CITY OF WESTMINSTER MAGISTRATES COURT UNITED KINGDOM Case No: 1004020346 Issue: Extradition In the matter between: REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA (RSA)
and SHRIEN DEWANI
CONDONATION AFFIDAVIT: LARA JOHNSTONE Issues:
If ‘Pro Se’ Application was/is Problematic for Clerk of Court Officials:
The Financial State of Indigence of the Applicant:
Assistance vs. Representation of Counsel:
Assistance of Counsel and the ‘Matrix of Kaffir Legislation’:
I the undersigned, LARA JOHNSTONE Do hereby state under oath as follows: 
I am an adult unemployed paralegal, resident at 16 Taaibos Avenue, Heatherpark, George; where I run a small wormery business, which earns me less than R1,000.00 per month. I pay my rent, accommodation, food and internet in barter trading of compost. I include a bank statement for the past two months (Annex A), and my Community Exchange System (CES) (www.ces.org.za) alternative local currency barter trading account (Annex B).
Save where appears from the context, the facts contained in this affidavit are within my own personal knowledge and are, to the best of my knowledge and belief, both true and correct.
This is an application for an Order to approve the Applicant as a Pro Se Amici Curiae in the above proceedings in terms of Re Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission (Northern Ireland)  UKHL 251 (Lord Woolf, para 32);
If ‘Pro Se’ Application was Problematic for Clerk of Court Officials:
This Application for Condonation is submitted in the event that my ‗Pro Se‘ application is problematic for Clerk of the Court, and/or Court Officials; and if so to correct such uncertainty, and to provide for requisite guidelines, in regards to Pro Se applications.
On Monday, January 17, 2011 1:15 PM, I provided the Clerk of the Court with a copy of the written consent I had filed to both parties, to proceed as an Amicus Curiae, and requested confirmation of contact details, and the court‘s case reference number: To: 'firstname.lastname@example.org' Subject: Per Electronic Mail: RE: RSA v. Shrien Dewani; Extradition Preliminary Hearing on: 20 January 2011
On 17 January at 01:26 PM, Mr. Russell Sykes responded with: This is the correct court the proceedings will be held in, the case reference number is 1004020346. City of Westminster Magistrates Court 70 Horseferry Road London SW1P 2AX
On 18 January 2011, at 03:24 PM, I filed the Notice of Motion, Founding Affidavit and copies of my Passport and Identity Document with the Clerk of the Court, including evidence of proof of service to both Parties: To: 'Russell.Sykes@hmcourts-service.gsi.gov.uk'; 'email@example.com' Subject: Clerk: City Westminster Mag. Crt__Per Electronic Mail__RSA vs. Shrien Dewani Extradition Hearing: 20 January 2011 Per Electronic Mail: Clerk of the Court City of Westminster Magistrates' Court 70 Horseferry Road London, England SW1P 2AX
General Fax: + 44 (020) 7805 1193 Email: firstname.lastname@example.org CITY OF WESTMINSTER MAGISTRATES COURT, UNITED KINGDOM Case No: 1004020346 Issue: Extradition to RSA Preliminary Hearing: 20 January 2011 In the matter between: REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA (RSA) and SHRIEN DEWANI Take Notice that Lara Johnstone, South African citizen, member of the Radical Honesty culture and religion, intends to apply to the Magistrate of this Court for the following orders:  For an Order to approve the Applicant as a Pro Se Amici Curiae in the above proceedings in terms of Re Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission (Northern Ireland)  UKHL 25 (Lord Woolf, para 32); Please find attached PDF's: * Notice of Motion * Founding Affidavit * Copy of Passport & Identity Book: Lara Johnstone (Married: Johnson)
On 18 January 2011, at 03:31 PM, I was informed by Defence Counsel, that I had the wrong contact details, and that the correct contacts for the Defence were: Hickman & Rose, as Matrix Law were unable to accept service of case papers: From: Daniel Waller [mailto:email@example.com] To: Lara Johnstone; 1PracticeStaff_TeamT Subject: RE: Shrien Dewani Counsel__Per Electronic Mail__RSA vs. Shrien Dewani Extradition Hearing
On 18 January 2011, at 05:41 PM, I updated the submission to both parties and the clerk, with the new Hickman and Rose contact details for the Defendant: To: 'Russell.Sykes@hmcourts-service.gsi.gov.uk'; 'firstname.lastname@example.org' Subject: Updated_TO: CLERK: Westminster Mag Crt__Per Electronic Mail__RSA vs. Shrien Dewani Extradition Hearing: 20 January 2011
On 20 January 2011 9:33 PM, I requested an update regarding the status of my application: To: 'email@example.com'; 'Russell.Sykes@hmcourts-service.gsi.gov.uk' Subject: CLERK: Westminster Mag Crt__Per Electronic Mail__RSA vs. Shrien Dewani Extradition Hearing: 20 January 2011 Could you please clarify the status of my application to proceed as an Amicus Curiae; sent to the Clerk on 18 January 2011, in the matter of RSA v. Shrien Dewani (see below).
