked whether it would be fair to conclude that his statement of No Comment, reflected that he did not care about a South African citizen's being politically and legally prosecuted and persecuted. He again responded that he was not going to comment, with “I am not going to comment on that, okay,” and put down the phone.364

[129]

Saturday Star: Editor: Brendan Seery: 26 February 2010: “I would much prefer deliberate indifference.”

[130]

In a follow up to my original letter of request for comment to each editor titled, Confirmation of [News Organisation’s Name] Negligent and/or Deliberate Indifference to Radical Honesty Free Speech Legal Issue), I informed the Editors: Your response is one of negligent or deliberate indifference. The term ‘negligent and/or deliberate indifference’ is used to describe your actions as follows: Prior to the Receipt of this Confirmation, you have made no effort whatsoever to (a) contact me to enquire for more information to make an informed comment; and/or (b) at least honourably and professionally notify me of your Deliberate Indifferent “No comment.” It is assumed that your motivations for aforementioned behaviour of negligent or deliberate indifference are a result of your, or your organisation’s, deliberate indifference to certain people of certain ethnicities and/or ideologies and/or cultures and/or religions being politically and legally persecuted and prosecuted; and that I, Lara Johnstone fit one or more of those particular ethnic, ideological, cultural or religious categories, towards whom you are deliberately indifferent.

360 361 362 363 364

http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100222_rhwr_beeld-tduplessis?mode=a_p http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100222_rhwr_3rddeg-dpatta?mode=a_p http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100222_busday_p-bruce?mode=a_p http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100222_rhwr_dailynews_adunn?mode=a_p http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100222_rhwr_mg-nicholsburbidge?mode=a_p

75


In the event that aforementioned assumption is incorrect; please clarify your intentions for your negligent and/or deliberate indifference; so that I may accurately state your reasons for your negligent and/or deliberate indifference.

[131]

Consequently Mr. Seery’s ‘Deliberate Indifference’ is defined as follows: “Deliberate Indifference: Brendan Seery (Editor: Saturday Star) is deliberately indifferent to certain people of certain ethnicities and/or ideologies and/or cultures and/or religions being politically and legally persecuted and prosecuted; and you fit one or more of those particular ethnic, ideological, cultural or religious categories, towards whom, Saturday Star is deliberately indifferent.”365

[132]

The following Editors share Mr. Seery’s “Deliberate Indifference” definition: 702 Radio: Manager: Ms. Pheladi Gwangwa: 01 Mar 2010366; Die Burger: Editor: Henry Jeffereys: 27 Feb 2010367; Cape Argus: Editor: Chris Witfield: 26 Fe 2010368;

Cape

Times: Editor: Alide Dasnois: 26 Feb 2010369: The Citizen: Editor: Martin Williams: 26 Feb 2010370; City Press: Editor: Ferial Haffajee: 26 February 2010371; Daily Maverick: Brkic Branco: 26 February 2010372; Daily Sun: Editor: Themba Khumalo: 02 March 2010373; Daily Dispatch: Editor: Andrew Trench: 26 Feb 2010374; E-News: Head of News: Patrick Conroy: 04 March 2010375; Financial Mail: Editor: Barney Mthombothi: 26 Feb 2010376; Finweek: Editor: Colleen Naude: 26 February 2010377; George Herald: Editor: Mandi Botha: 26 February 2010378; The Herald: Editor: Jeremy McCabe: 26 February 2010379; Ind. on Saturday: Editor: Trevor Bruce: 26 Feb 2010380; Pretoria News: Editor: Zingisa Mkhuma: 26 February 2010381; Rapport: Editor: Lisa Albrecht: 26 February 2010382; SA Press Assoc.: Ed.: Mark van der Velden: 26 Feb 2010383; Sowetan: Editor: Bongani Keswa: 03 March 2010384; The Star: Editor: Moegsien Williams: 26 February 2010385; Sunday Ind.: Editor: Makhudu Sefara: 26 February 2010386; Sunday Times: Editor: Ray Hartley: 26 February 2010387; Sunday Tribune: Editor: Philani Mgwaba: 26 Feb 2010388; Volksblad: Editor: Ainsley Moos: 26 February 2010389: Deliberate Indifference: [SANEF Editors, FXI Exec. Director, et al] are deliberately indifferent to certain people of certain ethnicities and/or ideologies and/or cultures and/or religions being politically and legally persecuted and prosecuted; and Lara 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389

http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100222_satstar_bseery?mode=a_p http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100222_rhwr_r702-pgwangwa?mode=a_p http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100222_rhwr_burger_jefferys-booysens?mode=a_p http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100222_rhwr_capeargus-ed-cwitfield?mode=a_p http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100222_rhwr_capetimes-adasnois?mode=a_p http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100222_rhwr_citizen-mwilliams?mode=a_p http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100222_rhwr_citypress_fhaffajee?mode=a_p http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100222_rhwr_dailymaverick-bbranko?mode=a_p http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100222_rhwr_dailysun-tkhumalo?mode=a_p http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100222_rhwr_dailydespatch-atrench?mode=a_p http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100222_rhwr_e-news-pconroy?mode=a_p http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100222_rhwr_finmail-bmthombothi?mode=a_p http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100222_rhwr_finweek-cnaude?mode=a_p http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100222_rhwr_gherald-mbotha?mode=a_p http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100222_rhwr_herald-jmccabe?mode=a_p http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100222_rhwr_indsat-tbruce?mode=a_p http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100222_rhwr_ptanews-zmkhuma?mode=a_p http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100222_rhwr_rapport-lalbrecht?mode=a_p http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100222_rh-wr_sapa_van-der-velden?mode=a_p http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100222_rhwr_sowetan-bkeswa?mode=a_p http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100222_satstar_bseery?mode=a_p http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100222_rhwr_sunind-msefara?mode=a_p http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100222_rhwr_suntimes-rhartley?mode=a_p http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100222_rhwr_stribune-pmgwaba?mode=a_p http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/10-02-22__volksblad__ed_ainsley_moos?mode=a_p

76


Johnstone fit one or more of those particular ethnic, ideological, cultural or religious categories, towards whom, SANEF and FXI are deliberately indifferent.

[133]

I also informed the SANEF Editors, that: Please Note: No offence is taken from your decision to act with Negligent or Deliberate Indifference towards this matter. I most certainly would not want your Human Rights/Fourth Estate organisation to pretend to be concerned about my status as a legally and politically persecuted SA citizen; when in fact you couldn’t care less. It is better for me to be clear about which organisation, if any, are concerned about me being legally and politically persecuted, and which couldn’t care less. If none, and I apply for asylum with a foreign country, as a result of SA civil society’s negligent and/or deliberate indifference towards my political and legal persecution and prosecution; please do not be offended.

“OBSTRUCTION OF ECOLAW JUSTICE” [134]

On 26 February, the Supreme Court of Appeal ruled on behalf of Robert John McBride, in The Citizen v. Robert John McBride Defamation case, regarding the Supreme Court of Appeals legal interpretation of the meaning of ‘amnesty’ in the Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act.

[135]

On 09 March 2010, the Citizen announced its intentions to Appeal the SCA ruling to the Constitutional Court, in Truth about SA is at stake390, Martin Williams, The Citizen.

[136]

On 10 March 2010, the South African National Editors Forum (SANEF) announced their intentions to file Amicus Curiae’s in the matter, in a SANEF Press Release: SANEF to apply as Amicus Curiae in the Citizen Constitutional Court Challenge391. Resulting news articles: 1.

Don't edit history – editors, IAfrica.com392, 10 Mar 2010

2.

SANEF: Can censorship of historical fact lead to reconciliation?, by SANEF, The Media Online393, 10 March 2010

3.

SANEF joins Citizen's ConCourt appeal on McBride ruling, Politicsweb394, 10 March 2010

4.

McBride vs Citizen ruling has serious impact on reporting: Sanef, SABC395, March 10, 2010

390 391 392 393 394 395

http://www.citizen.co.za/index/article.aspx?pDesc=118256,1,22 http://www.sanef.org.za/news/entry/SANEF_to_apply_as_Amicus_Curiae_in_the_Citizen_Constitutional_Court_Challen/ http://iafrica.com/news/sa/2291581.htm http://www.themediaonline.co.za/themedia/view/themedia/en/page1351?oid=46910&sn=Detail&pid=1351 http://www.politicsweb.co.za/politicsweb/view/politicsweb/en/page71619?oid=165123&sn=Detail

http://www.sabcnews.co.za/portal/site/SABCNews/menuitem.5c4f8fe7ee929f602ea12ea1674daeb9/?vgnextoid=5e0535a694747210VgnVCM100000 77d4ea9bRCRD&vgnextfmt=default&channelPath=South%20Africa%20%3E%3E%20Social

77


5.

Editors body to challenge McBride ruling, Stephen Grootes, Eyewitness News396, 10 March 2010

6.

Editors join appeal against McBride defamation ruling, Legalbrief397, 11 March 2010

7.

IPI Supports The Citizen Newspaper in South Africa Constitutional Challenge: ‘National Unity and Reconciliation Act Should not be Used to Justify Censorship’, by Naomi Hunt, International Press Institute398, Thursday, 18 March 2010

8.

RAYMOND LOUW: Problem needs urgent fixing when law encourages lies, Raymond Louw, Business Day399, 2010/03/23; Law shouldn't encourage lies, as it has done for McBride, Journalism.co.za400, 26 March 2010

9.

Top court to mull ‘criminal’ McBride, Ernest Mabuza, Business Day401, All Africa402, The Daily African403, 2010/03/25; Citizen files McBride Constitutional Court Papers, Weekend Post404, 25 March 2010

Radical Honesty SA Amicus Curiae Application to Concourt: [137]

On 25 March 2010, I filed an application405 to the Constitutional Court Chief Justice, as a member of the Radical Honesty Culture and Religion, to proceed as an In Forma Pauperis Amicus Curiae, in the matter of The Citizen v. Robert McBride.

[138]

One of the arguments stated in my Founding Affidavit for why I alleged that both Mr. McBride, The Citizen and the SCA’s interpretation of the TRC Social Contract was erroneous; was founded on the principle that any legislation or jurisprudence which professes to advocate on behalf of human rights, peace and social justice, such as the TRC Act, while ignoring their ecological basis – a stable human population at slightly less than the eco-systems carrying capacity – is endorsing and practicing legal dishonesty and hypocrisy; i.e. fraud. It is legislation and jurisprudence that is deliberately indifferent to the laws of sustainability.

[139]

My Amicus also included reference to the study by Dr. Michael Maher, How and Why Journalists Avoid the Population-Environment Connection406. This study examined

396

http://www.ewn.co.za/articleprog.aspx?id=34428 http://www.legalbrief.co.za/article.php?story=20100311090436473 http://www.freemedia.at/singleview/4838/ 399 http://www.businessday.co.za/articles/Content.aspx?id=104311 400 http://journalism.co.za/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3107:law-shouldnt-encourage-lies-as-it-has-done-for-mcbride&catid=92&Itemid=51 401 http://www.businessday.co.za/articles/Content.aspx?id=104503 402 http://allafrica.com/stories/201003250024.html 403 http://www.thedailyafrican.com/south_africa/31547-South-Africa-Top-Court-Mull-Criminal-Mcbride.html 404 http://www.weekendpost.co.za/article.aspx?id=545593 405 http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100326_rhapplic2concourt-amicus?mode=a_p 397 398

78


press responsibility for the public’s indifference to population growth, as a causal factor for so many socio-economic and resource scarcity community problem. Additionally considering that most of the public’s literacy in science and technology is reached not from formal education, but from the mass media, what was the media’s response to this educational responsibility. [140]

Media’s Responsibility to Inform the Public’s Right to Know News articles: NONE.

[141]

In Robert McBride Plans Cross-Appeal against newspaper, Citizen Reporter, The Citizen407, 08 April 2010, The Citizen states that “The South African National Editors’ Forum and Freedom of Expression Institute have applied to be admitted as a friend of the court”, but mentions nothing about the Radical Honesty SA Application to be accepted as an Amicus Curiae; even though the ‘journalist’ was fully aware of the Radical Honesty SA Amicus application.

[142]

In an email to all Concourt parties on 09 April 2010, I informed them of my attempts to determine who had written the aforementioned Citizen article, and that I had been informed the author thereof was the editor, Mr. Martin Williams, writing under the pseudonym of ‘Citizen Reporter’. I also informed them of an article I wrote on the matter for the White Refugee blog: SA Media Conspiratorial 'What Bleads, Leads' role in SA's Race War408. The White Refugee article included the details of three International Expert Witnesses Interested in Testifying Before the Concourt, should the Radical Honesty SA Amicus be accepted, among others: (a) Dr. Brad Blanton: Honesty in Politics Politician, bestselling author of Radical Honesty series of books, and Dr. Truth psychologist; (b) Prof. Al Bartlett, author of the Laws of Sustainability, as detailed in The Essential Exponential! For the Future of Our Planet409, and Reflections on Sustainability, Population Growth, and the Environment410; and (c) Dr. T. Michael Maher, Professor of Communication, University of Louisiana at Lafayette; author of the study: How and Why Journalists avoid the Population-Environment Connection411.

CCT 23-10 Media Reports: [143]

On 14 April 2010, SAPA publish Concourt sets McBride date, picked up by News 24412, Mail & Guardian413, IOL414, SouthAfricanTimes.UK415; wherein SAPA reports on the Concourts intended hearing date for the matter. SAPA also states that SANEF intend

406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415

http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/mahertm_journo-env-pop-connection?mode=a_p http://www.thecitizen.co.za/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=89615&Itemid=34 http://why-we-are-white-refugees.blogspot.com/2010/04/sa-media-conspiratorial-what-bleads.html http://www.albartlett.org/books/essential_exponential.html http://www.albartlett.org/articles/art_reflections_part_1.html http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/mahertm_journo-env-pop-connection?mode=a_p http://www.news24.com/printArticle.aspx?iframe&aid=8fa46375-74e2-4b32-8fd0-dc6beb20276c&cid=1059 http://www.mg.co.za/article/2010-04-14-constitutional-court-sets-date-for-mcbride-hearing http://www.iol.co.za/general/news/newsprint.php?art_id=nw20100414142401335C573653&sf= http://southafricantimes.co.uk/the-republic/news/archive/2010/04/14/concourt-sets-mcbride-date.aspx

79


planning to file an Amicus. No mention is made of the Radical Honesty – SA Amicus Application which was already filed with the Concourt. Concourt Approve ‘Radical Honesty – SA’ as First Amicus Curiae: [144]

On 03 May 2010, the Chief Justice approved my Radical Honesty SA Amicus application, and issued, among others the following orders: “Ms. Lara Johnstone, Member of Radical Honesty Culture and Religion, is admitted as an amicus curiae” (Annex A: CCT 23-10 Order). The Amicus Directions were emailed to all parties on 07 May 2010, by Senior Registrars Clerk, Mr. Delano Louw.

[145]

Media’s Responsibility to Inform the Public’s Right to Know News articles: NONE.

The Citizen file Submissions on Main Appeal: [146]

On 07 May 2010, The Citizen file their Submissions on Main Appeal.

SANEF and FXI file Application to be Accepted as Amici: [147]

On 18 May 2010, the Freedom of Expression Institute (FXI) and SA National Editors Forum (SANEF) file their Application to be accepted as Amici (PDF416). Subsequent news articles, not one of which refers to the Radical Honesty – SA Amicus, or that the Chief Justice had approved Radical Honesty SA Application to submit an Amicus, let alone its contents or arguments: 1.

Don’t suppress the truth: FXI, Citizen Reporter, The Citizen417, 18 May 2010

2.

Heavyweights enter the fray, Cedric Mboyisa, The Citizen418, 19 May 2010

3.

New Turn in McBride legal battle, The Citizen419, 19 May 2010

4.

The Citizen fights ruling on McBride’s history, Ernest Mabuza, Business Day420, All Africa421, 17 May 2010

5.

Editors Argue Free Speech in McBride Case, Franny Rabkin, Business Day422, All Africa423, 20 May 2010

6.

Ruling distorts common sense; Will Constitutional Court come down on the side of common sense or has the amnesty process washed away the bloodshed of apartheid? , Carmel Rickard, The Mercury424, 20 May 2010

416

http://www.scribd.com/doc/33785107/ http://www.thecitizen.co.za/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=60024&catid=80:breaking-news&Itemid=132 http://www.thecitizen.co.za/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=8360:heavyweights-enter-the-fray&catid=25:localnews&Itemid=34 419 http://www.citizen.co.za/index/News/1060117.page 420 http://www.businessday.co.za/Articles/Content.aspx?id=109057 421 http://allafrica.com/stories/201005170139.html 422 http://www.businessday.co.za/Articles/Content.aspx?id=109430 423 http://allafrica.com/stories/201005200060.html 417 418

80


7.

When the logic of law is murdered, Carmel Rickard, Pretoria News425, 20 May 2010

8.

When is a killer not a killer? Constitutional Court to decide whether Robert McBride can be called a murderer despite TRC amnesty, Carmel Rickard, The Star426, 20 May 2010

9.

Even the elite cannot wipe clean the bloodstained slate of our history clean, Carmel Rickard, Cape Times427, May 20, 2010

10.

The law of Unintended Consequences, DefenceWeb428, 24 May 2010

11.

Waarheid word gestraf, se Sanef en FXI aan hof, Phillip de Bruin, Die Burger429, 16 July 2010

[148]

On 24 May 2010, the Concourt Approves SANEF and FXI’s Applications to be admitted as Amici.

McBride files Heads of Argument: [149]

ON 28 May 2010, Mr. McBride files Heads of Argument. Subsequent news articles: 1.

It is necessary to close book on the past, say McBride’s lawyers, Ernest Mabuza, Business Day430, 18 June 2010 (Legalbrief Today431, 21 June 2010)

FXI & SANEF file Heads of Argument: [150]

On 08 June 2010, FXI and SANEF file their Heads of Argument (PDF432). Totally disregarding the fact that they are suppressing and censoring the Radical Honesty SA’s right to freedom of expression and access to media discourse, they advise the court on the fine points of the System of Freedom of Expression: “...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

424

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-226801462.html http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-226804745.html http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-226804960.html 427 http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-226804826.html 428 http://www.defenceweb.co.za/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=8119:he-law-of-unintendedconsequences&catid=53:People&Itemid=117 429 http://www.dieburger.com/Suid-Afrika/Nuus/Waarheid-word-gestraf-se-Sanef-en-FXI-aan-hof-20100715 430 http://www.businessday.co.za/Articles/Content.aspx?id=112165 431 http://www.legalbrief.co.za/article.php?story=20100621160354575 432 http://www.scribd.com/doc/33785122/ 425 426

81


opinion. The reasons which make open discussion essential for an intelligent individual judgment likewise make it imperative for rational social judgment.”

[151]

While censoring and suppressing the Radical Honesty SA Amicus’ argument and evidence, as to how the TRC Act failed to establish the ecological carrying capacity truth, underlying the Afrikaner ‘swart gevaar’ fears which motivated the establishment of apartheid, and the rapid population growth youth bulge contributory factors toward Apartheid political violence; they instruct the court on the alleged importance of the search for the truth. They totally ignore the argument and evidence for how the TRC was a fraud committed on the people of SA, for failing to fulfill its mandate: “it is deemed necessary to establish the truth in relation to past events as well as the motives for and circumstances in which gross violations of human rights have occurred, and to make the findings known in order to prevent a repetition of such acts in future”.

[152]

The SA Media preach to Chief Justices how an individual, corporation or nations “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,” but do the exact opposite. When it comes to Radical Honesty SA evidence of TRC fraud and media corruption; they CENSOR IT. They have no commitment to public media discourse that “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…. The reasons which make open discussion essential for an intelligent individual judgment likewise make it imperative for rational social judgment.” Perhaps because the last thing they are concerned about is a citizenry focused on rational social judgment decision-making?

Joyce Mbizana & Mbasa Mxenge file Amicus Applications: [153]

On 15 June 2010, Ms. Joyce Mbizana and Mr. Mbasa Mxenge file their Application to be accepted as Amici. Subsequent news articles: 1.

Apartheid victims and survivors challenge McBride ruling, TimesLive433, The Star434, ICTJ, 19 June 2010

2.

Apartheid victims fight McBride case, Nathi Olifant, Sunday Tribune435, IOL436, Cape Argus437, Cape Times438, Mercury439, Pretoria News440, Daily News441, CSVR442,

433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442

http://www.timeslive.co.za/local/article510624.ece/Apartheid-victims-and-survivors-challenge-McBride-ruling http://www.thestar.co.za/index.php?fSectionId=128&fArticleId=vn20100620072724632C152979 http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-229387811.html http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?sf=13&set_id=1&click_id=13&art_id=vn20100620072724632C152979 http://www.capeargus.co.za/?fSectionId=3571&fArticleId=vn20100620072724632C152979 http://www.capetimes.co.za/?fSectionId=&fArticleId=vn20100620072724632C152979 http://www.themercury.co.za/?fSectionId=&fArticleId=vn20100620072724632C152979 http://www.pretorianews.co.za/index.php?fSectionId=&fArticleId=vn20100620072724632C152979 http://www.dailynews.co.za/?fSectionId=540&fArticleId=vn20100620072724632C152979 http://www.csvr.org.za/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1326&Itemid=26

82


The Star443, Lawlibrary.co.za444, 20 June 2010 (Apartheid activists relatives to challenge McBride ruling,

Legalbrief Today445, Mooney Ford Attorneys446, 21

June 2010) 3.

Slain activists relatives seek to join McBride defamation case, Ernest Mabuza, Business Day447, All Africa448, Lawlibrary.co.za449, LexisNexis450 (Cache451), 22 June 2010

4.