On 21 January 2011, I requested the Court Manager to please provide me an update in accordance with HMCS Leaflet EX343: To: 'firstname.lastname@example.org'; 'Russell.Sykes@hmcourts-service.gsi.gov.uk'; 'GLCAO.email@example.com' Subject: Court Manager, City of Westminster Magistrates Court; RE: Amicus Application in RSA vs Dewani (Case 1004020346) Please could you ask the Clerk or relevant person to provide me with a status update regarding the application I submitted. Has it been submitted to Chief Magistrate Howard Riddle? If not, will it? If not, why not?
I also requested the Home Secretary of the UK2, and subsequently thereto the UK Independence Party3 -- who objected to Mr. Julian Assangeâ€˜s Extradition4 -- to request the Court to provide me with an update: Would you be so kind as to request the Court to provide me with an update as to the status of my application.
On 25 January 2011 at 12:06 PM, Mr. Nigel Farage, UKIP MEP in the European Parliament, for South East Region requested City of Westminster Magistrates Court to please provide the courts response to the Amicus Curiae Application filed by Lara Johnstone in RSA v. Shrien Dewani. Mr. Farage believes that any applicant who files a legal application to the clerk of the court, should receive a written answer, even if such an application is unusual; and that he trusted that the court shall 'issue the requisite notice of a decision, without further delay.' From: FARAGE Nigel [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] To: Russell.Sykes@hmcourts-service.gsi.gov.uk Cc: Lara Johnstone Subject: Re application to act as amicus curiae
On 03 February 2011 5:11 PM, my request to the Home Secretary of the UK5 was responded to by Mr. Russell Meek, Case Worker, Complaints Handling and Enquiries Team, Customer Services Division, Her Majesty's Courts Service, Operations and Performance Directorate:
Home Secretary's Office, Her Majesty's Court Service & UKIP Mr. Farage Request City of Westminster's Clerk of Court, to Respond to Dewani Amicus Application http://why-we-are-white-refugees.blogspot.com/2011/02/home-secretary-hm-court-svc-req.html 3 UK Ind. Party (UKIP) Request to City of Westminster Clerk of Court; RE: Dewani Amicus Curiae Application http://why-we-are-white-refugees.blogspot.com/2011/01/uk-ind-party-ukip-request-to-city-of.html 4 Assange up against entire EU system, Wednesday, 12th January 2011, UKIP: http://www.ukip.org/content/latest-news/2079-assange-up-against-entire-eu-system UK Ind. Party (UKIP) Request to City of Westminster Clerk of Court; RE: Dewani Amicus Curiae Application http://why-we-are-white-refugees.blogspot.com/2011/01/uk-ind-party-ukip-request-to-city-of.html 5 Home Secretary's Office, Her Majesty's Court Service & UKIP Mr. Farage Request City of Westminster's Clerk of Court, to Respond to Dewani Amicus Application http://why-we-are-white-refugees.blogspot.com/2011/02/home-secretary-hm-court-svc-req.html
From: Meek, Russell [mailto:Russell.Meek@HMCOURTS-SERVICE.GSI.GOV.UK] On Behalf Of Customer Services (CSHQ) Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2011 5:11 PM To: email@example.com Subject: FW: Ms. Theresa May, Home Secretary of UK; RE: Status of Amicus Application in RSA vs Dewani (Case 1004020346) Thank you for your e-mail. I have forwarded it Westminster Magistrates' Court for them to reply direct.
As of 06 February 2011, I have not yet received any response from the City of Westminster Magistrates Court: Clerk of the Court.
The Financial State of Indigence of the Applicants:
In accordance to South African legislation‘s requirements for Pro Bono or In Forma Pauperis Representation requirements, I herewith confirm that I am indigent, in that, except for household goods, wearing apparel and tools of trade, I do not possess of property to the amount of R10 000 and will not be able within a reasonable time to provide such sum from my earnings, which are currently below R500 per month.
Additionally as stated in my Application to Proceed as an Amicus Curiae Affidavit I don‘t only ‗talk‘ Ecolaw, but I actually practice Ecolaw; i.e. ‗walk my talk‘; ‗practice what I preach‘: I am 44 years old, have never been on welfare, have used an IUD as contraception since the age of 19, and hence has never been pregnant, nor had an abortion. I have lived an ecological small footprint life; to avoid aggravating overpopulation, resource wars; materialist consumerism and resource depletion.6
When the Clerk of the Constitutional Court insisted that I file my Application for Direct Access in hardcopy, I responded as follows: Are you saying that citizens pay taxes, which politicians happily dispense to pay poor people who are too lazy to learn to read, but will happily spread their legs to pop out illegitimate bastard babies in order to receive a welfare grant check for the next 18 years? But when it comes to one person who chooses to live simply and poorly, in order to conserve natural resources, in order to live ecologically in harmony with mother nature; the constitutional court registrar demands that (a) the individual violate their culture by endorsing resource war culture consumption like behaviour; (b) the same Constitutional Court that has endorsed welfare handouts for hundreds of thousands of irresponsible people breeding like rabbits on Viagra for the next 18 years, amounting to over a billion rand
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.
each year; is not willing to use taxpayer money to print the court documents of one single citizen whose culture is to live simply and poorly so as to conserve resources, who uses her time to educate herself about the rule of law and to advocate on behalf of an ecological sustainable society? Please clarify: Please could you be so kind as to ask the individual who refused my application, to provide me on Constitutional Court letterhead, the written reasons for their refusal to accept my documentation per email; before submitting it to the Justices. They are welcome to email the letter to firstname.lastname@example.org, in either .doc, or pdf format. Alternatively you can submit it to the Justices per email; and if they approve it for hearing, they can make any relevant instructions, in regards to the conflict of laws and cultural laws, detailed in the argument, which they consider appropriate.
Assistance vs. Representation of Counsel:
When I lived in the United States, I worked as the primary organizing activist for the class action suit: Lyons v. CIA7; with former LAPD investigator Michael C. Ruppert, and attorney‘s Katya Komisaruk and Bill Simpich.