McBride loses support in defamation case, Jason Warner, Pretoria News452, The Star453, IOL454, Independent on Saturday455, Lawlibrary.co.za456, 24 June 2010

5.

McBride was convicted – period, Eusebius McKaiser, Mail and Guardian457, 02 August 2010

6.

International Center for Transitional Justice Amicus Brief for Sa Apartheid Defamation Case, ICTJ458, 02 August 2010

Radical Honesty SA File Heads of Argument: [154]

On 18 July 2010, I file my Amended Heads of Argument (subsequent to unequivocal confirmation that neither SANEF, the Citizen nor Mr. McBride object to me filing a Radical Honesty SA Amicus).

[155]

In my Amicus, among others I allege that media editors act as Access to Media Resources Discourse Gatekeepers, whereby they censor459 the voices of those voicing nonviolent grievances and root cause problem solving activism. Media editors facilitate a pressure cooker socio-political reality for their ‘If it Bleads, it Leads’ corporate propaganda profits. They do this knowing and applying the following principles:

443

http://www.thestar.co.za/index.php?fSectionId=549&fArticleId=vn20100620072724632C152979 http://www.lawlibrary.co.za/notice/updates/2010/issue_14/recentjudgments_concourt.htm http://www.legalbrief.co.za/article.php?story=20100621160354575 446 http://www.mfp.co.za/page.asp?pg=news&newsID=399 447 http://www.businessday.co.za/articles/Content.aspx?id=112396 448 http://allafrica.com/stories/201006220474.html 449 http://www.lawlibrary.co.za/notice/updates/2010/issue_14/recentjudgments_concourt.htm 450 www6.lexisnexis.com/publisher/EndUser?Action=UserDisplayFullDocument&orgId=675&topicId= 112450003&docId=l:1211886819&start=10 451 http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:6YNr_rA9IcwJ:www6.lexisnexis.com/publisher/EndUser%3FAction%3DUserDisplayFullD ocument%26orgId%3D675%26topicId%3D112450003%26docId%3Dl:1211886819%26start%3D10+%22Slain+activists%E2%80%99+relatives+seek+to+join+Mc Bride+defamation+case%22&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=za 452 http://www.pretorianews.co.za/index.php?fSectionId=665&fArticleId=vn20100624045434761C698608 453 http://www.thestar.co.za/index.php?fSectionId=&fArticleId=vn20100624045434761C698608 454 http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=6&art_id=vn20100624045434761C698608 455 http://www.independentonsaturday.co.za/index.php?fSectionId=&fArticleId=vn20100624045434761C698608 456 http://www.lawlibrary.co.za/notice/updates/2010/issue_14/recentjudgments_concourt.htm 457 http://www.mg.co.za/article/2010-08-02-mcbride-was-convicted-period?utm_medium=saDailynews24&utm_source=sadailynews24.com 458 http://www.ictj.org/en/news/features/3938.html 459 “The moderate blacks were not selling the papers. We were presenting a non-violent strategy, that did not say ‘Burn, baby Burn’. A strategy that said people must come together and sit down around a negotiating table. And this is not sensational stuff; it does not sell the papers.” – Rev. John Gogotya, ANC: VIP’s of Violence, documentary; “For revolutionary groups, the more murderous the deed, the more certain the media coverage.” -- Nicholas Partridge, Presenter, ANC: VIP’s of Violence. http://why-we-are-white-refugees.blogspot.com/p/anc-vips-of-violence.html 444 445

83


1.

‘As long as there is some possibility of getting results by political means, the chances that any political group or individual will turn violent are truly radically small, or maybe vanishingly small’460;

2.

‘The exposure in the media is what gets people’s attention. People follow what is happening in the news, not what is happening in the courts’461;

3.

‘[Editors] abuse of media power, by means of strategies whereby they abuse public discourse/free speech resources; by providing certain parties with preferential and special access to such public discourse, and severely restricting or denying others any access to such public discourse462;

[156]

Mainstream media avoid addressing or enquiring into root causes of problems as reported in How and Why Journalists Avoid Population – Environment connection463; and censor non-violent root-cause problem solving activism 464.

[157]

Media’s Responsibility to Inform the Public’s Right to Know News articles: NONE.

Radical Honesty SA Notifies SANEF Editors of Radical Honesty Amicus: [158]

On 26 July I contacted SANEF’s Chairman Mr. Mondli Makhanya to arrange an interview. The interview was arranged for Tuesday 27 July at 09:00 hrs, and I emailed [190465] his secretary the questions I wanted him to answer for me, the day before the interview.

[159]

On the evening of 26 July 2010, and early morning of 27 July, I also sent the following editors and journalists (whom I imagine are SANEF members) a form letter email providing them with a PDF copy of the Radical Honesty SA Concourt Amicus, as provided to SANEF attorneys, and informed them the Amicus was supported by the expert witness statements of (a) Dr. Brad Blanton, the worlds foremost expert on honesty, transparency and sincere forgiveness, bestselling author of Radical Honesty series of books, and former Honesty in Politics candidate for Congress in Virginia in 2004 and 2006, and (b) Dr. T. Michael Maher, the author and study of How and Why Journalists Avoid the Environment-Population Connection. I confirmed my interpretation that it appeared their editorial decision was to censor this information, and if I was incorrect in my assumption, would they please provide me with the information about where they had published the information. I enquired how their censorship decision-making

460

Clark McCauley, Ph.D, Prof. of Psychology at Bryn Mawr College, in When Does Political Anger Turn to Violence?, by Benedict Carey, New York Times, March 26, 2010 http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/28/weekinreview/28carey.html Jean Pierre Mean, Group General Counsel and Chief Compliance Officer, SGS Group, In Confronting Corruption: The Business Case for an Effective Anti-Corruption Programme, by PricewaterhouseCoopers Intnl http://www.pwc.com/anti-corruption 462 (I) Power and the news media, Teun A. van Dijk, Univ. of Amsterdam, D. Paletz (Ed.), Political Communication & Action. (pp. 9-36). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press, 1995 http://www.discourses.org/OldArticles/Power%20and%20the%20news%20media.pdf 463 CCT 23-10: Statement of Consent by Dr. T. Michael Maher http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100522_cct2310_affid-dr-t-m-maher?mode=a_p How and Why Journalists Avoid Population-Environment Connection, by T. Michael Maher, Ph.D. http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/mahertm_journo-env-pop-connection?mode=a_p 464 HC-WC 19963-09: 140 SA Elite Deliberate Indifference to Rule of Law http://www.docstoc.com/docs/56239025/ 465 CCT 23-10: 1st Amicus Proof of Email Service & Correspondence: http://www.scribd.com/doc/34064979/ 461

84


was in accordance to SANEF’s Code of Professional Practice which requires News Reporting to be ethically driven, to provide for an environment for ethics discourse in the media, to be in support of freedom of expression, to enable a culture of real debate of the highest standard, and were in accordance with SANEF’s alleged values of integrity, accountability and the public interest. (The emails can be found in full in First Amicus Proof of Email Service and Correspondence # 2466), the dates and titles as follows: 1.

[188] 12:33 PM: Questions for SANEF Chairperson: Mr. Rantao: Re: Ind. Media Tribunal, media corruption and media censorship

2.

[190] 01:09 PM: FW: Questions for SANEF Chairperson: Mr. Makhanya: Re: Ind. Media Tribunal, media corruption and media censorship

3.

[191] 01:40 PM: Att: Ms. Deborah Patta, Exec. Prod.: 3rd Degree: Req 3rd Degree Position on media corruption and media censorship

4.

[192] 01:53 PM: Att: Tim du Plessis, Editor: Beeld: Req Beeld Position on media corruption and media censorship

5.

[196] 02:45 PM: Att: Mr. Peter Bruce, Editor:Bus Day: Req Bus. Day Position on media corruption and media censorship

6.

[202] 03:42 PM: Att: City Press Ed: Ms. Ferial Haffajee; Req: City Press Position on media corruption and media censorship

7.

[203] 03:59 PM: Att: Daily Dispatch: Ed. Mr. Andrew Trench; Req: Daily Dispatch Position on media corruption and media censorship

8.

[208] 04:22 PM: Att: Daily Maverick: Ed: Mr. Brkic Branko; Req: Daily Maverick's Position on media corruption and media censorship

9.

[209] 04:40 PM: Att: Daily Sun Editor: Mr. Themba Khumalo; Req: Daily Sun's Position on media corruption and media censorship

10.

[217] 05:30 PM: Att: Die Burger Ed: Mr. Bun Booysens; Req: Die Burger comment on media corruption and media censorship

11.

[218] 05:36 PM: Att: ETV: E-News: Mr. Patrick Conroy; Req: E-News Comment on media corruption and media censorship

12.

[220] 05:43 PM: Att: Financial Mail: Ed: Mr. B. Mthombothi; Req: Financial Mail's Comment on media corruption and media censorship

466

http://www.scribd.com/doc/34064979/

85


13.

[224] 06:06 PM: Att: Ms. C. Naude, Editor; Req: Finweek's Position on media corruption and media censorship

14.

[227] 06:36 PM: Att: Mail and Guardian Editors; Req: Mail and Guardian Position on media corruption and media censorship

15.

[229] 06:50 PM: Att: Ms. Pheladi Gwangwa, Station Manager; Req: 702 Radio Position on media corruption and media censorship

16.

[233] 07:28 PM: Att: Ms. Lisa Albrecht, Editor; Req. Rapport's Position on media corruption and media censorship

17.

[234] 07:35 PM: Att: Mr. van der Velden, Editor; Req. SA Press. Assoc. Position on media corruption and media censorship

18.

[236] 07:50 PM: Att: Mr. Bongani Keswa, Editor; Req. Sowetan Position on media corruption and media censorship

19.

[238] 08:59 PM: Att: Mr. Ray Hartley, Editor, Req. Sunday Times Position on media corruption and media censorship

20.

[241] 09:06 PM: Att: Mr. Jeremy McCabe, Editor; Req. The Herald Position on media corruption and media censorship

21.

[242] 09:16 PM: Att: Mr. A. Moos, Redakteur; Req. Volksblad Position on media corruption and media censorship

22.

[245] 12:03 PM: Att: Editor: Mr. Makhudu Sefara; Req. Sunday Independent Position on media corruption and media censorship

23.

[246] 12:22 AM: Att: Mr. Brendan Seery, Editor; Req Saturday Star's Position on media corruption and media censorship

24.

[247] 12:22 AM: Att: Cape Argus Editor: Mr. C. Whitfield, Req: Cape & Weekend Argus Position on media corruption and media censorship

25.

[248] 12:22 AM: Att: Ed: Trevor Bruce; Req. Ind. on Saturday's Position on media corruption and media censorship

26.

[249] 12:21 AM: Att: Ms. Z. Mkhuma, Editor; Req: Pretoria News Position on media corruption and media censorship

27.

[250] 12:21 AM: Att: Mr. Philani Mgwaba, Editor, Req. Sunday Tribune Position on media corruption and media censorship

86


28.

[251] 12:22 AM: Att: Daily News: Ed: Mr. Alan Dunn; Req: Daily News Position on media corruption and media censorship

29.

[252] 12:22 AM: Att: Cape Times Ed: Ms. Alide Dasnois; Req: Cape Times Position on media corruption and media censorship

30.

[254] 01:41 AM: Att: Mr. Toby Shapshak, Editor: Stuff; M&G journo on Truth Commission

31.

[255] 01:55 AM: Prof. Rod Amner, School of Journalism and Media Studies at Rhodes University

32.

[256] 01:55 AM: Fackson Banda Chair of Media and Democracy, School of Journalism and Media Studies at Rhodes University:

33.

[257] 01:57 AM: Att: William Bird, director of Media Monitoring Africa:

34.

[258] 01:56 AM: Guy Berger, head of the School of Journalism and Media Studies at Rhodes University:

35.

[259] 01:58 AM: Robert Brand, School of Journalism and Media Studies at Rhodes University.

36.

[260] 01:58 AM: Prof. Harry Dugmore, School of Journalism and Media Studies at Rhodes University:

37.

[261] 02:00 AM: Prof. Harold Gess, School of Journalism and Media Studies at Rhodes University:

38.

[262] 01:59 AM: Prof. Jane Duncan, Chair of Media and Information Society at Rhodes University:

[160]

39.

[264] 02:02 AM: Prof. Anton Harber, Professor of Journalism at Wits University.

40.

[333467] 01:55 PM: Prof. Franz Kruger, Professor of Journalism at Wits University.

I received two responses, one from the editor of Finweek, Ms. Colleen Naude [#329], who stated that ‘the Concourt Case had nothing whatsoever to do with Finweek’, and the other from Prof. Guy Berger [#349] who said he would not be commenting, as ‘the issue would require more time than he could make available at this point, given his extremely overloaded workload.’

Interview with SANEF Chairperson Mr. Mondli Makhanya: [161]

467

Excerpts from Interview with Mr. Makhanya at 09:00 hrs on 27 July 2010:

PDF First Amicus Proof of Service & Correspondence # 3: http://www.scribd.com/doc/35108620

87


[162]

I informed him I had sent my questions to his secretary the previous day [#190468]. He stated he had not yet seen his email, so was unaware of the questions. I asked whether it was true that SANEF oppose the Protection of Information Bill. He said ‘Yes’.

[163]

I stated that SANEF editors and journalists were aware of the Radical Honesty SA Amicus before the Constitutional Court, which alleges TRC fraud and media corruption, and was supported by the expert witness statements of Dr. Brad Blanton, on Radical Honesty, Being Specific about Anger and Forgiveness, and Dr. Michael Maher on How and Why Journalists Avoid the Environment Population Connection, but that this information was currently being censored by SA journalists and editors.

[164]

He responded with “Take a step back. I am not sure where we are going with this. What did you send to SANEF?”

[165]

I informed him I had sent SANEF a copy of the First Amicus filed with the Constitutional Court.

[166]

He responded that he did not know who I was and where I was phoning from.

[167]

I said I am Lara Johnstone, I am the person who authored the Radical Honesty Amicus and I am attempting to ascertain why the media are censoring the information therein from the SA public.

[168]

Makhanya: ‘if you don’t mind I would like to terminate this conversation. I think this is an ambush and I don’t like it. I have not seen the questions’.

[169]

Johnstone: I sent you the questions the previous day, to his secretary.

[170]

Makhanya: ‘Well I have not seen them, and I have a job to do, and I am not here to answer Lara’s questions whenever she wants.’

[171]

Johnstone: ‘Mr. Makhanya, these are questions about media corruption that have been filed in the Constitutional Court, in a matter that SANEF are an Amicus Curiae party to. The media corruption allegations were provided to SANEF’s attorneys on 19 July 2010.’

[172]

Makhanya: ‘Well I don’t know anything about these media corruption allegations. I would like to terminate this interview because I don’t know what you are talking about and this feels like an ambush.’

[173]

Johnstone: ‘Mr. Makhanya, I am not sure how you could feel this is an ambush, when as a matter of integrity, I provided your secretary with the questions and the allegations of media corruption, to provide to you, in an email yesterday morning, almost 24 hours ago. How exactly is that an ambush?’

468

http://www.scribd.com/doc/34064979/

88


[174]

Makhanya: ‘Well I have not seen the questions, I just walked into the office. So can you go point by point since I am not aware of the questions.’

[175]

Johnstone: ‘No problem. I filed an Amicus Curiae as a member of the Radical Honesty culture and religion in the Constitutional Court matter of The Citizen v. Robert McBride. The Amicus alleges TRC fraud and media corruption and censorship. It is supported by two expert witnesses, Dr. Brad Blanton an expert on honesty, transparency and sincere forgiveness, who is a bestselling author, clinical psychologist and Honesty in Politics candidate for Congress in Virginia in 2004 and 2006. The other expert witness is Dr. Michael Maher, the author of the study How and Why Journalists Avoid the Environment-Population Connection. Since SANEF were informed of these allegations, not one SANEF publication has chosen to inform the people of South Africa of these matters. It is my interpretation that SANEF editors are censoring this information from the SA public. My questions are related to attempting to understand how SANEF justifies this censorship in regards to SANEF’s alleged commitment to ethics, ethical discourse, freedom of expression, a culture of real debate of the highest standard, and alleged values of integrity, accountability and the public interest. How is censoring allegations of media corruption from the SA public, in the public’s interest?’

[176]

Makhanya: ‘Well this is the first I have heard of it, I can’t comment on something I don’t know anything about. It feels like I am being ambushed.’

[177]

Johnstone: ‘Are you suggesting that it is my fault that your secretary did not forward you the questions I honourably and ethically sent you 24 hours ago?’

[178]

Makhanya: ‘No, just that I have no seen the question.’

[179]

Johnstone: ‘How would you suggest that I provide you with the questions prior to an interview, if your secretary does not forward them to you?’

[180]

Makhanya: ‘I would prefer to end this interview right now, because I don’t know about the allegations you are referring to.’

[181]

Secretary: ‘I did not send him the questions, because if I send him the questions for him to respond by email it could take months. It was best for you to speak to him and to provide him with the information over the phone, so he can respond to the questions as you put them to him.’

[182]

Johnstone to Secretary: ‘I don’t know how the mainstream media operate, but I have a certain standard of honourable transparency ethics. If I am going to interview someone about a particular issue, and the issue is complex or negative, then I attempt to make sure they have the details of the issue I have questions about, prior to my interview.’

SANEF’s Auckland Park Declaration: 89


[183]

On 08 August 2010, 37 SANEF editors published the ‘Auckland Park declaration’, wherein they state among others, that they ‘are deeply concerned about attempts to curtail freedom of expression and the free flow of information’. (United we stand: Auckland Park Declaration, Sunday Times469, 8 August 2010; The Auckland Park Declaration, IOL470, 09 August 2010; Auckland Park Declaration an “opening gambit”, Gill Moodie, BizCommunity471, 10 August 2010)

Radical Honesty SA Press Release to SAPA Wire Service: [184]

On 15 August at 12:39472, 14:07473, 15:25, 15:48, and 16:10; and on 16 August at 10:28 and 12:17474 the following Press Release is published on SAPA’s Domestic and International Wire Services: Attention: News Editor, Legal Editor, Court Reporters For immediate release: 15 August 2010 Radical Honesty SA Amicus, in Concourt # 23-10 CONCOURT: POPULATION POLICY COMMON SENSE INTERPRETATION OF TRC ACT On 03 May 2010, the Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court of South Africa approved the Application from Radical Honesty SA, to be admitted as Amicus in the civil defamation matter of The Citizen v. Robert McBride, on appeal from the Supreme Court of Appeal. The Radical Honesty SA application to intervene as Amicus had argued for a Population Policy Common Sense interpretation of the Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation (TRC) Act. Radical Honesty is a small religion/culture founded on truth-telling and sensate forgiveness (Gestalt Therapy) by Dr. Brad Blanton, an American 'Honesty in Politics' politician, psychologist and bestselling author of the 'Radical Honesty' series of books. Dr. Blanton has filed an expert witness statement on behalf of the Radical Honesty SA Amicus. The Radical Honesty Population Policy Common Sense Amicus, filed on 18 July 2010, argues that a healthy ecological environment, with due regard for carrying capacity laws of sustainability is a sine qua non for all other constitutional rights. Put differently, any legislation or jurisprudence such as the TRC Act, which professes to advocate on behalf of human rights, peace and social justice, while ignoring their ecological basis - a stable human population at slightly less than the eco-systems carrying capacity – is endorsing and practicing legal dishonesty and hypocrisy; i.e. fraud. The legal precedence for the Radical Honesty Ecolaw argument is among others the International Court of Justice opinion of Vice President Weeramantry in the 1998 Hungary v. Slovakia case concerning the Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Project. For this and other Radical Honesty and Population Policy Common Sense evidentiary reasons they ask the Concourt to acknowledge that a Radical Honesty Population Policy Common Sense interpretation of the TRC Act renders the TRC's 'crime of apartheid' conclusion, to be a falsification of history. The Radical Honesty SA Amicus was also served upon various TRC Commissioners, including Archbishop Tutu and Rev. Borraine, and the Nelson Mandela and FW de Klerk Foundations, on 20 July. As of date, neither the TRC Commissioners, nor the Nelson Mandela or FW de

469 470 471 472 473 474

http://www.timeslive.co.za/sundaytimes/article591789.ece/United-we-stand--Auckland-Park-declaration http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=13&art_id=iol1281333456629T245 http://www.bizcommunity.com/Article/196/466/50901.html http://www.link2media.co.za/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=9305&Itemid=12 http://www.link2media.co.za/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=9306&Itemid=12 http://www.link2media.co.za/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=9316&Itemid=12

90


Klerk Foundations have disputed the allegations in the Radical Honesty SA Amicus to the Constitutional Court. Other parties who have submitted Amicus Curiae's are the Freedom of Expression Institute (FXI), South African National Editors Forum (SANEF); Mrs. Joyce Mbizana and Mr. Mbasa Mxenge, and the Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development. Interestingly, on 12 August, Xinhua reported that in response to a public interest writ to a Bangladesh High Court, it instructed the government to provide it with a population growth report for the last 10 years, and to explain why the goverment should not be directed to implement additional population control measures. Radical Honesty SA Amicus Expert Witnesses include Dr. Brad Blanton on Radical Honesty: Being Specific about Anger and Forgiveness; and Dr. T. Michael Maher, Univ. of Louisiana Head of Educ. Dept, on Media's censorship of Population Issues.

[185]

Subsequent Media’s Responsibility to Inform / Public’s Right to Know News articles: NONE.

Radical Honesty SA Complaint to Green Scorpions / SAPS / PCLU: [186]

On 20 August 2010 I filed a complaint against 20 SANEF editors, with Green Scorpions, who referred me to the SA Police, who referred me to the Commercial Crimes Unit, who referred me to the Priority Crimes Litigation Unit: 24 Aug 2010: Complaint to Green Scorpions: Charges: Bribery Conspiracy to Censor & obstruct administration of Ecolaw Concourt Justice475.