Katya Komisaruk: An Anarchist Lawyer8: On 2 June 1987, Katya broke in to Vandenberg Air Force Base9, where she destroyed the NAVSTAR military navigation system, a million-dollar mainframe IBM 3031 computer, hacking away at it with crowbar, bolt cutters, hammer and cordless drill, before leaving flowers and cookies, and returning to San Francisco to turn herself in. She was sentenced to five years in prison, served two years at the federal penitentiary in Spokane, Washington and was then released on parole. While in jail she studied law with a fellow inmate and helped other inmates file lawsuits. Prior to her release, she applied to several law schools. She received a scholarship to Harvard University. While still on parole, she completed law school and in 1993 was admitted to the California bar—in spite of her arrest record, because the Bar upheld that her political activist crimes did not represent moral failings. Katya studied law for the same reasons she vandalized Vandenberg Air Force Base—to fight what she believes to be injustice.10 ―Lawyers,‖ she explained to the Los Angeles Times, ―should be advocates for justice and for social change.‖ She now runs the non-profit
(i) CIA Sued For Not Reporting Drug Trade: Plaintiffs say failure caused crack epidemic, Benjamin Pimentel, San Francisco Chronicle, Tuesday, March 16, 1999; (ii) Drug crimes allegation leads to CIA, Justice suit: Policy to not report suspicions had role in crack epidemic, lawyer contends, Robert Selna, San Francisco Examiner, Tuesday, March 16, 1999 http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/1999/03/16/MN71513.DTL http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/examiner/archive/1999/03/16/NEWS2104.dtl 8 Legal Righteous: defending indigents, activists, and anarchists, attorney and civil disobedience adviser: katya komisaruk ‘78 is a retrovirus within our legal system, Reed Magazine, May 2003 http://web.reed.edu/reed_magazine/may2003/features/legal_righteous/index.html 9 Katya Komisaruk's Revolution: Why a Berkeley MBA Trashed a Multimillion-Dollar Air Force Computer in the Name of Peace; November 11, 1987, Kathleen Hendrix, LA Times http://articles.latimes.com/1987-11-11/news/vw-13507_1/2 10 The Undeterred: Government Throws the Book at Protesters, Creating Lifelong Activists, by Laura Flanders, Common Dreams, August 13, 2001: http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0814-05.htm
Just Law Collective11. Her activist experience‘s inspired her to become a people's lawyer: an "organizer attorney" as describes herself. According to Frances Olsen of UCLA Law School, ―Katya is potentially the leading criminal defense attorney in the U.S.‖ 
Katya was my Charlie Houston civil-rights social action teacher: 'Howard Law School became a living laboratory where civil-rights law was invented by teamwork. The school worked because of the driving purposefulness of one man: Charlie Houston. He kept hammering at us all those years that, as lawyers, we had to be social engineers or else we were parasites. The whole atmosphere of action-oriented learning under Houston was heady, and every scholar was eager to relate classroom work to social action. We all worked on real briefs and real cases and accompanied Houston and other faculty members to court to learn procedure and tactics. Charlie Houston set out to teach us the difference between what the laws said and meant and how they were applied. His avowed aim was to eliminate that difference. He made it clear to us that when we were done, we were expected to go out and do something with our lives. He was a man you either liked intensely or hated.' -- Former Howard Law School student12
It was during these times that I learnt the difference between what activists referred to as ‗representation of counsel‘ and ‗assistance of counsel‘. In representation of counsel, the legal representative takes over all matters of strategy for the client; including representing the individual in court; whereas in the latter, the client is much more involved in the case, whether in terms of strategy and/or representing themselves and the issues during court proceedings, the counsel‘s assistance is mainly focussed on aiding the client in terms of legal rules and court procedures.
In Representation of Counsel the relationship is one of Expert as Operator; he does to the client what the client cannot do; the role of the client is passive, and the relational aspects are: Client as object, dominance-submission; the experts skills are forbidden to the client.
In Assistance of Counsel, the relationship is one of Expert as Co-Learner; he does with the client, what the client can ultimately do for himself; the relationship is one of reciprocity, the client is a colleague, with equality role-exchange; the professional relationship is fully shared and transparent.
One of the fundamental reasons why Delancey Street Foundation was and remains so successful, is that its ‗experts‘, were all former ‗incompetents‘ and that its relationships with new ‗incompetents‘ are all founded on a relationship of reciprocity, where experts are co-learners.
http://www.lawcollective.org/ Simple Justice: The history of Brown v. Board of Education, by Richard Kluger
The differences of these relationships can be found in any field where any individual considers themselves an expert; such as for example, Psychologists and Criminologists, in the practice of rehabilitation; where experts who have chose to practice as ‗colearners‘ have found the greatest amount of success.