[187]

Respondents & Editors complaint filed against: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22.

[188]

The complaint alleges: 1.

475

Ainsley Moos, Volksblad Alan Dunn, Daily News Alide Dasnois, Cape Times Andrew Trench, Daily Dispatch Barney Mthombothi, Financial Mail Bun Booysens, Die Burger Bongani Keswa, Sowetan Chris Whitfield, Independent Cape Ferial Haffajee, City Press Jeremy McCabe, Weekend Post Jovial Rantao, The Star Liza Albrecht, Rapport Makhudu Sefara, Sunday Ind. Martin Williams, The Citizen Mondli Makhanya, Avusa Nic Dawes, Mail & Guardian Peter Bruce, Business Day Philani Mgwaba, Sunday Tribune Ray Hartley, Sunday Times Themba Khumalo, Daily Sun Tim du Plessis, Beeld Zingisa Mkhuma, Pretoria News

Conspiracy: SANEF editors have conspired to aid or procure the commission of, or to commit the following offences: fraud, bribery and corruption, which amount to conspiracy to the obstruction of justice.

http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100823_greenscorpions-saps-823-8-2010?mode=a_p

91


[189]

2.

Fraud: SANEF editors by word and conduct made the following unlawful and intentional misrepresentations or perversions of the truth: (a) In SANEF’s 08 June 2010 Amicus to Concourt they imply that they oppose the suppression of expression and the truth and object to the impediment of a search for the truth476; (b) in their 08 August 2010 Auckland Park declaration to people of SA, they allege that they oppose the suppression of expression and the curtailment of freedom of expression and the free flow of information and will join hands with all South Africans, from all cultures and religions who value their freedoms. Both these representations are perversions of the truth, since SANEF editors repeatedly endorse (i) censorship of Radical Honesty Amicus curiae from the people of SA; and (ii) the legal and political persecution of individuals from the Radical Honesty culture, and perhaps other cultures they despise. SANEF’s fraudulent representation can lead to actual or potential disadvantage or prejudice to Plaintiff, Radical Honesty culture members, and other individuals and cultures.

3.

Bribery (as a briber): SANEF editors conspiracy to censor the details of the Radical Honesty SA Amicus before the Concourt from the people of South Africa, are an unlawful and intentional indirect offer to State Officials (the Concourt Justices, and other SA TRC elite politicians whose reputations would prefer the contents of the Radical Honesty SA Amicus to the Concourt to remain censored) to pressure and/or bribe the Justices with the opportunity to ignore the Radical Honesty SA Amicus in their deliberations, as if its arguments and allegations do not exist, because it’s contents have been censored from public discourse; in return for such officials consideration in return for action or inaction in their official capacities.

4.

Corruption: SANEF editors are directly or indirectly giving or agreeing or offering to give to other SA elite the gratification of censorship of the Radical Honesty SA Amicus, for their TRC-PR benefit, in order to influence such persons so to act, in a manner that amounts to the illegal, dishonest, unauthorized, incomplete, or biased; exercise, carrying out or performance of their power and duties or functions arising out of constitutional, statutory, contractual or any other legal obligations. These actions amount to the abuse of their position of authority, a breach of trust, the violation of legal ecological management duties and sustainable management corporate decision-making, and are designed to achieve an unjustified result; by the unauthorized or improper inducement to TRC Justices’, Political et al elites, to endorse a conspiracy of silence censorship, and are hence guilty of the offence of corruption. (S.3 of Prevention and Combatting of Corrupt Activities Act, 2004)

5.

Obstruction of Justice: SANEF editors conspiracy of silence is unlawfully and intentionally defeating or obstructing the administration of justice

As a matter of honourable transparency; the complaint was also provided to the Respondents attorneys. Radical Honesty does not file complaints against people behind their backs.

CCT 23-10: Concourt Hearing of 29 September 2010 [190]

Radical Honesty SA’s Amicus Curiae to the Concourt did not request time for any oral argument to the Court; for it prefers not to waste Justice’s time with repeating of written arguments orally; unless any Justice has any question related to the written argument. “D. Estimate of the duration of oral argument of Lara Johnstone / Radical Honesty – RSA: None, unless a, or more, Justices have any questions.” (18 July 2010: Radical Honesty SA Amicus Curiae)

476

CCT 23-10: Citizen v. McBride: Written Submission for South African National Editors Forum (SANEF) and Freedom of Expression Institute (FXI), para 18 to 26, pages 10-15

92


“The first amicus, Ms. Lara Johnstone, will not be required to present oral argument.” (27 Sep 2010: Chief Justice’s Directions) [191]

Subsequent News Articles; all of whom censored any mention of the Radical Honesty Amicus Curiae before the Concourt, from the public’s right to know: [001] 10-09-29: SAPA-Times Live477: Citizen fights McBride in Concourt [002] 10-09-29: SAPA-N24478: Court to hear McBride ruling appeal [003] 10-09-29: SAPA-Times Live479: Citizen takes McBride appeal to Concourt [004] 10-09-30: SAPA-Business Report480: McBride murder accusation ‘unfair’ [005] 20-09-30: SAPA-IOL481: McBride ‘murderer’ label unfair: lawyer [006] 10-09-30: SAPA-Pretoria News482: McBride ‘murderer’ label unfair: lawyer [007] 10-09-30: SAPA-Cape Argus483: McBride ‘murderer’ label unfair: lawyer [008] 10-09-30: SAPA-SA Star484: McBride ‘murderer’ label unfair: lawyer [009] 10-09-30: SAPA-Sunday Ind.485: McBride ‘murderer’ label unfair: lawyer [010] 10-09-30: SAPA-Daily News486: McBride ‘murderer’ label unfair: lawyer [011] 10-09-30: SAPA-Cape Times487: McBride ‘murderer’ label unfair: lawyer [012] 10-09-30: SAPA-Mercury488: McBride ‘murderer’ label unfair: lawyer [013] 10-09-30: SAPA-N24489: McBride murder accusation ‘unfair’ [014] 10-09-30: SAPA-Times Live490: McBride murder accusation unfair [015] 10-10-03: SAPA-Daily Dispatch491: McBride murder accusation ‘unfair’ [016] 10-09-30: SAPA-Times Live492: ‘Skeletons’ can be raised in public interest [017] 10-09-30: SAPA-N24493: ‘Skeletons’ can be raised in public interest [018] 10-10-01: SAPA-IOL (Kenrichi Serino)494: Court weighs validity of TRC past [019] 10-09-30: SAPA-Times Live495: Citizen argues validity of TRC past [020] 10-10-01: SAPA-Cape Times496: Court weighs validity of TRC past [021] 10-10-01: SAPA-Cape Argus497: Court weighs validity of TRC past [022] 10-10-01: SAPA-Pretoria news498: Court weighs validity of TRC past [023] 10-10-01: SAPA-The Mercury499: Court weighs validity of TRC past

477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499

http://www.timeslive.co.za/local/article682703.ece/Citizen-fights-McBride-in-ConCourt http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/Court-to-hear-McBride-ruling-appeal-20100929 http://www.timeslive.co.za/local/article682446.ece/Citizen-takes-McBride-appeal-to-Concourt http://www.busrep.co.za/index.php?fSectionId=566&fArticleId=5668895 http://www.iol.co.za/news/crime-courts/mcbride-murderer-label-unfair-lawyer-1.682680 http://www.pretorianews.co.za/?fSectionId=3534&fArticleId=1.682680&fFeed=sanews http://www.capeargus.co.za/?fSectionId=3571&fArticleId=1.682680&fFeed=sanews http://www.thestar.co.za/?fSectionId=3268&fArticleId=1.682680&fFeed=sanews http://www.sundayindependent.co.za/?fSectionId=3536&fArticleId=1.682680&fFeed=sanews http://www.dailynews.co.za/?fSectionId=3532&fArticleId=1.682680&fFeed=sanews http://www.capetimes.co.za/?fSectionId=3531&fArticleId=1.682680&fFeed=sanews http://www.themercury.co.za/?fSectionId=3535&fArticleId=1.682680&fFeed=sanews http://www.news24.com/printArticle.aspx?iframe&aid=88774e42-3cd1-4832-817b-053045239bb1&cid=1059 http://www.timeslive.co.za/local/article683813.ece/McBride-murder-accusation-unfair http://www.dispatch.co.za/article.aspx?id=437602 http://www.timeslive.co.za/local/article684101.ece/Skeletons-can-be-raised-in-public-interest http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/Skeletons-can-be-raised-in-public-interest-20100930 http://www.iol.co.za/news/crime-courts/court-weighs-validity-of-trc-past-1.682742 http://www.timeslive.co.za/local/article684314.ece/Citizen-argues-validity-of-TRC-past http://www.capetimes.co.za/?fSectionId=3531&fArticleId=1.682742&fFeed=sanews http://www.capeargus.co.za/?fSectionId=3571&fArticleId=1.682742&fFeed=sanews http://www.pretorianews.co.za/?fSectionId=3534&fArticleId=1.682742&fFeed=sanews http://www.themercury.co.za/?fSectionId=3535&fArticleId=1.682742&fFeed=sanews

93


[024] 10-10-01: SAPA-Sunday Tribune500: Court weighs validity of TRC past [025] 10-10-01: SAPA-SA Star501: Court weighs validity of TRC past [026] 10-10-01: SAPA-ECR-Mobile502: McBride Concourt case continues [027] 10-10-01: SAPA-ECR-Newswatch503: McBride Concourt case continues [028] 10-10-01: Citizen504: Concourt: truth versus law [029] 10-10-01: Mail & Guardian (Faranaaz Parker)505: ‘If I see someone stealing, can I call him a thief?’ [030] 10-10-01: Eyewitness News506: Stephen Grootes: McBride lawyer are playing with semantics [031] 10-09-30: TimesLive507: Khethme Chelemu: When is a Killer not a Killer? [032] 10-10-01: Business Day508: Ernest Mabuza: Court reserves McBride judgment [033] 10-10-05: Daily Maverick509: Stephen Grootes: Analysis: Citizen vs McBride, to remember or not to remember [034] 10-09-30: SAPA-City Press510: McBride murderer accusation ‘unfair’ [035] 10-09-30: SAPA-SunInd-IOL511: Court weighs validity of TRC past [192]

On Monday, October 4, 2010 a complaint was filed with the Press Ombudsman against aforementioned publications: Complaint Submission to SA Press Council from Radical Honesty White Refugee512.

[193]

The Ombudsman (Fifth Respondent) responded that he required One Page Summary’s of the complaints; implying that these summaries were required to be submitted to the Publications for their attention, and a signed waiver. These were subsequently submitted to the Ombudsman on 06 October513: [B]

Nature of Complaint: Violations of Press Codes: 1.1 & 1.2.2

1.1: Inaccurate & unfair by omission; 1.2: Not in context, unbalanced, departed from facts by (2) intentional material omissions of Radical Honesty argument in public interest514. [C]

Overview of Radical Honesty White Refugee Argument

Eight parties submitted arguments to the Concourt: Six Amici, Applicant and Respondent. The Radical Honesty argument has been censored from all CCT 23-10 news reports. It is alleged that the Omission of Radical Honesty argument is an intentional, malicious campaign of censorship of: [7515] ‘If It Bleads, It Leads’ Media Parasite 500

http://www.sundaytribune.co.za/?fSectionId=3537&fArticleId=1.682742&fFeed=sanews http://www.thestar.co.za/?fSectionId=3268&fArticleId=1.682742&fFeed=sanews http://www.ecr.co.za/kagiso/content/en/east-coast-radio/east-coast-radio-mobile-news?oid=932049&sn=Mobile+news+detail&pid=171901 503 http://www.ecr.co.za/kagiso/content/en/east-coast-radio/east-coast-radio-news?oid=932049&sn=Detail&pid=490476&McBride-Concourt-casecontinues 504 http://www.thecitizen.co.za/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=128517&catid=80:breaking-news&Itemid=132 505 http://www.mg.co.za/article/2010-10-01-if-i-see-someone-stealing-can-call-him-a-thief 506 http://www.eyewitnessnews.co.za/articleprog.aspx?id=49757 507 http://www.citypress.co.za/SouthAfrica/News/McBride-murder-accusation-unfair-20100930-2 508 http://www.businessday.co.za/Articles/Content.aspx?id=122504 509 http://www.thedailymaverick.co.za/article/2010-10-04-analysis-citizen-vs-mcbride-to-remember-or-not-to-remember 510 http://www.citypress.co.za/SouthAfrica/News/McBride-murder-accusation-unfair-20100930-2 511 http://www.sundayindependent.co.za/?fSectionId=3536&fArticleId=1.682742&fFeed=sanews 512 http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/101001_rhwr_sapc_30ecolaw?mode=a_p 513 http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/101006_rhwr_sapc-35ecolaw?mode=a_p 514 Johan Retief, Media Ethics (2002: 160); Helge Ronning & Francis P Kasoma, Media Ethics (2002: 71) 515 Paragraph [**] of Radical Honesty (First) Amicus Curiae to Concourt in The Citizen v. Robert McBride (CCT 23-10) 501 502

94


complicity to Political Violence; [26-332] Dr. Blanton: How sincere v. fake forgiveness affects ‘reasonable reader’; [512] Dr. Maher: How and Why Journalists Avoid Population-Environment Connection Study; [52-792] TRC’s ‘Crime of Apartheid’ Falsification of History, because Apartheid was a Just War for Afrikaner Demographic Survival; [86-982] 40 SA Media Editors Endorse Legal and Political Persecution (Denial of Freedom of Speech) of RH White Refugee.

[194]

On 08 October 2010 I requested the SAPS to suspend proceedings in the investigation of the Ecolaw charges originally filed with the Green Scorpions, as an act of good faith to the Press Ombudsman, to provide him with the opportunity to make an impartial fair enquiry into the matter and settle it fairly; should he wish to accept the responsibility to do so.

[195]

On 11 October 2010, the Ombudsman denies my complaint516, totally misstating my complaint, and endorsing media censorship of media corruption.

[196]

On 13 October 2010, I filed an Appeal517 (PDF) with the Press Appeals Panel: Judge Ralph Zulman. Appeal Issue #1: Deputy Ombudsman’s Representation Request for me to Sign a Waiver implied a Hearing where I could hear the Defence of the Publications. Denial of any Defendant’s argument, via Ombudsman’s dismissal, renders Complainant’s Waiver Null and Void. Appeal Issue #2: Either, the Deputy Ombudsman (a) did not impartially apply his mind with due diligence to my complaint, perhaps because I am not an important ‘elite’ person; or (b) endorses (i) the censorship of media corruption518: their censorship of nonviolent dissent, and their role in the Population Production of Poverty and Violence; for parasitic ‘If It Bleads, It Leads’ financial corporate benefits from political violence (para: 20-25 of my complaint), (ii) the censorship from the public of SA Media Editors discrimination and prejudice against White Refugees (para: 15-19).

[197]

On 20 October 2010 I wrote to the Office of the Press Ombudsman to confirm they had received my Appeal. Ms. Khanyi Mndaweni responded that Judge Zulman was out of the country, and that the Appeal would only be heard once he returned from his travels at the end of October.

[198]

On 15 November 2010 Judge Ralph Zulman denied519 my Appeal. On 17 November 2010 I requested Judge Zulman to provide a clearly and succinctly articulated ruling, which includes written reasons for his decisions. There is however a significant problem. You make no reference in the ruling to which case you are referring to. I currently have two applications before the Press Appeals Panel/Judge Zulman: one is an application for appeal, and the other for review. Your ruling provides no indication as to which case you are referring to. It is accordingly impossible for me to determine which application you have denied. It is also impossible to determine which documentation you read, to determine your

516 517 518 519

http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/101011_rhwr_sapc-35ecolaw-dismissed?mode=a_p http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/101011_sapap-appeal_35-ecolaw-justice?mode=a_p Definition as per S.3 of Prevention and Combatting of Corrupt Activities Act, 2004 http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/101117_sapap_jzulman-35-ecolaw?mode=a_p

95


conclusion, since you provide no table of contents, or reference regarding the documentation you enquired into. Please could you provide me with a ruling that clarifies which case you ruled upon, which is based upon your enquiry into specific documentation, listing such documentation. Your ruling also provides no written reasons for your decision whatsoever. The Applications I currently have before the Press Appeals Panel are as follows: APPLICATION FOR APPEAL # 1: Submitted on 13 October 2010: Application to Appeal Denial of Hearing by Deputy Ombudsman Johan Retief: Radical Honesty White Refugee 35 Complaint Submissions to SA Press Council re: Concourt #2310 proceedings. Appeal Issue #1: Deputy Ombudsman’s Representation Request for me to Sign a Waiver implied a Hearing where I could hear the Defence of the Publications. Denial of any Defendant’s argument, via Ombudsman’s dismissal, renders Complainants Waiver Null and Void. Appeal Issue #2: Either, the Deputy Ombudsman (a) did not impartially apply his mind with due diligence to my complaint, perhaps because I am not an important ‘elite’ person; or (b) endorses (i) the censorship of media corruption[1]: their censorship of non-violent dissent, and their role in Population Production of Poverty and Violence; for parasitic ‘If It Bleads, It Leads’ financial corporate benefits from political violence (para: 20-25 of my complaint), (ii) the censorship from the public of SA Media Editors discrimination and prejudice against White Refugees (para: 15-19). APPLICATION FOR REVIEW # 2: Submitted on 08 November 2010: Review Issue #1: No offence meant, but if Judge Zulman -– like City Press, SA Media journalists, Dep. Ombudsman Johan Retief, Magistrate ADS Meyer (George), Magistrate Louw (Capetown: 17/1384/07), etc -- lacks the intellectual, cultural, political, ideological, and/or legal cognitive capability to apply your mind to make an impartial enquiry into intellectual perspectives held by culture’s, intellectual schools of thought and religions other than the Judge’s own (i.e. such as the Radical Honesty culture); Your Honour is respectfully requested to please recuse yourself from accepting this Application for Review; and to refer Johnstone to file this Application for Review either to the SA Appeals Court, SA Constitutional Court, or if – in the Judge’s honest opinion – no current Judicial body in SA possesses Jurists capable of making an impartial enquiry into intellectual perspectives held by culture’s and religions other than such Justice’s own, to refer this matter to the UN Human Rights Committee, pursuant to Article 27, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the SA governments denial of the right of minority members to practice their culture. Review Issue #2: Review and Set Aside 03 November 2010 Ruling and Retraction (Revised Ruling), 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.

[199]

On 17 November I was informed by the Press Council (Ms. Mndaweni) it was the Appeal that had been denied; the Review had yet to be submitted to the Press Appeals Panel/Judge.

[200]

On 17 November I responded: 96


However, my aforementioned requests to the Press Appeals Panel/Judge Zulman remain unchanged: (a) to clearly in writing stipulate the details of the particular case his ruling is about; (b) to clarify with sufficient detail, which documentation he enquired into, for his ruling, (c) to provide his written reasons for his decision.

[201]

Ms. Mndaweni responded enquiring whether my request for written reasons, meant I intended to take the matter to the Supreme Court.

[202]

I responded: I had not made any final decision on any further action in the matter. I am unclear: Is it Judge Zulman's conscious intention to deliver a vague ruling, and to keep his clear and articulate ruling to himself in his head? I am unable to read the Judge's mind, so I am simply informing him that I request his crystal clear ruling, which he is currently withholding in his brain. If he chooses to provide me with the crystal clear ruling, then there can be multiple valid reasons for why he did not provide it the first time. If however he refuses to provide me with the crystal clear ruling in his brain, then it shall be more fair for me to conclude that it is his deliberate conscious intention to withhold his crystal clear ruling, and to only share his vague ruling. Consequently I can then conclude he is being deliberately vague. So, before I draw a conclusion about the Judge's intentions, as a matter of honour (highly valued in my culture) I would prefer to give him the feedback that I am confused about his vague ruling and request his crystal clear ruling. I am also confused about his legal interpretations, since those are also being withheld (by not providing any written reasons, where my argument is in legal or factual error). Consequently my request to Judge Zulman, is simply good faith, honourable feedback to inform him that his communication is extremely vague and unclear, and to request that he make his ruling clear and specific, including his reasons. If he does provide me with clear reasons, and I find myself to be in disagreement with his ruling, in accordance with the reasons provided, I may indeed take the matter further. If on the other hand he provides me with a ruling where it is clear he has given my argument a fair and impartial hearing, and provides written reasons for where my argument is mistaken and in error; then I shall have received some valuable feedback, and can accordingly adapt my knowledge on the matter accordingly.

“CITY PRESS PROPAGANDA” [203]

When I lived in San Francisco, and mentored under criminologist and psychologist Dr. Richard Korn, one of the lawyers I met, was Paul Harris. In his book, Black Rage Confronts the Law520, on pages 42-43, Paul Harris, describes how an honest, impartial judge, committed to giving any and every accused coming before his court a free and fair trial, responds to a ‘guilty’ plea where it is clear the accused is of the subjective

520

http://www.guerrillalaw.com/blackrage.html

97


belief in his innocence; i.e. does not believe himself to be guilty, but is being coerced to plead guilty, for some or other reason: 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!”

[204]

The three essential requirements for someone to be convicted of crimen injuria are: Intention, Unlawful and Serious. If one of them is missing, if the statement was NOT INTENTIONAL, the person CANNOT BE FOUND GUILTY OF CRIMEN INJURIA.