As stated by criminologist, Dr. Richard Korn, paraphrased by myself in my An Essay on Proudly South African Parasite Hypocrisy: Fraudulent 'Rehabilitation' Boomerang: Correctional Services Prison Policies As A Major Intentional Source of New South Africa's 'Kaffirs' AKA 'Criminals'13, submitted to the Dept. of Corrections, Insp. Judge of Prisons, Dir. Of Public Prosecutions, various law societies, Constitutional Court Chief Justice: Arthur Chaskalson, etc; on 11 June 2004; wherein I requested South African Judicial Authorities support to setup a rehabilitation program in South Africa in accordance to the most successful rehabilitation program in the world: Delancey Street Foundation (the SA Government and legal fraternity‘s answer was ‗Thanks, but No Thanks‘, in diplomacy speak; or ‗go fuck yourself‘ in Honesty speak): ―We are dealing at bottom with the fateful consequences of three different attitudes toward the Other. We can do things to him, in which case he becomes an Object. We can do things for him, in which case he becomes a Dependent. We can do things with him, in which case he has the opportunity to become an Agent. Whatever the content or intent of the action, it is the relationship between the actors that is crucial -- and that defines the difference between domination (to him), dependency (for him) and self-realization (with him) in the political, economic and social realms, as well as in the interpersonal.‖ It is at least an arguable proposition that many of our social problems are excacerbated by the decrease of situations enabling reciprocity on a give-and-get equal basis with our fellow men. It is also arguable that the role of patient, in its passivity, dependency and lack of mutuality, contributes to the perpetuation of the illness. Studies of institutional adjustment, whether in the prison, the hospital or the clinic suggest that situations which limit the possibilities of reciprocity between the cared-for and the caring contribute powerfully to the continuance of the need for care. It may well be that the status of patient is half the disease....‖
If my relationship with American lawyers was inspirational, my relationships with South African lawyers have been nightmare disasters; one after the other.
The legal aid appointed attorney, to represent me in my bomb-threat trial (SAPS 57202) decided that I should be certified as insane, without having spoken to me; because farmers daughters are meant to grow up and find a farmer, get married and be barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen. Any farmers daughter who thinks she can be an activist, and request a lawyer to read a legal document regarding her defence of
political necessity14 â€“ of which he is entirely and utterly ignorant â€“ has got to be certified as insane. He refused to resign, and when I fired him, he told me I could not fire him, if he thought I was insane. I only managed to get rid of him, by filing a complaint to the Magistrate and Chief Magistrate demanding he inform the court that his insanity fishing expedition was his own legal strategy and that he was deliberately refusing to follow my instructions. He then withdrew from the case, but refused to inform the Magistrate that his insanity fishing expedition had been his own legal strategy, at the request of the prosecutor. The Prosecutor then proceeded with the attempt to have me certified as insane, even though she had not the foggiest clue what a forensic psychologist does. 
A second attorney offered to represent me pro bono. He instructed me to lie to the court, and he would get me a suspended sentence. I refused, he was furious, and withdrew his offer of pro bono representation.
Another attorney also lied to the court, in deliberate violation of my instructions; he simply stood in front of the court and made an entire false story up, sucking it out of his thumb. I demanded he inform the court that that was not my representation. He refused.
I am quite willing to agree that any or all these attorneys sincerely believed their actions of deception were in my best interests. But the problem is that what they think may be in their best interests, projected onto me, is not necessarily what I think is in my best interests and when they treat me like I am an object and my values and my principles can simply be overruled as irrelevant, by their autocracy; then they violate my values and principles. My actions were motivated by political necessity; and I wanted the court to know that; and to plead to political necessity. Now simply because the court and lawyers were ignorant of the defence of political necessity15, does not mean that the first option should be to lie and pretend that no such defence exists, cause the lawyer is too lazy to read up on it.
These are simply a few of the attorney nightmareâ€˜s I have experienced in South Africa, which have taught me the lesson that it is safer to represent myself, no matter how many errors I make, than to have someone represent me, who lies through their teeth and refuses to follow the instructions given to them, or at the very least to listen actively and make an impartial enquiry into the defence I submitted to them.
Civil Disobedience and the Necessity Defense, by John Alan Cohan, Pierce Law Review, 8/20/2007 2:01:00 PM http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/070820_civil-disobedience-necessity-defense?mode=a_p 15 Civil Disobedience and the Necessity Defense, by John Alan Cohan, Pierce Law Review, 8/20/2007 2:01:00 PM http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/070820_civil-disobedience-necessity-defense?mode=a_p
In this ‗socio-political-media‘ matter; do you think Ms. Nalini Gangen, director of the Cape Law Society, shall provide this court with a response to Q to Cape Law Soc: Which argument/s in Radical Honesty SA Amicus in RSA v. Dewani is/are ‘without substance or legal basis’?16(Annex C) -- in response to allegations printed in SA citizen challenges Dewani extradition, The South African, 01-02-2011 -- which asks: Which argument/s stated in the Radical Honesty SA Amicus Application in RSA v. Shrien Dewani is/are „without substance or legal basis‟? If the legal reality is that there is reason to doubt that Mr. Dewani would receive a fair hearing in an Ubuntufied SA court of law; would you:
lie and cover up that reality pretending it does not exist, in accordance with the South African legal, political and academic elite‟s Edward Bernaysian Public Relations Protocols (Radical Honesty Guru Scott Ginsberg describes Bernaysian PR protocols as “the ever-rising tide of corporate and political bullshite”)
tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, and support Mr. Dewani to receive a free and fair trial, in a British court of law where there is more certainty for him to receive a free and fair Descartian trial?
What percentage of European, African, Indian and Coloured Cape Law Society Attorneys would be willing to provide Judge Riddle with written affidavits, swearing under oath that they have „confidence in the political, legal, ideological, intellectual, ethical and psychological independence and competence of SA‟s Descartian judicial officials‟? Do you think Carl Wille would sign such an affidavit?
Assistance of Counsel and the ‘Matrix of Kaffir Legislation’:
Consider my ‗Matrix of Kaffir Legislation‘ perspective socio-media-politically insane, if you wish, I am not remotely bothered what the Earth is Flat ignorant masses think of my sanity. Being a Radical Honesty Bushido Dischordian Pure Reason Descartian is not a Hollywood Flat Earth popularity contest; to the contrary. If – however – you consider me legally insane, please provide your forensic psychological evidence in response to Dr. Brad Blantons Affidavit to the High Court, Western Cape and Constitutional Court17.
I find it extremely difficult to respect ‗Matrix of Kaffir Legislation‘ attorneys, advocates, who like Thelma and Louise are driving humanity over an overpopulation colliding with scarce resources Tragedy of the Licensed to Breed Nuclear Commons cliff; who seem to think that the right to bread, houses, water, etc; can exist on an ecologically destroyed planet.