[205]

I watched the trial of the Reitz Four with interest. It was clear they had NO INTENTION to insult the Hostel workers who knew they were participating in a satire, (‘Werkers het geweet hulle speel toneel’/Workers knew they were role playing521). If Volksblad knew this, surely so did all the other English media? Why were the English media not reporting this crucial fact, regarding the essential ingredient required for crimen injuria guilt? Were they deliberately withholding the information, to scapegoat the Reits Four?

[206]

When the Reits Four pled – dolus eventualis - guilty to crimen injuria, after hiring one of the most expensive advocates in the country (surely not to plead guilty?), and even worse, the Magistrate’s response was to accept their guilty plea – unlike Judge Weigel’s “This is not a guilty plea. I refuse to accept the plea. You are going to trial!”; I suspected the magistrate did so, as a result of either legal crimen injuria and/or conflict of laws ignorance, and/or media pressure.

521

Mike van Rooyen, Volksblad, 28-07-2010: http://www.volksblad.com/Suid-Afrika/Nuus/Werkers-het-geweet-hulle-speel-toneel-20100728

98


[207]

I filed an Application to Proceed as an Amicus Curiae522, submitted it to the Prosecution, Magistrate, Clerk and Accused. It requested the court and parties to take notice of the following information: [3] To confirm that the Court, Plaintiffs and Defendants have taken notice of the Radical Honesty – RSA Amicus Curiae filed before the Constitutional Court, in the matter of The Citizen v. McBride, the contents of which may have been relevant to the decision making of the Plaintiffs and/or Defendants, if either party had been aware of their contents, but which are being massively censored by the corrupt South African media. Among others the Radical Honesty RSA Amicus Curiae before the Constitutional Court alleges: [a] That the ‘TRC social contract’ 523 is founded on Truth and Reconciliation Commission fraud, as a result of, among others: [i] Negligent or Intentional Avoidance of Key Concepts Cultural Definitions: Conflict of Law Definitions, Fundamental Concepts were not defined. [ii] Truth and Reconciliation was not Seen to Be Done, but was selective, biased, and discriminated against, among others, the SADF, the IFP and ANC members who had been detained, tortured, raped and executed in ANC prison camps such as Camp Quatro, in Angola. [iii] How the Liberation Struggle could not have been considered a ‘just war’, within Just War Legal principles, when Apartheid had raised poor black living standards to the highest in Africa; [iv] That Apartheid was not a Crime Against Humanity, but a Just War for Afrikaner Demographic Survival; and that the ANC-TRC deliberately covered up this information and censored it, in favour of declaring Apartheid a ‘crime against humanity’. [v] That Farm Murders provide the evidence that South Africans – Afrikaners in particular -- do not live under a ‘Rainbow TRC Peace’ social contract, but under a Racial Hatred War Reality. [b] Media Corruption: Massive ‘If It Bleads, it Leads’ Media stoking of South Africa’s Race War, including the evidence for how 40 of SA’s Media Editors endorse Legal and Political Persecution of White Refugees, i.e. they admit that they are “deliberate indifferent to certain people of certain ethnicities and/or ideologies and/or cultures and/or religions being politically and legally persecuted and prosecuted…”; [5] For an Order from the court clarifying whether the Defendants and Plaintiffs belong to different culture’s and whether they were informed by their counsel of their constitutional rights to invoking524 cultural law525 in S. 15 (3), 30, 31, and 185, and which require the application of choice of law rules, and if not their Criminal Procedure Act, 51 of 1977: S. 105A. Plea and sentence agreements: (9) (d).526 rights

[208]

At approximately 09:10 hrs on Friday 30 July 2010, I received a telephone call from a lady who said her name was Khadija Bradlow. She said she was a journalist for City Press.

522

http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100326_rhapplic2concourt-amicus?mode=a_p The Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act, 34 of 1995 (“TRC Act”), mandate was provided for in The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa Act, 200 of 1993 (“Interim Constitution”), both which collectively set the ‘social contract’ foundation for the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, Act 108 of 1996 (“SA Constitution”); all collectively herein after referred to as ‘TRC Social Contract’. 524 Ex parte Minister of Native Affairs: In re Yako v Beyi 1948 (1) SA 388 (A) at 397: Appellate Division held that neither common nor customary law was prima facie applicable. Courts had to consider all the circumstances of a case, and, without any preconceived view about the applicability of one or other legal system, select the appropriate law on the basis of its inquiry. 525 SALC, Sept 1999: Report on Conflicts of law: P.22: ‘1.58. The Constitution now provides an entitlement for invoking customary law in legal suits. Because ss 30 and 31 specifically guarantee an individual and a group's right to pursue a culture of choice, it could be argued that application of customary law has become a constitutional right. Previously, the state had assumed complete discretion in deciding whether and to what extent customary law should be recognized, an attitude typical of colonial thinking, for Africans were subject to whatever policies the conquering state chose to impose on them. Now, however, the state has a duty to allow people to participate in the culture they choose, implicit in this duty is a responsibility to uphold the institutions on which that culture is based.’ 526 Criminal Procedure Act, 51 of 1977: S. 105A. Plea and sentence agreements: (9) (d) If the prosecutor or the accused withdraws from the agreement as contemplated in paragraph (b) (ii), the trial shall start de novo before another presiding officer: Provided that the accused may waive his or her right to be tried before another presiding officer. 523

99


[209]

It is my interpretation that Ms. Bradlows’ statement that she is a journalist, with City Press, means that she made the representation to me, that she is committed to SANEF’s Press Code of Professional Practice527.

[210]

She asked if I was Lara Johnstone, from Radical Honesty – SA. I said I was. She asked whether I had filed a Radical Honesty – SA Amicus Curiae in the Reitz Four matter. I confirmed I did. She said she had gotten my telephone number from the State Prosecutor in the Reitz Four trial, Mr. Johan Kruger, who had provided her with only two pages of the Radical Honesty Amicus, could I please email her a PDF of the entire Amicus. I confirmed I would do so, and gave her my email address.

[211]

At approximately 09:17 hrs, I received her email, titled, Khadija Bradlow email address. I replied by providing her a pdf copy of the Amicus, as an attachment: Radical Honesty Amicus Curiae to Bloemfontein Magistrates Court: Case #: 21-70908: State v. S. van der Merwe, J. Roberts, RC Malherbe, D. Grobler: Notice of Motion, Founding Affidavit & Proof of Service (p.13)528.

[212]

I never received any further correspondence from Ms. Bradlow. On 02 August 2010, I saw an article on City Press website titled, Rightwing group tries to scupper Reitz trial529, published: 2010-07-30 12:45, by Khadija Bradlow, City Press and realized that the representation provided to me by Ms. Bradlow that she abides by the SA Press Code was a blatant falsehood. She had lied to me.

[213]

On 05 August 2010, I filed a complaint of defamation and fraud with the police (CAS 180-08-2010530), against City Press Newspaper, Editor Ms. Ferial Haffajee, Journalist Ms. Khadija Bradlow and her alleged anonymous source known only as ‘senior legal figure present in court’.

[214]

On 04 October 2010, I received an email from SAPS: COLONEL S V MATIWANE, wherein he stated that: The above charge laid by you on 2010-08-05 at George Police Station, refers. This matter was referred to Senior Public Prosecutor, George for a decision on prosecution. The latter declined to prosecute any person in this matter and requested that you refer your complaint to the Press Ombudsman for adjudication.

[215]

On 13 October 2010, I filed the Radical Honesty White Refugee complaint with the SAPS531 with the Press Council, as per the SAPS/Prosecutors referral. I was subsequently

527 528 529 530 531

http://www.sanef.org.za/resources/publications/entry/press_code_of_professional_practice/ http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100729__rh-reits4-amicus?mode=a_p http://www.citypress.co.za/SouthAfrica/News/Rightwing-group-tries-to-scupper-Reitz-trial-20100730 http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100805_saps_citypress_fraud-defamation?mode=a_p http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100805_saps_citypress_fraud-defamation?mode=a_p

100


informed that my complaint would only be accepted, if I filed it as a one page summary, which I did532. [B]

Nature of Complaint: Violations of Press Codes: 1.1, 1.2, 1.5, 2.1, & 5.1

[1.1] Not truthful, accurate or fair; [1.2] Not in context, unbalanced, departed from facts by (1) distortion, exaggeration and misrepresentation; (2) intentional material omissions, (3) summarisation; [1.5] Not contacted for any comment; [2.1] Ideologically discriminatory; [5.1] Headline misrepresentation of facts. [C]

Overview of Radical Honesty White Refugee Argument

Radical Honesty is NOT a ‘right wing’ group. A Jew who speaks up and requests justice for a Christian, is not a Christian. A member of the DA who speaks up on behalf of justice for an IFP member is not a member of the IFP. In a country that practice mobjustice people only speak up for their own group. When any group speaks up for justice for members of another group – they are speaking up for CONSTITUTIONAL JUSTICE; I.E. THE RULE OF LAW. Radical Honesty supports the RULE OF LAW for EVERYONE, irrespective of whether we agree with them or not, they deserve to be found guilty by the rule of law, not the media. (para 12) Radical Honesty did NOT try to ‘scupper’ the Reits Four trial. To the contrary. Speaking up for an accused to be judged in accordance with THE RULE OF LAW, NOT A MEDIA SCAPEGOAT ORGY, is clearly resented by the scapegoat scuppering media. (para.13) These headline misrepresentations totally alter the context of the article. Consider for example the headline: ‘Transparency group discloses media’s censorship’ Radical Honesty accused the media of “spitting on cultures who practice sincere forgiveness and root cause problem solving”; the omission is significant. (para.14) Radical Honesty honourably and transparently provided the Truth and Reconciliation Commission with its conclusions –detailed evidence-for the TRC’s bias, conflicts of interest, censorship, etc; and provided the TRC with all opportunities to provide counter arguments. Such honourable behaviour is only considered an ‘attack’ by those who endorse fascist dictatorship, that don’t allow dissent; and who are totally clueless that the growth of humanity, individuals, or organisations is from hearing honest feedback about errors made, so that they can be fixed. (para.15) Ms. Bradlow’s anonymous source was not only uninformed (had not read the documentation he was commenting on), prejudiced towards minority groups, but was acting in violation of the Bar Code’s Uniform Rules of Professional Conduct (4.12, 4.18.3 & 4.21.1), hence possibly biased, unprofessional, and/or unethical (para.18-22) Ms. Bradlow never bothered to call me for any comment; or response to Magistrate ruling or her ‘senior legal figure’ anonymous source’s comment (para.23-27)

[216]

On 18 October 2010, the Press Council informed me of City Press’s Reply533 to the Radical Honesty White Refugee complaint.

[217]

On 20 October 2010, I submitted the Radical Honesty White Refugee response534 to City Press’s reply. City Press declined to address numerous issues raised in the Radical Honesty arguments, which I subsequently re-stated in my response as ‘Statements of Fact, Not In Dispute by Default’.

532 533 534

http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/101013_sapc-ombudsman_citypress?mode=a_p http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/101018_sapc_citypressreply_rh?mode=a_p http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/101020_sapc_rh-reply-2-citypress?mode=a_p

101


[218]

On November 03 2010 at 08:43 hrs, the Ombudsman issues his first ruling535 (he later retracts it, and then totally deletes it). The newspaper made no attempt to ask Johnstone, the subject of the story, for comment. This is in breach of Art. 1.5 of the Press Code that states: “A publication should usually seek the views of serious critical reportage in advance of publication…” Sanction: City Press is reprimanded for not asking Johnstone for comment……

[219]

In a similar case Inkatha Freedom Party vs. the Sowetan536, the Ombudsman makes an impartial enquiry of the complaint, by ascertaining the meaning and definitions of the words used, and defining how it was meant by the publication, and how and why the publication are not only reprimanded for not asking the IFP for comment, but they are instructed to ask them for comment, and to publish such comment. In my case he never bothers to make any enquiry into the definition for City Press’s use of the term ‘right wing’, and ‘scupper’, and in my case, in his first ruling City Press are only reprimanded, they are not required to ask me for comment, as the Sowetan are required to do for Inkatha Freedom Party: The Sowetan is directed to ask comment from Buthelezi on this issue and to publish this comment (if Buthelezi indeed wishes to give comment), together with a summary of this finding. If he does not want to comment, the newspaper is directed to publish a retraction of the statement in dispute.

[220]

On Nov 03 2010 at 08:43 hrs, the Ombudsman issues a new ruling537, after City Press had contacted him to complain about his ruling (the complaint was not provided to Radical Honesty, nor did the Ombudsman refuse the complaint and order City Press to file an appeal). The Ombudsman responds to City Press’s secret complaint by retracting his previous ruling, but makes no mention of the reasons for such retractions and the deletion538 of the first ruling, he simply pretends the first ruling does not exist, and issues a new ruling, where he now alleges all issues he prefers not to deal with and cover up, are ‘frivolous’.

[221]

In both rulings the Ombudsman decides to act as council on behalf of City Press, and rules the Statements of Fact not in Dispute as frivolous.

[222]

Even though the Ombudsman has access to all the arguments filed, the Press Council do not practice any form of transparency by publishing the actual complaint, City Press’s response, and my response. There is no means by which any citizen or reporter can access the original documents to determine whether the Ombudsman’s descriptions of the parties complaints are accurate and true, or whether he has deliberately or negligently given a false interpretation of any of the arguments.

535 536 537 538

http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/101104__sapc_citypress-ruling-1-deleted?mode=a_p http://www.presscouncil.org.za/pages/posts/inkatha-freedom-party-vs.-sowetan125.php http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/10-11-04__sapc_ruling-2?mode=a_p http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/101104__sapc_citypress-ruling-1-deleted?mode=a_p

102


[223]

On 08 November 2010, I file an application for review to Judge Ralph Zulman, of the Press Appeals Panel:

[224]

[I]

No offence meant, but if Judge Zulman -– like City Press, SA Media journalists, Dep. Ombudsman Johan Retief, Magistrate ADS Meyer (George), Magistrate Louw (Capetown: 17/1384/07), etc -- lacks the intellectual, cultural, political, ideological, and/or legal cognitive capability to apply your mind to make an impartial enquiry into intellectual perspectives held by culture’s, intellectual schools of thought and religions other than the Judge’s own (i.e. such as the Radical Honesty culture); Your Honour is respectfully requested to please recuse yourself from accepting this Application for Review; and to refer Johnstone to file this Application for Review either to the SA Appeals Court, SA Constitutional Court, or if – in the Judge’s honest opinion – no current Judicial body in SA possesses Jurists capable of making an impartial enquiry into intellectual perspectives held by culture’s and religions other than such Justice’s own, to refer this matter to the UN Human Rights Committee, pursuant to Article 27, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the SA governments denial of the right of minority members to practice their culture.

[II]

Review and Set Aside Dep. Ombudsman Johan Retief’s Revised Ruling publicized by email to media on 03 November at 16:09 hrs (uploaded to Press Ombudsman’s website on Nov 04 2010 at 7:34 AM); by issuing an order to reinstate the Finding and Sanction made in the Initial Ruling, under ‘Not Asked for Comment’…

[III]

Review and Set Aside Ombudsman’s Initial and Revised Ruling publicized by email to Press Ombudsman website on Nov 03 2010 at 08:43 hrs

Issues dealt with in the Application for Review: [A] Relief Requested [B] Facts NOT in Dispute, by Default [C] Propositions of Law with Reference to Authorities: [D] Application of Facts to Propositions of Law [E] Record of Related Relevant Evidentiary Documents: Radical Honesty SA Amicus Curiae’s to (i) Constitutional Court: Citizen v. McBride & (ii) Reits Four Magistrates Court. PLEASE NOTE: Not every example of plausible bias or other gross irregularity in Ombudsman’s Rulings are herein addressed, for brevity purposes. The decision not to address them does not imply that the issues raised in this application are the only examples of gross irregularities on behalf of the Ombudsman.

[225]

On 09 November, Press Ombudsmans secretary Ms. Khanyi Mndaweni informs me that my Application for Review has been forwarded to Judge Zulman, and that I should expect a response hopefully before the end of the year, and that the Ombudsman’s offices shall be closed from 15 December to 03 January.

[226]

On 24 November 2010, Judge Zulman provided me with his ruling in a format that I was unable to read on my computer (.docx); and both he and Press Ombudsman’s office refused to convert the document to (.doc) format. Judge Zulman stated that he had faxed the ruling, which he may have, but I received no such ruling by fax. I managed to email it to a friend who converted the .docx to a .doc document; whereupon I was able to read the ruling. The ‘ruling’ was a form letter the content of which stated exactly what the previous ‘ruling’, stated.

103


2. I am satisfied that the Deputy Press Ombudsman has properly applied his mind to the matter. 3. I draw your attention to paragraph 3.1 of the Constitution of the Press Council of South Africa read with paragraph 2.6 of Annexure A thereto. The relevant portion of paragraph 2.6 reads as follows: “ lf the Chairperson of the South African Press Council Appeals Panel [SAPAP] is of the view that the SAPAP may come to a decision different to that of the Ombudsman ...he or she grants leave to appeal.” 4. I regret to inform you that I am of the view that there is no reasonable prospect that the SAPAP may come to a decision different to that of the Deputy Press Ombudsman. 5. Accordingly leave to appeal is refused.

[227]

On 24 November 2010, Judge Zulman also responded to my 17 November email to Ms. Mndaweni, which I had copied to Judge Zulman, asking him to please provide me with clear written reasons for his prior denial of my application for leave to appeal, for where my argument was in error: 1. I refer to previous emails that have have passed between us and a copy of an email that you sent to Khyanyi Mndaweni dated 17 November , a copy of which was forwarded to me.. 2. Concerning what I will term your first application for leave to appeal being that submitted by you on 13 October 2010, I refer you to my decission which was faxed to you on 17 November 2010 (fax number 086 561 9566) and provide you with the following answers to the questions that you pose in your email to me dated 17 November 2010: 2.1 The case that I am refering to is the first ruling made by Mr Retief. The application for leave to appeal (wrongly described as a "review") and which I will refer to as the second ruling and which was submitted by you on 8 November 2010, was not then before me. It is now before me and I will deal with it, in so far as it is not dealt with herein, in a fax to you or preferably in an email that you provide to me and wherein you are able to dowload an attachment. 2.2. I read and considered all of the documentation that was before the Deputy Ombudsman in both matters in order to determine my conclusion. 2.3 . The written reasons for my decisions appear from paragraphs 1,2 and 4 of my rulings in both matters.

[228]

On 27 November 2010, I responded with among others: Re: “2.3. The written reasons for my decisions appear from paragraphs 1,2 and 4 of my rulings in both matters.” Clearly you and I have huge differences when it comes to defining the term ‘written reasons’. Maybe all the judges in your culture agree, that clarity, accuracy and detail are not important for a judge’s ruling, cause judges don’t need the people’s respect for their integrity, honesty and detailed transparency of decision-making; they can just demand it by virtue of being called a ‘judge’. We shall have to wait and see. I have not received your fax, but I did manage to email your .docx document that you refused to provide to me in a version I could open, to a friend, who quickly converted it, with his windows program (just like yours) to a .doc program and returned to me. So, I am in receipt of both of your ‘rulings’. I shall be preparing the documentation to file an application for review of your rulings, and Press Council procedures and lack of procedures. Should you change your mind, and wish to provide me with more clear detailed written reasons, because earning the respect from those you adjudicate upon is of utmost importance to you; please feel free to do so. If so, please let me know by when (date 104


and time) I shall receive such crystal clear detailed written reasons, for where exactly I made errors of fact or of law; and I shall delay filing my application for review, until I have received them; unless they are of such clarity to describe my alleged errors of fact and/or law, so convincingly that I am finally clear as to your decision-making and reasoning; and know that I have received a fair, serious and impartial hearing, and been informed of my erroneous facts of points of law.

[229]

On 27 November 2010 Judge Zulman responded: I have noted your comments. I have nothing to add to my previous decissions which were conveyed to you

[230]

On 27 November 2010, I informed Judge Zulman: No problem. Thank you for letting me know. I shall proceed with drawing up the application for review documentation, and provide you with service thereof soon as it is done.

CONDONATION: IF, OR WHERE SO REQUIRED: [231]

The delay in filing on particular issues are a result of the Applicant total sincere belief that initial ‘red flags’ here under review were simply isolated incidents; and not the result of a systemic corrupt media. As these ‘red flag’ incidents, continued to increase, without any evidence to the contrary; the Applicant became alarmed, and decided that further social science enquiry needed to be made. Opportunities needed to be provided to SA media editors to practice what they preach. When such editors were provided with the opportunity to decline to do so, repeatedly; only then could certain conclusions be drawn that their conduct was conscious. This is consequently submitted to the court, as a Big Picture Review of the alleged irregular and morally and intellectually corrupt conduct of the SA media. While Western medicine focuses on isolated diseased body parts, and frequently ignores psychological or other root causal problems of diseased bodies, or states of mind; Eastern holistic medicine focuses on the whole, the interconnectedness, the sum of all parts being greater than the whole. This application attempts a synthesis of both, including a mirror for the SA media to confront themselves with; should they find the courage to do so.

(SGD) L JOHNSTONE PROPRIA PERSONA / PRO SE Per: 16 Taaibos Ave George, 6539 Tel: (044) 870 7239

Email: jmcswan@mweb.co.za 105

Profile for Andrea Muhrrteyn

11-01-03: Founding Affidavit: Lara Johnstone: Application for Writ of Habeus Mentem & Certiorari  

11-01-03: Founding Affidavit: Lara Johnstone: Application for Writ of Habeus Mentem & Certiorari

11-01-03: Founding Affidavit: Lara Johnstone: Application for Writ of Habeus Mentem & Certiorari  

11-01-03: Founding Affidavit: Lara Johnstone: Application for Writ of Habeus Mentem & Certiorari

Profile for js-ror
Advertisement