http://why-we-are-white-refugees.blogspot.com/2011/02/q-to-cape-law-soc-which-arguments-in.html PDF: http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/110201_rh-sa__capelawsoc-dewani?mode=a_p 17 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-bblantonreasonablenesstest?mode=a_p
I have no respect for legal scholars and practitioners who are deliberately indifferent to Ecolaw – i.e. the laws of sustainability; who by apathy or greed or pure ignorance endorse what I call the Matrix of Kaffir Legislation, wherein I define ‗Kaffir‘, in accordance to Radical Honesty definitions (as currently submitted to the Constitutional Court for their confirmation and verification as official Radical Honesty definitions; in CCT 06-11: Radical Honesty & 1 Other vs. SANEF and others): [i] „Kaffir Behaviour‟: Cultural Beliefs and Procreation Behaviour Definition: Individuals who either independently or as a result of their cultural value systems, are incapable of, or unwilling to, practice sexual restraint and procreation responsibility; who consequently breed cockroach-prolifically without personal financial or psychological responsibility to, or emotional concern for, their offspring; and/or who abuse women and children as sexual or economic slaves procreated for such purpose; and/or whose cultural ideal of manhood endorses non-consensual sex (rape) as their sexual slavery entitlement, etc. [ii] „Kaffir „Kaffir‟:
The word kāfir is the active participle of the Semitic root K-F-R “to cover”. As a pre-Islamic term it described farmers burying seeds in the ground, covering them with soil while planting; as they till the earth and “cover up” the seeds; which is why earth tillers are referred to as “Kuffar.” Thus, the word kāfir implies the meaning “a person who hides or covers”; To conceal, deny, hide or cover the truth. [iii] „Kaffir Legislation‟ = Inalienable Right to Breed‟ Poverty, Misery and War legislation; pretending it advocates for „peace‟ and „human rights‟. Kaffir Law/Legislation provides citizens with the Inalienable „Right to Breed‟ [and Vote], but demands that Citizens need a Licence to Own a Gun, a Licence to Drive a Car, a Licence to Practice Law, a television licence, a credit licence, a licence to earn a living, a university exemption licence, a licence to fish, a licence to hunt, a liquor licence, a business licence, a marriage licence, etc, etc. Kaffir Legislation covers up that an „Inalienable Right to Breed/laissez-faire birth control policy + No Social Welfare policies or practices generally provides for an equilibrium carrying capacity; whereas Inalienable Right to Breed/laissez-faire birth control within a welfare state, results in Runaway [Population] Growth, and ultimately greater misery, poverty and war.
Accordingly, as documented in Founding Affidavit of Lara Johnstone; in support of Notice of Intention: Application for Leave; and Judicial Review18, in High Court, Western Cape Case 19963-09 [Respondents: Magistrate Louw (1st); Nat. Dir. Of Public Prosecutions (2nd) Hon. Patricia de Lille, MP, ID (3rd) Mr. Thabo Mbeki, Former President
(4th) Mr. Bulelani Ngcuka, Former NPA Nat. Dir. (5th); Mr. J.S. Selebi, Former SAPS Comm. (6th); Mr. BM Skosana, Former Min. Corrections (7th); Mr. Nelson Mandela, Former President (8th); Minister of Citizenship & Immigration, Canada (9th); The Nobel Institute: Norwegian Nobel Committee (10th): Accordingly, it appears, I shall be representing myself, until I find a legal representative, who wants to represent me, in this matter; who understands, or at the very least has the slightest little bit of curiosity to attempt to comprehend; A) The Psychological, Emotional and Noticing Skills and Competencies required to be, and live in accordance to such being, to the Radical Hon(our)sty Social Contract; B) the Consciousness Level Difference between the 92% of individuals who spend 92% of their lives at the consciousness Level of Belief; and the 8% who prefer the Level of Pure Reason; C) the courage it takes to practice Direct Face-to-Face Resentments; and the difference between fake, posed intellectual forgiveness and real, sensate being forgiveness; 59) If -- like NDR-11319 Andrew Martin‟s family; -- past and future legal representatives are as limited in their ability to assist me, to the degree that they were and are prepared to acknowledge my humanity; does the court expect me to appoint legal representatives who are either incapable or refuse to acknowledge my humanity (religion, culture, ideas, traditions)?
If the court and/or plaintiff and respondent prefer me to proceed with legal representation so as to make it less burdensome for them, in regards to my lack of legal expertise, particularly to UK legal procedural rules and etiquette, I do not object; I simply request that such legal representation is appointed and clearly instructed to proceed in the form of Assistance of Counsel, and to be Counsel who do not endorse the ‗Matrix of Kaffir Legislation‘.
Signed and Sworn to at George on this the 06th day of February 2011, the Deponent acknowledging that she knows and understands the contents of this Affidavit, and that she has no objection to taking the prescribed oath and that the oath is binding on her conscience.
___________________________ LARA JOHNSTONE, Pro Se
http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robot_NDR_113 and http://www.jandysbooks.com/sfbooks/psntrnc.html